Special Issue
Towards the Next Decade

2013

15

Special Issue
Towards the Next Decade

2013

15

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

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE 2013
CHAIRPERSON
Yuko Oguri
University of Shiga Prefecture
MEMBERS
Kaori Nitta
Kinki University
Yasuko Sato
Otemon Gakuin University
Tomoko Yashima
Kansai University
EDITORIAL OFFICE
Toshiyuki Kanamaru
Kyoto 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. 15:
LIST OF REVIEWERS (in alphabetical order)
Atsushi Mizumoto (Kansai Univ.)
Sonoko Harada (Emeritus, Kobe College)
Hiromi Murakami (Kansai Gaidai College)
Naoya Hase (Kwansei Gakuin Univ.)
Kazunori Nozawa (Ritsumeikan Univ.)
Yumi Hato (Kyoto Institute of Technology)
Nobuyuki Hino (Osaka Univ.)
Junko Takefuta (Osaka Univ.)
Hiroyuki Imai (Hyogo Univ. of Teacher
Natsumi Wakamoto (Doshisha Women’s
Education)
College of Liberal Arts)
Keiichi Ishikawa (Kyoto Women’s Univ.)
Hiroyuki Yamanishi (Kansai Univ.)
Shin'ichiro Ishikawa (Kobe Univ.)
Toshihiko Yamaoka (Hyogo Univ. of Teacher
Emiko Izumi (Kyoto Univ. of Education)
Education)
Masayuki Kai (Kyoto Woman’s Univ.)
Tomofumi Yamato (Kobe Univ.)
Takaaki Kanzaki (Kwansei Gakuin Univ.)
Hirokazu Yokokawa (Kobe Univ.)
Toshiaki Kawahara (Kyoto Koka Women’s
Haruyo Yoshida (Osaka Kyoiku Univ.)
Shinsuke Yoshida (Kansai Univ.)
Univ.)Kei Mihara (Kinki Univ.)
Toshiko Yoshimura (Hanazono 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.jacet-kansai.org/
kako.html#kiyou
ᥖ㍕ㄽᩥࡣ㸪JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊㸪࠾ࡼࡧ JACET 㛵す⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛
ࡣ࠶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, 2013

No. 15 March 2013

Editorialiii

ᑠᰩ⿱Ꮚ
ࠕࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢ 10 ᖺࠖ࡟ྥࡅ࡚
Part I
Invited Article1⚄ಖᑦṊ
ཎⅬ࡟❧ࡕ㏉ࡗ࡚⪃࠼ࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱Research Articles
Yugo TSUNAI and Nobuhiko AKAMATSU
First-language Influence on the Formation of Category Prototype in a Foreign Language

11

Michiko UEKI
L2 Communication Anxiety Levels in Relation to Different Communication Partners:
An Empirical Study in Japanese EFL Classrooms25℈ᮏ 㝧Ꮚ࣭ཎ⏣ ὒᏊ࣭ఀ⯅⏣ ὒஅ࣭⚄ᐊ ⱆஂ⨾᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝࡜⩦⇍ᗘࡢ㛵ಀ

40

Research Notes
60
Ayaka HASHINISHI
Issues Related to and Strategies for Teaching Content-based Courses in Tertiary Education Settings
Kanae NISHIMURA
Demotivating Factors in Writing Classes that Utilize Online Evaluation Services72ᒣᮏ ⨾ὠᏊ
ゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

92

Application Report㣤⏣ Ẏ␃Ꮫ࡜኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢⱥㄒຊ̿ᾏእ ESL ࡜ࡢࡼࡾࡼ࠸㛵ಀࢆồࡵ࡚̿

106

Kansai Chapter
The Japan Association of College English Teachers

Part II
Invited Article
125

Judy NOGUCHI
Whither to JACET Kansai?
žƜǕƔǒƷ  ࠰ſཎК˖ဒ஦ົᒁᖿ஦ࢆ⤒㦂ࡋࡓⱝᡭ◊✲⪅ࡀ JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊࡜◊✲ࢆㄒࡿ㸦ᗙㄯ఍ཧຍ⪅㸸ᖹ஭ ឡ࣭⏕㤿 ⿱Ꮚ࣭Ỉᮏ ⠜࣭ᒣす ༤அ㸧㸦ᢸᙜ⦅㞟⪅㸸ࢫࢺࣞ࢖ࣥ ࢯࢽ࢔ᅬᏊ࣭ඵᓥ ᬛᏊ㸧ᄂᆮ˟ᲴƜǕƔǒƷ  ࠰ࠕᾏእࡢእᅜㄒᩍ⫱ࠖ◊✲఍㸦࿴⏣ ຾᫂㸧ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ◊✲఍㸦኱ᖺ 㡰Ꮚ㸧ᩍᮦ㛤Ⓨ◊✲఍㸦኱ෆ ࿴ṇ࣭௰ᕝ ᾈୡ㸧ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ◊✲఍㸦℈ᮏ 㝧Ꮚ㸧
ESP ◊✲఍㸦᱒ᮧ ு㸧࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ◊✲఍㸦ᕝ㷂 ┾⌮Ꮚ㸧ᩥᏛᩍ⫱◊✲఍㸦Ᏻ⏣ ඃ㸧Ꮫ⩦ⱥᩥἲ◊✲఍㸦ᒸ⏣ ఙኵ㸧

128

133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140

AppendicesࠗJACET Kansai Journal㸦JACET 㛵す⣖せ㸧࠘ห⾜つᐃࠗJACET Kansai Journal㸦JACET 㛵す⣖せ㸧࠘ᢞ✏つᐃ

141
143

Kansai Chapter
The Japan Association of College English Teachers

JACET Kansai Journal, 15, iii. (2013) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

ࠕࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢ 10 ᖺࠖ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ 㛵すᨭ㒊⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡣࠊㅽࢇ࡛ JACET KANSAI JOURNAL No.15 ࢆ࠾ᒆࡅ࠸ࡓ
ࡋࡲࡍࠋNo.14 ࡣᨭ㒊タ❧ 40 ࿘ᖺグᛕ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠕ㐣ཤࠖ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊ
௒ᅇࡣࠕࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢ 10 ᖺࠖࡢ≉㞟ࢆ⤌ࡳࡲࡋࡓࠋ๓ᅇྠᵝ 2 㒊ᵓᡂ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
 PartϨࡢ᭱ึࡣ⚄ಖᑦṊ఍㛗ࡢㄽᩥ࡛ࠊ2012 ᖺ 6 ᭶ 16 ᪥࡟኱㜰኱Ꮫ㇏୰࢟ࣕࣥࣃ
ࢫ࡛㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ᫓Ꮨ኱఍࡛ࡢㅮ₇ෆᐜ࡟ຍ➹ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋࠕ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ㸰ᮏࡢᰕࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㆟ㄽ࡛ࡍࠋḟ࡟ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ 12 ᮏࡢ࠺ࡕࠊᰝㄞࢆ⤒࡚᥇ᢥࡉࢀ
ࡓ㸵ᮏࡢㄽᩥࡀㄽᩥࡢ✀㢮ࡈ࡜࡟ᥦฟࡉࢀࡓ㡰࡟ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
 Partϩࡣࠕࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢ 10 ᖺࠖࢆぢᤣ࠼ࡓ㔝ཱྀࢪࣗࢹ࢕࣮ὠከỤᨭ㒊㛗ࡢ኱Ꮫⱥㄒ
ᩍᖌ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ 3 ࡘࡢᥦゝ࠿ࡽጞࡲࡾࡲࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⣬㠃ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛๓ྕ࡛ࡣ㍕ࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ 4 ྡࡢᖿ஦⤒㦂⪅࡟ࡼࡿᗙㄯ఍ࡢᴫせࡀ⥆ࡁࡲࡍࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊᐇ
㝿࡟ᨭ㒊㐠Ⴀ࡟ᦠࢃࡗࡓඛ⏕᪉ࡢ⋡┤࡞ពぢࡸᥦ᱌ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢ㛵すᨭ㒊ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ JACET ඲యࡀྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴ࡭ࡁㄢ㢟ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ8 ◊✲఍࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢศ㔝࡛ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢ 10 ᖺ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪉ྥ࡛◊✲఍ࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿ㄽ
ࡌ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋ ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࠊJKJ No.15 ࡣࡓࡃࡉࢇࡢ఍ဨࡢ༠ຊࡢࡶ࡜࡟⦅㞟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡢᑂᰝ࡟ࡈᑾຊࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓᰝㄞጤဨࡢඛ⏕᪉ࡸᗈ࿌ࢆᥖ㍕ࡋ㈨㔠㠃࡛ᨭ᥼ࡋ࡚ࡃ
ࡔࡉࡗࡓ㈶ຓ఍ဨࡢ᪉ࠎࠊࡉࡽ࡟࠸ࡘࡶⓗ☜࡛ ࠿࠸ຓゝࢆࡃࡔࡉࡿ㔝ཱྀᨭ㒊㛗ࡣࡌࡵ⊩㌟ⓗ࡞ᖿ஦ࡢⓙࡉࡲ࡟ࡣᚰࡼࡾ࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ⦅㞟ጤဨࡢ᪂⏣㤶⧊ඛ⏕ࠊబ⸨ᜤᏊඛ⏕ࠊඵᓥᬛᏊඛ⏕ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᢞ✏⪅࡜ᰝㄞ⪅ࠊጤဨ఍࡜ࡢ㛫ࢆ⥾ࡵษࡾࢆᏲࡾࡘࡘ㎿㏿࡟ᑐᛂࡉࢀࡓ஦ົᒁ㛗ࡢ㔠୸ᩄᖾඛ⏕࡟ࡶ῝ࡃឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ ࡉ࡚ࠊࠕࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢ 10 ᖺࠖⱥㄒᩍᖌࡢᡃࠎࡣࠊఱࢆ⪃࠼࡞ࡀࡽᏛ⏕ࡓࡕࢆᣦᑟࡍ
ࢀࡤࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡞ᩍ⫱ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿ࠋᮏㄅࡀࡑࢀࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ୍ࡘࡢᶵ఍࡟࡞
ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㢪ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ                       JKJ ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࢆ௦⾲ࡋ࡚                             ᑠᰩ⿱Ꮚ                             2013 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 9 ᪥iiiPart I

Invited Article

1

Research Articles

11

Research Notes

60

Application Report

106JACET Kansai Journal, 15, 1-10. (2013) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Invited Article

ཎⅬ࡟❧ࡕ㏉ࡗ࡚⪃࠼ࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱⚄ಖ ᑦṊ
JACET ఍㛗 ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࢆゝㄒᩍ⫱࡜࠸࠺ᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛⪃ᐹࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ᪥ᮏே࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟᪥ᮏㄒࡀ➨㸯ゝㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢゝㄒ⬟ຊ࡟ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞እᅜㄒࡢ⬟ຊࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
1. ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢᏛ⩦ࡣ⏕ᾭᏛ⩦ ே㛫ࡣ⏕ࡲࢀ࡚࠿ࡽࠊṚࡠࡲ࡛ゝㄒ࡜᱁㜚ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢព࿡࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡇ࡜ࡤࡢᏛ⩦ࡣ⏕ᾭᏛ⩦࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ㸮ṓඣ࠿ࡽඣ❺ᮇࡲ࡛ࡢゝㄒ⋓ᚓࢆᴫほࡍࡿࠋ1) ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢཎึᙧែ㸦㸮ṓඣ㸧㸮ṓඣࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆほᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟ Face to face communication(interaction) ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᭱ึ࠿ࡽ┦஫స⏝ࡀᇶᮏⓗᙧែ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸮ṓඣࡣࠊࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ
ࣙࣥࡢពᛮࢆࠊཱྀࡢ㛤㛢࣭⯉ฟࡋᶍೌ (imitation)࣭ᡭࢆఙࡤࡍ࣮ࣜࢳࣥࢢ (reaching)࣭ẕᏊ㛵ಀࡢᩥ໬ᕪࡸ㉥ࡕࡷࢇࡢẼ㉁࡟ࡼࡿ⾜ືࡢ㐪࠸ࠖ㸦ᏊᏳࠊ1996:86-7㸧࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡾ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࠋ㸮ṓඣࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⾜ືࢆẁ㝵ⓗ࡟ほᐹࡋ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(1) Ἵࡁኌ (crying)㸸ே㛫≉᭷ࡢ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕᏊࡀẕぶ࡜ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟㝿ࡋ࡚኱ࡁ࡞ኌ࡛Ἵࡃື≀ࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࠖ㸦ᏊᏳࠊ1996:80㸧࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(2) ࢡ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ (cooing)㸦6-8 㐌┠㸧㸸ࢡ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡣࠊ▷㡢⠇ࡢⓎኌࠊ࢔࣮ࠊ࣮࢘ࠊࢡ࣮࡛
࠶ࡿࡀࠊ୓ᅜඹ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࠕୖࡾㄪᏊ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡾࠊୗࡀࡾㄪᏊ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡾࠊ࢖ࣥࢺ
ࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ពᛮࢆఏ㐩ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࠖ㸦ṇ㧗࣭㎷ࠊ2011:59㸧ࠋ༶ࡕࠊࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᶵ⬟ࡈ࡜࡟ᢚᥭࢆ౑࠸ศࡅ࡚ࠊࡲࡔⓎヰ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠊ
ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ᎘࡞࡜ࡁࡣࠕ࠺࠺ࢇࠖ࡜࠿ࠊᑜࡡࡿ࡜ࡁࡣࠕ࠺ࢇ㸽ࠖ࡜࠿౑࠸ศࡅࢆࡍࡿࠖ
㸦ṇ㧗࣭㎷ࠊ2011:186㸧ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(3) ࢼࣥㄒ (babbling)㸦6-9 ⟠᭶㸧㸸ࠕࡔࠊࡔࠊࡔࠖࠕࡤࠊࡤࠊࡤࠖ࡞࡝ࠊᏊ㡢࡜ẕ㡢ࡀ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࡗ࡚㡢⠇࡜ࡋ࡚」㞧࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋࠕㄪ㡢 (articulation) ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊே
㛫ࡣ⪥࡛⪺࠸࡚ࡲࢃࡾࡢኌࢆ┿ఝ࡞ࡀࡽࡍࡿࠋ⫈ぬ⤒㦂࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀᚲせࠖ㸦ṇ㧗࣭㎷ࠊ2011:61㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⪺࠸࡚࠸ࡿゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡛㡢ࡀ㐪࠺ࠋࠕ㉥ࡕࡷࢇࡢᒓࡍࡿ
ゝㄒඹྠయ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡿࠋࣇࣛࣥࢫࡢᩥ໬ᅪ࡛⏕ࡲࢀࡓ㉥ࡕࡷࢇࡔ࡜ࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒ࡟
㏆࠸㰯࡟࠿࠿ࡗࡓ㡢࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡾࡍࡿࠖ㸦ṇ㧗࣭㎷ࠊ2011:62㸧ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⮬ศࡀⓎኌࡋࡓ┤ᚋ࡟࠾ẕࡉࢇࡀ࠾࠺ࡴ㏉ࡋ࡟ (echoic responding) ኌࢆฟࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࡇ࡜㸦ඹ㬆ືస㸧ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠕ♫఍ⓗ㝶కᛶࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ↓᮲௳࡟ᛌᴦࠖ㸦ṇ㧗࣭㎷ࠊ2011:63㸧࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋẕᏊࡢ┦஫స⏝ࡀࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ᰾ᚰ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡉ࡟ࠊ

1⚄ಖ ᑦṊ

ࠕẕᏊ㛫ࡢ㡢ኌࡢ┦஫స⏝ࡶࡲࡓࠕၦၝྠ᫬ࠖࡢഃ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ㸦ᏊᏳࠊ1996:83㸧ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(4) ᶍೌ࠿ࡽඹឤ (empathy) ࡬ʊඹ㬆ືస㸦10-9 ⟠᭶㸧㸸ゝㄒࡢ㐍໬࡛㔜せ࡞ẁ㝵ࡣࠊࠕ௚ேࡀఱ࠿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆࠊࡑࡢឤぬ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢࡶࡢ࡟㔜ࡡྜࢃࡏࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ࡞ࡒࡿ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡀࠊ⤖ᒁࡢ࡜ࡇࢁゝㄒ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡟ࡣ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ⤖ᒁゝㄒࡣఱࡢࡓࡵ࡟࠶ࡗࡓ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡣ௚ேࡢᛮ࠸ࠊ௚ேࡢឤ
ぬ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡀඹឤࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺࡞࠿࠿ࡽゝㄒࡀ㐍໬ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ
ࡓࡪࢇ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠖ㸦ṇ㧗࣭㎷ࠊ2011:29㸧࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕே
㛫ࡢᶍೌࡢ≉ᚩࡣぶឡࡢ᝟ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟࠶ࡿࠖ㸦ṇ㧗࣭㎷ࠊ2011:70㸧ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑ
ࢀ࠿ࡽඹឤࡋࠊඹ㬆ືస࡜࠸࠺┦஫స⏝࡟࠸ࡓࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(5) ୡヰேࡇ࡜ࡤ (caretaker speech)㸸ࡇࡇู࡛࡞どⅬ࠿ࡽᩚ⌮ࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ⫱ඣㄒ(motherese)ࠕᏊ౪࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ㄒࡾ࠿ࡅࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ぶࡀᢚᥭࢆ㄂ᙇࡋࡓࡾࠊࢸ࣏ࣥࡀࡺࡗࡃ
ࡾ࡞ࡗࡓࡾࠊྠࡌࡇ࡜ࡤࢆఱᗘࡶ཯᚟ࡋࡓࡾࠊኌࡢㄪᏊࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࡾࡍࡿࠖ㸦ṇ㧗࣭㎷ࠊ2011:39㸧ႅࡾ᪉࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⫱ඣㄒࡢ㌟᣺ࡾ∧࡟࣮ࣔࢩࣙࢽ࣮ࢬ (motionese) ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊࠕᏊ࡝ࡶ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ఱ࠿㐨ල౑⏝ࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ࣎ࢺࣝࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡩࡓ
ࢆ㛤ࡅ࡚࿐ࡴࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࠊࡇࡢࡶࡢࢆ୍య࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟౑࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࢆసࡗ࡚࠶ࡆ࡚ࠊᐇ㦂ⓗ࡟ࡑࢀࢆᗂඣ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࡜኱ே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡍࡿࡢࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࡸࡣࡾࡸࡾ᪉ࡀ㐪࠺ࠋᏊ౪࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡍࡿሙྜࠊ㐨ලࢆ౑࠺࡜ࡁࡢࡸࡾ᪉ࡶࡺࡗࡃࡾ࡟
࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊ௙ⲡࡶ཯᚟ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡋࠊ௙ⲡࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅ┦ᡭ࡟⌮ゎࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡼ࠺
࡟ືసࢆ㄂ᙇࡋ࡚ࡸࡿࠖ㸦ṇ㧗࣭㎷ࠊ2011:40㸧࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋୡヰேࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟ࡣࠊᩍᖌࡇ࡜ࡤ (Teacher Talk) ࡸ㧗㱋⪅࡬ࡢ࣐ࢨ࣮ࣜࢬ (patronizing speech) ࡞࡝ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋୡヰேࡇ࡜ࡤ⮬య࡟ᩥ໬ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ὀពࢆᡶ࠺࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
2) ᗂඣᮇ (young child)ࡇࡢ᫬ᮇ࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒ⋓ᚓࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊࠕㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࢆࡣࡌࡵᚰ⌮Ꮫ࡛ࡶゝࢃࢀࡿ⏝ἲᇶ┙ࣔࢹࣝ (usage-based model) ࡢ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛ࠊࡲࡎሙ㠃࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿࡦ࡜࠿ࡓࡲࡾࡢ
ࢳࣕࣥࢡ࠿ࡽࣇ࣮ࣞࢬࠊࡘࡲࡾ඲యⓗ࡞ᵓᩥࡢ⩦ᚓ࠿ࡽධࡗ࡚ࠊㄆ▱ⓗ࣭♫఍ⓗⓎ㐩ࡶᚅࡗ࡚ࠊᚎࠎ࡟ศᯒⓗ࡞ᩥἲⓗ࣭ㄒᙡⓗ࡞⩦ᚓ࡟⢭ᐦ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃࠖ㸦ṇ㧗࣭㎷ࠊ 2011:53㸧
࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ㐟ࡧࡢ୰࠿ࡽㄆ㆑ࡀᡂ㛗ࡋࠊ⮬ᡃࡢⱆ⏕࠼ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ⮬ᕫព㆑ࡢᡂ❧ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ⮬௚ࡢศ㞳ࡀ㉳ࡇࡾࠊ▱ぬⓗどⅬྲྀᚓࠊㄆ▱ⓗどⅬྲྀᚓࠊឤ᝟ⓗどⅬྲྀᚓࢆࡍࡿࠋ
Ꮚ౪ࡢ┠ࡢ㧗ࡉ࡛᥋ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ኱஦࡛࠶ࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
1 ṓඣ㸸༢ㄒࡢ㡢ࡢᶍೌࠊព࿡ࡢ☜ㄆࠊึㄒࡢⓎヰ㸸࣐࣐ࣥࠊmilk
1 ṓ༙㸸㟁ᩥᙧᘧⓎヰ(telegraphic utterances)㸸࣐࣐ࣥ ࢫ࢟ࠊwant milk, all gone milk
2 ṓඣ㸸␲ၥࡸྰᐃ What pa doing? ࣃࣃࡣఱࡋ࡚ࡿࡢ㸽 That not red, that blue ㉥ࡌࡷ࡞ࡃ࡚㟷
3 ṓඣ㸸㤨⯉ nonstop chattering, incessant conversation
4 ṓඣ㸸ᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᵓ㐀࠿ࡽ」㞧࡞ᵓ㐀ࡢෆᅾ໬㸦⩦ᚓ㸧
5 ṓඣ㸸ヰࡋゝⴥࡢ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢᵓᩥࡀ౑⏝࡛ࡁࡿࠊㄒᙡࡢቑ኱ࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥᢏ

2ཎⅬ࡟❧ࡕ㏉ࡗ࡚⪃࠼ࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱⾡ࡢ⦎☻3) ඣ❺ᮇ (child-school age)ࡇࡢ᫬ᮇ࡟ࠊᮏ᱁ⓗ࡟ㄞࡳ᭩ࡁ⬟ຊ (literacy) ࡢ⋓ᚓࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬ⓗᩥ⬦࡛㐺ษ࡞ᩥࡢⓎヰࢆࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࠊㄽ⌮ⓗᛮ⪃ࢆࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ➨㸯ゝㄒ⩦ᚓ㸦ᗂඣᮇ̿ඣ❺ᮇ㸧࡜➨㸰ゝㄒ⩦ᚓ㸦ᛮ᫓ᮇ̿㟷ᖺᮇ㸧ࡢ᫬ᮇࡀ㐪࠺ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊㄆ▱ⓗ⬟ຊࡢ┦㐪ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ➨㸰ゝㄒ⩦ᚓ࡛ࡣ Natural Approach ࡣ࠶ࡾ
࠼࡞࠸ࠋ
2. EU ࡢゝㄒᨻ⟇
21 ୡ⣖ࡢゝㄒᩍ⫱࡟ከ኱࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃゝㄒඹ㏻ཧ↷ᯟ(Common
European Framework of Reference - CEFR) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋCEFR ࡣ」ゝㄒ୺⩏(plurilingualism) ࢆᥖࡆࠊࡑࢀࢆከゝㄒ୺⩏ (multilingualism) ࡜༊ูࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋಶேࡢᏛ⩦ࡋࡓ」ᩘࡢゝㄒࡣᏙ❧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୍᪉ࡢゝㄒࡢ▱㆑ࡀ௚᪉ࡢゝㄒࡢᏛ⩦ࢆຓࡅࠊ┦஫࡟ᙳ㡪ࡋ࠶࠸ࠊ୍ゝㄒࡢ▱㆑ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠸ᗈ⠊࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋẕㄒ௨እࡢゝㄒࢆ㸯ゝㄒ௨ୖ⋓ᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᅜෆཬࡧᅜ㝿♫఍ࡢㄪ࿴࡜
ᖹ࿴࡟ᚲ㡲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
1) 」ゝㄒ୺⩏࣭」ᩥ໬୺⩏CEFR ࡣ」ゝㄒ୺⩏࡜ከゝㄒ୺⩏ࢆḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟༊ูࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
」ゝㄒ୺⩏ࡣከゝㄒ୺⩏࡜␗࡞ࡿࠋᚋ⪅ࡣ」ᩘࡢゝㄒࡢ▱㆑࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ≉ᐃࡢ♫఍ࡢ୰࡛␗✀ࡢゝㄒࡀඹᏑࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸦୰␎㸧」ゝㄒ୺⩏ࡀࡑࢀ௨ୖ
࡟ᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾಶࠎேࡢゝㄒయ㦂ࡣࠊࡑࡢᩥ໬
ⓗ⫼ᬒࡢ୰࡛ᗈࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐙᗞෆࡢゝㄒ࠿ࡽࠊ♫఍඲⯡࡛ࡢゝㄒࠊࡑࢀ࠿
ࡽ௚ࡢẸ᪘ࡢゝㄒ࡬࡜ᗈࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡑࡢ㝿ࠊࡑࡢゝㄒࡸᩥ໬ࢆ᏶඲
࡟ษࡾ㞳ࡋࠊᚰࡢูࡢ㒊ᒇ࡟ࡋࡲࡗ࡚࠾ࡃࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡴࡋࢁࡑࡇ࡛ࡣ᪂ࡋ࠸ࢥ࣑
ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡀసࡾୖࡆࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢᡂ❧࡟ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࡢゝㄒ▱㆑࡜⤒㦂ࡀᐤ୚ࡍࡿࡋࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡣゝㄒྠኈࡀ┦஫ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⠏ࡁࠊࡲࡓ┦஫࡟స⏝ࡋྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸦୰␎㸧ࡇࡢほⅬࢆ᥇ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ┠ⓗࡣ᰿ᮏⓗ࡟ኚ᭦ࡉࢀ
ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡶࡣࡸᚑ๓ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ༢࡟୍ࡘ࠿஧ࡘࡢゝㄒ㸦୰␎㸧ࢆᏛ⩦ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ┦஫࡟↓㛵ಀࡢࡲࡲ࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊᣦᑟ┠ᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠕ⌮᝿ⓗẕㄒヰ⪅ࠖࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜࠸ࡗ
ࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ᪂ࡋ࠸┠ⓗࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢゝㄒ⬟ຊࡀࡑࡢ୰࡛ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᙺ๭
ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒ✵㛫ࢆసࡾฟࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸦ྜྷᓥ࣭኱ᶫࠊ
2004:4-5㸧᪂ࡋ࠸┠ⓗࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡤࠕ⥲ྜⓗゝㄒ⬟ຊࠖ㸦⣽ᕝ࣭すᒣࠊ2010:152㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ┠ⓗ ࡣ ࠊ 」 ゝ ㄒ ࣭ 」 ᩥ ໬ ⬟ ຊ(plurilingual and pluricultural competence)ࠊ ┦ ஫ ᩥ ໬ ᛶ3⚄ಖ ᑦṊ

