JACET Kansai Journal, 15, 60-71. (2013) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Issues Related to and Strategies for Teaching
Content-based Courses in Tertiary Education Settings
Ayaka Hashinishi
Graduate School, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies

ABSTRACTThis paper will consider the issues related to and strategies for teaching content-based courses inEnglish to Japanese university students. Two content-based courses, ‘Contemporary American
Society’ and ‘Model United Nations Simulations’, will be examined. The course components,
including the course objectives, lesson procedure, materials used, in-class and out-of-class activities,
will be outlined. Furthermore, the instructors’ perspectives and the results of a survey taken at theend of semester about students’ reactions to the courses will be presented. This paper provides anargument for the benefits of content-based instruction as an effective means for increasing students’motivation and helping them improve their proficiency in English while engaging them in exploring
interesting content. When strategies such as providing language support and teaching adjunct skills
are used to help students handle the activities and understand the lessons better, content-based
courses can be successfully taught in tertiary education settings.
Key words: content-based instruction, strategies, language support, adjunct skills, English
proficiency

I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, content-based instruction (CBI) has become increasingly popular as a means
to help students master both language and content. It is claimed that language is learned mosteffectively when it is used as a medium to convey content of interest to the students (LarsenFreeman, 2000).
This paper will first give a brief overview of CBI, and then examine two content-based
courses, ‘Contemporary American Society’ and ‘Model United Nations Simulations’. The courses
were taught to students of various majors (English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, and International
Relations) at a public university in Kobe. This paper will outline the course components, including
the course objectives, lesson procedure, materials used, in-class and out-of-class activities.
Furthermore, the instructors’ perspectives and the results of a survey taken at the end of semester
about students’ reactions to the courses will be presented. Finally, this paper will consider the issues
related to and strategies for teaching content-based courses in English to Japanese university
students.

60

Issues Related to and Strategies for Teaching Content-based Courses in Tertiary Education Settings

II. CONTENT-BASED INSTRUCTION
Richard and Rodgers (2001) define CBI as “an approach to second language teaching inwhich teaching is organized around the content or information that students will acquire, rather thanaround a linguistic or other type of syllabus” (p. 204). Larsen-Freeman (2000) explains that CBI‘integrates the learning of language with the learning of some other content, often academic subject
matter’ (p. 137). Richard and Rodgers (2001) further explain that CBI is grounded on two
principles:
1. People learn a second language more successfully when they use the language as a meansof acquiring information, rather than as an end in itself.
2. Content-Based Instruction better reflects learners’ needs for learning a second language.
This principle reflects the fact that many content-based programs serve to prepare ESL students foracademic studies or for mainstreaming (p. 207).
In Japan, although CBI is not as widely adopted as it is in Western countries, it is gradually
growing in prominence. Educators such as Crawford (2001), Mack (2010), Suenaga (1993),
Swenson (1991), Vergin, Bogdan and Tanaka (2011) have reported how they integrated CBI courses
into the curriculum at their universities. These articles point to the fact that a number of educators
throughout Japan are involved in adopting CBI at their institutions. However, the situation ofEnglish language education in Japan is significantly different from that of Western countries, andthus it raises a number of issues regarding the applicability of CBI in EFL classrooms in Japan.
Mack (2010) states that Japanese students are more highly developed in cognitive academic
language proficiency (CALP), typically being proficient in reading essays and answering examquestions, and significantly less advanced in basic interpersonal communication skills (BIKS) in
regard to English language acquisition. She affirms that they are largely untrained in criticalthinking and are inadequately prepared in BIKS skills to deal with a content-based course taught inEnglish. Besides, they are under-prepared for listening to a lecture in English, and they haveinadequate basic vocabulary and have not been taught strategies in coping with a content-based
course taught in English. Therefore, Mack (2010) asserts that when teaching a CBI course to
Japanese students, it is necessary to teach them vocabulary, strategies for reading and listening in
English, how to take notes and write an outline, how to write a paper and make an oral presentation,and the critical thinking skills. Swenson (1991) also claims that it is necessary to select content ofinterest to students, monitor student comprehension, and adjust input accordingly.
III. METHOD
1. Participants
The participants were students of different years (Year 1 to Year 4) and various majors(English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, and International Relations) at a public university in Kobe.
There were 100 students in the ‘Contemporary American Society’ class. Among the 90 students
who answered the questionnaire, 24 were males and 66 were females. Most of the students (74)were first-year students, 12 were second-year, 2 were third-year and 1 was a fourth-year student.
61

Ayaka HASHINISHI

Since it was one of the required courses for the English majors, most of them (72) majored in
English, 6 majored in Chinese, 3 in Spanish, 7 in Russian and 5 in International Relations.
Regarding their English level, most of them were at intermediate level because 67% of them got ascore of 600-855 for TOEIC, 51% passed Grade 2 of EIKEN, and 12% passed Grade pre-1.
There were 11 students in the ‘Model United Nations Simulations’ class. Among them, 4 weremales and 7 were females; 9 were third-year students and 2 were fourth-year students. This class
could be selected by only these who were enrolled for the International Communication Course.
This course consists of students who have a good command of English. Students of various majors
can apply to enter this course but they have to give proof of their English ability (TOEIC score) andhave to attend an interview before they can be accepted to enter this course. The classes ofInternational Communication Course are usually of very small size and are aimed at improving
students’ English communicative abilities. Regarding their English proficiency, most of them are atadvanced level because 82% of them got a score of over 860 for TOEIC, and 64% passed Grade 1
and Grade pre-1 of EIKEN.
2. Procedure
The writer attended the ‘Contemporary American Society’ 1 & 2 classes for the wholeacademic year. Regarding the ‘Model United Nations Simulations’ class, the writer observed one of
the lessons, watched videos of the class and obtained the outline of the syllabus, handouts andpapers concerning this course from the instructor. In order to know about the classes from the
instructors’ perspectives, the writer conducted an interview with the two instructors. Each interview
lasted for about 30 minutes and the focus of the interview was on what strategies the instructor used
to help students cope with the lessons. In order to know the students’ reactions to the classes, aquestionnaire was distributed to the students of the two classes at the end of the semester. There
were 12 questions. The students were asked to answer how much of the lessons they could
understand, what problems they might have with lessons conducted in English, what improvements
they thought they had made, the change in their motivation and interest in the subjects, what effort
they had made to improve their understanding of the lessons, what language they used during
discussion, and what language they would prefer to be used in the lessons. At the end of thequestionnaire, a space was provided for the students to write any additional comments on theclasses.
IV. RESULTS
A. Contemporary American Society
1. Course components‘Contemporary American Society 1’ was taught during the first semester, and ‘Contemporary
American Society 2’ was taught during the second semester of the 2011 academic year. It was
desirable that students took both classes in the same academic year. Each class met once a week for
90 minutes over 15 weeks. The objective of ‘Contemporary American Society 1’ was to exam
views on race, ethnicity, social class, gender, sexuality, and religion in the United States and how
62Issues Related to and Strategies for Teaching Content-based Courses in Tertiary Education Settingsthese shape the society. The objective of ‘Contemporary American Society 2’ was to help students
gain a better understanding of diversity in American society by focusing on environmental
problems and the environmental movement, particularly the ways environmental issues in American
society intersect with issues of gender, race and social class.
These two classes were taught in English and handouts in English were distributed. The
instructor gave a lecture on the topic first by using PowerPoint presentation, and then she gavesome discussion questions to students to discuss in groups and then asked them to report the results
to the class. Students were required to write a paragraph about an article given by the instructor or
to do research on an assigned topic on the Internet by themselves and write a paragraph as
homework every week. Evaluation was based on weekly assignments (30%), participation in class(30%), and the final examination (40%).
2. Instructor’s perspective and strategies adopted
In order to know about the classes from the instructor’s perspectives, the writer conducted aninterview with her. The focus of the interview was on what strategies she used to help students copewith the lessons. Since the class consisted of a large number of students of various majors anddifferent levels of English proficiency, she spoke more slowly than usual, repeated a lot, andparaphrased a lot. She distributed handouts which contained the main points of the lectures andJapanese explanation of difficult terms so that students could understand the lectures better. She
tried to include as much information as possible in the handouts so that it would be easier for them
to follow. On the other hand, she left some space for them to fill in during the lessons so as to makethem concentrate on the lessons.
The instructor used visual aids to make the lectures easier to understand and to arousestudents’ interests. She used PowerPoint presentation and put in the main points of the lessons withpictures and charts so that they could understand the content more easily. She gave an article about
the topic to them to read or asked them to do research on the topic on the Internet and write aparagraph about it one week in advance so that when they came to the class, they could understandthe lecture better and would be more interested in the topic. Besides PowerPoint presentation,
sometimes authentic materials like movies or television programs were used. She tried to use audiovisual materials with subtitles and before showing them, she gave a brief introduction so that thestudents could understand the content better.
During the whole course, the instructor used different topics so as to cater to the interests ofdifferent students. She changed the topic every two weeks so that she could have enough time to
explain about the topic in detail and at the same time, they would not get bored, and the interests ofdiverse students could be catered to.
In each lesson, the instructor gave discussion questions to students to discuss in groups. She
believed that by doing group discussions, students could help each other understand the subject
matter better. She tried to change the groups frequently so that students could have the chance totalk to other students of different majors and different English levels. A different discussion leader
would be chosen every time so that everyone had the chance to lead the discussion. During
63

Ayaka HASHINISHI

discussion, she walked around the classroom and tried to go to different groups in order toencourage them to discuss in English.
3. Students’ perspectives
In order to know the students̓reactions to the course, the writer conducted a survey andasked them to fill in a questionnaire. Ninety students answered the questionnaire. The results showthat 34% of them understood 80-100% of the lectures, 41% understood 60-80%, 21% understood
40-60%, and only 2% understood below 40% of the lectures.
Regarding the problems the students thought they had with lessons conducted in English, 69%of them in average answered that they always, often or sometimes had trouble concentrating, fellbehind what the teacher was saying, and had to constantly look up words in the dictionary. Only 7%
in average said that they never had the problems. The difficulty to express their opinions in English
was the most severe problem because 51% of them answered that they always or often had thisproblem, and 34% answered that they sometimes had this problem.
Table 1. Problems students thought they had with lessons conducted in English
Problems
I have trouble concentrating

always
1%

often
13%

sometimes
41%

seldom
32%

never
13%

3%

15%

45%

28%

9%

4%

22%

46%

23%

5%

23%

28%

34%

13%

2%

I fall behind what the teacher issayingI have to constantly look up words
in the dictionary
It’s difficult to express my opinions

During group discussions, 4% of the students used English only, 12% used mostly English
and a little Japanese, 21% used half English and half Japanese, 47% used mostly Japanese and alittle English, and 16% used all Japanese.
Regarding the improvements the students thought they had made in their English speaking,reading, listening, and writing skills, most of the students (82% in average) answered ‘more than alittle’ or ‘a little’, 6% answered ‘a lot’, and only 12% in average answered that they did not makeany improvement at all.
Table 2. Improvements students thought they had madeImprovement in English skills
Speaking skills
Reading skills
Listening skills
Writing skills

a lot
1%
3%
15%
3%

more than a little
30%
49%
58%
49%

a little
46%
39%
19%
39%

not at all
23%
9%
8%
9%

Some students made effort in order to improve their understanding of the lectures. Forty
percent in average always, often or sometimes read articles about the topics in advance or reviewed
their notes at home. Forty-one percent in average answered ‘seldom’, and 19% in average answeredthat they did not do anything.
64

Issues Related to and Strategies for Teaching Content-based Courses in Tertiary Education Settings

Table 3. Effort that students made to improve their understand of the lectures
Students’ effort
I read articles about the topics thatwill be discussed in advance
I review my notes at homealways
6%

often
8%

sometimes
31%

seldom
38%

never
17%

1%

10%

28%

40%

21%

Regarding the change in their interest and motivation in learning the subject because thelanguage used was English, 34% of the students indicated that their interest and motivation had
increased a lot, 48% answered ‘increased a little’, 17% answered ‘not changed’, and 1% answered‘decreased a little’.
About half of the students (51%) answered that they would prefer the lessons to be conductedin all English, 34% answered ‘mostly English and a little Japanese’, 10% answered ‘half English
and half Japanese’, only 2% answered ‘mostly Japanese and a little English’, and only 2% answered‘all Japanese’.
At the end of the questionnaire, a space was provided for the students to write any additionalcomments about the course. Nineteen students made additional comments. Most of the students
made positive comments about the class. Nine students answered that they liked this class because it
was conducted in English. They said that it was one of the very few classes besides English
conversation classes that were conducted in all English and they hoped that there would be moreclasses like this at the university. Other students commented that the instructor’s English was easy
to understand, her teaching skills were good, and the lessons were interesting. One student said thathe could not understand the lesson completely, and two students said that it was difficult for somestudents to express their opinions in English.
B. Model United Nations Simulations
1. Course components
This course lasted for one semester. There were 15 classes in the semester and each classlasted for 90 minutes. The objective of the course was to let students have the chance to learn therules of procedure of United Nations and learn how to do Model United Nations simulations
experientially. The topic was an international issue that was on the agenda at the United Nations.
Students represented a country delegate for the Model United Nations and researched their country
background, country and regional positions to the item on the agenda, and negotiated and wrote
draft resolutions. Each class was run as a meeting. Students had an opportunity to participate in a 2day inter-university Model United Nations.
Two issues were debated in this 15-week course. The first issue was water for life (in relation
to scarcity, quality, sanitation, human rights, and gender), and the second issue was the recent crisis
in Sudan and South Sudan. Students had to write resolutions and position papers for each issue.
This course required them to use all the four skills, reading, speaking, listening, and writing. Their
presentation skills, analyzing skills, and critical thinking were also trained. Evaluation was based on65Ayaka HASHINISHI

the Model United Nation portfolio (30%) which included meeting notes, proposals, information on
the background of the issue and the country, working papers, resolution, self-evaluation, and two
position papers. Students’ performance (70%) during the in-class and inter-university Model United
Nations meetings was also evaluated.
2. Instructor’s perspective and strategies adopted
The writer conducted an interview with the instructor in order to know more about this classfrom her perspectives. Even though the students in this class had a good command of English inaverage, support needed to be provided to them to help them succeed in debating current
international issues of the United Nations’ agenda in English. It was very important to teach them
the procedure, the necessary skills, and useful expressions. She taught them the rules of procedureof United Nations, how to do country background research, and how to research on the issues. She
also taught them useful phrases for making motions, some common preambular clause beginnings,
and some common operative clause beginnings. Besides, she taught them how to write resolutions
and amendments, and how to write position papers.
The instructor let the students choose which country they want to represent and decide on theissue themselves. She believed that if students made the decision themselves, they would be more
involved and their motivation would be enhanced. She also asked members of each agenda subtopic
to prepare for the information and teach other students about the issue. Besides, when some students
stayed quiet and were not active, she made some other students to ask them to speak. She said it
was important that they helped each other and learned from each other.
3. Students’ perspectives
In order to know the students’ reactions to the course, the writer conducted a survey and asked
them to fill in a questionnaire. Eleven students answered the questionnaire. The results show that
91% of the students understood 80-100% of the simulations and the teacher’s explanation, and only
9% understood 60-80%.
Regarding the problems the students might have because the simulations were conducted in
English, most of them (73% in average) answered that they seldom or never had trouble
concentrating, or fell behind what the teacher and other classmates were saying. However,concerning the vocabulary problem, 36% answered that they often or sometimes had to look up
words in the dictionary. The problem that all students had was difficulty to express their opinions inEnglish. Sixty-four percent answered that they always, often or sometimes had this problem, 36%
answered ‘seldom’, and 0% answered ‘never’.
Table 4. Problems students thought they had with simulations conducted in English
Problems
I have trouble concentrating
I fall behind what the teacher andother classmates are saying
I have to constantly look up words
in the dictionary
It’s difficult to express my opinions

always
0%
0%

often
0%
9%

sometimes
36%
9%seldom
55%
73%

never
9%
9%

0%

27%

9%

64%

0%

9%

18%

37%

36%

0%

66

Issues Related to and Strategies for Teaching Content-based Courses in Tertiary Education Settings

All the students answered that they thought they had made some improvements in theirEnglish speaking, reading, listening, writing, and presentation skills. Eighteen percent of them inaverage answered ‘a lot’, 48% answered ‘more than a little’, and 34% answered ‘a little’.
Table 5. Improvements students thought they had madeImprovement in English skills
Speaking skills
Reading skills
Listening skills
Writing skills
Presentation skills

a lot
18%
27%
27%
9%
9%

more than a little
46%
36%
46%
55%
55%

a little
36%
36%
27%
36%
36%

not at all
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Some students made effort in order to improve their understanding of the simulations andtheir performance in class. Most of them (91%) read articles about the topics in advance, reviewed
their notes at home or rehearsed their part at home. Only about 9% of them answered that they did
not do anything.
Table 6. Effort students made to improve their understanding of the simulations
and their performance in classStudents’ effort
I read articles about the
topics that will be discussed
in advance
I review my notes at home
I rehearse my part at homealways
9%

often
18%

sometimes
18%

seldom
46%

never
9%

0%
0%

27%
27%

36%
27%

27%
36%

9%
9%

Regarding the change in their interest and motivation in the subject matter because thelanguage used was English, 37% of the students answered that their interest and motivation had
increased a lot, 36% answered ‘increased a little’, and 27% answered ‘not changed’.
Almost all the students (91%) answered that they would prefer the lessons to be conducted in
all English, and only 9% answered that they would prefer the lessons to be conducted in mostly
English and a little Japanese.
V. DISCUSSION
The findings of this research indicate that most students had certain problems (comprehending
what the teacher was saying, vocabulary problems) with lessons conducted in English and almost
all of them found it difficult to express their opinions in English. During group discussion in the‘Contemporary American Society’ class, most of them did not use all English and over half of thestudents used mostly Japanese or all Japanese. It seems that more students in the ‘Contemporary
American Society’ class than the ‘Model United Nations’ class always, often or sometimes had the
problems. It implies that students with lower English proficiency may have more problems than67

