ISSN 1881−445X 日本語用 論 学 会 ■ 第 14 回 大会発表論文集 第７号 Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan 2011年12月3・4日（土・日） ■ 於 京都外国語大学 PSJ The Pragmatics Society of Japan 日本語用論学会 2011 日本語用論学会 （The Pragmatics Society of Japan） 略称：PSJ 日本語用論学会役員 （執 行 部） 1. 会 長 ： 2. 副 会 長 ： 3. 事 務 局 長 ： 事 務 局 幹 事 ： （編 集 部） 4. 編 集 委 員 長 ： 副 委 員 長 ： 編 集 委 員 ： （大 会 運 営 部） 5. 大会運営委員長 ： 大会運営副委員長 ： 大会運営副委員長 ： 大会運営副委員長 ： 大会運営副委員長 ： 大会運営委員（企画） ： 大会委員（発表）： 大会実行委員（実行） ： プロシーディング委員 ： （国際・事業部） 6. 国際・事業委員長 ： 国際・事業副委員長 ： 国際・事業委員 ： （広 報 部） 7. 広 報 委 員 長 ： 広報副委員長 ： 広 報 委 員 ： 林 宅男 東森 勲 山本英一 五十嵐海理（会計担当）、加藤重広 山口治彦 Lawrence Schourup 井上逸兵、久保 進、田中廣明、名嶋義直、鍋島弘治朗、 西山佑司、東森 勲、平塚 徹、山梨正明 久保 進 （企画）加藤重広 （発表）小山哲春 （実行）野澤 元 （プロシーディングス）鈴木光代 井上逸兵、澤田治美、名嶋義直、西光義弘、林 礼子 金丸敏幸、高木佐知子、長友俊一郎 五十嵐海理、岡本雅史、野澤 元 森山卓郎 平塚 徹 余 維 長友俊一郎、鍋島弘治朗、野澤 元、森山卓郎、 Lawrence Schourup 田中廣明 金丸敏幸（Homepage） 、森山由紀子（Newsletter） 岡本雅史（Homepage） 、名嶋義直（Newsletter） （2012年4月1日現在） 学会連絡先 日本語用論学会 事務局（The Pragmatics Society of Japan） 〒564-8680 大阪府吹田市山手町3-3-35 関西大学 外国語学部 山本 英一 研究室内 E-mail：[email protected] 学会ホームページ：http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/psj4/ 郵便振替口座 00900-3-130378 口座名：日本語用論学会 年会費 （一般会員：5,000円、学生会員：4,000円、団体会員：6,000円） PSJ 目 次 研究発表（日本語発表） 緊急事態と非常事態における情報伝達 ―関連性理論におけるコミュニケーションの効率性― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 新井 恭子 1 日本語の接続助詞「と」 ―インドネシア語との対照とテーマ・レーマの考察― ‥‥‥ ティウク・イヒティアリ 9 ■ 未来パーフェクトのシテイルが表す、聞き手への配慮について ‥‥‥‥‥ 上原由美子 17 ■ 存在表現の適用―「やる」と「売る」の自動詞用法― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大西 美穂 25 ■ 法副詞no doubtの用法―（間）主観性の観点から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 岡本 芳和 33 ■ 若者ことばにおける「盛る（もる）」の意味拡張 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 神澤 克徳 41 ■ oppositeの意味論と関数的解釈 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 黒川 尚彦 49 ■ 直接話法を導く談話標識の解釈的用法 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 今野 昌俊 57 ■ ダイクシスにおける直示的中心の階層スケールと語用論 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 澤田 淳 65 ■ 推論による不定指示について―日本語のソ系指示詞の解釈― ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 杉山さやか 73 ■ no doubtの談話機能に関する実験的調査 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 鈴木 大介・藤原 崇 81 ■ 語用論的観点から見る縮約表現の一考察 ―ポライトネスを反映する「チャウ」を事例に― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 張 又華 89 ■ 主題非明示型結果構文の主語名詞句に関する意味的・語用論的制約について ‥ 對馬 康博 97 ■ マスメディアの科学ディスコースを通した数の認識 ―メタファー的思考に着目して― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 出口 由美 105 英語連結的知覚動詞構文の補語分布への意味論的アプローチ： 属性・状態叙述の違いに着目して ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中村 文紀 113 ■ 話し手が自分自身をyouで語ることの意味 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中山 仁 121 ■ 中国語の物語における文脈指示詞「这」と「那」について ―談話の四層構造の観点から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 劉 驫 129 「自分」と「自己」 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 汪 宇 137 ■ ■ ■ ■ PSJ 研究発表（英語発表） Identity in Practice: The Use of Terminological Resources and Identity Formation at Conversation Analytic Data Sessions in Japan ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Cade BUSHNELL 143 Mental Causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF Clauses: A Case Study of Grammar-Pragmatics Interface ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Hirohito KATAOKA 151 ■ Modal Concord in Japanese: Some Initial Observations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Lars LARM 159 ■ Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥Chad NILEP 167 ■ Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥Sumiyo NISHIGUCHI 175 ■ "Okay" in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions of International Scientific Conference Presentations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Yusuke OKADA 183 ■ Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis‥‥‥Rabindranath S. POLITO 191 ■ Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically: A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions ‥‥‥ Tohru SERAKU 205 Allo-repetition to Develop the Story: From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Lala UCHIDA 213 ■ ■ ■ PSJ ポスターセッション（日本語発表） ■ 対話の参与者間における言語的響鳴と連鎖 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 伊澤 宜仁 221 ■ 誤伝達：概念構造とプロトタイプ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 井筒 勝信・井筒（成田）美津子 225 ■ has goneとis goneの出現環境と意味の動機 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 岩田 真紀 229 ■ 「共話」の観点からみたマレーシア語母語話者のあいづち分析 ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 勝田 順子 233 ■ 「名詞句からの外置に関わる制約」と「指示」の関係について ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中田 智也 237 ■ 「エコ」はよいこと?