JACET KANSAI JOURNAL
THE JOURNAL OF THE KANSAI CHAPTER OF
THE JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE ENGLISH TEACHERS

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE 2011
CHAIRPERSON

Yuko Oguri
University of Shiga Prefecture
MEMBERS

Kaori Nitta
Kinki University
Sonia Sonoko Strain
Himeji Dokkyo University
Tomoko Yashima
Kansai University
EDITORIAL OFFICE

Hiroyuki Yamanishi
Kansai Gaidai University
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the following colleagues who served
as reviewers of the papers considered for publication during the preparation of JACET
Kansai Journal No. 13:
LIST OF REVIEWERS (in alphabetical order)
Nobuhiko Akamatsu (Doshisha Univ.)
Atsuko Kuramoto (Hiroshima International
Univ.)
Masumi Azuma (Emeritus, Kobe Design Univ.)
Atsushi Mizumoto (Kansai Univ.)
Sonoko Harada (Emeritus, Kobe College)
Hiromi Murakami (Kansai Gaidai College)
Keiko Hayashi (Hiroshima Jogakuin Univ.)
Kazunori Nozawa (Ritsumeikan Univ.)
Maiko Ikeda (Kansai Univ.)
Osato Shiki (Kwansei Gakuin Univ.)
Hiroyuki Imai (Hyogo Univ. of Teacher
Yukari Tokioka (Osaka Sangyo Univ.)
Education)
Shin'ichiro Ishikawa (Kobe Univ.)
Masanori Toyota (Kansai Gaidai Univ.)
Emiko Izumi (Kyoto Univ. of Education)
Toshihiko Yamaoka (Hyogo Univ. of Teacher
Education)
Eiko Kawagoe (Kobe City College of Nursing)
Kazuhito Yamato (Kobe Univ.)
Hiroshi Kimura (Kinki Univ.)
Haruyo Yoshida (Osaka Kyoiku Univ.)
Copying All content in this journal is protected by the Japanese copyright law. All rights reserved.
The material therein may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it isreproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context after permission has been granted fromthe Kansai Chapter of JACET. If any of the items with copyright in this journal are republished or
copied, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.
Instructions for Contributors can be found in the appendix and via http://www.jacetkansai.org/kako.html#kiyou
ᥖ㍕ㄽᩥࡣ㸪JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊㸪࠾ࡼࡧ JACET 㛵す⣖せ⦅㞟⣖せጤဨ఍ࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ
The articles published herein do not reflect the opinions of JACET Kansai Chapter or the JACET
Kansai Journal Editorial Committee.
© Kansai Chapter, The Japan Association of College English Teachers, 2011

JACET Kansai Journal
No. 13 March 2011

Editorial
Yuko Oguri
Toward the 40th Anniversary of JACET Kansai

ii

Invited Articleዊᳰ ↢ᄦᣣᧄߩ৻⽾ߒߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩᡷ㕟ߦะߌߡ

1

Research Articles
ੳ⑼ ᕶᓼ․ቯቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߦ߅ߌࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮Ყセ㧦ߎࠇ߆ࠄߩ ESAP ⎇ⓥߩᣇะᕈ

14

Miyuki Kido
Differing Effects of Shared Reading on Receptive Vocabulary Learning of Nouns,
Verbs and Adjectives in Young Japanese L2 Learners

26

Yukari Isobe
Representation and Processing of Formulaic Sequences in L2 Mental Lexicon:
How Do Japanese EFL Learners Process Multi-word Expressions?

38᫪ਅ ⟤๺࡮ਛ㊁ 㓁ሶ࡮㐷↰ ୃᐔ࡮⏷ㄝ ࠁ߆ࠅ࡮ᢧ⮮ ୶ሶ࡮ᐔ੗ ᗲ᝼ਈേ⹖᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ߦ߅ߌࠆᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⛔⺆⸘↹㧦⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴ߦၮߠߊᬌ⸛

50

ศ↰ ⌀⟤
஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦ߅ߌࠆᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ᷹⢻ജߣ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߩᓇ㗀

62

Application Reportᓟਛ 㓁ሶ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߦ߅ߌࠆᢥቇ૞ຠዉ౉ߩ⺞ᩏႎ๔̆⧷⹞ߩ႐ว̆

74

Appendices‫ޡ‬JACET 㑐⷏♿ⷐ‫ޢ‬ೀⴕⷙቯ86‫ޡ‬JACET 㑐⷏♿ⷐ‫ޢ‬ᛩⓂⷙቯ

88



ii

JACET Kansai Journal, 13, ii. (2011) © JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281 Printed in JAPAN.

Toward the 40th Anniversary of JACET Kansai

The JACET Kansai Journal Editorial Committee is pleased to present JACET Kansai Journal No.13.
The first invited article, which was written by the former JACET president Ikuo Koike, is followedby six articles. Koike-sensei’s article reviews past 30 years of Japanese English education; clearlypointing out problems and giving suggestions based on his own research for our English curricula tosurvive in this competitive global economy. This article also provides very stimulating and helpful
suggestions for us to consider in our own teaching.
The selected six articles are the products of many people’s efforts and a highly engaged
review process. This selection process was educational for everyone involved. At the same time,
we owe our reviewers a great debt of gratitude for their time and contributions. All papers arepresented in the order of submission within each category, encouraging the practice of giving
priority to earlier submission.
Last but not least, I would like to express my deepest appreciation personally to the current
Editorial Committee members; Kaori Nitta, Sonia Sonoko Strain, Tomoko Yashima and special
thanks to Hiroyuki Yamanishi of the Editorial Office, who made this journal a reality.
JACET Kansai will celebrate 40th anniversary this year. To commemorate this anniversary wewill have a special issue. Please check the guidelines for details on the submission procedures andrequirements available at the end of this journal or http://www.jacet-kansai.org/file/toukoukitei.pdf.
A template for manuscripts to be submitted in English is available at http://www.jacetkansai.org/file/kiyoutemplate_e.doc. We are looking forward to editing this special edition.
On behalf of the JACET Kansai Journal Editorial Committee
Yuko Oguri
March, 2011

ii
ii

JACET Kansai Journal, 13, 1–13. (2011) © JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281 Printed in JAPAN.

ᣣᧄߩ৻⽾ߒߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩᡷ㕟ߦะߌߡዊᳰ ↢ᄦ
ᘮᙥ⟵Ⴖᄢቇ࡮᣿ᶏᄢቇฬ⹷ᢎ᝼
JACET ․೎㘈໧

1. ߪߓ߼ߦ
21 ਎♿ߦ౉ߞߡએ᧪㧘ᕆỗߥࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ൻᤨઍ߇೔᧪ߒ㧘ᣣᧄ߽ߘࠇߦㆡᔕߔࠆࠃ߁ߦ
⚻ᷣ㧘᡽ᴦ㧘ⴕ᡽㧘ᢎ⢒ߥߤߩ઀⚵ߺࠍᣧᕆߦୃᱜߔࠆߎߣࠍᔅⷐߣߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ห᭽ߦ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߩᡷ㕟߽ߘߩ৻ㇱߢ㧘ㆱߌߡߪㅢࠇߥ޿⁁ᴫߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ߪߡߟ߆ޕ‬㧘⧷☨␠ળߩ⸒⺆ߣᢥൻࠍቇ߱ߎߣࠍ߽ߞߡߔߋࠇߚ᳃ᣖ࿖ኅߦዋߒߢ߽ㄼࠈ߁ߣ޿߁ᗧ᳇ㄟߺ߇޽ߞ
ߚ‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘1980 ᐕઍ߆ࠄߪᖱႎᛛⴚߩ⊒㆐ߦࠃߞߡ਎⇇⻉࿖ߢ౒ㅢߩࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪ
ࡦ⸒⺆ࠍ⧷⺆ߦ᳞߼ࠆ௑ะ߇ߢߡ߈ߡ⚻ᷣ㧘᡽ᴦ㧘⑼ቇߩ਎⇇ߢߩᖱႎߩ੤឵ࠍߔࠆࠃ߁
ߦߥࠅ㧘Უ⺆ߣߒߡߩ⧷⺆૶↪ੱญࠃࠅ߽╙ 2 ⸒⺆ߩ૶↪⠪ߣߒߡߩ⧷⺆ੱญ㧘ᄖ࿖⺆ߣߒߡߩ⧷⺆ੱญ߇ᄙߊߥࠅ㧘ߐࠄߦ੹ᣣߦ޿ߚߞߡߪࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞਎⇇ߩ౒ㅢ⸒⺆ߣߒߡߩ⁛භ⊛࿾૏ࠍ⧷⺆߇࿕߼ߡ޿ߊ⁁ᘒߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ߘࠇߣߣ߽ߦ㧘ฦ࿖ߪ⥄࿖ߩᮭ⋉ࠍਥᒛߒ㧘┹੎␠ળߦ౉ࠅ㧘౒ㅢ⸒⺆ࠍ⥄↱ߦ૶߃ࠆੱ᧚ࠍჇ߿ߔߎߣߦ ๮ߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߘࠇߣߣ߽ߦ native speaker ਗߺ㧘ߐࠄߦߘࠇߦㄭ޿⢻ജࠍ߽ߞߚੱ߮ߣ߇Ⴧ߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫ߦ☨⧷ߢ߆ߥߩߎޕ‬࿾ℂ⊛ߦߪᲧセ⊛㆙޿ࠕࠫࠕ⻉࿖ߪ㧘⥄ಽߚߜߩᮭ⋉ࠍ᜛ᄢߔࠆ⋡⊛ߣߒߡ⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩะ਄ࠍ⋡ᜰߔࠃ߁ߦߥ
ߞߡ߅ࠅ㧘࿖ኅ᜼ߍߡߩ᣿⏕ߥ⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩᝄ⥝᡽╷ࠍᒝൻߒߡ߅ࠅ㧘ᦨㄭߘߩലᨐ߇ࠃ߁߿ߊ㗼࿷ൻߒߡ߈ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ߣߎࠈ߇㧘ᣣᧄߪߎߩ✕ㄼᗵ߇৻ㇱߩᄢડᬺߦ஍࿷ߒ㧘᡽ᐭ⥄り߇ߎߩ໧㗴߇࿖ߩㆇ๮
ߦ㑐ࠊࠆߎߣߣ޿߁ᗧ⼂߇⷗߃ߥ޿‫ࡦ࡚ࠪ࡯ࠤ࠾ࡘࡒࠦ⺆⧷߽ੱ⥸৻ޕ‬⢻ജ߇࿖㓙┹੎␠ળߦᛂߜൎߟߚ߼ߦᔅⷐਇนᰳߢ޽ࠆߣ޿߁⹺⼂߇⿷ࠅߥ޿‫⻉ࠕࠫࠕޕ‬࿖ߩߥ߆ߢߚߛ߭
ߣࠅ⁛┙⁛ᱠߩ㆏ࠍᱠࠎߢ޿ࠆ‫ࠆ޽ߩ⼂⷗߇ࠇߘޕ‬ᣣᧄੱߣ޿߁⷗ᣇࠃࠅ߽߻ߒࠈ⁜޿ࠟ࡜ࡄࠧࠬ␠ળߦ㐽ߓߎ߽ߞߡ޿ߊߣ޿ࠊࠇࠆ⁁ᘒߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬᡽ᴦ߽ⴕ᡽߽ᢎ⢒߽൓޿߇಴ߡ
ߎߥ޿ߢ㧘੕޿ߦ⋧ᚻࠍᛕ್ߛߌߔࠆ⁁ᴫߢ޽ࠆ‫⺆⧷ޕ‬ᢎ⢒ߩ⋡⊛ߪ㧘࿖ኅߩജࠍિ߫ߔ
ߎߣߦ⚿߮ߟߊߣ޿߁ᗧ⼂߇㧘৻⥸ߦ⭯޿߹߹ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߦߐ߹ޕ‬㧘ෂᯏ⊛⁁ᴫ߇⃻ࠇߡ߈ߚߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߩ৻⽾ߒߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߦ㑐ߒߡߪ㧘ᦨㄭߪዊቇᩞ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠍ฽߼ࠆࠃ߁ߦߥ
ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ቇᩞ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߩၮ␆ߢ޽ࠆዊቇᩞ⧷⺆ߩࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩᡷༀߪᔅⷐᰳߊߴ߆ࠄߑࠆ໧㗴ߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߘࠇߦㆡᔕߔࠆߚ߼ߦߪ޽ࠄߚ߼ߡᣣᧄߩ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߩ૕♽㧘ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓࠍ⚵ߺ឵߃ࠆᔅⷐ߇ߢߡ߈ߚ‫ߪߢࠇߘޕ‬㧘ዊ㧘ਛ㧘㜞ߩ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠍ᡽╷㕙߆ࠄ⠨߃ߡߺࠃ߁‫ޕ‬ᦨೋߦ㧘ᣣᧄߩ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߩᩮᐙࠍߥߔቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ߩ╷ቯߣታᣉߩࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓࠍㅀߴࠆ‫ޕ‬ዊ㧘ਛ㧘㜞ࠍࠦࡦ࠻ࡠ࡯࡞ߔࠆᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒᡽╷ߪቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ߣߘࠇࠍലᨐ⊛ߦផㅴߔࠆ
ᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒᡽╷ળ⼏ߩ╵↳ߦࠃߞߡታᣉߐࠇߡߪߓ߼ߡ᦭ലߦߥࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬11

ዊᳰ ↢ᄦ

2. ቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ߩᡷᱜߣߘߩታᣉ
2.1 ၮᧄ⋡ᮡቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ߩၮᧄ⋡ᮡߪ㧘Ԙዊ㧘ਛ㧘㜞ߣ৻⽾ߒߡᄖ࿖⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦߩᛛ⢻ߩะ਄㧘ԙ⇣⸒⺆㧘⇣ᢥൻߩℂ⸃㧘ԚⓍᭂ⊛ߦࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦࠍ࿑ࠆᘒᐲߩ 3 㗄⋡ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߜ߁ߩߎޕ‬Ԙ㧘ԙߪᤘ๺ 22 ᐕߩ╙ 1 ࿁ߩቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔߆ࠄ੹ᣣ߹ߢ৻⽾ߒߡ޿ࠆၮᧄ
⋡ᮡߢ޽ࠅ㧘Ԛߪ 1989 ᐕߩቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ᡷቯએ㒠৻⽾ߒߡ޿ࠆ⋡ᮡߢ޽ࠆ‫ߦߊߣޕ‬Ԛߪ࿖㓙ൻߣࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ൻߩᵄߦኻᔕߔࠆ੐㗄ߣߒߡᣂߚߦขࠅ਄ߍࠄࠇߚ‫ޕ‬
2.2 ዊቇᩞᄖ࿖⺆ᵴേ ᣿ᴦᤨઍߦᆎ߹ࠅ㧘޽ࠆ⒟ᐲߪ⋓ࠎߢ޽ߞߚዊቇᩞ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߪᴺᓞ਄ᚢᓟᶖ߃ߚ߇㧘޽ࠄߚ߼ߡዊቇᩞ⧷⺆߇ᓳᵴߒߡ߈ߚ‫⺑ࠍ✲⚻ߩߘޕ‬᣿ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ዊቇᩞ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߩ㐿ᆎߦߟ޿ߡߪ㧘1984 ᐕਛᦥᩮ✚ℂ߇ᚢᓟߩᢎ⢒ߩ✚ὐᬌࠍ߅ߎߥ߁
ߚ߼ߦ㐿௅ߒߚ⥃ᤨᢎ⢒ክ⼏ળߦ߅޿ߡឭ಴ߐࠇߚ╙ 2 ᰴ╵↳㧔1986 ᐕ㧕ߩߥ߆ߦᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߩᡷ㕟ߩ৻Ⅳߣߒߡ◲නߥ߇ࠄᄖ࿖⺆ቇ⠌ᤨᦼߩᬌ⸛߇᣿⸥ߐࠇߚߎߣߦߪߓ߹ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ᐔᚑ 5㧔1993㧕ᐕ‫ޟ‬ᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߩᡷༀ⺞ᩏ⎇ⓥදജ⠪ળ⼏╵↳‫ޠ‬㧔ᐳ㐳ዊᳰ↢ᄦ㧕ߦࠃࠅ㧘ዊቇᩞ⧷⺆ታᣉߩᬌ⸛ࠍߪߓ߼ࠆߎߣ߇᳿߹ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
ᐔᚑ 2㨪6 ᐕᢥㇱ⋭ᢎ⢒⎇ⓥ㐿⊒ડ↹⹏ଔදജ⠪ળ⼏ߩ᳿ቯࠍฃߌߡ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߩታ㛎߇㐿ᆎߐࠇߚ‫ߡ߇߿ޕ‬ᐔᚑ 14㧔2002㧕ᐕߦ‫ࠆ߃૶߇⺆⧷ޟ‬ᣣᧄੱߩ⢒ᚑߩߚ߼ߩᚢ⇛᭴ᗐ‫ޠ‬㧔ᐳ㐳㆙ጊᢕሶᢥㇱ⑼ቇᄢ⤿㧕߇ࠬ࠲࡯࠻ߒ㧘✚วᡷ㕟᡽╷ߩ߽ߣᄙߊߩ໧㗴߇⸛⼏ߐࠇ㧘᳿ቯߐࠇߚ߇㧘ߘߩ㓙ߩ⺞ᩏߢߪ⧷⺆ᵴേ߇‫✚ޟ‬ว⊛ቇ⠌‫ߩޠ‬೑↪߇ᄙߊ㧘98㧑ߩో࿖ዊቇᩞ߇⧷⺆ᵴേࠍታᣉߒߡ޿ߚ‫ߡߒ߁ߎޕ‬ᐔᚑ 20 ᐕ 3 ᦬ߦᜰዉⷐ㗔ᡷᱜߦ઻޿㧘ዊቇᩞߦ⧷⺆ߪ‫ޟ‬ᄖ࿖⺆ᵴേ‫ߡߒߣޠ‬ᢎ⑼ߦḰߓߡ⹺߼ࠄࠇ㧘5, 6 ᐕ↢ߦㅳ 1 ᤨ㑆න૏ߢᔅୃ㧘ή⹏ଔߣ޿߁᧦ઙߢᐔᚑ 23 ᐕᐲ߆ࠄᱜᑼߦታᣉߐࠇࠆߎߣߦߥߞߚ‫⃻ޕ‬࿷ߪ⹜ⴕᦼ㑆ߢ޽ࠆ߇㧘߶ߣࠎߤߩዊቇᩞߢታᣉਛߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᢎ⑼ᦠߪߥ޿߇㧘ߘࠇߦḰߓࠆ߽ߩߣߒߡᢥ⑼⋭߇૞ᚑ㧘ో࿖ዊቇᩞߦήఘ㈩Ꮣߒߚ‫ޠ࠻࡯ࡁ⺆⧷ޟ‬5 ᐕ↪㧘6 ᐕ↪߇޽ࠆ‫⺆ޕ‬ᒵߪቯ߼ࠄࠇ
ߚ߽ߩߢߪߥ޿߇ታ⾰⊛ߦ⚂ 285 ⺆޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
2.3 ዊቇᩞᄖ࿖⺆ᵴേᣂ⸳ ዊቇᩞ⧷⺆ߩ⢛᥊ߣߒߡߪ㧘਎⇇ࠍⷒ߁ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ൻ߇⃻ታൻߒߡ޿ࠆߥ߆ߢ㧘ఽ┬ߩ࿖㓙දജ߳ߩ㑐ᔃ㧘⸒⺆ߦኻߔࠆ㑐ᔃ㧘․ߦ⧷⺆ߦኻߔࠆ⥝๧ࠍ߅ߎߒ㧘ਛቇ⧷⺆߳ߩࠬࡓ࡯ࠬߥㅪ៤ࠍ⠨߃ߡࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩ⚛࿾ࠍ㙃߁ᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆߣߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ㧘㖧࿖㧘ਛ࿖ߥߤߪ᣿⏕ߦ⧷⺆ߦࠃࠆࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩ㙃ᚑࠍዊቇᩞૐቇ
ᐕ߆ࠄ㜞ᩞ߹ߢ৻⽾ߒߡࠪࠬ࠹ࡓൻߒߡ߅ࠅ㧘Ⓧᭂ⊛ߦ⧷⺆⢻ജߩ㙃ᚑ㧘࿖㓙ℂ⸃߫߆ࠅߢߥߊ㧘⥄࿖ߩ⊒ዷࠍ਎⇇ฦ࿖ߦ⹺߼ߐߖࠃ߁ߣߔࠆᘒᐲߩ㙃ᚑߦ߽〯ߺㄟࠎߢ߅ࠅ㧘Ⓧᭂᨐᢓߥ᡹߼ߩᆫ൓ࠍᢎ⢒⋡ᮡߦߒߡ޿ࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬ᆫ൓ߪ㧘᧲ධࠕࠫࠕ⻉࿖㧘᰷☨⻉࿖ߢ৻⥸ߦ౒ㅢߒߡߺࠄࠇࠆ௑ะߢ޽ࠅ㧘࿖㓙ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⺆ߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ
⧷⺆ߩ⢻ജ㙃ᚑ߇ฦ࿖ߩ⸒⺆ᢎ⢒ߦߣߞߡᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆߣ޿߁⹺⼂ߪ৻⥸⊛⃻⽎ߣߥߞߡ޿
ࠆߩ߇⃻ታߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬

22ᣣᧄߩ৻⽾ߒߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩᡷ㕟ߦะߌߡ

2.4 ਛቇ⧷⺆ቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ᡷᱜ ਛቇ⧷⺆ߪ㧘ᐔᚑ 24 ᐕᐲ߆ࠄቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ᡷᱜߦࠃࠅㅳ 3 ᤨ㑆ࡊ࡜ࠬ 1 ᤨ㑆ߩ૕೙߆ࠄ
4 ᤨ㑆૕೙߳ߣ⒖ⴕߔࠆ‫⺆ޕ‬ᒵ߽ 900 ⺆߆ࠄ 1,200 ⺆⒟ᐲߦჇ߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ቇജߩะ਄ࠍ⋡ᜰߒ㧘ዊቇᩞ⧷⺆ࠍᒁ߈⛮߉㧘ᢥᴺ੐㗄ߣࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦߩ႐㕙ߣ⴫⃻ߩ⺞๺ߦദ߼ࠆ‫ߎޕ‬ࠇ߇⋡ᮡߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߘࠇߦߘߞߡߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߢ޽ࠅ㧘⺆ᒵ㧘ᢥဳߥߤߩౝኈࠍᢛ஻ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩ⢒ᚑߦะߌߡਛቇ⧷⺆ߪዊቇᩞ⧷⺆ߣߩㅪ⚿ࠍ᳞߼ࠄࠇࠆ‫ߎޕ‬ࠇߪ߆ߟߡߥ޿߶ߤߩਛቇ⧷⺆ߩ࿷ࠅᣇߩ໧㗴ߦᶋ਄ߔࠆߛࠈ߁‫ోޕ‬૕⊛ߦߺߡਛቇ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߪ޿߹߹ߢߦߥ޿߶ߤߩᄌ⾰㧘లታߩน⢻ᕈ߇ߢߡ߈ߚߣ޿߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ਛቇ⧷⺆ߢߪዊቇᩞ⧷⺆ߦߟߠ޿ߡᢎ߃ࠄࠇࠆߩߛ߆ࠄ㧘ᢎ᝼ᴺߦߪ⊒ᗐߩォ឵߇᳞߼ࠄࠇࠃ߁‫ޕ‬
2.5 㜞╬ቇᩞᜰዉⷐ㗔ᡷᱜࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩ㙃ᚑࠍᔀᐩߔࠆߎߣߦࠃࠅ㧘એਅߩᣂ⸳⑼⋡⟲ࠍ⸳⟎ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⧷⺆ I㧔3 න૏㧕ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⧷⺆ II㧔4㧕ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⧷⺆ III 㧔4㧕⧷⺆⴫⃻ I㧔2㧕㧘ห II 㧔4㧕ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⧷⺆ၮ␆㧔2㧕⧷⺆ળ⹤㧔2㧕ߎߩ․ᓽߪ㧘ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജࠍ✚ว⊛ߦㅪ៤ߠߌߡᜰዉࠍᔀᐩߔࠆߣ޿߁ὐߢ
ᓥ᧪ߩᜰዉⷐ㗔ࠃࠅ৻Ბߣߘߩᣇะࠍㅴ߼ߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬᝼ᬺߪ⧷⺆ߢታᣉߔࠆߎߣࠍේ
ೣߣߔࠆߣ޿߁ߩ߽ߎߩᣇะߦㅴ߻ߎߣࠍ㞲᣿ߦߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪࠇߎޕ‬㧘↢ᓤߦ⧷⺆ߢࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജࠍߟߌࠆ✵⠌ࠍߐߖࠆߩߛ߆ࠄ㧘వ↢߽ᜰዉ਄ᔅὼ⊛ߦ⧷⺆ࠍ૶↪ߔࠆߎߣߦߥࠆߣ޿߁⠨߃ߢ޽ࠆ‫⺆ޕ‬ᒵߪ 1,300 ⺆߆ࠄ 1,800 ⺆ߦჇ߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ਛቇ߆ࠄ㜞ᩞ߹ߢߩ⺆ᒵว⸘ߪ 3,000 ⺆ߦߥࠆ੍ቯߢ޽ࠆ‫߫ࠇߥ߁ߎޕ‬㧘ㆃࠇߦㆃࠇߚ⧷⺆ജࠕ࠶ࡊߩ
໧㗴ߩ߁ߜ⺆ᒵᢙߦ㑐ߒߡߪ㖧࿖㧘ਛ࿖ߦ߶߷ㅊ޿ઃߊߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ޕ‬ߐߡ㧘ਛቇ⧷⺆ߣߩㅪ៤ࠍߪ߆ࠆߩߪᒰὼߢ޽ࠆߣߒߡ㧘ߐ߹ߑ߹ߥᣇᴺ߇ߣࠄࠇߟߟ
޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬㜞ᩞߣਛቇߩㅪ៤߫߆ࠅߢߥߊ㧘዁᧪ߦߪዊቇᩞ߆ࠄߩ৻⽾ߒߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ߇ᓙᦸߐࠇࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪߦࠇߎޕ‬㧘ᢎຬߩ⃻⡯ᢎ⢒ߩᢛ஻㧘᜛ల߇৻ጀᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
2.6 ᄖ࿖⺆ᜰዉⷐ㗔ᡷᱜߩ․ᓽ ᜰዉ⋡ᮡߪዊ㧘ਛ㧘㜞ߣ߽ߦᄢᨒߢ౒ㅢේೣߦߥࠅ㧘ߐࠄߦή㚝ߥߊ৻⽾ᕈࠍߪ߆ࠆᣇ
ะࠍ᣿⏕ߦߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ࡦ࡚ࠪ࡯ࠤ࠾ࡘࡒࠦޕ‬⢻ജߩะ਄ࠍ৻ጀ⋡ᜰߒ㧘⺆ᒵᢙࠍჇ߿ߒ㧘‫ࠁޟ‬ߣࠅߩᤨ㑆‫ޠ‬㧔1977 ᐕ㧕એ೨ߦ߹ߢᚯߔߎߣߦࠃ߁߿ߊߥࠆ‫ࠅߣࠁޕ‬ᢎ⢒ߩቇ⠌ౝኈߩ෩ㆬߩᣇ㊎ߦࠃߞߡ⺆ᒵߪ㜞ᩞߢ⚂ 4,000 ⺆ߢ޽ߞߚߩ߇߆ߥࠅᷫߞߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ㅳ 5 ᣣ೙߇ታ
ᣉ㧔1996 ᐕ㧕ߐࠇ㧘ᢎ⢒ౝኈߩ෩ㆬߩ޽߹ࠅߐࠄߦ⺆ᒵ❗ዊߦะ߆ߞߡ޿ߞߚ‫߹߹ߩߎޕ‬⚂ 30 ᐕ㑆ߦࠊߚࠅ㧘ߎߩᣇ㊎ߩᄌᦝ߇ߥ߆ߞߚߚ߼ߦ㧘ቇ⠌ౝኈ߇ᷫࠅ㧘ቇജ߇ਅ߇ࠆߣ
޿߁⃻⽎߇߅߈ߚ‫ޕ޿ߥߪߢࠅ߆߫⺆⧷ޕ‬PISA ታᣉߩ߅߆ߍߢቇജะ਄ߩჿ߇࿖᳃ߩ㑆ߦ⿠ߞߡ߈ߚߩߪ㧘೨߆ࠄ޽ߞߚቇജਅ㒠ߩᕟࠇ߇⃻ታൻߒߚߣࠃ߁߿ߊ߭ߣ߮ߣ߇ℂ⸃ߒߚߣ޿߃ࠃ߁‫ ߪ⺆⧷ޕ‬PISA ߦߪ฽߹ࠇߡ޿ߥ޿߇㧘ቇജߩૐਅߦ฽߹ࠇࠆߩߪᢥ⑼⋭ߩᜰዉߩ৻ᓞᕈ߆ࠄᗐ௝ߒߡ߽หߓ௑ะࠍ␜ߔߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ߩߘޕ‬ᱡࠍᄢ᏷ୃᱜߔࠆᔅⷐ߇ߢߡ
33ዊᳰ ↢ᄦ

߈ߚߣ޿߁್ᢿߢ㧘ࠃ߁߿ߊ੹࿁ߩᜰዉⷐ㗔ߩᡷᱜߢ゠㆏ୃᱜ߇߅ߎߥࠊࠇ㧘ቇജߩ೔㆐
࡟ࡌ࡞ߩะ਄߇ߪ߆ࠇࠆߎߣߦߥߞߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ലᨐߪ 20㨪30 ᐕߚߚߥ޿ߣࠊ߆ࠄߥ޿‫ޕ‬໧㗴ߪࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞␠ળߢࠞࠡߣߥࠆ⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജ߇ߘߩ㑆ᾷὓߥ࿖㓙┹੎ߦ⠴߃ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߢ޽ࠈ߁߆ߣ޿߁ߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ቇജ㧘․ߦ⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩᄢ᏷ะ਄ߪᓙߞߚߥߒߩ⺖㗴ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
3. JACET ߣᄢቇ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒᡽╷
3.1 ⥃ᤨᢎ⢒ክ⼏ળ JACET ߪᤘ๺ 58㧔1983㧕ᐕ‫ޟ‬ᄢቇ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߦ㑐ߔࠆታᘒߣ዁᧪௝ߩ✚ว⊛⎇ⓥ㧔1㧕‫ޠ‬ᢎຬ✬ႎ๔ᦠࠍ಴ ߒߚ‫ߢ߹ࠇߘޕ‬ᄢቇ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߩ⺞ᩏߪᣣᧄߢߪታᣉߐࠇߚߎߣ߇ߥ߆ߞ
ߚ‫ޕ‬ታᘒ߇ਇ᣿ߢ޽ࠆߎߣߦ JACET ߪ⥄ࠄߩᡷ㕟ߩࠬ࠲ࡦࠬࠍ᳿߼߆ߨ㧘ᄢቇ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߦኻߒߡṼὼߣਇ቟ࠍᛴ޿ߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ᒰᤨෂᯏᗧ⼂ࠍ߽ߞߡ㧘ߎߩᄢⷙᮨ⺞ᩏߦਸ਼ࠅ಴ߒߚߩ
ߪᱜ⸃ߢ޽ߞߚߣ޿߃ࠃ߁‫ߩߎޕ‬ႎ๔ᦠߪ⥄ಽߚߜߩ⎇ⓥ߿ᢎ⢒ߩᜰ㊎એ਄ߦᣣᧄߩ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ᡷ㕟ߩᔅⷐᕈࠍᒁ߈಴ߔ᦭ജߥ⸽᜚ߦߥߞߚߩߢ޽ࠆ‫⽿ߪ⑳ޕ‬છ⠪ߣߒߡߎߩ૞ᬺߦ
៤ࠊߞߚ‫ޕ‬⠉ᐕᤘ๺ 59㧔1984㧕ᐕ 8 ᦬ߦߪ⥃ᤨᢎ⢒ክ⼏ળ߇⊒⿷ߒߚ‫ᤨߩߎޕ‬㧘ߎߩႎ๔ᦠߩ᡿ߦ
⑳ࠍ฽߼ߚ JACET ઍ⴫ߪ╙ 4 ㇱળߩࡅࠕ࡝ࡦࠣߦ᜗߆ࠇ㧘ክ⼏ળߦ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ᡷ㕟ᗧ⷗ࠍౕ↳ߔࠆߣ޿߁ዷ㐿ߣߥߞߚߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᤘ๺ 60㧔1985㧕ᐕߦ਄⸥ታᘒ⺞ᩏߩ⛯✬㧔ቇ↢✬㧕߇ೀⴕߐࠇ㧘ห 61㧔1986㧕ᐕ 4 ᦬ߦ⥃ᢎክ╙ 2 ᰴ╵↳߇಴ߐࠇߚ‫ߢߎߎޕ‬ᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ᡷ㕟ߩᔅⷐ߇᣿⸥ߐࠇߚߎߣ߇ᚢ೨㧘ᚢᓟߩᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߩᄢ߈ߥォ឵ὐߦߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬‫ޟ‬ᄖ࿖⺆ቇ⠌ߪ㐳ᐕߦࠊߚࠅᄙᄢߥദജߦ߆߆ࠊࠄߕ㧘ታലߪ⭯޿‫⺆⧷ޕ‬ᢎ⢒ߩਥ⋡⊛ࠍᢥᴺ⠡⸶ᑼࠃࠅ߽ታ㓙ߩ 4 ᛛ⢻ߦࠃࠆࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩ㙃ᚑࠍਥߣߔࠆߎߣߦ⛉ࠆ‫ߣޠ‬᣿⸥ߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬એ㒠㧘ߎߩᣇะߪቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ߩਛᔃߩ⋡ᮡߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬JACET ߆ࠄߩታᘒ⺞ᩏႎ๔ߣ
3 ᐲߦࠊߚࠆࡅࠕ࡝ࡦࠣߢౕ↳ߒߚᗧ⷗߇ᡷ㕟ߩᄢ߈ߥේേജߦߥߞߚߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᄢቇ㧘ਛ╬ᢎ⢒ߩታᘒߩᄢⷙᮨಽᨆߪ㧘ߘߩᓟߒ߫ࠄߊᣣᧄߢߪ JACET ߩႎ๔ߒ߆ߥߊ㧘ߘߩቴⷰ⊛ᢙሼ߇⼏⺰ߩ᜚ࠅᚲߦߥߞߚߣ޿ߞߡࠃ޿‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬഍⊛ߥࠛࡇ࠰࡯࠼߇┵✜ߣߥߞߚߩߢ޽ࠆ߇㧘ߎߎߢߪ⋭⇛ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬
3.2 ታᘒ⺞ᩏ଀ࠍ⚫੺ߔࠆߣ
1983㨪2007 ᐕ߹ߢߩᢙᰴߦࠊߚࠆታᘒ⺞ᩏኻ⽎ߪ㧘ળຬ 3,000 ฬ೨ᓟߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߎࠇߪో
࿖࿖౏⑳┙ᄢቇ⧷⺆ᢎຬߩ⚂ 3 ಽߩ 1 ߦ⋧ᒰߔࠆߣߎࠈ߆ࠄ㧘߶߷ᣣᧄߩᄢቇ⧷⺆ᢎຬߩᗧ⷗ࠍ෻ᤋߔࠆ߽ߩߣ⠨߃ࠆᩮ᜚ߣߥߞߚ‫⚿ߩߘޕ‬ᨐࠍ৻ㇱ⚫੺ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ ᢎຬߦኻߔࠆቇ↢ߩⷐᦸߩઍ⴫⊛ߥ߽ߩߪ㧘‫ޟ‬᝼ᬺߩᎿᄦࠍߒߡ߽ࠄ޿ߚ޿‫ޠ‬㧘‫࠾ࡘࡒࠦޟ‬ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജࠍߟߌࠆ᝼ᬺࠍ‫ޠ‬㧘‫ޟ‬࿖㓙ੱߩ㙃ᚑࠍ‫ޠ‬㧘‫ޟ‬᝼ᬺߪᡷༀߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿‫ߞ޽ߢޠ‬ߚ‫ޕ‬ᢎᏧߩ⁴⋭ࠍଦߔၮߦߥߞߚߩߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ߦࠇߘޕ‬ኻߒߡ㧘⧷⺆ᢎຬߩჿߪ‫ޟ‬ᢎ᝼ᴺߪᜂᒰᢎຬߩ⥄↱‫ޠ‬㧘‫⧷ޟ‬ᢥ๺⸶߇࿶ୟ⊛‫ޠ‬㧘‫ޟ‬ᢎ᝼ᴺᡷ㕟ߦ㑐ᔃ޽ࠅ‫ޠ‬㧘‫࡚ࠪ࡯ࠤ࠾ࡘࡒࠦޟ‬ࡦ⢻ജ㙃ᚑ‫⋡ࠍޠ‬ᜰߔߣ޿߁߽ߩߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᗧ⼂ߩߥ߆ߦᚢ೨߆ࠄߩવ⛔߇⛮ᛚߐࠇߟߟ㧘ᣂߒ޿ߎߣߦ߽㑐ᔃߪḝ߈਄߇ߞߡ߈ߚߣ޿߃ࠃ߁‫ޕ‬ ᚢᓟߩᣂߒ޿ᄌൻߩߥ߆ߢ⧷⺆ᢎຬߩ↵ᅚᲧ₸ߪ 8㧦2 ߆ࠄ 6㧦4 ߦᄌࠊߞߚ‫ޕ‬ኾ㐷ಽ㊁ߦභ߼ࠆഀว߇⧷⺆ᢎ⢒㧘⧷ᢥቇ㧘⧷⺆ቇߩ㗅⇟ߦㅒォߒߚ‫⧷ߪߡߟ߆ޕ‬ᢥቇ߇ 7 ഀߋࠄ
44ᣣᧄߩ৻⽾ߒߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩᡷ㕟ߦะߌߡ޿ߢ޽ࠅ㧘⧷⺆ᢎ⢒߇ኾ㐷ߢ޽ࠆߣฬਸ਼ࠆᢎຬߪ߶ࠎߩዋᢙߢ޽ߞߚ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬േ߈ߪᔅὼ⊛ߦ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߩኾ㐷ᕈࠍ㜞߼㧘ߘߩኾ㐷ᕈࠍ৻⥸⧷⺆ᢎຬߩጀߦ߽ᔅⷐߣᕁࠊߖࠆᣇ
ะߦᄌ߃ࠆߣ޿߁ᄢ߈ߥᄌൻࠍᒁ߈ነߖߚߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾ጀߩᄌൻ߇⿠ߎࠆߴߊߒߡ⿠߈ߚ
ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬3.3 ᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒᡽╷ળ⼏ߩౝኈቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ߩታᣉലᨐࠍ਄ߍࠆߚ߼ߦᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒᡽╷ࠍᢥ⑼⋭߇ਛᔃߦߥߞߡ೙ᐲ⸳
⸘ࠍ߅ߎߥ߁ᤨઍߦߥߞߡ߈ߚ‫ߦࠇߘޕ‬ㇺ㆏ᐭ⋵ᢎᆔ㧘Ꮢ↸᧛ᢎᆔ߇ߎࠇߦᓥߞߡേߊ‫ޕ‬ᄖ࿖⺆᡽╷ળ⼏ߪᚢᓟ 15 ᐕߦ৻࿁ߕߟ㐿௅ߐࠇߚ‫ᦨޕ‬ㄭ 20 ᐕߪ㐿௅ߩ㗫ᐲ߇਄߇ߞߡᢙ
ᐕߏߣߦ㐿௅ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ߆ࠄ 15 ᐕᲤߣ޿߁ቯᦼ⊛㐿௅ࠃࠅߪᔅⷐߦᔕߓߡ㐿௅ߐࠇࠆࠃ
߁ߦߥߞߚߣ޿߃ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬᡽╷ળ⼏ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ㧘⑳ߪ JACET ળ㐳ߣߒߡᐲ‫ޘ‬ᢥ⑼⋭ߦᗧ⷗ᦠࠍឭ಴㧘ᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒᡽╷ળ⼏ߩᐳ㐳ࠍോ߼ߚߎߣ߽ᢙ࿁޽ࠆ‫⚻ߩߘޕ‬㛎ߦၮߠ޿ߡߘߩ
᡽╷╷ቯߩၮᧄࠍㅀߴࠇ߫㧘ߘࠇߪએਅߩࠃ߁ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ✚ว᡽╷ߩ┙᩺ߩࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ߪὐ߆ࠄ✢߳㧘ߐࠄߦ㕙߳ߩᓇ㗀߇಴ࠆࠃ߁ߦߔࠆ‫ޕ‬20
㨪30 㗄⋡߆ࠄߥࠆ୘‫ߩޘ‬᡽╷ࠍ᦭ᯏ⊛ߦ⚿߮ઃߌߡ✚ว᡽╷ߣߒߡ᳿ቯߒߚ‫߫߃ߣߚޕ‬㧘ᄢቇ౉⹜࠮ࡦ࠲࡯⹜㛎ߦ࡝ࠬ࠾ࡦࠣ⹜㛎ࠍዉ౉㧘ዊቇᩞ⧷⺆ߩណ↪㧘ਛ㧘㜞㧘ᄢߩ৻⽾ߔࠆ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ᡷ㕟ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩ᭴▽㧘㜞ᩞߢߪ⧷⺆ߦࠃࠆ᝼ᬺ߳ߩᡷ㕟ࠍ⋡ᜰߔ SEL-Hi ታᣉ‫ޕ‬⧷⺆ᢎຬߩ⧷⺆ജࠍ଻㓚ߔࠆߚ߼ߦ TOEIC 730㧘TOEFL 550㧘⧷ᬌḰ 1 ⚖એ਄╬ࠍ⧷⺆ᢎຬណ↪ߩ⋡቟ߣߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ਛ㧘㜞⧷⺆ᢎຬߩᶏᄖᄢቇ㒮ߩ⇐ቇߦ⛎ਈߩᡰ⛎ߪߒߥ޿߇りಽ଻㓚ࠍਈ߃ࠆ㧘Ფᐕ㜞ᩞ↢ᶏᄖ⇐ቇ 1 ਁੱࠍᵷ㆜㧘࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߣߩ㑐ㅪᕈࠍ߽ߞߡࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ
࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജ⢒ᚑࠍ⠨߃ࠆߥߤ߇᳿߼ࠄࠇߚ‫ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬᡽╷ߪᘕ㊀ߦฃߌ౉ࠇࠄࠇߚ߇㧘໧㗴ߪታᣉ㕙ߢታലᕈ߇޽ࠆߩ߆ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪߡ޿ߟߦࠇߎޕ‬㧘⋭ౝߩ૕೙㧘੍▚ⷙᮨ㧘ㇺ㆏ᐭ⋵ᢎ⢒ᆔຬળߥߤߣߩㅪ៤ߩࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ㧘᡽ౄߩࡃ࠶ࠢࠕ࠶ࡊߦࠃߞߡᏅ߇ߢߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ㧘ో૕⊛ߥශ⽎߆ࠄ޿߃߫㧘✚૕⊛ߦߪਇචಽߢ޽ࠆ߇㧘ㇱಽ⊛ߦߪᣂߒ޿ᣇะߦ
ㅴߺ㧘ലᨐࠍ޽ߍߡ޿ࠆߣ޿߁ߎߣߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ޕ‬
3.4 ᄢቇክ⼏ળ㑐ଥਛᢎክߦࠃߞߡᣂ⸳ߐࠇߚᄢቇክ⼏ળߪ㧘ᐔᚑ 3㧔1991㧕ᐕߦ㐿௅ߐࠇߚ࿖┙ᄢቇࠍਛᔃߣߔࠆᄢቇᡷ㕟‫ޟ‬21 ਎♿ߩᄢቇ௝ߣ੹ᓟߩᡷ㕟ᣇ╷ߦߟ޿ߡ―┹੎⊛ߥⅣႺߩਛߢ୘ᕈ
߇ノߊᄢቇߩᒻᚑ‫⋡ࠍޠ‬ᜰߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᢥ⑼⋭ߪ࿖┙ᄢቇᴺੱᴺࠍㅢߒߡ⼔ㅍ⦁࿅ᣇᑼ߆ࠄ⥄┙⽿છᣇᑼߦၮᧄ᡽╷ࠍォ឵ߒ㧘ᄢቇߩᵴᕈൻࠍ⋡ᜰߒߡ㜞╬ᢎ⢒᡽╷ࠍᄢ᏷ߦᄌᦝߒߚ‫ޕ‬߹ߚ⚻⾌೥ᷫᣇᑼࠍ┙ߡߡ࿖┙ᄢቇߦ⥄┙ࠍଦߒ㧘ቇ㐳ߦᒝ޿ᮭ㒢ࠍਈ߃㧘෩ߒ޿⚻༡ࠍⴕ޿㧘ᡷ㕟ߩታࠍ޽ߍࠆࠃ߁ߦ᡽╷ᄌᦝࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᄢቇ⁛⥄ߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ߇⚵߼ࠆߎߣߦߥࠅ㧘․⦡߇↢߆ߖࠆᮭ㒢߽ਈ߃ࠄࠇߚ߇㧘৻ᣇ㧘ᡷ㕟ߦᄬᢌߔࠆߥࠄ㧘ߘߩᄢቇߪ㐷ࠍ㐽ߓࠆߩ߽઀ᣇߥߒߣߒߚߩߢ޽ࠆ‫┙⑳ޕ‬ᄢቇ߽ᓥ߁ߎߣߦߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᢙ߇Ⴧ߃⛯ߌࠆᄢቇߣߘߩ↢ሽ┹੎߇㗼࿷ൻ㧘ỗൻߒ㧘ߐࠄߦ⧯ᐕጀੱญߩᷫዋ߇ᄢቇ౉ቇࠍᄙⷺൻߒ㧘ᒻ㜈ൻߔࠆ௑ะߦߥߞߡ߈ߚ‫ࠄࠇߎޕ‬᡽╷ߩᄌᦝߪߎߩߎߣࠍ੍᷹ߒߚᕁ޿ಾߞߚ᡽╷ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ㧘ߎߩ᡽╷ߪᕁࠊߧߣߎࠈߢᄢቇߩᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߦ㊀ᄢߥᄌൻࠍ߽ߚࠄߔߎߣߦߥ
ߞߚ‫ࠇߘޕ‬એ㒠㧘ᣣᧄߩ࿖౏⑳┙ᄢቇߪᡷቯએ೨ߣᲧセߒߡ㧘⎇ⓥᢎ⢒⚵❱㧘ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜
55ዊᳰ ↢ᄦ

ࡓᡷ㕟߇⥄↱ߦߥࠅ㧘৻᳇ߦᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߩቇ↢ߩන૏ᢙߩ⥄↱ൻߦߣ߽ߥ߁ᒙൻ㧘⺆ቇᢎຬ㓸࿅ߩಽᢔߦߣ߽ߥ߁ੱ੐ᮭ㧘ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓᮭߩ༚ᄬࠍ᜗߈㧘ᒰ⹥ᄢቇߢߤߩࠃ߁ߥ࿖
㓙ੱ㧘ᢎ㙃ੱࠍ㙃߁߆㧘ߘߩℂᔨࠍౕ૕⊛ലᨐߦ⚿߮ߟߌࠆߎߣߦ⧰ഭߔࠆᄢቇ߇Ⴧ߃⛯ߌߚߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
3.5 ᄢቇᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒᡽╷ߩᄌᦝߣᷙੂ ᣥᄢቇ⸳⟎ၮḰߢߪ㧘⧷⺆ 8 න૏㧔ㅳ 2 ࠦࡑ㧘1 ᐕ㧘2 ᐕ㧕߇ᔅୃߢ޽ࠅ㧘╙ 2 ᄖ࿖⺆߽
6 න૏Ḱᔅୃߢ޽ߞߚ‫ߦࠇߘޕ‬ኻߒߡᣂၮḰߢߪ㧘⸳⟎ၮḰߢߪ㧘4 ᐕ೙ᄢቇතᬺߦᔅⷐߥ
✚ 124 න૏ߩߺࠍⷙቯߒ㧘ߘߩਛりߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ㧘⻠ᐳߥߤߪฦᄢቇ߇⥄ࠄ᳿ቯߔࠆᣇ
ᑼߦో㕙⊛ߦᄌᦝߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߘߩ᳿ቯߦߟ޿ߡߪ㧘JACET ߢߪ✕ᕆߦળຬߦ⺞ᩏߒߚ‫⚿ߩߘޕ‬ᨐ㧘⃻⁁⛽ᜬࠍᦸ߻⠪߇ 60㧑ࠍ⿧߃ߚ‫ߡߞ߽ࠍ⺰⚿ߩߘޕ‬㧘ᢥㇱ⋭߆ࠄߩࡅࠕ࡝ࡦࠣߢߪ㧘ෳ⠨ੱߣߒߡᄢቇᄖ
࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ㧘ᓥ᧪ߩ⑼⋡㧘න૏ᣇᑼߩ⛽ᜬࠍ᳞߼ߚ‫⚿ޕ‬ᨐߪ᛼ߒಾࠄࠇߚ߇㧘ߒ߆ߒߘߩᓟߩᄢቇᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߩ⃻⁁ࠍߺࠆߣ㧘⑳㆐߇᳞߼ߚᔅୃ㧘8 න૏㧘╙ 2 ᄖ࿖⺆ 6 න૏ߪᅷᒰߢ޽ߞߚߣ޿߃ࠃ߁‫ޕ‬ߐߡ㧘ᡷ㕟ߦࠃߞߡ૗߇⿠߈ߚ߆‫ޕ‬ᓙߞߡ޿ߚߣ߫߆ࠅ࿖┙ᄢቇߪ৻⥸ᢎ⢒⺖⒟ࠍో࿖
⊛ߦᑄᱛߒߚ‫ߪࠇߎޕ‬ᕁ޿߇ߌߥ޿ߎߣߢ޽ߞߚ߇㧘ߘࠇߛߌ㧘৻⥸ᢎ⢒ߩଔ୯ࠍ⹺߼ࠆ
ߩߦౝኈ߇઻ࠊߥ߆ߞߚߩߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ߊ߆߽ߣޕ‬ᄌ㕟ߐࠇߚ⚿ᨐ㧘ߘߩਛᩭߢ޽ࠆᄖ࿖⺆ㇱ㐷ߢߪ㧘ᢎຬ㓸࿅߇⸃ᢔߒ㧘ઁቇㇱߦಽᢔಽዻߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠅ㧘ᣢሽߩੱ੐⽷᡽ߩᮭ೑ࠍᄬ߁੐ᘒߣߥࠅ㧘ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ㧘᝼ᬺౝኈߥߤߩᡷༀߪᄢቇߦࠃߞߡߐ߹ߑ߹ߣߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߘߩ⚿ᨐ㧘⃻࿷ߪᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߩᡷ㕟ਥዉᮭߪቇ㐳ߦ޽ࠆ߇㧘ᄖ࿖⺆ቇ⠌ߦߟ޿ߡߪ㧘ታോߪᄖ࿖⺆࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ᣇᑼࠍߣࠆᄢቇ߽⃻ࠇ㧘ᄖ࿖⺆ᢎຬߪᒙዊ㓸࿅ߦߥࠆ߆㧘ᣂߒ޿⊒ᗐߢᣂߒ޿ੱ੐᭴ᚑࠍ߅ߎߒߡ㧘⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജࠍㆬᛯቇ↢ߦߪ㊀ὐ⊛ߦߟߌࠆߣ޿߁᡽╷ࠍߣࠆ߆ߣ޿߁⁁ᘒߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬⑳┙ᄢቇߪᒻᘒ߇ߐ߹ߑ߹ߢ޽ࠅ㧘․ቯߩ௑ะࠍ␜ߔߣ߽޿߃ߥ޿߇㧘ฃ㛎ੱญߩᷫዋ
ࠍ߹ߣ߽ߦฃߌ㧘ዊߐߥࡄࠗࠍᅓ޿ว߁⁁ᴫߦߥࠅ㧘ቇജૐਅߦࠃࠅ㧘⧷⺆ࠍᔅୃ߆ࠄᄖ
ߔᄢቇ߽ߢߡ߈ߚ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇߢߪ㧘⧷⺆ࠍ૶ߞߡ㓸ਛ⊛ߦ৻⥸ᢎ⢒ߣኾ㐷ߩ᝼ᬺࠍⴕ߁ᄢቇ߿
ቇㇱ߽⃻ࠇ㧘ઁᣇߢߪ㧘⧷⺆߽ᔅୃ߆ࠄߪߕߔᄢቇ߽⃻ࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ਔᭂߦಽ߆ࠇߡ޿ߊ௑ะ߇
ߢߡ߈ߚ‫ᦨޕ‬ㄭߦߥߞߡ㧘⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജ㙃ᚑࠍਥⷐߥ࠹࡯ࡑߣߒ㧘ᢎ㙃ߣߒߡࠃࠅ߽ኾ㐷ಽ㊁ߦ߅ߌࠆ࿖㓙ᵴേߩ㆏ౕߣߒߡ⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩ㙃ᚑࠍ⠨߃ࠆᣇะ߇ਛᔃߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬
3.6 ᣂߒ޿ᄢቇᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߩᵹࠇ ⧷⺆ᢎຬߩኾ㐷⎇ⓥಽ㊁ߪ⧷☨ᢥቇ߆ࠄᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ♽⛔ߩ TESL ᢎຬਛᔃ߳⒖ࠅ㧘ᢎ㙃ਛᔃ߆ࠄᢎ᝼ᴺലᨐ㧘ቇ⠌ᴺലᨐࠍߪ߆ࠆ⎇ⓥ߇ਥᵹࠍߥߔࠃ߁ߦߥߞߡ߈ߚ‫࠾ࡘࡒࠦޕ‬ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജ㙃ᚑਛᔃߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߣᢎ㙃ਥ⟵⊛⠡⸶ᑼᢎ᝼ᴺߦಽ߆ࠇ㧘೨⠪߇ቇ↢ߩᏗᦸߦㆡᔕߒߚᣇᑼߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ ߐ߹ߑ߹ߥࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߦࠃࠆ㓸ਛ⸠✵㧘⍴ᦼ㓸ਛ࠮ࡒ࠽࡯ᣇᑼ㧘㐳ᦼ⍴ᦼ⇐ቇ೙ᐲ㧘
ㅳ 2 ࿁ߩ᝼ᬺߦ߆ࠊߞߡ 1 ࿁ߩ᝼ᬺ߇Ⴧ߃ࠆ৻ᣇ㧘╙ 2 ⸒⺆ᢎ⢒ߢ޽ࠆ࠼ࠗ࠷⺆㧘ࡈ࡜ࡦࠬ⺆ߥߤߩ᝼ᬺߪන૏ᢙߩ೥ᷫ㧘⥄↱ㆬᛯ⑼⋡ߦߥࠅ㧘ㆬᛯߔࠆቇ↢ߪዋߥ޿⁁ᴫߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬66ᣣᧄߩ৻⽾ߒߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩᡷ㕟ߦะߌߡ৻ᣇ㧘ਛ࿖⺆ߩቇ⠌⠪߇Ⴧ߃㧘ᶏᄖߩ⍴ᦼ㧘㐳ᦼߩ⎇ୃ೙ᐲߩ⸳⟎߿⧷⺆ immersion ᣇᑼ㧘content-based ᣇᑼ㧘ᄖ࿖ੱ⻠Ꮷߩណ↪߇Ⴧ߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬છᦼ㒢ቯߩᣣᧄੱ⻠Ꮷណ↪ߩ௑ะ߇ᒝ߹
ߞߡ޿ߞߚ‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘ߘߩ௑ะߦߟ޿ߡߪ㧘ᢙ㊂⊛⺞ᩏࠍߒߥߌࠇ߫㧘ᱜ⏕ߩᢙሼߪਇ᣿
ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
৻ᣇ㧘਎⇇߇ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ൻߐࠇߟߟ޽ࠆਛߢ㧘ᣣᧄੱߩኻᔕ⢻ജ߇ᔅὼ⊛ߦਇචಽߢ޽
ࠆߣߎࠈ߆ࠄ㧘ᄢቇၫⴕㇱߩᣇ㊎ߢᄢቇో૕߿ቇㇱో૕ߢ߶ߣࠎߤߔߴߡߩᢎ⑼ࠍ⧷⺆ߢⴕ߁ᔀᐩߒߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠍታᣉߒߡ޿ࠆᄢቇ߇ߢߡ߈ߚ‫ߩࠄࠇߘޕ‬ᄢቇ߇⋡┙ߞߡലᨐࠍ਄
ߍ㧘਎㑆ߩᵈ⋡ࠍ㓸߼㧘ዞ⡯₸߽㜞޿ߣߎࠈ߆ࠄ㧘ߘߩ᡽╷ࠍߣࠆᄢቇ߇ዋߒߕߟჇടߒ
ߡ߈ߡ޿ࠆ‫߫߃ߣߚޕ‬㧘┙๮㙚ᄢࠕࠫࠕᄥᐔᵗቇㇱ㧘਄ᥓᄢቇ࿖㓙ᢥൻቇㇱ㧘ᣧⒷ↰ᄢ࿖㓙ᢎ㙃ቇㇱ㧘࿖㓙ᢎ㙃ᄢቇߥߤ߇ߔߴߡ㧘߹ߚߪᄙߊߩ⑼⋡ߢ⧷⺆ࠍ૶↪ߒ㧘immersion ߢContent-based approach㧘CLIL approach ࠍᔀᐩߒߡ߅ߎߥߞߡലᨐࠍ޽ߍߡ޿ࠆ‫ૃߦࠇߎޕ‬ߚࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߢ޽ࠆ߇㧘ᣣᧄ⺆ߣ⧷⺆ߩਔᣇ߇ㅢ↪ߔࠆੱ㑆ᒻᚑߣߒߡߩᢎ㙃ᢎ⢒ࠍታᣉߔࠆ ICU ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ਛ࿖⺆ቇ⠌ߢߪ᣿ᶏᄢቇᣇᑼߢߩ㓸ਛ⸠✵ࠍ߅ߎߥߞߡ޿ࠆ߇㧘ߎߎߢߩೋ߼ߡቇ߱ᣣ
ᧄੱቇ↢߇␜ߔਛ࿖⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ࡟ࡌ࡞ߪ㧘৻⥸ᄢቇߩਛ࿖⺆ࠦ࡯ࠬߣᲧセߒߡ㧘޽߈ࠄ߆ߦ㜞޿ᚑ❣ߢ޽ࠆߎߣࠍߺࠆߣ㧘ᒰ⹥ᄖ࿖⺆ߦࠃࠆ㓸ਛ⸠✵ߪ⋧ᒰᚑഞߒߡ޿ࠆ
ߣ޿߃ࠃ߁‫ ߪࠇߎޕ‬1㧘2 ᐕ↢ߢㅳ 10 ࠦࡑߢഃࠆࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߣᢎ᧚ࠍ↪޿ߡೋ⚖߆ࠄਛ⚖ะ߈ߦᣣᧄ⺆ࠍ৻ಾ૶↪ߖߕ㧘Oral approach ߣ communicative approach ߩਔᣇߩലᨐ⊛ߥᣇᴺࠍวᚑߒߚ㧘ਛ࿖ർ੩Ꮷ▸ᄢᣇᑼࠍ᣿ᶏᄢߦวࠊߖߚ⁛․ߥᣇᑼߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
4. ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞਎⇇ߦኻᔕߔࠆߦߪ
4.1 ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞┹੎␠ળߩ೔᧪―21 ਎♿ೋ㗡ߩ․ᓽ
 ࠦࡦࡇࡘ࡯࠲⑼ቇߩ⊒ዷߦߣ߽ߥ޿਎⇇ਛߩᖱႎߩ㊂ߣㅦᐲߩ㘧べߣᄢⴐൻ߇ㅴࠎߢ޿
ࠆ‫ߪߢࠕࠫࠕޕ‬ਛ࿖㧘㖧࿖㧘บḧ㧘᧲ධࠕࠫࠕ⻉࿖㧘ࠗࡦ࠼ߩ⚻ᷣ⊒ዷ߇⪺ߒ޿‫ޕ‬᰷Ꮊߢߪ Council of Europe ߿ European Union ߥߤ᰷Ꮊฦ࿖ߩ⃻ઍ⺆ᢎ⢒ߩᚑᨐ߇⪺ߒ޿‫ޕ‬ਛ࿖㧘㖧࿖ߥߤߪ৻⒳ߩ nationalism ߢ㧘᡽ᐭ߇਎⇇ߢᒝ޿࿖ኅࠍ߼ߑߔߚ߼ߦ࿖᳃ߦኻߔࠆ⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘߦࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജ㙃ᚑࠍ㊀ⷐߥ࿖ኅ᡽╷ߣߒߡⴕߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߪᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߩ࿖ኅ᡽╷߇ᒙߊ㧘㐽㎮␠ળߦ㒱ࠅ㧘࿖ో૕ߩᄖ࿖⺆⢻ജᒝൻߩേ߈߇஗ṛ᳇๧ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ਇ቟⁁ᘒߪ㧘21 ਎♿ߦߥߞߡᕆỗߦ㗼࿷ൻߒߡ߈ߚߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ ߇⑳ޕ‬35 ᐕ೨߆ࠄߘߩߎߣ
ࠍ੍⸒ߒߡ߈ߚㅢࠅߦߥࠅߟߟ޽ࠆߩߪᱷᔨߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
4.2 ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞␠ળߦᔅⷐߥੱ᧚ࠍ᳞߼ࠆ᡽ᐭߩേ߈ ߎߩ஗ṛ᳇๧ߩᣣᧄߦෂᯏࠍᗵߓߡ⚻↥⋭㧘ᢥ⑼⋭ߩ౒หឭ᩺ߢߩ‫↥ޟ‬ᬺੱ᧚⢒ᚑࡄ࡯࠻࠽࡯ࠪ࠶ࡊ࡮ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ੱ᧚⢒ᚑᆔຬળ‫߇ޠ‬㐿௅ߐࠇ㧘ߘߩႎ๔ᦠ㧔ᐔᚑ 22 ᐕ 4 ᦬ 25ᣣ㧕߇⊒⴫ߐࠇߚ‫ߣࠆࠃߦࠇߘޕ‬㧘ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ߥⅣႺߢᵴべߢ߈ࠆੱ᧚㙃ᚑߩ⋡⊛ߪ㧘ਥ૕⊛ߦ‛੐ࠍ⠨߃ࠆ㧘ᄙ᭽ߥ⢛᥊ࠍᜬߟห௥㧘ขᒁవߦ⥄ಽߩ⠨߃ࠍࠊ߆ࠅ߿ߔߊવ߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ଔ୯ⷰߩᏅ⇣ࠍਸ਼ࠅ⿧߃ࠆ‫⋧ޕ‬ᚻߩ┙႐ߦ┙ߞߡ߅੕޿ࠍℂ⸃ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣂߒ޿ଔ୯ࠍ↢ߺ಴ߔ‫ޕ‬ᢥൻߩᏅ⇣߆ࠄߘࠇߙࠇߩᒝߺࠍᒁ߈಴ߒᵴ↪ߒ㧘⋧ਸ਼ലᨐࠍ↢ߺ಴ߔߎߣߩߢ߈ࠆ
ੱ᧚ࠍᄙᢙ㙃ᚑߔࠆߎߣ߇ὶ⋲ߩᕆߢ޽ࠆߣ⸷߃ߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬77