Ayaka HASHINISHI

those with higher English proficiency.
The two case studies show that it is necessary to provide support to students to help them copewith content-based courses taught in English. The instructors in both classes adopted strategies,
such as providing language support and teaching adjunct skills, to help the students understand thelessons and handle the activities. Since the class of the ‘Contemporary American Society’ was large
and the students’ English levels varied, the instructor spoke slowly, used PowerPoint presentation toshow the main points of the lectures, and distributed handouts which contained Japaneseexplanation of the difficult terms. She also used audio and visual aids to help students understandthe lectures. She asked them to do research on the topics in advance so that they would understandthe lectures better and would be more interested in the topics. On the other hand, since the focus ofthe ‘Model United Nations’ class was on debating international issues, the instructor taught usefulphrases for making motions, common preambular clause beginnings, and common operative clause
beginnings to the students. She also taught them how to do research on the issues and how to write
resolutions.
Overall, the students showed positive response to the content-based courses. In spite of the
problems they faced, over two-third of them in the two classes indicated they preferred all English
to be used in the lessons. Over three-fourth of them in the two classes indicated that their motivationand interest in the subject had increased because the language used in the lessons was English.
Overall, almost all of them thought that they had made improvements in all the four English skills.
V. CONCLUSION
It should be noted that this study has been primarily concerned with strategies adopted by the
instructors and students’ response to the courses. Evidence of students’ improvement is subjective
and has been obtained through questionnaires. While the questionnaires are effective for reflecting
students’ interest and motivation in learning, they may be inadequate for an objective evaluation of
students’ development in English skills after attending the courses. For future research, assessment
tests of students’ English skills and understanding of the lessons could be carried out so that a morecomprehensive and reliable result could be obtained.
Notwithstanding its limitations, this study does indicate that even though teaching contentbased courses in EFL English classrooms may be a challenge to the instructors and students, most
students showed positive response to the classes. Most of them answered that their English skills
had improved, their interest and motivation in learning had increased, and that they preferred thelessons to be taught in English. This research shows that when strategies such as providing language
support and teaching adjunct skills were used to help students handle the activities and understandthe lessons better, content-based courses could be successfully taught in EFL classrooms in Japan.
By presenting the two case studies, this paper has provided an argument for the benefits of CBI as
an effective means for increasing students’ motivation and helping them improve their proficiency
in English while engaging them in exploring interesting content.
As Crawford (2001) suggests, “by having the students come into contact with language that is68Issues Related to and Strategies for Teaching Content-based Courses in Tertiary Education Settings

meaningful, interesting, and tailored to their level of ability, they will find the learning process
enjoying” (p. 55). To conclude, while CBI can be demanding and challenging for both the
instructors and learners, it can also be very rewarding and stimulating.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to Associate Professor Matsunaga and Associate
Professor Nishide for their support and cooperation for this research.
REFERENCES
Andrade, M. D. (2007). Content-based vs. language-based (discrete-skills) English teaching inJapanese
universities:Is
therereallyadifference?
Retrievedfrom
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53120577/content-based-vs-language-based-english-teaching-inenglish-as
Biegel, K. (1991). Adapting and replanning: Practical problems and solutions in content-basedteaching. The Language Teacher, 15 (11), 11-12.
Crawford, M.J. (2001). Making language meaningful: A content-based approach for teaching
general English courses. Journal of Hokkaido University of Education (Human and Social
Sciences), 52 (1), 53-65.
Davies, S. (2003). Content based instruction in EFL contexts. The Internet TESL Journal, 9 (2).
Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Davies-CBI.html
Duenas, M. (2004). A description of prototype models for content-based language instruction inhigher education. Barcelona English Language and Literature Studies, 12. Retrieved fromhttp://www.publications.ub.edu/revistes/…/PDF/art04.pdf
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mack, K. (2010). Teaching theme content based courses in Japan: Issues and strategies. Journal of
Atomi University Faculty of Literature, 44. Retrieved from CiNii – Electronic Library Service.
Mohan, B. A. (1991). The integration of language and content: Recent research issues. The
Language Teacher, 15 (11), 6-8.
Papai, N. D. (2000). Literacy development through content based instruction: A case study. Working
Papersin
Educational
Linguistics,
16(2),
84-95.
Retrievedfrom
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/sites/gse.../v16n2Papai.pdf
Richard, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Snow, M. A. (1991). Content-based second/ foreign language instruction: An overview. The
Language Teacher, 15 (11), 3-5.
Suenaga, E. L. (1993). A content-based approach to the learning of vocabulary through compositionand schematic mapping. ‘Studies in Culture’, Hokkai Gakuen University, 1, 131-142.
Retrieved from http://www.ci.nii.ac.jp.naid.110001060091
69

Ayaka HASHINISHI

Swenson, T. (1991). Content in conversation: Incorporating content-based education in the EFL
classroom. The Language Teacher, 15 (11), 9-10.
Vergin, R. Bogdan, D. Tanaka, T. (2011). An experiment in integrating content lectures in English:
A first step in building an international curriculum. Retrieved from http://web.opar.ehimeu.ac.jp/books/img/journal9-4_ruth.pdf
APPENDIX
Questionnaire: Contemporary American Society (CAS)/ Model United Nations (MUN)
Please circle the appropriate options.
1. You are 1.male 2. female
2. 2nd
3. 3rd
4. 4thYour major is 1. English 2. Chinese
3. Spanish 4. Russian
5. International Relations 6. others
Your English level:
EIKEN 1. Grade 1 2. Grade Pre-1 3. Grade 2  4. Grade Pre-2  5. Grade 3
TOEIC 1. 860 or over 2. 730-855 3. 600-725 4. 470-595 5. below 465
How much of the lectures/ simulations can you understand?
1. 80-100% 2. 60-80%
3. 40-60% 4. below 40%
What problems may you have with lessons/ simulations conducted in English?
a. I have trouble concentrating

2. You are .........year student.
3.
4.

5.
6.

1. always

2. often

1. 1st3. sometimes

4. seldom

5. neverb. I fall behind what the teacher and other classmates are saying
1. always 2. often 3. sometimes 4. seldom
5. neverc. I have to constantly look up words in the dictionary
1. always
2. often 3. sometimes 4. seldom
5. neverd. It’s difficult to express my opinions
1. always
2. often 3. sometimes 4. seldom
5. never7. What do you do to improve your understanding of the lectures/ simulations and yourperformance in class?
a. I read articles about the topic that will be discussed in advance
1. always
2. often
3. sometimes
4. seldom
5. neverb. I review my notes at home
1. always
2.often
3. sometimes
4. seldom
5. neverc. (for MUN students only) I rehearse my part at home
1. always 2. often
3. sometimes
4. seldom
5. never8. (for CAS students only) During group discussion, what languages do you and your groupmembers usually use?
1. all English 2. mostly English and a little Japanese 3. half English and half Japanese
4. mostly Japanese and a little English
5. all Japanese70Issues Related to and Strategies for Teaching Content-based Courses in Tertiary Education Settings

9. How much do you think your English has improved after attending the lessons?
1. Speaking skills

1. a lot

2. more than a little

3. a little

4. not at all

2. Reading skills
3. Listening skills

1. a lot
1. a lot

2. more than a little
2. more than a little

3. a little
3. a little

4. not at all
4. not at all

4. Writing skills

1. a lot

2. more than a little

3. a little

4. not at all

3. a little

4. not at all

5. Presentation skills (for MUN students only)
1. a lot

2. more than a little

10. Your interest and motivation in the subject have ………….. because the language used in thelessons is English.
1. increased a lot

2. increased a little

3. not changed

4. decreased a little

5. decreased a lot
11. What languages would you prefer to be used in the lessons?
1. all English
2. mostly English and a little Japanese 3. half English and half Japanese
4. mostly Japanese and a little English
5. all Japanese
12. Other comments _____________________________________________________________

71

JACET Kansai Journal, 15, 72-91. (2013) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Demotivating Factors in Writing Classes that Utilize Online Evaluation Services
Kanae Nishimura
Kinki University

ABSTRACTThis study focuses on demotivating factors in the writing classes that utilize online essay evaluation
services. To identify the main demotivating factors, a questionnaire survey was conducted on 353
first-year university students after they completed their one-year general English course. Contrary
to the claims in previous literature on motivation, the results revealed that loss of self-efficacy andloss of intrinsic motivation have only slight correlation with students’ actual devotion of efforts. The
most significant external demotivating factor was the topics being uninteresting and the mostsignificant internal factor was loss of enjoyment. This study also tackled the question raised byrecent research on demotivation of whether demotivating factors are purely external. The
questionnaire was designed to clarify the relationships between external and internal factors thatadversely affect commitment to tasks, and it led us to conclude that demotivation should be
investigated from the viewpoints of both internal and external factors.
Key words: motivation, demotivation, writing, online evaluation services

I. INTRODUCTION
The aim of this paper is to identify the main factors of student demotivation when writingclasses utilize online essay evaluation services. Writing skills are said to develop when learners
write more. However, the enormous burden of reading, correcting, and grading students’ essays
often compels teachers to limit the amount of writing students do in class. In this context, applying
computers in writing assessment can offer an efficient aid for giving students more opportunities towrite and have feedback on their writings, which will contribute to improving their writing skills. In
addition, automated essay evaluation systems can also eliminate one of the main difficulties writing
tasks create, namely “no immediate feedback.” Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) point out four
aspects that adversely affect writing motivation: (1) difficulty caused by minimal input, (2) thesolitary nature of writing, (3) no immediate feedback, and (4) the effort needed to persist in the task.
With an automated evaluation system, students can obtain feedback about their writing immediately
after submission. Therefore, utilization of such automated systems in writing classes is expected tobe very successful. However, a number of students do not seem to be satisfied with the use of
automated systems. This study aims to identify the negative factors that automated evaluations
create and/or those that remain even after automated evaluations are used. The research findings canlead to useful suggestions to make learning of writing more efficient and desirable.
Dörnyei (1998) (in Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011) proposed the top nine demotivators, factors
72

Demotivating Factors in Writing Classes that Utilize Online Evaluation Services

which have negative influence on learning motivation. These are (i) the teacher (personality,commitment, competence, teaching method), (ii) inadequate school facilities (group is too big or not
the right level; frequent change of teachers), (iii) reduced self-confidence (experience of failure orlack of success), (iv) negative attitude towards the L2, (v) compulsory nature of L2 study, (vi)interference of another foreign language being studied, (vii) negative attitude towards L2
community, (viii) attitudes of group members, and (ix) coursebook. Many of these factors overlap
with those pointed out by other studies. For example, Gorham and Christophel (1992) include as
demotivators dissatisfaction with grading and assignment, the teacher being unmotivated or her
inappropriate behaviors (such as insulting), the dislike of the subject area, and the inferior
organization of the teaching material. Though Sakai and Kikuchi (2009) found that teachers’
competence and teaching styles were not so strong as demotivating factors, they agreed thatlearning contents and materials, and test scores were significant demotivating causes for many
Japanese High school students.
Similar to motivation, demotivation is a complex phenomenon, which involves various
external factors, and at the same time, has a close relationship with various emotions. Previous
studies disagree on the question of whether demotivating factors are purely external. In one aspect,
the most prevalent definition of demotivation emphasizes its external nature by stating that
demotivation concerns “specific external forces that reduce or diminish the motivational basis of abehavioural intention or an ongoing action” (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011: 139). On the other hand,some recent studies including Sakai and Kikuchi (2009), Falout and Maruyama (2004), andTsuchiya (2006) show internal factors as demotivators (e.g., reduced self-confidence and lack ofintrinsic motivation in Sakai & Kikuchi (2009) and self-denigration in Falout, Elwood & Hood(2009)). Even Dörnyei, who regards demotivating factors as external, lists certain demotivators thatcan be viewed as internal, such as (iii) reduced self-confidence, (iv) negative attitude towards theL2, and (vii) negative attitude towards L2 community. Many other studies also show the close
relationship between reduced self-efficacy1and demotivation (Dörnyei, 2001; Pajares & Valiante,
2008; Hidi & Boscolo, 2008; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009, etc.). The correlation between the feeling of
joy and self-efficacy is also found (Hidi & Boscolo, 2008; Schunk & Swartz, 1993). In addition,
self-regulation2 is regarded as an important motivational variable (Graham & Harris, 2000).
In this study, which limits its focus on writing development through the usage of an
automated evaluation system, we posit the following factors as demotivators.
(1) Demotivators in essay writing classes with an automated evaluation system(i) negative external factors
1. No Reliance on Automatic Grading (cf. Gorham & Christophel, 1992)
2. Contingency of Obtained Grades and Dedicated Efforts (Gorham & Christophel, 1992)
3. Unacceptable Disadvantages Caused by Poor Typing Skills
4. Difficulty Level Too High (Dörnyei’s factor in (2))
5. Uninteresting Topics (Gorham & Christophel, 1992)
73

Kanae NISHIMURA(ii) negative internal factors
1. Loss of Intrinsic Motivation (Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009, etc.)
2. Loss of Self-efficacy (Dörnyei, 1998, etc.)
3. Loss of Enjoyment (Hidi & Boscolo, 2008, etc.)
4. Loss of Self-regulation (Graham & Harris, 2000, etc.)
External factors in (i-2) and (i-5) emerged from comments made by students in two preparatory
surveys, which were distributed to 24 students in November 2010 and 451 students in January 2011,
respectively (Nishimura, Ishii & Shimo, 2010; Nishimura, 2011). These two factors were pointed
out by many students in a free-writing section, alongside the other three factors (i-1), (i-3) and (i-4),
which were given as answer choices. Factors (i-1) and (i-2) are both related to dissatisfaction withgrading, a factor pointed out by Gorham and Christophel (1992). Factor (i-3) is unique tocomputer-assisted writing learning. Factors (i-4) and (i-5) are demotivating elements grouped as“Class environment” and “Class materials” in Sakai and Kikuchi (2009). The other demotivating
elements which relate to teachers, classmates, and attitude towards English or its learning at school
were not taken into consideration because these are not specific to writing classes. The rest of themain factors identified in Dörnyei (1998) and other studies are listed as internal factors in (1) (ii).
Finally, how to measure motivation can be controversial. Some previous studies usedlearners’ language proficiency level as the measure of motivation, while others asked simple
questions such as “How motivated are you to learn English?” (Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009). However,learners with a higher proficiency level are not always more motivated than those with a lower level,
and also those who self-report that they are “very motivated” are not necessarily more motivatedthan those who identify as “more or less motivated” or “not so motivated.” Moreover, it is very
difficult to distinguish motivation from other positive feelings such as increasing self-confidence
and interest. Those who described themselves as “very motivated” might merely have enjoyed thetask. Neither of the measurements serves to reveal learners’ motivation levels straightforwardly.
Thus, in the current study, the measurement of commitment to the tasks was adopted for thispurpose. Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) gave a basic definition of motivation by stating that
motivation is responsible for (i) why people decide to do something, (ii) how long they are willingto sustain the activity, and (iii) how hard they are going to pursue it. Because in university
classrooms, students usually do not have the opportunity to decide concerning why and how long,the commitment to the task is measured by asking the subjects how hard they worked to make theiressay better.
II. RESEARCH QUESTIONSThe hypothesis we adopt in this study is that all the demotivating factors listed in (1) havenegative impact on students’ commitment level. Our research questions are to bring to light therelationship between external and internal factors, to examine whether this hypothesis stands true
for writing classes utilizing an automatic grading service, and to specify which demotivator
74

Demotivating Factors in Writing Classes that Utilize Online Evaluation Services

correlates the most with the level of commitment toward writing tasks. Also, if the previous studies
claiming the relationship between difficulty levels and motivation levels are correct, students inlower classes would be expected to show demotivation more often when given a task of the samedifficulty. In the current survey framework, regardless of class levels, the levels of the writing
assignments given to students were almost the same among all the classes. Essay topics werechosen from the same range of difficulty and students’ essays were evaluated through the computer
system following the same criteria. When the level of an assignment remains the same, then thestudents’ perception of the task difficulty increases as the class level goes down. Therefore, we can
expect a tendency that lower-proficiency students put their effort to writing tasks less.
(2) Research Questions(i) Which external factors caused the four negative elements?
(ii) Which negative external factors correlate the most with the level of commitment toward
writing tasks?
(iii) Which negative internal factors correlate the most with the level of commitment toward
writing tasks?
(iv) Is there a tendency that lower-proficiency students work less hard? If they work less, is it
because they perceive the tasks as too difficult?
III. METHOD
1. ParticipantsParticipants in this study consisted of 353 first-year university students in Osaka, Japan, whowere enrolled in one general English and one oral English course, each of which included two
90-minute classes per week. They were placed in 18 different classes on the basis of the scores of
their placement tests taken prior to the beginning of the course. Each class utilized an online writing
evaluation service, and students submitted six practice essays and four essays for the mid-term andfinal examinations. Sample essay topics are as follows:- [Descriptive/ Narrative] Describe a "good person"/ your favorite movie/ a trip you have taken.
- [Cause/ Effect] Write an essay describing how life would change if someone in your family
stopped doing his or her regular household chore.
- [Compare/ Contrast] Explain how the place you live and the place you would like to go for atrip are similar and how they are different.
- [Persuasive] Decide how to use an unused room and write a letter to the authority to support
your opinion.
Descriptive and narrative essays were chosen for the first semester and the other three types
for the second semester. Except for the final examination in the second semester, each class chose75

Kanae NISHIMURA

different topics. For the mid-term and final examinations in the first semester, and the mid-term
examination in the second semester, students had one to three weeks to complete essays before theexamination day. Before each examination, they submitted their drafts once for practice to theonline evaluation service to receive feedback on grammar (e.g., run-on sentences, subject-verb
agreement), usage (e.g., wrong articles, preposition errors), mechanics (e.g., spelling, missing
question mark), style (e.g., repetition of words, too many short sentences), and organization anddevelopment (e.g., thesis statement, transition words). After making necessary corrections, they
remembered the content or sentences of the essay. On the examination, they typed their essay online without drafts, dictionaries or any resources within 30 minutes. For the final examination in thesecond semester, four topics of the same level were chosen for four different groups of classes since
four different slots were arranged in the examination time schedule for each group. The students
were given 10 minutes of preparation time. The topics were presented 10 minutes before thestudents started to type on the computer. The allotted time for completing the essay was 30 minutes.
Students had chance to practice twice the same style (10 minutes preparation + 30 minutes writing)with different topics before the final examination.
The timing and detailed contents of the instruction given during the class, as well as the
textbooks used, varied by individual teachers. Some teachers required students to write more than acertain number of words (e.g., 200 words) in some or all of the essays. In some classes, before
tackling the writing tasks, the students read articles related to the essay topics or articles that
followed similar organizational patterns to those that the students were supposed to adopt in theirwriting. Despite the many variations in teaching style, all the teachers succeeded in having theirstudents understand and practice how to write an essay. The students were taught that an essay
contains a thesis statement in the introductory paragraph, a topic sentence followed by its
supporting sentences in each of the body paragraphs, and a concluding statement in the final
paragraph. They practiced writing essays following these rules. After each practice submission, thestudents were advised to improve their essays referring to the feedback from the online service.
2. Procedure
An anonymous questionnaire survey was conducted in each class from January 12 through 24,
2012. The aim of the questionnaire was to clarify the cause-and-effect relationship between the fivenegative external factors and four negative internal factors shown in (1) above. In addition, therelationship between the external and internal factors as well as effort levels devoted by the students
was examined. The negative internal and external factors were listed in the questionnaire, which
also had a free-writing section marked “other” for those who could not find any appropriate
choices3. The following items, shown in (2) and (3), were interpreted from the factors provided in
(1).