(interculturality) ࢆ㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
」ゝㄒ࣭」ᩥ໬⬟ຊ࡜ࡣࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢࡓࡵ࡟」ᩘࡢゝㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚␗ᩥ໬㛫ࡢ஺ὶ࡟ཧຍ࡛ࡁࡿ⬟ຊࡢࡇ࡜ࢆゝ࠸ࠊ㸦୰␎㸧୍ே୍ேࡀ♫఍ⓗᏑᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚」ᩘࡢ
ゝㄒ࡟⩦⇍ࡋࠊ」ᩘࡢᩥ໬࡛ࡢ⤒㦂ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ≧ែࡢࡇ࡜ࢆゝ࠺ࠋ㸦ྜྷᓥ࣭኱ᶫࠊ
2004:182㸧
2) 」ゝㄒ࣭」ᩥ໬⬟ຊ
CEFR ࡣ」ゝㄒ࣭」ᩥ໬⬟ຊࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࢆ࠶ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ྜྷᓥ࣭
኱ᶫࠊ 2004:108-111㸧ࠋa) ♫఍ᩥ໬ⓗ▱㆑㸸1.᪥ᖖ⏕ά࡟㛵ࡍࡿ஦᯶ࠊ2.ఫ⎔ቃࠊ3.ᑐே㛵ಀࠊ4.౯್ほࠊಙ᮲ࠊែᗘࠊ5.㌟యゝㄒࠊ6.♫఍ⓗ័⩦ࠊ7.൤ᘧ᫬ࡢ❧ࡕᒃ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸b) ᐇ㝿ⓗ࡞ᢏ⬟࡜ࣀ࣭࢘ࣁ࢘㸸♫఍ⓗ࡞ᢏ⬟ࠊ⏕άᢏ⬟ࠊ⫋ᴗⓗ࠾ࡼࡧᢏ⬟ࠊవᬤᢏ⬟c) ␗ᩥ໬㛫ᢏ⬟࡜ࣀ࣭࢘ࣁ࢘
࣭⮬ศࡢฟ㌟ᩥ໬࡜እᅜࡢᩥ໬࡜ࢆ࠾஫࠸࡟㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿຊ
࣭ᩥ໬࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㧗࠸ឤཷᛶ࡜ࠊ௚ᩥ໬ࡢฟ㌟ࡢே࡜᥋ࡍࡿ᫬࡟౑࠼ࡿࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞
᪉␎ࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓࠊᐇ㝿࡟౑࠼ࡿ⬟ຊ࣭⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢᩥ໬࡜እᅜᩥ໬ࡢ௰௓ᙺࢆົࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿຊ㔞࡜ࠊ␗ᩥ໬㛫ࡢㄗゎࡸᑐ❧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ຠᯝⓗ࡞ゎỴࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜
࣭ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓே㛫㛵ಀࢆࡢࡾࡇ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿຊ
 CEFR ࡣ⾜ືᚿྥࡢᩍ⫱ほ (action-oriented approach) ࡀ」ゝㄒ୺⩏ࢆᨭ࠼ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࢀࡣ✀ࠎࡢሙ㠃ࠊ≧ἣ࡛ࠊලయⓗ࡟ఱࢆ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࢆ㔜どࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ⪃࠼᪉࠿ࡽ⏘ࡲࢀࡓࡢࡀ㸴ẁ㝵ࡢ can-do list ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥ⬟ຊࡢ㒊ศⓗ⬟ຊ (partial competence) ࢆ኱஦࡟ࡍࡿࠋ3) ♫఍ⓗ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᏛ⩦⪅
Newby ࡣ CEFR ࡢᩥ໬ⓗ⬟ຊࡢほⅬࢆ௨ୗࡢ㸱Ⅼ࡟せ⣙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦JACET ᩍ⫱ၥ㢟◊✲఍ࠊ2011:129㸧ࠋ(1) ゝㄒᏛⓗどⅬ㸸ゝㄒࡣࠕ♫఍ゝㄒᏛⓗ⬟ຊࠖ(Council of Europe, 2001:159) ࡜ࡉࢀࡿᩥ໬ⓗつ⠊ࡢ⾲⌧࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ୎ᑀࡉࡢ័౛⾲⌧࡞࡝ࠋ(2) ᩍ⫱ᏛⓗどⅬ㸸ゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᩍᐊࡣࠊࠕᩥ໬㛫ࡢẼ࡙ࡁࠖࡸࠕᐇᏑⓗ⬟ຊࠖࡢ⠊␪࡟࠾࠸࡚ぢࡽࢀࡿࠕ␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎࡢ⫱ᡂࠖ࡜࠸࠺┠ᶆࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿ㐺ษ࡞⎔ቃࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࠋ౛
࠼ࡤࠊࠕᩥ໬ࡢ┦㐪࡟ᑐࡍࡿᅉ⩦ⓗែᗘ࠿ࡽ⮬ᕫࢆ㐲ࡊࡅࡿ✚ᴟᛶ࡜⬟ຊࠖ(Council ofEurope, 2001:105)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

4

ཎⅬ࡟❧ࡕ㏉ࡗ࡚⪃࠼ࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱(3) ♫఍ᨻ἞ᏛⓗどⅬ㸸እᅜㄒᩍ⫱ࡣࠊࠕ」ゝㄒ୺⩏ࠖࡸࠕ」ᩥ໬୺⩏ࠖࢆ᥎㐍ࡍࡿබඹࡢሙࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࠋ」ゝㄒⓗ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊᏛࢇ࡛࠸ࡿゝㄒ࡜ࡑࢀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩥ໬ⓗ⾲ฟࡣูࠎ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⤫ྜࡉࢀࡓ୍ࡘࡢࡶࡢࠊࡘࡲࡾᏛ⩦⪅ಶேࡢゝㄒⓗᩥ໬ⓗయ㉁࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
4) ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ⤫ྜ࡜ᅜቃEU ࡢゝㄒᨻ⟇࡟❧ࡕࡣࡔ࠿ࡿၥ㢟ࡣᅜቃၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢱ࢖࣒ㄅࡣࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆ௨ୗࡢせⅬ࡛ሗ㐨ࡋࡓ 㸦TIME, MARCH 5, 2012:44-48㸧ࠋ࣭እᅜே࡟ᑐࡍࡿᜍࢀ㸦ᜍᛧ⑕㸧ࡀ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࢆ㮖࡙࠿ࡳ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢ⤒῭ࡣᙼࡽࢆ᭱ࡶᚲせ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᫬࡟ࠋ㸦ࢠࣜࢩࣕࠊ༡໭ၥ㢟㸧࣭⛣Ẹࡀᛴቑࡋࡓࡓࡵ࡟ࠊከࡃࡢᅜࡀᅜቃၥ㢟࡟ཝࡋࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
࣭࢜ࣛࣥࢲࡣḢᕞ㆟఍࡛ࠊࣈࣝ࢞ࣜ࢔࡜࣮࣐ࣝࢽ࢔ࡀࣃࢫ࣏࣮ࢺ࡞ࡋ࡛ධࢀࡿࢩ࢙
ࣥࢤࣥᆅᇦ࡬ࡢ❧ࡕධࡾチྍᅜ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣄྰࡋࡓࠋ⌮⏤ࡣ⭉ᩋ࡜≢⨥ࡢᣑ኱࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࣭୺せᣦᑟ⪅ࡶྑ⩼ᨻඪࡢᅜᐙ୺⩏࡜እᅜேᜍᛧ⑕࡟ᙳ㡪ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࣭ࢧࣝࢥࢪ኱⤫㡿ࡣࠊ᫓ࡢ㑅ᣲᡓࡢෑ㢌࡛ࠊࠕ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡣ୰ᅜࡢᏳ౯࡞㍺ධရࡸ
ᮾ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡸࡑࡢ௚ࡢᅜࠎࡢ⛣Ẹ࡜࠸࠺㢼ࡢ࠶࠾ࡾ࡟ࡉࡽࡉࢀࡍࡂ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜
㏙࡭ࡓࠋ
࣭࣓ࣝࢣࣝ㤳┦ࡣࠊࠕࢻ࢖ࢶࡣ⛣ẸࢆḼ㏄ࡋࡓࡀࡑࡢከᩥ໬ィ⏬ࡣኻᩋࡋࡓࠊ᏶඲
࡟ኻᩋࡋࡓࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡓࠋ
࣭࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢ⤫ྜࡀᮍ᮶࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼ࡣ␲ၥࢆ࠸ࡔ࠿ࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡑࢀࡣࡶࡣࡸ┿ᐇ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ㸦Hugo Brady, Center for European Reform㸧
࣭EU ᅪෆࡢ⛣Ẹ࡜㛤࠿ࢀࡓ㈠᫆ࡣ EU ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚Ⰻ࠸᫬௦࡟ࡣⰋ࠸⪃࠼᪉ࡔࡗࡓ㸦ᅔ㞴࡞㸧௒ࡇࡑࡼࡾⰋ࠸⪃࠼᪉࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࣭ၥ㢟ࡣᅜᐙࡢᣦᑟ⪅ࡀ⮬ศࡢᕷẸ࡟ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝ࠼ࡿຬẼࢆዧ࠸㉳ࡇࡏࡿ࠿࡛࠶
ࡿࠋࡇࡢグ஦ࡣࡓ࠸࡬ࢇ㔜せ࡞ほⅬࢆᥦ౪ࡋࡓࠋ⛣Ẹࡢၥ㢟࡜࠸࠺኱ࡁ࡞ቨࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡣ☜࠿࠶ࡿࡀࠊEU ࡢ⤫ྜࡢ⌮ᛕⓗᰕ࡛࠶ࡿ」ゝㄒ୺⩏࣭」ᩥ໬୺⩏ࢆ EU ㅖᅜࡣ኱ษ࡟⫱࡚࡚࠸࠿࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ௒ᅇ EU ࡟ࣀ࣮࣋ࣝᖹ࿴㈹ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡇࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒᨻ⟇ࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿᙉຊ࡞᥼㌷࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ」ゝㄒ୺⩏࣭」ᩥ໬୺⩏ࡣࢃࡀᅜࡢᩍ⫱ᨻ⟇࡟ࡶྲྀࡾධࢀࡽࢀࡿ⪃࠼᪉࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ
౛࠼ࡤࠊᒸࡣࠕ᪥ᮏࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡛ồࡵࡽࢀࡿእᅜㄒ⬟ຊࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚㸰Ⅼࢆ࠶ࡆࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᒸࠊ2012:19-20㸧ࠋ࣭␗ᩥ໬࡟᥋ࡋࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ゝㄒࡢษࡾ᭰࠼ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࡑࡢሙࡢࢽ࣮ࢬ࡟

5⚄ಖ ᑦṊ

ᛂࡌ࡚᝟ሗࢆㄪ⠇ࡋࠊ┦஫⌮ゎࢆ㐩ᡂ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡞እᅜㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊ࣭ࡋࡗ࠿ࡾ࡜ࡋࡓẕㄒ⬟ຊ࡜ᩍ㣴࡟ᨭ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᅜ㝿ே࡜ࡋ࡚ᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ⱥ
ㄒࢆ㐠⏝࡛ࡁࡿ᪥ᮏேࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤ plurilingual ࡞᪥ᮏேࡢ⫱ᡂ
3. ᪥ᮏࡢእᅜㄒ㸦ⱥㄒ㸧ᩍ⫱ᨻ⟇1) ࠕⱥㄒࡀ౑࠼ࡿ᪥ᮏேࠖࡢ⫱ᡂࡢࡓࡵࡢᡓ␎ᵓ᝿㸦ᩥ⛉┬ࠊ2003a㸧ࡇࡢᵓ᝿ࡣ 21 ୡ⣖ࡢ᪥ᮏࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨻ⟇ࡢᇶᮏ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋᴫせࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࣭㊃᪨㸸ᅜ㝿ⓗඹ㏻ㄒ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠕⱥㄒࠖࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࢆ㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜
࣭㐩ᡂ┠ᶆ㸸ᅜẸ඲య࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿⱥㄒຊࠊᅜᐙ♫఍࡟ά㌍ࡍࡿேᮦ࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿⱥㄒຊ
࣭୺࡞ᨻ⟇ㄢ㢟㸸Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢ㧗ᥭࠊᩍ⫱ෆᐜ➼ࡢᨵၿࠊⱥㄒᩍဨࡢ㈨㉁ྥୖཬࡧ
ᣦᑟែໃࡢ඘ᐇࠊᑠᏛᰯࡢⱥㄒ఍ヰάືࡢ඘ᐇ㸦2011 ᖺᗘࠕእᅜㄒάືࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᚲಟ
໬㸧ࠊᅜㄒຊࡢቑ㐍2) ࠕⱥㄒࡀ౑࠼ࡿ᪥ᮏேࠖࡢ⫱ᡂࡢࡓࡵࡢ⾜ືィ⏬㸦ᩥ⛉┬ࠊ2003b㸧ࡇࡢィ⏬ࡢᴫせࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࣭ⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗ㸸ⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࡢ኱༙ࡣⱥㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾜࠺ࠋ࣭ⱥㄒᩍဨ㸸ᴫࡡ඲࡚ࡢⱥㄒᩍဨࡀࠊୖグࡢᤵᴗࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ୍ᐃࡢⱥㄒຊཬࡧᤵ
ᴗຊࢆഛ࠼ࡿࠋ
࣭ࣔࢸ࢕࣮࣋ࢩࣙࣥ㸸ẖᖺ 10,000 ேࡢ㧗ᰯ⏕ࡀᾏእ␃Ꮫࢆࡍࡿࠋⱥㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ୡ⏺࡬᝟ሗ
Ⓨಙࡍࡿ࡞࡝ࠊᅜ㝿஺ὶࢆ୍ᒙ඘ᐇࡍࡿࠋ
࣭ධᏛ⪅㑅ᢤ㸸⪺ࡃཬࡧヰࡍ⬟ຊࢆྵࡴࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࢆ㐺ษ࡟ホ౯ࡍࡿࠋ࣭ࡑࡢ௚㸸ᑠᏛᰯⱥ఍ヰάືࠊᅜㄒຊࡢྥୖࠊᐇ㊶ⓗ◊✲ࠋ⾜ືィ⏬ࡀᐇ᪋࡟⛣ࡉࢀ࡚ 10 ᖺ㏆ࡃ࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊᡂᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊධヨࢭࣥࢱ࣮ヨ㦂࡬ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺࡢᑟධࠊⱥㄒᩍဨࡢᜳⓙ◊ಟࠊSELHi ࡢ᥎㐍࡞࡝ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ
௒ᖺᗘ࠿ࡽࡣྛ┴ࡢ㧗ᰯ࡟࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢᣐⅬᰯࡀᣦᐃࡉࢀࠊᩍ⫱ෆᐜ➼ࡢᨵၿ࡬ࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࡀጞࡲࡗࡓࠋ↔Ⅼࡣྛᰯ࡛ࡢ CAN-DO ࣜࢫࢺࡢసᡂ࡜ࡑࢀ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᤵᴗ⦅ᡂ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ3) ᪂Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿ࡍ࡛࡟ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑠᏛᰯࠊ୰Ꮫᰯࡢ᪂Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡜᮶ᖺ࠿ࡽᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡿ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢ᪂Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿ࡢせⅬࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࣭ᑠᏛᰯእᅜㄒάື㸸㸳࣭㸴Ꮫᖺࠊᖺ㛫 35 ᫬㛫┠ᶆ㸸ࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⣲ᆅࢆ㣴࠺ࠖձゝㄒࡸᩥ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚య㦂ⓗ࡟⌮ゎࢆ῝ࡵࡿࠋղ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᅗࢁ࠺࡜ࡍࡿែᗘࡢ⫱ᡂࢆᅗࡿࠋճእᅜㄒࡢ
㡢ኌࡸᇶᮏⓗ࡞⾲⌧࡟័ࢀぶࡋࡲࡏࡿࠋ
࣭୰Ꮫᰯⱥㄒ㸸㐌 4 ᫬㛫㸦᫛࿴ 20-30 ᖺ௦ࡣ㐌 6 ᫬㛫㸧┠ᶆ㸸ࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢᇶ♏ࢆ㣴࠺ࠖᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ㸲ᢏ⬟ࢆ⥲ྜⓗ࡟ά⏝࡛ࡁࡿ

6

ཎⅬ࡟❧ࡕ㏉ࡗ࡚⪃࠼ࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ຊࢆ㣴࠺ࠋᩥἲࡣࡑࡢ⬟ຊࢆᨭ࠼ࡿᇶ♏࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࣭㧗ᰯⱥㄒ㸸᭱኱ 22 ༢఩┠ᶆ㸸ࠕⓗ☜࡟⌮ゎࡋࡓࡾ㐺ษ࡟ఏ࠼ࡓࡾࡍࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࢆ㣴࠺ࠖゝㄒࡢ౑⏝ሙ㠃ࡸ≧ἣࠊ⫼ᬒ࡞࡝ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊゝⴥࡢാࡁ࡟༑ศ㓄៖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿ㸲ᢏ⬟ࢆ⤫ྜࡋࡓ⥲ྜⓗ࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⫱ᡂࠋࠕⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࡣⱥㄒ࡛ࠖ࡜ᩍᐊ࡛ᇶᮏⓗ࡟ⱥㄒ࡛ᤵᴗࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂グࡉࢀࡓࠋࢥ࣑
ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ୰ᚰࡢゝㄒᩍ⫱ (CLT: Communicative Language Teaching) ࡢ᥎㐍ࡀồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4. ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ᨵ㠉ࡢືྥ࡜ⱥㄒᩍ⫱኱Ꮫタ⨨ᇶ‽ࡢ኱⥘໬㸦1991㸧ࡣ኱Ꮫࡢᩍ⫱࡟኱ࡁ࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡓࠋ≉࡟ࠊ୍⯡ᩍ㣴ᩍ⫱࡜እᅜㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ⾶㏥࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋࡓࠋ஭ᮧࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࣭኱Ꮫタ⨨ᇶ‽ࡢ኱⥘໬ࡣࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚つไ⦆࿴࡜ᕷሙཎ⌮ࡢ᪉ྥ࡟ാࡁࠊᑓ㛛ᩍ⫱ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿᏛ㒊⦅ᡂࡀ㐍ࡳࠊᩍ㣴㒊ࡀゎయࡉࢀࠊᩍ㣴ᩍ⫱ࡢ⾶㏥ࡀࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࡓࠋ㸦஭ᮧࠊ
2012:4㸧࣭እᅜㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᩍဨ⤌⧊ࡣゎయ࡞࠸ࡋᙅయ໬ࡋࠊ௒࡛ࡣᩍဨࡣྛᑓ㛛Ꮫ㒊࡟ศᒓࡍࡿ࠿ࠊ
࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣඹ㏻ᩍ⫱ࡢࢭࣥࢱ࣮ᶵ㛵࡟ᡤᒓࡋ࡚ࠊྛᑓ㛛Ꮫ㒊࡬ࠕฟ๓ㅮ⩏ࠖࡍࡿᙧࡀ୍⯡໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦஭ᮧࠊ2012:4㸧
࣭ᕷሙཎ⌮ࡀඛ⾜ࡍࢀࡤࠊ኱Ꮫࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡀ࡛ࡁࡿᑓ㛛ᩍဨࡸᅜ㝿⤒㦂ࡢ㇏࠿࡞ᐇᴗே࡟௵ࡏࡿ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯ࡟࢔࢘ࢺࢯ࣮ࢩࣥࢢࡋࡓ࡯࠺ࡀࡼ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟
࡞ࡾ࠿ࡡ࡞࠸ࠋ㸦஭ᮧࠊ2012:10㸧
⌧≧ࡣ኱Ꮫ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␗࡞ࡿࡀࠊ኱ࡁ࡞཯┬ᮇ࡟ධࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ༶ࡕࠊᩍ㣴ᩍ⫱࡜እᅜㄒᩍ⫱ࡢぢ┤ࡋ࡜᚟ᶒࡀጞࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ኱Ꮫタ⨨ᇶ‽ࡢ኱⥘໬ᚋ 21 ᖺ࡟࡞ࡿ௒ࡇࡑ
኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡣ᪂ࡓ࡞どⅬ࡛ࡢぢ┤ࡋࢆࡏࡲࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕᡓ␎ᵓ᝿࡛ࠖࡣࠊ኱Ꮫࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ┠ᶆࢆࠕᅜᐙ♫఍࡟ά㌍ࡍࡿேᮦ࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿⱥ
ㄒຊࠖࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࠊࠕྛ኱Ꮫࡀࠊ௙஦࡛ⱥㄒࡀ౑࠼ࡿேᮦࢆ㣴ᡂࡍࡿほⅬ࠿ࡽ㐩ᡂ┠ᶆࢆタᐃࠖࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝேᮦࠖࡢ⫱ᡂࡀᛴົ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
ࡉࢀࠊࠕ⏘Ꮫ㐃ᦠ࡟ࡼࡿࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝேᮦ⫱ᡂ᥎㐍఍㆟࡛ࠖࡣࡑࢀࢆࠕ᪥ᮏேࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ
㺐ࢸ㺐ࢆᣢࡕ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᩍ㣴࡜ᑓ㛛ᛶࠊ␗࡞ࡿᩥ໬ࢆ஌ࡾ㉺࠼࡚ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡸ༠ㄪᛶࠊ๰㐀ᛶࡸ♫఍㈉⊩ࡢព㆑ࢆᣢࡗࡓேᮦࠖ࡜ᐃ⩏௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞₻ὶࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿ⤫ィ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕᅜ㝿ࠖࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝࠖࡢྡࢆෙࡋࡓᏛ㒊ࡣ᫖ᖺᗘ 86 ᰯ㸦ㆫ㈽᪂
⪺:2012/05/11㸧࡟ࡢࡰࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
ᩥ⛉┬ࡣࠕ኱Ꮫᨵ㠉ᐇ⾜ࣉࣛࣥࠖࢆ௒ᖺᗘࡢ㸴᭶࡟Ⓨ⾲ࡋࠊࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬࡟ᑐᛂࡋࡓ
ேᮦ⫱ᡂࠖ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴࡇ࡜ࢆᐉゝࡋࡓࠋ┠ᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕධヨ࣭ᤵᴗࢆ㏻ࡌࡓㄒᏛຊྥୖࡢ
ྲྀ⤌ࠖࠊࠕᩍဨࡢࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝᩍ⫱ຊࡢᙉ໬ࠖࠊࠕእᅜேᩍဨࡢ᥇⏝ᣑ኱ࠖࠊࠕᾏእ␃Ꮫ࣭

7⚄ಖ ᑦṊ

஺ὶࡢᣑ኱ࠖࠊࠕධᏛ࣭༞ᴗ᫬ᮇࡢᙎຊ໬ࠖ➼ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᩥ⛉┬ࠊ2012㸧ࠋලయⓗ࡞᪋⟇࡜ࡋ࡚ 10 ᭶࡟ᅜ㝿໬ࡢᣐⅬ኱Ꮫࢆ 42 ᰯᣦᐃࡋࡓ㸦᪥ᮏᩍ⫱᪂⪺㸸
2012/10/15㸧ࠋ
5. ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ㸰ᮏࡢᰕࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ᨵ㠉ࡢືྥࡢ୰࡛ࠊእᅜㄒᩍ⫱ࠊ≉࡟ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᨵၿࡋ
ࡓࡽࡼ࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
1) ୍⯡ᩍ㣴㸦ࣜ࣋ࣛࣝ࢔࣮ࢶ㸧⛉┠࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ෌ᐃ⩏୰ኸᩍ⫱ᑂ㆟఍ࡢ఍㛗ࡢ୕ᮧẶࡣࠊࠕᩍ㣴ேࡢ⫱ᡂࠊ࠸ࡲ෌ࡧࠖ̿ኻࢃࢀࡓ 20 ᖺࢆ⤒࡚㸦኱Ꮫ㛤ᅜ̿ୡ⏺࡛ᡓ࠺᮲௳㸧࡜࠸࠺ぢฟࡋࡢグ஦࡛ࠊࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝேᮦࢆ⫱࡚ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᩍ㣴ᩍ⫱ࡢ☜❧ࡀႚ⥭ࡢㄢ㢟ࡔࠋᾏእ࡛␗ᩥ໬ࡢே࡜୍⥴࡟ᴗົࢆ㐙⾜࡛ࡁࡿேᮦࠊ┦ᡭࡢヰࢆ⪺ࡁࠊ⮬ศࡢ⪃࠼࡛ㄝᚓ࡛ࡁࡿேᮦࡀᚲせࡔࠖ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦୕ᮧ᫛ኵ᪂᪥
ᮏ〇㕲఍㛗ࠊ୰ኸᩍ⫱ᑂ㆟఍㸧㸦᪥⤒᪂⪺ࠊ2012/4/19㸧
௒ᖺᗘࡢ JACET 㛵ᮾᨭ㒊኱఍඲యࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘ࠕᅜ㝿ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥồࡵࡽࢀࡿⱥㄒຊ࡛ࠖࡢ♫఍ே௦⾲ࡢ୺࡞Ⓨゝࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࣭ࢪ࣮ࣕࢼࣜࢫࢺ࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿⱥㄒຊ㸸ⱥㄒࡣྲྀᮦ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᚲせ࡞సᴗゝㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋグ⪅఍ぢࡸⓎ⾲㈨ᩱࡢⱥㄒࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚ෆᐜࢆᢕᥱࡋࠊ⣲᪩ࡃ࣓ࣔࡍࡿ⬟ຊࡀᚲせࡔࠋ㉁ၥࡀ
࡛ࡁࡿ⬟ຊࠊグ஦ࢆ᭩ࡅࡿ⬟ຊࠊ⮬ศࡢ⪃࠼ࢆ⮬ศࡢゝⴥ࡛ㄽ⌮ⓗ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ⬟ຊࡀ኱ษࡔࠋ㸦ᒣཱྀගඹྠ㏻ಙ♫㢳ၥࠊ㛵ᮾᨭ㒊኱఍඲యࢩ࣏ࣥࠊ2012/6/10㸧
࣭እ஺ᐁ࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿእᅜㄒຊ㸸ⱥㄒࡣ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࠊࡋ࠿ࡋⱥㄒ௨እࡢእᅜㄒࡶᚲせࡔࠋୡ⏺࡟ࡣ 90 ௨ୖࡢᅜ࡜ᅜㄒ࣭බ⏝ㄒࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ⤒῭ࡢࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣜࢮ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡣ㐍ᒎࡋࡓࠊࡋ࠿ࡋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᅜẸࡢ⏕ά࡜ᨻ἞ࡣ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚࣮࡛ࣟ࢝ࣝ࠶ࡾࠊᅜᐙࡸẸ᪘ࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ㺐ࢸ㺐࡬ࡢࡇࡔࢃࡾࡶᙉ࠸ࠋ㸦㧗ᶫᜏ୍ࠊඖ㥔ࢳ࢙ࢥඹ࿴ᅜ኱౑ࠊ㛵ᮾᨭ㒊኱఍඲యࢩ࣏ࣥࠊ2012/6/10㸧
௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᮇᚅ࡟ᛂ࠼ࡽࢀࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡜ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡲࡎࡣࠊᅜ㝿ᇶ╩ᩍ኱Ꮫ㸦ICU㸧ࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋICU ࡢᩍ㣴ᩍ⫱ࡣࠊࣜ࣋ࣛࣝ࢔࣮ࢶࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿከࡃࡢ⡿ᅜࡢ኱ᏛࡢᏛ㒊ᩍ⫱ࡢ⌮ᛕ࡟ඹ㬆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋICU ࡢᩍ㣴ᩍ⫱ࡢ⌮ᛕࡣ๰❧௨᮶ࠊ୍㈏ࡋ࡚ࡪࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡣࡑࡢ኱ࡁ࡞ᯟ⤌ࡳࡢ୰࡟఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୗࡣࡑࡢᴫ␎࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸦኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᏛᏛ఍┘ಟࠊ 2010a:93-101㸧࣭┠ᶆ㸸ࠕ㈐௵࠶ࡿᕷẸࢆ⫱ࡴࡓࡵࡢᩍ⫱ࠖࠕᛮ⪃ຊ࡜ุ᩿ຊࡢࡓࡵࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࣭▱ⓗ⬟ຊࢆⓎᒎࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ᶆ࡟ࡍࡿᩍ⫱࣭ࠖ≉ᚩ㸸(1)ࠕ⪃࠼ࡿຊࠖձṇ☜࡞⌮ゎຊࠊղᢈุⓗᛮ⪃⬟ຊࠊճᏛၥⓗ᥈ồ⬟ຊࠊմ⮬ᕫ⾲⌧⬟ຊյၥ㢟ゎỴ⬟ຊࠊ(2)ࠕከᵝᛶࠊ㛤ᨺᛶࠖձከᵝᛶࡢㄆ㆑ࠊከゅⓗ࡞どⅬࡢ⋓ᚓࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⮬ᕫࡢୡ⏺࠿ࡽゎᨺࠊղ␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎᩍ⫱ࠊ(3)ࠕ㈐௵ᛶࠖձ⮬ศࡀᡤᒓࡍ
ࡿඹྠయ㸦ᆅᇦ♫఍̿᪥ᮏ♫఍̿ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ♫఍㸧ࡢ୍ဨ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ศ࡟ࡣఱࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ
࠿ࢆ⪃࠼ࠊ⾜ື࡛ࡁࡿಶேࠊղᤵᴗホ౯ࠊࢡࣛࢫ࣓࣮ࢺ࡜ࡢඹྠࢱࢫࢡ㸦࣌࢔άືࠊࢢ