ዊᳰ ↢ᄦ

4.3 ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ੱ᧚ߦ᳞߼ࠄࠇࠆ⢻ജ ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ੱ᧚ߦ᳞߼ࠄࠇࠆ⢻ജߪ㧘એਅߩ 3 ⢻ജࠍ✚วߒߚ⢻ജߢ޽ࠆߣ޿߁‫ޕ‬1㧕␠ળੱၮ␆ജ  ೨ߦ〯ߺ಴ߔജ㧦ਥ૕ᕈ㧘ታⴕജ㧘௛߈߆ߌߩജ  ⠨߃ᛮߊജ㧦⺖㗴⊒⷗ജ㧘⸘↹ജ㧘ഃㅧജ  ࠴࡯ࡓࡢ࡯ࠢߢ௛ߊജ  ௑⡬ജ㧘⁁ᴫᛠីജ㧘ࠬ࠻࡟ࠬࠦࡦ࠻ࡠ࡯࡞ജ
2㧕⇣ᢥൻℂ⸃㧘ᵴ↪ജᢥൻ㧘ᱧผࠍ⢛᥊ߣߔࠆଔ୯ⷰ㧘ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦᣇᴺߩᏅ⇣ࠍ⹺⼂ߔࠆ⢻ജ
3㧕ᄖ࿖⺆⢻ജ․ߦ⧷⺆ߢߩࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩ㙃ᚑ
4.4 ᄢቇߩࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ੱ᧚⢒ᚑᴺ ᣣᧄડᬺ߇਎⇇Ꮢ႐ߢሽ࿷ᗵࠍᄬ޿ߟߟ޽ࠅ㧘ౝะ߈ߥᣣᧄߩ⧯⠪߇ᄙߊߥࠅ㧘ᶏᄖᔒะߩૐਅ߇৻⥸⊛⃻⽎ߦߥࠆ੹ᣣ㧘ᄢቇߢࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞␠ળߦᵴべߔࠆᄙߊߩੱ᧚ࠍ㙃ᚑߔࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ߪߦࠇߘޕ‬㧘ߚߣ߃߫㧘એਅߩᣇᴺࠍߣࠆߴ߈ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮↥ቇឭ៤ߦࠃࠆᄢቇߩࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ੱ᧚ߩ⢒ᚑ࡮⚻༡⠪ߦࠃࠆࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ࡆࠫࡀࠬߩ⻠⟵࡮ᄖ࿖⺆ߦࠃࠆᢎ㙃㧘ኾ㐷⑼⋡ߩ⻠⟵㧘⸛⺰࡮ᄙ᭽ߥଔ୯ⷰ㧘ᢥൻ㧘ᱧผࠍ⍮⼂ߣߒߡ⠌ᓧ࡮࡮ᶏᄖ੤឵⇐ቇߦࠃࠆ⚻㛎એ਄ࠍ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߣઁ⑼⋡ߣㅪ៤ߒߡ᝼ᬺߦขࠅㄟ߻ߎߣߩᬌ⸛ࠍߔࠆ‫ޕ‬
5. ߤߩ⒟ᐲߩ⧷⺆ജ߇ᔅⷐ߆
5.1 ߤߩ⒟ᐲߩ⧷⺆ജ߇ࡆࠫࡀࠬࡄ࡯࠰ࡦߦᔅⷐ߆ ⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജ㙃ᚑߩߚ߼ߦߪ㧘߹ߕᦨ㜞೔㆐⋡ᮡߩౕ૕⊛⸳ቯ߇ᔅⷐߢ
޽ࠆ‫⸳ߡߞ߿߁ߤߪࠇߘޕ‬ቯߔࠆߩ߆‫ߩߎޕ‬㓙ߦ㊀ⷐߥߎߣߪ㧘ኾ㐷ߩࡆࠫࡀࠬߦᔅⷐߥ
⧷⺆ജࠍߟߌࠆߎߣ߇⋡ᮡߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߘߩੱᢙࠍᦨᄢ㒢Ⴧ߿ߔߎߣ߇ߘߩ⋡ᮡߢ޽ࠆ‫ࠇߘޕ‬ߪ⚿ᨐ⊛ߦ߶ߣࠎߤ native speaker ߣᄌࠊࠄߥ޿࡟ࡌ࡞ߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߒ߆߽ߎߩ࡟ࡌ࡞߇਎⇇౒ㅢ᳓Ḱߣᗐቯߔࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫ߩߤߪߢޕ‬⒟ᐲ߆ࠍᦨㄭ߅ߎߥߞߚ⺞ᩏ߆ࠄᛮ☴ߒߡ⚫੺ߒ㧘ᬌ⸛ࠍㅴ߼ࠆ‫ޕ‬
5.2 ⺞ᩏಽᨆߩኻ⽎ߎߩ⴫ߪ 7,354 ฬߩ࿖㓙ᬺോ⚻㛎߇޽ࠆࡆࠫࡀࠬࡄ࡯࠰ࡦࠍኻ⽎ߦߒߡ㧘⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജ߇ߤߩߊࠄ޿ᔅⷐߣᕁ߁߆ࠍ㧔A㧕ߣߒ㧘ߘࠇߦኻߒߡᓐࠄ߇ታ㓙ߦฃߌߚ࠹ࠬ࠻ߩᚑ❣ࠍ㧔B㧕ߣߒߡ␜ߔ‫ߩߘޕ‬਄ߢ㧔A㧕ߣ㧔B㧕ߣߩᏅߪߤ߁ߥߞߡ޿ࠆ߆ࠍ
⺞ᩏߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ෳട⠪ᢙߪ⤘ᄢߢ޽ߞߡ㧘ᒝ޿ା㗬ᗵ߇߅ߌࠆ㧔ᣂ⡞ߥߤ਎⺰⺞ᩏ
ߪ 2,000 ੱ⒟ᐲ㧕‫ߩߘޕ‬᭴ᚑౝኈߪ᧲⸽ 1 ㇱ਄႐ડᬺ⚂ 30㧑㧘ઁߪਛዊડᬺ㧘ᶏᄖ㚢࿷⚻㛎⠪ 20㧑㧘ᶏᄖ಴ᒛ⚻㛎 53㧑㧘↵ᕈ 60㧑㧘ᅚᕈ 40㧑ߢ޽ߞߚ‫ߣࠆࠃߦࠇߎޕ‬࿁╵⠪ߩ⧷⺆ജߪ TOEIC ߩోฃ㛎⠪ᐔဋ୯ࠃࠅߪࠆ߆ߦ㜞޿‫ߦߺߥߜޕ‬㧘TOEIC ౏㐿࠹ࠬ࠻ 2008 ᐕᐲ
88ᣣᧄߩ৻⽾ߒߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩᡷ㕟ߦะߌߡోฃ㛎⠪ᢙߪ 60 ਁએ਄ߢᐔဋᓧὐ 580㧘࿅૕․೎ฃ㛎೙ᐲฃ㛎⠪ߪ 90 ਁએ਄ߢ 447 ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⴫. ࿖㓙੤ᷤ਄ᔅⷐߛߣߔࠆ⧷⺆ജ㧔A㧕ߣ⃻ታߩ⧷⺆࠹ࠬ࠻߆ࠄ⷗ߚ⧷⺆ജ㧔B㧕㧕ߩᏅ࿁╵⠪ߩഀว TOEICTOEIC-PBT TOEFL-CBT ⧷ᬌ
CEFR
0~20%೨ᓟ(A) 900~(A) 650~(A) 280~(A) 1 ⚖(A) C2(B) 850~(B) 600~(B) 250~(B) 1,Ḱ 1 ⚖ (B) ߥߒ
0~60%೨ᓟ(A) 850~(A) 600~(A) 250~(A) 1 ⚖(A) C1(B) 700~(B) 550~(B) 213~(B) 2 ⚖㨪(B) ߥߒ
0~90%೨ᓟ(A) 750~(A) 550~(A) 213~(A) Ḱ 1 ⚖(A) B2㨪
(B) 550~(B) 500~(B) 173~(B) Ḱ 2 ⚖(B) ߥߒ
ᵈ.‫ޟ‬ડᬺ߇᳞߼ࠆ⧷⺆ജ‫ޠ‬㧔ᦺᣣ಴ 㧕
㧔ዊᳰ↢ᄦ✬㓸ઍ⴫㧕P.123 ࠃࠅᛮ☴ߎߩਛߢ࿁╵⠪਄૏ 20㧑ߩ⧷⺆⢻ജߪ߈ࠊ߼ߡ㜞ߊ㧘TOEIC 900 એ਄ߢ native speaker ߦㄭ޿࡟ࡌ࡞߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠆ߇㧘⥄ಽ⥄りߩታ㓙ߦฃߌߡߺߚ࠹ࠬ࠻⚿ᨐߦࠃࠆߣTOEIC ߇ 850 એ਄㧘⧷ᬌߢ 1 ⚖ߢ޽ࠇ߫㧘ኾ㐷ߣߔࠆ઀੐ߦߟ޿ߡߩ࿖㓙ࡆࠫࡀࠬߢ┹੎⋧ᚻߣኻ╬ߦ߿ࠅߣࠅ߇ߢ߈ࠆߒ㧘ߘߩ⥄ା߽޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
਄૏ 60㧑߹ߢߪ೔㆐⋡ᮡߪ TOEIC ߢ 850 એ਄ߢ޽ࠆ߇㧘ታജߪ 750 એ਄ߋࠄ޿ߢ㧘ᧄੱߪਇ቟ࠍᱷߔ‫ޕ‬᰷Ꮊߢߪ㜞ᩞතߢ೔㆐ߔࠆ࡟ࡌ࡞߇ᣣᧄߢߪᶏᄖታോ⚻㛎ߩߥ޿⧷⺆૶↪⠪߇㆐ߒ߁ࠆᦨ㜞࡟ࡌ࡞ߣᗐቯߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩᦨ㜞࡟ࡌ࡞߇ᣣᧄߩࡆࠫࡀࠬࡄ࡯࠰ࡦߢ㆐ߔࠆᦨ㜞ၮḰߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߘࠇߦ㆐ߒߡ޿ࠆ
߭ߣ߇ 20㧑⒟ᐲߒ߆޿ߥ޿ߩߢߪ㧘ᄙ⒳ᄙ᭽ߦࠊߚࠆࡆࠫࡀࠬࠍಣℂߔࠆߦߪੱᢙ߇ዋߥ
ߔ߉ࠆߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ࠇߘޕ‬એਅߩ࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߪ㧘ኾ㐷ಽ㊁ߢߩࡆࠫࡀࠬ਄ߢ໧㗴ࠍ߅ߎߒߡ޿
ࠆน⢻ᕈ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬੹ᣣ㧘ᄢቇතᬺ↢ߢ޽ࠆࡆࠫࡀࠬࡄ࡯࠰ࡦߢᶏᄖขᒁߦᓥ੐ߔࠆ߭ߣ߇㆐ߒߡ޿ࠆ⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߪߎߩ࡟ࡌ࡞ߢ޽ࠆߎߣ߇ᣣᧄߢߪߓ߼ߡࠊ߆ߞߚߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ߘޕ‬ࠇߦ㆐ߔࠆߦߪ㧘ߤߩࠃ߁ߥࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ㧘ᢎ᝼ᴺ㧘ቇ⠌ᴺ߇ᔅⷐ߆‫ޕ‬ዊቇᩞ߆ࠄᄢቇ߹
ߢ⧷⺆ቇ⠌߇৻⽾ߒߡ޿ࠇ߫㧘┹੎⋧ᚻߩઁ࿖ੱߣ߽ኻ╬ߥᱠߺࠍߔࠆߎߣ߇น⢻߆‫߻ޕ‬ߒࠈᚢ⇛ࠍ޽ࠄߚ߼ߡ᭴▽ߒߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠆ߹޿‫ޕ‬
6. ᰷Ꮊߦ߅ߌࠆ⃻ઍ⺆ᢎ⢒ߩᨒ⚵ߺ
6.1 CEFR ߣߪ㧫᰷Ꮊߦ߅޿ߡߪ Council of Europe ߇⃻ઍ⺆ᢎ⢒᡽╷ߦߟ޿ߡ⚂ 40 ᐕ߆߆ߞߡⴐᥓࠍ㓸߼ߡ૞ᚑߒ㧘ട⋖࿖ߩᛚ⹺ࠍߣࠆߣߣ߽ߦ EU ߽දജߒߡㅴ߼ߡ޿ࠆ᡽╷߇޽ࠆ‫࠶ࠛߩߘޕ‬࠮ࡦࠬ߇㧘‘Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching,assessment’(CEFR) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001)ߦ⺑᣿ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ౝኈߪ㧘╙ 2 ᰴ਎⇇ᄢᚢߩ෻⋭ߦ┙ߞߡ᰷Ꮊฦ࿖ߢੱᮭࠍ⛽ᜬߔࠆߎߣ߇ᦨ߽㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆߣ޿߁⹺⼂ߦߔߴߡ┙ߞߡ౒หᱠ⺞ࠍߣࠅ㧘one greater European nation ࠍ዁᧪⋡ᜰߔߣߒߡ⻉᡽╷ࠍታᣉߔࠆ߇㧘ߣߊߦ⃻ઍ⺆ᢎ⢒ߩᡷ㕟߇ߘߩ㎛ࠍីࠆߣ޿߁⏕࿕ߣߒߚ౒ㅢߩାᔨࠍᜬߟߦ޿ߚߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߎߩၮ␆⊛ᕁᗐߦၮߠ޿ߡ᰷Ꮊฦ࿖ߩߔߴߡߩ⃻ઍ⺆ߩࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩ೔㆐࡟
99ዊᳰ ↢ᄦ

ࡌ࡞ࠍ 6 Ბ㓏ߦ⸳ቯߒ㧘ߘࠇࠍ can-do ᣇᑼߢ⸥ㅀᢥߣߒߡࠊ߆ࠅ߿ߔߊ⺑᣿ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߘޕ‬ߩ⢛ᓟߦߐ߹ߑ߹ߥ⎇ⓥߩⓍߺ਄ߍ߇޽ࠅ㧘⃻႐ߩታᣉ߇޽ߞߡߩᡰᜬ߇޽ࠆߣ޿ࠊࠇߡ
޿ࠆ‫ߪࠇߎޕ‬᰷Ꮊߦߩߺᒰߡߪ߹ࠆ౒ㅢߩෳᾖᨒߢߪߥߊ㧘਎⇇ߩߤߩ⸒⺆ߢ߽ᄖ࿖⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩ೔㆐ၮḰߩ⸳ቯߦᓎ┙ߟ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫੹ޕ‬ᣣࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ᤨઍߦ౉ࠅ㧘⧷⺆߇࿖㓙౒ㅢ⸒⺆ߣߒߡ࿶ୟ⊛ߥㅢ↪ജࠍ߽ߟߎߣ߆ࠄᣣᧄߢ߽਎⇇ၮḰߦㆡᔕߒߥ߇
ࠄᚒ߇࿖ߩታᖱߦㆡᔕߔࠆࠃ߁ߦୃᱜߔࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡ৻ጀቇ⠌ߩലᨐࠍ޽ߍࠆᚻᲑߣߔ
ࠆߎߣ߇น⢻ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ߎࠇߪ㧘IELTS, TOEFL, TOEIC, STEP ߣߩ౒ㅢ⋧㑐ᕈߣ⋧㑐឵▚୯߇⊒⴫ߐࠇߡ޿ߡ㧘ߐࠄߦㆡᔕน⢻ᕈ߇㜞ߊߥߞߚ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘Breakthrough, Waystage, Threshold, Vantage㧔Cambridge
Univ. Press㧕ߥߤߩ࡟ࡌ࡞೎ߩෳ⠨ⷐⷩ߇ A1㨪B2 ߹ߢ 4 Ბ㓏ߦ೑↪น⢻ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬Cambridge ESOL Examinations ߽ 6 ࡟ࡌ࡞ߦኻᔕߒߡ߅ࠅ㧘ో㕙⊛ߦෳ⠨ߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬
6.2 ELP ߣ CEFR-J ߣߩ㑐ଥ
 CEFR ߪ᰷Ꮊ౒ㅢߩ╙ 2 ⸒⺆ᢎ⢒ߩ౏⊛ၮḰߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߤߩ╙ 2 ⸒⺆㧘ᄖ࿖⺆ߢ߽ቇ⠌਄೑↪ߢ߈ࠆߩߢ㧘౒ㅢၮḰᨒࠍേ߆ߖߥ޿߇㧘ฦ࿖ߩᄖ࿖⺆ቇ⠌߿ᢥൻߥߤߩታᖱߦᔅߕ
ߒ߽วࠊߥ޿‫ ߢߎߘޕ‬European Language Portfolio (ELP)ࠍߟߊߞߡ㧘୘ੱߩ⸒⺆⢻ജߣߘߩᢎ⢒⒟ᐲࠍ␜ߔߩߢ޽ࠆ߇㧘ߘߩߥ߆ߦ language passport, language bibliography, dossier ࠍ฽߻‫⺆⸒ࠇߙࠇߘߪࠇߎޕ‬⢻ജ⏕⹺㧘⸒⺆ቇ⠌ጁᱧ㧘ቇ⠌ᚑᨐ⾗ᢱࠍ฽߻‫ߦ߆ߥߩߘޕ‬ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⃻ઍ⺆⢻ജߩ⥄Ꮖ⹏ଔࠍน⢻ߦߔࠆ⢻ജ⸥ㅀ⺑᣿ᢥߩ࡝ࠬ࠻ࠍฦ࿖ߢ૞ᚑߒ㧘Council of Europe ߩᱜᑼߩᛚ⹺ࠍ߁ߌߚ߽ߩࠍ૶↪ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ᣇᑼࠍᣣᧄߢ߽ෳᾖߒ㧘ᣣᧄ ࠍߟߊࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡ਎⇇ၮḰࠍ೑↪ߢ߈ࠆ㧘ߘࠇ߇ᅷᒰߢ޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ዊᳰ⑼⎇ࠍ⚻ߡ㧘⃻࿷ᛩ㊁⑼⎇ߢ㐿⊒ਛߢ޽ࠆ߇㧘ߎߩ CEFR ߦ㑐ㅪߒߡ㧘ቇળ߿ᄢቇߢߪ
⥄ಽߚߜߩ᧦ઙߦㆡᔕߔࠆ߽ߩࠍ૞ᚑߒ㧘೑↪ߔࠆേ߈߇ᦨㄭᕆߦ಴ߡ߈ߚ‫⺆⧷ߪࠇߎޕ‬߫߆ࠅߢߥߊ㧘ᣣᧄ⺆ᢎ⢒㧘࠼ࠗ࠷⺆㧘ࡈ࡜ࡦࠬ⺆ᢎ⢒ߢ߽⎇ⓥ߇߅ߎߥࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
6.3 ⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജ㧗੤ᷤജߩᔅⷐ వߦ⺑᣿ߒߚࡆࠫࡀࠬࡄ࡯࠰ࡦߩ⺞ᩏߦࠃࠆߣ㧘⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജ߇޽ࠇ߫
࿖㓙┹੎ߦኻ᛫ߢ߈ࠆ߆ߣ޿߁ߣ㧘ᔅߕߒ߽ߘ߁ߢߪߥ޿ߎߣ߇ࠊ߆ࠆ‫ޕ‬એਅߩ⴫ߪߚߣ
߃߫㧘࿁╵⠪߇એਅߩ㗄⋡ߦ࿁╵ߒߡ޿ࠆ⊖ಽ₸ࠍߺࠆߣ㧘ࡆࠫࡀࠬ਄ߩ⸛⼏ߦߪ⋧ᒰ⧰ഭߒߡ޿ࠆߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬એਅߩ⾰໧‫ޟ‬ᄖ࿖ੱߣ⡯ോ਄ߩ⼏⺰ߢ㧘ᰴߩ⚻㛎߇ 10 ࿁ਛ૗࿁޽
ࠅ߹ߔ߆‫ߦޠ‬ኻߒߡ㧘ߎߩ⚻㛎߇ 7 ࿁એ਄޽ࠆੱߩ⊖ಽ₸ߪ
1㧕 ⧷⺆ജ߇ਇ⿷ߩߚ߼ߦ⸛⺰ߦߟ޿ߡ޿ߊߩ߇♖৻᧰‫ ޕ‬27㧑
2㧕 ⥄ಽߩᗧ⷗ࠍ⸒߁೨ߦ⋧ᚻߩࡍ࡯ࠬߦਸ਼ߖࠄࠇߡߒ߹߁‫ ޕ‬38㧑
3㧕 ⼏⺰ߢ෻⺰߿⥄ಽߩ⺰ࠍㅴ߼ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߥ޿‫ ޕ‬43㧑
4㧕 ⺰⼏ਛߦ⥄ಽ߇⸒޿ߚ޿ߎߣ߇⸒߃ߥ޿߁ߜߦ࠲ࠗࡒࡦࠣࠍㅺߒ㧘ਇ೑ߥ┙႐ߦߚߚߐࠇࠆ‫ ޕ‬33㧑
5㧕 ⼏⺰ߢ⹤ߔౝኈߦᐢߐ㧘ᷓߐ߇ਲߒߊ㧘⋧ᚻߩା㗬ࠍᓧࠆߎߣߦਇ቟ࠍ߅߷߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬
40㧑

10
10

ᣣᧄߩ৻⽾ߒߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩᡷ㕟ߦะߌߡ߹ߚߘߩኻ᛫╷ߣߒߡߪ㧘એਅߩᗧ⷗߇࿶ୟ⊛ߦᄙ޿ߩߪᵈ⋡ߔࠆߴ߈ߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬1㧕⋧ᚻߩ࿖ߩ⚻ᷣജ㧘᡽ᴦ੐ᖱ㧘ᢥൻߥߤߦㅧ⹚߇ᷓ޿ᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ ޕ‬85㧑
2㧕੤ᷤ೨ߩ⺞ᩏ㧘੤ᷤᓟߩಽᨆജߩᔅⷐ 83㧑3㧕⥃ᯏᔕᄌߩ್ᢿ߳ߩ⥄ାߣജ߇ᔅⷐ 90㧑4㧕੤ᷤ⠪ߣߒߡା↪߇⟎ߌࠆߣ⹺⍮ߐߖࠆ‫ ޕ‬85㧑߹ߚ㧘ࡆࠫࡀࠬࡄ࡯࠰ࡦ߇ᣣᧄߩ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒⇇ߦኻߔࠆⷐᦸ੐㗄ࠍ߹ߣ߼ࠆߣ
1㧕⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦജߩะ਄ߦᒝജߥ✚ว⊛࿖ኅᚢ⇛ࠍߟߊࠇ 60㧑
2㧕ታ␠ળߢහᔕߢ߈ࠆ⧷⺆ജࠍᄢቇߢ⏴ߊߴ߈ 72㧑
3㧕࠺ࠗࡌ࡯࠻ജะ਄㧘⥄Ꮖਥᒛߣ⺑ᓧജࠍ㎊߃ࠆߴߒ 83㧑਄⸥߆ࠄቇᩞᢎ⢒ࠍㅢߒߡᄖ࿖⺆ߦࠃࠆ੤ᷤജࠍߟߌࠆߚ߼ߩᚢ⇛ࠍౕ૕⊛ߦ⸳⸘㧘ታᣉߔࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆߎߣߪ᣿ࠄ߆ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
7. ឭ⸒1㧕⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജࠍᛮᧄ⊛ߦ⾰ߣ㊂ߩ㕙ߢะ਄ߐߖࠆߎߣ߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ߘޕ‬ࠇߦߪ✚ว᡽╷ࠍ┙ߡࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠅ㧘ᤨ㑆ߣࠛࡀ࡞ࠡ―߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߪ⃻ᤨὐߢߪ㧘࿖㓙┹੎ߦ⽶ߌߡ޿ࠆߩߢߪߥ޿߆‫ޕ‬ኻ᛫ߢ߈ࠆ࠻࠶ࡊ 20㧑ߩ߭ߣߚߜߩᢙࠍߔߊߥߊߣ
߽୚Ⴧߐߖࠆߎߣ߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫߿߹޿ޕ‬㧘ᣣᧄߩડᬺߘߩઁߩಽ㊁ߢᶏᄖߦᵴേߩ࿾ὐࠍ
ᐢߍࠆᤨઍߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆ߇㧘ਛડᬺ㧘ዊડᬺߥߤߢ⧷⺆ࠍᠲߞߡᶏᄖࡆࠫࡀࠬࠍ߿ࠆߎߣ
߇ߢ߈ࠆੱߚߜߪ߆ߥࠅዋߥߊ㧘ෂᯏ⊛ߢ޽ࠆߣ޿ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫⺆⧷ߦ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬⢻ജ㙃ᚑߩੱญಽᏓࠍਃⷺᒻ࠲ࠗࡊ߆ࠄ᪽ᒻ࠲ࠗࡊߦߒ㧘࠻࠶ࡊߦߟߥ߇ࠆ࡟ࡌ࡞ߩੱญࠍᐢߍࠆ
᡽╷ࠍߚߡࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫⺆⧷ߪࠇߎޕ‬ᢎ⢒ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩᄢ᏷⷗⋥ߒࠍ฽߻ߎߣߦߥࠈ߁‫ޕ‬ን჻ጊ߿౎ࡩጪ߿㒙⯃ጊࠍᕁ޿⿠ߎߖ߫ࠊ߆ࠆࠃ߁ߦ㧘㗂ὐߪᄢ߈ߥ⵿㊁ߦࠃߞߡᡰ߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬2㧕৻⽾ߒߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩ㐿⊒ࠍ✚ว⊛ߦⴕ߁ߴ߈ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬㐿⊒ߩ⎇ⓥ߇
ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬㖧࿖ߩ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߩ㐿⊒ߪ 6 ᐕ㑆ߢ 4,600 ం౞ࠍᛩ౉ߒ㧘✚ว⊛ߦᄙⷺ⊛ߦⴕߞߡ޿ࠆߣ⡞ߊ‫⺆⧷ޕ‬ᢎ⢒ࠍ࿖ኅߩ㊀ⷐ੐㗄ߣߒߡ⹺⼂ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߩᢥ⑼⋭ߩ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߩᧄᐕᐲ੍▚ߪ 6, 7 ం⒟ᐲ޽ߞߚ߇㧘᳃ਥౄߩ઀ಽߌ᡽╷ߢ੍▚࠯ࡠߣᩏቯߐࠇߚ‫ߩޕ‬ߜߦ⧷⺆ࡁ࡯࠻ߩ૞ᚑ⾌ߛߌ⹺߼ࠄࠇߚ߇㧘ߎࠇ߽⃻႐ߩ⁴෻⊒ࠍ߁ߌߡ㧘ශ೚㧘㈩Ꮣઍ
ߛߌߩ௖߆ߩ੍▚ߛߌᓳᵴߒߚߣ޿߁‫ޕ‬ዊቇᩞᢎຬߩ⧷⺆ᵴേኻᔕߩ⃻⡯ᢎ⢒⾌ߪ⋵⽶ᜂߩߺߣߥࠅ㧘߆߃ߞߡ㜞޿߽ߩߦߟߊߎߣߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ ߘߎߢ㧘೨ㅀߒߚ CEFR ࠍਛᔃߦᣣᧄߦㆡᔕߔࠆ CEFR-Japan ࠍ૞ᚑߒ㧘ᣣᧄੱ߇ࠣࡠ
࡯ࡃ࡞਎⇇ߦ߅޿ߡᵴべߔࠆߩߦᔅⷐߥ೔㆐࡟ࡌ࡞ࠍࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞਎⇇ߦㆡᔕߔࠆࠃ߁ߦᦨ
㜞೔㆐࡟ࡌ࡞ࠍ⸳ቯߔࠆ‫ߦࠇߘޕ‬วࠊߖߡ 6 Ბ㓏ᣇᑼߢฦᲑ㓏ߩ೔㆐⋡ᮡࠍ␜ߔ‫ࠍࠇߘޕ‬ቇ⠌⠪㧘ᢎᏧ߇දജߒߡ㧘୘ੱߩ೔㆐࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߘߩੱߦㆡᔕߒߚ࡟ࡌ࡞ߩ⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ
࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജࠍߟߌࠆߎߣߦߔࠆ‫ߢߎߎޕ‬ኻ⽎ߦߥࠆ 6 Ბ㓏ߩෳ⠨ᨒߪ‫߻⺒ޟ‬㧘ᦠߊ㧘⡞ߊ㧘߅੕޿ߦ⹤ߔ㧘ੱ೨ߢࠬࡇ࡯࠴ߔࠆ㧘⸒⺆ߩࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯㧘ߐࠄߦ⺆ᒵಽᏓ㧘ᢥᴺⷐ⚛ߩቇ⠌㗅૏ߥߤߘࠇߙࠇ‫ߦޠ‬ኻߒߡ೔㆐ߔࠆߴ߈ᦨ㜞⋡ᮡࠍ㗂ὐߦߒߡ㗅ᰴߦฦቇᩞߩ
1111ዊᳰ ↢ᄦ

ᢎ⢒Ბ㓏ߦ೔㆐⋡ᮡࠍෳ⠨୯ߣߒߡ⸳ቯߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ߐࠄߦߘࠇߩታ⃻ߦㆡᔕߒߚࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ㧘ࠪ࡜ࡃࠬ㧘ᢎ᧚㧘ᢎ᝼ᴺ㧘ᢎᏧߩኾ㐷ᕈߩ⾗ᩰߣኾ㐷⡯ᢎ⢒㧘ߐࠄߦቇ⠌⠪ߩቇ⠌ᣇᴺ㧘ᢎᏧ㧘ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⹏ଔᚻᲑߥߤࠍㆡᔕߐߖࠆ
ߎߣߦࠃࠅࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ㧘⸒⺆᧚ᢱߥߤࠍቇᩞᢎ⢒ో૕ࠍㅢߒߡ৻⽾ᕈࠍ߽ߚߔߎߣߦߔ
ࠆ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘᰷Ꮊߘߩઁߩ⻉࿖ߢߪߔߢߦታᣉߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬߹ߚᄖ࿖⺆ߣߒߡߩᣣᧄ⺆ᢎ⢒⇇ߢ߽࿖㓙੤ᵹ⾗㊄ࠍਛᔃߦߔߢߦߎߩෳ⠨ᨒߩౝኈࠍ
⸥ㅀߒ㧘ߘࠇߦߘߞߡߩ⢻ജᬌቯ⹜㛎㧘ᢎ᧚㐿⊒ࠍⴕߞߡ߅ࠅ㧘⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠃࠅ߽ㅴࠎߢ޿
ࠆߣ޿߃ࠆ‫⺆࠷ࠗ࠼ޕ‬ᢎ⢒㧘ࡈ࡜ࡦࠬ⺆ᢎ⢒ቇળߢ߽ߘߩേ߈ߪᵴ⊒ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᄢቇߢ߽⧯
ᐓߩᄢቇߪߎߩᣇᑼࠍߘߩᄢቇߦ޽߁ࠃ߁ߦ૞ᚑߒ㧘೑↪ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ߎߩࠃ߁ߥ⠨߃ᣇߪ㧘ᒝ೙ߐࠇࠆߴ߈߽ߩߢߪߥ޿߇㧘ߔߢߦ᰷Ꮊో࿯ߦߪ৻⥸ൻߒߡ޿ࠆ⃻ઍ⺆ᢎ⢒ᣇᴺߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߘߩലᨐ߇⹺߼ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆߒ㧘ߐࠄߦ⎇ⓥ߇ᷓൻߒ㧘ୃᱜ߇߅ߎߥࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ࠅ߹ߟޕ‬㧘࿾⃿਎⇇ߢߎߩࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩᢎ⢒ᣇᴺ
߇ฦ࿖㧘᡽ᐭ㧘⥄ᴦ૕㧘ቇᩞߢ㑐ᔃࠍ߽ߞߡ⥄ࠄߩᗧᕁߢ᳿߼㧘ታᣉߒߡ޿ߊߩ߇ᔅⷐߦ
ߥࠆᤨ߇᧪ߟߟ޽ࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߘࠇ߽⧷⺆ߩ႐ว㧘࿖㓙ㅢ↪⺆ߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆ⃻⁁ߢߪ㧘ߘߩᵄࠍήⷞߢ߈ߥ޿ߎߣߦᕁ
޿ࠍ޿ߚߔߴ߈ߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ߩߤޕ‬࿖߽╙ 2 ⸒⺆㧘ᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߦ⌀೶ߦขࠅ౉ࠇߡ޿ࠆߩߪ㧘ߘࠇߥࠅߩࡔ࡝࠶࠻߇޽ࠆ߆ࠄߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬ᄙ⸒⺆ᄙᢥൻߩࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞␠ળ਎⇇ߢࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജ߇㕖Ᏹߦ㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߘࠇߩᢎ⢒ߦኻᔕߔࠆߦߪ㧘⃻࿷ߩߣߎࠈ߽ߞ
ߣ߽ㆡߒߡ޿ࠆߣᄙߊߩ⸒⺆ᢎ⢒ߩኾ㐷ኅ߇⹺߼㧘࿖ߩㅪว૕㧘ฦ࿖᡽ᐭ㧘࿾ᣇ⥄ᴦ૕㧘ฦቇᩞ㧘ߐࠄߦฦቇᩞᲑ㓏ࠍ❬ߋല₸⊛ߥ઀⚵ߺߢ޽ࠆߣ㑐ଥ⠪߇⹺߼ߡ޿ࠆߎߣߦࠃࠆ
ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ߎߩ઀⚵ߺߪ㧘ቇ⠌⠪ਛᔃߦᧄੱߦㆡᒰߥ‫ࡦ࡚ࠪ࡯ࠤ࠾ࡘࡒࠦ⺆⸒ޟ‬ᛛ⢻ߩ߁ߜߥߦࠍ
ߤߎ߹ߢ㨪ߢ߈ࠆ߆‫ ࠍ࡞ࡌ࡟ߩޠ‬6 Ბ㓏ߦಽߌߡ⸳ቯߒߡ߅ࠅ㧘ቇᩞߩቇᐕᨒߦᔅߕߒ߽
ᴪߞߡ޿ࠆߩߢߪߥߊ㧘ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⸒⺆⠌ᓧᲑ㓏ࠍೋ⚖߆ࠄᦨ਄⚖ߦㅴ߹ߖࠆㅜਛߢߩᲑ㓏ࠍ 6 Ბ㓏ᣇᑼߦߒߡ߅ࠅ㧘ὐᢙᑼߩ⹏ଔၮḰߢߪߥ޿‫ੱޕ‬㑆ߩ⸒⺆⠌ᓧߩࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓߣቇ
ᩞߢߩᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߩࡊࡠ࠮ࠬ߇⍦⋫ࠍ߅ߎߔߎߣߢߪߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߐࠄߦ㧘ߐ߹ߑ߹ߥᢎ᝼ᴺ㧘ቇ⠌ᴺࠍ․ቯߒߡ޿ࠆ߽ߩߢ߽ߥ޿‫ࠍࠇߘޕ‬൮߻޽ࠄࠁࠆ
⸒⺆ቇ⠌㧘⠌ᓧߦㆡߔࠆࠃ߁ߦขᓧ࡟ࡌ࡞ਛᔃߦෳ⠨ߣߒߡߩᨒ⚵ߺࠍឭ␜ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߘޕ‬ߩෳᾖᨒᣇᑼߪ㧘Council of Europe ߢ 40 ᐕߦࠊߚߞߡߩ⎇ⓥታᣉߐࠇߡ߅ࠅ㧘ࠕࠫࠕߢ߽
ਛ࿖ߪ 10 ᐕએ਄೨ߦߘߩᨒ⚵ߺࠍቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ߦขࠅ౉ࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ ߚ߹ޕ‬STEP, TOEIC,TOEFL, IELTS ߥߤ߽ CEFR ߣߩ⋧㑐㑐ଥߩ⸳ቯߦജࠍ౉ࠇ㧘ߔߢߦ౏⴫ߒߡ޿ࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
3㧕޿߹߿㧘ᣣᧄੱߩ⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦജߩᒙߐߪ㧘᳃㑆ડᬺ㧘ቭᐡ㧘ᄢቇ㧘ቇળ㧘᡽ᐭ㧘᡽ౄߩ౒ㅢ⹺⼂ߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߘࠇ߇ᾷὓߥ࿖㓙┹੎ߢ෩ߒ޿⁁ᴫߦᦨㄭߪㅊ޿߿ࠄࠇߡ
޿ࠆ⁁ᴫ߆ࠄ߈ߡ޿ࠆߣ޿߁⹺⼂߇ᐢ߹ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ࡦ࡚ࠪ࡯ࠤ࠾ࡘࡒࠦ⺆⧷ޕ‬⢻ജ㧘Ⓧᭂ⊛ߥ⼏⺰ജߩૐߐ߇࿖ജࠍ⴮ㅌߐߖࠆේ࿃ߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆߎߣࠍ⥄ⷡߒߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿‫ߘޕ‬ߩᡷༀߩߚ߼ߩౕ૕⊛᡽╷⸳⸘߇޿߹߿ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߘࠇߦߪ࿖㓙␠ળߢᵴべߢ߈ࠆੱ᧚ߩ৻ጀߩ㐿⊒㧘࿖᳃ߩ࿖㓙┹੎ߢኻ᛫ߢ߈ࠆ⧷⺆ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ⢻ജߩะ਄㧘ߘߩઁߩ⸒⺆ജ㧘ታോജ㧘⼏⺰ജ㧘ߘߒߡᷓߊᐢ޿ᢎ㙃ߩ㙃ᚑ߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫߽ࠇߘޕ‬ዊቇᩞ߆ࠄߩ৻⽾ߒߚቇᩞᢎ⢒ࠍᄢቇ߹ߢࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓൻߒ㧘1212ᣣᧄߩ৻⽾ߒߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩᡷ㕟ߦะߌߡല₸ߩ㜞޿⧷⺆ജࠍߟߌࠆᣇᴺࠍ⑼ቇ⊛ߦ⎇ⓥߒ㧘ᛂߜ┙ߡࠆࠃ߁ߦᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߩ✚ว᡽╷ࠍ┙ߡࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᄢቇ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ቇળߪߘߩߚ߼ߦߥߦࠍߔࠆߴ߈߆ᬌ⸛ࠍᦼᓙߒߚ
޿‫ޕ‬ᵈᧄⓂߪᄢቇ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ቇળ㑐⷏ᡰㇱ 2010 ᐕᐲᤐቄᄢળ
㧔2010 ᐕ 6 ᦬ 19 ᣣ㧔࿯㧕15:30㨪17:00㧘
หᔒ␠ᅚሶᄢቇ੹಴ࠠࡖࡦࡄࠬ㧕ߦ߅ߌࠆ⻠Ṷࠍᄙዋୃᱜߒߚ⺰ᢥߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ෳ⠨ᢥ₂Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of References for Languages: Learning,teaching, assessment. Cambridge Univ. Press.
ᄢቇ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ቇળ㧔2002㧕.‫ޡ‬ᚒ߇࿖ߩᄖ࿖⺆࡮⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߦ㑐ߔࠆታᘒߩ✚ว⊛⎇ⓥ―ᄢቇߩቇㇱ㧘ቇ⑼✬‫ޢ‬ਤ♖␠.
ዊᳰ↢ᄦ㧔2008㧕‫ޟ‬਎⇇᳓Ḱࠍ⷗ᝪ߃ߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒‫ޠ‬‫⺆⧷ޡ‬ዷᦸ‫ޢ‬No.116. 14-17.
ዊᳰ↢ᄦ㧔2009㧕‫ޟ‬CEFR ߣᣣᧄߩ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ߩ⺖㗴‫⺆⧷ޡޠ‬ዷᦸ‫ޢ‬No.117. 14-19.
ዊᳰ↢ᄦઁ㧔2010㧕‫ޡ‬ડᬺ߇᳞߼ࠆ⧷⺆ജ‫ᦺޢ‬ᣣ಴ ␠.

13
13

JACET Kansai Journal, 13, 14–25. (2011) © JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281 Printed in JAPAN.

․ቯቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߦ߅ߌࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮Ყセ㧦ߎࠇ߆ࠄߩ ESAP ⎇ⓥߩᣇะᕈੳ⑼ ᕶᓼ ┙๮㙚ᄢቇ㧔㕖㧕

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this paper is to study disciplinary variation in the use of adjective patterns followedby prepositions. The analysis particularly proceeds through a detailed qualitative analysis ofsemantic sequences extended from the patterns in two large corpora of research articles in applied
linguistics and business studies. Comparison of the results for each corpus reveals the writing styleand the epistemological characteristics of each discipline.
Key words: English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP)㧘ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬ⸒⺆ቇ㧘ᗧ๧ㅪ㎮

1. ߪߓ߼ߦ ⧷⺆㕖Უ⺆⹤⠪߇⧷⺆ߩቇⴚ⺰ᢥࠍၫ╩ߔࠆߐ޿ߦ⇐ᗧߔߴ߈ὐߪ㧘ᢥᴺߩㆡᩰᕈߩߺ
ߥࠄߕฦቇ໧ಽ㊁․᦭ߩ⼏⺰᭴▽ࠬ࠲ࠗ࡞ߦ㗅ᔕߔࠆߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬Blue (1988)ߪ㧘English
for Specific Academic Purposes (એਅ㧘ESAP)ᢎ⢒ߩ㊀ⷐᕈ㧘ߟ߹ࠅฦቇ໧ಽ㊁ߦ․ൻߒߚ⸒⺆ᢎ⢒ߩ㊀ⷐᕈࠍᜰ៰ߒ㧘⃻࿷߹ߢߦห⿰ᣦߩ⎇ⓥ߽ᢙᄙߊⴕࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ(Conrad, 2001;
Charles, 2004, 2006; Groom, 2005, 2007; Hyland, 2000)‫ߦ․ޕ‬㧘ᣣᧄߦ߅ߌࠆ ESP ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬ⎇ⓥߩᄙߊߪ㧘⛔⸘ࠍ㚟૶ߒߚ(․ᓽ)⺆߿౒⿠㑐ଥ㧘න⺆ㅪ㎮ߥߤߩ᛽಴(ᣇᴺ)ߦὶὐ߇⟎߆ࠇ㧘ᦨㄭߢߪ(⸒⺆ಽᨆߢ↪޿ࠆ)ᣢሽ⛔⸘(ᚻᴺ)ߩᅷᒰᕈߩᬌ⸽߿ᣂߒ޿⛔⸘ᜰᮡߩ㐿⊒ߥߤ㧘⾰⊛ಽᨆࠃࠅ㊂⊛ಽᨆߦᵈ⋡ߒߚᣇᴺ⺰⊛⎇ⓥ߇㓉⋓ࠍㄫ߃ߟߟ޽ࠆ(⍹Ꮉ, 2004; ⍹Ꮉ,
2009; ዊጊ, 2008, 2009)‫ޕ‬ዏ㧘ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬ⸒⺆ቇߢᄙ↪ߐࠇࠆ⛔⸘ᜰᮡߪ㧘㥲⮮࡮ਛ᧛࡮⿒㊁(2005)㧘ਛ᪯࡮ౝጊ࡮㐳⼱Ꮉ(2005)㧘⍹Ꮉ(2006, 2008)ߩ⸃⺑ࠍෳᾖߐࠇߚ޿‫ޕ‬ ᧄⓂߢߪ㧘ߎߩࠃ߁ߥᣣᧄߩầᵹߣߪ෻ߒ㧘⃻ᤨὐߢ⛔⸘ಽᨆߩߺߢߪࠞࡃ࡯ߒ߈ࠇߥ
޿⸒⺆੐⽎ߩ৻ߟߢ޽ࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮(Hunston, 2008)ߦᵈ⋡ߒ㧘ߘߩᗧ๧࡮ᯏ⢻࡮૶↪⁁ᴫߥߤ
߇ቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߢਥߦ⇣ߥࠆߎߣࠍᜰ៰ߒ㧘ESAP ⎇ⓥߩᣂߒ޿ᣇะᕈߣߘߩ㊀ⷐᕈࠍ␜ߔ‫ޕ‬
2. ⺆ߩ߰ࠆ߹޿ߣᗧ๧ㅪ㎮㧘ߘߒߡࡃ࡯ࡒࡦࠟࡓቇᵷᵹߩ⎇ⓥࠬ࠲ࠗ࡞
Stubbs (2002)߿ Hunston and Francis (1999)ߩ⎇ⓥࠍ߹ߣ߼ࠆߣ㧘⺆ߩ߰ࠆ߹޿ߪߘߩ⚿วⷐ⚛ߩᕈ⾰ߦࠃߞߡ㧘౒⿠㑐ଥ(collocation)߿ㅪㄉ⊛⚿ว(colligation)㧘ᢥᴺ⊛ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦ(colligational pattern)㧘ఝవ⊛ᗧ๧ㆬᛯ(semantic preference)㧘⺣⹤⊛㖿ᓞ(discourse prosody)ߥ
ߤߦಽ㘃ߐࠇࠆ‫⿠౒ޕ‬㑐ଥߪ 2 ⺆(એ਄)㑆ߩ⸘㊂⊛ߥ⚿߮ߟ߈ࠍ⴫ߒ㧘ㅪㄉ⊛⚿ว߿ᢥᴺ⊛ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߪ⺆ߣᢥᴺ▸⇵㧘߽ߒߊߪᢥᴺ▸⇵ห჻ߩㅪ⚿ࠍ␜ߔ‫ߪࠄࠇߎޕ‬㧘න⺆ߩ⴫⸥ᒻࠍᬌ⚝ߦ߆ߌߚࠅ㧘ᢥᴺᖱႎࠍ࠲ࠣઃߌߒߚࠦ࡯ࡄࠬࠍ↪޿ࠆߎߣߢኈᤃߦ᛽಴น⢻ߢ޽ࠆ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇ㧘ఝవ⊛ᗧ๧ㆬᛯߪ㧘޽ࠆ⺆߇․ቯߩᗧ๧㗔ၞߦዻߔࠆ㘃ૃߒߚ⺆ߩ㓸วߣߩ
14
14

․ቯቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߦ߅ߌࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮Ყセ౒⿠㑐ଥࠍᜰߒ㧘⺣⹤⊛㖿ᓞߪ㧘޽ࠆ⺆߇⺣⹤ౝߢ․⇣ߦ⷗ߖࠆᢥ⣂⊛ᯏ⢻ࠍ␜ߔ‫ࠇߎޕ‬ࠄߪ㧘ಽᨆ⠪ߩⷰኤജߦଐሽߔࠆㇱಽ߇ᄢ߈ߊᯏ᪾᛽಴߇ᧂߛ㔍ߒ޿‫ߦ․ޕ‬㧘Hunston andThompson (2000)߿ Hunston (2007)ߪ㧘⺣⹤⊛㖿ᓞ߇ᦠ߈ᚻߩ⹏ଔ(writer’s evaluation)ߣ㑐ࠊߞߡ޿ࠆߎߣࠍᜰ៰ߒߡ߅ࠅ㧘ߘߩ᛽಴ߦߪᚻ૞ᬺߢᢥ⣂ࠍ⹦⚦ߦ⺞ᩏߔࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬߩ಴⃻એ㒠㧘න⺆ߩ⴫⸥ᒻ߿࡟ࡑ╬ࠍᬌ⚝ኻ⽎ߦᜰቯߔࠆߎߣߢ㧘⺆ߩᗧ๧(․ᕈ)ߩ⸘㊂ಽᨆ߇น⢻ߣߥߞߚ߇㧘⛔⸘ࠍ↪޿ߕߣ߽☻㗫ᐲᖱႎߩߺߢ(޽ࠆ⒟ᐲߩ)⺆ߩᝄࠆ⥰޿߿࠹ࠢࠬ࠻ߩ⸒⺆⊛௑ะᕈ㧘ᢥᴺࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩ᛽಴╬ߦ੐⿷ࠅࠆߣ޿߁⷗⸃߽޽ࠆ(S.
Hunston, personal communication, May 15, 2009)‫ޕ‬John Sinclair ߩᗧᕁࠍฃߌ⛮ߋ Susan
Hunston ߩ৻ㅪߩ⎇ⓥߪ(଀߃߫㧘1998, 1999, 2000)㧘⺆߿ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩ㗫ᐲᖱႎߦၮߠ޿ߚ࠺
ࠖࠬࠦ࡯ࠬಽᨆ߇ਥߢ޽ࠅ㧘⧷⺆ߩࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߣߘߩᗧ๧ࠍ✂⟜⊛ߦ⸥ㅀߒߚ Francis et al.
(1996, 1998)߽㧘㗫ᐲᖱႎࠍၮߦၫ╩⠪㆐ߩᵢኤജ߆ࠄቢᚑߐࠇߚ‫ᦨޕ‬ㄭߢߪ⺆ࠍਛᔃߣߔ
ࠆಽᨆߩ┙႐߆ࠄ⣕ළߒ㧘ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦࠍ⸒⺆ߩᗧ๧න૏ߣߺߥߔ⷗⸃ߐ߃޽ࠆ(Hunston &Francis, 1999; Hunston & Sinclair, 2000)‫৻ߣࡦ࡯࠲ࡄޕ‬᭎ߦ⸒ߞߡ߽㧘೨ㅀߒߚᢥᴺ⊛ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߪਥߦ⸒⺆ߩᯏ⢻⊛஥㕙ࠍ␜ߔ߇㧘ᦨㄭߢߪ Hunston (2008)߿ Groom (2007)߇ᗧ๧⊛ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩሽ࿷㧘ߟ߹ࠅᗧ๧ㅪ㎮(semantic sequences)߿ᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ࠍ᜛ᒛߒߚᗧ๧ਥ㗴(semantic
motifs)ߩሽ࿷ࠍਥᒛߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬೨ㅀߒߚఝవ⊛ᗧ๧ㆬᛯߪ㧘޽ࠆ⺆ߩ౒⿠⺆ߦ⷗ࠄࠇࠆఝ
వ⊛ߥᗧ๧▸⇵ߦὶὐࠍ⟎޿ߚ߇㧘ߎߩࠃ߁ߥᗧ๧▸⇵ห჻߇ㅪߥߞߚ߽ߩ㧘․ߦ㧘ߘࠇ
ࠄ߇․ቯߩᢥᴺ⊛ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߣ⚿วߒߚ߽ߩࠍᗧ๧ㅪ㎮߿ᗧ๧ਥ㗴ߣ๭߱(Groom, 2007;
Hunston, 2008)‫ࠅ߹ߟޕ‬㧘⺆ߢߪߥߊᢥᴺ⊛ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦ߆ࠄ᜛ᒛߐࠇߚ⸒⺆ߩᗧ๧න૏ߢ޽ࠆ
ߎߣ߆ࠄ㧘ᯏ᪾᛽಴߿⛔⸘ಽᨆ߇ᧂߛ㔍ߒߊಽᨆ⠪ߩ⸒⺆⋥ⷰߦၮߠ޿ߚᢥ⣂ߩⷰኤജ߇
ᔅⷐਇนᰳߢ޽ࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ߪ․ቯቇ໧ಽ㊁ߩᢥ⣂ౝߦ಴⃻ߒ߿ߔ޿ߎߣ߽ᜰ៰ߐ
ࠇߡ߅ࠅ(Hunston, 2008)㧘
‫ޟ‬㐽㎮⊛࠺ࠖࠬࠦ࡯ࠬߦ಴⃻ߔࠆᗧ๧ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦ‫ޕ߁ࠃ߈ߢ㉼⸃ߣޠ‬
3. ᣇᴺ⺰
3.1 ቇ໧ಽ㊁
Becher and Trowler (2001)ߪቇ໧ಽ㊁ࠍ pure-soft, soft-applied, pure-hard, hard-applied ߩ 4 ⒳ߦ㘃೎ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬Hyland ߿ Charles ࠍೋ߼ߣߔࠆ․ቯቇ໧ಽ㊁ߩ⸒⺆ಽᨆߩᄙߊߪ㧘⚻㛎⊛ߦ⸒⺆૶↪ߩ⋧㆑߇੍᷹ߒᤃ޿ soft 㗔ၞߣ hard 㗔ၞߩᲧセ⎇ⓥߢ޽ࠆ‫߫߃଀ޕ‬㧘Charles(2004, 2006)ߪ‛ᕈ‛ℂቇߣ᡽ᴦቇߩ(⧷⺆ߩ)ୃ჻⺰ᢥࠍࠦ࡯ࡄࠬൻߒ㧘⺰ᢥౝߢ૶↪ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ⸒⺆ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩᗧ๧࡮ᯏ⢻ߩ㆑޿(⹦ߒߊߪ Biber et al. (1999)ߩᦠ߈ᚻߩਥᒛ(writer’s
stance)ߩ㆑޿)ࠍ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߒߚ‫ࠄ߇ߥߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘ESAP ⎇ⓥߩ੹ᣣ⊛⺖㗴ߪ㧘․ቯቇ໧ಽ㊁ߩ⸒⺆․ᕈࠍ⹦⚦ߦ್೎ߔࠆߎߣߦ޽ࠅ㧘Becher and Trowler (2001)߇␜ߔᄢ߹߆ߥ㗔ၞ㑆ߩ⸒⺆⊛㘃ૃᕈ࡮⋧㆑ᕈߢߪߥ޿‫ߦ⃻ޕ‬㧘Groom (2007)ߪ Charles ߩ৻ㅪߩ⎇ⓥࠍ〯ⷅߒߚ਄ߢ㧘⹺⼂⺰਄ߪ㘃ૃߒߚቇ໧ಽ㊁ߦ▸⇵ൻߐࠇࠆᱧผቇߣᢥቇᛕ⹏ߩ⎇ⓥ⺰ᢥࠍࠦ࡯ࡄ
ࠬൻߒ㧘಴⃻ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩ⾰⊛ߥᗧ๧࡮ᯏ⢻ߩ㆑޿ࠍ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ᧄⓂߢߪ㧘ߎߩࠃ߁ߥవ㚟⠪ߩ⎇ⓥࠍ〯ⷅߒߚ਄ߢ㧘⹺⼂⺰਄㧘㘃ૃߒߚቇ໧㗔ၞ(soft-applied 㗔ၞ)ߦ▸⇵ൻߐࠇࠆᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߣࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߩቇⴚ⺰ᢥߦ಴⃻ߔࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ࠍᲧセߒ㧘ቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߩᕭᗧ⊛ߥ૶↪⸒⺆ߩ౒ㅢᕈߣ⋧㆑ᕈࠍ᥸ߊ‫ޕ‬11515

ੳ⑼ ᕶᓼ

3.2 ૶↪ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬ
ᧄⓂߩಽᨆߦ޽ߚࠅ㧘ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߣࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߦಽ㘃ߐࠇࠆฦ 8 ⒳ߩਅ૏ಽ㊁ߩቇⴚ㔀⹹߆ࠄ㧘2000 ᐕએ㒠ߦ⊒⴫ߐࠇߚឝタ⺰ᢥࠍࠦ࡯ࡄࠬൻߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇࠦ࡯ࡄࠬ(Applied
Linguistics Corpus㧘એਅ㧘ALC)ߪ 289 ᧄߩ⎇ⓥ⺰ᢥ߆ࠄ᭴▽ߐࠇ㧘✚⺆ᢙߪ 2,667,000 ⺆ߢ޽ࠆ‫ࠬࡀࠫࡆޕ‬ቇࠦ࡯ࡄࠬ(Business Corpus㧘એਅ㧘BC)ߪ 436 ᧄߩ⎇ⓥ⺰ᢥ߆ࠄ᭴ᚑߐࠇ㧘✚⺆ᢙߪ 2,668,679 ⺆ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬2 ߟߩࠦ࡯ࡄࠬࠨࠗ࠭ࠍ߶߷ห৻ߦ⺞ᢛߒߚߎߣߢ㧘㗫ᐲᖱႎߩߺߢߩ⸘㊂⊛ߥᲧセ߇น⢻ߣߥࠆ‫ޕ‬2 ⴫ 1 ߪ㧘ALC ߣ BC ߩ࠺࡯࠲ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
⴫ 1㧚ALC ߣ BC ߩ࠺࡯࠲Journal Names (ALC)
Language and Cognitive Processes
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Journal of English for Specific Purposes
Language Learning
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Language and Speech
TESOL Quarterly
Language Testing
TOTAL (ALC)
Journal Names (BC)Journal of Accounting Research
Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics
Journal of Business Finance and Accounting
American Business Law Journal
Journal of (Small) Business and Management
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing
Business and Society
Journal of Business Strategy
TOTAL (BC)Years
2005-2006
2005-2006
2005-2006
2005-2006
2004-2005
2003-2004
2005-2006
2003-2005
2003-2006
Years
2005
2000-2005
2005
2000-2005
2000-2005
2004-2005
2003-2005
2001-2005
2000-2005

Texts
Tokens36
338,25634
314,375
39
312,48335
364,73134
348,91029
322,59643
341,18739
324,462289 2,667,000
Texts
Tokens27
332,72163
304,42066
407,01834
362,29265
334,23754
296,50144
336,61083
294,878436 2,668,679

Types
11,287
17,061
14,252
14,655
12,515
11,732
16,194
11,722
46,847
Types
9,470
9,914
11,87415,157
14,256
11,611
15,314
15,52744,2993.3 ⺞ᩏኻ⽎ߣ࠺࡯࠲ ᧄⓂߢߪ㧘ᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ߩ⺞ᩏኻ⽎ߣߒߡ ADJ PREP N ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦࠍขࠅ਄ߍࠆ‫ޕ‬Hunston andFrancis (1999)߿ Hunston and Sinclair (2000)ߪ㧘หࡄ࠲࡯ࡦ߇ᦠ߈ᚻߩ⹏ଔࠍ␜ߔ႐วߦ૶↪
ߐࠇࠆߣߔࠆ‫ࠅ߹ߟޕ‬㧘ቴⷰ⊛ߦ⼏⺰᭴▽ߒߡ޿ࠆࠃ߁ߦ⷗߃ࠆቇⴚ⺰ᢥౝߦ߅޿ߡ߽㧘หࡄ࠲࡯ࡦࠍ↪޿ࠆߎߣߢᢥ⣂ౝߦᦠ߈ᚻ⥄りߩਥⷰᕈ߿ᘒᐲࠍᥧߦೞࠎߢ޿ࠆߣ⸒߃ࠃ
߁‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘หࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߪ‛੐ߩ㑐ଥᕈࠍ␜ߔ႐วߦ↪޿ࠄࠇࠆߎߣ߽ᄙ޿‫ߡߞࠃޕ‬㧘(ቇ໧ಽ㊁ߦ߆߆ࠊࠄߕ)ቇⴚ⺰ᢥߩၫ╩ߦᔅⷐਇนᰳߥหࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩ⺞ᩏߪ㧘ฦቇ໧ಽ㊁ߦᨴߺߟ޿ߚ⼏⺰᭴▽਄ߩᘠ⠌ᕈࠍ⍮ࠆ਄ߢ㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
⴫ 2 ߪฦࠦ࡯ࡄࠬߦ಴⃻ߒߚᒰ⹥ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩ✚⺆ᢙ(Tokens)㧘⇣ߥࠅ⺆ᢙ(Types)㧘⇣ߥࠅ⺆ᢙ/✚⺆ᢙߩ Type-Token Ratio (TTR)ࠍ㧘⴫ 3 ߪ 8 ⒳ߩ㜞㗫ᐲࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߦ಴⃻ߒߚ㗫ᐲ਄૏
5 ⒳ߩᒻኈ⹖ࠍ␜ߔ‫ᧄޕ‬Ⓜߩࠬࡍ࡯ࠬߦߪ㒢ࠅ߇޽ࠆߩߢోߡߩ㗫ᐲ࠺࡯࠲ࠍឭଏߢ߈ߥ
޿߇㧘ෳ⠨߹ߢߦ╙ 5 ▵ߢߪ᛽಴ߒߚ․ቯߩᒻኈ⹖ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩ㗫ᐲᖱႎ߽ઃߒߡ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
16
16

․ቯቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߦ߅ߌࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮Ყセ⴫ 2. ADJ PREP N ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩ࠺࡯࠲
㜞㗫ᐲࡄ࠲࡯ࡦ
about
of
ALC
BC
ALC
BC
Tokens
84
116 Tokens
827
726
Types
36
50 Types5367
TTR 0.429 0.431
TTR 0.064 0.092
for
on
ALC
BC
ALC
BC
Tokens727
714 Tokens 1635 2107
Types
71
74 Types23
27
TTR 0.098 0.104
TTR 0.014 0.013
from
to
ALC
BC
ALC
BC
Tokens476
498 Tokens 5001 5886
Types
27
28 Types
175
179
TTR 0.057 0.056
TTR 0.035 0.030
in
with
ALC
BC
ALC
BC
Tokens 1540 1617 Tokens 1561 3076
Types
69
81 Types76
81
TTR 0.045 0.050
TTR 0.049 0.026

ૐ㗫ᐲࡄ࠲࡯ࡦ
against
between
ALC
BC
ALC
BC
Tokens4
3 Tokens
4
5
Types
3
3 Types1
2
TTR 0.750 1.00
TTR 0.250 0.400
 as
by
ALC
BC
ALC
BC
Tokens
52
76 Tokens
50
93
Types
19
19 Types
21
26
TTR 0.365 0.250
TTR 0.420 0.280
as to
over
ALC
BC
ALC
BC
Tokens8
9 Tokens
2
3
Types
5
9 Types2
3
TTR 0.625 1.00
TTR 1.00 1.00
 at
toward(s)
ALC
BC
ALC
BC
Tokens55
39 Tokens
25
19
Types
14
12 Types3
5
TTR 0.255 0.308
TTR 0.120 0.263

⴫ 3㧚㜞㗫ᐲࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߦ಴⃻ߒߚᒻኈ⹖
Order
1
2
3
4
5
Order
1
2
3
4
5
Order
1
2
3
4
5
Order
1
2
3
4
5

ADJ about N
ALC
Freq. BC
confident
11 knowledgeableclear
8 optimistic
enthusiastic
6 cautious
explicit
5 serious
positive
4 uncertain
ADJ for N
ALC
Freq. BC
available
97 responsible
responsible
97 available
necessary
86 necessary
appropriate
72 appropriate
useful47 liable
ADJ from N
ALC
Freq. BC
different
242 differentfar
43 available
distinct
30 distinct
absent19 farseparate
18 separate
ADJ in N
ALC
Freq. BC
involved
280 involved
present
153 significant
interested
131 importantengaged
101 engaged
similar71 interested

ADJ of N
ALC
Freq. BCaware
206 aware
independent
91 independent
typical78 capable
capable70 representative
representative
60 indicative
ADJ on N
Freq. Order ALC
Freq. BC
172 1
based
1448 based
85 2
dependent
82 dependent
77 3
high
25 conditional
41 4
correct
15 contingent
34 5
low
14 high
ADJ to N
Freq. Order ALC
Freq. BC
266 1
due
737 related
42 2
related608 due
33 3similar452 similar
28 4sensitive
218 subject
15 5
relevant
175 equal
ADJ with N
Freq. Order ALC
Freq. BC
264 1
associated575 consistent156 2
consistent
361 associated129 3
concerned
144 concerned
127 4compatible
92 inconsistent
125 5familiar
91 firm
Freq.
11
8
7
6
6

Order
1
2
3
4
5

17
17

Freq.
110
77
68
59
49
Freq.
1835
128
32
18
11
Freq.
1286
668
444
241
202
Freq.
1307
1211
81
80
63

ੳ⑼ ᕶᓼ

⴫ 2 ߆ࠄ㧘೨⟎⹖ߢಽ೎ߒߚ 16 ⒳ߩ ADJ PREP N ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߪ㧘8 ⒳ߩ㜞㗫ᐲࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߣ 8⒳ߩૐ㗫ᐲࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߦ඙೎ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ADJ as N ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ㧘Francis et al. (1998)ߩ other related
patterns (ᵷ↢⊛ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦ)ߩ৻⒳ same as N ߇ᄙᢙࡅ࠶࠻ߒߚߩߢ㧘ߘߩ㗫ᐲࠍᏅߒᒁ޿ߚ
ᢙ୯ࠍ⠨ᘦߒૐ㗫ᐲࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߦ฽߼ߚ‫ޕ‬ዏ㧘㜞㗫ᐲ࡮ૐ㗫ᐲߩ᫮ߺಽߌߪଢቱ਄㧘ਔࠦ࡯ࡄࠬߦ߅ߌࠆࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩ↢⿠㗫ᐲ 200 ࿁ࠍၮḰߣߒ㧘ૐ㗫ᐲࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩ࠺࡯࠲߇ዋߥ޿ߎ
ߣ߆ࠄ⺞ᩏኻ⽎ࠍ 8 ⒳ߩ㜞㗫ᐲࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߦ⛉ߞߚ‫ߦ․ޕ‬㧘Hunston and Sinclair (2000)߇ᜰ៰
ߔࠆࠃ߁ߦ㧘ADJ about N ߪ⺣⹤ౝߢ⥝๧ᷓ޿⸒⺆ᯏ⢻(ᦠ߈ᚻߩ⹏ଔ)ࠍ␜ߔߎߣ߆ࠄ㧘⠨ኤኻ⽎ߦ୯ߔࠆߣ್ᢿߒ㜞㗫ᐲࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߦ฽߼ߚ‫ޕ‬
3.4 ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߣᗧ๧ ⸒⺆ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߣᗧ๧ߪኒធߦ㑐ㅪߒߡ޿ࠆ(Hunston & Francis, 1999)‫ޕ‬ALC ߣ BC ߦ಴⃻ߒߚ ADJ PREP N ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩಽᨆߩ⚿ᨐ㧘ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߣᗧ๧ߩ㑐ଥߪᄢ߈ߊಽߌߡ 2 ⒳㘃ߦ඙೎ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬৻ߟߪ㧘ᢥᴺ⊛ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦ(Colligational Pattern, એਅ CP)ߦ⿠࿃ߔࠆᗧ๧ߢ޽ࠅ㧘ઁᣇߪ⺆ᒵ⊛ߦᜰቯߐࠇߚࡄ࠲࡯ࡦ(Lexically-Specific Pattern, એਅ LSP)߇␜ߔᗧ๧ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ․ߦ㧘CP ߦ࡝ࡦࠢߒߚᗧ๧ߪࡄ࠲࡯ࡦౝߩ೨⟎⹖ߩᗧ๧․ᕈ߇㑐ਈߒ㧘ቇ໧ಽ㊁߿ࠫࡖ
ࡦ࡞ߩ․ᕈߦᏀฝߐࠇߦߊ޿‫߫߃଀ޕ‬㧘White (2004)߿ Martin and Rose (2007)߇ឭ໒ߔࠆ
appraisal theory ߩ affect(ᦠ߈ᚻ߿ੱߩᗵᖱ)߿ Hunston and Thompson (2000)ߩ evaluation(ᦠ߈ᚻ߿ੱߩ⹏ଔ)ߪ㧘about, against, as, at, for, in, on, towards ࠍ฽߻ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߦࠃߞߡᥧߦ␜ߐ
ࠇࠆߎߣ߇ᄙ޿‫ࠍ଀ޕ‬᜼ߍࠆߣ㧘ADJ about N ߪ㧘޽ࠆ‛੐ߦኻߔࠆᦠ߈ᚻߩᘒᐲ߿⹏ଔ㧘ᗵᖱߥߤߩਥⷰᕈࠍ␜ߔߎߣ߇ᄙߊ㧘หࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߦ಴⃻ߔࠆᒻኈ⹖ߩᄙߊߪ Martin andRose (2007)ߩ attitudinal lexis ߦ▸⇵ൻߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ADJ for N ߪ㧘ਥߦ‛੐ߩᅷᒰᕈ߿ㆡಾᕈߦ
㑐ߔࠆᦠ߈ ᚻߩ⹏ଔ ࡮್ᢿࠍ␜ ߔ ߇㧘ࡆ ࠫࡀࠬቇߢ ߪ ᴺ⊛⽿ છ (liability) ߿⺑᣿⽿ છ(accountability)ߥߤุቯ⊛⽿છߩ᦭ή߿ᚲ࿷ࠍ␜ߔߎߣ߽ᄙ޿‫ޕ‬৻ᣇ㧘as, by, from, for, in, of, on, to, with ࠍ฽߻ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߪ㧘ሽ࿷‛࡮ෳਈ⠪㑆ߩ㑐ଥᕈࠍ␜ߔߎߣ߇ᄙ޿‫߫߃଀ޕ‬㧘ADJ to/with N ߪ㧘੐⽎߿ሽ࿷‛㧘ᄌᢙߩ㑆ߩ㑐ㅪᕈ߿ߘߩ᭽ᘒࠍ㧘ADJ from N ߪ㧘‛੐࡮੐⽎㑆ߩಽ㔌߿㔌⣕ߣ޿ߞߚቅ┙⊛⁁ᴫࠍ㧘ADJ of N ߪ㧘ੱߩౝ࿷⊛⢻ജ߿‛੐ߩẜ࿷ᕈߥߤ㧘ሽ࿷‛ߦᧄ᧪஻ࠊߞߡ޿ࠆዻᕈ߿ᧄ⾰ࠍ␜ߔߎߣ߇ᄙ޿‫ޕ‬ߟ߹ࠅ㧘CP ߇␜ߔᗧ๧࡮ᯏ⢻ߪ೨⟎⹖ߩᗧ๧߇ᄢ߈ߊ㑐ਈߒߡ޿ࠆ(Hunston, 2008)‫ޕ‬
4. ಽᨆ
 ᧄ▵ߢߪ㧘ฦቇ໧ಽ㊁ߢ૶↪ߐࠇࠆฦ LSP ߩਛߢ㧘ⷞ⹺਄㧘⚂ 3 ಽߩ 1 એ਄ߢ⹺߼ࠄࠇ
ߚᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ࠍ଀␜ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ዏ㧘LSP ߩฝ஥ߦ⸥タߐࠇߚ᜝ᒐౝߩᢙሼߪ ALC ߣ BC ߦ߅ߌࠆLSP ߩ಴⃻㗫ᐲࠍ␜ߔ߇㧘ᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ߩ಴⃻㗫ᐲߪ㒢ࠅߥߊૐ޿௑ะߦ޽ࠅ㧘㗫ᐲ߿ഀวࠍ
ឭ␜ߔࠆߎߣ⥄૕ߦ޽߹ࠅᗧ๧߇ή޿ߎߣߦ⇐ᗧߐࠇߚ޿(Francis et al. (1996, 1998)߽㗫ᐲᖱႎ╬ߪ㕖ឝタߢ޽ࠆ)‫߫߃଀ޕ‬㧘࿑ 1 ߪ ALC ߦ 5 ࿁એ਄಴⃻ߒߚ 2-8 ㅪ⺆߹ߢߩ࠲ࠗࡊ࡮
࠻࡯ࠢࡦᢙߩផ⒖ࠍ␜ߔ߇㧘ㅪ⺆ߩᢙ߇㐳ߊߥࠆ⒟ߎࠇࠄߩ୯߽ૐߊߥࠆߎߣ߇ಽ߆ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ߪᦨૐߢ߽ 4-5 ㅪ⺆ࠍኻ⽎ߦߒ㧘ߘߩਛߢᗧ๧⊛ߦ㘃ૃߒߚ߽ߩࠍᚻ૞ᬺߢ㘃೎࡮᛽಴ߔࠆߚ߼㧘ᢙ୯⊛ߦ߆ߥࠅૐߊߥࠆߩ߇ㅢ଀ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ታ଀ߪฦ㗄⋡ 2 ଀ߕߟߦ⇐߼ࠆ‫ޕ‬18
18

․ቯቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߦ߅ߌࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮Ყセ2000000
1500000
1000000

type

500000token

0࿑ 1. ALC ߦ಴⃻ߒߚㅪ⺆ߩ࠲ࠗࡊ࡮࠻࡯ࠢࡦᢙߩផ⒖
4.1 ฦቇ໧ಽ㊁․᦭ߩᗧ๧ㅪ㎮
4.1.1 ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ․᦭ߩᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ߩ଀㧦ᗵᖱ⴫⃻, ᳇ߠ߈ߩὶὐൻ, ╙ੑ⸒⺆ߩ․ᓽ
ੱߩ⥄ାࠍคㅀߔࠆ confident about N (ALC 11; BC 0) ߪᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߢߒ߆૶↪ߐࠇߕ㧘․ߦੱߩⴕὑ߿⢻ജ㧘ᦠ߈ᚻߩ⎇ⓥ⚿ᨐߥߤߦኻߔࠆ⏕ାᕈ࡮ା㗬ᕈࠍ␜ߔߎߣ߇ᄙ޿‫ޕ‬ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߪᢎ⢒ߣኒធߦ㑐ㅪߒߡ޿ࠆߩߢ㧘ੱߩ⥄ାߣ޿ߞߚ⢐ቯ⊛ߥᗵᖱ࡮ᘒᐲࠍቇ
ⴚ⺰ᢥౝߢคㅀߔࠆߎߣ߇น⢻ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ੱ߇૗߆ߦ᳇ઃ޿ߚ᭽ᘒࠍคㅀߔࠆ႐วߦ㧘ߒ߫ߒ߫ aware of N (ALC 206; BC 110) ߇૶↪ߐࠇࠆ߇㧘ੱ(୘ੱ)߿⸒⺆ࠍਥߥ⎇ⓥኻ⽎ߣߔࠆᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߩᣇ߇㧘ᦠ߈ᚻ߿ⷰኤኻ⽎⠪ߥߤߩ(⸒⺆੐ታߥߤߦኻߔࠆ)᳇ߠ߈ߦ㑐ᔃ߇㜞޿‫ߪࠇߎޕ‬㧘ੱߩ⸒⺆ಣℂㆊ⒟ߥߤࠍⷰኤߔࠆᯏળ߇ᄙ޿ߚ߼ߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߎߩ LSP ߩ㗫ᐲߩ㆑޿߽ߘࠇࠍ⴫ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫޿⸒ޕ‬឵߃ࠇ߫㧘หಽ㊁ߢߪ‫࡮⷗⊒ޟ‬᳇ߠ߈(awareness)‫ߣޠ‬޿ߞߚੱߩਥⷰ⊛ⴕേ߽⎇ⓥኻ⽎ߢ޽ࠆߣ⸒߃ࠆ‫ߦࠄߐޕ‬㧘ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߢߪ╙ 2 ⸒⺆ߩ․ᓽࠍ␜ߔ႐วߦ unique to N (ALC 34; BC 18) ࠍ↪޿ࠆ௑ะߦ޽ࠆߎߣ߽ಽ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ
଀ᢥ
ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ
଀ᢥ
ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ
଀ᢥ

[(⎇ⓥߩ)ෳਈ⠪࡮ᦠ߈ᚻ] + confident about + [ⴕὑ࡮⢻ജ࡮⚿ᨐ]࡮ [M]any students felt more confident about dealing with authentic text…. (ALC: ESP)࡮ [N]ative speakers were more confident about their responses to typically stressed words
than atypically stressed words…. (ALC: Speech)[ੱ(ᦠ߈ᚻ࡮⎇ⓥ⠪࡮ⷰኤኻ⽎⠪)] + aware of + [⊒⷗(੐ታ࡮⋧㆑ᕈ࡮࿎㔍ᕈ)]࡮ [M]ost of the participants were aware of the fact that some words were present in twotasks…. (ALC: Cognitive)࡮ Readers were not aware of the distinction between filler and experimental texts. (ALC:
Cognitive)[⸒⺆․ᓽ] + unique to + [(╙ 2 ⸒⺆ߥߤ)․ᱶߥ⸒⺆]࡮ We predicted that the learners would be sensitive to violations of the construction that was
unique to the L2…. (ALC: SLA)࡮ Universal phonological principles such as sonority hierarchy as well as phonologicalprinciples that are unique to Hebrew were not violated in the paraphasias. (ALC: Cognitive)

4.1.2 ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ․᦭ߩᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ߩ଀㧦ᖤⷰᕈ, ⽿છ࡮⟵ോ࡮⽶ௌߩᚲ࿷, ⛔⸘⊛ဋ৻ᕈࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߢߪ optimistic about N (ALC 2; BC 8) ࠍ↪޿ࠆߎߣߢㅒߦ㕖ᭉⷰ⊛੐ታߦᵈ⋡ߒߚࠅ㧘ੱ࡮ડᬺߥߤߩᭉⷰᕈࠍᛕ್⊛ߦᝒ߃ࠆ௑ะߦ޽ࠆ‫ࠬࡀࠫࡆޕ‬ቇߢߪ㧘ᘠ⠌⊛1919

ੳ⑼ ᕶᓼ

ߦ‛੐߳ߩ቟ᤃߥᭉⷰⷞߪ৻⒳ߩ࠲ࡉ࡯ߣߥߞߡ߅ࠅ㧘ᖤⷰ⊛஥㕙ߦὶὐࠍ⟎޿ߚ⸥ㅀ߇
ᄙ޿‫ߪࠇߎޕ‬㧘(⎇ⓥ)⚿ᨐࠍㅊ෸ߔࠆㆊ⒟ߢߩหಽ㊁ߩ↪ᔃᷓߐࠍ⴫ߒߡ޿ࠆߣ߽⸃㉼ߢ߈ࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘⽶ௌ߿ௌോߥߤߩᴺ⊛⽿છ߿⺑᣿⽿છࠍ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߔࠆߎߣ߽ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߩߺ
ߢᛒࠊࠇࠆ੐ᨩߢ޽ࠅ㧘ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߢߪ(㗫ᐲ߆ࠄ߽)⼏⺰ߐࠇߦߊ޿ߣ⸒߃ࠃ߁‫ࠃߩߎޕ‬߁ߥุቯ⊛⽿છ(⽿છ࡮⟵ോ࡮⽶ௌ)ߩᚲ࿷ߪ㧘liable for N (ALC 0; BC 34), accountable for N(ALC 3; BC 16) ࠍ↪޿ߡ␜ߐࠇ㧘ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߦ߅ߌࠆౕ૕⊛⽿છ(ุቯ࿃ሶ)ߦߪ damage,abuse, loss, debt, failure, violation ߥߤ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ዏ㧘ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߦ߅ߌࠆ equal to N (ALC 36; BC201) ߩᄢඨߪ⛔⸘⊛㑐ଥᕈߩဋ৻ࠍ␜ߔ႐วߦ૶↪ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬
ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ

଀ᢥ

ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ
଀ᢥ
ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ
଀ᢥ

㧔ุቯ⺆࡮❗ᷫ⹖ߥߤ㧕+ optimistic about + [(ᧂ᧪ߩ)⚻ᷣ໧㗴]
࡮[I]t was found that liquor stores, shoe repair shops, laundry/ dry cleaners, and check cashing
services were less optimistic about future sales than communications, hotels/motels, andbusiness services (p=.05). (BC: Management)
࡮[W]hile it seems that owners who own larger firms are more optimistic about future increased
sales, it would not be appropriate to suggest, based on these results, that smaller firms "justneed to get larger" in order to become more optimistic…. (BC: Management)[⽿છ࡮⟵ോ࡮⽶ௌߩᚲ࿷] + (ഥേ) + liable/accountable for + [ౝኈ]
࡮[T]heir shareholders are liable for tax on the distributed gains…. (BC: Finance)
࡮[T]he CEO and the board are mutually accountable for outcomes.(BC: Strategy)[⎇ⓥኻ⽎ߩᄌᢙ] + equal to + [(⛔⸘⊛ߥ)ᢙ୯࡮ࠬࠦࠕ]࡮The values are equal to 0.58 and 0.56 for the yearly….(BC: Finance)࡮According to Piotroski and Roulstone (2005), a notrading decision does not imply that thepurchase ratio is equal to zero. (BC: Finance)

4.2 ቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߢ᭽ᘒ߇⇣ߥࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮
4.2.1 ⹏ଔ࡮᳿ᢿߩ⥄ାߩᐲว޿㧦ᒙ(ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ) vs. ᒝ(ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ) ᦠ߈ᚻ߇‛੐(଀߃߫㧘⎇ⓥߩᚻᴺ߿ᣇ╷ߥߤ)ߩᅷᒰᕈ࡮ㆡಾᕈࠍ⹏ଔ࡮್ᢿߔࠆ႐ว㧘ߒ߫ߒ߫ appropriate for N (ALC 72; BC 41), sufficient for N (ALC 25; BC 11), suitable for N(ALC 35; BC 26) ߥߤ߇૶↪ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߢߪ㧘ߎࠇࠄߩ LSP ߣ(Ḱ)ഥേ⹖߇㗫❥ߦ౒⿠ߔࠆߎߣߢ㧘ᦠ߈ᚻߩਇ⏕߆ߥ(ᙬ⇼⊛ߥ)⹏ଔ߿⥄ାߩᰳᅤ߇೨᥊ൻߐࠇࠆߩߦኻߒ㧘ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߢߪ㧘ᦠ߈ᚻߩ⷗⸃ࠍ␜ߔ೽⹖(stance adverbs)߿Ⴧടࠍ␜ߔჇ᏷⹖(amplifiers)㧘
⒟ᐲߩᒙൻࠍ␜ߔ❗ᷫ⹖(diminishers)ߥߤࠍ઻޿㧘಄㕒߆ߟቴⷰ⊛ߦߘߩ⹏ଔࠍਅߔ௑ะߦ
޽ࠆ(⸒޿឵߃ࠇ߫㧘ᦠ߈ᚻߩ⥄ା߿⥄Ꮖ್ᢿ߳ߩ⢐ቯ⊛ᘒᐲ߇೨᥊ൻߐࠇࠆ)‫ߡߞࠃޕ‬㧘ᦠ߈ᚻ߇ਅߔ⹏ଔߦ߅޿ߡ⏕ାᕈߦ㆑޿߇޽ࠆߣ⸒߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ
଀ᢥ
ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ
଀ᢥ

[⎇ⓥ⺖㗴࡮ᣇᴺ] + (Ḱ)ഥേ⹖ + appropriate/sufficient/suitable for + [⎇ⓥኻᾖ]
࡮[T]he tasks might be appropriate for undergraduate students…. (ALC: Testing)࡮Concepts and categories derived from introspective language study or from models takenfrom other fields (e.g. computation) may not be appropriate for describing real language
data.(ALC: Corpus)[ᚻᴺ࡮ᣇ╷࡮⸘↹] + (೽) + appropriate/sufficient/suitable for + [ࡆࠫࡀࠬߩᡷༀ]࡮Population growth is especially appropriate for analyzing municipal growth experiences….
(BC: Economics)
࡮The three outputs are particularly suitable for analyzing REITs' efficiency since income fromthem (rent and/or interest) critically depends on managerial decisions. (BC: Finance)

20
20

․ቯቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߦ߅ߌࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮Ყセ

4.2.2 ⁛┙ᕈߩ㆑޿㧦ਛ┙⊛⸃㉼(ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ) vs. ⢐ቯ⊛⣕㔌(ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ) ޽ࠆ‛੐߇ઁߩ‛੐߆ࠄ⁛┙࡮ಽ㔌࡮㔌⣕ߒߡ޿ࠆ᭽ࠍคㅀߔࠆ႐ว 㧘ߒ߫ߒ߫
independent from N (ALC 5; BC 13) ߇૶↪ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ห LSP ߪ㧘ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߢߪ‫⺆⸒ޟ‬ቇ⊛㕖㑐ㅪᕈ‫ߒ␜ࠍޠ‬㧘ਥߦ⎇ⓥ਄ߩⷰኤ⚿ᨐ(ߟ߹ࠅ⸒⺆ቇ⊛ߥ㕖㑐ㅪᕈ)ࠍคㅀߔࠆ௑ะߦ޽
ࠆߎߣ߆ࠄᗧ๧⊛ߦߪਛ┙ߢ޽ࠆ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇ㧘ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߢߪ‫⸃߿↱⥄ߩࠄ߆❈᧤ޟ‬᡼‫␜ࠍޠ‬ߔ௑ะߦ޽ࠅ㧘ห LSP ߩ૶↪ⅣႺ(ߟ߹ࠅ⁁ᴫᢥ⣂)߇⢐ቯ⊛ߥᗧ๧ࠍ␜ߔ႐ว߇ᄙ޿‫ࠃޕ‬ߞߡ㧘หࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩ⁁ᴫᢥ⣂ߪ 2 ߟߩቇ໧ಽ㊁ߢ߆ߥࠅ⇣ߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ[⸒⺆․ᓽ] + 㨪from + [⸒⺆᭴ㅧ࡮ᢥ⣂࡮⸒⺆ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ]࡮[L]exicalisation patterns at least partially shape conceptual representations, which are to a large
extent independent from the linguistic system…. (ALC: Cognitive)଀ᢥ࡮New Complement Extraposition is a highly self-sufficient construction, fairly independent
from the preceding context…. (ALC: Corpus)ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ [୘ੱ࡮ડᬺ] + 㨪from + [ᮭജ࡮ⷙ೙(ߩኻ⽎)]
࡮[O]utsiders may be more independent from the CEO and/or top management team and,
therefore, better able to protect shareholder interests…. (BC: Strategy)଀ᢥ࡮In communities that are relatively independent from a metropolitan area, business owners andmanagers may be more likely to get involved in improving the local community than incommunities located closer to a metropolitan area. (BC: Management)

4.2.3 ᖱႎ₪ᓧߩ㆑޿㧦㑆ធ⊛(ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ) vs. ⋥ធ⊛(ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ)(ᚻర߆ࠄ㔌ࠇߚ)೑↪น⢻ߥᖱႎߩᚲ࿷ࠍ␜ߔ႐ว㧘ߒ߫ߒ߫ available from N (ALC 16;
BC42) ߇૶↪ߐࠇࠆ߇㧘ᘠ⠌⊛ߦ₪ᓧߔࠆᖱႎߩᚲ࿷ߪ 2 ߟߩቇ໧ಽ㊁ߢ߿߿⇣ߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߢߪᢥሼൻߐࠇߚㆊ෰ߩᖱႎ(ਥߦᢥ₂ߥߤ)߇ᄙ޿߇㧘ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߢߪੱ߿ડᬺ㧘․ቯߩᯏ㑐ߩ࠺࡯࠲ࡌ࡯ࠬߥߤ߇ᄙߊ㧘ߎࠇߪಽ㊁㑆ߩ⎇ⓥࠬ࠲ࠗ࡞ߩ㆑޿ߣ߽⸒߃ࠃ߁‫ޕ‬ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ[ᖱႎ] + 㨪from + [ෳ⠨ᢥ₂࡮URL]
࡮Scores (but not item responses) were also available from the Vastardis (1997) study with 371
଀ᢥGreek high-school students. (ALC: Testing)࡮A copy of the test is available from http://www.cal.org/delss/products.html. (ALC: TESOL)ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ [ᖱႎ] + 㨪from + [ੱ࡮⚵❱]࡮Results are available from the corresponding author. (BC: Economics)
଀ᢥ࡮The detailed results are not reported here, but are available from the authors upon request. (BC:Economics)

4.2.4 ⢻ജߩኻ⽎ߩ㆑޿㧦୘ੱ(ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ) vs. 㓸࿅߿ᛛⴚ(ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ) ૗߆ߩ⢻ജࠍคㅀߔࠆ႐วߦ capable of N (ALC 70; BC 68) ߇ߒ߫ߒ߫૶↪ߐࠇࠆ߇㧘ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߢߪੱߩ⸒⺆⢻ജࠍคㅀߔࠆߐ޿ߦ㧘ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߢߪડᬺ߿ᯏ㑐(ߦዻߔࠆੱ‫)ޘ‬㧘㓸࿅㧘ᛛⴚ㧘ᚢ⇛ߥߤߩᕈ⾰߿ẜ࿷ജ㧘ㆀⴕജߥߤࠍ␜ߔ႐วߦ↪޿ࠄࠇࠆ‫ࠅ߹ߟޕ‬㧘୘ੱߩ⢻ജ(ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ)vs.㓸࿅߿ᛛⴚߩẜ࿷ജ(ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ)ߣ޿ߞߚⷰኤኻ⽎ߩ⇣ߥࠅ߇⷗߃ߡߊࠆ‫ޕ‬2121

ੳ⑼ ᕶᓼᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ[ੱ] + ~of + [⸒⺆ߩಣℂ࡮⸃㉼]࡮[C]hildren are capable of representing spelling patterns, rather than merely mapping isolated
sounds and letters in a linear manner…. (ALC: LL)଀ᢥ࡮[S]uch learners are capable of encoding gender in terms of abstract structures mediating
between the speech signal and the conceptual system. (ALC: LL)ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ [ (․ᱶߥ)ࡆࠫࡀࠬᣇ╷࡮⚵❱] + ~of + [ലᨐ࡮೑ὐ࡮ᡷༀ]࡮Certainly, the Internet is capable of providing value to purchasing organizations throughreduced purchasing costs, increased efficiencies, and more convenient access to଀ᢥinformation…. (BC: Marketing)࡮[M]onthly cash flows are capable of explicating some negative timing ability. (BC: Economics)

4.2.5 ၮ⋚ߩὶὐߩ㆑޿㧦⎇ⓥో⥸(ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ) vs. ⎇ⓥ⚿ᨐ߿࠺࡯࠲(ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ) ‛੐߇૗߆ߩࡌ࡯ࠬ(࿯บ)ߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆ᭽ࠍคㅀߔࠆ႐ว㧘ߒ߫ߒ߫ based on N (ALC
1448; BC 1835) ߇↪޿ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߢߪ㧘ห LSP ࠍ↪޿ߡో⥸⊛ߥ⎇ⓥౝኈࠍ⚫੺ߔࠆ௑ะ߇㜞ߊ㧘⎇ⓥ⺰ᢥߩࠕࡉࠬ࠻࡜ࠢ࠻߿ᐨ⺰ߢ૶↪ߐࠇࠆߎߣ߇ᄙ޿‫৻ޕ‬ᣇ㧘ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߢߪ⎇ⓥ⚿ᨐ߿࠺࡯࠲ߩ⸃㉼ߢ↪޿ࠄࠇࠆ௑ะ߇㜞ߊ㧘߻ߒࠈಽᨆㇱಽߢᅢ߹ࠇߡ
૶↪ߐࠇࠆ႐ว߇ᄙ޿‫ߡߞࠃޕ‬㧘ߎߩᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ߩಽ㊁㑆ߩ㆑޿ߣߪ㧘ቇⴚ⺰ᢥౝߢห LSP
߇಴⃻ߔࠆࠫࡖࡦ࡞ߩ㆑޿ߢ޽ࠆߣ߽⸒߃ࠃ߁(ᵈ 2 ߩ໧㗴ὐ߽ෳᾖߐࠇߚ޿)‫ޕ‬
ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ
଀ᢥ
ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ
଀ᢥ

[⎇ⓥ࡮ಽᨆ࡮ᣇᴺ] + 㨪on + [࠺࡯࠲࡮ᣇᴺ࡮ℂ⺰]࡮The study is based on a corpus of approximately 150 newspaper and magazine advertisements
and television commercials…. (ALC: Corpus)
࡮The analysis is based on the hypothesis that the use of the selected metatext categories is more
restricted in Slovene academic writing than in English academic writing. (ALC: ESP)[⚿ᨐ࡮ⷙ▸࡮⛔⸘] + 㨪on + [࠺࡯࠲࡮ᣇᴺ࡮ℂ⺰]࡮The above results are based on a sample in which there are insider trades within thefirm-months.... (BC: Accounting)࡮The data for the industry variable were based on the four-digit SIC code. (BC: Management)

4.2.6 㑐ㅪᕈߩ㆑޿㧦⸒⺆⊛㑐ㅪᕈ(ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ) vs. ⛔⸘⊛㑐ㅪᕈ(ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ) ੑߟߩሽ࿷‛࡮੐⽎ߩ㑐ଥᕈࠍਥߦ⴫ߔ ADJ to N ߪ㧘ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߢߪ orthographically,morphologically, phonologically, semantically ߥߤߩ೽⹖߇౒⿠ߒ⸒⺆⊛㑐ㅪᕈࠍ㧘ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ
ߢߪ positively, negatively, inversely ߥߤ߇౒⿠ߒ⛔⸘⊛㑐ㅪᕈࠍ␜ߔ௑ะߦ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬એਅߪ
related to N (ALC 601, BC 1283) ߣ similar to N (ALC 449, BC 443) ߩᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇ
଀ᢥ
ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ
଀ᢥ

[⸒⺆ቇ⊛ᄌᢙ 1] + ೽ + ~to + [⸒⺆ቇ⊛ᄌᢙ 2]
࡮In monolingual studies, target word recognition is affected by the number of words that aremorphologically related to the target. (ALC: Cognitive)
࡮[T]he FL word to be learned is orthographically and phonologically similar to its L1
equivalent.…(ALC: LL)[⛔⸘⊛ᄌᢙ 1] + ೽ + 㨪to + [⛔⸘⊛ᄌᢙ 2]
࡮The use of multi-level strategy processes is positively related to the achievement of strategic
goals…. (BC: Strategy)࡮The results for the long VAR are similar to those of the short VAR. (BC: Accounting)22
22

․ቯቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߦ߅ߌࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮Ყセ

4.3 ਔቇ໧ಽ㊁ߢ᭽ᘒ߇౒ㅢߩᗧ๧ㅪ㎮
4.3.1 ౝ࿷ᕈߪุቯᕈ ADJ in N ߪ૗߆ߒࠄߩ⼏⺰ߩὶὐ(㊀ⷐᕈ߿ᵴേ㧘⹏ଔ)ߩᚲ࿷ࠍ᣿␜ߔࠆ௑ะߦ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬଀߃߫㧘interested in N ߪ⥝๧ߩᚲ࿷ࠍ㧘significant in N ߪ㊀ⷐᕈߩᚲ࿷ࠍ␜ߔ‫⥝ߦ․ޕ‬๧ᷓ޿⊒⷗ߩ৻ߟߣߒߡ㧘inherent in N (ALC 41; BC 68) ߪਔಽ㊁౒ߦẜ࿷⊛ߥุቯ⊛ⷐ࿃ߩᚲ࿷ࠍ␜ߔ‫ޕ‬ዏ㧘ุቯ⊛ⷐ࿃ߦߪ difficulty, problem, bias, danger, ambiguity, challenge, weakness,
limitation, dilemma, risk ߥߤ߇⷗ࠄࠇ㧘ౝ࿷ᕈߩคㅀߪ૗߆ߒࠄߩุቯᕈߩᚲ࿷ࠍ␜ߔߣ⸒
߃ࠃ߁‫ߩઁޕ‬ቇ໧ಽ㊁ߢ߽ห᭽ߩߎߣ߇⸒߃ࠇ߫㧘ቇⴚ⺰ᢥߢ⸥ㅀߐࠇࠆౝ࿷ᕈߣߪุቯ
ᕈߢ޽ࠆߣᢿቯߢ߈ࠆ߇㧘੹ᓟߩ⎇ⓥ⺖㗴ߣߒߚ޿‫ޕ‬
ਔಽ㊁଀ᢥ[ุቯ⊛ⷐ࿃] + 㨪in + [ᚲ࿷]࡮However, ambiguity is inherent in a situation where three codes employ a single phonetic
parameter, that is, F0. (ALC: Speech)࡮As Weitz and Bradford (1999) note, conflict is inherent in buyer-seller relationships. (BC:Marketing)

4.3.2 ㆊ෰ߩ⎇ⓥߣߩ㚂የ৻⽾ᕈ ⃻࿷ㆀⴕਛߩ⥄Ꮖߩ⎇ⓥߩ⏕⸽ᕈࠍ␜ߔߚ߼ߦ㧘ਔಽ㊁౒ߦㆊ෰ߩ(ઁߩ)⎇ⓥߣߩ౒ㅢᕈ߿㚂የ৻⽾ᕈࠍ consistent with N (ALC 362; BC 1307) ࠍ↪޿ߡ␜ߔ௑ะߦ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ዏ㧘ߎߩᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ߪਔಽ㊁౒ㅢߢ޽ࠆ߇㧘ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇࠃࠅ߽ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߢ↪޿ࠄࠇࠆ௑ะ߇㜞޿‫ޕ‬
ਔಽ㊁଀ᢥ[⚿ᨐ࡮⊒⷗࡮⸽᜚࡮⺞ᩏ࡮࠺࡯࠲] + ~with + [ㆊ෰ߩ⎇ⓥ]
࡮Inspection of the figure reveals that the results are broadly consistent with those of Weldon(1993)….(ALC: Cognitive)
࡮This result is consistent with Wang and Yau (2000)….(BC: Economics)

4.4 ಽᨆߩ߹ߣ߼ ADJ PREP N ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ߩᗧ๧࡮ᯏ⢻ߪ 1) ⎇ⓥߩ໧㗴߿⁁ᴫ㧘⊒⷗ߦኻߔࠆᦠ
߈ᚻߩᗵᖱ߿್ᢿ㧘⹏ଔ㧘2) ‛੐߿੐⽎㧘ኻ⽎‛㧘ෳਈ⠪ߥߤߩ㑐ଥᕈ㧘ߢ޽ࠆߎߣ߇᣿
ࠄ߆ߣߥߞߚ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ਔಽ㊁౒ㅢߩ߽ߩߣቇ໧ಽ㊁․᦭ߩ߽ߩߣߦ඙೎ߢ߈㧘೨⠪ߪ㧘․
ቯቇ໧ಽ㊁ߩ⸒⺆․ᕈߣ޿߁ࠃࠅ߽㧘ቇⴚ⺰ᢥ(ࠫࡖࡦ࡞)ో૕ߩ౒ㅢᕈ(⹦⚦ߦㅀߴࠇ߫
soft-applied 㗔ၞ(․ߦᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߣࡆࠫࡀࠬቇ)ߦ․᦭ߩ౒ㅢᕈ)ߩน⢻ᕈ߇㜞ߊ㧘ᓟ⠪ߪ㧘
ฦቇ໧ಽ㊁․᦭ߩᘠ⠌⊛ߥ࡜ࠗ࠹ࠖࡦࠣࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ߩ⴫ࠇߣ⸒߃ࠃ߁‫ߦᦝޕ‬㧘ᧄ⎇ⓥߩ⚿ᨐߣ Groom (2005, 2007)ߩว⥌ὐߪ㧘⹺⼂⺰਄ห㗔ၞߦዻߔࠆቇ໧ಽ㊁ߦ߅޿ߡ߽㧘⸒⺆ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩᗧ๧࡮ᯏ⢻߇޿ߊࠄ߆⇣ߥࠆߣ޿߁⸒⺆੐ታߩታ⸽ߦ޽ࠅ㧘ᧄ⎇ⓥ⁛⥄ߩ⊒⷗ߪ㧘
ቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߩ⸒⺆ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩ㘃ૃᕈߣ⋧㆑ᕈࠍẋᰴ⊛ߦ␜ߒߚߎߣߦ޽ࠈ߁‫ޕ‬
5. ⚿⺆
ᧄⓂߢߪ㧘ADJ PREP N ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߩ LSP ࠍ⹦⚦ߦಽᨆߔࠆߎߣߢ㧘ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߣࡆࠫࡀ
ࠬቇߢ૶↪ߐࠇࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ࠍ᛽಴ߒ㧘ቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߦሽ࿷ߔࠆ⼏⺰᭴▽਄ߩᏅ⇣ߩ৻┵ࠍ᣿2323

ੳ⑼ ᕶᓼ

ࠄ߆ߦߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߢߪ⎇ⓥኻ⽎߇ੱߢ޽ࠅ㧘ᄖ㕙⊛ߦߪⷰኤ߇࿎㔍ߥੱߦౝ࿷ߔࠆ
(⸒⺆)⢻ജߥߤߦὶὐ߇⟎߆ࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇ㧘ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߢߪ⎇ⓥኻ⽎ߪળ␠࡮ડᬺ࡮ᯏ
㑐߿ߎࠇࠄߦዻߔࠆੱ‫࡮ޘ‬㓸࿅ߢ޽ࠅ㧘߻ߒࠈᄖ㕙⊛ߦⷰኤน⢻ߥ੐⽎ߦὶὐ߇⟎߆ࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߦ․ޕ‬㧘ࡆࠫࡀࠬቇߢߪ‫ޟ‬໧㗴ߩᚲ࿷ߩᢿቯ‫ޟ߿ޠ‬ᭉⷰᕈߦኻߔࠆุቯ⊛ᘒᐲ‫޿ߣޠ‬ߞߚᔕ↪⸒⺆ቇߣߪ⇣ߥࠆ⼏⺰᭴▽਄ߩᘠ⠌ᕈ߇ᗧ๧ㅪ㎮߆ࠄ⺒ߺขࠇߚ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬ฦ
ቇ໧ಽ㊁ߦㅢᐩߔࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ߩᗧ๧࡮ᯏ⢻ߩ⊒⷗ߪ㧘ߎࠇ߆ࠄߩ ESAP ᢎ᧚ߩ㐿⊒߿ࠪ࡜ࡃࠬ࠺ࠩࠗࡦ㧘ቇⴚ⧷⺆ㄉᦠߩ✬➏ߦ⽸₂ߔࠆ߽ߩߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ ᦨᓟߦ㧘ᧄⓂߢ⺞ᩏߒߚᗧ๧ㅪ㎮ࠍ⥄േ⊛ߦ᛽಴࡮ᢿቯߔࠆߎߣߪ⃻ᤨὐߢߪᧂߛ࿎㔍ߢ޽ࠅ㧘޽ߊ߹ߢಽᨆ⠪ߩ⋡ࠍㅢߒߚⷰኤജ߇ᔅⷐߣߥࠆ‫ࠄ߆ࠬࡄ࡯ࠦޕ‬ᓧࠄࠇߚᢙ୯⊛ߥᖱႎߩߺߥࠄߕ㧘ฦ‫߿ࡦࠗ࡜ࠬࡦ࠳࡯ࠦࡦࠦߩޘ‬ᢥ⣂ࠍ⺒ߺขࠆಽᨆᚻᴺ㧘ߟ߹ࠅࡃ࡯
ࡒࡦࠟࡓቇᵷᵹߩಽᨆࠬ࠲ࠗ࡞ߪ㧘੹߽⸒⺆ಽᨆߦਇนᰳߢ޽ࠆߎߣߪ⸒߁߹ߢ߽ߥ޿‫ޕ‬⸼* ᧄⓂߪ 2010 ᐕᐲ LET 㑐⷏ᡰㇱ⑺ቄᄢળ(ᣈ ㄭ⇰ᄢቇ)ߩ⎇ⓥ⊒⴫ේⓂߦട╩࡮ୃᱜࠍട
߃ߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
1. Becher and Trowler (2001) ߪ㧘ᔕ↪␠ળ⑼ቇ(applied social sciences)ߩߎߣࠍ soft-applied 㗔ၞߣ૏⟎ߠߌࠆ‫․ߩߘޕ‬ᓽߣߒߡ㧘੐଀⎇ⓥ߇ᄙ޿ߎߣ߿㧘(ℂ⺰ࠃࠅ)ታ〣ߦ㊀߈ࠍ⟎ߊߎߣߥߤࠍ᜼ߍߡ޿߇㧘ᢎ᝼ᣇᴺߦ߅޿ߡ߽㧘hard ♽ಽ㊁ߩࠃ߁ߥᢎᏧਛᔃဳߢߪߥ
ߊ㧘ᢎᏧ߇ facilitator ߣߒߡᯏ⢻ߒ↢ᓤߩᵴ⊒ߥ⼏⺰ࠍഥ㐳ߔࠆࠬ࠲ࠗ࡞ࠍᅢ߻ߣߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ᦝߦ㧘ືቇ⎇ⓥߩࠃ߁ߥ᧍਄ߢߩਥⷰ⊛⎇ⓥಽ㊁ߪ soft-pure 㗔ၞߦ฽߹ࠇࠆߩߦኻߒ㧘ㄭᐕߩࠦࡦࡇࡘ࡯࠲⸃ᨆࠍ㚟૶ߒߚቴⷰ⊛ಽᨆߪ soft-applied 㗔ၞߢᅢ߹ࠇࠆߣߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
2. ⎇ⓥ⺰ᢥ৻ᧄߩ✚⺆ᢙ߇ಽ㊁㑆ߢ⇣ߥࠆߩߢ㧘ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬߩ⚥⸘✚⺆ᢙߪ߶߷หߓߢ߽࠺
࡯࠲෼㓸ߒߚ⺰ᢥᢙߪ⇣ߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ᄢ㊂ߩቇⴚ⺰ᢥࠍ⺞ᩏߔࠆ႐ว㧘ಽ㊁㑆ߢᲧセߔࠆߚ߼ߦ⺞ᢛߔࠆኻ⽎ࠍࠦ࡯ࡄࠬ⺆ᢙߦߔࠆߩ߆㧘⺰ᢥᢙߦߔࠆߩ߆ߢ⺞ᩏ⚿ᨐ߇⇣ߥࠆน⢻ᕈ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᧄ⺰ᢥߢขࠅ਄ߍߚ LSP ߩਛߢߎߩᓇ㗀ࠍฃߌࠆน⢻ᕈ߇㜞޿ LSP ߪ based on
N ߢ޽ࠅ㧘ALC ߢߪ⺰ᢥߩᐨ⋚ߦ BC ߢߪ⚳⋚ߦ಴⃻ߔࠆ௑ะߦ޽ࠆߎߣࠍ⺰ᢥਛߢᜰ៰ߒߡ޿ࠆ߇㧘ߎߩࠃ߁ߥ⎇ⓥ⺰ᢥౝߩ಴⃻૏⟎ߦ․ൻߒߚ⺞ᩏߦߪ⺰ᢥᢙࠍឥ߃ߚੑ
ᰴ⊛⎇ⓥ߽ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠈ߁(O. Mason, personal communication, September 7, 2010)‫ޕ‬ෳ⠨ᢥ₂ਛ᪯ᷡ⟤࡮ౝጊ዁ᄦ࡮㐳⼱Ꮉୃᴦ (2005).‫⊛⸘⛔ޟ‬ᜰᮡࠍ೑↪ߒߚᤨ੐⧷⺆⾗ᢱߩ․ᓽ⺆ㆬቯߦ㑐ߔࠆ⎇ⓥ‫ޠ‬‫⎇ࠬࡄ࡯ࠦ⺆⧷ޡ‬ⓥ‫ޢ‬, 12, 19-35.
⍹Ꮉᘕ৻㇢ (2004).‫ޟ‬มᴺ⧷⺆ ESP ⺆ᒵ⴫᭴▽ߩ⹜ߺ―FROWN ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬߣ☨࿖มᴺᢥ₂ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬߩᲧセߦၮߠߊ․ᓽ⺆ߩ᛽಴―‫ޠ‬‫␹ޡ‬ᚭᄢቇ࿖㓙ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯⺰㓸‫ޢ‬, 1, 13-28.
⍹Ꮉᘕ৻㇢ (2006).‫ࡦ࡚ࠪ࡯ࠤࡠࠦߩࠄ߆ࠬࡄ࡯ࠦ⺆⸒ޟ‬ᬌ಴ߩᚻᴺ―ၮ␆⊛⛔⸘୯ߦߟ޿ߡ―‫ޠ‬‫⸘⛔ޡ‬ᢙℂ⎇ⓥᚲ౒ห࡝ࡐ࡯࠻㧦⸒⺆ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬ⸃ᨆߦ߅ߌࠆ౒⿠⺆ᬌ಴ߩߚ߼ߩ⛔⸘ᚻᴺߩᲧセ⎇ⓥ‫ޢ‬, 190, 1-14.
⍹Ꮉᘕ৻㇢ (2008).‫⺆⸒ߣࠬࡄ࡯ࠦ⺆⧷ޡ‬ᢎ⢒㧦࠺࡯࠲ߣߒߡߩ࠹ࠢࠬ࠻‫ޢ‬.᧲੩㧦ᄢୃ㙚.
⍹Ꮉ᦭㚅 (2009).‫ޟ‬ESP ಽ㊁೎ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬߦ⷗ࠆḰኾ㐷⺆ᒵߩ૶↪௑ะ―࠹ࠠࠬ࠻࡮ࠫࡖࡦ࡞ߩ⛔⸘
24
24

․ቯቇ໧ಽ㊁㑆ߦ߅ߌࠆᗧ๧ㅪ㎮Ყセ⊛⸃ᨆ―‫ޠ‬‫⸘⛔ޡ‬ᢙℂ⎇ⓥᚲ౒ห⎇ⓥ࡝ࡐ࡯࠻:ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬߦၮߠߊ⸒⺆࠹ࠬ࠻ߩᅷᒰᕈߣ⛔⸘ᚻ
ᴺ‫ޢ‬, 233, 1-12.
ዊጊ↱♿ᳯ (2008).‫ޟ‬Multi-Word Expression ߦ㑐ߔࠆ⛔⸘ߣᢎ⢒߳ߩᔕ↪‫ޠ‬‫⸘⛔ޡ‬ᢙℂ⎇ⓥᚲ౒ห⎇ⓥ࡝ࡐ࡯࠻: ESP ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬ⺆ᒵߩ㗫ᐲߣ⠌ᓧ࿎㔍ᐲߦၮߠߊ⛔⸘ዤᐲ‫ޢ‬, 216, 39-56.
ዊጊ↱♿ᳯ (2009).‫⑼ޟ‬ቇᛛⴚࠦ࡯ࡄࠬߦ߅ߌࠆ․ᓽ⊛ Multi-Word Expression ߩ᛽಴ߣߘߩ⹏ଔ‫ޠ‬‫⛔ޡ‬⸘ᢙℂ⎇ⓥᚲ౒ห⎇ⓥ࡝ࡐ࡯࠻:ࠦ࡯ࡄࠬߦၮߠߊ⸒⺆࠹ࠬ࠻ߩᅷᒰᕈߣ⛔⸘ᚻᴺ‫ޢ‬, 233, 61-78.
㥲⮮ବ㓶࡮ਛ᧛⚐૞࡮⿒㊁৻㇢(✬) (2005).‫⺆⸒ࠬࡄ࡯ࠦ⺆⧷ޡ‬ቇ㧦ၮ␆ߣታ〣‫(ޢ‬ᡷ⸓ᣂ ). ᧲੩㧦⎇ⓥ␠.
Becher, T., & Trowler. P.R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: SRHE and Open
University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken andwritten English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Blue, G. (1988). Individualizing academic writing tuition. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Academic writing: Process
and product. (pp. 95-99). London: Modern English Publications.
Charles, M. (2004). The construction of stance: A corpus-based investigation of two contrasting disciplines.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.
Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study oftheses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 310-331.
Conrad, S. (2001). Variation among disciplinary texts: A comparison of textbooks and journal articles inbiology and history. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional Studies (pp.
94-107). Harlow: Longman.
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1996). Grammar pattern 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1998). Grammar patterns 2: Nouns and adjectives. London:
HarperCollins.
Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 4, 257-277.
Groom, N. (2007). Phraseology and epistemology in humanities writing. Unpublished PhD thesis.
Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.
Hunston, S. (2007). Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12, 249-268.
Hunston, S. (2008). Starting with the small words: Patterns, lexis and semantic sequences. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13, 271-295.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (1999). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar ofEnglish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hunston, S., & Sinclair, J. (2000). A local grammar of evaluation. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.),
Evaluation in text authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 74-101). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text authorial stance and the construction of discourse.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Longman.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London:
Continuum.
Stubbs, M. (2002). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
White, P. (2004). The appraisal website. Retrieved from http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal.
25
25

JACET Kansai Journal, 13, 26–37. (2011) © JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281 Printed in JAPAN.