―批判的談話分析の立場から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中野阿佐子 241 ■ 介護現場における入浴場面での介助者と利用者との関係構築 ―スピーチレベル・シフトとポジティブ・ポライトネス・ストラテジーからの考察― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 古田 朋子・堀江 薫 245 なぜ、従属節否定よりも主節否定（否定辞繰り上げ文）の方が多用されるのか？ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 森 貞 249 ■ ポスターセッション（英語発表） ■ What do Honorifics Convey?̶A relevance-based approach̶ ‥‥‥‥‥‥ Yuko KOIZUMI 253 ■ The Meaning of Diminutive Shift in Japanese: Its Dimensionality, Regularity and Pragmatic Effect ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥Osamu SAWADA 257 PSJ ワークショップ メディア・ディスコースにおける「らしさ」の表象 ―キャリア･ウーマン、草食男子、父親･母親をめぐって― 司会：高木佐知子 ■ 「男らしさ」の危機か？―ブログに見る「草食男子」への評価― ‥‥‥‥‥ 神田 靖子 261 ■ 日本の両親向け育児雑誌における父親らしさ・母親らしさの表象 ‥‥‥‥ 稲永 知世 265 ■ 働く女性と「女らしさ」―日本のキャリアウーマン雑誌の談話分析― ‥‥ 高木佐知子 269 シンポジウム Aspects of Meaning in Discourse: Towards Interdisciplinary Pragmatic Research Chair: Lawrence SCHOURUP Designated Discussant: John Du BOIS ■ 相互行為における身体化された行為 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 西阪 仰 273 ■ Trading Places and Intersubjective Understanding of Spatial Perspectives ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 片岡 邦好 276 発話の実時間性：相互行為と認知の接点 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 伝 康晴 279 ■ 付録 ■ 入会案内 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 283 ■ 日本語用論学会規約 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 285 ■ 『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）執筆規定 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 288 ■ ＜第15回大会で発表された方へのお知らせ＞ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 292 PSJ Table of Contents Lecture Sessions: Presentation in Japanese ■ Kyoko ARAI: The Information Transmission in the Case of Emergency or Unusual Situations: The Efficiency of Communication in the Framework of Relevance Theory ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 1 ■ Tiwuk IKHTIARI W.: Japanese Connective Particle To : A Contrastive Study and Theme/Rheme Consideration ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 9 ■ Yumiko UEHARA: Shiteiru of Future Perfect and Speaker s Consideration for theHearer ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 17 ■ Miho ONISHI: The Use of uru to sell and yaru to do as Transitive Verbs ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 25 ■ Yoshikazu OKAMOTO: The Usage of a Modal Adverb no doubt : In Terms of (Inter) Subjectivity ‥‥‥‥ 33 ■ Katsunori KANZAWA: Semantic Extension of Japanese Verb Moru as a Slang of Young People ‥‥‥‥ 41 ■ Naohiko KUROKAWA: Semantics of Opposite and its Functional Interpretation ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 49 ■ Masatoshi KONNO: Imperative Use of Discourse Markers Introducing Direct Quote Structure in English ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 57 ■ Jun SAWADA: Direct Scale Model and Pragmatics ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 65 ■ Sayaka SUGIYAMA: The Interpretation of Japanese Demonstratives so-NP Which Do Not Have Their Antecedents in the Previous Sentences and Refer to Indefinite Entities ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 73 ■ Daisuke SUZUKI and Takashi FUJIWARA: On the Discourse Function of No doubt : Evidence from a Questionnaire Study ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 81 ■ Yu-hua CHANG: Investigation of Contrction from a Pragmatics Point of View: Politeness of Japanese Contraction chau ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 89 ■ Yasuhiro TSUSHIMA: A Semantic and Pragmatic Constraint on the Subject Referent of Implicit Theme Resultative Constructions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 97 ■ Yumi