ISSN 1881−445X

日本語用 論 学 会■

第 13 回

大会発表論文集
第６号

Proceedings of the 13th
Conference of the Pragmatics Societyof Japan

2010年12月4・5日（土・日）■

於 関西大学PSJ
The Pragmatics Society of Japan

日本語用論学会

2010日本語用論学会（The Pragmatics Society of Japan）
略称：PSJ

日本語用論学会役員
（執
行
部）
1. 会
長 ：
2. 副
会
長 ：
3. 事 務 局 長 ：事 務 局 補 佐 ：
会
計 ：

山梨正明
久保 進
田中廣明
野澤 元、Lawrence Schourup
高木佐知子

（編
集
部）
4. 編 集 委 員 長 ：副 委 員 長 ：編 集 委 員 ：林 宅男
Lawrence Schourup
澤田治美、中村芳久、林（大 会 運 営 部）
5. 大会運営委員長 ：大会運営副委員長（企画） ：大会運営副委員長（実行） ：企 画 委 員 ：実 行 委 員 ：プロシーデイング ：西光義弘
五十嵐海理、東森 勲
小山哲春、冨永英夫
平塚 徹、森山由紀子
鈴木光代、長友俊一郎、春木茂宏
余 維、長友俊一郎（事業部）
6. 事 業 委 員 長 ：事業副委員長 ：事 業 委 員 ：

林 礼子
平塚 徹
井上逸平、内田聖二、西山佑司（広報部）
7. 広 報 委 員 長 ：広報副委員長（NL） ：広 報 委 員（HP）：

山口治彦
加藤重広
加藤重広、金丸敏幸、野澤礼子、森山卓郎

元（2011年11月3日現在）

学会連絡先
日本語用論学会 事務局（The Pragmatics Society of Japan）〒606-8585
京都市左京区松ヶ崎御所海道町

京都工芸繊維大学

基盤科学系言語・文化部門

TEL ： 075-724-7014（代表）E-mail：psj.secretary@gmail.com
学会ホームページ：http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/psj4/
郵便振替口座 00900-3-130378 口座名：日本語用論学会
年会費 （一般会員：5,000円、学生会員：4,000円、団体会員：6,000円）

PSJ

田中廣明研究室内目 次
研究発表
Positive tiredness and negative tiredness: On the differences and similarities
between to exhaustion and into exhaustion as resultative phrases‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Ryosaku ASAI

1■

現在完了のスキーマ的意味─表現の示すアスペクトとの関係から─ ‥‥‥ 岩田

真紀

9

■

De se attitudes and pure indexicals ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Etsuko OISHI

17■

修復の権限はいかにして移譲されるか？
─多人数会話における第三者修復の事例を通じて─ ‥‥‥‥ 岡本

■

雅史・榎本

美香

25

■

シネクドキによる外来語の多義化について ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 笠貫

葉子

33

■

アイロニー疑問文と修辞性─エコー発話解釈を中心として─ ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 後藤

リサ

41

■

On the expressive use of ano ʻthatʼ in Japanese:
A probability scale approach ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Osamu SAWADA and Jun SAWADA

49

感覚形容詞の語用論的意味変化に見る
統語構造の影響 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 進藤

良方

57

■

日本語の人称詞と指示詞この・その・あの ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 杉山さやか

65■

Conditionals are pragmatic ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Ken TURNER

73■

マスメディアの科学ディスコースにおける数の働き─喫煙／禁煙をめぐる科学的知識の伝達を中心に─ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 出口

由美

81

■

発話態度によるトピック連続性のスキーマ─コピュラ文を対象に─ ‥‥‥ 遠山

千佳

89

■

連結的知覚動詞構文におけるappearとlook:
コンテクストで検証する認知的分業 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 徳山聖美

97

コーパス言語学と批判的談話分析の融合：
歴代米国大統領の一般教書演説を題材に ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 仁科

恭徳

105

■

メタファー発話とemergent property派生に関する一考察 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 松尾

貴哲

113

■

「本当だ」考─「発話の方向性」の観点から─ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 松田

瑞江

121

■

軽動詞移動構文における動詞の生起条件再考 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 森下

裕三

129

■

「AもAだ」構文の意味解釈 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 山本

尚子

137

Contextual factors that affect the understanding of Japanese
NP1 wa NP2 da sentences ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Megumi YOSHIDA

145

■

■

■

三佳・李

在鎬・渋谷

PSJ

ワークショップ
西欧文化におけるユーモア■

司会：北爪佐知子

ブッシュ大統領の自虐的ユーモア ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 北爪佐知子

153

Grammar in Social Interaction: Exploring Possibilities ofConversation Analysis
Discussant: Shuya KUSHIDA
Negative interrogatives in action:
From a perspective of positionally-sensitive grammar ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Hideyuki SUGIURA

157■

Beyond epistemic modality: Local management of territory of information ‥‥ Kaoru HAYANO

161■

Grammar in social context: On request formulations in a sushi restaurant ‥ Satomi KUROSHIMA

165

■

PSJ

ポスターセッション■

Modality shift：KY扱いの発話行為とそのコンテクストの概念記述を中心に ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 井筒

勝信・田実

潔

■

A Study on Locative Inversion and There Constructions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Yuya OHKAWA■

OVERが表す「経路」に関する一考察─英語前置詞の習得の観点から─ ‥‥ 大嶋ルリ子■

書き言葉談話における句読法の機能：ケクチ語の事例分析 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 渋下■

The pragmatics of represented speech and thought:
A comparative approach to French/English/Japanese ‥‥‥ Izumi TAHARA・Anne REBOUL

賢

169
173
177
181

江利

185
189

智子・堀江

薫

193

司会：児玉

徳美

■

会見に現れる受身表現 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 原■

日本語学習者の勧誘場面での「断り」行動
─ヘッジの中間言語語用論分析を通じて─ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 堀田

シンポジウム
言語機能からとらえた語用論の展開

Designated Discussant: Malcolm COULTHARD
日本語におけるテキストの結束性（cohesion）の諸相
─指示表現と名詞の場合─ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 講師：庵功雄■

批判的談話分析が捉える談話の構造と意味 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 講師：林

礼子

197
197

■

コンテクストから見るテクスト解釈
─同一トピックの異なる具現をめぐって─ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 講師：龍城

正明

197

■

付録
■

入会案内 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 199■

日本語用論学会規約 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 201■『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）執筆規定 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 204■＜第14回大会で発表された方へのお知らせ＞ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 208

PSJ

Table of Contents
Lecture Sessions: Presentation in Japanese■

Ryosaku ASAI: Positive tiredness and negative tiredness:
On the differences and similarities between to exhaustion and into exhaustion as resultative phrases ‥‥‥ 1■

Maki IWATA: The schematic meaning of the present perfect in relation to the aspects of expressions ‥‥‥‥‥ 9■

Etsuko OISHI: De se attitudes and pure indexicals ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 17■

Masashi OKAMOTO and Mika ENOMOTO: What allows for the ʻthird-person repairʼin multiparty conversation ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 25■

Yoko KASANUKI: A study of polysemy of loanwords based on synecdoche ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 33■

Risa GOTO: The echoic analysis of ironical questions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 41■

Osamu SAWADA and Jun SAWADA: On the expressive use of ano ʻthatʼ in Japanese:
A probability scale approach ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 49■

Mika SHINDO, Jae-Ho LEE, and Yoshikata SHIBUYA: Syntactic constructional effects accompanying
semantic-pragmatic changes of Japanese nominal adjective‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 57■

Sayaka SUGIYAMA: So-called personal pronouns and demonstrative adjectives in Japanese ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 65■

Ken TURNER: Conditionals are pragmatic ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 73■

Yumi DEGUCHI: A function of numbers in scientific discourse in the mass media:
Focusing on the communication of scientific knowledge concerning smoking ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 81■

Chika TOHYAMA: The analysis of topic continuity schema in Japanese discourse:
The case of copula structures‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 89■

Kiyomi TOKUYAMA: Appear and look in the copulative perception verb construction:
Contextual analysis of the cognitive division of labor ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 97■

Yasunori NISHINA: A statistical approach to style and discourse in State of theUnion addresses of U.S. presidents ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 105■

Takanori MATSUO: A pragmatic study of “emergent property” in metaphor ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 113■

Mizue MATSUDA: Analysis of “hontou-da”: “Direction of utterance” ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 121■

Yuzo MORISHITA: Constraints on the occurrence of verbs in light verb motion construction reconsidered ‥ 129■

Naoko YAMAMOTO: An interpretation of A mo A da in Japanese ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 137■

Megumi YOSHIDA: Contextual factors that affect the understanding of Japanese NP1 wa NP2 da sentences ‥ 145

PSJ

Workshop Sessions■

Humor in Western Cultures

Chair: Sachiko KITAZUME

Sachiko KITAZUME: Self-deprecating humor of President Bush ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 153■

Grammar in Social Interaction: Exploring Possibilities of Conversation Analysis
Discussant: Shuya KUSHIDA
Hideyuki SUGIURA: Negative interrogatives in action:
From a perspective of “positionally-sensitive” grammar ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 157
Kaoru HAYANO: Beyond epistemic modality: Local management of territory of information‥‥‥‥‥ 161
Satomi KUROSHIMA: Grammar in social context: On request formulations in a sushi restaurant ‥‥‥ 165

PSJ

Poster Sessions■

Katsunobu IZUTSU and Kiyoshi TAJITSU: Modality shift:
A conceptual description of “KY”-branding speech act and its contexts ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 169■

Yuya OHKAWA: A study on locative inversion and there constructions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 173■

Ruriko OSHIMA: An analysis of ʻpathʼ component for OVER:
From the perspective of acquiring English spatial prepositions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 177■

Ken SHIBUSHITA: Functions of punctuation in written discourse: A case analysis of Qʼeqchiʼ ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 181■

Izumi TAHARA and Anne REBOUL: The pragmatics of represented speech and thought:
A comparative approach to French/English/Japanese ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 185■

Eri HARA: Japanese passive verbs in 3 news conference ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 189■

Tomoko HOTTA and Kaoru HORIE: Refusals of invitations by Japanese learners- through an interlanguage pragmatic analysis of hedges- ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 193

Symposium■

Exploring Pragmatics from Functional Perspectives
Organizer: Tokumi KODAMA
Designated Discussant: Malcolm COULTHARD
Isao IORI: Aspects of cohesion in Japanese text: Demonstratives and nouns ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 197
Reiko HAYASHI: Binary opposites in “we” and its identity construction ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 197
Masa-aki TATSUKI: The same topics from the different views - How the context affects the text ‥‥‥ 197

PSJ

研究発表
Lecture Sessions

第13回大会発表論文集

−1−

第６号

Positive tiredness and negative tiredness: On the differences and similarities between to exhaustion and into exhaustion as resultative phrases−2−第13回大会発表論文集

−3−

第６号

Positive tiredness and negative tiredness: On the differences and similarities between to exhaustion and into exhaustion as resultative phrases−4−第13回大会発表論文集

−5−

第６号

Positive tiredness and negative tiredness: On the differences and similarities between to exhaustion and into exhaustion as resultative phrases−6−第13回大会発表論文集

−7−

第６号

Positive tiredness and negative tiredness: On the differences and similarities between to exhaustion and into exhaustion as resultative phrases−8−第13回大会発表論文集

−9−

第６号

現在完了のスキーマ的意味─表現の示すアスペクトとの関係から─

−10−

第13回大会発表論文集

−11−

第６号

現在完了のスキーマ的意味─表現の示すアスペクトとの関係から─

−12−第13回大会発表論文集

−13−

第６号

現在完了のスキーマ的意味─表現の示すアスペクトとの関係から─

−14−第13回大会発表論文集

−15−

第６号

現在完了のスキーマ的意味─表現の示すアスペクトとの関係から─

−16−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

De se attitudes and pure indexicals
Etsuko Oishi
Fuji Women’s University

Abstract
The present paper aims to show that, as is suggested in Perry (1979), the issue of de se
attitudes should be interpreted as a general issue of utterances containing pure indexicals (I,you, here, now) (Kaplan 1989), and that the uniqueness of de se attitudes is explained in termsof the duality of the pure indexicals. The speaker, the hearer, and the present time/place are
not only described or characterized as a particular person or spatio-temporal location, but
indentified and characterized as the performer, the recipient, and time/place of theillocutionary act performed, which is, I claim, the source of a de se attitude.
[Key words] de se attitudes, de re attitudes, indexicals, illocutionary acts, J. L. Austin

1. Introduction
De se attitudes are thoughts about oneself “when one thinks of oneself in the first-personway” (Ninan 2010: 551), and are claimed not to be reduced to either de dicto or de re attitudes(Perry 1977, 1979 and Lewis 1979). Perry (1979) gives his experience of following a trail ofsugar on a supermarket floor, seeking the shopper with the torn sack to tell him he wasmaking a mess, without realizing that he was the shopper. In that situation John Perry would
have said utterance (1) believing that the shopper was making a mess, but not utterance (2)believing that he (=John Perry) was making a mess.
(1)

The shopper with the torn sack is making a mess,(2)

I am making a mess.
The present paper aims to show that, as is suggested in Perry (1979), the issue of de se

attitudes should be interpreted as a general issue of utterances containing pure indexicals (I,you, here, now) (Kaplan 1989), and that the uniqueness of de se attitudes is explained in termsof the duality of the pure indexicals. Indexical I not only indicates a particular person, i.e., thepresent speaker, but also the person who performs a certain illocutionary act by uttering the−17−

De se attitudes and pure indexicals

sentence; let us call her/him the addresser. Indexical you not only indicates a particular person,
i.e., the present hearer, but also the person to whom the illocutionary act is performed by theutterance; let us call her/him the addressee. Similarly, indexicals here and now not only
indicate the present speech situation or its circumstances, but also the time and place in which
the certain illocutionary act is performed; let us call it the time/place of the act. The main
point of the present paper is that, since the present speaker indicates her/himself, the present
hearer, or the present situation by indexicals, s/he is bound to perform a particular type of
illocutionary act, while committing her/himself to a certain belief or a certain future action.
This type of act is radically different from those which the speaker performs in referring to aperson or time/place, without realizing that s/he or the hearer is the person referred to, or thepresent time/place is the time/place referred to. I explain the difference between de se
attitudes and de re attitudes in terms of the speaker’s beliefs and her/his future action
specified by different types of illocutionary acts.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In the following section, I will provide theexamples in which the speaker has a de se attitude about the present hearer and the present
time/place. In Section 3, I will contrast de se attitudes with de re attitudes, and analyze thesource of the uniqueness of de se attitudes as the duality of indexicals. In Section 4, de se
attitudes as particular beliefs or particular future actions intended will be explained as theresult or effect of the illocutionary acts performed by the utterance which includes anindexical.
2. De se attitudes and indexicals
In this section, I show that the issue of de se attitudes should be interpreted as a general issueof utterances containing indexicals, rather than as an issue of personal pronoun I, using
examples from Ninan (2010) and Perry (1979).
Let us start with second-person pronoun you. Suppose that the speaker is hosting a party
and is told by a friend that Mary is behaving badly. He goes to the person he believes is
Mary’s sister Sue, and says utterance (3) believing that Mary should leave. The addressee is,however, not Sue but Mary herself. The speaker would not say utterance (4), and does notbelieve that the addressee should leave although the addressee is Mary.
(3)

Mary should leave,(4)

You should leave.

−18−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

Suppose, looking at the calendar, a professor says utterance (5) to her colleague believingthat the department meeting starts at noon on Tuesday, but does not realize that it is now noonon Tuesday: the speaker’s watch is broken. The speaker would not say (6) and does notbelieve that the department meeting should start now, in spite of the fact that it is now noonon Tuesday.
(5)

The department meeting starts at noon on Tuesday.

(6)

The department meeting starts now.
In a similar way we can imagine a lost hiker who believes that the best way out from

Gilmore Lake is to follow the Mt. Tallac trail, but does not know he is at Gilmore Lake. The
speaker would say sentence (7) but not (8) although the speaker is at Gilmore Lake.
(7)

The best way from Gilmore Lake is to follow the Mt. Tallac trail.

(8)

The best way from here is to follow the Mt. Tallac trail.
These examples show that the speaker has different beliefs about the same person orplace/time by identifying, or not identifying, the person as herself/himself or the present
hearer, or the time/place as the spatio-temporal location of the utterance. How is this possible?
Is this uniquely a problem of de se attitudes? I discuss this in the following section.
3. De re beliefs and de se beliefs
Boer and Lycan (1980) defend the idea that the problem of de se beliefs can be treated as apart of the general problem of de re beliefs that one can have different beliefs about the same
person/object. De re beliefs are notoriously problematic because a certain entity can beaccessed from different perspectives, and the different ways in which it is presented can lead
one to attribute to it contradictory properties. For example, when Lois Lane says:(9)

Superman is strong,(10)

Clark Kent is not strong,she does not have a contradictory belief: although Superman is Clark Kent, they are accessedfrom different perspectives. In a similar way, the speaker, in uttering the sentences in (11) and(12), assesses himself differently. Under one perspective, the speaker believes he is making a−19−

De se attitudes and pure indexicals

mess, and under the other, the speaker does not.
(11)

The shopper with the torn sack is making a mess,(12)

I am making a mess.

Perry (1977) develops an argument against treating the problem of de se beliefs as that of dere beliefs. He first gives an account of de re beliefs as follows:(13)

X believes of y that he is so and so just in case there is a concept  such that  fits y
and X believes that  is so and so.

Perry then claims the speaker of the sentence in (12) can believe that he is making a mess,even if there is no concept  such that he alone fits  and he believes that  is making a mess.
In other words, when the speaker is referred to by I, he is not accessed in any way as isclaimed by Boer and Lycan (1980). A related problem is that even if I in (12) is replaced by
the co-referring proper name, John Perry, the speaker’s behaviour, i.e., to stop seeking the
shopper with the torn sack, would not happen unless he believes that he is John Perry. These
examples strongly suggest de se attitudes cannot be reduced to de re attitudes.
If so, what is uniqueness of the de se attitudes and how should it be described? If I does
not simply refer to a person who fits a certain concept or description, what does it refer to?
Let us describe the person’s uniqueness in terms of her/his discourse role: the addresser of thepresent utterance, i.e., the performer of the present illocutionary act.
If the speaker utters the sentence in (12) in the circumstances mentioned above, i.e., thespeaker follows a trail of sugar on a supermarket floor, seeking the shopper with the torn sackto tell him that he is making a mess, the utterance (with a stress and the highest pitch on I) is
the expression of the realization or the assessment of the present situation: “It is I who ismaking a mess!” or “There is nobody except me who is making a mess!” That is, in the search
for the shopper who is making a mess, the speaker identifies himself as the shopper: he refers
to himself and identifies himself as the shopper who is making a mess.
Let us specify the terminology to clarify the referent of I. The referent of I is, of course,
the person who is saying the utterance in question, but there seems to be two aspects of theperson which are worth distinguishing. One is a particular person who is speaking; let us callher/him the speaker. The other is the person who performs a particular act in uttering asentence; let us call her/him the addresser. To utter the sentence in (12) is, of course, to−20−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

describe what the speaker is doing: he is making a mess. This can be done by uttering othersentences such as (11) and (14):(14)

John Perry is making a mess.

It is also to perform an illocutionary act. For the addresser to give the description that he ismaking a mess is to confirm that his belief that there is another shopper with a torn sack who
is making a mess is wrong, and that he is the shopper who is making a mess. The act ofconfirming cannot be performed by uttering the sentences in (11) and (14), unless theaddresser understands that he is the shopper with a torn sack, or he is John Perry; even withthis understanding, uttering these sentences is not a natural way of performing theillocutionary act of confirming the content. That is, de se beliefs are the beliefs of theaddresser when s/he performs an illocutionary act in referring to the speaker (= the addresser),and the way s/he specifies the speaker in the illocutionary act affects the addresser’s epistemic
understanding of the speaker and the present situation. This analysis should be extended to de
se attitudes expressed in utterances with other indexicals, which are discussed in thefollowing section.
4. Duality of indexicals
In the previous section, de se beliefs are specified as the addresser’s beliefs caused by
identifying the speaker (=the addresser) in the illocutionary act performed. In the present
section, this analysis is extended to the analysis of addresser’s beliefs caused by identifying
the hearer and the present time/place, where the duality of the referent of you, now, and hereis clarified.
Let us go back to the example of second-person pronoun you: the host goes to Mary to
say she should leave (in (15)) believing he is speaking to her sister Sue. The speaker would
not say the sentence in (16), and does not believe that the addressee should leave although theaddressee is Mary.
(15)

Mary should leave,(16)

You should leave.
In uttering the sentence in (15) in this situation, the addresser typically performs a

verdictive act (Austin 1963[1975]: 153-155): there is a person who is referred to by Mary and−21−De se attitudes and pure indexicals

she ought to leave. When the addresser performs this type of act, he has a de re attitude.
Uttering the sentence in (16) is, on the other hand, a typical way of performing an exercitiveact (Austin 1963[1975]: 155-157): she is ordered to leave. That is, the addresser identifies thehearer in the exercitive act as the recipient of the act of ordering, i.e., as the addressee of theutterance. The addresser believes that the hearer is the addressee of the act and is ordered toleave, which is a de se belief.
Similarly, when a professor utters the sentence in (18) to her colleague, she does not
specify or describe a particular point in time, say, noon on Tuesday, as the time at which thedepartment meeting starts, as she does when she utters the sentence in (17). She rather
identifies the present time as the time at which the meeting starts in the act of assessing anddescribing the present situation, or urging the hearer to hurry: “The department meetingshould be starting now”, or “We are late”.
(17)

The department meeting starts at noon on Tuesday.

(18)

The department meeting starts now.

That is, the addresser identifies the present time as the time of the performing the act ofassessing the situation or urging the hearer.
The lost hiker who utters the sentence in (20) does not specify the best way from a certain
location, i.e., following the Mt. Tallac trail from Gilmore Lake, as he does in uttering thesentence in (19). The hiker rather specifies the present place as the place of performing the act,
i.e., proposing to follow the Mt. Tallac trail as the best way: “From here, the best way is tofollow the Mt. Tallac trail” or “From here we should follow the Mt. Tallac trail”.
(19)

The best way from Gilmore Lake is to follow the Mt. Tallac trail.

(20)

The best way from here is to follow the Mt. Tallac trail.

That is, the addresser identifies the present location as the place of performing the act ofproposing the way out for the lost hikers.
De re attitudes are the beliefs that the addresser has when s/he performs an illocutionary
act while identifying a person or object as an entity in the world, and characterizing her/him/it.
This analysis cannot be applied to that of de se attitudes. In uttering a sentence with anindexical, the addresser identifies the speaker, the hearer, and the present time/place not only
as a person or object as an entity in the world, but as the performer/addresser, the−22−第13回大会発表論文集第６号

recipient/addressee, and the time/place of the illocutionary act performed. In other words, a dese belief is brought about when the speaker, the hearer, or the present time/place is identified
and specified in a particular illocutionary act.
John Perry, who utters the sentence in (12), identifies and specifies himself not just as aparticular person in the world who is making a mess, but as the addresser who confirms that
he himself is the shopper he has been looking for. This causes him to stop looking for the
shopper. The party host who utters the sentence in (15) does not identify the hearer as theaddressee of the act of ordering, because he thinks the hearer is Mary’s sister Sue. If he knows
he is speaking to Mary and utters the sentence in (16) or (21):(21)

Mary, you should leave,

he identifies her not just as a particular person in the world who ought to leave, but as theaddresser of the illocutionary act of ordering: she is ordered to leave.
The tardy professor who utters the sentence in (17) does not realize that it is noon on
Tuesday. If she realizes it and utters the sentence in (18) instead, she does not just identify thepresent time as one point in time when the department meeting starts, but as a time when theact of assessing the situation or urging the hearer is performed: it is now that the department
meeting should start. Then she will hurry to the meeting.
The lost hiker who utters the sentence in (19) does not know that he is at Gilmore Lake.
If he knows this, and utters the sentence in (20) instead, he does not just identify the present
location as the location from which the best way is to follow the Mt. Tallac trail, but the placein which the proposal about the way out is made: from here the best way is to follow the Mt.
Tallac trail. Then he will follow the Mt. Tallac trail.
In the present paper, the source of de se attitudes is explained in terms of the duality of
the referent of pure indexicals, i.e., the addresser and the speaker as the referent of I, theaddressee and the hearer as the referent of you, and the time/place of the illocutionary act andthe present time/place as the referent of now/here. This idea is motivated by Austin’s(1962[1975: 14-5]) felicity conditions, in particular (A.1) and (A.2), where conventionallyspecified persons who bring about an illocutionary effect by uttering a sentence, andconventionally specified circumstances under which the illocutionary effect is brought about
are theoretically separated from particular persons and circumstances in a given case: for theillocutionary effect to be brought about, the persons and circumstances in the latter sense
should be appropriate as the persons and the circumstances in the former sense.

−23−

De se attitudes and pure indexicals

References:
Austin, John L. (1962)[1975]. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Boer, Steven and Lycan, William G. 1980. “Who, Me?” Philosophical Review 89(3):427-466.
Kaplan, David. 1989. “Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics, andEpistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals”. In J. Almog, J. Perry, and H.
Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, David K. 1979. “Attitudes De Dicto and De Se.” Philosophical Review 88: 513-543.
Reprinted in Lewis 1983, 133-159.
Lewis, David K. 1983. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ninan, Dilip. 2010. “De Se Attitudes: Ascription and Communication.” Philosophy Compass
5(7): 551-567.
Perry, John. 1977. “Frege on Demonstratives.” Philosophical Review 86(4): 474-497.
Reprinted in Perry 2000, 1-26.
Perry, John. 1979. “The Problem of the Essential Indexical.” Noûs 13: 3-21. Reprinted in
Perry 2000, 27-44.
Perry, John. 2000. The Problem of the Essential Indexical and Other Essays (Extended
edition). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

−24−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

修復の権限はいかにして移譲されるか？
—多人数会話における第三者修復の事例を通じて―
岡本 雅史†
榎本 美香‡
Masashi OKAMOTO
Mika ENOMOTO
成蹊大学理工学部†
東京工科大学メディア学部‡
Abstract: In everyday conversations there can be seen many repair sequences which give solutions tocommunicative troubles between a speaker and hearer(s). The main objective of this paper is to investigate how the‘third-person repair’ in multiparty conversation can be organized in the view of an integrated model of interaction
and cognition in verbal communication. In particular, we focus on the communicative status of the third-person
repair executor. As a result of our analysis of multiparty conversation data including the communication-challenged,
the third-person communicative status is classified into the three categories: addressee, expert, and affiliate.

キーワード：修復、多人数会話、話し手役割、第三者修復

1.

はじめに

日常会話では、発音が聞き取れなかったり理解できなかったりする場合、聞き手はトラブルとなったその発話の「修復 (repair)」を話し手に要求し、話し手がそれを修復することで元の会話に復帰する。これまで
会話分析 (conversation analysis) で報告されてきたのは、トラブル源 (trouble source) となる発話を行った話し手自身がその修復を優先的に行うための相互行為的な会話の組織化についてであった(Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks, 1977; Schegloff,2007)。しかしながら、3 人以上の参与者からなる多人数会話における修復事例を観察すると、トラブル源の話し手以外の者が修復を実行する例がしばしば見られる。例えば、Egbert (1997) は多人数会話における他者修復開始 (other-initiated repair) の事例を分析し、トラブル源の話し手が修復する前に別の他者によって修復が試みられる場合も、なるべく話し手自身が修復を行うように会話がデザインされていることを指摘する。その結果、第三者による修復が行われた
場合には、元の話し手自身が改めて修復を行ったり、修復を開始した聞き手が当該の第三者修復を承認せず、トラブル源の話し手による修復を待ったりするよ
うな例が見られることを報告している。
本稿の目的は、こうした多人数会話における第三者修復の事例を取り上げ、本来修復を担うべきトラブル
源の話し手ではない第三者によって修復を行うことが可能となる条件を探索することにある。特に、これまで話し手優先であることや自己／他者の区別のみに焦点が当てられてきた修復について、非優先的な第三者が修復に関与する際どのような手続きが取られるのかを考察し、会話という相互行為の中でいかにし−25−て話し手の権限が他の参与者に移譲可能となるかを解明する。
2.
会話に見られる修復
2.1.
「修復」とは何か
会話に見られる修復現象について会話分析の立場
か ら 最 初 に 主 題 と し て 論 じ た の は Schegloff,
Jefferson and Sacks (1977) (以下 SJS, 1977) である
1。彼らによれば「修復 (repair)」とは、発話の産出／聞き取り／理解において生じたトラブルの修復を指すものとして用いられており、旧来の言語学では「訂正 (correction)」とみなされる傾向が強かった現象である。しかしながら，「訂正」という概念は「間違い」や「失敗」を正解で代置するという意味が強く、「修復」を用いることで、言葉探し (word search) 、
表面上は誤りの含まれない言い直し、聞き手に無視される間違い、などの会話の組織化に関わる重要な現象を広くカバーすることができるとされる。
そして、修復の対象となるものは「修復されるべきもの」ないしは「トラブル源(trouble source; TS)」と呼ばれ、一般的には話し手が発話中で表出したトラ
ブルの箇所を指す。そして、いずれかの聞き手が、当該トラブルに対しての気づきを表明することを「修復開始 (repair initiation; RI)」と呼び、それを受けて
1

彼らはそれ以前にも、会話のターン・テイキング（順番交替 ） シ ス テ ム に つ い て 論 じ た Sacks, Schegloff, andJefferson (1974) の中でもターン・テイキングの誤りや違反に対処するためのメカニズムとして修復を取り上げている。

修復の権限はいかにして移譲されるか？─多人数会話における第三者修復の事例を通じて─（主にトラブル源を産出した話し手が）当該トラブルを解決することを「修復 (repair)」であると Schegloff2
らは考えているようである 。しかしながら、実際の会話データを観察すると、修復開始を受けた修復自体が失敗する場合も数多く存在するため、われわれはこれを「修復の実行を試みている」と見るべきだと考え、代わりに「修復実行 (repair execution; RE)」と呼ぶこととした (榎本・岡本, 2010)。
2.2.

修復の担い手

このように修復を規定すると、会話の参与者のうちの誰がトラブルに気づいて修復を開始し、誰が修復を実行するのかということが問題となる。SJS (1977)
ではこの修復の担い手を話し手 (自己 self) と他の参与者 (他者 other) によって区別することが提起
3
されている 。これに従えば、修復連鎖は以下の 4 通
りのパターンに分類されることとなる（例文中の点線
部はトラブル源、下線部は修復実行と筆者らが判断した箇所を示す）。
2.3.

む」まで言った後、一瞬沈黙し、同じく「混む」と言い直している。このように話し手自身が抱えるトラブ
ルは、いわゆる典型的な言い間違えに限らず、他の参与者からはトラブルだと見えないものにまで及んでおり、その意味でも Schegloff らが言うとおり「訂正」には含まれない幅広い修復現象が見られるのである。
2.4.

他者開始／自己修復：聞き手の疑義提出に対して話し手が言い直す(3)

A: Have you ever tried a clinic?
B: What?
A: Have you ever tried a clinic?
B: No, I donʼt want to go to a clinic.
(SJS, 1977: excerpt 26)(4)

A: あのお姉さんきれいだよね
B: えっ
A: お姉さんきれいだよね[chiba1032](3)(4)の例はともに、話し手の発話が聞き手に聞き取りの問題を生じさせたため、ʼWhat?ʼ や「えっ」といった発話で修復を開始し、話し手が同じ発話を言い直すことで修復を実行した例である。こうした聞き取りの問題とは性質の異なる他者開始の例も存在する。
例えば次の(5)はグループセラピーでの会話例である。

自己開始／自己修復：話し手が自分でトラブルに気づいて言い直す(1) She was givin me a:ll the people that were
go:ne this yea:r I mean this quarter yʼ // know

(5)

(SJS, 1977: excerpt 10)(2) 大 体 土 日 は す ご い 混 む (0.121) 混 む か ら :4[chiba1132](1)の話し手は ʻthis yearʼ (今年) と言ってしまってから、ʻI meanʼ (ていうか) で修復を自己開始し、
ʻthis quarterʼ (今学期) と言い直すことで自己開始・自己修復を行っている。一方、(2)の話し手は「混2

実際のところ、Schegloff らは「開始」と区別される「修復」の定義について明示的な定義を与えているわけではない。一連の修復連鎖において「修復操作を「開始」する者
が必ずしも、修復を「遂行／達成 (perform/accomplish)」
する者とは限らない」という主張の直前では「修復セグメ
ントの「開始」と「完了 (completion)」が全く異なるものであり得る」としており (SSJ, 1977: 364)、この箇所だけでも「遂行／達成／完了」という複数の用語が「開始」と対比的に用いられている。
3

この区別は本人たちも自覚しているように、G. H. Mead
や C. H. Cooley らに代表される草創期のアメリカ社会学や古典的なヨーロッパ社会学の伝統に則ったものであり、会
話分析という新しい学問を旧来の社会学的な流れに位置づける意図があったのではと思われる。
4

これはわれわれが分析に用いた会話データ（5 節を参照）の種類と番号を示している。また、発話例中の括弧内の数
字は参与者の沈黙としての「ポーズ（秒）」を示す。

−26−

Ken:
Dan:

Is Al here today?
Yeah.
(2.0)
Roger: He is? hh eh heh
Dan: Well he was.
(SJS, 1977: excerpt 12)

このとき、Ken が「今日アルは来てる？」と現在時制で尋ねたのに対し、Dan が「うん」と答えたのを、
Roger が「（ほんとうに今）来ているの？」と問い返すことで修復を開始する。それを受けて Dan は「来ていた」と過去時制に訂正することで修復を実行している。この場合、Svennevig (2008) が指摘するように、Schegloff らが他者修復の問題を音声的な「聞き取り (hearing)」や言語的な「理解 (understanding)」の問題とみなしていたのに対し、さらにトラブル源の話者である Dan の発話の会話的／社会的行為としての「容認可能性 (acceptability)」の問題にまで広がっていることに注意が必要である。つまり、Dan の「うん」という返答が含意する「アルが今現在ここに来ている」という事態に対しての疑義を、Roger が
Dan の「誤りの特定化 (error specification)」として提出することは、単に Roger がトラブル源を言語的に理解できなかったのではなく、トラブル源の話し手である Dan の行為そのものが受容できないことを示していると考えられる (Svennevig, 2008: 7)。

第13回大会発表論文集

2.5.

自己開始／他者修復：「言葉探し」に見られるように聞き手が話し手を助ける

手によって担われる。しかしながら，三人以上の多人
数会話においては、複数の聞き手の誰が修復の担い手となるかは自明ではない。Egbert (1997, 2004) は多人 数 会 話 に お け る 他 者 開 始 修 復 (other-initiatedrepair) に焦点を当て、次の２つのパターンと特徴があることを報告している。

(6) B:He had dis uh Mistuh W- whatever k- I
can ʼ t think of his name, Watts on, theone that wrote // that piece.
A: Dan Watts.
(ibid.: excerpt 13)

I. 二人以上の聞き手によって同一のトラブル源に対して修復が開始されるパターン(6)の例では、B が「ミスターW…」と言いかけたところで名前が思い出せないことを表明しており、自身で修復を開始している。これに対し A がその助け舟として修復を実行する。こうした「言葉探し (wordsearch)」ではトラブル源となった話し手自身が修復を実行することができず、他の聞き手が代わりに修復を実行する場合が多い点で他の修復連鎖と異なる特
徴を持つ。
2.6.

この場合、聞き取りや理解のトラブルを示すという通常の修復開始ではなく、聞き手同士の提携(affiliation) や連携 (alignment) を示すことで、話し手が産出したトラブル源に対して聞き手同士が一種のチームを組んで話し手と対抗するという現象が見られるとされる。
II. トラブル源の話し手よりも先に／にかぶって、別の他者によって修復が実行されるパターン

他者開始／他者修復：聞き手がトラブルに気づいて話し手の代わりに言い直す(7) A:
B:

例えば、トイレなどで会話の場を離れていた参与者が戻り際に、「え、何の話？」などと言って修復を開始した場合、本来その話題の責任を持っている話し手ではなく、別の参与者が修復を実行することで、修復を開始した参与者をもとの会話場へ迎え入れる機能を果たすことがある。このように、修復開始が会話場への入出装置として用いられることで、単一の会話場
から複数の会話場への分裂 (schisming) やその逆方向への統合 (merging) を促しているとされる。
一方、トラブル源と一人の聞き手による修復開始の間でたまたま発話を行った他者が修復に応じてしまうケースも存在する。この場合、修復を開始した聞き手がそうした第三者による修復を承認しないで、トラブル源の話し手が改めて修復を行い、それを持って修復連鎖が終了する。
従って Egbert の観察によると、多人数会話の修復においては相互行為的な連携が志向され、修復連鎖の組織化が会話の参与者間の成員カテゴリー化(membership categorization) を 促 す 性 質 が あ る(Egbert, 2004)。しかしながら，彼女の議論はこうした多人数会話における修復を相互行為的な観点からのみ展開されており、われわれが問題とする、本来ト
ラブル源の話し手が持っていると思われる修復の権
限がどのようにして特定の他者によって担われるかについては未だ不明なままである。

Yuh know half of the group that we had la:sʼterm wz there en we jusʼ playing arou:nd.
Uh- fooling around.
(ibid.: excerpt 14)(7)の例では、A が ʻplaying aroundʼ と発話したことに対し、ʻfooling aroundʼ (ふざけていた) のだと言い換えている。このように、トラブル源の話し手がトラブルだと気づかず、他者である聞き手によって開始されるとともに修復される例は一般に数が少ない(Schegloff, 2000: 101)。Schegloff らが主張するように、話し手による自己開始や自己修復の方が聞き手による他者開始や他者修復よりも「優先性(preference)」が高い現象であると考えられるためで5ある (SJS, 1977: 373-374)。
こうした修復の担い手という観点から修復連鎖を分類することは、修復に関与する様々な認知的・相互行為的な条件を考察する上で非常に有意義である。しかしながら，これまでの会話分析における修復の研究においては、こうした自己と他者の区別のみに議論の焦点が当たっており、どのような他者によって修復がなされるかまではあまり検討されてこなかった。
3.

第６号

多人数会話における修復

二人の参与者による対話では、他者開始や他者修復は必ずトラブル源の話し手ではないもう一方の聞き4.

5

SJS (1977) の記述に基づけば、正確には「自己修復」が「他者修復」よりも優先的であるのではなく、「自己訂正(self-correction)」が「他者訂正 (other-correction)」よりも優先的であるのだが、本稿ではその「修復」と「訂正」の違いには立ち入らないこととする。

話し手役割の多重性

ここで Goffman (1981) の「産出フォーマット
(production format)」の議論を思い起こせば、トラ
ブル源となる発話を行った話し手は、その音声面での〈産出主体 (animator)〉 であると同時に、発話を選択する〈言語的主体 (author)〉でもあり、さらに発−27−

修復の権限はいかにして移譲されるか？─多人数会話における第三者修復の事例を通じて─

言や信念の〈責任主体 (principal)〉でもある。従って、修復されるべき発話の内容に関する権限がこうした多重の話し手役割に基づいて話し手に帰属されるが故に、トラブルを話し手自身が修復することを参与
者らは指向するのであろう。しかしながら、Goffmanの産出フォーマットの主体性が複数の担い手によっ6て分担されうること を鑑みれば、話し手以外の参与者にも修復の権限が存在する場合もあって然るべきであろう。従って、こうした話し手役割のいずれかの側面が何らかの理由で他の参与者に担われているが故に、本来トラブル源の話し手によって担われるべき修復の権限が第三者に移譲可能となるとも考えられ7る。
そこで、本稿では話し手役割の多重性を踏まえつつ、伴概念として「多人数会話」と「第三者修復」に注目し、その修復連鎖事例を分析する。その意義は、先に触れたように、多人数会話では直接の受け手ではない（つまり話し手にアドレス(address)されていない）
聞き手が存在するため、会話における聞き手間のステ
イタスが異なっており、さらにトラブル源の話し手や修復開始した他の参与者以外の者による修復を「第三者修復」として取り扱うことで、従来の「他者修復」
概念に含まれるものと含まれなかったものの双方を扱うことを可能にすることにある。従来の概念に含まれるものとしては、トラブル源の話し手ではない他の聞き手による修復実行があり、含まれなかったものとしては、後に検討するように、修復の開始や実行とまでは言えないがそれを補完する行為がある。
5.

に進めることに支障をきたすことがしばしば生じる。
彼らは会話の中の脱線、独自の語・文法の使用、無関
連な応答、発話の中断など会話上のトラブルの元となる振る舞いを取りがちであり、従って、本研究で対象とする修復現象が頻繁に生じる。こちらのデータサイ
ズは各対話につき、約 30 分 4 組である。
いずれのデータ収録も、会話参与者たちは簡易収録室において丸テーブルに等間隔で着座した状態で会話を行った。会話開始時の話題はサイコロを振って決めるが、途中でサイコロを何度振りなおして話題を変えても、サイコロの目にない話題を話してもよい旨を教示した。そして、各参与者の音声は、単一指向性説
話型マイクロフォンを通じて別々のトラックに録音した。また、各自上半身と円座全体の映像を４台のデジタルハンディカムで録画した。本稿での分析にはこれらの記録データと音声トランスクリプションを用
いた。
6.
分析結果
6.1.
第三者修復の担い手
上記のデータを分析した結果、多人数会話における修復連鎖で生じる第三者修復には次のようなステイ
タスの違いがあることが分かった。

分析データ

分析資料としては、筆者らが収録した次の二種類の会話データを用いる。一つは、「千葉大学三人会話データ」と呼ばれるもので、親近性の高い同性どうしの大学生３名の自由会話である。各対話は約 10 分 12組である。もう一つは、精神障害や高次脳機能障害など の 病 名 が 与 え ら れ た 人 々 (the communicationchallenged; 以下 CC) ２名と健常者１名の組み合わせからなる、同じく３名の自由会話（「DCG データ」）
である。CC は、知覚・記憶・学習・思考・判断などの認知機能の不全のため、コミュニケーションを円滑(a)

宛先者 (addressee)
トラブル源の話し手によって言語的／非言
語的にアドレスされることで代わりに修復
を実行する

(b)

有識者 (expert)
トラブル源に対する修復が可能な知識を持っているために、代わりに修復を実行する(c)

提携者 (affiliate)
トラブル源の話し手ないしは修復開始を行った参与者との共有基盤に基づいて、修復の開始や実行を補完する

ただし、これらのステイタスは排他的なものではなく、重複可能であることが観察された。以下に具体的な事
8
例 をもとにそれぞれのステイタスを検討する。

86

ここで取り上げる会話データ中の記号については、会話分
析の記法と一部重なるが、基本的に異なる独自の表記タグを用いている。以下にその凡例の一部を記す。

例えば、ラジオやテレビのニュースを読み上げるアナウン

サーは、アナウンス自体の〈産出主体〉ではあっても、もとの原稿を書いた〈言語的主体〉でも、そこで表明された

ホテル:
非語彙的な長音 (語末)(I̲うん)
感動詞(D̲イロ)
言いさし(W̲ジュオー|授業) 言い誤りや非標準的な発音(U̲そう)
聞き取りに自信なし (オプショナル)(L̲です)
小声 (オプショナル)(笑̲ね)
笑いながらの発話 (オプショナル)
ほんとう?
上昇調 (オプショナル)

見解の責任を担う〈責任主体〉でもないことがほとんどである (Goffman 1983: 226)。
7

これは修復以外の例で言えば、社員の不祥事に対し会社全

体が〈責任主体〉としてお詫びをしたり、教え子の学会発表の言い誤りを指導教官が代わりに〈発話主体〉としてオーディエンスに訂正したりすることなどの代理が可能となる条件に対応する。

−28−

第13回大会発表論文集

6.2.

宛先者

次の例では、トラブル源 (TS) となっているのが104 の発話で、それに対して B が 105 で修復を開始している (RI1)。これを聞き取りの問題と解した C は106 で 104 の内容を繰り返すことで修復の実行を試みる (RE1)。しかし、B のトラブルは聞き取りではな
く発話内容の理解に関する問題であったため、さらに107 でどこが理解できなかったかを問うことで再度修復を開始する (RI2)。これに C は応答する代わりに
9
視線を別の参与者 A（＝ナオ ）に向け、アドレスを変更する。そして 109 で「あ俺」と理解候補を提示することでさらに修復開始 (RI3) を行う B に対し、
「いや(0.327)みんな:まだ」と A が修復（＝第三者修復）を行っている (RE2)。さらに、111 において B も「あそうかナオだけか」と A の名前を引用することで理解候補を再提示 (RI4) することにより、そのトピックの説明責任を A に担わせている。
(8) [chiba1032]: 147.85-161.20
101
B: きょう(0.435)きょう飲みに行く
102
C: たぶん103
B: あー
104 TS C: み未成年が:105 RI1 B: えっ
106 RE1 C: 未成年が107 RI2 B: 誰?
(1.359)［→C が視線を A に向ける］
108
A: うん
109 RI3 B: あ俺?
110 RE2 A: ┏いや(0.327)みんな:まだ111 RI4 B: ┗あそうかナオだけか112
B: あれナ┏オ(I̲あ)ナオはそっか(D̲ウ)┏二月三日だ┗うちまだだ ┣もうちょっとだよ
113 RE3 A:
114
C:
┗そうだよ
115
A: ですよ
116
C: うん
117
B: そっか

この例から明らかなように、トラブル源の話し手が修復を行わない場面において、トラブル源の話し手 Cの視線 (107 の直後) によるアドレスを獲得した A が〈宛先者〉として、さらに修復を開始した B によって名前を引用される (111) ことによって説明責任を負う〈宛先者〉として、第三者修復を行なっている。
こうした非言語的・言語的なアドレスは、会話という
また、発話中の┣などの記号は発話がその時点で同時に生起したためオーバーラップしたところを示し、データ冒頭の角括弧はそれぞれ、[chiba####]→千葉大学三人会話
データ、[DCG####]→DCG データを指し、その直後の数
字は切り出した会話シークエンスの開始時間と終了時間(秒) を示している。
9

データ中の固有名詞は全て仮名である。

−29−

第６号

相互行為の中で次のターンの担い手を指定し、本来の返答可能性や応答責任に優先することが示唆される。
6.3.

有識者

一方、次の例では TS となっているのが A の 205の発話で、それに対して 206 で C が修復を開始した(RI1) のを受けて、すぐさま A も 206 で修復を開始す
る (RI2) が、A が修復の本体を実行する前に、第三者である B が 208 で修復を実行している (RE)。
(9)[chiba1232]: 256.46-264.67
201
C: (D̲エウ)(D̲ウ)(0.108)部活さぼってバイト
してました
202
A: ┏あー203
B: ┣おおい204
C: ┗(D̲ミタ)あー+
205 TS A: +あれか:(0.34)日払い
206 RI1 C: ひええなん┏すか┗じゃなく┏て(0.287)
207 RI2 A:
208 RE B:
┗日雇┏い
209
A:
┗日雇┏いの?
210
C:
┗あ
211
C: 日雇い212
C: そうっすね
213
A: あーまそりゃしょうがねえ

このとき、208 で B による第三者修復が可能となったのは、文脈から 205 で A が言いたかった事柄が何であるかを推論し、それに対する知識を既に持っていたからだと考えられる。言い換えれば、B はこの時
点において A に代わって修復を可能にする知識を持
つ〈有識者〉であったと考えられる。
また次の例は第三者修復ではなく、トラブル源の話し手である C 以外の二人が次々と修復開始を行う例
であるが、いずれにおいても「理解候補の提示」を行っている点で、〈有識者〉に近いステイタスを示している。
(10) [DCG1141]: 546.45-577.82
C: んだんだん慣れてきましたデイケア:七年ぐらい通って(W̲ンネンデ|るんで)
302
A: (W̲ウーン|うん)303
A: あー七年も通ってるんだ304
B: すごいね:305
B: 私何年通ってんだろ306
A: 何歳の頃から通ってるの?じゃあ
307 TS C: 二十歳:ぐらいから
308
A: あっそうなんだ
309 RI1 B: えー今二十七になんないじゃん(W̲マーダ|
まだ)
C: 二十四310
311
B: 四でしょう?
312 RI2 A: じゃあ十七?
313 RE C: 高校終わったらすぐ
314
A: 高校終わったらすぐか315
B: ふうん301

修復の権限はいかにして移譲されるか？─多人数会話における第三者修復の事例を通じて─

316

A: そっかC がデイケアに通ってもう七年になるというエピソードを語っている中で、306 の A の質問に対し、Cは 307 で「二十歳:ぐらいから」と答えて A はいった
ん納得するが (308)、B は C の現在の年齢を知っているため計算が合わないことを 309 で指摘することで修復を開始する(RI1)。それに C が自分の現在の年齢を答えたのを受けて、A は 312 で再度修復を開始
する(RI2)。このとき、B は当該トピックに関する知識を持っているため修復を開始することが可能となり、A は会話の連鎖において与えられた知識から推論を行うことで C の答えを先取りしている。
6.4.

同様に、次の例の A も 502 における沈黙によって開始された修復連鎖を解消するために、506 で〈提携者〉として修復補完を行っている。
(12) [DCG1831]: 1250.48-1263.03
501 TS C: B さんは?(0.3)おうちで:(0.4)夜は何してんですか?
502 RI (0.4)
503 RE1 C: あの帰ったあとあのあと(0.6)
504 RE2 C: デイケア終わって帰って(0.5)
505
C: うんと:=506 RF A: お茶飲むんでしょ
507
C: お茶飲┏むの
508
B:┗(L̲お茶)509
C: <笑>
510
A: あたしね B さんち行ったことあるんですよ
デイケア終わってから

提携者

さらに、次の例では、トラブル源となった 401 の Bの発話に対し、403 で C が修復を開始する。それを受けて 404 で B は修復を実行する (RE) のだが、それとオーバーラップする形で 405 で A が C の修復実行を補完している。

このとき、502 は通常の意味での修復開始ではないが、C が 503, 504 においてトラブル源となった 501
10を言い換えて修復を実行している ため，直前の 502が隣接ペア第二部分の不在としての有標な沈黙であることを示している。従って、会話の場にトラブルが生じているのだが、それを解決すべく第三者である Aが 506 で修復補完を行っており、やはりこの場合にも自分に補完する権限がある根拠を示す発話 (510)を伴っていることがわかる。

(11) [chiba0432]: 432.03-446.20
401 TS B: ちゅかなんでそんなさ┏(0.932)喧嘩を(0.133)してんの
402
C:┗(D̲ン)
403 RI C: え
404 RE B: なん┏そんな(0.29)┏そんな(D̲チャン)態
度悪いの
405 RF A:┗や┗こいつの(0.291)(D̲ウ)(D̲ウ)高校時代すごかったから406
B: あ┏そうなの
407
A:┗まっきんきんでしたか┏らね
408
C:┗いやいやえ┏え409
B: ┗まじで410
C: で も う ち の 高 校 な ん か : 割 と (D̲ シ ン ガ )(0.436)は:結構進学校なんだけど
411
B: うん
412
C: まあ茶髪とかまそういうのばっかで

7.

これは、修復の実行とは言えないが、トラブル源となった B の質問とそれに対する修復を開始した C の間に介入し、両者が担うべき修復連鎖を補完することでトラブル解消に協力していると言える。こうした修復
連鎖の補完を「修復補完 (repair follow-up: RF)」とここで新たに名付けることとする。
これが第三者である A に可能となったのは、A が以前から C の高校時代の話を聞いていたためであり、その意味で〈有識者〉と近いステイタスでありながらも、当該トラブルに対して一方の参与者の側に立ってもう一方の参与者に対してフォローアップを行う点
で〈提携者〉として区別される。また、注目すべき点
として、A が同時に 405, 407 で自分に補完する権限がある根拠を示していることが挙げられる。

−30−

考察：第三者修復から見えてくるもの

上記の分析により、第三者修復を担う参与者のステ
イタスの分類を行うことができた。このとき、会話という言語コミュニケーションを支える相互行為と認知の観点からこの三つのステイタスを観察してみると、〈宛先者〉では参与者が言語的／非言語的なアドレスを用いることによって相互行為レベルにおいて修復権限が第三者に移譲／獲得されていることが分かる。一方、〈有識者〉・〈提携者〉は、参与者間の共有知識に基づく認知レベルでの修復権限の移譲／獲得が生じている。従って、会話における修復という一つの現象も相互行為と認知の両者が深く関わっていることの一端が明らかとなった。
一方、修復連鎖の構造に目を移せば、従来会話分析で指摘されていた＜トラブル源→修復開始→修復実行＞という一連の流れに留まらずに、多人数会話で生じたトラブルはトラブル源の話し手と修復開始を行った特定の聞き手の間のローカルな問題というだけ
ではなく参与者全員のグローバルな問題として取り扱われていることが示唆される。本稿で取り扱ったよ10

こうした質問の直後に生じた再質問という連鎖構造においてどのような相互行為的な役割があるかは Kasper andRoss (2007) が詳細に論じているが、紙幅の都合により本稿では取り上げない。

第13回大会発表論文集

うな第三者がトラブルの当事者の間に介入し、修復を補完することでトラブル解消に協力する現象や、榎本・岡本 (2010) で観察された修復開始と修復実行によって得られた結果を参与者全員が最終的に承認する「修復の承認フェーズ」の存在もその証拠となる。
さらに、〈提携者〉による修復補完では他の参与者に対して自分に補完する権限がある根拠を示す発話を伴う傾向があることから、単なるトラブル源を解消可能な知識を〈提携者〉が持っているというだけではなく、自己の認知状態を相互行為の中で提示することを選択する、いわば自己と他者の認知状態をモニタリ
ングしながら会話に参与する側面も無視できないだ
ろう。
8.

おわりに

第６号

現に向けたコミュニケーションギャップ生成―解消機構の解明（課題番号：20200043）」（研究代表者：榎本美香）からの助成を受けて行われたものである。

参照文献
Egbert, M. M. 1997. “Some Interactional Achievements of
Other-initiated Repair in Multiperson Conversation.”
Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 611-634.
Egbert, M. 2004. “Other-initiated Repair and Membership
Categorization: Some Conversational Events That
Trigger Linguistic and Regional Membership
Categorization.” Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1467-98.
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.
Kasper, G. and Ross, S. J. 2007. “Multiple Questions in Oral
Proficiency Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics, 39,
2045-2070.

本稿の目的は、多人数会話における第三者修復の事
例分析から会話という相互行為の中でいかにして話し手の権限が他の参与者に移譲可能となるかを解明することにあった。そして、聞き手のステイタスの違いを明確化するために複数の聞き手が関与する「多人数会話」を取り上げ、話し手が会話の中で果たしている役割がどのようなものであるかを考察するために話し手の代理としての「第三者修復」に注目した。さらに、データ分析から第三者修復を行う聞き手のステ
イタスが〈宛先者〉
・〈有識者〉
・〈提携者〉の三つに分類されることを示した。
今後は、参与者が自身の認知状態と他者の認知状態
を内的に調整しながら、それを相互行為として外的に提示することで他者との会話を紡ぎあげていくのかという視点から、修復とその類縁事例の分析をさらに進めることで、会話における認知とコミュニケーショ
ンの相互関係を明らかにしていきたいと考える。

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. 1974. “A
Simplest Systematics for the Organization ofTurn-taking for Conversation.” Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. 1992. “Repair after Next Turn: The Last
Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity inConversation.” American Journal of Sociology, 97(5),1295-1345.
Schegloff, E. A. 2000. “When ‘Others’ Initiate Repair.”Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 205-243.
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A
Primer in Conversation Analysis Volume 1. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. 1977. “ThePreference for Self-correction in the Organization of
Repair in Conversation.” Language, 52(2), 361-382.
Svennevig, J. 2008. "Trying the Easiest Solution First in
Other-initiation of Repair." Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2),333-348.
榎本美香・岡本雅史. 2010. 「多人数会話において修復はどのように生じるか―コミュニケーションにハンディキ
ャップを抱える人を含む雑談データを通じて―」, 日本
認知科学会第 27 回大会予稿集 (CD-ROM), P-1-46.

謝辞 本研究は文部科学省科学研究費補助金、新学術
領域研究（研究課題提案型）「逸脱を吸収する社会実−31−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡟ࡼࡿእ᮶ㄒࡢከ⩏໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚➟㈏ⴥᏊ㸦᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ㸧<Abstract>
The original meaning of a loanword “sommelier” is “a waiter who has expert
knowledge of wine and helps to choose one,” but recently, the word has also been used to meansomething more general: “a person who has expert knowledge of a specific area and helps tochoose one in that area.” This paper points out that such polysemy of this word is based on atype of synecdoche where a subordinate category indicates its superordinate category, andthat this type of synecdoche can create a new category. Additionally, in comparison to anotherloanword “patissier,” this paper investigates the reason why “sommelier” became polysemous
in Japan.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࠊእ᮶ㄒࠊከ⩏㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏ࡣࠊእ᮶ㄒࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢከ⩏ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࠊࡑࡢከ⩏ࡀࠑ✀ࠒ㸦ୗ఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ㸧࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒ㸦ୖ఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ㸧ࢆ⾲ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟㸦ᥦ႘㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࡀ᪂ࡋ࠸࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ๰ࡾᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊྠࡌእ᮶ㄒ࡛ࡶከ⩏ᛶࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖ࡜ࡢẚ㍑ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢከ
⩏ࡀὴ⏕ࡋࡓ⌮⏤࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ⪃ᐹࡋࠊ᪤Ꮡ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ᭷↓ࡸゝⴥࡢᣢࡘ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀከ⩏ὴ⏕࡟㛵ࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㸰㸬ࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡜࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࣭࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮
ࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ⢄ᒣ(2001)࡟ࡼࡿḟࡢᐃ⩏࡜ྠᵝࡢぢ᪉ࢆ࡜ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘᙧᘧࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊࡼࡾ≉Ṧ࡞ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㏫࡟ࡼࡾ≉Ṧ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘᙧᘧࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜࠸࠺ẚ႘ࠖ㸦⢄ᒣ 2001: 34㸧ࡇࡢᐃ⩏࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ព࿡㸦ࢆᣢࡘᙧᘧ㸧ࠖ࡜ࡣࠑ㢮ࠒ㸦ୖ఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ㸧ࠊࠕࡼࡾ≉Ṧ࡞ព࿡㸦ࢆᣢࡘᙧᘧ㸧ࠖ࡜ࡣࠑ✀ࠒ㸦ୗ఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ㸧ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࡣ࢝ࢸ
ࢦ࣮ࣜࡢୖୗ㛵ಀ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃẚ႘࡜ࡋ࡚つᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡟ࡣࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࠑ㢮ࠒ࡛ࠑ✀ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ࠶ࡾࠊලయ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉ㸸ࠕ௒ᗘࡈ㣤㣗࡭࡟⾜ࡇ࠺ࠖ㸦ࡈ㣤Ѝ㣗࡭≀඲⯡㸧 ࠑ㢮ࠒ࡛ࠑ✀ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉ㸸ࠕ௒ᗘ࠾ⰼぢ࡟⾜ࡇ࠺ࠖ㸦ⰼЍᱜ㸧ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ౛ࢆࠑ඲యࠒ࡜ࠑ㒊ศࠒࡢ㛵ಀ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋ࡚ࠊ㏆᥋㛵ಀ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃẚ႘࡛࠶ࡿ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑
࣮㸦᥮႘㸧ࡢ୍✀࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿぢ᪉ࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊబ⸨(1992)ࠊ⢄ᒣ(2001)ࠊ᳃(2002)࡞࡝ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࢆ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠑ඲యࠒ࡜ࠑ㒊ศࠒࡢ㛵ಀ࡜ࡣ༊ูࡍࡿࠋᚋ⪅ࡢ

−33−

シネクドキによる外来語の多義化について௦⾲ⓗ࡞౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊಶయࡢᵓᡂୖࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠑ㒊ศࠒ࡛ࠑ඲యࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉ㸸ࠕᡭࡀ㊊ࡾ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛᮶࡚ୗࡉ࠸ࠖ
㸦ᡭЍே㸧ࠑ඲యࠒ࡛ࠑ㒊ศࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉ㸸ࠕ᫬ィࡀṆࡲࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠖ㸦᫬ィЍ᫬ィࡢ㔪㸧ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠑ඲యࠒ࡜ࠑ㒊ศࠒࡣྠ୍ࡢㄆ▱㡿ᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢୖୗ㛵ಀ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊᮏ✏࡟࠾࠸࡚ᢅ࠺ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿୖ࡛ࡣ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮㸦㞃႘㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶᐃ⩏ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ➹⪅ࡣࠊ➟㈏(2002: 105)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ᑐ㇟ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ㝿ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡣูࡢලయⓗ࡞ㄆ▱㡿ᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿせ⣲ࢆ෗ീࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿᡭẁ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ஧ࡘࡢㄆ▱㡿ᇦࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࠖ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡋࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ᡂ❧ࡢ๓ᥦ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡢከ࠸ࠕ㢮ఝᛶࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ᐈほⓗ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡇࡢ෗ീ࡟ࡼࡾ୧㡿ᇦ㛫࡟ࠕࡘ
ࡃࡽࢀࡿࠖ
ࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢࠕࡘࡃࡽࢀࡿࠖ࡜ࡣࠊࠕㄆ▱ࡍࡿഃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚஧ࡘࡢㄆ▱㡿ᇦࡢ㛫࡟୺యⓗ࡟ぢฟࡉࢀࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢぢ᪉ࡣ⢄ᒣ࣭῝⏣(2003: 76)࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࠕ㢮ఝᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ㸦୰␎㸧ே㛫ࡀ 2 ࡘࡢᑐ㇟ࡢ㛫࡟୺యⓗ࡟㢮ఝᛶࢆぢฟࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ
⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉࡜㏻ࡌࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊ୍᪉࡛ྠࡌᑐ㇟࡟᥋ࡋ࡚ࡶ㢮ఝᛶࢆ⮬ࡽぢฟࡉ࡞࠸ே࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㢮ఝᛶ࡟Ẽ࡙࠿ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓព࿡࡛㢮ఝᛶࡀࠕࡘࡃࡽࢀࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ iࠋ㸱㸬እ᮶ㄒࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ
㸱㸬㸯㸬ㄒ⩏࡜⏝౛ᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣࠊࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒ⏤᮶ࡢእ᮶ㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࣇࣛࣥࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡲࡓ
᪥ᮏ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊᮏ᮶ࡢㄒ⩏ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࣡࢖ࣥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᑓ㛛ⓗ▱㆑ࢆࡶࡕࠊࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥ࡞࡝࡛ᐈࡢ┦ㄯ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚࣡࢖ࣥࢆ㑅ࡪᡭຓࡅࢆࡍࡿ⤥௙ேࠖ㸦ࠗ኱㎡ᯘ ➨୕∧࠘㸧ࠕࣇࣛࣥࢫᩱ⌮ᗑ࡞࡝࡛ࠊ࣡࢖ࣥࡢ௙ධࢀ࣭⟶⌮ࢆᢸᙜࡋࠊࡲࡓᐈࡢ┦ㄯࢆཷࡅ࡚࣡࢖
ࣥࢆ㑅ᐃ࣭ᥦ౪ࡍࡿᑓ㛛⫋ࠖ㸦ࠗᗈ㎡ⱌ ➨භ∧࠘㸧ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᭱㏆࡛ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞⏝౛ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ㸦ୗ⥺ࡣᘬ⏝⪅࡟ࡼࡿ㸧ࠋ㸦㸯㸧ࠕ㔝⳯ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ㔝⳯ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜ༠఍ࡀㄆᐃࡍࡿ㈨᱁࡛ࠊ㔝࣭⳯ᯝ≀ࡢ▱㆑ࢆ㌟࡟
ࡘࡅࠊࡑࡢ࠾࠸ࡋࡉࡸᴦࡋࡉࢆ⌮ゎࡋఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࢫ࣌ࢩࣕࣜࢫࢺ࡛ࡍࠖ
㸦᪥ᮏ㔝⳯ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜ༠఍࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ㸧㸦㸰㸧 ࠕࠕ Ἠࡢ▱㆑ࠖ࡜ࠕṇࡋ࠸ධᾎἲࠖࢆ㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡓࡢࡀࠕ Ἠࢯ࣒࢚࡛ࣜࠖࡍࠋṇࡋ࠸▱㆑ࢆᣢࡗ࡚ࠊ᪥ࠎࡢධᾎࡸ

Ἠࢆࡼࡾᴦࡋࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ

ࡲࡍࠖ㸦 Ἠࢯ࣒࢚ࣜ༠఍࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ㸧௚࡟ࡶࠕ᪥ᮏ㓇ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࠕᫍࡢࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࠕᮏࡢࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡞࡝ࠊ࣡࢖ࣥ௨እࡢࡶࡢ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢ⏝౛ࡀከᩘぢࡘ࠿ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⏝౛࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣࠊୖ㏙ࡋࡓᮏ᮶ࡢㄒ⩏࡛ࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊᢳ㇟໬ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᩒ࠼࡚ศ㔝ࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿ⾲⌧㸦ゝࢃࡤࠕᣦᐃ⾲⌧ࠖ㸧ࡀࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢ๓࡟ῧ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ

−34−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ࡣࠕ࣡࢖ࣥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕㄒ⩏ࡀᢳ㇟໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢㄒ⩏ࡣᴫࡡḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕ Ἠࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡸࠕᫍࡢࢯ
࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ࡟ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ᢳ㇟໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࠕ㑅ᢥࡢࡓࡵࡢࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព
࿡ࢆྵࡲ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠕ≉ᐃศ㔝ࡢ▱㆑ࡀ㇏ᐩ࡛ࠊ㑅ᢥࡢࡓࡵࡢຓゝࢆ୚࠼࡚ࡃࢀࡿேࠖ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⌧ᅾࡢࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࡢㄒ⩏࡜ᢳ㇟໬ࡋࡓㄒ⩏ࢆేࡏᣢࡘ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ㸱㸬㸰㸬ከ⩏ᛶ࡜ࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟
ᅜᗈ㸦1982: 97㸧࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊከ⩏ㄒ࡜ࡣࠕྠ୍ࡢ㡢ᙧ࡟ࠊព࿡ⓗ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ㛵㐃ࢆᣢࡘࡩࡓࡘ௨ୖࡢព࿡ࡀ⤖ࡧ௜࠸࡚࠸ࡿㄒ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚⢄ᒣ㸦2001: 31㸧ࡣࠕୗ఩ࡢ
ព࿡࡜ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡀ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ☜❧ࡋࡓព࿡ࠖࢆᣢࡘㄒࡢሙྜࡶከ⩏ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ほⅬ࠿ࡽࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ࣡࢖ࣥࡢศ㔝࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡓᮏ᮶ࡢㄒ⩏ࡀࠕୗ఩ࡢ
ព࿡ࠖࠊ᭱㏆ࡢ⏝౛࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿᢳ㇟໬ࡉࢀࡓㄒ⩏ࡀࠕࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࠖ࡟┦ᙜࡋࠊࡇࡢ୧⪅ࢆేࡏᣢࡘࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣከ⩏ㄒ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᚋ㏙ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ
ࡢࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢㄒ⩏ࡣࡇࡢㄒࡀ༢⊂࡛⾲ࡏࡿ࡯࡝ᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊ⢄ᒣ㸦2001: 31-32㸧
࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠕୗ఩ࡢ」ᩘࡢព࿡࡜ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡀඹ࡟ྠ➼࡟☜❧ࡋ࡚࠸࡚㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࡔࡅ࡛࡞
ࡃࠊୗ఩ࡢព࿡ࡢ᪉ࡀࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡼࡾࡶ┦ᑐⓗ࡟㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜ㸦୰␎㸧ࡶྵࡲࢀࡿࠖࡓࡵࠊ
ࡇࡢⅬࡣၥ㢟࡞ࡃከ⩏ㄒ࡜ぢ࡞ࡋ࡚Ⰻ࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕୗ఩ࡢព࿡ࠖࢆᣢࡘᙧᘧࠕࢯ࣒
࢚ࣜࠖࡀࠕࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࠖ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿㄒ⩏ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ
ࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡟௚࡞ࡽ
ࡎࠊඛ㏙ࡋࡓࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࡢᐃ⩏࡟࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣከ⩏ㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ
ከ⩏ᛶࡣࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ࡓࡔࡋࠊᣦᐃ⾲⌧ࡀῧ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ㸱㸬㸯㸬࡟㏙࡭ࡓࠕㄒ⩏ࡀᢳ㇟໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ௨እ࡟ࡶὀ┠ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊࢃࡊࢃࡊᣦᐃ⾲⌧ࢆῧ࠼࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࣡࢖ࣥ௨እࡢศ㔝࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡣ༢⊂࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࣡࢖ࣥࡢศ㔝࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡓㄒ⩏࡛ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀ୍⯡ⓗࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢᢳ㇟໬ࡋࡓㄒ⩏㸦࣡࢖ࣥ࡟㝈ࡽࡎ୍⯡ࡢศ㔝࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄒ⩏㸧ࢆࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜࠸࠺༢⊂ࡢ⾲⌧࡛⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ⌧ᅾ࡛ࡣ㏻ᖖ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ
Ⅼ࡛ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡜␗࡞ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊඛ࡟ࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆࡓࠕ௒ᗘࡈ
㣤㣗࡭࡟⾜ࡇ࠺ࠖࡢࠕࡈ㣤ࠖࠑ✀ࠒࡣࠕ㣗࡭≀඲⯡ࠖࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊ≉࡟ࠕࡈ㣤ࠖ࡟ᣦᐃ⾲⌧ࢆῧ࠼ࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࠕࡈ㣤ࠖࡀࠕ㣗࡭≀඲⯡ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡣᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡶᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ༢⊂࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊࠕ᭱㏆ࡣ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡞ศ㔝ࡢࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࡀ࠸ࡿࡡࠖ࡜ゝ࠼ࡤࠊࡇࡢࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣࠑ㢮ࠒࡢព࿡࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡛ࡶࠊ
ࠕࡈ㣤ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡀ༢⊂࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ
ㄒ⩏ࢆ⾲ࡏࡿᩥ⬦ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊࡲࡔࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢㄒ⩏ࡀࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢㄒ⩏ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡢ⾲ࢀࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ➨஧࡟ࠊᣦᐃ⾲⌧ࡢᏑᅾࡣࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡟」ᩘࡢࠑ✀ࠒࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᝿ᐃࡉࡏࡿࠋᣦᐃ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᩒ࠼࡚௚ࡢศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜༊ูࡍࡿࡓࡵࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶ࡜ࡼࡾࠊ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀእ᮶ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀጞࡵࡓᙜึࡣ࣡࢖
ࣥ࡟㝈ࡗࡓㄒ⩏࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡓࡵࠊࡑࢀ࡜༊ูࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᣦᐃ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡢ

−35−

シネクドキによる外来語の多義化についてࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࡇࡢᣦᐃ⾲⌧ࡣ࣡࢖ࣥ௨እࡢศ㔝࡜ࡶ༊ูࡍࡿാࡁࢆᣢ
ࡕᚓࡿࡓࡵࠊ௚࡟ࡶᣦᐃࡉࢀᚓࡿ」ᩘࡢศ㔝ࡀ࠶ࡾᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ」ᩘࡢ
ศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊࡑࢀࡽࡣ୍ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᡂࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞
ࡿࠋḟࡢᅗࡣࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࠑ✀ࠒࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ
ࡢᮏ᮶ࡢㄒ⩏࡛࠶ࡿ࣡࢖ࣥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠑ✀ࠒࡣᵝࠎ࡞ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢ୰࡛᭱ࡶ㝿❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓ
ࡵኴ⥺ࠊࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣㄒ⩏ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡲࡔ᏶඲࡟ࡣᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛Ⅼ⥺࡛⾲⌧ࡋࡓࠋ         ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜ㸦࣡࢖ࣥ㸧     㔝⳯      Ἠࢯ࣒࢚ࣜ     ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜ     ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜ   ࣭࣭࣭ࡇࡇ࡛ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁⅬࡣࠊࡇࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡀ᪤Ꮡࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮࡛ࣜࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢࢩࢿ
ࢡࢻ࢟࡟ࡼࡿὴ⏕ࡀ᪂ࡓ࡟๰ࡾฟࡋࡓ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡔ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᣦᐃ⾲⌧ࡀࡘࡃሙྜࡢ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡀᣦࡍࠕࡑࡢศ㔝ࡢ▱㆑ࡀ㇏ᐩ࡛ࠊ㑅ᢥࡢࡓࡵࡢຓゝࢆ୚࠼࡚ࡃࢀࡿேࠖ࡜࠸
࠺ࡢࡣࠊ㸦ᐇ㝿࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡟ࡏࡼ㸧ࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜୍ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࢃ
ࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓேࠎࢆ࿧ࡪࡓࡵࡢ⥲⛠ࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡶ⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋబ⸨
(1992: 201)ࡀࠕᑜᖖࡢᥦ႘[ࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟]ࢆᡂࡾ❧ࡓࡏࡿࡓࡵࡢ㢮࡜✀ࡢ㛵ಀࡣ࠾࠾࠿ࡓᖖ㆑
ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ᳃(2002)ࡣࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡟ࡶ㝶ពⓗ࡟タᐃࡋࡓࢱࢡࢯࣀ
࣑࣮㸦㢮࡜✀ࡢ㛵ಀ㸧ࡀᩘከࡃ࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣࡑࡢዲ౛࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
᪤Ꮡࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚⥲⛠ࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡ࡀ
⏕ࡌࡓ⌮⏤࡛࠶ࡿ࡜➹⪅ࡣ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ≉ᚩࡀ㝿❧ࡘᏑᅾࡀㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᏑᅾ
ࢆ௦⾲࡜ࡍࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡶㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢ㝿❧ࡘᏑᅾࡀ௦⾲ⓗ࡞ࠑ✀ࠒ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࡺ࠼࡟ࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡘࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬㸱㸬ࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࠿࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࠿ ࡇࡇࡲ࡛㏙࡭࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢከ⩏ࢆࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࡀࠊඛ࡟㏙࡭ࡓᐃ⩏࡟↷ࡽࡍ࡜࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡶឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕ㔝⳯ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣ࣡࢖ࣥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠑ✀ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㸦࣡࢖ࣥ㸧ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜ࡣㄆ▱㡿ᇦࢆ␗࡟ࡋ࡚
࠾ࡾࠊ㔝⳯ࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟࣡࢖ࣥࡢ㡿ᇦ࠿ࡽࠕࡑࡢศ㔝ࡢ▱㆑ࡀ㇏ᐩ࡛ࠊ㑅ᢥࡢࡓࡵࡢຓゝࢆ୚࠼࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺せ⣲ࢆ෗ീࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢᐃ⩏࡟࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜ྡࡀࡘࡃࡶࡢࡣࠕ㔝⳯ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡟㝈ࡽࡎᵝࠎ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡽࡣ୍⯡໬ࡋࡓࠕࢯ
࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜࠸࠺୍ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᡂࡍࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕ㔝⳯ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣࡑࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣࡍ࡛࡟ᢳ㇟໬ࡋࡓࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢㄒ⩏ࢆࠕ㔝⳯ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᣦᐃ⾲⌧࡛㝈ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊࡸࡣࡾࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵㐃ࡋࠊ᳃(2011)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࡢቃ⏺஦౛ࡢศᯒ࡟ゝཬࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠕࣄ࣮ࣛࣜࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅛ᭷ྡモࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠕ᪥ᮏࡢࣄ࣮ࣛࣜࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−36−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ၥ㢟ࡣࠊࡇࡢࠕࣄ࣮ࣛࣜࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ≉ᐃࡢே≀ࢆࠕ᪥ᮏࡢࣄ࣮ࣛࣜࠖ࡜⛠ࡍࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊㄆ▱㡿ᇦࡀู࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ≉ᐃࡢே≀࡜ࣄ࣮࣭ࣛࣜࢡࣜࣥࢺࣥ࡜ࢆࢲ࢖ࣞࢡࢺ࡟⤖ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ㞃႘࡜ゎ㔘ࡏࡊࡿࢆ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠕ㸿ዪྐࡣ᪥ᮏࡢࣄ࣮࡛ࣛࣜ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡿࡢࡣࡇࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ
ࠕࣄ࣮ࣛࣜࠖࡀࠑࢺࢵࣉࢆ┠ᣦࡍዪᛶᨻ἞ᐙࠒࡢព࿡࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࠊࠑ᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅ
ࡿࠊࢺࢵࣉࢆ┠ᣦࡍዪᛶᨻ἞ᐙࠒ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࢀࡤᥦ႘࡜ࡶ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ
ࠕ᪥ᮏࡢࣄ࣮ࣛࣜࢆ᥈ࡏࠖ࡞࡝࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ
ࡢேྡࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᙧᘧ࡛ࠊ   ࡟≉ᐃࡢㄆ▱㡿ᇦࢆ♧ࡋࠊࡇࡢேྡࡀᮏ᮶ᒓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿㄆ▱㡿ᇦ࡜༊ูࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞஦㇟࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㞃႘࡜ᥦ႘ࡢ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡟㝈ᐃࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࡎࠊቃ⏺஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡋ࠿ゎ㔘࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
㸦᳃ 2011, 144)
ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡇࡢᙧᘧ⮬యࡣ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ቃ⏺஦౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡶࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡜ࡶ࡝ࡕࡽ
࡟ࡶゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿ஧⩏ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ஧⩏ᛶࢆㄆࡵࡓୖ࡛ࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟
ࡢ㐪࠸࡟㛵ࢃࡿࠕࢲ࢖ࣞࢡࢺ࡟⤖ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࠿୍⯡໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㐪࠸ࡣ࡝ࡇ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡲࢀࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⌧᫬Ⅼ࡛➹⪅ࡣ୕ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡀ㛵ಀࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ ➨୍࡟ࠊ௚ࡢࠑ✀ࠒࡢᏑᅾࡢ᭷↓ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ᪤࡟㏙࡭ࡓ㏻ࡾࠊࠕ㔝⳯ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡟࠾ࡅ
ࡿࠕ㔝⳯ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศ㔝࡟㛵ࡍࡿᣦᐃ⾲⌧ࡀῧ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜࠸
࠺ㄒࡢព࿡ࡣศ㔝࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣᢳ㇟໬ࡉࢀࠊ୍⯡໬ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᣦᐃ⾲⌧ࡢᏑᅾࡀ௚ࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢᏑᅾࢆ᝿ᐃࡉࡏࠊࡑࢀࡽ࡜ඹ࡟ᢳ㇟໬ࡋࡓࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ
࡜ࡋ୍࡚ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᡂࡍࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋྛ✀ࡢࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣᢳ㇟໬ࡋࡓࠕࢯ࣒
࢚ࣜࠖ࡜࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢୖୗ㛵ಀࢆᡂࡋࠊࡇࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢୖୗ㛵ಀࡀࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࢆᡂࡍࡇ࡜
࡜࡞ࡿࠋ➨஧࡟ࠊ୍⯡໬ࡋࡓࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡ࡢᐃ╔ᗘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᳃(2011: 144-45)ࡣࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࡀ
㛵ࢃࡗࡓ᫂░࡞ሙྜ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࢻࣥࣇ࢓ࣥࠖࡢ౛ࢆᣲࡆࠊ
ࠕ≉ᐃࡢಶேࢆᣦࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ࠶࠸ࡘࡣࢻ
ࣥࣇ࢓ࣥࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊࡍ࡛࡟ࠑዲⰍ࡞ே≀ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚㌿⩏ࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠶࡜࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ
ᮏ᮶ࠊࡇࡢᅛ᭷ྡモࡀᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡓᯫ✵ࡢே≀࡜ࡢ㛫࡛ࢲ࢖ࣞࢡࢺ࡟⤖ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ☜࠿࡟ࠊࠕ࠶࠸ࡘࡣࢻࣥࣇ࢓ࣥࡔࠖ࡜⪺ࡅࡤࠊᡃࠎࡣࠑዲⰍ࡞ே≀ࠒ࡜࠸࠺௨እࡢせ⣲ࢆ࠶ࡲࡾᛮ࠸ᾋ࠿࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊࡍࡄ࡟ࡑࢀ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕࢻࣥࣇ࢓ࣥࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀᏐ⩏㏻ࡾᣦࡍே≀ࢆ୍ࡘࡢㄆ▱㡿ᇦ࡜ࡋ࡚᝿ᐃࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢻࣥࣇ࢓ࣥࠖࡀᏐ⩏㏻ࡾᣦࡍே≀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚௚ࡢせ⣲ࡀᗈࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡲࡓࠕࢻࣥࣇ࢓ࣥࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࢆࠑዲⰍ࡞ே≀ࠒ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡿ㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡓࡵ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡ࡀࡑࡢㄒࡢㄒ⩏࡜ࡋ࡚ᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࢀࡤࠊ࠶ࡿ
ᑐ㇟࡜ㄒࡢᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢ㸦ᮏ᮶ࡢ㸧ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀࢲ࢖ࣞࢡࢺ࡟⤖ࡤࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊ୍⯡໬ࡋࡓព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
➨୕࡟ࠊࠑ㢮ࠒࢆᡂࡋᚓࡿ㝿❧ࡗࡓせ⣲ࡢ᭷↓࡜௦⾲ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋୖ㏙ࡢࠕࢻࣥࣇ࢓ࣥࠖࢆ౛
࡟࡜ࡿ࡜ࠊᡃࠎࡣࠕࢻࣥࣇ࢓ࣥࠖ࡜⪺ࡅࡤࠑዲⰍ࡞ே≀ࠒ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࡯࡝ࠊ୺࡟ࡑࡢ୍Ⅼࡢࡳ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕࢻࣥࣇ࢓ࣥࠖࢆᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
ࠕࢻࣥࣇ࢓ࣥࠖࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠑዲⰍ࡞ே≀ࠒ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࡑࢀࡔࡅ㝿❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
ࠑዲⰍ࡞ே≀ࠒ࡜ゝ࠼ࡤࠕࢻࣥࣇ࢓ࣥࠖࡀ
ᾋ࠿ࡪࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕࢻࣥࣇ࢓ࣥࠖࡣࠑዲⰍ࡞ே≀ࠒࡢ௦⾲ⓗᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➹⪅ࡣࠊ➟㈏(2002:106)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕ඲࡚ࡢ㏆᥋ᛶࡀ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࢆᡂࡋᚓࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᡃࠎࡀࠕ༟❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(salient)ࠖ࡜ㄆ▱ࡋࡓ㏆᥋ᛶࡢࡳࡀ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࢆᡂࡋᚓࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡓࡀࠊࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚ࡶྠᵝ࡟⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ඲࡚ࡢࠑ✀ࠒࡀࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࢆᡂࡋᚓࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ

−37−

シネクドキによる外来語の多義化について࡞ࡃࠊ༟❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ௦⾲ⓗ࡞ࠑ✀ࠒࡢࡳࡀࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࢆᡂࡋᚓࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ      ௨ୖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ➨୍ࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᭱㏆ࡢከᵝ࡞⏝౛࠿ࡽぢ࡚ྜ⮴ࡍࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ➨୕ࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠑ✀ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㸦࣡࢖ࣥ㸧ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣࡇࡢㄒࡢᮏ᮶ࡢㄒ⩏࡛ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊ1985 ᖺ࡟⏣ᓮ┿ஓẶࡀࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜୡ⏺୍ࠖ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ㡭࠿ࡽὀ┠ࢆ㞟ࡵࠊ௚ࡢศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡼࡾࡶ༟❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛
࠶ࡾࠊྜ⮴ࡍࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊ➨஧ࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊྜ⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋ⌧᫬Ⅼ
࡛ࡣ᪤㏙ࡢ㏻ࡾࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣᐃ╔ᗘࡀ㧗࠸࡜ࡣゝ࠼ࡎࠊ௬࡟ࠕᑗ᮶ࢯ࣒ࣜ
࢚࡟࡞ࡾࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ேࡀ࠸ࢀࡤࠊ
ࠑ㢮ࠒࡢព࿡࡛ᤊ࠼࡚ࠕ࡝ࡢศ㔝ࡢࢯ࣒࢚ࣜ࡟࡞ࡾࡓ࠸ࡢ㸽ࠖ࡞࡝࡜ᛂࡌࡿࡼࡾࡶࠊ
ࠑ✀ࠒࡢព࿡࡛ᤊ࠼࡚ࠕ࣡࢖ࣥࡀዲࡁ࡞ࡢ㸽ࠖ࡞࡝࡜ᛂࡌࡿ᪉ࡀ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠕ㔝⳯ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣⱁ⬟ேࡀ㈨᱁ࢆྲྀᚓࡋ࡚ヰ㢟࡟࡞ࡿ࡞࡝⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚࠿࡞ࡾᐃ╔ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࠊ௚ࡢศ㔝࡛ࡶࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡣ㧗ࡲࡾࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢ㧗ࡲࡾ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕࢯ࣒ࣜ
࢚ࠖࡢᐃ╔ᗘࡣ㧗ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀண᝿ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡣ➨஧ࡢⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࡽࡋࡉࡀᙅ࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ➨୍࡜➨୕ࡢⅬࢆ㔜どࡋࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡜ぢ࡞ࡋ࡚ㄽࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ➨୕ࡢⅬࡣ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௦⾲࡜࡞ࡿࠑ✀ࠒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㝿❧ࡗࡓせ⣲ࡀ୍ࡘ࡟㞟⣙ࡉࢀࢀࡤࡑࡢせ⣲ࢆඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ᣢࡘࠑ✀ࠒࢆᣓࡿࠑ㢮ࠒࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡕࠊࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࡀാࡁᚓࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ iiࠋ㸱㸬㸲㸬࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢ௜୚ ࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ⌮⏤࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸱㸬㸰㸬࡟࠾࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡓࡀࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿࠋ
ᒸඖ(2009: 56)ࡣࠊ
ࠕࠕ㔝⳯࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢨ࣮ࠖࡼࡾࠕ㔝⳯ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࠊ㡢ࡶ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡽࡋ
ࡃ࡚࢜ࢩࣕࣞࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀ⏕ࡴ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡀࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡢࡣࠊ᪤㏙ࡢ㏻ࡾࠕࡑࡢศ㔝ࡢ▱㆑ࡀ㇏ᐩ࡛ࠊ㑅ᢥࡢࡓࡵࡢຓゝࢆ୚࠼࡚ࡃࢀࡿேࠖࡀ୍ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ
࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓேࠎࢆ࿧ࡪࡓࡵࡢ⥲⛠ࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟᰿ᣐࢆぢฟࡏࡿ࡜➹⪅ࡣ⪃࠼ࡿࡀࠊࠑ✀ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㸦࣡࢖ࣥ㸧ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡀⰋ࠸࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡶ୍ࡘࡢ᰿ᣐ࡛
࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࠕ㸦࣡࢖ࣥ㸧ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡀ࠸ࡿࣇࣛࣥࢫᩱ⌮ᗑ࡞࡝ࡢሙᡤࡀᣢࡘ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࠊࡲ
ࡓ࣡࢖ࣥࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀᣢࡘ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡞࡝࠿ࡽࠊ㏻ᖖࠊࠕ㸦࣡࢖ࣥ㸧ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࡀ࠸ࡿᗑࠖ࡜ゝ࠼ࡤࠕ㸦࣡࢖ࣥࡸᩱ⌮ࡀ㸧࠾࠸ࡋ࠸ࠖ
ࠕࡋࡷࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
ࠕᏳᚰࠖ࡞࡝࡜࠸ࡗࡓⰋ࠸࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᣢࡓࢀ
ࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ᪤㏙ࡢᒸඖ(2009)࡟ࡼࡿࠕ㔝⳯ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢホ౯ࡣࡑ࠺ࡋࡓホ౯࡜ྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡛ᣓࡽࢀࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡀ௦⾲ⓗ࡞ࠑ✀ࠒ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ㸦࣡࢖ࣥ㸧ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢⰋ࠸࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆཷࡅ⥅࠸࡛࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㘠ᓥ(2007: 180)ࡣࠕ౯್ホ౯ⓗ㢮ఝᛶࡀ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡟ࡶࠕ౯್ホ౯ࠖࡣ㛵ࢃࡾᚓࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
㸲㸬እ᮶ㄒࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖ
ẚ㍑ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣእ᮶ㄒࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖࡣࠕࢯ࣒
࢚ࣜࠖ࡜ྠᵝࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒ࠿ࡽࡢእ᮶ㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢㄒ⩏ࡣࠗ኱㎡ᯘ ➨୕∧࡛࠘ࡣࠕⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖࠊࠗᗈ㎡ⱌ ➨භ∧࡛࠘ࡣࠕὒⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊᮏᅜ
࡛ࡢㄒ⩏ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣ᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿእ᮶ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢㄒ⩏࡛࠶ࡿࠕ㸦ὒ㸧ⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖࢆᢳ㇟໬ࡍࡿ
ᙧ࡛ࡢព࿡ὴ⏕ࡣ㉳ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡣ୙⮬↛࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−38−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

㸦㸱㸧㸽ࠕᑑྖࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖ
㸦㸲㸧㸽ࠕࣃࣥࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖ
࡞࠾ࠊࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖࡢᮏ᮶ࡢㄒ⩏࡛࠶ࡿࠕⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖࡣᮏᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣⳫᏊࡢ✀㢮ࢆ㝈ᐃࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡇࡢㄒࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ㝿ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣእ᮶ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺
ࠕ࿴ⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖ࡞࡝௚ࡢ✀㢮ࡢⳫᏊ࡟࠾ࡅ
࡟࡞ࡗࡓᙜึ࠿ࡽ୺࡟ࠕὒⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖ࡟㝈ࡽࢀ iiiࠊࡿሙྜࡣ࠶ࡲࡾྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᮏᅜ࡛ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ࡢ㛫࡛ࡣࠊࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢሙྜ࡜ࡣ㏫࡟ࠊࠑ㢮ࠒ㸦ⳫᏊ⫋ே㸧
㸦ࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᘧ㸧࡛ࠑ✀ࠒ㸦ὒⳫᏊ⫋ே㸧ࢆ⾲ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚
࠾ࡾࠊእ᮶ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝ἲ࡟㝈ࡗ࡚⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊᙜึࡼࡾࠕὒⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖ࡟㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄒ⩏ࡀὴ⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࠊࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖࡀእ᮶ㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᮏᅜ࡛ࡢࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖࡀసࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⳫᏊࡀὒⳫ
Ꮚ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢⅬ࡛ࡣࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡶᮏᅜ࡛ࡣ࣡࢖ࣥ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢࡳ౑ࢃ
ࢀࡿゝⴥ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ୧⪅ࡢ㛫࡟㐪࠸ࡣぢࡽࢀࡎࠊ᪥ᮏ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡀ࣡࢖ࣥ௨እ
࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖࡀὒⳫᏊ௨እ࡟ࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺㐪࠸ࢆ⏕ࡴ⌮⏤࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ୧⪅ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊ᪤Ꮡ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ᭷↓࡟࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ᪥
ᮏ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕࡑࡢศ㔝ࡢ▱㆑ࡀ㇏ᐩ࡛ࠊ㑅ᢥࡢࡓࡵࡢຓゝࢆ୚࠼࡚ࡃࢀࡿேࠖ࡜࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ
࣮ࣜࡣ᫂☜࡞ᙧ࡛Ꮡᅾࡏࡎࠊࡑࢀࢆ⾲ࡍㄒࡶᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ
ࠕⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖࡣ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜
ࡋ࡚᪤࡟Ꮡᅾࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ⾲ࡍࠕⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡶᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡺ࠼࡟ࠊ๓⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡀࡑࢀ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡀࠊᚋ⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ᪂ࡓ࡟ࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࡿᚲせᛶࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢⅬ࡛ࡣࠕὒⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖࡀࡑࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐃ╔ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ୍ぢ▩┪ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊὒⳫᏊ⮬యࡀすὒ⏤᮶ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
࠿ࡽ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜ࡋ࡚እ᮶ㄒࡢ౑⏝ࡀྜ࠸ࠊࡼࡾ┦ᛂࡋ࠸ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀ
ᐃ╔ࡋࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࠕ᪥ᮏ㓇ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡀ᪥ᮏᩥ໬࡟㛵ࢃࡿศ㔝࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊඛ㏙ࡢ㏻ࡾࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᏑᅾࢆ⾲ࡍㄒࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ᮶ࡣ࿴ࡢศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿእ᮶ㄒࡢ౑⏝ࡣ୙⮬↛࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊ᪤Ꮡ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡑࡢ⥲⛠ࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵ࡟⏕ࡲࢀࡓࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢከ⩏ᛶࡣࠊ᪂ࡋࡃ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆタᐃࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ࢝
ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟᪂㩭࡞༳㇟ࡸὗⴠࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ⏕ࢇ࡛࠾ࡾࠊ
ࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࡢ႘
㎡ࡀ⿕႘㎡࡟ᑐࡋ࡚≉ᐃࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ௜୚ࡋᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ຍ࠼࡚ࠊࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖࡣ᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖ࡜࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୰࡛≉ู㝿❧ࡗࡓࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢⅬ࡛ࡶࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠑ✀ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㸦࣡࢖ࣥ㸧ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜ࡣ఩⨨࡙ࡅࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋඛ࡟㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡟࠾
࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠑ✀ࠒࡣࡑࡢࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ௦⾲ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞༟❧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ
ࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖ
ࡀࠕⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ௦⾲ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸௨ୖࠊ
ࠕⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡃࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢᅗࡣࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࠑ✀ࠒࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜㐪࠸ࠊࠕࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚ࠖࡣ㝿❧ࡘࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ
࡜࠿ࡽࠊ௚࡜ྠࡌ⥺࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲⌧ࡋࡓࠋ

−39−

シネクドキによる外来語の多義化について  ⫋ே ᮏᅜࡢࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚Ѝ  ⳫᏊ⫋ே   ᑑྖ⫋ே  ࣭ ࣭ ࣭ὒⳫᏊ⫋ே               ࿴ⳫᏊ⫋ே   ࣭ ࣭ ࣭㸦ࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚㸧 Ћ᪥ᮏࡢࣃࢸ࢕ࢩ࢚

㸳㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
௨ୖࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡢቃ⏺࡟ゐࢀࡘࡘࠊእ᮶ㄒࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢከ⩏໬ࢆࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡋࡓࠋ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊ᪤Ꮡ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵ࡟⏕ࡲࢀࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆタᐃࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡀ
ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡢࡣࠊ
ࠕ㸦࣡࢖ࣥ㸧ࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡀ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ௦⾲࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿ㝿❧ࡗࡓᏑᅾ࡛࠶
ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊࡑࡢᑓ㛛ᛶࡺ࠼࡟୍ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᡂࡋᚓࡿࡔࡅࡢ㝿❧ࡘせ⣲ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡓࡵ
ࡔ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒᮏ᮶ࡢࠑ✀ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡ࡀᣢࡘⰋ࠸࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡࡟ࡶཷࡅ⥅ࡀࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠑ✀ࠒ࡛ࠑ㢮ࠒࢆ⾲ࡍࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟ࡣ⿕႘㎡࡟≉ᐃࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ௜୚ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ௨ୖࡢぢゎࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊ௒ᚋࡉࡽ࡟௚ࡢ஦౛ࡶ᳨ウࡋࡘࡘࠊእ᮶ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿከ⩏໬ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
*ᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 13 ᅇ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲ࡢᢡ࡟ࠊྖ఍ࡢ㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁඛ⏕ࡸ㇂୍ཱྀ⨾ඛ⏕࠿ࡽࡣ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡟グࡋ࡚ឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋὀ
i ᗈ࠸ព࿡࡛ࡣࠊẼ࡙࠿ࡉࢀࡓୖ࡛ᑐ㇟࡟㢮ఝᛶࢆぢฟࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠕ୺యⓗ࡟ぢฟࡍࠖࡇ࡜࡟ྵࡲࢀ
ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
ii ᳃(2002: 81)ࡣࠕ㞃႘࡟ࡣࠊ፹௓㡯࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢタᐃࡋࡸࡍࡉ࠿ࡽࠊ஧㔜ࡢᥦ႘⬟ຊࡀാ࠸ࡓ⤖ᯝ࡜ゎ㔘ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࢣ࣮ࢫ࡜ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࢣ࣮ࢫࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊᚋ⪅ࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡣࠕ፹௓㡯ࡀ୍ࡘ࡟㝈ᐃࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࢣ࣮ࢫࠖࡔ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢタᐃ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᮏ✏ࡢぢ᪉ࡣࡇࢀ࡟㏻ࡌ
ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࠖࡢከ⩏ࡣࠑ㢮ࠒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋࠊࢩࢿࢡࢻ࢟࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࠋiii ࠗᗈ㎡ⱌ ➨භ∧࡛࠘ࠕὒⳫᏊ⫋ேࠖ࡜グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࡑࡢ⾲ࢀ࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩ᒸඖ㯞⌮ᜨ. 2009. ࠕࢯ࣒࢚ࣜࡢࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡࠖࠊ
ࠗゝㄒ࠘38(3)ࠊ56-59ࠊᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
➟㈏ⴥᏊ. 2002. ࠕ」ྜⓗẚ႘ࡢㄆ▱ⓗᇶ┙ࠖࠊࠗKLS࠘ࠊ22ࠊ105-114. 㛵すゝㄒᏛ఍.
ᅜᗈဴᘺ. 1982. ࠗព࿡ㄽࡢ᪉ἲ࠘ ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
బ⸨ಙኵ. 1992[1978]. ࠗࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡឤぬ࠘ࠊᮾி㸸ㅮㄯ♫.
᪂ᮧฟ⦅. 2008. ࠗᗈ㎡ⱌ ➨භ∧࠘ࠊᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ.
࣓ ࢱ ࣇ ࢓ ࣮ ࡢ ື ᶵ ࡙ ࡅ㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁ. 2007.ࠕ㡿ᇦࢆࡘ࡞ࡄࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ౯್ⓗ㢮ఝᛶࠖࠊᴋぢᏕ㸦⦅㸧࣓ࠗࢱࣇ࢓࣮◊✲ࡢ᭱๓⥺࠘ࠊᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ᯇᮧ᫂⦅. 2006. ࠗ኱㎡ᯘ ➨୕∧࠘ ᮾி㸸୕┬ᇽ᭩ᗑ.
⢄ᒣὒ௓. 2001. ࠕከ⩏ㄒࡢ」ᩘࡢព࿡ࢆ⤫ᣓࡍࡿࣔࢹࣝ࡜ẚ႘ࠖࠊࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛㄽ⪃ No.1࠘ࠊ29-58ࠊᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
⢄ᒣὒ௓࣭῝⏣ᬛ. 2003. ࠕព࿡ࡢᣑᙇࠖ
ࠊᯇᮏ᭙㸦⦅㸧ࠗㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽ࠘
ࠊ73-134ࠊᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
᳃㞝୍. 2002. ࠕ㞃႘ࡣ஧㔜ࡢᥦ႘࠿㸽ࠖࠊࠗᡂ㋣኱ᏛᩥᏛ㒊⣖せ࠘ࠊ37ࠊ73-84.
- - -. 2011. ࠕ㞃႘࡜ᥦ႘ࡢቃ⏺஦౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖࠊࠗᡂ㋣ᅧᩥ࠘44ࠊ143-150.