Differing Effects of Shared Reading on Receptive Vocabulary Learning of Nouns,
Verbs and Adjectives in Young Japanese L2 Learners
Miyuki Kido
Kyoto Koka Women’s University
ABSTRACTThis paper examines the effects of shared reading of picture books on receptive vocabulary learning
in Japanese elementary school first graders who are learning English as a school subject once a
week. The effectiveness of shared reading is measured by comparing the results of one class wherea book is read to the children with the other where only flash cards are read to. The results of theposttests show there are differences in the effects depending on word classes: nouns seem better
learned by flash cards, verbs seem equally learnable by shared reading and by flash cards;
adjectives are most likely to be better learned by shared reading.
Key words: shared reading, young Japanese L2 learners, receptive vocabulary learning

I. INTRODUCTION
Since the number of children being taught English at younger ages has been increasing
throughout the world, children’s stories have come to be used in many ESL classrooms of primaryschools (Ghosn, 2002). In most of these cases, teachers read aloud to the children who listen to thestories looking at the illustrations, hence the name “shared reading.” It is likely the young learners
may not understand all of the words their teacher reads. However, they seem to gain some receptive
knowledge of the words used in the stories as shown by Elley (1989) who conducted a pilot study
with primary school children learning a second language and showed they acquired receptive
vocabulary from shared reading.
Picture books have many advantages that could meet the demands of such young language
learners. First, the language used in picture books is usually very simple. Second, pictures are ofgreat help in understanding the story for those whose vocabulary is limited. Third, the stories
stimulate the listeners both visually and aurally, thus making them interested in an unknown world.
Although there is much research that supports the effectiveness of shared reading, little
empirical study has proved its effectiveness with young Japanese L2 learners. This research tries toshow receptive vocabulary learning from shared reading based on the results of a study on first
graders (6-7 years old). The posttests the children took in every class showed some differences intheir achievements of nouns, verbs, and adjectives between the groups with and without sharedreading.

26
26

Differing Effects of Shared Reading on Receptive Vocabulary Learning of Nouns,
Verbs and Adjectives in Young Japanese L2 Learners
II. PREVIOUS STUDIESThe research on vocabulary acquisition from shared reading started in the area of first language
learning. Children need to acquire productive vocabulary items in their first language because they
have to communicate with others and to function in the social world. To acquire vocabulary, theymust be exposed to unfamiliar words and somehow learn their meanings. Books serve as usefultools for that purpose because they offer children many opportunities to meet unfamiliar words:
books help children learn not only the meanings of words but also how these words work in thelanguage.
Hindman and Wasik (2006) showed that children in low-income households in the U.S.A. had
fewer chances of shared reading, resulting in a smaller vocabulary compared to children living inhigher-income households. According to the authors, this early-stage vocabulary gap becomes
greater as they enter school, which unfortunately means that, in the long run, the children with asmaller vocabulary are more likely to end up dropping out of school.
A substantial body of research also supports the positive relations between book reading andchildren’s vocabulary, “even accounting for other important factors such as family socioeconomic
status and children’s cognitive skills” (Kleeck, 2006, p.236). The creation of the national Head
Start program in the U.S.A. in 1965 and other similar programs are based on the public awarenessof “the correlation between preschool learning experiences in the home and school readiness”(Kleeck, p.150). Parent-child and/or teacher-child shared book reading has thus been recommended
and practiced in the U.S.A.
Cameron (2008) refers to a move in British education in the 1980s to bring books written by‘real’ authors to promote language learning of children in primary schools. According to her, thismove was triggered by a so-called ‘golden age’ of young children’s literature in English in the
1970s and 1980s. Many quality books with colorful pictures alongside simple story lines havecontributed to language development of British children.
Researchers started to apply children’s first language acquisition as a model for second
language learning (e.g. Asher 1972; Smallwood 1987; Johnston 1994; Laufer 1997; Nation andMing-tzu 1999; Wesche and Paribakht 1999; Beck and McKeown 2001; Ghosn; Gardner 2004;
Pinter 2006; Gibson 2008) and more and more researchers began to use picture books for younger
L2 learners with the aim of enhancing vocabulary (e.g. Elley; Schouten-van Parreren 1989; Cabrena
and Martinez 2001; Cameron; Sheu 2008). They all agree that children’s stories offer opportunities
for foreign language acquisition as well. Repetitive patterns, which are characteristic of picture
books, provide a natural support for language learning. The predictable pattern of events andlanguage, as well as the pictures, enhance listeners’ understanding of unfamiliar words. Listening
to the shared reading thus promotes children’s acquisition of phonology and semantics.
This paper examines the effects of shared reading of picture books on receptive vocabulary
learning in Japanese elementary school first graders who are learning English as a school subject
once a week. The effectiveness of shared reading will be measured by comparing the results of one
class where a book is read to the children with the other where only flash cards are read to them.
27
27

Miyuki Kido

III. RESEARCH METHOD
1. Participants
Two classes of first graders (33 children each) at a private elementary school were read 22
picture books to by a male Australian teacher in the course of 22 weeks. The first graders werechosen because English is taught to all the children once a week at the private primary school
concerned; the second graders and up have taken English classes at least for a year and more,
therefore, the least affected results can be expected with the first graders who just started theirschool life in April, 2009. There were 21 children (11 in Class 1+10 in Class 2) who attended theaffiliated kindergarten where the same teacher had previously taught English once a week for a year.
The English-learning experience of the other 45 children was not checked. Both groups of children
from the affiliated kindergarten and from others showed no significant differences in the mean of
posttest scores given after shared /flash card reading (p<.05).
2. Procedure
The 22 picture books used in class (see Appendix) were from two groups. One group consistedof educational picture books of standards-driven content. They are published either by Huntington
Beach, CA: Creative Teaching Press (CTP) or by Oxford University Press (OUP) to help literacy
teaching for both first and second language learners at primary schools. The other group of picture
books is written by authors such as Brian Wildsmith, Pat Hutchins or Mercer Mayer who have beenvery popular among young first language learners for generations in the United States and in Britain.
The teacher read a picture book to one of the first grade classes twice in a row. Since theoriginal picture books are usually not big enough to be used in a classroom of more than 30 children,
enlarged A3-sized copies (not colored) were shown at the same time. For the other class, theteacher, without reading the story, taught four to six words (see Appendix) chosen from the same
picture book by showing flash cards with pictures scanned from the book, and repeated each word
twice. They were keywords for understanding each story. On the following week, using anotherpicture book, the teaching methods were reversed, so that the class who were read to in the previous
week would have the flash cards.
There were two reasons for alternating the teaching methods between the two classes: one,pedagogical, and one, experimental. First, alternating these methods lessened the possibility thatthe children would lose interest in the English lesson itself, and they would continue to willingly
participate in the lesson. Second, it was necessary to minimize any interference arising from achild’s background knowledge to ensure reliable results. In other words, by alternating the teaching
methods experienced by a group from class to class, and also changing the picture book used fromclass to class, the probability would be minimal that a child was already familiar with a target word
being taught.
No Japanese was used in class by the Australian teacher who read the story and the words. The
average number of total words used in each book is 98.7 and it took about 11 minutes on average toread a book twice, while the running time to read flash cards of 4 to 6 words twice averaged 4 minutes.
28
28

Differing Effects of Shared Reading on Receptive Vocabulary Learning of Nouns,
Verbs and Adjectives in Young Japanese L2 Learners
Immediately after the teacher read either a book or flash cards, both groups of children were
subjected to an identical posttest measuring their knowledge of the target words. It consisted ofscanned pictures of the above mentioned four to six key words from the picture book. The tests
were multiple-choice: the children were asked to write “1” below the picture that displayed themeaning of the first word they would hear, and “2” below the picture that displayed the second
word they would hear, and “3” for the third, etc. The teacher read each word at random twice (theorder was the same for both classes) and then repeated the word a third time so that the children
could double-check their answers. Both classes showed no significant differences in the mean of
posttest scores (p<.05).
3. Data Collection of Posttest Results
All of the 108 tested words were content words. Word class was restricted to either one ofnouns, verbs or adjectives for each book; so was the posttest. During the 22 tests, 53 nouns were
tested from 11 books, 21 verbs from 4 books, and 34 adjectives from 7 books.
The percentage of correct answers of these 22 posttests was as follows:

content words
Nouns
Verbs
Adjectives
Total

Table 1. Percentage of Correct Answers
with shared reading(WSR)
without shared reading(WOSR)
43%
61%
31%
49%
45%
56%
41%
57%

The following five words were tested several times in total of 22 posttests. The percentage ofcorrect answers for these words was as follows:
Table 2. Percentage of Correct Answers Questioned Repeatedly
word
WSR1 WOSR1
WSR2
WOSR2 WSR3
WOSR3
cat
87%
100%
41%
30%
flower
69%
77%
41%
75%
grass
50%
35%
28%
53%
tree
59%
45%
38%
50%
52%
69%
snowy
91%
56%
21%
47%
IV. FINDINGS
Table 1 enables the quantitative analysis as follows:
1) Shared reading caused negative effects on the receptive vocabulary learning of nouns, verbs andadjectives.
2) The percentage of correct answers of verbs is the lowest regardless of WSR or WOSR.
3) The differences of the percentage of correct answers between WSR and WOSR are the slightest
as for adjectives.
29
29

Miyuki Kido

The following four Figures show the qualitative analysis of correlations of correct answers with
WSR and WOSR as for nouns (Figures 1 and 2), verbs (Figure 3), and adjectives (Figure 4)
respectively. In Figures 1, 3, 4, the vertical axis shows the percentage of correct answers of WSR
while the horizontal axis shows the percentage of correct answers of WOSR. The numbers of
Figure 1 are equal to those of Figure 2. The histogram (Figure 2) is available in comparing thepercentage of correct answers of the nouns of WSR and WOSR. Figures 1, 3, 4 can be respectively
divided into five areas to show the effects:
1) The dotted line in the center means the effect of WSR and WOSR on receptive vocabulary
learning is almost the same.
2) The closer to 100% the word on this dotted line is, the more possibilities there are of learners
knowing the word already regardless of WSR and WOSR.
3) If the word is close to 0% on both vertical and horizontal axes, it seems too difficult for young
learners to understand either/both phonologically and semantically regardless of WSR and
WOSR.
4) If the word is in the low right quarter, shared reading has a negative effect on the receptive
vocabulary learning: one of the reasons could be that long complicated sentences of the picturebook made the learners confused to focus on words to remember.
5) If the word is in the high left quarter plus the more away from the dotted line, the more effects
shared reading has on the receptive vocabulary learning.

Figure 1. Correlation of Correct Answers With and Without Shared Reading: Nouns

30
30

Differing Effects of Shared Reading on Receptive Vocabulary Learning of Nouns,
Verbs and Adjectives in Young Japanese L2 Learners

Figure 2. Comparisons of Correct Answers With and Without Shared Reading: Nouns

Figure 3. Correlation of Correct Answers With and Without Shared Reading: Verbs
31
31

Miyuki Kido

Figure 4. Correlation of Correct Answers With and Without Shared Reading: Adjectives
V. DISCUSSION
Figure 1 shows the following five characteristics concerning the nouns used:
1) Such words as “chalkboard,” “birthday card,” “stop sign,” “circle” and “sidewalk” being on or
above the dotted line show that WSR and WOSR have almost the same effects on receptive
vocabulary learning of these nouns.
2) “Worm,” “cave,” “stairs,” “cupboard,” “mill,” “slug,” “pear” and “forest” are typically better
understood without shared reading.
3) The same three words appearing in two different books help us notice some effects of sharedreading. “Tree-1,” “grass-1,” “flower-1,” which are close to the dotted line belong to Rain while“tree-2,” “grass-2,” “flower-2,” which are under the dotted line are from Under the Sky. Whilethese words were remembered no differently when questioned by flash cards (see Table 2), thefact that shared reading evoked such distinctions may show the effects of WSR depend on thebooks used.
4) Such high percentage of correct answers of “dog,” “computer,” “rabbit” and “monkey”
regardless of WSR and WOSR may suggest the possibility that the children knew them
beforehand.
5) “Cat-1” and “cat-2” both being close to the dotted line means the effects of WSR and WOSR are
almost the same. However, in both WSR and WOSR, “cat-2” is less understood than “cat-1”:
the 46% difference in case of WSR and the 70% difference in case of WOSR (see Table 2) seemto have been caused by the differences in the pictures of the two books.
32
32

Differing Effects of Shared Reading on Receptive Vocabulary Learning of Nouns,
Verbs and Adjectives in Young Japanese L2 Learners
The above observation along with the inference from Figure 2 (there are only 8 nouns out of 53
that are better learned by WSR than by WOSR) show that nouns are better learned by WOSR; it
may verify the more effective way of receptive vocabulary learning of nouns is to teach them toyoung learners by flash cards. The pictures of those nouns chosen for this study can be depictedprecisely, especially when they represent concrete objects such as animals and household
accessories; those pictures facilitate learning their names, while story-telling might be confusing
because children do not know which word to focus on.
Figure 3 shows the following three characteristics concerning the verbs used:
1) The 15 verbs out of 21 tested are below the dotted line, which may verify that shared reading isless effective, on the whole, than flash cards for receptive vocabulary learning of verbs.
2) The result can be sorted according to the four books used. Those words on and close to thedotted line such as “wash,” “cut,” “cook,” “peel,” “pick” and “eat” from Who Will Help? and“sleep,” “ride,” “climb,” “fly,” “lift” and “sit” from My Dream show that the effects on receptive
learning of verbs are almost the same with WSR and WOSR. On the other hand, those words not
close to the dotted line such as “jumped,” “called,” “brushed” and “bumped” from Five Little
Monkeys Jumping on the Bed and “closed,” “tucked,” “shot,” “peek” and “cry” from There’s aNightmare in My Closet show negative effects of shared reading on receptive vocabulary
learning of verbs. The differences in the effects of these two groups seem to have been causedby the nature of the books.
3) In Five Little Monkeys Jumping on the Bed the high percentage of posttest scores is divided into
two groups; “jumped” is higher while “brushed,” “bumped” and “called” are lower. The
percentage concerning Who Will Help? is also divided into two groups; “wash,” “cut,” “cook”
are higher while “eat,” “peel,” “pick” are lower. This may show that “jumped,” “wash,” “cut”
and “cook” are familiar to the children who may have heard these words used in daily life andcould identify them phonologically.
While nouns are better learned by WOSR, the data concerning verbs is limited to the four
picture books used; additional data will be needed for further analysis.
Figure 4 shows the following four characteristics concerning the adjectives used:
1) The 34 adjectives used are situated in three different groups:
First, “snowy Ԙ,” “sunny,” “cloudy,” “rainy,” “foggy,” “windy,” “first,” “second” and “fifth” areabove the dotted line. This group belongs to two books, How’s the Weather? and The Costume
Parade. All of the six adjectives from How’s the Weather? and three out of the five adjectives
from The Costume Parade are above the dotted line, which means shared reading is more
effective on receptive vocabulary learning of these nine adjectives. Each book uses adjectives
which are inherently relational; the comparison among those words helps children understandeach meaning. That is, the meaning of these adjectives becomes clearer when used incomparative settings. Shared reading of such books which contain the comparisons of relationalterms may serve better for the receptive vocabulary learning of young learners.
Second, “bushy,” “loud,” “different” and “third” are close to the dotted line. This group of33
33

Miyuki Kido

adjectives shows that WSR and WOSR have almost the same effects on receptive vocabulary
learning.
Third, there are many others which are below the dotted line such as “new,” “cross,” “rocky” and“hot.” This group shows the negative effects of shared reading on receptive vocabulary learning.
2) Like in case of nouns and verbs, the adjectives cluster according to the book they belong to. The
five books out of seven used for the adjectives can be grouped into islands; in addition to theabove mentioned How’s the Weather?, there are four clusters of four different books.
“Different,” “long-legged,” “skinny,” “fat” and “big-eyed” belong to Bugs in a Blanket; “bushy,”“long,” “bob,” “striped” and “spotted” belong to What a Tale; “hot,” “icy,” “rocky,” “shallow”
and “snowy ԙ” belong to Guess Where I Live; “muddy,” “wet,” “new” and “cross” belong to
New Trainers.
3) Although “snowy” appeared in two books, there is a big difference between the percentages of
posttest scores in case of shared reading (see Table 2): With How’s the Weather?, 91% of answers
were correct while with Guess Where I Live, only 21% of children answered correctly.
Interestingly, there is almost no difference in the correctness of “snowy” when flash cards wereused (see Table 2); WOSR shows 56% was correct with How’s the Weather? and 47% wascorrect with Guess Where I Live. “Snowy Ԙ” used together with the other five adjectives to
explain the weather makes it easier for children to guess all these words are related. “Snowy
ԙ,” on the other hand, is difficult to compare with the other four adjectives which describe thecharacteristics (but not necessarily about weather) of the habitat of various creatures.
4) The reason the percentage of correct “bushy” is high both WSR and WOSR seems to have beencaused by its phonological similarity to bushi (meaning “warrior”) in Japanese according to the
explanation of the children. Almost all of them enjoyed the word “bushy” and kept repeating it
after the class was over and even in the following weeks. Their great interest in the similarsound seems to have made them remember its picture although the picture of the “bushy” tail ofa fox has nothing to do with bushi.
Individual comparisons of adjectives were made between the frequencies of posttest scores of
WSR and WOSR by repeating individual x2 analyses. For 13 out of 23 non-relational adjectives,
the frequency distribution is significant and the percentage of correct answers with WOSR is larger
than that of WSR㧔rocky χ2(1)=8.12, p<.01; shallow χ2(1)=7.68, p<.01 ; snowy ԙ χ2(1)=4.78,
p<.05 ; hot χ2(1)=8.14, p<.01; icy χ2(1)=3.96, p<.05 ; cross χ2(1)=18.97, p<.001 ; muddy
χ2(1)=9.14, p<.01 ; wet χ2(1)=6.28, p<.05 ; new χ2(1)=16.06, p<.001 ;bob χ2(1)=4.46, p<.05 ; scaredχ2(1)=6.48, p<.05 ; dark χ2(1)=18.22, p<.001 ; safe χ2(1)=7.57, p<.01㧕. The frequency distribution
is not significant for the other 10 non-relational adjectives (different, bushy, skinny, long, longlegged, spotted, fat, striped, big-eyed, loud). On the other hand, for 3 out of 11 relational adjectives,
the frequency distribution is significant and the percentage of correct answers with WSR is larger
than that of WOSR㧔snowy Ԙ χ2(1)=10.11, p<.001; rainy χ2(1)=4.46, p<.05 ; first χ2(1)=10.24,
p<.001㧕. The frequency distribution is not significant for the other 8 relational adjectives (sunny,cloudy, windy, foggy, second, fourth, third, fifth). These results show that, in case of adjectives, the3434Differing Effects of Shared Reading on Receptive Vocabulary Learning of Nouns,
Verbs and Adjectives in Young Japanese L2 Learners
effect of shared reading is most likely to depend on the picture books used: if the book contains
adjectives which make comparisons possible between inherently relational opposites, sharedreading may help children gain receptive vocabulary of adjectives more efficiently than they donouns or verbs.
VI. CONCLUSION
The effects of shared reading on receptive vocabulary learning were tested with 66 first graders
at a private elementary school. The comparisons of the posttests scores between WSR and WOSR
showed some differences in effect depending on the tested words.
Nouns seem better learned without shared reading; decontextualized learning from flash cards
might be better for children to learn nouns. Verbs seem learnable equally both by WSR and by
WOSR. It is difficult to find clear effects of shared reading as for adjectives but it is likely that,for young L2 learners, adjectives are best learnable from shared reading: contextualized learningof adjectives may be more desirable especially when the book offers comparisons between
inherently relational opposites.
In all of the above cases, however, only receptive knowledge was measured because a person issaid to ‘know’ a word if he/she can recognize its meaning when they hear/see it (Cameron). Even
though the children seemed to have some receptive knowledge of the words read to them rightafter the shared reading, that does not mean those words stay in the long-term memory. As Table 2
shows, some words repeatedly tested were not necessarily recognized better. If delayed tests were
given, they might be helpful to see some other aspects of shared reading.
The results of this pilot study show nouns seem similar to verbs rather than to adjectives in that
decontextualized learning may better serve children to develop vocabulary. This may be due to thefact that the nouns and verbs chosen for the study represent concrete objects or actions, whichmeans they are easier for children to understand. More detailed aspects of nouns, verbs andadjectives, however, should be examined to find better ways to teach young learners various words
either by WSR or WOSR since they seem to function differently depending on word classes inreceptive vocabulary learning.
This study shows the effect shared reading has on receptive vocabulary learning for young
Japanese learners while they enjoy the stories. Long-term follow-up studies are expected to findbetter ways to optimize the effect of shared reading on vocabulary learning.
REFERENCES
Aitchison, Jean. (2003). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon (3rd ed.). Oxford;
New York: Basil Blackwell.
Asher, J. (1972). Children’s first language as a model for second language learning. The Modern
Language Journal, 56, 133-139.
Beck, I. L. & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud experiences
for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10-20.
3535Miyuki Kido

Cabrera, M. P. & Martínez, P. B. (2001). The effects of repetition, comprehension checks, andgestures on primary school children in an EFL situation. ELT Journal, 55, 281-288.
Cameron, L. (2008). Teaching languages to young learners (11th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Curtain, H. & Dahlberg, Carol Ann. (2004). Languages and children̆ Making the match: New
languages for young learners, grades K-8 (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly,
XXIV, 174-187.
Gardner, D. (2004). Vocabulary input through extensive reading: A comparison of words found inchildren’s narrative and expository reading materials. Applied Linguistics, 25, 1-37.
Ghosn, Irma K. (2002). Four good reasons to use literature in primary school ELT. ELT Journal, 56,
172-179.
Gibson, S. (2008). Reading aloud: A useful learning tool? ELT Journal, 62, 29-35.
Hindman, A. H. & Wasik, B. A. (2006). Bringing words to life: Optimizing book reading
experiences to develop vocabulary in young children. In A. van Kleeck (Ed.), Sharing books
and stories to promote language and literacy (pp. 231-268). San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
Johnston, R. (1994). Of dialogue and desire: Children’s literature and the needs of the reluctant L2
reader. Australian Journal of Languages and Literacy, 18, 293-303.
Kleeck, Anne van (Ed.). (2006). Sharing books and stories to promote language and literacy. San
Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy? Intralexical factors affecting thedifficulty of vocabulary acquisition. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary:
Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P. & Wang, Ming-tzu K. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 12, 355-379.
Nation, P. & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N. Schmitt & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 6-19). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schouten-van Parreren, C. (1989). Vocabulary learning through reading: Which conditions shouldbe met when presenting words in texts? AILA Review, 6, 75-85.
Sheu, H. (2008). The value of English picture story books. ELT Journal, 62, 47-54.
Smallwood, B. A. (1987). Children’s literature for limited English proficient students, ages 9-14.
ERIC document reproduction service no. ED: 356647.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input insecond language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language
learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68-83.
36
36

Differing Effects of Shared Reading on Receptive Vocabulary Learning of Nouns,
Verbs and Adjectives in Young Japanese L2 Learners
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. CanadianModern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1994). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A
step towards second language learning. Manuscript. Toronto: Modern Language Center, OISE.
Wesche, M. & Paribakht, T. S. (Eds.). (1999). Incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition: Theory, current
research, and instructional implications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), Special
Issue.

Word class
53 nouns

21 verbs

34 adjectives

Appendix: A List of the Picture Books Used
Title
Author/Publisher
Tested Words
What a Tale
Brian Wildsmithcat, dog, fox, monkey, rabbit
How Many?
CTPbug, cat, octopus, slug
I See Shapes
CTP
circle, rectangle, square, triangle
I Can Read
CTP
cereal box, letter, newspaper, recipe,
sign, stop sign
I Can Write
CTP
birthday card, chalkboard, computer,
paper, postcard, sidewalk
The Bear Went OverCTP
bridge, cave, forest, mountainthe MountainRain
CTPbarn, bee, flower, grass, rooftop, tree
Under the Sky
CTP
flower, grass, rock, soil, tree, worm
Scaredy Cat Runs
CTP
bear, fence, mud, tree
Away
Rosie’s Walk
Pat Hutchinsbeehive, hen, mill, pond
Each Peach Pear
Janet and Allan
cupboard, pear, stairs, witch
Plum
Ahlberg
Who Will Help?
CTP
cook, cut, eat, peel, pick, wash
My Dream
Brian Wildsmithclimb, fly, lift, ride, sit, sleep
Five Little Monkeys Eileen Christelow
brushed, bumped, called, jumped
Jumping on the Bed
There’s a Nightmare
Mercer Mayer
closed, cry, peek, shot, tuckedin My Closet
How’s the Weather?
CTP
cloudy, foggy, rainy, snowy, sunny,windy
The Costume Parade
CTP
fifth, first, fourth, second, third
Guess Where I Live
Anni Axworthy
hot, icy, rocky, shallow, snowy
What a Tale
Brian Wildsmithbob, bushy, long, spotted, striped
Bugs in a Blanket
Beatrice
big-eyed, different, fat, long-legged,
AlemagnaskinnyMittens
OUP
dark, loud, safe, scared
New Trainers
OUP
cross, muddy, new, wet37
37

JACET Kansai Journal, 13, 38–49. (2011) © JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281 Printed in JAPAN.

Representation and Processing of Formulaic Sequences in L2 Mental Lexicon:
How Do Japanese EFL Learners Process Multi-word Expressions?
Yukari Isobe
Graduate School, Kwansei Gakuin University

ABSTRACTThe main purpose of this study is to explore how formulaic sequences (FSs) are mentally
represented and processed by Japanese EFL learners. Two experiments were conducted based on theholistic hypothesis that FSs are stored and retrieved as single lexicalized units. Experiment 1
investigated the hypothesized processing advantage of FSs by comparing reaction times and error
rates for three types of sequences: formulaic, nonformulaic, and ungrammatical sequences in a word
order appropriateness judgment task. Experiment 2 examined the effects of familiarity with whole
sequences on their processing in a sequence familiarity judgment task. The results of Experiment 1
revealed that FSs were processed significantly faster with much fewer errors than the othersequences, thereby indicating that EFL learners benefit from the processing advantage of FSs. In
Experiment 2, both the familiarity and frequency of formulaic expressions were identified as theessential factors that facilitate the recognition of FSs. It is noteworthy that the participants withlower proficiency also enjoy the same processing advantage of FSs as those with higher
proficiency; this suggests that FSs learning may be introduced from the early stage of second
language development.
Key words: formulaic sequences, psycholinguistic reality, L2 mental lexicon

I. INTRODUCTION
1. BackgroundThe significance of formulaic sequences has attracted enormous interest both in the first (L1)and second language (L2) acquisition. As Wray (2008) asserts that the mental lexicon isheteromorphic, linguistic material is assumed to be stored in bundles of different sizes, ranging
from morphemes and words to multiword strings of formulaic sequences. Corpus linguistic research
has unveiled various lexical patterns, such as idioms, collocations, and sentence stems (Schmitt,2004) that recurrently appear in all types of discourse. Erman and Warren (2000) report that wordclusters of various types constitute 58.6% of the spoken English discourse and 52.3% of the written
discourse they analyzed. The phenomenon of lexical patterning is prevalent, and language users rely
heavily on these sequences as the normal building blocks of fluent discourse (Pawley & Syder,1983). They suggest that the largest part of the English speaker’s lexicon comprises complex lexical
items, and that the number of sentence-length expressions familiar to the ordinary, mature English
38
38

Representation and Processing of Formulaic Sequences in L2 Mental Lexicon

speaker probably amounts to several hundreds of thousands.
While there is a wide variety of terms and definitions for recurrent lexical patterns, we use theterm formulaic sequences (FSs) to cover all types of multiword units, following Schmitt (2004).
Wray (2002) defines an FS as a sequence of words that appears to be prefabricated and is stored andretrieved as a whole unit at the time of use, without the need of syntactic analysis. Under thisassumption of holistic processing, FSs are given a single meaning and represented holistically in themental lexicon. For example, the expression spill the beans stands for an act of revealing a secret,an idiomatic meaning that cannot be derived from the meanings of its component words. On theother hand, the word string boil the beans is generated creatively by syntactic rules and must beprocessed analytically word by word. Owing to holistic representation, FSs are assumed to belexicalized and stored as holistic units and can be more easily retrieved and processed than novel
sequences that are generated analytically. The main benefit of FSs is that language users are able toprocess them more efficiently and accurately than nonformulaic sequences (NonFSs) because of the
reduced cognitive load (e.g., Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Pawley &Syder, 1983; Wray, 2002).
2. Review of previous studies
Psycholinguistic studies provide increasing evidence supporting the holistic hypothesis of FSs
in both L1 and L2 use. Jiang and Nekrasova (2007) examined the hypothesized processing
advantage of FSs using online grammaticality judgment experiments. Totally, 20 native speakers
and 20 highly proficient L2 speakers of English were tested with stimuli of 26 FSs and 26 NonFSs
matched for word length and frequency. Results showed that both native and nonnative speakers
responded to FSs significantly faster and with fewer errors than they did to NonFSs. Jiang and
Nekrasova (2007) concluded that reaction time (RT) and error rate advantage for FSs are consistent
with the view of holistic representation. Conklin and Schmitt (2007) conducted a self-paced readingtask using 60 passages with embedded FSs and NonFSs. Nineteen native speakers and 20 proficient
L2 speakers of English read passages line by line on a computer monitor at their own pace. Bothgroups read FSs significantly faster than NonFSs. The faster reading times for FSs adequately
support the assumption that FSs have a processing advantage over creatively generated word strings.
These studies clarify that the processing advantage of FSs extends to advanced nonnative speakers
of English.
Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, and Maynard (2008) analyzed the psycholinguistic aspects of formulasthat would affect the accuracy and fluency of processing FSs in 11 native speakers and 11 advanced
ESL learners. They used a grammaticality judgment task to reveal that both native and nonnative
speakers are sensitive to corpus-driven factors in formula processing. The data showed that
nonnative speakers are significantly sensitive to the frequency of a whole sequence (i.e., the higher
the frequency of the sequence, the shorter its judgment time), whereas native speakers are
predominantly sensitive to the mutual information score (MI), which is the degree of coherence ofwords (i.e., the higher the MI of the sequence, the shorter its judgment time). Ellis et al. (2008)39

Yukari Isobe

maintained that significantly faster RTs for the word strings with these factors are reliable evidence
for the psycholinguistic reality of formulaicity, underscoring the validity of corpus data as anindicator of FSs. Moreover, Wray (2008) pointed out that the criterion of holistic storage isextremely difficult to capture; instead, she relied on statistics and raw frequency for theidentification of FSs. Given that major corpora are compiled from various types of authentic
language produced by numerous native speakers, it is logical to consider corpus data as reliable
metrics reflecting the underlying mental state of the language users (Schmitt, Grandage, & Adolphs,
2004).
However, data supporting the holistic view were largely limited to native speakers of English
and highly proficient L2 speakers in an ESL environment (e.g., Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; Ellis et al.,2008; Jiang & Nekrasova, 2007). Because little research has been conducted on the representationand processing of FSs among non-advanced learners of English, the psycholinguistic validity of
formulas for Japanese EFL learners remains an open question. Given the importance of FSs in L2
acquisition, this study attempts to clarify how FSs are mentally represented and processed by
Japanese EFL learners.
It is widely known that word familiarity is one of the factors that affect word recognition(Yokokawa, 2006). Similarly, the familiarity of sequences is also identified as an important factor
that facilitates the recognition of sequences (Moon, 1998). According to Yokoyama and Wada
(2006), high-exposure items are generally preferred over low-exposure items; hence, given that FSs
are high-exposure items owing to their high frequency, they are preferred over less frequent NonFSs.
In this study, we examine how familiarity with whole sequences affects the processing of FSs in thecase of Japanese EFL learners.
II. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
To explore the representation and processing of FSs in an L2 mental lexicon and to examine
the relations between the processing of FSs and the factors of familiarity and frequency for wholestrings, the following four research questions were considered: (1) Do Japanese EFL learners
process FSs more quickly than NonFSs and ungrammatical sequences (UnGs)? (2) Do they process
FSs more accurately than NonFSs and UnGs? (3) Do they rate FSs with relatively high familiarity?
(4) Do the familiarity and frequency of word sequences affect the recognition process of FSs? To
address research questions (1) and (2), a word-order appropriateness judgment task was conductedin Experiment 1. To answer (3) and (4), a familiarity judgment task was conducted in Experiment 2.
III. METHOD: EXPERIMENT 1
The word-order appropriateness judgment (WOAJ) task was assigned to each participant
individually on a computer screen. The purpose was to explore the psycholinguistic aspects of how
Japanese EFL learners mentally represent and process formulaic sequences. The participants’ RTs
and error rates for three types of word sequences were compared following the procedures of Jiang
and Nekrasova (2007).
40

Representation and Processing of Formulaic Sequences in L2 Mental Lexicon

1. Participants
The participants in this study were 55 paid volunteers; they were either first- or second-year
Japanese undergraduate students learning English as a foreign language. They signed writtenconsent forms agreeing to provide basic data for the study and filled out personal backgroundquestionnaires before the experiment. Their personal history data confirmed that they were noteducated overseas and had started learning English formally in junior high school. Among theseparticipants, two students whose error rates exceeded 20% in the WOAJ task were eliminated, as
their data were considered inappropriate for analysis; thus, 53 students remained. They weredivided into two groups according to the Z-scores converted from their scores on a paper-based
TOEIC. To create a clear contrast between the groups, two participants whose Z-scores were in therange of 48-51 were eliminated. Therefore, 51 participants remained, comprising 26 in the uppergroup and 25 in the lower group. Table 1 summarizes their learning backgrounds.
Table 1. Participants’ learning backgrounds
TOEIC scores
Number
Min.
Max.
M
SD
Upper
26
460
690
519.73 64.77

Age
M
SD
19.81
1.13

Lower

19.24

25

280

430

374.80

42.87

0.66

Years of English learning

M
8.31

SD
1.26

7.76

1.23

2. Materials
The stimulus list comprised three sequence types: FSs, NonFSs, and UnGs, equally matched
for their number of words. For the target FSs, 50 multiword lexical verbs were selected on the basisof Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, and Finegan (1999). To ensure that the target FSs were highfrequency items, we confirmed that their frequency figures exceeded 10 times per million words in
the British National Corpus (BNC). For the control NonFSs, 50 multiword strings including verbs
were created by replacing one word that was considered as a key word in FSs. For example, the FS
come up with was modified by one word to create the NonFS run up with. To ensure that themodified NonFSs were significantly low-frequency items, the frequency figures were confirmed tobe less than one time per million words. It should be noted that the critical factor that differentiatedFSs from NonFSs was the frequency of whole strings, not of each component word. A t-test showedthat the overall frequency of FSs was significantly higher than that of NonFSs (t (98) = 10.19, p< .001). For the filler items, 50 UnGs were invented by scrambling the word order of the formulasthat were not used for the target FSs. The word order of UnGs was designed to be inappropriate tolead to negative responses in the WOAJ task. The frequency figures of UnGs were set to be zero per
million words, suggesting that these sequences do not appear in the corpus. (See Appendix for the
sample test items.)
As the focus is on comparing FSs and NonFSs, the factors affecting lexical processing were
carefully controlled.

41

Yukari Isobe

Table 2. Corresponding factors controlled for FSs and NonFSs
FSs

NonFSsResults of analysis

Number of letters

5.72

5.76

FS = NonFS (n.s.)

Number of syllables

1.84

1.82

FS = NonFS (n.s.)

Word familiarity (ranking)

994.0

712.54

Sequence frequency

36.38

0.28

FS < NonFS(U = 943.50, p = .03)
FS > NonFS(t = 10.19, p < .001)

Table 2 shows the mean numbers of letters and syllables of the differing words in the two setsof sequences (e.g., come in come up with versus run in run up with). As shown, the numbers ofletters and syllables of the replaced words for NonFSs were also equally matched with those for FSs.
A t-test showed no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the number of letters (t(98) = -0.10, p = .92) or syllables (t (98) = 0.11, p = .91). The replaced key words of NonFSs were
designed to have higher word familiarity than the original key words of FSs based on the data ofword familiarity ratings by Japanese EFL learners (Yokokawa, 2006). A Mann-Whitney U test
showed that the replaced words of NonFSs had significantly higher word familiarity rankings thanthose of FSs; this means that NonFSs had a processing advantage over FSs in the word-levelprocessing load. This favorable condition for NonFSs was designed to clarify that faster RT for FSs
is simply attributable to the formulaicity of sequence, not to higher word familiarity.
3. Procedure
The task was assigned to the participants individually after they filled out the written consent
forms and personal background questionnaires. A stimulus presentation software, SuperLab 4.5(Cedrus), was used to measure participants’ RTs for each type of sequence. A set of instructions and21 practice items were given to the participants before the 150 test items. The order of stimuli was
randomized among the participants. In each trial, a fixation marker “+++” appeared in the center of
a computer screen for 1100 ms and was followed by a blank screen for a duration of 200 ms. Then,a stimulus was presented until the key press. All word strings were displayed at the center of a 12.1inch monitor in lowercase letters in 48-point font. Participants were asked to decide as quickly andaccurately as possible whether the word order of the sequence was appropriate. They responded bypressing B for YES or N for NO on the keyboard. The task took 10 to 15 minutes for eachparticipant.
4. Data analyses
The general linear model with repeated measures was used for the participant analysis. To
investigate whether L2 learners responded faster and more accurately to FSs than to NonFSs andUnGs, the mean RT and error rate were analyzed by a 2 × 3 ANOVA with proficiency (upper andlower) as a between-subjects factor and sequence type (FS, NonFS, and UnG) as a within-subjects
42

Representation and Processing of Formulaic Sequences in L2 Mental Lexicon

factor. Before the analyses, participant’s RTs that were ±3 standard deviations (SD) away from hisor her mean RT were excluded as outliers. In the analysis of error rates, both incorrect and correct
responses were included, while only correct responses were included in analyzing RTs.
5. Results and discussion
Table 3 lists the descriptive statistics of RT and error rate data.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the word-order appropriateness judgment task
Upper (n = 26)
Lower (n = 25)
RTs (ms)
Error rates (%)
RTs (ms)
Error rates (%)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
FS
1098.6
381.3
0.02
0.03
1146.6
346.3
0.02
0.02
NonFS 1330.9
610.2
0.05
0.08
1290.7
431.4
0.03
0.04
UnG
1551.7
667.8
0.12
0.08
1546.7
502.9
0.18
0.11
Total
1327.1
553.1
0.06
0.06
1328.0
426.9
0.08
0.06
1600

(ms)

1500
1400

FS

1300

NonFS

1200

UnG

1100
1000

Upper

0.21
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.01

Upper
Lower

FS

Lower

NonFS

UnG

Figure 1a–b. Reaction times (a, left) and error rates (b, right) in Experiment 1.
5.1 Do Japanese EFL learners process FSs more quickly than NonFSs and UnGs?
With regard to the RTs, the results of the two-way ANOVA indicated a significant main
effect of sequence type, F (1.48, 72.53) = 78.98, p < .001, p2 = .62. There was no interaction effect,
F (1.48, 72.53) =0.85, p = .40, p2 = .02, and no main effect of proficiency, F (1, 49) = .00, p = .99,p2

< .001. A Bonferroni multiple comparison revealed that the RTs in FSs were significantly
shorter than those in NonFSs and UnGs (p < .001 in both cases) and the RTs in NonFSs weresignificantly shorter than those in UnGs (p < .001). This indicates a consistent tendency of bothgroups to process FSs significantly faster than NonFSs and UnGs. The results of the processing
advantage of FSs are compatible with those of previous studies (Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; Jiang &Nekrasova, 2007). Faster RTs for FSs support the holistic hypothesis that postulates FSs are stored
and retrieved as whole units. It is assumed that an online WOAJ task requires participants to passthrough three major stages. First, they need to recognize the component words in each stimulus.
Then, they proceed to a syntactic analysis to evaluate the grammatical well-formedness of the word
string. Finally, they make a decision requiring either a positive or negative response on the43

Yukari Isobe

keyboard. According to the holistic hypothesis, a FS such as look forward to is considered to be
represented as a single unit. Recognition of the formula would activate a single lexicalized entry in
the L2 mental lexicon, which enables learners to bypass the second process of syntactic analysis andgive a positive response more quickly.
Although there is no difference between NonFS and UnGs in that they are not lexicalized aswhole units and inevitably require the additional process of syntactic analysis, both groups ofparticipants processed NonFSs significantly faster than UnGs. One possible interpretation is that
UnGs suffer from higher cognitive load because of the shuffled word order, thereby requiring more
processing time. Another possibility is that recognition of the component words in UnGs triggers
the activation of lexical entries, which are the original forms of FSs in spite of their scrambled word
order. Misled activation of the lexicalized FSs may have interfered with the decision-making
process.
5.2 Do Japanese EFL learners process FSs more accurately than NonFSs and UnGs?
As for the error rates, there was a significant interaction effect, F (1.34, 65.77) = 6.37, p< .01, p2 = .12, and a significant main effect of sequence type, F (1.34, 65.77) = 62.59, p < .001,= .56, whereas the main effect of proficiency was not significant, F (1, 49) =1.12, p = .29, p2= .02. Further analysis showed that a simple main effect of proficiency was confirmed at the levelp2

of UnGs, F (1, 49) = 5.54, p = .02, suggesting that the lower group responded to UnGs with muchhigher error rates than the upper group. In the case of FSs and NonFS, there was no significant
difference of error rates across proficiency levels, F (1, 49) = 0.00, p = 1.00 and F (1, 49) = 1.81, p= .19, respectively. A simple main effect of the sequence type was apparent both in the upper group,
F (1.34, 98) = 16.41, p < .001, and the lower group, F (1.34, 98) = 51.86, p < .001. However, theresults of post-hoc comparisons showed a slightly different tendency. In the upper group, theprocessing error rate for FSs (0.02%) was much lower than for NonFSs (0.05%) and UnGs (0.12%)(p < .01, respectively), and that for NonFSs was much lower than for UnGs (p < .01). In the lower
group, processing error rates for FSs (0.02%) and NonFSs (0.03%) were much lower than for UnGs
(0.18%) (p < .001 in both cases). However, no significant difference in error rates was confirmed
between FSs and NonFSs (p = .58). These results suggest that under time pressure in an online task,
NonFSs and UnGs are more likely to generate errors during the additional process of syntactic
analysis, whereas FSs are less likely to produce errors because there is no need for analytic
processing. This notion conforms to the fact that the upper group processed FSs more accurately
than NonFSs and UnGs. However, it seems that for the less proficient learners in the lower group,
formulaicity effects were not discernible between the grammatical sequences of FSs and NonFSs
due to the participants’ insufficient ability of syntactic analysis and unstable knowledge of FSs. The
data showed that both groups responded to UnGs with much higher error rates than FSs and
NonFSs. It is assumed that the higher processing load of ungrammatical sequences created morechances for errors. These overall results wherein FSs are processed more efficiently than the othersequences support the psycholinguistic reality of formulas in EFL learners’ L2 mental lexicon.
44Representation and Processing of Formulaic Sequences in L2 Mental Lexicon

IV. METHOD: EXPERIMENT 2
The purpose of Experiment 2 is twofold: to determine whether FSs were perceived as being
more familiar than the counterpart sequences using a familiarity judgment task and to clarify how
the familiarity of word sequences affected the recognition process through a Spearman rankcorrelation analysis.
1. Participants and materials
The participants were the same as those in Experiment 1. Totally, 51 participants remained foranalysis, and they were divided into two groups: 26 undergraduates in the upper group and 25 in thelower group (See Table 1 for their learning backgrounds). The stimulus list used in Experiment 1
was retained for this task (See Appendix for the stimulus list).
2. Procedure
The task was assigned to the participants at the end of the session to avoid repetition effects.
The participants were individually asked to rate their familiarity with the stimulus word strings on a
six-point scale. They were clearly instructed to rate familiarity for the entire string, not forindividual words. After a practice session comprising eight items, the participants pressed the space
bar to start the trials. The order of stimuli was randomized among the participants, and their
responses were digitally recorded by SuperLab 4.5 (Cedrus). In each trial, a fixation marker “+++”and the six-point scale appeared as reminders in the center of a computer screen for 2000 ms,
followed by a blank screen for 100 ms. Then, a stimulus was presented until the key press. All word
strings were displayed at the center of a 12.1-inch monitor in lowercase letters in 48-point font.
Numbers 1 through 6 were assigned to keys D, F, G, H, J, and K, respectively. The participants
were asked to press one of the six keys immediately after the stimulus presentation, according to thedegree of their familiarity with the stimulus word string (e.g., D for 1 when the stimulus was leastfamiliar and K for 6 when it was most familiar). The task took 10 to 15 minutes for each participant.
3. Data analyses
The general linear model with repeated measures was used for the participant analysis. In
order to determine whether EFL learners acquired higher familiarity with FSs than with NonFSs,
the mean familiarity ratings were analyzed by a 2 × 3 ANOVA with proficiency (upper and lower)
as a between-subjects factor and sequence type (FS, NonFS, and UnG) as a within-subjects factor.
Spearman’s rank-correlation coefficient was utilized to investigate the relations between thefamiliarity ratings and the other factors, namely, the RTs in the WOAJ task and the frequency of thestimuli in the BNC corpus. In this study, familiarity ratings were analyzed as interval scale data; thisis based on the suggestion that data from a Likert scale with more than four points can be treated asinterval scale data and the results of their parametric analyses are approximately the same as thoseof nonparametric analyses using them as ordinal scale data (Ishii, 2005).
45

Yukari Isobe

4. Results and discussion
Table 4 presents the mean familiarity ratings for three types of sequences in each group.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of familiarity ratings for word sequence
Upper (n = 26)
M
SD
5.2
0.4
4.0
0.5
1.6
0.5
3.6
0.5

FS
NonFS
UnG
Total

Lower (n = 25)
M
SD
4.9
0.5
3.8
0.7
1.8
0.6
3.5
0.6

6.0
5.0
4.0

Upper

3.0

Lower

2.0
1.0

FS

NonFS

UnG

Figure 2. Familiarity ratings for word sequence
4.1 Do Japanese EFL learners rate FSs with relatively high familiarity?
A 2 × 3 ANOVA indicated a significant interaction effect, F (1.36, 66.47) = 4.90, p = .02, p2= .09, and a significant main effect of the sequence type, F (1.36, 66.47) = 672.58, p < .01, p2= .93; in contrast, the main effect of proficiency was not significant, F (1, 49) = 1.33, p = .26, p2= .03. A test of simple main effects revealed that the familiarity rating of three sequence types
differed significantly in the upper group, F (1.36, 66.47) = 403.39, p < .01, and the lower group, F(1.36, 66.47) = 276.57, p < .01. Figure 2 shows a clear trend in the familiarity ratings. An analysis
of multiple comparisons revealed that both groups rated FSs significantly higher than NonFSs and
UnGs (p < .01, respectively) and NonFSs significantly higher than UnGs (p < .01).
A test of the simple main effects of proficiency showed that the familiarity rating differedsignificantly at the level of FS, F (1, 49) = 7.98, p < .01, suggesting that the upper group rated FSs
significantly higher than the lower group. This may reflect the participants’ accumulated experienceof learning English. As described in Section III.2, FSs are high-frequency items in the BNC corpusthat may represent the actual use of the given items. Therefore, these high-frequency FSs are more
likely to be high-exposure items in actual language use (Yokoyama, 2006) and may appear more
often in an English learning environment. Moreover, provided that language proficiency is related
to the amount of exposure to the target language, learners with higher proficiency are more likely to46

Representation and Processing of Formulaic Sequences in L2 Mental Lexicon

have been exposed to larger language input. Thus, repeated exposure to highly frequent FSs may
contribute to the upper group’s higher familiarity with them. No significant difference in familiarity
ratings was apparent across the groups for NonFS (F (1, 49) = 1.84, p = .18) or UnG (F (1, 49) =1.51, p = .23). This suggests that the amount of learning experience did not influence the familiarity
ratings for NonFSs and UnGs because they are low-frequency items, which are less likely to appear
in language input.
4.2 Do the familiarity and frequency of word sequences affect the recognition process of FSs?
A Spearman rank-correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relationship among
three variables: the familiarity of the whole sequence, frequency of the whole sequence in the BNC,
and RT in the WOAJ task. Table 5 shows the results, which indicate a similar tendency across thetwo groups.
Table 5. Spearman’s rank-correlation coefficient ()Upper
RTs in WOAJ
Familiarity rating
Lower

BNC frequency

RTs in WOAJ

1-.36(**)-.33(**)

Familiarity rating-.32(**)

1.88(**)

BNC frequency-.38(**).86(**)

1

Note. Figures above the diagonal are for the upper group, and those below thediagonal are for the lower group. **p < .01
In the upper and lower groups, RT in the WOAJ task was weakly correlated with thefamiliarity of the whole sequence ( = -.36, p < .01, and  = -.32, p < .01, respectively) and thefrequency of occurrence in the BNC corpus ( = -.33, p < .01, and  = -.38, p < .01, respectively).
This is similar to the result of Gernsbacher’s (1984) study, which suggests that word familiarity, as
well as word frequency, is a predictor of RT. Our study showed that either the familiarity or thefrequency of whole strings could be an indicator of RT in processing multiword sequences. The
weak correlation between processing time and these two factors was possibly due to the large
variability in the RTs of less proficient L2 participants. As Yokoyama (2006) suggests that thefamiliarity of items may be determined by the exposure frequency in actual language use, learners
may need more language input to encounter formulas in order to develop a more linear relation
between formula familiarity and processing time. In contrast, the correlation between familiarityand frequency in the BNC was very strong ( = -.88, p < .01 for the upper and  = -.86, p < .01 forthe lower group), indicating that familiarity with word sequence was sensitive to the corpus-derived
data. It is notable that whole-string frequency in the native data also reflects whole-string familiarity
for Japanese EFL learners. As discussed above, high-frequency items are likely to become highexposure items even for EFL learners. Provided that repeated exposure creates higher familiarity to47

Yukari Isobe

the items, it is conceivable that whole-string frequency in the BNC reflects whole-string familiarity
among Japanese learners of English.
V. CONCLUSION
The main purpose of this study is to explore how FSs are mentally represented and processedby Japanese EFL learners. Our data indicate that less proficient learners store and process themholistically, providing further evidence that nonnative speakers of English enjoy the sameprocessing advantage of FSs as native speakers. It is noteworthy that less proficient learners in thelower group also benefited from the processing advantage of FSs. This suggests that FSs are
represented as single whole units in the L2 mental lexicon from an early stage of language
development. The findings may shed further light on the theoretical understanding of lexical
processing and may hold pedagogical implications as well. However, we should not oversimplify
the fact that Japanese EFL learners enjoy the same processing advantage of FSs as advanced ESL
learners, because the process of acquiring FSs may differ slightly between EFL and ESL learners.
In an ESL environment where learners have daily access to language input, they may establish aholistic representation of FS through natural contextual learning. Meanwhile, with a limited amountof exposure to the target language in an EFL situation, the processing advantage of FSs may stemfrom the peculiar learning experience of memorizing phrasal expressions out of context, largely forentrance examinations to schools.
It should also be noted that both the familiarity and frequency of formulaic expressions are theessential factors that facilitate recognition. Further research is required to clarify how Japanese EFL
learners acquire knowledge of FSs; this will enable us to devise an effective instruction method.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is a modified version of the oral presentation given at the 36th Japan Society ofEnglish Language Education Conference in Osaka on August 7, 2010. I am grateful to anonymous
reviewers for their sincere suggestions and advice on this work.
REFERENCES
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken
and written English. Harlow: Longman.
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than
nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29, 72-89.
Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second
language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42,375-396.
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29-62.
Gernsbacher, M. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarityand orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General,48

Representation and Processing of Formulaic Sequences in L2 Mental Lexicon

113, 256-81.
Ishii, H. (2005). Tokeibunseki no koko ga shiritai [Practical questions of statistical analyses]. Tokyo:
Bunkodo.
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language
speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 433-445.
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English. A corpus-based approach. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection andnativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication(pp. 191-226). London : Longman.
Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmitt, N., Grandage, S., & Adolphs, S. (2004). Are corpus-derived recurrent clusters
psycholinguistically valid? In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences (pp. 127-152).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yokokawa, H. (Ed.). (2006). Nihonjin Eigo gakusyusha no eitango shinmitsudo: Moji-hen [English
word familiarity for Japanese English learners: Written words]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Yokoyama, S. (2006). Itaijisenkou ni okeru tanjunsessyokukoka to ippanhosoku no kankei [Mereexposure effect and generalized matching law for preference of Kanji form]. Mathematical
Linguistics, 25, 199 - 214.
Yokoyama, S., & Wada, Y. (2006). A logistic regression model of variant preference in Japanese
kanji: An integration of mere exposure effect and the generalized matching law. Glottometrics,
12, 63 -74.
Appendix: Sample Experimental Stimuli
FS (36.38/M)
NonFS (0.28/M)
UnG (0/M)
agree withhurry with
with begin
come up withrun up withup keep withdepend on
select on
up pick
get back to
say back to
to in givego aheadgo behindalone leavelook forward tolook outside towith have trouble
make use of
make way oflate up stay
sit down
fly down
down knock
take part intake life in
in touch get
wait fortell forup dress
Note. Average frequency for the whole sequence in the BNC corpus is shown in parentheses.
49

JACET Kansai Journal, 13, 50–61. (2011) © JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281 Printed in JAPAN.