8

ཎⅬ࡟❧ࡕ㏉ࡗ࡚⪃࠼ࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱࣮ࣝࣉάື㸧
࣭஦౛㸸ICU ࡢ ELP (English Language Program) ኱Ꮫ⮬యࡀࣜ࣋ࣛࣝ࢔࣮ࢶࡢ⌮ᛕࢆᶆᴶࡋ
࡚࠾ࡾࠊ඲యࡢ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࡢ୰࡟ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡀࡋࡗ࠿ࡾ࡜఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
すᑿᩍ㣴Ꮫ㒊㛗ࡣࡇࢀࢆࠕከᩥ໬ඹ⏕࡟ྥࡅࡓࣂ࢖ࣜࣥ࢞ࣜࢬ࣒ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮏᏛࡣᘓᏛ௨᮶ࠊእᅜ⡠ࡢᩍဨࡸᏛ⏕ࡢẚ⋡ࡀ㧗ࡃࠊᏛෆࡢ఍㆟➼ࡢබ⏝ㄒࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ
࡜ⱥㄒࡢ஧ࣨᅜㄒ࡛ࡍࠋⱥㄒ࡛኱㔞ࡢᩥ⊩ࢆㄞࡳࠊ㆟ㄽࡋࠊᑠㄽᩥࢆ᭩ࡃࠕࣜ࣋ࣛࣝ࢔
࣮ࢶࡢࡓࡵࡢⱥㄒࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࠖ࡞࡝ࠊㄒᏛᩍ⫱࡟ࡣ≉࡟ຊࢆධࢀࠊ୍⯡ධヨ࡛ࡶ▱㆑㔞ࢆၥ࠺ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊධᏛᚋࡢᏛ⩦࡟ᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㐺ᛶࢆ ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᕤኵࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࡢ᰿ᮏ࡟࠶ࡿࡢࡣከᩥ໬ඹ⏕ࢆ┠ᣦࡍពᚿ࡜ᚰ࡛ࡍࠋᅜ⡠ࡸゝㄒࡢᯟࢆ㉸࠼࡚ࠊ⮬ࡽࡢぢゎࢆ┦ᡭ࡟ࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍࡃఏ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊᅜ㝿ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿⱥㄒࢆ౑࠸ࡇ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ
୙ྍḞ࡛ࡍࠋࡑࡇ࡛ㄡࡶࡀឤࡌࡿࠕ୙⮬⏤ࡉࠖࡇࡑࠊ஌ࡾ㉺࠼ࡓᚋࡢ㛤ᨺឤࢆ⏕ࡳࠊ┿࡟⮬⏤࡞⫋ᴗே࡜࡞ࡿᇶ♏ࢆసࡾࡲࡍࠋ㸦ㆫ㈽᪂⪺:2012/10/30㸧
2) ᑓ㛛ᇶ♏⛉┠࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ ESP኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢࡶ࠺㸯ᮏࡢᰕࡣ ESP (English for Specific Purposes) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୰ኸᩍ⫱ᑂ㆟఍⟅⏦㸦2008 ᖺ㸧࡛ࠊࠕᑓ㛛ศ㔝ࢆᏛࡪࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡞ㄒᏛຊࡢಟᚓࠖࡀᥖࡆࡽࢀࠊࠕⱥ
ㄒ➼ࡢእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࣂࣛࣥࢫࡢ࡜ࢀࡓࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⫱ᡂࢆ㔜どࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊᑓ㛛ᩍ⫱࡜ࡢ㛵㐃௜ࡅ࡟␃ពࡍࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍┘ಟࠊ
2010b:155㸧ࠋྠ᭩ (219-223) ࡟࠾࠸࡚௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼࡶᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࣭ᑓ㛛㡿ᇦࡢᩍဨ࡜ⱥㄒᩍဨࡢ㐃ᦠࡀᚲ㡲᮲௳ࠋ࣭Ꮫ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿศ㔝ࡸ௙஦࡛ⱥㄒࢆ౑ࡗ࡚άື࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊESP ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸
ࡓࠕ⮬ᚊࠖࡋࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࢆ⫱ᡂࡍࡿࠋ࣭ࣉࣟࣇ࢙ࢵࢩࣙࢼࣝࡢୡ⏺࡛⏕ࡁᢤ࠸࡚࠸ࡃࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࢪࣕࣥࣝࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࢆ㌟
࡟ࡘࡅࡉࡏࠊᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ゝㄒ≉ᚩࢆศᯒ࡛ࡁࡿゝㄒ⬟ຊࢆ࣐ࢫࢱ࣮ࡉࡏࡿࠋ
஭ᮧ㸦2012:17-19㸧ࡣே㛫ᙧᡂ࡟㍈㊊ࢆ࠾࠸ࡓ ESP ࡢ෌ᐃ⩏ࢆヨࡳࠊESP ࢆᐃ╔ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࡢලయⓗ࡞᪉⟇࡜ࡋ࡚ḟࡢㅖⅬࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1) ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࡢయ⣔໬㸸ESP ⛉┠ࢆᑓ㛛ᇶ♏⛉┠࡟఩⨨௜ࡅࡿ࡞࡝ࡋ࡚ࠊⱥㄒ⛉┠࡜ᑓ㛛⛉┠ࡢ㐃ᦠ࡟ࡘ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ኱Ꮫ㝔࡟࠾ࡅࡿ ESP ᩍ⫱ࢆไᗘ໬ࡍࡿࠋ
(2) Can-do ࣜࢫࢺ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࢩࣛࣂࢫࡢ⟇ᐃ㸸ࢥ࣮ࢫẖ࡟ࠊࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ┠ᶆࢆタᐃࡋࠊ
Can-do ࣜࢫࢺ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓࢩࣛࣂࢫࢆ⟇ᐃࡍࡿࠋ(3) ࠕே㛫ᛶࡢᾰ㣴ࠖࡸࠕᩥ໬ᩍ⫱ࠖࢆど㔝࡟ධࢀࡓ ESP ࢥࣥࢸࣥࢶࡢ㛤Ⓨ㸸␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎࡸ⮬ᩥ໬⌮ゎࡀᅗࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࢥࣥࢸࣥࢶ㸦౛㸸ࣁ࢖ࢸࢡ⏘ᴗ࡜ఏ⤫ᩥ໬ࡢ㛵㐃࡞࡝㸧ࡢ㛤Ⓨࠋ(4) ࠕᢏ⬟ᩍ⫱ࢆ㏻ࡋࡓே㛫ᙧᡂࠖࢆど㔝࡟ධࢀࡓࢱࢫࢡ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙ࡃᩍᤵἲࡢ㛤Ⓨ㸸ⱥㄒ9⚄ಖ ᑦṊ

ࡢ㐠⏝ຊࢆࠕᢏࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊᢏࢆ☻ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ே᱁ࢆ㝡෬ࡍࡿࠕ໶ࠖసࡾࡢᏛ⩦ࣔࢹࣝ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᩍᤵἲࡢ㛤Ⓨࠋ(5) ኱Ꮫ㝔࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ ESP ᩍဨ㣴ᡂయไࡢᩚഛ㸸ⱥㄒᩍဨࢆ㣴ᡂࡍࡿᑓ㛛⫋኱Ꮫ㝔࡟ ESPᩍဨ㣴ᡂㄢ⛬ࢆタ⨨ࡍࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ㸰ᮏࡢᰕࡣࣜ࣋ࣛࣝ࢔࣮ࢶ⛉┠࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢⱥㄒ࡜ᑓ㛛ᇶ♏⛉┠࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ ESP ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍┘ಟ (2010a) ࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ኱⣔➨ 1 ᕳ㸫኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ࠘኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍┘ಟ (2010b) ࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ኱⣔➨ 4 ᕳ㸫21 ୡ⣖ࡢ ESP࠘኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
⣽ᕝⱥ㞝࣭すᒣᩍ⾜ (2010) ࠗ」ゝㄒ࣭」ᩥ໬୺⩏࡜ࡣఱ࠿࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
஭ᮧㄔ (2012) ࠕESP ࡜ே㛫ᩍ⫱ࠖ᳃ఫ⾨┘ಟࠗゝㄒᩥ໬ᩍ⫱Ꮫࡢᐇ㊶࠘3-22. 㔠ᫍᇽ.
JACET ᩍ⫱ၥ㢟◊✲఍ (⦅) (2011) ࠗⱥㄒᩍᖌࡢᡂ㛗࡟㛵ࢃࡿᯟ⤌ࡳࡢ⥲ྜⓗ◊✲࠘㸦ᖹᡂ
22 ᖺᗘᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠ᇶ┙◊✲(B)ሗ࿌᭩㸧ᏊᏳቑ⏕ (1996) ࠗ⏕ᾭⓎ㐩ᚰ⌮Ꮫࡢࡍࡍࡵ࠘㸦᭷ᩫ㛶㑅᭩ 1622㸧᭷ᩫ㛶.
ṇ㧗ಙ⏨ (1993) ࠗ㸮ṓඣࡀࡇ࡜ࡤࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ㸸⾜ືᏛ࠿ࡽࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࠘㸦୰බ᪂᭩㸧୰ኸබㄽ♫.
ṇ㧗ಙ⏨࣭㎷ᖾኵ (2011) ࠗࣄࢺࡣ࠸࠿࡟ࡋ࡚ࡇ࡜ࡤࢆ⋓ᚓࡋࡓ࠿࠘኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2003a) ࠕࠗⱥㄒࡀ౑࠼ࡿ᪥ᮏே࠘ࡢ⫱ᡂࡢࡓࡵࡢᡓ␎ᵓ᝿ࡢ⟇ᐃ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2003b) ࠕࠗⱥㄒࡀ౑࠼ࡿ᪥ᮏே࠘ࡢ⫱ᡂࡢࡓࡵࡢ⾜ືィ⏬ࠖᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2012) ࠕ኱Ꮫᨵ㠉ᐇ⾜ࣉࣛࣥ㹼♫఍ࡢኚ㠉ࡢ࢚ࣥࢪࣥ࡜࡞ࡿ኱Ꮫసࡾ㹼ࠖ᪥ᮏᩍ⫱᪂⪺㸸2012 ᖺ 10 ᭶ 15 ᪥᪥⤒᪂⪺㸸2012 ᖺ 4 ᭶ 19 ᪥኱ᮌ඘࣭すᒣᩍ⾜ (2011) ࣐ࠗࣝࢳゝㄒᐉゝ̿࡞ࡐⱥㄒ௨እࡢእᅜㄒࢆᏛࡪࡢ࠿࠘ி㒔኱ᏛᏛ⾡ฟ∧఍.
ᒸ⚽ኵ (2012) ࠕPlurilingualism ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠖWest to East, East to West. Ed. by the Professor Paul
Rossiter Festschrift Editorial Committee. 2-24. ᡂ⨾ᇽ.
ㆫ㈽᪂⪺㸸2012 ᖺ 5 ᭶ 11 ᪥
ㆫ㈽᪂⪺㸸2012 ᖺ 10 ᭶ 30 ᪥ྜྷᓥᡂ࣭኱ᶫ⌮ᯞ (௚) (2004) ࠗእᅜㄒࡢᏛ⩦ࠊᩍᤵࠊホ౯ࡢࡓࡵࡢ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃඹ㏻ཧ↷ᯟ࠘ᮅ᪥ฟ∧♫.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Fifth Edition). Pearson
Longman.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,teaching, assessment (CEFR). Cambridge: CUP.
TIME, MARCH 5, 2012: 44-48

10

JACET Kansai Journal, 15, 11-24. (2013) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

First-language Influence on the Formation of Category Prototype in a Foreign
Language
Yugo Tsunai1 and Nobuhiko Akamatsu2
Keio University1, Doshisha University2

ABSTRACTThe relation between the first language (L1) and the second language (L2) has been mostcommonly discussed in light of whether and to what extent L1 knowledge influences L2 learning. A
question, however, should be addressed in light of what and in what ways L1 influence ismanifested, because individuals who use more than one language have a distinct compound state ofmind, which is not equivalent to two monolingual states. This study investigated what role L1
lexical knowledge plays in shaping category prototypes in a foreign language (FL). Using a set of
67 video clips showing a range of cutting/breaking actions, we looked at how Japanese-speaking
learners of English apply the cutting/breaking verb break or kowasu, and how their extension
patterns are consistent with English-speaking monolinguals’. Results showed that Japanesespeaking learners of English extended the verb differently from monolingual speakers of either
English or Japanese: although they mainly formed their linguistic category in the L1-based fashion,
they acquired some native-like knowledge on the category prototype in an FL. These findings
suggest that the construction of category prototypes in an FL is a dynamic phenomenon that may besubject to both L1 and FL influence.
Key words: crosslinguistic influence, lexical acquisition, verb meaning, category prototype,cutting/breaking events

I. INTRODUCTION
1. The multicompetence perspective on second language acquisition
The study of crosslinguistic influence or language transfer has re-attracted much attention in
research on L2 acquisition and L1 attrition (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). This popularity stems in partfrom recent acceptance of the multicompetence framework proposed by Cook (2008). The
multicompetence framework suggests that individuals who use more than one language have a
distinct compound state of mind, which is not equivalent two monolingual states. The concept of“multicompetence” also suggests that the knowledge of languages reflects interaction between
multiple languages in the speaker’s mind. More importantly, the multicompetence approach allows
us to describe and explain knowledge, acquisition, and use of languages in their own right, notagainst native monolingual speakers (Murahata & Murahata, 2008). A similar view has been
proposed by Grojean (1998). He argues that a bilingual is not a sum of two complete or incompletemonolinguals, but rather a specific speaker-hearer with a unique, complete linguistic knowledge.
11

Yugo TSUNAI & Nobuhiko AKAMATSU

This idea of considering individuals who use more than one language as distinct from monolinguals
is more or less shared among researchers of crosslinguistic influence.
Previous studies on the interaction between languages in the bilingual’s mind also
demonstrated that individuals who use more than one language perform differently frommonolinguals in their L1 and L2. Such crosslinguistic influence occurs not only from an L1 to an
L2 (forward transfer), but also from an L2 to an L1 (reverse transfer). For instance, Wolff and
Ventura (2009) found that Russian-English bilinguals applied Russian causal verbs differently from
Russian-speaking monolinguals. When describing the causee’s role in creating an endstate,
Russian-speaking monolinguals used Enable verbs (e.g., let, help and allow), which indicated adegree of ambiguity. Alternatively, Russian-English bilinguals used clear Causal verbs (e.g., makeand force) in the same way as English-speaking monolinguals. Wolff and Ventura concluded thatlearning an L2 may change the representation of word meaning in an L1 due to reverse transfer.
From this multicompetence perspective, an important implication is the reinterpretation of L1
influence in the learning and use of an L2. Traditionally, the relation between an L1 and an L2 hasbeen most commonly discussed in light of whether and to what extent L1 transfer occurs in thecourse of L2 learning. However, if individuals who use more than one language have a compoundstate of mind, which is not equivalent to two monolingual states, it is important to address the issue
in light of the conditions under which L1 influence is manifested and the ways that L2 users differ
from the monolingual speakers of the respective languages. More specifically, the multicompetence
approach allows us to reformulate the question “Does knowledge of one language play a role inshaping knowledge of another language?” into “When and in what ways does crosslinguistic
influence emerge and what types of knowledge are most vulnerable to such influence?” We would
like to discuss this issue in the area of lexical knowledge, focusing on the semantic interaction
between languages.
2. Semantic interaction between multiple languages
Because languages differ widely in how they map concepts onto words (Malt, Sloman,
Gennari, Shi, & Wang, 1999), L2 learners need to acquire the language-specific naming patterns(native-like meanings) by reorganizing the already existing categories that have been developed andestablished in the L1 (Pavlenko, 2009). To do so, L2 learners first need to detect differences inmeaning between words in the L1 and L2, and then reconstruct the semantic boundaries of L1
categories.
Previous studies of the interaction in lexical knowledge between an L1 and an L2 havedemonstrated that L1 influence is strongly manifested when two words in an L1 map onto a single
word in an L2. In fact, many studies have shown that L2 learners struggle to acquire native-likemeanings, because L1 lexical knowledge plays a key role even at the later stage of lexicaldevelopment when two words in an L1 translate into a single word in an L2 (Gass & Selinker, 1983;
Jarvis, 1998; Odlin, 1989; Ringbom, 1987). They commonly use basic L2 words in the L1-based
fashion through over-extension, especially when the L2 has more inventories of words than the L1
12

First-language Influence on the Formation of Category Prototype in a Foreign Language(Gullberg, 2009; Jiang, 2002; Saji, Kajita, & Imai, 2011). For example, Gullberg (2009) showedthat English-speaking learners of Dutch have persistent trouble in distinguishing between leggen
and zetten (i.e., to put), because both L2 Dutch words translate into the same word in English.
Dutch-speaking monolinguals generally use a different verb to describe the placement events
depending upon the orientation or posture of the object placed. For example, when putting a bottle
on a table, leggen refers to horizontal placement but zetten indicates vertical placement. In contrast,
English-speaking learners of Dutch generally over-generalize one of the posture verbs (i.e., zetten)
in the L1-based fashion even at advanced levels. Likewise, Saji, Kajita, and Imai (2011)
demonstrated that Japanese- and Korean-speaking learners of L2 Chinese, who have lived in China
for a few years, have considerable difficulty in producing the semantically specific Chinese
carrying/holding verbs. While Chinese-speaking monolinguals used 13 different verbs to describe
13 different carrying/holding events according to the manner in which the agent supports the object,
Japanese- and Korean-speaking learners of L2 Chinese rarely used distinctive verbs for particular
carrying/holding events. The L2 users commonly followed their L1-based lexicalization patterns to
describe the carrying/holding events in their L2 Chinese. This L1 influence made Japanese- andKorean-speaking learners’ patterns of verb use unique in that each group showed different patterns.
These previous findings highlight the considerable difficulty in the acquisition of native-likemeanings in terms of the overgeneralization and oversimplification of L2 words—especially whenthe L2 has more repertories in the vocabulary than the L1. However, it remains an open question
what meanings are ascribed to specific word forms in an L2 (Jiang, 2000). Moreover, we know
surprisingly little about how the acquisition of native-like meanings occurs in the other classes ofwords – words can cross-cut and overlap one another; and words can be related in a ‘mix andmatch’ fashion (Malt, Sloman & Gennari, 2003). Because words within a language differ widely on
a number of dimensions (De Groot, 1993; Gentner, & Boroditsky, 2001), it might be the case thatL2 learners have different types of difficulties in the acquisition of native-like meanings depending
upon the types of words and relations between the linguistic categories of different languages(Gathercole, & Moawad, 2010)
The present study investigated what role L1 lexical knowledge plays in shaping category
prototypes in a foreign language (FL) when words of different languages have some overlap in
prototype but with varying boundaries. To address this question, we looked at the relationshipbetween verbs and scenes by using the applicability-rating task, in which participants were asked torate how each video was a good action for representing the cutting/breaking verbs.
We selected the cutting/breaking events as a test case, because in this domain there are someuniversal and language-specific constraints on the event categorization in the number/size of
categories and at the placement of its boundaries (Majid, Gullberg, Van Staden, & Bowerman,
2007). For example, while English-speaking monolinguals and German-speaking monolinguals
commonly use a different verb to describe the breaking events (e.g., breaking a stick by hand) andthe cutting event (e.g., slicing a carrot with a knife), they differ widely in how they treat the
chopping events (e.g., breaking a carrot by karate-chop). While English-speaking monolinguals
13

Yugo TSUNAI & Nobuhiko AKAMATSU

generally categorize the chopping events as cutting events involving knives and scissors, Germanspeaking monolinguals usually group the chopping events together with the breaking events. Thisobservation alone indicates that, even if the semantic dimensions relevant to the classification are
rather similar across languages, the resulting categories are different in terms of the number ofcategories and the placement of boundaries. We thus assumed that the domain of the
cutting/breaking events offers an interesting test case for examining the question we address in thisresearch, i.e., what role L1 lexical knowledge plays in shaping the category prototype in an FL
when words of different languages have some overlap in prototype but have varying boundaries.
II. METHOD
1. Participants
A total of 51 participants were included in the final sample: 13 English-speaking monolinguals(the English group), 20 Japanese-speaking monolinguals (the Japanese group) and 18 Japanesespeaking learners of English (the EFL group). They were all recruited from and tested at auniversity in Kyoto, Japan. The characteristics of the three groups are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of English-speaking Monolinguals, Japanese-speaking Monolinguals,
and Japanese-speaking EFL Learners.
MeasureEnglish-speaking
Japanese-speaking
Japanese-speaking
monolinguals
monolinguals
EFL learners
Age (years)
20.9 (1.75)
20.4 (1.50)
21.1 (0.7)
FL English self-rating (7pt scale)ReadingNA
3.3 (0.93)
4.0 (0.93)
WritingNA
2.8 (0.89)
3.5 (1.09)
Speaking
NA2.7(1.17)
3.1 (1.24)
ListeningNA
2.8 (0.89)
3.6 (1.24)
Daily FL English NA
3.94 (4.51)
9.38 (9.05)
usage (%)
TOEIC
NA
566.1 (85.0)
768.7 (99.3)
TOEFL
NA
NA
548.8 (13.96)
Oxford Quick
NA
NA
40.6 (4.06)
Placement test
(Max = 60)
Length of stay in
5.4 month
NA
NA
Japan
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Although all the English-speaking monolinguals were
living in Japan at the time of testing, their proficiency was so limited that they were considered to
be functionally monolingual with minimal exposure to another language (e.g., Japanese).
2. Materials
The stimuli consisted of 67 video clips denoting a wide range of the cutting/breaking events.
We first selected 5 representative verbs (i.e., break, cut, smash, snap, and tear) in the domain that14

First-language Influence on the Formation of Category Prototype in a Foreign Language

English-speaking monolinguals use in everyday situations when referring to the cutting/breaking
events. We then created a set of video clips denoting various kinds of everyday events that involve
separation in the material integrity, referring to previous cross-linguistic studies (Majid, Boster &Bowerman, 2008; Pye, Loeb, & Pao, 1996). We also included other kinds of cutting/breaking events(e.g., bending events) by changing a number of parameters, so that they could be fillers. The content
validity of each video was verified by three English-speaking monolinguals. Each action wasvideotaped with a female agent cutting or breaking various objects. The length of videos varied
from 2s to 10s (M = 4.1 minutes, SD = 1.9). The Appendix lists a brief description of each videoclip.
3. Procedure
The experiment ran individually. Participants were given an applicability judgment task,followed by a questionnaire on their language background.
3.1 Applicability judgment task
The participants were asked to watch a video clip once, and then they were asked to rate how
well an action represented the verb break or kowasu. (The English and EFL groups gave
applicability ratings for the English verb break, while the Japanese group gave applicability ratings
for the Japanese verb kowasu.) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. An example of the applicability judgment task. In this scene, a female agent cracked an egg. The
participants were asked to indicate how applicable the word break or kowasu is for describing the event
shown in the video on a 4-point scale: 1.not applicable at all, 2.rarely applicable, 3.somewhat applicable,
4.very applicable.

We selected the verbs, break and kowasu, because they were one of the most frequently generated
verbs to refer to the cutting/breaking events. We also selected this pair of verbs because they wereapproximate but not perfect translation equivalents in English and Japanese (Fujii, 1999). Morespecifically, because the Japanese language has various verbs corresponding to break in English(e.g., kowasu, kuzusu, oru, waru, and yaburu), it might be assumed that the relation between
categories linked to words is imperfect. We thus assumed that this pair of words has implications forthe nature and role of L1 lexical knowledge in formation of the category prototype in the FL whenwords of different languages have some overlap in prototype but with varying boundaries. The
15

Yugo TSUNAI & Nobuhiko AKAMATSU

participants received a 3-trial practice session before doing the main experiment. Each video waspresented on a computer screen in a random order.
3.2 Language background questionnaire
A questionnaire was designed to obtain information about the participants’ language learning
experiences. The participants were asked to indicate their age, major at university, first and second
language(s), and study-abroad experience. They were also asked to self-report on a 7-point scale,with 1 labeled ‘very poor’ and 7 labeled ‘native-like’, to measure their perceived English
proficiency.
4. Analysis
We analyzed the data from the applicability judgment task in the following points: (1) to what
extent English-speaking monolinguals and Japanese-speaking monolinguals share the same
prototype to form their categories, (2) to what extent Japanese-speaking EFL learners form their
linguistic category in the same way as English-speaking monolinguals do, and (3) what kinds ofrole L1 lexical knowledge plays in formation of the category prototype in EFL.
For the analyses, we first created response matrices for each participant group separately (i.e.,the English group, Japanese groups, and EFL groups). Then, we averaged the applicability ratingsfor each video separately for each participant group. In each matrix, there were the 67 rows
representing the 67 videos. The column represented the target verb (break or kowasu) eachparticipant rated. Each cell of this matrix indicated the mean applicability rating of the verb for each
event shown in the video. Each matrix from the applicability judgment task thus indicated to what
extent the participants in each group formed their categories around the same prototype. Thesematrices were also used to investigate what kinds of semantic features were mostly associated withthe verb.
III. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
For convenience, we describe the results in two parts. We first discuss the degree of thecorrespondence in the applicability ratings between English- and Japanese-speaking monolinguals.
We then discuss how Japanese-speaking EFL learners gave applicability ratings for the category
break to ask how L1 influence is manifested in the formation of the linguistic category in EFL.
For this purpose, we first averaged the applicability ratings across participants for each video
separately for each group (i.e., the English group, the Japanese group, and EFL group). Then we
calculated the Pearson’s correlations of the mean applicability ratings among these groups, whichindicate the extent to which the linguistic categories share prototype and typicality gradients.
Table 2 shows the correlations of the mean applicability ratings among the three groups. Table
3 lists ten events that were rated high in the applicability ratings by each group.