−40−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊␲ၥᩥ䛸ಟ㎡ᛶʊ䜶䝁䞊Ⓨヰゎ㔘䜢୰ᚰ䛸䛧䛶ᚋ⸨䝸䝃ዉⰋዪᏊ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔
$EVWUDFW!
7KHUKHWRULFLW\DQGLURQLFDOQHVVRILQWHUURJDWLYHXWWHUDQFHVKDYHHDFKEHHQWUHDWHGVHSDUDWHO\LQVRPH
SUHYLRXVVWXGLHVEXWWKHLQWHUUHODWLRQEHWZHHQWKHPKDVQRWEHHQDQDO\]HG7KLVSDSHUDLPVWRGLVFXVVWKLVFDXVDOLQWHUUHODWLRQJLYLQJHYLGHQFHWKDWWKHLURQLFDOQHVVRILQWHUURJDWLYHXWWHUDQFHVFDQOHDGWRUKHWRULFDOUHDGLQJV,ZLOOWDNHDGYDQWDJHRI5HOHYDQFHWKHRUHWLFDQDO\VLVRYHUVRPHRWKHUVWXGLHVVXFKDV6SHHFK$FW
WKHRU\DQG,PSOLFLW'LVSOD\WKHRU\LQUHODWLRQWRLURQLFDOQHVVRIXWWHUDQFHVDQGZLOOSURSRVHWKDWWKH
5HOHYDQFHWKHRUHWLFFRQFHSWRIWKHVSHDNHU¶VGLVVRFLDWLYH LHLURQLF DWWLWXGHFDQEHZHOODGDSWHGWRDEOHQGHGDQDO\VLVRIWKHUKHWRULFLW\DQGLURQLFDOQHVVRILQWHUURJDWLYHXWWHUDQFHV࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࠊ᝟ሗせồࠊ࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰゎ㔘௬ㄝࠊ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡣࡌࡵ࡟㸸ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ࡜࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮ᛶ
ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛜ㄆ䜑䜙䜜䜛ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ䛾ゎ㔘䝥䝻䝉䝇ୖ䛷㢧ᅾ໬䛥䜜ᚓ䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛ヰ⪅᝿ᐃ䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂䜶䝁䞊Ⓨヰゎ㔘௬ㄝ䛃䠄6SHUEHU DQG :LOVRQ   ௚䠅䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙ศᯒ䜢⾜䛖䚹䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊Ⓨヰゎ㔘䛾ఏ⤫ⓗぢゎ䛸䛧䛶䚸6HDUOH  䛷䛿䚸ᅵ◁㝆䜚䛾䛸䛝䛻 ,W䇻V D ORYHO\ZHDWKHU䛸ゝ䛔䛺䛜䜙 ,W䇻VDQDZIXOZHDWKHU䜢ព࿡䛩䜛䛂཯ᑐᴫᛕ䛃䛾ఏ㐩䜢䚸*ULFH  䛷䛿䚸⿬ษ䜚⾜Ⅽ
䜢䛧䛯཭ே䛻ᑐ䛧 +HLVDILQHIULHQG䛸ゝ䛔䛺䛜䜙 +HLVQRWDILQHIULHQG䜢ព࿡䛩䜛䛂▩┪ᴫᛕ䛃䛾ఏ㐩䛻䛴䛔䛶䛭䜜䛮䜜ㄽ䛨䛶䛔䜛䚹䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䜢䛂▩┪ᴫᛕ䛃䚸ᡈ䛔䛿䠄䛂▩┪ᴫᛕ䛃䜢ྵ䜣䛰䠅ᗈ⩏䛾䛂཯ᑐᴫᛕ䛃䛻䛒䜛䛸䛩䜛ほⅬ䛿䚸ᗈ䛟ཷᐜ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛ᴟᛶ཯㌿ᆺಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ䛾ᐃ⩏䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱 4XLUN ௚  䛾䛂Ⓨヰ䛾࿨㢟䛾ᴟᛶ䛸㏫䛾ᴟᛶ䛾᝿ᐃ䛜ఏ㐩䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛃䛸䛩䜛ᐃ⩏䛸㠀ᖖ䛻㢮ఝ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹4XLUN ௚䛻䜘䜛䛸䚸⫯ᐃ䛾 ZK ␲ၥᩥ䛿✵䛾್䛜ᇙ䜑㎸䜎䜜䛯᝿ᐃ䜢䚸ྰᐃ䛾 ZK ␲ၥᩥ䛿඲⛠ⓗ䛺್䛜ᇙ䜑㎸䜎䜜䛯᝿ᐃ䜢ఏ㐩䛧䚸⫯ᐃ䛾 \HVQR ␲ၥᩥ䛿ྰᐃ䛾᝿ᐃ䜢䚸ྰᐃ䛾 \HVQR ␲ၥᩥ䛿⫯ᐃ䛾᝿ᐃ䜢ఏ㐩䛩䜛䚹౛䛘䜀ḟ䛾 䛾ヰ⪅᝿ᐃ䛿✵䛾್ QRERG\ 䛜ᇙ䜑㎸䜎䜜䛯᝿ᐃ䛷䛒䜚䚸  䛾ヰ⪅᝿ᐃ䛿 QRW 䛜௜ຍ䛥䜜䛯ྰᐃ䛾᝿ᐃ䛸䛺䜛䚹 :KRNQRZV"
6SHDNHU䇻VDVVXPSWLRQ䠖1RERG\NQRZV $P,P\EURWKHU¶VNHHSHU"
6SHDNHU䇻VDVVXPSWLRQ䠖 ,¶PQRWP\EURWKHU¶VNHHSHU䛯䛰䛧䚸ୖ䛻ᣲ䛢䛯 +HLVDILQHIULHQG䛾䜘䛖䛺ᖹླྀᩥⓎヰ䛾ሙྜ䛸␗䛺䜚䚸␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛾ㄆ▱䛿䚸␲ၥᩥᙧᘧ䛾౑⏝䛾㐺ษᛶ䠄LH᝟ሗせồ䛾⛬ᗘᛶ䚸ḟ⠇ཧ↷䠅䛾ㄆ▱䛻㛵䜟䜛ゎ㔘䝥䝻䝉䝇䛻䛚−41−

アイロニー疑問文と修辞性─エコー発話解釈を中心として─䛔䛶⾜䜟䜜䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸  䛚䜘䜃  䛾␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛷䛿䚸䛭䛾࿨㢟ෆᐜ䛸ヰ⪅᝿ᐃ䛾ᑐ↷ᛶ䛜ㄆ▱䛥䜜䛯⤖ᯝ䚸᝟ሗせồ䛾⛬ᗘ䛜᭱ᙅᡈ䛔䛿䛭䜜䛻㏆䛔್䜢♧䛩䛸ゎ㔘䛥䜜䜛䚸䛸䛔䛘䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹୍᪉䛷䚸ḟ䛾  䛾䜘䛖䛻࿨㢟䛾ᴟᛶ䜢཯㌿䛥䛫䛯᝿ᐃ䜢ఏ㐩䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸䛿ᛮ䛘䛺䛔䛂㠀䛃ᴟᛶ཯㌿ᆺಟ㎡
␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛻䛚䛔䛶䜒䚸ఱ䜙䛛䛾᝿ᐃ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ヰ⪅䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ⓗែᗘ䛜ఏ㐩䛥䜜䛶䛚䜚䚸䛭䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛾ㄆ▱䛜䚸ಟ㎡ᛶゎ㔘䜈䛾ᡭ᥃䛛䜚䛸䛺䜛䛸ண䛩䜛䚹
 >&DQG\ 䛿✵⭡䜢‶䛯䛩䛯䜑䝢䝄䜢↝䛔䛯䚹䝢䝄䛜䛱䜗䛖䛹↝䛝ୖ䛜䛳䛯䛸䛝䚸ኵ䛜䜻䝑䝏䞁䛻ධ䛳䛶䛝䛶䛭䛾䝢䝄䜢୸䛤䛸  ᯛᖹ䜙䛢䛯䚹䛭䛣䛷 &DQG\ 䛿ኵ䛻ḟ䛾䜘䛖䛻ゝ䛖@+DYH\RXVHHQP\SL]]DRQWKHWDEOH"       8WVXPL䚸ゅᣓᘼෆ᪥ᮏㄒヂ䛿➹⪅䛻䜘䜛 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ␲ၥᩥⓎヰࡢศᯒఏ⤫ⓗ䛺Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ⌮ㄽ HJ 6HDUOH  䛷䛿䚸␲ၥᩥⓎヰゎ㔘䛿䚸㏻ᖖ䛾␲ၥᩥ䠄᝟ሗせồ䠅䛸䚸䛭䜜௨እ䛾≉Ṧ䛺䜿䞊䝇䛸䛔䛖஧ศ໬䜢ᥦၐ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛜䚸ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸䛔䛛䛺䜛䝍䜲䝥䛾␲ၥᩥⓎヰゎ㔘䜒ྠ䛨䝥䝻䝉䝇䜢䛯䛹䜛䛸䛩䜛㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛾ぢゎ䛻ᇶ䛵䛝䚸᝟ሗせồᛶ䛜⛬ᗘᛶ䜢♧䛩㐃⥆ⓗ䛺ᑻᗘ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢๓ᥦ䛸䛩䜛䠄6SHUEHUDQG:LOVRQ:LOVRQDQG6SHUEHU ௚䠅䚹㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛷䛿䚸␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛾ᣢ䛴ゝㄒ䛾ព࿡Ỵᐃ୙ྍ⬟ᛶ䛛䜙䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛿䚸ヰ⪅᝿ᐃ䛜ヰ⪅ᡈ䛔䛿⪺䛝ᡭ䛾䛹䛱䜙䛻䛸䛳䛶㛵㐃ᛶ䛜䛒䜛䛛䜢ุ᩿䛩䜛䝥䝻䝉䝇䜢䛯䛹䜛䚹᝟ሗせồᛶ䛾ᙉ䛔␲ၥᩥ䛷䛿䚸ヰ⪅᝿ᐃ䛜䛂ヰ⪅䛻䛸䛳䛶㛵㐃ᛶ䛾䛒䜛᝿ᐃ䛃䛷䛒䜚䚸ಟ㎡ᛶ䛜ᙉ䛔␲ၥᩥ䛷䛿䛂⪺䛝ᡭ䛻䛸䛳䛶㛵㐃ᛶ䛾䛒䜛᝿ᐃ䛃䛷䛒䜛䛸ุ᩿䛩䜛䠄:LOVRQ DQG 6SHUEHU  䠅䚹ḟ䛾 D 䛾ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸ヰ⪅᝿ᐃ E䛿⪺䛝ᡭ䛻䛸䛳䛶㛵㐃ᛶ䛾䛒䜛᝿ᐃ䛷䛒䜛䚹Ⓨヰ䛾ពᅗ䛿䛣䛾᝿ᐃ䜢⪺䛝ᡭ䛻᝿㉳䛥䛫䜛䛣䛸䛻䛒䜛䚹 D:KHQGLG\RXVD\\RXZHUHJRLQJWRJLYHXSVPRNLQJ"
E6SHDNHU¶VDVVXPSWLRQ7KHKHDUHUVDLGWKDWVKHZDVJRLQJWRJLYHXSVPRNLQJDWW
6SHUEHUDQG:LOVRQ ヰ⪅᝿ᐃ䠄࿨㢟ෆᐜ䠅䛜䛂ㄡ䛻䛸䛳䛶㛵㐃ᛶ䛜䛒䜛䛾䛛䛃䛸䛔䛖ほⅬ䛻ຍ䛘䚸࿨㢟ෆᐜ䛾┿ഇ್䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾ヰ⪅䛾䛂☜ಙ䛾⛬ᗘ䛃䛾ㄆ▱䛜䚸␲ၥᩥⓎヰゎ㔘䜢᪉ྥ䛵䛡䜛䚹㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛾ศᯒ䛿䚸᝟ሗ䜢ồ䜑䜛␲ၥᩥ䜎䛯䛿ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ䛾䛔䛪䜜䛛䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛜᫂♧ⓗ䛻ఏ㐩䛥䜜䜛䜿䞊䝇䜀䛛䜚䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸䝪䞊䝎䞊䝷䜲䞁䜿䞊䝇䛾ゎ㔘䜢䜒ྍ⬟䛻䛩䜛䚹౛䛘䜀䚸ᙉ䛔㦫䛝䜢క䛖☜ㄆ␲ၥᩥ䛿ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ䛻㢮ఝ䛧䛯ヰ⪅᝿ᐃ䜢ఏ㐩䛩䜛䛜᝟ሗせồᛶ䛒䜛䛔䛿ಟ㎡ᛶ䛾⛬ᗘ䛿䛂☜ಙ䛾⛬ᗘ䛾ㄆ▱䛃䛻䜘䛳䛶␗䛺䜛 䚹ᚑ䛳䛶䛂᝟ሗせồᛶ䛃䛚䜘䜃䛂ಟ㎡ᛶ䛃䛿䚸ᅗ  䛾䜘䛖䛻䛭䜜䛮䜜䛾⛬ᗘ䛾᭱኱್䜢ᑐᴟ䛻ྲྀ䜛㐃⥆ⓗ䛺ᑻᗘୖ䛻⾲䛥䜜ᚓ䜛䛜䚸䛣䜜䜙䛾⛬ᗘᛶ䛾ㄆ▱䛿䚸ㄡ䛻䛸䛳䛶㛵㐃ᛶ䛾䛒䜛᝿ᐃ䛷䛒䜛䛾䛛䚸䛚䜘䜃᝿ᐃ䛾☜ಙᛶ䛻౫ᣐ䛩䜛䜒䛾
䛷䛒䜛䚹






−42−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号









ᅗ䠍䠊␲ၥᩥ䛾䛂᝟ሗせồᛶ䛃䠄ᐇ⥺䠅䛸䛂ಟ㎡ᛶ䛃䠄Ⅼ⥺䠅䛾⛬ᗘ䜢♧䛩ᑻᗘ ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮␲ၥᩥࡢゎ㔘ࣉࣟࢭࢫ
㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛾ぢᆅ䛛䜙䛿䚸ㄆ▱ຠᯝ䜢ᚓ䜙䜜䜛㛵㐃ᛶ䛾䛒䜛ヰ⪅᝿ᐃ䛻䛯䛹䜚╔䛟䛯䜑䛻䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛿ᚲせ䛺ᩥ⬦᝿ᐃ䜢ᚓ䜘䛖䛸䛩䜛䚹␲ၥᩥ䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛾ㄆ▱䛿䚸ಟ㎡ᛶゎ㔘䛾ᡭ᥃䛛䜚䛾୍䛴䛸䛧䛶ゎ㔘䝥䝻䝉䝇䛻䛚䛔䛶㈉⊩䛩䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹ᮏ⠇䛷䛿␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛾ゎ㔘䝥䝻䝉䝇䛻䛚䛡䜛䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ⓗែᗘ䛻㛵䜟䜛᝿ᐃ䛻䛴䛔䛶⪃ᐹ䛧䚸㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ศᯒ䛾ඃ఩ᛶ䛻䛴䛔䛶ㄽ䛨䜛䚹࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰゎ㔘௬ㄝ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛻䛚䛡䜛䜶䝁䞊Ⓨヰゎ㔘௬ㄝ䛷䛿䚸䛒䜙䜖䜛䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊Ⓨヰ䛜䛂䜶䝁䞊ⓗᛶ㉁䜢ᣢ䛱䚸ヰ⪅䛻ᖐᒓ䛧䛺䛔᝿ᐃ䜈䛾 GLVVRFLDWLYHDWWLWXGH 䜢♧䛩䛃䠄6SHUEHUDQG:LOVRQ䠅䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䛂䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛃䛿䛂䜶䝁䞊ᛶ䛃䛾஦౛䛸䛧䛶䛂䜶䝁䞊ᛶ䛃䛾ୗ఩ᴫᛕ䛻ᒓ䛩䜛䠄6SHUEHU DQG :LOVRQ  䠅䚹౛䛘䜀ḟ䛾
% 䛾Ⓨヰ䛿ඛ⾜Ⓨヰ䛾䜶䝁䞊䛾౛䛷䚸LW䇻V D ORYHO\ GD\ IRU D SLFQLF 䛸䛔䛖᝿ᐃ䛿ඖ䚻$ 䛻ᖐᒓ䛩䜛Ⓨヰ䛷䛒䜚䚸䛭䜜䜢 % 䛜䜶䝁䞊䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸$ 䛾᝿ᐃ䜈䛾 GLVVRFLDWLYHDWWLWXGH 䜢♧䛩䚹'LVVRFLDWLYHDWWLWXGH 䛸䛿䚸⾲ฟ࿨㢟䛻┦ᙜ䛩䜛᝿ᐃ䛂௒᪥䛿䝢䜽䝙䝑䜽᪥࿴䛰䛃䛜௚⪅䛻ᖐᒓ䛧䚸ヰ⪅䛾᝿ᐃ䛷䛿䛺䛔䛣䛸䚸䛴䜎䜚䛂⮬㌟䛛䜙ษ䜚㞳䛥䜜䛯䠄GLVVRFLDWLYH䠅䛃᝿ᐃ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢♧䛩࿨㢟ែᗘ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䛾࿨㢟ែᗘ䛿䚸 E 䛾㧗ḟ⾲ព䛾ᇙ䜑㎸䜏䝇䜻䞊䝬䛸䛧䛶㈉⊩䛩䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹 $,W¶VDORYHO\GD\IRUDSLFQLF
>7KH\JRIRUDSLFQLFDQGLWUDLQV@% VDUFDVWLFDOO\ ,W¶VDORYHO\GD\IRUDSLFQLF             6SHUEHUDQG:LOVRQ  D ⾲ฟ࿨㢟䠖,W¶VDORYHO\GD\IRUDSLFQLF
E 㧗ḟ⾲ព䠖7KHVSHDNHUKDVDGLVVRFLDWLYHDWWLWXGHWRWKHWKRXJKWWKDWLW¶VDORYHO\GD\IRUDSLFQLF
F ᥎ព๓ᥦ䠖,ILWUDLQVLW¶VQRWDORYHO\GD\IRUDSLFQLF
G ᥎ព๓ᥦ 䠖,WUDLQV
H ᖐ⤖᥎ព FG 䠖,W¶VQRWDORYHO\GD\IRUDSLFQLF 
I 䛭䛾௚䛾᥎ព $H 䠖 7KHXWWHUDQFH $ LVQRXVH



−43−

アイロニー疑問文と修辞性─エコー発話解釈を中心として─ࡑࡢ௚ࡢ࢚ࢥ࣮⌮ㄽ࡜ၥ㢟Ⅼ
.XPRQ1DNDPXUD ௚ 䠄  䠅 䛾 DOOXVLRQDO SUHWHQVH WKHRU\ $3 ⌮ ㄽ 䜔 8WVXPL  䛾 ,PSOLFLW'LVSOD\WKHRU\䠄ᬯ㯲ⓗᥦ♧⌮ㄽ䠅䛷䛿䚸ఏ⤫ⓗ䛺䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ศᯒ䛸䜶䝁䞊Ⓨヰゎ㔘௬ㄝ䛾⼥ྜ䛸䜒䛔䛘䜛ศᯒ䜢ᥦ᱌䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹.XPRQ1DNDPXUD ௚䛷䛿䚸䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊䛾ᚲせ༑ศ᮲௳䛸䛧䛶䚸䛂ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ୙ㄔᐇ䛥䛃䛸䛂ඛ⾜䛩䜛ᮇᚅ䜔ᇶ‽䜔♫఍ⓗ័⩦䜈䛾䜋䛾䜑䛛䛧䠄DOOXVLRQ䠅䛃䜢ᣲ䛢䛶䛔䜛䚹䛂ඛ⾜䛩䜛ᮇᚅ➼䜈䛾䜋䛾䜑䛛䛧䛃䛸䛔䛖Ⅼ䛷䛿㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛾䜶䝁䞊Ⓨヰゎ㔘௬ㄝ䛻㢮ఝ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛜䚸㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛷䛿䚸Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ⌮ㄽ䛷ゝ䛖䛸䛣䜝䛾䛂ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ୙ㄔᐇᛶ䛃䛾㐪཯䛛ྰ䛛䛾ุᐃ䜢䚸Ⓨヰゎ㔘䛻䛚䛡䜛ᚲせ᮲௳䛸䛿ᤊ䛘䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹䝪䞊䝎䞊䝷䜲䞁䛾␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䜒ྵ䜑䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛿ヰ⪅䛾ㄆ▱⎔ቃ䜢᥈䜚䚸㐺ษ䛺ᩥ⬦᝿ᐃ䜈䛸䜰䜽䝉䝇䛩䜛䚹䛭䛣䛷᭱ึ䛻㛵㐃௜䛡䜙䜜䛯᝿ᐃ䛜㢧ᅾ໬䛩䜜䜀䚸䛭䛾Ⓨヰ⊂⮬䛾ㄆ▱ຠᯝ䛜䜒䛯䜙䛥䜜䜛䚹
୍᪉䚸8WVXPL䠄䠅䛾ᬯ㯲ⓗᥦ♧⌮ㄽ䛷䛿䚸䛂ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ୙ㄔᐇᛶ䛃䛾ุᐃ䛿ᚲせ᮲௳䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸䝥䝻䝖䝍䜲䝥䛻㏆䛔ᛶ㉁䜢ഛ䛘䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䛂ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ୙ㄔᐇᛶ䛃䛾ุᐃ䛿䚸䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䜢᥈䜛䛂ᡭ᥃䛛䜚
䠄FXH䠅䛃䛾୍䛴䛷䛒䜛䚹䜎䛯䚸䜶䝁䞊䛾ᴫᛕ䛻௦䜟䜛䜒䛾䛸䛧䛶䛂፣᭤ⓗゝཬ䠄DOOXVLRQ䠅䛃䜢⏝䛔䛶䛔䜛䚹㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛾䜶䝁䞊Ⓨヰゎ㔘௬ㄝ䛾ၥ㢟Ⅼ䛸䛧䛶䚸䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊䛜䜶䝁䞊䛩䜛ᑐ㇟䛜ᗈ䛩䛞䜛䛣䛸䛸䚸䜶䝁䞊ᑐ㇟䛸Ⓨヰෆᐜ䛾㛵ಀ䛾ᤊ䛘᪉䛜୙༑ศ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢ᣲ䛢䚸ᬯ㯲ⓗᥦ♧⌮ㄽ䛷䛿፣᭤ⓗゝཬ䛾ᑐ㇟䛿䛂ヰ⪅䛾ᮇᚅ䛰䛡䛃䛷䛒䜚䚸䛭䛾ᮇᚅෆᐜ䛸㐃᥋㛵ಀ䠄LH ྍ⬟໬䚸ពᚿⓗཎᅉ䚸㠀ពᚿⓗཎᅉ䚸ጉᐖ䠅䛜ᡂ❧䛩䜛ෆᐜ䛜ゝㄒ⾲⌧䛷䛒䜛䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ḟ䛾 DF 䛾Ⓨヰ౛䜢ぢ䜘䛖䚹  >&DQG\ 䛿✵⭡䜢‶䛯䛩䛯䜑䝢䝄䜢↝䛔䛯䚹䝢䝄䛜䛱䜗䛖䛹↝䛝ୖ䛜䛳䛯䛸䛝䚸ኵ䛜䜻䝑䝏䞁䛻ධ䛳䛶䛝䛶䛭䛾䝢䝄䜢୸䛤䛸  ᯛᖹ䜙䛢䛯䚹䛭䛣䛷 &DQG\ 䛿ኵ䛻ḟ䛾䛔䛪䜜䛛䜢Ⓨヰ䛩䜛䚹@D,¶PQRWKXQJU\E,¶PUHDOO\KDSS\WRHDWWKHSL]]DF+DYH\RXVHHQP\SL]]DRQWKHWDEOH">  @፣᭤ⓗゝཬ㸸D 3 4
E 3L $3L ࡣ 4 ࡢពᚿⓗཎᅉࠋF 3L ;3L ࡣ $ ࢆྍ⬟໬ࡍࡿࠊୟࡘࠊ$ ࡣ 4 ࡢពᚿⓗཎᅉࠋ4 &DQG\LVQRWKXQJU\ 㸦ヰ⪅ࡢᮇᚅ㸧
3  ࿨㢟ෆᐜ㸦3L 3 ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧㸧$ &DQG\HDWVDSL]]D 㸦4 ࡀᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀࡿពᚿⓗཎᅉ࡜࡞ࡿ⾜Ⅽ㸧; &DQG\¶VSL]]DLVRQWKHWDEOH 㸦$ ࢆྍ⬟໬ࡍࡿ≧ែ㸧       8WVXPL 䜘䜚ಟṇᘬ⏝ D 䛾Ⓨヰ䛿ᮇᚅෆᐜ䛸ゝㄒ⾲⌧䛜඲䛟୍⮴䛧䛶䛔䜛䛜䚸ヰ⪅䛜䛂䡚䜢ᮇᚅ䛧䛶䛔䜛䠄H[SHFW WKDW䠅䛃➼䛾┤᥋ⓗ䛺⾲⌧䜢⏝䛔䛯ሙྜ䜢㝖䛝䚸፣᭤ⓗゝཬ䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖䚹䛂፣᭤ⓗゝཬ䠄DOOXGH䠅䛃䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛Ⅼ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸
䜶䝁䞊Ⓨヰゎ㔘௬ㄝ䛷䜒 DOOXVLRQ 䜢䜶䝁䞊䛾୍✀䛸䛧䛶ᤊ䛘䜙䜜䜛䛸䛩䜛グ㏙䜒䛒䜛䛣䛸䛛䜙䠄:LOVRQ䠅䚸䜶䝁䞊䛸ᑐ❧䛩䜛ᴫᛕ䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸ໟྵ䛥䜜ᚓ䜛䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸8WVXPL 䛾ศᯒ䛻䛿୙᫂░䛺Ⅼ䛜䛔䛟䛴䛛䛒䜛䚹䜎䛪䚸 F 䛾␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸+DYH \RX
VHHQ 䛸䛔䛖ᇙ䜑㎸䜏䝇䜻䞊䝬䛸䛧䛶䛾ゝㄒ᝟ሗ䛜↓ど䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛ୖ䚸ᖹླྀᩥⓎヰ ,EHOLHYHWKDW\RX䇻YHVHHQP\SL]]DLVRQWKHWDEOH䛸䛾㐪䛔䛜ㄝ᫂䛥䜜䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹ḟ䛻䚸7KHVSHDNHULVQRWKXQJU\䛸䛔䛖᝿ᐃ䠙ヰ⪅䛾

−44−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ᮇᚅ䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛Ⅼ䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸 D 䛻䛿㐺⏝䛥䜜ᚓ䜛䛜䚸 E 䛚䜘䜃 F 䛷䜒ྠ䛨ᮇᚅ䛜፣᭤ⓗ䛻ゝཬ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛛䛹䛖䛛䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿␲ၥ䛜ṧ䜛䚹 F 䛾␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛷䛿䚸௨ୗ䛾 D 䜔 E 䛾䜘䛖䛺᝿ᐃ䛜ゎ㔘ୖᚲせ䛺᝿ᐃ䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖䛜䚸䛣䜜䜙䛾᝿ᐃ䛛䜙᥎ព 7KH VSHDNHU LV QRW KXQJU\ 䛻㎺䜚䛴䛟ᚲ↛ᛶ䛜ㄝ᫂䛥䜜䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹 D ྍ⬟໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ7KHIDFWWKDWWKHVSHDNHU¶VSL]]DLVRQWKHWDEOHHQDEOHVKHUWRHDWLW
E ពᚿⓗཎᅉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ,IWKHVSHDNHUHDWVSL]]DVKHLVQRWKXQJU\┤ឤⓗ䛻䛿䚸 F 䛾Ⓨヰ䛻䛚䛔䛶ヰ⪅䛜⪺䛝ᡭ䛾ゎ㔘䝥䝻䝉䝇䛻䛚䛔䛶㢧ᅾ໬䛧䛯䛔᝿ᐃ䛿 7KH VSHDNHULVQRWKXQJU\ 䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸ヰ⪅䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ⓗែᗘ䜢క䛖᝿ᐃ䛷䛒䜛䚹 F 䛾Ⓨヰ䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛿䚸Ⓨヰ䛾⾲ฟ࿨㢟䛻┦ᙜ䛩䜛᝿ᐃ 7KHKHDUHUKDVVHHQWKHSL]]DRQWKHWDEOH䛜┿䛷䛒䜛ドᣐ䠄どぬ᝟ሗ䠅䛜䛒䜛䛻䜒㛵䜟䜙䛪䚸䛭䛾┿ഇ䜢ၥ䛖␲ၥᩥⓎヰᙧᘧ䜢⏝䛔䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛻䛒䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䛂␲ၥᩥᙧᘧ䛾౑⏝䛾㐺ษᛶ䛃䜈䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛜ぢฟ䛥䜜䜛䚹䛣䜜䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸Ἑୖ䠄 䠅䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊䛾ㄆ▱⌮ㄽ䛻䛚䛔䛶㢮ఝ䛧䛯ㄝ᫂䛜ぢ䜙䜜䜛䚹ḟ౛䛾䜘䛖䛺䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊␲ၥᩥ䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿䚸ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛾ಟ㎡ᛶ䛿䚸䛂␲ၥᩥ䛾ㄔᐇ᮲௳䛻㛵䛩䜛䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛃䛸ྠ➼䛷䛒䜛䚹  > 䝞 䝺 䞊 䝪 䞊 䝹 䛷 䝻 䞊 䝔 䞊 䝅 䝵 䞁 䛾 ᪉ ἲ 䛜 ㆟ ㄽ 䛥 䜜 䛶 䛔 䜛 䛸 䛝 䚸 $ 㑅 ᡭ 䛜 䚸 'RQ䇻W PDNH LW WRRFRPSOLFDWHG 䛸ゝ䛳䛯䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䚸% 䛜ḟ䛾䜘䛖䛻ゝ䛖䚹@,W䇻VOLNHDFLUFOH7KLQN\RXFDQKDQGOHDFLUFOH"                            䠄Ἑୖ 䠅Ἑୖ䠄䠅䛷䛿䚸䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛿䚸䛂እほ䠄⾲⌧䠅䛸⌧ᐇ䠄䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䠅䛾஋㞳䛃䛻䜘䛳䛶ㄝ᫂䛥䜜䜛䚹  䛾Ⓨヰ⌮ゎ䛻䛿  ✀䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛾ㄆ▱䛜ᚲせ䛷䛒䜛䚹୍䛴䛿䚸$ 䛻䜘䜛ඛ⾜Ⓨヰෆᐜ䠄WRRFRPSOLFDWHG䠅䛸䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䠄WRRHDV\䠅䛸䛾஋㞳ᛶ䛾ㄆ▱䛻㛵䜟䜛䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛷䛒䜚䚸䜒䛖୍䛴䛿␲ၥᩥ䛾ㄔᐇᛶ᮲௳䛻㛵䜟䜛䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛷䛒䜛䚹␲ၥᩥ䛾ㄔᐇᛶ᮲௳䛸䛧䛶Ἑୖ䛜ᣲ䛢䛶䛔䜛䛾䛿䚸Ⓨヰ⪅䛜䐟䛭䛾⟅䛘䜢▱䜙䛺䛔䛣䛸䚸䐠䛭䛾⟅䛘䜢▱䜚䛯䛔䛣䛸䚸䛾  䛴䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸䛣䜜䜙䛾ㄔᐇᛶ᮲௳䛾䛔䛪䜜䛛䛜‶䛯䛥䜜䛶䛔䛺䛡䜜䜀ṇᖖ䛺␲ၥᩥ䛷䛿䛺䛔䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛷䛿䚸␲ၥᩥⓎヰᙧᘧ䠄⾲⌧䠅䛸␲ၥᩥ䛾ㄔᐇᛶ᮲௳䛜‶䛯䛥䜜䛶䛔䛺䛔≧ἣ䠄䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䠅䛸䛾㛫䛻஋㞳ᛶ䛜ぢ䜙䜜䜛䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛯䛰䛧䚸ẚ㍑ᑐ↷䛩䜛  䛴䛾⌧㇟䠄እほ䛸⌧ᐇ䠅䛾஋㞳䜢஧ḟඖ䛾ᚰ⌮ᵓ㐀ᅗ䛷⾲䛩Ἑୖ⌮ㄽ䛷䛿䚸✀䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛾㐃⤖ᛶ䛜୙᫂░䛷䛒䜛䚹୍᪉䚸䛂䜶䝁䞊Ⓨヰゎ㔘௬ㄝ䛃䛷䛿  ✀䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛾㐃⤖䜢♧䛩ㄆ▱䝥䝻䝉䝇䛜䛂䜶䝁䞊䛃䛸䛔䛖ᴫᛕ䜢⏝䛔䛶୍ḟඖⓗ䛻ᤊ䛘䜙䜜䜛Ⅼ䛷䚸䜘䜚ヲ⣽䛺ゎ㔘䝥䝻䝉䝇䛾ㄝ᫂䜢୚䛘䜛䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䛸୺ᙇ䛩䜛䚹ḟ⠇䛷 F 䛾Ⓨヰ䛻䛴䛔䛶⪃ᐹ䛩䜛䚹㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮␲ၥᩥࡢศᯒ
䜶䝁䞊Ⓨヰゎ㔘௬ㄝ䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸䜶䝁䞊ඖ䛿Ⓨヰ䜀䛛䜚䛷䛿䛺䛔䚹 % 䛾䜘䛖䛻≉ᐃ䛾௚⪅䛻ᖐᒓ䛩䜛ᛮ⪃䠄≉ᐃ䛾௚⪅䛾ゝື䛛䜙ヰ⪅䛜ゎ㔘䛧䛯᝿ᐃ䠅䜢䜶䝁䞊䛩䜛ሙྜ䜒䛒䜜䜀䚸  䛾䜘䛖䛻䛂୍⯡䛾ே䚻䛜ᢪ䛝ᚓ䜛䛸ヰ⪅䛜ಙ䛨䛶䛔䜛ᛮ⪃䠄6SHUEHUDQG:LOVRQ 䛷䛿 XQLYHUVDOGHVLUH 䛸⛠䛩䜛䠅䛃䜒䜶䝁䞊䛧ᚓ䜛䚹



−45−

アイロニー疑問文と修辞性─エコー発話解釈を中心として─ $'LG\RXVHH1LJHORQ6DWXUGD\"
%<HV+HLVQHYHUJRLQJWRVSHDNPHDJDLQ                        %ODNHPRUH   >ヰ⪅䛸⪺䛝ᡭ䛜ᗑ䛾❆䛾㝡ჾ䛾㣭䜚䜢ぢ䛶䛔䜛䚹ヰ⪅䛿䛭䛾㣭䜚䛜䛒䜎䜚䛝䜜䛔䛷䛺䛔䛸ᛮ䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛣䛷ḟ䛾䜘䛖䛻ゝ䛖@,VLPSO\PXVWKDYHRQH                                                    LELG 䛴䜎䜚䚸䜶䝁䞊Ⓨヰゎ㔘௬ㄝ䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿䚸ヰ⪅䛾ㄆ▱⎔ቃ䛻䛚䛔䛶࿧䜃ฟ䛧ྍ⬟䛺䚸ᡈ䛔䛿㢧ᅾⓗ䛻䛺䜚ᚓ䜛䛒䜙䜖䜛᝿ᐃ䛜䜶䝁䞊ඖ䛸䛺䜛䚹 % 䛾⾲ฟ࿨㢟䛿䚸ヰ⪅䛸ヰ䜢䛧䜘䛖䛸䛧䛺䛔䝘䜲䝆䜵䝹䛾ែᗘ䛛䜙ヰ⪅䛜ᢪ䛔䛯᝿ᐃ䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸䝘䜲䝆䜵䝹䛻ᖐᒓ䛩䜛ᛮ⪃䛷䛒䜛䚹୍᪉  䛜䜶䝁䞊䛧䛶䛔䜛䛂䛭䛾㣭䜚䛾୍䛴䜢ᡭ䛻ධ䜜䛯䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ᛮ⪃䛿ヰ⪅⮬㌟䛻䛿ᖐᒓ䛫䛪䚸ヰ⪅䛜䛂௚䛾䠄୍⯡䛾䠅ே䛿䛣䛖ᛮ䛖䛰䜝䛖䛃䛸ண䛩䜛᝿ᐃ䛷䛒䜛䚹%ODNHPRUH   䛜ᣦ᦬䛩䜛䜘䛖䛻䚸䛣䛾✀䛾䜶䝁䞊Ⓨヰ䛻䛿䝸䝇䜽䛜క䛖䛜䚸䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛜ṇ䛧䛟ゎ㔘䛥䜜䜜䜀䚸䜘䜚኱䛝䛺Ⓨヰຠᯝ䜢ᚓ䜙䜜䜛䚹䛣䛾ぢゎ䛾ୗ䛷䚸 F 䛾Ⓨヰ䛾䜶䝁䞊ඖ䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸ḟ䛾䜘䛖䛻ㄝ᫂䛷䛝䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹⪺䛝ᡭ䛿⣮䜜䜒䛺䛟ヰ⪅䛾┠๓䛷䝢䝄䜢ᖹ䜙䛢䛯䛾䛷䛒䜛䛛䜙䚸ヰ⪅䛿 F 䛾Ⓨヰ䛾࿨㢟ෆᐜ 7KH KHDUHU KDV VHHQ WKH VSHDNHU䇻VSL]]D RQ WKH WDEOH 䛜┿䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛻ᙉ䛔☜ಙ䜢ᣢ䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹ᚑ䛳䛶䚸ᙜヱⓎヰ䛻䜘䜚᝟ሗせồ䛧䛯䛔䛾䛷䛿䛺䛔䛣䛸䛜䚸ヰ⪅䛸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾཮᪉䛻䛸䛳䛶㢧ᅾⓗ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸ヰ⪅䛜ఏ㐩䛧䛯䛔᝿ᐃ䛿䚸䛂᝟ሗせồ⾜Ⅽ䛃䜈䛾䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ⓗែᗘ䛻㛵䜟䜛᝿ᐃ䛷䛒䜛䚹 F 䛾Ⓨヰ䛾䜶䝁䞊ඖ䛸䛺䜛᝿ᐃ䛿䚸⾲ฟ࿨㢟 7KH KHDUHUKDVVHHQWKHVSHDNHU¶VSL]]DRQWKHWDEOH 䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸䛂䛣䛾Ⓨヰ䛜䛺䛥䜜䜛䛾䛻㐺ษ䛺≧ἣ䠄䛴䜎䜚䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛜䝢䝄䜢ぢ䛯䛛䛹䛖䛛ヰ⪅䛜☜ಙ䜢ᣢ䛳䛶䛔䛺䛔䛸䛔䛖≧ἣ䠅䛻䛚䛡䜛ᙜヱⓎヰ䛃䛷䛒䜝䛖䚹ᐇ㝿䛻䛭䛾≧ἣ䛻䛚䛔䛶 F 䛜Ⓨヰ䛥䜜䛯䛸䛩䜜䜀䚸 F 䛿☜ㄆ␲ၥᩥ䛷䛒䜚䚸Ⓨヰ䛾࿨㢟 7KHKHDUHUKDVVHHQWKHSL]]DRQWKH
WDEOH 䛿ヰ⪅䛻ᖐᒓ䛧䚸䛭䛾┿ഇᛶ䜢ၥ䛖䛣䛸䛜䛂ヰ⪅䛻䛸䛳䛶䛃㛵㐃ᛶ䛜䛒䜛䚹䛣䛾௬᝿ୡ⏺䛻䛚䛡䜛Ⓨヰ䛜䛂䜶䝁䞊ඖ䛃䛷䛒䜛䛸⪃䛘䜛䚹














ᅗ 䠊 F 䛾Ⓨヰ䛾䜶䝁䞊ඖ䛸䛾ẚ㍑


−46−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

䛴䜎䜚䚸ᅗ 䠊䛜♧䛩䜘䛖䛻䚸䜶䝁䞊ඖ䛿⾲ฟ࿨㢟䛻┦ᙜ䛩䜛᝿ᐃ䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛭䛾䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹F 䛾䜶䝁䞊ඖ䛾␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛾⟅䛘䛾᝿ᐃ >ᅗ  䛾 $ @ 䛿䚸௬᝿ୡ⏺䛾ヰ⪅䛻ᖐᒓ䛩䜛 >ྠ $ @䚹䛣䛾ぢゎ䛾ୗ䛷䚸 F 䛾䜶䝁䞊ᛶ䛜ఏ㐩䛩䜛ヰ⪅ែᗘ䛿䚸䜶䝁䞊䛻䜘䛳䛶㢧ᅾ໬䛥䜜ᚓ䜛  䛴䛾≧ἣ䛾ᑐ↷ᛶ䛾 ㄆ ▱ 䛻 䜘 䜚 ఏ 㐩 䛥 䜜 䜛 䛂 ␲ ၥ ᩥ 䛾 ᝟ ሗ せ ồ ⾜ Ⅽ 䛾 㐺 ษ ᛶ 䜈 䛾 䜰 䜲 䝻 䝙 䞊 ⓗ ែ ᗘ 䠄 LH GLVVRFLDWLYHDWWLWXGH䠅䛃䛷䛒䜛䛸ㄝ᫂䛷䛝䜛䚹 F 䛾Ⓨヰ䛾ゎ㔘䝥䝻䝉䝇䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛿ḟ䛾」ᩘ䛾㧗ḟ⾲ព䜢᚟ඖ䛩䜛䚹 D ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡢ☜ಙᗘ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㧗ḟ⾲ព㸸
7KHVSHDNHUKDVDVWURQJEHOLHIWKDWWKHKHDUHUKDVVHHQWKHVSHDNHU¶VSL]]DRQWKHWDEOH
E Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㧗ḟ⾲ព㸸
7KHVSHDNHULVDVNLQJZKHWKHUWKHKHDUHUKDVVHHQWKHVSHDNHU¶VSL]]DRQWKHWDEOH
F ಟ㎡ᛶ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㧗ḟ⾲ព㸸
7KHVSHDNHUKDVDGLVVRFLDWLYHDWWLWXGHWRWKHWKRXJKWWKDWWKHVSHDNHUZDQWVWRFRQILUPZKHWKHUWKH
KHDUHUKDVVHHQKHUSL]]DRQWKHWDEOHD ࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡬ࡢᙉ࠸☜ಙࢆ♧ࡍ᝿ᐃࡣⓎヰ≧ἣࡢ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮ᛶࡢㄆ▱࡟ࡼࡾ᚟ඖࡉࢀᚓࠊ୍᪉ࠊ
E ࡢ᝿ᐃࡣ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡢ☜ಙᗘࡢᰝᐃ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊD ࡜ E ࡢ᝿ᐃ࡟஋㞳ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ஋㞳ࡢㄆ▱ࡀࠊ␲ၥᩥࡢಟ㎡ᛶࡢㄆ▱࡬ࡢᙉ࠸ᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ E ࡢ᚟ඖᚋࠊゎ㔘⪅ࡣࡇࡢ஋㞳ᛶࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍཎᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚㛵㐃ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿ᝿ᐃࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ E ࡢ᝿ᐃࡀヰ⪅࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࢚ࢥ࣮ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃ࡬࡜࢔ࢡࢭࢫࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ F ࡢ␲ၥ
ᩥࡢ᝟ሗせồ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ᝿ᐃ࡬ࡢ GLVVRFLDWLYHDWWLWXGH ࡇࡑࡀࠊ␲ၥᩥⓎヰࡢಟ㎡ᛶࢆ♧ࡍែᗘ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
F ࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡢ᚟ඖࡣࠊ D ࡜ E ࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡢ᚟ඖࡢ⤖ᯝᚓࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
⤖ㄽ
ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸࿨㢟ែᗘ䛜䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ⓗ䛺ᴟᛶ཯㌿ᆺ䛾ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛾䜏䛺䜙䛪䚸ᩥ⬦᝟ሗ䛻䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ᛶ䛜ㄆ▱䛥䜜䜛䛂㠀䛃ᴟᛶ཯㌿ᆺ䛾ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ䛻䛴䛔䛶䜒䚸㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛾䜶䝁䞊Ⓨヰゎ㔘௬ㄝ䛻䜘䜚⤫୍ⓗ䛺ㄝ᫂䛜ྍ⬟䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢ㄽ䛨䛯䚹ᮏ✏䛷ᢅ䛳䛯Ⓨヰ౛䛻䛚䛔䛶᫂䜙䛛䛸䛺䛳䛯䛣䛸䛿ḟ䛾  Ⅼ䛷䛒䜛䚹䠍䠊ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛾ゎ㔘㐣⛬䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸」ᩘ䛾㧗ḟ⾲ព䛜᚟ඖ䛥䜜䜛䛜䚸㧗ḟ⾲ព㛫䛾஋㞳ᛶ䛜ಟ㎡ᛶㄆ▱䛾ᡭ᥃䛛䜚䛸䛺䜛Ⅼ䛷䚸ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛿䜰䜲䝻䝙䞊ⓗ䛷䛒䜛䚹䠎䠊ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛜䛂᝟ሗせồ䛾␲ၥᩥ䛃䛾䜶䝁䞊ⓗ౑⏝䛷䛒䜚䚸ಟ㎡ᛶ䛸䛿᝟ሗせồ䛾Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ䛻㛵䜟䜛㧗ḟ⾲ព䜈䛾 GLVVRFLDWLYHDWWLWXGH 䛷䛒䜛䚹ㅰ㎡ᮏ✏䛿䚸᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨  ᅇ኱఍䠄᪊㛵す኱Ꮫ䠅䛷ཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲䛧䛯ෆᐜ䛻ຍ➹䞉ಟṇ䜢᪋䛧䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹ᙜ᪥ྖ఍䜢䛧䛶䛟䛰䛥䛳䛯ᮾ᳃໏ඛ⏕䠄㱟㇂኱Ꮫ䠅䚸ᒸᮏ㞞ྐඛ⏕䠄ᡂ㋣኱Ꮫ䠅䜢䛿䛨䜑䚸㈗㔜䛺䛤ຓゝ䜢䛟䛰䛥䛳䛯᪉䚻䛻䚸䛣䛾ሙ䜢೉䜚䛶ឤㅰ䜢⏦䛧ୖ䛢䛯䛔䚹

−47−

アイロニー疑問文と修辞性─エコー発話解釈を中心として─ὀ

4XLUN ௚  䛷䛿䚸ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛾ఏ㐩䛩䜛᝿ᐃ䛿▩┪࿨㢟䛻┦ᙜ䛩䜛 DVVHUWLRQ 䛷䛒䜛䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛䛜䚸ᮏ✏䛷䛿䛣䛾Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ⌮ㄽ䛻‽䛨䛯 DVVHUWLRQ ㄝ䛻ᢈุⓗ䛺❧ሙ䜢䛸䜚䚸ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥⓎヰ䛾ヰ⪅᝿ᐃ䜢 DVVXPSWLRQ 䛸䛩䜛䠄ヲ⣽䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿 *RWR 䜢ཧ↷䠅䚹

FRQILUPDWLRQTXHVWLRQV 䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿 *XWLpUUH]5H[DFK  䜢ཧ↷䚹ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
%ODNHPRUH'8QGHUVWDQGLQJ8WWHUDQFHV$Q,QWURGXFWLRQWR3UDJPDWLFV2[IRUG%ODFNZHOO䠄Ṋෆ㐨Ꮚ䚸ᒣᓮⱥ୍ヂ 䛄䜂䛸䛿Ⓨヰ䜢䛹䛖⌮ゎ䛩䜛䛛ʊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽධ㛛䛅 䜂䛴䛨᭩ᡣ䠅
*RWR 5  ³5HOHYDQFH 7KHRUHWLF $QDO\VLV RI WKH 3URSHUWLHV DQG 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ 3URFHVV RI 5KHWRULFDO
4XHVWLRQV´$QQXDOUHSRUWVRI1DUD:RPHQ¶V8QLYHUVLW\*UDGXDWH6FKRRORI+XPDQLWLHVDQG6FLHQFHVYRO 䠄ዉⰋዪᏊ኱Ꮫே㛫ᩥ໬◊✲⛉ᖺሗ➨  ྕ䠅
*ULFH +3  ³/RJLF DQG &RQYHUVDWLRQ´ ,Q &ROH 3 DQG 0RUJDQ - HGV  6\QWD[ DQG 6HPDQWLFV 
6SHHFK$FWV1HZ<RUN$FDGHPLF3UHVV*XWLpUUH]5H[DFK -  ³5KHWRULFDO 4XHVWLRQV 5HOHYDQFH DQG 6FDOHV´ 5HYLVWD DOLFDQWLQD GH HVWXGLRV,QJOHVHV
Ἑୖㄋస 䛂ᩥ䛾ព࿡䛻㛵䛩䜛ᇶ♏ⓗ◊✲䛃䛄኱㜰኱ᏛᩥᏛ㒊⣖せ䛅 ➨❶.XPRQ1DNDPXUD66*OXFNVEHUJDQG0%URZQ³+RZ$ERXW$QRWKHU3LHFHRI3LH7KH
$OOXVLRQDO3UHWHQVH7KHRU\RI'LVFRXUVH,URQ\´-RXUQDORI([SHULPHQWDO3V\FKRORJ\*HQHUDO

4XLUN 5 6 *UHHQEDXP * /HHFK DQG - 6YDUWYLN  $ &RPSUHKHQVLYH *UDPPDU RI WKH (QJOLVK/DQJXDJH/RQGRQ/RQJPDQ6HDUOH-³,QGLUHFW6SHHFK$FWV´,Q&ROH3DQG0RUJDQ- HGV 6\QWD[DQG6HPDQWLFV6SHHFK$FWV1HZ<RUN$FDGHPLF3UHVV
6HDUOH -  ([SUHVVLRQ DQG 0HDQLQJ 6WXGLHV LQ WKH 7KHRU\ RI 6SHHFK $FWV 1HZ <RUN &DPEULGJH
8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV6SHUEHU'DQG':LOVRQ5HOHYDQFH&RPPXQLFDWLRQDQG&RJQLWLRQ2[IRUG 䠄ෆ⏣⪷஧௚ヂ䛄㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛅➨䠎∧ ◊✲♫ฟ∧ 6SHUEHU'DQG':LOVRQ³,URQ\DQG5HOHYDQFH$5HSO\WR6HWR+DPDPRWRDQG<DPDQDVKL´,Q5
&DUVWRQ DQG 6 8FKLGD HGV  5HOHYDQFH 7KHRU\ $SSOLFDWLRQV DQG ,PSOLFDWLRQV $PVWHUGDP -RKQ%HQMDPLQV
8WVXPL$³9HUEDO,URQ\DV,PSOLFLW'LVSOD\RI,URQLF(QYLURQPHQW'LVWLQJXLVKLQJ,URQLF8WWHUDQFHVIURP1RQLURQ\´-RXUQDORI3UDJPDWLFV  
:LOVRQ'DQG'6SHUEHU³0RRGDQGWKH$QDO\VLVRI1RQGHFODUDWLYH6HQWHQFHV´,Q-'DQF\HWDO
HGV +XPDQDJHQF\&DOLIRUQLD6WDQIRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
:LOVRQ '  ³0HWDUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQ OLQJXLVWLF FRPPXQLFDWLRQ´ ,Q ' 6SHUEHU
0HWDUHSUHVHVQWDWLRQ$0XOWLGLVFLSOLQDU\3HUVSHFWLYH2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV

−48−

HG 

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

On the expressive use of ano ‘that’ in Japanese: a probability scale approach
Osamu Sawada (Mie University, sawadao@human.mie-u.ac.jp)
Jun Sawada (Kansai Gaidai University, jnsawada@kansaigaidai.ac.jp)<Abstract>
This paper investigates the meaning of the Japanese modal affective demonstrative ano ‘that’ and considers
the similarities and differences between it and other kinds of demonstratives in meaning/use. We argue thatthe modal affective ano ‘that’ is different from other kinds of demonstratives in that it conventionallyimplicates that an at-issue proposition radical (i.e. a proposition without tense, modality or speech act
operators) with a target is highly unlikely to be true. We will, however, also argue that there are similarities
between the modal affective use and the spatial/non-spatial deictic uses. The modal affective ano selects fora target that is construed as distant in the speaker’s memory. This paper shows that although the modal
affective ano has unique properties in terms of dimensionality and speaker-orientedness, it retains themixed properties of spatial and nonspatial ano.
࠙Keywordsࠚexpressives, demonstratives, likelihood, scalarity, conventional implicature
1. Introduction
Observe the following example:(1) Ano Federer-ga
make-ta.
(I can’t believe it.)That Federer-NOM lose-PAST
At-issue: Federer lost.
Implicature: I am surprised that Federer lost. /Federer is unlikely to lose.
In (1) the speaker uses ano in order to express his/her surprise about the fact that ‘Federer lost.’ In (1) the
speaker is not physically pointing to Federer; instead, he/she is mentally construing Federer as a highly unlikely
person to lose. Although there are many studies on the meaning/use of Japanese demonstratives, to be best of ourknowledge, no serious attention has been paid to this kind of use of ano. Since the meaning of the demonstrativein (1) is concerned with the speaker’s evaluation of the likelihood of an at-issue proposition radical (i.e. a
proposition without tense, mood, or propositional attitude predicates), we will call it a ‘modal affective
demonstrative.’
Note that if we replace make-ta ‘lost’ in (1) with kat-ta ‘won’, the sentence becomes odd, as shown in (2):(2) ?? Ano Federer-ga
ka-tta.
(I can’t believe it.)That Federer-NOM win-PAST
At-issue: Federer won.
Implicature: I am surprised that Federer won./ Federer is unlikely to win.
(2) is odd because, although Federer is a highly likely person to win (according to our world knowledge), thesentence implies that he is an unlikely person to win.
The modal affective demonstrative has several seemingly puzzling properties that other kinds ofdemonstratives don’t have. First, modal affective ano can naturally combine with a specific noun phrase, but it isdifficult to use it with a common noun:(3) (The attached NP = common noun)??Anosensyu-ga
ka-tta.
Anoplayer-NOM win-PAST‘lit. That player won.’(At-issue reading only)This clearly contrasts with the spatial demonstratives. The spatial demonstratives can combine with acommon noun (e.g. ano/kono gakusei ‘that/this student’), but they cannot combine with a proper noun(e.g. ??ano/kono Taro ‘that/this Taro’).
Second, the modal affective demonstrative tends to combine with a third person specific noun:−49−

On the expressive use of ano ʻthatʼ in Japanese: A probability scale approach(4) Ano {Taro /(*)watashi/(*)anata}-ga
make-ta.
(I can’t believe it.)That
Taro /I/
you -NOM lose-PAST
At-issue: Taro lost.
Implicature: I am surprised that Taro lost. /Taro is unlikely to lose.
Note that the modal affective ano can select for the first person and the second person if they are interpreted likea ‘third person’ (i.e. the speaker’s image of the speaker himself/herself or the speaker’s image of the addressee).
How can we explain the meaning and distribution patterns of the modal affective demonstrative? Are there
any similarities between the modal affective use and other kinds of demonstrative uses? The purpose of thispaper is to consider these questions and propose the following points.
First, we will argue that the modal affective demonstrative is different from other kinds of demonstratives
in that it conventionally implies that the at-issue proposition radical with a target NP (i.e. a proposition without
tense, modality, or speech act operators) is highly unlikely to be true. This conventional implicature (CI)constrains the distribution patterns of the modal affective demonstrative. The modal affective demonstrative
cannot be used in a situation where the speaker calculates the probability of a given proposition without
knowing/specifying a target NP (e.g. (3)) or there is a conflict between the CI meaning and our world knowledge(e.g. (2)).
Despite the above specific meaning, however, there are similarities between the modal affective use andother uses of demonstratives. We will argue that the modal affective ano has the property of knowledge
retrieving just like the non-spatial ano (the so-called episodic ano). Similarly to the non-spatial ano, the modal
affective demonstrative ano refers to an object/person in the speaker’s memory. Furthermore, the modal
affective demonstrative ano has the property of distance, which spatial demonstratives also have. That is, in themodal affective use, the speaker picks a target that is at a distance in his/her memory. This naturally explains
why the modal affective ano usually selects for a third person specific noun. The information on the third person
is something that is not directly connected to the speech location.
This means that although the meaning of the modal affective ano is fundamentally different from otherkinds of demonstratives in terms of dimensionality and speaker-orientedness, it partially retains the properties ofthe spatial and nonspatial uses of ano. This paper suggests that the modal affective use is derived from the coreproperties of other uses.
This paper proceeds as follows: In the next section, we will provide a brief overview of the various uses ofJapanese demonstratives, which have been covered in the literature, and consider the differences between themand our target phenomenon. In Section 3 we will consider the meaning of the modal affective demonstrative indetail, and in Section 4, we will explain the seemingly puzzling distribution patterns of the modal affective
demonstrative based on the proposed meaning of the modal affective ano. In Section 5 we will consider thesimilarities between the modal affective demonstrative and the spatial/non-spatial deictic demonstratives andargue that the modal affective demonstrative partially retains the properties of the spatial and non-spatial(episodic) demonstratives. Section 6 is the conclusion.
2. The Difference between Modal Affective Demonstrative and Other Kinds of Demonstratives
Although many studies have been made of the Japanese demonstratives, to the best of our knowledge, little
attention has been paid to the meaning of the modal affective demonstrative. Before analyzing the meaning ofmodal affective demonstrative in detail, let us first consider the empirical differences (and similarities) between
the modal affective demonstrative and other kinds of demonstratives.
2.1 Japanese Demonstratives: Spatial Use and Non-spatial Use
Japanese has three demonstrative prefixes—ko-, so-, and a-—as follows:(5) a. Ko-no-hon-wa
omoshiroi.
this-GEN-book-TOP interesting‘This book is interesting.’
b. So-no-hon-wa
omoshiroi.
that-GEN-book-TOP interesting‘That book is interesting.’c. A-no-hon-wa
omoshiroi.
that-GEN-book-TOP interesting‘That book is interesting.’−50−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

In ‘spatial use’, where the referent is visible in speech location, ko- refers to something (somewhere) close to the
speaker, so- refers to something (somewhere) close to the addressee (it can also refer to somewhere slightly
removed from the speaker when it is part of the local pronoun so-ko ‘there’), and a- refers to something(somewhere) far from the speaker (and the addressee). Ko-, so-, and a- also have a ‘non-spatial use’ (i.e. theepisodic use), where the referent is not visible in the speech location. In this use, ko- refers to something
functioning as a ‘discourse topic’, so- neutrally refers to something introduced in the discourse context, and arefers to something located in the speaker’s ‘episodic memory’ (Kinsui 1999)1.
Ko-, so-, and a- form the paradigm summarized in Table 1 (Yoshimoto 1986):
Table 1. Paradigm of the Japanese demonstratives ko/so/a (Yoshimoto 1986: 54)
Part of speech Function
KO
SO
A
PronounPronominal
kore ‘this one’sorearekoitsu ‘this guy’soistuaitsu
non-infl. adj.
Adnominal
kono ‘this (NP)’sono
ano
non-infl. adj.
Adjectival
konna
sonna
anna
‘this kind of(NP)’
AdverbAdverbial
konnani ‘such a’sonnaniannanikô‘inthis sôâmanner’PronounLocal
koko ‘here’
soko
asoko
PronounDirectional
kochira, kotchi
sochira,achira,‘this direction’sotchiatchi
Note that the phenomenon we are going to focus on is different from the spatial/non-spatial demonstrativeuse. The modal affective demonstrative ano is different from the spatial ano in that the meaning of the former
does not have to do with the physical location of the target. Furthermore, it is also different from the non-spatialano. Although the modal affective ano is similar to the non-spatial ano (i.e. the episodic ano) in that it refers to aperson in the speaker’s memory, the former, but not the latter, always expresses the speaker’s surprise about theutterance situation.
It is also important to notice that the modal affective demonstrative is different from the spatial/non-spatial
demonstratives in terms of productivity. The modal affective demonstrative only has a form of ‘non-infl.adj’ (i.e.
ano NP).
2.2 Affective demonstratives
The modal affective ano is also different from the so-called affective demonstratives. Lakoff (1974) discusses
three major uses of the English demonstratives this/that: (i) spatio-temporal deixis, (ii) discourse deixis, and (iii)
emotional deixis. Lakoff (1974) argues that affective demonstratives are markers of solidarity between the
speaker and the hearer. Davis and Potts (2009) and Potts and Schwarz (2010) call the third type ‘affective
demonstratives.’ Let us briefly consider the meaning and use of affective demonstratives.
The affective demonstratives have two properties that distinguished them from other uses (Diessel 1999: 105109). First, they are only used adnominally (this/that NP). Second, they do not have a referent in the speech
location or the discourse. Lakoff (1974: 347, 351) argues that affective demonstratives express ‘emotional
closeness’ between the speaker and the addressee (see also Potts and Schwarz (2010: 2)):
(6) There was this traveling salesman, and he…

(Lakoff 1974: 345)

Based on Lakoff’s study, Naruoka (2003) claims that the Japanese adnominal demonstratives
konnna/sonnna/annna (-na series) can behave as affective demonstratives and can express negative emotion(rejection) or surprise on the part of the speaker:(7) Konna
ryori-watabe-taku-nai.
This kind offood-TOP eat-want-NEG.
‘lit. I don’t want to eat this kind of food.’−51−

On the expressive use of ano ʻthatʼ in Japanese: A probability scale approach

Here the speaker has a negative evaluation toward the food. Following Lakoff (1974) and Naruoka (2003), Davisand Potts (2009) investigate the English and Japanese affected demonstratives and addresses the question ofwhere affective readings come from. Davis and Potts (2009) argue that they can be traced to Horn’s ‘division ofpragmatic labor’: unmarked expressions are generally used to convey unmarked messages and marked
expressions are generally used to convey marked messages (Horn 1984: 400). Davis and Potts (2009) further
argue that because the affected demonstratives this in English and konna in Japanese are morphosyntacticallymore complex than the definite article the and the adnominal demonstrative kono respectively, they convey themarked messages.
It is important to note that the phenomenon we are focusing on is also different from the above affective
demonstratives. Although both the affective demonstratives and the modal affective demonstrative haveexpressive (or affected) meanings, only the latter have a modal affective meaning. Furthermore, as we will
discuss in detail in the next section, only the latter case is a ‘pure CI’ contributor.
3. The Meaning of the Modal Affective Demonstrative
Based on the above background, let us now analyze the meaning and distributions of the modal affective
demonstrative in a more theoretical way. We propose that the modal affective demonstrative has the following
CI meaning:(8) The modal affective ano conventionally implies that the at-issue proposition radical (a proposition without
tense, modality, or propositional attitude predicate) is highly unlikely to be true.
The intuition behind this analysis is that the meaning of the modal affective demonstrative ano does notcontribute to ‘what is said’ (Grice 1975; Potts 2005). Potts (2005) defines CIs as follows (see also Kaplan (1999),
Neale (1999)):(9) Potts’s definition of CI
a. CIs are part of the conventional meaning of words.
b. CIs are commitments, and thus give rise to entailments.
c. These commitments are made by the speaker of the utterance.
d. CIs are logically and compositionally independent of ‘what is said.’
The modal affective demonstrative is independent of ‘what is said’ because we can determine the truth value ofthe sentence without them.
There are several pieces of evidence that show that the meaning of modal affective demonstrative ano is a
CI. First, unlike other kinds of demonstratives (spatial/non-spatial demonstratives), it is odd to question asentence with a modal affective demonstrative using ‘dono/donna NP?’ (which/what kind of NP?):(10) (Speaker A is physically pointing to a player in his/her sight.)
A: Anosensyu-ga
make-ta.
(spatial demonstratives)
That
player-NOM
lose-PAST‘That player lost.’
B: Dono sensyu-ga?
Which player-NOM‘Which player?’(11) (Speaker A is conceptually pointing to a player in his/her mind.)
A: Ano sensyu-wa
totemotsuyokat-ta.
(non-spatial demonstratives)
That player-TOP verystrong-PAST‘That player was very strong.’
B: Dono sensyu-ga?
Which player-NOM‘Which player?’(12) A: Annna ryoori-wa tabe-taku-nai.
(affective demonstratives)
Annna food-TOP eat-want-NEG‘I don’t want to eat that (disgusting) food.’
B: Donnna
ryoori-ga?
What kind of food-NOM‘What kind of food?’−52−第13回大会発表論文集(13) A: Ano Roger Federer-ga
make-ta.
That Roger Federer-NOM lose-PAST‘lit. That Roger Federer lost.’
B: *Dono Roger Federer-ga?
Which Roger Federer-NOM‘lit. Which Roger Federer?’

第６号(modal affective demonstrative)

In (10)-(12), speaker B can ask what exactly the speaker is targeting or pointing to. However, in (13) the speakercannot ask a question using dono NP ‘which.’ That is because in this sentence, ano and its host NP do not
semantically interact, so we cannot form a question using dono NP. Ano is semantically independent of its hostNP. Note that affective demonstratives can also be targeted for questioning. This clearly suggests that theaffective demonstrative in (12) is a mixed content. That is, it has both an at-issue meaning (kind meaning) and a
CI meaning (speaker-oriented negative meaning).
The second piece of evidence is concerned with embeddability. Potts (2005) claims that CI content isspeaker-oriented even if it is embedded under an attitude predicate:(14) Sue wrongly believes that that jerk Conner got promoted.

(Potts 2005: 31)

The expressive jerk is speaker-oriented and cannot be anchored to the subject. 2 This contrasts with the at-issue
content. The at-issue proposition that Conner got promoted is asserted to hold only in Sue’s mind. The same
reasoning can apply to modal affective demonstrative:(15) Taro-wa
ano Ziro-ga
makeru-to omo-teiru.
Taro-TOP that Ziro-NOM lost-that
think-TEIRU‘lit. Taro thinks that that Ziro will lose.’
The meaning of ano is speaker-oriented and cannot be anchored to the subject Taro. Based on the above tests, weconclude that the modal affective demonstrative is a pure CI contributor.3
Note that sentences with the modal affective demonstrative often induce surprise in the speaker. For example,in (16) the speaker is surprised about the fact that Taro lost:(16) Ano Taro-ga
make-ta.
That Taro-NOM lose-PAST
At-issue: Taro lost.
Implicature: Taro is unlikely to lose.

(I can’t believe it.)

We can say that the meaning of surprise on the speaker’s part comes from the gap between the speaker’s
assumptions (i.e. CI) and the current situation. So, how about the following example?
(17) Ano Taro-ga
makeru-to omou?
That Taro-NOM lose-that
think‘lit. Do you think that that Taro will lose?’ (No, he will not.)The sentence is interpreted as the negatively biased question, because the speaker is thinking that Taro is anunlikely person to lose. Such a sentence is used in a situation where the speaker is surprised at the addressee’s(wrong) judgment/assumption.
4. Explaining the Distribution Patterns of the Modal Affective Demonstrative
Our proposal in (8) can explain the possible distribution patterns of modal affective demonstrative. It is odd touse the modal affective demonstrative if the CI meaning does not fit the at-issue meaning. For example, (18) is
odd because although the modal affective ano forces Roger Federer to be a highly unlikely person to win,
according to our world knowledge Roger Federer is a highly unlikely person to lose:(18) ?? Ano Roger Federer-ga
kat-ta.
ANO Roger Federer-NOM win-PAST‘lit. That Roger Federer won.’−53−

On the expressive use of ano ʻthatʼ in Japanese: A probability scale approach

Furthermore, our proposal can explain why it is usually odd to use modal affective demonstrative with acommon noun:(19) (The attached NP = common noun)??Anosensyu-ga
ka-tta.
Anoplayer-NOM win-PAST‘lit. That player won.’(At-issue reading only)(19) is odd because here the speaker is calculating the probability of the proposition without specifying a target.
It is meaningless to calculate an unspecified person’s probability of winning the game. (Note that the sentence
would still be odd without ano.)This contrasts with the spatial/non-spatial demonstratives. The spatial/non-spatial demonstratives usuallycombine with a common noun (e.g. ano sensyu ‘that player’), but they cannot combine with a proper noun. This
makes sense because the main function of pointing is to specify a target.
5. Shared properties with other kinds of demonstratives
We have so far highlighted the differences between the modal affective ano and other kinds of demonstratives.
However, there are also important similarities between the modal affective demonstrative and the other kinds ofdemonstratives. The modal affective demonstrative ano retains certain properties of the spatial and non-spatial
ano.
First, the modal affective ano shares the information retrieval property of the non-spatial ano (the so-called
the episodic ano). Let us compare the following examples:(20) Ano Federer-ga
make-ta.
(modal affective use)
That Federer-NOM lose-PAST
At-issue: Federer lost.
Implicature: I am surprised that Federer lost. /Federer is unlikely to lose.
(21) Ano hanashi-wa doo
That story-TOP how‘How did the story go?’na-tta?
become-PAST(episodic ano/non-spatial)

In (20) the speaker is retrieving the information on Taro and in (21) the speaker is retrieving information
about a story that the speaker and listener share. In both cases ano refers to something in his/her memory.
Second, the modal affective ano has the notion of distance. As we observed in the introduction, the modal
affective ano usually selects for the third person specific noun:(22) Ano {Taro/(*)watashi/(*)anata}-ga
make-ta.
That
Taro/ I/you -NOM lose-PAST
At-issue: {Taro/(*)I/(*)you} lost.
Implicature: {Taro/(*)I/(*you} is/am unlikely to lose.

(I can’t believe it.)

(Recall that if the first person and the second person are interpreted like a third person (i.e. interpreting themas the speaker’s image), the modal affective ano can combine with them). The reason why the modal
affective demonstrative selects for a third person specific noun is because there is a restriction that the modal
affective ano must pick up a referent that is at a distance from the speaker in his/her memory. It seems thatthe modal affective ano is linked to an image that is not in the speaker’s present location, so it is considered
to be distant information. This is analogous to the spatial ano, which points to a target that physically is
distant from the speaker.
6. Conclusion
This paper investigated the meaning of the modal affective demonstrative ano in Japanese and argued thefollowing points. First, we argued that the modal affective demonstrative is different from other kinds ofdemonstratives in that it conventionally implies that the at-issue proposition radical with a target NP (i.e. a
proposition without tense, modality, or speech act operators) is highly unlikely to be true. We showed that this−54−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

CI meaning constrains its possible distribution patterns (i.e. the requirement of specificity for the target NP and
the requirement of consistency between the at-issue meaning and the CI meaning).
However, we also argued that the modal affective ano retains some properties of the spatial and non-spatial
uses of ano. We showed that the modal affective ano has the property of ‘information retrieving’ and the notionof ‘distance.’ That is, in the modal affective ano the speaker picks a person who is at a distance from him/her interms of his/her episodic memory. This shows that although the meaning of the modal affective ano is
fundamentally different from the other kinds of demonstratives in terms of dimensionality, modality andspeaker-orientedness, it partially retains the properties of the spatial and nonspatial uses of ano. Thus, it seems
that the meaning of the modal affective ano is derived from the core properties of other demonstratives.
This paper has clarified the similarities and differences between the modal affective ano and other uses ofdemonstratives in terms of meaning and use, but it leaves many questions to be explored both empirically andtheoretically. First, there is a question as to where the ‘extremely unlikely’ meaning in the modal affective
demonstrative comes from. So far we have just speculated that the modal affective demonstrative has an extreme
meaning, but we have not provided any theory to explain the emergence of such a meaning. There may be someconnection between the notion of intensification and the emergence of the extreme scalar meaning.
Second, there is a question as to whether kono ‘this’ and sono ‘that’ also have modal affective uses, and if
so, what are the differences between them and the modal affective ano. We think that kono and sono do havemodal affective uses. The following is an example of the modal affective kono:(23) Kono watashi-ga make-ta.

This
I-NOM
lose-PAST
At-issue: I lost.
CI: I am unlikely to lose.
(23) implies that ‘I am an unlikely person to lose.’ Thus, it is semantically the same as the modal affective ano.
Notice that in (23), kono selects for the first person pronoun. Thus, there seems to be a difference in terms oftarget selection. As for sono, in an out- of-the-blue context, it seems to be difficult to use it as a modal affective
demonstrative. However, if we posit a discourse-given context, we can use it modally. For example, if we posit a
discourse-given assumption that ‘Taro is unlikely to lose’, sono in the following example can be interpreted as amodal affective demonstrative (Yusuke Kubota, p.c.):(24) Sono Taro-ga
make-ta.

That Taro-NOM lose-PAST
At-issue: Taro lost.
CI: Taro is unlikely to lose.
The fact that sono in (24) has an unlikelihood (modal) meaning is corroborated by the following example:(25) Taro-wa
totemo {tsuyoi/??yowai}
sensyu-da.
Sono Taro-ga
Taro-TOPverystrong/ weak
player-PRED
That
Taro-NOM‘lit. Taro is a very {strong/weak} player. Sono Taro lost.’ (I can’t believe it.)make-ta.
lose-PAST(25) with yowai is odd because it semantically conflicts with the CI meaning of the modal affective sono.
The above data strongly suggest that the modal affective use is productive and systematic in the grammarof Japanese demonstratives. More empirical and theoretical investigations need to be conducted.

Notes
1. See also Kuno (1973), Kuroda (1979), Yoshimoto (1986), Kinsui and Takubo (1992), Hoji et al. (2003),
among others.
2. However, researchers have shown recently that CI expressions such as appositives or expressives are notnecessarily always speaker-oriented (see Wang, Reese, and McCready (2005), Karttunen and Zaenen (2005),
Sauerland (2007), Amaral, Roberts, and Smith (2007), Harris and Potts (2010)).
3. However, the test of embeddability does not explain the difference between the modal demonstrative andother kinds of demonstratives, because although the meaning of the latter contributes to the at-issue semantics, itis speaker-oriented (i.e. deictic):−55−

On the expressive use of ano ʻthatʼ in Japanese: A probability scale approach(i)Taro-wa ano hon-ga
omoshiroi-to
Taro-TOP that book-NOM interesting-that‘Taro thinks that that book is interesting.’

omo-tteiru.
think-TEIRU(ano = spatial use)

This suggests that the notion of speaker-orientedness is not a CI-specific characteristic.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Susumu Kubo, Yusuke Kubota, Eric McCready, Kojiro Nabeshima, Harumi Sawada, Hiroaki
Tanaka, Etsuko Yoshida and the audience at the 13th Annual Meeting of the Pragmatic Society of Japan for theirvaluable discussions and comments.
References
Amaral, P., Roberts, C., Smith, E. A. 2007. “Review of the Logic of Conventional Implicatures by Chris Potts.”
Linguistics and Philosophy 30(6): 707-749.
Davis, C., Potts, C. 2009. “Affective Demonstratives and the Division of Pragmatic Labor.” In Aloni, M.,
Bastiaanse, H., Jager,T., Ormondt, P., Schulz, K. (eds.) Preproceedings of the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium,
32-41.
Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Cole, P., Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, iii: SpeechActs, 43-58. New York: Academic Press.
Harris, J. and Potts, C. 2010. “Perspective-shifting with Appositives and Expressives.” Linguistics andPhilosophy 32(6): 523-552.
Hoji, H., Kinsui, S., Takubo, Y., Ueyama, A. 2003. “The Demonstratives in Modern Japanese.” In Li, A.,
Simpson, A. (eds.) Functional Structure(s), Form and Interpretation: Perspectives from East Asian
Languages, 97-128. London: Routledge.
Horn, L. R. 1984. “Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature.” In:
Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, 11-42. Washington:
Georgetown University Press.
Kaplan, D. 1999. “What is Meaning? Explorations in the Theory of Meaning as Use.” Brief version. Draft 1. M.s,
UCLA.
Karttunen, L., Zaenen, A. 2005. “Veridicity.” In Katz, G., Pustejovsky, J., Schilder, F. (eds.) Annotating,
Extracting and Reasoning about Time and Event. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fürInformatik (IBFI). Schloss Dagstuhl Germany.
Kinsui, S. 1999. “Nihongo no sizisi niokeru tyokuji yoohou to hi-tyokuji yoohou no kankei nituite (On the
Relation between the Deictic Use and the Non-deictic Use of the Japanese Demonstratives).” Journal of
Natural Language Processing 6(4): 67-91.
Kinsui, S., Takubo, Y. 1992. “Nihongo sizisi kenkyusi kara/e (From/Toward a History of Research on Japanese
Demonstratives).” In Kinsui, S., Takubo, Y. (eds.), Sizisi (Demonstratives), 151-192. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobu.
Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1979. “(Ko), so, a nituite (On (ko), so- and a-). In Eigo to nihongo to (English and Japanese), 4159. Tokyo: Kurosio Syuppan.
Lakoff, R. 1974. “Remarks on ‘This’ and ‘That’.” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 10, 345-356.
McCready, E. 2010. “Varieties of Conventional Implicature.” Semantics & Pragmatics Vol. 3(8): 1-57.
Naruoka, K. 2003. “Expressive Functions of Japanese Adnominal Demonstratives ‘konna/ sonna/ anna’.” In The
13th Japanese/ Korean Linguistics Conference, 433-444.
Neale, S. 1999. “Coloring and Composition.” In Stainton, R (ed.) Philosophy and Linguistics, pp. 35-82. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potts, C. and Schwarz, F. 2010. “Affective ‘This’.” Linguistic Issues in Language Technology Vol. 3(5): 1-30.
Sauerland, U. 2007. “Beyond Unpluggability.” Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 231-236.
Wang, L., Reese, B., McCready, E. 2005. “The Projection Problem of Nominal Appositives.” Snippets 10: 13-14.
Yoshimoto, K. 1986. “On Demonstratives KO/SO/A in Japanese.” Gengo Kenkyu 90: 48-72.

−56−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

ឤ ぬ ᙧ ᐜ モ ࡢ ㄒ ⏝ ㄽ ⓗ ព ࿡ ኚ ໬ ࡟ ぢ ࡿ ⤫ ㄒ ᵓ 㐀 ࡢ ᙳ 㡪㐍⸨ ୕ె㸦ி㒔኱Ꮫ 㠀ᖖ໅㸧ᮤ ᅾ㙞㸦ᅜ㝿஺ὶᇶ㔠㸧῰㇂ Ⰻ᪉㸦ி㒔እᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸧<Abstract>
This paper explores interactive relation between semantic andsyntactic constructions based on Japanese Nominal Adjective data
extracted from balanced corpora. The Japanese Nominal Adjective
can function both as an adjective and as an adverb by changing its
conjugational affix according to its connecting or modifying word.
Akiraka etymologically described concrete situations “bright” or“open with no obstruction” (Old Jp.), but in Present Day Jp.,
akiraka predominantly means “obvious(ly),” expressing epistemic
modality showing the speaker/writer’s commitment to the truth ofthe proposition. This paper examines how semantic and syntactic
aspects interact in Present Day Japanese usages of akiraka.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ព࿡ⓗ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗኚ໬ࠊᵓᩥᩥἲࠊᙧᐜືモࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫศᯒ

1㸬 ࡣ ࡌ ࡵ ࡟ 㸸 ┠ ⓗ ࡜ ≺ ࠸ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᙧᐜືモࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃグ㏙
ศᯒࢆヨࡳࡓࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊ᭩ࡁゝⴥࡢᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩ࡁゝ ⴥ ᆒ ⾮ ࢥ ࣮ ࣃ ࢫ ( Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese 㸪௨ ୗ ࠊ␎ ⛠ ࡜ ࡋ ࡚ BCCWJ ࡜ グ ࡍ 㸧 ࠖ ࠿ ࡽ ⏝ ౛ ࢆ ᢳ ฟ ࡋ ࠊ ே ᡭ ࡛ ⏝ ౛ ࢆ ᳨ ウ ࡋ ࠊព࿡࡜⤫ㄒ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛵㐃ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ⤖ㄽⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ㸯 ࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࠖ ࡟ ࡣ ࡘ ࡢ ᙧ ᘧ ࡜ ព ࿡ ࡢ ᑐ ᛂ ࠿ ࡽ ࡞ ࡿ ᵓ ᩥ ࡀ Ꮡ ᅾ ࡍ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࠊ 㸰㸧ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡿᐃ╔ᗘࢆㄪ࡭ࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࠕබ⾲ࡍࡿࠖᆺࡀࡶࡗ࡜ࡶከ
࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
2㸬 ၥ 㢟 ᥦ ㉳ 㸸ࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࠖ ࡢ ព ࿡ ࡟ ࠾ ࡅ ࡿ ከ ᵝ ᛶ
᭱㏆ୡㄽࢆ࡟ࡂࢃࡏࡓࠕᾏୖಖᏳᗇࣅࢹ࢜ὶฟ஦௳ࠖࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢫሗ㐨ࡢ୰

−57−

感覚形容詞の語用論的意味変化に見る統語構造の影響࡛ࠊḟ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿ࠖࡀ㢖⦾࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1) ᾏ ୖ ಖ Ᏻ ᗇ ࡢ ᝟ ሗ ⟶ ⌮ ࡢ ࡎ ࡉ ࢇ ࡉ ࡀ せ ᅉ ࡢ ୍ ࡘ ࡔ ࡗ ࡓ ࡇ ࡜ ࡣ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡛ ࠊᏲ ⛎ ⩏ົ㐪཯࡟ၥ࠺࡯࡝ࡢࠕ⛎ᐦᛶࠖࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺␲ၥ➢ࡶ௜ࡃࠋ(http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/net/news 2010ᖺ 11᭶ 16᪥ㄞ኎᪂⪺)(2) 㤿 ῡ ᅜ ᅵ ஺ ㏻ ኱ ⮧ ࡣ 㛶 ㆟ ࡢ ࠶ ࡜ ࡢ グ ⪅ ఍ ぢ ࡛ ࠊ ᑤ 㛶 ㅖ ᓥ Ἀ ࡛ ㉳ ࡁ ࡓ ୰ ᅜ ⁺ ⯪ ࡟ࡼࡿ⾪✺஦௳ࡢᫎീࡀὶฟࡋࡓ஦௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᾏୖಖᏳᗇ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᤚᰝ࡬ࡢ඲
㠃ⓗ࡞༠ຊࢆᣦ♧ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ ᫂ࡽ࠿ ࡟ࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ
(http://www.nhk.or.jp/news/html 2010.11.8.)(3) ࡑ ࡢ 㸦 ᾏ ୖ ಖ Ᏻ ᗇ 㸧 㛵 ಀ ⪅ ࡣ ࠕ ᐇ 㝿 ࡟ ⚾ ࡶ ぢ ࡓ ࠋ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ୰ ᅜ ࡢ ⯪ ࡀ ᙜ ࡓ ࡾ ࡟ࡁ࡚࠸ࡓࡢࡀ୍┠░↛㸦ࡾࡻ࠺ࡐࢇ㸧࡛ㄡ࡛ࡶศ࠿ࡿ࡜ᛮࡗࡓࠖ࡜ㄒࡿࠋ㸦 http://www.nikkansports.co m ♫ ఍ ࢽ ࣗ ࣮ ࢫ 2010.11.11.08:17⣬ 㠃 ࠿ ࡽ 㸧౛ ᩥ㸦 㸧࠿ ࡽ ౛ ᩥ㸦 㸧࡟ ࠾ ࡅ ࡿࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࠖࡢ ព ࿡ ྠ ኈ ࡢ 㛵 㐃 ᛶ ࡟ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊ௨ ୗ ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ⪃ ࠼ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࡀ ࡛ ࡁ ࡿ ࠋ ౛ ᩥ 㸦 㸧 ࡣ ࠕ 㸿 ࡣ 㹀 ࡔ ࠖ ࡜ ࠸ ࠺ ࿨ 㢟 ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊࠕ᫂ⓑ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢㄽド࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕࡎࡉࢇࡉࡀせᅉ ࡢ ୍ ࡘ ࡔ ࡗ ࡓ ࡇ ࡜ ࡣ ᫂ ⓑ ࡔ ࠋ ࠖ ࡟ ⨨ ࡁ ᥮ ࠼ ࡽ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋ ౛ ᩥ 㸦 㸧 ࡣ ࠕ ᣦ ♧ ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆබ⾲ࡋࡓࠋࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࠕබ⾲ࡍࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ ౛ ᩥ 㸦 㸧 ࡣ ヰ ⪅ ࡢ ุ ᩿ ࠾ ࡼ ࡧ ホ ౯ ࢆ ⾲ ࡍ ࡶ ࡢ ࡛ ࠊ 㐃 ⏝ ᙧ ࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿࡟ࠖࡣࠕศ࠿ࡿࠖ࡜ಟ㣭㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡉ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽ୕✀㢮ࡢࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿ࠖ௨እ࡟ ࠊ ࡶ ࠺ ୍ ࡘ ࡼ ࡃ ౑ ࢃ ࢀ ࡿ ⏝ ἲ ࡜ ࡋ ࡚ ౛ ᩥ 㸦 㸧 ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ ࡞ ࠾ ࠊ ௨ ୗ ࡟ ࠾ ࠸࡚ ࡣ ࠊ ฟ ඾ ࢆ ᫂ グ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡞ ࠸ ࡶ ࡢ ࡣ ࠊ ࡍ ࡭ ࡚ %&&:-ࡢ ࡶ ࡢ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ(4) ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ぢ ぬ ࠼ ࡀ ࠶ ࡗ ࡓ ࠋ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ࡿ ≀ 㡢 ࢆ ⪺ ࡃ ࠋ౛ ᩥ 㸦 4㸧 ࡣ ࠕ ࡣ ࡗ ࡁ ࡾ ࡜ ࡋ ࡓ ぢ ぬ ࠼ ࠖ ࠕ ࡣ ࡗ ࡁ ࡾ ࡜ ࡋ ࡓ ≀ 㡢 ࠖ ࡜ ࠸ ࠺ ࡼ ࠺࡟ࠊゝ࠸᭰࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ▱ぬ࡛ࡁࡿ㸦ࡋࡸࡍ࠸㸧ࠊㄆ㆑࡛ࡁࡿ㸦ࡋࡸࡍ࠸㸧࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྂㄒࡢά⏝࡟࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᑡࡋྂ࠸ゝ࠸᪉࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽྂㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿ࠖࡣ ࠊ ࡶ ࡜ ࡶ ࡜ ど ぬ ᙧ ᐜ ື モ ࡛ ࠊ ▱ ぬ ⓗ ࡞ ព ࿡ ࡋ ࠿ ࡞ ࠿ ࡗ ࡓ 㸦 Shindo 2008, 㐍⸨ 2009, Shindo 2009, 2010㸧 ࠋ ౛ ᩥ (5)ࡣ ࠊ ど ぬ ⓗ ࡞ ᫂ ࡿ ࡉ ࢆ ♧ ࡋ ࠊ ౛ ᩥ (6)ࡣࠊ⫈ぬⓗ࡞㩭᫂ࡉࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(5) ኪ ῝ ࡁ ᭶ ࡢ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ࡉ ࡋ ฟ ࡛ ࡚ ࠊ ᒣ ࡢ ➃ ㏆ ࡁ ᚰ ᆅ ࡍ ࡿ ࡟ ࠊ ᛕ ㄙ ࠸ ࡜ ࠶ ࡣ ࢀ ࡟ ࡋࡓ ࡲ ࡦ ࡚ ࠊ ᫇ ≀ ㄒ ࡋ ࡓ ࡲ ࡩ ࠋ 㸦 1006ᖺ 㡭 ※ Ặ ࣭ ᳝ ᮏ 㸧−58−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号(6)ࡑ ࢀ ࢆ ఱ 㸦 ࡞ ࡟ 㸧 ࡒ ࡜ ࠸ ࡩ ࡟ ࠊ 㡢 ኌ 㸦 ࠾ ࢇ ࡌ ࡸ ࠺ 㸧 ࡀ ࠸ ࡉ ࡉ ࠿ 㰯 ኌ ࡛ ࠊ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿࡟࡞࠸࡜⏦ࡍࡀࠊ┿ࡸࠊࡇࡢẚ㸦ࡈࢁ㸧ࡣ㡢ኌࡶ ᫂ࡽ࠿ ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊḷࡣࡏࡽࡿࡿ ኌ ࡶ 㠃 ⓑ ࠸ ࡜ ᢎ ࡿ ࠋ (1593 ࢚ ࢯ ࣏ ࡢ ࣁ ࣈ ࣛ ࢫ ࠊ p.89 l.14-17)⌧ ௦ ㄒ ࡟ ࠾ ࠸ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊ౛ ᩥ (1)㹼 (4)࡛ ぢ ࡓ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࠊࡇ ࡢ ど ぬ ᙧ ᐜ ື モ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿࠕ ᫂ࡽ ࠿ ࠖ ࡀ 4ࡘ ࡢ ᪉ 㠃 ࡟ Ⓨ 㐩 ࡋ ࠊ ☜ ❧ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ ࣭ ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ A. ࠕ ᫂ ⓑ ࡔ ࠖ ᆺ࣭ ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ B. ࠕ බ ⾲ ࡍ ࡿ ࠖ ᆺ࣭ ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ C.

ヰ⪅ุ᩿ᥦ♧ᆺ࣭ ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ D. ࠕ ࡣ ࡗ ࡁ ࡾ ࠖ ᆺࡇ ࢀ ࡽ ࡢ ព ࿡ ࡢ ✀ 㢮 ࡣ ࠊ ⤫ ㄒ ᵓ 㐀 ࡜ ࡝ ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞ 㛵 ಀ ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ ࡢ ࠿ ⠇ ࡛ ⪃ ᐹ ࡍࡿࠋ3㸬 ᪉ ἲ ࡜ ࢹ ࣮ ࢱ
3.1. ࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࠖ ࡢ ព ࿡ ࡜ ᙧ ᘧ ࡢ ᑐ ᛂୖグࡢࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿ࠖࡢ㸲ࡘࡢព࿡ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟ࡣࠊ୍ᐃࡢ⤫ㄒࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ‫ ࣉ ࢖ ࢱ ڦ‬A. ព ࿡ 㸸ࠕ ᫂ ⓑ ࡔ ࠖ ᆺ⤫ ㄒ 㸸 ࡇ ࡜ ---ࡔ ᆺ㹼 ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࡣ㸦 ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࡢ ࡣ 㸧᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡔ ࠋ͐ ࿨ 㢟 㝞 ㏙ ⓗ ᵓ 㐀 ࢆ ࡜ ࡿ ࠋ‫ ࣉ ࢖ ࢱ ڦ‬B. ព ࿡ 㸸ࠕ බ ⾲ ࡍ ࡿ ࠖ ᆺ⤫ㄒ㸸ࡍࡿࠊ࡞ࡿ ᆺ㹼 ࢆ 㸦 㹼 ࡀ 㸧 ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ࡍ ࡿ 㸦 ࡞ ࡿ 㸧ࠋ ͐ ື モ ࡍ ࡿ ࠊ ࡞ ࡿ ࡜ ⤖ ࡧ ࡘ ࡃ ࠋ‫ ࣉ ࢖ ࢱ ڦ‬C. ព ࿡ 㸸 ヰ ⪅ ุ ᩿ ᥦ ♧ ᆺ⤫ㄒ㸸ᩥ୰࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⊂❧࡟㐃⏝ᙧ㸦᫂ࡽ࠿࡟㸧࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ణࡋࠊ⤫ㄒ㓄ิ࡟ḟࡢ 2 ✀㢮ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋձ ୺ ㄒ ---᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ---㏙ ㄒ ᆺ 㸸 ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ 㸦 㐪 ࠺ ࠊ ኚ ໬ ࡍ ࡿ etc.㸧ղ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ---୺ ㄒ 㸩 ㏙ ㄒ ᆺ 㸸ࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ࠖ ࡣ ᩥ 㢌 ࡟ ఩ ⨨ ࡍ ࡿ ࠋ‫ ࣉ ࢖ ࢱ ڦ‬D. ព ࿡ 㸸ࠕ ࡣ ࡗ ࡁ ࡾ ࠖ ᆺ ⤫ ㄒ 㸸 ྡ モ ࢆ ಟ 㣭 ࡍ ࡿ 㐃 య ᙧ 㸦 ᫂ ࡽ ࠿࡞㸧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ణࡋࠊ⿕ಟ㣭ྡモ࡟ 2 ✀㢮࠶ࡿࠋձ ▱ ぬ ྍ ⬟ ࡞ ஦ ㇟ ࢆ ⾲ ࡍ ྡ モ 㸸 ㄗ ࡾ ࠊ ⌮ ⏤ ࠊ ド ᣐ ࠊ ␗ ኚ ࠊ ཎ ᅉ etc.
ղᡂဨ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡢุ᩿ࡀᐜ᫆࡟ୗࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ᢳ㇟ᴫᛕ㸸ෆᨻᖸ΅ ࠊ ᾏ ㈫ ⾜ Ⅽ ࠊ ฼ ┈ ┦ ཯ ࠊ ᆅ ᪉ බ ົ ဨ ἲ 㐪 ཯ etc.

−59−

感覚形容詞の語用論的意味変化に見る統語構造の影響ୖ グ ࡢ ព ࿡ ࡜ ⤫ ㄒ ᙧ ᘧ ࡢ ᑐ ᛂ ࡟ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ࠊ BCCWJ࡟ ᇶ ࡙ ࡃ ㄪ ᰝ ࢆ ⾜ ࡗ ࡓ ࠋ

3.2.ࢥ ࣮ ࣃ ࢫ ㄪ ᰝ ࡢ ᴫ せព ࿡ ࣃ ࢱ ࣮ ࣥ ࡜ ⤫ ㄒ ࣃ ࢱ ࣮ ࣥ ࡢ ┦ ஫ 㛵 ಀ ᛶ ࢆ ᥈ ࡿ ࡓ ࡵ ࠊBCCWJ࠿ ࡽ ࠊࠕ ᫂ ࡽ࠿ࠖࡢ⏝౛ࢆࡍ࡭࡚ᢳฟࡋࠊ๓ᚋࡢ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡜ᩥ୰࡛ࡢព࿡ࢆㄪ࡭ࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ㄪᰝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௬ㄝࡣ௨ୗࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
௬ㄝ㸸⮬↛ゝㄒ࠿ࡽᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡓᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽᢳฟࡉࢀࡓࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿ࠖࡢࢹ࣮ ࢱ ࡣ ࠊ ඛ ࡢ 4ࡘ ࡢ ࣃ ࢱ ࣮ ࣥ ࡟ ࡯ ࡰ ศ 㢮 ࡛ ࡁ ࡿ ࠋ
4. ⤖ ᯝ ࡜ ⪃ ᐹᙧ ᐜ ື モ ࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࠖ ࡢ ά ⏝ ᙧ ࢆ ࡍ ࡭ ࡚ ᢳ ฟ ࡋ ࡓ ⤖ ᯝ ࠊ ಶ ࡢ ⏝ ౛ ࢆ ཰ 㞟࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ๓⠇࡛♧ࡋࡓ㸲ࡘࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢฟ⌧㢖ᗘࢆㄪ࡭ࡓࠋ⾲㸯ࡢ⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋ⾲ 㸯 㸬 %&&:-ࡢ ࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࠖ ࡢ ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ ู ࡢ ฟ ⌧ ≧ ἣ 
༊ศ

ព࿡

ᙧᘧ

ฟ⌧㢖ᗘ

㸣

ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ $᫂ⓑࡔࡇ ࡜ 㹼 ࡔ ᆺ 

884 

19.9%ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ %බ⾲ࡍࡿ

ࡍ ࡿ ࠊ࡞ ࡿ ᆺ1965

44.2%ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ &๪モྃ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟㹼ࡍ

1266

28.5㸣 

310

7.0%

ࡿ
ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ 'ᙧᐜモྃ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ +ྡモ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊ⾲㸯ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢヲ⣽ࢆ஦౛࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ

4.1 ๪ モ ⓗ ⏝ ἲ 㸦ࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ࠖ㸧 ࡢ ศ ᯒ
๪ モ ⓗ ⏝ ἲ ࡢ ⤫ ㄒ ࣃ ࢱ ࣮ ࣥ ࡢ ஧ ✀ 㢮 ࡟ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ࠊձ ୺ ㄒ ---᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ---㏙ ㄒ ᆺ ࠊղ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ---୺ ㄒ 㸩 ㏙ ㄒ ᆺ ࡢ ࡑ ࢀ ࡒ ࢀ ࢆ ࠊ ල య ⓗ ࡞ ౛ ࡜ ࡜ ࡶ ࡟ ほ ᐹ ࡋ ࡚ ࡳࡿࠋձ ୺ ㄒ ---᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ---㏙ ㄒ ᆺ(7) ⚾ ࡓ ࡕ ࡢ ⪁ ᚋ ࣭ ௓ ㆤ ࢆ Ꮚ ࡝ ࡶ ࡟ ᮃ ࡴ ࡢ ࡣ ࠊ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ↓ ⌮ ࡀ ࠶ ࡾ ࡲ ࡍ ࠋ(8) ࢔ ࣓ ࣜ ࢝ ே ┦ ᡭ ࡢ ㏻ ಙ ࡸ ࢔ ࣓ ࣜ ࢝ ே ྠ ኈ ࡢ ㏻ ಙ ࡣ ࠊ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ኚ ໬ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡓ ࡔ ࢁ࠺ࡀࠊ௚ᅜẸྠኈࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡸ᝟ሗࡢ஺᥮ࡣ
(9) ௖ ᩍ ࡜ ࡣ ู ࡢ ࡶ ࡢ ࡜ ࡉ ࢀ ࡓ ࠋ ⌧ ᅾ ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ ⚄ ♫ ࡜ ᑎ 㝔 ࡜ ࡣ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ༊ ู ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࠾ࡾࠊ⚄♫ࡢ࡞࠿࡛௖ീࡀࡲࡘࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

−60−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号(10) Ṕ ྐ ほ ࡢ 㔜 ࡳ ࡢ ࡞ ࠿ ࡛ ࠊᡴ ࡕ ࡦ ࡋ ࡀ ࢀ ࡚ ኱ ኚ ࡔ ࡗ ࡚ ࠸ ࠺ ࡢ ࡣ ࠊࡇ ࢀ ࡣ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿࡟㛫㐪࠸࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ㡑ᅜࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡶࠊୡ௦㛫ࡢⴱ⸨ࡸࠊ࣋ࢺࢼ࣒ᡓதࢆ
(11) ࢆ ౑ ࡗ ࡚ ⾲ ⌧ ࡍ ࡿ ࠋ㍍ ᛌ ࡞ ࣜ ࢬ ࣒ ࡟ ஌ ࡗ ࡓ ࣇ ࣛ ࣓ ࣥ ࢥ ࡜ ࠊᙼ ዪ ࡢ ₇ ࡎ ࡿ ࣇ ࣛ ࣓ࣥࢥࡣ ᫂ࡽ࠿ ࡟㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡺࡗࡓࡾ࡜ࡋࡓὶࢀࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠊỿ㯲ࢆ㋀ࡿ࡜࠸ࡗ
ࡓࡽࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࡟ぢࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕ୺ㄒ + ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ + ㏙ㄒࠖࡢ⤫ㄒࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟ฟ
⌧ࡍࡿࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࠖࡣࠊ┤᥋⏝ゝࢆಟ㣭ࡋࠊࠕࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜ࠖ࡜௦᭰ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ▱ぬ࣭ㄆ㆑࡛ࡁࡿᑐ㇟ࢆಟ㣭ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࠖࡣᵝែ๪モⓗ⏝ἲ ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋղ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ---୺ ㄒ 㸩 ㏙ ㄒ ᆺ(12) ྛ ᅜ እ ஺ ᅋ ࡢ ᠓ ぶ ࣃ ࣮ ࢸ ࢕ ࡀ ࠊ࣍ ࢸ ࣭ࣝ࢖ ࣥ ࢻ ࢿ ࢩ ࢔ ࡛ ദ ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ᪨ 㐃 ⤡ ࡀ ࠶ ࡗࡓࠋ ᫂ࡽ࠿ ࡟⡿ᅜ኱౑ࡣ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ၥ㢟ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠊ⡿ᅜࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔㛵ಀࡀᝏ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᜍࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ࣭࣭࣭
(13) ࡞ ࡐ ᙼ ࡔ ࡅ ࡀ ࡑ ࠺ ࠸ ࠺ ≧ ἣ ࡟ 㐼 㐝 ࡋ ࡞ ࡅ ࢀ ࡤ ࡞ ࡽ ࡞ ࠿ ࡗ ࡓ ࡢ ࡛ ࡋ ࡻ ࠺ ࠋ ᫂ ࡽ࠿ ࡟ᙼࡢᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ┠࡟ぢ࠼ࡠఱ࠿ࡀࡑࡢ≧ἣࢆᣍࡁᐤࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ

ࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࡟ぢࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ + ୺ㄒ + ㏙ㄒࠖࡢ⤫ㄒࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟ฟ
⌧ࡍࡿࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࠖࡣࠊ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢពᚿุ࣭᩿ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊࠕ᫂ࡽ
࠿࡟ࠖࡣᩥ๪モⓗ⏝ἲ ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ

4.2. ᙧ ᐜ モ ⓗ ⏝ ἲ 㸦ࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ࠖ㸧 ࡢ ศ ᯒᙧᐜモⓗ⏝ἲࡢ⿕ಟ㣭ྡモࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ஧✀㢮ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊලయⓗ࡞౛࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ほᐹࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࠋձ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ --ྡ モ 㸦 ▱ ぬ ྍ ⬟ ࡞ ஦ ㇟ 㸧 ᆺ(14)ࠕ ⯚ ࡢ ║ ࠖ ࡢ 㐀 ᙧ ࡣ ࠊ 㯮 ₻ ࡀ 㐠 ࢇ ࡔ ᩥ ໬ ࡢ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ≉ ᚩ ࡢ ୍ ࡘ ࡜ ࠸ ࡗ ࡚ ࡼ ࠸ ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ(15)ࠗ ྂ ஦ グ ࠘ ୖ ᕳ ࡢ ࡑ ࢀ ࢆ ే ㄞ ࡍ ࡿ ࡜ ࠊ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ 㐪 ࠸ ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࡟ Ẽ ࡙ ࡃ ࠋ(16) ࠿ ࡽ ࠊ ᾘ ㈝ ⪅ ࡟ ᑐ ࡋ ࡚ ࡶ ࠊ ௻ ᴗ ࡢ ぢ ᪉ ࡟ ࡣ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ኚ ໬ ࡀ ឤ ࡌ ࡽ ࢀ ࡲ ࡍ ࠋ(17) ⸽ ᓠ ࡀ ཧ ஦ ᐁ ࡟ ࡞ ࡗ ࡚ ❧ ሙ ࢆ ኚ ࠼ ࡓ ࡇ ࡜ ࡣ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ஦ ᐇ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ(18) ᖺ 㱋 ࡜ ࡜ ࡶ ࡟ ኚ ໬ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡁ ࡲ ࡍ ࠋ ⹸ ṑ ࡞ ࡝ ࡢ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ཎ ᅉ ࡀ ࡞ ࡃ ࡚ ࡶ ࠊ ∦ ഃࡔࡅ࡛࠿ࡴ࡜࠿
(19) ᙼ ࡽ ࡣ ࡇ ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞ ஧ ࡘ ࡢ ୡ ⏺ ࡟ Ꮡ ᅾ ࡍ ࡿ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ┦ 㐪 Ⅼ ࢆ ඞ ᭹ ࡍ ࡿ ࡓ ࡵ ࡟ 㸪࠸ࡘ࡛ࡶ౑࠼ࡿ

−61−

感覚形容詞の語用論的意味変化に見る統語構造の影響(20) ࡶ ࡢ ࡀ ࠊ ࡶ ࡣ ࡸ ࡔ ࢀ ࡢ ┠ ࡟ ࡶ ࠊ ࡔ ࢀ ࡢ ⪥ ࡟ ࡶ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ᙧ ࡛ 㡢 ࢆ ࡓ ࡚ ࡚ ᔂ ࢀ ࡚࠸ࡃᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡢࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࠖࡣࠊㄡࡢ┠࡟ࡶࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜▱ぬྍ⬟࡞ࠊㄆ㆑ྍ⬟࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋղ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ---ྡ モ 㸦 ᐜ ᫆ ࡟ ุ ᩿ ࡋ ࡟ ࡃ ࠸ ᢳ ㇟ ᴫ ᛕ 㸧 ᆺ(21)ࡇ ࡢ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ᾏ ㈫ ⾜ Ⅽ ࢆ ࢚ ࣜ ࢨ ࣋ ࢫ ࡣ බ ㄆ ࡋ ࠊ ࡴ ࡋ ࢁ(22)ࡇ ࡢ ᢈ 㞴 ࡣ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ෆ ᨻ ᖸ ΅ ࡛ ࠶ ࡘ ࡓ ࠋ ୰ ᭯ ᰿ 㤳 ┦ ࡣ ࡇ ࡢ(23)㹙 㐪 ཯ ㉁ ၥ ࣭ ᅇ ⟅ ࡢ 㐃 ⤡ 㹛 ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ つ ⣙ 㐪 ཯ ࡌ ࡷ ࡞ ࡁ ࡷ ↓ ⌮ ࡔ ࡞ ࠋ(24)ࡲ ࡋ ࡚ ࡸ ከ ᅜ ⡠ ㌷ ࡬ ࡢ ཧ ຍ ࡣ ࠊ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ᠇ ἲ 㐪 ཯ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ ᠇ ἲ ㄽ ㆟ ࡣ ࠊ ⌧ ᠇ ἲ(25)࠿ ࡞ ࡾ ࡢ ࣌ ࢼ ࣝ ࢸ ࢕ ࢆ ㄢ ࡏ ࡽ ࢀ ࡲ ࡍ ࠋ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ※ Ἠ ᚩ ཰ ⩏ ົ 㐪 ཯ ࡛ ࡍ ࠿ ࡽ(26)ࡼ ࡃ ศ ࠿ ࡽ ࡞ ࠸ ゝ ⴥ ࡟ ྡ ࢆ ೉ ࡾ ࡓ ࠊ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ே ᶒ ౵ ᐖ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ(27) ༢ ࡞ ࡿ ࡩ ࡊ ࡅ ࡜ ࡋ ࠿ ᛮ ࡗ ࡚ ࠸ ࡞ ࠸ ሙ ྜ ࡛ ࡶ 㸪 ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ே ᶒ ౵ ᐖ ࡛ ࡍ ࠋ౛ ࠼ ࡤ ౛ ᩥ (24)࡟ ࠾ ࠸ ࡚ ࠊࠕ ከ ᅜ ⡠ ㌷ ࡬ ࡢ ཧ ຍ ࡣ ࠊ᠇ ἲ 㐪 ཯ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ࡛ࠖ ࡶ ࠊᩥ ࡜ ࡋ ࡚ ᡂ ❧ ࡋ ࠊᩥ ព ࡀ ࡑ ࢀ ࡯ ࡝ ኚ ࢃ ࡽ ࡞ ࠸ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࠊ౛ ᩥ (21)㹼 (27)ࡣ ࠊࠕ ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࠖࢆ┬࠸࡚ࡶᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᡂ❧ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ✀㢮ࡢࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࠖࡣࠊḟ࡟⥆ࡃྡモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ල⌧ࡉࢀࡿᢳ㇟ᴫᛕ࡟ࠊ⌧ᅾࡢ≧ἣࡀᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿ࡜ヰ⪅ࡀุ᩿ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࠊྡモࡢ๓࡟㝈ᐃⓗ࡟ࡘࡅࡽࢀࡿᙉㄪ⾲⌧࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ
ࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊヰ⪅ࡢ࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜ࡋࡓពᛮࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃ
ࡕࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࠖࡣࠊၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࿨㢟ࡢಙ៰ᛶ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅࣭➹⪅ࡢホ౯ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
Quirk et al. (1985)࡟ ࡼ ࢀ ࡤ ࠊⱥ ㄒ ࡟ ࠾ ࠸ ࡚ ࠊᙧ ᐜ モ ࡀ ྡ モ ࡜ ࠸ ࠺ ᣦ ♧ ᑐ ㇟ ࢆ┤ ᥋ ≉ ᚩ ௜ ࡅ ࡿ ᫬ (e.g. a firm hand shake, a perfect alibi)ࠊ ࡑ ࡢ ព ࿡ ࡣ ࠊ ࠕ ෆ
ᅾ ⓗ (inherent)ࠖ ࡜ ⛠ ࡉ ࢀ ࠊ ┤ ᥋ ⓗ ࡞ ≉ ᚩ ࡙ ࡅ ࡛ ࡣ ࡞ ࠸ ᫬ (e.g. a firm friend, aperfect stranger)ࠊ ࠕ 㠀 ෆ ᅾ ⓗ (non-inherent)ࠖ ࡜ ⛠ ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋ 㠀 ෆ ᅾ ⓗ ᙧ ᐜ モ ࡟ࡼࡿྡモࡢಟ㣭ࡣࠊྡモࡢᇶᮏⓗព࿡ࡢᣑᙇ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿ࠖࡢⱥㄒ ࡢ ┦ ᙜ ㄒ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ clearࢆ ౛ ࡟ ࡋ ࡚ ࠊ ෆ ᅾ ⓗ ព ࿡ ࡢ ≉ ᚩ ࢆ ♧ ࡍ ࡜ ࠊ ḟ ࡢ ౛ ࡢ ࡼ࠺ ࡟ ࠊ clear + Nࡣ the N which is clear࡜ ゝ ࠸ ᥮ ࠼ ࡽ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋ(28) Clear water = the water which is clear (transparent)(29) Clear explanation = the explanation which is clear (understandable)(30) Clear evidence = the evidence which is clear (obvious)−62−第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ࡋ ࠿ ࡋ ࠊୖ グ ࡢ ౛ ᩥ (21)㹼 (27)ࡢࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ࠖࡢ ᙉ ㄪ ⾲ ⌧ ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࠊᙉ ព ࡢ ᙺ๭ ࢆ ࡍ ࡿ clearࡣ ࠊ㠀 ෆ ᅾ ⓗ ព ࿡ ࡜ ࡳ ࡞ ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ࡀ ࠊḟ ࡟ ♧ ࡍ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ྠ ᵝ ࡢ ゝ ࠸᥮࠼ࡣ࡛ࡁࡎࠊὴ⏕ࡢ๪モ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྠࡌព࿡ࡀఏ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(31) Clear failure  *the failure which is clear=

the failure which is clearly defined as a failure,(32) Clear responsibility  *the responsibility which is clear=

the responsibility which is clearly regarded as responsible(33) Clear alternative  *the alternative which is clear=

the alternative which is clearly judged as an alternative(Shindo 2008)ࠕ ୺ ほ ⓗ ࠖ ⾲ ⌧ ๪モⓗ⏝ἲࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࠖࡢ஧✀㢮┠ࠊᙧᐜモⓗ⏝ἲࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࠖࡢ஧✀㢮┠ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊヰ⪅ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(34)᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡟ ⡿ ᅜ ኱ ౑ ࡣ ࣐ ࣞ ࣮ ࢩ ࢔ ၥ 㢟 ࢆ ࡵ ࡄ ࡗ ࡚ ࠊ ⡿ ᅜ ࠊ ࢖ ࣥ ࢻ ࢿ ࢩ ࢔ 㛵 ಀ ࡀᝏ ໬ ࡍ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࢆ ᜍ ࢀ ࡚ ࠾ ࡾ (=౛ ᩥ (12))
Æ ࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࠖࡣࠕᜍࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡟࠿࠿ࡿࡀࠊࠕᜍࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜ุ᩿ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢಙ៰ᛶࡀࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࠖ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(35)ከ ᅜ ⡠ ㌷ ࡬ ࡢ ཧ ຍ ࡣ ࠊ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࡞ ᠇ ἲ 㐪 ཯ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ (=౛ ᩥ (24))
Æ ࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࠖࡣࠕ᠇ἲ㐪཯ࠖࢆಟ㣭ࡍࡿࡀࠊࠕ᠇ἲ㐪཯࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ุ᩿
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢಙ៰ᛶࡀࠕ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࠖ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ ࢀ ࡽ ࡢࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࠖࡣ ࠊ௨ ୗ ࡟ ᐃ ⩏ ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࠊ୺ ほ ⓗ ⾲ ⌧ ࡜ ࡞ ࡗ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ“[T]he most subjective expressions will have the following characteristics: …
(iii) explicit markers of SP/W attitude to what is said, including epistemic
attitude to the proposition, …” (Traugott and Dasher 2002: 23)

5. ⤖ ㄽᮏ ✏ ࡛ ࡣࠕ ᫂ ࡽ ࠿ ࠖࡢ ⌧ ௦ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ࡟ ࠾ ࡅ ࡿ ⏝ ౛ ࢆ ศ ᯒ ࡋ ࠊ4ࡘ ࡢ ᵓ ᩥ ࣃ ࢱ ࣮ࣥ࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊࠕ᫂ⓑࡔࠖᆺࠊࠕබ⾲ࡍࡿࠖᆺࠊ๪モྃᆺࠊᙧᐜモྃᆺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋణࡋࠊ๪モྃᆺࠊᙧᐜモྃᆺࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡ࡢ 㐪 ࠸ ࡟ ࡼ ࡗ ࡚ ࠊ ࡉ ࡽ ࡟ 2ࡘ ࡟ ศ ࡅ ࡽ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋ ๪ モ ྃ ᆺ ࠊ ᙧ ᐜ モ ྃ ᆺ ࡟ ࡣ ࠊ ヰ⪅ࡢホ౯ุ࣭᩿ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿᵓᩥࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ୺ほ໬ࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࡀほᐹ࡛
ࡁࡿࠋ 

−63−

感覚形容詞の語用論的意味変化に見る統語構造の影響

㸨 ㅰ ㎡ 㸸 ᮏ ◊ ✲ ࡟ ࡣ ࠊே 㛫 ᩥ ໬ ◊ ✲ ᶵ ᵓ ᅜ ❧ ᅜ ㄒ ◊ ✲ ᡤ ࡢ ᚚ ༠ ຊ ࡟ ࡼ ࡾ ࠊࠕ ⌧ ௦ ᪥ᮏ ㄒ ᭩ ࡁ ゝ ⴥ ᆒ ⾮ ࢥ ࣮ ࣃ ࢫ ࠖࣔ ࢽ ࢱ ࣮ බ 㛤 ࢹ ࣮ ࢱ㸦 2009ᖺ ᗘ ∧ 㸧ࢆ ࠊ฼ ⏝ ࡉ ࡏ ࡚ ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡟᫂グࡋࠊᚚ♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ

୍ ⯡ ⓗ ࡟ ࠊ ᵝ ែ ๪ モ ࡜ ᩥ ๪ モ ࡣ ࠊ ព ࿡ ࡜ ఩ ⨨ ࠿ ࡽ ุ ู ࡛ ࡁ ࡿ ࡜ ゝ ࢃ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ ព

࿡ ⓗ ࡟ ᩥ ๪ モ ࡣ ࠊᵝ ែ ๪ モ ࡜ 㐪 ࠸ ࠊᚋ ⥆ ࡍ ࡿ ᩥ ࡟ ᑐ ࡍ ࡿ ヰ ⪅ ࡢ ホ ౯ ࠊࢥ ࣓ ࣥ ࢺ ࢆ ⾲ࡍ ࠋ ࡲ ࡓ ఩ ⨨ ⓗ ࡟ ࡣ ࠊ ᵝ ែ ๪ モ (1a, 2a)ࡣ ࠊ ື モ ࡸ ື モ ྃ ࢆ ಟ 㣭 ࡋ ࠊ ື モ ࡢ ᚋ ࢁ ࡟⨨ ࠿ ࢀ ࡿ ࡢ ࡟ ᑐ ࡋ ࡚ ࠊ ᩥ ๪ モ (1b, 2b)ࡣ ⠇ ඲ య ࢆ ಟ 㣭 ࡋ ࠊ ⠇ ࡢ ඛ 㢌 ࡟ ⨨ ࠿ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋ(1) a. He will answer hopefully.

b. Hopefully, he will answer.

