ISSN 1881−445X

日本語用 論 学 会■

第 14 回

大会発表論文集
第７号

Proceedings of the 14th
Conference of the Pragmatics Societyof Japan

2011年12月3・4日（土・日）■

於 京都外国語大学

PSJ
The Pragmatics Society of Japan

日本語用論学会

2011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 ：副 委 員 長 ：編 集 委 員 ：（大 会 運 営 部）
5. 大会運営委員長 ：大会運営副委員長 ：大会運営副委員長 ：大会運営副委員長 ：大会運営副委員長 ：大会運営委員（企画） ：大会委員（発表）：
大会実行委員（実行） ：プロシーディング委員 ：（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 ：（広報部）
7. 広 報 委 員 長 ：広報副委員長 ：広 報 委 員 ：

林 宅男
東森 勲
山本英一
五十嵐海理（会計担当）、加藤重広
山口治彦
Lawrence Schourup
井上逸兵、久保 進、田中廣明、名嶋義直、鍋島弘治朗、
西山佑司、東森 勲、平塚 徹、山梨正明
久保 進（企画）加藤重広（発表）小山哲春（実行）野澤 元（プロシーディングス）鈴木光代
井上逸兵、澤田治美、名嶋義直、西光義弘、林
金丸敏幸、高木佐知子、長友俊一郎
五十嵐海理、岡本雅史、野澤 元
森山卓郎
平塚 徹
余 維
長友俊一郎、鍋島弘治朗、野澤Lawrence Schourup

礼子

元、森山卓郎、

田中廣明
金丸敏幸（Homepage）、森山由紀子（Newsletter）
岡本雅史（Homepage）、名嶋義直（Newsletter）（2012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

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）■

緊急事態と非常事態における情報伝達―関連性理論におけるコミュニケーションの効率性― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 新井恭子

1

日本語の接続助詞「と」―インドネシア語との対照とテーマ・レーマの考察― ‥‥‥ ティウク・イヒティアリ

9■

未来パーフェクトのシテイルが表す、聞き手への配慮について ‥‥‥‥‥ 上原由美子

17■

存在表現の適用―「やる」と「売る」の自動詞用法― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大西

美穂

25

■

法副詞no doubtの用法―（間）主観性の観点から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 岡本

芳和

33

■

若者ことばにおける「盛る（もる）」の意味拡張 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 神澤

克徳

41

■

oppositeの意味論と関数的解釈 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 黒川

尚彦

49

■

直接話法を導く談話標識の解釈的用法 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 今野

昌俊

57

■

ダイクシスにおける直示的中心の階層スケールと語用論 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 澤田

淳

65

■

推論による不定指示について―日本語のソ系指示詞の解釈― ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 杉山さやか

73■

no doubtの談話機能に関する実験的調査 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 鈴木

崇

81

■

語用論的観点から見る縮約表現の一考察―ポライトネスを反映する「チャウ」を事例に― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 張

又華

89

■

主題非明示型結果構文の主語名詞句に関する意味的・語用論的制約について ‥ 對馬

康博

97

■

マスメディアの科学ディスコースを通した数の認識―メタファー的思考に着目して― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 出口

由美

105

英語連結的知覚動詞構文の補語分布への意味論的アプローチ：
属性・状態叙述の違いに着目して ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中村

文紀

113

■

話し手が自分自身をyouで語ることの意味 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中山

仁

121

■

中国語の物語における文脈指示詞「这」と「那」について―談話の四層構造の観点から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 劉驫129「自分」と「自己」 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 汪

宇

137

■

■

■

大介・藤原

PSJ

研究発表（英語発表）
Identity in Practice: The Use of Terminological Resources and Identity Formation
at Conversation Analytic Data Sessions in Japan ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Cade BUSHNELL

143

Mental Causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF Clauses:
A Case Study of Grammar-Pragmatics Interface ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Hirohito KATAOKA

151■

Modal Concord in Japanese: Some Initial Observations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Lars LARM

159■

Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥Chad NILEP

167■

Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥Sumiyo NISHIGUCHI

175■"Okay" in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions ofInternational Scientific Conference Presentations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Yusuke OKADA

183■

Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis‥‥‥Rabindranath S. POLITO

191■

Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically:
A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions ‥‥‥ Tohru SERAKU

205

Allo-repetition to Develop the Story:
From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Lala UCHIDA

213

■

■

■

PSJ

ポスターセッション（日本語発表）
宜仁221

勝信・井筒（成田）美津子

225■

対話の参与者間における言語的響鳴と連鎖 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 伊澤■

誤伝達：概念構造とプロトタイプ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 井筒■

has goneとis goneの出現環境と意味の動機 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 岩田

真紀

229

■

「共話」の観点からみたマレーシア語母語話者のあいづち分析 ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 勝田

順子

233

■

「名詞句からの外置に関わる制約」と「指示」の関係について ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中田

智也

237

■

「エコ」はよいこと?―批判的談話分析の立場から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中野阿佐子

241■

介護現場における入浴場面での介助者と利用者との関係構築―スピーチレベル・シフトとポジティブ・ポライトネス・ストラテジーからの考察―‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 古田 朋子・堀江薫

245

なぜ、従属節否定よりも主節否定（否定辞繰り上げ文）の方が多用されるのか？
‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 森

貞

249

■

What do Honorifics Convey?̶A relevance-based approach̶ ‥‥‥‥‥‥ Yuko KOIZUMI253■

The Meaning of Diminutive Shift in Japanese:
Its Dimensionality, Regularity and Pragmatic Effect ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥Osamu SAWADA

257■

ポスターセッション（英語発表）

PSJ

ワークショップ
メディア・ディスコースにおける「らしさ」の表象―キャリア･ウーマン、草食男子、父親･母親をめぐって―

司会：高木佐知子■「男らしさ」の危機か？―ブログに見る「草食男子」への評価― ‥‥‥‥‥ 神田

靖子

261

■

日本の両親向け育児雑誌における父親らしさ・母親らしさの表象 ‥‥‥‥ 稲永

知世

265

■

働く女性と「女らしさ」―日本のキャリアウーマン雑誌の談話分析― ‥‥ 高木佐知子

269

シンポジウムAspects of Meaning in Discourse: Towards Interdisciplinary Pragmatic Research
Chair: Lawrence SCHOURUP
Designated Discussant: John Du BOIS■

相互行為における身体化された行為 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 西阪

仰

273

■

“Trading Places” and Intersubjective Understanding of Spatial Perspectives‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 片岡

邦好

276

発話の実時間性：相互行為と認知の接点 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 伝

康晴

279

■

付録
■

入会案内 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 283■

日本語用論学会規約 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 285■『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）執筆規定 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 288■＜第15回大会で発表された方へのお知らせ＞ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 292

PSJ

Table of Contents
Lecture Sessions: Presentation in Japanese■

Kyoko ARAI: The Information Transmission in the Case of Emergency or Unusual Situations:
The Efficiency of Communication in the Framework of Relevance Theory ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 1■

Tiwuk IKHTIARI W.: Japanese Connective Particle To :A Contrastive Study and Theme/Rheme Consideration ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 9■

Yumiko UEHARA: Shiteiru of Future Perfect and Speakerʼs Consideration for theHearer ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 17■

Miho ONISHI: The Use of uru “to sell” and yaru “to do” as Transitive Verbs ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 25■

Yoshikazu OKAMOTO: The Usage of a Modal Adverb “no doubt”: In Terms of (Inter) Subjectivity ‥‥‥‥ 33■

Katsunori KANZAWA: Semantic Extension of Japanese Verb Moru■

Naohiko KUROKAWA: Semantics of “Opposite” and its Functional Interpretation ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 49■

Masatoshi KONNO: Imperative Use of Discourse Markers Introducing Direct
Quote Structure in English ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 57■

Jun SAWADA: Direct Scale Model and Pragmatics ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 65■

Sayaka SUGIYAMA: The Interpretation of Japanese Demonstratives so-NP Which Do Not Have Their
Antecedents in the Previous Sentences and Refer to Indefinite Entities ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 73■

Daisuke SUZUKI and Takashi FUJIWARA: On the Discourse Function of “No doubt” : Evidence from a
Questionnaire Study ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 81■

Yu-hua CHANG: Investigation of Contrction from a Pragmatics Point of View: Politeness of JapaneseContraction chau ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 89■

Yasuhiro TSUSHIMA: A Semantic and Pragmatic Constraint on the Subject Referent of Implicit Theme
Resultative Constructions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 97■

Yumi DEGUCHI: Perception of Numbers in Scientific Discourse in the Mass Media: Focusing on
Metaphorical Thought ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 105■

Fuminori NAKAMURA: A Semantic Approach to the Complement of the English Copulative Perception
Verb Construction: with Reference to Character-describing and State-describing Predicates ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 113■

Hitoshi NAKAYAMA: How Generic “You” is Used When You talk about Yourself ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 121■

Liu BIAO: Anaphoric Usage of zhe and na in Chinese Narratives -From the
Perspective of Discourse Internal Structure. ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 129■

Yu WANG: Jibun and Jiko ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 137

as a Slang of Young People ‥‥‥‥ 41

PSJ

Lecture Sessions: Presentation in English■

Cade BUSHNELL: Identity in Practice: The Use of Terminological Resources and
Identity Information at Conversation Analytic Data Sessions in Japan ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 143■

Hirohito KATAOKA: Mental Causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF Clauses: A Case Study ofGrammar-Pragmatics Interface ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 151■

Lars LARM: : Modal Concord in Japanese: Some Initial Observations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 159■

Chad NILEP: Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 167■

Sumiyo NISHIGUCHI: Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 175■

Yusuke OKADA: “Okay” in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions ofInternational Scientific Conference Presentations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 183■

Rabindranath S. POLITO: Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 191■

Tohru SERAKU: Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically:
A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 205■

Lala UNCHIDA: Allo-repetition to Develop the Story:
From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 213

PSJ

Poster Sessions: Presentation in Japanese■

Yoshihito IZAWA: Resonance and Sequence in Interactions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 221■

Katsunobu IZUTSU and Mitsuiko (NARITA) IZUTSU:
Miscommunication: Conceptual Structure and Prototype ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 225■

Maki IWATA: The Schematic Meaning of the Present Perfect in Relation to the Aspects of Expressions ‥‥‥ 229■

Junko KATSUTA: Analysis of Back-Channels by Malay Native Speakers:
From the Perspective of KYOOWA Style ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 233■

Tomoya NAKATA: On the Relationship between “the Constraints on Extraposition fromNP” and “Reference” Presenter ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 237■

Asako NAKANO: Is “Eco” a Good Thing?: From the View of Critical Discourse Analysis ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 241■

Tomoko FURUTA and Kaoru HORIE: Relationship Building between Carer and Cared-for
When Bathing in a Care Environment: Examining Speech-Level Shift and Strategies ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 245■

Sadashi MORI: Why is Transferred or Main Clause Negation
Dominant Over Subordinate Clause Negation?‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 249

Poster Sessions (English Presentation)■

Yuko KOIZUMI: What Do Honorifics Convey?: A Relevance-based Approach ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 253■

Osamu SAWADA: The Meaning of Diminutive Shift in Japanese: Its Dimensionality,
Regularity and Pragmatic Effect ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 257

PSJ

Workshop Sessions■

Representations of “Identity” in Media Discourse: Analysis of Career Women,“Herbivorous Boys” and Fathers & Mothers
Chair: Sachiko TAKAGIYasuko KANDA: Masculinity in Crisis? : Bloggersʼ Evaluation on “Herbivorous Boys” ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 261
Tomoyo Inenaga: Representations of Fatherhood and Motherhood in JapaneseChildcare Magazines for Parents ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 265
Sachiko TAKAGI: Working Women and “Femininity”: Discourse Analysis of aJapanese Career Womenʼs Magazine ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 269

Symposium■

Aspects of Meaning in Discourse: Towards Interdisciplinary Pragmatic Research
Chair: Lawrence SCHOURUP
Designated Discussant: John Du BOIS
Aug NISHIZAKI: Embodied Action in Interaction: A Conversation Analytic
Approach to Action-formation ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 273
Kuniyoshi KAYAOKA: “Trading Places” and Intersubjective Understanding of
Spatial Perspectives ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 276
Yasuharu DEN: Utterances in Real Time: Where Interaction and Cognition Meet ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 279

PSJ

研究発表
Lecture Sessions

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

1⥭ᛴ஦ែ࡜㠀ᖖ஦ែ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᝟ሗఏ㐩̿㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢຠ⋡ᛶ̿᪂஭ᜤᏊᮾὒ኱Ꮫ⤒ႠᏛ㒊arai-k@toyo.jp<Abstract>

Since the disastrous tsunami occurred on March 11th, 2011, Japan Meteorological Agency
has organized several meetings about tsunami alerts and warnings with municipalities,
seismologists, and the people from the mass media to reconsider how to convey tsunami alerts andwarnings more effectively. The changes about the expressions of the warnings, which they came up
with after the forth meeting, don’t seem effective enough from the view point of pragmatics. This
paper suggests that we should apply relevance theoretic insights to uncover the problem of theexisting tsunami alert system and proposes some changes in the expressions.
࠙KEYWORDSࠚ 㜵⅏ࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࠊ⥭ᛴ᫬ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊㄒ⏝ㄽࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࠊὠἼ㆙ሗ

㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
᫖ᖺ㸱᭶࡟㉳ࡁࡓᮾ໭ᆅ᪉኱ᖹὒἈᆅ㟈࡟ࡼࡿᕧ኱ὠἼⓎ⏕࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊẼ㇟ᗇࡣࠊὠἼࡢ➨୍Ἴࡢண㧗ࡀᐇ㝿ࡼࡾపࡃฟࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ㑊㞴ࡢ㐜ࢀࢆᣍ࠸ࡓ࡜ᢈุࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡇࢀ
ࡲ࡛ࠕᮾ໭ᆅ᪉ኴᖹὒἈᆅ㟈࡟ࡼࡿὠἼ⿕ᐖࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓὠἼ㆙ሗᨵၿ࡟ྥࡅࡓຮᙉ఍ࠖࡀ㸱ᅇࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊ
ࠕὠἼ㆙ሗࡢⓎ⾲ᇶ‽➼࡜᝟ሗᩥࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᳨ウ఍ࠖࡀ 3 ᅇ㛤ദࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍㐃ࡢຮᙉ఍࡜᳨ウ఍ࡢጤဨ࡟ࡣࠊ᭷㆑⪅࡜㜵⅏㛵ಀ⪅ࡀཧຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ᭷㆑⪅ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊゝㄒᏛࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࢥ࣑ࣗࢽ
ࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿᑓ㛛ᐙࡣཧຍࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊẼ㇟ᗇࡀ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ࡛බ㛤ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሗ࿌
᭩࣭㈨ᩱ➼ࢆㄞࡴ࡜ࠊሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᝟ሗఏ㐩࡟㛵ࡍࡿၥ㢟ࡣࠊண ࡢ⢭ᗘࡸ౑⏝ࡍࡿ፹యࡀཎᅉ࡛࠶
ࡿሙྜࡢ࡯࠿࡟ࠊே㛫ࡢⓎヰゎ㔘ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ↓どࡋࡓ᝟ሗఏ㐩ࡸࠊ౑⏝ࡍࡿゝⴥ࣭⾲⌧᪉ἲࡀཎᅉ
࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿሙྜࡀከࡃ࠶ࡿࠋ᪂஭(2011)࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊゝㄒᏛࡢྛศ㔝ࠊ≉࡟ࠊⓎヰゎ㔘ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽᩚ⌮ࡋࠊ୺࡞ཎᅉࢆࡘࡁ࡜ࡵࠊࡑࡢゎỴ᪉ἲࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ၥ㢟ᥦ㉳ࡋࡓࠋᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊ
ࠕᮾ໭ᆅ᪉ኴᖹὒἈᆅ㟈࡟ࡼࡿὠἼ⿕ᐖࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓὠἼ㆙ሗᨵၿ࡟ྥࡅࡓຮᙉ఍ࠖ࡜ࠕὠἼ㆙ሗࡢⓎ⾲ᇶ‽➼࡜᝟ሗᩥࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᳨ウ఍ࠖࡢሗ࿌᭩࣭㈨ᩱࠊ᪂⪺グ஦࡞࡝ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊὠἼ㆙ሗ࣭ὀពሗఏ㐩ࡢ⌧≧ࢆᢕᥱࡋࠊၥ㢟Ⅼࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊᨵၿⅬࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
㸰㸬ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢព⩏1970 ᖺ௦ᚋ༙࡟ゝㄒᏛࡢ୍㒊㛛࡜ࡋ࡚ᗈࡃㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ㏆௦ㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ
ே㛫ࡢゝⴥ

−1−

2

緊急事態と非常事態における情報伝達―関連性理論におけるコミュニケーションの効率性―࡟ࡼࡿ᝟ሗఏ㐩ࢆࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻࣔࢹࣝ࡟ࡼࡿㄝ࡛᫂ࡣ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰゎ㔘ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡓ᥎ㄽࣔࢹ࡛ࣝㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋ
Ẽ㇟ᗇ࠿ࡽὠἼ㆙ሗࡸὀពሗࡀⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿ 1 ࡜ࠊᾏᓊ㏆ࡃ࡟ఫẸࡀ࠸ࡿᕷ⏫ᮧ࡛ࡣ㆙ሗ⿦⨨࡟ࡼࡾὠἼ㆙ሗࢧ࢖ࣞࣥࢆ㬆ࡽࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ௚᪉ࠊ㜵⅏↓⥺࡛ゝⴥ࡟ࡼࡿ㆙ሗ࣭ὀពሗࢆᨺ㏦ࡍࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
࡝ࡕࡽࡶఫẸࡢὀពࠊ㆙ᡄࢆಁࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊゝⴥ࡛ఏ࠼ࡿ᪉ࡀෆᐜࢆࡼࡾヲࡋࡃఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ
ࡿࡢࡣᙜ↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕ኱ὠἼࡢᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᨺ㏦ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ࡝࠺࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇ
ࡢⓎヰ㸦ᨺ㏦㸧ࢆ⪺࠸ࡓேࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊᾏᓊ㏆ࡃ࡛ാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿேࡣ༶ᗙ࡟㧗ྎ࡟㏨ࡆࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࢥ࣮ࢻࣔࢹࣝ࡟ࡼࡿㄝ࡛᫂ࡣࠊࡇࡢⓎヰࡣࠊࠕ኱ࡁ࡞ὠἼࡀ᮶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ
ࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᐇ㝿ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡶࡋᾏᓊ㏆ࡃ࡟࠸ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࡢⓎヰ࠿ࡽࠊࠕ㧗ྎ࡟㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖࡲࡓࡣࠊ
ࠕ㧗࠸ࣅࣝ࡟Ⓩࡗ࡚ୗࡉ࠸ࠖ࡞࡝࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡶఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᥎ㄽࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ
࠺࡟ࠊேࡣࠊⓎヰࡢᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡ࡢ࡯࠿࡟ࠊヰ⪅ࡀఏ࠼ࡓ࠸࡜ពᅗࡋࡓព࿡ࡶ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ഃ㠃ࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
㜵⅏ࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࢆ⪃࠼ࡿୖ࡛㠀ᖖ࡟㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊⓎࡏࡽࢀࡓゝⴥ࡟ࡼࡿ㆙ሗ࣭ὀពሗ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑࡢᚋࡢ⾜ື࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ពᛮỴᐃࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵࠊゝⴥ࡟ࡼࡿ㆙ሗ࣭ὀពሗࡢᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡ࡼࡾࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ᥎ㄽࡍࡿࠕ㆙ሗࢆฟࡋࡓேࡀពᅗࡋࡓࡔࢁ
࠺࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠖព࿡ࡢ᪉ࡀ㔜せ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊゝㄒᏛࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰゎ㔘ࢆ᥎ㄽࣔࢹ࡛ࣝㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽࡣࠊࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡞᝟ሗఏ㐩ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿୖ࡛≉࡟ᙺ࡟❧ࡘᏛၥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
㸱㸬ゝⴥ࡟ࡼࡿ᝟ሗఏ㐩ࡢ≉ᚩ㸱㸬㸯㸬Ⓨヰ࡛ఏࢃࡿ㸱✀㢮ࡢព࿡ 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠶ࡿⓎヰ࠿ࡽཷࡅྲྀࡿព࿡࡟ࡣ㸱ࡘࡢ✀㢮ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ኱ὠἼࡢᜍ
ࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠖࢆ౛࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
(1) Ⓨヰࠕ኱ὠἼࡢᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ 3 ࡘࡢព࿡ձゎㄞⓗព࿡:㸸グྕࢆゎㄞࡋࡓព࿡
Ѝࠕ኱ὠἼࡢᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠖ
ղ⾲ព㸸ゎㄞࡋࡓព࿡࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡢ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟Ⓨᒎࡉࢀࡓព࿡ 㸦ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗⓎᒎ㸻ᣦ♧௜୚ࠊ୍⩏໬ࠊ┬␎ࡉࢀࡓせ⣲ࡢ⿵඘ࠊ⮬⏤࡞ᣑ඘࡞࡝㸧Ѝࠕࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ኱ࡁ࡞ὠἼࡀᢲࡋᐤࡏࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜࠸࠺ᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ   ճ᥎ព㸸⾲ពࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᣢࡘࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺⓗ᝿ᐃ࡜↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏ
࡚ฟࡿ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡     Ѝࠕࡍࡄ࡟㧗ྎ࡬㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ     Ѝࠕ㧗࠸ࣅࣝ࡟Ⓩࡾ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ         ᮾ໭ᆅ᪉኱ᖹὒἈᆅ㟈࡟ࡼࡿὠἼ⿕ᐖࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓὠἼ㆙ሗᨵၿ࡟ྥࡅࡓຮᙉ఍㸦௨ୗࠊὠἼ㆙ሗຮᙉ఍㸧➨ 3 ᅇ఍ྜࡢ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ࡚ฟࡉࢀࡓࠕ୰㛫࡜ࡾࡲ࡜ࡵ࡟ᑐࡍࡿពぢࠖࡢ୍⯡ࡢேࠎ࠿ࡽࡢពぢ࡟ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽὠἼ㆙ሗ࡟㛵ࡍࡿከࡃࡢၥ㢟ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕ5 ࣓࣮ࢺࣝࡢἼࡣ㧗࠸ࡀ 3−2−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

3ࠕ3 ࣓࣮ࢺࣝࡢἼࠖࡣࠊ༑
࣓࣮ࢺࣝࡢἼࡣప࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ேࡀ࠸࡚ࡶ୙ᛮ㆟ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ 2ࠋศே㛫ࡢ㌟㛗ࢆ㉸࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᾏᓊ㏆ࡃ࡟࠸ࡿேࡣࠊ
ࠕ㧗࠸ࠖ࡜ឤࡌࠊࡍࡄ㏨ࡆ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣ࡜ᛮ࠺
ࡔࢁ࠺ࡀࠊࣅࣝࡢ 5 㝵࡛௙஦ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿே࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕప࠸ࠖἼ࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡑࡢࡲࡲࣅࣝ࡟␃ࡲࡿ࡜࠸
࠺㑅ᢥࢆࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ௚ࡢពぢ࡟ࠊࠕ኱ὠἼ㆙ሗࡀฟࡲࡋࡓࠊࡣ᭱኱⣭ࡢὠἼࡀࡃࡿࡒࠊ࡜࠸࠺㆙ሗࡔࡗࡓ࡜ᛮ࠺ࡀ㆙
ሗ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥࡣࡑࢀ࡯࡝ࡉࡋࡏࡲࡗࡓ༴㝤ࢆឤࡌࡉࡏ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡑࡢ㆙ሗࡢ⾲ពࡣࠕ኱ὠἼ㆙ሗࡀฟࡲࡋࡓ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊⓎ௧ࡋࡓഃࡀពᅗࡋࡓࠕ᭱኱⣭ࡢὠἼࡀࡃࡿࠖࢆ᥎ㄽࡍࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿
ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⨨࠿ࢀࡓ≧ἣ㸦ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㐪ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ௚࡟ࠊࠕ㠀ᖖ᫬࡟ࡣ࡜࡟࠿ࡃ༴࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆᗈሗࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᚭࡍࡿ࡭ࡁࠖࡸࠊ
ࠕ㆙ሗࡣཧ⪃⛬ᗘ࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ࡜࡟࠿ࡃ㧗࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࡬㏨ࡆࢁࢆᚭᗏࡋࡓ᪉ࠎࡀ⏕ࡁṧࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡣࠖ
ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢពぢࢆ㚷ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊẼ㇟ᗇ࠿ࡽฟࡉࢀࡿࠕ㆙ሗࠖ࡜ᆅ᪉⮬἞యࡀฟࡍࠕ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ࠖ࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ୍⯡ࡢேࠎ࡟ࡣࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡜࠸࠺␲ၥࡀᾋ࠿ࡪ 3ࠋẼ㇟ᗇ࠿ࡽⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿ㆙ሗࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ඲ᅜྠ᫬࡟ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ព࿡
ࡣ඲ࡃ␗࡞ࡿࠋὠἼ㆙ሗࡣᾏᓊ⥺࡟ఫࡴே࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㑊㞴࿨௧ࠖ࡜ཷࡅ࡜ࡿ(᥎ㄽࡍࡿ)ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ
ࡀࠊᾏࡢ࡞࠸㒔㐨ᗓ┴࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁὶࡋ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸᝟ሗࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ⥭ᛴ஦ែ࣭㠀ᖖ஦ែ࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ពᅗࢆṇࡋࡃఏ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀཷࡅྲྀࡿព࿡ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ព࿡࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࠿㸦⾲ពࡣఱ࠿ࠊ᥎ពࡣ
ఱ࠿㸧ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚⾲⌧ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
㸱㸬㸰㸬᝟ሗෆᐜࡢ✀㢮ࡢ㐪࠸Ẽ㇟ᗇࡢࠕ⥭ᛴ㜵⅏᝟ሗ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝࠖሗ࿌ࡢ➨ 3 ❶㜵⅏᝟ሗఏ㐩࣭ᥦ౪ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ⌧≧(3-2)࡟ࠊ
ࠕẼ
㇟ᗇࡀⓎ⾲ࡍࡿẼ㇟㆙ሗ➼ࡣࠊྛᆅࡢᆅ᪉Ẽ㇟ྎ࠿ࡽ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࡛ࣥ㒔㐨ᗓ┴࡬࡜ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࠊ㒔㐨ᗓ┴ࡼࡾᕷ⏫ᮧ࡬ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿ࡯࠿ࠊሗ㐨ᶵ㛵➼ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊఫẸ࡟࿘▱ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊẼ㇟ࠊὠἼࠊ㧗₻➼ࡢ㆙ሗࡣࠊ㆙ሗࡢ✀㢮࡟ᛂࡌ࡚┤ࡕ࡟㆙どᗇࠊᾏୖಖᏳᗇࠊᅜᅵ஺㏻┬➼ࡢ㛵ಀ┬ᗇ࠾ࡼࡧ㹌㹆㹉➼ࡢሗ㐨ᶵ㛵࡟ఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ㆙ሗ➼ࡣ㹌㹒㹒ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࡶᕷ⏫ᮧ࡟ఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠖ࡜
࠶ࡿࠋ
ᅗ㸯


−3−

4

緊急事態と非常事態における情報伝達―関連性理論におけるコミュニケーションの効率性―ᅗ㸯࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊẼ㇟ᗇ࠿ࡽࡇࡢὠἼ㆙ሗࡀⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࠊ㒔㐨ᗓ┴࠿ࡽᕷ⏫ᮧ࡬ఏࢃࡗࡓ᝟
ሗࡣࠊࠕ㑊㞴່࿌➼࣭ᣦ♧ࠖ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ఫẸ࡬ᒆࡃࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊẼ㇟ᗇ࠿ࡽ┤᥋ሗ㐨ᶵ㛵ࡸ᝟ሗ㓄ಙ஦ᴗ⪅࡬ᒆ࠸ࡓ᝟ሗࡣࠊ㆙ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡑࡢࡲࡲࡢᙧ࡛ࢸࣞࣅ࡞࡝࡛ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ୍⯡ࡢேࠎ᝟ሗ୰ᚰࡢ㆙ሗ࡜ࠊఫẸ࡟୍␒㏆࠸ᕷ⏫ᮧࡀฟࡍᣦ
ᣦ♧࣭࿨௧୰ᚰࡢ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ࡣࠊሗ㐨ᶵ㛵ࡀฟࡍ᝟ࢆΰྠࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋḟࡢ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(2) Ẽ㇟ᗇ  ὠἼ㆙ሗ        ࠕᕧ኱ὠἼࡢᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋࠖ      ࠕ3 ࣓࣮ࢺࣝࡢὠἼࡀ฿㐩ࡍࡿᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ࠖࠕὠἼࡢ➨㸯Ἴ฿㐩᫬้ࡣ༗ᚋ 3 ᫬ 30 ศࡈࢁ࡛ࡍࠋ
ࠖ࡞࡝ᕷ⏫ᮧ  㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ ࠕࡓࡔࡕ࡟㧗ྎ࡬㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࠖ      ࠕᾏᓊ௜㏆࡟࠸ࡿேࡣ┤ࡕ࡟㧗ྎ࡬㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࠖ      ࠕ኱ࡁ࡞ὠἼࡀほ ࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋࡍࡄ࡟㧗ྎ࡬㏨ࡆ࡚ୗࡉ࠸ࠋࠖ࡞࡝ Ẽ㇟ᗇ࠿ࡽࡢ㆙ሗࡣࠊᕷ⏫ᮧࢆ⤒⏤ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᆅᙧࡸఫᒃࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊࡲࡓࡣࣁࢨ࣮ࢻ࣐ࢵࣉ
࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊ࿨௧࣭ᣦ♧୰ᚰࡢࠕ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ࠖ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊࢸࣞࣅࡸࣛࢪ
࡛࢜ࡣࠊẼ㇟ᗇࡢ᝟ሗ୰ᚰࡢ㆙ሗࡶࡑࡢࡲࡲఏ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ 2 ✀㢮ࡢ᝟ሗෆᐜࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㐪࠺ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋⓎヰ࡛ఏࢃࡿ㸱ࡘࡢព࿡࡛ㄝ᫂ࢆࡍࢀࡤࠊẼ㇟ᗇࡀฟࡍࠕὠἼ㆙ሗࠖࡣࠊゎㄞⓗព࿡࡜⾲ពࠊࡉࡽ࡟᥎ពࡀ᥎ㄽࡉࢀࡿⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
⾲ពࡀࠕᕧ኱ὠἼࡢᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡿ࡛ࠖ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ᥎ពࡣࠕ⣲᪩ࡃᏳ඲࡞ሙᡤ࡟㏨ࡆࢁࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ࡣࠊࡍࡍࡄ࡟ࡑࡢ࿨௧ࡸᣦ♧࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊಶேⓗ࡞ุ᩿ࢆࡍࡿᬤࢆ୚࠼࡞࠸ࠊ᥎ពࡀ࡞ࡿ࡭ࡃ᥎ㄽࡉࢀ࡞࠸⾲⌧(࿨௧ᙧ)࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊ㆙ሗࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ពᛮỴᐃࢆಁࡍࡓࡵࡢ᝟ሗఏ㐩࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ࡣࠊ≧ἣࡀ⥭㏕ࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊᕷ⏫ᮧ㸦㤳㛗㸧ࡀពᚿỴᐃࢆ⾜࠸ࠊಶே࡟ពᛮỴᐃࢆ࡞ࡿ࡭ࡃࡉࡏ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟࿨௧࣭ᣦ♧ࡢᙧ࡛ࡢ᝟ሗఏ㐩࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸰ࡘࡢ␗࡞ࡗࡓ✀㢮ࡢ᝟ሗෆᐜࢆ᭱⤊ẁ㝵ࡢఫẸ࡜࠸࠺⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠊ␗࡞ࡗࡓᵝࠎ࡞࣓ࢹ࢕
࢔࠿ࡽྠ᫬࡟⪺ࡃࡇ࡜࡛ΰ஘ࡋࠊᑓ㛛⏝ㄒࡀࢃ࠿ࡽࡎࠊᩘ್ࡢ༢఩ࡸព࿡ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡲࡍࡲࡍΰ
஘ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
๓⠇࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜࡞࠼ࡤࠊࠕ࡜࡟࠿ࡃ㏨ࡆࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺✀㢮ࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡣࠊ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧࡛ࡣ౑⏝࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ㆙ሗ࡛ࡣఏ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
㸲㸬ேࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝟ሗ࡟⪥ࢆഴࡅࡿࡢ࠿㸦᝟ሗពᅗ࡜ఏ㐩ពᅗ㸧 ḟ࡟⥭ᛴ஦ែࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿᨺ㏦࡟┠ࢆྥࡅ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋᨺ㏦ࡣࠊࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜୙≉ᐃከᩘ࡟ྥ
࠿ࡗ࡚ὶࡉࢀࡿ᝟ሗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞✵ ࡛ࡢ࿧ࡧฟࡋᨺ㏦ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(3) a. ࣘࢼ࢖ࢸࢵࢻ⯟✵ 800 ౽ࢽ࣮࣮ࣗࣚࢡ⾜ࡁࡈ฼⏝ࡢ࠾ᐈᵝࡣࠊ࠾ᛴࡂ 37 ␒ࢤ࣮ࢺࡼࡾࡈᦚ஌ୗ

−4−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

5

ࡉ࠸ࠋ
b.ࣘࢼ࢖ࢸࢵࢻ⯟✵ 35 ౽ࢯ࢘ࣝ⾜ࡁ࡟ࡈᦚ஌ணᐃࡢᒣ⏣ኴ㑻ᵝࠊ࠾㏆ࡃࡢᆅୖಀဨ࡟࠾⏦ࡋฟࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ㸦㸱a㸧࡜㸦㸱b㸧ࡣࠊྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟✵ ࡢࣟࣅ࣮࡛ᨺ㏦ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ(3a)ࡣࡑࡢ౽࡟஌ࡿ≉ᐃከᩘ࡟ྥࡅ࡚
᝟ሗఏ㐩ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
㸦㸱b㸧ࡣᡤᅾ୙᫂ࡢࡓࡗࡓ 1 ྡࡢ஌ᐈ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢ᝟ሗఏ㐩࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᣑኌჾࡸᨺ㏦ჾල࡛ᗈ⠊ᅖ࡟㡢ኌࢆ࡜࡝ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊ
ከࡃࡢேࠎࡀ⪺ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ
ࡑࡢᨺ㏦ࡢᑐ㇟ࡣఱⓒே࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࢀࡤ 1 ಶே࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ≉࡟(3㹠)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࡣࠊࡑࡢ
ᑐ㇟ࡢே≀௨እࡢேࠎ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣᚲせࡢ࡞࠸᝟ሗ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊከࡃࡢேࡣ᭱ᚋࡲ࡛⪺࠿࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
౛࠼ࡤࠊ᭱ึࠊࣘࢼ࢖ࢸࢵࢻ⯟✵฼⏝⪅ࡀ⪥ࢆഴࡅࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ35 ౽ࢯ࢘ࣝ⾜ࡁ࡟஌ࡽ࡞࠸ேࡣࠊࡑ
ࡇ࡛⪺࠿࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ35 ౽ࢯ࢘ࣝ⾜ࡁ࡟஌ࡿேࡶࠊಶேྡࡀ⪺ࡇ࠼ࡓ᫬Ⅼ࡛⮬ศ࡛࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ
᭱ᚋࡲ࡛⪺ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟ࢆḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿⓎヰࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࡁࠊࡑ
ࢀࡀࠕពᅗ᫂♧ⓗఏ㐩㸦ostensive communication㸧࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿሙྜࡣࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡢఏ㐩ࡢཎ⌮ࡀാࡃ࡜ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ㛵㐃ᛶࡢఏ㐩ࡢཎ⌮ࡣࠊࠕ᝟ሗពᅗ࡜ఏ㐩ពᅗࡢ 2 ࡘࢆᣢࡗࡓⓎヰࡣࠊ࠶ࡿᚰ⌮ⓗຠᯝ(ㄆ▱ຠᯝ)ࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣὀពࢆྥࡅࡿࠖ࡜ಖ㞀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄆ▱ຠᯝࡣࠊ⮬ศࡀࡍ࡛࡟ᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ᝟ሗ࡟ࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸᝟ሗࡀࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࠊࡑࡇ࡛┦஫స⏝ࡀ㉳ࡁࠊ࠶ࡿ⤖ㄽࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛
࠶ࡿࠋゝ࠸࠿࠼ࡿ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ᝟ሗ࡟ኚ໬ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟ឤࡌࡿຠᯝࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᝟ሗពᅗ࡜
ఏ㐩ពᅗࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(4) Informative intention: to make manifest or more manifest to the audience a set of assumptions I.
(᝟ሗពᅗ㸸᝿ᐃࡢ㞟ྜ㹇ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᫂♧ⓗࠊࡲࡓࡣࡼࡾ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜) Communicative intention: to make it mutually manifest to audience and communicator that thecommunicator has this informative intention.
㸦ఏ㐩ពᅗ㸸ఏ㐩⪅ࡣ᝟ሗពᅗࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ఏ㐩⪅ࡢ┦஫㛫࡛᫂♧ⓗ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸧       (Sperber & Wilson (1996) p58-61) ࠶ࡿ᝿ᐃࡢ㞟ྜ㹇࡜ࡣࠊఏ㐩⪅ࡀఏ࠼ࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ᝟ሗࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊఏ㐩⪅ࡀ᝟ሗពᅗࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦࠶ࡿ᝟ሗࢆఏ࠼ࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࡀࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡀẼ࡙࠿࡞࠸ሙྜ㸦ఏ㐩ពᅗࡀ┦஫㛫࡛☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜ㸧ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡣὀពࢆྥࡅ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ✵ࡢ࢔ࢼ࢘ࣥࢫ࡟ヰࢆᡠࡍ࡜ࠊ(3b)ࡢᨺ㏦ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁࠊ᭱ึ⪥ࢆഴࡅ࡚࠸ࡓ✵ ࡟࠸ࡿࣘࢼ࢖ࢸࢵࢻ
⯟✵฼⏝ணᐃᐈࡶࠊࡑࡢᨺ㏦ࡣࠊ⮬ศ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ពᅗࡀ࡞࠸࡜☜ㄆࡋࡓ᫬Ⅼ㸦35 ౽ࢯ࢘ࣝ࡟ࡣ஌ࡽ࡞
࠸ࠊᒣ⏣ኴ㑻ࡌࡷ࡞࠸㸧࡛ὀពࢆྥࡅࡿࡢࢆࡸࡵࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ౛࠼ࡤࠊ㜵⅏↓⥺࡛ࠊࠕ኱ࡁ࡞ὠἼࡀ฿㐩ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㧗ྎ࡟┤ࡕ࡟㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᨺ㏦ࢆ⪺࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊㄡ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ఏ㐩ពᅗࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ᝟ሗ࡞ࡢ࠿ࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ
ࠕ㹼⏫ࠊ㹼ᆅ༊ࡢⓙࡉࢇࡣࠊ኱ࡁ࡞ὠἼࡀ฿㐩ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㧗ྎ࡬┤ࡕ࡟㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᨺ㏦࡛
࠶ࢀࡤࠊࡑࡢヱᙜᆅ༊ࡢேࠎ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊఏ㐩ពᅗࡀࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽ
ࢀࡿࠋ

−5−

緊急事態と非常事態における情報伝達―関連性理論におけるコミュニケーションの効率性―6 ᅗ㸯࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㜵⅏⾜ᨻ↓⥺ࡣࠊఏ㐩ࡢ୍ࡘࡢ⤒㊰࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊẼ㇟ᗇ࠿ࡽὠἼ㆙ሗࡀฟ࡚ࠊᆅୖ⣔ࡲࡓࡣ⾨ᫍ⣔࡟ࡼࡾᕷ⏫ᮧ࡟ఏ࠼ࡽࢀࠊࡑࢀࡀ⮬ືⓎಙ(ྠሗ)࡟ࡼࡾ㜵⅏⾜ᨻ↓⥺࡛ࢧ࢖ࣞࣥ࡜஦๓㘓㡢㡢ኌ࡛ఫẸ࡟ఏ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ⮬ືⓎಙ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ᭱ࡶ᪩ࡃఫẸ࡟ఏ㐩࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺
฼Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㆙ሗࡣẼ㇟ᗇ࠿ࡽ┤᥋᮶ࡿ᝟ሗ୰ᚰࡢ᝟ሗෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᗈᇦ࡟ὶࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇ
ࢀࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊㄡ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊㄆ▱ຠᯝࡶ࠶ࡲࡾ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋᕷ⏫ᮧࡢⓎಙ⪅ࡣࠊࡇࡢ㜵⅏⾜ᨻ↓⥺ࡢᚋࠊ࡞ࡿ࡭ࡃ⊃࠸⠊ᅖ࡟ᑐᛂࡋࡓಶูࡢ࣓
ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆ࿨௧࣭ᣦ♧୰ᚰࡢ᝟ሗࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
㸳㸬㛵㐃ᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸦ㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆ኱ࡁࡃࡋࠊฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡽࡍࡇ࡜㸧 ᪂஭㸦2011㸧࡛ࡣࠊ᭱ࡶㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀ኱ࡁࡃࠊฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡽࡋࡓ࿨௧࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⯟✵఍♫ࡢ⥭ᛴ᫬ࡢ⾪ᧁ㜵Ṇጼໃࡢ࿨௧ࡸ㑊㞴ㄏᑟ࿨௧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡓࠋ⯟✵ᶵ஦ᨾࡣࡑࡢ㸷㸮㸣௨ୖࡀ㞳╔㝣᫬࡟㉳ࡁ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ᫬࡟㉳ࡁࡓ㐣ཤࡢ஦ᨾࡢ✀㢮ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚ࠊ஌ົဨࡢカ⦎ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋ⬺ฟ࿨௧ࡣࠊணᮇࡉࢀࡿ
⥭ᛴ╔㝣࣭ணᮇࡉࢀ࡞࠸⥭ᛴ╔㝣ࠊࡲࡓࡣࠊணᮇࡉࢀࡿ⥭ᛴ╔Ỉ࡜ணᮇࡉࢀ࡞࠸⥭ᛴ╔Ỉ࡟኱ࡁࡃࢃࡅ
ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ஦ែ࡟஌ᐈࡀ㌟ࡢᏳ඲ࢆᏲࡿ࡭ࡁጼໃ࡜⾜ືࡀ࿨௧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
౛࠼ࡤࠊ⥭ᛴ╔㝣ࡢ㝿࡟ࠊᗙᖍ࡛㌟ࢆᏲࡿጼໃ(ᅗ㸱)ࢆࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࡢ࿨௧ᩥࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ
ᅗ2㸦http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5402342.stm㸧(5) a.ࠕ㊊㤳ࢆࡘ࠿ࢇ࡛㸦ࡃࡔࡉ࠸㸧ࠋࠖ  b.ࠕఅࡏ࡚㸦ࡃࡔࡉ࠸㸧ࠋࠖc.ࠕࡑࡢࡲࡲ࡛㸦࠸࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸㸧ࠋࠖd. ࠕ⾪ᧁ㜵Ṇጼໃࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚㸦ࡃࡔࡉ࠸㸧ࠋࠖணᮇࡉࢀ࡞࠸⥭ᛴ╔㝣ࡢ㝿ࠊᶵయ࡟࠿࡞ࡾࡢ⾪ᧁࡀ㉳ࡇࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ࡓࡵࠊ஌ᐈࡢ㌟ࢆᏲࡽࡏࡿ
┠ⓗ࡛(5b)ࡸ(5c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࿨௧ࡋࠊ⾪ᧁ㜵Ṇጼໃࢆ࡜ࡽࡏࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ஦ᨾⓎ⏕ᶵࡀ☜ᐇ࡟೵Ṇࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࠊ
ືࡃ࡜༴㝤࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᶵ㛗࠿ࡽࡢ⬺ฟ࿨௧ࡀฟࡿࡲ࡛ࠊ(5d)ࡢ࿨௧ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊᩥࡀ▷ࡃࠊ⌮ゎࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࡓࡵฎ⌮ປຊࢆ᭱኱㝈࡟ῶࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡽࡏࡤ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ㧗ࡲࡾࠊ஌ᐈ࡟ຠᯝⓗ࡞᝟ሗఏ㐩࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
௚᪉ࠊ(5d)ࡢ⾪ᧁ㜵Ṇጼໃ࡜࠸࠺࠶ࡲࡾ⪺ࡁ័ࢀ࡞࠸ゝⴥࡣࠊฎ⌮ປຊࡀ࠿࠿ࡿゝⴥ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊணᮇ

−6−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

7ࡉࢀࡿ⥭ᛴ╔㝣࡛╔㝣ࡲ࡛࡟᫬㛫ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟ࠊ⾪ᧁ㜵Ṇጼໃࡢ⦎⩦ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡇࡢゝⴥࢆ⪺࠸ࡓࡽጼໃ
ࢆ࡜ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᣦᑟࡍࡿࠋ㞴ࡋ࠸ゝⴥࡶ๓ࡶࡗ࡚ព࿡ࢆ㝈ᐃࡋ࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜࡞ࡗࡓୖ࡛౑⏝ࡍࢀࡤࠊฎ⌮ປຊࡶୗࡀࡾࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡶ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㑊㞴ㄏᑟࡢ㝿࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿ࿨௧ᩥࡣࠊฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡽ
ࡋࠊㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆୖࡆࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ᭱኱࡟࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࿨௧ᩥࢆᕤኵࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
㸱㸬㸯࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㆙ሗ࡜㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ࡣࠊฟࡍሙᡤࠊ┠ⓗࠊ᝟ሗෆᐜࡍ࡭࡚␗࡞ࡿ✀㢮ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㑊㞴່࿌࡜㑊㞴ᣦ♧ࡶ⥭ᛴᗘࡀ␗࡞ࡾࠊᚋ⪅ࡣ๓⪅ࡼࡾࡍࡄ࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ㠀ᖖ࡟༴㝤࡛࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟ฟࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⾜ᨻ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿゝⴥ㸦ᑓ㛛⏝ㄒ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡁࡕࡗ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ఫẸࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ່࿌ࠖ࡜ࠕᣦ♧ࠖࡣ࡝ࡕࡽࡀ⥭ᛴᗘࢆቑࡍゝⴥ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ゝⴥࡢ▱㆑ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡓࡵฎ⌮ປຊࡀ࠿࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊ
ࠕ㑊㞴່࿌ࡀฟ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠖ࡜ఏ
࠼ࡿࡼࡾࠊࠕᛕࡢࡓࡵ㹼ࡢ㑊㞴ᡤ࡬㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖࡢ᪉ࡀࠊࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ㑊㞴ᣦ♧ࡀฟࡲࡋࡓࠖࡼࡾࡶࠕࡓ
ࡔࡕ࡟㹼ࡢ㑊㞴ᡤ࡟㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖࡢ᪉ࡀࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࿨௧ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㸴㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊὠἼ㆙ሗ࡞࡝ࡢ⥭ᛴ஦ែࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿ㝿࡟ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽ㸦㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ㸧ⓗどⅬࢆຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᩚ⌮ࡋࠊࡼࡾຠ⋡ࡢⰋ࠸᝟ሗఏ㐩᪉ἲࢆぢࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
ㄽࡌࡓࠋ⥭ᛴ஦ែࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᡂຌࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰゎ㔘࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ▱ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢഃ࡟❧ࡗࡓ᝟ሗఏ㐩᪉ἲࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋᮏ✏ࡣὠἼ㆙ሗࡢࡳࢆᢅࡗࡓࡀࠊ⥭ᛴᆅ㟈㏿ሗࠊྛᆅࡢ㟈ᗘ⾲♧ࠊ㟈※ᆅ࣭ᆅ㟈ࡢつᶍ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗఏ㐩࡟ࡶࠊྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ㄢ㢟ࡀṧࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡶゝㄒᏛ◊✲⪅ࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊ⥭ᛴ஦ែ࣭㠀ᖖ஦ែࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚◊✲ࢆ⥆ࡅࡓ࠸ࠋὀ㸸㸯㸬Ẽ㇟ᗇ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ㆙ሗ࡜ὀពሗࡣẼ㇟ᗇ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨࡏࡽࢀࠊࠕ኱㞵ࡸᙉ㢼࡞࡝ࡢẼ㇟⌧㇟࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⅏ᐖࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ࠾ࡑࢀࡢ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠕὀពሗࠖࢆࠊ㔜኱࡞⅏ᐖࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ࠾ࡑࢀࡢ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁ
࡟ࠕ㆙ሗࠖࠖࢆⓎ⾲ࡋࠊὀពࡸ㆙ᡄࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠶ࡿࠋ
2.. 㔠஭ࠊᓥࠊඣ⋢ࠊ∦⏣(2011)࡟ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ᥎ㄽࡍࡿ᥎ពࢆࠊ
ࠕゝእࡢព࿡ࢆᬯ♧ࡍࡿࡶࡢࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚
ࠕ࣓ࢱ࣭࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ㑊㞴່࿌࣭㑊㞴࿨௧➼
ࢆⓎࡍࡿሙྜࠊ
⅏ᐖⓎ⏕᫬ఫẸࡢ㑊㞴ࡢពᛮỴᐃ࡟ࡣࡇࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚㏦ಙ
ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ㔜せᛶࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3. රᗜ┴⠛ᒣᕷࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪࡼࡾࠋ㑊㞴່࿌࡜㑊㞴ᣦ♧ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆศ࠿ࡾ᫆ࡃゎㄝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ


−7−

8

緊急事態と非常事態における情報伝達―関連性理論におけるコミュニケーションの効率性―ᘬ⏝ᩥ⊩᪂஭ᜤᏊ. 2011.ࠕ⥭ᛴ஦ែࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ̿㑊㞴࿨௧ࡢఏ࠼᪉ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠖ⤒Ⴀㄽ㞟 69 ྕࠊᮾி㸸ᮾὒ኱Ꮫ⤒ႠᏛ㒊㔠஭ᫀಙ࣭ᓥ᫭୍࣭ඣ⋢┿࣭∦⏣ᩄᏕ. 2011.ࠕὥỈ㑊㞴࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⾜ືᣦ༡᝟ሗࡢ࣓ࢱ࣭࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪຠᯝࡢ᳨ウࠖ⅏ᐖ᝟ሗ No.9ࠊᮾி㸸⅏ᐖ᝟ሗᏛ఍
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance – Communication and Cognition, 2nd edition, Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Wison D. 2004-2005. ,Pragmatic Theory (PLIN M202) Lecture Notes 㸦௒஭㑥ᙪ⦅ࠊ஭㛛ு௚ヂ
2010.ࠗ᭱᪂ㄒ⏝ㄽධ㛛 12 ❶࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ㸧ཧ⪃࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ
Ẽ㇟ᗇࠕࠕᮾ໭ᆅ᪉ኴᖹὒἈᆅ㟈࡟ࡼࡿὠἼ⿕ᐖࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓὠἼ㆙ሗᨵၿ࡟ྥࡅࡓຮᙉ఍ࠖ㈨ᩱ࡜ሗ࿌᭩
http://www.seisvol.kishou.go.jp/eq/tsunami_kaizen_benkyokai/index.html
ࠕὠἼ㆙ሗࡢⓎ⾲ᇶ‽➼࡜᝟ሗᩥࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᳨ウ఍ࠖ㈨ᩱ࡜ሗ࿌᭩
http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/press/1110/19a/tsunami_kentokai_1st.htm
Ẽ㇟ᗇᴗົἲ
http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/kishou/minkan/happyo_law.html⥲ົ┬ᾘ㜵ᗇ
http://www.fdma.go.jp/
http://www.bousai.go.jp/3oukyutaisaku/higashinihon_kentoukai/4/syoubou1.pdf(ᮾ᪥ᮏ኱㟈⅏࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㜵⅏⾜ᨻ↓⥺࡟ࡼࡿ᝟ሗఏ㐩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚)ἲົ┬⅏ᐖᑐ⟇ᇶᮏἲ
http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/S36/S36HO223.html−8−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆ຓモࠕ࡜ࠖ̿࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒ࡜ࡢᑐ↷࡜ࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞࡢ⪃ᐹ̿Tiwuk Ikhtiari W.
ி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ே㛫࣭⎔ቃᏛ◊✲⛉<Abstract>
Japanese connective particle “to” has several meanings in its use. Particle is one of Japanese
language characteristic and this often confused Japanese learner because one particle may
contain several meanings or one particle can be replaced with another with the same meaning.
In this paper, I try to consider how Japanese “to” corresponds to several Indonesian
conjunctions. In the last section I will argue that the study of theme/rheme of Functional
Sentence Perspective can be used as an instrument of linguistic analysis to contrast Japaneseand Indonesian.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆モࠕ࡜ࠖࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ”begitu”, “ketika”, “kalau”ࠊࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞ

㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆ຓモࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ begitu, ketika, kalau ࡜ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᥋⥆モ࡟ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿᩥ㸦๓௳㸧࡜ᚋ௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᝟ሗ㛵ಀ㸦ࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞ㸧ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

㸰㸬᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆ຓモࠕ࡜ࠖ
ⶈ἟ (1992)ࠊ㕥ᮌ (1986)ࠊ㇏⏣(1978, 1983)ࡣࠊࠕ᫬ࡢ⏝ἲࠖࡢࠕ࡜ࠖࢆ஦ᐇⓗ⏝ἲ࡜࿧ࡪࠋᙼ
ࡽ࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕ࡜ࠖࡣ㐣ཤ୍ᅇⓗ࡟㉳ࡗࡓ᪤ᐃࡢ஦ែࡢ㛵ಀࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕ࡜ࠖࡢ
⏝ἲࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋa) ືసࡢ㐃⥆㸸➨୍ࡢືస࣭ኚ໬࡟㐃⥆ࡋ࡚ࠊྠ୍୺యࡀ➨஧ࡢືస࣭ኚ໬ࢆ㉳ࡇࡍ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠊ୕ே⛠୺ㄒࡢពᚿⓗ⾜Ⅽࡢࠕ㐃⥆࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ

−9−日本語の接続助詞「と」―インドネシア語との対照とテーマ・レーマの考察―౛㸬ᙼࡣ㒊ᒇ࡟ධࡿ࡜
࡜ࠊ཭ࡔࡕ࡟㟁ヰࡋࡓࠋb) Ⓨぢ㸸๓௳ࡀⓎぢࡢዎᶵ࡜࡞ࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾲ࡋࠊᚋ௳࡛ࡣࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨぢࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡢᏑ
ᅾࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ࡜ࠊ┠ࡢ๓࡟ῐ㊰ᓥࡀぢ࠼ࡓࠋ౛㸬❆ࢆ㛤ࡅࡿ࡜c) Ⓨ⌧㸸
๓௳ࡀ⥅⥆ⓗ࡞ືస࡛ࠊᚋ௳࡛ࡣࡑࡢືసࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞஦ែࡢฟ⌧ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ࡜ࠊ཭ே࠿ࡽ㟁ヰࡀ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
౛㸬࠾㢼࿅࡟ධࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜d) ᫬㸸᫬㛫ࡢ᥎⛣࡟క࠺᪂ࡓ࡞஦ែࡢฟ⌧ࡸ≧ἣࡢ㐍ᒎ࣭ኚ໬࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ࡜ࠊࡦ࡝ࡃ౛㸬༗ᚋ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜

ᗘࡀୖࡗࡓࠋe) ཯ᛂ㸸
๓௳ࡢືసࡸኚ໬࡟཯ᛂࡋ࡚ࠊᚋ௳ࡢືసࡸኚ໬ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ࡜ࠊᐊෆࡢ౛㸬ࢫࢺ࣮ࣈࢆᾘࡍ࡜

ᗘࡣᛴ⃭࡟ୗࡀࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋ

ࡲࡓࠊ㕥ᮌ (1986) ࡣࠊ୍ᅇⓗ࡞㛵ಀࡢ㞟✚ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆ⾲ࡋ⤒㦂ࡀ✚ࡳ㔜࡞ࡗࡓ᫬ࠊ
ࠕ࡜ࠖࡣ཯᚟
ⓗ࣭ᮍ᮶ࡢ஦᯶࡟ࡶ౑ࢃࢀࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᆤᮏࡣ஦ែࡢ⤊஢Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ࡜ࠖࡣḟࡢ୕ࡘ࡟༊ู
ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

A. ᫬⣔ิ㸸๓௳ࡢฟ᮶஦ࡀ㉳ࡗࡓᚋࠊḟࡢᚋ௳ࡢฟ᮶஦ࡀ㉳ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ஧ࡘࡢฟ᮶஦
ࡀ᫬⣔ิ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㉳ࡇࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦㸻ືసࡢ㐃⥆ࡣࠊࡇࡢ᫬⣔ิࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸧
B. Ⓨぢ㸸࠶ࡿ஦ែࡀ௚ࡢ஦ែࡢࠕ᫬ࠖ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㔜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ(overlapping)㸦㸻ୖ࡟㏙࡭ࡓⓎぢࠊⓎ⌧ࠊ᫬ࠊ཯ᛂࡣࠊࡑࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸧
C. ᮲௳㸸⮬↛ⓗ࣭ᚲ↛ⓗ࡞⤖ࡧࡘࡁࢆ⾲ࡋࡲࡍࠋA ࡜࠸࠺஦㇟ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ࡜ࠊB ࡜࠸࠺஦㇟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀఱᗘࡶ⤒㦂ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦㸻୍ᅇⓗ࡞㛵ಀࡢ㞟✚ࡋࡓࠕ࡜ࠖ㸦཯᚟ⓗ࣭ᮍ᮶ࡢ஦᯶㸧ࡢ⏝ἲࡣࡑࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸧㸱㸬࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ begitu, ketika, kalau
㸱㸬㸯㸬Begitu1)
Sneddon (1996), Soebardi (1973)࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊbegitu ⠇ࡀ⾲ࡍ஦ែࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠿ࡽࡍࡄ࡟ḟࡢ஦ែࡀ㉳ࡇࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺㛵㐃௜ࡅࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋbegitu ࡣࠊ㐣ཤࡢ୍ᅇ㝈ࡾࡢ஦᯶ࠊࡲࡓࡣᮍ᮶ࡢ஦

−10−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

᯶࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(1) Begitu saya masuk ke dalam rumah, saya mendengar telepon berdering.
As soon as I  enterto

inside

house

I

hear

phone

ring

As soon as I entered the house, I heard the phone ringing.     (Soebardi 1973:358)㸱㸬㸰㸬ketika
Sneddon (1996), Soebardi (1973), Dardjowidjojo (1978), Kähler (1965)ࡣࠊketika ࡜࠸࠺᥋⥆モࡣࠊ㐣ཤࡢ୍ᐃࡢᮇ㛫࡟ࠊ୍ᐃࡢ஦ែࡀ㉳ࡇࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2) Ketika saya di Amerika, saya bertemu dengan orang dari Jepang.
When

I

in US

I

meet

with

person from Japan

When I was in the States, I met a man from Japan.

(Dardjowidjojo 1978:160)

㸱㸬㸱㸬kalau
Kalau ࡣࠊ୺࡟࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ᮲௳ᩥࡢᶆ♧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋඛ࡟㏙࡭ࡓ ketika ࡟ࡼࡿ୍ᅇⓗ࡞஦᯶ࡣࠊkalau ࢆ౑࠺ሙྜࡣࠊᮍ᮶ࡢ஦᯶ࢆ⾲ࡋࡲࡍࠋ(3) Kalau hujan turun, kami tidak pergi ke taman.
If

rain

fall

we

 not

go

to

park

If it is raining, we won’t go to the park.

㸲㸬᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆ຓモࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒ᥋⥆モ begitu, ketika, kalau ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀ➹⪅ࡣࠕ࡜ࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ౛ᩥࢆ㞟ࡵ࡚ࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒ࡟⩻ヂࡋ࡚ࡳࡓࠋ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺ࡟ࡼࡿ᝟
ሗࡶ᥇ࡾධࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆ຓモࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ begitu, ketika, kalauࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡣࠊ⾲㸯ࡢࡼ࠺࡟♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ
⾲㸬㸯

᪥ᮏㄒ

࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒ

᫬⣔ิࡢࠕ࡜ࠖ㸦ືసࡢ㐃⥆㸧

begituⓎぢࡢࠕ࡜ࠖ㸦ⓎぢࠊⓎ⌧ࠊ᫬ࠊ཯ᛂ㸧ketika, begitu᮲௳ࡢࠕ࡜ࠖ

kalau࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ begitu ࡟ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ⠇ࡢືモࡣ accomplishment ࡸ achievements ࡢሙྜࡣࠊ᪥
ᮏㄒࡢ͆ືసࡢ㐃⥆͇ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࡜ࠖ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ௨እࡢືモࢆ౑࠺ሙྜࡣࠊ
͆Ⓨぢ͇ࡢࠕ࡜ࠖ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−11−日本語の接続助詞「と」―インドネシア語との対照とテーマ・レーマの考察―ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ ketika ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ͆Ⓨぢ͇ࡢࠕ࡜ࠖ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋఱᗘ
ࡶ⤒㦂ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࠊ㞟✚ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࢆ⾲ࡋࠊᮍ᮶ࡢ஦᯶ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡣࠊkalau ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㸳㸬᥋⥆ຓモࠕ࡜ࠖ࠾ࡼࡧ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ࡜ࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞࡢ⪃ᐹࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊHalliday (1974), Daneš (1974), Firbas (1974), HajiĀová (2010) ࡟ཧ↷ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺࡛ࡣࠊࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡣࠊ኱యྠࡌ
ὶࢀࡸ᝟ሗᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㸦௨ୗࡣࠊ୺࡟ Halliday ࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊศᯒࢆࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ㸧㸳㸬㸯㸬᫬⣔ิࡢࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ begitu
Micro-structure㸸(4) Theme
I -----II ࣞ࢖ࢥࡉࢇࡣ
III -----Theme
I ------

Rhemeࠕࣄ࢔࣭࣒࢝ࢬ࣭ࢨ࣭ࢧࣥࠖࢆှ࠸⤊ࡿ࡜ࢠࢱ࣮ࢆዪࡢᏊ࡟㏉ࡋࡲࡓ FM ᨺ㏦ࢆࡘࡅ࡚ࡃࢀ࡜ゝࡗࡓ
Rheme
Begitu selesai menyanyikan Here Comes the Sun
As soon as finish sing

II Reiko-san

mengembalikan gitar itu kepada si gadis

III ------

lalu memintanya menyalakan siaran

FM

Then ask-her
Rheme

FM again

Return(5) ThemeI ᙼዪࡣ
II ----III ----ThemeI-----

guitar that toturn onthe girl
broadcastlagiᡠࡗ࡚ࡃࡿ࡜
᪑⾜㠜࠿ࡽ↦㣰ࡢ⨁ࢆฟࡋ࡚൅࡬ࡢ࠾ࡳࡸࡆࡔ࡜ゝࡗࡓࠋ

Rheme
Begitukembali

As sooner back

II Ia
He/sheIII -----

mengeluarkan kaleng opak daritasnyatake out

bag-hercanchips fromini oleh-oleh untukmu, katanya
This giftfor-yousaid-she/himྛ⠇ࡢ micro-structure ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊྛ⠇ࡣࠊྠࡌ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡣ୍ᗘ⌧ࢀࢀࡤࠊ௚ࡢ⠇࡛┬ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣྍ⬟ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ begitu ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᫬⣔ิࡢࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜㐪ࡗ࡚ࠊ௨ୖࡢᩥࡢ୧᪉࡜ࡶࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡣ஧␒┠ࡢ⠇㸦୺⠇㸧࡟⌧ࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ࢖ࣥ
ࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢᚑᒓ㛵ಀࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ୺ㄒ࣭⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀྠࡌሙྜࡣࠊᚑᒓ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚┬␎ࡉࢀࠊ୺⠇࡟⌧ࢀࡿࠋ㸳㸬㸰㸬Ⓨぢ࡜᮲௳−12−第14回大会発表論文集

Micro-structure㸸(6) Theme
I
-----

II

第７号

Rheme
ചࡉࡉ࡞࠸࡜
ࡎࡪ⃿ࢀ࡟࡞ࡗࡕࡷ࠺ࡼ

-----

Theme

Rheme

I

Kalau tidak pakai payung

-----

If

II kitaneg

useumbrellaakan basah kuyup

weWill wetthrough(7) Theme

Rheme

I ----II ஧ࠊ୕ேࡢዪᛶࡀࡍࡄୗࢆ㏻ࡾࡍࡂ࡚࠸ࡃࡢࡀ

Theme
I
II

Rheme

Ketika aku

mengintip dari jendela

Whenlook 

I

terlihat----ࡳࢇ࡞Theme
I

Kalau kita
When weII

merekaThey

from window

dua-tiga perempuan lewat tepat di bawahku

Be seen(8) Theme
IIIྎᡤࡢ❆࠿ࡽࡢࡒ࠸࡚ࡳࡿ࡜
ぢ࠼ࡓ

two three woman

passright at below-me

Rhemeࡑ࠺࠸࠺࢚ࣆࢯ࣮ࢻࢆࡦ࡜ࡘධࢀ࡚࠾ࡃ࡜ࡡ
ࡍࡈࡃ႐ࡪࡢࡼ

Rheme
memasukkan satu riwayat
insertone history

sangat senang
very

happy

௨ୖࡢ౛࠿ࡽࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢሙྜࡣ୺ㄒ࣭⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀࡼࡃ┬࠿ࢀࠊࡑࢀࡣᩥ⬦ࡲࡓࡣࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ㸦≀
ㄒࡢⓏሙே≀㸧ࡸ୍⯡㸦ඹ᭷㸧ࡢ▱㆑࠿ࡽ᥎ࡉࢀࡿ㸦౛(6)࡜(8)㸧ࠋ

౛(7)࡛ࡣࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞ࡜ࡣ㏫࡟࡞ࡿࠋ࢖ࣥࢻ
ࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢሙྜࡣࠊ͆ぢ࠼ࡓ͇࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࢸ࣮࣐࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢሙྜࡣࠊ
ࠕ஧ࠊ୕ேࡢዪᛶࡀࡍࡄୗࢆ㏻ࡾࡍࡂ࡚࠸ࡃࡢࡀࠖࡣ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢฟⓎⅬࠊࡘࡲࡾࢸ࣮࣐࡜ࡋ࡚
ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
௨ୗࠊFirbas ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽぢ࡚ࡳࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
᪥㸸஧ࠊ୕ேࡢዪᛶࡀࡍࡄୗࢆ㏻ࡾࡍࡂ࡚࠸ࡃࡢࡀ ぢ࠼ࡓ          Rheme
Theme࢖㸸Terlihat  dua-tiga perempuan lewat tepat di bawahku
Theme
Rheme
Firbas ࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞࡢศᕸࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕぢ࠼ࡿࠖࠊ
ࠕ⪺ࡇ࠼ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ືモࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᩥࡣ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒ࡛ࡣ inversion㸦ಽ⨨㸧࡟࡞ࡿሙྜࡀࡼࡃ࠶ࡿ㸦ᬑ㏻ࡢᵓ㐀ࡣࠊ”Dua-tiga perempuan lewat tepat di bawahku terlihat”㸧ࠋ−13−日本語の接続助詞「と」―インドネシア語との対照とテーマ・レーマの考察―࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒ࡛ࡣࠊಽ⨨ࡉࢀࡓᩥࡢሙྜࡣࠊࠕぢ࠼ࡿࠖࠊࠕ⪺ࡇ࠼ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ືモ࡟”lah”࡜࠸
࠺᥋ᑿ㎡ࢆ௜ࡅࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢᩥࡣᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࣮࣐ࣞ࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ”lah”ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࡀࠖ࡜
ྠࡌാࡁ㸦᪂᝟ሗࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋࠊ↔Ⅼ໬ࡍࡿᶵ⬟㸧ࢆᣢࡘࠋ㸦㸻terlihatlah(Rheme) dua-tiga
perempuan lewat tepat di bawahku(Theme)㸧
㸳㸬㸱㸬⫼ᬒ໬࠾ࡼࡧ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀࡿሙྜ
ᚑᒓ⠇ࡀ⫼ᬒ࡜ࡋ࡚⨨࠿ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࡋࡤࡋࡤ㉳ࡇࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊᚑᒓ⠇ࡣ⫼ᬒࡢ᝟ሗࢆᣢࡕࠊ୺⠇ࡣ๓ᬒࡢ᝟ሗࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࡼࡃᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊḟ࡟ࠊୖ࡟㏙࡭ࡓᆤᮏࡢ⫼ᬒ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
᝟ሗᵓ㐀࠿ࡽぢ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋᆤᮏ࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊ
ࠕ࡜ࠖ࡟ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ⠇㸦≉࡟ࠕⓎぢࠖ࡜ࠕ᮲௳ࠖࡢ
⏝ἲ㸧ࡣ⫼ᬒ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ୺⠇ࡢ஦ែࡣ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ࡜ࠖ⠇࡛ࡶ↔
Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲㸬㸰
(9)

(10)

᪥ᮏㄒ∧

࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒ∧㸦๓␎㸧ᆅୗ࡟࠶ࡿ DUG ࡟ࡣ࠸ࡗ࡚࢘
࢛ࢵ࣭࢝ࢺࢽࢵࢡࢆ஧ᮼࡎࡘ㣧ࢇࡔࠋ㸦୰␎㸧ࠕࡑࢇ࡞࡟࠾᫨࠿ࡽ㣧ࢇ࡛ࡿࡢ㸽ࠖ㸦୰␎㸧ࠕࡓ
ࡓࡲ࡟ୡࡢ୰ࡀ㎞ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࡇࡇ࡟᮶࡚࢛࢘ࢵ࣭࢝ࢺࢽࢵࢡ㣧ࡴࡼࠖ
(48)
ࠕᙼዪࡣṌࡁ࡞ࡀࡽ✵ࢆぢୖࡆࠊ≟ࡳࡓ࠸࡟ࡃࢇࡃࢇ࡜ໝ࠸ࢆ࠿࠸ࡔࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠕ㞵ࡢໝ࠸ࡀࡍࡿࢃࡡࠖ࡜ゝࡗࡓࠋ㸦୰␎㸧ࡇࡇ࡟㛗ࡃ࠸ࡿ࡜✵Ẽࡢໝ࠸࡛ࡔ࠸ࡓ࠸
ࡢኳẼࡣࢃ࠿ࡿࡢࡼࠖ࡜ࣞ࢖ࢥࡉࢇࡣゝ
ࡗࡓࠋ(8)

㸦๓␎㸧di bawah tanah, lalu memesan vodka
tonic masing-masing dua gelas. 㸦୰␎㸧”Kamusering minum siang-siang begini?” 㸦୰␎㸧”KKalau beban hidupku lagi berat, aku suka
datang ke sini dan minum vodka tonic.“(322)
Ia berjalan sambil menengadah ke langit dan
mengendus-endus bau seperti anjing. "Bau
Kalau berada di
hujan ya," katanya. 㸦୰␎㸧"Ksini cukup lama, kita akan bisa mengetahuicuaca hanya dengan membaui udara," kata
Reiko-san.(284)㸦ኴᩥᏐࡣ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㒊ศ㸧

⾲㸬2 ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡣ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ(9)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕ࢛࢘ࢵ࣭࢝ࢺࢽࢵࢡࢆ㣧ࡴࡇ࡜ࠖࡣࠊ๓ࡢᩥ❶ࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊḟࡢᩥ❶࡛ࡣᪧ᝟ሗ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ
ࠕ࡜ࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ⠇ࠕࡓࡲ࡟ୡࡢ୰ࡀ㎞࡜ࠖࡣࠊ᪂᝟ሗ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜(10)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠕ✵ࡢໝ࠸࡛ኳẼࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺୺⠇ࡀࠊᩥ⬦ࡢ஦ែ࠿ࡽࡳ࡚ࠊᪧ᝟ሗ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ
ࠕ࡜ࠖࡢ⠇ࠕࡇࡇ࡟㛗ࡃ࠸ࡿ࡜࡜ࠖࡣࠊࠕ✵ࡢໝ࠸࡛ኳẼࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠖࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ᮲௳ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ࡜ࠖ⠇ࡀ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࠿ࡽࠊᆤᮏࡢㄝ࡟཯ࡋ࡚ࠊ୺⠇࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕⓎぢࠖࡸࠕ᮲௳ࠖࡢ஦ែࡀࠊㄯヰ࣭ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢୡ⏺࡛ࡣࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀࡎࠊ୺⠇ࡀࡓࡔ๓ࡢ஦ែࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍሙྜࡣࠊᪧ᝟ሗ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ
࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−14−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

㸴㸬⤖ㄽ
᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆ຓモࠕ࡜ࠖࡣࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ “begitu”, “ketika”, “kalau” ࡜ᑐᛂ㛵ಀࢆᣢࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ⠇ࡸᩥࡢせ⣲ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊࢸ࣮࣐ࡢⓎᒎࡢ≉ᚩࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࢸ࣮࣐࡜࣮࣐ࣞࡢᇶ┙࠿ࡽࠊ᭦࡟᪥ᮏㄒ࡜࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢඹ㏻Ⅼ࡜┦㐪Ⅼࢆぢࡘࡅฟࡏࢀࡤ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋὀ㸧1) begitu ࡟ࡼࡿ⠇ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢືモ࡟ࡍ࡭࡚ᑐᛂࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
Vendler ࡟ࡼࡿḟࡢືモࡢศ㢮 (Steube 1980:56)
STATES

ACTIVITIESACCOMPLISHMENTACHIEVEMENTS

be tall,search,write a novel,

find, die,be illwait

break a glass

discover2) ᫬⣔ิࡢࠕ࡜ࠖࡢ౛ᩥ࡟ࡣࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ lalu㸦஧ࡘࡢ஦ែࢆ᫬㛫ⓗ๓ᚋ㛵ಀ࡟࠾࠸࡚
୪࡭ࡿࡓࡵࡢ᥋⥆モ࡛ࠊⱥㄒࡢ „then“ ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ㸧࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿᩥࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡟ࡍࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Akatsuka, Noriko.1986. “Conditionals are Discourse-Bound.” In Elizabeth Closs Traugott et al (ed).

On Conditionals, 333-351.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
᭷⏣⠇Ꮚ. 1999. ࠕࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ࠿ࡽぢࡓ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᮲௳ᩥࠖ
ࠗゝㄒ◊✲࠘155, 77-108
Daneš, František.1974.Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague: Academia.
Firbas, Jan. 1974. “Some Aspects of the Czechoslovak Approach to Problem of Functional Sentence
Perspective.” In František Daneš (ed). Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague:
Academia.
Haiman, John. 1978. “Conditionals are Topics.” Language 3. 564-589
HajiĀová, Eva. 2010. “Information Structure from the Point of View of the Relation of Function andForm.” In Martin Procházka et.al. (eds.) The Prague School and Theories of Structure,107-127. V&R unipress.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1974. “The Place of “Functional Sentence Perspective” in the System of Linguistic
Description.” In František Daneš (ed). Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague:
Academia.
ⶈ἟᫛Ꮚ 1993. ࠕࠕࡓࡽࠖ࡜ࠕ࡜ࠖࡢ஦ᐇⓗ⏝ἲࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖࠊ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ(⦅)ࠗ᮲௳⾲⌧࠘ࠊࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ
∧ⶈ἟᫛Ꮚ௚ 2001. ࠗ᮲௳⾲⌧࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧Kähler, Hans. 1965. Grammatik der Bahasa Indonesia. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Sneddon, James Neil 1996. Indonesian Reference Grammar. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
Soebardi, S. 1973. Learn Bahasa Indonesia Pattern Approach. Kanisius-Bhratara
Steube, Anita 1980. Temporale Bedeutung im Deutschen. Akademie-Verlag Berlin.

−15−日本語の接続助詞「と」―インドネシア語との対照とテーマ・レーマの考察―㕥ᮌ⩏࿴ 1986. ࠕ᥋⥆ຓモࠗ࡜࠘ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ព࿡ࠖࠗᅜᩥㄽྀ࠘13 ྕ㸦⚄ᡞ኱ᏛᩥᏛ㒊ᅜㄒᅜᩥᏛ఍㸧㇏⏣㇏Ꮚ 1978. ࠕ᥋⥆ຓモࠗ࡜࠘ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ᶵ⬟㸦I㸧
ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛᰯㄽ㞟࠘5 ྕ㇏⏣㇏Ꮚ 1979. ࠕⓎぢࡢࠕ࡜ࠖࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘36.
㇏⏣㇏Ꮚ 1982. ࠕ᥋⥆ຓモࠗ࡜࠘ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ᶵ⬟㸦IV㸧ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛᰯㄽ㞟࠘9 ྕᆤᮏ⠜ᮁ 1992. ࠕ᮲௳࡜᫬ࡢ㐃⥆ᛶ̿᫬⣔ิ࡜⫼ᬒ໬ࡢㅖ┦̿ࠖࠊ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ(⦅)ࠗ᮲௳⾲⌧࠘ࠊࡃࢁࡋ
࠾ฟ∧

ᘬ⏝సရ
ᮧୖ᫓ᶞ 2004. ࠗࣀ࢙ࣝ࢘࢖ࡢ᳃㸦ୖ㸧㸦ୗ㸧࠘ㅮㄯ♫
Murakami, Haruki. 2005. Norwegian Wood. Jakarta: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia.

−16−第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀ⾲ࡍࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ୖཎ ⏤⨾Ꮚ⚄⏣እㄒ኱Ꮫ
uehara@kanda.kuis.ac.jp

㸺Abstract㸼
A certain kind of shiteiru of future perfect as well as a kind of shiteiru of
future progressive expresses consideration for the hearer. However these twokinds of shiteiru have also different points. An important difference is thatthe former can be replaced by suru and the latter cannot. In the case where
the shiteiru of the future perfect is replaced by suru, the sentence does not
express consideration for the hearer. In this kind of sentence, the choice
between shiteiru and suru depends on the speaker, and the choice reflects
the speaker's consideration for the hearer.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠊࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࠊࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࠊ㓄៖㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟  ྠ୍ࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺᙧᘧࡀࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡢᩥ࡜ࢫࣝࡢᩥࡀࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡶⓎヰࡉࢀᚓࡿሙ
ྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㸦㸯㸧㸦㸰㸧࠾ࡼࡧ㸦㸱㸧㸦㸲㸧ࡢ఍ヰ౛㸰⤌ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ
㸦⫋ሙ࡛ࠊྠ൉㸿࡜㹀ࡀ୍⥴࡟఍㆟࡟ฟᖍࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟࢜ࣇ࢕ࢫࢆฟࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ㸿࡟㟁ヰࡀ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࡛㸧㸦㸯㸧㸿㸸࠶ࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋࡕࡻࡗ࡜㟁ヰࡀ࣭࣭࣭ࠋ  㹀㸸࡛ࡣࠊඛ࡟⾜ࡗ࡚ࡲࡍࠋ  㸦ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ㸧㸦㸰㸧 㸿㸸࠶ࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋࡕࡻࡗ࡜㟁ヰࡀ࣭࣭࣭ࠋ
㹀㸸࡛ࡣࠊඛ࡟⾜ࡁࡲࡍࠋ     㸦ࢫࣝ㸧  㸦ඛ࡟㣗஦఍ࡢ఍ሙ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡓ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡢ୍ே㹀࡟ࠊ㛤ጞ᫬㛫࡟ูࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮㸿࠿ࡽ㐜ࢀࡿ᪨ࡢ㟁ヰࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ㹀ࡀࡑࢀ࡟⟅࠼ࡿ㸧㸦㸱㸧㸿㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࡈࡵࢇࠋ㸯㸮ศ࡯࡝㐜ࢀࡑ࠺ࠋ−17−

未来パーフェクトのシテイルが表す、聞き手への配慮について  㹀㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡌࡷ࠶ࠊጞࡵ࡚ࡿࡼࠋ 㸦ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ㸧                         㸦㸲㸧 㸿㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࡈࡵࢇࠋ㸯㸮ศ࡯࡝㐜ࢀࡑ࠺ࠋ  㹀㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡌࡷ࠶ࠊጞࡵࡿࡼࠋ 㸦ࢫࣝ㸧㸦㸯㸧㹼㸦㸲㸧ࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡢᩥ㸦㸦㸯㸧ࠊ㸦㸱㸧㸧ࡣࢫࣝࡢᩥ㸦㸦㸰㸧ࠊ㸦㸲㸧㸧ࡼࡾࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࢫࣝࡢᩥࡢ᪉ࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࡀࠊࡸࡸ෭ࡓ࠸ឤࡌࡀࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ㸦㸯㸧㹼㸦㸲㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ஧
⪅ࡀ୍⥴࡟⾜ືࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟∦᪉ࡀඛ࡟⾜࠺᪨ࢆࡶ࠺୍᪉࡟࿌ࡆࡿሙྜࡢ
ゝ࠸᪉࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢫࣝ࡜ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡢ୧᪉ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡢሙྜࠊࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡢ᪉ࡀ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆྵࡴゝ࠸᪉࡜ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡ
ࢺࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ⌮⏤ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ௨ୗࠊ➨㸰⠇࡛ࡣࠊࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫほࡋࠊ➨㸱⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺ
࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠋ➨㸲⠇ࡣࠊࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸰㸬ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࢆᴫほࡍࡿࠋࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ㓄៖࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ㸦␎㸧ࢸ࢖ࣝᙧ࡟ࡣࠊ༢࡞ࡿ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡽࡎࠊ࠶ࡿᩥ⬦ࠊ≧ἣୗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ࠶ࡿ✀ࡢᚰ⌮ⓗ㓄៖ࢆྵពࡋࡓࡾࠊⓎヰ࡟൤♩ⓗ࡞⾲⌧ຠᯝࢆࡶࡓࡏ
ࡓࡾࠊฟ᮶஦ࢆᐈほⓗ࡟㏙࡭❧࡚ࡓࡾ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊヰࡋᡭࡢఱࡽ࠿ࡢẼᣢࡕࠊᚰⓗែᗘ㸦࣒࣮ࢻ㸧ࢆ཯ᫎࡍࡿሙྜࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ࠺ࠋ
ࠖ㸦㇂ཱྀ 1997: 143ࠊୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅㸧 ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡣࠊࢫࣝ࡜ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡢẚ㍑࡜ࡋ࡚㸦㸳㸧࡜㸦㸴㸧ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦㸳㸧ࡀࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࠊ㸦㸴㸧ࡀࢫࣝࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦㸳㸧a. ఱ࠿࠶ࡗࡓࡽ࿧ࢇ࡛ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛࣮࣡ࣉࣟࢆᡴࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠋ
b.
㸦㸴㸧a.
b.

ࡍࡄᖐࡗ࡚ࡁࡲࡍ࠿ࡽࠊࢸࣞࣅ࡛ࡶぢ࡚࠸࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ

?ఱ࠿࠶ࡗࡓࡽ࿧ࢇ࡛ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛࣮࣡ࣉࣟࢆᡴࡕࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠋ
?ࡍࡄᖐࡗ࡚ࡁࡲࡍ࠿ࡽࠊࢸࣞࣅ࡛ࡶぢ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ (㇂ཱྀ 1997: 144 )−18−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡣࠊ௨ୖࡢ౛ࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࢫࣝ࡜ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ㸦㸵㸧㸦㸶㸧
ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦㸵㸧 ࢫࣝ㸦㠀ࢸ࢖ࣝᙧ㸧࡛ࡣࠊ㸦␎㸧ヰࡋᡭࡀ຾ᡭ࡟⾜ືࡍࡿឤࡌ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡣᕼⷧ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ              㸦㇂ཱྀ 1997: 144ࠊୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅㸧                㸦㸶㸧 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢸ࢖ࣝᙧ࡟ࡣࠊᮍ᮶ࡢฟ᮶஦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࠶ࡿືసࢆࡋ࡞ࡀ
ࡽ┦ᡭ࡜఍࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊ࠸ࢃࡤヰࡋᡭ࡜┦ᡭ࡜ࡢࠕᚅࡕྜࢃࡏࠖⓗ࡞஢ゎࢆᬯ♧ࡍࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢸ࢖ࣝᙧࡣ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊᮍ᮶᫬࡟࠾ࡅࡿືసࡢ㐍⾜ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢືసࡢᇶ‽Ⅼࡀᩥ⬦ୖࠊ┦ᡭ࡜෌
఍ࡍࡿ᫬Ⅼ࡟タᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ㸦㇂ཱྀ 1997: 144ࠊୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅㸧      ࡲࡓࠊ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡣ᪥ᮏே࡜␃Ꮫ⏕࡜ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰ࡜ࡋ࡚㸦㸷㸧ࢆᣲࡆࠊࠕ㸦␎㸧ẕㄒヰ⪅࡞ࡽࡤࠊୗ⥺㒊ࢆࠕᚅࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠖ࡜ࢸ࢖ࣝᙧ࡛⾲ࡍ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࠖ
㸦ྠ㸸145㸧࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦㸷㸧 ࠶ࡿ᪥ᮏே㸦㹒㸧࡜␃Ꮫ⏕㸦㹑㸧ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ 㹒㸸 ࡍ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࠋࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠊᛀࢀ≀ࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚ࡁࡲࡍࠋ 㹑㸸 ࡣ࠸ࠊ࡝࠺ࡒࠋࢃࡓࡋࡣࠊࡇࡇ࡛ᚅࡕࡲࡍ࠿ࡽࠋ
㸦㇂ཱྀ 1997: 145) ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡣࠊࡇࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡢ⏝ἲࡀ㠀ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㞴ࡋ࠸⌮⏤࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ㸦␎㸧ືసࡢ㐍⾜ࡢᇶ‽Ⅼࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶ᫂ゝ໬ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ㠀ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾ㞴ࡋ࠸⏝ἲ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࠖ㸦ྠ㸸145㸧࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࠊ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧࡟ࡼࡿࠊࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡣࠊᮍ᮶᫬࡟࠾ࡅࡿືసࡢ⥅⥆ࢆ⾲ࢃࡋࠊࡑࡢືసࡢᇶ‽Ⅼࡀᩥ⬦ୖࠊ┦ᡭ࡜෌఍ࡍࡿ᫬Ⅼ࡟タᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕᚅࡕྜࢃࡏࠖⓗ࡞஢ゎࢆᬯ♧ࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢ࡛
࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ                    ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊᮍ᮶࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⥅⥆ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀࠊ┦ᡭ࡜෌఍ࡍࡿ᫬Ⅼࢆᇶ‽Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕᚅࡕྜࢃࡏࠖⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡕࠊࡑࢀࡀ┦ᡭ࡬㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿⅬࡣࠊᚋ㏙ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ㓄៖࡜ඹ㏻ࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࡇࡢᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ࡜ࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿⅬࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㸯 ୧⪅ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊḟ⠇࡛⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ

−19−

未来パーフェクトのシテイルが表す、聞き手への配慮について㸱㸬⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍࠊᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ
ᕤ⸨㸦1995㸧ࡢࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢㄝ᫂࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ᅗᘧ࡛♧ࡍࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡣ➨㸰⠇࡛ᴫほࡋࡓ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡢᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿⅬࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࠊ┦㐪Ⅼࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
ᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸦ᕤ⸨㸧 ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢつᐃ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᕤ⸨㸦1995㸧࡛ࡣ㸦㸯㸯㸧ࡢ㸱Ⅼࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦㸯㸯㸧
ձⓎヰ᫬Ⅼࠊฟ᮶஦᫬Ⅼ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ㸺タᐃ᫬Ⅼ㸼ࡀᖖ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ㸦௨ୗࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ
࡚㹑㹒㸪㹃㹒㸪㹐㹒࡜࠸࠺␎⛠ࢆ౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㸧ղタᐃ᫬Ⅼ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ฟ᮶஦᫬Ⅼࡀඛ⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡚ࠊࢸࣥࢫⓗせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㸺ඛ⾜ᛶ㸼ࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ
ճࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ༢࡞ࡿ㸺ඛ⾜ᛶ㸼࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊඛ⾜ࡋ࡚㉳ࡇࡗࡓ㐠ືࡀタᐃ᫬Ⅼ࡜ࡢࡴࡍࡧࡘࡁ
㸻㛵㐃ᛶࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࡜ࡽ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ㐠ື⮬యࡢ㸺᏶ᡂᛶ㸼࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ
ࡑࡢ㐠ືࡀᐇ⌧ࡋࡓᚋࡢ㸺ຠຊ㸼ࡶ」ྜⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗせ⣲ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࠋࠖ                      (ᕤ⸨ 1995: 99, ୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅)ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊタᐃ᫬ⅬࡀⓎヰ᫬Ⅼࡼࡾᮍ᮶࡟࠶ࡿࠕᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࠖ
ࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚㸦㸯㸰㸧ࡀࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࡑࢀࢆᅗᘧ໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚㸦㸯㸱㸧ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ  㸦㸯㸰㸧 ↛ࡋ⚾ࡣ௒ࡑࡢせồࢆᯝࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋࡶ࠺ఱࡶࡍࡿ஦ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋࡇࡢᡭ⣬ࡀ㈗᪉ࡢᡭ࡟ⴠࡕࡿ㡭࡟ࡣࠊ⚾ࡣࡶ࠺ࡇࡢୡ࡟ࡣ࠸࡞࠸࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋ࡜ࡃ࡟Ṛࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡛ࡋ
ࡻ࠺ࠋ                                  (ࡇࡇࢁ㸧                                 (ᕤ⸨ 1995 : 98)㸦㸯㸱㸧                㸦Ṛࡠ㸧 㸦ᡭ࡟࠾ࡕࡿ㸧        ‫            ە‬ |        㹑㹒       㹃㹒  㹐㹒                                 (ᕤ⸨ 1995 : 100)⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀࠊ㸦㸯㸱㸧ࡢᅗᘧ࡟࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠊᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺ࡛࠶

−20−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ࡲࡎࠊෑ㢌ࡢ㸦㸱㸧ࡢ B ࡢⓎヰࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊB ࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡣࠊA ࡀ฿╔ࡍࡿ᫬Ⅼࢆ᫂♧ࡣࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊࠕA ࡀ฿╔ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊ᪤࡟㣗஦఍ࡀጞࡲࡗࡓ࠶࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ
࡜ࡀྵពࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋ㸦㸯㸱㸧࡟࡞ࡽࡗ࡚ᅗᘧ࡛⾲ࢃࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜㸦㸯㸲㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ㸦㸱㸧㸦෌ᥖ㸧  㸿㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࡈࡵࢇࠋ㸯㸮ศ࡯࡝㐜ࢀࡑ࠺ࠋ   㹀㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡌࡷ࠶ࠊጞࡵ࡚ࡿࡼࠋ 㸦ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ㸧㸦㸯㸲㸧   (㹀ࡀጞࡵࡿ)   㸦㸿ࡀ฿╔ࡍࡿ(㠀᫂♧㸧㸧 | ‫                ە‬㹑㹒        㹃㹒

 

㹐㹒

                    㸦㸯㸲㸧ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㸿㸦⪺ࡁᡭ㸧ࡀ఍ሙ࡟฿╔ࡍࡿࡼࡾ๓࡟㹀㸦ヰࡋᡭ㸧ࡀ㣗஦఍ࢆጞࡵࡿࠖ࡜
࠸࠺ࡇ࡜㸦ඛ⾜ᛶ㸧ࢆ⾲ࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊB ࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕB ࡣ A ࡀືసࢆ⾜࠺᫬Ⅼ㸦㹐㹒㸧ࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀ࡚Ⓨヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ ࡇࢀࢆࢫࣝࡢᩥ㸦㸲㸧࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ
㸦㸲㸧ࡢゎ㔘ࡣࠊࠕB ࡀ㣗஦఍ࢆጞࡵࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ
࡜ࡔࡅࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊA ࡀືసࢆ⾜࠺᫬Ⅼࢆ⪃៖࡟࠸ࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆᅗᘧ࡛⾲ࢃࡍ࡜ࠊ༢⣧࡞ᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ㸦㸯㸳㸧࡟࡞ࡿࠋ༢⣧࡞ᮍ᮶ࡣࠊReichenbach㸦1947:290㸧
࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊタᐃ᫬Ⅼ࡜Ⓨヰ᫬Ⅼࡣྠ᫬࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦㸲㸧㸦෌ᥖ㸧㸿㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࡈࡵࢇࠋ㸯㸮ศ࡯࡝㐜ࢀࡑ࠺ࠋ  㹀㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡌࡷ࠶ࠊጞࡵࡿࡼࠋ 㸦ࢫࣝ㸧㸦㸯㸳㸧(㹀ࡀጞࡵࡿ)         ‫ە‬ 㹑㹒,㹐㹒                   㹃㹒      㸦㹑㹒࡜㹐㹒ࡣྠࡌ᫬Ⅼ㸧௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡀࠊタᐃ᫬Ⅼ㸦RT㸧ࢆⓎヰ᫬Ⅼ㸦ST㸧࡜ࡣ␗࡞
ࡿ᫬Ⅼ࡟ࡶࡘࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ஧⪅㛫ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢ⾜Ⅽࡢ᫬Ⅼࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡓⓎヰࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋෑ㢌㸦㸯㸧㹼㸦㸲㸧࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛ࠊࢫࣝ࡜ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡢ
୧᪉ࡀⓎヰࡉࢀ࠺ࡿሙྜࠊࢫࣝࡀࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡼࡾ෭ࡓࡃឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ㹀ࡀ⮬ศࡢືసࡔ
ࡅࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㸿ࡢືసࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀ࡚Ⓨヰࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃−21−

未来パーフェクトのシテイルが表す、聞き手への配慮について࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡞࠾ࠊྠࡌࢩࢸ࢖࡛ࣝ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡇࡢᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ࡜➨㸰⠇࡛ぢࡓᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡣⱝᖸࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋẚ㍑ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ
㸦㸳a㸧ࢆᅗᘧ࡛⾲ࡍ࡜㸦㸯㸴㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
㸦㸳a㸧㸦෌ᥖ㸧 ఱ࠿࠶ࡗࡓࡽ࿧ࢇ࡛ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛࣮࣡ࣉࣟࢆᡴࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠋ
(㇂ཱྀ 1997: 144 )㸦㸯㸴㸧                       㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࿧ࡪ㸧                                RT
               ‫             ە‬|               㹑㹒             |-------------|                                ET
                              (ヰࡋᡭࡀᡴࡘ㸧                                        ᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢሙྜࠊタᐃ᫬Ⅼ㸦RT㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ฟ᮶஦᫬Ⅼ㸦ET㸧ࡀ⾲ࡍ஦㇟ࡀ⥅⥆୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊฟ᮶஦᫬Ⅼ㸦ET㸧ࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ஦㇟㸦㸯㸴ࡢᅗ࡛ࡣࠕᡴࡘࠖ㸧ࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺᙧᘧࡣࢫ࡛ࣝࡣ࡞ࡃࢩࢸ࢖࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡯ࡰ⩏ົⓗ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ㇂ཱྀ
㸦1997㸧ࡀࠊࢫࣝࡢ౛ᩥࢆࠕ㸽ࠖ࡜ุ᩿ࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊ␃Ꮫ⏕ࡢⓎヰࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚ࠊẕㄒヰ⪅࡞ࡽࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿࠋ➹⪅ࡢᩥἲᛶุ᩿ࡶ㇂ཱྀ
㸦1997㸧࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ㸦㸯㸧㸦㸱㸧ࡢᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢሙྜࠊྠ୍ࡢ≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢫࣝࡶࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡶ
ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⮬↛࡟Ⓨヰࡉࢀᚓࡿࡀࠊୖ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡢᩥࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࢫࣝࡢᩥࡣࡑࢀࢆ⾲ࢃࡉ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ
࡜ࢫࣝࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡢ౑⏝ࡶᩥἲⓗ࡟ࡣṇࡋࡃࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖࡟ᛂࡌ࡚୧᪉ࢆ౑࠸
ศࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖࡟㛵ࡍࡿព㆑ࡀᩥἲᙧᘧࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰࡋᡭࡢ㑅ᢥࡢ≧ἣࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㓄៖ࢆ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆ᥈ࡿ᪉ἲ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ᮏ⠇࡛ᢅࡗࡓᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺ࡜ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ࡜ࠊ➨㸰⠇࡛ぢࡓᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ
ࡢẚ㍑ࢆ⾲㸯࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ

−22−第14回大会発表論文集第７号

⾲㸯⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠊᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ࡜ᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡢẚ㍑
  ᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ  ᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ ඹ Ⓨヰ᫬Ⅼ࡜␗࡞ࡿタᐃ᫬Ⅼ㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡢືసࡢ᫬Ⅼ㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ ㏻

 㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ 㸰

 Ⅼ
 ␗

 タᐃ᫬Ⅼ࡜ฟ᮶஦᫬Ⅼࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋ タᐃ᫬Ⅼ࡜ฟ᮶஦᫬Ⅼࡣ㔜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡞㸦ฟ᮶஦᫬Ⅼࡣタᐃ᫬Ⅼ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿ㸧 㸦タᐃ᫬Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚ฟ᮶஦ࡣ⥅⥆୰࡛
 ࠶ࡿ㸧

 ࡿ
 Ⅼ㸱

 ࢫࣝ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㸦ࡓࡔࡋࠊ  ࢫࣝ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ ࢫࣝࡢሙྜࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡀឤ ࡌࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ㸧㸲㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟 ௨ୖぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡣࠊᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ࡜
ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋ୧⪅ࡣ␗࡞ࡿⅬࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡣࢫࣝ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡣࢫࣝ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࢆࢫࣝ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡓሙྜࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡣឤࡌࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࢫ࣭ࣝࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡢ㑅ᢥࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ௵ព࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㓄៖࡟㛵ࡍࡿព㆑ࡀ཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡣᮏ᮶ࠊ஦㇟ࡢ᫬㛫ⓗᒎ㛤࡟㛵ࢃࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮࡛ࣜ࠶ࡾࠊᑐேⓗ࡞㓄៖࡜ࡣ┤᥋ࡣ㛵ಀࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡢ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚⤖ᯝⓗ࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᑐே㓄៖࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊㄒᙡࡸ⾲⌧ࡢ㑅ᢥࠊㄯヰࡢᵓᡂ࡞࡝ࠊ㓄៖ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࡀẚ㍑ⓗぢ࠼ࡸࡍ࠸⾲⌧᪉ἲ࡟ẚ࡭ࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡢࡼ࠺࡞㓄៖࡟┤᥋㛵ಀࡢ࡞࠸࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢᩥἲᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡿ⾲⌧ࡣࠊ㓄៖ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࡀぢ࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰࡋᡭࡀ↓ព㆑࡟⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㑅ᢥ⾜ືࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡲࡔ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸᪥ᮏㄒ
ࡢᑐே㓄៖ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆ᥈ࡿࡇ࡜࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ౑⏝ࡸ㑅ᢥࡀヰࡋᡭࡢ௵ព࡛࠶ࡿᵝࠎ࡞ᩥἲᙧᘧ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࢀࢆ
㑅ᢥࡍࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛௚⪅࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍ౛ࢆ཰㞟ࡋࠊࡑࡢ㑅ᢥࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟࠶ࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୎ᑀࡉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ๎ࡢ୍⯡໬ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㓄៖ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ
ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−23−

未来パーフェクトのシテイルが表す、聞き手への配慮について㸯㇂ཱྀ㸦1997)࡛ᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡢ୰࡛ࠊືస⥅⥆࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ౛ࡀ୍౛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ㸦㣗༟࡛ẕぶࡀ㸧࠾∗ࡉࢇ㐜࠸ࡡ࠼ࠋࡑࢀࡌࡷࠊࡶ࠺㣗࡭࡚࠸ࡼ࠺࠿ࠋ ࠖ 㸦㇂
ཱྀ 1997: 144)㸰 ࡇࢀࡣࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡢࡶࡘࢱࢡࢩࢫ㸦ฟ᮶஦㛫ࡢ᫬㛫ⓗ࡞┦஫㛵ಀ㸦ᕤ⸨ 1995 : 21-25㸧㸧ࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ㸱 ⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜ࡛┬␎ࡋࡓࡀࠊ
ࡶ࠺୍ࡘ␗࡞ࡿⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୧⪅࡟ඹ㉳ࡍࡿྃࡢ㐪࠸ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝࡣࠊ
ࠕඛ࡟ࠖࠕࡶ࠺ࠖ࡞࡝ࡀඹ㉳ࡋࠊᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡣࠊ
ᮇ㛫ྃ㸦౛ࠕ㸯᫬࠿ࡽ㸰ࡌࡲ࡛ࠖ㸧ࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ᕤ⸨┿⏤⨾. 1995. ࠗ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࣭ࢸࣥࢫయ⣔࡜ࢸࢡࢫࢺ㸫⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᫬㛫ࡢ⾲⌧㸫࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press.
㇂ཱྀ⚽἞. 1997. ࠕࢸ࢖ࣝᙧ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࣒࣮ࢻⓗഃ㠃ࡢ⪃ᐹࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘ࠊ92ࠊ143-152.

−24−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

Ꮡᅾ⾲⌧ࡢ㐺⏝̿̿ࠕࡸࡿࠖ࡜ࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲ̿̿኱す ⨾✑㸦ONISHI, Miho㸧ྡྂᒇ኱ᏛᏛ⾡◊✲ဨ㸦Nagoya University㸧㸺Abstract㸼
This paper investigates the novel usage of two transitive verbs u-ru "to sell" and ya-ru "to do". With theimperfective marker -teiru "-ing", these verbs are often used as intransitive verbs mainly in informal
contexts. Previous studies argue that these phenomena suggest the change in the system of Japanesegrammar. However, further observation reveals that the motivation for the new usage of u-tteiru andya-tteiru differs from each other despite the similarity of the phenomena. This suggests that the change ismotivated by specific contexts in which each verb is used. The difference can be explained based on a
dynamic usage-based model (Langacker 2000).

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸Ꮡᅾᩥࠊ⮬ືモ࡜௚ືモࠊどⅬࠊືⓗ౑⏝౫ᣐࣔࢹࣝ ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࠕ࠶ࠊ෌ᨺ㏦ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡸࠕ㩾ࡢ࢚ࢧࡀ⮬ື㈍኎ᶵ࡛኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡟ࡣࡇࡢⓎヰ᫬࡟ヰ⪅ࡢ║๓࡛≉ᐃࡢࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌ࡀᨺᫎ୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡸࠊၟရࡀ㈍኎୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍẚ㍑ⓗ᪂ࡋ࠸⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚲࡎࡋࡶ㐺᱁࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࡣࠊ௚ືモࠕࡸࡿࠖࡸࠕ኎ࡿࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⮬ືモᩥࡢᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊࡇࢀࢆㄗ⏝࡜᩿ࡎࡿ࡟ࡣฟ⌧㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡶ 2000 ᖺ௦๓༙࠿ࡽ
ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ཪᖹ 2001ࠊ⏣ᕝ 2002ࠊᑠཎ 2009 ࡞࡝㸧1ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᙜヱࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲయ⣔ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢኚ໬ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᥦ᱌ࡋࠊ
ࠕ኎ࡿࠖࠕࡸࡿࠖ௨እ࡟ࡶᗈࡀࡾࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ㝿ࡢಶูࡢ౑⏝ືᶵࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏝ἲࡀ㝈ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᰿ᣐ࡟ࠊ⌧᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡣࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡀ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲయ⣔ࡢ୰࡛⏕⏘ⓗ࡞ࢡࣛࢫ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ᪂つ⏝ἲࡢືᶵ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃ᐹᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
ࠊࠕ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࢆほᐹࡋࠊ୧⪅࡟␗࡞ࡿ౑⏝ࡢືᶵࡀ࠶
ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡢ౛ᩥࡢᐜㄆᗘุ᩿ࡣ◊✲఍࡞࡝ࡢሙ࡛࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝ࠾ࡼࡧゝㄒ㈨※࡛ࡢ⏝౛ᩘ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ➹⪅ಶேࡢෆ┬࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
2.1. ࠕ஦ែᛶྡモ㸩ࡀ㸩ࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
Ꮡᅾᩥ࡟ࡣ║๓ࡢฟ᮶஦ࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦ࠕᏑ⌧ᩥࠖ㸦すᒣ 2003㸧
㸧
ࠋ(1)ࡣ║๓ࡢ≀ࡢᏑᅾ
ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㐺᱁࡞Ꮡᅾᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(2a)ࡣⓎヰ᫬Ⅼ࡟ᙜヱࡢ␒⤌㸦
ࠕ෌ᨺ㏦ࠖ
㸧ࡀᨺᫎ୰
࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡣゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᏑᅾᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ(2b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ෌ᨺ㏦ࠖࡢணᐃࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ

−25−

存在表現の適用――「やる」と「売る」の自動詞用法――ព࿡࡛ゎ㔘ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(1)࡜ᖹ⾜ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࡣᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ᪥ᖖ఍ヰ࡛ࡣ(2a)ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞Ꮡᅾᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ(2c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕࡸࡿࠖࡢࢸ࢖ࣝᙧࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(1)(2)

㸦෭ⶶᗜࢆ㛤ࡅ࡚㸧࠶ࠊ෭ⶶᗜ࡟ࣅ࣮ࣝࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
a. 㸦ࢸࣞࣅࢆࡘࡅ࡚㸧*࠶ࠊ෌ᨺ㏦ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
b. ௒ኪ෌ᨺ㏦ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
c. 㸦ࢸࣞࣅࢆࡘࡅ࡚㸧࠶ࠊ෌ᨺ㏦ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ᮍ᏶஢஦ែ㸦"imperfectives", Langacker 2008: 147㸧ࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞║๓ࡢ≀ࡢᥥ෗ࡢሙྜࠊࡇࡢᮍ᏶஢஦ែࡢࡉࡽ࡟┤♧ⓗᒁ㠃ࡢࡳࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᮍ᏶஢஦ែ࡛࠶ࡿ
ࡓࡵࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࡢᙧࡀ౑⏝࡛ࡁࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(2)ࡢࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࡣࠊ⌧ᅾᙧ࡛ணᐃࡀ⾲ࡏࡿࡓࡵࠊ᏶஢஦ែ
㸦"perfective", Langacker 2008: 147㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚║๓ࡢᥥ෗ࢆࡋࡓ࠸ሙྜࠊࡶࡋࠕ࠶
ࡿࠖ࡟ࢸ࢖ࣝᙧࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠕ࠶ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾲⌧࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ
࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢᙧࡀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ௦᭰࡜࡞ࡿ⾲⌧ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ(2c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕࡸࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡣࠊᏑᅾືモࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࡢ౑⏝⠊ᅖࡢḞⴠࢆ⿵᏶ࡍࡿᙧ࡛⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ(3)ࠊ(4)ࠊ(5)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ║๓ᥥ෗࡛ࡣ࡞࠸⏝ἲࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ㹼ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ౛ࡣࠊ║๓ᥥ෗ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡇࡢࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ࿘
㎶ⓗ࡞౛࡬࡜ᣑᙇࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ௨ୗ࡟ࠕ㹼ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸
஦ែࢆ 3 ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸦ᨺᫎ㢮ࠊබ㛤㢮ࠊႠᴗ㢮㸧࡟ศࡅ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ(3)ࠊ(4)ࠊ(5)࡟ࡑࡢ౛ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ(3)ᨺᫎ㢮
a. ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࠊ௒ࠊගࢸࣞࣅ࡛ࠕࢳࣕࣥࢢ࣒ࠖࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦║๓ᥥ෗㸧
b. ࡇࡇᩘᖺࢸࣞࣅ࡛ዪᏊࣇ࢕ࢠࣗ࢔ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡔ࠸ࡓ࠸ぢ࡚͐㸦⩦័໬㸧c. ᮶㐌ࡣ࢞ࣥࢲ࣒ࡢ⥲㞟⦅ࡀࡸࡿࡳࡓ࠸࡛ࡍࡋ࡜࡚ࡶᴦࡋࡳ࡛ࡍࡡࠋ
㸦ணᐃ㸧
(4)
බ㛤㢮
a. 㣗ᩱရ኎ሙࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡓࡽࠊ໭ᾏ㐨≀⏘ᒎࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋ㸦║๓㸧b. ᅜ❧⨾⾡㤋࡛࣮ࠗࣝࣈࣝ⨾⾡㤋ᒎ࠘ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡋ͐㸦ᮇ㛫୰㸧
c. 7 ᭶ 2 ᪥࠿ࡽୖ㔝ᅜ❧⛉Ꮫ༤≀㤋࡛ᜍ❳ᒎࡀࡸࡿࡽࡋ࠸ࠋ㸦ணᐃ㸧(3)࡛ࡣࠊࢸࣞࣅࡸᫎ⏬ࡢ␒⤌ࡢ✀㢮ࡸࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡀࠊ(4)࡛ࡣࠊᒎぴ఍ࡸㅮ₇ࠊබ₇࡞࡝ࡀࠊ࢞᱁ྡモ࡜ࡋ࡚⏕ࡌࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ Web ୖࡢᐇ౛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ20 ྡࡢ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿᐜㄆᗘุᐃ࡛
ࡣࠊྛ(a)ࡀ᭱ࡶᐜㄆࡉࢀࠊ(b)ࠊ(c)ࡢ㡰࡛పࡃ࡞ࡿࠋྛ(a)ࡣ║๓ࡢᥥ෗ࠊ(b)ࡣࠊ(3b)࡛ࡣ⩦័໬ࡋࡓࢣ࣮ࢫࠊ(4b)ࡣⓎヰ᫬࡜ྠ᫬࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ║๓ࡢᥥ෗࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ(4c)ࡣࠕࡸࡿ࡛ࠖணᐃࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊุᐃ࡟ᙜࡓࡗࡓẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ᪉ࡀ⮬↛࡞ࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ௨ୗ
ࡢ(5)ࡢႠᴗ㢮࡛ࡣࠊᘓ≀ࡸ᪋タࢆ⾲ࡍྡモࡀ࢞᱁ྡモ࡜ࡋ࡚⏕ࡌࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀ✵㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚Ꮡᅾࡍ
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ㐠Ⴀࠖ࡜࠸࠺஦ែࡢᏑᅾࢆ⾲ࡍព࿡࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢႠᴗ㢮࡟࠾ࡅࡿᘓ≀ࡸ᪋タࡀࠊ
ࠕࡸࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ฟ᮶஦ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍ୺య࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡶᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡣุࡌࡀࡓ
࠸ࡓࡵࠊ(3)ࡸ(4)࡜ࡣ୍⥺ࢆ⏬ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࡣ(5a)ࠊ(5b)ࠊ(5c)࡜ࡶ࡟ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡀ㧗ࡃࠊࡲࡓࠊࠕ㹼ࡀࡸࡿࠖࡢ౛ࡣほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

−26−

第14回大会発表論文集

(5)

第７号

Ⴀᴗ㢮
a. ㏵୰ࠊ㔮ලᒇࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛᝟ሗ཰㞟ࡀ࡚ࡽᐤࡗ࡚ࡳࡓࠋ㸦║๓㸧b. ᖹ᪥࡞ࡽࡤᮅ᪩ࡃ࠿ࡽ࢝ࣇ࢙ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ㸦⩦័㸧c. ᫂᪥࠿ࡽ࠾┅ᮇ㛫࡟ධࡿⅭ⑓㝔ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡀࢃ࠿ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ
㸦ᮍ᮶ࡢ≧ែ㸧௨ୖࡢほᐹ࠿ࡽࡣࠊ
ࠕ㹼ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡀព࿡ⓗ࡟ୖ㏙ࡢ 3 ✀㢮࡟୺࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࠕࡸࡿࠖࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⏝ἲ㸦ࠕᐟ㢟ࢆࡸࡿࠖ࡞࡝㸧࡟㐺⏝࡛ࡁࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࢃࡏ࡚
ᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿ2ࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡸࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡀࠊᏑᅾືモࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࡢ౑⏝⠊ᅖࡢḞⴠࢆ⿵᏶ࡍࡿᙧ࡛⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ㹼ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣࠊ≉࡟ᨺᫎ㢮ࠊබ㛤㢮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕ║๓ࠖ࠿ࡽࠕ⩦័ࠖࡢព࿡࡬ࠊ
ࠕࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠿ࡽࠕࡸࡿࠖࡢ⏝ἲ࡬࡜࠸࠺ᣑᙇࡢ᪉ྥᛶࢆᣢࡘࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ࢝ࢸ
ࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ ࠕ࡛㸭࡟㸩ࡀ㸩኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
(6)ࠊ(7)࡛ࡣࠊၟရࡀ࢞᱁ྡモ࡜ࡋ࡚⏕ࡌࠊࠕ[ၟရ]ࡀ㸩኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘࠋࡇࡢᵓ
㐀࡟ࡣࠊ(8)ࠕ[ሙᡤ]࡟ࠖࡀ⏕ࡌࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿ㸦ཪᖹ 2001㸧
ࠋ
(6)
(7)
(8)

࢚ࢧࡀ⮬ື㈍኎ᶵ࡛኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⸆ᒁ⾜ࡗࡓࡽࢱ࢖࣮࢞ࣂ࣮࣒ࢯࣇࢺࡗ࡚ࡢࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛㈙ࡗ࡚ࡳࡓࠋ
῰㇂ࣟࣇࢺ࡟ᦠᖏ⏝ワࡵ᭰࠼ࣁ࣑࢞࢟ࢥ࠸ࢀࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
㸦ཪᖹ 2001: 98㸧ព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿၟရࡢᏑᅾࡢఏ㐩ࡀ┠ⓗ࡜ࡉࢀࠊྵពࡢ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡣࠊࡑ
ࡢၟရࡢධᡭྍ⬟ᛶࢆఏ㐩࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࡸྵពࡣࠊᡤ᭷ࡢ⛣ື࡜࠸࠺ฟ᮶஦ⓗ࡞஦㇟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᏑᅾ࡜࠸࠺≧ែᛶࡢ஦㇟࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛
ࡣࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡢ኎㈙࡜࠸࠺஦㇟࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࠊ
ࠕᏑᅾࠖ࡜࠸࠺஦㇟ࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡋࡓᩥᵓ㐀࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࠕ⮬ື㈍኎ᶵࠖࡸࣞࢪಀ࡞࡝ࠊ኎ࡾᡭ࠿ࡽ┤᥋ၟရࢆ㉎ධࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᑡ࡞࠸᫖௒ࡢᑠ኎ࡾ㈍኎ࡢ௙⤌ࡳࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡿ࡜ࠊゝㄒୖࡢࠕ኎ࡾᡭࠖࡢᕼⷧ໬࡟ࡣࠊᐇ♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ኎ࡾᡭࠖࡢ
Ꮡᅾࡢᕼⷧ໬ࡢᙳ㡪ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊၟရ᝟ሗࡀ౯್ࢆᣢࡕࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ၟရࡀ㈍኎
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓ࡝ࡇ࡛ධᡭ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸ࡗࡓ᝟ሗࢆ↔Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ఏ㐩࡛ࡁࡿᩥᵓ㐀ࡀᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ♫఍ⓗ࡞⫼ᬒࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ(7)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢱ࢖࣮࢞ࣂ࣮࣒ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㌾⭯ࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞ጜጒရ࡜
ࡋ࡚ࠕࢱ࢖࣮࢞ࣂ࣮࣒ࢯࣇࢺࠖࡀὶ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᝟ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢၟရࡀ
┠᪂ࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠕ
㸦ࢱ࢖࣮࢞ࣂ࣮࣒ࢯࣇࢺ㸧ࡗ࡚ࡢࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᘬ⏝⾲⌧࠿ࡽࡶศ࠿ࡿࠋ
࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡢ஦㇟ᵓ㐀ࡢኚ໬ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓᩥࡢᵓ㐀ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡢ
ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡲࡎࠊ
ࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡣࠕX ࡀ Y ࢆ㸦Z ࡟㸧኎ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞┠ⓗㄒࢆకࡗࡓ⏝ἲ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࠋX ࡣ኎ࡾᡭ㸦࢞㸧ࠊY ࡣၟရ㸦ࣤ㸧ࠊZ ࡣ㈙࠸ᡭ㸦ࢽ㸧ࡢᙺ๭ࢆ௜୚ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊ║๓࡛ၟရࡀ኎ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊ
ࠕ࠾ࡌࡉࢇࡀ㐨࡛㔝⳯ࢆ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣཷࡅ㌟
࡛ࠕ㐨࡛㔝⳯ࡀ኎ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀつ⠊ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ᫬ࠊ௚ືモࡢ࢞᱁ࢆྲྀࡿ࠸
ࢃࡺࡿ୺ㄒࡣࠊືస୺ࡢᙺ๭ࢆᣢࡘ୺య࡛ࠊၟရࡣ኎㈙⾜Ⅽࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡿᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕ㹼ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓ㐀ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ(9)࡟ཪᖹ㸦2001㸧࠿ࡽࠊᙧᘧⓗ≉ᚩ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿᣦ᦬ࢆᣠ࠸ࡔࡋࡓࠋ

−27−

存在表現の適用――「やる」と「売る」の自動詞用法――

(9)
a.
b.
c.
d.

e.
f.
g.

ࠕ㹼ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢᙧᘧⓗ≉ᚩ㸦ཪᖹ 2001㸧ၟရࡀ௚ືモࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡢ࢞᱁࡟⌧ࢀࡿࠋ
㸦pp. 93-4㸧
ၟရࡀ࢞᱁࡛ฟࡿሙྜࠊ
ࠕ኎ࡿ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠕ኎ࡽࢀࡿࠖ࡜ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦p. 93㸧ᚲࡎࠕ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢸ࢖ࣝᙧ࡛⌧ࢀࡿࠋࠕ≧ែ໬ࠖࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦p. 98㸧ࠕ᪂₲ࡢ᯽㣰ࡗ࡚ࡢࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛…ࠖ
㸦p. 97㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕࡗ࡚ࡢࠖࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᘬ⏝ᙧᘧ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊᑐヰࡢሙྜࡇࡢྡモࡀᣦࡍෆᐜࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹ᭷ࡉࢀ
࡚࠸࡞࠸▱㆑࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊఏ㐩ෆᐜࡣࠊၟရࡢᏑᅾࢆ▱ࡾ㈙࠾࠺࡜ᛮࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡢሗ࿌
࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ኎ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᝟ሗࡢᥦ౪࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦pp. 97-8㸧
⾜Ⅽࡢ[ሙᡤ]ࢆ⾲ࡍࢹ᱁ࡢ௚࡟ࠊᏑᅾࡢ[ሙᡤ]ࢆ⾲ࡍ᱁ຓモࠕ࡟ࠖࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ
㸦ࠕ῰㇂ࣟࣇࢺ࡟ᦠᖏ⏝ワࡵ᭰࠼ࣁ࣑࢞࢟ࢥ࠸ࢀࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠖ㸧ࠋ
㸦p. 98㸧ࢸࣥࢫࡣࠕ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸭ࡓࠖ࡝ࡕࡽࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸦p. 98㸧኎ࡾᡭࠊ㈙࠸ᡭࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
㸦pp. 98-9㸧ࡲࡓࠊព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ(10)ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚ࡿࠋ
(10)h.

ࠕ㹼ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩ㸦ཪᖹ 2001㸧ၟရࡢᡤ᭷ᶒ⛣ື࡜࠸࠺ྵពࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ
㸦p. 100㸧≉࡟(h)ࡢព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊཪᖹࡣࠊᡤ᭷ࡢ⛣ືඛࡀྵពࡉࢀࡿࠕ㈙࠺ࠖࡸࠊၟရࡢ⛣ືࡀྵពࡉࢀࡿࠕ኎ࢀࡿࠖࡀࠊࡲࡓ኎ࡾᡭࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀྵពࡉࢀࡿࠕ኎ࡽࢀࡿࠖࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕ኎ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺௚ືモ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ⮬ືモ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡣ↓ᑐ௚ືモ
࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࠊᑐ࡟࡞ࡿ⮬ືモࢆࠕ㹼ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡛ࠖ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏ࡣࠊཪᖹࡀࠕၟရࡢᡤ᭷ᶒ⛣ືࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞஦㇟ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪂ࡓ࡞஦㇟ࡢᵓ㐀࡟ᑐࡍࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ
ࠕ㹼ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
࡜࠸࠺᪂ወ࡞⾲⌧ࡢⓎ⏕࡟኱ࡁࡃ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
ࠊࠕ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡢືᶵ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚♧ࡋࡓࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ≉࡟ࠕ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢᩥࡢᵓ㐀ࢆࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡢព࿡ࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠊ஦㇟ᵓ㐀࡞࡝ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ ࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡢ≉ᚩ̿஦㇟ᵓ㐀ࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠊどⅬඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡣࠊ↓ᑐ௚ືモࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡀࠊᑐᛂࡍࡿ⮬ືモⓗ࡞஦ែࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ㸦ཪᖹ 2001㸧࡜࠸࠺ㄝ᫂ࡸࠊ௚ືモࡀࢸ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡼࡿ≧ែ໬ࠊ୺ㄒࡢ๐㝖ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧᑐ㇟ࡢ୺ㄒ఩⨨⏕㉳࡜࠸࠺୍㐃ࡢ᧯సࢆཷࡅࡓ㸦⏣ᕝ 2002㸸
ࠕᨃఝ⮬ືモࠖ㸧࡜࠸࠺ㄝ᫂ࡀࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
ᮏ✏ࡢ௬ㄝࡣࠊ
ࠕ኎ࡿࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᏑᅾࡢ஦㇟ᵓ㐀ࡢ㐺⏝࡟ࡼࡿ኎㈙ࡢ஦㇟ᵓ㐀ࡢ⫼ᬒ໬ࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࠊືモࠕ኎ࡿࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㝿❧ࡘཧ୚⪅ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠑၟရࠒ
࡜࠸࠺ẚ㍑ⓗලయⓗ࡞ཧ୚⪅ᙺ๭ࡀࠊᏑᅾ⾲⌧ࡢࠑᏑᅾ≀ࠒࡢᙺ๭ࢆᣢࡘྡモࢆ⢭⦓໬ࡍࡿ3ࠋ୍
᪉ࠊ
ࠑ኎ࡾᡭࠒ
ࠊ
ࠑ㈙࠸ᡭࠒ࡜࠸ࡗࡓཧ୚⪅ࡣ⫼ᬒ໬ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ⪃࠼ࢆࠊ(9)࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡓᙧᘧⓗ≉ᚩࢆᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡟ࠊ㡰࡟᳨ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
 J ࠑ኎ࡾᡭࠒ
ࠊ
ࠑ㈙࠸ᡭࠒࡢ㠀᫂♧஦㇟ᵓ㐀ࡢ≉ᚩࡀ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝㄒᵓ㐀࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࠑ㈙࠸ᡭࠒࡣࠑᏑᅾ≀ࠒ㸦ࡘࡲࡾࠑၟရࠒ
㸧

−28−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࢆほᐹࡍࡿᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠺ࡀࠊࠑほᐹ⪅ࠒࡣླྀ㏙ࡢᑐ㇟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃླྀ㏙ࡢ୺య࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟ࡣ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢླྀ㏙ࡢ୺యࡢ♧၀ⓗ࡞Ꮡᅾࡣㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ୺య໬࡛ࠖㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ⣬ᩘࡢ㒔ྜࡶ࠶ࡾヲ⣽ࢆ♧ࡏ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡇࢀ௨㝆ࠕ
ࠑ㈙࠸ᡭࠒ㸭ࠑほᐹ⪅ࠒࡢどⅬࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢᬯ♧ⓗ࡞Ꮡᅾࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
 F ࢸ࢖ࣝᙧ࡟ࡼࡿ≧ែ໬㸭 D ࢞᱁ྡモࡀࠑ኎ࡾᡭࠒ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠑၟရࠒ
ࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡢព࿡ᵓ㐀࡜࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺᙧᘧࠕ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡿࠋࡇࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡣ(a)ࡢ
ືస୺ࡢពᚿᛶࡶ㛵ࢃࡿࡓࡵࠊ࢞᱁ྡモࡢၥ㢟ࡶࡇࡇ࡛ㄽࡌࡿࠋ
⥅⥆≧ែࡢⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊࠕ[ၟရ]ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣࠊ㔠Ỉ㸦2000㸧㸦ࡀࠕᙅ㐠ືືモࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࠕỈ㐨ࡀṆࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
㸦p. 24-5㸧࡟㏆࠸ࠋࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊពᚿᛶࡀపࡃࠊ⥅⥆ࡢࠑ㐍⾜ࠒ࡜ࠑ⤖ᯝࠒࡢ஧⩏ࡢ㛫࡛᭕᫕࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠑ኎ࡾᡭࠒࡀ⫼ᬒ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠑၟရࠒࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋពᚿⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽࡢ㐍⾜ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠕ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ᭱୰ࡔࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕၟရ౪⤥୰ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⫼ᬒⓗ࡞౪⤥⾜Ⅽ⪅࡟ࡼࡿᙅ㐠ືࡢ⥅⥆࡜ࡋ࡚࠿ࢁ࠺ࡌ
࡚ࠑ㐍⾜ࠒ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ືస୺ࡢ⫼ᬒ໬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ኎ࡿࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ
ࠑၟရࠒࡀ࢞᱁ࡢ఩⨨࡟⏕ࡌࠊ⮬ືモⓗ࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆసࡿࠋᑐᛂࡍࡿព࿡ࡣᐈయኚ໬ⓗ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࠊ࢞᱁࡟ᐈయࡀ⌧ࢀࠊᐈయࡢኚ໬ࡢ⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕ[ᐈయ]ࡀࡋ࡚࠶ࡿࠖࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ࢸ࢔ࣝᙧࡀつ⠊ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕ[ၟရ]ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠶ࡿࠖࡣࠊ୍㒊᪉ゝࢆ㝖ࡁ౑ࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕࢩ࣮ࣝࡀᙇࡗ࡚࠶ࡿࠖ
ࠊࠕὀព᭩ࡁࡀ᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡿࠖ࡞࡝࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾜Ⅽࡢ⤖ᯝࡢᏑ⥆ࡸ⤖ᯝࡢ≧ែ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊࠕ[ၟရ]ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣࠊᙅ࠸㐍⾜≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍ࠿ࡽ࡛ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦㇟ᵓ㐀ࡢᆺࡀࠊࢸ࢔ࣝᙧࢆ᎘ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
 E ࣦ࢛࢖ࢫࡢ஺᭰㸭 G ၟရࡢ↔Ⅼ໬㸭 I ࢸࣥࢫ㸦㐣ཤࠊ㠀㐣ཤ࡜ࡶ࡟ᐜㄆ㸧ᡴࡕᾘࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁṧࡿ 1 ࡘࡣࠊࠕၟရࡀ኎ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ཷࡅ㌟࡟ࡼࡿ⾲⌧ᡭẁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཷࡅ㌟࡬ࡢࣦ࢛࢖ࢫࡢ஺᭰ࡣᙉ࠸௚ືᛶ࡟ᑐᛂࡋࠊཪᖹࡢᣦ᦬࡝࠾ࡾືస୺ࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆྵពࡍࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀ࡟ຍ࠼ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࠕ኎ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢሙྜࠊどⅬࡀၟရഃ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡀၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ⩻ࡗ࡚ࠕ[ၟရ]ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊどⅬࡣࠊၟရࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿླྀ㏙ࡢ୺యࡢ᪉࡟࠶ࡿࠋࠕ
ࠑ㈙࠸ᡭࠒ㸭ࠑほᐹ⪅ࠒࡢどⅬ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢどⅬࡣ₯ᅾⓗ࡞ࠑ㈙࠸ᡭࠒ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ඹ᭷࡛ࡁࡿどᗙ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ₯ᅾⓗᾘ㈝⪅㛫ࡢၟရ᝟ሗఏ㐩࡟ࡣዲ㒔ྜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(9d)ࢆゎỴࡍࡿࠋ(9f)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊၟရ㈍኎ᮇ㛫࡜࠸࠺ᐈయⓗ஦ែ࡟క࠺᫬㛫࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊၟရⓎぢ᫬࡜࠸࠺୺యഃࡢどⅬ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࢸࣥࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㆟ㄽྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞どⅬᵓ㐀ࡀࠊࠕ㹼ࡀ኎ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡢศᕸ㡿ᇦ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊࠕ㹼ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡀ㣗࠸㎸ࡴ⌮⏤࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
௨ୖࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠕ኎ࡿࠖ࡟Ꮡᅾࡢ஦㇟ᵓ㐀ࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ᙧᘧⓗ࡞≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࡜ࣦ࢛࢖ࢫࡢⅬ࠿ࡽつ⠊ⓗ࡞ᙧᘧࡀ᎘ࢃࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࢆㄽࡌࡓࠋ๓⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣḟ⠇࡛ࡉࡽ࡟ヲ⣽ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ H ሙᡤྃ࡟ࢽ᱁ࡶྲྀࢀࡿ
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࠕ[ၟရ]ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᵓ㐀࡟ࠊࠕᏑᅾࠖࡢ஦㇟ᵓ㐀ࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ
ᵓᩥᩥἲ㸦Usage-based model㸦Langacker 2000㸧࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚♧ࡍࠋᅗ 1 ࡣࠊLangacker㸦2000: 34㸧
ࡢᵓᩥࢫ࣮࣐࢟ᣑᙇࡢࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡᅗ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚సᡂࡋࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏑᅾ⾲⌧࠿ࡽࠕ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
ࡢ⏝ἲ࡬ࡢᣑᙇࡢࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡᅗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−29−

存在表現の適用――「やる」と「売る」の自動詞用法――

L࡟

L࡟

NP ࡀ

L࡟

NP ࡀ

V

఩⨨ࡍࡿ

ၟရࡀ

࠶ࡿ

኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ

L࡟

ၟရࡀ

኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ

ேࡀ

L࡛

ၟရࢆ

ၟရࢆ

኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ

኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ

ᅗ 1 ࠕ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢᵓᩥᣑᙇ
ᕥࡢ෇ࡣࠊ
ࠕL ࡟ NP ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ꮡᅾ⾲⌧ࡢᵓᩥࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸦እᯟ㸧࡟ࡼࡿᵓᩥ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࠊྑ
ࡢ෇ࡣࠊࠕ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢㄒᙡⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᵓ㐀໬ࡉࢀࡿᵓᩥࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ෇ࡢ
㔜࡞ࡿ㒊ศ࡟ࡣࠊ(9e)ࡢၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠊ
ࠕL ࡟ၟရࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᣑᙇⓗ࡞ୗ఩ࣞ࣋ࣝࢫ࢟
࣮࣐ࡀ஦౛໬ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୗ఩ࣞ࣋ࣝࢫ࣮࣐࢟࡟ࡼࡿᣑᙇࡣࠊ㐣ᗘࡢ୍⯡໬ࢆྰᐃࡋࠊᣑᙇࡢືᶵࡀໟᣓⓗ࡞ᩥἲつ๎࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
௨ୖࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣཪᖹ㸦2001㸧ࡢᙧᘧⓗ≉ᚩ(9)ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୺ᙇࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡢᣑࡀࡾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃ᐹ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡣࠊືモࡢ⮬௚ࡸࠕ࠸ࡿࠖ࡜ࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࡢᑐ❧ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ(11)ࠊ(12)ࡀ⏕⏘ⓗ࡞ᩥἲ⌧㇟࡟࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡣప࠸ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㠀ᩥ࡜ࡋࡓࡀ㸦つ⠊ⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࢆᣓᘼෆ࡟♧ࡋࡓ㸧ࠊᑠཎ㸦2009㸧࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢ࠺ࡕᐇ౛ࡀぢࡘ࠿ࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
(11)
(12)

᭷ᑐ௚ືモࡀ㸩࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⮬ືモࡀ㸩࡚࠸ࡿ㸭௚ືモࡀ㸩࡚࠶ࡿ㸧*ቨ࡟⤮ࡀ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦࠿࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸭࠿ࡅ࡚࠶ࡿ㸧↓ᑐ௚ືモ㸩࡚࠸ࡿ㸦௚ືモ㸩࡚࠶ࡿ㸧*ᅗ᭩㤋࡟ᮏࡀ⨨࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⨨࠸࡚࠶ࡿ㸧ᑠཎ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ(11)ࡢᐇ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕయㄪࡀᔂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡸࠕ➎ࡀ᭤ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ⏝ἲࡀぢࡘ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ(12)ࡢ↓ᑐ௚ືモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶᐇ౛ࡀぢࡘ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶
ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⮬ືモ໬ࡢࡦࢁࡀࡾ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ⌧㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ㏣ຍࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ(11)᭷ᑐ࣭
(12)↓ᑐࡢ௚ືモࢆ㡰࡟᳨ウࡋࡓ࠸ࠋᙜヱࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡣࠊᮏᙜ࡟ᣑᙇഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢㄪᰝ࠿ࡽࠊࡲࡎࠊ⮬ືモ⏝
ἲࡢⓎ⏕࡟ࡣ೫ࡾࡀ࠶ࡾࠊྠࡌືモ࡛ࡶᚲࡎࡋࡶ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙
࡭ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ(13)ࠊ(14)࡟ࠕ*᭷ᑐ௚ືモ㸩࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢࠕᔂࡍࠖ
ࠊࠕ᭤ࡆࡿࠖࡢ౛ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋୖࡢ(11)࡟ᙜࡓࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ➹⪅⮬㌟ࡣࠊ౑⏝౛ࡀぢࡘ࠿ࡗࡓྛ(a)ࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊึࡵ࡚⪺ࡃ⾲

−30−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号⌧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
(13)ᔂࡍ
a. యㄪ㸭ࣂࣛࣥࢫࡀᔂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦ᑠཎࡢᣦ᦬㏻ࡾࠊᑡᩘ࡞ࡀࡽ౑⏝౛࠶ࡾ㸧b. *ᓴ㸭ቨࡀᔂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦౑⏝౛࡞ࡋ㸧(14) ᭤ࡆࡿ
a. ➎ࡀ᭤ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦ࠕ➎ࠖࡣ㔮ࡾ➎ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ㨶ࡀ➎࡟࠿࠿ࡗ࡚኱ࡁ࡞ᘬࡁࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁࡢ⾲⌧㸧
b. *ᛶ᱁㸭⫼୰㸭㐨ࡀ᭤ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦౑⏝౛࡞ࡋ㸧௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡣᆒ㉁࡟㉳ࡇࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྛ⏝ἲ࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ౑⏝ືᶵࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠕࡸࡿࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡍ࡛࡟ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ
⥆࠸࡚ࠊ(12)ࡢࠕ*↓ᑐ௚ືモ㸩࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢሙྜࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ(12)ࡣࠊ⏣ᕝ㸦2002㸧ࡀᩥἲయ⣔ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⮬ືモ໬ࡀண ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡍࡿタ⨨㢮ࡢືモ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ༳㚷ࡀᢲࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
ࠊࠕࢩ࣮ࣝࡀ㈞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ౛ࡀᑠཎ㸦2009㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚཰㞟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(15)
(16)

ࠕ㈞ࡿࠖ
㸦BCCWJ㸧a.ࠕ㹼ࡀ㈞ࡗ࡚࠶ࡿࠖ140 ౛࡟ᑐࡋࠕ㹼ࡀ㈞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣ 1 ౛4ࠕ᭩ࡃࠖ
㸦BCCWJ㸧a.ࠕ㹼ࡀ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ㸸ࠕ[᭷⏕୺య]ࡀ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ163 ౛࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࠕ[ᑐ㇟]ࡀ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣ 11 ౛b.ࠕ[᭷⏕୺య]ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ13 ౛࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࠕ[ᑐ㇟]ࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣ 137 ౛(15)ࠊ(16)ࡢྛ(a)࡛ࡣࠊつ⠊ⓗ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ௚ືモ⏝ἲࡢᩘࡀᅽಽⓗ࡟ඃໃ࡛࠶ࡿ୍᪉ࠊ(16b)ࡢ
ࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ኱ࡁࡃ㏫㌿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢほᐹ࠿ࡽࡣࠊ᭷ᑐ࣭↓ᑐ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊయ⣔ⓗ࡟⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡢ౑⏝⠊ᅖࡀᣑ኱ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
࡜ࡣ⌧᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋࠕ➎ࡀ᭤ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ≉Ṧ࡞౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ౑⏝ࡢືᶵࢆศᯒ࡛ࡁࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊタ⨨㢮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᪉ゝ࡜ࡢᣦ᦬ࡶ࠶ࡿ5ࠋ ᑐ❧ࡢ୰࿴⌧㇟ᐜㄆᗘ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿ⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜ࠕ᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡿࠖࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡀ⬺ⴠࡋࠊ(17)ࡢࡼ࠺
࡟ࠕ᭩࠸࡚ࡿࠖࡢᙧ࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ୧⪅ࡢᑐ❧ࡀ୰࿴ࡍࡿሙྜࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
(17)㸦࣊ࣝࢩࣥ࢟ࡢࢺ࣒ࣛࡢ㸧೵␃ᡤྡࡀ᭩࠸࡚ࡿ PDF ࡣᮏᙜ࡟ᙺ❧ࡕࡲࡋࡓࠋ(travel.jp)6

ࡇࢀ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊ
ࠕ࢖ࢳࢦȭ኎ࡗ࡚ࡿࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕ෌ᨺ㏦ȭࡸࡗ࡚ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟᱁ຓモࠕࡀࠖ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕࢆࠖࡀ
⬺ⴠࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑐ❧せ⣲ࡢ㠀᫂♧ࡣࠊᑐ❧ࡢ୰࿴ࢆᑟࡃྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊၟྲྀᘬࡢ஦㇟ᵓ㐀࡛ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠕ኎ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺௚ືモࡀࠊᏑᅾࡢ஦㇟ᵓ㐀࡛ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᏑᅾ⾲⌧࡟ఝࡓᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࠊᏑᅾ⾲⌧ࡢᵓᩥࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡢᣑ

−31−

存在表現の適用――「やる」と「売る」の自動詞用法――ᙇ㐺⏝ࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋ
ࠕࡸࡿࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᏑᅾືモࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸஦ែࠊ
ࡘࡲࡾ㐍⾜୰ࡢฟ᮶஦ࡢᏑᅾࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏕ࡌࡓ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࠊࡇࢀࡶᏑᅾ⾲⌧࡟‽ࡌ࡚ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ኎ࡿࠖࡸࠕࡸࡿࠖ࡟㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⮬ືモ⏝ἲ࡜࠸࠺Ἴࡀࠊ᪥ᮏ
ㄒ඲యࡢᩥἲᵓ㐀ࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞ኚ໬࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡟ᑐࡋࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ
ኚ໬ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏝ἲࡢᚲせᛶ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⾲⌧ᅛ᭷ࡢ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
⪃࠼ࢆㄽࡌࡓࠋὀ1ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ㠀ᖖ࡟୙Ᏻᐃ࡞⌧㇟ࢆᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ㄆࡵࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟ࡸุᐃ᪉ἲࡢ㞴ࡋࡉࡶ࠶ࢃࡏ࡚ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᑠཎ 2009: 103, 106; ⏣ᕝ 2002: 27; ཪᖹ 2001: 93㸧ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡶࠊศᯒᑐ
㇟ࡣᏳᐃࡋࡓ⌧㇟࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ぢ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ2ࠕࡸࡿࠖ࡜ࠕࡍࡿࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣబ⸨㸦2005㸧ཧ↷ࠋ
3⢭⦓໬࡜ࡣㄆ▱ᩥἲࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡛ࠊ࠶ࡿ」ྜⓗ࡞ᩥᵓ㐀࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊព࿡ⓗ࡟౫Ꮡⓗ࡞せ⣲D ࡜⮬ᚊⓗ࡞せ⣲ A ࡀᴫᛕⓗ࡟⤫ྜࡉࢀࡿ௙⤌ࡳ࡜ᩥἲᵓ㐀㸦A/D 㓄⨨㸧࡜ࡀᑐᛂࡍࡿㄆ▱ⓗ࡞࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡛࠶ࡿ㸦Langacker 2008: 198-205㸧ࠋ4ࠕ⡆᫆ࣛ࢖ࢱ࣮࡟ࡣࣂ࣮ࢥ࣮ࢻࡀ㈞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡀ㸦ᚋ␎㸧ࠖ5ࠕタ⨨㢮ࠖࡢࠕ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
ࠕᙇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ➹⪅⮬㌟ࡣ౑⏝ࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᐇ౛ࢆ⪥࡟ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡇ࠿ࡽண ࡉࢀࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࡢࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠕᕸࡀᩜ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
ࠕ⤮ࡀ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࡣ⪺࠿࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ௚ࠊ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠕ༳㚷ࡀᢲࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࢆつ⠊ⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀᐜㄆ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡋࡓẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀ 1 ྡ࠸ࡓࠋ6
http://4travel.jp/overseas/area/europe/finland/helsinki/travelogue/10481233/

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩㔠Ỉᩄ㸦2000㸧ࠕ᫬ࡢ⾲⌧ࠖ㔠Ỉᩄ࣭ᕤ⸨┿⏤⨾࣭἟⏣ၿᏊ ⴭࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲ 2 ᫬࣭ྰᐃ࡜ྲྀࡾ
❧࡚࠘㸪ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬pp.3-92.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. "A Dynamic Usage-Based Model." In Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer(eds.) Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA. CSLI Publications, pp.1-63.
ཪᖹᜨ⨾Ꮚ 2001.ࠕ
ࠕ࢖ࢳࢦࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࠖࠊࠗ⟃Ἴ᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲࠘6: 93-102
すᒣభྖ 2003. ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒྡモྃࡢព࿡ㄽ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽ̿ᣦ♧ⓗྡモྃ࡜㠀ᣦ♧ⓗྡモྃ࠘
ࠊᮾி㸸ࡦ
ࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ᑠཎ┿Ꮚ 2009.ࠕ⮬௚஺᭰ࡢᗈࡀࡾ㸸␲ఝ⮬ືモᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠊࠗᓥ኱ゝㄒᩥ໬࠘26: 103-125.
బ⸨⌶୕ 2005.ࠗ⮬ືモᩥ࡜௚ືモᩥࡢព࿡ㄽ࠘
ࠊᮾி㸸➟㛫᭩㝔⏣ᕝᣅᾏ 2002.ࠕᨃఝ⮬ືモࡢὴ⏕࡟ࡘ࠸࡚̿ࠕ࢖ࢳࢦࡀ኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧̿ࠖࠊࠗ⟃Ἴᛂ⏝ゝㄒᏛ◊✲࠘9: 15í18.
౛ᩥฟ඾ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩ࡁゝⴥᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠘
㸦BCCWJ㸧ࠊᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ.