76

Demotivating Factors in Writing Classes that Utilize Online Evaluation Services(2) [External factors]- The given scores are not reliable. 㸦Ⅼᩘࡀಙ㢗࡛ࡁ࡞࠸㸧ĺ 1. No Reliance on Automatic Grading- The given scores do not reflect my efforts. 㸦Ⅼᩘ࡟ດຊࡀ཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡞࠸㸧ĺ 2. Contingency of Obtained Grades and the Dedicated Efforts- Poor typing skills are a disadvantage. 㸦ࢱ࢖ࣆࣥࢢࡀⱞᡭࡔ࡜ᦆࢆࡍࡿ㸧ĺ 3. Disadvantages Caused by Poor Typing Skills- The difficulty levels of the writing tasks are too high. 㸦ࣞ࣋ࣝࡀ㧗ࡍࡂࡿ㸧
ĺ 4.Difficulty Level Too High- Given topics were not interesting.㸦ࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡟⯆࿡ࡀࡶ࡚࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸧ĺ 5. Uninteresting Topics- Other 㸦ࡑࡢ௚㸧(3) [Internal Factors]- It demotivated me. 㸦ࡸࡿẼࡀࡑࡀࢀࡓ㸧ĺ 1. Loss of Intrinsic Motivation- It reduced my confidence. 㸦⮬ศ࡟ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ẽᣢࡕ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ㸧ĺ 2. Loss of Self-efficacy- It made me feel bored. 㸦ࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸࡜ឤࡌࡓ㸧ĺ 3. Loss of Enjoyment- I lost my desire to improve my writing.㸦⮬ศ࡛ⱥᩥࢆᨵၿࡋࡼ࠺࡜ᛮ࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸧ĺ 4 Loss of Self-regulation- Other 㸦ࡑࡢ௚㸧The questionnaire then asked the students to attribute as many negative internal features as they
could think of that were caused by each negative external factor. Students who experienced nonegative emotion were asked to leave it blank. Students unable to make a decision from the fourchoices were allowed to choose the “other” category.
Regarding effort levels, the students were asked two questions:x

Do you think that you gathered enough information to write essays by using the Internet orsome other resource?

x

Do you think that you made enough effort to improve your English writing by looking up
for words or grammar in a dictionary or other books?
Subsequently, they were asked to choose one of the following five answers on a 5-point scale: (0) I
Don’t Know, (1) I Definitely Don’t Think So, (2) I Really Don’t Think So, (3) I Think So to Some
Extent, and (4) I Strongly Think So. Choice (1) corresponded to 1 point and (4) to 4 points. A totalof 25 students who selected (0) were excluded from the data and thus from the entire calculation.
Then, the average of the two scores from the two questions was calculated to divide the students
into four overall groups: Inactive (average score of 1–1.5 points): 17 students, Non-hardworking
77Kanae NISHIMURA(2–2.5 points): 117 students, Hardworking (3–3.5 points): 166 students, and Very Hardworking (4points): 28 students.
IV. RESULTS
1. External Factors Causing the Four Negative Internal Factors
The results from the 353 participants of the survey showed that 219 students chose No
Reliance on Grading, 193 students Contingency, 224 Typing Disadvantage, 179 Difficulty Level
Too High, 217 Uninteresting Topics, and 28 Others. On average, the students chose 3.00 external
factors. The numbers of items chosen as internal factors caused by those external factors are shownin Table 1. The total of 1,084 indicates the cumulative number of students who marked the fivechoices concerning negative internal features. For example, a student who marked Loss of Intrinsic
Motivation and Loss of Self-efficacy for the external factor of No Reliance on Automatic Grading
is counted as two. Therefore, on average, the students chose 3.07 negative internal changes for thesix external features.
Table 1
Numbers of Students who Selected the Negative Internal Changes for Each Negative External
Factor

No Reliance on
Automatic Grading
Contingency
TypingDisadvantage
Difficulty Level Too
High
Uninteresting Topics
Other
Total

Loss of
Intrinsic
Motivation
56

Loss ofSelf-efficacy

Loss ofEnjoyment

Loss ofSelf-regulation

Other

Total

61

52

33

19

221

67
78

45
74

51
49

21
12

11
20

195
233

42

74

37

17

13

183

71
5
319

30
6
290

101
9
299

8
4
95

13
5
81

223
29
1084

Figure 1 shows the relationships between negative internal and external factors. The verticalaxis indicates the number of students. The Loss of Intrinsic Motivation is evenly affected by eachexternal factor and its most important triggers are Typing Disadvantage, Contingency Between the
Obtained Grades and the Devoted Efforts, and Uninteresting Topics. The Loss of Self-efficacy was
found to be triggered by Difficulty Level Too High, Typing Disadvantage, and No Reliance on
Automatic Grading. Uninteresting Topics had a significant impact on the Loss of Enjoyment, while
Difficulty Level Too High and Typing Disadvantage had little impact. The Loss of Self-regulation
was noticeably lower than any other negative internal factor, and it was not caused by any
significant negative factor4. Its greatest trigger was No Reliance on Automatic Grading.

78

Demotivating Factors in Writing Classes that Utilize Online Evaluation Services

350
300
250

Other

200

Uninteresting Topics

150

Difficulty Level Too High100

Typing Disadvantage

50

Contingency
No Reliance on Grading0
Loss of
Intrinsic
Motivation

Loss of Selfefficacy

Loss ofEnjoyment

Loss of Selfregulation

Other

Figure 1. Relationship between negative emotions and negative external factors
2. Negative External Factors Correlating the Most with Commitment Levels
Figure 2 shows the number of negative factors that were marked on average by each group of
students. The factors of Typing Disadvantage and Uninteresting Topics suggest a negative
correlation with the amount of effort devoted toward the tasks. Contingency, No Reliance on
Automatic Grading, and Difficulty Level Too High also suggest a weak negative correlation. The
means, maximum and minimum values, and standard deviations of Commitment and the fivenegative external factors are given in Table 2.

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
No Relianceon Grading
Inactive

Contingency

TypingDisadvantage

Non-hardworking

Difficulty
Level TooHigh

Hardworking

Uninteresting
TopicsOther

Very Hardrworking

Figure 2. The average numbers of markings on the external factors among the four groups

79Kanae NISHIMURA

Table 2Means, max/min values, and s.d. of Commitment and negative emotions
㻌Commitment
No Reliance on Grading
Contingency
Typing Disadvantage
Difficulty Level Too High
Uninteresting Topics

Mean
2.83
0.62
0.55
0.63
0.49
0.62

Max
4
1
1
1
1
1

Min
1
0
0
0
0
0

SD
0.69
0.48
0.50
0.48
0.50
0.48

Correlation coefficients of commitment toward the tasks with each negative factor are í.08 for No
Reliance on Automatic Grading, í.08 for Typing Disadvantage, í.08 for Difficulty Level Too High,and í.11 for Uninteresting Topics. Though all the values are not high enough, only Uninteresting
Topics rejects the null hypothesis in the test of no correlation (t = 1.99, p =.047).
3. Negative Internal Factors Correlating the Most with Commitment Levels
Figure 3 shows the number of negative internal factors that are marked on average by the four
student groups. It suggests negative correlations between commitment levels and negative internal
factors except for the Loss of Self-regulation. The means, maximum and minimum values, andstandard deviations of Commitment and the four negative internal factors are given in Table 3.
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Loss of Intrinsic
Motivation
Inactive

Loss of Selfefficacy

Non-hardworking

Loss ofEnjoyment

Loss of Selfregulation

Hardworking

OthersVery Hardrworking

Figure 3. The average numbers of markings on the negative internal factors among the fourgroupsTable 3Means, max/min values, and s.d. of Commitment and negative internal factors
Commitment
Loss of Intrinsic Motivation
Loss of Self-efficacy
Loss of Enjoyment
Loss of Self-regulation

Mean
2.83
0.89
0.84
0.85
0.26

Max
4
6
6
6
4
80

Min
1
0
0
0
0

SD
0.69
1.19
1.17
1.23
0.59

Demotivating Factors in Writing Classes that Utilize Online Evaluation Services

Loss of Intrinsic Motivation, Loss of Self-efficacy, and Loss of Enjoyment suggest negative
correlations with commitment (r = -.07, -.002 and -.15*). The only factor that can be admitted to be
in correlation with actual efforts is the Loss of Enjoyment. Its results of the test for no correlation ist = 2.74, p = .01. Loss of Intrinsic Motivation and Loss of Self-efficacy are not correlated to theamount of effort devoted toward the tasks. This contradicts what has been generally stated in theliterature. Moreover, Loss of Self-regulation shows a weak positive correlation with devotion ofefforts (r = .09). In other words, the less students attempt to regulate themselves to complete thetasks, the more they try to improve their essays. Drawing on the results from this survey, the best
predictor of actual devotion of efforts is enjoyment. However, intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy,
self-regulation were found not to be good predictors of actual commitment.
4. Tendencies of the three proficiency-based groups
4.1 General characteristics of each group
On the basis of their placement test results, the 18 classes were divided into three proficiency
groups. The test is standardized, and its results follow a normal distribution (x: N (mean, variance)= N (188.62, 1139.65)). The dividing scores are calculated by the formula “Means0.5 SD (=205.51, 171.75)” to form Lower, Middle, and Upper groups. Because the survey was anonymous,
we could use only class levels to associate students with test scores. The Lower group (n = 137)
comprises the classes of which average scores are the closest to 171.75 or less than this. The Uppergroup (n = 92) comprises the classes of which average scores are the closest to 205.51 or higher
than this. The remaining classes form the Middle group (n = 124). As shown in Figure 4, theInactive and Non-hardworking groups occupy 53% of the Lower group, whereas they are theminority in the upper groups (with 37% in the Middle and 27% in the Upper). Furthermore, theHardworking and Very Hardworking groups occupy 46% of the Lower group, whereas they occupy
62% in the Middle and 72 % of the Upper. In other words, the higher the students’ proficiency
becomes, the more efforts they make.
100%
80%

40%

60%
40%
20%
0%

4%

6%

17%

58%
55%

46%

32%

7%

5%

Lower

Middle

25%
2%
Upper

Inactive

Non-hardworking

Hardworking

Very Hardworking

Figure 4. Proportion of the four groups in the three proficiency-based groups

81Kanae NISHIMURAThe overall number of markings decreased as the proficiency levels increased. Table 4 andTable 5 show the means, standard deviations and the t-test results of the differences in the means
between Lower and Upper groups concerning negative external and internal variables. Due to themultiple paired comparisons, Bonferroni’s adjustment was applied to minimize inflation of error
rates (Ș=.05). Since six and five t-tests were conducted in each table, the statistical significancelevels were chosen to be .008 and .01 respectively. According to the results, an external factor“Typing Disadvantage”, and two internal factors “Loss of Intrinsic Motivation” and “Loss of
Enjoyment” differ significantly between Lower and Upper groups: Lower-proficiency students
chose those factors more often than upper-proficiency students.
Table 4Means, standard deviations, and t-test results of the negative external factors
Lower(n = 137)

Middle(n = 124)Upper(n = 92)

Mean (Lower)-Mean (Upper)

㻌㻌

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

p

Effect Size (d)No Reliance on
Grading

0.23

0.18

0.31

0.22

0.20

0.16

0.69

.49

.17

0.15

0.13

0.19

0.15

0.17

0.15

-0.41

.68

.14

0.21

0.17

0.26

0.19

0.38

0.24

-2.73*.007.85

Difficulty Level
Too High

0.16

0.14

0.13

0.11

0.11

0.10

1.14

.25

.04

Uninteresting
Topics

0.22

0.17

0.29

0.21

0.23

0.18

-0.16

.87

.06

Others

0.03

0.17

0.03

0.18

0.05

0.23

-0.90

.37

.10
*P<.008

Contingency
TypingDisadvantage

Table 5Means, standard deviations, and t-test results of the negative internal factors
Lower(n = 137)

Middle(n = 124)Upper(n = 92)

Mean (Lower) - Mean (Upper)

㻌

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

p

Effect Size (d)Loss of Intrinsic
Motivation

1.02

2.02

0.80

1.11

0.63

0.70

2.62*

.009

.24

Loss ofSelf-efficacy

0.91

1.56

0.72

1.13

0.70

1.01

1.40

.16

.15

Loss ofEnjoyment

0.93

1.65

0.93

1.68

0.52

0.82

2.85*

.005

.30

Loss ofSelf-regulation

0.36

0.73

0.20

0.26

0.20

0.16

1.93

.06

.28

Others

0.18

0.58

0.20

0.57

0.34

1.02

-1.3

.19

.20
*P<.0182

Demotivating Factors in Writing Classes that Utilize Online Evaluation Services

4.2 Relation between negative external factors and actual commitment
The average numbers of markings on the negative external factors among the Inactive,
Non-hardworking, Hardworking, and Very Hardworking groups are shown in Figure 5, 6 and 7 foreach proficiency group. The vertical axis in the figures corresponds to the average markings on eachnegative factor. In the Lower- and Middle-proficiency groups, Very Hardworking groups marked
negative external factors as frequently as Inactive groups did. This tendency was not observed in theUpper-proficiency group. In the Upper group, those who marked more negative features worked
less, and those who marked less worked more. This suggests that there were more students who
studied hard despite the frustration caused by negative external factors in the Lower and Middle
groups than in the Upper group, where students studied with less stress.
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

No Reliance on
Grading

Contingency

TypingDisadvantage

Difficulty Level
Too High

Uninteresting
TopicsInactive= 9)
Inactive (n(n= 9)Non-hardworking
Non-hardworking (n =(n57)= 57)

Hardworking= 50)
Hardworking (n =(n50)

Very
Hardworking
Very Hardworking(n = (n8) = 8)

Other

Figure 5. The average numbers of markings on the negative external factors among the fourgroups (Lower-proficiency Group)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

No Reliance on
Grading

Contingency

TypingDisadvantage

Difficulty Level
Too High

Uninteresting
TopicsInactive=6)
Lazy(n =(n6)Non-hardworking (n(n= =38)
Non-hardworking
38)

Hardworking
68)
Hardworking (n(n==68)

Very
= 5)
Very Hardworking
Hardworking (n(n
= 5)

Other

Figure 6. The average numbers of markings on the negative external factors among the fourgroups (Middle-proficiency Group)83Kanae NISHIMURA

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

No Reliance on
Grading

Contingency

TypingDisadvantage

Difficulty Level
Too High

Uninteresting
TopicsInactive= 2)
Lazy(n =(n2)Non-hardworking (n(n= =22)Non-hardworking
22)

Hardworking
48)
Hardworking (n(n==48)

Very
= 15)
Very Hardworking
Hardworking (n(n
= 15)

Other

Figure 7. The average numbers of markings on the negative external factors among the fourgroups (Upper-proficiency Group)
4.3 Relation between negative emotions and actual commitment
The average numbers of markings on the negative internal factors among the Inactive,
Non-hardworking, Hardworking, and Very Hardworking groups are shown in Figure 8, 9 and 10 foreach proficiency group. The vertical axis represents the average number of markings on each factor.
In the Lower group, the Inactive and Non-hardworking groups marked Loss of Intrinsic
Motivation most frequently. On the other hand, the Very Hardworking group chose Loss of
Self-efficacy significantly more frequently than did any other group. This suggests that there are
two types of students: those who devoted enough effort even though (or for the very reason that)they lost their confidence, and those who lost their confidence because they could not achievesatisfactory results despite working hard.5
For the students in the Middle group, the Loss of Enjoyment (the largest negative internal
factor, as seen in Table 5) was felt not only by the Inactive group but also by the Very Hardworking
group. This suggests that there were students who worked hard even though they did not enjoy it. In
fact, more than 50% of the markings on Loss of Enjoyment were from the Hardworking and Very
Hardworking groups (55 out of 107 markings). In addition, more than 50% of the markings on Lossof Intrinsic Motivation (64 out of 99) and Loss of Self-efficacy (49 out of 88) came from
hardworking groups.
In the Upper group, more than 70% of the students were in the Hardworking or Very
Hardworking group. The Inactive group marked Loss of Self-efficacy and Loss of Enjoyment twice
as more frequently as did the other groups. The holistic average number of markings on the four
factors (2.4 items) is lower than the Lower (3.4 items) and Middle (2.8 items) groups. The
difference of means between the Lower and Upper groups is significant (t = 4.08, p <.001).

84

Demotivating Factors in Writing Classes that Utilize Online Evaluation Services

2
1.6

1.5
1.1 1.1

1

1

1.1
0.8

1.1

1.1

1

1

1

0.5
0

0.8

0.7
0.2

Loss of Intrinsic
Motivation

Loss of Self-efficacy Loss of Enjoyment

0.3

0.4
0.1

Loss of Selfregulation

Inactive
(n9)
= 9)
Lazy
(n =

Non-hardworking (n(n= 57)Non-hardworking= 57)

Hardworking
50)
Hardworking (n(n= =50)

Very
= 8)
Very Hardworking
Hardworking (n(n= 8)

0.2 0.2

0.4

Other

Figure 8. The average numbers of markings on the negative internal factors among the fourgroups (Lower-proficiency Group)
3

2.5

2.5

1.8

2
1.5
1

0.7 0.8

0.9 1

0.7

0.9

1

0.7 0.6

0.7

0.5
0

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Loss of Intrinsic
Motivation

Loss of Self-efficacy Loss of Enjoyment

0.2 0.2 0.2

Loss of Selfregulation

Inactive=6)
Lazy(n =(n6)Non-hardworking (n(n= =38)
Non-hardworking
38)

Hardworking
68)
Hardworking (n(n==68)

Very
= 5)
Very Hardworking
Hardworking (n(n
= 5)

0

Other

Figure 9. The average numbers of markings on the negative internal factors among the fourgroups (Middle-proficiency Group)
3

2.5

2.5
2

1.5

1.5
1
0.5
0

0.9
0.5

0.7

1
0.5

0.7 0.7

0.8

0.5 0.5
0Loss of Intrinsic
Motivation

Loss of Self-efficacy Loss of Enjoyment

0.2 0.2 0.3

Loss of Selfregulation

Inactive
Lazy(n =(n2)= 2)

Non-hardworking (n(n= =22)22)
Non-hardworking

Hardworking
48)
Hardworking (n(n==48)

Very
= 15)
Very Hardworking
Hardworking (n(n
= 15)

0.6
0

0.2

0.5

Other

Figure 10. The average numbers of markings on the negative internal factors among the fourgroups (Upper-proficiency Group)85