(2) a. He will not answer frankly.

b. Frankly, he will not answer.

ཧ ⪃ ᩥ ⊩ 
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammarof the English Language. London/New York: Longman.
Shindo, M. 2008. “From Visual Adjective to Modalized Intensifier: A Cross-linguistic
Study

of

Grammaticalization.”

Grammaticalization 4.”

Paper

Presented

at

“New

Reflections

on

Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium).

㐍 ⸨ ୕ ె . 2009.ࠕ ど ぬ ᙧ ᐜ モ ࠿ ࡽ ᙉ ㄪ モ ࡬ ࡢ ព ࿡ ኚ ໬㸸ᩥ ἲ ໬ ࡢ ᑐ ↷ ゝ ㄒ Ꮫ ⓗ ◊ ✲ ࠖࠊᒣ ᲍ ṇ ᫂ ௚ (⦅ )ࠗ ㄆ ▱ ゝ ㄒ Ꮫ ㄽ ⪃ Vol. 8࠘ ࠊ 157-190ࠊ ᮾ ி 㸸 ࡦ ࡘ ࡌ ᭩ ᡣ .
Shindo,M.

2009.

“Constructional

ChangeAccompanying

Increase

of

Modal

Intensification: A Cross-linguistic Study of Visual Adjectives.” Paper Presented atPanel “Pragmatics in Constructions and Frames” (Organized by Kyoko Hirose
Ohara and Jan-Ola Östman) in the 11th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA).
Melbourne: The University of Melbourne (Australia).
Shindo,

M.

2010.

“A

Cross-linguistic

Study

of

Constructionalization

in

the

Grammaticalization of Adjectives.” Paper Presented at the 6th International
Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG-6). Prague: Charles University(Czech Republic).
Traugott, E. C. and R. B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.



−64−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢே⛠モ࡜ᣦ♧モࡇࡢ࣭ࡑࡢ࣭࠶ࡢࠖ
ᮡᒣࡉࡸ࠿ ி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕ sugiyama@h04.mbox.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
The purpose of this paper is to examine the usage of Japanese demonstratives. According to Kinsui andTakubo(1990), both demonstratives and personal pronouns retrieve an entity and identify it as its value orreferent. However, they can be used together: kono watashi, sono watashi, ano watashi, etc. This paper aims toshow the reason and the restriction of these co-occurrences and insists that demonstratives have anotheradditional meaning: (1) kono shows the selection which leads to an emphasis of the referent, (2) sono adds someproperty inferred from the discourse and (3) ano can be used on condition that the referent doesn’t exist in thecurrent discourse situation.

>࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ@ ᣦ♧モࠊே⛠モࠊ㑅ᢥࠊᒓᛶ᝟ሗ



1㸬

ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡇࡢ࣭ࡑࡢ࣭࠶ࡢࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᣦ♧モࡀࠕ⚾ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢே⛠モ1࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(1) ࡑࡢᰯ㛗ࡢ๓࡟❧ࡓࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ⚾ࡓࡕ୕ேࠋ
㸦୰␎㸫⚾௨እࡢ஧ேࡢ⤂௓㸧 ࡑࡋ࡚඾ᆺⓗ᪥ᮏேయᆺ࡫ࡽࡍᖹซ࡞ᐜጼ࡜ซᗤ࡞⬟ຊࡋ࠿ᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠊ୰⫗୰⫼ࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࡔࡅ
⮬ಙࡢ࠶ࡿࡢࡣ㢏ࡢ࢚ࢡ࣎ࡔࡅ࡜࠸࠺ࡇࡢ⚾ࠊ୕ᮌ฼㤶Ꮚࠋ(2) ⚾ࡣ⣧⢋࡞ᚊἲ୺⩏⪅࡛࠶ࡾࠊཝ᱁࡛ࠊ࠸ࡲࡲ୍࡛ᗘࡶᡄᚊࢆ◚ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ(୰␎)࡜ࡇ
ࢁࡀࠊࡑࡢ⚾ࡀࠊ࡜ࢇ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ᛮ࠸㐪࠸ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
(3) 㨚⑓ᝈ⪅ࡣ㍍㌄≧ែࢆᬑ㏻ࡢ≧ែ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦୰␎㸧⚾ࡀ┠ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡢࡣ㍍㌄≧ែࡔࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿㸽୍␒ᴦࡋ࠿ࡗࡓ㡭ࡢ࠶ࡢ⚾࡟ࡣࠊࡶ࠺ᡠࢀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿㸽                                 㸦BCCWJ㸧௦ྡモࡸᣦ♧モࡣࠊ㏻ᖖࠕ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ≉ᐃࡢせ⣲ࢆᤚࡋฟࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ௦ྡモࡸᣦ♧モࡢ್ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ㸦୰␎㸧౛࠼ࡤࠊ୍ே⛠௦ྡモࡣⓎヰ≧ἣ࠿ࡽࠕヰࡋᡭࠖࢆᤚࡋฟ
ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ್࡜ࡍࡿ(㔠Ỉ࣭⏣❑,1990/1992:127)ࠖ࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(1)-(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢣ࣮ࢫ
࡛ࡣࠊே⛠モࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡶᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢྠᐃࡣ༑ศྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᣦ♧モࡢᶵ⬟ࡀࠕ್ࡢ᳨⣴࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧モࡀே⛠モ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦౛࡟࠾
࠸࡚ࠕ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡢ࠿ࠖࡲࡓࠕࡑࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ไ⣙ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺஧
Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏࡛౑⏝ࡍࡿࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩ࡁゝⴥᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ(BCCWJ)ࣔࢽࢱ࣮බ㛤ࢹ࣮ࢱ࠘ (2009 ᖺᗘ∧)(ᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ 2010)ࢆඖ࡟ࠊ୍ே⛠モ㸦ࠕ⚾ࠖࠊࠕನࠖࠊࠕ൅ࠖ࡞࡝㸧ࠊ஧ே⛠モ㸦ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࠖࠊࠕ࠾ࡲ࠼ࠖ࡞࡝㸧ࠊ୕ே⛠モ㸦ࠕᙼࠖࠊࠕᙼዪࠖ
࡞࡝㸧࡜ࠊࠕࡇࡢࠖࠕࡑࡢࠖࠕ࠶ࡢࠖࡀඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−65−

日本語の人称詞と指示詞この・その・あの

2㸬
㸬ඛ⾜◊✲
2.1. ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モ࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲బஂ㛫௨᮶ࠊ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡣே⛠௦ྡモࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺௬ㄝࡀ࠶ࡿ(୕ୖ1972,࡞࡝)ࠋWhitman࣭ᰗ⏣ (2009) ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⌧௦ㄒࡢ1㺃2ே⛠࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠕ⚾ࠖࠕ൅ࠖࠕྩࠖ࡞࡝ࡣࠊㄒ※ⓗ࡟ྡモ࡛࠶ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᩥἲⓗ࡟ࡶ୍⯡ྡモ࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ⾲ࡉ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸࡜ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢドᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
(4) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᣦ♧モࡸไ㝈ⓗᙧᐜモ࡛ಟ㣭ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(4) ࡇࡢࡳࡗ࡜ࡶ࡞࠸⚾࡟ບࡲࡋࡢኌࢆ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡃࢀࡓࠋ (Whitman࣭ᰗ⏣ 2009, p.191)
ࡓࡔࡋࠊWhitman࣭ᰗ⏣ (2009) ࡢ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊୖ௦᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௦ྡモయ⣔࡜⌧௦ࡢయ⣔ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢ⌧㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⡆༢࡞グ㏙࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ⌧㇟࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࠊヲࡋࡃ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡲࡓᣦ♧モ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊబஂ㛫 (1936/1983) ࡟ࡼࡾே⛠ࡢ࡜┦㛵㛵ಀࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚௨᮶ࠊே௦ྡ
モࡢே⛠࡜ࠕࡇࡑ࠶࡝ࠖࡢ⣔ิࡀᖹ⾜ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ㄝࡀᗈࡃཷࡅධࢀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࡑࡢ◊✲ࡣ⌧ሙᣦ♧࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩥ⬦↷ᛂࡢࠕࡇࡢࠖ࡜ࠕࡑࡢࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ␲ၥⅬࡀṧࡿࠋᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࢆᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚⏣❑(2008)࡜ᗡ(2007)ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ⏣❑(2008)࡛ࡣࠊ㯮⏣(1979)ࡢศ
ᯒࢆᘬࡁ⥅ࡂࠊព࿡ⓗ㺃⤫ㄒⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽᣦ♧モࡢ඲⯡ⓗ࡞≉ᚩ௜ࡅࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㠀║๓ᣦ♧ࡢ⏝ἲ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୺ᙇࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
(5) 㠀║๓ᣦ♧ࡢࢥࢯ࢔
ࢥ࡜࢔ࡣ D-indexed NP(௚ࡢゝⴥ࡜ࡣ㛵ಀ࡞ࡃࠊᑐ㇟ࢆᣦ♧࡛ࡁࡿ)࡛࠶ࡾࠊࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚
ヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ㊥㞳࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀỴࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࢯࡣ non-D-indexed NP ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㊥㞳༊ศࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ⊂❧ࡋࡓᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᵓ㐀ⓗඛ⾜モࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

⏣❑(2008)ࡢ≉ᚩ௜ࡅࡣᴟࡵ࡚ጇᙜ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ(1)-(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ
ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀࠕ⚾(=ヰࡋᡭ)࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊࢥࢯ࢔ࡀ౑࠸ศࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࠕヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ
㊥㞳࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚Ỵࡲࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺つᐃࡔࡅ࡛ࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡎࠊ㏣ຍࡢㄝ᫂ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᗡ(2007)࡛ࡣࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺゝㄒᏛࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠕࡇࡢࠖ࡜ࠕࡑࡢࠖࡢᩥ⬦↷ᛂ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡇࡢࠖࡢᶵ⬟ࡢ୍⯡໬࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࠖࢆ୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࠕࡇࡢࠖࡔࡅࡀ౑࠼ࡿ
᮲௳࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕձゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࠊղඛ⾜モ࡜ᐃ᝟ሗྡモྃࡢ㊥㞳ࡀ㞳ࢀࡓሙྜࠊճࣛ࣋ࣝ㈞ࡾࡢ⏝ἲࡢሙྜࠊմࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ྡモྃࡢሙྜࠖࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕࡑࡢࠖࡢ
ᶵ⬟ࡢ୍⯡໬࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕᐃ᝟ሗྡモྃ࡬ࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺⓗព࿡ࡢ௜୚ࡀ⩏ົⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁࠖ࡜୺ᙇࡋ
࡚࠾ࡾࠊࠕࡑࡢࠖࡋ࠿౑࠼࡞࠸ᩥ⬦ࡢ≉ᚩࠕձඛ⾜モࡣ㏻ᖖᅛ᭷ྡモ࠿⥲⛠ྡモ࡛ྃ࠶ࡿࠋղ㏻
ᖖࠊࠕࡇࡢࠖࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠕࢮࣟࠖࡶ୙㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡿࠋճࠕࡑࡢࠖࢆྵࡴᩥ࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿෆᐜࡣ
㏻ᖖඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡛ᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿண ࢆ⿬ษࡿෆᐜ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋմᐃ᝟ሗྡモྃࡣࠊ㏻ᖖࠕࡣࠖ௨እࡢຓモ࡛࣐࣮ࢡࡉࢀࡿࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ᮲௳ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅛ᭷ྡ࡜ࠕࡑࡢࠖࡀ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀࡿ౛࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲࡜ࡶ㛵ࢃࡿࡢ࡛ࠊヲࡋࡃぢࡿࠋ(6) 㡰Ꮚࡣࠕ࠶࡞ࡓ࡞ࡋ࡛ࡣ⏕ࡁࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡑࡢ/*ȭ㡰Ꮚࡀ௒ࡣ௚ࡢ⏨ࡢᏊ౪ࢆ஧ேࡶ⏘ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
(ᗡ 2007, p.99 )−66−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ඛ⾜モ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᅛ᭷ྡモࡣ〄㸦ࠕ࡜࠸࠺ࠖ࡞࡝ࡀࡘ࠿࡞࠸㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ึฟ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡍ࡛࡟ࠕᐃ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣྠᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕࡑࡢࠖࡢᶵ⬟ࡣࠊᐃ໬࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࢸࢡࢫࢺ᝟ሗࡢ௜୚࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺஦౛ࡣࠊᗡ(2007)࡛ࡣ⪃ᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᗡ
ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

3.

ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫศᯒ

 BCCWJ ࠿ࡽࠊḟ࣮࣌ࢪ࡛ᣲࡆࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋ ⾲࠿ࡽࠊ୍ே⛠࡛ࡣࠕࡇࡢࠖ࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࠊ୕ே⛠࡛ࡣࠕࡑࡢࠖ࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿
ࡾࠊ᭩ࡁゝⴥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕࡑࡢࠖࡣࠊ஧ே⛠࡜ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ୕ே⛠࡜ࡶ㛵ࢃࡾ῝࠸ࠋ(⾲) BCCWJ ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊே⛠モ࡜ࠕࡇࡢ࣭ࡑࡢ࣭࠶ࡢࠖࡢඹ㉳ᩘ2

ࡇࡢ

ࡑࡢ

࠶ࡢ

ྜィ

⚾

93

23

1

117

ࢃࡓࡋ

53

4

0

57

ನ

49

2

0

51

࠾ࢀ

25

1

0

26

൅

11

1

0

12

ࡰࡃ

16

2

0

18 

୍ே⛠ࡢྜィ

247 (87%)

33 (12%)1 (0.4%)281(100%)

࠶࡞ࡓ

0

4

0

4

࠾๓

0

2

0

2

㈗᪉࣭㈗⏨࣭㈗ዪ

0

0

0

0

ྩ

0

0

0

0

஧ே⛠ࡢྜィ

0

6 (100%)0

6 (100%)

ᙼ

4

135

0

139

࠿ࢀ

1

5

0

6

ᙼዪ

1

29

0

30

୕ே⛠ࡢྜィ

6 (3%)

169(97%)0175 (100%)4㸬 ⪃ᐹ
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊศᯒ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓᐇ㝿ࡢ⏝౛࡟╔┠ࡋࠊࠕࡇࡢ࣭ࡑࡢ࣭࠶ࡢࠖࡀே⛠モ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
4.1.1. ୍ே⛠モ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ ୍ே⛠࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕࡇࡢࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃࠊࡑࡢ 87㸣ࢆ༨ࡵࡿࠋࠕࡑࡢࠖࡶ 33 ౛ほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࡲࡓࠕ࠶ࡢࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶ୍౛ほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࠕ࠶ࡢࠖ࡜ே⛠モࡀඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡣᮏㄪᰝ࡟࠾࠸୍࡚ே⛠࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࡓ஦౛ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ4.1.1 ࡛ࠕ࠶ࡢ⚾ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ4.1.2
࡛ࠕࡇࡢ⚾ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ4.1.3 ࡛ࠕࡇࡢ⚾ࠖ࡜ࠕࡑࡢ⚾ࠖࡢᑐẚࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠕࡑࡢ⚾ࠖࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

−67−

日本語の人称詞と指示詞この・その・あの4.1.2. ୍ே⛠࡜ࠕ࠶ࡢࠖ
௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࠿ࡽぢࡘ࠿ࡗࡓࠕ࠶ࡢࠖࡀே⛠モ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ஦౛ࡣ(7)ࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(7) 㨚⑓ᝈ⪅ࡣ㍍㌄≧ែࢆᬑ㏻ࡢ≧ែ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦୰␎㸧⚾ࡀ┠ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡢࡣ㍍㌄≧ែࡔࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿㸽୍␒ᴦࡋ࠿ࡗࡓ㡭ࡢ࠶ࡢ⚾࡟ࡣࠊࡶ࠺ᡠࢀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿㸽㏻ᖖࠊே㛫ࡣࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ୍㈏ࡋࡓゎ㔘ࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ┤ឤⓗ࡟ࡣࠕ࠶ࡢࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡣ࡞ࡌࡲ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ⑓Ẽࡢ≧ែ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࠕ࠸ࡲࡢ⚾ࠖ࡜ࠕᴦࡋ࠿ࡗࡓ㡭(㍍㌄≧ែ)ࡢ⚾ࠖࡀศ㞳ࡋࠊࡑࡢ㛫࡟ㄆ㆑ⓗ࡞᩿⤯ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢㄆ㆑࡟ࡼࡾࠊ௒ࡢ⚾㸦㸻ࡇࡢ⚾㸧࡜ࡣ㐲࠸Ꮡᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ⚾ࠖࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࠕ࠶ࡢࠖࡀ౑⏝ྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
4.1.3. ୍ே⛠࡜ࠕࡇࡢࠖ
୍ே⛠モࡣࠊࠕࡇࡢࠖ࡜ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊ኱ࡲ࠿࡟஧ࡘࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
➨୍࡟ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(8) ࡑࡢᰯ㛗ࡢ๓࡟❧ࡓࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ⚾ࡓࡕ୕ேࠋ
㸦୰␎㸫⚾௨እࡢ஧ேࡢ⤂௓㸧 ࡑࡋ࡚඾ᆺⓗ᪥ᮏேయᆺ࡫ࡽࡍᖹซ࡞ᐜጼ࡜ซᗤ࡞⬟ຊࡋ࠿ᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠊ୰⫗୰⫼ࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࡔࡅ
⮬ಙࡢ࠶ࡿࡢࡣ㢏ࡢ࢚ࢡ࣎ࡔࡅ࡜࠸࠺ࡇࡢ⚾ࠊ୕ᮌ฼㤶Ꮚࠋ(9) ࠕே⪺ࡁࡀᝏ࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ࡞ࠋࡓࡔാࡁࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠾ࡗࡋࡷࡗࡓࡢࡣ࡝ࡇࡢ࡝࡞ࡓ࡛ࡍࠊ➉ᮧᵝࠖࠕ␒㢌࡝ࡢࠊࡇࡢ⚾ࡔࠖࡇࡢሙྜࠊࠕࡇࡢࠖࢆࠕࡑࡢࠖ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕ࠶ࡢࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ࡜ࡁࠊࠕࡇ
ࡢࠖࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࡣ(12)࡛ࡣࠊ⚾ࡓࡕ୕ேࡢ࠺ࡕ௚ࡢ஧ே࡜ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀᑐẚࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ(13)࡛ࡣࠊࠕㄡࡔࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⟅࠼࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕࡇࡢ⚾ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊࠕࡇࡢࠖࡣ࠶ࡿࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠕ⚾ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ಶయࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫ(⌧ሙᣦ♧)࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࠕࡇࡢ⚾ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕ௚ࡢㄡ
࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࡇࡢ⚾ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᙉㄪ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࠋ
ࡓࡔࡋࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟㑅ᢥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸஦౛ࡶほᐹ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(10) ࡑࡶࡑࡶࡇࡢ⚾ࡀࠊẕங⫱ඣຎ➼⏕࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࠊ࡜࡟࠿ࡃࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ẕぶᴗ࡬ࡢࢹࣅ࣮ࣗࢆᯝࡓ
ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡍ࡛࡟ࡑࢀ⮬యࠊ࠿࡞ࡾࡢ㦫ࡁࡔࡗࡓࠋ ࡇࡢ⚾Ɇࡘࡲࡾࠊ୍஑භࠐᖺ௦⏕ࡲࢀࡢ᪥ᮏே࡛ࠊዪᏊ኱⏕ࣈ࣮࣒ࡢ᫬௦࡟኱Ꮫ⏕άࢆ㏦ࡾࠊࣂࣈࣝ᫬௦࡟ᮾி࡛ࣇ࢓ࢵࢩࣙࣥ㞧ㄅࡢ⦅㞟࡟ᦠࢃࡾࠊᖖ࡟ࠕ⮬ศࡓࡕࡢୡ௦ࢆࢱ࣮ࢤ
ࢵࢺ࡜ࡋࡓ᪂㞧ㄅࠖࡀ๰หࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡗ࠿ࡾ័ࢀࡁࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ⚾ࠋࡇࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ௚࡟➇ྜࡍࡿせ⣲ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡎࠊ㑅ᢥ࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡴࡋࢁ
ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࠕ௚ࡢㄡ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸⚾ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࢆࡶࡓࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊᇼཱྀ(1990)ࠕ⤯ᑐᣦ♧ࠖࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕࡇࡢ⚾ࠖࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡣࠊࠕ㑅ᢥࠖ࡜ࠕ⤯ᑐᣦ♧ࠖࡢ஧✀㢮ࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ
ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶࠊࠕヰࡋᡭࡑࡢࡶࡢࠖ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆᘬࡁࡘࡅࡿാࡁࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−68−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

4.1.4. ୍ே⛠࡜ᩥ⬦↷ᛂࠕࡇࡢࠖ࡜ࠕࡑࡢࠖࡢᑐẚ
4.1.2.࡛ᣲࡆࡓ஦౛ࡣࠕࡇࡢࠖࡀࠕࡑࡢࠖࢆ⨨ࡁ᥮࠼୙ྍ⬟࡞ሙྜ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊḟࡢ஦౛࡛ࡣ㏆᥋ࡢᩘᩥ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠕࡑࡢࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

(11) ᙼࡀ࠿ࡘ࡚ேࢆ่ࡋ࡚᭹ᙺࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜࡞࡝ࠊࡇࡢ⏫ࡢேࡣࠊㄡࡶ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᙼ
ࡢጔࡶ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ࠸ࡸ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᙼ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ┠ࡢ๓࡟✺↛࠶ࡽࢃࢀࡓࠊ
㹹ࡇࡢ/ࡑࡢ㹻⚾ࡀ᭱ࡶࡸࡗ࠿࠸࡞Ꮡᅾ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅࡔࠋ (ཎᩥ࡛ࡣࠕࡇࡢࠖ)ࡓࡔࡋࠊࠕࡑࡢࠖ࡜⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ␗࡞ࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍࠋᐇ㝿ࡇࡢㄯヰࡢ඲ᩥࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࡌࡘࡣࠕࡑࡢ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠕࡇࡢࠖࡀࡩࡉࢃࡋࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆ㆟ㄽࡍࡿ๓࡟ࠊࠕࡑࡢࠖ࡜
୍ே⛠ࡀ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀࡿ஦౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋḟࡢ஦౛࡛ࡣࠊࠕ⚾ࠖ࡜ࠕࡑࡢ⚾ࠖࡀ஺஫࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(12) 㸦⚾ࡣ࣓࣐࢝ࣛࣥ㸧ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡶࡣࡸ㯞ཎࡀ㌟ࢆ㞃ࡍࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࡶ᫬㛫ࡶ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ㯞ཎ୍⾜ࡣࡺࡗࡃࡾࡺࡗࡃࡾࠊ࢚ࣉࣟࣥࢆṌࡁ⥆ࡅࡿࡋ࠿࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ㛫ࠊa.⚾ࡣ඘ศ௙஦ࡀ
࡛ࡁࠊ᪂ᐿࡣ b.ࡑࡢ⚾࡟࢞ࣥࢆ㣕ࡤࡍࡋ࠿࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ๓࡟ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᇶᮏᩥἲ㎡඾࠘(Makino&Tsutsui 1989)࡞࡝࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
㏻ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ௦ྡモࡀ(16)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᙧᐜモࡸ㛵ಀ⠇࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⮬⏤࡟ಟ㣭ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆぢ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
(13) a.
b.

ᛁࡋ࠸⚾ࡣࢸࣞࣅࡶぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
㡢ᴦࡀዲࡁ࡞⚾ࡣ୍᪥୰㡢ᴦࢆ⫈࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (Makino&Tsutsui 1989, p.29)

ࡇࡢ࡜ࡁࠊᙧᐜモࡸ㛵ಀ⠇ࡀ⾲ࡍෆᐜࡣࠊ୺ᩥࡀ⾲ࡍෆᐜࡢᅉᯝ㛵ಀ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(13a)ࡣ
ࠕ⚾ࡣᛁࡋ࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࢸࣞࣅࡶぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠖࠊ(13b)ࡣࠕ⚾ࡣ㡢ᴦࡀዲࡁ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ୍᪥୰㡢ᴦࢆ⫈࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(12)࡟ヰࢆᡠࡍ࡜ࠊ(a) ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣࠊ≉࡟ᣦᐃࡢ࡞࠸⚾࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕࡑࡢ⚾ࠖࢆ౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
୍᪉࡛ࠊ(b)ࠕࡑࡢ⚾ࠖࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࠕ⚾ࠖ࡜ධࢀ᭰࠼ࡿ࡜ࡸࡸ୙⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡑࡢ
⚾ࠖࡣࠕ⚾ࠖ࡜࡝࠺㐪࠺ࡢ࠿ࠋࡇࡢ␲ၥ࡟⟅࠼ࡿⅭ࡟ࡣࠊゝㄒ᝟ሗ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓ」ᩘࡢ᥎ㄽࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ⚾ࡣ࣓࣐࡛࢝ࣛࣥ࠶ࡾࠊ௙஦࡜ࡣ෗┿ࢆ཰ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ᪂ᐿࡣ㯞ཎࡢᛅᐇ࡞ಙ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⫼ᬒ▱㆑࠿ࡽࠕ኱஦࡞ᩍ♽࡛࠶ࡿ㯞ཎࢆ៸ࡾࡶ࡞ࡃ෗┿࡟࠾ࡉࡵࠊ౲㎯ࡍࡿࠖ࡜
࠸ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦ୖ᥎ㄽࡉࢀࡿᒓᛶ(࿨㢟ෆᐜ)ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡣࡌࡵ࡚ࡇࡢᩥ❶ࡣゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ
ࡿࠋ᪂ᐿࡀ࢞ࣥࢆ㣕ࡤࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢㄯヰ࡟㛵ࢃࡾࡢ࠶ࡿ⚾࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࡓࡲࡓࡲ⚾ࡀࡑࡢᒓᛶࢆ‶ࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࠋࠕࡑࡢ⚾ࠖࡣࠊᣦᐃࡉࢀࡓᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠕ⚾ࠖࡢࠕ࠶ࡿ୍ഃ㠃ࠖ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࠊᒓᛶ௜୚ࢆ⾜࠺࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊᮏ⠇ෑ㢌࡛ᣲࡆࡓ(11)࡟⪃ᐹࢆࡃࢃ࠼ࡿࠋ㏆᥋ࡢᩘᩥࡢࡳࢆほᐹࡋࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࠕࡑࡢࠖࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡓࠋࠕࡑࡢࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

(14) ᙼࡀ࠿ࡘ࡚ேࢆ่ࡋ࡚᭹ᙺࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜࡞࡝ࠊࡇࡢ⏫ࡢேࡣࠊㄡࡶ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᙼ
ࡢጔࡶ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ࠸ࡸ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᙼ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ┠ࡢ๓࡟✺↛࠶ࡽࢃࢀࡓࠊࡑࡢ⚾ࡀ᭱ࡶࡸࡗ࠿࠸࡞Ꮡᅾ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅࡔࠋ

−69−

日本語の人称詞と指示詞この・その・あのࡇࡢሙྜࠊ⚾ࡀࠕ┠ࡢ๓࡟✺↛⌧ࢀࡓࠖࡓࡵ࡟ࡸࡗ࠿࠸࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ๓ᩥࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡛
㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᒓᛶ᝟ሗࡀ㔜せ࡞⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ(14)ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ᏶඲࡞ᩥ⬦ࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡿ࡜ࠊࠕࡇࡢࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡀ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕࡑࡢࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡣ୙⮬↛࡜࡞ࡿࠋ(15) 㸦⚾ࡣࠊ࠿ࡘ࡚ࡢᜊேࡀࠊᖾࡏࡑ࠺࡟ᐙ᪘࡛㐣ࡈࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆ┠ᧁࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊᙼ࡜
෌఍ࡋࠊ఍ヰࡍࡿ㸧ࠕඛ᪥ࡣࠊࡈᐙ᪘࡜ࡈ୍⥴࡛ࡋࡓࢃࡡࠖ࡜⚾ࡣゝ࠼ࡓࠋࡈࡃ࠾ࡔࡸ࠿
࡟ࠋ┦ኚࢃࡽࡎࠊᚸ⪏ᙉࡃឤ᝟ࢆᢲࡋẅࡋࡓᶓ㢦࡟ࠊ୍ᗘࡣ⚾ࡢࡶࡢࡔࡗࡓࡑࡢࡁࢀ࠸
࡞㢡࡟ࠊ௒᪥ࡢ⚾ࡣࠊᛮ࠸ࡁࡾ∎ࢆ❧࡚ࡓ࠸ࠋ㸦୰␎㸧ࡇࡢࡲࡲྡࡢࡾྜ࠺ࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊႚ
Ⲕᗑࡢᗑ୺࡜ᐈ࡜ࡋ࡚⤊ࢃࡽࡏࡼ࠺ࠊ࡜ᙼࡣᬯ࡟ゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙼࡀ࠿ࡘ࡚ேࢆ่ࡋ࡚᭹
ᙺࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜࡞࡝ࠊࡇࡢ⏫ࡢேࡣࠊㄡࡶ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᙼࡢጔࡶ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿ࡶࡋ
ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ࠸ࡸ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᙼ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ┠ࡢ๓࡟✺↛࠶ࡽࢃࢀࡓࠊࡇࡢ⚾ࡀ᭱ࡶࡸࡗ࠿࠸࡞Ꮡᅾ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅࡔࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࠊࠕ⚾ࠖࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ኚࢃࡾࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠕࡇࡢࠖࡀᣦࡋ♧ࡍෆᐜࡣࠕ✺↛⌧ࢀࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ෆᐜࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡴࡋࢁࠊࠕࡇࡢ⚾ࡀࡸࡗ࠿࠸࡛࠶
ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ┤๓ࡢゝㄒୖ࡜ࡣ⊂❧࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠊࠕ⚾ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ಶయ
ࡀවࡡഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡿෆᅾⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁㸦ᙼࢆ῝ࡃ▱ࡿᜊே࡛࠶ࡗࡓ⚾㸧ࠊࠕ௚ࡢㄡ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸⚾ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ಶయࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ㔜せࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
௨ୖࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊゝㄒ᝟ሗ࡟ࡼࡿᒁᡤⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࡀᚲせ࡞ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠕࡑࡢࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋゝㄒ᝟ሗ࡟ࡼࡿゎ㔘ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࠕ௚ࡢࡔࢀ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸⚾ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠕࡇࡢࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
4.2. ௚ࡢே⛠࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
4.2.1. ஧ே⛠࡟㛵ࡋ࡚஧ே⛠モ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ஧ே⛠࡜ᣦ♧モ࡜ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡀ࡛ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ᪥
ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ஧ே⛠ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜⮬యࡀࡲࢀ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡜㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ⌧ሙ࡟࠸ࡿࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࠖࢆᣦࡍሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠕࡑࡇࡢ࠶࡞ࡓࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ሙᡤࢆ⾲ࡍᣦ♧モ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀࡿࠋ၏୍ࠊ୰⛠࡜ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡀࠊ๓⠇࡛㏙࡭ࡓ୍ே⛠ࡢሙྜ࡜ྠᵝࠊࢯࡣࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ᝟ሗࡢ௜୚ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࠕゝㄒⓗ࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓඛ⾜モ㸦ᒓᛶ㸧ࢆᣢࡘࠖ࠶࡞ࡓ࡜࠸࠺ព
࿡ࡀࡢࡕࡢᩥ⬦ࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(16)࡛ࡣࠊ႐ࡧࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ๓ᩥࡢゝㄒ᝟ሗ࠿ࡽࡢ㢮᥎ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ(16) ࠸ࡸ࠶ࠊᤚࡋࡲࡋࡓࡼࠋὒ௓࡜ࡣ⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ࠺ࡕ࡟࡜࠺࡜࠺఍࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ᜥᏊ
ࡉࢇࡢ࠶࡞ࡓ࡜఍࠼ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡶࡑࡢ࠶࡞ࡓࡣࠊὒ௓࡟ࡑࡗࡃࡾࡔ㸟

4.2.2. ୕ே⛠࡟㛵ࡋ࡚୕ே⛠ࡣࠊᜊឡ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ⏨ᛶࢆᣦࡍ⏝ἲࢆ㝖ࡃ࡜ࠊ୍ே⛠ࡸ஧ே⛠ࡢࡼ࠺࡟Ⓨヰᩥ⬦࡟ึᮇ࠿ࡽ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ↷ᛂⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢ஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚୰⛠ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ
୍ே⛠ࡸ஧ே⛠࡜ྠᵝࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺⓗព࿡ࢆ௜୚ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࠕࡇࡢࠖ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠶ࡿࡶࡢࢆ↷ᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑ
ࡢሙྜࠊࠕࡑࡢࠖ࡜࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟␗࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ぢ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ

−70−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号(17) ࡇࡢ࢔࢘ࢢࢫࢺࢗࢫࡢ⪃࠼ࡣࠊࡲࡗࡓࡃࡑࡢࡲࡲ࡛ࢸ࢕࣋ࣜ࢘ࢫ࡟⥅ᢎࡉࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࢸ
࢕࣋ࣜ࢘ࢫࡣࠊ࢔࢘ࢢࢫࢺࢗࢫ࡜ࡣࡕࡀࡗ࡚Ṋேࡢ㉁ࢆྜࢃࡏࡶࡘࠋ๓⥺࡛ᣦ᥹ࡍࡿ⤒㦂ࡀ㇏ᐩ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡔࡅ࡟ࠊᡯ⬟㇏࠿࡞Ṋேࢆぢศࡅࡿࡢ࡟ࡶඃࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢᙼ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࢞ࣜ
࢔࡛ࡶࠊ༡௖࡟࠿ࡂࡽࡎࠕ㛗㧥ࡢ࢞ࣜ࢔ࠖ࠿ࡽࡶࠊᣦ᥹ᐁࢡࣛࢫࡢேᮦࡢⓏ⏝ࡀ୍⯡໬ࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(18) ᙜ᫬ࡢࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ㢼₻ࡣࠊࠗ༑カᢒ࠘ࡸࠗ᧝㞟ᢒ࠘࡟཰ࡵࡽࢀࡓᑠ㔝⠈ࡢ㐓ヰࡢࡑࡇ࠿ࡋࡇ
࡟࠶ࡩࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⠈࡜࠸࠺ࡇࡢᚚோࠊࡶ࡜ࡼࡾ₎リࡢᡯࢆࡶࡘ࠾࠿ࡆ࡛ࠊὶ⨥ࢆ㉧ࡉࢀࡓࡾࠊᔢᓚኳⓚ࠿ࡽᐓ┦࡟࡜ࡾࡓ࡚ࡽࢀࡓࡾࡋࡓே≀࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᙼࡀࠊ⸨ཎ㐨㛗ࡢࡶࡼ࠾ࡍᕝ㐟ࡧ࡟ཧຍࡋࡓ᪥ࡢࡇ࡜ࠊ࠾ࡾ࠿ࡽࠕ࿴ḷࡢ⯚ࠖ࡜ࠕ₎リࡢ⯚ࠖ࡜ࡀࡋࡘࡽ࠼
ࡽࢀࠊ⯚ୖ࡛ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢪࣕࣥࣝࡢ➇సࡀ࠾ࡇ࡞ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
(17)ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠕ௚࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ᙼࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࠕࡇࡢࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕࡢࡔࠖᵓ
ᩥ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠊ↔Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋḟࡢ(18)ࡣࠊࠕࡑࡢࠖ
࡜⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡀྍ⬟࡞஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠕࡇࡢࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊࠕᙼࠖࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡓᒓᛶ㸦ࠕὶ⨥ࢆ㉧ࡉࢀࡓࡾ㹼ࠖ㸧ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࠕᑠ㔝⠈ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ಶయࡢ㔜せᛶࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿ
ࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋຓモࠕࡀࠖ࠾ࡼࡧྃㄞⅬࠕࠊࠖ࠿ࡽࡶᙼࡀ↔Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

5㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊBCCWJ ࢆ⏝࠸ே⛠モ࡜ᣦ♧モࡀ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ஦౛ࢆほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚ࠊᣦ♧モࠕࡇࡢ㺃ࡑࡢ㺃࠶ࡢࠖࡢᶵ⬟࠾ࡼࡧไ⣙࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୍ே⛠ࠊ஧ே⛠ࠊ୕ே⛠ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊᚲࡎ≉ᐃࡢ್ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿ(㔠Ỉ㺂1989)ࠋ
௦ྡモࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡶ≉ᐃࡢ್ࡣ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡇ࡟ྠᐃࡢᡭẁ࡛࠶ࡿᣦ♧モࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡣవ๫࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋAriel (1990) ࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᣦᶆⓗ⾲⌧ࡀྠᐃ࡜࠸
࠺ཎ๎࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ┠ⓗ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ┠ⓗ࡜ࡣࠊࠕㄞࡳᡭ࡟㏣
ຍࡢᩥ⬦ⓗྵពࢆ⪃࠼ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モࡶⱥㄒ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊࠕㄞࡳᡭ࡟㏣ຍࡢᩥ⬦ⓗྵពࢆ⪃࠼ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࠖ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୰ಛ(2010) ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㞟ྜ໬ࠖЍࠕపホ౯ࠖࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ㏫ྥࡁࡢാࡁ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕࡇࡢࠖࠕࡑࡢࠖࠕ࠶ࡢࠖࡣᣦ♧≀ࢆ၏୍࡟≉ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ㧗ホ౯ࢆ௜ຍࡍࡿ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ぢࡽࢀࡓ㏻ࡾࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⏝ἲࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶ㧗ホ౯ࢆ࣐࣮ࢡࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡴࡋࢁ㔜せᛶࡢᙉㄪࠊࡘࡲࡾ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(19) ࠕࡇࡢࠖࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ㞟ྜࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ୰࠿ࡽ࠶ࡿᑐ㇟ࢆࠕ㑅ࡧฟࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྵពࢆఏ࠼ࠊࡑࡢ ಶయࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆᘬࡁࡘࡅࡿࠋ
(20) ࠕࡑࡢࠖࡣࠊ┤๓ࡢゝㄒ᝟ሗࡀᚋ㏙ࡢᩥ⬦ࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྵពࢆࡶࡘࠋ
ே⛠モ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡓᑐ㇟࡟ᑐࡋࠊゝㄒⓗ࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓᒓᛶ᝟ሗࢆ௜୚ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ಶయࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࡴࡋࢁࠊゝㄒⓗ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡓ᝟ሗ࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆᘬࡁࡘࡅࡿࠋ
(21) ࠕ࠶ࡢࠖࡣࠊ୍౛ࡋ࠿ほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢⓎヰ⌧ሙ࠿ࡽࡢ᩿⤯ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁࠊ
୍⯡▱㆑࡟࠶ࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊⓎヰሙ㠃࠿ࡽ㐲ࡃ㞳ࢀࡓሙ ௒ᅇࡢ౛࡛ࡣ㐣ཤ ࡢಶయ࡜ᑐẚࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࠕ୍⯡▱㆑ࡢಶయࠖ࡜ࠕⓎヰࡢሙࡢಶయࠖ
ࡢ㐪࠸࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆᘬࡁࡘࡅࡿࠋ
(21)ࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ ࠊࠕ࠶ࡢᙼࡀఇࡴ࡞ࢇ࡚⌋ࡋ࠸ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢస౛ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠕᙼࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ௒ᅇ࠶ࡲࡾゐࢀࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ

−71−

日本語の人称詞と指示詞この・その・あの* ᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 13 ᅇ኱఍࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲࣭ᇳ➹࡟㝿ࡋࠊࡁࡵ⣽ࡸ࠿࡞ࡈᣦᑟࢆୗࡉࡗࡓᮾ㒓㞝஧ඛ⏕࡟࡜ࡾࢃࡅᚚ♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋࡲࡓຮᙉ఍࡛࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫୗࡉࡗࡓ㐲⸨ᬛᏊࡉࢇࠊᶓ᳃኱㍜ࡉࢇࠊ఍ሙ࡛᭷┈࡞ࡈ㉁ၥ࣭ࡈᣦ᦬ࢆୗࡉࡗࡓᒸᮏ㞞ྐඛ⏕ࠊྂᒇ࠿࠾ࡾඛ⏕ࠊࡑࡢᚋࡶᘬࡁ⥆ࡁ㆟ㄽ࡟࠾௜ࡁྜ࠸ୗࡉࡗࡓ୰ಛᑦᕫඛ⏕࡟῝ࡃឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋణࡋࠊᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡞ࡀࡽࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୙ഛ࣭ㄗ
ࡾࡣࡍ࡭࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡟ᖐࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ
1ே⛠モ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒ࡛ࠊⓎヰࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿሙ࡛ࡢᑐヰ⪅ࡢྠᐃࢆ⾜࠺ࠊே⛠ࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫ㸦Fillmore, 1997) ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽ㝖࠸ࡓ౛Ϩ. ே⛠モࡢᚋ࡟ࠕࡢࠖࡀ⥆ࡃሙྜ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕࡇࡢ⚾ࡢពぢࠖ࡞࡝㸧࡟ࡣࠊಀࡾඛࡀࠕ⚾࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࠿ࠕពぢ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࠿᭕᫕࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊᮏศᯒ࡛ࡣ㝖࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ϩ. ୕ே⛠࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠕᙼࠖࠕᙼዪࠖ࡟ࡣࠊே⛠ࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫ࡜ࡣูࡢ⏝ἲࠊࡘࡲࡾᜊឡ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࡦ࡜࡜
࠸࠺ᙺ๭ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕᙼࠖ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᙼዪ㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡢሙྜࠊ(ϸ) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧ሙᣦ♧ࡢ⏝ἲࠊ(Ϲ) ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞୙ᐃࡢࡼ࠺࡞⏝ἲࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ௒ᅇ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ᜊேࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦౛ࡣ㝖ࡃࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓࠋ(ϸ) ᙼ࣭ᙼዪࡀᒃࡿ᪉ࠊᖺࡢᕪࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡍ࠿㸽࡝ࢀࡃࡽ࠸࡛ࡍ࠿㸽ࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢᖺࡢᕪ࡛ᅔࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࠊ㏫࡟Ꮀࡋ
࠸஦࠶ࡾࡲࡍ࠿㸽ࢺ࣮ࢱ࡛ࣝぢ࡚ࠕࡇࡢᙼ࡛Ⰻ࠿ࡗࡓࠖ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿㸽(Ϲ)ࠕᜊࢆࡋࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜ࡼࡃ࠸࠺ࡀࠊㄡ࡜࡛ࡶ࠸࠸࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡟ࡣ࠸࠿࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ⚾ࡀᜊࢆࡋࡓ࠸ࠖ࠿ࡽᜊ
ࢆࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࠕᙼ࡜ᜊࢆࡋࡓ࠸ࠖ࠿ࡽࡍࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᩚ⌮ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡑࡢᙼࡀ⌧ࢀࡓ࡜ࡁࠊࡑࢇ
࡞⯆ዧࢆឤࡌࡉࡏ࡚ࡃࢀࡓ⏨࡜ࡢฟ఍࠸ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡞ࡽࠊࡍࡄ࡟Ẽᣢࡕࢆఏ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁࡔࠋϪ 㐲⛠࡜୕ே⛠ࡀ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀࡓ஦౛ࡣ஧ࡘぢࡽࢀࡓࡀࠊࠕᜊேࠖࡢ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊ⾲࠿ࡽ㝖࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(Ϻ)௒ᖺࡶᐙ᪘࡛ᾏ࠿࡞ࢇ࠿࡬⾜ࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀ࡞ࡾ࡟ᴦࡋ࠸ኟఇࡳࢆ࠶࠿ࡾ࡟㏦ࡽࡏ࡚ࡸࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊ
ࡑࢀࡣࡑࢀ࡛ᴦࡋ࠸ࠋ࡛ࡶࠊ࠶ࡢ㡭ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࡝ࡁ࡝ࡁࡍࡿᚅࡕ㐲ࡋ࠸ኟ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ୍▐ࠊ࠶ࡢᙼ࡜ᾏ࡬⾜ࡁࠊே㎸ࡳࡢከ࠸ࣅ࣮ࢳࢆ㑊ࡅࠊᑡࡋἈ࡬ฟ࡚₯ࡾࠊᾏࡢ୰࡛ᢪࡁྜ࠸ࠊ࢟ࢫࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡋࡓࠋ
2

ཧ⪃㈨ᩱ
ᅜㄒᅜ❧◊✲ᡤ(2010).ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩ࡁゝⴥᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࣔࢽࢱ࣮බ㛤ࢹ࣮ࢱ㸦2009 ᖺᗘ∧㸧࠘㸬ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Ariel㸪Mira㸬1990㸬 Accessibility Noun-Phase Antecedant, London㸸Rutledge㸬Fillmore㸪Chrles J㸬1997㸬Lectures on Diexis, Stanford㸸CSLI Publication㸬ᇼཱྀ࿴ྜྷ㸬1990㸬ࠕᣦ♧モࢥ࣭ࢯ࣭࢔ࡢ⾲⌧ࠖ㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘9: 3(3 ᭶ྕ)ࠊ59-70㸬
ᗡຌ㞝㸬2007㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⤖᮰ᛶ࠘ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬
Makino& Tsutsui㸬1989㸬A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar㸪28-33㸪Tokyo㸸The Japan Times㸬㔠Ỉᩄ㸬1989㸬ࠕ௦ྡモ࡜ே⛠.ࠖࠊ໭ཎಖ㞝 (⦅) ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲ࣭ᩥయ㸦ୖ㸧࠘(ㅮᗙ ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱)ࠊ➨ 4 ᕳࠊ98-116ࠊᮾி㸸᫂἞᭩㝔㸬㔠Ỉᩄ࣭⏣❑⾜๎㸬1990/1992㸬 ࠕヰ⟶⌮⌮ㄽ࠿ࡽࡳࡓ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モࠖࠊ㔠Ỉᩄ࣭⏣❑⾜๎ (⦅)ࠊ ࠗᣦ♧モ࠘ࠊ
123-149ࠊᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ㸬୕ୖ❶㸬1955/1972㸬ࠗ⌧௦ㄒἲ᪂ㄝ㸦᚟้∧㸧࠘ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬୰ಛᑦᕫ㸬2010㸬ࠕࠕࡑࢇ࡞ࠖࡸࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠖࡣ࡞ࡐపホ౯࡟೫ࡿ࠿ ̿⤒㦂ᇶ┙ⓗࣄ࢚࣮ࣛࣝ࢟ᵓ㐀࠿ࡽࡢㄝ᫂̿ࠖࠊ
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘10ࠊ 427-437㸬బஂ㛫㰓㸬1936/1983㸬ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⾲⌧࡜ㄒἲ࠘ࠊᮾி㸸ཌ⏕㛶㸬⏣❑⾜๎㸬2008㸬ࠕ ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢព࿡ㄽ࡜⤫ㄒㄽࠖࠗ. ゝㄒࡢ◊✲࣮̿ࣘࣛࢩ࢔ㅖゝㄒ࠿ࡽࡢどᗙ̿࠘ࠊ311-337ࠊ
㸦ࠗㄒᏛᩍ⫱ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ࠘➨ 16 ྕ㸧኱ᮾᩥ໬኱ᏛㄒᏛᩍ⫱◊✲ᡤ.
ᮾ㒓㞝஧㸬2000㸬ࠕㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モࢥ࣭ࢯ࣭࢔ࠖࠊࠗி㒔኱Ꮫ⥲ྜே㛫Ꮫ㒊⣖せ࠘7ࠊ27-46㸬ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂㸬1992㸬ࠗ᥎ㄽ࡜↷ᛂ࠘ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬
Whitman࣭ᰗ⏣㸬2009㸬ࠕே⛠࡜ά᱁㢮ᆺ㸫ୖ௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢ௦ྡモయ⣔ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫ࠖࠊ ᆤᮏ⠜ᮁ࣭᪩℩ᑦᏊ࣭࿴⏣ᑦ᫂㸦⦅㸧ࠊࠗࠕෆࠖ࡜ࠕእࠖࡢゝㄒᏛ࠘ࠊ175-214ࠊᮾி㸸 㛤ᣅ♫㸬−72−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

Conditionals are Pragmatic
Ken Turner
University of Brighton
In this very thing, which the dialecticians teach among
the elements of their art, how one ought to judge
whether an argument be true or false which isconnected in this manner: ‘If it is day, it shines’,
how great a contest there is: Diodorus has one opinion,
Philo another, Chrysippus a third. Need I say more?
Cicero.

Abstract.
In this paper I shall attempt to begin an argument that claims that (a) the proper treatment ofconditionals reveals them to have a wholly or predominantly ‘pragmatic’ nature because (b)there is no proper treatment of conditionals that reveals them to have a ‘semantic’ nature. I
shall eventually say something preliminary about (a) but I have first to say something about(b). In order to anticipate the conclusion of this short paper I intend to show how, on thedelicate matter of the analysis of natural conditionals, John Stuart Mill is able to trump
Gottlob Frege. Keywords: Semantics, pragmatics, conditionals.
1. 1. Perhaps the most widespread analysis of at least indicative conditionals is the material
analysis. The model, or ‘truth table’ for the material conditional is:
P

Q

PĺQ

1.

T

T

T

2.

T

F

F

3.

F

T

T

4.

F

F

T

Whilst lines 1. 2. are intuitively plausible, lines 3. and 4. are less intuitively attractive. Theirjustification is as follows. There are four possibilities for the compositions at lines 3. and 4.
The first is F and F. This makes conditionals identical with conjunctions. /. The second is F
and T. This makes a conditional P ĺ Q equivalent with Q ĺ P. /. The third is T and F. This
makes conditionals equivalent to their consequents. /. Therefore, there being no otheralternative, T and T must be correct.
The material analysis allows some well-known inferences:
Contraposition: From P ĺ Q infer ¬Q ĺ ¬P.
Strengthening of the antecedent: From P ĺ Q infer (P & R) ĺ Q.

−73−

Conditionals are pragmaticTransitivity: From P ĺ Q and Q ĺ R infer P ĺ R.
And these well-known inferences fall victim to some well-known counterexamples:
Contraposition
If he has made a mistake then he has not made a big mistake.
Therefore, if he has made a big mistake then he has not made a mistake. /.
Strengthening of the antecedent
If he finishes his book, I’ll be happy.
If he finishes his book and refutes my thesis in it, I’ll be happy. /.
Transitivity
If I will the Lottery I’ll quit my job.
If I quit my job I won’t be able to pay the mortgage.
If I win the Lottery I won’t be able to pay the mortgage. /.
The material analysis also licenses some less well-known unintuitive inferences:
It is not true that if we follow that road we will reach the city.
Therefore we will not reach the city.
which is materially valid but intuitively invalid /. And:The function will be held in the hall, or, if the weather is warm it will be held on thegreen.
Therefore, either the function will be held in the hall or it will be held on the green.
which is materially invalid but intuitively valid /. This kind of evidence (and there is more in
Adams 1975, Chapter 1) diminishes the plausibility of the material analysis of natural
indicative conditionals to the degree that it no longer merits our confidence.
1. 2. Perhaps the most widespread analysis of counterfactual conditionals is the ‘possible
worlds’ analysis. The ‘mechanics’ of this analysis is simple to state: Given that the antecedentof a counterfactual is false in the actual world, go to the closest, or most similar to the actual
world, possible world where the antecedent is true, and determine whether the consequent of
the counterfactual is also true in that world.
Simple to state, it is also simple to discredit. Assume Re-inflected Modified Occam’s Razor:
Re-inflected Modified Occam’s Razor
Do not multiply worlds beyond necessity.

−74−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

As there is no compelling empirical, conceptual, strategic or theoretical necessity to posit
possible worlds, the possible worlds analysis is nothing more than an elaborate, extravagant
and ingenuous non-starter.1
1. 3. One of less well-known analysis of indicative and counterfactual conditionals is the‘event’ analysis. This analysis, as the name might indicate, respects Re-inflected Modified
Occam’s Razor and makes reference not to possible other worlds but to actual, ‘real andrelevant’, events.
The idea is relatively simple and relatively close to the Davidsonian analysis of action
sentences. A conditional, ‘If P, then Q’ is first modelled as ‘For all events, if P occurs in those
events then Q occurs in those events’. For subtle reasons that we can here skip, this is revised
into ‘For all events that are real and relevant possibilities, if P occurs in those real andrelevant events then Q occurs in those real and relevant events’. Or formally:(Ӂe Ӈ R) (In (e, P) ĺ In (e, Q))
However, the simplicity of the idea is at the cost of precision: Neither ‘e’, nor ‘R’ nor ‘In’ aredefined.2 (For a lengthier critical analysis of the event analysis, see Turner (2002).)
1. 4. There is one final analysis that once enjoyed some popularity in some circles. It is theprobability analysis. On this analysis the value of a conditional is given by the (subjective or
objective) probability of the consequent given the (subjective or objective) probability of theantecedent. Or formally:
Pr (If P, the Q) = Pr(B/A) (or =, equivalently, Pr(A & B)/Pr(A) provided that Pr(A)  0)
I refer to Turner (2006) for arguments why this analysis should not be embraced.
1. 5. The material, possible worlds, event and probability analyses are, despite surface
differences, all similar in that they are Frege-inspired. Recall:
The thought expressed by the compound sentence‘If I own a cock which has laid eggs today, then Cologne Cathedral will collapse
tomorrow morning’is ... true. Someone will perhaps say ‘But here the antecedent has no inner connexionat all with the consequent’. In my account, however, I required no such connexion ...
my account is not designed to square with ordinary linguistic usage, which is toovague and ambiguous for the purposes of logic ... My task here is ... to pick out, as thelogical kernel, a compound of two thoughts, which I have called a hypotheticalcompound thought. (Frege 1977: 70).
Neither the material, nor the possible world, nor the event, nor the probability analyses posit
an ‘inner connexion’ between propositions, or possible worlds, or events, or probabilities.
Each, in their own way, limit themselves to picking out a ‘logical kernal’, with no due−75−Conditionals are pragmatic

diligence to ‘ordinary linguistic usage. This is why these analyses might be said to be Fregeinspired.
2. 1. So much for the negative argument ((b), above: ‘there is no proper treatment ofconditionals that reveals them to have a ‘semantic’ nature’). Now for the positive argument((a), above: ‘the proper treatment of conditionals reveals them to have a wholly or
predominately ‘pragmatic’ nature).
2. 2. The alternative is Mill-inspired:An hypothetical proposition is not ... a mere aggregation of simple propositions. The
simple propositions which form part of the words in which it is couched, form no partof the assertion which it conveys. When we say, If the Koran comes from God,
Mahomet is the prophet of God, we do not intend to affirm either that the Koran does
come from God, or that Mahomet is really his prophet ... What is asserted is not thetruth of either of the propositions, but the inferribility of the one from the other. (Mill1891: 53).3
2. 3. Let us change Mill’s example to one of more recent vintage4:
If that match is struck it will light.5
On a Mill-Tarski-Rescher perspective, the antecedent provides the grounds for the assertionof the consequent. The consequent is ‘inferrible’ from the antecedent. But in this case (andmany others) the antecedent does not permit the consequent to follow in the absence of
certain other information. The unsupplemented ‘causal connections or kindred relationships’
are not, as some might say, formal implications. To the antecedent it is therefore necessary to
add some such further information as:(a) The match is well made;(b) The match is not defective in any way;(c) The match is dry;(d) The match has not already been struck;(e) There is enough oxygen present in the locality;(f) The match is struck with sufficient force;(g) The match is struck against a suitable surface;(h) There is not a fireman close by who is Pavlovianly disciplined to train his fire
extinguisher on the match striker at the merest suspicion of a potential flame;(i) (And there may be others.)
2. 4. Let us consider another example:
If there is a copy of Formal Philosophy on the coffee table then there was at least one
large Doberman with an expensive collar in Victoria Station (London) yesterday.

−76−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

This does not look like the sort of conditional that can easily be ‘retrieved’. But now supposethat either (i) it is true that, or (ii) you also know that, or (iii) you also believe that:(a) A friend said that she might be coming to Brighton;(b) If she came, she would return my copy of Richard Montague’s Formal
Philosophy;(c) If I was not in, she would leave the book on my coffee table;(d) She would certainly come by train, because she is environmentally aware;(e) She would take the train from Victoria, because the fast ones only take 47 minutes;(f) She would certainly bring her dog, for she never travels without him (and, anyway,
he likes to splash in the sea);(g) She likes to ‘bling up’ her pets;(h) (And there may be others.)
Now this example is looking much more plausible (and it is, of course, only a technical andnot a conceptual problem that conditionals can appear among the supplementary information).
Rescher (2007) argues, plausibly, that it is only something as weak as epistemic plausibility
that it is required, rather than the stronger notions of causal or logical necessity, to ‘bind’ theantecedent of a conditional, together with supplementary supporting evidence, to theconsequent.
2. 5. The story so far.
(1) The natural and intuitive hallmark of conditionals is not the truth value of theirantecedents and consequents but the ‘inferribility’ of the consequent from theantecedent;(2) The analysis of ‘inferribility’ requires(a) the introduction of unarticulated premises6 and(b) the design of more liberal consequence relations;7(3) A conditional is therefore an enthymematic argument.
2. 5. 1. It is necessary to say something additional about (2)(a). This is the ‘editing problem’.
It has to do with the number and nature of the unarticulated premises. We can illustrate theissue with reference to the following minimal pair (from Quine, 1974: 21):
If Bizet and Verdi had been compatriots, Bizet would have been Italian.
If Bizet and Verdi had been compatriots, Verdi would have been French.
The differences between these two conditionals result from different kindred relationships,
sourced from different epistemic contexts, being posited between the antecedents (nowpremises) and the consequents (now conclusions). This is a relatively easy demonstration, and
it is left as an exercise to the imaginative reader.8−77−Conditionals are pragmatic

3. So, the conclusions that might be drawn from the above considerations are as follows:
1. Neither indicative nor counterfactual conditionals are propositions. They do notcorrespond to the world. Nor do they reveal anything about its structure. They are nota part of ‘pure logic’;
2. Indicative and counterfactual conditionals are, instead, enthymematic arguments. They
solicit and relay upon information, or, better, kindred relationships between beliefs, toincrease inferential plausibility;
3. Epistemic logics may be social logics. The occasions for the use of indicative andcounterfactual conditionals are imbued with presupposed contextual beliefs which
relate to, and may indeed constitute, a workable common ground between speakers
and their audiences;
4. Epistemic logics are soft edged and allow for the possibility that common grounds andcontextual agreement may not always be reached. The ground may remain unstatedfor reasons of brevity, or underspecified for reasons of ignorance. In seeking, andfinding, further degrees of specification, speakers and their audiences are effectively
manufacturing, and advancing in, knowledge;
5. The specification of a ground embroiders the possibility that there are multiple kindred
epistemic relationships with which speakers and their audiences can become
increasingly acquainted. The ‘logic’ of this part of ordinary speech provides the means
for speakers and their audiences to manage their belief configurations.
6. There is more than a family resemblance here with the inferentialist’s game of giving
and asking for reasons:... it turn[s] out to be a fruitful strategy ... to treat ... conditionals ... as making explicit(expressing in the form of a claim) what is implicit in the endorsement of theinferences. Part of the payoff from considering things this way around is anunderstanding of the expressive role played by conditionals; they can be understood asmaking inferential commitments propositionally explicit (= assertible). What makesthat approach possible is an account of proprieties of inference as deontic social
statuses instituted by scorekeeping attitudes, so that commitment to a material
propriety of inference can be understood in terms of what it is to take or treat aninference as correct in keeping score by attributing and acknowledging assertional
commitments. (Brandom 1994: 247-248).
1.-6. provide some grounds for believing that, on the matter of the analysis of conditionals,
Mill trumps Frege.
Notes.
1

Stalnaker seems to have been the first to pursue this line of reasoning when he says ‘the problem is to make thetransition from belief conditions to truth conditions ... The concept of a possible world is just what we need to−78−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

make this transition, since a possible world is the ontological analogue of a stock of hypothetical beliefs’(1968/1981: 44-45). He does not explain, though, why it is a problem to move away from belief conditions andto truth conditions. That is, he does not explain why we cannot just stick with beliefs or belief conditions. Thatbeliefs need not be excised from the analysis is underscored by Sahlin (who also implicates an adherence to Reinflected Modified Occam’s Razor): ‘In the analysis of conditionals ... the agent’s state of belief is crucial. This
down-to-earth theory is in sharp contrast to the semantic “dream children” of the 1960s and 1970s. There is noneed for possible worlds strategically placed at a suitable distance from each other in a universe for the analysis
of conditionals.’ (1990: 121).
2‘R’ and ‘In’ might eventually yield to a satisfactory definition (although the current definition of ‘R’ introduces
several other primitives for which adequate definitions seem remote (and, one might add, what it means for a
proposition to be ‘in’ an event is mysterious to me) – see Turner (2002) and (2003) for details. ‘e’, on the other
hand, especially suffers from spectacular theoretical difficulties. See Bennett (1988) and Higginbotham, Pianesi
and Varsi (2000) amongst many other references.
3
The Millian intuition is repeated at several points since: For example, ‘in ordinary language, we tend to join
two sentences by the words ‘if ..., then ...’ only when there is some connection between their forms and contents.
This connection is hard to characterize in a general way, and only sometimes is its nature relatively clear’ (Tarski,
1941; 24). Quine is perfectly satisfied with the material analysis for indicative conditionals, but for
counterfactuals he is more circumspect: ‘Any adequate analysis of the contrafactual conditional must go beyond
mere truth values and consider causal connections, or kindred relationships, between matters spoken of in theantecedent of the conditional and matters spoken of in the consequent’ (1974: 21). Rescher (e. g. 1964, 1976,
2007) has for a long time sought to explore the analysis of this intuition.
4
Morton (1973). Similar sorts of examples can be found in much of the literature of around this time.
5
There deserves to be some observations made about this, and kindred, examples to preserve us from any
Fregean temptation. The first observation is that, although the clause ‘that match is struck’ may be assignable atruth value (probability, etc.) in isolation, that clause cannot have a truth value when it appears after the word ‘if’.
One of the functions of ‘if’ (a perfectly natural intuition) is to remove what follows after it from fact stating
discourse. This is a perfectly natural consequence of Grice’s maxim of quantity: If the speaker knows that theclause is true, the speaker should not use the weaker hypothetical with ‘if’ but the conjunction with ‘and’. The
second observation is that it is unclear that the future-oriented clause ‘it will light’ can be true at the time ofutterance. Therefore, as a consequence of these observations, both the antecedent and consequent of this, andkindred, conditionals are truthvalueless.
6
There is an obvious relationship here between unarticulated premises and unarticulated constituents. For arepresentative range of arguments for and against, see especially Neale (2007).
7
Note that I wish to exclude from these more liberal consequence relations all relations of a probabilistic nature.
Epistemic plausibility is the most suitable relation, for reasons that I have touched on elsewhere (Turner 2009)
and which I will develop in future work. The position sketched in this paper is therefore very far from thatsketched in Adams (1983) not least because it is far from clear whether Adams embraces subjective or objective
probability.
8
A similar minimal pair, again from the archives is: If Ceasar had fought in Korea, he would have used thecatapult, vs. If Ceasar had fought in Korea, he would have used nuclear weapons. The derivation of theconsequent depends upon the perspective, informed by the nature and number of the unarticulated premises
assumed, of the speaker.

References.
Adams, E. W. 1975. The Logic of Conditionals: An Application of Probability to Deductive
Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
Adams, E. W. 1983. “Probabilistic enthymemes.” Journal of Pragmatics 7: 283-295.
Bennett, J. 1988. Events and their Names. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Brandom, R. B. 1994. Making it Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive
Commitment. London: Harvard University Press.

−79−Conditionals are pragmaticFrege, G. 1977. Logical Investigations. (Edited with a Preface by P. T. Geach. Translated by
P. T. Geach and R. H. Stoothoff.) Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Higginbotham, J., F. Pianesi and A. C. Varzi, (eds). 2000. Speaking of Events. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mill, J. S. 1891. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of
the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. People’s Edition.
London: Longmans, Green and Co.
Morton, A. 1973. “If I were a dry well-made match.” Dialogue 12: 322-324.
Neale, S. 2007. “On location.” In M. O’Rourke and C. Washington, (eds.) Situating
Semantics: Essays on the Philosophy of John Perry. 251-393. London: MIT Press.
Quine, W. V. 1974. Methods of Logic. 3rd Edition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rescher, N. 1964. Hypothetical Reasoning. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Rescher, N. 1976. Plausible Reasoning: An Introduction to the Theory and Practive ofPlausibilistic Inference. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
Rescher, N. 1996. “Counterfactuals in pragmatic perspective.” The Review of Metaphysics 50:
35-61.
Rescher, N. 2007. Conditionals. London: MIT Press.
Sahlin, N-E. 1990. The Philosophy of F. P. Ramsey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stalnaker, R. 1968/1981. “A theory of conditionals.” In W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker and G.
Pearce, (eds.) Ifs: Conditionals, Belief, Decision, Chance and Time. 41-55. Dordrecht:
Reidel Publishing Company.
Tarski, A. 1941. Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of Deductive Sciences. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Turner, K. 2002. “Review of William Lycan (2001) Real Conditionals. Clarendon Press.”
Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1883-1890.
Turner, K. 2003. “On neo- (and post-) Gricean conditionals.” International Journal of
Pragmatics 14, 135-154.
Turner, K. 2006. “Probability logic and conversation.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 38, 101136.
Turner, K. 2009. “Principia Pragmatica: An ordinary language tale of ordinary language
conditionals.” In B. Fraser and K. Turner, (eds.) Language in Life, and a Life in Language:
Jacob Mey – A Festschrift. 405-413. Bingley: Emerald.

−80−第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ἰἋἳἙỵỴỉᅹ‫ܖ‬ἙỵἋἅὊἋỆấẬỦૠỉ΁ẨᴾḘտ໺὾ᅠ໺ửỜẫỦᅹ‫ܖ‬ႎჷᜤỉˡᢋửɶ࣎ỆḘᴾ
Јӝဌ፦ᴾ᧙ᙱ‫ܖٻܖٻ‬ᨈҦٟᛢᆉࢸ஖ᛢᆉᴾ

ᾋAbstractᾍ
This study focuses on function of numbers in scientific discourse, in particular
articles about smoking. Paying special attention to an aspect in which numbers visualize
something physically invisible (e.g. scientific research process) and something basicallyinvisible (e.g. dangers), this paper compares the structure of numerical roles with that ofconceptual metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Lakoff & Núñez, 1997, 1998, 2000). By doing so,
it is clarified that linguistically-expressed evaluation of numbers and numerical literacy
involve the visualizing function of numbers.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ⛉Ꮫⓗ▱㆑, ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ, ᩘ, ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮, ホ౯ᵏᵌ ỊẳỜỆᴾ⛉Ꮫⓗ࡞ᩘ್࡜ࡣ, ⛉Ꮫⓗ࡞▱㆑ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ㸦௨ୗ, ⛉Ꮫࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ከᵝ࡟ぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿ. ⛉ᏛဴᏛ⪅ࡢࣄ࣮ࣗࢫࢺࣥ㸦1976㸧ࡣ, ᩘࢆࠕ⛉Ꮫࡢゝㄒࠖ࡜ࡋ, ࠕ☜⋡᪉⛬ᘧ࡞࡝, 㔞ⓗ࡟⾲⌧࡛ࡁࡿ▱㆑ࡀከࡅࢀࡤከ࠸࡯࡝ࡼࡾ⛉Ꮫⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿ. ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ, ⛉Ꮫࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢ୰࡛ࡶ⛉Ꮫ⪅㛫࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀࡓᑓ㛛ⓗ࡞▱㆑ࢆ୍⯡ே࡟ྥࡅ࡚ᬑཬࡍࡿ, ࣐ࢫ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢ⛉Ꮫࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟╔┠ࡋ, ࡑࡢ୰ࡢࠕᩘࠖࡢാࡁ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡿ.
ᩘࡢㄆ㆑࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗ࡞ぢᆅ࠿ࡽྲྀࡾ⤌ࢇࡔ◊✲࡟, Lakoff & Núñez㸦1997, 1998, 2000㸧,
Núñez㸦2000㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿ. Lakoff & Núñez ࡣ 20 ୡ⣖ࡲ࡛ࡢࣇ࣮ࣞࢤࡸࣛࢵࢭࣝ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᩘ⌮ဴᏛ⪅ࡽࡀ, ᩘᏛⓗ࡞య⣔ࢆ⣧⢋࡟ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡛, ㉸㉺ㄽⓗ࡛࠶ࡾ, ୙ኚ࡛࠶ࡿ, ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡟ே㛫ࡢ⢭⚄࠿ࡽ⊂❧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࠕே㛫ࡢ⢭⚄࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀࡓᩘᏛ㸦mind-free mathematics㸧ࠖ࡜ࡋࡓୖ࡛, ࠕே㛫ࡢ⢭⚄࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᩘᏛ㸦mind-based mathematics㸧
ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞◊✲ࡢࣇ࢕࣮ࣝࢻࢆ
ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓ. ࡑࢀࡣ, ᩘᏛⓗయ⣔ࡀே㛫ࡢ⢭⚄࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㌟య࡟ࡼࡾࡑࡗࡓ⏕άయ㦂࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࢆᇶ♏࡟⨨ࡃ. ࡉࡽ࡟, Lakoff & Núñez ࡣࡇࡢ㡿ᇦࢆ“Mathematical idea analysis ”㸦௨ୗ,
MIA㸧࡜⛠ࡋ, ࡇࢀࢆࠕᩘᏛࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᢏ⾡ⓗ࡞ほᛕࡢ↓ព㆑ⓗ࡞ᴫᛕ໬࡟ࡣ, ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪥
ᖖᴫᛕࡸㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࡢ࠿ࢆၥ࠺Ꮫၥ㸦Lakoff & Núñez, 2000, p. 28㸧
ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ.1 ᙼࡽࡢㄽ⪃࡛ࡣ, ࡑࡢ⌮ㄽⓗ࡞ᇶ┙ࡀศ㔝ᶓ᩿ⓗ࡞ே㛫ࡢ⢭⚄ࢆࡵࡄࡿ⛉Ꮫ◊✲࡟࠶ࡿ. ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⛉Ꮫ◊✲ࡢ୰࡛ࡶ, ᩘᏛ࡜㛵㐃ࡢ῝࠸ᴫᛕ࡜ࡋ࡚ Núñez㸦2000㸧ࡀᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡢࡣḟࡢ 3 Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿ.

−81−

マスメディアの科学ディスコースにおける数の働き─喫煙／禁煙をめぐる科学的知識の伝達を中心に─ձ⢭⚄ࡢ㌟య໬㸦The embodiment of mind㸧㸸㌟యࡸ⬻ࡢᛶ㉁ࡣ, ே㛫࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡸே㛫ࡢ⌮ᛶࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ, ᩘᏛ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆࡶᵓ㐀໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ.

ղㄆ▱ⓗ↓ព㆑㸦The cognitive unconscious㸧㸸ㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ኱㒊ศࡣ↓ព㆑ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ, ࡇࡇ࡛ࡢࠕ↓ព㆑ࠖ࡜ࡣࣇࣟ࢖ࢺࡢព࿡࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾ, ༢࡟ព㆑࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ឤᚓࡋࡀࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡟࠾࠸࡚࡛࠶ࡿ. ࢃࡓࡋࡓࡕࡣᴫ
ᛕయ⣔ࡸୗ఩ࡢㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ┤᥋┠࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸. ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ, ᩘᏛⓗᛮ⪃ࡢ኱㒊ศ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶ
ྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿ.

ճ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗᛮ⪃㸦Metaphorical thought㸧㸸ே㛫ࡣ, ᫂☜࡞᥎ㄽᵓ㐀ࡸឤぬࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ᥎ㄽࡢ࣮ࣔࢻࢆ
ാ࠿ࡏ࡞ࡀࡽ, ලయⓗ࡞⏝ㄒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ᴫᛕࢆᴫᛕ໬ࡍࡿ. ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡣᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓
࣮࡜ࡼࡤࢀࡿ. ᩘᏛⓗᛮ⪃ࡣᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࢆ, ࠕᩘࡣ⥺ୖࡢⅬࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚, ࡑࡋ࡚ࠕ✵㛫ࡣⅬ㞟ྜࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᴫ
ᛕ໬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞௙᪉࡛ά⏝ࡍࡿ.
㸦Núñez, 2000, p.6, ➹⪅ヂ㸧ᮏㄽᩥࡣୖグࡢㄽ⪅ࡽࡀᥦ♧ࡍࡿ MIA ࡢほⅬ࡟❧⬮ࡍࡿ. ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ⛉Ꮫࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ᩘࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗᛮ⪃࡜ᐦ᥋࡟㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓᚋ࡟, ᩘ⊂⮬ࡢᶵ⬟࡜ࡑࡢ࣓࢝
ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿ.
ᵐᵌ Ўௌỉ‫ݣ‬ᝋᴾศᯒࡢᑐ㇟ࡣ, ࣐ࢫ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢ⛉Ꮫࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢ୰࡛ࡶ, ᩘ್ࢆకࡗ࡚ႚ↮㸭⚗↮ࡢேయ࡬ࡢᙳ㡪ࡀグ㏙ࡉࢀࡿ᪂⪺グ஦࡜ࡍࡿ.2 ලయⓗ࡟ࡣ, 2000 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 2009 ᖺࡢ㛫࡟Ⓨ⾜ࡉࢀࡓ᪂⪺グ஦ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ, ඲ᅜ⣬࡛Ⓨ⾜㒊ᩘ࣭ୖ఩ 3 ⣬ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫ㸦࣑ࠗࣚࢲࢫ࠘
㸦ㄞ኎᪂⪺㸧, ࠗ⪺ⶶϩࣅࢪࣗ࢔ࣝ࠘㸦ᮅ᪥᪂⪺㸧, ࠗẖ᪥ New ࣃࢵࢡ࠘㸦ẖ᪥᪂⪺㸧㸧࠿ࡽ᥇㞟ࡋࡓグ஦ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ. ⾲ 1ࡣࡇࢀࡽ 3 ⣬ࡢ୰࡛, ႚ↮㸭⚗↮ࡢேయ࡬ࡢᙳ㡪ࡀㄒࡽࢀࡿグ஦ࡢ඲యᩘ࡜, ࡑࡢ୰࡛ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ
ᩘ್࡜࡜ࡶ࡟⛉Ꮫⓗ࡞▱㆑ࡢఏ㐩ࡀ⾜࡞ࢃࢀࡿグ஦ᩘࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ.
⾲1඲య ࡇࢀࢆࡳࡿ࡜, ྛ⣬࡜ࡶࡑࡢ๭ྜࡣ࡯ࡰ
➼ࡋࡃ, ඲యࡢ࠺ࡕ⣙ 7 ๭ࡀᩘࢆ⏝࠸ࡓㄝ

ㄞ኎

ᮅ᪥

ẖ᪥

ྜィ

44㻌

39㻌

34㻌

117㻌

᫂࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿ. ศᯒ࡛ࡣ,ࡇࡢ 68㸣ࡢ୰࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿグ஦ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ.

ᩘ್ࡢฟ⌧

30㻌

27㻌

23㻌

80㻌

๭ྜ㸦㸣㸧

68%㻌

70%㻌

67%㻌

68%㻌㻌

ᵑᵌ Ўௌᴾᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ, 3 ࡘࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࡞࠺. ࡲࡎ, 3.1 ࡛ࡣ࣐ࢫ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢ⛉Ꮫࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟࠾ࡅ
ࡿᩘࡢ౑⏝࡜ࡑࡢᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࡋ᳨࡚ウࡍࡿ. ⥆ࡃ 3.2 ࡛ࡣ 3.1 ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼, MIA ࡟࠾࠸࡚
㔜せどࡉࢀࡿᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢᵓ㐀࡜ᩘࡢᶵ⬟ࢆࡵࡄࡿᵓ㐀࡜ࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛, ᩘ⊂⮬ࡢᶵ⬟࡜ࡑࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ᥈ࡿࡓࡵࡢࣄࣥࢺࢆ♧ࡍ. ᭱ᚋ࡟ 3.3 ࡛ࡣ, ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞஦౛ࢆᥦ
♧ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ, ࡑࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿ.

−82−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ᵑᵌᵏᵌᴾ ЎௌṞὼૠỉ̅ဇểẸỉೞᏡᴾ
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ, ศᯒࡢᡭጞࡵ࡜ࡋ࡚, ࣐ࢫ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢ⛉Ꮫࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩘࡢ౑⏝࡜ࡑࡢᶵ⬟࡟╔┠ࡍࡿ. ࡲࡎࡣグ஦ 1 ࢆཧ↷ࡋ, ࡇࡢ୍㐃ࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢ୰࡛ࡢᩘࡢ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ᪉ࢆ♧ࡍ. ࡑࡢᚋ, ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩘࡢ౑⏝ࡢᶵ⬟ⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ.
グ஦ 1ႚ↮⪅ ⢾ᒀ⑓ࡢ༴㝤㧗࠸ 㠀ႚ↮⪅࡜ẚ࡭ ⏨ᛶ 1 . 2 7 ಸ, ዪᛶ 1 . 3 9 ಸ㸦ࢱ࢖ࢺࣝ㸧
40 ṓ ௨ ୖ ࡢ ႚ ↮ ⪅ ࡣ , ⢾ ᒀ ⑓ ࡟ ࡞ ࡿ ༴ 㝤 ࡀ , ⏨ ᛶ ࡣ 1.27 ಸ , ዪ ᛶ ࡣ 1.39 ಸ , 㠀ႚ↮⪅ࡼࡾ㧗ࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࢆⲈᇛ┴⥲ྜ೺デ༠఍ࡢす㐃ᆅ฼ᕫ㸦ࡉ࠸ࢀࢇࡕ࡜ࡋࡳ㸧ࡉࢇࡽࡀ኱つᶍ㏣㊧ㄪᰝ࡛✺ࡁṆࡵ, ᑓ㛛ㄅࠕ⡿ᅜ␿Ꮫ㞧ㄅࠖ࡟Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓ.
1 9 9 3 ᖺ ࡟ , ྠ ༠ ఍ ࡢ ೺ デ ࢆ ཷ ࡅ ࡓ 4 0 ṓ ௨ ୖ ࡢ ⏨ ዪ㸦 1 2 8 , 1 4 1 ே 㸧ࢆ 2 0 0 2 ᖺ ࡲ ࡛ , ᖺ
1 ᅇ ࡢ ೺ デ ࡛ ㏣ ㊧ ࡋ ࡓ . ႚ ↮ ⪅ ࡣ , 㠀 ႚ ↮ ⪅ ࡟ ẚ ࡭ , 40̿ 59 ṓ ࡛ ⏨ ᛶ ࡀ 1.37 ಸ , ዪᛶ ࡀ 1.45 ಸ , 60̿ 79 ṓ ࡛ ⏨ ᛶ ࡀ 1.2 ಸ , ዪ ᛶ ࡛ ࡣ 1.34 ಸ ⢾ ᒀ ⑓ ࡟ ࡞ ࡾ ࡸ ࡍ ࠸ ࡇ ࡜ࡀ ࢃ ࠿ ࡗ ࡓ . 㸦 ㄞ ኎ ᪂ ⪺ , 2004.07.12㸧

ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ, ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞௙᪉࡛ᩘࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ.
ձᐇ㦂ᐇ᪋᫬ᮇ㸦1 9 9 3 ᖺ ࠿ ࡽ 2 0 0 2 ᖺ ࡲ ࡛ 㸧ղ⿕㦂⪅ࡢᖺ㱋㸦4 0 ṓ ௨ ୖ ࡢ ⏨ ዪ 㸧ճ⿕㦂⪅ᩘ㸦1 2 8 , 1 4 1 ே 㸧մㄪᰝ᪉ἲ㸦ᖺ 1 ᅇ 㸧յᐇ㦂⤖ᯝ㸦⏨ ᛶ ࡀ 1 . 3 7 ಸ , ዪ ᛶ ࡀ 1 . 4 5 ಸ ࣭ ⏨ ᛶ ࡀ 1 . 2 ಸ , ዪ ᛶ ࡛ ࡣ 1 . 3 4 ಸ 㸧

グ஦ 1 ࡢሙྜ࡟ᩘ࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜, ⛉Ꮫ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ◊✲ࡢ᪉ἲࡀձ㹼մࡢࡼ࠺࡞௙᪉࡛♧ࡉࢀ, ࡑࡢ◊✲⤖ᯝࡀյࡢࡼ࠺࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ. ࡘࡲࡾ, ᩘ࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ, ⛉Ꮫ◊✲ࡢ᪉ἲ࡜ࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿ.
⥆࠸࡚, ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩘࢆ⏝࠸ࡓグ㏙ࡢᶵ⬟ⓗ࡞ഃ㠃࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋࡓ࠸. ௨ୖ࡟ᣲࡆࡓ
㢮ࡢᩘࢆ⏝࠸ࡓグ㏙࡟ࡼࡾ, ⛉Ꮫ⪅ࡢ◊✲㐣⛬ࡸࡑࡇ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓ⤖ᯝ, ႚ↮ࡢ༴㝤ᛶ࡞࡝, ཷࡅᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣᐇ㝿࡟┠࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸㸭ࡑࡶࡑࡶ┠࡟ぢ࠼࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡀྍど໬ࡉࢀࡿ. ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྍど໬ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟㛵ࡋ, Lynch㸦1990㸧ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄽࡎࡿ. ࡘࡲࡾ,ࡑࡶࡑࡶ⛉Ꮫ⪅࡜ࡣࠕ୙☜࠿࡛୙Ᏻᐃ࡞ሙ㸭ΰἁ࡜ࡋࡓ㡿ᇦࠖ࡜ࠕฟ∧≀➼࡟⌧ࢀࡿᅗᘧࡸ
༢⣧໬ࡉࢀࡓ⤖ᯝࠖ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟఩⨨ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ, ࡇࢀࡽ୧⪅ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣࠕᩘ್໬ࠖࡸࠕࢢࣛࣇ໬ࠖ
࡜࠸ࡗࡓ፹௓ⓗ᧯సࡀ㛵୚ࡍࡿ. ⤖ᯝ, ୙ྍどⓗ࡛ᮍศᯒࡢ஦㇟ࡀྍど໬ࡉࢀ, ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉ
ࢀ, ࡑࡋ࡚

ᐃࡉࢀ, ࢢࣛࣇ࡛ศᯒࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡟ኚࢃࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ. ࡇࡇ࠿ࡽ, ᩘࡣ୙ྍどⓗ࡞⌧㇟ࡸᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞㛵ಀࢆྍど໬࡟ᑟࡃ, ࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿ.
ࡉࡽ࡟ࡇࡇ࡛ᙉㄪࡍ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜࡜ࡋ࡚, ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᩘࡣ, ༴㝤ᛶ࡞࡝ࡢᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ᴫᛕࢆලయ

−83−

マスメディアの科学ディスコースにおける数の働き─喫煙／禁煙をめぐる科学的知識の伝達を中心に─໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ, ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀࡿᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ S 㡿ᇦ㸦Source
Domain㸧࡜ࡑࡢᶵ⬟㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ඹ㏻ᛶࢆࡶࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ. ࡑࡇ࡛ḟ⠇࡛ࡣ, ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮◊✲ࢆཧ↷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛, ᩘࡢᛶ㉁࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⌮ゎࢆ῝ࡵࡿ.
ᵑᵌᵐᵌᴾ ЎௌṟḘૠểἳἑἧỳὊᴾ
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ, ᩘࡀ୙ྍどⓗ࡞஦㇟ࡢྍど໬ࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࡸࡑࡢ㝿ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ,ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢᵓ㐀࡜࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ࠿ࢆ᥈ࡿ. ࡑࡇ࡛࠶ࡿ✀ࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ྍど໬ࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡿሙྜ࠿ࡽぢ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸. Lakoff & Núñez ࡀ MIA ࡢ୰࡛㔜Ⅼࢆ⨨ࡃ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗᛮ⪃ࡣ, Lakoff & Johnson㸦1980㸧ࢆࡑࡢᇶ♏࡟⨨ࡃ. Lakoff & Johnson ࡣ䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䜢, ே㛫䛜ୡ⏺䜢⌮ゎ䛩䜛㝿䛾ㄆ▱ᡭẁ䛸⪃䛘䜛. 䛭䛧䛶䛒䜛஦᯶䠄ே㛫䛻䛸䛳䛶┤᥋⤒㦂䛷䛝䛺䛔䛣䛸䜔, ᢳ㇟ⓗ䛺䛣䛸䠅䜢௚䛾஦᯶䠄ே㛫䛻䛸䛳䛶㌟యⓗ䛻┤᥋⤒㦂䛷䛝, ලయⓗ䛺䛣䛸䠅
䜢㏻䛧䛶⌮ゎ䛧, ⤒㦂䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ᮏ㉁䛸䛩䜛. 䛯䛸䛘䜀, You’re wasting my time.䠄䛒䛺䛯䛿䜟䛯䛧䛾᫬㛫䜢ᾉ㈝䛧䛶䛔䜛䠅䛸䛔䛖䛸䛝䛻䛿, 䛚㔠䛜䛻䛺䛖✀䚻䛾ᛶ㉁䜢㏻䛧䛶᫬㛫䜢⌮ゎ䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖ㄆ▱䝥䝻䝉䝇䛜䛒䜚, 䛂䛚㔠䛃䛸䛔䛖䜘䜚ලయⓗ䛺ᴫᛕ䜢㏻䛧䛶䛂᫬㛫䛃䜢⌮ゎ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛾䛷䛒䜛.
䛴䜎䜚䜟䛯䛧䛯䛱䛿᫬㛫䜢䛚㔠䛾䛤䛸䛟౑䛳䛯䜚, ᾉ㈝䛧䛯䜚, 㓄ศ䛧䛯䜚, ⠇⣙䛧䛯䜚䛷䛝䜛䜒䛾䛸䛧䛶⌮ゎ䛧, ⤒㦂䛩䜛.
ࡑࡢ㝿ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋ࡚࠾ࡃ࡜, ᅗ 1 ࡟ぢࡿࡼ࠺࡟, T 㡿ᇦ㸦Target domain㸧࡟ᒓࡍࡿ᫬㛫ࢆࡼࡾලయⓗ࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟, ᫬㛫ࢆ S 㡿ᇦ㸦Source domain㸧࡟ᒓࡍࡿ࠾㔠࡟ぢࡓ࡚, ࠾㔠ࡢࡶࡘලయⓗ࡞ᒓᛶ, ᶵ⬟, ᵓ㐀࡞࡝ࢆ㏻ࡋࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᫬㛫ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ, ࡜࠸࠺ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ. ࡑࡢ㝿, ୧㡿ᇦ㛫࡟ࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢ㢮ఝᛶࡸ㛵ಀᛶࡀᏑᅾࡋࡓࡾ, ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞㢮ఝᛶ࡞ࡾ㛵ಀᛶࡀ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᵓᡂࡉࢀࡓࡾࡍࡿ.

T 㡿ᇦ

S 㡿ᇦ

㹙᫬㛫㹛

㹙࠾㔠㹛

T 㡿ᇦ

S 㡿ᇦ

㹙㸳ಸ㹛

㹙⒴ࡢ༴㝤ᛶ㹛㢮ఝᛶ㸽‫׋‬ᾀᴾ ἳἑἧỳὊỉನᡯᴾ‫׋‬ᾁᴾ ૠỉನᡯᴾ

 ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ, ௨ୖࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡣ, ᩘࡢྍど໬ࡢᵓ㐀࡜ࡣ᏶඲࡟ࡣྜ⮴ࡋ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺
࡟⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ. ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶ, ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠕ⒴࡟࡞ࡿ༴㝤ᛶࡀ 5 ಸࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡟, ᩘࡢ౑⏝ࢆ㏻ࡋ
࡚⒴ࡢ༴㝤ᛶࡀ㢧ᅾ໬ࡉࢀࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣ, ᅗ 2 ࡟⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟, ୧㡿ᇦ㛫࡟࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢሙྜ

−84−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞㢮ఝᛶࡸ㛵ಀᛶࡣぢᙜࡓࡽ࡞࠸. ࡘࡲࡾ, ᩘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚஦㇟ࡀྍど໬ࡉࢀࡿሙྜ
ࡣ, ࠕᩘ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࠖ࡜ࠕࡑࡢᩘࠖ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࡑࢀࡽࡀ⤖ࡧࡘࡃㄆ▱ⓗ࡞᰿ᣐ࡞ࡿࡶࡢࡀᏑᅾ
ࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ. ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ, ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ᩘࡣ, ୙ྍどⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀྍど໬ࡉࢀࡿ, ࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣඹ㏻ᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡢ, ࡑࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣྜ⮴ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿ.
ࡑࡇ࡛, ḟ⠇࡛ࡣ, ᅗ 2 ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠕ㸽ࠖࡢ㒊ศ, ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕᩘࡀ୙ྍどⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࢆྍど໬࡟ᑟࡃ㝿ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿ.
ᵑᵌᵑᵌ ЎௌṠὼૠểᚸ̖ᴾ
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ, ᩘࡀ༴㝤ᛶ࡞࡝ࡢ୙ྍどⓗ࡞⌧㇟ࢆྍど໬ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟㛵ࡋ᳨࡚ウࡍࡿ. ࡑࡶࡑࡶ, ࢃࡓࡋࡓࡕࡣᩘ್ࢆࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞௙᪉࡛ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ. ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ, ࢃࡓࡋࡓࡕࡀ᪥ᖖⓗ࡟㛵ࢃࡾࢆࡶࡘᩘ್㸦㝆Ỉ☜⋡ࡸࡶࡢࡢ್ẁ, ࡉࡽ࡟ࡣ༴㝤ᗘ࡞࡝㸧ࡣ, ࠕ㧗࠸яప࠸ࠖࡸࠕ኱ࡁ࠸яᑠࡉ࠸ࠖ, ࠕከ࠸яᑡ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ௙᪉࡛ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ. ࡉࡽ࡟, ༴㝤ᗘࡢᩥ⬦࡛࠸࠼ࡤ, ᙜヱࡢᩘ್ࢆࠕ㧗࠸ࠖ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ, ࡑࡢᩘ್ࢆࠕ࣐࢖ࢼࢫࠖ
㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ, ᝏ࠸㸧ࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡾ࠺ࡿ. ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᙜヱࡢ༴㝤ᗘࢆࠕప࠸ࠖ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ, ࡑࡢᩘ್ࢆࠕࣉࣛࢫࠖ
㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ, Ⰻ࠸㸧ࡢࡶࡢ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ. 3 ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣ, ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᩘ್
㸬㸬ࡢㄆ㆑ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆホ౯࡜ࡼࡧ, ࡇࡢホ౯࡜࠸࠺ㄆ▱ⓗ, ゝㄒⓗ, ࡉࡽ࡟ࡣ♫఍ⓗ࡞Ⴀࡳࡀ, ᩘࡢྍど໬࡟㝿ࡋ࡚୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡿ.
 ࡲࡎࡣ, ゝㄒⓗ࡞ホ౯࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᩘࡀྍど໬࡟ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ஦౛࠿ࡽぢࡿ.
グ஦ 2ႚ↮᪩ࡅࢀࡤ, ᪩ᮇ࡟⫵ࡀࢇ ᮍ⇍࡞⣽⬊࡟኱ࡁ࡞ᙳ㡪㸦ࢱ࢖ࢺࣝ㸧
20 ṓᮍ‶࡛ႚ↮ࡋࡓᝈ⪅ࡣ, ࡓࡤࡇࢆ྾ࢃ࡞࠸ேࡼࡾⓎ⑕ࡍࡿ༴㝤ᗘࡀ 5.87 ಸ࡜࡞ࡾ, 20 ṓࡢ 5.34 ಸ, 21 ṓ௨ୖࡢ 3.85 ಸࢆ኱ࡁࡃୖᅇࡗࡓ. 㸦ㄞ኎, 2002.09.08.㸧

ࡇࢀࡣ, ࢱ࢖ࢺࣝ࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟, ႚ↮ࡢ㛤ጞ᫬ᮇࡀ᪩ࡅࢀࡤ᪩࠸࡯࡝᪩ᮇ࡟⫵ࡀࢇࢆᝈ࠺, ࡜࠸ࡗࡓෆᐜࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿグ஦࡛࠶ࡿ. ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ, ࠕ5.87ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩘࡀࠕ5.34ࠖ࡜ࠕ3.85ࠖ࡟
ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕ኱ࡁࡃୖᅇࡿࠖ࡜ホ౯௜ࡅࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ, ࡇࡢグ஦ࡢࢱ࢖ࢺࣝ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ୺ᙇ
ࡀᙉ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟, ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿᩘࡢᢸ࠺ព⩏ࡀỴᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ. ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟ຍ࠼࡚, ࠕ㧗࠸ࠖ࡜ホ౯ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡀࠕ༴㝤ᗘ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚, ࠕ5.87ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩘ್
࡟ࡣ, ࣐࢖ࢼࢫࡢホ౯ࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀࡿ. ⥆ࡃグ஦ 3, 4 ࡶ, ᩘ್࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ゝㄒⓗ࡞ホ౯ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ஦
౛࡛࠶ࡿ.
グ஦ 3
᪥ᮏேዪᛶࡀᚰ➽᱾ሰ㸦ࡇ࠺ࡑࡃ㸧࡟࡞ࡿ༴㝤せᅉࡢࢺࢵࣉࡣႚ↮࡛, ࡓࡤࡇࢆ྾࠺ேࡣ྾ࢃ࡞࠸ேࡼࡾ 8 ಸࡶ༴㝤ᛶࡀቑࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ, ⇃ᮏ኱࡞࡝ࡢ◊✲ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ࡼࡿㄪᰝ࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓ. 㸦ᮅ᪥, 2007.01. 01.㸧−85−

マスメディアの科学ディスコースにおける数の働き─喫煙／禁煙をめぐる科学的知識の伝達を中心に─

グ஦ 4ࡓࡤࡇࢆ྾࠺⏨ᛶ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜, 0.043 ࣐࢖ࢡࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢࣉࣝࢺࢽ࣒࡛࢘⫵ࡀࢇࡀᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀࡿ༴㝤ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸
࠺. ᐇ࡟㠀ႚ↮⪅ࡢ 125 ಸࡢࣜࢫࢡ࡛࠶ࡿ. 㸦ẖ᪥, 2005.10.29㸧

グ஦ 3 ࡜ 4 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ, ᙉㄪࡢಀຓモࠕࡶࠖࢆక࠺ࠕࡶ༴㝤ᛶࡀቑࡍࠖࡸ, ࠕᐇ࡟ࠖ࡜ࡢ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡾ, ᩘࡢホ౯ࡀỴᐃ௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ. ࡉࡽ࡟௨ୖࡢホ౯࡟㛵ಀࡋ, グ஦ 3 ࡜ 4 ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ࠕ8 ಸࠖ
,ࠕ125
ಸࠖ࡜ࡣ, ゝㄒⓗ࡟ࠕ㧗࠸ࠖ࡞࡝࡜ࡢホ౯ࢆ୚࠼ࡎ࡜ࡶ, ୍⯡ேࡀ᪥ᖖ⤒㦂ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⋓ᚓࡋࡓᩘ࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ▱㆑࠿ࡽ, ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ホ౯ࢆᚓࡿ⛬ᗘࡢᩘ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ.
ࡘࡲࡾᩘࡀྍど໬ࡉࢀࡿ㝿࡟ࡣ, グ஦ 2 ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡞ᩘ࡟㛵ࡍࡿゝㄒⓗ࡞ホ౯ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿ୍᪉࡛, ࡑࡶࡑࡶᩘ್࡜ࡑࡢホ౯ࡀ⤖ྜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ. ࡇࡇ࡟ࡣᩘࢆ౑ࡗ࡚≀஦ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡾ, ㄽ⌮᧯సࡋࡓࡾࡋ, ୡ⏺ࡢ୰ࡢࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞஦≀࡜ᩘࡢ㛵ಀ, ≉ᐃ㡿ᇦ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᖹᆒ
್ࡸ೫ᕪ್࡞࡝࠿ࡽ, ಶูࡢᩘ್ࢆホ౯ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺, ࠕᩘࡢࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮ࠖ࡜ࡶ࿧࡭ࡿ⬟ຊࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ. ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ, ࠕ᫂᪥༗๓୰ࡢ㝆Ỉ☜⋡ࡣ 10㸣ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ10ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩘ
ࡣࠕప࠸ࠖࡸ, ࠕࣉࣟ㔝⌫ࡢ᪂ேᢞᡭࡀ 10 ຾ࡋࡓࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ10ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩘࡣࠕ㧗࠸ࠖ, ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟, ᩘࡣᙜヱࡢ㡿ᇦࡢ୰࡛ࡢయ⣔࡟ᛂࡌ࡚≉ᐃࡢព⩏ࢆᢸ࠺. ࡑࡋ࡚ࢃࡓࡋࡓࡕࡣ᪥ᖖࢆ㏻
ࡋ࡚, ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞㡿ᇦ࡛ࡢᩘࡢ࠶ࡾࡼ࠺࡜ࡑࢀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠕホ౯ࠖ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆᏛࡧ, ▱㆑࡜ࡋ࡚య⣔໬ࡋ࡚ࡺࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ. ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟, ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫୖ࡟ゝㄒⓗ࡞ホ౯ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡎ࡜ࡶ, グ஦ࡢཷࡅᡭࡀ᪤࡟ᩘ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࡘ▱㆑࠿ࡽホ౯ࢆ⮬ືⓗ࡟ᑟࡁฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡞஦౛ࢆ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍ.
グ஦ 5⡿ಖ೺⚟♴┬ࡣ 27 ᪥, ྠᅜࡢ㛫᥋ႚ↮ࡢ೺ᗣ⿕ᐖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿሗ࿌᭩ࢆⓎ⾲ࡋࡓ. 㹙୰␎㹛ሗ࿌᭩࡟ࡼࡿ࡜, ඲ேཱྀࡢ⣙ 4 ๭࡟࠶ࡓࡿ⣙㸯൨ 2600 ୓ேࡢ㠀ႚ↮⪅ࡀ㛫᥋ႚ↮ࢆᙉ࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ. 㸦ẖ᪥, 2006.06.29㸧

グ஦ 6⫵Ẽ⭘ࡣᝈ⪅ࡢ 9 ๭ࡀႚ↮⤒㦂⪅࡜࠸࠺“ࡓࡤࡇ⑓”ࡢ௦⾲ࡔ. 㸦ㄞ኎, 2005.05.27㸧

 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟, グ஦ 5 ࡜ 6 ࡛ࡣ, ᩘ࡟㛵ࡍࡿゝㄒⓗ࡞ホ౯ࡀ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ, ࠕ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ⥲ேཱྀࡢ࠺ࡕ
ࡢ㛫᥋ႚ↮⪅ᩘࠖࡸࠕ⫵Ẽ⭘ࡢᝈ⪅ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢႚ↮⤒㦂⪅ࡢ๭ྜࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ, ᩘࡢࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮࡟ࡼࡿホ౯ࢆᑟࡁฟࡍࡇ࡜࡛, ࠕ㧗࠸㸭኱ࡁ࠸㸭ከ࠸ࠖ࡜ࡢホ౯ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿ. ࡉࡽ࡟࠶ࡿ⛉Ꮫⓗ࡞ᩘ್ࡀ, ࡑࡢ௚ࡢ⛉Ꮫⓗ࡞ᩘ್ࢆࡶࡗ࡚ホ౯ࡉࢀࡿ஦౛ࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿ. ᮏㄽࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿႚ↮㸭⚗↮࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀ, ⌧௦ࡢ⛉Ꮫᢏ⾡ࢆࡵࡄࡿ㆟ㄽࡢ୰࡛㔜せ࡞఩⨨ࢆ༨ࡵࡿ࡜
⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿཎᏊຊⓎ㟁ᡤࡢ஦ᨾ࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ஦ࢆ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍ.
グ஦ 7ᅜ䛾ヨ⟬䛷䛿, ㉥Ᏹᮌ௜㏆䛷䠍ᖺ㛫䛾✚⟬䛜 235.4 䝭䝸䝅䞊䝧䝹䝖䛻䜒㐩䛩䜛. ୍⯡䛾ே䛾ᖺ㛫⿕䜀䛟㝈ᗘ䠄䠍䝭䝸䝅䞊䝧䝹䝖䠅䛾 200 ಸ䜢㉸䛘䜛. 䠄Ἑ໭᪂⪺, 2011.05.25䠅

−86−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

グ஦ 8
⚟ᓥࡢᩘ್ࡣẖ᫬ 1.9 ࣐࢖ࢡࣟࢩ࣮࣋ࣝࢺ࡜✺ฟࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ, ᖹᖖ᫬ࡢ 50 ಸ㏆࠸್࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ.
㸦᪥ᮏ⤒῭᪂⪺, 2011.05.11㸧

 ࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࡛ࡣ, ࠕ࡟ࡶ㐩ࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕ✺ฟࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟, ゝㄒⓗ࡞ᡭẁ࡛ᩘࡢホ౯ࡀㄏᑟࡉࢀࡿ. ࡑࢀ࡟ຍ࠼, ࠕ235.4 䝭䝸䝅䞊䝧䝹䝖䛃䛸䛔䛖ᩘ್䛜䛂䠄୍⯡ே䛾ᖺ㛫⿕䜀䛟㝈ᗘ䛾䠅200 ಸ䛃䛸䛔䛖䜘䛖䛻, ᩘ䛾䝸䝔䝷䝅䞊䛛䜙䛧䛶䛂㧗䛔䛃䛸䛾ホ౯ᛶ䜢ᢸ䛔䛖䜛ᩘ䛻䜘䛳䛶ホ౯䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜚, 䛂235.4
䝭䝸䝅䞊䝧䝹䝖䛃䛸䛔䛖ᩘ್䛾⌮ゎ䛜ᑟ䛛䜜䜛. グ஦ 8 䛻䛚䛔䛶䜒ྠᵝ䛷䛒䜛.
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ, ᩘࡀ୙ྍどⓗ࡞஦㇟ࢆྍど໬࡟ᑟࡃ㝿ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚, ࠕホ౯ࠖࡸࠕᩘࡢࣜࢸࣛ
ࢩ࣮ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ᳨ウࡋࡓ. ⤖ᯝ, ࡑࢀ⮬య࡜ࡋ࡚ホ౯ࢆࡶࡕ࠼࡞࠸ᩘࡀ≉ᐃࡢホ౯ᛶࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ, ୺࡟ 2 ࡘࡢᡭẁࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓ. ࡑࢀࡣ➨ 1 ࡟, ࠕᐇ࡟ࠖࠕ࡟ࡶ㐩ࡍࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࡢゝㄒⓗ࡞ホ౯࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ, ➨ 2 ࡟ࠕᩘࡢࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮ࠖࡀືဨࡉࢀ࡚ᩘ್ࡢホ౯ࡀㄏᑟࡉࢀࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿ. ࡉࡽ࡟, ཎⓎ஦ᨾࡢグ஦࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟, ୧⪅ࡀ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀ, ⿵࠸ྜ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ホ౯ࡀỴᐃࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ♧ࡋࡓ.
ᵒᵌ ộểỜᴾ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ, ࣐ࢫ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢ⛉Ꮫࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩘࡢᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࡋ, Lakoff & Núñez ࡀ MIA
ࡢ୰࡛㔜せどࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗᛮ⪃࡜㛵㐃௜ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡛, ࡑࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆゎ᫂ࡋࡓ. ⤖ᯝ, ᩘࡀ୙ྍどⓗ࡞஦㇟ࢆྍど໬ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡣ, ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢሙྜ࡜ḟࡢⅬ࡛␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂
ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓ. 䛩䛺䜟䛱, ᴫᛕ䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛷䛿, 3.2 䛾ᅗ 1 䛻♧䛧䛯䜘䛖䛻, T 㡿ᇦ࡟ᒓࡍࡿᴫᛕࢆ S 㡿ᇦ࡟ᒓࡍࡿᴫᛕ࡟ぢࡓ࡚࡚⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ, T 㡿ᇦࡢᴫᛕࡀලయ໬ࡉࢀࡿ. ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚, ᩘࡀ୙ྍどⓗ࡞஦㇟ࢆྍど໬ࡍࡿሙྜࡣ, ᩘࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ஦㇟ࢆ㢧ᅾ໬ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶ, ᩘࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚࡞ࡉࢀࡿㄆ▱ⓗ㸭ゝㄒⓗ࡞ホ౯ࡸ, ♫఍⏕άࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⋓ᚓࡉࢀࡿᩘࡢࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮ࢆືဨࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿホ౯࡟౫ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓ.