−32−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

ἲ๪モ no doubt ࡢ⏝ἲ̿㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿ᒸᮏ ⰾ࿴㸦㔠ἑᫍ⛸኱Ꮫ, yokamoto@seiryo-u.ac.jp㸧

㸺Abstract㸼
A modal adverb no doubt , which expresses the speaker’s mental attitude, has been
considered from different perspectives. The main point of the consideration has putemphasis on the speaker’s subjective propositional attitude, but little attention has
been given to the aspect of speech act and intersubjectivity which no doubt has. The
purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that a modal adverb no doubt not only
expresses the speaker’s subjective attitude and it but also has the hearer-oriented
meaning (=intersubjective meaning). In addition, I would like to explain the processof (inter)subjectification of no doubt .
࠙Keywordsࠚ: ἲ๪モࠊᚰⓗែᗘࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࠊ㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶࠊ㸦㛫㸧୺ほ໬

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ヰࡋᡭࡢᚰⓗែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍἲ๪モ no doubt㸦ㄆ㆑ⓗព࿡:ࠕ᥎㔞ࠖ㸧ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᵝࠎ࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⪃ᐹࡢ୺║ࡣࡑࡢ୺ほⓗ࡞࿨㢟ែᗘ࡟⨨࠿ࢀࠊ㛫୺ほⓗ࣭ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࡣ༑ศ࡟⪃ᐹࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊἲ๪モ no doubt ࡀヰࡋᡭࡢ୺ほⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ᪂ࡓ࡟ࠊ
ヰࡋᡭࡢ୺ほⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍព࿡ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭᛮ⪃ⓗ࡞㸦㛫୺ほⓗ࡞㸧ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ
࠿࡟ࡍࡿ 1 ࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ no doubt ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୺ほ໬࡜㛫୺ほ໬ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ(1) ἲ๪モ no doubt ࡢ୺ほ໬࣭㛫୺ほ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿ௬ㄝࠓ௬ㄝࡑࡢձࠔ
ἲ๪モ no doubt ࡀ㛫୺ほⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊᩥᮎ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࠓ௬ㄝࡑࡢղࠔ
ἲ๪モ no doubt ࡣ there is no doubt that S+V~ࡸ S have no doubt that S+V~࡞࡝ࡢ⾲⌧࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡓ๪モ࡛ࠊព࿡࣭⏝ἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕ㠀୺ほⓗЍ୺ほⓗЍ㛫୺ほⓗࠖ࡜࠸࠺୺ほ໬ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2. no doubt ࡢព࿡ 2ᮏ ࢭ ࢡ ࢩ ࣙ ࣥ ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ no doubt ࡟ 㛵 ࡋ ࡚ ࠊ 2 ࡘ ࡢ ⱥ ⱥ ㎡ ᭩ 㸦 Longman Dictionary ofContemporary English ࡜ The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 㸧ࡢグ㏙ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
2. 1. ㎡᭩ࡢグ㏙(2)ࡣ OALD ࡢ➨ 8 ∧࡟᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄝ࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋ

−33−

法副詞no doubtの用法―（間）主観性の観点から―(2) used when you are saying that something is probable.
No doubt she’ll call us when she gets there.
used when you are saying that something is certainly true
He’s made some great movies. There is n o doubt about it. (௨ୗୗ⥺➹⪅)ḟ࡟ࠊ(3)ࡣ LDCE ➨ 5 ∧ࡢ no doubt ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢㄝ࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡶ(2)࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞グ㏙࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(3) used when you are saying that you think something is probably true.
No doubt you’ll have your own ideas.
She was a top student, no doubt about it. (=it is certainly true)
2. 2. ၥ㢟Ⅼ(2)࡜(3)ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢㄝ᫂ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ≀஦ࡀ☜࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ሙྜࠊno doubt about itࡢ ⏝ ἲ ࢆ ⏝ ࠸ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࡟ ࡞ ࡗ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ ࡋ ࠿ ࡋ ࠊ ၥ 㢟 ࡞ ࡢ ࡣ no doubt ࡔ ࡅ ࡛ ࡶ ࠕ ☜ ᐇ ᛶ(certainty)ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊno doubt ࡀࠕ⵹↛ᛶ (probability)ࠖࡔࡅ⾲ࡍ࡜ゝ࠸ษࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3. ඛ⾜◊✲
3. 1. Swan(20053 )Swan (2005 3 : 353)ࡣࠊἲ๪モ no doubt ࡣ‘probably’ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊ‘I suppose’ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿ
࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ 3 ࠋ(4) a. No doubt it’ll rain soon.
b. You’re tired, no doubt. I’ll make you a cup of tea.
(Swan (2005 3 : 353))(4b)࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ(5a)ࡸ(5b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࣃࣛࣇ࣮ࣞࢬ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡸࡣࡾ probably ࡔࡅ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ࠼ࡿࠋ
(5) a. You must be tired. I’ll make you a cup of tea.
b. I expect you’re tired. Let me make you a cup of tea.
3.2. Simon-Vandenbergen (2007)
Simon-Vandenbergen (2007: 12-17)ࡣࠊno doubt ࡢᩥ୰࡛ࡢ఩⨨ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ
୰࡛ࡶ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊ2 ࡘࡢ⯆࿡῝࠸ᣦ᦬ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊSimon-Vandenbergen (2007: 14)ࡣࠊ
ᩥᮎ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ no doubt ࡣࠕ⿵㊊(afterthought)ࠖࡢ㈨᱁ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(6) ‘Why was Rahmi arrested?”
Jean-Pierre shrugged. ‘Subversion, no doubt. Anyway, Raoul Clermont isrunning around town to find Ellis and somebody wants revenge.’(Simon-Vandenbergen (2007: 14))ḟ࡟ࠊSimon-Vandenbergen (2007:17)ࡣࠊࠕ☜ㄆ(confirmation)ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ no doubt ࡢࢹ−34−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣐࣮࣮࢝ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(7) ‘Well, what’s been happening in the club?’ asked Chatterton. ‘Wine, women andsong, no doubt’‘Oh, no, Cully,’ said Glastonbury. ‘It’s been very dull since you left.’㸦Simon-Vandenbergen (2007: 17)㸧Simon-Vandenbergen ࡣ(6)ࡣ afterthought ࡢ⏝ἲࠊ(7)ࡣ confirmation ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࡀࠊᩥᮎ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ no doubt ࡢᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࡍࡿヲ⣽࡞ㄝ᫂ࡣࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ 4 ࠋ➹⪅ࡢ⪃࠼࡛ࡣࠊ୧౛࡜ࡶព࿡࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕ☜ᐇᛶࠖࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ┦ᡭࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡀࡑࢀ࡟
⟅࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4.㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶ࡜ἲ๪モ no doubt
4. 1.㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶ
Traugott (2010: 33)ࡣࠊ୺ほᛶ࣭㛫୺ほᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ 5 ࠋ(8)㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
The term subjectivity refers to the way in which natural languages, in theirstructure and their normal manner of operation, provide for the locutionary agent’s
expression of himself and his own attitudes and beliefs.
…intersubjectivity in my view refers to the way in which natural languages, in theirstructure 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, mostespecially their “face” or “self-image.”(Traugott (2010: 33))⡆༢࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊࠕ୺ほᛶࠖ࡟ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࡀࠊࠕ㛫୺ほᛶࠖ࡟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢែᗘࡀ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
4. 2. 㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶ࡜ἲ๪モ no doubt ࡢព࿡୺ほᛶ࣭㛫୺ほᛶࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊἲ๪モ no doubt ࡢព࿡ࡣḟ࡟♧ࡍᅗ 1 ࡼ࠺࡟᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ୺ほⓗព࿡㛫୺ほⓗព࿡ㄆ㆑ⓗㄯヰⓗㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ព࿡㸦ࠕ⓶⫗ࠖࠊࠕ㛫᥋ⓗ࡞㠀㞴ࠖࠕ෭ࡸ࠿ࡋࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ㸧ప                㧗
Probability        Certaintyᅗ 1: 㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃἲ๪モ no doubt ࡢព࿡୺ほⓗ࡞ព࿡࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡀ⾲ࡍฟ᮶஦ࡀᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ☜࠿࡞ドᣐࡀ࠶ࡿࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚☜ಙࢆᢪ࠸࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊcertainly ࡛ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ

−35−

法副詞no doubtの用法―（間）主観性の観点から―ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡀ⾲ࡍฟ᮶஦ࡀᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ಙࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢᡭẁࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜࠊprobably ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋᅗ 1 ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢព࿡ࢆㄆ㆑ⓗ࡞ᑻᗘ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㛫୺ほⓗ࡞ព࿡࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕ⓶⫗ࠖࠊࠕ㛫᥋ⓗ࡞㠀㞴ࠖࠊࠕ෭ࡸ࠿ࡋࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋno doubt ࡀ㎡᭩ⓗ࡟⪺ࡁᡭᣦྥⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆෆᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊ୍
᫬ⓗ࡟ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
5. ᐇ౛᳨ドᮏࢭࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣࠊᅗ 1 ࡛♧ࡋࡓἲ๪モ no doubt ࡢព࿡ࢆᇶ࡟ࡋࠊᐇ౛ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ୺ほⓗ࡞ព࿡(5.1.~5.2.)࡜㛫୺ほⓗ࡞ព࿡(5.3.)ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⣬㠃ࡢ㒔ྜୖࠊ⏝౛࡟㛵ࡋ
࡚ࡣ 2 ౛ࡎࡘࡢ⤂௓࡟࡜࡝ࡵࡿࠋゎ㔘࡟ࡣᩥ⬦ࡀᚲせ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊヱᙜࡍࡿಶᡤ௨እࡶࡇࡇ࡛
ࡣ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
5. 1. ࠕ☜ᐇᛶ (certainty)ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ no doubt ḟࡢ(9)࡜(10)ࡢ౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(9) ࣐࣮࣮࣋ࣜኵே࡜࢝ࢫࢺẶࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࡛ࠊ࣐࣮࣮࣋ࣜኵேࡀḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝ࠺ࠋ
‘DonCaster – that’s the place he’s going to do his next murder,’ said Mrs Marbury.
‘And tomorrow! Fairly makes your flesh creep, doesn’t it? If I lived in Doncaster andmy name began with a D, I’d take the first train away, that I would. I’d run no risks.
What did you say, Mr Cust?’‘Nothing, Mrs Marbury -nothing.’‘It’s the races and all. No doubt he thinks he’ll get his opportunity there. Hundreds ofpolice, they say, they’re drafting in and - Why, Mr Cust, you do look bad. Hadn’t you
better have a little drop of something? Really, now, you oughtn’t to go travelling
today.’(A. Christie, The ABC Murders )(10) ୺ேබ࣏࢔ࣟࡀ⊂᩿࡛⮬ศࡢពぢࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
‘And now at last comes the turn of the tide. Events play against ABC instead of into
his hands. He is marked down-hunted- and at last arrested.
‘The case, as Hastings says, is ended!
‘True enough as far as the public is concerned. The man is in prison and will
eventually, no doubt, go to Broadmoor 6 . There will be no more murders. Exit! Finis!
R.I.P.
(A. Christie, The ABC Murders )(9)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦࣐࣮࣮࣋ࣜኵே㸧ࡣ≢ேࡀ➇㤿ሙ࡟⌧ࢀ࡚ࠊࡑࡇ࡛ẅேࢆᐇ⾜ࡍࡿᶵ఍ࢆ࠺࠿ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᙉࡃಙࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(10)࡛ࡶࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦࣏࢔ࣟ㸧ࡣࠊ≢ேࡀ∼⊹࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࢀࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࣈ࣮ࣟࢻ࣒࢔࡟㏦ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣỴࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊࡶ࠺ࡇࢀ௨ୖẅேࡀ㉳ࡇࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆᙉࡃಙࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ no doubtࡣࠕ☜ᐇᛶࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ
5. 2. ࠕ⵹↛ᛶ(probability)ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ no doubtḟࡢ(11)࡜(12)ࡢ౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

−36−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号(11) ኱Ꮫᩍᤵ࣋ࢵ࣮࢝࡜ዪᛶࣟࢩ࢜ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࠋዪᛶࡢࡑࡤ࡟ࡣࢻ࢖ࢶேࡢ⏨ࡀ࠸ࡿࠋ“Is there anything else?” Becker asked. “Anything you can tell me that might
help?”
Rocio shook her head. “That’s all. But you’ll never find her. Seville is a big city-it canbe very deceptive.”“I’ll do the best I can.” It’s a matter of national security…
“If you have no luck,” Rocio said, eyeing the bulging envelope in Becker's pocket,“please stop back. My friend will be sleeping, no doubt. Knock quietly. I’ll find us an
extra room. You’ll see a side of Spain you’ll never forget.” She pouted lusciously.
Becker forced a polite smile. “I should be going.” He apologized to the German forinterrupting his evening.
(D. Brown, Digital Fortress )(12) ࣈ ࣟ࢔ ඖ㆙ 㒊 ࡜࢔ ࣮࣒ ࢫ ࢺࣟ ࣥࢢ ་ ᖌࡀ ඖ㝣 ㌷ ኱ᑚ ࣟࣥ ࣂ ࣮ࢺ ࡢ⩦ ័ ࡟ࡘ ࠸࡚ ヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࣈࣟ࢔ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝ࠺ࠋ
Blore said: “I bet some of his adventures have had to be kept pretty dark.”
He paused and then went on: “Did you happen to bring a revolver along with you,doctor?”Armstrong stared.
“Me? Good Lord, no. Why should I?”
Blore said: “Why did Mr. Lombard?”
Armstrong said doubtfully: “I suppose- habit.”Blore snorted.
A sudden pull came on the rope. For some moments they had their hands full.
Presently, when the strain relaxed, Blore said: “There are habits and habits! Mr.
Lombard takes a revolver to out-of-the-way places, right enough, and a primus and asleeping bag and a supply of bug powder, no doubt! But habit wouldn’t make himbring the whole outfit down here! It’s only in books people carry revolvers around as
a matter of course.”
Dr. Armstrong shook his head perplexedly.
(A. Christie, And Then There Were None )(11)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦ࣟࢩ࢜㸧ࡣࠊ཭ேࡢ⏨ᛶࡀ╀ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ಙࡍࡿドᣐࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸
࡞࠸ࠋ(12)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦ࣈࣟ࢔㸧ࡣࠊࣟࣥࣂ࣮ࢺࡀ㎶㒥࡞ሙᡤ࡟ࣆࢫࢺࣝࡔࡅ࡞ࡃࠊ࠾
ࡑࡽࡃᦠᖏ⏝ࢥࣥࣟࠊᐷ⿄ࠊ㝖⹸⏝ࣃ࢘ࢲ࣮ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ᥎㔞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕
ࣈࢫࣆ࣮࣮࢝ࡣࠊࡇࢀࢆ probably ࢆ⏝࠸࡚᭩ࡁ᥮࠼ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ(When Lombard goes toout-of-the-way places, he not only takes his revolver, but he probably also takes aprimus, a sleeping bag and a supply of bug power.)ࠋ⵹↛ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ no doubt ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ☜ᐇᛶࡢ᫬࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࠶ࡿ஦᯶࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ☜ಙ࡛ࡁࡿドᣐࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
5. 3. 㛫୺ほⓗ࡞ no doubt ḟࡢ(13)࡜(14)ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

−37−

法副詞no doubtの用法―（間）主観性の観点から―(13) ㆙ᐹᐁ࢔ࣥࢹ࢕࡜ࣞࢪࣕ࢖ࢼࡣ㌴᳨࡛ᒈᒁ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࢔ࣥࢹ࢕ࡣ㥔㌴ሙ࡛㌴
ࢆṆࡵࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࣞࢪࣕ࢖ࢼ࡟ヰࡋ࠿ࡅࡿࠋ
“Well, now you’ve got your chance.” Andy parked in a visitor’s space and got out of
the car. “Because I’m going to treat you like shit if you treat me like shit. Maybe it’s
good you’re at the morgue. You can practice being nice to dead people and they won’t
care if you can’t pull it off.”“That’s a great idea!” Regina enthusiastically followed Andy along the sidewalk andinside the lobby. “Except how do you worry about someone’s feelings if they can’t feelanything anymore?”“It’s called sympathy, it’s called having compassion. Words foreign to you, no doubt.”
Andy stopped at the information desk and signed in. “Try to think about what thepoor people down here have been through and how sad their friends and loved ones
are, and for once don’t focus on yourself And if you’re obnoxious, that’s the end ofyour internship because I’m not going to put up with it, and I know the chief won’t
put up with it. She’ll throw you out on your ass in a nanosecond.”(P. Cornwell, Isle of Dogs )(14)
He was an old man now, and Doyle pointed this out. ‘Mellowed, too, no doubt,’
added Cowley. ‘They all do. Their criminal pasts become the “good old days,”
stories for the children. The violence is forgotten; the adventure and the romance ofrobbery is blown up. Fairy tales.’(BNC, CE5, 667)
(13)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦࢔ࣥࢹ࢕㸧ࡣࠕྠ᝟ࠖࡸࠕᛮ࠸ࡸࡾࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥࡀᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࣞࢪ
࢙࢖ࢼ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㥆ᰁࡳࡢ࡞࠸ゝⴥࡔ࡜ࡣᛮࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ࢔ࣥࢹ࢕ࡀពᅗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠕ⓶⫗࡛ࠖࠊࣞࢪ࢙࢖ࢼࢆࠕྠ᝟ࠖࡸࠕᛮ࠸ࡸࡾࠖ࡜࠸࠺ឤ᝟ࡀḞࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㠀㞴ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ(14)ࡢ౛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ࢻ࢖ࣝ㸧ࡢᣦ᦬࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦࢝࢘ࣞ࢖㸧ࡀ௜ࡅຍ࠼࡚Ⓨゝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ‘Mellowed, too, no doubt,’࡜࠸࠺ⓎヰࡣࠊࠕHe ࡀᖺࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺๓
ࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ୸ࡃࡶ࡞ࡗࡓࡡࠖ࡜ヰࡋᡭࡣ⮬ಙࢆᣢࡗ࡚᩿ゝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࡢ They all do ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࠿ࡽࡶࡑࢀࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟ࡣࠊࠕ㍍࠸෭
ࡸ࠿ࡋࠖࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 (13)࡜(14)ࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊno doubt ࡣᩥᮎ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡀ࠶࠼࡚ᩥᮎ࡛౑
⏝ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊࡑࡇ࡟㔜せ࡞᝟ሗࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡢ᝟ሗࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶ㔜せ࡞᝟ሗ࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀ࡟ὀពࢆྥࡅ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ែᗘࡀㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ຠᯝࢆ⏕ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࠶ࡿ஦᯶࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ༢࡟
᥎㔞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
6. ἲ๪モ no doubt ࡢ㸦㛫㸧୺ほ໬ඖࠎࠊἲ๪モ no doubt ࡑࢀ⮬యࡀࠊึࡵ࠿ࡽ୺ほⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ
࠸ࠋTraugott and Dasher (2002: 40)ࡣࠊຓືモࡢⓎ㐩ࠊㄯヰᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡗࡓ๪モࡢⓎ㐩ࡸ♫఍ⓗ┤♧モࡢⓎ㐩࡞࡝ព࿡ኚ໬ࢆ౛࡟࠶ࡆࠊ
ࠕ㠀୺ほ໬Ѝ୺ほ໬Ѝ㛫୺ほ໬ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ᪉
7ྥᛶࢆᥦၐࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋ
6.1.㸦㛫㸧୺ほ໬

−38−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Traugott (2010: 35)࡛ࡣࠊ୺ほ໬࣭㛫୺ほ໬ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ(15)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(15) a. Meanings are recruited by the speaker to encode and regulate attitudes andbeliefs.
b. Once subjectified, may be recruited to encode meanings entered on theaddressee.
(Traugott (2010: 35))
6.2. ἲ๪モ no doubt ࡢ๪モ໬ᮏࢭࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣࠊ୺ほ໬ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆᇶ࡟ࠊἲ๪モ no doubt ࡢ๪モ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼
࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ

ᙧᘧ
ព࿡

㠀୺ほⓗ
㼀㼔㼑㼞㼑㻌㼕㼟㻌㼚㼛㻌㼐㼛㼡㼎㼠㻌㻔㼠㼔㼍㼠㻕㻌㻿㻗㼂䡚㼀㼔㼑㼞㼑㻌㼕㼟㻌㼚㼛㻌㼐㼛㼡㼎㼠㻌㼍㼎㼛㼡㼠䡚㼀㼔㼑㼞㼑㻌㼕㼟㻌㼚㼛㻌㼐㼛㼡㼎㼠㻌㼍㼎㼛㼡㼠㻌㼕㼠㻚㻿㻌㼔㼍㼢㼑㻌㼚㼛㻌㼐㼛㼡㼎㼠㻌㻔㼎㼡㼠㻕㻌㼠㼔㼍㼠㻌㻿㻗㼂䡚䠿㼑㼞㼠㼍㼕㼚㼠㼥

୺ほⓗ

㛫୺ほⓗ

㼚㼛㻌㼐㼛㼡㼎㼠

㼚㼛㻌㼐㼛㼡㼎㼠

㼏㼑㼞㼠㼍㼕㼚㼠㼥㻘㻌㼜㼞㼛㼎㼍㼎㼕㼘㼕㼠㼥㼜㼞㼍㼓㼙㼍㼠㼕㼏㻌㼙㼑㼍㼚㼕㼚㼓ᅗ 2: ἲ๪モ no doubt ࡢ㸦㛫㸧୺ほ໬ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ
ᅗ 2 ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊἲ๪モ no doubt ࡣࠊThere is no doubt that S+V~ࡸ S have no doubtthat S+V~㸦ព࿡:ࠕ㹼࡜࠸࠺␲࠸ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ㸧࡞࡝ࡢᙧᘧ࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋThere is no
doubt that S +V~࡞࡝ࡢ⾲⌧࡜ no doubt ࡜ࡣព࿡ࡀ␗࡞ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᰝ
ᐃࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋThere is no doubt that S +V~࡞࡝ࡢ⾲⌧ࡀࠊ๪モ no doubt࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡑࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡞ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୺ほⓗព࿡࠿ࡽ㛫୺ほⓗព࿡ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟୺ほ໬ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣࠕ㠀୺ほⓗЍ୺ほⓗЍ㛫୺ほⓗࠖ࡜࠸࠺ὶࢀࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ 8 ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㛫୺ほ໬ࡣࠊṔྐⓗ࡟ぢ࡚ࠊ୺
ほ໬ࡼࡾ࠶࡜࡟㉳ࡇࡾࠊ୺ほ໬ࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡋ࡚⏕ࡌࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐣⛬ࢆ⤒࡚ࠊno doubt ࡢ㸦㛫㸧୺ほⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
7. ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜ṧࡉࢀࡓၥ㢟ἲ๪モ no doubt ࡢㄆ㆑ⓗព࿡ࡢ༊ู㸦ࠕ☜ᐇᛶࠖ࠿ࠕ⵹↛ᛶࠖ࠿㸧ࡣᩥ⬦࡟㢗ࡽ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㛫୺ほⓗ࡞ព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡲࡔࡲࡔ⪃ᐹࡀ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࢆᐇドࡍࡿࡔࡅࡢ౛ࡶᑡ࡞࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ௬ㄝձ࡜ղ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡇࢀ࠿ࡽඛࡶ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃవᆅࡀṧࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊno doubt ࡢ୺ほ໬ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᐇドⓗ࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᇶ࡟ศᯒࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࠊูࡢᶵ఍࡟ㄽࡌ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ* ᮏ ✏ ࡣ ࠊ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ⏝ ㄽ Ꮫ ఍ ➨ 14 ᅇ ኱ ఍ ࡛ ࡢ ཱྀ 㢌 Ⓨ ⾲ ࡟ ຍ ➹ ࣭ ಟ ṇ ࢆ ຍ ࠼ ࡓ ࡶ ࡢ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ ྖ ఍ ࢆ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡓ ࡔ ࠸ ࡓ ෆ⏣ ⪷ ஧ ඛ ⏕㸦 ዉ Ⰻ ዪ Ꮚ ኱ Ꮫ 㸧࡟ ࡣ ➹ ⪅ ࡢ 㛫 㐪 ࠸ ࢆ ࡈ ᣦ ᦬ ࠸ ࡓ ࡔ ࠸ ࡓ ࠋࡲ ࡓ ࠊ㉥ 㔝 ୍ 㑻 ඛ ⏕㸦 ி 㒔 እ ᅜ ㄒ ኱ Ꮫ 㸧ࠊ㕥 ᮌ኱ ௓ ඛ ⏕㸦 ி 㒔 ኱ Ꮫ ኱ Ꮫ 㝔 㸧࡟ ࡣ ኱ ኚ ㈗ 㔜 ࡞ ࢥ ࣓ ࣥ ࢺ ࢆ ࠸ ࡓ ࡔ ࠸ ࡓ ࠋࡇ ࡢ ሙ ࢆ ࠾ ೉ ࡾ ࡋ ࡚ ឤ ㅰ ⏦ ࡋ ୖ ࡆ ࡓ ࠸ ࠋ࡞ ࠾ࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୙ഛࠊㄗࡾࡣ඲࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
1 ࡇ ࡇ ࡛ ࡢ㸦 㛫 㸧୺ ほ ᛶ ࠊ㸦 㛫 㸧୺ ほ ໬ ࡢ ᐃ ⩏ ࡣ Traugott (2010)ࠊ⃝ ⏣㸦 ⦅ 㸧2011 ࡞ ࡝ ࡟ ᚑ ࠺ ࠋLangacker Langackerࡢ ㄆ ▱ ᩥ ἲ ࡛ ⏝ ࠸ ࡽ ࢀ ࡿ ࡑ ࡢ ᐃ ⩏ ࡜ ࡣ ␗ ࡞ ࡿ ࠋ ࡲ ࡓ ࠊ ᮏ ✏ ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ ୺ ࡞ ◊ ✲ ᑐ ㇟ ࢆ no doubt ࡟ ⤠ ࡿ ࠋ
2 ࡇ ࡇ ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ ୺ せ ࡞ 2 ࡘ ࡢ ㎡ ᭩ ࡢ ⾲ グ ࢆ ⤂ ௓ ࡋ ࡓ ࡀ ࠊ ࢖ ࣥ ࢱ ࣮ ࢿ ࢵ ࢺ ୖ ࡢ ࢧ ࢖ ࢺ TheFreeDictionary ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ 1.
Certainly 2. Probably ࡜ ⾲ グ ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ 㸦 ཧ ⪃ : http://www.thefreedictionary.com/no+doubt㸧ࠋ ࡲ ࡓ ࠊ ኱ 㒊 ศ ࡢ ⱥ
࿴ ㎡ ඾ ࡟ ࠾ ࠸ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊࠕ 1. ࡁ ࡗ ࡜ ࠊ 2. ࡓ ࡪ ࢇ ࠊ 3. 㸦 ㏫ ᥋ ࡜ ࿧ ᛂ ࡋ ࡚ 㸧 ࡞ ࡿ ࡯ ࡝ 㹼 ࡔ ࡀ ࠖ ࡢ ព ࿡ ࡀ グ ㍕ ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ−39−

法副詞no doubtの用法―（間）主観性の観点から―

Swan (2005 3 : 353)ࡣ ࠊ ≀ ஦ ࡀ ☜ ࠿ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࢆ ゝ ࠺ ሙ ྜ ࡣ ࠊ there is no doubt that S+V~ࢆ ⏝ ࠸ ࡿ ࡜ ㄝ ᫂ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ࡿࠋThere is no doubt that the world is getting warmer.
3

4 (7)࡟ 㛵 ࡋ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊ ࢿ ࢖ ࢸ ࢕ ࣈ ࢫ ࣆ ࣮ ࢝ ࣮ ࡣ ḟ ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࢥ ࣓ ࣥ ࢺ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ“They’ve been enjoying themselves at the club, haven’t they?” “Yes, they have.”
5 Traugott ࡣ ⮬ ࡽ ࡢࠕ ୺ ほ ᛶ ࠖ࡟ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊLyons (1982: 102)ࡀ ⏝ ࠸ ࡿࠕ ୺ ほ ᛶ ࠖࡢ ព ࿡ ࡜ ྠ ࡌ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࡜ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋࠕ ୺ ほ ᛶ ࠖ ࡢ ᐃ ⩏ ࡟ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊ Lyons ࠿ ࡽ ࡢ ᘬ ⏝ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ
6 ࣈ ࣟ ࣮ ࢻ ࣒ ࢔ 㸦 ⱥ ᅜ ࡢ Berkshire ࡢ ࣈ ࣟ ࣮ ࢻ ࣒ ࢔ ࡟ ࠶ ࡿ ⢭ ⚄ ࡟ 㞀 ᐖ ࡢ ࠶ ࡿ ≢ ⨥ ⪅ ཰ ᐜ ࡢ ⢭ ⚄ ⑓ 㝔 㸧
7 Traugott (2011)࡟ ࡶ ྠ ᵝ ࡢ ᣦ ᦬ ࡀ ぢ ࡽ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋ ࣔ ࢲ ࣜ ࢸ ࢕ ࡢ ୺ ほ ໬ ࡟ 㛵 ࡋ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊ Bybee (1985: 166)ࡣ ࠊ ࡇ ࢀ ࡽ ࡢ つ๎ ࢆ ࣔ ࢲ ࣜ ࢸ ࢕ ࡟ 㐺 ⏝ ࡉ ࡏ ࠊ deontic modality ࠿ ࡽ epistemic modality ࡢ ᪉ ྥ ࡬ ࡜ ᩥ ἲ ໬ ࡀ 㐍 ࢇ ࡛ ࠸ ࡿ ࡜ ㄝ ᫂ ࡋ ࡚࠸ ࡿ ࠋ Traugott (1989)ࡶ ࡲ ࡓ ࠊ ⱥ ㄒ ࡢ ሙ ྜ ࠊ ㏻ ᫬ ⓗ ࡟ ࡳ ࡚ ࡶ ࠊ epistemic modality ࡀ deontic modality ࠿ ࡽ Ⓨ ⏕ ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ⓑ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
8 There is no doubt that S+V~ࡸ I have no doubt that S+V~࡞ ࡝ ࡣ ࡑ ࢀ ࡀ 㐣 ཤ ᙧ ࡟ ࡶ ࡞ ࡿ ࡜ ࠸ ࠺ Ⅼ ࠿ ࡽ ࠊ ᏶ ඲ ࡟ ୺
ほ ⓗ ࡞ ព ࿡ ࡛ ࡣ ࡞ ࠸ ࡜ ⪃ ࠼ ࡿ (⃝ ⏣ 1993: 185-186)ࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken
and Written English . London: Longman.
Greenbaum, S. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage . London: Longman.
Hooper, Paul, J. and E. C. Traugott. 1993. Gramaticalization . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
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.
Lyons, J. 1982. “Deixis and Subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?” In Robert J. Jarvella and Wolfgang
Klein (eds.) Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics , 101-124. New
York: Wiley.
Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. A Cognitive-Pragmatic
Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
ᒸ⏣ ఙኵ. 1985. ࠗ๪モ࡜ᤄධᩥ࠘ ᮾி: ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
⃝⏣ ἞⨾. 1993. ࠗどⅬ࡜୺ほᛶ࠘ᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
. 2006. ࠗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘ ᮾி: 㛤ᣅ♫.
⃝⏣ ἞⨾ (⦅). 2011. ࠗࡦࡘࡌព࿡ㄽㅮᗙ (5) ୺ほᛶ࡜୺యᛶ࠘ᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2007. “No doubt and Related Expressions: A Functional Account.”
In Mike Hannay and Gerard J. Steen (eds.) In Structural-functional Studies in English
Grammar , 9-34. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Karin Aijmer. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty.
A Courpus-Based Study of English Adverbs . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Swan, M. 2005 3 . Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
㧗⏣ ༤⾜࣭᳝ྡ ⨾ᬛ࣭ᑠ㔝ᑎ ඾Ꮚ. 2011. ࠗṔྐㄒ⏝ㄽ࠘ ᮾி: ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Traugott, E. C. 1989. “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectificationin Semantic Change.” Language 65: 31-55.
. 2003. “From Subjectification to Intersubjectification.” In Raymond Hicky (ed.)
Motive for Language Change , 124-139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 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.
. 2011. “On the Function of Adverbs of Certainty Used at the Periphery of the Clause.”
Studies in Pragmatics , 55-74.
Traugott, E. C. and R. B. Dasher. 2002. Regulatiry in Semantic Change . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
㎡᭩

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English , 5th ed. 2009. London: Longman.
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary . 8th ed. 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/no+doubtexcept−40−第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡢព࿡ᣑᙇ ⚄⃝ඞᚨ ி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔 ே㛫࣭⎔ቃᏛ◊✲⛉rnkp43470@gmail.com<Abstract>
The prototypical meanings of Japanese verb "Moru" are "fill a container with something", "heap up", andso on. Recently, the verb has been used to represent the meanings like "make oneself cute" or "makeoneself vigorous" especially among young girls. The main purpose of this paper is to reveal why andhow these new meanings have been shown themselves in terms of The Invited Inferencing Theory of
Semantic Change model in Traugott and Dasher (2005).
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࠊព࿡ᣑᙇࠊព࿡ኚ໬ࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽࠊ౯್ุ᩿ࠊⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ୺࡟ 10 ௦ᚋ༙ࠥ20 ௦๓༙ࡢዪᛶࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࡶࡕ
࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࠊTraugott and Dasher(2005)࡞࡝ࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽ(The Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change model)ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺࡞┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ2. ◊✲ࡢᑐ㇟࡜ព⩏ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡣࠊࠕ≀ࢆᐜჾ࡟ධࢀ࡚‶ࡓࡍࠖࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖ
ࠕ⸆๣ࢆㄪྜࡋࠊࡑ
ࢀࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠖ
ࠕ࠶ࡿࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࡢ୰࡟ูࡢࡶࡢࢆ┒ࡾ㎸ࡴࠖ㸦ᑠᏛ㤋ࠗ኱㎡Ἠ࠘㸧࡞࡝ࡢព࿡ࡀ㎡᭩࡟グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᐇ㝿ࡢ⏝ἲࢆࡳ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢグ㏙࡟࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸ᣑᙇⓗ౑⏝ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ㏆ᖺࠊࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡣࠊ୺࡟ 10 ௦ᚋ༙ࠥ20 ௦๓༙ࡢዪᛶࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛ࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࣈࣟࢢ࠿ࡽࡢᘬ⏝౛ࢆࡳ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ(1a)ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡣ⮬ศࢆ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃ᧜ᙳࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛ࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀࠊ(1b)ୗ⥺㒊ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡣ௙஦࡟ᑐࡋ
࡚ࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛ࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(1) a. ࠸ࡸ࠶ࠊ᭱㏆ࣉࣜࢡࣛ 1 ┒ࢀ࡞࠸ࡼ࣮ࠋ
b. ࣐ࢶࢤࡀ┒ࢀ࡚࡞࠸࡜ࠊ௙஦ࡶ┒ࢀ࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠺௒᪥ࡇࡢ㡭ࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣ㞧ㄅࡸࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌࡞࡝ࡢ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࡛ࡶࡳࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ༢࡟㞃ㄒⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡟࡜࡝ࡲ
ࡽࡎࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢබඹᛶࡶᣢࡕྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(2a)ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡣ໬⢝ࢆ᪋ࡍࡇ࡜ࡼࡗู࡚ேࡢࡈ
ࠖࡣ࠾ࡋࡷࢀࢆࡋ࡚࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡿࠊ
࡜ࡁጼ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛ࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀ 2ࠊ(2b)ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛ࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−41−

若者ことばにおける「盛る（もる）」の意味拡張(2) a. ┒ࡾࡓ࣮࢞ࣝࠥࡍࡗࡨࢇ 3 ࡜ࡢࢠࣕࢵࣉ NO.1 Ỵᐃᡓ!!ࠥ㸦ࣇࢪࢸࣞࣅࠗ➗ࡗ࡚࠸࠸࡜ࡶ࠘
㸧b. ࠾ࡋࡷࢀࡶᏳࡉࡶࡗ!!┒ࡾ┒ࡾࢧ࣐࣮㸦㞟ⱥ♫ࠗSeventeen࠘2010 ᖺ 8 ᭶ྕ㸧 ᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊTraugott and Dasher (2005)࡞࡝ࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽࢆࡶࡕ࠸࡚ࠊࡇࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺࡞┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢព⩏ࡣࠊព࿡ኚ໬ࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢලయ஦౛ࢆ༢࡟ᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡇࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸ព࿡ࡣࠊ⮬↛Ⓨ⏕ⓗ࡞ព࿡ᣑᙇ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୍㒊ࡢࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡟≉໬ࡋࡓ㞃ㄒⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡶᣢࡕ
ྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ࠶ࡿゝㄒ౑⏝⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ពᅗᛶࢆࡶࡗ࡚๰㐀ࠊ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡭
ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢព࿡࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣ⮬↛Ⓨ⏕ⓗ࡞ព࿡ᣑᙇ࡜ࠊពᅗᛶࢆࡶࡗࡓព࿡ᣑᙇ࡜ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙
࣮ࢫࢆࡉࡄࡿ◊✲࡟Ⓨᒎࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3. ᐇ౛࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡢព࿡࡜⏝ἲ
3.1 ᐇ౛ࡢ᳨ウ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ୺࡟ 10 ௦ᚋ༙ࠥ20 ௦๓༙ࡢዪᛶࡢ㛫࡛ከࡃࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀࡿព࿡
࡜⏝ἲࢆ୰ᚰ࡟☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋᮏ⠇࡛ᢅ࠺ࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ࢙࢘ࣈ࠿ࡽ཰㞟ࡋࡓ 4ࠋ
 (3)ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡣࠊ (4)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㎡᭩グ㏙࡟࠶ࡿࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࠿ࡽࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣ኱ࡁࡃࡣእࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀ(3a)ࡣ㧥ࡢ㧗ࡉࠊ(3b)ࡣ⬚ࡢ㧗ࡉ㸦኱ࡁࡉ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢゝཬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(3) a. ᫇ࡣ㧥ࢆ┒ࡿࡢ࡟ 1ࠥ2 ᫬㛫᥃࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊ௒ࡣ 5ࠥ10 ศࠋb. ୗ╔ࡗ࡚࡝ࡇ࡛㈙ࡗ࡚ࡲࡍ࠿㸽௒ኟ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ྍឡࡃ࡚┒ࢀࡿࡢࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
(4) ᅵࢆ┒ࡗ࡚ࠊỈࡀධࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽࡸࡸᣑᙇࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚(5)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕቑ㔞ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(5a)ࡣ࢚
ࢡࢫࢸࣥࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡲࡘẟࡢ㛗ࡉࢆ㛗ࡃࡋࠊ㔞ࢆከࡃࡳࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡋࠊ(5b)ࡣ࣐ࢫ࢝
ࣛ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡲࡘẟࢆそ࠸ࠊ㔞ࢆከࡃࡳࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ≀⌮ⓗ࡟ࠊ㧗ࡉࢆ㧗ࡃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜㔞ࢆቑࡸࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡣ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢ┦㛵ᛶࡀண ࡛ࡁࡿ 5㸦ゝㄒ౑⏝⪅ࡀࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞┦㛵ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ▱㆑ࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢᣑᙇࡣ⮬↛࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(5) a. ࡲࡘ࢚ࢡ 6 ࡢ࠾࠿ࡆ࡛ࠊẖ᪥ࡲࡘẟࢆ┒ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᡭ㛫ࡀ┬ࡅࡿࠋb. ࡇࡢ࣐ࢫ࢝ࣛ࡞ࡽࠊ⮬ศࡢዲࡳ࡛ࡲࡘẟࢆ┒ࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠾ࡍࡍࡵ࡛ࡍࠋ
ḟ࡟࠶ࡆࡿ⏝౛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡜ࡣᑡࡋ␗࡞ࡿࠋ(6)ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡣ≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୍✀ࡢ౯್ุ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢゎ㔘ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡣࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛ࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(6) a. ᪂Ⓨ᝿ࡢ"㢦ࡀ┒ࢀࡿ"඲㌟᧜ᙳࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡋࡓࠊ඲ࡃ᪂ࡋ࠸ࣉࣜࣥࢺࢩ࣮ࣝᶵ࡛ࡍࠋ
㸦ࣇ࣮ࣜࣗᰴᘧ఍♫࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ㸧b. 㸦෗┿᧜ᙳࡢ㝿࡟㸧㢦ࡢᶓ࡟ᡭࢆᣢࡗ࡚᮶ࡿ࡜┒ࢀࡿࢇࡔࡼࡡࠋ
c. ⚾ࣉࣟࢹ࣮ࣗࢫࡢ࢝ࣛࢥࣥ 7ࠋྍឡࡃὴᡭ࡟┒ࡾࡓ࠸࡜ࡁࡣࣈࣛ࢘ࣥࠋ
d. ᾎ⾰ࡗ࡚┒ࢀࡿࡅ࡝ᬬ࠸ࡼࡡࠥ
e. ෗࣓ 8 ࡀ┒ࢀࡿ㸦ᦠᖏ㟁ヰࡢ㸧ᶵ✀ࡗ࡚࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿㸽−42−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

f. ࡞ࡐࣉࣜࢡࣛࡣࡇࢇ࡞࡟ࡶ┒ࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟(7)ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ⏝౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟እぢⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀࡽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡣࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(7) a. ࠶࣮ⰼ⢊⑕࡛㉸⤯ࠋ┒ࢀ࡞࠸࣮ࠋ
b. ࣐ࢶࢤࡀ┒ࢀ࡚࡞࠸࡜ࠊ௙஦ࡶ┒ࢀ࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠺௒᪥ࡇࡢ㡭ࠋ
3.2 ⪃ᐹ
 3.1 ࡛࡜ࡾ࠶ࡆࡓᐇ౛࠿ࡽࠊ௨ୗࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
(8) a.

ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࡢࡣࠊ(3)ࡢ≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬࡜ࡑࢀࡀᣑ
ᙇࡋࡓ(5)ࠊࡑࡋ࡚(6)ࡢ౯್ุ᩿ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣ(7)ࡢヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࡲ࡛ࠊᣑࡀࡾࢆࡳࡏ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋb-1. ≉࡟౯್ุ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍ(6)ࡸヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍ(7)ࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿྍ⬟ࡢຓືモࠕࢀࡿࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ
b-2. ࡇࡢ࡜ࡁࠊ࢞᱁┦ᙜ఩⨨࡟ࡣࠊࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࢖࣋ࣥࢺ࠾ࡅࡿᑐ㇟(Object)㢮(ࠕ㢦(6a)ࠖ
ࠕ௙஦(7b)ࠖ)ࠊ㐨ල(Instrument)㸭ཎᅉ(Cause)㢮㸦
ࠕᾎ⾰(6d)ࠖ
ࠕࣉࣜࢡࣛ(6f)ࠖ
㸧ࠊሙ
ᡤ(Location)࡞࡝ࡢ≧ἣ(Setting)㢮㸦
ࠕࣉࣜࢡࣛ(1a)ࠖ
ࠕ෗࣓(6e)ࠖ
㸧࡞࡝ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ
c.

(6)ࡢ౯್ุ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡢ౑⏝⎔ቃ࡟ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾ೫ࡾࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊ෗┿᧜ᙳࡢሙ㠃ࠊ࣮࢝ࣛࢥࣥࢱࢡࢺࣞࣥࢬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿሙ㠃࡞࡝ࡀ኱༙࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡛ࠊ౑⏝⠊ᅖࡢᗈ࠸ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᐜモ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟ࠕᐇ≀࡟
ࡶቑࡋ࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠿࡞ࡾ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋd.

(7)ࡢヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊ2012 ᖺ⌧ᅾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ࠿࡞ࡾ
⛥࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡛ࡶࡗ࡜ࡶᣑᙇⓗ࡞⏝ἲ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

4. ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡢព࿡ᣑᙇ࡟࠾ࡅࡿືᶵ࡙ࡅ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࡲ࡛ࢆࡶ࠶ࡽࢃࡍ
ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
4.1 ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ
4.1.1 ព࿡ኚ໬ࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽ ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ Traugott and Dasher (2005)࡞࡝ࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࡢㄏ
ᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽ(The Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change model)ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋព࿡ኚ
໬ࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊព࿡ᣑᙇ࡟௨ୗࡢ 3 ࡘࡢẁ㝵ࢆ᝿ᐃࡍࡿࠋ
(9) ព࿡ኚ໬ࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽ࡛᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿព࿡ᣑᙇࡢ 3 ẁ㝵a. ㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ (Invited Inference)ࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟ᛂࡌࡓࡑࡢሙ㝈ࡾࡢ᥎ㄽࡀ⏕ࡌࡿẁ㝵

−43−

若者ことばにおける「盛る（もる）」の意味拡張b. ୍⯡໬ࡉࢀࡓㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ (Generalized Invited Inference)(a)ࡀ௚ࡢᩥ⬦ࡸ௚ࡢヰ⪅ࡸ᭩ࡁᡭ࡟ࡶ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿẁ㝵c. ᪂ࡋࡃࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ (New Code Meaning)(b)ࡀ᪂ࡓ࡞ゝㄒࡢព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚෌ศᯒࡉࢀࡿẁ㝵
 Traugott and Dasher ࡛ࡣࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒࡢ as long as ࡟ᑐᛂࡋࠊࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜㸺✵㛫㸼࡜㸺᫬㛫㸼ࡢព࿡ࢆࡶ
ࡘྂⱥㄒࠊ୰ⱥㄒࡢ swa lange swa ࡀ㸺᮲௳㸼ࡢព࿡ࢆࡶࡘࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ౛࡜ࡋ࡚♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊ㸺᫬㛫㸼ࡢព࿡࠿ࡽ᥎ㄽⓗ࡟㸺᮲௳㸼ࡢព࿡ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࡇࡢ᥎ㄽࡣࠊ
⠇ࡀᮍ᮶᫬ࡢሙྜࡸࠊ⥲⛠ⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀࡽࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡞࡝ࠊ㝈ࡽࢀࡓሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚⏕ࡌࡿࠋึᮇ㏆௦ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ㸺᫬㛫㸼ゎ㔘ࡢඃ఩ᛶࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡀ୍⯡໬ࡉࢀࡓㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡢẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊ㸺᮲௳㸼ゎ㔘ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿሙྜࠊྠ᫬࡟㸺᫬㛫㸼ゎ㔘ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ㸺᮲௳㸼ࡀ᪂ࡋࡃࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព
࿡࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡢࡣ 19 ୡ⣖୰㡭࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊ㸺᮲௳㸼ࡀ၏୍ࡢゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿᩥ⬦ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ
4.1.2ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౯್ุ᩿࡬ࡢព࿡ᣑᙇ
 4.1.1 ࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ swa lange swa ࡀ㸺᮲௳㸼ࡢព࿡ࢆࡶࡘࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࡳࡓࡀࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡢព࿡ᣑᙇ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᩘᖺ࡜࠸࠺࠿࡞ࡾ▷࠸ᮇ㛫࡛ࡇࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࡣࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺౯್ุ
᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍព࿡࡟ᣑᙇࡍࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ➨୍ࡢẁ㝵࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕቑ㔞ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿࡬ࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ3.1 ࡛ࡳࡓ౛ᩥ(3), (5)࡟࠶ࡓࡿࠋࡇࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡣࠊ㧥ࡸࡲࡘẟࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣୗ╔࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿሙྜ࡞࡝ࠊ࠿࡞ࡾ㝈ࡽࢀࡓሙ㠃࡛⏕ࡌࡿࠋ(3) a. ᫇ࡣ㧥ࢆ┒ࡿࡢ࡟ 1ࠥ2 ᫬㛫᥃࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊ௒ࡣ 5ࠥ10 ศࠋb. ୗ╔ࡗ࡚࡝ࡇ࡛㈙ࡗ࡚ࡲࡍ࠿㸽௒ኟ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ྍឡࡃ࡚┒ࢀࡿࡢࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
(5) a. ࡲࡘ࢚ࢡࡢ࠾࠿ࡆ࡛ࠊẖ᪥ࡲࡘẟࢆ┒ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᡭ㛫ࡀ┬ࡅࡿࠋb. ࡇࡢ࣐ࢫ࢝ࣛ࡞ࡽࠊ⮬ศࡢዲࡳ࡛ࡲࡘẟࢆ┒ࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠾ࡍࡍࡵ࡛ࡍࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ୺࡟ 10 ௦ᚋ༙ࠥ20 ௦๓༙ࡢዪᛶ࡟≉໬ࡋ࡚ࡇࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡣࠊ
ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ືモ࡛࠶ࡽࢃࡉࢀࡿࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕቑ㔞ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙼዪࡽ≉᭷ࡢ≀⌮ⓗືసࡀࠊࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸࠸ࡍ
ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿࡟῝ࡃ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢືసࡀ౯್ุ᩿࡜࠶ࡲࡾ⤖ࡧࡘ࠿࡞࠸⏨ᛶࡸᖺ㓄ࡢዪᛶࡢሙྜࡣࠊ(10b,c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡇࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡣ⏕ࡌ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡣࠕ࠿ࡗࡇࡼࡃࡍࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛⏨ᛶ࠿ࡽࡣࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡋࠊ
ࠕࡁࢀ࠸࡟ࡍࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ព࿡࡛ᖺ㓄ࡢዪᛶ࠿ࡽࡶࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ
(10) a.㸦ⱝ࠸ዪᛶࡢⓎゝ㸧ࡍࡈࡃ┒ࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࠊ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
b. ? 㸦⏨ᛶࡢⓎゝ㸧ࡍࡈࡃ┒ࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࠊ࠿ࡗࡇࡼࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
c. ??㸦ᖺ㓄ࡢዪᛶࡢⓎゝ㸧ࡍࡈࡃ┒ࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࠊࡁࢀ࠸࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ ➨஧ࡢẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡿ୍⯡໬ࡉࢀࡓㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡣࠊ౛ᩥ(11)࡟࠶ࡓࡿࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊඃඛⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡾࠊ≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡋࠊ
ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍ

−44−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿゝཬࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(11) a. 100 ෇ࡔ࡜ࠊ┒ࢀࡿࡘࡅࡲࡘࡆࡶᑡ࡞࠸ࠋ
b. ࢼࢳࣗࣛࣝ࡟┒ࢀࡿࡲࡘࡆ࢚ࢡࢫࢸࡢᮏᩘࢆᩍ࠼࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
c. ࡇࡢࢳ࣮ࢡࡣ኱ேࡗࡱࡃ┒ࢀࡿࠋ ➨୕ࡢẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡿ᪂ࡋࡃࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡࡟࠶ࡓࡿࡢࡣࠊ3.1 ࡛ࡳࡓ౛ᩥ(6)࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ
ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿゎ㔘ࡀ၏୍࡛࠶ࡾࠊ≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬࡜࠸
࠺ゎ㔘ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡀࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽ
ࢀࡿࠋ(6) a. ᪂Ⓨ᝿ࡢ"㢦ࡀ┒ࢀࡿ"඲㌟᧜ᙳࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡋࡓࠊ඲ࡃ᪂ࡋ࠸ࣉࣜࣥࢺࢩ࣮ࣝᶵ࡛ࡍࠋ
㸦ࣇ࣮ࣜࣗᰴᘧ఍♫࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ㸧b. 㸦෗┿᧜ᙳࡢ㝿࡟㸧㢦ࡢᶓ࡟ᡭࢆᣢࡗ࡚᮶ࡿ࡜┒ࢀࡿࢇࡔࡼࡡࠋ
c. ⚾ࣉࣟࢹ࣮ࣗࢫࡢ࢝ࣛࢥࣥࠋྍឡࡃὴᡭ࡟┒ࡾࡓ࠸࡜ࡁࡣࣈࣛ࢘ࣥࠋ
d. ᾎ⾰ࡗ࡚┒ࢀࡿࡅ࡝ᬬ࠸ࡼࡡࠥ
e. ෗࣓ࡀ┒ࢀࡿ㸦ᦠᖏ㟁ヰࡢ㸧ᶵ✀ࡗ࡚࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿㸽f. ࡞ࡐࣉࣜࢡࣛࡣࡇࢇ࡞࡟ࡶ┒ࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ
ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡀࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ౛ᩥ(12)ࡀ㠀ᩥ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬࡜࠸࠺
ゎ㔘ࡀඃඛࡉࢀࡿ(13)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྰᐃࡢせ⣲ࢆᚋ⥆ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿゎ㔘ࡀ၏୍ࡢ(12)࡛ࡣࠊᚋ⥆ࡢせ⣲࡜ࡢ▩┪ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡓࡵࠊ
㠀ᩥ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
(12) a. *㢦ࡀ┒ࢀࡓࡅ࡝ࠊ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
b. *෗࣓ࡀ┒ࢀࡓࡅ࡝ࠊ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
c. *ᾎ⾰ࡗ࡚┒ࢀࡿࡅ࡝ࠊ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
(13) a. 㧥ࡀ┒ࢀࡓࡅ࡝ࠊ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
b. ⬚ࡀ┒ࢀࡓࡅ࡝ࠊ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
c. ࣐ࢫ࢝ࣛࡗ࡚┒ࢀࡿࡅ࡝ࠊ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
4.1.3ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែ࡬ࡢព࿡ᣑᙇ ḟ࡟ࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍព࿡࡬ᣑᙇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ➨୍ࡢẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡿㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡣࠊ3.1 ࡛ࡳࡓ(3a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࠿ࡽࡶࠊ(6f)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౯್ุ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࠿ࡽࡶ⏕ࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ๓⪅࡟࠾࠸࡚ඃඛࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠺ࡲࡃ㧥ࡀࠕ┒ࢀࡿࠖ࡜୺యࡢẼᣢࡕࡶ㧗ᥭࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺᥎ㄽࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡣ⮬↛࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊᚋ⪅࡟࠾࠸࡚ඃ
ඛࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡇ࡜࡟ᡂຌࡍࢀࡤ୺యࡢ
Ẽᣢࡕࡶ㧗ᥭࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺᥎ㄽࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡣ⮬↛࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵࡛ඃඛࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊㄏᑟࡉࢀࡓ᥎ㄽ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡶ࡜ࡢព࿡࡛ࡢゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࠋ−45−

若者ことばにおける「盛る（もる）」の意味拡張(3) a. ᫇ࡣ㧥ࢆ┒ࡿࡢ࡟ 1ࠥ2 ᫬㛫᥃࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊ௒ࡣ 5ࠥ10 ศࠋ(6) f. ࡞ࡐࣉࣜࢡࣛࡣࡇࢇ࡞࡟ࡶ┒ࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ ➨஧ࡢẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡿ୍⯡໬ࡉࢀࡓㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࡢࡣ 3.1 ࡛ࡳࡓ(7a)ࡢ౛ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⰼ⢊⑕ࡢ⑕≧࡛ᾦࡀฟࡿ࡞࡝ࡋ࡚ࠊ໬⢝࡞࡝ࡢ㝿࡟ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡋࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(7) a. ࠶࣮ⰼ⢊⑕࡛㉸⤯ࠋ┒ࢀ࡞࠸࣮ࠋ ➨୕ࡢẁ㝵࡟࠶ࡓࡿࡢࡀ 3.1 ࡛ࡳࡓ(7b)ࡢ౛ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡣࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖࡀ၏୍ࡢゎ㔘࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᪂ࡋࡃࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(7) b. ࣐ࢶࢤࡀ┒ࢀ࡚࡞࠸࡜ࠊ௙஦ࡶ┒ࢀ࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠺௒᪥ࡇࡢ㡭ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ౛ᩥ(7b)ࡀࡼࡾ⮬↛࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊࡍ࡛࡟ᐃ╔ࡋࡓ≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡟⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከศ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࡜
࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ༢⊂࡛࠶ࡽࢃࢀࡿ(14)ࡢ౛ᩥࡣࠊ(7b)࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࡸࡸᐜ
ㄆᗘࡀⴠࡕࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
(14) a. ? ᜊឡࡀ┒ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋb. ? 㐌ᮎࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜┒ࢀࡿࠋ
4.1.4 ࡲ࡜ࡵ ௨ୖࡢ㆟ㄽ࠿ࡽࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟ࡣ(15)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ᣑᙇࡢ᪉ྥᛶࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(15) ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿព࿡ᣑᙇࡢ᪉ྥᛶ
≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬㸼౯್ุ᩿㸼ヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែ ඹ᫬ⓗ࡟ࡳ࡚ࡶࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࣉࣛࢫࡢឤ᝟ࢆ
࠶ࡽࢃࡍᣑᙇ⩏ࢆࡶࡘࡇ࡜ࡣ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋLakoff and Johnson(1980a,b)࡞࡝ࡢᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ᪉ྥᛶࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮(orientational metaphors)ࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊHAPPY IS UP ࡜࠸࠺࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡀつᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊUP ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡣࠊHAPPY ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࡟෗ീࡉࢀࡿࠋゝㄒ⾲⌧࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ(16)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊup ࡸ rise ࡞࡝ UP ࡢᴫᛕ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࡣࠊHAPPY ࡜࠸࠺ឤ᝟࡟㛵ࢃࡿᴫᛕ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࡶࡕ࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(16) a. I'm feeling up today.
b. My spirits rose.

(Lakoff and Johnson 1980b: 204)ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ࡣࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ UP ࡢᴫᛕ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࡔࡗࡓࡶࡢ
ࡀࠊࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ
ࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ HAPPY ࡜࠸࠺ឤ᝟࡟㛵ࢃࡿᴫᛕ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࡕ
࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࡣࠊHAPPY IS UP ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࠿ࡽ⮬↛࡟ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−46−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

4.2. ౯್ุ᩿࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ౯್ุ᩿࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡣࠊ≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬࡜࠸࠺
ゎ㔘ࡣ࠾ࡇ࡞ࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ (17)ࡢ㞄᥋ᑐࢆࡳ࡚ࡳࡿࠋA ࡢၥ࠸࠿ࡅ࡟࠶ࡿࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ≀⌮ⓗ࡞㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢࣉࣛࢫ᪉ྥ࡬ࡢኚ໬ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊB ࡢ㏉⟅ࡣ୙⮬↛࡜࡞ࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ㏻ᖖ㛗࠸㧥ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡋࠊࠕቑ㔞ࡍࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃࢀࢃ
ࢀࡢ୍⯡ⓗ▱㆑࠿ࡽ⮬࡛᫂࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋB ࡢ㏉⟅ࡣࠊA ࡢၥ࠸࠿ࡅ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ≀⌮ⓗ࡞㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢࣉࣛࢫ᪉ྥ࡬ࡢኚ໬ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ౯್ุ᩿࡟࠾࠸࡚ࣉࣛࢫ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ᪉ྥ࡬ࡢኚ໬ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊB ࡀ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ(17) A: 㸦㧥ᆺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸧࡝ࡢ㛗ࡉࡀ࠸ࡕࡤࢇ┒ࢀࡿࡢ㸽
B: ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅ▷࠸࡯࠺ࡀ࠸࠸ࡼࠋ
 3.1 ࡢ(8c)࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ౯್ุ᩿࡟࠾࠸࡚ࣉࣛࢫ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᪉ྥ࡬ࡢኚ໬ࡀࠕᐇ≀࡟ࡶቑࡋ࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿࡢࡣࠊ≀⌮ⓗ࡞ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ࠶ࡽࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖ
ࠕቑ㔞ࡍࡿࠖ࠿ࡽㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟᥎ㄽࡉࢀࡿ"ඖࡢ㧗ࡉࡸ㔞࡟ቑࡋ࡚"࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡀࠊᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ⥅ᢎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿࠋ㢮౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ(18)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(18a)ࡣࠕேᩘࠖ
ࠊ(18b)ࡣࠕヰࡢෆᐜࠖࡀࠊ౯್ุ᩿࡟࠾࠸࡚ࣉࣛࢫ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᪉ྥ࡬ኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢሙྜࡶࠊࠕᐇ㝿࡟ࡶቑࡋ࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ(18) a. ࡇࡢேᩘ࡛࡝࠺ࡸࡗ࡚ 17 ୓ேࡗ࡚┒ࢀࡿࢇࡔ㸽b. ბࢆΰࡐ࡚ヰࢆ┒ࡾୖࡆࡿヂ࡛ࡍࠋ࠶ࡲࡾ┒ࡾࡍࡂࡶ࣐࢖ࢼࢫ࡞ࡢ࡛Ẽࢆࡘ࠿࠺ࡼ࠺࡛ࡍࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬ࡣၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᑐヰ(19)࡛ࠊA ࡀ
A1 ࡢⓎヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᐇ㝿ࡢ㣗஦㔞ࡼࡾᑡ࡞ࡃሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊB ࡣ B2 ࡢⓎヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㣗஦㔞ࡣᐇ㝿ࡢ㣗஦㔞ࡼࡾࡶᑡ࡞࠸࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽ
ࡎࠊࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ౑⏝࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(19) A1: ࡛ࡶࡉ ನ࡞ࢇ࠿ࡉ ᫖᪥ࡢᮅ࠿ࡽ࡞࡟ࡶ㣗ࡗ࡚ࡡ࠻࠿ࡽ࣐ࢪ࡛Ṛ࡟ࡑ࠺ࡔࢃࠋ
B1: ࠶ࢀ㸽ࡗ࡚࠸࠺࠿᫖᪥ನ࡜㣤㣗ࢃ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡗࡅ㸽
A2: ࡲ࠶㣗ࡗࡓࡅ࡝࡞ࠋ
B2: ࡞ࢇ࡛ヰ┒ࡿࡢ㸽㸦ࣇࢪࢸࣞࣅࠗ⇿➗ࣞࢵࢻࢩ࢔ࢱ࣮࠘9㸧ࡇࢀ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ౛ᩥ(20)ࡣࠕయ㔜ࢆᐇ㝿ࡼࡾᑡ࡞ࡃሗ࿌ࡋࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡶ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋᕥࡢゎ㔘ࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞࠺ሙྜࠊ(20)ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡣ౯್ุ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠋ୍⯡࡟ࠊయ㔜࡜࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿
࡟࠾࠸࡚ࣉࣛࢫ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᪉ྥࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ㝈ᗘࢆ㐣ࡂ࡞࠸⠊ᅖ࡛ࠕᑡ࡞࠸ࠖ᪉࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
౯್ุ᩿࡟ࡣゝㄒ౑⏝⪅ࡀࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ♫఍ᖖ㆑ࡸ▱㆑ࡀከศ࡟㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(20) ᑡࡋࡔࡅయ㔜ࢆ┒ࡗ࡚ሗ࿌ࡋࡓࠋ
5. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟

−47−

若者ことばにおける「盛る（もる）」の意味拡張 ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ୺࡟ 10 ௦ᚋ༙ࠥ20 ௦๓༙ࡢዪᛶࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࡶࡕ
࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ᢅࡗࡓࠋ4.1 ࡛ࡣࠊTraugott and Dasher(2005)࡞࡝ࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊࠕ≀⌮ⓗືస࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ໬㸼౯್ุ᩿㸼ヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ᣑᙇࡢ᪉ྥᛶࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊLakoff and Johnson(1980a,b)࡞࡝ࡢ
ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ⌮ㄽ࠿ࡽࠊࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣑᙇⓗព࿡ࢆࡶࡘࡇ࡜ࡣࠊඹ᫬ⓗ࡟ࡳ࡚ࡶ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡓࠋ4.2 ࡛ࡣࠊ≀⌮ⓗ࡞㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢࣉࣛࢫ᪉ྥ࡬
ࡢኚ໬࠿ࡽࠊ౯್ุ᩿࡟࠾࠸࡚ࣉࣛࢫ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᪉ྥ࡬ࡢኚ໬࡬ࡢᣑᙇ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヲࡋࡃࡳࡿ࡜࡜
ࡶ࡟ࠊ౯್ุ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡢࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ౛ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࠋ2 ⠇࡛ࡶ㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣ༢࡞ࡿ஦౛◊✲࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡽࡎࠊ⮬↛Ⓨ⏕ⓗ࡞ព࿡ᣑᙇ࡜ពᅗᛶࢆࡶࡗࡓព࿡ᣑᙇ࡜ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࣮
ࢫࢆࡉࡄࡿ◊✲࡟Ⓨᒎࡋ࠺ࡿࠋ

⬮ὀ
1 ࣉࣜࣥࢺ೜ᴦ㒊ࡢ␎ࠋ⮬ศࡢጼࢆ᧜ᙳࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆࢩ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᚓࡿࣉࣜࣥࢺࢩ࣮ࣝᶵࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
2 వㄯࡔ࠿ࠊ
ࠕ┒ࡾࡓࠖ࡜ࡇࡢ␒⤌ࡢྖ఍⪅࡛࠶ࡿ᳃⏣୍⩏ẶࡢྡᏐࠕ᳃⏣ࠖࡀ㡢㡩ⓗ࡟ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3 ໬⢝ࢆ᪋ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸≧ែࠋ
4 ୍㒊࡛ࠊෆᐜࢆ┬␎ࡋࡓࡾࠊ⾲グࢆᨵࡵࡓࡾࡍࡿ࡞࡝ࡢಟṇࢆࡃࢃ࠼ࡓࠋ
5 Lakoff and Johnson(1980a,b)࡞࡝ࡢᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮MORE IS UP ࡶཧ↷ࠋ
6 ࡲࡘẟ࡟࠾ࡇ࡞࠺࢚ࢡࢫࢸࣥࢩࣙࣥࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ໬Ꮫ⧄⥔࡞࡝࡛సࡽࢀࡓேᕤẟ᮰ࢆᆅẟ࡟᥋⥆ࡉࡏࡿ⨾ᐜᢏ⾡ࠋ
7 ࣮࢝ࣛࢥࣥࢱࢡࢺࣞࣥࢬࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
8 ᦠᖏ㟁ヰࡢ෗┿࣓࣮ࣝࠋ෗┿ࢆ᧜ᙳࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ࣓࣮࡛ࣝ㏦ಙࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮍ㏦ಙࡢ≧ែ࡛ಖᏑࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ෗┿ࡢࡇ࡜ࡶࠕ෗࣓ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
9 ࢥࣥࢺࡢ୍㒊ࠋ᭩ࡁ࠾ࡇࡋࡣᇳ➹⪅࡟ࡼࡿࠋㅰ㎡ᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 14 ᅇ኱఍࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ࡢෆᐜࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋෆᐜࢆ୍㒊ಟṇࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡣࠊᮏⓎ⾲ࡢ㝿࡟࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡓࠋ᭷┈࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓⓙᵝ࡟グࡋ࡚ឤㅰࡍࡿࠋ୺せཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980a. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980b. "The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Conceptual System."Cognitive Science 4, 195-208.
Traugott, E. C. 1989a. "On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: an Example of Subjectification in
Semantic Change." Language 65, 31-55.
Traugott, E. C. 1989b. "Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization." Proceedings of the Fourteenth
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 406-416.
Traugott, E. C. and R. B. Dasher. 2005. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

−48−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

opposite ࡢព࿡ㄽ࡜㛵ᩘⓗゎ㔘㯮ᕝ ᑦᙪ኱㜰ᕤᴗ኱Ꮫ

<Abstract> This paper discusses one meaning of opposite and some different uses of it (i.e. an adjective, an adverb, apreposition, and a noun). The intrinsic features of opposite (or oppositeness) are two contrastive elements and a cline ordimension where they are opposite. The aim of this paper is to propose the encoded meaning of opposite (i.e. OPPOSITE <wrt: a>(x, y)) and illustrate how it is semantically and pragmatically resolved in each use. Furthermore, I will demonstrate that thenoun phrase the opposite, unlike the other uses, is interpreted in a (mathematical) functional way.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࣭ࠕ཯ᑐ࣭ࠖ㛵ᩘⓗゎ㔘

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
opposite ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡟ࡣࠊ(1)-(5)࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊከᵝ࡞⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

(1) Their views were completely opposite.

㸦ᙧᐜモ ླྀ㏙ⓗ⏝ἲ㸧(2) Robyn took a seat at the opposite end of the table from Wilcox.

㸦ᙧᐜモ ᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲ㸧(3) This picture book has pictures on the left page and a text opposite.

㸦๪モ㸧(4) The dishwasher is opposite the main sink.

㸦๓⨨モ㸧(5) Love is the opposite of hatred.

㸦ྡモ㸧࠸ࡎࢀࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿရモࡢ㐪࠸ࡣ࠶ࢀ࡝ࠊopposite ࡀ⾲ࡍࠕ཯ᑐࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡣඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(1)ࡣࠊ㸰ࡘࡢពぢࡢぢゎࡢ㛫࡟཯ᑐࡢ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ(2)(3)(4)ࡣࠊࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡢᗙᖍࡢ఩⨨ࡢ㛵ಀࠊᮏࡢ࣮࣌ࢪࡢ఩⨨ࡢ㛵ಀࠊ─Ὑ࠸ᶵ࡜ࢩࣥࢡࡢ఩⨨ࡢ㛵ಀࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ཯ᑐ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(5)ࡣ love ࡜ hatred ࡀព࿡࡟࠾࠸࡚཯ᑐ
ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ opposite ࡢ⏝ἲࡣከᒱ࡟ࢃࡓࡿࡀࠊඹ㏻ࡢᴫᛕࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ opposite ࡢከᵝ࡞⏝ἲ࡟㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡛⤫୍ⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊopposite ࡀ㸦ᩘᏛⓗ㸧㛵ᩘࡢࡼ࠺࡟ാࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ౛ドࡋࠊ≉࡟ྡモྃ the oppositeࡢሙྜ࡟ࠊDonnellan (1966)ࡢゝ࠺ᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲ㸦referential use㸧࡜ᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲ㸦attributive use㸧࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ

2.ࠕ཯ᑐࠖࡢᛶ㉁2 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊopposite ࡀព࿡ࡍࡿࠕ཯ᑐࠖࡢᮏ㉁࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏕ࡿࠋࠕ཯ᑐࠖࡢᮏ㉁ⓗᛶ㉁ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊࣄࢺࡀ
࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦ែࢆࠕ཯ᑐࠖ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡀࡼ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡩࡘ࠺ࠊࠕ཯ᑐࠖ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ

−49−

oppositeの意味論と関数的解釈୕⪅௨ୖࡢ㛫࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ஧⪅㛫࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ୕ࡘᕮࡢࡼ࠺࡞୕⪅ࡀ㛵୚ࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊ୕⪅ࡢ㛫࡛ࠕ཯ᑐࠖࡀ࠶ᡂ❧ࡍࡿ࡜ࡣㄆ㆑ࡋ࡙ࡽ࠸ࠋࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊ௵ពࡢ஧⪅ࡢ㛫࡟ࠕ཯ᑐࠖࡢ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
ࠕ཯ᑐࠖࡢᮏ㉁ⓗᛶ㉁ࡣ஧ඖᛶ㸦binarity㸧࡟࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ
Lyons (1977)ࡸ Cruse (1986, 2004)࡛ࡶ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLyons ࡣ཯ᑐ㸦opposition㸧ࢆᑐẚ㸦contrast㸧ࡢ୍✀࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑐẚࡀ⣔ิ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿせ⣲࠿ࡽᡂࡿ㞟ྜࡢせ⣲ࡢᩘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚≉࡟ఱࡢྵពࡶ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ཯ᑐࡣᑐẚࡀ஧㡯ᑐ❧ࡢሙྜ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊCruse ࡶ཯ᑐ࡜࠸࠺㞟ྜࡣ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲࠿ࡽᡂࡾࠊࡇࡢࡓࡵ஧
ඖᛶࡀ཯ᑐࡢᚲせ᮲௳࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋせࡍࡿ࡟ࠊࠕ཯ᑐࠖࡢᮏ㉁ⓗᛶ㉁ࡣ஧ඖᛶ࡟࠶ࡾࠊ஧⪅㛫࡟ᡂ❧ࡍࡿᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡓࡔࠊ஧ඖᛶࡀࠕ཯ᑐࠖࡢᚲせ᮲௳࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ஧⪅ࡢ㛵୚ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠕ཯ᑐࠖࡢ
ㄆ㆑ࡣ⏕ࡲࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠕᑐ❧㍈ࠖ࡜࠸࠺཯ᑐ㛵ಀࡢᇶ‽ࡶ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(6)ࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊࢺ࣒࡜ࡑࡢ
∗ぶ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟཯ᑐ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼ࡛ᑐ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࡞࠸ࠋ(6)ࡣࠊ
౛࠼ࡤࠊ(7a)(7b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(6) Tom is opposite to his father.
(7) a. Tom is opposite to his father in character.
b. Tom is opposite to his father in the position.

(6)ࡣࠊ(7a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢺ࣒࡜∗ぶࡀᛶ᱁࡟࠾࠸࡚཯ᑐ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡓࡾࠊ(7b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟఩⨨㛵ಀ࡟࠾࠸࡚཯ᑐ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋせࡍࡿ࡟ࠊopposite ࡀᐇ㝿࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢ஧⪅ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚཯ᑐ
࡞ࡢ࠿ࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࠕ཯ᑐࠖࡢᛶ㉁ࡣ஧ඖᛶ࡟࠶ࡾࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠊ㛵୚ࡍࡿ஧⪅ࡢᑐ❧㍈ࡢྠᐃࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡓࠋ
ࡇࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ♧၀ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊopposite ࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡣᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡢ≉ᐃ࡜ࠊࡑࡢᑐ❧㍈ࡢྠᐃࡀせồࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࢆࡩࡲ࠼࡚ࠊopposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

3. opposite ࡢᴫᛕ
2 ⠇࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕ཯ᑐࠖࡣࠊ࠶ࡿᑐ❧㍈࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஧㡯ᑐ❧ⓗᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊopposite ࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡣࠊᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ஧ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡢ≉ᐃ࡜ࡑࡢᑐ❧㍈ࡢྠᐃࡀᚲ㡲࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࢆ
ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

(8)

OPPOSITE <wrt: a> (x, y)

1(= x and y are opposite with respect to a)ᴫᛕ OPPOSITE ࡟ࡣ㸱ࡘࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࢆ࠶ࡿࠋࢫࣟࢵࢺ x, y ࡣࠕ཯ᑐࠖࡢ⌮ゎ࡛≉ᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࢆᣦࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺ<wrt: a>ࡣᑐ❧㍈ࢆᣦࡋࠊopposite ࡢᴫᛕࢆ᫂☜໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿࠋ ࢫࣟࢵࢺ x, y ࡣព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(6)࡛ࡣ x, y ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡣⓎヰෆ࡟ Tom ࡜ his father−50−第14回大会発表論文集第７号

࡜ࡋ࡚ゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ2 ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺ<wrt: a>ࡣព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟Ỵᐃࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶከ࠸ࠋ(6)࡛ࡣᑐ❧㍈ࡣ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺࡣ㣬࿴㸦saturation㸧࡜࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᧯స࡟ࡼࡗ࡚‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠋ
㣬࿴࡜࠸࠺᧯సࡣࠊCarston (2008)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺࡢ඘㊊ࡀゝㄒⓗ࡟せồࡉࢀࠊࡋ࠿ࡶࡑࢀࡣ⩏ົⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࣎ࢺ࣒࢔ࢵࣉ࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋࢫࣟࢵࢺ<wrt: a>ࡣ x, y ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀࠊ࣎ࢺ࣒࢔ࢵࣉ࡟‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ
࠺࡟ࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺࡀព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟☜ᐃࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊ㣬࿴࡜࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᧯స࡟ࡼࡗ࡚඘㊊ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣࠊ(8)࡛௬ᐃࡋࡓ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࡣᮏᙜ࡟ጇᙜࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋḟ⠇࡛ࠊ(1)-(5)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ opposite ࡢከᵝ࡞⏝ἲ࡟↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏ᳨࡚ドࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ

4. ஦౛㸸opposite ࡢከᵝ࡞⏝ἲ4 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ3 ⠇ࡢ(8)࡛ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ⏝ἲࡈ࡜࡟᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࠊ(9)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᐜモࡢླྀ㏙ⓗ⏝ἲ࠿ࡽぢ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺ࠋ࣓࢔࣮ࣜࡢⓎヰࡣࢺ࣒ࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(9) Tom : John is tall and his father is short.
Mary: They are opposite.
(10)

OPPOSITE <wrt: HEIGHT> (JOHN, JOHN’S FATHER)

௦ྡモ they ࡣ」ᩘࡢᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡋ࠺ࡿࡀࠊOPPOSITE ࡣ x, y ࡢ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࢆせồࡍࡿࠋ(9)ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ㛵㐃ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡣࢪࣙࣥ࡜ࡑࡢ∗ぶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ஧⪅ࡢᑐ❧㍈ࡣࢺ࣒ࡢⓎヰ࠿ࡽ⫼ࡢ㧗ࡉ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ
࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡣ(10)࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ᙧᐜモࡢᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲࡢሙྜࢆぢࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊಟ㣭ࡍࡿྡモྃࡀ opposite ࡢ⌮ゎ࡟኱ࡁࡃ㛵ࢃࡿࠋ(11) Robyn took a seat at the opposite end of the table from Wilcox. (=(2))(12)

OPPOSITE <wrt: THE POSITION AT THE TABLE> (WILCOX’S SEAT, ROBYN’S SEAT)(11)࡛ࡣࠊopposite ࡀಟ㣭ࡍࡿ end ࡣࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡢ୍㎶ࢆᣦࡍࠋࡇࡢ end ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࠕࢸ࣮ࣈࣝ࡟ࡣ㸰⤌ࡢྥ࠿࠸ྜ࠺㎶ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗ▱㆑ࢆႏ㉳ࡉࡏࠊᑐ❧㍈ࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࢆࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡢ఩⨨࡛‶ࡓࡍࡇ࡜࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿࠋ3 ࡲࡓࠊOPPOSITE ࡀゝㄒⓗ࡟せồࡍࡿ x, y ࡣࡑࡢ୍㎶࡟࠶ࡿᗙᖍࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡇ࡟ᗙࡿ஧⪅࡛‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠋࡼ
ࡗ࡚ࠊࣟࣅࣥ࡜࢘࢕ࣝࢥࢵࢡࢫࡢᗙᖍࡀࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡢᗙࡿ఩⨨࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑐ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺ x, y ࡣព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟Ỵᐃࡉࢀࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺ<wrt: a>ࡣᩥ⬦᝿ᐃࢆ᝿㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟ྠᐃࡉࢀࠊ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟඘㊊ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ḟ࡟๪モࡢ opposite ࢆ᳨ドࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ๪モ opposite ࡣ㡯ࢆྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊsat down ࢆಟ㣭ࡋࠊࡑࡢ୺ㄒࡀࢡࣜ
ࢫࢸ࢕࣮ࢼ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᴫᛕ OPPOSITE ࡀせồࡍࡿ x, y ࡢ࠺ࡕ୍᪉ࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀࠊᑐ❧㍈ࡶᗙࡿ఩⨨࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ྠ
ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕࣮ࢼࡀᗙࡗࡓࡢࡣᙼ࡟ࢥ࣮ࣄ࣮ࢆᡭΏࡋࡓᚋ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿゎ㔘ࡣࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡀᙼ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢゎ㔘ࡣ(14)࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−51−

oppositeの意味論と関数的解釈(13) Christina handed him a cup of coffee and sat down opposite.
(14)

OPPOSITE <wrt: THE SEATING POSITION*> (CHRISTINA, HIM) ูࡢ๪モࡢ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ(15)ࡢⓎヰ࡛ゝㄒⓗ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࢲ࣮ࢩ࣮ࡔ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡀࢺ࣒ࡢ
Ⓨヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࢀࡤࠊOPPOSITE ࡀせồࡍࡿ x, y ࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡀࠊࢲ࣮ࢩ࣮࡜ヰࡋᡭࡢࢺ࣒࡛‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ x, y ࡢ࠺ࡕ୍᪉ࡋ࠿ព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟≉ᐃࡉࢀ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡣᩥ⬦࠿ࡽㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟‶ࡓࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ゎ㔘ࡣ(16)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(15) Tom: D’Arcy ordered, then took the seat opposite.
(16)

OPPOSITE <wrt: THE SEATING POSITION **> (D’ARCY, TOM) ḟࡢ(17)(19)ࡣ๓⨨モࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(17)࡛ࡣ x, y ࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡀ─Ὑ࠸ᶵ࡜ࢩࣥࢡ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᐜ᫆
࡟ศ࠿ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡶࠊࡇࡢ㸰ࡘࡣྎᡤ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠺ⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗ▱㆑࡟ࡶᨭ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ
▱㆑ࡣᑐ❧㍈ࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡢ඘㊊࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡀ༢࡟㠃࡜ྥ࠿࠺఩⨨㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡔࡅ࡛
ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྎᡤ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ఩⨨㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗ᝟ሗ࡬࢔ࢡࢭ
ࢫࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ(18)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᴫᛕ OPPOSITE ࢆ඘㊊ࡉࡏࡿࠋ(17) The dishwasher is opposite the main sink. (=(4))(18)

OPPOSITE <wrt: THE POSITION IN THE KITCHEN> (THE DISHWASHER, THE SINK)(19) Who do you want to play opposite you?
(20)

OPPOSITE <wrt: THE POSITION AS AN ACTOR> (THE HEARER, WHO)୍᪉(19)࡛ࡣᑐ❧ࡍࡿ஧㡯ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ you ࡜ who ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ␲ၥࡢᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᐜ᫆࡟⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࡇࡢ஧⪅ࡢᑐ❧㍈ࡣⓎヰࡀ₇๻࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୺₇࡜ຓ₇ࡢࡼ࠺࡞❧ሙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃࡀႏ㉳ࡉࢀࠊᴫᛕ OPPOSITE ࡣ(20)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠋ4 ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊྡモྃ the opposite ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡜ྠࡌ㆟ㄽࡀྍ⬟ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ(21)ࡢゎ㔘࡛ࡣࠊ௚ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊᑐ❧ࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡣព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟ love ࡜ hatred ࡜≉ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡀㄒᙡព࿡ⓗ࡟ᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᴫᛕࡢㄽ⌮㡯┠㸦logical entry㸧࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ᝟ሗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࢔ࢡࢭࢫࡍࡿ㈇ᢸࡣ࡯࡜
ࢇ࡝࡞࠸ࠋ5 ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺࡀࡍ࡭࡚‶ࡓࡉࢀࡓᴫᛕࡣ(22)࡟♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(21) Love is the opposite of hatred. (=(5))(22)

OPPOSITE <wrt: LEXICAL MEANING> (LOVE, HATRED)−52−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

 ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊḟࡢ౛ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ᢅ࠺ࡢࡣᅔ㞴࡞ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ(23)࡛ᑐ❧ࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡢࡣᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋThe opposite ࢆྵࡴ୺⠇ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡜཯ᑐࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ⾜࠺࡜㏙࡭ࠊࡑࡢ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣඛ⾜⠇࠿ࡽព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟≉ᐃࡋ࠺ࡿẕぶ࠿ࡽᜥᏊ࡬ࡢ࿨௧࡜≉ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋྡモྃ the opposite ࡣࡑࢀࡔࡅ࡛ព࿡ࢆ
ᡂࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣືモ do ࡜ྜᡂࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ࿨௧࡜ࡣ཯ᑐࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵࠊᑐ❧㍈ࡣືモྃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
⾲ࡉࢀࡿព࿡࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ(24)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸱ࡘࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡢ࠺ࡕ㸰ࡘࡋ࠿‶ࡓࡉࢀࡎࠊࡋ࠿ࡶ
ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ゎỴࡶᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ(23)ࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

(23) Whatever Mother tells her son to do, he always does the opposite.
(24)

OPPOSITE <wrt: THE MEANING OF VERBAL PHRASE> (WHAT MOTHER TELLS HER SON TO DO, ?) ᮏ⠇࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ(8)࡛ᥦ♧ࡋࡓ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓᴫᛕࡣ(23)௨እࡢ౛ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡢ
ṧࡉࢀࡓၥ㢟ࡢゎỴ⟇ࢆḟ⠇࡛᥈ࡾࠊ6 ⠇࡛ࡑࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ

5. opposite ࡢ㛵ᩘⓗᶵ⬟ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ4 ⠇࡛ྲྀࡾṧࡉࢀࡓၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡋࠊopposite ࡢ㛵ᩘⓗゎ㔘ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ゎỴࢆᅗࡿࠋ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊopposite ࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡣ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡢ≉ᐃ࡜ࡑࡢᑐ❧㍈ࡢྠᐃࡀᚲ㡲࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸱ࡘࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡀ඘㊊ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊopposite ࡢゎ㔘ࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㸱ࡘࡀᖖ࡟ព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟≉ᐃࡉࢀࡿヂ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ㸱ࡘࡀゝㄒⓗ࡟᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⿵ࢃࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑ
ࢀࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆண

ࡍࡿࠋḟࡢ(25)ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊ㸱ࡘࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡢ࠺ࡕ㸯ࡘࡋ࠿‶ࡓࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(25) *I’m opposite.
(26) Tom: I don’t like math.
Mary: I’m opposite.
(27)

OPPOSITE <wrt: IN THEIR PREFERENCE FOR MATH > (MARY, TOM)ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ(26)ࡢ࣓࢔࣮ࣜࡢⓎヰࡣࠊ(25)࡜ࡲࡗࡓࡃྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ⿵ࢃࢀࡿࡓࡵᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ࣓࢔
࣮ࣜࡢⓎヰࡀࢺ࣒ࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ࣓࢔࣮ࣜ࡜ᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ஦ែࡢཧ୚⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࢺ࣒ࡀ㑅ࡤࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࢺ࣒ࡢⓎヰࡣᩘᏛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿዲᝏ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡀᑐ❧㍈ࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࢆ‶ࡓࡍࠋ(25)ࡀ(27)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄒ⏝ㄽ࡟ゎỴࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᅔ㞴ࡔࡀࠊ(26)ࡣྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஦ᐇ࠿ࡽࠊ㸱ࡘࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡢ࠺ࡕᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜
ࡶ㸰ࡘࡣព࿡ㄽⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊᑐ
❧ࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡢ࠺ࡕ୍᪉࡜ᑐ❧㍈ࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀࢀࡤࠊṧࡾࡢせ⣲ࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛⡆༢࡞ᩘᏛࡢ㛵ᩘࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋy=ax ࡜࠸࠺୍ḟ㛵ᩘࡢ୍⯡ᘧ࡛ࡣࠊx ࡜ y ࡟୍ḟࡢ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡣ᫂ⓑࡔࡀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛵ಀ࠿ࡣᐃᩘ a ࡀᮍᣦᐃ࡞ࡓࡵࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᐃᩘ a ࡜ x ࡢ್ࡀỴࡲࡾࡉ࠼−53−

oppositeの意味論と関数的解釈ࡍࢀࡤࠊ⮬ࡎ࡜ y ࡢ್ࡣᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㸱ࡘࡢ࠺ࡕ㸰ࡘࡢ್ࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀ࡚ࠊṧࡾࡢ㸯ࡘࡀᑟฟྍ⬟࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊࡲࡉ࡟(8)࡛ᥦ♧ࡋࡓᴫᛕ OPPOSITE ࡟ࡶᛂ⏝ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛(28)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ OPPOSITE 㛵ᩘࢆ௬ᐃࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࢀࡣ୍᪉ࡢせ⣲࡜ᑐ❧㍈࠿ࡽࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡢせ⣲ࡀᑟฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ᳨ドࢆ(3)ࡢ౛㸦(29)࡜ࡋ࡚෌ᥖ㸧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾜࠺ࠋ(28) y=OPPOSITE <wrt: a> (x)(29) This picture book has pictures on the left page and a text opposite. (=(3))(30) a. y= OPPOSITE <wrt: THE POSITION OF THE PAGE> (THE LEFT PAGE)
b. y=THE RIGHT PAGE

(29)ࡢゎ㔘ࡢ㝿ࠊⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗ▱㆑࠿ࡽ⤮ᮏࡀ⤮࡜ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࠿ࡽᡂࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀᑐᛂࡍࡿ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ๪モ opposite ࡣ on the left page ࡜࣮࣌ࢪࡢ఩⨨㛵ಀ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑐ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶศ࠿ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ(30a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢫࣟࢵࢺࡀ‶ࡓࡉࢀࠊ(30b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ opposite ࡀྑ࣮࣌ࢪࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ㛵ᩘⓗ࡟ᑟฟࡉࢀࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ࠊ๓⠇࡛ၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗࡓ౛࡜ఝ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ␗࡞ࡿྡモྃࡢ౛ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋඛ࡟㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ(31)ࡢ the oppositeࡣືモྃࡢ୍㒊࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽᑐ❧㍈ࡣືモྃࡢព࿡ෆᐜ࡜ྠᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࢫࣟࢵࢺ x ࡣẕぶࡀᜥᏊ࡟࿨௧ࡋࡓෆᐜࠊࡘࡲࡾ stay ࡛‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀࡶࡗ࡜ࡶฎ⌮ປຊࡢᑠࡉ࠸ゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(32a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ x ࡜ᑐ❧㍈ࡀ
‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࠊ㛵ᩘⓗ࡟(32b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࡀᑟฟࡉࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ(32b)࡛ࡣ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢゎ㔘ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ♧ࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀከᑡ␗࡞ࡿෆᐜࡔࡀࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࡑࡢሙ࠿ࡽ࠸࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿⅬࡣඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ(32a)࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞㛵ᩘ࠿ࡽゎ㔘ࡀᑟฟࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡶඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(31) Mother told her son to stay, but he did the opposite.
(32) a. y= OPPOSITE <wrt: THE MEANING OF VERBAL PHRASE> (STAY)
b. y=NOT STAY, LEAVE, RUN AWAY, etc.

 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊOPPOSITE ࡀ㛵ᩘⓗ࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋḟ⠇࡛ࠊ๓⠇࡛ྲྀࡾṧࡉࢀࡓၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿゎ⟅ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋ

6. the opposite ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲ๓⠇ࡢ᭱ᚋ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ(31)ࡢ౛࡜ᮍゎỴࡢ(23)ࡢ౛ࡣఱࡀ㐪࠺ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇࢀࢆゎࡃ㘽࡜ࡋ࡚ Donnellan (1966)
ࡢ☜ᐃグ㏙ྃ㸦definite descriptions㸧ࡢᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲ㸦referential use㸧࡜ᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲ㸦attributive use㸧ࢆᑟධࡍࡿࠋ

(33) Smith’s murderer is insane. (Donnellan 1966)(33)ࡢ☜ᐃグ㏙ྃ Smith’s murderer ࡣ㸰㏻ࡾ࡟᭕᫕࡛ࠊᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࡢㄞࡳ࡛ࡣࢫ࣑ࢫࢆẅࡋࡓேࠊ౛࠼ࡤࢪࣙࣥࢆ

−54−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ᣦ♧ࡋࠊࡋ࠿ࡶ☜ᐃグ㏙ྃࡣࡑࡢࢪࣙࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲࡢㄞࡳ࡛ࡣ☜ᐃグ㏙ྃࡀ⾲ࡋ࠺ࡿே࡞ࡽㄡ࡛ࡶࡼࡃࠊ๓⪅ࡢࡼ࠺࡟≉ᐃࡢேࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ Donnellan ࡢᴫᛕࢆ⦆ࡃ㐺⏝ࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᮏ✏࡛࿧ࡪᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲࡣྡモ࡛ྃ⾲ࡋ࠺ࡿ㞟ྜࡢ⠊ᅖࢆ⾲ࡋࠊᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࡣࡑࡢ㞟ྜࡢ୰ࡢࡼࡾ
ලయⓗ࡞ෆᐜࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ ๓⠇࡛ぢࡓ(31)ࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡿ࡜ࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺ x ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡣ STAY ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ㛵ᩘⓗ࡟ NOT STAY ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢᑟฟࡉࢀࡓゎ㔘ࡣࠊཝᐦ࡟࠶ࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆᣦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿヂ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊNOT STAY ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ⠊ᅖࡢᴫᛕ࡟ไ㝈ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡀᮏ✏࡛ゝ࠺ᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲ࡟ᙜࡓࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ(23)ࡢ౛㸦(34)࡜ࡋ࡚෌ᥖ㸧࡛ࡣࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺ x ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡀ(33)࡟ẚ࡭࡚≉ᐃⓗ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ(35a)࠿
ࡽศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊx ࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡢࡣࠕẕぶ࠿ࡽᜥᏊ࡬ࡢ࿨௧ෆᐜ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊලయⓗ࡟࡝ࢇ࡞࿨௧࠿ࡣࡣࡗࡁ
ࡾࡏࡎࠊ࿨௧࡞ࡽఱ࡛ࡶࡼ࠸࡜࠸࠺ᒓᛶࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊᑐ❧㍈ࡀྠᐃࡉࢀ࡚ࡶࠊ㛵ᩘⓗ࡟ᑟฟࡉࢀࡿゎ㔘 y ࡣࠕx ࡢ್ࡢ཯ᑐࠖ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ⤖ᒁẕぶࡢ࿨௧࡜཯ᑐࡢࡇ࡜࡞ࡽఱ࡛ࡶチࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋ

(34) Whatever Mother tells her son to do, he always does the opposite.
(35) a. y=OPPOSITE <wrt: THE MEANING OF VERBAL PHRASE> (WHAT MOTHER TELLS HER SON TO DO)
b. y=THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT MOTHER TELLS HER SON TO DO

ࡘࡲࡾࠊ(31)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(34)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
๓⪅࡛ࡣࢫࣟࢵࢺ x ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡶ㛵ᩘⓗ࡟ᑟฟࡉࢀࡿゎ㔘 y ࡶࡑࡢཬࡪ⠊ᅖࡣᣦ♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᚋ⪅࡛ࡣ x ࡢ್ࡶゎ㔘 y ࡶ₍↛࡜ࡋࡓᒓᛶࡢࡳࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊྡモྃ the opposite ࡀ㛵ᩘⓗ࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ๓⪅ࡣࢫࣟࢵࢺ x ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡀᣦ♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㛵ᩘⓗ࡟⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿ y ࡶ࠾ࡼࡑᣦ♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ᚋ⪅࡛ࡣࢫࣟࢵࢺ x ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲⮬యࡀᒓᛶⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊy ࡶ x ࡟౫Ꮡࡋᒓᛶⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ7. ⤖ㄽᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ(8)࡛♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࠊopposite ࡢከᵝ࡞⏝ἲ࡟⤫୍ⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࢆ୚
࠼ࡓࠋࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࡣࠊopposite ࡢ⌮ゎ࡟ᚲ㡲ࡢᑐ❧ࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ x, y ࡜ࡑࡢᑐ❧㍈<wrt: a>࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉ
ࢀࠊࡇࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡀព࿡ㄽⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊopposite ࡢゎ㔘ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ≉࡟ྡモྃ the opposite ࡢሙྜࠊ㸦ᩘᏛⓗ㸧㛵ᩘࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࠊᣦ♧ⓗ࡞ሙྜ࡜ᒓᛶⓗ࡞ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡓࠋ

*ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 14 ᅇ኱఍㸦2011 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 3 ᪥ࠊ᪊㸸ி㒔እᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲ࡢᢡ࡟ࠊྖ఍ࡢ㔠⃝ಇ࿃ඛ⏕㸦㧗▱┴❧኱Ꮫ㸧ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊすᒣభྖඛ⏕㸦᫂ᾏ኱Ꮫ㸧࣭ஂಖ㐍ඛ⏕㸦ᯇᒣ኱Ꮫ㸧࣭す⏣ග୍ඛ⏕㸦ᮾ໭኱Ꮫ㸧࠿ࡽࠊⓎ⾲ࡢ‽ഛẁ㝵࡟ࠊ኱ᗞᖾ⏨ඛ⏕࣭ᒸ⏣⚞அඛ⏕࣭㒯⪷Ợ㸦኱㜰኱Ꮫ㸧ࠊἙୖㄋసඛ⏕㸦⚄ᡞዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㸧
࠿ࡽ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬ࡅࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᚰ࠿ࡽឤㅰࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୙ഛࡣᇳ➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡟࠶ࡿࠋ

−55−

oppositeの意味論と関数的解釈ὀ
1. (8)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞」ᩘࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࢆྵࡴᴫᛕࡣព࿡ㄽⓗ☜ᐃᗘ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ Carston (2002)ࡢゝ࠺ࠕᴫᛕࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࠖࡢ୍✀࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᴫᛕࢫ࣮࣐࢟࡜ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࡢᴫᛕࡀㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟᥎ㄽࡉࢀࡿ㝿࡟ᇶ┙࡜࡞ࡿ࠶ࡿᴫᛕࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋOPPOSITE ࡢሙྜࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺࢆㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚‶ࡓࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࠶ࡿᩥ⬦ࠊࡘࡲࡾ࠶ࡿᴫᛕࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ࡟࢔ࢡࢭ
ࢫࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
2. ࡶࡕࢁࢇ x, y ࡢ୧᪉ࡀព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟Ỵᐃࡍࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୍᪉ࡣᚲࡎỴᐃࡍࡿࠋ
3. ࡩࡘ࠺ࢸ࣮ࣈࣝ࡟ࡣ end ࡜࿧࡭ࡿ⟠ᡤࡣ㸲࢝ᡤ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㸰⤌ࡢྥ࠿࠸ྜ࠺㎶ࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(11)ࡢⓎヰ࠿ࡽࡣ࡝ࡇ࡟ᗙࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡣศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୍᪉ࡢᖍࡀỴࡲࢀࡤࠊ⮬ືⓗ࡟ࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡢᖍࡶ
Ỵࡲࡿࡇ࡜࡟ὀពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
4. ๪モ࡜๓⨨モࡢ opposite ࡟ࡣᑐ❧㍈ࡀ position ࡜࠸࠺ඹ㏻Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊᐇ㝿ࡢⓎヰゎ㔘࡛ࡣᩥ⬦࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࡼࡾ᫂☜໬ࡉࢀࡓᴫᛕࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᙧᐜモࡢ opposite ࡣᑐ❧㍈ࡀ position ࡟ไ㝈ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ๪モ࡜๓⨨モࡢሙྜࡣไ㝈ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ(19)࡛ࡣ position ࡀ≀⌮✵㛫ࡢሙᡤ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊ₇๻࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍✀♫఍ⓗ࡞ሙᡤࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ๪モ࡜๓⨨モࡢ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࡀ(i)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲ࡉࢀࠊⓎヰ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ position ࡢᴫᛕࡀㄪᩚࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊࡇࡢጇᙜᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ(i) opposite (adv., prep.): OPPOSITE <wrt: POSITION> (x, y)
5. Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995)ࡣࠊᴫᛕࡣㄽ⌮㡯┠࣭ㄒᙡ㡯┠࣭ⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗ㡯┠ࡢ㸱ࡘࡢ㡯┠࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
౛࠼ࡤࠊㄽ⌮㡯┠࡟ࡣព࿡බ‽㸦meaning postulate㸧࡞࡝ㄽ⌮࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, R. 2008. “Optional Pragmatic Processes or Optional Covert Linguistic Structure?” UCL Working Papers in
Linguistics 20: 143-156.
Cruse, A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, A. 2004. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Donnellan, K. 1966. “Reference and Definite Descriptions.” The Philosophical Review 75:3, 281-304.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics Vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson 1997. “The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.” UCL Working Papers in
Linguistics 9, 107-125.
Wilson, D. and R. Carston 2007. “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.”
In N. Burton-Roberts (ed.) Pragmatics. 230-259. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

−56−第14回大会発表論文集第７号┤᥋ヰἲࢆᑟࡃㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡢゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲ௒㔝 ᫀಇ
⪷࿴Ꮫᅬ㧗➼Ꮫᰯ< Abstract >Within the framework of relevance theory, this paper discusses discourse markers
introducing direct quote structures in English. When quoting what someone said, quotation
marks are often used, but when a reporter paraphrases the quoted words in his or her own
words, the marks are not used.

Discourse markers in question are with no quotation marks,

and I discuss who to attribute them to: a character or a reporter.

I also show that thediscourse markers function as markers of interpretive use, conveying the reporter’s
subjectivity.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲࠊㄯヰᶆ㆑ࠊ┤᥋ヰἲࠊヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
 ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕㄯヰᶆ㆑㸩┤᥋ヰἲࠖࡢᆺࢆᡂࡍᵓ㐀ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋⱥㄒࡢ┤᥋ヰἲ࡟ࡣ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᤄධᆺ┤᥋ヰἲ࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࠊㄡࡀゝࡗࡓ࠿ࢆ⾲ࡍఏ㐩㒊(reporting clause)ࢆᣳࢇ࡛ศ㞳ࡋࡓᘬ⏝ྃࡢ༙ศࡀᘬ⏝➢ྕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸஦౛ࡀࡼࡃぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ(1) Most customers, though they protect their computers, are unaware that they need tosecure their phones, he said, “but the smartphones people have are computers, and thesame thing that can happen on your computer can happen on your phone.”(International Herald Tribune, September 29, 2011)ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ(1)ࡢ๓༙㒊ࡀᘬ⏝➢ྕࢆࡶࡓࡎࠊᚋ༙㒊ࡢ but ௨㝆ࡀᘬ⏝➢ྕࢆࡶࡘᙧ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ෆ⏣(2011a)ࡣࠊ
ࠕᘬ⏝➢ࡣࡑࡢⓎヰෆᐜࢆᙜヱே≀࡟ᖐᒓࡉࡏࡿ(attributed)࣐࣮࣮࡛࢝ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜
㏙࡭ࠊ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᘬ⏝➢ࡣሗ࿌⪅ࡀࠕ㈐௵ࢆ㈇ࢃ࡞࠸࣐࣮࣮࢝ࠖ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
(2) quotation marks as noncommittal markers(ෆ⏣ 2011a: 31)(2)ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊᘬ⏝➢ࢆࡶࡓ࡞࠸(1)ࡢ๓༙㒊ࡣࠊⓏሙே≀ he ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡀ୍ᐃࡢ㈐௵
ࢆ㈇ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊⓏሙே≀ he ࡢⓎヰࡀሗ࿌⪅ࡢほⅬ࡛グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡀⓏሙே≀ࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࢆ⮬㌟ࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛⦅㞟ࡋࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ
ࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡇ࡛(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ၥ㢟஦౛ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ(3) In other words, says a jovial Beard, “it’s a catastrophe. Relax!”(Time, April 5, 2010)(3)ࡢ In other words ࡣࠊ(1)࡜ྠᵝ࡟Ⓩሙே≀ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ Beard ࡢⓎヰࢆሗ࿌⪅ࡢほⅬ࡛ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡓࠊཪࡣ⦅㞟ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠋࡑࢀ࡜ࡶࡓࡔ༢࡟ࠊグ஦୰ࡢヰࡢὶࢀࢆࡘ࡞ࡄࡶࡢࠊࡘࡲࡾᩥ
࡜ᩥࢆࡘ࡞ࡄࠕࡘ࡞ࡂㄒࠖ
㸦௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠕㄯヰᶆ㆑ࠖ࡟⤫୍ࡍࡿ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋᮏ◊−57−

直接話法を導く談話標識の解釈的用法✲࡛ᢅ࠺ࡢࡣ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ┤᥋ヰἲ࡟ㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡀඛ⾜ࡍࡿ஦౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡢാࡁࢆࠊ
ሗ࿌⪅ࡢ୺ほⓗุ᩿ࢆ⾲ࡍゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲࡢ࣐࣮࣮࡛࢝࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ
2. ᘬ⏝࡜ㄯヰᶆ㆑
2.1. ┤᥋ヰἲࠊ㛫᥋ヰἲࠊ⮬⏤㛫᥋ヰἲᮏᑠ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ┤᥋ヰἲ࣭㛫᥋ヰἲ࣭⮬⏤㛫᥋ヰἲ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᙧᘧⓗഃ㠃࠿ࡽㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡢ⏕㉳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᴫほࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎึࡵ࡟ࠊ┤᥋ヰἲࡢ஦౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ஭ୖ(1988)ࡣࠊ┤᥋ヰἲࡢᘬ⏝ྃ࡟ఏ㐩㒊ࡀᤄධࡉࢀࡿ㝿ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞せ⣲ࡢᚋ࡟ᤄධࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࢆㄽࡌ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㸯ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡘ࡞ࡂㄒࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡀ(4)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(4) “And,” said her grandmother, “one day we hope you will be a lady, too.”(஭ୖ 1988: 282)

(4)ࡣඛ࡟ぢࡓ in other words ࡢ౛ᩥ(3)࡜㢮ఝࡋࡓᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(3)࡜(4)ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊࡘ࡞ࡂㄒ࡟ᘬ
⏝➢ࡀకࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(4)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᘬ⏝➢ࡀక࠺ࡶࡢࡣࠊᐇ㝿࡟Ⓩሙே≀ࡀࡑࡢࡼ࠺
࡟Ⓨࡋࡓ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡓࡵࠊၥ㢟࡞࠸ࠋ(4)ࡢ ‘and’ ࡣᘬ⏝➢ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊher
grandmother ࡢⓎヰ࡜ࡋ࡚ᖐࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋḟ ࡟ ࠊ Blakemore (2010) ࡟ ࡼ ࡿ 㛫 ᥋ ヰ ἲ (indirect thought reports) ࡜ ⮬ ⏤ 㛫 ᥋ ヰ ἲ (freeindirect thought reports)ࡢ஦౛ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
(5) Context: Jane believes that Henry has gone shopping for food and sees him return
empty-handed.
a. Jane: So we’ve got nothing for dinner.
b. Henry: You think that we’ve got nothing for dinner.
c. Henry: ??You think that so we’ve got nothing for dinner.
(Blakemore 2010: 585)
(6) Context: Henry has asked Jane to distribute the handouts for a lecture.
a. Jane: But there are not going to be enough.
b. Henry: You think that there aren’t going to be enough.
c. Henry: ??You think that but there aren’t going to be enough.
(Blakemore 2010: 586)
ࡲࡎ(5)ࡣࠊJane ࡣ Henry ࡀ㣗⣊ࢆ㈙࠸࡟ฟ࠿ࡅࡓ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊHenry ࡀᡭࡪࡽ࡛ᖐࡗ
࡚ࡁࡓሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࢆぢࡓ Jane ࡣ(5a)ࢆⓎࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊHenry ࡣ Jane ࡢᚰࡢ୰ࢆඛㄞࡳࡋ
࡚(5b)ࢆⓎࡍࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡀ(5c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ that ⠇ࡢ୰࡟ ‘so’ ࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇ
ࡢᩥࡣᐜㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋBlakemore (2010)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ ‘so’ ࡣᛮ⪃ෆᐜ࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊᛮ⪃ࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿ that ⠇࡟ࡣ⏕㉳࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊBlakemore (2010)ࡣྠᵝ࡟ࠊbut ࡢ஦౛ࡶᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡀ(6)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(6)ࡢᩥ⬦ࡣࠊHenry ࡀ Jane ࡟ㅮ⩏ࡢ㈨ᩱࢆ㓄ࡿࡼ࠺㢗ࢇ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋJane ࡣ Henry ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ(6a)ࢆⓎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࡋࠊHenry ࡀඛ࡟ Jane ࡢᚰࡢ୰ࢆ᥎

ࡋࠊ(6b)ࢆⓎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊBlakemore (2010)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊඛࡢ(5c)ྠᵝ࡟ࠊthat ⠇ࡢ୰࡟ but ࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡇࡢᩥࡣᐜㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜࠸
࠺ࠋࡇࢀࡶ(5)࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ ‘but’ ࡣᛮ⪃ෆᐜ࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊᛮ⪃ࡢ୍㒊࡜࡞ࡾ࠼ࡎࠊ
ᨾ࡟ࠊᛮ⪃ࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿ that ⠇࡟ࡣ⏕㉳࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛫᥋ヰἲ࡛ࡣᐜㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞

−58−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

࠸ࡶࡢࡶ(7), (8)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⮬⏤㛫᥋ヰἲ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࠋ(7) So there would be nothing for dinner, she thought.

(Blakemore 2010: 587)
(ibid.: 587)

(8) But there were not going to be enough, she thought.

ࡇࢀࡽࡣ(5c), (6c)࠿ࡽ ‘You think that’ ࢆྲྀࡾ㝖࠸ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊఏ㐩㒊ࡣ⿵㊊ⓗ࡟ῧ࠼ࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⮬⏤㛫᥋ヰἲࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢ㛵ᚰ࡛࠶ࡿ஦౛࠿ࡽࡸࡸ㐓ࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࡇ
࡛ࡣ┬␎ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
 (5)࡜(6)࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ㛫᥋ヰἲࡢ⿕ఏ㐩㒊࡟ㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡀ⏕㉳࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࢆᢅࡗࡓࡶࡢ
࡜ࡋ࡚௚࡟ Bach (1999)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋBach (1999)ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊ ‘moreover’ ࡸ ‘in other words’ ࡀ㛫᥋ᘬ⏝ࡢᙧ࡛ࡣᘬ⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ౛ࡀ(9), (10)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(9)

a. Moreover, Bill is honest.
b. #John said that moreover, Bill is honest.

(10)

a. In other words, Bill is a liar.
b. #John said that in other words, Bill is a liar.
(Bach 1999: 341)

Bach (1999: 341)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ ‘moreover’ ࡸ ‘in other words’ ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭᚿྥࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ཷࡅྲྀࡽࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡞ࡢ࠿ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ㐩ࡍࡿാࡁࢆࡶࡘࠋࡇ
ࡇ࡟ࡣࠊ㧗ḟࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡀక࠺ࠋ ‘moreover’ࡣࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰࡣ᪤࡟㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㏣ຍ஦㡯࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྜᅗࡋࠊ ‘in other words’ ࡣࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰࡣ௒ゝࡗࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡢࡇ࡜ࡢゝ࠸᥮࠼࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྜᅗࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ㧗ḟࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡣㄡࡀゝࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡤ࡞ࡢ
࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ(9), (10)ࢆぢࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊཎヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ John ࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡶሗ
࿌⪅ࡢほⅬ࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡤ࡞ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟ᨭ㞀ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ(9b)࡜
(10b)ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡇࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶࡢせᅉࢆ᥈ࡿୖ࡛ࠊḟ࡟ࠊᒣཱྀ(1992)&Yamaguchi (1993)ࡢศᯒࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
2.2. ࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰ ᚑ᮶ࠊヰἲ◊✲࡜࠸࠺࡜ࠊ᭩ࡁゝⴥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┤᥋ヰἲ࡜㛫᥋ヰἲࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧⓗഃ㠃࡟┠ࡀྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᒣཱྀ(1992, 2009)&Yamaguchi (1993)ࡣ࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰࡶ௚⪅ࡢⓎヰࢆᘬ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ヰἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࠋ ᒣཱྀ(1992)&Yamaguchi (1993)ࡣࠊMcCawley (1987)ࡀ࢚ࢥ࣮࡛ࡁ࡞࠸せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠊ
㛫ᢞモࠊ࿧ࡧ᥃ࡅㄒࠊᩥᮎࡢ pleaseࠊ௜ຍ␲ၥࡢ㸲ࡘ࡟ᩥయ㞳᥋モࢆຍ࠼ࡓᯟ⤌ࡳࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋḟࡣࡑࡢᩥయ㞳᥋モࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(11) JIM: Quite frankly, I’m the one who did it.
TIM: *Quite frankly, you’re the one who did it?
(12) JIM: Quite frankly, I’m the one who did it.
TIM: Quite frankly??

I know you’re always joking.
㸦ᒣཱྀ 1992: 297, 305㸧−59−

直接話法を導く談話標識の解釈的用法(11)ࡣ Jim ࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡋࠊTim ࡀၥ࠸㏉ࡍ࢚ࢥ࣮␲ၥᩥࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩥయ㞳᥋モ࡛࠶ࡿ ‘quite
frankly’ ࡶ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡜ࠊࡇࡢᩥࡣᐜㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ ‘quite
frankly’ ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧⮬య࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ࢚ࢥ࣮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᒣཱྀ(1992)ࡣ࢚ࢥ࣮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡵ࡞࠸せ⣲࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ㸳ࡘࡢ≉ᚩࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ(ϸ)࿨㢟᝟ሗࢆᢸࢃ࡞࠸ࠋ(Ϲ)ヰࡋᡭࡢ୺ほⓗែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ(Ϻ)⪺ࡁᡭࢆᚿྥࡍࡿࠋ(Ϻ)ࢆᩥయ㞳᥋モࡢሙྜ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᩥయ㞳᥋モࡣ࿨㢟᝟ሗࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠕ୺ᩥࠖࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ཷࡅྲྀࡽࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡞ࡢ࠿ࢆఏ࠼ࡿാࡁࢆࡍࡿࠋ(ϻ)࿨
㢟᝟ሗࢆᢸ࠺ࠕ୺ᩥࠖ࡟௜ຍࡉࢀ࡞࠸༢⊂ࡢᙧ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ࢚ࢥ࣮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(ϻ)࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ(12)ࡀ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࡢಶࠎࡢ⾲⌧ࡢࡳ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ࢚ࢥ࣮࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(ϼ)ࠕ୺ᩥࠖ࡟
୪ิࡉࢀࡓᵓ㐀ࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࠋ(ϼ)ࡣ McCawley (1987)࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕ㛫ᢞモࠖ㸩ࠕᩥࠖࡸࠕ࿧
ࡧ᥃ࡅㄒࠖ㸩ࠕᩥࠖ࡞࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୍ᩥࡢ༢఩ࢆ㉸࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡸࠊ」ᩘࡢ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥ
ࣘࢽࢵࢺࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿࡶࡢࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(11)ࡢ࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ୺ほᛶࢆ཯ᫎࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆᚿྥࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ ‘quite frankly’ ࡲ࡛ࡶ࢚ࢥ࣮ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡜ࠊ ‘quite
frankly’ ࡀㄡࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ゎ㔘ୖࡢ▩┪ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊඖࡢࢥࣥࢸ
ࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡓᶵ⬟ࡣࠊᘬ⏝ࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ࡣᶵ⬟ୖࡢ▩┪ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2.3. ㄯヰᶆ㆑(Discourse Markers; ௨ୗ DM)
 DM ࡣ◊✲⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊㄯヰ᥋⥆モ(discourse connectives)ࠊࡘ࡞ࡂㄒ(connectives, linking
words)ࠊㄯヰ㎡(discourse particles)࡞࡝ࠊࡑࡢ࿧ࡧྡࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢ⠊␪ࡶ␗࡞ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣᶵ⬟ୖࡢศ㢮࡞࡝࡟ࡣ↔Ⅼࢆ⨨࠿ࡎࠊDM ࡢ୍ᶵ⬟࡜ࡋ࡚≉࡟ࠕヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ഃ㠃࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘ࡜࠸࠺㠃࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊSchourup & ࿴஭⏣ (1988),
Swan (2005), Carter & McCarthy (2006)࡞࡝ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ:z

Schourup & ࿴஭⏣ (1988: 234): ࠕᩥ࡜ᩥࡢࡘ࡞ࡂㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸୍࡚⯡ⓗ࡟ゝ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡘ࡞
ࡂㄒ࡟ࡣ஦ᐇ㛵ಀࡼࡾࡶࠊࡑࢀࢆ⏝࠸ࡿே㸦ヰࡋᡭ㸧ࡢぢゎ࣭ぢ᪉࣭⪃࠼᪉࡞࡝ࡢ᪉ࡀࡼࡾ
኱ࡁࡃ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ ౛) but, anyway ࡞࡝z

Swan (2005: xϿ): ヰࡋᡭࡢ⌧ᅾࡢⓎゝࡢ๓࡟᮶ࡓࡾࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡢᚋ࡟⥆ࡃࡶࡢࢆᩥ࡟⧅
ࡆࡓࡾࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡑࡢⓎゝ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧ࠋ ౛) on the other hand,frankly, matter of fact ࡞࡝ࠋz

Carter & McCarthy (2006: 208): ㄯヰᵓᡂ࡞࡝࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ヰ⪅ࡢពᅗࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓᶵ⬟ࠋ౛)okay, well, I mean, as you know ࡞࡝ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊDM ࡢᶵ⬟ࡢ୰࡟ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜࠸࠺ഃ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ㸰⠇ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࡢ⾲⌧ࡀㄡࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡜ᐦ᥋࡟㛵ࢃࡿሙྜࠊࡑࡢ⾲⌧ࢆᘬ⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㞴ࡋࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᪤࡟ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࠋヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࢆ
⾲ࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ౑⏝⪅ࡢᩥ⬦ࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡜ࡶ⤖ࡧࡘࡃࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ௚⪅ࡢ DM ࢆᘬ⏝ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊཎヰ⪅ࡢᩥ⬦࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡶᘬ⏝⪅ࡢᩥ⬦࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ
࠿ࡀศ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡾࠊ⾪✺ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ DM ࡢᘬ⏝ࡣᐜㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊศᯒࡢ㐨ල❧࡚࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡍࡿ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

−60−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

3. 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ
3.1. 㧗ḟ⾲ព(higher-level explicature) 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊⓎヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿ᝿ᐃࡣࠊ⾲ព(explicature)࡜᥎ព(implicature)࡟ศ
ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ᫂♧ⓗ࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡢ⾲♧ࢆ⾲ព(exlicature)࡜࿧ࡪ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ(13)ࡢ
‘I’ve got a great idea’ ࡀࡑࢀ࡟ᙜࡓࡿࠋேࡣⓎヰࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿ㝿ࠊⓎヰ࡟ࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡸヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࡀ཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡢ౛ࡀ(13a-c)࡟ᙜࡓࡿࠋ(13b)ࡣⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠾
ࡾࠊ(13a)࡜(13c)ࡣⓎヰ⪅ࡢែᗘࡀ⾲᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(13) I’ve got a great idea!
(a) The speaker is happy she’s got a great idea.
(b) The speaker is saying she’s got a great idea.
(c) The speaker believes she’s got a great idea.
(Ahern 2010: 153)࿨㢟ෆᐜࢆᇙࡵ㎸ࢇࡔ࿨㢟ែᗘࡸⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ(13a-c)࡛ࡣୖ఩⠇࡟ᙜࡓࡿ ‘The speaker ishappy,’ ‘The speaker is saying,’ ‘The speaker believes’ ࢆ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣ㧗ḟ⾲ព(higher-level
explicature)࡜࿧ࡪࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ Blakemore (1996)࡜ෆ⏣(2011b)࡟ࡼࡿゝ࠸᥮࠼ᶆ㆑(reformulation markers)ࡢศᯒࢆ
ぢࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋBlakemore (1996)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ(14)ࡢヰ⪅ࡣ Simon ࡣ Sir Simon ࡜ࡋ࡚࿧ࡪ࡟
್ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢែᗘࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚ ‘that is’ ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ὀពࢆྥࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
(14) I want you to meet Simon, that is, Sir Simon.

(Blakemore 1996: 344)

ࡲࡓࠊෆ⏣(2011b)ࡣࠊ ‘in other words’ ࢆⱥ᪥⩻ヂࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽぢࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(15) a. Utterances are used not only to convey thoughts but to reveal the speaker’s attitude to,or relation to, the thought expressed; in other words, they express ‘propositional
attitudes’, perform ‘speech-acts’, or carry ‘illocutionary force.’b. ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊⓎヰࡣࠕ࿨㢟ែᗘࠖࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡾࠊࠕⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࠖࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡾࠕⓎヰࡢຊࠖࢆఏ࠼ࡓࡾࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
c. ?ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊⓎヰࡣࠕ࿨㢟ែᗘࠖࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡾࠊࠕⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࠖࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡾࠕⓎヰࡢຊࠖࢆఏ࠼ࡓࡾࡍࡿࠋ
ෆ⏣(2011b: 108)
ෆ⏣(2011b)ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ in other words ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿࠕゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠖࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᩥᑿ࡟
㧗ḟ⾲ព࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿࠕࡢࡔࠖࡢ␗ᙧࠕࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀࡿ(=(15b))࡜ࡋࠊࡶࡋࡑࢀࡀ௜ຍࡉ
ࢀ࡞࠸࡜୙⮬↛࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡜౛ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(=(15c))ࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊෆ⏣(2002)࡛ࡣࠊthus (ᚑࡗ࡚,༶ࡕ), of course (ࡶࡕࢁࢇ), in short (ࡘࡲࡾ)ࡶࠕࡢࡔࠖ࡜࿧ᛂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢ
ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽඹ㏻ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⾲⌧ࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ DM ࡟ࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢヰ⪅ࡢែᗘ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡀ㛵ࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−61−

直接話法を導く談話標識の解釈的用法

3.2. グ㏙ⓗ⏝ἲ(descriptive use)࡜ゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲ(interpretive use)
Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995²)ࡣⓎヰࢆヰ⪅ࡢᛮ⪃ࡢゎ㔘࡜ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆグ㏙ⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲࡢ஧㏻ࡾ࡟ศࡅࡿࠋෆ⏣(1998: 244)ࡣグ㏙ⓗ⏝ἲࢆࠕ≀஦ࡢ≧ែࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᐈほⓗ࡞グ㏙࡜ゝ࠸᥮࠼࡚ࡶ㛫㐪࠸࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡋࠊゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲࢆࠕᛮ⪃࡞࡝ࢆゎ㔘ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
౛࠼ࡤࡶ࡜ࡢᛮ⪃࡜ࡑࢀࢆල⌧໬ࡋࡓⓎヰ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣ㢮ఝ(resemblance)ࡢ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣ
ヰ⪅ࡢ୺ほⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲࢆศᯒࡢ㐨ල࡜ࡋ࡚฼⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋḟࡢᅗࡣࠊグ஦ࡢඖ࡜࡞ࡿཎヰ⪅ࡢᛮ⪃ࡀグ⪅࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀࡀㄞ⪅࡟ᒆࡅࡽࢀ
ࡿࡲ࡛ࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋཎヰ⪅            グ⪅

              ㄞ⪅ᛮ⪃              ᛮ⪃ࡢゎ㔘          ᭱ᑠປຊ࣭᭱኱ຠᯝ    㢮ఝᛶ(resemblance)         ⦅㞟(DM ࡢ㏣ຍ➼)                       ᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ᝟ሗ
Figure 1グ஦ࢆసࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊグ⪅ࡲࡓࡣሗ࿌⪅ࡣㄡ࠿࡟࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆ⾜࠸ࠊグ஦ࡢඖ࡜࡞ࡿⓎゝࢆධᡭࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ㝿ࠊ୍Ꮠ୍ྃ₃ࢀ࡞ࡃグ⪅ࡀྲྀࡾ㎸ࡴ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽࡎࠊཎヰ⪅ࡢᛮ⪃࣭Ⓨゝࢆṍࡵࡓࡾࠊ㐓ࢀࡓࡾࡋ࡞࠸⠊ᅖ࡛ᛅᐇ࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢཎヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰ࣭ᛮ⪃࡜グ⪅ࡢゎ㔘ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣ୍ᐃࡢ㢮ఝᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢゎ㔘㐣⛬࡟ࡣࠊグ⪅ࡢ୺ほⓗ࡞ุ᩿࣭ゎ㔘ࡀຍࢃࡿࠋ᭦࡟ࠊグ⪅ࡣㄞ⪅࡟ሗ࿌ࡍࡿ㝿ࠊㄞ⪅࡟ศ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࡼ࠺࡟⦅㞟సᴗࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡇࡢసᴗ㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊㄞ⪅ࡀ᭱ᑠ㝈ࡢฎ⌮ປຊ࡛᭱኱㝈ࡢຠᯝࢆᚓࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺ DM ࡞࡝ࢆ㏣ຍ࣭౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊグ⪅ࡀពᅗࡋࡓṇࡋ࠸ゎ㔘࡬ㄞ⪅ࢆᑟࡃࡼ࠺௙ྥࡅࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟ࠊグ⪅ࡲࡓࡣሗ࿌⪅ࡢఱࡽ࠿ࡢែᗘࡀ
཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ ‘The reporter believes’ ࡸ ‘The reporter is saying’ ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡀࡑࡢ౛࡜࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
4. ⪃ᐹ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢ㛵ᚰ࡛࠶ࡿࠕDM+┤᥋ヰἲࠖࡢ஦౛ࢆ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ㸯⠇
࡛ᣲࡆࡓ(3)࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᩥ⬦ࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦ࢆ㏣ຍࡋࠊ(16)࡜ᨵࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
(16) “... Even as we speak, Bangladesh is going down because the oceans are warming andexpanding and rising.” In other words, says a jovial Beard, “it’s a catastrophe. Relax!”(Time, April 5, 2010)(17) But Randi Yoder, the organization’s senior vice president of donor relations, is bracing fora funding shortfall in 2009 even as she anticipates that volunteer numbers will rise by asmuch as a third. That’s a tough combo.

Still, says Yoder, “if someone tells us they don’t

have money but they have time, we’ll find a way to plug them in.” (Time, March 30, 2009)(18) The banks are adopting a cautious approach, aware of that if credit flows were to tighten
globally, the maturity and cost of borrowing would be affected.

But, explains Akbank’s

Melek, “only 11 percent of the banking sector funding relies on borrowing from abroad.

−62−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

The major part of bank funding ̿over 60 percent̿ comes from domestic deposits.”(International Herald Tribune, November 2, 2011)(16)ࡣ Beard ࡢⓎゝࡀ⥆ࡃሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋඛ⾜ࡍࡿᩥ⬦࡛ࡣ Bangladesh ࡢ⎔ቃࡢ␗ኚࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ඛ⾜ࡍࡿⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡋࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡣ in other words ࢆῧ࠼ࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰࢆ┤᥋ヰἲࡢᙧ࡛ᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡶࡋࡶ Beard ᮏேࡀ ‘in other words’ ࡜ゝࡗࡓࡢ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᘬ⏝➢ࢆࡘࡅ࡚ሗ
࿌ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡓࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡀㄞ⪅࡟ศ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࡼ࠺ㄝ᫂ⓗ࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊሗ࿌⪅࡟ࡼࡿ Beard ࡢඖࡢⓎヰࡢゎ㔘࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕሗ࿌⪅ࡣᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰࡣඛ⾜ࡍࡿⓎヰࡢ஦㇟࣭≧ἣࡢゝ࠸᥮࠼࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ඛ࡟ྜᅗࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊㄞ⪅ࡢฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡌࠊຠᯝࢆ㧗ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣሗ࿌⪅ࡢ㈐௵ุ࡛᩿ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୺ほⓗ㛵୚ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋḟ࡟(17)ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ(17)ࡢඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊYoder ࡀ㈨㔠୙㊊࡟ഛ
࠼࡚࠸ࡿ᪨ࡀ᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࡢඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡟⥆࠸࡚ࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡣࠕStill+┤᥋ヰἲࠖࡢᙧࢆ
౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ‘still’ ࡣࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡛ఱࡽ࠿ࡢዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸≧ἣࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢ≧ἣ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿᅔ㞴ࡉࢆ⦆࿴ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥ⬦࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺᝟ሗࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶ
ࡶࡋ Yoder ࡀᐇ㝿࡟ ‘still’ ࡜Ⓨࡋࡓ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᘬ⏝➢ࢆࡘࡅ࡚ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡓࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿
ࡋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡀ Yoder ࡢᛮ⪃ࢆ⿵㊊ࡋࠊῧ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥ⬦ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࢆඛ࡟ྜᅗࡋࠊゎ㔘ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡌࠊຠᯝࢆ㧗ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇࡶሗ࿌⪅ࡢ㈐௵ุ࡛᩿ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ୺ほⓗ㛵୚ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟(18)ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ(18)ࡢඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊ㖟⾜ࡢ㈚௜ࡀཝࡋࡃྲྀࡾ⥾ࡲࡽࢀࡿ࡜
೉⏝࡟ᙳ㡪ࡀฟ࡚ࡃࡿ࡜࠸࠺୙Ᏻឤࢆᛮࢃࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᐇ㝿ࡣ 11㸣ࡋ࠿ᾏእ࠿ࡽࡢ೉⏝࡟౫Ꮡࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡑࢀ࡯࡝ᠱᛕࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࠕDM+┤᥋ヰἲࠖࡢᙧ࡛ᑟ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡟ᠱᛕ࣭୙Ᏻ࡜࡞ࡿ≧ἣࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ
≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ Melek ࡀ␗ࢆၐ࠼ࡿᙧ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊࡶࡋ Melek ࡀ ‘but’ ࡜ゝࡗࡓࡢ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᘬ⏝➢ࢆࡘࡅ࡚ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡓࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡀᠱᛕ஦㡯࡟ᑐࡋ࡚␗ࢆၐ࠼ࡿ Melek ࡢᛮ⪃ࢆ⿵㊊ࡋࠊ ‘but’ ࢆῧ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕሗ࿌
⪅ࡣࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰࡣඛ⾜ࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿఱࡽ࠿ࡢᑐẚ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ඛ࡟ྜᅗࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊㄞ⪅ࡢฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡌࠊຠᯝࢆ㧗ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇࡶሗ࿌⪅ࡢ㈐௵ุ࡛᩿ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୺ほⓗ㛵୚ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ௨ୖぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡞஦㇟ࡣࢪ࣮ࣕࢼࣜࢬ࣒ࡢᩥయ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋThompson (1994: 152)ࡣࠊグ⪅ࡣ⮬㌟ࡢពぢࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ࡣ㏙࡭࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊㄡࡢពぢࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ሗ࿌ࡍࡿ࠿ࢆ⮬ศ࡛㑅ࡪࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࡑࡇ࡟⮬㌟ࡢែᗘࡀ㛵ࢃࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕグ⪅ࡣࠊグ஦ࡢ⦅㞟࡟࠾࠸࡚⮬㌟ࡀᑟ
ࡁࡓ࠸᪉ྥ࡟ㄞ⪅ࢆ௙ྥࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋሗ㐨ᩥ࡛ࡣ┤᥋ヰἲࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ㝿ࠊグ⪅ࡣⓏሙே≀ࡢⓎゝࢆᛅᐇ࡟㏙࡭ࠊ⮬㌟ࡣ୍ぢ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊᙜヱ஦㇟ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
DM ࢆ⏝࠸࡚┤᥋ヰἲࢆᑟࡃࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢ୺ほⓗุ᩿ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
5. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
 ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕㄯヰᶆ㆑㸩┤᥋ヰἲࠖࡢᆺࢆᡂࡍᵓ㐀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡀ⮬㌟ࡢᑟࡁࡓ࠸
᪉ྥ࡟ㄞ⪅ࢆᑟࡃࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ⦅㞟సᴗ࡛ DM ࢆ㏣ຍࡍࡿ஦౛ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࠊㄞ⪅ࡢ⌮ゎࢆಁ㐍ࡋࠊฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡌࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡢពᅗࡋࡓ᪉ྥ࡟ㄞ⪅ࢆᑟࡃࡇ࡜࡟ᡂຌࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ὀ*ᮏ✏ࡣⓎ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃಟṇ∧࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲ࡢ㝿ࠊすᒣభྖඛ⏕ࠊෆ⏣⪷஧ඛ⏕ࠊྜྷᡂ♸Ꮚඛ⏕࡟఍ሙ࡟−63−

直接話法を導く談話標識の解釈的用法

࡚㈗㔜࡞ࡈᣦ᦬ࢆࠊࡲࡓࠊᵓ᝿ࡢẁ㝵ࡼࡾࠊす⏣ග୍ඛ⏕࡟ࡈຓゝࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡟ឤㅰࡢពࢆグࡍࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Ahern, A. 2010. “Speaker Attitude in Relevance Theory: An Overview.” In E. Waãaszewska, M.
Kisielewska-Krysiuk and A. Piskorska (ed.) In the Mind and across Minds: A

Relevance-Theoretic Perspective on Communication and Translation, 147-166. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Bach, K. 1999. “The Myth of Conventional Implicature.” Linguistics and Philosophy 22(4):327-366.
Blakemore, D. 1996. “Are Apposition Markers Discourse Markers?” Journal of Linguistics 32(2):325-347.
Blakemore, D. 2010. “Communication and the Representation of Thought: The Use ofAudience-Directed Expressions in Free Indirect Thought and Representations.” Journal of

Linguistics 46(3): 575-599.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide.

Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, A. 2007. “Do Discourse Connectives Encode Concepts or Procedures?” Lingua 117(1):149-174.
ᮾ᳃໏࣭ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ. 2003. ࠗ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢ᪂ᒎ㛤̿ㄆ▱࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ̿࠘ ᮾி: ◊✲♫.
஭ୖỌᖾ. 1988. ࠕᤄධ⠇࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ┤᥋ヰἲఏ㐩㒊ࠖࠊභ⏥ⱥㄒᏛ◊✲఍(⦅) ࠗ⌧௦ࡢゝㄒ◊✲࠘ࠊ
275-286. ᮾி: 㔠ᫍᇽ.
McCawley, J. D. 1987. “The Syntax of English Echoes.” CLS 23(1): 246-258.
Schourup, L. and ࿴஭⏣⣖Ꮚ. 1988. ࠗEnglish Connectives̿ㄯヰࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡳࡓࡘ࡞ࡂㄒ̿࠘ ᮾி:ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Sperber D. and D. Wilson. 1986/1995². Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford:
Blackwell. 㹙ෆ⏣⪷஧࣭୰㐐ಇ࣭᫂Ᏽ༡ඛ࣭⏣୰ᆂᏊ㸦ヂ㸧. 1993/1999². ࠗ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ̿ఏ㐩࡜ㄆ▱̿࠘ ᮾி: ◊✲♫.
Swan, M. 2005. Practical English Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, G. 1994. Collins Cobuild English Guides 5: Reporting. London: HarperCollins.
ෆ⏣⪷஧. 1998. ࠕࠕ(ࡢ)ࡔࠖ̿㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࠿ࡽࡢどⅬ̿ࠖࠊᑠす཭୐ඛ⏕ചᑑグᛕㄽᩥ㞟(⦅) ࠗ⌧௦ⱥㄒࡢㄒἲ࡜ᩥἲ࠘ࠊ243-251. ᮾி: ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
ෆ⏣⪷஧. 2002. ࠕ㧗ḟ⾲ព࠿ࡽࡳࡓ᪥ⱥㄒẚ㍑࡬ࡢ୍どⅬࠖ ࠗே㛫ᩥ໬◊✲⛉ᖺሗ࠘ ➨ 17 ྕ: 7-17.
ෆ⏣⪷஧. 2011a. ࠕᘬ⏝࡜ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࣓̿ࢱ⾲㇟ࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽ̿ࠖࠊṊෆ㐨Ꮚ࣭బ⸨⿱⨾㸦⦅㸧 ࠗⓎヰ࡜ᩥࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕̿ᑐ↷◊✲ࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽ̿࠘ࠊ21-42. ᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ෆ⏣⪷஧. 2011b. ࠗㄒ⏝ㄽࡢᑕ⛬̿ㄒ࠿ࡽㄯヰ࣭ࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡬̿࠘ ᮾி: ◊✲♫.
ᒣཱྀ἞ᙪ. 1992. ࠕ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡏ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡤ̿ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡀᘬ⏝࡟ࡶࡓࡽࡍᙳ㡪̿ࠖࠊᏳ஭Ἠ(⦅) ࠗࢢ࣐࣮࣭ࣛࢸࢡࢫࢺ࣭ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࠘ࠊ289-320. ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Yamaguchi, H. 1993. “Unrepeatable Sentences: Contextual Influence on Speech and Thought
Presentation.” In H. Parret (ed.) Pretending to Communicate, 239-252. Berilin: Walter deGruyter.
ᒣཱྀ἞ᙪ. 2009. ࠗ᫂ᬓ࡞ᘬ⏝ࠊࡋ࡞ࡸ࠿࡞ᘬ⏝̿ヰἲࡢ᪥ⱥᑐ↷◊✲̿࠘ ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.

−64−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽ⃝⏣ ῟㟷ᒣᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ
㸺abstract㸼
The purpose of this paper is to propose a hierarchical model of deixis which can correctly capture andexplain the distributions of English deictic motion verbs come/go. In our deictic hierarchical model, thedeictic center has the following types: (i) a speaker or a hearer’s location at the utterance time (=SS/HS),(ii) a speaker or a hearer’s location at the reference time (=SR/HR), (iii) a speaker or hearer’s home base(at the reference time) (=SHB/HHB). The members of the deictic center are different in the degree of‘deicticity’ and the selection of come and go depends on the following scale: SS/HS > SR/HR > SHB/HHB(>¬S/¬H)࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚㄒ⏝ㄽࠊࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫࠊcome/goࠊ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ㸯 ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊFillmore㸦1965ࠊ1966ࠊ1975ࠊ1983ࠊ1997ࠊ➼㸧࡟ࡼࡿ୍㐃ࡢ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモ
come/go ࡢ◊✲ࢆⓎᒎⓗ࡟⥅ᢎࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊ
ࠕ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࠖ
㸦deictic center㸧ࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࢆᆒ㉁ⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㝵ᒙⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡓࠕ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞ࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫࡢศᯒࣔࢹࣝ
ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ come/go ࡢศᕸ㛵ಀࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ⢭⦓໬ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ  㸦1㸧ࠕ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢୗ఩༊ศ໬ࠖ
㸸┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࢆࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦S㸧
ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦H㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞኱ࡲ
࠿࡞ᣦᐃ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊⓎヰ᫬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸦SS㸧ࠊᣦ♧᫬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸦SR㸧ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ࣮࣒࣍
ࠊⓎヰ᫬ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦HS㸧ࠊᣦ♧᫬ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦HR㸧
ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋
࣮࣋ࢫ㸦SHB㸧ࢫ㸦HHB㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⣽࠿࡞࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᣦᐃࡍࡿࠋ
㸦2㸧ࠕ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙ໬ࠖ㸸┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮㸦SS, SR, SHB, HS, HR, HHB㸧ࢆࠊ┤♧ᛶࡢᗘྜ࠸࡟࠾࠸࡚ࢫࢣ࣮ࣝࢆ࡞ࡍ㝵ᒙⓗᏑᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨࡙ࡅࡿࠋ㸦1㸧ࡢ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢୗ఩༊ศ໬ࡣࠊFillmore ࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽᑟ࠿ࢀࡿศᯒどⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࢆⓎᒎࡉࡏࡓ㸦2㸧ࡢ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙ໬ࡢศᯒどⅬࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

㸰 )LOOPRUH ࡢࠕFRPHJR ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖ࡜┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮
 Fillmore ࡣࠊ୍㐃ࡢ◊✲࡛ಟṇ࣭Ⓨᒎࢆ㔜ࡡࡓᚋ㸦Fillmore㸦1965ࠊ1966ࠊ1975ࠊ1983ࠊ1997ࠊ➼㸧㸧ࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ come/go ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ḟࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࢆᥦฟࡍࡿ࡟⮳ࡗࡓࠋ
㸦3㸧come/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮㸸come ࡣࠊࠕⓎヰ᫬ࠖ㸦coding time㸧ࠊࠕᣦ♧᫬ࠖ㸦reference time㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ఩⨨࡬ࡢ⛣ືࡸࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫࠖ
㸦home base㸧࡬ࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿࠋgo ࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸ࡿ఩⨨㸧௨እ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿ1ࠋ    㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 61ࠊ1997: 90-91㸧
1 ࡇࡢཎ๎࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊFillmore㸦1997: 98ࠊ99㸧ࡣࠊ㸦i㸧ヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྠ⾜ࡍࡿ⛣ືࠊ㸦ii㸧ㄒࡾ࡟࠾ࡅ
ࡿヰ㢟ࡢே≀㸭ሙᡤ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜ࡟ࡶ come ࡀ౑࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⿵๎ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⏝౛ࢆୗ

−65−

ダイクシスにおける直示的中心の階層スケールと語用論ࡇࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࢆࠊศ࠿ࡾ᫆࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࢣ࣮ࢫࡈ࡜࡟ศࡅ࡚♧ࡍ࡜ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ







come: ࢣ࣮ࢫ 1㸸Ⓨヰ᫬࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸ࡿ఩⨨࡬ࡢ⛣ື    ࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸸ᣦ♧᫬࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀ㹹࠸ࡿ/࠸ࡓ㹻఩⨨࡬ࡢ⛣ື    ࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸸ヰࡋᡭࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫ࡬ࡢ⛣ື    ࢣ࣮ࢫ 4㸸Ⓨヰ᫬࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠸ࡿ఩⨨࡬ࡢ⛣ື    ࢣ࣮ࢫ 5㸸ᣦ♧᫬࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㹹࠸ࡿ/࠸ࡓ㹻఩⨨࡬ࡢ⛣ື    ࢣ࣮ࢫ 6㸸⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫ࡬ࡢ⛣ືgo:  Ⓨヰ᫬࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸ࡿ఩⨨௨እ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸦㸻ࢣ࣮ࢫ 1 ௨እ㸧⾲㸯 Fillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ༊ศ ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ࠊ⏝ㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ 2 Ⅼ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ1 ࡘࡣࠊᣦ♧᫬࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋFillmore ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊᣦ♧᫬࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕᩥ୰࡛ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡓࡾࠊ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀࡓ᫬Ⅼࡸ᫬㛫ࠖ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊJohn
was here last Tuesday.࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧᫬ࡣࠊlast Tuesday ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࠊ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀࡓᮍ᮶ࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦Fillmore㸦1997: 17㸧㸧ࠋFillmore ࡢ࠸࠺ reference time ࡣࠊReichenbach㸦1947㸧ࡢ᫬ไㄽ࡟
࠾ࡅࡿ reference time ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊevent time ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋcome/go ࡢศᯒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㝈ࡾࠊFillmore ࡢ࠸࠺ᣦ♧᫬ࡣࠕ⛣ືࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ㹹ࡿ㸭ࡓ㹻᫬Ⅼࠖ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋ࡚ᕪᨭ࠼࡞
࠸ࠋ
ࡶ࠺ 1 ࡘࡣࠊ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⏝ㄒࡣࠊ኱ኚ⯆࿡῝࠸ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
Fillmore ࡣࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᫂☜࡞ᐃ⩏ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ⏝౛࠿ࡽ᥎ᐹࡍࡿ࡟ࠊ఍ヰཧ୚⪅ࡢࠕ⮬Ꮿࠖࡀࡑࢀ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊcome ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᗈ⠊ᅖ࡟᳨ウࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ఍ヰཧ୚⪅ࡢࠕ໅ົᆅࠖ
ࠕฟ㌟ᆅࠖ
ࠕᒃఫᆅᇦࠖ
ࠕᡤ᭷ᆅࠖ➼ࡶ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋᮏ
✏࡛ࡣࠊ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫࢆ㸦Fillmore ࡢ᝿ᐃࡼࡾࡶ㸧ᗈࡃᤊ࠼ࠊ
ࠕヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㛵ࢃࡾࡢ῝࠸ሙᡤࠖ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡉ࡚ࠊFillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࢆⓎᒎⓗ࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊⓎヰ᫬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸦SS㸧ࠊᣦ♧᫬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸦SR㸧ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫ㸦SHB㸧ࠊⓎヰ᫬ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫ㸦HHB㸧ࡢ 6 ࡘࡀᢳฟ࡛ࡁࡿ㸦┤ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦HS㸧ࠊᣦ♧᫬ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦HR㸧ࠋ ࡇࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ 1 ࡘࡀ฿╔ᆅ࡟ᣦᐃࡉࢀ࡚
♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㞟ྜ㸸
㹙SS, SR, SHB, HR, HS, HHB㹛㸧
࠸ࢀࡤࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ come ࡀ౑࠼ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࠊ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋ࡚άᛶ໬ࡍࡿせ⣲ࢆᅖ࠺࡜ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࢣ࣮ࢫ 1㸸㹙SS , SR, SHB, HS, HR, HHB㹛࡟ᣲࡆࡿࠋ  㸦i㸧a. Would you like to {come/go} (along)?
b. Can I {come/go} (along)?     㸦Fillmore㸦1997: 97㸧㸧
㸦ii㸧The men came into her bedroom.       
㸦cf. *The men came into her bedroom and then came right out again.㸧㸦Fillmore㸦1983: 227㸧㸧
⚾ぢ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ㸦i㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྠ⾜ࡍࡿ⛣ືࡣࠊᣦ♧᫬࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸦ࢣ࣮ࢫ 2ࠊ5㸧࡟ྵࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊ⊂❧ࡋࡓࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࡋ࡚❧࡚ࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊḟࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧᫬㸦௒ᬌ㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸ࡿணᐃࡢሙᡤ㸦ᫎ⏬㤋㸧ࡀ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊSR ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸧ࡀ come ࡛ᥥ෗ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦iii㸧We’re going to the cinema tonight. Would you like to come with us? 㸦Swan㸦20053: 135㸧㸧

−66−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

ࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸸
㹙SS, SR , SHB, HS, HR, HHB㹛ࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸸
㹙SS, SR, SHB , HS, HR, HHB㹛ࢣ࣮ࢫ 4㸸
㹙SS, SR, SHB, HS , HR, HHB㹛ࢣ࣮ࢫ 5㸸
㹙SS, SR, SHB, HS, HR , HHB㹛ࢣ࣮ࢫ 6㸸
㹙SS, SR, SHB, HS, HR, HHB 㹛⾲㸰 ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋ࡚άᛶ໬ࡍࡿ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮
ࢣ࣮ࢫ 1 ࠿ࡽࢣ࣮ࢫ 6 ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿ come ࡢ⏝౛ࢆ௨ୗ࡟ᣲࡆࡿࠋ
ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 1㸻SS ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸸ヰࡋᡭࡣⓎヰ᫬࡟฿╔ᆅ࡟࠸ࡿࠒ
㸦4㸧He came here two hours before I arrived. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 55; 1997: 83㸧㸧ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸻SR ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸸ヰࡋᡭࡣⓎヰ᫬࡟ࡣ฿╔ᆅ࡟࠸࡞࠸ࡀᣦ♧᫬࡟ࡣ࠸ࡿࠒ
㸦5㸧He’ll come to the office tomorrow to pick me up.
㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 59; 1997: 88㸧㸧㸦6㸧Carla came to Tahiti to do a commercial while we were holidaying there.
㸦Huddleston and Pullum㸦eds.㸧
㸦2002: 1551㸧
㸧ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸻SHB ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸸ヰࡋᡭࡣⓎヰ᫬࡟ࡶᣦ♧᫬࡟ࡶ฿╔ᆅ࡟ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠒ
㸦7㸧He came over to my place last night, but I wasn’t home. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 60; 1997: 90㸧㸧㸦8㸧Jill came round last night but I missed her as I was working late at the office.
㸦Huddleston and Pullum㸦eds.㸧
㸦2002: 1551㸧
㸧㸦9㸧It’s a pity that John’s coming to the shop tomorrow, when neither of us willbe there.                 㸦Goddard㸦1998: 207㸧㸧ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 4㸸HS ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸸⪺ࡁᡭࡣⓎヰ᫬࡟฿╔ᆅ࡟࠸ࡿࠒ
㸦10㸧I’ll come there right away.      㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 56; 1997: 84㸧㸧
㸦11㸧A: Doctor, this is your surgery. Please come immediately. There are a lot of patients waiting
for you here.
B: Yes, I’ll come immediately. Sorry! I overslept.  㸦Leech㸦1989: 80㸧㸧ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 5㸻HR ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸸⪺ࡁᡭࡣⓎヰ᫬࡟ࡣ฿╔ᆅ࡟࠸࡞࠸ࡀᣦ♧᫬࡟ࡣ࠸ࡿࠒ  㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 57; 1997: 86㸧㸧㸦12㸧I’ll come there at dawn.2     㸧㸦13㸧What time did I come to see you in the office yesterday?
㸦Swan㸦20053: 135㸧ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 6㸻HHB ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸸⪺ࡁᡭࡣⓎヰ᫬࡟ࡶᣦ♧᫬࡟ࡶ฿╔ᆅ࡟ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠒ
㸦14㸧I came over to your place last night, but you weren’t home.
㸦Fillmore㸦1997: 90㸧㸧㸦15㸧Jill says you were out when she came round to see you last night.
㸦Huddleston and Pullum㸦eds.㸧
㸦2002: 1552㸧
㸧ୖ࡛ࡣࠊ1 ࡘࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡢㄞࡳ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋࡓ⏝౛ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ 1
ࡘࡢ౛ࡀ」ᩘࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡢㄞࡳ࡟᭕᫕࡜࡞ࡿ౛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢ౛ࡣ 6 ࡘ඲࡚ࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡟ゎ㔘ࡀ᭕᫕࡜࡞ࡿ⯆࿡῝࠸౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦44㸧John will come to the library next week. 㸦Huang㸦2007: 161㸧㸧␃ពࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿゝㄒࡢ COME ືモࡀࡇࢀࡽ඲࡚ࡢ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࢆཧ↷Ⅼ࡟࡛ࡁࡿࢃࡅ
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡢ⠊ᅖࡣゝㄒẖ࡛␗࡞ࡾᚓࡿࠋ
2 㸦12㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ there ࡣࠊ┤♧࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ↷ᛂ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ๓ᩥ⬦࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓᮍ᮶࡟࠾࠸࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿሙᡤࢆᣦࡍ㸦ࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢሙᡤࡣ᫂♧ⓗ࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧ࠋ

−67−

ダイクシスにおける直示的中心の階層スケールと語用論ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊࢩ࣋‶ᕞㄒࡢ COME ືモ ju ࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ఩⨨࡬ࡢ⛣ືࡢࡳࢆ⾲ࡋࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢ⛣ືࡣ඲࡚ GO ືモ gene ࡀᢸ࠺㸦Kubo㸦1997: 21㸧ࠊ୰⃝㸦2008: 126㸧㸧ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
COME ືモࡀཧ↷ࡍࡿ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡣࠊSS ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊSR ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍḟࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ
ju ࡣ౑⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
㸦16㸧cejan-de ali-me

ila-me㥐-࡛  ᚅࡘ-ᮍ᏶஢ ࠸ࡿ-ᮍ᏶஢

 ilaN eriN-de{*ju/gene}.

3   ᫬-࡟   ᮶࡚㸭⾜ࡗ࡚ࠕ൅ࡣ㥐࡛ᚅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊ3 ᫬࡟㹹᮶࡚㸭*⾜ࡗ࡚㹻ࠋࠖ㸦୰⃝㸦2008: 125㸧㸧┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࡴ⠊ᅖࡣࢩ࣋ㄒ࡯࡝⊃ࡃࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦HR, HS, HHB㸧ࢆࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡢ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋ࡚ཧ↷ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡢࡣࠊ⛣ື୺యࡀ➨୕⪅ࡢሙྜ࡟㝈ࡽࢀ㸦୰⃝
㸦2008: 121㸧㸧ࠊ⛣ື୺యࡀヰࡋᡭࡢሙྜࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊ༢ᩥᖹླྀᩥࡢୗ࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡾᚓ࡞࠸㸦౛㸸௒࠿ࡽࡑࡗࡕ࡟㹹*᮶ࡿ㸭⾜ࡃ㹻ࡡ㸧ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊྂ௦᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦ࡬ࡢヰࡋᡭࡢ⛣ືࢆࠕ᮶࡛ࠖ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊ⛣ື୺యࡀヰࡋᡭࡢሙྜ࡛ࡶ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡓ㸦⃝⏣㸦2011ࠊ2012aࠊb㸧㸧ࠋ᪥ᮏࡢすഃᆅᇦࡢ࿘㎶㒊ࡢㅖ᪉ゝ㸦ฟ㞼᪉ゝࠊ➼㸧࡛ࡶྠᵝࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊྂ௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㐠⏝ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢṧᏑ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ⱥㄒࠊࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࠊࢺࣝࢥㄒࡢ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモࡢᑐ↷ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ Gathercole㸦1977: 91㸧
ࡣࠊCOME/GO ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࡣゝㄒẖ࡛␗࡞ࡿࡀࠊSS ࡬ࡢ⛣ື࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ࡝ࡢゝㄒࡶ COME ࡢࡳࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿⅬ࡛ゝㄒ㛫ࡢඹ㏻ᛶࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゝㄒ㢮ᆺㄽⓗどⅬ࠿ࡽぢࡓሙྜࠊSS࡬ࡢ⛣ືࡀ COME ືモࡢࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

㸱 )LOOPRUH ࡢࠕFRPHJR ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࡢ㝈⏺ Fillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࡣࠊࢣ࣮ࢫ 1 ࢆ㝖ࡁࠊࢣ࣮ࢫ 2 ࠿ࡽࢣ࣮ࢫ 6 ࡛ࡣ come ࡜go ࡢ୧᪉ࡀ౑࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ௨ୗࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡢ go ࡢ౑⏝ศᕸࡣࠊࡇࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮࡟ࡼࡾ㐺ษ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 1㸸SS ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠒ  㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 55; 1997: 84㸧㸧
㸦17㸧They {*went/came} here.3     ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸸SR ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠒ
㸦18㸧He’ll {go/come} to the office tomorrow to pick me up. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 59; 1997: 88㸧㸧ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸸SHB ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠒ
㸦19㸧He {went/came over} to my place last night, but I wasn’t home.
㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 60; 1997: 90㸧㸧ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 5㸸HR ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠒ  㸦20㸧Can I {go/come} to your office tomorrow at 12:00?
 㸦Huang㸦2007: 135㸧㸧ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 6㸸HHB ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠒ
㸦21㸧I {went/came over} to your place last night, but you weren’t home.
㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 60, 1997: 90㸧㸧ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊFillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮࡛ࠖࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ศᕸࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ
㸦ࢣ࣮ࢫ 4㸧࡛ come ࡶ go ࡶ
➨ 1 ࡟ࠊFillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࡣࠊ
ࠕHS ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠖ3 here ࡀⓎヰሙᡤ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᆅᅗୖࡢ୍ᆅⅬࢆᣦࡍࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊhere ࡀࢩࣥ࣎ࣜࢵࢡ⏝ἲ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢪ࢙ࢫࢳ࣮ࣕ⏝ἲࡢሙྜ㸧ࠊgo ࡶ㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊḟࡢ౛ࡢ go ࡣࠊࠕ㏻࠺ࠖࡢព࿡࡛࠶ࡾࠊ┤♧ไ㝈ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊhere ࡜ඹ㉳࡛ࡁࡿࠋ  㸦i㸧Do you go to school here?㸦Fillmore㸦1966: 226㸧㸧

−68−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

౑࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆண ࡍࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ go ࡣ౑࠼࡞࠸㸦ྠᵝࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡢᣦ᦬ࡀ୰⃝㸦2002: 287㸧ࠊ
Oshima㸦2011: 117㸧࡟ࡶ࠶ࡿ㸧ࠋࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 4㸸HS ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠒ
㸦22㸧A: Maria, would you come here, please?

B: I’m {coming/*going}.
 㸦Swan㸦20053: 109㸧㸧 ➨ 2 ࡟ࠊFillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࡣࠊࠕSR ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠖ㸦ࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸧࡛ࡣᖖ࡟ come ࡶgo ࡶ౑࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆண ࡍࡿࡀࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡛ࡣ go ࡀ୙⮬↛࡜࡞ࡿࠋ㸦23㸧㸦ヰࡋᡭࡢᐙ࡛ࡢ఍ヰ㸧I’ll be in my office all day long tomorrow. So, please {come/??go}and see me anytime you like.
 ➨ 3 ࡟ࠊFillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࡣࠊSHB㸭HHB ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸦ࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸭6㸧࡛ comeࡶ go ࡶ౑࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆண ࡍࡿࡀࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛ࡣ come ࡣ౑࠼࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸸SHB ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠒ㸦24㸧
㸦on the phone㸧I’m in New York now on business. Could you please {*come/go} to my houseand get the file from my wife?
ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸸SHB ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸭ࢣ࣮ࢫ 6㸸HHB ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠒ
㸦25㸧㸦on the phone㸧
A: I’m at the Chicago O’Hare International Airport now. I’ve forgotten to bring my passport.
Could you please {*come/go} to my house and bring it to me?
 B: OK. I’ll {*come/go} to your house and bring it in an hour.
 ௨ୗࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙ໬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゎỴ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㸲 ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ
1 ࠿ࡽ 6 ࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣࠊ฿╔ᆅ࡬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵୚㸦┤♧ᛶ㸧ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋࢣ
࣮ࢫ 1㸭4 ࡢ฿╔ᆅࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡀ௒࠸ࡿሙᡤ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ฿╔ᆅ࡬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵୚ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗࠸ࠋࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸭5 ࡛ࡣࠊ฿╔ᆅ࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㸦ࡑࢀ࠿ࡽ஋㞳࣭㐟㞳ࡋࡓᚰീ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㸧ᣦ♧᫬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ฿╔ᆅ࡬ࡢ㛵୚ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡣࢣ࣮ࢫ 1㸭4 ࡟ẚࡋ࡚ప࠸ࠋࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸭6 ࡢ฿╔ᆅ࡟⮳ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬࡟ࡶᣦ♧᫬࡟ࡶヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ฿╔ᆅࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ࡟㥆ᰁࡳ࠶ࡿሙᡤ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࡀಖ㞀ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࠋⱥㄒ
࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ฿╔ᆅ࡬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵୚ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡣࠊḟࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ㸦኱㸼ᑠ㸧ࢆ࡞ࡍ
㸦㻀S/㻀H ࡣࠊ฿╔ᆅ࡟┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ㸧ࠋ㸦26㸧┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ㸦ⱥㄒ㸧㸸SS㸭HS 㸼 SR㸭HR 㸼 SHB㸭HHB 㸦㸼 㻀S/㻀H㸧  ⯆࿡῝࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࠊ฿╔ᆅ࡬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵୚ࡢᗘྜ࠸㸦┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢᗘྜ࠸㸧ࡀపࡃ࡞ࡿ㸦㝵ᒙࡀୗࡀࡿ㸧࡟ࡘࢀࠊ㑅ᢥࡀḟ➨࡟ come ࠿ࡽ go ࡬࡜ษࡾ᭰ࢃࡿࠋcome ࡢ┤♧ᛶࡣࠊࢣ࣮ࢫ 1㸭4ࠊࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸭5ࠊࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸭6 ࡢ㡰࡟ᙅࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
ࠑSS㸭HS ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠒ

−69−

ダイクシスにおける直示的中心の階層スケールと語用論

㸦27㸧“He {comes/*goes} here to eat every night, don’t he?”“Sometimes he {comes/*goes} here.”   
㸦E. Hemingway, The Killers.㸧
㸦28㸧I’ll {come/*go} there right away.    㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 56; 1997: 84㸧㸧
ࠑSR㸭HR ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠒ㸦29㸧I’ll be in my office all day long tomorrow. So, please {come/??go} and see me anytime youlike.
㸦30㸧He’ll {come/go} to the office tomorrow to pick me up. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 59; 1997: 88㸧㸧
㸦31㸧She’ll {come/go} there to meet you.   㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 59; 1997: 88㸧㸧 ࠑSHB㸭HHB ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠒ
㸦32㸧He {went/came over} to my place last night, but I wasn’t home.
㸦cf. Fillmore㸦1975: 60; 1997: 90㸧㸧㸦33㸧I {went/came over} to your place last night, but you weren’t home.
㸦cf. Fillmore㸦1975: 60, 1997: 90㸧㸧㸦34㸧A: I’m at the Chicago O'Hare International Airport now. I’ve forgotten to bring my passport.
Could you please {*come/go} to my house and bring it to me?
 B: OK. I’ll {*come/go} to your house and bring it in an hour.
ࠑ㻀S/㻀H ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠒ  㸦35㸧Let’s {*come /go} and see Peter and Diane.
㸦cf. Swan㸦20053: 135㸧㸧
㸦36㸧Let’s {*come/go} there.
㸦Fillmore㸦1997:89㸧㸧㸧➨ 1 ࡟ࠊ฿╔ᆅ࡬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵୚ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ᭱ࡶᙉ࠸ࠕSS㸭HS ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠖࡢሙྜ࡟
ࡣࠊcome ࡢࡳࡀ㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡾࠊgo ࡣཝࡋࡃᢚไࡉࢀࡿࠋ
 ➨ 2 ࡟ࠊ฿╔ᆅ࡬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵୚ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀࠕSS㸭HS ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠖ࡟ẚࡋ࡚ᙅ࠸ࠕSR㸭HR ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠖࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕSS㸭HS ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠖ࡯࡝ࡣ go ࡢ౑⏝ࡣཝࡋࡃᢚไࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡓ
ࡔࡋࠊ
㸦29㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⛣ືࡢ╔Ⅼ㡯ࡢ఩⨨࡟ヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ⮬㌟ࡀ❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡑ࠺
࡛࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ẚࡋ࡚ࠊ฿╔ᆅ࡬ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵୚ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ᙉ࠸࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࠊ
go ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡣୗࡀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
➨ 3 ࡟ࠊ
ࠕSHB㸭HHB ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠖࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ฿╔ᆅࡀヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ࡟㥆ᰁࡳ࠶ࡿሙᡤ࡜࠸
࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࡀಖ㞀ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊgo ࡢ౑⏝ࡣᢚไࡉࢀ
࡞࠸ࠋሙྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ
㸦34㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊgo ࡢࡳࡀ㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡿ≧ἣࡉ࠼Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋ
㸦34㸧࡛ࡣࠊ
SS㸭HS㸦㸿Ặࡢ⌧ᅾᆅ㸧ࡀ᫂♧໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ┤♧ⓗ㸦33㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊSS㸭HS ࡀ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋ࡚ SS㸭HS ࡀ SHB㸭HHB ࡟ඃඛࡉࢀࡿࠋSHB㸭HHB ࡣࠊ㸦32㸧ࠊ᫂♧໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸦ࡲࡓࡣࠊ୙ၥ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧᫬࡟ࡢࡳࠊ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰ࡜࡞ࢀࡿࠕᙅ࠸ࠖᏑ
ᅾ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
➨ 4 ࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ฿╔ᆅ࡬ࡢ㛵୚ࡀ඲ࡃ࡞࠸ࠕ㻀S/㻀H ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࠖࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊgoࡢࡳࡀ㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡾࠊcome ࡢ౑⏝ࡣཝࡋࡃᢚไࡉࢀࡿࠋ
㸦35㸧ࠊ㸦36㸧࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࣭⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠕໟ
ྵⓗ weࠖ
㸦inclusive we㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ඹ࡟⛣ື୺య࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊヰࡋᡭ࣭⪺ࡁᡭࡀ⛣ືࡢ฿╔ᆅ࡟᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡎࠊcome ࡣ౑⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ
㸦26㸧ࡢ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊcome/go ࡢศᕸ㛵ಀࡀỴࡲࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋFillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚⏕ࡌࡿၥ㢟Ⅼࡣࠊ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࢆ㝵ᒙⓗ࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゎỴࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ㸳 ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモ FRPHJR ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽ
SR㸭HRࠊSHB㸭HHB ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣࠊಶูⓗせᅉ࡟ࡼࡾ come/go ࡢ㑅ᢥࡀ୍⩏ⓗ࡜࡞ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ₯ᅾⓗ࡟ࡣ come ࡜ go ࡢ୧᪉ࡀ⌧ࢀᚓࡓࠋ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࠊcome ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࡓሙྜ࡜ go ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࡓሙྜ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ฿╔−70−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

ᆅ࡟㏆࡙ࡃ⛣ືࢆ↔Ⅼ໬ࡍࡿ㸦㸻฿╔ᆅᣦྥⓗ㸧࠿ࠊฟⓎᆅ࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀࡿ⛣ືࢆ↔Ⅼ໬ࡍࡿࠊࡲ
ࡓࡣࠊ⛣ືࢆ୰❧ⓗ࡟ᥥ෗ࡍࡿ㸦㸻㠀฿╔ᆅᣦྥⓗ㸧࠿࡜࠸࠺ come ࡜ go ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ព࿡ⓗ┦㐪ࡀ཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢព࿡ⓗ┦㐪ࡣࠊcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࡜ࡁ࡟⯆࿡῝࠸ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ┦㐪ࢆ⏕ࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺㸦୧౛࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊHR ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࢆ⾲ࡍ㸧ࠋ
㸦37㸧Oh, you’re acting in Othello tomorrow night, are you?—I’ll {come/go} and watch you fromthe gallery.  㸦Brown and Levinson㸦1978: 122㸧㸧㸦38㸧I’m {coming/going} to your graduation.
㸦Radden and Dirven㸦2007: 24㸧㸧Brown and Levinson㸦1978: 122㸧ࡣࠊ㸦37㸧࡛ࡢ go ࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕ኱ኚኻ♩࡛♩൤ࢆࢃࡁࡲ࠼࡞࠸ࠖ
㸦very rude or non-courteous㸧ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࠊRadden and Dirven㸦2007: 24㸧ࡣࠊ㸦38㸧࡛ࡢ go ౑⏝ࡣࠊࠕ୰❧ⓗࠖ㸦neutral㸧ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࢆ♧ࡍ࠿ࠊሙྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ♩൤࡟እࢀࡓ↓సἲ㸦misbehaving㸧࡞⾜࠸ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿே≀࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ࡟ࡣ㸧࡯࡜ࢇ࡝⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ⬣㏕ࠖ
㸦threatening㸧࡜࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋၥ㢟ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࡟࠾ࡅࡿ go ࡢ౑⏝ࡀࠊ࡞ࡐࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿኻ♩ࡉࡸ⬣㏕࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊgo ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊ฿╔ᆅ㸻⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㛵ᚰࡣ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ᕼⷧ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᬕࢀࡢ⯙ྎ㸦බ₇ࠊ༞ᴗᘧ㸧࡟㛵ᚰࢆྥࡅࡎࠊ
⮬㌟ࡢ⛣ືࡢࡳࢆၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㢳៖࡟ḞࡅࡓⓎゝ࡟ཷࡅ࡜ࡽࢀࡓࡾࠊ⮬ᕫ୰ᚰⓗ࡛㌟຾ᡭ࡞᣺ࡿ⯙࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅྲྀࡽࢀ࠿ࡡ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ฿╔ᆅࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᬕࢀ
ࡢ⯙ྎ࡜ࡋ࡚タᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ≧ἣタᐃࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࢖࣏ࣥࣛ࢖ࢺ࡞
ຠᯝ㸦ኻ♩ࡉࠊ➼㸧ࢆຓ㛗ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ຠᯝࡣࠕㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊ࢟ࣕ
ࣥࢭࣝྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋS ࠿ࡽ HR ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࢆ go ࡛⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀᖖ࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࢖࣏ࣥࣛ࢖ࢺ࡜
࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
୍᪉࡛ࠊୖࡢ౛࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ H ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍ come ࡣࠊ㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡘࡓࡵ࡟㸧⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢඹឤ㸦sympathetic㸧ࢆ⾲ࡍ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓ౑⏝ἲ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡇ
࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦Brown and Levinson㸦1978: 121㸧ࠊRadden㸦1996: 430㸧ࠊRadden and Dirven㸦2007: 24㸧➼ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ☜࠿࡟ࠊcome ࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡾࠊ฿╔ᆅ㸻⪺ࡁᡭ࡟㛵ᚰࡀྥࡅࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊgo ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿሙྜࡼࡾࡶ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢඹឤࡀ㔊ᡂࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸࡜࠸࠺㠃ࡣ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊHS ࡬ࡢ⛣ື㸦ࢣ࣮ࢫ 4㸧࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡶࡑࡶ come ࡋ࠿㑅ᢥࡢవᆅࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ⛣ືࡢ≧ἣ࡛ᖖ࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢඹឤࡀ
క࠺㸦ࡲࡓࡣࠊඹឤᛶࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ࢽ࣮ࣗࢺࣛࣝ࡞⛣ືࡀᥥ෗࡛ࡁ࡞࠸㸧ࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ⾲⌧ୖᴟࡵ࡚୙㒔ྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢඹឤࡀకࢃ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ H ࡬ࡢ⛣ື࡛ come ࡣ౑࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊḟࡢ౛࡛ヰࡋᡭࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢඹឤࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢᩥ඲యࡢ
ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ㸦speech act㸧ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ⬣㏕ࠖࡔ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦39㸧If you don’t be quiet, I’ll come over there and sort you out.
㸦Huddleston and Pullum㸦eds.㸧
㸦2002: 1553㸧㸧
come ࡢ౑⏝࡟࠾࠸࡚⏕ࡌᚓࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿඹឤࡶࡲࡓࠊ࢟ࣕࣥࢭࣝྍ⬟࡞ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋcome/go ࡢ┤♧ⓗព࿡࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚஧ḟⓗ࡟⏕ࡌᚓࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡸ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡢព࿡࡜ࡣ᫂☜࡟༊ูࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㸴 ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
௒ᚋࠊᮏ◊✲࡛⾜ࡗࡓⱥㄒࡢ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモࡢศᯒࢆᅵྎ࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ௚ゝㄒࡢ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモ࡜ࡢᑐ↷◊✲࣭㢮ᆺㄽ◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢୗ఩༊ศ໬࡜㝵ᒙ໬ࡢどⅬࡣࠊࡑࡢ㝿ࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᅵྎ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢศᯒἲࡣࠊ┤♧ⓗ㐠ᦙືモ bring/take−71−ダイクシスにおける直示的中心の階層スケールと語用論࡟ࡶ㐺⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ㹙௜グ㹛⏝౛ࡢุ᩿࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ୺࡟࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒࡢẕㄒヰ⪅㸦࢝ࣜࣇ࢛ࣝࢽ࢔ᕞฟ㌟㸧࡛࠶ࡿ Richard Cleveland Ặ㸦㛵すእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸧࠿ࡽከࡃࡢ᭷┈࡞ࡈᣦ᦬ࢆᚓࡓࠋẶࡢࡈ༠ຊ࡟ឤㅰࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1965. Entailment Rules in a Semantic Theory. The Ohio State University Project on Linguistic
Analysis. Report No. 10. 60-82.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1966. Deictic Categories in the Semantics of ‘COME’. Foundations of Language. 2: 269-227.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1975. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis 1971. Indiana: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1983. How to Know Whether You’re Coming or Going (Reprint). In: Rauh, Gisa (ed.) Essays on
Deixis. 219-227. Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1997. Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Gathercole, Virginia. C. 1977. A Study of the Comings and Goings of the Speaker of Four Languages: Spanish, Japanese,
English, and Turkish. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics. 2: 61-94.
Goddard, Cliff. 1998. Semantic Analysis: A Practical Intruduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.) 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kubo, Tomoyuki. 1997. “Come” and “Go” in Sive Manchu. Saksaha: A Review of Manchu Studies. 2: 19-24.
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1989. An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage. London: Edward Arnold.
୰⃝ᜏᏊ. 2008.ࠕ“come”ࡀࠕ᮶ࡿ࡛ࠖ࡞࠸࡜ࡁʊ┤♧⛣ືືモࡢᬑ㐢ᛶ࡜ከᵝᛶʊࠖ㛗㇂ᕝᑑ୍࣭C㸬࣐࣮࣭ࣛࣝ
ఀ⸨ࡓ࠿ࡡ㸦⦅㸧ࠗࡇࡇࢁ࡜ゝⴥʊ㐍໬࡜ㄆ▱⛉Ꮫࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳʊ࠘113-127. ᮾி: ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍.
Oshima, David Yoshikazu. 2011. Perspectives in Reported Discourse: The De Re/De Dicto Distinction, Indexicality, and
Presupposition. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller GmbH 㸤 Co. KG.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. London: Longman.
Radden, Günter. 1996. Motion Metaphorized: The Case of Coming and Going. In: Eugene H. Casad (ed.) Cognitive
Linguistics in the Redwoods. 425-458. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Radden, Günter and René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press.
⃝⏣῟. 2011.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫ⾲⌧࡜どⅬࠊ୺ほᛶࠖ⃝⏣἞⨾㸦⦅㸧ࠗࡦࡘࡌព࿡ㄽㅮᗙ㸳 ୺ほᛶ࡜୺యᛶ࠘165-192. ᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
⃝⏣῟. 2012a.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ◊✲ࠖ༤ኈㄽᩥࠊி㒔኱Ꮫ.
⃝⏣῟. 2012b.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモ࡟㛵ࡍࡿṔྐⓗ◊✲ʊ୰ྂ࿴ᩥ㈨ᩱࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ʊࠖKLS. 32: 97-108. 㛵
すゝㄒᏛ఍
Swan, Michael. 20053. Practical English Usage.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ᒣཱྀ἞ᙪ. 2002.ࠕ┤♧ືモ࡜ᑐヰ✵㛫̿ⱥㄒࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࠊࡑࡋ࡚஑ᕞ᪉ゝࢆࡶ࡜࡟̿ࠖ
ࠗ⚄ᡞ኱ㄽྀ࠘53(3): 51-70.

−72−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ୙ᐃᣦ♧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸫᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡢゎ㔘㸫ᮡᒣࡉࡸ࠿ ி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕ sugiyama@h04.mbox.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
The function of Japanese demonstrative 'so' is an unsettled issue within Japanese linguistics. The purpose of thispaper is to examine usages of Japanese demonstratives 'so' which do not have their antecedents in the previous
sentences and refer to somewhat indefinite entities. Their interpretations are similar to 'covariant interpretation'in Hoji et al (2003). The problem is that they have no quantifier. This paper suggests the concept of 'covert
quantifier which works on situation'. Basically, 'So-NPs(noun phrases)' refers to just one entity in each situation.
At the same time, however, covert quantifiers work to refer multiple situations interacting with other linguistic or
non-linguistic factors. As a result, the sets of referents are construed in our mind.

>࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ@ ↷ᛂࠊ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㔞໬ࠊ⥲⛠ᩥࠊࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ


1㸬

ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

㻝㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㻌ࢯ⣔࡟ࡼࡿ↷ᛂࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊඛ⾜モ࡜ࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡀ┤᥋⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᒣ
᲍㻔㻝㻥㻥㻞㻕ࡢᣦ᦬ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ┤๓ࡢⓎヰෆᐜࢆࡶ࡜࡜ࡋࡓ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢࡶከࡃぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻝㻕 ࡦ࡜᭶࡟୍ᗘࠊ໬ࡅ≀ࡀᒣ࠿ࡽୗࡾ࡚ࡁ࡚ࠊ⏫ࡢፉࢆࡉࡽࡗ࡚࠸ࡁࡲࡍࠋ௒ኪࡣ⚾ࡢ␒࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡀᝒࡋࡃ࡚Ἵ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ 㻔ࡑࢀ㻩⚾ࡀࡉࡽࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜㻕 㻔ᒣ᲍ 㻝㻥㻥㻞㻦㼜㻚㻞㻞㻕㻌㻌ᚑ᮶ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ↷ᛂ࡟᥎ㄽࡀ௓ᅾࡍࡿሙྜࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡜ࢯ⣔ࡢ㛫࡟㊥㞳ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ྠ୍ᣦ♧ゎ㔘࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㻔ᗡ 㻞㻜㻜㻤 ࡞࡝㻕ࠋࡲࡓࠊ୍⯡࡟ࠊ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡣⓎヰ⌧ሙ࡟ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡟ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉ
ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊḟࡢ㻔㻞㻕㻙㻔㻡㻕ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦↓ࡋ࡟ࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓ౛ࢆほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻞㻕 ⫱ඣࡢ⛎ジࡣࠊࡑࡢᏊࡢಶᛶࢆఙࡤࡍࡇ࡜ࡔࠋ㻌㻔㻟㻕 ࡑࡢሙ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ᶵ㌿ࢆ฼࠿ࡍࠋ㻌㻔㻠㻕 㻨ࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌ࢱ࢖ࢺࣝ㻪 ࡑࡢ᫬ࠊṔྐࡀື࠸ࡓࠋ㻌㻔㻡㻕 㻨⤖፧᝟ሗㄅࡢᗈ࿌ᩥ㻪 㼍㻚ࡑࡢᙼࡣ 㼎㻚ࡑࡢே㸽㻌㻌 ࡇࡢሙྜࠊ⌧ሙ࡟ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡟ࡃࡃࠊࡲࡓඛ⾜モ࡜ࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡀゝㄒୖ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ⌧ሙᣦ♧࡛ࡶࠊᩥ⬦ᣦ♧࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ▱㆑㻔ຍ⸨ 㻞㻜㻜㻠㻕࠿ࡽࡢ−73−

推論による不定指示について−日本語のソ系指示詞の解釈−ㄝ᫂ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲ࡜㢮ఝࡋࡓ஦౛ࡣࠊᮤ㻔㻞㻜㻜㻞㻕࡛ࡣࠕ㝈ᐃࠖࠊᒸ㷂㻔㻞㻜㻝㻜㻕࡛ࡣࠕ᭕᫕ᣦ♧⾲⌧ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣ㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫㻔㻞㻜㻜㻞㻕࡛ࠕ༏ྡᣦ♧ࠊ✵ḍᣦ♧ࠖ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕ㼘㼛㼓㼛 ᣦ♧ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ⏝ἲ࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊࡇࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㔞໬࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼ࢆᑟධࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛⤫୍ⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻞㸬ඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼ㻌㻞㻚㻝 ᮤ㻔㻞㻜㻜㻞㻕ࠊᒸᓮ㻔㻞㻜㻝㻜㻕㻌ᮤ㻔㻞㻜㻜㻞㻕࡛ࡣࠊࢯ⣔ࡢ࿘⦕ⓗ࡞஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࡑࡢ᫇ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞័⏝ྃⓗ࡞⏝ἲ࡜ࠊ㻔㻢㻕ࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦౛ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻢㻕 ࡶࡕࢁࢇㄡ࡛ࡶேࡢ୙ᖾ࡟ྠ᝟ࡋ࡞࠸⪅ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊࡑࡢேࡀࡑࡢ୙ᖾࢆ࡝࠺࡟࠿ࡋ
࡚ษࡾᢤࡅࡿ࡜ࠊ௒ᗘࡣࡇࡗࡕࡀ≀㊊ࡾ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ᚰࡶࡕࡀࡍࡿࠋ 㻔ᮤ 㻞㻜㻜㻞㻦㼜㼜㻚㻟㻞㻙㻟㻟㻕㻌㻌ࡇࡢാࡁ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᮤࡣࠕࡑࢀ⮬㌟ᚋ⥆ྡモྃࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆᣦ♧ࡣࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑࢀࢆ㝈ᐃࡍࡿാࡁ
ࡀඃໃ࡟࠶ࡽࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ㻔㼜㻚㻟㻞㻙㻟㻟㻕࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕࡑࡢேࠖࡣࠕ୙ᖾ࡞ቃ㐝࡟࠶ࡿே࡛ࠖ࠶
ࢀࡤࡼࡃࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣ၏୍ⓗ࡟ྠᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊྠᐃྍ⬟࡞㞟ྜࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࠕ୙᏶඲࡞ྠᐃྍ⬟ᛶࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᮤࡢ஦౛ࡣࠊᒸ㷂㻔㻞㻜㻝㻜㻕࡛ࡣࠊ᭕᫕ᣦ♧⾲⌧࡜࠸࠺ྡ๓ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚୙ᐃゎ㔘ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⪃ᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ㻌㻌㻞㻚㻞 㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫㸦㻞㻜㻜㻞㸧㻌 㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫㻔㻞㻜㻜㻞㻕࡛ࡣࠊ㠀┤♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾ࠿ࡘ㠀౫Ꮡⓗ࡞ࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᣦ᦬ࡀ
࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍ࡘࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ㼘㼛㼓㼛㼜㼔㼛㼞㼕㼏 ᣦ♧⏝ἲࠖ࡜ࡼࡤࢀࡿ஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻣㻕 ࡑࡢ᪥ࡀఱࡢ᪥࠿▱ࡗ࡚࠸࡚࠸ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠊ⚾ࡀ᪑ඛ࡛╔࠸ࡓ᪥ࡀ᭷ྡ࡞⚍ࡾࡸ⾜஦ࡢᙜ᪥ࡔࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࡼࡃ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㸦㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫ 㻞㻜㻜㻞㻘㻌㼜㻚㻞㻞㻡㸧㻌 㻌 ࡇࢀࡣࠊᘬ⏝⠇ࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ῝ࡃ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࢀ࡜ࡣู࡟⌧௦ㄒ࡛ࡣࠕㄡࡑࢀࠖ
ࠕ࡝ࡇࡑࡇࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞័⏝ྃ࡟ࡋ࠿ṧࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠕ༏ྡᣦ♧ࠖࡸࠕ✵ḍᣦ♧ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿᶵ
⬟ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㻔㻤㻕ࡸ㻔㻥㻕࡞࡝ࡶࠊ༏ྡᣦ♧ࠊ✵ḍᣦ♧࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ 㼘㼛㼓㼛 ᣦ♧⏝ἲ࡟㐃⥆ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻤㻕 ࡑࡢ᪥ࡢẼศ࡛║㙾ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠋ㻌㻔㻥㻕 ࡑࡢሙࡋࡢࡂ                      㸦㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫ 㻞㻜㻜㻞㻘㻌㼜㻚㻞㻞㻢㸧㻌㻌

−74−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

 ᮏ✏ෑ㢌࡛ᣲࡆࡓ㻔㻞㻕㻙㻔㻡㻕ࡢ஦౛ࡣࠊᘬ⏝⠇ࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࠕ㼘㼛㼓㼛㼜㼔㼛㼞㼕㼏 ᣦ♧⏝ἲࠖ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ័⏝࡛ྃࡶ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠕ༏ྡᣦ♧ࠖࡸࠕ✵ḍᣦ♧ࠖ࡜ࡶ࠸࠼࡞࠸ࠋ㻔㻤㻕ࡸ㻔㻥㻕ࡢ⏝ἲ࡟㏆࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࠕ㐃⥆ⓗࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊㄝ᫂࡜ࡋ࡚୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆᨭ࠼ࡿཎ⌮࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㔠Ỉ㻔㻝㻥㻥㻥㻕ࡢศ㓄ㄞࡳ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼࡜ࠊ㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫㸦㻞㻜㻜㻞㸧࡛ࡶゐࢀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 㻴㼛㼖㼕㻌㼑㼠㻌㼍㼘㻚㻔㻞㻜㻜㻟㻕㻌 ࡢ㻌 㼏㼛㼢㼍㼞㼕㼍㼚㼠㻌㼕㼚㼠㼑㼞㼜㼞㼑㼠㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㸦㐃ືㄞࡳࠊୖᒣ
㻞㻜㻜㻜ࠊ⏣❑ 㻞㻜㻜㻤㸧㻌 ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡘࡘ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻞㻚㻟 㻴㼛㼖㼕㻌㼑㼠㻌㼍㼘㻚㻔㻞㻜㻜㻟㻕 㻌 㐃ືㄞࡳ㸦㼏㼛㼢㼍㼞㼕㼍㼚㼠㻌㼕㼚㼠㼑㼞㼜㼞㼑㼠㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㸧㻔ୖᒣ 㻞㻜㻜㻜㻘㻌㻴㼛㼖㼕㻌㼑㼠㻌㼍㼘㻚㻞㻜㻜㻟㻕࡜ࡣࠊᣦ♧モࡢࠕゎ㔘ࡀ୍ࡘ࡟Ỵࡲࡽ࡞࠸⏝ἲࠖࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 ḟࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊࠕ࡝ࡢ┴ࠖࡢ್࡜㐃ືࡋ࡚ࠕࡑࡢ┴ࠖࡢ್ࡀỴᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻝㻜㻕  ࡝ࡢ┴ࡢ⫋ဨࡀࡑࡢ┴ࡢ᮲౛࡟୍␒㏻ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ➇࠸ྜࡗ࡚ࡳࡲࡋࡻ࠺ࠋ㻔ୖᒣ 㻞㻜㻜㻜㻦㻝㻣㻟㻌㻕㻌㻌 ࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モ࡟ࡢࡳぢࡽࢀࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ㻌 ࢔㻙㻺㻼 ࡸࢥ㻙㻺㻼 ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜≉ᐃࡢᣦ♧≀ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣ≉Ṧ࡞⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊཝࡋ࠸ไ⣙ࡀㄢࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑ
ࡢ᮲௳࡜ࡣࠊࠕ㸦㻝㸧㻼㻲 ᵓ㐀࡛ඛ⾜ࡍࡿゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࠊࡲࡓࡣ㸦㻞㸧㻸㻲 ᵓ㐀࡛ࡢ 㼏㸫⤫ᚚࢆ‶ࡓࡍゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 ࡓࡔࡋࠊ㸦㻞㸧㻙㸦㻡㸧ࡢ஦౛࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢ᮲௳ࡣᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢᴫᛕࢆᣑᙇࡋࠊ
ࠕ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㔞໬ࠖࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ゎỴࢆヨࡳࡿࠋࢯ㻙㻺㻼 ࡣᩘ㔞⾲⌧ࢆక࠺ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊ㞟ྜࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿㄞࡳ᪉ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㻌㻌㻟㸬₯ᅾⓗ㔞໬ 㻙 ୙ᐃࡢゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒㻌ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚㻔㻞㻕ࡸ㻔㻠㻕ࡢࠕࡑࡢ㸩ྡモྃࠖࡀ≉ᐃࡢ஦≀ࢆᣦࡍ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
୙≉ᐃᛶࢆᣢࡘ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ⟅࠼࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ₯ᅾⓗ࡞㔞໬Ꮚ㸦㼏㼛㼢㼑㼞㼠㻌㼝㼡㼍㼚㼠㼕㼒㼕㼑㼞㻕㻌 ࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ₯ᅾⓗ㔞໬Ꮚࡣࠊᩘ㔞⾲⌧ࡀᩥ࡟ྵࡲ
ࢀࡿ᫬ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᵝࠎ࡞᮲௳࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ാࡃࠋ㻌 ࡲࡎࠊᮤ㸦㻞㻜㻜㻞㸧࡛ᣲࡆࡽࢀࡓ஦౛ࢆඖ࡟⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻝㻝㻕 ࡶࡕࢁࢇㄡ࡛ࡶேࡢ୙ᖾ࡟ྠ᝟ࡋ࡞࠸⪅ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊࡑࡢேࡀࡑࡢ୙ᖾࢆ࡝࠺࡟࠿ࡋ
࡚ษࡾᢤࡅࡿ࡜ࠊ௒ᗘࡣࡇࡗࡕࡀ≀㊊ࡾ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ᚰࡶࡕࡀࡍࡿࠋ㻔㻩㻔㻢㻕㻕 㻌㻌 ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࠕㄡ࡛ࡶ㹼࡞࠸⪅ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩘ㔞モࢆྵࡴ୍⯡ㄽࢆ㏙࡭ࡿᩥࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠕࡑ
ࡢேࠖࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ₯ᅾⓗ㔞໬Ꮚࡀാࡃゝㄒ⎔ቃࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ≧ἣࡀ㔞໬ࡉࢀࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞㞟ྜࡀᚰⓗࣔࢹࣝෆ࡟ᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻌㻌

−75−

推論による不定指示について−日本語のソ系指示詞の解釈−   ≧ἣ 㻝  ே 㻭 㸫 ྠ᝟ࡉࢀࡓ୙ᖾ࡞ே 㻭 㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌  ≧ἣ 㻞  ே 㻮 㸫 ྠ᝟ࡉࢀࡓ୙ᖾ࡞ே 㻮㻌   ≧ἣ 㻟  ே 㻯 㸫 ྠ᝟ࡉࢀࡓ୙ᖾ࡞ே 㻯㻌             ࣭࣭࣭㻌㻌 ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ≧ἣ࡟ࡣࠊࠕྠ᝟ࡉࢀࡿ୙ᖾ࡞ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᒓᛶࢆᣢࡗࡓேࡀ୍ேྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≧ἣࢆᅛᐃࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࠕࡑࡢேࠖࡣ≉ᐃࡢ್ࢆᣢࡘಶయࢆᣦࡍࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ≧ἣࡀ୍⯡ㄽࢆ㏙࡭ࡿᩥ⬦࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛㔞໬ࡉࢀࠊ」ᩘࡢ≧ἣࢆᣦࡍࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕㄡ࠿࡟ྠ᝟ࡉࢀࡿேࠖ
ࡢ㞟ྜࡀᚰⓗࣔࢹࣝෆ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻌 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚₯ᅾⓗ࡞㔞໬モࡀാࡃ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᩘ㔞モࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠕᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ୙ᐃゎ㔘ࠖࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࢀࡤ
࠸ࡘ࡛ࡶ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㔞໬ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㔞໬モࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ
࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ᮲௳ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋḟ⠇࠿ࡽࡣࠊࡑࡢ᮲௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻠㸬₯ᅾⓗ㔞໬ࡀാࡃࡓࡵࡢ᮲௳㻌㻠㻚㻝 ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ㻌 ෑ㢌࡛ᣲࡆࡓ஦౛㻔㻞㻕࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻝㻞㻕 ⫱ඣࡢ⛎ジࡣࠊࡑࡢᏊࡢಶᛶࢆఙࡤࡍࡇ࡜ࡔࠋ㻔㸻㸦㻞㸧㻕㻌㻌 ࡇࡢ஦౛ࡣࠊ㻔㻝㻝㻕ࡼࡾࡶ」㞧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ⫱ඣ࡜࠸࠺ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ࠿ࡽࠕᏊࠖ࡜࠸࠺せ⣲ࡀᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡿ㻔㐃᝿↷ᛂ㻕ࠋḟ࡟ࠊࠕ㹼ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺୍⯡ㄽࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿᩥ࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ₯ᅾⓗ㔞໬モࡀാࡁࠊ≧ἣࡀ」ᩘ໬ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻔㻝㻝㻕࡜ྠᵝࠊࡦ࡜ࡘࡦ࡜ࡘࡢ≧ἣ࡟╔┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢ್ࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢࡢࠊ≧ἣࡀ」ᩘ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟㞟ྜࢆᣦࡍࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋ㻌㻌     ≧ἣ 㻝  ⫱ඣ 㻭 㸫 Ꮚ 㻭  㻌     ≧ἣ 㻞  ⫱ඣ 㻮 㸫 Ꮚ 㻮 㻌     ≧ἣ 㻟  ⫱ඣ 㻯 㸫 Ꮚ 㻯㻌          ࣭࣭࣭㻌 㻌 ḟ࡟ࠊ₯ᅾⓗ㔞໬モࡀാࡃࡓࡵࡢ᮲௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㸦㻝㻞㸧ࡢሙྜࠊࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡀಟ㣭ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡣࠊ≧ἣ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿಶయ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ≧ἣ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡀಟ㣭ࡍࡿྡモྃࢆኚ࠼ࡿ࡜↷ᛂࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡓ࡞࠸ࠋ㸦㻏࣐࣮ࢡࡣࠊ୙≉ᐃゎ㔘ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍ㸧㻌㻌㻔㻝㻟㻕 㻏 ࡑࡢ⫱ඣࡢ⛎ジࡣࠊᏊࡢಶᛶࢆఙࡤࡍࡇ࡜ࡔࠋ㻌㻌

−76−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

㻠㻚㻞 ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ ձ ࠕࡑࡢ᪥ࠖࠕࡑࡢ᫬ࠖࠕࡑࡢሙࠖ㻌 ඛ⾜ࡍࡿゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊ㐃ືㄞࡳࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୍ࡘࡣࠊࠕ᪥ࠖࡸ
ࠕሙࠖࠊࠕ᫬ࠖ࡞࡝ࡀ⿕ಟ㣭ྡモྃࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻝㻠㻕 ࡑࡢ᪥ࡢẼศ࡛║㙾ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠋ㻌㻔㻝㻡㻕 ࡑࡢሙ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ᶵ㌿ࢆ฼࠿ࡍࠋ㻌㻌 ࡇࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ㻔㻝㻟㻕ࡢ஦౛࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊࠕ᪥ࠖࠕሙࠖ࡞࡝ࡢㄒࡣ᫬㛫ⓗ࣭✵㛫ⓗព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࡓࡵࠊ
ࡑࢀ⮬య࡛≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞㞟ྜᙧᡂࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶࠊ࠶ࡿ≧ἣࢆᅛᐃࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ≉ᐃࡢ᪥ࠊ≉ᐃࡢሙࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㻌㻌     ≧ἣ 㻝  㸫  ࡑࡢ᪥㸦ሙ㸧㻌     ≧ἣ 㻞  㸫  ࡑࡢ᪥㸦ሙ㸧㻌     ≧ἣ 㻟  㸫  ࡑࡢ᪥㸦ሙ㸧㻌          ࣭࣭࣭㻌 㻌 ࡇࡢሙྜࠊ㠀ಟ㣭ྡモࡣࠊ࡝ࢀ࡛ࡶࡼ࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࠕሙ㺃᫬㛫ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ㒊ศࢆ┬ࡃ࡜㐃ືㄞࡳ࡛ࡁࡎࠊ≉ᐃࡢ஦≀ࢆ↷ᛂࡍࡿᩥ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ㻌  㻌㻔㻝㻢㻕 㻏 ࠶ࡿ᪥ࡢẼศ࡛ࡑࡢ᭹⿦ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠋ㻌㻔㻝㻣㻕 㻏 ሙ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࡑࡢᶵ㌿ࢆ฼࠿ࡍࠋ㻌㻌ࡲࡓࠊࠕ᫬㛫㺃ሙᡤ࡛ࠖ࠶ࢀࡤ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྡモ࡛ࡶࡼ࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ᪥᫬ࠖ࠶ࡿ
࠸ࡣࠕሙᡤࠖ࡟ࡣࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓㄞࡳࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻝㻤㻕 㻏 ࡑࡢ᪥᫬ࡢẼศ࡛᭹⿦ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠋ㻌㻔㻝㻥㻕 㻏 ࡑࡢሙᡤ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ᶵ㌿ࢆ฼࠿ࡍࠋ㻌㻌 ࡲࡓࠊࠕࡑࡢ᪥ࠖࡸࠕࡑࡢሙࠖࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻞㻜㻕 ࡑࡢ᪥ࡑࡢ᪥ࡢẼศ࡛║㙾ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠋ㻌㻔㻞㻝㻕 ࡑࡢሙࡑࡢሙ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ᶵ㌿ࢆ฼࠿ࡍࠋ㻌㻌 ࡇࢀࡣࠊ㻔㻝㻟㻕࡛ࠕࡑࡢ㸩ྡモྃࠖࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡀ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ᑐ↷ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻞㻞㻕 㻖 ⫱ඣࡢ⛎ジࡣࠊࡑࡢᏊࡑࡢᏊࡢಶᛶࢆఙࡤࡍࡇ࡜ࡔࠋ㻔㸻㸦㻝㻟㸧㻕㻌−77−

推論による不定指示について−日本語のソ系指示詞の解釈−㻌ࠕࡑࡢ᪥ࠖࡸࠕࡑࡢሙࠖࡣࠊࡑࢀ༢⊂࡛」ᩘࡢ≧ἣࢆᣦࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ័⏝ⓗ࡟≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㔞໬モࡀ⾲⌧⮬య࡟ෆᅾ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࡑࡢ⏕⏘ᛶࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟㧗࠸ࠋ㻌㻌㻠㻚㻟 ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜղ 㛵ಀ⠇࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ㻌 㛵ಀ⠇࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୙ᐃᣦ♧ࡢࢯ㻙㻺㻼 ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿሙ
ྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻞㻟㻕 ࠕ⥲ྜ㺃ᚠ⎔ᆺᆅᇦ⚟♴ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࠖࡢ≉ᚩ㻌 ࡑࡢேࡽࡋ࠸⏕ࡁ᪉㺃⏕άࢆᑛ㔜ࡋࠊᆅᇦ࡟ᐦ╔ࡍࡿ㻌㻔㻞㻠㻕 ᦆᐖ㈺ൾ  Ẹ஦⿢ุ࡛ᢅࢃࢀࠊ≀ᦆ஦ᨾ࡞࡝࡛ࡣቯࡋࡓ≀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㈺ൾࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞
࠸ࡋࠊேࢆയࡘࡅࢀࡤ἞⒪㈝ࢆᨭᡶࢃ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊቯࡋࡓ≀ࡸࠊയࡘࡅࡓయ
ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡶ࡝ࡍࡢ࡟࠿࠿ࡿ㔠㢠ࢆᡶ࠼ࡤࡼ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ㐓ኻ฼┈࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊࡑࡢ஦
ᨾࡀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤᚓࡽࢀࡓࡣࡎࡢ฼┈ࢆ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ᨭᡶࢃ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ㻌㻌     ≧ἣ㸦࠶ࡿࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ㸧 㻝  㸫  ࡑࡢே 㻭㻌     ≧ἣ㸦࠶ࡿࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ㸧 㻞  㸫  ࡑࡢே 㻮㻌     ≧ἣ㸦࠶ࡿࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ㸧 㻟  㸫  ࡑࡢே 㻯㻌              ࣭࣭࣭㻌㻌㻠㻚㻠 ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜճ ୍⯡▱㆑࡟ᨭ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ 㻙 ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ㻌 ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ஦౛࡛ࡣࠊᩘ㔞⾲⌧ࠊ័⏝⾲⌧ࠊ㛵ಀ⠇࡞࡝ࠊゝㄒⓗ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚」ᩘࡢ≧ἣࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ₯ᅾⓗ㔞໬モࡀാࡃࡢࡣࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓሙྜࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ୍⯡▱㆑࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
₯ᅾⓗ㔞໬モࡀാࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌࡞࡝ࡢሙྜࠊẖ㐌ࡑࡢࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌ࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺୍⯡▱㆑࠿ࡽ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㔞໬ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻞㻡㻕 㻨ࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌ࢱ࢖ࢺࣝ㻪 ࡑࡢ᫬ࠊṔྐࡀື࠸ࡓࠋ㸦㸻㸦㻠㸧㸧㻌㻔㻞㻢㻕 㻨ࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌ࢱ࢖ࢺࣝ㻪 ࡑࡢ㢦ࡀぢ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ㻌㻌     ≧ἣ㸦࠶ࡿ␒⤌㸧㻌 㸯㻌  㸫  ࡑࡢ᫬㻌 㻭㻌     ≧ἣ㸦࠶ࡿ␒⤌㸧㻌 㻞  㸫  ࡑࡢ᫬㻌 㻮㻌 㻌     ≧ἣ㸦࠶ࡿ␒⤌㻕㻌 㻌 㻟㻌  㻌 㸫  ࡑࡢ᫬㻌 㻯㻌    㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌     ࣭࣭࣭㻌
㻌−78−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

 ࡲࡓࠊࠕᜊឡࠖ࡞࡝ࠊ≉Ṧ࡞ᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡑࡢேࠖࡀ౑࠸ࡸࡍ࠸ࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊᜊឡ࡛
ࡣࠕ┦ᡭࠖࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀูࠎ࡟࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀඹ㏻ㄆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ႏ㉳ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡑࢀࡀ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀࡽࢆ⾲ࡍᩥ࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ㐃ືㄞࡳ࡜ఝࡓ௙⤌ࡳࡀാࡃ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻞㻣㻕 ࡑࡢேࢆዲࡁ࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡟⫪᭩ࡁࡣ࠸ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼࡡࠋ㻌㻔㻞㻤㻕 ࡞ࡐࠊࡑࡢே࡟ច࠿ࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡢ࠿㻫㻌̿ࣄࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᜊឡᏛධ㛛            㸦ᮏࡢࢱ࢖ࢺࣝ㸧㻌㻔㻞㻥㻕 ⌮⣔ࡢࡓࡵࡢᜊឡㄽ 㻝㻤㻥㻌 㻌 ࡑࡢேࠊᮏᙜ࡟࠶࡞ࡓࡢࠕᙼዪࠖ㻫㻌㻌 ḟࡢ஦౛ࡣࠊࡇࡢᣦ♧モࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᭱኱㝈࡟⏕࠿ࡋࡓࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻟㻜㻕 㻨ዪᛶㄅ⤖፧≉㞟ࡢᗈ࿌ᩥ㻪 ࡑࡢᙼࡣࡑࡢே㸽    㻔㻩㻔㻡㻕㻕㻌㻌 ࠕࡑࡢᙼࠖ࡜ࡣᗈ࿌ࢆㄞࢇ࡛࠸ࡿㄞ⪅ࡢᚰࡢ୰࡟࠸ࡿ⏨ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࠕࡑࡢேࠖ࡜
ࡣࠕ⤖፧≉㞟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⫼ᬒ࠿ࡽᑟ࠿ࢀࡓ࠶ࡿࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࡉࢀࡓ஦౛㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊࠕ⌮᝿ࡢ⤖፧┦ᡭࠖ࡞࡝㸧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᗈ࿌ࢆㄞࡴேࡈ࡜࡟≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡋ㔞໬ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞㞟ྜࡀᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻌  㻌  ≧ἣ 㻝  ࡑࡢᙼ㸦ᗈ࿌ࢆㄞࢇࡔዪᛶ 㻭 ࡢᙼ㸧  㸫  ࡑࡢே㸦㻭 ࡀ⤖፧ࡍࡿே㸧㻌  ≧ἣ㸰  ࡑࡢᙼ㸦ᗈ࿌ࢆㄞࢇࡔዪᛶ 㻮 ࡢᙼ㸧  㸫  ࡑࡢே㸦㻮 ࡀ⤖፧ࡍࡿே㸧㻌  ≧ἣ 㻟  ࡑࡢᙼ㸦ᗈ࿌ࢆㄞࢇࡔዪᛶ 㻯 ࡢᙼ㸧  㸫  ࡑࡢே㸦㻯 ࡀ⤖፧ࡍࡿே㸧㻌                ࣭࣭࣭㻌 㻌 ࡇࢀࡽࡢ஦౛ࡣࠊࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡸᗈ࿌࡞࡝࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕࡑࡢ 㻺㻼 ࡗ࡚࡞ࢇࡔࢁ࠺ࠖࠊ
࡜ㄞ⪅࡟⪃࠼ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ຠᯝࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛
㏙࡭࡚ࡁࡓ⏝ἲ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡗࡓᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࠋ㻌㻌㻡㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟㻌 ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡢ⏝ἲࡢ୰࡛ࠊ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㔞໬ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚㞟ྜࡀᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿ஦౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡳ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊ⌧ሙᣦ♧࡜ࡶᩥ⬦ᣦ♧࡜ࡶゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊ㔠Ỉ㸦㻝㻥㻥㻥㸧ࡢศ㓄ㄞࡳࡸࠊ㻴㼛㼖㼕㻌㼑㼠㻌㼍㼘㻚㻔㻞㻜㻜㻟㻕ࠊୖᒣ㸦㻞㻜㻜㻜㸧ࡢ㐃ືㄞࡳࠊ㔠Ỉ࣭࣭᭫ᒸᓮ㸦㻞㻜㻜㻞㸧ࡢ 㼘㼛㼓㼛 ᣦ♧ࡸ✵ḍᣦ♧࣭༏ྡᣦ♧࡜ఝࡓᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌−79−

推論による不定指示について−日本語のソ系指示詞の解釈− ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࡇࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡣ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ₯ᅾⓗ㔞໬ࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ୍ࡘ୍ࡘࡢ≧ἣ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿᣦ♧≀ࡣ୍ࡘࡔࡀࠊ≧ἣࡀ㔞໬ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧≀ࡢ㞟ྜࡀᚰⓗ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡓࠋ㻌 ࡉࡽ࡟ࡇࡢ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㔞໬ࡀാࡃ᮲௳ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ◊✲ࡀᣲࡆ࡚ࡁࡓ᮲௳࡛࠶ࡿ
ᩘ㔞⾲⌧ࠊ័⏝⾲⌧ࡢ௚࡟ࠊ」ᩘࡢ≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ᮲௳࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୍⯡ㄽࢆ㏙࡭ࡿᩥࢱ࢖
ࣉࡸࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡࢆᣲࡆࡓࠋ㻌 ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᙧᘧ໬ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡼࡾཝᐦ࡞ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌ㅰ㎡
ᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 14 ᅇ኱఍࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࠋᣦᑟᩍᐁࡢ
ᮾ㒓㞝஧ඛ⏕࡟ࡣࠊ࢔ࣈࢫࢺࣛࢡࢺࡢᥦฟ࠿ࡽㄽᩥࡢᥦฟࡲ࡛ࠊ࠸ࡘࡶ᠓ษ୎ᑀ࡟ࡈᣦᑟࢆ
࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢሙࢆ࠿ࡾ࡚ࠊ῝ㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋࡲࡓࠊྖ఍ࢆࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡲࡋࡓᒣ
ཱྀ἞ᙪඛ⏕ࠊㄽᩥࢆࡈ⤂௓ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡲࡋࡓஂಖ㐍ඛ⏕ࠊ᭷┈࡞ࡈ㉁ၥ㺃ࡈពぢࢆୗࡉ࠸ࡲࡋࡓ
すᒣ♸஧ඛ⏕ࠊቑ⏣ᑗఙඛ⏕ࠊ┾⏣ᩗ௓ඛ⏕ࠊᖹሯᚭඛ⏕ࠊㄽᩥᇳ➹࡟㝿ࡋ඲ᩥࢆࢳ࢙ࢵࢡ
ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡲࡋࡓᐙᮏኴ㑻ඛ⏕࡟ᚰࡼࡾ࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋణࡋࠊᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡞ࡀࡽࠊᮏ
✏ࡢ୙ഛ࣭ㄗࡾࡣࡍ࡭࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡟ᖐࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Hoji H, Kinsui S,Takubo Y, and Ueyama A. 2003. ͆Demonstratives in Modern
 Japanese,͇ Li, A. and A, Simpson (eds.), Functional Structure(s), Form and Interpretation: Perspectives from East Asian Languages. London: Routledge, 97-128.
 http://www.gges.org/hoji/research/hp-papers.cgi
ᗡຌ㞝 . 2007.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⤖᮰ᛶ࠘, ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ୖᒣ࠶ࡺࡳ. 2000.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ࠿ࡽぢ࠼ࡿࠕᩥἲࠖࡢጼࠖ.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘4 ᭶⮫᫬ቑหྕࠊ19ࠊ169-181
すᒣ♸஧㸬2003㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒྡモྃࡢព࿡ㄽ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽ࠘ ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ㸬ᒸᓮ཭Ꮚ㸬2010㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢṔྐⓗ◊✲࠘ ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ㸬ຍ⸨㔜ᗈ. 2004.ࠗࢩ࣮ࣜࢬ࣭᪥ᮏㄒࡢࡋࡃࡳࢆ᥈ࡿ 6 ᪥ᮏㄒㄒ⏝ㄽࡢࡋࡃࡳ࠘, ᮾி㸹◊✲♫.
㔠Ỉᩄ. 1990.ࠕᣦ♧モ࡜ㄯヰࡢᵓ㐀ࠖ,ࠗ᭶หゝㄒ࠘19(3), 60-67.
㔠Ỉᩄ. 1999. ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┤♧⏝ἲ࡜㠀┤♧⏝ἲࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ,ࠗ⮬↛ゝㄒฎ ⌮࠘6(4), 67-91.
㔠Ỉᩄ࣭ᒸᓮ཭Ꮚ࣭᭫⨾ᗒ. 2002. ࠕᣦ♧モࡢṔྐⓗ࣭ᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛⓗ◊✲-᪥ᮏㄒ࣭㡑ᅜㄒ࣭ࢺࣝ ࢥㄒ-ࠖ,ࠗࢩ࣮ࣜࢬゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ 4 ᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛ࠘, 217-247㸬ᮾி㸸ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧.
⏣❑⾜๎. 2008. ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢព࿡ㄽ࡜⤫ㄒㄽࠖ.ࠗゝㄒࡢ◊✲࣮̿ࣘࣛࢩ࢔ㅖゝㄒ࠿ࡽࡢどᗙ̿( ㄒᏛᩍ⫱ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ࠘➨ 16 ྕ)኱ᮾᩥ໬኱ᏛㄒᏛᩍ⫱◊✲ᡤ, pp. 311-337 .
ᮾ㒓㞝஧㸬1999㸬ࠕㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ࡜ᣦ♧㸫ㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ☜❧࡜ྠᐃࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚㸫ࠖࠊࠗ⥲ྜே㛫Ꮫ㒊⣖せ࠘6ࠊ35-46.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂㸬1992㸬ࠗ᥎ㄽ࡜↷ᛂ࠘ ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬ᮤ㛗Ἴ㸬2002㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モయ⣔ࡢṔྐ࠘ ி㒔㸸ி㒔኱ᏛᏛ⾡ฟ∧఍㸬

−80−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

no doubt ࡢㄯヰᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࡍࡿᐇ㦂ⓗㄪᰝ㕥ᮌ ኱௓ (suzuki0213@gmail.com)࣭͊⸨ཎ ᓫ (elf3201@gmail.com)͋
͊ி㒔኱Ꮫ㸦㝔㸧㸭᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍ ͋㏆␥኱Ꮫ㸦㠀㸧<Abstract>
This paper investigates whether the choice of modal adverbs in English is sensitive to thediscourse context in which they occur. By adopting a questionnaire study, the paper aims todetermine two factors regarding their patterns of occurrence: (i) whether they occur in theinitial position or elsewhere in a clause; and (ii) whether the subject of the clause in which
they appear is a pronoun or a full NP. The results of our analysis reveal that no doubt behavesat the discourse-pragmatic level, through a comparison with other synonymic modal adverbs
and using this dual approach, combining a questionnaire study and a corpus study, is a fruitful
way of approaching this topic.
࠙Keywordsࠚ: ἲ๪モࠊ㢮⩏ㄒࠊゝㄒᶵ⬟ࠊㄯヰࠊ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ

1. ƸơǊƴ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᶵ⬟ㄽⓗ࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽᐇ㦂ⓗᡭἲ࡟ࡼࡾㄯヰⓗ᝟ሗࢆᘬࡁฟࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊⱥㄒἲ๪モࡢㄯヰᶵ⬟ࢆᐇドࡍࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣἲ๪モ no doubt ࢆᢅ࠸ࠊࡑࡢ㢮⩏⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ doubtless, undoubtedly, without doubt ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋࠊ1 ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢㄯヰⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࠋ
2. έᘍᄂᆮƱᄂᆮƷᏑ୎ ⱥㄒࡢἲ๪モࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟(1a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩥ୰ࡢ఩⨨࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡀࠊ(1b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩥ㢌ࡢ఩⨨࡟ࡶ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠋ(1) a.
b.

It was no doubt clever of him to offer his resignation at that point in the proceedings.
(Quirk et al. 1985: 622)
No doubt his bifocals added to this impression, as did his nonchalant gait andslouchy posture. (FICTION) (Biber et al. 1999: 854)ᐇ㝿ࡢ౑⏝࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⾲ 1 ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊἲ๪モ඲య࡟ࢃࡓࡾ඲࡚ࡢࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡟
࠾࠸࡚ࠊᩥ୰࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ๭ྜࡀ㧗࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡀぢ࡚࡜ࢀࡿࠋ2−81−

no doubtの談話機能に関する実験的調査

⾲ 1. ࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮ẖࡢࢫࢱࣥࢫࢆ⾲ࡍ๪モ㢮ࡢ⏕㉳఩⨨㸦Biber et al. (1999: 872)ࡼࡾ
ᢤ⢋㸧
Initial position (%)
Medial position (%)
Final position (%)
CONVERSATIONƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔ
ƔƔƔƔƔƔƔ
FICTIONƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔ
ƔƔƔƔ
NEWSPAPER
ƔƔƔƔƔƔƔ
ƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔ
ƔƔ
ACADEMIC
ƔƔƔƔƔƔ
ƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔ
Ɣ
Ɣ1 ࡘ࡛ 5%ࢆ⾲ࡍ୍᪉ࠊno doubt ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㕥ᮌ (2011), ⚟⏣ (2010), Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer(2007)࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ๭ྜࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅗ 1 ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊno doubt ࡢ㢮⩏⾲⌧࡜ࡢẚ㍑࠿ࡽࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(2a–c)ࡣྛ⏕㉳఩⨨ࡢ୍౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

no doubt

doubtlessundoubtedly

0%20%
initial positionᅗ 1.
(2) a.
b.
c.

40%

60%

medial position

80%

100%

final position⏕㉳఩⨨࡜ࡑࡢ๭ྜ㸦㕥ᮌ (2011: 23)ࡼࡾᢤ⢋㸧3, 4… but no doubt that was the way in which he put the case to the Cabinet. (BNC:
HHX)
Pupils will at first no doubt compare and contrast the past and the present. (BNC:
HXF)
They’re very different in many ways, no doubt. (BNC: FU8)

࡜ࡇࢁࡀඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ௚ࡢせᅉࡀࠕ⏕㉳఩⨨ࠖ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᤼㝖࡛ࡁ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊno doubt ࡢ౑⏝࡟ㄯヰⓗ࡞せᅉ࣭ᩥ⬦ࡀ┤᥋㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿
ࡀ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊno doubt ࡢሙྜࡣ᥋⥆ㄒࡸྰᐃㄒ࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࡀከࡃࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀࠕ⏕㉳఩⨨ࠖ࡜ᙉࡃ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ↓ど࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ⚟⏣−82−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号(2010)ࡣࠊ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟➼఩᥋⥆ࡉࢀࡓ➨஧㡯ࡢಟ㣭ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ no doubt ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋࠊ௚ࡢἲ๪モࡼࡾࡶ and ࡜ࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡀᙉ࠸Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(3)

A debate even begins about whether the army is not getting a little trigger-happy in
its nervous and no doubt terrified tension. (BNC: AAU)

ࡑࡶࡑࡶ no doubt ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊSimon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer (2007: 122)ࡸ Biber etal. (1999: 874)࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ(4a, b)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ౑
⏝ࡶᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊἲ๪モ࡜ㄯヰ࡜ࡢ᥋Ⅼࢆ⪃࠼ࡿୖ࡛ࡶ㔜せ࡞⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ(4) a.
b.

No doubt, money played its part in this (ICE-GB: W2C-007/64)
But no doubt we’ll have a few showers. (CONVERSATION) (Biber et al. 1999:
874)࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ඲యⓗ࡞ศᕸࡢഴྥࡀᢕᥱ࡛ࡁࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ౛࡟ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ᅉᏊࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡓࡵࠊㄪᰝࡍ࡭ࡁせᅉ࡟㝈ᐃࡋ࡚ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ
࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
3. ᬴ܱ
3.1 ௬ㄝ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊྛせᅉ࡟⤠ࡗ࡚᧯సࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿᐇ㦂ⓗᡭἲ㸦cf. Quirk (1968)㸧
ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࠕㄯヰᵓ㐀ࠖ࡜ྛ⾲⌧㑅ᢥ࡜ࡢ┦㛵ࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀࡟᫂☜࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿኚᩘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⠇୰ࡢ(i)⏕㉳఩⨨ࠊ(ii)௦ྡモ࡟╔┠ࡍࡿࠋ⏕㉳఩⨨࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊHalliday (1970)࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ(5a, b)ࡀࠕࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ୺㢟ࠖࡢⅬ࡛␗࡞ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⠇ࡢ᭱ึ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢព࿡ࡀ୺㢟/ࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Halliday and Matthiessen 2004, Hoye 1997,
Halliday 1970㸧ࠋ(5) a.
b.

Possibly it was Wren.
It may have been Wren. (Halliday 1970: 335)

ḟ࡟ࠊ௦ྡモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⠇ࢆ㉺࠼࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ≉ᐃࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡢྠ୍ᛶࢆ♧ࡋࠊㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Halliday and Hasan (1976), Thompson and
Mulac (1991)㸧ࠋ(6)ࡢ they ࡀࡑࡢ୍౛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊHalliday and Hasan (1976)࡛ࡣࠊ“theymeans not merely ‘three blind mice’ but ‘the same three blind mice that we have just beentalking about’” ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋἲ๪モࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿ⠇ࡢ୺ㄒࡀ௦ྡモ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆㄪ
࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀࡜ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡢ┦㛵ࡀᙉ࠸࡯࡝ࠊἲ๪モࡀ⠇࡟ᅛᐃ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࡴࡋࢁㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(6)

Three blind mice, three blind mice.
See how they run! See how they run! (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 31)−83−

no doubtの談話機能に関する実験的調査ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ (i)⏕㉳఩⨨࡜(ii)௦ྡモࡢྛせᅉࡢᙳ㡪ࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿࡀࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ 2 せᅉࡢ஺஫స⏝ࡶ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ௨ୖ࠿ࡽࠊୗࡢ 2 Ⅼࢆ௬ㄝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆࡿࠋ
(7) a.
b.

ㄯヰ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ(i)⏕㉳఩⨨࡜(ii)௦ྡモࡢྛせᅉࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ no doubt ࡢ౑⏝࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍࠋ
(i, ii)ࡢྛせᅉ༢⊂ࡢሙྜ࡜ẚ࡭࡚ࠊࡇࡢ 2 せᅉࡀ⤡ࡴ࡜ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ no doubt ࡀ⏕㉳ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ᩥ⬦࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

3.2 ᐇ㦂
3.2.1 ⿕㦂⪅⿕㦂⪅ࡣ 20㹼50 ᡯ௦ࡢⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ 40 ྡ㸦ⱥ㸸20 ྡࠊ⡿㸸20 ྡ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.2.2 ่⃭ᐇ㦂ࡢ่⃭࡟ࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽ᥇ྲྀࡋࡓᐇ㝿࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓ๓ᚋᩥ⬦ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࠊ(8a–d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋἲ๪モࡢ⏕㉳఩⨨㸦ᩥ୰ vs. ᩥ㢌㸧࡜୺ㄒࡢྡモࡢᐃᛶ㸦୙ᐃྡモ vs. ௦ྡモ㸧ࢆせᅉ࡜ࡍࡿ 2×2 ࢹࢨ࢖࡛ࣥࠊ[ᩥ୰ ୙ᐃྡモ]ࠊ[ᩥ୰ ௦ྡモ]ࠊ[ᩥ㢌 ୙ᐃྡモ]ࠊ[ᩥ㢌 ௦ྡモ]ࡢ 4 ✀㢮ࡢᚋᩥࢆ⏝ពࡋࡓࠋ(8a–d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ 4 ✀㢮ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ⤌ࢆࢸࢫࢺᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ 4 ⤌సᡂࡋ㸦ྜィ 16 ౛㸧ࠊࣇ࢕࣮ࣛ࡜ࡋ࡚ 48
ࡢ౛ࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢࢆᐇ㦂ࡢ่⃭࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋ(8) a.

b.

c.

d.

Well, tell on to the end. The archers cut them down -- a few broke back for homeunscathed. Some㸦     㸧made their way back later with their hurts. [ᩥ୰ ୙ᐃྡモ]
R. Jenkins has been a tower of strength in Rugby and under normal circumstances
would probably have gained an International cap. He is㸦     㸧worthy of thehonour. [ᩥ୰ ௦ྡモ]
I sampled three of them -- first in Finland, then in France and finally in Switzerland.
Scandinavia is where skiing began. 㸦     㸧even the Vikings got about theirown snowy land on useful planks of wood. [ᩥ㢌 ୙ᐃྡモ]
Nora was not in the car. I keep telling you. I keep telling you. Nora went back toGermany.㸦     㸧she is in Germany now. [ᩥ㢌 ௦ྡモ]

3.2.3 ᡭ㡰
40 ྡࡢⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ่⃭ᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ doubtless, no doubt,
undoubtedly, without doubt ࡢ࠺ࡕ᭱ࡶ㐺ᙜ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ 1 ࡘࡔࡅᅇ⟅ࢆồࡵࡓࠋ
4. ኽௐƱᎋ‫ݑ‬ ᭱ึ࡟ࠊdoubtless, no doubt, undoubtedly, without doubt ࡢ 4 ࡘࡢ⾲⌧㛫࡟㢖ᗘࡢᕪࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ☜࠿ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆȮ஧஌᳨ᐃ࡟࠿ࡅࡓࠋᐇ㦂ࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ⾲ 2 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

−84−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

⾲ 2. ᮏㄪᰝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ 4 ⾲⌧ࡢ㢖ᗘ
⥲ᩘ
%
75
11.72
196
30.62
236
36.88
133
20.78
640
100.0
㸦Ȥ2 = 93.91, p <0.001㸧

㻌㻌

doubtlessno doubt
undoubtedly
without doubtྜィ⥆࠸࡚ࠊࣛ࢖࢔ࣥἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚ୗ఩᳨ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ⾲ 3 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ༴
㝤⋡ 5%ࡢỈ‽࡛ࠊundoubtedly ࡜ doubtless, undoubtedly ࡜ without doubt, no doubt ࡜doubtless ࡢ㛫࡛᭷ព࡞ᕪࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ

doubtlessdoubtlesswithout doubt
no doubt
undoubtedly

⾲ 3. ྛ 2 ⾲⌧㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿᕪ
without doubt
no doubt
9.06
18.9*
9.84

undoubtedly
25.16*
16.1*
6.26
㸦*ࡣ 5%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ព㸧ḟ࡟ࠊୖ㏙ࡋࡓ[ᩥ୰ ୙ᐃྡモ]ࠊ[ᩥ୰ ௦ྡモ]ࠊ[ᩥ㢌 ୙ᐃྡモ]ࠊ[ᩥ㢌 ௦ྡモ]
ࡢ 4 ࡘࡢ᮲௳ู࡟㢖ᗘࢆ㞟ィࡋࡓㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡀୗᅗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋȮ஧஌᳨ᐃࢆ࠿ࡅࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ
90
80

84
72

70
60
50
40
30
20

47
29
27
20

10

59

61

45

42
35

no doubt

22

without doubt

22
19

doubtlessundoubtedly

11

0
ᩥ୰
୙ᐃྡモ

ᩥ୰
௦ྡモ

ᩥ㢌
୙ᐃྡモ

ᩥ㢌
௦ྡモ

ᅗ 2. 4 ⾲⌧ࡢ᮲௳ู㢖ᗘ㸦Ȥ2 = 103.55, p < 0.001㸧

−85−

no doubtの談話機能に関する実験的調査㢖ᗘࡀ㏆࠸ no doubt ࡜ undoubtedly ࡢ 2 ࡘ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ⾲ 2, 3 ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟඲యࡢศᕸ
࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㢖ᗘࡢᕪࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ᮲௳ู࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㢖ᗘࡢᕪࢆࣛ࢖࢔ࣥࡢ᪉ἲ
ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ㄪ࡭ࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ᭷ពỈ‽ 5%࡟࠾࠸࡚[ᩥ㢌 ୙ᐃྡモ]࡜[ᩥ㢌 ௦ྡモ]ࡢ⩌㛫ࢆ㝖ࡃ඲࡚ࡢ⩌㛫࡛᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊḟࡢ஧Ⅼࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋ(9) a.
b.

ἲ๪モࡢ⏕㉳఩⨨࡜୺ㄒࡢᐃᛶࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀἲ๪モࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋ
ᩥ୰࡛ࡢ⏕㉳఩⨨ࡢ᮲௳ୗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ୺ㄒࡢᐃᛶࡀᙳ㡪ຊࢆᣢࡘࡀࠊἲ๪モࡀᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿሙྜࡣ୺ㄒࡢᐃᛶࡢᙳ㡪ࡣ᭷ព࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ[ᩥ୰ ୙ᐃྡモ]ࡢ⩌࡜[ᩥ㢌 ୙ᐃྡモ]ࡢ⩌ࠊ[ᩥ୰ ௦ྡモ]ࡢ⩌࡜[ᩥ㢌 ௦ྡモ]ࡢ⩌࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ⏕㉳఩⨨ࡣἲ๪モࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋἲ๪モࡀᩥ㢌࡟᮶ࡿሙྜࠊ᭷ព࡟ no doubt ࡀ㑅ዲࡉࢀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᩥ୰࡟᮶ࡿሙྜ
ࡣ undoubtedly ࡀዲࡲࢀࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊ୺ㄒࡢᐃᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊἲ๪モࡀᩥ୰࡟࠶ࡿሙྜ
࡟ࡢࡳ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋἲ๪モࡀᩥ୰࡟࠶ࡿሙྜࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡀ௦ྡモࡢሙྜࠊ୙ᐃྡモ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࡣ no doubt ࡀ㑅ࡤࢀࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊἲ๪
モࡀᩥ㢌࡟᮶ࡿሙྜࡣ୺ㄒࡢᐃᛶࡣຠᯝࢆࡶࡓࡎࠊ⏕㉳఩⨨ࡢせᅉࡢ᪉ࡀ୺ㄒࡢᐃᛶ
ࡼࡾࡶἲ๪モࡢ౑⏝࡟ཬࡰࡍᙳ㡪ࡀᙉ࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᶵ⬟ࡢ┦㐪࠿ࡽ 4 ࡘࡢἲ๪モࢆ෌᳨ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ4 ⾲⌧㛫ࡢẚ㍑ࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ no doubt ࡀㄯヰⓗ࡞ᩥ⬦࡜ᐦ᥋࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࡣ no doubt ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡀྡモྃ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟㉳ᅉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮ
ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊྡモྃ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡢ≉㉁ୖࠊ⠇ࡢᵓ㐀࠿ࡽእࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ษࡾ㞳ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࡓࡵࠊࡼࡾㄯヰⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᖏࡧࠊㄯヰ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

5. ƓǘǓƴᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᶵ⬟ㄽⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽᐇ㦂ⓗᡭἲ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ⠇ࢆ㉸࠼ࡓㄯヰࣞ࣋ࣝࡢゝㄒ⌧㇟ࢆ᳨ドࡋࡓࠋᚑ᮶ࡢἲ๪モࡢព࿡ࢆ㉺࠼࡚ࠊㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᶵ⬟ࡢᕪ␗ࢆලయⓗ࡟ᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠋྠ᫬࡟ࠊἲ๪モࡢ౑⏝࡟㛵ࢃࡿせᅉࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᙳ㡪ࡸせᅉ㛫ࡢ㛵ಀࡣᚑ᮶ࡢ
ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝ࡛ࡣศᯒ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞᪉ἲㄽࡢᵓ⠏࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠊᐇ㦂ⓗᡭἲࡢ฼Ⅼࡶ♧၀ࡋࡓࠋ
∗ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 14 ᅇ኱఍࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྖ఍ࢆࡋ
࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࠊࡈᣦ᦬ࢆୗࡉࡗࡓෆ⏣⪷஧ඛ⏕㸦ዉⰋዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㸧࡟ᚚ♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ᯽㔝೺ḟඛ⏕㸦኱㜰ᶋⶱዪᏊ኱Ꮫྡ㄃ᩍᤵ㸧ࠊ㉥㔝୍㑻ඛ⏕㸦ி㒔እᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸧ࠊຍ⸨ᮌ⬟ᩥඛ⏕㸦୰ኸ኱Ꮫ㸧ࠊᒸᮏⰾ࿴ඛ⏕㸦㔠ἑᫍ⛸኱Ꮫ㸧࡟ࡣ㈗㔜࡞ࡈ㉁ၥ࣭ࡈᣦ᦬ࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢሙࢆ࠾೉ࡾࡋ
࡚ឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୙ഛࠊㄗࡾࡣ඲࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

1no doubt ࡣᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᗄศࡢ␲࠸ࢆࡶࡘ㸦Quirk et al. (1985: 623)㸧ࠋᑠす (2006), Wilson(1993)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊno doubt ࡜ doubtless ࡣ࡯ࡰྠ⩏࡜⪃࠼࡚ࡼ࠸ࡀࠊno doubt ࡢ᪉ࡀⱝᖸࠊព࿡ࡀᙉ
࠸ ࠋ Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 768) ࡣ ࠊ ࡑ ࡢ ᗘ ྜ ࠸ ࡟ ᛂ ࡌ ࡚ ἲ ๪ モ ࡢ 㡿 ᇦ ࢆ (i)strong,−86−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号(ii)quasi-strong, (iii)medium, (iv)weak ࡢ 4 ࡘ࡟ศࡅ࡚࠾ࡾࠊundoubtedly ࢆ(i)࡟ࠊdoubtless ࢆ(ii)࡟ศ
㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋBiber et al. (1999: 854)ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢ☜ಙࡸ⵹↛ᛶࢆ♧ࡍ Doubt and certainty ࡜࠸࠺⠊␪࡟ no doubt ࡜ undoubtedly ࢆྵࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2no doubt ࡸ undoubtedly ࡢ௚࡟ࠊprobably, I think, in fact, really, according to …, mainly, generally, in
my opinion, kind of, so to speak ➼ࡢ epistemic adverbials ࡸࠊunfortunately, to my surprise, hopefully ➼ࡢ attitude adverbialsࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣ frankly, honestly, truthfully, in short ➼ࡢ style adverbials ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࠋ
3
Hoye (1997)ࡸ Quirk et al. (1985)࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ๪モ(ྃ)ࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿ఩⨨࡜ࡋ࡚ 7 ࠿ᡤࢆ♧
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
I
iM
M
mM
eM
iE
E

(initial)(initial-medial)(medial)(medial-medial)(end-medial)(initial-end)(end)

Possibly they may have been sent to London.
They possibly may have been sent to London.
They may possibly have been sent to London.
They may have possibly been sent to London.
They may have been possibly sent to London.
They may have been sent possibly to London.
They may have been sent to London possibly. (Hoye 1997: 148)

ᅗ 1 ࡛ࡣࠊୖグࡢ initial (I), medial (M), end (E)࡜࠸࠺୺࡛࠶ࡿ 3 ࡘࡢ఩⨨࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞
ࢃࡕࠊI ࡢ఩⨨ࡀ initial (I)࡟ࠊiM, M, mM, eM ࡀ medial (M)࡟ࠊiE ࡜ E ࡀ end (E)࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊinitial (I)࠿ medial (M)࠿࡟╔┠ࡍࡿࠋ4
ᅗ 1 ࡢලయⓗ࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣㄽᩥᮎ࡟ Appendix㸦⿵㑇㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech and S. Conrad 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken andWritten English. Harlow: Pearson.
Brinton, L. J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic
Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, L. J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse
Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse Consciousness and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fowler, H. W. 1998. Fowler's Modern English Usage. 3rd Edition. Revised by R. W.
Burchfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
⚟⏣⸅ 2010.ࠕ๪モ⏝ἲࡢ no doubt(1)ࠖࠊ
ࠗேᩥㄽ✲࠘
㸦໭ᾏ㐨ᩍ⫱኱Ꮫ㸧ࠊ79ࠊ1–17.
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.
Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen 2004. An Introduction to Functional
Grammar. 3rd Edition. London: Arnold.
Hopper, P. J. and E. C. Traugott 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd Edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hoye, L. 1997. Adverbs and Modality in English. London: Longman.
Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

−87−

no doubtの談話機能に関する実験的調査

ᑠす཭୐㸦⦅㸧2006.ࠗ⌧௦ⱥㄒㄒἲ㎡඾࠘ᮾி㸸୕┬ᇽ.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. 2nd Edition. London: Longman.
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Perkins, M. R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.
Quirk, R. 1968. “Co-existing Negative Preterite Forms of Dare.” In R. Quirk (ed.) Essays on
the English Language: Medieval ad Modern, 114–119. London: Longman.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the
English Language. London: Longman.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. 2007. “No doubt and Related Expressions.” In M. Hannay and G. J.
Steen (eds.) Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar: In Honour of Lachlan
Mackenzie, 9–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. and K. Aijmer 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A
Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Suzuki, D. 2011. “A Functional Approach to the Modal Adverbs Certainly, Surely andDefinitely.” In C. Cummins, C. Elder, T. Godard, M. Macleod, E. Schmidt and G.
Walkden (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Cambridge Postgraduate Conference inLanguage Research, 185–194. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research.
㕥ᮌ኱௓ 2011.ࠕἲ๪モ no doubt ࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚̿㢮⩏⾲⌧࡜ࡢẚ㍑࠿ࡽ̿ࠖࠊ
ࠗⱥㄒࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ◊✲࠘ࠊ18ࠊ17–31.
Swan, M. 2005. Practical English Usage. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, S. A. and A. Mulac 1991. “The Discourse Conditions for the Use of theComplementizer That in Conversational English.” Journal of Pragmatics 15, 237–251.
Traugott, E. C. 1989. “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example ofSubjectification in Semantic Change.” Language 65, 31–55.
Traugott, E. C. and R. B. Dasher 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, K. G. 1993. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. New York:
Columbia University Press.

$SSHQGL[$SSHQGL[ ⏕㉳఩⨨࡜ࡑࡢᗘᩘ
InitialMedial

Final

Total

no doubt

1288

1237

176

2701

doubtless

237

492

2

731

undoubtedly

325

1873

4

2202

−88−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽぢࡿ⦰⣙⾲⌧ࡢ୍⪃ᐹ࣏̿ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆ཯ᫎࡍࡿࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ஦౛࡟̿ᙇ ཪ⳹ி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔This paper investigates the Japanese contraction “chau” which has a function distinguishedfrom that of its original form “teshimau”. According to Chang (2011), a difference in themeaning of aspect is observed in these two forms. It is further predicted that there might still
be other differences. Therefore, I focused on the interaction between speaker and hearer,trying to discover how these two forms differ from each other. I found that “chau” has apragmatic function of politeness and often collocates with honorific words and expressions ofbenefit while “teshimau” does not.
˰࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ˱
㸸⦰⣙ᙧࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ

1 ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ⦰⣙ᙧ࡜ࡣࠊヰࡋࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿㄒᙧ࡟㡢ࡢ⬺ⴠࡸ⼥ྜࡀ㉳ࡁࡓ⤖ᯝࠊᮏ᮶ࡢᙧᘧࡼࡾ⡆␎࡞㡢ᙧ࡛㡢ኌᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࢆ࠸࠺㸦ࠗ᪂∧ ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱஦඾࠘
㸧1ࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠕࢸ
ࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࠊ⦰⣙ᙧࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋᚑ᮶ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࢆᑐ㇟࡟グ㏙ࡋࡓ◊✲ࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࡀ㸦㔠⏣୍ 1955ࠊ㧗ᶫ 1969ࠊྜྷᕝ 1973ࠊᑎᮧ 1984ࠊOno 1992ࠊ㕥ᮌ 1998.ࠊ㔠Ỉ 2002㸧
ࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ⊂❧ࡋࡓᏑᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࠊグ㏙ࢆ⾜࡞ࡗࡓ◊✲ࡶ࠶ࡿ㸦ᱱ஭ 2003㸧ࠋࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆࠕࢸࢩ
࣐࢘ࠖ࠿ࡽ⊂❧ࡋࡓᏑᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿጇᙜᛶࡣࠊ⦰⣙ຠᯝ㸦reduction effect㸧2ࠊࡑࡋ࡚࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ⏝ἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦ᙇ 2011㸧ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊ௚ࡢ
ഃ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ┦㐪ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண

ࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊᩗㄒࡸᜠᜨ⾲⌧࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࡢᐜㄆᗘ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ㐪࠸࠿ࡽࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ┦㐪ࢆ♧ࡋࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢ⏝ἲࡢᥦ♧ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

2 ၥ㢟ᥦ㉳ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࠊ୺࡟࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ⓗ⏝ἲ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚◊✲ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ 3ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ௨ୗࡢ౛ࡣ࡝ࡕࡽࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

㸦1㸧㸦๓␎㸧ࡑࢇ࡞୰࡛ࠊ㹋㹁㸦Master of ceremony㸧୰࡟✵࠸࡚࠸ࡓࣜࢨ࣮ࣈᖍ㸦ᣍᚅᐈ⏝㸧࡟ࠊ✵ᖍࡀ᭷ࡗࡓࡢࢆぢࡘࡅ࡚ࠊ❧ࡗ࡚ぢ࡚࠸ࡓ࠾ᐈࡉࢇࢆࠕ࡝࠺ࡒࠊᗙࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࠖ
࡜ᗙࡽࡏ࡚࠶ࡆࡲࡋࡓࡡ 4ࠋ 㸦1̓㸧
ࠕ࡝࠺ࡒᗙࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ

−89−

1

語用論的観点から見る縮約表現の一考察―ポライトネスを反映する「チャウ」を事例に―࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡿ࡜ࠊ㸦1㸧ࡢࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ࡑࡢືసࢆ᪩ࡃ㐩ᡂࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡇ࡜
ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆࠊ
㸦1̓㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊྠࡌ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢࡢࠊ┦ᡭࢆദಁࡍࡿࠊᢲࡋ௜ࡅࡀࡲࡋࡃឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡿ࡜ࠊࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ
ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ୎ᑀᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
㸦1㸧ࡢሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⦰⣙ᙧࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ࡯࠺ࡣ㏫࡟୎ᑀࡉ
ࡀୖࡀࡿࠋఱᨾ఍ヰ࡛○ࡅࡓ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ⦰⣙ᙧࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡼࡾ୎ᑀࡉࡀୖࡀࡿࡢ࡛࠶
ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡜ᜠᜨ⾲⌧ࡸᩗㄒ࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࡢᐜㄆᗘࢆ♧ࡋࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿ
ࢫ⏝ἲࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

3 ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢ᳨ウ
3.1ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡟㛵ࢃࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࠊ㸺᏶஢㸼ࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព࿡࡜㸺ṧᛕ㸼ࠊ㸺୙ᮏព㸼ࠊ㸺ண᝿እ㸼࡞࡝ヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ⓗព࿡ࢆᣢࡘᩥἲᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦㔠⏣୍ 1955ࠊ㧗ᶫ 1969ࠊྜྷᕝ 1973ࠊᑎᮧ 1984ࠊ㔠Ỉ 2002㸧ࠋ  㸦2㸧ࡓࡃࡉࢇࡢ᭩㢮ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡀࢇࡤࡗ࡚ 3 ᫬ࡲ࡛࡟඲㒊᭩࠸࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠋ
㸦࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ⏝ἲ㸧  㸦3㸧㈈ᕸࢆⴠ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠋ㸦ヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ⓗ⏝ἲ㸧㸦᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍⦅ 2007㸸 46㸧 ヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ⓗព࿡࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࡼࡃヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ᝟࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡸࡍ࠸ഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ᝟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព࿡࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿ㸦㔠⏣୍ 1955ࠊᑎᮧ 1984㸧ࠊ୙㒔ྜ࡞ࡇ࡜ࠊᮇᚅ࡟཯ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡢᐇ⌧࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿ㸦㧗ᶫ 1969ࠊྜྷᕝ 1973㸧࡜ศᯒࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍
᪉ࠊࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࠊ᰿ᮏⓗ࡟ヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟ホ౯ⓗព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟ホ౯ࡀ㈇࠿ṇ࠿࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ๓ᥦ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵࡲࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࡶ࠶ࡿ㸦㕥ᮌ 1998㸧ࠋヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟ホ౯ࡀṇ࠿㈇࠿ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓᩥ⬦࡜㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᣦ᦬ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿ㸦㔠Ỉ 2002㸧ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ๓ᥦࡸᩥ⬦࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࡼࡃ㈇ࡢᩥ⬦࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟㈇ࡢ
ឤ᝟ホ౯࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡃ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ

3.2ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡟㛵ࢃࡿඛ⾜◊✲⦰⣙ᙧࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊᮾி᪉ゝ࡜ࡉࢀࠊ⊂⮬ࡢ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᑎᮧ 1984㸧5ࠋ࡯࠿࡟ࠊ
఍ヰࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓグ㏙㸦Ono and Suzuki 1992㸧
ࠊࡲࡓࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ⊂❧ࡋࡓᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚グ㏙ࡋࡓ◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦ᱱ஭ 2003㸧
ࠋ

3.2.1Ono and Suzuki㸦1992㸧
 Ono and Suzuki㸦1992㸧࡛ࡣ ࠊ఍ヰ୰ࡢࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸦ࢳࣕ࢘㸧ࠖࢆᑐ㇟࡟グ㏙ࡀ⾜࡞ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 6ࠋࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸦ࢳࣕ࢘㸧ࠖࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢᾘᴟⓗែᗘࡢ࡯࠿࡟㸦౛ 4㸧ࠊヰ⪅ࡢ guiltily positive attitude ࡶ⾲ࡏࡿ࡜࠸
࠺Ⅼࡀ⯆࿡῝࠸㸦౛ 5㸧ࠋ

2

−90−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

㸦4㸧຾ᡭ࡟⮬ศࡔࡅ⪃࠼ࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡉࠋ            㸦Ono and Suzuki 1992㸸 207㸧
㸦5㸧࠶ࡓࡋࡉࠊ㧗ᰯ⏕࡟ࡉࠊ῰㇂ࡢࡉࠊ109 ࡢ๓࡛ࡉࠊ࡞ࢇࡥࡉࢀࡕࡷࡗࡓࠋ

㸦ibid㸬
㸸 209㸧

ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊOno and Suzuki㸦1992㸧ࡣࠊࡣࡌࡵ࡚఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡀホ౯ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ༊ูࡏࡎグ㏙ࡍࡿࡢࡣጇᙜ࡛࠶ࢁ
࠺࠿ࠋ㸦5㸧ࡣࠊࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ධࢀ᭰࠼࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊOno and Suzuki㸦1992㸧ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋࡓヰ⪅ࡢ✚ᴟⓗែᗘࡀᾘᴟⓗែᗘ࡟ኚࢃࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡀ␗࡞ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࢆ༊ูࡋ࡚ㄽ㏙ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

3.2.2 ᱱ஭㸦2003㸧 ᱱ஭㸦2003㸧࡛ࡣࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ⊂⮬ࡢព࿡࣭⏝ἲ࡟ࠊࣉࣛࢫᛮ⪃⏝ἲ 78 ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊ᥾ᥟ⏝ἲ 9 ࡸㄯヰ⏝ἲ 10 ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊࣉࣛࢫᛮ⪃⏝ἲ࡜᥾ᥟ⏝ἲࡣࠊᐇ⌧⏝ἲ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᏶⤖ࡢㄞࡳࡀ࡞࠸ࠋㄯヰ⏝ἲࡣࠊᩥἲⓗព࿡ࡢᕼⷧ໬ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࠊㄯヰࡢ୰࡛ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⦰⣙࡜ព࿡࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᱱ஭㸦2003㸧࡛ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ⊂❧ࡋࡓᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜␗࡞ࡗࡓ⏝ἲࢆグ㏙ࡋࡓⅬࡣホ౯࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ⊂⮬ࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ⓗព࿡ࡢഃ㠃࡟↔Ⅼࡀᙜ࡚ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព࿡ࡢഃ㠃࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹࡀḞࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ⓗព࿡࡜࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព࿡ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡶ⪃ᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

3.3 ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡟㛵ࢃࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊḟࡢ 2 Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡟㛵ࢃࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࡣࠊ඲యⓗ࡟ヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ⓗព࿡࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹࡀḞࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙇ㸦2011㸧࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព࿡࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࡢ
┦㐪ࡣࠊ௚ࡢഃ㠃࡟ࡶ┦㐪ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᱱ஭㸦2003㸧ࡢ࡯࠿࡟ࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ㏙ࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦┦ᡭ㸧ࢆྵࡵ࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࡢࡀḞࡅ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ᝟ࠊṇࡢឤ᝟࡜グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶឤ᝟ホ౯ࡢព࿡࡟ὀ┠ࢆ㞟ࡵࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2 ⠇ၥ㢟ᥦ㉳࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡀ⌧ࢀࡓࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ౛ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿
ࡽࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦┦ᡭ㸧ࢆྵࡵ࡚⪃࠼࡞࠸࡜ࠊఱᨾ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡀ⌧ࢀࡓࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢㄝ᫂ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ
࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ௨ୗࡣࠊᩗㄒࡸᜠᜨ⾲⌧࡜ࡢඹ㉳࠿ࡽࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆ཯ᫎࡍࡿࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

4 ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽぢࡿࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ
4.1 ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆ཯ᫎࡍࡿࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ ⦰⣙ᙧ㸦ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ㸧ࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛○ࡅࡓᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢඖࡢᙧᘧ㸦ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ㸧࡜ẚ࡭ࡿ࡜ࠊ୎ᑀࡉࡀୗࡀࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᐇ㝿࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ౛㸦6a㸧࡜㸦7a㸧ࡣࠊࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼࡚ࡳࡿ࡜㸦
㸦6b㸧ࠊ
㸦7b㸧㸧
ࠊㄒᙧ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ୎ᑀ࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊᢲࡋ௜ࡅࡀࡲࡋࡃឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋ

3

−91−

語用論的観点から見る縮約表現の一考察―ポライトネスを反映する「チャウ」を事例に―

㸦6㸧
㸦యࡀ

ࡲࡿ㣗ᮦ࡛సࡗࡓ࿡ჯỒࢆ⤂௓ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧     a ࢔ࢼ࢘ࣥࢧ࣮㸸ẖ᪥࡛ࡶ㣗࡭ࡕࡷࡗ࡚ୗࡉ࠸ࡡࠋ     㸦TBSࡣ࡞ࡲࡿ࣐࣮ࢣࢵࢺ㸧     b ࢔ࢼ࢘ࣥࢧ࣮㸸ẖ᪥࡛ࡶ㣗࡭࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡡࠋ

㸦7㸧㸦ྖ఍ࡀ࠾ᐈࡉࢇ࡟✵ᖍࢆ᱌ෆࡍࡿሙྜ㸧     a ྖ఍㸸࡝࠺ࡒᗙࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ                㸦ಶேࣈࣟࢢ㸧     b ྖ఍㸸࡝࠺ࡒᗙࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ୗࡉ࠸ࠋ

㸦6㸧࡜㸦7㸧ࡣࠊࠕ㣗࡭⤊ࡿࠖࠊ
ࠕᗙࡾ⤊ࢃࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ᏶஢ࡍࡿࠖࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡴࡋࢁ㐩ᡂࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢẼᣢࡕࡀ㎸ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡛ࡣࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊa ࡜ b ࡝ࡕࡽࡀዲࡲࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ┦ᡭ࡟⾜Ⅽࡢ㐩ᡂࢆồࡵࢀࡤࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ୎ᑀࡉࡀୖࡀࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊヰࡋゝⴥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆศࡅ࡚グ㏙ࡍࡿᚲせᛶࢆ࠶ࡽࡓࡵ࡚☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓୖࠊ⦰⣙ᙧࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿሙྜࠊ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ
⦰⣙ᙧࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊḟࡢ⠇࡛ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ
࡜ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀᩗㄒࡸᜠᜨ⾲⌧࡜ࡢᩚྜᛶࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ⏝ἲ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ

4.2 ᩗㄒ࡜ࡢᩚྜᛶ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ┦ᡭ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢືసࢆồࡵࡿሙྜ࡟ࠊᙧᘧⓗ࡟ࡃࡔࡅࡓࡀ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ⌧㇟ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢᩗㄒ࡜ࡢඹ㉳௳ᩘࢆㄪ࡭ࡓࠋᩗㄒࡢࠕྊ
ࡋୖࡀࡿࠖࠊࠕࡈぴ࡟࡞ࡿࠖࠊ
ࠕ࡞ࡉࡿࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ⏝౛ᩘ࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢᩗㄒ࡜ࡢᩚྜᛶࡀࠕࢸࢩ࣐
࢘ࠖࡼࡾ࠸࠸ഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ㸦⾲ 1 ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ㸦8㸧࠙ᐮኳⲔࣞࢩࣆࠚࡇࢀࡔࡅࠊ⇕࠸࠺ࡕ࡟ྊࡋୖࡀࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸11ࠋ㸦9㸧ᮏᙜࡣῧ஌ဨࡢࡳࢩ࢙࢔࡛ࡁࡿ࠾ຮᙉࡢ௙᪉ࢆ㸟࡜⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊ୍⯡ࡢ᪉ࡶ≉ู࡟ࡈぴ࡟࡞ࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸㸟12

㸦10㸧࠶ࡢࠊ࠾࢖ࣖࡔࡗࡓࡽ㐲៖࡞ࡃ๐㝖࡞ࡉࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡡ

13

ࠋ

 ୍᪉ࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡀᩗㄒ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊືモࡢࠕぢࡿࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕ㣗࡭ࡿࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕࡍࡿࠖ࡜ࡢඹ㉳࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⏝౛ᩘ࡟ᩗㄒ࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࢀ࡯࡝኱ࡁ࠸ᕪࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

ྊࡋୖࡀࡿ⾲ 1 ᩗㄒ࡜࡜ࡢඹ㉳⏝౛ᩘ 14ࢳࣕࢵࢸࢡࢲࢧ࢖
ࢸࢩ࣐ࢵࢸࢡࢲࢧ࢖
4,800
1

㣗࡭ࡿ
ࡈぴ࡟࡞ࡿ
ぢࡿ
࡞ࡉࡿ
ࡍࡿ

5,830,000
1,870,000
8,080,000
4,450
122,000,000

77,100,000
0172,000,000
2225,000,000

4

−92−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

௨ୖࡢㄪᰝࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢᩗㄒ࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࡢ┦ᛶ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂
ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡀゝㄒᙧᘧ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࡢ୍ࡘࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢഃ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡀᙧᘧⓗ࡟ࣇ࢛࣮࣐࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢࢡ
ࢵࢩࣙࣥࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧඲యࢆ࿴ࡽࡆࡿാࡁࢆᯝࡓࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥࡢഃ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜␗࡞ࡗࡓᙺ๭̿ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆᯝࡓࡍࡇ࡜
ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

4.3 ᜠᜨ⾲⌧࡜ࡢᩚྜᛶ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡀ⾲ࡍヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ⓗព࿡ࡣࠊᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ᝟ࠊᡈ࠸ࡣṇࡢឤ᝟࡟ㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸦㔠Ỉ 2002㸧
ࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟ヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ᝟࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡸࡍ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣᜠᜨࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ̿ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࠖ࡜ᩚྜࡏࡎࠊᢎ᥋ࡀᅔ㞴࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣṇࡢឤ᝟ホ౯ⓗព࿡࡜ࡶᐜ᫆࡟⤖ࡧ௜ࡃࡢ࡛ࠊᜠᜨ⾲⌧࡜ࡢᢎ᥋ࡣ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᱱ஭ 2003㸧ࠋࠕ̿ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࠖࡢ࡯࠿࡟ࠊྠࡌᜠᜨ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠕ̿ࢸࢡࣞࣝࠖ
࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࡢ౛ࡶㄪ࡭ࡓࠋࡇࡢ୰࡛ࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࡛࢘ࠖࡶࠕࢳ࡛ࣕ࢘ࠖࡶࠊᜠᜨ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠕ̿ࢸࢡࣞࣝࠖ
࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿሙྜࠊヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢࠊヰ⪅ࡢṇࡢឤ᝟ホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡍ౛ࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊヰ⪅ࡢṇࡢホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡍ౛ࡣࠊࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓ㸦౛㸦11㸧ࠊ
㸦11̓㸧
㸧15ࠋ

㸦11㸧ࣇ࣮ࢻࡀ࢜ࢩࣕࣞ࡞ࢱࣥࢡࢺࢵࣉࡢⓏሙ࡛ࡍ㸟㸟ࢱࣥࢡ㸩ࣇ࣮ࢻࡗ࡚࡞࠿࡞࠿↓࠸⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛ࡍࡼࡡ㹼㸟ࡇࡢ࢔࢖ࢸ࣒ࡣ࡜࡚ࡶ࣮࢟ࣗࢺ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚ࡃࢀࡕࡷ࠸ࡲࡋࡓ16ࠋ 㸦11̓
㸧ࡇࡢ࢔࢖ࢸ࣒ࡣ࡜࡚ࡶ࣮࢟ࣗࢺ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ㸦12㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ᝟ࡢ⾲ࢀࡿᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ࡀᙅࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

 㸦12㸧
㸦๓␎㸧⩏୧ぶ࡜᪑⾜࡟⾜ࡃ࡜ᚲࡎ඲㢠⩏୧ぶࡀ㈇ᢸࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ࠾㢪࠸ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿヂࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊᚲࡎᡶࡗ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡍ17ࠋ 㸦12̓
㸧࠾㢪࠸ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿヂࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊᚲࡎᡶࡗ࡚ࡃࢀࡕࡷ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ ☜࠿࡟ࠊ㔠Ỉ㸦2002㸧ࡢᣦ᦬㏻ࡾࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡀヰ⪅ࡢṇࡢឤ᝟࠿㈇ࡢឤ᝟࡟ㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊᩥ
⬦ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡿࡀࠊ
㸦11̓㸧㸦12̓㸧ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀヰ⪅ࡢṇࡢឤ᝟࡟⤖ࡧ௜ࡃഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡛ࠊヰ⪅ࡀ㉳ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸஦ែ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ
ࡀࡑࡢ㈇ࡢឤ᝟ࢆᢚ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ඲యⓗ࡟῝้ࡉࡀ࠾ࡉࡲࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊḟࡢሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚㸦౛ 13㸧ࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀࡼࡃヰ⪅ࡢṇࡢឤ᝟࡜ࡼࡃ⤖ࡧ௜ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㸦13b㸧ࡣヰ⪅ࡀࠕࣉࣞࢮࣥࢺࢆࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺஦ែ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕ⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㈇ࡢឤ᝟
ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
㸦13a㸧ࡣࠊ㈇ࡢឤ᝟࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾᎰࡋ࠸Ẽᣢࡕࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡶࠊ㸦13a㸧࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓ࠿ࡽࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ 18ࠋ

5

−93−

語用論的観点から見る縮約表現の一考察―ポライトネスを反映する「チャウ」を事例に―

㸦13㸧㸦࣮࣒࣍ࢫࢸ࢖ࡢ࣍ࢫࢺࣇ࢓࣑ࣜࡀࣉࣞࢮࣥࢺࢆࡃࢀࡓሙྜ㸧a ࠕࡇࢇ࡞ࡶࡢࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࠊᮏᙜ࡟ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖb ࠕࡇࢇ࡞ࡶࡢࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࠊᮏᙜ࡟ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖ

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᢚ࠼ࡽࢀࡓヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ᝟ࡣࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢഃ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᮏ❶ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣᩗㄒ࡜ᜠᜨ⾲⌧࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࡓᐜㄆᗘ࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࡢ┦㐪ࡀ࠶ࡽࡓࡵ࡚☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗഃ㠃ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᑐே㛵ಀࡢഃ㠃࡟ࡶ㐪࠸ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

5 ⪃ᐹ
5.1 ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព࿡࡜ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾᙇ㸦2011㸧࡛ࡣࠊࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ࣭ฟ᮶஦ࡢ඲యⓗ㐩ᡂ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊ඲యⓗ㐩ᡂࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㒊ศⓗ㐩ᡂࡢゎ㔘ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡ
ࢺⓗព࿡࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
㸦14b㸧ࡣࠕ㣧ࡳษࡿࠖࡢゎ㔘࡟ㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
㸦14a㸧ࡣࠕ㣧ࡳጞࡵࡿࠖ
࡜ࠕ㣧ࡳษࡿࠖ୧᪉ࡢゎ㔘ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢྍ⬟࡞ゎ㔘ࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽ㸦15a㸧࡜㸦15b㸧࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
┦㐪ࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ  㸦14㸧a 㸦࠾㓇ࢆ㸧࡝࠺ࡒ㣧ࢇࡌࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ㸦㣧ࡳጞࡵࡿࠊ㣧ࡳษࡿゎ㔘㸧b 㸦࠾㓇ࢆ㸧࡝࠺ࡒ㣧ࢇ࡛ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ㸦㣧ࡳษࡿࡢゎ㔘ࡢࡳ㸧㸦15㸧㸦࠾㓇ࡀ࠶࡜ᑡࡋṧࡗ࡚࠸ࡿඛ㍮ࡢࢪࣙࢵ࢟ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿᚋ㍮ࡀ㐲៖ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ඛ㍮࡟ಁࡍሙྜ㸧   a ḟࢆὀࡄ࠿ࡽࠊ㣧ࢇࡌࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ   b 㸡ḟࢆὀࡄ࠿ࡽࠊ㣧ࢇ࡛ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ ࡘࡲࡾࠊᙇ㸦2011㸧࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ⏝ἲ̿⾜Ⅽࡢ㒊ศⓗ㐩ᡂ࡟ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࠕ㸦࠾㓇ࢆ㸧㣧ࡴࠖ࡜⾜Ⅽࢆ඲㒊㐩ᡂࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࡞ࡃࠊ㒊ศⓗ⾜Ⅽࡢ㐩ᡂࡢゎ㔘ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ
୍ཱྀ㣧ࡴ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀチࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟వᆅࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࡢືసࢆ㐩ᡂࡉ࠼ࡍࢀ
ࡤࡼ࠸࡜࠸࠺ྵពࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡍࢀࡤࠊ4.1 ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ౛ 6 ࡣࠊ㒊ศⓗ㐩ᡂࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព࿡࡟ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࡺ࠼ࠊ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡀ⌧ࢀࡓཎᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄝ࡛᫂
ࡁࡼ࠺ 19ࠋ

5.2 㛫୺ほⓗព࿡࡬ࡢᣑᙇ
ᩗㄒࡸᜠᜨ⾲⌧࡜ࡢᩚྜᛶ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࡛࢘ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ㛫୺ほⓗព࿡࡬ᣑᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ⌧㇟ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ㛫୺ほⓗព࿡࡬ࡢᣑᙇࡣࠊᩗㄒ࡜ࡢᩚྜᛶ
ࡸࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢ⌧㇟ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ᩿ゝ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࠕ㛫୺ほ໬

6

−94−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号(intersubjectification)ࠖ(Traugott&Dasher2002)ࡢ඙ࡋ࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

6 ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ⪃ᐹࢆ㏻ࡋࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗഃ㠃ࠊヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ࡢഃ㠃ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ㐪࠸ࡀฟ࡚ࡃࡿࡢࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ꮡᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ
ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢാࡁࢆࡋࡓ࡜࠶ࡽࡓࡵ࡚☜ㄆࡋࡓୖࠊ୧⪅ࢆ༊ูࡋ࡚グ㏙ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ௒ᅇ⪃៖ࢆධࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ᪉ゝᕪࠊᛶูᕪࠊᖺ㱋ᕪ࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹ࡞࡝ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ὀˮ᪂∧᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱஦඾˯㸦㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⦰⣙ᙧࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ヰ㏿࡞࡝⏕⌮ⓗ࡞⌮⏤࡟ࡼࡗ࡚അⓎⓗ࡟⏕ࡌࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢᕪ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚౑࠸ศࡅࡀࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊつ๎ⓗ࡟㉳ࡇࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
๓⪅ࡣࠊ൅ࡣ㸦࣮࣎࢝ࠊ࣎࢝㸧ࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜㸦ࢳࣙࢺ㸧࡞࡝ࠊᚋ⪅ࡣࠊ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㸦࢝࢖ࢸ࢖ࣝ㸧ࠊ᭩࠸࡚ࡋࡲ࠺㸦࢝࢖ࢳࣕ࢘㸧ࠊࡑࢀࡣ㸦ࢯ࣮ࣜࣕ㸧࡞࡝ࡀྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࢺ࣮ࢡࣥ㢖ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ゝㄒᙧᘧࡀ㸯ࡘࡢฎ⌮ࣘࢽࢵࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᆅ఩ࢆᚓࡿࡢ࡟௜㝶ࡋ࡚ࠊ㡢ኌࡢ⦰⣙ኚ໬ࡸࡑࢀ࡟క࠺ព࿡ኚ໬ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⌧㇟ࡣࠊࡶࡗࡥࡽㄒࡼࡾࡶ኱ࡁ࡞༢఩
ࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ⥲ྜࡋ࡚ࠕ⦰⣙ຠᯝࠖ࡜࿧ࡪ㸦᪩℩࣭ᇼ⏣ 2005㸸
98㸧
ࠋ

ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡢヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ⓗ⏝ἲ࡟ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢṧᛕ࡞Ẽᣢࡕࠊண᝿እࡢฟ᮶஦ࡢⓎ⏕ࠊ↓ពᚿⓗ࡟⾜࡞ࡗࡓືసࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ


http://blog.k-mix.co.jp/cheers/2006/02/27-2200-3155.php?numadu-mishimaᑎᮧ㸦1984㸧࡛ࡣࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊ
ࠕᝒယࡸᚋ᜼࡛࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕࡋࡵࡋࡵࠖ࡜࠸࠺ឤࡌࡢࠊពእ࡞஦ࡢᡂࡾ
ࡺࡁࢆࡼࢁࡇࡪࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿ㸦ᑎᮧ 1984㸸 155㸧ࠖ࡜グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡓࡔࡋࠊࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ༊ูࡏࡎグ㏙ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᱱ஭㸦2003㸧࡛ࡣࠊࠕࣉࣛࢫᛮ⪃⏝ἲࡢࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊฟ᮶஦ࡢ⏕㉳࡟ᑐࡋࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࠕᅔࡿࠖ➼ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ᝟ࢆᚲࡎࡋࡶᢪ࠿ࡎࠊࡴࡋࢁࠕዲࡲࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢヰ⪅ࡢṇࡢឤ᝟ࡣࠊᑎᮧ㸦1984㸧࡛ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㛵ᮾ᪉ゝࡢࠕࡋࡵࡋࡵࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟ࡸࠊ
Ono and Suzuki 1992 ࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿヰ⪅ࡢ guiltily positive attitude ࡜ඹ㏻ࡍࡿ㒊ศࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ᥾ᥟ⏝ἲ࡜ࡣࠊࠕほᐹ᫬࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௚⪅ࡢᵝែࢆ᥾ᥟࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ㄯヰ⏝ἲ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕᩥἲⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞ࡃࠊㄯヰࡢ୰࡛ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋణࡋࠊලయⓗ࡟ఱࡽࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヲࡋࡃ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

http://www.diet-pinky.com/labo/kanten/kanten4.html


http://www.sekaikikou.sakura.ne.jp/



http://blog.goo.ne.jp/tanpopo_po/e/4b2ee85e2a09bee9fa72d49a535675e5

2011/08/16 ࡟ YAHOO ᳨࡛⣴ࡋࡓࠋࠕࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚ࡃࢀࡕࡷ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠖ68,200 ௳ࠊࠕࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠖ0 ௳ࠊࠕ㜵ᐮࡶࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡕ
ࡷ࠸ࡲࡍࠖ28 ௳ࠊࠕ㜵ᐮࡶࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡍࠖ0 ௳ࠋ㐺᱁ᛶࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊࢿࢵࢺ࡛ㄪ࡭ࡓ⏝౛ᩘ࡟ࡼࡾࠊุ᩿ࡋࡓࠋ᳨⣴᪥㸸2010/11/30ࠋ

http://item.rakuten.co.jp/nadesiko/c-s08-25-106/

http://com.babycome.ne.jp/U003.php?article_id=144176

୎ᑀࡉ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࡼࡾ୎ᑀ࡞ゝ࠸᪉࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿேࡶ࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊヰ⪅ࡢឤ

7

−95−

語用論的観点から見る縮約表現の一考察―ポライトネスを反映する「チャウ」を事例に―

᝟ࡀṇ࠿㈇࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࡼࡾ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
4.1 ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ㸦6㸧ࡣࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ⾲ࡍ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព࿡㸺㒊ศⓗ㐩ᡂ㸼࡛ㄝ᫂ࡀࡘ࠸ࡓࡀࠊ
㸦7㸧ࡣࠊ๓᥋ືモࠕᗙࡿࠖࡣ▐㛫ⓗ࡟㐩ᡂࡍࡿືసࢆ⾲ࡍືモ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⥅⥆ືモࠕ㣗࡭ࡿࠖ࡜␗࡞
ࡾࠊ㒊ศⓗ㐩ᡂࡢゎ㔘ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᯝࡓࡍ࠿ࡣၥ㢟Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ṧࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⌧᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㣗࡭ࡿࠖ࡜
ࠕᗙࡿࠖࡣࠊືసࡢ᫬㛫ᛶ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㐪࠸ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡀࠊືస୺యࡢពᚿⓗືసࢆ⾲ࡍⅬ࡛ྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢഃ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕᗙࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖࡣࠊ
ఱᨾࠕ㣧ࢇࡌࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆ♧ࡍࡢ࠿ࡣࠊࡲࡔ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡲࡓ௒ᚋࡢ㆟ㄽ࡛῝ࡵࡓ࠸ࠋ



ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
௒஭ᬕᙪ࣭▼ᕝៅ୍㑻㸬2006㸬ࠕ⦰⣙ࡀࡶࡓࡽࡍᵓᩥࡢព࿡ⓗ࣭ᶵ⬟ⓗኚ໬̿ゝㄒࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ thereis / there’s ᵓᩥࡢ◊✲̿ࠖࠊࠗ⚄ᡞ኱Ꮫᅜ㝿ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢭࣥࢱ࣮ㄽ㞟࠘
ࠊ3ࠊ15-36ୖཎ ⪽࣭⇃௦ᩥᏊ㸬2007㸬ࠕㄆ▱ᙧែㄽࠖࠊ
ࠗ㡢㡩࣭ᙧែࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࠘ࠊ153-207ࠊᮾி㸸◊✲♫㸬ᑠᕝ඾Ꮚ㸬2010㸬ࠕᣦ♧⾲⌧࠿ࡽㄯヰ⾲⌧࡬̿ࠕࡇࡾࡷࠖ
ࠕࡑࡾࡷࠖࠕ࠶ࡾࡷࠖࢆ஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚̿ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠗゝㄒ
⛉Ꮫㄽ㞟࠘
ࠊ16ࠊ43-56ࠊி㒔኱Ꮫ㸬ᕝ℩⏕㑻㸬1992㸬
ࠕ⦰⣙⾲⌧࡜⦰⣙ᙧࡢᩥἲࠖࠊ
ࠗᮾி኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮⣖せ࠘
ࠊ2ࠊ1-24㸬㔠Ỉ ᩄ㸬2002㸬
ࠕ᫬ࡢ⾲⌧ࠖ㔠Ỉᩄ࣭ᕤ⸨┿⏤⨾࣭἟⏣ၿᏊ㸦ⴭ㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲ  ᫬࣭ྰᐃ࡜ྲྀ
ࡾ❧࡚࠘ࠊ3-92ࠊᮾிᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬㔠⏣୍᫓ᙪ㸬1955㸬ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒືモࡢࢸࣥࢫ࡜࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠖࠊ㔠⏣୍᫓ᙪ⦅㸦1976㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒືモࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌
ࢡࢺ࠘4-12ࠊᮾிࡴࡂ᭩ᡣ㸬
᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍⦅㸬2007㸬ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ࠘
ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾㸬Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Ryoko Suzuki. 1992. The development of a marker of speaker’s attitude: The pragmatic useof the Japanese grammaticized verb shimau in conversation. BLS. 18, 204-13.
㕥ᮌᬛ⨾㸬1998㸬ࠕࠕ㹼࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠖࡢព࿡ࠖ
ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘
ࠊ97ࠊ48-59ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍㸬㧗ᶫኴ㑻㸬1969㸬ࠕࡍࡀࡓ࡜ࡶࡃࢁࡳࠖࠊ㔠⏣୍᫓ᙪ㸦⦅㸧1976ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒືモࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࠘ࠊ115-153ࠊᮾிࡴࡂ᭩ᡣ㸬⁪ᾆ┿ே㸬2008㸬࣏ࠗࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫධ㛛࠘ࠊᮾி㸸◊✲♫㸬ᙇ ཪ⳹㸬2011㸬ࠕ⦰⣙⾲⌧࡜ព࿡ኚ໬̿᪥ᮏㄒ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺᙧᘧࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࢆ౛࡟̿ࠖࠊKLS32:Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Annual Meeting of The Kansai Linguistic Societyࠊ181-193ࠊ㛵すゝㄒᏛ఍㸬ᑎᮧ⚽ኵ㸬1984㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢩࣥࢱࢡࢫ࡜ព࿡ϩ࠘ᮾிࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University
Press.
᪩℩ᑦᏊ࣭ᇼ⏣ඃᏊ㸬2005㸬ࠗㄆ▱ᩥἲࡢ᪂ᒎ㛤̿࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬࡜⏝ἲᇶ┙ࣔࢹࣝ࠘ᮾி◊✲♫㸬ᱱ஭ஂỤ㸬2003㸬
ࠕࠕ̿ࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ࡜ࠕ̿ࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ┦㐪ࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍᫓Ꮨ኱఍ண✏㞟࠘67-72㸬ྜྷᕝṊ᫬㸬1973㸬ࠕ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒືモࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡢ◊✲ࠖࠊ㔠⏣୍᫓ᙪ㸦⦅㸧1976ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒືモࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࠘ࠊ157-307ࠊᮾிࡴࡂ᭩ᡣ㸬8−96−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ɼ᫆᩼ଢᅆ‫׹‬ኽௐನ૨ỉɼᛖӸᚺӟỆ᧙ẴỦॖԛႎὉᛖဇᛯႎСኖỆếẟềᴾᴾ‫ݯ‬ᬔᴾ ࡍҦᴾ
஝ࠤ‫ܖٻ‬ᴾᴾ
ᴾᾋᵟᶀᶑᶒᶐᵿᶁᶒᾍᴾ
This paper deals with linguistic phenomena called Implicit Theme Resultative Constructions (ITRC) in the framework of
Semantics and Pragmatics, especially, Cognitive Linguistics. The main three arguments are the following way. First, thispaper argues that Schlesinger’s (1995) four semantic elements for instrumental subjects are reduced to two: complexity andessential property. Second, the paper claims that the instrumental subject referent of prototypical ITRC is restricted in terms of
the reduced elements. Finally, the human subject referent of peripheral ITRC is confined by means of the two factors andmotivated by such metaphor as HUMAN BEINGS ARE COMPLICATED MACHINES.
ᵹỿὊὁὊἛᵻᵘᴾ ୺㢟㠀᫂♧ᆺ⤖ᯝᵓᩥ, ୺ㄒྡモྃ, 㐨ල୺ㄒ, ᒓᛶ, 」㞧ᛶ

ᵏᵌ

ỊẳỜỆᴾ

 ᮏㄽࡣᑞ㤿ཬࡧ Tsushima (2007, 2008, 2010a, b, 2012, in prep a, b) ࡛ࠕ୺㢟㠀᫂♧ᆺ⤖ᯝᵓᩥ(Implicit Theme
Resultative Constructions)(௨ୗࠊITRC)ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒ⌧㇟ࡢ୺ㄒྡモྃ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ⓗ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗไ⣙ࢆㄽࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(1) a. These revolutionary brooms sweep cleaner than ever.
b. Concentrated washing powders wash whiter.