Kanae NISHIMURA

V. DISCUSSION
The questionnaire survey elucidated the following points:(i) Which external factors caused the four negative emotions?
- The external factor Uninteresting Topics caused the internal factor Loss of Enjoyment. The
other external factors affected the internal factors Loss of Intrinsic Motivation and Loss of
Self-efficacy almost evenly. Loss of Self-regulations gathered few votes.
(ii) Which negative external factors correlate the most with the level of commitment toward
writing tasks?
- Uninteresting Topics correlate the most with actual devotion of efforts.
(iii) Which negative internal factors correlate the most with the level of commitment toward
writing tasks?
- Loss of Enjoyment correlates the most with actual devotion of efforts.
(iv) Is there a tendency that lower-proficiency students work less hard?
- Yes. Almost a half of the students in the Lower classes were Inactive or Non-hardworking,whereas most of the students in the Upper classes were Hardworking or Very Hardworking.
If they work less, is it because they perceive the tasks as too difficult?
- No. The only significant difference between the two proficiency groups was in Typing
Disadvantage as an external factor, and in Loss of Intrinsic Motivation and Loss of
Enjoyment as internal factors.
The point in (i) indicates that the association between internal and external factors is notstraightforward. For some students, one external factor affects one internal factor, but for otherstudents, the same external factor affects other internal factors. The only association found in thissurvey was between Uninteresting Topic (causer) and Loss of Enjoyment (effect). The former was
the greatest external factor to cause the latter, and the latter, in turn, was the internal effect that theformer caused the most. One-third of the total markings on Loss of Enjoyment (101 of 299) areassociated with Uninteresting Topics as their cause, and the biggest portion of the markings on
Uninteresting topics (101 of 223) is from Loss of Enjoyment.
As pointed out in (ii) and (iii), the only factors in correlation with actual devotion of efforts
are Uninteresting Topics and Loss of Enjoyment. Loss of Self-efficacy was irrelevant to actual
devotion of efforts. This is contrary to what has been claimed in many studies. In our questionnaire
survey, most students (74 of the 124 students who lost self-efficacy) worked hard or very hard, eventhough they lost confidence during the tasks. The correlation between Loss of Intrinsic Motivation
and actual devotion of efforts was also found to be extremely weak, though it had the greatest
86Demotivating Factors in Writing Classes that Utilize Online Evaluation Services

negative effect. In this survey, 194 of the 328 students who marked this factor worked hard. In
contrast, Loss of Self-regulation had the smallest negative effect. About three-fourths of thestudents (258 of 353) did not mark it for any question. However, approximately half (134 of the 328
students) did not work hard enough. These facts may indicate that losses of self-efficacy, of intrinsic
motivation, and of self-regulation have no substantial effect on actual devotion of efforts on theirown, or they may just suggest many students still made an effort even as they experienced negative
effects. The latter possibility can be brought by other external factors such as the desire (orrequirement) to obtain good grades, to graduate from university, and to find a good job. One morething to take into consideration here is that the students also reported that their intrinsic motivation
was enhanced by receiving instant feedback and purely objective grading. Therefore, we cannot
conclude that the losses of self-efficacy, of intrinsic motivation, and of self-regulation do not havean impact on commitment levels, or that the students worked on their writing skills only on thebasis of extrinsic motivation. However, the study showed clearly the amount of effort that students
actually put into writing assignments correlates with Loss of Enjoyment more than the three
powerful predictor candidates.
With (i), (ii), and (iii) considered together, a cause-effect relationship can be observed
between Uninteresting Topics and Loss of Enjoyment, and between Loss of Enjoyment and low
devotion of efforts. The suggestions and assumptions made in this study will be verified if we caneliminate a significant number of markings on Loss of Enjoyment by assigning interesting topics forstudents and if we can reduce a significant number of inactive and non-hardworking students byassigning interesting topics. From a pedagogical point of view, it is key for successful writingclasses to include topics that students are likely to be interested in. Teachers can have the students
choose topics themselves according to their interests or give them a list of topics from which tochoose. As shown in this study, when students are writing about something they find interesting,they enjoy writing, which is expected to lead to a greater amount of effort that they put into thewriting assignment.
Finally, as stated in (iv), although the tendency that lower-proficiency students work less isconfirmed, it is not because they perceive the tasks as too difficult. The average number ofmarkings on Difficult Level Too High appears to increases as the class levels goes down. However,it does not show significant difference between the Lower and the Upper groups. In addition, in all
the proficiency groups, Difficult Level Too High does not suggest a negative correlation with theamount of effort towards the tasks. On the contrary, based on the significant differences between thetwo groups regarding Typing Disadvantage, Loss of Intrinsic Motivation, and Loss of Enjoyment,
we can say that teachers should be careful about posing additional burdens, such as practicing
typing, on students for whom the writing task is overwhelmingly difficult. Such burdens, which
may not affect higher-proficiency students so much, can have negative impacts on many students inlower level classes. The same applies to the other two factors. Lower-proficiency students are more
likely to lose intrinsic motivation and enjoyment when facing a negative external factor, incomparison to their higher-proficiency counterparts. Teachers should be aware of these tendencies.
87Kanae NISHIMURA

Comparisons of the markings on negative factors among the three proficiency groups brought
to light several different characteristics of students at these proficiency levels, even though thenumbers of students in the Inactive and Very Hardworking groups at each proficiency level were sosmall that a conclusive judgment could not be made on this issue. This implication will make thefindings of this research more practical. For example, the results implied that, compared to students
in the Upper group, students in the Lower and Middle groups felt frustrated by more features of thewriting assignments utilizing the online essay evaluation service. This calls for more considerations
for the Lower and Middle groups: Students may need explanations about how the online service
evaluates their essay and in what ways the scores it gives them are useful, or they may needscaffolding to write single sentences and relate each sentence to another before organizing the essay.
For the Upper group, where Loss of Self-efficacy appears to be the largest demotivator, teachers
may need to help students notice their improvements so that they can develop greater self-efficacy.
Lastly, several methodological inadequacies in this study should be addressed here for
improvement in future research. First, we need to devise a measurement of motivation. This study
used levels of commitment to the tasks to measure motivation. However, it is possible that people
work hard even when they have little motivation. Therefore, we need to establish reliable methods
to measure motivation in the first place. Second, to judge students’ commitment levels, only two
criteria were used, namely, how much effort they made in (i) gathering information and (ii)consulting reference books to write better essays. However, these are not the only factors to detect
the amount of students’ effort. The total number of words in the essays and personal overall
impressions of their effort levels should also be taken into account, among other considerations.
Third, in the questionnaire, which asked the students to choose as many items as they thought were
attributable, it was not guaranteed that all the students thought the item in question was attributable
to the same degree. Some students might have thought one negative factor was a significant
demotivator, while some other students selecting the same item might have thought it was only aminor demotivator. Therefore, the questions should be revised to capture students’ feelings more
precisely.
VI. CONCLUSION
The most significant external and internal demotivating factors are Uninteresting Topics andLoss of Enjoyment, respectively. The factor of Uninteresting Topics is the greatest cause of Loss of
Enjoyment, and Loss of Enjoyment is the greatest effect of Uninteresting Topics. From thisquestionnaire survey, we could not determine whether internal or external factors are more
appropriate for examination in the study of demotivation. However, the strong association between
uninteresting topics and loss of enjoyment and their association with the levels of actual efforts may
imply the necessity to analyze demotivation from both aspects. For any of the negative factors,
internal or external, a large number of markings predicts low efforts made by the students.
Automatic grading systems can help students develop their writing skills by giving them
immediate feedback without bothering the teachers. However, teachers still need to read and give88

Demotivating Factors in Writing Classes that Utilize Online Evaluation Services

personal comments on the students’ essays. Teachers’ interventions in the learning of writing play
an important role in giving the students reasons to write and helping to improve their writing skills.
Advice this study can offer is that topic choice is one of the most important elements to havestudents enjoy writing and work hard in writing classes. When the writing topics are uninteresting,students are unlikely to enjoy the writing tasks, and if they do not enjoy writing, they will probably
devote little effort to it. Despite the aid of automatic grading systems, which allow students to write
more on their own, students will write less if they do not find the task enjoyable—and this impedes
the development of their writing skills. Instruction in writing classes should also be changed
according to students’ language proficiency levels. This is done not only by selecting easier topics
for writing or lowering the achievement goals of lower-proficiency classes, but also by taking care
not to impose additional burdens other than the main writing task and by appropriately addressing
student frustration, which builds up more easily in lower level classes. However, these findings
represent only a small fraction of the facts to be uncovered regarding this topic. Further studies areneeded to investigate learners’ motivation/demotivation from various perspectives.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study owes much to the help by my colleagues who distributed questionnaires and took time
for students to answer them during class in January 2012. I wish to thank Ms. Etsuko Shimo, Ms.
Kaori Nitta, Mr. Manabu Tamura, Mr. Masahiko Iwata, Ms. Midori Hayashi, Ms. Mitsuko Nishi, Mr.
Osamu Yamaguchi, Mr. Takayuki Ishii, Mr. Takeshi Kita, and Ms. Yuka Ogawa. I would also like toexpress my gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier
version of this paper.

NOTES
1 Self-efficacy beliefs are, in the context of schooling, defined as students’ judgment “of theircapabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to attain designated types of
performances” (Bandura, 1986 in Pajares & Valiante, 2008)2
Students using self-regulatory strategies are independent learners who are able to set goals,
motivate themselves, or stay focused when distracted by other classmates by themselves.
3
The number of the markings on “others” was 81 out of 1084 markings. We did not analyze
students’ voices written in the free-writing space in this study.
4
Another section of the questionnaire asked the students to answer which factor improved whichaspect of learning. According to the results, the immediate feedback given by the online service
increased students’ intention to improve their English sentences on their own. Therefore, the reason
why the Loss of Self-regulation is so low compared to other negative emotions resides in thefavorable characteristics of the automated evaluation system.
5
Based on the results from the questionnaire, the students whose average commitment score was 3
or more, and who marked Loss of Confidence for any questions totaled 34. Among these, 12 were
not satisfied with their outcomes (so much/at all), and 21 were satisfied with their outcomes (tosome extent/very much). Of the 34, one did not respond to the question about satisfaction in theoutcomes. This leads us to conclude that most students made efforts even though they lost theirself-efficacy, and were eventually satisfied with their essays.
89

Kanae NISHIMURAREFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dörnyei, Z. (1998, March). Demotivation in foreign language learning. Paper presented at the
TESOL’98 Congress, Seattle, WA.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.), Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.
Falout, J., Elwood, J., & Hood, M. (2009). Demotivation: Affective states and learning outcomes.
System, 37, 403–417.
Falout, J., & Maruyama, M. (2004). A comparative study of proficiency and learner demotivation.
The Language Teacher, 28, 3–9.
Gorham, J. & Christophel, D.M. (1992). Students’ perceptions of teacher behaviors as motivating
and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Quarterly, 40, 239-252.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing
and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12.
Hidi, S., & Boscolo P. (2008). Motivation and writing. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J.
Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 144–157). New York/London: The
Guilford Press.
Nishimura, K., Ishii, T. & Shimo, E. (2010, November). Implementation of writing tests forfirst-year university students by use of “Criterion.” Paper presented at JACET Kansai
Chapter 2010 Autumn Conference, Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya.
Nishimura, K. (2011). A questionnaire survey on the usability of the Criterion online writing
evaluation service among 451 first-year students at the Faculty of Applied Sociology. Kinki
University Center for Liberal Arts and Foreign Language Education Journal. Liberal Arts
Edition, 2 (1), 405-425.
Pajares, F. & Valiante, G. (2008). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In
C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.
158-170). New York/London: The Guilford Press.
Sakai, H., & Kikuchi, K. (2009). An analysis of demotivators in the EFL classroom. System, 37, 57–
69.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy andwriting achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 337–354.
Tsuchiya, M. (2006). Factors in demotivation of lower proficiency English learners at college.
English and English Teaching (Hiroshima Daigaku Gakko Kyoiku Gakubu Eigo Kenkyu-kai),Special Issue, 87–96.
Zimmerman, B.J. & Risemberg, R. (1997). Become a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73-101.

90

Demotivating Factors in Writing Classes that Utilize Online Evaluation Services

APPENDIX : Questions asked in the questionnaire1䠊㻌 䜎䛪䚸Criterion䜢౑䛳䛶䛔䛶䚸Ⰻ䛛䛳䛯䛸ᛮ䛖Ⅼ䜢ᕥḍ䛻䝬䞊䜽䛧䛶䛟䛰䛥䛔䠄」ᩘᅇ⟅ྍ䠅䚹ḟ䛻䚸ᕥḍ䛻䝬䞊䜽䛧䛯㡯┠䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸䛭䜜䛮䜜䛹䛖Ⰻ䛛䛳䛯䛸ᛮ䛖䛾䛛䚸䛭䛾⌮⏤䜢ୗ䛾A䡚E䛛䜙㑅䜣䛷䝬䞊䜽䛩䜛䛛䚸⮬⏤グ㏙ḍ䛻グධ䛩䜛䛛䛧䛶䚸⟅䛘䛶䛟䛰䛥䛔䚹E䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ሙྜ䛿䚸 ෆᐜ䜢䠄㻌 䠅䛻᭩䛔䛶ୗ䛥䛔䠄」ᩘᅇ⟅ྍ䠅䚹A‫ ۑ‬B‫ ۑ‬C‫ ۑ‬D‫ ۑ‬E‫ۑ‬㸧‫ ۑ‬ᐈほⓗ࡞Ⅼᩘࡀฟࡿࠋ㸦⮬⏤グ㏙ĺ‫ ۑ‬ᩥἲࠊᩥయ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡀ㏉ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋ㸦⮬⏤グ㏙ĺ㸧A‫ ۑ‬B‫ ۑ‬C‫ ۑ‬D‫ ۑ‬E‫ۑ‬‫ ۑ‬Ⅼᩘࡸᩥἲࠊᩥయ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡀ༶ᗙ࡟㏉ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋ㸦⮬⏤グ㏙ĺ  㸧 A‫ ۑ‬B‫ ۑ‬C‫ ۑ‬D‫ ۑ‬E‫ۑ‬‫ ۑ‬ඛ⏕࡜Criterionࡢ୧᪉࡟᥇Ⅼࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡿࠋ㸦⮬⏤グ㏙ĺ㸧A‫ ۑ‬B‫ ۑ‬C‫ ۑ‬D‫ ۑ‬E‫ۑ‬‫⯆ ۑ‬࿡ࡢᣢ࡚ࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࠋ㸦⮬⏤グ㏙ĺ㸧A‫ ۑ‬B‫ ۑ‬C‫ ۑ‬D‫ ۑ‬E‫ۑ‬‫ࡢࡑ ۑ‬௚㸦⮬⏤グ㏙ĺ㸧A‫ ۑ‬B‫ ۑ‬C‫ ۑ‬D‫ ۑ‬E‫ۑ‬A㸬ࡸࡿẼ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗࡓࠋ  B㸬⮬ศ࡛ⱥㄒࢆ౑ࡗ࡚⾲⌧࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ẽ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
C㸬ᴦࡋࡃຮᙉࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ  D㸬⮬Ⓨⓗ࡟ᩥἲࡸᩥయࢆᨵၿࡋࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺Ẽ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
E㸬ࡑࡢ௚㸦                                 㸧

2. 䜎䛪䚸Criterion䜢౑䛳䛶䛔䛶䚸Ⰻ䛟䛺䛛䛳䛯䛸ᛮ䛖Ⅼ䜢ᕥḍ䛻䝬䞊䜽䛧䛶䛟䛰䛥䛔䠄」ᩘᅇ⟅ྍ䠅䚹ḟ䛻䚸ᕥḍ䛻䝬䞊䜽䛧䛯㡯┠䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸䛭䜜䛮䜜䛹䛖Ⰻ䛟䛺䛛䛳䛯䛸ᛮ䛖䛾䛛䚸䛭䛾⌮⏤䜢ୗ䛾A䡚E䛛䜙㑅䜣䛷䝬䞊䜽䛩䜛䛛䚸⮬⏤グ㏙ḍ䛻グ㏙䛩䜛䛛䛧䛶䚸⟅䛘䛶䛟䛰䛥䛔䚹E䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ሙྜ䛿䚸ෆᐜ䜢䠄㻌 䠅䛻᭩䛔䛶ୗ䛥䛔䠄」ᩘᅇ⟅ྍ䠅䚹‫ۑ‬Ⅼᩘࡀಙ㢗࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ㸦⮬⏤グ㏙ĺ㸧A‫ ۑ‬B‫ ۑ‬C‫ ۑ‬D‫ ۑ‬E‫ۑ‬‫ۑ‬Ⅼᩘ࡟ດຊࡀ཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ㸦⮬⏤グ㏙ĺ㸧A‫ ۑ‬B‫ ۑ‬C‫ ۑ‬D‫ ۑ‬E‫ۑ‬‫ⱞࡀࢢࣥࣆ࢖ࢱ ۑ‬ᡭࡔ࡜ᦆࢆࡍࡿࠋ㸦⮬⏤グ㏙ĺ㸧A‫ ۑ‬B‫ ۑ‬C‫ ۑ‬D‫ ۑ‬E‫ۑ‬‫ࡀࣝ࣋ࣞۑ‬㧗ࡍࡂࡿࠋ㸦⮬⏤グ㏙ĺ㸧A‫ ۑ‬B‫ ۑ‬C‫ ۑ‬D‫ ۑ‬E‫ۑ‬‫⯆࡟ࢡࢵࣆࢺۑ‬࿡ࡀᣢ࡚࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ㸦⮬⏤グ㏙ĺ㸧A‫ ۑ‬B‫ ۑ‬C‫ ۑ‬D‫ ۑ‬E‫ۑ‬‫ࡢࡑۑ‬௚㸦⮬⏤グ㏙ĺ㸧A‫ ۑ‬B‫ ۑ‬C‫ ۑ‬D‫ ۑ‬E‫ۑ‬A㸬ࡸࡿẼࡀࡑࡀࢀࡓࠋ   B㸬⮬ศ࡟ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ẽᣢࡕ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
C㸬ࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸࡜ឤࡌࡓࠋ  D㸬ࡶࡗ࡜ⱥᩥࢆᨵၿࡋࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
E㸬ࡑࡢ௚㸦                                 㸧


>୰␎@

4䠊㻌 ᤵᴗ୰䛻䜶䝑䝉䜲䜢‽ഛ䛧䛶⮫䜣䛰ᐃᮇヨ㦂䠄๓ᮇ䛾୰㛫ཬ䜃ᮇᮎヨ㦂䛸䚸ᚋᮇ䛾୰㛫ヨ㦂䠅䛾䛣䛸䜢ᛮ䛔ฟ䛧䛶䚸(0)䡚(4)䛛䜙᭱䜒㐺ᙜ䛺䜒䛾䛾␒ྕ䜢䝬䞊䜽䛧䛶ୗ䛥䛔䚹(0)      (1)        (2)       (3)        (4)ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸  ඲ࡃᛮࢃ࡞࠸  ࠶ࡲࡾᛮࢃ࡞࠸  ᑡࡋࡣᛮ࠺    ࡜࡚ࡶᛮ࠺
(i)  ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ➼ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ࢆ᭩ࡃࡓࡵ࡟༑ศ࡞᝟ሗࢆ཰㞟ࡋࡓ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠋ
(ii)  ⱥᩥἲࡸㄒྃ➼ࢆ㎡᭩➼࡛ㄪ࡭࡚ࠊࡼࡾࡼ࠸ⱥᩥ࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺ດຊࡋࡓ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠋ
(iii)  ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ࡢฟ᮶ᰤ࠼࡟‶㊊࡛ࡁࡓ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠋ

91

JACET Kansai Journal, 15, 92-105. (2013) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

ゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ᒣᮏ ⨾ὠᏊ
❧࿨㤋኱Ꮫ㸦㠀㸧

ABSTRACTThis study explores how language school textbooks get involved with the issues of images andstereotypes. For example, a survey has found that the images and knowledge of Alaska tend to be
stereotyped not only by various mass media but also by Japanese / English textbooks used inelementary, junior high, or high schools. But a question still remains why contemporary language
learners have fixed ideas or images from the subject matters of Alaska in the school textbooks. The
purpose of this paper is to examine a possible answer to this research question through language
textbook analysis (with language textbooks in both Japanese and English elementary to highschools), followed by suggestions for avoiding the stereotypes. The issue of stereotypes is generally
discussed in terms of theme of cross-cultural understanding in the field of language education.
However, in this study, more focus is placed on the problems and solutions, of the stereotypicalimages concerning the matters for textbooks as well as Japanese curriculums that are related todeveloping a closer tie with Japanese and English language education.
Key words: ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࠊ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࠊࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࠊᩍ⛉᭩㸦ᅜㄒ࡜ⱥㄒ㸧ศᯒࠊ㐃ᦠ ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
༙ୡ⣖ࡶ๓࡟୸ᒣ┿⏨ࡣ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢ୍ேṌࡁࡢၥ㢟㸦1961, pp.123-151㸧ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࠋ
ࡑࢀࡣᡃࠎࡀ⌧ᐇ࡜㞳ࢀࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜࠸࠺ཌ࠸ᒙࡢୡ⏺࡟⏕ࡁࠊከࡃࡢேࡀࡑࢀࢆ㢗ࡾ࡟≀஦ࢆุ᩿ࡋ࡚⾜ືࡋࠊ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀ࡝ࢇ࡞࡟㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡼ࠺࡜ࡶࠊࡑࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀ᪂ࡓ࡟
సࡾฟࡍ⌧ᐇࠊ࢖࣮ࣜࣗࢪࣙࣥࢆࡼࡾ୍ᒙࣜ࢔ࣝ࡞⌧ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅṆࡵࡿ஦ែࡀࠊࡑࡢᙜ
᫬㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜࠸࠺ᣦ᦬࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ౛࡜ࡋ࡚࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡣࡇࢇ࡞ᅜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞⏬
୍ⓗ࡞ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᣲࡆࠊ⌧ᐇ࡟࠶ࡿከᵝ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆྜᡂࡋ࡚⌧ᐇࢆࡼࡾ⌮ゎࡍࡿ᪉ἲࡀࡶࡗ࡜◊✲ࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆၥ㢟ᥦ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
➹⪅ࡢ⤒㦂࡛ࡶࠊ௨๓௙஦࡛࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ࢔ࣥ࢝ࣞࢵࢪ࡟ఫࡴࡇ࡜ࡀỴࡲࡗࡓ᫬ࠊࡲࡎ⬻⿬ࢆ࠿ࡍࡵࡓࡢࡣ᭩ᗑࡸࢫ࣮ࣃ࣮ࡣ࠶ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿➼࡜࠸ࡗࡓᛮ࠸࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢୖࠊ࿘
ᅖࡢ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ே࡛ࡉ࠼ࠊ෕ㄯ༙ศ࡟ⓑ⇃ࡸᴟᐮ࡬ࡢὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡋ➹⪅ࢆ୙Ᏻࡀࡽࡏࡓグ᠈ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ໚ㄽࠊࡑࡢᚋࡢࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࡛ㅖࠎࡢᅵᆅ᝟ሗࡢ▱㆑ࢆᚓࡓࡶࡢࡢࠊᙜึࡢ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝
࡬ࡢ➹⪅ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡣࡑࡢ⛬ᗘࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᖾ࠸ࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗㄆ㆑࡛ࡶᐇ㝿ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ᨭ㞀ࢆ᮶ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࡢ⤒㦂ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࢖࣓࣮ࢪಟṇࡢⅭࡢ࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢẼ࡙ࡁࡢⅭࡢࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ఍࡟┤㠃ࡋ࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊ⚾92ゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

ࡓࡕࡣࡍ࡛࡟ᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡑࡢࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆࡑࡢࡲࡲᣢࡕ⥆ࡅࡓࡾࠊࡲࡓ຾
ᡭ࡟ࡑࡢ㛫㐪ࡗࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ⭾ࡽࡲࡏࡓࡾࡍࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ♫఍ᚰ⌮Ꮫࡢ◊✲▱ぢࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓୖ℩ 2002 ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ
ၥ㢟ࡣࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜⮬యࡀࠊ௚⪅ࢆ⏬୍ⓗ࡟ุ᩿ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊṇ☜࡟ุ᩿ฟ᮶࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺༴㝤ᛶࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜ᣦ
᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࡸ೫ぢࡣ୍᪦ฟ᮶ୖࡀࡿ࡜㛗࠸㛫ಙࡌ⥆ࡅࡽࢀࠊᾘࡋࡓࡾኚ໬ࡉࡏࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡑࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊே࡟ࡣ୍ᗘᙧᡂࡉࢀࡓಙᛕࢆ⥔ᣢࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ
᪂ࡋ࠸᝟ሗࡍ࡭࡚࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢಙᛕ࡜୍⮴ࡋணᮇࡍࡿ᪂ࡋ࠸᝟ሗࡔࡅࢆ௬ㄝ☜ドࡍࡿᙧ࡛㑅ᢥⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾධࢀࠊゎ㔘ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺᝟ሗฎ⌮ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟௚
ࡢ୍⯡ࡢ▱㆑௨ୖ࡟ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣᴫᛕࡀᙉᅛ࡟⮬ືⓗ࡟άᛶ໬ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸࡜࠸࠺ᛶ㉁ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟୍᪦ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࡉࢀ࡚ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡜ࠊ⚾ࡓࡕࡢ᝟ሗฎ⌮ຊ࡟ࡶ኱ࡁ࡞ᝏᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࡀᐜ᫆࡟⥔ᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃ༴㝤ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⌮ゎฟ᮶ࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵඛධほⓗ࡟ᅛᐃ໬ࡉࢀࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀ⬻⿬࡟࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࡉࢀ࡚
ࡋࡲ࠺࡜ࠊ࠸ࡘࡶㄗࡗࡓㄆ㆑࡟ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ⤯࠼ࡎ࠶ࡿ Kumaravadivelu,2008, p.51 ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ☜࠿࡟ࠊࢫࢸ
ࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜࠸࠺ᅛᐃⓗ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡬ࡢഴྥࡣࠊᗂᑡᮇ࡟▱㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡲࢀࡓࡾࠊಶ
ேࡢ⤒㦂ࡸ࣐ࢫ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࡞࡝ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚♫఍ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ୰࡛ᙉ໬ࡉࢀࡓࡾࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⚾ࡓࡕㄡࡶࡀᚲ↛ⓗ࡟ࡶࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ᏶඲࡟࡞ࡃࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿヨࡳࡣ㔜せ࡜࡞ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢⓎ➃ࡣ➹⪅⮬㌟ࡀࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࠸ࡘ࡛ࡶ⮬⏤࡟࢔ࢡࢭࢫฟ᮶ࡿ᝟ሗࡢ୰࡛ᬽࡽࡍ⌧௦ࡢ᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡀࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࡝ࢇ࡞࢖
࣓࣮ࢪࡸ▱㆑ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡸ▱㆑ࡀ࡝ࡇ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡳฟࡉࢀࡓ࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢၥ࠸࡟ᑐࡍ
ࡿグ㏙ᘧ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡣࠊᐜ᫆࡟᥎ ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ
ࡓࡀࠊᙼࡽࡀ࡝ࡇ࠿ࡽ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡸ▱㆑ࢆᚓࡓ࠿࡜࠸࠺ฟᡤ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊண᝿ࡉࢀࡓ࣐ࢫ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࠿ࡽࡢᙳ㡪࡟ḟ࠸࡛ᩍ⛉᭩ࡸࠊᏛᰯ࡛ࡢᤵᴗ࠿ࡽ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑࡛࠶
ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡣὀ┠࡟್ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᅜㄒࡸⱥㄒࡢゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ୰࡛ࠊᩍ⛉᭩ࡀ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢၥ㢟࡜࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵ࢃࡾ࠶ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᗈࡃᩥ໬ࢆබṇ࡞┠࡛ぢࡘࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ⣲ᆅࢆ㣴࠺Ⅽ࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩍ⛉᭩ࠊࡲࡓᤵᴗࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟⪃ᐹࢆ㐍ࡵࡓࠋ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡸࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊゝㄒᩍ⫱࡛ࡣ␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎᩍ⫱ࡢ㔜せ࡞ࢸ࣮࣐࡜ࡋ
࡚ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᩘከࡃࡢ◊✲ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᐇ㝿ࡢᤵᴗ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿᩍᮦ࡛࠶ࡿࠕᩍ
⛉᭩ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᯟ⤌ࡳࡢ୰࡛ࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟ࡀㄽࡌࡽࢀࡿ◊✲ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ࡞࠸ࠋ


93ᒣᮏ ⨾ὠᏊ ◊✲᪉ἲ࡜ㄢ㢟
ୖ㏙ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪㄪᰝࡢᚋࠊᩍ⛉᭩ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ⌧ᅾ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑠᏛᰯࠊ୰Ꮫᰯࠊ
㧗➼Ꮫᰯ㸦௨ୗࠊᑠ୰㧗㸧ࡢ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ௨ୗࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ┠ⓗㄢ㢟࡟⟅࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ヨࡳࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ࡞ࡐᏛ⏕ࡓࡕࡀ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᅛᐃ໬ࡉࢀࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᢪ࠸ࡓࡢ
࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊᩥ໬⌮ゎຊࡸࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥຊࢆ㧗ࡵࠊᅛᐃ໬ࡉࢀࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ
ࢆᢪ࠿ࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࢆ᭱ᑠ㝈࡟ࡍࡿⅭ࡟ࠊᩍ⛉᭩࡜࠸࠺どⅬࡼࡾ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪉⟇ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
 ࢖࣓࣮ࢪㄪᰝࡢᑐ㇟⪅࡜ศᯒ᪉ἲ
࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺᑐ㇟⪅ࡣ᪥ᮏࡢබ❧኱Ꮫࡢ㠀ⱥㄒᑓᨷࡢ 1 ᖺ⏕ 57 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊศᯒ࡟㝿ࡋ㐺ษࡉ࡟Ḟࡅࡓ 7 ྡࡢᅇ⟅ࢆ㝖እࡋࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࠊ▱㆑ෆᐜࢆၥ
࠺ࡓ㉁ၥ࡛ࡣ 50 ྡࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆࠊࡲࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡸ▱㆑ࡢฟᡤࢆၥ࠺ࡓ㉁ၥ࡛ࡣ 50 ྡ୰ 15ྡࡀ↓ᅇ⟅࡛࠶ࡗࡓⅭ 35 ྡࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆศᯒࡍࡿࠋ୧ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡶฟ᮶ࡿࡔࡅ⣽࠿ࡃ⿕㦂⪅ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ≉ᚩࡀࡘ࠿ࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ୍ᐃࡢព࿡࡙ࡅࡢୗ࡛኱࠿ࡽᑠ࡬࡜ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ
໬࡟ศࡅ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡛඲యീࢆᤊ࠼ࡿ KJ ἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ ᅜㄒ࣭ⱥㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩ศᯒ ࢖࣓࣮ࢪㄪᰝศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ୰࡟ࠊᏛ⏕ࡓࡕ࡟࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᣢࡓࡏࡓ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝
࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ㢟ᮦࡀ࡝ࢀࡃࡽ࠸ぢ࠸ࡔࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࢆㄪ࡭ࡿᚲせᛶࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛
2012 ᖺᗘ⌧⾜ࡢᅜㄒࡢᑠ୰㧗ࡢ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡜ࠊⱥㄒࡢ୰Ꮫᰯ࡜㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩ࢆㄪᰝศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓࠋཝᐦ࡟ࡣࠊᑠᏛᰯࠊ୰Ꮫᰯࡢ⌧⾜ࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡣ᪂Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡟ἢࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࢖࣓࣮ࢪㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅࡛࠶ࡿ኱Ꮫ㸯ᖺࡢᏛ⏕ࡓࡕࡀࡑࡢᖺ㱋᫬࡟౑ࡗ࡚
࠸ࡓࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡣ㸯ࡘ๓ࡢᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡟ἢࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ⌧⾜ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜࡛௒
ᚋ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢഴྥࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽ㐣ཤࡢ≧ἣࡶ᥎ ฟ᮶ࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⌧⾜ࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡣᪧᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡟ἢࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᏛ⏕ࡓࡕࡀᐇ㝿࡟㧗➼Ꮫᰯ᫬࡟౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡶࡢ࡜࡯ࡰኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔ௒ᚋࡢഴྥࢆ▱ࡿⅭ
࡟ࠊ㏣㊧ㄪᰝ࡜ࡋ࡚᮶ᖺᗘࡼࡾ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ᪂Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡟ἢࡗࡓ㧗➼Ꮫᰯᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ୰࡛ࠕ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࠖ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿᤵᴗ㢟ᮦࡀ࡝࠺ኚ໬ࡍࡿ࠿ࡶㄪᰝᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
ලయⓗ࡟ศᯒᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿᩍ⛉᭩ࡣࠊᅜㄒࡢሙྜࠊᑠᏛᰯ  ᖺ࠿ࡽ 6 ᖺࡲ࡛ࡢ 30 ෉㸦5♫㸧ࠊ୰Ꮫᰯ 1 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 3 ᖺࡲ࡛ࡢ 15 ෉㸦5 ♫㸧ࠊࡑࡋ࡚㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢ  ᖺᗘ⌧⾜ࡢࠕᅜㄒ⥲ྜࠖ25 ෉㸦10 ♫㸧࡜ࠕ⌧௦ᩥࠖ29 ෉㸦10 ♫㸧ࡢィ 54 ෉࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ 2013 ᖺᗘ౑⏝ணᐃࡢࠕᅜㄒ⥲ྜࠖ23 ෉ 9 ♫ ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୰Ꮫᰯ 1 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 3 ᖺࡲ࡛ࡢ 18෉㸦6 ♫㸧࡜ࠊ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢ 2012 ᖺᗘ⌧⾜ࡢࠕⱥㄒ ,ࠖ36 ෉㸦16 ♫㸧࡜ࠕⱥㄒ ,,ࠖ36 ෉
㸦16 ♫㸧ࡢィ 72 ෉࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟⌧⾜ࡢࠕⱥㄒ ,ࠖࠊࠕⱥㄒ ,,ࠖ࡟௦ࢃࡿ 2013 ᖺᗘᩍ⛉᭩࡛࠶ࡿࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥⱥㄒ ,ࠖ27 ෉㸦13 ♫㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ㄪᰝ᪉ἲࡣࠊࡲࡎୖグࡢᑐ㇟ᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ┠ḟࡸᮏᩥࠊࡲࡓᩍ⛉᭩⦅㞟᪉㔪ࡸ≉ᚩࠊ┠ḟ➼ࡀグࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 2012 ᖺᗘࠊ2013 ᖺᗘ∧ᩍ⛉᭩㊃ព᭩ࢆᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡜࠸࠺
ㄒࢆ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ࡟ࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝㛵ಀࡢᩍ⛉᭩㢟ᮦࡀ࡝ࢀ࡯࡝ᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋࡑ

94ゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

ࡢᚋࠊ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓ㢟ᮦ࡜ෆᐜࡢ㛵ࢃࡾࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ
 ◊✲⤖ᯝ ࢖࣓࣮ࢪㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ ࠕ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭▱㆑ෆᐜ ࡲࡎࠊ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺᑐ㇟⪅ 57 ྡ୰ 7 ྡࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ㝖እࡋࡓ⌮⏤ࡣ 2 ྡࡀࠕ඲ࡃࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞
࠸ࠖ࡜᭩ࡁ࡜ࡵࠊ࠶࡜ࡢ 5 ྡࡣࠕỈࡀ࡞࠸ࠖࠕ◁₍ࠖࠕ࡜࡚ࡶᬬ࠸ࠖࠕ༡ᅜ࡛⇕ᖏ㞵ᯘࡀἑᒣ࠶ࡿࠖࠕ࢔ࣇࣜ࢝࡟࠶ࡾࡑ࠺ࠖ࡜⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ඲ࡃ㛫㐪ࡗࡓ▱㆑࡜ࡋ࡚࢔ࣛ
ࢫ࢝ࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ࠊᑐ㇟⪅ 50 ྡࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⮬⏤ᙧᘧグ㏙ᅇ⟅࡜ࡋࡓⅭࠊྛேࡢᩥ୰࡟ࡣ」ᩘࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭▱㆑ෆᐜࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࢆᢤฟࡋ KJ ἲ࡟ᚑ࠸ࢢ࣮ࣝࣆࣥࢢࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡎ➨㸯ࢫࢸࢵࣉ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮫ⏕ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽ㔜」
ࢆྵࡴ 192 ࡢ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻⓗゝⴥࢆᣠ࠸ฟࡍࠋ➨ 2 ࡢࢫࢸࢵࣉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ➨୍ࡢࢫࢸࢵࣉ࡜࡯
ࡰྠ᫬㐍⾜࡟┤ほⓗ࡟ఝࡓࡼ࠺࡞ෆᐜࢆ㛵㐃ࡉࡏ࡚⠠࠸ศࡅࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢢ࣮ࣝࣆࣥࢢࢆ⾜࠸࡞ࡀࡽ඲࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࡢෆᐜࢆ㚷ࡳࠊ኱ࡁࡃḟࡢ 5 ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓ㸸⮬↛ࡢㅖ┦ࠊື≀ࠊேཱྀ࡜⾤ࠊ≉ᐃࡢேࡓࡕ࡜⏕άᵝᘧࠊࡑࡋ࡚Ṕྐࠋ➨ 3 ࡢࢫࢸࢵࣉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⤖ᒁ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ 3ࡘࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸸⮬↛࡜ື≀ࠊே࡜⾤ࠊ⏕άᵝᘧ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ┤ࡋࡓࠋḟࡢ⾲  ࡀࡑࡢ⤖ᯝヲ⣽࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾲ 1 ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢᏛ⏕ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭▱㆑ෆᐜᗘ50 ྡࡢࢹ࣮ࢱߡ192 ࡢ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻⓗᅇ⟅ߡ5 ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ 1~5 ࡟ศ㢮 ⥲ᩘ 㸸⣽㒊࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡑࡢᩘ㸦᭱ከῶᑡ㡰࣋ࢫࢺ 3㸧
1 ⮬↛ࡢㅖ┦㸦95㸧 ᐮ࠸ 24 ኱⮬↛ 18 ᳃ࡸ㞷ࡀ࠸ࡗࡥ࠸ 10  ௚
2 ື≀㸦28㸧 ື≀ࡓࡃࡉࢇ 15 ࢡ࣐ 6 ࢧࢣ 5  ௚
3 ேཱྀ࡜⾤㸦41㸧 ேࡣ࠶ࡲࡾఫࢇ࡛࡞ࡃᑠࡉ࡞ᗑࡀᑡࡋ 19 ேࡶఫࢇ࡛࠸࡞ࡃ࡚ఱ
ࡶ࡞࠸ 15 ほගᆅ࡛ேࡀ࠸ࡿ 7  ௚
4 ≉ᐃࡢேࡓࡕ࡜⏕άᵝᘧ㸦27㸧 ≟ࡒࡾ 8 ⊁ࡾࢆࡋ࡚⏕άࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ 6 ࢖ࢾ࢖
ࢵࢺ 3  ௚
5 Ṕྐ㸦1㸧 ࣟࢩ࢔࠿ࡽ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡀ㈙ࡗࡓᅵᆅ㸦1㸧
ߡ3 ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ศ㢮 ⥲ᩘ ⮬↛࡜ື≀㸦132㸧Ѝே࡜⾤㸦46㸧Ѝ⏕άᵝᘧ㸦14㸧௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊண ࡉࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟Ꮫ⏕ࡓࡕࡢ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡬ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡣᅽಽⓗ࡟኱⮬↛࡜ື≀ࡓࡕࡢᅵᆅ࡜࠸࠺࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡛࠶ࡾࠊேࡶ⾤ࡶ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝Ꮡᅾࡏࡎࠊ࢖ࢾ࢖ࢵࢺࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ேࡓࡕࡀ⊁ࡾࢆࡋ࡚⣽ࠎ࡜⏕άࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀࠊ኱᪉ࡢᏛ⏕ࡢ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ
࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ࡶ࢔ࣥ࢝ࣞࢵࢪࡢࡼ࠺࡞㒔ᕷࡶ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡟ࡣ኱
Ꮫࡸ኱ࡁ࡞᭩ᗑࠊࡲࡓ࢝ࣇ࢙ࡶࢹࣃ࣮ࢺࡶ࠶ࡾࠊከࡃࡢேࡀ㒔ᕷ࡛ࡢ⏕άࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸
࠺࢖࣓࣮ࢪ▱㆑ࡀࠊㄪᰝᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ኱Ꮫ୍ᖺ⏕࡟ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ᐇ᝟ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅ 50 ྡࡢ࠺ࡕ࡛࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ேࡀᬑ㏻࡟ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜᭩࠸ࡓ⪅ࡣ 2ྡࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡢ㐺ษ࡞␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎࡢⅭࡢ㞀ᐖ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿၥ㢟ࢆࡣࡽࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜࠸
95ᒣᮏ ⨾ὠᏊ