දᴾࡉࡽ࡟, ᩘࡢ⌮ゎ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡣ, ㄆ▱ᚰ⌮Ꮫࡢ㡿ᇦ࡛ Piaget ࡟ࡼࡿ 1952 ᖺࡢⴭస࡟➃ࢆⓎࡋ, ┒ࢇ࡟⾜࡞ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ. ࢃࡓࡋࡓࡕࡣ, ᪥ࠎࡢ⏕ά࡟࠾࠸࡚, ᫬㛫ࡸࡶࡢࡢ್ẁ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⏕ά࡜ᐦ᥋࡟㛵ࢃࡿ≀஦ࢆᩘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ, ᩘࡣே㛫ࡢㄆ㆑ࡢ㔜せ࡞ഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡾ, ᩘࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛,ேࡢㄆ㆑ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆゎ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࠸࡜࠸࠺ᮇᚅ㸦ྜྷ⏣, 1995㸧ࡀᐤࡏࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ.
2 ⌧௦♫఍࡟࠾࠸࡚⛉Ꮫᢏ⾡ࡣ」㞧໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ, ⛉Ꮫᢏ⾡ࡢ୙☜ᐇᛶࢆࡵࡄࡿ㆟ㄽࡣᚋࢆ⤯ࡓ࡞࠸
㸦Wolton, 1997㸧. ࡑࡢࡓࡵ, ཎⓎࡸ㟁☢Ἴ࡞࡝ࡢၥ㢟ࢆྵࡵᩘ್໬ࡀ࠿࡞ࡽࡎࡋࡶྍ⬟࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗ
ࡓࡾࡑࡢᩘ್ࡢホ౯࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡀศ࠿ࢀࡓࡾ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⌧㇟ࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣࡢ୰࡛ႚ↮ࡢ༴㝤ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ᪤࡟⛉Ꮫⓗ࡞☜ᐇᛶࢆ࠾࠾ࡴࡡ⋓ᚓࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝࡢᩘ್໬ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ, ࡇࢀࢆ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚㑅ᢥࡋࡓ.
3 ࠕホ౯ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄽࡣ, 㘠ᓥ㸦2007㸧ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡓ.
1−87−

マスメディアの科学ディスコースにおける数の働き─喫煙／禁煙をめぐる科学的知識の伝達を中心に─

Ӌༀ૨ྂᴾ
Huston, S. 1976. Forgotten Truth, The common vision of the world's Religions, HarperOne.
㹙ࣄ࣮ࣗࢫࢺ࣭ࣥࢫ࣑ࢫ. 2003.ࠗᛀࢀࡽࢀࡓ┿⌮࠘ᮾி㸸ᫍ㞼♫.㹛
Lakoff, G., & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & R. Núñez. 1997. The metaphorical structure of mathematics: Sketching out cognitive
foundations for a mind-based mathematics. In L. English (ed.), Mathematical Reasoning:
Analogies, Metaphors, and Images, 21-89. NJ: Erlbaum.
Lakoff, G., & R. Núñez. 1998. Conceptual metaphor in mathematics. In J. P. Koenig (ed.), Discourse andCognition: Bridging the Gap. Stanford, CA: CSLI / Cambridge.
Lakoff, G., & R. Núñez. 2000. Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings
Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books.
Lynch, M. 1990. The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual Documentation of
Objects in the Life Sciences, in M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (eds.), Representation in Scientific
Practice, 156-186. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁ. 2007. ࠕ㡿ᇦࢆࡘ࡞ࡄࡶࡢ㸦࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ౯್ⓗ㢮ఝᛶࠖᴋぢᏕ
⦅. ࣓ࠗࢱࣇ࢓࣮◊✲ࡢ᭱๓⥺࠘ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ, 179-201.
Núñez, R. 2000. Mathematical idea analysis: what embodied cognitive science can say about the humannature of mathematics. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (eds.), Proceedings of the Conferenceof the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1,
3-22. Hiroshima: Hiroshima University.
Piaget, J. 1952. The child’s conception of number. New York: Norton.
Wolton, D. 1997. Penser la communication. Paris : Flammarion.
ྜྷ⏣ ⏠࣭ከ㮵⚽⥅. 1995. ࠗㄆ▱ᚰ⌮Ꮫ࠿ࡽࡳࡓᩘࡢ⌮ゎ࠘໭኱㊰᭩ᡣ.

−88−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号Ⓨヰែᗘ࡟ࡼࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡ㐃⥆ᛶࡢࢫ࣮࣐࢟
̿ࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࢆᑐ㇟࡟̿
㐲ᒣ༓ె ❧࿨㤋኱Ꮫ <Abstract>
The analysis of topic continuity schema in Japanese discourse:
The case of copula structures
Tohyama, Chika (Ritsumeikan University)
This paper explores the schema of discourse development containing the copula
sentence as a discourse marker in the Japanese context. Interaction data, obtained fromJapanese comic books popular with Japanese learners, were analyzed in terms of the topic
continuity.

This resulted in the extraction of five copula sentence schema models of

discourse development. The presence or non-presence of copula(da/desu) and particles at theend of sentences were seen to make a difference among the five schema. It is important to beaware of the discourse schema of Japanese learners in order to predict how conversation
participants develop their interaction.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚㄯヰᶵ⬟ࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࠊ♫఍ⓗ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫࠊ᝟ពࠊㄯヰᶆ㆑㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
⮬ศࡢẕㄒ௨እࡢゝㄒࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࠊㄒᙡࡢព࿡ࡸᩥἲ▱㆑ࢆ⤌ࡳྜ
ࢃࡏ࡚Ⓨヰࡋ࡚ࡶࠊఱ࠿୙Ᏻࡀṧࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊㄒᙡࡢព࿡ࡸ
ᩥἲ▱㆑ࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡓ௨ୖࡢୡ⏺ࡀࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛫࡟⏕ࡲࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⮬ศࡀヰࡋᡭࡢሙྜࠊ┦ᡭࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ཷࡅṆࡵࡿ࠿ࠊࡲࡓ⮬ศࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢሙྜࠊᩥࡢព࿡ࡣࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚ࡶ┦ᡭࡀ⮬ศ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞཯ᛂࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࢀࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡣ㞴ࡋࡃឤࡌࡿࠋㄒᙡࡸᩥἲࡀṇࡋ࠸࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟Ⓨᒎࡍࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦ࡢ᭱ึࡢẁ㝵࠿ࡽ⩦ᚓࡍࡿ[N1 ࡣ N2
ࡔ]࡜࠸࠺ࢩࣥࣉࣝ࡞ᵓ㐀ࡢࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࢆ࡜ࡾ࠶ࡆࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ᩿ᐃࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᙉ࠸࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ
ᛶࢆࡶࡘᵓᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ୰࡛ㄯヰࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࡿ࠿ほᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲ ࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡢㄯヰᶵ⬟ຓモࠕࡣࠖࢆ౑ࡗࡓᵓᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ୕ୖ(2002)ࡣヰࡋᡭࡣࡑࡢ㢟┠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゎㄝࡢෆᐜࢆࠕ☜ಙࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ(2000)ࡣࠊࢥࣆࣗࣛࡢࠕࡔࠖࢆ୺యࡀุ᩿ࢆୗࡍⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢ୍✀࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࠊ
ࠕ☜ಙࡸᙉㄪࡢ㸺᝟ⓗែᗘ⾲᫂㸼ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍ(p.198)ࠖ
ࠊࡘࡲࡾ᩿ᐃࡢពᅗ
ࢆࠕࡣࡗࡁࡾ୺ᙇࡋࡓ࠸᫬౑࠺(p.199)ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ୕ᑿ(2003)࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖࡣุ᩿

−89−

発話態度によるトピック連続性のスキーマ─コピュラ文を対象に─ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᩥ୰࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊ᩿ᐃస⏝ࢆࡶࡘ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࡀ஦ᐇ࡟ྜ⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ௨ୗࡢ(1)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࠊᙧᐜモᩥࠊືモᩥࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᩥࢆẚ㍑
ࡍࡿࠋ Dࣟࣟ࢔ࣀ࣭ࢰࣟࡣࠕᾏ㈫⊁ࡾࡢࢰࣟࠖ࡜࠸࠺␗ྡࢆࡶࡘᜍࢁࡋ࠸ያࡔࠋ Dࡢࡳࠗ࣡ࣥࣆ࣮ࢫ࠘ࡼࡾ Eࣟࣟ࢔ࣀ࣭ࢰࣟࡣࠕᾏ㈫⊁ࡾࡢࢯࣟࠖ࡜࠸࠺␗ྡࢆࡶࡘ࡯࡝ᜍࢁࡋ࠸ࠋ
Fᜍࢁࡋ࠸ࣟࣟ࢔ࣀ࣭ࢰࣟࡣࠊࠕᾏ㈫⊁ࡾࡢࢰࣟࠖ࡜࠸࠺␗ྡࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(1)a ࡣᮏ◊✲࡛ᢅ࠺ࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࠊ(1)b ࡣᙧᐜモᩥࠊ(1)c ࡣືモᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡢᩥࡶࠊෆᐜⓗ࡟ࡣࠊࣟࣟ࢔ࣀ࣭ࢰࣟ࡜࠸࠺ே≀ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ᜍࢁࡋ࠸ே≀࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࠊᩥἲⓗ࡟ࡣຓモࠕࡣࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ㢟┠ࢆࡶࡘุ᩿ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊa㹼c ࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊa ࡀ᭱ࡶヰࡋᡭࡢ⤒㦂ⓗ࡞ᜍࢁࡋࡉࢆ୺ほⓗ࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡾࠊb ࡛ࡣᐈほⓗุ᩿࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࡀⰍ⃰ࡃ࡞ࡾࠊc ࡣ᭦࡟ᐈほᛶࢆቑࡋࠊ࡝ࡇ࠿௚ே஦ࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋෆᐜⓗ࡟ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼࡚ࡶࠊa ࡀヰࡋᡭࡢ᩿ᐃ
ࢆ⾲ࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊb ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢࡳࡢ⪃࠼࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡾࠊc ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࣟࣟ࢔ࣀ࣭ࢰࣟࡢᒓᛶ
ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࠋ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ୕ୖࠊ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻࠊ୕ᑿࢆᨭᣢࡋࠊࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡀᙉ࠸୺
ᙇ᩿ᐃᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ศࡢุ᩿ࢆ☜ᅛࡓࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚୺ᙇࡋࡓ࠸ሙྜࠊࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࢆࡑ
ࡢࡲࡲ౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᩥ⬦ࡸᑐே㛵ಀୖࠊ᩿ᐃ࡟⊰ணࢆྵពࡉࡏࡓ࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ሙ
ྜࡣࠊ୺ᙇࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ᢲࡋ௜ࡅ࡞࠸ゝㄒⓗ㓄៖ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ
࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠕ᝟ሗࠖ࡜ࠊ᝟ሗࢆఏ࠼ࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡢࠕ᝟ពࠖࡢ㸰ࡘࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡣⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊ᝟ሗఏ㐩ࡢ㠃࠿ࡽࡢศᯒ㸦୕ୖ 1972ࠊ◁ᕝ 2005 ࡞࡝㸧࡟ຍ࠼ࠊㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽⓗศᯒࡶᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻࡣࠕࡔࠖ࡟ࡣ㸰ࡘࡢస⏝ࡢ௙᪉ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ࿨㢟ࡢ᝟ሗ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᙉㄪࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡣࠊ᝟ሗఏ㐩ࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ୰ᚰ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ୺యࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᙉㄪࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡣࠊ᝟ព஺΅࡬ࡢᶵ⬟࡟㔜ࡁࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘ
ࡲࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ࣭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ஦ែㄆ▱ࡢ௙᪉࡟ࡼࡾࠊࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡢ᝟ሗ࡜᝟ព
ࡣᅗ̿ᆅࡢ㛵ಀࢆ࡜ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡣ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ⌧ሙ࡟༶ࡋᅗ㸯ࣝࣅࣥࡢ┃࡚ࠊࣝࣅࣥࡢ┃㸦ᅗ㸯㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᝟ሗࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀࡓࡾࠊ᝟ពࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉ

ࢀࡓࡾࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࣝࣅࣥࡢ┃ࡢ⤮࡛ࡣࠊ㯮࠸ࠕᆅࠖ࡟ⓑ࠸┃ࡢࠕᅗࠖࡀᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡗ࡚
ぢ࠼ࡿሙྜ࡜ࠊⓑ࠸ࠕᆅࠖ࡟ 2 ேࡢ㯮࠸㢦ࡀࠕᅗࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡗ࡚ぢ࠼ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕᅗࠖ࡜ࠕᆅࠖࡣᅛᐃⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ▱ぬࡍࡿ୺యࡢぢ᪉࡟ࡼࡿྍኚⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ᝟ሗ࡜᝟ពࡣࠊࡇࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ὾⏣(1999:22)ࡀࠕᅗࡣᅗࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ⮬❧ࡋ࡞࠸ࠖࡶ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕᆅࠖࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࠕᅗࠖࡀ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ᝟ሗ࡜᝟ពࡣࠊ
ࠕᅗࠖ࡜ࠕᆅࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟୺య࡟ࡼࡾぢ࠼᪉ࡀྍኚⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊ࠾஫࠸ࡀ௒ఱࢆ
ぢ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡑࡢࠕぢ࠼ࠖࢆඹ᭷ࡋࡘࡘࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⥆ࡅࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ᝟ሗ㠃࠿ࡽ࠸࠺࡜ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ㢟┠ᶆ♧ࡢࠕࡣࠖࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣヰࡋᡭࡀࠕఱ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖゎㄝࡍࡿࡢ࠿
ඹ᭷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ᝟ព࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ཷࡅṆࡵࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ヰࡋᡭ࡟཯−90−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿ࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࡝࠺ㄆ▱ࡋࠊ཯ᛂࡋ࡚┦஫⾜Ⅽࢆ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࡢ
ணྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᥈ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥ᪥ᮏㄒࡢⓎヰែᗘࡣᩥᮎ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ(1)a ࡟♧ࡋࡓᩥᮎࡢຓືモࠕࡔࠖࡣ᩿ᐃࢆ
⾲ࢃࡍࡀࠊࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡣ [N1 ࡣ N2 ࡔ]ࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᩥᮎ࡟⤊ຓモࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀࡓࡾࠊ㏫࡟ࠕࡔࠖ
ࡀ⬺ⴠࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡡࠖࡸࠕࡼࠖ࡞࡝⤊ຓモࡢศᯒࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡶࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡣࠕࡡࠖࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀ᝟ሗࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࠶࠸ࠊ
ࠕࡼࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᝟ሗࢆ୚࠼ࡿሙྜ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢㄝ᫂ࡣࠕࡼࠖ࡜ࠕࡡࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ᝟ሗࡢὶࢀࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋヰࡋᡭࡀࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤊ຓモࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟཯ᛂࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞཯ᛂࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒࡣ࠶ࡲࡾࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࡢ㸯ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄆ㆑ࡢ௙᪉ࡸ
཯ᛂࡣࠊ᫬࡜ሙྜࠊಶேࡢ஦᝟࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡾࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡛࠶ࡿୖࠊ୍้้࡜ኚ໬ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୍
ᴫ࡟ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡑࢀࡣヰࡋᡭࡣヰࡋࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࠊ
⪺ࡁᡭࡶࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ศࡢヰࡋࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡛཯ᛂࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᐇ㝿ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ┦ᡭࡢ཯ᛂࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆண

ࡋ࡚㸦ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ

ࡣ㸯㏻ࡾ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸㸧Ⓨヰࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰෆᐜࡢ᝟ሗ⌮ゎࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ┦ᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⮬ศ࡟ᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ཯ᛂࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊ཯ᛂࡢ௙᪉ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࠋヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙࢆᙧᡂࡋࡘࡘࠊࡑࡢᙺ๭ࢆ஺᭰ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ⥆ࡅࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ಀࡣࠕ♫఍ⓗ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫ㸦ᮏከ 2005㸧࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᮏከ(2005:56)
ࡣ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫࡢᐃ⩏ࢆࠕ⎔ቃࡢ୰ࡢࡶࡢࡀ▱ぬ⪅࡟ᥦ౪ࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡲࡓἙ㔝(2006)ࡣࠕᡃࠎࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾜ື࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾜ືࡍ࡭ࡁ࠿࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⎔ቃࡢ≉ᛶࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ⎔ቃࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍࡢࡀヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜⪃࠼ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐ
ࡋ࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟཯ᛂࢆ㉳ࡇࡋࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀㄯヰࡢᵓ⠏᪉ྥࠊࡘࡲࡾࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢ㐍ࡵ᪉࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿ほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡢⓎヰࡀᩥᮎ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞཯ᛂ㸦⾜Ⅽ㸧ࢆ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢻࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࢆほᐹࡋࡓࠋ ㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡ㐃⥆ᛶ ព࿡ࡸෆᐜ࡟ࡣ㛵ಀ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿᵓᩥᵓ㐀ࡀㄯヰࡢᒎ㛤ࢆ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢻࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺◊✲࡜
ࡋ࡚ࠊGivµn(1983b)ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ࢝ࢪࣗ࢔ࣝ࡞ヰࡋゝⴥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢ㐃⥆ᛶࢆศᯒࡋࠊྠࡌ
ே⛠௦ྡモ࡛ࡶࠊࢥ࣐ࣥ(,)ࡢᚋࡢ͆and / then / so / when / because͇࡞࡝ minor juncture ࡟⥆ࡃ࡜ࡁࡣࠊࢸ࣮࣐ࡀ㏵ษࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃ㐃⥆ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࣆࣜ࢜ࢻࡸ࣏࣮ࢬ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࣐࣮ࢡࡉࢀࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ major juncture ࡟⥆ࡃ࡜ࡁࡣࠊࡼࡾ኱ࡁ࡞ࣇ࣮ࣞࢬࡸᑐ↷ⓗ࡞஦㡯ࡀᑟධࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀከࡃࠊࢸ࣮࣐ࡣ㐃⥆ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᵓᩥࡀㄯヰࡢ୰࡛ᅛ᭷ࡢព࿡ࡸᶵ⬟ࢆ㉺࠼࡚࣐࣮࣮࢝࡜࡞ࡾࠊࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢ㐃⥆ᛶࠊࡘࡲࡾㄯヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶࢆ࠶ࡿ᪉ྥ࡟ᑟࡃࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ

−91−

発話態度によるトピック連続性のスキーマ─コピュラ文を対象に─࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ➨஧ゝㄒ࡛ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆࡍࡿሙྜࠊ㎡᭩ࡸᩥἲ᭩ࢆཧ↷ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ㍕ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣྛㄒ
ᙡࡸྛᩥἲࡢᅛ᭷ࡢព࿡ࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡛࠶ࡾࠊ┦ᡭ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾜Ⅽࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡣグ㏙ࡢ⠊␪࡜ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᐇ㝿࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀゝㄒ౑⏝࡟࠾࠸࡚㛵ᚰࢆᣢࡘࡢࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢㄒᙡࡸᵓᩥᙧᘧࡢ౑⏝ࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᚰ⌮ⓗ཯ᛂࢆ㉳ࡇࡋࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ
࠺࡞཯ᛂࡀ㏉ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿ࠿ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄯヰࢆ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡅࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬◊✲ㄢ㢟 ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿ࢆ᩿ᐃⓗ࡟୺ᙇࡍࡿࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡀࠊⓎヰែᗘࢆ♧ࡍᩥᮎࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢻࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ௨ୗࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ◊✲ㄢ㢟ࢆᣲࡆࠊ➨஧ゝㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄯヰᩍ⫱࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ᶆ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
ㄢ㢟㸯㸧 ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿ࢆ᩿ᐃⓗ࡟୺ᙇࡍࡿࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡣࠊⓎヰែᗘࢆ♧ࡍᩥᮎ⾲⌧ࡢࡕࡀ࠸࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞཯ᛂࢆ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢻࡍࡿ࠿ࠋㄢ㢟㸰) ࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥ࡟ࡣࠊ᝟ሗ࡜᝟ពࡢ๓ᬒ໬㸭⫼ᬒ໬࡟ࡼࡾࠊࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢ㐃⥆ᛶ㸦ㄯヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶ㸧ࢆண ࡉࡏࡿࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࠋ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࡽࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢫ࣮࣐࢟࠿ࠋ
㸲㸬◊✲᪉ἲ
 ࢹ࣮ࢱ
ࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽⓎヰែᗘࡢࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢥ࣑ࢵࢡࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ
࡚౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋࢥ࣑ࢵࢡࡣ఍ヰᙧᘧࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࠊస⪅ࡀ᭩࠸ࡓࡶࡢࢆㄞࡴ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ᭩ࡁ
ᡭࠖ࡜ࠕㄞࡳᡭࠖࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ࠸ࡲ࣭ࡇࡇࠖࡢ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖
ࣥୖࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ఍ヰࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙ࠿ࡽ୍Ṍୗࡀࡗ࡚ᐈほⓗ࡟ሙ㠃ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿㄞࡳᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢពᅗࡀࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍࡃࠊ౑⏝ゝㄒࡢ඾ᆺᛶ
ࢆᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡽࡏࡸࡍ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ౑⏝ࡋࡓࢥ࣑ࢵࢡࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀඹឤࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࡶࡢ
ࡀࠊ᝟ព㠃࡛ඹ᭷࡛ࡁࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜⪃࠼ࠊᾏእ࡛ᫎ⏬໬ࡉࢀࡓࡾ⩻ヂࡉࢀࡓࡾࡍࡿ࡞࡝᪥ᮏ
ㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡶேẼࡀ㧗࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࢥ࣑ࢵࢡࢆ㑅ࢇࡔࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊᑡᖺࢥ࣑ࢵࢡ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠗONE
PIECE Vol.1࠘ࠊᑡዪࢥ࣑ࢵࢡ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠗࣁࢳ࣑ࢶ࡜ࢡ࣮ࣟࣂ࣮ 1࠘ࠊᏛᅬࢥ࣑ࢵࢡ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠗⰼࡼࡾ
⏨Ꮚձ࠘ࡢ 3 Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ศᯒ᪉ἲ ศᯒࡣࠊㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢ㐃⥆ᛶࢆᩘ್࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆᥦၐࡋࡓ Givón(1983)ࡢᣦ
ᶆ࡛࠶ࡿࠕᣢ⥆(Persistence) ࡜ᔂቯ(decay)ࠖࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࠊ㔞ⓗཬࡧ㉁ⓗ࡞ほᐹ࡟ࡼࡾศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᡭ㡰ࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ձ㈨ᩱ୰ࡢ఍ヰᩥ࠿ࡽࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࢆ඲࡚ᢳฟࡋࡓ㸦79 ౛㸧ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣྰᐃᩥࠊ␲ၥᩥࠊ
᥎㔞ᩥࠊ⊂ⓑࠊࠕ㹼࡜ᛮ࠺ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᘬ⏝㒊ศࡣᑐ㇟እ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
ղࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᩥᮎ⾲⌧ู㸦ຓືモࠕࡔࠖࠊ᥋⥆ຓモࠊ⤊ຓモࠊࢥࣆࣗࣛ࡞ࡋ㸦ȭ㸧㸧࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࠋ

−92−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ճࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥ࡟⥆࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࠊᡈ࠸ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄯヰࢆ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡃ࠿ࠊ
ࠕᣢ⥆࡜ᔂቯࠖࡢᩘ್ࢆ⟬ฟࡋࠊ㉁ⓗ࡞ほᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ㸳㸬⤖ᯝ ᩥᮎ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡿ  ࡘࡢࢫ࣮࣐࢟ ࢥࣆࣗࣛࡢࠕࡔࠖࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠊ⤊ຓモ┦ᙜྃࡀᩥᮎ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡟ࡼࡾࠊ௨ୗ
ࡢ 5 ࡘࡢࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡀᢳฟࡉࢀࡓࠋ ᅗ୰ࡢ  ࡣヰࡋᡭࠊ   ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࢆ♧ࡍࠋⅬ⥺ 㸦   ࠊ  㸧ࡣྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋϨ㸬ࢥࣆࣗࣛ㸦ࡔ㸭࡛ࡍ㸧୙ᅾᆺࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸯㸬ࢥࣆࣗࣛȭȭ      ᝟ሗ㏣ຍ࣭ゎㄝ ࢥࣆࣗࣛࡢࠕࡔࠖࡀ୙ᅾ࡛ࠊᩥᮎ࡟ఱࡶࡘ࠿࡞࠸ࣃࢱ࣮࡛ࣥ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࢺࣆࢵࢡࡣࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥ࡛⤊஢ࡍࡿ࠿ࠊヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ᝟ሗ㏣ຍࠊゎㄝ➼࡛⤊஢ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࣃࢱ࣮
ࣥࡣࠊ࿨㢟ࡢ᝟ሗࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀࠊ᝟ពࡣ⫼ᬒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୕ᑿ(2003)ࡣࠊࡇࡢࢱ
࢖ࣉࡢࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡣࠕᩥయᛶࠖࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ୺యࡢ᩿ᐃᗘ㸦୺ᙇࡢ⛬ᗘ㸧ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࡑࡢ᝟ሗࢆ୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊㄗ
⏝ㄽⓗ᥎ㄽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡎࠊᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ᝟ሗ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚༶཯ᛂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋヰࡋᡭࡶ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⌮ゎ௨እࡢ཯ᛂࡣᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(2)ࡣ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸿㸸 ࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆᣦࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ ࠶ࡗࡇࡢ㛫ࡢ࢟ࣀࢥ࢖ࢫࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࢥࣞࡣ࠾࡜࡜࠸ࡢ㊊ᆺ㸟㸽 >Ѝࢺࣆࢵࢡ⤊஢@㹀㸸ࡋࡗ࠿ࡋ᳃⏣ࡉࢇ࠶ࡊ࡜ࡍࡂࡿࡐࠋ⏬㠃࠸ࡗࡥ࠸࡟ᩓࡾࡤࡵࡽࢀࡓᗈ࿌ࢫ࢖ࢵࢳࠋ
㸦ࠗࣁࢳ࣑ࢶ࡜ࢡ࣮ࣟࣂ࣮࠘
㸧ࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸰ࢥࣆࣗࣛȭ⤊ຓモ㸦ࡼ㸭ࡀ࠶㸧      ᝟ሗ㏣ຍ                          ┿ഇࡢ☜ㄆࠊ཯ㄽ
࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ᝟ሗࡀ㏣ຍࡉࢀࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ┿ഇࡢ☜ㄆࠊ཯ㄽ࡞࡝ࡢព࿡஺΅ࡀ⥆ࡃࠋ௒ᅇࡢ㈨ᩱ࡛ࡣ㢖ᗘࡀᑡ࡞ࡃࠊ඲య࡛㸲౛ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(3)ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ ࡘࡃࡋ㸸
㸦ⰼࡢ㸲ே⤌࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸧୰࿡ࡣࡇ࠼ࡔࡵࡼࡾࡁࡓ࡞࠸ያࡽࡼࠋࢢࢵࢳࣕࢢࢵࢳࣕࠊࢢ࣮ࢽࣙࢢࢽࣙࠋ ඃ⣖㸸࠶ࢇࡓࠊࡁࡓ࡞࠸ࢃࡡ㹼ࠋ㸲ேࡀ㸲ே࡜ࡶࡑࢇ࡞࡟ᛶ᱁ࢃࡿ࠸ࡢ࠽㸽 >Ѝ┿ഇࡢ☜ㄆ@ ࡘࡃࡋ㸸ࡑࡾࡷ͐ࠋ͐ࡑ࠺࠸࠼ࡤࠊࡦ࡜ࡾࡔࡅࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࡕࡀ࠺Ẽࡀࠋ㸦ࠗⰼࡼࡾ⏨Ꮚ࠘
㸧

−93−

発話態度によるトピック連続性のスキーマ─コピュラ文を対象に─ϩ㸬ࢥࣆࣗࣛ㸦ࡔ㸭࡛ࡍ㸧Ꮡᅾᆺࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸱㸬ࢥࣆࣗࣛ㸦ࡔ㸭࡛ࡍ㸧ȭ

᝟ሗ㏣ຍ࣭ゎㄝࠊせᮃ࣭࿨௧

ឤ᝟ⓗ཯ᛂ㸦ᛣࡾ࣭႖ვࠊ➗࠸㸧                 ⫯ᐃ࣭ྠព

ヰࡋᡭࡢ᩿ᐃࢆཷࡅࠊࢺࣆࢵࢡࡣ⤊஢ࡍࡿ(28%)࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ࿨㢟࡬ࡢ᝟ሗ㏣ຍ࣭ゎㄝࡢ௚࡟せᮃࠊ࿨௧ࢆ⾜࠺(44%)ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᛣࡾࡸ➗࠸➼ࡢឤ᝟ⓗ཯ᛂࡀ♧ࡍࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ⫯ᐃࡸྠពࢆࡍࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⃭ࡋ࠸஺΅ࡀ⥆ࡃሙྜࡀከ࠸ࠋࡇࡢࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡣᑡᖺࢥ࣑ࢵ
ࢡ࡟ᅽಽⓗ࡟ከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓ(78%)ࠋ᝟ሗࡀ஦ᐇ࡜ྜ⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᙉ࠸୺ᙇࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡋࠊ
ࡑࡢᚋ࡟せồࡀ⥆ࡃࣃࢱ࣮࡛ࣥ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸱ࡣࠕ㸿ࡣ㹀࡛ࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦ࡢධ㛛ᮇ࡟ฟ࡚ࡃࡿᩥᆺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋධ㛛ᮇࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ఍ヰ࡟ࡣࠊ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸱ࡢࠕࢥࣆࣗࣛ㸦ࡔ㸭࡛ࡍ㸧+ȭ୍ࠖᩥ࡛⟅࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡿ㸦KY ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡞࡝㸧ࠋ⤊ຓモࡢ౑⏝ࢆࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ᑟධࡍ
ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ㄯヰ⦎⩦᪉ἲࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊධ㛛ᮇᏛ⩦⪅࡛ࡶ✚ᴟⓗ࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥཧຍ
ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡲࡓࠊࢥࣆࣗࣛࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡞࠸ࠕࢥࣆࣗࣛȭ+ȭࠖࡢࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸯ࡣࠊヰࡋࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ࡋ࡚༢࡟ࢥࣆࣗࣛࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢫ࣮࣐࢟ 3㸦ࠕࢥࣆࣗࣛ㸦ࡔ㸭࡛ࡍ㸧+ȭࠖ㸧࡜ࡣㄯヰᶵ⬟ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸯ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࠊᏛ⩦⪅࡜ࡶ࡟᪥ᖖ఍ヰ࡛㢖ᗘࡢከ࠸ࣃࢱ࣮࡛ࣥ࠶ࡾ↓ព㆑ⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶከ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸯࡜ࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸱ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆព㆑໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣᮇᚅࡍࡿᩥ⬦ᵓ⠏ࡀពᅗⓗ࡟࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ᒣ㈫㸸࠾ࢀ㐩ࡣᒣ㈫ࡔࠋ̿ࡀู͐࡟ᗑࢆⲨࡽࡋ࡟ࡁࡓヂࡌࡷࡡ࢙ࠋ㓇ࢆ኎ࡗ࡚ࡃࢀࠋᶡ࡛  ಶ࡯࡝ࠋ>Ѝ࿨௧@ ᗑဨ㸸ࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠋ࠾㓇ࡣࠊ௒ࠊࡕࡻ࠺࡝ษࡽࡋ࡚ࡿࢇ࡛ࡍࠋ
㸦ࠗ࣡ࣥࣆ࣮ࢫ࠘㸧ࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸲㸬ࢥࣆࣗࣛ㸦ࡔ㸭࡛ࡍ㸧㸩⤊ຓモ  ពぢࠊ࿨௧         ཯ㄽࠊ⫯ᐃ࣭ྠព
ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ 4 ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ⤊ຓモ࡜ࡋ࡚ከ࠸ࡶࡢࡣࠊ㢖ᗘ㡰࡟ࠕࡼ(㢖ᗘ 7)ࠖ
ࠕࡒ(㢖ᗘ 7)ࠖࠕࡡ㸭
࡞(㢖ᗘ 6)ࠖ
ࠕࡐ(㢖ᗘ 4)ࠖࠕࡼࡡ㸭ࡼ࡞(㢖ᗘ 3)ࠖ
ࠕࢃ(㢖ᗘ 1)ࠖࠕࡶࢇ(㢖ᗘ 1)࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ⤊ຓモࡢ✀㢮࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ୺࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ཯ㄽࠊྠព࣭⫯ᐃ➼ࡢࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞཯ᛂࡀぢࡽࢀ(52%)ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ᩿ᐃ࡟ᑐࡍࡿព࿡஺΅ࡢሙࡀᥦ౪ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡼࠊࡐࠊࡒࠊ➼ࠖࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ᝟ሗᥦ♧⣔ࠊࠕࡡࠊ࡞ࠊ➼ࠖࡀ᝟ሗඹ᭷⣔࡜୍⯡ⓗ࡟ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸦ᇼỤ௚ 2009㸧ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ᝟ሗࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࡾඹ᭷ࡋࡓࡾࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶ
⫯ᐃࡉࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ⤒㦂ୖ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕࢥࣆࣗࣛ㸦ࡔ㸭࡛ࡍ㸧㸩⤊ຓモࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟཯ᛂࢆồࡵࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ཯ᛂࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆண

−94−ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ㉳ࡇࡉࡏࡿ㸦࢔ࣇ࢛

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

࣮ࢻࡍࡿ㸧ሙྜࡢヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௒ᅇࡢ㈨ᩱ࡛ࡣࠊᑡᖺࢥ࣑ࢵࢡࡣࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸲ࡢ 78㸣ࡀ᝟ሗᥦ♧⣔ࠊᑡዪࢥ࣑ࢵࢡࡣ 100㸣ࡀ᝟ሗඹ᭷⣔ࠊᏛᅬࢥ࣑ࢵࢡࡣ 100㸣ࡀ᝟ሗᥦ♧⣔࡜࠸࠺೫ࡾࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ௒ᅇࡣ㈨ᩱࡀ㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ᩿ᐃࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ⏨ዪ࡟ࡼࡿࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡢ
ᆺࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡶ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(5)ࡣᑡᖺࢥ࣑ࢵࢡࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ዪᾏ㈫࢔ࣝࣅࢱ㸸ࡶ࠺࠸࠸ࡼ㸟㸟ࢢࢬࡔࡡࠊ࠾๓ࡣ㸟㸟㸦ࢥࣅ࣮ࢆ㋾ࡿ㸧 ࢥࣅ࣮㸸࠼͐࠼࡬࡬࡬ࠊࡍ͐ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ>Ѝ⫯ᐃ࣭ྠព@ ዪᾏ㈫࢔ࣝࣅࢱ㸸ㅰࡗ࡚ࡿࣄ࣐࠶ࡗࡓࡽࠊ౽ᡤ࡛ࡶᤲ㝖ࡋ࡚ࡁ࡞㸟㸟㸦ࠗ࣡ࣥࣆ࣮ࢫ࠘
㸧ࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸳㸬 Ⓨぢ࣭ඹ᭷ࢥࣆࣗࣛ㸦ࡔ㸭࡛ࡍ㸧㸩⤊ຓモࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸳ࡶࠕࢥࣆࣗࣛ㸦ࡔ㸭࡛ࡍ㸧+⤊ຓモࠖࡀ⌧ࢀࡿᆺ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠶ࡿ≧ἣࢆⓎぢ࣭ඹ᭷ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊ⤖ㄽࢆฟࡋࠊࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(6)ࡣࡑࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ∵ࢱࣥࢆ㣗࡭࡞ࡀࡽ ➉ᮏ㸸࠶࠶ࠊ⣲ᬕࡽࡋ࠷࠿࠾ࡾࡗࡗࠋ͐ࢇࡲ࠸ࡗࠋ
ඛ⏕㸸ࣁࣁࣁࠊࡸࡗࡥࡾ∵ࢱࣥࡣⅣࡔࡡࡗ >Ѝ⤖ㄽ㸦ࢺࣆࢵࢡ⤊஢㸧@ 㸦ࠗࣁࢳ࣑ࢶ࡜ࢡ࣮ࣟࣂ࣮࠘
㸧 ⤖ᯝࡢࡲ࡜ࡵ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡢᩥᮎᙧᘧࡀࠊḟࡢࢱ࣮ࣥ࡬ࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢ㐃⥆ᛶ(topic continuity)࡟
ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࡑࢀࡣᅛᐃⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⪺ࡁᡭᅛ᭷ࡢ஦ែㄆ▱ࡢ௙᪉࡟ࡼࡾྍኚⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠶ࡿ୍ᐃ᪉ྥ࡬ࡢண ྍ⬟࡞ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸯ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩥᮎ࡟ຓືモࡶຓモࡶࡘ࠿࡞࠸ሙྜࡣࠊ࿨㢟ࡢ᝟ሗࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ᩿ᐃࡣ୙ၥ࡜ࡉࢀࡸࡍࡃࠊࢺࣆࢵࢡࡀࡑࡢ୍ᩥ࡛⤊஢ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸰㹼㸲ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩥᮎࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡟ࡼࡾⓎヰែᗘࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࠊ᝟ពࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡋࠊ࿨㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ព࿡஺΅ࡉࢀࡿሙࡀᥦ౪ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࢆ౑ࡗࡓேࡢᒓᛶࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿ௙᪉࡟ࡣࠊ(7)ࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ 1 ᆺ࡛᝟ሗࢆ๓ᬒ໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࠊ(4)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸱ᆺ࡛᝟ពࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚
࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࡢࡶࡑࡢ୍౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ┿ᒣ㸸ඛ⏕ࠊࡑࡢᑠࡉ࠸ࣄࢺࡣ͐ඛ⏕ࡢፉࡉࢇ㸽  ඛ⏕㸸┿ᒣࡃࢇࠊࡑࢇ࡞࡟␃ᖺࡋࡓ࠸㸽ࡇࡢࡇࡣ࢜ࣞࡢ࠸࡜ࡇࡢፉࠋ௒ᖺ࠿ࡽࡇࡇࡢᏛ⏕ࡔࠋ㸦ࠗࣁࢳ࣑ࢶ࡜ࢡ࣮ࣟࣂ࣮࠘
㸧㸴㸬⪃ᐹ̿᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡬ࡢ♧၀̿ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿ࢆ᩿ᐃⓗ࡟㏙࡭ࡿࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡢᩥᮎᵓ㐀ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞཯ᛂ
ࢆ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢻࡋࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄯヰࢆᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ୰᩿ࡍࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࠊண ࡛ࡁࡿࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ

−95−

発話態度によるトピック連続性のスキーマ─コピュラ文を対象に─ ➨஧ゝㄒࢆヰࡍ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊᩥࡢᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢ㸯ࡘ㸯ࡘࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࡸᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘ࠿ࡶ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢព࿡ࡢ༢⣧࡞⥲ィࡣㄯヰࡢព࿡ࡸ౯್࡜➼౯࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᑐヰࢆࡍࡿே࡜ே
࡜ࡢ㛫࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋࠊ⮬ศࡣ┦ᡭ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞཯ᛂࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆࡶࡘࡢ࠿ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝⴥࡀఱࢆ┦ᡭ࡟࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢻࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢㄯヰᒎ㛤ࡢࡓࡵࡢㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᵓᩥࡀᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ௒ᅇᢳฟࡉࢀࡓ
ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡣࠊ᝟ሗࢆఏ࠼ࡘࡘࠊࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞᝟ព஺΅ࢆ⾜࠺ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࡜ࡶ࠸࠼ࠊゝㄒ▱㆑ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᥎ㄽࢆ⾜࠺⬟ຊࡶᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ➨஧ゝㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊእᅜㄒ࡛ㄯヰࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡃ࠿ࡣࠊ↓㝈ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡛ᐇࡣぢ࠼࡞࠸࣮ࣝࣝࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┤ឤⓗ࡟ឤࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᅇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྍど໬࡛ࡁࡿࢫ
࣮࣐࢟ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣࠊእᅜㄒᏛ⩦࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶ᭷ព⩏࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸺ཧ↷ᩥ⊩㸼Giv㽾n, T. 1983a. “Topic Continuity in Discourse: An Introduction.” In T. Givon (ed.) Topic

Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study, 1-41. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Givµn, T. 1983b. “Topic Continuity in Spoken English.” In T. Givón (ed.) Topic Continuity in

Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study, 343-363. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ἑ㔝ဴஓ. 2006. ࠗ㸺ᚰ㸼ࡣ࠿ࡽࡔࡢእ࡟࠶ࡿ࠘ᮾி㸸NHK ฟ∧.
◁ᕝ᭷㔛Ꮚ. 2005. ࠗᩥἲ࡜ㄯヰࡢ᥋Ⅼ㸫᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺㢟ᒎ㛤ᶵ⬟ࡢ◊✲࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
὾⏣ᑑ⨾⏨. 1999. ࠗࠕ⚾ࠖ࡜ࡣఱ࠿㸫ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜㌟యࡢฟ఍࠸࠘ᮾி㸸ㅮㄯ♫.
ᇼỤ⸅ࠊࣉࣛࢩࣕࣥࢺ࣭ࣃࣝࢹࢩ. 2009. ࠗゝㄒࡢࢱ࢖࣏ࣟࢪ࣮̿ㄆ▱㢮ᆺㄽࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫.
ᮏከၨ. 2005. ࠗ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫࡢㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽ̿⏕ែᚰ⌮Ꮫ࠿ࡽぢࡓᩥἲ⌧㇟࠘ᮾி㸸ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ
∧఍.
୕ᑿ◁. 2003. ࠗ୕ᑿ◁ⴭస㞟ϩ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
୕ୖ❶. 1972. ࠗ⌧௦ㄒἲᗎㄝ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
୕ୖ❶. 2002. ࠗᵓᩥࡢ◊✲࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ࣭ἨᏊ. 2000. ࠗ᝟ពࡢゝㄒᏛ㸫ࠕሙ஺΅ㄽࠖ࡜᪥ᮏㄒ⾲⌧ࡢࣃࢺࢫ㸫࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ
࠾ฟ∧.
㸺㈨ᩱ㸼
ᑿ⏣ᰤ୍㑻.1997. ࠗONE PIECE 1࠘ᮾி㸸㞟ⱥ♫⩚ᾏ㔝ࢳ࢝.2002. ࠗࣁࢳ࣑ࢶ࡜ࢡ࣮ࣟࣂ࣮ 1࠘ᮾி㸸㞟ⱥ♫⚄ᑿⴥᏊ.1992. ࠗⰼࡼࡾ⏨Ꮚձ࠘ᮾி㸸㞟ⱥ♫−96−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ appear ࡜ lookࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ᳨࡛ドࡍࡿㄆ▱ⓗศᴗᚨᒣ ⪷⨾⚄ᡞᕷእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸺Abstract㸼
Such perceptual expressions as That sounds reasonable. / John looks happy. are called the copulative
perception verb construction (CPV construction.) Basically one CPV is selected for one sensory system inthis construction. However, as far as the visual perception is concerned, two visual perception verbs:
appear and look can occur, i.e. John appears happy. / John looks happy. The aim of this paper is toelucidate the cognitive division of labor of appear and look in the CPV construction. By observing context
of use with regard to perspective of a speaker and mental distance between a perceptual subject and aperceptual object, I will demonstrate that appear and look are distributed not at random but on the basis of
the cognitive motivation.
[Keywords] 㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ㸦CPV ᵓᩥ㸧, ㄆ▱ⓗศᴗ, ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ, appear, look䠍䠊㻌 䛿䛨䜑䛻㻌
ⱥㄒ࡟ࡣ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࢆ୺ㄒ࡟㑅ᢥࡋࠊ⩏ົⓗ࡟ᙧᐜモ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣྡモྃࡢ⿵ㄒࢆక࠺▱ぬືモᩥࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ(Copulative Perception Verb Construction)ࡢ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦௨ୗࠊCPV ᵓᩥ㸧ࠋ(1)a. John looks happy.
b. This cake tastes good.
c. This cloth feels soft.
d. That sounds reasonable.
e. This flower smells sweet.

(Taniguchi 1997:270-271)

Taniguchi(1997)ࠊ㇂ཱྀ(2005)ࡣㄆ▱ᩥἲࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ CPV ᵓᩥࡢᩥἲⓗ࣭ព࿡ⓗ≉␗ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ከゅⓗ࡟ㄽࡌࡓඛ㥑ⓗ࡞◊✲࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᮏከ(2005)ࡣ CPV ᵓᩥࢆ᥈⣴άື࡜࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫ࡟ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ
ࡓᵓᩥ⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
CPV ᵓᩥࡣ▱ぬ୺యࡀᑐ㇟ࢆ▱ぬࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࡑࡢᑐ㇟ࡢ≧ែࡸᒓᛶࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡍᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ▱ぬ୺య࡛࠶ࡿヰࡋᡭ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣヰࡋᡭࢆྵࡴ⥲⛠ⓗᏑᅾ㸧ࡣࠊ
ᬑ㏻ࡣゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ(1a)ࡢ John looks
happy.ࡣࠊゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸▱ぬ୺య࡛࠶ࡿヰࡋᡭࡀࠊ▱ぬᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ John ࢆぢࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࠕᖾࡏࡑ࠺ࡔࠖ࡜ุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆࡶࡘࠋ
Declerck(1991)ࠊQuirk et al.(1985)ࠊVisser(1963)࡞࡝ࡢᣦ᦬ࡢࡼ࠺࡟1ࠊseem/appear ࡀ௚ࡢ▱ぬືモ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ CPV ⏝ἲࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡸࠊ▱ぬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᗈ࠸㐺ᛂ⠊ᅖࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࡞࡝࠿ࡽ⪃࠼࡚ࠊᚨᒣ㸦2006b㸧࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜◊✲ࡀ 5 ࡘࡢ▱ぬືモ࡟㝈ᐃࡋࡓ CPVs ࡟ seem ࡜ appear ࢆຍ࠼࡚ࠊCPV ᵓᩥᣑᙇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ
CPV ᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ㸯ࡘࡢ▱ぬࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ 1 ࡘࡢ୺せ࡞▱ぬືモࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀᇶᮏ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊどぬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊJohn appears happy. / John looks happy.ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊappear ࡜ look ࡀ⏕㉳ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡛ࡣࠊ㸯ࡘࡢᵓᩥࡢ୰࡛ࠊྠࡌどぬࢆ⾲ࡍ appear ࡜ look ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศᴗࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿㸽୧⪅ࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡢ
⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊappear ࡀࣛࢸࣥㄒ⏤᮶࡛ look ࡀࢤ࣐ࣝࣥㄒ⏤᮶࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄒ※࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࠊ༢࡟ㄒࡢ㔜」ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢ⾲⌧ୖࡢᕤኵ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊࡲࡎ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆほᐹࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⌮⏤ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊ୧⪅ࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣࡇࡢ 2ࡘࢆ↓ព㆑࡟౑࠸ศࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࡑࡢㄆ▱ⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࡇࢀࡲ࡛᫂☜࡟ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

−97−

連結的知覚動詞構文におけるappearとlook: コンテクストで検証する認知的分業ࡘࡲࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᩥ⮬యࡢᵓᩥⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡔࡅࢆၥ㢟࡟ࡍࡿࠊᚑ᮶ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢほᐹ࡛ࡣࠊ㔜࡞ࡗࡓព࿡ྜ࠸ࢆᣢࡕࠊ㐪࠸ࡢࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸ appear ࡜ look ࡢศᕸࡀᣢࡘ≉ᛶࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆక࠺ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊྠࡌどぬⓗ▱ぬࢆ⾲ࡍ appear ࡜ look ࡢ㑅ᢥࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿᩥ⬦ⓗせᅉ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࠋࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢほᐹࡔࡅ࡛ࡣᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠊ୺యࡢᑐ㇟࡟ᑐࡍࡿ
ᢕᥱࡢ௙᪉ࡸࣃ࣮ࢫ࣌ࢡࢸ࢕ࣦࡢ㐪࠸ࢆࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊCPV ᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ appear
࡜ look ࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡀ↓సⅭ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡇ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ≉ᛶࡀㄆ▱ⓗ࡞ཎ⌮࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ୧⪅ࡢㄆ▱ⓗศᴗ2ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ䠎䠊㻌 㻯㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ䛻䛚䛡䜛 㼍㼜㼜㼑㼍㼞 䛸 㼘㼛㼛㼗 䛾ศᴗᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊどぬࢆ⾲ࡍ CPV ᵓᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ appear ࡜ look ࡀศᴗࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒ஦ᐇࢆࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ
ࢆక࠺ 5 ࡘࡢᐇ౛࡟ࡼࡗ࡚グ㏙ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ๓࡟ࡲࡎࠊ࡞ࡐศᯒ࡟ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆక࠺ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ

䠎䠊䠍㻌 ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗศᯒ䛻䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䜢క䛖䝕䞊䝍䜢⏝䛔䜛ព⩏㻌ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࡛ࡣࠊ
ゝㄒࢆே㛫࡜ษࡾ㞳ࡋ࡚ᐈほⓗ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡞࠸ࠋ⚾ࡓࡕࡀୡ⏺ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊ
」ᩘ࠶ࡿ㑅ᢥ⫥ࡢ୰࠿ࡽ㸯ࡘࡢぢ᪉㸦ᤊ࠼᪉㸧ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡀゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑐ㇟ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᤊ࠼࡚⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᵓᩥࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆᤞ㇟
ࡋࠊᩥ⮬యࡢᵓᩥⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡔࡅࢆၥ㢟࡟ࡍࡿࠊᚑ᮶ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࡢほᐹࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡀ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠊ
୺యࡢᑐ㇟࡟ᑐࡍࡿᢕᥱࡢ௙᪉ࡸࣃ࣮ࢫ࣌ࢡࢸ࢕ࣦࢆ༑ศ࡟ほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࠊCPVᵓᩥࡢ appear ࡜ look ࢆᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ධࢀ᭰࠼ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡀࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ
ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢศᕸࡀࡼࡾ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࠋ᝟ሗ㔞ࢆቑࡸࡍ࡜ࠊ୍⯡໬ࡸつ๎ࢆぢࡘࡅ࡟ࡃࡃ࡞ࡿ཯㠃ࠊࡼࡾ⢭ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ほᐹࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡾࠊᚓࡽࢀࡓ୍⯡໬ࡢㄝᚓຊࡶ㧗࠸ࠋ௨ୖࡢ⌮⏤࠿ࡽࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣศᯒ࡟ࢥࣥࢸࢡ
ࢫࢺࢆక࠺ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᑟධࡋࠊ౑⏝ࡢሙ㠃ࡸヰࡋᡭࡢどⅬࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜ᑐ㇟࡜ࡢᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳࡞࡝ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ↓ព㆑ࡢ୰࡟ࠊㄆ▱ⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆぢฟࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊappear ࡜ look ࡢㄆ▱ⓗศᴗࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

㻌䠎䠊䠎㻌 㻯㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ䛻䛚䛔䛶 㼍㼜㼜㼑㼍㼞 䛸 㼘㼛㼛㼗 䛜ศᴗ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛ゝㄒ஦ᐇᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊどぬࢆ⾲ࡍCPV ᵓᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ appear ࡜ look ࡀศᴗࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒ஦ᐇࢆ(2)-(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆక࠺ 5 ࡘࡢᐇ౛࡟ࡼࡗ࡚グ㏙ࡍࡿࠋศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࡗࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ BNC ࡜ࠊᑠㄝ㸦40 సရ㸧࣭ᫎ⏬㸦100 సရ㸧࣭᪂⪺㸦51 ᪥ศ㸧ࢆࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࠿ࡽࠊྠ୍ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑐ❧ࡍࡿ 2 ࡘࡢᑐ㇟ࡢᒓᛶࢆ
┦ᑐⓗ࡟ุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊappear ࡜ look ࡀ౑࠸ศࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ほᐹࡋࡓࠋ࡞࠾ࠊヲ⣽࡞ศᯒࡣ 4.1 ࡛⾜࠺ࠋ(2)࡛ࡣࠊ⑓ᐊ࡟ධࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ DumbledoreࠊFudgeࠊSnape ࡢᵝᏊࡀ୺ேබ Harry ࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Harry ࡜ಙ㢗㛵ಀࡀᙉࡃぶᐦᗘࡶ㧗࠸ Dumbledore ࡟ࡣ look ࡀࠊ୍᪉ࠊࡑࢀ࡯࡝ぶᐦᗘࡢ㧗ࡃ࡞࠸ Fudge ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ appear ࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2)

BAM.
The door of the hospital wing burst open.
Fudge, Snape and Dumbledore came striding into the ward. Dumbledore alone looked calm.
Indeed, he looked as though he was quite enjoying himself. Fudge appeared angry.
But Snape was beside himself.
“OUT WITH IT, POTTER!” he bellowed. 'WHAT DID YOU DO?”
“Professor Snape!” shrieked Madam Pomfrey.
“Control yourself!”“See here, Snape, be reasonable,” said Fudge. “This door's been locked, we just saw -”“THEY HELPED HIM ESCAPE, I KNOW IT!”

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban−98−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

(3)ࡣࠊ
㌟యⓗ࡟ࡣ඲ࡃၥ㢟࡞࠸ࡀࠊ▱ⓗⓎ㐩࡟㐜ࢀࡀ࠶ࡿ8 ṓࡢᜥᏊ Luca ࡢᵝᏊࢆࠊ∗ぶ Blaise ࡜ẕぶ EmilyࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽᥥ෗ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ㌟యⓗ࡟೺ᗣ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ Luca ࡟ෆᅾࡍࡿᒓᛶࡣ look ࡛ࠊ୍᪉ࠊ
ࠕ㢌ࡀⰋࡉࡑ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ぢࡏ࠿ࡅࡢᒓᛶࡣ appear ࡛ᥥ෗ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(3) ‘He may need treatment,’ said Emily. 'Treatment for what?' said Blaise. In fact the school was sochaotic that it was doubtless very difficult to identify a retarded child. Of course Luca looked allright. He was even quite a presentable boy, with Blaise's square face, and Emily's almost black
hair and blue eyes. He enjoyed perfect physical health, and when he was intently watching awood-louse or a house-fly he appeared to be quite intelligent.

The Sacred and Profane Love Machine(4)ࡣࣇࢵࢺ࣮࣎ࣝࡢヨྜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ஦࡛ࠊ຾ࡗࡓヨྜ࡟ࡣ lookࠊ㈇ࡅࡓヨྜ࡟ࡣ appear ࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(5)ࡣ෗┿ࡢࣉࣜࣥࢺ࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ஦࡛ࠊࠕࢿ࢞ࡢ≧ែࡀⰋࡅࢀࡤࠖ࡜࠸࠺ዲࡲࡋ࠸≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ look ࢆࠊ୍᪉ࠊ
ࠕ┿ࡗᬯ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ appear ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(4)

Redskins are invincible 1 day, invisible the next
By: Rick Snider
The Washington Redskins admit to being baffled by their 2-4 start. In some games, they've
looked invincible, and in others, they've appeared invisible.
"During a season, an entire football team goes through different phases," Washington coach Norv
Turner said. "Sometimes you don't run well, sometimes the passing game doesn't go well. You
like to think you're not going to have [a bad game], but in 16 weeks, you're going to have it."
Washington Times 10/15/1995(5)

A little detecting solves most picture problems
I'll often receive calls from photographic friends and students complaining about picture problems.
(୰␎) Print too light? Too much light may have reached the film. Again, check the ASA setting
first to make sure you didn't have it at too low a setting. Then check the negative. If it looks
good, request a remake from the lab. If it appears dark all over, check your meter as describedabove, and take your camera in for repair if necessary.
Washington Times 07/27/1995(6)ࡣ(2)ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ୺ேබ Harry ࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ᪂ධ⏕ࡀ࠾࡝࠾࡝ࡋ࡚࠸࡚ᑠࡉࡃぢ࠼ࡿᵝᏊࢆᥥ෗ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Harry ࡀ᪂ධ⏕ࡔࡗࡓ㡭ࠊࠕ⮬ศࡣ࠶ࢇ࡞࡟ᗂࡃࡣぢ࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ࠊᅇ᝿ࡉࢀࡓ㐣ཤࡢ⮬ศࡢᵝᏊࡣ appear࡛ࠊ୍᪉ࠊ┠ࡢ๓࡛⥭ᙇࡋ࡚⬣࠼࡚࠸ࡿ㔠㧥ࡢᑡᖺࡢᵝᏊࡣ look ࡛ᥥ෗ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(6) A group of new students walked shyly up the gap between the Gryffindor and Hufflepuff tables, allof them trying hard not to lead the group. They did indeed seem very small; Harry was sure he had
not appeared that young when he had arrived here. He grinned at them. A blond boy next to Euan
Abercrombie looked petrified; he nudged Euan and whispered something in his ear.

Harry Potter and Order of the Phoenix
௨ୖࠊappear ࡜ look ࡀศᴗࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿゝㄒ஦ᐇࢆ 5 ࡘࡢ౛࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᴗࡢㄆ▱ⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぢࡿ๓࡟ࠊࡲࡎ 3 ⠇࡛ appear ࡜ look ࡢㄆ▱ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぢࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

㻌
㻌

−99−

連結的知覚動詞構文におけるappearとlook: コンテクストで検証する認知的分業䠏䠊㻌 ㄆ▱䛾䛒䜚᪉䛜␗䛺䜛 㻯㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ䛾 㼍㼜㼜㼑㼍㼞 䛸 㼘㼛㼛㼗ⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡋࡤࡋࡤᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊCPV ᵓᩥࡢ appear ࡜ look ࡣࡼࡃఝ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ2 ⠇࡛ᣲࡆࡓ 5 ࡘࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ୧⪅ࢆධࢀ᭰࠼࡚ࡶࠊ≧ἣࣞ࣋ࣝࡢព࿡3ࡣኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕఝ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠕ඲ࡃྠࡌࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ㔜࡞ࡿ㒊ศࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࡝ࡇ࠿࡟ᑐ❧ࡍࡿ㒊ศࡀ࠶ࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋධࢀ᭰࠼࡚ࡶ඲
ࡃព࿡ࡀኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊྠࡌࡶࡢࡣ㸰ࡘࡶ࠸ࡽ࡞࠸ࡣࡎࡔࡀࠊ(2)-(6)࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊappear ࡜ lookࡣゝㄒ஦ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᐇ㝿࡟ၥ㢟࡞ࡃศᴗࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡲࡎࠊappear ࡜ look ࡢᮏ᮶ࡢព࿡ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
(7)(8)

appear㸸to come forth into view, as from a place or state of concealment, or froma distance; to become visible; to seem. (OED)
look 㸸to direct one’s sight; to apply one’s power of vision. (OED)
to turn your eyes in a particular direction; to try to find sb/sth (OALD)(7)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ appear4ࡣࠕฟ⌧ࠖࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊぢ࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡀ⌧ࢀ࡚ぢ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊlookࡣ(8)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᑐ㇟࡟ど⥺ࢆྥࡅ࡚ࠊព㆑ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢᑐ㇟ࢆぢࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆࡶࡘࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊlook ࡟ࡣ⬟ືⓗ▱ぬ5ࡢព࿡ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊappear ࡟ࡣඖ᮶⬟ືⓗ▱ぬࡢព࿡ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࢆ CPV ᵓᩥࡢព࿡࡟࠶࡚ࡣ
ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊappear ࡢሙྜࡣᑐ㇟ࡀ⌧ࢀࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ୺యࡀࡑࢀࢆ▱ぬࡋุ࡚᩿࣭ホ౯ࡋࠊlook ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡣ୺
యࡀᑐ㇟ࢆ⬟ືⓗ࡟▱ぬࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࡑࢀࢆุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊCPV ᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ appear
࡜ look ࡣࠊᙧᘧ6ࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶㄆ▱ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࡀ␗࡞ࡾࠊࡇࡢ㐪࠸ࡀศᴗ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ䠐䠊㻌 㻯㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ䛻䛚䛡䜛 㼍㼜㼜㼑㼍㼞 䛸 㼘㼛㼛㼗 䛾ㄆ▱ⓗศᴗ(2)-(6)ࡢᐇ౛ࢆほᐹࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊappear ࡜ look ࡢศᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩚ⌮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(9)look㸸▱ぬ୺యࡢ⬟ືᛶࡀ┦ᑐⓗ࡟㧗࠸▱ぬ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࡁࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(a) ホ౯ࡉࢀࡿᒓᛶࡀᑐ㇟ࡢෆᅾⓗᒓᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠋ(b) ▱ぬ୺య࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳ࡀ㏆࠸ᑐ㇟ࡢᒓᛶࠊࡲࡓࡣ」ᩘࡢᒓᛶࡢ୰࡛ࡼࡾᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳ࡢ㏆࠸ᒓᛶࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿሙྜࠋ(c) ▱ぬ୺య࡟࡜ࡗ࡚☜ಙᗘࡢ㧗࠸ุ᩿ࢆᑐ㇟࡟௜୚ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿሙྜࠋ
appear㸸▱ぬ୺యࡢ⬟ືᛶࡀ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ప࠸▱ぬ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࡁࠋ༶ࡕࠊ(a)(b)(c)௨እࡢሙྜࠋ

(9)ࡣ㝈ࡽࢀࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࢆほᐹࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊappear ࡜ look ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ CPV ᵓᩥࡍ࡭࡚ࡢሙ
ྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡓࡔࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ๓㏙ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊappear ࡜ look ࡣྠࡌどぬࢆ⾲ࡍືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ஫࠸࡟㔜࡞ࡾ࠶ࡗ࡚୙㏱᫂࡞㒊ศࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ appear ࡜ look ࢆ┦஫᤼௚ⓗ࡟ぢࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྠ୍ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᑐ❧ࡍࡿ 2 ࡘࡢᑐ㇟ࡢᒓᛶࢆ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊappear ࡜ look ࡀゝㄒ஦ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ศᴗࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊࡑࡢㄆ▱ⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊ(2)-(6)ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ(9)࡜↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏ࡚ appear ࡜ look ࡢㄆ▱ⓗศᴗࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ

䠐䠊䠍㻌 䝕䞊䝍䛻䜘䜛⪃ᐹࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ㡰ᗎࡀ๓ᚋࡍࡿࡀࠊࡲࡎ(3)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᜥᏊࡀ▱ⓗⓎ㐩࡟㐜ࢀࡣ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ㌟యⓗ࡟ࡣ೺ᗣࡑࡢࡶࡢ
࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᒓᛶࡣࠊᑐ㇟㸦ᜥᏊ㸧ࡀෆᅾⓗ࡟ࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ୧ぶ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚☜ಙᗘࡢ㧗࠸ᒓᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ⮬ศࡢᜥᏊ࡜࠸࠺᭱ࡶ㌟㏆࡛ᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳ࡢ㏆࠸ᑐ㇟ࡢෆᅾⓗᒓᛶ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ୧ぶ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚⬟ືⓗ࡟ほᐹࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕ㢌ࡀⰋࡉࡑ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᒓᛶࡣࠊᜥᏊ࡟ᮏ᮶ෆᅾࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊእぢ࠿ࡽุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿ⾲㠃ⓗ࡞ᒓᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
ࠕ㌟యⓗ࡟೺ᗣ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᒓᛶ࡟ẚ࡭ࡿ࡜☜ಙᗘࡀపࡃࠊ୧ぶ࡛࠶ࡿ▱ぬ୺యࡢ⬟ືᛶࡀ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ప࠸▱ぬ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃุ᩿࣭ホ౯࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊOf
course Luca looked all right. / he appeared to be quite intelligent.࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊappear ࡜ look ࡀศᴗࡉࢀࡿࠋ

−100−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ูࡢ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊappear ࡣࠕᐇ㉁࡜␗࡞ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡸ≧ἣࠖࢆ⾲ࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡀࠊlook ࡼࡾࡶ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓ7ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᴗࡢഴࡁࡀࠊlook ࡼࡾࡶ appear ࡢ᪉ࡀ to be ࢆక࠺ሙྜࡀከ࠸࡜࠸
࠺ࢥࣟࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡶ⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒ஦ᐇ࠿ࡽぢ࡚ࡶࠊlook ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ appear ࡢ᪉ࡀࡼࡾ☜ಙᗘࡀపࡃࠊ㛫᥋ⓗุ᩿ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿ8ࠋḟ࡟(4) In some games, they've looked invincible, and in others, they've appeared invisible.࡜(5) If it looks
good,…If it appears dark all over,࡛ࡣࠊ຾㈇࡟຾ࡘ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡸࠊᑐ㇟࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡼࡾⰋ࠸≧ែ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ዲࡲࡋ࠸≧ἣ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡣࠊ▱ぬ୺య࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳ࡀ㏆࠸ᒓᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊlook ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(6)ࡢᐇ౛࡛ࡣࠊHarry was sure he had not appeared that young when he had arrived here…. A blond boy
next to Euan Abercrombie looked petrified;࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㐣ཤࡢᑐ㇟࡜┠ࡢ๓ࡢᑐ㇟ࡀྠࡌሙ㠃࡟࠶ࡿሙྜࡣࠊ
┠ࡢ๓ࡢᑐ㇟ࡢ᪉ࡀࡼࡾ⬟ືⓗ࡟ほᐹ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊlook ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ 2 ࡘࡢᑐ㇟ࡀࠕ㐣ཤ࡜࠸ࡲࡇࡇࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᑐ❧ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୺ேබ࡛࠶ࡿ Harry ⮬㌟࡜┠ࡢ๓࡟࠸ࡿᑡᖺࠊࡘࡲࡾࠕ⮬ᕫ࡜௚⪅ࠖ࡜ࡢᑐ❧࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡩࡘ࠺⮬ศࡢᵝᏊࡣ⮬ศ࡛ࡣぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊCPV ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ look ࡣ౑࠸࡟ࡃ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡐ seem ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ appear ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࠊ⮬ศࡢእぢࡣ⮬ศ࡛ࡣぢ࠼࡞࠸ࡀࠊ⮬ศࡢࡇ࡜ࡔ࠿ࡽࡇࡑ᥎ㄽ࡟㢗ࡿᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗࠸ seem ࡼࡾࡶࠊ⮬ศ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢᐇឤ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡍ appear ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ9ࠋࡘ࠸࡛࡞ࡀࡽࠊ(6)ࡢ⾲⌧ࡢࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ㠃ⓑࡉࡣࠊ㸰⾜┠ࡢ They㸦᪂ධ⏕඲య㸧ࡢᒓᛶホ౯࡟ࡣ seem ࡀࠊࡑࡋ࡚ḟ࡟ appearࠊࡉࡽ࡟ look ࡜ࠊឤぬࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡀ㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃᵝᏊࡀຠᯝⓗ࡟ᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
᭱ᚋ࡟(2)ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓ CPV ᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ appear ࡜ look ࡢㄆ▱ⓗศᴗࡢࡋࡃࡳࢆ☜ㄆࡍ
ࡿࠋ2.2 ࡛ࡣ Snape ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣゐࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࢭࣜࣇࡀ኱ᩥᏐࡢࡳ࡛᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿
࡞ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊㄡࡢ┠࡟ࡶ࠿࡞ࡾ⯆ዧࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ5 ⾜┠ࡢ Snape was beside himself.ࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊCPV ᵓᩥࢆ౑࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠊ
ࠕ㏫ୖࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖᵝᏊ௨እࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊbe ືモ࡛ᐈほⓗ࡟ゝ࠸ษࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ࠸ࡘࡶ Harry ࡟ዲពⓗ࡛ࠊᜠᖌ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿ Dumbledore ᰯ㛗ࡣࠊࡶ࠺୍ேࡢ Fudge
࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࡶ Harry ࡜ࡢಙ㢗㛵ಀࡀᙉ࠸ࠋࡇࡢሙ㠃࡛ࡶࠊ࠶ࡿ஦௳ࢆ㉳ࡇࡋࡓᙇᮏேࡀ Harry ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊࡲࡿ࡛ࡑࡢ≧ἣࢆᴦࡋࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ Harry ࢆ࠿ࡤࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ
Dumbledore ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳ࡀ㏆࠸ࡓࡵ☜ಙᗘࡀ㧗ࡃࠊࡼࡾ⬟ືⓗ࡟ど⥺ࢆྥࡅ࡚ࠊ≧ἣࢆุ᩿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᐈほⓗホ౯࡜ࡋ࡚᩿ゝࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊDumbledore alone looked calm.ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୺యࡢ
⬟ືⓗ࡞ㄆ▱⾜Ⅽࢆ♧ࡍ CPV ᵓᩥࡢ look ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ヰࡋᡭࡢ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ୺ほⓗุ᩿ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୺యࡢᏑᅾࡀࡼࡾព࿡ࡢ୰࡟ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿ10ࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟኱⮧࡛࠶ࡿ Fudge ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊHarry࡜ᩛᑐ㛵ಀ࡟ࡣ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊDumbledore ࡼࡾࡶே㛫㛵ಀࡀᕼ࡛ⷧᚰ⌮ⓗ࡟ࡶ㊥㞳ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⬟ືⓗ࡟ど⥺ࢆྥࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊࡑࡢᵝᏊࢆ⾲㠃ⓗ࡟ホ౯ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ appear ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ(2)ࡢሙ㠃ࡢ୰࡛ 3 ே࡟ᑐࡍࡿ Harry ࡢᢕᥱࡢ௙᪉ࠊࣃ࣮ࢫ࣌ࢡࢸ࢕ࣦࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ look/appear/ be ືモࢆ౑࠸ศࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊຠᯝⓗ࡟ᥥ෗ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ண᝿ࡉࢀࡿ཯ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞౑࠸ศࡅࡣㄒࡢ㔜」ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢసᐙࡢᕤኵ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ㝈ࡽࢀࡓసᐙࡢ≉ᚩ࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊྠࡌసᐙࡢసရ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྠ୍ẁⴠ࡛ look ࡀ㔜」ࡍࡿ౛ࡶ」ᩘぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊูࡢసᐙࡢసရ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊྠᵝࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࢆほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࡓ࡜࠼ㄒࡢ㔜」ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢᕤኵ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ4.3 ࡢ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝ࠿ࡽ
ࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㏫ࡢࣃࢱࣥࡣ㐺ษ࡛࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡓࡔ↓సⅭ࡟౑࠸ศࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊappear ࡜look ࡢศᴗࡀㄆ▱ⓗ࡞ືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ⣬ᖜࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ࠊ௨ୗ࡟ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢࡳࢆᣲ
ࡆ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ(10)ࡣ(2)(6)࡜ྠ୍సᐙ࡟ࡼࡿ look ࡢ㔜」౛ࠊ(11)(12)ࡣูࡢసᐙ࡟ࡼࡿ appear ࡜ look ࡢศᴗ౛࡛
࠶ࡿࠋ(11)ࡣྠࡌሙ㠃࡛㸰ࡘࡢᑐ㇟ࡢᒓᛶࠊ(12)ࡣྠ୍ᑐ㇟ࡀࡶࡘ㸰ࡘࡢᒓᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(10) 'That's Edgar Bones ... brother of Amelia Bones, they got him and his family, too, he was agreat wizard ... Sturgis Podmore, blimey, he looks young ... Caradoc Dearborn, vanished six
months after this, we never found his body ... Hagrid, of course, looks exactly the same as−101−

連結的知覚動詞構文におけるappearとlook: コンテクストで検証する認知的分業

ever ... Elphias Doge, you've met him, I'd forgotten he used to wear that stupid hat ... Gideon
Prewett, it took five Death Eaters to kill him and his brother Fabian, they fought likeheroes ... budge along, budge along ...'The little people in the photograph jostled among themselves and those hidden right at theback appeared at the forefront of the picture.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix(11) The last of their luggage was brought from the limousine and, as Thessy and I prepared tocast off, Rickie tested our sound system with a cacophonous cassette of rock music.
Robin-Anne searched for a silent dark hole in which to hide, Jackson Chatterton scowled at
us, Ellen looked exasperated and Thessy appeared just plain scared. I started Wavebreaker’s
engines, used the bow thruster to drive her stem away from the quay and, with an apparent
cargo of misery and mania , went to sea.
Crackdown(12) The upland forests of the island are home to another unique species, generally known as theblack ape. It looks very like a small gorilla and though it appears to be tailless, like an ape, it
is in fact a monkey, closely related to the macaques. Its alternative name of crested macaqueis a far more appropriate one. It has obvious Asian affiliations.
Kingdome of the East (BNC)䠐䠊䠎㻌 㻭㼜㼜㼑㼍㼞 䛸 㼘㼛㼛㼗 䛾ฟ⌧㡰ᗎ䛻㛵䜟䜛ㄆ▱䝥䝻䝉䝇ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆక࠺ appear ࡜ look ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃ୰࡛ࠊ୍ேࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽ୪ิࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢᑐ㇟ࢆㄆ▱ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊlook ࡀ appear ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿሙྜࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜࡟Ẽ௜࠸ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣᚰ⌮Ꮫ࡛࠸࠺ࠕ㑅ዲὀど(preferential looking)ࠖ11࡞࡝ࡀ㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊே㛫ࡣࠕ⯆࿡࣭㛵ᚰࡢ㧗࠸ࡶࡢ࡟ඛ࡟ど⥺ࢆྥࡅࡿࠖ࡜
࠸࠺ㄆ▱ࡢഴྥࡀࢹࣇ࢛ࣝࢺࡢὶࢀ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡀ lookЍappear ࡢ㡰ᗎ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋBNC
࡛ྠ୍ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୍ேࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽᑐ❧ࡍࡿ 2 ࡘࡢᑐ㇟ࢆㄆ▱ࡍࡿ CPV ᵓᩥࡢ࠺ࡕࠊlook ࡜ appear ࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀ 58 ౛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛ lookЍappear ࡢ㡰࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡀ 51 ౛ࠊappearЍlook ࡢ㡰ࡣ 7 ౛࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋୖ࡛ᣲࡆࡓ 5 ࡘࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ(6)௨እࡢ(2)-(5)ࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡀ lookЍappear ࡢ㡰࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ㄆ▱ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜ look ࡜ appear ࡢ㡰␒࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ௒ᚋࡉࡽ࡟ከࡃࡢᐇ౛࡟࠶ࡓࡗ᳨࡚ドࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ㻌䠐䠊䠏㻌 䜲䝣䜷䞊䝬䞁䝖ㄪᰝ䛾⤖ᯝ」ᩘࡢ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(2)-(6)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ appear ࡜ look ࡢ஫᥮ྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡎ
ึࡵ࡟ࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢゎㄝ࡞ࡋ࡛ᙜヱࡢᩥࡢࡳࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊappear ࡜ look ࡀ஫᥮ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆゎㄝࡋࡓ࠶࡜࡟ࠊ(2)-(6)ࡢ࢜ࣜࢪࢼࣝࢹ࣮ࢱ(A)࡜ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ appear ࡜ look ࢆࡍ࡭࡚ධࢀ᭰࠼ࡓࡶࡢ(B)ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡀࡑࡢ≧ἣࢆ㐺ษ࡟⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ㉁ၥࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓ㸦ᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺ࡟ࡣ(A)ࡀ࢜ࣜࢪࢼ࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ▱ࡽࡏ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧ࠋ(13)࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺࡢෆヂ㸸࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ே(3 ே), ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே(1 ே), ࢝ࢼࢲே(1 ே), ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ே(1 ே)㻌㻭㼙㼑㼞㼕㼏㼍㼚䐟㻌㻭㼙㼑㼞㼕㼏㼍㼚䐠㻌㻭㼙㼑㼞㼕㼏㼍㼚䐡㻌㻮㼞㼕㼠㼕㼟㼔㻌

㻯㼍㼚㼍㼐㼕㼍㼚㻌

㻔㻞㻕㻌

㻮㻌

㻭㻌

㻮㻌

㻮㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌

㻔㻟㻕㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌

㻔㻠㻕㻌

㻭㻌

㻮㻌

㻮㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌㻩㻌㻮㻌

㻔㻡㻕㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌

㻭㻌

㻔㻢㻕㻌

㻭㻌

㻮㻌

㻭㻌

㻮㻌

㻭㻌㻩㻌㻮㻌

㻭㻌

−102−㻭㼡㼟㼠㼞㼍㼘㼕㼍㼚㻌第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊappear ࡜ look ࡟㐪࠸ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊࡘࡲࡾධࢀ᭰࠼࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣఱࡶゝཬࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆຍ࿡ࡋ࡚᝟ሗ㔞ࢆቑࡸࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊධࢀ᭰࠼ࡢ᫝㠀ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊ஫᥮࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢゝཬࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ(13)࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊappear ࡜ look ࡀศᴗࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࠊ
appear ࡜ look ࡢ኱ࡲ࠿࡞ศᕸࡢഴྥࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡢㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࡣᮏ✏ࡢ୺ᙇ࡜୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

㻌䠐䠊䠑㻌 ⤖ㄽ㻌ᮏ⠇࡛ࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊ1 ⠇࡛ᣲࡆࡓࠊ
ࠕྠࡌどぬࢆ⾲ࡍ CPV ᵓᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊappear ࡜ look ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศ
ᴗࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋྠ୍ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᑐ❧ࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢᒓᛶࢆุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࠊฟ⌧ࡢព࿡ࢆࡶࡘ appear ࡛ࡣ⾲ࡋࡁࢀ࡞࠸ᒓᛶࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊᑐ㇟࡟ෆᅾ
ࡍࡿᒓᛶࠊ▱ぬ୺య࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳ࡀ㏆࠸ᑐ㇟ࡢᒓᛶࡸࠊ」ᩘࡢᒓᛶࡢ୰࡛ࡼࡾᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳ࡢ㏆࠸ᒓᛶࠊࡲࡓࠊ▱ぬ୺య࡟࡜ࡗ࡚☜ಙᗘࡢ㧗࠸ᒓᛶࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊࠕ▱ぬ୺యࡢ⬟ືᛶࡀ┦ᑐⓗ࡟㧗࠸▱ぬ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࠖࡣࠊࡼࡾ⬟ືᛶࡢᙉ࠸ look ࡀཷࡅᣢࡘࠋ୍᪉ࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢሙྜࠊ༶ࡕࠕ▱ぬ୺యࡢ⬟ືᛶࡀ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ప࠸▱ぬ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࠖࡣ appear ࡀཷࡅᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊㄆ▱ཎ⌮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃศᴗࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ

㻌䠑䠊㻌 䛚䜟䜚䛻
୍⯡࡟ࠊᵓᩥ◊✲࡛ὀ┠ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣᵓᩥࡢព࿡࡜ᙧᘧࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡾࠊศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࡢព
࿡ࡀ୰ᚰ࡛ࠊࡑࡢᵓᩥࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡣ㔜せどࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆ
క࠺ᐇ౛࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࡢほᐹࡔࡅ࡛ࡣᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠊ୺యࡢᑐ㇟࡟ᑐࡍࡿᢕᥱࡢ
௙᪉ࡸࠊࣃ࣮ࢫ࣌ࢡࢸ࢕ࣦࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊappear ࡜ look ࡢศᕸ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ≉ᛶࡀ୍ᐃࡢഴྥ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊㄆ▱ⓗศᴗࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ
ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࡛ࡣࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡣᴫᛕෆᐜࢆ⾲ࡍࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ୺యࡢᴫᛕ໬ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡶ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆ⪃៖ࡋࡓ⪃ᐹ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ↓ព㆑ࡢ୰࡟ㄆ▱ⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆぢฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ
࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ࡛⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡࡜࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࡟ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆక࠺ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ᳨ドࢆᑟධࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ௚ࡢゝㄒ⌧㇟ࡢᡂ❧ࡸᣑᙇࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆࡶࠊ
ࡼࡾ᫂☜࡟♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿ᭷ຠ࡞ᡭẁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

‫ޚ‬Ⓨ⾲ࡢ‽ഛẁ㝵࠿ࡽࠊᒣཱྀ἞ᙪඛ⏕ࠊᮏከၨඛ⏕࡟㈗㔜࡞ຓゝ࡜ከ኱࡞ࡈᣦᑟࢆ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊྖ఍ࡢ㔠⃝ಇ࿃ඛ⏕ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊᇼỤ⸅ඛ⏕ࠊ㇂୍ཱྀ⨾ඛ⏕ࠊ῝⏣ᬛඛ⏕ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ᮌཎᜨ⨾Ꮚඛ⏕࠿ࡽ኱ኚ᭷┈࡞ࡈពぢࢆ㈷ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋᚰ࠿ࡽឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ

1 Declerck (1991:170)ࡣࠊseem ࡜ appear ࡀ௚ࡢ CPVs ࡜඲ࡃྠࡌࡩࡿࡲ࠸ࢆ♧ࡍ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࡢ၏୍ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊ௚ࡢ CPVs ࡀ≉ᐃࡢ▱ぬࢆ⾲ࡍࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊseem ࡜ appear ࡣࠊࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋQuirk
et al .(1985:1171-1172)ࡣࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ࡞ࡩࡿࡲ࠸ࢆࡍࡿືモࡢ⿵ㄒࡀ୺ㄒࡢ⌧ᅾࡢ≉ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ current copulas ࡢ 1 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜
ࡋ࡚ seem࣭appear࣭look࣭taste࣭feel࣭smell࣭sound ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋVisser (1963:189)ࡣࠊ⿵ㄒࢆせồࡍࡿ㐃⤖ⓗ࡞ືモࢆ
copula ࡜࿧ࡧࠊseem࣭appear࣭look ࡞࡝ࡢ▱ぬືモࢆ Copulas of Modalityࠊࡲࡓせồࡉࢀࡿ⿵ㄒࡀ predicative adjunct ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢࡸࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ⿵ㄒࡀࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ࡣ๪モ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ feel࣭taste ࣭smell࣭sound ࡞࡝ࢆࠊcopula ࡜⮬ືモࡢ୰㛫࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ Quasi-Copulas ࡜ࡋ࡚ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
2 ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊྠ୍ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑐ❧ࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢᑐ㇟ࢆࠊ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢࠊ▱ぬ୺యࡢㄆ▱ⓗഃ㠃࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࡓ౑࠸ศࡅࢆᣦࡍࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊㄆ▱ⓗཎ⌮࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓศᴗࢆᣦࡍࠋ
3 ᒣ᲍(1995:6, 2009:123)ࡣ᪥ᖖゝㄒࡢព࿡࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠕ≧ἣࣞ࣋ࣝࡢព࿡ࠖ࡜ࠕㄆ▱ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢព࿡ࠖ࡟༊ูࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ๓⪅ࡣグྕ໬ࡉࢀࡿ௨๓ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ㸸୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓ≧ἣࡸ஦ែࢆつᐃࡍࡿ┿⌮᮲௳࡟㛵ࢃࡿព࿡ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࠊᚋ⪅ࡣゝⴥࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬࡟㛵ࢃࡿࣞ࣋ࣝ㸸୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓ≧ἣࡸ஦ែࢆ୺యࡀゎ㔘ࡋ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ㝿ࡢࣃ࣮ࢫ࣌ࢡࢸ࢕ࣦ࡞࡝ࢆ཯ᫎࡍࡿព࿡ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚༊ู
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−103−

連結的知覚動詞構文におけるappearとlook: コンテクストで検証する認知的分業

4 ῝⏣(2005)࡛ࡣࠊappear ࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࡀヲ⣽࡟ㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
5 Rogers(1971:260)ࡣ▱ぬືモࢆ active perception verbsࠊpassive perception verbs ࡞࡝࡟ࠊᅜᗈ(1981:31)ࡣ⬟ືⓗ▱ぬືモࠊཷືⓗ▱ぬືモ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊEvans(2007:160)ࡣ▱ぬࢆ sensation / perceptual organization / identification andrecognition ࡢ㸱ࡘࡢࢫࢸ࣮ࢪ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
6 ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࢆ୺ㄒ࡟㑅ᢥࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡢⅬ࡛ࡣࠊappear ࡜ look ࡣඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ୧⪅ࡢ୺ㄒ࡜㏙ㄒࡢ㛵ಀࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋฟ
⌧ࢆ⾲ࡍ appear ࡣࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜่⃭ࡢ※࡜࡞ࡿࡶࡢ㸦▱ぬᑐ㇟㸧ࢆ୺ㄒ࡟࡜ࡿࡀࠊ⬟ືⓗ▱ぬࢆ⾲ࡍ look ࡣ⤒㦂⪅㸦▱ぬ୺య㸧ࢆ୺ㄒ࡟࡜ࡿືモ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊྠ୍ᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࠊappear ࡜ look ࡛ࡣ୺㏙㛵ಀࡀ୙ᆒ㉁࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
7 ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊHe () well, but actually he is rather ill.ࡢ()࡟ looks/appears ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ6 ே୰ 5 ேࡀ appears ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾ appear ࡣ look ྠᵝእぢࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊሙྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣᐇ㉁࡜␗
࡞ࡗࡓࡶࡢࢆ⾲ࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡀ look ࡼࡾࡶ㧗࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
8 ୍⯡࡟ to be ࢆక࠺ሙྜࡣࠊࡑࡢ᥎ㄽࡀ㛫᥋ⓗ࡞ドᣐ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ iconic ࡞┦ᑐᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ
9 ῝⏣ᬛඛ⏕࠿ࡽ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆᇶ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
10 ࡇࢀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㆟ㄽࡣࠊᚨᒣ(2006a)ࢆཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
11 㑅ዲὀど(preferential looking)ࠊ㥆໬࣭⬺㥆໬(habituation/dis-habituation)ࠊ᪂ወ㑅ዲ(novelty preference)ࠊ᪤▱㑅ዲ
(familiarity preference)࡞࡝ࢆཧ↷㸦↓⸨ 1994ࠊᒣཱྀ 2010㸧ࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩Declerck, Renaat. (1991 [2003]) A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Evans, Vyvyan.. (2007) A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
῝⏣ᬛ (2005) ࠕⱥㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿฟ⌧ࡢ▱ぬࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘5㸸186-196.
ᮏከၨ (2005) ࠗ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫࡢㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽ㸸⏕ែᚰ⌮Ꮫ࠿ࡽぢࡓᩥἲ⌧㇟࠘ ᮾி㸸ᮾ኱ฟ∧఍.
ᅜᗈဴᘺ. (1981) ࠕㄒᙡࡢᵓ㐀ࡢẚ㍑ࠖ
ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒẚ㍑ㅮᗙ➨ 3 ᕳ ព࿡࡜ㄒᙡ࠘ ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑࠊ15-52.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the

English Language. London: Longman
Rogers, Andy. (1971) Three kinds of physical perception verbs. CLS 7, 206-222.
↓⸨㝯 (1994) ࠗ㉥ࢇᆓ࠿ࡽࡳࡓୡ⏺㸸ゝㄒ௨๓ࡢගᬒ࠘ ᮾி㸸ㅮㄯ♫.
Taniguchi, Kazumi. (1997) On the semantics and development of copulative perception verbs in English: A cognitive
perspective. English Linguistics 14㸸270-299.
㇂୍ཱྀ⨾ (2005) ࠗ஦ែᴫᛕࡢグྕ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗ◊✲࠘ ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ᚨᒣ⪷⨾ (2006a) ࠕ୺ほ⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿே⛠㸸ඹឤⓗ⮬ᕫྠ໬⏝ἲ࡟ࡳࡿ㐃⥆య࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢே⛠ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘6㸸
43-53.
ᚨᒣ⪷⨾ (2006b) ࠕ㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࢆࡵࡄࡿၥ㢟ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘2㸸81-88.
Visser, F.T. (1963) An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part 1. Leiden : E. J. Brill.
ᒣཱྀ┿⨾ (2010) ࠕஙඣࡢどぬୡ⏺㸸◊✲᪉ἲ࡜㏆ᖺࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖVision, Vol.22-1: 13-19.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ (1995) ࠗㄆ▱ᩥἲㄽ࠘ ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ (2009) ࠗㄆ▱ᵓᩥㄽ㸸ᩥἲࡢࢤࢩࣗࢱࣝࢺᛶ࠘ ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.

OALD㸸Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2000)
OED㸸The Oxford English Dictionary, second edition (1989)
Rowling, J.K. (1999) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Rowling, J.K. (2003) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Iris Murdoch (1974) The Sacred and Profane Love Machine
Cornwell, Bernard (1993) Crackdown.

Penguin Books.

Penguin Books.

Washington Times.