(Aarts 1995: 85) ࡇࡢᵓᩥࡢ᭱኱ࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊ୺㢟ࡀ⤫ㄒⓗ࡟ࡣ㠀᫂♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊព࿡ⓗ࡟ࡣ᭷ព࿡࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(1a)ࡢ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ㠀᫂♧ⓗ୺㢟ࡣࠕᤲࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿሙᡤ(floors)࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊ(1b)࡛ࡣࠕὙ࠼ࡿ≀(clothes, shirts,
sheets)࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊྛ౛ࡢ“cleaner”, “whiter”ࡣ⤫ㄒୖ㠀᫂♧໬ࡉࢀࡓ୺㢟ࡢ⤖ᯝ㏙ㄒ(RP)ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 Tsushima (2010a)࡛ࡣᵓᩥᩥἲࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ ITRC ࢆ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃᘧ໬ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ㄆ▱ᩥἲࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࡑࡢ஦ែㄆ
▱ࣔࢹࣝࢆᅗ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᥥ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2) ITRC ࡢᙧᘧ(Form)࡜ព࿡(Meaning)ࡢᐃᘧ໬:Form: [NP1 V ȭ RP (AP or PP)] (ȭࡣ⤫ㄒⓗ࡟㠀᫂♧໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ)
X

 Y

Z

Meaning: [X (in virtue of Property) ENABLES Y to BECOME Z](Tsushima 2010a: 130)‫ ׋‬ᵏᵘᴾᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉʙ७ᛐჷἴἙἽᴾ
ᴾ
Tsushima (ibid.)࡛ࡣࠊITRC ࡣ⤖ᯝᵓᩥ࠿ࡽࠕ⤖ᯝࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆࠊ୰㛫ᵓᩥ࠿ࡽࠕᒓᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆ⥅ᢎࡋ࡚

−97−

主題非明示型結果構文の主語名詞句に関する意味的・語用論的制約について࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡀ(2)ࡢព࿡ࡢ୰࡟ࡶ཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅗ 1 ࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ ITRC ࡢ஦ែㄆ▱ࣔࢹ࡛ࣝࡣࠊ㐨ල୺ㄒ(INSTR)ࡀ୺㢟(TH)࡟ຊࢆ⾜౑ࡋ࡚ࠊᚋ⪅ࡀ◚⥺ᅄゅ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡓ⤖ᯝ≧ែ࡟⮳ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࢺࣛࢪ࢙ࢡࢱ࣮(tr)ࠊࣛࣥࢻ࣐࣮ࢡ(lm)࡜ࡋ࡚ࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡟ኴ⥺࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
㐨ල୺ㄒ࡟ࡣ⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜ࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿࠕ㈐௵ᛶࠖࡀ⏕ࡌࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢࠕ⮬ᚊᛶࠖࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢᵝᏊࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ INSTR ෇ෆ࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟ࡣ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊ㐨ලࢆ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟᧯సࡍࡿືస୺ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢᵝᏊࡣ⣽⥺ࡢ AG ෇࡜஧㔜▮༳⥺࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑞ㤿(2012)࡛ࡣࡇ
࠺ࡋࡓ஦ែㄆ▱ࡣㄆ▱ᩥἲࡢ௬᝿ḟඖ(virtual plane)(cf. Langacker 1999 ࡞࡝)࡛⏕ࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡣࠕᒓᛶླྀ
㏙ࠖ(cf. ┈ᒸ 2008 ࡞࡝)ࡢ୍✀࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ᪨ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 ITRC ࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣㄪ࡭ࡓ㝈ࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ⴭ⪅ࡢࡶࡢࢆ㝖ࡃ࡜3 ⪅࡟ࡼࡿᣦ᦬ࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࠋ
➨1࡟Aarts(1995, 1997)࡛࠶ࡾ⏕ᡂ⤫ㄒㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࠿ࡽ ITRC ࡢゝㄒ⌧㇟⮬యࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ᭱ึࡢ◊✲࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୺㢟㠀᫂♧໬ࡢせᅉ࡜ᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃࡢ୍㒊(⤖ᯝ㏙ㄒࠊ୺ㄒࠊືモࡢᛶ㉁)ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➨ 2 ࡢ◊✲ࡣ Goldberg (2001, 2005a, b)࡟ࡼࡿᵓᩥᩥἲ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛࠶ࡾࠊITRC ࢆࠕ⬺ࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ໬ᵓᩥ(deprofiled object construction)ࠖࡢ୍✀࡜ࡋࠊ௚ࡢᵓᩥ࡜ໟᣓⓗ࡟┠ⓗㄒࡀ⬺ⴠࡍࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➨ 3 ࡣ Kageyama (2002)ࡢㄒᙡព࿡ㄽ࡟ࡼ
ࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ┠ⓗㄒࡀ㠀᫂♧໬ࡉࢀࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࠕ㡯ࡢᢚไࠖ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊⴭ⪅ࡢ୍㐃ࡢ◊✲(2007, 2008, 2010a, b, 2012, in prep a, b)࡛ࡣࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ୺࡟ 3 Ⅼࡢ୺ᙇࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➨ 1 ࡟ ITRC ࡣ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟௚ࡢᵓᩥ࡟ࡣ࡞࠸⊂⮬ࡢᙧᘧ࡜ព࿡ࡢ࣌࢔ࣜࣥࢢࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 2 ࡟ ITRC ࡢᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃ࡜㛵㐃ᵓᩥ࡜᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ୰㛫ᵓᩥ࡜⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡢࡶࡢ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋࠊITRC ࡣ㛵㐃ᵓᩥ࡜⎔ቃࡢ୍㒊ࢆ㒊ศⓗ࡟ඹ᭷ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊ⊂⮬ࡢ⎔ቃࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ୺ᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➨ 3 ࡟࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊITRC ࡢእ㒊࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂࡣ୰㛫ᵓᩥ࠿ࡽࠕᒓᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆࠊ⤖ᯝᵓᩥ࠿ࡽࠕ⤖ᯝࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆ⥅ᢎࡋࡘࡘࡶ⊂❧ࡋࡓ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᨾ࡟ࡇࢀࡽ 3 ࡘࡢᵓᩥࡣᐙ᪘ⓗ㢮ఝᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ
ࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊෆ㒊࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕ౑⏝౫ᣐࣔࢹࣝ(Usage-Based
Model)ࠖ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊࢫ࣮࣐࢟࡜ࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ」ྜࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ(complex netework)ࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᝿ᐃ
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(cf. Tsushima in prep a)ࠋ
 ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ゐࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ ITRC ࡢ୺ㄒྡモྃ࡟㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࢆព࿡ㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࠊ≉࡟ࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ࡓࡿ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢᵓᡂࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 2 ⠇࡛ࡣ ITRC ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋ➨ 3 ⠇࡛ࡣᮏㄽࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢ㐨ල୺ㄒ࡟ᑐࡍࡿぢゎࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ➨ 4 ⠇ࡣ ITRC ࡢ୺ㄒྡモྃ࡟㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
➨ 5 ⠇ࡣ⤖ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᵐᵌᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉἙὊἑểನ૨ႎ࿢‫ؾ‬ỉಒᚇὊ‫ݯ‬ᬔᵆᵐᵎᵎᵕᵇᵊᴾᵲᶑᶓᶑᶆᶇᶋᵿᴾᵆᵐᵎᵎᵖᵊᴾᵐᵎᵏᵎᵿᵇỉ঺ௐửɶ࣎ỆὊᴾᵐᵌᵏᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉἙὊἑỉࣱឋᴾ

2 ⠇࡛ࡣ ITRC ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃࢆᑞ㤿(2007), Tsushima (2008, 2010a)ࡢᡂᯝࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ᴫほࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡲࡎࠊITRC ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࡢࡶࡢࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࢆࡣࡌࡵࡓ࠸ࠋḟࡢ౛ࢆぢࡼ࠺ࠋ(3) a. Our new washing machine washes cleaner!
 b. The new mop polishes cleaner.                     (Tsushima 2010a: 1)ࡇࢀࡽࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ ITRC ࡜ࡋ࡚ⴭ⪅࡟ࡼࡾస౛ࡉࢀࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ(constructed data)࡛࠶ࡾࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡬☜ㄆࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁᐜㄆࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟௨ୗࡢ౛ࢆぢࡓ࠸ࠋ(4) a. The idea that there is an investment-equivalent of the detergent that washes whiter than white just does not work.
b. Many of the best slogans ʊ Colgate’s “Ring of confidence”, “Persil washes whiter”, “Oxo gives a meal man appeal”,
above all, perhaps, “Guinness is good for you” ʊ are simple statements of USPs.

−98−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号(ୗ⥺ࡣⴭ⪅ࠊ௨ୗྠᵝ) (BNC)(5) When it comes to the not-so-subtle art of hyperbole, marketing folks exercise a rare genius in their use of it. In thisbusiness, a detergent doesn’t just wash white but whiter than white.
(8th, August, 2003, Media)(Factiva.com)(4)ࡢ౛ࡣ BNC ࠿ࡽࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊITRC ࡀᩘ౛࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ(5)ࡣ㞧ㄅ࣭᪂
1⪺᳨⣴ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫ Factiva.com ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣᩘⓒࡢ༢఩࡛ᐇ౛ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ḟࡢ౛ࢆぢࡓ࠸ࠋ
(6) a. Those who find to their surprise that washing powders wash whiter. (OED, wash㡫)b. New Jet now washes even whiter. ࠕ⌧ᅾࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢪ࢙ࢵࢺࡣࡉࡽ࡟ⓑࡃὙ࠼ࡲࡍࠋࠖ
(ࢪ࣮ࢽ࢔ࢫⱥ࿴኱㎡඾(㟁Ꮚ㎡᭩∧), even 㡫)(6)ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ㎡᭩࡟ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ(3)-(6)ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽḟࡢࡇ࡜ࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ┤ほࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓస౛ࢹ࣮ࢱࡔࡅ࡟౫ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⤒㦂ⓗࢹ࣮ࢱ(empirical data)࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡸ㎡᭩࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊITRC ࡣ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࠕᐃ╔(entrenched)ࠖ
ཬࡧࠕ័⩦໬(conventionalized)ࠖ
ࡋࡓࣘࢽࢵࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᡃࠎࡢ⬻ෆࡢᵓᩥࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡୖ࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿ(cf. Tsushima in
prep a)ࠋ
ᵐᵌᵐ

ᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉؕஜႎễನ૨ႎ࿢‫ؾ‬ᵆᶁᶍᶌᶑᶒᶐᶓᶁᶒᶇᶍᶌᵿᶊᴾᶎᶐᶍᶎᶃᶐᶒᶇᶃᶑᵇᴾ

ᑞ㤿(2007)ཬࡧ Tsushima (2008, 2010a)࡛ࡣ๓⠇࡛ࡳࡓࡼ࠺࡞ ITRC ࢆヲ⣽࡟⪃ᐹࡋࠊࡑࡢࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ஦౛ࡢᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃࢆ(7)ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(7) Constructional Properties of ITRCs:

comparative, superlative, or positive of degree with

Form: [NP1 V ȭ RP (AP or PP)]a modifier) or prepositional phrase with an adjective

i.

X

ii.

Y

Z

modifier; if limited to a positive meaning

Meaning: [X (in virtue of Property) ENABLES Y

vi

Verb: verbs from which the resultative states are to

Theme: implicit; themes are nonspecific referents

vii.

Tense: most usually the present

and are predictable given our backgroundviii.

Aspect: higher-order perfective / progressive form;

to BECOME Z]
iii.

some degree predictable

possible; higher-order progressive

knowledge or frame
iv.

Subject:

instrument;nounphraseswithix.

contradiction to the positive alternative)

determiners or ones in the plural form without anyv.

Negation: not possible (unless stated indeterminer; artificial objects

x.

Register: common in advertisements

RP: obligatory element: adjective (especiallyxi.

Aktionsart: destiny- and result-orientedࡇࢀࡽࡢ⎔ቃࡣ⤯ᑐⓗ࠿ࡘ㟼ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁࡜ࡋ࡚ᥐᐃࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊືⓗ࡛ẁ㝵ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃࡣࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉࢆᡂࡍࢤࢩࣗࢱࣝࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ≉ᛶࢆ‶ࡓࡏࡤ‶ࡓࡍ࡯࡝ࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ஦౛࡜࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿ(cf. Tsushima in prep b)ࠋ
ᵑᵌྸᛯႎ௒ኵỚᴾᮏ✏ࡀ᥇⏝ࡍࡿㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ୺ㄒࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊvan Oosten (1984: 123)࡞࡝ࡀࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉⓗືస୺ࡢᴫᛕࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⡆⣲࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊືస୺ࡣពᚿࡸពᅗࢆᣢࡕࠊࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㠀ືస୺࡟ኚ໬ࢆ
ࡶࡓࡽࡍ୺ࡓࡿ㈐௵ࢆᣢࡘே㛫࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡀᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ ITRC ࡣ㐨ල୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢศື

−99−

主題非明示型結果構文の主語名詞句に関する意味的・語用論的制約についてస୺࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ඾ᆺᛶࡣୗࡀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⠇ࡢ௨ୗࡢ㆟ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ㐨ල୺ㄒ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊඛ⾜◊✲ࡢ Schlesinger(1989, 1995)࡟ࡼࡿ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ☜ㄆࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࡇ࡟ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ㐨ල୺ㄒ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡀㄆ▱ⓗ࡟㐺ษ࡟ືᶵ௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ ࡲࡎࠊSchlesinger (1989)ࡢ㐨ල୺ㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ 2 ࡘࡢ⮬↛᮲௳ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡣࡌࡵࡓ࠸ࠋ
(8) Natural Condition I: When the event is not instigated by a human agent, or when the agent is unknown or no longer on
the scene, the instrument by means of which the action is performed or which is involved in the event may be naturally
expressed as the subject.

(Schlesinger 1989: 190)

Natural Condition II: To the extent that attention is drawn to the instrument by means of which an action is
performed and away from the instigator of the action, the former will be naturally expressed as the sentence subject.
                     (ibid.: 191)
(9) a. The rust has eaten away at the lock.
b. The clock was ticking so loudly that it woke the baby.

(ibid.: 190)

(10) a. ?The pencil draws lines.
b. The pencil draws thin lines.

(ibid.: 191)

(11) a. ?The spray kills the cockroaches.
b. The spray kills cockroaches instantly.

(ibid.) (ᐜㄆᗘุ᩿༳ࡣⓎ⾲⪅࡟ࡼࡿ)᮲௳ I ࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ(9)࡟࠾࠸࡚㐨ල୺ㄒࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽࡀே㛫ࡢືస୺࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞
࠸࠿ࠊືస୺ࡀ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿ࠿ሙ㠃ୖ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ᮲௳ II ࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ(10b)ཬࡧ(11b)ࡣ⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㐨ල࡟ὀពࡀྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊ(10a)ཬࡧ(11a)ࡣࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࡸࡸ୙⮬↛࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊSchlesinger (1995)ࡣࠊ㐨ලࡀືస୺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ෌⠊␪໬(recategorized)ࠖࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ
せ௳ࢆ 4 Ⅼᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࠊ1 ࡘ┠ࡢせᅉࡣ(12)࡜(13)࡟ᘬ⏝ࡍࡿࠕ」㞧ᗘ(Complexity)࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
(12) […] a complex tool (e.g. rifle) is regarded as less of an instrument than a more simply constructed one, when thecomplexity is relevant to the activity mentioned. This is because a complex tool is viewed as functioning in a sense more
independently, having more CONTROL, and thus being more agent-like […].

     (Schlesinger 1995: 98)(13) The more complex the mechanism and the greater its ability to operate on its own once the operation is triggered off, thegreater its degree of membership in the Agent category.      (Schlesinger 1989: 193)

(14) a. The car swerved and ran into a lamppost.
b. ?The bicycle swerved and ran into a lamppost.
c. ??The roller skates swerved and ran into a lamppost.

 (ibid.) (ᐜㄆᗘุ᩿༳ࡣⓎ⾲⪅)ࡇࡢせ௳࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ」㞧࡞㐨ලࡣࡼࡾ⾜Ⅽᨭ㓄ᛶ(Controllability)ࢆᣢࡗࡓ⊂❧ࡋࡓືస୺ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡀ」㞧࡛ࠊ୍᪦᧯సࡀᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀࠊ⮬ࡽࡢຊ࡛᧯స࡛ࡁࡿ⬟ຊ(ࡘࡲࡾࠊ⮬ᚊᛶ)ࡀ㧗ࡲࢀࡤ㧗ࡲࡿ࡯࡝ࠊືస୺ᛶࡶ㧗ࡲࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ(14)ࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ➨஧࡟(15)ࡢࠕᒓᛶ(Essential Property)ࠖࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(15) The more the success of the activity depends on properties of the instrument, the more the latter can be credited with
CONTROL.                       

 (Schlesinger 1995: 99)

ࡇࡢせ௳࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ஦ែࡢᡂ❧ࡀ㐨ලࡢࠕᒓᛶࠖ࡟㛵୚ࡍࢀࡤࡍࡿ࡯࡝ࠊ㐨ල୺ㄒ࡟ࡼࡿ⾜Ⅽᨭ㓄ᛶࡀ㧗ࡲࡿࡇ

−100−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾඛ࡟ࡳࡓ(10)ཬࡧ(11)ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
 ➨3࡟(16)ࡢࠕ⮬ᚊᛶ(Independence)ࠖࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(16) To the extent that an instrument can perform the activity without the intervention of a human agent, it will be assigned
more CONTROL and be more suitable as sentence subject.  […] Operation of this factor often coincides with that of thecomplexity factor.

(ibid.)(17) a. The clock was ticking so loudly that it woke the baby. (=9b)
b. The dishwasher clean the dishes.
(18) a. ?The stick hit the horse.
b. ?The pencil drew lines. (=10a)(ibid.: 98-99) (ᐜㄆᗘุ᩿༳ࡣⓎ⾲⪅)ࡇࢀࡣࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖ࡜ྠ᫬࡟⏕ࡌࡿᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ㐨ලࡀே㛫ࡢ㛵୚࡞ࡋ࡟⮬ᚊⓗ࡟⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜࡛ࡁࢀࡤࠊ㐨ලࡢ
ࡶࡘ⾜Ⅽᨭ㓄ᛶࡣ㧗ࡲࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ(17)࡜(18)ࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ᭱ᚋ࡟(19)࡟ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࠕ㝿❧ࡕᗘ(Saliency)ࠖࡢၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(19) The greater the saliency of the instrument relative to the human agent, the greater the CONTROL that can be assigned to it.
This overlaps to a large extent with that of Independence: the more an instrument can operate independently of a human agent,
the more salient it will be relative to this agent.    (Schlesinger 1995: 99)(20) a. *The baton conducted Copland’s symphony.
b. This is the baton that conducted Copland’s symphony on its opening night.

(ibid.)

ࡇࢀࡣࠕ⮬ᚊᛶࠖ࡜㔜」ࡍࡿᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊே㛫୺ㄒ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚㐨ලࡢ㝿❧ࡕࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࢀࡤ࡞ࡿ࡯࡝ࠊ㐨ලࡢᣢࡘ⾜Ⅽᨭ㓄ᛶࡣ㧗ࡲࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ(20b)ࡣ༤≀㤋ࡢᏛⱁဨࡢⓎヰ࡛ࠊゝㄒⓗ࡟┤♧ࡢthis࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ᥹⪅࠿ࡽᣦ᥹Წ(baton)࡟ὀពࡀࡑࡽࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆẚ࡭ࡿ࡜ᣦ᥹Წࡢ᪉ࡀ㝿❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ឤࡌࡽࢀࠊᨾ࡟㐨ලࡢ᪉ࡀືస୺࡜ࡋ࡚෌⠊␪໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(20a)ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࡀ㉳ࡇࡽ࡞࠸ࡓࡵᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㐨ල୺ㄒ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣSchlesinger (1989)࡟ࡼࡿ(8)ࡢ⮬↛᮲௳ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊ
Schlesinger (1995)ࡢ4せᅉࡣࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖ࡜ࠕᒓᛶࠖࡢ2ࡘ࡟㑏ඖࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ㐨ල୺ㄒࡣㄆ▱ⓗ࡟㐺ษ࡟ືᶵ࡙
ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓ࠸ࠋṧࡿࠕ⮬ᚊᛶࠖ࡜ࠕ㝿❧ࡕࠖࡣ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖࡢ୰࡟㞟⣙࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ」㞧ᛶࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸㐨ලࡣே㛫ࡢ㛵୚࡞ࡋ࡟⮬ᚊⓗ࡟⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡋࠊ௚᪉ࡑࡢ㏫ࡶᡂࡾ❧ࡘ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㐨ලࡢ⮬ᚊᗘࡀ㧗࠸࡯࡝ࠊࡑࡢ㝿❧ࡕࡶ௜㝶ࡋ࡚㧗ࡲࡾࠊືస୺࡜ࡋ࡚෌⠊␪໬ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࠿
ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⤖ᯝࠊࠕ㝿❧ࡕࠖࡣࠕ⮬ᚊᛶࠖ࡟㑏ඖࡉࢀࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠕ⮬ᚊᛶࠖࡣࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖ࡟㑏ඖࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
ᨾ࡟ࠊ௨ୗࡢ㆟ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊITRCࡢ୺ㄒྡモྃࡢືᶵ௜ࡅ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖ࡜ࠕᒓᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺2ࡘࡢ㑏ඖࡉࢀࡓせᅉ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋᵒᵌᵒᵌᵏᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉɼᛖӸᚺӟỆ᧙ẴỦᛐჷᚕᛖ‫ܖ‬ႎᎋ‫ݑ‬ᴾᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉɼᛖӸᚺӟỉࣱឋᴾ
ࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣ ITRC ࡢ୺ㄒྡモྃࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ(7iv)࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟඾ᆺⓗ࡞ ITRC ࡢ୺ㄒྡモྃࡣ㐨ල୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ(21)ࡸ(22)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ே㛫୺ㄒࡢࡶࡢࡣᐜㄆᛶࡀୗࡀࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(21) a. *Mary washes whiter.
b. *My mother/The cleaning woman sweeps cleaner.
(22) a. ??/*Mary washes whiter with our new washing powder.
b. ??/*My mother/The cleaning woman sweeps cleaner with these revolutionary brooms than ever.


−101−

主題非明示型結果構文の主語名詞句に関する意味的・語用論的制約について

୍᪉࡛ࠊGoldberg (2005a, b)ࡣ(23)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ே㛫୺ㄒࢆ࡜ࡿITRCࢆ᏶඲࡟ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿
ࡋࠊྠࡌ౛ࢆⴭ⪅ࡀⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟☜ㄆࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ(24)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐜㄆᗘࡀ࠿࡞ࡾప࠸࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡀฟࡓࠋࡘࡲ
ࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡟᣺ࡿ⯙࠸࡟࠾࠸࡚ゎỴࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࣃࣛࢻࢵࢡࢫࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣḟ⠇௨㝆࡛ゎỴࢆヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ(23) a. The kindergartener cut in straight lines.

     

b. The sewing instructor always cut in straight lines.

(Goldberg 2005b: 222)      (Goldberg 2005a: 29)(24) a. ??The kindergartener cut in straight lines.
b. ??The sewing instructor always cut in straight lines.
ᵒᵌᵐᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉɼᛖӸᚺӟỉॖԛႎὉᛖဇᛯႎСኖᴾ ࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣࠊព࿡ㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࠊ≉࡟ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࠿ࡽࠊITRCࡢ୺ㄒྡモྃ࡟㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊḟࡢ(25)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞඾ᆺⓗ࡞ITRCࡢ㐨ල୺ㄒྡモྃࢆࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖ࡜ࠕᒓᛶࠖࢆᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡟⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ
(25) a. Our new washing machine washes cleaner!
b. Our new washing powder washes whiter.

(26)

washing machine: A washing machine is a machine that you use to wash clothes in.
washing powder: Washing powder is a powder that you use with water to wash clothes.

(COBUILD)(25a)ࡢwashing machineࡣ(26)࡛ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㏻ࡾࠕᶵᲔ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡟ࡣ」㞧ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⾰㢮ࢆὙ࠺࡜࠸࠺ᒓᛶࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(25b)ࡢwashing powderࡶ(26)ࡢᐃ⩏ࡢ㏻ࡾྠᵝࡢᒓᛶࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡜ྠ᫬
࡟Ὑ๣࡟ࡣ⾰㢮ࡢởࢀࢆὙ࠸ⴠ࡜ࡍ࡜࠸࠺≉Ṧ࡞໬Ꮫ≀㉁ࡢ㓄ྜ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ」㞧ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ2 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞඾ᆺⓗ࡞
ITRCࡢ୺ㄒ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖ࡜ࠕᒓᛶࠖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ௨ୗࡢไ⣙ࡀᑟࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
(27) A Constraint on Subjects of ITRCs:
Subjects of ITRCs recategorized as agents will be constrained to items that have an instrumental entity (i) with a complex
mechanism and (ii) with the essential properties on which the success of the activity depends.
(27)ࡢไ⣙࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊືస୺࡜ࡋ࡚෌⠊␪໬ࡍࡿITRCࡢ㐨ල୺ㄒࡣ(i)」㞧࡞࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆࡶࡕࠊ(ii)ࡑࡢ஦ែࡢᡂ
❧ࡀ㛵୚ࡍࡿᒓᛶࢆᣢࡗࡓ㐨ල࡛࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢไ⣙࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ḟࡢ౛ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
(28) a.

Our new fully automatic washing machine washes cleaner.

b. Our new detergent-free washing machine washes cleaner.
c.

Our new twin-tub washing machine washes cleaner.

d. *Our new washboard washes cleaner.

(ᑞ㤿 2010b: 230)

(28a-c)࡟ࡣᶵᲔ௙᥃ࡅ࡞࡝࡜࠸ࡗࡓ」㞧ᛶࡸ⾰㢮ࢆὙ࠺࡜࠸࠺ᒓᛶࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ௚᪉(28d)࡟ࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ࡶࡢࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊᨾ࡟ (27)ࡢไ⣙ࢆ‶ࡓࡏࡎࠊᐜㄆ୙ྍ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ḟࡢ౛ࢆࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ
(29) a. The new sewing machine sews in zigzag lines.
b. The new scissors cut in straight lines.
(30) a. ??The new sewing machine sews in lines.
b. ??The new scissors cut in lines.
(31) a. The new scissors cut in straight lines. (=29b)−102−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

b. These revolutionary brooms sweep cleaner than ever.
(32) a. ?The scissors cut in straight lines.
b. ?These brooms sweep cleaner than ever.
(29a)ࡢ୺ㄒྡモྃ࡟ࡣᶵᲔ௙᥃ࡅ࡜࠸࠺」㞧ᛶ࡜ࢪࢢࢨࢢ࡟⦭࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᒓᛶࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୍᪉ࠊ(29b)࡟ࡣ
」㞧ᛶࡣྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡲࡗࡍࡄ࡟ษࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᒓᛶࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(ᚋ࡟㏙࡭ࡿࡼ࠺࡟
」㞧ᛶࡣnew࡜࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᝟ሗ࡟ࡼࡾ⿵᏶ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ)ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(30a, b)࡛ࡣ」㞧ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ(29a, b)࡜ྠࡌࡔࡀࠊ
࡝ࡕࡽ࡟ࡶᒓᛶࡶឤࡌྲྀࡽࢀ࡟ࡃࡃ࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊᐜㄆᛶࡀୗࡀࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(31)࡛ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ୺ㄒྡモྃ
ࡢscissorࡸbroom⮬య࡟ࡣ」㞧ᛶࡣྵࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊᒓᛶࡢࡳࡀឤࡌྲྀࡽࢀࡿࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ」㞧ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ(31)ࡢྡモྃ⮬య࡟ࡣㄒᙡ໬ࡉࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࡢࡔࡀࠊ(33)࡟ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞newࡸrevolutionary࡜࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᝟ሗ࡟ࡼࡾㄆ▱ⓗ࡟⿵᏶ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ஦ᐇࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢㄒྃࢆ๐㝖ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡜(32)ࡢࡼ࠺
࡟ᐜㄆᛶࡀୗࡀࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ
(33) a. new: not existing before; recently made, invented, introduced, etc
b. revolutionary: involving a great or complete change(OALD)

௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊITRCࡢ୺ㄒྡモྃࡣ(27)ࡢไ⣙࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㐺ษ࡟ㄆ▱ⓗ࡟ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ே㛫ࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ౛ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ
඾ᆺⓗ࡞ITRC࡛ࡣ(7vi)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ே㛫୺ㄒࡣチࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢࡔࡀࠊ
(23)-(24)࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊே㛫୺ㄒ࡛ࡶᐜㄆᛶࡀ๭ࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࣃࣛࢻࢵࢡࢫࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ඾ᆺᛶࡣୗࡀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࡀࠊ
ேࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ ITRC ࡣᮏᙜ࡟チࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿㸽ḟࡢ౛ࢆぢࡓ࠸ࠋ(34) a. The previous maidservant was not good at housekeeping, but the present maidservant washes whiter and sweeps
cleaner than her predecessors did.
b. The new maid is more skillful than any of her predecessors, and she sweeps cleaner than anyone has ever swept it
before.
c. Mary never attended to housework in her school days, but after she got married, she devoted herself wholly topracticing housekeeping. Now, Mary washes whiter and sweeps cleaner than she did before.
d. The more competent workers cut in straighter lines than the less competent workers.

(ᑞ㤿 2010b: 231)ࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛ࡣே㛫୺ㄒࡢ ITRC ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟☜ㄆࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ඲ࡃࡶࡗ࡚ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛
⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࡣࠊඛࡢ౛࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᩥ⬦᝟ሗ࡟ࡼࡾ୺ㄒྡモྃ࡟」㞧ᛶࡸᒓᛶ(ࡘࡲࡾࠊ⬟ຊ)ࡀ⿵᏶ࡉࢀ
ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊே㛫୺ㄒ࡛ࡶ㠀ே㛫໬ࡋࡓࠕ㐨ලࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼┤ࡉࢀ ITRC ࡜ࡋ࡚ᴫᛕ໬ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᨾ࡟ࠊே㛫୺ㄒࡣ⣧⢋࡞ືస୺࡜ࡋ࡚࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡢ୺ㄒྡモྃࡣ HUMAN BEINGS ARECOMPLICATED MACHINES ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣑᙇࡋࡓ஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊே㛫୺ㄒࡢ ITRC ࡢ୺ㄒྡモྃ࡟㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࢆᑟࡁࡓ࠸ࠋே㛫୺ㄒࡢ ITRC ࡛ࡣ୺ㄒྡモྃ࡟㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࡢࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖࡸࠕᒓᛶࠖࡣㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᝟ሗ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⿵᏶ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛‶ࡓࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓
࣮ゎ㔘࡟ࡼࡾ୺ㄒྡモྃࡢே㛫ࡣ㠀ே㛫໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ(27)ࡢไ⣙ࢆ(35)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᣑᙇࡍࡿࡇ
࡜࡛㐺⏝ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ(35) A Condition on Human Subjects of ITRCs:
The human subject of an ITRC can be recategorized as an agent when it is recognized as (i) possessing a complex mechanismand (ii) the essential properties on which the success of its activity depends, and (iii) is metaphorically construed as adehumanized instrument.

−103−主題非明示型結果構文の主語名詞句に関する意味的・語用論的制約について ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊඛ࡟⏕ࡌࡓࣃࣛࢻࢵࢡࢫࡣࠊᩥ⬦࡜࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽ᝟ሗ࠿ࡽ」㞧ᛶࡸᒓᛶࡀ⿵᏶ࡉࢀ(35)ࡢไ⣙ࢆ‶ࡓࡏࡤITRCࡢ࿘㎶஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚Goldbergࡢࡼ࠺࡞ุᐃ࡟࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࡋࠊㄒ⏝ㄽ᝟ሗࡀ୙༑ศ࡛」㞧
ᛶࡸᒓᛶࡀ‶ࡓࡉ࡞࠸࡜ุᐃࡉࢀࢀࡤⴭ⪅ࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡢࡼ࠺࡞ุᐃࡀୗࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண ࡉࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3

ᵓᵌ

ኽᴾ ᛯᴾ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ Schlesinger (1995)ࡢ㐨ල୺ㄒࡢ 4 せᅉࡣ 2 ࡘ(」㞧ᛶ࡜ᒓᛶ)࡟㑏ඖ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊITRC ࡢࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㐨ල୺ㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࡣࡑࡢ 2 ࡘࡢせᅉ࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ITRC ࡢᣑᙇⓗ஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢே㛫୺ㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࡣ 2 ࡘࡢせᅉ࡟ຍ࠼࡚࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋ
ᾋදᾍᴾ ᮏ✏ࡣࠕᖹᡂ 23 ᖺᗘᮐᖠ኱Ꮫ◊✲ຓᡂ ಶே◊✲ ◊✲ㄢ㢟ྡ୺㢟㠀᫂♧ᆺ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡢࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗ◊✲ ࠖࡢ◊✲ᡂᯝࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᮏㄽࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨  ᅇᖺḟ኱఍࡛◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡟ᚲせ࡞ಟṇࢆຍ࠼࡚ㄽ
ᩥ࡟ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙࢆ೉ࡾ࡚ྖ఍ࡢ㯮⏣⯟ඛ⏕࡜ࣇࣟ࢔࠿ࡽពぢࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓ᪉ࠎ࡟ឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋ
1(5)ࡢ஦౛ࡣ(7)ࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ ITRC ࡢᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃ࡟↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏࡿ࡜ࠊࡸࡸ࿘㎶ⓗ࡞஦౛࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
2ࡇࡇ࡛࠸࠺」㞧ᛶࡣࠊὙ๣ࡀᚤ⢏Ꮚ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ㞟ྜయ࡜ࡋ࡚」㞧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ὀពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ≉࡟ࠊwashingpowder ࡣ detergent ࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࢀࡤࠊ௨ୗࡢ COBUILD ࡢᐃ⩏࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
“Detergent is a chemical substance, usually in the form of a powder or liquid, which is used for washing things such as clothes or dishes.”3㯮⏣⯟Ặ࠿ࡽே㛫୺ㄒࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗゎ㔘࡟ࡼࡾ㠀ே㛫໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࠕᙺ๭ྡ(role name)ࠖ
࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ᪨ࡢᣦ᦬ࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢⅬࢆྵࡵࡓ㆟ㄽ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

ᾋӋༀ૨ྂᾍᴾ
Aarts, Bas. 1995. “Secondary predicates in English.” In: Bas Aarts and Charles F. Meyer (eds.) The verb in contemporary English. 75-101.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aarts, Bas. 1997. English Syntax and Argumentation. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2001. “Patient Arguments of Causative Verbs Can Be Omitted: The Role of Information Structure in Argument
Distribution.” Language Sciences 23. 503-524.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005a. “Argument Realization ʊ The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors.” In: Jan-Ola Östman
and Mirjam Fried (eds.) Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. 17-43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005b. “Constructions, Lexical Semantics, and the Correspondence Principle: Accounting for Generalizations andSubregularities in the Realization of Arguments.” In: Nomi Eriteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport (eds.) The Syntax of Aspect. 215-302.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kageyama, Taro. 2002. “On the Role of Event Argument in Voice Alternation.” ࠗேᩥㄽ✲࠘ Vol.52:1. 79-96. 㛵すᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999b. “Virtual Reality.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29.2. 77-103.
┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ. 2008. ࠕླྀ㏙㢮ᆺㄽ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠖ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ(⦅) ࠗླྀ㏙㢮ᆺㄽ࠘ 3-18. ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1989. “Instruments as agents: on the nature of semantic relations.” Journal of Linguistics 25. 189-210.
Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1995. Cognitive space and linguistic case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ᑞ㤿ᗣ༤. 2007. ࠕ୺㢟㠀᫂♧ᆺ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡢᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃ࡜ࡑࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂࠖ ࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘ Vol. 7. 277-287.
Tsushima, Yasuhiro. 2008. “The Categorization of Constructional Families: Implicit Theme Resultative Constructions, Resultative
Constructions, and Middle Constructions.” Culture and Language. ʋ 69. 69-104. Sapporo University.
Tsushima. Yasuhiro. 2010a. A Cognitive Linguistic Study of Implicit Theme Resultative Constructions and Their Related Constructions.
Doctoral Dissertation. Hokkaido University.
ᑞ㤿ᗣ༤. 2010b. ࠕ୺㢟㠀᫂♧ᆺ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡢព࿡ㄽⓗ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ௜ࡅࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘ Vol. 10. 226-236.
ᑞ㤿ᗣ༤. 2012. ࠕ୺㢟㠀᫂♧ᆺ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡢᴫᛕ໬ࡢୡ⏺̿ㄆ▱ᩥἲ࡜ඹྠὀព࡟ࡼࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ̿ࠖ ࠗᩥ໬࡜ゝㄒ࠘ ➨76ྕ.
13-59. ᮐᖠ኱Ꮫ.
Tsushima, Yasuhiro. in prep a. “The Cognitive Network of Implicit Theme Resultative Constructions.”
Tsushima, Yasuhiro. in prep b. “The fuzziness of the internal category of Implicit Theme Resultative Constructions.”
van Oosten, Jeanne Hillechiena. 1984. The Nature of Subjects, Topic and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.
<Corpus>
British National Corpus (BNC).
Factiva.com<Dictionary> Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary (COBUILD). 4th ed.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDOCE). 5th ed.
Oxford Advanced Leaner’s Dictionary (OALD). 7th ed.
Oxford English Dictionary (OED) 2nd ed.
   ࢪ࣮ࢽ࢔ࢫⱥ࿴኱㎡඾(㟁Ꮚ㎡᭩∧).

−104−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

マスメディアの科学ディスコースを通した数の認識―メタファー的思考に着目して―

出口 由美
関西大学大学院
degudegu.deguchi@gmail.com＜Abstract＞
This paper discusses perception of numbers in mass media discourse on science, and then shows thattwo kinds of metaphors are involved in the perception: Container Metaphors in Grounding Metaphors (Lakoff &Núñez 1997, 2000, 2005; Núñez 2000) and Pedagogical Metaphors (Boyd, 1993). The former is involved in theperception of various number expressions (e.g. percentages, fractional numbers, etc.). The latter aims to describe or
explain unfamiliar knowledge for public. Following this analysis, I focus on manipulation about “real” (Lynch 1990),
which accompanies when we perceive numbers through metaphorical thought.
【キーワード】ディスコース 科学的知識 数値 メタファー的思考

1. はじめに
本論文は、マスメディアを通し、一般人に向けて科学的な知識を伝達するディスコースを「マスメディアの科学ディスコース」とし、その中に現れる数値に着目する。マスメディアの科学ディスコースを見渡せば、数値は随所にちりばめられている。たとえば、ある調査の成果がマスメディアを通して伝達される時、その調査方法（調査期間、被調査者数、被調査者の年齢など）や調査結果（病気になる危険
性、調査から導きだされる割合など）は数値によって、あるいは数値をともなって伝えられる。また、
私たちは日々の営みおいて、絶えず数値に接する。それは、距離、日付、気温、価格、成績などの世界に関する重要な情報が、数値を含む形式によって捉えられることからも明らかである。
このように私たちが科学的なディスコースや日常生活を通じて接する「数」とは、いずれも具体的にはさまざまなかたちをとりうる広義の「量」を抽象化したものである。では、人間は抽象的なものとしての数をどのような仕方で認識しているのであろうか。この問題に取り組むことは、マスメディアの科
学ディスコースにおいて数値が必然的な構成要素となっている以上、一般人による科学的知識の認識のあり方を解明することの一端を担うと考えられる。
以上を踏まえ、本論文ではこうしたディスコースに現れる数値がメタファー的な思考に基づいて認識されることを明らかにする。さらに、メタファーを通して数値を認識する際にともなう、物理的な領域に関する（おもに心的な）操作のありようにも取り組む。
本論文の流れは以下のとおりである。第 2 章では、マスメディアの科学ディスコースにおける数の認−105−マスメディアの科学ディスコースを通した数の認識―メタファー的思考に着目して―識に関与するとみられる 2 種類のメタファー（「基礎づけるメタファーGrounding Metaphors」と「教育的メタファーPedagogical Metaphors」）を提示することで、分析の視点を明確にする。第 3 章では、この 2種類のメタファーが、実際のディスコースにどのような仕方で現れるかに関し、具体例を提示しながら分析を行う。続く第 4 章の分析では、メタファー的思考を通した数値の認識にともなう、物理的な領域
に関する操作について論じる。第 5 章で本論文をまとめる。

2. 数値の認識にみられる 2 種類のメタファー
本章では、マスメディアの科学ディスコースに現れる数値の認識とメタファー的思考との関連を論じるにあたり、対象とするディスコースに示されるメタファーの性質を整理する。
まず、マスメディアの科学ディスコースに現れる数値の認識においては、Lakoff & Núñez（1997, 2000）、
Núñez（2000）によって提案された「基礎づけるメタファー」の関与がみられる。これは Lakoff and Johnson（1980）の「概念メタファーConceptual Metaphors」を継承する概念である。図 1 に示されるように、概念メタファーでは、具体領域の Source Domain（以下、S 領域）を抽象領域の Target Domain（以下、T 領域）に写像する構造がみられるが、Lakoff & Núñez は、この概念メタファーの構造を数学体系に拡張している。そして、身体的な経験などの人間にとってより具体的な領域が、数学体系という抽象的な領域を定義しているとみられるメタファーを基礎づけるメタファーとする（図 2）
。

T 領域

数学

S 領域

図 1 概念メタファーの構造

日常

図 2 基礎づけるメタファーの構造

この基礎づけるメタファーに属するものの中でも本論文に関連の深いものとして、《集合は容器》
Classes Are Containers がある。まず、日常的な言語使用において広範にみられるスキーマに、「容器のス
キーマ Container Schema」があり、これは構成要素として、「内部 Interior 」
（以下、
「内容物」
）
、
「境界
Boundary 」
（以下、
「容器」
）
、
「外部 Exterior」をもつ。このことに関連し、Lakoff & Núñez は集合論を構成するさまざまな概念が、容器スキーマからの写像によって構成されていることを指摘した（表１）。
1

表 1 《集合は容器》
T 領域

S 領域

集合（A）

空間における有界領域

集合の成員（A の外延）

有界領域の内側の対象

より広範な集合の部分集合（B）

有界領域の内側の有界領域

補集合（￣
A）

有界領域の外AB￣
A
図 3 集合−106−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

3.1 では、この観点をもとに、数学の集合論のみならず、マスメディアの科学ディスコースの中に現れる数値表現の認識に容器のスキーマの構造が反映されていることを考察する。
一方、一般人に向けた科学的知識の普及を目的とする数の使用には、当該の数値の「明瞭さ」や「理解のしやすさ」というものに配慮したメタファーの使用が認められる。これは、一般人にとって馴染みのない科学の用語や数値にともなう単位を、すでに一般人が獲得済みである具体的な対象に言い換えるという類のメタファーである。Lakoff & Núñez は、数学体系そのものには関与しないが、説明や解説を目的に用いられるメタファーを「外生的メタファーExtraneous Metaphors」とする。その他にも、この種のメタファーは「教育的／教訓的メタファーPedagogical or Exegetical Metaphors」（Boyd 1993；Knudsen
2003）や「例証的メタファーIllustrating Metaphors」（Skorczynska & Deignan 2006）などと呼ばれことから、
本論文はこれらを総じて「教育的メタファー」とする。
次章では、これまでに提示した 2 種のメタファーに関して具体例をあげながら、一般人による科学的な数値の認識にメタファー的思考が深く関与することを示す。

3. 分析１―数値の認識におけるメタファー的思考のメカニズム

3.1. 基礎づけるメタファー
マスメディアの科学ディスコースの中の数値使用をみると、パーセンテージや分数といった割合の表
現形式が頻繁に使用されている。さらに、この割合は円グラフ／比率グラフによって視覚化される。本節では、割合に関わる数値表現の認識が、2 章に示した《集合は容器》に関連することを確認する。

《100％は容器》
たとえば、「人間の体の 60%は水分」というクリシェにおいては、容器が人体に対応する数値で、内容物は水についての数値である。つまりパーセンテージの使用は、100%が容器として、そしてその内の焦点化される数値が内容物として理解される。
《分母は容器》
分数については、布団の販売文句として使用されるとみられる「人生の 3 分の 1 は睡眠」と容器のメタファーとの関連を見る。ここでは、人生が容器となり、内容物は睡眠時間であることから、分数の場
合、分母が容器の役割をなし、分子がその内容物に対応することがわかる。
《円グラフは容器》
円グラフは、パーセンテージと分数の視覚化として捉えられるため、これらと同じく容器のメタファーとの関連で論じることができ−107−

図 4 円グラフ（作例）マスメディアの科学ディスコースを通した数の認識―メタファー的思考に着目して―る。たとえば、本論文執筆者が作成したこの図は、肩こりに悩む人の比率に関する架空の図である。この円グラフにおいても、「肩こりに悩んでいますか？」という質問の回答者全体を容器として、そして肩こりに悩む人と悩まない人を内容物として、容器のスキーマの構成要素に対応づけることができる。
《時間は容器》「牛は 1 日に 10 時間げっぷをする」。これは 3.2.で示す用例にみられる数値の使用であるが、ここでも牛のげっぷ時間は「10/24 時間」というように、割合を通して認識される。実際のところ、時間は絶えず流れるものであり、容器のように固定されたものではないが、私たちは時間という境界の定まらない抽象概念に区切りを設けることで、時間を認識するのである。
以上、Lakoff & Núñez による《集合は容器》に関連するものとして、割合の表現形式を取り上げながら、《100％は容器》、《分母は容器》、《円グラフは容器》、《時間は容器》という 4 つの基礎づけるメタフ
ァーの存在を明らかにした。

3.2. 教育的メタファー
本節では、一般人に向けた知識の普及においてみられる、教育的メタファーを取り上げる。(1)は、朝日新聞の「ののちゃんの Do 科学」という連載記事で、牛のげっぷが、地球温暖化の原因の 1 つとされることを話題にしている。

(1)
牛のげっぷはなぜ温暖化と関係あるの？ 一頭分のメタン、車並みの効果（タイトル）［中略］ののちゃん：でも、牛のげっぷだって量は大したことないんでしょ。
先生：牛をよく見てごらん。しょっちゅうげっぷをしているはずよ。合計すると 1 日 10 時間にもなるわ。げっぷの量は 1 千〜1500 ㍑で、家庭のお風呂おけの 5 倍にもなるの。その 3 分の 1 がメタンで、1 年間の排出量は、乗用車が 1 万㌔走ったのと同じくらいの温室効果があるといわれているわ。
（朝日新聞 2008. 08.10 東京朝刊: 4）(1)では、教育的メタファーが 2 つみられる。それは第 1 に、「げっぷの量 1 千〜1500 ㍑」が「家庭のお風呂おけの 5 倍」に、そして第 2 に「1 年間で牛 1 頭のげっぷから放たれるメタンの体積」が「乗用
車が 1 万㌔走った場合の温室効果」に言い換えられている。ここでは、数値の世界で語られる「げっぷ量」1 千〜1500 ㍑とその内の 1/3 を占める「メタンの体積」が、メタファーを通し、「お風呂おけ」という日常の中でごく経験可能な対象や、「乗用車の排出ガス」という地球温暖化問題と密接な関わりをもつ対象に再配分されることで、より具体的に説明されている。このような再配分がみられるものとして、倍数の使用もあげられる。

−108−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号(2) 東日本巨大地震 エネルギー 阪神の 700 倍 複数の震源が連動（読売新聞 2011.3.12 東京朝刊: 特 4）(3) 福島原発事故の放出セシウム、広島原爆 168 倍相当 保安院試算（朝日新聞 2011.8.27 東京朝刊: 5）

ここでは、(2)の東日本巨大地震、(3)の福島原発事故といった新たな事象についての数値が、「阪神」
や「広島原爆」という、当該の現象と比較可能な過去の事象の倍数によって説明されている。
ここで、この種の教育的メタファーの性質について留意しておきたい。本節で分析対象としている教育的メタファーの事例では、たとえるものとたとえられるものとの間の類似性（とりわけ 2 者間の量的な類似性）が、メタファーによってはじめて形成されている。たとえば(1)では、「牛のげっぷ（の内のメタン）」と「乗用車の排出ガス」といった通常は結びつけて考えられないであろうもの同士に、類似性が差し出されている。このような現象を検討するにあたっては、「比喩はあらかじめ存在する類似性を定式化するというより、類似性を作りだす」（Black 1954）という、メタファーの相互作用説に関する記述が参考になる。つまり、一見説明のツールとして用いられているようにみえるメタファーには、類似性を発見させたり、創造したりする側面がともなっており、メタファーを形成することによってのみ実現できる意味が存在することも考えられる。このことが具体的に把握できる事例として、サプリメントのWEB サイト上にみられたメッセージをあげる。

(4) 食物繊維 6,000mg ってどのくらいの量？ レタス約 3 個分に相当！
http://www.takara-healthcare.com/kanten/00016.html（検索日 2011.3.1）

一般的な数値の使用では、たとえば「33%」を文脈に応じて「1/3」や「3 人に 1 人」に言い換えることがあり、ここではある数値表現が、通常の数値表現単位の体系の中で言い換えられている。それに対し、(4)では、数値の言い換えに「レタス」という通常の数値表現単位ではないものが導入されている。
よって前者は「単なる数値の言い換え」、そして後者は「『数値』の世界から『現実におりてくる』言い換え」として捉えられる。というのも、ここでは “mg”という「食生活」には無関係といえる単位が、「レタス」という実際の食卓にあがる具体的な食品を単位として表現されることにより、「現実の食生活の中での食物繊維の摂取」という文脈で「食物繊維 6,000mg」が捉えなおされている。つまり、この例ではメタファーを通し、「食物繊維 6,000mg」について眺める文脈を「物理量」から「食生活」にシフトすることで、当該の製品に栄養価の高さやその「良さ」に関わる価値付けが創造されているといえよう。

4. 分析２―物理的領域の編集
ここからは、メタファーを通して科学的な数値を認識する場合にともなう操作に着目する。本章の議論についての重要な指摘が Lynch（1990: 154）にある。つまり、私たちが科学ディスコースを通してみ−109−

マスメディアの科学ディスコースを通した数の認識―メタファー的思考に着目して―る「『現実』とは、たとえばグラフ化などの既存の手段で表象されたものであり、不可視的な現象や抽象
2的な関係がそのまま『目の前に現れてきている』のではない 」、とある。この指摘が正しいとすると、数値化とは現象や関係を理解しやすい形に再構築すること、といった意味での何らかの操作がなされていることが考えられる。では、こうした操作は具体的にはどのように記述できるものなのだろうか。
4.1 では、物理的な状況で分散して存在する対象の数値化について、そして 4.2 では物理的には一箇所にまとまって存在する対象の数値化に関してみる。

4.1. 分散した対象の操作―集約化―
本節では、物理的に分散して存在する対象が数値化された場合の操作性に着目する。まず、「時間」を単位にともなう数値の認識には、容器のメタファーが関与することをすでにみた。たとえば、(1)の例をあげると、牛のげっぷ時間を捉える場合、「1 日」を容器に見立て、その内の牛のげっぷ時間を内容物として認識する点である。しかしながら、物理的な領域での牛の生態を想定すると、牛は図 5 の左に示されるように 1 日を通して不定期的かつ散発的にげっぷを行なっていることが考えられる。しかし、「1 日
10 時間」という場合には、物理的な領域においては分散して行われると考えられるげっぷの時間を図 5の右に示されるように集約化して認識しているとみられる。

0

10

24

0

10

24

図 5 分散から集約化へ 1

このように物理的な領域の中では分散して存在している要素を、集約化する操作がみられる数値使用
は、時間に限らず、容器のメタファーの構造を反映する数値表現すべてに認められる。ࡑࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
「人間の体の 60%は水分」ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ ࡑࡶࡑࡶࠊே㛫ࡢయෆ࡟ᏑᅾࡍࡿỈศ࡜ࡣ⾑ᾮ୰ࡸ⣽⬊ෆ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊᅗ 6 ࡢᕥ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺
࡟ࠊ≀⌮ⓗ࡞㡿ᇦ࡛ࡣయ୰࡟ࡕࡽࡤࡗ࡚Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜᝿ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ⚾ࡓࡕࡣ「人間の体の60%は水分」࡜⪺ࡃ࡜ࠊᅗ 6 ࡢྑ࡟࠶ࡽࢃࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢỈศࡀ࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶࡲ࡜ࡲࡗ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ
࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

人の体内数による認識−110−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

3

図 6 分散から集約化へ 2

図 7 人間の体に占める水の割合 ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊே㛫ࡢయࢆಶయ࡜ᾮయ࡟ศࡅ࡚ࠊ3/5 ࡀỈ࡟࡞ࡗࡓேయࢆ᝿ീࡋࡓࡾࡶࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ㄆ㆑ࡢ࠶ࡾࡉࡲࢆල⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺୖ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋࡓᅗ 7 ࡢ࢖ࣛࢫࢺ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࠋ

4.2. 集約した対象の操作̶分散化̶
本節では 4.1 での考察を踏まえ、物理的には集約して存在する対象を数値で認識する場合のメカニズムをみる。こうした数値使用はごく限られたものであるが、これを観察するに適した例を以下に示す。

(5)
商 品 名：「発酵コエンザイム Q10」

商品説明：

1 日の目安 120mg（2 粒分）を食品で摂取した場合、イワシで約 32 匹、ブロッコ
リーで約 80 株、牛肉であれば約 4kg を食べる必要があります。
http://www.kyowaremake.jp/q/index01.html?banner_id=ad310200䠄᳨⣴᪥ 2011.3.10䠅

(5)では、物理的な領域ではサプリメント 2 粒の中に集約して存在していると考えられるコエンザイム
Q10 が、その量をより説得的に表現するためにイワシやブロッコリーなどの食生活に関わる対象によって示されている（3.2.の(4) に関する議論を参照）。ここでは、集約化とは真逆の認識が起こるということが考えられる。というのも集約化とは、すでに示したように、物理的な領域では分散している要素を集約するという操作であった。それに対し、(5)では、日常的な対象に言い換えることで、物理的にはまとまって存在している科学成分を、分散させている（図 8 と 9）。

図 8 集約から分散化へ（イワシ）

図 9 集約から分散化へ（牛肉）

つまり、ここでハイライトを当てたタイプの「個分」をともなう数値表現を認識する場合には、物理的にはまとまって存在する要素を「分散化」させるという操作が認められる。

5. 結論
本論文では、一般人に向けられた科学ディスコースにおける数の使用を、メタファー的思考との関連で論じた。そこには、Lakoff & Núñez が提唱する「基礎づけるメタファー」（中でも《集合は容器》
）と、

−111−

マスメディアの科学ディスコースを通した数の認識―メタファー的思考に着目して―伝達の要求を満たすために用いられる「教育的メタファー」が重要な役割を果たすことを例証した。
さらに、こうした 2 種類のメタファーを通して物理的な領域を認識する場合にともなう操作に取り組んだ。そこで明らかになったのは、私たちがメタファー的思考を通して数値を認識する際には、物理的な領域では分散して存在しているものを一箇所に集合させる集約化と、それに反し、もともとは物理的にまとまって存在しているものを四方八方に分散させて認識する分散化という心的な働きが関与することである。つまり、「集約化」と「分散化」という互いに相反する操作が、数値をメタファー的思考によって認識することで実現されることが明確化した。

脚注
1

Lakoff & Núñez（2000: 43-44）からの引用である。ただし、補集合と T 領域の列の括弧内は本論文執筆者による補足である。
2

原文：… the “real” object is the representation in hand, e.g., the visual display, and not the invisible phenomenon or
abstract relationship “out there”.
3
http://www.water.city.nagoya.jp/intro/lohas/kurashi/4-03.html（検索日 2011.3.10）
参照文献
Black, M. 1954. Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55, 273-294.（尼ヶ崎彬訳. 1986.「隠喩」, 佐々木健一編『創造のレトリック』, 勁草書房）
Boyd, R. 1993. Metaphor and theory change: what is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for? In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor andthought, 2ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 481-533.
Knudsen, S., 2003. Scientific metaphors going public. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1247–1263.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & R. Nú ez. 1997. The metaphorical structure of mathematics: Sketching out cognitive foundations for amind-based mathematics. In L. English (ed.), Mathematical Reasoning: Analogies, Metaphors, and Images,
21-89. NJ: Erlbaum.
Lakoff, G. & R. Nú ez. 2000. Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into
Being. New York: Basic Books.
Lynch, M. 1990. The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual Documentation of Objects in
the Life Sciences, in M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (eds) Representation in Scientific Practice, 156-186.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nú ez, R. 2000. Mathematical idea analysis: what embodied cognitive science can say about the human nature ofmathematics. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference of the International Groupfor the Psychology of Mathematics Education. 1, 3-22. Hiroshima: Hiroshima University.
Skorczynska, H., Deignan, A., 2006. Readership and purpose in the choice of economic metaphors. Metaphor andSymbol 21 (2), 87–104.

−112−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ⱥㄒ㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢ⿵ㄒศᕸ࡬ࡢព࿡ㄽⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ
ᒓᛶ࣭≧ែླྀ㏙ࡢ㐪࠸࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚୰ᮧᩥ⣖㸦៞᠕⩏ሿ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸧fumi3648@gmail.com<Abstract>
This paper attempts to examine the complement of the English Copulative Perception Verb Construction (e.g.
John looks happy.). First, this construction means that the speaker infers based on perceptual evidence that the
subject referent has some property denoted by the complement, implying a two-stage process: the cognition of
the subject referent and the evaluation of the subject referent by inference. Next, introducing the three-foldclassification of predicates proposed in Kaga (2007), character-describing predicates, state-describing predicatesand situation-describing predicates, I propose that only the first two predicates can occur with this construction
because they are related to the cognition of the cognition of the inference of the subject referent.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸▱ぬືモࠊᙧᐜモࠊ⿵ㄒࠊ᥎ㄽࠊླྀ㏙

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟ࡣࠊ▱ぬ⪅࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࡀ୺ㄒ
࡟࡞ࡿ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ the Copulative
Perception Verb Construction 㸦 e.g. John looks
happy.㸧࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿᵓᩥࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊⱥ࠾ࡅࡿ⿵ㄒ complement ࡢศᕸࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆㄪ࡭ࠊࡑࡢ
ศᕸࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟࠶ࡿせᅉࡣఱ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆព࿡
ㄽࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᵓᩥ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⥆ࡃ㆟ㄽ࠿ࡽᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡿ୺ᙇࡣࠊ(i)ࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣࠕ࠶ࡿᑐ㇟ࢆ▱ぬࡋࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᚓࡓ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࡢࡶࡘᛶ㉁࣭≧ែࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘࠖ࡜ࡋࠊ
(ii)ࡇࡢ▱ぬ࠿ࡽ᥎ㄽ࣭ホ౯࡜࠸࠺㡰ᗎࢆྜ⮴ࡍࡿ࡜ព࿡ㄽⓗ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ⿵ㄒࡀㄆ
ࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 ➨ 2 ⠇࡛ࡣ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢㅖ≉ᚩ࠿ࡽᵓᩥ඲యࡀᣢࡘᶵ⬟ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓᚋࠊ➨ 3⠇࡛ඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ➨ 5 ⠇ࡣࠊ⤖ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2. 㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ
2.1. ᵓᩥࡢㅖ≉ᚩ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢ▱ぬືモ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡃ beືモ࡟㢮ఝࡋࡓᵓᩥࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ1ࠋࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣ
ᵝࠎ࡟࿧ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏ࡣᮏከ (2005)࡟ೌ
࠸ࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
௦⾲ⓗ࡞౛ᩥࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ㸦㇂ཱྀ
2005:213㸧:  d. The cake tastes good.
  e. The cloth feels soft.
ࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ 3 Ⅼ≉ᚩⓗ࡞Ⅼࢆᣢࡘࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣ㠀⾜Ⅽ⪅୺ㄒᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
ࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ㏻ᖖ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡸ⤒㦂⪅࡜⾜Ⅽࡢᑐ㇟ࡀྠࡌሙ㠃࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿሙྜ
⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡸ⤒㦂⪅ࡀ୺ㄒ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ▱ぬືモࡣࠊࡑࡢᛶ㉁ୖ▱ぬ⾜Ⅽ࡜࠸࠺஦ែࢆព࿡
ࡍࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢሙྜ㏻ᖖ▱ぬ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺⾜Ⅽ⪅
actorࠊࡲࡓࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚▱ぬయ㦂ࢆཷᐜࡍࡿ⤒㦂⪅ experiencerࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ▱ぬࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟
objective ࢆྵពࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㛵ಀࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺
࡟ゝㄒ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢሙྜࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜⤒㦂⪅ࡀ୺ㄒ࡟࡞ࡾࠊᑐ㇟ࡣ
┠ⓗㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚Ⓨゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㏻ᖖ࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚
▱ぬᑐ㇟ࡀ୺ㄒ࡜࡞ࡿᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡣゝㄒ໬࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣྠᵝ࡟⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡸ⤒㦂⪅ࢆ⫼ᬒ໬ࡋ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࢆ๓ᬒ໬ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘཷືែ࡜ᙜヱᵓᩥࢆᕪ␗໬ࡍࡿ୍ࡘࡢᇶ‽࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡼࡾලయⓗ࡞ゝㄒ⌧㇟ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟⪃࠼
ࡿ࡜ࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡣྡモ໬ཬࡧཷື໬ࡍࡿሙྜࠊ๓
⨨モ by ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊby ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡸ⤒㦂⪅ࢆゝㄒ໬࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
(2) a. Mary is looked at by John.
  b. *Mary looks beautiful by John.
  c. John looks happy (to me).
ࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ⤒㦂⪅ࢆ to ๓⨨モ࡛ྃゝㄒ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊby ࡛⾲ࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡇࢀ
ࡣ see ࡢ୺ㄒ࡟࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡞⤒㦂⪅࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࠊ

(1) a. John looks happy.
  b. It sounds reasonable.
  c. The flower smells sweet.

−113−英語連結的知覚動詞構文の補語分布への意味論的アプローチ:属性・状態叙述の違いに着目してᵓᩥ඲య࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࿨㢟ࢆุ᩿ࡋࡓホ౯⪅࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࡇࡢホ౯⪅ࡣࠊ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛㝶ពⓗ࡞せ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
Jackendoff (1985, 2009)ࡣࠊ⥲⛠ⓗ࡞ you ࡜ࡋ࡚
グ㏙ࡋࠊTaniguchi (1997)ࠊ㇂ཱྀ (2005)࡛ࡣࠊ
ヰࡋᡭࡶࡋࡃࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ேࠎ࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࠊ
⏕ែᚰ⌮Ꮫࢆ⏝࠸ࡓศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓᮏከ (2005)
࡛ࡣほᐹⅬࡢබඹᛶ࠿ࡽᐇ㝿ࡢ▱ぬ⪅࡜ࡑࡢ௚ࡢேࠎࡀほᐹⅬࢆඹ᭷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚どⅬࡀ୍⯡໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡶࡋࡃࡣヰࡋᡭࢆྵࡴ
୍⯡ⓗ࡞ேࠎ࡜࠸࠺୍ே⛠ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࡀ✜ᙜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
 ➨஧Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ▱ぬືモࡀ⾜Ⅽ⪅୺ㄒᵓᩥ࡛
⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᫬࡜ࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ᫬࡜࡛ࡣᆺࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋVendler(1967)ࡣࠊ㏙ㄒࡢᆺࡣ㸲ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ
≧ែ㏙ㄒ stativeࠊ฿㐩㏙ㄒ achievementࠊάື㏙ㄒ activityࠊ㐩ᡂ㏙ㄒ accomplishment ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ㏻
ᖖࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ▱ぬືモࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀ୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣάືືモ࡛࠶ࡿ2ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡟⌧ࢀࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ
ከࡃࡢሙྜ≧ែືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
ࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡛⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡣ
࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ࡟ࡣάືືモ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞
࠸ࡀࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣ≧ែືモ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ௨ୗࡢᑐẚࢆぢࢀࡤ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

(5) 㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟▱ぬᑐ㇟ࢆ▱ぬࡋࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᚓࡓ
▱ぬᑐ㇟ࡢࡶࡘᛶ㉁࣭≧ែࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿᶵ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟▱ぬࡋࡓᑐ㇟ࢆ᝟ሗ※ࡋู࡚ࡢ࿨
㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ླྀ㏙ࡍࡿࡇࡢᶵ⬟ࡣドᣐᛶ
evidentiality ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ᥮ゝࡍࢀࡤࠊࠕ㸦୺ㄒ㸧ࡀ㸦⿵ㄒ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ
࡜ࢆุ᩿ࡋࡓドᣐࠊࡘࡲࡾ᝟ሗ※ࠊࡀ࡝ࡢ▱ぬ࡟ ࡼ ࡿ ࡶ ࡢ࡞ ࡢ ࠿ ࢆ ᫂グ ࡍ ࡿ ᶵ ⬟ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ
Gisborne (2010)ࡣࠊWord Grammar ࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࢆドᣐᛶࡢ⾲ࢀ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓ Whitt (2010)ࡶ▱ぬ࠿ࡽ᥎ㄽ࡬࡜
⛣⾜ࡋࡘࡘ࠶ࡿᵓᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢドᣐᛶࡢᛶ㉁ୖࠊ᥎ㄽࡣ▱ぬࡢᚋ㉳ࡇࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ look ࡜ see ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⾜Ⅽ⪅୺ㄒᵓᩥࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊlook ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡢ࠶࡜࡟ see ࡜࠸࠺▱ぬࡀᡂ❧ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆྵពࡍࡿ3ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㐃⤖リⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࡑࡢྵព㛵ಀ
ࡀ㏫㌿ࡍࡿࠋḟࡢ Rogers (1971:271)ࡢ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࢀࡤࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡀࡉࡽ࡟᫂░࡟࡞ࡿࠋ(7) a. Reuben looked stoned to me.
  b. Reuben didn’t look stoned to me.
  c. I saw Reuben.
  d. I didn’t see Reuben.

(3) a. John looks happy.
  b. *John sees happy.
  c. That sounds reasonable.
  d. *That hears reasonable.
ࡇࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊlook ࡀάືືモ࡛࠶ࡿ ➨୕Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡇࡢᵓᩥࡀ⩏ົⓗ࡞⿵ㄒࢆ࡜
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢ౛࡛ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺
࡟ࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ⿵ㄒࡀ࡞࠸࡜ᐜㄆᛶࡀୗࡀ
ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟⌧ࢀࡿᐇ౛࡟࠾࠸
࡚ࠊ୺ㄒࡀࡼࡃ┬␎ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡣዲᑐ↷ࢆ࡞ࡍࠋ(4) a. John looks happy.
  b. *John looks.
  c. That sounds reasonable.
  d. *That sounds.
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣ▱ぬࡋࡓᑐ㇟ࡀ⿵ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿᛶ㉁ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍᶵ⬟ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2.2.

ࡇࡇࡲ࡛࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢ
ᵝ࡞ᵓᩥࡢព࿡ࢆᑟࡁฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ
࠺ࠋ

ᵓᩥࡢᶵ⬟

−114−

ࡣࡌࡵࡢ 2 ౛ࡣࠊ㐃⤖リⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ
ࡀࠊ⫯ᐃᙧ࡜ྰᐃᙧࡀ୪࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡩ
ࡓࡘࡣඹ࡟ to me ࡀゝㄒ໬ࡍࡿⓎヰ⪅ࡀ Reuben
ࢆぢࡓࡇ࡜ࢆྵពࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㏫࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊࡉࡽ࡟㔜せ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣྰᐃᙧ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡇ
ࡢ๓ᥦ⮬యࡣྰᐃࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡋࡇ
ࡢ๓ᥦࡀྰᐃࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ(7d)ࡀྵពࡉ
ࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㐃⤖リⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ lookࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅୺ㄒᵓᩥ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡜
␗࡞ࡾࠊsee ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿどぬ⾜Ⅽࡢᡂᑵࡀ⤖ᯝ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣ(i)୺ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆࡢᏑᅾࢆㄆ▱ࡋࠊ(ii)ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ᝟ሗࢆᚓࡓୖ࡛ࠊ(iii)୺ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ⿵ㄒ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆྵពࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

第14回大会発表論文集

2.3. ⿵ㄒࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅ๓⠇࡛ࡣ 3 Ⅼ┠࡟ࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡛ࡣ⿵ㄒࡀ⩏ົⓗ࡞せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࡓ
(Taniguchi 1997)ࠋࡲࡓࠊHuddleston and Pullum(2002)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡢ⿵ㄒࡣᖖ࡟
୺ㄒᚿྥⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆ᭷ࡋࠊ≉ᚩ௜ࡅ࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓ
㏻ࡾ࠶ࡿ୺ㄒ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࠶ࡿᒓᛶࡸ≧ែࢆླྀ㏙
ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥ
ࡣࠊࡑࡢ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࢆ⾜࠺࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠊbe ືモࡢࡼ࠺࡟ከᵝ࡞⿵ㄒࢆྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Gisborne (2010:243)ࡀᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡀࡼࡾࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

第７号

モࡢ࣌࢔࡛ࡶᐜㄆᛶ࡟ᕪࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡢ
㐪࠸ࡣᙧᘧⓗ࡞ၥ㢟࡜ゝ࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊࡴࡋࢁព࿡
ⓗ࣭ᶵ⬟ⓗ࡞ไ⣙࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ၥ㢟ព㆑࡟❧ࡕࠊᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ≉࡟௨ୗࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
(12) a. ࡇࢀࡽࡢ࣌࢔ࡢᐜㄆᛶࡢ㐪࠸ࡣ࡝ࡇ࠿
ࡽ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ  b. ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑐ❧ࡣࠊ⤯ᑐⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠋ
ࡇࡢၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᶵ⬟ㄽⓗศᯒࢆ⾜࠸௨ୗࡢᵝ࡞᝿ᐃࡢࡶ࡜ศᯒࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

(8) a. Jane sounds nice. (ᙧᐜモ)  b. Jane sounds a nice girl. (ྡモྃ)  c. Jane sounds like a nice girl.㸦๓⨨モྃ㸧  d. Jane sounds like/as though she’s a nice girl.
(ᐃᙧ⠇)(13) ᮏ✏ࡢ୺ᙇၥ୍࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸸ࠕ(i)▱ぬࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ(ii)᥎ㄽࢆ⾜࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᵓᩥࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡜⾪✺ࡋ࡞࠸⿵ㄒࡢ
ࡳࡀ⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ၥ஧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸸ᵓᩥࡀࠕ▱ぬࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺
ព࿡ࢆྵពࡋ࡞ࡃ࡞ࢀࡤࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ၥ୍ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ไ⣙ࢆྵពࡋ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡾࠊไ⣙ࡀࡺࡿࡸ࠿࡟࡞
ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡇࡢᵓᩥࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿୖ࡛㔜せ࡞఩⨨ࢆ༨ࡵࡿ⿵ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ⿵ㄒࡢศᕸ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ㄝ᫂࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣከࡃ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ၥ㢟ព㆑࡟❧ࡕࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ୺࡟௨ୗࡢᵝ࡞ᐜㄆᛶࡢᑐ❧ࡀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞せᅉ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㉳ࡇࡾ࠼ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆศᯒࡋࠊ㐃⤖リⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢᶵ⬟ࡢ୍➃ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ(9) a. John looks {intelligent, happy, angry}.
  b. *John looks {present, absent}.
  c. John is {intelligent, happy, angry}.
  d. *John is {present, absent}.

3. ඛ⾜◊✲
⿵ㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊGisborne (2010)ࡀࠊໟᣓⓗ࡞ศᯒࢆ⾜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡣ⿵ㄒ࡟࠿࠿ࡿไ
⣙࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢࡶࡢࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(13) 㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ⿵ㄒࡣ
⛬ᗘླྀ㏙࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ͆Their Xcomps[complements of the CPVC] have to be gradable.”(Gisborne 2010: 242)
Gisborne ࡢ㆟ㄽࡢ᰿ᣐࡣ௨ୗࡢ౛ᩥࡢ࣌࢔ࡢᐜ
ㄆᛶࡢᕪ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(10) a. John looks {threatening, disbelieving}.
  b. *John looks {running fast, breaking theglass}.
  c. John is {threatening, disbelieving}.
  d. John is {running fast, breaking the glass}.

(14) a. *Jane sounds a woman.
  b. Jane sounds a nice woman.
  c. Jane sounds a fool.

(11) a. John looks out of mind.
  b. *John looks out of the room.
  c. John is out of mind.
  d. John is out of the room.

A woman ࡑࢀ⮬యࡣࠊ㏻ᖖࠕ⏨ᛶ࠿ዪᛶ࠿ࠖ࡜
࠸࠺ࠕ࠶ࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ᒓࡍ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠖࡢ஧ᢥ
ࡢ୰࡛ㄒࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ⛬ᗘླྀ㏙࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᇶ‽ࢆ‶ࡓࡉ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐜㄆᛶࡢᕪࢆㄝ
᫂ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ a nice woman ࡣ nice ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺⛬ᗘⰋ࠸ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚⛬ᗘࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ a nice woman ඲య࡛ࡶࡑࡢ⛬ᗘᛶࡀಖᣢࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡟⿵ㄒ࡜ࡋ
࡚ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋࡢ a fool ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ fool ࡞ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࡇࡢྡモ࡟ෆᅾࡍࡿ⛬ᗘᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ᪂ࡓ࡟⛬ᗘᛶࢆࡶࡘᙧᐜモ࡞࡝ࢆຍ࠼ࡿᚲせ࡞ࡃᐜㄆࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⛬ᗘᛶࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊᙧᘧⓗ࡟ࡣྠࡌ⠊␪࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࣌࢔࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(9)ࡣᙧᐜモࡢ࣌࢔࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(10)ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶᙧᘧⓗ࡟ࡣ⌧ᅾศモࡢ࣌࢔࡛࠶
ࡾࠊ(11)ࡣ๓⨨モྃࡢ࣌࢔࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐᛂ
ࡍࡿ㐃⤖モࡢ᭱ࡶ඾ᆺ࡛࠶ࡿ be ືモࢆ⏝࠸ࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࡇࡢᑐ❧ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊࡍ࡭࡚ᐜ
ㄆྍ⬟࡞౛࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡢືモᵓᩥ≉᭷ࡢไ⣙ࡀ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊྠࡌရ

−115−

英語連結的知覚動詞構文の補語分布への意味論的アプローチ:属性・状態叙述の違いに着目してࢆࡶࡘ⿵ㄒࢆせồࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࢆ୺࡜ࡍ
ࡿఱ⪅࠿ࡢホ౯ࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡘࡲ
ࡾࡇࡢᵓᩥࡀࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧ modal ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ woman ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟⛬ᗘᛶࡀ඲ࡃ⪃៖ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ሙ
ྜ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆணࡵ᩿ࡗ࡚࠾ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౛
࠼ࡤࠊa woman ࡜ᑐࢆ࡞ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ a manࢆ࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ኱つᶍᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡛࠶ࡿ British National Corpus ࢆ᳨⣴ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢᵝ࡞౛ࢆぢฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(15) He looked a man at last, not a school student.
(BNC)ࡇࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ༢⣧࡞⏨ᛶ࣭ዪᛶ࡜࠸࠺ᑐ❧ࡸ aman/ a school student ࡜࠸࠺༢⣧࡞஧㡯ᑐ❧࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢᑐ❧ࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟࠶ࡿࠊࠕ⏨ࡽࡋࡉ
mannessࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࡟↔Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡓࡾࠊࡇࡢᛶ
㉁ࡣ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚࡜ࡽ࠼ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡓࡵࠊa man ࢆᐜㄆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛
ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ព࿡ㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽ୧᪉࠿ࡽ⪃៖ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞ ࠸ ࡇ ࡜ ࢆ Gisborne and Holmes(2007)
ࡣ”semantic-pragmatic conspiracy”࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ⓗ࡞↔Ⅼ໬ࢆ⪃࠼ࡓୖ࡛ࠊ
Gisborne ࡢ㆟ㄽࢆලయⓗ࡞౛࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵ࡞ࡀࡽ
ᢈุⓗ࡟᳨ウࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋࡇࡢศᯒࡣ☜࠿࡟ከࡃࡢ஦౛ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊࡇ
ࡢ౛࡛ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࡸࡸᅔ㞴࡞஦౛ࡀ࠶ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡶࡲࡓ஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ௦⾲౛ࡀ dead ࡜
alive ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ 2 ࡘࡣఏ⤫ⓗ࡟⛬ᗘᛶࢆ᭷ࡋ
࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀᐇ㝿࡟ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆㄪ࡭࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ௨ୗ࡟௦⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᐇ౛ࢆぢࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

࠺࡟ẚ㍑ⓗᐜ࡛᫆࠶ࡿࠋ
(17) a. Dekko was almost dead with relief at how
lightly he had escaped. (BNC)  b. "Nowadays," observed Bromley, " one canmake a corpse look almost alive." (BNC)ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ⣬ᖜࡢ㛵ಀୖ࠶ࡲࡾ῝ࡃ❧ࡕධࡽ࡞࠸ࡀ4ࠊၥ㢟ࡣಶูࡢᐇ౛࡟ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟ࡇࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ㄞࡳ㎸ࡳࢆ⾜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⛬ᗘᛶࢆぢฟࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࡸࡣࡾࡑࡢ᮲௳ࢆࡳࡓࡍࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦ࡀᚲせ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢព࿡࡛ࠊ⛬ᗘᛶࢆぢ࠸ࡔࡏࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣศᯒࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ඛࡢ a man/a school student ࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊaschool student ࡢࠕᮍ⇍ࡉࠖ࡜ᑐẚࡍࡿᙧ࡛ࠕ୍
ே๓ࠖࡢ⏨࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡀ୪⨨ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶
ࡾࠊࡇࡢព࿡࡛ᡂ⇍ᗘ࡜࠸࠺ᑻᗘࡢୖࢆᡂ㛗ࡍࡿ ࡜ ࠸ ࠺ ゎ㔘 ࡀ ᚓ ࡽ ࢀࠊ ࡑ ࡇ ࡛ ࡣࡌ ࡵ ࡚ awoman ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢹࣇ࢛ࣝࢺ࡛ a man ࡜࠸࠺㙾㠃ⓗᑐ❧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㒊ศ࡟↔Ⅼࡀᙜࡓࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
ㄽࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᥮ゝࡍࢀࡤࠊࡇࡇ࡛ᚲせ࡞ࡢࡣࠊ༢ㄒุ࡛᩿ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
౛ᩥࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽಶู࡟ᑐฎࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎ(16a)࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࡇࢀࡣࠊṚࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡓࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࡣ╀ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊࠕṚ࡟ࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡸ≧ែ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝Ṛࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠖ࡞࡝࡜ᑐẚࡉࢀࡿࠕ⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜ᆅ⥆ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡞ࢇࡽ
࠿ࡢ⛬ᗘᛶࡢ≧ែ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࠕ᏶඲࡟Ṛࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠖ≧ែࢆ᝿㉳ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢព
࿡࡛⛬ᗘᛶ࡟↔Ⅼࡀᙜࡓࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞
࠸ࠋࡲࡓ asleep ࡸ alone ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝࡢࡇ࡜ࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋ(16) a. He didn't know they [the animals] werealive! We all thought they were dead. Theylooked dead – (COCA)  b. Only her eyes looked alive -- big dark eyes
in a thin white face. (BNC)(18) a. Food you shall have, and your poor lady
looks asleep on her feet. You shall haveour solar, my lord. (BNC)  b. He had looked and sounded alone, andinadvertently given the impression ofparanoia. (BNC)ࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡟⛬ᗘᛶࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ
ಶูࡢ஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚⛬ᗘᛶࢆぢฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ୙
ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྵពࡋ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊඛ࡟ぢࡓ aman ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊdead ࡞࡝࡟⨨࠸࡚ࡶࡑࡢព࿡ᴫᛕ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠕ᏶඲࡟Ṛࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ࠖ
ࡸࠕ(ᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ⏕ࡁ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࡀ)ࡲࡿ࡛⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⏕Ṛࡢ㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⛬ᗘᛶ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆぢฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ౛ࡢࡼ

ࡇࢀࡽࡶᐇ౛୰࡟⛬ᗘᛶࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸౛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ≉࡟᭱ᚋࡢ alone ࡞࡝ࠊ㞳ᩓⓗ࡞ᩘࢆ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࡢ⿵ㄒࡣ⛬ᗘᛶࢆぢฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࠿ࡽࠊ
Gisborne ࡢศᯒࡣࠊ☜࠿࡟ㄝ᫂ຊࡢ㧗࠸ศᯒ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⿵ㄒࡢໟᣓⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ
ಟṇࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ⛬ᗘᛶ࠿ࡀ࡝ࡇ࠿ࡽ⌧ࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜

−116−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ྃࡸ๓⨨モྃࢆྵࡴಟ㣭ྃ඲యࡢၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ Kaga (2007)ࡢ୕ศ㢮ࢆ᥼⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥἲ
ࢸࢫࢺࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࠿ࡽᙧᐜモࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡣ୕ศ㢮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ(Kaga 2007:19)ࠋ

࡟ᡤᅾࢆࡶ࡜ࡵࠊࡑࢀࢆ᥎ㄽࡢ୍ᙧែ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
ࡋࠊḟ࡟ࡇࡢ᥎ㄽࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ⿵
ㄒࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟኱ࡁ࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
ㄽࡌࡿࠋ
4. ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗㄝ᫂4.1. ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥࡀᣢࡘᶵ⬟ࢆ⡆༢࡟෌ᗘ㏙࡭ࡿࠋ(22) there-inversion
  a. *There are doctors intelligent.
  b. ?? There are kids hungry.
  c. There are doctors available.

(19) 㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢᶵ⬟▱ぬ⾜⾜Ⅽࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᚓࡓ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࡢࡶࡘ
ᛶ㉁ࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞▱ぬЍ᥎ㄽЍㄆ㆑ࡢὶࢀࡣᴟࡵ࡚
⮬↛࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠿࡞ࡽࡎࡋࡶே㛫ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࢆ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

(23) inverted be constructions
  a. *Intelligent is a young doctor (who has justgot a medical license).
  b. ??Hungry are kids  c. Available is a young doctor (who has justgot a medical license).
(24) reading for bare plural subjects
  a. Doctors are intelligent. (generic readingonly)  b. Kids are hungry. (generic reading preferred)  c. Doctors are available. (existential andgeneric readings)(20) ேࡀㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡟ࡣ▱ぬ࠿ࡽ᥎ㄽࡀᚲ
せ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜᥎ㄽࡀᚲせ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡲ࡛㐃⥆ⓗ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋ᥎ㄽࡀᚲせ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡣࠊ᫬࡜ࡋ࡚᥎ㄽࡀᚲせ࡞ࡶࡢࡢドᣐ㸦᝟ሗ※㸧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟
࡞ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣྠ᫬࡟᥎ㄽࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚⏕ࡌࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ௨
ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ࢆᥦၐࡍࡿࠋ
(21) ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗㄝ᫂㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡟⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡿ⿵ㄒࡣࠊឤ
ぬ࣭▱ぬࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᚓࡓ᝟ሗࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ᥎ㄽࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓ᝟ሗ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞
ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ඾ᆺⓗ࡟ࡣእぢ࠿ࡽෆ㠃ࢆุ᩿ࡋࡓࡾࠊ㢦ࡢ⾲᝟࠿ࡽឤ᝟ࢆุ᩿ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢⓎ᝿⮬యࡣࠊ
Gisborne (2010)ࡸ Whitt (2010)ࡢ⪃࠼᪉࡟‽ᣐࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᝟ሗ※ࢆゝㄒ໬ࡍࡿevidentiality ࡢ⪃࠼࡜ࡲࡗࡓࡃྠ୍ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋࡴࡋࢁᮏ✏ࡢຊⅬࡣࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡀලయⓗ࡞ゝㄒࡢ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᧯సⓗᐃ⩏࡜ࡋ࡚グ㏙࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4.2. ᒓᛶ⾲⌧࡜≧ែ⾲⌧ ḟ࡟ၥࢃࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ၥ㢟ࡣࠊఱࢆࡶ
ࡗ࡚ࠕ᥎ㄽࡀᚲせ࡞≉ᚩࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣ
࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᥮ゝࡍࢀࡤࠊ
ୖ࡛㏙࡭ࡓ≉ᚩࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝㄒࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣᙧᐜモ−117−(25) secondary depictive predicates  a. *John bought the dogi intelligenti.
  b. Johni came home hungryi.
  c.*John sent the packagei availablei.
ࡇࢀࡽࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡼࡾࠊKaga ࡣ௨ୗࡢᵝ࡞୕ศ㢮ࢆ⾜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡞౛ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺
࡟⌧ࢀࡿ(2007:25-27):(26) ᒓ ᛶ グ ㏙ ㏙ ㄒ character-describing
predicates  a. ᙧᐜモ㸸intelligent, tall, large, insane, etc.
  b. ๓⨨モ㸸of considerable talent, of noimportance, of a beautiful color, etc.
(27) ≧ែグ㏙㏙ㄒ state-describing predicates  a. ᙧᐜモ㸸hungry, torn, angry, raw, etc.
  b. ๓⨨モ㸸in good health, in a desperate state,in high spirits, etc.
(28) ≧ ἣ グ ㏙ ㏙ ㄒ situation-describing
predicates  a. ᙧᐜモ㸸present, available, visible, etc.
  b. ๓⨨モ㸸in the bed, on the table, in the cage,etc.

英語連結的知覚動詞構文の補語分布への意味論的アプローチ:属性・状態叙述の違いに着目して

ᒓᛶグ㏙㏙ㄒࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀླྀ㏙ࡍࡿᑐ㇟ࡢෆ㒊࡟ᜏᖖⓗ࡟ෆᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᛶ㉁ࢆᣦࡍ㏙ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ≧ែグ㏙㏙ㄒࡣᑐ㇟࡟ෆᅾ
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᛶ㉁ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊඹ
㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ୍᫬ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚␗࡞ࡿࠋ≧ἣグ㏙㏙ㄒࡣࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛
ࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ㏙ㄒ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊླྀ㏙ࡍࡿෆᐜࡀᑐ㇟࡟
ෆᅾࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㏫࡟ᑐ㇟ࡀ࠶ࡿ≧ἣ࡟ෆᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ㏙ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊ
(28b)ࡢ๓⨨モ࡛ྃ᭱ࡶ඾ᆺⓗ࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㏙ㄒࡣᑐ㇟ࡢእ㒊࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿሙᡤࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ
4.3. ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ࡢ෌ゎ㔘 ࡇࡢศ㢮࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ࢆ෌ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿ≧ែࡣᒓᛶグ㏙㏙ㄒ
࡜≧ែグ㏙㏙ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ண᝿࡛ࡁࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㏙ㄒࡀ⾲ࡍࡢࡣᑐ㇟ࡢෆᅾࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢෆᅾࡍࡿᛶ㉁ࢆ▱ぬ⪅ࡀㄆ▱ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣእ㒊ࡢ࡞ࢇ࠿ࡽࡢឤぬ࠿ࡽ᥎ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡎᙧᐜモࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊㄝ᫂ࡢ඲యീࢆᥥࡃࠋᒓᛶグ㏙㏙ㄒ࡜≧ែグ㏙㏙ㄒࢆ⿵ㄒ࡟࡜ࡿ౛ᩥࡣࠊ
ᐜㄆࡉࢀࠊಶูࡢ⿵ㄒࡢព࿡ࢆࡑࡢ௚ࡢせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃៖ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢ୰࡟ぢฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(29) a. John looks intelligent. (=(9))
  b. Well, you look intelligent,…. (BNC)  c. The guy sitting inside is thin, looks tall, andhas neat dark hair. (BNC)(30) a. John looks {happy, angry}. (=(9))
  b. Her eyes widened and she looked angry.
(BNC)  c. Meanwhile, I noticed that the people looked
hungry and miserable. (BNC)(29)ࡣᒓᛶグ㏙㏙ㄒࢆ౑ࡗࡓ౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(30)ࡣ≧ἣグ㏙㏙ㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᐇ౛࡜
ࡋ࡚ British National Corpus ࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᐜ
ㄆྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚Ⰻ࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊ(i)୺ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᐇ㝿࡟▱ぬ⪅ࡀ▱ぬࡋࠊ(ii)ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓእぢⓗ≉ᚩࢆ᝟ሗ※࡜ࡋ࡚᥎ㄽࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀᣢࡘᛶ㉁ࢆ▱ぬ⪅ࡀ᥎ㄽࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᵓᩥ඲యࡀ⾲ࡍᶵ⬟࡛ࢃ࠿ࡿ⠊ᅖࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋከࡃࡢሙྜࠊ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᥎ㄽࡣ᝟ሗ※࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚୺ほⓗ࡞ุ᩿ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽከࡃࡢ⿵

−118−

ㄒࡀ⛬ᗘᛶࢆᣢࡘ࡟⮳ࡿࡢࡣ⮬↛࡞ᖐ⤖࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ඛ࡯࡝ၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡗࡓ dead/alive ࡢ౛ࡢศᯒ࡟⛣ࡿࠋ(16) a. He didn't know they [the animals] werealive! We all thought they were dead. Theylooked dead – (COCA)  b. Only her eyes looked alive -- big dark eyes
in a thin white face. (BNC)ᶵ⬟ⓗศᯒ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࢀࡶྠᵝࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ(i)୺ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ▱ぬࡍࡿࠊ(ii)ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓእ
ぢⓗ≉ᚩ㸦e.g. ࡲࡗࡓࡃື࠿࡞࠸㸧ࢆ᝟ሗ※࡜ࡋ࡚᥎ㄽࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ(iii)ࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀࠕṚࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ุ᩿ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝Ṛࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡞࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࡣᚲせ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋḟࡢ౛ࡣࠊࠕ⏕ࡁ⏕ࡁ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺
ព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ༢⣧࡞ẚ㍑ࡣ࡛ࡁ
࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊື࠿࡞࠸ࠊ▖ࢆ㛢ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ➼ࡢእぢୖࡢ᝟ሗࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶṚࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୍
⩏ⓗ࡟⾲ࡉࡎࠊ╀ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ែࡸព㆑ࢆኻࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿ≧ែ࡞࡝➇ྜࡍࡿ஦ែࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡼࡾ
᥎ㄽࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊືࡃࡇ࡜ࡸ཯ᛂࡀ
࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡞࡝⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿドᣐࡀ࡯ࡰ᥎ㄽࢆᚲせ࡜ࡏࡎྵពࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟⏤᮶ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࠊ
look alive ࡜ be alive ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ⏕ࡲࢀ࡟ࡃࡃࠊ࠶
࠼࡚๓⪅࡛Ⓨヰࡍࡿᚲせᛶࢆపࡃࡋ࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ
⤖ᯝࠊlook alive ࡢᩥᏐิࡣࠕ⏕ࡁ⏕ࡁࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
ࡢព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸࡜᥎ ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ḟ࡟≧ἣグ㏙㏙ㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢᶵ⬟ㄽⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢ⠊␪ࡢᙧᐜモ࠾ࡼࡧ๓⨨モྃࢆ⿵ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡓ౛ࡣᐜㄆࡉ
ࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ≧ἣࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ▱ぬࡢᑐ㇟≀ࡢእぢ➼࠿ࡽ᥎ ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑ
ࡢᑐ㇟≀ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿
ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ඾ᆺⓗ࡞౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡇࡢୡ⏺
࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ⾲ࡍ present/absentࡢ࣌࢔ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽ 2 ࡘࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ౛ᩥࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ
(31) a. *John looks present.
  b. *John looks absent.
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊGisborne (2010)ࡀ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ tojudge by ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚౛ᩥࢆ෌ᵓᡂࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࡉࡽ
࡟᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

第14回大会発表論文集(32) a. #To judge by his look, John is present.
  b. #To judge by his sound, John is absent.
  c. John looks intelligent [angry].
  d. To judge by his look, John is intelligent[angry].

第７号

ࢀ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊឤ᝟ࡸ≧ែ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⾜Ⅽࡔ࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿືモࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶゎ㔘ࡀ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ threaten ࡣ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺
࡞౛ࢆࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽぢࡘࡅฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ࢪࣙࣥࡀࡑࡢሙ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣࠊ࠶
ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶ᥎ㄽࡢ๓ᥦ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᥎ㄽࡢ᝟ሗ※࡜ࡋ࡚౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ
ࡣࠊ(32c-d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᒓᛶグ㏙㏙ㄒࡸ≧ែグ㏙㏙
ㄒࡀၥ㢟࡞ࡃ⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡜ዲᑐ↷ࢆ࡞ࡍࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣ㏙ㄒࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ᥎ㄽࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆ
ၥ㢟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ be ືモࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊၥ㢟࡞ࡃᐜㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ᥎ㄽ࡜ホ౯ࢆᚲ㡲࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᨭᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(33)
a. John is present today.
b. John is absent today.
ࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡢᑐẚࡣࠊ▱ぬࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ᝟ሗ཰㞟࡜ࡑࡢ᝟ሗ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓ᥎ㄽ࡜࠸࠺ᵓᩥࡢᶵ⬟࡟⿵ㄒ࡟㐺ྜ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࠿ࡽ᮶࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡇࡢศᯒࡣࠊ௚ࡢရモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶᛂ⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎ⌧ᅾࡸ㐣ཤศモ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊព࿡ⓗ࡟ࡣឤ᝟ࢆ⾲ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ືモࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ

(36) Barnsley always looked threatening on theaerial front... (BNC)ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡶࠊ᥎ㄽࡢవᆅࡀᐜㄆᛶࡢᇶ‽࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᛧࡀࡽࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡞እぢࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡶࡗ࡜༢⣧࡟ゝ࠼ࡤᛧ࠸࡜ᛮ
࠼ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡟ࡣ▱ぬ⪅ࡢุ᩿ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢព࿡࡛ disbelieving ࡸ believing ࡜ྠࡌࡃ᥎ㄽࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡛ run ࡸ break ࡜ࡣᗄศ㐪࠺ᛶ㉁ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᐜㄆᛶࡢᕪ࡟
࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ḟ࡟๓⨨モ࡛ࡶྠࡌ༊ศࢆᑟධࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
ㄝ᫂ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋᒓᛶグ㏙㏙ㄒࡸ≧ែグ㏙㏙ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ๓⨨モྃࡣࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(37) a. The piano sounds out of tune (key).
  b. *John sounds out of the classroom.
  c. John looks out of his mind.
  d. *John looks out of the classroom
out of tune (key)ࡣࠕ㡢ࡀእࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊᴦჾ࡜ࡋ
࡚ቯࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛࠶ࡾࠊ≧ែ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊලయⓗ࡞㡢Ⰽ࠿ࡽุ᩿ࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜
ࢆྵពࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᥎ㄽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟
ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊout of the classroom ࡣሙᡤࢆ⾲ࡍ≧ἣグ㏙㏙ㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᥎ㄽࡢ๓ᥦ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚᥎ㄽࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸Ⅽࠊᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋྠ
ᵝ࡟ࠊどぬࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊࠕᡃࢆᛀࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸
࠺ព࿡࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊ⣧⢋࡟ሙᡤࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡍࡿሙྜ࡛ࡣ≧ἣグ㏙㏙ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑
ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ⿵ㄒ
఩⨨࡟⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧࡟ࡣࠊ᥎ㄽࡢᚲせᛶ࡟࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡀ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡬ࡢ⏕㉳࡟㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊᐇ౛ࢆᣲࡆ࡞ࡀࡽㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ(34) a. John looks {threatening, disbelieving}.
(=(9))  b. Jotan looked disbelieving. (BNC)  c. Charles tried to sound believing, but failed.
(BNC)(35) a. His face looked drawn and tired.
  b. Coleby looked impressed.
  c. Prentice didn’t sound impressed.
  d. She sounded put out.
ࡲࡓࠊ௚ேࡢឤ᝟ࢆ᧯సࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ືモࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶࡲࡓᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾲ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ

5. ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢ⿵ㄒࢆᢅࡗ
ࡓࠋ⿵ㄒ࡟⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣࠊᵓᩥ࡜ࡑࡇ
࡟⏕㉳ࡉࡏࡿ⾲⌧ࡢ㛫ࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࡢᩚྜᛶࡢ
ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓᐇ㝿࡟᝿ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜
࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ᩥ⬦ࢆ⪃៖ࡏࡡࡤ࡞ࡽࡎㄒ⏝ㄽࡶ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋᮏ

(36) a. *John looks {running fast, breaking thegrass.}  b. *John sounds hit by Mary with a stick.
ࡇࢀࡣ⣧⢋࡟஦ែ࡜ࡋ࡚ษࡾ㞳ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞஦ែ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᥎ㄽࢆࡍࡿవᆅࡀឤࡌࡽ

−119−英語連結的知覚動詞構文の補語分布への意味論的アプローチ:属性・状態叙述の違いに着目して◊✲࡛ࡢ◊✲ࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࢃࡅࡑࢀࡒࢀࡀ⊂⮬ࡢព࿡㡿ศࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࠊ
look at ࡀఱ࠿ࢆぢࡓࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠕᐃᖖⓗ࡞ព࿡ᡂศ࡞ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ᕥྑࡉࢀࡿ
ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞᥎ㄽࡢ⤖ᯝࠖ(p.340)࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4ᙧᐜモࡢ⛬ᗘᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊParadis (2001)ࢆཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ

1. 㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡣࠊᶵ⬟ⓗ࡟ࠕ୺ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆ▱ぬࡋࡓᚋࠊࡑࡢ▱ぬ᝟ሗࢆᇶ࡟ࡋ࡚᥎ㄽࡋࡓ⤖ᯝᚓࡽࢀࡓ⿵ㄒ
࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿᛶ㉁࡛୺ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࠋ
2. ⿵ㄒ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿೃ⿵࡟࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡟ࡣࠊ᥎ㄽࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ᥎ㄽࡢ๓ᥦ
࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡞᥎ㄽࢆᚲせ࡜ࡋ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡀ
࠶ࡾࠊᵓᩥࡢᛶ㉁ୖ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡢࡣ๓⪅ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᥎ㄽ
ࢆࡑࡢព࿡ᵓ㐀࡟ྵࡲ࡞࠸ be ືモࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞༊ศࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
ṧࡉࢀࡓㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ௒ᅇࡣศ㢮ࡋࡓྛ㏙ㄒࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞౛ࡢࡳࢆศᯒࡋࡓࡀࠊࡲࡔࡇࡢศᯒࡀ
࡝ࢀࡃࡽ࠸ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆᣢࡘࡢ࠿ࡣ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋ
௒ᚋࠊస౛࡜ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࡼࡾໟᣓⓗ࡞㆟
ㄽࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ㅰ㎡ ᮏ◊✲ࡣᖹᡂ 23 ᖺᗘ៞᠕⩏ሿ኱Ꮫ༤ኈ
ㄢ⛬◊✲ᨭ᥼ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ㸦඲ሿᯟ㸧ࠕⱥㄒ࡟࠾
ࡅࡿ୰㛫ᵓᩥࡢព࿡ᵓ㐀࡬ࡢグ㏙ⓗ◊✲ࠖ࠿ࡽࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚࠾ࡇ࡞ࢃࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ὀ
1ㄆ▱ᩥἲࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡇࡢᵓᩥࢆศᯒࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡟ࠊ
Taniguchi (1997)ࠊ㇂ཱྀ (2005)ࠊ௚ࡢ▱ぬືモࡢ⏝ἲࢆྵࡵࠊࡼࡾໟᣓⓗ࡞ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡟ Gisborne(2010)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
2⫈ぬࡢሙྜࠊlisten ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ sound ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿⅭࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࢆࡶࡘάື㏙ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝ἲࡣᏑᅾࡋ
࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ sound ࡟ࡼࡿᢚไ lexical blocking ࡢࡓࡵࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠊᐇ㝿࡟ Oxford English
Dictionary 2nd Edition ࡟ࡣࠊlisten ࡀ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1) a. That listened very well indeed, and we all
climbed into a cabbage and vamped over. (1923 L.
J. Vance Baroque xxvii. 174)b. [It] don't listen reasonable to me. (1923 L. J.
Vance Baroque xxvii. 174)ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒヰ⪅࡟⪺ࡃ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡣ᪉ゝⓗ࡞Ꮡᅾ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢุ᩿ࡀࡃࡔࡉࢀࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ㠀ᶆ‽ⓗ࡞⏝ἲࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶ▱ぬᡂ❧ࢆ⾲ࡍ see ࡀ look ࢆᚲせ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣྵពࡋ࡞࠸ࡋࠊࡑࡢ㏫
࡟ look ࢆ⾜࠼ࡤఱࡽ࠿ࡢ▱ぬࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
ࡶྵពࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋ୰ྑ (1994)ࡣࠊពᅗⓗ࡞▱ぬ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ look at ࡜▱ぬⓗ᥋ゐࢆ⾲ࡍ see ࢆཝᐦ࡟

−120−

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Jackendoff, Ray. 1985. Semantics and Cognition.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
-----. 2009. Language, Consciousness, Culture:
Essays on Mental Structure. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press.
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2010. The Event Structure ofPerception Verbs. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gisborne, Nikolas and Jasper Holmes. 2007. “AHistory of English Evidential Verbs ofAppearance”. English Language andLinguistics 11:1, 1-29.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002.
The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University Press.
ᮏከၨ. 2005.ࠗ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫࡢㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽ㸸⏕ែᚰ⌮Ꮫ࠿ࡽࡳࡓᩥἲ⌧㇟࠘ᮾி㸸ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍
Kaga, Nobuhiro. 2007. Thematic Structure: A
Theory of Argument Linking andComparative Syntax. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
୰ྑᐇ. 1994.ࠗㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽࡢཎ⌮࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ
Paradis,Carita.2001.
“Adjectives
andBoundedness”. Cognitive Linguisticsi 12:1,
47-65.
Rogers, Andy. 1971. “Three Kinds of Physical
Perception Verbs”. CLS 7, 206-222.
Taniguchi, Kazumi. 1997. “On the Semantics andDevelopment of Copulative Perception
Verbs in English: A Congnitive
Perspective”. English Linguistics 14,
270-299.
㇂୍ཱྀ⨾. 2005. ࠗ஦ែࡢグྕ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗ◊✲࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy.
Icatha: Cornell University Press.
Whitt, Rechard. 2010. Evidentiality and Perception
Verbs in English and German. Oxford:
Peter Lang.

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆ you ࡛ㄒࡿࡇ࡜ࡢព࿡                                     ୰ᒣ ோ                                     ⚟ᓥ┴❧་⛉኱Ꮫ
㸺Abstract㸼
The personal pronoun you is sometimes used to refer to the speaker himself instead of the hearer, especiallywhen he talks about his experience or personal opinion. This paper is concerned with the meaning and usage ofthis kind of you by taking into account the referential relations between the second person pronoun you andgeneric or impersonal you, as well as their pragmatic functions. The following discussion is based on ahypothesis that such kind of you is derived from the generic use of you. It also accounts for the pragmatic effectsof you such as politeness when it refers to the speaker.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸youࠊ⮬ศࠊ⥲⛠ࠊయ㦂
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㸸య㦂࣭ಶேⓗពぢࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ㝿࡟⌧ࢀࡿ youⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢయ㦂ࡸಶேⓗពぢࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ㝿࡟ࠊ⮬ศࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ , ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ\RX ࡛⾲ࡍሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸦㸧࡛ࡣࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫேࡀ⮬ᅜࡢ㢼࿅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ᭱ᚋࡢᩥ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ⮬ศࡢ⤒㦂ࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ \RX ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ே㸧ࠋ
㸦1㸧 When I was growing up in the U.K. and lived in the U.K. the water was heated by using what we called
an immersion heater, which is basically a big tank and in that tank was a heating element immersed in thewater, hence the name. […] And I always found when I ran a bath it would only fill up halfway before
you ran out of hot water.          㸦English Journal, May 2011: 162㸧ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ you ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⫼ᬒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢⓎヰពᅗࡶྵࡵ࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡇ ࡇ ࡛ ࡢ ୺ ᙇ ࡢ ࣏ ࢖ ࣥ ࢺ ࡣ ᴫ ␎ ࠊ ձ ⮬ ศ ࡢ య 㦂 㹙 ⪃ ࠼ 㹛 ࡟ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ㄒ ࡿ you ࡣ ⥲ ⛠ ࡢ you㸦generic/impersonal you㸧ࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋղࡇࡢሙྜࡢ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣࠊ༢࡞ࡿࠕே୍⯡ࠖࡼࡾ⊃࠸⠊ᅖ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢయ㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ᥎ㄽࡀᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋճ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚య㦂࡞࡝ࢆㄒࡿ㝿ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖㸦୎ᑀ࡞ែᗘ࣭ὀពႏ㉳㸧ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊࡢ 3 Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᚑ᮶ࡢㄝ᫂࡜ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ␲
ၥⅬࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓᚋࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢᣢࡘ≉ᚩࢆᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡟௦᱌ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
2. ᚑ᮶ࡢ⪃࠼᪉࡜␲ၥⅬࡇࡢ✀ࡢ you ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᚑ᮶ࡢㄝ᫂࡟ࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ 2 ࡘࡢ❧ሙࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ1 ࡘࡣࠊyou ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ぢ࡞ࡋࠊࡑࡇ࡟ヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ືࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ❧ሙࠊࡶ࠺ 1 ࡘࡣࠊyou ࢆ⥲⛠⏝ἲࡢ୍✀࡜⪃࠼ࡿ❧ሙ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࡣ๓⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᑠ᳃㸦1990㸧࡟ᚑࡗ࡚どⅬ⛣ືࡢㄝ᫂ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ
2. 1. ⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿ
㸦2㸧 I’m proud to tell people I’m a policeman. For other people, I don’t know if it’s mixture of fear and respect
or what, but you’re not just a regular Joe, you’re a policeman. I’m the first person in the family to be apoliceman.
㸦ᑠ᳃ 1990: 191㸧
㸦2㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᑠ᳃㸦1990㸧ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆ you ࡛⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆヰࡋᡭࡢどⅬ࡟ᘬࡁ㎸ࡳࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹឤࢆồࡵࡿ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊศ࠿ࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺㸧ᚰⓗែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠺ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊyou ࡀ┤᥋ᣦ♧ࡍࡿࡢࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ᝿ീຊࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡢᚰ᝟ࢆ⌮−121−

話し手が自分自身をyouで語ることの意味ゎࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ☜࠿࡟ࠊ㸦2㸧ࡢᩥࢆぢࡿ㝈ࡾヰࡋᡭࡣඹឤࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊྠᵝ࡟⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆ♧ࡍ you ࢆྵࡴ㸦3㸧ࡢሙྜࠊ
㸦2㸧࡜ྠᵝࡢࠕඹឤࠖࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡣ
ᛮ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ
㸦3㸧 We used to backpack. We would go backpacking in the Sierras. And you would hike in for miles andmiles and miles with everything on your back, and usually without a tent. It would just be carrying yoursupplies and your sleeping bag, and then we would camp.
㸦English Journal, July 2011: 149㸧
㸦3㸧ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ᫇ࡼࡃࣁ࢖࢟ࣥࢢ࡟⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ㡭ࡢᵝᏊࢆヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ you ࡣヰࡋᡭࢆྵࡵࡓࠕ⮬ศࡓࡕࠖࡢࡇ࡜ࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊࡑࡢ㝿ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹឤࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣࠊ
ࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋᩥ୰ࡢ would ࡣ㐣ཤࡢ⩦័ⓗ⾜ືࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ㐣ཤࡢ⩦័ⓗ⾜ື࡜࠸࠺஦
ᐇ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᯝࡓࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹឤࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣ␲ၥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡢሙ
ྜࡣ⤒㦂ࢆ༢࡟ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ㸦2㸧࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ⮬ศࡢゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫝
㠀࡜ࡶศ࠿ࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព㆑ࡣാ࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊ㸦2㸧࡜㸦3㸧࡛㐪࠸ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡣࠊ㸦2㸧ࡀヰࡋᡭࡢᚰ᝟ࢆ⾲ࡍ౛࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
㸦2㸧ࡢ➨㸯ᩥ㸦I’m proud to tell people I’m a policeman.㸧ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ㆙ᐹᐁ࡜࠸࠺⫋ᴗ࡬ࡢᛮ࠸ධࢀ
ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࠿ࡘࠊyou ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓᩥࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢࠕ୺ᙇࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊⓎヰ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ඹឤࢆồࡵࡿᚰⓗែᗘࡀ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㸦3㸧ࡣ༢࡞ࡿయ㦂ࡢㄝ᫂࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊఱࡽ
࠿ࡢᚰ᝟ࢆศࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠾࠺࡜࠸࠺ពᅗࡣ࡞࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡼࡾࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ you ࡢ⏕㉳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕඹឤࢆồࡵࡿែᗘࠖࢆ┤᥋ࡢせᅉ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞
ࡃࠊࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞⌮⏤࡙ࡅࡀᚲせ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢᡭࡀ࠿ࡾࢆᚓࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊḟ⠇࡛ࡣࡇࡢ✀ࡢ you ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡶ࠺ 1 ࡘࡢㄝ᫂࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⥲⛠⏝ἲࡢほⅬ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄝ᫂㸦♧၀㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぢ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
2. 2. ⥲⛠⏝ἲࡢ୍✀࡜⪃࠼ࡿ
㸦4㸧ࡣ Quirk et al.㸦1985㸧࠿ࡽࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦4a㸧ࡣࡈࡃ୍⯡ⓗ࡞⥲⛠⏝ἲࡢ౛ࡔࡀࠊ᫬࡟ࠊ㸦4b㸧
ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊyou ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ⏕άࡸ⤒㦂ࢆᣦࡋ࡚ヰࡍࡢ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿ࡜ゝ࠺ࠋ
㸦4㸧 a. You can never tell what will happen.
b. It wasn’t a bad life. You got up at seven, had breakfast, went for a walk…

㸦Quirk et al. 1985: 354㸧ࡲࡓࠊࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ㸦2007㸧࡛ࡣࠊࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟⮬ศࡢࡇ࡜ࢆヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ࠊI ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ you ࢆ౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ౛࡜ࡋ࡚㸦5㸧ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ヰࡋᡭࡣࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ㑅ᡭ㸧ࠋ
㸦5㸧 You train really hard every day to keep in good condition.

    㸦ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ 2007: 76㸧ࡇࡢሙྜࡢ you ࡟ࡣ⮬៏ヰ࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿពᅗࡀ࠶ࡾࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕ⮬ศ⮬㌟࡟㝈ࡗࡓヰ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ㑅ᡭ࡞ࡽㄡ࡛ࡶࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࡀ㎸ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠺ࠋࡇࡇ࡛⯆࿡῝࠸ࡢࡣࠊ㸦5㸧࡛ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿே୍⯡ࡣࠕࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ㑅ᡭ୍⯡ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㝈ᐃⓗ࡞ேࠎࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑࡢᑐ㇟࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
Quirk et al.㸦1985㸧࡜ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ㸦2007㸧ࡢㄝ᫂࡟ࡶ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ␲ၥࡀṧࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊQuirk et al.㸦1985㸧࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡶࡑࡶ࡞ࡐ you ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆᣦࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ⌮⏤ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ㸦2007㸧ࡶୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞⡆༢࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡟␃ࡲࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヲ⣽࡞ㄝ᫂ࡣࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ㸦5㸧ࡢ౛ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ୺ᙇࢆ⾲ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉࡔࡀࠊ㸦3㸧ࡸ㸦4b㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ༢࡞ࡿ≧ἣㄝ᫂ࢆࡍࡿ౛
࡟ࡣࡑࡶࡑࡶ⮬៏ࡍ࡭ࡁせ⣲ࡣྵࡲࢀࡎࠊ
ࠕㅬ⹫ࡉࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆ⾲ࡍ
㸦4b㸧࡜㸦5㸧ࡢ you ࡟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊ୍⯡࡟⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵពࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦
ᐇ࡜▩┪ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࢆ࡝࠺ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࠿ࡶၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ−122−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⥲⛠⏝ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ᳨ウࡢవᆅࡀṧࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿
ࡢὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁⅬࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋୖグࡢᖐ⤖࡜ࡋ࡚㸰Ⅼࢆ㸦6㸧࡟ᣲࡆࡿࠋ
㸦6㸧 a. ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡣ㸦どⅬ⛣ື࠿ࠊ୍⯡ㄽ࡬ࡢゝཬ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡣู࡜ࡋ࡚㸧㛫᥋ⓗ࡟⮬ศࢆᣦࡍ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㛫᥋ᛶ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఱࡽ࠿ࡢⓎヰពᅗࡀ㎸ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண ࡉࢀࡿࠋb. 㸦5㸧ࡢ you ࡣ༢࡞ࡿࠕே୍⯡࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ㑅ᡭ୍⯡ࠖࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᩥ⬦㸦㠀᫂♧ⓗ࡞᝟ሗ㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊே୍⯡ࡢᑐ㇟ࡀࡼࡾୗ఩ࡢ㞟ྜ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊ㸦6㸧ࢆᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡼࡾጇᙜ࡞ㄝ᫂ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡎࡣ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
3. ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ≉ᚩSwan㸦2005㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ
㸦7㸧࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊyou ࡣ one ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡴே୍⯡ࢆᣦࡍ㸦ࡓࡔࡋࠊone ࡣ you ࡼࡾࡶሀ࠸ㄒ㸧ࠋලయ౛ࢆ㸦8㸧࡟♧ࡍࠋ㸦7㸧 you / <more formal> one = people in general including the speaker and hearer
㸦Swan 2005: 396㸧㸦8㸧 a. If you want to make people angry, you just have to tell them the truth.
b. If one wishes to make oneself thoroughly unpopular, one has merely to tell people the truth.
ࡲࡓࠊ㸦9㸧࡜ලయ౛㸦10㸧࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࡢࠕே୍⯡ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊyou ࡛࠶ࢀ one ࡛࠶ࢀࠊࡁࢃࡵ࡚ᖜᗈ
࠸ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊᙜヱࡢ஦ែࡀㄡ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿ᫬ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦9㸧 One and you are only used… in very general statements, when we are talking about ‘anyone, at any time.’
㸦10㸧One/You can usually find people who speak English in Sweden.
୍᪉ࠊHuddleston and Pullum㸦2002㸧ࡣࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡜஧ே⛠ࡢ you ࡣࠕ୍⯡࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྵពࢆᣢࡘⅬ࡛㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠺ࠋྠ᭩ෆ࡟࠶ࡿ㸦11㸧ࡢ౛࡛ゝ࠼ࡤࠊࠕྠࡌ≧ἣ࡞ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ࠶࡞ࡓࡶ⨩㔠ࢆ࡜ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྵពࢆᣢࡘࠋ
㸦11㸧 You can get fined for parking on the footpath.㸦‘you personally [the hearer] may be fined’㸧㸦Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1468㸧
࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊyou ࡟ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡲ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
㸦12㸧ࡣࠊዷ፬ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓヰ࡛ࠊwhen you’re eight months pregnant ࡢ㒊ศ࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿ㏻ࡾࠊ⏨ᛶࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ᑐ㇟እ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᑐ㇟ࡀ㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣ᫂ⓑ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸦12㸧 You have to avoid that sort of thing when you’re eight months pregnant.

㸦Ibid.: 1467㸧

㸦13㸧ࡶྠᵝ࡟⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡲ࡞࠸౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢᩥࡣ in those days ࡛ศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㐣ཤࡢேࠎ࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵពࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ
㸦13㸧 a. In those days, you always tipped your hat to a lady.
b. In those days you did what you were told.

㸦Bolinger 1979: 202㸧㸦COBUILD㸧

ࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࠿ࡽࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢᑐ㇟ࡣࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ↓᮲௳࡟ࠕㄡ࡛ࡶࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿ᫬࡛ࡶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡
࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ᫬࡟ࡣ᫂♧ⓗ࡞⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᑐ㇟ࡀ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㝿ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᑐ㇟࠿ࡽእ

−123−

話し手が自分自身をyouで語ることの意味ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡲ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡣࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࢆ┤᥋ᣦ♧ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜㔜࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⥲⛠࡜⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢ you ࢆ㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࡿ⣒ཱྀ࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿ㸦ヲ⣽ࡣᚋ㏙㸧ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⯆࿡῝࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ౛ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࡲࡉ࡟⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁ
ࡿ౛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦14㸧ࡣ㐣ཤࡢ࠶ࡿฟ᮶஦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋHuddleston and Pullum ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢሙ
ྜࠊyou ࡣࠕ㦁㡢ࡢࡍࡿ⌧ሙ࡟ᒃྜࢃࡏࡓே඲ဨࠖࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⌮ゎࡉࢀࠊྠ᫬࡟ࠊ
ࠕヰࡋᡭࢆྵࢇ
࡛࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ㧗࠸ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺ࠋ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢ౛ࡢ you ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡲࡎࠊᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟ࠕヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ࡽࡢయ㦂ࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ㸦 4b ࡜㢮ఝ㸧ࠋ
㸦14㸧 You couldn’t hear yourself talk, it was so noisy.

㸦Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1467㸧

ࡘࡲࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠕ⮬ศࡣࡑࡢሙᡤ࡛⮬ศࡢኌࡀ⪺ࡇ࠼࡞࠸⛬ࡢ㦁㡢ࢆ⤒㦂ࡋࡓࠋࡔ࠿ࡽࡓࡪ
ࢇࠊ⮬ศ࡟㝈ࡽࡎࡑࡇ࡟ᒃࡓ௚ࡢேࡶྠࡌࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡇࡢᩥ࡛⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡜ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆࡓ౛࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟᫂♧ⓗ࡞౛ࢆ Kitagawa andLehrer㸦1990㸧࡛ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㸦15㸧 Greathouse said he felt some obligation as Adam’s replacement. “The past three games, our running
game has been a major factor. So I knew I had to gain some yards. I had to perform,” Greathouse said.
“It’s not pressure. You keep it in your mind; you know you have to do it. Out there, you don’t think aboutit. You just go play by play.”㸦Kitagawa and Lehrer 1990: 748㸧
Kitagawa and Lehrer ࡣࡇࡢ౛ࢆ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆࠊyou ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕඃ⚽࡞ࣇࢵࢺ࣮࣎ࣝ㑅ᡭ࡞ࡽࡔࢀ࡛ࡶࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺୍⯡ㄽࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦15㸧ࡢ౛ࡣࠊ⮬ศࢆྵࡵࡓࣇࢵ
ࢺ࣮࣎ࣝ㑅ᡭ඲య࡬ࡢゝཬࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛ࠊඛࡢࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥࡢᣦ᦬ࡋ
ࡓ㸦5㸧ࡢ౛࡜ࡁࢃࡵ࡚㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
㸦5㸧࡜ྠᵝࠊ୍⯡ㄽࡢᑐ㇟ࡀ㠀᫂♧ⓗ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊⓎヰෆᐜࢆ㏻ࡋ୍࡚⯡ㄽࡢᑐ㇟ࡀࠕඃ⚽࡞ࣇࢵࢺ࣮࣎ࣝ㑅ᡭࡓࡕࠖ࡜ศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㸦5㸧࡜ྠᵝ࡟⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊ⮬៏ヰ࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢヰࡋᡭࡢࠕㅬ⹫ࡉࠖࡀࡇࡇ
࡛ࡶ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ㝈ᐃࡢ≉ᚩࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜㸦16㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
㸦16㸧 a. ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᑐ㇟࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦ᑐ㇟ࡢ㝈ᐃࡣ᫂♧ⓗ㸧ࠋ
b. ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ౛࡟ࡣࠊ
㸦୍⯡ㄽࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚㸧ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿ⾲⌧ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍⯡ㄽࡢᑐ㇟ࡣ༢࡞ࡿࠕே୍⯡࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㠀᫂♧ⓗ࡞ᙧ࡛㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡓே୍⯡ࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
≉࡟㸦16b㸧ࡣࠊ⮬ศࢆㄒࡿ you ࡀ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ୍✀࡜ࡋ࡚౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ᰿ᣐࢆ୚࠼
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ⥲⛠⏝ἲࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆࡉࡽ࡟᳨ウࡋࡓ࠸ࠋᙜ㠃ࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊ⮬ศࢆㄒࡿ youࡀ㠀᫂♧ⓗ࡟ᑐ㇟ࡢ㝈ᐃࢆ⾜࠺⫼ᬒࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ಀࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆࠕヰࡋᡭࡢ୺ほ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ୍⯡໬ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࢆᑟධࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ
4. ヰࡋᡭࡢ୺ほ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ୍⯡໬࡜ᑐ㇟ࡢ㝈ᐃࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ㸦1990㸧ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ⮬ศࡢ⤒㦂࠿ࡽ୍⯡ㄽࢆ᥎ᐃࡍࡿሙྜࠊ୺ㄒࢆ you ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀᐇ࡟ከ࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㸦17a㸧࡟࠶ࡿᩥࡢ┿ពࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦17a㸧ࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ࠶ࡿ㞧ㄅࡢグ஦ࡢ୍㒊࡛ࠊyou ࡣ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥࡣࠊ
㸦17a㸧ࡣ㞧ㄅグ⪅ࡢὸ࠸⤒㦂ࢆ࣮࣋ࢫ࡟ࡋࡓグ㏙࡟ࡍࡂࡎࠊࡇࢀࢆࡶࡗ࡜ṇ☜࡟⾲ࡏࡤ㸦17b㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ゝ࠺ࠋ
㸦17㸧 a. You don’t see many handicapped people on the streets of Tokyo.

−124−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号= Anyone who visits Tokyo will be unlikely to see many handicapped people on the streets.
b. When I visited Tokyo, I didn’t see many handicapped people on the streets.
㸦ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ 1990: 70-71㸧ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⱥㄒࡢ୍⯡ㄽࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊಶேࡢ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚᥎ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡀ you ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ you ࡢ≉ᚩࡀࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ඲⯡࡟ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⮬ศ⮬㌟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿሙྜࡶࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⮬ศࡢ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ୍
⯡ㄽࡢ᥎ᐃࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ࡇࢀࢆࠊ᪤࡟ぢࡓ㸦5㸧ࡢ౛࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵ࡚ࠊyou ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓⓎヰ࡟⮳ࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡢࡀ㸦18㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡢ┿ពࡣࠕ⮬ศࡣẖ᪥ࣁ࣮ࢻ࡞ࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࢆࡍࡿ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡀ⮬ࡽࡢ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊࠕࡇࢀࡣ⮬ศ࡟㝈ࡗࡓヰ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྠࡌࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ㑅ᡭ࡞ࡽࡔࢀ࡛ࡶࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⮬ศ࡞ࡾࡢ୍⯡ㄽࡢ᥎ᐃࡢᙧ࡛⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞୺ほⓗ࡞᥎ㄽࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤಶேⓗពぢ࡟㏆࠸ࡶࡢ࡟ᫎࡾࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡘࠋ
㸦18㸧 You train really hard every day to keep in good condition. 㸦=㸦5㸧㸧     Ќ<Any athlete will train really hard every day.>     Ќࠕ⮬ศ࡟㝈ࡗࡓヰ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ㑅ᡭ࡞ࡽㄡ࡛ࡶࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ㸦୺ほⓗ㸧<I train really hard every day.>ྠᵝ࡟㸦1㸧ࠊ
㸦2㸧ࢆ෌ศᯒࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧ࡣ࢖ࢠࣜࢫேࡢ⤒㦂࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊyou ࡣ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே୍⯡ࢆᣦࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡟࡞ࢀࡤ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே࡞ࡽㄡࡔࡗ࡚ࡑ࠺࠸࠺஦ែࢆ⤒㦂ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭ࡞ࡾࡢ᥎ㄽࡢᙧ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧 … And I always found when I ran a bath it would only fill up halfway before you ran out of hot water.
㸦2㸧࡛ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀࠕ⮬ศࡣ㆙ᐹᐁ࡞ࡢࡔࠖࠊࡶࡗ࡜ゝ࠼ࡤࠕ⮬ศࡣ㄂ࡾ㧗ࡁ㆙ᐹᐁ࡞ࡢࡔࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ព㆑ࡀㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡀࠕ㆙ᐹᐁࡔࡗࡓࡽㄡࡔࡗ࡚㄂ࡾࢆᣢࡘࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊಶேⓗ࡞ಙᛕ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ୍⯡ㄽࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ you ࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ᥎ㄽࡣ⤒㦂࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃಙᛕ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊಙᛕࡶ⤒㦂ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡋࡓ୺ほⓗ࡞ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊྠᵝࡢㄝ᫂ࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡘ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㸦2㸧 I’m proud to tell people I’m a policeman. For other people, I don’t know if it’s mixture of fear and respect
or what, but you’re not just a regular Joe, you’re a policeman. …
     
Ќ = <Any policeman will be proud to be a policeman.>     
Ќ = < I’m proud to be a policeman.><I’m not just a regular Joe, I’m a policeman.>௨ୖࡼࡾࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⮬ศ⮬㌟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿሙྜࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ୺ほ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ୍⯡ㄽࡢ᥎ᐃࡀᡂ
❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ୺ほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦⤒㦂ࡸಶேⓗಙᛕ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ㸧ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼ
ࡿ୍⯡ㄽࡢᐈほᛶࡀపࡃ࡞ࡿ㸦୍⯡ㄽࡢ㐺⏝⠊ᅖࡀ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿ㸧ࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋ㏻ᖖࠊ୍⯡ㄽ࡜ゝ࠼ࡤᐈほᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ๓ᥦ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ㏻ᖖࡢ୍⯡ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㐺⏝⠊ᅖࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡴࡢࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ୺ほᛶࢆྵࢇࡔ୍⯡ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ㐺⏝⠊ᅖࡣヰࡋᡭᐤࡾࡢ୍ᐃ⠊ᅖ࡟㝈ᐃ㸦⦰ᑠ㸧ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࡢ୍⯡ㄽࡢᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ㐲ࡃ㸦እࢀࡸࡍࡃ㸧࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
⪺ࡁᡭࡀᑐ㇟እ࡜࡞ࢀࡤࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣ⮬↛࡜ヰࡋᡭ࡟㞟୰ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
㸦19㸧ࡶ⮬ࡽࡢࣁ࢖࢟ࣥࢢࡢ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࠊᙜ᫬ࣁ࢖࢟ࣥࢢࢆࡍࡿேࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞⾜ືࢆ−125−話し手が自分自身をyouで語ることの意味᥎ᐃࡋ࡚ヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸦19㸧 … And you would hike in for miles and miles and miles with everything on your back, and usually
without a tent. It would just be carrying your supplies and your sleeping bag, and then we would camp.
㸦=㸦3 㸧
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
㸦20㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢࠕᝏࡃ࡞࠸⏕άࠖࢆ you ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕᝏࡃ࡞࠸⏕άࡢ඾ᆺࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡀ᥎ᐃࡋ࡚♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ཯ᫎ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㸦20㸧 It wasn’t a bad life. You got up at seven, had breakfast, went for a walk…

㸦=㸦4b 㸧⮬ศࢆㄒࡿ you ࡟ࡣヰࡋᡭഃࡢ᥎ㄽ࡜࠸࠺ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ୖ࡛㏙࡭ࡓࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
ヰࡋᡭࡢ᥎ㄽࡀ࠿࠿ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⿬࡙ࡅࡿ౛ࢆ㸦21㸧࡟ᣲࡆࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣዪඃࡢ Jodie Foster ࡬ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ Foster ࡣࠊ࢖ࣥࢱࣅࣗ࢔࣮࠿ࡽࠕ⮬ศࡢᫎ⏬ࡀබ㛤ࡉࢀࡓᚋࡣ஧ᗘ
࡜ࡑࡢᫎ⏬ࢆぢ࡞࠸ࠖࡢࡣ࡞ࡐ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸࡟⟅࠼࡚࠸ࡿ㸦4 ⾜┠࠿ࡽ㸧ࠋࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࡢጞࡲࡾ࡟ I guessࡀ⌧ࢀࠊࡑࢀ࡟⥆࠸࡚ you ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ࠊ⮬ศࡢ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ⪃࠼࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂♧໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦21㸧 Gross: Can you watch your own films, and are some of your films easier for you to watch than others?
Foster: [...] And then once the movie’s out, I never can watch them again. [...]
Gross: Can you explain why?
Foster: I don’t know. I guess it’s a moment that’s passed, and you’ve lived it so much and so intensely,
but you just don’t want to go back there again. There’s part of you that just doesn’t want to go
back there again. And you do feel self-conscious about it, because you have seen it either somany times or you’ve lived it so many times, you’ve talked about it so many times, you just are
not ready to live through it again. 㸦ࢃ࠿ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ㐣ཤࡢࡇ࡜ࡔ࠿ࡽࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ࡜࡚ࡶ⇕ᚰ࡟ࠊ㞟୰ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ᫬ࢆ㐣ࡈࡋࡓࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ࡛ࡶࡓࡔࡑࡢሙᡤ࡟ࡣ஧ᗘ࡜ᡠࡾࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ⮬ศࡢ୰࡟ࡑ







ࡇ࡟ᡠࡾࡓࡃ࡞࠸㒊ศࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡛࡜࡚ࡶẼࡲࡎ࠸Ẽᣢࡕ࡟ࡶ࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࠋ࡞







ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ఱᗘࡶࡑࢀࢆぢࡓ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ఱᗘࡶయ㦂ࡋࠊ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ఱᗘࡶࡑࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡗࡓ࠿ࡽࠊࡶ







࠺୍ᗘྠࡌࡇ࡜ࢆࡸࢁ࠺࡜࠸࠺Ẽ࡟ࡣ࡞ࢀ࡞࠸ࢇ࡛ࡍࠋ㸧㸦English Journal, April 2003: 24㸧ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ ⮬ศࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸧⌮⏤ࢆ⪺࠿ࢀ࡚ࠊࡼࡃศࡽ࡞࠸ࡅࢀ࡝ࡶ⮬ศࡢ⪃࠼ࢆಶேⓗ࡞⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚᥎ㄽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᥎ㄽࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࠕ⮬ศ࡟㝈ࡽࡎ㸦ᫎ⏬ತඃ࡞ࡽ㸧ㄡ࡛ࡶࡑ࠺࡞ࡿࡶࡢࠖ࡜࠸࠺୺ほⓗ࡞୍⯡ㄽࢆ♧ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⮬ศࡢ⪃࠼ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ
௨ୖࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡣࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊ୺ほⓗ࡞୍⯡໬ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ㄒࡿࡓࡵ࡟౑
ࢃࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ูࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ๓㏙ࡢ㏻ࡾࠊyou ࡀ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿሙྜࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡉࢀࡿ୍⯡ㄽࡢᑐ㇟࡟
⪺ࡁᡭࡣྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊyou ࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ௨ୖࠊ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚஧ே⛠ࡢព࿡ࢆఱ
ࡽ࠿ࡢᙧ࡛ಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺␲ၥࡀṧࡿࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡜஧ே⛠ࡢ youࡣព࿡ⓗ࡟᫂☜࡞ቃ⏺ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊ᫬࡟㔜」ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
㸦22㸧ࡢ఍
ヰࡢᛂ⟅㒊ศ࡟࠶ࡿ you ࡣࠕࡶࡗ࡜ດຊࡀᚲせࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺୍⯡ⓗ࡞ヰ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥ࠿
ࡗ࡚㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡶゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ゝࢃࢀࡿࠋ㸦22㸧 I have trouble convincing him.—Then you try harder.