DEGUCHI: Perception of Numbers in Scientific Discourse in the Mass Media: Focusing on Metaphorical Thought ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 105 ■ Fuminori NAKAMURA: A Semantic Approach to the Complement of the English Copulative Perception Verb Construction: with Reference to Character-describing and State-describing Predicates ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 113 ■ Hitoshi NAKAYAMA: How Generic You is Used When You talk about Yourself ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 121 ■ Liu BIAO: Anaphoric Usage of zhe and na in Chinese Narratives -From the Perspective of Discourse Internal Structure. ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 129 ■ Yu WANG: Jibun and Jiko ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 137 PSJ Lecture Sessions: Presentation in English ■ Cade BUSHNELL: Identity in Practice: The Use of Terminological Resources and Identity Information at Conversation Analytic Data Sessions in Japan ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 143 ■ Hirohito KATAOKA: Mental Causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF Clauses: A Case Study of Grammar-Pragmatics Interface ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 151 ■ Lars LARM: : Modal Concord in Japanese: Some Initial Observations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 159 ■ Chad NILEP: Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 167 ■ Sumiyo NISHIGUCHI: Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 175 ■ Yusuke OKADA: Okay in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions of International Scientific Conference Presentations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 183 ■ Rabindranath S. POLITO: Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 191 ■ Tohru SERAKU: Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically: A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 205 ■ Lala UNCHIDA: Allo-repetition to Develop the Story: From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 213 PSJ Poster Sessions: Presentation in Japanese ■ Yoshihito IZAWA: Resonance and Sequence in Interactions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 221 ■ Katsunobu IZUTSU and Mitsuiko (NARITA) IZUTSU: Miscommunication: Conceptual Structure and Prototype ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 225 ■ Maki IWATA: The Schematic Meaning of the Present Perfect in Relation to the Aspects of Expressions ‥‥‥ 229 ■ Junko KATSUTA: Analysis of Back-Channels by Malay Native Speakers: From the Perspective of KYOOWA Style ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 233 ■ Tomoya NAKATA: On the Relationship between the Constraints on Extraposition from NP and Reference Presenter ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 237 ■ Asako NAKANO: Is Eco a Good Thing?: From the View of Critical Discourse Analysis ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 241 ■ Tomoko FURUTA and Kaoru HORIE: Relationship Building between Carer and Cared-for When Bathing in a Care Environment: Examining Speech-Level Shift and Strategies ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 245 ■ Sadashi MORI: Why is Transferred or Main Clause Negation Dominant Over Subordinate Clause Negation?‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 249 Poster Sessions (English Presentation) ■ Yuko KOIZUMI: What Do Honorifics Convey?: A Relevance-based Approach ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 253 ■ Osamu SAWADA: The Meaning of Diminutive Shift in Japanese: Its Dimensionality, Regularity and Pragmatic Effect ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 257 PSJ Workshop Sessions ■ Representations of “Identity” in Media Discourse: Analysis of Career Women, “Herbivorous Boys” and Fathers & Mothers Chair: Sachiko TAKAGI Yasuko KANDA: Masculinity in Crisis? : Bloggers Evaluation on Herbivorous Boys ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 261 Tomoyo Inenaga: Representations of Fatherhood and Motherhood in Japanese