−104−第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫゝㄒᏛ࡜ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒࡢ⼥ྜ㸸Ṕ௦⡿ᅜṔ௦኱⤫㡿ࡢ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࢆ㢟ᮦ࡟ோ⛉ ᜤᚨ
❧࿨㤋኱Ꮫ
<Abstract>
Our aim in this paper is to analyze the discourse characteristics of State of the Union Addresses to Congressdelivered by the U.S. presidents from Truman to Obama using the methods of correspondence analysis andcritical discourse analysis. The correspondence analysis based on 200 most common words across 12
presidents reveals that there are obvious differences between presidents before and after 1980s in their usesof modal verbs, personal pronouns, relative clauses and topical content words. In accordance with theanalysis of concordance outputs, this paper also demonstrates that such diachronic change in the use of
linguistic items clearly reflects thematic shift and historical backdrop over time in the United States.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ: ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ㸪ᑐᛂศᯒ㸪ㄒᙡศᯒ㸪㏻᫬ⓗኚ໬

1. ᗎㄽᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣ㸪࣓ࢹ࢕࢔(ࢸࣞࣅ࣭ࣛࢪ࢜)ᨺᫎࡀ㛤ጞࡉࢀࡓ Truman ௨㝆ࡢ⡿ᅜṔ௦኱⤫㡿࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୍⯡ᩍ᭩
₇ㄝࢆࢥ࣮ࣃࢫゝㄒᏛࡢぢᆅ࠿ࡽศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ≉࡟㸪₇ㄝ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓ≉ᚩㄒᙡࡀ㸪ᩥ⬦ୖ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ពᅗ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ㸪㏻᫬ⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ኚ⛣ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡢ࠿㸪ࡑࡢせᅉࢆㄪᰝࡍ࡭ࡃ㸪ᵓ⠏ࡋࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᑐ
ᛂศᯒ࡟࠿ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪኱⤫㡿㛫ࡢ₇ㄝࡢඹ㏻ᛶ࡜┦㐪ᛶࢆ⤫ィⓗ࡟ྍど໬ࡋ㸪(ᢈุⓗ)ㄯヰศᯒࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃
ᐹࡍࡿࠋ1≉࡟ᮏ✏ࡣோ⛉࣭ᖹ⏣(2008)ࡢ⿵ṇ∧࡛࠶ࡾ㸪๓◊✲࡛ᵓ⠏ࡋࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ G.W.Bush ๓኱⤫㡿࡜ Obama ⌧኱⤫㡿ࡢ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࢆ㏣ຍࡋ㸪⪃ᐹᑐ㇟ࢆ᭱㢖ᗘ 100 ㄒ࠿ࡽ 200 ㄒ࡟ࡲ࡛ᣑ኱ࡋࡓ(Guiraud ್ࡢ᥇⏝࡞࡝㸪⤫ィ್ࡢ୍㒊⿵ṇࡶ⾜ࡗࡓ)ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄪᰝࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ⿵ṇࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛㸪๓◊✲ࡢሗ࿌⤖ᯝࡢ㡹೺ᛶࡢ☜ㄆࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ(୍㒊㸪≉ᚩㄒࡢඹ㉳ㄒࡢ㢖ᗘ㡰఩࡞࡝࡟ኚ໬ࡣぢࡽࢀࡓ)㸪௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࡛ึࡵ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓゝㄒ஦ᐇ㸪ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ 1980 ᖺࢆቃ࡜ࡍࡿ㐣ཤࡢ኱⤫㡿࡜㏆ᖺ㹼⌧ᅾࡲ࡛ࡢ኱⤫㡿ࡢ≉ᚩㄒࡢ౑⏝ᕪ␗ࡀᚎࠎ࡟ྍど໬ࡉࢀࡘࡘ࠶ࡿ(6.4 ⠇ཧ↷)ࠋ௨ୗ㸪௒ᅇࡢ◊✲ሗ࿌ࢆ㡰ḟ♧ࡍࠋ
2. ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝ⡿ᅜ኱⤫㡿ࡀ⾜࠺୺࡞₇ㄝ࡟ࡣ㸪ᑵ௵₇ㄝ࡜୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢ஧✀㢮ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᑵ௵₇ㄝࡣ㸪኱⤫㡿㑅ᣲࢆ⤒࡚㑅௵ࡉࢀࡓ᪂኱⤫㡿ࡀ㸪⫋ົ㛤ጞ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡢᢪ㈇ࡸෆᨻㄢ㢟㸪ᅜᐙࡀྥ࠿࠺࡭ࡁᮍ᮶࡬ࡢᒎᮃ࡞࡝㸪⮬ࡽࡢពぢࢆ㏙࡭ࡿሙ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿ⫈⾗ࡣᅜẸ࡛ศ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ᩥయࡀዲࡲࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢ᫬௦ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓゝㄒᵝែࡸࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡞࡝ࡀྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪⏣⏿ (2006) ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᩥయ࣭ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ◊✲ࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚⯆࿡῝࠸ゝㄒ㈨ᩱ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ㏫࡟㸪ᮏ✏ࡢ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢ≉ᚩࡣ㸪ᅜẸ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㆟ဨࢆᑐ㇟࡟⾜࠺₇ㄝ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ᅜࡢ⌧≧ࡸ≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚኱⤫㡿⮬㌟ࡢ⪃࠼ࡸぢゎࢆ㏙࡭㸪௒ᚋࡢᨻ἞୺せㄢ㢟࡜ࡑࡢゎỴ⟇ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿሙ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱㏆࡛ࡣ, 2003 ᖺ 1 ᭶ 29 ᪥࡟ G.W.Bush ๓኱⤫㡿࡟ࡼࡿࠗᝏࡢᯡ㍈࠘Ⓨゝࡀୡ⏺୰ࡢ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࡛ὀ┠ࢆ㞟ࡵࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪୧₇ㄝ࡜ࡶ࡟ᅜᐙࢆ୺య࡜ࡋࡓ⌧≧ሗ࿌ࡸෆᨻㄢ㢟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚኱⤫㡿ᮏேࡸᅜࡢぢゎࢆ㏙࡭ࡿሙ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ
࡜࠿ࡽ㸪᫬௦ᛶࡸୡ⏺ࡢ୰࡟࠾ࡅࡿᅜᐙࡢ≧ἣ࡞࡝ࡀ₇ㄝෆ࡟ዴᐇ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ⌧ᅾࡲ࡛ศᯒࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆࢥ࣮ࣃࢫゝㄒᏛࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽศᯒࡋ㸪⡿ᅜ኱⤫㡿ࡢ౑⏝ㄒᙡࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᥈ࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟㸪୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿ⡿ᅜࡀᢪ࠼࡚࠸ࡿၥ㢟ࡸ≧ἣ㸪ෆᨻㄢ㢟➼ࡀ㏻᫬ⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ኚ
໬ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡢ࠿ࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ
3. ከኚ㔞ゎᯒ ᩥయㄽࡸ㢮ᆺㄽࡢศ㔝࡛ࡣከኚ㔞ゎᯒࢆ⏝࠸ࡓศᯒࡀ 1980 ᖺ௦㡭࠿ࡽ┒ࢇ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪Burrows and−105−コーパス言語学と批判的談話分析の融合：歴代米国大統領の一般教書演説を題材にHassal (1988) ࡛ࡣ୺ᡂศศᯒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᩥయㄽࡸⴭ⪅᥎ᐃㄽࡢศᯒ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ㸪Biber (1988) ࡛ࡣ, 67 ゝㄒ㡯┠ࢆᅉᏊศᯒ࡟࠿ࡅ㸪6 ḟඖ࡛ࡢศᯒ (ከḟඖⓗศᯒἲ㸸Multi-Dimensional analysis) ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛㸪᭩ࡁゝⴥ࡜ヰࡋゝⴥࡢẚ㍑ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࢸࢡࢫࢺศ㔝㸪ཬࡧࢪࣕࣥࣝ㛫ࡢゝㄒⓗ┦㐪ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ከኚ㔞ゎᯒࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿᑐᛂศᯒࡣ㸪ࢸࢡࢫࢺ㛫ࡢ┦ᑐ㛵ಀࢆྍど໬ࡉࡏࡿࡢ࡟᭷ຠ࡞⤫ィⓗᡭἲ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪Nakamura(1995) ࡸ ⏣⏿ (2006) ࡞࡝᪥ᮏࡢ◊✲⪅ࡢ㈉⊩ࡶ኱ࡁ࠸ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡶ㸪ࡇࡢᑐᛂศᯒࢆ⏝࠸୍࡚⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢゝㄒศᯒࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ
4. ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᵓ⠏࡜ᇶᮏ⤫ィ᝟ሗ ⡿ ᅜ Ṕ ௦ ኱ ⤫ 㡿 ࡢ ୍ ⯡ ᩍ ᭩ ₇ ㄝ ࡢ ㄒ ᙡ ⓗ ≉ ᚩ ࢆ ศ ᯒ ࡍ ࡿ ࡟ ࠶ ࡓ ࡾ 㸪 C-SPAN.ORG(http://www.c-span.org/executive/stateoftheunion.asp) ࡛බ㛤ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿHTMLᙧᘧࡢ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢ඲ࢹ࣮
ࢱࢆࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ໬ࡋ㸪ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆᵓ⠏ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪₇ㄝᩘ (ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝᩘ) ࡣ඲㒊࡛ 70 ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ㸪type(␗࡞ࡾㄒᩘ) ࡀ 12,361 ✀㸪token (ᘏ࡭ㄒᩘ) ࡀ 362,538 ㄒࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡀᵓ⠏࡛ࡁࡓ(AntWord Profiler 1,200w
౑⏝)ࠋ⾲ 1 ࡣ㸪ᵓ⠏ࡋࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿྛ኱⤫㡿ูࡢᇶᮏ⤫ィ᝟ሗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲ 1. ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᇶᮏࢹ࣮ࢱ(ᖺ௦㡰)Tokens
Types
Truman(1945-1951)
41,9884,143
Eisenhower(1953-1960)
48,207
4,995
Kennedy(1961-1963)
17,795
3,160
Johnson(1963-1969)
34,5603,921
Nixon(1970-1974)
16,1032,221
Ford(1975-1977)
13,683
2,527
Carter(1978-1981)
15,782
2,542
Reagan(1981-1988)
36,835
4,495
H.W.Bush(1989-1992)
20,771
3,134
Clinton(1993-2000)
60,951
4,872
G.W.Bush(2001-2008)
44,094
4,670
Obama (2009-)
11,7692,127

Guiraud
20.22
22.75
23.69
21.09
17.50
21.60
20.23
23.42
21.75
19.73
22.24
19.61

⾲ 1 ࡢᇶᮏ⤫ィ᝟ሗࡣ㸪ᕥ࠿ࡽ token ᩘ (ᘏ࡭ㄒᩘ)㸪type ᩘ (␗࡞ࡾㄒᩘ)㸪Guiraud ್ (␗࡞ࡾㄒᩘࢆᘏ࡭ㄒ
ᩘࡢᖹ᪉᰿࡛๭ࡗࡓᏳᐃᛶ࠶ࡿㄒᙡከᵝᛶᣦᶆࡢ୍✀)ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ≉࡟, Guiraud ್ࡣࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ࠾࠾ࡼࡑࡢ㞴᫆ᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢㄒᙡᐦᗘ (lexical density) ࡢ⤫ィⓗᣦᶆ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪್ࡀ㧗࠸⛬ࢸࢡࢫࢺෆ࡟ከᵝ࡞ㄒᙡࡀฟ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪Nixon ࡣࡇࡢ್ࡀప࠸ࡢ࡛௚ࡢ኱⤫㡿࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ྠࡌㄒࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ, Kennedy ࡣࡇࡢ್ࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ௚ࡢ኱⤫㡿ࡼࡾࡶẚ⋡ⓗከᵝ࡞ㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
5. ᑐᛂศᯒ ᑐᛂศᯒࢆᐇ᪋ࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾ㸪ึࡵ࡟ WordSmith (ver.4.0) ࢆ⏝࠸࡚᭱㢖ฟ 200 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢㄒᙡࢆᵓ⠏ࡋࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽྛ኱⤫㡿ู࡟ᢳฟࡋࡓࠋୖ఩ 200 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢㄒᙡࡔࡅ࡛ィ 223,782 ࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘ࡟ୖࡾ඲యࡢ⣙ 62%ࢆ༨ࡵࡿィ⟬࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ, ࡇࢀࡽࡢㄒᙡࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࢀࡤྛ₇ㄝࡢ኱ࡲ࠿࡞≉ᚩ࡜ഴྥࡀ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ୖ఩ 200 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢㄒᙡࢆᢳฟࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾ㸪≉࡟ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡣ↓㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿ#࡜⫈⾗ࡢᢿᡭ(applause) ࡣ๐㝖ࡍࡿ᪉㔪ࢆ᥇ࡗࡓࠋ
ḟ࡟㸪సᡂࡋࡓㄒᙡ㢖ᗘࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ(12 ⾜200 ิ)ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ⾜ิࢆᑐᛂศᯒ࡟࠿ࡅ㸪ࢹ࣮ࢱ⾜ิ୰࡟㏻ᗏࡍ
ࡿㄒᙡ࡜ࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ┦㛵ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆྍど໬ࡉࡏࡓ(ᑐᛂศᯒࡣࢹ࣮ࢱ⦰⣙ࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵࡢ⤫ィᡭἲ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࢧࣥࣉࣝ (ࢸࢡࢫࢺ) 㛫ࡢ㛵ಀ㸪ኚᩘ (ㄒᙡ) 㛫ࡢ㛵ಀ㸪ࡑࡋ࡚ࢧࣥࣉࣝ࡜ኚᩘࡢ஫࠸ࡢ㛵ಀࢆከḟඖ✵㛫ୖ࡟⾲♧ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ)ࠋ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡿ 11 ḟඖࡢᚓⅬࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪ᐤ୚⋡ࡀ᭱ࡶ㧗࠸ Dimension1 (48.19%) ࡜Dimension2 (8.91%) ࡢᚓⅬࢆ஧ḟඖᩓᕸᅗ࡟ᕸ⨨ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀ㸪኱⤫㡿ࡢᩓᕸᅗ࡛࠶ࡿᅗ 1 ࡜ㄒᙡࡢᩓᕸᅗ࡛࠶
ࡿᅗ 2 ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−106−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

㻔㻰㻝㻌㻗㻌㻰㻞㻦㻌㻡㻣㻚㻜㻥㻌㻑㻕㻜㻚㻞㻯㼘㼕㼚㼠㼛㼚㼋㻝㻥㻥㻟㻙㻞㻜㻜㻜㻜㻚㻝㼀㼞㼡㼙㼍㼚㼋㻝㻥㻠㻡㻙㻝㻥㻡㻝㻶㼛㼔㼚㼟㼛㼚㼋㻝㻥㻢㻟㻙㻝㻥㻢㻥㻳㻚㼃㻚㻮㼡㼟㼔㼋㻞㻜㻜㻝㻙㻞㻜㻜㻤㻰㻞㻌㻔㻤㻚㻥㻝㻑㻕㻻㼎㼍㼙㼍㼋㻞㻜㻜㻥㻙㻱㼕㼟㼑㼚㼔㼛㼣㼑㼞㼋㻝㻥㻡㻟㻙㻝㻥㻢㻜㻜㻷㼑㼚㼚㼑㼐㼥㼋㻝㻥㻢㻝㻙㻝㻥㻢㻟㻺㼕㼤㼛㼚㼋㻝㻥㻣㻜㻙㻝㻥㻣㻠㻙㻜㻚㻝㻴㻚㼃㻚㻮㼡㼟㼔㼋㻝㻥㻤㻥㻙㻝㻥㻥㻞㻲㼛㼞㼐㼋㻝㻥㻣㻡㻙㻝㻥㻣㻣㻯㼍㼞㼠㼑㼞㼋㻝㻥㻣㻤㻙㻝㻥㻤㻝
㻙㻜㻚㻞
㻙㻜㻚㻠

㻾㼑㼍㼓㼍㼚㼋㻝㻥㻤㻝㻙㻝㻥㻤㻤
㻙㻜㻚㻞
㻙㻜㻚㻝

㻙㻜㻚㻟

㻜

㻜㻚㻝

㻜㻚㻞

㻜㻚㻟

㻜㻚㻠

㻰㻝㻌㻔㻠㻤㻚㻝㻤㻌㻑㻕ᅗ 1. ᑐᛂศᯒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢゎᯒ⤖ᯝ 1㸫኱⤫㡿㛫ࡢ┦஫㛵ಀ㸫㻔㻰㻝㻌㻗㻌㻰㻞㻦㻌㻡㻣㻚㻜㻥㻌㻑㻕
㻜㻚㻡

㻜㻚㻟

㻰㻞㻌㻔㻤㻚㻥㻝㻌㻑㻕

㻜㻚㻝
㻜

㻙㻜㻚㻞
㻙㻜㻚㻟
㻙㻜㻚㻠

㼠

㼔㼑㼍㼘㼠㼔

㼜㼡㼎㼘㼕㼏
㼟㼑㼞㼥㼡㼜㼜㼛㼞㼠
㼏㼕㼠㼕㼦㼑㼚㼟
㼘㼑㼓㼕㼟㼘㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼑㼢㼏㼛㼡㼚㼠㼞㼥
㼎
㼡㼟
㼕㼚㼑㼟
㼟
㼍㼏㼠
㼐㼛 㼓㼕㼢㼑 㼣㼍㼥 㼔㼕㼟 㼠㼔㼑㼕㼞㼣㼛㼞㼗㼣㼍㼞㼚㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟
㼙㼑㼚㼡㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐
㼘㼍㼟㼠 㼍㼘㼘
㼒㼍㼙㼕㼘㼕㼑㼟
㼜㼞㼛
㼕㼐
㼑㼐㼡㼏㼍
㼠㼕㼛
㼚
㼚㼑㼑㼐
㼍㼢
㼚㼥
㼛㼑
㼠㼔㼑㼞
㼔㼑
㼟
㼏㼕㼍
㼘
㼒㼕㼞㼟
㼠㼛
㼓㼛
㼛
㼟㼑㼏㼡㼞㼕㼠㼥
㼙
㼕㼘㼘㼕㼛
㼚
㼎㼛㼙
㼠㼔
㼠㼔㼑㼙
㼍㼚㼥
㼥㼛
㼛㼐
㼜㼜
㼞㼠㼡㼚㼕㼠㼥
㼎㼛
㼑㼘㼕㼑㼢
㼠㼔㼑㼥
㼑㼢
㼔㼍
㼢㼑㼑㼠
㼑㼑
㼚㼓
㼟㼡㼟
㼟㼡
㼍㼥
㼙㼑㼚
㼍㼗㼠㼍
㼑㼕㼚㼠㼛
㼗㼑㼕㼒 㼠㼛
㼠㼔㼑㼟
㼑㼑㼚㼍㼘
㼘㼛
㼚㼓㼏㼛
㼎㼥㼟
㼥㼟㼞㼑㼟
㼠㼑㼙
㼍㼙
㼘㼟㼛
㼛㼟㼙
㼠㼙
㼚㼍㼠㼠㼕㼛
㼛㼞㼑
㼣㼔㼛
㼟㼛㼙
㼡㼟
㼠
㼣㼔㼑㼚
㼟㼠㼕㼘㼘
㼍
㼓
㼍
㼕㼚㼟
㼜
㼑㼛
㼜
㼘㼑
㼛
㼎
㼡㼞
㼑㼒㼛
㼞㼑
㼎㼑
㼜㼛㼣㼑㼞
㼠㼛
㼐
㼍㼠
㼍
㼥
㼍
㼞㼑
㼒㼞㼛
㼙
㼗㼍
㼚㼛
㼣
㼛㼞
㼟㼡㼏㼔
㼔㼕㼓
㼔
㼑㼏㼛㼡㼠
㼚㼛
㼙
㼥㼟 㼓㼠㼔㼞㼛
㼞㼑㼍㼠㼡㼓
㼡㼜
㼞㼕㼓
㼔㼠
㼔㼑㼘㼜
㼠㼔㼕㼟
㼕㼠
㼣
㼕㼠㼔㼛
㼣
㼑㼞㼑
㼠㼔㼑
㼛㼒
㼙
㼔㼍㼐
㼕㼠㼟
㼑 㼜㼞㼛㼓㼞㼑㼟㼟㼣㼔㼕㼏㼔
㼙
㼑㼞㼕㼏㼍
㼚㼟
㼔㼍
㼔㼛
㼙
㼣
㼑
㼕㼚
㼥㼛㼡㼞 㼔㼑㼞㼑㼍㼟㼎㼑㼏㼍㼕㼡㼟
㼑㼛㼞㼟
㼚㼑㼣
㼒㼛
㼞㼞㼥㼣㼛
㼛㼣
㼚 㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼑
㼘㼕㼒㼑
㼕㼟
㼢
㼑㼞㼥
㼠㼔㼍
㼏㼍
㼠
㼚
㼏㼛
㼚㼑
㼥
㼛㼚
㼑㼍
㼔㼕㼟
㼣
㼞
㼠㼛
㼕㼠㼔
㼡㼘㼐
㼥
㼑㼍
㼚㼍
㼠㼕㼛
㼚
㼟㼠㼞㼑㼚㼓㼍㼚㼐㼎㼑㼑㼚㼠㼛㼚㼕㼓㼔㼠
㼚㼛㼣㼖㼡㼟㼠 㼍㼎㼛㼡㼠 㼜㼞㼑㼟㼟㼠㼍㼠㼑㼟 㼒㼛㼞㼏㼑㼟 㼜㼞㼛㼓㼞㼍
㼠㼔㼍㼚
㼙
㼙
㼕㼘㼕㼠㼍
㼞㼥 㼠㼔
㼚㼑㼤
㼠㼠㼕㼙
㼣
㼛
㼞㼘㼐
㼕㼐㼑㼚㼠
㼑
㼜
㼛
㼘㼕㼏㼥
㼔㼛
㼜
㼑
㼛㼡㼠
㼎
㼑㼠㼠㼑㼞
㼍
㼚㼛㼠
㼍㼚
㼕㼚㼏㼞㼑㼍
㼟㼑㼣㼔㼍㼠 㼠㼛㼓㼑㼠㼔㼑㼞㼣㼍㼟㼛㼢㼑㼞 㼣
㼛
㼚㼘㼥
㼏㼍
㼚㼚㼛
㼠
㼚㼛
㼕㼘㼘
㼜㼑㼍㼏㼑 㼒㼞㼑㼑
㼜㼘㼍㼚
㼙㼑
㼙㼥
㼣
㼔㼑㼞㼑
㼍㼙
㼟
㼛
㼙
㼑
㼠㼔㼛
㼏㼛
㼙㼑㼟㼑
㼙㼡㼏㼔
㼐㼛㼣㼚
㼍㼙㼑㼞㼕㼏㼍
㼡㼟㼚㼠㼔㼑㼞㼑
㼟㼠㼍㼠㼑 㼓㼛㼢㼑㼞㼚㼙㼑㼚㼠 㼑㼏㼛㼚㼛㼙㼕㼏
㼎㼡㼠
㼜㼍㼟㼠
㼠㼛㼛
㼖㼛㼎㼟
㼟 㼍㼙㼑㼞㼕㼏㼍㼎㼡㼐㼓㼑㼠 㼏㼛㼡㼘㼐㼒㼞㼑㼑㼐㼛㼙
㼣
㼑㼘㼘
㼘㼑㼠
㼠㼍
㼤
㼜㼑㼞㼏㼑㼚㼠
㼞㼑㼒㼑㼐㼑㼞㼍㼘
㼐㼑㼒㼑㼚㼟㼑
㼒㼡㼠㼡㼞㼑
㼎㼕㼘㼘㼕㼛㼚
㼡㼚㼕㼛㼚 㼜㼞㼛㼓㼞㼍㼙㼟㼏㼔㼕㼘㼐㼞㼑㼚㼍㼟㼗 㼣㼍㼚㼠

㻜㻚㻞

㻙㻜㻚㻝

㼟㼔㼛㼡㼘㼐

㼏㼍㼞㼑

㻜㻚㻠

㼟㼔㼍㼘㼘

㼓㼞㼛㼣㼠㼔

㻙㻜㻚㻡
㼢㼑
㻙㻜㻚㻢
㻙㻝 㻙㻜㻚㻥 㻙㻜㻚㻤 㻙㻜㻚㻣 㻙㻜㻚㻢 㻙㻜㻚㻡 㻙㻜㻚㻠 㻙㻜㻚㻟 㻙㻜㻚㻞 㻙㻜㻚㻝

㻜

㻜㻚㻝

㻜㻚㻞

㻜㻚㻟

㻜㻚㻠

㻜㻚㻡

㻜㻚㻢

㻜㻚㻣

㻜㻚㻤

㻜㻚㻥

㻝

㻰㻝㻌㻔㻠㻤㻚㻝㻤㻌㻑㻕ᅗ 2. ᑐᛂศᯒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢゎᯒ⤖ᯝ 2㸫᭱㢖ฟㄒᙧ 100 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ┦஫㛵ಀ㸫
ᅗ 1 ࡣྛ኱⤫㡿ࡢ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝ㛫ࡢ┦஫㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡋ㸪㏆᥋ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ኱⤫㡿㛫࡛ࡣ₇ㄝෆࡢ౑⏝ㄒᙡࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ
㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㸪㞳ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ኱⤫㡿ࡣ␗㉁ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᅗ 1 ࡜ᅗ 2 ࡣ஫࠸࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ྛ኱⤫㡿ࡢ఩⨨ྲྀࡾ࡜ㄒᙡ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆㄞࡳྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ≉࡟ᅗ 1 ࡢ኱⤫㡿ࡢᩓᕸ࠿ࡽ㸪ᶓ㍈ (Dimension1) ࡢゎ㔘࡜ࡋ࡚ྑ࠿ࡽᕥ࡟⛣⾜ࡍࡿ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚ᴫࡡᖺ௦㡰࡟ࢸࢡࢫࢺࡀᩓᕸࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ
࠿ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪ྑ༙ศࡣ 80 ᖺ௦௨๓ࡢ኱⤫㡿ࡀᕸ⨨ࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡾ㸪ᕥ༙ศࡣ 80 ᖺ௨㝆࠿ࡽ⌧ᅾࡲ࡛ࡢ኱
⤫㡿ࡀᕸ⨨ࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿ(ᮏ◊✲࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ኱⤫㡿ࡢ୰࡛᭱ࡶึᮇࡢ኱⤫㡿࡛࠶ࡿ
Truman (➨ 1 ㇟㝈࡟ᕸ⨨) ࡜⌧ᅾࡢ኱⤫㡿 Obama (➨ 2 ㇟㝈࡟ᕸ⨨) ࡀ 1 ㍈ୖ࡯ࡰṇᑐ⛠࡟ᕸ⨨ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡶ

−107−

コーパス言語学と批判的談話分析の融合：歴代米国大統領の一般教書演説を題材に⯆࿡῝࠸)ࠋ
ᅗ 2 ࡣ᭱㢖ฟㄒᙧ 200 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ┦஫㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡋ㸪ᅗ 1 ࡢྛ኱⤫㡿(ࡢ₇ㄝ)ࡢศᕸ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≉ᚩㄒᙡࡀྍど໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྑ༙ศ(1980 ᖺ௨๓)ࡢ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢഴྥ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪freedom ࡸ security㸪economy㸪economic㸪
government㸪great㸪which㸪should ࡞࡝ࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ᕥ༙ศ(1980 ᖺ௨㝆)ࡢഴྥ࡛ࡣ㸪willࡸ care, ask, you㸪America(n)㸪people㸪must㸪we㸪can㸪who㸪together, children, health ➼ࡀ㢖⦾࡟ฟ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ
ᅗ 1 ཬࡧᅗ 2 ࡢ 2 ḟඖࣉࣟࢵࢺ࠿ࡽ㏻᫬ⓗㄒᙡ౑⏝ࡢኚ⛣ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜㸪ἲຓືモ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪≉࡟ 80 ᖺ௦
௨๓ࡣᚲせ࡟㏕ࡗࡓྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴ࡭ࡁෆᨻㄢ㢟ࡀᅜᐙ࡟ㄢࡏࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ᚲ↛ᛶ࣭⩏ົᛶࢆ♧ࡍ should ࡸ must ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᅜᐙࡢᣦᑟ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ኱⤫㡿ࡢᙉ࠸ពᚿࡸᅜᐙࡢ⩏ົࢆ᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㏫࡟㸪80 ᖺ௨㝆ࡣ⌧≧࡛ఱࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ (ྍ⬟ࡢ can)㸪ᮍ᮶࡟࠾࠸࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑐ⟇ࢆ࡜ࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿ (ពᛮᮍ᮶ࡢ will) ࡜࠸࠺๓ྥࡁ࡞ጼໃ
ࡀ₇ㄝ࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋே⛠௦ྡモ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪80 ᖺ௦௨㝆ࡣ㸪኱⤫㡿ಶேࡢពぢࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㆟ဨࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋࡓ
⫈⾗࡬ࡢ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࢆᬯ♧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᣦ♧௦ྡモ࡛࠶ࡿ you ࡸ we ࢆከ⏝ࡋ㸪ࡲࡓ㸪㆟ဨࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ₇ㄝ࡞ࡀࡽࡶᅜẸࢆྵពࡋࡓ people ࡸ American ࢆከ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㛵ಀ௦ྡモ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ㸪80 ᖺ௨๓ࡣ㸪which ࡢከ⏝࠿ࡽ⤒῭ၥ㢟ࡸᏳ඲ಖ㞀࡞࡝ᅜᐙࡸ♫఍ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿၥ㢟ࢆᢪ࠼࡚࠸ࡓ⡿ᅜࡀᇉ㛫ぢ࠼ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪80 ᖺ௨㝆ࡣ㸪who ࡢከ⏝࠿ࡽಶேࣞ࣋ࣝࡢၥ㢟ࢆᅜᐙࡀྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴ࡭ࡁ㔜せㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚₇ㄝ࡟ྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྡモ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪80 ᖺ௨๓ࡣ freedom, legislation, peace㸪economy㸪security, government, forces, security ࡞࡝ᙜ᫬ࡢ
᫬௦⫼ᬒࢆዴᐇ࡟཯ᫎࡍࡿෆᨻㄢ㢟ࡢㄒᙡࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪80 ᖺ௨㝆ࡣ care, children, families, health,education, tax, budget, future ࡞࡝㏆ᖺ࣭⌧ᅾࡢ⡿ᅜࡀᢪ࠼ࡿ㔜せㄢ㢟ࡸࡇࢀ࠿ࡽὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁᑐ㇟࡞࡝ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୖ㸪ᑐᛂศᯒ࠿ࡽண ࡛ࡁࡿࡇࢀࡽࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚㸪ලయⓗ࡟ㄯヰศᯒࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࠋ
6. ㄯヰศᯒ
6.1. must: 80 ᖺ௨㝆࡟࠾ࡅࡿἲຓືモࡢ౑⏝ࡢ୍౛ ௨ୗࡣ㸪Reagan ඖ኱⤫㡿ࡢ₇ㄝ࠿ࡽᢤ⢋ࡋࡓἲຓືモ must ࡢࢥࣥࢥ࣮ࢲࣥࢫࣛ࢖࡛ࣥ࠶ࡿࠋ
JQRPRUHWKDQJRYHUQPHQWWDNHVLQ:HPXVWEULQJ)HGHUDOGHILFLWVGRZQ%XWKRZZHGRWKD
GLIZH UHWRKDYHDVRXQGHFRQRP\:HPXVWEULQJGRZQWKHGHILFLWVWRHQVXUHFRQWLQXHGHF
OSXVVWDUWRQWKHULJKWSDWK<HWZHPXVWGRPRUH6R,SURSRVHWKDWZHEHJLQH[SORULQJ
HVVLQPDWKDQGUHDGLQJVNLOOV%XWZHPXVWGRPRUHWRUHVWRUHGLVFLSOLQHWRVFKRROVDQGUHVWRUHGLVFLSOLQHWRVFKRROVDQGZHPXVWHQFRXUDJHWKHWHDFKLQJRIQHZEDVLFVUHZDUGW
$PHULFDQVUHVRUWWRIRUFHRQO\ZKHQZHPXVW:HKDYHQHYHUEHHQDJJUHVVRUV:HKDYHDOZD\VLQGHSHQGHQWDQGVRYHUHLJQ/HEDQRQ:HPXVWKDYHWKHFRXUDJHWRJLYHSHDFHDFKDQFH$QGZVWHDGLO\WRZDUGDEDODQFHGEXGJHWZHPXVWDOVROLJKWHQJRYHUQPHQW VFODLPRQRXUWRWDOHZLOOQRWGRWKLVE\UDLVLQJWD[HV:HPXVWPDNHVXUHWKDWRXUHFRQRP\JURZVIDVWHUWKDQW
QGQHHG\ZLOOEHSUHVHUYHG6HFRQGZHPXVWQRWUHOD[RXUHIIRUWVWRUHVWRUHPLOLWDU\VWUHୖグ࠿ࡽ㸪඲ே⛠௦ྡモ we ࡜ἲຓືモ must ࡀ㢖⦾࡟ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋᐇ㝿㸪ἲຓືモ must(1645౛)ࡢඹ㉳ㄒ(ྑ࣭ᕥྛ 5 ㄒࡲ࡛)ࡢㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪඲యࡢ 56% (960 ౛) ࡀ we ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ(ඹ㉳ㄒ➨ 1 ఩)ࠋBiber et al.
(1999: 494-495) ࡣ㸪኱つᶍࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮ศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪ཱྀㄒ(≉࡟఍ヰయ)࡟࠾࠸࡚ have toࡣ୺ほⓗ⩏ົᛶ(personal obligation)ࢆ㸪must ࡣㄽ⌮ⓗᚲせᛶ(logical necessity)ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝෆࡢ౑⏝࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶㄽ⌮ⓗᚲせᛶࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢࡀ኱༙ࢆ༨ࡵࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ኱⤫㡿⮬㌟ࡀᅜᐙ
ࡢ௦⾲(㆟ဨ)࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠕᡃࠎࡣࡇ࠺ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺☜࠿࡞ᣦ㔪࡜ᙉ࠸Ỵពࢆᐈほⓗ࡟⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟௚
࡞ࡽࡎ㸪኱⤫㡿ࡀ☜ᅛ࡜ࡋࡓពᛮ࡜┠ⓗ㸪ࡑࡋ࡚Ỵពࢆᣢࡗ࡚ᙼࡽࢆຊᙉࡃᑟࡇ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ୺ほⓗⓎヰࡢ୰࡟㸪ᐈほᛶࢆ௜ࡅຍ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ௨ୗࡣ㸪 G.W.Bush ๓኱⤫㡿ࡢ∗㸪H.W.Bush ඖ኱⤫㡿ࡢ₇ㄝࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
We face a massive task in cleaning up the waste left from decades of environmental neglect at America's
nuclear weapons plants. Clearly, we must modernize these plants and operate them safely. That's not at−108−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

issue; our national security depends on it. But beyond that, we must clean up the old mess that's been left
behind. And I propose in this budget to more than double our current effort to do so. This will allow us to
identify the exact nature of the various problems so we can clean them up, and clean them up we will.
ୖグࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡣ㸪ᅜᐙࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴ࡭ࡁෆᨻㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚㸪⡿ᅜࡢ᰾㛤Ⓨᕤሙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᗫᲠ≀࣭ṧ㧁ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋࡓ⎔ቃၥ㢟ࡀࢸ࣮࣐࡛࠶ࡿࠋྂ࠸ᕤሙࢆๅ᪂ࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟Ᏻ඲⟶⌮࡟ࡶ㓄៖ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ we must…
ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᙉࡃ୺ᙇࡋ㸪ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ෆᨻㄢ㢟࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ᢞ㈨ண⟬ࡢ኱ᖜ࡞ᣑ኱ࡀ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺
ᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ᙉ࠸ពᛮࡢᇶ࡟ྜ⌮ⓗ࡟㐙⾜ྍ⬟࡞ᥦ᱌࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᐈほⓗ࡟♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪᭱ᚋࡢࢭࣥࢸ
ࣥࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ほᛶࢆ♧ࡍㄆ㆑ⓗ⏝ἲࡢἲຓືモ㸪ྍ⬟ࡢ can ࡸពᛮᮍ᮶ࡢ will ࡞࡝ࡶᕦࡳ࡟ΰᅾࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜
࡛(ࡘࡲࡾἲຓືモࢆ౑࠸ศࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡛)㸪ᐈほᛶ㸩୺ほᛶ࡜࠸ࡗࡓⓎヰࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆ₇ㄝෆ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞ἲຓືモࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡣ㸪ᥦ᱌ෆᐜࡀᑗ᮶ⓗ࡟㐙⾜ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⮬↛࡜⫈⾗ࢆඛᑟࡍࡿᙧ࡛♧ࡍࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪ྠ᫬࡟₇ㄝࡢຠᯝࢆ㧗ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓ㸪Wilson and Sperber (1988) ࡟ࡼࢀࡤ㸪ேࡀᥥࡃୡ⏺ࡣ㸪ࠕ⌧ᐇⓗୡ⏺ (actual world)ࠖ
㸪ࠕ₯ᅾⓗୡ⏺
(potential world)ࠖ
㸪ࠕᕼồⓗୡ⏺ (desirable world)ࠖࡢ 3 ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿࠋࠕ₯ᅾⓗୡ⏺ࠖࡣ㸪⌧ᅾࡢୡ⏺࡟࠾࠸࡚₯ᅾⓗ࡟ᐇ⌧ྍ⬟࡞ୡ⏺ࢆᣦࡋ㸪ࠕᕼồⓗୡ⏺ࠖࡣࡑࡢᐇ⌧ࡀᮃࡲࡋ࠸࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿୡ⏺ࢆᣦࡍࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ୖグࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫෆ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ࡣࡌࡵ࡟⡿ᅜࡢ⌧≧ (ㄢ㢟) ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ⌧ᐇⓗୡ⏺ࠖࢆᑟධࡋ㸪ࡑࡢࠕ⌧ᐇⓗୡ⏺ࠖࡢㅖၥ㢟ࢆ₯ᅾⓗ࡟ᡴ㛤࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ₯ᅾⓗୡ⏺ࠖࡀ can ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ୡ⏺ࡇࡑ㸪ḟୡ௦ࡢ⡿ᅜ࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺⌧ᅾࡢୡ⏺ࡢ㢪ᮃ㸪ࡘࡲࡾࠕᕼồⓗୡ⏺ࠖࡀ will ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ྠ୍ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫෆ࡟ 3 ࡘࡢୡ⏺ࢆ㡰ᗎࡼࡃ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛㸪኱⤫㡿ࡀᥥࡃ⡿ᅜࡢ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ᮍ᮶ࡢጼࢆᫎࡋฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
6.2. ᣦ♧௦ྡモࡢኚ⛣: 80 ᖺ௨㝆࡟࠾ࡅࡿ you ࡜ we ࡢ౑⏝ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ ḟ࡟ 80 ᖺ௨㝆㸪୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝ࡛ከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿ⫈⾗ࢆྵពࡍࡿᣦ♧௦ྡモ you ࡸ we ࡢ౑⏝౛ࢆලయⓗ࡟♧ࡍࠋ௨ୗࡣ㸪ࢡࣜࣥࢺࣥඖ኱⤫㡿࠿ࡽࡢࢥࣥࢥ࣮ࢲࣥࢫࣛ࢖࡛ࣥ࠶ࡿࠋ
QHUDRIJOREDOL]DWLRQ,ZDQWWRWHOO\RXWKDW,DPYHU\JUDWHIXOIRUPDQ\WKLQJVDV3UHV
RPHZLWKWKHLUFKLOGUHQ7RQLJKW,DVN\RXWRVXSSRUWQHZIXQGLQJIRUWKHIROORZLQJWKLQJV
HFKEXW,FDQ WVD\WKDW2QH,ZDQW\RXWRKHOSXVWRGRWKUHHWKLQJV:HQHHGPRUHIXQ
OLIH:HQHHGWKHVHWKLQJVDQG,ZDQW\RXWRKHOSXV7KHJUHDWHVWHQYLURQPHQWDOFKDOOHQJ
IIRONVDURXQGWKHZRUOGVWLOOEHOLHYH\RXFDQQRWFXWJUHHQKRXVHJDVHPLVVLRQVZLWKRXWVOR
OLQHVLQVFLHQFHDQGWHFKQRORJ\,DVN\RXWRVXSSRUWP\UHFRPPHQGDWLRQRIDQXQSUHFHGHQWH
PHQWV6RRQ,ZLOOVHQGOHJLVODWLRQWR\RXWRILQLVKWKDWMRE:HPXVWDOVRDFWWRSUHYHQWWHYHUE\HPSOR\HUVRULQVXUHUV,KRSH\RXZLOOVXSSRUWWKDW7KHVHVWHSVZLOODOORZXVWRDQGUHOLJLRXVEDFNJURXQG$QG,WKLQN\RXZRXOGDJUHHWKDW$PHULFDLVVWURQJHUEHFDXVHRILVVWURQJHUEHFDXVHRILW>$SSODXVH@<RXDOVRKDYHWRDJUHHWKDWDOOWKRVHGLIIHUHQFHV\
ZD\DQGZHPXVWGUDZWKHOLQH,DVN\RXWRGUDZWKDWOLQHE\SDVVLQJZLWKRXWGHOD\WKH
HQW1RQ'LVFULPLQDWLRQ$FW$QG,DVN\RXWRUHDXWKRUL]HWKH9LROHQFH$JDLQVW:RPHQ$FW
QJDERXWWKLVDQG,ZDQWHYHU\RQHRI\RXWRWKLQNDERXWWKLVWKHQH[WWLPH\RXJHWPDGD
2 ே⛠ᣦ♧௦ྡモ you ࡣ I ask you…ࡸ I want you to…㸪I hope you…ࡢࣃࢱ࣮࡛ࣥ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࡀከࡃ㸪≉࡟ you ࡢ┤๓࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿ ask (ࡘࡲࡾ ask you) ࡣ㸪you ࡢ L1 ఩⨨ࡢඹ㉳ㄒ➨ 1 ఩(104 ౛)࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆከ⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪኱⤫㡿ࡀಶேࡢぢゎࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ୰࡟㸪⫈⾗࡛࠶ࡿ㆟ဨ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪ࡼࡾᙉᅛ࡞ᅜᐙ
ࢆඹ࡟⠏࠸࡚࠸ࡇ࠺࡜┤᥋ⓗ࡟࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡿຠᯝࢆ⏕ࡴࠋྠ᫬࡟㸪ᅜᐙࡢ௦⾲࡛࠶ࡿ㆟ဨ࡜ࡢ୍యᛶࢆᬯ࡟ྵពࡋ㸪ᥦ㆟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⫈⾗࠿ࡽ⮬↛࡜ྠពࢆᚓࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿጼ࡜㸪ᩍᑟࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿຠᯝࢆ⏕ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ
௨ୗࡣ Clinton ඖ኱⤫㡿ࡢ₇ㄝ࠿ࡽࡢ୍㒊ᢤ⢋࡛࠶ࡿࠋI ask you to support my recommendation of an unprecedented $3 billion in the 21st century research fund, the largest increasein civilian research in a generation. We owe it to our future. Now, these new breakthroughs have to be used in ways that−109−

コーパス言語学と批判的談話分析の融合：歴代米国大統領の一般教書演説を題材にreflect our values. First and foremost, we have to safeguard our citizens' privacy. Last year we proposed to protect every
citizen's medical record. This year we will finalize those rules. We've also taken the first steps to protect the privacy of bankand credit card records and other financial statements. Soon I will send legislation to you to finish that job. We must also act toprevent any genetic discrimination whatever by employers or insurers. I hope you will support that. These steps will allow us
to lead toward the far frontiers of science and technology. (Clinton)₇ㄝ୰࡛ࡣ㸪
⫈⾗ࢆྵពࡍࡿ we ࡸ our㸪┤᥋ⓗ࡟⫈⾗࡟࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡿ you ࡞࡝ࡢᣦ♧௦ྡモࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ㸪I ask you/ we proposed / we will finalize / we must act / I hope you will support ࡞࡝ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋyou ࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡾ㆟ဨ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⮬↛ୟࡘ┤᥋ⓗ࡞࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡸ㸪ᅜᐙࡢ௦⾲࡛࠶ࡿ㆟ဨࢆྵពࡋࡓ we ࡢከ⏝ࡀ㸪ᙜ㠃ㄢ㢟࡬ࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ࡟ᑐࡋ୍࡚యឤࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ᭦࡟㸪ෆᨻㄢ㢟ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼ࡜ᨵၿἲ㸪⌧ᅾࡲ࡛ࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࡢᡂᯝ㸪ᮍ᮶࡬ࡢពᛮ⾲♧㸪ࡑࡋ࡚ࡼࡾ೺඲࡞ᅜᐙࢆඹ࡟⠏ࡁୖࡆࡼ࠺࡜ㅻ࠺₇ㄝࡢ୰࡛㸪኱⤫㡿⮬ࡽࡀ weࢆከ⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪⮬㌟࡜ᨻᶒ㸪ᨻ⟇㸪⫈⾗࡛࠶ࡿ㆟ဨ㸪ࡑࡋ࡚ᅜẸࢆ₇ㄝෆ࡟จ⦰ࡋ㸪୍యឤࢆ㧗ࡵࡿຠᯝࢆ
⏕ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
6.3. ⡿ᅜࡢ㔜せෆᨻㄢ㢟ࢆ♧ࡍ㛵ಀ௦ྡモ who⏣⏿ (2006) ࡛ࡣ㸪⡿ᅜ኱⤫㡿ᑵ௵₇ㄝࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᑐᛂศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪⤫ㄒⓗほⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪㛵ಀモ whichࡢ౑⏝ (ࡶࡋࡃࡣ which ࡟ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ㛵ಀモࢆᇙࡵ㎸ࢇࡔᩥᵓ㐀) ࡀ᫬௦࡜ඹ࡟ῶᑡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ࣛࢪ࢜ࡸࢸࣞࣅ࡞࡝ࡢ㟁Ἴ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢฟ⌧௨๓ࡣ㸪₇ㄝࡢ⫈⾗ࡢ኱༙ࡣᨻ἞ᐙࡸᨻᗓࡢᙺ
ே࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀ㸪㟁Ἴ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢᬑཬ࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿ⫈⾗ࡢᵓᡂࡸつᶍࡀ኱ࡁࡃኚㇺࡍࡿ࡟ࡘࢀ㸪⫈ࡁᡭࡢ▷ᮇグ᠈ࡢ㈇ᢸࡢ࠿࠿ࡿᇙࡵ㎸ࡳᵓᩥࡢ౑⏝ࡀῶᑡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡢぢ᪉ࢆᙉࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣ㸪80 ᖺ௨๓ࡣ which ࡀዲࢇ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡀ㸪80 ᖺ௨㝆ࡣ which ࡢ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ who ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᪂ࡓ࡟᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ࡇࡢ㛵ಀ௦ྡモ who ࡢ౑⏝ࡀ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢ୰࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࢆ
ࡶࡘࡢ࠿ලయⓗ࡟ᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ௨ୗࡣ㸪Clinton ඖ኱⤫㡿ࡢ㛵ಀ௦ྡモ who ࡢࢥࣥࢥ࣮ࢲࣥࢫࣛ࢖࡛ࣥ࠶ࡿࠋ
OGUHGXFHSRYHUW\DPRQJHOGHUO\ZRPHQZKRDUHQHDUO\WZLFHDVOLNHO\WREHSRRUDVRXURW
PDGHVXPPHUVFKRROPDQGDWRU\IRUWKRVHZKRGRQ WPDVWHUWKHEDVLFV0DWKDQGUHDGLQJVFRUHIRUFROOHJHVFKRODUVKLSVIRUVWXGHQWVZKRFRPPLWWRWHDFKLQWKHLQQHUFLWLHVDQGLVRODWH
RUHWRVXSSRUWWKHPLOOLRQVRISDUHQWVZKRJLYHWKHLUDOOHYHU\GD\DWKRPHDQGDWZRUN7
HSHRSOHEHWZHHQWKHDJHVRIDQGZKRORVHWKHLUKHDOWKLQVXUDQFHWKHFKDQFHWREX\LUDOOWKHPLOOLRQVRIZRUNLQJIDPLOLHVZKRGRQ WKDYHDQ\LQVXUDQFH7KH\GRDORWRIWKDWDLQLQJRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUDOO$PHULFDQVZKRORVHWKHLUMREVDQGH[SDQGUDSLGUHVSRQVHWHDPVLOOLRQVDQGPLOOLRQVRIZRUNLQJSHRSOHZKRVWLOOUHDGDWOHVVWKDQDILIWKJUDGHOHYHO:H
3DUWQHUVKLSLQFOXGHVFRPSDQLHVZKRKDYHKLUHGKXQGUHGVRIWKRXVDQGVRISHRSOH$QG
RIWKHULVNVIDFHGHYHU\GD\E\WKRVHZKRUHSUHVHQW$PHULFDWRWKHZRUOG6ROHW VJLYHWQWUDO$PHULFDQDQG&DULEEHDQQHLJKERUVZKRKDYHEHHQVRGHYDVWDWHGE\WKHUHFHQWKXUULFDQH
QGWKH%UDG\ELOOWRSUHYHQWMXYHQLOHVZKRFRPPLWYLROHQWFULPHVIURPEX\LQJDJXQ:HPXV
DQN\RX,QPHPRU\RIDOOWKHFKLOGUHQZKRORVWWKHLUOLYHVWRVFKRROYLROHQFH,DVN\RXXQWDELOLW\DQGH[WUDKHOSVRFKLOGUHQZKRQHHGLWFDQJHWLWWRUHDFKWKRVHVWDQGDUGV,ୖグࡢࢥࣥࢥ࣮ࢲࣥࢫࣛ࢖ࣥ࠿ࡽ㸪୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ who ࡢ౑⏝ࡣ㸪ࡑࡢ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡀே㛫(ಶே)ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᅜ
ࡀྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴ࡭ࡁෆᨻㄢ㢟ࢆලయⓗ࡟᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋwho ௨ୗࡢᚑᒓ㒊ࡀලయⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ㸪Clinton ๓኱⤫㡿ࡢ₇ㄝࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ 80 ᖺ௨㝆ࡢ௚ࡢ኱⤫㡿࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ㸪who ࡢ౑⏝࡟㛵ࡋ࡚㢮ఝࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋ౛࡜ࡋ࡚㸪G.W.Bush ๓኱⤫㡿ࡢ₇ㄝ࠿ࡽ୍㒊ᢤ⢋ࡋࡓᩥ⬦ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000
math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they
have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that−110−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

America succeeds in the world. (G.W.Bush)
G.W.Bush ๓኱⤫㡿ࡀ⡿ᅜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩍ⫱ไᗘࡢၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿぢゎ࡜ពぢࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ᙜẁⴠࡢၥ㢟࡜ࢸ࣮࣐࡛࠶ࡿࠕᩘᏛࡀⱞᡭ࡞Ꮫ⏕࡬ࡢᩍ⫱ⓗ⿵ᙉࠖࡀ who ௨ୗࡢᚑᒓ㒊 (ୗ⥺㒊) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᅜᐙࡢᡂ❧ࢆ⤒ࡓ⌧ᅾࡢ⡿ᅜࡢ㔜せෆᨻㄢ㢟ࡣ㸪ᅜᐙ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡣ࡞ࡃே㛫ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚㸪㛵ಀ௦ྡモ who ࡀ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝෆ࡛ࡣᅜࡢ⌧≧ㄢ㢟ࡸ♫఍ⓗၥ㢟㸪ᨵၿⅬࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍࢺࣆࢵࢡ࣐࣮࣮࢝࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ2
6.4. 80 ᖺ௨๓ࡢ≉ᚩㄒᑐᛂศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪80 ᖺ௨๓ࡣ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢ୰࡛ freedom ࡸ legislation, peace㸪economy ࡞࡝ࡢෆᐜㄒ
ࡀከࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋᙜ᫬ࡢ᫬௦⫼ᬒࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄒᙡࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿࡢࡣ⣡ᚓࡀ࠸ࡃ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ freedom ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓඹ㉳ࣇ࣮ࣞࢬ࡟ࡣ㸪our freedom㸪human freedom㸪peace andfreedom㸪individual freedom㸪American freedom㸪the protection of freedom㸪defend our freedom ࡞࡝ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁ㸪ಶேࡸᅜẸ㸪ᅜᐙࡢ⮬⏤ࢆㅻࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⏝౛ࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᅉࡳ࡟ freedom ࡢඹ㉳ㄒࢆㄪ࡭࡚ࡳ
ࡿ࡜㸪඲ 507 ౛୰ࡢඹ㉳ㄒ (ᕥ࣭ྑ 5 ㄒ௨ෆ) ࡢ୰࡛㸪for ࡀ 7 ఩ (96 ౛), our ࡀ 8 ఩ (87 ౛)㸪we ࡀ 9 ఩ (84౛)㸪 peace ࡀ➨ 11 ఩ (53 ౛)㸪world ࡀ➨ 14 ఩ (37 ౛)㸪will ࡀ➨ 15 ఩ (33 ౛) ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ᙜ᫬ࡢᡓதࡸᅜᐙ
㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿ♫఍ⓗᑐ❧ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜㸪⡿ᅜࡢ᭱ඃඛㄢ㢟ࡀᅜᐙ࡜ᅜẸࡢ⮬⏤࡜ᖹ࿴ࢆ຾ࡕྲྀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜
ࡀ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪᫬௦⫼ᬒࡀኚࢃࡿ࡜ඹ࡟ෆᨻㄢ㢟ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ࠿࡞ࡾኚ⛣ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ㸪80 ᖺ௨㝆ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄒᙡࡀ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝ࡟࠾࠸࡚≉ᚩⓗ࡟ぢࡽࢀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ⌮⏤࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ≉࡟㸪ពᛮᮍ᮶ࡢ will ࡜ freedom ࡢඹ㉳ࡣ㸪ᅜᐙࡢᣦᑟ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ኱⤫㡿ࡀ㸪⮬⏤࡟ྥ࠿࠺⮬ࡽࡢ᫂☜࡞ពᛮ࡜᪉ྥᛶࢆ༳㇟࡙ࡅ㸪ᙉຊ࡞ᣦᑟຊࡢࡶ
࡜㸪᫂ࡿ࠸ᮍ᮶࡬࡜⫈⾗ࢆᑟࡃຠᯝࢆ⏕ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋཧ⪃ࡲ࡛࡟௨ୗࡣ Truman ࡢ₇ㄝ࠿ࡽࡢᢤ⢋࡛࠶ࡿࠋSo that there can be no possible misunderstanding, both Germany and Japan can be certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt,that America will continue the fight for freedom until no vestige of resistance remains!
 ⣬ᖜୖ㸪ࢥࣥࢥ࣮ࢲࣥࢫࣛ࢖ࣥࢆ࠾ぢࡏࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪௚ࡢ 80 ᖺ௨๓≉ᚩㄒࡢ౛ࢆ♧ࡍ࡜㸪౛࠼ࡤ
legislation ࡣ enact(ment)࡜㢖⦾࡟ඹ㉳ࡋ(≉࡟ Truman, Eisenhower ࡛౑⏝)㸪ᙜ᫬ࡢ⡿ᅜ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚
ࠕἲࡢไᐃࠖ
ࡣᛴົࡢㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓ peace ࡢ౑⏝࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪➼఩᥋⥆モࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ 㹼 and peace ࡢ⾲⌧࡟ prosperity, security, stability ࡞࡝ࡀฟ⌧ࡋ(≉࡟ Eisenhower, Johnson, Kennedy, Carter ࡛౑⏝)㸪ᅜᐙࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚Ᏻ඲ಖ㞀࡞࡝ࡢᵓ⠏ࡀᖹ࿴࡜┤᥋ⓗ࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ᭦࡟㸪ᙜ᫬ࡢୡ⏺ᖹ࿴࡟ྥࡅࡓ㢪࠸ࡸ⾜ືࡶඹ㉳⾲⌧world peace ࠿ࡽㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿ(≉࡟Eisenhower, Truman, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy࡛౑⏝)ࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟≉ᚩㄒ economy ࡢ 80 ᖺ௨๓࡜௨㝆ࡢ౑⏝ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆඹ㉳㛵ಀ࠿ࡽᴫほࡍࡿࠋ80 ᖺ௨๓ࡣ㸪ᙜ᫬ࡢ⡿ᅜࡢ⤒῭≧ἣࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓ expanding ࡸ growing ࡞࡝ࡢඹ㉳ㄒࡀฟ⌧ࡋ(≉࡟ Nixon, Eisenhower, Kennedy,
Truman, Johnson ࡛౑⏝)㸪⮬ᅜࡢ⤒῭ᡂ㛗ࡸ⤒῭ᇶ┙ࡢ᰿ᮏⓗ࡞ᣑ኱࣭ಁ㐍➼࡟↔Ⅼࡀ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ୍᪉㸪80 ᖺ௨㝆ࠊnew economy (≉࡟ Clinton, G.W.Bush ࡛౑⏝) ࡸ global economy (≉࡟ Clinton, Obama, Reagan,
G.W.Bush ࡛౑⏝)࡞࡝ࡢࣇ࣮ࣞࢬࡀฟ⌧ࡋጞࡵ㸪economy ࡢ✀㢮࣭ᛶ㉁࣭つᶍࡀ᫬௦࡜ඹ࡟ኚᐜࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋ௨ୗࡣ㸪80 ᖺ௨๓ࡢ economy ࡢඹ㉳ࣇ࣮ࣞࢬࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
JUHVVWKDWKHOSHGDFKLHYHDQH[SDQGLQJHFRQRP\ZLWKIXOOHPSOR\PHQWDQGZLWKRXW㻌WKDWSURYLGHPRUHMREVLQDQH[SDQGLQJHFRQRP\%XWEXVLQHVVOHDGHUVPXVWLQWK㻌FDQEHPDLQWDLQHGRQO\LQDQH[SDQGLQJHFRQRP\WKHVHPLOOLRQVRIZRUNHUVLQ\R㻌LRQDOVDIHW\LVDVWURQJDQGH[SDQGLQJHFRQRP\7KLVZHKDYHDQGWKLVZHPXVWP㻌RXUJURZLQJSRSXODWLRQRXUH[SDQGLQJHFRQRP\DQGRXUQDWLRQDOVHFXULW\:HDU㻌
W7KHPDUFKRIVFLHQFHWKHH[SDQGLQJHFRQRP\WKHDGYDQFHLQFROOHFWLYHVHFXUL㻌ULIWVRHVVHQWLDOWRILQDQFHDJURZLQJHFRQRP\,QIODWLRQLVQRWD5RELQ+RRGW㻌

−111−

コーパス言語学と批判的談話分析の融合：歴代米国大統領の一般教書演説を題材にO\IRUWKHPRQHWDU\QHHGVRIDJURZLQJHFRQRP\DQGZLWKDPXFKJUHDWHUHIIRUWR㻌
KHPDLQWHQDQFHRIDVWURQJDQGJURZLQJHFRQRP\7KH$PHULFDQHFRQRP\LVRQHRIW㻌
QGPDLQWHQDQFHRIDVWURQJDQGJURZLQJHFRQRP\WKLV$GPLQLVWUDWLRQUHFRJQL]HVD㻌QWLQXLQJWREXLOGDVWURQJDQGJURZLQJHFRQRP\DEOHWRPDLQWDLQZKDWHYHUHIIRUW㻌VQRWLQFUHDVHRXUFRQVWDQWO\JURZLQJHFRQRP\ZLOOIDOOXQGHUWKHFRQWURORID㻌
RVWVLJQLILFDQWHOHPHQWLQRXUJURZLQJHFRQRP\LVDQDJULFXOWXUHWKDWLVVWDEOH㻌VHFRQGWRPDLQWDLQDVWURQJJURZLQJHFRQRP\WKLUGWRFRQFHUQRXUVHOYHVZLWK㻌QWWRKHOSPDLQWDLQDVWURQJJURZLQJHFRQRP\DQHFRQRP\YLJRURXVDQGIUHHLQ㻌
7. ⤖ㄒ
 ௨ୖ㸪Truman ௨㝆 Obama ࡲ࡛ࡢ⡿ᅜṔ௦኱⤫㡿࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࢆࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ໬ࡋ㸪ᑐᛂศᯒࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ྛ኱⤫㡿ࡢ౑⏝ㄒᙡࡢᐇែࢆィ㔞ⓗ࡟ྍど໬ࡉࡏ㸪ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒࢆヨࡳࡓࠋ኱⤫㡿㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪₇ㄝࡢ౑⏝ㄒᙡ࡟࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢᕪ␗ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡢ㸪ᴫࡡ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿㄒᙡࡣ 80 ᖺࢆቃ࡟㏻᫬ⓗ࡟ኚ⛣ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋຓືモࡸ௦ྡモ࡞࡝≉໬ࡋࡓㄒᙡ㡯┠ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢࡳ࠿ࡽ㸪㐣ཤ 70 ᖺ㏆ࡃ࡟ࢃࡓࡿ኱⤫㡿ࡢᨻ἞ጼໃࢆㄽࡌ
ࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣᮍࡔㄝᚓຊࡀḞࡅࡿ㒊ศࡀṧࡿࡢࡣྰࡵ࡞࠸ࠋ௚ࡢゝㄒ㡯┠ࡶྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡢࡣ☜࠿࡛࠶ࡾ㸪≉࡟ 80 ᖺ௨㝆ከ⏝ࡉࢀጞࡵࡓ care, children, families, health, education, plan, jobs, budget, tax, future࡞࡝ࡢྡモࡸ support, help ࡜࠸ࡗࡓືモ, together ࡞࡝ࡢ๪モࡢㄯヰศᯒࢆ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓ㸪௚ࡢ⤫ィᡭἲࡶ౑⏝ࡋ㸪ᚓࡽࢀࡿ⤖ᯝ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᕪ␗ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿᳨ドࡋ㸪ゝㄒ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⤫ィⓗ࣭グ㏙ⓗศᯒࡢࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡞⼥ྜࢆᶍ⣴ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋὀ㸸
1. ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪Ṕ௦⡿ᅜ኱⤫㡿ࡢ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝෆ࡛ࡢ≉ᚩㄒࢆ㸪ᑐᛂศᯒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ྍど໬ࡍࡿᡭἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
≉࡟㸪ᮏ✏ࡢㄪᰝ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓྐⓗ㢮ఝᛶࡸㄒᙡ౑⏝ࡢᐇែࡣ࠶ࡃࡲ୍࡛✀ࡢഴྥᛶ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪␗࡞ࡿ₇ㄝ⪅ࡢᩥ୰࡟ࡣ㸪ㄒᙡⓗ࡟ඹ㏻㒊ศࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒ஦ᐇࢆᐇドࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟␃ពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
2. 㛵ಀ௦ྡモࡢไ㝈⏝ἲࡣ㸪㏻ᖖ㸪ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫࣞ࣋ࣝෆ࡛ࡢグ㏙㸪ࡘࡲࡾඛ⾜モࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡋ࠿ᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ᮏ✏࡛⏝࠸ࡓࡼ࠺࡞㝈ࡾ࡞ࡃࢪࣕࣥࣝࡀไ㝈ࡉࢀࡿࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫෆ࡛ࡣ㸪㛵ಀ௦ྡモࡀࢺࣆࢵࢡ࣐࣮࣮࢝࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ㸪ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ඲య࡟Ώࡗ࡚ࣜࣥࢡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࡢไ㝈ୖ㸪ᮏ✏࡛༑ศ࡞ドᣐࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪௒ᚋ㸪Hoey (1991) ࡞࡝ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࢸࢡࢫࢺෆࡢㄒᙡࣜࣥࢡ
࡟↔Ⅼࢆ⨨ࡁ㸪ㄽࢆᨵࡵࡓ࠸ࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken andWritten English. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Burrows, J. F. and A. J. Hassal. 1988. “Anna Boleyn and the Authenticity of Fielding’s Feminine Narrative.”
Eighteenth Century Studies 21, 427-453.
Hoey, M. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nakamura, J. 1995. “Text Typology and Corpus: A Critical Review of Biber’s Methodology.” English Corpus
Studies 2, 75-90.
ோ⛉ᜤᚨ࣭ᖹ⏣ᜨ⌮. 2008.ࠕ⡿ᅜṔ௦኱⤫㡿࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୍⯡ᩍ᭩₇ㄝࡢㄒᙡศᯒࠖ
ࠊ
ࠗJACET 㛵すᨭ㒊⣖せ࠘
ࠊ10ࠊ
27-41.
⏣⏿ᬛྖ. 2006.ࠕᩥయ࡬ࡢ⤫ィᏛⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ㸸⡿ᅜṔ௦኱⤫㡿ᑵ௵₇ㄝࡢᩥయࢆィࡿࠖࠊࠗ⤫ィᩘ⌮◊✲ᡤඹྠ◊✲࣏࣮ࣜࢺ㸸ゝㄒࢥ࣮ࣃࢫゎᯒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿඹ㉳ㄒ᳨ฟࡢࡓࡵࡢ⤫ィᡭἲࡢẚ㍑ศᯒ࠘
ࠊ190ࠊ47-58.

−112−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

o[hF{ŲƲ' emergent property ŘŪ*Ǟ@|ƛíĹñ ƾÕÚèǟâè4ǤôÂƺó

< Abstract>

This article aims to explain how metaphor is interpreted, with the framework of cognitive pragmatics.
According to the existing accounts, they need special treatment to explain metaphorical interpretations becauseof an assumption called “emergent property”, which cannot be associated with “the metaphor vehicle”. But
this article examines the interpretative processes with the unitary account of “Ad hoc concept construction”.
That means we pragmatically adjust the word concept to the speaker’s meaning depending on the context. In
conclusion, I will propose that the emergent property in metaphorical interpretation is constituents ofassumptions derived as a result of a certain number of inferential steps called “mutual adjustment” – among
explicit side, contextual assumption, and contextual implication.
O{y{a ¼ŲŠďGak]PńčŅƉM^Uu{ŷîďŷƸĦǎƦĠƹ

1. -8* ĶŹƂ-Moreno(2004)=1 Wilson & Carston(2008)DĖ?'o[hF{Ʈǖ*@¼Ų
Šď,ŘŪ*Ǟ@|ƛí& @o[hF{-ÿƳŲƲ,`g]P(topic)'Ö @ƶ(metaphor vehicle)ŰƁò(category crossing)% @'@ŠĈ& ?,Ʈǖ-ƝĖÉĬ,ƶ*Ǟǐ@
>,ǬďDƪ,|İŴ*ŘŪAĒéDƲƜ,ēÙ9,'ƪ)'& @(1)

X is NP. ( “Topic” is “Metaphor Vehicle” )(2)AǴĲǋǰŖhFza'ėǀhFzaŵ*#, BǴ ,ǰŖ*-őD#B
(2’)#- 

ǰŖĤĂ x - dS[M* & @' .(2)&-ǝ& @ǰŖĤĂ,ėǀhFzalc{Xq{'ǯǬ,dS[MĜ#ŎƞD
ǭ3@ƚď',ǬďDƮǖŴ*Ğ Tz^PY`DÈŞ*ǰŖĤĂ-üłDĉ÷Ŵ*ƿÊ@'DƲƜ,ıŻŴēÓ'%Ʈǖ@'*)@ 5(2)&źƵA@ê-ǯǬ'ǝ'ŰƁò*¾ (3),= )ħƠĒéDŘŪ% @'& @(2’’)

Explicature : ǰŖĤĂ x -dS[M& @(3)Contextual assumption : dS[M-üłľDƿÊ@

Implicature: ǰŖĤĂ-ƝĖ,żD "ËB '% @

Carston (2002); Moreno(2004)-,ħƠĒé-ÿƳ,ƶ>ŶğŴ*ï³Ać) )C!°Ã

−113−

1

メタファー発話とemergent property派生に関する一考察AēÓ&-) 'Ö @ƶ'`g]P')@ƶ',Ǟǐ$;mapping )(*=@îČ,Ʒį-Å´& @'@,Ēé-¼ŲŠď(emergent property)'Ô.Ao[hF{Ʈǖ,ũƹŴƷį*-,ŘŪ,³ĕ'ÁŉDį>*@'Œ8>A% @ ĶŹƂ,Ě?ĕ')@Ǟǐďũƹ(Relevance Theory)&-ŲƲƮǖ,ǠŲƲ,Šé,ıŻŴ£ǥ& @Ġē(implicature)ƲƜ,ēÙ'%ƱA@*-ŲƲ,įŻŴ£ǥ& @Ƨē(explicature)9Ïİ*ǓA% )A.)>) '@)C!(2),Ƨē')@ ”ǰŖĤĂ x -dS[M& @” ,«ŴƮǖ*( ƽŦ@DƷį@'Œ8>A@ĶŹƂ-o[hF{ŲƲ,įŻŴ£ǥ(3),= )¼ŲŠď,ŘŪ,`uN{')@'Dƹ@%o[hF{*@¼ŲŠď-ƶŬƹŴƶ
ĀƸĦ(lexical adjustment)DƐ%ŅƉA@ŲƲ,įŻŴ£ǥ*¾ ħƠĒé%ıŻŴ£ǥ>,ǎƦĠƹ(backward inference)*=@ǳƜLztIz&¦'&ŘŪA@'Dý@
2 . o[hF{'Ǟǐď
2-1. Ǟǐďũƹ Ǟǐďũƹ'-ǝ,ƵŸjxZY;ĠƹŗÁ*ŜĚ%ŲƲ,ƮǖDƷį@ƶŬũƹ& @A*=@' C<@Ǟǐď',-ǝ,|ƣƵŸ'Ưƶ*=@TmrbR{Wsz,ǲ#,£ǥ&ǗƩ)ă»DĻǝ-3>Ĳâ,ǞǐďDǍ Œ8@¥ÐDĜ#'ƵŸWY^nDĜ!

A*ƃơ%ǔµ)TmrbR{Wsz*@«%,ŲƲ-ƢÁŴ*Ĳǔ)Ǟǐď,ƪǊ6DǓ@Ư Ģ A.ƝĖ-,ŲƲDƮǖ@#5?²ũ@*¡@4(,ǞǐďŲƲ*- @'Ĵą
@,& @,= )Ǟǐď,ƪǊ6*¹ƋDÌ@ƝĖ-(4),= )ƮǖY`t^X{Dǃ7'ƷįA@
(4)Ǟǐďũƹ,ƮǖY`t^X{ƵŸÀĻDƆé@,*ƝĖ-¿½DĲð*@Ʈǖv{`D(@ƝĖ-GPZY; Ǧ*Ʈǖ,ƷŁƱDƦ Ǟǐď,ĴąśA'ƝĖ¶Īİŝ&,ƮǖD¢Ō@ƵŸÀĻ',-ǳƁ,ĠƹjxZY*=@'Ǟǐďũƹ-éƘ@o[hF{* %-(5),= *ƶĀưÍÄ% @ńčDīđÞ'ĠƹjxZY,Izj]`')?ĮæđÞ @Tz^PY`',ģ?ÎC*=?ÒēDŪ6³')C!
ħƠÒē,ï³â,ă»Dę 'ƛ >A@
(5)

ƵŸÀĻ
īđÞ'ĮæđÞ',Ƒ1#*=@ħƠÒē,ï³

},ļƏ6*Ć .o[hF{,Ʈǖ* %ƝĖ-,ŲƲDƮǖ@*Ǟǐď @'@ĴąD9#'&ħƠ* @đÞ#5?ħƠĒéDƷŁƱ@%ƲƜ,Ďƛ,Ʈǖ'%ŅĔA
9,DGJ`j]`'%ǞǐďƱAÒē)C!ħƠÒēDŘŪ@,ħƠÒēŘŪ,Ǡ,ƵŸÀĻ-AǮA.Ǯ 4(ŘŪ,Ǡ*Ʃ@²ũ¿½-)?ÿƳ,Tz^PY`*%Ǟǐď-Ǯ)@ƝĖ-Ǟǐď,Çũ=1(4),¹ƋDÌ9"'9GPZY; ĒéDĲð,¿½v{`&Ô1ǁǞǐďDǓ@Ʈǖ '¶Ī)>.,ƮǖDY`]j@,& @

−114−

2

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

2 -2. ƶĀƸĦ'Gak]PńčŅƉ Ǟǐďũƹ-Ų>AƶĀńč'^H*ś!% @',-ƶưÍÄ% @ńč,ǡÎ=?9-@*etK

ƃßDË@#5?ƶưÍÄ% @ńč-Šé,Tz^PY`* %ƲƜ

ēÙ% @Ēé2,Ė?*ǒ) '2¸Ǔ@8*-ƶŬƹŴ)ňřŒ8>A@ Carston(1997, 2002)*=@'ƝĖ-ÿƳ,Tz^PY`&ŲƲ,ǞǐďDǓ@8*ƶ,ńčD|İŴ*ƒ?ǊE ?ěý?@ƶŬƹŴ)łDƦ 'A@%,ƶĀƸĦDƐ%ŲƲ,įŻŴ£ǥ*Ə6Ǌ5A@|İŴńčDǞǐďũƹ&-Gak]Pńč'Ô1,ł-Gak]Pńč
ŅƉ(ad hoc concept construction)'Ô.A@ ńč,ƒ?Ǌ6'-ƶĀ,ƹũŴŠďDĜ55ħƠĒé'ǞǐĒéD|İŴ*ŠéÄ
ï³@ƸĦłDĝ(6)(ƝĖ,ƓĩįƍDƪ%)5 Ǚ*9>"%@) (7)

Qv{j*-ċ* @A*@' 

A>,-åƘŴƮǖ&-ƲƜ,ēÙ9,'-ƪ)AÿƳ,ǞǐďDś) ' .(6)&-[Ē},ǮƓ]'ƮǖA@'&ŲƲ,ǞǐďǓĔA=  A9ƶT{aÄ%@ńč>ƝĖTz^PY`*Æ%,ńčDƒ?Ǌ6ųž¯ŴŠď(Encyclopaedic property)'%|ǕDï³9,'ƷįA@
 |Ĭ,ńčěý-âǲƁ,f[{z ?(Moreno 2004),|#-ƶ,ƹũŴŠď,|ǕDŊƤ@f[{z& @(8)Ǚ** A.A Ƭǘö?5

(9)

Ž!,ż-**D#?ĵĸD0>5

A>-Ưƶ,ƕ Ŭ(loose use)& ?ƮǖŴ)ǬďDĜ% A.ÿƳŲƲ,ǞǐďƱA@'ƛ >A% @' .(8)-Ǚǚ'®ŨÄA9,&-)'%,ǀū;ł'

%,ƫŇDĝ(9)&-żƽŦDĻ @ǔµ)ķDƟĔ@'ƮǖA@ )>(10)(11),= )-ĊŴŠď,ŊƤ*¾ M^Uu,ěý(category extension)DÒ
7&M^Uuěý'-ŲƲ,`g]P9#ƹũŴŠďDÈŞ%,`g]PDƷį@*ŷČ M^UuDÖ @ƶ>¼³,àùŴēÓļƏ6&ƮǖDĔjxZYDĝ,ŝ&M^UuěýDÒ89,-ƴýŕ(hyperbole)%o[hF{'%´ĺA@(10)

İ-Ǚ***)?

(11)\zfzX{-***& @(10)-ĘƼńč'®ş,ŰƁò ?Ǚ***-ƾǗ)9,& @'ƮǖA@(11)-ǣǜǬŴ)ŰƁò&
ŸŴ&§AÁş'M^Uuěý*="%ï³A% @AD¨'%\zf

zX{-,ƯƥDũƮ@;ĊDĜ"% @'ĒéħƠÒē'%ŘŪA@& B 

3
−115−

メタファー発話とemergent property派生に関する一考察 ,= )ńčƸĦ,jxZY-ºƇ&ǌ3= *«%,ŲƲ*-²ũ@*¡@ ,Ǟǐď@'ƪǊ6,Áŉ')@ƝĖ-ÿƳ,Tz^PY`* %ƲƜēÙŠé,ĠēDƱ&@)C!ǞǐďDś5&ńč,ƒ?Ǌ6;ěý,ƸĦDƔ@,& @5,ńčƸ
Ħ*-Tz^PY`,æÛŊƝĖ-ƶŬƹŴ*#Ń8%Ľǅ*ƶĀƸĦDƦ ÿƳŲƲ,ǞǐďDć@,& @
3 . o[hF{'¼ŲŠď o[hF{,Ĳâ,ŠĈ'%-Įǌ,= *ƧŻAƶĀưÍÄ% @ńč>=ǢA= )ĒéƝĖ*ƮǖA@'& @ĶŹƂ&-,¼ŲŠďŘŪ,ÁŉǲƇ&ƎŲƲ,įŻŴ£ǥ,ě©,8*ĭA@ƶĀƸĦjxZY)C!Gak]PńčŅƉł* @'ƛ@5,jxZY-ƶĀńč,ƒ?Ǌ6'ěý,ÏİƦŴ)9,& ?#ħƠÒē>,ǎƦ
Ġƹ*=@ƌƊ)ƶŬƹŴŷƸĦ*="%ŘŪA@'Dƹ@
3-1. Ť8'ěý,ƦƸĦ*=@Gak]PńčŅƉ
 Carston(2002)*=@'ńč,ƒ?Ǌ6'ěý,ÏİƦ*=@Gak]PńčŅƉ, @'%@(12)

htzY-¬ƭā*&htzY,ÜāåƘǏ?#5?õçŴ*¬ƭā& @'¬ǉ'¬ƭ @ƀø,ā&æÛ%@= )Üā& @')C!¬ƭā*ƮǖŴ*Ǭ% A.ÿƳ,Ǟǐď-Å´*ǓĔA= &Carston -9ńčěý&ŅƉA¬ƭā*ƶĀŴ*T{aÄAńč¬ƭā,ƹũŴŠďD«%ÒE& @,& A.(13a),= )Ù*)@&-õçŴ)¬ƭā,ŠďŊƤ
% @< (13b),= *)@'Ʒį@(13) a.

b.

¬ƭā     

¬ƭā*[Aŷÿ,Üā]

¬ƭ
¬ǉ

(13b)-ƶĀŴ*T{aÄAńč'ŅƉAGak]Pńč,àù,|ǕǗƨ@'DƧ%@)C!¬ƭā,Ĝ#ƹũŴŠď, !,|Ǖ¬ƭ¬ǉƒ?Ǌ5A¬ƭāŷÿ,āDÜāńčěýA%ŅƉA@'DēÓ@ ,ƪƮōA.ĊŴŠď,ŊƤ%M^UuŰƁòċǧ,o[hF{9(13b),=*ńč,ƒ?Ǌ6'ěý,ÏİƦ*="%ƮǖA@'ŚA@±Ǜ@(2)Dƪ%6@
(2)

B:,ǰŖ*-őD#B#- 

−116−



4

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

dS[M,T{aÄAńč>ǰŖĤĂ-ėǀhFzalc{Xq{& @'%
ŎƞDǭ3@ƚď'
ďĿ'

ŠďD|İŴ*ƒ?ǊE& @'Ïİ*üƜDţ ŧť&8'M^UuD|İŴ*ěý@'&Gak]PńčŅƉA@'ƛ >A@,& @(14)

ħƠĒé'Ǟǐ

category

extended categorydS[M[åƘŴ)ÁşŴŠĈƚď] 

dS[M*[üƜDţ ŧť&8' ƚď]ŎƞDǭ3@ƚď
3 -2. ŰƁòǴM^Uu,ŷîŴƮǖ ŋ*o[hF{Ʈǖ* %ěýA@M^Uu*# %ƛí@5~,Dŏǆ%6@
(15)

a.

Ą">&9|&œ8!: ,=,ŝ;"/?ů*=+b.

; ĪA)"E&= "%G]TEů**&>

Ɯ-Tz^PY`Ǭ% @'*¾ `g]Pǝ& @ŝ&­*þû& @' "ĒéħƠÒē'%ï³A= )>(15b)>ï³A@& B ħƠÒē-(15a)'Ű)@& @,ũŭ'%(15b)-`g]P'Ö @ƶ,M^UuŰ& @'DįŻŴ* % @o[hF{ƧŨ '(16)

'* @~,Dŏǆ%6= 

a. ǰŖ*-őD#B#-dS[M* b. (MtYŪUmD## % @,Dƪ%)(17)(ǝ vs ǯǬ)?:dS[M** )(MtY vs dS[M(ǯƁ))

a. (ƻƹǑ5) ŢŔ&) GOä-iva{V{* )

(ǝ vs ŉŀ)b. ( ?ĊÜĐ Ǆ* >A%) Ñ,Ǆ-iva{V{** ) (ƢëŬǄ vs iva{V{(ǄƁ))(16a)(17a)'Ű)?(16b)(17b)-ǯǬ×ǇǄ'

ÏƄ,M^UuDĳ% @ÿƳTz^PY`* %-ǯƁǄƁ' "~M^Uu&Ɯ*-ŰƁò @'ƝĖ-Ĵą@ B #5?(16b)(17b)9o[hF{'%ƮǖA@ B ,= *o[hF{*@ƶ,M^Uu-ŷ
îŴ*œé$>A @,& ?,ŝ&(15b)9Ïņ*ď·'ŷîŴ*ŲŪŰƁòƝĖ*ǫÛÄA @#5?(15b),ãď& @GOä-(15a),A'-Ű)?ěýAM^Uu
& @ů***Ê5@'*)@'ƛ >A@"%(15b)* %(15a),ů*>ï³
A@þû'-ƀøŰ)@þû*ħƠÒē'%ï³A@,& @
3-3. üĠē o[hF{*-öƈØ*ř@ü Ġē(weak implicature)DƝĖ* @ŠĈ @ @ŲƲo

5
−117−

メタファー発話とemergent property派生に関する一考察[hF{'%ƮǖA@ßÎƲƜ=?á,'%ƀøþ 'D  'ƝĖ-Ʈǖ@& B ĶŹƂ-(15b)D(2)'Ïņ*~,= *ÙúÄ&@'ƛ @(18)  categoryextended category    ů[åƘŴ)ƹũŴŠď]     

ů**[ãď*ŷÿ) ƀø,Šď][ǩ?ŮĨ @]x[þû& @][Ī@'ǥ & @][þû*& @]

[ƲDƝ) ]   x = GOä[ƖǞǗƬ]þû& @Įǌ,= *(15b)* %
ůT{aÄ% @ńč>
þû& @'ŠďDƒ?Ǌ6Ïİ*Ǫ& @GOäĜ#ƹũŠď[ãď]>ŪŰƁòDÁŉ'M^UuDÒ8ńčěýĭA@% [ãď*ŷÿ) ƀø,Šď]'þû*'ěýAM^Uu,àùŴēÓ*ÿ%-5@|İŴĒéDŘŪ@>*Ī@'ǥ & @)(,ü ĠēħƠÒē'%Ř

ŪA@,& A.A>-īŅƉAů**,àùŴēÓ*Ê5@9,& @%,ĒéƗƑĻ'%¼ŲŠď')@,& @ o[hF{-ƶĀńč,ƒ?Ǌ6'ěý,ÏİƦł%ŰƁò,Ʈǖ*="%Ǟǐď,ĴąDśǈŕ& @5A*=?ŘŪA|İŴńč C<@¼ŲŠď')@'Dýŋ&-,¼ŲŠď,ŘŪjxZY- *%)A@,DŁƱ@
3 -4. ¼ŲŠď,ŘŪjxZY
 ºǌ,= *Ǟǐďũƹƛ @Ƨē,ÏéħƠĒé,ï³%Ġē,ŘŪ-3%LztIz*ŷƸĦŴ*ƦCA@ŲƲ*="%-Ġē,°ì*Č%Gak]PńčŅƉAƧēźé@
'9 @ĶŹƂ&-o[hF{*@ƮǖjxZY=1¼ŲŠď,ŘŪ-ħƠĒéDĖ?'ńč,ƒ?Ǌ6'ěý,ÏİƦ*=@ǦƦĠƹ(forward inference)Dǂ?'Ïİ*Ǟǐď@'ĴąA@ħƠÒē>,ǎƦĠƹ(backward inference))C!ħƠÒē>Gak]PńčDŅ
Ɖ@'ǳƜª?ƏE LztIzĠƹ*="%ĔA@'Dƹ@dS[M,&_pzY`w{`%6=  «%,ŲƲ-ƢÁŴ*ĲǔǞǐď,ƪǊ6DǓ@'Ǟǐďũƹ,ǓÇũ*Ć .(2)*@ƝĖ,ƮǖjxZY,³Ųŝ-(19a),ŲƲ*ǰŖ*őD#@3>,ũŭ @'Ĵą
@'& @A*=?(19c)ǰŖĤĂ-ƝĖ,żľDĉ÷Ŵ*ƿÊ= '% @'ħƠÒē,ŘŪ,Ʈƅ'%ƵŸÀĻDŪ6A*=?ŲƲ,Ƨē& @(19b),ǞǐďƱA@'ƛ @
(19)

a.

#-dS[M (Relevant expectation)(decoding)

Forward inferenceb. ǰŖĤĂ-dS[M**& @(Explicit content)(explicature)

Backward inference

−118−

6

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

c. ǰŖĤĂ-ƝĖ,żľDĉ÷Ŵ*ƿÊ@ B (Implicated premise)(Assumption activated both by the using Metaphor vehicle  and Speaker’s utterance őDB)ºǌ,= *(19c),ƵŸÀĻ-ƶĀƸĦjxZY,Áŉ*9)@ƝĖ-dS[MĜ#T{aÄAńč>(19d)DĒéńč,ƒ?Ǌ6*=@ǦƦĠƹDƦ Tz^PY`Dǩ?*(19f) ,ųž¯ŴĒéDǞǐďDĳ@9,'%ï³@&,Tz^PY`'-(21e),= )ħƠĒé&?A(19f)ï³,ňřDę 'ƛ >A@
(19)

d. dS[M-dSyWǬ,ſ& @ǱŎƞD @ƚďDĜ#ǱǨǕ*ƙŐ) e. ǰŖĤĂ-ėǀhFzalc{Xq{& @(contextual assumption)

f. dS[M*-ŎƞDǭ3@ƚďDĜ#

(lexical narrowing)

&ƝĖ-(19f),ï³ĒéDĮæ,ħƠĒé& @(21e)'ƑÎTz^PY`*Ë?ªA@
(19g),= )Ēé-ƈű¤Dš% @Ēé),&ǞǐďDśĠēºġ&-) (19)g. ǷėǀhFzalc{Xq{& @ǰŖĤĂdS[M*)>.ŎƞDǭ3@ƚďDĜ#&ƝĖ-ƒ?Ǌ5AdS[M**>*M^UuDÒ8ńčěýDĭ(19h),= )Ē
éDï³@%(19f)',ƑÎDÝ*ĠƹŘŪA@(19i)Ǟǐď,ƪǊ6D9#Ġēºġ')@(19)h. (ŎƞDǭ3@ƚďDĜ#)dS[M**-üƜDţ ŧť&ŵĥ ďĿDĜ#(lexical broadening = category extension)i. ėǀhFzalc{Xq{& @ǰŖĤĂdS[M**)>.
üƜDţ ŧť&ŵĥ ďĿDĜ# B (implicated premise))C!ºǌ&Ʒįńč,ƒ?Ǌ6'ěý-}ư,= *(19f)%(19h)*ƧA=  )>5,ĠƹjxZY&-5 ¼ŲŠď,ï³-źƵA) ºǌ,= *¼ŲŠď-ħƠÒē>,ǎƦĠƹ*="%ŘŪAAƧē,ǞǐďDƱ@9,'ƛ @"%ƝĖ-(19e)(19h)%(19i)DĠƹŴ*ƑÎ(19j),ĠēºġDŘŪ@(19)

j. ŧť&8' ďĿDĜ#ėǀhFzalc{Xq{-[üłľDĉ÷Ŵ*ƿÊ@ B ](implicated premise)(19j) üłľDĉ÷Ŵ*ƿÊ@-(19c),ħƠÒē>,ǎƦĠƹ*="%ŘŪA9,%AD¼ŲŠď'Ğ @Ư Ģ A.ħƠÒē'%ĴąA(19c)-,(19j),ŘŪDƱ
@ă»D9ę"% @,& @A*=?(19k)dS[M**-üłDĉ÷Ŵ*ƿÊ@')?Gak]Pńč*¼ŲŠď >A@'Ʒį*)?(19b),ƧēǞǐďDś(19l),=)ŲƲ«,ƮǖƲƜ,ēÙ9,'%ƮǖA@,& @

−119−

7

メタファー発話とemergent property派生に関する一考察(19)k. ǰŖĤĂdS[M**)>.üłľDĉ÷Ŵ*ƿÊ@ B  (emergent property)b. ǰŖĤĂ-dS[M**& @(explicature)l. ǰŖĤĂ-dS[M**),&üłľDĉ÷Ŵ*ƿÊ@(overall interpretation))C!ńč,ƒ?Ǌ6'ěý'Gak]PńčŅƉł-¼ŲŠď,ŘŪ*-ŶğŴ*Ǟ,ǂ?')@*ǒ) Ǟǐď,Ĵą @(19c),ħƠÒē>,ǎƦĠƹ)C!ƌƊ*ƶŬ
ƹŴĠƹ*="%ć>A@,& @
4. Ƒƹ ĶŹƂ-o[hF{ŲƲ*@¼ŲŠď,ï³D~*éƘ ƝĖ-Ǟǐď,Ĵą*¹ƋDÌÖ @ƶT{aÄ% @ńč>,ƹũŴŠďDǦƦĠƹ*="%ƒ?Ǌ6Ïİ*ŰƁòDÁŉ'@M^UuěýDÒ8ěý,ÏİƦƸĦłDƦ 5ƝĖ-Ǟǐď,ƪǊ6D9#ħƠÒēDƱ@8*Ġēºġ @ -ħƠÒē>,ǎƦĠƹ*="%¼ŲŠďDŘŪ@,ŘŪjx
ZY-|İŴ*ƸĦAGak]PńčDǂ?'%Ǟǐď,ĴąDśƌƊ)ƶŬƹŴĠƹ*Áŉ$>A% @,& @ǵÈŞħŦǶ
Carston, R. (1997). Enrichment and loosening: complementary processes in deriving theproposition expressed?
Linguistische Berichte 8:103-127.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford, Blackwell.
Glucksberg, S. (2004): On the automaticity of pragmatic processes: A modular proposal. In I.Noveck and D. Sperber (eds.),
Experimental Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, 72-93.
Lakoff, G. and M, Johnson.(1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: university of Chicago Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986/95): Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Second edition
1995.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2006). A deflationary account of metaphor. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 171-203.
Wilson, D (2004). Relevance Theory and lexical pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16:343-60.
Wilson, D. and R. Carston (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In:
Burton-Roberts (ed.) Advances in Pragmatics. 230-60. Palgrave.
Wilson, D. and R. Carston (2008). Metaphor and the ‘emergent property’ problem: A relevance- theoretic treatment. The
Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, vol. 3: A Figure of Speech: 1-40. New Prairie
Press.
Vega Moreno, R. 2004: Metaphor interpretation and emergence. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 297-322.

8
−120−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖ⪃
㸫ࠕⓎヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶࠖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫ᯇ⏣ ⍞Ụ (᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔)
kono87sakuya@suou.waseda.jp

㸺Abstract㸼
The aim of this paper is to analyze two different usages of “hontou-da” in Japanese daily
conversation. The phrase is analyzed in terms of “Direction of Utterance”, especially“Jibun-muki Utterances” which speakers direct to themselves. In this paper, “Jibun-muki

Utterances” are considered as a conversational strategy, because speakers use it optionally.
I will describe the features, effectiveness and markers of “Jibun-muki Utterances”.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
Ⓨヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶࠊ⮬ศྥࡁⓎヰࡢຠᯝࠊ఍ヰࡢ strategyࠊ≉໬ࡉࢀࡓゝㄒᵝᘧࠊ㠀࣭ᑐᓖᆺ㸦ど⥺㸧

1.

ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏ࡣࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ᪉ἲ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠕⓎヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊྠ୍ᙧᘧᩥ㸦ࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖ㸧ࡢព࿡ᙺ๭ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚Ⓨヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿࠕ⮬ศྥࡁࡢⓎヰࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢຠᯝࠊᶵ⬟ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀ࡜ุู࡛ࡁࡿᶆ㆑࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡿࠋ
้ࠎ࡜ᵝ┦ࢆኚ࠼ࡿືⓗ࡞఍ヰࡢሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࡜ࡿⓎヰែᗘࡣ୍ᵝ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ᫬࡟
⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࡋࡘࡘ⪃࠼ࡸᛮ࠸ࢆᕠࡽࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㐍ࡵࡽࢀࡿⓎヰ࡟ࡣࠊᑐேሙ㠃࡟࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟
ࡴࡅ࡚Ⓨࡏࡽࢀࡓ࡜ࡣ୍ᴫ࡟ุࡌࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡔࢀ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ
ࡑࡢ࣋ࢡࢺࣝࢆ㔜どࡍࡿࠕⓎヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶࠖࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡶࠕ⮬ศྥࡁࡢⓎヰࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒάືࢆヰࡋᡭࡀព㆑ⓗ࡟㑅ࡧ࡜ࡿ఍ヰࡢᡓ␎㸦VWUDWHJ\㸧࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕⓎヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶࠖࡢほⅬࢆゝㄒศᯒ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ఍ヰࡢࡼࡾືⓗ࡞୍㠃ࡀᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

2.

ඛ⾜◊✲

2.1.ࠕࡵ࠶࡚ࠖ ࠿ࡘ࡚᪥ᮏゝㄒᏛ⏺࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ㝞㏙ㄽதࠖ㸯࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕࡵ࠶࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩥゝࡀ౑ࢃࢀጞࡵࡓ
ࡀࠊᙜ᫬ࡢㄽதࡢ↔Ⅼࡣᩥࡢᡂ❧࡞࠸ࡋᩥࡢ᏶⤖ᛶ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋΏ㎶㸦1953㸧ࡣࠊᩥᡂ❧࡟Ỵࡵᡭ࡟⤊ຓモ㸰ࢆᣲࡆࠕゝㄒ⪅ࡵ࠶࡚࡜ࡋࡓゝⴥࢆⓎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊྠ᫬࡟ᩥࢆゝ࠸⣡ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠖ
࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ㝞㏙ࠖ㸦ࠕゝㄒ⪅ࡵ࠶࡚ࡢ୺యⓗ࡞ࡣࡓࡽࡁ࠿ࡅࠖ㸧࡜ࠕླྀ㏙ࠖ㸦ࠕᛮ᝿ࡸ஦᯶ࡢෆᐜࡵ࠶
࡚ࡢゝⴥࠖ㸧࡟ศࡅࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡔࠕゝㄒ⪅ࡵ࠶࡚ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࠖ࠿ࠕヰࡋᡭࠖ࠿ࡢ༊ูࡣࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋⰾ㈡㸦㸧࡛ࡣࠓㄡ࠿ࡵ࠶࡚ࠔࡢ࡯࠿࡟ࠓఱ࠿ࡵ
࠶࡚ࠔࡢ୺యࡢែᗘࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᚋ࡟㸦3.2.㸧ศᯒࡍࡿࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖ౛ᩥ  ࡣⰾ㈡ ྠ㸧ࡢࠓ஦᯶−121−

「本当だ」考─「発話の方向性」の観点から─ࡵ࠶࡚ࡢ୺ほࠔ㸱࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊྠᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿ౛ᩥ  ࡜ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ㸬࠙ᩥᶵ⬟ࠚ࡜࠙Ⓨヰᶵ⬟ࠚ
2.2㸬
 ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㏙ㄒᩥࢆศ㢮ࡋࡓᒣᒸ  㸲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᙧᐜモ㏙ㄒᩥ࡜ࡍࡿࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖࡣᒓᛶᙧᐜモࡢ࠺ࡕࠕ≧ែⓗᒓᛶᙧᐜモࠖ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㠀ᖖ࡟ከᒱ࡟ࢃࡓࡿࠕ≧ែⓗᒓᛶᙧᐜモࠖࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖ࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟㸦஦㇟ࡢ┤ឤⓗホ౯㸧࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ௚࡟ࠊ
ࠕ☜ᐇࡔࠖࠕ᏶඲ࡔࠖ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᙧᘧⓗ࡟ࠕྡモ㸩ุᐃモࠖ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡣࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖ࡜ྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࠙ᩥᶵ⬟ࠚࡢ㢮ᆺ࡛ࡣୖ఩༊ศࡢࠑ₇㏙ࠒ࠿ࡽࠊࡉࡽ࡟ୗ఩༊ศࡢࠑ≧ែᥥ෗ࠒࠑᒓᛶླྀ㏙ࠒ࡟
ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓ࠙Ⓨヰᶵ⬟ࠚ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠓሗ࿌ࠔ
ࠓ୺ᙇࠔ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢศ㢮ࡢ࣏࢖ࣥࢺࡣ
ᑐ㇟ࡀ୺㢟໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿↓㢟࠿㸦ᙧᘧⓗ࡟ࡣ୺㒊࡟ࠕࡣࠖࡀධࡿ࠿ࠊྰ࠿㸧࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ௒
ᅇྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖࡣ୺㒊ࡀḞࡅ࡚࠾ࡾ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ┬␎ࠋ᪥ᖖ఍ヰ࡛ࡼࡃࡳࡽࢀࡿ㸧ࡇࡢุูࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸᠍ࡳࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᩥἲศᯒࡢ㝈⏺࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
2.3㸬୎ᑀㄒࡢⓎືᅇ㑊ࠕ࡞࠶ࠖ ୖ㏙ࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࠊศᯒࡢ㝿᥼⏝ࡋࡓ⏝ㄒࡸࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖࡀᢸ࠺ព࿡ᙺ๭ࡢᩥἲ㠃࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽ㠃࠿ࡽࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ❶࡛ࡣࠊศᯒ᪉ἲ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࠕⓎヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶࠖࡢ᪉ྥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡸヰࡋᡭࡀព㆑ⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾᚓࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ఍ヰࡢ VWUDWHJ\ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ᶆ㆑࡟㛵ࢃࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࢆࡳࡿࠋࠕ⮬ศྥࡁࡢⓎヰࠖࡢ᪉ྥᛶࢆࡶࡘ୍⩌࡟ࡣ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡑࢀ࡜ศ࠿ࡿᙧᘧࢆഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋぢศࡅࡢࡘࡃゝㄒᶆ㆑࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ᏶඲࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡟ࡋࢁ㸦ᖖ࡟ࡑࡢᙺ๭
ࢆᯝࡓࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸧⤊ຓモࡢࠕ࡞㸦࠶㸧ࠖࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᳃ᒣ㸦㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦௨ୗࡢ౛ᩥࡣ᳃ᒣ㸸㸧ձ 㸨௒᪥ࡣ࠸࠸ኳẼࡔࠋ㸦ඛ⏕ࡢ┠๓࡛㸧ղ ௒᪥ࡣ࠸࠸ኳẼࡔ࡞࠶ࠋ㸦ྠ㸧୎ᑀㄒࡢⓎືᅇ㑊࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࠋࠕ࡞࠶ࠖࡀࡘࡃ࡜ࠊᙜヱⓎヰࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥࡅࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸
࡜࠸࠺ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࢆ⋓ᚓ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣゝ࠸࠿࠼ࡿ࡜ ヰࡋᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚฼Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡲࡓࠊ␲ၥᩥ࡟ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ≉ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ␲ၥᩥ
࡟ࠕ࡞࠶ࠖࡀࡘࡃ࡜ࠊ୙☜ᐃ࡞ෆᐜࢆ☜ᐃ໬ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡢ࡟୍ᐃࡢ᫬㛫ࡀ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
⾲ࡋࠊࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࠊࡲࡔ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚┤᥋㏉⟅ࢆせồࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ⟅࠼࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ฼Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡉࢀࡓ㓄៖࡜ࡋ࡚఍ヰࡢሙసࡾ࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ㸳࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ            ճ ᙼࡣ࡝ࡇ࡟࠸ࡿ࠿࡞࠶ࠋմ ᙼࡣࡇࡢᡭ⣬ࢆㄞࢇࡔ࠿࡞࠶ࠋ

−122−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

cf㸬ᙼࡣࡇࡢᡭ⣬ࢆㄞࢇࡔ࠿ࠋ⤊ຓモࠕ࡞࠶ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚୎ᑀㄒᅇ㑊Ⓨື࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢゝㄒ♫఍࡛ඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ▱㆑࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊヰࡋᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࡼࡾ✚ᴟⓗ࡞⊂ࡾゝࡼࡑ࠾࠸ࡶྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡢ
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇࡢ⪃ᐹࡀヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ఍ヰࡢ strategy ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.

ࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖ⪃

3.1㸬Ⓨヰࡢሙ࡜ࠕ⮬ศྥࡁࡢⓎヰࠖࡢຠᯝ㔜せ࡞࣏࢖ࣥࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢲࡉ࠼࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜࡜ࡋ࡚Ⓨヰሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ≧ἣࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑ
ࡢⓎヰ≧ἣ࡜ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡋヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᒆࡃࡇ࡜ࡀព㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ
࡜ࡍࡿࠋ㸦ヰࡋᡭࡀ᏶඲࡟⊂ࡾ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡾࠊⓎヰ⪅⮬㌟ࡀ⮬ศࡢⓎヰࡀ௚ࡢㄡ࠿࡟⪺࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣࡣ㝖ࡃ㸧ࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓⓎヰࡢሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࡞ࡃࠊヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟࡟ྥࡅࡓࠕ⮬ศྥࡁࡢⓎヰࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡿୗグ࡟ᣲࡆࡓຠᯝࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ
࡚ࡣᜠᜨ࡟ᙜࡓࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ୕ࡘ඲࡚ࡀⓎヰࡢຠᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡢࡕ࡟ศᯒ
ࡍࡿࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖ
ࠕࡑ࠺ࡔࠖ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿຠᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ඃ఩ᛶࢆ▱ࡿヰ⪅࠿ࡽࡍࢀࡤࠊពᅗⓗ࣭㑅ᢥⓗ࡞ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ఍ヰ࡟ά⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᥎ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢሙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰ⪅ࡢࠕ⮬ศྥࡁ
ࡢⓎヰࠖࢆ㑅ࡧྲྀࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆ఍ヰࡢ VWUDWHJ\ ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ
ࠕ⮬ศྥࡁⓎヰࠖࡢຠᯝ㸬㠀♩ࡢᅇ㑊㸸ᑐேⓗ࡞㓄៖࡛࠶ࡿᩗㄒࡸᚅ㐝⾲⌧࡟ᅃࢃࢀࡎ࡟Ⓨヰࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㸬⮬ศࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋࡓⓎヰ㸸ࡑࡢሙࡑࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡢ᭱ࡶ⮬ศࡢẼᣢࡕࡸᛮ࠸࡟ἢࡗࡓⓎヰࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ㸬ヰ㢟ࡸヰ⪅஺᭰㸸ᛴ࡞๭ࡾ㎸ࡳ➼࡟ࡼࡾ㏻ᖖࡢᡭ⥆ࢆ㋃ࡲࡎ࡟ヰ㢟࣭ヰࡋᡭࡢ஺᭰ࡀྍ
⬟࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

3.2㸬ࠕⓎヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶࠖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ඲ࡃྠࡌᙧᘧࡢ⏝౛  ࡜  ࡢࠕ㸦࣍ࣥࢺࡔ㸧ᮏᙜࡔࠖ㸴࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢⓎヰࡀᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿᙺ๭࣭ᶵ⬟ࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡲࡓࠊ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࡑࡢᕪ␗ࢆ࡝࠺ㄝ᫂ࡍࢀࡤࡼ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ࠕⓎヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶࠖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡢྠᙧᩥࡀᣢࡘാࡁࡢ㐪࠸ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ  ᒣ㛫ࡢᆏ㐨࡛❧ࡕ ⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㌴ෆ࡛
኱ᝅࠕ࣮ࣟࢻࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࠊ࿧ࡧࡲࡍࡼࠖ
బࠎᮌࠕ↓⌮ࡔࢁࠊࡇࡢ㎶ࡌࡷࠖ኱ᝅࠊᦠᖏࢆᡭ࡟ࡍࡿࡀࠊ
኱ᝅࠕ࠶ࠊ࣍ࣥࢺࡔࠋᅪእ࡛ࡍࠖ                 㸦࠾ࡃࡾࡧ࡜㸸㸧

−123−

「本当だ」考─「発話の方向性」の観点から─  ṧࡉࢀࡓ᫬㛫ࡀ࡞࠸᫬ࠊᛴࡂࡢ௙஦ࡀධࡿ
㸿ࠕ⣡ᮇࡣ᫂᪥ࡢ༗ᚋ 10 ᫬ࡲ࡛ࡔࠖ
㹀ࠕ࠼ࡗࠊ࠺ࡑ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠖ
㸿ࠕ࠸ࡸࠊ࣍ࣥࢺࡔࠖ ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡵ࠶࡚࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ  ࡢࠕ࣍ࣥࢺࡔࠖࡣࠕ↓⌮ࠖ࡜ゝࢃࢀࡓ≧ἣࡀ࣍ࣥࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⮬ᕫ☜ㄆࡋࡓ࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠕ࣍ࣥࢺࡔࠋᅪእ࡛ࡍࠖ࡜୪࡭ࡽࢀࡓ
Ⓨヰࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ఏ࠼ࡿ᝟ሗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕᅪእ࡛ࡍࠖ࡜ࠊ⮬㌟࡟㉳ࡁࡓㄆ㆑ኚ໬࡜ࡀ᫂☜࡟༊ูࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࠕࡔ࡛ࡍࠖࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡀពᅗⓗ࡞㑅ᢥ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓ  ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࡯ࢇ࡜ࠖࡸࠕᮏᙜ࡛ࡍࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡀࡁ࠿ࡎࠊ
ࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ௨እࡣ㐺ᙜ࡛
ࡣ࡞࠸Ⅼ࡟␃ពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋࠕ࡯ࢇ࡜ࠖࠕᮏᙜ࡛ࡍࠖࡉࡽ࡟ࠕᮏᙜ࡞ࢇࡔࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼࡚ࡶࢽࣗ࢔ࣥ
ࢫࡸព࿡ྜ࠸࡟኱ࡁ࡞ኚ໬ࡀ࡞࠸  ࡜ᑐ↷ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ  ࡢࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢ⌧ሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⮬ศࡢㄆ㆑ࡀኚ໬ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࡢ࡟≉໬ࡋࡓᙧᘧ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

3.3㸬㸬ࠕࡑ࠺ࡔࠖ ࡢࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖࡀᩥ⬦ࡢὶࢀ࡟ἢࡗࡓࠕᛂ⟅ᆺࠖࡢゝㄒᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ⮬ศྥࡁ㸦Ⓨヰ⪅ྥࡁ㸧ࡢⓎヰࡢຠᯝ  ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠊᩥ⬦ࢆ᩿ࡕษࡿࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࠕࡑ࠺ࡔࠖࢆࡳࡿࠋ
 ㌴୰࡛
኱ᝅࠕ㐲ᅇࡾࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ࢫ࣑࣐ࢭࣥࠖ
బࠎᮌࠕ࠶ࠊࡑ࠺ࡔࠖ
㌴࠿ࡽ㝆ࡾࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ኱ᝅࢆబࠎᮌࡀ࿧ࡧ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ         㸦࠾ࡃࡾࡧ࡜㸸㸧   ࡢ⥆ࡁࡢሙ㠃㹀ࠕ࠼㹼ࠊࡇࢀࡔࡅࡶࡢࢆࡸࡿࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖ
㸿ࠕࡑ࠺ࡔࠋ௒᪥ࡣᚭኪࡢసᴗ࡟࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ ࡢ౛ᩥࡣఱ࠿ᛮ࠸ࡘ࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࠊࡩ࡜ࡇࡰࢀฟࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࡶࡽࡍࠕࡑ࠺ࡔ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠕࡑ࠺ࡔࠖࢆⓎࡋࡓబࠎᮌࡣࠊ኱ᝅࡢゝࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟⟅࠼ࡎࠊ඲ࡃ㛵ಀࡢ࡞࠸Ⓨヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛ᩥ ࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ  ࡜ྠᵝ࡟  ࡢࠕࡑ࠺ࡔࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠕࡑ࠺ࠖࡸࠕࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࠖ
ࠕࡑ࠺࡞ࢇࡔࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ஦ᐇ࠿ࡽࠊ  ࡸ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ⮬ศྥࡁࡢⓎヰࠖࡢ᪉ྥᛶࢆࡶࡘ୍⩌࡟ࡣࠊ2.3.࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡑࢀ࡜ศ࠿ࡿᙧᘧࢆഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ
3.4. ఍ヰࡢᆺ ୖグ࡛ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖ࡜ࠕࡑ࠺ࡔࠖࡢࠕ⮬ศྥࡁࡢⓎヰࠖࡢຠᯝ࡟㐪࠸ࡀࡳࡽࢀ

−124−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ఍ヰࡢᆺࢆ኱ࡁࡃ஧ࡘ࡟ศࡅࡿ࡜ᩥ⬦ࡢὶࢀ࡟ἢ࠺ࡶࡢ࡜᩿ࡕษࡿࡶࡢࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࠕᛂ⟅ࠖࡸࠕᛂᑐࠖࡣᩥ⬦࡟ἢࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖࠕࡑ࠺࠿ࠖ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᩥ⬦ࢆ᩿ࡕษࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ✺Ⓨⓗ࡞Ⓨヰ࡜࠸࠺⥭ᛴᛶࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕࡑ࠺ࡔࠖ
ࠕ࠶ࢀࠖ
㸦ఱ࠿
Ẽ࡙࠸ࡓ᫬࡞࡝࡟⏝࠸ࡿ㸧࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㏉⟅ࡸᛂ⟅ࢆᙉせࡋ࡞࠸⮬ᕫ᏶⤖ᆺ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࢀ࡟⟅࠼ࡿࡢࡣ⮬⏤࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࠋ
4.

ᶆ㆑࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

 ࠶ࡿⓎヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶࢆぢᴟࡵࡿࡢ࡟ࠊゝㄒⓗ࡟ࡣࡑࢀᑓ⏝࡟≉໬ࡉࢀࡓᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡀ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࠶ࡆࡓࠋ⌧ᅾㄪᰝ୰࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊど⥺࡜ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾࡶぢᴟࡵࡢᇶ‽࡟࡞ࡾ࠼ࡿྍ
⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋゝㄒእࡢᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚఍ヰཧຍ⪅㸦≉࡟ヰࡋᡭ㸧ࡢど⥺ࡢྥࡁࠊ⨨ࡁ࡝ࡇࢁࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋ
4.1㸬ど⥺ࡢྥࡁࡲࡎࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀྥ࠿࠸ྜࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸㠀࣭ᑐᓖᆺࢆ᝿ᐃࡍࡿࡢ࡛Ϩ࢖ࢆ㝖ࡃࠋḟ࡟㠀ᑐᓖᆺࡢϩ࡜Ϫ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊϩࡢࣁࡸࢽࡢࡼ࠺࡞⪺ࡁᡭࡢど⥺ࡀヰࡋᡭ࡟࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋヰࡋᡭ୰ᚰ࡟ࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࡛ࠊϩࡢ㠀ᑐᓖᆺࡢ୰࠿ࡽϪࡢࡼ࠺࡟ヰࡋᡭࡢど⥺ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ௨እ࡟
࡝ࡇ࡟࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆࡳࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡟࠶ࡿࡢࡀϪDࠊ඲ࡃ㛵ಀ↓࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࡟࠶
ࡿࡢࡀϪE ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ౛ᩥ  ࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࡣᑐ㇟≀࡛࠶ࡿᦠᖏ㟁ヰ࡟ど⥺ࡀ࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࡋ౛ᩥ  ࡛ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ㢌ࡢ୰࡛㉳ࡇࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡞ࡢ࡛ᑐ㇟࡞ࡋ㸦ࡇࢀ࡜࠸ࡗ࡚≉ᐃࡉࢀ࡞࠸㸧࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋேࡢືసࡶᅛᐃࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ఍ヰ࡟ຎࡽࡎࠊ┠ࡲࡄࡿࡋࡃኚࢃࡿࡢ୍࡛ࡘࡢഴྥ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡢࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
㸦༳㸩ࡣࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ┦ᡭ࡟ど⥺ࡀ࠾࠿ࢀࠊ㸫ࡣど⥺ࡀ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ༳ࡢᕥࡀヰ⪅ࠊྑࡀ⫈⪅࡟ᑐᛂ㸧ࠋ{ᑐᓖᆺ㸸㸩㸩Ϩ ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀྥ࠿࠸ྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦㸻࠾஫࠸ࢆぢ࡚ࠊヰࡋ⪺࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿ≧ែ㸧ࠋ౛ᩥ࡛ࡣ  ࡸ  ࡢⓎヰ≧ἣ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࠋ㸦ᚲࡎࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ࡀ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ㠀♩࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸㸧
ࠋ࢖ヰࡋᡭ   ⪺ࡁᡭ{㠀ᑐᓖᆺ㸸㸩㸫 ࠊ㸫㸩 ࠊ 㸫㸫㠀ᑐᓖᆺ࡟ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸱ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−125−

「本当だ」考─「発話の方向性」の観点から─

ϩ Ⓨヰ⪅ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࢆぢ࡚ヰࡍࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣヰࡋᡭࢆぢ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࣟᆺ
Ⓨヰ⪅ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ᪉࡟ど⥺ࢆྥࡅ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࣁᆺࠊࢽᆺࣟ                ヰࡋᡭ    ⪺ࡁᡭ         ࣁ                 ࢽ


  

ヰࡋᡭ     ⪺ࡁᡭ       ヰࡋᡭ   

 
⪺ࡁᡭ

Ϫ ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࢆぢ࡞࠸࡛ヰࡍࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡢど⥺ࡣ⮬⏤ࠋ㸦㸫㸩or㸫㸧 ࡇࡢϪࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ a ᆺࠊb ᆺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜౛ᩥ  ࡸ  ࡢ≧ἣࢆᛮ࠸ᾋ࠿࡭ࡽࢀࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋϪD ᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࣔࣀࢆぢࡿ 㸦㸫
㸫㸫or+㸧    ࠕ࠶ࠊ࣍ࣥࢺࡔࠋᅪእ࡛ࡍࠖ

Ϫb. 㛵ಀ࡞࠸࡜ࡇࢁࢆぢࡿ㸦ୗࢆྥࡃ࣭࡝ࡇࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸㸧㸦㸫㸫㸫or+㸧            ࠕ࠶ࠊࡑ࠺ࡔࠖ

−126−

第13回大会発表論文集

5.