࠼ࡿࠋ ࠕ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭▱㆑ࡢฟᡤ
 35 ྡࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ࡣ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭▱㆑ෆᐜࡢᅇ⟅࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ⮬⏤ᙧᘧグ㏙ᅇ⟅࡜ࡋࡓⅭࠊྛேࡢᩥ୰࡟ࡣ」ᩘࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭▱㆑ࡢฟᡤࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ඛࡎᏛ⏕ࡢᅇ⟅ࡼࡾ
44 ࡢ㔜」ࢆྵࡴ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࡢゝⴥࢆᣠ࠸ฟࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋศ㢮ࡋ⤫ྜࡋ࡚ࢢࣝ
࣮ࣆࣥࢢࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋඛࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭▱㆑ࡢෆᐜ㠃ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾᅇ⟅ࡢࣂ࢚ࣛࢸ࢕ࡉ
ࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ࡞࠿ࡗࡓⅭࠊᐜ᫆࡟᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ 3 ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ㸸࣓ࢹ࢕࢔㛵㐃ࠊᩍ⛉᭩࣭ᤵᴗࠊ
♫఍⏕ά࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡓࠋḟࡢ⾲ 2 ࡀࡑࡢ⤖ᯝヲ⣽࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲ 2 ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢᏛ⏕ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭▱㆑ࡢฟᡤ࡬ࡢ⮬ぬ
35 ྡࡢࢹ࣮ࢱߡ44 ࡢ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻⓗᅇ⟅ߡ3 ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ 1~3 ࡟ศ㢮 ⥲ᩘ 㸸ᅇ⟅౛࡜ࡑࡢᩘ㸦᭱ከῶᑡ㡰㸧
1 ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔㛵㐃㸦28㸧 ࢸࣞࣅ 19 ᆅᅗ 4 ᫎ⏬ 3 ෗┿㞟 2  
2 ᩍ⛉᭩࣭ᤵᴗ 14 㸸 ᩍ⛉᭩ 11 ߡᑠᏛᰯࡢᅜㄒ 5 Ꮫᰯࡢᩍ⛉᭩ 3 ᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ෗┿ 2 㧗ᰯࡢᅜㄒ 1 ᤵᴗ 3 ߡ୰Ꮫᰯ࡛⩦ࡗࡓ 2 㧗ᰯ࡛ࣅࢹ࢜ࡳࡓ 1 
3 ♫఍⏕ά 2 㸸 ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝⏘ࡢᾏ⏘≀ࢆࡼࡃࢫ࣮ࣃ࣮࡛ぢ࠿ࡅࡿ⤒㦂 2 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊண ࡉࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟Ꮫ⏕ࡓࡕࡢ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡬ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡣࡸࡣࡾ࣓ࢹ
࢕࢔࠿ࡽࡢᙳ㡪ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆฟ᮶ࡓࠋ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔➼ࡀࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡶ௒ᚋࡶࢫࢸ
ࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ෕㛗ࡉࡏ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡼ࠺࡞኱⮬↛ࢆᫎീⓗ࡟ぢࡏࡿሙྜࡀከࠎ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ௨ୖࠊᏛᰯᩍ⫱ࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡼࡾከᒙ࡞⌧ᐇ࡟㏆࠸࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᏛ⩦ࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡟᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࡿᚲせࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡜࠸
࠺୍ࡘࡢ≉ᐃࡢሙᡤ࡟㝈ࡽࡎࠊ௚ࡢᅜࡸᆅᇦࡸሙᡤࡸᩥ໬➼࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊከᵝ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪ
ࢆᏛᰯᩍ⫱ࡢ୰࡛♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡢ㔜せ࡞♧၀ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁ⯆࿡῝࠸Ⓨぢࡣ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢḟ࡟ᙼࡽࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡓせ⣲ࡀᏛᰯ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦⤒㦂࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡣࠊᤵᴗࡸᤵᴗ࡛౑࠺ᩍ
⛉᭩ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⵳࠼ࡽࢀࡓ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ᝟ሗࡀ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜ࡋ࡚グ᠈ࡉࢀࡓ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ
࡜᥎ᐹฟ᮶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡶࠊᏛ⏕ࡀ᭩ࡁグࡋࡓ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ࠿ࡽࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᑠᏛᰯ࠿ࡽ୰
Ꮫᰯࡑࡋ࡚㧗➼Ꮫᰯ࡟⮳ࡿᏛᰯ✀ࡢ␗࡞ࡿᖜᗈ࠸ᮇ㛫࠿ࡽࡢᙳ㡪࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋᩍ
⛉࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊලయⓗ࡟ᅜㄒ࡜᫂グࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪅ࡶ࠸ࢀࡤࠊ₍↛࡜ᩍ⛉᭩࡜グࡍ⪅ࠊࡲࡓᏛᰯ✀ࡢࡳࢆグࡍ⪅ࡶ࠸࡚᫂☜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡓࡔ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿෆᐜࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢ
࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊᅜㄒ௨እ࡟ࡣࠊ♫఍ࡸᆅ⌮ࡑࡋ࡚ⱥㄒࡀண᝿ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᅜㄒ࡜ྠࡌゝⴥࢆᢅ࠺ᩍ⛉࡛࠶ࡾࠊ2002 ᖺࡢࠕࠗⱥㄒࡀ౑࠼ࡿ᪥ᮏே࠘ࡢ⫱ᡂࡢࡓࡵࡢᡓ␎ᵓ᝿̿ⱥㄒຊ࣭ᅜㄒຊቑ㐍ࣉࣛࣥ̿ࠖࡢ୰࡛ࡶᡴࡕฟࡉࢀࡓⱥㄒຊࡢ⫱ᡂ࡟ࡣᅜㄒ⬟ຊࡶᚲせ࡜ࡢぢゎࡶ࠶ࡿⅬࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚ࠊᑠᏛᰯ࠿ࡽ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡲ࡛ࡢᅜㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡜ࠊ୰Ꮫᰯ࡜㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢⱥㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ㢟ᮦࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ྲྀࡾᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
࠿ࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

96ゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

 ⿵㊊ࡢㄪᰝᩍ⛉᭩ࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ๓࡟ࠊ➹⪅ࡢ୺ᙇࢆࡼࡾಙ㢗ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿⅭ࡟ࠊࢧࣥࣉࣝᩘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ୙༑ศ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡓ 57 ྡ㸦᪥ᮏࡢබ❧኱Ꮫࡢ㠀ⱥㄒᑓᨷࡢ 1 ᖺ⏕㸧ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅㸦ศᯒࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ࢖࣓࣮ࢪㄪᰝ 50 ྡ࣭ฟᡤㄪᰝ 35 ྡ㸧࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊ
⿵㊊ㄪᰝ࡜ࡋ࡚᪂ࡓ࡟᪥ᮏࡢ⚾❧኱Ꮫࡢ㠀ⱥㄒᑓᨷࡢ 1 ᖺ⏕ 55 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡟ྠࡌㄪᰝࢆᐇ
᪋ࡋࠊྠࡌ᪉ἲ࡛ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ௨ୗࡀࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ⪃ᐹ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⿵㊊ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ㸸ࠕ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭▱㆑ෆᐜ  ࡲࡎࠊᑐ㇟⪅ 55 ྡ୰ 7 ྡࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ㝖እࡋࡓࠋ⌮⏤ࡣ๓ᅇ࡜ྠᵝ࡟඲ࡃ㛫㐪ࡗࡓ▱㆑࡜ࡋ࡚࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ◁₍࡟࠶ࡾࡑ࠺ࠖࠕ⇕ᖏᆅᇦࠖࠕᬬ࠸ࠖ
ࠕ༡ᅜࣜࢰ࣮ࢺࠖ➼ࡀࡑࡢグ㏙౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟ࡟ 48 ྡࡢ⮬⏤ᙧᘧグ㏙ᅇ⟅ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ๓ᅇ࡜
ྠࡌࡃ KJ ἲ࡟ᚑ࠸ࢢ࣮ࣝࣆࣥࢢࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡓࠋẚ㍑ࡢⅭ࡟ࡶฟ᮶ࡿ㝈ࡾྠࡌ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ
࡛ศ㢮ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࡀ㞴ࡋࡃࠊ௒ᅇࡣ኱ࡁࡃ 7 ࡘࡢศ㢮࠿ࡽ᭱⤊ࡢ 3 ࡘࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜࡞ࡗ
ࡓࠋḟࡢ⾲ 3 ࡀࡑࡢヲ⣽⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲ 3 㸦⿵㊊㈨ᩱ 1㸧࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢᏛ⏕ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭▱㆑ෆᐜᗘ48 ྡࡢࢹ࣮ࢱߡ110 ࡢ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻⓗᅇ⟅ߡ7 ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ 1~7 ࡟ศ㢮 ⥲ᩘ 㸸⣽㒊࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡑࡢᩘ㸦᭱ከῶᑡ㡰࣋ࢫࢺ 3 㸧
1 ⮬↛ࡢㅖ┦㸦50㸧㸸ᐮ࠸ 21 㞷ࡸị࡛そࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 15 ⮬↛ࡀ࠸ࡗࡥ࠸ 8  ௚
2 ື≀㸦9㸧㸸࢔ࢨࣛࢩ 15 ⓑࢡ࣐ 2 ࢺࢼ࢝࢖ 2  ௚
3 ேཱྀ࡜⾤㸦5㸧㸸ேࡣ࠶ࡲࡾఫࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ 2 ⏣⯋࡛㎶㒥࡞ᡤ 2 ほගᆅ 1 ௚
4 ≉ᐃࡢேࡓࡕ࡜⏕άᵝᘧ㸦12㸧㸸࢚ࢫ࣮࢟ࣔࠊ࢖ࢾ࢖ࢵࢺ 6 ≟ࡒࡾ 4 ⊁ࡾ 1  ௚
5 Ṕྐ 2㸧㸸ࣟࢩ࢔࠿ࡽศ๭ࡋ࡚ᚓࡓ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝࡟࠶ࡿᆅᇦ 1 Ṕྐⓗㅝࢀࡢ࠶ࡿᅵᆅ 1 
6 ᆅ⌮ⓗ᝟ሗ ᅜྡ࣭㒔ᕷྡ➼  31 㸸࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ 14 ໭࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ᭱໭➃ 4 ࢝ࢼࢲ 3  ௚
7 ゝㄒ 1 㸸ⱥㄒ㸦1㸧
ߡ3 ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ศ㢮 ⥲ᩘ 㸸⮬↛࡜ື≀㸦59㸧Ѝ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ఩⨨㸦31㸧Ѝே࡜⾤㸦20㸧๓ᅇ࡜ࡢ኱ࡁ࡞㐪࠸ࡣࠊேཱྀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿグ㏙࡟ኚࢃࡗ࡚ᆅ⌮ⓗ᝟ሗࡢグ㏙ࡀ࠿࡞ࡾ┠❧ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⌮⏤ࡀ᥎ ฟ᮶ࡿࠋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺᑐ㇟ 2 ࢡࣛࢫࡢෆࡢ୍᪉ࡢࢡࣛࢫࡢᏛ⏕ࡢ୍ேࡀࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡍࡿ▱㆑ࡀ඲ࡃ࡞࠸஦ࡸࠊ࡝ࡇ࡟
఩⨨ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡶࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜኱ኌ࡛ྉࢇࡔ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡑࡢゝⴥࡼࡾࡢ࢖࣓
࣮ࢪࡀ㐃㙐ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡶྵࡲࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ஦๓ࡢὀព஦㡯ࢆᏛ⏕ࡓࡕ࡟ᚭᗏࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ஦ࡀ᜼ࡸࡲࢀࡓࠋ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࠊᏛ⏕ࡀᣢࡗࡓ኱ࡲ࠿࡞඲యⓗ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ๓ᅇ࡜ྠࡌࡃⲨᾴ࡜ࡋࡓ⮬↛ࡀᨭ㓄ࡍࡿࠊேࢆᐤࡏ௜ࡅ࡞࠸኱ᆅࡢ࢖
࣓࣮ࢪ࡜࠸࠺୍㠃ⓗ࡞࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ീࡢࡳࡀᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆฟ᮶ࡓࠋ
⿵㊊ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ㸸ࠕ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭▱㆑ࡢฟᡤ 
 48 ྡࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆẚ㍑ࡢⅭ࡟ࡶ๓ᅇ࡜ฟ᮶ࡿࡔࡅྠࡌ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮࡛ࣜศ㢮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡓࠋ⤖ᯝࡣḟࡢ⾲ 4 ࡀ♧ࡍ࡜࠾ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
97ᒣᮏ ⨾ὠᏊ

⾲ 4 㸦⿵㊊㈨ᩱ2㸧࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢᏛ⏕ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭▱㆑ࡢฟᡤ࡬ࡢ⮬ぬ
48 ྡࡢࢹ࣮ࢱߡ73 ࡢ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻⓗᅇ⟅ߡ3 ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ 1~3 ࡟ศ㢮 ⥲ᩘ 㸸ᅇ⟅౛࡜ࡑࡢᩘ㸦᭱ከῶᑡ㡰㸧
1 ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔㛵㐃㸦42㸧ࢸࣞࣅ 20 ᆅᅗ 4 ᮏ 4 ᪂⪺ 3 ᫎ⏬ 3 ࢿࢵࢺ 2 ࢤ࣮࣒ 2 ぶࡢヰ 2 ཭ேࡢヰ 2 
2 ᩍ⛉᭩࣭ᤵᴗ 18 㸸ᩍ⛉᭩ 5 ߡᅜㄒ 2  ᩍ⛉᭩ 2 㧗ᰯࡢⱥㄒ 1 ᤵᴗ 13 ߡᆅ⌮ 5 Ꮫᰯࡢᤵᴗ࣭ຮᙉ 4 ♫఍ 2 㧗ᰯⱥㄒ 1 Ṕྐ 1 
3 ┤ほ 13 㸸 ࡞ࢇ࡜࡞ࡃ຺࣭ 9 ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡜࠸࠺ྡ๓࠿ࡽࡢⓎ᝿ 4 
ࡲࡎࡣ 3 ࡘࡢศ㢮࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࠿ࡽぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋண᝿㏻ࡾ௒ᅇ࡛ࡶ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢᙳ㡪ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓ๓ᅇ࡜ྠࡌࡃᏛᰯᩍ⫱࡛ࡢᙳ㡪ࡶࡸࡣࡾ┠ࢆᘬ࠸ࡓࠋࡓࡔࡇࡢෆヂ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㐪࠸ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ๓ᅇࡣࠕᩍ⛉᭩ࠖ࡜グࡋࡓ⪅ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࡢࡔࡀࠊ௒ᅇࡣ
ࠕᤵᴗࠖ࡜࠿ࠕຮᙉࠖ࡜࠸࠺グ㏙ࡀ㏫㌿ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᤵᴗ࡛Ꮫࡪ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺⓗ፹యࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜༑ศ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡝ࡕࡽ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶᏛᰯ࡛ࡢᏛ
⩦⤒㦂ࡀ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜ࡋ࡚グ᠈࡟ṧࡾࠊࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋࡓ࡜᥎ ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋࡲࡓᩍ⛉࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ๓ᅇ࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ௒ᅇࡣᆅ⌮ࡸ♫఍ࡢᩍ⛉ࢆグࡍ⪅ࡀ┠❧ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ⌮⏤ࡀ๓㏙ࡋࡓ୍ேࡢᏛ⏕ࡢゝⴥࡼࡾࡢ㐃㙐࠿ࡽ࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࠕ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥࡼࡾࡢ⮬↛࡞Ⓨ᝿࡜ࡶ᥎ ฟ᮶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊㄽᩥࢱ࢖ࢺࣝ࡟ࡶ௜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᅜㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࡢࡳࢆศᯒᑐ㇟
࡜ࡋࡓࡀࠊࡇࡢ⿵㊊ㄪᰝࡼࡾ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ♫఍㸦ᆅ⌮㸧ࡢᩍ⛉᭩ศᯒࡣ௒ᚋࡢ
ㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ṧࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ3 ࡘ┠ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢࠕ┤ほࠖࢆ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢฟᡤ࡜
ࡋࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ༑ே௨ୖᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢᏛ⏕ࡓࡕࡣࠊࡑࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀ࡝ࡇ࠿ࡽ᮶ࡓࡢ࠿࡜
࠸࠺ᛮ࠸࡟⮳ࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡔࡅ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊࡘࡲࡾ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㐣ཤࡢ▱㆑ࡸ⤒㦂࡜ࡢ㐃⤖ࡀฟ᮶࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡢດຊࢆᨺᲠࡋࡓࡔࡅ࡞ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚඲ࡃࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ⪅ࠊࡲࡓ඲ࡃ㛫㐪ࡗࡓ▱㆑࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪅ࡀ 55 ྡ୰ 7 ྡࠊ๓ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡶ 57 ྡ୰ 7 ྡࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿ஦ᐇ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ࡝ࡇ࠿࡟ၥ
㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ࠼ࡿࠋ ஧ᅇࡢㄪᰝࢆ⥲ᣓࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢ⿵㊊ㄪᰝ࡜๓ᅇㄪᰝ࡛ࡢ⥲ྜࡢࢧࣥࣉࣝᩘࡣ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ
ㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅ 112 ྡ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࢖࣓࣮ࢪㄪᰝࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ 98 ྡศࠊฟᡤㄪᰝࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ࡣ 83 ྡศ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࢃ࠿ࡗࡓ஦ࡣඛࡎࠊ඲యⓗ࡟ࡣ࡯ࡰྠࡌ⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩍ⛉᭩ࡸᤵᴗࡀࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࢆຓ㛗ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜☜ಙࡍࡿ࡟⮳ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓᩍ⫱ࡢຊࡀ࣐ࢫ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢຊ࡜ྠࡌࡃࡽ࠸࡟ࠊࣉࣛࢫ࡟ࡶ࣐࢖ࢼࢫ࡟ࡶᏛ⩦⪅࡟኱ࡁ࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᙜࡓࡾ๓ࡢࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⚾ࡓࡕ୍ேࡦ࡜ࡾࡣ␗
࡞ࡗࡓࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ෌☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋ
 ᅜㄒ࣭ⱥㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩ศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ ᅜㄒᩍ⛉᭩ศᯒ㸸࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ㢟ᮦࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ ࡲࡎࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ㢟ᮦࡀ࡝ࢀ⛬ྛᏛᰯ✀ࡢᅜㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ୰࡟グ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆㄪᰝ

98ゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

ࡋࡓࠋᑠᏛᰯࡢ 2012 ᖺᗘ౑⏝ࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡢሙྜࡣࠊ5 ᖺ࡜ 6 ᖺࡢྛ㸯෉ࡢィ 2 ෉ࠊ୰Ꮫᰯࡢ
ሙྜࡣ 2 ᖺ࡛ 2 ෉ࠊ3 ᖺ࡛㸯෉ࡢィ 3 ෉࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㧗➼Ꮫᰯ࡛ࡣࠕᅜㄒ⥲ྜࠖ࡟ 4 ෉ࠊࠕ⌧௦ᩥࠖ࡟ 1 ෉ࡢィ 5 ෉ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ 2013 ᖺᗘ∧ࡢ᪂ࡋࡃᨵゞࡉࢀࡓࠕᅜㄒ⥲ྜࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ 3෉࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕ⌧௦ᩥࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ 2, 3 ᖺ࡛Ꮫ⩦ࡍࡿⅭ࡟ࡲࡔᩍ⛉᭩ࡀసᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸Ⅽࠊ⤖ᯝࡣಖ␃࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏛᰯ✀ࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢศᯒ⥲෉ᩘ࠿ࡽࡍࢀࡤࠊ⾲ 5 ࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ㢟ᮦࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ෉ᩘẚࡣᑠᏛᰯࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡛ࡣ 6.67࡛࠶ࡾ୰Ꮫᰯࡢࡶࡢ࡛
ࡣ 20.00ࠊ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡣ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ 9.26࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊࠕᅜㄒ⥲ྜࠖࡢࡳࢆぢࡿ࡜ 16.00࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓ᮶ᖺᗘᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕᅜㄒ⥲ྜࠖࡣ 13.04࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ୰Ꮫ
ࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡸ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢࠕᅜㄒ⥲ྜ࡛ࠖࡢ㢟ᮦ๭ྜࡀᑡࡋ㧗࠸ࡀࠊ඲యⓗ࡟ࡣࠊỴࡋ࡚࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ㢟ᮦࡀ㢖⦾࡟ᑠ୰㧗ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡛ྲྀࡾᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ
⾲ 5 ᑠ୰㧗ࡢᅜㄒᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝㢟ᮦࡢ๭ྜ
ศᯒ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝㢟ᮦྵ 㢟ᮦྵෆヂ⥲෉ᩘ ⥲෉ᩘ෉ᩘẚ  2
6.67ᑠ Ꮫ ᰯ 30
5 ᖺߡ1 ෉  6 ᖺߡ1 ෉
2012 ᖺᗘ 3
20.00୰ Ꮫ ᰯ 152 ᖺߡ2 ෉  3 ᖺߡ1 ෉
2012 ᖺᗘ 
54
5
9.26
㧗ᰯ
1 ᖺࠕᅜㄒ⥲ྜࠖߡ4 ෉  
2012 ᖺᗘ 
2,3 ᖺࠕ⌧௦ᩥࠖߡ1 ෉25
4
16.00
>ᅜㄒ⥲ྜ

ࡢࡳ@
23
3
13.04
㧗ᰯ
1 ᖺࠕᅜㄒ⥲ྜࠖߡ3 ෉
2013 ᖺᗘ ḟ࡟ࡑࡢ㢟ᮦෆᐜࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠊၥ㢟࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿㄽⅬࡀぢ࠸ࡔࡉࢀࡓࠋᑠ୰㧗࡜࠸࠺␗࡞ࡿᏛᰯ✀ࡢ୰࡛ࠊࡲࡓྠࡌྛᏛᰯ✀ࡢ␗࡞ࡿᏛᖺ㛫࡛ᢅࢃࢀࡓ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㢟ᮦࡢෆᐜࡀࠊࡍ࡭࡚෗┿ᐙࠊᫍ㔝㐨ኵࡢసရ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄗゎࡢ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟᭩࠸
࡚࠾ࡃࡀࠊ໚ㄽࠊᫍ㔝ࡢసရࡀࡼࡃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡴࡋࢁࠊ᫝㠀Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ㄞࢇ࡛ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸సရࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡝ࡢసရࡶᚰច࠿ࢀࡿ෗┿࡛㣭ࡽࢀࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ⮬↛ࡢ⣲ᬕࡽࡋࡉࡸ⨾ࡋࡉ࡟⁄ࢀࡿࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡑࢀ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡑࢀ௨ୖ࡟ࠊே⏕࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⏕ࡁ᪉ࡸ⏕ࡁࡿຊࡸฟ఍࠸ࡢ⣲ᬕࡽࡋࡉ࡞࡝࡟ᚰᡴࡓࢀ⪃࠼ࡉࡏࡽࢀࡿసရࡤ࠿ࡾ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩍ⛉᭩࡟᥇㘓ࡉࢀࡓࡢࡶࡇࡢⅬࡺ࠼࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜᥎ ฟ᮶ࡿࠋ࡛ࡣၥ㢟ࡣఱ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡣᙼࡢసရࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᑠ୰㧗ࡢᏛᰯ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚
ฟ఍࠺ྠࡌᩍ⛉᭩㢟ᮦࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡢ⤒㦂ࡀࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㢮ఝࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿ
Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᚋ࡟⪃ᐹ࡛ヲࡋࡃゐࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
 ⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩ศᯒ㸸࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ㢟ᮦࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ ୰Ꮫᰯࡢⱥㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟ࡣ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ㢟ᮦࡣぢᙜࡽࡎࠊ2012 ᖺᗘ⌧⾜ࡢ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࠕⱥㄒ ,࡛ࠖࡣ 4 ෉ࠊࠕⱥㄒ ,,ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ 1 ෉ぢ࠸ࡔࡉࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ 2013 ᖺᗘ∧99

ᒣᮏ ⨾ὠᏊ

ࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥⱥㄒ ,࡛ࠖࡣ඲ࡃぢࡘ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ෉ᩘẚࡣ 2012 ᖺᗘ⌧⾜∧ࡢࠕⱥㄒ ,ࠖࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡛ࡣ 11.11࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕⱥㄒ ,,࡛ࠖࡣ 2.78ࠊ㧗➼Ꮫᰯ඲య࡛ࡣ
6.94࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ⾲ 6 ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⌧⾜∧ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟ࡣ඲య࡛ 5 ෉ࡢ୰࡟ぢ࠸ࡔࡉࢀࡓ㢟ᮦࡀࠊ᮶ᖺᗘ∧࡟ࡣࢮࣟ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡣ┠ࢆᘬࡃࠋࡇࢀࡣ࠾ࡑࡽࡃ᪂Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡛ࡣⱥㄒࡢሙྜࠊ⛉┠ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ኱ࡁࡃ෌⦅ࡉࢀࡿⅭ࡟࠿࡞ࡾ኱ࡁ࡞ᨵゞࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡓ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㢟ᮦࡢෆᐜⓗഴྥࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ྠᵝ࡟ᅜ㝿⌮ゎᩍ⫱㸦␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎᩍ⫱㸧ࡢⅭࡢୡ⏺ࡢᅜࠎࡸ᪥ᮏࡢᩥ໬ࠊ⏕ࡁࡿຊࢆ⫱ᡂࡍࡿⅭࡢே㛫ᩍ⫱ࠊゝⴥᩍ⫱ࠊᆅ⌫⎔ቃࠊඹ⏕࡞࡝ࠊࡑࢀ࡯࡝ኚ໬ࡣ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊᩍᮦ㑅ᐃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ඲
యⓗ࡟ࡼࡾ࢔ࢵࣉࢹ࢖ࢺ࡞ෆᐜ࡟኱ࡁࡃኚ᭦ࡉࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

⾲ 6 ୰㧗ࡢⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝㢟ᮦࡢ๭ྜ
ศᯒ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝㢟ᮦྵ 㢟ᮦྵෆヂ⥲෉ᩘ ⥲෉ᩘ෉ᩘẚ  00
୰Ꮫᰯ 2012 ᖺᗘ  18       
72
5
6.94
㧗ᰯ 2012 ᖺᗘ 
1 ᖺࠕⱥㄒ ,ࠖߡ4 ෉ 
2 ᖺࠕⱥㄒ ,,ࠖߡ1 ෉36
4
11.11
>ࠕⱥㄒ ,ࠖࡢࡳ@
  
1
2.78
>ࠕⱥㄒ ,,ࠖࡢࡳ@ 36

0
0
0
㧗ᰯ 2013 ᖺᗘ ḟ࡟ 2012 ᖺᗘ⌧⾜∧ࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝㢟ᮦෆᐜࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࠕⱥㄒ ,ࠖࡢሙྜࠊ4෉࡟ぢ࠸ࡔࡉࢀࡓ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ㢟ᮦࡣࡍ࡭࡚ᅜㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡜ྠࡌᫍ㔝㐨ኵࡢసရ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
సရࡣ୰Ꮫࠊ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢᅜㄒ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜ྠࡌసရෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ㐪ࡗࡓࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ⱥヂࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋⱥㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ୰ࡢࡇࡢసရ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟ᅜㄒᏛ⩦ࡼࡾᇵࢃࢀࡓ㢟ᮦ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃᐜ᫆࡟ฟ᮶
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺฼Ⅼࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊྠࡌ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ୚࠼ࡿ㢟ᮦࡀ␗࡞ࡿᩍ⛉㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚౑ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡬࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࢆಁࡍᜍࢀࡀᠱᛕࡉࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊࠕⱥ
ㄒ ,,ࠖࡢ 1 ෉ࡢࡳࡀ㢟ᮦࡣྠࡌ࡛ࡶ␗࡞ࡿෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᫍ㔝ࡢసရ࠿ࡽཷࡅࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ
␗࡞ࡿ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࡑࡢ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝㢟ᮦࡢㄢࡢぢฟࡋ㏆ࡃ࡟ῧ࠼ࡽࢀࡓࠊᮏᩥࡢෆᐜࢆせ⣙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿḟࡢゝⴥࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺㸸ࠕ㞷࡜ịࡢୡ⏺࡜ᛮࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࠋࡑࡇࡢᑠࡉ࡞⏫ࠊࣃ࣮࣐࣮࡛ẖᖺ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ⚍ࡾ࡟ࡣᕧ኱࡞㔝⳯ࡀḟࠎ࡜ฟရࡉࢀࠊ㔜ࡉࡀ➇ࢃࢀࡲࡍࠋࠖ ᮎỌ⦅, 2007  ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ㞷࡜ịࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡣࠊኟ࡟
ࡣ㝶ศ␗࡞ࡿሙᡤࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡬ࡢ⌮ゎࡢどⅬࢆᏛ⩦⪅࡟୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᥎
ฟ᮶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢㄢࡢෆᐜ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚ྲྀࡾධࢀࡽࢀࡓ 6 ᯛࡢ෗┿ࡢ༙ᩘࡀࡇࢀࡲ࡛
ࡢ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡜ኚࢃࡽࡠ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢ㋃く࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ␃ពࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ༲ᇛ 2009
S107 ࡣ Paivio 1986 ࡢ஧㔜➢ྕ⌮ㄽࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊ⤮ࡸ෗┿ࢆゝㄒ᝟ሗ࡜ඹ࡟ᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ᝟ሗ࡬ࡢ⌮ゎࡸグ᠈ࡀಁ㐍ࡉࢀࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟༲
ᇛ 2011, p.44 ࡣ⥆ࡅ࡚ࠊLevie and Lentz 1982 ࡢㄝ࡟㈶ྠࡋ࡚⤮ࡸ෗┿࡟ࡣㄞ⪅࡟᫂☜࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ୚࠼ࡿᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ5 ෉ࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ୰࡛ྲྀࡾᢅࢃࢀࡓከ

100ゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

ࡃࡢ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ෗┿ࡔࡅࢆᴫほࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡤ࠿ࡾࡀᙉ
ࡃᚰ࡟ṧࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣᅜㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡛ᢅࢃࢀࡓ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝㢟ᮦࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ෗┿ࢆᴫほࡋ࡚ࡶྠᵝࡢ༳㇟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩍ⛉᭩ෆࡢ෗┿ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᚰ࡟ᙉࡃ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᣢࡓࡏࡿ
ᙳ㡪ຊࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᩍ⛉᭩ෆࡢ෗┿㑅ᢥ࡟㝿ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡼࡾ⣽࠿࡞ὀពࡢႏ㉳ࡀ௒ᚋồࡵࡽࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ⪃ᐹ
 ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡍࡿᅛᐃ໬ࡉࢀࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪᙧᡂ࡬ࡢ᥎ㄽ
⤖ᯝࡼࡾࢃ࠿ࡗࡓ஦ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊࡲࡎ࢖࣓࣮ࢪㄪᰝ࠿ࡽࡣࠊㄪᰝᑐ㇟ࡢ⌧௦ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡀ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㞷࡜ị࡟㛢ࡊࡉࢀࡓேẼࡢ࡞࠸⮬↛࡜ࡑࡇ࡟ఫࡴື≀ࡓࡕࡢᅵᆅ࡜࠸࠺ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᣢࡕࠊࡑࡢᅛᐃⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ௨ୖࡢ▱㆑ࡶ࡯࡜ࢇ
࡝ᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࡑࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢฟᡤ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ➨୍࡟ከࡃࡢ⪅ࡀ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔㛵㐃ࢆᣲࡆࡓࡇ࡜ࡣண᝿㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊ➨஧ࡢせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ᩍ⛉᭩࣭ᤵᴗࡼࡾ࡜࠸
࠺ㄆ㆑ࡀᣢࡓࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ⤖ᯝࡣࠊᮏ◊✲࡬ࡢᬯ♧ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋḟ࡟ୖグࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚⾜ࡗࡓᑠ୰㧗ࡢᅜㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩ศᯒ࠿ࡽ᳨ドࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡲࡎᅜㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡢሙྜࠊྠ୍Ꮫᰯ✀ࡢᏛᖺ㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡲࡓ␗࡞ࡿᏛᰯ✀࡛࠶ࡿᑠ୰㧗ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡢẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡬ࡢࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࢆຓ㛗ࡉࡏࡿከࡃࡢ෗┿࡜ඹ࡟ࠊࢫࢸࣞ
࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀᣢࡓࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆྵࡴసရ࡟ఱᗘࡶ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚ฟ఍࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋḟ࡟ⱥㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡢሙྜࡣࠊᑠ୰㧗ࡢᅜㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡛ࡍ࡛࡟᪤⩦ࡋࡓྠࡌస⪅ࡢసရ࡟ࠊゝㄒࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ࠿ࡽⱥㄒ࡟ኚࢃࡗࡓࡶࡢࡢࠊᅜㄒྠᵝ࡟࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡬ࡢࢫ
ࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࢆᘬࡁฟࡍ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸᪂ࡓ࡞ከࡃࡢ෗┿࡜ඹ࡟ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢẁ㝵࡛෌ࡧࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡟ฟ఍࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆฟ᮶ࡓࠋ
ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࡸ೫ぢࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺⫼ᬒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࠊ♫఍ᚰ⌮Ꮫୖࡢ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ୖ℩㸦2002㸧ࡣࠊಶேᕪࡸࠊ㞟ᅋ࡜㞟ᅋࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽࡢ⌮ゎ࡜ඹ࡟ࠊㄆ▱ⓗഴྥ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ◊✲ࢆ⤂௓ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊே㛫ࡣ⏕άࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ୰࡛ẖ᪥ᵝࠎ࡞ே࡟ฟ఍࠸ࠊ⤒㦂ࢆࡋࠊ࡝࠺ᑐᛂࡍࢀࡤࡼ࠸ࡢ࠿ࢆࡑࡢࡘ࡝ุ᩿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ
ฎ⌮㐣⛬ࡢ୰࡛⚾ࡓࡕࡣ୺ほⓗ࡟༢⣧໬ࡋࠊ⛛ᗎࡔ࡚ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚እ⏺ࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿࡢࡔ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊࡇࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ࡜࠾ࡋ࡚ࠊேࡀᕪ␗ࢆࡼࡾᙉㄪࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࠊࡲࡓ㢮ఝࢆࡼࡾᙉㄪࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛⏕ࡌࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡞▱ぢࡸㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽุ᩿ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᅛᐃ໬ࡉࢀࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ
ࢆᢪ࠸ࡓᏛ⏕ࡣࠊಶேࡢᡂ⫱㐣⛬࡟࠾ࡅࡿᵝࠎ࡞⤒㦂ࡢ⵳✚ࢆྵࡵࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢᏛᰯᩍ⫱ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ཷࡅ࡚ࡁࡓᩍ⛉᭩ෆࡢෆᐜࡢྠ୍࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡜࠸
࠺㢟ᮦࡢࠊࡋ࠿ࡶྠࡌ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆཷࡅࡿ㢟ᮦ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋฟ఍࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊಶேෆࡢ㢮ఝࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬⌧㇟ࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠕ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜෆࡢᕪ␗ࡢ⦰ᑠࠖ㸦ୖ℩ 2002p.23㸧
ࡢᙳ㡪࡟ࡼࡾࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࡀᙧᡂࡉࢀࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡟㛵ࢃࡿᩍ⛉᭩ෆࡢၥ㢟ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀࡓ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊMcGrath 2002, p.11 ࡀᩍ⛉᭩ࡣゝㄒⓗࠊࡲࡓᩥ101ᒣᮏ ⨾ὠᏊ