16

First-language Influence on the Formation of Category Prototype in a Foreign Language

Table 2. Correlations Between the Mean Applicability Ratings of Japanese-speaking EFL
Learners and Monolingual Speakers of the Respective Languages for the Pair of BreakParticipants groups

and Kowasu Categories
English-speaking Japanese-speaking
monolinguals
EFL learners

Japanese-speaking
monolinguals

English-speaking(r* half = 0.98)
monolinguals
Japanese-speaking.72(r* half = 0.96)
learners of L2 English
Japanese-speaking.56.87(r* half = 0.98)
monolinguals
Note. Parentheses indicate the halves-reliability estimates (r* half) adjusted by the Spearman-Brown
prediction formula (r* half) = 2* r half/(1㸩r half).
Table 3. Top 10 Events That Were Rated High in Applicability Rating
Applicability ratings
English-speaking
Japanese-speaking EFL
Japanese-speaking
monolinguals
learnersmonolinguals
Object names
Mean
Object names
Mean Object names
Mean
Cell phone
Cell phone
Timer
1
4.00
3.94
4.00
(video 53)(video 53)(video 33)
Timer
Watch
Pencil lead
2
4.00
3.94
4.00
(video 33)(video48 )(video 20)
CameraToy
Rice bowl
3
4.00
3.83
4.00
(video 36)(video 13)(video 66)
China cup
Cell phone
Racket
4
3.92
3.77
3.95
(video 28)(video 53)(video 60)
China cup
Wooden box
House
5
3.92
3.77
3.85
(video 28)(video 8)(video 42)
Camera
House
Chair
6
3.92
3.61
3.85
(video 36)(video 42)(video 65)
Toy
Camera
Chair
7
3.92
3.61
3.90
(video 13)(video36 )(video 65)
Toothpick
Cork block
Wooden box
8
3.84
3.61
3.80
(video 16)(video 41)(video 8)
Seal
Watch
China cup
9
3.84
3.55
3.75
(video 48)(video 56)(video 28)
BambooCork block
Rice bowl (video
10
3.84
3.55
3.75
(video 41)(video 27)
66)
Note. Bold face indicates the accidental (spontaneous) events.
1. Break vs. Kowasu
As Table 2 shows, the correlation between English-speaking monolinguals and Japanesespeaking monolinguals was .56, indicating that they formed their categories around the same
prototype to some extent, but they differed largely at the placement of peripheral items, which are
not closely related to the prototype within the category. There are, in fact, some similarities in the17Yugo TSUNAI & Nobuhiko AKAMATSU

way the two language groups gave the applicability ratings for the cutting/breaking events. For
instance, the actions rated most typical of break by English-speaking monolinguals were actions
where a person intentionally breaks a machine-like complex object (e.g., cell phone and camera).
Likewise, the actions rated most typical of kowasu by Japanese-speaking monolinguals were actions
where a person intentionally breaks a machine-like complex object (e.g., timer and watch). We thus
concluded that both break and kowasu typically refer to intentional actions, which the objects tolose their function and value.
There are, however, some differences in the way the two language groups gave applicability
ratings for the category break and kowasu. First, they differed widely in how they treated the events
that were caused by accident (or accidental events). While English-speaking monolinguals gave
relatively high ratings for the events where a person accidentally breaks a simple object (e.g., pencil
lead breaks while writing on paper) as a good example for representing the verb break, Japanesespeaking monolinguals rarely gave high ratings for the accidental events as a good example forrepresenting the verb kowasu.
Second, they differed in how they treated the actions that happened to simple objects (e.g.,
pencil lead and seal). While English-speaking monolinguals gave high ratings for the events
involving a simple object (e.g., a rice bowl, a toothpick and a seal) as a good example of theconceptual category of break, Japanese-speaking monolinguals gave high ratings only for the events
involving a machine-like complex object (e.g., a timer and a toy). The English verb break is thus arather diverse category, encompassing a variety of actions that were caused intentionally andaccidentally to break simple and complex objects. In contrast, the Japanese verb kowasu typicallyrefers to the actions that were caused intentionally to break machine-like complex objects. Put
differently, while break can be applied to the scenes in which our focus is on the material of which
the object is made rather than its function, kowasu can be used only for the scenes in which our
focus is on the loss of its function (e.g., Fujii, 1999). We thus conclude that although two linguistic
categories linking break and kowasu show a modest correspondence in prototype and typicality
gradients, they differ largely in the formation of categories, especially at the placement of peripheral
items not closely related to the prototype within the category.
2. Break by Japanese-speaking learners of English
Having discovered how closely English-speaking monolinguals agree with Japanese-speaking
monolinguals in prototype and typicality gradients with regard to the category break and kowasu,
we now turn to our attention to investigating how Japanese-speaking EFL learners gave typicality
ratings for the cutting/breaking events with regard to the linguistic category of break.
For this purpose, we first discuss the correlations of mean applicability ratings to provide an
overview of how Japanese-speaking EFL learners formed their linguistic category. If Japanesespeaking EFL learners can acquire native-like knowledge on the category prototype in English, thecorrespondence in applicability rating between English-speaking monolinguals and Japanesespeaking EFL learners should be higher than that between Japanese-speaking monolinguals and18

First-language Influence on the Formation of Category Prototype in a Foreign Language

Japanese-speaking EFL learners. Alternatively, if they have difficulty in establishing native-likeknowledge on the category prototype in English, and if the L1 influence is manifested in theformation of the category prototype in EFL, the correspondence between Japanese-speaking
monolinguals and Japanese-speaking EFL learners should be higher than that between Englishspeaking monolinguals and Japanese-speaking EFL learners.
The correlation between English-speaking monolinguals and Japanese-speaking EFL learners
was .72, and the correlation between Japanese-speaking monolinguals and Japanese-speaking EFL
learners was .87 (see Table 2). This appears to indicate a strongly shared gradient of applicability
with monolingual speakers of the respective languages. More concretely, this result indicates thatthe construction of the category prototype in an FL represents a conflation of both L1 and FL
knowledge in the sense that Japanese-speaking learners of EFL formed their linguistic categories inthe L1-based fashion, but they also acquired some native-like knowledge of the category prototype
in English.
There is evidence, in fact, that Japanese-speaking EFL learners have acquired some native-likeknowledge on the category prototype in English. For instance, the actions rated most typical ofbreak by Japanese-speaking EFL learners encompassed the actions where a person breaks a ricebowl by accidents (see, Table 3). Because the accidental events were most commonly describedwith verbs other than kowasu in Japanese, this can be taken as evidence that Japanese speaking EFL
learners restructured the L1 categories and moved in the direction of English, even though they did
not acquire the fully-developed native-like knowledge on the category prototype in English.
At the same time, however, there is evidence that Japanese-speaking EFL learners have shaped
their linguistic category differently from English-speaking monolinguals. For example, as shown in
Table 3, while Japanese-speaking EFL learners used the verb break to describe the actions where aperson demolished a house with a bulldozer, English-monolingual speakers never use the verb
break to describe the destruction of a house with a bulldozer. Moreover, while English-speaking
monolinguals gave high applicability ratings for the actions that were caused by accident to breaksimple objects, Japanese-speaking EFL learners mainly give high applicability ratings for actions
where complex objects were broken intentionally. This tendency (rating high for the actions wherecomplex objects were broken intentionally) was also observed among Japanese-speaking
monolinguals.
The majority of these results are consistent with the findings of previous research showing that
individuals who use more than one language have a distinct compound state of mind which is not
equivalent to two monolingual states (Cook, 2008; Grosjean, 1998). In the present study, Japanesespeaking EFL learners gave applicability ratings differently from the monolingual speakers of therespective languages. Although they formed categories in the L1-based fashion, they seem to havedeveloped some native-like knowledge of the category prototype in English. This is reflected by thefact that the correspondence in applicability ratings between English-speaking monolinguals andJapanese-speaking EFL learners was higher than the correspondence between English- andJapanese-speaking monolinguals (r = .72, vs. r=.56). This result indicates that the construction of19

Yugo TSUNAI & Nobuhiko AKAMATSU

the category prototypes in an FL was subject to both L1 and FL influence, even though L1 lexical
knowledge plays a key role in shaping category prototypes in the FL.
ϫ. CONCLUSION
The goal of present study was to investigate whether and to what extent Japanese-speaking
EFL learners achieve native-like knowledge of English category prototypes, and what role L1
lexical knowledge plays in shaping category prototypes in an FL especially when words of different
languages have some overlap in prototype but with varying boundaries. We found that theconstruction of the category prototypes in an FL was subject to both L1 and FL influence: Japanesespeaking EFL learners basically formed their linguistic category in the L1-based fashion, but theyalso acquired some native-like knowledge of the English category prototype. Overall, the result of
the present study supports the view that individuals who use more than one language have a distinct
compound state of mind, which is not equivalent to two monolingual speakers, and the linguisticknowledge may be subject to the interaction between multiple languages.
One potential reason why L1 lexical knowledge has a far-reaching impact in shaping category
prototypes in an FL even when words of different languages have some overlap in prototype butwith varying boundaries is in terms of the relations between words of different languages. Unlike incases where one language has more repertories in the vocabulary than another language, in the cases
where words of different language have some overlap in prototype but with varying boundaries, FL
learners might have great difficulty in discovering differences in meaning between words in the L1
and FL because words of different languages differ only in the naming of peripheral items not
closely allied with the categories of any language. If this is the case, it is not unusual that L1 lexical
knowledge plays a significant role in shaping category prototypes in an FL.
Linguistic proficiency might also play a key role in the manifestation of L1 influence on
shaping category prototypes in an FL. While previous studies have mainly tested L2 learners who
lived in the target language speaking countries (Saji et al, 2011), our participants lived in amonolingual society and started to learn the target language later in life (approximately from age
12). Thus, it is likely that our participants are less proficient at the target language and have lessdeveloped knowledge of the formation of category prototypes in an FL than learners in the target
country. Given that more experienced learners can progress in the ability to use words in an L2(Malt & Sloman, 2003), it might be the case that linguistic proficiency plays a key role in shaping
category prototype in an FL. In future research, it will be important to investigate the role of FL
proficiency, and the nature of relations between the linguistic categories of different languages on
the formation of prototypes in an FL.
REFERENCES
Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching (4th ed.). London, UK: Hodder
education.
De Groot, A. M. B. (1993). Word-type effects in bilingual processing tasks: support for a mixed20

First-language Influence on the Formation of Category Prototype in a Foreign Language

representational system. In R. Schreuder,& D. Weltens, B. (eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp.2752). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1983). Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Nebury
House.
Gathercole, V.C.M., & Moawad, R.A. (2010). Semantic interaction in early and late bilinguals: Allwords are not created equally. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 385-408.
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 1, 131-149.
Gullberg, M. (2009). Reconstructing verb meaning in a second language: How English speakers of
L2 Dutch talk and gesture about placement. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 221244.
Gentner, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2001). Individuation, relational relativity and early word learning. In
M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development(pp.215-256). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Fujii, Y. (1999). "The Story of 'Break': Cognitive Categories of Objects and the System of Verbs" In
M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha and S. Wilcox (Eds.) Cultural, Psychological and Typological Issues in
Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 313-332). Amsterdam, Netherland: John Benjamins.
Jarvis, S. (1998). Conceptual transfer in the interlingual lexicon. Bloomington, IN: IULC
Publication.
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics,
21, 47-77.
Jiang, N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies inSecond Language, 24, 617-637.
Malt, B. C. and Sloman, S. A. (2003). Linguistic diversity and object naming by non-native
speakers of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 47-67.
Malt, B.C., Sloman , S.A. , and Gennari, S. (2003). Universality and language specificity in object
naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 20-42.
Malt, B.C., Sloman , S.A. , Gennari, S., Shi, M., and Wang, Y. (1999). Knowing versus naming:
Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language, 40,
230-262.
Majid, A., Boster, J. S., & Bowerman, M. (2008). The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday
events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition, 109, 235-250.
Majid, A., Gullberg, M., Van Staden, M., & Bowerman, M. (2007). How similar are semantic
categories in closely related languages? A comparison of cutting and breaking in four Germanic
languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 18, 179-194.
Murahata, G., & Murahata, Y. (2008). V. Cook’s multicompetence and its consequences for SLA
research and L2 pedagogy. Research Reports of the Department of International Studies,21

Yugo TSUNAI & Nobuhiko AKAMATSU

Faculty of Humanities and Economics, Kochi University, 9, 109-128.

Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Pavlenko, A. (2009). Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language
vocabulary learning. In A. Pavlenko (ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary
approaches (pp. 125-160). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pye, C., Loeb, D.F., & Pao, Y.Y. (1996). The acquisition of breaking and cutting. In E.V.Clark (Ed.),
The proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual child language research forum (pp.227-236).
Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Saji, N., Kajita, Y., Imai, M. (2010). Learning verb system in second language: the influence oflexical knowledge of L1 in learning the relationships between the meanings of verbs in
L2. Second Language, 9, 83-100.
Wolff, P., & Ventura, T. (2009). When Russian learn English: How the semantics of causation may
change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 153-176.
APPENDIX
Below are short descriptions of the video stimuli used in this study. Bold indicates the accidental(spontaneous) events. Italics indicates technical terms.
1.
2.

Tear paper into two pieces by hand.
Smash a watch with a single downward hammer blow.

3. Snap a cucumber in half by hand
4. Break a chocolate bar into two pieces by hand.
5. Break shot (hit a billiard ball)
6. Cut grass with a sickle.
7. Rip a newspaper into two pieces by hand.
8. Break a wooden box with downward hammer blows.
9. Rip toilet paper into two pieces by hand.
10. Smash a cracker into small pieces with a wooden pestle.
11. Pop a balloon with a needle.
12. Bend the body of a clay cup by hand.
13. Stomp on a toy by foot.
14. Tear a nylon tape into several pieces by hand.
15. Bend a wire by hand.
16. Snap a toothpick by hand.
17. Bend a bamboo stick by hand.
18. Cut a wire into two pieces with wire cutters.
19. Peel cheese into pieces by hand.
22

First-language Influence on the Formation of Category Prototype in a Foreign Language

20. Pencil lead breaks accidentally into two pieces.
21. Smash a lump of ice into small pieces with downward hammer blows.
22. Fold paper in half by hand.
23. Bend an arm.
24. Tear a loaf of bread in half by hand.
25. Pop a bubble wrap by using fingers.
26. Rip paper violently.
27. Cut a bamboo stick into two pieces with a saw.
28. Smash a china cup with a single hammer blow.
29. Snap a bamboo stick in half by hand.
30. Crack an egg.
31. Tear a towel into two pieces by hand.
32. Stamp on a cardboard box by foot.
33. Smash a timer with single downward hammer blow.
34. Mash an egg for cooking.
35. Slice a cucumber.
36. Break a camera by throwing it against wall.
37. Rip off a calendar.
38. Rip off a button from a shirt.
39. Rip wrapping paper to open a present.
40. Stomp on an empty can by foot.
41. Smash a cork block into small pieces with a single downward hammer blow.
42. Demolish a house with a bulldozer.
43. Cut nails by using clippers.
44. Open a decorative ball by pulling a string.
45. Break glasses by throwing them against a wall.
46. Topple down Jenga blocks accidentally while playing.
47. Tear a dried squid into two pieces by hand.
48. Take off a piece of clay from a clay cup.
49. Break a cracker in half by hand.
50. Tear a T-shirt into two pieces by hand.
51. Smash a clay cup with a single downward hammer blow.
52. Break a yarn into two pieces by hand.
53. Snap a cell phone in half violently by hand to break it.
54. Divide disposable chopsticks.
55. Cut paper by using a ruler.
56. Break a seal to open a book.
57. Split a bamboo stick vertically in half with an axe.
58. Cut the body of a clay cup by using a thread.
23

Yugo TSUNAI & Nobuhiko AKAMATSU

59. Rip off a piece of paper vertically.
60. A tennis racket breaks accidentally while hitting a ball.
61. A toy breaks accidentally while playing with it.
62. Smash a snowman with a punch.
63. Break a mug accidentally while holding it.
64. A paper net that is used to capture fish tears accidentally while playing with it.
65. A chair breaks suddenly while sitting on it.
66. A rice bowl breaks accidentally while washing it.
67. Take off a twig from a tree by hand.

24

JACET Kansai Journal, 15, 25-39. (2013) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

L2 Communication Anxiety Levels in Relation to Different Communication
Partners: An Empirical Study in Japanese EFL Classrooms
Michiko UEKI
Graduate School of Kansai University, JSPS Research Fellow

ABSTRACTIn this article, the author presents an empirical study that examines whether second language (L2)communication anxiety varies in relation to the learner’s communication partner: non-native
teachers of English, native teachers of English, more capable peers, less capable peers, andreturnees from English speaking countries. The study also explores the relationship between
learners’ academic status (i.e. junior high, senior high, or college) and their L2 anxiety level witheach communication partner. The study adopted a mixed methodology approach: a questionnairewith 240 Japanese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students and a semi-structured interview
with 26 students. The overall results are as follows: (1) L2 anxiety varies depending on
communication partners and is particularly high with non-native teachers of English; (2) learners’
academic status influences their levels of L2 anxiety with different communication partners; and (3)three reasons may explain the variance in learners’ anxiety with different communication partners:
fear of negative evaluation by others, nervousness about L2 communication, and a sense of not
being evaluated by others. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to Dörnyei’s
L2 motivational self system.
Key words: L2 communication anxiety, Communication partners, L2 motivational self system,
Japanese EFL learners

I. INTRODUCTION
Since the announcement of ‘An Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities’ by the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT, 2002), English language
education in secondary and tertiary schools in Japan has increasingly emphasized communication in
the target language; this emphasis has resulted in a greater portion of classroom activities focusedon face-to-face interactions and communicative tasks. In response to this trend, many studies (e.g.
Ellis, 2003; Takahashi, 2000) have focused on developing communicative teaching methods andtasks. However, Yashima et al. (2009) point out that attending to affective variables incommunicative teaching is also important, because learners’ psychology greatly affects theeffectiveness of teaching in communicative classrooms. One such affective variable is second
language (L2) communication anxiety (CA). Yashima (2004) has argued that because learners arebeing asked to express themselves using their limited L2, they naturally become anxious in
25

Michiko UEKI

communicative classrooms. In addition, Yashima (2004) and Kim (2010) have implied that the levelof L2 CA varies in response to the different communication partners (e.g. non-native teachers ofEnglish, peers, and native teachers of English) and the different academic status (e.g. junior high,senior high, or college) of learners. However, few studies have verified this contention.
Thus, the present study examines a sizable sample of Japanese English as a foreign language(EFL) learners to ascertain whether the level of L2 CA varies with different communication partners
and whether the academic status of the learners affects the level of L2 CA with thesecommunication partners. This study also discusses the results in relation to a theoretical framework.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. L2 anxiety and communication anxiety
L2 anxiety is defined as ‘the feeling of tension and apprehension specifically associated withsecond language contexts’ (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994, p. 284). Although some studies report a
positive relationship between L2 anxiety and L2 performance (Scovel, 1978), anxiety is generally
recognized as negatively affecting language learning (Arnold & Brown, 1999; MacIntyre, Noels, &Clément, 1997; Oxford, 2011). Most studies have demonstrated negative correlations between
language anxiety and language achievement (e.g. Horwitz, 2001; Young, 1986), with
communicative activity having been widely accepted as being the most influential L2-anxiety
provoking activity for L2 learners (e.g. Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Young, 1991). Thus, L2
learners’ difficulties in understanding others and expressing themselves clearly using their limited
L2 may produce higher anxiety for these learners.
CA research in communication studies has focused primarily on first language (L1)communication; the term CA is defined as the fear or anxiety triggered by real or anticipatedcommunication with other people (Daly, 1991; Jung & McCroskey, 2004). However, researchers inapplied linguistics have defined CA and language anxiety similarly or even synonymously instudies of L2 communicative situations (MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Donovan, 2002; MacIntyre& Charos, 1996; Oxford, 2011). The author thus would like to follow suit and treat L2 anxiety and
L2 CA interchangeably in this article.
2. Recent trends in L2 anxiety research
While L2 anxiety has traditionally been thought to originate in learners, recent studies haveviewed it as a multi-faceted and complex variable influenced by learning environments and thetypes of activities in which learners are engaged (Horwitz, 2010; Young, 1991). L2 anxiety also
varies in relation to learners’ communication partners. However, Kim (2010) has noted the paucityof research examining the influence of different communication partners on L2 CA levels andindicated the value of investigating the relationship between L2 CA levels and different
communication partners in future studies.
Another research trend has aimed to conceptualize L2 anxiety within the framework of the L2
motivational self system proposed by Dörnyei (2005, 2009). This framework builds on
26

L2 Communication Anxiety Levels in Relation to Different Communication Partners:
An Empirical Study in Japanese EFL Classrooms

conceptualizations of L2 motivation using a tripartite model (ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self, L2
learning experience), and it has shown that various forms of the L2 self significantly influence L2
anxiety levels (Papi, 2010). Therefore, it might be worthwhile to treat L2 anxiety within the L2
motivational self system.
III. RESEARCH PURPOSES
The purpose of this study is to examine whether the level of L2 CA varies for different
communication partners in the Japanese EFL classroom context. It also investigates the influencesof learners’ academic status on L2 CA.
More specifically, the author first examines whether L2 anxiety level varies for different
communication partners using a sample of Japanese EFL learners. She divides the communication
partners in the EFL classroom environment into five different categories (A-E) and tests participantsfor variation in L2 anxiety among these categories. The categories include the following: (A)Japanese (non-native) teacher of English, (B) foreign (native) teacher of English, (C) friends whose
English skills are strong (more capable friends), (D) friends whose English skills are not strong (lesscapable friends), and (E) friends who have returned from English-speaking countries (returnee
friends). The author then closely investigates the influence of learners’ academic status (junior high,senior high, or college students) on their level of L2 CA with the different communication partners
described above. The reasons for variation in student anxiety in response to specific types ofcommunication partners are then discussed in relation to Dörnyei’s L2 motivational self system.
IV. METHODS
1. Participants
The participants in this study included the following: (a) 2nd-year junior high school students,(b) 2nd-year senior high school students, and (c) 2nd- and 3rd-year college students majoring in
non-English field (i.e. liberal arts, law, and business studies). All the participants were Japanese
students learning English as a foreign language. Each group consisted of 80 students. A total of 240
students answered the questionnaire described below. To control the influence of gender difference,
the ratio of males to females in this study was kept even in each group. Table 1 shows detailed
information about the participants. None of the students had lived in English-speaking countries formore than three months. In addition, all the students reported little exposure to English education
outside of their schools.

27Michiko UEKI

Table 1. Information about the participantsInstitution
Junior high school
Senior high school
CollegePublicN (Male: Female)
40 (M 20: F 20)

Grade
2nd year

PublicPublicPrivate40 (M 20: F 20)
48 (M 26: F 22)
32 (M 14: F 18)

Private80 (M 40: F 40)

2nd year
2nd year
2nd year
2nd and 3rdyears

With regard to the assisted language teacher (ALT) assigned system, both public junior high andsenior high schools adopted a ‘regular visit system’, in which ALTs are assigned to more than one
school but make regular visits, usually once every three months. On the other hand, the privatesenior high school and college adopted a ‘based school system’, in which a school has its own
ALT(s) teaching regular English classes, generally twice a month.
2. Data collection
The author developed a questionnaire to examine the variance in learners’ L2 anxiety in relation
to different communication partners. This questionnaire was developed based on the questionnaire
used in an earlier major study of foreign learning anxiety (Horwitz et al., 1986). It also incorporated
some elements adapted from Tanabe (2002) that examined L2 anxiety in the Japanese EFL context.
The questionnaire consisted of seven items in relation to each type of communication partner; thus,
students were asked to respond to 35 items that included seven identical items in each of fivecategories (see Appendix for the details). They were asked to respond on a five-point Likert scaleranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The participants’ consent was obtained, andthe questionnaire was administrated in their regular classrooms by their teachers in April and earlyMay 2010.
Upon completion of the questionnaire, the participants were asked to indicate their interest in
taking part in a follow-up interview conducted by the author. On the basis of their responses and theresults of the questionnaire administered, 26 students were chosen for a semi-structured follow-up
interview. It was confirmed that all participants who joined the interview session were not outliersin this study. Because of the limitations imposed by junior and senior high schools, two different
types of interviews were conducted: group interviews for junior and senior high school students(n=8 for each) and personal interviews for college students (n=10). However, both types ofinterviews began with the same question: What causes you to become anxious while communicating
in English? All the interviews were recorded by an IC recorder and later transcribed by the author.
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. L2 anxiety in relation to different communication partners
The author first examined whether learners’ L2 CA varied in relation to the five different
communication partners. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the level of learners’ L2 anxiety
28

L2 Communication Anxiety Levels in Relation to Different Communication Partners:
An Empirical Study in Japanese EFL Classrooms

for each category of communication partner.
Table 2. The level of learners’ L2 anxiety for each category of communication partner
Mean

SD

A) Japanese teacher of English

23.55

3.40

B) Foreign teacher of English

17.47

3.47

C) More capable friends

19.94

3.26

D) Less capable friends

11.53

2.54

E) Returnee friends

17.02

3.29

Table 2 indicates that learners’ L2 anxiety levels varied in relation to different communication
partners. The one-way ANOVA with post hoc analysis confirmed that differences existed among all
the categories of communication partners, except for the one between foreign teachers of English(Category B) and returnee friends (Category E) (F=312.96, p < .05, partial Ș2 = 1.05; Bonferroni’s
test as a post hoc test, p < .05). This finding supports the assumption that learners’ communication
partners influence their level of L2 anxiety. The most salient characteristic of Table 2 is thatJapanese teachers of English (Category A) and more capable friends (Category C) provoked higher
levels of anxiety compared with the other three categories. This result indicates that learners werelikely to be more anxious when communicating in their L2 with Japanese teachers of English andwith more capable friends. However, communication with less capable friends (Category D) yielded
the lowest anxiety levels: learners seemed to be less anxious when communicating in their L2 with
their less capable friends.
Table 2 also shows that the participants reported lower anxiety levels in their conversations withforeign teachers of English (Category B). Thus, foreign teachers of English did not significantly
induce higher L2 anxiety among the learners.
These results are based on data obtained from all the participants without addressing differencesin their academic status. Therefore, the author further investigated how this variable exerted
influence on L2 anxiety levels with each communication partner.
2. L2 anxiety and academic status
To examine the relationship between the participants’ academic status and L2 anxiety, thesample was divided into the following three groups: junior high school students (n=80), senior highschool students (n=80) and college students (n=80). Information regarding the participants ispresented in Table 1. A one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s post-hoc tests was conducted on thedata. Table 3 indicates that some characteristics of L2 anxiety with different communication
partners were related to academic status.

29Michiko UEKI

Table 3.
 The level of L2 anxiety in relation to each communication partner category
according to academic status

A) Japanese teachersof English
B) Foreign teachersof English
C) More capablefriends
D) Less capablefriends
E) Returnee friends

Junior highschoolstudents (1)Senior highschool students(2)

Collegestudents(3)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)F

size†

Post hoc test a

23.01 (2.76)

22.56 (3.41)

25.06 (3.61)

7.77*

.06

(1), (2) / (3)19.42 (2.51)

16.59 (3.37)

16.40 (3.59)

22.54**.16(3), (2) / (1)20.36 (2.78)

21.74(2.93)

17.71 (2.78)

21.67**.16(3) / (1), (2)10.99 (2.16)

11.65 (2.10)

11.95 (3.14)

3.07

.03

(2), (1) / (3)17.96 (3.75)

19.04(3.33)

14.06 (3.02)

39.25**.25(3) / (1), (2)EffectNote. *p < 0.01, **p < 0.001†

eta squared (.01 as a small effect, .06 as a medium effect, and .14 as a large effect)a

Numbers refer to the following academic status groups: (1) =junior high school students, (2) =senior highschool students and (3) =college students. They are presented with the lowest value coming first. A comma
between numbers indicates a non-significant difference and a slash indicates that a significant difference
exists between the two values.