第６号

ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜ᒎᮃ
ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊேࡣᵝࠎ࡞ゝㄒάືࢆᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍ࡘ୍ࡘࡢゝㄒ

⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢゝㄒ♫఍࡛ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ࡛࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡀᬯ㯲ࡢ᩿ࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡶࠊゝㄒ⩦ᚓ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ᡂ㛗ࡍࡿ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚㌟ࢆࡶࡗ࡚Ꮫࡧ࡜ࡗ࡚⾜ࡃࠋ᪥ᖖࠊ୙⮬⏤ࢆឤࡌ࡞࠸ࡲ
࡛࡟⩦ᚓࡀࡉࢀࡓࡇࢁ࡟ࡣࠊᚤጁ࡞ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࡢ㐪࠸࡞࡝ࡶఱࡢ␲ၥࡶᣢࡓࡎ࡟౑࠸ࡇ࡞ࡏࡿࡼ
࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⮬㌿㌴ࡀ஌ࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁࠊ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚஌ࢀࡓࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶࠊ஌ࢀ࡞
࠿ࡗࡓ᫬ࡢឤぬࡶᾘ࠼ཤࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᛮ࠸ฟࡏ࡞࠸㸧ࡢ࡜ఝ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖࡢព࿡ྜ࠸ࡢ␗࡞ࡾࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ヨࡳࡓ࡜ࡁࠊ㌟࡟Ỹࡳ㎸ࢇ࡛୙༶୙㞳࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡶ
ࡢࡢศᯒࡢ㞴ࡋࡉࢆឤࡌࡓࠋヨ⾜㘒ㄗࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍ୰࡛ࠊࡼࡾ༢⣧࡛ࠊᙉຊ࡞ษࡾཱྀࡣ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࠿ࠋ
ࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᛮ࠸ࡢ୰࡛ࡓ࡝ࡾ╔࠸ࡓࡦ࡜ࡘࡢほⅬࡀࠊࠕⓎヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
≉➹ࡍ࡭ࡁⅬࡣࠊࠕ⮬ศྥࡁࡢⓎヰࠖࡀ఍ヰ㐪཯࡜ࡣ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡼࡿ఍ヰࡢ⥲య࡛チᐜࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࡇࡑࠊヰ⪅ࡀពᅗⓗ࡟㑅ᢥࡍࡿ㐨ࡀ㛤ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㐺⏝஦౛㸵ࢆᗈࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡸᣦᶆࡢ⢭ᗘࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⣬㠃ࡢ㒔ྜࡶ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡩࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ῝ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉ
ࡽ࡟ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ
ࠕ⮬ศྥࡁࡢⓎヰࠖࢆチᐜࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᪥ᖖ఍ヰࡢ⥲యࡀᮃࡴ఍ヰࡢ᱁⋡ࢆ࡜ࡽ࠼ࡓ࠸ࠋ

ὀᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 13 ᅇ኱఍㸦2010 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 5 ᪥᪊㛵す኱Ꮫ㸧࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲ࡢ㝿ࠊᒣᒸඛ⏕ࠊᙰඛ⏕ࠊ๓⏣ඛ⏕ࠊᩪ⸨ࡉࢇ࠿ࡽ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡟グࡋ࡚ឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡲࡍࠋ
㝞㏙ㄽத࡜ࡣࠊᒣ⏣Ꮥ㞝㸦1908㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏᩥἲㄽ࠘ࢆᇶ࡟ᡓ๓࣭ᡓᚋࢆࡣࡉࡳ⣙༑ᖺ㛫ࠊ༑ᩘྡࡢᏛ⪅ࡀᩥࡢつᐃࠊᩥࡢᡂ❧༢఩ࢆၥ࠺ㄽ㆟ࢆᡓࢃࡏࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⌧௦ࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࣮ㄽࡶ
ࡑࡢὶࢀࢆཷࡅ⥅࠸࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
㸰 Ώ㎶(1953)࡛ࡣ(a) ཤᖺࡢ௒㡭ࡀ࡞ࡘ࠿ࡋ࠸ࡡ࠼ࠋ(b)᫂᪥࠿ࡽ↮ⲡࢆࡸࡵࡿࡼࠋ(c)࠶࠸ࡘࡣᩘ
Ꮫࡢኳᡯࡔࢃ࠸ࠋ࡞࡝ࡢ౛ࢆ࠶ࡆࠊୗ⥺㒊ࡢ⤊ຓモࡣࠕླྀ㏙ࠖ࡜ࡣู࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭཪࡣヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓゝㄒ⪅ࡵ࠶࡚ࡢゝⴥ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
㸱 ⰾ㈡(1954)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࡯ࢇ࡜࠺ࡔ㸟ࠖ㺃㺃㺃ࠓ᩿ᐃࠔ㸩ࠓឤືࠔࡢࡼ࠺࡟஧✀㢮ࡢ㝞㏙࡟ศࡅࠊࠓ஦᯶ࡵ࠶࡚ࡢ୺ほࠔ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀാࡁࠊࡇࡢᩥࢆゝ࠸཰ࡵࠊ᏶⤖ࡉࡏࡿຊ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࠋΏ㎶ࠊⰾ㈡୧Ặࡢࠕࡵ࠶࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒ࠿ࡽࠕྥࡁࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕⓎヰࡢ᪉ྥᛶࠖࡢ╔᝿ࢆᚓࡓࠋ㸲 ࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖࡢព࿡ศᯒ࡟ᒣᒸ(2000)ࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࡓࠋ࠙ᩥᶵ⬟ࠚ࠙Ⓨヰᶵ⬟ࠚ࡞࡝ࠊྛ⏝ㄒࡣᮏ᭩࡟
‽ࡎࡿࠋᒓᛶᙧᐜモᩥࢆ๭ࡾฟࡍ࡟ࡣᣦᶆ A,A2,B,B2 ࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋヲࡋࡃࡣ⦓ᐦ࡞ศ㢮᪉ἲࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᮏ᭩ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ㸳 ఍ヰࡢሙࡘࡃࡾ࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡜࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡣ῝࠸㛵ࢃࡾ࠶ࡿࡀࡲࡓᶵ఍ࢆᨵࡵ
࡚ㄽࡌࡓ࠸ࠋ㸴 ࡯ࢇ࡜࠺࠙ᮏᙜࠚࡢㄒ⩏ࡣࠊձഇࡾࡸぢࡏ࠿ࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ┿ᐇ࣭ᐇ㝿࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋࡲࡇ࡜ࠋ࡯ࢇ
࡜ࠋղᮏ᮶ࡢ➽㐨࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ࠶ࡿ࡭ࡁጼ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ࠶ࡓࡾࡲ࠼ࠋճᚰ࠿ࡽࡑ࠺ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡉࡲࠋմ⛬ᗘࡢ⏒ࡔࡋ࠸ࡉࡲࠋ
㸦ᗈ㎡ⱌ➨஬∧ཧ↷㸧ࠋศᯒᑐ㇟ࡢࠕᮏᙜࡔࠖࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶձࡢㄒ
⩏࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄒ⩏ࡢゎㄝࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ஧ࡘᩥࡢࡕࡀ࠸ࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
㸯

−127−

「本当だ」考─「発話の方向性」の観点から─

㸵ࠕࡑ࠺࠿ࠖࡸࠕ࠶ࢀࠖ
ࠕࡸࡣࡾࠖ࡞࡝ࡶᑐ㇟࡟ධࢀ⌧ᅾ⪃ᐹࢆࡍࡍࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩
ⰾ㈡ ⥀㸬ࠕ͆㝞㏙͇࡜ࡣఱࡶࡢ㸽ࠖࠗᅜㄒᅜᩥ࠘
ᯘᏯ⏨⦅㸬ࠗㄯヰศᯒࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ̿⌮ㄽ࡜ᐇ㊶̿࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫᳃ᒣ༟㑻㸬㸬ࠕࠗ⊂ࡾゝ࠘ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚̿ᛮ⪃ࡢゝㄒ࡜ఏ㐩ࡢゝㄒ̿ࠖࠗ➨ 14 ᕳ ᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ  య⣔࡜᪉ἲ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ
ᒣᒸᨻ⣖㸬㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㏙ㄒ࡜ᩥᶵ⬟࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧Ώ㎶ ᐇ㸬㸬
ࠕླྀ㏙࡜㝞㏙ࠖࠗᅜㄒᏛ࠘➨ ࣭ ㍴
SEARLE.J.R. . Expression and Meaning : Cambridge University Press
ศᯒ㈨ᩱ
ᑠᒣ⸅ᇽ㸬㸬ࠗ࠾ࡃࡾࡧ࡜ ࢜ࣜࢪࢼࣝࢩࢼࣜ࢜࠘ᮾி㸸ᑠᏛ㤋

−128−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ŨŘĨýè->Ř.ęŦñsłùcŎaĦØ­´­´źymorishi@lit.kobe-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
In this paper, I deal with a construction, in which an -ing form verb (hereafter V2) follows a finite verb (hereafterV1). In some previous studies, it is said that V1 is deictic motion verbs, go or come, and V2 is either leisure verbs or
searching verbs (Swan 2005). There are, however, many exceptions on this description. In a corpus, Wordbanks
Online, thieving, teaching and some other verbs neither leisure nor searching verbs occur in the construction. Thus,in order to reconsider the description, I suggest three constraints on the construction: i) unbounded aspect, ii)
contextual effects and iii) deictic properties.
G^[^R ýèĠĥÒĨŽĵĸĞCJVHQI^TJ
1. はじめに ðģĬ)/-ing È*ŽµÈ.ŘƄV2ƅµÈ.ĠĥĞĨŘƄV1ƅ-Ëĺ>rc.;
,ýè-Ÿ(ŢŠ> 1(1)

a. He went shopping at the mall.

(Wordbanks Online)

b. Who would come searching for a private solder in barracks?

(ibid.)

ðýèƄrcŨŘĨýè 2ƅ/?5)-9¬.ŌģĬ)ŢŠ?("9..ÝĞŞë/,?(,%"ðģĬ)/Wordbanks Online *İ 5,600 `ŝ.­őÿI^TJ-Ė?>Ũ
ŘĨýè. 1,027 z-9;2zBĻĿĞ-Şë>ŢŠBř6>ē-ŽµÈ.Ř) > V2
.ęŦñs-&(ŌģĬ*/ĝ,>èŅ-;>ÉſB¨Č-ł¸Bů8>wĞęŦñs*(iƅèŅ-;>Éſ iiƅŽĵĸĞCJVHQ iiiƅĠĥĞÒť*ñsBÓµ?<(Bċ"*ŨŘĨýè. V2 *(ęŦ>"8-Ïŏ) >*hÅ><-?<.ęŦñsŨŘĨýè-Ć8<?>ėě-&(9h-āńĞœč<ŢŠ>
2. 先行研究と問題点 ŌģĬ)/±ü:âĳBōAŘƄe.g. shopping, looking for, etc.ƅr«.Ř V2 *(ęŦ"©(2)-Ő<?>;-·ŜÂc>*ßæ >ƄSilva 1975; Wierzbicka 1988;
Swan 2005ƅ
(2)

a. ?He went teaching.

(Silva 1975:)

b. ?We went eating.

(ibid.)


±ü:âĳBōAŘ#ŨŘĨýè. V2 *(ęŦ>YFSKX/ë<−129−

軽動詞移動構文における動詞の生起条件再考

-?(,ƄŸ 1979ƅ
 5"I^TJ-/(2)-Ő<?>;-±ü:âĳr«BōAŘęŦ>z9º,
,
(3)

a. I lived in America before I went teaching.

(Wordbanks Online)b. It is mainly lads that go thieving.

(ibid.)

ðģĬ)/ŌģĬ)/·ŜÂc>*ł<?("(3a-b).;,zI^TJ -Ő<?>ė
ěB9ł¸.¹Ť*>*-;%(ŨŘĨýè-&(ÝĞ,ŢŠBŌ
3. コーパスデータ
 ðį)/İ 5,600 ŝ.­őÿI^TJ) > Wordbanks Online )Ő<?" 1,027 z.ŨŘĨýè.¶zBśĴ-Ő>5
±ü >/âĳBōAŘ.wz*Ľŝç,<1-ĝ,=ŝçBäĥ>Ă-
±ü >/âĳ以外.Ô¡BōAŘ.wz*Ľŝç,<1-ĝ,=ŝçBĥ<-?<.P^LBĹŖĞ-ė"ĸõBäĥ>îË-±ü >/âĳ以外.Ô¡BōŘ+.;,èŅ)Ě<?(>.Bwz**9-à>
3.1. 「娯楽」あるいは「探索」の動詞
 5/
±ü;1âĳBÔ¡>ŘBZJQ>ÝÄ .ç³/ŨŘĨýè.
V2 *(ęŦ>ŝ. ?!?.ĝ,=ŝçBōA±üƉshopping (305), swimming (106), fishing (80), walking (40), dancing (39), hunting (29), racing (22), skiing(21), clubbing (20), riding (19), sailing (14), traveling (13), drinking (12), running (10), canoeing (9),camping (8), cycling (8), jogging (8), visiting (8), surging (7), bowling (7), driving (6), shooting (6),climbing (5), snorkeling (4), boating (4), skating (4), touring (4), wandering (4), banging (3), hiking (3),rafting (3), sightseeing (3), talking (3), backpacking (2), birdwatching (2), boozing (2), browsing (2),cruising (2), diving (2), gliding (2), golfing (2), mountaineering (2), mushrooming (2), picnicking (2),shoplifting (2), watching (2), adventuring (1), bathing (1), bushwalking (1), gambling (1), nightclubbing(1), partying (1), recalling (1), shrimping (1), sight-seeing (1), smoking (1), snowboarding (1),sunbathing (1), surging (1), trekking (1), waterskiing (1)3

総語数 878 語、異なり語数 62 語âĳƉlooking for (88), searching for (8), seeking (8), exploring (4), asking (2), gleaning (2), searching (2),foraging (1)4 

総語数語 115 語、異なり語数 8 語ŨŘĨýè. V2 *(ęŦ>Ř/Ľŝç#),ĝ,=ŝç-&(9âĳBÔ¡>Ř;=±üBÔ¡>Ř.é¬
3.2. 「娯楽」あるいは「探索」以外の動詞
 rc)/ŨŘĨýè. V2 *(ęŦ>ŝ.$±ü:âĳr«BōAŘBà
>**9-Ľŝç;1ĝ,=ŝç-&(9ĥ
training (5), digging (4), knocking (4), gunning (3), busking (2), gathering (1), working (2), banging (1),cleaning (1), electioneering (1), fundraising (1), manufacturing (1), marketing (1), nursing (1), teaching(1), thieving (1), whoring (1), complaining (1), developing (1), meddling (1)5
総語数 34 語、異なり語数 20 語−130−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ŨŘĨýè. V2 *(ęŦ>Ř.ĝ,=ŝç 90 ,.-¹(?5).ŌģĬ)/ęŦ,*?(" teaching .;,LDU.Ř.ĝ,=ŝç 20 9 >*k¶-Ĉğ".k¶/ŨŘĨýè. V2 /±ü:âĳBōAŘ-Ź<?>*ŌģĬ).hÅBŐĠ.-,9.) >
3.3. 統計的データ
ŨŘĨýè. V1 -/ go * come .6ęŦ>V1 .Ř.ĪƂ* V2 .Ř.ĪƂ*.ŷ
-/x<.ŸŮÒ/Ő<?>.#@rc)/liúµ*ĹŖĞÚćBĚ>*-;%( V1 * V2 .ŸŮÒ&(úŗBŌ%"
表 1: 軽動詞移動構文における V1 と V2 の関係±üƄleisureƅ

âĳƄlooking forƅ Ŗ

go

855

82

come

23

33

56

Ŗ

878

115

993

937

2=125.073; df=1; p<.001ƄDE^N.|ăĉƅV1 - go ęŦ>©V2 -±üBōAŘęŦ:_éV1 - come ęŦ>©
V2 -âĳBōAŘęŦ:"/ĹŖĞ-ïÔ,½) =~ĐęÌ>;,9.)/,*ë<-,%"
4. 考察ðį)/ƈį)Ő"I^TJ.Ěz<ë<-,%"ŨŘĨýè-ęŦ>Ř.ťĞ]Ŷ
ĞÒť-&(ŢŠ>wĞ-/rc.č-&(ŨŘĨýè.YFSKXBë<->*BğĞ*>5ŨŘĨýè. V2 *(âĳBōAŘ;=9±üBōAŘ.éęŦ:øÜBë<->Ă-V1  go ) >©-/ V2 -±üBōAŘęŦ:V1  come ) >©-/ V2 -âĳBōAŘęŦ:ėě-&(ŢŠ>îË-ê¿Ğ-ŌA?>ŌĎ) >*Bĥ¤>èŅ)/ŨŘĨýè. V2 ±ü9âĳ9ōA*.ď digging : thieving *%"ŘęŦ>YFSKX-&(ł¸>
4.1. V1 と V2 の関連性について ŨŘĨýè->±üBōAŘ.ęŦĕ/ 10,27 zg 878Ƅ83.3%ƅ) >.
k¶/ŌģĬ)/-ŕ?(,%".;,ĸõBę6ėě-&(ł>"8-±ü >/âĳ*Ô¡*ĠĥÒ*.Ÿ{-&(ł>Ïŏ >ŨŘĨý
è. V1 *(/ go * come ęŦ>go ōA./ŰÎĞĠĥÒ) = come ōA./ĆÎĞĠĥÒ) >
±ü*âĳBĄũ"©
±ü/ŚŃ.©Ù3Ĩ>*-;%(¶Ė?>ńÒ.ƃŌĎ) >hŝŚŃr«.nĒ) %"*(9_ňĞ-±üBĆ8>©hŝōAnĒ>©Ù3.Ĩ) >*/º,¶Ż-ŨŘĨýè.
V1 - come ęŦV2 -/±üBÔ¡>ŘęŦ>TL^\/ĩ) >Ƅ10,27 zg 23
zƄ2.2%ƅƅ
(6)

a. We came surfing this morning and there’s no waves.

−131−(Wordbanks Online)軽動詞移動構文における動詞の生起条件再考

b. He came shopping once with me.

(ibid.)_éŰÎĞĠĥÒBōAŘ) > go  V1 -ęŦV2 -/±üBōAŘęŦ>z/Ž¿-¬þ) >Ƅ10,27 zg 855 zƄ83.3%ƅ
ƅ
(7)a. Latasha Harlins went shopping in a local liquor and grocery store.

(Wordbanks Online)b. I used to go dancing about two or three times a week.

(ibid)

c. Be sure to go mushrooming down there.

(ibid.)

 V1 -ęŦ>Ř*( go ¬*¦) V2 .Ř*(±üBÔ¡>Ř¬,%". ?*9Ŭ-V2 -ęŦ>Ř*(±üBÔ¡>Ř¬*¦) V1 .
Ř*( go ¬,%".*¦õŸ{-&(9ł(6"rc.z<ŰÎĞĠĥ
Ò*Ô¡¾ŋ>-&?ŨŘĨýè*(/·ŜÂv,>*ėŔò>
(8)*I went watching the opera on TV last night.

&5=ŨŘĨýè.ŰÎĞĠĥÒ*Òť."8-±ü.Ô¡ÆĆ8<?>ĸõ-,%".#*ãĊò>
4.2. 文脈による影響 Ă-èŅ-;>Éſ-&(ł¸>)/&.ŘBwz*(=b,<
3.2.)à"±ü:âĳr«.ŘęŦ>èŅ-&(Ő((9)a. Knight, 64, who was brought back from his Costa del hideaway by The Sun, was let out of prison each
day to go digging until the pain got too much. He faced a two-year wait for surgery on the NHS.
(Wordbanks Online)
b. Mr Straw blamed the awful figures partly on the failure to prosecute youngsters. He said: It is mainly ladthat go thieving and they get away with it.

(ibid.)

?<.zBŐ(*ŨŘĨýèĖ?>èŅg) each day : mainly *%"Ř-ą'
.;,Ř/ŨŘĨýè-;%(ōA?> ·ê¿Ğ-ŌA?(>*Bĥ9.)>¶Ż-"ŘBt%"èŅ<=ż"©rc-ĥ;-?<.ŨŘĨ
ýè.·ŜÂ/v,>(10) a. ?He went digging.
b. ?The lads went thieving.
)/,ê¿Ğ-ŌA?>ŌĎ:y#*Ŝš?>©-/±ü:âĳBōA,Ř) %(9 V2 *(ęŦ>..¥Ɓ-&(ł>"8-4.3.)/ŽĵĸĞCJVHQ*/+.;,9.,. (ŽĵĸĞCJVHQŨŘĨýè. V2 .ęŦñs-+Éſ

−132−第13回大会発表論文集第６号>.*č-&(ū4>
4.3. 非終結的アスペクト ŽĵĸĞCJVHQ-&(ŢŠ>"8--ing È.Ř*ŨŘĨýè.ľŘ.Òť-&(ĤŜ"ðģĬ)/ŨŘĨýè.ŽĵĸĞCJVHQ/-ing È.Ř#),©
ÙBōAľŘ.Òť-9ěò>*ł>"8) >
 Langacker (1991:21): Jackendoff (1991: 9))/ŽĵĸĞCJVHQB mass nounƄdĮŘƅ*;-ëĤ,ªĜBÞ",*ēÍBkŤ-9űĚ"9.#*µŀ(>5"Wierzwicka(1988: 96-97)/ŨŘĨýèēµ.ìŷö-5>9.)/,*ł(>Langacker (1987:
255-256)/ŽĵĸĞCJVHQ-/ƇĪƂ >*ū4(>Ɔ&/(11).;,LDU.9.)
9_é/(12).;,9.) >
(11) a. J.P. resembles his father.

(Langacker 1987: 255)

b. An empty moat surrounds the dilapidated castle.

(ibid.)(12) a. The middle linebacker kicks his dog.

(Langacker 1987: 256)b. This guy comes up to me and tries to sell me some Charger tickets.

(ibid.)(11a,b)/ĔÕBōA(=(12a,b)/ŁÖĞ,ŌBōA(>5"Langacker (1991: 25-26)/
-ing È.Ř-ing È.Ř*þ-ªĜ.ď9.#*9ł(>(13) a. Walking is very good for one’s health.
b. *My cat does several sleeping every day.

(Langacker 1991: 25)(ibid.)

Langacker (1987, 1991)-;>-ing ÈÞ&dĮŘ*u"ŽªĜĞ,ÒťŨŘĨýè)/ŵŏ,ÊBõ"(>*ł<?>&5=ÖŁĞ,ŌĎ-ŸA>ŽĵĸĞCJVHQ/-ing È.
ŘÞ&ŽĵĸĞCJVHQ*Œ£Ò >*jĊò>I^TJP^L<Ő&%" digging: thieving *%"ŘŁÖĞŌĎ#*ŔŴò>èŅ.g).6ŨŘĨýè. V2 *(ęŦ>¦9- >ŨŘĨýè/ V2 -ing È.Ř) >*Òť."8-ëĤ-°5=*ĵA=BÔšò>;,y:ŌĎ/ęŦ-_ňĞ-ok:Æ,+/.LDU.
Ř#*ł<?> ?_ê.yûBß.)/,ê.ŁÖĞŌĎ) >*Bĥ
èŅ.,)/_ÂŹ=.ŌĎ#*/ŔŴ?,ŁÖĞy]ŌĎ) >*>èŅ)/±ü:âĳr«.Ř9ęŦ>.-/rb.;,ėě >
 <-ðģĬ)/ŽĵĸĞCJVHQ-ing È.Ř#),ŨŘĨýè.ľŘ.Ò
ť-9Ŧ¦>9.#*ł>¬.èćí-9 >;-ŨŘĨýè.ľŘ/ PathƄķ
ŧƅ)/,LocationƄ©ÙƅBōA9.),?0,<,ƄSwan 2005ƅ(14) a. *I went swimming to the river.

(Swan 2005: 227)b. *She went shopping to Harrods.

(ibid.)

.;-ŨŘĨýè.ľŘķŧ) %(/,ėěBŞë>"8-ðýè.ľŘ−133−

軽動詞移動構文における動詞の生起条件再考

.ÒťBĤŜ> do so OJQ*¢0?>ĹŝĞ,OJQBŌ%"
(15) a. John will go looking for him at the store, and Mary will do so at another store.
b. John will go looking for him at the store, and Mary will go doing so at another store.
(15a)
IP
NP

I

John

AdvP
will

VP
V’

PP

go looking for him

at the store

do so OJQ)/ do so )ľåń,ŏĲ V’) >(15a).ĸõ<go looking for him ŨŘĨýè. V’-ġÇ>*ĤŜò>*<(15a)-> at the store *ľŘ/ƀ)/,qŘ#*ł<?>ľŘƀ) >©-/rc.;-è. telicityƄĵĸÒƅ-ÉſBe>*Ģ<?(>qŘ) >ľŘ/è.ĵĸÒ-/ÉſBe,(16) a. John walked.

(atelic)

b. John walked to the station.

(telic)(17) a. Mary walked.

(atelic)

b. Mary walked with a long hair.

(atelic)qŘ) >ľŘ.ĵĸÒ-ÉſBe>*ò,*Òť*ŨŘĨýè.ľŘÏ©Ù) >*Ô¡ĞÒť*)ĸ1& (-ing È.Ř* at the store .;
-©ÙBōAľŘĶ6A>*-;%(ŨŘĨýèwŽĵĸĞCJVHQBÞ&*-,>
 <--ing È.Ř.Şë-9 %";-ŽĵĸÒ-/ŁÖĞ,y9 5?>*č-&(Ĉğ"I^TJP^LBĥ"Ż-9 %";-ðòŨŘĨýè. V2 -/ęŦ,*ł<?("Ř/ŁÖĞ,ŌĎ) >*>;,èŅ)/ęŦ(".
*9 V2 .-ing È*qŘ) =©ÙBōAľŘ*.Ķ6A-;>ŽĵĸĞCJVHQ*_Ň>
4.4. 軽動詞移動構文に生起する動詞の意味
 ,ŨŘĨýèBÛ%"ŌģĬ)/±ü:âĳBÔ¡>Ř.6ęŦ>*ł
<?(". (¶Ż-I^TJ-;>ş÷ĸõ<9±ü:âĳBÔ¡>Ř§}Ğ-¬Ő<?>¶Ż-/±ü:âĳBÔ¡>ŘęŦ:*−134−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

hÅ/¶/ă,z0ŌģĬ;1ðģĬ)±üBōAŘ*(Ƃ?> swimĝ,>ĹŝTL^\-ęŦ"©Bł(6"(18) a. She went swimming on the river.
b. She swam to the shore.
(18b)BŐ?0>;-swim /Ĩ.þÕBōAŘ) %(ðò/±üBÔ¡>Ř)/,&5=ŨŘĨýè. V2 ōA±ü*Ô¡/Ř .9.Þ&Ô¡*
;=ŨŘĨýè-ęŦ>*-;%(ę>Ô¡#*ł<?>ŕå>*ĠĥĞĨ
*ŽĵĸĞCJVHQ.fé.Ô¡Ğ]āńĞ,ñsBċ"Ęª)ęŦ>©-±ü:âĳ.Ô¡*(ŔŴ?:Ř¬ęŦ>**-,>5"ðòĠĥĞĨBÏŏ*,ŌĎ:y) %(9ēµ.èŅĞÉſ ?0ðýè-ęŦ>*Bł>*Ř.Ô¡<ŨŘĨýè.ęŦñsBł¸>*/ű)/,
5. まとめ?5)Ő(";-ŨŘĨýè. V2 *(ęŦ>Ř-¹>İBŠ>Ż-/èŅ.ÉſBł×,?0,<,<- i) ĠĥĞĨ: ii) ŽĵĸĞCJVHQ*ŏ¦ŨŘĨýè.ÈÃ-āq<?"9.) >**9ë<-,%"¬.ŌģĬ)Ţ
Š?("ŨŘĨýè. V2 -Ÿ>İ.,)9±ü:âĳ-Ÿ>Ř-Ź>*İ/CRWMH,9.)/,7@ēµ.èŅ.,) i) : ii) .ñsB*9-HZ
C>Ř.¬Þ&ēÒ) >*ł<?>

1 ðģĬ)/Fillmore et al. (1988): Goldberg (1995)<-;> Construction GrammarƄýèėŠƅ*ėŠĞöĶ6*/ĝ,=ýè*ĚŝB;=Áŀ-µŀ(> >ēµ.ĹŝĞTL^\;1ĹŝĞTL
^\-Ÿ>İBë<->*č-&(/ýèėŠ*ŭ(>āńĞİ<ýè.ÒťBá>*č-(ðģĬ/ Kuno and Takami (2004)-;>ýèģĬ-Ūĭ©) >*ŕ>
2 ŨŘĨýè*ħ/Wierzbicka (1988)É»Ƅ1996ƅ®¼Ƅ2000ƅ<.ô-;>ŨŘýè*rc-ĥýè*.ƂuÒ-ěò>ıÀ.ųbðī)/ŨŘýè*ŨŘĨýè.ƂuÒ&(śĴ,ŢŠ/ŌA,

i)ii)

a. She had a smell of the perfume.
b. He gave her a bump.

ƄÉ» 1996: 78ƅƄibid.ƅ

3 .ZJQ-/ļ=ĝ,>Ô¡)>*ÑA?>9.BƆ&.ŝ*(ç(>wĞ-/fishing(79)* fishin’ (1)BƆ&.ŝ*(ç fishing (80)*þ- snorkeling (2)* snorkelling (2)BƆ&.ŝ*(çsnorkeling (4)*"

4 ņĈ 3 *þ-.ZJQ9 looking for (86)* lookin’ for (2)B 1 &.*(ç looking for (88)*"

5 ±üBōAŘ.ZJQ-9%(" banging  .p.Ô¡.ŘZJQ-9à<?(>./èŅ-;%(Ô¡ĝ,>© ><) >?B¬ŀŝ*>žĝŀŝ*>-&(/ðģĬ)/ÛA,

−135−

軽動詞移動構文における動詞の生起条件再考

参照文献®¼ţ²2000. ŉŝ.ŨŘýè-&( ŕŝģĬ 118, 29-54.
Fillmore, C. J., P. Kay, M. and C. O’Connor. 1988. “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The
Case of let alone.” Language 64:3, 510-528.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1985. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1991. “Parts and boundaries.” Cognition 41:1, 9-45.
É»¯Ų1996.

ŘÔ¡Š ómƉ@đ.

Kuno, S and K. Takami. 2004. Functional Constraints in Grammar: On the Unergative-Unaccusative Distinction.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundation of cognitive grammar. vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
——. 1991. Foundation of cognitive grammar. vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
ŸŊĀ1979. êðŝ*ŉŝ->ŘōĖ — Ō
>* go ~ing, go for a ~ .¹Ð&( ŉŝ´ 2164-76.
Silva, C. M. 1975. “Adverbial -ing.” Linguistic Inquiry 6: 2, 346-350.
Swan, M. 2005. Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
コーパス
Wordbanks Online−136−第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡢព࿡ゎ㔘*ᒣᮏ ᑦᏊ
ዉⰋዪᏊ኱Ꮫ

<Abstract>
Within the framework of relevance theory, this paper discusses the information encoded in A
mo A da, and the similarities and differences between A ga A da and A mo A da. I propose
stipulating the information encoded in A mo A da: A mo A da must be processed in a way which
communicates that the assumption about the referent of A is more deviant than thecontext-dependent assumption(s) associated with it, from the commonly accepted norm in thecontext. I also show that both A ga A da and A mo A da constrain context, and the former covers
the referent of A, while the latter covers the assumption about the referent of A and thecontext-dependent assumption(s) associated with it.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࠊᵓᩥࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࠊᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ᝟ሗࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
᪥ᮏㄒࡢྡモྃࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࢆ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡔࡀࠊ
ຓモࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖࡶྡモྃࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ⾲⌧ࡔ࡜つᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኵ፬ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(1)㹙ጔ࡜ኵࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ⏨ࡢᏊ Y ࡀࢡࣛࢫ࣓࢖ࢺ࡟ࡅࡀࢆࡉࡏࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋY ࡢ∗ぶ࡛࠶ࡿ X ࡣࡶࡵࡈ࡜ࢆࡼࡃ㉳ࡇࡍࡇ࡜࡛᭷ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㹛ጔ㸸ࡸࡗࡥࡾࠊぶࡀᝏ࠸ࡢ࠿ࡋࡽࠋ
ኵ㸸
㹹a. ぶࡣぶࡔ࠿ࡽ࡞ࠋ㸭b. ぶࡀぶࡔ࠿ࡽ࡞ࠋ㸭c. ぶࡶぶࡔ࠿ࡽ࡞ࠋ
㹻ࡶࡵࡈ࡜ࢆࡼࡃ㉳ࡇࡍࡇ࡜࡛᭷ྡ࡞ X ࡟ࡣ Y ࡜࠸࠺ᜥᏊࡀ࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᜥᏊ Y ࡀࠊࢡࣛࢫ࣓࢖ࢺ࡟ࡅࡀࢆ
ࡉࡏࡓヰࢆ⪺࠸ࡓጔࡣࠊኵ࡜ࡑࡢぶᏊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰ≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊጔࡣࠊ
ࠕᜥᏊY ࡀࢡࣛࢫ࣓࢖ࢺ࡟ࡅࡀࢆࡉࡏࡓ㈐௵ࡣぶ X ࡟࠶ࡿࠖ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(1a)ࡢኵࡣࠊ
ࠕᜥᏊ Y ࡀࢡࣛࢫ࣓࢖ࢺ࡟ࡅࡀࢆࡉࡏࡓ㈐௵ࡣぶ X ࡟࡞࠸ࠖ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋኵࡣࠊጔࡢពぢ࡟཯ㄽࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊጔࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(1b)ࡸ(1c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ኵࡀ⟅࠼ࡓሙྜࠊኵࡣጔࡢពぢ࡟ྠពࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ(1b)࡛ࡣࠊぶࢆᢈุࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(1c)࡛ࡣࠊᜥᏊࢆ㠀㞴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᩥ⬦࡛ぶࡶᢈุࡢᑐ㇟࡟ධࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊኵࡣࠊࠕぶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྡモࢆྵࡴྡモྃࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࢆⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕࡣࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕࡀࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕࡶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ຓモࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡲࡗࡓࡃ␗࡞ࡿෆᐜࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏ࡣࠊྡモྃࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࢆࠕᵓᩥࠖ࡜࡜ࡽ࠼ࠊୖグ࡛ᣲࡆࡓ 3 ࡘࡢ᪥ᮏㄒྡモྃࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡢ࠺
ࡕࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ 1 ࢆ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ㸦Sperber and Wilson (1986, 19952)㸧ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝟ሗࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡜ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡢඹ㏻
Ⅼ࣭┦㐪Ⅼࡣఱ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ 2 Ⅼࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ2. ඛ⾜◊✲ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ᳃ᒣ (1989)࡜ Okamoto (1993)ࡢศᯒࢆᴫほࡋࠊࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡇࢀࡽ 2 ࡘࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣ
࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡜ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡢ㢮ఝᛶࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−137−

「AもAだ」構文の意味解釈ࡲࡎࠊ᳃ᒣ (1989)ࡢศᯒࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ᳃ᒣ (1989)ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧࡢᚋ༙
㒊ศࡀ⊂❧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡢᘏ㛗⥺ୖ࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࠊᙜヱᵓᩥࡣࠊࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡢሙྜ࡜ྠᵝࠊA ࡜࠸࠺ྡモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡀ≉ᐃ≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦␗ᖖ࡞㸧ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡀࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦␗ᖖ࡞㸧≉Ṧ஦ែࡀࡑࡢ௚࡟ࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ
㐩ࡍࡿࠊ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ2(2) ᩍᖌࡀᩍᖌ࡞ࡽࠊᏛ⏕ࡶᏛ⏕ࡔࠋ(᳃ᒣ 1989: 7 ࠿ࡽಟṇᘬ⏝)ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊୖグ(2)ࡢ౛ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕᩍᖌࡀᆺ◚ࡾ࡞ே≀࡞ࡽࠊࡑࡢᩍ࠼Ꮚ࡛࠶ࡿᏛ⏕ࡶᆺ◚ࡾ࡞ே≀ࡔࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࠊ
ࠕၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᩍᖌࡀᖖ㆑ⓗ࡞⪃࠼࡟࡜ࡽࢃࢀࡎᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ
ࡑࡢᩍ࠼Ꮚ࡛࠶ࡿᏛ⏕ࡶᖖ㆑ⓗ࡞⪃࠼࡟࡜ࡽࢃࢀࡎᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ
ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ
࡜ศᯒࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ᳃ᒣࡢศᯒ࡟ࡣၥ㢟Ⅼࡀ 2 ࡘ࠶ࡿࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊᙼࡢศᯒࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼ࡛ᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸
㸦␗ᖖ࡞㸧࡜ุ᩿ࡍࡿ࠿ࢆ᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢุ᩿ᇶ‽࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡀࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡀᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦␗ᖖ࡞㸧ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ၥ
㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢ౛ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(3) ୺ദ⪅㸸㸦ྖ఍⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸧᫬㛫ࡶ᫬㛫ࡔࠋࡑࢁࡑࢁጞࡵࡼ࠺ࠋ
୺ദ⪅ࡀ఍ྜࡢ㛤ጞࢆྖ఍⪅࡟ಁࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨゝࢆࡋࡓ࡜ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡑ࠺ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢⓎヰࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕཧຍ⪅ࡀ㞟ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡋࠊヰࡋྜ࠺࡭ࡁࡇ࡜ࡀࡓࡃࡉࢇ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊⓎヰ᫬ࡢ᫬㛫ࡀ఍ྜࡢணᐃ㛤ጞ᫬้ࢆ㐣ࡂ࡚ࡶ࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊ఍ྜࢆጞࡵࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࢆಁࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ㸺ணᐃ㛤ጞ᫬้ࢆ㐣ࡂ࡚ࡶ఍ྜࡀጞࡲࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸼࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊᙜヱⓎヰࡣࠊࠕ᫬㛫ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊⓎヰ᫬ࡢ᫬㛫ࡀᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦␗ᖖ࡞㸧ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊ㸺ணᐃ㛤ጞ᫬้ࢆ㐣ࡂ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ
࡛ࡁࡿ㝈ࡾ㐍⾜࡟ᨭ㞀ࢆࡁࡓࡉࡠࡼ࠺఍ྜࡢ㛤ጞࢆಁࡍ㸼࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊᙜヱⓎヰࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬ࡢ᫬㛫ࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᳃
ᒣࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊุ᩿ᇶ‽ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ
ࠕᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦␗ᖖ࡞㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ࠶
࠸ࡲ࠸࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ ➨஧ࡢၥ㢟ⅬࡣࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡀࠊᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦␗ᖖ࡞㸧≉Ṧ஦ែࡀ A ࡢ௚࡟ࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙼࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊୖグ(3)ࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕணᐃ㛤ጞ᫬้ࢆ㐣ࡂ࡚ࡶ఍㆟ࡀጞࡲࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࡣᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦␗ᖖ࡞㸧ࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡔࡀࠊ
ࠕཧຍ⪅ࡀ㞟ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
ࡇ࡜ࡸࠕヰࡋྜ࠺࡭ࡁࡇ࡜ࡀࡓࡃࡉࢇ࠶ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦␗ᖖ࡞㸧ࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜ゝ࠸ษࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ
ࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡀࠊᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦␗ᖖ࡞㸧≉Ṧ஦ែࡀ A ࡢ௚࡟ࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺᳃ᒣࡢศᯒࡣࠊᨭᣢ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
ḟ࡟ࠊOkamoto (1993)ࡢ୺ᙇࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋOkamoto (1993)ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡀᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡀࠊᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡀࡑࡢ
௚࡟ࡶᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡍࡿⅬࡀࠊࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡜␗࡞ࡿࠊ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋḟࡢ౛ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ(4) ࠶࡞ࡓࡶ࠶࡞ࡓࡼࠋ

(Okamoto 1993: 452ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⾲グࡣᘬ⏝⪅࡟ࡼࡿ)

Okamoto ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࢆࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆ㠀㞴ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿᡂྃ࡜࡜ࡽ࠼ࠊᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ே≀ࡀࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࠖࡢ௚࡟ࡶᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋࠊ
ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡀᮃࡲࡋࡃ
࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
ࡔࡀࠊOkamoto ࡢศᯒ࡟ࡣࠊඛࡢ᳃ᒣࡢศᯒ࡛ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ➨୍ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼ࡛ᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡢ࠿ࡀ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ
ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡀࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡀᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋඛ࡟

−138−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ゐࢀࡓ(3)㸦୺ദ⪅ࡀ఍ྜࡢ㛤ጞࢆྖ఍⪅࡟ಁࡍ౛㸧ࢆࡶ࠺୍ᗘぢ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸ࠋ౽ᐅୖࠊ(5)࡜ࡋ࡚෌ᥖࡍࡿࠋ
(5) ୺ദ⪅㸸㸦ྖ఍⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸧᫬㛫ࡶ᫬㛫ࡔࠋࡑࢁࡑࢁጞࡵࡼ࠺ࠋ

(= (3))

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ⓎヰࡀⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿሙྜࠊ㸺ணᐃ㛤ጞ᫬้ࢆ㐣ࡂ࡚ࡶ఍ྜࡀጞࡲࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸼࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊᙜヱⓎヰࡣࠊࠕ᫬㛫ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊⓎヰ᫬ࡢ᫬㛫ࡀᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊ㸺ணᐃ㛤ጞ᫬้ࢆࡍ࡛࡟㐣ࡂ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ࡛ࡁࡿ㝈ࡾ㐍⾜࡟ᨭ㞀ࢆࡁࡓࡉࡠࡼ
࠺఍ྜࡢ㛤ጞࢆಁࡍ㸼࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊᙜヱⓎヰࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬ࡢ᫬㛫ࡀᮃࡲࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ุ᩿ࡍࡿᇶ‽ࡀ᫂☜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ Okamoto ࡢศᯒࡣࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖࡢព࿡ࢆṇ☜࡟つᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸ษࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
➨஧ࡢၥ㢟ⅬࡣࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡁࠊᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡀ A ࡢ௚࡟ࡶᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
࠸࠺๓ᥦࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋOkamoto ࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊୖグ(5)ࡢࠕ᫬㛫ࡶ᫬㛫ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺୺
ദ⪅ࡢⓎヰࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࠕணᐃ㛤ጞ᫬้ࢆ㐣ࡂ࡚ࡶ఍ྜࡀጞࡲࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜
ゝ࠼ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡔࡀࠊ
ࠕཧຍ⪅ࡀ㞟ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡸࠊ
ࠕヰࡋྜ࠺࡭ࡁࡇ࡜ࡀࡓࡃࡉࢇ࠶ࡿࠖࡇ࡜
ࡣࠊᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡀ A ࡢ௚࡟ࡶᏑᅾ
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡍࡿ Okamoto ࡢศᯒࡣࠊጇᙜ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
௨ୖࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ᳃ᒣ (1989)࡜ Okamoto (1993)ࡢࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖࡢศᯒࢆᴫほࡋࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖࡣࠊA
࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡀᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦␗ᖖ࡞㸧ࡇ࡜ࡸᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ௚࡟
ࡶࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦ែ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ᙼࡽࡢ୺ᙇ࡟཯ࡍࡿ஦౛ࡀ࠶ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ
3. ⪃ᐹ
3.1 ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡟ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ᝟ሗ๓⠇࡛㆟ㄽࡋࡓඛ⾜◊✲ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊ
ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿලయⓗ࡞⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࡀࠊࡑࡢ๓
࡟ࠊࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝟ሗࡀࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆࠊ⡆༢࡟ぢ࡚࠾ࡇ࠺ࠋࡲࡎࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኵ፬ࡢ఍ヰࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ
(6)㹙ጔ࡜ኵࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ⏨ࡢᏊ Y ࡀࢡࣛࢫ࣓࢖ࢺ࡟ࡅࡀࢆࡉࡏࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋY ࡢ∗ぶ࡛࠶ࡿ X ࡣࡶࡵࡈ࡜ࢆࡼࡃ㉳ࡇࡍࡇ࡜࡛᭷ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㹛ጔ㸸ࡸࡗࡥࡾࠊぶࡀᝏ࠸ࡢ࠿ࡋࡽࠋ
ኵ㸸ぶࡀぶࡔ࠿ࡽ࡞ࠋ
(= (1b))ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊኵࡣࠊ
ࠕぶ X ࡀࡶࡵࡈ࡜ࢆࡼࡃ㉳ࡇࡍ࠿ࡽࠊᜥᏊ Y ࡣࢡࣛࢫ࣓࢖ࢺ࡟ࡅࡀ
ࢆࡉࡏࡓࠖ࡜⪃࠼ࠊጔࡢ⪃࠼࡟ྠពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࡜ࡁࠊኵࡣࠊ
ࠕぶࡶぶࡔࠖ࡜Ⓨࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕᮏ᮶ぶ࡛࠶ࡿ X ࡣᏊ౪ࡢᶍ⠊࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟⾜ືࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ X ࡀࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ぶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࢆࡼࡾ୍⯡໬ࡍࢀࡤࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠊࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡀࠊࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ
᮶ࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾࠿࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿሙྜࠊᑐヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰࡸᛮ⪃࡞࡝ࡢᩥ⬦᪤Ꮡࡢ᝿ᐃ࡟ྠពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᖖ࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠶ࡿᑠㄝ࠿ࡽ
ᘬ⏝ࡋࡓḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ぶᏊࡢ఍ヰࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(7)  ࠕࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠋ̿࠶࠶ࠊ࠾⭡ࡀ✵࠸ࡓࠋࠖ   ୙ㄔᐇ࡞࠶ࡸࡲࡾ᪉ࡔࡀࠊᮏ㡢࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣃࣥࡶ㣗࡭࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᒃṧࡾࡢ௰㛫࡜ࣇ࢓ࣥࢱ࣭࢜ࣞࣥ
ࢪࢆ㣧ࢇࡔࡔࡅࡔࠋᮏᙜ࡟ࠊ࡮ࡇ࡮ࡇࠋ
ࠕ᫬㛫ࡀ᫬㛫ࡔ࠿ࡽࡡࠊ࠾ࡸࡘ࡞ࢇ࠿㣗࡭࡞࠸࡛ࡈ㣤࡟ࡋ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠋ
ࠖ

−139−

「AもAだ」構文の意味解釈(໭ᮧ⸅ࠗࢫ࢟ࢵࣉ࠘)୺ேබ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ⚾ࠖࡣࠊయ⫱㝿࡛⾜࠺௬⿦⾜ิࡢ‽ഛࢆࡋ࡚࠸࡚ᖐᏯࡀ㐜ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࢆẕぶ࡟ㅰࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊ✵⭡࡟⪏࠼ษࢀࡎࠊ
ࠕࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㅰ⨥ࡢゝⴥࡢᚋ࡟ࠊᛮࢃࡎࠕ࠶࠶ࠊ࠾⭡ࡀ✵࠸ࡓࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ࡜ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ぶᏊࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ᫬㛫ࡀ᫬㛫ࡔࠖࢆྵࡴẕぶࡢⓎヰࡣࠊࠕࡶ࠺ᑡࡋ࡛ኤ㣗ࡢ᫬㛫ࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ࠾ࡸࡘ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࡈ㣤ࢆ㣗࡭࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋせࡍࡿ࡟ࠊࡇࡢⓎヰࡣࠊፉࡀኤ㣗๓࡟ఱ࠿㣗࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆไṆࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟Ⓨࡏࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊẕぶࡣࠊᑐヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࠕ⚾ࠖ
ࡢⓎヰࡸᛮ⪃࡞࡝ࡢᩥ⬦᪤Ꮡࡢ᝿ᐃ࡟ྠពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ࠾⭡ࡀ✵࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊఱ࠿㣗࡭ࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㠀᫂♧ⓗ࡟ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀ
ࡽࠊඛ࡯࡝㆟ㄽࡋࡓ(6)࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ࠊẕぶࡣࠊࠕ᫬㛫ࡀ᫬㛫ࡔࠖ࡜Ⓨࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ᫬㛫ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊⓎヰ᫬ࡢ᫬㛫ࡀࠊࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕᏛᰯ࠿ࡽᖐᏯࡋࡓࡽ࠾ࡸࡘࢆ㣗࡭ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇࡢぶᏊࡀᣢࡘ࠾ࡸࡘࢆ㣗࡭ࡿ᫬㛫࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࡜ࠊ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡀࠊࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ࡑ
ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋせࡍࡿ࡟ࠊࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊᵓᩥࡀゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁᩥ⬦࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ไ
⣙ࢆㄢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.2 ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡟ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ᝟ሗ࡛ࡣࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ⾲⌧ࡔ࡜つᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࠕA ࡶ Aࡔࠖᵓᩥࡀࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᝟ሗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ(8)ࡢ౛ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(8)㹙ጔ࡜ኵࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ⏨ࡢᏊ Y ࡀࢡࣛࢫ࣓࢖ࢺ࡟ࡅࡀࢆࡉࡏࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋY ࡢ∗ぶ࡛࠶ࡿ X ࡣࡶࡵࡈ࡜ࢆࡼࡃ㉳ࡇࡍࡇ࡜࡛᭷ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㹛ጔ㸸ࡸࡗࡥࡾࠊぶࡀᝏ࠸ࡢ࠿ࡋࡽࠋ
ኵ㸸ぶࡶぶࡔ࠿ࡽ࡞ࠋ
(= (1c))ኵࡢࠕぶࡶぶࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ⓎヰࡣࠊࠕᜥᏊ Y ࡀࡸࢇࡕࡷࡔ࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊぶ X ࡀࡶࡵࡈ࡜ࢆࡼࡃ㉳ࡇࡋࡶࡍࡿ࠿ࡽࠊᜥᏊ Y ࡣࢡࣛࢫ࣓࢖ࢺ࡟ࡅࡀࢆࡉࡏࡓࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋኵࡣࠊᜥᏊ Y ࡀࢡࣛࢫ࣓࢖ࢺ࡟ࡅࡀࢆ
ࡉࡏࡓཎᅉࡀࠊ
ࠕᜥᏊ Y ࡀࡸࢇࡕࡷࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡜ࠊ
ࠕぶ X ࡀࡶࡵࡈ࡜ࢆࡼࡃ㉳ࡇࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿ
࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ 2 ࡘࡢ᝿ᐃࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᜥᏊ Y ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦ࠕᜥᏊ Y ࡀࡸࢇࡕࡷࡔࠖ
㸧ࡣࠊࠕ⏨ࡢᏊࡣࡸࢇࡕࡷࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏨ࡢᏊ࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊぶ X ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦
ࠕぶ X ࡀࡶࡵࡈ࡜ࢆࡼࡃ㉳ࡇࡍࠖ㸧ࡣࠊࠕぶࡣᏊ౪ࡢᶍ⠊࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟⾜ືࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ぶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ࠊ࠶ࡿ⏨ᛶࡀጜࡢኵ࡛࠶ࡿ⩏඗࡟ᑐࡋ࡚Ⓨࡋࡓ(9)ࡢ౛ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(9) ࠕ൅ࡣᘵ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࠋࡋ࠿ࡶᐇࡢࠋ൅࡟ࡲ࡛ࡸࡁࡶࡕࡸ࠸࡚ࠊጜࢆ㐲ࡊࡅ࡚࠾ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡛ࡋࡻ
࠺ࠋ࡝࠺ࡏࠊᐙࡢ୰࡟࠸ࡿࡗ࡚ࡇ࡜ࡣࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࠋࡼࡋࠊ൅ࡀࡦࡗࡥࡾฟࡋ࡚ࡃࡿ࡜ࡋ
ࡼ࠺ࠋጜࡶጜ࡛ࡍࡼࠋ࠸ࡘࡲ࡛ࡓࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ࠶࡞ࡓࡢゝ࠸࡞ࡾ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢇࡔ࠿ࡽࠋ
ࠖ(ᑠụ┿⌮Ꮚࠕᙼዪࢆឡࡋࡓನ࡜≟ࠖࠗ➨୕Ỉ᭙᪥ࡢ᝟஦࠘)ࡑࡢ⏨ᛶࡣࠊጜኵ፬ࡢᐙࢆゼࢀࡿࡀࠊ⩏඗ࡢ␗ᖖ࡞᎖ጊᚰࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊጜ࡟࡞࠿࡞࠿఍࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊ
ࠕጜࡶጜ࡛ࡍࡼࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࡣࠊࠕ⩏඗ࡀヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡸࡁࡶࡕࢆࡸ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ጜࡀ⩏඗ࡢ㢦Ⰽࢆ࠺࠿ࡀࡗ࡚ࡶ࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊヰࡋᡭࡣጜ࡟఍࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡣࠊጜ࡟఍࠼࡞࠸ཎᅉࡀࠊ
ࠕ⩏඗ࡀヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡸࡁࡶࡕࢆࡸ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡜ࠊ
ࠕጜࡀ⩏඗ࡢ㢦Ⰽࢆ࠺࠿ࡀ
ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ 2 ࡘࡢ᝿ᐃࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ⩏඗࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ−140−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

㸦ࠕ⩏඗ࡀヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡸࡁࡶࡕࢆࡸ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
㸧ࡣࠊࠕ⩏඗ࡣ␗ᖖ࡟᎖ጊ῝࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᬑẁࡢ⩏඗ࡢゝື࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊጜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦ࠕጜࡀ⩏඗ࡢ㢦Ⰽࢆ࠺࠿ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
㸧ࡣࠊࠕேࡣ⮬ࡽࡢពᛮ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚⾜ືࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ே㛫ࡢ⏕ࡁ᪉࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽ 2 ࡘࡢ౛ࢆぢ࡚Ẽ࡙ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡁࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟
࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊ(8)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕぶ X ࡀࡶࡵࡈ࡜ࢆࡼࡃ㉳ࡇࡍࠖ㸧࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡⓗ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊ(8)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕᜥᏊ Y ࡀࡸࢇࡕࡷࡔࠖ
㸧ࡀࠊ୍ᑐ୍ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡾࠊ๓⪅ࡀᚋ⪅ࡼࡾࡶࠊࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ୧⪅ࡢ㛫࡟ᖖ࡟୍ᑐ୍ࡢ㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ(10)ࡢ౛ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(10) ୺ദ⪅㸸㸦ྖ఍⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸧᫬㛫ࡶ᫬㛫ࡔࠋࡑࢁࡑࢁጞࡵࡼ࠺ࠋ

(= (5))

఍ྜࡢ㛤ጞࢆྖ఍⪅࡟ಁࡍ୺ദ⪅ࡀࠊ(10)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟Ⓨヰࡋࡓ࡜ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ྖ఍⪅㸧ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦୺ദ⪅㸧ࡀ఍ྜࡢ㛤ጞࢆಁࡍ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕⓎヰ᫬ࡢ᫬㛫ࡀ఍ྜࡢணᐃ㛤ጞ᫬้ࢆ㐣ࡂ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡇ
࡜ࡢ௚࡟ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕཧຍ⪅ࡀ㞟ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡸࠕヰࡋྜ࠺࡭ࡁࡇ࡜ࡀࡓࡃࡉࢇ࠶ࡿࠖࡇ࡜࡞࡝」ᩘࡢ
஦ែࢆᛮ࠸ᾋ࠿࡭ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ(10)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ᫬㛫ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦ࠕⓎヰ᫬ࡢ᫬㛫ࡀ఍ྜࡢணᐃ㛤ጞ᫬้ࢆ㐣ࡂ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
㸧࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡⓗ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦ࠕཧຍ⪅ࡀ㞟ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࠊࠕヰࡋྜ࠺࡭ࡁࡇ࡜ࡀࡓࡃࡉࢇ࠶ࡿࠖ࡞࡝㸧ࡣࠊ୍ᑐከࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊඛ
࡟㆟ㄽࡋࡓ(8)ࡸ(9)ࡢ౛࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ᫬㛫ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡣࠊࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕ᫬㛫㏻ࡾ࡟఍ྜࢆጞࡵࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺఍ྜࡢ㛤ጞ᫬้࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢ᝿ᐃࡣࠊ఍ྜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(11)ࡢ౛ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(11)㹙X ࡣࠊ᫓ᏊࡀኟᏊ࡜᪑⾜࡟⾜ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ Y ࠿ࡽ⪺࠸࡚ึࡵ࡚▱ࡿࠋX ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ᫓Ꮚࡣぶ཭࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊኟᏊࡣ఍࠼ࡤᣵᣜࢆࡍࡿ⛬ᗘࡢ▱ࡾྜ࠸࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㹛
X㸸࠼࠻ࠊࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ㸽⚾ࠊ⪺࠸࡚࡞࠸ࡼࠋ᫓ᏊࡀࠊኟᏊࡉࢇ࡜୍⥴࡟᪑⾜࡟⾜ࡗࡓ࡞ࢇ࡚ࠋ
Y㸸ᮏᙜ࡟▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ㸽X ࡞ࡽᙜ↛▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࡓࡢ࡟ࠋࡔࡅ࡝ࠊ᫓Ꮚࡶ᫓Ꮚࡼࡡࠋ㯲ࡗ࡚⾜ࡃࡇ࡜࡞ࢇ࠿࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠋ
౛࠼ࡤࠊX ࡣࠊぶ཭ࡢ᫓ᏊࡀኟᏊ࡜᪑⾜࡟⾜ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ Y ࠿ࡽ⪺࠸࡚ึࡵ࡚▱ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ
Y ࡢࠕ᫓Ꮚࡶ᫓Ꮚࡼࡡࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࡣࠊࠕ᫓Ꮚࡀࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࠊX ࡟㯲ࡗ࡚᪑⾜࡟⾜ࡗࡓ᫓Ꮚ࡬ࡢ㠀㞴ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰ≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊᢈุࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿே≀ࡀࠊ᫓Ꮚ௨እ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ᫓Ꮚࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ࡜ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡⓗ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࢆ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊᙜヱⓎヰࢆࠊX ࡟ࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ែᗘࢆ࡜ࡿྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ
ඛࡢ(8)-(10)ࡢ౛࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒࡀ࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋX ࡟ࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ែᗘࢆ࡜ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿே≀ࢆ࠿ࡾ࡟ࡑࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚㡰ᗎ࡙ࡅࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊX ࡢぶ཭࡛࠶ࡿ᫓Ꮚࡣࠊ௚ࡢㄡࡼࡾࡶࡑࡢᗎิࡢୗ఩࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿே≀ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ែᗘࢆ࡜ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀప࠸ே≀ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⪃࠼᪉࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡑࡢᗎิࡢୖ఩࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ே≀ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊ
X ࡟ࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ែᗘࢆ࡜ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ே≀ࢆලయⓗ࡟≉ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠕ᫓Ꮚࡀࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡑࡢᗎิࡢୖ఩࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿ࠶ࡿே≀ࡀࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࡼࡾࡶࠊࡑࡢ
ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕぶ཭࡟ࡣ࡝ࢇ࡞ヰ࡛ࡶࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ே㛫㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
 ୖグ(8)-(11)ࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ࡜ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡⓗ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡀࠊ༢⊂࡛࠶ࡿ࠿」ᩘ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊࡲࡓࠊ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ࡣ㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡜ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡⓗ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡼࡾࡶࠊࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࢆ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢほ−141−

「AもAだ」構文の意味解釈

Ⅼ࠿ࡽ෌ศᯒࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ⾜࠺᥎ㄽฎ⌮ࡢ௙᪉࡟ไ⣙ࢆㄢࡍᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ᝟ሗࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊ(12)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡔ࡜≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(12)ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡜ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡⓗ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡼࡾࡶࠊࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿࠋ
せࡍࡿ࡟ࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊᵓᩥࡀゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁᩥ⬦࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ไ⣙ࢆㄢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝟ሗࢆලయ౛࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ(8)㸦ᜥᏊ Y ࡀࢡࣛࢫ࣓࢖ࢺ࡟ࡅࡀࢆࡉࡏࡓ౛㸧ࡢࠕぶࡶ
ぶࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࡣࠊࠕぶࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦ࠕぶ X ࡀࡶࡵࡈ࡜ࢆࡼࡃ㉳ࡇࡍࠖ㸧ࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡜ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡⓗ࡟㛵㐃ࡀ࠶ࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦ࠕᜥᏊ Y ࡀࡸࢇࡕࡷࡔࠖ
㸧ࡼࡾࡶࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕぶࡣᏊ౪ࡢᶍ⠊࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟⾜ືࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋ(9)-(11)ࡶྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ୖグ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ᝟ሗࢆࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡀࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦౛ࡢᐜ
ㄆᛶࡢ㐪࠸ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(13) X㸸࠼࠻ࠊࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ㸽⚾ࠊ⪺࠸࡚࡞࠸ࡼࠋ᫓ᏊࡀࠊኟᏊࡉࢇ࡜୍⥴࡟᪑⾜࡟⾜ࡗࡓ࡞ࢇ࡚ࠋ
Y㸸ᮏᙜ࡟▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ㸽X ࡞ࡽᙜ↛▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࡓࡢ࡟ࠋࡔࡅ࡝ࠊ
㹹a. ᫓Ꮚࡶ᫓Ꮚࡼࡡࠋ㸭b. */ ? ኟᏊࡶኟᏊࡼࡡࠋ
㹻㯲ࡗ࡚⾜ࡃࡇ࡜࡞ࢇ࠿࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠋ
ඛࡢ᫓Ꮚࡀ᪑⾜࡟⾜ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ X ࡟㯲ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ(13a)ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࢆ(13b)ࡢࡼ࠺
࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣወጁ࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ࡞ࡐࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᐜㄆᛶࡢ㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡢࡔ
ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ ࡲࡎࠊ(13a)ࡢࠕ᫓Ꮚࡶ᫓Ꮚࡼࡡࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋඛ࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊX ࡟ࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ែᗘࢆ
࡜ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿே≀ࢆࠊࡑࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚㡰ᗎ࡙ࡅࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊX ࡢぶ཭࡛࠶ࡿ᫓ᏊࡣࠊX ࡟ࡼࡑࡼࡑ
ࡋ࠸ែᗘࢆ࡜ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀప࠸ே≀࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡔࡀᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ᫓Ꮚࡣࠊ᪑⾜࡟⾜ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ X ࡟㯲ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ᫓Ꮚࡀࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡑࡢᗎิࡢୖ఩࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿ࠶ࡿே≀ࡀࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ࠖࡇ࡜
ࡼࡾࡶࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕぶ཭࡟ࡣ࡝ࢇ࡞ヰ࡛ࡶࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊே㛫㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ(13b)ࡢࠕኟᏊࡶኟᏊࡼࡡࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࢆࠊ(13a)࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ࠊX ࡟ࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ែᗘࢆ࡜ࡿྍ
⬟ᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊX ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚఍࠼ࡤᣵᣜࢆࡍࡿ⛬ᗘࡢ▱ࡾྜ࠸࡛࠶ࡿኟᏊࡣࠊࡑࡢᗎิࡢୖ
఩࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿே≀ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊX ࡟ࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ែᗘࢆ࡜ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ே≀ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞⪃࠼᪉࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊ
ࠕኟᏊࡀࡼࡑࡼࡑࡋ࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡑࡢᗎิࡢୗ఩࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿ࠶ࡿே≀ࡀࡼࡑࡼࡑ
ࡋ࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࡼࡾࡶࠊࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕᣵᣜࢆࡍࡿ⛬ᗘࡢ▱ࡾྜ࠸࡟ࡣఱ࡛ࡶヰࡉ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ே㛫㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡔ࠿ࡽࡇࡑࠊX ࡜
ࡢぶࡋࡉࡢ⛬ᗘࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠕ᫓Ꮚࠖ࡜ࠕኟᏊࠖࢆධࢀ᭰࠼ࡓ(13b)ࡣࠊወጁ࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ࠶ࡲࡾぶࡋࡃ࡞࠸ኟᏊࡀࠊ᪑⾜࡟⾜ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ X ࡟㯲ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊࠕኟᏊࡶኟᏊࡼࡡࠖ࡜࠸࠺
ⓎヰࢆࠊࠕኟᏊࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡜ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡⓗ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡼࡾࡶࠊࡑ
ࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ฎ⌮࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ(13b)ࡣ୙㐺ษ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ௨ୖࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊලయⓗ஦౛ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜つᐃ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
3.3ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡜ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡢඹ㏻Ⅼ࣭┦㐪Ⅼࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࠊࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡜ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡟ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ᝟ሗࡀ᫂ࡽ
࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊࡶ࠺୍ᗘ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡀࠊ

−142−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

ࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᵓᩥࡀゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁᩥ⬦࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᣦ♧ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࠕA ࡶ
A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡜ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡⓗ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡼࡾࡶࠊࡑ
ࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᵓᩥࡀゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁᩥ⬦࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᣦ♧ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡶࡋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝟ሗࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᵓᩥ࡟ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ศᯒࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ୧⪅ࡢඹ
㏻Ⅼ࣭┦㐪Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡜ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡢඹ㏻Ⅼࡣࠊ࠶ࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋࠊᵓᩥࡀゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁᩥ⬦࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ไ⣙ࢆㄢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ┦㐪ⅬࡣࠊࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࢆၥ㢟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࠕAࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡⓗ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࢆၥ㢟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୖࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡜ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡢඹ㏻Ⅼ࣭┦㐪Ⅼࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
4. ⤖ㄽ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊSperber and Wilson (1986, 19952)ࡀᥦၐࡋࡓ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡟ࢥ
࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᝟ሗ࡜ࠊ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡜ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡢඹ㏻Ⅼ࣭┦㐪Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࠊ᳃ᒣ (1989)ࡸ Okamoto (1993)ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡀᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦␗ᖖ࡞㸧ࡇ࡜ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ௚࡟ࡶ
ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦ែ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊᙼࡽࡢ୺ᙇ࡟཯ࡍࡿ
஦౛ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡜ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡⓗ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡼࡾࡶࠊࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ᮶ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿࠖ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋูࡢゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡍࢀࡤࠊࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡣࠊࡑࡢᵓᩥࡀゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁᩥ⬦࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ไ⣙ࢆㄢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࡜ࠊ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡜ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡢඹ㏻Ⅼ࣭┦㐪Ⅼࡶḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ᫂
ࡉࢀࡿࠋࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡶࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ࠶ࡿつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋࠊࡑࡢᵓ
ᩥࡀゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁᩥ⬦࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ไ⣙ࢆㄢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡀඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ๓⪅ࡣ A ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࢆၥ㢟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᚋ⪅ࡣ A ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡⓗ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࢆၥ㢟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡀ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋὀ* ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 13 ᅇ኱఍㸦2010 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 5 ᪥᪊㛵す኱Ꮫ㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࢆຍ➹ಟṇࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྖ఍ࡢຍ⸨㔜ᗈඛ⏕ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊከࡃࡢ᪉࠿ࡽ㈗㔜࡞ࡈពぢࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢ
ሙࢆ೉ࡾ࡚ឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ
1 ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ௚ࡢᩥ࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃ༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖࡢ౛࡜ࠊཎᅉ࣭⌮⏤ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠕࡔ࠿ࡽࠖࢆక࠺ࡀࠊᚋ௳㒊ศࡀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖࡢ౛ࢆ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
2 ᳃ᒣ (1989)࡟ࡼࡿࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖࡢศᯒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ㏙࡟ࡣ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸࡞Ⅼࡀከ࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊᙼࡣࠊࠕA ࡶ
A ࡔࠖࡣࠊ
ࠕព࿡ⓗ࡟ࡶࠊX ࢞ X ࢲᆺ࡜ྠࡌࡃࠊ≉ᐃ≧ἣ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ᅾࡾ᪉ࢆၥ㢟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
㸦ibid.: 8㸧࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡜ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࢆࠊ
ࠕᬑ㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ
ఏ㐩ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊ㢮ఝࡍࡿ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊᙼࡢㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕᬑ
㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆࠊ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡢሙྜࡣࠊ
ࠕண᝿㏻ࡾ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡛ࠊ
ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥࡢሙྜࡣࠊ
ࠕ␗ᖖ࡞ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡛ࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊཝᐦ࡟ࡣࠊ୧ᵓᩥࡀࠊࡲࡗࡓࡃྠࡌࠕᬑ
㏻࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

−143−

「AもAだ」構文の意味解釈ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constrains on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. 1992 Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse
Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grice, P. H. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ᮾ᳃໏࣭ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ. 2003.ࠗ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢ᪂ᒎ㛤㸫ㄆ▱࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥɆ࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫.
ᑠᒇ㐓ᶞ. 1993.ࠕ
ࠕឤ᝟ᢞᙳࠖࡢࠗࡶ࠘
㸸ࡑࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ࣭ព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩࠖࠗᩍ㣴ㄽྀ࠘94, 49-63.
ஂ㔝ᬿ. 1973.ࠗ᪥ᮏᩥἲ◊✲࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ. 1990.ࠕྲྀࡾ❧࡚ࡢ↔Ⅼࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘9: 5, 4-15.
୕ୖ❶. 1960.ࠗ㇟ࡣ㰯ࡀ㛗࠸࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
୕ୖ❶. 1963.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄽ⌮࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
᳃ᒣ༟㑻. 1989.ࠕ⮬ྠ⾲⌧ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖ
ࠗᚅවᒣㄽྀ࠘23, 1-13.
すᒣభྖ. 2003.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒྡモྃࡢព࿡ㄽ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽɆᣦ♧ⓗྡモྃ࡜㠀ᣦ♧ⓗྡモྃ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
㔝⏣ᑦྐ. 1996.ࠗ
ࠕࡣࠖ࡜ࠕࡀࠖ
࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
἟⏣ၿᏊ. 1986.ࠕ࡜ࡾࡓ࡚モࠖዟὠᩗ୍㑻࣭἟⏣ၿᏊ࣭ᮡᮏṊࠗ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ᪥ᮏㄒຓモࡢ◊✲࠘105-225. ᮾி㸸ซே♫.
἟⏣ၿᏊ. 2009.ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࡾࡓ࡚モࡢ◊✲࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Okamoto, S. 1993. “Nominal Repetitive Constructions in Japanese: The ‘Tautology’ Controversy
Revisited.” Journal of Pragmatics 20, 433-466.
ᆏཎⱱ. 1993.ࠕࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠊࠗᮾி኱Ꮫᩍ㣴Ꮫ㒊እᅜㄒ⛉◊✲⣖せࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒᩍᐊㄽᩥ㞟࠘40:
2, 57-83.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1986/19952. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. London: Blackwell.
㸦ෆ⏣⪷஧࣭୰㐐ಇ࣭᫂Ᏽ༡ඛ࣭⏣୰ᆂᏊ㸦ヂ㸧1993/19992.ࠗ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽɆㄆ▱࡜ఏ㐩࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫.㸧
Tanaka, K. 1988. “Wa & Ga: A Pragmatic Approach to Japanese Particles.” unpublished manuscript.
⏣㔝ᮧᛅ . 1991.ࠕ
ࠕࡶࠖࡢ୍⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢぬ᭩Ɇࠕྩࡶࡋࡘࡇ࠸࡞ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸᪉ࡢ఩⨨௜ࡅɆࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘10: 9, 80-86.
ᑎᮧ⚽ኵ. 1991.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢩࣥࢱࢡࢫࢺ࡜ព࿡ ➨Ϫᕳ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
እụ⁠⏕. 1989.ࠕ
ࠕࡣࠊࡀࠊࡶࠖࡢㄽ⌮ᙧᘧɆᩥᩥἲ࡜ㄯヰᩥἲࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢫࠖ
ࠗ᫂἞Ꮫ㝔ㄽྀ࠘
㸦ⱥㄒ࣭ⱥ⡿ᩥᏛ㸧74, 51-75.
Wierzbicka, A. 1987. “Boys will be Boys: ‘Radical Semantics’ vs. ‘Radical Pragmatics’.” Language 63,
95-114.
Wierzbicka, A. 20032. “Boys will be Boys: Even ‘Truisms’ are Culture-specific.” Cross-cultural
Pragmatics, 391-452. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
ᒣᮏᑦᏊ. 2008. “Cognitive Aspects of Tautology.” JELS 25, 265-274.
ᒣᮏᑦᏊ. 2010.ࠕ
ࠕA ࡀ A ࡔࠖᵓᩥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᇶ♏ⓗ⪃ᐹࠖJELS 27, 307-316.
ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ. 1999.ࠗྰᐃᴟᛶ⌧㇟࠘ᮾி㸸ⱥᐆ♫㸬⏝౛ฟ඾໭ᮧ⸅. 1999.ࠗࢫ࢟ࢵࣉ࠘ᮾி㸸᪂₻♫.
ᑠụ┿⌮Ꮚ. 1985.ࠕᙼዪࢆឡࡋࡓನ࡜≟ࠖࠗ➨୕Ỉ᭙᪥ࡢ᝟஦࠘ᮾி㸸ゅᕝ᭩ᗑ.

−144−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

Contextual Factors that Affect the Understanding of Japanese NP1 wa NP2 da Sentences
Megumi Yoshida (myoshida@gc.cuny.edu)
The City University of New York, The Graduate Center

Abstract
This study examines the contextual factors of understanding a Japanese construction that has the structure,
NP1 wa (topic) NP2 da (copula), in controlled experimental contexts. When the two NPs in this type ofsentence, NP1 and NP2, are not syntactically connected, it is presumed that a specific context is needed tointerpret the sentence. In the experiments, the NP1 wa NP2 da sentences were presented with a set ofpreceding context sentence, and their understandability were asked. Results show that the sentences wereranked more understandable when they were connected to the context sentences syntactically, semantically,
or by a frame evoked by an overt locative. The study looks for a more concrete understanding of thenotion of ‘aboutness’ that establishes a link between the topic NP and the rest of the sentence in Japanese
topicalized constructions.
[Keywords]: Japanese topicalization, ‘wa’, ‘aboutness’, ‘Unagi-sentence’, experimental pragmatics

1. Introduction
This study examines the comprehension of a Japanese topicalized construction with the structure
NP1 wa (topic) NP2 da (copula). In this sentence, the two NPs, NP1 and NP2 may or may not refer to an
identical referent. When they do not refer to an identical referent, the sentence will be very vague because
it can have a number of interpretations. In example (1) below, it is not clear how the NP1, Tanaka-san, andthe NP2, cat, are connected. The sentence tells something about the topic NP, Tanaka-san, but how the NP2,
cat, is related is not obvious, so the meaning is not clear when the sentence is presented without context.
(1) Tanaka-san
wa neko da
Tanaka-Mr./Ms. TOP cat COP
When this sentence is presented in a concrete context, the context can facilitate the understanding.
For example, the sentence can mean ‘Tanaka likes cats’ if it is uttered in the context in which a discussionof pets can be presumed. A concrete context will determine how the two NPs are interpreted. The purposeof this study is to look for the contextual factors that affect the understanding of an NP1 wa NP2 dasentence by examining the relationship between the context and the sentence.
In an NP1 wa NP2 da sentence, the topic NP and the predicate may not be syntactically connected,
and therefore the relation between them is not necessarily obvious. The syntactic connection is not
required in other Japanese topicalized constructions as seen in (2).
(2) Are wa zettai ni Amerika ga waruithat TOP absolutely America NOM wrong‘Speaking of that matter, absolutely, America is to blame.’−145−

Mikami (1960, p.84)

Contextual factors that affect the understanding of Japanese NP1 wa NP2 da sentences

It is generally explained that the sentences such as in (2) can be understandable by an ‘aboutness’ relation.
This relation only means that the predicate says something ‘about’ the topic. The ultimate aim of this study
is to look for a more concrete understanding of the notion of the ‘aboutness’ relation.
2. BackgroundNP1 wa NP2 da sentences have been studied for a long time in Japanese linguistics. Most previous
studies are either trying to understand a property of the sentence itself or to explain its use in a specifickind of context. The former group of studies includes transformational analyses such as in Okutu (1978),which seek an underlying structure of this sentence, the conceptual analysis that claims a logicalconnection such as in Ikegami (1981), and a metonymical approach such as in Sakahara (1990). An
example of the latter kind of study is Obana (2001), which discusses the use of this sentence on special
occasions. The aim of this study is to provide a general explanation about the contextual factors that
determine the understandability of this kind of sentence. The current study will differ from previous workin that it examines the NP1 wa NP2 da sentence in a controlled experimental context.
3. General assumption and predictions
One basic assumption about NP1 wa NP2 da sentences is that they are an example of topicalization.
In topicalized sentences, topic marker wa indicates the topic of the sentence. The predicate of the sentence
expresses a property that is attributed to the topic NP. Since the predicate consists of a single NP in NP1
wa NP2 da sentences, it can be difficult to understand how the predicate NP2 expresses a property of the
topic NP1 when the two NPs do not refer to an identical referent.
Nishiyama (2001) claims that the NP1 wa NP2 da sentence has an unexpressed element in its
underlying logical form, and that this unexpressed element must be specified from the context. This
pragmatic process of specifying the unexpressed element is called ‘saturation’ by Recanati (2001, forexample). For example, (1) has an underlying logical form such as (3). The unexpressed element in (3)will be provided in the particular context of use. The question to be asked is how the readers of thissentence get the information about the unexpressed element from the context.
(3) Tanaka-san
wa Ø (no)Tanaka-Mr./Ms. TOP NOMI

wa
TOP

neko dacat COP

It can be assumed that since NP1 wa NP2 da sentences do not contain a particular verb that would
form a relation between the two NPs, it is expected that providing a particular verb in the context will
specify the unexpressed element and facilitate understanding of the sentence. The function of a verb as a
key element to connect concepts has been discussed in lexical semantics, for example by Katz (1972) andJackendoff (1983). It is generally assumed that the availability of a verb from the context, specifically averb that can be syntactically or semantically related to the NPs in the NP1 wa NP2 da sentence, will help
determine the correct interpretation of the sentence. Another possible factor that would affect theunderstandability of NP1 wa NP2 da sentences is a frame. The notion of frame has been discussed indifferent fields of study, but it is generally defined as the structured knowledge of expectation for aparticular situation. It is expected that presenting a frame in which the NP1 wa NP2 da sentence is used
would facilitate the understanding of the sentence because such information may allow the reader tounderstand the roles of the two NPs in the context of the whole situation.

−146−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

4. Experiments
The aim of the experiments is to investigate the effects of specific contextual factors on theunderstandability of the NP1 wa NP2 da sentence. Specifically, the effects of a particular verb and a frame
evoked by a locative were examined. In the experiments, the NP1 wa NP2 da sentence was presented witha preceding context sentence, and the understandability of the NP1 wa NP2 da sentence was judged on ascale of 1 to 5, in which 1 was defined as ‘ I do not understand the sentence at all’ and 5 as ‘ I understandthe sentence very well’.
4.1. Materials
In order to examine the effect of a particular verb on the understandability of the NP1 wa NP2 dasentence, the preceding context sentence was created so that they all contain a topic and a particular verb.
This topic NP refers to a specific person, and the verb expresses an action taken by that person. The topic
NP in the NP1 wa NP2 da sentence also refers to a specific but different person, and the NP2 refers to a
specific object.
The sentence pair in (4) is an example of an experimental sentence pair with a context sentence
containing a transitive verb. If the readers use the verb tyuumon-suru in the context sentence to understandthe relationship between the two NPs in the target sentence, it would specify the unexpressed element in
the target NP1 wa NP2 da sentence and enable a connection between the two NPs. In (4), the specified
unexpressed element in the NP1 wa NP2 da sentence can form a contextual assumption that ‘Ogawa alsoordered something.’ Based on this contextual assumption, the NP2 can be interpreted as a direct object ofthe verb, and the sentence can be understood as ‘Ogawa ordered an ice cream.’ The understandability ofthe target NP1 wa NP2 da sentence in (4) is compared with the one in the minimally different counterpartin (5). In (5), the transitive verb benkyou-suru in the context sentence cannot be expected to take the NP2
in the target sentence as a direct object. It is therefore predicted that the same target NP1 wa NP2 dasentence will be less understandable in the context of (5) in which the syntactic relation established by thecontext sentence is not available for the target sentence.
(4) Syntactic
Context: Sonoda-san
wa tyuumon-si-ta
Sonoda-Mr./Ms. TOP ordered
Target: Ogawa-san
wa aisukuriimu da
Ogawa-Mr./Ms. TOP ice cream COP(5) Non-syntactic
Context: Sonoda-san
wa benkyou-si-ta
Sonoda-Mr./Ms. TOP studied
Target: Ogawa-san
wa aisukuriimu da
Ogawa-Mr./Ms. TOP ice cream COP‘Sonoda ordered.’‘Ogawa (ordered) ice cream.’‘Sonoda studied.’‘Ogawa (?) ice cream.’

Similarly, sentence pairs in which the preceding context sentence contains an intransitive verb
which can or cannot take the NP2 in the target sentence as a theme were created as shown in (6) and (7).
Since no syntactic relation between the intransitive verb and the target NP2 can be expected, thesesentence pairs examine the effect of a semantic relation between the intransitive verb in the context
sentence and the NP2 in the target sentence. It is predicted that the NP1 wa NP2 da sentence is more

−147−

Contextual factors that affect the understanding of Japanese NP1 wa NP2 da sentences

understandable in the context of (6) than in (7) because the NP2 can be understood as a theme in (6) and
not in (7).
(6) Semantic
Context: Tanaka-san
wa dokusyo-si-ta
Tanaka-Mr./Ms. TOP read (intransitive)
Target: Suzuki-sanwa
ren’aisyousetu daSuzuki-Mr./Ms. TOP love story
COP(7) Non-semantic
Context: Tanaka-san
wa suwat-ta
Tanaka-Mr./Ms. TOP sat
Target: Suzuki-sanwa
ren’aisyousetu daSuzuki-Mr./Ms. TOP love story
COP‘Tanaka read.’‘Suzuki (read) a love story.’‘Tanaka sat.’‘Suzuki (?) a love story.’

Finally, both kinds of sentence pairs that have a syntactic/non-syntactic relation or asemantic/non-semantic relation were compared with a counterpart that contains a locative to establish aframe about particular place. For example, (8) and (9) are the sentence pairs with locatives as thecounterparts of (4) and (5).
(8) Syntactic with locative
Context: Sonoda-san
wasyokudou de tyumon-si-ta
in ordered
Sonoda-Mr./Ms. TOP dinerTarget: Ogawa-san
wa aisukuriimu da
Ogawa-Mr./Ms. TOP ice cream COP(9) Non-syntactic with locative
Context: Sonoda-san
wasyokudou de benkyou-si-ta
in studied
Sonoda-Mr./Ms. TOP dinerTarget: Ogawa-san
wa aisukuriimu da
Ogawa-Mr./Ms. TOP ice cream COP‘Sonoda ordered in the diner.’‘Ogawa (ordered) ice cream.’‘Sonoda studied in the diner.’‘Ogawa (?) ice cream.’

Thus, there are a total of four syntactic conditions and four semantic conditions as below. Ten test
sentence pairs were created for each of eight conditions.
Syntactic conditions: Syntactic/ Non-syntactic/ Syntactic with locative/ Non-syntactic with locative
Semantic conditions: Semantic/ Non-semantic/ Semantic with locative/ Non-semantic with locative
In addition to the sentence pairs in the various syntactic or semantic conditions, the test materials
contained 27 filler sentence pairs which varied in structure and comprehension. All filler sentence pairsalso consisted of one context and target sentences.
It is predicted that by adding the locative to a context sentence which has a syntactic or a semantic
relation that can be applied to the target NP1 wa NP2 da sentence, the understanding of the target sentence
will improve even more. It is also predicted that the locative will have a mediating effect when it is added−148−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

to a context sentence which has no syntactic or no semantic relation that can be transferred to the target
NP1 wa NP2 da sentence.
4.2. Participant
One hundred and twelve native speakers of Japanese from a range of age groups participated in thetest. They were undergraduate or graduate students, or working full or part time. The mean age was 24
with the range from 18 to 60.
4.3. Procedure
The task of this test was self-paced and conducted on an individual basis on a single computer. The
test was created using Paradigm beta version 4 (written by Bruno Tagliaferri, 2007). Each participant was
randomly assigned to one of eight conditions. For each item, a context sentence was presented in the first
frame. When the participants pressed a space bar, the target sentence appeared in the second frame with ascale of 1 to 5. The participants were asked to judge the understandability of each target sentence as theyread it as what follows the preceding context sentence. Each participant saw a total of 52 items including 6
overt and 9 covert practice items at the beginning of the test. Of these, 10 were test items while 27 werefillers, and these items were randomized.
5. Results
5.1. Syntactic relations with/without locative
Table 1 shows the mean understandability ratings of the target NP1 wa NP2 da sentence in the foursyntactic conditions. Because Levene’s test shows the error variance of the dependent variable was notequal across groups, a one-way Welch test ANOVA was conducted with post-hoc test using Dunnet C
procedures. Results indicated significant difference in the rating across conditions (F1(df1=3, df2=23.478),
p<.0001). Results of post-hoc test indicated that both syntactic and syntactic with locative were rated
significantly higher than non-syntactic and non-syntactic with locative. Locative had a significant effectonly when it was added to non-syntactic, and non-syntactic with locative was significantly higher thannon-syntactic.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations for sentences with/without syntactic relation and locative_____________________________________________________________________
Context Syntactic Non-syntactic Syntactic-locative
Non-syntactic-locative
type(n=12)(n=12)(n=12)(n=12)_____________________________________________________________________
Mean
3.06
1.55
3.41
2.20
SD
.62
.38
1.07
.48
_____________________________________________________________________
5.2. Semantic relations with/without locative
Table 2 describes the mean understandability ratings of the target NP1 wa NP2 da sentence in thefour semantic conditions. Results of Factorial univariate ANOVA indicated significant effects of thesemantic relation (F1(1,60)=19.049, Partial Eta Squared =.241, p<.001) (F2 (1,9) = 72.605, Partial Eta
Squared =.890, p<.0001) and locative (F1(1,60)= 4.486, Partial Eta Squared =.070, p=.038) (F2(1,9)=30.405, Partial Eta Squared =.772, p<.0001) (F2(1,9)= 30.405, Partial Eta Squared =.772, p<.0001). Theinteraction between semantic relation and locative was marginal (F1 (1,60)=3.585, Partial Eta Squared−149−

Contextual factors that affect the understanding of Japanese NP1 wa NP2 da sentences=.056, p=.063) (F2 (1,9) = 14.497, Partial Eta Squared =.617, p=.004). Tukey HSD post-hoc tests ofmultiple comparisons indicated that the sentence with non-semantic (without locative) relation was rated
significantly lower than all the other three conditions: non-semantic with locative (p=.03), semantic(p=.0003), and semantic with locative (p<.0001). However, the t-test revealed that there was still asignificant difference between semantic and non-semantic with locative (t [df=9]= 4.638, p=.001). Thismeans that even if a locative is added to the sentence with non-semantic relation, its rating is not as highas the sentences with semantic relations both with or without locative.
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for sentences with/without semantic relation and locative_____________________________________________________________________
Context Semantic
Non- Semantic Semantic-locative Non- semantic-locative
type(n=16)(n=16)(n=16)(n=16)_____________________________________________________________________
Mean
3.02
1.81
3.07
2.59
SD
.91
.58
.73
.84
_____________________________________________________________________
In summary, both syntactic and semantic relations have significant effects on understandability
ratings, and they were rated significantly higher than non-syntactic and non-semantic conditions. A
locative had a significant effect only when it was added to the non-syntactic or non-semantic condition
without locative. A locative seems to have a greater effect when it is added to the non-semantic context
since the rating of non-semantic with locative was very close to the rating of semantic without locative.
5.3. Comparison of syntactic and semantic relations with/without locative
How are these three effects of syntactic, semantic, and locative related? Figure 1 illustrates the mean
ratings of the target sentence for all eight tested conditions. In order to examine the hierarchy of effects,
two separate analyses of factorial two-way ANOVAs were conducted. The first examined the effect ofsyntactic vs. semantic and the effect of locative for these two conditions. There were no significant
differences across these four conditions of syntactic and semantic with/without locative.
Figure 1. Mean understandability ratings of the sentences for syntactic/non-syntactic andsemantic/non-semantic with/without locative
3.5
Mean rating

3

Locative: Syntactic/Non syntactic

Locative: Semantic/Non-semantic

2.5

No Locative: Syntactic/Non-syntactic2

No Locative: Semantic/ Non-semantic

1.5
1Syntactic/Semantic

Non-Syntactic/
Non-Semantic

The second examined the effects of non-syntactic vs. non-semantic and the effect of locative forthese two conditions. Results indicated a significant effect of locative (F1(1,52)= 18.374, Partial Eta−150−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

Squared =.261, p<.0001) (F2(1,36)=17.381, Partial Eta Squared =.326, p<.0001). The effect of
non-syntactic vs. non-semantic was not significant, and there was no interaction effect between
non-syntactic/ non-semantic and locative.
Post-hoc tests using Tukey HSD indicated that the sentences in non-semantic relation with locative
were rated significantly higher than the sentences in both the non-syntactic relation without locative(p=.0003 (F1), p=.0009 (F2)) and non-semantic relation without locative (p=.0042 (F1), p=.0172 (F2)).
The sentences in non-syntactic relation with locative were rated significantly higher than the sentences in
non-syntactic relation without locative only in an item-based analysis (p= .0603 (F1), p=.0426 (F2)).
The overall results indicate that when the target sentence allows either a syntactic or semantic
relation with the context sentence, whether it is syntactic or semantic does not make a significant
difference. In addition, those sentences that have a syntactic or semantic relation with the context sentence
were always rated significantly higher than the sentences that have no syntactic or semantic relation withthe context sentence whether or not that sentence has a locative. On the other hand, the sentence with nosyntactic nor semantic relation without locative received the lowest rating, and there was no significant
difference whether or not the relation was non-syntactic or non-semantic.
When the context sentence in a non-syntactic or non-semantic relation had a locative, this improves
the rating of the target NP1 wa NP2 da sentence. The NP1 wa NP2 da sentence in non-semantic relation
with locative was rated significantly higher than the sentences in non-syntactic and non-semantic relations
without locative. Locative has a marginal effect for the non-syntactic relation, and the sentence in the
non-syntactic relation with locative was rated significantly higher than the sentence with non-syntactic
relation without locative only in the item-based analysis. The ratings of the sentences for non-semantic
with locative and non-syntactic with locative do not significantly differ from each other, but the results ofpost-hoc tests indicated that locative had more effect of improvement in rating when it is added to thecontext sentence with the non-semantic relation.
6. Hierarchy of effects
The results of these experiments revealed that the syntactic relation established between thetransitive verb in the preceding context sentence and the NP2 in the target NP1 wa NP2 da sentence has arelatively strong effect, and if the syntactic relation is not available, even an overt locative does not
improve the rating. The semantic relation established between the intransitive verb in the preceding
context sentence and the NP2 in the target NP1 wa NP2 da sentence also has a significant effect, and even
if the semantic relation is not available, an overt locative has an effect of improving the rating of thenon-semantic condition. This difference in the effect of syntactic vs. semantic in combination with alocative can be attributed to the difference in the nature of the connection in the syntactic and semantic
relations. In a syntactic relation between a transitive verb and a direct object, the two elements areconnected both by the grammar and by the semantic meaning, while in a semantic relation between an
intransitive verb and a theme, they are connected only semantically. So, in the case of a non-syntactic
relation, a grammatical violation can be observed, but in the case of non-semantic relation, it is only asemantic mismatch. It may be concluded that a locative is more likely to co-occur with a context sentencethat has a non-semantic relation with the target NP1 wa NP2 da sentence since the pair does not include
any grammatical violation. It may also be believed that intransitive verbs allow the inclusion of wider
varieties of elements as components of the frame evoked by an overt locative.

−151−

Contextual factors that affect the understanding of Japanese NP1 wa NP2 da sentences

7. On the ‘aboutness’ relation
As discussed in Section 1, the ultimate aim of this study is to look more closely at the notion of an‘aboutness’ relation. It is believed that the ‘aboutness’ relation can explain many Japanese topicalized
sentences when it is not obvious how the topic and the predicate are related to each other, but the nature ofthe ‘aboutness’ relation has not yet been clarified. The target sentence of this study, the NP1 wa NP2 dasentence, is an example of a construction whose understanding process has to evoke the ‘aboutness’
relation since it is not obvious how the target NP1 and NP2 are related.
This study examined the understandability of such NP1 wa NP2 da sentences in different kinds ofexperimentally controlled contexts. It is found that there is a relationship between the kind of context andthe understandability of the sentence. Specifically, the syntactic or semantic relation between the context
sentence and the target NP1 wa NP2 da sentence, and the presence or absence of a frame linked to an overt
locative are contextual factors that influence the understandability of the NP1 wa NP2 da sentence. If the
NP1 wa NP2 da sentence can be connected to the context syntactically, semantically, or by a locative frame,
the sentence becomes more understandable.
Based on the results of these experimental studies, I claim that the notion of ‘aboutness’ is not a
specific kind of fixed relationship determined by particular kinds of relations. Rather, it is a relational
notion. It is basically determined by context. The strength of the relationship based on the ‘aboutness’
relation established between the topic and the predicate can vary according to the relation between thesentence and the context in which it is used. Different kinds of contexts can establish different kinds of‘aboutness’ relations with different strength, so the same sentence can be both very understandable andvery difficult to understand. The difference is linked to differences in the context.
8. Conclusion
This study examined the understandability of a particular kind of Japanese topicalized construction,
the NP1 wa NP2 da sentence. Through an examination of the sentence in a variety of experimentallycontrolled contexts, some particular contextual factors that affect the understanding of the NP1 wa NP2 dasentence were revealed. Since this type of NP1 wa NP2 da sentences is an example of the ‘aboutness’
relation applied to topicalization, these findings on possible contextual factors can contribute to ourunderstanding of the nature of the ‘aboutness’ relation.
References
Ikegami,Y. (1981). Suru to Naru no Gengogaku (Linguistics on 'do' and 'become'). Tokyo : Taisyuukan.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Katz, J. (1972). Semantic Theory. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Mikami, A. (1960). Zou wa Hana ga Nagai (As for elephants, they have long trunks). Tokyo: Kuroshio Shyuppan.
Nishiyama, Y. (2001). “Unagi-bun to Sotei-bun (Unagi-sentences and assertive sentences).”
Keiougizyukudaigaku Gengobunka Kenkyujo Kiyou 33, 109-146.
Obana, Y. (2001). “Unagi-sentences in Japanese and Mutual Knowledge”. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 725-751.
Okutsu, K. (1978). Boku wa Unagi da no Bunpou (The grammar of 'Boku wa Unagi da'). Tokyo, Japan: Kuroshio
Shuppan.
Recanati, F. (2001). “What is Said.” Syntheses, 128, 75-91.
Sakahara, S. (1990). “Yakuwari, Ga, Wa, Unagi-bun (Roles, the particles ga/wa, unagi-sentences).”Ninchikagaku no hatten (The development of cognitive science) 3, 29-66.
Tagliaferri, B. (2007). Paradigm (Version Beta 4) [Computer Program]. Retrieved March 01 2007, from:http://perceptionresearchsystems.com/−152−

ワークショップ
Workshop Sessions

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号^ UP f°ħś. İĳĐgqdD
ĄĔ³
ōČ°´

ŪabstractūThis paper attempts to study the functions and effects of self-deprecating humor by analyzing examples ofself-deprecating humor mainly by President Bush. The analysis using Austin (1962)’s Speech Act Theory has
revealed that self-deprecating humor consists of a Speech Act of self-deprecation and a Humor Act.
Self-deprecation devaluates the speaker, while giving the listener a feeling of superiority. A humor act is an actof expressing humor with an utterance, a cartoon, an action and so on. Humor alleviates negative aspects of life,
while it produces positive effects of cheering up the spirits and achieving appreciation, sympathy and even love.

K q nq X gqdDďĿĵăńQhqQpŮp^UPfİĳĐgqdDIqRVEo(1962).ďĿĵăń
gqdD.õį)óŦ ť / 9 , æĸøz.đ,/ìñz/gqdD.SoR+)ĺ?."AŬøġ.Ę(/°ħś;şĒ/DFR^lqJq)'gqdiR+NcoW=R\qTC±9?)¯.)=°ħś;şĒ/.R\qT(*.<+gqdDC
Ċ!R\qT,/*.<+õį)ó?."AŬ

."AŬ gqdDC)č¨'?.č¨,Ġ?!9ñńê(/QhqQpŮp^UPfğ 43 ~DcjJ¡Ĵª°ħś.gqdDCĬ·.õį)óCIqRVEo (1962).ďĿĵăń CĊ'ò?ñĕĝ.Ĭ·=
g
qdDďĿĵăń

Cá§gqdD.õį)óCí=,?ŧ ť F Gq k °´ ôÂ(.İ ĳ Đ g qdD
 ^UPf°ħś.gqdD,/İĳĐ+gqdD.¯ĺ=@?Æ/FGqk°´ 300 ¥ÀĽËôÂ(£ŀ´Cňz:.ôĉ.(ňĽËR\qTCĵ$!¯.ôĉ/)':ėù)/ļ+ÔÁ"$!´ĉŒ/Ţı.ÛŇ_iJqXCàŘŖ.­CeQCŝ03%+ŉ¨CÚ!=,170 zr.çß/Iq−153−

ブッシュ大統領の自虐的ユーモア

k C (ô!Öī.Î$!^UPf°ħś/£ŀ
ŀ

,+

)Ŏ5ôÂCö¾'£ň,¸.ÑÊCĖ!

 .<+ąüs(^UPf°ħś/÷.<+İĳĐgqdDCy!R\qTCĵ$!

(1)  “To those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say well done,” went the president’s
set-up line. “And to the C students, I say, you, too, can be president of the United States.” In a reference to Vice
President Cheney, a Yale dropout, Bush continued: “So now we know: If you graduate from Yale, you becomepresident. If you drop out, you get to be vice president.”

The president joked about studying in the library with his Yale classmate, Richard Brodhead, now dean of

Yale College. “We had a mutual understanding—Dick wouldn’t read aloud, and I wouldn’t snore,” Bush said.
He also made mirth of his oft-noted struggles with spoken English. When he enrolled in a Japanese haiku

course, Bush recalled that an adviser “said I should focus on English. I still hear that quite often. But my critics
don’t realize I don’t make verbal gaffes. I’m speaking in the perfect forms and rhythms of ancient haiku.”^UPf°ħś/,ĺ=@?<,FGqk°´(.ÍÐ+ĉý,%'İĳĐR\qTCĵ
$!
£ŀ
¸'/

ňCßu@!Ņ¤,/<;$!)ċr!

¤Œ"$'¡Ĵª°ħś,+@?<)ļ!

'C ľC!´ĉ,)Ŏ5!=,FGqk°´wŏ

.TGFZq°ħś,œő'ô@0°ħśwŏ@0°ħś,+@? )Ĩ!
=,.<,©ïŞ(¼ē>C'?ÍÐ+´ĉĉý;.<,Ĳł.ďŚ.¨ŜCÞã@!°´î~+*İ.ÄĂCgqdD,'ĺ!
 .İĳĐgqdD,<>nPoWoaRWĢ.ĽŎ,<?)(2).óć@!

(2)
a. Bush Embraces Yale in Graduation Speechb. people were sort of tickled
c. Bush won over some critics.
d. Bush disarmed his critics; or a few of them, with a self-deprecating speech about his lazy
college years.
e. But Bush softened the hostility with his brief speech, balanced between humor andreflection.
f. There were still boos and yellow protest signs when Bush finished—but not as many.
ţDana Milbank, The Washington Post, May 22, 2001Ť

−154−

第13回大会発表論文集

FGqk°´C>Ō8(a)第６号;z.İ¹ÉC?(b))/Ziv (1995)Þã'?

Óņ¢ÏÒÏ:#È? )İĳĐgqdD.óCć'?
Øľ¶,$!(c)Øľ¶ŒCúķĻŔ!(d) éÑC¦=!(e) ^UPf°ħśĿĤB$!)7"
^qFoM;Ţı.ÛŇ_iJqX/$! .è/ÿ$'!(f) /åäCÙ?) )İĳĐgqdD.óCĶ'?
 ÷,@=.İĳĐgqdDCIqRVEo.ďĿĵăńCĊ'ò?)÷.<,ò(
?

(3)

(1).ďĿĵăòa. ďłĵăũR\qTCĵb. ďłĵăũİ½ŘŖ
c. ďł²{ĵăũ Ŀĭ,ľCuĮ×,ŋÓCu?).ďĿĵăń,¬&ò,<>í=,+$!./ţ3Ť.ò(/ďĿ.gqdiR+ĹģCŃí@+)Ă(?:ÆgqdDCĊ,Ě/ŭ.ľC:=$!
¡Ĵª°ħś,+$!

)ļ$!)!=(2).<+ó/ĉ7@+$!(A´ĉ.ÔÁ

,°+®C:!=!./gqdD.ó(>İ.ÄĂ=gqdD,'7Ŀĭ.įCĮ×Ł9!),|+=+^UPf°ħś/ĞCÃŊĵăCĵ$! .ńê(/.ĵăCgqdDďĿĵă)£}(4).<,gqdDďĿĵăń

C

á§?

(4)

(1).gqdDďĿĵăòa. gqdDĵăũR\qTCĵ)b. gqdDĵăũĞCŊ)c. gqdD²{ĵăũR`oOq (1860) )]mFW (1905)Ť,<>á§@!Ğ.ĉĈĐó(?šĜ)ęĥH[kLqCĻþpĪ¦?)Ő¿z/ŭľ.´ĉ¡Ĵª°ħś,+?

)/ðÇ+¤Œ:)ļ<,

: %!),<>
¤Œ/ŭľ.´ĉ""=¤Œ:°ħś,+@?< )ļĀě+ĦńCº"!:$!

,<>^UPf°ħś/ŭľ.´ĉ"$!):°ħś,+)ļ)CÌŊ!="=4)1)1->®?),<>

^UPf°ħś/ŭľ.´ĉ"=¡Ĵª°ħś,+@?

−155−)Ő¿(/+PYjICºブッシュ大統領の自虐的ユーモア

!
 Kitazume (2010)(/gqdD.ñŉ/1)1-> (?)á§!.1)1-> /»+®(?«Đ+PYjICĀě+PYjI4)°®?
(/


C"=

4)®?)1)1->)Ňń!(1).,<>«ĐPYjICĀě+PY

jI4)®!.(?:^UPf°ħśFGqk°´(.Öī.Î©ïŞ(.
2ďŚ.ÎCgqdDCĊ,Üŗ!)!=@6*7(.ó/:!=+$!(A)Ĭ=@?İ.ÄĂCgqdD,®?įgqdD.SoRİĳĐďļ)7$'@6*.óC:!=!.")Ĭ=@?

Ũ ť 7 )9
 ñńê(/QhqQpŮp^UPfğ 43 ~DcjJ¡Ĵª°ħśFGqk°´ 300 ¥ÀĽËôÂ(£ŀ´Cň!ŕ.ňĽËR\qTCĬ·!£ŀň,āÛŇ.ÔÁCĖ!ôĉ,¸'^UPf°ħś/İĳĐgqdDCy!R\qTCĵ$!
 °ħś/FGqk°´(.ÍÐ+ĉý,%'İĳĐR\qTCĵ),<>Óņ¢ÏÒÏ:#È? )(åäCÙ?) :(!)<,İĳĐgqdD.õ
į)óCĊ'ÛŇ.­CĪ¦?)(!.(? ñńê(/İĳĐgqdDCIqRVEo.ďĿĵăńCĊ'ò?),<>İĳĐ
gqdD/İ½ŘŖ )gqdD .vë=ĉ?õįCó?xCÞã!
gqdD
ďĿĵăń

Cá§'gqdD.ó/åätµĩÅĎÕš+*zĉ.bFYRřCĪ¦¢î,ûÝ#CŠâÓÓņÏÒÏ+*zĉ._iR.óCÃ)(?)Cí=,!

ĬêĆ
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U.P.
Freud, Sigmund. 1905. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious, James Strachey (trans.).
London: The Hogarth Press, 1975.
Kitazume, Sachiko. 2010. How to Do Things with Humor. Tokyo: Eihosha.
Spencer, Herbert. 1860. “On the Physiology of Laughter.” Essays on Education, Etc. London: Dent,
1911, 298-309.
Ziv, Avner. 1995. Personality and Sense of Humor. Japanese Translation: Yasuyuki Takashita,

Yumoa no Shinrigaku. Tokyo: Taishukan, 1998.

The Washington Post, May 22, 2001

−156−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

Negative Interrogatives in Action:
From a Perspective of Positionally Sensitive Grammar
Hideyuki Sugiura (Ibaraki University, University of Auckland)
Abstract
This paper explores how positions within a temporally unfolding sequence affect particular grammatical practice. Specificallyinvestigating negative interrogatives employed in assessment sequences, it shows that by deploying this particular grammatical resource indifferent sequential positions, the speaker displays different types of actions. That is, by deploying the negative interrogative in the firstassessment position, the speaker displays an action that tries to elicit an agreement from the recipient in a particular view or judgment byappealing to the participants’ common sense or knowledge. In contrast, by deploying the same resource in the second assessment position,
the speaker displays an action that disaffiliates with the prior speaker’s view. These actions performed by the negative interrogative suggestthat particular grammatical usage is best understood by considering sequential positions in which a particular grammatical resource isutilized.