໬ⓗࠊᣦᑟἲⓗ࡞ࢧ࣏࣮ࢺࢆ୚࠼࡚ࡃࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᩍ⛉᭩ࡣᮏ᮶ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ෆᐜ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜ࠊᤵᴗࢆ⾜࠺ᩍᖌࡢ๰ពᕤኵḟ➨࡛Ꮫ⩦ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆᑠࡉࡃࡶ኱ࡁࡃࡶ
ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᩍ⛉᭩ࡢᩍᮦෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᩍᖌࡀᵝࠎ࡞⿵ຓᩍᮦࡸᕤල
ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊᩍ⛉᭩㢟ᮦ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ୚࠼ࡿ᝟ሗࢆ௜ຍࡋࡓࡾࠊࡲࡓㄪ࡭Ꮫ⩦ࢆồࡵ࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅⮬㌟࡟ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳࢆㄢ㢟࡟ࡋࡓࡾ➼࡜ࠊᩍᖌ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྠࡌ㢟ᮦ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ከゅⓗ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ୚࠼ࡿⓎᒎⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩍᖌࡢ㢟ᮦ◊✲ḟ➨࡟ࡼࡾ㢟ᮦࡢ⌧ᐇⓗ࡞඲యീࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⌧ᅾࠊከࡃࡢᩍᖌࡀࡍ࡛࡟ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᤵᴗࢆ
᪥ࠎᐇᆅ࡟⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᥎

ྍ⬟࡞཯㠃ࠊᤵᴗ᫬㛫ࡸᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⌮ゎࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡢ≧ἣ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ

࡞࠿࡞࠿ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᤵᴗࡀᐇ᪋ฟ᮶࡞࠸ࢪ࣐ࣞࣥ࡟ᩍᖌࡀᑐᓖࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⌧ᐇࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྰࡵ࡞࠸ࠋ ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࡢᅇ㑊࡟ྥࡅ࡚ ̿ᩍ⛉᭩㢟ᮦࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢၥ㢟࠿ࡽࡢどᗙࡼࡾ̿
ᩍ⛉᭩ࡣ㏻ᖖᑠᏛᰯࡸ୰Ꮫᰯࡢࡼ࠺࡞⩏ົᩍ⫱ࡢሙྜࡣࠊྛ㒔㐨ᗓ┴ࡢᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍࡛᥇
ᢥࡉࢀࠊࡲࡓ㧗➼ᏛᰯࡢሙྜࡣᏛᰯࡈ࡜࡟᥇ᢥࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ ᒸ2011 ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ྠ୍Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀࠊᩍ⛉᭩㢟ᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡑࢀ⛬㢖⦾࡟ᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ㢟ᮦࢆࠊⱥㄒࠊ
ᅜㄒࡢ୧ᩍ⛉㛫࡛ࠊࡲࡓᑠ୰㧗ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚࡝ࡢᏛᰯ✀࡛ࡶᏛ⩦ࡍࡿ☜⋡ࡣࡑࢀ⛬࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣᛮ
࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࡇ࡛ࡼࡾၥ㢟࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿⅬࡣࠊᩍ⛉᭩ไస఍♫ࡢ 1 ♫ࡀᑠᏛᰯ 6 ᖺ࡜୰Ꮫᰯ 3 ᖺࡢ␗࡞ࡿᏛᰯ✀࡟Ώࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᅜㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ୰࡟ࠊ␗࡞ࡿసရ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ࢔ࣛࢫ
࢝ࡢྠࡌ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ୚࠼ࡿ㢟ᮦࢆ⏝࠸ࠊࡲࡓูࡢ 1 ♫ࡀᑠᏛᰯࡢ 5 ᖺࡢᅜㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡜ࠊ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢ 1 ᖺࡢⱥㄒࡢ஧✀ࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ୰࡟ࠊࡸࡣࡾྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟␗࡞ࡿసရ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ࢔
ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢྠࡌ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ୚࠼ࡿ㢟ᮦࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஦ᐇࡀ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
୍ࡘࡢ㢟ᮦࡀྠ୍ᩍ⛉ෆࡢ␗࡞ࡿᏛᰯ✀࡛ࠊࡲࡓ␗࡞ࡿᩍ⛉ෆࡢ␗࡞ࡿᏛᰯ✀ࡢ୰࡛⧞ࡾ
㏉ࡋ⏝࠸ࡿ㑅ᢥࢆࠊ஧ࡘࡢᩍ⛉᭩఍♫ࡀ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡣ୧ᩍ⛉᭩఍♫ࡀ㢟ᮦ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡬ࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑡࡋࡶ⪃៖ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᩍ⛉᭩ศᯒࡼࡾࡉࡽ࡟ぢ࠸ࡔࡉࢀࡓ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࡶ᥎ ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲ
ࡎⱥㄒࡢ⌧⾜∧ࡢ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟ࠊྠࡌ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ㢟ᮦ࡛ࡶ␗࡞ࡿどⅬࡼࡾࡢ␗࡞ࡿ
࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ୚࠼ࡿࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡣ࡯ࢇࡢ୍♫ࡢ୍౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲ
ࡓࡑࡢసရ࡟ῧ࠼ࡽࢀࡓᩘᯛࡢ෗┿ࡢ༙ᩘࡀࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࢆ࢖
࣓࣮ࢪࡋࡓ෗┿࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽุ᩿ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡸࡣࡾࡇࡢᩍ⛉᭩఍♫ࡶࠊᩍ⛉᭩ෆࡢ㢟ᮦ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢၥ㢟ࡢ㔜せᛶࢆព㆑ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊసရ㑅ᢥࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ࡣᛮ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊⱥㄒࡢ᮶ᖺᗘ∧ࡢ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥⱥㄒ
㹇ࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ௒ᖺᗘࡢ 5 ෉ࡢ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝ࡢ㢟ᮦసရࡀࡍ࡭࡚๐㝖ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢࡇ
࡜ࡀⱥㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩ෆ࡛ࡢࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠊᩍ⛉᭩఍♫ࡢㄆ㆑࡜㓄៖ࡢ඙ೃ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣࠊ௒ᚋࡢⱥㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩㢟ᮦෆᐜ࡬ࡢືྥࢆぢᏲࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࢆ㑊
ࡅࡿⅭ࡟ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᢪࡃ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠊ㢟ᮦࡼࡾႏ㉳ࡉࢀࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᩍ⛉᭩

102ゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

ไస⪅ഃࡀࠊඛࡎẼ࡙ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ษ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ᩍ⫱ࠊᤵᴗࠊᩍᮦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢᙺ๭ࡢ㔜せࡉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡶ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ㸦῝ᕝ, 1987㰻⸨1990ከ⏣1986Ᏹబ⨾1978㸧ࡀࠊబ఑ 1990 ࡣ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜⌮ゎ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊㄆ▱ᚰ⌮Ꮫࡢ❧ሙࡼࡾḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡣᩍᮦࡸᩍᖌ࠿ࡽࡢ
ാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆຓࡅ࡟ࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢᴫᛕࡸᢳ㇟໬ࡉࢀࡓ▱㆑ࢆࠊ≉ᐃࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࡳࡿࡇ࡜࡛ලయ
໬ࡋ࡚ᥥࡃࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊࡑࡢᴫᛕࡸ▱㆑࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ከࡃࡢูࡢどⅬࢆᤣ࠼࡚࠸ࡃ
ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡼࡾከどⅬⓗ࡟ࡲࡓከ≧ἣⓗ࡟ࡑࡢᴫᛕࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠊࡼࡾከ㠃໬ࡋࡓ῝໬ࡋࡓ⌮ゎ࡬࡜ᑟࡃࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞▱ぢ࠿ࡽࡶุ᩿ฟ᮶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᏛᰯ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛෆ࡛ẁ㝵ⓗ࡟ゝⴥࢆᏛ⩦ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃୖ࡛ࠊࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟㝗ࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃᖜᗈ࠸ᴫᛕࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪᙧᡂࡀฟ᮶ࡿࡼ
࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡟ࡣࠊྠ୍㢟ᮦ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶከどⅬⓗ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᩍ⛉᭩㢟ᮦࡢྠࡌ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢ㔜」ࡣᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡬ࡢᝏ
ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡾࠊᰂ㌾࡞ᛮ⪃ຊࢆ㜼ࡴၥ㢟࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡢᩍ⛉᭩సᡂ᫬ࡸ⦅㞟᫬ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣᩍ⛉᭩᳨ᐃ᫬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡇࡢⅬࡀ␃ពࡉࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸╔┠Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ຍ࠼ࡽࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ࡇࡢㄽ⪃࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡜࠸࠺㢟ᮦ௨እ࡛ࡶࠊᐇ㝿ࠊ㢟ᮦࡢ㔜」ࡣぢ࠸ࡔࡉࢀࡿࠋ
౛࠼ࡤࠊᐑἑ㈼἞ࡢࠕὀᩥࡢከ࠸ᩱ⌮ᗑࠖࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᑠ୰㧗ࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᏛᰯ✀ࡢᅜㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟᥇㘓ࡉࢀࡓ≀ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦୕ᾆ 2008, p.86㸧ࡀࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࡇࡢసရࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚Ꮫᰯࡢ
ᤵᴗࡢ୰࡛⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋཷࡅࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸≧ἣࢆ㚷ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀసရෆᐜࡢఱࡽ࠿ࡢᴫ
ᛕ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᣢࡘ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺᥎ ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௚࡟ࡶࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊእ஺ᐁࡢᮡཎ༓␇ࡢࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡣࠊᅜㄒ࡜ⱥㄒ
ࡢ୧ᩍ⛉᭩࡛ྲྀࡾᢅࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ㢟ᮦ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊࡑࡢෆᐜ࡟㛵ࢃࡿᵝࠎ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᤵᴗࡢ୰࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ⤒㦂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢᅛᐃ໬ࡋࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᣢ
ࡘྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡜࠸࠺ᆅᇦࡸ≉ᐃࡢᅜ࡜࠸࠺㢟ᮦ࡟㝈ࡽࡎࠊᑠ୰㧗ࡢྠ୍ᩍ⛉ࡢ୰࡛ࠊࡲࡓᅜㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࡢ୧ᩍ⛉࡟Ώࡗ࡚⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿྠ
ࡌ㢟ᮦࡲࡓసရ࡟ᑐࡍࡿఱࡽ࠿ࡢᴫᛕ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡟⮳ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊࡸࡣࡾసရࡸ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢ㔜」ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ษ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡼࡾຠ⋡ⓗ࡟ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿⅭ࡟ࡣࠊ⌮᝿ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ⌧ᅾࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ᅜㄒ࣭ⱥㄒ࡜࠸࠺ᩍ⛉ࡈ࡜࡟ࡼࡿ඲ࡃู⟠ࡢసᴗ࡜ࡋ࡚ᩍ⛉᭩సᡂࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ྠ୍ᩍ⛉ࡢ␗✀Ꮫᰯ㛫ࡸᅜㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࡢ୧ᩍ⛉㛫࡛ࠊ㢟ᮦ㑅⪃࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩍ⛉᭩᝟ሗ஺᥮࡞࡝
ࡢ㐃ᦠࡢヰࡋྜ࠸ࡢሙࡀᣢࡓࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶᚲせ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᩍ⛉᭩ࢆ࡝࠺࡟࠿ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡜
࠸࠺ኚ㠉ࡢពぢࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡶᵝࠎ࡞どⅬ࠿ࡽከࡃ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊ᭱㏆࡛ࡣゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠕⱥㄒຊ࡜ᅜㄒຊࢆ࡜ࡶ࡟⫱࡚ࡿ࡟ࡣࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᗙㄯ఍ࡢ୰࡛ࠊᯇᮏࡀࠕᅜㄒ࡜
ⱥㄒ࡜࡛ྜྠࡢᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿ࡢᨵゞࡢ఍㆟ࡀᚲせࠖ 2006, pp. 10-21 ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࢆᣲࡆ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋᩍ⛉᭩࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢᩍ⛉㛫ࠊᏛᰯ✀㛫࡛ࡢ㐃ᦠࡣࠊ⌧ᐇ࡟ࡣ௒ࡣ඲ࡃᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᐇ㝿࡟ᐇ㊶ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠿࡞࠿㞴ࡋ࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊゝⴥࢆᢅ࠺ᩍ
⛉࡜ࡋ࡚ᅜㄒ࣭ⱥㄒࡢ୧ᩍ⛉ࢆぢΏࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡲࢀࡓ㢟ᮦࢆ⪃៖ࡋࡓᩍ⛉᭩ࡣࠊࢫࢸࣞ࢜
ࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟ព㆑ࢆ⨨࠸ࡓయ⣔ⓗ࡟⤌ࡳ❧࡚ࡽࢀࡓᩍ⛉᭩࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡟103ᒣᮏ ⨾ὠᏊ

Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎࡸࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢧ࣏࣮ࢺ࡜࡞ࡿᅜㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࠊⱥㄒࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡜ࡋ࡚సᡂࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛௒ᚋࡣࠊゝㄒᩍ⫱ྥୖⓎᒎ࡬ྥࡅ࡚⌧ᅾࡼࡃ㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑠ୰㧗 ኱ ࡢ㐃ᦠࡸࠊᅜㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࡢᩍ⛉㛫ࡢ㐃ᦠ࡟㛵ࢃࡿၥ㢟ࡢ୍⎔࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᩍ⛉᭩ไస᫬ࡢ㐃ᦠࡀᑡࡋࡎࡘ᳨ウࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡲ
ࡓᩍ⛉᭩ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᤵᴗࢆ⾜࠺ᩍᖌ⮬㌟ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࠾ࡑࡽࡃ࠶ࡲࡾព㆑ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࠿ࡶࡋ
ࢀ࡞࠸ᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ㢟ᮦෆᐜ࠿ࡽᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᣢࡘ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸㢟ᮦ࡬ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊὀព
ࢆࡼࡾႏ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
 ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊㄪᰝࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗࡓ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡜࠸࠺㢟ᮦほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪㄪᰝࡸᩍ⛉᭩㸦ᅜㄒ࣭ⱥㄒ㸧ศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊᩍ⛉᭩ෆᐜࡀᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡸࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜࡝ࡢࡼ
࠺࡟㛵ಀࡋᙳ㡪ࡍࡿ࠿ࡢ⪃ᐹ࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓၥ㢟஦㡯࡬ࡢゎỴ࡟ࡴࡅ࡚ࡢ
ᥦ᱌࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡜࠸࠺≉ᐃࡢᆅᇦࡢࡳࢆ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠊࡲࡓゝㄒᩍ⫱࡜࠸࠺⊃࠸ᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ࡢศᯒ⪃ᐹ࡛࠶ࡗࡓⅭࠊ௒ᚋࡣࡼࡾ⥲ྜⓗ࡞㢟ᮦࡸ㛵㐃ᩍ⛉᭩ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ
ㄪᰝࡸᩍ⛉᭩ศᯒࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᩍ⛉᭩ࡢၥ㢟࡬ࡼࡾྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴࡇ࡜ࡀㄢ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞
ࡀࡽᮏ◊✲ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ࢔ࣛࢫ࢝࡜࠸࠺ᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ㢟ᮦࡀࠊ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛෆࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᏛᰯ✀ࠊࡲࡓゝㄒᩍ⫱ᩍ⛉࡛࠶ࡿᅜㄒ࣭ⱥㄒ୧᪉࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚ྠࡌ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᏛ⩦⪅࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᩍ⛉᭩ࡢၥ㢟ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓࡑࡢၥ㢟ࡺ࠼࡟ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ㢟ᮦࡢྠࡌ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢ㔜」ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓⅭ࡟ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ㢟ᮦ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᙳ㡪ࢆࡼࡾཷࡅࡓ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟஦㡯ࡀ᳨ドࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖
ࣉࢆᏛ⩦⪅࡟୚࠼࡞࠸ࠊࡼࡾⰋ࠸ᩍ⛉᭩࡬ྥࡅ࡚ࡢ௒ᚋࡢ㐍ᒎࡀồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㅰ㎡ᮏ✏ᇳ➹࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊᰝㄞ⪅ࡢඛ⏕᪉࠿ࡽࡣ㈗㔜࡞ࡈຓゝࠊࡈᣦᑟࢆ㡬ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋ῝ࡃឤㅰ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡍࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩῝ᕝ᫂Ꮚ (1987). ࠗᤵᴗ࡬ࡢᣮᡓ 18ࠕ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ⫱࡚ࡿㄞࡳࠖ࠘᫂἞ᅗ᭩ฟ∧.
ୖ℩⏤⨾Ꮚ (2002). ࠗࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ♫఍ᚰ⌮Ꮫʊ೫ぢࡢゎᾘ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ʊ࠘ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ
♫.
୸ᒣ┿⏨ (1961). ࠗ᪥ᮏࡢᛮ᝿࠘ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ.
ᯇᮏⱱ࣭ᒣ⏣㞝୍㑻࣭኱ὠ⏤⣖㞝࣭୕᳃ࡺࡾ࠿ (2006). ࠕⱥㄒຊ࡜ᅜㄒຊࢆ࡜ࡶ࡟⫱࡚ࡿ࡟ࡣ㸦ᗙㄯ఍㸧ࠖࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱࠘ 55(2), 10-21.
ᐑᆅ⿱࣭⏥ᩫ╬ᮁ(⦅) (2008). ࠗᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ/ᅜㄒᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ⌮᝿࡜⌧ᐇ࠘᫂἞᭩㝔.
ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2012). ࠗ2013 ᖺᗘᗘ౑⏝㧗ᰯᩍ⛉᭩㊃ព᭩࠘
http://www.textbook.mext.go.jp/ (2012 ᖺ 9 ᭶ 10 ᪥)ᒸ⚽ኵ(⦅) (2011). ࠗࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ᫬௦ࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ʊ᪂ࡋ࠸ⱥㄒ⛉ᩍ⫱ἲʊ࠘ᡂ⨾ᇽ.
బ఑⬃ (1990). ࠗ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢᩍ⫱࠘ᅜᅵ♫.

104ゝㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

㰻⸨႐༤ (1990). ࠗ⌧௦ᩍ⫱ 101 㑅 ᤵᴗ࠘ᅜᅵ♫.
ᮎỌᅧ᫂(⦅) (2007). ࠗNEW EDITION Surfing ENGLISH COURSE II࠘ᩥⱥᇽ.
ከ⏣ಇᩥ (1986). ࠗᤵᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜ゝㄒ: Ꮫຊᙧᡂࡢ⌮ㄽࢆồࡵ࡚࠘᫂἞ᅗ᭩ฟ∧.
Ᏹబ⨾ᐶ (1978). ࠗᩍᤵ᪉ἲㄽᢈุ࠘᫂἞ᅗ᭩ฟ∧.
༲ᇛ♸ྖ(⦅) (2009). ࠗⱥㄒ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࡢ⛉Ꮫ : ࠕㄞࡵࡓࡘࡶࡾࠖࡢㅦࢆゎࡃ࠘◊✲♫.
༲ᇛ♸ྖ(⦅) (2011). ࠗⱥㄒ࡛ⱥㄒࢆㄞࡴᤵᴗ࠘◊✲♫.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural Globalization and Language Education. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of Text Illustrations: A Review of Research. Educational
Communication and Technology, 30, 195-232.
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: a dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University
Press.

105