᝼ਈേ⹖᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ߦ߅ߌࠆᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⛔⺆⸘↹㧦⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴ߦၮߠߊᬌ⸛᫪ਅ ⟤๺
␹ᚭቇ㒮ᄢቇ

ਛ㊁ 㓁ሶ࡮㐷↰ ୃᐔ㑐⷏ቇ㒮ᄢቇ⏷ㄝ ࠁ߆ࠅ࡮ᢧ⮮ ୶ሶ㑐⷏ቇ㒮ᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ᐔ੗ ᗲ੩ㇺ♖⪇ᄢቇ

ABSTRACTThe present study aims to investigate syntactic planning for sentences using dative verbs. Japanese
university students participated in the experiments based on two types of picture description tasks,
i.e., a paper-and-pencil task and a syntactic priming task. The result of the former task indicates thatthe magnitude of syntactic planning ability affects choices of structures produced. In the latter task,
the significant priming effect was only found in the case of lower level students. A possible
explanation is that not only was their grammatical knowledge limited but also their syntacticplanning ability was not yet fully developed and they tended to describe pictures by simply using
prime sentences. In contrast, upper level students were less susceptible to the influence of prime
sentences.
Key words: ⸒⺆↥಴㧘⛔⺆⸘↹㧘⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣ㧘⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴㧘᝼ਈേ⹖᭴ᢥ

1. ߪߓ߼ߦ
Levelt (1989) ߪ㧘ᢥࠍ⊒⹤ߔࠆ㓙ߩᔃ⊛ࡊࡠ࠮ࠬࠍ㧘ᰴߩ 3 ߟߩᲑ㓏ߦಽߌߡ޿ࠆ‫(ޕ‬1)⸒⺆ൻߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ࡔ࠶࠮࡯ࠫ߿ᗧ࿑ࠍᕁ޿ᶋ߆ߴࠆߎߣ㧔᭎ᔨൻ㧧Conceptualization㧕㧘(2) ᭎ᔨ⴫⽎ࠍ⸒⺆ᒻᑼߦᄌൻߐߖߚࠅ㧘⺆ᒵࠍㆬᛯߒߡ⛔⺆᭴ㅧߦߟ޿ߡߩ⸘↹ࠍ┙ߡߚࠅ㧔⛔⺆⸘↹㧧syntactic planning㧕ߒߚᓟ㧘㖸㖿⊛ߦ⸥ภൻߒ㧘㖸ჿൻߔࠆߎߣ㧔ᒻᚑ㧧Formulation㧕㧘(3) 㖸㖿⸘↹߿㧘ߤߩ╭⡺ࠍേ߆ߔ߆ߦߟ޿ߡߩ⸘↹ࠍ┙ߡ㧘⺞㖸ߔࠆߎߣ㧔ታⴕ㧧Execution㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬3 ߟߩᲑ㓏ߩ߁ߜ㧘․ߦ‫ޟ‬ᒻᚑ‫ޟߣޠ‬ታⴕ‫ޠ‬
50
50

᝼ਈേ⹖᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ߦ߅ߌࠆᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⛔⺆⸘↹߇㧘ᄖ࿖⺆ቇ⠌ߦᷓߊ㑐ࠊߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޟޕ‬ᒻᚑ‫ߩޠ‬Ბ㓏ߢ⛔⺆⸘↹߇ߢ߈ߥߌࠇ߫㧘ߘߩᓟߩࡊࡠ࠮ࠬ߇ᚑࠅ┙ߚߥ޿น⢻ᕈࠍ⠨߃ࠆߣ㧘⛔⺆⸘↹ߪᄖ࿖⺆ߩ↥಴ߦ߅޿ߡ㕖Ᏹߦ㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪ㧘⸒⺆↥಴ߦ߅ߌࠆലᨐ⊛ߥቇ⠌࡮ᜰዉᴺ߳ߩ␜ໂࠍᓧࠆߚ߼㧘⛔⺆⸘↹ߦὶὐࠍᒰߡ㧘⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴 (picture description task) ࠍ↪޿ߚ 2 ߟߩታ㛎ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬ታ㛎 1 ߢߪ㧘ᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߥ⛔⺆᭴ㅧࠍ↥಴ߔࠆ௑ะ߇޽ࠆ߆ࠍ⺞ߴࠆߚ߼㧘⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬ታ㛎දജ⠪ߪ㧘᝼ਈേ⹖᭴ᢥ㧔prepositional object; PO ᭴ᢥ㧛double
object; DO ᭴ᢥ㧕ߩ↥಴ࠍ⁓ߞߚ⛗ߦߟ޿ߡ㧘ߘࠇࠄࠍឬ౮ߔࠆ 1 ᢥࠍ↥಴ߒߚᓟ㧘න⺆ߩᗐ⿠߿⛔⺆⸘↹߇ࠬࡓ࡯࠭ߦⴕ߃ߚ߆ߣ޿߁ౝኈߩ⾰໧ߦ╵߃ߚ‫ޕ‬ታ㛎 2 ߢߪ㧘Bock(1986) ߩᚻᴺࠍෳ⠨ߦ㧘⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴ࠍ↪޿ߚ⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣታ㛎ࠍⴕ޿㧘⠌ᾫᐲࠍ 2ߟߦಽߌߚᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪߅ࠃ߮⧷⺆Უ⺆⹤⠪ߩࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣലᨐࠍᲧセಽᨆߒߚ‫ޕ‬
2. ታ㛎 1 ⛔⺆⸘↹ߦ㑐ߔࠆ⎇ⓥߪ㧘⸒޿㑆㆑޿ (speech error) ߩಽᨆ (Garrett, 1984) ߿㧘⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣታ㛎 (Bock, 1986, 1989; Branigan, Pickering, Liversedge, Stewart, & Urbach, 1995)ߥߤࠍㅢߒߡⴕࠊࠇߡ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬Garrett (1984) ߪ㧘⛔⺆⸘↹ࠍᯏ⢻࡟ࡌ࡞ (functional level) ߣ૏⟎࡟ࡌ࡞ (positional level) ߩ 2 Ბ㓏ߦಽߌߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᯏ⢻࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߪ㧘⺆㗅ߪ߹ߛቯ߹ߞ
ߡ߅ࠄߕ㧘ᗧ๧ߒߚ޿ߎߣߦ⹥ᒰߔࠆ⺆߇ㆬᛯߐࠇ㧘ਥ⺆߿⋡⊛⺆ߥߤߩᓎഀ߇ઃਈߐࠇ
ߡ⛔⺆ߩᨒ⚵ߺ߇૞ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬૏⟎࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߪ㧘ㆬᛯߐࠇߚ⺆߇⛔⺆ߩᨒ⚵ߺߦ޽ߡߪ߼ࠄ
ࠇ㧘⺆㗅߇ቯ߼ࠄࠇࠆߣߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ Უ⺆⹤⠪߇Უ⺆ߩᢥࠍ↥಴ߔࠆ႐วߣ⇣ߥࠅ㧘╙ੑ⸒⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ႐วߪ㧘⛔⺆⸘↹ߦ߅ߌࠆᯏ⢻࡟ࡌ࡞ߣ૏⟎࡟ࡌ࡞ߩᲑ㓏ߩಣℂ߇ᧂ⊒㆐ߢ޽ࠆߚ߼㧘᭴ᢥߩ↥಴௑ะߦᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬ಣℂߦߟ޿ߡߩ⠌ᾫᐲߪ㧘ቇᩞᢥᴺߩ⍮⼂ߦ㑐ߔࠆ৻⥸⊛ߥ⧷⺆⢻ജ⹜㛎ߢߪ᷹ቯߔࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߥ޿‫ߢߎߘޕ‬㧘ታ㛎 1 ߢߪ㧘⛗ࠍ⷗ߡߘߩౝኈ
ࠍឬ౮ߔࠆ㓙㧘᭴ᢥߩ⚵ߺ┙ߡ߇ᔃ⊛ߦߢ߈ߚ߆ߤ߁߆㧘߹ߚ㧘ᔃ⊛ㄉᦠ㧔ࡔࡦ࠲࡞࡟ࠠ
ࠪࠦࡦ㧕߆ࠄᔅⷐߥ⺆ᒵࠍᗐ⿠ߢ߈ߚ߆ߤ߁߆ߦߟ޿ߡ㧘ታ㛎දജ⠪ߩࡔ࠲ᗧ⼂ࠍ⺞ᩏߒ㧘⛔⺆⸘↹ߦ߅ߌࠆಣℂ߳ߩᓇ㗀ߦߟ޿ߡ⺞ߴࠆߎߣߦߒߚ‫ޕ‬
2.1 ታ㛎දജ⠪ᣣᧄ࿖ౝߩᄢቇ 1㨪4 ᐕ↢㧔ᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪㧕462 ฬ߇ෳടߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᄢቇߢߩኾ᡹ߪᄙጘ
ߦࠊߚߞߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬
2.2 ታ㛎⚛᧚ᢎ᧚૞ᚑᡰេ࠙ࠚࡉࠨࠗ࠻㧔࿖㓙੤ᵹၮ㊄ᣣᧄ⺆࿖㓙࠮ࡦ࠲࡯㧘2010㧕ߩᢎ᧚↪⚛᧚㓸
߆ࠄ㧘PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ࠍ⁓ߞߚ⛗ࠍ 8 ᨎ㧘߅ࠃ߮㧘ฃേᘒ㧘ᓥዻធ⛯⹖㧘ᔃℂേ⹖ࠍ฽߻ᢥߩ↥಴ࠍ⁓ߞߚ⛗ࠍ⸘ 22 ᨎ㧘ว⸘ 30 ᨎࠍㆬቯߒߚ‫ޕ‬30 ᨎߩ⛗ߪ㧘2 ߟߩ࡝ࠬ࠻㧔ฦ
15 ᨎ㧕ߦಽߌ㧘㗅ᐨലᨐࠍㆱߌࠆߚ߼㧘ߘࠇߙࠇ 3 ⒳㘃ߩࡄ࠲࡯ࡦࠍ૞ᚑߒߚ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻᭴ᢥߣ㑐ㅪ߇ߥ޿ߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ⛗ࠍࡈࠖ࡜࡯ߣߒߡ 6 ᨎ↪ᗧߒߚ‫ޕ‬ฦታ㛎දജ⠪ߪ㧘
5151

᫪ਅ ⟤๺࡮ਛ㊁ 㓁ሶ࡮㐷↰ ୃᐔ࡮⏷ㄝ ࠁ߆ࠅ࡮ᢧ⮮ ୶ሶ࡮ᐔ੗ ᗲታ㛎㗄⋡ߩ⛗ 15 ᨎߣࡈࠖ࡜࡯ߩ⛗ 6 ᨎߩ⸘ 21 ᨎߩ⛗ߦߟ޿ߡឬ౮ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬ታ㛎දജ⠪߇㧘ߔߢߦ↥಴ߒߚᢥࠍᝄࠅ㄰ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߥ޿ࠃ߁㧘↪⚕ 1 ᨎߦߟ߈⛗ࠍ
1 ᨎߕߟශ೚ߒ㧘ฦࡍ࡯ࠫߩਛᄩߦ⛗ࠍ㧘ਅᣇߦߘߩౝኈࠍឬ౮ߔࠆ⧷ᢥ㧔1 ᢥ㧕ࠍᦠߊߚ߼ߩ✢ࠍߘࠇߙࠇ㈩⟎ߒߚ‫ߩ⛗ޕ‬ឬ౮ߦ㑐ߔࠆ⾰໧߇ᦠ߆ࠇߚᰴߩࡍ࡯ࠫߣ࠮࠶࠻ߦߒ
ߡ㧘ว⸘ 21 ࠮࠶࠻㧘42 ࡍ࡯ࠫ߆ࠄᚑࠆ⺞ᩏౠሶࠍ૞ᚑߒߚ‫⾰ޕ‬໧ߩౝኈߪ㧘એਅߩ 3 ߟߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬1㧚੹ߩ⛗ߪࠊ߆ࠅ߿ߔ߆ߞߚߢߔ߆㧫 ‫ޤ ߃޿޿࡮޿ߪ ޣ‬
2㧚ᦨೋߦᶋ߆ࠎߛ᭴ᢥߢߒߚ߆㧫 ‫ޤ ߃޿޿࡮޿ߪ ޣ‬
3㧚૶޿ߚ޿න⺆ߪߔߋߦᕁ޿ߟ߈߹ߒߚ߆㧫‫ޤ ߃޿޿࡮޿ߪ ޣ‬
2.3 ታ㛎ᚻ㗅ታ㛎දജ⠪ߦߪ㧘A5 ࠨࠗ࠭ߩ⺞ᩏౠሶ߇㈩Ꮣߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ౠሶߩ⴫⚕ߦߪ㧘ㄉᦠࠍ૶ࠊߥ
޿ߢ 1 ᢥߢᦠߊߎߣ㧘޽߹ࠅ⠨߃ㄟ߹ߕߦ⚛ᣧߊᦠߊߎߣ㧘๮઎ᢥߥߤߪ૶↪ߖߕߦਥ⺆ࠍ઻߁ᢥࠍᦠߊߎߣ㧘ߥߤߩᵈᗧ੐㗄߇⸥タߐࠇߡ߅ࠅ㧘ታ㛎ታᣉ⠪߇ㆡቱ⺑᣿ࠍട߃ߚ‫ޕ‬✵⠌໧㗴ࠍ 3 ໧ⴕ޿㧘ਇ᣿ߥὐ߇ߥ޿߆⏕⹺ߒߚᓟ㧘ታ㛎ࠍ㐿ᆎߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᚲⷐᤨ㑆ߪ⚂ 30ಽߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
2.4 ಽᨆߣ⚿ᨐᧄ⎇ⓥߩታ㛎ߢߪ㧘4 ⒳㘃ߩ⛔⺆᭴ㅧߩ߁ߜ㧘PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ࠍ⁓ߞߚ⛗㧔1 ੱ޽ߚࠅ 4 ᨎ㧕ߦὶὐࠍᒰߡߡಽᨆࠍⴕ߁ߎߣߣߒ㧘‫߆ߔߢߚߞ߆ߔ߿ࠅ߆ࠊߪ⛗ߩ੹ޟ‬㧫‫ߣޠ‬޿߁⾰໧ߦ‫ߣޠ޿ߪޟ‬࿁╵ߒߚ႐วߩߺࠍಽᨆኻ⽎ߣߒߚ‫ޕ‬ฦታ㛎දജ⠪߇↥಴ߒߚᢥߪ㧘PO ᭴ᢥ㧘DO ᭴ᢥ㧘ߘߩઁ㧔⋡⊛⺆߇ 1 ⺆ߩߺߩ႐ว㧘PO/DO એᄖߩ᭴ᢥࠍ૶↪ߒߚ႐วߥߤ㧕㧘್ቯਇ⢻㧔ᄖࠇ୯㧕ߦಽ㘃ߒߚ‫ޕ‬1 ฬߩ⹏ቯ⠪߇ಽ㘃ࠍⴕߞߚᓟ㧘೎ߩ⹏ቯ⠪߇ᱜ⏕ߐࠍ⏕⹺ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ ฦ᭴ᢥߩᐔဋ↥಴ᢙࠍ㧘⴫ 1 ߦ␜ߔ‫ోޕ‬૕ߣߒߡ㧘PO ᭴ᢥߪ DO ᭴ᢥࠃࠅ᦭ᗧߦᄙߊ
↥಴ߐࠇߚ (t(461) = 4.08, p < .001)‫ޕ‬⴫ 1.1ੱ޽ߚࠅ㧔4ᨎਛ㧕ߩฦ᭴ᢥߩᐔဋ↥಴ᢙ
1 ੱ޽ߚࠅ㧔4 ᨎਛ㧕ߩฦ᭴ᢥߩᐔဋ↥಴ᢙ462)(n(n= =462)
⴫1.
PO
DO
ߘߩઁ
2.10
0.75
0.73
᭴ᢥ↥಴ᢙ㧛ੱSD(0.88)(0.78)(1.11) ታ㛎 1 ߢߪ㧘ታ㛎㗄⋡ߩ⛗ 8 ᨎࠍ 2 ߟߩ࡝ࠬ࠻ߦಽߌߡ޿ࠆ߇㧘࡝ࠬ࠻ߩ㆑޿߇ᄢ߈ߊ
಴ࠆߎߣࠍㆱߌࠆߚ߼㧘࡝ࠬ࠻Ფߩᐔဋ୯ߦၮߠ߈୘‫ ࠍ࠲࡯࠺ߩޘ‬z ୯ߦᄌ឵ߔࠆߎߣߦ
ࠃߞߡ↥಴ᢙࠍᮡḰൻߒߚ‫ޕ‬ታ㛎දജ⠪ߩࡔ࠲ᗧ⼂߇ PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ߦਈ߃ࠆᓇ㗀ࠍ⺞ߴࠆߦ޽ߚߞߡߪ㧘PO/DO ᭴ᢥࠍ↥಴ߒߚታ㛎දജ⠪ߩߺߦᵈ⋡ߒ㧘243 ฬಽߩ࠺࡯࠲
ࠍ૶↪ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ಽᨆᣇᴺߪ㧘⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴ߦࠃࠆ⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣࠍᛒߞߡ޿ࠆ Branigan,52
52

᝼ਈേ⹖᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ߦ߅ߌࠆᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⛔⺆⸘↹
Pickering, and Cleland (1999) ߦḰߓ㧘PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ✚↥಴ᢙߦኻߔࠆ DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸ࠍ᳞߼ߚ‫ޕ‬߹ߚ㧘ࡈࠖ࡜࡯ߩ⛗㧔1 ੱ޽ߚࠅ 6 ᨎ㧕ߦߟ޿ߡ߽㧘ࠊ߆ࠅ߿ߔ޿ߣ޿߁࿁╵ࠍᓧߚ႐วߩߺࠍಽᨆኻ⽎ߣߒ㧔ᵈ㧕㧘⛔⺆⸘↹ߦ㑐ߔࠆࡔ࠲ᗧ⼂ࠍ⺞ᩏߒߚ‫ޕ‬ታ㛎දജ⠪Ფߦ‫ᦨޟ‬ೋߦᶋ߆ࠎߛ᭴ᢥߢߒߚ߆‫⾰߁޿ߣޠ‬໧ߦ‫ߣޠ޿ߪޟ‬࿁╵ߒߚ࿁ᢙߣ㧘‫޿ߚ޿૶ޟ‬න⺆ߪߔߋߦᕁ޿ߟ߈߹ߒߚ߆‫⾰߁޿ߣޠ‬໧ߦ‫ߣޠ޿ߪޟ‬࿁╵ߒߚ࿁ᢙࠍ᳞߼㧘ߘࠇߙࠇߩ
Ყ₸ࠍ⸘▚ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ଢቱ਄㧘೨⠪ࠍ‫ޟ‬᭴ᢥߩ⚵ߺ┙ߡ‫⾰ߩߡ޿ߟߦޠ‬໧㧘ᓟ⠪ࠍ‫ޟ‬න⺆ߩᗐ⿠‫⾰ߩߡ޿ߟߦޠ‬໧ߣ๭߱‫ޕ‬DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸ࠍᓥዻᄌᢙ㧘ࡈࠖ࡜࡯ߩ⛗ߦኻߔࠆ‫ޟ‬᭴ᢥߩ⚵ߺ┙ߡ‫ޠ‬㧔࿑ 1㧕ߣ‫ޟ‬න⺆ߩᗐ⿠‫ޠ‬㧔࿑ 2㧕ߩᲧ₸ࠍ⁛┙ᄌᢙߣߒߡಽᢔಽᨆࠍⴕ޿㧘᭴ᢥߩ⚵ߺ┙ߡ߇ߢ߈ࠆ߆ߤ߁߆㧘߅ࠃ߮ࡔࡦ࠲࡞࡟ࠠࠪࠦࡦ߆ࠄߩන⺆ߩᗐ⿠߇ߢ߈ࠆ߆ߤ߁߆߇㧘DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ߦਈ߃ࠆᓇ㗀ࠍ⺞ߴߚ‫⚿ߩߘޕ‬ᨐ㧘‫ޟ‬᭴ᢥߩ⚵ߺ┙ߡ‫ߩޠ‬ਥലᨐߪ⷗ࠄࠇߚ (F(5,242) = 2.42, p = .037) ߇㧘‫ޟ‬න⺆ߩᗐ⿠‫ߩޠ‬ਥലᨐ (F(5, 242) = 0.85, p = .51) ߿੤੕૞↪
(F(15, 242) = 0.13, p = .22) ߪ⷗ࠄࠇߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬

1
㧰 0.8
㧻
᭴ 0.6
ᢥ
↥
಴ 0.4
Ყ
₸ 0.2
0
0

0.17

0.33

0.5

0.67

0.83

1

ࡈࠖ࡜࡯ߦኻߒߡᦨೋߦᶋ߆ࠎߛ᭴ᢥࠍᦠ޿ߚᲧ₸࿑ 1. ‫ޟ‬᭴ᢥߩ⚵ߺ┙ߡ‫ߩޠ‬Ყ₸ߣ DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸ߩᐔဋ
1
㧰 0.8
㧻
᭴ 0.6
ᢥ
↥
಴ 0.4
Ყ
₸ 0.2
0
0

0.17

0.33

0.5

0.67

0.83

1

ࡈࠖ࡜࡯ߦኻߒߡන⺆ࠍߔߋߦᕁ޿ߟ޿ߚᲧ₸࿑ 2. ‫ޟ‬න⺆ߩᗐ⿠‫ߩޠ‬Ყ₸ߣ DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸ߩᐔဋ5353᫪ਅ ⟤๺࡮ਛ㊁ 㓁ሶ࡮㐷↰ ୃᐔ࡮⏷ㄝ ࠁ߆ࠅ࡮ᢧ⮮ ୶ሶ࡮ᐔ੗ ᗲ
2.5 ⠨ኤ ታ㛎 1 ߢߪ㧘ᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪߇㧘PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ࠍ⁓ߞߚ⛗ࠍ 1 ᢥߢឬ౮ߔࠆ㓙ߦ㧘⛔⺆⸘↹ߩᯏ⢻࡟ࡌ࡞ߣ૏⟎࡟ࡌ࡞ߩᲑ㓏ߩಣℂߦߟ޿ߡߩࡔ࠲ᗧ⼂߇㧘᭴ᢥߩ↥಴௑ะߦਈ߃ࠆᓇ㗀ࠍ⺞ߴߚ‫⚿ߩߘޕ‬ᨐ㧘⛗ࠍ⷗ߡ↥಴ߒࠃ߁ߣߔࠆ᭴ᢥࠍߔߋߦᕁ޿ᶋ߆ߴࠆ
ߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߚ߆ߤ߁߆ߪ㧘PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ߦᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߇ಽ߆ߞߚ߇㧘න⺆ࠍᕁ޿ᶋ߆ߴࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߚ߆ߤ߁߆ߩᓇ㗀ࠍ␜ߔ⚿ᨐߪᓧࠄࠇߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߎߩߎߣ߆ࠄ㧘వⴕ⎇ⓥ (Garrett, 1984) ߦ␜ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆࠃ߁ߦ㧘⺆ࠍㆬᛯߔࠆߎߣߣ㧘ㆬᛯߐࠇߚ⺆ࠍㆡಾߥ᭴ᢥߦ޽ߡߪ߼ߡᢥࠍ૞ࠆߎߣߣߪ⇣ߥࠆಣℂߢ޽ࠆน⢻ᕈ߇┍߃ࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘⺆ࠍㆬቯߢ߈ߚߛߌߢߪᢥߩ↥಴ߦߟߥ߇ࠄߥ޿߇㧘᭴ᢥࠍᕁ޿ᶋ߆ߴࠆߎߣ
߇ߢ߈ߚ႐ว㧘ߘߩ᭴ᢥߦ⺆ࠍ޽ߡߪ߼ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈㧘ᢥߩ↥಴ߦᚑഞߒ߿ߔ޿ߩߢߪߥ
޿߆ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ߦ↹⸘⺆⛔ޕ‬㑐ߔࠆవⴕ⎇ⓥߢߪ㧘ࡔࡦ࠲࡞࡟ࠠࠪࠦࡦߩਛߢࠕࠢ࠮ࠬ
ߒ߿ߔ޿⺆ᒵ߇㧘⛔⺆⸘↹ߦᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ࠆ௑ะ߇޽ࠆߣႎ๔ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫߫߃଀ޕ‬㧘᦭↢ฬ⹖ߪ㧘ઁേ⹖ߩਥ⺆ߣߒߡㆬ߫ࠇ߿ߔߊ(McDonald, Bock, & Kelly, 1993)㧘ౕ⽎ᕈߩ㜞޿ฬ⹖ߪ㧘ᢥߩᦨೋߩᣇߦ⟎߆ࠇࠆ௑ะߦ޽ࠆ (Bock, 1987; Bock & Warren, 1985)‫ޕ‬ታ㛎 1 ߩಽᨆߢߪ㧘‫ߣޠߚߞ߆ߔ߿ࠅ߆ࠊߪ⛗ޟ‬࿁╵ߒߚ࠺࡯࠲ࠍ㓸߼ߡ߅ࠅ㧘න⺆ߪ޽ࠆ⒟ᐲᗐ⿠
ߢ߈ߡ޿ߚߣ⸒߃ࠆ߇㧘Უ⺆ߩಣℂߣߪ⇣ߥࠅ㧘⛗ࠍ⷗ߡන⺆ࠍᗐ⿠ߢ߈ߡ߽㧘⛔⺆⊛ᨒ⚵ߺࠍ૞ࠆᲑ㓏ߢ᭴ᢥࠍᕁ޿ᶋ߆ߴࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߥߌࠇ߫㧘ߘࠇࠄࠍ߁߹ߊ⚵ߺ┙ߡࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߥ޿ߩߢߪߥ޿߆ߣ޿߁ߎߣࠍ␜ໂߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ታ㛎 1 ߢߪ㧘⛔⺆⸘↹ߩᲑ㓏ࠍᛒߞߚ߇㧘↥಴ߦ߅ߌࠆᢥಣℂߩࡊࡠ࠮ࠬߦߟ޿ߡߪ᣿
ࠄ߆ߦߢ߈ߥ޿‫ߪߦ߼ߚࠆߴ⺞ࠍࠇߘޕ‬㧘L1 వⴕ⎇ⓥߢߒ߫ߒ߫↪޿ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣታ㛎 (Bock 1986) ࠍⴕ߁ᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘╙ੑ⸒⺆ߩᢥಣℂߦߪ㧘৻⥸⊛ߥ⧷⺆⢻ജ⹜㛎ߢ᷹ቯߢ߈ࠆࠃ߁ߥ⠌ᾫᐲ߇ᓇ㗀ߔࠆߣႎ๔ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫߫߃଀ޕ‬㧘Hopp(2006) ߪ㧘╙ੑ⸒⺆ߣߒߡߩ࠼ࠗ࠷⺆ࠍቇ⠌ߔࠆ⧷⺆Უ⺆⹤⠪ߣࠝ࡜ࡦ࠳⺆Უ⺆⹤⠪ࠍኻ⽎ߦ㧘࠼ࠗ࠷⺆ߩ C-test ߦࠃࠅ⠌ᾫᐲࠍ᷹ቯߒ㧘ḰᲣ⺆⹤⠪ (near-native) ߣ਄⚖⠪ߩ 2 ࠣ࡞࡯ࡊߦಽߌߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬਄ߢ㧘⛔⺆⊛ᦌᤒᕈߩ޽ࠆᢥߦߟ޿ߡ㧘ታ㛎දജ⠪ࡍ࡯ࠬߩ⺒ߺ⺖㗴ߣᤨ㑆೙㒢ࠍ⸳ߌߚᢥᴺᕈ್ᢿ⺖㗴ࠍታᣉߒߚߣߎࠈ㧘ౣ⸃㉼ߦ㑐ߒߡ㧘ḰᲣ⺆⹤⠪ࠣ࡞࡯ࡊߪᲣ⺆⹤⠪ߦㄭ޿ᢥಣℂࠍ␜ߒߚ߇㧘਄⚖⠪ࠣ࡞࡯ࡊߪ␜ߐߥ߆ߞߚߣႎ๔ߒߡ޿
ࠆ‫ޕ‬Clahsen and Felser (2006a, 2006b) ߪ㧘⧷⺆Უ⺆⹤⠪ߣ Quick placement test (Oxford
University Press, 2004) ߩ਄⚖࡟ࡌ࡞ߢ޽ߞߚ╙ੑ⸒⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߣࠍኻ⽎ߦ㧘ࠝࡈ࡜ࠗࡦ⺖㗴߅ࠃ߮ࠝࡦ࡜ࠗࡦ⺖㗴ࠍታᣉߒ㧘ࡈࠖ࡜࡯࡮ࠡࡖ࠶ࡊ᭴ᢥߣ㑐ଥ▵ߩઃട૏⟎߇ᦌᤒߥᢥ
ߩಣℂࠍᲧセߒߚߣߎࠈ㧘ਔ⠪ߩᢥಣℂ߇⇣ߥߞߡ޿ߚߣႎ๔ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᧄ⎇ⓥߩታ㛎 2 ߢߪ㧘ߎߩࠃ߁ߥవⴕ⎇ⓥߩ⚿ᨐߦ㐓ߺ㧘ᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⧷⺆ߩ⠌ᾫᐲࠍ᷹ቯߔࠆߣߣ߽ߦ㧘⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣታ㛎ࠍⴕ޿㧘↥಴ߦ߅ߌࠆᢥಣℂߩࡊࡠ࠮ࠬࠍⷰኤߒߚ‫ޕ‬
3. ታ㛎 2⸒⺆↥಴ߔࠆ㓙㧘⋥೨ߦಣℂߒߚᢥߣหߓ⛔⺆⊛ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦࠍ↪޿ࠆ௑ะ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬Levelt
and Kelter (1982) ߪ㧘ᢙ⊖ੱߩ໡ੱߦ㔚⹤ࠍ߆ߌ㧘”What time does your shop close?”ߣ⾰໧
54
54

᝼ਈേ⹖᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ߦ߅ߌࠆᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⛔⺆⸘↹ߒߚߣ߈ߦߪ “Five o’clock.” ߣ╵߃㧘”At what time does your shop close?” ߣ⾰໧ߒߚߣ߈ߦ
ߪ“At five o’clock.” ߣ╵߃ࠆ௑ะ߇޽ࠆߎߣࠍ⊒⷗ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
Bock (1986) ߪ㧘ߎߩ⃻⽎ࠍ⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣ (syntactic priming) ߣฬઃߌ㧘ߘߩ㗎ஜᕈࠍᬌ⸽ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᓐᅚߪ㧘⧷⺆Უ⺆⹤⠪ࠍኻ⽎ߣߒ㧘⢻േᘒ㧛ฃേᘒ᭴ᢥ߅ࠃ߮ PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ 2 ⒳㘃ߩ⛔⺆᭴ㅧߦߟ޿ߡ㧘⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴ࠍ↪޿ߚ⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣታ㛎ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬ታ㛎ߪ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥࠍ㖸ჿ๒␜ߒߡᓳ໒ߐߖߚᓟ㧘⛗ࠍឬ౮ߐߖࠆ㧘ߣ޿߁ᚻ㗅ߢⴕࠊࠇߚ‫߫߃଀ޕ‬㧘⢻േᘒ㧛ฃേᘒ᭴ᢥߩ႐ว㧘޿ߕࠇ߆ߩ᭴ᢥࠍࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߣߒߡ๒␜ߒ (e.g.,
One of the fans punched the referee. / The referee was punched by one of the fans.)㧘ᰴߦ޿ߕࠇ
ߩ᭴ᢥߢ߽⴫⃻ߢ߈ࠆ⛗ (e.g., Lightning is striking the church. / The church is being struck bylightning.) ࠍ⷗ߖߡឬ౮ߐߖߚ‫⚿ߩߘޕ‬ᨐ㧘⢻േᘒࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩߣ߈ߦߪ⢻േᘒ᭴ᢥ㧘ฃേᘒࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩߣ߈ߦߪฃേᘒ᭴ᢥࠍࠃࠅᄙߊ↥಴ߔࠆߎߣ߇ಽ߆ࠅ㧘PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ႐วߦ߽㧘ห᭽ߩ௑ะ߇⷗ࠄࠇߚ‫ޕ‬⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣታ㛎ߢߪ㧘⺆ᒵߪᔅߕߒ߽➅ࠅ㄰ߐࠇߥ޿‫߫߃଀ޕ‬㧘೨⟎⹖ฏߢ to㧗ฬ⹖߇ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߦ޽ࠆ႐ว㧘↥಴ߐࠇࠆᢥߦߪ㧘೨⟎⹖ฏߣ޿߁᭴ㅧߪ〯ⷅߐࠇ߿ߔ
޿߇㧘೨⟎⹖ߩ⒳㘃ߪ㑐ଥߒߥ޿ (Bock, 1989)‫ࠅ߹ߟޕ‬㧘⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣߢߪ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩ᛽⽎⊛ߥ⛔⺆᭴ㅧ߇↥಴ߐࠇࠆᢥ᭴ㅧߦᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ታ㛎 1
ߢߪ㧘DO ᭴ᢥࠃࠅ߽ PO ᭴ᢥߩᣇ߇ᄙߊ↥಴ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ߇㧘L1 వⴕ⎇ⓥߦၮߠߌ߫㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߣߒߡ PO ᭴ᢥ߹ߚߪ DO ᭴ᢥࠍ๒␜ߔࠆ႐ว㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ߇ DO ᭴ᢥߢ޽ࠇ߫㧘
DO ᭴ᢥࠍ↥಴ߔࠆഀว߇ታ㛎 1 ࠃࠅ߽ᄙߊߥࠆߎߣ߇੍᷹ߢ߈ࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ᢥᴺ⢻ജߩ⠌ᾫᐲ߇㧘↥಴ߦ㑐ࠊࠆᢥಣℂߦ߽ᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ࠆߩߢ޽ࠇ߫㧘⠌ᾫᐲߦࠃߞߡߪᲣ⺆⹤⠪ߣߪ⇣ߥߞߚ↥಴௑ะࠍ␜ߔߎߣ߇੍᷹ߢ߈ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߘߎߢ㧘ታ㛎 2 ߢߪ㧘Bock (1986) ߩᚻᴺߦၮߠ߈㧘⠌ᾫᐲࠍ 2 ߟߦಽߌߚᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪߅ࠃ߮⧷⺆Უ⺆⹤⠪ࠍኻ⽎ߦ㧘⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴ࠍ↪޿ߚ⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣታ㛎ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬
3.1 ታ㛎දജ⠪ᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ 70 ฬ߅ࠃ߮⧷⺆Უ⺆⹤⠪ 11 ฬ߇ෳടߒߚ‫ޕ‬೨⠪ߦߪ㧘Quick
placement test (Oxford University Press, 2004) ࠍฃ㛎ߒߡ߽ࠄ޿㧘ࠬࠦࠕߩᐔဋ୯ߣਛᄩ୯߇
߶߷หߓ㧔⚂ 34 ὐ㧕ߢ޽ߞߚߚ߼㧘34 ὐ߆ࠄ 47 ὐࠍ਄૏⟲㧔40 ฬ㧕㧘16 ὐ߆ࠄ 33 ὐࠍਅ ૏ ⟲ 㧔 30 ฬ 㧕 ߦ ಽ 㘃 ߒ ߚ 㧔 60 ὐ ḩ ὐ 㧕 ‫ ޕ‬QPT ߣ Common European framework ofreference for languages (Council of Europe, 2001) ߦߪ⋧㑐߇޽ࠅ㧘ታ㛎දജ⠪ߩᄢඨ߇
CEFR ߩ B1 (Threshold: Lower Intermediate) 䈮ᒰ䈢䉎࡟ࡌ࡞ߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
3.2 ታ㛎⚛᧚ታ㛎 1 ߢ૶↪ߒߚ 30 ᨎߩ⛗ߩ߁ߜ㧘⛗ߩℂ⸃߇ኈᤃߢฦ⛔⺆᭴ㅧ߇↥಴ߐࠇ߿ߔ߆ߞ
ߚ 16 ᨎࠍ૶↪ߒߚ‫ޕ‬4 ⒳㘃ߩ⛔⺆᭴ㅧࠍࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߣߔࠆฦ 4 ᨎ߅ࠃ߮ࡈࠖ࡜࡯12 ᨎߩ⸘ 28 ᨎߩ⛗߆ࠄᚑࠆ 2 ⒳㘃ߩ࠹ࠬ࠻ࠍ SuperLab® ߢ૞ᚑߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߔߴߡߩ⛗ߪߘߩ⋥೨ߦ๒␜ߐࠇࠆ⧷ᢥ㧔ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ㧕ߣ࠮࠶࠻ߦߥߞߡ߅ࠅ㧘ฦ࠹ࠬ55
55

᫪ਅ ⟤๺࡮ਛ㊁ 㓁ሶ࡮㐷↰ ୃᐔ࡮⏷ㄝ ࠁ߆ࠅ࡮ᢧ⮮ ୶ሶ࡮ᐔ੗ ᗲ࠻ߩࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߪ㧘2 ߟߩ᭴ᢥߩ߁ߜ޿ߕࠇ߆ࠍ฽ࠎߢ޿ߚ‫߫߃଀ޕ‬㧘PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴௑ะࠍ⷗ࠆ႐ว㧘PO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ (The boy offered his seat to the lady.) ߹ߚߪ DO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ
(The boy offered the lady his seat.) ߩᓟߦ㧘Appendix ߩ (1) ߩ⛗㧔࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻㧕߇๒␜ߐࠇ㧘ߤߜࠄߩ᭴ᢥࠍ↥಴ߔࠆ߆ࠍ⺞ᩏߒߚ‫ޕ‬
3.3 ታ㛎ᚻ㗅ታ㛎දജ⠪ߪ㧘⺞ᩏߩ⋡⊛ߪ㧘ᄢቇ↢߇ਈ߃ࠄࠇߚ⛗ࠍ⷗ߡ㧘ߤߩࠃ߁ߥᢥࠍᦠߊߩ߆
ࠍ⺞ߴࠆߎߣߢ޽ࠆߣ⺑᣿ߐࠇߚ‫(ޕ‬1) ࠦࡦࡇࡘ࡯࠲↹㕙਄ߦ๒␜ߐࠇࠆ⧷ᢥࠍ㖸⺒ߒ㧘ࠬࡍ࡯ࠬࠠ࡯ࠍ᛼ߔ㧘(2) ᰴߦ⛗߇๒␜ߐࠇࠆߩߢ㧘ߘߩ⛗ߦว߁ 1 ᢥࠍߢ߈ࠆߛߌ⚛ᣧߊ࿁╵↪⚕ߦ⸥౉ߒ㧘ࠬࡍ࡯ࠬࠠ࡯ࠍ᛼ߔ㧘ߣ޿߁ᚻ㗅߇⺑᣿ߐࠇ㧘✵⠌໧㗴ࠍ 3 ໧ⴕߞߚᓟ㧘ታ㛎ࠍ㐿ᆎߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᚲⷐᤨ㑆ߪ⚂ 30 ಽߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
3.4 ಽᨆߣ⚿ᨐታ㛎 1 ߣห᭽ߦ㧘4 ⒳㘃ߩ⛔⺆᭴ㅧߩ߁ߜ㧘PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ࠍ⁓ߞߚ⛗㧔4 ᨎ㧧
Appendix ෳᾖ㧕ߦὶὐࠍᒰߡ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩᓟߦ๒␜ߐࠇࠆ⛗ߩឬ౮ߦߟ޿ߡಽᨆࠍⴕߞ
ߚ‫ޕ‬ฦታ㛎දജ⠪߇↥಴ߒߚᢥߪ㧘PO ᭴ᢥ㧘DO ᭴ᢥ㧘ߘߩઁ㧘್ቯਇ⢻㧔ᄖࠇ୯㧕ߦಽ㘃ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
PO/DO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߦኻߔࠆ PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩᐔဋ↥಴Ყ₸ࠍ㧘⴫ 2 ߦ␜ߔ‫ޕ‬⴫ฦ᭴ᢥߩᐔဋ↥಴Ყ₸(%)(%)⴫2.2.ฦ᭴ᢥߩᐔဋ↥಴Ყ₸਄૏⟲ (n = 40)
PODOPOࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ
36.7
16.5
DOࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ
31.6
20.3

ߘߩઁ
46.8
48.1

ਅ૏⟲ (n = 30)
PO
DO
35.0
13.3
25.0
31.7

ߘߩઁ
51.7
43.3

߹ߚ㧘ታ㛎 1 ߢ↪޿ߚታ㛎㗄⋡ߩ⛗ߩ߁ߜ㧘ታ㛎 2 ߢ߽↪޿ߚ⛗ߦߟ޿ߡ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ
߇ߥ޿႐ว㧔ታ㛎 1㧕ߩᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩฦ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸ࠍ⸘▚ߒߚߣߎࠈ㧘 PO ᭴ᢥ㧦DO ᭴ᢥ㧦ߘߩઁߩ᭴ᢥ㧩21.1%: 12.5%: 66.4% ߣߥߞߚ‫ ⴫ޕ‬2 㧔ታ㛎 2㧕ߩฦ⟲ߩ↥಴Ყ₸ߣߩ㆑޿ࠍ㧘ࠞࠗੑਸ਼ᬌቯߢ⺞ߴߚߣߎࠈ㧘ో૕ߣߒߡ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ߇ߥ޿႐วߣ
޽ࠆ႐วߢ㧘᭴ᢥ㑆ߩ↥಴Ყ₸ߦ᦭ᗧᏅ߇⷗ࠄࠇߚ㧔PO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ㧦2 = 233.2, p < .001㧘
DO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ㧦2 = 216.6, p < .001㧕‫ޕ‬⠌ᾫᐲ೎ߦ⷗ࠆߣ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ߇ߥ޿႐วߣᲧߴ
ߡ㧘਄૏⟲ߦ߅޿ߡ㧘 PO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߢߪ PO ᭴ᢥ (2 = 72.96, p = .002)㧘DO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߢ
ߪ DO ᭴ᢥ (2 = 65.75, p = .006) ߩ↥಴Ყ₸߇᦭ᗧߦჇ߃㧘ਅ૏⟲ߦ߅޿ߡ߽㧘PO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߢߪ PO ᭴ᢥ (2 = 45.89, p = .018)㧘DO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߢߪ DO ᭴ᢥ (2 = 74.52, p < .001) ߩ↥಴Ყ₸߇᦭ᗧߦჇ߃ߚ‫ޕ‬ߐࠄߦ㧘ታ㛎 1 ߣห᭽ߦ㧘PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ✚↥಴ᢙߦኻߔࠆ DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸ࠍ᳞߼㧘⠌ᾫᐲ೎ߦࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣലᨐࠍ⺞ߴߚ‫ޕ‬DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸ࠍᓥዻᄌᢙߣߒ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ
ߩ⒳㘃 (PO/DO) ࠍⵍ㛎⠪ౝⷐ࿃㧘⠌ᾫᐲ㧔3 ࡟ࡌ࡞㧕ࠍⵍ㛎⠪㑆ⷐ࿃ߣߒߡಽᢔಽᨆ
56
56

᝼ਈേ⹖᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ߦ߅ߌࠆᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⛔⺆⸘↹
㧔F1㧦ⵍ㛎⠪ಽᨆ߅ࠃ߮ F2㧦㗄⋡ಽᨆ㧕ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬PO/DO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߦኻߔࠆ DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸ࠍ㧘࿑ 3 ߦ␜ߔ‫ࡓࠗ࡜ࡊޕ‬ᢥߩ⒳㘃ߩਥലᨐߦߪ᦭ᗧᏅ (p < .05) ߇㧘⠌ᾫᐲߩਥലᨐߦߪ᦭ᗧ௑ะ (p = .070) ߇㧘ߘࠇߙࠇⷰኤߐࠇߚ߇㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩ⒳㘃ߣ⠌ᾫᐲߩ㑆ߦ੤੕૞↪ߪ⷗ࠄࠇߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
1

0.8
㧰
㧻
᭴
ᢥ
↥
಴
Ყ
₸

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
⧷⺆Უ⺆⹤⠪

਄૏⟲PO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ

ਅ૏⟲DOࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ

࿑ 3. PO/DO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߦኻߔࠆ DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸
3.5 ⠨ኤ
ో૕ߣߒߡ㧘DO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥࠍ๒␜ߒߚߣ߈ߩᣇ߇㧘PO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩߣ߈ࠃࠅ߽᦭ᗧߦ
ᄙߊߩ DO ᭴ᢥ߇↥಴ߐࠇߚ‫ࠄ߇ߥߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘ᄙ㊀Ყセߩ⚿ᨐ㧘ਅ૏⟲ߢߪ㧘DO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥࠍ๒␜ߒߚߣ߈ߩᣇ߇㧘PO ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩߣ߈ࠃࠅ߽᦭ᗧߦᄙߊߩ DO ᭴ᢥ߇↥಴ߐࠇߚ߇㧘⧷⺆Უ⺆⹤⠪ߣ਄૏⟲ߢߪ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩ⒳㘃ߦࠃߞߡᏅߪ⷗ࠄࠇߥ߆ߞߚ‫ߎޕ‬ߩߎߣ߆ࠄ㧘ᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߢߪ㧘ਅ૏⟲ߩߺߦ㧘᣿ࠄ߆ߥࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣലᨐ߇⷗ࠄࠇ
ࠆߎߣ߇ಽ߆ߞߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ℂ↱ߣߒߡߪ㧘਄૏⟲ߪ㧘PO/DO ᭴ᢥએᄖߦ߽᭽‫ߥޘ‬᭴ᢥࠍᲧセ⊛⥄↱ߦ↥಴ߢ߈ࠆߚ߼㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩᓇ㗀ࠍฃߌߦߊ޿߇㧘ਅ૏⟲ߩ႐วߪߘࠇ߇㔍ߒ޿ߚ߼㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥࠍߥࠆߴߊ೑↪ߒߡᢥࠍ૞ࠈ߁ߣߔࠆ߆ࠄߢߪߥ޿߆ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒߥ߇ࠄ㧘ታ㛎 1 ߣታ㛎 2 ߩ PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸ࠍᲧセߒߡߺࠆߣ㧘⠌ᾫᐲߦ㑐ࠊࠄߕ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ߇ߥ߆ߞߚታ㛎 1 ࠃࠅ߽㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ߇޽ߞߚታ㛎 2 ߩ߶߁߇㧘޿ߕࠇߩ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸߽᦭ᗧߦჇ߃ߡ޿ߚ‫ࠄ߆ߣߎߩߎޕ‬㧘ᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߦߪ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥࠍήᗧ⼂ߦ೑↪ߒߡᢥ↥಴ࠍⴕ߁௑ะ߇޽ߞߚߎߣ߇ಽ߆ࠆ‫ߦࠄߐޕ‬㧘ታ㛎 1 ߢߪ㧘
PO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴߇ᅢ߹ࠇࠆ௑ะ߇ⷰኤߐࠇߚ߇㧘ಽᢔಽᨆߩ⚿ᨐ㧘ታ㛎 2 ߢߪ㧘ਅ૏⟲ߩ
DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸߇⪺ߒߊჇ߃ߚ㧔਄૏⟲㧦p = .006㧘ਅ૏⟲㧦p = .0000048㧕‫৻ޕ‬ᣇ㧘਄૏⟲ߩ႐ว㧘ታ㛎 2 ߢ߽㧘PO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ࠍᅢ߻௑ะࠍᒝߊ଻ߞߡ߅ࠅ㧘৻⥸ߦ PO ᭴ᢥࠍᄙߊ↥಴ߔࠆߣ⸒ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ⧷⺆Უ⺆⹤⠪ߦㄭ޿௑ะ߇޽ࠆߩߢߪߥ޿߆ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ(Gries, 2005)‫ޕ‬57
57

᫪ਅ ⟤๺࡮ਛ㊁ 㓁ሶ࡮㐷↰ ୃᐔ࡮⏷ㄝ ࠁ߆ࠅ࡮ᢧ⮮ ୶ሶ࡮ᐔ੗ ᗲᧄ⎇ⓥߦ߅ߌࠆ⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴ࠍ↪޿ߚ⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣታ㛎ߢߪ㧘L1 ࠍኻ⽎ߦߒߚవⴕ⎇ⓥ (Bock, 1986) ห᭽㧘ో૕ߣߒߡ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩ⒳㘃߇ PO/DO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴Ყ₸ߦᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ߚߎߣ߆ࠄ㧘ᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ႐วߦ߽㧘⠌ᾫᐲߦ㑐ࠊࠄߕ㧘⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣലᨐ߇⷗ࠄࠇࠆߎߣ߇ಽ߆ߞߚ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣലᨐߪ᭎ߒߡૐ߆ߞߚ߽ߩߩ㧘ਅ૏⟲ߩࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣ₸ߪ㧘ઁߩࠣ࡞࡯ࡊߣᲧߴߡ᦭ᗧߦ㜞߆ߞߚ‫ߪߣߎߩߎޕ‬㧘ห᭽ߦᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ࠍኻ⽎ߣߒߚ Morishita et al. (2010) ߇㧘ᢥቢᚑ⺖㗴ࠍ↪޿ߚ⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣታ㛎ߩਛߢ㧘਄૏⟲ߪ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߦ޽߹ࠅᓇ㗀ߐࠇߕߦ᥉Ბࠃߊ૶ߞߡ޿ࠆ᭴
ᢥࠍ↥಴ߒ㧘ਛ૏⟲ߪ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥࠍߥࠆߴߊᮨ୮ߒ㧘ਅ૏⟲ߪ㧘ࡔࡦ࠲࡞࡟ࠠࠪࠦࡦౝ
ߦᢥ↥಴ߩߚ߼ߩ⛔⺆⴫⽎߇චಽᒻᚑߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߚ߼㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥࠍ߁߹ߊ೑↪ߢ߈ߥ޿௑ะ߇޽ࠆ㧘ߣᜰ៰ߒߚౝኈߣߪ⋧෻ߔࠆ⚿ᨐߣߥߞߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ේ࿃ߣߒߡߪ㧘⠌ᾫᐲߩಽ㘃ၮḰ߇⇣ߥࠆߣ޿߁ߎߣߛߌߢߥߊ㧘ᢥቢᚑ⺖㗴߇⛔⺆᭴ㅧߦᄢ߈ߊଐሽߔࠆ৻ᣇ㧘⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴ߪ⥄↱ᐲ߇㜞ߊ㧘↥಴௑ะߘߩ߽ߩࠍ⺞ߴࠆᗧ๧ว޿߇ᒝ޿ߣ޿߁ߎߣ߇⠨߃ࠄࠇ㧘หߓ⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣታ㛎ߢ޽ߞߡ߽㧘⺖㗴ߦࠃߞߡ⚿ᨐߦᄢ߈ߥ㆑޿߇಴ࠆߎ
ߣ߇᣿ࠄ߆ߦߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬
߹ߚ㧘Bock (1986) ߦ୮޿㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩേ⹖ߪ⛗ߣή㑐ଥߩ߽ߩߦߒߚ߇㧘ᢥቢᚑ⺖㗴 (Morishita et al., 2010; Pickering & Branigan, 1998) ߩ႐ว㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߣ࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻ᢥߩ
േ⹖߇ห৻ߩ߶߁߇⇣ߥࠆߣ߈ࠃࠅ߽ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣലᨐ߇㜞޿ߣ޿߁⚿ᨐ߇ᓧࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ
ߚ߼㧘⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴ߦߟ޿ߡ߽㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩേ⹖߇⛗ࠍឬ౮ߢ߈ࠆ႐วߣߢ߈ߥ޿႐วߢ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣലᨐߩ㆑޿ࠍ⺞ߴߡߺࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
4. ߹ߣ߼ߣ੹ᓟߩ⺖㗴ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪ㧘⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴ࠍ↪޿ߚ 2 ߟߩታ㛎ࠍⴕ޿㧘ᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⛔⺆⸘↹ߩ௑ะߦߟ޿ߡ⺞ߴߚ‫ޕ‬ታ㛎 1 ߩ⛗ឬ౮⺖㗴ߢߪ㧘᭴ᢥࠍහᐳߦᕁ޿ᶋ߆ߴࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠇ߫㧘ߘߩ᭴ᢥߦන⺆ࠍ޽ߡߪ߼ࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡᢥߩ⚵ߺ┙ߡߦᚑഞߒ߿ߔ޿߇㧘න⺆ࠍᕁ޿ᶋ߆ߴࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߡ߽㧘ㆡಾߥ᭴ᢥߦ޽ߡߪ߼ߡᢥࠍ૞ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߥ޿น⢻ᕈ߇㧘ታ㛎දജ⠪ߦኻߔࠆࡔ࠲ᗧ⼂ಽᨆߦࠃࠅ␜ໂߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ታ㛎 2 ߩ⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣታ㛎ߢߪ㧘ታ㛎දജ⠪ߩ⠌ᾫᐲߦࠃࠅ㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣലᨐߦ㆑޿߇⷗ࠄࠇ㧘⛗ࠍឬ౮ߔࠆ㓙ߩᢥߩ↥಴ߦ߅޿ߡ㧘ਅ૏⟲߇᦭ᗧߦࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߩᓇ㗀ࠍฃߌߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߇ಽ߆ߞߚ‫ߪߣߎߩߎޕ‬㧘ઁߩࠣ࡞࡯ࡊߣᲧߴߡ᭴ᢥ⍮⼂߇ਲߒ޿ߢ޽ࠈ߁ߣ੍ᗐߐࠇࠆਅ૏⟲߇㧘ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥࠍ೑
↪ߔࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡᢥߩ⚵ߺ┙ߡߦᚑഞߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣࠍ␜ߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᧄ⎇ⓥߩ⚿ᨐ߆ࠄ㧘޽ࠆ⒟ᐲߩ⺆ᒵ⍮⼂ࠍᜬߞߡ޿ߡ߽㧘ߘࠇࠄࠍ߁߹ߊᢥߩ↥಴ߦߟߥߍࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߥ޿ߣ޿߁ᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ৻⥸⊛௑ะ߇ᶋ߈ᓂࠅߦߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬หᤨߦ㧘ਅ૏⟲ߩࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣലᨐ߇Ყセ⊛㜞߆ߞߚߎߣ߆ࠄ㧘ೋ⚖࡟ࡌ࡞ߩቇ⠌⠪ߩ႐วߦߪ㧘⋥೨ߦಣℂߒߚᢥߣหߓᢥ᭴ㅧࠍήᗧ⼂ߩ߁ߜߦ↥಴ߔࠆߣ޿߁৻⒳ߩẜ࿷ቇ⠌ (implicit
learning) ߇ⴕࠊࠇߚߩߢߪߥ޿߆ߣ޿߁ߎߣࠍ␜ໂߒߡ޿ࠆ‫߇ࠊߢ߹ࠇߎޕ‬࿖ߦ߅޿ߡ৻
⥸⊛ߦⴕࠊࠇߡ߈ߚ㗼࿷⊛㧔᣿␜⊛㧕ߥᢥᴺᜰዉߢߪ㧘㗼࿷⊛࡮ᗧ⼂⊛ߥಣℂߦၮߠߊᢥ
↥಴ߪߢ߈ߡ߽㧘ẜ࿷⊛࡮ᚻ⛯߈⊛ߥᢥ↥಴ߦߪߥ߆ߥ߆⚿߮ߟ߈ߦߊ޿‫ࠣࡦࡒࠗ࡜ࡊޕ‬ߦࠃࠆ᭴ᢥㆬᛯߦ㑐ߔࠆቇ⠌ലᨐ߇㧘ᧄ⎇ⓥߩਅ૏⟲ߦ߅޿ߡ⹺߼ࠄࠇߚߎߣߪ㧘ᢥ↥಴58
58