Although many statistically significant differences were observed, a large effect size calculatedusing eta-squared was found only for three categories: foreign teachers of English (Category B),
more capable friends (Category C), and returnee friends (Category E). When the communication
partner was a foreign teacher of English (Category B), senior high school and college students
reported relatively lower levels of L2 anxiety. On the other hand, junior high school students
indicated a higher level of L2 anxiety. This difference might relate to the junior high students’ lackof contact with foreign teachers of English. Because the data were collected in early May, it isassumed that the students were still less experienced in communicating with foreign teachers ofEnglish. In the region where the author collected the data for the current study, foreign teachers ofEnglish came to teach English every two or three months. Therefore, students in this region had
fewer opportunities for contact with foreign teachers of English. This lack may have induced higher
levels of L2 CA in junior high school students. Several previous studies (e.g. Aida, 1994) also haveshown that frequency of contact affects the level of L2 anxiety.
When the communication partners were more capable friends (Category C), both junior highschool and senior school students reported higher levels of L2 anxiety. However, similar to theresults observed with foreign teachers of English (Category B), college students reported relatively
lower levels of L2 anxiety in this category. This discrepancy may have resulted from the classroom
30

L2 Communication Anxiety Levels in Relation to Different Communication Partners:
An Empirical Study in Japanese EFL Classrooms

systems adopted. In junior and senior high schools, students study together in EFL classrooms andin classrooms where other academic subjects are taught; however, in colleges, they do not study inthese settings. Yashima (2004) argues that the close relationships formed in junior and senior highschools result in learners being highly sensitive to classmates’ evaluation of each other; thus, thissensitivity causes higher anxiety in these classrooms. Young (1999) has claimed that when learners
are asked to express themselves using a language in which they have limited competence, the task
can be very threatening to their self-image within the system of close relationships often found insecondary schools.
When the communication partner was a Japanese teacher of English (Category A), almost all thestudents, regardless of their academic status, reported high levels of L2 anxiety, with medium effectsize. Among these students, college students showed the highest levels of anxiety. This finding iscounter-intuitive, as it might be expected that the group with a longer history of L2 communication
experiences with Japanese teachers of English would become less anxious with them than othergroups would. One possible explanation might be that college students have accumulated negative
feelings toward Japanese teachers of English.
Communicating with friends whose English skills are not strong (Category D) provoked lessanxiety in all the participants, regardless of their academic status; no difference was observed acrossthe groups. This finding is expected because anxiety is caused by fear of being evaluated by others,
and peers whose English skills are not strong are generally considered to have limited English
abilities with which they judge others’ English proficiency.
Finally, to confirm that the statistical tests reported above have sufficient power to detect thereal effects, a power analysis was conducted by using G*Power 3.0 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang &Buchner, 2009). The analysis revealed that when the effect size was large and the number of theparticipants was 240, the mean power of the statistical tests performed in this study was .98, which
is well above the conventionally acceptable power of .80 (Cohen, 1992). This result indicates thatthe statistical tests conducted in this study did detect the real effects and that the number of theparticipants in this study was sufficiently large to test the research hypotheses described above.
3. What induces learners’ L2 anxiety
Now that it has been proved that learners’ L2 anxiety level varies in relation to different
communication partners across the academic status groups, the author next turns to exploring theanxiety level variance and possible reasons for this variance through an analysis of thequestionnaire items and the interview data. Table 4 shows the means and SD values for each itemon the questionnaire according to communication partner and academic status. The analysis of thetable indicates that higher levels of L2 anxiety were often induced by fear of negative evaluation byothers (in Categories A and C) and by nervousness (in Categories B and E). This table also showsthat anxiety was often reduced by a sense of not being evaluated by others (in Category D).

31

Michiko UEKI

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for items of the questionnaire according tocommunication partner and academic status

A) Japaneseteacher ofEnglish(Į=.83)B) Foreignteacher ofEnglish(Į=.67)1C) Morecapablefriends(Į=.85)D) Less
capablefriends(Į=.74)1) I am not good at initiating conversations.
2) The things I know often slip my mind
during the conversation because I’m nervous.
3) I am always exhausted after theconversation.
4) I worry about making mistakes during theconversation.
5) I worry that the communication partner isjudging my English during the conversation.
6) I am not at ease during the conversation.
7) After the conversation, I think about how I
could have done better.
1) I am not good at initiating conversations.
2) The things I know often slip my mind
during the conversation because I’m nervous.
3) I am always exhausted after theconversation.
4) I worry about making mistakes during theconversation.
5) I worry that the communication partner isjudging my English during the conversation.
6) I am not at ease during the conversation.
7) After the conversation, I think about how I
could have done better.
1) I am not good at initiating conversations.
2) The things I know often slip my mind
during the conversation because I’m nervous.
3) I am always exhausted after theconversation.
4) I worry about making mistakes during theconversation.
5) I worry that the communication partner isjudging my English during the conversation.
6) I am not at ease during the conversation.
7) After the conversation, I think about how I
could have done better.
1) I am not good at initiating conversations.
2) The things I know often slip my mind
during the conversation because I’m nervous.
3) I am always exhausted after theconversation.
4) I worry about making mistakes during theconversation.
5) I worry that the communication partner isjudging my English during the conversation.
6) I am not at ease during the conversation.
7) After the conversation, I think about how I
could have done better.

32

Junior highschoolM
SD

Senior highschool
M
SD

M

SD

2.86

1.02

2.93

0.87

3.53

0.80

2.51

1.06

2.80

0.86

3.10

1.09

2.55

0.99

2.29

0.81

2.88

0.96

3.83

0.81

3.96

0.77

3.94

0.99

4.09

0.83

4.00

0.80

4.33

0.73

3.09

0.77

3.10

0.74

3.66

0.75

3.64

0.86

3.44

0.76

3.64

1.00

3.73

0.81

2.34

0.83

2.64

0.90

2.44

0.73

2.63

0.97

3.08

0.97

3.50

0.83

2.20

0.79

2.64

0.90

2.19

0.68

2.36

0.86

2.81

0.64

2.08

0.63

2.39

0.92

2.46

0.83

3.53

0.93

2.79

0.76

3.05

1.04

1.98

0.75

1.89

0.75

2.80

1.06

2.75

0.82

2.88

1.02

3.43

0.91

2.38

0.88

2.70

1.01

3.29

0.66

2.19

0.80

2.29

0.83

3.28

0.64

3.56

0.79

3.71

1.00

3.93

0.81

3.71

0.81

3.78

0.93

3.80

0.89

2.71

0.62

2.91

0.84

3.30

0.64

3.06

0.77

3.48

0.99

3.30

0.64

2.14

0.65

2.26

0.67

1.85

0.48

1.60

0.54

1.76

0.51

1.83

0.55

1.49

0.53

1.55

0.57

1.65

0.62

1.34

0.48

1.40

0.54

1.68

0.61

1.31

0.47

1.36

0.53

1.63

0.62

1.85

0.60

2.03

0.67

1.80

0.64

1.26

0.47

1.29

0.51

1.53

0.64

CollegeL2 Communication Anxiety Levels in Relation to Different Communication Partners:
An Empirical Study in Japanese EFL Classrooms

E) Returnee
friends(Į=.78)1) I am not good at initiating conversations.
2) The things I know often slip my mind
during the conversation because I’m nervous.
3) I am always exhausted after theconversation.
4) I worry about making mistakes during theconversation.
5) I worry that the communication partner isjudging my English during the conversation.
6) I am not at ease during the conversation.
7) After the conversation, I think about how I
could have done better.

1.65

0.76

1.95

1.04

2.58

0.81

3.33

0.95

3.29

0.86

3.08

0.99

2.26

0.69

2.45

0.86

2.65

0.87

2.15

0.60

2.26

0.67

2.76

0.58

2.14

0.78

2.25

0.79

2.49

0.78

3.50

0.94

3.66

0.94

3.05

1.01

2.94

0.95

3.18

1.08

2.79

0.97

Fear of negative evaluation by others
Communicating in L2 with a Japanese teacher of English (Category A) or more capable friends(Category C) caused the highest level of anxiety (Table 3). This highest level of anxiety seemed to
be induced by fear of another’s negative evaluation. Items #4 (I worry about making mistakes
during the conversation) and #5 (I worry that the communication partner is judging my English
during the conversation) consistently showed higher scores than other items in communicating withthese two types of partners (Table 4). Both these items are proven to relate to negative evaluation byothers (Matsuda & Gobal, 2004). Thus, learners tended to worry about L2 communication because
they feared being evaluated by Japanese teachers of English or by more capable friends. This
argument is also supported by learners’ interview protocol data, as shown in the following excerpt:
Excerpt 1: When I have English communication with a Japanese teacher of English or
more capable friends, I sometimes feel uncomfortable because I am afraid that theymight think my English is not good.
(Senior high school student D: Translation and parentheses are mine for all theexcerpts in this study)
Other excerpts also support the claim that the sense of being evaluated (by Japanese teachers ofEnglish) causes a higher level of L2 anxiety.
Excerpt 2: When I make mistakes in the English classes, the teachers (Japaneseteachers of English) always point them out either explicitly or implicitly. So, I am a bit
sensitive about making mistakes, especially in front of the teachers.
(Junior high school student A)
Excerpt 3: Whenever teachers (Japanese teachers of English) asked me to speak orcommunicate in English, they were always checking my English performance in the
fashion of a speech or interview. These experiences caused me to exhibit a kind ofnegative S-R (stimulus-response) reaction to these teachers.
(College student H)
33

Michiko UEKI

Excerpts 3 and 4 show that negative L2 learning experiences increase learners’ levels of L2 anxiety.
This finding is in line with previous studies illustrating that L2 learning experience, a crucial factor
in Dörnyei’s L2 motivational self system, is significantly associated with anxiety levels (e.g.
MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991; Muris, Merckelbach, & Meesters, 2001).
Nervousness about L2 communication
Communicating in L2 with foreign teachers of English (Category B) or returnee friends(Category E) also caused higher levels of anxiety in L2 learners. However, the mechanism behind
this seems to be different from the explanation described above. The higher level of anxiety seems
to be induced by the nervousness resulting from a lack of contact with communication partners in
Categories B and E, as Items #2 (The things I know often slip my mind during the conversation
because I’m nervous.) and #6 (I am not at ease during the conversation) consistently scored higher
than other items did (Table 4). As was discussed above, a lack of contact with communication
partners from these two categories is rather prevalent in the Japanese EFL context, and the students
are thus relatively inexperienced in communicating with their partners. This inexperience theninduces nervousness, particularly among young students, and results in higher levels of anxiety.
Excerpt 4: I tend to get nervous when I communicate with Dag (a foreign teacher ofEnglish at the school) because I am not used to having a conversation with native
speakers.
(Junior high school student H)
Although the participants reported that they were likely to become nervous whencommunicating with a foreign teacher of English (Category B) or returnee friends (Category E), thelevel of L2 anxiety induced by these partners was not as high as those induced by Japanese teachersof English (Category A) or more capable friends (Category C; see Table 2). This difference may be
explained by the tendency to have a different self-expectation or ‘ought-to L2 self’ (Dörnyei, 2009)
for different communication partners. Excerpt 5 clearly illustrates this tendency:
Excerpt 5: When communicating with a foreign teacher of English or returnee friends,
I don’t care about making mistakes so much. I am not a native speaker of English, so I
know they don’t expect me to speak perfect English. In contrast, when communicatingwith a Japanese teacher of English or more capable friends, I always try hard not tomake any mistakes. Because I have always done very well in written tests, I think theymight expect that I am supposed to do well in English conversations, as well. But, it isdifficult for me to meet their expectations. That’s why I always worry about making
mistakes in communicating with them in L2.
(Senior high school student A)

34

L2 Communication Anxiety Levels in Relation to Different Communication Partners:
An Empirical Study in Japanese EFL Classrooms

As can be seen in Excerpt 5, when the communication partner was a Japanese teacher of English or
were more capable friends, Student A thought that the partner expected her to speak English welland thus felt more anxious. In contrast, when the communication partner was a foreign teacher ofEnglish or a returnee friend, the student thought that her English skills need not be equivalent tothose of a native speaker of English; thus her level of anxiety was reduced.
Sense of not being evaluated by others
Communicating in L2 with less capable friends (Category D) tended to provoke less anxiety inlearners. As shown in Table 4, almost all the items indicated relatively lower scores when thecommunication partners were Category D students. Thus, learners felt the least anxious
communication in their L2 with less capable friends. Excerpts 5 and 6 show that the sense of not
being evaluated by the communication partner substantially reduced CA levels.
Excerpt 6: I don’t feel anxious about having a conversation with them (less capablefriends) because I don’t think they can pick up my mistakes.
(College student S)
Excerpt 7: I feel comfortable during the English conversation with them (less capablefriends) because they don’t judge my English.
(Senior high school student C)
VI. CONCLUSION
This study examined whether L2 anxiety levels varied according to communication partners. It
also investigated whether learners’ academic status (junior high, senior high, or college students)
affected their level of L2 anxiety with various communication partners.
Before the conclusion is presented, the limitations of this study should be noted. First, this study
was cross-sectional. To examine the dynamics of how different communication partners influencelearners’ L2 anxiety levels, a longitudinal design needs to be included in future studies. Second,most schools of the present study adopted a ‘regular visit system’ for ALTs. Therefore, replicating
this type of research with learners whose schools adopt other ALT-assigned systems such as the‘based school system’ (see Section IV) and the ‘occasional visit system’, in which ALTs makes
irregular visits, usually once or twice per year, might be required if we want to provide more useful
insights into general EFL teaching/learning. Lastly, the present study did not focus on therelationship among L2 anxiety; other learner factors (e.g. self-confidence and learning style) and thelearning environment (e.g. class size). Because several studies (e.g. Milles, Pajares, & Herron,2006) have revealed that such factors affect L2 anxiety, future research should investigate these
relationships.
Despite these limitations, this study provides new information on how L2 anxiety varies inrelation to communication partners; Japanese (non-native) teachers of English and more capable35

Michiko UEKI

friends induce higher levels of L2 anxiety in learners. These higher levels of anxiety seem to result
from the learners’ fear of being evaluated by the communication partners. However, foreign (native)
teachers of English and returnee friends induce moderate levels of L2 anxiety; these moderate levels
seem to result from the students’ lower contact frequency (relative lack of experience) with thesecommunication partners. This study also indicates that L2 communication with less capable friends
induces the lowest level of anxiety. This may be because learners need not worry about how theirEnglish is judged by this type of communication partner. Since the learners’ fear of being evaluatedby the communication partners promotes L2 anxiety, it can likely be alleviated by gaining
confidence in English learning. Thus, English teachers should offer suggestions for gaining
confidence or self-efficacy to their students through the use of encouragement. Finally, the results ofthis study show that learning experience and the ought-to L2 self, both of which are the crucial
factors for Dörnyei’s L2 motivational self system, are closely related to L2 anxiety, and this finding
confirms the possibility of applying the system to the study of anxiety. Thus, further research shouldlook into the relationship between L2 anxiety and underlying tenets of the L2 motivational self
system, such as the ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 selves.
Notes1) The alpha value of this subsection was relatively lower than those of other sections. However,
Dörnyei (2003) indicates that the alpha value higher than .60 is acceptable when the number ofquestionnaire items is small.
Acknowledgement
The author extends her gratitude to Professor Osamu Takeuchi at Kansai University for his
suggestions on this study; she would also like to thank all the participants in this study.
REFERENCES
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horowitz, Horowitz and Cope's construct of foreign language
anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 155Ѹ168.
Arnold, J., & Brown, H. D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language
learning (pp. 1Ѹ24). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155Ѹ159.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientation, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory,
research, and applications. Language Learning, 53, 3Ѹ32.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9Ѹ42). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Daly, J. (1991). Understanding communication apprehension: An introduction for language
educators. In E. K. Horwitz & D. Y. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research36

L2 Communication Anxiety Levels in Relation to Different Communication Partners:
An Empirical Study in Japanese EFL Classrooms

to classroom implications (pp. 3Ѹ13). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G., & Buchner, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power
3.1:Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
21,112Ѹ126.
Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching, 43, 154Ѹ155.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The
Modern Language Journal, 70, 125Ѹ132.
Jung, H. Y., & McCroskey, J. C. (2004). Communication apprehension in a first language andself-perceived competence as predictors of communication apprehension in a second language:
A study of speakers of English as a second language. Communication Quarterly, 52, 170Ѹ181.
Kim, S. Y. (2010). Questioning the stability of foreign language classroom anxiety and motivation
across different classroom contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 138Ѹ157.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of foreign language
anxiety: A review of the literature. Language Learning. 41, 85Ѹ117.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive
processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283Ѹ305.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second
language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3–26.
MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second language
proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47, 265Ѹ287.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on
willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among juniorhigh school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52, 537Ѹ564.
Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of performance in the foreign language
classroom. System, 32, 21Ѹ36.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2002). Developing a strategic plan tocultivate “Japanese with English abilities.” Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/
15/03/03031%208a.htm
Milles, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A reevaluation of the role anxiety: Self-efficacy,
anxiety, and their relation to reading and listening proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 39,
273–292.
Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., & Meesters, C. (2001). Learning experiences and anxiety sensitivity innormal adolescents. Behavioral Science Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 23, 279Ѹ283.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. London, UK:
Longman.
Papi, M. (2010). The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: A structural
37

Michiko UEKI

equation modeling approach. System, 38, 467Ѹ479.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning. Language Learning, 28, 129Ѹ142.
Tanabe, M. (2002) Self-esteem and self-evaluation in a foreign language acquisition: The case ofJapanese students in the United States. Forum of International Development Studies, 22, 113Ѹ124.
Takahashi, H. (2000). Structure-based tasks and grammar instruction for practical communicativecompetence. Tokyo, JP: Taishukan.
Yashima, T. (2004). Motivation and affect in foreign language communication. Osaka, JP: Kansai
University Press.
Yashima, T., Noels. K. A., Shizuka, T., Takeuchi, O., Yamane, S., & Yoshizawa, K. (2009). Theinterplay of classroom anxiety, intrinsic motivation, and gender in the Japanese EFL context.
Journal of Foreign Language Education and Research, 17, 41Ѹ64.
Young, D. (1986). The relationship between anxiety and foreign language oral proficiency ratings.
Foreign Language Annals, 19, 439Ѹ445.
Young, D. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety
research suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75, 426Ѹ439.
Young, D. (1999). Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide tocreating low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

38

L2 Communication Anxiety Levels in Relation to Different Communication Partners:
An Empirical Study in Japanese EFL Classrooms

Appendix: L2 Communication Anxiety Scale (Original in Japanese)
Directions: This questionnaire contains statements that may reflect your feelings about yourcommunication partners when you communicate with them in English. Please read each item andindicate whether you(1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neutral, (4) agree, (5) strongly agree.
A) Please response each statements below by imaging that you are communicating with Japaneseteacher of English.
1*
2

I am not good at initiating conversation.
The things I know often slip my mind during the conversation
because I’m nervous.

ͳȆʹȆ͵ȆͶȆͷͳȆʹȆ͵ȆͶȆͷ

3

I am always exhausted after the conversation.

ͳȆʹȆ͵ȆͶȆͷ

4

I worry about making mistakes during the conversation.

ͳȆʹȆ͵ȆͶȆͷ

5

I worry that the communication partner is judging my English
during the conversation.

ͳȆʹȆ͵ȆͶȆͷ

6*

I am not at ease during the conversation.

ͳȆʹȆ͵ȆͶȆͷ

7

After the conversation, I think about how I could have done
better.

ͳȆʹȆ͵ȆͶȆͷ* negative item

The same set of items shown above is used for B)-E) except for the directions below.
B) Please response each statement below by imaging that you are communicating in L2 withforeign teacher of English.
C) Please response each statement below by imaging that you are communicating in L2 withJapanese friends whose English skills are stronger than yours.
D) Please response each statement below by imaging that you are communicating in L2 withJapanese friends whose English skills are not as strong as yours.
E) Please response each statement below by imaging that you are communicating in L2 withreturnee friends.

39

JACET Kansai Journal, 15, 40-59. (2013) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝࡜⩦⇍ᗘࡢ㛵ಀ℈ᮏ 㝧Ꮚ㛵す኱Ꮫ㸦㠀㸧

ཎ⏣ ὒᏊ
㇏୰┳ㆤᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯ㸦㠀㸧ఀ⯅⏣ ὒஅ
ྡྂᒇእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸦㠀㸧⚄ᐊ ⱆஂ⨾
኱㜰ᗓ❧኱Ꮫ㸦㠀㸧

ABSTRACTThe current study reports on the relationship between test takers' reported use of listening strategies
and their listening comprehension proficiency. The participants were 1,008 college-level EFL
learners classified into three groups of proficiency levels: high, intermediate, and low. Findings
showed that the high-level listeners apparently preferred the use of metacognitive strategies
involving selective attention, advance organization and self-management as well as cognitive
strategies such as top-down and inferencing. On the other hand, the low-level listeners appeared to
be able to use only a limited number of LSs. What they mainly used were the bottom-up cognitive
strategies, and inferencing. As for the intermediate listeners, in the use of LSs such as advanceorganization and self-management of metacognitive strategies, they showed similar tendencies tohigh-level listeners, while in the use of other LSs such as inferencing, they were similar to the lowlevel listeners. The most marked characteristic displayed by the intermediate listeners was the useof translation while listening. These findings provide much food for thought for SLA researchers
and teachers, particularly in compiling an effective list for instruction on listening strategies.
Key words: LS, ㄆ▱ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮, ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮, ᣦᑟ⏝ LS 㡯┠

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ከࡃࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ (௨ୗ ST) ◊✲ (Chamot, 1998; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford,
1990 ࡞࡝) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚, ゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟ ST ᣦᑟࢆᑟධࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ㔜せᛶࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲ
ࡓ, Vandergrift (1999) ࡣ, ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ (௨ୗ LS) ࢆ᭷ຠ࡟౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ, ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ⬟ຊࢆྥୖࡉࡏࡿ࡜ඹ࡟, ➨஧ゝㄒᏛ⩦ࡢຠ⋡ࢆୖࡆࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛኱ࡁࡃ㈉⊩ࡍࡿ40᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝࡜⩦⇍ᗘࡢ㛵ಀ

࡜㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡾ, ࡍ࡛࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᅜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ, ࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝ࡣ Cognitive Academic
Language Learning Approach (CALLA) ࡜࠸࠺࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࡀ㛤Ⓨࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ (Chamot,2005), ࢝ࢼࢲ࡛ࡣ Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) ࡀ LS ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢࡦ࡞ᆺ࡜ࡉࢀ, ࡲࡓ, ࡑࡢ౑⏝ࡀ⫈ゎ㐣⛬࡟㛵ࡍࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ LS ㄆ㆑ࢆ㧗ࡵࡿⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ᭷┈࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢሗ࿌ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (Vandergrift, 2006)ࠋ
୍᪉᪥ᮏ࡛ࡣ, ≉࡟ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࡢศ㔝࡟࠾࠸࡚, య⣔ⓗ࡟ LS ᣦᑟࢆ┒ࡾ㎸ࢇࡔࣜࢫࢽ
ࣥࢢᣦᑟࡢᐇ㊶ࡸ◊✲ࡢṔྐࡣࡲࡔὸ࠸ࠋᑿ㛵 (2004) ࡣࡑࡢ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚኱Ꮫ࡛ࡢࣜࢫࢽ
ࣥࢢᣦᑟࡢ⌧≧࡟㚷ࡳ࡚ḟࡢ୕Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➨୍࡟, ྛ኱ᏛࡢᏛ㒊, Ꮫ⛉➼࡟࠾࠸࡚, ࢩࣛࣂࢫ, ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵタᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ, ᩍᖌࡣ LS ᣦᑟࢆ⤌ࡳධࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୙ྍ⬟ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡀࡕ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ➨஧ࡣ, LS ࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡓᤵᴗ࡟㛵ࡍࡿཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠋࡑࡋ࡚➨୕࡟, ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡣࡍ࡛࡟୰Ꮫ, 㧗ᰯࡢẁ㝵࡛ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࡢᏛ
⩦Ṕࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛, ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ LS ᣦᑟࡣຠᯝࡀ࡞࠸࡜, ᩍᖌഃࡀ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ᣦ᦬࡛࠶ࡿࠋ☜࠿࡟, ᐇ㊶ሗ࿌ࡢᩘࡶᑡ࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾ, ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢ
Ꮫ⏕ࡣ LS ࡢᮏ᱁ⓗ࡞ᣦᑟࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡑࡇ࡛➹⪅ࡽࡣᤵᴗ࡟ LS ᣦᑟࢆ⤌ࡳ㎸ࡴ࡟࠶ࡓࡾ, Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ⬟ຊ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ, ຠᯝⓗ࡞ LS 㡯┠ࢆ᥈ồࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼, ᪥ᮏㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ኱Ꮫ⏕ 1,008 ྡ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺࢆᐇ᪋ᚋ LS ࡢ౑⏝ㄆ㆑࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣ, ⫈ゎຊࡀᗈ⠊ᅖ࡟ࢃࡓࡿཧຍ⪅඲యࡢ LS ౑⏝ㄆ㆑ࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜,ࡉࡽ࡟, ㄪᰝ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࢸࢫࢺ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ⫈ゎຊࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ࡼࡾୖ఩⩌, ୰఩⩌, ୗ఩⩌ࡢ㸱⩌ࢆྲྀࡾฟࡋ, ྛ⩌㛫ࡢ LS ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢ᭷ពᕪࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾᣦᑟ࡟᭷ຠ࡞ LS
ࢆぢࡘࡅฟࡍࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ඛ⾜◊✲
2.1 ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ•ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮◊✲ࡢὶࢀLS ◊✲ࡀᮏ᱁໬ࡋጞࡵࡓࡢࡣ 80 ᖺ௦ึ㢌࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋO’Malley, Chamot, and Küpper
(1989) ࡣ, ࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒࢆẕᅜㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ㧗ᰯ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡟㡢ኌࡢㄆ▱㐣⛬ࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࢆศᯒࡍࡿ㝿࡟ᇶ࡟ࡋࡓࡢࡣ Anderson (1985) ࡢ᝟ሗฎ⌮ㄆ㆑ࣔࢹ࡛ࣝ࠶ࡾ,᝟ሗฎ⌮ࡣࢫࢸ࣮ࢪ 1 ࡢ▱ぬ (perceptual processing), ࢫࢸ࣮ࢪ 2 ࡢゎᯒ (parsing), ࢫࢸ࣮ࢪ 3 ࡢ฼⏝ (utilization) ࡜࠸࠺㐣⛬ࢆࡓ࡝ࡾ, ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ㐣⛬࡛ LS ࡢ✚ᴟⓗ࡞౑⏝ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ௜ࡅࡓࠋHenner Stanchina (1987) ࡣึࡵ࡚ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢱࢫࢡ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣓ࢱㄆ
▱ ST, ≉࡟ monitoring ࡢ㔜せᛶ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓࠋ90 ᖺ௦௨㝆ከࡃࡢ◊✲⪅ࡀ LS ࡟≉໬ࡋࡓㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ (Rost, 1990; Vandergrift, 1997)ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞◊✲࡟ࡼࡾ, ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ഴྥ
ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୖ఩⩌ࡣ᪤▱ࡢ᝟ሗࡸ⫼ᬒ▱㆑ࢆ౑ࡗࡓ elaboration ࡸ඲యࡢὶࢀ࠿ࡽෆᐜࢆᢕᥱࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ top-down ST ࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋ, monitoring ➼ࡢ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ST ࡢ౑⏝⋡ࡶ㧗࠸ࠋୗ఩⩌ࡣ㡢ኌ㠃ࡸㄒᙡ࡞࡝ಶࠎࡢ㒊ศ࠿ࡽ඲యᢕᥱ࡟⮳ࢁ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ
bottom-up ST ࡢ౑⏝ࡢ๭ྜࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ
Oxford (1990) ࡣ ST ౑⏝ࢆㄪ࡭ࡿࡓࡵࡢ 50 㡯┠ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ, Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL) ࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋ, ST ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆ㸳ẁ㝵ᑻᗘ࡛ ࡿᙧᘧࢆ☜❧ࡋࡓࠋ41℈ᮏ 㝧Ꮚ࣭ཎ⏣ ὒᏊ࣭ఀ⯅⏣ ὒஅ࣭⚄ᐊ ⱆஂ⨾