Keywords
Negative Interrogatives, Assessment Sequences, Positionally Sensitive Grammar, Everyday Conversation, Conversation Analysis

1. Introduction: Positionally Sensitive Grammar
One of the themes proposed by Schegloff, Ochs, and Thompson (1996) by way of endorsing the exploration of
the interlocking relationship between grammar and social interaction is how grammar is organized by social
interaction. Under this theme, grammar is considered a product of social interaction. This is based on therecognition that social interaction, particularly everyday conversation, is the most basic environment for
language acquisition, language development, and language change. From this point of view, grammar is viewed
as an organizational device for a turn-at-talk and is, thereby, a resource to build a turn constructional unit (TCU),
which is composed of a clausal, sentential, phrasal, or lexical unit. Such an understanding of grammar thennaturally leads to a general inquiry of how a particular grammatical form, or type of TCU, is adapted to aparticular interactional context. In this way, Schegloff (1996) proposed the notion of “positionally sensitive
grammar” (PSG), as one possibility for further exploration of grammar for conversation. The notion of PSG isthat at least some grammatical resources are shaped by sequential positions in which they are deployed byparticipants in interaction (Fox, 2007; Schegloff, 1996).
2. Previous Studies
Here I will briefly introduce a growing body of work on grammars of answers in English conversation, which I
believe is representative of the work on PSG. In this body of work, several researchers investigated a range ofgrammatical resources utilized in a specific sequential position, namely answers to questions. For example,
Raymond (2003) identified two types of answers to yes/no questions. One type of answer is the one initiatedwith a responsive token, meaning a yes, no, or their variants. This type of answer is constrained by thegrammatical format of the preceding question, that is, the yes/no interrogative syntax. This is called a “typeconforming response.” When used, the preceding question is treated as adequate by the recipient. The second
type of answer is not initiated with a yes, no, or their variants. Raymond argued that it displays a resistance tothe constraint established by the preceding question format. This type of response is called a “nonconforming
response.” When used, the recipient treats the preceding question as problematic. Raymond further argued thatthe difference between these two response types affects the subsequent course of interaction.
Fox & Thompson (2010) have another alternative types of answers to questions in English. They
specifically looked at answers to wh-questions, and identified two response types: phrasal and clausal responses.
They showed that a phrasal response is more frequent than a clausal response. Similar to a type-conforming
response to yes/no question, when a phrasal response is used, the recipient treats the preceding question as
adequate. On the other hand, like a nonconforming response to yes/no questions, when a clausal response isused, the recipient treats the preceding question as problematic. In this connection, Schegloff & Lerner (2009)
investigated another response type to a wh-question: well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. They argued thatwell-prefaced responses display the answerer’s resistance to the preceding wh-question and that it “serves toalert the questioner and others that the response will be in some respect not straightforward” (Schegloff &Lerner, 2009: 101). This response type is likely to disconform to the preceding wh-question formulation.
One thing in common between the grammars of answers to yes/no questions and those of answers to whquestions discussed thus far seems to be that, in general, grammars of answers are diversified by the degree towhich they conform or disconform to the type of formulation established by the sequence-initiating question.

−157−

Negative interrogatives in action: From a perspective of positionally-sensitive grammar

The degree of conformity or disconformity displayed by various response types can be understood, in the firstplace, as an outcome of the answerers’ contingent alignment or disalignment with the preceding action
implemented at a particular local interactional context. It is, therefore, important to note that various responsetypes, or various grammatical alternatives, in this particular sequential position are organized not by the rules ofgrammar, but rather by social interaction, which what we call grammar inhabits.
3. Aim and Data
This study aims to reveal another way in which PSG can be explored. Rather than looking at a range ofgrammatical resources utilized in a specific position, it looks at a single grammatical resource utilized indifferent sequential positions and attempts to identify discrete practices performed through the use of that single
grammatical resource. This study focuses on a particular type of yes/no negative interrogative in Japanese talkin-interaction, which is what Koshik (2002, 2005) calls “reversed polarity questions.” Reversed-polarity
questions (RPQs) refer to a type of question that carries an assertion of the opposite polarity to that of thegrammatical form of the question (Koshik 2002, 2005). The type of RPQ focused on in this study has recently
emerged as a subtype of RPQs used among the younger generation in Kanto areas in Japan. It is now widely
spread throughout the nation. Its characteristics are:(1) negative format(2) expression in the simple non-past form that is not accompanied by final particle such as ne or yo(3) delivery with marked intonation
Included below is an instance of this type of RPQ. In this conversation, two friends S and O are talking
about the size of Malta, which S has recently visited.
9394 2 
33%&!"'&&%+" &-)%%$!&*(%&/44
89@ . ,  % 2   0%!1&33&&44% ,18:@ .  ,  5  /6  %   $*&$(//"($
033&1%44% -%!1&&,3344!&$("($3 &4/1

As shown in this instance, unlike a typical question, the type of RPQ does not have any pitch-fall on the firstsyllable of the negative suffix nai (e.g., Tsai, 1996; Wakita, 2003). It displays the speaker’s evaluation of the
opposite polarity to that of the question form. This is warranted by O’s agreement in the responsive turn. O’s
agreement is delivered in the opposite polarity of the question form. The RPQ also makes either agreement or
disagreement relevant by the interrogative formulation.
The remainder of this paper looks at this particular type of RPQ as it is utilized in assessment sequences,
specifically in first and second assessment positions. It demonstrates that, on the one hand, the RPQ utilized inboth positions displays its producer’s equal epistemic stance toward an object being assessed relative to therecipient, and, on the other hand, it is used to perform discrete actions depending upon these different sequential
positions. The data examined in this study is drawn from 12 video-recorded everyday conversations. The
participants of these conversations are all native speakers of the Tokyo dialect. Their ages range from the earlytwenties to early thirties. The total length of conversations is approximately 10 hours.
4. First Assessment RPQs
Let us first look at RPQs deployed in first assessment position. Excerpt (2) is a longer version of Excerpt (1).
Here O and S are talking about S’s recent trip to Malta.

3:4 2
A KNOWN REFERENT
89.  3/4    3/4  
'& & 2)%%     
0'& &%&% % )/1
1

Gloss and transcription conventions of conversational data are omitted owing to space limitation.

−158−



第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

8:  ,&"
03344&33*"'"'&&&44,1

REFERENT SPECIFICATION8;  . ,
%+
033"' !44&%+,1
8<.56
$&0&/1ESTABLISHING EQUAL ACCESS TO A REFERENT

8=  .5 6     0**18>@.    , FIRST ASSESSMENT (RPQ)
% 2 0%!1&33&&44% ,1
8?  .   ,
% 
033&1%44% -%!1&&,1In line 1, S provides information about Malta, but in a special way. That is, S relates her information about
Malta, which is new to O, with a known referent (i.e., lake Biwa), which both O and S can equally access. Inline 2, S continues her turn to ask for confirmation of whether she had provided this information before. In line
3, instead of answering the confirmation request initiated by S, O shows some trouble understanding her
information in that whether what S is talking about concerns the size of Malta.In line 4, S acknowledges that
her information is about the size of Malta. In line 5 O not only recognizes that S is talking about the size of
Malta and but also ratifies S’s confirmation that S had previously provided this information. This is crucial inthat, now, at least a particular aspect of Malta, its size, can be equally accessed by both S and O. This
collaborative establishment of equal access to the referent creates an environment for the production of the RPQ
that S constructs in line 6. The RPQ assesses the size of Malta, which both S and O can equally access. In doingso, S elicits an agreement from O. In line 7, O displays her agreement with S’s first assessment via the RPQ.
As in excerpt (2), the first assessment RPQ is generally produced on the basis of the preceding
interactional context in which participants’ equal access to the object being assessed is established. Then, the
RPQ speaker assesses the object by appealing to the participants’ common sense or knowledge, thereby eliciting
an agreement from the recipient.
5. Second Assessment RPQs
Next, consider second assessment RPOs. First, consider excerpt (3). In this conversation, two female friends, M
and T, talk about one of the men that they met at a drinking party. Prior to this segment, they attended to a large
bag that he brought to the party and wondered in a contemptuous tone why he brought so much stuff to the party.
3;4 )#$& !&
33 !$&!"'&'*&&&*%)&#$&*/44
89  .   ..-    0 -*"'!")-1
8:.  / ""%'2%   033!%44%'%""%/18; .    / )$ #$%"!   &!   03344&!33&&44%)$#$%"!/1

EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE REFERENT

8<@.       &2$%&2! ##$! 



−159−

Negative interrogatives in action: From a perspective of positionally-sensitive grammar

8=      ,  "%&% 2!"$ 0 -&$%&!"%!1&3344"" "%&!"$ 33"44,18> . 2   56  
  *2 %" )"!$  023344)"!$33"%44%"/1

8?.   56    %"
   033&!"%44%"/1

Here, in line 2, T shows her continued orientation to the man’s bag by listing what it contained. On the other
hand, in lines 1 and 3, M negatively assesses the man based on his unusual behavior (i.e., bringing a large bag tothe party) that both observed.
Our focus is on T’s second assessment expressed by the RPQ in line 4. T does not show her agreementwith the prior statement. It displays a disaffiliation with the initial assessment offered by M. Here T expresses
her alternative view or judgment regarding the man. She does so by shifting the focus to another referent,
mitame ‘appearance’, which both M and T can equally access. Thus, she assesses a positive aspect of the mancompared with other men present at the party. T’s second assessment via the RPQ is, in fact, accomplished as adispreferred second in terms of design features. T’s turn is actually prefaced with a mitigation marker, nanka‘like’. Also, T’s turn is divided into three parts, which are indicated by falling intonations. It seems that thedelivery of a positive assessment term, hutsuuppoi ‘seem normal’, is maximally delayed.
More importantly T’s turn is not a simple declarative form of assessment. T’s second assessment isformulated in an interrogative format. Thus, T’s turn thus not only shows her disaffiliation with the firstassessment offered by T, but also undermines the ‘first-ness’ of the first assessment and establishes itself as a
new first pair part (Heritage and Raymond 2005: 29). It then makes a further response, an agreement aspreferred or a disagreement as dispreferred, relevant next.
This example shows that the second assessment RPQ seems to display the speaker’s disaffiliation with theinitial assessment. It is accomplished as a dispreferred second. This is warranted by design features of the turnbuilt by the second assessment RPQ speaker. Importantly, the RPQ in the second position undermines the ‘firstness’ of the initial assessment and establishes itself as “a new first pair part for the previous speaker to respond”(Heritage & Raymond, 2005). The second assessment via the RPQ is an alternative view or judgment regarding
the man. That view or judgment is constructed by shifting the focus of the assessable and foregrounding anotheraspect of the man. In this way, the RPQ speaker (=T) elicits an agreement with her view from the recipient (=M),
thereby opening up another possibility for mutual agreement between the participants.
6. Conclusion
The type of RPQ discussed here repeatedly displays the speaker’s evaluation of a particular referent, which canbe equally accessed by all participants. This single grammatical resource is utilized to display different actions
by reference to its different sequential positions. The RPQ occurring in the first position tries to elicit anagreement from the recipient in a particular view or judgment by appealing to the participants’ common sense or
knowledge. On the other hand, the RPQ occurring in the second position exhibits rather complicatedinteractional work: first, it expresses the speaker’s alternative assessment to the prior assessment, and displays
his or her disaffiliative stance towards the prior speaker; second, by utilizing the interrogative formulation thatinvokes the conditional relevance of the question-answer sequence, it undermines the first-ness of the priorassessment and establishes itself as a new first pair part and makes relevant either agreement or disagreement.
The discrete practices displayed by the RPQ occurring in different sequential positions suggest that, tofully understand the functions of a particular grammatical resource, it is necessary to look closely at a range of
positions where that grammatical resource occurs. It is hoped that the line of investigation in this study will
expand the horizon of research on grammar-in-interaction, and thereby give a better understanding of theinterplay between grammar and social interaction as its natural home.
Selected References
Fox, B. 2007. “Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration.” Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299-318. Heritage, J. and Raymond, G.
(2005). “The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction.” Social psychology quarterly, 68,
15-38. Koshik, I. 2005. Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company. Koshik, I. (2002). “A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions.”
Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1851-1877. Schegloff, E.A. 1996. “Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.” In E.
Ochs, E.A. Schegloff and S.A. Thompson (eds.) Interaction and Grammar, 52-133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

−160−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

Beyond Epistemic Modality:
Local Management of Territory of Information 1
Kaoru Hayano
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics

Abstract
Japanese final particles are a major resource to index whose territory a piece of information belongs to. In
spontaneous interaction, however, the issue of "who knows what better than whom" often becomes problematicor negotiable. For instance, a speaker's claim of epistemic primacy embodied by yo may be challenged by aninterlocutor. This paper analyzes a collection of cases in which incongruence in participants' epistemic stances
emerges and illustrates 1) linguistic resources that are used to defend and establish epistemic primacy, and 2)
how participants' orientation to territory of information is consequential to the design of utterances and sequenceorganization.
Keywords
Conversation analysis, Territory of information, Epistemic primacy, Japanese particle yo, Intensity of evaluation
1. Introduction
Epistemic stance, or epistemic modality, has long been a topic of great interest. In linguistics, epistemic
modality is considered as the speaker’s attitude toward the propositional content. For instance, Palmer (1986)
defines epistemic modality as “the degree of commitment by the speaker to what he says”. Kamio (1990)
proposes a pragmatic theory on epistemicity and suggests that speakers use various grammatical items toindicate whose territory a piece of information belongs to. Conversation analysts, on the other hand, approach
the topic as a way to explore social processes through which interactants construct and reconstruct theirinformation territories (Heritage 2002, Heritage and Raymond 2005). It has been shown that various
grammatical resources are used not simply to "index" pre-determined information territories, but to negotiate
such matters as who holds epistemic access, independence, authority or right. In this paper, I attempt to contribute to this body of literature in conversation analysis (CA) and argue
that 1) territories of information are not only indexed but also reconstructed through interaction, and 2)
participants’ orientation to territories of information is reflected not only on “epistemic stance markers” but also
on other aspects of utterance design.
2. Final Particle yo and Intensification
This paper focuses on two grammatical resources used in assessment sequences: a Japanese final
particle yo on the one hand and the intensity of second assessments on the other.
Final particles yo, as well as ne and yone are often considered as markers of epistemic stances (Koyama
1997; Kato 2001; Morita 2002, 2005; Kanai 2004). In line with previous studies and based on their distribution
in the sequence organization of interaction, I argue that ne and yone are used, at least when used in assessment
sequences, to claim that the speaker shares equivalent knowledge with a recipient. On the other hand, yo is a
resource to claim epistemic primacy, as in “I know better than you do”.
Now, interlocutors may or may not agree on how knowledge about an issue is distributed among them.
For instance, when they reciprocally use ne or yone in an initial assessment and a subsequent agreement, they not
only agree on the evaluation per se, but also that knowledge is equally shared between them. However, there arecases when they disagree on knowledge distribution: one speaker may claim to know better than the otherthrough the particle yo while the other is claiming to know as much with the particle ne or yone. It is in suchcases that we observe intensification.
When a speaker states an assessment about an object or event in conversation, as in “it’s nice”, theaddressee usually produces a second assessment, agreeing or disagreeing with the first. This second assessment
can be in the same intensity as the first assessment, as in “it’s nice”. Alternatively, it can be upgraded orintensified, as in ‘It’s VERY nice”, or “It’s GREAT”. In Japanese interaction, same-intensity agreements are theunmarked, unproblematic form. Intensification occurs only for cause, which is the focus of the analysis of thispaper.

−161−
1

Beyond epistemic modality: Local management of territory of information

In what follows, I analyze the intensity of second assessments and the use of yo and demonstrate thatthese two seemingly unrelated linguistic items are both employed as resources to negotiate and manage
territories of information in everyday interaction.
3. Data
Data for the paper consist of 1) 15h of video-recorded naturally occurring face-to-face conversations
and 2) 5h of audio-recorded naturally occurring telephone conversations distributed by TalkBank(http://talkbank.org/). The data are transcribed following the conversation analytic convention.
4. Analysis
First, let us examine Excerpt 1. Four students are having a plate of sushi they took out from a sushi
restaurant. Yumi had eaten at this particular restaurant before and she suggested they have a sushi plate from therestaurant. While preparing the table, Kumi, looking at the plate, remarks that there is no piece to discard such as
kappa (cucumber rolls), meaning that the plate is filled with good pieces. In response to this, Yumi makes a yomarked second assessment (line 4).

(1)2
1 Kumi:->nanka kappa toka sute ga nai jan.
(It’s) like there is no discard like cucumber rolls.

2->

sute[goma[ga.
No piece to discard.

3 Maki:
4 Yumi:[n n[:. honto.
Yeah:. (You’re) right.
=>[zenzen nai yo.
There aren’t at all yo.

5

(1.0)

6 Yumi:(sooyuu no de-) (.) ademo sooyuu menyuu m[o aru.
(With such pieces-) (.) Oh but there are also such menus(in the restaurant).

7 Hiro:8[he: a-=Hmm, oh=^soo na n da:,=there ^are:,Kumi's initial assessment does not acknowledge Yumi's epistemic primacy or her previous experience with thesushi restaurant. While Maki agrees with Kumi acknowledging it as a view that she has not had (nn honto ‘yeah(you’re) right’) (line 3), Yumi’s second assessment at line 4 involves more than agreeing: through the particle yo,
she claims epistemic primacy, which was not granted by Kumi. Note that she upgrades the evaluation with theintensifier zenzen ‘(not) at all’. This can be seen as a way to demonstrate that she, without having to look at
every piece in the place, already knows the plate thoroughly, which evokes her previous experience that is notshared by other participants. Thus, Yumi claims epistemic primacy through the particle yo, on the one hand, anddemonstrates epistemic primacy through the upgraded evaluation on the other. Yumi’s reference to anothermenu that does have “pieces to discard” (line 6) supports this analysis; by so doing, Yumi exhibits her
knowledge about other menus of the restaurant, which is again not shared by others. Thus, we can see that
Yumi's project here is not simply agreeing with Kumi but to evoke and establish her epistemic primacy. It is insuch a circumstance that an upgraded agreement is produced.
In Japanese interaction, proffering an upgraded second assessment is a marked practice. In
unproblematic assessment sequences in which speakers are agreeing on the evaluation as well as the knowledge
distribution, second assessments usually take the same intensity as first assessments. As is exemplified in
Excerpt 1, upgrading is reserved as a resource to provide support to the claim of epistemic primacy when theclaim is not acknowledged or accepted by interlocutors.
In Excerpt 2, we can more clearly observe that intensification is utilized as a resource to insist on andgive support to a claim of epistemic primacy when it is challenged. Mari and Ami are talking about Michael

−162−
2

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

Jackson’s death. Prior to the excerpt, Mari brought up a song Ebony and Ivory as an example of her favorite
song of Michael Jackson. However, it turned out that the song was not sung by Michael Jackson but by Paul
McCartney and Stevie Wonder, and she was confusing it with a song called Say Say Say, which was sung by
Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney. Ami explained all of this to Mari, saying that she too had been confusing
these songs and had looked them up on the Internet. After this confusion was clarified, Mari makes anassessment about the song Ebony and Ivory at line 10: ebonii and o(r)aiborii ii yo are ‘Ebony and Ivory is good,that (is)’.
(2)
1

Ami:

ya:ppari s(g)a:, are machigae yasui yone::That’s easy to mistake yone::

2
3

ebonii ando aiborii ne:,=‘Ebony and Ivory’ ne,=Mari:=sono atashi sono s-ebonii ando aiborii ^to=well, for me, Ebony and Ivory ^and4[say] say say ga go(h)ccha[ni(h)>nante] yu no<=Say Say Say were mixed up(h) how do (I) say,=

5

Ami:

[un]
Yeah

6

Mari:

=[hito]tsu no- [(.hh) nanka kategori(h)i] ni hai]tteta==(They were) in like a single- .hh category(h)=

7

Ami:

[(

8

Mari:

=kedo[:,]=bu:t,

9Ami:

10 Mari:)]soo, ]
Right,[bhe hhe hhe he h hhe ][poo]ru ga dete kuru ka(h)ra(h) ne,=(That’s) be(h)cau(h)se Paul appears (in those songs) ne,=->11 Ami:=u:n. [>are demo<] ebonii ando (r)aiborii ii yo are.
=Yeah:. >But that< ‘Ebony and (r)Ivory’ is good yo, that (is).
[12 Ami:=>

13 Mari:->

14 Ami:=>

15 Mari:
16 Ami:[hhhh

u : n , ]Yeah,^are wa ^ii yo[ne:,][ a : : : :^That is ^good yone:, tha::::that is=[are ii] [yo, sugoi ii yo,]That’s good yo, very good yo,=i[i n da kedo mai]keru kanke(h)e na(h)i n da(h) yo==good but Michael is no(h)t i(h)nvo(h)lved yo=[ u : :
Yeah::,=>

are ] wa=n , ]=[a(h)re(h) H] H H [ hhhhh ]=(not) in tha(h)t (song).H H H hh h h h

17 Mari:[h h h]h h h

18=wa ne,=is ne,[.h u:n, burakku an]do wh-whito=.h Yeah:, ‘Black and wh-White’=As she produces an assessment about Ebony and Ivory (line 10), Mari claims epistemic primacy with yo.
However, she is not in an advantageous position to do so given that she thought it to be a song by MichaelJackson by mistake. Not surprisingly, Ami does not accept this claim. She proffers a second assessment,

−163−
3

Beyond epistemic modality: Local management of territory of information

marking it yone, which is recurrently used when interactants have equivalent access to the issue (line 12). Hereincongruence between their epistemic claims emerges; Mari claims to know better while Ami claims to know asmuch.
In the next turn, Mari reasserts her initial assessment again marking it with yo and produces yet anotheryo-marked assertion, this time upgrading the assessment from ii ‘good’ to sugoi ii ‘very good’ (line 13).
In this case, Mari fails to establish epistemic primacy, for Ami further challenges the claim by referring
back to Mari's earlier mistake about who sung which song (line 14), after which Mari awkwardly shifts the topic.
Nonetheless, what we observe here is that an upgraded assessment is proffered when a speaker's claim of
epistemic claim is challenged and thus it is relevant for her to provide support to the claim. Thus, even though
they are agreeing on the basic level of assessment per se, that Ebony and Ivory is a good song, affiliation thatshould merge from the agreement is somewhat diminished because of this incongruity regarding who knows
what better (Heritage 2002; Heritage & Raymond 2005).
Conclusion
To summarize, in Japanese interaction, agreements are usually done with second assessments of thesame intensity as the one of first assessments. It is when speakers' claim of epistemic primacy is challenged that
intensification occurs. Thus, intensification functions as a support to the claim of epistemic primacy, which isconveyed with yo.
The finding suggests that the traditional linguistic view that epistemic modality is expressed throughdevoted linguistic categories is misleading. Although Japanese final particles, which are considered to be
epistemic stance markers, do function to claim certain epistemic stances, what is considered as "propositional
content" is also subject to manipulation for the sake of establishing certain epistemic stances. It is through suchdetailed and constant interactional procedure that we maintain and reconstruct our social identities. The
analytical methodology that CA offers allows us to investigate the inseparability of our social foundations andgrammar in use.

Notes:
1
The analysis of the examples presented in this paper first appeared in Hayano (2011).
2
Transcription symbols: " [" ... s t a r t i n g p o i n t o f o v e r l a p p i n g t a l k ; " ] " . . . e n d i n g p o i n t o foverlapping talk; "::" ... lengthened syllable; "," ... continuing intonation; "." ... falling, final
intonation; "(0.0)" ... length of silence in tenths of a second; "hh" ... audible outbreath; ".hh" ...
audible inbreath; "-"... glottal stop; ">word<" ... compressed or russhed; "word" ... relatively
stressed syllables/words; "(words)" ...words that are likely but with which the transcriber was
uncertain/ words that do not appear in the original data but are supplied to make English
translation grammatical or intelligible
Selected References:
Hayano, K. 2011. "Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese." In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J.
Steensig (eds) Modality of Knowledge in Conversation, 58-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. 2002. "Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement." In C. Ford, B.
Fox & S. Thompson (eds) The Language of Turn and Sequence, 196-224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. & G. Raymond. 2005. "The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment
sequences." Social Psychology Quarterly 68, 15-38.
Kamio, A. 1990. Joohoo no Nawabari Riron. Tokyo: Taishuukan.
Kanai, K. 2004. "Kaiwa ni okeru ninshikiteki ken’i no kooshoo: Shuujoshi yo, ne, odoroki hyooji no bunpu to kinoo." Studies
in Pragmatics 6, 17-28.
Kato, S. 2001. "Bunmatsujoshi ne, yo no danwakooseekinoo." Bulletin of the Department of Humanities, Toyama University
35, 31-48.
Koyama, T. 1997. "Bunmatsushi to bunmatsu intoneeshon." In S.L.W. Group (ed.) Onsee to Gengo, 97-119. Tokyo:
Kuroshio.
Morita, E. 2002. "Stance marking in the collaborative completion of sentences: Final particles as epistemic markers inJapanese." Japanese and Korean Linguistics, ed. by N. M. Akatsuka and S. Strauss. Stanford, CSLI. 10: 220-233.
Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.
Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage, 57-101.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



−164−
4

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

Grammar in social context: On request formulations in a sushi restaurant
Satomi Kuroshima
National Institute for Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
satomi.kuroshima@aist.go.jp
Abstract
This paper explores different syntactic formulations by which customers make a request for food at a Japanese sushi
restaurant in Japanese. The way people formulate and design their turn to accomplish a social action such as a request has
been one of the major analytic themes dealt with in the field of conversation analysis. By examining the participants’orientation to different social roles (i.e., benefactor and beneficiary) and interactional environment, this paper offers ananalysis of the request action formulation in a specific institutional context and discusses the participant’s understanding ofinteractional contingencies and social deference associated with those request formulations.
Key wordsconversation analysis, request, institutional talk, turn design
1. Introduction
Conversation analysis (CA) takes a view that requests are among the most basic of social actions, constitutive ofsocial relationships and social contexts (Curl & Drew, 2008; Goodwin, 1990; Heinemann, 2006; Lee, 2009, in press;
Lindström, 2005; Wootton, 1997, 2005). Rather than isolating the grammar from a context or examining the inferences
implicated in utterances, CA takes actions such as a request, offer, or invitation, as a unit of analysis. Much of the research in
CA has been devoted to show how certain social action is designed and formulated by a speaker through several interactional
resources: where in talk it occurs, how it is syntactically formulated, how it is prosodically produced, and how it is enacted
through gaze and participants’ bodies (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1984; Schegloff, 1996, 2007; Stives & Rossano, 2010). Those
resources enable the recipients or co-participants in response to analyze and understand what action is being done by the
speaker.
In case of an institutional context (e.g., medical encounters, classroom, courtrooms, news interviews, service
encounters, etc.), participants display a particular orientation to doing an institutional activity through practices that are more
specific than ordinary conversations (Drew & Heritage, 1992). Institutional talk thus shows: specific goal orientations,special constraints as allowable contributions to the business at hand, and inferential frameworks and procedures particular to
institutional contexts. For example, to take this conversation from pediatric visit as an example, in doctor’s asking questions
to the mother regarding her son’s health condition, the use of ‘oh’ is refrained to acknowledge the mother’s response but only
a neutral acknowledgement token “Okay” is employed at line 9.
(1) History Taking (Pediatric visit)
1Doc:
Has he been coughing uh lot?
2
(0.2)
3
Mom:
.hh Not uh lot.=h[h
4
5
6
7
8

Doc:
Mom:



[Mkay:?,
But it- it <sound:s:> deep.
(1.0)
An’ with everything we heard on tee v)h)ee=hhhh$we got sca:re.$

Kay. (an fer i-) It sounds deep?
(.)
Mm hm.

Mom:

9
Doc:
10
11 Mom:Reproduced from Heritage (2009)‘Okay’ response to an inquiry registers that the response is received and the speaker is ready to shift to a next topic (Beach,
1993; Heritage, 2009). On the other hand, ‘oh’ is often used to show the receipt of some news (Heritage, 1984). Doctor’s useof ‘oh’ after the patient’s family’s describing the symptom would indicate that there is a newsworthiness in the response.
Instead of generically being intrigued by a response, the doctor maintains the institutional orientation of a history taking
phase activity by simply registering the history supplied by the mother.
Since a request can make the recipient perform something on behalf of the requester, it is argued in the literaturethat requests are a face-threatening act (Brown & Levinson, 1979; Ervin-Tripp, 1976, 1981, 1982). It is only recent thatstudies of talk-in-interaction have discovered a speaker ‘designs’ their request action through syntactic variations undercertain interactional circumstances. It has been argued that these different syntactic forms manifest a request’s problematicity
in the speaker’s entitlement to make a request, as well as in the request’s ‘grantability’ on the addressee’s part (Drew, 2005;
Heinemann, 2006; Lee, 2011; Lindstrom, 2005; Wootton, 1997, 2005). Among them, for instance, Curl and Drew (2008)
have shown that requests with a modal verb (i.e., Would/Could you do X?) display speaker’s higher entitlement anddecreased problematicity in terms of grantability. In contrast, requests prefaced by ‘I wonder if” display a lack of entitlement
and the acknowledgment that the request may be difficult to be granted.1 In other words, it shows the speaker’s understandingthat the request is not ordinary, as the speaker is not automatically entitled to make that specific request.
In the service context, on the other hand, the institutional goal orientation is concerned with service, thus, thefulfillment of a request is a primary concern for both customer and service provider (Merritt, 1976; Lee, 2011; Vinkhuyzen &

1
−165−

Grammar in social context: On request formulations in a sushi restaurant

Szymanski, 2005). In ordinary contexts and other institutional contexts (e.g., 911 calls or doctor’s after-hours calls), therequester is a beneficiary and the target of the request is a benefactor (not necessarily a beneficiary at all), but in a service
context, the relationship between the benefactor and beneficiary is what economists call “mutual coincidence of wants.” Theorganization to which the request is delivered will make a profit and, thus, benefit from providing the service. Therefore,
requesting in the service context is much less imposing than it is in ordinary talk or in other types of institutional contexts.
While the recipient’s willingness to comply a request, and its legitimacy are not an issue in this context, there are varying
degrees of ‘real’ obstacles for the request to be granted, such as unavailability of the requested item, or the chef’s availability
to take a request. By orienting or attending to those potential obstacles and to other kinds of foreseeable interactional
circumstances (i.e., sequential positioning), the customers are both making choices among several request turn design
options, and displaying their understandings of their rights as a customer (social actor).
This paper will demonstrate how people formulate and produce a request for sushi/drinks to the chef in certain
interactional environment and discuss the resources speakers use. Not only the grammar of a turn but also the timing of social
action taking place is involved in how the request in this context is formulated.
2. Data and method
Database used for this study is drawn from video-recordings of interaction between the sushi chef and customers ata sushi bar counter. It was collected at one location in Japan and another one in the U.S. 63 request turns are extracted from753 min of data. This paper adopts conversation analysis (CA) as its methodological and theoretical realm (Sacks, 1992;
Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). CA views the participant’s conduct as social phenomenon accomplished through talkin-interaction. As talk-in-interaction is a “primordial site for human sociality” (Schegloff, 2006), much of our conduct is doneby interacting with others. In doing so, our predilection surfaces to be mutually recognized and oriented by parties of talk.
Thus, its research focus is to examine what kind of orientation we have in talking to each other and how the interaction isshaped and organized around the orientation.
3. Analysis
First section will show the request turns uttered by following no previous talk. After the opening of a dining
activity, an order can be subsequently made at any given moment. Even though the request action is recognizable to therecipient within this state, the customers are utilizing different syntactic formulations that are sensitive to the ad-hoc context.
One of the most prevalent formulations is X (wo) kudasai (‘please give me X’). Let’s look at Excerpt (2) in your handout. In
this segment, this customer is going to order to this chef (although he is sitting away from him) in line 1 by using this format.
(2) Tamago
01

Cus:

02

Chef:

03
04

Chef:

05

Cus:



Tamago kudasai.
‘Please give me an egg.’
Tamago.
‘Egg.’(1.0)
Nigiri de. ((hand gesture))‘As sushi.’Hai. ((nods))‘Yes.’

Prior to line 1, there is no talk between the customer and none of the chefs. As the video shows, when he orders infact, the chef was looking away. This may have prompted the chef to check his hearing by repeating the ordered item in line
2. Notice that the chef does not repeat the whole turn by the customer, as it is a critical part of the action of requesting. X
kudasai formulation does literally state that the speaker is a beneficiary and the recipient is a benefactor although they are
elliptic, because of the verb, kureru (someone gives me something). Also, the declarative formulation does not assume any
possibility of rejection as an interrogative form does. This may be why this formulation is canonically used in service
encounters where a speaker’s role is assumed to benefit from the outcome of a request. In other words, it recognizes that anentitlement of the speaker is not an issue.
However, sometimes a speaker needs to mark overtly the beneficiary. In Excerpt (3), the speaker states that he is
the ordering party as in line 4. In this segment, this customer is served first with a sardine in lines 1 and 2, and the companyof customer 1 orders Japanese mackerel in line 4.
(3) Japanese mackerel
01

Chef:

02

Cus 1:03
04

Cus 2:

05
06

Chef:

07

Cus 2:



Hai, iwashi desu.
‘Okay, here’s sardine.’
Domo.
‘Thanks.’(0.5) ((Chef passes sushi to Cus 1))
Boku aji wo kudasai.
‘Please give me Japanese mackerel.’[((Chef looks at Cus 2 as he withdraws his arm))[Hai?
‘Yes?’
[Aji.

2
−166−

第13回大会発表論文集

08

Chef:

09

Chef:

10
11

Cus:

12
13

Chef:

第６号

‘Japanese mackerel.’[Ah‘Oh.’[Aji desu ka?=
‘Japanese mackerel, is (it)?’[((Chef avails gaze and looks down))=Hai.
‘Yeah.’(0.2)
Hai.
‘Okay.’

By marking the agency by 1st person pronoun, boku, of his request turn in line 4, the speaker is orienting to the identificationof his role as a beneficiary. He utters this when the chef’s body becomes close to him as the chef serves the customer 1. Here,
we can also notice that the speaker is securing the recipient’s attention by marking the actor overtly as it could beunrecognized. The recipient thus looks at him as soon as he hears this request but shows his trouble in hearing or
understanding the prior utterance. The customer 2 in response restates only repeating the ordered item instead of repeating
the whole turn. Thus, the index of benefactor/beneficiary dichotomy expressed by kudasai is dispensed once the recipient’s
recognition of the actor of an action is guaranteed. As the chef requests for confirmation in line 9 Aji desu ka?, it was not thetrouble of understanding who the ordering party is but the critical component of a request turn needs to be registered.
Gordon and Ervin-Tripp (1984) claim that in certain contexts, naming the object of an action without a verb isheard as a request with the social force of an imperative. Extract (4) is an example of such.
(4) Egg
01

Cus:

02

Chef:

03

Cus:

04
05

Chef:

06
07

Cus:

08

Chef:

09

Cus:

10

Chef:





Ah- oyaji-san,‘Oh, master,’[Hai.
‘Yes.’[Tamago.
‘Egg.’(.)
Tamago.
‘Egg.’(.)
Tamago.=‘Egg.’=Hai! Eh:: nigitte ii desu ka?
‘Okay! Uhm, is sushi fine?’
Nigiri de.=‘As sushi.’=Hai.
‘Okay.’

The customer first calls the chef by a categorially relevant reference form. As Lerner (2003) argues, summonsresponse before the main action is securing the addressed recipient and makes the main action occur next. Thus, heestablishes the mutual orientation with the chef in line 2 by securing the chef’s gaze before making a request. When that
happens, the customer orders an egg just by naming the item name. The noun phrase itself does not grammatically select a
type of a response as the interrogative format can do. The ellipsis of agency and a predicate again assumes no contingencies
associated with the request and no possibility of rejection. In this sense, this design of a request action is highly self-attentive
as it only states the object the one wants. However, it is a real problem for the speaker to be recognized by the recipient since
this type of design does not strongly make the recipient respond next. Other than an addressing term, the customer sometimes
uses different strategies to secure the recipient’s recognition of their action such as no-naming summoning (i.e., sumimasen)
or an action initiation marker (i.e., jyaa) before naming the ordered item.
Finally, I would like to show one case in which there is a preceding talk before a request is launched. Sometimes,
customers are concerned with a particular kind of food they want to order. In such a case, the customer may ask a question to
the chef and such a question can project the upcoming request.
(5) Clam miso soup
01

Cus:

02

Chef:

03
04

Cus:
Chef:

05



Akadashi tte asari haittemasu?
‘(Your) miso soup contains clams?’
Hai.
Yes.
((nods))Sore de.
‘By that (one).’
(1.0)

3
−167−

Grammar in social context: On request formulations in a sushi restaurant

06

Chef:

07

Waiter:Asari akadashi icchoo de::su. ((to waiter))‘One clam miso soup.’
Hai.
‘Okay.’

In line 1, the customer asks a “declarative question2” without being marked by final particles, i.e., -ka, or -ne(Hayashi, 2010) about whether their miso soup contains clams. The positively formed yes/no question socially andinteractionally presupposes that the proposition of the question will be affirmed by the recipient (Heritage, 2010). Thus, theaction of this turn seeks confirmation from the chef (Hayashi, 2010). In line 3, the chef provides the sought information by
affirming the presupposition by Hai. As the customer’s subsequent nodding is understood as a request action (line 4), (a) thisdeclarative question can project and implicate an upcoming request action, and (b) the request was contingent on thepresupposition of the question. Through this embodied action of nodding without any verbal utterances, we can also see thespeaker trusts the recipient that he knows which item is ordered. The chef’s request for a confirmation by referring to theordered item by a pronoun, sore in line 4 also displays that they are on the same page. By omitting the request to be uttered,
the parties are in favor of using each other’s understanding of a request action and thus move an activity forward.
4. Conclusion
The customers in this context have to deal with various kinds of contingencies both interactional and instrumental.
We can remark that a request turn reflects positional, contextual, and interactional sensitivity. The scarcity of a question
format in making a request for food in Japanese on the contrary to English suggests that the customers do not problematize
whether a request is accepted or not. This may be because the customers also know requesting in this context can mutually
benefit the recipient so they are entitled to do since as a beneficiary. Request formulation in a commercial service encounterreflects the institutional obligation and the customer’s rights to make a request. In this setting, institutionally relevant roles
and underlying interactional contingencies are a key element for the request to be formulated in certain way.
Notes
Lindström (2005) and Heinemann (2006) have also shown how request formulations, and other related actions, can display
the speakers’s stances toward their right to make a request and the social context.
2
Hayashi (2010) categorizes this type of a question as being “without morphosyntactic interrogative marking (e.g., question
particles)” such as -ka or -no. As seen in this case, the speaker uses rising intonation, which marks the interrogative(Mobilizing response; Stivers & Rossano, 2010).
1

References
Beach, W. A. 1993. Transitional regularities for casual 'okay' usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19: 325-352.
Curl, T. S. & Drew, P. 2008. Contingency & Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting. Research on Language & Social
Interaction. 41(2): 129-153.
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between
Primary Care Physicians & Patients. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M.H. 1987. Concurrent Operations on Talk: notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments. IPrA Papers in
Pragmatics 1(1): p. 1-52.
Goodwin, M. H. 1990. He-Said-She-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington.
Goodwin, C. & M. H. Goodwin (1992). Assessments & the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context:
Language as & interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayashi, M. 2010. An overview of the question-response system in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 2685-2702.
Heinemann, T. 2006. Will you or can't you? Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1081-1104.
Heritage, J. 1984. A change-of-state token nad aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Heritage & M.J.
Heritage, J. 2010. Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J.
Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Atkinson (Eds.), Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229-346.
Heritage, J. 1997. Conversation analysis and insitutional talk: analyzing data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method &practice. London: Sage, 161-182.
Lee, S.-H. 2011. Managing non-granting of customers' requests in commercial service encounters. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 44. 109-134.
Lerner, G.H. 2003. Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Lanugage in Society 32, 177-201.
Lindström, A. (2005). Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home
help service. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Merritt, M. 1976. On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society 5: 315-357.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation Volume I & II. Cambridge, Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50,
695-735.
Schegloff, E. A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar & interaction. In E. A. Schegloff, E. Ochs, & S. Thompson (Eds.),
Interaction and grammar. New
Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena inwhich culture is enacted. In N. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of Human Sociality. London, Berg.
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. A primer of conversation analysis: Sequential organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. 2010. Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1), 3-31.
Vinkhuyzen, E. & M. H. Szymanski 2005. Would you like to do it yourself? Service requests & their non-granting responses. In K. Richards& P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 91-106.
Wooton, A. J. 2005. Interactional and sequential features informing request format selection in children's speech. In A. Hakulinen & M.
Sleting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

4
−168−

ポスターセッション
Poster Sessions

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号/QFCNKV[ UJKHV㧦-; ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ⴕὑߣߘߩࠦࡦ࠹ࠢࠬ࠻ߩ᭎ᔨ⸥ㅀࠍਛᔃߦ
੗╴ൎା࡮↰ታẖർᶏ㆏ᢎ⢒ᄢቇ࡮ർᤊቇ࿦ᄢቇ
KFWVUW"IOCKNEQO VCLKVUW"JQMWUGKCELR<Abstract>
The present article describes the conceptual structure associated with the type of speech act that is intended tobrand the addressee with “K(uuki) Y(omenai)” (lit. ‘can’t read the air’), suggesting one strategy to cope with thatact and its applicability to Communication Reflection Model, an application of the learning support system that
we are currently developing for people with Asperger’s syndrome and high-function autism. To cope with
“KY”-branding utterances, learners will be encouraged to meet their interlocutor’s unexpressed REASONABLE
want but to deflect his UNREASONABLE want.
‫ޣ‬keywords‫ޤ‬ⓨ᳇‫ޔ‬ᴺᕈߩ៺ࠅᦧ߃‫ޔ‬᰼᳞‫ޔ‬୘ੱ⊛ⷐ᳞‫␠ޔ‬ળ⊛ⷐ⺧ߩ↪ᴺߪ‫ޔ‬ਛ࿖⺆߿㖧࿖⺆ߥߤߩㄭ㓞⻉࿖ߩ⸒⺆ߪ߽ߜࠈࠎ‫ࠍ⺆⧷ޔ‬ᆎ߼ߣߔࠆ⷏ᵗ⺆ߢ߽ⷰኤߐ
ࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ૉߒ‫ޔ‬ਛ࿖⺆ߩ‫ޡ‬䇏ぎ⇨‫ޔޢ‬㖧࿖⺆ߩ‫ޡ‬Ὃ₆⯒㧓┺‫ޢ‬㧔޿ߕࠇ߽ᢥሼㅢࠅߦߪ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߻‫ߩޠ‬ᗧ㧕ߥߤߩ⴫⃻ߪ৻⥸⊛ߢߪߥ޿‫ ߪߢ⺆⧷ޕ‬air
ࠃࠅ atmosphere ߩᣇ߇ᒰ⹥ߩᗧ๧ߦ↪޿ࠄࠇ߿ߔ޿߇‫ޔ‬read the air ߪ߽ߜࠈࠎ read the atmosphereߩࠃ߁ߥ⸒޿ᣇߪㅢᏱᗧ๧ࠍᚑߐߥ޿‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߻‫ߩߎޔߪ⃻⴫߁޿ߣޢ‬ὐߢᒰ⹥ߩ⸒⺆ᢥൻ‫␠ޔ‬ળ‫ࡦ࡚ࠪ࡯ࠤ࠾ࡘࡒࠦޔ‬᭽ᑼߦ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ․⇣ߥ᭎ᔨൻࠍ⴫⽎ߔࠆߣ⸒߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߩ␠ળ໧㗴ࠍ⸒⺆ᢥൻߩὐ߆ࠄᛒߞߚ࿯ዬ
(1971)߿ጊᧄ(1983)߇‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫ࠆࠊߟ߹ߦޢ‬᭎ᔨߦᵈ⋡ߔࠆߩ߽ߘߩߚ߼ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬Ყ༙⊛ᗧ๧ߩ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫ߩޢ‬ᜰ␜ౝኈߪੑߟߦᄢ೎ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬಄ᴰ(2006:9)ߪ‫ޟ‬ਃੱએ਄ߩ႐ߦ߅ߌࠆⓨ᳇ߩߎߣࠍ‫ޟ‬႐ߩⓨ᳇‫৻ޔޠ‬ኻ৻ߩળ⹤ߦ߅ߌࠆⓨ᳇ࠍ‫ޟ‬㑐ଥߩⓨ᳇‫ߣޠ‬๭ࠎߢ඙೎ߔࠆ‫⎇ᧄޔ߇ޠ‬ⓥ߽ߘࠇߦᓥ߁‫ޕ‬‫ޟ‬ᴺᓞ‫ޔޠ‬‫ⷙޟ‬ೣ‫ߦᤨ⹤⊒ޔߪޠ‬㖸ჿൻߐࠇߥߊ
ߣ߽‫ޔ‬᣿ᢥൻߥ޿ߒᚑᢥൻߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߣ޿߁ὐߢ‫ޔ‬ߎߩ‫ޟ‬႐ߩⓨ᳇‫ߪߦޠ‬ㅢᏱ⹥ᒰߒߥ޿‫ߦࠇߘޕ‬ኻߒߡ‫␞ޟ‬௾‫ޔޠ‬‫ޟ‬Ᏹ⼂‫ޔޠ‬‫ޟ‬ᘠ⠌‫ޟߦᤨޔߪޠ‬႐ߩⓨ᳇‫⋴ߣޠ‬஖ߐࠇࠆ‫ޔ߫߃଀ޕ‬ㅢᄛߩᏨߢ᡿ੱߩቊ
ߦᒰߚࠆሶଏ߇‫߅ޟ‬ῶߜ߾ࠎᱫࠎߓ߾ߞߚߨ‫ޕ‬ᖤߒ޿ߨ‫ߚߞ⸒ߣޠޕ‬႐ว‫߇ࠇߘޔ‬ቇ㦂೨ߩሶଏߥ
ࠄ‫ޔ‬๟ࠅߩᄢੱߚߜߪ‫ߩߘޔ‬ή㇎᳇ߐߦᗲᘿߩᔨ
ࠍᛴߊߣ౒ߦ‫⸒⊒ߥ߹ߐࠄ߆޽ޔ‬ౝኈߦ᡿ੱߩᱫ
ࠍᖬ߻᳇ᜬߜࠍ৻ጀᷓ߼ࠆ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬หߓ⸒⪲ࠍ⊒ߒߚߩ߇ਛቇ↢߿㜞ᩞ↢ߛߞߚߣߒߚࠄ‫ޔ‬๟࿐ߩฃߌᱛ߼ᣇߪ㓐ಽߣ⇣ߥߞߚ߽ߩ
ߣߥࠆߦ㆑޿ߥ޿‫ߩߎޟޔߪ޿ࠆ޽ޕ‬ሶߪⓨ᳇߇⺒߼ߥ޿ߥ‫ߣޠ‬ᔃߩਛߢ๚ߊ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߎߩࠃ߁ߦ‫ޟޔ‬႐ߩⓨ᳇‫ߩߘޔߪߩ߁޿ߣޠ‬႐
ߦ޿ࠆ 3 ੱએ਄ߩੱ߇⒟ᐲߩᏅߎߘ޽ࠇ౒᦭ߒ
ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޟ‬೨ឭ޽ࠆ޿ߪ⢛᥊⊛⍮⼂ߣߒߡੌ⸃ߐࠇ
ߡ޿ࠆߎߣ‫ޠ‬෸߮‫ࠄ߆ࠄࠇߘޟ‬ផ⺰ߐࠇࠆߎߣ‫ޠ‬ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߣࠄࠇߘޕ‬㘩޿㆑߁⸒േࠍขࠆߎߣߪ‫߹ޔ‬ߐߒߊ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ࠍฃߌࠆߎߣߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩ႐ว‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫⋴ߣޠ‬஖ߐࠇࠆ⸒േߪ‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇‫ߩߘ߇ޠ‬႐ߦ޿ࠆᄙߊߩઁ⠪߇౒᦭ߔࠆ
‫␞ޟ‬௾‫ޠ‬‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬Ᏹ⼂‫ޔޠ‬‫ޟ‬ᘠ⠌‫⋴ߣޠ‬஖ߐࠇࠆ㒢ࠅߦ߅޿ߡ‫ᦌߢ߆߿✭ࠅࠃޔ‬ᤒߥ߽ߩߥ߇ࠄ‫ޟ‬ᴺᓞ‫߿ޠ‬‫ⷙޟ‬ೣ‫ߩޠ‬㆑෻ߦಎ߃ࠄࠇ߿ߔ޿ 1‫ޕ‬৻ᣇ‫ޟ‬㑐ଥߩⓨ᳇‫ߩߘޔߪޠ‬႐ߦ૗ੱߩੱ߇޿
ࠆ߆ߦ㑐ࠊࠄߕ‫ޔ‬ၮᧄ⊛ߦߪੑ⠪㑆ߢߩኻ⹤ߦ㑐ࠊࠆ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᓥߞߡ‫ޔ‬ኻ⹤⠪ੑੱએᄖߩ╙ਃ⠪߇ሽ࿷ߒߚߣߒߡ߽‫ޟޔ‬㑐ଥߩⓨ᳇‫⋴ߣޠ‬஖ߐ ߪߓ߼ߦ
ࠕࠬࡍ࡞ࠟ࡯∝୥⟲߿㜞ᯏ⢻⥄㐽∝ࠍᜬߟੱ㧔એਅ‫࡮ࠕޟ‬㜞⠪‫ޠ‬㧕ߪ‫ޟޔ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬㧔એਅ‫ޟ‬KY‫ޠ‬㧕ߣߒߡㆱߌࠄࠇ‫ߦᤨޔࠇ߹⇹ޔ‬ឃ㒰߿ㄼኂࠍⵍࠆߣߐ߃⸒ࠊࠇࠆ‫ޟޔߚ߹ޕ‬ⓨ᳇‫ߣޠ‬⒓ߐࠇࠆ‫ޟ‬ᢥ⣂‫ޟ߿ޠ‬฽ᗧ‫ޔޠ‬‫ޟ‬Ყ༙‫⊹ޟ߿ޠ‬⡺‫ࠃߩޠ‬߁ߥ⸒ᄖߩᗧ๧ࠃࠅ߽‫ޔ‬ᢥሼㅢࠅߩᗧ๧ߦၮߠ޿
ߡℂ⸃ߔࠆ௑ะ߇ᒝ޿ߚ߼‫⸒ޔ‬േࠍ⺋⸃ߐࠇߡ‽⟋ടኂ⠪ߣߐࠇࠆ౴⟋੐ઙ߽↢ߓߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬৻ᣇ‫࡮ࠕޔ‬㜞⠪એᄖߩੱߪ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒ߺߔ߉ࠆ‫ޠ‬ߎߣߦ⿠࿃ߔࠆ‫ޟ‬㑐ଥߩⓨ᳇‫ޟ߿ޠ‬႐ߩⓨ᳇‫ޠ‬㧔಄ᴰ 2006㧕ߦᡰ㈩ߐࠇ‫ޟࠄ߆ߜ߁޿⧯ޔ‬෹ߛߜ࿾ₐ‫ޠ‬㧔࿯੗ 2008㧕ߢ⧰ߒ߻ߎߣ߽ዋߥߊߥ޿‫࡮ࠕޕ‬㜞⠪ࠍ KY ᛒ޿ߦࠃߞߡ⧦߻ߎߣߩේേജߣߥ
ࠆ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇‫ޔߪޠ‬KY ᛒ޿ࠍߔࠆ஥ߩੱ㑆ࠍ߽⧦߻ሽ࿷ߢ޽ࠆߎߣ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬໧㗴ߩᧄ⾰߇ߎߩ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇‫ޠ‬ߦሽߔࠆߎߣߪ᣿ࠄ߆ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ‫ߩߎޔ‬ⓨ᳇ߪ⥄ὼ⑼ቇߢቯ⟵ߐࠇࠆታ૕
ߢߪߥߊ‫ޡޔ‬ⓨ᳇ߩ⎇ⓥ‫ޢ‬㧔ጊᧄ 1983㧕ߩኻ⽎ߣߥߞߚ␠ળ⃻⽎ߣ߽⇣ߥࠅ‫ޔ‬୘‫ߩޘ‬ᣣᧄ⺆⹤⠪ߩ᭎ᔨൻߩ໧㗴ߣߒߡᝒ߃ࠆߴ߈੐⽎ߢ޽ࠆ㧔࿯ዬ
1971㧕‫ޕ‬KY ᛒ޿ߔࠆ⊒⹤ߪ‫ޔ‬ㅢᏱ⥄⒓⴫⃻ߢߪ↪޿ࠄࠇߕ‫ޔ‬2 ੱ⒓⊛૶↪ߢߩ⊒⹤ⴕὑߦߘߩᗧ
࿑ߣᗧ๧߇㗼࿷ൻߒ‫ޔ‬3 ੱ⒓⊛૶↪ߪ⽿છߩォᇾ(shift)߿ⓨ᳇㉯ᚑߩ⊒⹤ⴕὑߣߒߡᯏ⢻ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬⪺⠪ࠄߪ‫࡮ࠕޔ‬㜞⠪ߩቇ⠌ᡰេࡕ࠺࡞ߣߒߡ
Panic Reflection Model (Tajitsu et al. 2009, 2010)ࠍ
㐿⊒ߒߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᔕ↪⊒ዷᒻߣߒߡ⠨᩺ਛߩ
Communication Reflection Model ߢߪ‫࡮ࠕޔ‬㜞⠪⥄
ࠄ߇ KY ᛒ޿ߐࠇࠆߎߣߩ઀⚵ߺࠍℂ⸃ߒ‫ޔ‬ኻಣ
ᴺࠍቇ߮ขࠆߎߣ߇⋡ᮡߣߥࠆ‫ᧄޕ‬Ⓜߢߪ‫ߩߘޔ‬઀⚵ߺߣኻಣᴺߩℂ⸃࡮₪ᓧߩၮ⋚ߣߥࠆ KY ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ⴕὑߣߘߩࠦࡦ࠹ࠢࠬ࠻ߩ᭎ᔨ⸥ㅀࠍ
ᔕ↪⹺⍮ᢥᴺ㧔੗╴ 2002㧕ߩⷰὐ߆ࠄ⹜ߺࠆ‫ޕ‬ᒰ⹥⴫⃻ߩ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇‫ޔߪޠ‬㧔have to ߥߤߦ⷗ࠄࠇ
ࠆࠃ߁ߥ㧕ᄖ⊛ߥ‫␠ޟ‬ળ⊛ⷐ⺧‫⋧ߦޠ‬ᒰߔࠆ৻ᣇ
ߢ‫߫ߒ߫ߒޔ‬㧔must ߦ⷗ࠄࠇࠆࠃ߁ߥ㧕⹤⠪⥄りߩ‫ޟ‬୘ੱ⊛ⷐ᳞‫ࠅ៺ߣ⺧ⷐߚߒ߁ߘ߇߽ߢ߹ޠ‬ᦧ߃ࠄࠇࠆ(modality shift)‫ޕ‬ᒰ⹥⊒⹤ⴕὑߪ‫ޔ‬‫␠ޟ‬ળ⊛ⷐ⺧‫ޟߣޠ‬୘ੱ⊛ⷐ᳞‫ߩޠ‬ᑯ೎ߣߘߩᢥ⣂⊛ᅷᒰᕈߦၮߠ޿ߡ⹏ଔߒ‫ޔ‬ኻಣߔࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᅷᒰᕈࠍᰳߊⷐ᳞ߪ㤩Ვߩኻ⽎ߣߥࠅᓧࠆ‫ޕ‬ ‫ޟ‬႐ߩⓨ᳇‫ޟߣޠ‬㑐ଥߩⓨ᳇‫ޠ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫⥄ޔߪ⺆߁޿ߣޢ‬ὼ⑼ቇ⊛ᗧ๧એᄖߦ‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬㔓࿐᳇‫ޔޠ‬‫ޟ‬᭽ሶ‫ޔޠ‬‫ޟ‬᳇㈩‫ޔޠ‬‫ޟ‬᳇ಽ‫ޔޠ‬‫ޟ‬᳇ᜬߜ‫ߩߤߥޠ‬Ყ༙⊛ߥᗧ๧ߢ߽↪޿ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᓟ⠪

1
−169−

Modality shift：KY扱いの発話行為とそのコンテクストの概念記述を中心にࠇࠆౝኈߪ‫ޟޔ‬೨ឭ޽ࠆ޿ߪ⢛᥊⊛⍮⼂ߣߒߡੌ⸃ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߎߣ‫ޠ‬෸߮‫ࠄ߆ࠄࠇߘޟ‬ផ⺰ߐࠇࠆߎߣ‫߇ߣߎࠆࠇߐ᦭౒ߡߒߣޠ‬ᗐቯߐࠇߥ޿‫߹ޕ‬ߚ‫⥝ޔ‬๧ᷓ޿ߎߣߦ‫ޟޔ‬㑐ଥߩⓨ᳇‫߇ޠ‬໧㗴ߣߥࠆ႐วߪ‫ޔ‬3.1 ▵ߢᬌ⸽ߔࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ኻ⹤⠪ੑੱߩ㑆ߢ‫ޟ‬೨ឭ޽ࠆ޿ߪ⢛᥊⊛⍮⼂ߣߒߡੌ⸃ߐࠇ
ߡ޿ߥ޿ߎߣ‫߇ޠ‬໧㗴ߩ಴⊒ὐߣߥࠆߎߣ߇ᄙ޿‫ޕ‬వขࠅߔࠇ߫‫ޔ‬ኻ⹤⠪ߩ৻ᣇ߇ઁᣇߦኻߒߡ૗ࠄ
߆ߩ᰼᳞ࠍᛴ޿ߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ߩߘޔ‬᰼᳞ߩሽ࿷߇೨ឭ
޽ࠆ޿ߪ⢛᥊⊛⍮⼂ߣߒߡੌ⸃ߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߎ
ߣ‫ߩߘ߽ߡ޿ߡࠇߐ⸃ੌߚ߹ޔ‬᰼᳞߇ḩߚߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߎߣߎߘ߇‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ߩේേജߣߥࠆ‫ޕ‬એਅߢߪ‫ޟߩߎޔ‬㑐ଥߩⓨ᳇‫ߩޠ‬ᣇߦࠃࠅജὐࠍ⟎޿ߡ⼏⺰ࠍㅴ߼ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ ޿ࠊࠁࠆ฽ᗧߣ೨ឭ
‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫ޟࠍޢ‬႐ߩⓨ᳇࡮㑐ଥߩⓨ᳇‫ߩޠ‬Ყ༙⊛ᗧ๧ߢ↪޿‫ߩޢ߻⺒ޡࠍࠇߘޔ‬㗄ߣߔࠆ⴫⃻ࠍุቯᭂᕈ(negative polarity)߿ᴺᕈ(modality)‫ޔ‬ᩰഥ⹖ߩ૶↪ߥߤߩὐ߆ࠄᲧセߔࠆߣ‫ߩߘޔ‬㗫ᐲߪ৻᭽ߢߪߥ޿‫ޕ‬వߕ‫ޡޔ‬ⓨ᳇‫ߦ౒ߣޢ‬ᩰഥ⹖ߩ‫ޢࠍޡ‬߿‫ࠆࠇࠄ޿↪߇ޢ߇ޡ‬႐วߦ‫ޔ‬േ⹖‫ߩޢ߻⺒ޡ‬⢐ቯᒻ‫ޢ߻⺒ޡ‬࡮‫ุߣޢࠆ߼⺒ޡ‬ቯᒻ‫ޢ޿ߥ߹⺒ޡ‬࡮‫⺒ޡ‬߼ߥ޿‫ߦޢ‬ಽߌߡ⹜ߺߦ Google ߢᬌ⚝ߒߡߺࠆߣ‫ ⴫ޔ‬1 ߦ␜ߒߚࠃ߁ߦ‫⷗ޔ‬ઃ߆ࠆઙᢙߪุቯ⴫
⃻ߩᣇ߇ߪࠆ߆ߦᄙ޿‫ޕ‬ૉߒ‫ޔ‬⢐ቯߢ‫ޢࠍޡ‬ᩰ߇઻߁႐วߦߪน⢻ߩᴺᕈࠍ઻߁‫ࠊ઻ߣޢࠆ߼⺒ޡ‬ߥ޿‫ߩޢ߻⺒ޡ‬ਔ⠪ߩ㗫ᐲ߇ห⒟ᐲߦ㜞ߊ‫ޔ‬‫ޢ߇ޡ‬ᩰ߇↪޿ࠄࠇࠆߣ㗫ᐲߪ߿߿ਅ߇ࠆߩߦኻߒߡ‫ޔ‬ุቯߢߪᩰഥ⹖ߩ㆑޿ࠃࠅ߽น⢻ߩᴺᕈࠍ઻ࠊߥ޿‫ߩޢ޿ߥ߹⺒ޡ‬㗫ᐲ߇ᩰᲑߦ㜞޿ὐߢ㓙┙ߟ‫ޕ‬
ᭂᕈ
⢐ቯ
ุቯ

ᴺᕈ
น⢻
น⢻

⴫⃻
ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߻
ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߼ࠆⓨ᳇߇⺒߼ࠆⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߹ߥ޿ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߼ߥ޿ⓨ᳇߇⺒߼ߥ޿

ߘߩ⁁ᴫࠍགྷߊ޽ࠆ޿ߪ⸷߃ࠆ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿ߥ‫ޔޢ‬‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿ߨ‫ߩޢ‬㗫ᐲ߇ᭂ߼ߡ㜞޿‫߹ޕ‬ߚ‫ޔ‬๮઎ᢥߩਛߢߪ‫ޔ‬ታⴕߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߘߩⴕὑ
ࠍታⴕߔࠆࠃ߁ଦߔ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼㧔ࠃ㧕‫߇ޢ‬㘃ૃߒߚᢥߩਛߢ⟲ࠍᛮ޿ߡ㗫ᐲ߇㜞޿‫ޕ‬
ᭂᕈ
⢐ቯ

ᴺᕈ
น⢻

ุቯ

ਇน⢻

⴫⃻
ⓨ᳇⺒߻ߨ
ⓨ᳇⺒߻ߥ
ⓨ᳇⺒߼ࠆߨⓨ᳇⺒߼ࠆߥⓨ᳇⺒߹ߥ޿ߨⓨ᳇⺒߹ߥ޿ߥⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿ߨⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿ߥ

ઙᢙ஻⠨⚂ 3,890 ઙ⚂ 34,500 ઙ⚂ 4,900 ઙ⚂ 15,500 ઙ⚂ 818,000 ઙ⚂ 1,230,000 ઙ⚂ 3,080,000 ઙ⚂ 4,160,000 ઙ⑌ᱛ๮઎߇ᷙ౉

㧔2010 ᐕ 11 ᦬ 10 ᣣ Google ᬌ⚝㧕⴫ 2㧦ᩰഥ⹖ߥߒ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫ޢ‬㧗‫ߩ⃻⴫߁઻ࠍޢ߻⺒ޡ‬㗫ᐲ⚛ឬᭂᕈ๮઎㧔⢐ቯ㧕

⑌ᱛ㧔ุቯ㧕

⴫⃻
ⓨ᳇⺒߼
ⓨ᳇⺒߼ࠃ
ⓨ᳇⺒ߺߥࠃⓨ᳇⺒ߺߥⓨ᳇⺒ߺߥߐ޿ⓨ᳇⺒߻ߥⓨ᳇⺒߻ߥࠃ

ઙᢙ⚂ 2,550,000 ઙ⚂ 346,000 ઙ⚂ 22,400 ઙ⚂ 24,000 ઙ⚂ 46,600 ઙ⚂ 36,100 ઙ⚂ 25,700 ઙ

㧔2010 ᐕ 11 ᦬ 11 ᣣ Google ᬌ⚝㧕⴫ 3㧦‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫ޢ‬㧗‫߁઻ࠍޢ߻⺒ޡ‬๮઎⴫⃻ߩ㗫ᐲ⚛ឬߎߩࠃ߁ߦ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߻‫ⴕ߁޿ߣޠ‬ὑࠍ᭎ᔨൻ
ߒ‫⺆⸒ޔ‬ൻߔࠆߎߣࠍേᯏઃߌࠆ߽ߩߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ⹤⠪߇ߒ߫ߒ߫⡬⠪ߦ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߻‫ߣߎޠ‬ࠍᒝߊⷐ᳞ߔࠆߣ޿߁੐ታࠍ⹺߼ࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⹤⠪ߪ‫ޔ‬૗᡿ߘࠇ߶ߤ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߻‫ⷐࠍߣߎޠ‬᳞ߔࠆߩ߆‫ޕ‬વ⛔⊛ߥᣣᧄ⺆࡮ᣣᧄᢥൻߢߪ‫⹤ޔ‬⠪߇᣿⸒ߔࠆߎߣࠍㆱߌ‫ޔ‬⡬⠪ߪߘࠇࠍኤߔࠆߎߣ
߇㊀ࠎߓࠄࠇࠆߣ⸒ࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ኤߒߡ߽ࠄ߁ߎߣࠍ
ㆊᐲߦᦼᓙߒ‫⸒ߩࠄ⥄ޔ‬േࠍ⿠ߎߘ߁ߣߒߥ޿ᆫ
൓ߪ‫ޔ‬࿯ዬ(1971)ߢ⸒߁‫ࠍޠ߃↞ޟ‬᭴ᚑߔࠆ‫ޕ‬಄
ᴰ(2006)ߪ‫ߥ޿ߡࠇࠊ⸒ޟߣޠߣߎ޿ߥࠊ⸒ޟޔ‬޿߇ㄟ߼ࠄࠇߚᗧ๧ࠍฃߌขࠆߎߣ‫᦭ࠍޠ‬ᯏ⊛ߦ⚿߮ઃߌࠆ௛߈ࠍ‫ޟ‬㑐ଥߩⓨ᳇‫ߣޠ‬๭߱‫ߩߎޕ‬ㄟ߼ࠄࠇߚᗧ๧ߩ‫ޟ‬વ㆐‫ⴕ⹤⊒߇ޠ‬ὑߩਥ⋡⊛ߢ޽ࠆ႐วߪ‫ޔ‬⡬⠪߇ߘߩᗧ๧ࠍฃߌขࠅߘ߮ࠇߡ߽
‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ࠍߐࠇࠆߎߣߪᭂ߼ߡዋߥ
޿‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ㄟ߼ࠄࠇߚᗧ๧߇‫⹤ޟ‬⠪ߩ᳞߼‫ߢޠ‬޽ࠆ㓙ߦ‫ࠍࠇߘޔ‬ฃߌขࠅߘ߮ࠇࠆߎߣߪ‫ߋߔޔ‬ߐ߹‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ࠍࠅ⺚ߩޠ‬ฃߌࠆߎߣߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩὐࠍ(1)ߩળ⹤ߢ⏕⹺ߒߡߺࠃ߁‫ޕ‬᜝ᒐߦ౉ࠆߴ߈⊒⹤ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬B ߇‫߹ޕߥ޿ࠅࠊޔࠎ߁ޡ‬ߚ⺃ߞߡߊࠇࠃ‫ߪߣߎࠆ߃╵ߣޢ‬චಽ޽ࠅᓧࠆ‫ޕ‬ߘߩ႐ว‫ޔ‬B ߪ A ߦኻߒߡ᣿⏕ߥ᰼᳞ࠍᛴ޿ߡ
޿ߥ޿႐ว߇ᄙ޿‫߅ޡߒ߆ߒޕ‬೨‫ޔ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿ߥ‫ߡߞ⸒ߣޢޕ‬ᙍᘣߔࠆߎߣ߽⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬႐ว‫ޔ‬B ߪ A ߇߅㊄ࠍ⾉ߒߡߊࠇࠆߎߣ‫޿ߥޔ‬ߒᅍߞߡߊࠇࠆߎߣࠍᦼᓙߒߡ޿ߚ߆߽ߒࠇߥ
޿‫ޔࠈߒߦࠇߕ޿ޕ‬B ߇ A ߦኻߒߡ૗ࠄ߆ߩ᰼
᳞ࠍᛴ޿ߡ޿ߡ‫߇ࠇߘޔ‬ḩߚߐࠇߥ޿ߣ޿߁㓙ߦ‫ޔ‬B ߪ A ࠍ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߔࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ઙᢙ
⚂ 541,000 ઙ⚂ 707,000 ઙ⚂ 170,000 ઙ⚂ 2,020,000 ઙ⚂ 214,000 ઙ⚂ 560,000 ઙ㧔2010 ᐕ 11 ᦬ 10 ᣣ Google ᬌ⚝㧕⴫ 1㧦ᩰഥ⹖ઃ߈‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫ޢ‬㧗‫ߩ⃻⴫߁઻ࠍޢ߻⺒ޡ‬㗫ᐲ⚛ឬߒ߆ߒ‫ޡޔ‬ⓨ᳇‫߇ޢ‬ᩰഥ⹖ࠍ઻ࠊߕ‫⚳ޔ‬ഥ⹖ߩ‫߁઻ࠍޢߥޡߪߚ߹ޢߨޡ‬႐วߦ଀ߦ⛉ࠆߣ‫૶ޔ‬↪ߩ௑ะߪ৻ጀ᣿⏕ߥ㆑޿ࠍ␜ߔ‫ ⴫ޕ‬1 ߩ႐วߣห᭽ߦ‫ޔ‬ᭂᕈߣᴺᕈߩ㆑޿ߦၮߠ޿ߡ⴫ 2 ߦ᜼ߍߚ 8 ⒳ߩ⴫⃻ࠍ߿ߪࠅ Google ߢᬌ⚝ߒߡߺࠆߣ‫ޔ‬࿶ୟ⊛ߦᄙߊߩ଀߇ุቯߢ↪޿ࠄࠇ‫ุߩߘޔ‬ቯ⴫⃻ߦ߅޿ߡߪ‫ޟ‬ਇน⢻‫ߩޠ‬ᴺᕈࠍ઻߁଀߇઻ࠊߥ
޿଀ࠃࠅ߽㆝߆ߦ㗫ᐲ߇㜞޿ߎߣ߇ಽ߆ࠆ‫ޕ‬৻ᣇ‫ޔ‬Ყ༙⊛ߥᗧ๧ߢߩ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫ߦ⺆⊛⋡ࠍޢ‬ขࠆ‫߇ޢ߻⺒ޡ‬๮઎ᢥߢ↪޿ࠄࠇࠆ႐วࠍหߓࠃ߁
ߦᬌ⚝ߒߡߺࠆߣ‫ ⴫ޔ‬3 ߦ␜ߒߚࠃ߁ߦ⢐ቯ๮઎ߩ⴫⃻ߩ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇⺒ߺߥࠃ‫ޢ‬‫ޔ‬‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇⺒ߺߥ‫ޔޢ‬‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇⺒ߺߥߐ޿‫ุߪޢ‬ቯᭂᕈߩ⑌ᱛ⴫⃻‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߻ߥ‫ޢ‬߿‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߻ߥࠃ‫ߣޢ‬ห⒟ᐲߩ㗫ᐲߢ޽ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ࠃ‫ߩޢ‬⢐ቯ⴫⃻ߪ⓭಴ߒߡᄙ޿‫ޕ‬એ਄ߩߎߣ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߻‫ⴕ߁޿ߣޠ‬ὑߪ‫ޔ‬ታⴕߐࠇߥ޿႐วߦ໧㗴ⷞߐࠇࠆߎߣ߇࿶ୟ⊛ߦᄙߊ‫ޔ‬ታⴕߐࠇࠆ႐วߦ໧㗴ߣߐࠇࠆ㗫ᐲߪߘࠇߦᲧߴߡૐ޿ߎߣ߇ಽ߆ࠆ‫ޔߡߒ⥌৻ߦࠇߘޕ‬ᐔคᢥߩਛߢߪ‫ޟޔ‬ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߻‫ⴕ߁޿ߣޠ‬ὑ߇ታⴕߐࠇߥ޿ߎߣࠍคㅀߔࠆ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߹ߥ޿‫ޔޢ‬(1)A㧦 ߎࠇ߆ࠄߺࠎߥߢ㘵㘩޿ߦⴕߊࠎߛ
ߌߤⴕ߆ߥ޿‫ޕ‬B㧦 ޽޽‫⛎ޔ߽ߢޕ߃ߨ޿޿ޔ‬ᢱ೨ߢ㊄ߥ޿ࠎߛࠃߨ‫ޕ‬A㧦ߘߞ߆‫઀ޔ޽߾ߓޕ‬ᣇߥ޿ߨ‫ޕ‬B㧦㧔㧕ߎߩ႐ว‫ޔ‬B ߇‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫ߣޢ‬๭ࠎߢ޿ࠆ߽ߩߩᱜ
૕ߪ‫⥄ޔ‬りߩ᰼᳞ߦㆊ߉ߥ޿‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᄙߊߩઁ⠪߇౒᦭ߔࠆߣᗐቯߐࠇࠆ‫ޟ‬⠌ᘠ‫␞ޔ‬௾‫ⷙޔ‬ೣ‫ޠ‬

2
−170−

第13回大会発表論文集ߥߤ߽หߓ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫ߢ⃻⴫߁޿ߣޢ‬๭߫ࠇࠆ‫⚿ޕ‬ᨐ‫ޔ‬B ߪ‫ޔ‬ᄙߊߩઁ⠪߇౒᦭ߔࠆߪߕߩߥ޿නߥࠆ⥄ࠄߩ᰼᳞ࠍ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫ߣޢ‬๭߱ߎߣߦࠃߞߡ‫ޔ‬ᕸ߽ߘࠇ߇ᄙߊߩઁ⠪߇౒᦭ߔࠆ‫ޟ‬⠌ᘠ‫␞ޔ‬௾‫ⷙޔ‬ೣ‫ޠ‬ߢ޽ࠆ߆ߩࠃ߁ߥṶ಴ࠍߔࠆߎߣ߇಴᧪ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ⹤⠪ߪ⡬⠪ߦ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߻‫ࠍߣߎޠ‬ᒝߊⷐ᳞ߔࠆ‫⹤ޔߪࠇߘޕ‬⠪߇᣿⸒ߔࠆߎߣࠍㆱߌ‫ޔ‬⡬⠪ߪߘࠇࠍኤߔࠆߎߣ߇㊀ࠎߓࠄࠇࠆߣ޿߁
વ⛔⊛ߥᣣᧄ㧔⺆㧕ᢥൻߩ⠌ᘠ࡮௑ะߢ޽ࠆߣߩ
ᜰ៰߽޽ࠆ‫⹤ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬⠪߇‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߻‫ߣߎޠ‬ࠍᒝߊⷐ᳞ߔࠆℂ↱ߪ‫ߚߒ߁ߘޔ‬ᅏࠁ߆ߒ޿ᢥൻ
⊛⠌ᘠ࡮௑ะ߫߆ࠅߦ޽ࠆߩߢߪߥ޿‫ޕ‬ᩮḮ⊛ߦߪ‫ޔ‬୘‫⹤ߩޘ‬⠪߇⥄ಽߩ᰼᳞ࠍḩߚߒߚ޿ߣᕁ߁
߆ࠄߦઁߥࠄߕ‫ޟߡߒߣᤨޔ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ࠍߔࠆߩߪߘߩ᰼᳞߇ḩߚߐࠇߥ޿ߎߣ߳ߩ⧦
┙ߜ߿⣻≹ߖ߆ࠄ↢ߓߡ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ታ㓙‫ޔ‬(1)ߦ㑐ߒߡㅀߴߚࠃ߁ߦ‫ߚߒ߁ߘޔ‬᰼᳞߇㗼⪺ߦߪሽ࿷ߖߕ‫ޔ‬ㄟ߼ࠄࠇߚᗧ๧ߩ‫ޟ‬વ㆐‫⹤⊒߇ޠ‬ⴕὑߩਥ⋡⊛ߢ޽ࠆ႐วߪ‫ޟޔ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ⴕὑ߇ߥߐࠇࠆߎߣߪᭂ߼ߡዋߥ޿‫ޕ‬
 ᴺᕈߩ៺ࠅᦧ߃ OQFCNKV[ UJKHV
3.1 ▵ߢ⏕⹺ߒߚࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⸒ߪ‫ޡޔ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿ߨ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩޢ‬ᐔคᢥߢ޽ࠇ‫ޡޔ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼㧔ࠃ㧕‫ߥ߁ࠃߩޢ‬๮઎ᢥߢ޽ࠇ‫ޔ‬ᗧ࿑ߐࠇࠆ‫⹤⊒ޟ‬ౝⴕὑ‫⹤ޟߪޠ‬⠪߇⡬⠪ߦኻߒߡ᰼᳞ࠍᛴ޿ߡ޿ࠆ߇‫߇ࠇߘޔ‬ḩߚߐࠇߥ޿‫ߎޠ‬ߣࠍવ㆐ߔࠆߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬વ㆐ߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޔ‬‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫⹤ߪ⺆߁޿ߣޢ‬⠪ߩ୘ੱ⊛ߥ᰼᳞ࠍᜰߔߦㆊ߉
ߥ޿ߪߕߛ߇‫ޔ‬หߓ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫ࠇߐ⴫ߢ⺆߁޿ߣޢ‬ᓧࠆߎߣ߆ࠄ‫ߩߘޔ‬᰼᳞ߩౝኈ߇ᄙߊߩઁ⠪߇౒᦭ߔࠆ‫ޟ‬⠌ᘠ‫␞ޔ‬௾‫ⷙޔ‬ೣ‫޿ⵝߦ߁ࠃߩ߆ࠆ޽ߢޠ‬ᒰᖺߐߖࠆ‫⹤⊒ޟ‬ᇦ੺ⴕὑ‫߽ࠍޠ‬น⢻ߦߔࠆ‫ߘޕ‬ߎ ߦ ߪ ‫ ޔ‬㗿 ᦸ (optative) ߣ ޿ ߁ ᴺ ᕈ ࠍ ⟵ ോ(obligation)ߣ޿߁ᴺᕈߦߔࠆ‫ߓ↢߇ޠ߃ᦧࠅ៺ޟ‬ߡ޿ࠆߎߣߦᵈᗧߔߴ߈ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬એ਄ߩߎߣߪ‫ޔ‬࿑ 1 ߩࠃ߁࿑␜ߐࠇࠆ 2‫ޕ‬S‫ޔ‬Aߣᦠ߆ࠇߚ౞ߪ⹤⠪ߣ⡬⠪ࠍ‫ޔ‬⍫ශߪߘࠇߙࠇߩ
‛ℂ⊛ߥ޿ߒᔃ⊛ജߩⴕ૶ࠍ⴫ߔ‫ޟޕ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⸒ࠍߔࠆ㓙‫⹤ޔ‬⠪ߪ 1(a)ߦ࿑␜ߐࠇ
ࠆࠃ߁ߦ⡬⠪ߩ૗ࠄ߆ߩⴕേࠍᒁ߈⿠ߎߘ߁ߣ
ߔࠆ᰼᳞㧔࿑ਛߩ S’s want㧕ࠍᛴ޿ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬(a)ߒ߆ߒ‫ޔ‬1(b)ߦ࿑␜ߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫⹤ޔ‬⠪߇ߘߩ᭎ᔨൻ߆ࠄ⥄ࠄߩᆫࠍᝥ⽎ߔࠆ㧔scope ߩᄖߦ૏⟎ઃߌࠆ㧕ߎߣߦࠃߞߡ‫ޔ‬⡬⠪ߩⴕേࠍᒁ߈⿠ߎߘ
߁ߣߔࠆജࠍ⥄ಽߩ᰼᳞ߢߪߥ޿߽ߩߣߒߡ⷗
┙ߡࠆߎߣ߇น⢻ߦߥࠆ‫ ߪߦ޿ߟޔߡߒߘޕ‬1(c)ߩࠃ߁ߦ‫ߩߘޔ‬ജࠍ‫ޟ‬ᘠ⠌࡮␞௾࡮ⷙೣ‫߁ࠃߩޠ‬ߥ␠ળ⊛ߦ௛ߊജߣ⋴஖ߔߎߣߦᚑഞߔࠆ‫ޕ‬࿑ 1(a)‫ޔ‬1(b)‫ޔ‬1(c)ߪ‫(ߩ⺆⧷ࠇߙࠇߘޔ‬2a)‫(ޔ‬2b)‫ޔ‬(2c)ߩਥߥᗧ๧᭴ㅧߦ᭎ߨ৻⥌ߔࠆ‫(ޕ‬2b)ߣ(2c)ߪ‫⟵߽ࠇߕ޿ޔ‬ോߩ⴫⃻ߣ⋴஖ߐࠇࠆ߇‫(ޔ‬2c)߇
␠ળ⊛ߦ⺖ߐࠇࠆ⟵ോ㧔␠ળ⊛ⷐ⺧㧕ࠍ⴫⃻ߔࠆߩߦኻߒߡ‫(ޔ‬2b)ߢߪߘߩ⟵ോࠍ⺖ߔߩߪ⹤⠪⥄り㧔୘ੱ⊛ⷐ᳞㧕ߛߣ⸃㉼ߐࠇࠆ௑ะ߇ᒝ޿‫ޕ‬
(2)

(b)

A(/S)

࿑ 2㧦⟵ോ(obligation)ߩᴺᕈ ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߦኻߔࠆ᦭ലߥᣇ╷ᧄⓂߩరߣߥࠆᣣᧄ⺆↪⺰ቇળߢߩ⊒⴫ߢߪ‫ޔ‬
ࡗࡑࠨ CM ᖱႎዪឝタߩ‫ޟ‬㞲ᐲߩ৻Ṣ ․ㆬߒࠂ߁ࠁ‫ ࠻࠶ࡐࠬࡆ࡟࠹ߩޠ‬CM‫ޟ‬ᇾߣᆑߩⓨ᳇‫ޠ‬㧔ߔߏ޿㧕▻(http://www.yamasa.com/cm/details/sub13.
html)ߢߩળ⹤ 3 ࠍෳ⠨ߦ‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿
߳ߩኻಣᴺߩ৻ߟࠍᜰ៰ߒ‫࡮ࠕޟޔ‬㜞⠪‫ߩޠ‬ቇ⠌ᡰេࡕ࠺࡞߳ߩᔕ↪ࠍឭ᩺ߒߚ‫⚕ޕ‬㕙ߩㇺว਄⹦ㅀߪㆱߌ‫ߩߘޔ‬ኻಣᴺࠍએਅߦ⇛ㅀߔࠆߦ⇐߼ࠆ‫ޕ‬(3)

S’s wantAᆑ㧦޽࡯ࠄ‫㉟ߚ߹ޔ‬ᴤᄌ߃ߚߩ‫ᧄߚߥ޽ޕ‬ᒰߦⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿ࠊߨ㧍ᇾ㧦޿޿߃‫ޔ‬ⓨ᳇ߦ⸅ࠇߥ޿ߛߌߢߔ‫ޕ‬࠽࡟࡯࡚ࠪࡦ㧦ⓨ᳇ߦ⸅ࠇߥ޿߆ࠄ㉄ൻ߇㒐ߍߡ޿ߟߢ߽ᣂ㞲‫ޕ‬ࡗࡑࠨ‫ޟ‬㞲ᐲߩ৻Ṣ‫․ޠ‬ㆬ㉟ᴤᣂ⊒ᄁ‫ޕ‬ᇾ㧦ߔߏ޿ߢߒࠂ㧍ᆑ㧦㉟ᴤߪߨ‫ޕ‬⹤⠪߇‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ࠍߔࠆߎߣ
ߩ೨ឭ࡮⢛᥊ߦߪ‫⹤ޟޔ‬⠪߇⡬⠪ߦኻߒߡ૗ࠄ߆
ߩ᰼᳞ࠍᛴ޿ߡ߅ࠅ‫߇ࠇߘޔ‬ḩߚߐࠇߥ޿ߎߣߦ
ਇḩࠍⷡ߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫߁޿ߣޠ‬ᢥ⣂߇ሽ࿷ߔࠆߎߣࠍ
╙ 3 ▵ߢ␜ߒߚ‫ޕ‬਄⸥(1)ߢ B ߩ⹤⠪߇ੑ࿁⋡ߩ⊒⹤ߢ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ࠍߒߚᤨ‫ޔ‬A߇ B ߩ᰼᳞ߦ᳇ઃ߈‫ࠍࠇߘޔ‬ḩߚߔߴߊ߅㊄ࠍ⾉ߔ߆ᅍࠆ߆ߔࠆߎߣࠍ↳ߒ಴ࠇ߫‫ޔ‬B ߪኈᤃߦᘒᐲࠍエൻߐߖ‫ޔ߆߁ߘޟޔ‬ᖡ޿ߥ‫߅ޔ޽߾ߓޕ‬⸒⪲ߦ↞߃ߡ̖‫ޟߩࠄ⥄ߡߞ⸒ߣޠ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬

(c)
A

S

I want you to do it.
You must do it.
You have to do it.

law/convention/rule/manners

A

S

a.
b.
c.

ᓥߞߡ‫(ޔ‬2b)ߪ๮઎ᢥࠍ↪޿ߡනߦ Do it ߣ⸒߁ࠃࠅ߽๮઎ญ⺞ߢ㜞࿶⊛ߣฃߌขࠄࠇ߿ߔ޿‫ޕ‬ߘࠇߦኻߒߡ‫(ޔ‬2c)ߦߪߘߩࠃ߁ߥ࠾ࡘࠕࡦࠬߪ
฽߹ࠇߦߊߊ‫ޔ‬࿑ 2 ߦ࿑␜ߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߥ␠ળ⊛ߥⷙ▸ߦ⸒෸ߒߡ޿ࠆࠃ߁ߦ⸃㉼ߐࠇ߿ߔ޿‫ޕ‬ਔ⴫⃻ߩ੤឵߽៺ࠅᦧ߃ࠍน⢻ߦߔࠆ‫ޕ‬

S’s want
S

第６号

convention/manners/rule࿑ 1㧦㗿ᦸ(optative)߆ࠄ⟵ോ(obligation)߳

3
−171−

Modality shift：KY扱いの発話行為とそのコンテクストの概念記述を中心にᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ࠍ᠗࿁ߔࠆ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ޟࠅ߹ߟޕ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ⴕὑ߇‫⹤ޟ‬⠪⥄りߩ᰼᳞ߩሽ࿷ߣ‫ߩߘޔ‬ਇḩ⿷ࠍવ㆐ߔࠆߎߣ‫ࠆ޽ߢޠ‬႐วߪ‫ߩߘޔ‬᰼᳞ࠍℂ⸃ߒ‫ߦࠇߘޔ‬ᔕ߃ࠆ⸒േࠍข
ࠆߎߣ߇᦭ലߥᣇ╷ߣߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎࠇߦኻߒ‫(ޔ‬3)ߩࠃ߁ߥ႐วߪ‫ޔ‬ห᭽ߥ⸒േ
߇ㆡಾߥᣇ╷ߣߥࠅᓧߥ޿‫㉟ޔ߽ߘ߽ߘޕ‬ᴤࠍᄌ߃ߚߛߌߢ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ࠍߔࠆߣ޿߁ߎ
ߣ⥄૕‫⇣࡮⺆⸒⇣ޔ‬ᢥൻߩੱߦߣߞߡߪᭂ߼ߡ㔍⸃ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬෻㕙‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄ㧔⺆㧕ᢥൻߦዻߔࠆੱߢ޽
ࠇ߫‫(ޔ‬3)ߩ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ߦኻߒߡಠߘ౒ㅢߒߚℂ⸃ࠍ␜ߒ‫ޔ‬ᗧ⷗ߦᄢ߈ߥᏅ⇣߇↢ߓߦߊ޿‫ࠇߘޕ‬᡿‫ ߩߎޔ‬CM ߩᗧ࿑ߣ㕙⊕ߐ߇ⷞ⡬⠪ߦવࠊࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫౒ߚߒ߁ߘޕ‬ㅢℂ⸃ࠍᡰ߃ࠆߩߪ‫ޔ‬3 ▵ߢ⇛ㅀߒߚ‫ޟ‬ਇḩ⿷᰼᳞વ㆐ߩ⊒⹤ⴕὑ‫ޟߣޠ‬ᴺᕈߩ៺ࠅᦧ߃ߦࠃࠆ⊒⹤ᇦ੺ⴕὑ‫ޠ‬ߣ޿߁઀⚵ߺߦઁߥࠄߥ޿‫ޕ‬(3)ߩ႐ว‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ߪ‫߽ޔ‬
ߪ߿(1)ߩࠃ߁ߦ‫ޟ‬᰼᳞ࠍᛴ޿ߡ޿ࠆߎߣ‫ࠇߘޔ‬߇ḩߚߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߎߣࠍવ㆐ߔࠆ‫⹤⊒߁޿ߣޠ‬ⴕὑߦ⇐߹ࠄߕ‫ߩߘޟޔ‬᰼᳞ߦ᳇ઃ߆ߥ޿㊰ᗵߥੱ㑆ߢ޽ࠆߣߒߡ㕖㔍ߔࠆߎߣߢ࿎ᖺߐߖࠆ‫ߣޠ‬޿߁⊒⹤ᇦ੺ⴕὑߦ෸߱‫ߩߘޔߦᦝޕ‬୘ੱ⊛᰼᳞ࠍ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇‫ߣޢ‬๭߱ߎߣߢ⠌ᘠ‫␞ޔ‬௾‫ⷙޔ‬ೣߣ޿߁␠ળ⊛ߥขࠅ᳿߼ߢ޽ࠆ߆ߩࠃ߁ߦⵝ޿‫ࠍࠇߘޔ‬቞ࠄߥ޿‫ޟ‬ㅅᖺ⠪‫ޔޠ‬‫ޟ‬㆑෻⠪‫ޔޠ‬‫⟋‽ޟ‬⠪‫┙⷗ߣޠ‬ߡ‫ޟߪߡ޿߭ޔ‬ឃ㒰ߔߴ߈ሽ࿷‫ޔޠ‬‫ޟ‬ᔊ߻ߴ߈ሽ࿷‫ޠ‬ߣߒߡߩὝශࠍ᛼ߔߎߣߦ߹ߢ௑߈ᓧࠆ‫ޕ‬
ߎߩℂਇዧߥ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿߳ߩኻಣᴺ
ߩ৻ߟߪ‫(ޔ‬3)ߩ CM ਛߦ⷗಴ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᆑߩ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ߦኻߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᇾߪ‫ޔ߃޿޿ޟ‬ⓨ᳇ߦ⸅ࠇߥ޿ߛߌߢߔ‫࡟࠽ߡ޿⛯ޕࠆ߃╵ߣޠ‬࡯࡚ࠪࡦ߇੹࿁ᇾߩㆬࠎߛ㉟ᴤߩఝࠇߚὐࠍ⚫
੺ߒ‫ࠍࠇߘޔ‬ᩮ᜚ߦᇾ߇‫ߣޠࠂߒߢ޿ߏߔޟ‬ઃߌട߃ࠆ‫ޟߪࠇߎޕ‬ఝࠇߚ㉟ᴤ‫ࠍޠ‬ㆬࠎߛ‫ޟ‬ఝࠇߚᇾ‫⹏߁޿ߣޠ‬ଔࠍᒁ߈಴ߔ⊒⸒ߣߒߡ߽⸃㉼น⢻ߢ‫ޔ‬ᆑ߇᛼ߒઃߌࠃ߁ߣߒߚ‫ޟ‬㚝⋡ߥᇾ‫ޔޠ‬‫ޟ‬ᖡ޿ᇾ‫⹏߁޿ߣޠ‬ଔࠍᛄ᜞ߔࠆജࠍᜬߟ‫ޕ‬ᆑߪ‫㉟ޟ‬ᴤߪߨ‫ߣޠ‬ㇱಽ⊛ߦߘࠇࠍ⹺߼ࠆ৻ᣇ‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬ఝࠇߚᇾ‫ޠ‬ߣ޿߁⹏ଔߦߪหᗧ಴᧪ߥ޿ߣ޿߁ᗧᕁ⴫␜ࠍ
ㄆ߁ߓߡߔࠆ‫ޕ‬⍴ᤨ㑆ߩኸ഍ࠍߎߩࠃ߁ߦ⸃೬ߒ‫ޔ‬ߊߤߊߤ⺑᣿ߒߚߩߢߪ‫ޔ‬CM ߦㄟ߼ࠄࠇߚᯏ⍮߿⥝⿰ߪบήߒߛ߇‫ޟޔ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿߳ߩ৻ߟߩ᦭⋉ߥᣇ╷߇ዉߌࠆߎߣ߽੐ታߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ήℂߥⷐ᳞ࠍ᛼ߒઃߌߚࠅ‫⋧ߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬ᚻࠍ㕖㔍ߒឃ㒰ߔࠆߎߣ߇ਥ⋡⊛ߣߥࠆ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ߦኻߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬వߕ╙৻ߦ㤩Ვߔࠆߎߣ߇᦭ലߣߥࠅᓧࠆ‫(ޕ‬3)ߩ‫ޔ߃޿޿ޟ‬ⓨ᳇ߦ⸅ࠇߥ޿ߛߌߢߔ‫߁޿ߣޠ‬ᇾߩ⊒⸒ߪ‫ޟޔ‬ⓨ᳇߇⺒߼ߥ޿‫߁޿ߣޠ‬ᆑߩ⊒⹤ࠍ⋥ធขࠅวࠊߕ‫⹤ޔ‬㗴ࠍ㉟ᴤߦಾࠅᦧ߃ߡߒ߹߁‫㉟ޔߡߒߘޕ‬ᴤ߇⦟޿߽ߩߢ޽ࠆߎߣࠍᆑߦવ߃ߡ‫ߩߘޔ‬ળ⹤ࠍ⚳߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᆑߪ‫⥄ޔ‬ಽߩ⸒േࠍߪߋࠄ߆ߐࠇߚߣ޿߁ශ
⽎ࠍᛴߊ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿߇‫৻ߩߘޔ‬ᣇߢ‫ޔ‬ᇾߩ⸒േߩ৻ㇱࠍኈ⹺಴᧪ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߦߎߎޕ‬ℂਇዧߥ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ߦኻߔࠆ‫᦭ޔ‬ലߥኻಣᴺ
߇ౕ⃻ൻߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߣ⷗ࠆߎߣ߇಴᧪ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ߅ࠊࠅߦ
ᧄ⺰⠨ߪ‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ߩ฽ᗧ‫ޔ‬೨ឭ‫ޔ‬ᢥ⣂ߣ᭎ᔨൻࠍ⸥ㅀߒ‫ߦߎߘޔ‬ᴺᕈߩ៺ࠅᦧ߃߇฽߹ࠇᓧࠆߎߣࠍ␜ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ḩߚߐࠇߧ᰼᳞
ߩવ㆐ࠍ⋡⊛ߣߔࠆ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ߦߪ‫ⷐߩߘޔ‬᳞ߦ᳇ઃ޿ߡ‫ࠍࠇߘޔ‬ḩߚߔ⸒േࠍ
ขࠆߎߣ߇᦭ലߥᣇ╷ߣߥࠅᓧࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ήℂߥⷐ᳞ࠍ᛼ߒઃߌߚࠅ‫⋧ߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬ᚻࠍ㕖㔍ߒឃ㒰ߒࠃ߁ߣߔࠆߎߣ߇ਥ⋡⊛ߩ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ߩ⊒⹤ߦߪ‫⸒ߥ߁ࠃߩߘޔ‬േ߇᦭ലߥᣇ╷ߣߥࠄߕ‫ޔ‬ขࠅวࠊߥ޿ߎߣ߇᦭ലߥ႐ว߽޽ࠆߎߣࠍᜰ
៰ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ᓧࠄࠇߚ⍮⷗ߪ‫⪺ޔ‬⠪ࠄ߇ขࠅ⚵߻ CRM 㐿⊒ߦᔕ↪ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ቇ⠌⠪ߪ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ࠍߐࠇߥ޿⚻〝ࠍቇ߮ขࠆߎߣߦട߃‫ߩߘޔ‬ᛒ޿ࠍ⋥ធขࠅวࠊߕ‫⹤ޔ‬㗴ࠍᏁߺߦಾࠅᦧ߃ߚࠅ‫ߘޔ‬ߩ⊒⸒⠪߇ㇱಽ⊛ߦ߽ኈ⹺ߒߚߊߥࠆࠃ߁ߥ⸒
േࠍᎿᄦߔࠆᣇ╷ࠍ⍮ࠆߎߣ߽㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬1⸼ߘߩ႐ߩᄢ൓ߩෳਈ⠪߇౒᦭ߔࠆ߽ߩߢ޽ߞߡ߽‫ޔ‬಄
ᴰ(2006: 75-76)ߢ଀␜ߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߥ႐วߦ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇⺒߼ߥ޿‫ޠ‬ᛒ޿ࠍฃߌࠆォᩞ↢ߪ‫ߥ⊛᧪ᧄޔ‬ᗧ๧ߢ‫ޟ‬ᴺᓞ‫ޠ‬߿‫ⷙޟ‬ೣ‫␞ޟߣߎߩࠎࠈߜ߽ߪޠ‬௾‫ޟ߿ޠ‬Ᏹ⼂‫ߩޠ‬㆑෻ߦಎ߃ࠄࠇࠆ⻐ࠊࠇߪή޿‫ޕ‬නߦ‫ߩߢࠬ࡜ࠢߩߘޔ‬‫ޟ‬ᖡߒ߈‫ޠ‬ᘠ⠌ߦ㆑෻ߒߚߣ޿߁ߛߌߢ‫ޔ‬ካࠈ‫ߩߘޔ‬ઁᄢ൓ߩࠢ࡜ࠬࡔ࡯࠻ߩᣇ߇‫␞ޟ‬௾‫ޟ߿ޠ‬Ᏹ⼂‫ߩޠ‬㆑෻⠪ߢ޽ࠆߣߩ⷗ᣇ߽น⢻ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
2ߎߎߢߩ⠨ኤߪ‫ޔ‬Langacker (1987, 1991)ߩ⹺⍮ᢥᴺߦଐ᜚ߔࠆ߇‫⸥ޔ‬ㅀ࡮ಽᨆߩ㆏ౕ┙ߡߪ੗╴(2002)ߩ‫ޟ‬႐ᚲߣജ‫ߦ࡞࠺ࡕޠ‬ၮߠߊ‫ᧄޕ‬Ⓜߢ↪޿ࠆ㆏ౕ┙ߡߪ‫ޔ‬
Talmy (1988)ߩ Force Dynamics ߦࠃࠅㄭ޿ᒻߢ‫ޔ‬಴᧪੐ߩ᭎ᔨൻࠍߘߩ‫ޟ‬ෳਈ⠪‫ޠ‬‫ߩࠄࠇߘޔ‬㑆ߢⴕࠊࠇࠆ‫ޟ‬ജߩ߿ࠅߣࠅ‫ޠ‬‫ޟࠄࠇߘޔ‬ෳਈ⠪‫ޟ߿ޠ‬ജߩⴕ૶‫߇ޠ‬૏⟎ઃߌࠄࠇࠆ‫ޟ‬႐ᚲ‫ߩ⃻⴫⺆⸒ޔߢߣߎࠆ⛉ࠍ⚛ⷐߦޠ‬ᗧ๧ࠍ┵⊛ߦᝒ߃ࠆߎߣࠍᗧ࿑ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
3ർᶏ㆏ᢎ⢒ᄢቇߩጊ↰␽৻᳁ߦࠃࠆ⡞߈⿠ߎߒ࠹ࠢ
ࠬ࠻ࠍ೑↪ߐߖߡ㗂޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ෳ⠨ᢥ₂

࿯ዬஜ㇢. 1971. ‫ޡ‬‫ߩޠ߃↞ޟ‬᭴ㅧ‫ޢ‬. ᧲੩㧦ᒄᢥၴ࿯੗㓉⟵. 2008. ‫ޡ‬෹ߛߜ࿾ₐʊ‫ޟ‬ⓨ᳇ࠍ⺒߻‫ޠ‬਎ઍߩࠨࡃࠗࡃ࡞‫ޢ‬㧔ߜߊ߹ᣂᦠ㧕.
੗╴ൎା. 2002.‫ޡ‬႐ᚲߣജ㧦ᗧ๧ߦၮߠߊ⧷ᢥᴺᐨ⺑‫ޢ‬.
᧲੩㧦⃻ઍᎿቇ␠
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar, Vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar, vol.2: Descriptive Application. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
಄ᴰᓆᒾ. 2006. ‫ޡ‬‫ޟ‬㑐ଥߩⓨ᳇‫ޠ‬‫ޟ‬႐ߩⓨ᳇‫ޢޠ‬㧔⻠⺣␠⃻ઍᣂᦠ㧕.
Tajitsu, Kiyoshi, Ikuya Murata, Katsunobu Izutsu, andTakeo Tatsumi. 2009. Panic Reflection Model: alearning/training support system against the panic
action and its Flash-based application for a child withhigh-function autism. Presented at IASSID 2nd Asia
Pacific Regional Congress, Singapore.
Tajitsu, Kiyoshi, Katsunobu Izutsu, Takeo Tatsumi,
Yoshiaki Nakano, and Tsutomu Wada. 2010. An
examination of the effectiveness of Panic Reflection
Model for a child with Asperger’s syndrome. Presented
at the 3rd International Conference of IASSID-Europe:
Integrating Biomedical and Psycho-Social-Educational
Perspectives, Rome. (The abstract appears in Journal ofApplied Research in Intellectual Disabilites 23-5.
Wiley-Blackwell)
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force Dynamics in Language andCognition. Cognitive Science 12, 49-100.
ጊᧄ৾ᐔ. 1983. ‫ޡ‬ⓨ᳇ߩ⎇ⓥ‫ޢ‬㧔ᢥᤐᢥᐶ㧕.

4
−172−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

A Study on Locative Inversion and There Constructions
Yuya Ohkawa
Sapporo University

Abstract
This study discusses the function of there constructions and their possible expansion to locative
inversion constructions. While recent research has shown that the grammaticality of there constructions
relies significantly on the types of verbs that are allowed to occur, it is undeniable that simple analyses
based on verb types sometimes fail to describe accurate grammaticality. By closely examining wherephrases indicating situation occur in a sentence, this study enables us to categorize the constructions inquestion into two types. In addition, we also intend to illustrate that one type of there constructions isformally and functionally related to locative inversion constructions.
Keywords: there constructions, locative inversion constructions, situation

1. Introduction
It seems reasonable to suppose that unaccusative verbs that represent appearance or existence are
acceptable in there constructions, while the other types of verbs such as unergative and transitive ones
are not, as has been pointed out by Belletti (1988), Lumsden (1988), and Levin (1993). The lists below
show specific instances of verbs that are allowed to occur in relevant constructions that have been
adapted from Levin (1993), in which much attention is given to the classification of verb types inEnglish.
(1) a. Verbs of existencecoexist, ?correspond, ?depend, dwell, endure, exist, extend, flourish, languish, linger, live,
loom, lurk, overspread, persist, predominate, prevail, prosper, remain, reside, shelter, stay,survive, thrive, tower, wait

(Levin 1993: 249)

b. Verbs of appearance
appear, arise, awake, awaken, break, burst, come, dawn, derive, develop, emanate, emerge,
erupt, evolve, exude, flow, form, grow, gush, issue, materialize, open, plop, result, rise,
spill, spread, steal, stem, stream, supervene, surge, wax; pop up, show up, turn up(ibid.: 258)c. Verbs of occurrence
ensue, eventuate, happen, occur, recur, transpire(ibid.: 260)

However, Takami and Kuno (2002) argue against the above view and offer a possible alternative,
as in (2).

−173−

A Study on Locative Inversion and There Constructions(2) The there construction is acceptable if and only if the element on the left side of the semantic
subject is construed as connoting appearance/disappearance or existence/nonexistence that isobservable to the speaker or the character that the speaker focuses on.
(Takami and Kuno 2002: 65-66, translated by the author)
The functional constraint in (2) gives a good account of the acceptability of the there constructions in(3), where the typical ergative verb walk shows itself in each sentence.
(3) a. * There walked two prison guards into the courtroom.
(Takami and Kuno 2002: 51, underlined by the author)b. There walked into the courtroom two prison guards.

(ibid.)

c. Into the courtroom there walked two prison guards.

(ibid.)In (3a), there is no element denoting appearance/disappearance or existence/nonexistence on the left
side of the semantic subject two prison guards, which leads to total ungrammaticality. It is worth noting
that

the

verb

walk

simplyimplies

action,ratherthan

appearance/disappearanceorexistence/nonexistence. In contrast, (3b) and (3c) are found to be acceptable since each sentence has the
prepositional phrase construed as denoting appearance, into the courtroom, on the left side of thesemantic subject.
The objectives of this study are to (i) illustrate instances that are not subject to the constraint statedin (2), (ii) propose that there constructions be classified into two types in terms of function and word
order, (iii) suppose that one of the two types formally and functionally behaves like the so called
locative inversion constructions.

2. Mismatch between corpus data and Takami and Kuno’s constraint
Let us consider the following sentences.
(4) a. There appeared an unknown young man in our midst.

(BNC)

b. * In our midst, there appeared an unknown young man.
In (4), an unknown young man is the semantic subject and appeared obviously represents appearance.
While (4a) is a typical there construction and fully meets the requirement in (2), (4b) is judged as
unacceptable, despite the fact that the element denoting appearance lies on the left side of the semantic
subject.
Here is another illustration that does not seem to be affected by the functional condition.
(5) a. On 7 October there began the debate on the revised version of the document on the−174−第13回大会発表論文集第６号

missionary activity of the Church.