㸦Bolinger 1979: 207㸧

ࡇࡢⅬࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᣲࡆࡓ⮬ศࢆㄒࡿ you ࡢሙྜࡶࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࡑࡢሙ࡟࠸ࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࢆព㆑ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺༳㇟ࢆཷࡅࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ⮬ศࢆㄒࡿ you ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵−126−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୎ᑀ࡞ែᗘࠖ࡜ࠕ఍ヰᙜ஦⪅࡛࠶ࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᏑᅾ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ


5. ୎ᑀ⾲⌧䛸䛧䛶䛾 you
Bolinger㸦1979㸧࡛ࡣࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࢆ୎ᑀ⾲⌧ࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ㸦23㸧ࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࠊ㉁ၥ⪅ࡣ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࢆ౑࠺ࡇ࡜࡛⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ุ᩿ࢆጤࡡࡿែᗘࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋྠ᫬
࡟ࠊ⟅࠼ࡿഃࡶࠊヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ⮬ศࢆ I ࡛᫂♧ࡏࡎ࡟ you ࢆ౑࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᢲࡋ௜ࡅࡀࡲࡋࡉࢆฟࡉ
࡞࠸ᕤኵࡀ࡛ࡁࠊI ࡸ one ࢆ౑ࡗࡓ⾲⌧࡟ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ୎ᑀ࡞ែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ゝ࠺ࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚どⅬࡢඹ᭷ࢆಁࡍࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᩗព࡜࡞ࡗ࡚⌧ࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦23㸧How do you make a kite?—You do it like this. 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㸦Bolinger 1979: 205㸧
Bolinger ࡣ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ≉ᚩࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸦23㸧ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊୖグࡢㄝ᫂࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࡇࢀࡣᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡢ୍౛࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡟࠾࠸࡚୎ᑀ
࡞ែᗘࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࢣ࣮ࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡞࠾ࠊᚑ᮶ࡢㄝ࡛᫂ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓどⅬࡢ⛣ື㸦㸻ඹឤࢆồࡵࡿែᗘ㸧ࡸㅬ⹫ࡉࡣࠊࡇࡢ୎ᑀࡉࢆ♧ࡍែᗘࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

6. ὀពႏ㉳䛾ᶵ⬟䜢ᣢ䛴⥲⛠䛾 you⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢព㆑ࡀࠕ఍ヰᙜ஦⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᏑᅾ࡬
ࡢ㓄៖࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢព㆑ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢὀពႏ㉳࡜ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡢ
ࡶࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ౛ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊ⥲⛠࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡ࡀᕼⷧ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊὀពႏ㉳ࡢᶵ⬟ࡔࡅࡀṧࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍౛ࡀ㸦24㸧࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ there’s… for you ࡜࠸࠺ᡂ࡛ྃ
࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ≀஦ࡀࠕࡣ࡞ࡣࡔࡋ࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࡸࠕࡦ࡝࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࢆࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤ⓶⫗ࢆ㎸ࡵ࡚ゝ࠺⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ you ࡣࠊඖ᮶ࠕㄡࡀぢ࡚ࡶࡣ࡞ࡣࡔࡋ࠸ࠊ࡜࠿ࠊࡦ࡝࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ே୍⯡ࢆᣦࡍព࿡࡟
⏤᮶ࡍࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡶࡣࡸࠊࡑࡢ⥲⛠ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡣⷧࢀࠊࡴࡋࢁࡑࡢ≧ែ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀព
ࢆᘬࡃࡇ࡜࡟⏝ἲࡢ୺㍈ࡀ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏳ⸨㸦2005㸧࡛ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ you ࢆ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࠕ࠶ࢇࡓࠖ࡜
ゝ࠸᥮࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪥ᮏㄒヂ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡶࠊyou ࡀ஦ែ࡜┤᥋ⓗ࡞㛵ಀࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡴࡋࢁ఍ヰࡢሙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢὀពႏ㉳࡜ࡋ࡚⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦24㸧“There’s gratitude for you,” said Patrick. “After all I did for that girl.” 㸦ࠕ࠶ࢀࡇࡑࠊ࠶ࢇࡓࠊᜠ▱ࡽࡎࡗ࡚ࡶࢇࡔࡐࠖ㸧㸦Ᏻ⸨ 2005: 413㸦Christie, A Murder Is Announced 㸧ࡲࡓࠊ㸦25㸧ࡢ when you think about it ࡣఱ࠿ࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡋࡓࡾࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸࢔࢖ࢹ࢕࢔ࡀᾋ࠿ࢇ࡛┦ᡭ࡟ヰࡋ࠿ࡅࡿ᫬࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿᡂ࡛ྃ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡶὀពႏ㉳ࢆ୺࡜ࡋࡓ⥲⛠⏝ἲࡢ୍౛࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࠕ㸦ᙼࡽࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜㸧⮬ศ࡟㝈ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃㄡ࡛ࡶᛮ࠸ࡔࡍࡇ࡜࡞ࡢࡔࡀࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࠿ࡽⓎᒎࡋ࡚౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢᡂྃࡀὀពႏ㉳ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ Oxford Idioms Dictionary
for Learners of English2 ࡢㄒἲグ㏙࡟“used to draw attention to a fact that is not obvious or has notpreviously been mentioned”࡜࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

㸦25㸧They do have a big house, when you think about it. 㸦Oxford Idioms Dictionary for Learners of English2㸧㸦ࡑ࠺࠸࠼ࡤࠊᙼࡽࡣ኱ࡁ࡞ᐙࢆᣢࡗ࡚ࡿࢇࡔࠋ ➹⪅ヂ 㸧ୖグࡢ 2 ౛࡛ࡣࠊyou ࡣヰ㢟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ែ࡜┤᥋ⓗ࡞㛵ಀࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࠕὀពႏ㉳ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛⪺ࡁᡭ࡜⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ⥲⛠ࡢព࿡ࡣ⫼ᬒ໬ࡉࢀࠊὀពႏ㉳࡜࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ−127−

話し手が自分自身をyouで語ることの意味ᶵ⬟ࡀ୺࡜࡞ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᙺ๭ࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡟ࡣࠊ⥲⛠ᛶࢆ⾲ࢃࡍព࿡ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡜ࡣู࡟ࠊⓎヰࡢሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛஧ே⛠࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡ࢆಖࡘᕤኵࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢὀពႏ㉳ࡢᶵ⬟ࡣࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࢆⓎヰࡍࡿሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊྠᵝ࡟ാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡣ༑ศ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀ
ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜⮬యࡀヰࡋᡭᐤࡾࡢⓎヰ࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ఍ヰࡢ⥔ᣢࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢఱࡽ࠿ࡢ㓄៖ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᙜ↛ᮃࡲࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆ⿬࡙ࡅࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡀὀពႏ㉳࡜㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ౛ࢆ㸦26㸧࡟ᣲࡆࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ࠶ࡿ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗࠊ
ತඃ㸦Colin Firth㸧ࡀᏙ⊂࡞Ⓩሙே≀ࡢᙺࢆ࡝࠺₇ࡌࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡗࡓ୰ࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦26㸧 ... I mean, we can’t get inside each other’s minds and hearts and souls. You just can’t do that, you try.
This is taking that reality, that truth and making a very extreme case out of it. Um, what you’ve done is,if communication’s imperfect, let’s show a man for whom it’s traumatic.㻌 㸦͐ࡘࡲࡾࠊ࠾஫࠸ࡢ㢌ࡢ୰ࠊᚰ
ࡢ୰ࠊ㨦ࡢ୰࡟ࡲ࡛ࡣධࡾ㎸ࡵࡲࡏࢇࠋࡑࢀࡣ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶ࡛ࡁࡲࡏࢇࠊດຊࡣࡋࡲࡍࡀࠋࡇࡢసရࡣࠊࡑࡢ⌧ᐇࠊࡑࡢ

┿ᐇࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ㠀ᖖ࡟ᴟ➃࡞஦౛ࢆ♧ࡋࡲࡍࠋఱࢆࡋࡓ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀ୙᏶඲࡜࠸࠺ヰࢆࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࠊࡑࢀࡀࢺ࣐ࣛ࢘࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿே≀ࢆぢࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࠋ㸧㸦English Journal, May 2011: 86㸧

2 ⾜┠࠺ࡋࢁࡢ what you’ve done ࡣࠕ⮬ศࡓࡕࡀࡸࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࠖࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ୍᪉࡛ࠊྠ᫬࡟ࠊࡑ
ࡢᚋ࠿ࡽ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ๓⨨ࡁ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆᘬࡃᙺ๭ࡶᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
7. ࡲ࡜ࡵ
ᮏ✏ࡢ⤖ㄽࢆ㸦27㸧࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
㸦27㸧 a. ⮬ศࡢయ㦂ࡸ⪃࠼࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿ you ࡣ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
b. ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ “people in general”㸦“anyone, at any time”㸧࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⮬ศ
⮬㌟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿሙྜࠊ⥲⛠࡟ࡼࡿ୍⯡ㄽࡢᑐ㇟ࡣࡼࡾ⊃࠸⠊ᅖ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ
c. ࡑࡢཎᅉࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢయ㦂ࡸ⪃࠼࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠊ୺ほⓗ࡞᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ୍⯡໬࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
d. ࡼࡾ୺ほⓗ࡞୍⯡ㄽࡢሙྜࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑࡢᑐ㇟እ࡜࡞ࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊyou ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄒࡽࢀࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡣࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ
e. ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㝈ࡾࠊ஧ே⛠࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡ࡶಖᣢࡉࢀࡿࠋyou ࡣ୍⯡ㄽࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡢ᭱⤊ⓗุ᩿ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ጤࡡࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡢ୎ᑀ࡞ែᗘ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿࠋ
f. ஧ே⛠࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡ࡣࠊ఍ヰཧ୚⪅࡛࠶ࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍ࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛ࡶಖᣢࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ලయⓗ࡟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿὀពႏ㉳࡜ࡋ࡚⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Ᏻ⸨㈆㞝. 2005. ࠗ⌧௦ⱥᩥἲㅮ⩏࠘ᮾி㸸㛤ᣅ♫.
Bolinger, D. 1979. “To Catch a Metaphor: You as a Norm,” American Speech, 54 (3), 194-209.
Huddleston, R. D. and G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kitagawa, C. and A. Lehrer. 1990. “Impersonal Uses of Personal Pronouns,” Journal of Pragmatics 14, 739-759.
ᑠ᳃㐨ᙪ. 1992. ࠕே⛠ࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫࡢ☢ሙࠖࠊᏳ஭Ἠ㸦⦅㸧ࠗࢢ࣐࣮࣭ࣛࢸࢡࢫࢺ࣭ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࠘ࠊ185-209ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Laberge, S. and G. Sankoff. 1979. “Anything You Can Do,” In T. Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, 419-40. New
York: Academic Press.
࣐࣮ࢡ࣭ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ. 1990. ࠗ⥆ ᪥ᮏேࡢⱥㄒ࠘ ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ.
࣐࣮ࢡ࣭ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ. 2007. ࣐࣮ࠗࢡ࣭ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥࡢᅗゎ㸟ⱥᩥἲධ㛛࠘ ᮾி㸸࢔ࢫࢥ࣒.
Quirk, R, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Swan, M. 2005. Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

−128−第14回大会発表論文集第７号

୰ᅜㄒࡢ≀ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
̿ㄯヰࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿๽ 㦴ி㒔኱Ꮫ༤ኈㄢ⛬࣭᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍≉ู◊✲ဨ
ryuhyo1981@gmail.com


Abstract: This paper, firstly, indicates the remaining problems in the selection principles of anaphoric usageof Chinese demonstratives given by the previous works. Then, in this paper, discourse structure of Chinese
narratives is divided into four parts. They are introduction, procession, conclusion and comment. Finally,
this paper shows that there is a deep relationship between the selection principles of anaphoric
demonstratives and discourse structure.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸≀ㄒࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀ࠊᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࠊㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ



ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀࡜ᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ㑅ᢥ࡜ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࡶࡢࡣࡲࡔぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣ୰ᅜㄒࡢ≀ㄒ࡟㝈ᐃࡋࠊㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ㸦Discourse
Model㸦ᮾ㒓 1999, 2000㸧
㸧ࢆ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌࡜ࡋࠊㄯヰࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࡢࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ 3 Ⅼࢆ㡰࡟ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
1) ࡲࡎࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モ࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫほࡋࠊࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
2) ḟ࡟ࠊㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ⌮ㄽࢆᑟධࡋࠊ㝵ᒙⓗ࡞ㄯヰᵓ㐀࡜ᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ㑅ᢥ࡜ࡢ࠿࠿ࢃࡾ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࠋ
3) ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀ࢆࠕᑟධ㒊ࠖࠕᒎ㛤㒊ࠖࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖ࡜ࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅄᒙᵓ㐀࡟ศࡅࠊྛ㝵ᒙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ



ඛ⾜◊✲
୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᚑ᮶ࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊ୺࡟ 3 ࡘࡢẁ㝵ࢆ⤒࡚Ⓨᒎࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ

࿅㸦1964㸧ࠊᱵ㸦1985㸧࡞࡝ࢆ௦⾲࡜ࡍࡿึᮇࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧モࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿྐⓗ◊✲ࡀ୺ὶ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋࡢ➨஧ẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊ࿅㸦1980, 1985㸧ࠊᮒ㸦1982㸧࡞࡝ࡣᵓ㐀୺⩏ゝㄒᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࢆ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ࿅㸦1980, 1985㸧ࡣࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࢆࠊࠕᙜ๓ᣦ㸦⌧ሙᣦ♧㸧ࠖࠊࠕᅇᣦ࣭๓ᣦ㸦ᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࡢ๓᪉↷ᛂ࡜ᚋ᪉↷ᛂ㸧ࠖࠊࠕณ✵ᣦ㸦ᯫ✵ࡢᣦ♧㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ 3 ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ศࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕᅇᣦ࣭๓ᣦࠖ࡜
࠸࠺ࠕඛ⾜モí↷ᛂモࠖࡢ⾲ᒙㄒᙧⓗ࡞⪃ᐹ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࢆ࠺ࡲࡃㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ
ࡎࠊࠕณ✵ᣦࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒ⮬య࡟ࡶၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ➨୕ẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊỿ㸦1999㸧ࠊ㧗㸦2004,−129−中国語の物語における文脈指示詞「这」と「那」について―談話の四層構造の観点から―2007㸧ࠊ⬌㸦2006㸧ࠊ᳿㸦2006, 2011㸧࡞࡝ࡣ௦⾲ⓗ࡞◊✲࡛࠶ࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊỿ㸦1999㸧ࡣࠕ䘉ࠖࡀ↓ᶆ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕ㑣ࠖࡀ᭷ᶆ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⬌㸦2006㸧ࡣᚰ⌮㊥㞳ࡀᐇ㊥㞳ࡼࡾ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᚰ⌮ⓗ࡟㏆ࡅࢀࡤࠕ䘉ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊᚰ⌮ⓗ࡟㐲ࡅࢀࡤࠕ㑣ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜
ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞୺ほⓗୟࡘ᭕᫕࡞ㄝ᫂ࡣࠊ
ࠕ䘉࣭㑣ࠖࡢ㑅ᢥၥ㢟ࡢゎỴ⟇࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㧗㸦2004, 2007㸧ࡣᩥ⬦ᣦ♧࡜ほᛕᣦ♧ࢆྜࢃࡏ࡚ᗈ࠸ព࿡࡛ࡢࠕᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᳿㸦2006, 2011㸧ࡣࠊࠕ䘉ࠖࡣࠕѤᰦ䇠ᗶ㸦୍᫬ⓗ࡞グ᠈㸧ࠖ࡟Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡋࠊࠕ㑣ࠖࡣࠕ䮯ᮇ䇠ᗶ㸦㛗ᮇグ᠈㸧ࠖ࡟Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡍ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ๽
㸦2010㸧ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モࠕࢯ࣭࢔ࠖ࡜ࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ㑣ࠖࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧࡜ほᛕᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀㄯヰࣔࢹࣝࡢ␗࡞ࡿ㡿ᇦ࡟Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ 1 ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍࡓࡵࠊࠕ㑣ࠖࡢ⏝ἲࢆᩥ⬦ᣦ♧࡜ほᛕᣦ♧࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ศࡅࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧モ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᚑ᮶ࡢ◊✲ࢆᴫほࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࣭ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࠊཬࡧࡑࡢᩥἲ໬
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡶࡢࡀᅽಽⓗ࡟ከࡃࠊㄯヰࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ㑅ᢥ࡜ㄯヰᵓ㐀࡜ࡢ࠿࠿ࢃࡾ
࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡣࡲࡔぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ

ㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ⌮ㄽࡢᑟධ
Brown & Yule㸦1983㸧ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ᝟ሗࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡓࡵዴఱ࡟ゝㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑࢀࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡓࡵዴఱ࡞ࡿసᴗࢆ⾜࡞࠺ࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ㔜せᛶࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕᩥ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠕㄯヰࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧⾜Ⅽࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞
ࡃࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠸࡚ึࡵ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡿ┦஫ⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊᵝࠎ࡞␗࡞ࡿㄯヰࡢሙࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡎࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆ᤼㝖ࡋ࡚ᣦ♧モࡢᶵ⬟ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋFauconnier㸦1994㸧ࡢ࣓ࣥࢱ࣭ࣝࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ⪃៖ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ⏣❑࣭㔠Ỉ㸦1996㸧ࡢ」ᩘࡢᚰⓗ㡿ᇦ࡟ࡼࡿㄯヰ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ᏶඲࡟᤼㝖ࡉࢀࠊᣦ♧モࡢᶵ⬟࡜⏝ἲࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ࡟ࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᮾ㒓㸦1999, 2000㸧ࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ⌮ㄽࡣ࣓ࣥࢱ࣭ࣝࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ⌮ㄽ࡟❧⬮ࡋࠊྡモྃࡸ௦ྡモ࡞࡝ࡢព࿡ゎ㔘ࡢၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ┦஫ᛶࢆ㔜どࡋࡓ⌮ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡇࡢ⌮ㄽࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿ㸦ୗᅗ࡛ࡣࠊDM-S ࡣヰࡋᡭഃࡢࣔࢹࣝࠊDM-H
ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭഃࡢࣔࢹࣝࢆព࿡ࡍࡿ㸧ࠋ
ᅗ 1. ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ㸦ᮾ㒓 2000㸧ヰࡋᡭࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝDM-S ඹ᭷▱㆑㡿ᇦ       ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝDM-HⓎヰ≧ἣ㡿ᇦ

ඹ᭷▱㆑㡿ᇦ

ゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦ

Ⓨヰ≧ἣ㡿ᇦ

ゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦ

ᮾ㒓㸦2000㸧࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊㄯヰࣔࢹࣝࡢඹ᭷▱㆑㡿ᇦ࡟ࡣ୍⯡ᖖ㆑ⓗ࡞ୡ⏺࡟㛵ࡍࡿ▱㆑ཬࡧヰ⪅ಶேࡢ⤒㦂ࡸ▱㆑࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄯヰᣦ♧Ꮚ㸦discourse referent㸧ࡀ᱁⣡ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ㡿ᇦ࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡࡟ほᛕᣦ♧ࡢࠕ㑣ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊⓎヰ≧ἣ㡿ᇦࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡴⓎヰࡢሙ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࡇࡢሙ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ඲࡚Ⓨヰ≧ἣ㡿ᇦ࡟Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ⌧ሙᣦ♧ࡢࠕ䘉࣭㑣ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ᭱ᚋࡢゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦ࡟ࡣࠊㄯヰࡀጞࡲࡿ๓࡟ࡣఱࡶⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࡎࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿㄯヰࡢᒎ㛤࡟ࡘࢀ࡚ゝㄒ᝟ሗࡀධຊࡉࢀࠊ⣼✚ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡇࡢ㡿ᇦࡣ୺࡟ᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࡢࠕ䘉࣭

−130−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

㑣ࠖࡢ㡿ᇦ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺≀ㄒ࡜࠸࠺ㄯヰࢪࣕࣥࣝࡣࠊᑐヰࡢሙྜ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ㢧ᅾⓗ࡞⪺ࡁᡭࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ
┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢㄯヰ࡜࠸࠺ᛶ᱁ࡀᙅ࠸ࠋヰࡋᡭࡀᒎ㛤ࡍࡿ≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡶཧධࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀせồࡉࢀࠊ୧⪅ࡣ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ୍✀ࡢඹ≢㛵ಀࢆᡂࡋࠊ≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺ࢆ࡜ࡶ࡟ཷᐜࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ᫬ࠊᅗ
1 ࡢ DM-S ࡢゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦ࡜ DM-H ࡢゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦࡣ୍య໬ࡋࠊᅗ 2 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୧⪅࡟ඹ㏻ࡍࡿ
≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺ࡀᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᅗ 2. ≀ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝࡢ≧ែ       ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝDM-H2

ヰࡋᡭࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝDM-S ඹ᭷▱㆑㡿ᇦ

Ⓨヰ≧ἣ㡿ᇦ

ඹ᭷▱㆑㡿ᇦ

Ⓨヰ≧ἣ㡿ᇦ

ඹ㏻ࡢ≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺

 ᩥࡀ༢ㄒ࠿ࡽ㝵ᒙⓗ࡟ᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊㄯヰࡶ㝵ᒙⓗ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊඹ㏻ࡢ≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺ࡶ㝵ᒙⓗ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢୡ⏺࡛ࡣࠊࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖࡣ᜛ពⓗ࡟㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡣࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀࡟ࡼࡿไ⣙ࡸࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢᡤᣢࡍࡿ᝟ሗ
㔞ࡢ᱁ᕪ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㑅ᢥ࣭ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ௨ୗࡣ㝵ᒙⓗ࡞ㄯヰᵓ㐀ࢆᑕ⛬࡟࠸ࢀࠊ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

ㄯヰࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ᮏ✏࡛≀ㄒ࡜࠸࠺ㄯヰࢪࣕࣥࣝࢆ㑅ࢇࡔ⌮⏤ࡣࠊ≀ㄒࡣ୍᪉ⓗ࡞᝟ሗࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿ᪂⪺ࡸࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㝶➹ࡢࡼ࠺࡟୺ほⓗ࡟ᒎ㛤ࡉࢀࡿࢪ࡛ࣕࣥࣝࡶ࡞࠸ࠋ≀ㄒࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࢆ᝿ᐃ
ࡋ࡚ࠊ≀ㄒࡢ᫬㛫ࡢὶࢀ࡟ἢࡗ࡚࠶ࡿேࡸฟ᮶஦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀ࡀࡼࡾ㩭᫂࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
≀ㄒࡢෆ㒊ᵓ㐀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ὾⏣㸦2001㸧ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ὾⏣ࡣ≀ㄒࡢෆ㒊ᵓ㐀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ≀ㄒࡢᣢࡘ᫬㛫ᛶࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ㔜ᒙⓗ࡞≀ㄒീࠊ༶ࡕࠕⓎヰ㒊ࠖࠕ๓ᬒ㒊ࠖࠕ⫼ᬒ㒊ࠖࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࠖࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ὾⏣ࡣࠕ⫼ᬒ㒊ࠖࢆ஧ࡘࡢୗ఩ศ㢮࡟ศࡅࡓࠋࡑࢀࡣ᫬㛫ࢆ඲యⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠕᕧどⓗ⫼ᬒࠖ࡜ࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠕᚤどⓗ⫼ᬒ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࠕどⅬࠖ࡜὾⏣ࡀᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠕⓎヰ㒊ࠖࠕ๓ᬒ㒊ࠖࠕ⫼ᬒ㒊ࠖࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࠖࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆࡵࡄࡾࠊ㔠Ỉ㸦2011㸧ࡣⰰᕝ㱟அ௓ࡢࠗ⨶⏕㛛࠘ࢆศᯒࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ≀ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ᣦ♧⾲⌧ࡸ⛣ືືモࢆศᯒࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊࠕᚤどⓗ⫼ᬒࠖ࡜ࠕᕧどⓗ⫼ᬒࠖ࡟ศࡅࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ
୍᪉ࠊࠗ⨶⏕㛛࠘ࡣ࠶ࡿ≉Ṧ࡞≀ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊ≉࡟ே㛫ࡢෆ㠃ࢆᥥࡁฟࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀከࡃࠊ
≀ㄒෆ㒊ࡢ᫬㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡘ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡣゝ࠸ࡀࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ὾⏣㸦2001㸧ࡢศ㢮ࡣ≀ㄒ࡟ࡢࡳᡂࡾ❧ࡘࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ≀ㄒᩥࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ㄯヰࡢෆ㒊ᵓ㐀ࡢศᯒࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣࠕᑟධ㒊ࠖࠕᒎ㛤㒊ࠖࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖ࡜ࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ศࡅ᪉ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࠊᑟධ㒊࡜ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᪂ࡋ࠸᝟ሗࡀㄯヰ࡟ᑟධࡉࢀࡿ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᑟධ㒊࡛
ࡣࠊⓏሙࡍࡿே≀ࡸฟ᮶஦࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡀᑟධࡉࢀࡿࡢࡳࠊヲ⣽࡞ㄝ᫂ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠋḟࡢᒎ㛤㒊࡜ࡣࠊᑟධࡉࢀࡓ᝟ሗࡀヲࡋࡃᒎ㛤ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ᫬㛫㍈࡟ἢࡗ࡚≀ㄒᮏయࡀᒎ㛤ࡉࢀࡿ㒊ศࡣࡇࢀ࡟ᙜࡓࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⤊⤖㒊࡜ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᒎ㛤ࡉࢀࡓ᝟ሗࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ㒊−131−

中国語の物語における文脈指示詞「这」と「那」について―談話の四層構造の観点から―ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᑟධ㒊ࠊᒎ㛤㒊ཬࡧ⤊⤖㒊ࡣㄯヰࡢෆᅾⓗ࡞㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽ᝟ሗ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆࡍࡿ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡾࠊෆᅾⓗ࡞㒊ศ࠿ࡽ⊂❧ࡋࡓእᅾⓗ࡞㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᑟධ㒊ࠊ⤊⤖㒊ཬࡧࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣ≀ㄒࡢ᫬㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ᒎ㛤㒊ࡣ᫬㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡘࠋ

≀ㄒࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖ ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ≀ㄒࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵ
ࢺ࠿ࡽ᥇㞟ࡉࢀࡓẸ㛫≀ㄒࢆࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ 3ࠋㄪᰝᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧௦ྡモࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖཬࡧᣦᐃᣦ♧ 4 ࡢࠕ䘉+NPࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣+NPࠖࡢᙧ࡟㝈ᐃࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊほᛕᣦ♧ࡢࠕ㑣ࠖ㸦᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࢔⣔ᣦ♧モ࡟࠶ࡓࡿ㸧ࢆྵࡴ 28 ౛ࡢ౛ᩥࢆ㝖࠸ࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࡣୗ⾲ࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ
⾲1. ≀ㄒࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ䘉ࠖ
ࠕ㑣ࠖ
≀ㄒ

ᑟධ㒊

ᒎ㛤㒊

⤊⤖㒊

ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊

ྜィ

ࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ䘉+NPࠖ

35

129

39

17

220

ࠕ㑣ࠖࠕ㑣+NPࠖ

3

121

0

2

126

௨ୖࡢ⾲࠿ࡽࠊᑟධ㒊ࠊ⤊⤖㒊ࠊࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊࡛ࡣࠕ䘉ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲ
ࡓࠊᒎ㛤㒊࡛ࡣࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢ๭ྜࡀ࡯ࡰྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸦๽ 2011㸧5 ࢆᣦࡍ᫬࡟ࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢ୧᪉ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ᫬࡟ࠕ䘉ࠖࡢࡳ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓ㸦⾲ 2㸧ࠋ⾲ 2. ᒎ㛤㒊࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡜ໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆᣦࡍࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖᒎ㛤㒊㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ

ໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ

ࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ䘉+NPࠖ

74

55

ࠕ㑣ࠖࠕ㑣+NPࠖ

1210ࡲࡎࠊᑟධ㒊࡛ࡣࠕ௕๓ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࢆక࠺Ꮡ⌧ᩥࡀ⌧ࢀࡸࡍࡃࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞᝟ሗࡀヰࡋᡭࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄯヰ࡟ᑟධࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ᝟ሗࡣࡲࡔ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࡘࡲࡾヰࡋᡭࡀ඲㠃ⓗ࡟ಖ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᝟ሗ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢ᝟ሗ㔞ࡢ᱁ᕪࡀࡶࡓࡽࡍ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୰ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀࡇࢀࢆࠕ㏆࠸ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊ୍⯡࡟ࠕ䘉࡛ࠖᣦࡍࡢࡀ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧௕๓㸪ᅾ⚟ᘓ୚Ụすⓗ⏺ᒣୖ᭷ᗙᑠ㐨㿲㸪㐨㿲㔛ఫ╔୍୭㐨ኈࠋ䘉୭㐨ኈ6⛬஢୍⢏୙Ṛ୹ࠋ㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦኱඲ࠔ㸧ࡴ࠿ࡋࠊ⚟ᘓ┬࡜Ụす┬ࡢቃ࡟࠶ࡿᒣ࡟ࡣᑠࡉ࡞㐨ほࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ㐨ほ࡟ࡣ࠶ࡿ㐨ኈࡀఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢ㐨ኈࡣ୙⪁㛗⏕ࡢ୹⸆ࢆ㘐ᡂࡋࡓࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧㸦2㸧᱒ґᕷⓒ᱈ґ᱈ᅒᮧ᭷୭᷉ᮤᅒࠋ䘉ᮤᅒ⏕䮯ⓗ᷉ᮤ㸪ᯝᙧ⺅኱㸪⓶ⰍẂ㓒ࠋ
㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ
஦㞟⢨ࠔ㸧

−132−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

᱒㒓ᕷⓒ᱈㒓᱈ᅬᮧ࡟ࡣࢫࣔࣔࡢᅬࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᅬࡢࢫࣔࣔࡣࠊᯝᐇࡀ኱ࡁࡃࠊ⓶ࡢⰍࡀ㉥࠸ࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧௨ୖࡢ౛ᩥ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㐨ኈࠖࠊࠕ᷉ᮤᅒࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞᝟ሗࢆㄯヰ࡟ᑟධࡋࡓ┤ᚋ࡟ࠕ䘉୭㐨ኈࠖࠊࠕ䘉ᮤᅒ࡛ࠖཷࡅࡿࡢࡣ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊᑟධ㒊࡛ࡣࠊࠕ䘉ࠖࡢ๭ྜࡀ㧗࠸࡜ほᐹࡉࢀࡓ࠿
ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊ୍᪦ᑟධ㒊ࡀ⤊ࢃࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢ᝟ሗࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ඹ᭷࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᒎ㛤㒊ࡢ࣐࣮࣮࢝࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ᭷୍ኳࠖ࡞࡝ࠊලయⓗ࡞᫬㛫タᐃࡢ⾲⌧ࡀከࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹ㏻ࡍࡿゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦ࡟Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄯヰᣦ♧Ꮚࡣࠊࡶࡣࡸヰࡋᡭࡢᑓ᭷≀࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡶ⮬⏤࡟࢔ࢡࢭࢫ࡛ࡁࡿ᝟ሗ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᒎ㛤㒊࡛ࡣࠕ㑣ࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚᝟ሗࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࡓᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ᫬ࠊࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢ๭ྜࡀ࡯
࡜ࢇ࡝ྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢ౛ᩥࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᒎ㛤㒊ࡢᣦᐃᣦ♧࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿྡモྃࢆほᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸦ࠕ≴ࠖࠊࠕ⻤⢾ࠖ࡞࡝㸧ࢆᣦࡍ᫬࡟ࠊ
ࠕ䘉ࠖ࡜ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢ୧᪉ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢሙྜࡣ஺᥮ྍ
⬟࡛࠶ࡿ㸦౛ᩥ㸦3㸧㸦4㸧㸧ࠋ㸦3㸧㏵୰㸪௚☗฿୍୭⤾ேࠋ⤾ே⫪ୖ᤾୍ྈ≴ࠋ䘉㸦㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸧᫝୍ྈᗂ≴㸪㓒ⰍⓗẟἜගਁுࠋ㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦኱඲ࠔ
㸧
㏵୰ࠊᙼࡣ୍ேࡢ⊟ᖌ࡟఍ࡗࡓࠋ⊟ᖌࡣ୍༉ࡢ≴ࢆ⫪࡟࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣᗂ࠸≴࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㉥࠸ẟࡀࡘࡸࡘࡸࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧㸦4㸧᭷୍ḟ㸪୍୭Ӣᡉ㏦㔉௚୍⎼ୖ➼⻤⢾ࠋ㑣⻤⢾㸦㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸧Ⰽ⌭Ύ㓨ࠋ
㸦ࠓẸ
䰤ᨾ஦ࠔ㸧
࠶ࡿ᪥ࡢࡇ࡜ࠊぶᡉࡢ୍ேࡀᙼ࡟ୖ➼ࡢ⻏⻤ࢆࡃࢀࡓࠋࡑࡢ⻏⻤ࡣⰍྜ࠸ࡀ㩭ࡸ࠿࡛ࡇࡃࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸦ࠕ஦ࠖࠊࠕ⾜Ѫࠖ࡞࡝㸧ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ᫬࡟ࠊࠕ䘉ࠖࡢࡳ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊࠕ㑣ࠖ࡜஺᥮୙ྍ⬟࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓ㸦౛ᩥ㸦5㸧㸦6㸧㸧ࠋ㸦5㸧୙୍఍㸪᭰ᏝᏊᦒᒀᕸᰦ㸪ይྸ୍ୗᏊ࿈ၵ㸪᫂᫂⏨ᏝᏊ㸪༷ਈ஢ዪጿጿࠋ䱸ୡᐁ୍ྶይྸⓗ⚖࿌㸪ᚰ୰亯ᰦ᫂ⓑ㸪ླ࿸ᗓෆୖୗே➼㸪୙෸ᢕ䘉஦㸦ໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸧ἥ
₃ฟཤࠋ㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦ࠔ㸧ࡋࡤࡽࡃࡋࡓࡽࠊᏊ౪ࡢ࠾ࡴࡘࢆኚ࠼ࡿ࡜ࡁࠊஙẕࡀࡧࡗࡃࡾ㸟⣮ࢀࡶ↓ࡃ⏨ࡢᏊࡔࡗࡓࡢ࡟ࠊ࡞ࡐ࠿ዪࡢᏊ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㝞ୡᐁࡣஙẕࡢሗ࿌ࢆ⪺࠸࡚ࡍࡄ࡟ศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ₃ࡽࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸࡜ᗓෆࡢ౑⏝ே࡟ゝ࠸ࡘࡅࡓࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧
㸦6㸧ᣨ⸝᪘ⓗ仾಑㸪ᢕⅼ⅊ᮅே㌟ୖᧈ᫝୍⛇Ր㔏ⓗ傡㝖㑧㨱㕐㌟ⓗ᪉ἲ㸪⪁ኵྷ௨ѪṚ஢ⓗඒᏊ⿕㨱㨣㕐㌟㸪᝿⏝⅌⅊傡㑧㸪ణ௚Ԝἐ᭷᝿฿㸪䘉୍⾜Ѫ㸦ໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸧༷ᡴ஘஢ᄉ⧋ᤘᕼⓗ䖜ୡࠋ㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦㞟⢨ࠔ㸧ࢳ࣋ࢵࢺ᪘ࡢ㢼⩦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊேࡢయ࡟⅊ࢆᧈࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣఏ⤫ⓗ࡞㑧Ẽࢆᡶ࠺᪉ἲ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋ୧ぶࡣṚࢇࡔᜥᏊ࡟ᝏ㨱ࡀ௜ࡁ⧳ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮ࠸㎸ࢇ࡛ࠊ㔩ࡢ⅊ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚㑧Ẽࢆᡶ࠾࠺࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᙼࡽࡣࡇࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ࣐࢞࣎ࢩࡢ㌿⏕ࢆ஘ࡋࡓ࡜ࡣᛮࢃ࡞࠿ࡗ

−133−

中国語の物語における文脈指示詞「这」と「那」について―談話の四層構造の観点から―

ࡓࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⤊⤖㒊ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᒎ㛤ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ᝟ሗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ඲యࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⤊⤖㒊࡛ࡣࠊࡍ࡛࡟ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ≀ㄒࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆᣦ
ࡋ♧ࡍࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕ䘉ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓ㸦౛ᩥ㸦7㸧㸦8㸧㸧ࠋ㸦7㸧“≴೥⹡ጾ”ᑵ᫝⏤䘉୭ᨾ஦⪋᮶㸪⧠ᅾ㸪ேԜ⏝Ꮽ᮶ẚ௫ೄ௛࡛ேⓗ࣯ຊḭ঻ேࠋ
㸦ࠓẸ
䰤ᨾ஦ࠔ㸧
ࠕࢺࣛࡢጾࢆ೉ࡿ࢟ࢶࢿࠖࡣࡇࡢ≀ㄒ࠿ࡽ⏤᮶ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⌧ᅾࠊேࠎࡣࡑࢀࢆ
⏝࠸࡚ໃຊࢆ㢗ࢇ࡛ᙅ࠸⪅࠸ࡌࡵࢆࡍࡿ⪅ࢆࡓ࡜࠼ࡿࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧㸦8㸧⮬௕᭷஢䘉ཱྀỈ஭㸪ேԜᑵ୙ឋἐ᭷Ỉྚ஢ࠋ㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦ࠔ㸧ࡇࡢ஭ᡞࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚࠿ࡽࠊேࠎࡣỈࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿᚰ㓄ࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ὾⏣㸦2001㸧࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ≀ㄒ࡟ࡣ≀ㄒᮏయࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ≀ㄒୡ⏺࡟ᑐࡋ࡚እᅾⓗ࡞Ꮡᅾ࡛࠶ࡿస⪅ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᇼཱྀ㸦1978㸧ࡢࠕࢥࡣ㏆࠸ࡶࡢࢆᙉⅯ࡟ᣦࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᣦ᦬࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ≀ㄒ࡟Ⓩሙࡍࡿே≀ࡸ஦௳࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡍࡿ᫬࡟ ࠕ䘉ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
㸦9㸧ᮒඖ⍻せ⏬୍ᕐീ㸪ὶՐྡྷୡ㸪ᢍ஢୙▱ከᑡ⏬ᐙ᮶⏬㸪㒔୙⛠ᚰࠋ୙⛠ᚰᑵせᵰே㸪௚ᵰᤶⓗ⏬ᐙ᪢඼ᩘࠋ䘉ᕐീᑵዴṈ䳮⏬㸽୙೥ࠋ㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦ࠔ㸧ᮒඖ⍻ࡣᚋୡ࡟ఏࢃࡿ୍ᯛࡢ⫝̸ീ⏬ࡀḧࡋࡀࡾࠊ࡝ࢀ࡯࡝ࡢ⏬ᐙࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚ࡶ‶㊊࡛ࡁ
࡞࠸ࠋ‶㊊࡛ࡁ࡞ࡅࢀࡤேࢆẅࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋᙼࡀẅࡋࡓ⏬ᐙࡣᩘ࠼ࡁࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ⫝̸ീ⏬ࡀࡇࢇ࡞࡟ᥥࡁ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡢ࠿㸽㛫㐪࠸࡞࠸ࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧
㸦10㸧㸦๓␎㸧ཎ᮶䘉ⓑፉᏊ୙᫝ซே㸪⪋᫝᮲ⓑ⺬ਈⓗ㸟㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦㞟⢨ࠔ㸧ᐇࡣࡇࡢⓑፉᏊࡀே㛫࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊⓑ⺬ࡀ໬ࡅࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸟㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧ࠕ䘉ᕐീᑵዴṈ䳮⏬ࠖࠊࠕཎ᮶䘉ⓑፉᏊ୙᫝ซேࠖ࡜࠸࠺㒊ศࡣࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊࡟࠶ࡓࡿࠋࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ
㒊ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢඹ㏻ࡢ≀ㄒ✵㛫࠿ࡽ⊂❧ࡋࡓᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡾࠊస⪅࡛࠶ࡿヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ୍✀ࡢࠕ㛫᥋ヰἲࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡣヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ࡟㏆࠸᝟ሗ࡛࠶
ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊᣦ♧モ㑅ᢥࡢ㊥㞳ཎ⌮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ㏆ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡓ᝟ሗࡣࠕ䘉ࠖࢆᣢࡗ࡚ᣦࡍࡢࡀ⮬↛࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
๓㏙ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᑟධ㒊ࠊ⤊⤖㒊ཬࡧࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣ᫬㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ᒎ㛤㒊ࡣ᫬㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡘࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୍⯡࡟ ࠕ䘉ࠖࡣ᫬㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ᩥ⬦࡛ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ᫬࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡀࠊ
ࠕ㑣ࠖࡣ᫬㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡘᩥ⬦࡛ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡍ᫬࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶุ᫂ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢほᐹࢆゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࠕ䘉ࠖࡣࠕᒓᛶླྀ㏙ࠖ㸦property
predication㸧ࡢሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡀࠊ ࠕ㑣ࠖ࡜ࠕ஦㇟ླྀ㏙ࠖ㸦event predication㸧7ࡢሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋ



࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ◊✲ࡣㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿෆⓗ࡞せᅉࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕㄯヰࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ≀ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୰ᅜㄒ

−134−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹ㏻ࡍࡿ≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄯ
ヰᵓ㐀࡜ᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ㑅ᢥ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟῝࠸࠿࠿ࢃࡾࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୺ᙇࡣ௨ୗࡢ 3 Ⅼ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
1)୰ᅜㄒࡢ≀ㄒ࡛ࡣࠊᑟධ㒊ࠊ⤊⤖㒊ཬࡧࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊࡟࠾࠸࡚ǋ䘉ǌࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡀࠊ
ǋ䛓ǌࡣ⏝࠸࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ

2)㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ᫬࡟ǋ䛓ǌࡀࡼࡾከࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆᣦࡍ᫬

3)

ǋ䘉ǌࡣࠕᒓᛶླྀ㏙ࠖࡢሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡀࠊ
ǋ䛓ǌ࡜ࠕ஦㇟ླྀ㏙ࠖࡢሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸ࡟ࠊǋ䘉ǌࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊǋ䛓ǌࡣ⏝࠸࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ
ࡍ࠸ࠋ
௨ୖࡢ 3 Ⅼࢆ⾲ 3 ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
⾲ 3. ୰ᅜㄒࡢ≀ㄒࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モ
≀ㄒ
୰ᅜㄒ

ᑟධ㒊
䘉

ᒎ㛤㒊
㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ

ໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ

ࠕ㑣ࠖࡣከࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ

䘉

ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊

⤊⤖㒊

䘉

䘉

ㄯヰࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࡣࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モ࡟࠾ࡅࡿၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࠊ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ≀ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡀࠊ఍ヰᩥࡸㄽㄝᩥ࡞࡝ࡑࡢ௚ࡢㄯヰࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲ࡟ゐࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠊࡼࡾከࡃࡢㄯヰࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊㄯヰࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀࡜࠸࠺⌮ㄽࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࢆ⤫୍ⓗ࡟ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ
ཎ⌮ࢆ᥈ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

ὀ
1. ๽㸦2010㸧ࡣᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࡢࠕ㑣ࠖࡀㄯヰࣔࢹࣝࡢゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦ࡟ᒓࡋࠊほᛕᣦ♧ࡢࠕ㑣ࠖࡀඹ᭷▱㆑㡿ᇦ࡟ᒓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄯヰࣔࢹࣝࡢ 3 ࡘࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡢࡕࡢ➨୕❶࡛ヲࡋࡃㄽࡌࡿࠋ
2. 㢧ᅾⓗ࡞⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ⪺ࡁᡭഃࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ DM-H ࢆⅬ⥺࡛♧ࡍࠋ
3. ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦㞟⢨ࠔࠊࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦ࠔ࡜ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦኱඲ࠔࡼࡾィ 90494 Ꮠࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᆅࡢ
ᩥࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋ
4. ᗡ㸦2007㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊᣦᐃᣦ♧࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ
ࠕࡇࡢ㸩NPࠖࠕࡑࡢ㸩NPࠖ඲య࡛ඛ⾜モ࡜↷ᛂࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛㸸᫖᪥㏆ᡤ࡛ࡍࡋࢆ㣗࡭ࡓࠋࡇࡢ/ࡑࡢࡍࡋࡣ࠺ࡲ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
5. ๽㸦2011㸧࡛ࡣࠊࢺࣆࢵࢡࡣໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡜㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢ஧ࡘ࡟ศࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕヰࠖࠊࠕࡇ࡜ࠖࡸࠕ஦௳ࠖ࡞࡝ࠊヰ࡟Ⓩሙࡍࡿᑐ㇟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊㄯヰ඲యࢆࡦࡗࡃࡿࡵࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕยࠖࠊࠕ⏨ࠖࡸࠕ㒊ᒇࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ලయⓗ࡞ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊㄯヰ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿᵓᡂせ⣲ࢆᣦࡍࠋ
6. ᮏ✏࡛ࡣඛ⾜ᩥ⬦ࢆⅬ⥺࡛♧ࡋࠊ↷ᛂモࢆᐇ⥺࡛♧ࡍࠋ
7. ┈ᒸ㸦2008㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊᒓᛶླྀ㏙࡜ࡣࠊᡤ୚ࡢᑐ㇟ࡀ᭷ࡍࡿᒓᛶ㸦≉ᛶࡸᛶ㉁㸧ࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿ
ࡶࡢࠋ஦㇟ླྀ㏙࡜ࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢ᫬✵㛫࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿฟ᮶஦㸦ືⓗཬࡧ㟼ⓗ࡞ฟ᮶஦㸧ࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿ
ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−135−

中国語の物語における文脈指示詞「这」と「那」について―談話の四層構造の観点から―⏝౛ฟ඾ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦㞟⢨ࠔhttp://www.360doc.com/content/11/0506/19/804207_114874943.shtml
ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦ࠔhttp://www.tom61.com/ertongwenxue/minjiangushiࠓẸ䰤ᨾ஦኱඲ࠔhttp://www.junmeng.org.cn/book.asp?GoBor=Read&bID=64ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Brown, G. and G. Yule㸦1983㸧Discourse Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Fauconnier, G.㸦1994㸧Mental Spaces, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press㧗  Ⱉ㸦2004㸧ࠕ⌧௦୰ᅜㄒࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖࡢᣦ♧ෆᐜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ᐹʊᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞㐲㏆ᴫᛕ࡜ࡢ㛵୚ࠖ,ࠗከඖᩥ໬࠘, Vol. 4, ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᅜ㝿ゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲⛉, pp.1-13
㧗  Ⱉ㸦2007㸧ࠕ୰ᅜㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧モ࡜どⅬ⛣ືʊᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠖ,ࠗከඖᩥ໬࠘, Vol. 7, ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᅜ㝿ゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲⛉, pp.119-134
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan㸦1976㸧Cohesion in English, London: Longman὾⏣ ⚽㸦2001㸧ࠕ≀ㄒࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࠖ,ࠗㄆ▱⛉Ꮫ࠘, Vol. 8-4, ᪥ᮏㄆ▱⛉Ꮫ఍, pp. 319-326 ⬌  ಇ
㸦2006㸧ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧モ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᑐ↷◊✲ʊᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࡢሙྜࠖ,ࠗᆅᇦᨻ⟇⛉Ꮫ◊✲࠘, Vol. 3, 㮵ඣᓥ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ேᩥ♫఍⛉Ꮫ◊✲⛉, pp. 1-23㔠Ỉ ᩄ㸦2011㸧ࠕ≀ㄒᵓᡂࡢࡓࡵࡢ㝵ᒙⓗ᫬㛫ᢕᥱʊⰰᕝ㱟அ௓ࠗ⨶⏕㛛࠘ࢆ౛࡟ʊࠖ, 㸦஭ඖ⚽๛࣭࿴⏣ᑦ࣭᫂㔠Ỉᩄࠕ᫬ไయ⣔ࢆࡵࡄࡿᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛⓗどⅬࠖ㸧,ࠗࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒᏛ◊✲࠘➨ 45
ྕ, pp. 120-124๽  㦴㸦2010㸧ࠕࠗ㑣࠘ࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧࡜ほᛕᣦ♧ʊㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿศᯒࠖ,ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 12 ᅇ኱఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘,᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍, pp.313-316
๽  㦴㸦2011㸧ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࠗࡇࡢ࠘ࡢᑐ❧ᆺ࡜⼥ྜᆺʊㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿศᯒࢆ
ࡶ࡜࡟ࠖࠗKLS࠘, Vol. 31, 㛵すゝㄒᏛ఍, pp. 72-83
੅ུ•㸦1964㸧ࠕ㏆௦ᣦ♧䇽ࠗ䘉࠘ⓗ᮶※ࠖࠗ୰ᅜ䈝ᩥ࠘1964 ᖺ➨ 4 ᮇ, pp. 442-444

੅ུ•㸦1980㸧ࠕ⧠௦≹䈝ඵⓒ䇽ࠖेӜ˖ၟ࣑༳Җ侶੅ུ•㸦1985㸧ࠕ㏆௦≹䈝ᣦ௦䇽ࠖк⎧˖Ꮫᯘฟ∧♫ᱵ ♽㯌㸦1985㸧
ࠕයன㏆௦≹䈝ᣦ௦䇽—䈫੅ⴭࠗ㏆௦≹䈝ᣦ௦䇽࠘ࠖࠗ୰ᅜ䈝ᩥ࠘1985 ᖺ➨ 6 ᮇ, pp.
401-412ỿ ᐙ↣㸦1999㸧ࠗ୙ሩ⛠࿴ḷ䇠䇪࠘⊏㾯˖Ụすᩍ⫱ฟ∧♫ᮾ㒓㞝஧㸦1999㸧ࠕㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ࡜ᣦ♧-ㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ☜❧࡜ྠᐃࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖ,ࠗி㒔኱Ꮫ⥲ྜே㛫Ꮫ㒊⣖せ࠘, ➨ 6 ᕳ, ி㒔኱Ꮫ⥲ྜே㛫Ꮫ㒊, pp.35-46
ᮾ㒓㞝஧㸦2000㸧ࠕㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モࢥ࣭ࢯ࣭࢔ࠖ,ࠗி㒔኱Ꮫ⥲ྜே㛫Ꮫ㒊⣖せ࠘, ➨7 ᕳ, ி㒔኱Ꮫ⥲ྜே㛫Ꮫ㒊, pp.27-46
ᶘ⋢⋹㸦2006㸧ࠕঅ୭ࠗ䘉࠘࿴ࠗ㑣࠘⠍❶୙ሩ⛠◊✲ࠖࠗୡ⏺≹䈝ᩍᏛ࠘2006 ᖺ➨ 4 ᮇ, pp. 33-41

ᶘ ⋢⋹㸦2011㸧ࠕྍཬᛶ⌮䇪ཬࠗ䘉࠘ࠊࠗ㑣࠘⠍❶୙ሩ⛠◊✲ࠖࠗἙ༡♫఍⛉Ꮫ࠘➨ 19 ༹➨ 2 ᮇ, pp.
201-204ᮒᚫ⇊㸦1982㸧ࠗ䈝ἲ䇢ѹ࠘ेӜ˖ၟ࣑༳Җ侶

−136−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࠕ⮬ศࠖ࡜ࠕ⮬ᕫࠖứ Ᏹᮾி⚟♴኱Ꮫ
㸺Abstract㸼
There are several reflexive pronouns in Japanese. To choose a proper reflexive
and to understand the implicated meaning of a selected reflexive are not easy for a
Japanese learner. This study discusses the differences between two reflexive pronouns

jibun and jiko. We introduce a comprehensive approach that regards syntax, semantics,
and pragmatics as one system. In the perspective of syntax, the antecedent of jibun is
not necessary to be local (i.e. within the same clause), while that of jiko must be local.
In semantics, jibun is much “closer” to the speaker. In pragmatics, although thegeneral frequency of jibun is higher than jiko , jiko was chosen in some fields such as a
statute. Finally we show that implicated meanings and the potential functions of eachword are related to all the three perspectives of our approach.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸౑࠸ศࡅࠊ⥲ྜⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࠊ౑⏝ຠᯝ㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ࠕ⮬ศࠖ࡜ࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣࠊ෌ᖐⓗᣦ♧ᶵ⬟ࢆඹ᭷ࡍࡿ୍᪉ࠊ౑࠸ศࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡝ࡢሙ
㠃࡛࡝ࡢ༢ㄒࢆ㑅ࡪ࠿ࠊࡲࡓࡑࢀࢆ㑅ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ྜ࠸ࡀㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿ
࠿ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㞴ࡋ࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲
 ࠗ᪂⿦∧౑࠸᪉ࡢศ࠿ࡿ㢮ㄒ౛ゎ㎡඾࠘ࡣࠊࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣࠕලయⓗࠖ࡜ࠕᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࠖࡢ
࠸ࡎࢀ࡟㛵ࢃࡿሙྜࠊࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣࠕᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࠖ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᫬ࡔࡅ⌧ࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࠗ㢮ㄒ᪂㎡඾࠘ࡣࠊࠕ⮬ศࠖࢆ≉ᐃࡢᩥయ࡟ᖐᒓࡉࡏ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣࠕᩥ❶ㄒࠖ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊලయⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡶᐇ㝿࡟ぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(1) ࡇࡢἲᚊ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕ⊩యࡢពᛮࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ⮬ᕫࡢ㌟యࢆ͐ゎ๗య࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
ᕼᮃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࠸࠺ࠋ       http://law.e-gov.go.jp/cgi-bin/strsearch.cgi−137−

「自分」と「自己」

஧Ꮠ₎ㄒࡢࠕ㌟యࠖࡣࠊ༢⊂࡟ฟࡉࢀࡿሙྜ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࠊᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ᴫᛕࢆᣦࡍ࡜࠸
࠺༳㇟ࢆཷࡅࡿࡀࠊ(1)࡛ࡣࠕゎ๗య࡜ࡋ࡚㸦௚ே࡟㸧ᥦ౪ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺㏙ㄒ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡘ࠿ࡳ࡝ࡇࢁࡢ࡞࠸ࠕᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ᴫᛕࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࠊᥦ౪⪅ࡢࠕయ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠕලయ
ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࠗ㢮ㄒ᪂㎡඾࠘࡟࠶ࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕᩥ❶ㄒࠖ࡜࠸࠺༊ูࡣ࠾࠾ࡊࡗࡥ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏ
ㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ౑ࢃࢀࡸࡍ࠸౑⏝ᇦ࡜ࠊࡑࡢຠᯝࢆලయⓗ࡟グ㏙ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

㸱㸬⥲ྜⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ ᩥࡢᵓ㐀ࡸព࿡ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ๓ᚋᩥ⬦ࡸሙ㠃ࡢ᝟ሗ࡞࡝ࡶ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⤫ㄒ࣭ព࿡࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ୕ࡘࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࠿ࡽ⥲ྜⓗ࡟ㄽࡌࡿࠋ㸲㸬⤫ㄒ ≉ᐃࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡍሙྜࠊ
ࠕ⮬ศࠖ࡜ࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡀඛ⾜モࡼࡾᵓ㐀ⓗ࡟ࡼࡾࠕୖ఩ࠖ࡟࠶
ࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺᮲௳ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

(2)a. [ᙺேࡽ i ࡀ [㹹⮬ศ i 㸭⮬ᕫ i㹻ࡢᐙ᪘ࢆᏲࢁ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ]] b. *[㹹⮬ศ i㸭⮬ᕫ i 㹻ࡢᐙ᪘ࡀ [ᙺேࡽ i ࢆᏲࢁ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ]] ࠕ⮬ศࠖ࡜ࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣඛ⾜モ࡟ໟࡲࢀࡓᙧࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕໟࡳᵓ㐀ࠖࡢ୰࡛ࠊࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣ᭱ࡶ㏆࠸㏙ㄒືモࡢືస୺㸦┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸㸧ࢆᣦࡍࡀࠊ
ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣ⠇ࡸᩥ༢఩ࢆ㉸࠼ࡓඛ⾜モࡸࠊሙྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚୺ㄒ࡟఩⨨ࡋࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࢆᣦࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

(⠇༢఩ࢆ㉸࠼)(3)a. ࠶ࡢဴᏛ⪅ i ࡣ࠸࠿࡟ேࡀ⮬ศ i ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࢆㄝ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
b. *࠶ࡢဴᏛ⪅ i ࡣ࠸࠿࡟ேࡀ⮬ᕫ * i ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࢆㄝ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࠋ

(ᩥ༢఩ࢆ㉸࠼)(4)a. ࠶ࡢဴᏛ⪅ i ࡣᝎࢇ࡛࠸ࡓࠋ࡞ࡐேࡀ⮬ศ i ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࠋ
b. ࠶ࡢဴᏛ⪅ i ࡣᝎࢇ࡛࠸ࡓࠋ࡞ࡐேࡀ⮬ᕫ * i ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࠋ

(୺ㄒ఩⨨)−138−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号(5) ௙஦ࡶ㹹⮬ศ㸭*⮬ᕫ㹻ࡶ㍤࠸࡚ࡿ㸽㸦,PDJH*URXS࣭ྡྂᒇᆅୗ㕲࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧ࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡢᣦ♧ࡣᵓ㐀࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢᣦ♧ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾᗈ࠸⠊ᅖ࡛ཧ↷࡛ࡁࠊ୍ᐃࡢ⮬⏤ࡀチࡉࢀࡿࠋ㸳㸬ព࿡ ே⛠モ࡟ẚ࡭ࠊ୧᪉࡜ࡶࠕෆⓗ࣭⚾ⓗ⮬ᕫࠖࢆព࿡ࡍࡿ㸦ᗈ℩ 1997㸧ࠋ(6) ࡸࡗ࡜ࠕᙉ࠸⚾ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ẇࢆ◚ࡾࠊᙅ࠸㹹⮬ศ㸭⮬ᕫ㹻ࢆぢࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ ࡑࡢ㐪࠸ࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᗘ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾࡀᐦ᥋࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜࠶ࡲࡾ㛵ࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ㸲⠇࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ヰࡋᡭཬࡧࡑࡢどⅬࡢ⨨࠿ࢀࡓᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡬↷ᛂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ㛵㐃ᗘࢆ᳨ド࡛ࡁࡿ⌧㇟ࡀ௚࡟ࡶከࡃ࠶ࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ձ 」ྜㄒࡢㄒᵓᡂ
(7)a. ⮬ศ᥈ࡋࠊ⮬ศዲࡳࠊ⮬ศ࡞ࡀࡽ㸦㸦ࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸧b. ⮬ᕫ᥇Ⅼࠊ⮬ᕫホ౯ࠊ⮬ᕫ◚⏘㸦ࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸㸧ղ」ྜㄒࡢㄒᙧᡂつ๎ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣ័⏝ᗘࠊࡘࡲࡾゝㄒ౑⏝⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢࠕ㥆ᰁࡳࡸࡍࡉࠖ࡟ࡼࡿࠋ

(8)a. ⮬ศ☻ࡁ㸦័⏝ᗘ㧗࠸㸧 b. ⮬ศ㈙࠸ 㸦ప࠸㸧
 c. *⮬ศ㉸࠼ 㸦័⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧୍᪉ࠊࠕ⮬ᕫࠖ࡟ࡘࡃᙧែ⣲ࡣ័⏝ᗘ࡟ࡼࡿไ㝈ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊ᪥ᖖⓗ࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㞴ࡋ࠸༢ㄒ࡛ࡶࡼ࠸ࠋ

ճ๓ᚋᩥ⬦ࡢ࡞࠸⏝౛࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿゎ㔘ࡢ㐪࠸ ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩥ⬦ࡢ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊ
ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣどⅬே≀࡟ࣜࣥࢡࡋࡸࡍ
ࡃࠊࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣࣜࣥࢡࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ

−139−

「自分」と「自己」(9)a. ⮬ศࡢ࠺ࡕ㸦ヰࡋᡭࡢᐙ㸧 b. ⮬ᕫࡢ࠺ࡕ㸦ಶࠎேࢆྵࡴே㛫ࡢ㞟ྜࡢෆഃࠊ୍⯡ㄽ㸧 ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃࠊヰࡋᡭࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣどⅬே≀ࡢᛮ⪃࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᙉࡃᬯ♧ࡍࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
ࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᗘࡀపࡃࠊಶࠎࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࢆྵࡴ⥲⛠࡜࠸࠺ᢳ㇟ᴫᛕࢆ⾲ࡍഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㸴㸬ㄒ⏝ㄽ ᅜ఍㆟஦㘓ࠊ⌧௦ࢻ࣐ࣛࠊᗈ࿌ᩥࠊᮅ᪥᪂⪺ࠊἲ௧ࠊ㟷✵ᩥᗜࡢභࡘࡢ౑⏝ᇦࢆㄪ࡭ࡓ
⤖ᯝࠊࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣἲ௧ࢆ㝖ࡃ࡝ࡢ౑⏝ᇦ࡛ࡶᅽಽⓗ࡟ከࡃ౑ࢃࢀࠊ≉࡟᪥ᖖ఍ヰ࡟㏆࠸ࢻ࣐ࣛ࡜ᗈ࿌ᩥ࡛ࡣࠕ⮬ศࠖࡋ࠿࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
ࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣ౑⏝ࡀ࠿࡞ࡾ㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᪂
⪺グ஦࡟ᑡࡋ⌧ࢀࡓ௚ࠊἲ௧࡟ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟㧗࠸㢖ᗘࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡛ࡣᗈ࿌ᩥ࡜ἲ௧࡟
⤠ࡗ࡚ࠊࠕఏ㐩≧ἣࠖࠕఏ㐩ຠᯝࠖࡢ஧ࡘࡢ༢఩࠿ࡽศᯒࡍࡿࠋ

㸴㸬㸯 ᗈ࿌ᩥ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿࠕ⮬ศࠖձ ఏ㐩≧ἣᗈ࿌ᩥࡣࠊ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࢆ㏻ࡌࠊ୙≉ᐃከᩘࡢᾘ㈝⪅࡟ྥࡅ࡚Ⓨಙࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎಙ⪅࡜ཷಙ⪅ࡀ┤᥋ⓗ࡟ᑐ㠃ࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊሙ㠃ࡸୖୗぶ␯㛵ಀࡀ⪃៖ࡉࢀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ
ཷಙ⪅ࡢෆഃ࡟❧ࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᚰ᝟ࢆỮࡳྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋղ ఏ㐩ຠᯝ

(10) ௙஦ࡶ⮬ศࡶ㍤࠸࡚ࡿ㸽Ⓨಙ⪅࡜ཷಙ⪅ࡢቃ⏺ࡀᏑᅾࡏࡎࠊᛮ⪃ෆᐜࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(10)ࡣಶࠎࡢᾘ㈝⪅࡟ᑐࡋࠊ௙஦ࡢෆᐜࡀࠊ⮬ศ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚඘ᐇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ⮬ศࡢᏑᅾ౯್࡟⣡ᚓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜
࠸࠺ෆ┬ࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿࠋ㸴㸬㸰 ἲ௧࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿࠕ⮬ᕫࠖձ ఏ㐩≧ἣ ἲ௧ࡣ♫఍つ⠊ࢆᐃࡵࡓ㈨ᩱ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ♫఍࡟࠾࠸࡚⤯ᑐⓗ࡞ᶒጾࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊಶࠎே

−140−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࢆ෽㥙ࡋࠊඹ㏻ࡍࡿ⌮ᛕ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋղ ఏ㐩ຠᯝ ≉ᐃࡢࠊಶู࡞ࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛࡞ࡃࠊಶࠎࡢヱᙜ⪅ࢆࡦࡗࡃࡿࡵࡓࠕ⥲⛠ࠖࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣἲᚊᩥࡀồࡵࡿࠕᐈほᛶࠖ࡟㐺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࡓ࡜࠼≉ᐃࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ(12)ࡢ౛ᩥ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢሙ࡟࠸ࡿ≉ᐃࡢ⿕࿌ࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ
ࠕㄡ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶྠࡌฎ
⨩࡟࡞ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ྜ࠸ࡀㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿࠋ

(11) ㄽ࿌᳨࡛ᐹഃࡣࠕ⮬ᕫࡢ❧ሙࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊ≢⾜ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚࠸࡚ᴟࡵ࡚ᝏ㉁ࠖ࡜ᣦ᦬
ࡋࡓࠋ (ᮅ᪥ᮅห 2009/11/21)㸵㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ ఏ㐩ຠᯝࡣ⤫ㄒㄽ࣭ព࿡ㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ᝟ሗࢆ⥲ྜⓗ࡟⪃࠼ࡓ࠺࠼࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊᗈ࿌ᩥ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣձᵓ㐀ୖ⮬⏤⿢㔞ࡢవᆅࡀ࠶ࡾ
ղព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦ヰࡋᡭࡢどⅬ㸧࡟ᐦ᥋࡟㛵ࢃࡾճᗈ࿌ᩥࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡢෆᚰ࡟ッ࠼࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ሙ࡛࠶ࡿ

ࡢ࡛ࠊಶࠎࡢᾘ㈝⪅࡟⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆ┬ࡳࡿᶵ఍ࢆ୚࠼ࡿຠᯝࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊἲ௧࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣձᵓ㐀ୖ⮬⏤࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃղព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᗘࡀపࡃճἲ௧ࡣࠊ♫఍つ⠊࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊಶࠎࡢ᮲౛ࡀ≉ᐃࡢಶே࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊヱᙜ⪅ࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࢆࡦࡗࡃࡿࡵࡓࠕᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞Ꮡᅾࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᣢࡕฟࡍຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

−141−

「自分」と「自己」

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㸸㒆ྖ 㝯⏨. 2002. ࠗ༢ㄒ࡜ᩥࡢᵓ㐀࠘ ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ.
ࣁࣜࢹ࣮࣭ࣁࢵࢧࣥ㑥ヂࠗᶵ⬟ᩥἲࡢࡍࡍࡵ࠘ࠊ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑᗈ℩ᖾ⏕࣭ຍ㈡ಙᗈࠗᣦ♧࡜↷ᛂ࡜ྰᐃ࠘ࠊ◊✲♫ฟ∧ᒾబ ᐩ⏨. 2006. ࠕ୍⯡ᩥ࡜ἲᚊᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿἲ௧⏝ㄒࡢ౑࠸᪉ࡢᐇ㊶ⓗ◊✲ࠖࠊࠗ┳ㆤ࡜᝟
ሗ࠘ࠊVol.13:95-100.
ஂ㔝ᬿࠗㄯヰࡢᩥἲ࠘ࠊ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ㛵ἑⱥᙪࠕෆ࡞ࡿኌ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᗈ࿌ே⛠モ࡜ᗈ࿌࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡬ࡢྠ୍໬⌧㇟ࠖࠊThe journal of communication studies 23, 37-60.

−142−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Identity in practice: The use of terminological resources and identity formation
at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan
Cade Bushnell
University of Tsukuba
buu@intersc.tsukuba.ac.jp
Abstract:
A number of conversation analytic studies have engaged CoP in recent years. However, if and how theparticipants organize their group as community, and work up and manage identities as practitioners within that
community, constitute empirical questions. In the present study, I examine interactions at conversation analytic
data sessions in Japan. The analyses focus on how the participants use terminology during their participation in
doing data analysis, and how such terminology use is implicated in constituting their group as a community, andin working up and managing identities within that community.
࠙KeywordsࠚConversation analysis; Membership categorization analysis; Communities of practice; Identity
1. Introduction
This study uses conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis to examine interactions by agroup of Japanese language users participating together in conversation analytic data sessions. Data sessions
involve several conversation analytic researchers gathering together to view/listen to and discuss segments ofinteractional data provided by one of the participants in the group. In their groundbreaking study on aninteraction taking place at a data session, Antaki, Biazzi, Nissen, and Wagner (2008) describe the ways in which
their participants reformulate their evaluative, non-technical comments into technical conversation analytic
terms. In so doing, their study robustly demonstrates the validity and richness of data gathered at conversation
analytic data sessions.
In my research, I am interested in providing an ethnomethodological respecification of the communities ofpractice (CoP) notions of community and identity (see Lave & Wenger 1991 and Wenger 1998). The analyses ofthe present study focus in particular on the ways in which the participants use conversation analytic terminology
during their participation in doing data analysis at the data sessions, and how such terminology use is implicatedin constituting a community and in working up and managing identities within that community.
2. The use of terminology at the data sessions
The conversation analytic terminological resources used at the data sessions may be roughly divided into three
types, English, Anglo-Japanese, and Japanese. An important point to note here in terms of the present study isthat there are instances where these three sets of terminological resources overlap. That is, it is frequently thecase where English, Anglo-Japanese, and Japanese terms are available to do reference to single concepts andactions. A major focus of the analyses below is on how the participants differentially deploy such co-available
terminology, and what kinds of actions they accomplish in so doing.
In the first 3 excerpts, we will look at examples of the participants’ differential use of English, Japanese, andAnglo-Japanese terminology, respectively, in referring to a single referent: the conversation analytic notion oftry marking (see Sacks & Schegloff, 1979). Excerpt 1 begins with Elmer asking about the intonational
characteristics of one interactant’s deployment of the word kuruma. (See Appendix 1 for transcription
conventions).
Excerpt 1
01
02
E:

(1)
.hh [ano kuruma wa:] (.2) ano: t.hh

03
04

M:
E:

05

Y:

um

car

T

um

.hh um a:s for car (.2) um t- r[(x x x x x)]
a- aga (.5) tte (.4)
risingoku [ruma.o
car.

o

car.o

−143−

t-

r-

Identity in practice: The use of terminological resources and identity formation at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan06

E:[masita kke?=
was

Q

P:

was (it) rising?==.FFF (.5)

08

E:=.FFF (.5)
tr- [ano tr- try mark (.3) sareteru=

09

W:

10

E:

07

.fff

tr-

um

tr-

try mark

being done

[okuruma.o un.
car

yeah

=ka doo ka.
Q

how

Q

whether or not (it) was being (.3) tr- um tr- try marked.
In line 2, Elmer initiates a new sequence by topicalizing the element kuruma (“car”). After some self repair,
he incrementally produces aga (.5) tte (.4) masita kke? (“remind me was it rising?”) (lines 4 and 6). In line 5, Yi
displays her understanding of the trajectory of Elmer’s utterance-in-production by quietly enacting theintonational contour in question. Then, in line 8, Elmer employs the English term try mark to ask whether or not
the participant’s production of kuruma featured try marking.
In Excerpt 2, Elmer requests a Japanese equivalent for the English try mark. In this way, he displays anorientation to the Japanese language as being the medium of the interaction on this occasion (see, e.g., Gafaranga,
1999, 2000; Gafaranga & Calvo, 2001). In response to Elmer’s request, the Japanese term sikoo hyoosiki (“trymark”) is collaboratively provided by Murata and Yi.
Excerpt 2
14
Y:

a: koko ni [:,
a

here

DA

a: here,15

M:[>^a sikoo
a

try

16

^a tryhyoosiki (da)<.=17

mark.==sikoo hyoo [siki?

mark

E:

try

C

mark

=try mark?
18

M:[sikoo hyoosiki (xxx)=Y:

try mark (xxx)=[a:: a:: ha:i=

try

19

a

mark

a

yes

a:: a:: ye:s=20

M:=so so soo.
that that that=right right right.
Prior to line 14, Yi was searching for an answer to Elmer’s question in an article she had brought to themeeting. In line 14, she claims success in her search, and identifies the location through a pointing gesture andthe word koko (“here”). In line 15, Murata overlaps with a sikoo hyoosiki da (“oh it’s try mark”). This utterance1) claims a recognition of and validates the word in the article as being the relevant answer, and 2) makes theword available to Elmer, for whom the article was not visible. Then, in line 17, Elmer moves to obtain aconfirmatory response, this utterance is overlapped with confirmation displays from Murata and Yi in lines 18
through 20.



−144−

ʹ

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Finally, Excerpt 3 provides an example of the participants’ use of an Anglo-Japanese term. Approximately
five minutes after Excerpt 2, Murata briefly leaves the room, and Yi, Elmer and Wendy are discussing the datain her absence.
Excerpt 3
16
Y:

u:n. so- sono baai mo aru n
yeah

th-

that

case

also exist N

17

yea:h. (there) are those cases too
desu yo ne,

18

E:right,
u:n.

Y:

yea:h.
torai ma [aku tte [yu no wa:

W:

as far as try mark goes
[u:n.

C

P

P

yeah

19

try

20

mark

QT

say

N

T

yeah

yea:h
21

E:

[u:n. soo desu ne,
yeah

that

C

P

yea:h. right,((lines omitted))34
W:[((noise from mouse))
35
Y:de soo yu koto na n da kedo:,
and that say thing C

N

C

but

36

and that’s how things are bu:t,
koko de wa soo yu torai maa (.3) ka

37

jana:i kara: [.sss]38

the try mar (.3) ker here is no:t that kind so: .sss
[u:n.]

here
C-NG

E:

at

T thatbecause

say

try

mar

ker

.sss

yeah

yea:h.
39(.5)

In line 19, Yi produces torai maaku (“try mark”). Compared to the participants’ just prior production of sikoo
hyoosiki, for which joint effort and reference to an article was necessary, Yi’s production of torai maaku issmooth and without hitch. Yi also produces an additional instance of torai maaku (omitted lines), and amorphological variant, torai maakaa (“try marker”) in line 36.
Excerpts 1 through 3 show the participants using an overlapping set of terminological resources in order torefer to the notion of try marking: try mark, sikoo hyoosiki, and torai maaku/torai maakaa. Questions arise inregard to the interactional work accomplished by such differential use terminology. For instance, how do theparticipants co-constitute certain terminological resources as being valued for participation? How does theparticipants’ use of terminology function to constitute the data session group as a community? How is the
deployment of terminological resources involved in working up identities as practitioners at the data sessions as
a community?
3. The use of Anglo-Japanese terms for doing data analysis
Ethnomethodology views social order as being an ongoing members’ accomplishment (Garfinkel, 1967). Sacks(1984) adopts this stance in discussing how people accomplish “being ordinary.” Sacks argues that being
ordinary is not a given, but that it is accomplished by “making a job of, and finding an answer to, how to do‘being ordinary’” (1984, p. 415). In other words, according to Sacks, being ordinary is accomplished in and



−145−

͵

Identity in practice: The use of terminological resources and identity formation at conversation analytic data sessions in Japanthrough ongoing work to constitute actions and states of affairs as being unremarkable and usual. Such a
viewpoint is relevant to the analyses of this section. As we will see, the participants treat certain terminology as
constituting an unremarkable and unnoticeable participatory resource.
Prior to the following excerpt, Zed had noted an area in the data where he claimed that the participants could
have accomplished a topical shift but did not. Zed formulates a description of the area. The excerpt begins with
Yi requesting a clarification in regard to Zed’s prior talk.
Excerpt 4
01
Y:nana juu nana gyoo me de hoka no otoko noseven tenseven line.number at other M

02child CM

Q

QT say thing

by

how

boy?” by saying this (1.1) how
owarase:reba ii ka ga?

03

cause.to.end

04
05
06

man

at line number seventy-seven “is it anotherko desu ka? tte yu koto de: (1.1) doo

Z:

good

Q

S

to end it is?
(.6)((sound of pages turning))soo. (.2) de(h)su ne, nanka nana .hh (.8)
that

C

P

some

seven .hh

right. (.2) le(h)t’s see, like seven .hh (.8)
k- ko- koko de wa: ano hanashi wo tenkan

07

k-

ko-

here

at

T

um

talk

O

changeh- he- here um changing the topic
shite mo ii desu kedo: .hh [kore wo (.4)

08

alright.to.do

C

but

.hh

this

O

would be alright bu:t .hh this (.4)
09

Y:

[u:n.
un

10

Z:

yea:h.
mae no hanashi (watashi wa) wakarimashita yo
front M

11

talk

I

T

understoodP

tte yu: .h koto shimesu tame ni kono nana juu
QT

say

.h

thing

show

so.that

this

seven

ten

in order to show that “I understood the prior talk” this line number seventy
nana gyoo me no .hh [hoka no otoko no ko

12seven line.number M

.hh

other

M

man

M child

seven “is it another boy?”
13

Y:

[a::.
a

a::.
14

Z:

desu ka? tte yu
C

15

QT

yoo

na (.) ma ripea tte yu ka

say appearance M

well repair

QT sayQ

this kind of (.) well repair or.hh sono: watashi wa rikai siteiru tte
.hh

16

Q

that

I

T comprehend doing

QT.hh tha:t “I understand”yuyoona (1) situmon wo sita n desu yo ne?
say appearance M

question

O

did

N

C

P

P

he asked this kind of (1) question, you know?
In line 14, Zed deploys ripea (“repair”) as part of his response to the request by Yi in lines 1 to 3. Following
Yi’s request, there is a .6 second pause filled with the sound of pages turning. Then, in line 6, Zed produces soo(“right”). This seems to treat Yi’s lines 1 to 3 as a request for confirmation rather than clarification. However,



−146−

Ͷ

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

following a .2 second pause during which he receives no uptake from Yi, Zed produces further talk in lines 6
through 16, which ends up reformulating his description and naming of the interactant’s actions. It is in thecourse of this activity, in line 14, that Zed produces ripea (“repair”). This item is produced following a
micropause, prefaced by the discourse marker ma, which can display a tentative stance, appended with the self
repair initiation marker tte yu ka (“or rather”) (Rosenthal, 2008) and followed up with a reformulation of Zed’s
just prior suggestion. These features, taken together, indicate that Zed has used ripea as a provisional name forthe actions. It is important to note that ripea is deployed smoothly within the intonational contour of the phrase
ma ripea tte yu ka (“well repair or rather”). In this way, Zed treats the term as an unremarkable solution to the
problem of providing a provisional name for the actions. Thus, Excerpt 4 is an example of how the Participants
treat their deployment of Anglo-Japanese terminology as an unnoticeable and unremarkable event.
4. Terminology use and identity in the community
4.1 Self repair and constructing an identity as a practitioner
We may now examine some cases where the unnoticeable is made noticeable, so to speak. This is done primarily
through the use of self repair. A point that requires emphasis here is that, in most instances, the terminology
which participants target with self repair is mutually understandable for all co-present. In other words, the self
repairs are not relatable to problems in intelligibility.
Just prior to Excerpt 5, the Participants were discussing whether or not the participant’s actions observable inthe data at hand are analyzable as constituting embedded correction (see Jefferson, 1983).
Excerpt 5
01

Y:ah. (.) e. (.2) juu go de:aheten five

02

ah. e. (.2) at fifteen(.2) isu?=

03A:(.2) chair?==i- a: ju [u go deY:=i- a: at fifteen[tte yuu.

A:say.
is [u tte yuu to [ka,

at

chair

i-

04

a

ten five

at

QT

05

chair

06
07

S:
Y:

QT

say

say

and.so.forth

say chair and so forth[un. a:.
[sore wa: (1.3)
that

08

well repair

09
10

T

that is (1.3)
maa <syuufuku> (.4) inisieesyon.

Y:initiation

well <repair> (.4) initiation.
(.3)
a- a- n. ripea inisiee [syon.
aanrepairinitiationa a n repair initiation
11

S:[u:n.=
yeah

yea:h.
In line 5, Abe asks a hypothetical question in regard to what kind of action would be instantiated were theparticipant to have said isu (“chair”) rather than mono (“thing”). In response, in line 8, Yi produces syuufuku
inisieesyon (“repair initiation”). This element is prefaced by the discourse marker maa, which functions to



−147−

ͷ

Identity in practice: The use of terminological resources and identity formation at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan

display a tentative stance. This, taken together with the 1.3 second delay (line 7), and the slowed production of
syuufuku (“repair”), functions to frame the element syuufuku as being the tentative upshot of a word search.
Line 8 is a possible completion point for Yi’s turn, and is followed by a .3 second transition space during
which none of the participants offer any talk. Then, Yi breaks the silence with a self repair initiation (“a- a- n.”),and then replaces the element syuufuku with ripea (“repair”) (line 10). Thus, in lines 7 to 10, Yi treats the term
ripea as being relevant and valued for participation at this time. Also, though orienting to using the valued term,
she simultaneously accomplishes the group as a group, with certain valued resources, and her participation as adisplay of membership in that group.
4.2 Terminology use in accomplishing the visibility of otherness
So far, we have seen how the use self repair can display orientations to using certain terms over others, and how
this functions in working up and managing group membership. A corollary to this is categorization as a
newcomer or relative outsider through assembling self and other into separate categories. One procedure used toaccomplish such categorization is the deployment of everyday Japanese terminology (rather than theterminology of the community) in utterances directed to incipient group members. Such terminology use
effectively treats incipient members as not sharing the terminological repertoire of the community.
The term used regularly by the Participants during their participation in doing data analysis to refer to thenotion of pre-action (see, e.g., Schegloff, 2007) is purii (“pre”). In Excerpt 6, however, this term is avoided, andan alternate term from everyday Japanese, maeoki (“preface, introduction”), is used instead. In the excerpt, Ru,
who had participated in only one prior data session, uses this shift between activities as an opportunity to ask aquestion to Zed.
Excerpt 6
01
R:

sumimasen.
excuse.me02

Z:

excuse me.
hai.
yes

03

R:

yes.
zed san wa (.2) ano ima mondai
Zed

Mr.

T

uhm

now

problem04

siteru tokoro wo moo itido

05

ukagatte mo yorosii de [su kah? u heh

06

would it be alright if I were to ask once the place (.2)
you are probleming? u heh[a eet:o: .hh

doing

place

O

more

alright.if.I.ask-H

Z:

once
C

Q

a

uhm

u

heh

.hh

a uh:m: .hh
futatu aru n desu ke [do:07

two.items exixt NCbut

there are two items bu:t
08[((nods))
[hai.

R:

yes

09

Z:

yes.
hitotu wa juu go gyoo me:, (.2)

R:

one is line number fiftee:n, (.2)
hai.=

one

10

T

ten five line.number

yes

11

Z:

yes.=
=no:. (.3) eeto puro tosite
M



uhm

pro

as

−148−

͸

第14回大会発表論文集12

motitakunai desu ka? [tte yu no ga:
don’t.want

13

第７号

R:

C

Q

QT

say oneS=whe:re. (.3) uhm the one ‘as a pro don’t you want to have it?’ is[((nodds))
[un.
yeah

14

Z:

yeah.
.hh maa n:anraka no kooi no (.2) pu.hh

15

DM

uhm

16
17

some.kind
prefaceMpr-becoming

QT sayR:Z:

fuu ni kanjita nR:.hh well I felt like it forms a (.2) pu- maeoki fors:ome kind of action bu:t
[hai.

like

18

M action

ano::: maeoki ni natteiru [to yu

felt[((nods))[desu kedo:

N

C

but

yes

19

Z:

yes.
sore ga doo yu kooi no maemuki
thatS

what say action M

positive20

ni natteru ka wo .hh (.4) kijutu

21suru no ga hitotu no mokuteki: de ((continues))

becoming
do

N

Q
S

O
one

.hh
M

describe
purposeC

what kind of action it forms a positive for .hh(.4) describing this is one purpo:se and
The center of focus for the analysis below is on Zed’s self repair work in lines 14 and 15. These lines areproduced by Zed as part of his answer to Ru’s question about the area of the data in which Zed is interested(lines 3 to 5). Zed indicates that his answer will be organized into two parts (line 7). In the analysis, we will
examine only the first part of Zed’s two part answer. In lines 9 to 12, Zed first indicates an area on the transcript
and then quotes the interactant’s utterance at this location. He then indicates that the quoted utterance might
instantiate a pre for some kind of action (lines 14, 15, and 17). In line 14, Zed produces what is almost certainly
the first part of purii (“pre”), pu- (line 14). However, Zed cuts off mid production and follows with theconsiderably sound stretched filler ano::: (“uhm”). Zed then resumes by producing maeoki (“preface,
introduction”). Ru receipts this with a nod (line 16), and Zed continues on smoothly (lines 15 and 17).
As discussed above, the participants occasionaly apply self repair to replace certain terminological items. In
so doing, I argued, they are able to constitute their group as a community with a shared set of resources, andthemselves as practitioner-members within that community. Notably, however, the instances examined above
involved replacement with a term treated by the community as a resource for participation in doing data analysis.
Zed’s self repair work in lines 14 and 15, however, is the inverse of this. In other words, rather than using avalued terminological resource to replace another term, here Zed replaces a valued term, purii (“pre”), with an
everyday term, maeoki (“preface, introduction”). In this way, Zed treats purii as being possibly problematic insome respect, while simultaneously treating maeoki as being unproblematic in that respect. Importantly, thisaction is assembled as part of a response to Ru. Thus, Zed constitutes identities for (a) himself, as a practitioner
who prioritizes the use of community resources (i.e., he initially starts to produce purii), and (b) Ru, as an
outsider or newcomer who is not yet conversant with community resources. It may be further noted that, in line
19, Zed also deploys maemuki (“positive, forward facing”). Because this word does not make sense within thiscontext, and because it employs an utterance format identical to that in lines 14 and 15, that is, X kooi no Y(“action X’s Y”), it seems that maemuki here is a slip of the tongue production of maeoki. Assuming that this is
the case, this subsequent use of a replacement term for purii further displays an orientation to purii as requiring asubstitute term from everyday Japanese on this occasion.



−149−

͹

Identity in practice: The use of terminological resources and identity formation at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan

5. Conclusion
The analyses have demonstrated that the participants’ differential deployment of terminological resources isdeeply intertwined with membership categorization work implicated in the constitution of identities related tothe participants’ joint activity of doing data analysis. First, it was demonstrated that the participants treat certain
terms as being unremarkable resources for participation. This behavior was discussed in relation to the
ethnomethodologically-based argument by Sacks (1984) that being ordinary is accomplished in and throughwork members perform as they make an ongoing job out of doing being ordinary. Then, it was shown how theparticipants display an interactional attention to the terminology they use through the application of self repair. I
argued that this display of attention functioned to make visible for one another the data session as a community,
and the participants’ membership in that community. This was shown to be tied to the reflexive constitution ofterminology as being valued by community members, and making the data session group mutually visible as acommunity with a shared set of participatory resources. In this way, for the participants, identity, sharedresources, and community are reflexively constituted in and through their behavior in interaction while
participating in doing data analysis at the data sessions.
Appendix 1: Transcription conventions (see Jefferson, 2004)^word
heh hahĹĻ>words<<words>
wo[rd
wo]rd
=
(3.3)
(.)
(xxx)

glottal stop
laughter tokens
high or low pitch
quicker than surrounding talkslower than the surrounding talkbeginning of overlapped speechend of overlapped speech
latching (no pause between utterances)pause (seconds and tenths of seconds)
pause less than one tenth of a second
unrecoverable utterance

Key for Interlinear Abbreviations
C: Copula
M: Noun modification particle (no, na, etc.)
N: Nominalizer
NG: Negative
O: Object marker((words))
wo:::rd
WORDS°words°
words
woa::
a::
,
?
.

commentary by transcriptionist
sound stretch
louder than surrounding talksofter than surrounding talkmore emphasis than surrounding talkcut-offrising intonational contour
falling intonational contour
level or slightly rising intonation
fully rising intonation
falling, final intonation

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

Works cited:
Antaki, C., Biazzi, M., Nissen, A., & Wagner, J. 2008. Accounting for moral judgments in academic talk: The case of a conversation analysis
data session. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 28: 1–30.
Gafaranga, J. 1999. Language choice as a significant aspect of talk organization: The orderliness of language alternation. Text, 19: 201–225.
Gafaranga, J. 2000. Medium repair vs.other-language repair: Telling the medium of a bilingual conversation. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 4: 327–350.
Gafaranga, J., & Calvo, M.-C. T. i. 2001. Language versus Medium in the study of bilingual conversation. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 5: 195–219.
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Jefferson, G. 1983. On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In J. R. E. Lee & G. Button (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization(pp. 86–100). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first
generation (pp. 13–31). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenthal, B. M. 2008. A Resource for Repair in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction: The Phrase TTE - YUU - KA. Research on Language &Social Interaction, 41: 227.
Sacks, H. 1984. On doing “being ordinary.” In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation
analysis (pp. 413–429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G.
Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington Publishers.
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: Volume 1: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.



−150−

ͺ

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Mental causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF clauses:
A case study of grammar-pragmatics interface
Hirohito KATAOKA(Osaka Dental University)[Abstract] The paper discusses a close connection between causal sentences and what
Dennett calls ‘intentional stance.’ Sometimes contexts license paradoxical combinationof factivity and counterfactuality in causal clauses, while other contexts prohibits. The
former cases involve the intentional stance, while the latter do not.

1 The problem
This cognitive ability to attribute intentional states such as beliefs, desires, and intentions toother agents, or what Dennett calls "intentional stance," plays an important role in ourcomprehension of ordinary utterances. Consider the examples below:(1) It was 12 p.m. She/I went home.
(2) The guests were boring. She/I left the party early.

(Pander and Degand 2001: 218)

These utterances hardly make sense without taking into account what 'she' or 'I' believed andintended. She didn't mechanically go home driven by invisible force of time. The guests' being
boring did not directly cause her leaving the party early with no awareness of it. As Pander andDegand (2001: 218) point out, these discourses implicitly requires attribution of reasoning andawareness to the protagonists: i.e. it requires intentional stance.
Now my claim is that the intentional stance could be a key to understand some apparently
paradoxical constructions like these:(3) They refused the chicane because it would have been unfair, against the rules andpotentially dangerous."(GrandPrix, Jun 22, 2005)(4) I’ll take an umbrella because/if it will rain. (cf. ‘if it rains’)
These are paradoxical mainly for two reasons. First, BECAUSE-clauses and counterfactuality. The
causal construction in (3) contains a counterfactual clause, which is a full-frontal violation of theusual factive constraint posed by the BECAUSE-clause. That is to say, BECAUSE-clauses, or causal
clauses in general, presuppose that the embedded proposition is taken for granted to be a fact. We
can observe this constraint at work in (5):

1

−151−

Mental causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF clauses:A case study of grammar-pragmatics interface(5) He came back because he loved her. #But he didn't loved her.
Since the BECAUSE-clause presupposes the fact that he loved her, denial of the same proposition
will be contradictory. Indeed, it is contradictory and unnatural to say (6):(6) Last week it was warm *because (a) it would have been raining.
(b) it wasn’t raining.
This observation precludes a possible objection. One might say, "there is no paradox here, because
the causal clause just presupposes the truth of the proposition, and counterfactual propositions dohave truth-values; so there is nothing weird for the embedded counterfactual propositions to bepresupposed to be true." If so, the example just mentioned should have been perfectly well-formed
and acceptable. The objection have missed something important, and that is the semantic clash
between factivity and counterfactuality.
This is the Apparent Paradox I to be addressed here:(7) In some cases, factive because-clauses do license an embedded counterfactual proposition,
while in other cases they don't.
As far as I know, this problem has been mostly unnoted in the literature, let alone left unsolved.
Second reason for the paradox is the reversed temporal relation. This is what Palmer (1974:148) has once called 'reversal of time relations.' In (8), the time of taking the umbrella precedes thetime of possible raining: taking the umbrella comes first, the event of raining follows it.
(8) [=(4)] I’ll take an umbrella because/if it will rain. (cf. ‘if it rains’)This goes the opposite direction of causality. The speaker says the cause is the raining, real or
hypothetical, and the effect is his/her taking the umbrella. So you can see the direction of causality
goes backward from the following event to the preceding event, apparently. And this is apparently
paradoxical, since we usually assume that the direction of causality goes from a preceding event to
the following event: A fire causes a smoke, not a smoke causes a fire.
Note that the allegedly unusual occurrence of the modal WILL in the subordinate clause1. If it
were absent, the temporal relation would be usual one: it starts raining, and you'll take yourumbrella. Now this is the second paradox to be addressed.
(9) The events are in the reversed order that goes the opposite of the causal relation.
It is a well-established fact that usually modal WILL can’t occur in subordinate clauses eventhough the clause refers to a future event:a. If it rains (*will rain) tomorrow, the match will be cancelled.
b. If it rained (*would rain) tomorrow, the match would be cancelled.
c. If it had rained (*would have rained) yesterday, the match would have been cancelled.

1(Haegeman and Guéron 1984: 45)

2
−152−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

2 The claim
Now my main idea is, "There are no paradoxes in the first place." They are just apparently andseemingly paradoxical, and the concepts of mental causation and intentional stance will help us
explain why. The overall picture here is something like this (Fig 1). A causal construction with theform 'P BECAUSE Q,' where P and Q stand for states of affairs, will be interpreted as involving
implicit beliefs and intentions, with causal relation holding between the belief that Q and
intention that P, not between P and Q themselves. Now what we have to show is that we doactually infer implicit beliefs and intentions in specific cases.
Fig 1.
Situation Q
Belief(Q)

Situation P

CAUSALITY

Intention(P)

3 Mental causation and belief implication
Searle (2001: 41) has coined the term ‘mental causation.’(10) There is only one kind of causation, and it is efficient causation. However, within efficientcausation, there is an important subcategory having to do with mental state, or where amental state causes something else. And within the subcategory of mental causation,
there is yet another subcategory, that of intentional causation.
We will use the term for a causal relation that holds between mental states such as beliefs, desires,
intentions, perceptions, emotions, and so on. Take a simple example to illustrate the notion.
(11) He opposed torture because he thought it was a violation of the American tradition ofrespect for human life and human rights.
In this case, BECAUSE-clause denotes his thought (a subtype of mental state) and the main clausedenotes an intentional action: there is an implicitly underling intention to oppose torture (notice
how odd it is to say “He opposed torture without any intention to do so”). Direct cause of his
opposition is his intention to do so. Thus the causal construction denotes a causal relation that
hold between (a) his thought and (b) intention to oppose torture – between two distinct mental
states. In linguistic terms, a diagnostic feature of mental causation is implication of belief.
Compare the examples below:(12) He opposed torture because it was a violation of the American tradition of respect forhuman life and human rights.

3
−153−

Mental causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF clauses:A case study of grammar-pragmatics interface(13) … But he didn’t think so. [i.e. He didn’t think that it is a violation of the American
tradition of respect for human life and human rights.]
The example (12) does not have the matrix clause "he thought" in (11). Yet, both of them can't befollowed by (13) without giving rise to contradiction, which suggests that 'because it was a
violation' somehow implied that he thought it was a violation. In other words, we've automaticallyapplied some inferential rule from 'because p' to 'because someone believes p.' Notice that an
identical BECAUSE-clause will imply a belief in some cases while it won't in others:(14) So he got into the van and drove to the bottom end of the paddock because he was so tired
and needed some sleep.
a. #But he wasn’t tired.
b. #But he didn’t think he was tired. [belief implication](15) Even though he didn’t think he was tired, he missed the ball because he was so tired. [nobelief implication]
The difference between the two is that (14) is an instance of mental causation while (15) an
instance of non-mental causation. Generally speaking, mental causation implies some belief on thepart of the agent/protagonist, while non-mental causation does not. Consider the following
examples:(16) He skipped spending sunset on the beach because it was cloudy. [mental causation](Los Angeles Times, May 12, 1988)(17) I drank hot tea instead of my usual orange juice this morning because it was cloudy.
(Sacramento Business Journal, Dec 21, 2001)[mental causation](18) He further testified that he took his jacket because it was cloudy (...)[mental causation](California Courts of Appeal Reports, Oct 9, 1961)(19) Then they[=Solar Cars] couldn't get any power because it was cloudy. [non-mental causation](Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jul 28, 1990)
Since the subordinate clauses are identical, the trigger of the inference can't be the linguistic
expression per se. Rather, it must be the type of causal relation the construction denotes: mental
vs. non-mental causal relations.

4 Intentional stance as an inference rule
The latter half of the overall picture is concerned with intentions. As I’ve said, an intentional
action is construed as being caused by the very intention to do so. Jackendoff (1995: 214-215; 2007:

4
−154−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

265) has formulated this as a default inference of intentional stance (this is inspired by Dennett’s
work, but should not be confused. For one thing, Dennett’s version of intentional stance is notconfined to intention, but more widely concerned with mental states in general).

(20) The intentional stance [as an inference rule][X ACT] эdefaultǃXǂ ACT[[FROM [ǂ COM [Situation, +Action ǃ]]](Jackendoff 1995: 214-215; 2007: 265)

The formula might seem rather complicated at first sight, basically it says that "if there is anaction in a given semantic structure, take it to be intentional." We call this inference “default”
since it is cancellable: “unless there is evidence otherwise, we assume that any action isintentional” (Jackendoff 2007: 265). Take (12) for example again. At face value, the sentence seems todenote a causal relation between two states of affairs – between the fact that torture is a violationof the American tradition and his opposition to torture. But the inference of intentional stancebrings in his intention behind the opposition as the immediate cause of the action. The fact that
torture is a violation of the American tradition can’t be a cause/motivation of his intention unless it
is accessible for him. This is why belief implication occurs in the case of mental causation. Hence
we end up with an instance of mental causation – a causal relation holding between inferentiallyintroduced mental states rather than two explicit states of affairs P and Q.

5 A solution to the Apparent Paradox I
Now it's time to show the solution to the Apparent Paradox I: Why could a counterfactual
proposition could be embedded in a factive causal clause. There are two facts we should recall here.
First, counterfactual propositions could be embedded in mentally causal clauses, while they
couldn't be in non-mentally causal clauses. Second, mentally causal clauses imply some agent's
belief(s). Now the solution is not hard to see. The counterfactual propositions can be embedded inmentally causal clauses since the clauses have implicit belief operators (probably in theirconceptual/semantic structures). In fact, the examples below are perfectly well-formed:(21) The Euromobile was supposed to visit Denmark in April. But the trip was called off
because the government thought it would have been inopportune on the eve of thenational referendum on the Maastricht treaty.

(New York Times, June 12, 1992)(22) Some International Olympic Committee members said that the vote was not a rejectionof Mr. Obama and that his presentation was formidable. Richard W. Pound, a committee
member from Canada, said that the other cities wanted to knock Chicago out earlybecause they thought it would have been more difficult to do so in the later rounds.

5
−155−

Mental causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF clauses:A case study of grammar-pragmatics interface(New York Times, October 2, 2009)

Notice that the counterfactuality is ascribed to the speaker's perspective, not to the protagonist's
perspective. What the government thought/believed in (21) is something like "it will be
inopportune," since the government didn't know the outcome at the point of time. This is probably
due to the intensional-with-an-S context created by the psychological predicate. Let us

summarize the question and the answer. Question: Why don't the counterfactual propositions
give rise to semantic clash with factive constraint of the causal clauses? – Answer: Because
they are implicitly embedded in the scope of belief operators. Now let us take a closer look at
specific examples.
(23) They refused the chicane because that it would have been unfair, against the rules andpotentially dangerous.
This utterance contains a counterfactual clause it would have been unfair, against the rules andpotentially dangerous, which presupposes that nothing unfair was done in fact, in reality. Taken atface value, this should cause semantic anomaly due to the clash between factuality implication of
the BECAUSE-clause and the counterfactual meaning of the subjunctive past perfect. However,insertion of a belief operator changes the face value to something that can be paraphrased asfollows:(24) They refused the chicane because they believed that it would have been unfair, against
the rules and potentially dangerous.
Since their mental state of believing the proposition is not counterfactual, there will be nosemantic clash between because and the embedded counterfactual proposition. Note that thesituation designated by the counterfactual clause was not counterfactual until they refused thechicane.
The same explanation applies to other examples. Consider the following one:(25) Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton said the legislation “never got through the House.” The
House did pass a bill to define patient’s rights in August 2001. But Democrats denounced
it as a sham, because it would have limited patients’ ability to sue insurers for injuriescaused by the denial of care. And the two houses of Congress never reached agreement.
(New York Times, Jan 7, 2006)
Insertion of a belief operator into the conceptual structure that corresponds to the because-clauseresults a meaning that could be paraphrased like this:(26) … because they [=Democrats] believed it would have limited patients’ ability to …
Again, the expected semantic clash can be avoided by the insertion, deriving exactly what the

6
−156−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

utterance is intended to mean.
The above examples might give the impression that the believer role of the inserted belief
operator should be identified as the grammatical subject of the matrix clause. However, thisimpression is wrong. There are more complicated cases. Consider the example below:(27) Democracy arrived so late in Mexico not because it was infeasible, but because it would

have diluted the political control of elites.
(D. Acemoglu and J. Robinson, "On the economic origins of democracy," Daedalus, Winter 2007)

This example is complicated in three respects. First, the surface sentence does not describe theentire causal chain that leads to the delayed democratization in Mexico. Rather, it just picks up
two situations as focal points, leaving the rest to be inferred by the addressee. The entire causal
chain could be depicted as a historical tree. The tree has three branches that indicate alternative
histories. The causal chain implicitly involves some action taken by the ‘elites’ to interrupt theprocess of democratization in Mexico. Second, the believer of the propositional content embeddedin the because-clause is not the grammatical subject of the main clause (i.e. Democracy), but theelites. Thus, the simple explanation that the grammatical subject should be the believer fails to
explain the interpretation. Third, what is contrary to fact is not the propositional content of the

because-clause: Democracy actually arrived and their political control was diluted in the end. Yet,as we can see from the historical tree in the Diagram, there is an alternative history where
democracy arrived earlier if the elites had not interrupted the democratization. The subjunctive
past perfect construction invokes this hypothetical history along with other possible alternatives.
What is crucial to the utterance interpretation, though, is the insertion of the belief operator.
Without it, the construction would be totally incomprehensible.

6 A solution to the Apparent Paradox II
What solved the Apparent Paradox I also solves the Apparent Paradox II. At first sight the(28) might seem like a case of temporal reversal, but the causal clause is construed to embed
the proposition ‘it will rain’ in the scope of the speaker’s prediction:(28) I’ll take an umbrella because it will rain.2 [cf. because it rains]

School grammars sometimes suggest that WILL should not be used in certain syntactic
circumstances including if, when and because clauses, but we do sometimes find instances of
WILL in because-clauses: e.g.
(i) We are aware we are going to be caught on the weekend again, because it will rain,
then it will freeze. (CBC.ca, Dec 20, 2007)(ii) Keep that raincoat or umbrella handy if you plan any outdoor activities this weekend,
because it WILL rain on Saturday. (Atlanta Journal Constitution, Nov 28, 2008)
2

7
−157−

Mental causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF clauses:A case study of grammar-pragmatics interface

References
Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional

Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Declerck, Renaat and Susan Reed 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Declerck, Renaat 2005. "The relation between temporal and modal uses of indicative verb
forms." Cahier Chronos 13: 215-227.
Dennett, Daniel 1989. Intentional Stance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Guéron, Jacqueline “On the temporal function of modal verbs," J. Guéron and J. Lecarne(eds.) Time and Modality, pp. 143-172, MIT Press.
Haegeman, Liliane and Herman Wekker 1984. "The syntax and interpretation of futurateconditionals in English." J. Linguistics 20, 45-55.
Jackendoff, Ray 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
ؐؐؐؐ 2007. Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. MIT Press.
McIntosh, A. (1966). "Predictive Statements." In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday,
and R. H. Robins (eds.), In Memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longmans.
Palmer, Frank R. 1994. "Mood and modality." In R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson (eds.) The
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 5, pp. 2535-2540. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
ؐؐؐؐ 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reinhart, Tanya 1984. "Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of
narrative texts." Linguistics, 22, 779-809.
Searle, John R. 1998. Mind, Language, and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. New York:
Basic Books.
ؐؐؐؐ 2001. Rationality in Action. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
ؐؐؐؐ 2004. Mind: A Brief Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.㸦࣐࢖ࣥࢻ㸸ᚰࡢဴᏛ㸬ᮾி㸸ᮅ᪥ฟ∧♫㸪2006 ᖺ㸬㸧Sweetser, Eve 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of

Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wekker, H. (1976). The Expression of Future Time in Contemporary British English.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Werner, Tom 2005. "The temporal interpretation of some modal sentences in English(involving a future/epistemic alternation)." Cahier Chronos 13: 247-259.

8
−158−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Modal concord in Japanese: some initial observations1
Lars Larm
Lund University
Lars.Larm@ostas.lu.se
Abstract
Modal harmony occurs when one single modality is realised as two modal expressions, as in: ‘Possibly
this gazebo may have been built by Sir Christopher Wren’ (Halliday 1970: 328). The importance of thisphenomenon is reflected in papers such as Geurts and Huitink (2006), who coined the term ‘modal
concord’, and Huitink (in press). In light of this recent development, this paper focuses on the following
question: How can the study of Japanese modality contribute to the ongoing discussion of modal
concord as a general and cross-linguistic phenomenon? Japan has a rich tradition in the field of modality,and valuable research has been conducted on patterns of co-occurrence between modal adverbs andgrammaticalized modal markers. There is thus a solid theoretical and empirical foundation forcross-linguistic work. I discuss collocational patterns described in the literature on Japanese modality
and suggest that Japanese has the following types of modal concord: epistemic, evidential (including
reportative), and possibly deontic and exclamative concord.
Keywords: Modal concord, modal harmony, epistemic, deontic, evidential, adverb-modal collocations

1.

The topic
This paper focuses on the following research question: How can the study of Japanese modality
contribute to the ongoing discussion of modal concord as a general and cross-linguistic phenomenon?
However, before turning to the discussion of Japanese, I shall introduce some general aspects of the
topic. The term ‘modal concord’ (also called ‘modal harmony’) is used for cases where one single
modality is expressed by the combination of two modal expressions, as in Halliday’s example below(Halliday 1970: 328, boldface added):(1)

Possibly this gazebo may have been built by Sir Christopher Wren.

Halliday (1970: 331) notes that ‘possibly’ and ‘may’ in (1) “reinforce each other (as ‘concord’)”. In
discussing this example, Huitink (in press: 2) explains that it “doesn’t express that it is possible that it ispossible that Sir Christopher Wren built this gazebo”. Halliday shows that such examples differ fromthose where the modal expressions are “cumulative in meaning”, as in his example below (Halliday
1970: 331):(2)

Certainly he might have built it (‘I insist that it is possible’ or ‘I grant that it is possible’).

Consider also the following examples from Huitink (in press: 2):(3)

My eyes must certainly be deceiving me.

(4)

My eyes must be deceiving me.

(5)

My eyes are certainly deceiving me.

Huitink (in press: 2) explains: “although sentence [3] contains both a modal verb and a modal adverb, itseems to express just a single modality. In fact, [3] expresses what could also be expressed by using [4]or [5]”. As seen in the examples above, for modal concord readings to occur, the modal adverb and theauxiliary must be semantically compatible in modal force. Sawada, making reference to Halliday, noted

−159−
1

Modal concord in Japanese: some initial observations1such collocational possibilities already in 1978 (Sawada 1978: 9). Since Halliday (1970), modal
harmony has been noted by Lyons (1977: 807-808), Bybee et al. (1994: 214-225), and Hoye (1997). The
term ‘modal concord’ was coined by Geurts and Huitink in their important 2006 paper. Since then some
papers have appeared, for example, Zeijlstra (2008) who argues that “modal auxiliaries are semanticallyvacuous in languages like English and Dutch”. See Huitink (in press) for a review of different
approaches to the phenomenon.
2.

Types of modal concord
Examples (1) and (3) above exhibit epistemic concord. In the literature there are also examples of
deontic concord, as in:(6)Power carts must mandatorily be used on cart paths where provided (Geurts and Huitink 2006:
15).

(7)

Students must obligatorily register (Zeijlstra 2008).

Further, Schenner (2008) was, to the best of my knowledge, the first to use the term ‘evidential concord’.
He poses the following question (2008: 209):
Given one or more evidentiality markers EV1 ..., EVn in a language L, can two or evenmore instances of these markers occur in the same clause or sentence? If yes, does acumulative or concord interpretation result?
Schenner presents examples with the German sollen (2008: 210):(8)

Anna sollangeblich
krank
sein.
Anna should allegedly
sickbe
Cumulative reading: ‘it is said that it is said that Anna is sick’
Concord reading: ‘it is said that Anna is sick’

Note also that the English ‘must’ has, in addition to its deontic and epistemic readings, an evidential use.
As Hoye (1997: 275) notes, it is collocable with evidential adverbs such as ‘apparently’, ‘evidently’,‘inevitably’, and ‘obviously’. The following sentence, from Palmer (1990: 27), seems to me to be an
example of evidential concord:(9)

Evidently, she must have talked to her mother about them, you see, because….

In addition to these basic types of modal concord, one may also make a distinction between what I callmodal concord in the narrow and broad sense. The former refers to cases where the modal expressions
are clause-mates, as in all examples above. Consider now the following example, in which there isinterclausal modal harmony between ‘think’ and ‘may’.
(10) Mary thinks it may rain.
Portner (2009: 260) says, about (10), that “two modal elements are really present, but their combination
happens to be equivalent to a single operator”.
3.

Modal concord in JapaneseWith the basic distinctions presented above in mind, I now turn to Japanese. Narrog (2009: 76)states that “modal adverbs in Japanese usually co-occur with modal markers in the verbal complex”. Healso points out the similarity to English modal concord when saying: “this is similar to English where
Hoye (1997) speaks of ‘adverb satellites’ for modals”. Furthermore, although it seems that the terms

−160−
2

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号‘modal harmony’ or ‘modal concord’ are not used in Japanese linguistic literature, the phenomenon assuch, is well known. Japan has a rich tradition in the field of modality, with prominent linguists such as
Haruhiko Kindaichi, Yasushi Haga, Takashi Masuoka, Akira Mikami, Fujio Minami, Yoshio Nitta,
Harumi Sawada, Yukinori Takubo, Hideo Teramura, Minoru Watanabe, and the list goes on (see Larm2006 for a review of the Japanese tradition). Japanese grammarians have described different types of ࿧ᛂ ko-oo ‘agreement’ relations, including adverb-modal co-occurrence (see for example Kudo 2000,
Morimoto 2011 and Sugimura 2009). Thus, I do not claim originality to the data presented below. On
the contrary, my point is that there is a solid theoretical and empirical foundation for cross-linguistic
work.
Japanese has modal concord both in the narrow and in the broad sense. To start with the latter,
epistemic modal harmony occurs interclausally between the propositional attitude verb omou ‘think’
and the subjective epistemic daroo as in (Larm 2009: 73): 2(11) Ashita
wa ame ga
fur-u
daroo totomorrow TOP rain NOM fall-NPAST CONJ COMP
‘I think that it will probably rain tomorrow.’

omo-u.
think-NPAST

Note that when omou ‘think’ is in the nonpast form, the cognitive agent must be the speaker. The
function of this construction seems to be to reinforce the subjective modality. Although interclausal
modal concord is worth further attention, I shall not pursue it in this paper.
As for modal concord in the narrow sense, where the modal expressions are clause-mates,
Japanese has the following types of concord: epistemic, evidential (including reportative), and possibly
deontic and exclamative. The collocational properties of the examples below are well attested inJapanese linguistic literature. Epistemic concord occurs with the subjective marker daroo, as in (12)where it combines with tabun ‘perhaps’ (see Larm 2009 for a discussion of subjective and objective
modality):(12) Tabun Ken
wa ik-udaroo.
perhaps Ken
TOP go-NPAST CONJ
‘Perhaps Ken will go.’Epistemic concord is also observed in the following examples with the objective markers kamoshirenai‘may’ and nichigainai ‘must’. The former often co-occurs with hyottoshitara ‘possibly’ and the latter iscollocable with kitto 'certainly':(13) Hyottoshitara kare wa kuru
kamoshirena-i.
possiblyhe
TOP come.NPAST SPEC-NPAST‘There is a chance that he will come.’(14) Kitto
kurunichigaina-i.
certainly come.NPAST
DED-NPAST‘There is no doubt that (s/he) will come.’
Japanese also has evidential concord. Consider the sensory evidential –sooda in (15), the inferential
yooda in (16), and the external evidence marker rashii in (17), all three of which can collocate withdooyara ‘apparently’:(15) Dooyara
hare-sooda.
apparently clear up-SENSEV COP.NPAST‘It looks as if the weather is going to clear up.’

−161−
3

Modal concord in Japanese: some initial observations1(16) Dooyara
ame gayan-dayoo da.
apparently
rain NOM
stop-PAST INF COP.NPAST‘It appears to have stopped raining.’(17) Dooyara
kare wa
hon o
yon-dei-ru
rashi-i.
apparently he
TOP book ACC read-GER be-NPAST EXEV-NPAST‘He seems to be reading the book.’(Aoki 1986: 234, original translation, gloss modified)
There is also a subtype of evidential concord which may be called ‘reportative’ or ‘quotative’ concord.
The quotative sooda (not to be confused with the sensory evidential –sooda above) marks reported
evidence and thus collocates with nandemo, which may be translated, as least in the example below, as‘reportedly’:(18) NandemoKengareportedly
Ken
NOM‘I hear Ken is getting married.’kekkonsuru
sooda.
marriage do.NPAST QUOT COP.NPAST

It has been difficult to find Japanese examples with deontic concord. However, the following sentencewith kanarazu ‘necessarily’ and –nakereba ikenai ‘must’, provided by my informant, seems comparablewith the English sentence (7) above.
(19) Gakusei wa kanarazu
tooroku
student
TOP necessarily
registration‘Students must necessarily register.’

shi-nake-reba
ik-e-na-i.
do-NEG-PROV go-POT-NEG-NPAST

Thus we see that Japanese has epistemic, evidential, and possibly deontic concord. In addition, I suggestthat the Japanese exclamative construction, where nante ‘how; what’ combined with no daroo, can becharacterised as ‘exclamative’ or ‘mirative’ concord, as in:(20) Kesa
wa nante
samu-inothis morning TOP how
cold-NPAST NML‘How cold it is this morning!’

daroo!
CONJ

It would be of value to investigate whether there are similar examples in other languages.
4.

Collocational range
By shifting the attention from the grammaticalized modal markers themselves to their possiblecombinations with modal adverbs, as in the above examples, we can get a grip of their meaning. For
example, the subjective epistemic daroo is context dependent to the extent that it could be argued that it
lacks a fixed semantic meaning. As Takubo (2009: 175) puts it, “the modal force of daroo is notlexically specified, so the exact translation cannot be given out of context. It can be glossed as ‘will
probably’ or ‘will without doubt’ depending on the modal adverb it co-occurs with.” As is well known,
daroo may co-occur with adverbs such as tabun ‘perhaps’, osoraku ‘probably’, and kitto ‘surely’:(21) Tabun/osoraku/kitto Ken wa ik-u
daroo.
perhaps/probably/surely Ken TOP go-NPAST CONJ
‘Perhaps/probably/surely Ken will go.’Daroo does not, however, co-occur with hyottoshitara ‘possibly’:(22)* Hyottoshitara
Ken wapossibly
Ken TOP‘Possibly Ken will come.’

kuru
daroo.
come.NPAST CONJ

−162−
4

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Kamoshirenai and ni chiganai are more specified for modal force. As was shown in (13), kamoshirenai
co-occurs with hyottoshitara ‘possibly’, but it does not readily combine with osoraku ‘probably’, and it
cannot co-occur with kitto ‘certainly’ (examples from Sawada 1993: 228):(23) ? Sekigunha
wa osoraku ima,
Arujeria
ni i-rukamoshirena-i.
the Red Army TOP probably now
Algeriain be-NPAST SPEC-NPAST(Presumably intended to mean) ‘Probably the Red Army may now be in Algeria.’(24) * Sekigunha
wa kitto ima, Arujeria ni i-ru
kamoshirena-i.
the Red Army TOP surely now
Algeriain be-NPAST SPEC-NPAST(Presumably intended to mean) ‘Certainly, the Red Army may now be in Algeria.’
Ni chiganai collocates with kitto ‘certainly’, as in (14) above, but not with hyottoshitara ‘possibly’ andosoraku ‘probably’:(25) * Hyottoshitara kare wa
kuru
ni chigana-i.
possiblyhe
TOP come.NPAST DED-NPAST‘(lit.) Possibly, he must come.’Thus, the collocational possibilities of a modal marker make clear its range of meaning in terms ofmodal force. Moreover, collocability is also useful for distuingishing evidential and epistemic modality.
Evidentials do not co-occur with epistemic adverbs such as kitto ‘certainly’, osoraku ‘probably’, andtabun ‘perhaps’:(26) * Kitto/*osoraku/*tabun
kururashi-i/ki-sooda.
certainly/probably/perhaps
come.NPAST EXEV-NPAST/ come.SENSEV‘Certainly/probably/perhaps (s/he) seems to come/it looks as if (s/he) is coming.’(27) * Kitto/*osoraku/*tabun
kuru
yooda/sooda.
certainly/probably/perhaps come.NPAST INF/QUOT‘Certainly/probably/perhaps (s/he) appears to come/(s/he) is said to come.
And, conversely, the epistemic markers daroo and ni chigainai do not co-occur with the evidential
adverb dooyara ‘apparently’:(28) * Dooyara
kurudaroo/ni chiganai.
apparently come.NPAST CONJ/DED‘Apparently (s/he) will/must come.’
As for kamoshirenai, Sugimura (2009: 242) says that it is compatible with dooyara as in (29), but myinformant finds this example a little odd:
(29) Ashita
wa dooyara
ame
ga
fur-u
kamoshirena-i.
tomorrow TOP apparently rain
NOM fall-NPAST SPEC-NPAST‘(Presumably intended to mean) Apparently it may rain tomorrow.’
5.

Concluding remarks
After having considered examples of epistemic, evidential, deontic and exclamative concord, thequestion arises: Why does modal concord occur? Huitink (in press: 8) suggests that “concord readings
arise out of the need to disambiguate lexically underspecified modal expressions”, but this does notseem to be the case in Japanese, or, at least it is not the whole story. In contrast to English, where modals
such as ‘must’ and ‘may’ have both epistemic and deontic readings, modal concord in Japanese occurs
with modals that are unambiguous in terms of modal flavour. Modals such as daroo, kamoshirenai, and

−163−
5

Modal concord in Japanese: some initial observations1nichiganai are not used deontically. As for modal force, disambiguation may be involved in the case of
daroo, which is highly context dependent, but modal concord also happens with the less ambiguous
kamoshirenai and nichigainai. It should be pointed out that Huitink is well aware that modal concord
may work differently in other languages, and that there can be other reasons for this than disambiguation.
She also presents the English counterexample ‘You might perhaps have overlooked thiscounterexample’ where the “reason might be politeness” (Huitink, in press: 10).
Srdanoviü Erjavec, Bekeš and Nishina (2008: 252) point out that “co-occuring of modal adverbs
and clause-final modality forms in the Japanese language exhibits a strong agreement-like behaviour”.
Referring to the work of Kudo, they state that “the function of modal adverbs is to secondarily reinforce
the primary sentence and clause-final modality” (Srdanoviü Erjavec, Bekeš and Nishina 2008: 254). In
this connection it is to be noted that Japanese differs from English in that some modal adverbs, forexample hyottoshitara ‘possibly’ and dooyara ‘apparently’, almost require a corresponding sentence
final modal. The following examples ending with the nonpast, conclusive form are somewhat unnatural:(30) ? Hyottoshitara
kare wapossiblyheTOP‘(lit.) Possibly, he will come.’

kuru.
come.NPAST(31) ?Ashitawa
dooyaraame
tomorrow
TOP apparently rain
‘Apparently, it will rain tomorrow.’ga
fur-u.
NOM fall-NPAST

These sentences can be rescued by making their endings less conclusive. Although this need notnecessarily be done by an epistemic or evidential marker, there is nevertheless a sense that the modal
adverb anticipates a corresponding modal expression. Thus, the motivation for modal concord may bedifferent in Japanese and English. A more in-depth discussion of this issue will, however, have to be left
to future work.

1

I wish to thank Dr. Janneke Huitink for comments on aspects of modal concord. I would also like to thank theaudience at this conference for their helpful feedback. As this paper represents the content of my presentation, I
have not incorporated all the comments and suggestions here, but they will certainly be useful in my future workon this topic. It was a valuable experience for me to take part in the conference; my network has been enriched withnew ‘modality-friends’.
2
The abbreviations used in this paper are: ACC = accusative, COMP = complementiser, CONJ = conjectural, COP= copula, DED = deductive, EXEV = external evidence, GER = gerund, INF = inferential, NEG = negative, NML= nominaliser, NOM = nominative, NPAST = nonpast tense, PAST = past tense, POT = potential, PROV =provisional, QUOT = quotative, SENSEV = sensory evidential, SPEC = speculative, TOP = topic.

References
Aoki, H. (1986). Evidentials in Japanese. In Chafe, W.L. & Nichols, J. (eds). Evidentiality: the linguisticcoding of epistemology (Advances in Discourse Processes 20). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
223í238.
Bybee, J.L., Perkins, R.D. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, andmodality in the languages of the world. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Geurts, B. & Huitink, J. (2006). Modal concord. In Dekker, P. & Zeijlstra, H. (eds), Proceedings of the
ESSLLI Workshop Concord Phenomena at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Málaga. 15–20.

−164−
6

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Halliday, M.A.K. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality andmood in English. Foundations of Language 6:3, 322í361.
Hoye, L. (1997). Adverbs and modality in English. Longman: London and New York.
Huitink, J. (to appear in Journal of Semantics). Modal concord: A case study of Dutch.
Kudo, H. (2000). Fukushi to bun no chinjutsutekina taipu. (Adverbs and types of predicational
sentences). In Moriyama, T., Nitta, Y. & Kudo, H. Modaritii (Nihongo no bunpoo 3) (Modality(Japanese Grammar 3)). Tokyo: Iwanamishoten. 163í234.
Larm, L. (2006). Modality in Japanese. DPhil thesis. University of Oxford.
Larm, L. (2009). West meets East: a Kindaichian approach to subjective modality. In Pizziconi, B &Kizu, M. (eds), Japanese modality: exploring its scope and interpretation. Palgrave Macmillan.
56í86.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morimoto, J. (2011). Nichieigo no shukansei o arawasu fukushi nitsuite. (On Japanese and English
adverbs expressing subjectivity. In Sawada, H. (ed.), Shukansei to shutaisei (Hitsuji imiron kooza5) (Subjectivity (Hitsuji semantics series 5)). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo. 211í229.
Narrog, H. (2009). Modality in Japanese: The Layered Structure of the Clause and Hierarchies ofFunctional Categories. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English modals (2nd edn). Longman: London and New York.
Portner, P. (2009). Modality (Oxford Surveys in Semantics and Pragmatics). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sawada, H. (1978). Nichieigo bun fukushirui no taishoo gengogakuteki kenkyuu: ‘speech act’ riron no
shiten kara (A contrastive study of Japanese and English sentence adverbials: from the viewpointof speech act theory). Gengo Kenkyu (Language Research) 74. 1í36.
Sawada, H. (1993). Shiten to Shukansei: Nichiei Jodooshi no Bunseki (Point of View and Subjectivity:
an Analysis of Japanese and English Auxiliaries). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo.
Schenner, M. (2008). Semantic Complexity of Evidentials: Some Typological Parameters. In
Kokkonidis, M. (ed.): Proceedings of LingO 2007. University of Oxford: Oxford. 204í211.
Srdanoviü Erjavec, I., Bekeš, A. and Nishina, K. (2008). ‘Distant collocations between suppositional
adverbs and clause-final modality forms in Japanese language corpora’. In Tokunaga, T. and
Ortega, A. (eds). Large-scale knowledge resources: construction and application (Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Large-Scale Knowledge Resources). Springer-Verlag.
252í266.
Sugimura, Y. (2009). Gendai Nihongo ni Okeru Gaizensei o Arawasu Modaritii Fukushi no Kenkyuu.
(A Study of Modals Expressing Probability in Modern Japanese). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo.
Takubo, Y. (2009). Conditional modality: two types of modal auxiliaries in Japanese. In Pizziconi, B &Kizu, M. (eds), Japanese modality: exploring its scope and interpretation. Palgrave Macmillan.
150í182.
Zeijlstra, H. (2008). Modal Concord is Syntactic Agreement. In Gibson, M. & Friedman, T. (eds).
Proceedings of SALT XVII. Ithaca: CLS Publications.

7
−165−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech
Chad Nilep
Nagoya University
nilep@ilas.nagoya-u.ac.jp
Abstract
This paper examines metaphorical promising, wherein a political actor is held accountable forsome future action or state as a result of a discourse jointly constructed by the politician andothers. Metaphorical promises are labeled “promises” by, for example, news media yet they
do not comprise a single speech act. They are complex discourses jointly constructed bymultiple speakers, hearers, and referees, but with outcomes attributed to a single actor.
࠙Keywordsࠚmetaphorical promising, political discourse, media discourse, speech acts
1. Introduction: Canonical speech acts
Political promising can be dangerous. Within societies that hold what Alessandro Duranti(1988, 1994) calls personalist ideologies, an individual speaker is held responsible for thecontent and the consequences of his or her acts of speaking. In mainstream Japanese, British,or American society, as in many other societies, dominant language ideologies hold thatspeakers can make promises which they are then committed to fulfill. Political actors, inparticular candidates for elected office, will frequently promise that if they are given a
position they will undertake certain actions for the society and specific positive results will
follow. Since the speaker is seen as having both the obligation and the power to fulfill thesepromises, if the anticipated results do not follow, the politician risks loss of popular support
and political power, and possible removal from office.
Speech Act Theory as traditionally construed holds to such a personalist ideology. In his
1969 essay, Speech Acts, John Searle defines the act of promising in terms of the actions andthe intentions of the speaker: the speaker expresses a proposition; the proposition predicates afuture act by the speaker; the speaker intends to do the action; the speaker obliges himself toact; etc. Such a formulation implies that meaning and intent are psychological properties of anindividual, the speaker, and that they exist within the speaker prior to the moment of linguistic
interaction.
S sincerely and non-defectively promises that p to H if and only if the following
conditions 1-9 obtain:
1. Normal input and output conditions obtain.
2. S expresses the proposition that p in the utterance of T.
3. In expressing that p, S predicates a future act A of S.
4. H would prefer S's doing A to his not doing A, and S believes H would prefer his doing A tohis not doing A.
5. It is not obvious to both S and H that S will do A in the normal course of events.
6. S intends to do A.
7. S intends that the utterance of T will place him under an obligation to do A.
8. S intends (i-I) to produce in H the knowledge (K) that the utterance of T is to countas placing S under an obligation to do A. S intends to produce K by means of therecognition i-I, and he intends i-I to be recognized by virtue of (by means of) H's
knowledge of the meaning of T.
9. The semantical [sic] rules of the dialect spoken by S and H are such that T iscorrectly and sincerely uttered if and only if conditions 1-8 obtain.
Figure 1. John Searle’s (1969) definition of a promise−167−

Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech

Such personalist ideologies are not universal, however. Michelle Rosaldo (1982), forexample, argued that members of Ilongot society in the Philippines do not have folk theoriesof speaker intent, so that they do not consider sincerity and felicity as elements of verbal
interaction. Rosaldo's analysis of Ilongot speech acts removes the individual speaker from thecentral position and considers the social context of hearing. Similarly, Duranti (1988, 1994)
describes a Samoan tradition of interpretation in which an utterance's meaning is understoodas the change it helps to affect among hearers, without regard for the speaker's intentions. Jane
Hill (2001) points out that the “danger” of political promising holds within personalist
regimes such as that in the United States. Thus, my remarks about the dangers of politicalpromising should be seen not as universal but as an element of linguistic interaction inparticular social settings, specifically, in Japanese and American electoral politics.
2. George H.W. Bush: Read my lips
Hill (2001) analyzes a classic example of dangerous political speech which uses a
canonical – that is non-metaphorical – but indirect promise. In his speech at the 1988
Republican National Convention accepting the party's nomination as candidate for president,George H.W. Bush told a narrative that foresaw his own future actions. Speaking of theUnited States Congress, Bush said, “The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no.
And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I’ll say to them, ‘Read my lips:
No new taxes’” Two years later in negotiations with the Congress, then-President Bush agreed
to new taxes on alcohol and tobacco, as well as an increase in the top income tax rate.
Although some aides to the president, including Peggy Noonan, who had written the “No
new taxes” speech, insisted that the speech was not intended as a promise, critics, including
Bush's rivals within the Republican party, charged that he had broken a promise and that hehad lied about his intentions. Hill (2001) analyzes these competing claims in terms of twosocial expectations placed on American politicians. On one hand, politicians are expected topresent an emotionally appealing self-image, which Hill labels the discourse of theater. In the
discourse of theater a political campaign constructs a message through images and music aswell as emotionally appealing speech from the candidate. On the other hand, politicians arealso expected to provide specific information about their plans for the future, which Hilllabels the discourse of truth. In the discourse of truth a politician gives voters his or her word
by expressing goals for the future. This expression of goals is bound by H. Paul Grice's
maxim of quality: “Try to make your contribution one which is true” (1975: 27). If apolitician's word is found to be untrue, that politician will be held unworthy of election. In thiscase, George H.W. Bush was judged insincere and lost his bid for reelection in 1992.
Speech act theory has long recognized that surface linguistic form is neither necessary
nor sufficient for identifying a speech act. Speech acts may be indirect. Thus, “I'll say to them,'Read my lips: No new taxes,” may serve as an act of promising, equivalent to “I hereby
promise not to raise taxes,” if the speaker and the hearer share the necessary beliefs, intents,
and understandings. This case seems also to suggest, contra Searle, that at least in politicalpromising, the understanding of hearers and referees may play a more important role than theintent of the speaker in determining whether an utterance constitutes a promise. Although
Bush did not intend to promise, listeners understood him to have promised; the effect of the
speech was to create an obligation in accordance with the hearers’ understanding.
Let me turn to two more cases of political promising in which the understandings ofhearers do not seem to match the intent of the speakers. What makes these cases especiallyinteresting is not just the match between understanding and intent. These are internal states−168−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

which are, of course, impossible to read directly from the discourse. What makes the cases
notable is the match between effects and actual utterances. In each of these cases, anindividual politician is charged with having broken his word, yet in neither case is there anutterance in which that word is given.
I present two cases. The first, concerning George W. Bush and AmeriCorps, is based on
preliminary analysis of a corpus of 190 newspaper articles published between 2001 and 2003
in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. The
second case, concerning Yukio Hatoyama and Marine Air Station Futenma, is drawn from mycontribution to the forthcoming book Discourses of War and Peace. It is based on a corpus ofapproximately 450 newspaper articles published in English between 2009 and 2010 in Daily
Yomiuri, the International Herald Tribune Asahi, The Japan Times, and the Kyodo news
service, as well as the 2009 election manifestos of various political parties
3. George W. Bush: AmeriCorps and community service
Although the George W. Bush administration is today generally regarded as aconservative American government, at the time of the younger Bush's election in 2000 he wasregarded as a “third way” politician in the mold of Bill Clinton or Tony Blair, neither purelyof the political right or left (Milbank 1 Feb 2001). One of the first activities undertaken by theBush White House was the establishment of an “Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives”, a program that would provide federal funding to religious organizations so thatthey in turn could provide various community services (LA Times 30 Jan 2001). One of thefirst things Mr. Bush did to expand community service was to appoint one of his advisers,
Steve Goldsmith, to oversee the existing AmeriCorps program (Washington Post 30 Jan 2001).
AmeriCorps is a program created by President Clinton to encourage young people to do
volunteer community service by helping them pay back their student loans. Largely becauseof his support for two programs - AmeriCorps and his Faith-Based Initiatives - Bush waslabeled a “communitarian”, a leader dedicated to community service. Throughout 2001, as alaw to establish and fund the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives made its way through thelegislature, newspaper editorials and reporting in the United States made note of thiscommitment to community.
On September 11th, 2001, terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda attacked the World Trade
Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. Bush would soon launch the so-called“War on Terror” as a heading for numerous military attacks as a response (see e.g. Hodges
and Nilep 2007 among many others). But some of his earliest speeches after the attack were
further calls for community service and civic unity.
In January 2002 Mr. Bush gave his first State of the Union address. It included thefollowing lines.
USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps andSenior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers. And America needs
citizens to extend the compassion of our country to every part of the world, so wewill renew the promise of the Peace Corps, double its volunteers over the next five
years and ask it to join a new effort to encourage development and education andopportunity in the Islamic world. [Bush 2002]
Like his father's narrative of future events (“I will say to them...'no new taxes',”), the younger
Bush's description of future events could be understood as an indirect promise. And indeed,
AmeriCorps and Senior Corps did recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers over the next−169−Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech

five years. According to the most recent information on Senior Corps' web site, that group
now has more than 400,000 volunteers, while AmeriCorps has approximately 85,000, up from50,000 in 2002 (seniorcorps.gov 2011). Applications to the Peace Corps also increased by
39% following Bush's 2002 State of the Union address.
Within about a week of the president's speech, charities began predicting that it would be
difficult to train and administer all of these new volunteers, given that there was not muchincreased funding promised (Salmon 8 Feb 2002). Newspapers noted a disparity between socalled “values conservatives” such as the president and “anti-government conservatives” inCongress who vowed not to increase government spending in support of these volunteer
organizations (Balzar 17 Feb 2002). The Congress, divided between conservative andprogressive members, did not agree on funding for these programs during 2002, despite calls
for support of the programs by, among others, Democratic former president Bill Clinton andRepublican former cabinet secretary William Bennett. Unlike Clinton or Bennett, though,George W. Bush did not push for increased funding. In December 2002, and again in February
2003 the Washington Post suggested that the White House was not lobbying the government
to fund these volunteer programs. The Post cited anonymous members of Congress among
other sources for the claim.
In the spring of 2003 the White House Office of Management and Budget, the office thatoversees accounting of government spending, found technical errors in AmeriCorps's
accounts. In order to correct these errors and replace money it had spent inappropriately, theorganization would need to cut about $64 million from support for current volunteers. In
response the House of Representatives authorized an emergency spending bill. But the Senate,
the upper house of Congress, did not approve that bill, meaning that the money could not be
spent. The White House made no argument on the issue of emergency spending.
A July 17th editorial in the New York Times suggested that by failing to speak on the issueof emergency spending, Mr. Bush was “betraying his oft-repeated promise to expand”
AmeriCorps. George Miller, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives said, “atthe end of the day he [Bush] broke his promise” (New York Times 26 August 2003). Hillary
Clinton, a senator from New York, said that her husband, Bill Clinton, had asked Mr. Bush “totake care of AmeriCorps,” but she charged, “So far, that promise made... has not been
fulfilled.”
What we see in the case of AmeriCorps is two promises. The first is a relatively straightforward, if indirect, commisive speech act. Mr. Bush said in a public speech, “USA Freedom
Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit
more than 200,000 new volunteers.” In so saying, he obliged himself to create USA Freedom
Corps as a White House program, and further obliged USA Freedom Corps to expand andimprove AmeriCorps and Senior Corps. USA Freedom Corps was created, and AmeriCorps
and Senior Corps did expand (though more slowly and less evenly than supporters may havewished). The episode also features a second 'promise': Mr. Bush was, in the minds of many
people, obliged to lobby on behalf of AmeriCorps and to help secure its funding. We knowthat people including Hilary Clinton, George Miller, and the editorial board of the New YorkTimes understood this obligation to exist since they accused the president of failing todischarge it. In each case, they called this failure an unfulfilled or broken promise. Unlike thepromise to create USA Freedom Corps, however, this obligation was not a direct consequenceof any one statement by the president. Instead, a complex chain of discourse, including thepresident's statements in support of AmeriCorps, statements by rival politicians against
increased funding, and statements in news reporting, among others, jointly created theobligation. This resembles a canonical promise in some ways – a message is communicated so−170−第14回大会発表論文集第７号

that an obligation exists – but it also differs in crucial ways. The message is not delivered by
the person obligated, but is jointly created by multiple speakers across multiple occasions. It
is, in short, a metaphorical promise.
4. Yukio Hatoyama: U.S. Marine Air Station Futenma
Let us consider a second metaphorical promise, one which had much more 'dangerous'
results for the politician it obligated.
In August 2009 Yukio Hatoyama became the prime minister of Japan when the
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) took control of the Diet by defeating the Liberal Democratic
Party (LDP) in a general election. A public opinion survey found 72% approval for the
Hatoyama government at its launch in September 2009. Within nine months, however,approval had fallen to around 20% and newspapers, opposition politicians, and even former
coalition partners were calling for Hatoyama’s resignation (Japan Times 2010, May 5). Press
coverage cited two causes for the rapid fall in the government’s popularity: a financial scandal
and a broken promise. The financial scandal involved former DPJ president Ichiro Ozawa, anally of Hatoyama who would later face trial over his alleged misdeeds. The charge of false
promises, though, is trickier to untangle.
According to news coverage and editorials, Hatoyama failed to deliver on his promise toremove US Marine Corps Air Station Futenma from Okinawa. Of course Hatoyama did notremove the base, and his handling of the issue has made subsequent negotiations between
Washington, Tokyo, and Okinawa increasingly difficult. What makes this 'promise' interesting
to me, though, is the fact that Hatoyama did not specifically mention the base during theelection campaign. Indeed an editorial in the International Herald Tribune Asahi newspaper
just before the election expressed disappointment that the DPJ did not promise to remove thebase (IHT/Asahi 2009, July 27). Yet by the following spring the same newspaper was among
those charging that Hatoyama “failed... on his promise to move the facility” (IHT/Asahi 2010,
May 15). A chain of discourse produced by Hatoyama, members of his cabinet, rival
politicians, and the news media among others came to be understood in retrospect as apromise attributed specifically to Hatoyama.
A 2006 agreement between the Japanese and American governments called the“Roadmap for Realignment Implementation” (MOFA 2006) called for the removal of U.S. Air
Station Futenma from the city of Ginowan in Okinawa prefecture. Foreign Minister Taro Asoand Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice signed the agreement (henceforth the Aso-Riceagreement), laying out plans to build a replacement base, to move some of the Marines andtheir families to Guam, and to return the Futenma facility to the Japanese people. Although
this plan would remove the base from the city of Ginowan, it was still unpopular with critics
who noted that the replacement facility would be nearby on the same Okinawan island.
Despite objections, though, subsequent governments made no move to change it.
In its 2009 manifesto the DPJ made only one passing mention of military realignment, in
Point 51.
᪥⡿ᆅ఩༠ᐃࡢᨵᐃࢆᥦ㉳ࡋࠊ⡿㌷෌⦅ࡸᅾ᪥⡿㌷ᇶᆅࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶぢ┤ࡋࡢ᪉ྥ࡛⮫ࡴࠋ[DPJ 2009a]

Propose the revision of the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement. Move in the
direction of re-examining the realignment of the U.S. military forces in Japan and therole of U.S. military bases in Japan. [DPJ 2009b]−171−

Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech

As the party's primary campaign document, the manifesto can be understood as a politicalpromise. It is not clear, though, what is promised. The document mentions a re-examination,but even then promises only to “move in the direction of re-examining.” This imprecise
language seems to be the product of disagreement among DPJ politicians. While somefavored removal, others opposed it. The rival Liberal Democratic Party’s manifesto criticized
this DPJ position, suggesting, “We cannot entrust the safety of Japan to a political party... thatcannot even reach agreement among its members about their stance on these [military anddiplomatic] issues” (LDP 2009).
The Democratic Party won the election on August 30th and began negotiations with theSocial Democratic Party and the People's New Party to form a coalition government.
According to the Japan Times, the Social Democrats wanted the new government torenegotiate the Aso-Rice agreement, but the DPJ refused, not wanting to show any
disagreement with the US (Japan Times 2009, September 11).
Over the next few weeks, various cabinet members made conflicting statements onrealignment. The State Minister for Okinawa suggested that the government may revisit the
Aso-Rice agreement (Kyodo 2009, October 3a), but the Defense Minister said that it would be
difficult to find any other solution (Kyodo 2009, October 2). The Foreign Minister said that heplanned to renegotiate the agreement with the United States in exchange for Japan's continued
support of the war in Afghanistan (Kyodo 2009, October 3b). Eventually, Prime Minister
Hatoyama held a press conference to address these conflicting statements. He said that the
party's manifesto “is certainly one promise we have made,” but added “I would not deny thepossibility that it could change in terms of time” (Kyodo 2009, October 7). Hatoyama's
remarks frame the manifesto as a promise, but they do not make clear what if any action waspromised.
In October and November parliament met in extraordinary session. Since the UnitedStates Congress had recently voted to accept the Aso-Rice agreement, editorials from the
major newspapers all called for the government to announce its relocation plan quickly (Daily
Yomiuri 2009, October 14; Japan Times 2009, October 23; IHT/Asahi 2009, October 27).
When the Diet session ended without addressing the issue, editorials criticized Hatoyama(Daily Yomiuri 2009, December 4; IHT/Asahi 2009, December 5).
In December Hatoyama announced that he would not make any decision on the Futenma
relocation issue before the end of the year. Public approval for the government fell fromaround 70% to less than 50% with many respondents expressing displeasure with the prime
minister’s lack of leadership (IHT/Asahi 2009, December 23).
In January 2010 Hatoyama announced, “The government shall decide on a specificreplacement site by the end of May” (Kyodo 2010, January 30). Unlike earlier statements, thiswas a clear and specific commitment to a future action: Hatoyama promised that his
government would make a decision by the end of May. By April editorials in the major papers
were referring to Hatoyama’s plural “promises” (IHT/Asahi 2010, March 6; Daily Yomiuri
2010, April 15; Japan Times 2010, April 24). Hatoyama insisted to reporters that neither the
DPJ manifesto nor any official statement from the government had ever promised to remove
the base from Okinawa. On May 6th he told reporters, “Moving it at the very least outside theprefecture merely represented my own thinking” (Asahi.com 2010). Editorials, however,seized upon the words “at least outside the prefecture,” and cast this not as an excuse for why
the government might not act but as a promise that it would. The Japan Times, for example,
wrote on May 7th, “Before the Aug. 30 Lower House election last year, Mr. Yukio Hatoyama...
made a campaign pledge to move U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Okinawa, outside−172−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Okinawa or even abroad.” Media and party documents from 2009, however, record no suchpledge.
On May 13th the DPJ released its revised base realignment plan. Contrary to expectations,
it was substantially identical to the 2006 Aso-Rice plan, with several minor modifications.
Hatoyama seemed to feel that he had delivered on his promise, as the government did decide
on a replacement plan before the end of May. Since the decision did not meet the public's
expectations for major change, however, the press declared that Hatoyama “has effectively
reneged on his promise” (IHT/Asahi 2010, May 15). Amid growing criticism from the news
media and from the coalition partner Social Democratic Party, Hatoyama announced his
intention to resign on June 2nd, 2010.
In the events as I have just described them, Yukio Hatoyama produced three relevant
spoken utterances - his statement that the DPJ manifesto constituted a promise, his promisethat the government would announce a plan by the end of May, and his hedge that moving thebase outside of Okinawa was a personal preference but not a political promise. Hatoyama
should also be regarded as an author of the party's election manifesto. In addition, though,several other individuals or groups also contributed to this discourse. They include Taro Aso,
Condoleeza Rice, and other contributors to the Roadmap for Realignment; members of the
Hatoyama cabinet; the Social Democratic Party, which urged the government to renegotiate;
and many news reports and editorials. By May 2010 there was an expectation that the
government would do something about Air Station Futenma (though there does not seem to be
any broadly shared notion of what that something was). There was also a belief that, as thehead of the government, Yukio Hatoyama was responsible for fulfilling this expectation.
When the government's plan disappointed most observers, news media and editorials declaredthat Hatoyama had broken a promise.
5. Metaphorical promising and canonical promises
As a metaphor features a match between some, but not all, of the semantic features of thevehicle and the target, the description and what is described, a metaphorical promise featuresa match with some, but not all, of the characteristics of a traditional promise. In the discourses
described above, the 'promise' is not a particular utterance produced by an individual speaker,
but a chain of utterances and interpretations. Clearly such a discourse cannot fulfill the usual
conditions for the speech act of promising, which center on the speaker, the proposition, andthe speaker's intentions. Just as clearly, though, this discourse has consequences similar to
those of other political promises for the individual held responsible for its effects. Like a
traditional promise, a metaphorical promise is politically dangerous.
canonical promise

metaphorical promise

locutionary act“I promise that A”(“I can do A for you” etc.)[multiple utterances, events,and speakers]

illocutionary act

S promise H that S does A

H expects that S does A

perlocutionary act
S is obliged to do A
Figure 2. Canonical promises and metaphorical promises

S is obliged to do A

None of the preceding should be taken as political apologetic. I am not concerned herewith whether it is more politically effective to make plans individually or in concert, nor if it
is better to express those goals directly or indirectly. Neither are my remarks a criticism of themedia sources analyzed. It seems that English uses the same label, promise, both for the−173−

Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speechcommissives traditionally analyzed in speech act theory and for the related but more complex
discourse chains analyzed here. Thus for the media to refer to metaphorical promises as“promises” might reveal something about English meta-linguistic categories, but it says
nothing in particular about the individuals who use the word.
Instead, these remarks are intended to provide a new analytic lens for the understandingof discourse in political and other interpersonal domains. The metaphorical promises
described above resemble the traditional speech act of promising in important ways. In either
case, an individual – we could call him or her S – is obliged to undertake a particular action.
In both cases, the expectation that S will undertake that action comes about as a result of
spoken or written discourse. What differs is the nature of the actual discourse. Unlike thepromises traditionally analyzed by speech act theory, metaphorical promises are not spoken
by that individual, S. Instead, the discourse is jointly produced by multiple speakers, and thenattributed to S.
References
Duranti, A. 1988. Intentions, language, and social action in a Samoan context. Journal of Pragmatics 12,
13-33.
Duranti, A. 1994. From Grammar to Politics: Linguistic Anthropology in a Western Samoan Village.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3:
Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58.
Hill, J. 2001. “‘Read My Article’: Ideological complexity and the overdetermination of promising in
American presidential politics.” In P. Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, andIdentities. Santa Fe: SAR Press, 259-292.
Hodges, A. and C. Nilep. 2007. Discourse, War and Terrorism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nilep, C. forthcoming. Promising without speaking: military realignment and political promising in Japan.
In A. Hodges (ed.) Discourses of War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosaldo, M. 1982. “The things we do with words.” Language and Society 11:2, 203-237.
Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cited data sources
Balzar, J. 17 February 2002. Charity doesn’t begin in the House [commentary]. Los Angeles Times.
Bumiller, E. 26 May 2003. Bush 'compassion' agenda: An '04 liability? New York Times.
Bush, G.H.W. 18 August 1988. Address to the Republican National Convention. New Orleans.
Bush, G.W. 30 January 2002. State of the Union Address. Washington.
Democratic Party of Japan [DPJ]. 2009a. Minshuto no seiken seisaku manifesto 2009 [Democratic Party's
government policy manifesto 2009]. http://www.dpj.or.jp/ policies/ manifesto2009
DPJ. 2009b. 2009 Change of government: The Democratic Party of Japan's platform for government.
http://www.dpj.or.jp/english/manifesto/manifesto2009.pdf
IHT Asahi. 27 July 2009. Minshuto on policy [editorial].
IHT Asahi. 19 May 2010. What is DPJ thinking? [editorial].
Japan Times. 7 May 2010. Mr. Hatoyama at an impasse [editorial].
Liberal Democratic Party [LDP]. 2009a. Jiminto seisaku [Liberal Democratic Party policy].
http://www.jimin.jp/jimin/jimin/2009_yakusoku/contents/04.html
LDP. 2010. Liberal Democratic Party: The ability and strength to be responsible for protecting Japan.
http://www.jimin.jp/jimin/english/pdf/2009_yakusoku_e.pdf
Milbank, D. 5 September 2003. Point of contention evokes points of light pledge. Washington Post.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MOFA]. 1 May 2006. United States-Japan Roadmap for Realignment
Implementation. http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/scc/doc0605.html
New York Times. 17 July 2002. Timely help for AmeriCorps [editorial].
Salmon, J. 8 February 2002. Non-profit groups cool on call for volunteers. Washington Post.