SILL ࡣ㔞ⓗ◊✲࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡀ, ST ◊✲࡟ࡣ, ᪥グ࡟ࡼࡿ diary method ࡸᛮ⪃㐣⛬ࢆཱྀ⟅
࡛㏙࡭ࡿ think-aloud ἲ࡞࡝㉁ⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
2.2 ᮏ◊✲࡟㢮ఝࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ ᮏ◊✲ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺㝿࡟, 㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ┦㐪Ⅼࡶ᫂☜࡞ḟࡢ 4 ࡘࡢㄽᩥ Vandergrift(1997), ᇛ㔝 (2003), Ho (2006), 㕥ᮌ (2009) ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
Vandergrift (1997) ࡣ, LS ౑⏝ࡢㄪᰝᡭ㡰, ཧຍ⪅ࡢつᶍ, ࣞ࣋ࣝศࡅ, ゝㄒ㛫ࡢ㊥㞳࡟࠾࠸࡚➹⪅ࡽࡢ◊✲࡜␗࡞ࡿࠋཧຍ⪅ࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ே࡛ 16, 17 ṓࡢ㧗ᰯ⏕ 36 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨୍ゝㄒࡣⱥㄒ, ➨஧ゝㄒࡣࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒ࡛࠶ࡾ, ゝㄒ㛫ࡢ㊥㞳ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒᑐⱥㄒ࡜ẚ࡭࡚㏆࠸ࠋࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒࡢ 4 ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ authentic ࡞ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢᩍᮦࢆ⏝࠸, Cohen (1987) ࡢ verbal reportࡢ཰㞟᪉ἲࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡚, ㄪᰝࡀ⾜࡞ࢃࢀࡓࠋ➨ 1 ẁ㝵࡛ᅇ㢳ᘧ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆ⾜࠸ 21ே࡟ཧຍ⪅ࢆ⤠ࡾ㎸ࡳ, ➨ 2 ẁ㝵่࡛⃭ᅇ᝿ἲ (stimulated recall) ࢆ⏝࠸࡚, ࢸࢫࢺ┤ᚋ࡟⮬ᕫほᐹࢆࡉࡏࡓࠋ➨ 3 ẁ㝵࡛ think-aloud ἲࢆ⏝࠸, LS ά⏝≧ἣࢆㄪ࡭ࡓࠋࡇࡢ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿ LS ศ㢮ࡣࠕㄆ▱ࠖࠕ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ࠖࠕ♫఍᝟ពࠖࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡋ, ཧຍ⪅ࡀ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ LS
඲యࡢ 8 ๭⛬ᗘࡀㄆ▱ ST ࡜୍␒㧗ࡃ, ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ ST ࡀ 1~2 ๭⛬ᗘ, ♫఍᝟ព ST ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ, ୰఩⩌ࡣୗ఩⩌࡟ẚ࡭ࡿ࡜࣓ࢱㄆ▱ ST(≉࡟ comprehension monitoring, planning, problem identification) ࢆ⣙ 2 ಸ౑⏝ࡋ, ୗ఩⩌ࡣㄆ▱ ST (≉࡟ translation, transfer, repetition) ࢆ୰఩⩌ࡼࡾከࡃ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᇛ㔝 (2003) ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ, ཧຍ⪅ࡣ Super English Language High School ࡢⱥㄒ⛉ 1 ᖺ⏕
39 ྡ (⏨Ꮚ: 7 ྡ, ዪᏊ: 32 ྡ) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⱥㄒ᳨ᐃ‽ 2 ⣭ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺ࡛ᖹᆒ 7 ๭ࡢᚓⅬ⋡ࢆ♧ࡍ࡯࡝, ୍⯡ⓗ࡞⩦⇍ࣞ࣋ࣝࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀᮏ◊✲࡜ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ, ㄆ▱ ST, ⿵ൾ ST, ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ ST ࡢ࠺ࡕ, ≉࡟, ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢຊୖ఩⪅࡜ୗ఩⪅࡜ࡢ㛫࡟᭷ពᕪࡀ࠶ࡾ฼⏝㢖ᗘ࡟኱ࡁࡃ㛤ࡁࡢ࠶ࡿ ST ࢆᤵᴗ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࢇࡔ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛, ᮏ◊✲࡜ࡢ┦㐪ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ
Ho (2006) ࡣ, ⱥㄒᑓᨷࡢ୰ᅜㄒヰ⪅ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ 190 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ, ྎ‴ࡢⱥㄒ᳨ᐃヨ㦂(ึ⣭ࡣᅜẸ୰Ꮫ༞ᴗ⛬ᗘ, ୰⣭ࡣ㧗⣭୰Ꮫ༞ᴗ⛬ᗘ, ୰㧗⣭ࡣ୍⯡ࡢ኱Ꮫ༞ᴗ⛬ᗘ, 㧗⣭ࡣ኱Ꮫࡢⱥㄒᑓᨷಟ஢ࡲࡓࡣⱥㄒᅪࡢ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᏛ఩ྲྀᚓ⪅⛬ᗘ, ඃ⣭ࡣ㧗➼ᩍ⫱ࢆཷࡅࡓⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅⛬ᗘ) ࡢ 5 ࣞ࣋ࣝ୰ 3 ␒┠࡟࠶ࡓࡿࠕ୰㧗⣭ࠖࣞ࣋ࣝࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ ◊ ✲ ࡜ ࡣ ᑓ ᨷ , ཧ ຍ ⪅ ᩘ , ࢸ ࢫ ࢺ ࡢ 㞴 ᫆ ᗘ ࡀ ኱ ࡁ ࡃ ␗ ࡞ ࡿ ࠋ Ho (2006) ࡣ selfmanagement, self-monitoring ࡞࡝ࡢ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ ST ࡀከࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜, ࡲࡓ, LS ౑⏝≧ἣࡣ⫈ゎ⬟ຊ࡟ᐦ᥋࡞㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㕥ᮌ (2009) ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ, ᫂♧ⓗ LS ᣦᑟࡀᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡀᮏ◊✲࡜ࡢ㐪࠸࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧ
ຍ⪅ࡣࠕᖹᆒⓗ࡞㧗ᰯ⏕ࡢ⩦⇍ᗘࠖ࡟‶ࡓ࡞࠸, ⱥ᳨ 4 ⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᐃ᫬ไㄢ⛬ 1 ᖺḟ࠿ࡽ
4 ᖺḟ (15 ṓ࠿ࡽ 19 ṓ) ࡢ㧗ᰯ⏕ 12 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ஦๓࣭஦ᚋࢸࢫࢺ࡟ⱥ᳨ 3 ⣭ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥ
ࢢࢸࢫࢺࢆ⏝࠸, 6 ᅇࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚ࢸࢫࢺ๓࡜ࢸࢫࢺ୰࡟᫂♧ⓗ࡞ LS カ⦎ࢆ⾜࠸, ࢸࢫࢺᚋ࡟グ㏙ᘧ࡛ࠕ᭷┈࡜ឤࡌࡓ LSࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⟅࠼ࡉࡏࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ, ཧຍ⪅ࡣࠕⱥㄒࢆ㢌࡟ṧࡍࠖ, ࠕᙉࡃⓎ㡢ࡉࢀࡓㄒࡢព࿡࡟Ẽࢆࡘࡅࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࢆࠕࡇࢀࡣ࠸࠸࡜ᛮࡗࡓࢫ
ࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠶ࡆࡓ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣ LS ᣦᑟࡢ᭷ຠᛶࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀ, ࡲ42᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝࡜⩦⇍ᗘࡢ㛵ಀࡓ, LS ᣦᑟࡀᏛ⩦ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿཧຍ⪅⮬㌟ࡢ LS ౑⏝ㄆ㆑ࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡶゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➹⪅ࡽࡢㄪᰝࡣཧຍ⪅ࡀ 1,000 ேつᶍ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜, ᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜, ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⫈ゎࣞ࣋ࣝࡀከᒱ࡟ࢃࡓࡿࡇ࡜➼࡟࠾࠸࡚ୖ㏙ࡢ◊✲࡜ࡣ኱ࡁࡃ␗࡞ࡿࠋ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢෆヂࡣ, 1
ᖺ⏕ 695 ྡ (⏨Ꮚ: 506 ྡ, ዪᏊ: 189 ྡ㸹௨ୗྠࡌ), 2 ᖺ⏕ 229 ྡ (129, 100), 3 ᖺ⏕ 44
ྡ (39, 5), 4 ᖺ⏕ 40 ྡ (26, 14) ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢㄪᰝࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᇶ࡟, ᣦᑟ࡟᭷ຠ࡞ LS 㡯┠
ࢆぢࡘࡅฟࡍព⩏ࡣ༑ศ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࡑࢀࡣ, ᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢ LS ౑⏝ㄆ㆑ࡢ⌧ᐇ࡟ࡼࡾ㏕ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ, ࡲࡓ, ᵝࠎ࡞⫈ゎຊࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᏛ⏕ࢆᢸᙜࡍࡿ᪥ᮏࡢⱥㄒᣦᑟ⪅ࡀࡇࡢ⌧≧ࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ, ⩦⇍ᗘ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ LS ᣦᑟࢆᐇ㊶ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ᙺ❧ࡘ࡜☜ಙࡍࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3. ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ•ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ࡜ LS ࡢᐃ⩏ᮏ◊✲ࡢࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
1. ⩦⇍ᗘࡀከᵝ࡞᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ࡀࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺࢆཷࡅࡿ㝿ࡢ LS ౑⏝ㄆ㆑ࡢᐇែࡣ
࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࠋ
2. ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ⩦⇍ᗘู࡟ࡳ࡚, LS ౑⏝ㄆ㆑࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᕪ␗ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࠋ
3. ୖ఩⩌, ୰఩⩌, ୗ఩⩌ࡢ LS ౑⏝ㄆ㆑ࡢ≉ᚩࡣఱ࠿ࠋ
ࡲࡓ, ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡢ LS ࡢᐃ⩏ࡣࠕຠ⋡ࡼࡃ⫈ゎࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟, ㊊ࡾ࡞࠸ຊࢆ⿵࠸, ᣢ࡚ࡿຊࢆࡼࡾᘬࡁฟࡍࡓࡵ࡟ά⏝ࡍࡿࡶࡢࠖ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓ, ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢ๓࡟ࢸࢫࢺࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ, ᵝࠎ࡞ࢸࢫࢺ࣭ࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢ ST ࡶㄪᰝᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࡀ, ࡇࢀࡽࡶࢸࢫࢺ࡛ṇゎ࡟⮳ࡿࡓࡵ࡟⾜࠺ព㆑ⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃ࡸ⾜ື࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ LS 㡯┠࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࠋ
4. ᪉ἲ
4.1 ཧຍ⪅ ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㛵す࡜㤳㒔ᅪࡢᅜබ❧, ⚾❧኱Ꮫࡢ୺࡟㸯ᖺ⏕ࡢᩥ⣔, ⌮⣔Ꮫ⏕ 1,008 ྡ࡛࠶ࡾ, ෆ㸯ᖺ௨ୖⱥㄒᅪ࡟⁫ᅾࡋࡓ⤒㦂ࢆᣢࡘᏛ⏕ࡣ㸴ྡ, ⱥㄒࢆ୺ࡓࡿゝㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ゝㄒ࣭ᩥ໬ࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿᑓ㛛㡿ᇦ࡟ᡤᒓࡍࡿᏛ⏕ࡣ㸰ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋㄪᰝࡣ 2011 ᖺ 7 ᭶ JACET 㛵すࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ◊✲఍࡟ᡤᒓࡍࡿᩍဨࡀᢸᙜࡍࡿࢡࣛࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋグධ㡯┠࡟඲ࡃḞᦆ್ࡢ࡞࠸ཧຍ⪅ࡣ 791 ྡ (⏨Ꮚ: 549 ྡ, ዪᏊ: 242 ྡ)ࠋศᩓศᯒ࡟⏝࠸ࡓཧຍ⪅ࡣ 441ྡ (⏨Ꮚ: 304 ྡ, ዪᏊ: 137 ྡ) ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
4.2 ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ኱Ꮫධヨࢭࣥࢱ࣮ヨ㦂, ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺ (௨ୗ, ࠕࢭࣥࢱ࣮ヨ㦂ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺࠖ) ᖹᡂ 18 ᖺᗘᮏヨ㦂ࢆணഛㄪᰝ㸯, ணഛㄪᰝ㸰, ᮏㄪᰝ࡟࠾࠸࡚౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋ౑⏝⌮⏤ࡣ, ࢭࣥࢱ࣮ヨ㦂ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺࡀ⫈ゎ⾜ື࡜ࡢ㧗࠸┦㛵㛵ಀࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
࡜ඹ࡟, ᵓᡂᴫᛕࡢጇᙜᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㧗࠸ホ౯ࢆᚓ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿ (ෆ⏣௚, 2010)ࠋ
 ࢸࢫࢺࡣ඲ 25 ၥ, ࢸࢫࢺᡤせ᫬㛫ࡣ⣙ 40 ศ, ࣐࣮ࢡࢩ࣮ࢺᙧᘧ࡛, ᵓᡂ, ྛၥࡢෆᐜࡣ
௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

43℈ᮏ 㝧Ꮚ࣭ཎ⏣ ὒᏊ࣭ఀ⯅⏣ ὒஅ࣭⚄ᐊ ⱆஂ⨾➨ 1 ၥ : ஧ேࡢᑐヰࢆ⪺ࡁ, ࢖ࣛࢫࢺ, ᩘᏐ, ㄒྃ➼ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿၥ㢟 (6 ၥ)➨ 2 ၥ : ஧ேࡢᑐヰࢆ⪺ࡁ, ᭱ᚋࡢⓎゝ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ┦ᡭࡢᛂ⟅ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿၥ㢟 (7 ၥ)➨ 3 ၥ : (A) ▷࠸ᑐヰࢆ⪺ࡁ, ࡑࡢෆᐜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉁ၥࡢ⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿၥ㢟 (3 ၥ)(B) 㛗ࡵࡢᑐヰࢆ⪺ࡁ, ࡑࡢෆᐜ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚⾲ࡢ✵ᡤ⿵඘ࢆࡍࡿၥ㢟 (3 ၥ)➨ 4 ၥ : (A) ▷࠸ⱥᩥ (90 ㄒ⛬ᗘ) ࢆ⪺ࡁ, ࡑࡢෆᐜ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿၥ㢟 (3 ၥ)(B) 㛗ࡵࡢⱥᩥ (200 ㄒ⛬ᗘ) ࢆ⪺ࡁ, ࡑࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⟅࠼   ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿၥ㢟 (3 ၥ)

4.3 ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⏝⣬ (Appendix 1) ࡢసᡂ SILL Version 7.0 (ESL/EFL) ࢆᇶ࡟సࡽࢀࡓᇛ㔝 (2003) ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ㡯┠ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࢭࣥࢱ࣮ヨ㦂ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺࡀ, ࠕⱥㄒࢆ⪺࠸࡚㑅ᢥ⫥ၥ㢟࡟⟅࠼ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺タᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ, ཧຍ⪅ࡀ, ࢸࢫࢺ࣭ࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢ ST ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆண᝿ࡋ, ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ
40 㡯┠ࡢ୰࡟ከᩘࡢࢸࢫࢺ࣭ࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢ ST ࢆຍ࠼ࡓࠋࡑࡢ౑⏝≧ἣࡶ⪃ᐹ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࡢࡀᮏ◊✲ࡢ≉ᚩࡢ㸯ࡘ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ㡯┠ࡢᥦ♧㡰ᗎ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⤖ᯝࡀᕥྑࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟,ྠෆᐜ࡛๓༙ᚋ༙ࡢ㡰ࢆ㏫࡟ࡋࡓ㸰✀㢮ࡢ⏝⣬ࢆ⏝ពࡋࡓࠋ5 ẁ㝵ᑻᗘ (1: ࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞
࠸ࠋ5㸸࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡿ) ࡟グධࢆ౫㢗ࡋࡓࠋཧຍ⪅ࡀグධ࡟せࡋࡓ᫬㛫ࡣ⣙ 10 ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(Appendix 1 ཧ↷)
4.4 ㄪᰝᡭ㡰࡜ࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ
4.4.1 ணഛㄪᰝ㸯ணഛㄪᰝ 1 ࡣ 2011 ᖺ 3 ᭶࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋ, ୺࡟࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢ㉁ၥ㡯┠ࡢᩥゝ, ⾲⌧➼ࡀసᡂ⪅
ࡢពᅗ㏻ࡾ࡟ㄞࡳᡭ࡟ఏࢃࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋཧຍ⪅ࡣ, 17 ྡࠋࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺ,࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺᚋ, ㉁ၥ㡯┠ࡢ⾲⌧➼࡟ࡘ࠸࡚, ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾㄪᰝ (㸯ே 60 ศ⛬ᗘ) ࢆ⾜࠸⋡┤࡞ពぢࡀᚓࡽࢀ, ⱝᖸࡢ⾲⌧ಟṇ࡜㉁ၥ㡯┠ࡢ୪࡭᭰࠼ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
4.4.2 ணഛㄪᰝ㸰 ணഛㄪᰝ㸰ࡣ 2011 ᖺ 5 ᭶࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡣ㉁ၥ㡯┠ࡢෆᐜࡸࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡉࡽ࡟᳨ウࡋࡓࠋཧຍ⪅ 136 ྡࡣ, ୺࡟㸯ᖺ⏕ (⏨ᛶ 57 ྡ, ዪᛶ 79 ྡ) ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋྛᐇ
᪋⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᡭ㡰ࡸᣦ♧ෆᐜ࡟㐪࠸ࡀฟ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟సᡂࡉࢀࡓᐇ᪋࣐ࢽࣗ࢔ࣝ, ࠕヨ㦂๓ᣦ♧ࠖࢆㄞࡳୖࡆ, ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺ, ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ⤖ᯝ, ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺ
ࡢᚓⅬ (⣲Ⅼ 25) ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ, ᖹᆒⅬ 11.5, ᶆ‽೫ᕪ 5.67 ࢆᚓࡓࠋྛ㉁ၥ㡯┠ࡢᖹᆒ್࠿
ࡽ±ᶆ‽೫ᕪࢆィ⟬ࡋ, ⤖ᯝ Q14, Q25 ࡟ࡣኳ஭ຠᯝࡑࡋ࡚ Q40 ࡟ࡣᗋຠᯝࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ
Q14㸸ᤄ⤮ࡸᅗ⾲ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࡣඛ࡟ぢࡓࠋ
Q25㸸ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ຺࡛⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔࠋ
Q40㸸ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ, ࠸ࡘࡶྠࡌ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆ࣐࣮ࢡࡋࡓࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࢆ㉁ၥ㡯┠࡟ྵࡵࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࢆ᳨ウࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ, 1,008 ྡࡢᏛ⏕࠿ࡽࡶྠᵝࡢ⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵ, ࠶࠼࡚ࡇࢀࡽࡢ㉁ၥ㡯┠ࢆಟṇࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

44᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝࡜⩦⇍ᗘࡢ㛵ಀ

4.4.3 ᮏㄪᰝ 1,008 ྡ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚, ணഛㄪᰝ㸰࡜ྠࡌᡭ㡰࡛ 2011 ᖺ 7 ᭶࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ඲ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆධຊᚋ,ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢಙ㢗ᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟, ㉁ၥ㡯┠࡟඲ࡃグධ₃ࢀࡢ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ 791 ྡࢆ㑅ฟࡋ,
EXCEL ⤫ィ㛵ᩘࢆ⏝࠸࡚⤫ィฎ⌮ࢆ⾜࠸௨ୗࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⟬ฟࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ, ⩦⇍ᗘูࡢ LSࡢ≉ᚩࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟, ୖ఩⩌, ୰఩⩌, ୗ఩⩌, 441 ྡࢆ㑅ࡧฟࡋࡓࠋᡭἲࡣ, ࢸࢫࢺࡢᖹᆒ್࠿ࡽ±1/4 ࡢ⠊ᅖࢆ୰఩⩌࡜ࡋ, ࡑࢀ࡟ྜࢃࡏ, ୖ, ୗ఩⩌ࡢᚓⅬ⠊ᅖࢆㄪᩚࡋ 3⩌ࢆỴᐃࡋࡓ (⾲ 1)ࠋ791 ྡࡢグ㏙⤫ィ㔞 (⾲ 2) ࠾ࡼࡧᚓⅬศᕸ (ᅗ 1) ࡣ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ, 791 ྡࡢ LS ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢᖹᆒ್ࡢ㝆㡰 10 㡯┠ (⾲ 4-1), ᪼㡰 10 㡯┠(⾲ 4-2) ࢆ 5.1 ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ 1 ࡟♧ࡍࠋ

⩌
ୖ఩⩌
୰఩⩌
ୗ఩⩌

⾲ 1. ศᩓศᯒ࡟⏝࠸ࡓྛ⩌ࡢෆヂ
ேᩘ
ᖹᆒⅬ
ᶆ‽೫ᕪ
169
22.17
1.26
152
16.08
0.83
120
7.07
1.73

⣲Ⅼ
21ࠥ25
15ࠥ17
01ࠥ09

 ⾲ 2. ᚓⅬࡢグ㏙⤫ィ㔞㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌⣲Ⅼᖹᆒ
15.69279393
ᶆ‽ㄗᕪ
0.185015088
୰ኸ್
16
᭱㢖್
21
ᶆ‽೫ᕪ
5.203497962
ศᩓ
27.07639104
ᑤᗘ-0.73231774
ṍᗘ-0.36943925
⠊ᅖ
24
᭱ᑠ
1
᭱኱
25
ྜィ
12413
ᶆᮏᩘ
791
ᅗ 1. ᚓⅬศᕸࡉࡽ࡟, ࡇࢀࡽࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᇶ࡟ࠕࢱ࢖ࣉู ౑⏝ LS ศᕸ⾲ࠖ (Appendix 2) ࢆసᡂࡋࡓࠋ
5. ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ   ᮏ◊✲࡛ㄪᰝࡋࡓ LS 㡯┠ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾ, Vandergrift (1997) ࡸ Chamot & Küpper
(1989) ࡢศ㢮ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡚, ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ศ㢮⾲ࢆసᡂࡋࡓ (⾲ 3)ࠋㄆ▱ ST, ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ ST, ᝟ព ST, ࢸࢫࢺ࣭ࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢ ST ࡟኱ูࡋ, ୗ఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚ top-down,bottom-up, selective attention ࡞࡝ᮏ◊✲࡟㛵ࢃࡿ LS ⏝ㄒࡢᐃ⩏ࢆグࡋࡓࠋLS ศ㢮࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ, ◊✲⪅㛫࡟ࡶᵝࠎ࡞ぢゎࡀ࠶ࡿࡀ, ࡇࡢ⾲ࡣᮏ◊✲ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆຍ࠼࡚࠸ࡃୖ࡛ࡢ୍ࡘࡢぢ᪉࡜ࡋ࡚ࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡍ࡛࡟㏙࡭ࡓඛ⾜◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝࡶࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏝ㄒ࡛45℈ᮏ 㝧Ꮚ࣭ཎ⏣ ὒᏊ࣭ఀ⯅⏣ ὒஅ࣭⚄ᐊ ⱆஂ⨾ሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ, ௚ࡢ◊✲⤖ᯝ࡜ࡢẚ㍑ࡶᐜ᫆࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑦ, ㉁ၥ㡯┠ࡀ」ᩘ
ࡢ LS ࡟࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࣛࢵࣉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

LS

⾲ 3. LS ศ㢮⾲
ෆᐜㄝ᫂

㉁ၥ㡯┠

‫ی‬ㄆ
ㄆ▱ ST
Top-down඲య࠿ࡽ㒊ศ࡬࡜⌮ゎࡍࡿ

Bottom-up
Prediction
Inferencing
Elaboration
Imagery
Translation
Repetition
Note-taking
Memorizing㒊ศ࠿ࡽ඲య࡬࡜⌮ゎࡍࡿඛࢆண ࡍࡿ
᪤▱ㄒ, ᩥ⬦᝟ሗࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ᮍ▱ㄒࡸෆᐜࢆ᥎ ࡍࡿ⫼ᬒ▱㆑, ⮬ᕫయ㦂࡞࡝ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ෆᐜࢆ᥎ ࡍࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᥥࡃ
⩻ヂࡍࡿᚰࡢ୰࡛ࣇ࣮ࣞࢬ࡞࡝ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍ࣓ࣔࢆ࡜ࡿ⫈ゎෆᐜࡢグ᠈ࢆಖᣢࡍࡿ

02, 04, 10, 13, 17, 18
19, 20, 26, 38, 39
11, 12, 15, 16
01
10, 23, 39
36
28
21
07
24, 3305‫࣓ی‬࣓ࢱㄆ▱ ST
Advance organization
Selective attention

ᴫせᢕᥱࡢࡓࡵ࡟, ୺せ࡞㡯┠࡟ὀពࡍࡿ
࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ, ኌࡢㄪᏊ࡞࡝≉ᐃࡢഃ㠃࡟ὀពࡍࡿ

Self-management
Monitoring≧ἣࢆᢕᥱࡋ, ≧ἣ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ᑐฎࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ
⮬ᕫࡢ⌮ゎᗘࢆࣔࢽࢱ࣮ࡋಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡿ⮬ᕫࡢឤ᝟㠃ࡢ᧯స࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿᛮ⪃ࡸ⾜ືࢸࢫࢺ࡛ṇゎ࡟⮳ࡿࡓࡵ࡟⾜࠺ព㆑ⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃ࡸ⾜ື

‫ی‬᝟
᝟ព ST
‫ࢸی‬
ࢸࢫࢺ࣭ࢸ
ࢸ࢖࢟ࣥ
ࢢ ST
‫ࡑی‬
ࡑࡢ௚

03, 14, 22
02, 06, 11, 12, 13
27, 30, 32, 33, 34
26
34
26, 3503, 06, 07, 08, 09, 12
14, 22, 26, 29, 30, 31
34, 35, 37
25, 40ḟ࡟ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥࡈ࡜࡟⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠋ⪃ᐹࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⩦⇍ᗘ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ, ຠᯝⓗ࡞ LS 㡯┠ࢆ᥈ồࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽຍ࠼࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
5.1 ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ 1 ⩦⇍ᗘࡀከᵝ࡞᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ࡀࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺࢆཷࡅࡿ㝿ࡢ LS ౑⏝ㄆ㆑ࡢᐇែࡣ࡝
ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࠋ
791 ྡࡢ LS ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢᖹᆒ್ (㝆㡰) ཬࡧ, LS ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢᖹᆒ್ (᪼㡰) (⾲ 4-1,
4-2) ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ඲㡯┠ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢᖹᆒ್ࡣ 5 ẁ㝵ࢫࢣ࣮࡛ࣝ 3.19, ᖹᆒ್௨ୖࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡣ 40 㡯┠୰ 24 㡯┠࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾲ 4-1 ࡣ඲ཧຍ⪅ࡢ LS ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢ᭱ࡶ㧗࠸㡰࡟♧ࡉࢀࡓ LS ࢆ♧ࡍࡀ, ୖ఩ࢆ༨ࡵࡿ Q14, Q03, Q22, Q30, Q34 ࡣࢸࢫࢺ࣭ࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢ
ST ࡛࠶ࡾ, ཧຍ⪅ࡀ୰Ꮫ, 㧗ᰯ࡛ᵝࠎ࡞ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺࢆཷࡅࡿ୰࡛⩦ᚓࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ LSࡔ࡜᥎ ࡍࡿࠋຍ࠼࡚, ࡇࢀࡽࡢ࠺ࡕ, Q30, Q34 ࡣ selective attention ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓ, 6 ఩௨㝆ࡢ Q26, Q10, Q39, Q04 ࡣཧຍ⪅ࡀ top-down ST ࢆ⏝࠸ࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ LS ࡣཧຍ⪅ࡢࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦Ṕࡢ୰࡛ᣦᑟࡀຍࢃࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ,⮬ື໬࡟ࡲ࡛ࡣ⮳ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ, Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟࡞ࡌࡳࡢ࠶ࡿ LS ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜᥎ᐹࡍࡿࠋ

46᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝࡜⩦⇍ᗘࡢ㛵ಀ

⾲ 4-1. ඲ཧຍ⪅ࡢᖹᆒ್ࡢ㧗࠸㡰 (㝆㡰) TOP 10 (N=791)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
㸷
10