᝼ਈേ⹖᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ߦ߅ߌࠆᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⛔⺆⸘↹ߩ⥄േൻ (automatization) ࠍଦߔࠃ߁ߥᜰዉߦ㧘⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣࠍᵴ↪ߒߚᣇᴺ߇᦭ല
ߢ޽ࠆน⢻ᕈࠍ␜ໂߔࠆ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬ቇ⠌ᴺߩ᦭ലᕈߦߟ޿ߡ㧘੹ᓟᧄᩰ⊛ߦតߞߡ޿ߊᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆߣ⸒߃ࠆߛࠈ߁‫ޕ‬ᦨᓟߦ㧘ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪ㧘࠺࡯࠲ᢙਇ⿷ߩߚ߼㧘⠌ᾫᐲߦࠃࠆ⛔⺆⊛ࡊ࡜ࠗࡒࡦࠣߩ㆑޿ߦ
ߟ޿ߡ㧘චಽߥᬌ⸽ࠍⴕ߁ߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߥ߆ߞߚ‫੹ޕ‬ᓟ㧘ߐࠄߦ࠺࡯࠲ᢙࠍჇ߿ߒ㧘⺞ᩏࠍㅴ߼ࠆ੍ቯߢ޽ࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘േ⹖Ფߩ․ᓽߥߤ㧘⾰⊛ߥⷺᐲ߆ࠄ߽ಽᨆࠍⴕ޿ߚ޿‫ޕ‬ᵈታ㛎 1 ߢߪ㧘ታ㛎දജ⠪ߩ․ቯߩ⛔⺆⸘↹߇ታ㛎㗄⋡ߩᢥ↥಴ߦਈ߃ࠆᓇ㗀ࠍ⷗ࠆߎߣࠍ
⋡⊛ߣߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ታ㛎㗄⋡ߩ⛗ߦߟ޿ߡߩ⾰໧ߦኻߔࠆ࿁╵ࠍಽᨆߔࠆߣ㧘ᔅὼ⊛ߦ⋧㑐㑐ଥ߇↢ߓࠆߚ߼㧘ࡈࠖ࡜࡯ߩ⛗ߦߟ޿ߡߩ⾰໧ߦኻߔࠆ࿁╵ࠍಽᨆߔࠆߎߣߦࠃࠅ㧘ฦታ㛎දജ⠪ߩᢥ↥಴ߦ߅ߌࠆ৻⥸⊛௑ะࠍ⷗ߚ‫ޕ‬ઃ⸥ᧄⓂߪ㧘╩⠪߇ 2010 ᐕ 9 ᦬ 17㨪19 ᣣߦ㐿௅ߐࠇߚᣣᧄ⹺⍮ቇળ╙ 21 ࿁⎇ⓥᄢળ㧔ᣈ␹ᚭᄢቇ㧕ߦ߅޿ߡญ㗡㧔ࡐࠬ࠲࡯㧕⊒⴫ߒߚౝኈࠍ㧘ട╩࡮ୃᱜߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⻢ㄉᧄ⎇ⓥߪ㧘ᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ࡔ࠺ࠖࠕቇળ (LET) 㑐⷏ᡰㇱၮ␆ℂ⺰⎇ⓥㇱળߩ⺞ᩏ࠺࡯࠲ߦၮߠ
ߊ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫⎇ߩઁޕ‬ⓥࡔࡦࡃ࡯ߪ㧘એਅߩㅢࠅ㧔੖ච㖸㗅㧕‫ޕ‬ᴰᗆ⟤ሶ㧔੩ㇺᢎ⢒ᄢቇ㧕㧘㉿੗ਭノ㧔៨ධᄢቇ㧕㧘᧖ᶆ㚅❱㧔㕒ጟᢥൻ⧓ⴚᄢቇ㧕㧘ਛ⷏ᒄ㧔᧲ർቇ㒮ᄢቇ㧕㧘ၳᥓሶ㧔᧲੩Ꮏᬺ㜞╬ኾ㐷ቇᩞ㧕㧘☑ౝᥓ㧔੩ㇺ♖⪇ᄢቇ㧕‫ޕ‬ෳ⠨ᢥ₂࿖㓙੤ᵹၮ㊄ᣣᧄ⺆࿖㓙࠮ࡦ࠲࡯. (2010).‫ߩߥࠎߺޟ‬ᢎ᧚ࠨࠗ࠻‫ޠ‬.
http://minnanokyozai.jp/kyozai/home/ja/render.doBock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355387.
Bock, J. K. (1987). Co-ordinating words and syntax in speech plans. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Progressin the psychology of language (Vol. 3, pp. 337-390). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associate.
Bock, J. K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163-186.
Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence
formulation. Cognition, 21, 47-67.
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (1999). Syntactic priming in written production:
Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonometric Bulletin and Review, 6, 635-640.
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Liversedge, S. P., Stewart, A. J., & Urbach, T. P. (1995). Syntactic
priming: Investigating the mental representation of language. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 24, 489-506.
5959᫪ਅ ⟤๺࡮ਛ㊁ 㓁ሶ࡮㐷↰ ୃᐔ࡮⏷ㄝ ࠁ߆ࠅ࡮ᢧ⮮ ୶ሶ࡮ᐔ੗ ᗲ

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 27, 3-42.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564-570.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garrett, M. F. (1984). The organization of processing structure for language production:
Applications to aphasic speech. In D. Caplan, A. R. Lecours, & A. Smith (Eds.), Biologicalperspectives on language (pp. 172-193). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 34, 365-399.
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language
Research, 22, 369-397.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levelt, W. J. M., & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive
Psychology, 14, 78-106.
McDonald, J., Bock, K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and world order: Semantic, phonological,
and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 188-230.
Morishita, M., Satoi, H., & Yokokawa, H. (2010). Verb lexical representation of Japanese EFL
learners: Syntactic priming during language production. Journal of the Japan Society for
Speech Sciences, 11, 29-43.
Oxford University Press. (2004). Quick placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic
priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633-651.

60
60

᝼ਈേ⹖᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ߦ߅ߌࠆᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⛔⺆⸘↹Appendix㧦PODO ᭴ᢥߩ↥಴ࠍ⁓ߞߚࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥߣ⛗㧔࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻㧕ߩ଀㧔ታ㛎 2㧕
(1)

(2)

ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ㧦
The boy offered his seat to the lady.
/ The boy offered the lady his seat.
ᗐቯߐࠇࠆ࿁╵଀㧦The mother sent some apples to her daughter.

ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ㧦
The girl lent some money to her brother.
/ The girl lent her brother some money.
ᗐቯߐࠇࠆ࿁╵଀㧦The man gave some food to the dogs.

/ The mother sent her daughter some apples.

/ The man gave the dogs some food.

(3)

(4)

ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ㧦
The boy brought some flowers to the girl.
/ The boy brought the girl some flowers.
ᗐቯߐࠇࠆ࿁╵଀㧦The man showed his passport to the officer.
/ The man showed the officer his passport.

ࡊ࡜ࠗࡓᢥ㧦
The man sold the bicycle to his friend.
/ The man sold his friend the bicycle.
ᗐቯߐࠇࠆ࿁╵଀㧦
The woman teaches math to the students.
/ The woman teaches the students math.

61
61

JACET Kansai Journal, 13, 62–73. (2011) © JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281 Printed in JAPAN.

஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦ߅ߌࠆᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ᷹⢻ജߣ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߩᓇ㗀ศ↰ ⌀⟤੩ㇺᄖ࿖⺆ᄢቇ


ABSTRACTThe possible impact of decoding efficiency on incidental vocabulary has been currently suggested(Hamada, 2005; Koda, 2005). However, little data are available concerning how differences in
decoding efficiency of Japanese EFL learners, if any, relate to the success of vocabulary learningand L2 word inference, and vocabulary learning processes. The present study aimed to clarify how
Japanese EFL learners learn new words incidentally, especially in relation with lexical inference
ability and decoding ability. Japanese college students, varying in L2 proficiency and decoding
ability read English passages containing unknown words and attempted to guess the meaning of thetarget words from context. While reading a passage, they thought aloud their thoughts andinferencing strategies. The results showed that Japanese EFL learners’ lexical inferencing is relatedwith incidental vocabulary learning when their translation production task is used; Japanese EFL
learners’ lexical inferencing behaviors are partially similar to those ESL learners’ in Nassaji (2003);
Japanese learners’ decoding ability is not strongly related with incidental vocabulary learning;
naming task is more related with lexical inferencing than other tasks such as orthographic regularity
task and pseudoword sounds task. The results of the study also suggest possible qualitative
influence of decoding ability on lexical inferencing.
Key words: ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌㧘ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ᷹㧘╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജ㧘⊒⹤ࡊࡠ࠻ࠦ࡞㧘㖸⺒⺖㗴

1. ߪߓ߼ߦ
╙৻⸒⺆ߩߺߥࠄߕ╙ੑ⸒⺆ߦ߅޿ߡ߽ᄙߊߩ⺆ᒵ߇஧⊒⊛ߦቇ߫ࠇࠆߣ޿ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ
㧔Koda, 2005㧕‫╙ޕ‬ੑ⸒⺆ߢߩ⺒⸃ਛߦᧂ⍮⺆ߦㆣㆄߒߚ႐ว㧘ቇ⠌⠪ߪᄙߊߩ႐วߘߩ
⺆ࠍ㘧߫ߒߡ⺒ߺㅴ߼ࠆᣇ⇛ࠍ↪޿ࠆ߇㧔Paribakht & Wesche, 1999㧕㧘න⺆ߩᗧ๧ࠍᢥ⣂߆ࠄផ⺰ߔࠆߎߣ߇ౝኈᛠីߛߌߢߥߊ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ࠍଦߔߣ⸒ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ㧔Koda,
2005; Nassaji, 2003, 2006; Pulido 2007㧕‫ᧂޕ‬⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߩലᨐࠍ␜ߒߚ⎇ⓥߪᄙ޿߇㧔Hulstin, 1992; Paribakht & Wesche, 1999㧕㧘ផ⺰ߩㆊ⒟ࠍ⹦⚦ߦಽᨆߒ㧘ߤߩࠃ߁ߦ⺆ᒵ߇ቇ⠌ߐࠇߡ޿ߊ߆ࠍ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߒߚ⎇ⓥߪዋߥ޿㧔Haastrup, 2008; Nassaji, 2003㧕‫ߦࠄߐޕ‬ᧂ⍮⺆ផ᷹⢻ജએᄖߦ㧘⺆ᒵߩ⸒⺆ᖱႎࠍ᛽಴ߔࠆ⢻ജ㧔╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജ㧕߽஧⊒⊛ߥ⺆ᒵߩቇ⠌ࠍଦߔⷐ࿃ߣߥࠅᓧࠆߣ޿߁ὐ߇ㄭᐕߩ⎇ⓥ߆ࠄᜰ៰ߐߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߩߪ⥝๧ᷓ޿
㧔Hamada, 2005㧕‫⎇ᧄߢߎߘޕ‬ⓥߪᣣᧄੱቇ⠌⠪ߩ⺒⸃ᵴേਛߦ஧⊒⊛ߦ⿠ߎࠆ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߩࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓࠍℂ⸃ߔߴߊ㧘╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߣᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰߿஧⊒⊛ቇ⠌ߣߩ㑐ଥߦߟ޿ߡ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߔࠆߎߣࠍ⹜ߺࠆ‫ޕ‬6262஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦ߅ߌࠆᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ᷹⢻ജߣ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߩᓇ㗀

2. ⢛᥊
 ⺒⸃ਛߦᧂ⍮⺆ࠍផ⺰ߔࠆߣ޿߁૞ᬺߪ㧘⺒⸃ߛߌߢߥߊ஧⊒⊛ߥ⺆ᒵ⠌ᓧࠍଦߒ㧘⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦߪਇนᰳߥ૞ᬺߢ޽ࠆߣ⸒ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ㧔Nassaji, 2003; Pulido, 2007㧕‫ޕ‬Hulstin(1992)ߢߪᧂ⍮⺆ࠍផ⺰ߐߖࠆᣇ߇ᵈ㉼ࠍਈ߃ࠆࠃࠅ଻ᜬߦലᨐ߇޽ࠆߣਥᒛߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߐ ࠄ ߦ వ ⴕ ⎇ ⓥ ߢ ߪ ᧂ ⍮ ⺆ ߩ ផ ⺰ ߩ ᜰ ዉ ߩ ല ᨐ ߇ ႎ ๔ ߐ ࠇ ߡ ޿ ࠆ 㧔 Hamada, 2010;
Sternberg, 1987㧕‫ޕ‬ᧂ⍮⺆ࠍផ⺰ߔࠆߚ߼ߦߪ⺆ᒵജ߿⺒⸃ജߦട߃ߡᢥᴺ㧘㖸㖿㧘ᱜᦠᴺߥߤ᭽‫ߥޘ‬⍮⼂߇ᔅⷐߣߐࠇࠆ㧔Nassaji, 2006㧕ߣ⸒ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ߇㧘ㄭᐕߩ⎇ⓥࠃࠅ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജ߇஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌߅ࠃ߮ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ᷹ㆊ⒟ߦᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ࠆߎߣ߇ᜰ៰ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ㧔Hamada,
2005; Hamada & Koda, 2010; Koda & Hamada, 2008㧕‫╓ޕ‬ภൻಣℂ૞ᬺߣߪ㧘ᢥሼ߆ࠄ⺆ᒵᖱႎ㧔㖸㖿ߣᱜᦠᴺ㧕ࠍᱜ⏕ߦㅦߊ᛽಴ߔࠆ૞ᬺߢ޽ࠅ㧘․ߦ㖸㖿ᖱႎࠍᒁ߈಴ߔ㖸㖿╓
ภൻಣℂ⢻ജ߇⺒⸃ߣ⺆ᒵ⠌ᓧߦ߅޿ߡᄢ߈ߥᓎഀࠍᨐߚߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⸒ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ
㧔Koda, 2005㧕‫ޕ‬Hamada and Koda (2010) ߦࠃࠇ߫ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߪ⺆ߩᄖ⊛ᖱႎ㧔ᢥ⣂߿⢛᥊⍮⼂㧕ߣౝ⊛ᖱႎ㧔ᒻᘒቇ⊛㧕߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠅ㧘⺒ߺㅴ߼ߥ߇ࠄߘࠇࠄߩᖱႎࠍߟߥ߉
޽ࠊߖࠆߣ޿߁ⶄ㔀ߥ⹺⍮૞ᬺߢ޽ࠆߩߢ㧘╓ภൻಣℂ߇⥄േൻߐࠇࠇ߫ࡢ࡯ࠠࡦࠣࡔࡕ
࡝⾗Ḯࠍ㜞ᰴߥ⹺⍮૞ᬺߦะߌࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬Hamada (2005) ߩࡕ࠺࡞ߢ
ߪ㧘╓ภൻಣℂല₸߇㜞޿ߣࡢ࡯ࠠࡦࠣࡔࡕ࡝ߢߩ⽶⩄߇ૐߊߥࠆߚ߼ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰߿⺆ᒵᖱႎߩ᛽಴߅ࠃ߮଻ᜬ߇ߒ߿ߔߊߥࠅ㧘ߘߩ⚿ᨐߣߒߡ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦ⽸₂ߔࠆߎߣ߇ᗐቯߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬Koda and Hamada (2008)߿ Hamada and Koda (2010)ߩታ㛎⚿ᨐ߆ࠄᲣ࿖
⺆߇ࠕ࡞ࡈࠔࡌ࠶࠻⸒⺆ߢ޽ࠆ႐วߦ㒢ߞߡ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߣᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߩᒝ޿㑐ଥ߇␜ߐࠇߚ‫ࠅࠃߣߎߩߎޕ‬Უ࿖⺆߇ࠕ࡞ࡈࠔࡌ࠶࠻⸒⺆ߢߥ޿ᣣᧄੱቇ⠌⠪ߪ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦ߅޿ߡ㖸㖿ᖱႎࠍ޽߹ࠅᵴ↪ߒߡ޿ߥ޿น⢻ᕈ߇␜ໂߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬Hamada and Koda (2010)ߩᜰ
៰ߔࠆࠃ߁ߦ㧘ᣣᧄੱ․᦭ߩ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߩࡄ࠲࡯ࡦ㧘․ߦ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߣᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߩ㑐ଥࠍ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߔࠆ⎇ⓥ߇ᔅⷐߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ߘߎߢᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪ㧘ᣣᧄੱ EFL ቇ⠌⠪ߩ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ㆊ⒟㧘․ߦᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߣߩࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓࠍߐࠄߦ⸃᣿ߔࠆߎߣࠍ⹜ߺࠆ‫ᧂޕ‬⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߦ㑐ߔࠆవⴕ⎇ⓥߢߪ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߥߞߡ޿ߥ޿ὐ߇ᄙߊ㧘ផ⺰ߔࠆߎߣߢቇ⠌߇ଦߐࠇߚᧂ⍮⺆ߩ⺆ᒵ㗄⋡ߩℂ⸃ᐲߣߪߤߩࠃ߁ߥ࡟ࡌ࡞㧔ㆡಾߥቯ⟵ࠍਈ߃ࠄࠇߚㆬᛯ⢇ߢ⹺⼂ߢ߈ࠆ࡟ࡌ࡞ߥߩ߆ቯ⟵ࠍቇ⠌⠪ߩᔃ⊛ㄉᦠ߆ࠄౣ↢ߢ߈ࠆ࡟ࡌ࡞ߥߩ߆㧕ߥߩ߆ߣ޿߁໧㗴߿㧘ᣣᧄੱቇ⠌⠪ߦ․ߦ
㒢ߞߡ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦ߅ߌࠆᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩᓎഀ߿஧⊒⊛ߥ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦߟߥ߇ࠆផ⺰ㆊ⒟㧔⍮⼂Ḯߣߒߡ↪޿ࠆᖱႎ߿⍮⼂㧘ᣇ⇛㧘╬㧕ߥߤࠍ⸃᣿ߔࠆߎߣߪ㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆߣᕁࠊࠇ
ࠆ‫╓ߦࠄߐޕ‬ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߣ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌෸߮ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߦߟ޿ߡߩ⎇ⓥߪ㒢ࠄࠇߡ߅ࠅ㧘╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജࠍ᷹ቯߔࠆᜰᮡߩਛߢ⺆ᒵቇ⠌߅ࠃ߮ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߣ㑐ଥ߇ᷓ޿߽
ߩߪߤࠇ߆ߣ޿߁໧㗴߿ᣣᧄੱ⧷⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߦ⛉ߞߚ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߩ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌߳ߩᓇ㗀㧘߅ࠃ߮ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߦ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ╓ภൻല₸ߩ㆑޿ߥߤ߇᣿ࠄ߆ߦߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬਄⸥ߩὐࠍ⸃᣿ߔߴߊ㧘એਅߩ⎇ⓥ⺖㗴ߩ࿁╵ࠍ⹜ߺࠆ‫ޕ‬1㧕⹺⼂࡟ࡌ࡞㧔ᄙ⢇ㆬᛯ㧕߹ߚߪౣ↢࡟ࡌ࡞㧔๺⸶㧕ߩߤߜࠄߢ᷹ቯߒߚ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ᚑᨐ߇ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰⢻ജߣ㑐ଥ߇޽ࠆ߆‫ޕ‬6363ศ↰⌀⟤

2㧕ᣣᧄੱ EFL ቇ⠌⠪ߪᧄታ㛎ߩ⧷ᢥਛߩᧂ⍮⺆ࠍߤߩࠃ߁ߦ㧔ᣇ⇛߿⍮⼂Ḯߩ࠲ࠗࡊߥ
ߤ㧕ផ⺰ߔࠆ߆‫ޕ‬
3㧕ᣣᧄੱ EFL ቇ⠌⠪߇ᧄታ㛎ߩ⧷ᢥਛߩᧂ⍮⺆ࠍផ⺰ߔࠆ㓙㧘ߤߩࠃ߁ߥផ⺰ㆊ⒟߇஧
⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ࠍଦߔ߆‫ޕ‬
4㧕ᣣᧄੱ EFL ቇ⠌⠪ߦߣߞߡ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജࠍ␜ߔᜰᮡߣߒߡߩ 3 ⺖㗴㧔㖸⺒⺖㗴㧘㖸㖿⺖㗴㧘✄ࠅሼ್ᢿ⺖㗴㧕ߪ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌߿ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰⢻ജߣ㑐ଥ߇޽ࠆ߆‫ޕ‬
5㧕╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߩ㆑޿ߦࠃߞߡᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߪߤߩࠃ߁ߦ⇣ߥࠆ߆‫ޕ‬
3. ⎇ⓥᣇᴺ
3.1 ෳട⠪ᐕ㦂߇ 18 ᱦ߆ࠄ 22 ᱦߩ㧔ᐔဋ 20.8 ᱦ㧕ᄖ࿖⺆ߣߒߡ⧷⺆ࠍቇ߱ᣣᧄੱᄢቇ↢ 23 ฬ㧔↵ሶቇ↢ 5 ฬ㧘ᅚሶቇ↢ 18 ฬ㧕߇ᧄታ㛎ߦෳടߒߚ‫ߪ࡞ࡌ࡟ޕ‬ႎ๔ߩ޽ߞߚ TOEIC ߩᓧὐ߇ 450 ὐ㨪750 ὐߩ▸࿐ߢ޽ߞߚ‫৻ޕ‬ㇱ⇣ߥߞߚᚻ㗅ߢ⺖㗴ࠍⴕߞߚ 1 ฬߩදജ⠪ߩ࠺࡯࠲ߪ㧘⋧㑐ಽᨆ߆ࠄߪᄖߒ 22 ฬ߇ಽᨆኻ⽎ߦߥߞߚ߇㧘ផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߩಽᨆߦߪᡰ㓚߇ߥ޿ߣ್ᢿߒ 23 ฬ߇ಽᨆߩኻ⽎ߣߒߚ‫ޕ‬੐೨ߦ⡬ⷡߦ⇣Ᏹ߇ߥ޿ߎߣࠍ⏕⹺ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
3.2 㗴᧚࡮࠹ࠬ࠻
㧔1㧕⧷⺆⺒⸃ജ࠹ࠬ࠻㧦੐೨ߦ⧷⺆⺒⸃ജࠍ᷹ቯߔࠆߚ߼ߦ Michigan Test Form C ߩ
Reading section㧔80 ໧㧕ࠍ↪޿ߚ‫ޕ‬
㧔2㧕╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജ⺖㗴㧦╓ภൻߩಣℂ⢻ജࠍ᷹ቯߔࠆߚ߼ߦ㖸⺒⺖㗴㧘ᱜᦠᴺಣℂ⺖㗴㧘㖸㖿ಣℂ⺖㗴ߩ 3 ߟߩ⺖㗴ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬㖸⺒⺖㗴ߪ Koda and Hamada (2008)ߢ↪޿ࠄࠇ
ߚ 40 㗄⋡ߩᡆૃන⺆࡝ࠬ࠻ࠍ↪޿ߚ‫ޕ‬40 㗄⋡ߩ߁ߜ⊒㖸߇ⷙೣ⊛ߥ✄ࠅߩන⺆ 20 㗄⋡㧔଀㧦pend, tark㧕㧘ਇⷙೣ⊛ߥ✄ࠅߩන⺆ 20 㗄⋡㧔଀㧦gsar, dache㧕ࠍ↪ᗧߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᱜᦠᴺ
ಣℂ⺖㗴ߪ Kato (2002)߿ Siegel, Share, and Geva (1995)ߢ↪޿ࠄࠇߚ㗄⋡ࠍ৻ㇱ೑↪ߒߡ 40㗄⋡ߩᡆૃන⺆ߩࡍࠕ߆ࠄ߽ߞߣ߽ࠄߒ޿✄ࠅሼߩන⺆ࠍㆬᛯߔࠆ್ᢿ⺖㗴ࠍ૞ᚑߒߚ
㧔଀㧦taidge-dgait㧕‫ޕ‬㖸㖿ಣℂ⺖㗴ߣߒߡߪ Kato (2002)߿ Olson, Kleigl, Davidson, and Foltz(1985)ߢ↪޿ࠄࠇߚ࠹ࠬ࠻ࠍ৻ㇱ೑↪ߒߡ 40 㗄⋡ߩᡆૃන⺆ߩࡍࠕ߆ࠄ⊒㖸߇ᦨ߽⧷⺆ࠄߒ޿න⺆ࠍㆬᛯߔࠆ⺖㗴ࠍ૞ᚑߒߚ㧔଀㧦bofe-bote㧕‫ޕ‬㧔3㧕⺒⸃↪࠹ࠠࠬ࠻㧘࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻⺆ᒵ㗄⋡㧘੐ᓟ࠹ࠬ࠻㧦ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ࠍߔࠆߚ߼ߩ⺒⸃↪⧷ᢥߣߒߡ Haastrup (2008)ߢ↪޿ࠄࠇߚ⧷ᢥߩ৻ߟ “Health in the Rich World and in the
Poor” ࠍ↪޿ߚ‫⺆ޕ‬ᢙߪ 260 ⺆ߢ޽ࠅ㧘 ߘߎߦ฽߹ࠇࠆ 6 ⺆㧔bout, squalor, sewage,
permeated, curative, affluence㧕ࠍ࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻⺆ᒵ㗄⋡ߣߒߡផ⺰ㆊ⒟ࠍಽᨆߒߚ‫⺆ޕ‬ᒵ㗄⋡ߪోߡౝኈ⺆ߢ޽ࠅ 2 ⺆ߪᒻኈ⹖㧘4 ⺆ߪฬ⹖ߢ޽ࠅ㧘Haastrup (2008)ߢߩಽ㘃ߩ 3 ࠲ࠗࡊ߇หᢙߦߥࠆࠃ߁ㆬቯߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ㧔࠲ࠗࡊ A㧦ᗧ๧ࠍផ᷹ߔࠆߩߦᚻ߇߆ࠅߦߥࠆᖱႎ߇
න⺆ౝߦᒻᑼ਄ߥ޿⺆㧘࠲ࠗࡊ B㧦ធㄉߦߩߺᚻ߇߆ࠅߦߥࠆᖱႎ߇޽ࠆ⺆㧘࠲ࠗࡊ C㧦
ዋߥߊߣ߽৻ߟߪන⺆⥄૕߆⺆ᐙ㧘ធㄉߦᚻ߇߆ࠅߣߥࠆᖱႎ߇޽ࠆ⺆㧕‫⧷ߩߎޕ‬ᢥࠍ↪
޿ߚℂ↱ߪ㧘⧷ᢥ߇ᧄ⎇ⓥߩදജ⠪ߩ࡟ࡌ࡞ߦㆡߒߡ޿ߚߎߣߣ㧘ߎߩ⧷ᢥࠍ↪޿ߡ㧘㕖ᣣᧄੱߩ ESL ቇ⠌⠪ࠍኻ⽎ߦߒߚᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߦ㑐ߔࠆవⴕ⎇ⓥ㧔Nassaji, 2003㧕߇6464஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦ߅ߌࠆᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ᷹⢻ജߣ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߩᓇ㗀޽ࠅ㧘ᣣᧄੱ EFL ቇ⠌⠪ߩᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߣߩ㆑޿ࠍᲧセߢ߈ࠆ߆ࠄߢ޽ࠆ‫ᧂޕ‬⍮⺆ࠍ⏕ታߦផ᷹ߐߖࠆߚ߼࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻⺆ߦߪਅ✢ࠍᒁ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ ࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻⺆ߩ㗄⋡ߦ㑐ߔࠆ⍮⼂ࠍ੍߼዆ߨࠆߚ߼ߦ੐೨࠹ࠬ࠻㧔๺⸶໧㗴㧕ࠍ૞ᚑߒߚ‫⸃⺒ޕ‬ᓟߩ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߩᚑᨐࠍ⹏ଔߔࠆߚ߼ߦ㧘࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻⺆ᒵ㗄⋡ߦߟ޿ߡ๺⸶
↥಴໧㗴ߣᄙ⢇ㆬᛯᣇᑼߩ๺⸶ౣ⹺໧㗴ߩੑ࠲ࠗࡊߩ੐ᓟ࠹ࠬ࠻ࠍ૞ᚑߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᄙ⢇ㆬᛯᣇᑼߩ๺⸶ౣ⹺໧㗴ߦߪ 4 ߟߩㆬᛯ⢇ࠍ⸳ߌߚ‫ޕ‬ㆬᛯ⢇ߪ Pulido (2007)ߦᓥߞߡએਅߩၮḰߦว߁߽ߩࠍ૞ᚑߒߚ㧦㧝㧕ᱜ⸃ߣߥࠆᗧ๧㧘2㧕ᢥ⣂߆ࠄ್ᢿߒߡᱜ⸃ߦㄭ޿ᗧ๧㧘3㧕ࠬࠠ࡯ࡑߦ߅޿ߡߪㆡಾߥᗧ๧㧘4㧕ᱜᦠᴺ߹ߚߪ㖸㖿⊛ߦઁߩ⺆ߦㄭߊᢥ⣂਄น⢻ߥᗧ๧㧔଀㧦affluence 1㧕⼾߆ߐ㧘2㧕௉ᘟߐ㧘3㧕ਇ⿷㧘4㧕ᢇᕆゞ㧕‫ޕ‬
3.3 ⊒⹤ࡊࡠ࠻ࠦ࡞ߣಽᨆᣇᴺ ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩᱜ⏕ߐࠍ⹏ଔߒ㧘ߘߩផ⺰ㆊ⒟ࠍಽᨆߔࠆߚ߼ߦ⺒⸃ਛߩ⊒⹤ࡊࡠ࠻ࠦ࡞
࠺࡯࠲ࠍ෼㓸ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ෳട⠪ߪ৻ੱߕߟ⺒⸃ㆊ⒟ߣ࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻⺆ߩᗧ๧ߩផ⺰ㆊ⒟ࠍญ㗡ߢႎ๔ߒ IC ࡟ࠦ࡯࠳࡯ߦ㍳㖸ߒߚ‫ߪߦ࡞ࠦ࠻ࡠࡊ⹤⊒ޕ‬᭽‫ߥޘ‬ᛕ್ߪ޽ࠆ߇㧘ቇ⠌⠪ߩቇ⠌ᵴേߦ߅ߌࠆ⹺⍮ࡊࡠ࠮ࠬࠍ⍮ࠆ߁߃ߢ㧘⋥ធ⊛ߢ߆ߟࠝࡦ࡜ࠗࡦ࠺࡯࠲߇ᓧࠄࠇࠆᣇ
ᴺ⺰ߢ޽ࠆߎߣ߆ࠄ࠺࡯࠲෼㓸ࠍⴕߞߚ㧔Ericsson & Simon, 1993㧕‫ޕ‬ ᧂ⍮⺆ߩᗧ๧ߩផ⺰ࠍ⹏ଔߔࠆߚ߼ߦ Haastrup (2008)ߢ↪޿ࠄࠇߚ⹏ଔၮḰࠍ↪޿ߚ㧔ᱜ⸃ㅢࠅߩផ⺰ 3 ὐ㧘߅߅ࠃߘߩᗧ๧߇ᱜ⸃ߒߡ޿ࠆផ⺰ 2 ὐ㧘⺋ࠅߢ޽ࠆ߇ᢥ⣂ߦ߅޿ߡㆡಾߢ޽ࠆ႐ว 1 ὐ㧘߹ߞߚߊ⊛ᄖࠇߥផ⺰ 0 ὐ㧕‫ޕ‬ ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ㆊ⒟ࠍಽᨆߔࠆߚ߼ߦ㧘Nassaji (2003)ߢ↪޿ࠄࠇߚಽ㘃ᴺࠍෳ⠨ߦ㧘⊒⹤ࡊ ࡠ ࠻ ࠦ ࡞ ࠺ ࡯ ࠲ ࠍ ↪ ޿ ߡ ផ ⺰ ߦ ↪ ޿ ࠄ ࠇ ߚ ⍮ ⼂ Ḯ 㧔 knowledge sources 㧕 ߣ ᣇ ⇛㧔strategies㧕ߩಽ㘃ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬Nassaji (2003)ߢߪ᣿␜⊛ߦ․ቯߩ⍮⼂Ḯࠍ೑↪ߒߚ႐ว‫ޟ‬⍮⼂Ḯࠍ೑↪ߒߚ‫ߣߔߥ⷗ߣޠ‬ቯ߼ߡ߅ࠅ㧘‫ޟ‬᣿␜⊛ߥ⍮⼂Ḯߩ೑↪ߥߒߦߘࠇࠍ↪޿ߡቇ⠌⠪߇໧㗴ࠍℂ⸃ߒߚࠅ⛔೙ߒߚࠅߔࠆᗧ⼂⊛ߥ⹺⍮ᵴേ߹ߚߪࡔ࠲⹺⍮⊛ߥᵴേ‫ޠ‬ߪᣇ⇛ߣቯ⟵ઃߌߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
3.4 ᚻ㗅
ෳട⠪ߪ⺒⸃߅ࠃ߮ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰⺖㗴ࠍⴕ߁೨ߦ⺆ᒵ㗄⋡ߩ⍮⼂⺞ᩏ㧘⧷⺆⺒⸃ജ࠹ࠬ࠻㧘෸߮ਃ⒳㘃ߩ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജ࠹ࠬ࠻ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ᧂޕ‬⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩ⊒⹤ࡊࡠ࠻ࠦ࡞ߩ࠮࠶ࠪ
࡚ࡦߩ೨ߦ⊒⹤ࡊࡠ࠻ࠦ࡞ߩ઀ᣇߦߟ޿ߡ⺑᣿ߒ㧘೎ߩ⧷ᢥࠍ↪޿ߡ⎇ⓥ⠪ߦࠃࠆ࠺ࡕࡦ
ࠬ࠻࡟࡯࡚ࠪࡦߣෳട⠪ߩ✵⠌ࠍⴕߞߚ‫⧷↪⸃⺒ޕ‬ᢥࠍ⺒ߺߥ߇ࠄ⠨߃ߚߎߣࠍႎ๔ߔࠆ
ߎߣߣ㧘ਅ✢ߩ⺆ᒵ㗄⋡ߩᗧ๧ߣߘߩᗧ๧ߦ⥋ࠆ߹ߢߩ⚻✲ࠍ⺒ߺㅴ߼ߥ߇ࠄႎ๔ߔࠆࠃ
߁ᜰ␜ߒߚ‫⺑ߩ࡞ࠦ࠻ࡠࡊ⹤⊒ޕ‬᣿߅ࠃ߮✵⠌࠮࠶࡚ࠪࡦᓟ㧘ෳട⠪ߪᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ㆊ⒟ࠍႎ๔ߒߥ߇ࠄ⺒⸃࠹ࠠࠬ࠻ࠍ⺒ࠎߛ‫ᤨ⸃⺒ޕ‬㑆ߪ৻ੱᐔဋ⚂ 19.3 ಽߢ޽ߞߚ‫⸃⺒ޕ‬ᓟ㧘⺒⸃࠹ࠠࠬ࠻ࠍ⷗ߥ޿ߢੑ⒳㘃ߩ੐ᓟ࠹ࠬ࠻ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬ㆬᛯ⢇߇ࡅࡦ࠻ߦߥࠄߥ޿ࠃ߁ߦ
๺⸶໧㗴࿁╵ᓟߦᄙ⢇ㆬᛯ໧㗴ߦ⸃╵ߒߚ‫ޕ‬6565ศ↰⌀⟤

4. ⚿ᨐߣ⠨ኤ
4.1 ⸥ㅀ࠺࡯࠲
࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻⺆ᒵ㗄⋡੍஻⺞ᩏࠃࠅోߡߩ࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻⺆ᒵ㗄⋡߇දജ⠪ߦߣߞߡᧂ⍮⺆ߢ޽ࠆߎߣࠍ⏕⹺ߒߚ‫ޕ‬㖸⺒⺖㗴ߦߟ޿ߡߪෳട⠪ߩ⊒㖸ࠍ㍳㖸ߒߚ߽ߩࠍ㧘⧷⺆Უ࿖⺆⹤⠪ੑฬ߇⹏ଔߒߚ‫ޕ‬ੑ⠪㑆ߩ⹏ଔߩ৻⽾ᕈߪ 90㧑એ਄ߩ৻⥌₸߇ᓧࠄࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩㆡಾᕈߩ⹏ଔߪ୘‫⺆ߩޘ‬ᒵ㗄⋡ߦߟ޿ߡⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬23 ฬߩෳട⠪߇ 6 㗄⋡ߩ⺆ߦߟ޿ߡផ⺰ࠍߒߚߩߢ 138 ߩ࿁╵߇޽ߞߚ߇㧘੐೨࠹ࠬ࠻ߢߪ⏕⹺ߢ߈ߥ߆ߞߚ߇⺆ߩᗧ๧ࠍᣢߦ⍮ߞߡ޿ߚߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ⸃╵ࠍขࠅ㒰޿ߚߩߢว⸘ 136 ߩ࿁╵ࠍಽᨆኻ⽎ߣߒߚ‫ࠍ࠲࡯࠺࡞ࠦ࠻ࡠࡊ⹤⊒ޕ‬ᢥሼߦ⿠ߎߒߚ߽ߩࠍ㧘ੑੱߩ⧷⺆ᢎຬߢណὐߒߚ‫࠲࡯࠺ޕ‬ߩ⚂੖ಽߩ৻ࠍੑ⠪ߢណὐߒߚߣߎࠈ㧘ੑ⠪㑆ߩណὐ⚿ᨐߩ৻⥌ᐲߪ 92㧑ߢ޽ߞߚߚ߼㧘ਇ৻⥌ࠍౣᐲද⼏ߒߚ⚿ᨐ㧘৻⥌ᐲ߇ 100㧑ߦ⥋ߞߚ‫ޕ‬⧷⺆⺒⸃ജ㧘ਃߟߩ╓ภൻಣℂ⺖㗴㧔㖸⺒⺖㗴㧘㖸㖿⺆ᒵᕈ್ᢿ㧘ᱜᦠᴺⷙೣᕈ್ᢿ㧕㧘
⺆ᒵℂ⸃ᐲ࠹ࠬ࠻㧔๺⸶ߣᄙ⢇ㆬᛯ㧕ߣᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߩ⋧㑐㑐ଥࠍ⺞ᩏߔࠆߚ߼ߦ⴫ 1 ߦฦᄌᢙߩ⸥ㅀ࠺࡯࠲ࠍ␜ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
⴫ 1. ⧷⺆⺒⸃ജ㧘㖸⺒⺖㗴㧘㖸㖿⺆ᒵᕈ್ᢿ⺖㗴㧘ᱜᦠᴺⷙೣᕈ್ᢿ⺖㗴㧘
⺆ᒵℂ⸃ᐲ໧㗴㧔๺⸶໧㗴㧘ᄙ⢇ㆬᛯ໧㗴㧕㧘ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩᐔဋߣᮡḰ஍Ꮕ                   ᐔဋ 㧔ḩὐ㧕ᮡḰ஍Ꮕ ᦨૐὐ ᦨ㜞ὐ ⧷⺆⺒⸃ജ  60.0 (80)
2.2
39.0
78.0
㖸⺒⺖㗴
  17.2 (40)
4.3
10.0
27.0
㖸㖿⺆ᒵᕈ್ᢿ⺖㗴19.9 (30)
4.1
14.0
26.0
ᱜᦠᴺⷙೣᕈ್ᢿ⺖㗴26.7 (30)
2.4
19.0
30.0
๺⸶↥಴໧㗴
1.5 (6)1.1
0
3.5
ᄙ⢇ㆬᛯ๺⸶ౣ⹺໧㗴
2.5 (6)
1.2
1.0
5.0
ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰
9.3 (18)
2.1
5.0
13.0
ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩᚑ❣ߪ㧘136 ࿁╵ਛ 19 ࿁╵߇ᱜ⸃ߢ 3 ὐ㧔14㧑㧕㧘57 ࿁╵߇ 2 ὐ
㧔42㧑㧕㧘42 ࿁╵߇ 1 ὐ㧔31㧑㧕㧘18 ࿁╵߇ 0 ὐ㧔13㧑㧕ߢ޽ߞߚߎߣࠃࠅᱜ⸃ㅢࠅ߹
ߚߪ߶߷ㆡಾߥផ⺰ࠍⴕߞߡ޿ࠆഀว߇ඨᢙࠍ਄࿁ࠆߎߣ߇ಽ߆ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᱜ⸃߇ඨᢙㄭ߆ߞߚ
ߎߣࠍႎ๔ߒߚ ESL ቇ⠌⠪ኻ⽎ߩవⴕ⎇ⓥߣ㘃ૃߒߚ⚿ᨐߣߥߞߚ㧔Nassaji, 2003㧕‫ᦨޕ‬߽ផ⺰߇࿎㔍ߢ޽ߞߚ㗄⋡ߪ permeated ߢ޽ࠅᓧὐߩᐔဋߪ 1.1 ὐߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᰴߦaffluence㧔1.3 ὐ㧕㧘bouts㧔1.4 ὐ㧕㧘squalor㧔1.5 ὐ㧕㧘sewage㧔1.7 ὐ㧕㧘curative㧔2.3ὐ㧕ߩ㗅ߦᱜ⸃߇ᄙ߆ߞߚ‫⚿ߩߎޕ‬ᨐ߽ Nassaji (2003) ߦ㘃ૃߒߡ޿ࠆ߇㧘Nassaji (2003)
ߩᜰ៰ߦ޽ߞߚࠃ߁ߥᒻᘒ⊛ߦ㘃ૃߒߚ೎ߩන⺆ߣᷙੂߔࠆࠃ߁ߥߎߣߪ߶ߣࠎߤ⷗ࠄࠇ
ߕ㧘ᣣᧄੱቇ⠌⠪ߪᱜᦠᴺߦ㑐ߔࠆ໧㗴ߢᷙੂߔࠆน⢻ᕈߪૐ޿ߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᒻᑼ਄ߦᚻ
߇߆ࠅߣߥࠆᖱႎ߇ᄙ޿࠲ࠗࡊ C ߩ curative ߩᱜ╵₸߇৻⇟㜞߆ߞߚ߇㧘ᒻᑼ਄ߩࡅࡦ࠻
߇ሽ࿷ߒߥ޿࠲ࠗࡊ A ߩ bouts ࠃࠅ㧘affluence ߇หߓߊᒻᑼ਄ߩࡅࡦ࠻ߩ޽ࠆ࠲ࠗࡊ C ߥߩߦᓧὐ߇ขࠅߦߊ޿ߥߤ㧘ᒻᘒ⚛਄ߩᖱႎ㊂ߪ޽߹ࠅ㑐ଥߥ޿ߎߣ߇␜ߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬66
66

஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦ߅ߌࠆᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ᷹⢻ജߣ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߩᓇ㗀

4.2 ⋧㑐ಽᨆ⧷⺆⺒⸃ജ㧘ਃߟߩ╓ภൻಣℂ⺖㗴㧔㖸⺒⺖㗴㧘㖸㖿⺆ᒵᕈ್ᢿ㧘ᱜᦠᴺⷙೣᕈ್ᢿ㧕㧘
⺆ᒵℂ⸃ᐲ࠹ࠬ࠻㧔๺⸶ߣᄙ⢇ㆬᛯ㧕ߣᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߣߩ㑐ଥࠍ⺞ᩏߔࠆߚ߼ߦฦᄌᢙߩ
⋧㑐ࠍ⴫ 2 ߦ␜ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
⴫ 2. ⧷⺆ജ㧘㖸⺒⺖㗴㧘㖸㖿⺆ᒵᕈ್ᢿ⺖㗴㧘ᱜᦠᴺⷙೣᕈ್ᢿ⺖㗴㧘
⺆ᒵℂ⸃ᐲ໧㗴㧔๺⸶໧㗴㧘ᄙ⢇ㆬᛯ໧㗴㧕㧘ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩ⋧㑐ଥᢙ⧷⺆ 㖸⺒ 㖸㖿 ᱜᦠᴺ  ๺⸶ ㆬᛯ ផ⺰⧷⺆  ―  .45* .05

.10

.27

.16

.40 

㖸⺒ 

―

.17

.48*

.03

-.18

.40

㖸㖿
ᱜᦠᴺ




―  .44*
―

.28
-.06

.31
.18

-.02
.19

―  .38
        
―

.54*
.26

๺⸶
ㆬᛯ
ផ⺰

―

㧔ᵈ㧕. ⧷⺆=⧷⺆⺒⸃ജ࠹ࠬ࠻㧘㖸⺒㧩㖸⺒⺖㗴㧘㖸㖿㧩㖸㖿⺖㗴㧘ᱜᦠᴺ㧩ᱜᦠᴺⷙೣᕈ⺖㗴㧘๺⸶㧩๺⸶▚಴໧㗴㧘ㆬᛯ㧩ᄙ⢇ㆬᛯ๺⸶ౣ⹺໧㗴㧘ផ⺰㧩ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰   *p > .05 N = 23

⴫ 2 ߦ␜ߔࠃ߁ߦੑߟߩ੐ᓟ࠹ࠬ࠻ߩ߁ߜᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰⢻ജߣߩ⋧㑐߇᦭ᗧߢ޽ߞߚߩ
ߪᄙ⢇ㆬᛯ๺⸶ౣ⹺໧㗴ߢߪߥߊ๺⸶↥಴໧㗴ߢ޽ߞߚ㧔r = .54㧕‫␜߇ߣߎߩߎޕ‬ໂߔࠆߩߪ㧘ᧂ⍮⺆ࠍᱜߒߊផ⺰ߢ߈ࠆ⢻ജߣ㧘ᧂ⍮⺆ߦኻߒߡㆬᛯ⢇ߥߒߢㆡಾߥᗧ๧߇↥಴㧔ౣ↢㧕ߢ߈ࠆߣ޿߁⢻ജߦᒝ޿㑐ㅪᕈ߇޽ࠆߣ޿߁ߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᄙ⢇ㆬᛯᒻᑼߢߩᓧὐ
ߣᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩᓧὐߩ⋧㑐߇ૐ߆ߞߚߩߪ㧘ᧂ⍮⺆ࠍᱜߒߊផ᷹ߢ߈ߡ޿ߥߊߡ߽ㆬᛯ⢇߆ࠄᅷᒰߥᗧ๧ࠍㆬᛯ㧔⹺⼂㧕ߔࠆߎߣߪߢ߈ࠆߣ޿߁ᵻ޿࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߩℂ⸃ࠍ␜ߔ໧㗴ߢ޽ߞߚߚ߼ߢ޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᰴߦ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജࠍ␜ߔ 3 ⒳㘃ߩ᷹ቯᴺߩ߁ߜ㧘ߤࠇ߽ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰⢻ജ෸߮੐ᓟ࠹ࠬ
࠻ߣߩ㑆ߦ᦭ᗧߥ⋧㑐߇ߺࠄࠇߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬㖸⺒⺖㗴ߣᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩ㑆ߦߪ᦭ᗧߢߪߥ޿߇
ਛ⒟ᐲߩ⋧㑐߇ߺࠄࠇߚ㧔r = .40㧕‫ޕ‬㖸㖿⺆ᒵᕈ್ᢿ߇ਃ⒳㘃ߩ߁ߜߢ৻⇟㜞޿⋧㑐ࠍ␜ߒߚ߇᦭ᗧߢߪߥ߆ߞߚ㧔r = .28, r = 31㧕‫ࠄ߆ߣߎߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬㧘ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰߳ߩᓇ㗀ߦߟ޿ߡߪ㖸⺒⺖㗴߇ઁߩ⺖㗴ߣᲧߴߡ㑐ଥ߇ᷓ޿ߎߣ߇ಽ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
4.3 ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ㆊ⒟ಽᨆ
஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߩᚑഞߦߟߥ߇ࠆᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ㆊ⒟㧔⍮⼂Ḯߣ࠲ࠗࡊ߿ᣇ⇛㧕߿㧘╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߦ߅ߌࠆ୘ੱᏅ߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߦᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ㆊ⒟߹ߚߪ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ㆊ⒟ߦᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ࠆ߆ࠍ⠨ኤߔࠆߚ߼ߦ⊒⹤ࡊࡠ࠻ࠦ࡞࠺࡯࠲ߩಽᨆࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬⊒⹤ࡊࡠ࠻ࠦ࡞࠺࡯࠲ࠍᢥሼߦ⿠ߎߒ㧘ੑੱߩ⧷⺆ᢎຬߢណὐߒߚ‫⚂ߩ࠲࡯࠺ޕ‬੖ಽߩ৻ࠍੑ⠪ߢណὐߒߚߣߎࠈ㧘ੑ⠪㑆ߩណὐ⚿ᨐߩ৻⥌ᐲߪ 85㧑ߢ޽ߞߚ߇㧘ਇ৻⥌ࠍౣᐲද⼏ߒߚ⚿ᨐ㧘৻⥌ᐲ߇ 100㧑ߦ⥋ߞߚߚ߼ᱷࠅߩណὐߪ৻ੱߩ⎇ⓥ⠪߇ⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬⍮⼂Ḯߣᣇ⇛ߩ⒳㘃෸߮ቯ⟵ߪ⴫ 3 ߦ␜ߒߚ‫ޕ‬6767

ศ↰⌀⟤ෳട⠪߇↪޿ߚ⍮⼂Ḯߩ࠲ࠗࡊߪ Discourse knowledge㧔60㧑㧕㧘ᰴߦ World knowledge㧔 26 㧑 㧕 㧘 Grammatical knowledge 㧔 10 㧑 㧕 㧘 Morphological knowledge 㧔 3 㧑 㧕 㧘 L1
knowledge㧔0㧑㧕ߩ㗅ߦ㗫ᐲ߇㜞߆ߞߚ‫⚿ߩߎޕ‬ᨐߪ World knowledge ߇ඨᢙㄭ޿ഀวߢ㧘૶↪ߐࠇᰴߦ Morphological knowledge ߇྾ಽߩ৻ㄭߊ㧘Discourse knowledge ߇ 8.7㧑ߩഀวߢ↪޿ࠄࠇߚߣߩႎ๔߇޽ߞߚ Nassaji (2003)ߣߪዋߒ⇣ߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣇ ⇛ ߪ Repeating 㧔 30 㧑 㧕 㧘 Self-inquiry 㧔 26 㧑 㧕 㧘 Verifying 㧔 24 㧑 㧕 㧘 Monitoring㧔16㧑㧕㧘Analogy㧔3㧑㧕㧘Analysis㧔2㧑㧕ߩ㗅ߦ㗫❥ߦ↪޿ࠄࠇߚ‫ޕ‬Repeating ߇ᦨ߽ᄙߊ↪޿ࠄࠇߚᣇ⇛㧔63.7㧑㧕ߣႎ๔ߒߚ Nassaji (2003)ߣ৻⥌ߒߡ޿ࠆ߇㧘Self-inquiry,
Verifying, Monitoring ߇޿ߕࠇ߽ 10㧑એਅߢ޽ߞߚ Nassaji (2003)ߣߪ⇣ߥࠆ⚿ᨐߣߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬
⴫ 3. ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߦ߅޿ߡ૶↪ߔࠆ⍮⼂Ḯߣᣇ⇛ߩቯ⟵ (Nassaji, 2003)⍮⼂Ḯ࠲ࠗࡊ       ቯ⟵
Grammatical knowledge

Using knowledge of grammatical functions or syntactic categories, such asverbs, adjectives, or adverbs

Morphological knowledge

Using knowledge of word formation and word structure, including
word derivations, inflections, word stems, suffixes and prefixes

World knowledge

Using knowledge of the content or the topic that goes beyond what isin the text

L1 knowledge

Attempting to figure out the meaning of the new word by translatingor finding a similar word in the L1

Discourse knowledge

Using knowledge about the relation between or within sentences andthe devices that make connections between the different parts of the textᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ᣇ⇛
RepeatingRepeating any portion of the text, including the word, the phrase, or thesentence in which the word has occurred

VerifyingExamining the appropriateness of the inferred meaning by checking it against
the wider context

Self-inquiry

Asking oneself questions about the text, words, or the meaning already inferred

Analyzing

Trying to figure out the meaning of the word by analyzing it into various parts

Monitoring

Showing a conscious awareness of the problem or the difficulty of the task

Analogy

Attempting to figure out the meaning of the word based on its sound or form
similarity with other words.