−174−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac
Sumiyo Nishiguchi
Tokyo University of Sciencenishiguchi@rs.tus.ac.jp
<Abstract>
This data is from my fieldwork in 2005−2006 and 2011. In Dhaasanac, stress on
negative sentences cancels negation and emphasizes an affirmative answer. Suchpolarity reversal requires specific context such as the presence of really or the hearer's
doubt. As the non-truth-conditional interpretation of negation is a characteristic ofmetalinguistic negation (Horn 1985), I will argue that the focused negative sentence
expresses objection toward the previous utterance, and that disbelief is not allowed inany of the deontically accessible worlds of the speaker.
࠙Keywordsࠚ㸸focus, really, bias, truth-condition, modality

1. Focused Negation in Dhaasanac
Dhaasanac is a Cushitic language spoken by approximately 40,000 people in Ethiopia and
Kenya (Lewis 2009). Apart from the studies conducted by Sasse (1976), Tosco (2001), andNishiguchi (2007, 2009), there is little linguistic literature available on Dhaasanac. The data
used in the present study is based on my fieldwork conducted in 2005 and 2006 in New YorkState and summer 2011 in Kenya.
1. Negation Negation in Dhaasanac is an obligatory bipartite, that consists of thenegative marker ma ‘not’ and a negative verbal suffix an or n. (1) would form anegative answer to an unbiased question as in (2A).
(1)

Yaa

ma

dhaanan.

I

notswim.PERF.NEG

͂I did not swim.’
(2)

A:

Ko

dhanate?

youswim.2SG.PAST

͂Did you swim?’
B1:

Yaa

dhandhe.

I.NOM swim.1SG.PAST

−175−

1

Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac

͂I swam.’
B2:

Yaa

ma

I.NOM notdhanan.
swim.1SG.PAST͂I did not swim.’
Speaker A does not have any preconceived idea about whether the hearer swam or not.
Neither the affirmative answer in (2B1) nor the negative answer in (2B2) has a sharp
pitch or intensity accent, which is present in the following example.
2. Focus and Bias On the contrary, the biased question with the presence of kin ‘really’triggers pitch and intensity accent to have a rising intonation on negative verbs as in(3). Interestingly, stress on negative sentences, as in (3B), reverses the polarity andemphasizes the affirmative answer. I did not swim with stress means I did swim. In
particular, pitch and intensity accent with rising intonation on negative verbs
emphatically affirms the positive counterpart as demonstrated in (4).
(3)

A:

Ko

kin

dhanate?

youreallyswim.2SG.PAST

Did you really swim?’͂B:{YÁÁ/YU}ma

DHAnan.i

I.NOM/I.ABS

notswim.1SG.PAST͂I did swim, didn’t I?’
(4)

a.

Yaa

ma

sien.

I

not

go.1SG.PAST.NEG

͂I did not go.’b.

YAA

ma SIEN.

I

not go.1SG.PAST.NEG

͂I did go.’Such affirmative interpretation of focused negative sentences requires specific context,
such as the presence of really in the question in (3A) or the hearer’s doubt with regard
to the affirmative answer. Really is known to signal the questioner’s bias toward thenegative answer, and is called the VERUM focus operator (Romero & Han 2004).
3. No Embedding Focused negation in embedded clauses, as in (5), is never interpreted
to be positive. Affirmative interpretation of focused negation is limited to simple
sentences.

−176−
2

(5)

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Baaliikeiyeyaa{i=speaker}

madhanan.

Baali

say.3SG.PAST

I.NOM

not

swim.1SG.NEG

͂Baali said {he/I} did not swim.’
4. PPI Licensing by Focused Negation Maadhat ‘someone’ is a positive polarity item
(PPI) antilicensed by negation, while maa ‘person’ is a negative polarity item (NPI)
licensed by negation as in (6B2) (cf. Klima 1964). The PPI maadhat ‘someone’ isgrammatical in (7B), where negation is focused and receives affirmative interpretation.
(6)

A:

Ko

kin

maadhatargiye?

youreallysomeonesee.PAST

͂Did you really see someone?’
B1:

Yaa

(maadhat)

arge.

I

someonesee.PAST͂I saw someone.’
B2:

Yaa

maa

I.NOM person

arge

man.

see.PASTnot͂I didn’t see anyone.’
(7)

A:

Ko

kin

maa

argiyeman?

youreallysomeonesee.PAST.2SG

not͂Did you really see someone?’
B:

Yu

I

someonemaadhatma
notarging.

see.PAST͂I did see someone.’
2. Descriptive Negation
If we interpret focused negation truth-conditionally, an affirmative interpretation
would not be obtained from negative propositions.
(8)a.

{YÁÁ/YU}ma

DHAnan.

I.NOM/I.ABS

notswim.1SG.PASt

͂I did swim, didn’t I?’
b.

YAA

ma

SIEN.

I

not

go.1SG.PAST.NEG

͂I did go.’(9)[[ ¬¬ p ]] = [[ p ]] = [[ ¬pF ]]

3
−177−

Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac

Since the sentences in (8) are negative, we have no other way apart from interpretingthe focus to be equivalent to another negation, and to reverse polarity. According to thelaw of double negation, focus is supposed to cancel the other negation. For example,
Baali didn’t go with focus in (8b) is equivalent to it is not true that I didn’t go, which isthe same as I went. Focus appears to substitute for another negation, which cancels thepredicate negation. However, is this actually the case?
3. Metalinguistic Negation
1. Metalinguistic Negation According to Horn (1985), non-truth conditional
interpretation of negation is considered one of the characteristics of metalinguistic
negation. Therefore, some kinds of negation are not treated as semantic ortruth-functional operators but rather as devices for objecting to a previous utterance. In
the original example in Russell (1905), The present king of France is not bald, neither
the present king of France is bald nor the present king of France is not bald is true if
the king in France is absent.
Supposing that there is a king of France, an existential presupposition of the definite
description the king of France is preserved under the negation in (10a). Not is apredicate negation that negates the predicate be bald. In contrast, negation in (10b)cancels the existential presupposition of the king of France.
(10)

a.

The king of France is not bald. He still has hair.

b.

The king of France is not bald. There is no king in France.

Internal negation, as in (10a), is truth-conditional or descriptive negation, which
preserves presuppositions. The definite description the king of France maintains
existential import. Negation is a hole for presuppositions. On the other hand, externalor metalinguistic negation, such as in (10b), cancels presuppositions. There is no kingin France; therefore, the negation negates the assertability of the utterance.
Metalinguistic negation is used to negate the phonetic sound (11a), to express
unwillingness to assert conditionals (11b), and to cancel scalar implicature (11c). The
negation in (11a) negates the pronunciation of ‘7-CL’ in western Japanese dialect. In(11b), the negation does not negate the proposition, but instead cancels material
implication—when the antecedent it rains is true, the consequent the mall getscrowded holds false (Grice 1975). Negation eliminates upperbounded implicatureassociated with the scalar adverb predication. In (11c), Mao skated well implicates that

4
−178−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Mao’s skating was not excellent or perfect which are located at higher scalar points.
(11)

a.

I did not say hichinin. I said shichinin. [pronunciation]b.

It is not true that if it rains, the mall gets crowded. There was noone there last Sunday when it rained. [conditional]c.

Mao did not skate well. She performed perfectly. [scale]In each case, metalinguistic negation signals the speaker’s unwillingness to assert agiven proposition and registers objection to a previous utterance, including its
pronunciation.
2. Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac Adopting Horn’s theory can allow for the
explication of a curious phenomena in Dhaasanac. Since negation does not negate theproposition—NOT I swam does not mean I did not swim—focused negation in
Dhaasanac is not descriptive negation, but instead metalinguistic negation. Negation isused to express the speaker’s objection to content.
2.1. Modality The question ‘Did you really swim’ in (3A) signals the speaker’s biasthat s/he does not believe that the hearer actually swam. In all accessible worlds
compatible with the available evidence, the hearer did not swim in (12).
(12)[[Ko kin dhanate? ‘Did you really swim?’]] ~> ∀w’∃e[Epi(w)(w’) Ѝswim(e)(w’) & agent(e) = h & time(e) = t & t ‫ ط‬now] (w: actual world, h:hearer, Epi: epistemic accessibility relation, α ‫ ط‬β indicates α proceeds β in
time)

(13)

[[YAA/YU ma dhanan ‘I did swim’]] ~> ∀w’∃e [Deon(w)(w’) Ѝ[say(e)(w’) & theme(e) = Yaa ma dhanan & agent(e) = h] (w: actual world, h:hearer, Deo: deontic accessibility relation)

In the hearer’s response in (13), the focused negative sentence expresses objection
toward the previous utterance. Specifically, the previous event by the addressee,
uttering disbelief for the fact is not allowed in any of the worlds that are deonticallyaccessible from the actual world. The hearer should not have asked such an
inappropriate question if the rules for conversation or proper manner are strictly
enforced (Grice 1975).
2.2. Negation Outscopes TRUE Now that focused negation is a non-truth-conditional
negation, what exactly does it contribute to? As NPIs are ungrammatical undermetalinguistic negation, Linebarger (1981) formalizes external negation by

5
−179−

Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac

representing the logical form of denial. The LF in (14b) suggests that the NPI red centfails to be licensed by negation because the negation applies to a semantic TRUE anddenies the truth of the statement, not the propositional content. If Linebarger (1981)’s
analysis is applied to metalinguistic negation in Dhaasanac, we obtain the LF in (15):
(14)

a.

*The king of France didn’t contribute one red cent because there isno king of France.
b.
(15)

NOT TRUE (the king of France contributed one red cent...)NOT TRUE (Yaa dhandhe ‘I swam.’)

Negation cancels the assertability of the utterance I swam. The speaker is expressing
unwillingness to assert the proposition.
2.3. Negation Outscopes VERUM Reminiscent of Linebarger (1981)’s analysis,
Romero and Han (2004) analyze preposed negative questions and explain
non-truth-conditional interpretations of negation by scopal interaction between verum
focus operator and negation. Verum focus (stress on polarity elements (Höhle 1992))
signals the presence of the VERUM operator in LF (cf. really) (Romero & Han 2004).
Romero and Han (2004) claim that preposed negative yes-no questions contain the
epistemic conversational operator VERUM. Their argument is based on the fact that incontrast with nonpreposed negative yes-no questions (16S2), preposed negation in
yes-no questions necessarily contributes to positive implicature when the speaker ispositively biased (16S1).
(16)

a.

A:

Jane came.

S1:

Didn’t Pat come too? [Positive epistemic implicature: The
speaker believes or at least expects that Pat came.]

b.

S2:

Did Pat not come too? [No epistemic implicature]

LF:[CP Q NOT VERUM [TP Pat is coming ]]In preposed negative yes-no questions, as in (16aS1), negation is not interpreted
clause-internally since the VERUM operator intervenes between the proposition andthe negation, as shown in the LF in (16b). On the other hand, without the presence of
VERUM or epistemic bias in nonpreposed negative yes-no-questions, negation isinterpreted internally.
The speaker’s bias or the presence of VERUM is also signaled by polarity focus or
the lexical item really. Positive bias licenses the PPI too in (18a), because too is not in

6
−180−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

the scope of negation that is metalinguistic, while a negatively biased question licenses
the NPI either in (18b).
(17)

(18)

A:

After all the studying he did, Tom got an A in Ling106.

S3:

DID he study for that class? (negatively biased)S4:

Did he REALLY study for that class? (negatively biased)

LF:[CP Q VERUM [NOT [TP he studied for the class]]]a.

S:

Isn’t Jane coming too? (positive bias)

LF:[CP Q NOT [VERUM [TP Jane is coming too]]]S:

Isn’t Jane coming either? (negative bias)

b.

LF:
(19)

gx/i

[[VERUMi]][CP Q VERUM [NOT [TP Jane is coming too]]]= [[reallyi]]gx/i = [[be sure]]([[i]]gx/i)= λp<st>.λws: ∀w͛∈ Epix(w)[p(w’) = 1] (i: addressee or the individual sumof the addressee and the speaker)(20)

Assumption: Focus on negative sentences necessarily contributes an
epistemic operator VERUM.

In Dhaasanac negation, speakers presuppose that Baali went, that is, positively biased.
The implicature raised by focused negation is a positive implicature.
The VERUM operator is explicit in focus (Romero & Han 2004). VERUM that arises
from polarity focus (focus on polarity elements such a verb and auxiliaries) contributes
to positive implicature, and outscoped negation is not interpreted clauseinternally.
(21)
(22)

a.

Baali ma sien.

b.

LF: [CP NEG [TP Baali went ]]a.

Baali ma sien.

b.

LF: [CP VERUM NEG [TP Baali went ]]Thus, the presence of the VERUM operator, signaled as the speaker’s bias, blocks theclause-internal interpretation of metalinguistic negation.
4. Conclusion
This paper presented new data on Dhaasanac, an understudied language. In thislanguage, when a speaker wishes to correct a hearer’s belief regarding a negative
proposition, the speaker uses greater intensity and rise-and-fall intonation on anegative verb, thereby causing the utterance to be interpreted as affirmative. Such

7
−181−

Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac

negation is not truth-conditional or predicate negation, but metalinguistic negation.
Epistemic bias signaled by focus blocks the clause-internal interpretation of negation.
NOTE
i Dhaasanac is a tone language, as the following minimal tonal pairs suggest:
(i)

a.

ár

‘bull’- ar‘song’b.

éllu

‘back’- ellu‘cheeks’

REFERENCES
Grice, P. 1975. "Logic and Conversation." In Syntax and Semantics 3, Speech Acts,
41–58. New York: Academic Press.
Höhle, T. N. 1992. "Über Verum Fokus in Deutschen." Linguistische Berichte, 112–
141.
Horn, L. R. 1985. "Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity." Language 61,
121–174.
Klima, E. 1964. "Negation in English." In J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz (eds.) The
Structure of Language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lewis, M. P. 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (16th ed.). Dallas:
International Academic Bookstore.
Linebarger, M. 1981. The Grammar of Negative Polarity. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Nishiguchi, S. (2007) "Bimoraic Filter and Sonority Sensitive Syllable Contact inDasenach Imperfective." Research in African Languages and Linguistics (RALL) 7,
43-58.
Nishiguchi, S. (2009) "Polarity Focus in Dhaasanac." IHAFA: A Journal of African
Studies, 5: 3, 244-259.
Romero, M. and C.-h. Han. 2004. "On Negative Yes/No Questions." Linguistics andPhilosophy 27, 609–658.
Russell, B. 1905. "On Denoting." Mind 14, 479–493.
Sasse, H.-J. 1976. "Dasenach." In M. L. Bender (ed.) The Non-Semitic Languages of
Ethiopia, 196–221. East Lansing, MI: African Studies Center, Michigan State
University.
Tosco, M. 2001. The Dhaasanac Language. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.

−182−
8

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号"Okay" in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions of International Scientific
Conference Presentations
Yusuke Okada
Ritsumeikan University<Abstract>
This conversation analytic study aims to clarify what the type of "okay" accomplishes,
which is employed in the pre-second (i.e. pre-answering) position after a question from an
audience member. The analysis of four examples found in the corpus of 41 Q&A sessions ofinternational scientific conference presentations discovered that "okay" is employed at the
pre-second position in a specific sequential environment. The analysis indicates that "okay"
is tactically employed by the presenters in that environment as a transition marker tomaximize reclamation of presenter's knowledge on the questions being asked by theaudience members.
[Keywords]: 1 okay, 2 pre-second position, 3 knowledge construction, 4 Q&A sessions,
1. Introduction
The act of questioning reveals any given participants' knowledge on the issue that thequestion addresses. Questioning makes an answer conditionally relevant (Schegloff, 1968):
therefore, when an answer is not given to a question, an implication is drawn. In debate, forinstance, failing to oppose an interlocutor's question means the respondent's failure to defend
his or her position on the issue raised by the question (Bilmes, 1999, 2001). The power ofquestioning is very strong and one cannot "'naively choose' not to answer" a question(Schegloff, 1968, p. 1086). In addition, the design of a question limits or biases the format
and amount of the response to the question. However, there is a sequential slot in which a
respondent can show his or her epistemic stance free from the question format on the issue
being topicalized by the question: that is, the pre-second position ⎯ the sequential position
before the second-pair part which is relevant to the second pair part rather than the first
There are some studies on response tokens used in the pre-second position (e.g. "oh"by Heritage, 1984 and "well" by Schegloff & Lerner, 2009) and how they contribute to thediscursive knowledge construction of a participant. "Okay" can be considered as one of the
response tokens. It has been found that "okay" in the third-turn position (i.e. the turn taken by
the imitator of an adjacency pair after the second pair part is performed). shows that theinitiator of an adjacency-pair accepts the second pair part performed by the
co-conversationalist and also displays the initiator's orientation to close the sequence and the
topic developed by the adjacency pair (e.g. Beach, 1993; Gurthrie, 1997; Pillet-Shore, 2003;
Schegloff, 2007). However, what "okay" performs at the pre-second position has not beenaddressed so far, although "okay" in the pre-second position is found in my data corpus of a
type of naturally-occurring interaction.
The aim of this study is to describe the participants' use of one of the response
tokens⎯"okay"⎯in the pre-second position in the question-answer sequence and toinvestigate how such use of the token is related to the construction of the interactant's
knowledge on a specific issue being asked by the questions. The findings of this study willcontribute to the effort that the past research studies have made for explicating the ways
knowledge is discursively constructed.

−183−

"Okay" in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions of International Scientific Conference Presentations

2. The data
The data used for this chapter are from the corpus of video-recorded data of 41 Q&A
sessions of scientific presentations at an international scientific conference. It was held inJapan and 204 research studies were presented over four days. The participants of theconference came from 22 countries and regions. Each presentation had a 12-minutepresentation part and a 3-minute Q&A session. In the presentations, English was used as
lingua franca. Of the 41 data, all the presenters were English as second or foreign language
speakers except for one presenter.
3. Data Analysis
Out of the 41 Q&A-sessions data, four cases were found in which the presenters used"okay" in the pre-second position. The segment below is an example of that type of "okay."
Segment 1 [10QA: 1-D-IV-1] ('Q' for Questioner (Japanese), 'P' for Presenter (Japanese))
12
Q:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q:
21
22 Æ P:
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
P:
47
48
Q:

thank you very much for your: presentation. I have somequestion. (0.3) the: there is uh (.) eh three components of(.) turbulent (0.3) heat flux. (0.3) you show the::(.) ehto ehto- ehto- (0.3) (the) components (0.3) eh:toof the dublyu (("W")) (0.2) seeta (("ș")) (0.2)
to the .hh (0.5) ↑did you, (0.5) observe (no) measure (.)(than the) there are the other (.) components.
(1.2)(than-) three components.
(0.7)
uh okay a:nd uh: (0.2) the- uh: (0.4) open spaces ismaybe uh: the: cases are heat sources are (.) uh
the- surfaces uh (0.5) uh >ground surfaces.< .hhh
an’ then the: are: ↓the:: (.) this cases uh maybe
uh the: ↓uh:: measure of heat transfer from thevertical uh directions. .hhh
but (0.4) a:n’ then the: (0.2) >(urban)< spaces in the:↓uh the (0.3) wall and (.) uh:: road (.) .hh thiscase is maybe uh:: (0.5) uh: >maybe-< very
complicated but .hh the: uh: from the surface, (0.4)
uh: the heat transfer (0.5) uh:: w- (0.3) we can (.)
exact- eh- (0.2) uh: exact uh: the: (0.2) °Ļu:n°measure- (0.3) measures (.) is: (0.2) very- uhdifficult. .hhh
an’ then a- another po- uh the maybe the (adbiction)
te:rms (0.4) from the: (0.4) horizontal (0.3) uh maybe
the ex ((“X”)) and wai ((“Y”)) (0.4) uh: component.
maybe uh the: (0.3) uh some cases very important. .hhh
but uh this cases are only uh the: uh: (0.3) ↓u::n(0.4) my uh: our: uh attention is this uh: (0.2) uhheat=transfer from the vertical heat transfer only.
.hh uh: (0.9) y- uh (0.2) i know uh what you say uh:
the very important uh: point.
(0.2)
uh: the in the future that i: would try it.
(1.5)°(i’m okay)°

In line 22, the presenter uses "okay" before specifically addressing the question initiated inlines 13–18 and 20. Therefore, the "okay" appears in the pre-response part of thequestion-answer adjacency pair. Looking at the question turn format, we can see it is prefacedwith a specification of the point which is delivered in the presentation lines 14–17 and is−184−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

formatted with a kind of negative interrogative "did you, (0.5) observe (no) measure (.) (thanthe) there are the other (.) components." (lines 17–18). The design of this question suggeststhat the questioner expects that the presenter did not measure besides the components
introduced in the presentation and this question format invites a negative answer (see Heritage
2010). Therefore, the design of the question-turn can be considered as challenging: if thepresenter answered "no," then the next question would be "why didn't you measure it?" orsome similar kind of accusation would be issued; if the presenter replied "yes," then "whydidn't you talk about it in the presentation" would be a possible next question. So in eitherway, the presenter has to give a detailed account on the issue and this of course requires acertain amount of relevant knowledge. However, in the next turn after the question, which isnormatively attributable to the presenter because of conditional relevance (Schegloff, 1968),
he does not respond to the question and a 1.2-second gap of silence is produced.
The questioner treats the 1.2-second gap of silence as the presenter's trouble inunderstanding the question and executes a repair for a possible trouble source, that is, a part ofhis question by rephrasing "(than the) there are the other components" (line 18) to "(than-)three components" (line 20). However, this does not result in getting a reply, with a
0.7-second gap of silence being left. Then, after this gap, the presenter says "uh okay a:nd uh:(0.2) the- uh: (0.4) open spaces is" in line 22. His reply extends to lines 46. The questioner
accepts the presenter's answer with the third turn position "okay" in line 48.
In this segment, although "okay" is used in the pre-answer position, it does not come
immediately after the question; a certain amount of silence precedes the "okay." As reviewed
in the previous section, the presenter's job in the Q&A session is to defend his or her positiondelivered in the paper presentation part, because the main activity of the Q&A sessions is anevaluation of the presenter's point of view. Therefore, if the presenter fails to give a response
to a question, then an unfavorable inference is normatively made (Bilmes, 1993): that is, thepresenter is seen to be unknowledgeable on the topic of the question, although a question in
Q&A sessions is normatively supposed to be related to the contents of the presentation. While
the silence in line 19 is constructed as a questioner-caused trouble due to the questioner's
repair (line 20) of his clumsy question construction in line 18, the silence occurs after the
repair in line 20, which retrospectively implies that the silence in line 19 is caused bysomething other than trouble in the construction of the question. Therefore, in this segment ofinteraction, the presenter's being silent in line 21 and also in 19 retroactively implicates that
he cannot answer the question because of some kind of trouble of his own.
"Okay" is used in this sequential environment and it seems to achieve threeinteractional effects in the pre-second position: first, it indicates the presenter's acceptance ofthe previous question; second, by displaying his acceptance, "okay" puts a period on thesequence in which the presenter's knowledge on the issue is questioned; and third, since"okay" works as a quasi-answer to the question, it invalidates the bias made on the answer
format by the questioning turn design. The first two points is made possible by theconventional meaning of "okay" which is seen at the third turn position. Because theconventional meaning, "okay" in the pre-second position makes the presenter look competentenough to at least understand the question and move to the postponed second pair part. The
last interactional value of "okay" is specific to the "okay" employed in the pre-second position.
Although it is not a corresponding answer to the question and therefore cannot be categorized
as one which appeared in the pre-second position, it is a kind of reply to a question: after the"okay" any form of answering is acceptable. This is what the presenter does in line 22: his
response to the question is neither "yes" nor "no" but after the "okay" is " a:nd uh: (0.2) theuh: (0.4) open spaces is". A similar pattern is found in the segment below.

−185−

"Okay" in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions of International Scientific Conference Presentations

Segment 2 [04QA: 1-B-III-2] ('Q' for Questioner (Japanese), 'A' for Audience members; 'P'
for Presenter (Japanese))
12
Q:
13
14
P:
15
A:
16
Q:
17
18
19
Q:
20
21
22
P:
23
24
Q:
25
26
27
Q:
28
29
30
31
32
33
Q:
34
35
36
P:
37
Q:
38
39
Q:
40
P:
41
42 Æ P:43() is Mitsui °from () university.° uh- uh- I
understand the: £flow pattern of the ()£
hahahehehebut >I JUST WON-< (0.2) wonder uh: the (0.3) can we ss(0.2) call this tube as micro channel?
(1.1)
yeah because uh: the I think uh the () flow isdominant and the du- due to maybe due to the very low(0.5) uh:::n density ratio. °I thi[nk °[yeah.
(0.9)
so (0.3) i- it too looks uh: uh () conventional chch- uh ch- channel.
(0.3)
so: i- (0.8) u- usually (.) in the mini channel or
micro channel. uh: the () or (0.6) () flow isdominant and the ss sometime¿ (.) nyean .h very
often (0.2) uhn the:: (0.6) the:: very big, (0.6)(bubble)(1.3)
such as two hole of the two and thus (0.7) the flow
pattern is a (0.2) ↓very different from this:.
(2.1)
yeah. so- [so- so(h)rry. heh .h
[(
)
(0.3)
difficult question but (1.4) yes. [(
)
[eh::
(1.4)
oka(h)y. (0.4) ((turns to the slide)) eh (0.8)
this uh: (0.4) this period show uh shows the flow

It is obvious that the presenter's knowledge on the question topic is cast into doubt because of
his silence in the face of a challenging question and the questioner's subsequent explicit
disagreement to the presenter's position as well as the questioner's categorization of thequestion as a difficult question. In this interactional environment, "okay" in line 42 seems toachieve the same interactional effects that we saw in the previous segment: that is to say,"okay" indicates that the presenter's understands the question and projects he can answer it
while invalidating the imposed answer format and the tilted answer type by thequestioning-turn design. The question was "but I wonder, can we call this tube as microchannel" (lines 16–17), so this design invites a negative answer, but after "okay" in line 42,
the presenter does not start with "not" but rather an explanation of the diagram shown in thePowerPoint slide.
In the segment below, "okay" is used after a repair-sequence initiated by the presenter,
which is directed to a part of the question asked by the chairperson.
Segment 3 [18QA: 1-E-II-2] ('C' for Chairperson (Japanese), 'P' for Presenter (Chinese))
6
7
8
9
10

C:
C:

any questions?
(10.6)
okay >a- a- a- I-< I have a a one- one question.
s- very very simple- question. ↑how about, (0.2)
the increase () in the pressure track.

−186−第14回大会発表論文集

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

P:
C:
P:
C:
C:
P:
C:
Æ P:

P:
C:

第７号

(1.2)
yeah ↑increase grade of what.
pressure track.
(0.6)
pressure?
pressure.
(1.0)
required for the: (0.3) making the flow.
oh okay. the PRESSURE TRACK.==yes.
okay .hh and the pressure track, (0.4) uh uh:
we did a measure () (0.3) but i- it’s(). yeah it (would not) be small.
(1.0)
yeah okay [thank you.
[fine.

The pre-second position "okay" comes in line 21. The construction of the turn shows that"okay" is not oriented to the previous repair-sequence in lines 12-20 but to the question
delivered in lines 9–10. It does not appear as an isolated item but as a part of aturn-constructional unit: the prosody of "okay," indicates that more items to be given and infact the in-breath and "and the pressure track," follow. Although a 0.4-second pause is there,
the prosody of "pressure track," suggests that the presenter does not yield but holds the turnand in fact the presenter continues speaking (and in addition the chairperson does not take theturn), executing a reply directly relevant to the question ("uh uh: we did a measure ()(0.3) but i- it’s (). yeah it (would not) be small."). The meaning of the utterance"and the pressure track," works as the presenter's (re)setting of the question agenda.
It is not certain whether the presenter's "okay" in the pre-answer position of thisconversational segment is successful in invalidating the forced answering format, since thequestion ("how about") invites a variety of response forms. However, it can be seen that the"okay" is employed to make a sequence transition to move on to executing an answer to thequestion, announcing the presenter's ability to respond to the question. The following segment
is the final example of the type of "okay" that is used in the pre-second position.
Segment 4 [26QA: 2-C-I-3] ('C' for Chairperson (Japanese), 'P' for Presenter (American))
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Æ
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

C:

C:

P:
C:
P:
C:
P:

=hh hehe so uh:: .hh £any ↑question °or° comment,£(0.6) °suggestion from audience?°(5.4)>↑okay< so:: >I have a question for you< so: .hh >uh
to be honest< so uh:: I’m so: (0.2) >not so familiar
with this field uh so< .hhh >I’d like to< make sureso: (.) >what’s the meaning< °of the° ah in the title
so you mention ↓so:: uh >experimental condition istwenty five degree see ((‘°C’)) and- (0.6) pee eich((‘pH’)) four point five.
oh the [()[>↑what's the meaning.<(0.4)[okay first (of all) (0.4) good point. we (control)=[°()°=these experiment (of) pee eich ((‘pH’)) for forty
five. °()° .hh pee eich ((‘pH’)) sixty °we didn’t
want- didn’t show you but it’s quite interesting.° (.).hhh the (0.5) REASON for the particular choice,(0.8) is that the (0.3) <purification> (0.4) lysozyme
is u:sually taken from precipitation from .hhh excess−187−

"Okay" in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions of International Scientific Conference Presentations

27
28

(
) is a precipitant. this is normally than,(0.3) at- pee eich ((‘pH’)) four point fi:ve.

The question "what’s the meaning< °of the° ah in the title" is initiated by the chairperson inline 12. However, the chairperson does not yield the turn to the presenter, instead holding it toclarify the point of his question with " so you mention ↓so:: uh >experimental condition istwenty five degree see and- (0.6) pee eich four point five.", which (25°C pH 4.5) is part of thepresentation title. The presenter's "oh" in line 16 indicates that he does not expect such aquestion (Heritage, 1998). Overlapping a part of the presenter's turn, the chairperson re-issues
his question "↑what's the meaning.". However, the presenter's reply does not immediately
follow it and a 0.4-second gap of silence occurs in line 18. The presenter employs "okay" inthe next turn and this is followed by an assessment of the chairperson's question "first (of all)(0.4) good point". After this, his answer to the question follows. The "okay" makes asequential transition by showing the presenter's acceptance of the question.
The microanalysis of the four cases shows that "okay" is employed at the pre-second
position in a sequential environment in which a distance (either in the form of a gap of silence,a repair-sequence, or a combination of the two) is interactionally produced between thefirst-pair part and the second-pair part. In such an interactional environment, "okay" at the
pre-second position works as a transition marker that announces the speaker's acceptance ofthe first-pair part and thereby closes the sequence which has postponed the second-pair part.
This interactional effect of "okay" discursively constructs the knowledge in the Q&A
sessions: it makes the speaker looked knowledgeable at least enough to understand thequestion. In addition, as "okay" can serve as a kind of reply to the question though it is not acorresponding answer to the issue delivered in the question, it invalidates the required answer
format and the speaker can choose from a variety of ways to construct the answer turn.
A question arises here: why do the presenters choose "okay" in this interactional
environment when there must be other alternatives? In the Q&A session corpus, one case wasfound in which one of the possible formulations "I understand" is employed at the pre-second
position. A comparison will indicate the differences between "okay" and "I understand" andsuggest a reason why the presenters of the four cases employed "okay."
Segment 5 [33QA:2-D-III-2] ('Q' for Questioner (Japanese), 'P' for Presenter (Japanese))
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Q:

Q:

P:
C:
P:
C:

C:

my name is hirakawa from () University.
(0.3) um you show the (0.2) uh: (0.5) the
consideration of the continuous background(0.6) uh: () uh >(influence),< (0.5) and::(.) so could you ↑tell me the (.) uh thishhmethod apply to the another (.) () system.
(0.5)
uh it’s except for your system,(0.5) and: other,(.) uh (0.6) a:nd conversion condition.
(15.7)°so° (3.3) °so° (0.7)
so °↑can I add some (to) (.) his question?°↓uh::mhe: asked that in this uh (0.6) conclusion uh:(0.3) measurement technique can be applicable tothe: other system.
(0.8)
it’s except for your s- uh: (1.1) experimental(0.4) uh (.) system.
(2.0)

−188−

第14回大会発表論文集

31
32
33
34

Æ P:

C:

第７号

°u::n° (0.4) I ↑un- understand ↓um: (0.7) thequestion (.) .hhh uh bu(h)t huh (3.8) ↓uh::
I answer, (2.4) I cannot- (0.4) .hhh (11.5)
okay I:’ll repl(h)y .hh huh instead of ↑you, .

The presenter's utterance "I understand" appears in line 31. The turn previous to thispresenter's turn is the chairperson's repair on the question initiated by an audience member inlines 15–16. It is apparent in the sequence of this segment that the presenter is having a lot of
trouble, so the chairperson's repair is aimed at helping the presenter understand the question.
However, the presenter responds to the chairperson's repair with a claim that he understands,
but cannot respond: "I ↑un- understand" (line 31) but "I answer, (2.4) I cannot-" (line 33).
After that, the chairperson, who is in fact a co-author of the presenter, says that he will reply
to the question instead of the presenter. "I understand" is therefore simply a display of thepresenter's comprehension of the previous question and does not indicate he or she has thecompetence or sufficient knowledge to respond to the question.
The difference between "okay" and "I understand" suggests the tactical nature of thepresenters' use of "okay" at the pre-second position. When an answer to a question is delayed,
the presenter's knowledge is normatively doubted because the context of the talk (a Q&A
session) is programmatically relevant to the defensive response to a question raised byaudience members and chairperson. Since "I understand" only suggests the presenter's
understanding of the question, it is not enough to dismiss the doubt: understanding and being
able to give a response are two different matters. On the other hand, "okay" encompasses
understanding of a question and also projects an ability to answer the question. In addition, it
can invalidate a forced answering format by the question. Therefore, in the four cases, inwhich the presenters' answers are delayed, they select "okay."
4. Discussion
Q&A sessions are institutional talk in which the presenter's knowledge on his or her
research study explained immediately before the session is challenged (Jacoby & McNamara,
1999; Stubbs, 1983; Wulff, Swales & Keller, 2009): therefore the presenter has to defend hisor her position through answering the question asked by audience members or chairpersons. If
the presenter fails to answer a question that is supposed to be related to the content of thepresenters' studies, the value of his or her study can be cast in doubt. In order to prevent or atleast suspend for a certain amount of time such a negative inference, "okay" is selected as aformulation at the pre-second position.
"Okay" is employed at the pre-second position on the basis of its conversation
meaning: it conventionally indicates understanding and acceptance of prior talk and orients toclosing the topic. This conventional meaning of "okay" makes it suitable to be used in the
pre-second position in which the speaker fails to give an immediate response to a question
asking the speaker's knowledge on an issue that the speaker should know. "I understand"cannot be selectable in that sequential and contextual environment because it does not project
the speaker's knowledge to answer a question; nor would the behavior of nodding be chosen,
since the nonverbal behavior is more indexical. Importantly, while the four presenters'
linguistic skills in English are apparently different, the commonality in their use of "okay" inthe same sequential position to exert the same interaction force suggests the conventional
meaning of "okay" is shared by them; in addition, the fact that the questioners in the four
segments wait the presenters' answering after the pre-second position "okay" indicates that thequestioners also share the conventional meaning of "okay" regardless of their linguistic ability
in English.

−189−

"Okay" in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions of International Scientific Conference Presentations

The best way for presenters to maximally advertising their knowledge on the issues
raised by questions will be an immediate, direct, and clear-cut logical reply to the question.
When a speaker's knowledge on an issue is once cast into doubt because of the failure to givesuch a reply, how to minimize the negative inference on his or her knowledge and how to
maximize the re-advertisement of his or her knowledge on the questioned issue are called for.
The use of "okay" at the pre-second position is a way to maximize knowledge reclamation.
"Okay" is seemingly a small token, but it in fact has an influence on such knowledge
construction in interaction.
References
Beach, W. A. 1993. Transitional Regularities for 'Casual' "Okay" Usages. Journal of
Pragmatics, 19, 325–352.
Bilmes, J. 1993. Ethnomethodology, Culture, and Implicature: Toward an Empirical
Pragmatics. Pragmatics, 3, 387-409.
Bilmes, J. 1999. Questions, Answers, and the Organization of Talk in the 1992 Vice
Presidential Debate: Fundamental Considerations. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 32, 213–242.
Bilmes, J. 2001. Tactics and Styles in the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate: Question Placement.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34,151–181.
Edwards, D. 2000. Extreme Case Formulations: Softeners, Investment, and Doing Nonliteral.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 4, 347–373.
Guthrie, A. M. 1997. On the Systematic Deployment of Okay and Mmhmm in Academic
Advising Sessions. Pragmatics, 7, 397–415.
Heritage, J. 1984. A Change of State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement. In J. M.
Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action, 299-345. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. 1998. Oh-prefaced Responses to Inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291–334.
Heritage, J. 2010. Questioning in Medicine. In A. Freed., S. Ehrlich (eds.), Why Do You Ask?:
The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, 42–68, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Jacoby, S., & McNamara, T. 1999. Locating Competence. English for Specific Purposes, 18,
213–241.
Pillet-Shore, D. 2003. Doing "Okay": On the Multiple Metrics of an Assessment. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 36, 285–319.
Pomerantz, A. 1986. Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims. Human
Studies, 9, 219–30.
Schegloff, E. A. 1968. Sequencing in Conversational Openings. American Anthropologist, 70,
1075–95.
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation
Analysis I. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E A., & Lerner, G. H. 2009. Beginning to Respond: Well-prefaced Responses toWh-questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42, 91–115.
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Wulff, S., Swales, J. M., & Keller, K. 2009. "We Have about Seven Minutes for Questions":
The Discussion Sessions from a Specialized Conference. English for SpecificPurposes, 28, 79-92.

−190−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis
RABINDRANATH S. POLITO
Abstract
Relatively few studies have investigated the role of language in exposing ideology
in society. As asserted by Huckin (1997), whenever language is studied, one should notforget to include the society and the context where language exists. This study explores
the ways in which forms of language, from individual words to complete discourse
structures, encode something of the beliefs and values held by the language users,
particularly the ideology on power in society. The study examines 40 blogs of freshman
students of Mindanao State University—Iligan Institute of Technology and analyzes themusing the three Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) methods: transitivity, presuppositions,and deixis. The results reveal that the 40 blogs of the respondents follow the recurring
presentation-opinion pattern. Using the three CDA methods, the ideology on power
consists of fifteen types which are reflected in the 40 blogs. These types of power are
manifested through the roles they play in the sentences. Using transitivity and thematicrole method, the powerful entities function as agents. In the presupposition, the ones
assumed as dominant and influential by the bloggers are considered powerful forces.
Using deixis, the place, time, and person frequently referred to are the ones regarded as
powerful. The results of the study suggest that indeed language encode, shape andmaintain ideology in the society that proves the assertion that language and power always
go together. On the basis of the results of this study, the following recommendations arepresented to future researchers: (1) that other methods of critical discourse analysis beused to determine the ideologies and powers revealed in the blogs of professionals suchas teachers, lawyers, businessmen and others; and (2) that other social networking sites
be considered for critical discourse analysis.
Introduction
It is a human impulse to express opinions and feelings. Expressions come invaried ways through writing and speech. Hence, a lot of studies have been done on these
expressions to try to explain matters. However, most of these studies are more on the
linguistic aspect—studying phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. It is as
though language is produced in isolation (or simply a text), which is not really the case.
Language exists in “some real-world context,” so it is very much affected by such factors
as the production, interpretation, and context (Huckin, 1997). So whenever language isstudied, one should not forget to include the society and context where it exists.
__________RABINDRANATH S. POLITO, Instructor, College of Arts and Social Sciences,
MSU-Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT), Iligan City, holds a Master’s Degree inEnglish Language Studies (2011) and Bachelor’s Degree in English (2006) at MSU-IIT.

−191−

Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO

Since a particular text (spoken and written) exists in a particular context which
has varied meanings depending on the process of production and interpretation, linguists
like Saussure and philosophers like Wittgenstein agree that language plays an importantrole in structuring and creating reality and ideology of a society (Clark, 2007).
The study which focuses on eliciting ideology from both written and spoken texts
is the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). CDA, until now, does not have a formal
methodology on analyzing particular texts; thus, it is believed to be an approach or an
attitude toward textual analysis which makes it unique from all other textual analysis in
six major respects as presented by Thomas N. Huckin (1997). First, it analyzes texts in areal-world context and it tries to take into account the most relevant textual andcontextual factors including history. Second, it studies text in three levels (production,interpretation, and context). Third, it concerns with the societal issues overtly or covertly
manifested in texts. Fourth, it draws attention to the imbalances, injustices, and inequality
in a society. Fifth, by revealing negative practices in a society, it aims to support thevictims of oppression to reconstruct the society for a change. Finally, it uses clear andsimple words to reach nonspecialists in society.
Statement of the Problem
This study focuses on the 40 blogs of MSU-IIT freshman students because
blogging is the most modern and accessible way through which these students express
their ideology on power. The objective of this research is to study the 40 blogs and to
explain and answer the following questions:
1. What is the structure of the students’ blogs?
2. What ideology on power is embedded in the language of their blogs?
3. How is this ideology expressed in their blogs?
Critical Discourse Analysis
In a capsule, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) attempts to study the structuresof ideology, especially on power and authority, which underlies the acts of both speech
and writing (Clark, 2007). In the context of this study, writing with its associatedpractices, helps construct and shape the ideology, reality and the world. CDA is critical in
the sense that the readers, when reading texts, like blogs, should not remain passive andtake all the assumptions raised by the blogger. Instead, every reader should question theseassumptions. Also, the readers are encouraged to analyze the social issues raised in theblogs as these issues are constructed in the blogs and how these contribute to theconstruction of ideology in the society. Furthermore, Clark (2007) emphasizes that CDA
actually is a fusion of theories from sociology, critical theory, and linguistics as it tries toelicit the power relations, including issues on gender, ethnicity, and social class. CDA
best fits the study of blogs because its approaches and analytical methods allow
researchers to study written language in all genres (Clark, 2007).
The linguists working using CDA believe that language is an important tool in the
production, maintenance, and change of social relations of power. CDA’s aim is to makethe users of language become conscious of how language conveys the domination andcontrol of people in society. Fairclough (2001, as cited in Clark, 2007) asserts that CDA
is a means of “helping people to see the extent to which their language does rest upon−192−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

common-sense assumptions and the ways in which these common sense assumptions canbe ideologically shaped by relations of power” (p. 154).
Blogging
A blog is a type of website or part of a website. Blogs are usually maintained byan individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material
such as graphics or video (www.blog.com). A blog can also be used as a verb, meaning tomaintain or add content to a blog. The person who posts blogs is called a blogger and thevery act or process of doing blogs is blogging.
Many blogs include commentary or news on a particular subject; others function
as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to otherblogs, Web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability of readers to leavecomments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs. Most blogs areprimarily textual, although some focus on art (Art blog), photographs (photoblog), videos(video blogging), music (MP3 blog), and audio (podcasting) (www.blog.com).
Blogging is a good material for CDA for at least two reasons. The first one is that
there is no study conducted yet using CDA on blogs (at least after reading CDA articles
and books). The other one is that blogs have political impact that can be a very goodsubject of CDA, as it tries to analyze the politics of language. The impact of blogs gives
greater credibility to blogs as a medium of news dissemination. Though often seen as
merely gossips, bloggers sometimes lead the way in bringing key information to public
light, with mainstream media having to follow their lead. More often, however, news
blogs tend to react to material already published by the mainstream media.
Research Design and Methodology
This study uses a qualitative research paradigm to describe and analyze the 40
blogs of freshman students enrolled in English 1 at MSU-IIT under Prof. Lynnie Ann P.
Deocampo during the first semester of SY 2010-2011. The blogs are chosen throughrandom sampling to ensure no bias or personal preferences and to assure equal
probability for each blog to be chosen as a sample.
To interpret the blogs, three CDA methods of analysis are employed: transitivity(Clark, 2007) and thematic roles (O’Grady & Archibald, 2001) to reveal the recurring
agents of the clauses; presuppositions (Huckin, 1997; Brown & Yule, 1989) to expose therecurring assumptions in the sentences; and deixis (Fromkin & Rodman, 1983; Lyons,1987) to divulge the frequent time, place, and person references in the paragraphs.
The Structure of Blogs
It has been observed that the students’ blogs follow a recurring presentationopinion pattern. In the presentation part, the blogger presents a topic or idea to becommented on in the blog. Presentation varies according to the choice of discussion of
the blogger. Usually, this part is also accompanied by a short background or a briefsummary of a story or of an issue.
The next part of the blog is the opinion. It is in this part where the bloggers
express their opinions about the topics presented. In this study, the opinions are divided−193−

Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO

into three categories: (1) comments, (2) suggestions/advices, and (3) edifications. Forcomments, the bloggers simply add information which is highly opinionated on the idea
or topic presented. For suggestions, the blogger simply presents a suggestion or an advice
to the readers for solving an existing problem or for answering a question. The third
category of opinion is edifications. This type of opinion teaches or enlightens the readers.
In relation to ideology on power, the presentation part of the blog becomes theavenue for exposing power as perceived by society as a whole and the opinion part
becomes the place for revealing power as perceived by the blogger as an individual.
Transitivity and Thematic Roles
One of the common methods used in CDA in studying language is transitivity. In
this study, transitivity is fused with thematic roles since both more or less share the sameelements. The participants in transitivity are expressed as agents and themes in thematicroles.
In the blogs of the freshman students of MSU-IIT, ideology on power is clearlyreflected. In this study, seven ideologies on power are identified from the blogs of thestudents: gender, social class, religion, government, media, family, and language. In thisarticle only two types of power are discussed.
Gender
The first type of power disclosed using transitivity and thematic roles is on gender.
While focusing on social issues in the society, most CDA analysts, like Van Dijk (2008),
Clark (2007), Huckin (1997), and McCarthy and Carter (1994), inevitably reveal biases
as regards gender. To be specific, the ones who hold power and authority in society are
the males and this is clearly reflected in the blogs of the freshman students.
In the blog entitled Mayon, the blogger explains the legend of Mount Mayon, afamous active volcano in the Philippines. In this blog, one can confirm that thePhilippines is a male dominated country because most of the agents in the sentences are
males. O’Grady and Archibald (2001) define agent as the “entity that performs theaction” (p. 265). In the blog Mayon there are only four instances in which the maiden
Daragang Magayon functions as agent: “She fell in love,” “She told,” “Daragang
learned,” and “She hurriedly went.” The rest of the clauses and sentences have males,
Tiong (her father), Panganoron (her beloved), and Paratuga (the villain) functioning as
agents. Here are some of the sentences that show males as agents of the clauses:• …he still told her…
• …he will find the best way…
• Paratuga kidnapped…
• …he planned to save the girl…
• He loves…
• Tiong Makusog buried…

The sentences above contain males functioning as agents or doers of the actions.
Although there are times that Daragang Magayon plays as a participant, she only
functions as theme, or plainly the receiver of the action performed by the male characters−194−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

like her father and lover. Theme, according to O’Grady and Archibald (2001) is “theentity undergoing an action or a movement” (p. 265).
Religion
The other type of power drawn from the blogs pertains to religion. Pierrce (2003),
after giving a series of definitions of ideology, comments that “language is the key in theprocess of creating the personal, social, economic, and governmental structures that guide,
promote, and constrain life” (p. 296). The last phrase is striking as it tells that ideology ispresent to “constrain life” or restrict or limit the people in society. This concept is clearly
manifested in the structure of the language used by the freshman students. In thefollowing blogs, the word “religion” is not explicitly stated, but the idea of God isrecurring in the content. There are seven blogs which show how God controls the life of
the bloggers.
The blogs I Will Soar On Wings Like Eagle, Parent Trap, HAPPYness, Stairway
to Heaven, Make Things Possible, Make Peace, and an untitled blog depict God as a
powerful being as shown through the different roles God performs: agent, theme, source,
and goal. However, in most of the clauses, God functions as agent. Below are theexamples of God functioning as agent:• God has given us the chance• …the time God has given us?
• …the life that He gives….
• …and He gives second chances….

In all the examples above, it is learned that the noun God clearly performs the process
give or has given. All these verbs are examples of material process. The other verb whichis also recurring next to give is help.
• God helps me….
• He will help me….
• He helps you….
• God will help you….

God’s power is demonstrated through the various roles God performs. In material, mental,
behavioral, verbal, and relational processes, God acts as agent, theme, goal, and source,
respectively.
Presuppositions
Brown and Yule (1989) assert that in discourse analysis, one should also consider
presupposition. They define presupposition as “the assumption the speaker makes about
what the hearer is likely to accept without challenge” (p.29). Huckin (1997) agrees withthem that one of the various methods he suggests for analyzing using CDA ispresupposition. He defines presupposition as the use of language in a way that appears totake certain ideas for granted, as if there were no alternative (Huckin, 1997, p. 83). This

−195−

Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO

idea is also confirmed by Fromkin and Rodman (1983) for they define presupposition as
the “explicit assumptions about the real world” (p. 189).
In the blogs of the freshman students of MSU-IIT, more issues on society areclearly reflected using presupposition. In this part of the study, twelve issues werediscovered through the blogs of the said students: gender, social class, education,
occupation, religion, values, media, Philippine products, places, relationships, cosmetics,
and language. In this article, only two are presented.
Social Class
One type of power exposed in the blogs of the students using presupposition issocial class. A reflection on the story Hani and My Missions in Life are two blogs
reflecting the assumptions on people belonging to the lower class. In this blog, theblogger explains how the story of Hani inspired a lot of people. Hani is a story of a young
girl who pursues her dreams despite the financial status of her family. After presenting abrief summary of the story, the blogger then starts to give comments and realizations. It isin those parts where the assumptions about social class are revealed. Consider thesentence below:• During those times when we were not having a good life,

I mean when we don’t have that much money, I studied
better compared to now.
It is very clear that in the first subordinating clause, the blogger says when we were nothaving a good life. It is interesting to note that there is an explanation to that
subordinating clause with not having a good life and that is found in the next
subordinating clause when we don’t have that much money. In other words, not having agood life is equivalent to not have enough money. This is a common perception in societythat if one does not have enough money then it must mean he does not have a good life.
Since the rich have enough money or even much money so they are perceived as enjoying
a good life or even a better life.
People not only think that the poor do not have a good life but also think that they
are suffering from poverty. Consider the example below:•…we suffered how hard it is to live if you don’t haveenough money….

In the above example, it is shown in the main clause that the pronoun we undergoes theverb suffer and the reason for such suffering is in the subordinating if-clause. The reason
is found in the phrase not have enough money. The discussion earlier presented is that nothaving enough money is equivalent to not having a good life. Now, it is made even worse
because not having enough money is equated to suffering. This appears to be the reason
for thinking that the poor, because they do not have enough money, not only have a goodlife but also a life of suffering. Thus, because the rich have money, they have good life
and they do not suffer, and so people think of them as superiors.

−196−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Philippine Products
Another type of power revealed in the blogs of the students using presuppositionis the Philippine products. It is already known to most Filipinos that the Philippines has
been colonized by the Spaniards, Americans, and the Japanese. Such colonization has
made a great impact on the Filipinos even after the colonizers have left the country. Oneof these effects is the idea that Philippine products are substandard or inferior to those
produced by the Americans or even the Japanese. This ideology is assumed by at least
two blogs about two views from freshman students in MSU-IIT: Bagong Buwan and
GRANDCHASE-BEST ONLINE GAME EVER.
In Bagong Buwan, the blogger made a comment why he liked the movie. He
mentioned that he liked the movie so much because it has inspired him to become apeacemaker in response to the Christian-Muslim conflict in Mindanao. The blogger wasconvincing Filipinos to help build peace and unity in Mindanao. The message of the
blogger appears to be pro-Philippines; however, there is one comment in this blog which
manifests his assumption on Philippine movies. Consider his statement below:•I have a great interest in this movie even though it is only aFilipino created movie….

The comment included that he is interested in the movie Bagong Buwan even though it is
only a Filipono created movie. A reader of this blog may accept such concept that it is
only a Filipino created movie but the question is: Why consider it as only a Filipino
created movie? What is with Filipino created movies? The adverb only is used in thisstatement, which means “nothing more.” This blogger clearly assumes that when it is a
Filipino movie it is substandard and inferior compared to Hollywood movies or probably
movies made outside the Philippines.
In the blog GRANDCHASE-BEST ONLINE GAME EVER, the blogger described
his favorite online game which is Grandchase. According to him, “Grand Chase is a freeto-play, two-dimensional side-scrolling MMORPG developed by the Korean company
KOG Studios.” Also, this game has servers in Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Brazil,
Philippines, United States, Thailand, Japan, and Indonesia. Later, this blogger explains
how the game works and how young people find it interesting. During the near end of theblog, there is a comment on such version in the Philippines:•Right now, The Grandchase Philippines is still on the state of
update from the mainframe.

The blogger mentioned that there is this Grandchase Philippines. The information may
be positive because the game is truly a hit among the youth today. However, there is acomment that it is still on the state of update from the mainframe. Such statement has two
assumptions: (1) that there is a non-updated version in the Philippines; and (2) that suchversion needs to reach the level of the standard of a mainframe, which definitely is not in
the Philippines. Because it is not updated and it still has to conform to the mainstream,
the Philippine version is thus considered to be substandard and inferior.

−197−

Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO

Deixis
The term deixis, to Lyons (1978), comes from a Greek word meaning “pointing”
or “indicating” (p. 646). Fromkin and Rodman (1983) further explain that deixis is an
aspect of pragmatics which uses words or expressions whose references rely entirely on
the circumstances of the utterance and can only be understood if one knows thesecircumstances. With that, they categorized deixis into three: place, time, and person. This
article focuses only on the analysis using person deixis method as the place and time
deixis methods simply confirm the findings using transitivity with thematic role andpresupposition methods.
Person Deixis
The blogs of the freshman students contained two main person deixis—the
pronouns I and you. Since all blogs include personal commentary on a particular subject,
bloggers cannot help but use the pronoun I to refer to themselves and the pronoun you toaddress their readers. After thorough reading of the blogs of these students, it is observedthat the most powerful being in blogging is the blogger because he can manipulate andcontrol the topic and readers.
First, a blogger can discuss anything in his blogs from personal to political. As
found in the discussions under transitivity and presupposition, the subjects discussed by
the bloggers are varied. Consider the example below from Filipino versus English:•I am just wondering why these two languages compete inmany different ways.

This sentence begins with a person deixis I showing that such thought refers to theblogger’s. This is just an example of how a blogger begins a blog with a person deixis or
the personal pronoun I to indicate that the following discussion is the blogger.
Second, a blogger has all the freedom to take different turns in the selected topic.
In other words, a blogger can choose any related topic to develop his blog. Consider theseexamples below from the blog My Missions in Life an example of this kind ofdevelopment:•Ever since I was a child, I really wanted to become a doctor.
•I also wanted to become a doctor to bring joy to my parents.
•So I plan to have only a small family.
•I hope that He guide me in all the things that I do and never to letme stray in my path.

The first sentence comes from the opening part of the blog. In the sentence, the person
deixis I confessed his desire of becoming a doctor. So from that, a reader may expect toread the ways the I is doing to become a doctor. The blogger did include those ways forher to be a doctor, and she also incorporated the topic on family as she opened the second
example above in the middle of the blog. Thus, the topic now is developed from ways of
becoming a doctor to reasons of becoming a doctor. The third example shows that theblogger now takes the discussion to not only becoming a doctor but also to planning afamily in the future. Here, the blogger now shifts from why she wants to be a doctor to−198−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

when she becomes a doctor. According to her, when she becomes a doctor, she wants tohave a small family. Then, before the end of the discussion, she opened a topic on God as
the one who can make her dream of becoming a doctor possible. In summary, she begins
with I want to be a doctor to I want to be a doctor because of my parents then shifts to I
want a small family in the future and finally to God guides me. Clearly, the blogger canalways manipulate the blog in the sense that he has this liberty to insert and shift topics
anytime.
Finally, a blogger manipulating the readers is indicated by the use of the person
deixis you and we, by strong suggestions. There were 33 of the 40 blogs of the students
that contained strong suggestions. (Actually, all the blogs contained suggestions but the
researcher cannot identify the type of suggestions used in the seven blogs for now. Thus,
only the two types from the 33 blogs are named in this study.) Most of the times, theblogger used the pronoun we or us (called the inclusion type, since it includes theblogger) when suggesting, and sometimes, the pronoun you (called the exclusion type,since it excludes the blogger) is also used in suggesting ideas to the readers.
The exclusion type uses the pronoun you and is obvious. In this case, the blogger,
the pronoun I, is directly giving suggestions to the readers. Its usual form is the pronoun
you plus a modal, like must, should, ought to, have to etc. A variety of this type uses animperative form, hiding the pronoun you and proceeding right away to the main verb.
Here are some examples:•You can’t judge a person for what they think is moral or ethical,
or even justifiable.
•So when you watch it, you better have a bucket to fill up for yourtears.
•Live and enjoy LIFE but know your limitations to prevent
unwanted frustrations.
•Remember that God had teach us to become righteous.
•Just do your job, and you may not know that everybody else isdoing it too.

The first two sentences are examples of the exclusion type with the pronoun you. In thesesentences, the bloggers suggest to the readers to not judge a person (in the first example)
and to not bring a bucket when watching the movie (in the second example). The last
three sentences are examples of the exclusion type that is imperative. In these sentences,
the readers are suggested to live and enjoy life (in the third example), to remember God’steaching (in the fourth example), and to do one’s job with good manners (in the last
example).
The exclusion type appeared in almost 40 % of the 33 blogs that contained strong
suggestions. The 60 % of the blogs used the inclusion type. This type is subtle yetstronger than the exclusion type because it positions the readers to the level of the
blogger to give a sense of participation. Its form is the pronoun we plus a verb or a modal,
like should. A variety of this type uses the objective type of pronoun us and the genitive
type of pronoun our. Below are some of these examples:•We should always remember that there are still some loyal
people that can always be trusted.

−199−

Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO•We should have to treat them [Filipino and English] equally.
•We should not put the blame to our forces and ourgovernment….
•…we should be one to make our country a better place.
•So we should alot time to practice them.
•God had teach us to become righteous even in simple ways and
we ought to do that.

Through person deixis, it has been discussed that the blogger is the most powerful
being in blogging because he can manipulate the topic, the development of the topic, andeven the readers by using either the inclusion and exclusion types of suggestions. It istherefore proven that the use of deixis, particularly person, as a method of analysis candefinitely reveal ideology in relation to power.
That the blogger has power is supported by Douglas Brown (2001) and Barbara
Kroll (1990). Brown claims that a writer holds power as he writes. This power includes
the power “to emend, to clarify, to withdraw” (p. 341). Such power is further explainedand elaborated upon in the three writing theories presented by Barbara Kroll.
Results and Discussion
Findings of the present study have shown that the forty blogs follow a recurring
presentation-opinion pattern. The presentation part contained ideology of the society ingeneral, and the opinion section expressed the ideology held by the bloggers.
The study also reveals that the students’ blogs conveyed the following types ofpower as part of Filipino ideology: (1) Males are superior individuals in society; (2) The
rich are only for the rich and are the only ones who have the right to be happy; (3)Education gives power because of the knowledge it provides; (4) Medical doctors aresuperior because of their help and money, and the OFWs have the power to help thecountry through the dollars they send; (5) God is powerful being because He is thesource (of strength, wisdom, understanding, success, help, and life), a hero, a controllerof events, a cause for success, and the reason for honor; (6) Good values make one
superior because they make people moral; (7) The media is powerful because of thepositive and negative effects it has on people; (8) Foreign products are preferred by
Filipinos because they are of good quality and standard; (9) The tourist spots, like Bohol
is superior to any place in the Philippines because it is preferred by both Filipinos andforeigners; (10) Love is power because it can make a girl a real girl, it controls one’s
thoughts, it can change one’s activities and feelings; (11) Cosmetics is power because it
makes women beautiful and attractive; (12) The English language is superior to theFilipino language because English can financially help its users, it is an international
language, it offers benefits to its users, it is an intellectual language, and it is the languageof the rich; (13) The parents, especially the father, are considered as powerful entities
because they can motivate their children to study and affect their children’s decision; (14)The government has power because it can affect and control people’s activities and it isbelieved to save society from troubles and problems; and (15) The blogger is powerful
because he can manipulate and control both the topics and the readers.
Furthermore, this study discloses that all the fifteen types of power were reflected
through the language used by the bloggers. By using transitivity, the powerful sectors in−200−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

the society participated as agents in the sentences and the inferior sectors were conveyed
as passive and functioned as mere themes or recipients of the actions performed by theagents. By using presuppositions, the power from the dominant sectors in the society was
assumed to be superior. Finally, by using place, time, and person deixis, the types ofpower found in transitivity and presuppositions were validated. However, it is also
discovered that the most powerful being in blogging was the blogger himself. The
blogger was considered powerful because he controlled and manipulated the developmentof the blog; therefore, he had the influence over the readers.
Conclusions
It can be concluded from the findings of the study that the students’ blogs are
structured to accommodate the ideology of society in relation to power as a whole andthat of the bloggers as individuals in society. This shows that blogging, just likenewspapers and magazines, is also an avenue for building and maintaining power insociety.
Then, the Philippine society manifests ideology in relation to power similar to thatof the Western countries. In fact, most of the types of power revealed in the students’
blogs are from the ideology of the colonizers. This suggests that the Filipinos havemaintained the ideology on power instilled by the colonizers, resulting in deethnicization,
cultural immersion, and hybrid identity.
Also, the structure of the language of the 40 blogs clearly revealed ideology on
power in society. Such ideology on power being reflected in the blogs confirms the idea
of Fairclough (2001) and McCarthy and Carter (1994) that language helps in shaping andmaintaining ideology in the society because the language itself reflects ideology andpower. The fact that the language of the freshman students in MSU-IIT reflects ideology
and power proves the assertion that language and power always go together.
Recommendations
On the basis of the results of this study, the following recommendations arepresented:
1. that other methods of critical discourse analysis be used to determine theideologies and powers revealed in the blogs of professionals such as teachers,
lawyers, businessmen and others;
2. that other social networking sites be considered for CDA to compare with thefindings of this study;
3. that plays, novels, poems, and short stories by Filipino authors be studied tovalidate the claims on post-colonial ideologies; and4. that the discourse between teachers and students in the classroom be considered
for CDA analysis to expose the dominant entity in the classroom.

−201−

Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITOBIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:
Ashcroft, Bill, et. al. The Empire Writes Back. England: Clays Ltd., St. Ives plc., 1989.
Bressler, C. E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1999.
Brown, Douglas. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy. USA: Pearson Education Company, 2001.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1989.
Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s
Course. USA: Heinle, 2008.
Clark, U. Studying Language: English in Action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Fromkin, V. and Rodman, R. An Introduction to Language. USA: CBS College Printing,
1983.
Kroll, Barbara. Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. USA:
Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Lyons, John. Semantics. USA: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
McCarthy, Michael and Carter, Ronald. Language Discourse: Perspectives for Language
Teaching. New York: Longman Publishing, 1994.
O’Grady, W. and Archibald, J., Eds. Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction. New
York: Bedford St. Martin’s, 2001.
Pierce, Dann L. (2002). Rhetorical Criticism and Theory in Practice. New York:
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, 2002.
Said, Edward W. (1993). Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books, 1993.
Sharp, J. Geographies of Postcolonialism. SAGE Publications, 2008.

−202−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Articles:Dewan, R. “Deethnicization: A Study of Language and Culture Change in the Sindhi
Immigrant Community of Metro”. Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics(Bautista, M. L. S., Ed.). Philippines: De La Salle University Press, 1989.
Huckin, T. N. “Critical Discourse Analysis”. Functional approaches to written text:
Classroom applications (Miller, T., Ed.). USA: US Information Agency, 1997.
Journals:
Al Jarf, Reima. “The Impact of English as an International Language (EIL) upon Arabic
in Saudi Arabia”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 10, No. 4. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/December_08_raj.php, 2008.
Ansarin, Ali Akbar & Rashidi, Farzad. “Discourse Community or Cultural Conventions:
Rhetorical Analysis of Research Abstracts”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 11, No. 3.
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_2009_aa.php, 2009.
Birjandi, Parviz and Tabatabaei, Omid. “The Impact of Gender on the Incidence andQuality of Form-focused Episodes in Task-based Conversational Feedback
Among EFL Learners”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 11, No. 4. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/December_2009_pb.php, 2009.
Chiu, Chi Yen. “The Discourse of an English Teacher in a Cyber Writing Course: Roles
and Autonomy”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 10, No. 1. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/March_08_cyc.php, 2008.
Dewi, Anita. “Shifts in NNESTs’ Professional Identity: An Impact of Language andCulture Immersion”. Asian EFL Journal”. Vol. 9, No. 4. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/Dec_2007_ad.php, 2007.
Ellis, Rod. Learner Beliefs and Language Learning. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 10, No. 4.
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/December_08_re.php, 2008.
Hsiu-Chinh, Sheu. “EFL Children’s Views on English Picture Story Books”. Asian EFL
Journal.
Vol.
11,
No.
4.
http://www.asian-efljournal.com/December_2009_sc.php, 2009.
Liyanage, I., Grimbeek, P., and Bryer, F. “Relative Cultural Contributions of Religion
and Ethnicity to the Language Learning Strategy Choices of ESL Students in Sri
Lankan and Japanese High Schools”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 12, No. 1.
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_2010_il.php, 2010.
Melendy, Galon A. “Motivating Writers: The Power of Choice”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol.
10, No. 3. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_08_gm.php, 2008.

−203−

Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO

Wang, Lixia. “Theme and Rheme in the Thematic Organization of Text: Implications for
Teaching Academic Writing”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 9, No. 1.
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_07_lw.php, 2007.
YÕldÕrÕm, Rana and Okan, Zuhal. “The Question of Global English-Language Teaching:
A Turkish Perspective”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 9, No. 4. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/Dec_2007_ry&zo.php, 2007.
Dissertation:
Ng, Siew H. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Representations of Bilateral Issues
Concerning Malaysia and Singapore in Mainstream Newspaper Editorials.
Published Dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 2008.
Unpublished Materials:
Fajardo, Loreta. L. Her Language: Her Culture? An Analysis of Diction Used in the
Selected Poems of Cebuano Women Writers and their Cultural Implications.
Graduate Research Paper, Mindanao State University—Iligan Institute ofTechnology, 2010.
Polito, Rabindranath S. and Celiz, Maryrose R. Identity and Hybridity: The Filipino in
Ten Selected Poems of Gumercindo Rafanan. Undergraduate Thesis, Mindanao
State University—Iligan Institute of Technology, 2006.
Internet Source:
Van Dijk, T. A. “Discourse and Power: Contributions to Critical Discourse Studies”.
Houndsmills: Palgrave MacMillan. http://psasir.upm.edu.my/5646/, 2008.

−204−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically:
A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions
Tohru Seraku
St. Catherine’s College, Oxford<Abstract>
This paper defends the thesis that what are usually conceived as “syntactic” issues are fruitfully
dealt with in light of “semantics/pragmatics”, as modelled within Dynamic Syntax. To this end,
this paper presents a case study of island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese clefts. As widely noted, twotypes of clefts differ in terms of whether a focus item can be associated with the gap inside anisland. This apparently syntactic difference emerges as an outcome of semantic/pragmatic tree
growth. The analysis to be presented is preferable over previous accounts in that it handles thedata in a uniform fashion. It is also argued that “topic” and “focus” effects in clefts are viewed asa by-product of gradual updating of a semantic/pragmatic tree.
<Keywords> dynamic syntax, incrementality, complex NP, topic, focus

1. INTRODUCTION
In Japanese, there are two types of cleft constructions, depending on whether a focus item has aparticle. (What is meant by “a focus item” is a pre-copula item, like kono-huku (= ‘this-cloth’) in(1, 2); the notion of “focus” is clarified in Section 4.) I shall call clefts without a particle, as in (1),“clefts–P”, and call clefts with a particle, as in (2), “clefts+P”. As observed in Hoji (1990), clefts–P
are insensitive to island constraints, while clefts+P are sensitive to island constraints.
ki-teiru]
hitoi]-ga
kawaiku-mieru(1) [[[ei ej
wear-CONT]
person]-NOM
cute-look[[[kono-hukujda.
this-cloth
COP‘It is this cloth xj that the person who wears xj looks cute.’(2)*[[[ei ej ki-teiru][[[
wear-CONT]
kono-hukuj-o da.
this-cloth-ACC COP

hitoi]-ga
person]-NOM

kawaiku-mieru
cute-lookno]-waNO]-TOPno]-waNO]-TOP

Here, the island is the Complex NP [ki-teiru] hito (= ‘a person who wears ej’) (cf. Ross 1967). In(2), where the focus item kono-huku (= ‘this-cloth’) has the accusative case particle o, the string is
unacceptable presumably because the focus item is associated with the gap inside the island. In(1), where the focus item lacks a case particle, the string is acceptable despite the island.
In the literature, this island puzzle has been treated syntactically on the basis of syntactic
operation or representation (e.g. Hiraiwa and Ishihara to appear, Hoji 1990, Kizu 2005). This
paper addresses the issue from the perspective of how an interpretation is incrementally built up asa string is parsed word-by-word, as modelled within Dynamic Syntax (Cann et al. 2005). Throughthis case study, I shall defend the thesis that what are usually construed as “syntactic” issues arefruitfully handled “semantically/pragmatically”.

−205−Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically:A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions

2. FRAMEWORKThis paper is couched within Dynamic Syntax (Cann et al. 2005). In this framework, a string ismapped onto a semantic/pragmatic tree incrementally as the string is parsed word-by-word online.
The initial state of tree growth is specified as (3) by the AXIOM.
(3)

AXIOM
?t, ‫ݔ‬?t is a requirement that this node be decorated with type-t content. Thus, semantic/pragmatic tree
growth is goal-driven, the goal being to construct type-t content, or an interpretation of the string.
The root node is also decorated with the pointer ‫ݔ‬, which indicates a node under development.
Once the initial node is set out, it is incrementally updated by a combination of computational,
lexical, or pragmatic actions. For a model of pragmatics, I assume Relevance Theory (Sperber andWilson 1995). This set of actions constitutes the grammars of natural languages; “syntax” isnothing over and above this set of actions, and an independent level of syntactic structure is not
postulated. Semantic/pragmatic tree growth comes to an end when a well-formed final state (i.e.
tree without requirements) arises. A string of words is said to be grammatical iff there exists awell-formed final state of tree transitions.
To take the English string He smokes as an example, the parse of the string updates the initialstate progressively, yielding the well-formed final state (4).
(4)

Parsing He smokes
smoke’(Tom’) : t, ‫ݔ‬Tom’ : esmoke’ : (eЍt)

Each node, if fully decorated, represents semantic content and type. Content of a mother node iscalculated on the basis of the contents of its daughters by functional application, and the type of amother node is calculated on the basis of the types of its daughters by type deduction. Content of
he is a place-holding variable, but it is pragmatically assigned the value Tom’. Such pragmatic
processes are accommodated over the tree, since what is built up is a semantic/pragmatic tree.
In addition to these general machineries, there are two other mechanisms to be noted. First, anode may be initially underspecified for its place in a tree and will be fixed at a later point. Thisapparatus dispenses with “movement” in GB-Theory or “internal merge” in Minimalism. To takethe topicalization string Tom, Mary likes as an example, the node for Tom is initially unfixed and,after the parse of likes has created an object node with a place-holding variable, the node for Tom
unifies with the object node, substituting the place-holding variable with the value (i.e. content of
Tom). Second, tree growth involves paired structures, where one structure is LINKed to the otherin virtue of the presence of a shared term. Once a LINK relation is built up, it is “evaluated”; thatis, the content of a LINKed structure is incorporated into the content of a main structure. Thesemechanisms of “structural underspecification and subsequent resolution” and “a LINK relation”
are relevant to my analysis of clefts, and they will be illustrated in the next section.

3. ANALYSIS
Before presenting the analysis of the asymmetry between (1) and (2), it might be helpful to sketch
the heart of the analysis in an intuitive way. In general, the sequence “NP + case-particle” tells aparser whether the NP is a subject, or an object, etc. of a predicate, and that the relation between
the NP and the predicate is non-global (i.e. put theoretically, “not across an island boundary”). It−206−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

is this non-global nature of case particles that prevents an island-involving tree from being further
updated. The crucial point is thus that a string of clefts with an island structure is parsable (hence,island-insensitive) only if the focus item lacks a case particle.
3.1. Clefts–P
Let’s start with the cleft–P (1), repeated here as (5).
(5)

hitoi]-ga
kawaiku-mieru[[[ei ej ki-teiru]
wear-CONT]
person]-NOM
cute-look[[[kono-hukujda.
this-cloth
COP‘It is this cloth xj that the person who wears xj looks cute.’no]-waNO]-TOP

As mentioned in the last section, the starting point of tree transitions is always determined by
the AXIOM, as in (3). Starting with this initial state, the first item to be parsed is the predicate ki (=‘wear’). Since Japanese is a fully pro-drop language, it is a predicate that constructs a template fora propositional structure. Thus, the lexical actions of ki update the tree (3) into (6), yielding an
open proposition with subject and object slots. These slots correspond to the gap ei and the gap ej
in (5). The content of a gap is notated as a type-e term, such as (Ȝ, x, P(x)), in Epsilon Calculus.
In this calculus, a term is defined as the triple: an operator, a variable, and a restrictor. To take theterm (Ȝ, x, P(x)) as an example, Ȝ is an existential operator that binds the variable x, and P(x)is a restrictor, where P is an abstract restrictor (Kempson and Kurosawa 2009: 65).
(6) Parsing Ki
ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(Ȝ, y, Q(y)) : t, ‫ݔ‬(Ȝ, y, Q(y)) : eki’(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : (eЍt)(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : eki’ : (eЍ(eЍt))

In this paper, I disregard the parse of tense or aspectual particles, such as teiru in (5), which is notdirectly relevant to the current discussion.
In order to parse the head noun hito (= ‘person’), the computational action LINK ADJUNCTION
introduces an inverse LINK relation from the current type-t node to a type-e-requiring node. This
LINK relation is expressed by the curved arrow in (7). The head noun hito is then parsed at thistype-e-requiring node, and the node gets decorated with content of hito, and it is also specified asa type-e node. The computational action LINK EVALUATION incorporates the content at the type-t
node into the type-e node. This type-e node is initially unfixed, since a parser cannot see at thispoint whether the head noun hito will be a subject, or an object, etc. In (7), the node has been
fixed as a subject node by the lexical actions of the nominative case particle ga.
(7) Parsing [[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga?t, ‫ݔ‬ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(Ȝ, y, Q(y)) : t(Ȝ, y, Q(y)) : e(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : eki’(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : (eЍt)(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : eki’ : (eЍ(eЍt))−207−

Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically:A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions

Here, I follow Cann et al.’s (2005: Ch.6) treatment of Japanese relatives, but their analysis is notformally licit in that it introduces two unfixed nodes hung from the same node during tree growth.
I sidestep this issue in the tree (7), since it is not directly pertinent to the current discussion; seeSeraku (2012) for an alternative analysis of Japanese relatives within Dynamic Syntax.
The current node in (7) is enriched by the parse of the predicate kawaiku-mieru (= ‘look-cute’).
(8) Parsing [[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieruk-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t, ‫ݔ‬ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(Ȝ, y, Q(y)) : t(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : ek-m’ : (eЍt)

The internal structure of the relative clause is abbreviated by a triangle in (8). In addition, content
of the predicate kawaiku-mieru is notated as k-m’.
Cann et al. (2005: 285) regard no as a nominalizer that copies a term (in the present case, theterm (Ȝ, x, P(x)) in (8)), and pastes it at a type-e node to which the type-t node is LINKed. This
LINK relation is expressed by the arrow with the notation “no” in (9).
(9) Parsing [[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru no“no”
k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e, ‫ݔ‬In (9), the whole structure that has been constructed prior to the parse of no (i.e. the tree (8) as awhole) is schematized by a triangle for the sake of brevity.
Then, the lexical actions encoded in the topic particle wa (Cann et al. 2005: 268) put at a
LINKed type-t-requiring node the requirement ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x)), for more on which see below.
(10) Parsing [[[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru no]-wa“no”
k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e“wa”?t, ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x)), ‫ݔ‬What comes next is the focus item kono-huku (= ‘this-cloth’). In order to parse a type-e item
within an island, an inverse LINK relation is introduced, as in (11). This updating is formalized as
a computational action in Cann et al. (2005: 169).
(11) INVERSE-LINK INTRODUCTION“no”
k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e“wa”?t, ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x))?e, ‫ݔ‬−208−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

The type-e-requiring node is fleshed out by the lexical actions of the focus item kono-huku, andonce decorated by the processing of kono-huku, this decoration is incorporated into another nodeas ?<D>(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)), a requirement that a node somewhere below the current node should be
decorated with the term (Ƞ, x, huku’(x)). This requirement ensures that the term (Ƞ, x, huku’(x))
is used in the construction from the current type-t-requiring node (Cann et al. 2005: 169).
(12) Parsing [[[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru no]-wa kono-huku“no”
k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e“wa”?t, ?<D>(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)), ‫ݔ‬(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) : e
Note that the requirement ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x)), which was present in (11), has been deleted in (12).
This is because the new requirement ?<D>(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) is stronger than the old one; that is, if
the new requirement is satisfied, the weaker initial form of requirement will also be satisfied.
Finally, the lexical actions of the copula da put a place-holding variable at a type-t-requiring
node (Seraku 2011). This place-holding variable licenses the re-run of a set of previous actions toconstruct a propositional structure. In the present case, what is re-run is a set of previous actions
creating the structure of the pre-no clause (i.e. the structure which is schematized by a triangle in(12)). During this re-run, the node for the gap gets decorated with (Ƞ, x, huku’(x)), which meetsthe requirement ?<D>(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)).
(13) Parsing [[[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru no]-wa kono-huku da“no”
k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e“wa”
k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ƞ, x, huku’(x))(y)) : t, ‫ݔ‬(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) : e
This is the final state of the tree transitions for the cleft–P (5). The current node in (13) represents
the interpretation of the cleft–P (5): ‘It is this cloth xj that the person who wears xj looks cute.’
The presence of tree transitions that lead to a well-formed final state ensures that the cleft–P (5)is grammatical, and it further shows that clefts–P are not sensitive to island constraints.
3.2. Clefts+P
Let’s now move on to the cleft+P (2), repeated here as (14).
ki-teiru](14) *[[[ei ej
wear-CONT][[[
kono-hukuj-o da.
this-cloth-ACC COP

hitoi]-ga
person]-NOM

kawaiku-mieru
cute-lookno]-waNO]-TOP

Prior to the case particle o, the tree transitions for this string are the same as those for the cleft–P
counterpart. That is, the tree (15) is engendered. (If the content of kono-huku is incorporated into
the LINKed type-t-requiring node as a requirement, the tree (12) will emerge. In the present case,−209−

Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically:A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions

however, before this incorporation process occurs, the case particle o needs to be parsed.)(15) Parsing [[[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru no]-wa kono-huku“no”
k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e“wa”?t, ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x))(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) : e, ‫ݔ‬The next item is the accusative case particle o. In this tree state, however, case particles cannot be
parsed, as their lexical actions have the following two conditions (Cann et al. 2005: 236).
(16) a. The pointer ‫ ݔ‬must be at a type-e node.
b. If the pointer moves up, it must reach a type-t-requiring node without crossing a LINK
relation.
In (15), since the pointer ‫ ݔ‬cannot arrive at a type-t-requiring node without crossing the LINK
relation, the condition (16b) is not satisfied. This captures the ungrammaticality of the cleft+P (14).
One may argue that there may be an alternative analysis of the cleft+P (14). In fact, prior toparsing the focus item, a parser could use the computational action GENERALIZED ADJUNCTION,
which introduces a globally unfixed type-t-requiring node that may be resolved across a LINK
relation. This global underspecification is notated by the dotted line in (17).
(17) Parsing [[[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru no]-wa kono-huku“no”
k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e“wa”?t, ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x))(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) : e, ‫ݔ‬The next item to be parsed is the accusative case particle o. Case particles cannot be parsed in thisenvironment due to the constraint (16b), but a parser could use the computational action INVERSELOCAL *ADJUNCTION, which updates (17) into (18), where the node for the focus item is unfixed
non-globally relative to a type-t-requiring node, which, in turn, is globally unfixed relative toanother type-t-requiring node. The non-global underspecification is notated by the dashed line.
(18) INVERSE LOCAL *ADJUNCTION“no”
k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e“wa”?t, ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x))?t(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) : e, ‫ݔ‬−210−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

This tree state allows the case particle o to be parsed, because the current node is a type-e node,satisfying the condition (16a), and it is also unfixed non-globally with respect to a type-t-requiring
node, satisfying the condition (16b). After the pointer ‫ ݔ‬moves up to the higher type-t-requiring
node, the parse of the copula da posits a type-t place-holding variable, licensing the re-use ofprevious actions to build up a propositional structure (i.e. the structure schematized by a trianglein (18)). Now, the unfixed node for the focus item kono-huku must be fixed as an object node inthis emergent propositional structure. However, such a fixation is not possible, since MERGE, a
computational action that resolves structural underspecification by unifying an unfixed node witha fixed node, is inapplicable to global underspecification. (Recall that in the tree (18), there is
global underspecification, as visually shown by the dotted line.) Thus, a well-formed final statecannot obtain in these tree transitions.
In sum, the cleft+P (14) cannot be mapped onto a well-formed final state, and it is thus regarded
as an ungrammatical string. This, in turn, characterizes the island-sensitivity of clefts+P.
3.3. Significance of the AccountThis section has analyzed the island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese clefts in terms of how a parser
constructs a semantic/pragmatic tree incrementally. Since the data discussed in this section canalso be handled by the previous syntactic studies (e.g. Hiraiwa and Ishihara to appear, Hoji 1990,
Kizu 2005), the significance of my analysis is to be explicated.
These previous syntactic studies account for the data by postulating distinct derivations for thetwo types of clefts. The established view is to assume that movement is involved in clefts+P but not
in clefts–P. The exception is Kizu (2005); she uniformly utilizes movement for the derivations ofboth types of clefts, but ends up assigning quite different derivations to them.
Contrary to these ambiguity accounts, my analysis provides a uniform account; every lexical
item in clefts is assigned a single entry, and no distinct tree transitions are assigned to the two
types of clefts. Thus, from the viewpoint of theoretical parsimony, my analysis is preferable over
the aforementioned syntactic analyses.

4. RE-THINKING TOPIC AND FOCUS
In Japanese clefts, the pre-no clause, which conveys presupposition, is nominalized by no, and it
is further marked as a “topic” by the particle wa. With respect to this topic, the pre-copula item
expresses a “focus”. As stated in Erteschik-Shir (2007: 26), however, such notions as topic andfocus are elusive to formulate, since they are related to various phenomena (e.g. topicalizations,clefts, wh-questions), and these phenomena behave differently cross-linguistically. In general, a“topic” is old or given information which stands in an aboutness relation to the information
expressed by the non-topicalized part of the sentence; a “focus” is more difficult to define, but inthe case of assertion, it is part of the propositional content of a sentence that assigns a value to anissue under discussion. For more discussion of these concepts, see Lambrecht (1996).
In this section, I shall explore how my analysis characterizes the notions of “topic” and “focus”
in Japanese clefts. To this end, I follow Cann et al. (2005: 183-4) and Kempson et al. (2006) inclaiming that there are neither primitive concepts such as topic and focus nor theoreticalconstructs that are tied to them. This stance is contrasted with other approaches to topic/focus
constructions; for instance, in the “cartographic” approach to the left periphery (Rizzi 1997 andsubsequent works), syntactic projections for topic and focus (i.e. TP, FP) are postulated. In the
Dynamic Syntax view, the notions of topic or focus are not articulated over a tree, but their effects
emerge as a result of incremental tree updating. More specifically, topic effects arise when a termis presented as a context relative to which a parser starts to build up a propositional structure; by−211−

Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically:A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions

contrast, focus effects arise when a parser has constructed an open proposition and the provisionof a term serves as an update to the open propositional structure (cf. Gregoromichelaki (2010)).
Given these premises, topic and focus effects in Japanese clefts can be taken to arise as a resultof certain forms of tree updating. First, the node created by no is decorated with the content of the
gap in a cleft, and the topic marker wa introduces a LINK relation from this node to an emergent
propositional structure, posing a requirement that the content of the gap should be present in theemergent propositional structure. This updating yields what one associates with a topic effect in acleft sentence. Second, the structure built up by the parse of the pre-no clause involves a term
representing the content of the gap in a cleft, and a parser expects a concrete term to obtain which
specifies the content of the gap. It is by the parse of the pre-copula item that such specification is
made; that is, the abstract content of the gap in the previous structure gets specified as concrete
content in the new structure by the parse of the pre-copula item (and the copula). These transitions
invoke what one normally regards as a focus effect in a cleft sentence.

5. CONCLUSION
This paper has argued that the island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese clefts follows from incremental
growth of a semantic/pragmatic tree. The analysis is preferable over previous accounts in that it
offers a uniform analysis of clefts. This case study has implications for the study of semantics andpragmatics. First, it characterizes topic and focus effects as a by-product of gradual tree updating.
Second, it challenges the traditional view that structural puzzles are to be addressed syntactically.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I’d like to thank David Cram, Stephen Horn, Ruth Kempson, Jieun Kiaer, and the participants ofmy talk at the PSJ 14 for their helpful suggestions.
REFERENCES
Cann, R., Kempson, R., and Marten, L. et al. 2005. The Dynamics of Language. Oxford: Elsevier.
Erteschik-Shir, N. 2007. Information Structure. Oxford: OUP.
Gregoromichelaki, E. 2010. “A Dynamic Perspective of Left-Right Asymmetries.” In Walker, H. andWebelhuth, G. (eds.) Rightward Movement from a Cross-linguistic Perspective.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hiraiwa, K. and Ishihara, S. to appear. “Syntactic Metamorphosis.” Syntax.
Hoji, H. 1990. Theories of Anaphora and Aspects of Japanese Syntax. Ms., USC.
Kempson, R., Cann, R., and Kiaer, J. 2006. “Topic, Focus and the Structural Dynamics of Language.”
In Molnár, V. and Winkler, S. (eds.) The Architecture of Focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kempson, R. and Kurosawa, A. 2009. “At the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface.” In Hoshi, H. (ed.) The
Dynamics and Mechanism of Language. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Kizu, M. 2005. Cleft Constructions in Japanese Syntax. New York: Palgrave.
Lambrecht, K. 1996. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge : CUP.
Rizzi, L. 1997. “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In Haegeman, L. (ed.) Elements ofGrammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Seraku, T. 2011. “On the Polyfunctionality of Copula Sentences in Japanese.” In Cummins, C. et al.
th(eds.) Proceedings of the 6 Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research.
Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research.
Seraku, T. 2012. “Complex NPs in Head-final Languages.” Ms., University of Oxford.
ndSperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance, 2 edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

−212−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Allo-repetition to Develop the Story: From Storytellers to Story-recipientsin English Narratives
Lala Uchida
Tokyo Denki University

ࠑAbstractࠒ
My aim is to shed light on how repetition of story-recipients' utterances by storytellers affects
storytelling. I investigate the use of allo-repetition, focusing on three components proposed by Ochs etal. (1992): explanatory, challengeability, and redrafting. The data consists of ten audiotaped face-to-faceconversations between English speakers. This analysis shows that storytellers repeat the story-recipients’words chiefly as answers and links, to summarize and develop their story. In addition, answering isfulfilled the most in challengeability, while linking occurs most frequently in explanatory and redrafting.
I identify two kinds of collaboration being encouraged by repetition: contextual collaboration andexpressional collaboration.
࠙Keywordsࠚ: allo-repetition, storytelling, theory-building activity, joint construction

1. Introduction
People share experiences with their interlocutors through narratives. Researchers in sociolinguistics
or discourse analysis have argued that narratives are created by collaborations between storytellers andstory-recipients (Ochs et al. 1992; Nishikawa 2005). To illustrate this, we need to focus on the linguistic
strategy that both participants use to complete a single narrative together. In particular, repetition is aneffective tool in the joint construction of contextual meaning (Tannen 1989) because of being identified
as a limitless resource for interpersonal development and being regarded as a strategy of “positive
politeness” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 102) in establishing common ground with interlocutors.
I have analyzed the use of immediate allo-repetition in English-language narratives to describe howrepetition by storytellers to story-recipients affects storytelling. I have also investigated the use of allorepetition in terms of place, form, and content, focusing on the components of storytelling that Ochs etal. (1992) had initially proposed in their model of narrative as a theory-building activity. I relied on thedefinition of a narrative by Sugita (2006)—a discussion of a particular past event using a series ofsequentially ordered clauses created through cooperation between storytellers and recipients.
2. Previous studies
2.1. Narrative
Labov and Waletzky (1967) and Lerner (1992) have analyzed how storytellers develop their stories
or convey important points. They have suggested that as storytellers relate details of an event, storyrecipients react to them. At the same time, however, this pattern is not always maintained throughout anarrative; rather, recipients also contribute to the progression of a story.
In contrast, Ochs et al. (1992) and Nishikawa (2005) focused on collaboration in narrative building
and emphasized the contribution of recipients to the completion of narratives. Ochs et al. (1992)
compared everyday storytelling to theory-building activities, arguing that a story is collaboratively
constructed by both the storyteller and the story-recipient. Nishikawa (2005) applied this concept of−213−

Allo-repetition to Develop the Story: From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives

narrative as a theory-building activity to Japanese conversational data. She was able to support the ideaof co-constructing a narrative on the part of all interlocutors by showing that Japanese conversations had
a structure similar to the one that Ochs et al. (1992) had identified in English language storytelling.
However, no study has analyzed how narratives are created from one linguistic expression.
Uchida (2010) clarified the function of repetition on the part of story-recipients in the constructionof narratives. According to her research, the way a storyteller reacts to a recipient’s repetition clearly
demonstrates that repetition is used to help clarify the story and bring the narrative to completion, thus
contributing to joint construction in storytelling. However, no study has revealed how repetition by
storytellers of words or phrases spoken by story-recipients, who have less information on the story told,
is linked to the completion of a narrative.
2.2. Components of theory-building activities in narrative
According to Ochs et al. (1992), narratives in ordinary conversations include collaborative theorybuilding activities. These activities involve the following three components: (1) explanatory (storytellers
suggest at least one problematic event that frames or changes other narrated events); (2) challengeability(both storytellers and listeners can actively contribute to narrative completion by pointing out a problem
area in a previous narrative or by presenting new ideas to render the problematic event as being much
more comprehensible); and (3) redrafting (storytellers respond to interlocutors’ attempts to elaborate on
the narrative or provide alternative explanations, framings, and the outcomes of the previous speakers’
rough description). I clarified the processes by which narratives are completed through the use of allorepetition and expanded on the above research of Ochs et al. (1992).
2.3. Allo-repetition
Allo-repetition is the repetition of story-recipients’ utterances by storytellers in the same
conversation. It involves phrases that can effectively introduce the speaker's own ideas or opinions via
the “voice” of others (Bakhtin 1981) and is thus a significant element that contributes to the joint
construction of narrative. Kim (2002) noted that repetition manifests as either exact repetition or partial
repetition of some preceding turn, most commonly involving what the speaker has just said sententially,clausally, phrasally, or lexically. Exact repetition occurs when the same wording is used between
repeated and repetition usually in the forms of single words or phrases. According to this definition,even one- or two-word noun phrases are defined as repetition. Partial repetition includes deixis, tense
shift, speaker change, and changes of prosody.
I have excluded paraphrasing because it is too difficult to identify the extent to which paraphrasingreflects a speaker’s linguistic form and contributes to that of the listener. This analysis deployed Kim’s
definition and considered as true repetition only the direct quotation of the immediately precedingutterance. Direct quotation can be given when story-recipients hear preceding words and repeat all orsome part of them lexically.
2.4. Functions of repetition
I measured the following eight functions of allo-repetition in English on the basis of previous
studies of repetition, including the illustration of a range of functions served by repetition of words,−214−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

phrases, and clauses in a conversation (Tannen 1989); the identification of six social actions performedby second-position repetition (Kim 2002); and the quantitative analysis of English allo-repetition (Machi2007): agreement, confirmation, questioning, answering, acceptance of humor, linking phrases,
correction, and surprise.
3. Research questions
A brief review on previous research of narrative and repetition indicates that analyzing repetition
with regard to the components proposed by Ochs et al. (1992) may provide significant information on
how repetition functions as an interactive feature and the extent to which it influences the direction of
narratives. I conducted this investigation by focusing on allo-repetition to identify the form ofcooperative interaction that each repetition takes and the manner in which it contributes to narrativecompletion. Functional analysis, on the other hand, can clarify the meaning that each repetition adds to anarrative and help us understand how repetition is used in storytellers’ redrafting.
Taking this into consideration, I will address the following two questions: “(1) For what function
do storytellers use repetition?” and “(2) How does functional distribution of repetition differ among thethree components?”
4. Materials and methods
I used transcriptions of audio recordings of 10 face-to-face conversations between native English
speakers from the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English Part 1, lasting a total of about 229
minutes. I identified 104 instances of allo-repetition by storytellers to story-recipients. I classified thesedata according to the three components of theory building in narratives to conduct a functional analysis.
5. Analysis
5.1. Functional distribution of allo-repetition according to the eight functions
Quantitative and qualitative analyses reveal that storytellers repeat the story-recipients’ words
primarily as answers (31.7%) and links (31.7%) (Table 1), whose examples will be shown below:
Table 1: Allo-repetition by storytellers to story-recipients according to the eight functions

Functions Agre
Conf Ques Answ
Number (%) 12 (11.5) 6 (5.8) 4 (3.8) 33 (31.7)

Humor Link
5 (4.8) 33 (31.7)

Corr
Surp TOTAL
11 (10.6) 0
104(1) Answering
࠙Actual Blacksmithingࠚ(LYNNE = storyteller; LENORE, DORIS = story-recipients)1
01 LE: ... So you don't need to go ... borrow equipment from anybody,02
to -Ѝ 03... to do the feet?
04... [Do the hooves]?
05 LY: [(H)=] <YWN Well,
06
we're gonna have to find somewhere,07
to get,08(Hx) ... something (Hx) YWN>.
09 D: .. So,−215−

Allo-repetition to Develop the Story: From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives

10[~Mae-] -11 LY: [I'm gonna] (Hx) -12 D: [2~Mae ~Lynne XX2]
э 13 LY: [2(H) We're not2] gonna do the feet today,
14 I'm gonna wait till like,
15 early in the morning=,
16 .. to do those,
17 cause y- -18 I mean you get s=o ti=red.
The participants of this conversation are LYNNE (a student of equine science), LENORE (a visitor andnear stranger), and DORIS (LYNNE’s mother, who is doing housework). LENORE, one of the storyrecipients, inquires about the purpose of borrowing equipment during a training session on horse
trimming. LYNNE, the storyteller of this narrative, answers her question in line 13 by repeating part ofLENORE’s phrase, especially the utterance in line 03 that she is not going “to do the feet”—a phrase
LENORE uses to ask about LYNNE’s purpose for borrowing equipment. This repetition serves as
feedback to the story-recipients, showing the storyteller’s consideration toward the degree of storyrecipients’ understanding in order to clarify information and develop the narrative.
(2) Linking phrases
࠙This Retirement Bitࠚ(ANGELA = storyteller; DORIS, SAMANTHA = story-recipients)
01 A: (H) It had a,02 (H) it had a,
03 ... one of tho=se ... bottoms that -04 D: ... Oh=.
05 A: are -06 ... what do you call it.
07 S: .. A tail?
08 D: ... No.
Ѝ 09
The tight.
Ѝ 10
It- [% % the band].
11 S:
[Oh].
э 12 A:[The t- the] tight band around [2the bottom2] [3of it3].
13 D:[2B-2][3band3].
14 S:[3I don't3] like those.
15 A: ... I don't either.
16 D: ... Makes your butt look [thin].
17 A:[Most] all of em are that way.
18 D: [2Makes your hei- -19 A: [2(H) And do you know2],
20 D: makes your2] heinie look thinner.
This conversation took place among three friends (ANGELA, DORIS, and SAMANTHA), all of whom
are retired women. ANGELA, the storyteller of this narrative, forms her utterance and develops it bylinking two phrases “The tight” in line 09 and “band” in line 10. These two phrases are taken fromstory-recipient DORIS’ answer to ANGELA’s question about the name of a beads accessory. Here, theutterance in line 12 serves as feedback to both story-recipients, which includes the information fromDORIS and assimilates the understanding of SAMANTHA. This segment helps clarify the narrative
content by combining story-recipients’ fragmentary words to create one phrase.
5.2. Functional distribution of allo-repetition according to the three components
Next, the functional distribution of allo-repetition according to the three components by storytellers−216−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

to story-recipients most frequently involves responding to challenges (34.3%), whereas linking occurs
most frequently in the context of explanation (50%) and redrafting (56%) (Table 2). I will demonstrate
three instances below with involving the three components:
Table 2: Allo-repetition by storytellers to story-recipients according to the three components

Functions
Expla (%)
Chall (%)
Redra (%)

Agre
Conf
Ques
Answ
Humor
0
0
1 (8.3) 4 (33.3) 0
10 (14.9) 5 (7.5) 3 (4.5) 23 (34.3) 4 (6)
2 (8)
1 (4)
0
6 (24)
1 (4)

Link
Corr
6 (50)
1 (8.3)13 (19.4) 9 (13.4)
14 (56)
1 (4)

Surp
0
0
0

TOTAL
12
67
25

(3) Linking phrases in the explanatory component
࠙Appease the Monsterࠚ(MARCI = storyteller; WENDY, KEVIN, KENDRA = story-recipients)
Ѝ 01 W: All of our alterations go to !Edna,
02 M: (H)
Ѝ 03 KEV: !Edna.
࠙pre-explanatory componentࠚ
04 KEN: .. <FOOD I go to [!Rita FOOD>].
05 W:[and] __
э 06 M: !Edna's left our church.
07
Did you know that?
08.. [Did] she tell [2you2]?
09 KEV: [(DRINK)]
10 W:[2Hm2]_m.
11 KEV: .. Hm_m.
12 M: They've go=ne [.. to=] .. a sou=th,
13 KEN:[(THROAT)]
14 M: .. a church down south, a little tiny one?
࠙explanatory componentࠚ
15 KEV: (H)
16 M: (H) And when !Edn=a told me about it, .. %it was because they sort of wanted to go=, .. toa smaller congregation.
17 KEV: [Hm].
18 M: [(H)] But when they announced it in church, and we prayed for them, it was becau=se,they, .. um, ... they were gonna go out %, ... because they felt called. ... [So],19 KEV:[Hm].
20 M: .. I don't know what the real story is, but, ... it sounded kinda neat.
21 KEV: .. [Hm].
22 W:[(TSK) Well it] must % __ Their, I think thei=r motives must .. be pretty solid, if they're
willing to talk to !Ron about it, and [make it a pub]lic thing,
23 M:[Oh yeah]. Yeah[2=2],
࠙challengeability componentࠚ
24 W:[2So2], ... [3(H)3]25 M:[3Yeah3].
This is a family conversation at a birthday party. Among the participants, KENDRA (the person
celebrating the birthday) and KEVIN are siblings, MARCI is their mother, and WENDY is KEVIN’swife. MARCI, the storyteller, repeats WENDY’s word in line 01 and KEVIN’s word in line 03—both ofthem are in the pre-explanatory component—to begin a story about Edna changing churches in line 06,
a part of the explanatory component. This leads to clarifying information about Edna by bringing thestory-recipients’ words together and linking them. It acts as feedback to the story-recipients, which is aneffective way to show commonality on a topic.

−217−

Allo-repetition to Develop the Story: From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives(4) Answering in the challengeability component
࠙A Book about Deathࠚ(PAMELA = storyteller; DARRYL = story-recipient)
01 P: (H) I'm thinking one thing my mother always used to say=,02
when I wouldn't go bicycling with my [father],
03 D:[<@ ~Pamela],04
you are [2@@@,05 P:[2she would say2],
࠙explanatory componentࠚ
06 D: you are @@@ @>2] -07 P: she would say,08(H) <Q you'll be s=orry when we're dead Q>.
Ѝ 09 D: @Because you would[n't bicycling]?
10 P:[@@ <@Mm@>].
э 11
Because I wouldn't go bicycling with my father.
12 D: Oh.

࠙challengeability componentࠚThis is a conversation between a couple who is lying in bed. PAMELA, the storyteller, raised a point inline 08—a part of the explanatory component—that her mother said PAMELA would be sorry when her
parents were dead. The story-recipient DARRYL questions her point at line 09 in the challengeability
component, which she summarizes in line 11 by giving feedback to the story-recipient with regard to thedegree of his understanding. Here, she affirms DARRYL’s question by using the same phrases toexpress a high level of empathy in response to the challenge from the story-recipient.
(5) Linking phrases in the redrafting component
࠙Conceptual Pesticidesࠚ(MARILYN = storyteller; PETE, ROY = story-recipients)
01 M: But -02.. Yeah.
03.. (H) Actually,04
you know,࠙explanatory componentࠚ
05.. Zeke the sheik .. is a local.
06... You know,
07
the guy whose compost pile blew up?
08 P: ... Oh no I don't know a[bout this].
09 M:[Didn't you hear] about him?
10 P: [2No2].

࠙challengeability componentࠚ

11 M: [2It -12
it2] caught fi- -:24
you wanna butter these?

࠙redrafting componentࠚ

25 R: The grass clip[pings].
26 P:[Mhm].
27 R: <X A X> huge [2ceme2]tery,
28 M:[2Yeah2].
29 R: they would [3mow their3] lawns,
30 P:[3Yeah3].
Ѝ 31 R: .. he would take [4the grass clippings4].
32 M:[4And he asked em4],
э 33 if he could have the grass clippings,
34
for like fifteen years.

࠙challengeability componentࠚ࠙redrafting componentࠚThis example was extracted from a conversation among three friends who are preparing dinner together.
ROY and MARILYN are a married couple, and PETE is a friend visiting from out of town. The−218−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

storyteller, MARILYN, develops a topic about a Muslim patriarch, Zeke, whose compost pile blew up.
ROY, one of the story-recipients, uses the phrase “the grass clippings” in line 31—a part of thechallengeability component—to refer to the grass required to restore the burned compost pile.
MARILYN links the phrase to her narrative and repeats it in line 33 in the redrafting component. This
acts as feedback to the story-recipient to help in assimilating his understanding of the information. It
also clarifies the relationship with the previous expression of the phrase and develops the present
narrative in the redrafting component in which Zeke asked if he could have the grass clippings.
6. Discussion
Clarifying the function of repetition will bring us an opportunity to learn more about the extent towhich it contributes to narrative completion. By adopting the story-recipients’ information andunderstanding through repetition, storytellers summarized the conversation so far and assimilated storyrecipient with the pace of a given narrative in respect of the degree of participants’ information andunderstanding as feedback. Then, the storytellers brought close to a conclusion of their own narrative.
Here, responding to stories by repetition can be used as a signal for the storyteller to be ready forthe recipients’ contribution to a particular story. Utterances from listeners can give storytellers more
information about how to complete a certain narrative in a more detailed and comprehensible way(Tannen 1978; Norrick 2008). Repetition is often regarded as a pivot for both of the participants innarrative, a signal to restart and develop the storytelling, which indicates that certain focal points should
be clarified for storytellers and story-recipients (Uchida 2010).
Also, repetition is a tool for joint construction of narrative. Through repetition, the following two
kinds of collaboration are enabled or encouraged: (1) contextual collaboration, which helps to clarify
story content; and (2) expressional collaboration, which helps synchronize two voices. In contextual
collaboration, repetition is often regarded as a signal to restart the storytelling, leading to theclarification of focal points. Indeed, story-recipients typically have less information about the topic at
hand than do storytellers, creating a situation in which listeners must keep pace with the speaker todevelop the ongoing narrative. Additionally, storytellers can use repetition to confirm listeners’
understanding and incorporate their words into the stories.
During expressional collaboration, each repetition belongs to a speaker in his/her role as an“animator” (Goffman 1981: 144). At the same time, however, the repeated words were initially utteredby a previous speaker and thus also belong to that original speaker in his/her role as “author” (ibid.). The
expressive similarity between the two voices enables storytellers and story-recipients to build
cooperative relationships in the service of completing a given narrative.
7. Conclusion
The results of this study highlight the importance of repetition in the co-construction process of
conversational storytelling and help clarify how interlocutors jointly construct information in narratives.
At the same time, however, framework of linguistic anthropology, such as indexicality (Silverstein
1976; Kataoka 2002; Hata 2008), must be adopted in a further research. Analyzing repetition from theperspective of indexicality enables us to deepen our understanding on the role of allo-repetition in
narrative development, because indexicality argues that each linguistic device clarifies its meaning−219−

Allo-repetition to Develop the Story: From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives

through detailed information about context and that interaction between speaker and listener, including
collaborative constructing of narratives, is focused on to explain creative meaning of indexicality.

Notes
1. Transcription conventions (Du Bois et al. 1993)
Intonation .: final ,: continuing ?: appeal (TSK): click
VOX: voice of anotherpause...: middle (0.3 s < X < 0.6 s)..: short (X < 0.2 s)(H): inhalation (Hx): exhalation [ ]: overlap <Q Q>: quotation <X word X>: uncertain hearing!: booster@: laugh=: latching %: glottal stop wor-: word truncation
References
Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. In M. Holquist (ed.), C. Emerson and M.
Holquist (trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J. W., S. Schuetze-Coburn, S. Cumming and D. Paolino. 1993. “Outline of Discourse
Transcription.” In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lampert (eds.) Talking data: Transcription and coding
methods for discourse research, 45-89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hata, K. 2008. “How Direct/indirect Indexicality Functions in Japanese Women’s Narratives ofChildbirth and Childcare Experiences: A Study of the Relationship between Sociocultural Context
and Representation of Social Norms.” Studies in English and American Literature 43, 55-77.
Kataoka, K. 2002. “Shijiteki, Hishijiteki Imi to Bunkateki Jissen: Gengo ni okeru ‘Shihyousei’ ni tsuite(Referential/nonreferential Meaning and Cultural Significance: ‘Indexicality’ in Language Use).”The Japanese Journal of Language in Society 4:2, 21-41.
Kim, H. 2002. “The Form and Function of Next-turn Repetition in English Conversation.” Language
Research 38:1, 51-81.
Labov, W. and J. Waletzky. 1967. “Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience.” In J.
Helm (ed.) Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, 12-44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Lerner, G. H. 1992. “Assisted Storytelling: Deploying Shared Knowledge as a Practical Matter.”
Qualitative Sociology 15:3, 247-271.
Machi, S. 2007. “Disukoosu ni okeru Kurikaeshi no Kinoo no Nichiei Hikaku—‘Our Story’ Moderu vs.
‘My/your Story’ Moderu—(Comparative Study of Function of Repetition between English andJapanese Discourses—‘Our Story’ Model vs. ‘My/your Story’ Model—).” HLC Handbook 2007:
Abstracts and Handouts of the 33rd Spring Seminar, 29-30.
Nishikawa, R. 2005. “Nichijoo Kaiwa ni Okoru Naratjibu no Kyoodoo Keisei—Riron-koochiku
Katsudoo toshite no Naratjibu (Collaborative Formation of Conversational Narratives—Narratives as
a Theory-building Activity).” The Japanese Journal of Language in Society 7:2, 25-38.
Norrick, N. 2008. “Negotiating the Reception of Stories in Conversation: Teller Strategies for
Modulating Response.” Narrative Inquiry 18:1, 131-151.
Ochs, E., C. Taylor, D. Rudolph and R. Smith. 1992. “Storytelling as a Theory-building Activity.”
Discourse Processes 15, 37-72.
Silverstein, M. 1976. “Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description.” In K. Basso and H.
Selby (eds.) Meaning in Anthropology, 11-55. New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press.
Sugita, K. 2006. “Shitashii Yuujin Dooshi no Kaiwa ni okeru Naratjibu no Nichi-bei Taishoo Bunseki(Comparative Study of Narratives between Friends in English and Japanese).” Proceedings of the
17th Conference in the Japanese Association of Sociolinguistic Sciences, 92-95.
Tannen, D. 1978. “The Effect of Expectations on Conversation.” Discourse Processes 1:2, 203-209.
Tannen, D. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uchida, L. 2010. “Clarifying the Story: An Analysis of Allo-repetition by Story-recipients in English.”Paper Presented at Sociolinguistic Symposium 18. Southampton, U.K.

−220−

ポスターセッション
Poster Sessions

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

対話の参与者間における言語的響鳴と連鎖
伊澤宜仁
慶應義塾大学大学院＜Abstract＞
What enables us to communicate with others easily? On this point, dialogic syntax of Du Bois (2001) isthought-provoking. Dialogic syntax puts a strong emphasis on parallelism between utterances, which is defined
as resonance. In this juxtaposed structure, there are syntagmatic and paradigmatic similarities between elements,
and the following speaker reuses the preceding utterance, including both words and syntactic relations.
Resonances make it possible to produce a multi-layered connection between adjacent utterances, and this could
lead to various properties such as retrospectiveness. In conclusion, resonance can be regarded as a device whichfacilitates the sequence perception and cognitive processing in interactions.
【Keywords】：対話統語論、響鳴、くり返し、遡及的連鎖、対話コーパス

1.

はじめに
ヒトが社会生活を営む上で、他者との意思疎通は不可欠である。複数の参与者間における情報のやり取りは様々な媒体を通して成立するが、特にヒトに固有な言語の役割を考察することは、インタラクションの構造を究明・応用する上で大きな意義を有すると言える。本研究は、理論的背景とし て Du Bois (2001) の 提 唱 す る 対 話 統 語 論(dialogic syntax)を設定し、響鳴(resonance)という「対話の参与者間における類似発話の使用」に着眼する。その上で、観察可能な言語的振る舞いの集積として対話コーパスを採用し、言語的響鳴がいかなる効果をもたらすか考察を試みる。本研究の目的は以下の 2 点に集約される：
i.

2.

くり返し
対話においては、先行発話と類似した後続発話がしばしば生起する。このような、参与者間での類似発話の使用は、伝達上は冗長とも感じられる。
なぜそのような発話が生じるか、という問題意識から、類似発話は従来の研究においてくり返し(repetition)として議論されてきた。代表的な知見
としては、以下のものが挙げられよう：
くり返しの機能

Jakobson (1970)

・押韻等に基づく詩的機能

Beun (1985)

・先行発話の記憶/修正/評価/
相槌といった調整的機能

Bock (1986)

・構造プライミングという認知的機能

Tannen (1989)

・対話への関与(involvement)という社会的機能

類似発話の分析により、参与者が先行発話をどのように利用するか考察する

ii.

先行研究

言語的響鳴と対話の連鎖構造がいかなる関係を持つか考察する

なお、コーパスの便宜から対象は英語に限定し、アノテーションが豊かな対話コーパスとして
SBCSAE (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American
English)を援用する方針を採る。

しかし、先行研究は分析の媒体が限定的であり、発話間の類似性を記述する手法も乏しいという問題点があった。類似性は、完全な反復から部分的反復という連続性を示すが、そのような連続性を反映できる枠組みが必要である。

−221−

対話の参与者間における言語的響鳴と連鎖

3.

対話統語論
くり返しの先行研究と比較して、対話統語論の特色は構造的並行性(structural parallelism)にある。
対話統語論は、従来くり返しと呼ばれてきた現象
を響鳴として再規定し、ダイアグラフ(diagraph)という連辞・連合関係の表記から、響鳴の記述・分析を進める。簡例として以下を参照したい。

(diagraph)
1

Joanne;it’skind of

like

^you

Ken

.

3

Ken;

that

’s

not at^all

like

me

Joanne.

響鳴の記述例（Du Bois 2001: 4; 左はコーパスのライン番号）

この対話では、like と’s が語彙的に一致しており、指示対象としては it = that / you = me という一致が見られる。また、末尾の Ken と Joanne は両者
ともに呼格であり、kind of と not at all には互換性が想定される。これらは、共に類似点を有する
コピュラ述語文でありながら、肯定と否定という反対の意味を持つのである。Du Bois (2001)は、
響鳴は語・統語・形態素・音声・指示等に見られ、くり返し・変形・代入・言い換え等で実現されるとしている。このように、対話統語論は参与者間における心的表象の提携を基盤としつつ、語や統語といった様々なレベルで生じる響鳴に着眼し、その原理や動機付けを探究する枠組みである。
また、対話統語論は、参与者間にプライミング
効果に基づく様々な心的表象の提携を措定する。
これは、Chafe (1994)の情報の活性化(activation)
理論にも係る知見である。つまり、対話の参与者がある発話をする際、その発話は聴者の心的表象を活性化させており、聴者は続いて発話する際にその活性化された心的表象を使う傾向にある、と考えるわけである。ここで重要な点は、活性化される心的表象は話者の企図に即する必要はなく、その他の統語構造等の抽象的なパターンも同時に活性化されており、時としてインタラクションの資源として利用され得るという点であろう。
以上の響鳴は、先行発話からスキーマを抽出・利用するという、対話でのパターン発見の能力(Tomasello 2003)とも関係すると考えられる。なお、
構造プライミングの持つ抽象性に対し、具体性が付与された現象として捉えることも可能である(DuBois 2001)。

4.

言語的響鳴の事例
響鳴の性質について考察するため、本研究は、英語対話コーパス(Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken
American English; SBCSAE)内の 19 の 2 人対話を媒体とし、響鳴例を人手(+コンピュータの補助)により網羅的に抽出した上で、傾向を観察した。
抽出の際、響鳴の規範的単位とされる複数話者による「隣接発話対」に則り、共話や重複、yeah-yeah
等の一語発話対を除外して考察を行った。また、
響鳴を[SVO-SVO]といった抽象的な統語構造まで拡張すると、議論が煩雑化する可能性がある。
これは、類似性の度合いに関する low-resonanceの問題と言われるが、本研究では、上記のような「考えようによっては似ている発話対」には立ち入らず、あくまで語と統語構造の 2 軸に類似性が観察されるものを響鳴として扱った。
結果として、SBCSAE の 2 人対話においては、
全 166 の響鳴が抽出された。全体的に、対応関係を示しつつ一部を置換したものや、響鳴部に節を追加した連鎖が多く見られた。また、形態上では4 語以下の響鳴が多くを占めたが、これは発話のイントネーション・ユニットの傾向(Chafe 1994)と関係するものと考えられる。一部の例として、
以下の事例を挙げる。
Example 1 (SBC006 Cuz: 513-523)*ALIN:She ‫ ۀ‬wouldn't eat her lunch
because she wanted dessert .

*ALIN:(..) Dessert comes around(.) Mom had cut all the pastries in half ?

*ALIN:(.) &=in Cassandra takes five of them .

*ALIN:(.) &=in She took (.) a: bite

*ALIN:(.) That was it .

*ALIN:(.) &{l=VOX I don't want any mo:‫ڿ‬re &}l=VOX ‫ ۀ‬.

(.) from each one .

‫{& ہ‬l=X Cause &}l=X ‫ ۂ‬she gets away with it .

*LENO:*ALIN:(..) &=tsk Gets away with it .

(diagraph)
522

LENO;

523

ALIN;

−222−

Cause she

gets

away

with

it

.

Gets

away

with

it

.

y Cause she の省略を除いて発話間の対応関係が保たれており、これは ALIN の発話が Gets
で始まることからも明らか
y 先行研究における相槌 / 関与示唆の機能第14回大会発表論文集

Example 2 (SBC058 Swingin’ Kid: 287-292)*STEV:(..) Yeah but*SHER:

Unhunh .

there is something in here that +...
*STEV:(..) The Doctor Dreadful f- (..) drink lab .

*SHER:(..) The who what ?

*STEV:(..) &{l=VOX The Doctor Dreadful drink lab &}l=VOX .

第７号を指す。ここで、響鳴の構築は後続発話に依り、先行発話の類似発話が産出されて初めて発話間に関係性が生じる点を踏まえると、響鳴の事後性と遡及的連鎖は互いに無関係ではない。以上より、一部の連鎖構造と響鳴は互いに関連すると想定されるが、これは対話における「意味の遡及性」
について考察する上でも示唆的と言える。

(diagraph)
290

STEV;

The

Doctor Dredful f...

drink lab

.

291

SHER;

The

who

what

?

y The によって発話間の対応関係を保ちつつ、対応する要素を疑問詞へと置換
y 修復開始発話(repair initiating utterance)

Example.3 (SBC005 A Book About Death: 104-113)*DARR:(.) I ‫ ۀ‬didn't like the bookthe way I +/.

5.

考察
類似発話に基づく発話間の提携は、どのような性質を持ち、さらにどのように連鎖と関わるのか。
対話は、発話毎に産出された内容を、参与者間の共有基盤(common ground; Clark 1996)に付与する営みである。そして、参与者はそこから共同注意のフレームを形成し、特定の対象へと注意を共有
して対話を進めていく(Tomasello 2003)。これらに関係する原理の 1 つとして、DuBois (2001)の関与の原則が考えられる：*DARR:

the minute I looked at it .

*PAME:(..) You didn't .

関与の原則(Principle of Engagement )*DARR:

No .

・Engaged forms make engaged meanings (Du Bois 2001: 19)*PAME:

That's cause you .

*DARR:(..) That's because I have my own ideas about it

形式上の提携に伴う性質を考える前に、まず響鳴の下位分類について言及しておく。対話統語論は、響鳴の下位分類として、以下の連辞型 / 連合型
響鳴を想定する：

I guess .
*DARR:

That I'm (.) pretty comfortable with .

*PAME:(..) ah .

(diagraph)(diagraph)

109

PAME;

That

’s

cause

you

110

DARR;

That

’s

becauseI have my own ideas
about ity 発話間の対応関係を保ちつつ、末尾の要素を節により置換
y 置換 / 追加部分の有標化
例 3 では下線部が言語的響鳴の事例であるが、後続の話者は先行発話の類似表現を用いることで、当該の先行発話との関係性を保ちつつ、先行発話の修正を行っている。その証左は後続する ah の生起であり、これは Heritage (1984)における認知状態の変化を表す oh と同種の表現と考えられる。
また、これは Schegloff (2007)における遡及的連鎖(retro-sequence)とも関係する知見と考えられる。
遡及的連鎖とは、話者の意図と聴者の解釈という推論モデルの流れとは異なり、先行発話の意味が後続の話者により遡及的に規定される言語連鎖

1

JOANNE;

3LENORE;

yet

he ’s

still

^healthy

.

he ’s

still

walking ^around.

(Du Bois 2001: 5)

上記の例においては he’s still＿が連辞型響鳴として機能し、発話間の対応関係の基盤を作るとされる。Du Bois (2001)は、一定の語が響鳴においてくり返され、そこから構成体が創発する可能性を指摘しているが、このような観点は Hopper (1998)
等の創発文法(emergent grammar)に類するものである。一方、上記の発話対でより重要な点は、
healthy と walking around という単独では結び付き難い表現が、連辞型響鳴の構造的並行性によって明確に対比されるということである。このような連合軸における響鳴が連合型響鳴であり、連辞軸の表現に基づき、多様な要素が強固に対比される。
発話における特定部の有標化は、主に連合型響鳴を通してなされると考えられる。

−223−

対話の参与者間における言語的響鳴と連鎖

ここで、発話間の提携がどのような性質を持ち、どのように連鎖と関わるかという問いに戻ろう。
響鳴は、連辞型響鳴により発話間の関係性を担保し、連合型響鳴により先行発話への同意や対比を表すものと考えられる。特に、本来的な対応関係のない対も形成する、という性質が特徴的である。
また、響鳴は後続の発話が生じて初めて成立するという点を踏まえると、類似発話による発話間の提携 / 共有基盤の修正の際に、響鳴連鎖が特定の連鎖に繋がる可能性がある。これらをまとめると以下の通りである：
響鳴の性質
A) 先行発話の認識・注意の共有を明示
B) 先行発話の一部を焦点化 / 修正
響鳴には多様な性質が想定されるが、1 つとして、参与者の共有基盤に加わった言語的資源に対し、主体がその内のどこを焦点化するかを明示するという機能が考えられる。焦点化により、聴者は産出の際、先行発話のどの部分に対しどのような立場を採るかを、容易に伝達することが出来る。
また、響鳴と連鎖に関しては、立場の明示や焦点化に伴って、共有基盤を事後的に構築するための修復 / 遡及的連鎖の形成が考えられる。

6.

結語
本研究は、理論的背景として Du Bois (2001)の提唱する対話統語論を設定し、響鳴という現象に着眼した上で、対話コーパスによって言語的響鳴がいかなる効果をもたらすか考察を試みた。冒頭で示した目的は、次の通りにまとめられる：I.

参与者は先行発話をどのように利用するか
y 先行発話からパターンを抽出し、それに基づく焦点化を伴う発話で対話を円滑化

II.