(BNC)b. * There began the debate on the revised version of the document on the missionary activityof the Church on 7 October.
Although (5a), a real-life example, is acceptable, we cannot specify any components connoting
appearance/disappearance or existence/nonexistence on the left side of the semantic subject the debate
on the revised version of the document on the missionary activity of the Church. In addition, it isapparent that the verb begin does not belong to verbs of existence, appearance, and occurrence, as
referred to in (1). In contrast, (5b), where the prepositional phrase is placed elsewhere, is deemed
unnatural.

3. Suggestion and Observation
The present section seeks to provide alternative functional constraints on there constructions bylooking into the actual use of the constructions. We propose that there constructions should make clear
how, when, where, or why someone/something is involved with appearance/disappearance orexistence/nonexistence, and that there constructions should fall into either one of the two types below:(i) appearance/existence-explicit (hereafter AE) there constructions and (ii) situation-explicit (hereafterS) there constructions. Most notably, the distinction between them depends on the word order. In AE
there constructions, phrases indicating situations such as how, when, where, and why should not occur
at the beginning of a sentence, whereas in S there constructions, those phrases should occur at the
beginning of a sentence.
Let us see some examples to bear out our proposition. Each of the sentences in (6) is an AE
because the verb lurk in this situation stands for existence.
(6) a. There lurked an element of Dylan Thomas’s in his character.

(BNC)

b. There lurked, in his character, an element of Dylan Thomas’s.
c. ? In his character, there lurked an element of Dylan Thomas’s.
d. ? There lurked an element of Dylan Thomas’s.
As shown in (6a) and (6b), the phrase indicating where something exists, in his character, is not at thehead, which allows us to consider them as AE there constructions. In contrast, (6c), with the phrase
indicating the place at the beginning, is deemed ungrammatical, and (6d) is also considered
ungrammatical since there is no clue as to where the element of Dylan Thomas’s is to be found.
Let us observe the following sentences. Each of them is categorized as an S because it is difficult toregard the verb follow as indicating appearance/existence.
(7) a. * There followed several days of anxious waiting after the accident.

−175−

A Study on Locative Inversion and There Constructions

b. ? There followed, after the accident, several days of anxious waiting.
c. After the accident, there followed several days of anxious waiting.
d. ? There followed several days of anxious waiting.
Judging from the ungrammaticality in all the instances except (7c), phrases indicting when something
follows are requisite and should be placed at the head of a sentence. It seems that in sentences like (7c),speakers emphatically describe a particular situation rather than the fact that several days of anxious
waiting followed.
We may be in a position to say that S there constructions are formally and functionally identical tolocative inversion constructions, whose typical form is “locative phrase + verb + noun.” The following
examples demonstrate that their form is similar to that of S there constructions, but there in eachsentence tends to be interpreted as a specific place like in a chair or in bed.
(8) a. ? There lolled Kroff Tezla, Lieutenant of the Blood Drinkers, steadfastly beholding one
jaundiced sector of the cosmos.
b. ? There lolled, steadfastly beholding one jaundiced sector of the cosmos, Kroff Tezla,
Lieutenant of the Blood Drinkers.
c. Steadfastly beholding one jaundiced sector of the cosmos, there lolled Kroff Tezla,
Lieutenant of the Blood Drinkers.

(BNC)

d. ? There lolled Kroff Tezla, Lieutenant of the Blood Drinkers.
The forms and grammaticality in all the sentences in (7) and (8) are roughly similar, but (7c) is likely to
be seen as an S there construction, whereas (8c) is likely to be seen as a locative inversion construction.
We observe that the difference between the two is gradable to the full extent, but there is room forfurther investigation on this point.

References
Belletti, A. 1988. “The Case of Unaccusativity,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1-34.
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternation: A Preliminary Investigation, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface,Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lumsden, M. 1988. Existential Sentences: Their Structure and Meaning, New York: Croom Helm.
Takami, K. and S. Kuno. 2002. Nichi-eigo no Jidoshikobun (A Functional Analysis of Intransitive
Constructions in English and Japanese). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
CorpusBritish National Corpus [BNC] (http://scn02.corpora.jp/~sakura04/index.html)−176−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

PWFS рླэ͐पᇓ͑џ࠘эѿ‫ৣڴ‬ੳ!
.۷তಶ඘ાѢ଺ຜѢࠑ฾пѽ.!
!
኱ᔱ ࣝࣜᏊ
኱㜰኱Ꮫ[㝔]㸺Abstract㸼
This paper focuses on the path component for over from the perspective of acquiring English
prepositions. The path component for over ranges from the basic one in The girl walked over thebridge. to the one in Come over and have a drink.; the latter is thought to be the mentally scanned
path by a speaker. The path component of this type is considered to be the pragmatic usage ofover. In analyzing data from the Frown Corpus, this study suggests the idea which helps thecomprehensive learning of these path components for over.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸 㸯. ๓⨨モ   㸰. ⤒㊰  㸱. ゝㄒ⩦ᚓϧ! ѣьѵџ!
ⱥㄒࢆ➨஧ゝㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚⩦ᚓࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊ๓⨨モࡣ⩦ᚓࡀ᭱ࡶᅔ㞴࡞ഃ㠃ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ๓⨨モࡢព࿡ࡸᶵ⬟ࡀከᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ୰Ꮫᰯ࣭㧗➼Ꮫᰯ࡛ࡣయ⣔ⓗ࡟ᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸⌧≧ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ๓
⨨モࡢ⌮ゎࡣ᭕᫕࡛࠶ࡿࠋ๓⨨モࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊ㟼࣭ືⓗ≧ἣ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ over ࡣ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㞴ゎ࡞๓⨨モࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡾࠊከᵝ࡞≧ἣ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⤒㊰⩏ࡣ⌮ゎࡢ௙᪉ࡀ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋover ࡀ⾲ࡍᇶᮏⓗ࡞⤒㊰ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊThe girl walked over the bridge.࡟࠾࠸࡚ࢺࣛࢪ࢙ࢡࢱ࣮ ཧ୚⪅㛫࡛ࡼࡾ㝿❧ࡘ⪅㸸௨ୗ TR ࡛࠶ࡿ girl ࡀ✵㛫ෆ࡛㎺ࡿ≀⌮ⓗ࡞⤒㊰࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
TR ࡀ᫂♧໬ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ Come overand have a drink.ࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊover ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀᚰⓗ࡟㎺ࡿ⤒㊰ࠊࡘࡲࡾヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛫࡟࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡍ
ࡿࡼ࠺࡞⤒㊰ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᚰⓗ࡟㎺ࡿ⤒㊰ࡣࠊỴࡲࡗࡓሙ㠃࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞
ࡗࡓ over ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡕࠊover ࡀືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿࠕ✵㛫ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿ⤒㊰ࠖ࠿ࡽࠕヰ⪅ࡢᚰⓗ࡞㎺ࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿ⤒㊰ࠖࡲ࡛ࢆㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ศᯒࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊᵝࠎ࡞≧ἣ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⤒㊰⩏ࢆࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ㈇ᢸ࡞ࡃẁ㝵ⓗ࡟⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿᵝᘧࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
Ϩ! ಐ৪फ़ࢄ‫!ࠑޗ‬ ᚑ᮶ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣ⤒㊰ࢆ over ࡢព࿡ࡢ୍ࡘ࡟ㄆᐃࡍࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡣ㆟ㄽࡀศ࠿ࢀࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊover ࡢព⩏࡟⤒㊰ࢆㄆࡵࡿ Brugman(1981) – Lakoff (1987) ࡜ࠊ⤒㊰ࢆㄆࡵ࡞࠸ Tyler & Evans(2003) ࡟ࡼࡿศᯒࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀᴫほࡍࡿࠋ!
!
3/2!Csvhnbo)2:92*!.!Mblpgg)2:98*!
Brugman(1981)࡟ࡼࡿ᭱ึࡢ over ࡢ◊✲࡟ᨵⰋࢆຍ࠼ࡓ Lakoff(1987)ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ୰ᚰⓗព⩏ࢆabove ࡜ across ࡢព࿡せ⣲ࡢ⤫ྜࠊࡘࡲࡾୖ᪉࡜⤒㊰ࡢ⼥ྜ࡜ࡋࡓࠋover ࡢព⩏ࢆ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟
࡛⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࢫ࣮࣐࢟ 1(ᅗ 1)ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ᨺᑕ≧࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ౛(1)࡟࠾ࡅ
ࡿ over ࡣ⤒㊰ࡢព⩏ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ㄆࡵࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ௚ࡢ⤒㊰ࡢᣑᙇ⩏࡟ࡣ LM ࡢᙧ≧ࡸ᥋ゐ࣭㠀᥋ゐ࡞࡝᥎ㄽ࠿ࡽⓎ⏕ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ᝟ሗࡢከࡃࡀ⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⤒㊰⩏ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿୖ࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟㈇ᢸࡀ
࠿࠿ࡿࡢࡀ㞴Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−177−

OVERが表す「経路」に関する一考察─英語前置詞の習得の観点から─         

  

TR

               !
LM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!న
2!pwfs Ѣҫҟ̶Ӑ 2!)Mblpgg/!2:98;!52:*!
!
(1) The plane flew RYHU. )Mblpgg/!2:98;!532*!

!
!
3/3! Uzmfs'Fwbot)3114*!
୰ᚰⓗព⩏ࢆࡼࡾᢳ㇟໬ࡋ(ᅗ 3)ࠊព࿡Ỵᐃ࡟࠾࠸࡚᥎ㄽࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ㔜どࡋࡓࠋᩥ⬦࡟౫Ꮡࡋ࡞࠸
࠿ࡓࡕ࡛⊂❧⩏ࢆ♧ࡋࠊ➨୍⩏ࢆࠕTR ࡣ LM ࡼࡾ㧗࠸఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿࡀ᥋ゐࡋ࠺ࡿ⠊ᅖ࡟࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
over ࡣ⤒㊰ࡢព࿡ࢆྵࡲࡎ⤒㊰ࡢゎ㔘ࡣᩥ⬦࠿ࡽࡢ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋ        TTR       
  LM   న 3!pwfs Ѣ८నछ! )Uzmfs!'!Fwbot/!3114;!77*!

Tyler&Evans(2003)࡛ࡣࠊ౛(2)ࠊ(3)ࡣ over ௨እࡢせ⣲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⤒㊰ࡢ᥎ ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡉࢀ
ࡿࠋཎᅗᙧࢆ over ࡢ୰ᚰⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜ࡋ࡚ᩍ࠼ࡓሙྜࠊᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ౛(2)࡛ࡣࠕ⊧ࡣሟࡢୖ࡛㣕ࡧ㊴ࡡࡿࠖ
ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕ⊧ࡣሟࡢୖ࡟㣕ࡪࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ౛(3)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕᑡዪࡣ(ࡓࡔ)ᶫࡢୖࢆṌ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡋࠊྠࡌ౛ᩥ࡛ on ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓሙྜ࡜ࡢ༊ูࡀ᭕᫕࡞
ࡲࡲゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋover ࡟ࡣ⤒㊰ࡀྵពࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⌮ゎࡉࡏ࡚࠾࠿࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡟ㄗࡗࡓ᭕᫕࡞ゎ㔘࡬࡜ᑟ࠸࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ౛(2)ࠊ(3)ඹ࡟ືモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⤒㊰ࡀືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢືモࡣ”㣕ࡪ”ࠊ”Ṍࡃ”࡜࠸ࡗࡓᵝែࢆ⾲ࡋࠊover ࡀ⤒㊰ࢆྵពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡀᨾ࡟”㉸࠼ࡿ”࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡔ࡜⌮ゎࡉࡏࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(2) The cat jumpedRYHU the wall. ! )UzmfsͯFwbot!3114;!7:*
(3) The girl walked RYHU the bridge.

)UzmfsͯFwbot!3114;!83*!
!
!
ϩ! pwfs Ѣ͐पᇓ࡟͑Ѣက౷!
over ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡀᢸ࠺ព࿡ࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛⌮ゎࡀಁࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ
ඹ㉳ࡍࡿືモࠊ⤒㊰ࢆ over ࡢព࿡ࡢ㸯ࡘ࡟ㄆᐃࡍࡿ❧ሙ࡛ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
ࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ඲࡚FROWN Corpus ࠿ࡽ཰㞟ࡋࠊ⣙ 1200 ࡢ⏝౛ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ⤒㊰ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ 136 ౛ࢆほᐹࡋࡓࠋඹ㉳ࡍࡿືモ࡜ TR-LM࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ࠿ࡽ⤒㊰ࢆ⾲ࡍ≧ἣࢆ 5 ࡘ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊྛ≧ἣࡢ TR-LM ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟᭱ࡶ㏆࠸࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᅗ♧ࡋࠊྛ≧ἣࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࢆぢࡓࠋ͔ླϧ͕ި௡ࢳџохѿଗўຌા̜US̜MN Ѣᆯ!
ཞඞ

ѣᚺ

㸯

TR ࡣ LM ୖࢆ⛣ື㸰TR ࡣ⤊Ⅼ࡟⛣ື㸱ど⥺ࡀ LM ୖࢆ⛣ື㸲ど⥺ࡀ⤊Ⅼ࡟⛣ື㸳ヰ⪅ࡢᚰⓗ࡞㎺ࡾ

glide, scramble
carry, walkglance, look
look
come, go64

wheel, sheI, hehe, Samherancher, you

−178−

./

gravel, boulder
shoulder第13回大会発表論文集第６号

͝௡ࢳϧ̡͞US ѣ MN ௑҆‫ڤ‬ຌэѿ̝!
୺࡟[carry, fly, run, glide, climb, scramble]࡞࡝⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍືモࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࠋձTR ࡀ LM ୖࢆỈᖹ࡟⛣ືࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡜ࠊղୖྥࡁ࡟⛣ືࡋ LM ࢆ㉸࠼ࡿ≧ἣ࡟ศ࠿ࢀࡿࠋ
ձ㸸 TR ࡣ⛣ືᡭẁ࡛ࠊLM ୖࢆ┤⥺ⓗ࡟⛣ືࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋղ㸸 TR ࡣே࡛ࠊ㞀ᐖ≀࡛࠶ࡿ LM ࢆ㉸࠼࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ(4) The silver-spoke wheels were gliding RYHU gravel before she even closed the door.
(5) She had a hard time scrambling RYHUenormous boulders, keeping up.
  ձ             ղ
TR

 

LM

TR

LM     

న4! ͐पᇓ͑Ѣ! ͝௡ࢳϧ͞!
͝௡ࢳϨ̡͞US ѣସ฾џশпи‫ڤ‬ຌэѿ̝)MN ѣྋླ૘* ୺࡟[come, go, carry, walk, drive]࡞࡝⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍືモࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࠋձTR ࡣ to ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ๓⨨モྃ࡟ࡼࡾ᫂♧໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⤊Ⅼ࡟ྥ࠿࠸⛣ືࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡜ࠊղᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ᥎ ࡛ࡁࡿ⤊Ⅼ࡟ྥ࠿࠸⛣ືࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡟ศ࠿ࢀࡿࠋ(6) I found the file I was looking for and carried it RYHU to the safa.
(7) Tommy watched while he walked RYHU and stood beside Bobbie, patting her on theshoulder.
TR                !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LM! ! ! ! ! ! ! న 5!͐पᇓ͑Ѣ! ͝௡ࢳϨ͞!
!
͝௡ࢳϩ̡͞US Ѣઽದр MN ௑҆‫ڤ‬ຌэѿ̝୺࡟[look, see, stare, glance]࡞࡝どぬࢆ⾲ࡍືモࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࠋTR ࡢ㎺ࡿど⥺࡜࠸࠺ᚰⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿ⤒㊰ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊLM ࡣ⫪࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ!
!!(8) "Comanches," Sam said, looking RYHUhis shoulder at me.
         TR       LM !! ! ! ! !న 6!͐पᇓ͑Ѣ! ͝௡ࢳϩ͞!
!
͝௡ࢳϪ̡͞US Ѣઽದрସ฾џ‫ڤ‬ຌэѿ̝)MN ѣྋླ૘*୺࡟[look, glance, gaze]࡞࡝どぬࢆ⾲ࡍືモࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࠋTR ࡢ㎺ࡿど⥺ࡀ๓⨨モ࡛ྃ᫂♧ࡉࢀࡿ⤊Ⅼ࡟⛣ືࡍࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(9) “I know why I was hired, Lance.” Dan replied. He looked RYHU at Lance.
TR             !

LM

న 7! ͐पᇓ͑Ѣ! ͝௡ࢳϪ͞!

−179−

OVERが表す「経路」に関する一考察─英語前置詞の習得の観点から─

͝௡ࢳϫ̡͞US ѣ௾ศџҖӓ̶Ҫыѓ࢕ᅱ҆൫ѿ̝)MN ѣྋླ૘*୺࡟[come, go]࡞࡝≉࡟ ᮶ࢆ⾲ࡍືモࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࠋヰ⪅ࡀᚰⓗ࡟㎺ࡿ⤒㊰ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊTR ࡀ㠀⾲♧࡛ࡶ⤒㊰ࡀᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ≧ἣࡶྵࡴࠋ
(10) “I’ve invited all the ranchers…that is, the ones who are still around…to come RYHU tonight
to discuss…”(11) Will you please go RYHU that evening again, the one you spent at the airport with Karen
Grant?
   TRLM!
న 8! ͐पᇓ͑Ѣ! ͝௡ࢳϫ͞!

Ϫ!pwfs рླэ͐पᇓ͑Ѣඌ‫!ౕގ‬! ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ⱥㄒ๓⨨モࢆ⩦ᚓࡍࡿ㝿ࡢ᭱ࡶ㞴ࡋ࠸ഃ㠃ࡣࠊ๓⨨モࡀ⾲ࡍ஧⪅ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ≧ἣ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚┤ឤⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿ஦࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡣ๓⨨モࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥἲᙧែࡀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ⤒㊰⩏࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶຓモ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣᤊ࠼ࡁࢀ࡞࠸ព࿡ࢆᤊ࠼ࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊࡲࡎ౑⏝ࡢ≧ἣࢆ⌮ゎࡋ⤒㊰ࡢ✀㢮ࢆ㛵㐃ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ㈇ᢸ࡞ࡃ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿᵝᘧࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ over ࡀ⾲ࡍ⤒㊰ࡣࠊTR ࡀ≀⌮ⓗ࡟⛣ືࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡶࡢࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡋࠊヰ⪅ࡢᚰⓗ࡞㎺ࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⤒㊰ࡲ࡛ẁ㝵ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊྛ≧ἣࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪᅗࡣࠊTR ࡸ LM ࡢᙧ≧࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊᅗ 8 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ 3 ẁ㝵࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ(a). TR ཪࡣど⥺ࡀ LM ୖࢆ⛣ືࡍࡿ⤒㊰ࠊ(b). TR ཪࡣど⥺ࡀ⤊Ⅼ࡟⛣ືࡍࡿ⤒㊰ࠊ(c).ヰ⪅ࡢᚰⓗ࡞㎺ࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⤒㊰ࢆࠊᅗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࢖࣓࣮ࢪᅗࢆᇶ࡟ྛ⤒㊰ࡢ≉ᚩࢆ㛵㐃ࡉࡏẁ㝵ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊover ࡀ⾲ࡍ⤒㊰ࢆໟᣓⓗ࡟⌮ゎࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
 (a)

 

(b)

(c)


న 9! ͐पᇓ͑Ѣඌ‫!ౕގ‬

ϫ!Ѳќѵ!
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ over ࡀ⾲ࡍ⤒㊰ࢆ 3 ẁ㝵࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀໟᣓⓗ࡟⤒㊰⩏ࢆ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿᵝᘧࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋ≀⌮ⓗ࡞⤒㊰ࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡋࠊᚰⓗ࡞㎺ࡾࡲ࡛ࢆ㛵㐃ࡉࡏྛ≧ἣࢆẁ㝵ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊCome over. ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࡶໟᣓⓗ࡟⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠊ
ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ㉁࡜㔞ࢆ඘ᐇࡉࡏࠊᐇ㦂ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࡼࡾ⢭⦓࡟ศᯒࡋ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ଗᅅ઄ৣဌढ़!
Brugman, Claudia. (1981) Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the
Lexicon, M.A. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Dewell, Robert B. (1994) Over again: “Image-schema Transformations in Semantic Analysis,”
Cognitive Linguistics 5 :4, 351-380.
Lakoff, George. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things : What Categories Reveal About
the Mind. Chicago. : The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.Ϩ. Stanford University
Press.
Tyler, Andrea, and Evans, Vyvyan. (2003) The Semantics of English Prepositions Cambridge.
ambridge University Press. −180−第13回大会発表論文集

−181−

第６号

書き言葉談話における句読法の機能：ケクチ語の事例分析−182−

第13回大会発表論文集

−183−

第６号

書き言葉談話における句読法の機能：ケクチ語の事例分析−184−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

The Pragmatics of Represented Speech and Thought: A comparative
approach to French/English/Japanese  ǡ   ǡ ̷ǤǤ Ǥ Ƭ  ǡ ʹʹǡ̷ Ǥ Ǥ

Abstract:                     ǡȋȌȋ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ Ǥ  ǡ 
     Ǥ                     ȋǡ ǡ ǡ ǡȌ   ǡ Ǥ
Keywords:  Ǣ Ǣǡǡ 



1. Introduction   ȋȌǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͶȌǡ   ȋ  Ȍ             ȋ
speaker, hearerǡtime of utteranceǡworld of utteranceȌǡ
ǡȋthinker, time of thoughtǡ
 world of thoughtȌǤ   ǡ       ǡ   
    Ǥ   ǡ      ǡ   
ȋimparfaitȌ      ȋpassé simpleȌǤ  ǡ      
ǡ         Ǥ   ǡ   Ǧ  nowǡ  ǡ   Ǥ  ǡǤ 
 ȋȌǤ           ǡ      ȋͳͻ͹͸Ȍǡ                       ǡ     Ǥǡ         ǡ       ǡ    Ǥ                 ǡ    ǡǤǤǡ  ǡ ǡ ǡ     Ǥ   
ǡǡǡǡ  
  ǡ  
̵ࠗ₻㦁࠘ǡ  Le tumulte des flotsǡThe sound of
the wavesǡ Ǥ

2. Tense changeǡ  ǡ  
   Ǥ  
  ̵ǣȋͳȌ ̵±ǡaperçut
±Ǥ   °    était ±   ²    
Ǧ paraissaient±ǡǤ²̵pouvait °

−185−

The pragmatics of represented speech and thought: A comparative approach to French/English/Japaneseǡ±  faisaient ̵
  Ǥǡ  
ǣȋʹȌ ᙼࡣᩳ㠃࡟㔜࡞ࡗ࡚ᘓࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᐙࠎࡢ୍ࡘ࡟ࠊᐑ⏣ᐙࡢⅉࢆぢฟࡋࡓࠋⅉࡾࡣ࡝ࡇࡶྠ
ࡌ࣒ࣛࣉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇࡢᐗࡢᵝᏊࡣぢ࠼࡞࠸ࡀࠊ࣒ࣛࣉࡢឤࡌࡸࡍ࠸↍ࡣࠊᑡዪࡢ㟼࠿࡞┱ࡸ㛗࠸╰ࢆࠊ㢋ࡢୖ࡟ࡺࡽࡵ࠿ࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟┦㐪࡞࠸ࠋ ǡ  ǡ              ȋbe –ingȌǡ̵ 
ǣȋ͵Ȍ ǡǡ picked 
Ǥcame ǡlooked ǡǤcould  ǡcould 
 ̵
Ǥǡ              ȋ     Ȍ       ȋ o ȌǤ          Ȁ  ǡ ǣ ǡ Ǥ

3. Modalization        ǡ    ̶ ̶    Ǥ         ̵      
ǡ       ȋ     ᜍࡽࡃ, probably,  Ǥǡ  
 ࡕࡀ࠸࡞࠸ǡmustǡ ǤȌ
ǡǤǤǡ̵  Ǥ
ǣȋͶȌ ࡇࡢ࡜ࡁୖ᪉࡛ࠊᮌ࡜▼ࡢࡪࡘ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡞㍍࠸㡢ࡀࡋࡓࠋⱝ⪅ࡣ⪥ࢆࡍࡲࡋࡓࠋ㡢ࡣࡓ࠼ࡓࠋẼࡢࡏ࠸ࡔࡗࡓ࡟ࡕࡀ࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

ǡ  ǣȋͷȌ                
ǤǤ Ǥ must Ǥȋ͸Ȍ  ǡ  ±Ǥ ± Ǥ ±ǤǤǤ̵±surement ̵Ǥǡ  
ȋmustȌǡ  ȋsurement = certainlyȌǤǡ
            ǡ    
 Ǥ

4. Question ȋͳͻͺʹȌ
    ǡ ȋ

−186−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

  ͷȌǤ          ǡ    ȋSentenceȌ        ǡ  ȋ ExpressionȌǤ      
 ȋͳͻͺʹȌǡ
     ǡ           ǡ                ̵ Ǥǡ ǡ  ǡ   ǣȋ͹Ȍ ගࡾ࠿ࡀࡸ࠸࡚ࠊࡘ࠿ࡢࡲ⮬ศࡢࡑࡤ࡬ᐤࡗ࡚᮶࡚ࠊ᧿㐣ࡋ࡚ࠊᾘ࠼࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ࠶ࡢ㟁㌴ࡸ⮬ື㌴ࡸ㧗ᒙᘓ⠏ࡸࢿ࣭࢜ࣥࢧ࢖ࣥ࡞࡝ࡢ࠾࡝ࢁࡃ࡭ࡁࡶࡢࡣࠊ࡝ࡇ࡬࠸ࡗࡓࡢ࠿㸽ȋͺȌ   ± ǡ̵
Øǡ  ±̵
±±ǡoù étaient-ils maintenant?
(9)   ǡǡǡ Ȅwhere
were they now?

  ǡ           ǡ         
   ǡ ǡ ǡ  ǡ  
     Ǥ ǡ    ǡ       
   Ǥ ǡ          
ȋǡ ǤǤǡ imparfaitǡ   Ȍǡ        
Ǥ ǡ         ǡ          ȋnow ǡmaintenant   Ȍǡ   
Ǥ ǡ  Ǧ    now           
 Ǥ                 ǡ   
Ǥ

4. Exclamationǡ         ̵ ǡ    ǣȋͳͲȌ࠸ࡘࡶ㟷ᖺ఍࡛ࡣࠊ኱ேࡋࡃ⭸ࢆᢪ࠸࡚ࠊ࡟ࡇ࡟ࡇேࡢពぢࢆഴ⫈ࡋ࡚ࠊᏊ౪ࡗࡱ࠸
㢦ࢆࡋ࡚࠸࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡕࡷࢇ࡜ዪࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࢇࡔࠋ௘⊇ࡵ㸟(11)̵ ± 
ǡ± ̵ ǡ
ǡ ǤSale petit renard!
(12) ̵ ǡ
  ǡ̵ǡ
 Ȅ̵ǤThe damn little fox!

        ǡ        
ǡǤ  ǡ 
  ǡ        ࡵ      
ȋȀȌǡ      Ǥ

6. Parentheticals ǡ      ǡ       
      ̵  Ǥ ǡ      ǡ

−187−

The pragmatics of represented speech and thought: A comparative approach to French/English/Japanese ǡǡ ǡ ǡ
ȋȌ Ǧ   Ǥ ǡ
  ̵ 
  ǡǣȋͳ͵Ȍẕぶࡣ⼖ࡀࡸࡀ࡚✺ሐࢆ㞳ࢀࠊ⃮ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᾏ㠃㏆ࡃࠊ⩚ࢆఇࡵࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࡲࡓ㧗ࡃ⯙࠸ୖࡀࡿࡢࢆぢࡓࠋ ࠗ࠾࠿ࡋ࡞⼖ࡸ࡞ࠋ㮆ࡢࡲࡡࢆࡋ࡜ࡿ࠘
࡜ᙼዪࡣ࠾ࡶࡗࡓࠋ
ȋͳͶȌ
°± Ǥǡ
      ̵    Ǥ ̶  ±Ǩ   ̶ǡǦǤȋͳͷȌ 
 Ǥǡ
Ǥ̶̶ǡshe told herself. ̶ ̵̶Ǥ       ̵           ǡ             ǡ     Ǥ

7. Conclusionǡ     
  ǡ ǡ   ǡ Ǥ

ReferencesǡǤͳͻͺʹǤUnspeakable sentencesǤǣƬǤǡ ǤǤ ͳͻ͹͸Ǥ ̶       ̶Ǥ  ǤǤ   ȋǤȌ
Pragmatics of Language and LiteratureǤǣǤ ǡ Ǥ ʹͲͲͶǤ ǲ       ǣ        ǳǤMind & LanguageͳͻȀ͵ǡʹ͹ͻǦ͵ͲͶǤ୕ᓥ⏤⣖ኵࠗ₻㦁࠘ࠊʹͲͲͺ ᖺࠊ᪂₻ᩥᗜǡǤͳͻͷ͸ǤThe sound of wavesǤǣǤǡǤͳͻ͸ͻǤLe Tumulte des flotsǤǣ Ǥ

−188−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

఍ぢ࡟⌧ࢀࡿཷ㌟⾲⌧఍ぢ࡟⌧ࢀࡿཷ㌟⾲⌧
ᨺ㏦኱ᏛᏛ㒊⏕ ཎ Ụ฼DEVWUDFW!
   7KLVLVDWUDLOVWXG\RI-DSDQHVHSDVVLYHYHUEVLQFROORTXLDOODQJXDJHDVDFWXDOH[DPSOHVLQVSHFLILFQHZVFRQIHUHQFHV7KLVUHSRUWZLOOEHIRFXVHGRQWKHUHODWLRQEHWZHHQVSHDNHUV·
LQWHQWLRQVDQGFKRLFHVRISDVVLYHQRWRIDFWLYHYRLFHDWSXEOLFVSHDNLQJ7KHWHVWLVDGDSWHGWR
0D\QDUG  ¶V DQDO\VLV LQ ZKLFK VKH VKRZHG WKHUH DUH LQWLPDWH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQDSSHDUDQFHV RI SDVVLYH YHUE DQG QHZVSDSHU UHSRUWHUV· DLP ,Q FRQFOXVLRQ WKH SDVVLYH YHUE
KDV  HIIHFWV WR XQGHUVWDWH VSHDNHUV· IHHOLQJV WR WXUQ KHDUHUV· DWWHQWLRQ WR WDUJHWV DQGTXRWDWLRQVDUHMXVWWRTXRWHQRWWRHYDOXDWH
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸㸯᪥ᮏㄒࠊ㸰ཷ㌟ࠊ㸱ㄯヰศᯒࠊ㸲఍ぢࠊ㸳ㄝᚓࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢヰࡋゝⴥ࡛ཷ㌟⾲⌧ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊㄯヰ࡬ࡢຠᯝࡣఱ࠿࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࠊ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ㸦㸧ࡢㄯヰศᯒࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟ἢࡗ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢཷ㌟౑⏝ࡢពᅗࢆ᥈ࢁ࠺࡜ࡍ
ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓㄯヰ࡜ヰࡋᡭࡣࠊ⥲⌮኱⮧ࡢ㎡௵఍ぢ㸦⚟⏣ᗣኵ࣭ᮧᒣᐩᕷ㸧࡜㏥௵఍ぢ㸦୰᭮᰿ᗣᘯ㸧࡛ࠊᩥ୰ࡢᘬ⏝౛ࡣᓧูࡢࡓࡵ ) 0 1 ࡜Ⓨゝ⪅ࢆグࡋࡓࠋⓎゝࡢពᅗ࣭┠ⓗࡣ఍ぢ⪅㸦ヰࡋᡭ㸧࡟ࡼࡿ⫈⾗㸦⪺ࡁᡭ㸧ࡢㄝᚓ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜タᐃࡋࡓࠋヰࡋᡭࡣㄝᚓࡢࡓࡵ࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ㄒࡾ࠿ࡅ⣡ᚓࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠾࠺࡜ࡍࡿࠋㄝᚓ࣭⣡ᚓ࡜࠸࠺┠ⓗ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ
ཷ㌟⾲⌧࡛ㄒࡾ࠿ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊㄝᚓࡢࡓࡵࡢᮦᩱ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ࡛⪺ࡁᡭ࡟୚࠼ࡼ
࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࡢຠᯝࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࠊ⬟ື⾲⌧࡜ࡢẚ㍑࠿ࡽ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ㸰㸬ᮏ✏㸰㸬ᮏ✏࡟࠾ࡅࡿཷ㌟⾲⌧ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜⪃ᐹࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟࠾ࡅࡿཷ㌟⾲⌧ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜⪃ᐹࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ᭱ึ࡟ࠊ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻࡣグ⪅ࡀሗ㐨࡛౑⏝ࡍࡿཷ㌟⾲⌧࡜ࡑࡢពᅗ࡟㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡓࠋࡑࡢ
㛵ಀ࡜ࡣࠊཷ㌟⾲⌧ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ᫬ࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡢឤ᝟ࡢ⾲⌧ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡢឤ᝟⾲ฟࡀ᝟ሗࡢ
↔Ⅼ࡜࡞ࡾ᭩ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢඹឤࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿ㸦᝟ព⾲⌧ࡢཷ㌟㸧
ࠋࡲࡓឤ᝟⾲⌧ࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡣࠊ࡛ࡁࡈ
࡜ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ᝟ሗࡢ↔Ⅼ࡜࡞ࡾᐈほᛶࡢ㔜どࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿ㸦⤖ᯝᥥ෗ࡢཷ㌟㸧
ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ᘬ⏝ᙧᘧࢆᣢࡘ⾲⌧࡛ࡣࠊᘬ⏝ෆᐜࡀ᝟ሗࡢ↔Ⅼ࡜࡞ࡾࡑࡢゝⴥࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡬ㄞࡳᡭࡢὀពࡀྥ࠿࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿ㸦࣓ࢱゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢཷ㌟㸧ࠋ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻࡀ♧ࡋࡓ㸱ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢཷ㌟ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ᭩ࡁ
ᡭ࡬ࡢ⪃ᐹࡢᯟ⤌ࢆヰࡋᡭ࡬ࡢ⪃ᐹ࡟㐺⏝ࡋ᳨࡚ドࢆヨࡳࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ࣓ࢱゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢཷ㌟࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⡆༢࡞ㄝ᫂࡟࡜࡝ࡵࡓࠋ
࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡛ࡣࠊ┤᥋ཷ㌟࣭㛫᥋ཷ㌟࡜࠸࠺ᩥἲᙧᘧࡢ㐪࠸ࡀព࿡ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊヰࡋゝⴥ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ከ⩏ㄒ㸦ᑛᩗ࣭⮬Ⓨ࣭ྍ⬟࡞࡝ࡢ⾲⌧㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ◊✲ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࡇࡢⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹࡣ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
㸱㸬ලయ౛࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹ㸱㸬ලయ౛࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹ㎡௵఍ぢࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ㎡௵ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟⣡ᚓࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ሙࡔ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠊ║๓ࡢグ⪅ࡣࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊᨺ㏦࡞࡝ࡢど⫈⪅࣭᪂⪺グ஦ࡢㄞ⪅࡜࠸࠺㛫᥋ⓗ࡞⪺ࡁᡭ࣭ㄞࡳᡭ࡟ࠊ㎡௵ࢆ⣡ᚓࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ㄒࢁ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ෆᐜࡢㄯヰ࡛ཷ㌟⾲⌧ࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡓࠋ


−189−

会見に現れる受身表現   ࣭⥲⌮ࡢᅾ௵୰ࡢ≧ἣࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿㄯヰ㸦እ஺ၥ㢟ࡶྵࡴ㸧   ࣭㎡௵ᚋࡢぢ㏻ࡋࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿㄯヰ㸦ᚋ௵⪅ࡣㄡ࠿࡞࡝ࡶ㸧   ࣭⮬ศࡢᑵ௵࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿㄯヰࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢㄯヰࡢཷ㌟⾲⌧ࢆලయ౛࠿ࡽ᳨ウࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⾲⌧ࡀㄯヰ࡟୚࠼ࡿຠᯝ࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
㸱㸫㸯㸬⥲⌮ࡢᅾ௵୰ࡢ≧ἣࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿㄯヰ㸱㸫㸯㸬⥲⌮ࡢᅾ௵୰ࡢ≧ἣࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿㄯヰ ヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ⥲⌮ࡣࠊᅾ௵୰࡟⏕ࡌࡓၥ㢟ࡸ஦௳ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࠿ࠊ౛㸯࣭౛㸰
ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ౛㸯 ṇ┤⏦ࡋࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ㸦୰␎㸧✚ᖺࡢၥ㢟ࡀ㢧ᅾ໬ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜ࠊࡲ࠶ࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟㐼㐝ࢆ࠸ࡓࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢฎ⌮࡟ᛁẅࢆࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋ ) ౛㸰 ࠶ࡿព࿡࡛ࡣࠊ஦௳ࡸ஦ᨾ࡟㏣࠸ࡲࡃࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ୍ᖺ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࠊ⚾ࡣᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ 0 ࠕᛁẅࢆࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࠖ
ࠕ㏣࠸ࡲࡃࡽࢀ࡚ࠖࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢヰࡋᡭࡀᑵ௵ᙜึ࠿ࡽࠕ✚ᖺࡢၥ㢟ࡀ㢧ᅾ໬ࡋᛁẅࡉࢀࡓࠖࡇ࡜ࡸࠕ஦௳ࡸ஦ᨾ࡟㏣࠸ࡲࡃࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ⮬ศࡢឤࡌࡓࡲࡲ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠕṇ┤⏦ࡍࠖࠕᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࡛ࠖ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ኱ኚᛁࡋ࠸᫬㛫ࢆ㐣ࡈ
ࡋࡓࡇ࡜!ࢆ♧ࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝᛮ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟௙஦ࡀ࡛ࡁࡎṧᛕࡔ!࡜࠸࠺ឤ᝟ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻࡢ᝟ព⾲⌧ࡢཷ㌟࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢཷ㌟⾲⌧࡛ࡣࠊࠕ✚ᖺࡢၥ㢟ࠖࠕ஦௳ࡸ஦ᨾࠖࡢᏑᅾ࡟┠ࢆྥࡅࡉࡏࠊᬯ㯲ࡢ࠺ࡕ࡟ᛁࡋࡉ
!࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࢆㄒࡾࠊᨻ⟇㐩ᡂࡢᅔ㞴ࡉ!ࢆឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡛ࡶ┿ᦸ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࢇࡔ!ጼໃࢆᬯ࡟♧ࡑ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀぢ࡚ྲྀࢀࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡀࡑࡢᛁࡋࡉ!࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⮬ศࡀᮃࡴᨻ⟇㐙⾜ࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࢆ኱ኚṧᛕ࡛࠶ࡿ!࡜࠸࠺ឤ᝟࡛ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ
ࡿࡢࡀཷ㌟⾲⌧ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊヰࡋᡭࡢᛁࡋࡉࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᛁ
ࡋ࠿ࡗࡓࡢࡣ☜࠿࡟஦ᐇࡔ࡜ᐜㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠊࡇࡢ୍Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚ㄝᚓࡀᡂຌࡍࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
୍᪉ࠊ౛㸯࣭౛㸰ࡢ⬟ື⾲⌧ࢆ௬࡟ࡑࡢฎ⌮ࡢࡓࡵ኱ኚᛁࡋࡃ㐣ࡈࡋࡓ!ࡸၥ㢟ࡀ⚾ࢆᛁࡋࡃࡋࡓ㸭ၥ㢟ࡀ⚾ࢆᛁẅࡋࡓ!࡜ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ⾲⌧࡛ㄒࡾ࠿ࡅࡓࡽࠊࡂࡇࡕ࡞࠸⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡢ༳㇟࡟ṧࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡽࡋࡃ࡞࠸⾲⌧࡜ព㆑ࡉࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ⬟ື⾲⌧ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟㐪࿴ឤ࡜࠸࠺ᙉ࠸
༳㇟ࢆ୚࠼ὶᬸࡉࢆḞ࠸ࡓ⤖ᯝࠊㄯヰࡢὶࢀ࠿ࡽᾋࡁୖࡀࡾࠊㄝᚓ࡟ᚲせ࡞ඹឤࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ຠᯝ࡛ࡣㄝᚓࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ౑⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
௨ୖ࠿ࡽ᝟ព⾲⌧ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆヰࡋᡭࡢ≧ἣㄝ᫂࡜ࡑࢀ࡟క࠺ឤ᝟࡟ྥࡅࡉࡏࠊヰࡋᡭ࡬ࡢඹឤࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡋㄝᚓࡍࡿࠊࡑࢀࡶ↓⌮࡞ࡃ⮬↛࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊヰࡋᡭࡢឤ᝟
ṧᛕࡔ!ࡢཎᅉࡣࠊၥ㢟ゎỴࡸᨻ⟇㐙⾜ࡢᅔ㞴ࡉ࡟࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㎡௵ࡣࠊࡑࡢ
ᨻ⟇㐙⾜ࡢᅔ㞴ࡉࡢ⤖ᯝࡀཎᅉ࡛࠶ࡾࠊỴࡋ࡚ᨻᶒࢆᢞࡆฟࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟♧ࡍពᅗ࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ౛㸱 Ἀ⦖࡟࠾ࡅࡿᇶᆅࡢၥ㢟ࡸࠊ᪥⡿ᏳಖయไࠊᏳಖ᮲⣙ࡢᅾࡾ᪉➼࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ၥࢃࢀࡿ஦ែ࡜࡞ࡗ
࡚ࡲ࠸ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋ 0 ౛㸲 ࡇࡢ୍ᖺ㛫ࡣ඲ࡃ᝿ᐃฟ᮶࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞஦௳ࡸ஦ᨾࡀ┦ḟ࠸࡛ࡲ࠸ࡾࡲࡋࡓࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊ⚾ࡣ⚾࡞ࡾ࡟୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓㄢ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚඲ຊࢆᣲࡆ࡚ྲྀࡾ⤌ࢇ࡛ࡁࡓࡘࡶࡾ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ 0 ࡇࡢ౛㸱࣭౛㸲࡛ࠊ஦ែࡸㄢ㢟ࡣࠕၥࢃࢀࡿࠖ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠖࡢ୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓ
ࡵࠊࡇࡢㄯヰࡢ↔Ⅼࡣ஦ែࡸㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ⥲⌮ࡢឤ᝟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ឤ᝟⾲⌧ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ཷ㌟ࢆࠊ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻࡣ⤖ᯝᥥ෗ࡢཷ㌟࡜࠸࠺ࠋ࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋ
ᡭࡀཷ㌟⾲⌧࡛஦ែࡸᨻ⟇ㄢ㢟࡟┠ࢆྥࡅࡉࡏࡿពᅗࡣ࡞࡟࠿ࠋཷ㌟⾲⌧࡛ࡣࠊ஦ែࡸㄢ㢟ࡢㄝ

−190−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

᫂࡟↔Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡓࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࡑࡢ஦ែࡸㄢ㢟ࢆࡼࡃ▱ࡗ࡚࠸࡚ᅾ௵୰ࡣ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࢇࡔጼໃࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⌮ゎࢆᚓࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠊ⬟ື⾲⌧࡛௬࡟ேࠎࡀၥ࠺
஦ែ!࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣேࠎࡀ⚾࡟୚࠼ࡓㄢ㢟!࡜ㄒࡿ࡜ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࡣேࠎ!ࡢᏑᅾ࡟ྥ࠸࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ
ࡍࡿ࡜ㄢ㢟ࢆぢࡘࡅࡓࡢࡣࠕேࠎ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗ࡚ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡀ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ぢࡘࡅࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞༳㇟ࢆ୚࠼࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴጼໃࡀᾘᴟⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄗࡗࡓ༳㇟ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࠶ࡓ࠼࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋᑐࡋ࡚ࠊཷ㌟⾲⌧ࡣ✚ᴟࡉࢆᬯ࡟♧ࡍ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ౛㸳 Ẁࡗࡓ᪉ࡣࡍࡄ࡟ᛀࢀࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶẀࡽࢀࡓ᪉ࡣ୍⏕ᛀࢀ࡞࠸ࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ࠶ࡿᅜࡢࢺࢵࣉࡢᨻ
἞ᐙࡀ⚾࡟ゝࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋ 1 ౛㸳ࡣእ஺࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓࠋࠕẀࡗࡓࠖࠕẀࡽࢀࡓࠖࡢᑐẚ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠋᑐ
❧ࡍࡿᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟Ẽ௜࠿ࡏࡿࡓࡵࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡢឤ᝟ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡎࠊ⤖ᯝᥥ෗ࡢཷ㌟࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ⥲⌮ࡀࠕẀࡽࢀࡓ᪉ࠖࡢᏑᅾࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
እ஺࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢ୺ᙇࠊ౛࠼ࡤ┦ᡭᅜ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡑ࠺࡜ࡍࡿຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
௨ୖࠊ⥲⌮ࡢᅾ௵୰ࡢ࡛ࡁࡈ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸱ࡘࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ᝟ព⾲⌧ࡢཷ㌟ࡣ⬟ື⾲⌧ࡢࡂࡇࡕ࡞ࡉࢆゎỴࡋඹឤࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜࡛ㄝᚓࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋ⤖ᯝᥥ෗ࡢཷ㌟ࡣ஦
ែࡸᨻᶒㄢ㢟࡟✚ᴟⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴጼໃࢆ♧ࡋࠊࡶࡢࡈ࡜ࡢぢ᪉ࡢᯟ⤌࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆྥࡅࡉࡏ
ࡿຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ຠᯝ࡛ㄝᚓࡍࡿ┠ⓗࡢࡓࡵ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
㸱㸫㸰㸬ᚋ⥅⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿㄯヰ㸱㸫㸰㸬ᚋ⥅⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿㄯヰḟࡢ౛㸴࣭౛㸵࣭౛㸶ࡣᚋ⥅⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢㄯヰ࡛ぢࡽࢀࡓཷ㌟⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛㸴 ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㑅ࡤࢀࡓࡑࡢ⥲⿢ࡀ᪂ࡋ࠸⥲⌮኱⮧ࡢᣦྡࢆཷࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮ
ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࠋ ) ౛㸵 ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࡣᅜ఍࡛㤳⌜ᣦྡࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࠊ࠾Ỵࡵࢆ࠸ࡓࡔࡃࡇ࡜࡛ࡍ࠿ࡽࠊ 0 ౛㸶 ࡑࢀ࡛ࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡞ࠊ⚾࡟୍௵ࡉࢀࡿ᫬ࡢ᝟ໃࢆࡌࡗ࡜ぢࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࢀࡣ➉ୗࡉࢇࡀࡼࡾ
㡰ᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ࡑ࠺ุ᩿ࢆࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ 1  ᚋ⥅⪅ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㑅ࡪ࠿ࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠊཷ㌟⾲⌧ࠕ㑅ࡤࢀࡓࠖࠕ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࠖࠕ୍௵ࡉࢀࡿ࡛ࠖ
ㄒࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࠕ㑅ࡪࠖࠕ⾜࠺ࠖࠕ୍௵ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⬟ື⾲⌧ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⬟ື⾲⌧࡞ࡽㄡ࠿ࡀ㑅ࡪ!ࡇ࡜ࠊ㑅ࡪே!࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࡀྥ࠸࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ୍᪉ཷ㌟⾲⌧࡞ࡽࠊࠕ㤳⌜ᣦྡࠖࠕ㑅ᣲࠖ࡜࠸
࠺⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡼࡃ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᡭ⥆ࡁ࡛ᚋ⥅⪅ࢆỴࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡏࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡢឤ᝟⾲⌧ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛
⤖ᯝᥥ෗ࡢཷ㌟࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡣࠊᚋ⥅⪅㑅ࡧࢆࡔࢀ࠿ࡢ຾ᡭ࡞ᛮᝨࡸពᚿ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃṇᘧ࡞ᡭ⥆ࡁ࡟๎ࡗ࡚⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࠊබᖹ࡞❧ሙࡢ⮬ศࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᚋ⥅⪅㑅ࡧࡢṇᙜᛶࢆㄝ᫂
ࡋㄝᚓࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࠋᚋ⥅⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿ᫬ࠊཷ㌟⾲⌧ࡣࠊᚋ⥅⪅㑅ࡧ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢබᖹ࡞
ែᗘ࡜㑅ᣲไᗘࡢṇᙜᛶ࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆྥࡅࡉࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺ຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
㸱㸫㸱㸬ᑵ௵࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿㄯヰ㸱㸫㸱㸬ᑵ௵࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿㄯヰ⮬ࡽࡢᑵ௵࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣḟࡢ౛㸷࣭౛㸯㸮࣭౛㸯㸯࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ౛㸷 ゝ࠺࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺᫬௦࡟࠾ࡅࡿṔྐⓗ࡞ᙺ๭ࡀᢸࢃࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࠋ 0 ౛㸯㸮 ඛ࡯࡝⏦ࡋୖࡆ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓṔྐⓗ࡞ᙺ๭࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘ⠇┠࡟ᡂࡍ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜ࡣᡂࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ࠊᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊ 0 ౛㸯㸯 ᅜ㕲ࠊ೺ಖࠊ⡿࡜ࠊࡇࢀࢆ࠿ࡓ࡙ࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺኱ࡁ࡞௙஦ࢆ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ㺃㺃㺃௒ࡲ࡛୰᭮
᰿ෆ㛶ࡣ⥆ࡅࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡋࠊ⚾ࡢẼᣢࡕࡶࡑ࠺࠸࠺஦࡛࠶ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࠋ 1 



−191−

会見に現れる受身表現 ౛㸷ࡢࠕᢸࢃࡉࢀࡓࠖࠊ౛  ཬࡧ౛  ࡢࠕ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࠖࡣࠊࠕᙺ๭ࠖࡸࠕ௙஦ࠖ࡟↔Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡓࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⥲⌮኱⮧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙺ๭࣭௙஦࡟ࡣࠊᑵ௵ࡢ႐ࡧࡸ኱ࡁ࡞㈐௵ࢆక࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀㅬ
⹫࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡢឤ᝟ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡓࡵࠊ᝟ព⾲⌧ࡢཷ㌟࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊ௬
࡟⬟ື⾲⌧⚾ࡀᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠺!࡛ㄒࡿ࡜ࠊᑵ௵ࡀᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡜ࡋ࡚♧ࡉࢀᑛ኱࡟ᫎࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ႐ࡧࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡎㅬ⹫ࡉࡶఏࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡳࢇ࡞ࡀᙺ๭ࢆ୚࠼ࡓ!࡛ࡶࡳࢇ࡞!࡟↔Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࠊᑵ௵࡬ࡢᛮ࠸ࡣ⾲⌧࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ௨ୖ࠿ࡽࠊᑵ௵ࡢㄯヰ࡛ཷ㌟⾲⌧ࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀᑵ௵ࢆㅬ⹫࡟ཷࡅṆࡵࠊ႐ࡧࡸỴពࢆࡶㅬ⹫࡟⾲⌧࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
ᑵ௵᫬ࡢㅬ⹫ࡉࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᛮ࠸ฟࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᅾ௵୰ࡢ┿ᦸ࡞ែᗘࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟♧ࡍ≺࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᑵ௵࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ཷ㌟⾲⌧࡛ㄒࡿࡢࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ႐ࡧࡀㅬ⹫࡟⾲⌧࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓᑵ௵
᫬ࡢጼໃࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ႏ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡀᅾ௵୰ࡶ┿ᦸ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡲ࡛ࡶࢆ
⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㸱㸫㸲㸬㎡௵఍ぢ࡜࠸࠺ㄯヰ඲యࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚⌧ࢀࡿ㸱㸫㸲㸬㎡௵఍ぢ࡜࠸࠺ㄯヰ඲యࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚⌧ࢀࡿᘬ⏝⾲⌧⌧ࢀࡿᘬ⏝⾲⌧ᘬ⏝⾲⌧ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ఍ぢ඲యࡢㄯヰࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚⌧ࢀࡿᘬ⏝ࡢཷ㌟⾲⌧ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕ↓㈐௵ࡔࠖ
ࠕබᐖࡢཎⅬࡔࠖࠕே┦ࡀࡼࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠖࠕ࢚ࢥࣀ࣑ࢵࢡ࢔ࢽ࣐ࣝࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥ࡜ࡑࡢෆᐜࡀㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲ
ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࡀゝⴥࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ྥ࠿࠺ࡀࠊࡑࡢゝⴥ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡓホ౯ࡣ௚⪅ࡢホ౯࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆᬯ࡟♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ௚⪅ࡀୗࡋࡓホ౯࡟ᑐࡋ⮬ศࡣ✚ᴟⓗ࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
⬟ື⾲⌧ࡣゝⴥ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃㄡࡀゝࡗࡓ!ࡢ࠿ࡑࡢᏑᅾ࡟ព㆑ࡀྥ࠿࠺ࠋ⮬ศࡀㄒࡗࡓゝⴥ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢホ౯࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㈐௵ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡑ࠺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
㸲㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ
㸲㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ
ㄝᚓࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿ఍ぢ࡟࠾࠸࡚࡞ࡐཷ㌟⾲⌧ࡀ㑅ࡤࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ⬟ື⾲⌧࡜ࡢẚ㍑࠿ࡽḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ㄽࢆᚓࡓࠋឤ᝟⾲⌧ࡢ⾲ฟࡀ࠶ࡿ᝟ពࡢཷ㌟ࡣࠊ≧ἣㄝ᫂ࡢὶᬸࡉ࡛⮬↛࡞ឤ᝟ࡢ⾲ฟࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡋࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢඹឤࢆࡼࡪࡇ࡜ࡀほᐹ࡛ࡁࡓࠋឤ᝟⾲⌧ࡀ࡞࠸⤖ᯝᥥ෗ࡢཷ㌟ࡣࠊ
஦ែࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆྥࡅࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᐈほᛶ࡜࠸࠺᝟ሗࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࠊࡑࢀࡺ
࠼ヰࡋᡭࡢබᖹ࡞❧ሙࡸㅬ⹫ࡉࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀほᐹ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᘬ⏝⾲⌧ࡣ௚⪅ࡢゝⴥࢆ᝟ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢෆᐜ࡜ヰࡋᡭࡀ┤᥋࡟ࡣ㛵ಀࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟Ẽ௜࠿ࡏࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀほᐹ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ
௨ୖ࠿ࡽࠊཷ㌟⾲⌧ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢឤ᝟ࢆ✜ࡸ࠿࡟⾲⌧࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡸ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟஦ែࡢᐈほᛶ࡟ὀពࡋ࡚⪺ࡃࡼ࠺࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓヰࡋᡭࡢ❧ሙࡀ௚⪅ࡢⓎゝ࡜ࡣ↓㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡑ࠺࡜ࡍࡿാࡁࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ


ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
ἨᏊ.࣭࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ㸸ࠗㄯヰゝㄒᏛ࠘  ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸦㸧ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࠗෆ㛶⥲㎡⫋࡟ᙜࡓࡗ࡚ࡢᮧᒣෆ㛶⥲⌮኱⮧ࡢグ⪅఍ぢ࠘ཬࡧࠗ୰᭮᰿ෆ㛶⥲⌮኱⮧ࡢ࠾ูࢀグ⪅఍ぢ࠘㸸ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫࠗୡ⏺࡜᪥ᮏ࠘ ᪥ᮏᨻ἞࣭ᅜ㝿㛵ಀࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫ ᮾி኱Ꮫᮾὒᩥ໬
◊✲ᡤ ⏣୰᫂ᙪ◊✲ᐊ ⚟⏣ᗣኵ⥲⌮ࡢ㎡௵఍ぢࡣࠊ79 ࡢグ⪅఍ぢ࠿ࡽᩥᏐࢆ㉳ࡇࡋసᡂࡋࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢ㝿࡟᪥⤒᪂⪺ࡢグ஦ࡢ⾲グࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡓࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡕࡽࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ


−192−

第13回大会発表論文集第６号

᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ່ㄏሙ㠃࡛ࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜ື-࣊ࢵࢪࡢ୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽศᯒࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ᇼ⏣ᬛᏊ㸦ᮾ໭኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᅜ㝿ᩥ໬◊✲⛉㸧ᇼỤ⸅㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᅜ㝿ゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲⛉㸧<Abstract>
This research reports on an investigation into hedges in refusal situations and the factors that affect the use ofhedges in terms of interlanguage pragmatics. Our investigation shows the tendency of hedges used by Chineseand Koreans second language learners is similar to Japanese native speakers. However, there is a notable
quantitative difference between the situations, especially personal relationships. We argue this result shows
hedges working as one of the politeness strategies. We have also found the variety of linguistic forms used bylearners to be limited, which indicates some hedges need a high pragmatic competence.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ᪥ᮏㄒࠊ୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽࠊ࣊ࢵࢪ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
እᅜㄒ࡛ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᡂຌࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊᩥἲⓗ▱㆑ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ≧ἣࡸᑐே㛵ಀ࡞࡝࡟ᛂࡌ㐺ษ࡟ヰࡏࡿࠕㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࠖࡶྜࢃࡏ࡚⩦ᚓࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡀ౫ᣐࡍࡿ୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢ◊✲ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࠕ࣊ࢵࢪࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸Ⅼࡀከ࠸㸦㏆⸨ 2009㸧ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜ືࡢࠕ୺せ㒊ࠖࢆྵࡴⓎヰᩥ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸ
ࢪ࣮ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ࣊ࢵࢪࠖࡢ౑⏝≧ἣࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠕ㧗ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥ໬ࠖ࡟ᒓࡋ(Hall 1976)ࠊ
ࠕ఍ヰཧຍ⪅㛫ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ⥔ᣢᶵ⬟ࠖࢆ㔜どࡍࡿ(Scollon and Scollon 1995)࡜ࡉࢀࡿ୰ᅜㄒ࠾ࡼࡧ㡑ᅜㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡜࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟␗࡞ࡿ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊẕㄒࡢゝㄒⓗ≉ᚩ௨እ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞せᅉࡀࠕ࣊ࢵࢪࠖࡢ౑⏝࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᥈ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ୺࡞┠ⓗࡣ௨ୗࡢ 2Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ( I ) ᑐே㛵ಀ࡜່ㄏෆᐜࡢᨵࡲࡾᗘࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡓࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ4 ሙ㠃࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࣊ࢵࢪࡢഴྥࡢ㢮ఝⅬࠊ┦㐪Ⅼࡢゎ᫂( ϩ ) ⿕㦂⪅࡟ࡼࡿ່ㄏሙ㠃ࡢホ౯ࡢ㢮ఝⅬ࡜┦㐪Ⅼࠊཬࡧ ( I ) ࡜ࡢ┦㛵㛵ಀࡢ᭷↓ࡢ☜ㄆ
2. ᮏ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣊ࢵࢪࡢᐃ⩏࣊ࢵࢪࡣࠊᚑ᮶ࠊ࿨㢟ࡢ┿ഇࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆ᧯సࡍࡿせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ(G.Lakoff 1973)ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
୍᪉࡛ࠊᑐே㛵ಀⓗᶵ⬟ࢆྵࡴࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊR.Lakoff(1973)ࡸ Brown and Levinson(1987), Holmes(1995)࡞࡝ࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠕⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ⦆࿴ࡍࡿ㎽ゝⓗ⾲⌧ࠖ(༡ 2009)࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡉ
ࡽ࡟ࠊLauwereyns(2002)ࡸධᡞ㔝(2004)ࡣࠊㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᶵ⬟ࡶᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ࣊ࢵࢪࢆࠕⓎヰෆᐜࡢ୙☜࠿ࡉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢឤ᝟ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࠊ᩿ᐃࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆ᭷ࡋࠊⓎヰែᗘࢆ⦆࿴ࡍࡿㄒᙡ⾲⌧ࠖ࡜ᗈࡃᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟௜ຍࡉࢀࡿ⾲⌧࡟㝈ᐃࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࣞ࣋ࣝ㺃ࢩࣇࢺࡸゝ࠸ࡉࡋᩥࠊ࣏࣮ࢬࠊ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥࠊ➗࠸࡞࡝ࡣྵࡲ࡞࠸ࠋ

1

−193−

日本語学習者の勧誘場面での「断り」行動─ヘッジの中間言語語用論分析を通じて─

3. ◊✲᪉ἲ
⿕㦂⪅ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿ୰ᅜㄒヰ⪅㸦௨ୗࠊC㸧 23 ྡ࠾ࡼࡧ㡑ᅜㄒヰ⪅㸦௨ୗࠊK㸧 10 ྡࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㸦௨ୗࠊJ㸧30 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⩦⇍ᗘࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ⬟ຊヨ㦂ࡢ 1 ⣭࡟ྜ᱁ࡋࡓ
ୖ⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝࠊ⁫᪥Ṕࡣ 3 ᖺ௨ෆ࡟㝈ᐃࡋࡓࠋㄪᰝ᪉ἲࡣ௨ୗࡢᡭ㡰࡛⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡎ࣮࢜ࣉࣥ㺃࣮ࣟࣝࣉࣞ࢖࡟ࡼࡾࠊᑐே㛵ಀ㸦ࠕ࢘ࢳࠖ࡜ࠕࢯ
ࢺࠖ㸧࡜່ㄏෆᐜࡢᨵࡲࡾᗘ㸦ࠕ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣝࠖ࡜ࠕࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣝࠖ㸧ࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡓ 4 ሙ㠃࡛ࡢⓎヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ཰㞟ࡋࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓゝㄒࡀ⿕㦂⪅ࡢពᅗࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟཯ᫎࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿᥈
ࡿࡓࡵࠊྛࠎࡢሙ㠃࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯ (່ㄏෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㈇ᢸᗘࠊ⏦ࡋヂ࡞ࡉࡢ⛬ᗘ) ࢆ 5 ẁ㝵࡛ホᐃࡉࡏࠊࡉࡽ࡟᩿ࡿ㝿࡟᭱ࡶ㞴ࡋ࠿ࡗࡓⅬࢆグ㏙ࡉࡏࡓࠋศᯒ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊࡲࡎࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖㄯヰࡢࠕ୺せ㒊ࠖ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠕ୙ྍࠖ⾲᫂ࠊࠕ⌮⏤ࠖ⾲᫂ࠊࠕ୙ྍࠖ㸩ࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࢆྵࡴⓎヰᩥࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊඛ⾜◊✲ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࠕ୺せ㒊ࠖࢆྵࡴⓎヰᩥ୰ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࢆᢳฟࡋࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺཬࡧⓎヰෆᐜ࡟㓄៖ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢᐃ⩏࡜ྜ⮴ࡍࡿࡶࡢࢆ࣊ࢵࢪ
࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆᐃࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ༢ㄒࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࠖ࡜ࠕㄯヰࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࠖ࡜࡟ศࡅ㸦⾲ 1㸧ࠊศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
⾲ 1. ᢳฟ࣭ྠᐃࡋࡓ࣊ࢵࢪ
<༢ㄒࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ࣊ࢵࢪ>ศ㢮ձ㸦ᩥ㢌࠾ࡼࡧᩥ୰࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿゝㄒᙧᘧ㸧ࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜㸭ࡕࡻࡗ࡜࣮ࠖࠊࠕ࠶ࡲࡾ㸭࠶ࢇࡲࡾ㸭࠶ࢇࡲࠖࠊࠕࡓࡪࢇࠖࠊࠕࡶࡋ࠿ࡋࡓࡽ㸭ࡶࡋ࠿ࡍࡿ࡜ࠖࠊࠕ࡞ࢇ࡜࡞ࡃࠖࠊࠕࡏࡗ࠿ࡃࠖࠊࠕ࠶࠸࡟ࡃࠖࠊࠕ୍ᛂࠖࠊࠕ࡞࠿࡞࠿ࠖ
ศ㢮ղ㸦ᩥᮎࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿゝㄒᙧᘧ㸧ࠕᛮ࠺ࠖࠊࠕ࠿࡞㸭࠿࡞࣮ࠖࠊࠕࡡ㸭ࡡ࣮ࠖࠊࠕ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸㸭࠿ࡶ㸭࠿ࡶ࣮ࠖࠊࠕ㹼࡚ࡋࡲ࠺㸭㹼ࡕࡷ࠺ࠖࠊࠕࡑ࠺࡟࡞࠸㸭ࡑ࠺ࡶ࡞࠸㸭࡞ࡉࡑ࠺ࠖࠊࠕẼࡀࡍࡿࠖࠊࠕྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠖศ㢮ճ㸦ศ㢮ձ࡟ࡶศ㢮ղ࡟ࡶᒓࡉ࡞࠸ゝㄒᙧᘧ㸧ࠕ࡜࠿ࠖࠊࠕឤࡌࠖࠊࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿/࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠖࠊࠕ㹼ࡢ࡯࠺㸭᪉ྥࠖࠊࠕࡳࡓ࠸࡞ࠖࠊࠕࡇࢁ㸭ࡈࢁࠖࠊࠕࡃࡽ࠸㸭ࡄࡽ࠸ࠖࠊࠕࡼ࠺࡞ࠖ
<ㄯヰࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ࣊ࢵࢪ>ࡓࡵࡽ࠸ࠕ࠶ࡢ࣮ࠖࠊࠕࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡡ࣮ࠖࠊࠕࡲ࣮ࠖࠊ௚
ルࡧ㸭ṧᛕࠕࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࡀࠖࠊࠕṧᛕ࡛ࡍࡀࠖࠊࠕ⏦ࡋヂ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡀࠖࠊ௚⫯ᐃⓗពぢࠕ⯆࿡ࡀ࠶ࡿࢇ࡛ࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠖࠊࠕ⾜ࡁࡓ࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠖࠊ௚
ឤㅰࠕ࠾ㄏ࠸࠸ࡓࡔࡁ࠶ࡾࡀࡓ࠸࡛ࡍࡀࠖࠊࠕ࠶ࡾ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠖࠊ௚ ሙ㠃࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯⤖ᯝࡣࠊ୍ඖศᩓศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ5%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ពᕪࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࡣከ㔜ẚ㍑ (Tukey) ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋグ㏙ᅇ⟅⤖ᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᥈ࡗࡓࠋ

2

−194−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

4. ⤖ᯝ
4.1 ࣊ࢵࢪࡢศᯒ
1 Ⓨヰᩥ࠶ࡓࡾࡢᖹᆒ౑⏝ᩘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊẕㄒࢆၥࢃJඛ⏕࣭ࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮ඛ⏕࣭㣗஦཭㐩࣭ࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮
཭㐩࣭㣗஦Cඛ⏕࣭ࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮ඛ⏕࣭㣗஦཭㐩࣭ࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮
཭㐩࣭㣗஦Kඛ⏕࣭ࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮ඛ⏕࣭㣗஦཭㐩࣭ࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮
཭㐩࣭㣗஦ࡎࠊᑐ࢘ࢳࡼࡾࡶᑐࢯࢺ࡟ࡼࡾከ⏝ࡉࢀࠊ່ㄏෆᐜࡢᨵ
ࡲࡾᗘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᑐே㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡾ␗࡞ࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡾࠊJ,
C, K ࡛㢮ఝࡋࡓഴྥࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊሙ㠃㛫ࡢᕪ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࠊ≉࡟ K ࡣࠊᑐே㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡾ኱ࡁࡃ
␗࡞ࡾࠊᑐࢯࢺ࡟ࡣᑐ࢘ࢳ࡟ẚ࡭ከࡃࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ㸦ᅗ 1㸧ࠋ

0.00

1.00

༢ㄒࣞ࣋ࣝ

2. 00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

ㄯヰࣞ࣋ࣝ

ᅗ ࣊ࢵࢪࡢ౑⏝ഴྥ(J, C, K)㻌

ゝㄒᙧᘧ࠾ࡼࡧᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ༢ㄒࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࠖࡣࠊJ ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࡀከᒱ
࡟ࢃࡓࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࡑࢀࡣ㝈ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡾ೫ࡾࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ≉࡟ࠊᑐࢯࢺሙ㠃࡟ẚ࡭ᑐ࢘ࢳሙ
㠃࡛ࡣࣂ࢚ࣛࢸ࢕࡟ᐩࢇ࡛࠸ࡓࠋ඲ሙ㠃ࠊJ, C, K 㛫࡛ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚᭱ࡶ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠿ࡗࡓࡢࡣࠕࡕࡻࡗ
࡜࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᑐࢯࢺሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡓࡪࢇࠖࠊࠕᛮ࠺ࠖࡀࠊࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣝ࡞ෆᐜࢆㄏࢃࢀࡿሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠕ㹼࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠖࡶከࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊᑐ࢘ࢳሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊࠕ࠶ࡲࡾࠖࡸࠕ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠖ
ࡀࠊ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣝ࡞ෆᐜࡢሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠕࡡࠖ࡞࡝ࡶ౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊᵝࠎ࡞࣊ࢵࢪࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋJ, C, K 㛫࡛᭱ࡶ㢧ⴭ࡞┦㐪Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊJ ࡀ≉࡟ᑐ࢘ࢳሙ㠃࡛⊂ヰⓗ⏝ἲࢆࡶࡘࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡸࠕⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࠖࢆ
ከ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࠊ≉࡟ C ࡣࠕࡓࡪࢇࠖࡸࠕᛮ࠺ࠖ࡟೫ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓⅬࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ྠࡌゝㄒᙧᘧࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸࡚ࡶࠊⓎヰෆᐜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊJ ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪ࡟ࡣࠕⓎヰෆᐜࡢ୙☜࠿ࡉࠖࡸࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࠖࠊࠕ᩿ᐃࡢᅇ㑊ࠖ࡜ᵝࠎ࡞ᶵ⬟ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡀࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣࠕⓎヰෆᐜࡢ୙☜࠿ࡉࠖ࡟೫
ࡿഴྥࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊࠕㄯヰࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ࣊ࢵࢪ࡛ࠖࡣࠊሙ㠃࣭ẕㄒࢆၥࢃࡎࠕࡓࡵࡽ࠸ࠖࡢ༨ࡵࡿ
๭ྜࡀ᭱ࡶ኱ࡁࡃࠊ≉࡟ᑐࢯࢺ࠿ࡽㄏࢃࢀࡿሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ J ࡼࡾከࡃ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊJࡀ࡝ࡢሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶከ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠕルࡧ / ṧᛕࠖࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣᑐࢯࢺሙ㠃࡛ࡣከࡃ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡶ
ࡢࡢࠊࡑࡢ౑⏝ẚ⋡ࡣ J ࡟ẚ࡭పࡃࠊࠕ⫯ᐃⓗពぢࠖࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡍࡿഴྥࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ
4.2 ሙ㠃࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯⤖ᯝ࠾ࡼࡧグ㏙ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝẕㄒࢆၥࢃࡎࠊᑐ࢘ࢳ࡟ẚ࡭ᑐࢯࢺࡢ᪉ࡀ㈇ᢸᗘࠊ⏦ࡋヂ࡞ࡉࢆᙉࡃឤࡌࡿഴྥࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊ່ㄏෆᐜࡢᨵࡲࡾᗘ
࡟ࡼࡿ㢧ⴭ࡞㐪࠸ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋሙ㠃㛫ࡢᕪ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊJ ࡟ẚ࡭࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢᕪࡢ᪉ࡀ኱ࡁࡃࠊ≉࡟ᑐே㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣⴭࡋ࠸ഴྥࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣグ㏙ㄪᰝ࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࠊ≉࡟ᑐࢯࢺ࡜ࡢே㛫㛵ಀ࡟ᑐࡋ᭱ࡶὀពࢆᡶ
ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡜ࡶ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ (ᅗ 2)ࠋࡲࡓグ㏙ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࠕ᪥ᮏேࡣ፣᭤ⓗ࡞ゝ࠸᪉ࢆዲࡴࠖ࡜࠸࠺
ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ࡞⪃࠼᪉ࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

ᅗ 2. ሙ㠃ࡢホ౯(J, C, K)㻌

5. ⪃ᐹᖹᆒ౑⏝ᩘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ඲యⓗ࡞ഴྥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㛫࡛㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊಶࠎ
ࡢሙ㠃࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ᑐே㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡾ኱ࡁࡃ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊࠕ່ㄏࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㈇ᢸᗘࡸ⏦ࡋヂ࡞ࡉࡢ⛬ᗘࡢホ౯⤖ᯝ࡜┦㛵ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࠕ࣊ࢵࢪࠖࡀ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊゝㄒᙧᘧ࠾ࡼࡧᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࡣ J ࡟ẚ࡭㝈

3

−195−

日本語学習者の勧誘場面での「断り」行動─ヘッジの中間言語語用論分析を通じて─ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ≉࡟ࠕⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࠖࡸࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍࠖゝㄒᙧᘧ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ㧗ᗘࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࢆồࡵࡽࢀࡿゝㄒᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ౑⏝ࡢᅔ㞴ࡉࡀ❚࠼ࡿࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࠊࡘࡲࡾ C࣭K 㛫࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㔞ⓗ࡟ࡣ C ࡟ẚ࡭ K ࡢ᪉ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡢࠊ㉁ⓗ࡟ࡣ㢧ⴭ࡞㐪࠸ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊẕㄒࡢᙳ㡪࡟ࡼࡾࠊK ࡣ J ࡢ౑⏝≧ἣ࡜㓞ఝࡋࠊC ࡣ኱ࡁࡃ␗࡞ࡿ
࡜࠸࠺ண᝿࡜␗࡞ࡿ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࡢ⩦ᚓ࡟ࡣ┠ᶆゝㄒ⎔ቃୗ࡛ࡢ⁫ᅾᮇ㛫ࡸᏛ⩦⎔ቃࡀ኱ࡁࡃᙳ㡪ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ (Kasper and Rose 2002) ࡀࠊ⁫᪥ᮇ㛫ࠊ࢔ࣝࣂ࢖ࢺࡢ⤒㦂ࠊ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࡟ࡩ
ࢀࡿ᫬㛫ࡀ K ࡟ẚ࡭ C ࡢ᪉ࡀ㛗࠸࡜࠸࠺࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀࠕ࣊ࢵࢪࠖࡢ౑⏝࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡓྍ⬟ᛶࡀ༑஧ศ࡟⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊ㏣ㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡾ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
6. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜ື࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࣊ࢵࢪࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢゝㄒ⾜ື࡟㝈ᐃࡏࡎࠊ⮬↛࡟㏆࠸఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆศᯒࡋࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࡢ౑⏝ᐇែࢆ᥈ࡾࡓ࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ
ᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡛ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࡢᣦᑟ࡟ᛂ⏝ࡉࡏࡓ࠸ࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Brown, P. and S, Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press,
Hall, E. T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.㸦ᒾ⏣៞἞࣭㇂Ὀヂ. 1979㸧ࠗᩥ໬ࢆ㉸࠼࡚࠘TBS ࣈࣜࢱࢽ࢝㸧
Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. New York: Longman
Kasper, G. and Rose, K. R. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Wiley-Blackwell㏆⸨బᬛᏊ. 2009.ࠕ୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽ࡜ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࠖࠊࠗୖᬛ▷ᮇ኱Ꮫ⣖せ࠘ࠊ29ࠊ73-89ࠊୖᬛ▷ᮇ኱Ꮫ.
Lakoff, G. 1973. Hedges: A study in the meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal ofPhilosophical Logic 2(4): 458-508. Springer.
Lakoff, R. 1973. Language and Women’s Place, Language in Society 2: 45-80. Oxford University Press, USA
Lauwereyns, S. 2002.

Hedges in Japanese Conversation: The influence of age, sex, and formality, Language

Variation and Change, 14: 239-259. Cambridge University Press.
༡㞞ᙪ. 2009.ࠗゝㄒ࡜ᩥ໬-ゝㄒᏛ࠿ࡽㄞࡳゎࡃࡇ࡜ࡤࡢࣂ࢚࣮ࣜࢩࣙࣥ-࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ධᡞ㔝ࡳࡣࡿ. 2004. ࠕ࣊ࢵࢪࡢᙧ࡜ࡑࡢᶵ⬟ ཭ே㛫ࡢ఍ヰ࡟ぢࡿࠖࠗゝㄒᏛ࡜᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ϫ࠘༡㞞ᙪ㺃ὸ㔝┿⣖Ꮚ(⦅). 287-304. ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S, W. 1995. Intercultural Communication: A discourse approach. Cambridge, UK:
Blackwell.

4

−196−

シンポジウムSymposium第13回大会発表論文集第６号

䝅䞁䝫䝆䜴䝮
䝔䞊䝬䠖䛂ゝㄒᶵ⬟䛛䜙䛸䜙䛘䛯ㄒ⏝ㄽ䛾ᒎ㛤䛃ྖ఍䠖ඣ⋢ᚨ⨾㻌 䠄❧࿨㤋኱Ꮫྡ㄃ᩍᤵ䠅
Designated Discussant䠖Malcolm COULTHARD(Professor, Aston University, UK)1) ᪥ᮏㄒ䛻䛚䛡䜛䝔䜻䝇䝖䛾⤖᮰ᛶ䠄cohesion䠅䛾ㅖ┦—ᣦ♧⾲⌧䛸ྡモ䛾ሙྜ—㻌 ㅮᖌ䠖㻌 ᗡ㻌 ຌ㞝㻌 䠄୍ᶫ኱Ꮫ෸ᩍᤵ䠅䝔䜻䝇䝖ゝㄒᏛ䛾㔜せ䛺┠ⓗ䛾୍䛴䛻䝔䜻䝇䝖䛾⤖᮰ᛶ䠄cohesion䠅䛾ゎ᫂䛜䛒䜛䚹ᮏⓎ⾲䛷䛿䚸䝔䜻䝇䝖䛾௚䛾㒊ศ䜈䛾౫Ꮡᛶ䜢ᣢ䛱䚸䛭䜜䛻䜘䛳䛶ᩥ㐃㙐䛻⤖᮰ᛶ䜢୚䛘䜛䜒䛾䜢⤖᮰⿦⨨䛸࿧䜆䚹ᣦ♧⾲⌧䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䛂䛣䛾䛃䛸䛂䛭䛾䛃䛾౑䛔ศ䛡䜢ㄽ䛨䜛䚹୧⪅䛾౑䛔ศ䛡䛾䛖䛱䚸ᣦᐃᣦ♧䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸䛂䝖䝢䝑䜽䛸䛾㛵㐃ᛶ䛃䛂䝔䜻䝇䝖ⓗព࿡䛾௜୚䛃䛸䛔䛖䛔䛪䜜䛾ᤊ䛘᪉䜢䝔䜻䝇䝖㏦ಙ⪅䠄᭩䛝ᡭ䠋ヰ䛧ᡭ䠅䛜㑅ᢥ䛩䜛䛛䛻䜘䛳䛶䛂䛣䛾䛃䛸䛂䛭䛾䛃䛜౑䛔ศ䛡䜙䜜䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿䝔䜻䝇䝖䝺䝧䝹䛾⌧㇟䛷䛒䜛䚹୍᪉䚸௦⾜ᣦ♧䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿䚸ྡモ䛾⤫ㄒㄽⓗᛶ㉁䛜ᩥἲᛶ䜢Ỵ䜑䛶䛔䜛䚹䛩䛺䜟䛱䚸ྡモ䛜㡯ᵓ㐀䛻䛚䛔䛶㡯䜢ྲྀ䜛䠄䠍㡯ྡモ䠅䛾ሙྜ䛻䛾䜏௦⾜ᣦ♧䛜ྍ⬟䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿⤫ㄒㄽⓗ䝺䝧䝹䛾⌧㇟䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸ᣦᐃᣦ♧䛸௦⾜ᣦ♧䛿䛭䜜䛮䜜 Halliday & Hasan (1976)䛾 Reference䠄ᣦ♧䠅䛸
Substitution䠄௦⏝䠅䛻ᑐᛂ䛩䜛䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩䠖(1) ᗡ㻌 ຌ㞝.2007.䛄᪥ᮏㄒ䛻䛚䛡䜛䝔䜻䝇䝖䛾⤖᮰ᛶ䛾◊✲䛅䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧.ᮾி.
(2) Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. Longman.

2) ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䛜ᤊ䛘䜛ㄯヰ䛾ᵓ㐀䛸ព࿡ㅮᖌ䠖 ᯘ㻌 ♩Ꮚ㻌 䠄⏥༡ዪᏊ኱Ꮫᩍᤵ䠅ゝㄒ◊✲䛿 20 ୡ⣖䛻䛺䛳䛶ᛴ㏿䛻Ⓨᒎ䛧䚸1960 ᖺ௦䛻䛿䚸ゝㄒ䛾ᶵ⬟䜢㏻䛧䛶♫఍䛾౯್ほ䜔ಙᛕ䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢┠ᣦ䛩஧䛴䛾◊✲䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䛜⏕䜎䜜䛯䚹䛭䛾୍䛴䛿䚸䛂ゝㄒ䛿♫఍䜔ᩥ໬䜢ᫎ䛩䛃䛸䛔䛖ぢᆅ䛛䜙䚸ゝㄒ౑⏝᫬䛻⾲ฟ䛥䜜䜛♫఍䛸ᩥ໬䛻䛴䛔䛶ㄝ᫂䛩䜛ᯟ⤌䜏䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸ᢳ㇟ⓗ䛺ゝㄒ䛾◊✲䛻ᑐᢠ䛧䛶㉳䛣䛳䛯䜒䛾䛷䚸ึᮇ䛾♫఍ゝㄒᏛ䜔ே㢮ゝㄒᏛ䛺䛹䛛䜙ᥦ᱌䛥䜜䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䜒䛖୍䛴䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䛿䚸䛭䜜䛸䛿␗䛺䜚䚸䛂ゝㄒ䛿♫఍ⓗព࿡䜢ᵓ⠏䛩䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖ほⅬ䛛䜙䚸ゝㄒ䛾౑⏝䛸䛭䛾♫఍ⓗព࿡௜䛡䜢◊✲䛩䜛ᯟ⤌䜏䛷䛒䜛䚹ᚋ⪅䛿䚸䛂ᢈุㄯヰศᯒ䛃䛛䜙ᥦ᱌䛥䜜䛯䜒䛾䛷䚸⌧ᐇ♫఍䜢ᵓ⠏䛩䜛䛾䛿♫఍䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸ゝㄒ䜢౑⏝䛩䜛ே㛫䛷䛒䜚䚸♫఍䛾⛛ᗎ䛿䛭䛾䜘䛖䛺ே㛫䛻䜘䛳䛶స䜙䜜䜛䛸䛔䛖୺ᙇ䜢ᣢ䛴䚹䛣䛾◊✲䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䛻䛿ḟ䛾䜘䛖䛺≉ᚩ䛜䛒䜛䚹䠄䠍䠅䛂䝇䝢䞊䝏䝁䝭䝳䝙䝔䜱䛃䛷䛿䛺䛟䛂䝁䝭䝳䝙䝔䜱ᐇ㊶䛃䛾㔜ど䠄䠎䠅㞟ᅋ䛷䛿䛺䛟ಶே䛾♫఍άື䛾ศᯒ䛾㔜ど䠄䠏䠅ゝㄒ䛸♫఍䛾ᅛᐃⓗ䛺ព࿡㛵ಀ䛾◊✲䛷䛿䛺䛟ಶே䛸ಶே䠄♫఍䠅䛾ὶືⓗ䛺ព࿡ᵓ⠏䛾◊✲䛾㔜ど㻌 䛧䛛䛧ᐇ㝿䛻䛿䚸ಶே䛜ㄯヰ䛾୰䛷ఏ䛘䜛ព࿡䜢♫఍ⓗ䛺ព࿡䛸䛧䛶≉ᐃ䛩䜛䛾䛿ᐜ᫆䛷䛿䛺䛔䚹䛭䜜䛿䚸ㄯヰෆ䛷䛹䛾䛣䛸䜀䛜䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺♫఍䛾ព࿡䜢స䜚䛒䛢䛶䛔䜛䛾䛛䜢ᐈほⓗ䚸ㄽ⌮ⓗ䚸䛛䛴ᐇ㊶ⓗ䛻≉ᐃ䛧䛺䛡䜜䜀䛺䜙䛺䛔䛛䜙䛷䛒䜛䚹ᮏⓎ⾲䛷䛿䚸䛭䛾᪉ἲ䜢᥈䜛䛣䛸䜢┠ⓗ䛸䛧䛶䚸♫఍䛾䜶䞊䝆䜵䞁䝖䛸䛧䛶䛾ಶே䛜స䜛ㄯヰ䛾ᵓ㐀䛸䛭䛾ᵓ㐀䜢㏻䛧䛶⾲ฟ䛩䜛♫఍ほ䛛䜙䚸䛭䛾ಶே䛿䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺♫఍ⓗព࿡䜢స䛳䛶䛔䜛䛾䛛䜢⪃䛘䜛䚹ලయⓗ䛻䛿䚸㞧ㄅ䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸⦅㞟⪅䛜ㄞ⪅䛸ᑐヰ䛩䜛䝔䜽䝇䝖䜢ྲྀ䜚ୖ䛢䚸⦅㞟⪅䛜౑䛖䛂⚾䛯䛱䛃(we)䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䜀䛿䚸䛂ಶேᑐ 㞟ᅋ䛃䚸䛂ྲྀ䜚㎸䜏 ᑐ ᤼㝖䛃䛸䛔䛳䛯ᑐ❧ᵓ㐀䜢స䛳䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䚸⦅㞟⪅䛿䛭䛾ᵓ㐀䜢㏻䛧䛶ㄞ⪅䛾䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䜢ᾘ㈝♫఍䛾䝯䞁䝞䞊䛸䛧䛶స䜚䛒䛢䜛䛣䛸䜢♧䛩䚹㻌3) 䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䛛䜙ぢ䜛䝔䜽䝇䝖ゎ㔘—ྠ୍䝖䝢䝑䜽䛾␗䛺䜛ල⌧䜢䜑䛠䛳䛶—ㅮᖌ䠖 㱟ᇛ㻌 ṇ᫂㻌 䠄ྠᚿ♫኱Ꮫᩍᤵ䠅−197−

ᮏⓎ⾲䛷䛿䚸䝝䝸䝕䞊䛻䜘䜚ᥦၐ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛 SFL 䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䜢䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖ᒙ䛸䛔䛖ほⅬ䛛䜙⤂௓䛧䚸䛭䛾ୖ䛷䚸䝔䜽䝇䝖⌮ゎ䛻䛿䛔䛛䛻䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䛜୙ྍḞ䛷䛒䜛䛛䜢ㄽ䛨䜛䚹᭱㏆䛾᪂⪺グ஦䛻ぢ䜙䜜䜛䝖䝢䝑䜽䜢ྲྀ䜚ୖ䛢䚸䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䛜␗䛺䜜䜀䛭䛾ෆᐜ䛜␗䛺䜛ሙྜ䜒䛒䜚ᚓ䜛౛䜢㏻䛧䛶䚸䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䛾㔜せᛶ䜢ㄝ䛟䚹䜎䛯䚸୍ぢᩚ䛳䛯䛂ᩥ䛃䛛䜙䛺䜛䝔䜽䝇䝖䜒䚸ᐇ䛿༢୍ᩥ䛾䜏䛷䛿༑ศ䛺⌮ゎ䛜䛷䛝䛪䚸䛭䜜䜢ྲྀ䜚ᕳ䛟๓ᚋ㛵ಀ䛜኱䛝䛟㛵୚䛧䛶䛔䜛౛䜢ྲྀ䜚䛒䛢䜛䚹䛣䜜䛻䜘䜚᪥ᮏㄒ䛾䝔䜽䝇䝖䛿䛂ᩥ䛃䛸䛔䛖ᩥἲᶵ⬟䛸䛔䛖䜘䜚䛿䚸୍䛴䛾䛂ఏ㐩ⓗ䝴䝙䝑䝖䠄Communicative Unit䠅䛃䛸䛔䛖ᴫᛕ䜢⏝䛔䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䛾㔜せᛶ䛸┦䜎䛳䛶䝔䜽䝇䝖䜢㐺ษ䛻⌮ゎ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜ྍ⬟䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢ぢ䜛䚹௨ୖ䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙䚸ゝㄒ⌮ゎ䛻ᚲせ䛺 Context of Culture 䛸 Context of Situation 䛸࿧䜀䜜䜛䠎䛴䛾䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖ᒙ䛸ఏ㐩ⓗ䝴䝙䝑䝖䛸䛾㛵ಀ䜢㏻䛧䛶䚸᪥ᮏㄒ䛾䝔䜽䝇䝖ศᯒ䜢ヨ䜏䜛䚹ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩䠖㱟ᇛ㻌 ṇ᫂㻌 (2004)㻌 䛂Communicative Unit 䛻䜘䜛䝔䞊䝬ศᯒ䠉The Kyoto Grammar 䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䛷䛃㻌 䛄ྠᚿ♫኱ᏛⱥㄒⱥᩥᏛ◊✲䛅76 ྕ㱟ᇛ㻌 ṇ᫂䠄⦅䠅䠄2006䠅䛄䛣䛸䜀䛿⏕䛝䛶䛔䜛㻌 㑅ᢥయ⣔ᶵ⬟ゝㄒᏛධ㛛䛅ᮾி䠖䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧㱟ᇛ㻌 ṇ᫂㻌 (2009)㻌 䛂The Kyoto Grammar 䛸᪥ᮏㄒศᯒ䛃䛄᪥ᮏㄒᏛ䛅Vol.28-4㻌 ᫂἞᭩㝔
Halliday M.A.K. & C.M.I.M. Matthiessen (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar 3rd ed. London, Arnold.

−198−

付

録

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

入 会 案 内
［入会手続きについて］
以下の手続き（１）と（２）をお済ませください。
●手続き（１）
電子メールにて以下の「記入の項目」をご記入の上、psj.treasurer -at- gmail.com（大阪府立大学・高木佐知子宛）（スパムメール防止のためにこのような表記となっております。）
へお送り下さい。なお、その際、「会費を払い込んだ」かどうかを付け加えていただけ
れば幸いです。メールをいただければ、事務局よりreplyをいたします。なお、今後の会員の住所・所属変更は、必ず事務局宛にメールでご連絡下さい。
・記入の項目○名前（ふりがな）○

所属○

教員か学生か団体かの別（教員、大学院生、学部生、非常勤講師、一般、団体など）○

郵便番号及び住所○

電話番号／ Fax番号○

E-mail address●手続き（２）
年会費（一般会員：5,000円、学生会員：4,000円、団体会員：6,000円［平成18年３月21日運営委員会決定］）を郵便局に備え付けの郵便振り込み用紙で、以下の口座にお振り込み下さい。また、通信欄には、何年度の年会費かのみを明記ください。
00900-3-130378

口座名：日本語用論学会（＊こちらに届く郵便振り込み用紙が、字がかすれて読めない場合がありますので、郵便振り込み用紙のみでの新入会員申し込みではなく、必ず上記手続き（１）と（２）をお済ませくださるようお願い申し上げます。）−199−

会費振り込みについて、振り込み用紙を使用されない場合は、以下のゆうちょ銀行の口座へお振り込みください。各銀行のご自分の口座から振り込みができます。なお、その際、こちらへはお名前しか届きませんので、psj.treasurer -at- gmail.com（学会会計担当）へ、会員番号、振り込み年度と、住所変更などありましたら必ずメールにてお知らせください。
会費納入先：ゆうちょ銀行
支店名：099店
口座種類：当座
口座番号：130378
口座名義：日本語用論学会＜個人情報の取り扱いに関する御連絡のお願い＞
本学会では、この度、学会の更なる発展と会員相互の連絡交流の促進を計ることを念頭に、会員名簿を作成することになりました。名簿の発行に付きましては、近年、特に個人情報保護の観点から、様々な問題が指摘されていることは御承知の通りです。そこで、本学会でも、これらの情報につきましては、その適正な取扱いの確保と個人の権利や利益の侵害の防止を図る為、その公表には慎重な取り扱いをさせていただく所存であります。つきましては、新しく本学会に入会希望をお届けの際には、
１．氏名
２．住所
３．所属（身分＜教員、学生、非常勤等＞）
４．電話番号
５．ファックス番号
６．メールアドレスのうち、項目別に、会員名簿上に掲載を不可とするものがありましたら（また代替の情報がある場合はその内容を）事務局にメールでご連絡いただきますようお願いします。
特にご指定がなければ、ご氏名、ご所属、メールアドレスのみ公開可とさせていただき
ます。
=

記

=

『語用論研究』は毎年12月に刊行、Newsletterは毎年４月末と10月末にお送りしています。会員になられると、『語用論研究』、Newsletter、大会プログラムなどをお送りい
たします。

−200−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

日本語用論学会規約
第１章

総則

第１条

本会は「日本語用論学会」（The Pragmatics Society of Japan）と称する。

第２条

本会は語用論ならびに関連諸分野の研究に寄与することを目的とする。

第３条

本会は次の事業を行う。
１．大会その他の研究集会。
２．機関誌の発行。
３．その他必要な事業。

第４条

本会は諸事業を推進するため運営委員会および事務局を置く。

第５条

運営委員会の承認を経て、支部を各地区に置くことができる。

第２章

会員

第６条

本会の会員は一般会員、学生会員、団体会員の３種類とする。

第７条

会員は、本会の趣旨に賛同し所定の手続きを経て本会に登録された個人及び団
体とする。

第８条

会員は諸種の会合及び事業の通知を受け、事業に参加することができる。また、所定の手続きを経て、研究集会で研究発表し、機関誌に投稿することができる。

第３章
第９条

役員

本会に次の役員を置く。任期は２年とし、再選を妨げない。
会

長

１名

長

１名

事 務 局 長１名

運 営 委 員

若干名

会計監査委員

１名

副会

また、顧問を置くことがある。
第10条

運営委員会は、会長、副会長、事務局長および運営委員から構成される。

第11条

会長、副会長、および事務局長は運営委員会で選出され、運営委員は会員より選出される。

第12条

運営委員会は次の任務を遂行する。
１．機関誌および会報誌等の編集・刊行にかかわる事項の決定。
２．大会および研究集会等にかかわる事項の決定。
３．予算案および収支決算案の作成。

−201−

４．その他運営委員会が必要と認めた事項。
第13条

運営委員会の中に次の委員会を置く。委員は運営委員会の議を経て会長が委嘱し、兼任することができる。各委員会は会務を遂行するために、運営委員会の承認を得て有給の事務助手を置くことができる。
１．編集委員会
２．大会運営委員会
３．事業委員会
４．広報委員会

第14条

各委員会の業務を調整するために代表連絡会議を開く。代表連絡会議は、会長、副会長、事務局長、編集委員長、大会運営委員長、事業委員長、広報委員長から構成される。

第15条

本会の会則は、会員総会で承認を得るものとする。

第16条

会員の中から会計監査委員を１名選出する。任期は２年とし、１期に限る。

第４章
第17条

会議

定例会員総会は、年１回会長がこれを招集する。また、必要な場合、臨時会員
総会を招集することができる。

第18条

定例運営委員会は、必要に応じて、年１回以上招集される。

第５章

会計

第19条

本会の運営経費は、会費、寄付金等を以てこれに当てる。

第20条

事務局は、予算案および収支決算書を作成し、運営委員会の議を経て、会員総会で承認を得るものとする。ただし、収支決算書は会計監査委員の監査を受けなければならない。）

第21条

本会の会計年度は、毎年４月１日に始まり、翌年３月31日に終わる。

第６章
第22条

事務局

事務局を事務局長もしくは運営委委員の所属する大学に置く。

第７章

事務局および委員会に関する細則

１．事務局は、事務局長、事務局長補佐、会計、会計補佐から構成され、対外折衝、運営委員会・総会の企画・運営、会員名簿の管理、会費の徴収、会計、機関誌・大会予稿集等の販売、会員への連絡など、学会の運営にかかわる諸々の業務を担当する。事
務局は、業務を遂行するために、運営委員会の承認を得て有給の事務助手を置くこと
ができる。

−202−

第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

２．編集委員会は、委員長、副委員長、委員から構成され、機関誌『語用論研究』の編集と刊行に関わる業務を担当する。
３．大会運営委員会は、委員長、副委員長、委員から構成され、大会企画と大会実行の二つの業務を担当する。大会企画担当の委員は、ワークショップ、研究発表、シンポ
ジウム、講演等、大会全般を企画・提案し、大会予稿集Program and Abstractsを編集・刊行する。大会実行担当の委員は、会長から委嘱された大会開催校委員と協力して、大会の実行にあたる。
４．事業委員会は、委員長、副委員長、委員から構成され、講演会、セミナー等の企画、運営、実行にあたる。
５．広報委員会は、委員長、副委員長、委員から構成され、会報誌・Newsletter、ホームページ等の編集と発行に関わる業務を担当する。

第８章

会長選出に関する細則

１．この細則は、会則第９条と第11条のうち、会長の選出方法と任期について定める。
２．会長は、会員の中から、就任時に65歳以下のものを運営委員の投票によって選出する。投票は郵送による無記名とする。
３．投票の結果、過半数の得票を得た者を会長とする。過半数を得た者がない場合、得票上位者２名についての決選投票を行う。尚、得票数が同数の場合は、最年長者を会長とする。
４．前条によって決定された会長は、改選の前年度の定例総会において承認を得るものとする。
５．会長の任期は２年とし、２期までとする。
６．会長選挙管理委員は、現会長が運営委員会の中から必要数を選出する。
附則：この細則は、平成17年10月５日から実施する。
平成10年12月５日（制定）平成15年12月６日（改正）平成17年10月５日（改正）−203−『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）執筆規定
日本語での発表をされた方用
日本語用論学会では、2005年度より、毎年の大会で発表された論文をとりまとめ、大会後に、『大会発表論文集』を発行しています。つきましては、大会の「研究発表」、「ワークショップ発表」、「ポスター発表」で、発表されました皆様には、以下の要領で原稿を提出していただくことになりますので、予め、お知らせいたします。
１．執筆規定１．用紙・枚数：A4用紙、横書き。「研究発表」は８ページ以内、「ワークショップ
発表」、「ポスター発表」は４ページ以内（注：要旨、参考文献を含む）。字数は
自由。
２．書式：
ａ．余白は上下30mm、左右25mmとする。１行文字数、行数、段組などは自由（ただし、文字のサイズは極端に小さくしないこと）。
ｂ．原稿の１ページ目には、タイトル、氏名、所属（E-mailアドレスは任意）を記し、そのあと２行開けて要旨、本文を続ける。
ｃ．「はじめに」または「序論」の節は０．からではなく、１．から始めること。
ｄ．例文の前後は１行、各節の前は１行開ける。
ｅ．注を付ける場合は、巻末とし、本文と参考文献の間にまとめて入れる。
ｆ．参考文献のフォーマットは『語用論研究』の執筆要領に従うこと（本学会のホームページ参照）。
３．要旨：
ａ．要旨は（日本語での論文も含め）全て英語によるものとし、約100語で書く。
ｂ．要旨は＜Abstract＞とページの左上に記し、原稿の１ページ目には、タイトル・
氏名・所属と要旨を記すこと。
４．キーワード
ａ．要旨の下に【キーワード】：或いは【Keywords】：と明記して、日本語の論文は日本語で、英語の論文は英語で、５個以内を添えること。
ｂ．キーワードと本文との間は２行アケとすること−204−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

見分けのイメージ（１ページ目）

タイトル○○○
氏名○○
所属○○

＜要旨＞
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・【キーワード】：１、２、３、

本文

２．その他の注意事項
ａ．執筆者は、前年度の大会の「研究発表」、「ワークショップ発表」、「ポスター発表」
での報告者に限る。
ｂ．内容は、大会発表に沿ったものとする（但し、必要な修正を施すこと）。
ｃ．使用言語は原則として日本語とする。
ｄ．『プロシーディングズ』に掲載した内容は、さらに発展させて、『語用論研究』に投稿することができる。その場合は、必ず十分な加筆・修正を施すこと。
ｅ．別のカバーシート用紙（A4）に次の事項を記入して提出すること：
・「研究発表」、「ワークショップ発表」、「ポスター発表」のいずれであるか。
・発表論文タイトルと発表者名（日本語） 氏名（ふりがな）
・発表論文タイトルの英語訳と発表者名のローマ字表記。ワークショップ発表の代
表者はワークショップの全体タイトルの英訳も記入のこと。
・連絡先：E-mailアドレス−205−

Request of submitting the manuscripts
for the Proceedings
For participants who presented papers in English
Since 2005, the Pragmatics Society of Japan has been publishing presentations
given at its Annual Conference for publication in a volume of proceedings.
The following are instructions for use in preparation of manuscripts by those
who have presented their work at the Conference as lecture presentations, inworkshops, or in poster sessions.
Instructions for Preparing Manuscripts
1. Writing requirements
1. Paper and length:
All manuscripts should be submitted on A4 size paper. Manuscripts for lecture
presentations should be no more than 8 pages in length. Workshop and poster presentations
should be no longer than 4 pages. Please note that these length restrictions include theabstract and the reference list. There is no restriction on the number of words or charactersper page.
2. Format:
a. Margins: top and bottom, 3 cm; right and left, 2.5 cm.
Number of lines per page, number of characters per line, and line spacing are not
restricted (however, extremely small characters should not be used) .
b. The first page of the manuscript should begin with the title, the authorʼs name, and theauthorʼs affiliation (e-mail address optional) , followed, after two blank lines, by theabstract and the main text.
c. The introductory section or prefatory remarks should be numbered from 1, not 0.
d. Examples should be preceded and followed by one blank line. Each new section should
be preceded by one blank line.
e. If notes are included, they should be placed at the end, between the main text and thereference list.
f. References should follow the style sheet of Goyoron Kenkyu (Studies in Pragmatics) (seethe homepage of PSJ) .
3. Abstracts:
a. All abstracts should be written in English and should be about 100 words in length.
b. The abstract should appear on the first page of the manuscript, after the title, authorʼs−206−第13回大会発表論文集

第６号

name, and authorʼs affiliation. The abstract should begin with the word ʻAbstractʼ in theupper left corner.
4. Keywords:
a. A maximum of 5 keywords should be given below the abstract, preceded by
ʻ【Keywords】ʼ. [Refer to the figure below.]b. Main text should be preceded by two blank lines.

Title
Authorʼs nameAuthorʼs affiliation＜Abstract＞
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・【Keywords】：1, 2, 3,
Main Text

2. Other important points
a. All contributors must have given a lecture presentation, a workshop presentation, or aposter presentation at PSJʼs Conference of the Society.
b. Aside from necessary corrections, manuscript contents should be faithful to the content of
the presentation actually given at the Annual Meeting.
c. As a general rule, manuscripts should be written in English.
d. Extended versions of papers which have appeared in the Proceedings may be submitted forreview to PSJʼs Journal Goyoron Kenkyu (Studies in Pragmatics) . In that case additions
and corrections should be made to the original manuscript.
e. On a separate (A4) coversheet, please indicate the following information:i. Whether your presentation was a lecture, a workshop, presentation, or a poster
presentation.
ii. The title of your paper and your name.
iii. Your e-mail address−207−

<第14回大会で発表された方へのお知らせ>
第14回『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）（第７号）
掲載論文原稿執筆のお願い。
日本語用論学会では、2005年度より、毎年の大会で発表された論文をとりまとめ、大会後に、『大会発表論文集』を発行しています。つきましては、今年度の大会の「研究発表」、「ワークショップ発表」、「ポスター発表」で、発表されました皆様には、原稿を提出していただくことになりますので、予め、お知らせいたします。尚、原稿の提出先や提出期限等の詳しいことは、追って、HPやニュースレターでもお知らせします。次号（第７号）の発行は、来年度の大会時となります。
（日本語用論学会−208−

事務局より）

Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan

編集後記『日本語用論学会

第13回大会発表論文集』第6号をお届けいたします。日本語用論学会では、2005年度より、年次大会でのご発表内容を論文集としてとりまとめ、大会後に発行することになりました。今号では、研究発表19件、ワークショップ発表4件、ポスターセッショ
ン7件、合計30件のご寄稿をいただきました。
『大会発表論文集』創刊号を発行し今年で6年目となります。語用論研究がますます発展することを願っております。なお創刊号からすべて国立国会図書館（東西）に永久保存されました。第14回大会後は『日本語用論学会

第14回大会発表論文集』第7号を発行する予定でございますので、どうぞご期待ください。

（『大会発表論文集』編集担当：余日本語用論学会

第13回大会発表論文集

維

長友俊一郎）

第６号（2010）（Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan）
発行日

2011年11月3日

代

表

者

山梨正明

編集・発行

日本語用論学会

事務局（The Pragmatics Society of Japan）〒606-8585 京都市左京区松ヶ崎御所海道町 京都工芸繊維大学 基盤科学系言語・文化部門 田中廣明研究室内

TEL：075-724-7014（代表） E-mail: psj.secretary@gmail.com
印

刷 （株）
田中プリント〒600-8047 京都市下京区松原通麸屋町東入

TEL：075-343-0006

FAX：075-341-4476

PSJⓒ日本語用論学会