4.4 ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߦߟߥ߇ࠆࡊࡠ࠮ࠬߩಽᨆ ㆡಾߦᧂ⍮⺆ߩᗧ๧ࠍផ᷹ߔࠆߎߣߦ޿ߚߞߚࡊࡠ࠮ࠬ㧔⍮⼂Ḯ෸߮ᣇ⇛㧕ࠍ⺞ߴࠆߚ߼ߦ㧘Means of success㧔․ቯߩࡊࡠ࠮ࠬ࠲ࠗࡊࠍ೑↪ߔࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡផ⺰߇ᚑഞߔࠆഀ
ว㧕ࠍ▚಴ߒߚ‫▚ޕ‬಴ᣇᴺߪNassaji (2003)ߦᓥߞߡฦࡊࡠ࠮ࠬ࠲ࠗࡊߩ೑↪ߦࠃߞߡᓧࠄ
ࠇߚᓧὐߩว⸘ࠍฦࡊࡠ࠮ࠬ࠲ࠗࡊߩ೑↪࿁ᢙߢഀߞߡ▚಴ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ ⍮⼂Ḯߩਛߢߪ㧘৻⇟ᚑഞ₸߇㜞߆ߞߚߩ߇World knowledge㧔৻࿁ߩ૶↪ߦߟ߈߃ࠄ
68
68

஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦ߅ߌࠆᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ᷹⢻ജߣ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߩᓇ㗀ࠇࠆᐔဋᓧὐ߇3ὐḩὐਛ1.63ὐ㧕㧘ᰴߦGrammatical knowledge㧔1.57ὐ㧕㧘Discourse
knowledge㧔1.55ὐ㧕㧘Morphological knowledge㧔1ὐ㧕ߩ㗅ߢ⛯޿ߚ‫ޕ‬L1 knowledge ߪ೑↪߇ߥ߆ߞߚߚ߼▚಴߇ਇน⢻ߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬Morphological knowledgeߣWorld knowledge߇ᦨ߽ᚑഞ₸߇㜞޿ߣႎ๔ߒߚNassaji (2003)ߣ⇣ߥࠆ⚿ᨐߣߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬㩷 ᣇ⇛ߩᚑഞ₸ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ㧘ᦨ߽ᚑഞ₸ߩ㜞޿Verifying㧔1.6ὐ㧕ߦ⛯ߌߡSelf inquiry㧔1.5ὐ㧕ߣRepeating㧔1.5ὐ㧕߇หὐߢᚑഞ₸߇㜞߆ߞߚ‫⚿ߩߎޕ‬ᨐߪNassaji (2003)ߩESLቇ⠌⠪ߩᦨ߽ᚑഞ₸߽㜞߆ߞߚᣇ⇛࠲ࠗࡊߣ㗅૏ߦ߅޿ߡ㘃ૃߒߚ⚿ᨐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
4.5 ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജ೎ផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߩಽᨆ ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജࠍ␜ߔ3⒳㘃ߩᜰᮡߪ޿ߕࠇ߽㧘਄⸥ߩ⋧㑐ಽᨆߢߪᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߣ᦭ᗧߥ⋧㑐ࠍ␜ߐߥ߆ߞߚ߇㧘ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߣ৻⇟⋧㑐߇㜞߆ߞߚ㖸⺒⺖㗴ߩᚑ❣ࠍ↪޿ߡ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߦࠃߞߡࡊࡠ࠮ࠬ߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߦ⇣ߥࠆ߆ࠍ⺞ᩏߔࠆߚ߼ߦ㧘㖸⺒⺖㗴ߢ਄
૏1/3㧔7ฬ㧕ߣਅ૏1/3㧔8ฬ㧕ߩෳട⠪㑆ߢ⍮⼂Ḯߣࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯૶↪㗫ᐲߩᐔဋࠍᲧセߒߚ‫ޕ‬਄૏⟲ߣਅ૏⟲ߩ㖸⺒⺖㗴ߩᐔဋὐ߅ࠃ߮ᮡḰ஍Ꮕߪ⴫4ߩㅢࠅߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⴫ 㖸⺒⺖㗴ᐔဋὐ㧔 ὐḩὐ㧕ߣᮡḰ஍Ꮕ    ᐔဋ  ᮡḰ஍Ꮕ਄૏⟲ 
ਅ૏⟲    


ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰

⍮⼂Ḯ࠲ࠗࡊߣᣇ⇛࠲ࠗࡊߩ૶↪㗫ᐲࠍ৻න⺆ߦߟ޿ߡฦ⍮⼂Ḯࠍ↪޿ߚᐔဋ࿁ᢙࠍ▚಴ߒߚ‫࡞ࡊࡦࠨޕ‬ᢙ߇ዋߥ޿ߚ߼⸥ㅀ⛔⸘ߢߩᲧセࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬⍮⼂Ḯߦ㑐ߒߡߪ㧘㖸⺒⺖㗴ߩ਄૏⟲ਅ૏⟲ߣ߽ߦ㗫❥ߦ↪޿ࠆߩߪ Discourse knowledge ߣ world knowledge ߢ޽ࠅ㧘ੑ⟲㑆ߦᄢᏅߪߥ޿߇ Grammatical knowledge ߪ਄૏⟲߇㧘Morphological knowledge ߪਅ૏⟲߇ࠃࠅᄙߊ↪޿ߡ޿ࠆน⢻ᕈ߇޽ࠆ㧔࿑ 1 ෳᾖߩߎߣ㧕‫ޕ‬
㪈㪅㪉
㪈
㪇㪅㪏
㪇㪅㪍
㪇㪅㪋
㪇㪅㪉
㪇

㖸⺒⺖㗴਄૏⟲㖸⺒⺖㗴ਅ૏⟲㪞㫉㪸㫄㫄㪸㫋㫀㪺㪸㫃㫂㫅㫆㫎㫃㪼㪻㪾㪼㩷㪤㫆㫉㫇㪿㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃㫂㫅㫆㫎㫃㪼㪻㪾㪼㪮㫆㫉㫃㪻㫂㫅㫆㫎㫃㪼㪻㪾㪼㪣㪈㩷㫂㫅㫆㫎㫃㪼㪻㪾㪼㩷㪛㫀㫊㪺㫆㫌㫉㫊㪼㫂㫅㫆㫎㫃㪼㪻㪾㪼㩷㩷㩷㩷⍮⼂Ḯ䉺䉟䊒࿑ ⍮⼂Ḯߩᐔဋ೑↪㗫ᐲ㧔৻න⺆ߦߟ߈㧕ᣇ⇛ߦ㑐ߔࠆᐔဋ૶↪࿁ᢙߪ㖸⺒⺖㗴਄૏⟲߇Repeatingࠍᦨ߽ࠃߊ↪޿ߡ޿ࠆߩߦኻߒ
ߡਅ૏⟲߇Verifying ߣSelf-inquiryࠍᦨ߽ࠃߊ↪޿ߡ޿ࠆߎߣࠍ␜ໂߒߡ޿ࠆ㧔࿑2ෳᾖߩߎߣ㧕‫ޕ‬਄૏⟲ߪMonitoringࠍᲧセ⊛ᄙߊ↪޿ߡ޿ࠆߩߦኻߒߡਅ૏⟲ߪAnalysingࠍࠃߊ6969ศ↰⌀⟤

㪇㪅㪏
㪇㪅㪎
㪇㪅㪍
㪇㪅㪌
㪇㪅㪋
㪇㪅㪊
㪇㪅㪉
㪇㪅㪈
㪇

㪘㫅
㪸㫃
㫆㪾
㫐

㫆㫅
㫀

㫋㫆
㫉㫀㫅
㪾

㫅㪾
㪤

㪘㫅
㪸㫃
㫐㫑
㫀

㫀㫅
㫈㫌
㫀㫉㫐
㪪㪼
㫃㪽㪄

㪩㪼
㫇㪼
㪸㫋
㫀㫅

㪭㪼
㫉㫀㪽
㫐㫀
㫅㪾

㖸⺒⺖㗴਄૏⟲㖸⺒⺖㗴ਅ૏⟲㪾ᧂ⍮⺆䈱ផ⺰

↪޿ߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߽␜ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣇ⇛䉺䉟䊒

࿑2. ᣇ⇛ߩᐔဋ೑↪㗫ᐲ㧔৻න⺆ߦߟ޿ߡ㧕
5. ✚ว⊛⠨ኤᧄ⎇ⓥߩ⚿ᨐߦၮߠ޿ߡ⎇ⓥ⺖㗴߳ߩ࿁╵ߔߴߊ㧘ቇⴚ⊛෸߮ᢎ⢒⊛ߥ␜ໂࠍ⠨ኤߔࠆ‫ޕ‬1㧕⹺⼂࡟ࡌ࡞㧔ᄙ⢇ㆬᛯ㧕߹ߚߪౣ↢࡟ࡌ࡞㧔๺⸶㧕ߩߤߜࠄߢ᷹ቯߒߚ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ᚑᨐ߇ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰⢻ജߣ㑐ଥ߇޽ࠆ߆‫ޕ‬ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩᓧὐߣ㜞޿⋧㑐ࠍ␜ߒߚߩߪᄙ⢇ㆬᛯᒻᑼߢߪߥߊ๺⸶ᒻᑼߢ᷹ቯߒߚ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ᚑᨐߢ޽ߞߚ‫␜߇ߣߎߩߎޕ‬ໂߔࠆߎߣߪ㧘ᧂ⍮⺆ࠍᱜߒߊផ⺰ߔࠆ⢻ജߣ㑐ㅪᕈߩ޽ࠆ⺆ᒵℂ⸃ߣߪ㧘ㆬᛯ⢇ࠍਈ߃ࠄࠇࠆߎߣߢᱜߒ޿ᗧ๧߇⹺⼂ߢ߈ࠆ࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߪߥߊ㧘ቇ⠌⠪ߩᔃ⊛ㄉᦠ߆ࠄ⺆ߩቯ⟵ࠍౣ↢ߢ߈ࠆ࡟ࡌ࡞ߢ޽ࠆߣ޿߁ߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬᭽‫ߥޘ‬ᖱႎḮ߿ᣇ⇛ࠍ↪޿ߡᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ᷹ࠍ⹜ߺߚ⚿ᨐㆡಾߥቯ⟵ࠍᕁ޿ߟ޿ߚ႐วߩߺ㧘஧⊒⊛ߥ⺆ᒵቇ⠌߇ᚑഞߔࠆߎߣࠍ␜ໂߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ᧂߪߣߎߩߎޕ‬⍮⺆ߩផ⺰߇⺆ᒵቇ⠌ࠍଦߔߣ޿
߁ߎߣࠍ␜ߒߚవⴕ⎇ⓥ㧔Koda, 2005; Nassaji, 2003, 2006㧕߿ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩᜰዉߩ㊀ⷐᕈࠍ␜ໂߒߚ⎇ⓥ㧔Hamada, 2010; Sternberg, 1987㧕ࠍᡰᜬߔࠆߛߌߢߥߊ㧘ផ⺰ߒߡ߽ਇㆡಾ
ߢ޽ࠇ߫⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦ⚿߮ߟ߆ߥ޿ߣ޿߁ᜰ៰㧔Nassaji, 2003㧕߽ᡰᜬߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⸒߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ផ⺰ߩࠃ߁ߥ⹺⍮⊛ߦᷓ޿ಣℂࠍⷐߔࠆ࠲ࠬࠢࠍⴕ߁ߎߣ߇⸥ᙘߩ଻ᜬࠍଦߔߣ޿߁ਥᒛ
㧔Hulstin & Laufer, 2001㧕ߦട߃ߡ㧘ᱜߒߊផ⺰ߢ߈ߚ႐วߦ㒢ࠅ⺆ᒵቇ⠌߇ᚑ┙ߔࠆߣ޿߁᧦ઙ߇㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆߎߣࠍ␜ໂߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬Pulido (2007)߇⺒⸃ਛ࠲ࠬࠢ߿ࡈࠖ࡯࠼ࡃ࠶
ࠢ╬ߢᷓ޿ಣℂߦᓥ੐ߐߖࠆߎߣߢ㧘⺆ߩᗧ๧ߩផ᷹߇ᚑഞߒ㧘ߘߩ⚿ᨐ஧⊒⊛ߥ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ࠍଦߔߣਥᒛߒߚࠃ߁ߦ㧘ㆡಾߦᧂ⍮⺆ࠍផ⺰ߢ߈ࠆࠃ߁ߥᡰេ߿ᜰዉ߇஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ࠍዉߊߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬
2㧕ᣣᧄੱ EFL ቇ⠌⠪ߪᧄታ㛎ߩ⧷ᢥਛߩᧂ⍮⺆ࠍߤߩࠃ߁ߦ㧔ᣇ⇛߿⍮⼂Ḯߩ࠲ࠗࡊߥ
ߤ㧕ផ⺰ߔࠆ߆‫ޕ‬ᧄታ㛎ߩᣣᧄੱ EFL ቇ⠌⠪ߦࠃࠆ⺒⸃ਛߩᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߩᱜ╵₸߽ផ᷹߇࿎㔍ߢ޽ߞߚ⺆ᒵ㗄⋡ߦ㑐ߒߡ߽㧘ESL ቇ⠌⠪ࠍኻ⽎ߦ⺞ߴߚ Nassaji (2003)ߣ㘃ૃߒߚ⚿ᨐߦߥߞߚ
߇㧘ផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߦߟ޿ߡߪ߿߿⇣ߥࠆ⚿ᨐߣߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ESL ቇ⠌⠪ߣ⇣ߥࠅᣣᧄੱ EFL ቇ⠌⠪ߪᱜᦠᴺߩ࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߩᷙੂ߇⷗ࠄࠇߥ߆ߞߚߩߪ㧘ࠕ࡞ࡈࠔࡌ࠶࠻⸒⺆ࠍᲣ࿖⺆ߦᜬߚߥ޿ߚ߼ᒻᘒ਄㘃ૃߒߚන⺆ߣߩᷙหߥߥ߆ߞߚߩߢߪߥ޿߆ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬࿎㔍ࠍ␜ߒ70
70

஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦ߅ߌࠆᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ᷹⢻ജߣ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߩᓇ㗀ߚ⺆ᒵ㗄⋡ߩᜬߟᱜᦠᴺᖱႎߩ࠲ࠗࡊ㧔࠲ࠗࡊ A㧦ᗧ๧ࠍផ᷹ߔࠆߩߦᒻᑼ⊛ߥ⍮⼂Ḯ߇ߥ޿⺆㧘࠲ࠗࡊ B㧦ធㄉߦߩߺ⍮⼂Ḯ߇޽ࠆ⺆㧘࠲ࠗࡊ C㧦ዋߥߊߣ߽৻ߟߪන⺆⥄૕߆⺆ᐙ㧘ធㄉߦ⍮⼂Ḯ߇޽ࠆ⺆㧕ߦߪ․ቯߩ௑ะߪ․ߦ⷗ࠄࠇߥ޿ߎߣ߆ࠄ㧘ᣣᧄੱ㧱㧲㧸ቇ⠌⠪ߪᱜᦠᴺߩᖱႎࠍࡅࡦ࠻ߣߒߡⓍᭂ⊛ߦᵴ↪ߒߡ޿ߥ޿ߎߣ߽␜ߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬⍮⼂Ḯߦ㑐ߒߡߪ㧘ផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߩಽᨆᣇᴺߦ㆑޿߇޽ߞߚน⢻ᕈ߽޽ࠆ߇㧘ᧄ⎇ⓥߩෳട⠪ ߪ Nassaji (2003)ߣ ⇣ߥࠅ Discourse knowledge ࠍ㗫❥ߦ ↪޿ ߡ߅ࠅ 㧘Morphologicalknowledge ߪᶖᭂ⊛ߥ೑↪ߢ޽ߞߚ‫ߪߣߎߩߎޕ‬ᣣᧄੱ EFL ቇ⠌⠪ߪᒻᘒ⚛ߩᖱႎࠍ᦭ല
೑↪ߒߡ޿ߥ޿ߎߣࠍ␜ໂߒߚ਄⸥ߩಽᨆ⚿ᨐߣ৻⥌ߔࠆ‫ߚ߹ߪߣߎߩߎޕ‬ᣣᧄੱቇ⠌⠪ߪᢥ⣂߆ࠄߩࡅࡦ࠻ߦଐሽߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߽␜ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬World knowledge ߪਔ⎇ⓥߩෳട
⠪߇Ⓧᭂ⊛ߦ೑↪ߒߡ޿ࠆ߇㧘ᧄ⎇ⓥߩᣣᧄੱቇ⠌⠪ߩᣇ߇߿߿ប߃߼ߥ೑↪ߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᣇ⇛ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ㧘Nassaji (2003)ߩ ESL ቇ⠌⠪ߣห᭽ᧄ⎇ⓥߩෳട⠪߽ Repeating ࠍᦨ߽↪޿ߡ޿ࠆ߇㧘Self-inquiry㧘Veryfying ߽Ⓧᭂ⊛ߦ↪޿ߡ޿ࠆ‫⎇ᧄޕ‬ⓥߦෳടߒߚᣣᧄੱቇ
⠌⠪ߪ Repeat→Self-inquiry ߒߥ߇ࠄផ᷹→ផ᷹ߒߚᗧ๧ࠍౣᐲᢥ⣂ߦᾖࠄߒวࠊߖߥ߇ࠄ
Verifying ߣ޿߁ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦ߇ᄙߊ⷗ࠄࠇߚߚ߼ߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬㧕ᣣᧄੱ EFL ቇ⠌⠪ߦߣߞߡᧄታ㛎ߩ⧷ᢥਛߩᧂ⍮⺆ࠍផ⺰ߔࠆ㓙ߤߩࠃ߁ߥផ⺰ㆊ⒟3㧕߇஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ࠍଦߔ߆‫ޕ‬ ૶↪ߒߚ⍮⼂Ḯߣᣇ⇛߇ㆡಾߥផ⺰ߦߟߥ߇ࠆഀว㧔ᚑഞ₸㧕ࠍฦ࠲ࠗࡊߦߟ޿ߡ▚಴ߒߚ‫ޕ‬⍮⼂ḮߢߪWorld knowledge߇৻⇟ㆡಾߥផ⺰ߦߟߥ߇ࠆഀว߇㜞߆ߞߚߎߣߪ
Nassaji (2003)ߢESLቇ⠌⠪߇৻⇟ផ⺰ࠍᚑഞߐߖࠆഀว߇㜞߆ߞߚߩ߇World knowledgeߢ޽ߞߚߣ޿߁⚿ᨐߣ㘃ૃߒߡ߅ࠅ㧘ቇ⠌⠪⥄りߩ⍮⼂ߦᾖࠄߒวࠊߖߡផ⺰ߔࠆߎߣߩ᦭
ലᕈ߇␜ߐࠇߚ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇMorphological knowledge߇ᣣᧄੱEFLቇ⠌⠪ߦߣߞߡߪᚑഞ₸߇ૐ߆ߞߚߩߦኻߒߡ㧘ESLቇ⠌⠪ߦߣߞߡߪᚑഞ₸߇㜞߆ߞߚߣ޿߁⚿ᨐߪ⥝๧ᷓ޿⋧㆑ὐߣ⸒߃ࠆ‫ࠅࠃߣߎߩߎޕ‬ᣣᧄੱቇ⠌⠪ߪઁ⸒⺆ߩESLቇ⠌⠪ߣᲧߴߡᒻᘒ⚛߹ߚߪᱜᦠᴺ
ᖱႎࠍ᦭ലߦ↪޿ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߡ޿ߥ޿߇㧘ߘߩઍࠊࠅᢥᴺ⊛ߥ್ᢿ߿㧘ᢥ⣂ߩᖱႎࠍ᦭
ലߦ↪޿ߡ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬㩷 ᣇ⇛ߦ㑐ߒߡߪవⴕ⎇ⓥߢႎ๔ߐࠇߚ'5.ቇ⠌⠪ߣ⪺ߒ޿㆑޿ߪ⷗ࠄࠇߕVerifying, Selfinquiry, Repeating߇ㆡಾߥផ⺰ߦ⚿߮ߟߊࠃ߁ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬૗ᐲ߽㑐ㅪߩ▎ᚲࠍ⺒ߺ㄰ߒ㧘᭽‫ߥޘ‬ᚻ߇߆ࠅ߆ࠄᢥ⣂ߦว߁ᗧ๧ࠍ⥄໧ߒߥ߇ࠄ⹜ߔߛߌߢߥߊᦨᓟߦߘߩᗧ๧ߢߘߩ
ᓟߩᢥ⣂ߦߟߥ߇ࠆ߆ࠍ⏕⹺ߔࠆ૞ᬺ߇㧘ㆡಾߥᗧ๧ࠍផ᷹ߔࠆߚ߼ߩㆊ⒟ߥߩ߆߽ߒࠇ
ߥ޿‫⺆߫ࠇ޽ߢ߁ߘߒ߽ޕ‬ᒵᜰዉ߿⺒⸃ᜰዉߦ߽Ⓧᭂ⊛ߦขࠅ౉ࠇߡ޿ߊߴ߈ᣇ⇛ߢ޽ࠆߎߣࠍ␜ໂߒߚ⚿ᨐߣ⸒߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬
4㧕ᣣᧄੱ EFL ቇ⠌⠪ߦߣߞߡ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജࠍ␜ߔᜰᮡߣߒߡߩ 3 ⺖㗴㧔㖸⺒⺖㗴㧘㖸㖿⺖㗴㧘✄ࠅሼ್ᢿ⺖㗴㧕ߪ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌߿ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰⢻ജߣ㑐ଥ߇޽ࠆ߆‫ޕ‬ ਃߟߩ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജࠍ␜ߔᜰᮡߩߤߩ⺖㗴ߣ߽੐ᓟ࠹ࠬ࠻߿ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ߣߩ㑆ߦ᦭ᗧߥ⋧㑐㑐ଥߪߥ߆ߞߚߎߣ߆ࠄ㧘ᣣᧄੱEFLቇ⠌⠪ߩ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߣ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌෸߮ᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰⢻ജ ߣߩ㑐ଥ߇ᒙ޿ߎߣ߇ಽ߆ߞߚ‫⚿ߩߎޕ‬ᨐߪ Hamada (2005)߿
Hamada and Koda (2010)ߢ␜ߒߚࠕ࡞ࡈࠔࡌ࠶࠻⸒⺆ࠍᲣ⺆ߣߔࠆቇ⠌⠪ߩ╓ภൻಣℂല₸ߣᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩ⋧㑐ߪ᦭ᗧߦ㜞߆ߞߚ߇㕖ࠕ࡞ࡈࠔࡌ࠶࠻⸒⺆ࠍᲣ⺆ߦᜬߟᣣᧄੱቇ⠌7171ศ↰⌀⟤⠪ߩߘࠇߪᒙߊ᦭ᗧߢߪߥ߆ߞߚߣ޿߁⚿ᨐߦ৻⥌ߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⸒߃ࠆ‫ߪߣߎߩߎ ޕ‬
Hamada (2005)߿Hamada and Koda (2010)߇ᜰ៰ߔࠆࠃ߁ߦ㕖ࠕ࡞ࡈࠔࡌ࠶࠻⸒⺆ࠍᲣ࿖⺆ߦᜬߟቇ⠌⠪ ߪ⺆ᒵᖱႎߩ᛽಴ߩ㓙㧘޽߹ࠅ㖸㖿ᖱႎߦ㗬ࠄߥ޿น⢻ᕈࠍ␜ໂߒߡ޿ࠆ
ߩ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬෻ᔕᤨ㑆ߦၮߠߊ╓ภൻಣℂല₸ࠍ▚಴ߒߡ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌߿ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰⢻ജߣߩ㑐ଥߩߐࠄߥࠆ⺞ᩏ߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬5㧕㧕╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߩ㆑޿ߦࠃߞߡᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߪߤߩࠃ߁ߦ⇣ߥࠆ߆‫ޕ‬⸥ㅀ⛔⸘࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߩ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߩ㆑޿ߦࠃࠆ⍮⼂Ḯ෸߮ᣇ⇛ߩᲧセ߆ࠄផ᷹ߢ߈ࠆ
ߎߣߪ㧘㖸⺒⺖㗴ߢ㜞ᓧὐࠍขᓧߢ߈ࠆ⢻ജࠍ╓ภൻ⢻ജߣ๭ߴࠆߩߢ޽ࠇ߫㧘╓ภൻ⢻ജ߇㜞޿ቇ⠌⠪ߪᢥᴺߩ⍮⼂߿ᒻᘒ⚛ߩ⍮⼂ࠍ߁߹ߊ૶߁ߎߣ߇ߢ߈㧘⥄ಽߩℂ⸃ㆊ⒟ࠍ
ࡕ࠾࠲࡯ߔࠆߎߣߢᧂ⍮⺆ߩㆡಾߥផ⺰ߦዉߊߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ߇㧘╓ภൻ⢻ജ߇ૐߌࠇ߫ᢥ
⣂ߩ⍮⼂ߪ↪޿ࠆ߇߁߹ߊᢥᴺ⊛ߥⅣႺ߿ᒻᘒ⚛ߩ⍮⼂ࠍ↢߆ߔߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߕ㧘ቇ⠌ㆊ⒟ࠍࡕ࠾࠲࡯ߔࠆߣ޿߁ࠃࠅߪ૗ᐲ߽⥄໧ߒߡߪ㑆㆑ߞߚℂ⸃ߢ߽ᅷᒰߥ⸃㉼ߛߣ್ᢿߒߡ
⺒ߺㅴ߼ࠆน⢻ᕈ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
6. ⚿⺆
ᧄ⎇ⓥߪᣣᧄੱቇ⠌⠪ߩ⺒⸃ᵴേਛߦ஧⊒⊛ߦ⿠ߎࠆ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߩࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓࠍℂ⸃ߔߴߊ㧘╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߣᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰߿஧⊒⊛ቇ⠌ߣߩ㑐ଥߦߟ޿ߡ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߒࠃ߁ߣߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᧄ⎇ⓥߦࠃߞߡ㧘ᣣᧄੱEFLቇ⠌⠪ߩᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߦߟ޿ߡℂ⸃߇ᷓ߹ߞߚߛߌߢߥ
ߊ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߩߚ߼ߩᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߩᜰዉߩ㊀ⷐᕈ߽⏕⹺ߐࠇߚ‫੹ޕ‬ᓟߪ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ࠍଦߔࡔࠞ
࠾࠭ࡓࠍߐࠄߦℂ⸃ߔࠆߚ߼ߦ㧘ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰߇෸߷ߔ⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߩലᨐࠍ⋥ᓟߛߌߢߥߊㆃ
ᑧ᧦ઙߢ߽⺞ᩏߒߚࠅ㧘Laufer and Hulstin (2001)ߩℂ⺰߇ឭ໒ߔࠆቇ⠌⺆ᒵߩቯ⌕ߩߚ߼ߩ⺒⸃⺖㗴ߦ߅ߌࠆਃߟߩⷰὐ㧔ᔅⷐᕈ㧘ᬌ⚝ߣ⹏ଔ㧕ࠍ↪޿ߡ㧘⺒ߺᚻ߇ᓥ੐ߒߚಣℂߩᷓߐߣ⺆ᒵℂ⸃ߩ㑐ଥ߽⺞ᩏߔࠆߎߣߢ㧘ࠃࠅലᨐ⊛ߥ⺆ᒵᜰዉߩᣇᴺࠍ⠨ኤߒߚ޿‫ޕ‬ߐࠄߦᧄ⎇ⓥߦࠃߞߡᣣᧄੱEFLቇ⠌⠪ߩ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജ߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߦ஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌෸߮ᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ߦ㑐ࠊߞߡ޿ࠆߩ߆߽␜ໂߐࠇߚ‫߈ߴߔ╩․ޕ‬ὐߪ㧘Hamada (2005)߿
Hamada and Koda (2010)ߢ␜ߒߚ㕖ࠕ࡞ࡈࠔࡌ࠶࠻⸒⺆ࠍᲣ⺆ߦᜬߟᣣᧄੱቇ⠌⠪ߩᣇ߇ផ⺰ߪᓧὐ߇㜞߆ߞߚߣ޿߁⚿ᨐߪ㧘ᧄ⎇ⓥߩផ⺰ᚑ❣߇ᣣᧄੱᗧᄖߩESLቇ⠌⠪ࠍᛒߞߚNassaji (2003)ࠃࠅ⧯ᐓ਄࿁ߞߡ޿ߚߣ޿߁⚿ᨐߣ৻⥌ߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣߛ‫ޕ‬Hamada andKoda (2010)߇ᜰ៰ߔࠆࠃ߁ߦ㕖ࠕ࡞ࡈࠔࡌ࠶࠻⸒⺆ࠍᲣ࿖⺆ߦᜬߟቇ⠌⠪ ߪ㖸㖿ᖱႎࠍ޽߹ࠅ૶↪ߒߥ޿ઍࠊࠅߦ೎ߩᣇ⇛߹ߚߪ⍮⼂Ḯࠍᵴ↪ߒߡ޿ࠆน⢻ᕈ߇⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ᧄޕ‬⎇ⓥ߆ࠄᣣᧄੱEFLቇ⠌⠪߇㖸㖿ᖱႎ߿ᱜᦠᴺߩᖱႎߦ޽߹ࠅ㗬ࠄߕ㧘ᢥ⣂߿ᢥᴺ⊛ⅣႺ
ߥߤࠍᚻ߇߆ࠅߦߔࠆߣ޿߁น⢻ᕈ߇␜ໂߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬Უ⺆ߩᱜᦠᴺ߇⴫㖸ᢥሼߩⵍ㛎⠪ߣߩᲧセࠍߔࠆߥߤ㧘ߘߩઁ⎇ⓥᚻᴺ਄ߩ໧㗴ὐ㧔෻ᔕᤨ㑆㧘ࠨࡦࡊ࡞ᢙ 㧘╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജࠍ᷹ࠆ⺖㗴㧘⧷ᢥ ߿࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻⺆ߩಽ㊂㧘╬㧕ࠍᡷༀߒߚ਄ߢ㧘╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߦࠃࠆᓇ㗀ࠍ฽߼ߚᧂ⍮⺆ផ⺰ㆊ⒟ߦߟ޿ߡߩߐࠄߥࠆ⎇ⓥ߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ෳ⠨ᢥ₂
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev.ed.).
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
72
72

஧⊒⊛⺆ᒵቇ⠌ߦ߅ߌࠆᧂ⍮⺆ߩផ᷹⢻ജߣ╓ภൻಣℂ⢻ജߩᓇ㗀

Hamada, M. (2005). Roles of decoding efficiency on second language incidental vocabulary
learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University.
Hamada, M. (2009) Development of L2 word-meaning inference while reading. System, 37, 447460.
Hamada, M. & Koda, K. (2010). The role of phonological decoding in second language wordmeaning inference. Applied Linguistics, 31, 513-531.
Haastrup, K. (2008). Lexical inferencing procedure in two languages. In D. Albrechtsen, K.
Haastrup, & B. Henriksen (Eds.), Vocabulary and writing in a first and second language, New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hulstin (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: experiments in incidental
vocabulary learning. In and, P. J. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds), Vocabulary and Applied
Linguistics (pp.113-125). London: Macmillan.
Hulstjin & Laufer (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis invocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539-558.
Kato, S. (2003). Examining relationships between phonological/orthographic processing efficiency,
working memory capacity, and overall reading performance : Implications for developmental
changes in L2 reading proficiency. JACET bulletin, 37, 31-48.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach (pp. 69-70).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koda, K. & Hamada, M. (2008). Influence of first language orthographic experience on second
language decoding and word learning. Language Learning, 58, 1-31.
Laufer, B. & Hulstin. J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The
construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1-26.
Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: strategies, knowledge sources, and theirrelationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 645-670.
Nassaji, H. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’
inferencing strategy use and success. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 387-401.
Olson, R.K., Kleigle, R., Davidson, B.J. & Folta, G. (1985). Individual and developmental
differences in reading ability. In G. E. Mackinnon & T. G. Waller (Eds.) Reading research:
Advances in theory and practice Vol.4 (pp. 1-64). New York: Academic Press.
Paribakht, T. S. & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and "incidental" L2 vocabulary acquisition: An
introspective study of lexical inferencing, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 195224.
Pulido, D. (2007). The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexicalinference and retention through reading, Applied Linguistics, 28, 66-86.
Siegel, L. S., Share, D., & Geva, E. (1995). Evidence for superior orthographic skills in dyslexics.
Psychological Science, 6, 250-254.
Sternberg, R. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. McKeown & M. Curtis (Eds.) The
nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp.89-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
73
73

JACET Kansai Journal, 13, 74–85. (2011) © JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281 Printed in JAPAN.

ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥᏛసရᑟධࡢㄪᰝሗ࿌
ⱥリࡢሙྜᚋ୰ 㝧Ꮚ
 ㏆␥኱Ꮫ㸦㠀㸧

ABSTRACTThis paper aims to report on the effect of introducing literature into the English as a Foreign
Language classroom. The use of English literature in EFL classrooms in university has beensteadily decreasing in recent years. I doubt whether this tendency meets the needs of students. In
2008, from the period of April to September, 232 undergraduate students were surveyed on theiropinions of English literature. The results of this survey showed that more than 60% of the students
were interested in English literature. With this in mind, from July 2009 to February 2010, an
English poem was introduced into the classroom as an example of English literature. I aimed toclarify by way of a subsequent questionnaire how the opinions of students would change. This
paper gives consideration to the results of these questionnaires.
Key words: ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥᏛ㸪ⱥリᑟධ㸪ᩥᏛࡢ࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡉ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࡀᐇ㊶ⓗࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⫱ᡂࢆእᅜㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ┠ᶆ࡟ᥖࡆ㸪௻ᴗࡀ
TOEIC ࢆ㔜どࡍࡿ㢼₻࡟࠶ࡗ࡚㸪኱Ꮫࡣ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࢆᨵゞࡋ㸪ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥᏛࡣ
⦰ᑠࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ➹⪅ࡣ㸪ࡇࡢഴྥࡣᏛ⏕ࡓࡕࡢࢽ࣮ࢬ࡟ྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡓࡕࡣᩥᏛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⯆࿡ࢆ࡯ࢇ࡜࠺࡟ኻࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺␲ၥࢆ࠸ࡔࡃࠋࡋ
ࡓࡀࡗ࡚㸪ࡇࡢࡓࡧᏛ⏕ࡢᩥᏛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏㄪᰝࡢ┠ⓗࡣ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡢᩥᏛ࡬ࡢ⯆࿡ࡢᐇែࢆ▱ࡾ㸪ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ᩥᏛసရ௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡣⱥリࢆᑟධࡍࡿ
࡜࠸࠺୍ࡘࡢࡁࡗ࠿ࡅࡀ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡓࡕ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
እᅜㄒᏛ⩦ࡢຠᯝⓗ࡞᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪Maley (1987)ࡣリࡸḷࢆά⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㸪Sage(1987)ࡣリࡸ▷⦅ࡢᩥᏛసရࢆ ESL ࡢᤵᴗ࡛ᩍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLazar (1993)ࡣ㸪ᤵᴗࡢ࡞࠿࡛ᩥᏛࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡓࡕࡀឤ᝟ࡸពぢࡢඹ᭷ࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟㸪࡜ࡾࢃࡅዲ⤖ᯝࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍ᪉ἲࡔ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ┿㔝㸦2004㸧ࡣ㸪ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ┠ⓗࢆ஧ࡘᣲࡆ㸪୍ࡘࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒࡢຊࡢ㣴ᡂ㸪ࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡣゝⴥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿឤཷᛶࡢᾰ㣴࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢ┠ⓗࡢࡓࡵ࡟㸪ᩥᏛࡇࡑࡀࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ㐺ษ࡞ᩍᮦ࡛࠶ࡿ
࡜㏙࡭ࡿࠋỤ฼ᕝ㸦2004㸧ࡣ㸪1952 ᖺ∧௨㝆 1978 ᖺ∧ࡲ࡛㸪ᩥ㒊┬ࡢ㧗ᰯ⏝Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࠿ࡽᩥᏛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿつᐃࡢᩥゝࡀᾘ࠼࡚࠸ࡗࡓኚ໬࡜ၥ㢟Ⅼࢆグࡋ㸪ຍ࠼࡚㸪኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ
74
74

ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥᏛసရᑟධࡢㄪᰝሗ࿌

⛉᭩༠఍ࡢࠗ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩┠㘓࠘࡟ࡼࢀࡤ 1980 ᖺ௦ࡲ࡛ࡣⱥ⡿ᩥᏛࡢᑠㄝࡀ 1,000 Ⅼᙉ࡛Ᏻᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡶࡢࡀ㸪ྠ༠఍ࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ࡟ࡳࡿ 2004 ᖺᗘࡢ᪂ห᭩ࡢ࡭ 325 Ⅼࡢ࠺ࡕⱥ⡿ᩥᏛࡣ 2 Ⅼ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࠿ࡽ㸪ⱥㄒᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᩥᏛࡀ༴ᶵⓗ≧ἣ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟Ụ฼ᕝ㸦2008㸧ࡣ㸪ᩍ⫱ࡢ┠ⓗࡣே᱁ࡢ᏶ᡂ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ࠕㄞࢇ࡛⪃࠼ࡉࡏ㸪࿡ࢃ࠸ឤືࡉࡏࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡀࡶࡗ࡜ᚲせ࡞ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠖ࡜ᥦゝࡍࡿࠋ▼⏣㸦2009㸧ࡣ㸪኱Ꮫࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ⱥᩥᏛࡢ఩⨨ࡀⴭࡋࡃ⦰ᑠࡋࡓ஦ᐇࢆ៧࠸㸪ࠕ࡛ࡁࢀࡤㅮ⩏ࡢ㐍ᒎ࡟ᣳࡳ㎸ࢇ࡛㸪ᮏ᱁ⓗ࡟ඃࢀࡓ㸪ࡋ࠿ࡶ᫆ࡋ࠸ᩥᏛసရࡢ୍㒊࡟࡛
ࡶゐࢀࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ษ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜グࡋ㸪ᩥᏛసရࢆὝᐹຊ࡜ඹឤࢆࡶࡗ࡚ㄞࡳ㸪ศᯒ㸪ゎ㔘㸪ᢈุࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺άື࡟ࡼࡾ㣴ࢃࢀࡿ⬟ຊࡢ⏒኱ࡉ㸪ᩥᏛࡀ⌧௦࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒᩍ⫱ୖᯝࡓࡋᚓࡿᙺ๭ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿ㸦p. 1㸧ࠋ➹⪅ࡶ㸪ᩥᏛࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡣⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ᚲせ࡞ᩍᮦ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢពぢ࡟ྠឤ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚㸪▼⏣ࡢグ㏙࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᩥᏛࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀ୍⯡ᩍ㣴ⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࡢ࡞࠿
࡛㸪ㅮ⩏ࡢ㐍ᒎ࡟ᣳࡳ㎸ࡴ࠿ࡓࡕ࡛ᩥᏛసရ࡟ゐࢀࡿᶵ఍࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥリࡢᑟධࢆᅗࡗࡓࠋⱥ
リࢆ㑅ࢇࡔ⌮⏤ࡣ㸪Maley (1985, 1987)ࡶ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡔࡀ㸪ⱥリࡣ㡪ࡁࢆᴦࡋࡳ࡞ࡀࡽ
ⱥㄒࡢࢫࢺࣞࢫࡸࣜࢬ࣒ࢆ㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡿࡢ࡟ᙺ❧ࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡓ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪▷࠸ᩍᮦࡢ࡯࠺ࡀไ㝈ࡢ࠶ࡿᤵᴗෆ࡛࡜ࡾ࠸ࢀࡿࡢ࡟㐺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➹⪅ࡣ㸪2008 ᖺ 4 ᭶࠿
ࡽ 2010 ᖺ 2 ᭶ࡲ࡛ࡢ⣙ 2 ᖺ㛫㸪ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ᩥᏛసရࢆᑟධࡋࡓሙྜ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡀᩥᏛ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព㆑ࢆࡶࡘ࠿ࢆ᥈ࡿࡓࡵࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋᮏ✏ࡣ୺࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ࡇࡢ 2 ᖺ㛫ࡢ࠺ࡕ 2009 ᖺᗘ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢ⤖ᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡎࡣ⡆₩࡟㸪2009 ᖺᗘࡢㄪᰝࡢ⫼ᬒ࡜࡞ࡿ 2008 ᖺᗘࡢ஦๓ㄪᰝ࠿ࡽ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿᐇែ
ࢆ௨ୗ࡟グࡍࠋ
2. ஦๓ㄪᰝ㸦2008 ᖺ 4 ᭶࠿ࡽ 9 ᭶ᐇ᪋㸧
ඛ㏙ࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ㸪⌧ᅾ㸪኱Ꮫࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ⱥᩥᏛࡣ⦰ᑠࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡔࡀᐇ
㝿ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪ከࡃࡢᏛ⏕ࡣᩥᏛࢆዲࡳ㸪ᩥᏛ࡟⯆࿡ࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㸪2008 ᖺᗘ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓᩥᏛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ࡬ࡢᅇ⟅࠿ࡽࡳ࠺ࡅࡽࢀࡓࠋ2008 ᖺᗘࡣ㸪኱Ꮫ᪂ධ⏕࠿ࡽ 4 ᖺ⏕ࡲ࡛ࢆྵࡴィ 232 ྡࡢᏛ㒊⏕࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ2008 ᖺᗘࡢ஦๓ㄪᰝࡢᅇ⟅⪅ࡣ㸪ᩥⱁᏛ㒊㸪⌮ᕤᏛ㒊㸪⤒ႠᏛ㒊㸪♫఍Ꮫ㒊ࡢ 18 ṓ࠿ࡽ 20 ṓ௦ࡢᏛ⏕㸪
࠾ࡼࡧⓎ㐩ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㒊ࡢ♫఍ேࢡࣛࢫࡢ 18 ṓ࠿ࡽ 60 ṓ௦ࡲ࡛ࡢᏛ⏕࡛࠶ࡿࠋⱥㄒ࣭ⱥᩥᏛ
ࢆᑓᨷ࡜ࡍࡿᏛ⏕ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆ⾜࠺๓࡟ࡣ㸪ᩥᏛ࡜୍ཱྀ࡟ゝࡗ࡚ࡶᖜࡀᗈࡃ㸪᪥ᮏᩥᏛࡸ௚ࡢእᅜᩥᏛࡶྵࡴࡢ࡛㸪ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢᤵᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㸪リ㸪ᑠㄝ㸪㝶➹࡞࡝㸪ⱥᩥᏛసရ඲⯡ࢆᑟධࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢព㆑ㄪᰝ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ゝࡋࡓࠋᩥᏛࡀዲࡁ࠿᎘࠸࠿ࢆၥ࠺タၥ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪232 ྡࡢᏛ⏕࠿ࡽᐤࡏࡽࢀࡓᅇ⟅ࢆ௨ୗࡢࢢࣛ
ࣇ 1 ࡟♧ࡍࠋ඲యࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪ዲࡁࡀ 144 ྡ࡛ 62㸣㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 79 ྡ࡛ 34㸣㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸
ࡀ 9 ྡ࡛ 4㸣࡜࡞ࡾ㸪࠾ࡼࡑ 6 ๭௨ୖࡢᏛ⏕ࡀ㸪ᩥᏛࡀዲࡁࡔ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᐇ᪋᫬ᮇ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡔࡀ㸪ㄪᰝࡣྛࢡࣛࢫࡢ㛤ㅮࡢึ᪥࡟⾜ࡗࡓࠋྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾ᭱ከࡢࢹ࣮
ࢱࢆ཰㞟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪ኟᮇࢫࢡ࣮ࣜࣥࢢࡸᚋᮇ㛤ㅮࡢࢡࣛࢫࡶྵࢇ࡛࠾ࡾ㸪ᮇ㛫ࡀ 4 ᭶࠿ࡽ
9 ᭶࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ4 ᭶࡜ 9 ᭶࡛ࡣ༙ᖺࡢ㛤ࡁࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢ㛫࡟኱Ꮫ࡛ཷࡅࡓⱥㄒᤵᴗ
7575

ᚋ୰ 㝧Ꮚ

࡛Ꮫ⏕ࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡸⓎ᝿࡟㌿᥮ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࢢࣛࣇ 1 ࡢẚ㍑࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿ
ࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤᩥⱁᏛ㒊 1 ᖺ⏕ࡢ 4 ᭶ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ㸦B㸧࡜ 9 ᭶ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ㸦E㸧࡜࡛ࡣ㸪ᩥᏛࡢዲࡁ᎘࠸ࡢ๭ྜ࡟኱ࡁ࡞ᕪ␗ࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ྛࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ᭷ពᕪࡣ㸪ㄪᰝ᫬ᮇࡢᙳ㡪ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࡎ㸪Ꮫ㒊ࡢẼ㉁ࡢᕪ␗࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࢢࣛࣇ 1.
144 ே 62㸣඲య㻔㻞㻟㻞ே㻕79 ே 34㸣

49 ே 51㸣㻭㻌㻔㻥㻢ே㻕㻯㻌㻔㻞㻢ே㻕2 ே 2㸣

45 ே 47㸣
16 ே 76㸣㻮㻌㻔㻞㻝ே㻕4 ே 19㸣

1 ே 5㸣

7 ே 27㸣

18 ே 69㸣
17 ே 74㸣㻰㻌㻔㻞㻟ே㻕9 ே 4㸣

1 ே 4㸣
4 ே 17㸣
2 ே 9㸣

17 ே 77㸣㻱㻌㻔㻞㻞ே㻕4 ே 18㸣
1 ே 5㸣

4 ே 50㸣㻲㻌㻔㻌㻤ே㻕

4 ே 50㸣

10 ே 28㸣㻳㻌㻔㻟㻢ே㻕㻜㻑㻝㻜㻑

26 ே 72㸣

㻞㻜㻑

㻟㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

ዲ䛝

᎘䛔

㻡㻜㻑

㻢㻜㻑

㻣㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

㻥㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻜㻑

䛹䛱䜙䛷䜒䛺䛔

A. 2008 ᖺ 4 ᭶ ♫఍Ꮫ㒊 1 ᖺ⏕ 96 ྡ
B. 2008 ᖺ 4 ᭶ ᩥⱁᏛ㒊 1 ᖺ⏕ 21 ྡ
C. 2008 ᖺ 7 ᭶ Ⓨ㐩ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㒊 ♫఍ேࢡࣛࢫ 26 ྡ
D. 2008 ᖺ 9 ᭶ Ⓨ㐩ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㒊 ♫఍ேࢡࣛࢫ 23 ྡ
E. 2008 ᖺ 9 ᭶ ᩥⱁᏛ㒊 1 ᖺ⏕ 22 ྡ
F. 2008 ᖺ 9 ᭶ ⌮ᕤᏛ㒊 2 ᖺ⏕࠿ࡽ 4 ᖺ⏕ 8 ྡ
G. 2008 ᖺ 9 ᭶ ⤒ႠᏛ㒊 3 ᖺ⏕ 36 ྡ
ࢢࣛࣇ 1 ࡟ࡳࡿ࡜࠾ࡾ㸪⤒ႠᏛ㒊㸦G㸧ࡢᏛ⏕ࡣ㸪ዲࡁࡀ 30%௨ୗ࡛ᩥᏛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⯆࿡ࡢ๭ྜࡣప࠸ࠋ♫఍Ꮫ㒊㸦A㸧࡜⌮ᕤᏛ㒊㸦F㸧ࡢᏛ⏕ࡣ㸪ዲࡁࡶ᎘࠸ࡶ࡯ࡰ 50%࡛ྠ⛬ᗘࡢ๭ྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩥⱁᏛ㒊㸦B, E㸧࠾ࡼࡧⓎ㐩ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㒊㸦C, D㸧ࡢᏛ⏕ࡣ㸪࠸ࡎࢀࡶዲࡁ
ࡀ 70%๓ᚋ࡜ᩥᏛ࡬ࡢ⯆࿡ࡣ㧗࠸ᩘ್ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡢ⯆࿡ࡣᩥᏛ࠿ࡽ᏶඲࡟㐲ࡊ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀᩘ್ୖ

࡛ࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ2008 ᖺᗘࡢㄪᰝࡢ㝿㸪Ꮫ⏕࠿ࡽᐤࡏࡽࢀࡓࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡢ୍㒊ࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋࠝᩥᏛࡀ᎘࠸࡜⟅࠼ࡓᏛ⏕ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࠞ
࣭ᩥ❶ࢆㄞࢇࡔࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᎘࠸࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪ዲࢇ࡛ຮᙉࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡣᛮࢃ࡞࠸ࠋ
࣭ᩥᏛࡣࡴࡎ࠿ࡋ࠸⾲⌧ࡀከ࠸ࡢ࡛㸪⌮ゎࡍࡿࡢࡀᅔ㞴ࠋࡩࡘ࠺࡟⾲⌧࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࠶
7676

ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥᏛసရᑟධࡢㄪᰝሗ࿌࠼࡚῝࠸ព࿡῝࡞⾲⌧࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼࡚ゝ࠺ࡢ࡛㸪ㄞࡳ࡜ࡿࡢࡣࡴࡎ࠿ࡋ࠸ࠋ
࣭ᩥᏛࡣ᎘࠸ࡔࠋᩥᏛࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡶ㸪ࡋࡗࡃࡾ࡜ධࡗ࡚ࡃࡿᑠㄝ࡞ࡽ࠸࠸ࠋ
࣭ᩥᏛ࡞࡝ࡸࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛㸪ࡐࡗࡓ࠸ྜࢃ࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ
࣭ࢃࡓࡋࡣᩥᏛసရࢆ࠶ࡲࡾㄞࢇࡔࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞ࡃ㸪⮬ศ࠿ࡽㄞࡶ࠺࡜ᛮࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡃ࡚㸪ᩥᏛ㸻ࡴࡎ࠿ࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺ᅛᐃほᛕࢆᣢࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
࣭ෆᐜࡀᬯ࠸㸪㔜࠸࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠝᩥᏛࡀዲࡁ࡜⟅࠼ࡓᏛ⏕ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࠞ
࣭ゝⴥࡢࡶࡘຊ㸪ゝⴥࡢ࡞࠿࡟࠶ࡿឤ᝟ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚㸪ᩥᏛࡣே࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡉࡲ
ࡊࡲ࡞⌮ゎࡢ௙᪉ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢࡀⰋ࠸࡜ࡇࢁࡔ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ
࣭ᩥᏛࡣ㸪ࡴࡎ࠿ࡋࡃሀ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࡅࢀ࡝㸪ዟࡀ῝࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
୍࣭ࡘࡢసရࢆࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ேࡀࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ゎ㔘ࢆࡋ㸪࠶ࡿேࡣඹឤࡋ㸪࠶ࡿேࡣ᎘ᝏࡍ
ࡿࠋᩥᏛࡣ⮬ศࢆゎᨺ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪࡜࡚ࡶ⮬⏤࡛ᴦࡋ࠸࡛ࡍࠋ
࣭ㄞࢇࡔᚋ࡟ఱ࠿ᚰ࡟ṧࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛㸪ࡑࢀࡀᩥᏛࡢⰋࡉ࡞ࢇࡔࢁ࠺࡞࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ
࣭ᩥᏛࡣ㸪ே࡟ᴦࡋࡳࡸ▱ᜨࢆ୚࠼ࡿ㸪࡜࡚ࡶ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ᛮ࠺ࡢ࡛㸪኱Ꮫ࡟࠸ࡿ
㛫㸪ࡓࡃࡉࢇࡢᩥᏛ࡟ゐࢀ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸࡛ࡍࠋ
ୖグࡢࡶࡢࡣ 18 ṓ࠿ࡽ 19 ṓࡢᩥⱁᏛ㒊 1 ᖺ⏕ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࠿ࡽࡢᢤ⢋࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺
࡟㸪ᩥᏛࡀ᎘࠸ࡔ࡜࠸࠺Ꮫ⏕ࡣ㸪࠸ࡲࡲ࡛ᩥᏛ࡟ゐࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜㸪࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᩥᏛࡣ
ࠕࡴࡎ࠿ࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᛮ࠸ࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ᩥᏛࡢዟ῝ࡉ࡟Ẽ࡙ࡁࡘࡘࡶ⌮ゎࡀᅔ㞴࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㸪୺࡞⌮⏤࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪ᩥᏛࡀዲࡁࡔ࡜࠸࠺Ꮫ⏕ࡢከࡃࡣ㸪ᩥᏛࡢዟ῝ࡉ㸪ྍ⬟ᛶ㸪ᙳ㡪ຊࢆឤࡌ࡜ࡾ㸪ᩥᏛࢆࠕ⮬⏤࡛ࠖࠕᴦࡋ࠸ࠖࡶࡢࡔ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
▷ࡃ㏙࡭ࡓࡀ㸪௨ୖࡀ 2008 ᖺᗘࡢᩥᏛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ஦๓ㄪᰝ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⱥ
ㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ࡞࠿࡛㸪ᩥᏛࡀ⦰ᑠࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ♫఍ࡢ⌧≧࡟཯ࡋ࡚㸪Ꮫ⏕⮬㌟ࡢᩥᏛ࡬ࡢࢽ࣮ࢬ
ࡣᾘ࠼࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᐇែࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ⫼ᬒ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪2009 ᖺ 7 ᭶࠿ࡽ 2010
ᖺ 2 ᭶ࡢᮇ㛫࡟㸪኱Ꮫࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥᏛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆࡩࡓࡓࡧᐇ᪋ࡋ
ࡓࠋࡑࡢㄪᰝࡢ┠ⓗ࡜᪉ἲࢆ௨ୗ࡟グࡍࠋ
3. ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥᏛసရᑟධࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝⱥリࡢሙྜ㸦2009 ᖺᗘᐇ᪋㸧
3.1 ㄪᰝ┠ⓗ㸸ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ
ᮏ✏ࡢࣜࢧ࣮ࢳࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥࡣ௨ୗࡢ஧Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋձᩥᏛసရ࡟ゐࢀࡓ๓࡜ᚋ࡜࡛㸪ᩥᏛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑࡟ኚ໬ࡣࡳࡽࢀࡿ࠿ྰ࠿㸽ղኚ໬ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࢀࡤ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኚ໬ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿㸽
ࡇࢀࡽ஧Ⅼࡢࣜࢧ࣮ࢳࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥࢆᐇドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡟㸪2009 ᖺᗘ࡟୍⯡ᩍ㣴ⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗ᫬㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢㄪᰝ᪉ἲࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.2 ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ
2009 ᖺᗘࡢᮏㄪᰝࡢ⿕㦂⪅ࡣ㸪ᩥⱁᏛ㒊ⱁ⾡Ꮫ⛉㸪⤒ႠᏛ㒊࢟ࣕࣜ࢔࣭࣐ࢿࢪ࣓ࣥࢺ
Ꮫ⛉ࡢ኱Ꮫ᪂ධ⏕࠿ࡽ 4 ᖺ⏕ࡲ࡛࡜㸪Ⓨ㐩ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㒊ࡢඣ❺ᩍ⫱Ꮫ⛉࡜⚟♴⮫ᗋᏛ⛉ࡢ♫఍
7777

ᚋ୰ 㝧Ꮚ

ேࢡࣛࢫࡢᏛ⏕࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡣ⥲ィ 95 ྡ㸪2 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡣ⥲ィ 99
ྡࡢᅇ⟅ࢆᚓࡓࠋ஦๓ㄪᰝྠᵝ㸪ⱥㄒ㸪ⱥᩥᏛࢆᑓᨷࡍࡿᏛ⏕ࡣྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ㄪᰝᮇ㛫ࡣ㸪2009 ᖺ 7 ᭶࠿ࡽ 2010 ᖺ 2 ᭶ࡲ࡛࡛࠶ࡿࠋヲࡋ࠸ᐇ᪋᪥ࡣ㸪௨ୗࡢྛࢢࣛ
ࣇ࡟グධࡍࡿࠋ
ㄪᰝࡢ᪉ἲࡣ㸪ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥᏛసရᑟධ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆྠ୍ࢡࣛࢫ
ෆ࡛ 2 ᅇ⾜࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᡭ㡰ࡣ㸪ࡇࢀࡀⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢᤵᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥᩥᏛసရ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ
࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᭱ึ࡟ఏ࠼㸪ᩥᏛ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡝࠺⪃࠼ࡿ࠿㸪⮬ศࡢᩥᏛほࢆ⋡┤࡟ᅇ⟅ࡍࡿࡼ࠺౫㢗ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡢᩥᏛ࡬ࡢ⯆࿡ࡣ㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺タၥ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪ዲࡁ࠿᎘࠸࠿ࡢᅇ⟅࡜ࡑࡢ⌮⏤࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ዲࡁ࡞⌮⏤࡜᎘࠸࡞⌮⏤ࡑࢀࡒࢀ 5 ࡘࡎࡘࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࡢ࡞࠿࠿ࡽ㑅ࢇ࡛ࡶࡽ࠺ᙧᘧ㸦」ᩘᅇ⟅ྍ㸧࡛ᅇ⟅ࢆồࡵࡓࠋࡑࢀࡀ 1 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ
ㄪᰝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡘ࡙࠸࡚㸪ྠ୍ࡢࢡࣛࢫෆ࡛ᩥᏛసရࢆ㚷㈹ࡍࡿ᫬㛫ࢆసࡾ㸪௒ᅇࡣᩥᏛసရࡢ୍౛࡜
ࡋ࡚ⱥリࢆᑟධࡋࡓࠋ࡜ࡾ࠶ࡆࡓⱥリࡣ㸪ࣟࣞࣥࢫ㸦D. H. Lawrence, 1885-1930㸧ࡢリ㞟ࠗ 㫽 㸪 ⋇ 㸪 ⰼ ࠘ 㸦 Birds, Beasts and Flowers, 1923 㸧 ࡟ ྵ ࡲ ࢀ ࡿ 1 ⠍ ࠕ Ꮚ ட 㸦 ‘BABYTORTOISE’㸧࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕᏊடࠖࡢリ࡟ࡣ㸪ㄒࡾᡭࡢ࠶ࡓࡓ࠿࡞ࡲ࡞ࡊࡋࢆ࡜࠾ࡋ࡚㸪⏕ࡲࢀࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡢᑠࡉ࡞டࡢ㉥ᏊࡢᵝᏊࡀ࠺ࡓࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋリேࡣᏊடࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ↓ᩛࡢඛ㥑⪅࡜࿧ࡧ㸪ΰἁࡢ㜌࡟Ꮩ㧗࡟❧ࡕྥ࠿࠸㸪ᗈ࠸ୡ⏺࡬᪑❧ࡘෑ㝤⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥࡁฟࡍࠋ
ࡇࡢⱥリࢆࢡࣛࢫ࡛ඹ᭷ࡋ㚷㈹ࡋࡓᚋ࡛㸪ࡩࡓࡓࡧ 1 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡜ྠࡌෆᐜ࡛ 2ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋᅇ⟅ࡢ㝿࡟ࡣ㸪ዲࡁࡔ࠿ࡽⰋ࠸࡜࠿᎘࠸ࡔ࠿ࡽ࡜ᝏ࠸࡜࠸
࠺ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ዲࡁ࡛ࡶ᎘࠸࡛ࡶྛಶேࡢṇࡋ࠸⟅࠼࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚㸪ᅇ⟅ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔ⌮⏤࡜ᩥᏛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿពぢ࣭୺ᙇࢆ⮬⏤࡟⟅࠼࡚࡯ࡋ࠸᪨ࢆ᫂ゝࡋࡓࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᡭ㡰࡛ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓ 1 ᅇ┠࡜ 2 ᅇ┠ࡢ⤖ᯝࡢẚ㍑ࢆ㸪௨ୗ࡟グࡍࠋ
4. ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ
4.1 1 ᅇ┠࡜ 2 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡢẚ㍑
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪ⱥリᑟධࡢ๓࡜ᚋ࡛ࡢᏛ⏕ࡢᩥᏛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⯆࿡ࡢኚ໬ࡢ᭷↓ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪⌮⏤ࡢᅇ⟅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᚋ࡛ࡩࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋ㸪ࡲࡎࡣዲࡁ࠿᎘࠸࠿ࡢᅇ⟅࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓ࠸ࠋ
௨ୗࡢࢢࣛࣇ 2 ࠿ࡽࢢࣛࣇ 6 ࡣ㸪Ꮫ㒊ูࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝࢆ⾲♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢢࣛࣇ
1 ࡜ྠᵝ࡟Ꮫ㒊࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ዲࡁ࡜᎘࠸ࡢᅇ⟅ࡢ๭ྜ࡟ࡣ㢧ⴭ࡞㐪࠸ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ
ࢢࣛࣇ 2.