響鳴と連鎖構造がいかなる関係を持つか
y 響鳴による発話間の提携は、その提携の種類により遡及性を帯びた連鎖を展開

参照文献
Beun, R. J. 1985. “The function of repetitions in
information dialogues”. IPO Annual Progress Report
20, 91-98.
Bock, J. 1986. “Syntactic Persistence in Language
Production”. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355-87.
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The
Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in
Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J. 2001. “Towards a Dialogic Syntax”. Universityof California, Santa Barbara [manuscript].
Du Bois, J., Chafe, W., Meyer, C., & Thompson, S. 2000.
Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English,
Part 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Du Bois, J., Chafe, W., Meyer, C., Thompson, S., & Martey,
N. 2003. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American
English, Part 2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data
Consortium.
Du Bois, J., & Englebretson, R. 2004. Santa Barbara
Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 3.
Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Du Bois, J., & Englebretson, R. 2005. Santa Barbara
Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 4.
Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Heritage, J. 1984. “A Change-Of-State Token and Aspectsof Its Sequential Placement”. In J, MaxwellAtkinso& John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action.
Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. 299-345.
Hopper, P. 1998. Emergent grammar. In Tomasello,
Michael (ed.) The New Psychology of Language:
Cognitive and functional Approaches to Language
Structure. Lawrence Erlbaum. 155-75.
Jakobson, R. 1970. “On the Verbal Art of William Blake
and Other Poet-Painters”. Linguistic Inquiry 1:1,
3-23.
Schegloff, E. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction:
A Primer in Conversation Analysis Vol. 1.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, andImagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A
Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

より網羅的なデータの抽出と統計的処理、抽象的
統 語 構 造 の 議 論 (e.g. 受 動 文 → 受 動 文 ) 等 の
low-resonance 問題の扱いは今後の課題である。

−224−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ㄗఏ㐩㸸ᴫᛕᵓ㐀࡜ࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ
஭⟄຾ಙ࣭஭⟄㸦ᡂ⏣㸧⨾ὠᏊ໭ᾏ㐨ᩍ⫱኱Ꮫ࣭⸨ዪᏊ኱ᏛLGXWVX#JPDLOFRPPL]XWVX#IXMLMRVKLDFMS <Abstract>
The present article proposes a conceptual description of linguistic communication modeled on Reddy’s (1979)“toolmakers paradigm,” thereby identifying the mechanism through which linguistic miscommunication arises. It
further conducts a prototype-semantic analysis to elucidate the elusive and intractable aspects of such
miscommunication.
࠙keywordsࠚࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊ᝟ሗఏ㐩ࣔࢹࣝࠊẼࡀࡘࡁ࡟ࡃ࠸᪉ゝࠊㄗゎࠊㄗ⾲♧ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊReddy (1979)ࡢ toolmakers paradigm࡟౫ᣐࡋࡓᴫᛕᵓ㐀グ㏙࡜ࠊColeman and Kay(1981)࡛ lie ࡟㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉព࿡ㄽ࡟
ࡼࡿศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕㄗఏ㐩ࠖࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ௙⤌ࡳ࡜ࠊࡑࡢࠕᤊ࠼࡟ࡃࡉ(elusiveness)ࠖ୪ࡧ࡟ࠕᢅ࠸࡟
ࡃࡉ(intractability)ࠖࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

ࡁᡭ(A)࡟ᥦ♧ฟ᮶ࡿ࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊࡑ
ࡢ instructions ࢆ ཧ ↷ ࡋ ࠊ ヰ ࡋ ᡭ ࡢ ព ᅗ ࡋ ࡓrepertoire member ࢆ෌ᵓᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣฟ᮶࡚ࡶࠊ
ࡑࡢ repertoire member ࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡣฟ
᮶࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ repertoire member ࡢ෌ᵓᡂࡢసᴗࡣࠊ
ᡭ㛫ࡀ᥃࠿ࡾࠊ࡜࡚ࡶ㦵ࡢᢡࢀࡿసᴗ࡛࠶ࡿ
(Reddy ibid.: 295)ࠋ

 ఏ 㐩 ࡢ ᴫ ᛕ ᵓ 㐀 㸸 FRQGXLW PHWDSKRU ࡜WRROPDNHUVSDUDGLJP Shannon and Weaver (1949)ࡢࠕᩘᏛⓗ᝟ሗ⌮ㄽ(mathematical information theory) ࠖ௨᮶ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ
࡚ࡁࡓ᝟ሗఏ㐩ࣔࢹࣝࡢᴫᛕⓗᇶ┙࡟ࡣ conduit
metaphor ࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࡓࡵࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࡓே㛫ࡢゝㄒཬࡧ⾜ືࡢ◊✲ࡣኻᩋ(“failures”)࡟⤊ࢃ
ࡗࡓ(Reddy 1979: 304)ࠋconduit metaphor ࡛ࡣࠊᅗ1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊே(S)ࡣヰࡍ࣭᭩ࡃࡇ࡜࡛ “repertoire
member”(Q) (“ideas/thoughts/meanings/feelings”) ࢆ“signals”(P) (“word/phrase/sentence/poem”) ࡟ ධ ࢀ
࡚㏦ࡾࠊゝㄒࡣࡑࢀࢆ┦ᡭ(A)࡟ᒆࡅࡿࠋ┦ᡭࡣࡑࢀࢆ⪺ࡃ࣭ㄞࡴࡇ࡜࡛ཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓ P ࠿ࡽ Q ࢆྲྀࡾฟࡍࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊP ࡀ Q ࢆ཰ᐜࡍࡿࠕෆഃࠖ
ࢆᣢࡘࡣࡎࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࡢఏ㐩ࣔࢹࣝࡣࠊ࠶ࡃ
ࡲ࡛ࡶẚ႘ⓗ࡞⌮ゎ࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸(ibid.: 290-291)ࠋ
S

A

S

A

S

S

P

Q

A

Q

S

A

Q

S

A

Q

Q
’
P

P

ᅗ 2㸸 TOOLMAKERS-PARADIGM MODEL OF COMMUNICATIONゝㄒఏ㐩 OLQJXLVWLFFRPPXQLFDWLRQ ࡢᐇ㝿 ㄗ ఏ 㐩 ࡢ ௙ ⤌ ࡳ ࡢ ⌮ ゎ ࡟ ࡣ ࠊ toolmakers
paradigm ࢆㄆࡵࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ᡞእࡢ㞄ே࠿ࡽࠕ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡼࠖ࡜ኌࢆ᥃ࡅࡽࢀ
ࡓ୺፬ࡀࠊᩘ᫬㛫๓࡟Ὑ℆≀ࢆᗞ࡟ᖸࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡽࠊ
ヰࡋᡭࡀពᅗࡋࡓෆᐜࡣࠊ࡯ࡰ☜ᐇ࡟ࠕὙ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࡳ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㢮ࡢࡶࡢ࡟⤠ࡾ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓఏ㐩ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊᅗ 3 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ఏ㐩ࣔࢹࣝࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᅗ୰ࡢ SࠊA ࡜᭩࠿ࢀࡓ෇ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀヰࡋᡭࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆ⾲ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟᥋ࡍࡿ኱ࡁ࡞ṇ᪉ᙧࡣࠊ཮᪉ࡀᴫᛕ໬ࡍ
ࡿෆᐜࢆᅖࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡀ࠶ࡿ⾲⌧ࢆⓎࡍࡿ㝿ࠊࡑࡇ࡟ࡣⓎヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ⌧ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ពᅗࡍࡿ
஦㇟(Q)ࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊࡑࡢᐇ⌧࡬࡜ᑟࡃ౑ᙺ࣭᥎ㄽ
ⓗ(calusal/inferential)⤒㊰(X)ࡀ᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

A

P

S

P

Q
P

A

Q

Q

ᅗ 1㸸 CONDUIT-METAPHOR MODEL OF COMMUNICATION ゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡿᐇ㝿ࡢఏ㐩ࡣࠊReddy ࡀ toolmakers
paradigm ࡜࿧ࡪࣔࢹࣝ࡟㏆࠸ࠋᅗ 2 ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡢࣔࢹ࡛ࣝࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡣᴫࡡ㢮ఝࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿูࠎࡢ㝸㞳✵㛫࡟࠸࡚ࠊᑠࡉ࡞⣬ษࢀࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡣฟ᮶ࡿࡀࠊ஫࠸ࢆ㝸࡚ࡿቨࢆ㉺࠼࡚⛣ືࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣฟ᮶࡞࠸ࠋヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ✵㛫࡛౑࠺ࡢ࡟౽฼࡞ࡶࡢ
ࢆⓎ᫂ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡑࡢసࡾ᪉ࢆ⣬࡟᭩࠸࡚ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ
ࡋࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎ᫂ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡟ฟ᮶ࡿࡔࡅ㏆࠸ࡶࡢࢆ⮬ศࡢ✵㛫࡛෌⌧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ດຊࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢⓎ᫂ရ ࡇ ࡑ ࡀ ࠊ conduit metaphor ࡛ ゝ ࠺ repertoire
member ࡟ ᙜ ࡓ ࡾ ࠊ ࡸ ࡾ ࡜ ࡾ ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ⣬ ษ ࢀ ࡣ“signals” ࡟ ┦ ᙜ ࡍ ࡿ ࠋ ヰ ࡋ ᡭ (S) ࡣ ࠊ repertoire
member (Q)ࢆእ࡟㏦ࡾฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࢀࢆ෌
ᵓᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ instructions ࢆ signals (P)࡜ࡋ࡚⪺S

A
intended event (Q)reconstructed event (Q’)

causal/inferential chain (X)causal/inferential chain (X’)

linguistic meaning (M)linguistic meaning (M’)

linguistic form (F)linguistic form (F’)

phonetic/orthographicalrealization (P)ᅗ 3㸸 PROCESSES INVOLVED IN ACTUAL COMMUNICATION

1
−225−

誤伝達：概念構造とプロトタイプ

ࡀゝཬࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡣࠊX ࡀ Q ࡢᐇ⌧ࢆᑟࡃ౑ᙺ࣭᥎ㄽⓗ஦㇟㐃㙐࡜ࡋ࡚᝿㉳ࡉࢀࠊX ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡢ୍㒊㸦Searle (1975: 72)ࡢ conditions ࡲࡓࡣ
reason ࡟ᙜࡓࡿせ⣲㸧ࡀ㑅ࡧྲྀࡽࢀ࡚ࠊᑐᛂࡍࡿ
M/F ࡟⤖ࡧ௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࡢせ⣲ࡶࠊdirectspeech act ࡢሙྜ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊindirect speech act ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊἲຓືモࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ␲ၥᩥࡢࡼ࠺࡞୍ᐃࡢ M/F࡜័⩦ⓗ࡟㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ ࡇࢀࡽ஦㇟㐃㙐ࡢ᝿ᐃࡸࡑࢀࡽࡢㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲⓗ࡞័⩦໬࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛫࡟⏕ࡌࡿ㱈㱒ࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤㄗఏ㐩ࢆច㉳ࡍࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊඛ
ࡢࠕ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡼࠖ࡜ኌࢆ᥃ࡅࡓ㞄ேࡣࠊ༢࡟ኳ
Ẽࡢࡺࡃ࠼ࢆண ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼ࡓ࠿ࡗࡓࡔࡅࡔ࡜ࡍ
ࢀࡤࠊࡑ࠺ゝࢃࢀࡓ୺፬ࡀ(1)ࡢ஦㇟㐃㙐ࢆ᝿㉳ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡣࠊX ࡜ X’ࡢ㱈㱒࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ
ࠕX’
࡜ Q’ࡢᑐᛂࠖࡶ S ࡢពᅗࡋࡓࠕQ ࡜ X ࡢᑐᛂࠖ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋࡶࡋࠊ୺፬ࡀᗞࡢὙ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡔᚋࡔࡗࡓ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊࠕ኱୔ኵࠊࡶ࠺ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ࡜⟅࠼࡚ࠊኌࢆ᥃ࡅࡓ㞄ேࢆᙜᝨࡉࡏࡓ࠿
ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ㄗఏ㐩࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ(2)࡜(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡢ a ࡢᩥࡣࠕ౫㢗ࠖࡢ㛫᥋Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ⾲⌧࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊb ࡢᩥࡀ࡞ࡾ࡟ࡃ
࠸(Searle 1975:75) ࡢࡣࠊㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲⓗ࡞័⩦໬࡟㉳ᅉࡋࠊࡑࡢ័⩦໬࡟ᕪ␗ࡀ࠶ࡿヰ⪅㛫࡛ࡣㄗఏ㐩ࡀ⏕ࡌᚓࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ㣧ࡳ఍࡟ㄏࢃࢀ࡚ࠊࡑࢀ
ࢆ᩿ࡿ㛫᥋Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚(4)ࡀᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ྠኈ࡛ࡶ␗࡞ࡿࠋࡘ
ࡲࡾࠊྠ୍ゝㄒࡢヰ⪅㛫࡛ࡶ X(’)࡜ M(’)/F(’)࡜ࡢ
ᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡶ୍ᵝ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊせ⣲ᑐᛂ࡟ᕪ␗ࡀᏑᅾ
ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡣ༑ศ⏕ࡌᚓࡿࠋ S ࡣࠊᴫࡡ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౑ᙺ࣭᥎ㄽⓗ஦㇟㐃㙐(X)ࢆ᝿㉳ࡋࠊࡑࡢ୍㒊ࢆ㑅ࢇ࡛ࠊㄒᙡ࡜ᩥἲ࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚ᐃࡵࡽࢀࡓព࿡㸦ᅗ୰ࡢ M)࡜ᙧᘧ㸦ᅗ୰ࡢ F㸧ࡢグྕⓗ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ(symbolic unit)࡟ᑐᛂࡉࡏࠊ
ࡑࡢ㡢㡩ⓗᙧᘧࡀ㡢ኌ࣭ᩥᏐ(P)࡜ࡋ࡚ල⌧໬ࡉࢀࡿࠋS ࡜ A ࡀඹ᭷࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡣ P ࡢࡳ࡛ࠊA ࡣ Sࡀ᧯సࡋࡓ QࠊXࠊMࠊF ࡟᥋ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶࡞
࠸ࠋࡇࡢⅬࡀࠊtoolmakers paradigm ࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞せ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(1) X㸸㺀㞵ࡀ㝆ࡾࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ࠼ࡿࠖэࠕ㞵ࡀ㝆ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡀព㆑ࡍࡿࠖэࠕ㞵ࡀ㝆ࡗࡓࡽᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿὙ℆≀ࡀ⃿ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡀព㆑ࡍࡿࠖэࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡀὙ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࡴ(Q)ࠖ
ࠋ
୍᪉ࠊP ࢆឤཷࡋࡓ A ࡣࠊS ࡀ㋃ࢇࡔᡭ㡰ࢆ୎ᗘ
㏫࡟㎺ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊP ࠿ࡽ F’/M’࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒ⾲⌧ ࢆ ෌ ᵓ ᡂ ࡋ ࠊ mutual knowledge (Clark andMarshall 1981)ࢆཧ↷ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ M’࡟᭱ࡶᐦ᥋࡟
㛵ಀ௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ஦㇟㐃㙐(X’)ࢆ᝿㉳ࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊA ࡟ࡣࠕ᥎ㄽ࡜ゎ㔘ࡢవᆅࠖ୪ࡧ࡟ࠕⓎヰពᅗゎ㔘ࡢ⮬⏤㑅ᢥࠖࡀ≉ᶒⓗ࡟୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࢀ
ࡽࡢẁ㝵࡟ㄗఏ㐩ࡀ⏕ࡌࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ
 ௨ୖ㏙࡭࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࠊᐇ㝿ࡢఏ㐩࡟࠾࠸࡚ヰࡋᡭ࣭⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㎺ࡿ㐣⛬ࢆ toolmakers paradigm ࡟ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡴ࡜ࠊᅗ 4 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ model ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࠋ௨
ୗࡢ㆟ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ model ࢆཧ↷ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊලయ
ⓗ࡞ㄗఏ㐩ࡢグ㏙࣭ศᯒࢆヨࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ

S

A

S

A

S

Q

Q

Q’

X

X

X

X’

M
F

M
F

M
F

M’
F’

P

P

(2) a. Do you want to hand me that hammer overthere on the table?
b. Do you desire to hand me that hammer overthere on the table?
(3) a. Can you reach the salt?
b. Are you able to reach the salt?
(4) a. ⾜ࡅࡓࡽ⾜ࡃࡼࠋb. ⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡃࡼࠋ

A

Q

P

ᅗ 4㸸REVISED TOOLMAKERS PARADIGM MODEL OF COMMUNICATION ྠ୍ゝㄒヰ⪅㛫ࡼࡾࡶࠊ᝿ᐃࡢ୙୍⮴ࡀ⏕ࡌࡸࡍ࠸␗ゝㄒヰ⪅㛫ࡢఏ㐩࡛ࡣࠊQ(’)࡜ X(’)ࡢᑐᛂ
ࡀࡑࡢศࡔࡅ␗࡞ࡾࡸࡍࡃࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡢ༴㝤ᛶࡣ୍ᒙ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ┤ሯ(1980)ࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேࢶ࢔࣮
࢞࢖ࢻࡀ࣍ࢸࣝࡢࣟࣅ࣮࠿ࡽ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேኵጔࡢ
㒊ᒇ࡟㟁ヰࢆධࢀࠊ10 ศᚋ࡟“at the front”࡛఍࠺࡜࿌ࡆࡓࡀࠊ࢞࢖ࢻࡀ‘at the reception desk’ࡢࡘࡶࡾ࡛⏝࠸ࡓ⾲⌧ࢆࠊᐈࡣ‘at the front of the building’࡜⌮ゎࡋࡓ㸦M(‘)ࡢ F(‘)ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡢ㱈㱒㸧ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ୧⪅ࡣ஫࠸࡟୍᫬㛫ᚅࡕࡰ࠺ࡅࢆ㣗࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋᚅࡕࡃࡓࡧࢀࡓᐈࡣࠊࣟࣅ࣮࡟ධࡗࡓ
࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࢞࢖ࢻࢆぢ௜ࡅࠊఱᨾ㐜ࢀࡓࡢ࠿࡜ワၥࡋࡓࠋ࢞࢖ࢻࡣࠊ⮬ศࡣ☜࠿࡟⣙᮰ࡢ᫬㛫࡟⣙᮰ࡢሙᡤ࡟࠸ࡓ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࡀࠊᐈࡀბࢆࡘࡃ࡞࡜㈐ࡵ
ࡓࡓࡵࠊᡞᝨࡗ࡚“Well, I’m sorry.”࡜ㅰࡗࡓࠋࡍࡿ
࡜ࠊᐈࡣࠊ࢞࢖ࢻࡀ⮬ศࡢბࢆㄆࡵࡓ࡜ゎࡋ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠋヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᛣࡾࢆ㙠ࡵࡿࠖࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆಟ᚟ࡍࡿࠖࢆ Q ࡜ࡋ࡚ពᅗ
ࡋࡓࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠕヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ㅰࡿࠖэࠕヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศࡢ㠀ࢆㄆࡵࡿࠖэࠕヰࡋᡭࡣ⮬ศࡢბࢆㄆࡵࡓ(Q’)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺஦㇟㐃㙐 X’ࢆཧ↷ࡋࡓࠋゝㄒⓗㄗఏ㐩 OLQJXLVWLFPLVFRPPXQLFDWLRQࡢㅖ┦ ᅗ 3, 4 ࡟♧ࡋࡓゝㄒⓗఏ㐩࡛ S ࡀ㎺ࡿᅄࡘࡢẁ
㝵(QэXэM/FэP)࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㎺ࡿᅄࡘࡢẁ㝵(PэM’/F’эX’эQ’)ࡣࠊ㞄ࡾྜ࠺ẁ㝵ࡢせ⣲ࡀᑐᛂࡉࡏࡽࢀࡿᙧ࡛㛵ಀ௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋQ ࡜ Q’ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄗఏ㐩࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࡀࠊS ࡜ A ࡀ཮᪉ࡢᑐ
ᛂࡍࡿẁ㝵࡛␗࡞ࡿせ⣲ᑐᛂࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀㄗఏ㐩ࡢせᅉ࡜࡞ࡿࠋM(’)/F(’)࡜ P ࡸ M(’)࡜ F(’)࡛ࡢ
せ⣲ᑐᛂࡣࠊྠ୍ゝㄒࡢヰ⪅㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㧗࠸ඹ
㏻ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵࠊ⏕ࡌࡿ㱈㱒ࡣゝ࠸㐪࠸࣭⪺ࡁ㐪࠸(e.g., M ‘ᡭ⾡’; F /sjudjutsu/; P /sjuzutsu/)࡟㝈ࡽ
ࢀࡿࡀࠊQ(’)࡜ X(’)ࡢせ⣲ᑐᛂࡣࠊindirect speechact ࡞࡝࡛」ᩘࡢ␗࡞ࡿ᝿ᐃࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡓࡵࠊྠ୍
ゝㄒࡢヰ⪅㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚࡛ࡉ࠼㱈㱒ࢆ⏕ࡌࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ
 Q ࡀゝཬࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊX ࡣ Q ࡜࡯ࡰ୍ᑐ୍࡟
ᑐᛂࡍࡿ direct speech act ࡢ஦㇟㐃㙐࡜࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊ
ᑐᛂࡍࡿ mood ࡸ performative verbs ࡜࠸࠺୍ᐃࡢ
M/F ࡟㛵ಀ௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ(cf. Searle 1969)ࠋ୍᪉ࠊQ

2
−226−

第14回大会発表論文集 ᪉ ゝ ⓗ ᕪ ␗ ࡟ ࡼ ࡿ ㄗ ఏ 㐩 GLDOHFWDOPLVFRPPXQLFDWLRQ  ␗࡞ࡿゝㄒ࡜ࡣࠊᆅᇦ᪉ゝⓗ࡞㐪࠸ࠊ♫఍᪉ゝࡸಶே᪉ゝⓗ࡞ᕪ␗ࢆࡶྵࡴࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓព࿡࡛␗
࡞ࡿ⫼ᬒࢆᣢࡘヰ⪅㛫࡛ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ྠ୍ゝㄒヰ⪅ྠኈ࡛㧗࠸ඹ㏻ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࡣࡎࡢ M(’)࡜ F(’)ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡉ࠼୙☜࠿࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿࠋ(5)࡟ᣲࡆࡓ࢔
࢖ࣝࣛࣥࢻⱥㄒࡢ᥋⥆モࡣࠊ௚ࡢⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢᑐヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ㄗఏ㐩ࢆ⏕ࡌࡿ༴㝤ᛶࢆᣢࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᶆ‽ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒࡢ when ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ(5b)࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡿㄗఏ㐩ࡣ≉࡟῝้࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௚ࡢ౛ᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ
whenever ࡀ⛬ᗘࡢᕪࡇࡑ࠶ࢀゎ㔘ᅔ㞴࡞ࡓࡵࠊ
when ࡜ࡋ࡚෌ゎ㔘ࡉࢀᚓࡿࡀࠊ(5b)࡛ࡣࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿᭀຊ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓㄗఏ
㐩ࡣࠊྠ୍ゝㄒ࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦࡺ࠼࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭ࣭⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ୍ᒙẼ௜ࡁ࡟ࡃࡃࠊᑐฎࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ

第７号

㐩࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡢุ᩿࡟ࠕ⮬ಙࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ㸦7 Ⅼ㸧ࠊࠕࡲ࠶ࡲ࠶⮬ಙ࠶ࡿࠖ
㸦6 Ⅼ㸧ࠊࠕ࠶ࡲࡾ⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ
㸦5
Ⅼ㸧ࠊࠕ࡝ࡕࡽ࡜ࡶゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠖ㸦4 Ⅼ㸧ࠊࠕㄗఏ㐩࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖࡢุ᩿࡟ࠕ⮬ಙࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ㸦1 Ⅼ㸧ࠊࠕࡲ࠶ࡲ࠶⮬ಙࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ
㸦2 Ⅼ㸧ࠊࠕ࠶ࡲࡾ⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ
㸦3
Ⅼ㸧ࡢุ᩿ࢆ౫㢗ࡋࡓ㸦᭷ຠᅇ⟅ 43 ே㸧ࠋ⾲ 1ྑ➃ࡢᩘᏐࡣࠊᅇ⟅⪅ࡢⅬᩘࡢྜィ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Q IS NOT Q’
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.

㸩
㸩
㸩
㸩
㸩
㸩
㸩
㸩
㸫
㸫
㸫
㸫
㸫
㸫
㸫
㸫

S OR A BELIEVESQ’ TO BE Q
㸩
㸩
㸩
㸩
㸫
㸫
㸫
㸫
㸩
㸩
㸩
㸩
㸫
㸫
㸫
㸫

P DOES NOTEVOKE Q
㸩
㸩
㸫
㸫
㸩
㸩
㸫
㸫
㸩
㸩
㸫
㸫
㸩
㸩
㸫
㸫

P DOES NOTEVOKE Q’
㸩
㸫
㸩
㸫
㸩
㸫
㸩
㸫
㸩
㸫
㸩
㸫
㸩
㸫
㸩
㸫

SCORE

227
173
247
157
173
176
215
155
78
104
139
70
138
150
143
136

⾲ 1㸸ㄗఏ㐩ࡢ PROPERTY ࡜ྛ౛ᩥࡢᚓⅬ(5) a. Whenever I saw her I fell for her.
b. Whenever he came in he hit me.
c. My husband died whenever I was living on the
New Lodge Road.
d. Whenever Chomsky wrote Syntactic Structures
there was a revolution in linguistics.
(Milroy 1984: 19)(7a)ࢆ‶ࡓࡍ I ࠿ࡽ VIII ࡲ࡛ࡢ౛ᩥࡀ 155 Ⅼ௨ୖ࡞ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ‶ࡓࡉ࡞࠸ IV ࠿ࡽ XVI ࡲ࡛ࡢ౛ᩥࡀ 150 Ⅼ௨ୗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ(7a) ࡀࠕㄗఏ㐩ࠖ࡜┳೴ࡉࢀࡿ୺࡞せᅉ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆฟ᮶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࠕㄗఏ㐩ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⌮ゎ࡟୙ ୍ ⮴ ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ 㝿 ࡟ ㉳ ࡇ ࡿ (“Miscommunication
occurs (...) when there is a mismatch between the
speaker’s intention and the hearer’s interpretation.”)ࠖ
࡜ Milroy (1984: 8)ࡀ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ඲ဨࡀࠕ࡝ࡕࡽ࡜ࡶゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓ
ሙྜࡢ 172 Ⅼࢆ኱ᖜ࡟ୖᅇࡿ 200 Ⅼ௨ୖࢆ♧ࡋࡓ
IࠊIIIࠊVII ࡢ౛ᩥ࡟ࡣࠊ(7a)࡟ຍ࠼࡚(7d)ࡢ propertyࢆ‶ࡓࡍ࡜࠸࠺ඹ㏻Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ⪺ࡁ㐪࠸ࠖ࡞࠸ࡋࠕᛮ࠸㐪࠸ࠖ࡟ࡼࡿㄗゎ㔘ࡀࡼࡾㄗఏ
㐩ࡽࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡜┳೴ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢᐇ㦂⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊヰࡋᡭࡢㄗ⾲♧ࡣㄗఏ㐩࡜ཷࡅṆࡵࡽࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄗゎ㔘ࡣㄗఏ㐩࡜ཷࡅṆࡵࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢㄗ⾲♧࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢㄗゎ㔘࡟Ẽ௜ࡁ࡟ࡃࡃࠊຍ࠼࡚௚ࡢⓎヰࡸᩥ⬦ࢆཧ↷ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⮬ࡽࡀ᝿㉳ࡋࡓ஦㇟㐃㙐ࢆ㐃᝿ⓗ࡟ᣑᙇࡋ⥆ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࠕヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࢆ෌ᵓ⠏ࡋࡓ
ࡶࡢ(Q’)ࠖࢆ༙ࡤ㌟຾ᡭ࡟㑅ࡧྲྀࡿ⮬⏤ࢆ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽ࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄗゎ㔘ࡣࠊᙜ↛ヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡶẼ௜ࡁ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡓࡵࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡣ᭦࡟₯ᅾ໬ࡋࠊ୍ᒙ῝้࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࠋㄗఏ㐩ࡢⴭࡋ࠸ᢅ࠸࡟ࡃࡉࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢⅬ࡟ෆᅾࡍࡿࠋ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ♫఍ゝㄒᏛ࡛ࠕẼࡀࡘࡁ࡟ࡃ࠸᪉ゝࠖ(Ἀ 1999)࡜⛠ࡉࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࡶࠊྠᵝ࡞ㄗఏ㐩࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ໭ᾏ㐨᪉ゝࡢ୍ẁά⏝ືモ࡟ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ make ࡜ let ࡟㢮ఝࡋࡓ஧✀㢮ࡢ౑ᙺᙧࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ㸦஭⟄࣭஭⟄ 2011㸧ࡀࠊࡑࢀࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸௚ࡢ᪉ゝヰ⪅ࡣࠊ(6)ࡢ౛ࡢ B ࡢⓎヰࢆ⪺࠸࡚ㄗゎࢆࡋ࠿ࡡ࡞࠸ࠋ㏉⟅ࡢពᅗࡀศ࠿ࡽ
࡞ࡃ࡚ᡞᝨ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊྠ⩏཯᚟ࢆࡋ࡚ᚐ࡟
཯ㄽࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ཷࡅྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ A ࡜ B ࡢ㛫࡟⏕ࡌࡓㄗఏ㐩ࡣࠊ஫࠸ࡀྠ୍ࡢゝㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮ࠸㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡀࡺ࠼࡟ࠊᤊ࠼࡟ࡃࡃࠊᢅ࠸࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ
(6) A㸸ሿ࡛ⱥㄒࡢຮᙉࡉࡏ࡚ࢇࡔࡗ࡚㸽B㸸 ࠸ࡸࠊࡉࡏ࡚ࢇ࡛࡞࠸ࡢࠋࡸࡽࡏ࡚ࢇࡢࠋ
ᮏேࡀࡸࡾࡓ࠸ࡗ࡚ゝ࠺࠿ࡽࠋ ゝ ㄒ ⓗ ㄗ ఏ 㐩 ࡢ ࣉ ࣟ ࢺ ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ ព ࿡ ㄽ
SURWRW\SHVHPDQWLFV  ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊColeman and Kay (1981)ࡀ‘lie’ࡢศᯒ࡟⏝࠸ࡓ prototype semantics ࡢᡭἲࢆ᥼⏝ࡋ࡚ᚓࡓᐇ㦂⤖ᯝ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡀᮏ᮶ⓗ࡟ᣢࡘࠕᤊ
࠼࡟ࡃࡉࠖ࡜ࠕᢅ࠸࡟ࡃࡉࠖࢆᥥࡁฟࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ
(7)࡟ᣲࡆࡓ 4 ࡘࡢ property ࢆከࡃ‶ࡓࡍ࡯࡝ࠊࡼ
ࡾㄗఏ㐩ࡽࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡋࡓࠋ

࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
 Toolmakers paradigm ࡟౫ᣐࡋࡓᴫᛕᵓ㐀グ㏙࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡿఏ㐩ࡣࠊከᒙⓗ࡞ẁ㝵ࢆ⤒࡚ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ⛬ᗘࡢᕪࡇࡑ࠶ࢀࠊྛẁ㝵㛫࡛ࡢせ⣲ᑐᛂࡀヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛫࡛␗࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄗఏ㐩ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ༴㝤ᛶࡀᖖ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋ ᭦࡟ࠊࠕヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࡢពᅗ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⌮ゎࡣỴࡋ࡚ྠࡌ࡟ࡣ࡞ࡾᚓ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᇶᮏⓗ࡞஦ᐇࢆᛀࢀ࡚㸦ࡘࡲࡾ conduit metaphor ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚㸧ゝㄒఏ㐩ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡣ୍ᒙಁࡉࢀᚓࡿࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡢ┦㐪ࡸⓎヰពᅗࡢ⌮ゎࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ㣗࠸㐪࠸࠿ࡽㄗఏ㐩ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ㝿ࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࢀ࡟Ẽ௜࠿࡞࠸ࡇ࡜

(7) S intends P to evoke Q and A interprets P to evoke Q’;
a. Q is not Q’.
b. S or A believes Q’ to be Q.
c. P does not evoke Q.
d. P does not evoke Q’.
⾲ 1 ࡟♧ࡋࡓ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛ 4 ࡘࡢ property ࢆྵࡴࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ௜㘓࡟ᣲࡆࡓ I ࠿ࡽ XVI ࡢ౛ᩥࢆసࡾࠊ
⸨ዪᏊ኱Ꮫࡢⱥㄒᩥ໬Ꮫ⛉ࡢᏛ⏕ 45 ே࡟ࠕㄗఏ

3
−227−

誤伝達：概念構造とプロトタイプ

㸦₯ᅾ໬㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡣ୍ᒙ῝้໬ࡍࡿࠋ ࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉព࿡ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᐇ㦂ࡢ⤖ᯝࠊヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ(P)࡜ࡑࡢពᅗ(Q)ࡲࡓࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⌮ゎ(Q’)ࡢ㛫࡟㱈㱒ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚ࡶࠊconduit metaphor ࡀ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡿ(7b)࡜ࠊ῝้࡞ㄗఏ㐩࡜ཷࡅṆࡵ࡞ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓ㸦IX-XI㸹≉࡟ IX ࡣㄗఏ㐩せ⣲࡞ࡋࡢ XII ࡜㏆࠸್㸧ࠋࡑࢀࡇࡑࡀゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡿఏ㐩ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ྍ⬟ࡔ࡜ゝㄒ౑⏝⪅ࡓࡕࡀಙࡌ㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ㸧ᡤ௨࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡢ᰿※ⓗ࡞ཎᅉ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋㄗఏ㐩ࡀᐇ㝿ࡢゝㄒఏ㐩ࡢᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡠ๭ྜࢆ༨ࡵࠊࡑࢀ࡛࠸࡚₯ᅾ໬ࡋࡸࡍ࠸࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡣࠊゝㄒࡢศᯒ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶࡲ
ࡓࠊㄗఏ㐩ࢆᤊ࠼࡟ࡃࡃࠊᢅ࠸࡟ࡃ࠸ࡶࡢ࡟ࡍࡿࠋ௜㘓(I) ኴ㑻ࡣ(Q)ႃࡀῬ࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆẕぶ࡟ఏ࠼ࡓ࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ
࠺ࡗ࠿ࡾࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ࣄ࣐ࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊẕぶࡣ(Q’)࠾⭡ࡀ✵࠸ࡓࡢࡔࢁ࠺࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࠕ∵ங࡛ࡶ㣧ࡳ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ(II) ኴ㑻ࡣ(Q)ႃࡀῬ࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆẕぶ࡟ఏ࠼ࡓ࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ
࠺ࡗ࠿ࡾࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ࣄ࣐ࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊẕぶࡣ (Q’) ㏥ᒅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࠕࢸࣞࣅ࡛ࡶぢࡓࡽࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ(III) (Q)୍ே࡛㐟ࢇ࡛㏥ᒅࡋࡓኴ㑻ࡀẕぶ࡟ࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ࣄ
࣐ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࠊẕぶࡣ(Q’)࠾⭡ࡀ✵࠸ࡓࡢࡔࢁ࠺࡜ᛮࡗ
࡚ࠕ∵ங࡛ࡶ㣧ࡳ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ(IV) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸࡜ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀ㐲ࡲࢃࡋ࡟ࠕ(Q’)㞵㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼࡡࠖ࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࠊ㞼⾜ࡁࡢ᛹ࡋࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ᘓᚿࡀࠕ࠸ࡸࠊ㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ(V) (Q)ႃࡀῬ࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ኴ㑻ࡀẕぶ࡟ࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ࣄ࣐ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࠊẕぶࡣ(Q’)࠾⭡ࡀ✵࠸ࡓࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿࡜ᛮ࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡶศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ࡜ࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠕ∵ங࡛ࡶ㣧ࡳ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ(VI) (Q)ႃࡀῬ࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ኴ㑻ࡀẕぶ࡟ࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ࣄ࣐ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࠊẕぶࡣ(Q’)୍ே࡛㏥ᒅࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿࡜ᛮ࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡶศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ࡜ࡾ࠶
࠼ࡎࠕ∵ங࡛ࡶ㣧ࡳ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ(VII) (Q)୍ே࡛㐟ࢇ࡛㏥ᒅࡋࡓኴ㑻ࡀẕぶ࡟ࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ࣄ
࣐ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࠊẕぶࡣ(Q’)࠾⭡ࡀ✵࠸ࡓࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿࡜ᛮ
࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡶศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ࡜ࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠕ∵ங࡛ࡶ㣧ࡳ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ
(VIII) (Q)ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ୍⥴࡟㣗஦࡛ࡶ࡝࠺࠿࡜⪃࠼࡚Ṋᚿࡀࠕ(Q’)࠾⭡✵࠸ࡓࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ᑜࡡࡿ࡜ࠊ⚈୍ࡣ(Q’)Ṋᚿࡀ࠾ⳫᏊ࠿ఱ࠿ࢆ⏝ពࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡶࡋ
ࢀ࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡶศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ࡜ࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠕ࠸
ࡸࠊࡲࡔ✵࠸࡚࡞࠸ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ(IX) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸࡜ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀࠕ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠖ࡜ゝ࠾࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠺ࡗ࠿ࡾࠕ㞵㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࡡࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ㞼⾜ࡁࡢ᛹ࡋࡃ࡞ࡗ
ࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ᘓᚿࡣࠕࠗ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࡡ࠘ࡢゝ࠸㛫㐪࠸࡛ࡋࡻࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ࡢࡔ࡞࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡌࡷ࠾࠺࠿ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ(X) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸࡜ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀࠕ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠖ࡜ゝ࠾࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠺ࡗ࠿ࡾࠕ㞵㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࡡࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ㞼⾜ࡁࡢ᛹ࡋࡃ࡞ࡗ
ࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ᘓᚿࡣࠕ࡝࠺ぢ࡚ࡶ㝆ࡾࡑ࠺࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠖ
࡜⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ࡢࡔ࡞࡜ᛮ
ࡗ࡚ࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡌࡷ࠾࠺࠿ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ
(XI) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸࡜ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀ㐲ࡲࢃࡋ࡟ࠕ㞵㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼࡡࠖ࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࠊ㞼⾜ࡁࡢ᛹ࡋࡃ
࡞ࡗࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ᘓᚿࡣࠕࠗ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࡡ࠘ࡢゝ࠸㛫㐪࠸࡛ࡋࡻࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ࡢࡔ࡞࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡌࡷ࠾࠺ࡼࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ(XII) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸࡜ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀࠕ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠖ࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࠊᘓᚿࡣ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ࡢࡔ࡞࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡌࡷ࠾࠺࠿ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ
(XIII) (Q) Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸࡜ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀࠕ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠖ࡜ゝ࠾࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠺ࡗ࠿ࡾࠕ㞵㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࡡࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ㞼⾜ࡁࡢ᛹ࡋࡃ
࡞ࡗࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ᘓᚿࡣࠕࠗ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࡡ࠘ࡢゝ࠸㛫㐪࠸࡛ࡋࡻࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆᚰ㓄ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡓࡀศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ࡜ࡾ࠶࠼ࡎ
ࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡌࡷ࠾࠺࠿ࠖ࡜ゝⴥࢆຍ࠼ࡓࠋ(XIV) (Q) Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸࡜ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀࠕ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠖ࡜ゝ࠾࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠺ࡗ࠿ࡾࠕ㞵㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࡡࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ㞼⾜ࡁࡢ᛹ࡋࡃ
࡞ࡗࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ᘓᚿࡣࠕ࡝࠺ぢ࡚ࡶ㝆ࡾࡑ࠺࡛ࡋ
ࡻ࠺ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡓࡀศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ࡜ࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠕࡌࡷ
࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡶ࠺࠿ࠖ࡜ゝⴥࢆຍ࠼ࡓࠋ(XV) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸࡜ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀ㐲ࡲࢃࡋ࡟ࠕ㞵㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼࡡࠖ࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࠊᘓᚿࡣ㞼⾜ࡁࡢ᛹ࡋࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ࠕ࠸ࡸࠊ㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࠖ
࡜⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡓࡀศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ࡜ࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠕᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡌࡷ࠾࠺ࡼࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ
(XVI) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸࡜ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀ㐲ࡲࢃࡋ࡟ࠕ㞵㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼࡡࠖ࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࠊᘓᚿࡣ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡓࡀศ࠿ࡽ࡞
࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ࡜ࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡌࡷ࠾࠺࠿ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩

Clark, Herbert. H. and Catherine R. Marshall. 1981.
Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge. In Aravind.
K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber, and Ivan A. Sag (eds.),
Elements of Discourse Understanding, 10-63.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, Linda and Paul Kay. 1981. Prototype Semantics:
The English Word Lie. Language 57-1: 26-44.
஭⟄຾ಙ࣭஭⟄㸦ᡂ⏣㸧⨾ὠᏊ㸬2011㸬ࡉࡏ࡚ࢇ࡛࡞
࠸ࡢࠊࡸࡽࡏ࡚ࢇࡢ㸸໭ᾏ㐨᪉ゝ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ஧ࡘࡢ౑ᙺᙧ㸬ࠗ♫఍ゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ఍➨ 27 ᅇ኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘㸪
70-73㸬
Milroy, Lesley. 1984. Comprehension and Context:
Successful Communication and Communicative
breakdown.
Trudgill,Peter(ed.),
AppliedSociolinguistics, 7-31. London: Academic Press.
┤ሯ⋹Ꮚ㸬1980㸬
ࠗḢ⡿ேࡀỿ㯲ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ㸸␗ᩥ໬㛫ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࠘㸬ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ㸬Ἀ⿱Ꮚ㸬1999㸬Ẽࡀࡘࡁ࡟ࡃ࠸᪉ゝ㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘18:
156-165㸬
Reddy, Michael J. 1979. The Conduit Metaphor̿A Caseof Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language. In
Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 284-324.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R. 1975. Indirect Speech Acts. In Peter Coleand J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3:
Speech acts, 59-82. New York: Academic Press.
Shannon, Claude and Warren Weaver. 1949. The
Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana
Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
௜グ ᮏⓎ⾲ࡣࠊ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠㸦ᖹᡂ 23㹼26 ᖺᗘᇶ┙◊✲ C㸧
ࠕᨃఝඹ㏻ㄒ⾲⌧࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿࠕㄗゎࠖࡢ◊✲ࠖ㸦ㄢ㢟␒ྕ 23520517ࠊ◊✲௦⾲⪅: ஭⟄⨾ὠᏊ㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

4
−228−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

has gone ࡜ is gone ࡢฟ⌧⎔ቃ࡜ព࿡ࡢືᶵ
ᒾ⏣┿⣖
ி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔
maki-iwata@nifty.ne.jp<Abstract>
A resultant state of an event can be expressed by have p.p. (the resultative perfect). In
some intransitive verbs, it can also be expressed by be p.p. (be-perfect). Their meanings are
regarded as the same, but close observation shows that these two constructions express different
things. The resultative perfect refers to both the resultant state and the process, whereas the

be-perfect focuses only on the resultant state on the discourse ground. The resultant meaningof the resultative perfect comes from the construction whereas that of the be-perfect comes fromthe past participle. The two constructions convey different meanings.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ ⌧ᅾ᏶஢ resultativeࠊbe᏶஢ࠊ⤖ᯝ≧ែࠊㄯヰࡢሙࠊ᫬㛫ⓗᣑᙇ㻝㻚㻌 䛿䛨䜑䛻㻌 ⌧ᅾ᏶஢ have + p.p.㸯ࡀ⾲ࡍព࿡ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡟ࠊ
resultative ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋresultative ࡣ㐣ཤࡢ࢖࣋ࣥ
ࢺࡢ⤖ᯝ≧ែࡀ⌧ᅾ࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࠊ(1)ࡣᙼࡀ⌧ᅾࡇࡇ࡟ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 (1) He has gone.
ᩥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊcome, do, fall, finish, go, grow ࡞࡝ࡢ⮬ືモࡣࠊbe + p.p.ࡢᙧ࡛ືస࣭⾜Ⅽࡀ᏶஢ࡋࡓ
ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿ⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡋ㸦௨ୗࠊbe ᏶஢㸧ࠊ⌧ᅾ᏶஢ࡢ resultative ࡜ྠࡌព࿡ࢆఏ࠼ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ
ࡿࠋ (2) a. All my money is gone.
b. All my money has gone.
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᙧᘧࡀ␗࡞ࡿ 2 ࡘࡢ⾲⌧ࡀ⾲ࡍព࿡ࡀࠊ
ྠࡌ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ᮏ✏ࡣ has gone ࡜ is gone ࢆࢣ࣮ࢫࢫࢱࢹ࢕
࡜ࡋࠊThe British National Corpus (BNC)ࡢࢹ
࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ᏶஢ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ⎔ቃࡢ㐪࠸ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊ୧⪅ࡢ⾲ࡍព࿡ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟
ࡍࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊព࿡ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣㄯヰࡢሙ㸰࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ࡢ௙᪉ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ཯ᫎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ

㻌㻞㻚㻌 ඛ⾜◊✲㻌Michaelis (1988: 211-212)ࡣࠊᵓᩥᩥἲࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊresultative ࡜ be ᏶஢ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣྠ⩏ⓗᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡾࠊḞᛶࡢᑐ❧(privative opposite)ࢆ♧ࡍ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
resultative ࡣ⤊Ⅼࢆᣢࡘ㸦telic㸧௚ືモ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⮬ືモࡢ㐣ཤศモᙧࡢㄒᙡ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ
㸦Aktionsart㸧࠿ࡽ⌧ࢀࡿ࠿ࠊゝㄒእᩥ⬦࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ィ⟬ࡉࢀࡿ⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊbe᏶஢ࡣ⤊Ⅼࢆᣢࡘ⮬ືモࡢ㐣ཤศモࡋ࠿⌧ࢀࡎࠊ₍↛࡜ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡉࡽ
࡟ࠊVP ෆ࡟⤊Ⅼ᱁ࢆᣢࡘ㏙㒊(goal complement)ࡣ⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
Michaelis ࡢศᯒࡣᵓ㐀ⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢࡶࡢ࡛
࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰࡢሙ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽࠊ୧⪅ࡢព࿡ⓗᕪ␗࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆヨࡳࡿࠋࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ࡼࡿ KDVJRQH ࡜ LV
JRQH ࡢẚ㍑
BNC ࡢ 1980s-1993 ᖺࡢヰࡋゝⴥ࣭᭩ࡁゝⴥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ࡼࡾࠊhas gone ࡜ is gone ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᚓࡓࠋhas gone ࡜ is gone ࢆศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊis gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡀ௚ࡢືモࡢ be ᏶஢ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡼࡾከ࠸ࡓࡵ

−229−

has goneとis goneの出現環境と意味の動機࡛࠶ࡿ㸱ࠋhas gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡣ 1876 ಶࠊ
is gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡣ 184 ಶ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
㻌㻟㻚㻝㻌 ᚋ⥆䛩䜛せ⣲㻌
has goneࠊis gone ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ(3)-(5)ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡ
ࣥᩘࢆㄪ࡭ࡓࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀ(a)ࡣ has goneࠊ(b)ࡣ
is gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘཬࡧࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ๭ྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ   (a) 54 (27%)(b) 13 (43%)
 (9) 㐣⛬㸲 (happily, sadly ࡞࡝)   (a) 4 (2%)(b) 0(10) ᫬㛫 (just, now, since ࡞࡝)(a) 124 (62%) (b) 16 (53%)(11) ホ౯࣭ែᗘⓗ (unfortunately ࡞࡝)   (a) 8 (4%)

is gone ࡜ࡢඹ㉳౛ࡣࠊᙉព๪モ࡜᫬㛫๪モ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(3) ᚋ⥆せ⣲࡞ࡋ(⠇ᮎࠊᩥᮎࡢฟ⌧)  (a) 297 (16%)(4) ୙ኚ໬モࡀᚋ⥆(b) 119 (65%)
㻟㻚㻟㻌 ᫬㛫๪モ䛸䛾ඹ㉳㻌 ฟ⌧఩⨨࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ᫬㛫๪モ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ
has goneࠊis gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡣࠊhas gone132ࠊis gone 32 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ᫬㛫๪モࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊis gone ࡛ࡣ(12)-(15)ࡢ 4 ✀㸳࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(a)ࡣ has goneࠊ(b)ࡣ is gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘཬ
ࡧࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ๭ྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(a) 1247 (66%) (b) 44 (23%)(a) ๪モ 636ࠊ๓⨨モ 611
 (b) ๪モ 27ࠊ๓⨨モ 17(5) ᙧᐜモࡀᚋ⥆(a) 118 (6.2%)(b) 0(b) 2 (0.1%)୧⪅ࡢ㔞ⓗ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊis gone ࡟ࡣᚋ⥆せ⣲ࡀ⥆ࡁ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊhas gone ࡟ࡣ୙ኚ໬モࡀ⥆ࡁࡸࡍ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᙧᐜモࡣᚋ⥆ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ
㉁ⓗ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊhas gone ࡟ࡣᵝែࡢ๪モࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࡀࠊis gone ࡟ࡣᵝែࡢ๪モࡀᚋ⥆ࡋࡓ౛ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ๪モࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘ
ࡣ has gone ࡟ᅽಽⓗ࡟ከ࠸୰࡛ࠊnowࠊ
for everࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩘࡣ is gone ࡢ᪉ࡀከࡃࠊhas gonenow 4 ౛ࠊis gone now 8 ౛ࠊhas gone for ever3 ౛ࠊis gone for ever 7 ౛࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ ᚋ⥆ࡢᙧᐜモࡣ୺ㄒ NP ࡢ≧ែࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿࡶ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡣᑡ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
㻟㻚㻞㻌 ୰㛫఩⨨䛾๪モ㻔ྃ㻕䛾≉ᚩ㻌 ୰㛫఩⨨࡟⌧ࢀࡿ๪モ(ྃ)ࠊࡣ has gone ࡛ࡣ 49 ✀ 199 ౛ࠊis gone ࡛ࡣ 14 ✀ 30 ౛࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᒸ⏣(1985)ࡢ๪モࡢศ㢮ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡑࢀࡒ
ࢀࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࢆศ㢮ࡋࠊ௨ୗࡢ⤖ᯝࢆᚓࡓࠋ
(a)ࡣ has goneࠊ(b)ࡣ is gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘཬ
ࡧࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ๭ྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(12) now(a) 45 (34%)(b) 11 (34.4%)(13) long(a) 8 (6%)(b) 9 (28.1%)(14) forever(a) 10 (7.6%) (b) 9 (28.1%)
 (15) already(a) 18 (13.6%) (b) 3 (9.4%)
has gone ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ௚࡟ just (20 ౛ (15%))ࠊ
since (10 ౛(7.6%))ࠊrecently (8 ౛ (6%))ࠊ
always (7 ౛ (5%))ࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࠋ㻟㻚㻠㻌 ୺ㄒ䛾≉ᚩ㻌 has goneࠊis gone ࡀ⠇ᮎࡲࡓࡣᩥᮎ࡟⌧ࢀࡿሙྜࡢ୺ㄒࡢ᭷⏕/↓⏕ࠊᐃ/୙ᐃࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥ
ᩘࡢ⥲ᩘࡣࠊhas gone 297ࠊis gone 119 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ௨ୗࡢ(a)ࡣ has goneࠊ(b)ࡣ is gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘཬࡧࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ๭ྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 (16) ᭷⏕≀㸸↓⏕≀ (6) 㡿ᇦ (ideologically, physically ࡞࡝)   (a) 2 (0.5%)(b) 0(7) ㏣ຍ (also, again ࡞࡝)    (a) 81 (27.2%) : 216 (72.7%)(b) 35 (29.4%) : 84 (70.5%)
 (17) ᐃྡモྃ㸸୙ᐃྡモྃ

(a) 8 (4%)(b) 0 (8) ᙉព (surely, completely ࡞࡝)    (a) 263 (88.5%) : 34 (11.4%)(b) 107 (90.7%) : 11 ( 9.2%)−230−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࡤࠊㄯヰࡢሙ࡟୺ㄒ NP ࡀࡶࡣࡸᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸≧ែࢆࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
is gone ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ๓⨨モࡢ✀㢮ࢆほᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ
fromࠊtoࠊwithࠊthroughࠊintoࠊinࠊbeforeࠊ
amidࠊacross ࡢ 9 ✀(17 ౛)࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ
╔Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍ to(4 ౛)ࠊintoࠊinࠊamid(ྛ 1 ౛)ࠊ
ጞⅬࢆ⾲ࡍ from(5 ౛)ࠊ⤒㊰ࢆ⾲ࡍ throughࠊacross(ྛ 1 ౛)ࠊ๓ᚋ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍ before(1 ౛)ࠊ
㝶కࡢ with(2 ౛)࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊhas gone ࡣ╔ⅬࠊጞⅬࠊ⤒㊰ࠊ఩⨨ࢆ⾲ࡍ✵㛫ࡢ๓⨨モ 33 ✀(603 ౛)ࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࠋ୰࡛ࡶࠊ╔Ⅼ(343 ౛)࡜ጞⅬ(72 ౛)࡛࡯ࡰ 7 ๭ࢆ༨ࡵࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ(20)࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୺ㄒྡモྃ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ has goneࠊis gone 㛫࡟≉ᚩࡢᕪࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ↓⏕≀ࡀከࡃࠊᐃྡモྃࡀᅽಽⓗ࡟ከ࠸ࠋ㻟㻚㻡㻌 䝁䞊䝟䝇䝕䞊䝍䛻䜘䜛ẚ㍑䛾䜎䛸䜑㻌 has gone ࡜ is gone ࡢඹ㉳㛵ಀ࠿ࡽぢࡓ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢⅬࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋhas gone ࡟ࡣ୙ኚ໬モࡀᚋ⥆ࡋࡸࡍࡃࠊis gone ࡣ⠇ᮎࠊᩥᮎ࡟ฟ⌧ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊis gone ࡣ≧ែኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࡍᵓᩥ “NP go ᙧᐜモ” ࡟ࡣᴟࡵ࡚ฟ⌧ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ๪モ࡜ࡢඹ㉳࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊis goneࡣᙉព๪モࠊ᫬㛫๪モ࡜ࡋ࠿ඹ㉳ࡏࡎࠊhasgone ࡟ẚ࡭ࡿ࡜ᙉព๪モ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ๭ྜࡀ㧗࠸ࠋhas gone ࡟ࡣࡈࡃࢃࡎ࠿㐣⛬๪モ(ᵝែ๪モ)࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ (20) have gone ࡣ⛣ືࡢ࢖࣋ࣥࢺࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㻠㻚㻌 ⪃ᐹ㻌 ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ࡼࡾ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓ≉ᚩࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊㄯヰࡢሙ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽࠊhasgone ࡜ is gone ࡢព࿡ⓗᕪ␗࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ௨ୗࡣ is gone to NP ࡢ 4 ౛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠺ࡕ 3 ౛ࡣ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⛣ື࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(21) a. a copy of the enquiry form, which, theoriginal is gone to the central record.
(BNC)
b. “And Michael is gone to our aunt in themountains for a week.” (BNC)c. “The Volvo is gone to who knows
where.”(BNC)
d. I took each upon my knee and told
them that Mamma is gone to Heaven,
to God Almighty,…
(BNC)㻠㻚㻝㻌 ᚋ⥆せ⣲䛛䜙ぢ䜛 㼔㼍㼟㻌㼓㼛㼚㼑 䛸 㼕㼟㻌㼓㼛㼚㼑㻌 3.1 ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊis gone ࡟ࡣᚋ⥆せ⣲ࡀ⥆ࡁ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊgo ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ๓⨨モ㸩NP࡟⌧ࢀࡿ๓⨨モࡣࠊ฿㐩Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍ to ࡀ᭱ࡶከ࠸ࡀࠊhas gone to NP ࡣ 166 ౛࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐ
ࡋࠊis gone to NP ࡣ 4 ౛࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ
࡜࠿ࡽࠊ(18)࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(18) be gone ࡣ⛣ືࡢ╔Ⅼࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿ⛣ື⾲⌧࡟ࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ
ᚋ⥆せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ᙧᐜモࡀ⥆ࡃ౛ࡣ 2 ౛࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊ࠺ࡕ 1 ౛ࡣᴟࡵ࡚㠀ᶆ‽ⓗ࡞Ⓨヰෆ࡟⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞౑⏝࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ
ࡶ࠺ 1 ౛ࡶⓎヰෆ࡟⌧ࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ(19)࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(19) be gone ࡣ≧ែኚ໬⾲⌧࡟ᴟࡵ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ(18)ࠊ(19)ࡼࡾࠊbe gone ࡣ୺ㄒ NP ࡢ⛣ືࡸኚ໬ᚋࡢ≧ែࢆࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୺
ㄒ NP ࡀ⛣ືࡋࡓᚋࡢㄯヰࡢሙࡢ≧ែࠊ᥮ゝࡍࢀࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠊis gone ࡣᐇ㝿ࡢ⛣ືࡢ࢖࣋ࣥࢺࢆ⾲ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㻠㻚㻞㻌 ඹ㉳䛩䜛๪モ䛛䜙ぢ䜛 㼔㼍㼟㻌㼓㼛㼚㼑 䛸 㼕㼟㻌㼓㼛㼚㼑㻌 is gone ࡣ has gone ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊඹ㉳ࡍࡿ๪モ
ࡣᙉព๪モࠊ᫬㛫๪モ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿࠋhas gone ࡣࡑࢀ௨እ࡟㡿ᇦࠊ㏣ຍࠊ㐣⛬ࠊホ౯࣭ែᗘ๪モ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࡓ౛ࡀࠊࢃࡎ࠿࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ(18)ࠊ
(20)࡛ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊis gone ࡣ⛣ືࡢ࢖࣋ࣥ
ࢺࢆ⾲ࡋ࡟ࡃࡃࠊhas gone ࡣ⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊඹ㉳ࡍࡿ๪モ࡜ࡢᩚྜᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋhas gone࡛ࡣ⛣ືࡢ㐣⛬ࢆಟ㣭ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃࡎ࠿࡞ࡀ
ࡽ࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊis gone ࡟ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

−231−

has goneとis goneの出現環境と意味の動機

 is gone ࡣᙉពࡢ๪モ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ๭ྜࡀ㧗࠸ࡀࠊis gone ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿᙉពࡢ๪モࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚୰㛫఩⨨㸦“is ᙉព๪モ gone”㸧࡟⌧ࢀࡿࠋᙉព๪モࡀಟ㣭ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ࢖࣋ࣥࢺ඲య࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ gone ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
㻠㻚㻟㻌 ୺ㄒ䛾ᐃᛶ䚸⛣ື䛾୍᫬ᛶ䛸Ọஂᛶ㻌⠇ᮎ࡟ಟ㣭ㄒྃ࡞ࡋ࡛⌧ࢀࡿሙྜࠊis gone ࡶ
has gone ࡶ୺ㄒࡣᐃྡモ࡛ྃ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃࠊ
ᣦ♧≀ࡀㄯヰࡢሙ࠿ࡽ⛣ືࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊis gone ࡣ୍᫬ⓗ࡞⛣ືࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣ
⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
(22) “ … We shall never be again as wewere. Dennis is gone, and we are thepoorer.” She looked away, biting herlip. “But in the midst of death, we arealso in life. …”(BNC)(23) The husband of Julie Godwin, who wasmurdered while on holiday with afriend in South Africa, says he’s ….
Tomorrow is the second birthday of thecouple's daughter. Sophie Godwin isstill asking where her mother has
gone.
(BNC)
(22)࡛ࡣᚋ⥆㒊ศࡼࡾ Dennis ࡀஸࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(23)ࡣࠊẕࢆẅࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆㄆ㆑࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ፉࡢⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋbe gone ࡟ࡣ(24)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྠ୍ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ୰࡟
“replace”ࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿ౛ࡀᩓぢࡉࢀࡿࠋbe gone ࡀ୍᫬ⓗ࡞ᾘኻ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡢഐド࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
 (24) She added: “I put my life and mymemories into this house and now
everything is gone.” I wasn't insured
and the things stolen were worth£150,000. I can't replace them, I can't
rent out rooms and …. (BNC)௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛
ࡁࡿࠋbe gone ࡣ୺ㄒྡモྃࡀ⛣ືࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊㄯヰࡢሙ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄯヰࡢሙ࡟ࡣࠊኚ໬ࡢవᆅࡀ࡞࠸⤖ᯝ≧ែࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋㄯヰࡢሙࡔࡅࢆࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡋࠊ
⛣ືࡢ࢖࣋ࣥࢺࡣ⫼ᬒ໬ࡉࢀࡿࠋㄯヰࡢሙ࠿ࡽࡢ᫬㛫ⓗᣑᙇࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ᏶஢ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ㐣ཤศモ࡛࠶ࡿࠋhave gone ࡣ“go”࡟ࡼࡿ⛣ືࡢ㐣⛬ࡶࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄯヰࡢሙ௨๓࡟⛣ືࡢ࢖࣋ࣥࢺࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊㄯヰࡢሙ࡟ࡣࡑࡢ࢖࣋ࣥࢺ
ࡢ⤖ᯝ≧ែࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊㄯヰࡢሙ࠿ࡽࡢ᫬㛫ⓗᣑᙇࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋព࿡ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡢࡣ have + p.p.࡜࠸࠺᏶஢ࡢᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㻌㻡㻚㻌 䜎䛸䜑㻌
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡࡟ྠ⩏࡜࠸ࢃࢀࡿ has gone ࡜is gone ࡢព࿡ⓗᕪ␗ࢆࠊㄯヰࡢሙ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋhas gone ࡣ᏶஢ࡢᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡾࠊᩥἲ
ⓗ࡟ㄯヰࡢሙ࠿ࡽࡢ᫬㛫ⓗᣑᙇࢆྵࢇࡔ⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࠋis gone ࡣㄒᙡⓗ࡟ㄯヰࡢሙ࡟࠶ࡿ⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ୧⪅ࡢព࿡ࡣࠊྠࡌ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸
࠼ࡿࠋ
has gone ࡟ᙧᐜモࡀᚋ⥆ࡋࡸࡍࡃࠊis gone ࡟ᙧᐜモࡀᚋ⥆ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊgone ࡢᩥἲ໬ࡢ⛬ᗘࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ㐣ཤศモࢆ p.p.࡜⾲ࡍࠋ
Langacker (1991)ཧ↷ࠋ㸱 ᏶஢ࡢព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ be + p.p.ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡣࠊis come 24ࠊis gone 184ࠊis done 74ࠊ
is fallen 6ࠊis grown 29 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
㸲 is gone ࡟ 1 ౛ぢࡽࢀࡓ is happily gone ࡣᩥಟ㣭࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿࡓࡵࠊᩘ࠿ࡽ㝖እࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸳 for ever, forever, for good ࡣྠ⩏࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
࠿ࡽࠊྠ୍ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸯㸰࠙ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ࠚ
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of

Cognitive Grammar. vol.II: Descriptive
Application. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.
Michaelis, Laura A. 1998. Aspectual Grammar
and Past-Time Reference. London:
Routledge.
ᒸ⏣ఙኵ1985.ࠗ๪モ࡜ᤄධᩥ࠘኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ࠙ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠚ
The British National Corpus.

−232−第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࠕඹヰࠖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡳࡓ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕศᯒ                   ຾⏣ 㡰Ꮚ                   ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔༤ኈㄢ⛬
jkatsuda11@yahoo.co.jp

㸺Abstract㸼
Analysis of Back-Channels by Malay Native Speakers– from the perspective of KYOOWA StyleJunko Katsuda
Nagoya University Graduate School
This study observes listeners’ responses by native Malay speakers.
Mizutani (1984) defines “Kyoowa style” as “a conversational style in which a listener listens,
saying back-channels very frequently, confirming and reinforcing what a speaker says, andsometimes completing a speaker’s sentence.” She claimed this style is distinctive in Japanesenative speakers. Kurosaki (1995) divided Kyoowa into 5 categories.
This study analyses whether these 5 categories appear in Malay native speakers’
conversations. It was found that 3 out of the 5 categories were present, so it could be said
that Malaysian conversations also have some of
Kyoowa characteristics. All of themwere found in the middle of a speaker’s talk, half of those overlapping with a speaker’s
statement. This phenomenon is different from the characteristics of Japanese Kyoowa style,hence further study on this aspect should be done.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚඹヰࠊ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࠊඛྲྀࡾࠊ࣮࢜ࣂ㸫ࣛࢵࣉ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
 ᖺ௦࠿ࡽ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡜୺࡟࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேⱥㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ఍ヰࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡢ◊✲㸦Ỉ㇂ ࠊ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ ࠊ &ODQF\HWDO ➼㸧ࡀ㐍ࡵࡽࢀ࡚ࡁ
࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㏆ᖺࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேᡈ࠸ࡣእᅜே◊✲⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡜୰ᅜㄒヰ⪅ࠊ㡑ᅜㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ఍ヰ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡞࡝ࡢ࣑ࢡࣟⓗ࡞どⅬ࠿ࡽࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ ᳿ ࠊ㈩ ࠊ㔠 ࠊ ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡜ⱥㄒࠊ୰ᅜㄒཬࡧ㡑ᅜㄒ௨እࡢእᅜㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ఍ヰ୰ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࡣࠊ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾ࡛ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ᮏ◊✲ࡣ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢぶࡋ࠸ྠᛶ㸦ዪᛶ㸧ࡢ཭ேྠኈ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐ㠃⮬⏤఍ヰࢆࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢഃ㠃࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⌧ᅾ◊✲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿእᅜㄒヰ⪅௨

−233−

「共話」の観点からみたマレーシア語母語話者のあいづち分析እࡢ఍ヰࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ఍ヰࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ఍ヰࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻞㸬ඛ⾜◊✲㻌 ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ఍ヰࡢ㐍ࡵ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊỈ㇂㸦㻝㻥㻥㻤㸧ࡣࠊࠕ㢖⦾࡟࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆᡴ
ࡕࠊ┦ᡭࡢゝࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࠊ⿵ᙉࡋࠊ᫬࡟ࡣ┦ᡭࡢᩥࢆ᏶ᡂࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊヰࢆ⪺ࡃࠖ
ᵝ࡞ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋỈ㇂ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞఍ヰࡢࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆࠕඹヰࠖ࡜ྡ࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㯮ᓮ㸦㻝㻥㻥㻡㸧ࡣࠊỈ㇂ࡢࠕඹヰࠖࡢ⪃࠼ࢆ᭦࡟᥎ࡋ㐍ࡵࠊࡇࡢࠕඹヰࠖࢆ 㻡 ࡘ࡟㢮ᆺࡋࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊỈ㇂ࡽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᪤࡟㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠕඛྲྀࡾᆺࠖࠕ⿵
㊊ᆺࠖ࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊࠕຓࡅ⯚ᆺࠖࠕゝ࠸᥮࠼ᆺࠖࠕඹឤᆺࠖࢆ㏣ຍࡋࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠕඛྲྀࡾ
ᆺࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ㻭ࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࡀࡡ࣭࣭࣭ࠖ㻮ࠕ࠼࠼ࠊ㐪࠸ࡲࡍࡡ࣭࣭࣭ࠖࡢࡼ࠺
࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࡢ⥆ࡁࢆ୰᩿ࡋࠊヰࡋᡭࡢゝ࠾࠺࡜ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆඛྲྀࡾࡋ࡚
㏙࡭ࡿᆺ㸦㯮ᓮ 㻝㻥㻥㻡㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕඹヰࠖⓗ࡞ヰࡋ᪉ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅࡞࡝ࡣࡇࡢࠕඹヰࠖ࡜ࡣᑐᴟ࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿࠕᑐヰࠖࢫࢱ࢖࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Ỉ㇂ 㻝㻥㻤㻠ࠊ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ 㻝㻥㻥㻟 ௚㸧ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᩥἲⓗ࡟ࡶ඲ࡃ␗࡞ࡿ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒ㸦㻿㼂㻻 ᆺ㸧ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㯮ᓮ㻔㻝㻥㻥㻡㻕ࡢඹヰࡢ㻡 㢮ᆺࡢฟ⌧ࡢ᭷↓࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻟㸬ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ㻌 ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㸦ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢ཭ேྠኈ㸧࡟ࢸ࣮࣐ࡣ୚࠼ࡎ࡟ࠊ⮬⏤࡟࠾ࡋࡷ࡭ࡾࢆࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸㸦⣙  ศ㛫㸧ࠊࡑࡢᵝᏊࢆࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛཬࡧࠊ㻵㻯 ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮࡟㘓㡢ࠊ㘓⏬ࡋࡓࠋ఍ヰࡣ඲࡚ᩥᏐ໬ཬࡧ⩻ヂࡋࠊศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࠊ㯮ᓮ㸦㻝㻥㻥㻡㸧ࡢࠕඹヰࠖࡢ㸳㢮ᆺ࡟ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ㻌㻌㻠㸬ศᯒ⤖ᯝ㻌 ࠕඹヰࠖࡣࠊ⥲ィ 㻝㻟 ศ 㻟㻜 ⛊㛫ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㻝㻠 ᅇぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ㯮ᓮࡢࠕඹヰࠖࡢ㸳㢮ᆺ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ศ㢮ࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊࠕඛྲྀࡾᆺࠖ㻥 ౛ࠊࠕຓࡅ⯚ᆺࠖ㻟 ౛ࠊࠕඹឤᆺࠖ㻞 ౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋୖグࡢ 㻝㻠 ౛ࡣ඲࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢヰࡢ㏵୰࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨヰࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ 㻣 ౛ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ࡜࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࣛࢵࣉࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢࠕඹ
ヰࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࣛࢵࣉࡣ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅఍ヰ࡛ࡣ㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ሗ࿌ࡣ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾ↓ࡃࠊ᪥ᮏேࡢඹヰࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡟࣐࣮ࣞ
ࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㺀ඛྲྀࡾᆺ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ㺁ࡢ౛ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㻌
㻌
㻌
㻌
㻌

−234−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ㻌㻌౛㸧 㺀ඛྲྀࡾᆺ㺁㻌㻌 㻌 㻝㻭㻦㻌㼟㼑㼎㼍㼎㻌㼗㼕㼚㼍㼔㻌㼙㼑㼙㼍㼚㼓㻚㻚㼙㼑㼙㼍㼚㼓㻌㼍㼐㼍㻌㼚㼕㼍㼠㼘㼍㼔㻌㼚㼍㼗㻌㼍㼙㼕㼗㻌㼟㼑㼙㼑㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㼜㼑㼚㼐㼑㼗㻌㼠㼍㼜㼕㻌 㻌  㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ࢟ࢼ㻔㻮 ࡢྡ๓㻕ࡣᮏᙜ࡟ࠊᮏᙜ࡟ࢩ࣮ࣙࢺࢭ࣓ࢫࢱ࣮ࢆྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ពᅗࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊ࡛ࡶ㻌э㻞㻮㻦㻌㼍㻦㼟㼑㼎㼍㼎㻌㼠㼍㼗㻌㼐㼑㻌㼟㼡㼎㼖㼑㼗 ὀ㼇㼥㼍㼚㼓㻌㼚㼍㼗㻌㼐㼕㼍㼙㼎㼕㼘㻌 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 ྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ᩍ⛉ࡀ↓࠸࠿ࡽ㻌㻌 㻌 㻟㻭㻦㻌 㻌        㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㼇㼟㼑㼎㼍㼎㻌㼠㼍㼗㻌㼐㼑㻌㼟㼡㼎㼖㼑㼗㻌㼥㼍㼚㼓㻌㼚㼍㼗㻌㼐㼕㼍㼙㼎㼕㼘㻌㼟㼛㻌㼖㼍㼐㼕㻌㼠㼍㼗㻌㼎㼛㼘㼑㼔㼘㼍㼔㻌㼚㼍㼗  㻌            㻌 ྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ᩍ⛉ࡀ↓࠸࠿ࡽࠊࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌  㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㼍㼙㼕㼗㻚㻌㼟㼑㼙㼑㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㼜㼑㼚㼐㼑㼗㻚㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ࢩ࣮ࣙࢺࢭ࣓ࢫࢱ࣮ࡣྲྀࢀ࡞࠸㻌㻌 㸯㻭 ࠿ࡽ㸱㻭 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㻭 ࡣࠕ㻮 ࡣྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ᩍ⛉ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࠸࠸ࡀࠊ⮬ศ㸦㻭㸧ࡣ↓࠸ࡢ࡛ྲྀࢀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢෆᐜࡣ 㻭 ୍ேࡢⓎヰ࠿ࡽࡣᵓᡂࡉࢀࡎࠊ㸰㻮 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ᩍ⛉ࡀ↓࠸࠿ࡽࠖ࡜ࠊ㻮 ࡀ 㻭 ࡢḟ࡟ゝ࠾࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰࢆඛྲྀࡾࡋ࡚ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ㻞 ேࡀඹྠࡋ࡚Ⓨヰࢆ⤌ࡳ❧࡚࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲ
ࡓࠊࡇࡢ 㻮 ࡢඛྲྀࡾⓎヰࡣࠊḟࡢ㸱㻭 ࡢⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ࡛ࡶࠊྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ᩍ⛉ࡀ↓࠸࠿ࡽ࣭࣭࣭ࠖ
࡜୍㒊࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࣛࢵࣉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻡㸬⪃ᐹ           㻌 ࠕඹヰࠖࡣ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ௚ࡢእᅜㄒ㻔ⱥㄒࠊ୰ᅜ
ㄒ࡞࡝㻕࡟ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㡑ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ⌧㇟ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡀ᪥ᮏே࡜ྠ⛬ᗘࡢ㢖ᗘ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௒ᅇࡢ㺀ඹヰ㺁ࡢ 㻡 㢮ᆺࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒヰ⪅ࡢ఍ヰࡶࠕඹヰࠖࡢせ⣲ࢆഛ࠼࠾ࡾࠊ᭦࡟ࡑࡢ㢖ᗘࡀ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢࡶࡢࡼࡾ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡼࡾࡶ᭦࡟ඹヰⓗ࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦㯮ᓮ㻝㻥㻥㻡 ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅ࡢᖺ㱋ࠊᛶู➼ࡀ኱ᖜ࡟␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⣧⢋࡞ẚ㍑ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࠕ⁪㔝᪉ゝㄯヰࠖ㻟㻜 ⦅㸦ᑠᏛ⏕࠿ࡽ⪁ᖺࡲ࡛ࡢヰ⪅㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕඹヰࠖࡣ 㻝ศᙜࡓࡾ 㻜㻚㻣 ᅇぢࡽࢀࡓ࡜࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᅇࡢ࣐࣮ࣞேẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ 㻝 ศ㛫࡟㻝㻚㻜㻠 ᅇぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ㸧ࠋ㻌 ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ௒ᅇࡢ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕඹヰࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ࡜࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࣛࢵࣉࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃ㸦඲యࡢ 㻡㻜㻑㸧ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ࡜㔜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡶⓎヰࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟ࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㺀⮬ศࡢពぢࢆゝ࠸ࡓ࠸㺁ࠕ⮬ศࡶⓎゝࡋࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸
࠺ࡼࡾᙉ࠸Ⓨヰ࡬ࡢせồࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟௦⾲࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠕඹヰࠖࡢᴫ
ᛕ࡜ᛶ㉁ࢆ␗࡟ࡍࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᭦࡞ࡿヲ⣽࡞ศᯒࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻢㸬⤊ࢃࡾ࡟㻌 ௒ᅇࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢ㠀ᖖ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡓ࣑ࢡࣟⓗ࡞⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢ୍㒊㸦㯮ᓮ 㻝㻥㻥㻡−235−

「共話」の観点からみたマレーシア語母語話者のあいづち分析ࡢࠕඹヰࠖࡢ 㻡 㢮ᆺ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪᰝࠊ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡣ
఍ヰࡣ㸯౛࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ୍⯡໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࡀࠊ௒ᚋከᩘࡢ఍ヰࢆศᯒࡋࠊ௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ᳨ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ㻌㻌㻔ὀ㻕 㼇 ࡣࠊࡑࢀ௨㝆ࡢⓎヰࡀ㔜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㻌㻌ཧ↷ᩥ⊩㯮ᓮⰋ᫛(1995)ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࣮ࣙࣥ㺀ඹヰ㺁࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࣮࠘ᅬ⏣ᏛᅬዪᏊ኱ Ꮫㄽᩥ㞟 30-I㸸45-60㈩⌹(2008)ࠕᑠ㞟ᅋウㄽሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰ⪅஺᭰ࡢ᪥୰ᑐ↷◊✲ࠖࠗୡ⏺ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘
18㸸73-94
㔠ᚿᐉ(2000)ࠕturn ཬࡧ turn-taking ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡢヨࡳ㸫㡑࣭᪥ࡢᑐ↷఍ヰศ ᯒ㸫ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘105 ྕ㸸81-90
㔠ᚿᐉ(2001)ࠕturn-taking ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥཬࡧࡑࡢ㐃㙐ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ㸫㡑࣭᪥ࡢᑐ↷఍ヰศᯒ㸫ࠖࠗே㛫ᩥ໬ㄽྀ࠘4 ྕ㸦࠾ⲔࡢỈዪᏊ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ே㛫ᩥ໬◊✲⛉㸧㸸153-165
Clancy, P. et al. (1996) The conversational use of reactive tokens in English,
Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26: 355-387
㝞ጼⳡ(2005)ࠕ᪥ྎࡢ㟁ヰ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪂ࡓ࡞ࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ㛤ጞ㸫࠶࠸࡙ࡕ౑⏝ࡢ᭷↓࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫ࠖࠗୡ⏺ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘15㸸41-58Ỉ㇂ಙᏊ(1984)ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡜ヰࡋゝⴥࡢᐇែ㸫࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢศᯒ㸫ࠖࠗ㔠⏣୍᫓ᙪ༤ኈྂᕼグᛕㄽᩥ㞟 ➨஧ᕳゝㄒᏛ⦅࠘ ୕┬ᇽ㸸261-279
᳿⹿(2007)ࠕ୰᪥ẕㄒሙ㠃ࡢヰ㢟㌿᥮ࡢẚ㍑̺ヰ㢟⤊஢ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚㸫ࠖࠗୡ⏺ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘17㸸37-52−236−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࠕྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨࡟㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ࠖ࡜ࠕᣦ♧ࠖࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚୰⏣ ᬛஓி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔< Abstract > This paper intends to investigate “the restriction involved in extraposition from NP”. In my
discussion I will show the great importance of the concept of “reference”. When modifiers appear in acertain kind of NPs, they would contribute to “the attainment of reference”. Therefore in that kind of
NPs “the connection” of heads and modifiers is strong. This strong connection works as the
restriction against the dislocation of modifiers from their heads. This concept of “connection” isclearly a pragmatical one produced by the interaction of speakers and hearers.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸㸯ࠊྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨ 㸰ࠊไ⣙ 㸱ࠊᣦ♧ 㸲ࠊྠᐃ 㸳ࠊ⤖ࡧࡘࡁ㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨࡟㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᣦ♧ࡢᴫᛕࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ᤣ࠼࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨࡜ࡣࠊḟࡢ(1b)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 (1) a. A man who was wearing a black hat just came in.
 b. A man just came in who was wearing a black hat.
(1b)࡛ࡣࠊྡモྃࡢಟ㣭せ⣲ࡀ୺せ㒊࠿ࡽษࡾ㞳ࡉࢀࡿᙧ࡛ᩥᮎ࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࠊྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨࡟ࡣ୍ᐃࡢไ⣙ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ᐃྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨ࡣᐜㄆᗘࡀప࠸࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
 (2) a. The man who was wearing a black hat just came in.
 b. ?? The man just came in who was wearing a black hat.
 ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࠕྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨࡟㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ࠖࢆᢅࡗࡓ୺࡞ඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊZiv & Cole(1974)ࠊ
Guéron(1980)ࠊHuck & Na(1990)ࠊTakami(1992)࡞࡝ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡀ
␗࡞ࡿ⌮ㄽⓗᇶ┙࡟౫ᣐࡍࡿᙧ࡛ࠊྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨ࠊཬࡧࡑࢀ࡟㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡣࠊྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨ࡢ㐺ྰࢆ஧⪅ᢥ୍ⓗ࡟ண ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ඹ㏻ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⌮ㄽ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊStucky(1987)࡛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ୙㐺᱁࡜ண ࡉࢀࡿᩥࡶࠊุ᩿⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ฎ⌮ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢀࡤ㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ୍⩌ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᇶ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋStucky ࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊ
እ⨨ࡢ㐺ྰ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ஧⪅ᢥ୍ⓗ࡞ண ࡟␲ၥࢆᢞࡆ࠿ࡅࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࡇࡢぢゎࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞ไ⣙ࡣ⤯ᑐⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᅇ㑊ࡉࢀࡿࠕഴྥࠖ࡟࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼
ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕഴྥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢไ⣙ࠖ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᣦ♧ࡢၥ㢟ࡀ῝ࡃ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿࠋ

㸰㸬⏝ㄒ࣭ᴫᛕࡢつᐃ ࠕᣦ♧ࠖ࡜ࠕྠᐃࠖࡣᐦ᥋࡞㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞୍㐃ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

−237−

「名詞句からの外置に関わる制約」と「指示」の関係について

 (3) ྡモྃࡢⓎヰ Ѝ ྡモྃ࡟ࡼࡿᑐ㇟ࡢᣦ♧ Ѝ ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿᑐ㇟ࡢྠᐃ
ࡇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ͆John arrived͇࡜࠸࠺ලయⓗ࡞ᩥ࡟㐺⏝ࡍࢀࡤḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
 (4) ͆John͇ࡢⓎヰ Ѝ ͆John͇㸦࡜࠸࠺㡢ኌ㸧࡟ࡼࡿಶேࡢᣦ♧ Ѝ ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿಶேࡢྠᐃ ࡇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ᭱ᚋࡢẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡿࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢྠᐃࠖࡣࠊⓎヰ⪅ࡢഃ࠿ࡽ⾲⌧ࡍࢀࡤࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡇࢀࡽ஧ࡘࡢ⏝ㄒࡣྠ⩏࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୧⪅ඹ࡟ୖࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ᏶
⤖ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛͆A man arrived͇ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶゐࢀ࡚࠾ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
͆a man͇ࡀⓎヰࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣᙜ↛ఱ஦࠿ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࡢሙྜࠊᅛ᭷ྡ͆John͇࡞࡝ࡢሙྜ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ≉ู࡞ᩥ⬦ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࡢಶே࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᑐ
㇟ࢆྠᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ஦౛ࡣୖࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡣヱᙜࡋ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࡇࡢ✀ࡢ஦౛࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖᡈ࠸ࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿྠᐃࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࢆ㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࡋ࡞
࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᚐ࡞㆟ㄽࡢ」㞧໬ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕಶయ㸦ಶே㸧ᣦ♧ࠖཬࡧࠕಶయ㸦ಶே㸧ྠᐃࠖࡢࡳࢆၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

㸱㸬ಟ㣭せ⣲࡟ࡼࡿࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂ࡬ࡢᐤ୚ࠖ
3.1. Grice ࡢ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮㸦Cooperative Principle㸧 ௨ୗࡢ㆟ㄽ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㝈ࡾ࡛ Grice(1975)࡟ࡼࡿ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮㸦Cooperative Principle㸧ࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡗ࡚࠾
ࡃࠋGrice(1975)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ఍ヰࡣ༠ㄪⓗ࡞௻࡚࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࠊཧຍ⪅ࡣࡑࡢ௻࡚ࡢ୰࡟ඹ㏻ࡢ┠ⓗࢆぢฟࡍ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ཧຍ⪅ࡀ㑂Ᏺࡍ࡭ࡁ୍⯡ཎ⌮ࡀᐃᘧ໬ࡉࢀࡿࠋ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮ࡣ୺࡜ࡋ࡚ᅄࡘࡢ᱁⋡ࠊཬࡧࡑࡢୗ఩᱁⋡࠿ࡽᡂࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ஧ࡘࡢ᱁⋡ࡢࡳࢆᘬ࠸࡚࠾ࡃࠋ 㔞ࡢ᱁⋡ 㸯㸬㸦ゝⴥࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡢᙜ㠃ࡢ┠ⓗࡢⅭࡢ㸧せồ࡟ぢྜ࠺ࡔࡅࡢ᝟ሗࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨゝࢆ⾜࠸࡞ࡉ࠸ 㸰㸬せồࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ௨ୖࡢ᝟ሗࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨゝࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸
 ᵝែࡢ᱁⋡ ̿ 㸦ୖ఩᱁⋡࡜ࡋ࡚㸧ࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡋ࡞ࡉ࠸ 㸯㸬᭕᫕࡞ゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡋ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ 㸰㸬ከ⩏ⓗ࡞ゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡋ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ 㸱㸬⡆₩࡞ゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡋ࡞ࡉ࠸㸦వィ࡞ゝⴥࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸㸧 㸲㸬ᩚ↛࡜ࡋࡓゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡋ࡞ࡉ࠸                 㸦Ύሯ 1998: 37-39㸧
3.2. ྡモྃࡢศ㢮 ḟ࡟ࠊྡモྃࢆࠕ౑⏝ࡢពᅗࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᇶ‽࡛஧ࡘ࡟኱ูࡍࡿࠋ
 㸦i㸧 Ⓨヰ⪅ࡀᙜヱࡢྡモྃࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᣦ♧ࢆ㐩ᡂࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ
 㸦ii㸧 Ⓨヰ⪅ࡀᙜヱࡢྡモྃࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᣦ♧ࢆ㐩ᡂࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜ
ࡇࡢศ㢮ἲࡣḟࡢ஧ࡘࡢほⅬ࡟ࡼࡾࡑࡢጇᙜᛶࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ➨୍ࡢほⅬࡣࠊᣦ♧ࢆ⾜࠺ࡢࡣ⾲⌧㸦ྡモྃ㸧࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࡑࢀࢆ⏝࠸ࡿே㛫࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢほⅬࡣ Strawson(1950)࡟࠾࠸࡚୺ᙇ
ࡉࢀࡿࠋ➨஧ࡢほⅬࡣࠊྛࠎࡢ⾲⌧࡟ࡣࡑࢀࢆ⏝࠸࡚ఱࢆ⾜࠺࠿࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍ᐃࡢつ๎ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢつ๎ࡣ⤯ᑐⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢ஧ࡘࡢほⅬࡣᐦ᥋࡟㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦i㸧ࡢ┠ⓗࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡟ࡣᐃྡモྃࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊ㸦ii㸧ࡢ┠ⓗࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡟ࡣ୙ᐃྡモྃࡀ

−238−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ౛࠼ࡤⓎヰ⪅ࡀ͆John͇࡜࠸࠺ಶேࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿ┠ⓗ࡛͆A man͇ࢆⓎヰࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ͆John͇ࢆṇࡋࡃྠᐃࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ༑ศ࡟ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ➨஧ࡢほⅬࢆ౛ドࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞඾ᆺⓗ࡞౑⏝ἲࢆ㐓⬺ࡋࡓྡモྃࡢ౑⏝ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ➨୍ࡢほⅬ࡟ࡼࡾ⿬௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ
3.3. ಟ㣭せ⣲࡟ࡼࡿࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂ࡬ࡢᐤ୚ࠖ ୖࡢศ㢮ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨࡟ไ⣙ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡣ㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ᐃྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡀప࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡍ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸦ii㸧ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣၥ㢟࡞ࡃಟ㣭せ⣲ࢆእ⨨ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟୙ᐃྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡍ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦ii㸧ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣ࡞ࡐእ⨨ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜ࡟ไ⣙ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᑐẚⓗ࡞どⅬ࠿ࡽᢕᥱࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡶ㔜せ࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊᮏㄽࡢ୺ࡓࡿ┠ⓗࡣྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨࡟㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡾࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣ⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜ࠿ࡽࠊ௨ୗ࡛ࡣ㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜࡢࡳࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
 㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣḟࡢࡇ࡜ࡀྵពࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊᙜヱࡢྡモྃࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ྠᐃྍ
⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜Ⓨヰ⪅ࡣ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ➨㸰❶࡛⾜ࡗࡓ⏝ㄒࡢつᐃ࡟క࠺ࡇ࡜࡛
࠶ࡿࠋࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖ࡜ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿྠᐃࠖࡣྠ⩏࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖࢆពᅗࡍ
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿྠᐃࠖࢆពᅗࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊᮏ❶࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺
ᙇࡣḟ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 (5)ࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖࡀពᅗࡉࢀࡓྡモྃෆ࡟⌧ࢀࡿಟ㣭せ⣲ࡣࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖ࡬ࡢᐤ୚ࢆⅭࡍ ௨ୗࠊ(5)ࡀ୺ᙇࡉࢀࡿ࡟⮳ࡿ⤒⦋ࢆලయⓗ࡟⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࠊྡモྃෆ࡟ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡀ⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡿࠋ
 (6) a. Peter just came in.
 b. The man just came in.
(6a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᅛ᭷ྡࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡸࠊ(6b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟୺せ㒊ࡢࡳ࡛ᣦ♧ࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊಟ㣭せ⣲ࡣ୙せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮ࡢ[㔞ࡢ᱁⋡ 2]࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ྡモྃෆ࡟ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿሙྜࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ (7) a. Peter with the black hat just came in.
 b. The man who was wearing a black hat just came in.( = 2a)
ࡲࡎ(7a) ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠋ
͆Peter͇࡜࠸࠺ྡࡢே≀ࡀ」ᩘ࠸ࡿሙྜࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢ͆Peter͇ࡀᣦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆỴᐃࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ᝟ሗࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛(6a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟Ⓨヰࡉࢀࡓࡔࡅ
࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ͆Peter͇ࢆྠᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ௬࡟ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ͆Peter͇ࡀࢺ࣮ࣞࢻ࣐࣮ࢡࡢࡼ࠺࡟࠸ࡘࡶ㯮࠸ᖗᏊࢆ⿕ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊಟ㣭せ⣲͆with the black hat͇ࡀⓎヰࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ၥ㢟ࡢ͆Peter͇ࡀṇࡋࡃྠᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ḟ࡟(7b)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࡇࡢᩥ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿᩥ⬦࡛ࠕⓑ࠸ᖗᏊࢆ⿕ࡗࡓ⏨ࠖ࡜ࠕ㯮࠸ᖗᏊࢆ⿕ࡗࡓ⏨ࠖࡀၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛(6b)࡜Ⓨヰࡉࢀࡓࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡝ࡕࡽࡢ⏨ࡀᣦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡢ࠿⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡣࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ(7a)ࡢሙྜྠᵝ࡟ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡶಟ㣭せ⣲͆who was wearing a black hat͇ࡀⓎヰࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖࡀពᅗࡉࢀ࡚ఱࡽ࠿ࡢྡモྃࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࡢྡモྃෆ࡟⌧ࢀࡿಟ㣭せ⣲ࡣࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖ࡟ᐤ୚ࢆⅭࡍࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮ࡢ[㔞ࡢ᱁⋡ 1]࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᨭ

−239−

「名詞句からの外置に関わる制約」と「指示」の関係について

ᣢࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸲㸬୺せ㒊࡜ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢࠕ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࠖ ᮏ❶࡛ࡣࠊ๓❶࡟ᘬࡁ⥆ࡁ㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ(5)ࢆᇶ࡟ࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ୺ᙇࢆᑟࡁฟ
ࡍࠋ(5)࡟⥆࠸࡚Ⅽࡉࢀࡿ୺ᙇࡣḟ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (8)ࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖࡀពᅗࡉࢀࡓྡモྃෆ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୺せ㒊࡜ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢࠕ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࠖࡀᙉ࠸ ๓❶࡟࠾࠸࡚(5)ࢆᑟฟࡍࡿ㐣⛬࡛ࠊ㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜࠊྡモྃෆ࡟ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࡢಟ㣭せ⣲ࡣᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࡢࡓࡵ࡟୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜࠊᣦ♧ࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺┠ⓗ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊⓎヰ⪅࡟ࡣࠊ୺せ㒊ࢆⓎヰࡋࡓ࡞ࡽࡤ⥆ࡅࡊࡲ࡟ಟ㣭せ⣲ࢆⓎヰࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ
࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࠕᙉไຊࠖࡀാࡃ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡣࠊ୺せ㒊ࢆ⪺࠸ࡓࡔࡅ࡛ࡣᑐ㇟ࢆྠ
ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ᪩ࡃಟ㣭せ⣲ࢆ⪺ࡁࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࠕせồࠖࡀാࡃ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୺せ㒊࡜ಟ㣭せ⣲࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢせ⣲ࡀ௓ධࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖᡈ࠸ࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿྠᐃࠖࡢጉࡆ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮ࡢ[ᵝែࡢ᱁⋡]඲⯡࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(8)࡛ゝ࠺ࠕ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊⓎヰ⪅࡟ാࡃࠕᙉไຊࠖ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ാࡃࠕせồࠖࡢ┦஫స⏝ࡀ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎヰ⪅ࡀᣦ♧ࢆ㐩ᡂࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨࡟ࡣไ⣙ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⌧㇟ࡢཎᅉࡣࠊ୺せ㒊࡜ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢࠕᙉ࠸⤖ࡧࡘࡁࠖࡀࡑࢀ
ࡽࡢศ㞳࡟ᑐࡍࡿไ⣙࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡃࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿࠋ

㸳㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨࡟㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ࢆࠕഴྥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢไ⣙ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊࡑࢀࡀ⏕ࡌࡿせᅉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᣦ♧ࡢᴫᛕࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ᤣ࠼࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ➨୍ࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࡀពᅗࡉࢀࡓྡモྃෆ࡟⌧ࢀࡿಟ㣭せ⣲ࡣᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂ࡟ᐤ୚ࢆⅭࡍࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ➨஧ࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࡀពᅗࡉࢀࡓྡモྃෆ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ୺せ㒊࡜ಟ㣭せ⣲࡜ࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡀᙉ࠸ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࡀពᅗࡉࢀࡓྡモྃෆ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୺せ㒊࡜ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢᙉ࠸⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡀࡑࢀࡽࡢศ㞳࡟ᑐࡍࡿไ⣙࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ ᮏ✏࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣእ⨨ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿሙྜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣゐࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡶ࡜ࡼࡾᮏ◊✲ࡣࠕእ⨨࡟㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ࠖࢆ୺ࡓࡿ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢၥ㢟ᵓᡂ࠿ࡽࡣࠕእ⨨ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿせᅉࠖࡸࠕእ⨨ࡢᶵ⬟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡣ๪ḟⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡟Ṇࡲࡽࡊࡿࢆᚓ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓၥ㢟ࢆࡶໟᦤࡍࡿᙧࡢࠊࠕྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟ࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
1.Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Cole, P. & J.L. Morgan. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 3:
Speech Acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
2.ࢢࣛ࢖ࢫ, H.P. Ύሯ㑥ᙪヂ. 1998.ࠕㄽ⌮࡜఍ヰࠖࠗㄽ⌮࡜఍ヰ࠘31-59. ᮾி: ວⲡ᭩ᡣ.
3.Guéron, J. 1980. “On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition.” Linguistic Inquiry 11, 637-678.
4.Huck, G.J. & Y. Na. 1990. “Extraposition and focus.” Language 66:1, 51-77.
5.Strawson, P.F. 1950. On referring. Mind 59: 320-344.
6.Stucky, S.U. 1987. “Configurational variation in English: A study of extraposition and related
matters.” In Huck, G.J. & A.E. Ojeda. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 20: Discontinuous Constituency,
377-404. New York: Academic Press.
7.Takami, K. 1992. “On the definiteness effect in extraposition from NP.” Linguistic Analysis 22:1-2, 100-116.
8.Ziv, Y. & P. Cole. 1974. “Relative extraposition and the scope of definite descriptions in Hebrew
and English.” Chicago Linguistic Society 10, 772-786.

−240−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

䛂䜶䝁䛃䛿䜘䛔䛣䛸㻫䇷ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䛾❧ሙ䛛䜙䇷㻌୰㔝㻌 㜿బᏊ㻌㛵す኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㻌㻌㻌㻨㻭㼎㼟㼠㼞㼍㼏㼠㻪㻌㼀㼔㼕㼟㻌㼞㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔㻌㼒㼛㼏㼡㼟㼑㼟㻌㼛㼚㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼕㼙㼍㼓㼑㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼡㼟㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌䇾㼑㼏㼛䇿㻌㼕㼚㻌㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚㼑㼟㼑㻚㻌 㻌 㻵㼠㻌㼕㼟㻌㼍㼚㼍㼘㼥㼦㼑㼐㻌㼎㼍㼟㼑㼐㻌㼛㼚㻌㻯㼞㼕㼠㼕㼏㼍㼘㻌㻰㼕㼟㼏㼛㼡㼞㼟㼑㻌㻭㼚㼍㼘㼥㼟㼕㼟㻘㻌㻯㼛㼞㼜㼡㼟㻌㼎㼍㼟㼑㼐㻌㼍㼚㼍㼘㼥㼟㼕㼟㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㻿㼑㼙㼍㼚㼠㼕㼏㻌㻰㼕㼒㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼠㼕㼍㼘㻌㼀㼑㼏㼔㼚㼕㼝㼡㼑㻚㻌 㻌 㼀㼔㼑㻌㼐㼍㼠㼍㻌㼕㼟㻌㼒㼞㼛㼙㻌㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚㼑㼟㼑㻌 㼏㼛㼞㼜㼡㼟㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㼣㼑㼎㻌 㼞㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔㻘㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㼠㼔㼑㻌 㼑㼤㼜㼑㼞㼕㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌 㼣㼍㼟㻌 㼏㼛㼚㼐㼡㼏㼠㼑㼐㻌 㼒㼛㼞㻌 㻝㻜㻥㻌 㼟㼠㼡㼐㼑㼚㼠㼟㻚㻌 㻌 㼀㼔㼕㼟㻌㼞㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔㻌㼟㼔㼛㼣㼟㻌㼠㼔㼍㼠㻌䇾㼑㼏㼛䇿㻌㼣㼍㼟㻌㼛㼞㼕㼓㼕㼚㼍㼘㼘㼥㻌㼟㼠㼍㼞㼠㼑㼐㻌㼠㼛㻌㼡㼟㼑㻌㼎㼥㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼓㼛㼢㼑㼞㼚㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼕㼠㻌㼔㼍㼟㻌㼞㼑㼜㼞㼑㼟㼑㼚㼠㼑㼐㻌㼓㼛㼛㼐㻌 㼕㼙㼍㼓㼑㻚㻌 㻌 㼀㼔㼑㼞㼑㼒㼛㼞㼑㻌 㼕㼠㻌 㼠㼑㼚㼐㼟㻌 㼠㼛㻌 㼎㼑㻌 㼡㼟㼑㼐㻌 㼖㼡㼟㼠㻌 㼍㼟㻌 㼍㻌 㼎㼞㼍㼚㼐㻌 㼕㼚㻌 㼎㼡㼟㼕㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌 㼚㼛㼣㼍㼐㼍㼥㼟㻘㻌 㼣㼔㼕㼏㼔㻌 㼔㼍㼟㻌 㼚㼛㻌㼙㼑㼍㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌㼛㼒㻌䇾㼑㼏㼛㼘㼛㼓㼥䇿㻌㼍㼚㼥㻌㼙㼛㼞㼑㻌㼕㼚㻌㼟㼛㼙㼑㻌㼏㼍㼟㼑㻚㻌 㻌 㻵㼚㻌㼏㼛㼚㼏㼘㼡㼟㼕㼛㼚㻘㻌䇾㼑㼏㼛䇿㻌㼔㼍㼟㻌㼎㼑㼑㼚㻌㼍㻌㼢㼑㼞㼥㻌㼡㼟㼑㼒㼡㼘㻌㼠㼛㼛㼘㻌㼠㼛㻌㼒㼍㼟㼏㼕㼚㼍㼠㼑㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼏㼡㼟㼠㼛㼙㼑㼞㻌㼕㼚㻌㼠㼔㼕㼟㻌㼏㼍㼜㼕㼠㼍㼘㼕㼟㼠㻌㼑㼏㼛㼚㼛㼙㼥㻚㻌 㻌㻌䛆㻷㼑㼥㼣㼛㼞㼐㼟䛇㻌 ⎔ቃ䚸ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䚸䝁䞊䝟䝇䚸㻿㻰 ἲ㻌㻌㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㻌 ᮏ✏䛷䛿 㼢㼍㼚㻌㻰㼕㼖㼗㻌㻔㻝㻥㻤㻤㻕䚸㼃㼛㼐㼍㼗㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㻹㼑㼥㼑㼞㻌㻔㻞㻜㻜㻝㻕䛺䛹䛾ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䛾❧ሙ䛛䜙䚸᪥ᮏㄒ䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛔䛖ㄒ䛾౑⏝䜢ᢈุⓗ䛻᳨ウ䛩䜛䚹㻲㼍㼕㼞㼏㼘㼛㼡㼓㼔㻔㻝㻥㻤㻥㻕䛾㏙䜉䜛㏻䜚䚸ゝㄒ䛿ᶒຊ䛾⥔ᣢ䛻฼⏝䛥䜜䜛䚹䛂䜶䝁䛿䜘䛔䛣䛸䛃䛸䛔䛖ゝㄝ䛿 㻝㻥㻥㻜 ᖺ௦䛻䛂䜶䝁䝬䞊䜽䛃䛸䛔䛖ྡ⛠䛷䚸ᨻᗓ୺ᑟ䛷ᑟධ䛥䜜䛯䚹䛭䛾ᚋ䚸䛂䜶䝁䝞䝑䜾䛃䛂䜶䝁䜹䞊䛃䛂䜶䝁䝫䜲䞁䝖䛃䛺䛹䚸ᩘ䚻䛾㐀ㄒ䜢⏕䜏䛺䛜䜙⎔ቃಖㆤ䛸⠇⣙䜢ᢡ⾺䛧䛯㒔ྜ䛾䛔䛔ㄒ䛸䛧䛶䝡䝆䝛䝇䛾ᑐ㇟䛻䛺䜚䚸௻ᴗ䛻䜘䜛ᾘ㈝⪅䛾↽ື䛻฼⏝䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸䛣䜜䜙䜢ᚑ᮶䛾ᢈุⓗศᯒ䛾ᡭἲ䛻௦䛘䛶䚸䝁䞊䝟䝇䚸ᐇ㦂䚸䛚䜘䜃 㼃㼑㼎 ᳨⣴䛻䜘䜛ᐇ㝿䛾౑⏝䜢ᑐ㇟䛸䛧䛶ศᯒ䜢⾜䛖䚹㻌㻌ࢹ࣮ࢱ
ࠕ࢚ࢥࠖࡢึฟᖺḟ࡜౑⏝㢖ᗘ᥎⛣᪥ᮏㄒ᭩䛝ゝⴥᆒ⾮䝁䞊䝟䝇 㻷㻻㼀㻻㻺㻻㻴㻭 䜘䜚䛂䜶䝁䛃䛾౑⏝䛻䛴䛔䛶௨ୗ䛾䝕䞊䝍䜢ᚓ䛯䚹㻌㻌
1991 ᖺ

1993 ᖺ

1999 ᖺ

2000 ᖺ

2003 ᖺ

2004 ᖺ

2008 ᖺ

2009 ᖺ

࢚ࢥࣟࢪ࣮

࢚ࢥ࣐࣮ࢡ࢚ࢥࣅࣞࢵࢪ

࢚ࢥࢩࢸ࢕

࢚ࢥ࣐ࢿ࣮

࢚ࢥࢶ࢔࣮

࢚ࢥᘓ⠏࢚ࢥ࣏࢖ࣥࢺ









࢚ࢥࣁ࢘ࢫ

࢚ࢥࣇ࢓ࣥࢻ

࢚ࢥࢪ࢙ࢵࢺ

ᘙ ᵏᴾ ẐỺἅẑử̅ဇẲẺᡯᛖỉИЈ࠰ഏᴾ

ᴾ

−241−

「エコ」はよいこと?―批判的談話分析の立場から―

㻌㻌㻌㻌

㻌

ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ‫ ׋‬ᵏẐỺἅẑỉ̅ဇ᫁ࡇਖ਼ᆆᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ‫ ׋‬ᵐẐ࿢‫̬ؾ‬μẑểẐ࿢‫̬ؾ‬ᜱẑỉ̅ဇ᫁ࡇਖ਼ᆆᴾ
㻌6' ἲ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ᳨ド䛂䜶䝁䛃䛾ዲ䜲䝯䞊䝆䛿䚸㻿㻰 ἲ䠄ព࿡ᚤศἲ䠅䜢฼⏝䛧䛯ᐇ㦂䛷᫂☜䛻䛷䛝䜛䚹䛣䛾ᐇ㦂䛷䛿䚸ᒾୗ(1983)䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶䛂䜶䝁䛃䛚䜘䜃㛵㐃䛧䛯䛂䜾䝸䞊䞁䛃䛂⎔ቃಖㆤ䛃䛾ศᯒ䜢 2010 ᖺ 11 ᭶䛻኱Ꮫ⏕ 109ྡ䜢ᑐ㇟䛻⾜䛳䛯䚹ᐇ㦂䛻䛿䚸20 䛾ᙧᐜモᑐ䠄Ⰻ䛔ᝏ䛔䚸ᙺ❧䛴ᙺ❧䛯䛺䛔䚸䛝䜜䛔ở䛔䚸ὶ⾜䛺ὶ⾜䛷䛺䛔䚸᪂䛧䛔ྂ䛔䚸᫂䜛䛔ᬯ䛔䚸⤒῭ⓗ䛺୙⤒῭䛺䚸㌟㏆䛺⦕㐲䛔䚸ືⓗ䛺㟼ⓗ䛺䚸⬟ືⓗ䛺ཷືⓗ䛺䚸㛗ᮇⓗ䛺▷ᮇⓗ䛺䚸䜔䜟䜙䛛䛔䛛䛯䛔䚸ዲ䛝᎘䛔䚸㍍䛔㔜䛔䚸ዪ䜙䛧䛔⏨䜙䛧䛔䚸᫂ⓑ䛺䛒䛔䜎䛔䛺䚸ຊ䛾኱䛝䛔ຊ䛾ᑠ䛥䛔䚸ᐜ᫆䛺」㞧䛺䚸⮬↛䛺୙⮬↛䛺䚸㧗౯䛺Ᏻ౯䛺䠅䜢⏝䛔䚸1䡚5 䛾 5 ẁ㝵䛷ホᐃᖹᆒ䜢⟬ฟ䛧䛯䚹ᴾ ‫ ׋‬ᵑẐỺἅẑểẐ࿢‫̬ؾ‬ᜱẑỉỶἳὊἊൔ᠋ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ‫ ׋‬ᵒẐỺἅẑểẐἂἼὊὅẑỉỶἳὊἊൔ᠋ᴾᴾ ⏝౛
㻔㻝㻕䡚㻔㻟㻕䛿 㻷㻻㼀㻻㻺㻻㻴㻭 䛾⏝౛䚸㻔㻠㻕䡚㻔㻢㻕䛿 㼓㼛㼛㼓㼘㼑 䛻䜘䜛 㼃㼑㼎 ᳨⣴䛛䜙䛾⏝౛䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸䛂䜶䝁䜹䞊䝨䝑䝖䛃䛂䜶䝁䝣䜯䞁䝗䛃䛂䜶䝁ほග䛃䛂䜶䝁Ꮿ㓄䛃䛂䜶䝁䜺䞊䝹䝈䛃䛺䛹ᵝ䚻䛺ศ㔝䛷䛂䜶䝁䛃䛜౑⏝䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌䠄1䠅䝗䜲䝒⏕䜎䜜䛾䜶䝁䜹䞊䝨䝑䝖䜢ᢅ䛖䝅䝵䞊䝹䞊䝮䚹䝗䜲䝒䛾ཝ䛧䛔ᑂᰝ䜢䜽䝸䜰䛧䚸⎔ቃၥ㢟䜔೺ᗣ䛻㓄៖

−242−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

䛄᪂䛧䛔ఫ䜎䛔䛾タィ䛅 2005 ᖺ 6 ᭶ྕ ᢇ᱓♫ 2005(2)䜶䝁䝣䜯䞁䝗䛻⤌䜏ධ䜜䜙䜜䜜䜀䠈䛭䛾௻ᴗ䛾ᰴᘧ䛾ᕷሙ౯್䛿㧗䜎䜚䠈㈨㔠ㄪ㐩䛜ᐜ᫆䛻䛺䜛䛄ᇶ♏

⎔ቃᏛ䛅 ⏣୰ಟ୕⦅ⴭ ඹ❧ฟ∧ 2003
(3) 䛂⎔ቃ䜔⮬↛䜢኱ษ䛻䛩䜛䜶䝁䝒䞊䝸䝈䝮䠈䜾䝸䞊䞁䝒䞊䝸䝈䝮䛾᥎㐍䛃䜢ᥖ䛢䛶䛚䜚䠈䜶䝁ほග䛾ྍ⬟ᛶ䜢
㏣ồ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛩䛺䜟䛱䠈ி㒔䛾䜒䛖䠍䛴䛾኎䜚≀䛜⮬↛䛷䛒䜛䚹䛄䛚䛣䛧䜔䛩䛾ほගᡓ␎䛅 ᒣୖᚭ⦅ⴭ ἲᚊᩥ໬♫ 2001㻌

(4) ᱁ᏳᏯ㓄䛾䜶䝁㓄 www.ecohai.co.jp/㻌 ᱁ᏳᏯ㓄䛺䜙䚸䜶䝁㓄䚹ᮾྡ㜰䛻୍ᚊ 330 ෇䛷⩣᪥䛻ᒆ䛡䜛᱁ᏳᏯ㓄䝃䞊䝡䝇䛷䛩䚹㔜㔞ไ㝈↓䛧䛷᭱኱๭ᘬ 260 ෇䛛䜙䟿(5) ྂ╔䞉䝤䝷䞁䝗ရ䞉᫬ィ㈙ྲྀ䛾䜶䝁䝇䝍䜲䝹style-eco.com/ ᮾி䞉ᶓ὾䞉὾ᯇ䞉ᇸ⋢䞉ᒱ㜧䛷ὒ᭹䜔䝤䝷䞁䝗ရ䛾㧗౯㈙ྲྀ䝸䝃䜲䜽䝹䝅䝵䝑䝥䛸ゝ䛘䜀䜶䝁䝇䝍䜲䝹䟿඲ᅜ 12 ᗑ⯒ᒎ㛤୰䚸๰ᴗ 2001 ᖺ䚹㈙ྲྀᐇ⦼䛿 30 ୓௳䜢✺◚䟿(6) 䜶䝁䜺䞊䝹䝈䞉䝥䝻䝆䜵䜽䝖 䜸䝣䜱䝅䝱䝹䝤䝻䜾ameblo.jp/eco-with/ 䜶䝁䜺䞊䝹䝈䞉䝥䝻䝆䜵䜽䝖䛾බᘧ䝤䝻䜾䛷䛩䘊⚾䛯䛱䛸୍⥴䛻䛂䜶䝁䛃䛻䛴䛔䛶⪃䛘䜎䛧䜗䖪eco ᳨ᐃ䞉䜶䝁䜰䜲䝗䝹䞉䜶䝁䝍䝺䞁䝖䞉䜶䝁䜰䞊䝔䜱䝇䝖.

ศᯒ㻌 ⾲ 㻝 䛿䚸ᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ䛻䜘䜛䡞⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩䛝ゝⴥᆒ⾮䝁䞊䝟䝇䡟KOTONOHA 䜈䛾䛂䜶䝁䛃䜢౑⏝䛧䛯୺せ䛺㐀ㄒ䛾ึฟᖺ䛷䛒䜛䚹䜶䝁䝬䞊䜽ᑟධ䛛䜙ᮏ᱁໬䛧䛯䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䛂䜶䝁䛃䛾౑⏝䛿䚸ᖺ௦䜢ୗ䜛䛻䛴䜜䚸䛂䜶䝁䛿䜘䛔䛣䛸䛃䛸䛔䛖ゝㄝ䜢ᙧᡂ䛧䛺䛜䜙䚸ᖜᗈ䛔ศ㔝䜈ᣑ኱䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌 ᐇ㝿䚸ᅗ䠍䜢䜏䜜䜀䚸⥲ᩘ䛻䛚䛔䛶䜒䚸㻤㻜 ᖺ௦䛻䛿 㻞 ௳䛻㐣䛞䛺䛛䛳䛯䛂䜶䝁䛃䛾౑⏝䛜䚸㻥㻜 ᖺ௦䚸㻞㻜㻜㻜 ᖺ௦䛻ྥ䛛䛖䛻㐃䜜஌ᩘⓗ䛻ቑຍ䛩䜛䚹䛣䜜䛻ᑐ䛧䚸ᅗ 㻞 䛻ぢ䜛䜘䛖䛻䚸䛂⎔ቃಖ඲䛃䛿 㻞㻜㻜㻜 ᖺ䛻ධ䛳䛶ῶᑡഴྥ䛻䛒䜚䚸䛂⎔ቃಖㆤ䛃䛿ୖ᪼䛧䛶䛔䜛䜒䛾䛾䚸䛂䜶䝁䛃䜋䛹ఙ䜃䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹㻌 䛂䜶䝁䛃䛾౑⏝㢖ᗘ䛜ୖ᪼䛧䛯㔜せ䛺せᅉ䛸䛧䛶䛿䚸䜶䝁䝬䞊䜽䜔䜶䝁䝫䜲䞁䝖䛾ᨻᗓ䛻䜘䜛ᑟධ䛚䜘䜃⎔ቃព㆑䛾ྥୖ䛜䛒䜛䛸ᛮ䜟䜜䜛䛜䚸䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛔䛖ㄒ⮬㌟䛾ዲ䜲䝯䞊䝆䛜ᙉ䛟స⏝䛧䛶䛔䜘䛖䚹㻌 ᅗ䠏䛿䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛂⎔ቃಖㆤ䛃䛾ẚ㍑䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸䛂⎔ቃಖㆤ䛃䛻ᑐ䛧䚸䛂䜶䝁䛃䛿䛂㧗౯䛺䛃䜲䝯䞊䝆䛜኱ᖜ䛻ప䛟䚸䛂㍍䛥䛃䛂ᐜ᫆䛥䛃䛾ほⅬ䛷኱ᖜ䛻ୖᅇ䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸䜶䝁䛜⎔ቃ䛾䜏䛺䜙䛪䛂䜶䝁䝜䝭䞊䛃䜒ྵព䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䚸䛚䜘䜃䚸䜹䝍䜹䝘ㄒ䛷㔜ⱞ䛧䛔ឤ䛨䛜䛧䛺䛔䛣䛸䜢♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌 ୍᪉䚸ᅗ䠐䛻♧䛩䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛂䜾䝸䞊䞁䛃䛾ẚ㍑䛷䛿䛂㍍䛥䛃䛂ᐜ᫆䛥䛃䛷䛿䜘䛟ఝ䛯ഴྥ䜢♧䛩䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䚸䛂䜾䝸䞊䞁䛃䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䛂䜶䝁䛃䛿䛂ὶ⾜ᛶ䛃䛂⬟ືᛶ䛃䛂ືⓗ䛥䛃䛷኱ᖜ䛻ୖᅇ䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌 䛩䛺䜟䛱䚸䝥䝸䜴䝇䛺䛹䜶䝁䜹䞊䛾ᡂຌ䛻䜘䜛䜶䝁䝡䝆䝛䝇䜈䛾ὀ┠䛻ຍ䛘䛶䚸ୖ㏙䛾䜘䛖䛺ዲ䜲䝯䞊䝆䛛䜙䚸䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛔䛖⏝ㄒ䛿䜂䛸䛴䛾䝤䝷䞁䝗䛸໬䛧䛶䛚䜚䚸௻ᴗ䛜ᾘ㈝⪅䜢↽ື䛩䜛㐨ල䛸䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛䛸ゝ䛘䜛䚹㻌

−243−

「エコ」はよいこと?―批判的談話分析の立場から―

㻌 䛭䜜䛿ୖグ䛾⏝౛䛛䜙䜒᫂䜙䛛䛷䛒䜛䚹(1)(3)䛷䛿䚸ほගඛ㐍ᅜ䛾䝗䜲䝒〇䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛰䛡䛷䛂䜶䝁䜹䞊䝨䝑䝖䛃䛸䛔䛖⏝ㄒ䛜౑⏝䛥䜜䚸ி㒔䛻⮬↛䛜ከ䛔䛰䛡䛷䛂䜶䝁ほග䛃䛸䛔䛖ྡ⛠䜢㐀ㄒ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛂䜶䝁䝣䜯䞁䝗䛃䛻ධ䜜䜀䚸௻ᴗ౯್䛜ୖ䛜䜛(2)䚹ᕷෆ㓄㐩㒊ศ䜢⮬㌿㌴䛷⾜䛖䛣䛸䛷䛂䜶䝁Ꮿ㓄䛃䜢
ᶆᴶ䛧䚸᱁Ᏻ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢ㅻ䛖(4)䚹䝸䝃䜲䜽䝹䛸䛔䛖ほⅬ䛛䜙䛩䜉䛶䜶䝁䛷䛒䜛㉁ᒇ䛜䛒䛘䛶䛂䜶䝁䝇䝍䜲䝹䛃䛸䛔䛖ᗑྡ䛻䛧䛶ὀព䜢ႏ㉳䛩䜛(5)䚹ᴟ䜑䛴䛡䛿䜶䝁䜺䞊䝹䛸䛔䛖䜰䜲䝗䝹䜾䝹䞊䝥䜢⤖ᡂ䛩䜛䝥䝻䝆䜵䜽䝖䛷䛒䜛䠄6䠅䚹㻌 䛣䜜䜙䛾⏝౛䛜♧䛩䜘䛖䛻䚸䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛔䛖䝤䝷䞁䝗໬䛥䜜䛯ㄒ䛿䚸௒᪥ᮏ᮶䛾䜶䝁䝻䝆䞊䛸䛔䛖ព࿡䜢㉸䛘䛯䚸䛒䜛䛔䛿㐓⬺䛧䛯䜒䛾䛸䛧䛶ከ⏝䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛻䜒䛛䛛䜟䜙䛪䚸䛭䜜䛿䛒䛯䛛䜒⎔ቃ䛻㓄៖䛧䛶䛔䜛䛛䛾䜘䛖䛻㘒ぬ䛥䛫䜛ຊ䜢⛎䜑䜛䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹⤖ㄽ㻌 ᮏ✏䛷䛿ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䛾❧ሙ䛛䜙䚸᪥ᮏㄒ䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛔䛖ㄒ䛾౑⏝䜢ᢈุⓗ䛻᳨ウ䛧䛯䚹
ලయⓗ䛻䚸᪥ᮏㄒ䛾䛂䜶䝁䛃䛿ᨻᗓ୺ᑟ䛷ᑟධ䛥䜜䚸Ⰻ䛔䜲䝯䞊䝆䜢ᣢ䛳䛯⏝ㄒ䛸䛧䛶ᐃ╔䛧䛶䛔䜛ഴྥ䜢♧䛧䛯䚹䛥䜙䛻௒᪥䛷䛿䛂䜶䝁䝻䝆䞊䛃䛸䛔䛖ᮏ᮶䛾ព࿡䜢㐓⬺䛧䛯⏝ἲ䛜ከᩘ☜ㄆ䛥䜜䚸䛂䜶䝁䛃䛿୍✀䛾䝤䝷䞁䝗䛸䛧䛶䝡䝆䝛䝇䛾ᡭẁ䛸໬䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢㏙䜉䛯䚹௨ୖ䛻䛴䛔䛶ᮏ✏䛷䛿䝁䞊䝟䝇䚸ᐇ㦂䚸䜲䞁䝍䞊䝛䝑䝖䛛䜙䛾ドᣐ䜢⏝䛔䚸ከ㠃ⓗ䛻୺ᙇ䜢ㄽド䛧䛯䚹㻌ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power, London:Longman.
Fairclough, N. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language second edition,
London:Longman.
van Dijk, T.A 1988. News as discourse. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wodak, R. and M. Meyer eds. 2001. Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.

ᒾୗ㇏ᙪ 1983. 䛄SD ἲ䛻䜘䜛䜲䝯䞊䝆䛾ᐃ䇷䛭䛾⌮ゎ䛸ᐇ᪋䛾ᡭᘬ䛝䇷䛅 ᕝᓥ᭩ᗑᜠ⏣⣖᫂ 1970. 䛂༳㇟ᙧᡂ㐣⛬䛻㛵䛩䜛ᐇ㦂ⓗ◊✲䇲ᑐ㇟䛻ㄆ▱䛥䜜䛯ព࿡≉ᚩ䛸ዲᝏឤ䛃໭ཎಖ㞝⦅ 䛄᫂㙾ᅜㄒ㎡඾䛅 ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑᚰ⌮Ꮫᐇ㦂ᣦᑟ◊✲఍ 1985. 䛄ᐇ㦂䛸䝔䝇䝖䠙ᚰ⌮Ꮫ䛾ᇶ♏䇷ᐇ⩦⦅䇷䛅 ᇵ㢼㤋ᚰ⌮Ꮫᐇ㦂ᣦᑟ◊✲఍ 1985. 䛄ᐇ㦂䛸䝔䝇䝖䠙ᚰ⌮Ꮫ䛾ᇶ♏䇷ゎㄝ⦅䇷䛅 ᇵ㢼㤋⏣୰㟹ᨻ 1969.䛄䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䛾⛉Ꮫ䛅᪥ᮏホㄽ♫⏣୰㑥ኵ 1969.䛂ᑐே㛵ಀព㆑䛾ᵓ㐀䇶SD ἲ䛻䜘䜛䜰䝥䝻䞊䝏䛃䛄ᚅවᒇᒣㄽྀ䛅䠏,11䌦26ᯘ ♩Ꮚ 2006.䛂䝕䜱䝇䝁䞊䝇䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ᵓ⠏䇷䝅䝻Ⰽ䛜䝆䜵䞁䝎䞊䛾ព࿡䜢⋓ᚓ䛩䜛▐㛫䇷䛃䛄ゝእ䛸ゝෆ䛾஺ὶศ㔝䛅ᑠἨಖ༤ኈചᑑグᛕㄽᩥ㞟 ኱Ꮫ᭩ᯘ, 487-506.
᝟䛸䛾㛵ಀ䛃 䛄NHK ᩥ◊᭶ሗ䛅

−244−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

੺⼔⃻႐ߦ߅ߌࠆ౉ᶎ႐㕙ߢߩ੺ഥ⠪ߣ೑↪⠪ߣߩ㑐ଥ᭴▽㧙ࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞࡮ࠪࡈ࠻ߣࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉ࡮ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯߆ࠄߩ⠨ኤ㧙ฎ↰᦮ሶ㧔ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮࿖㓙⸒⺆ᢥൻ⎇ⓥ⑼㧕ၳᳯ ⮍㧔ฬฎደᄢቇ㧕<Abstract>
In a nursing care environment, bathing in particular has many possible face threatening acts. This study
aims to find out what sort of methods are used to build relationships between carers and those they care for.
It was found that carers used speech-level shifts and positive politeness strategies such as words of praise
and jokes to build relationships with those they care for. However, when carrying out their job as acaregiver, carers were found to use elderspeak.
‫ޤ࠼࡯ࡢ࡯ࠠޣ‬㧦1‫ ޔ‬㑐ଥ᭴▽ 2‫ ࠻ࡈࠪ࡮࡞ࡌ࡟࠴࡯ࡇࠬޔ‬3‫࡯ࠫ࠹࡜࠻ࠬ࡮ࠬࡀ࠻ࠗ࡜ࡐ࡮ࡉࠖ࠹ࠫࡐޔ‬1. ߪߓ߼ߦ
ᣣᧄ␠ળߩ㜞㦂ൻߪടㅦߔࠆ৻ᣇߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ౝ㑑ᐭ߆ࠄ಴ߐࠇߚ‫ޟ‬ᐔᚑ 23 ᐕᐲ 㜞㦂␠ળ⊕ᦠ‫ޔߣࠆࠃߦޠ‬㜞㦂⠪߇✚ੱญߦභ߼ࠆഀวߪㆊ෰ᦨ㜞ߩ 23.3㧑ߢ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙ㅪว߇‫ޟ‬㜞㦂ൻ␠ળ‫ߣޠ‬ቯ⟵ߔࠆ‫ޟ‬7㧑‫ࠍޠ‬ᄢ߈ߊ਄࿁ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬75 ᱦߩᓟᦼ㜞㦂⠪߇භ߼ࠆഀวߪ✚ੱญߩ 11.8㧑ߢ‫ޔߦ․ޔ‬23 ᐕᐲߪᓟᦼ㜞㦂⠪ߩᄢ߈ߥჇട߇ႎ๔ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬਄‫ޔ‬75 ᱦએ਄ߦߥࠆߣ‫⼔੺ⷐޔ‬⠪ߩഀว߽㜞ߊߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߢߪ‫߇⺕ޔ‬㜞㦂⠪ߩ੺⼔ࠍᜂߞߡ޿ࠆߩߛࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬వߩ⊕ᦠߦࠃࠇ߫‫ ⼔੺ⷐޔ‬5㧔㊀ᐲ㧕ߩ㜞㦂⠪ߩ 51.7㧑ߪᣉ⸳ࠍ೑↪ߒߡ߅ࠅ‫⹺ޔ‬⍮∝ߩᣉ⸳೑↪⠪ഀว߽ 15.3㧑ߦ෸ࠎߢ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬‫ߊ߹߁ޟ‬ᐕࠍ㊀ߨߡ޿ߊߣ޿߁ߎߣߪ‫ޔ‬ᔃりߩஜᐽߛߌߢߥߊ␠ળߣߩ❬߇ࠅࠍᜬߟߎߣ
ߢ޽ࠆ‫╩(ޠ‬⠪⸶)㧔Rowe and Kahn 1997㧕ߣ⸒ࠊࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫ࠍࡦ࡚ࠪ࡯ࠤ࠾ࡘࡒࠦߣੱޔ‬࿑ࠆߎߣߪ‫ޔ‬㜞㦂⠪ߦߣߞߡᄢ߈ߥᗧ๧ࠍᜬߟ‫ޕ‬ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪ⹺⍮∝ߩ㜞㦂⠪߇౒ห↢ᵴࠍߒߥ߇ࠄ‫⋡ࠍ┙⥄ޔ‬ᜰߔ‫ࠍޠࡓ࡯ࡎࡊ࡯࡞ࠣޟ‬ขࠅ਄ߍ‫ࠍࡦ࡚ࠪ࡯ࠤ࠾ࡘࡒࠦޔ‬ㅢߒߡ‫੺ޔ‬ഥ⠪ߣⵍ੺ഥ⠪㧔એਅ‫ޔ‬೑↪⠪㧕ߩ㑐ଥ᭴▽ࠍ⠨߃ࠆ‫⃻⼔੺ޔߦ․ޕ‬႐ߦ߅޿ߡࡈࠚࠗࠬଚኂᐲ߇㜞޿ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ౉ᶎ੺ഥਛߩ੺ഥ⠪ߣ೑↪⠪ߣߩࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦࠍᛒ߁‫౉ޔߡߒߘޕ‬ᶎ੺ഥ႐㕙ߢ੺ഥ⠪߇೑↪⠪ߣࠃࠅ⦟޿㑐ଥࠍ▽ߊߚ߼ߦ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߤޔ‬ᣇ⇛ࠍ↪޿ߡ޿ࠆߩ߆ࠍࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞࡮ࠪࡈ࠻ߣࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉ࡮
ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ߩⷰὐ߆ࠄ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߔࠆߎߣࠍ⋡⊛ߣߔࠆ‫ޕ‬
2. వⴕ⎇ⓥ
Brown & Levinson(1987) (એਅ㧮㧒㧸)ߪࡈࠚࠗࠬ㧔⥄Ꮖߩ᰼᳞㧕ߣ޿߁᭎ᔨࠍ↪޿ߡ‫ੱޔ‬㑆ߦߪੱߦ┙ߜ౉ࠄࠇߚߊߥ޿ࡀࠟ࠹ࠖࡉ࡮ࡈࠚࠗࠬߣ‫⥄ޔ‬ಽࠍ⹺߼ߡ᰼ߒ޿ߣ޿߁ࡐࠫ࠹ࠖ
ࡉ࡮ࡈࠚࠗࠬ߇޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬೨⠪ߩⷐ᳞ߦ௛߈߆ߌࠆࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ࠍࡀࠟ࠹ࠖࡉ࡮ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮
ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯‫ޔ‬ᓟ⠪ࠍࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉ࡮ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ߣቯ⟵ߒߚ‫࠻ࠬߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ߪੱ㑆㑐ଥߩ᭴▽ߦᄢ߈ߥᓎഀࠍᜂߞߡ߅ࠅ‫ߥ߹ߑ߹ߐޔ‬႐㕙ߢߘߩലᨐ߇ᔕ↪ߐࠇᆎ߼ߡ᧪ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬−245−

介護現場における入浴場面での介助者と利用者との関係構築−スピーチレベル・シフトとポジティブ・ポライトネス・ストラテジーからの考察−ศጟ(2011)ߪ‫ޔ‬ක⠪ߣᖚ⠪ߩࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦߦ߅޿ߡ߽‫ޔ‬ක⠪߇ᖚ⠪ߦኻߒߡᣇ⸒ࠍ↪
޿ࠆߎߣ‫ޔ‬ᖚ⠪ߩദജࠍ⹺߼ߡⶋ߼ࠆ‫ޔ‬ㆊ೾ߥᢘ⺆ࠍㆱߌࠆߥߤߩࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉ࡮ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀ
ࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ߪᖚ⠪ߣߩᔃ⊛〒㔌ࠍ❗߼ࠆലᨐ߇޽ࠆߣ␜ໂߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
 Backhaus (2009)ߪ੺⼔⃻႐ߢߪ౉ᶎ‫ޔ‬ឃᴭߥߤߩⴕὑ⥄૕߇೑↪⠪㧔ⵍ੺⼔⠪㧕ߦߣߞߡߪࡈࠚࠗࠬࠍ⢿߆ߔⴕὑߢ޽ࠅ‫✭ࠍࠇߘޔ‬๺ߔࠆߚ߼ߦ೑↪⠪ࠍⶋ߼ߚࠅ‫ޔ‬౬⺣ࠍ⸒ߞߚࠅ
ߔࠆࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉ࡮ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯߇ⷰኤߐࠇ‫⺆⸒ޔ‬ᒻᑼߣߒߡ᥉ㅢ૕㧔Ᏹ૕㧕߇૶ࠊࠇࠆߎߣ߇ᄙ޿ߣႎ๔ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ੱ㑆㑐ଥߩ᭴▽ߦߪ‫߽࠻ࡈࠪ࡮࡞ࡌ࡟࠴࡯ࡇࠬޔ‬ነਈߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞࡮ࠪࡈ࠻ߣߪ‫ߒ⹤ޔ‬ᚻ߇⡞߈ᚻߣߩᔃ⊛〒㔌ߩᄌൻߦࠃࠅ‫ޔ‬ᢘ૕㧔ߢߔ࡮߹ߔ૕㧕߆ࠄᏱ૕㧔ߛ૕㧕߳‫ޔ‬Ᏹ૕߆ࠄᢘ૕߳ߩಾࠅᦧ߃ࠍ␜ߔ߇‫ޔ‬㚍ᷨ(2010)ߦࠃࠆߣ‫੺ޔ‬ഥ⠪ߩࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞࡮ࠪࡈ࠻ߪ⋧ᚻߦࠃߞߡ૶޿ಽߌࠄࠇ‫౉ߢߣߎࠆߌߛߊޔ‬ᚲ⠪ߣߩ〒㔌ࠍ❗߼ࠆല↪߇޽ࠆߣߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪߎࠇࠄߩవⴕ⎇ⓥࠍ〯߹߃‫ࠬࠗࠚࡈޔ‬ଚኂᐲߩ㜞޿౉ᶎ੺ഥ႐㕙ߢߩࡐࠫ࠹ࠖ
ࡉ࡮ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ߣࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞࡮ࠪࡈ࠻ߦߟ޿ߡಽᨆ‫ޔ‬⠨ኤࠍⴕ޿‫ޔ‬੺ഥ⠪ߣ೑↪⠪ߣߩ㑐ଥ᭴▽ߦߟ޿ߡ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߔࠆߎߣࠍ⋡⊛ߣߔࠆ‫ޕ‬
3. ⺞ᩏߩ᭎ⷐ ⺞ᩏදജ⠪ߪ‫౓ޔ‬ᐶ⋵ߩࠣ࡞࡯ࡊࡎ࡯ࡓߩ౉ᚲ⠪(એਅ‫ޔ‬೑↪⠪)7 ฬ(76 ᱦ㨪91 ᱦߩ↵ᕈ 1ฬߣᅚᕈ 6 ฬ)ߣߘߎߢ௛ߊ 6 ฬߩᅚᕈࡋ࡞ࡄ࡯㧔એਅ‫੺ޔ‬ഥ⠪㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬7 ฬߪ⹺⍮∝ࠍᖚߞߡ߅ࠅ‫┙⥄ޔ‬ᐲߪ୘ੱᏅ߇޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬6 ฬ߇౉ᶎ੺ഥࠍᔅⷐߣߒߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ᒰ⹥ᣣߦ౉ᶎ੺ഥࠍ
ᜂᒰߔࠆߩߪ 1 ฬߩ੺ഥ⠪ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ౉ᶎ੺ഥࠍⷰኤߔࠆߦ޽ߚࠅ‫⎇ᧄޔ‬ⓥߢߪ‫ޟ‬Ԙ⣕⴩੺ഥĺԙ౉ᶎ੺ഥĺԚ⌕⴩੺ഥ‫৻ࠍޠ‬ㅪߩⴕὑߣߒߡᝒ߃ߚ‫੺ߩࠇߙࠇߘޔߢߣߎࠆߔ߁ߘޕ‬ഥ႐㕙ߩ․ᓽࠍ⸥ㅀߒ‫੺ޔߦ․ޔ‬ഥ⠪ߣ೑↪⠪߇ቢోߦ 1 ኻ 1 ߦߥࠆᶎቶߢߩ౉ᶎ੺ഥߣߘߩ೨ᓟߩ੺ഥࠍᲧセߢ߈ࠆߣ⠨߃ߚ߆ࠄߢ޽ࠆ‫੺ޕ‬ഥ⠪ߣ೑↪⠪ߩ⥄ὼળ⹤ߪ IC ࡟ࠦ࡯࠳࡯ߦ㍳㖸ᓟ‫ޔ‬ᢥሼ⿠ߎߒࠍⴕ޿‫ࡇࠬޔ‬࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞࡮ࠪࡈ࠻ߣࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉ࡮ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ߩ 2 ߟߩⷰὐ߆ࠄಽᨆ‫ޔ‬⠨ኤࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᓟᣣ‫੺ޔ‬ഥ⠪ 6 ฬߦࡈࠜࡠ࡯ࠕ࠶ࡊࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ࠍታᣉߒߚ‫ޕ‬
4. ⚿ᨐ‫ޔ‬⠨ኤ
4.1 ࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞࡮ࠪࡈ࠻ ੺ഥ⠪ߩࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞࡮ࠪࡈ࠻ߦߟ޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬2 ߟߩ․ᓽ߇⷗ࠄࠇߚ‫ޕ‬߹ߕ‫౉ޔ‬ᶎ੺ഥਛߦߪᏱ૕߆ࠄᢘ૕‫ޔ‬ᢘ૕߆ࠄᏱ૕߳ߩࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞࡮ࠪࡈ࠻߇㗫࿁ߦⷰኤߐࠇߚ‫ޔߦ․ޕ‬೑↪⠪ߦኻߒߡᣣᏱ⊛ߦᏱ૕ࠍ↪޿ߡ޿ࠆ੺ഥ⠪ߢ߽‫౉ޔ‬ᶎ੺ഥਛߪ‫ޟ‬㧔߅

−246−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

100
80
60
40
20
0
⣕⴩ᤨ ౉ᶎᤨ ⌕⴩ᤨ࿑ 1. ౉ᶎ੺ഥ႐㕙ߦ߅ߌࠆᏱ૕ߩഀว

ḡࠍ㧕߆ߌߡ޿߈߹ߔ‫ޟޠ‬㜬ߩᲫ߆ࠄᵞ޿߹ߔ‫ޟޠ‬⡊᛼߃ߡߊߛߐ޿‫ޠߔ߹ߌߟ࡯ࡊࡦࡖࠪޟޠ‬ߥߤߪᢘ૕ߦߥߞߡ޿ߚ‫ⴕ߁ⴕࠄ߆ࠇߎޔߪࠄࠇߎޕ‬ὑࠍ೨߽ߞߡ೑↪⠪ߦ⍮ࠄߖࠆߎߣߢ‫ޔ‬ᔃߩḰ஻ࠍߐߖࠆᓎഀ߇޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ㅢᏱળ⹤ߪ㑐⷏ᑯߢ߽‫ޔ‬਄⸥ߩㇱಽߪᮡḰ⺆ߢ⹤ߐࠇߡ޿ߚߎߣ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬೙ᐲ⊛‫ޔ‬௾␞⊛ߥᓎഀ߇޽ࠆߣ⸒߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᰴߦ‫⌕ߩ᦯⴩ޔ‬⣕ᤨߩ੺ഥᤨߣ౉ᶎ੺ഥᤨߩࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞߇⇣ߥߞߡ޿ߚ‫⌕ߩ᦯⴩ޕ‬⣕੺ഥᤨߦᢘ૕ࠍᄙߊ૶↪ߒߡ޿ߚ੺ഥ⠪ߪ౉ᶎ੺ഥᤨߦߪᏱ૕ߢ‫⌕᦯⴩ޔ‬⣕ᤨߦᢘ૕ࠍᄙߊ
↪޿ߡ޿ߚ੺ഥ⠪ߪ‫౉ޔ‬ᶎ੺ഥᤨߦߪᏱ૕ࠍᄙߊ↪޿ߡ޿ߚ‫⌕᦯⴩ޕ‬⣕ᤨߩࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞
ߪ‫ޔ‬ㅢᏱߩ೑↪⠪ߣߩળ⹤ߩ߿ࠅߣࠅߩᤨߣหߓࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞ߢ޽ߞߚߎߣ߆ࠄ‫੺ޔ‬ഥ⠪஥ߪ౉ᶎᤨߩ೑↪⠪ߣߩ߿ࠅߣࠅࠍ․೎ߦᝒ߃ߡ޿ࠆน⢻ᕈ߇⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬
਄ߩ࿑ 1 ߪ‫ޔ‬⣕⴩੺ഥ‫౉ޔ‬ᶎ੺ഥ‫੺⴩⌕ޔ‬ഥߦ߅ߌࠆᏱ૕ߩഀวࠍ␜ߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬਄⸥ߢㅀߴߚࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ᶎቶߢߩ౉ᶎ੺ഥᤨ߇৻⇟Ᏹ૕ߩഀว߇ૐ޿(ᢘ૕૶↪ഀว߇㜞޿)ߎߣ߇
⷗ߡߣࠇࠆ‫ޔߪࠇߎޕ‬ᶎቶߣ޿߁ⅣႺ(ࠪࡖࡢ࡯ߩ㖸)ߢ㜞㦂⠪ߣળ⹤ࠍߔࠆߩ߇࿎㔍ߢ޽ࠆߎߣߦട߃‫ޔ‬೑↪⠪ߩ૕⺞▤ℂߩߚ߼‫ߌߛࠆ߈ߢޔ‬⍴ᤨ㑆ߦ੺ഥࠍᷣ߹ߖࠃ߁ߣߔࠆ੺ഥ⠪ߣߒߡߩᓎഀ㧔ᵞ㜬‫ޔ‬り૕ߩᵞᵺߩ੺ഥ㧕߇⸒⺆ᒻᑼߦ⴫಴ߒߚὑߛߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬
4.2 ౉ᶎ੺ഥᤨߦⷰኤߐࠇߚࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉ࡮ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ 㧮㧒㧸ߩℂ⺰ߢߪࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉ࡮ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬15 ߩᣇ⇛߇᜼ߍࠄࠇ
ߡ޿ࠆ߇‫੺ޔ‬ഥ⠪߇೑↪⠪ߩ౉ᶎ੺ഥࠍߔࠆ㓙ߦ⷗ࠄࠇߚⶋ߼࡮౬⺣࡮౒ᗵߩ 3 ߟߪࡐࠫ࠹
ࠖࡉ࡮ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ߦ฽߹ࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ ߹ߕ‫(ߪߦ߼ⶋޔ‬1) ೑↪⠪ߩり૕⊛ߥ․ᓽ (2)೑↪⠪ߩ⴩㘃ߥߤߩᜬߜ‛ (3)り૕⊛⢻ജ߿೑↪⠪ߩദജߩ 3 ⒳㘃߇ⷰኤߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬り૕⊛ߥⶋ߼ߦߪ‫ޠߨߔߢ⿷޿޿ࠊ߆ޟ‬‫ߥ޿ࠇ߈ޟ‬⢛ਛߢߔߨ‫ޕ‬⢛ਛߛߌ⷗ߚࠄ‫ޔ‬30 ઍ‫ޟޠ‬㜬ߩᲫᄙ޿ߨ‫ోޟޠ‬ὼ⊕㜬ߥ޿ߥ㨪 ߔߏ޿ߥ㨪‫ޔߤߥޠ‬ⶋ߼ߩਛߢᦨ߽ᄙߊⷰኤߐࠇ‫ޔ‬೑↪⠪ߩ‫⽎ࠍޠߐ⧯ޟ‬ᓽߔࠆ߽ߩߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬‫ߘߒߕߔޟ‬߁ߥ਄⌕߿ࠊ‫ߣޠ‬೑↪⠪ߩ⴩㘃ࠍⶋ߼ߚࠅ‫ޟޔ‬ᤄ߆ࠄ㗻ᵞ߁ߩ਄ᚻ߿߽ࠎߨ‫ࠆߔߦ޿ࠇ߈ޟޠ‬ߨ㧔⥄ಽߢり૕ࠍᵞߞߡ޿ࠆߩࠍ⷗ߡ㧕‫੹ޟޠ‬ᣣ‫◲ߊߏߔޔ‬නߦ਄ᚻߦߢ߈ߚߥ㨪‫ޠ‬ᶎᮏ߆ࠄ಴ࠆᤨߦ‫޿ߏߔޟ‬㧔⿷߇㧕ࠃߊ਄߇ߞߚ‫ޔߤߥޠࠅߊߞ߮ޔ‬೑↪⠪ߩ⢻ജ߿౉ᶎᤨߩദജߦ
ኻߔࠆⶋ߼߇⷗ࠄࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ⶋ߼ߪ᣿␜⊛⴫⃻ߣᥧ␜⊛⴫⃻ߦಽࠄࠇࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ᄢ㊁(2007)ߪ᣿␜⊛ߥ⴫⃻ߪ‫ޢ޿޿ޡޟ‬‫ࠊ߆ޡ‬޿޿‫⹏ߩߤߥޢ‬ଔ⺆ࠍ฽߻⴫⃻߇⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫੺ޔࠅ߅ߡߒߣޠ‬ഥ⠪ߩ೑↪⠪߳ߩ 3 ⒳㘃ߩⶋ߼ߪ⹏ଔ⺆ࠍ↪޿ߚ᣿␜⊛ߥⶋ߼ߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬೑↪⠪ߪ⹺⍮∝ࠍᖚߞߡ޿ࠆߚ߼‫ޔ‬᣿␜⊛ߥⶋ