LS
Q14
Q03
Q22
Q30
Q25
Q26
Q10
Q39
Q34
Q04

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
㸷
10

LS
Q40
Q24
Q33
Q07
Q32
Q27
Q09
Q11
Q01
Q19

ෆᐜㄝ᫂
ᤄ⤮ࡸᅗ⾲ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࡣඛ࡟ぢࡓタၥࢆඛ࡟ㄞࢇࡔ
ゎ⟅ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆඛ࡟ㄞࢇࡔタၥ࡟㛵ಀࡢ࠶ࡿ⟠ᡤࢆ≉࡟ὀពࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ຺࡛⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔṇ☜࡟⪺ࡅ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ࡣࡇࡔࢃࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ
᩿∦ⓗ࡞᝟ሗࢆᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡟⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔ⪺ࡁྲྀࢀࡓㄒྃࡔࡅ࡛ෆᐜࢆ᥎ ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪺࠸ࡓ
1 ᅇ┠࡛⪺ࡃ࡭ࡁ࣏࢖ࣥࢺࡢぢᙜࢆ௜ࡅ, 2 ᅇ┠࡛ࡑࢀ࡟㞟୰ࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓ఍ヰࡸ㛗ᩥࡢヰ㢟ࡸ୺㢟ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ

ᖹᆒ್
4.43
4.24
4.06
3.96
3.94
3.73
3.71
3.70
3.68
3.60

⾲ 4-2. ඲ཧຍ⪅ࡢᖹᆒ್ࡢప࠸㡰 (᪼㡰) TOP 10 (N=791)
ෆᐜㄝ᫂ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ, ࠸ࡘࡶྠࡌ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆ࣐࣮ࢡࡋࡓ
⪺ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽ࣓ࣔࢆ࡜ࡗࡓ
ᩘᏐࡣ࣓ࣔࢆྲྀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓ
⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡁࡓⱥㄒࢆ, ኌࢆฟࡉࡎ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡓ఍ヰၥ㢟࡛ࡣ, ヰࡋᡭࡢឤ᝟ࢆࡃࡳྲྀࢁ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ
࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ 㸦ኌࡢୖࡀࡾୗࡀࡾ㸧 ࡟Ẽࢆࡘࡅ࡚⪺࠸ࡓ
1 ᅇ┠࡟⪺࠸ࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࡧ, 2 ᅇ┠࡟ࡣḟࡢၥ㢟࡟ഛ࠼ࡓ᫬ไ 㸦⌧ᅾ, 㐣ཤ, ᮍ᮶㸧 ࡟ὀពࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓඛࢆண ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪺࠸ࡓᩥࡸㄒྃࡢษࢀ┠࡟ὀពࡋࡓ

ᖹᆒ್
1.67
1.97
2.26
2.30
2.41
2.46
2.58
2.61
2.72
2.74

⾲ 4-2 ࡣ, ඲ཧຍ⪅ࡢ౑⏝ㄆ㆑ࡀ᭱ࡶప࠿ࡗࡓ LS ࢆ᭱ୗ఩࠿ࡽ 10 㡯┠♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭱
ୗ఩ࡢ Q40 ࡣணഛㄪᰝࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ᗋຠᯝࡀฟ࡚࠸ࡓࡶࡢ࡛, ㉁ၥ㡯┠࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ୙㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ෌☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋㄆ▱ ST ࡢ୰࡛ࡣ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢప࠸㡰࡟ note-taking (Q24), repetition (Q07),
prediction (Q01) ࡀࡳࡽࢀ, ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ ST ࡢ୰࡛ࡣ selective attention (Q33, Q32, Q27, Q11) ࡤ࠿ࡾࡀ 4 㡯┠᳨ฟࡉࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓ, ⫈ゎࣞ࣋ࣝࡀୖࡀࡽ࡞࠸࡜౑࠸࡟ࡃ࠸ࡶࡢ (Q24, Q09,
Q01) ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
5.2 ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ 2ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ⩦⇍ᗘู࡟ࡳ࡚, LS ౑⏝ㄆ㆑࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᕪ␗ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࠋ ୖ఩⩌, ୰఩⩌, ୗ఩⩌ࡀㄆ㆑ࡋࡓ LS ౑⏝ᗘࡢ᭷ពᕪ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢹ࣮ࢱ⤖ᯝࡀ㞟⣙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕࢱ࢖ࣉู ౑⏝ LS ศᕸ⾲ࠖ (Appendix 2) ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ, ࢱ࢖ࣉࡈ࡜࡟⤖ᯝࢆ㏙࡭,⪃ᐹࢆຍ࠼࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
ศᕸ⾲࡛ࡣ඲ 40 㡯┠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ୖ఩⩌, ୰఩⩌, ୗ఩⩌ࡀ౑⏝ࡋࡓ LS ࢆ, Type A, B, C, D࡟ศ㢮ࡋ, ౑⏝ᗘࡢ᭷ពᕪࡢ඲యࡀ୍ぴ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓࠋ⾲ୗࡢ Remarks ࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟,Į ࡣୖ఩⩌࡜ୗ఩⩌ࡢ㛫࡟᭷ពᕪࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ, ȕ ࡣୖ఩⩌࡜୰఩⩌ࡢ㛫࡟᭷ពᕪࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ,Ȗ ࡣ୰఩⩌࡜ୗ఩⩌ࡢ㛫࡟᭷ពᕪࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⾲୰ࡢྛ Type ḍࡢୗ࡟ Į, ȕ, Ȗࡀ⤌ྜࡏู࡟グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋType A ࡣ Į, ȕ, Ȗ ࡍ࡭࡚ࢆྵࡴࡶࡢ, Type B1 ࡣ Į ࡜ ȕ ࢆྵࡴࡶࡢ, Type B2 ࡣ Į ࡜ Ȗ ࢆྵࡴࡶࡢ, Type C1 ࡣ Į ࡢࡳ, Type C2 ࡣ ȕ ࡢࡳ, Type C3 ࡣ Ȗ ࡢࡳ,
Type D ࡣ Į, ȕ, Ȗ ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡶྵࡲ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྛ㡯┠࡟㛵ࡍࡿୖ, ୰, ୗ఩⩌ࡢ᭷ពᕪࢆࢫࢸ࢕ࢵࢡࡢ㛗ࡉ࡛♧ࡋ, ྛ⩌ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᖹᆒ್ࢆୖ఩⩌ࡣ㯮, ୰఩⩌ࡣᩳ⥺, ୗ఩⩌ࡣ⅊Ⰽ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ⾲඲యࡢᕥྑࡢᩘ್ࡣ 5 ẁ㝵ᑻᗘ࡛࠶ࡾ, ྛࢫࢸ࢕ࢵࢡࢆ▷ࡃᶓษࡿᐇ⥺47℈ᮏ 㝧Ꮚ࣭ཎ⏣ ὒᏊ࣭ఀ⯅⏣ ὒஅ࣭⚄ᐊ ⱆஂ⨾ࡣ 3 ⩌ࡢᖹᆒ್࡛࠶ࡿࠋᯟ඲యࢆᶓษࡿ㛗࠸⥺ࡣ඲㡯┠ࡢᖹᆒ್ (3.19) ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࢫ࣮ࣔࣝ a ࡣୖ఩⩌࡟࡞ࡿ࡯࡝, ࢫ࣮ࣔࣝ b ࡣୗ఩⩌࡟࡞ࡿ࡯࡝౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ LS ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋType AĮ, ȕ, Ȗ ࡢ 3 ࣇ࢓ࢡࢱ࣮ࡀྠ᫬࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ, ୖ఩⩌࡜ୗ఩⩌, ୖ఩⩌࡜୰఩⩌, ୰఩⩌࡜ୗ఩⩌ࡢ඲࡚࡟᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࠋ
a  ୖ㸼୰㸼ୗ(ୖ఩⩌࡯࡝ᩘ್ࡀ㧗࠸)

Q30 タၥ࡟㛵ಀࡢ࠶ࡿ⟠ᡤࢆ≉࡟ὀព

ᖹᆒ 3.9 ୖ 4.2 ୰ 4.0 ୗ 3.3

Q04 ఍ヰࡸ㛗ᩥࡢヰ㢟ࡸ୺㢟ࢆ⌮ゎ

ᖹᆒ 3.6 ୖ 4.0 ୰ 3.6 ୗ 3.0

Q18 ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡁࡓⱥᩥࡢὶࢀࢆᢕᥱ

ᖹᆒ 3.4 ୖ 3.8 ୰ 3.3 ୗ 3.0

Q17 ༢ㄒࡼࡾࡶ, ព࿡ࡢ࠿ࡓࡲࡾ࡛⪺࠸ࡓ

ᖹᆒ 3.3 ୖ 3.8 ୰ 3.3 ୗ 2.6

Q20 ヰࡋᡭࡢゝ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ (ពᅗࡸ┠ⓗ) ࢆ⌮ゎᖹᆒ 3.3 ୖ 3.7 ୰ 3.4 ୗ 2.8

Q38 ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ヂࡉࡎ, ⱥㄒࡢࡲࡲ⌮ゎ

ᖹᆒ 3.0 ୖ 3.5 ୰ 2.8 ୗ 2.5

b  ୗ㸼୰㸼ୖ(ୗ఩⩌࡯࡝ᩘ್ࡀ㧗࠸)Q16 ༢ㄒ༢఩࡛⪺ࡁྲྀࡗࡓᖹᆒ 2.9 ୖ 2.6 ୰ 3.0 ୗ 3.3              ⫈ゎࣞ࣋ࣝࡀୖࡀࡿ࡯࡝౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇࢀࡽ LS ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟せ⣙࡛ࡁࡿࠋࠕヰ㢟ࡸ୺㢟ࢆ࡜ࡽ࠼ (Q04), ヰࡢὶࢀࢆᢕᥱ (Q18) ࡋ, ヰ⪅ࡢゝ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࡘ࠿ࡶ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ(Q20)ࠋ
ࡑࡢ㝿, ༢ㄒ༢఩࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ, ព࿡ࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡛࡜ࡽ࠼ (Q17), ࡲࡓ, 㔜せ࡞⟠ᡤ࡟ࡣὀពࢆ
ᡶ࠸࡞ࡀࡽ (Q30), ⱥㄒࡢࡲࡲ࡛⌮ゎࡍࡿ (Q38) ࠖࠋ཯ᑐ࡟⫈ゎࣞ࣋ࣝࡀୗࡀࡿ࡯࡝,ࠕ༢ㄒ༢఩࡛⪺ࡁྲྀࢁ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ (Q16) ࠖࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ ୖグࡢ LS ࡛ࡣୖ, ୰, ୗ࡜ 3 ⩌ࡢ᭷ពᕪࡀ᫂☜࡟⌧ࢀࡓࠋୖ఩⩌࡯࡝ top-down ࡢㄆ▱
ST ࡜ advance organization, selective attention ࡞࡝ࡢ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ ST ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ, ࡲࡓୗ఩⩌࡯࡝bottom-up ࡢㄆ▱ ST ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
బ⸨ (1995) ࡣ୰Ꮫ 3 ᖺ⏕ 392 ྡࡢ LS ព㆑ㄪᰝࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓ㝿, ㄆ▱᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ᭱ࡶ㧗ࡃ, ࡑࢀ࡟ẚ࡭♫఍࣭᝟ព᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡣప࠸࡜ሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ, ࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎ࡣ⫈ゎຊ࡜ᐦ᥋࡞㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡾ, ⫈ゎࣞ࣋ࣝࡀపୗࡍࡿ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚⫈ゎ㐣⛬࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄆ▱ไ⣙ࡀ኱ࡁࡃ࡞ࡿࡓࡵ, ࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎ࢆάᛶ໬ࡉࡏࡿవᆅࡀᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡾ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀୗࡀࡿ࡜
ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ, ❧ᯇ (2006) ࡣ୰Ꮫ 3 ᖺ⏕ 91 ྡ࡟ྠ✀ࡢ◊✲ࢆ⾜࠸, ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚⫈ゎຊࡢୖ఩⪅࡯࡝࣓ࢱㄆ▱ ST ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ኱Ꮫ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓᮏ
◊✲࠿ࡽࡶࡑࢀࡽࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿ⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋ

Type BĮ, ȕ, Ȗ ࡢ 3 ࣇ࢓ࢡࢱ࣮ࡢ࠺ࡕ,ࢀࡿࠋ

2 ࣇ࢓ࢡࢱ࣮ࡀྠ᫬࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ B1 ࡜ B2 ࡟ศࡅࡽ48

᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝࡜⩦⇍ᗘࡢ㛵ಀType B 1Į (ୖ࣭ୗ఩⩌㛫࡟᭷ពᕪ) ࡜ ȕ (ୖ࣭୰఩⩌㛫࡟᭷ពᕪ) ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡶࡢࠋ
a(ୖ఩⩌ࡢᩘ್ࡀ㧗࠸)ୖ㸼୰Ҹୗ

Q06 ᩘᏐ࡟ࡣ≉࡟ὀព

ᖹᆒ 3.4 ୖ 3.7 ୰ 3.3 ୗ 3.2        Q09

ᖹᆒ 2.7 ୖ 3.1 ୰ 2.4 ୗ 2.4

1 ᅇ┠࡟⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࡧ, 2 ᅇ┠࡟ࡣḟࡢၥ㢟࡟ഛ࠼ࡓ

Q01 ඛࢆணb

ᖹᆒ 2.7 ୖ 3.0 ୰ 2.6 ୗ 2.4ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪺࠸ࡓ

ୗҸ୰㸼ୖ

(ୗ఩⩌࡯࡝ᩘ್ࡀ㧗࠸)      

Q25 ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ຺࡛⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔ

ᖹᆒ 3.9 ୖ 3.3 ୰ 4.1 ୗ 4.3

Q10 ⪺ࡁྲྀࢀࡓ᩿∦ⓗ࡞᝟ሗࢆᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡟⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔ

ᖹᆒ 3.6 ୖ 3.4 ୰ 3.7 ୗ 3.8

ୖ఩⩌ࡀ኱ᕪࢆࡘࡅࡓࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛, ࣞ࣋ࣝᕪࡀ㢧ⴭ࡟࡛ࡓࡢࡣࠕ1 ᅇ┠࡟ゎ⟅ࡋ, 2 ᅇ┠࡟ࡣḟࡢၥ࠸࡟ഛ࠼ࡿ (Q09) ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ LS ࡛୰࣭ୗ఩⩌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑⏝ᗘࡣᴟ➃࡟ప࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣ⬟ຊ࡟వ⿱ࡢ࠶ࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ౑࠺ࢸࢫࢺ࣭ࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢ ST ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ, ࠕ⫈ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽඛࢆண ࡋ (Q01), ᩘ࡟ὀពࢆᡶ࠺ (Q06) ࠖ࡞࡝, ୖ఩⩌ࡣ, ⫈ゎ୰࡟ prediction ࡢㄆ▱ST ࢆ⏝࠸, selective attention ࡢ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ ST ࢆ౑⏝࡛ࡁࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉, ⫈ゎຊࡀ୙༑ศ࡟࡞ࡿ࡯࡝, ࠕ⫈ࡁྲྀࢀࡓ᩿∦᝟ሗࢆᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡟᥎
(Q10) ࡋࡓࡾ, ຺࡛⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࡪ(Q25) ࠖഴྥࡀᙉ࠿ࡗࡓࠋୗ఩⩌ࡣㄆ▱ ST ࡢ bottom-up ࡸ inferencing ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ
Type B 2Į (ୖ࣭ୗ఩⩌㛫࡟᭷ពᕪ) ࡜ Ȗ (୰࣭ୗ఩⩌㛫࡟᭷ពᕪ) ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡶࡢࠋ
a(ୖ࣭୰఩⩌ࡢᩘ್ࡀ㧗࠸)ୖҸ୰㸼ୗ

Q14 ᤄ⤮ࡸᅗ⾲ࡣඛ࡟ぢࡓᖹᆒ 4.4 ୖ 4.5 ୰ 4.5 ୗ 4.1

Q03 タၥࢆඛ࡟ㄞࢇࡔ

ᖹᆒ 4.2 ୖ 4.4 ୰ 4.2 ୗ 3.7

Q22 ゎ⟅ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆඛ࡟ㄞࢇࡔ

ᖹᆒ 4.0 ୖ 4.2 ୰ 4.1 ୗ 3.6

Q05 ෆᐜࡢグ᠈ࢆಖᣢࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ

ᖹᆒ 3.5 ୖ 3.7 ୰ 3.6 ୗ 3.1

Q29 ゎ⟅ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡞㛫㐪࠸ࢆᾘཤᖹᆒ 3.5 ୖ 3.7 ୰ 3.6 ୗ 3.2

Q12 ␲ၥモ (when, where, how ࡞࡝) ࡟ὀពᖹᆒ 3.4 ୖ 3.7 ୰ 3.4 ୗ 3.0

Q23 ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ㄒྃࡸ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࢆ๓ᚋ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽ᥎ᖹᆒ 3.3 ୖ 3.5 ୰ 3.3 ୗ 2.9

Q28 ⪺ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽሙ㠃ࡸⓏሙே≀ࢆᛮ࠸ᥥ࠸ࡓ

ᖹᆒ 3.3 ୖ 3.5 ୰ 3.4 ୗ 2.7

Q36 ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ, ⫼ᬒ▱㆑ࢆά⏝ࡋࡓ

ᖹᆒ 3.2 ୖ 3.3 ୰ 3.3 ୗ 2.9

Q13 ᥋⥆モ (and, but, because ࡞࡝) ࡟ὀពࡋࡓ

ᖹᆒ 3.1 ୖ 3.3 ୰ 3.3 ୗ 2.7

b

ୗ㸼ୖҸ୰

(ୗ఩⩌ࡢᩘ್ࡀ㧗࠸)       

Q40 ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ሙྜ, ࠸ࡘࡶྠࡌ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆ࣐࣮ࢡᖹᆒ 1.7 ୖ 1.4 ୰ 1.6 ୗ 2.049℈ᮏ 㝧Ꮚ࣭ཎ⏣ ὒᏊ࣭ఀ⯅⏣ ὒஅ࣭⚄ᐊ ⱆஂ⨾ࡇࢀࡽࡣୖ࣭୰఩⩌ࡢ౑⏝ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ LS ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠕᤄ⤮ࡸᅗ⾲ࢆඛ࡟ぢ(Q14), タၥࢆඛ࡟ㄞࡳ (Q03), ゎ⟅ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆඛ࡟ㄞࡴ (Q22) ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠕ␲ၥ
モ (Q12) ࡸ᥋⥆モ (Q13) ࢆព㆑ࡋ, ሙ㠃ࡸⓏሙே≀ࢆᛮ࠸ᥥࡁ࡞ࡀࡽ (Q28) ෆᐜࢆグ᠈ࡋࡼ࠺ (Q05) ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ, ᮍ▱ㄒࢆ๓ᚋ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽ᥎ࡋࡓࡾ (Q23), ⫼ᬒ▱㆑ࢆά⏝ࡍࡿ (Q36) ࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
ୖ࣭୰఩⩌ࡣ, ㄆ▱ ST ࡛ࡣ inferencing, imagery, elaboration, memorizing, ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ ST ࡛
ࡣ advance organization, selective attention ࡞࡝ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ౑⏝ LS ࡢ㡯┠ᩘࡀከ࠸ࡇ
࡜ࡣୖ࣭୰఩⩌ࡢ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Type CĮ, ȕ, Ȗ ࡢ 3 ࣇ࢓ࢡࢱ࣮ࡢ࠺ࡕ, 1 ࣇ࢓ࢡࢱ࣮ࡢࡳࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ C1, C2, C3 ࡟ศࡅࡽࢀ
ࡿࠋ
Type C 1
Į (ୖ࣭ୗ఩⩌㛫࡟᭷ពᕪ) ࡢࡳࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡶࡢࠋ
a


ୖ㸼ୗ

㸦ୖ఩⩌࡯࡝ᩘ್ࡀ㧗࠸ࡶࡢ)

Q19 ᩥࡸㄒྃࡢษࢀ┠࡟ὀព

ᖹᆒ 2.8 ୖ 2.9 ୰ 2.8 ୗ 2.5

Q33 ᩘᏐࡣ࣓ࣔࢆ࡜ࡗࡓ

ᖹᆒ 2.2 ୖ 2.4 ୰ 2.3 ୗ 2.0

Q24 ⪺ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽ࣓ࣔࢆ࡜ࡗࡓ

ᖹᆒ 2.0 ୖ 2.2 ୰ 2.0 ୗ 1.8

b

ୗ㸼ୖ

㸦ୗ఩⩌࡯࡝ᩘ್ࡀ㧗࠸ࡶࡢ)

Q37 ఱᗘࡶ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡃࡿㄒྃ࡟ὀពࡋࡓ

ᖹᆒ 3.2 ୖ 3.0 ୰ 3.2 ୗ 3.5

 ࡇࢀࡽࡣ඲య࡟౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀప࠸ LS ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ࣓ࣔࢆ࡜ࡿ (Q24) ࠖࡢㄆ▱ ST ࡶ౑⏝ㄆ㆑ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾప࠸ࠋୗ఩⩌ࡣࠕఱᗘࡶ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡃࡿㄒྃ࡟ὀពࡋࡓ (Q37) ࠖࡢᩘ್ࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ
Type C 2ȕ (ୖ࣭୰఩⩌㛫࡟᭷ពᕪ) ࡢࡳࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡶࡢࠋ
୰㸼ୖ  (୰఩⩌ࡢᩘ್ࡀ㧗࠸)           
Q21 ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ヂࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪺࠸ࡓ

ᖹᆒ 2.8 ୖ 2.7 ୰ 3.1 ୗ 2.9

Type C 3Ȗ (୰࣭ୗ఩⩌㛫࡟᭷ពᕪ) ࡢࡳࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡶࡢࠋ
୰㸼ୗ  (୰఩⩌ࡢᩘ್ࡀ㧗࠸) 
Q31 ඲㒊⪺ࡁ⤊ࢃࡗࡓᚋ࡟⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔ

ᖹᆒ 3.4 ୖ 3.4 ୰ 3.6 ୗ 3.1

50

᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝࡜⩦⇍ᗘࡢ㛵ಀ ୰㸼ୖ࡛᭷ពᕪࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓ LS ࡣ, ၏୍ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ヂࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪺ࡃ (Q21) ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋᩘ
್ࡢୗࡀࡾ᪉ࡶ୰, ୗ, ୖࡢ㡰࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓ, ୰㸼ୗ࡛ࡣ, ၏୍ࠕ඲㒊⪺ࡁ⤊ࢃࡗࡓᚋ࡟
⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࡪ (Q31) ࠖࡀ᳨ฟࡉࢀࡓࠋtranslation ࡢ LS ౑⏝ࡣ୰఩⩌ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
Type DĮ, ȕ, Ȗ ࡢ 3 ࣇ࢓ࢡࢱ࣮ࡀ඲ࡃᏑᅾࡏࡎ, 3 ⩌㛫඲࡚࡟᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࠋ
Q26 ṇ☜࡟⪺ࡅ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ࡣࡇࡔࢃࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ

ᖹᆒ 3.8 ୖ 3.7 ୰ 3.8 ୗ 3.8

Q39 ⪺ࡁྲྀࢀࡓㄒྃࡔࡅ࡛ෆᐜࢆ᥎

ᖹᆒ 3.7 ୖ 3.7 ୰ 3.7 ୗ 3.6

Q34 1 ᅇ┠࡛⪺ࡃ࡭ࡁ࣏࢖ࣥࢺࡢぢᙜࢆ௜ࡅ    

ᖹᆒ 3.6 ୖ 3.5 ୰ 3.8 ୗ 3.6

  2 ᅇ┠࡛ࡑࢀ࡟㞟୰ࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓ             
Q15 㡢ኌࢆṇ☜࡟⪺ࡁྲྀࢁ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ

ᖹᆒ 3.5 ୖ 3.5 ୰ 3.4 ୗ 3.5

Q35 ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓㄒྃࡣ↓どࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓ

ᖹᆒ 3.5 ୖ 3.4 ୰ 3.6 ୗ 3.6

Q02 ᙉࡃ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡃࡿゝⴥ࡟ὀពᖹᆒ 3.1 ୖ 3.2 ୰ 3.0 ୗ 3.3

Q08 ⪺ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽ⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔ

ᖹᆒ 3.2 ୖ 3.2 ୰ 3.1 ୗ 3.2

Q11 ᫬ไ (⌧ᅾ, 㐣ཤ, ᮍ᮶) ࡟ὀពࡋࡓ

ᖹᆒ 2.6 ୖ 2.6 ୰ 2.6 ୗ 2.6

Q27 ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟Ẽࢆ௜ࡅ࡚⪺࠸ࡓ

ᖹᆒ 2.5 ୖ 2.6 ୰ 2.4 ୗ 2.6

Q32 ఍ヰၥ㢟࡛ࡣ, ヰࡋᡭࡢឤ᝟ࢆࡃࡳྲྀࢁ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ

ᖹᆒ 2.5 ୖ 2.6 ୰ 2.5 ୗ 2.3

Q07 ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡁࡓⱥㄒࢆ, ኌࢆฟࡉࡎ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡓᖹᆒ 2.3 ୖ 2.3 ୰ 2.2 ୗ 2.5          ࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣ⫈ゎࣞ࣋ࣝ࡜ࡣ㛵ಀ࡞ࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ LS ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᴫࡡ, ౑⏝ᗘࡀ㧗ࡵ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ LS ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜, ౑⏝ᗘࡀᴟࡵ࡚ప࠸ LS ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ
5.3 ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ 3ୖ఩⩌, ୰఩⩌, ୗ఩⩌ࡢ LS ౑⏝ㄆ㆑ࡢ≉ᚩࡣఱ࠿ࠋ
5.3.1 ୖ఩⩌ࡢ≉ᚩ
⾲ 5. ୖ఩⩌ࡢᖹᆒ್ࡢ㧗࠸㡰 (㝆㡰) TOP 10 (N=169)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
10
10
10

LS
Q14
Q03
Q30
Q22
Q04
Q18
Q17
Q06
Q26
Q05
Q12
Q29
Q39

ෆᐜㄝ᫂
ᤄ⤮ࡸᅗ⾲ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࡣඛ࡟ぢࡓタၥࢆඛ࡟ㄞࢇࡔタၥ࡟㛵ಀࡢ࠶ࡿ⟠ᡤࢆ≉࡟ὀពࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓゎ⟅ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆඛ࡟ㄞࢇࡔ
఍ヰࡸ㛗ᩥࡢヰ㢟ࡸ୺㢟ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ
⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡁࡓⱥᩥࡢὶࢀࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ព㆑ࡋࡓ
༢ㄒࡼࡾࡶ, ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢព࿡ࡢ࠿ࡓࡲࡾ࡛⪺ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆព㆑ࡋࡓ
ᩘᏐ࡟ࡣ≉࡟ὀពࡋࡓ
ṇ☜࡟⪺ࡅ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ࡣࡇࡔࢃࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ
ෆᐜࡢグ᠈ࢆಖᣢࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ
␲ၥモ (when, where, how ࡞࡝) ࡟ὀពࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓゎ⟅ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࢆᾘཤࡋࡓ
⪺ࡁྲྀࢀࡓㄒྃࡔࡅ࡛ෆᐜࢆ᥎ ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪺࠸ࡓ

51

ᖹᆒ್
4.53
4.43
4.23
4.16
3.98
3.84
3.79
3.72
3.72
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67