1 ே 5㸣
15 ே 68㸣㻜㻥㻛㻜㻣㻛㻜㻠

6 ே 27㸣ዲ䛝᎘䛔䛹䛱䜙䛷䜒䛺䛔

20 ே  90㸣㻜㻥㻛㻜㻣㻛㻝㻞

㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻑

㻞㻜㻑

㻟㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻡㻜㻑

㻢㻜㻑

㻣㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

㻥㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻜㻑

1 ே 5㸣

1 ே 5㸣

ୖグࡢࢢࣛࣇ 2 ࡣ㸪ඣ❺ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㸪⚟♴⮫ᗋᏛࢆᑓᨷࡍࡿⓎ㐩ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㒊ࡢ♫఍ேࢡࣛࢫࡢ
7878ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥᏛసရᑟධࡢㄪᰝሗ࿌

⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏛຊࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡣึ⣭ࢡࣛࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡜ 2 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮
ࢺࡢ㝿㸪୧᪥࡜ࡶ↓Ḟᖍࡢࡓࡵᅇ⟅⪅ࡣྠ୍࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢࢢࣛࣇ࡟♧ࡋࡓ࡜࠾ࡾ㸪22ྡࡢࢡࣛࢫࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪1 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡛ࡣ㸪ዲࡁࡀ 15 ྡ㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 6 ྡ㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸
࡜グධࡉࢀࡓᅇ⟅ࡀ 1 ྡ㸪ࣃ࣮ࢭࣥࢸ࣮ࢪ࡟ࡋ࡚㸪ዲࡁࡀ 68㸣㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 27㸣㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࡀ 5㸣ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋⱥリ㚷㈹ᚋࡢ 2 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪ዲࡁࡀ 20 ྡ࡛ࢡࣛࢫ඲యࡢ 90㸣㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 1 ྡ࡛ 5㸣㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࡀ 1 ྡ࡛ 5㸣࡜࡞ࡾ㸪᎘࠸ࡢ๭ྜࡀ
ῶᑡࡋࡓࠋ
ࢢࣛࣇ 3.
2 ே 50㸣

1 ே 25㸣㻜㻥㻛㻜㻥㻛㻝㻣

1 ே 25%ዲ䛝᎘䛔

4 ே 50㸣㻝㻜㻛㻜㻝㻛㻞㻝

㻜㻑㻝㻜㻑䛹䛱䜙䛷䜒䛺䛔

4 ே 50㸣

㻞㻜㻑

㻟㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻡㻜㻑

㻢㻜㻑

㻣㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

㻥㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻜㻑



ḟ࡟ࢢࣛࣇ 3 ࡣ㸪ᑐ㇟ࡀ⤒ႠᏛ㒊࢟ࣕࣜ࢔࣭࣐ࢿࢪ࣓ࣥࢺᑓᨷࡢ኱Ꮫ 3 ᖺ⏕㸪Ꮫຊࣞ࣋ࣝࡣ TOEIC440 Ⅼ௨ୖࡢྲྀᚓࢆ┠ᣦࡍึ⣭ࢡࣛࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⤒ႠᏛ㒊ࡣᩥᏛࡀዲࡁ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ
⟅ࡢᩘ್ࡀ┠❧ࡗ࡚ప࠸ࢡࣛࢫ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ1 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪ዲࡁࡀ 25㸣㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 50㸣㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸࡜グධࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡀ 25㸣࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡓࡔࡋ㸪ࡇࡢ࡜ࡁࡢࢡࣛࢫ
ࡣᑡேᩘ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪1 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢᅇ⟅⪅ࡀ 4 ྡ࡛ᐻᑡࡍࡂࡿࡓࡵ᭷⏝࡞ᩘᏐ࡟ࡣ࡞
ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ཧ⪃ࡲ࡛࡟㏙࡭ࡿ࡜㸪2008 ᖺ 9 ᭶࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓ஦๓ㄪᰝࡢ࡜ࡁ
ࡣ㸪⤒ႠᏛ㒊 36 ྡࡢᏛ⏕ࡢᅇ⟅ࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ࢡࣛࢫ඲య࡛ዲࡁࡀ 28㸣㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 72㸣࡜࠸࠺ᩘ್࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋዲࡁࡀ 20㸣ྎ࡟␃ࡲࡾ㸪30㸣ࢆ㉺࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡣ㸪ᑡேᩘࡢ࡜ࡁ࡜ྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2009 ᖺᗘࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ヰࢆᡠࡍ࡜㸪ⱥリ㚷㈹ᚋ 2 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡟ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓᏛ⏕ࡣ 8 ྡ࡛㸪ዲࡁࡀ 4 ྡ㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 4 ྡ㸪஬ศ஬ศࡢ๭ྜ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ࢢࣛࣇ 4.

2 ே 11%16 ே 89㸣㻜㻥㻛㻝㻞㻛㻜㻟ዲ䛝᎘䛔

17 ே 94㸣㻜㻥㻛㻝㻞㻛㻜㻟

㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻑

㻞㻜㻑

㻟㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻡㻜㻑

䛹䛱䜙䛷䜒䛺䛔

㻢㻜㻑

㻣㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

㻥㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻜㻑

1 ே 6㸣

ࡘ࡙࠸࡚ࢢࣛࣇ 4 ࡣ㸪ᑐ㇟ࡀᩥⱁᏛ㒊ⱁ⾡Ꮫ⛉ࡢ኱Ꮫ 1 ᖺ⏕ 18 ྡ㸪࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢ 1 ᅇ┠࡜ 2 ᅇ┠ࡢᅇ⟅⪅ࡣྠ୍ࡢᏛ⏕࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏛຊࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡣ TOEIC390 Ⅼ࠿ࡽ 470 Ⅼࢆ┠ᣦࡍึ⣭ࢡࣛࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩥⱁᏛ㒊ࡣ㸪ࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ᩥᏛࡀዲࡁ࡞Ꮫ⏕ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ከ࠸ࢡࣛࢫ࡛࠶ࡗ
ࡓࠋ1 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪ዲࡁࡀ 16 ྡ㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 2 ྡ㸪ࣃ࣮ࢭࣥࢸ࣮ࢪ࡟᥮⟬ࡍࡿ࡜
ዲࡁࡀ 89㸣㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 11㸣࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪ዲࡁࡀ 17 ྡ㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 1 ྡ࡛㸪ࣃ࣮ࢭࣥࢸ࣮ࢪࡣዲࡁࡀ 94㸣㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 6㸣࡛࠶ࡿࠋ7979

ᚋ୰ 㝧Ꮚ

ࢢࣛࣇ 5.

2 ே 9㸣
14 ே 64㸣㻝㻜㻛㻜㻝㻛㻝㻢

6 ே 27㸣ዲ䛝᎘䛔

16 ே 73㸣㻝㻜㻛㻜㻝㻛㻞㻟

㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻑

㻞㻜㻑

㻟㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻡㻜㻑

4 ே 18㸣
㻢㻜㻑

㻣㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

䛹䛱䜙䛷䜒䛺䛔㻥㻜㻑㻝㻜㻜㻑

2 ே 9㸣

ࢢࣛࣇ 5 ࢆࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡩࡓࡓࡧඣ❺ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㸪⚟♴⮫ᗋᏛᑓᨷࡢⓎ㐩ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㒊ࡢ♫఍ேࢡࣛࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1 ᅇ┠࡜ 2 ᅇ┠ࡣ㸪ྠ୍ࡢᏛ⏕ 22 ྡ㸪ึ⣭ࢡࣛࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1 ᅇ┠ࡣዲࡁࡀ 14
ྡ࡛ 64㸣㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 6 ྡ࡛ 27㸣㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࡀ 2 ྡ࡛ 9㸣࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋⱥリ㚷㈹ᚋ㸪2 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪ዲࡁࡀ 16 ྡ࡛ 73㸣࡟ୖࡀࡾ㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 4 ྡ࡛ 18㸣࡟ୗࡀࡾ㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࡀ 2 ྡࡢࡲࡲ 9㸣࡟␃ࡲࡗࡓࠋ
ࢢࣛࣇ 6.

3 ே 10㸣

19 ே 66㸣㻝㻜㻛㻜㻞㻛㻜㻡

ዲ䛝

7 ே 24㸣᎘䛔䛹䛱䜙䛷䜒䛺䛔

24 ே 83㸣㻝㻜㻛㻜㻞㻛㻜㻢

㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻑

㻞㻜㻑

㻟㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻡㻜㻑

㻢㻜㻑

㻣㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

㻥㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻜㻑

2 ே 7㸣

3 ே 10㸣᭱ᚋ࡟ࢢࣛࣇ 6 ࢆࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋඣ❺ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㸪⚟♴⮫ᗋᏛᑓᨷࡢⓎ㐩ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㒊ࡢ♫఍ேࢡࣛࢫ㸪ࣞ࣋ࣝࡣึ⣭࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ࢢࣛࣇ 5 ࡜ࡣูࡢᏛ⏕ࡓࡕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1 ᅇ┠㸪2 ᅇ┠࡜ࡶ࡟ྠ୍ࡢ 29 ྡࡢᏛ⏕ࡀᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ1 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪ዲࡁࡀ 19 ྡ࡛ 66㸣㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 7 ྡ࡛ 24㸣㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࡀ 3 ྡ࡛ 10㸣࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ2 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪ዲࡁ
ࡀ 24 ྡ࡛ 83㸣࡟ୖࡀࡾ㸪᎘࠸ࡀ 3 ྡ࡛ 10㸣࡟ୗࡀࡾ㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࡀ 2 ྡ࡛ 7㸣࡟ୗࡀࡗࡓࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ⱥリࢆ㚷㈹ࡋᩥᏛ࡟ゐࢀࡿᶵ఍ࢆసࡿ๓࡜ᚋ࡜࡛ࡣ㸪࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆ
ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᏛ㒊࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ዲࡁࡢ๭ྜࡀቑ࠼㸪᎘࠸ࡢ๭ྜࡀῶᑡࡍࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡇࢀࡲ࡛Ꮫ㒊ู࡟ࡳ࡚ࡁࡓᩘ್ࢆྜィࡋ࡚㸪඲యࡢኚ໬ࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡓࡢࡀࢢࣛࣇ 7 ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ඛ㏙ࡢࣜࢧ࣮ࢳࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥձࡢࠕᩥᏛసရ࡟ゐࢀࡓ๓࡜ᚋ࡜࡛㸪ᩥᏛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑࡟ኚ
໬ࡣࡳࡽࢀࡿ࠿ྰ࠿㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪ኚ໬ࡣࡳࡽࢀࡿ࡜⟅࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥղࡢࠕኚ໬ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࢀࡤ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኚ໬࠿㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸࡟ᑐ
ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪ࢢࣛࣇ 7 ࢆࡳ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

80
80ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥᏛసရᑟධࡢㄪᰝሗ࿌

ࢢࣛࣇ 7.

7 ே 7㸣

65 ே 69㸣㻝ᅇ┠䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖

ዲ䛝

23 ே 24㸣᎘䛔

80 ே 81㸣㻞ᅇ┠䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖

㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻑

㻞㻜㻑

㻟㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

䛹䛱䜙䛷䜒䛺䛔

㻡㻜㻑

㻢㻜㻑

㻣㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

㻥㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻜㻑

6 ே 6㸣
13 ே 13㸣඲యⓗ࡟ࡳ࡚㸪1 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡛ࡣ㸪ᩥᏛࡀዲࡁ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓᏛ⏕ࡀ 65 ྡ࡛ 69㸣࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪2 ᅇ┠ࡣ 80 ྡ࡛ 81㸣࡜࡞ࡾ㸪12 ࣏࢖ࣥࢺୖࡀࡗࡓࠋᩥᏛࡀ᎘࠸࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓᏛ⏕ࡣ㸪1 ᅇ┠ࡀ 23 ྡ࡛ 24㸣࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪2 ᅇ┠ࡣ 13 ྡ࡛ 13㸣࡜࡞ࡾ㸪11 ࣏࢖ࣥࢺୗࡀࡗࡓࠋ࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸࡜ࡢᅇ⟅ࡣ㸪1 ᅇ┠ࡀ 7 ྡ࡛ 7㸣࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪2 ᅇ┠ࡣ 6 ྡ࡛ 6㸣࡜࡞ࡾ㸪1 ࣏࢖ࣥࢺୗࡀࡗࡓࠋ
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ⱥᩥᏛసရࡢ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥリࢆᑟධࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡢᩥᏛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑࡟ኚ໬ࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜㸪ࡑࡋ࡚௒ᅇ 2009 ᖺᗘ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮
ࢺㄪᰝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ዲࡁࡢ๭ྜࡀቑ࠼ࡿኚ໬ࡀᩘ್ࡢୖ࡛ࡶࡳ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡳ࡚
ࡁࡓ඲యࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ㸪ࣆ࢔ࢯࣥࡢ┦㛵ಀᩘࢆ⏝࠸࡚⤫ィฎ⌮ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀ௨ୗࡢ⾲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⌮⏤ࡢᅇ⟅࡜࡜ࡶ࡟⾲♧ࡍࡿࠋ
⾲ 1. 1 ᅇ┠࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝ
᎘
࠸

ዲ
ࡁ



࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ ࡶ࡞࠸ 
᎘࠸⌮⏤㸯 
᎘࠸⌮⏤㸰 
᎘࠸⌮⏤㸱 
᎘࠸⌮⏤㸲 
᎘࠸⌮⏤㸳 
ዲࡁ⌮⏤㸴 
ዲࡁ⌮⏤㸵 
ዲࡁ⌮⏤㸶 
ዲࡁ⌮⏤㸷 
ዲࡁ⌮⏤ 














᎘࠸
ዲࡁ

࡝
ࡕ
ࡽ
࡛
ࡶ
࡞
࠸

᎘
࠸
⌮
⏤
㸱

᎘
࠸
⌮
⏤
㸲

᎘
࠸
⌮
⏤
㸳

ዲ
ࡁ
⌮
⏤
㸴







  
  






















᎘
࠸
⌮
⏤
㸯

᎘
࠸
⌮
⏤
㸰


















ዲ
ࡁ
⌮
⏤
㸵

ዲ
ࡁ
⌮
⏤
㸶

ዲ
ࡁ
⌮
⏤
㸷

ዲ
ࡁ
⌮
⏤

















 
  
   

㹙⥙᥃ࡅࡣ➹⪅࡟ࡼࡿࠋᩘ್ࡀs0.7 ௨ୖࡢ㧗࠸┦㛵㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡟௜ࡋࡓࠋ㹛㸨┦㛵ಀᩘ⾲ࡢぢ᪉㺃㺃㺃ิࡢ㡯┠࡜⾜ࡢ㡯┠࡜ࡢ஺ᕪࡍࡿࢭࣝࡢᩘ್ࡀ㸪ࡑࢀࡽࡢ㡯┠ࡢ┦㛵ಀᩘࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ㸦౛㸸ิࡢ㡯┠ࠕዲࡁࠖ࡜⾜ࡢ㡯┠ࠕዲࡁ⌮⏤㸴ࠖ࡜ࡢ┦㛵ಀᩘࡣ㸪ࡑࢀࡽࡀ஺ᕪࡍࡿࢭࣝࡢᩘ್ 0.973 ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ㸧8181

ᚋ୰ 㝧Ꮚ㸨⌮⏤㡯┠  ᎘࠸⌮⏤ 1 ᐇ┈࡟⧅ࡀࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ  ᎘࠸⌮⏤ 2 ᒚṔ᭩ࡢ㈨᱁ḍグධ࡞࡝㸪ᑵ⫋࡟ࡣ TOEIC ࡀ㔜せ࡜ᛮ࠺࠿ࡽ  ᎘࠸⌮⏤ 3 ࡴࡎ࠿ࡋࡍࡂࡿ  ᎘࠸⌮⏤ 4 ᩥᏛࡢ࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡉࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸  ᎘࠸⌮⏤ 5 ࡑࡢ௚㸦⮬⏤グධ㸧  ዲࡁ⌮⏤ 6 ᩥᏛࡣ⌧ᐇ࡟ᙺ❧ࡘ࡜ᛮ࠺࠿ࡽ  ዲࡁ⌮⏤ 7 TOEIC 㔜ど㸪Ⅼᩘ୺⩏ࡢ㢼₻ࡣࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸  ዲࡁ⌮⏤ 8 ዲࡁ࡞సᐙࡀ࠸ࡿ  ዲࡁ⌮⏤ 9 ᩥᏛࡣ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸࡜ឤࡌࡿ  ዲࡁ⌮⏤ 10 ࡑࡢ௚㸦⮬⏤グධ㸧
1 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣆ࢔ࢯࣥࡢ┦㛵ಀᩘ⾲࠿ࡽ㸪௨ୗࡢᅄⅬࡀࡳ࡚࡜ࢀࡿࠋ
ࠝ1ࠞ᎘࠸ࡢᅇ⟅⌮⏤ࡣ㸪⌮⏤ 3ࠕࡴࡎ࠿ࡋࡍࡂࡿ(0.983)ࠖ㸪⌮⏤ 4ࠕᩥᏛࡢ࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡉ
ࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸(0.848)ࠖ࡜ࡢ┦㛵ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ
ࠝ2ࠞ᎘࠸ࡢ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚㸪⌮⏤ 1ࠕᐇ┈࡟⧅ࡀࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࠖ࡜⌮⏤ 2ࠕᑵ⫋࡟ࡣ TOEICࡀ㔜せ࡜ᛮ࠺࠿ࡽࠖ࡜ࡣ᏶඲࡞┦㛵㛵ಀ(1.000)࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪⌮⏤ 3ࠕࡴࡎ࠿ࡋࡍ
ࡂࡿࠖ࡜⌮⏤ 4ࠕᩥᏛࡢ࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡉࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖࡶ┦㛵ᛶࡀ㧗࠸(0.797)ࠋ
ࠝ3ࠞዲࡁࡢᅇ⟅⌮⏤ࡣ㸪⌮⏤ 6ࠕᩥᏛࡣ⌧ᐇ࡟ᙺ❧ࡘ(0.973)ࠖ㸪⌮⏤ 9ࠕᩥᏛࡣ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ ࠸ ࡜ ឤ ࡌ ࡿ (0.953) ࠖ 㸪 ⌮ ⏤ 7 ࠕ TOEIC 㔜 ど 㸪 Ⅼ ᩘ ୺ ⩏ ࡢ 㢼 ₻ ࡣ ࡘ ࡲ ࡽ ࡞ ࠸(0.762)ࠖ࡜ࡢ┦㛵ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ
ࠝ4ࠞ࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡣ㸪᎘࠸ࡢ⌮⏤࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ୕ࡘࡢ㡯┠㸦⌮⏤ 3࣭⌮⏤
4࣭⌮⏤ 5㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚㧗࠸┦㛵ᛶࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪࡜ࡾࢃࡅ㸪᎘࠸ࡢ⌮⏤ 4ࠕᩥᏛࡢ࠾
ࡶࡋࢁࡉࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸(0.895)ࠖ࡜ࡢ┦㛵ᛶࡀࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ㧗ࡃ㸪┦ᑐⓗ࡟ࡣ᎘࠸࡟㏆࠸࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
⾲ 2. 2 ᅇ┠࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝ
᎘
࠸

᎘࠸
ዲࡁ

ዲ
ࡁ

࡝
ࡕ
ࡽ
࡛
ࡶ
࡞
࠸

᎘
࠸
⌮
⏤
㸯

᎘
࠸
⌮
⏤
㸰

᎘
࠸
⌮
⏤
㸱

᎘
࠸
⌮
⏤
㸲

᎘
࠸
⌮
⏤
㸳

ዲ
ࡁ
⌮
⏤
㸴

ዲ
ࡁ
⌮
⏤
㸵

ዲ
ࡁ
⌮
⏤
㸶

ዲ
ࡁ
⌮
⏤
㸷

ዲ
ࡁ
⌮
⏤





  ᎘ ࠸⌮⏤㸯    ࡝ ࡕࡽ ࡛ࡶ ࡞࠸

QD

QD

᎘ ࠸⌮⏤㸱 

᎘ ࠸⌮⏤㸳 

 ᎘ ࠸⌮⏤㸰

QDQD 
QD 
QD  

QD   
QD    

QD     
QD      


QD       
QD        
 ᎘ ࠸⌮⏤㸲    ዲ ࡁ⌮⏤㸴 ዲ ࡁ⌮⏤㸵 



ዲ ࡁ⌮⏤㸶  ዲ ࡁ⌮⏤㸷  ዲ ࡁ⌮⏤  







82
82

ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥᏛసရᑟධࡢㄪᰝሗ࿌

2 ᅇ┠࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝࡢ┦㛵ಀᩘ࡛࠶ࡿ⾲ 2 ࠿ࡽࡣ㸪⾲ 1 ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚㸪ḟ࡟ᣲࡆࡿᅄࡘ
ࡢኚ໬ࡀࡳ࡚࡜ࢀࡿࠋ
ኚ໬㸦1㸧᎘࠸࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅࡜⌮⏤ 7ࠕTOEIC 㔜ど㸪Ⅼᩘ୺⩏ࡢ㢼₻ࡣࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡢ㈇ࡢ┦㛵ᛶࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ(㸫0.848)ࠋ᎘࠸࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ዲࡁࡢ⌮⏤ࡀ㈇ࡢ┦㛵ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࡢࡣጇᙜ࡞⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ኚ໬㸦2㸧᎘࠸࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅࡜⌮⏤ 4ࠕᩥᏛࡢ࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡉࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡢṇࡢ┦㛵ᛶࡀపࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ(0.670)ࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪᎘࠸࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤࠿ࡽࠕᩥᏛࡢ࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡉࡀࢃ࠿
ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑ࡀῶᑡࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ኚ໬㸦3㸧ඛࡢࠝ2ࠞࡢ≉ᚩ࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟⾲ 1 ࡛ࡣ⌮⏤ 3ࠕࡴࡎ࠿ࡋࡍࡂࡿࠖ࡜⌮⏤ 4ࠕᩥᏛࡢ࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡉࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖࡀ㧗࠸┦㛵ᛶ(0.797)ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡀ㸪⾲ 2 ࡛ࡣ㧗࠸┦㛵㛵ಀࡣ♧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸(0.567)ࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪ⱥリ࡟ᐇ㝿࡟ࡩࢀ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜㸪ࡴࡎ࠿ࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑㸪࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡉࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑ࡀⷧࡽ࠸࡛ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࡢ
⾲ࢀ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ኚ໬㸦4㸧ྠࡌࡃࠝ2ࠞࡢ≉ᚩ࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪⾲ 1 ࡛ࡣ⌮⏤ 1ࠕᐇ┈࡟⧅ࡀࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࠖ
࡜⌮⏤ 2ࠕᑵ⫋࡟ࡣ TOEIC ࡀ㔜せ࡜ᛮ࠺࠿ࡽࠖ࡜ࡀ᏶඲࡞┦㛵㛵ಀ(1.000)࡟࠶ࡗ
ࡓࡀ㸪⾲ 2 ࡛ࡣ⌮⏤ 2 ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡀ㞽࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡓࡵ㸪┦㛵ಀᩘࡣィ⟬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
⥲ᣓⓗ࡟⾲ 1 ࡜⾲ 2 ࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜㸪ᩘ್ࡀs0.7 ௨ୖࡢ㧗࠸┦㛵㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢࡀ㸪⾲ 1࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣᩓᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡀ㸪⾲ 2 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ⤠ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣ㸪᎘࠸࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅࡜ዲࡁࡢ⌮⏤㡯┠ࡣ㸪⌮⏤ 8 ࡢࠕዲࡁ࡞సᐙࡀ࠸ࡿࠖࢆ㝖࠸࡚㸪௚ࡣࡳ࡞㈇ࡢ┦㛵ᛶࢆ♧ࡋ㸦⌮⏤ 6㸸㸫0.677㸪⌮⏤ 7㸸㸫0.848㸪⌮⏤ 9㸸㸫0.213㸪⌮⏤ 10㸸㸫0.516㸧㸪ዲࡁ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅࡜᎘࠸ࡢ⌮⏤㡯┠ࡣ㈇ࡢ┦㛵ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢࡀቑ࠼ࡓ㸦⌮⏤ 3㸸㸫0.443㸪⌮⏤ 5㸸㸫
0.511㸧ࠋඛ࡟ࡶ㏙࡭ࡓࡀ㸪᎘࠸࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅࡜ዲࡁࡢ⌮⏤㡯┠㸪࠾ࡼࡧዲࡁ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅࡜᎘࠸ࡢ⌮⏤㡯┠ࡀ㈇ࡢ┦㛵ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚㸪⾲ 1 ࡜⾲ 2 ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡇࡢ┦㐪ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡢᩥᏛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑࡟ኚ໬ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚㸪ዲࡁ᎘࠸ࡢ⌮⏤ࡀ᫂☜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࡢドᕥ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ᥮ゝࡍࡿ࡞ࡽ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡢᩥᏛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑ࡀ᫂░࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜࠸
࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ᩥᏛసရࡢ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥリࢆᑟධࡍࡿᶵ఍ࢆタࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ᩥᏛࡣࠕࡴࡎ࠿ࡋࡍࡂࡿࠖࠕ࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡉࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព㆑ࡀⷧࡽࡄ࡜
࠸࠺ኚ໬㸪ዲࡁ࡜᎘࠸ࡢ⌮⏤ࡀ᫂☜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ኚ໬ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟㸪⮬⏤グධᙧᘧ࡛ࡢᏛ⏕࠿ࡽࡢ཯ᛂࢆḟ⠇࡛⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋ
4.2 ⮬⏤グ㏙ᅇ⟅⌮⏤ࡢ࠺ࡕ 2 ᗘ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡟ᐤࡏࡽࢀࡓ⮬⏤グධࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ௜グࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀ
ࡽࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࠿ࡽࡶᩥᏛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑࡟ኚ໬ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋ

8383

ᚋ୰ 㝧Ꮚ

⾲ 3. ⱥリᑟධᚋ 2 ᅇ┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡼࡾ㸪⮬⏤グධḍ㸦⌮⏤ 5㸪⌮⏤ 10㸧ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ
࣭リ࠿ࡽຬẼࢆࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ
࣭స⪅ࡢẼᣢࡕ࡜⮬ศࡢẼᣢࡕ࡜ඛ⏕ࡢẼᣢࡕࡀ㔜࡞ࡗ࡚㸪ᾦࡀฟࡑ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
࣭ᩥᏛࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛ࡍࡀ㸪ඛ⏕ࡢヰࢆ⪺࠸࡚⯆࿡ࢆࡶࡕࡲࡋࡓࠋࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞せ⣲ࡀࡲࡊࡗ࡚࠸࡚㸪῝࠸ୡ⏺ࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲ
ࡍࠋ࣭ࡏࢃࡋ࡞࠸⌧௦♫఍ࡢ࡞࠿࡛㸪ࡺࡗࡃࡾ❧ࡕṆࡲࡾ㸪⮬ࡽࡢே⏕ࢆ
᣺ࡾ㏉ࡿ୍᫬ࡣ኱ษ࡜ᛮ࠺࠿ࡽࠋ
࣭ᩥᏛࢆ▱ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᚰࡀ㇏࠿࡟࡞ࡿࠋ㝈ࡽࢀࡓゝⴥ࠿ࡽ↓㝈ࡢୡ⏺ࡀ᝿ീ࡛ࡁࡿࡍࡤࡽࡋ࠸ᩍ⫱ࡔ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ
࣭స⪅ࡢ⪃࠼㸪ᛮ᝿࡞࡝ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ࡶࡢࢆឤࡌࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽࠋ
࣭௒ࡲ࡛࠶ࡲࡾᩥᏛ࡟ࡩࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡍࡀ㸪⯆࿡ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ
ዲࡁ࡛ᑡࡋࡎࡘຮᙉࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
࣭ᚰࡢ₶࠸㸪⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡃ▱ᜨ㸪ᚰࡢࡼࡾ࡝ࡇࢁࠋ
࣭⮬ศࡢ㢌࡛ࡣ⪃࠼ࡶࡘ࠿࡞࠸ࡶࡢࢆయ㦂࡛ࡁࡿࡋ㸪ⱥᩥᏛࡣゝ࠸ᅇࡋࡀ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸ࠋ
࣭ඛ⏕ࡢヰࢆ⪺࠸ࡓࡾ㸪Ꮚடࡢリࢆㄞࢇ࡛㸪ᚰࡀឤືࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋࡔ࠿
ࡽዲࡁ࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋ
࣭ᩥᏛ࡟ࡣ TOEIC ࡞࡝࡛ࡣឤࡌࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࠋᡂ㛗࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࠋ
࣭ⱥᩥᏛࢆᏛࡪࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪௚ᅜࡢᩥ໬ࢆᏛࡪࡇ࡜ࠋ᪥ᮏே࡟ࡣ࡞࠸ឤぬࡸ⪃࠼᪉ࢆ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ࣭୍ࡘࡢ༢ㄒ࡛࠸ࢁࢇ࡞ព࿡ࡸ࡜ࡽ࠼᪉ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢࢆ▱ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ
ࡓࠋ࣭ᩥᏛࡼࡾඛ࡟ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳ࣭఍ヰࡀ㔜せࠋ࣭స⪅ࡢ࠸࠸ࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࡼࡃࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠋ
᎘࠸࣭ⱥㄒࡀ᎘࠸ࡔ࠿ࡽࠋ᪥ᮏᩥᏛࡣዲࡁࠋ࡛ࡶⱥリࡣ㡪ࡁࡀࡁࢀ࠸࡞ࡢ
࡛⪺ࡃࡔࡅ࡞ࡽ࠸࠸࡛ࡍࠋ
࣭⯆࿡ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀⱞᡭࠋ
࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ ࣭ᩥᏛ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡟㛵ᚰࡀⷧ࠸ࡢ࡛࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋ
࣭ዲࡁ࠿᎘࠸࠿ࡣࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡅ࡝㸪௒᪥ࡢヰࡣⰋ࠿ࡗࡓ࡛ࡍࠋ
5. ⤖ᯝ⪃ᐹ࡜ᩍ⫱࡬ࡢᥦゝ௨ୖࡳ࡚ࡁࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪኱Ꮫࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ᩥᏛࡀ⦰ᑠࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ᫖௒࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ᐇ㝿࡟ࡣከࡃࡢᏛ⏕ࡀᩥᏛ࡬ࡢ⯆࿡ࢆᢪ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜㸪ࡑࡋ࡚౛࡜ࡋ
࡚ 1 ⠍ࡢⱥリࢆᑟධࡋ㸪ᩥᏛ࡟ゐࢀࡿᶵ఍ࢆసࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡶ㸪ᩥᏛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព㆑࡟ኚ໬ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ
ዲࡁ࡜᎘࠸ࡢ⌮⏤࡟ᐤࡏࡽࢀࡓ⮬⏤グධࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࠿ࡽࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪ேࠎࡢᩥᏛ㞳ࢀࡀ࠸ࢃࢀࡿ⌧௦♫఍ࡢ࡞࠿࡛㸪ᩥᏛࡢ࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡉ㸪ዟ῝ࡉࢆ⌮ゎࡋ㸪≀஦ࢆ⪃࠼㸪ࡑࡋ࡚ឤࡌࡿᚰ㸪ᩥᏛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡋࡗ࠿ࡾ࡜ࡋࡓពぢࢆࡶࡘᏛ⏕ࡣ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚೺ᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋከ
ᩘࡢᏛ⏕ࡢ⯆࿡ࡣ㸪ࡅࡗࡋ࡚ᩥᏛ࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᩥᏛࡀዲࡁࡔ࡜࠸࠺ከࡃ
ࡢᏛ⏕ࡣ㸪ᩥᏛࢆ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸࡜ឤࡌ㸪ᩥᏛࡣ⹫Ꮫ࡛࡞ࡃᐇᏛ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆឤࡌ࡜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
8484ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥᏛసရᑟධࡢㄪᰝሗ࿌

ࡇࡢࡓࡧࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࡓࡗࡓ 1 ⠍ࡢⱥリࢆᑟධࡋࡓ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪ከࡃࡢᩥᏛసရ࡟ゐࢀࡿࡇ࡜㸪ࡑࡇ࡟ぢࡿே≀ࡢ⏕ࡁ᪉࡟ඹឤࡋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ཯Ⓨࡋ㸪࡜ࡶ࡟⪃࠼య㦂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪ࢃࢀࢃࢀ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡓ࠸࡬ࢇ᭷┈࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏛࡪഃ࡜ᩍ࠼ࡿഃࡢ཮᪉ࡀ㸪ᩥᏛࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ
ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚㸪࡜ࡶ࡟⮬ᕫࢆ῝ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃయ㦂ࡀ㸪⌧௦ࡢᩍ⫱ࡢሙ࡟ᚲせ࡞せ⣲ࡔ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ
࠺ࠋࢃࢀࢃࢀᩍ⫱࡟ᦠࢃࡿ⪅ࡀ㸪ᩥᏛࡣே㛫ᛶࢆ⫱ࡳ㸪ᚰࡢࡺ࡜ࡾࢆ⏕ࡴࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜㸪ᩥᏛࡢࡴࡎ࠿ࡋࡉࡢྥࡇ࠺࡟኱ࡁ࡞႐ࡧࡀᚅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓ࡞ࡽ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡢᩥᏛ࡬ࡢ⯆࿡ࡣࡉࡽ࡟㧗ࡲࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࣆ࢔ࢯࣥࡢ┦㛵ಀᩘ⾲࠿ࡽ࠸࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪ᐇ㝿࡟ᩥᏛసရ࡟ࡩࢀࡿᶵ఍ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡢࠕࡴࡎ࠿ࡋ࠸ࠖࠕࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ẽᣢࡕࡀⷧࡽ࠸࡛㸪ᩥᏛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑
ࡀ᫂░࡜࡞ࡿࠋࠕࡴࡎ࠿ࡋ࠸ࠖࠕࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ឤࡌࡓࡇ࡜ࡀࠕ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸ࠖࠕࢃ࠿ࡗ
ࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᐇឤ࡟ኚࢃࡿ࡜ࡁ㸪ࡑࡢ႐ࡧࡀᏛ⏕ࡢᩥᏛ࡬ࡢ⯆࿡࡜Ꮫ⩦ពḧࢆ㧗ࡵࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏛ⏕ࡢࢽ࣮ࢬ࡟ᛂ࠼ࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣔࢳ࣮࣋ࢩࣙ
ࣥࢆ㧗ࡵ㸪ⱥㄒຊࡢ⫱ᡂ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋゝⴥࡢⱁ⾡࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ே㛫ᛶࢆᾰ㣴ࡍࡿ※࡛࠶ࡿᩥᏛ࡟ゐࢀࡿᶵ఍ࢆᏛ⏕࡟ᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ᚲせ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᥦゝࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪ⱥリᑟධࡢ๓࡜ᚋ࡛ࡢᏛ⏕ࡢᩥᏛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⯆࿡ࡢኚ໬ࡢ᭷↓࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓࠋ
௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡢᏛ⩦ពḧࡢྥୖࢆࡵࡊࡋ㸪ⱥᩥᏛࢆዲࡴሙྜ࡜᎘࠺ሙྜࡢ⌮⏤࡟ࡉࡽ࡟ヲࡋࡃ↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡛ࡢᩥᏛࡢຠᯝⓗ࡞ᢅ࠸᪉ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᥈✲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ὀᮏ✏ࡣ㸪⚄ᡞⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍➨ 13 ᅇ኱఍㸦2010 ᖺ 5 ᭶ 1 ᪥㸧࡟࠾࠸ཱྀ࡚㢌Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆ
ᨵ㢟ࡋ㸪኱ᖜ࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩▼⏣ஂ (2009).ࠕⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ୰ࡢⱥᩥᏛࠖBrontë Newsletter of Japan, 75, 1.㸦᪥ᮏࣈࣟࣥࢸ༠
఍㸧Ụ฼ᕝ᫓㞝 (2004).ࠕⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩࠿ࡽᾘ࠼ࡓᩥᏛࠖࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱࠘, 53(8), 15-18.
Ụ฼ᕝ᫓㞝 (2008).ࠗ᪥ᮏேࡣⱥㄒࢆ࡝࠺Ꮫࢇ࡛ࡁࡓ࠿̿ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ♫఍ᩥ໬ྐ࠘◊✲♫.
኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ᩥᏛ◊✲఍(⦅) (2000).ࠗࠑⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢࡓࡵࡢᩥᏛࠒ᱌ෆ஦඾࠘ᙬὶ♫.
┿㔝Ὀ (2004).ࠕᩥᏛࢆᩍᮦ࡟ࡋࡓᤵᴗᐇ㊶ (኱Ꮫ)ࠖࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱࠘, 53(8), 27-29.
Lazar, G. (1993). Literature and language teaching: A guide for teachers and trainers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Maley, A., & Moulding, S. (1985). Poem into poem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maley, A. (1987). Poetry and song as effective language-learning activities. In W. M. Rivers (Ed.),Interactive language teaching (pp. 93-109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pinto, V. de S. & Roberts, W. (Eds.) (1993). The complete poems of D. H. Lawrence.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Sage, H. (1987). Incorporating literature in ESL instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
85
85

ࠗJACET 㛵す⣖せ࠘ห⾜つᐃ(2008 ᖺ 12 ᭶ไᐃࠊ2010 ᖺ 10 ᭶ 2 ᪥ᨵᐃ)1. ห⾜㊃᪨࣭ห⾜≀ࡢྡ⛠
JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊ࡣᨭ㒊఍ဨ࡟◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࡢᶵ఍ࢆᥦ౪ࡋ㸪ࡶࡗ࡚ᨭ㒊ࡢ◊✲άືࡢάᛶ໬࡟㈨ࡍࡿ࡭ࡃ㸪◊✲⣖せࢆห⾜ࡍࡿࠋᮏ⣖せࡢྡ⛠ࡣࠗJACET 㛵す⣖せ࠘㸦JACET Kansai Journal㸧࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ห⾜᪥⛬ᮏ⣖せࡣᖺห࡛Ⓨ⾜ࡍࡿࠋⓎ⾜ࡲ࡛ࡢ᪥⛬ࡣཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚ḟࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
10 ᭶ 15 ᪥(ᚲ╔) ᢞ✏ཎ✏⥾ࡵษࡾ
12 ᭶ 15 ᪥ ᑂᰝ⤖ᯝ㏻▱
1 ᭶ 31 ᪥(ᚲ╔) ಟṇཎ✏⥾ࡵษࡾ
3 ᭶ᮎ ห⾜3. ᥖ㍕ㄽᩥࡢ✀㢮ᮏ⣖せ࡟ᥖ㍕ࡍࡿㄽᩥࡣୗグࡢ 3 ✀㢮࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧ጤკㄽᩥ
㸦2㸧JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊኱఍࠾ࡼࡧ඲ᅜ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᢞ✏ㄽᩥ
㸦3㸧୍⯡ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ࡞࠾㸪㸦1㸧ࡢጤკࡣ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡢุ᩿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾜࠺ࠋࡲࡓ㸪
㸦2㸧ࡣᢞ✏⥾ࡵษࡾ᪥ࢆ㉳Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚㐣ཤ 1 ᖺ௨ෆ࡟㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄽᩥࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᥖ㍕ㄽᩥࡣ㸪ᢞ✏⪅ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ㞃ࡋࡓୖ࡛㸪ヱᙜᑓ㛛ศ㔝࡟㏆࠸ 2 ྡࡢᰝㄞ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ཝᐦ࡟ᰝㄞࡉࢀࡿࠋ
4. ᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡢ✀ู࡜ෆᐜᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣୗグࡢ 3 ✀࡜ࡋ㸪ᢞ✏᫬࡟ᢞ✏⪅ࡀㄽᩥ✀ูࢆ⏦࿌ࡍࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋ㸪ᑂᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪␗࡞ࡿ✀ู࡛᥇⏝ࡍࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧◊✲ㄽᩥ
㸦2㸧ᐇ㊶ㄽᩥ
㸦3㸧◊✲ࣀ࣮ࢺ
5. ᢞ✏ㄽᩥᑂᰝ
ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣ㸪⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡀཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚ JACET ఍ဨ࠿ࡽጤკࡋࡓ」ᩘࡢᑂᰝဨ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚༏
ྡ᪉ᘧ࡛ᑂᰝࡉࢀࡿࠋ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡣ㸪ᑂᰝ⤖ᯝࢆࡩࡲ࠼࡚᥇ྰࡢ᭱⤊Ỵᐃࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ࡞࠾㸪ᑂᰝ⤖ᯝࡣୗグࡢ 3 ✀࡜ࡋ㸪⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡼࡾᢞ✏⪅࡟㟁Ꮚ࣓࢖࡛ࣝ㏻▱ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧᥇⏝㸦2㸧ಟṇ᮲௳௜ࡁ᥇⏝㸦3㸧୙᥇⏝
6. ᮏつᐃࡢᨵᗫࡣᨭ㒊ᙺဨ఍࡟࠾࠸࡚⾜࠺ࠋ

86
86

JACET Kansai Journal
Publication Policy
Revised October 2, 2010
1. Journal name and reason for publication
JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) is published by JACET Kansai Chapter to serve as a medium for
publication of research by its Chapter members and thus promote research activities.
2. Publication schedule
The journal will be published annually according to the following schedule (subject to revision by
the Editorial Committee).
Deadline for manuscripts: October 15
Announcement of editorial decision: December 15
Deadline for receipt of revised manuscripts: January 31
Publication: March 31
If revision of the manuscript is requested as a condition for publication, the revised manuscript must
be received by January 31 or it will be considered to have been withdrawn.
3. Types of papers
Three types of papers will be published: (1) invited paper, (2) paper based on a presentation at a
JACET Chapter or National Convention, (3) submitted paper (see 4). An invited paper can berequested by the Editorial Committee. A paper based on a JACET presentation (oral or poster) canbe submitted if the presentation was made within one year prior to the submission deadline. All
papers will be subject to peer review.
4. Types of submitted papers
All manuscripts submitted must have been authored by JACET Kansai Chapter members in goodstanding. Three types of submitted papers will be considered for publication: research article,
application report, research note.
5. Review of manuscripts
All manuscripts submitted will be subject to review by the JKJ Editorial Committee. The decisionof whether or not to accept a manuscript for publication will be based on peer review by reviewers,
who will be JACET members selected by the editorial committee. The final decision by the JKJ
Editorial Committee will be (1) accept, (2) accept if revised, or (3) reject.
6. Amendment
Amendment of this Publication Policy (Japanese version) will be subject to approval by the JACET
Kansai Chapter Executive Committee. The English version will conform to the Japanese version.
87
87ࠗJACET 㛵す⣖せ࠘ᢞ✏つᐃ(2009 ᖺ 7 ᭶ᨵᐃ)1. ᢞ✏㈨᱁
ᢞ✏⪅ࡣᢞ✏᫬࡟࠾࠸࡚ JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊఍ဨ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡓࡔࡋ㸪௚ᨭ㒊࡟ᡤᒓࡍࡿ JACET
఍ဨࡀ㸪㛵すᨭ㒊఍ဨࢆ➹㢌ⴭ⪅࡜ࡍࡿㄽᩥࡢ㐃ྡᇳ➹⪅࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣጉࡆ࡞࠸ࠋ࡞࠾㸪ᢞ✏⪅࠾ࡼࡧ㐃ྡᇳ➹⪅࡟Ꮫ఍㈝ࡢᮍ⣡ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࠊᢞ✏ࡣཷ⌮ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓ㸪௚ㄅ࡟ᢞ✏୰ࡶࡋࡃࡣ௚ㄅ࡟ᥖ㍕
῭ࡳࡢㄽᩥࡢᢞ✏ࡣㄆࡵ࡞࠸ࠋྛ✀Ꮫ఍➼࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄽᩥࡣᑂᰝᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࡀ㸪ㄽᩥᮎᑿ࡟ཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲ࡢ஦ᐇࢆṇ☜࡟グ㍕ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡢෆᐜ࡜✀ูᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣ㸪኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱࠾ࡼࡧࡑࡢ㛵㐃ศ㔝ࡢ◊✲࡟㛵ࢃࡿෆᐜࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣୗグࡢ 2 ✀㢮࡜ࡍࡿࠋ㸦1㸧JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊኱఍࠾ࡼࡧ඲ᅜ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲ࢆ⤒ࡓᢞ✏ㄽᩥ
㸦2㸧୍⯡ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ࡞࠾㸪㸦1㸧ࡣᢞ✏⥾ࡵษࡾ᪥ࢆ㉳Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚㐣ཤ 1 ᖺ௨ෆ࡟㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄽᩥࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
3. ౑⏝ゝㄒ࣭య⿢࣭᭩ᘧ࣭ศ㔞౑⏝ゝㄒࡣⱥㄒࡲࡓࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣ㸪⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡀసᡂࡋࡓᙜヱᖺᗘࡢᢞ✏ㄽᩥ⏝ࢸࣥࣉ࣮ࣞࢺࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚సᡂࡋ㸪ᘬ⏝᭩ᘧ࣭ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩᭩ᘧ➼ࡣ APA ࡢ᭱᪂∧࡟‽ࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋㄽᩥࡢศ㔞ࡣࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࠊᴫせ㸪࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸪ᮏᩥ㸪ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࠊᅗ⾲࡞࡝ࢆࡍ࡭࡚ྵࡵ࡚ 12 㡫௨ෆ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
4. ᢞ✏᪉ἲ
ᣦᐃࡢࢸࣥࣉ࣮ࣞࢺ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚సᡂࡉࢀࡓ MS Word®ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆᙜヱᖺᗘࡢ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍஦ົᒁ㛗ᐄ࡟㟁Ꮚ࣓࢖࡛ࣝ㏦ಙࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠋῧ௜ࡍࡿㄽᩥࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࡟ࡣ㸪Ặྡ࣭ᡤᒓ࣭ᮏேࡀ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿㅰ㎡࡞࡝ࡣグ㍕ࡏࡎ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡀධࡿ࡭ࡁሙᡤ࡟ྠ➼ศ㔞ࡢ✵⾜ࢆᤄධࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋࡲࡓ㸪࣓࢖ࣝࡢ௳ྡࡣࠕJACET 㛵
す⣖せᢞ✏㸸Ặྡ㸦ᡤᒓ㸧ࠖ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ࣓࢖ࣝᮏయ࡟ࡣୗグෆᐜࢆグ㍕ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧Ặྡ㸦2㸧ᡤᒓ࣭⫋ྡ㸦㠀ᖖ໅ࡸ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕࡞࡝ࡢูࡶྵࡴ㸧㸦3㸧ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ✀ู㸦኱఍Ⓨ⾲῭ㄽᩥ㸭୍⯡ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ㸧ͤ๓⪅ࡢሙྜࡣⓎ⾲኱఍ྡ࣭᪥᫬࣭㢟┠ࢆ᫂グࠋ㸦4㸧ㄽᩥ✀ู⏦࿌㸦◊✲ㄽᩥ㸭ᐇ㊶ㄽᩥ㸭◊✲ࣀ࣮ࢺ㸧
㸦5㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸦࣮࣮ͤ࢟࣡ࢻࡢᩘࡣ 3㹼5 ࡜ࡋ㸪ᇳ➹ゝㄒ࡛グ㍕ࠋ㸧࡞࠾㸪ᑂᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪᥇⏝࡞࠸ࡋಟṇ᥇⏝࡜࡞ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ㸪⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡢᣦ♧࡟ᚑ࠸㸪ᮇ᪥ࡲ࡛࡟ಟ
ṇཎ✏ࡢ㟁Ꮚࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆῧ௜ࣇ࢓࢖࡛ࣝ㏦ಙࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ෌ᥦฟᮇ㝈࡟㐜ᘏࡋࡓሙྜࡣᢞ✏ࢆ㎡㏥ࡋࡓࡶ
ࡢ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࠋ
5 ⴭసᶒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ᢞ✏⪅ࡣ㸪ᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡀ᥇⏝࣭ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀࡓሙྜ㸪௨ୗࡢ஦㡯ࢆ஢ᢎࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࠋ
㸦1㸧ⴭసᶒࡣ㛵すᨭ㒊࡟ጤクࡉࢀࡿࠋ㸦2㸧㛵すᨭ㒊ࡣㄽᩥ➼ࡢ⦅㞟ⴭసᶒ࠾ࡼࡧฟ∧ᶒࢆಖ᭷ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦3㸧㛵すᨭ㒊ࡣᢞ✏ㄽᩥ➼ࢆ༳ๅ≀ࡲࡓࡣ㟁Ꮚ፹య㸦࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ㸪CD-ROM ࡞࡝㸧࡟ࡼࡾ෌ฟ∧ࡲࡓࡣ෌㓄ᕸࡍࡿᶒ฼ࢆಖ᭷ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪㛵すᨭ㒊ࡣㄽᩥࡢ㢟┠࣭ᴫせࢆᨭ㒊࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ࡟ᥖ㍕ࡍ8888ࡿᶒ฼ࢆಖ᭷ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦4㸧ⴭ⪅ࡀ⣖せ࡟ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀࡓㄽᩥ➼ࢆ௚ࡢ༳ๅ≀ࡲࡓࡣ㟁Ꮚ፹య࡟㌿㍕ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠊ࠶ࡽ࠿
ࡌࡵᨭ㒊࡟㏻▱ࡋチྍࢆᚓࡿࠋ
6. ᮏつ⛬ࡢᨵᗫࡣ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍࡟࠾࠸࡚⾜࠺ࠋ

JACET Kansai Journal
Submission Guidelines
Revised July 25, 2009
1. Qualifications for manuscript submission
Papers can be submitted by Kansai Chapter members in good standing who have paid their dues forthe current year. If the first author is a Kansai Chapter member, coauthors can be JACET membersof other chapters. All papers must be original and not have been published elsewhere nor be underconsideration for publication (including overseas journals). If the research has been presented orally
or as a poster and this is so indicated, the paper can be considered for publication.
2. Papers accepted for submission
Papers should be related to research on college/university English education or relevant areas. Twotypes of papers will be accepted for submission:
1) A paper that reports the content of an oral or poster presentation at a JACET Kansai Chapter
Convention or a JACET National Convention
2) A paper submitted by a Kansai Chapter member
A paper based on a JACET presentation (oral or poster) can be submitted if the presentation wasmade within one year prior to the submission deadline.
3. Language, format, style and length
Papers should be written in English or Japanese. All manuscripts should be prepared using thecurrent template prepared by the JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) Editorial Committee. The reference
format should conform to the most recent edition of the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (APA). Papers must be no more than 12 printed pages, including the title,references, figures and other material.
4. Manuscripts should be submitted by e-mail to the JKJ Editorial Committee. Prepare themanuscript without the author name(s) or affiliation(s) or information in the Acknowledgments thatcan reveal the author(s) but leave the equivalent amount of space to allow the information to be
added. Send the manuscript as an MS Word® document to the JKJ Editorial Committee. Use the8989following subject line template for the e-mail message: Paper submission to JACET Kansai
Journal: Corresponding author name (corresponding author affiliation). The e-mail cover message
should include the following information: (1) Author name(s), (2) author affiliation(s) andposition(s), (3) type of submission [conference-presentation paper (give conference name and date)or submitted paper], (4) type of paper (research article, application report, research note), and (5)three to five keywords in the language used for the paper. If the manuscript is accepted for
publication, a complete manuscript, including the author name(s) and affiliation(s), and a final
camera-ready copy should be sent as an e-mail attachment to the JKJ Executive Committee officewith the Attention note “JACET Kansai Journal manuscript.”
5. CopyrightIf the manuscript is accepted for publication in JACET Kansai Journal:(1) The copyright and publication rights will be transferred by the author(s) to JACET Kansai
Chapter(2) Kansai Chapter will have the right to publish and redistribute the paper in the form in which itappears in the JACET Kansai Journal in paper and electronic forms (e.g., allowing access via
the Chapter home page or inclusion in a CD-ROM). The English abstract will be accessible via
the Kansai Chapter home page.
(3) The author(s) can request permission from the Kansai Chapter to republish their paper in paperor electronic form.
6. Amendment of these Submission Guidelines (Japanese version) may be made by the Kansai
Chapter Editorial Committee. The English version will conform to the Japanese version.

90
90

JACET 㑐 ⷏ ♿ ⷐ  ╙ 13 ภ2011 ᐕ 3 ᦬ 31 ᣣ ⊒ ⴕ✬ 㓸 ࡮ ⊒ ⴕ 㧦 ᄢ ቇ ⧷ ⺆ ᢎ ⢒ ቇ ળ 㧔 JACET㧕 㑐 ⷏ ᡰ ㇱ‫ ޥ‬606-8351 ੩ ㇺ Ꮢ Ꮐ ੩ ඙ ጟ ፒ ᓼ ᚑ ↸ 5੩ㇺᄖ࿖⺆ኾ㐷ቇᩞᐘ㊀⟤ᵤሶ⎇ⓥቶౝ
E-mail: admin@jacet-kansai.org
URL: http://www.jacet-kansai.orgઍ⴫⠪㧦㊁ญࠫࡘ࠺ࠖ࡯

ශ೚࡮⵾ᧄ㧦ᩣᑼળ␠ ↰ਛࡊ࡝ࡦ࠻
 

ISSN 1880-2281