−247−

介護現場における入浴場面での介助者と利用者との関係構築−スピーチレベル・シフトとポジティブ・ポライトネス・ストラテジーからの考察−߼ߩᣇ߇⋥ធ⊛ߢℂ⸃ߒ߿ߔ޿ߣ޿߁ߎߣ߽ℂ↱ߩ৻ߟߣ⸒߃ࠆߛࠈ߁‫ޕ‬ ੹࿁ߩ⺞ᩏߢߪ‫ޔ‬౬⺣ߪ߶ߣࠎߤ੺ഥ⠪஥߆ࠄ⊒ߖࠄࠇ‫ޔ‬೑↪⠪ߩ╉޿ࠍ⺃⊒ߒߚ‫ߒߘޕ‬ߡ‫੺ߢ߹ࠇߘޔ‬ഥ⠪ߦᢘ૕ߢฃߌ╵߃ࠍߒߡ޿ߚ೑↪⠪ߩࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞߇Ᏹ૕ߦࠪࡈ࠻ߒ
ߚ႐㕙߽޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬႐߿ᤨ㑆ࠍ౒᦭ߔࠆߎߣߢ〒㔌߇❗߹ࠅ‫ޔ‬೑↪⠪ߩ✕ᒛ߇⸃ߌߚߎߣߢ੺
ഥ⠪ߣ೑↪⠪ߩ㑆ߦ࡜ࡐ࡯࡞߇↢ߓߚ⍍㑆ߛߣផ᷹ߢ߈ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ౒ᗵߦߟ޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬‫߅ޟ‬㘑ํߪ᳇ᜬߜ޿޿ߨ㨪‫ޔ߿ޠ‬ᤄ‫ޔ‬ሶଏߩᤨߦ⽶ߞߚἫ்ߩߎߣࠍ⹤ߒ
ᆎ߼ߚ೑↪⠪ߦߪ‫ᧄޟ‬ᒰߦㄆ޿ᕁ޿ߒߚࠎ߿ߨ‫౒ߣޠ‬ᗵࠍ␜ߒߚ‫ޕ‬೑↪⠪ߩ᳇ᜬߜ߿૕㛎ࠍ౒᦭ߔࠆߎߣߢ‫੺ޔ‬ഥ⠪ߪ೑↪⠪ߣߩᔃ⊛〒㔌ࠍ❗߼ࠃ߁ߣߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⸒߃ࠆߛࠈ߁‫ޕ‬
4.3 ੺ഥ⠪ߣⵍ੺ഥ⠪ߣߩജ㑐ଥ৻ᣇ‫ޔ‬ᶎቶߢߩᵞ㜬‫ޔ‬り૕ߩᵞ੺ഥߪ࡞࡯࠹ࠖࡦൻߒߡ߅ࠅ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߤޔ‬ᚻ㗅ߢⴕࠊࠇࠆ
߆ߪ‫੺ޔ‬ഥ⠪ߦࠃߞߡ᳿߼ࠄࠇࠆߣ⸒ߞߡ߽ㆊ⸒ߢߪߥ޿‫੺ⵍޔࠅ߹ߟޕ‬ഥ⠪ߪ੺ഥ⠪ߦᓥࠊߑࠆࠍᓧߕ‫ޔ‬ജ㑐ଥߢߪ‫੺ޔ‬ഥ⠪ߩᣇ߇ⵍ੺ഥ⠪ࠃࠅ߽਄ߢ޽ࠆ‫੺ޔ߫߃ߣߚޕ‬ഥ⠪߇೑↪⠪ߦኻߒߡ‫ޔ‬‫ߩߤߥޠߎߎޔߎߎޟ‬ᜰ␜⺆߿‫ޟ‬ᐳߞߡ‫ޔ‬ᐳߞߡ‫ⴕߩߤߥޠ‬േᜰ␜߇⷗ࠄࠇߚ
߇‫ߪࠄࠇߎޔ‬ኻ㜞㦂⠪ળ⹤ߦ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ Elderspeak ߢ޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬
Elderspeak ࠍᦨೋߦឬ౮ߒߚߩߪ Caporael(1981)ߢ‫ޔ‬㜞㦂⠪ߣߩળ⹤ߦ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ‫ࠅ➅ޟ‬㄰ߒ‫ޠ‬‫⺆ޟ‬᳇ࠍᒝ߼ߚᆭ࿶⊛ߥ⸒േ‫ޠ‬‫ޠߔ⹤ࠅߊߞࠁޟ‬‫ޟ‬න⚐ߥ⸒⪲ߩ૶↪‫ޔߪࠇߎޔ߇ߔ␜ࠍߤߥޠ‬੺ഥߔࠆ஥ߣߐࠇࠆ஥ߣߩജߩᏅ߇ⷐ࿃ߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆน⢻ᕈ߇㜞޿‫ޕ‬
5. ߹ߣ߼
౉ᶎߪォୟ੐᡿߇⿠ߎࠆෂ㒾ᕈ߇޽ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬೑↪⠪ߦߣߞߡߪᔃり౒ߦ࡝࡜࠶ࠢࠬߢ߈ࠆᤨ
㑆ߢ޽ࠆ‫ࠍ┙⥄ޔ߽ߢ࡯ࡘࡆ࠲ࡦࠗࡊ࠶ࠕ࡯ࡠࠜࡈޕ‬ଦߒߥ߇ࠄ౉ᶎࠍᭉߒࠎߢ߽ࠄ߁ߚ߼
ߦ਎㑆⹤ࠍߒߚࠅ೑↪⠪ߩ⍮ߞߡ޿ࠆߎߣࠍ዆ߨߚࠅߒߡ‫ࠍ⹤ࠄ߆ߎߘޔ‬ᐢߍߡ޿ߊദജࠍ
ߒߡ޿ࠆߣ╵߃ߚ੺ഥ⠪߽޿ߚ‫੹ޕ‬࿁ߩ⚿ᨐ߆ࠄ߽‫੺ޔ‬ഥ⠪ߪࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞࡮ࠪࡈ࠻߿ࡐ
ࠫ࠹ࠖࡉ࡮ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ࠍ㚟૶ߒߡ‫ޔ‬೑↪⠪ߣߩ㑐ଥࠍ᭴▽ߒࠃ߁ߣߒߡ޿
ࠆ⃻⁁߇᣿ࠄ߆ߦߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒߥ߇ࠄ‫੺ޔ‬ഥ⠪ߣ޿߁┙႐ࠍߣࠆ႐㕙ߦ߅޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬೑↪⠪ߦኻߒߡ Elderspeak ߩ৻⒳ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ⸒⺆ⴕേ߇ⷰኤߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬Elderspeak ߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߥ႐㕙ߦ⃻ࠊࠇᤃ޿ߩ߆ߪ‫੹ޔ‬ᓟߩ⺖㗴ߣߒߚ޿‫ޕ‬ෳ⠨ᢥ₂ (৻ㇱ)Backhaus, Peter (2009). Politeness institutional elderly care in Japan: A cross-cultural comparison,
Journal of Politeness, 5(1), 53-71.
Brown , Penelope, & Stephen, C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
㚍ᷨ↱⟤ሶ (2010). ‫⃻⼔੺ޟ‬႐ߦ߅ߌࠆࠬࡇ࡯࠴࡟ࡌ࡞࡮ࠪࡈ࠻‫␠ޡޠ‬ળ⸒⺆⑼ቇળ╙ 25 ࿁  ᄢળ⺰ᢥ㓸‫ޢ‬, 128-131.
ᄢ㊁ᢘઍ (2007).‫߼߶ޟޟ‬ᗧ࿑⴫⃻‫ߩޠ‬ᨒ⚵ߺߣᯏ⢻‫ޡޠ‬ᣧⒷ↰ᄢቇᣣᧄ⺆⎇ⓥ‫(ޢ‬16), 109-120.
Rowe, J.W. & R. L. Kahn (1997). Successful aging, The Gerontologist (37), 433-40.
ศጟᵏᄦ (2011).‫␠ߩࡦ࡚ࠪ࡯ࠤ࠾ࡘࡒࠦޡ‬ળ⸒⺆ቇ‫ޢ‬ᄢୃ㙚ᦠᐫ

−248−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

࡞ࡐࠊᚑᒓ⠇ྰᐃࡼࡾࡶ୺⠇ྰᐃ㸦ྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆᩥ㸧ࡢ᪉ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿㸽᳃   ㈆⚟஭ᕤᴗ㧗➼ᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯ
ࠑAbstractࠒIt is well known that transferred or main clause negation (henceforth MCN) (e.g. I
don’t think [p]) is dominant over subordinate clause negation (henceforth SCN)
(e.g. I think [㻀p]). Bubliz (1992) claims that this is because MCN is much better
suited for expressing politeness than SCN. Konishi (1996) anticipates that SCN
will be preferred to MCN when [p] is you are {wrong/bad/ugly/stupid}, because
SCN is more polite (comfortable) to the interlocutor you than MCN in that theformer conveys a stronger degree of certainty about the preposition you are not{wrong/bad/ ugly/stupid} than the latter. However, that is not the case, i.e. MCN ispreferred to SCN. It is argued that MCN is preferred to SCN because the former isbetter suited for expressing the speaker’s inclination toward [ 㻀 p] without
worsening the social relationship between the interlocutors, i.e. the speaker andthe hearer.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸㸯ࠊྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆ 㸰ࠊ୺⠇ྰᐃ 㸱ࠊᚑᒓ⠇ྰᐃ㸲ࠊ୎ᑀ⾲⌧㸳ࠊྰᐃⓗ୺ᙇ࡜ྰㄆ

㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
 1 ே⛠༢ᩘ⌧ᅾ࡛୺⠇ືモ࡟ྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆ(NR)㏙ㄒࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᩥࢆྰᐃࡍ
ࡿሙྜࠊୗグ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᚑᒓ⠇ྰᐃ(I think [㻀p])ࡼࡾࡶ୺⠇ྰᐃ(I don’t think[p])ࡢ᪉ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣⰋࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1) a. I {do not/don’t} think {you’re/you are}ib. I think {you are not/you’re not/you aren’t}

.
ii

.

right

good

beautifulintelligent

MCN (i)

1881 (92%)

186 (78%)319 (99.7%)

36 (88%)SCN (ii)

168 (8%)53 (22%)1 (0.3%)

5(12%)* MCN = main clause negation, SCN = subordinate clause negation
⾲ 1㸸Google ᳨⣴࡟ࡼࡿ MCN࣭SCN ࡢศᕸ≧ἣ
Bubliz(1992)࡛ࡣࠊୗグࡢ⌮⏤࠿ࡽࠊMCN ࡣ SCN ࡟㍑࡭࡚ࠊ୎ᑀࡉ(politeness)ࢆ♧ࡍᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗ࡃࠊࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊMCN ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2) Of course, there is nothing new about the view that I think is used “to express−249−

なぜ、従属節否定よりも主節否定（否定辞繰り上げ文）の方が多用されるのか？

[…] politeness/deference” (Perkins 1983: 147). What I have tried to establish israther more complex: the effect created by modalizing one’s utterance using I
think, etc. can be reinforced by transferring negation,…

(p. 571)(3) The interplay of the (subjective) epistemic modality of the verb and thetransferred negative item helps to weaken and downgrade the degree ofcertainty and strength of the speaker’s implied claim to truth to such an extent
that a state of social balance is reached which helps to preclude the possibilityof disagreement and conflict.                  (p. 572) ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊḟ⠇࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊSCN ࡢ᪉ࡀ MCN ࡼࡾࡶ୎ᑀࡉࢆ♧ࡍᗘྜ࠸ࡀ
㧗࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ࠙୎ᑀࡉࢆ♧ࡍᗘྜ࠸ࡢ㧗࠸⾲⌧ࡢ᪉ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠚ࡜࠸࠺ Bubliz(1992)ࡢ୺ᙇࡀṇࡋ࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢሙྜࠊSCN ࡢ᪉ࡀ MCN ࡼࡾࡶከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⤫ィࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ࡣࠊࡑ࠺࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊMCN ࡢ᪉ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
㸦⾲ 2 ཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜㸧ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊูࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊSCN ࡼࡾࡶ MCN ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
㸰㸬SCN ࡀ MCN ࡼࡾࡶ㧗࠸୎ᑀࡉࢆ♧ࡍሙྜ(4a)࣭(4b)ࢆ㍑࡭ࡓሙྜࠊᚋ⪅(SCN)ࡢ᪉ࡀ㧗࠸୎ᑀࡉࢆ♧ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(4) a. I don’t think you are {wrong/bad/ugly/stupid}.
b. I think you are not {wrong/bad/ugly/stupid}.
࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠊ[You are not {wrong/bad/ugly/stupid}]ࡣࠊ⫈⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ desirable ࡞࿨㢟࡛࠶ࡾࠊthe degree of certainty ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ SCN ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ࡯࠺ࡀ⫈⪅࡟ࡼࡾ኱ࡁ࡞
Ᏻᚰឤ㸦ᚰᆅࡼࡉ㸧ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊMCN ࡢ(4a)ࡼࡾࡶ SCN ࡢ(4b)ࡢ᪉ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀணࡉࢀࡿࠋᑠす(1996)࡟ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞グ㏙ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
(5) I think ࡟ࡣ⾲⌧ࢆ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟ࡍࡿ⦆ླྀㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢാࡁࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᬑ㏻ࡢ఍ヰࡢ୰࡟ࡼࡃᤄධࡉࢀࡲࡍࠋ≉࡟┦ᡭ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ࠊ┦ᡭࡢ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡸ┦ᡭࡀྰᐃࡋࡑ࠺
࡞ࡇ࡜ࠊ┦ᡭࡢ❧ሙࡀᝏࡃ࡞ࡾࡑ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ᫬࡟ I think ࢆ౑࠺࡜⾲⌧ࢆ࿴ࡽࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡍࠋ
㸦୰␎㸧I think that…࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡣྰᐃㄒࡀධࡗ࡚ࡃࡿሙ
ྜࠊㄽ⌮ⓗ࡟ࡣ that ⠇ࡢ୰࡟ྰᐃㄒࡀධࡗ࡚ࡃࡿ࡭ࡁ࡞ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ࠸ࡕࡤࢇゝ࠸ࡓ࠸㒊ศ㸦=that ⠇㸧ࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࡢ࡛┤᥋ⓗ࡟㡪ࡁࠊI think ࢆ౑࠺ព࿡ࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞
ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡇ࡛㏻౛ࠊI don’t think that…ࡢᙧࢆ࡜ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ┦ᡭࡀぶࡋ࠸㛫᯶࡛ࠊㄽ⌮ⓗព࿡ࡀඛ⾜ࡍࡿሙྜࡣ that ⠇ࡢ୰࡟ྰᐃㄒࡀධࡿࡇ
࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡋࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟᩿ゝⓗ࡟ࡁࡗࡥࡾ㏙࡭ࡿ࡯࠺ࡀ┦ᡭ࡟Ᏻᚰឤࢆ୚࠼ࠊ
ෆᐜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣዲពⓗ࡜࡜ࡽࢀࡿሙྜࡶ that ⠇ࡢ୰࡟ྰᐃㄒࡀධࡾࡲࡍࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
I don’t think you are wrong. ࡼࡾࡣࠊI think you are not wrong.ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ┦ᡭ࡟

−250−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ᑐࡋ࡚ኻ♩࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋ                   (p.149)
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊGoogle ᳨⣴ࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࠊࡑࡢண

ࢆ⿬ษࡿࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(6) a. I {do not/don’t} think {you’re/you are}ib. I think {you are not/you’re not/you aren’t}. (=4a)ii. (=4b)

wrong

bad

ugly

stupidMCN (i)256 (98%)

1552 (97%)

184 (90%)912 (98%)

SCN (ii)

5 (2%)

51 (3%)

20 (10%)18 (2%)

⾲ 2㸸Google ᳨⣴࡟ࡼࡿ MCN࣭SCN ࡢศᕸ≧ἣ
ඛ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊMCN ࡼࡾࡶ SCN ࡢ᪉ࡀ⫈⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡼࡾ୎ᑀ࡞⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡣࡎ࡛
࠶ࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊMCN ࡢ᪉ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬௦᱌
I think [㻀p] ࡢ I think ࡣᙉໃⓎ㡢ࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢ I think ࡣ Wierzbicka(2006)࡛ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡓ  ✀㢮ࡢ I think ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ๓⪅࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡜࠸࠺
ࡢࡶࠊ๓⪅ձࡢሙྜࡣᙉໃⓎ㡢ࠊᚋ⪅ղࡢሙྜࡣ↓ᙉໃ࣭పࣆࢵࢳ࡛Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀࡿഴྥ
ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(7) In the modally qualified or exclamatory sentences, ձthe component “I say I
think like this, I don’t say more” implies that what I say is my personal opinion,
which doesn’t have to be shared by others. In the unqualified (“plain”)
declarative sentences, however, I think ȭcarries an additional implication: insaying I think ȭrather than I think that , ղthe speaker disclaims knowledge –not by saying “I don’t know” but by saying “I don’t say: I know it.”
(p.38 ᅖࡳᩘᏐ࠾ࡼࡧୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅࡟ࡼࡿ)ࡇࡇ࡛ὀពࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠊ I THINK [㻀p] ࡢⓎヰ㸦኱ᩥᏐ⾲グࡣᙉໃⓎ㡢ࢆ♧ࡍ㸧ࡣࠊ࠙[㻀p] ࡣヰ⪅ࡢಶேⓗぢゎ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௚ே࡟ྠពࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࢃ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶᵓࢃ࡞࠸ࠚ࡜࠸
࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ imply ࡍࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊI think you are not wrong.ࡢⓎヰࡣࠊ࠙[You are not wrong] ࡣヰ⪅ࡢಶேⓗぢゎ㸦ุ᩿㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௚ேࡀ [You are wrong]࡜ุ᩿ࡋ࡚ࡶࡑࢀࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠚ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࡿྍ⬟ᛶ㸦༴㝤ᛶ㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋࠊࡦ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⫈⪅࡜ࡢᑐே㛵ಀࢆᝏ໬ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡶࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࠋࡋ
ࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ༴㝤ࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ SCN ࡢ౑⏝ࡀ㑊ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
࡛ࡁࡿࠋ௚᪉ࠊI don’t think [p] ࡟ࡣࠊ[㻀p] ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟୺ᙇࡍࡿ⏝ἲ㸦NR ゎ㔘㐺⏝㸧ࡢ࡯࠿࡟ 㸦௚⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ㸧[p] ࢆྰㄆࡍࡿ⏝ἲ㸦NR ゎ㔘୙㐺⏝㸧ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ⾲
2 ࡢ MCN ࡣ୺࡟ᚋ⪅ࡢ⏝ἲ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᥎

−251−ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

なぜ、従属節否定よりも主節否定（否定辞繰り上げ文）の方が多用されるのか？

㸲㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ ௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(8) [㻀 p] ࡀ ⫈ ⪅ ࡟ ࡜ ࡗ ࡚ undesirable ࡞ ෆ ᐜ ࡢ ሙ ྜ 㸦 ࠶ ࡿ ࠸ ࡣ ࠊ desirable ࡛ ࡶundesirable ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ሙྜ㸧ࠊヰ⪅ࡣࠊMCN ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ [㻀p]ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟୺ᙇࡍࡿࡇ
࡜࡛⫈⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚୎ᑀࡉࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ௚᪉ࠊSCN ࡣ㠀⦆࿴ⓗ࡞୺ᙇ࡜࡞ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡑ
ࡢ౑⏝ࡀ᥍࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸦୍⯡࡟ࠊ㠀⦆࿴ⓗ࡞୺ᙇࡼࡾࡶ⦆࿴ⓗ࡞୺ᙇࡢ᪉ࡀ୎ᑀ࡞
⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࠋ(9) [㻀p] ࡀ⫈⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ desirable ࡞ෆᐜࡢሙྜࠊヰ⪅ࡣࠊMCN ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ [p] ࢆྰㄆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛⫈⪅࡟Ᏻᚰឤࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋ௚᪉ࠊSCN ࡣ ௚⪅ࡀ [p] ࡜ุ᩿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࢆヰ⪅ࡀᐜㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࡯ࡢࡵ࠿ࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢ౑⏝ࡀ᥍࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊMCN ࡢ᪉ࡀ SCN ࡼࡾࡶከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣୖグ(8)(9)ࡢ⌮⏤࡟ࡼࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ

୺せཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Bubliz, Wolfram. 1992. “Transferred Negation and Modality.” Journal of

Pragmatics 18, 551-578.
Israel, Michael. 2006. “The Pragmatics of Polarity,” In Horn, Laurence R. andGregory Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 701-723. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ἑୖㄋస. 1984.ࠕᩥࡢព࿡࡟㛵ࡍࡿᇶ♏ⓗ◊✲ࠖࠗ኱㜰኱ᏛᩥᏛ㒊⣖せ࠘24.
⾰➟ᛅྖ. 2010.ࠗGoogle ᳨⣴࡟ࡼࡿⱥㄒㄒἲᏛ⩦࣭◊✲ἲ࠘㛤ᣅ♫.
ᑠす཭୐. 1996.ࠗᇶᮏࡢࡋࡃࡳࡀࢃ࠿ࡿᇶᮏືモ 24࠘◊✲♫.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics, London and New York: Longman.
Mori Sadashi. 2009. The NEG-Raising Phenomenon: A Cognitive Linguistic

Approach , ᮍබห༤ኈㄽᩥ㸦㔠ἑ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ே㛫♫఍⎔ቃ◊✲⛉㸧
୰ᮧⰾஂ. 2010.ࠕྰᐃ࡜(㛫)୺ほᛶࠖࠊຍ⸨Ὀᙪ࣭ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ࣭௒ோ⏕⨾(⦅) ࠗྰᐃ࡜ゝㄒ⌮ㄽ࠘424-442ࠊᮾி㸸㛤ᣅ♫.
ኴ⏣ ᮁ㸬1980.ࠗྰᐃࡢព࿡ࠑព࿡ㄽᗎㄝࠒ࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Sheintuch, Gloria and Kathleen Wise. 1976. “On the Pragmatic Unity of the Rulesof Neg-raising and Neg-Attraction,” Chicago Linguistic Society 12, 548-557.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and Culture , Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

−252−

第14回大会発表論文集

What do Honorifics Convey?

第７号-----A relevance-based approach----Yuko Koizumi
Tokyo Marine University㸺Abstract㸼
Japanese honorifics offer interesting data in politeness studies. They have been
analysed to indicate a socially-characterized distance between people. Nonetheless,
it is thought that various contexts and context-related issues for interpreting
honorifics need further analysis. This paper aims to show an account for honorifics
from a view point of cognitive pragmatics, relevance theory. The modularityof the brain and the mind-reading ability proposed in relevance theory is thought
to show the direction for accounting for the roles of honorifics in language use, andthe relationship between the use of honorifics and politeness.
࠙Key wordsࠚ1.honorifics, 2.politeness, 3.Relevance theory, 4. mental modules

1. Introduction
This paper aims to show an account of honorifics with a framework of relevance theory (RThenceforth). Japanese honorifics have been studied in politeness studies. Aside from theissues of cultural diversities in politeness, there is a question that all the features ofhonorifics could be explained in the study of politeness. The politeness theory proposed byBrown and Levinson (B&L henceforth) is very influential among politeness studies, but hasgiven rise to controversy by their claim that their politeness theory is universal. B&L haveintroduced the notion of ‘face’, which are public self-image and basic wants. There are two
types of face: negative and positive. B&L assume that illocutionary-associated acts arepotentially face-threating-acts (FTAs), either to negative face or to positive face, and some arethreatening to the addresser, and others, to the addressee. Politeness is regarded as
face-saving strategies, and the level of politeness depends on the weightiness of FTAs, which
involves three sociological factors: the social distance (D), relative power (P), and the absolute
ranking (R) of impositions in the particular culture.
㸯.Previous Studies on Japanese Honorifics on PolitenessAmong the criticisms towards the theory by B&L, example sentences provided by
Matsumoto (1989) gave impact: sentences with an honorific form are produced in a situation
with no FTAs. Matsumoto points out that “no utterance in Japanese can be neutral withrespect to the social context”. Japanese honorifics are divided into two, addressee honorifics
and referent honorifics.

−253−

What do Honorifics Convey?

(1) Kyoo-wadoyoobi-----A relevance-based approach-----desu.
COPULA-polite(from Matsumoto)“Today is Saturday.”
Addressee honorifics as in (1) could appear as a sentence-final expression in a sentence, inwhich nothing about the addressee and the addresser is contained, and no FTAs. It is thoughtthat Matsumoto claims social contexts more important than FTAs for using honorifics.
Usami (2000) supports the politeness theory by B&L. Analyzing the language
manipulation in Japanese dyadic conversations between newly-acquainted people, she
proposes ‘discourse politeness,’ which is defined as “the dynamic whole of functions of various
elements in both linguistic forms and discourse-level phenomena that play a part within the
pragmatic politeness of a discourse” (p.4), and ‘pragmatic politeness’, as “functions oflanguage manipulation that work to maintain smooth human relationship” (p.4). Language
manipulation is shown, in her analysis, in the downshift in speech-level with the more uses of
non-honorific addressee forms, which means that interactions between negative face(honorifics) and positive face (non-honorifics) are observed in the data. On the other hand, shepoints out that B&L’s theory needs to be improved in two points: politeness as discourse
phenomena and “ordinary politeness in ordinary life (p.25)”. Usami also seems to suggest thatsocial contexts even without FTAs need to be taken into consideration in their theory.
Takiura (2005) reexamines various studies on honorifics in Japan from the view points ofthe politeness theory by B&L. Centering the notion of distance in honorifics, he introduces thenotions of ‘distanciation’ and ‘de-distanciation’, for the interpersonal interaction whether
verbal or nonverbal, which (mostly) correspond to the roles of honorifics and non-honorifics.
Takiura discusses the ambiguous (and misleading) features, passive (forced to choose the wayof politeness and the linguistic forms) and active (choose them intentionally) in the politenessproposed by B&L. Even with the passive and normative feature, he regards (non)-honorifics
as also being used for active purpose as a strategic means of expressing human relationship.
Although he highly evaluates the theory by B&L, he points out the limitation of their theory,
claiming that we need pragmatics to explain the interpretation of either active or passive
aspects of (non)-honorifics. Furthter, Takiura analyses that referent and addressee(non)-honorifics possess different dimensions in communication as shown in (2) below.
(2) sochira othat OBJECT

o-mochi-ni-na-ru

no-ne.

carry-honorific/respect+addressee-plain“Will you carry that one?”−254−

question(from Takiura)第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

Takiura accounts for the discrepancy between the level of politeness in (2) between thereferent honorific form and the addressee non-honorific form like this: while the speakershows deference with referent honorifics (from an objective perspective) to indicate
distanciation, the speaker does indicate close relationship or de-distantiation (from a
relational perspective) with the use of an addressee non-honorific form. Takiura comes to aconclusion that Japanese honorifics are phenomena eventually requiring the key notions of
in-group and out-group, whose boundary he regards as fluid, not rigid. This analysis by
Takiura is thought to have more implication. In addition to the roles of (non)-honorifics
themselves, I presume that various types of discrepancy or contrast, not only in the type in (2),observed in the use of Japanese (non)-honorifics seems significant in accounting for theinterpretation of (non)-honorifics. I would like to explore this issue and show that the contrast
between the use of (non)-honorifics convey a variety types of (sense of) distance as well as(non)-honorifics themselves do and that the contexts of honorifics might be wider than
expected in Takiura.
㸱 Relevance theory
Relevance theory was inspired by Paul Grice’s pioneering work dealing with inferential
aspect in communication and utterance interpretation. The purpose of RT is to construct a
cognitively plausible account of pragmatics, and to explore how language interacts with othercognitive systems. To fill the gap between sentence meaning and speaker’s intended meaning,
context plays an important role. Any input to cognitive processes could be relevant whichinteracts with background information and yields conclusion. RT offers a variety ofperspectives to account for honorifics as linguistic forms, as well as with the cutting-edge
issues of RT, a meta-psychological process of utterance interpretation, the mental modularityand lexical pragmatics. I will illustrate how the notions of RT show the direction for theaccounts for Japanese (non)-honorifics.
(1) RT regards context as playing an important role for interpretation. Social contexts andinterpretaion of (non)-honorifics are thought to need more examination and analysis.
(Non)-honorifics have been analyzed to indicate social distance among people, nonetheless,the sense of distance are characterized with its sub-constituent related factors, such the
speaker, the addressee or the occasion of an utterance, which will be meaningful for thefurther account for the relationship of honorifics and propositional contents of utterances.
(3) The mental modularity proposed in RT, which enables to explain spontaneous and quickinterpretation, will help to show the process for the interpretation of (non)-honorifics, andutterance interpretation inclusive of (non)-honorifics. As Wilson suggests, honorifics
system are thought to have a cluster within a (specific) language cluster, which “might beseen as linked to the capacity for social cognition”.

−255−

What do Honorifics Convey?

-----A relevance-based approach-----(4) Lexical pragmatics assumes that conceptual and procedural information in each word are
not mutually-exclusive, and that gradable adjectives (such as high and short) encode thesame minimal conceptual content (pro-concept) but differ in procedural orientation.
Although honorifics do not seem to contribute to the propositional contents, the behaviorof (non)-honorifics is observed to share the same or a similar property.
(5) The notion of meta-representation or metalizing proposed in RT explains the process ofutterance interpretation. The way of metalization and the difference of the objects
metalized are thought to clarify their differences between politeness and (non)-honorifics.
(Non)-honorifics require a variety of perspectives for their accounts and there are many otherissues left to fully account for (non)-honorifics and their behaviours. One is the relationshipbetween (non)-honorifics, and the propositional content and the speech act of an utterance. As
they have been studied independently from them, social factors could be thought to constructdifferent layers or different dimensions from the propositions and the speech act of anutterance. (Non)-honorifics are thought to be linked more closely to the entire utterance
rather than the propositional content. They behave as if they were the presupposition of anutterance or the contexts of the propositional content of an utterance, though which needmore examination. Another is the issue of new and old information related to the notion of
relevance. The issues of styles also need to be considered. RT offers a variety of perspectives toaccount for honorifics as linguistic forms and one of the social factors in the use of language.
References
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1978/1987) Politeness: Some universals in linguistic usage.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and Conversational Universals. Observations from Japanese.

Journal of Pragmatics; 12. 403-426.
Sperber,D.,and Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition,
Oxford:Takiura, M(2005). Japanese Theories of Honorifics -Its Reexamination by Politeness Theory.
Tokyo: Taishukan.
Usami, M.( 2002). Discourse politeness in Japanese conversation : some implications fora universal theory of politeness. Tokyo : Hituzi Syobo.
Wilson, D.(2011). The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future, in
Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, Aoife Ahern (ed.) Procedural Meaning:

Problems and Perspectives (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface,
Volume 25), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.3-31−256−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

The Meaning of Diminutive Shift in Japanese: Its Dimensionality, Regularity and Pragmatic Effect*
Osamu Sawada
Mie University
sawadao@human.mie-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
This paper investigates the interpretive mechanism of the diminutive shift in Japanese in terms of thesemantics/pragmatics interface. I will argue that the function of diminutive shifting (from [s] to [tᖮ](or [ᖮ]) is to shift
the degree of maturity of the speaker to be extremely low. It will be shown that (i) the meaning created by thediminutive shifting is a productive/rule-based conventional implicature (unlike word-based conventional
implicatures, e.g. frankly speaking (Grice 1975; Potts 2005) and that (ii) the effect of diminutivization can differ
depending on where it arises. This paper will provide new perspectives for the nature of conventional implicature innatural language.
1. Introduction
Studies of child language acquisition have shown that in the early stages of acquisition of Japanese as a first
language, there is a tendency for babies to pronounce [tᖮ](or [ᖮ]) instead of [s] (e.g. Murata 1970). Interestingly, thisphonological error committed by babies has been conventionalized in adult grammar as a device for creating a flavorof baby talk (e.g. Okazaki and Minami 2011). For example, when the performative honorific suffix desu in (1a)(Harada 1976; Potts and Kawahara 2005) becomes dechu, as in (1b), the sentence implies that the speaker is talking
to the addressee in a polite way and that the speaker is behaving like a baby:(1) a. Kore-wa hon-desu.
(normal polite talk)This-TOP book-PERF.HON
At-issue: This is a book.
Implicature: I am talking to you in a polite way.
b. Kore-wa hon-dechu.
(baby polite talk)This-TOP book-PERF.HON.DIM
At-issue: This is a book.
Implicature: I am talking to you in a polite way ∧ I am talking to you like a baby.
What is interesting about the Japanese diminutive shift is that it is productive and it can appear in any lexical item:(2) Examples of diminutivization
Normal form

Diminutive form  


NOUN/ADJ-desu ‘performative
honorific’usagi ‘rabbit’
kusai ‘smells bad’sukoshi ‘a bit’ Ȁ

asobu ‘play’sosite ‘and/then’

NOUN/ADJ-dechu ‘performative honorific.
baby talk’uchagi ‘rabbit. baby talk’kuchai ‘smells bad. baby talk’chukochi ‘a bit. baby talk’sukochi ‘a bit. baby talk’achobu ‘play. baby talk’chochite ‘and. baby talk’sochite ‘and. baby talk’*I thank Ryan Bochnak, John Du Bois, Shigeto Kawahara, Chris Kennedy, Tetsuharu Koyama, Susumu Kubo,
Martina Martinoviü, Shunichiro Nagatomo, Chris Potts, Harumi Sawada, Jun Sawada, Hajime Takeyasu, Ryan
Taylor, Alan Yu and the audience at Pragmatic Society of Japan for valuable discussions and comments on thecurrent/earlier versions of this paper. Parts of this paper were also presented at the prosody-discourse interface
workshop at Salford University (2011) and the NELS (2011), and I thank the audiences for their valuable discussions.
This work is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B),No. 40598083). All remaining errors are of course mine.

−257−

The Meaning of Diminutive Shift in Japanese: Its Dimensionality, Regularity and Pragmatic Effect*

Although many studies have been made of the meaning of diminutives (e.g. Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi
1994; Wierzbicka 1991; Sifianou 1992; Jurafsky 1996), to the best of my knowledge, no serious attention has been
paid to the phenomenon of the Japanese diminutive shifts like (1) and (2). In this paper we will investigate theinterpretive mechanism of the diminutive shift in Japanese in terms of the semantics/pragmatics interface and argue
for the following points. First, we will argue that the function of diminutive shifting is to shift the degree of maturityof the speaker to be extremely low in the domain of conventional implicature (CI). I will then argue that (i) the
meaning created by the diminutive shifting is productive and/but (ii) the effect of diminutivization can differ
depending on where it arises. If the self-diminutivization occurs in a performative honorific, its meaning scopes overan entire mode of utterance. However, if the self-diminutive shift occurs in other lexical categories, it only scopes
over the targeted lexical items, the result of which is to create a ‘metalinguistic’ expression. This paper will provide
new perspectives on the nature of conventional implicature (CI) in natural language and suggest a new direction ofresearch for the theory of CI.
2. The Pragmatic Status of the Self-dimuntive Shift in Jpanaese
Let us now consider the status of the meaning of the two kinds of diminutive shifts. I argue that the meaning
triggered by the two kinds of diminutivization is a conventional implicature (CI). 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). Furthermore, it is often assumed that CIs have a semantic property of speaker-orientedness (bydefault) (Potts 2005, 2007).
One piece of evidence that shows that the meaning created by a diminutive shift is not part of ‘what is said’ isthat the diminutive meaning cannot be targeted. For example if we utter iya, chigau-yo ‘No, that’s false!’ after (3),the negative response can only target the at-issue part of the sentences:(3) Kore-wa
hon-dechu.
(baby polite talk)This-TOPbook-PERF.HON.DIM
At-issue: This is a book.
CI: I am talking to you in a polite way ∧ I am talking to you like a baby.
3. The Meaning of the Self-diminutive Shift
The question is how the meanings of the two kinds of diminutivization are interpreted. Let us first consider themeaning of the self-diminutive shift based on the following example:(4) Kore-wa
hon-dechu.
(cf. desu)
This-TOPbook-PERF.HON.DIM
At issue: This is a book.
CI: I am talking to you in a polite way ∧ I am speaking to you like a baby.
Building on Mester and Itô’s (1989) analysis of mimetic palatalization, I will argue that diminutive forms aremorphologically complex. In this approach, the form dechu in (4) is considered to be derived by lexical associationfrom a diminutive morpheme DIM that has a phonological feature of [+delay release]:(5) a. [+delay release] DIMINUTIVE
b.

desu

The bearer of the DIM morpheme is the voiceless alveolar fricative [s].
Then what is the meaning of the DIM morpheme? I would like to propose that the diminutive morpheme in(14) has the following CI meaning:(6) [[ DIMPERF.HON]] = ȜF<ta,tc>Ȝp. F(p) = 1 ∧ ∃d[d<!STAND ∧ mature(sp) = d ∧d<!actual degree of maturity of sp] ∧ sp utters p−258−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

The DIM morpheme in (6) conventionally implicates that: (i) there is a degree d such that the degree of maturity ofthe speaker (sp) is less than a contextual standard by a large amount; (ii) d is significantly less than the actual degreeof maturity of the speaker; and (iii) the speaker utters p. (The symbol <! stands for ‘less than a standard bysignificant degree’ (Kennedy and McNally 2005)). The second component creates a large gap between thediminutive state and the actual state in terms of the degree of maturity of sp, and this creates a new utterance context
wherein an adult speaker behaves like a baby.
Recall that the self-diminutive shift is productive. This means that we should consider that DIM morpheme ispolymorphic as in (7):(7) a. [[DIMADJ]] = ȜG<ea,da>. ∃d[d<!STAND ∧ mature(sp) = d ∧ d<!actual degree of maturity of sp] ∧ sp utters G
b. [[DIMVERB.INTR]] = ȜP<ea,ta>. ∃d[d<!STAND ∧ mature(sp) = d ∧ d<!actual degree of maturity of sp] ∧ sp
utters P
Notice that because of the phonological component of DIM, the actual pronunciations of G and P are different (i.e.
phonologically shifted). The crucial point here is that in the non-honorific diminutive forms like (7), the meaning ofdiminutivization only scopes over a word. These diminutivizations are ‘metalinguistic’ (e.g. Horn 1989) in the sensethat the speaker only targets a particular word and pronounces it like a baby. This clearly contrasts with the case ofdiminutivization of the performative honorific.
4. Scope of Self-diminutivization
We have so far considered cases where diminutivization occurs only once within a single utterance. However, as thefollowing example shows, there can be multiple occurrences of diminutive shifts in a single sentence:(8) Are-wa
uchagi-dechu.
(cf. usagi = ‘rabbit’)That-TOPrabbit.DIM-PERF.HON.DIM
At-issue: That is a rabbit.
CI: I am talking to you in a polite way and I am talking to you like a baby.
In (8) diminutivization occurs two times within the same sentence, i.e. in the noun usagi and in the performative
honorific suffix desu.
Note, however, that we don’t have to always diminutivize every potential target within a sentence. Compare
the following examples. (For the sake of simplicity, here I neglect the politeness meaning of desu):(9) a. Usagi-wa
kawaii-dechu.
rabbit-TOP
cute-PERF.HON.DIM
At-issue: A rabbit is cute.
CI: the speaker is talking like a baby.

b. ?? Uchagi-wa
kawaii-desu.
rabbit.DIM-TOP
cute-PERF.HON
At-issue: A rabbit is cute.
CI: I am uttering the word usagi like a baby.

(9a) is natural baby talk but (9b) is not, because the diminutivization in the latter case only targets the noun part,while the entire mode of speaking is adult talk. Thus, there is an inconsistency/discrepancy in terms of the mode of
speaking. On the other hand, (9a) is considered natural baby talk because diminutivization is done on a performative
honorific, which affects the entire mode of speaking. Based on the above asymmetry I propose the following
generalization:(10) The pragmatic effect of self-diminutivization can differ depending on where it arises.
5. Conclusions
In this paper we have investigated the meanings and distribution patterns of the diminutive shifts (self-diminutives)in Japanese from the standpoint of the semantics/pragmatics interface. I argued that the conventional implicature ofdiminutive shifting is productive and rule-based (unlike word-based conventional implicatures, e.g. frankly speaking).

−259−

The Meaning of Diminutive Shift in Japanese: Its Dimensionality, Regularity and Pragmatic Effect*

I also argued that the effect of diminutivization can differ depending on where it arises. If it occurs with ordinary
words, the meaning of the self-diminutive shift only scopes over the given lexical item, the result of which is tocreate a metalinguistic expression.
Studying the Japanese diminutive shift provides important theoretical implications for the theory of CI. First,
the phenomenon of Japanese diminutive shifts provides strong proof that some CIs have a productive/rule-based
property. In the pragmatics literature conventional implicatures are usually considered to be part of the meanings ofparticular words and not to be productive (e.g. frankly speaking, therefore). However, the phenomenon of theJapanese diminutive shift suggests that there is a rule-based/productive CI as well. Second, the Japanese diminutive
shift shows that CIs are sensitive to the grammar/meaning of at-issue contents. That is, there is an interaction
between a CI and other grammatical components. I hope this paper sheds new light on the meaning of diminutives
and the nature of CI in natural language.
In a future study I would like to investigate in greater depth the meaning/distribution patterns of the Japanesediminutive shift and its sensitivity to grammar from both an empirical and a theoretical perspective. I would also liketo investigate the use of diminutive shifts from an inter-personal perspective in order to clarify how the diminutive
shift affects an entire discourse context.

References
Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in
Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grice, Paul H. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics (Volume 3),
speech acts 43-58. New York: Academic Press.
Harada, Shin-ichi. 1976. “Honorifics.” In M. Shibatani (ed.) Syntax and Semantics (Volume 5), Japanese Generative
Grammar, 499-561. Academic Press.
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. “Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive.” Language 72:533-578.
Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally. 2005. “Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics ofgradable predicates.” Language 81:345-381.
Mendoza, Martha. 2005. “Polite diminutives in Spanish: a matter of size?” In R. Lakoff and S. Ide (eds.) Broadening
the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness, 163-173. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mester, Armin R, and Junko Itô. 1989. “Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanesemimetics.” Language 65:258-293.
Murata, Koji. 1970. Yooji no kotoba to hatuon. (The language and sound of infants) Tokyo: Baifukan.
Okazaki, Tomoko and Yuri Minami. 2011. “Yakuwarigo to site no ‘Yoojigo’ to sono syuuhen” (Baby talk as a role
language and related issues). In S. Kinsui (ed.), Yakuwarigo kenkyuu no tenkai (Investigation of role language),
195-212. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Potts, Christopher. 2007. “The expressive dimension.” Theoretical Linguistics 33:165-197.
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potts, Christopher and Shigeto Kawahara. 2004. “Japanese honorifics as emotive definite descriptions.” In K.
Watanabe and R.B. Young (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14, 235-254. Ithaca, NY:
CLC.
Sifianou, Maria. 1992. “The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: Modern Greek versus English.” Journal of
Pragmatics 17:155-173.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.

−260−

ワークショップ
Workshop Sessions

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࠕ⏨ࡽࡋࡉࠖࡢ༴ᶵ࠿㸽  㸫ࣈࣟࢢ࡟ぢࡿࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖ࡬ࡢホ౯̿࠿ ࢇ ࡔࡸ ࡍ ࡇ⚄⏣㟹Ꮚ኱㜰Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ(y-kanda@ogu.ac.jp)<Abstract>
The phrase ‘herbivorous men’, a term applied to men who are home-oriented and not
aggressive toward women, seems to have rooted in Japanese society since it first appeared in
the media.

This shows that the antagonistic concept to the so-called traditional ‘masculinity’has been accepted by Japanese. In this paper, adopting the Appraisal Theory by Martin andWhite(2005) , I will examine contemporary media blogs to investigate: 1)the spread of the
discourse and its establishment, 2) their evaluation of the phenomenon, and 3) the presumed
image of ‘masculinity’.
[࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ] ⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠊࣈࣟࢢࠊ࢔ࣉࣞ࢖ࢨࣝ⌮ㄽࠊホ౯㸯㸬┠ⓗ⌧ᅾࠊࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥ࡜ࡑࢀࢆయ⌧ࡍࡿ⏨ᛶࡓࡕࡣࡍ࡛࡟᪥ᮏ♫఍࡟ᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿
࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿࠋࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ ᖺ௦ᚋ༙ࡼࡾቑຍࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠕ᪂ࡋ࠸ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⏨ᛶࠖࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ
ዪᛶ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᾘᴟᛶࠊ⮬ᕫ୰ᚰⓗ࠿ࡘ௚⪅౫Ꮡⓗ࡞ゝືࠊฟୡ࡞࡝ࡢୡ㛫ⓗホ౯࡬ࡢ↓㛵ᚰࠊ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠕᚑ᮶ࡢ⏨ࡽࡋࡉࠖ࡜ࡣᑐᴟⓗ࡞≉ᚩࢆᣢࡘ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ⏨ᛶࢆᣦࡍࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄝࡢᗈࡲࡾ࡜ᐃ╔ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ୍⯡ⓗ᪥ᮏேࡢᥥࡃࠕ⏨ࡽࡋࡉࠖ࡜ࡣఱ
࠿ࢆࠊಶேࣈࣟࢢࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸰㸬ศᯒ㈨ᩱ࡜᪉ἲㄽ
ࣈࣟࢢࡣࡑࡢ༏ྡᛶ࡟ࡼࡾࠊಶேࡢᚷ៸࡞ࡁឤ᝟ࡸពぢࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㸦ᒸᮏ 2007㸧ࡓࡵࠊ୍⯡ேࡢឤ᝟ࡸホ౯ࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ᭱㐺ࡢ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣศᯒ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ2008
ᖺ࠿ࡽ 2011 ᖺࡢྛᖺ࡟ࡘࡁ⣙ 100 ᮏࡎࡘࡢಶேࣈࣟࢢࢆ Yahoo ࣈࣟࢢࢧ࢖ࢺ࠿ࡽ཰㞟ࡋࠊࣈ࣮ࣟ࢞ࡢࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࠿ࡽྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾᛶู࡜ᖺ㱋ࢆ≉ᐃࡋࡓࠋศᯒ⿦⨨࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊಶேⓗዲᝏࡸ㐨ᚨⓗホ౯࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㉁ⓗศᯒ࡟ຍ࠼୍ᐃ㔞ࡢ㔞ⓗศᯒࢆࡶྍ⬟࡜ࡍࡿ Martin and White(2005)ࡢ
ࠕ࢔ࣉࣞ࢖ࢨࣝ⌮ㄽࠖࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࡓࠋࠕ࢔ࣉࣞ࢖ࢨࣝ⌮ㄽࠖࢆᛂ⏝ࡋࡓඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡣࢹ࣐࣮ࣥࢡࡢ㑇ఏᏊ⤌ࡳ᥮࠼㎰⏘≀࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᪂⪺ሗ㐨ࢆศᯒࡋࡓ Lise-Lotte Holmgreen (2009)ࡸࠊ᪥ᮏࡢࣈࣟࢢ
ഴྥࢆศᯒࡋࡓబ㔝኱ᶞ (2009, 2010)࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬࢔ࣉࣞ࢖ࢨࣝ⌮ㄽ࡜ࡑࡢ㐺⏝ࠕ࢔ࣉࣞ࢖ࢨࣝ⌮ㄽࠖ࡜ࡣࠊMartin and White㸦2005㸧ࡀࠊேࡸேࡢ⾜Ⅽࠊ஦㇟࡞࡝࡟ᑐࡍ

−261−

1

「男らしさ」の危機か？

−ブログに見る「草食男子」への評価―ࡿ᭩ࡁᡭࡢホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡍゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟య⣔໬࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊ㑅ᢥయ⣔ᶵ⬟ゝㄒ⌮ㄽ
㸦SFL㸧ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࠿ࡽศ㢮ࠊయ⣔໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡀࠕ࢔ࣉࣞ࢖ࢨࣝ Appraisalࠖ࡜ྡ࡙ࡅࡿホ౯ evaluation ࡣ(1)ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓ࿨㢟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᭩ࡁᡭࡢኌࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆ⾲ࡍࠕᙧໃホ౯ Engagementࠖ(2)Ⓨヰࡢᣢࡘᑐேⓗ࢖ࣥࣃࢡࢺࡸᙉࡉࢆ⦆࿴ࡋࡓࡾࠊቑᖜࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࠕ₞ḟホ౯ Graduationࠖࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ(3)ᚰ᝟ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕែᗘホ౯ Attitudeࠖࡢ㸱ࡘࡢせ⣲࠿ࡽᡂࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏ
◊✲ࡀ୺ࡓࡿ⿦⨨࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡿࠕែᗘホ౯ࠖࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ձᑐ㇟࡟ᑐࡍࡿෆⓗᚰ᝟ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕឤ᝟ホ౯ Affectࠖղ㐨ᚨⓗᇶ‽࡟↷ࡽࡋࡓࠕ㐨ᚨホ౯ Judgementࠖճ஦㇟ࡢ౯್ࢆ⨾ⓗᇶ‽࡟↷ࡽࡋࡓࠕほ↷ホ౯ Appreciationࠖࡢ㸱ࡘࡢ㡯┠࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀୗ఩㡯┠ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ᫂♧ⓗ࡞ㄒᙡࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠕ㖭グ Inscribeࠖ࡜ࠊẚ႘ⓗ⾲⌧ࡸྵព
࡟ࡼࡿࠕⓎື Invokeࠖ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿ㸦ヂㄒࡣబ㔝(2009)࡟ࡼࡿ㸧ࠋ௨ୖࡢⅬ࠿ࡽࡇࡢホ౯ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡣࣈ࣮ࣟ࢞ࡀࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣⲡ㣗⌧㇟ࠖࡢ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ホ౯ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆศ
ᯒࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ᭷⏝ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
㸲㸬ࣈࣟࢢෆᐜࡢศᯒ 
4.1㸬ࣈࣟࢢෆᐜࡢศ㢮ࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖࢆྵࡴࠕⲡ㣗ࠖࢆ᳨⣴ㄒ࡟⏝࠸ࡓࡓࡵෆᐜࡣࠊ(1)ࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚ㸦⌧㇟㸧ࠖࢆࡲ࡜ࡶ࡟
ྲྀࡾୖࡆ㆟ㄽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ㸦65㸣㸧ࠊ(2)ࠕⲡ㣗ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀ༢࡞ࡿᙧᐜモ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡶࡢ㸦18㸣㸧
ࠊ(3)ࠕⲡ㣗ࠖࢆື≀Ꮫⓗ࡞ grass-eating ࡢព࠿ࡽㅊㅩⓗ࡟㺀⳯㣗㺁࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ㸦17㸣㸧ࡢ㸱ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊ୺࡟(1)࡜(2)ࢆែᗘホ౯ࡢศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
4.2㸬ࣈ࣮ࣟ࢞ࡢែᗘ㸫ࠕᢈุὴࠖ࡜ࠕ⫯ᐃὴࠖୖグࣈࣟࢢ඲యࡢ㸲ᖺศ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯ࡀ⫯ᐃⓗ࠿ᢈุ㸦ྰᐃ㸧ⓗ࠿ࡢኚ໬ࢆࡳࡓ⤖ᯝࠊᢈุὴࡣ඲యࡢ 27Ѝ43Ѝ36Ѝ39㸣࡜࡯ࡰኚࢃࡽࡎࠊ⫯ᐃὴࡣ 33Ѝ18Ѝ18Ѝ14%࡜ῶᑡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࠕⲡ㣗ࠖ࡟ゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࣀ࣮ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡸホ౯୙᫂ࡢࡶࡢࡣቑຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
4.3㸬ែᗘ⾲᫂ࡢㅖ┦ࡲࡎᩘⓗ࡟ከ࠿ࡗࡓᢈุὴࡢពぢࢆࡳࡿࠋࣈࣟࢢࡢᚋࡢᣓᘼෆࡣᖺᗘࠊ㏻ࡋ␒ྕࠊᛶูࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࠕᢈุὴࠖ㸬⮬ศࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᖖ࡟ୖࢆྥ࠸࡚Ṍ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࠋ௒ࡢⱝ⪅ࡣ⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿᐇឤࡀឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡢ ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋኻᩋࡋ࡚ࡶ࠼࠼ࡸࢇࠋ㸦㸬0㸧㸦✚ᴟⓗ࡞ኵࢆ㈹㈶ࡋࡓୖ࡛㸧୙ჾ⏝࡛ࡶ⏨Ẽࡢ࠶ࡿ⫼୰࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ዪࡣྂ࠸ࡢ
࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿ࠋ )  ௒᪥ࡣ ዲࡁ࡞ே࡜ᒃ㓇ᒇࢹ࣮ࢺࠋ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡜ ࠾ヰࡋࡲࡋࡓࡀ⚾ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆࡍࡁ࡞ࡢ࠿
࠸ࡲ࠸ࡕ☜ಙࡀ ᣢ࡚ࡎࠊᡭࡶ ᥱࢁ࠺࡜ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ㸦␎㸧࠺㹼ࢇࠊࡇࢀࡣ┦ᙜ࡞ ᣢஂᡓ࡟࡞ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔ㸦)㸧
ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡣࠕⓎືࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡀᾘᴟⓗ࡞⏕ࡁ᪉ࡀホ౯ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࣈࣟ
ࢢࡢ㊃᪨ࢆศ㢮ࡍࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋᣓᘼෆࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢホ౯ࡢୗ఩㡯┠࡛࠶ࡿࠋឤ᝟ホ౯㸦VHFXULW\ᏳᚰឤࠊKDSSLQHVVᖾ⚟ឤ࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡿホ౯㸧
VHFXULW\࿈ࢀࠊᏳᚰ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠊ୙Ᏻࠊ㦫ࡁࠊ࿈ࢀࠊ࢖ࣛ࢖ࣛࡍࡿࠊࢡࣛࢡࣛࡍࡿ

−262−

2

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

KDSSLQHVVዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࠊዲࡁࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࠊ࠸ࡸࠊ᎘࠸ࠊチࡉࢇࠊᚰ㓄ࠊ୙ᏳࠊἽࡅ࡚ࡃࡿ㐨ᚨホ౯

QRUPDOLW\ᬑ㏻ࡉࠊWHQDFLW\ಙ㢗ᛶࠊFDSDFLW\⬟ຊࠊSURSULHW\㐨ᚨࠊYHUDFLW\ㄔᐇࡉ࡟ࡼࡿホ౯ 

QRUPᤣ࠼⮃ࡃࢃ࡞࠸ࠊ㏦ࡾ⊋ࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠊ㈋ஈࠊ⫗ḧ࡟ῐࠎ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊᛶ⾪ືࡀ㉳ࡁ࡞࠸
WHQ ⪁ኊᛮ᝿ࡢᣢࡕ୺࡛ᚅࡕࡢጼໃࠊ㢗ࡾ࡞࠸ࠊẆ࡟ࡇࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠊぞẼࡀ࡞࠸ࠊኻᩋࢆᜍࢀࡇࡖࢇࡲࡾࠊ
ᾘᴟⓗࠊ⮬ศ࠿ࡽ⾜ືࢆ㉳ࡇࡉ࡞࠸ࠊ࠸ࡊ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜㏨ࡆ⭜࡟࡞ࡿ
FDS≀㊊ࡾ࡞࠸ࠊᑠᚰࠊࡦᙅࠊᩥྃࡤ࠿ࡾゝ࠺ࠊỴࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠊ⪃࠼ࡀ⏑࠸ࠊ㠃ಽࡃࡉࡀࡾࠊࣁࣥࢢ࣮ࣜ⢭⚄࡟Ḟࡅࡿࠊໟᐜຊᑠࡉ࠸ࠊ㣗ࡀ⣽࠸ࠊゝ࠸ヂࡀከ࠸
SURSࢹ࣮ࢺ࡛๭ࡾ຺ࢆࡍࡿࠊᖹẼ࡛௙஦ࢆᣄྰࡍࡿࠊே࡜㊥㞳ࢆ⨨ࡃࠊ⮬ᕫ୰ᚰⓗ⨾ⓗホ౯ 㸦LPSDFWཷࡅࡿ༳㇟ࠊTXDOLW\㉁ࠊFRPSOH[LW\」㞧ࡉ࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡿホ౯㸧 
LPSDFWࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࠊ࡞ࡼ࡞ࡼࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ㨩ຊឤࡌ࡞࠸ࠊ཭ே࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࡼ࠸ࠊ୙⮬↛ࠊࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ
TXDOLW\ᙅࠎࡋ࠸ࠊ⣽࠸ࠊ㸦యࡀ㸧኱୔ኵ࠿࡜␲ࢃࡏࡿࠊ㔝⏕࿡࡟Ḟࡅࡿᢈุὴࡢㄽᣐࡢẚ⋡ࡣࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖࡢ⾜ືࡸ⩦ᛶࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ㐨ᚨホ౯ࡀ᭱ࡶ㧗ࡃࠊឤ᝟ホ౯ࠊ⨾ⓗホ౯࡜⥆ࡃࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ୰ᖺᒙ࡟ࡣྰᐃⓗ࡟ぢࡿࡶࡢࡀ┠❧ࡗࡓࡀࠊ㐣ཤࡢ♫఍ⓗつ⠊ࢆࠕࣀࢫࢱࣝࢪࢵࢡࠖ࡟ᣢࡕฟࡋ࡚⮬ᕫࡢ⏕ࡁ᪉ࢆ⫯ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓⱝ࠸ዪᛶ࡟ࡶࠕᙉ
ࡃࡸࡉࡋࡃ࣮ࣜࢻࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖ⏨ᛶീࡀ₯ᅾⓗ࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡛ࠊࡑࢀ࡜␗࡞ࡿ⌧ᐇࡢ⏨ᛶ࡟ᡞᝨࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿጼࡀࡳ࡚࡜ࢀࡓࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡢᢈุ࡟ࡶᗏὶ࡟ఏ⤫ⓗ⏨ᛶつ⠊ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀぢ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ⫯ᐃὴࠖ ḟ࡟⫯ᐃὴࢆࡳ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋᑡᩘ࡞ࡀࡽࡶㄽᣐࡣ☜ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ⲡ㣗ࡣࡸࡉࡋࡃໟࡳ㎸ࢇ࡛ࡃࢀࡿࠋ ) ௒ࡢⱝ⪅ࡣୖୗ㛵ಀࡢព㆑ࡀⷧ࠸ࠊᖐᒓព㆑ࡀᙅ࠸࡜ࡶ࠸ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡶࠊ◳┤ⓗ࡞⤌⧊ᩥ໬࣭⤊㌟㞠⏝ࠊᖺຌᗎิ࣭௻ᴗᡓኈ࡟័ࡽࡉࢀ⥆ࡅࡓ኱ேࡢ୍᪉ⓗ࡞ゝ࠸ศࡔࠋⱝ࠸ୡ௦
࡟ࡣࠊ♫఍㈉⊩࡬ࡢ㛵ᚰࡀ㧗࠸࡜࠸࠺ഃ㠃ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ㸦0㸧㹹௒ࡢⲡ㣗ᢈุࡣ᪤ᡂࡢ౯್ほ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚㹻ⲡ㣗⣔ⱝ⪅ࡣࢲ࣓࡞Ꮡᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃ
ࢀࡲࡍࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ♫఍ࡀࡲࡔᑐᛂ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸᪂ࡋ࠸౯್ほࢆල⌧ࡋ࡚ࠊᮍ᮶ࡢ౯್ほࢆᇉ㛫ぢࡉࡏ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡶ▱ࢀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ㸦0㸧ឤ᝟ホ౯  
VHFXULW\ ࿴ࡴࠊᏳᚰࠊẕᛶᮏ⬟ࡃࡍࡄࡿࠊ⒵ࡉࢀࡿࠊ࡯ࡗ࡜ࡍࡿࠊໟࡳ㎸ࢇ࡛ࡃࢀࡿKDSSLQHVVዲࡁࠊዲࡲࡋ࠸ࠊዲࡁ࡞㒊ศ࠶ࡿ㐨ᚨホ౯
QRUP⏕ࡁ᪉ࡀࡼ࠸
WHQ࣐࢖࣮࣌ࢫ࡛⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠊࡀࡘࡀࡘࡋ࡞࠸ࠊᐙࡀዲࡁࠊᩱ⌮ࡍࡿࠊ⮬ศࡢ⏕ࡁ᪉ࢆ㈏࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠊࡺࡗࡃࡾࠊ
⮬ศࡢ㊃࿡ࢆ☻ࡃࠊ♫఍㈉⊩ᚿྥࠊ㠀ᭀຊⓗࠊ㣗࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㔜どࠊ┦ᡭࢆㄆࡵࡿ
FDSᩱ⌮ୖᡭࠊᡭඛࡀჾ⏝ࠊᐙ஦ࡀୖᡭ
SURS⧄⣽ࠊẼࢆ౑࠺ࠊࡢࢇࡧࡾᒇࠊࡸࡉࡋ࠸ࠊᰂ࿴࡞㞺ᅖẼࢆᣢࡘࠊ⬺ຊࡉࡏ࡚ࡃࢀࡿ
YHUㄔᐇࠊ໅ຮࠊᏲࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡔࡅཱྀ࡟ࡍࡿࠊ┿ᚰࡀ࠶ࡿࠊሀᐇᚿྥࠊぢᰤᾘ㈝ࡣࡋ࡞࠸ࠊࢹ࣮ࢺࡣ๭ࡾ຺ࠊ
ࣇࣛࣥࢡ࡟௜ࡁྜ࠼ࡿࠊ᱁ዲࢆࡘࡅ࡞࠸ࠊ↓⌮࡞⫼ఙࡧࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠊ⣧⢋ࠊ࡯ࡋࡀࡽ࡞࠸ࠊㄔᐇࠊ⮬↛య⨾ⓗホ౯  

−263−

3

「男らしさ」の危機か？

−ブログに見る「草食男子」への評価―

LPSDFWࢯࣇࢺࠊࡸࡉࡋ࠸ࠊࡑࢀ࡞ࡾ࡟࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸࡜ࡇࢁࡶ࠶ࡿ
TXDOLW\⥡㯇ࠊ▱ⓗ࡞║ᕪࡋࠊ⣽࠸ࠊࡇࡊࡗࡥࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊࢫ࣐࣮ࢺࠊ࢖ࢣ࣓ࣥࠊぢࡓ┠ࡀࡼ࠸ࠊ⏑࠸࣐ࢫࢡࠊࣇ࢓ࢵࢩࣙࣥࢭࣥࢫࡼ࠸ࠊ࠾ࡋࡷࢀࠊⓑ㤿ࡢ⋤Ꮚࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࠊ➗㢦ࡀ⣲ᩛࠊࡉࢃࡸ࠿ࠊୖရ࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿFRPSOH[LW\ࢩࣥࣉࣝ

⫯ᐃὴࡣᖺ㱋ᒙ࡟㛵ಀ࡞ࡃᗈࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄽᣐࡣᢈุὴࡀᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࡢ࡜ྠࡌ஦᯶࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
㏫࡟ࡑࢀࡽࢆ⌧௦♫఍࡬ࡢ࢔ࣥࢳࢸ࣮ࢮ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚⫯ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ⯆࿡῝࠸ࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ⤒῭ᡂ㛗ᮇࡢ๓㐍ᚿྥࢆ⤒㦂ࡋࡓୡ௦ࡸࠊ⌧௦ࡢ➇த♫఍ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ᮾ᪥ᮏ኱㟈⅏ᚋࡢᝒ᝺࡞≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢࡸࡉࡋࡉࡀࠕ⒵ࡋࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ዲࡲࡋࡃᫎࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4.4. ࠕⲡ㣗ࠖࡢᙧᐜモⓗ࣭ෙモⓗ⏝ἲࠕⲡ㣗ࠖࡀෙࡉࢀࡿ⿕ಟ㣭ㄒ࡟ࡣࠕேࠊ⤌⧊ࠊᅜᐙࠊᨃே໬ࡉࢀࡓື≀ࡸ᳜≀ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠕே
㛫άືࡢ୺యࠖࡸࠕព࿡ⓗ⏕⏘≀ࠊ⮬↛⌧㇟ࠊேᕤ≀ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠕ஦㇟࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ   ࠕ᪥ᮏࡣⲡ㣗⣔ᅜᐙ࡞ࡢ࡛ᡓதࡣ᮶࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ホㄽᐙࡀ࠸ࡓࡀ͐ ) ࡦࡽࡀ࡞ࡣⲡ㣗ࡳࡓ࠸࡛ᙅࠎࡋ࠸ࠋ࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼࡣ࠿ࡗࡇ࠸࠸⫗㣗ࠋ㸦)㸧ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖࡢ⾜ືᛶྥࡸእほ࠿ࡽཷࡅࡿ༳㇟ࡀព࿡ᣑ኱ࡋࠊ
ࠕࡦᙅࠊ࠾࡜࡞ࡋ࠸ࠊ
ᨷᧁⓗ࡛࡞࠸ࠊࡺࡗࡃࡾࡋࡓ⾜ືࠊ࣐࢖࣮࣌ࢫࠊࡸࡉࡋ࠸ࠊ⨾ࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓྵព࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕⲡ㣗ࠖࡀࠕᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࠖ࡜࡞ࡾࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
㸳㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ⤒ᖺኚ໬ࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡶ࡞㆟ㄽࡀῶᑡࡋᙧᐜモⓗ⏝ἲࡀቑຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖࡣ᪤▱ࡢᴫᛕ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐃ╔ࡋࡓ࡜ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋᢈุὴࡢ୺ᙇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࡢ㠀♫఍ⓗ࡞⾜ືࡸே㛫ᛶࡢḞⴠࡀᑗ᮶࡬ࡢ୙Ᏻ࡟㏻ࡌࡿ࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㏫࡟ぢࢀࡤୡ಑ⓗྡ㄃ࡢࡓࡵࡢ⮬ᕫ≛≅ࡸయ㠃ࡢಖᣢࢆམ࠸ࠊ⮬ᕫ࡟ᛅᐇ࡟⏕ࡁࡿே㛫ീ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ⏨ࡽࡋࡉࠖ࡜
࠸࠺ࡼࡾ⏨ᛶዪᛶࢆ㉸࠼ࡓࠕே㛫ࡽࡋࡉࠖࢆぢ┤ࡍᶵ఍ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡿࠋࣈ࣮ࣟ࢞ࡓࡕ
ࡣࡇࡢ≧ἣ࡟ᡞᝨࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ⌧≧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
୺࡞ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩῝⃝┿⣖㸬2007㸬ࠗⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚୡ௦̿ᖹᡂ⏨Ꮚᅗ㚷࠘ ගᩥ♫
Holmgreen, Lise-Lotte, Torben Vestergaard.2009.Evaluation and audience acceptance in biotech news texts.

Journal of Pragmatics 41, 586-601⚄⏣㟹Ꮚ࣭㧗ᮌబ▱Ꮚ⦅ⴭࠗࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡽࡋࡉࠖࡢ⾲㇟࠘኱㜰බ❧኱Ꮫඹྠฟ∧఍㸦2013 ᖺห⾜㸧Martin,J.R.and P.R.R.White.2005. “The Language of Evaluation- Appraisal in English”. Palgrave

Martin.J.R. and P.R.R. White.2005.Appraisal Website Home Page (accessed 20110329)
http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/AppraisalGuide/Framed/Frame.htm
ᒸᮏ┿୍㑻.2007.ࠕࣈࣟࢢࡢᚰ⌮Ꮫⓗ≉ᚩࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘26 ᕳ㸲ྕబ㔝኱ᶞ㸬2009㸬ࣈࣟࢢ࡟࠾ࡅࡿホ౯᝟ሗࡢศ㢮࡜య⣔໬㸫࢔ࣉࣞ࢖ࢨࣝ⌮ㄽࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸬ಙᏛᢏሗ 2009㸫39㻌బ㔝኱ᶞ㸬2010㸬ホ౯⾲⌧࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࣈࣟࢢศ㢮ࡢヨࡳ㸬ゝㄒฎ⌮Ꮫ఍➨ 16 ᅇᖺḟ኱఍ pp.174-177

−264−

4

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

᪥ᮏ䛾୧ぶྥ䛡⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛻䛚䛡䜛∗ぶ䜙䛧䛥䞉ẕぶ䜙䛧䛥䛾⾲㇟

䛶㢖ฟ䛩䜛୺㢟䛸ẕᛶ䛜ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛᪉ἲ䜢ㄪᰝ䛧䛯䚹⤖ᯝⓗ✄Ọ▱ୡ䛔䛖䜘䜚䠈䛂ẕぶ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛃䛸⤖䜃䛴䛡䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸⤖ㄽ௜䛡䛯䚹䛥໭㝣኱Ꮫ䠄㠀䠅䞉኱㜰ᗓ❧኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔䜙䛻䚸䝔䜽䝇䝖䛾୰䛷ゝ䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛸ྠᵝ䛻ゝ䜟䜜䛶䛔䛺䛔䛣䛻䚸䛣䜜䜙䛾䝬䝙䝳䜰䝹䛷䛿⫱ඣ䛜䛂୧ぶ/䝟䞊䝖䝘䞊㛫䛾ඹ᭷䛃䛸䛸䛾㔜せᛶ䜢ᙉㄪ䛧䛯䚹Sunderland䠄2000䠅䛿ⱥᅜ䛾⫱ඣ䝔䜽䝇䝖䛻䛚䛔䛶䛹䛾䜘䛖䛻∗ぶ䛜⾲㇟䞉⫼ᬒ໬䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛾䛛䚸䝕䜱䝇䝁䞊䝇ୖ䛾㠀ᑐ⛠䛜Ꮡᅾ䛩䜛䛾䛛䜢ㄪᰝ䛧䛯䚹䛭䛾⤖ᯝ䚸‘Part-time䠘Abstract䠚
This paper analyzes the representation of parental roles in Japanesefather / Mother as main parent’䚸‘Father as baby entertainer’䚸‘Father

parenting magazines based on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).

as mother’s bumbling assistant’䚸‘Father as line manager’ discourses

This paper aims to examine how paternity and maternity is assumed.

➼䛾Ꮡᅾ䜢ᣦ᦬䛧䚸∗ぶ䛿Ꮚ౪䛸㐟䜃䚸⫱ඣ䛻័䜜䛺䛔Ꮡᅾ䛸䛧

We particularly focus on (1) genres, (2) discourses, and (3) styles

䛶⾲㇟䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䚸䝔䜽䝇䝖୰䛻ẕぶ䛸∗ぶ㛫䛾䝕䜱䝇䝁䞊䝇(Fairclough: 2003). Although the parenting magazines target fathersୖ䛾㠀ᑐ⛠䛜Ꮡᅾ䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛧䛯䚹ୖグ䛾◊✲䛿䝯䝕䜱

as well as mothers, we find that mothers are assumed as full-time䜰䝕䜱䝇䝁䞊䝇䛷ᖖ㆑䛸䛧䛶ᢅ䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䜒䛾䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛩䜛䛾

parents engaged in childcare and housework, while fathers are䛻᭷ຠ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛯䛰䛧䚸ᮏ◊✲䛜 genres 䛸 styles 䛻䜒ὀ┠䛩䜛䛸䛔

part-time parents that just help their partners. This indicates that䛖Ⅼ䚸ᮏ◊✲䛾䝕䞊䝍䛜᪥ᮏ䛾⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖Ⅼ䛜ඛ⾜◊

traditional gender roles still persist.

✲䛸䛾㐪䛔䛷䛒䜛䚹䛂䜲䜽䝯䞁䛃䛸䛔䛳䛯⫱ඣ䛻✚ᴟⓗ䛻ཧຍ䛩䜛䛆䜻䞊䝽䞊䝗䛇䠖ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䚸䝆䝱䞁䝹䚸䝕䜱䝇䝁䞊䝇䚸䝇䝍䜲䝹䚸∗ぶ䛺䛹䛜䝯䝕䜱䜰䛷ྲྀ䜚ୖ䛢䜙䜜䜛୰䚸᪥ᮏ䛾⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛾୰䛷⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛂ᙜ↛ど䛃䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛∗ぶീ䛸ẕぶീ䜢ぢ䜛䛣䛸䛿ព⩏䛜䛒䜛䚹

1. 䛿䛨䜑䛻

ᮏ◊✲䛿᪥ᮏ䛾⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ 13 ✀㢮䠄2008 ᖺ 4 ᭶䡚2010 ᖺ 3 ᭶Ⓨ

4. 䝕䞊䝍
኎ศ䠅䜢ศᯒᑐ㇟䛸䛧䚸௨ୗ䛾୧ぶྥ䛡⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛾≉㞟グ஦䜢ྲྀᮏ◊✲䛿ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䠄CDA䠅䜢᥼⏝䛧䚸᪥ᮏ䛾୧ぶྥ䛡⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛻䛚䛡䜛䚸∗ぶ䛸ẕぶ䛾⫱ඣᙺ๭䛻㛵䛩䜛⾲㇟䜢ศᯒ䛩䜚ୖ䛢䜛䠖䛄᪥⤒ Kids +䛅䠄2009 ᖺ 12 ᭶ྕ䠅䚸䛄AERA with Baby䛅䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸∗ぶ䜙䛧䛥䛸ẕぶ䜙䛧䛥䛜䛹䛾䜘䛖䛻᝿ᐃ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛾

䠄2009 ᖺ 10䚸12 ᭶ྕ䠅䚸䛄AERA with Kids䛅䠄2009 ᖺ⛅ྕ䚸2010 ᖺ䛛䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛩䜛䚹᫓ྕ䠅䚹ୖグ䛾㞧ㄅ䛿ẕぶ䛰䛡䛷䛺䛟∗ぶ䜒ㄞ⪅ᑐ㇟䛸䛩䜛⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛷䛒䜛䚹ᚑ䛳䛶䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䠄author䠅䛜ẕぶ䜔∗ぶ䛾⫱ඣᙺ๭

2. ᪉ἲㄽ

䜢ᖹ➼䛻⾲㇟䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜᝿ᐃ䛥䜜䜛䚹ᮏ◊✲䛿 Fairclough䠄1992, 2003䠅䛻ᇶ䛵䛟 CDA 䛾ᡭἲ䜢᥼⏝
䛩䜛䚹Fairclough䠄1992䠅䛿 discourse 䜢䠄1䠅䝔䜽䝇䝖䚸䠄2䠅ㄯヰⓗᐇ㊶䚸

5. ศᯒ䛸⪃ᐹ

䠄3䠅♫఍ⓗᐇ㊶䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙ศᯒ䛩䜛䚹䛣䛾ほⅬ䛻ᚑ䛳䛯ศᯒⓗᯟ

5.1 䛄᪥⤒ Kids +䛅⤌䜏䛿䠄1䠅䝔䜽䝇䝖ศᯒ䚸䠄2䠅ㄯヰⓗᐇ㊶䛾ศᯒ䚸䠄3䠅♫఍ⓗᐇ㊶<䝕䞊䝍 1>2009 ᖺ 12 ᭶ྕ䛂ぶ䛾䜂䛸ゝ䛷Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾ᚰ䛜ᙉ䛟䛺䛾ศᯒ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䛾୰䛷䚸ㄯヰⓗᐇ㊶䛾ศᯒ䠄Fairclough, 2003䠅䛿䚸䜛䟿䛃䠄P13䠅䛂ㄯヰ䛾⛛ᗎ䠄orders of discourse䠅䛃䚸䛴䜎䜚䚸ゝㄒ౑⏝䛻㛵䛩䜛♫䠄1䠅ㄞ⪅ 䝟䝟䚸䝬䝬䛻⪺䛝䜎䛧䛯㻌 䛂䛖䛱䛾Ꮚ䚸䜂ᙅ䛛䜒䞉䞉䞉䞉䞉䞉䛃఍ⓗつ⠊䜢ᵓᡂ䛩䜛せᅉ䜢≉ᐃ䛩䜛䚹䛣䜜䜙䛾ㄯヰ䛾⛛ᗎ䜢ᵓ䛸ᛮ䛖䛸䛝ᡂ䛩䜛せ⣲䛸䛧䛶䚸Fairclough 䛿䠄1䠅genres䠄⾜Ⅽ䛾௙᪉䠅䚸䠄2䠅Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾ᵝᏊ䜢ぢ䛶䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛧䛳䛛䜚䛧䛶䜋䛧䛔䛃䛂᝟䛡䛺䛔䛃䛺䛹discourses䠄⾲㇟䛾௙᪉䠅䚸䠄3䠅styles䠄Ꮡᅾ䛾௙᪉䠅䛻ὀ┠䛩䜛䚹䛣䛸ᛮ䛳䛯⤒㦂䛿䠄2䠅䛒䜚䜎䛫䜣䛛?䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖䜢ᐇ᪋䛧䛯䛸䛣䜝䚸⣙䜜䜙䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛩䜛䛯䜑䛻䚸䠄1䠅Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䚸ླྀἲ䠄genres䠅䚸䠄2䠅ㄒ༙ᩘ䛾䠄3䠅ぶ䛜䛂ᛮ䛳䛯䛣䛸䛜䛒䜛䛃䛸ᅇ⟅䚹䜏䜣䛺䛾ពぢ䜢ཧ⪃ᙡ䚸♫఍ⓗ⾜Ⅽ⪅䛾⾲㇟䚸᝿ᐃ䚸௚ືᛶ䠄discourses䠅䚸䠄3䠅䝰䝎䝸䛻䚸䠄4䠅䜟䛜Ꮚ䛾䛣䛸䜢䠄5䠅᣺䜚㏉䛳䛶䜏䜎䛧䜗䛖䚹䝔䜱䚸ホ౯䚸ே⛠௦ྡモ䠄styles䠅䛺䛹䛻↔Ⅼ䜢ᙜ䛶䜛䚹ᮏ◊✲䛿ㄯヰⓗᐇ㊶䛾ศᯒ䜢᥼⏝䛧䚸∗ぶ䜙䛧䛥䛸ẕぶ䜙䛧䛥㻌 discourses 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䠄1䠅䛷䛿䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛿∗ぶ䞉ẕぶ୧⪅䜢䛻㛵䛩䜛ㄯヰ䛾⛛ᗎ䜢ᵓᡂ䛩䜛䚸genres䚸discourses䚸styles 䜢᫂♧ㄞ⪅䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸∗ぶ䞉ẕぶ䛜Ꮚ౪䛾⢭⚄ຊ䜢㣴䛖䛣䛸䛻䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜚䚸᪥ᮏ䛾୧ぶྥ䛡⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛾グ஦䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸∗ぶᚑ஦䛩䜛♫఍ⓗ⾜Ⅽ⪅䛸⾲㇟䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䠄3䠅䛷䛿䚸䛂ぶ䛃䛸ẕぶ䛾⫱ඣᙺ๭䛻䛚䛡䜛๓ᥦ䜢⪃ᐹ䛧䛯䚹䛸䛔䛖ㄒᙡ䛜౑䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿㣴⫱⪅䜢⥲⛠䛩䜛⏝ㄒ䛷䛒䜚䚸

3. ඛ⾜◊✲

ྵ䜎䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸‘Mother and Father as main parent’䠄1䠅䛸䛾ㄒᙡⓗ⤖᮰ᛶ䛛䜙䚸䛣䛾䛂ぶ䛃䛻䛿ẕぶ䛰䛡䛷䛺䛟䚸∗ぶ䜒
discourse 䛜ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䚸∗ぶ䞉ẕぶ୧⪅䛜Ꮚ౪䜢⢭⚄ⓗ䛻ᙉ䛟䛩䜛Marshall䠄1991䠅䛿䚸ⱥᅜ䛾⫱ඣ䝬䝙䝳䜰䝹䛻䛚䛔䛶ẕᛶ䛻㛵䛧

1
−265−

日本の両親向け育児雑誌における父親らしさ・母親らしさの表象䛸ྠ䛨ᝎ䜏䜢ඹ᭷䛧䛶䛔䜛༳㇟䜢୚䛘䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䠄7䠅䛸䠄11䠅䛾Ⓨ䛣䛸䛻㛵䜟䜛䛸䛔䛖᝿ᐃ䜢ぢฟ䛩䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸genres 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸≉㞟グ஦ genre 䛾୰䛷䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 genre 䛜⏝䛔䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ヰᶵ⬟䛿㉁ၥ䚸䠄9䠅䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛿ᥦ᱌䛷䛒䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䠄10䠅䛿 2ேຍ䛘䛶䚸䠄2䠅䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛜㉁ၥ䚸䠄5䠅䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛜ᥦ᱌䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸⛠௦ྡモ䛷䛒䜛䚹ᚑ䛳䛶䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛾ㄞ⪅䛸䛾┦஫⾜Ⅽ䛜ල⌧䛛䜙䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛾ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䛜ල⌧໬䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䜜ᨾ䚸໬䛥䜜䚸ㄞ⪅䛾┦ㄯ┦ᡭ䛸䛧䛶䛾䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䛜⾲䛥䜜䛶䛔఍ヰ genre 䜒ᇙ䜑㎸䜎䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸styles 䛻⛣䜛䚹䠄2䠅䛿㉁ၥ

䜛䚹

䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䛯䛩䚹䛣䜜䛿ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䜢ල⌧໬䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䠄4䠅䛾䛂䜟䛜Ꮚ䛃䛾䛂䜟䛜䛃䛿䛂ໟᣓⓗ䛃we 䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䛾ໟᣓ<䝕䞊䝍 2>2009 ᖺ 12 ᭶ྕ䛂᭷ྡᑠᏛᰯ䛻ཷ䛛䛳䛯Ꮚ䛿ఱ䜢Ꮫ䜣ⓗ we 䛾౑⏝䛻䜘䜚䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䜒ㄞ⪅䛸ྠ䛨ᝎ䜏䜢ඹ᭷䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸

䛰?䛃䠄P69䠅䛔䛖༳㇟䜢୚䛘䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䠄5䠅䛿ᥦ᱌䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢ᢸ䛔䚸䠄2䠅䛸ྠ䛂“䛚ཷ㦂”䜢㏻䛧䛶䛷䛝䜛䜘䛖䛻䛺䜛䛣䛸䛃ᵝ䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛾ㄞ⪅䛸䛾┦஫⾜Ⅽ䜢ල⌧໬䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸ᑟぶ䛿Ꮚ䛹䜒䛻ᑐ䛧䚸䛂䛔䛴䛛䛷䛝䜛䛃䛂䛔䛴䛛⌮ゎ䛩䜛䛃䛸⪃䛘䛜䛱ධ㒊䛷䛿䚸ㄞ⪅䛾┦ㄯ┦ᡭ䛸䛧䛶䛾䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䛜⾲䛥䜜䛶䛰䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸ᩍ䛘䛺䛡䜜䜀Ꮚ䛹䜒䛿↓▱䛾䜎䜎䚹ཷ㦂䛸䛔䛖┠ᶆ䛜䛔䜛䚹䛒䜛䛛䜙䛣䛭䚸ぶᏊ䛷䛥䜎䛦䜎䛺య㦂䜢䛧䚸▱䜛䛣䛸䚸䛷䛝䜛䛣䛸䛜䛠䜣䛠䜣ቑ䛘䜛䚹…

P18䡚P19ADVANTAGE䛂ᖸ΅䛧䛩䛞䚸ᨺ௵䛧䛩䛞䛷䠄6䠅䜟䛜Ꮚ䛾䛯䛟䜎䛧䛥䚸䠄7䠅䛴䜆䛧䛶

䠄14䠅ぶᏊ䛾ゐ䜜ྜ䛔䛜䜘䜚῝䜎䜛䛔䜎䛫䜣䛛?䛃ᑠᏛᰯཷ㦂䜢䜂䛸ゝ䛷䛔䛘䜀䚸䛂䜟䛜Ꮚ䜢䛹䛖⫱䛶䚸䛹䛖ᡂ㛗䛥䛫ᅔ㞴䛻䜆䛴䛛䛳䛯䜙䛹䛖䛩䜜䜀䛔䛔䛛䜢⪃䛘䚸⮬ศ䛾ຊ䛷஌䜚㉺䛶䛔䜛䛛䛃䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䜢ከ᪉㠃䛛䜙ၥ䜟䜜䜛ヨ㦂䚹䠄15䠅䇾㔝ᨺ䛧䇿䛷䛘䛶䛔䛟…䚹䛭䜣䛺䛯䛟䜎䛧䛔Ꮚ䛻⫱䛶䜛䜹䜼䛿䚸䠄8䠅ぶ⮬㌟䛾䛛䛿ᙜ↛ཷ䛛䜙䛺䛔䚹䠄16䠅ẕぶ䛿䛧䛴䛡䜔䝨䞊䝟䞊ᑐ⟇䜢㏻䛧䛶䚸䛛䜟䜚᪉䛻䛒䜛䚹Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾䛯䛟䜎䛧䛥䜢䛴䜆䛧䛶䛔䛺䛔䛛䛹䛖䛛䚸䜘䜚୍ᒙᏊ䛹䜒䛸᥋䛧䚸∗ぶ䛿ព㆑䛧䛶Ꮚ䛹䜒䛸䛾᫬㛫䜢䛴䛟䜛䚹ኵ䠄9䠅☜ㄆ䛧䛶䜏䜘䛖䚹፬㛫䛷ᐙᗞᩍ⫱䛾䛒䜚᪉䛺䛹䛾఍ヰ䜒ቑ䛘䜛䚹ྠ䛨┠ᶆ䛻ྥ䛛䛳Ꮚ䛹䜒䛜䛣䜣䛺䛸䛝䚸䠄10䠅䛒䛺䛯䛺䜙䠄11䠅䛹䛖䛩䜛?…

䛶ດຊ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷ᐙ᪘䛾䛝䛪䛺䜒῝䜎䜛䚹

Q2.
䝃䝑䜹䞊䛜䛪䜀䛼䛡䛶䛖䜎䛔Ꮚ౪䛜䚸䛂䝃䝑䜹䞊㒊䛨䜓䛺䛟䛶䚸䝁㻌 䜎䛪䚸discourses 䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸䠄14䠅䛷䛿䚸䛂ぶ䛃䛿∗ぶ䛸ẕぶ䜢⾲䞊䝷䝇㒊䛻ධ䜚䛯䛔䛃䛸ゝ䛔ฟ䛧䜎䛧䛯䚹䛹䜣䛺ゝⴥ䜢᥃䛡䜎䛩䛛?

㇟䛩䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸䠄16䠅䛾๓༙䛂ẕぶ䛿䈈䜘䜚୍ᒙᏊ䛹䜒䛸᥋䛧䛃䛛䜙䚸ձ䞉䞉䞉䝃䝑䜹䞊䛾䜋䛖䛜ྥ䛔䛶䛔䜛䛾䛻䚹䜒䛳䛯䛔䛺䛔䜣䛨䜓䛺䛂ẕぶ䛿ᬑẁᏊ౪䛸ゐ䜜ྜ䛳䛶䛔䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖᝿ᐃ䛜స⏝䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛔?

䛭䜜䛿䚸䛂䜘䜚୍ᒙ䛃䛛䜙ุ᩿䛧䛶䚸䛂ᬑẁ䜘䜚䛃䛜┬␎䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛯ղ䞉䞉䞉䛘䛳䚸䝁䞊䝷䝇䠛ྥ䛔䛶䛺䛔䠄12䠅䜟䜘䡚䚹䜑䛷䛒䜛䚹୍᪉䚸䠄16䠅䛾ᚋ༙䛂∗ぶ䛿䡚䛴䛟䜛䛃䛿䚸䛂∗ぶ䛿Ꮚ䛹䜒ճ䞉䞉䞉ḷ䛖䛣䛸䛻⯆࿡䛜䛒䜛䠄13䠅䛾䛽䚹䛭䛳䛛䚸䝁䞊䝷䝇㒊䜢ᴦ䛧䛸ゐ䜜ྜ䛖᫬㛫䜢ᬑẁస䜙䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖᝿ᐃ䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎

䜣䛷䠄14䠅䛽䚹

䜚䚸䛂∗ぶ䛿ᐙ䛾እ䛷ᛁ䛧䛟ാ䛝䚸䛭䜜ᨾດຊ䛧䛺䛡䜜䜀᫬㛫䜢స䜜䛺䛔䛃䛣䛸䛜ᙜ↛ど䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸∗ぶ䛸ẕぶ䛷䛿䝕䜱䝇䝁䞊䝇ୖ䛾㠀ᑐ⛠䛜Ꮡᅾ䛧䚸‘Part-time father / Mother as main

discourses 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䠄8䠅䛿∗䛛ẕ䛛䜢᩿ᐃ䛫䛪䚸䠄10䠅䛿 2 ே⛠௦ྡモ䛷䛒䜛䚹୍ぢ䚸∗ぶ䛸ẕぶ䛾⫱ඣ䜢♧၀䛧䛶䛔䜛䛜䚸

parent’ discourse 䛜෌⏕⏘䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹genres 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸ᐉゝᩥ

䠄12䠅䛛䜙ẕぶ䛾ཧຍ䛜᝿ᐃ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛜䜟䛛䜛䚹䛂䜟䛃䛿⾲⌧䛾ླྀἲ䚸䛥䜙䛻䛿䚸㝞㏙䜔ᥦ᱌䛾ᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䛯䛩ᩥ䛾౑⏝䛛䜙䚸䜰䜢࿴䜙䛢䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛻ാ䛝䛛䛡䜛ᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䛯䛧䚸䛂䜘䛃䛿ぶ䛧䜏䜢㎸䜑䝗䝞䜲䝇 genre 䛜⏝䛔䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸≉㞟グ஦ genre 䛸䜰䝗䝞䛶䚸᩿ᐃ䛺䛹䜢ఏ䛘䜛ᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䛯䛩⤊ຓモ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛂䜟䜘䛃䛿ዪᛶ䜲䝇 genre 䛾 genre ΰ஺䛜㉳䛣䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹᭱ᚋ䛻䚸styles 䛻䛴䛔䛶䛜㢖⦾䛻౑⏝䛩䜛䛸ゝ䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ຍ䛘䛶䚸䠄13䠅䛾䛂䛾䛃䛿⣡ᚓ䛩䛿䚸䠄15䠅䛻ὀ┠䛩䜛䚹䛂㔝ᨺ䛧䛃䛾⤖ᯝ䛜䛂ᙜ↛ཷ䛛䜙䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖䚸䜛Ẽᣢ䛱䛷☜ㄆ䛩䜛ព䜢⾲䛩ᶵ⬟䚸䛂䛽䛃䠄䠄14䠅䜒ྠᵝ䠅䛿ぶ䛧䜏ཷ㦂䛷䛿᭱ᝏ䛾⤖ᯝ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢♧䛩䚹䛂㔝ᨺ䛧䛃䜢ᮃ䜎䛧䛟䛺䛔䛸䛾Ẽᣢ䛱䜢䛣䜑䛯☜ㄆ䜢⾲䛩ᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䛯䛩䚹䛣䜜䜒ዪᛶ䛻ከ⏝䛥ホ౯䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜚䚸䛭䛾ᚋ䛾ᥦ᱌䛾ᚲせᛶ䜢ᬯ♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䠄16䠅䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䜜䜙䛾ຓモ䛾౑⏝䛛䜙䚸ඃ䛧䛟ㄒ䜚䛛䛡䜛ẕぶീ䛜⾲௨㝆䛾ᥦ᱌䛷䛿䚸䝰䝎䝸䝔䜱໬䛿㉳䛣䛳䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹䛭䜜ᨾ䚸ᥦ᱌㇟䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸“Part-time father/ Mother as main parent”

䛾ᚲせᛶ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ᙉ䛔ᚰⓗែᗘ䛜⾲䛥䜜䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛸

discourse䚸“Mother appealing to their child” discourse 䛜ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䛶䛧䛶䛾䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䛜♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛔䜛䚹genres 䛻⛣䜛䚹䝅䝭䝳䝺䞊䝅䝵䞁ᙧᘧ䛾 Q&A 䜢⏝䛔䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜚䚸䝅䝭䝳䝺䞊䝅䝵䞁 genre 䜢᥼⏝䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䠄7䠅䛸䠄11䠅䛷

5.2 䛄AERA with Baby䛅

䛿㉁ၥ䚸䠄9䠅䛷䛿ᥦ᱌䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢⏝䛔䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜚䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛾<䝕䞊䝍 3>2009 ᖺ 10 ᭶ྕ䛂Ꮚ౪䛾䛤䛿䜣䚸ᡭᢤ䛝䛧䛶䛔䜎䛫䜣ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䚸䛴䜎䜚఍ヰ genre 䜢ල⌧໬䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸styles

䛛?㻌 ኱ษ䛻⪃䛘䛯䛔㻌 㞳ங㣗䞉ᗂඣ㣗䛃䠄P30䠅

䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸䠄6䠅䛂䜟䛜Ꮚ䛃䛿䛂ໟᣓⓗ䛃we 䛷䛒䜚䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䜒ㄞ⪅

䠄17䠅䛂䛔䛯䛰䛝䜎䛩䟿䛃䛂䛤䛱䛭䛖䛥䜎䟿䛃䛾ኌ䛜㡪䛟ᅋ䜙䜣䛿䚸ᐙ

2
−266−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

᪘䜏䜣䛺䛾ᖾ䛫䛾䛒䛛䛧䚹䛯䜑䛻㞧ㄅ䜢ㄞ䜐Ꮡᅾ䛷䛿䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖᝿ᐃ䛜ാ䛔䛶䛔䜛䚹⤖ᯝᰤ㣴䛾䛣䛸䜒䚸㣗䜉䛺䛔ᝎ䜏䜒䛸䛝䛻䛿䛱䜗䛳䛸⨨䛔䛶䛚䛔䛶䚸ᴦⓗ䛻䚸‘Part-time father / Mother as main parent’ discourse 䛜෌⏕⏘䛧䛔㣗༟䛵䛟䜚䛻䛴䛔䛶䠄18䠅⪃䛘䛶䜏䜘䛖䚹…

䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹genres 䛻⛣䜛䛸䚸䠄23䠅䛛䜙䚸≉㞟グ஦ genre 䛾୰䛷䜰䛂䛚⤥௙䛃䛿䜔䜑䛶୍⥴䛻㣗༟䛻䛴䛣䛖䟿䞁䜿䞊䝖 genre 䛜᥼⏝䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䠄25䠅䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛿㝞㏙䚸㻌 ⦅㞟㒊䛜⾜䛳䛯䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖䛛䜙䚸ఇ᪥䛾ኪ䛿䛂ᐙ᪘඲ဨ䛷㣗஦

䠄22䠅䛿௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䜢ල⌧໬䛥䜜䚸䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖ே䛜᭱䜒ከ䛔䜒䛾䛾䚸ᖹ᪥䛾ኪ䛿༙ᩘ㏆䛟䛾ᐙ఍ヰ genre 䜒⏝䛔䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹᭱ᚋ䛻䚸styles 䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸䠄21䠅䛿ᗞ䛷䛂ẕぶ䛸Ꮚ䛹䜒䛃䛰䛡䛷㣗஦䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛜䜟䛛䜚䜎䛧䛂ໟᣓⓗ䛃we ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ䜸䞊䝃䞊䜒ㄞ⪅䛸ྠ䛨ᝎ䜏䜢ඹ᭷䛧䛶䛔䜛

䛯䚹䠄19䠅∗ぶ䛾ᖐᏯ᫬㛫䛜㐜䛡䜜䜀䚸Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾⏕ά᫬㛫䜢⪃䛘༳㇟䜢୚䛘䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䠄22䠅䛿௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࠊㄞ⪅䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ㄒ䜚䛶䚸䛒䛘䛶ᚅ䛯䛪䛻Ꮚ䛹䜒䛸ẕぶ䛷㣗䜉䜛䛾䜒⌧ᐇⓗ䛺㑅ᢥ䛷䛩䛛䛡䜢ල⌧໬䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䜜ᨾ䚸ㄞ⪅䛾┦ㄯ┦ᡭ䛸䛧䛶䛾䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䛜⾲䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹discourses䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䠄19䠅䛾䛂∗ぶ䛾ᖐᏯ䛜㐜䛡䜜䜀䛃䛿ᚑᒓ⠇䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸䛂∗ぶ䛿እ䛷ാ䛔䛶䛔䜛䛯䜑䚸ᖐᏯ䛜㐜䛔䛣䛸

P61䛜䛒䜛䛃䛣䛸䛜ᙜ↛ど䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢ព࿡䛩䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊Ꮚ䛹䜒䛿ぢ䛶䛔䜛䠄26䠅䝟䝟䜒ᐙ஦䜢䛧䛶䛔䜎䛩䛛?

䛿䚸∗ぶ䜢ᚅ䛯䛪䛻Ꮚ౪䛸㣗஦䜢䛩䜛䜘䛖ẕぶ䛻ಁ䛩䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䛂∦௜䛡䛺䛥䛔䛃䛸Ꮚ䛹䜒䜢ᛣ㬆䜛㞄䛷䚸ᖹ↛䛸㣗䜉䛳䜁䛺䛧䚸ฟ䛧䛂ẕぶ䛜䚸୺፬䛷䛒䜛䛛ྰ䛛䛻㛵䜟䜙䛪䚸ᐙ᪘䛾䛯䜑䛻㣗஦䜢స䛳䜁䛺䛧䛾ኵ䚹䠄27䠅Ꮚ䛹䜒௨ୖ䛾㞴ᩛ䜢䚸䠄28䠅䛹䛖䛧䛯䜙䛔䛔?…

䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖᝿ᐃ䛜⾲ฟ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸‘Part-time father /㻌 䛔䛟䜙䝬䝬䛜Ꮚ䛹䜒䜢䛚ᡭఏ䛔䛻ㄏ䛳䛶䜒㞄䛷䝟䝟䛜ᐷ䛶䛔䛯

Mother as main parent’ discourse䚸‘Mother as family cook’ discourse䛾䛷䛿䚸ㄝᚓຊ䛻Ḟ䛡䛶䛧䜎䛔䜎䛩䚹䛂䛄䝟䝟䛰䛳䛶䛧䛺䛔䜘䛅䛸ཱྀ䛜ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹genres 䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸≉㞟グ஦ genre 䛾୰䛻䜰⟅䛘䛥䜜䛶䚸཯ㄽ䛷䛝䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ㄞ⪅䜒䚹䞁䜿䞊䝖 genre 䛜ᇙ䜑㎸䜎䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䜎䛯䚸䠄18䠅䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛜ᥦ㻌 䛂Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾ᐙ஦䜈䛾䛛䛛䜟䜚᪉䛿䚸ᐇ䛿∗ぶ䛾ᙳ㡪䛜኱䛝䛔䜣᱌䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䜢ල⌧໬䛥䜜䚸఍ヰ genre 䜒ᵓ䛷䛩䛃䛸㎮ᕭ䛥䜣䛜ヰ䛧䜎䛩䚹⠏䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸styles 䛻⛣䜛䚹䠄17䠅䛾䛂ᖾ䛫䛾䛒䛛䛧䛃䛿䛂䛔㻌 䛂∗ぶ䛾ୡヰ䜢䛺䜣䛷䜒ẕぶ䛜䛩䜛䛸䚸ᐙ஦䛿ẕぶ䛾௙஦䛸ᛮ䛖䛯䛰䛝䜎䛩!䛃䛂䛤䛱䛭䛖䛥䜎!䛃䛾㡪䛟ᐙ᪘ᅋ䜙䜣䛜ᮃ䜎䛧䛔≧ែ䛸ホ䜘䛖䛻䛺䛳䛶䛧䜎䛖䚹ᑡ䛧䛷䜒᪩䛔䛖䛱䛻䚸䛄Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾ᩍ⫱䛾䛯䜑䛻䚸౯䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䛣䛾≧ែ䜢┠ᣦ䛩䜘䛖䛻䛸ᬯ♧ⓗ䛻ᣦ♧䜒䛧䜒䛖ᑡ䛧䛣䜣䛺䛣䛸䜢䛧䛶䜒䜙䛘䛺䛔䛰䜝䛖䛛䛅䛸෭㟼䛻ヰ䛧䛶䜏䜛䛣䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䠄18䠅䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛿ᥦ᱌䛷䛒䜚䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛾ㄞ⪅䛸䛿኱ษ䛷䛩䛽䛃

䛸䛾┦஫⾜Ⅽ䜢ල⌧໬䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹᭱ᚋ䛻䚸䠄19䠅䛾 䛂⌧ᐇⓗ䛺㑅ᢥ㻌 䛂䝟䝟䛻䜒ά㌍䛷䛝䜛㡿ᇦ䛾ᐙ஦䜢᥈䛩䛣䛸䜒᭷ຠ䛷䛿?䛃䛸ゝ䛖䛷䛩䛃䛿䝰䝎䝸䝔䜱໬䛜䛺䛥䜜䛪䚸∗ぶ䛾ᖐᏯ䜢ᚅ䛯䛪䛻ẕぶ䛸䛾䛿ᒾ❧ඛ⏕䛷䛩䚹䛂䠄29䠅䛤䜏䜢ฟ䛩䛺䛹䝟䝟䛾ฟ␒䜢䛴䛟䜚䚸Ꮚ౪䛷䛤㣤䜢㣗䜉䜛䛸䛔䛖㑅ᢥ⫥䜢䛂⌧ᐇⓗ䛃䚸䛴䜎䜚ᮃ䜎䛧䛔䛸ホ䛭䜜䛰䛡䛿ẖᅇ䛧䛶䜒䜙䛖䜘䛖䛻䛩䜛䛸䛔䛔䛸ᛮ䛔䜎䛩䜘䛃…

౯䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ᚑ䛳䛶䚸䛣䛾㑅ᢥ⫥䛻ᑐ䛩䜛䜸䞊䝃䞊䛾ᙉ䛔ᚰⓗែᗘ䛜⾲䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䜎䛪䚸discourses 䜢⪃ᐹ䛩䜛䚹䠄26䠅䛾ຓモ䛂䜒䛃䛿ẕぶ䛜䛩䛷䛻ᐙ஦䛻ᦠ䜟䛳䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢♧䛩䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛿㉁ၥ䛷䛒䜚䚸<䝕䞊䝍 4>2009 ᖺ 12 ᭶ྕ䛂(20) 䝟䝟䛸䝬䝬䛸୍⥴䛻ᑠ䛥䛺䛚ᡭ∗ぶ䛜ᐙ஦䜢䛧䛺䛔ྍ⬟ᛶ䜒♧၀䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸䠄27䠅䛾䛂㞴ᩛ䛃

ఏ䛔䛃䠄P53䠅䛿ᡓத䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛷䛒䜛䚹∗ぶ䛿䛂ᩛ䛃䛸䛧䛶౛䛘䜙䜜䚸Ꮚ౪䜘䜚䜒䝝䝷䝝䝷䚸䝗䜻䝗䜻㻌 Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾䛂䛚ᡭఏ䛔䛃ᡭᙉ䛔䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸∗ぶ䛿ẕぶ䛜⡆༢䛻䛿㈇䛛䛫䛺䛔Ꮡᅾ䛸䛧䛶ᥥ㻌 䛚ᡭఏ䛔䛜ୖᡭ䛻䛺䛳䛶䜋䛧䛔䛡䜜䛹䚸⮬ศ䛾㣗஦䛥䛘䛚䜌䛴෗䛥䜜䚸∗ぶ䛜⮬Ⓨⓗ䛻䛿ᐙ஦䜢䛧䛺䛔䛣䛸䛜ᙜ↛ど䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛛䛺䛔䠄21䠅䜟䛜Ꮚ䜢ぢ䜛䛸䚸䛂䜎䛰ᩍ䛘䜛䛾䛿᪩䛔䛛䛺䠛䛃䛸䠄22䠅䛴䜎䜚䚸ẕぶ䛿⫱ඣ䛰䛡䛷䛺䛟䚸ᐙ஦䜒㐙⾜䛩䜛ᚲせ䛜䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖⪃䛘䛶䛧䜎䛖䜒䛾䛷䛩䜘䛽䚹᝿ᐃ䛜స⏝䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸䠄29䠅䛾䛂䝟䝟䛾ฟ␒䜢䛴䛟䜚䛃 䚸䛂䛭㻌 䠄23䠅⦅㞟㒊䛜1~5ṓ䛾Ꮚ䛹䜒䜢ᣢ䛴403ே䛾ẕぶ䜈䛾䜰䞁䜿䞊䜜䛰䛡䛿ẖ᪥䛧䛶䜒䜙䛖䜘䛖䛻䛩䜛䛃♫఍ⓗ⾜Ⅽ⪅䛿ẕぶ䛷䛒䜛䚹䝖ㄪᰝ䛻䜘䜛䛸䚸䛚ᡭఏ䛔䜢䛂䛥䛫䛶䛔䜛䛃䛂䛥䛫䛯䛣䛸䛜䛒䜛䛃䛜ྜ

ẕぶ䛿∗ぶ䛻ᐙ஦䜢䛩䜛䜘䛖ാ䛝䛛䛡䜛Ꮡᅾ䛸䛧䛶䜒⾲㇟䛥䜜䛶䜟䛫䛶⣙ 90%䚹ከ䛟䛾䠄24䠅䝬䝬䛯䛱䛜䚸Ꮚ䛹䜒䛜ᑠ䛥䛔䛖䛱䛛䜙ఱ䛔䜛䚹䛭䜜ᨾ䚸‘Part-time father / Mother as main parent’ discourse䚸䜙䛛䛾䛚ᡭఏ䛔䜢䛥䛫䛶䛔䜛䛾䛜䠄25䠅䜟䛛䜚䜎䛩䚹…

‘Mother as manager of the father’s role in housework’ discourse 䛜ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹genres 䛻ὀ┠䛩䜛䚹๓༙䛷䛿㝞㏙䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䜎䛪䚸discourses 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䠄20䠅䛾䛂䝟䝟䛸䝬䝬䛃䛸䛔䛖㓄⨨䛯䛩ᩥ䛜⏝䛔䜙䜜䚸ᚋ༙䛷䛿┤᥋ヰἲ䠄౛䚸䛂Ꮚ䛹䜒䜈䛾䡚኱䛝

䠄Fairclough, 2003䠅䛻ὀ┠䛩䜛䚹䛂䝟䝟䛃䛜䛂䝬䝬䛃䛾๓䛻㓄⨨䛥䜜䛔䜣䛷䛩䛃䠅䜢⏝䛔䛶䚸ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛾ゝⴥ䜢┤᥋ᘬ⏝䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸∗ぶ䛜䛚ᡭఏ䛔䛾୺䛺ᚑ஦⪅䛸ᥦ♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ᘬ⏝ genre 䛜ᇙ䜑㎸䜎䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸ᘬ⏝ genre䚸䝙䝳䞊䝇䛧䛛䛧䚸䠄23䠅䛾䛂ẕぶ䛃䜔䠄24䠅䛛䜙䜟䛛䜛䜘䛖䛻䚸䛣䛾䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖ᑐグ஦genre 䛾 genre ΰ஺䛜㉳䛣䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸styles 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸㇟⪅䛿ẕぶ䛾䜏䛷䛒䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䛂∗ぶ䛿⫱ඣ䛾ᝎ䜏䜢ゎỴ䛩䜛

䠄26䠅䛸䠄28䠅䛿㉁ၥ䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢㐙⾜䛧䚸ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䜢ල⌧

3
−267−

日本の両親向け育児雑誌における父親らしさ・母親らしさの表象໬䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䠄26䠅䛿∗ぶ䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䜢♧䛩䛜䚸䛭䛾ᚋ䛿ẕぶ䜈䛾䛔䜛䚹䛣䛾Ⅼ䛛䜙䚸఍ヰ genre 䛜ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ㄒ䜚䛛䛡䛷䛒䜛䚹䜎䛯䚸䠄29䠅䛾䛂䈈䛸ᛮ䛔䜎䛩䜘䛃䛿∗ぶ䜢ື䛛䛩ᑐヰᛶ䛜ල⌧໬䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛯䛰䛧䚸ᑐヰᛶ䜢ල⌧໬䛩䜛䛰䛡䛷䜘䛖䛻䛸䛔䛖䚸ẕぶ䜈䛾ᣦ♧䛾୍㒊䛷䚸୺ほⓗ䛻䝬䞊䜽䛥䜜䛯䝰䝎䛺䛟䚸㝞㏙䜔ᥦ᱌䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢ᢸ䛖ᩥ䜢⏝䛔䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜚䚸ᑓ㛛ᐙ䝸䝔䜱䛷䛒䜛䚹∗ぶ䛾⫱ඣ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ᙅ䛔ᚰⓗែᗘ䜢♧䛩䚸ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛸䛧䛶䛾 advice genre 䜒ඹ㉳䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸styles 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䛾Ⓨゝ䛾ᘬ⏝䛷䛒䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸ㄞ⪅䛾┦ㄯ┦ᡭ䛸䛧䛶䛾䜰䜲䝕䠄32䠅䛿ぶ䛜෭㟼䛻䛺䜛ᚲせᛶ䛻㛵䛩䜛㝞㏙䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䛣䛷䚸෭㟼䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䚸䛥䜙䛻䚸ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛾Ⓨゝ䛻ᇶ䛵䛝䚸∗ぶ䛾⫱ඣ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛䛻䛺䜛䛣䛸䛜䛂኱ษ䛃䛸ホ౯䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜚௨㝆䛾ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛻䜘䜛䜰䝗ᚲせᛶ䜢ᙅ䜑䜛䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䜒♧䛥䜜䜛䚹䝞䜲䝇䛾ᚲせᛶ䛜♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䛂䛛䜒䛧䜜䜎䛫䜣䛃䛿䝰䝎䝸䝔䜱໬䛷䛒䜚䚸ぶ䛜෭㟼䛻䛺䜛ᚲせᛶ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ᙅ䛔ᚰⓗែᗘ䛜

5.3 䛄AERA with Kids䛅⾲䛥䜜䚸䛣䜜䛿෭㟼䛥䜢Ḟ䛔䛶䛧䜎䛖ㄞ⪅䛻ᑐ䛩䜛㓄៖䛷䛒䜛䚹䛥<䝕䞊䝍 5>2009 ᖺ⛅ྕ䛂୰Ꮫཷ㦂㻌 ∗ぶ䛾䝧䝇䝖䝫䝆䝅䝵䞁䛃䜙䛻䚸䠄39䠅䚸䠄40䠅䛿ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛻䜘䜛ホ౯䛷䛒䜚䚸䝰䝎䝸䝔䜱໬䛿䛥䜜

䠄P102䠅

䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹䛭䜜ᨾ䚸ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛸䛧䛶ᐈほᛶ䜢ᣢ䛴䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䛜

䠄30䠅∗ぶ䛾䜋䛹䜘䛔㊥㞳ឤ䛸䛿?㻌 Ꮚ䛹䜒䛰䛡䛷䛺䛟䚸ዟ䛥䜣䜈䛾♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹

䠄31䠅䝣䜷䝻䞊䜰䝑䝥䜒ᛀ䜜䛪䛻!
6. ⤖ㄽヰ䜢⪺䛔䛯୰Ꮫ⏕䛯䛱䛿䚸୰Ꮫཷ㦂䛻㛵䜟䜛∗ぶ䛾Ⰻ䛔䛸䛣䜝䜒ᝏ䛔䛸䛣䜝䜒䚸ᛮ䛔䛾䜋䛛෭㟼䛻ぢ䛶䜎䛧䛯䚹䜐䛧䜝∗ぶ䜒ẕぶ䜒᪥ᮏ䛾୧ぶྥ䛡⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛾グ஦䜢ศᯒ䛧䚸genres䚸discourses䚸኱ே䛾䜋䛖䛜䚸䠄32䠅䜒䛖ᑡ䛧෭㟼䛻䛂❧䛱఩⨨䛃䜢ぢᴟ䜑䜛䛣䛸䛜኱styles 䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙∗ぶ䛸ẕぶ䛾⫱ඣᙺ๭䛜䛔䛛䛻⾲㇟䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛ษ䛺䛾䛛䜒䛧䜜䜎䛫䜣䚹䛾䛛䜢⪃ᐹ䛧䛯䚹䛭䛾⤖ᯝ䚸ୖグ䛾⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛿∗ぶ䜒ㄞ⪅ᑐ㇟䛸బ⸨ඛ⏕䛾䠄33䠅∗ぶ䛾䜋䛹䜘䛔Ꮡᅾឤ䛾ぢ䛫᪉ 5 䜹᮲䛧䛶䛔䜛䛻䜒㛵䜟䜙䛪䚸䛂ẕぶ䛜୺䛻⫱ඣ䞉ᐙ஦䛻ᚑ஦䛧䚸∗ぶ䛿…

ẕぶ䜢ᡭఏ䛖Ꮡᅾ䛻䛩䛞䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ఏ⤫ⓗ᝿ᐃ䛜⾲㇟䛥䜜䛶䛔

3䠄34䠅ጔ䛾䛂୺ᑟᶒ䛃䜢ᑛ㔜䛩䜉䛧䜛䛣䛸䛜᫂䜙䛛䛸䛺䛳䛯䚹䜎䛪䚸genres 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸≉㞟グ஦ genre

䠄35䠅ཷ㦂ຮᙉ䛾᪥㡭䛾㠃ಽぢ䜢ጔ䛻௵䛫䛶䛔䜛䛾䛷䛒䜜䜀䚸䛾୰䛷䚸䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 genre䚸䜰䝗䝞䜲䝇 genre 䛸䛔䛳䛯ᵝ䚻䛺 genres

䠄36䠅䛂ጔ䛾୺ᑟᶒ䛃䜢ᑛ㔜䛧䚸ጔ䛾⪃䛘䚸ពぢ䛻༑ศ⪥䜢ഴ䛡䜛䚹䜢౑⏝䛧䚸㐍Ṍⓗ䛺⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛸䛧䛶∗ぶ䛸ẕぶ䛾⫱ඣᙺ๭䜢⾲㇟䛯䛰䛧䚸┦ㄯ䛥䜜䛯䛸䛝䛻䛿䚸⮬ศ䛾⪃䛘䜢䛝䛱䜣䛸ఏ䛘஫䛔䛾ඹ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ᑟධ㒊䛷䛿䚸఍ヰ genre 䜒౑⏝䛧䚸ㄞ⪅䛜グ஦䛻ධ䜚䜔

㏻ㄆ㆑䜢䚹䛩䛔䜘䛖䛻䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛰䛜䚸discourses 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸‘Part-time father

4䠄37䠅ጔ䜈䛾༠ຊ䜢ᝰ䛧䜎䛺䛔/ Mother as main parent’ discourse䚸䛭䜜䜢ᨭᣢ䛩䜛 discourses䠄౛䚸䛹䛖䠄38䠅༠ຊ䛧䛯䜙䛔䛔䛛䜢⋡┤䛻ጔ䛻⪺䛝䚸䛷䛝䜛䛰䛡䛭䛾ᕼ

‘Father as mother’s bumbling assistant,’ ‘Mother as manager of theᮃ䛻ἢ䛳䛯ᙧ䛷ດຊ䛩䜛䚹䛡䛳䛧䛶䛂༠ຊ䛧䛶䜔䛳䛶䛔䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖

father’s role in housework’䛺䛹䠅䛜୺䛻෌⏕⏘䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸ព㆑䛷䛿䠄39䠅䝎䝯䚹⢭⚄ⓗ䛻ᙇ䜚䛴䜑䛶䛔䜛䠄40䠅ጔ䜢䝣䜷䝻䞊䛩∗ぶ䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸ẕぶ䛜୺䛺ᐙ஦ᚑ஦⪅䛰䛸䛔䛖ఏ⤫ⓗᛶูᙺ๭ศ
ᴗ䛜๓ᥦ䛸䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹styles 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䜢ල⌧䜛ኌ᥃䛡䜒䠄41䠅኱஦䚹…

໬䛧䚸ㄞ⪅䛾┦ㄯ┦ᡭ䜔ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛸䛧䛶䛾䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䜢ΰ஺䛥㻌 discourses 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䠄30䠅䛸䠄33䠅䛾䛂䜋䛹䜘䛔䛃䛛䜙䚸∗ぶ䛾⫱䛫䛺䛜䜙䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛿ẕぶ䛾⫱ඣ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ᙉ䛔ᚰⓗែᗘ䚸∗ぶඣ䜈䛾㛵୚䛿 ᐃ䛥䜜䜛䜒䛾䛸䜏䛺䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹∗ぶ䛿㊥㞳䜢ಖ䛾⫱ඣ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ᙅ䛔ᚰⓗែᗘ䜢♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛱䚸㐺ᗘ䛻⫱ඣ䛻ᚑ஦䛷䛝䜛䛸䛔䛖⾲㇟䛿䛂䛩䛷䛻⫱ඣᚑ஦⪅䛜䛚䜚䚸䛭䜜䛿ẕぶ䛷䛒䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖᝿ᐃ䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸ẕぶཧ⪃ᩥ⊩䛜⫱ඣ䛾୰ᚰ䛷䛒䜚䚸∗ぶ䛜㛵䜟䜙䛺䛟䛶䜒ၥ㢟䛺䛔䛣䛸䛜ᙜ↛

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge:
Polity Press.

ど䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸䠄34䠅䛸䠄36䠅䛿䚸ẕぶ䛜୰Ꮫཷ㦂䛾୺䛺ᚑ஦ʊʊ. (2003). Analyzing Discouse: Textual Analysis for Social⪅䛷䛒䜚䚸∗ぶ䛾ᙺ๭䛾⟶⌮䜒䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖᝿ᐃ䜢⾲ฟ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛥Research. London: Routledge.

䜙䛻䚸䠄31䠅䚸䠄37䠅䚸䠄38䠅䚸䠄40䠅䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿䚸䛂∗ぶ䛃䛾⫱ඣෆᐜ䜢⾲䛩ㄒᙡ䛿䚸䛂ඹ᭷䛃䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸䛂༠ຊ䛃㛵ಀ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸∗ぶ䛿

Marshall, H. (1991). “The social construction of motherhood: an୰Ꮫཷ㦂䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸ẕぶ䛾ᡭຓ䛡䜢䛩䜛䛻䛩䛞䛺䛔䛸䛧䛶⾲㇟䛥

analysis of childcare and parenting manuals.” In A. Phoenix, A.

䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹᭱ᚋ䛻䚸䠄35䠅䛷䛿ᚑᒓ⠇䛂䡚䛷䛒䜜䜀䛃䛾౑⏝䛛䜙䚸

Woollett, and E. Lloyd (eds.) Motherhood: Meanings, Practices
and Ideologies, 66-85. London: Sage.

䛂∗ぶ䛿᪥㡭୰Ꮫཷ㦂䛾㠃ಽ䜢ぢ䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖᝿ᐃ䛜ാ䛔䛶䛔䜛䚹䜎䛯䚸䛂∗ぶ䛜ẖ᪥䛾୰Ꮫཷ㦂䛾㠃ಽ䜢䜏䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛃䛿ㄞ⪅䛻♧

Sunderland, J. (2000). “Baby entertainer; bumbling assistant and line䛥䜜䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸‘Part-time father / Mother as main parent’manager: discourses of fatherhood in parentcraft texts.” Discourse

discourse䚸‘Father as mother’s bumbling assistant’ discourse 䛜ᵓ⠏& Society 11:2, 249-274.

䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹genres 䛻⛣䜛䛸䚸䠄31䠅䛿ᥦ᱌䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䛯䛧䛶

4
−268−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ാࡃዪᛶ࡜ࠕዪࡽࡋࡉࠖɆ᪥ᮏࡢ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔࣮࣐࢘ࣥ㞧ㄅࡢㄯヰศᯒɆ኱㜰ᗓ❧኱Ꮫ㧗ᮌ బ▱Ꮚ
㸺Abstract㸼

This study clarifies the qualities Japanese society expects in career women. On
the basis of Talbot’s (1992) notion of “text population” and Fairclough’s (1995,
2001) concepts of Critical Discourse Analysis, I analyzed magazine articles on
Japanese career women in terms of writer-reader interactions, linguistic factors
and presuppositions. The results showed that the writer establishes a close
relationship with the readers in that the writer appreciates the readers’ abilities
and accepts their lack of confidence and imperfection. By denaturalizing therepresentations of Japanese career women, I determined how two seemingly
contradictory qualities ̿ the representations of “femininity” and “identity as
career women”̿coexist in the articles.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸㸯㸬࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࠊ 㸰㸬ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒࠊ㸱㸬࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕

㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࡢാࡃዪᛶ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࡛ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲㇟ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿
ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ஭ୖ㸦㸧ࡣࠊࠕ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢᥥࡃዪᛶീ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ᫬௦ࡢࡑࡢ♫఍ࡀᮇᚅࡍࡿࠊዪᛶࡢጼᙧࡸ⏕ࡁ᪉ࡸࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕዪᛶࡽࡋࡉࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊዪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢつ⠊ࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦୰␎㸧࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢᥥࡃዪᛶീࡣࠊ༢࡟ࠕ࠶ࡿ࡭ࡁࠖࠕ࠶ࡿࡣࡎࡢࠖࡶࡢ࡟࡜࡝ࡲ
ࡽࡎࠊࠕ⌧ᐇࠖࡢዪᛶീ࡟ࡶ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ㸦஭ୖ 㸸㸧ࠋࡇࡢゝⴥࡣࠊࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ
࣮࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊ࡀ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢ୰࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢ᝟ሗࡢཷࡅᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ⚾ࡓࡕࡀࡑࡢつ⠊࡟ྜࢃࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ᙳ㡪ࡲ࡛ࡶ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙳ㡪ຊࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿዪᛶ㞧ㄅࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ㞧ㄅࡢグ஦࡟᪥ᮏࡢ࢟
ࣕࣜ࢔࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡢ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲㇟ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ♫఍ࡀാࡃዪᛶ
࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞つ⠊ࡸ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ㸰㸬᪉ἲㄽ࡜ඛ⾜◊✲㸰㸬㸯 ᪉ἲㄽ
ᮏ◊✲ࡢ❧ሙࡣࠕゝㄒࢆᢈุⓗ࡟ぢࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊゝㄒࢆᙜ↛どࡋ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ Talbot㸦1992㸧
࡜ྠᵝࠊᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ (CDA) ࡢほⅬ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋCDA ࡣࠊᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢࢥ
ࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ♫఍≧ἣࡸ♫఍⤌⧊ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡸヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸࠿࡟⌧ᐇࢆ๰ࡾฟࡋࠊ
࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ࢆ⾲ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ࡣ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿゝㄒ࡟

1
−269−

働く女性と「女らしさ」―日本のキャリアウーマン雑誌の談話分析―

ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ୍㈏ᛶࡀ☜❧ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡁࠊࡇࡢᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡓ࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ࡣࠊᙜ
↛どࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ CDA ࡢどᗙࠊ≉࡟ Fairclough (1995, 2001)ࡢほⅬ࡜ࠊTalbot㸦1992㸧ࡢ text population࡟࠾ࡅࡿ interactants, characters, subject positions ࡢせᅉࡢศᯒࠊ࡞ࡽࡧ࡟ㄒᙡࡢศᯒ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ
᭩ࡁᡭ࡜ㄞ⪅ࡢ㛫࡛ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊᙼࡽࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕
ࢸ࢕ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ୰࡛ఱࡀ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡾࠊఱࡀᙜ↛どࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
㸰㸬㸰ඛ⾜◊✲
ඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕゝㄒࡀዪᛶࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞♫఍ⓗ୺య࡜ࡋ࡚ࠗᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠘࠿ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿ◊✲࡛࠶ࡿୖグࡢ Talbot㸦1992㸧ࡢ௚࡟ࠊ௨ୗࡢ◊✲ࢆཧ↷ࡋࡓࠋHayashi(1997)ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࡢዪᛶ㞧ㄅࡢゝㄒⓗ࣭┦஫స⏝ⓗ≉ᚩࡢศᯒ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡣࢹ࢕ࢫ
ࢥ࣮ࢫࡢࣃ࣮࣡࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄞ⪅ࡢࠕ♫఍ⓗ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࠖࢆᵓ⠏ࡋࠊㄞ⪅࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ “ hierarchal
interdependence”ࡢ㛵ಀࢆసࡾ࠶ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋRadha(2009.)ࡣࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࡢ᪂⪺ࡸ㞧ㄅࡢ୰࡛ዪᛶ㉳ᴗᐙࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
Hung-Chun㸦2009㸧ࡣࠊྎ‴ࡢࢱࣈࣟ࢖ࢻ⣬࡟࠾ࡅࡿዪᛶ࢔࣮ࢸ࢕ࢫࢺ࡜⏨ᛶ࢔࣮ࢸ࢕ࢫࢺࡢ
⾲㇟ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊዪᛶ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ♫఍ࡢᮇᚅࡀዪᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ࡞グ㏙࡜ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬ࢹ࣮ࢱᮏ◊✲ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ᪥ᮏࡢ᭶หㄅࠗ᪥⤒࣮࣐࢘ࣥ࠘ࡢ 2010 ᖺ 1 ᭶࠿ࡽ 12 ᭶ࡲ࡛ࡢ 12 ෉࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊㄞ⪅࡟࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ≉㞟グ஦ࡢぢฟࡋ㒊ศࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ≉㞟グ஦ࡣẖ᭶ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢ≉㞟ࡢෆᐜࡣẖᅇ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ interactants ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ subject positions ࡀ⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ characters ࡀࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ୰࡛ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋ
㸲㸬ศᯒ࡜⪃ᐹࡲࡎࠊグ஦ࡢㄒᙡࡸࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢᶵ⬟ࢆศᯒࡋࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ዪᛶ
ᛶ࡜࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ᛶࡀ⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ๓ᥦࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡿ࢟ࣕࣜ
࢔࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
㸲㸬㸯 ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢᶵ⬟࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢᶵ⬟ࡣࠕᥦ᱌ࠖࠕ☜ㄆࠖ
ࠕ㉁ၥࠖࠕ୺ᙇࠖࡢ㸲✀㢮࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡓࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊࠕᥦ᱌ࠖࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢥࢶࢆᢲࡉ࠼࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄞ⪅ࡢ㈇ᢸࢆ㍍ῶࡋࠊ
ࠕࡁࡗ࠿ࡅ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡳ࡚ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢝ࢪࣗ࢔ࣝ࡞ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡼࡾࠊᙉไࢆ㑊ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡟ࡣࠊࠕࢫࢣࢪ࣮ࣗࣝ⟶⌮ࡢࡸࡾ࠿ࡓ࡟ཎᅉࠖ࡜࠸࠺᭩ࡁᡭ࡜ࠊィ⏬㏻ࡾ࡟⏕άࡋࡓ࠸࣮࣡࢟

2

−270−

第14回大会発表論文集第７号

ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࢘ࣥ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ୧⪅࡜ࡶ࡟ࣉࣟࣇ࢙ࢵࢩࣙࢼࣝ࡞どⅬࡢ subject position ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ୍᪉
࡛ࠊ᭩ࡁᡭ࡜ㄞ⪅ࡢ㊥㞳ࡢ᭱ᑠ໬࡜ぶࡋࡉࡢ⾲᫂ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊぶࡋ࠸௰㛫࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ subject
position ࡶྲྀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊඃࡋࡃᑟࡃ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡼࡾࠊTalbot㸦1992: 189㸧࡟ࡼࡿ sisterly relationship ࡢᵓ⠏ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࠕ☜ㄆࠖࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ┤᥋ᘬ⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ㝿࡟ᝎࡳࢆᢪ࠿࠼࡚࠸ࡿዪᛶࡢ
character ࢆసࡾୖࡆࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⮬ಙࡢ࡞࠸࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡀ⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭩ࡁᡭࡣࠊぶࡋࡉ࡜࢝ࢪࣗ࢔ࣝࡉࡀఏ࠼ࡽࢀࡿㄒᙡ࡜ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡼࡾࠊㄞ⪅࡬ᐤࡾῧ࠸ࠊ⌮ゎࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸୍᪉࡛ࠊࡁࡕࢇ࡜ᑐฎࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡢせồ࡟ᛂ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ㉁ၥࠖࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊㄒᙡࡸ๓ᥦ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡢ೺ᗣ
ࡸ⏕ά㠃࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᠱᛕࡸ㠀㞴ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡣࠊㄞ⪅࡟ᚷ៸ࡢ࡞࠸ពぢࡀゝ࠼ࡿຓゝ⪅ࡢ subject position ࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄞ⪅ࡣࠊ௜ࡁ࠶࠸ࡸ⩦࠸஦ࡸࣇ࢓ࢵࢩ࡛ࣙࣥ㡹ᙇࡿ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࡛࢘ࣥ࠶ࡿ୍᪉ࠊඃᰂ୙᩿࡛ᩚ⌮ୗᡭ࡛ᅔᝨࡋ࡚࠸ࡿዪᛶࡢ subject position ࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ୙᏶඲࡛࠿ࢃ࠸࠸ࠊ࠸࡜࠾ࡋ࠸ࠖㄞ⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ඲࡚ࢆ᩿ࡕษࡿࡢ࡛
ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢤ࣮࣒ឤぬ࡛௙ศࡅ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ࠊᩚ⌮ᩚ㡻࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㍍࠸ຓゝࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᫬஦ⓗ࡞ㄒᙡࡀຓゝ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࠿ࡽࠊࡑࢀࡀࡁࡕࢇ࡜⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡢ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ᛶࡶ⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
ࠕ୺ᙇࠖࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ∦௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠊ⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ
࢕ࢆᣢࡘேࡀㄞ⪅ࡢ୰࡟࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓࠊ∦௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡸ⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣⰋࡃ࡞
࠸ࠊኚ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊዪᛶᛶ࡜࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ᛶࡢ୧᪉ࡢせᅉࡀ๓ᥦ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄞ⪅ࡢ㏞࠸ࡸ୙Ᏻ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ┦ᡭࡢ⬟ຊࢆ⫯ᐃࡍࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ
ࠕ∦௜ࡅ࣋ࢱࡉࢇࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ࠿
ࢃ࠸࠸ྡ⛠ࡢ character ࢆసࡗࡓࡾࠊ࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼࡢ౑⏝࡛῝้ᗘࢆᙅࡵࡓࡾࡋ࡚ࠊㄞ⪅ࡢᚰࡢ㈇ᢸ
ࢆ㍍ࡃࡋ࡚୺ᙇࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊㄞ⪅ࡢ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ᛶ࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯࡜ఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ዪᛶᛶ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ
㸲㸬㸰 ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡢ⾲㇟ࡲࡎࠊࠕඖẼ࡟ാࡃ࡭ࡁ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔࣮࣐࢘ࣥࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲㇟ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽࠕዪᛶࡣ௙஦࡛⑂
ࢀ࡚ᖐࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦࡸࠕḟࡢ᪥௙஦࡟ฟࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊඖẼ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ
࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦࡀㄞࡳ࡜ࡽࢀࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊࠕ᏶⎍࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࢟ࣕࣜ࢔࣮࣐࢘ࣥࠖࡢ⾲㇟ࡀࠊㄒᙡࡸྡモ໬࡟ࡼࡿㄞ⪅ࡢ୙‶ࡸហ⑵ࡢᥦ♧࡛ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ᏶⎍࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ
ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ
ࠕࣉࣞࢵࢩ࣮ࣕࢆឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔࣮࣐࢘ࣥࠖࡢ⾲㇟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ∦௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸
஦ࡸ⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸஦ࡣⰋࡃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦ࠿ࡽࠊㄞ⪅ࡀᅔᝨࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡀᥦ᱌ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࢖ࣥ
ࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡾㄞ⪅ࡢᅔᝨࡀ⌧ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸳㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔࣮࣐࢘ࣥ㞧ㄅࡢグ஦࡟ࡣࠊ௙஦ࡸ▱㆑࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡢ

3

−271−

働く女性と「女らしさ」―日本のキャリアウーマン雑誌の談話分析―࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ᛶ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊㄞ⪅ࡢᙅࡉࡸ㢗ࡾ࡞ࡉࡶ⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ௙஦ࢆ㡹ᙇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ༙㠃ࠊ኱ኚ⑂ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊᛁࡋࡃ࡚∦௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⌧ᐇࡢ≧ἣࡀࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠶ࡿࠗ᪥
⤒࣮࣐࢘ࣥ࠘ࡢグ஦࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ぢࡽࢀࡓࠕዪᛶᛶࠖࡣࠊ
ࠕ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ᛶࠖࡢ୍
㠃࡜ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ᏶⎍ࢆồࡵࡽࢀࠊࣉࣞࢵࢩ࣮ࣕࢆ࠿ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡀᨾࡢࠊࡶ
ࢁࡉࠊᙅࠎࡋࡉࠊ㢗ࡾ࡞ࡉ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᙼዪࡓࡕࡢ㡹ᙇࡾ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿᙉࡉࡢ⿬ഃ࡟࠶ࡿࠊຓࡅ࡚
࠶ࡆࡓࡃ࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡞୙᏶඲ࡉࡸᙅࡉ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡽࡀࠊ⫯ᐃࡉࢀࡿ౯್ほ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ୍ぢ▩┪ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡇࡢΰᅾࡍࡿ⾲㇟ࡀࠊ⌧௦ࡢാࡃዪᛶ࡟ᮇᚅ
ࡉࢀࡿ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
ïïï. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
ïïï. 2001. Language and Power (second eidition). London: Longman.
ïïï. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Gauntlett, D. 2008. Media, Gender and Identity 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
Hayashi, R. 1997. “Hierarchical interdependence expressed through conversational styles inJapanese women’s magazines.” Discourse & Society 8:3, 359-389.
ᯘ ♩Ꮚ㸬2008㸬ࠕ⤫ᣓⓗಶே໬ࠖࠊᯘ Ꮿ⏨㸦⦅ⴭ㸧ࠗㄯヰศᯒࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳɆ⌮ㄽ࡜ᐇ㊶Ɇ࠘
261-264ࠊᮾி㸸◊✲♫㸬ᯘ Ꮿ⏨㸦⦅ⴭ㸧㸬2008㸬ࠗㄯヰศᯒࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳɆ⌮ㄽ࡜ᐇ㊶Ɇ࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫㸬
஭ୖ ㍤Ꮚ௚㸦⦅ⴭ㸧㸬2009. ࠗ᪂⦅ ᪥ᮏࡢࣇ࢙࣑ࢽࢬ࣒㸵 ⾲⌧࡜࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࠘ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬஭ୖ ㍤Ꮚ㸬2009㸬ࠕ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡀዪᛶࢆࡘࡃࡿ㸽 ዪᛶࡀ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࢆࡘࡃࡿ㸽ࠖ஭ୖ ㍤Ꮚ௚㸦⦅ⴭ㸧ࠗ᪂⦅ ᪥ᮏࡢࣇ࢙࣑ࢽࢬ࣒㸵Ɇ⾲⌧࡜࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ɇ࠘1-38ࠊᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬
Iyer, R. 2009. “Entrepreneurial identities and the problematic of subjectivity inmedia-mediated discourses.” Discourse & Society 20:2, 241-263.
㧗ཎ ⬶࣭ᯘ Ꮿ⏨࣭ᯘ ♩Ꮚ㸬 2002㸬ࠗࣉࣛࢢ࣐ࢸ࢕ࢵࢡࢫࡢᒎ㛤࠘ᮾி㸸ວⲡ᭩ᡣ㸬
Talbot, M. 1992. “The construction of gender in a teenage magazine.” In Norman Fairclough(ed.) Critical Language Awareness 174-199.
Wang, H. 2009. “Language and ideology: gender stereotypes of female and male artists in
Taiwanese tabloids.” Discourse & Society 20:6, 747-774.
୚ㅰ㔝ᬗᏊ㸬1921㸬ࠕ፬ே೜ᴦ㒊 㟷✵ᩥᗜࠖhttp://www.aozora.gr.jp(2011/10/10 ࢔ࢡࢭࢫ)㸬
ศᯒ㈨ᩱ
ࠗ᪥⤒ WOMAN࠘2010 ᖺ㸯᭶㹼12 ᭶ ᮾி㸸᪥⤒ BP ♫

4

−272−

シンポジウムSymposium

第14回大会発表論文集

−273−

第７号

−274−

第14回大会発表論文集

−275−

第７号

−276−

第14回大会発表論文集

−277−

第７号

−278−

第14回大会発表論文集

−279−

第７号

−280−

第14回大会発表論文集

−281−

第７号

付

録

第14回大会発表論文集

第７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（龍谷大学社会学部・五十嵐海理宛）（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。）−283−

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。

−284−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７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。

−285−

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。

−286−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７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）−287−『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−288−

第14回大会発表論文集

第７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−289−

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−290−第14回大会発表論文集

第７号

name, and authorʼs affiliation. The abstract should begin with the word ʻAbstractʼ in theupper left corner.
4. Keywords:
a. A maximum of 5 keywords should be given below the abstract, preceded by
ʻ【Keywords】ʼ. [Refer to the figure below.]b. Main text should be preceded by two blank lines.

Title
Authorʼs nameAuthorʼs affiliation＜Abstract＞
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・【Keywords】：1, 2, 3,
Main Text

2. Other important points
a. All contributors must have given a lecture presentation, a workshop presentation, or aposter presentation at PSJʼs Conference of the Society.
b. Aside from necessary corrections, manuscript contents should be faithful to the content of
the presentation actually given at the Annual Meeting.
c. As a general rule, manuscripts should be written in English.
d. Extended versions of papers which have appeared in the Proceedings may be submitted forreview 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−291−

<第15回大会で発表された方へのお知らせ>
第15回『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）（第８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８号）の発行は、来年度の大会時となります。
（日本語用論学会−292−

事務局より）

Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan

編集後記『日本語用論学会

第14回大会発表論文集』第７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27件（日本語発表18件、英語発表9件）、ワークショッ
プ発表1件、ポスターセッション10件（日本語発表8件、英語発表2件）、シンポジウム１件、合計39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７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）に永久保存されております。第15回大会後は『日本語用論学会

第15回

大会発表論文集』第8号を発行する予定でございますので、どうぞご期待ください。

（『大会発表論文集』編集担当：鈴木光代

日本語用論学会

第14回大会発表論文集

第７号（2012）（Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan）
発行日

2012年11月3日

代

表

者

林

編集・発行

宅男

日本語用論学会

事務局（The Pragmatics Society of Japan）〒564-8680 大阪府吹田市山手町3-3-35
関西大学 外国語学部 山本 英一 研究室内

E-mail: psj.secretary@gmail.com
印

刷 （株）
田中プリント〒600-8047 京都市下京区松原通麸屋町東入

TEL：075-343-0006

FAX：075-341-4476

森山卓郎）

PSJ

ⓒ日本語用論学会