℈ᮏ 㝧Ꮚ࣭ཎ⏣ ὒᏊ࣭ఀ⯅⏣ ὒஅ࣭⚄ᐊ ⱆஂ⨾ࠕࢱ࢖ࣉู౑⏝ LS ศᕸ⾲ࠖࡶేࢃࡏ࡚⤖ᯝࢆࡳࡿ࡜, ୖ఩⩌ࡔࡅࡀ௚ࡢ⩌࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚
㧗࠸ẚ⋡࡛౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ LS ࡣ, ࠕ఍ヰࡸ㛗ᩥࡢヰ㢟ࢆ⌮ゎ (Q04) ࠖ, ࠕ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡁࡓⱥᩥ
ࡢὶࢀࢆᢕᥱ (Q18) ࠖ, ࠕ༢ㄒࡼࡾࡶ, ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢព࿡ࡢ࠿ࡓࡲࡾ࡛⪺ࡃ (Q17) ࠖ, ࠕᩘᏐ࡟ࡣ≉࡟ὀព (Q06) ࠖ, ࠕ␲ၥモ (when, where, how ࡞࡝) ࡟ὀព (Q12) ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ୖ఩⩌ࡀࡼࡃ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ௚ࡢ LS ࡜⪃࠼ྜࢃࡏ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜, ୖ఩⩌ࡣࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࡟ᚲせ࡞ㄒᙡຊࡸᩥἲຊ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ, ヰࡢὶࢀࢆࢳࣕࣥࢡ࡛ᤊ࠼, ෆᐜࢆ᥎ ࡋ, ⫼ᬒ▱㆑࡜⤖ࡧ௜ࡅࡿᰂ㌾ᛶࢆᣢࡕ, ᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡛⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࠿ࡶ▱ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᴫほࡍࡿ࡜, ୖ఩⪅࡟ከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣ㸪ከᙬ࡞ࢸࢫࢺ࣭ࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢ ST (Q14, Q03, Q30, Q22, Q06, Q26, Q12,
Q29) ࡛࠶ࡾ, ࡇࢀࡽࡢ୰࡛≉࡟, ୖ఩⪅ࡀ⏝࠸㸪୰࣭ୗ఩⪅ࡀ⏝࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸ LS ࢆ୰࣭ୗ఩⪅࡟᫂♧ⓗ࡟ᣦᑟࡍࢀࡤ㸪ࢸࢫࢺࡢᡂ⦼ࢆୖࡆࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚኱ࡁ࠸ຠᯝࡀᮇᚅ࡛
ࡁࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୪⾜ࡋ࡚ top-down ST ࡶ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛㸪ࡇࢀࡽࢆఙࡤࡍᡭሀ࠸ᩍ⫱ᐇ
㊶ࡶ㔜せࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
5.3.2 ୰఩⩌ࡢ≉ᚩ     
⾲ 6. ୰఩⩌ࡢᖹᆒ್ࡢ㧗࠸㡰 (㝆㡰) TOP 10 (N=152)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10

LS
Q14
Q03
Q22
Q25
Q30
Q34
Q26
Q39
Q10
Q05

ෆᐜㄝ᫂
ᤄ⤮ࡸᅗ⾲ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࡣඛ࡟ぢࡓタၥࢆඛ࡟ㄞࢇࡔ
ゎ⟅ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆඛ࡟ㄞࢇࡔ
ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ຺࡛⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔタၥ࡟㛵ಀࡢ࠶ࡿ⟠ᡤࢆ≉࡟ὀពࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓ
1 ᅇ┠࡛⪺ࡃ࡭ࡁ࣏࢖ࣥࢺࡢぢᙜࢆ௜ࡅ, 2 ᅇ┠࡛ࡑࢀ࡟㞟୰ࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓṇ☜࡟⪺ࡅ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ࡣࡇࡔࢃࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ
⪺ࡁྲྀࢀࡓㄒྃࡔࡅ࡛ෆᐜࢆ᥎ ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪺࠸ࡓ⪺ࡁྲྀࢀࡓ᩿∦ⓗ࡞᝟ሗࢆᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡟⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔෆᐜࡢグ᠈ࢆಖᣢࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ

ᖹᆒ್
4.45
4.19
4.11
4.07
3.95
3.77
3.76
3.72
3.72
3.63

୰఩⩌ࡣୖ఩⩌࡜ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ LS ࡀከࡃ, ୰఩⩌ࡣࡼࡾୖ఩⩌ᐤࡾ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ
࡜ࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋ≉࡟ Type B2 ࡛ࡣ, ࠕᤄ⤮ࡸᅗ⾲ࢆඛ࡟ぢࡿ (Q14) ࠖ, ࠕ⫼ᬒ▱㆑ࢆά⏝(Q36) ࠖ࡞࡝ࡣୖ఩⩌ࡢᖹᆒ್࡜ྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡾ, ࠕゎ⟅ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆඛ࡟ㄞࡴ (Q22) ࠖ, ࠕෆᐜࡢグ᠈ࢆಖᣢ (Q05) ࠖ࡞࡝ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟㏆࠸ᖹᆒ್࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ LS ࡣୖ఩⩌࡜ࡢᕪࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞ࡃ, ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣୖ఩⩌࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ඛㄞࡳ ST ࡸ top-down ST ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ, Type A ࡸ Type B1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟, ୖ఩⩌ࡲ࡛ࡢ㛫㝸ࡀ኱ࡁࡃ㛤࠸ࡓ LS ࡣࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ヂࡉࡎ, ⱥㄒࡢࡲࡲ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ព㆑ࡋࡓ (Q38) ࠖ, ࠕ༢ㄒࡼࡾࡶ, ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢព࿡ࡢ
࠿ࡓࡲࡾ࡛⪺ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆព㆑ࡋࡓ (Q17) ࠖ࡞࡝࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾ, ୖ఩⩌࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ LSࢆ㥑౑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢ, ୖ఩⩌࡯࡝ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ࡣ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸㐣Ώᮇⓗ࡞ẁ㝵ࡔ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜ࡣ, ୰⣭⪅ࡣ Q38 ࡸ Q17 ࡢ౑⏝ࡀୖ⣭⪅࡯࡝࡟㐩ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࡣࡗࡁࡾぢ࡚࡜ࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚, ୰⣭⪅࡟ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢ LS ࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ᣦᑟࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
5.3.3 ୗ఩⩌ࡢ≉ᚩ52᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝࡜⩦⇍ᗘࡢ㛵ಀ

⾲ 7. ୗ఩⩌ࡢᖹᆒ್ࡢ㧗࠸㡰 (㝆㡰) TOP 10 (N=120)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
9
10

LS
Q25
Q14
Q26
Q10
Q03
Q22
Q34
Q35
Q39
Q15

ෆᐜㄝ᫂
ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ຺࡛⟅ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔᤄ⤮ࡸᅗ⾲ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࡣඛ࡟ぢࡓṇ☜࡟⪺ࡅ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ࡣࡇࡔࢃࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ
⪺ࡁྲྀࢀࡓ᩿∦ⓗ࡞᝟ሗࢆᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡟⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔタၥࢆඛ࡟ㄞࢇࡔ
ゎ⟅ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆඛ࡟ㄞࢇࡔ
1 ᅇ┠࡛࣏࢖ࣥࢺࡢぢᙜࢆ௜ࡅ, 2 ᅇ┠࡛ࡑࢀ࡟㞟୰ࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓㄒྃࡣ↓どࡋࡓ⪺ࡁྲྀࢀࡓㄒྃࡔࡅ࡛ෆᐜࢆ᥎ ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪺࠸ࡓ㡢ኌࢆṇ☜࡟⪺ࡁྲྀࢁ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ

ᖹᆒ್
4.34
4.12
3.81
3.78
3.69
3.60
3.58
3.58
3.55
3.48

ୗ఩⩌ࡣ bottom-up ฎ⌮࡟㢗ࡾࡀࡕ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ, ከࡃࡢ◊✲⪅ (O’Malley, Chamot &Küpper, 1989; Oxford, 1990) ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ, ᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࡑࡢ୍➃ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓ(Q15)ࠋྠᵝࡢഴྥࡣศᕸ⾲ࡢ Type Ab ࡛ࡶぢࡽࢀࡓ (Q16)ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ୗ఩⩌ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁྲྀࢀ࡞࠸㒊ศ࡟ࡣᅛᇳࡏࡎ (Q25, Q26, Q35), ᩿∦ⓗ࡟⪺ࡁྲྀࢀࡓ᝟ሗࡸㄒྃ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ព࿡ࢆ᥎ ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓ (Q10, Q39)ࠋ
ࡲࡓ, ศᕸ⾲࡛௚ࡢ⩌࡜㛫㝸ࡀᗈࡃ㛤࠸࡚࠸ࡿ LS ࡣࠕタၥ࡟㛵ಀ࠶ࡿ⟠ᡤࢆ≉࡟ὀព(Q30) ࠖ, ࠕ༢ㄒࡼࡾࡶ, ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢព࿡ࡢ࠿ࡓࡲࡾ࡛⪺ࡃ (Q17) ࠖ࡞࡝ᩘከࡃ࠶ࡾ, ୗ఩⩌ࡣୖ࣭୰఩⩌ࡀ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ LS ࢆ࠶ࡲࡾ౑ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀぢ࡚࡜ࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ, ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟, ୗ఩⩌ࡣ౑⏝࡛ࡁࡿ LS ࡢ✀㢮ࡀᑡ࡞ࡃ, 㝈ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
6. ᩍ⫱ⓗ♧၀࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟    ᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅࡟㐺ࡋࡓ LS ᣦᑟ࡟ࡴࡅ࡚௨ୗࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᥦゝࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎ➨୍࡟, ᣦᑟ⪅ࡶᏛ⩦⪅ࡶ LS awareness ࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋἙෆᒣ (1999) ࡣ LS ࢆព㆑ⓗ࡟౑ࡗࡓ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ, LS ࡢⓎ᝿ࢆࡶࡓ࡞࠸⪺ࡁᡭࡼࡾ㧗࠸⫈ゎຊࢆ♧ࡋࡓ࡜ሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ḟ࡟, ᣦᑟ┠ⓗ࡜ᑐ㇟Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠶ࢃࡏࡓ㐺ษ࡞ࠕᣦᑟ⏝ LS 㡯┠సࡾࠖࡀࡐࡦ࡜ࡶᚲせࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋᐇ㝿, LS ࡢ✀㢮࡜ᩘࡣከ࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⫈ゎࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
LS ࡢ౑⏝ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡸྛ⩌࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓ≉ᚩⓗ࡞ LS ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ, ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⫈ゎຊࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ LS ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡸ, ᣦᑟ⪅࠿ࡽࡳ࡚ຠᯝⓗ࡜ᛮ࠼ࡿ LS ࡛ࡶ౑⏝ᗘࡀᴟ➃࡟ప࠸ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠶ࢃࡏ࡚ᣦᑟࡍ࡭ࡁ LS 㡯┠ࢆ㑅ࡪ㝿࡟ࡣ, Appendix 2 ࡟ᥖ㍕ࡢศᕸ⾲ࡀཧ⪃࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ, good learner ࠿ࡽᏛ࡭࡜ࡼࡃ࠸ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡣୖ఩⩌࡛౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ LS ࡀཧ⪃࡟࡞ࡿࠋ୰఩⩌࡞ࡽࡤศᕸ⾲ࡢ Type B2a ࡢ LS ᣦᑟ࡟ࡣ≉࡟ຠᯝࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓ, ┠ⓗࡀࢸࢫࢺࡢ⫈ゎ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ, ࢸࢫࢺ㛵ಀࡢ LS ࢆᣠ࠸ฟࡏࡤ
ࡼ࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ, ࠕⱥㄒࢆᚰ࡛⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࠖLS ࡣ TOEIC Part 2 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟タၥ, 㑅ᢥ⫥➼ࡢ࿘㎶᝟ሗࡣࢮ࡛ࣟ, ࣓ࣔࡣチࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸≧ἣୗ࡛ࡣຠᯝࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⫈ゎάື࡛ࡣෆᐜࢆ
ᛀࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡀࡕ࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛, ሙ㠃ࡸே≀ࢆ visualize ࡍࡿ, ࣓ࣔࢆ࡜ࡿ࡞࡝グ᠈ಖᣢ࡟᭷
ຠ࡜ᛮ࠼ࡿ LS ࡢカ⦎ࡣࡐࡦྲྀࡾධࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ ࠕᣦᑟ⏝ LS ࣜࢫࢺࠖ࡟ࡣ, ᝟ព ST ࡢ㡯┠ࢆቑࡸࡍࡇ࡜ࡶᮃࡲࡋ࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣ, Ἑෆᒣ(1999) ࡢᣦ᦬ࡍࡿ࡜࠾ࡾ, ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࡛ࡣⓎಙ⪅࣮࣋ࢫ࡛ࡢࢫࣆ࣮ࢻࢆཷᐜࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞

53℈ᮏ 㝧Ꮚ࣭ཎ⏣ ὒᏊ࣭ఀ⯅⏣ ὒஅ࣭⚄ᐊ ⱆஂ⨾ࡽࡎ, ᚰ⌮≧ែࡀ኱ࡁ࡞せ⣲ࢆ༨ࡵࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ, ୖ, ୰, ୗ఩ࡢ࡝ࡢ⩌࡟ࡶ,౑⏝ LS ࡢ TOP 10 ෆ࡟ࠕṇ☜࡟⪺ࡅ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ࡣࡇࡔࢃࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ (Q26) ࠖࡀ᳨ฟࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀࡶⓎಙ⪅࣮࣋ࢫ࡛⾜࠺⫈ゎ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ, Ⓨヰ࡟㏣࠸ࡘࡃࡓࡵ࡟᭷ຠ࡞ LS࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓ, ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ ST ࡢ㔜せᛶࡣ, ከࡃࡢ◊✲⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (O’Malley &Chamot, 1990; Vandergrift, 2003; Chamot, 2005)ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ, selective attention ࡀ࠶ࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ≉ᐃࡢㄒࡸ᝟ሗ࡟ὀពࢆྥࡅࡿカ⦎ࡶᚲせࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᩘᏐⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࢆࡣࡌࡵ, ␲ၥモ, ᥋⥆モ
ࡸ᥋⥆๪モ࡟ὀពࡍࢀࡤᩥ⬦ࡢὶࢀࢆࡘ࠿ࡴࡇ࡜࡟ࡶᙺ❧ࡘࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ㕥ᮌ (2009) ࡣẼ࡙ࡁࡀᏛ⩦࡟࠾࠸࡚㔜せ࡛࠶ࡾ, ⩦⇍ᗘࡢప࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚, ᙉࡃ⪺ࡇ࠼ࡿㄒ࡟ὀ┠ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡽ, ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣෆᐜㄒࡀᙉࡃⓎ㡢ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟, ౑⏝ࡋࡓ LS ࢆ᭩࠿ࡏ࡚᣺ࡾ࠿࠼ࡽࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛⮬ศࢆࣔࢽࢱ࣮ࡍࡿຊࢆ⫱࡚ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟ࡶ➹⪅ࡽࡣຠᯝⓗ࡞ LS ᣦᑟἲࢆ✲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃព⩏ࢆぢ࠸ࡔࡍࠋẼ࡙ࡁࡸ, monitoring ࡞࡝ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚, Ꮫ⩦ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ῝ࡃ, ᴦࡋࡃ࡞ࡾ, Ꮫ⩦࡬ࡢ⮬ಙࡶ⏕ࡲࢀ࡚ࡁࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋself-directed learner ࡶ⫱ࡘࡔࢁ࠺ࠋLS ᣦᑟࡀࢸࢫࢺࡢᨷ␎ἲ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃᏛࡧࡢᮏ㉁࡟ࡶࡘ࡞ࡀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡣ኱ࡁ࠸ࠋ ḟࡣᣦᑟ᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᥦ᱌࡛࠶ࡿࠋLS ༢⊂ᣦᑟࡼࡾࡶ, ᮏ᮶ࡢ⫈ゎᣦᑟ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡿ࡜ຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ኱㈡࣭ᢡ஭ (2012) ࡀ᭱㏆ࡢ◊✲࡛ሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ, ࢱࢫࢡࡢ୰࡟ LS ᣦᑟࢆ⤌ࡳ㎸ࡴ (ᇛ㔝, 2003), ࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ࡟ᣦᐃࡋࡓ LS ࣜࢫࢺࢆẖᤵᴗᥦ♧ࡋ, ព㆑ⓗ౑⏝ࢆಁࡍ (Ἑෆᒣ, 1999), ⮬ᕫホ౯ࢆ᭩࠿ࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ LS ౑⏝ࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡿάືࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡿ (㕥ᮌ, 2009) ࡞࡝ᵝࠎ࡞ᣦᑟἲࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡣ, Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ┠ⓗ, ⩦⇍ᗘࡸࢽ࣮ࢬ࡟࠶ࢃࡏࡓ, ຠᯝⓗ࡞ LS ᣦᑟἲࢆ㛤Ⓨࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ, ࡲࡎᮏ◊✲ࡢᡂᯝࢆྲྀࡾධࢀ࡚ᣦᑟ⏝ LS ࣜࢫࢺࢆసᡂࡍ
ࡿࡇ࡜, ࡑࡋ࡚, ᐇ㊶࡜ࡑࡢຠᯝࢆ᳨ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ᮶ࡢ⫈ゎຊྥୖࡢࡓࡵࡢ◊✲ࡸᐇ㊶࡜ඹ࡟, LS ࡢᣦᑟࢆ኱࠸࡟ᗈࡵࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᮏ◊✲ࡣ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௜グᮏ✏ࡣ, 2011 ᖺᗘ JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊➨ 3 ᅇㅮ₇఍, ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ◊✲఍௻⏬≉ูࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘㸦᪊ 㛵すᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ኱㜰ᱵ⏣࢟ࣕࣥࣃࢫ, 2012 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 3 ᪥㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ࢆඖ࡟ᇳ➹ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ㅰ㎡
ᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ, ࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟࣭ศᯒ࠿ࡽཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛, ௨ୗ࡟࠶ࡆࡿࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ
◊✲఍ࡢඛ⏕᪉࡟ከ኱࡞ࡈᑾຊࢆ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋᚰࡼࡾᚚ♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ
ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ◊✲఍఍ဨ: ၈ఫ⤖Ꮚ, ᩧ⸨⿱⣖ᜨ, ➲஭ᝋᏊ, 㧗ᶫᑑኵ, ᶡ஭Ṋ, ὠᮧಟᚿ,ᡂ⏣ಟྖ, ⟽ᓮ㞝Ꮚ, ཎ⏣᭙Ꮚ, ⚟ᆅ⨾ዉᏊ, ᯇᮧඃᏊ, ᏳᕝెᏊ (஬༑㡢㡰)ࡲࡓ, ᮏ✏᏶ᡂ࡟㝿ࡋ, ᰝㄞጤဨࡢඛ⏕᪉࠿ࡽ᠓ษ୎ᑀ࡞ࡈᣦᑟࢆ㈷ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡟,῝ࡃឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡲࡍࠋ54

᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝࡜⩦⇍ᗘࡢ㛵ಀཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ἙෆᒣᬗᏊ (1999).ࠕ⫈ゎࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢព㆑ⓗ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡿຠᯝ—Ꮫຊᕪせᅉ࡜, L1-L2 ㌿⛣せᅉࢆ୰ᚰ࡟—ࠖࠗᶓ὾ᅜ❧኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫࢭࣥࢱ࣮⣖せ࠘,6, 26-37.
኱㈡ிᏊ࣭ᢡ஭(⛅⏣)㯞⨾Ꮚ (2012).ࠕࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ᣦᑟ࡜ⱥㄒ㡢ኚ໬ᣦᑟే⏝ࡢヨࡳࠖࠗ໭ᾏ㐨ᩍ⫱኱Ꮫ⣖せ࠘, 62,2, 76-88.
ᑿ㛵ᑦᏊ (2004).ࠕࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࣭ࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡓࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢ
ࡢᤵᴗࠖࠗ᫂἞኱Ꮫᩍ㣴ㄽ㞟࠘,381, 71-92.
బ⸨ᨻᚿ (1995). ࠕ⫈ゎຊࡀ⫈ゎ᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝࡟ཬࡰࡍᙳ㡪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚—᪥ᮏே EFL ୰Ꮫ⏕ࡢሙྜࠖࠗୖ㉺ᩍ⫱኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱◊✲⛉ゝㄒ⣔ࢥ࣮ࢫ (ⱥㄒ) ◊✲ㄽ㞟࠘,10, 87101.
ᇛ㔝༤ᚿ (2003).ࠕᐇ㊶ሗ࿌ ゝㄒᏛ⩦ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ⧊ࡾ㎸ࢇࡔᣦᑟ࡛ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢຊࢆ
ఙࡤࡍ࢔ࢡࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ—ࢭࣝࣁ࢖◊✲ (ᖹᡂ 15 ᖺᗘ 1 Ꮫᮇ) ࣏࣮ࣞࢺࠖ
http: //www.mie-c.ed.jp/hkawag/selhi/reports/report15.pdf (2012 ᖺ 10 ᭶ 10 ᪥).㕥ᮌஂᐇ (2009).ࠕࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ᣦᑟ࡟ࡼࡿ EFL Ꮫ⩦⪅࡬ࡢຠᯝ Will listening
strategy teaching help EFL learners? Dialogue, 8, 31-33.
❧ᯇ኱♸ (2006).ࠕ୰Ꮫᰯⱥㄒ⛉࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏᩍ⛉ᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ㄅ࠘,29,1, 79-88.
ෆ⏣↷ஂ࣭ᮡ⃝Ṋಇ࣭ఀ⸨ ᆂ (2010).ࠕ኱Ꮫධヨࢭࣥࢱ࣮ヨ㦂ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺࡀ ᐃࡍࡿᏛຊࡢᕸ⨨ࠖ ࠗ᪥ᮏࢸࢫࢺᏛ఍ㄅ࠘, 6, 103-111.
ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2005) ୰ኸᑂ㆟఍ ึ➼୰➼ᩍ⫱ศ⛉఍ ᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬㒊఍ እᅜㄒᑓ㛛㒊఍(➨9 ᅇ) ㆟஦㘓࣭㓄ᕸ㈨ᩱ (ཧ⪃㈨ᩱ 4-3) ࡑࡢ௚≉グ஦㡯.
  http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/015/siryo/05120501.htm
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications (2nd ed.) New York: W. H.
Freeman.
Chamot, A. U. (1998). Understanding second language learning difficulties. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 20, (3), 434-435.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130.
Chamot, A. U., & Küpper, L. (1989). Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction. Foreign
Language Annals, 22(1), 13-24.
Cohen, A. D. (1987). Studying learner strategies: How we get the information. In A. L. Wenden, & J.
Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning, 31-42. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Henner, S. C. (1987). Autonomy as Metacognitive Awareness: Suggestions for Training SelfMonitoring of Listening Comprehension. M’elanges Pegdagogiques, 17, 69-84.
Ho, H. (2006). An investigation of listening strategy used among English major college students in
Taiwan: A case of Chaoyoung University of Technology. A master thesis, Chaoyoung
University of Technology, Taiwan.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Küpper, L. (1989). Learning Comprehension Strategies in55℈ᮏ 㝧Ꮚ࣭ཎ⏣ ὒᏊ࣭ఀ⯅⏣ ὒஅ࣭⚄ᐊ ⱆஂ⨾

Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 10 (4), 418-437.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston:Heinle & Heinle.
Rost, M. (1990). Listening in Language Learning. New York: Longman.
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehensive strategies of Second Language (French) Listeners: A
Descriptive Study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387-409.
Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring successful
strategies. ELT Journal, 53(3), 168-176.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating Strategies Use: Toward a Model of the Skilled Second
Language Listener. Language Learning, 53(3), 463-496.
Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: Listening ability or language proficiency?
Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 3-17.
Appendix 1. ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ (ᮏ✏࡛౑⏝ࡋࡓ 40 㡯┠)
Q01. ඛࢆண ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪺࠸ࡓࠋ
Q02. ᙉࡃ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡃࡿゝⴥ࡟ὀពࡋ࡚ព࿡ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
Q03. タၥࢆඛ࡟ㄞࢇࡔࠋ
Q04. ఍ヰࡸ㛗ᩥࡢヰ㢟ࡸ୺㢟ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
Q05. ෆᐜࡢグ᠈ࢆಖᣢࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
Q06. ᩘᏐ࡟ࡣ≉࡟ὀពࡋࡓࠋ
Q07. ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡁࡓⱥㄒࢆ, ኌࢆฟࡉࡎ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡓࠋ
Q08. ⪺ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽ⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔࠋ
Q09. 1 ᅇ┠࡟⪺࠸ࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࡧ, 2 ᅇ┠࡟ࡣḟࡢၥ㢟࡟ഛ࠼ࡓࠋ
Q10. ⪺ࡁྲྀࢀࡓ᩿∦ⓗ࡞᝟ሗࢆᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡟⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔࠋ
Q11. ᫬ไ (⌧ᅾ, 㐣ཤ, ᮍ᮶) ࡟ὀពࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓࠋ
Q12. ␲ၥモ (when, where, how ࡞࡝) ࡟ὀពࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓࠋ
Q13. ᥋⥆モ (and, but, because ࡞࡝) ࡟ὀពࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓࠋ
Q14. ᤄ⤮ࡸᅗ⾲ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࡣඛ࡟ぢࡓࠋ
Q15. 㡢ኌࢆṇ☜࡟⪺ࡁྲྀࢁ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
Q16. ༢ㄒ༢఩࡛⪺ࡁྲྀࢁ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ (1 ࡘ 1 ࡘࡢ༢ㄒࢆ⪺ࡁྲྀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ព㆑ࡋࡓ)ࠋ
Q17. ༢ㄒࡼࡾࡶ, ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢព࿡ࡢ࠿ࡓࡲࡾ࡛⪺ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆព㆑ࡋࡓࠋ
Q18. ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡁࡓⱥᩥࡢὶࢀࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ព㆑ࡋࡓࠋ
Q19. ᩥࡸㄒྃࡢษࢀ┠࡟ὀពࡋࡓࠋ
Q20. ヰࡋᡭࡢゝ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ (ពᅗࡸ┠ⓗ) ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព㆑ࡋࡓࠋ
Q21. ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ヂࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪺࠸ࡓࠋ
Q22. ゎ⟅ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆඛ࡟ㄞࢇࡔࠋ
Q23. ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ㄒྃࡸ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࡣ๓ᚋ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽ᥎ ࡋࡓࠋ
Q24. ⪺ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽ࣓ࣔࢆ࡜ࡗࡓࠋ
56

᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝࡜⩦⇍ᗘࡢ㛵ಀ

Q25. ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ຺࡛⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔࠋ
Q26. ṇ☜࡟⪺ࡅ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ࡣࡇࡔࢃࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
Q27. ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ (ኌࡢୖࡀࡾୗࡀࡾ) ࡟Ẽࢆ௜ࡅ࡚⪺࠸ࡓࠋ
Q28. ⪺ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽሙ㠃ࡸⓏሙே≀ࢆᛮ࠸ᥥ࠸ࡓࠋ
Q29. ゎ⟅ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࢆᾘཤࡋࡓࠋ
Q30. タၥ࡟㛵ಀࡢ࠶ࡿ⟠ᡤࢆ≉࡟ὀពࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓࠋ
Q31. ඲㒊⪺ࡁ⤊ࢃࡗࡓᚋ࡟⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔࠋ
Q32. ఍ヰၥ㢟࡛ࡣ, ヰࡋᡭࡢឤ᝟ࢆࡃࡳྲྀࢁ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
Q33. ᩘᏐࡣ࣓ࣔࢆ࡜ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
Q34. 1 ᅇ┠࡛⪺ࡃ࡭ࡁ࣏࢖ࣥࢺࡢぢᙜࢆ௜ࡅ, 2 ᅇ┠࡛ࡑࢀ࡟㞟୰ࡋ࡚⪺࠸ࡓࠋ
Q35. ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓㄒྃࡣ↓どࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
Q36. ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ, ⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ࡪ࡜ࡁ࡟, ࡍ࡛࡟▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ (⫼ᬒ▱㆑) ࢆά⏝ࡋࡓࠋQ37. ఱᗘࡶ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡃࡿㄒྃ࡟ὀពࡋࡓࠋ
Q38. ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ヂࡉࡎ, ⱥㄒࡢࡲࡲ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ព㆑ࡋࡓࠋ
Q39. ⪺ࡁྲྀࢀࡓㄒྃࡔࡅ࡛ෆᐜࢆ᥎ ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪺࠸ࡓࠋ
Q40. ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ, ࠸ࡘࡶྠࡌ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆ࣐࣮ࢡࡋࡓࠋ

57℈ᮏ 㝧Ꮚ࣭ཎ⏣ ὒᏊ࣭ఀ⯅⏣ ὒஅ࣭⚄ᐊ ⱆஂ⨾58᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝࡜⩦⇍ᗘࡢ㛵ಀ

59