Childcare Magazines for Parents ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 265 Sachiko TAKAGI: Working Women and Femininity : Discourse Analysis of a Japanese Career Women s Magazine ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 269 Symposium ■ Aspects of Meaning in Discourse: Towards Interdisciplinary Pragmatic Research Chair: Lawrence SCHOURUP Designated Discussant: John Du BOIS Aug NISHIZAKI: Embodied Action in Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Approach to Action-formation ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 273 Kuniyoshi KAYAOKA: Trading Places and Intersubjective Understanding of Spatial Perspectives ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 276 Yasuharu DEN: Utterances in Real Time: Where Interaction and Cognition Meet ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 279 PSJ 研究発表 Lecture Sessions 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 1 ⥭ᛴែ㠀ᖖែ࠾ࡅࡿሗఏ㐩 ̿㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࠾ࡅࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢຠ⋡ᛶ̿ ᪂ᜤᏊ ᮾὒᏛ⤒ႠᏛ㒊 [email protected] <Abstract> Since the disastrous tsunami occurred on March 11th, 2011, Japan Meteorological Agency has organized several meetings about tsunami alerts and warnings with municipalities, seismologists, and the people from the mass media to reconsider how to convey tsunami alerts and warnings more effectively. The changes about the expressions of the warnings, which they came up with after the forth meeting, don’t seem effective enough from the view point of pragmatics. This paper suggests that we should apply relevance theoretic insights to uncover the problem of the existing tsunami alert system and proposes some changes in the expressions. ࠙KEYWORDSࠚ 㜵⅏ࡢࡇࡤࠊ⥭ᛴࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊㄒ⏝ㄽࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࠊὠἼ㆙ሗ 㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ ᖺ㸱᭶㉳ࡁࡓᮾᆅ᪉ᖹὒἈᆅ㟈ࡼࡿᕧὠἼⓎ⏕ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊẼ㇟ᗇࡣࠊὠἼࡢ➨୍Ἴࡢண 㧗ࡀᐇ㝿ࡼࡾపࡃฟࡋࡓࡇࡀ㑊㞴ࡢ㐜ࢀࢆᣍ࠸ࡓᢈุࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࢀ ࡲ࡛ࠕᮾᆅ᪉ኴᖹὒἈᆅ㟈ࡼࡿὠἼ⿕ᐖࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓὠἼ㆙ሗᨵၿྥࡅࡓຮᙉࠖࡀ㸱ᅇࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊ ࠕὠἼ㆙ሗࡢⓎ⾲ᇶ‽➼ሗᩥࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉㛵ࡍࡿ᳨ウࠖࡀ 3 ᅇ㛤ദࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍㐃ࡢຮᙉ᳨ ウࡢጤဨࡣࠊ᭷㆑⪅㜵⅏㛵ಀ⪅ࡀཧຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ᭷㆑⪅ࡢ୰ࡣࠊゝㄒᏛࡢどⅬࡽࢥ࣑ࣗࢽ ࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿᑓ㛛ᐙࡣཧຍࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡋࠊẼ㇟ᗇࡀ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ࡛බ㛤ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሗ࿌ ᭩࣭㈨ᩱ➼ࢆㄞࡴࠊሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሗఏ㐩㛵ࡍࡿၥ㢟ࡣࠊண ࡢ⢭ᗘࡸ⏝ࡍࡿ፹యࡀཎᅉ࡛࠶ ࡿሙྜࡢࠊே㛫ࡢⓎヰゎ㔘ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ↓どࡋࡓሗఏ㐩ࡸࠊ⏝ࡍࡿゝⴥ࣭⾲⌧᪉ἲࡀཎᅉ ᛮࢃࢀࡿሙྜࡀከࡃ࠶ࡿࠋ᪂(2011)࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊゝㄒᏛࡢྛศ㔝ࠊ≉ࠊⓎヰゎ㔘ࡢ࣓ ࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ❧ሙࡽᩚ⌮ࡋࠊ࡞ཎᅉࢆࡘࡁࡵࠊࡑࡢゎỴ᪉ἲࢆᥦࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ ࡿၥ㢟ᥦ㉳ࡋࡓࠋ ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊ ࠕᮾᆅ᪉ኴᖹὒἈᆅ㟈ࡼࡿὠἼ⿕ᐖࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓὠἼ㆙ሗᨵၿྥࡅࡓຮᙉࠖ ࠕὠ Ἴ㆙ሗࡢⓎ⾲ᇶ‽➼ሗᩥࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉㛵ࡍࡿ᳨ウࠖࡢሗ࿌᭩࣭㈨ᩱࠊ᪂⪺グ࡞ࢆཧ⪃ࠊ㛵㐃 ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡼࡗ࡚ࠊὠἼ㆙ሗ࣭ὀពሗఏ㐩ࡢ⌧≧ࢆᢕᥱࡋࠊၥ㢟Ⅼࢆ᫂ࡽࡋࠊᨵၿⅬࢆᥦ ࡍࡿࡇ࠶ࡿࠋ 㸰㸬ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇࡢព⩏ 1970 ᖺ௦ᚋ༙ゝㄒᏛࡢ୍㒊㛛ࡋ࡚ᗈࡃㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡗࡓ㏆௦ㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ ே㛫ࡢゝⴥ −1− 2 緊急事態と非常事態における情報伝達―関連性理論におけるコミュニケーションの効率性― ࡼࡿሗఏ㐩ࢆࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻࣔࢹࣝࡼࡿㄝ࡛᫂ࡣ༑ศ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰゎ㔘ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽ ࢬ࣒ࢆ⪃៖ධࢀࡓ᥎ㄽࣔࢹ࡛ࣝㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇࢆᥦࡋࡓࠋ Ẽ㇟ᗇࡽὠἼ㆙ሗࡸὀពሗࡀⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿ 1 ࠊᾏᓊ㏆ࡃఫẸࡀ࠸ࡿᕷ⏫ᮧ࡛ࡣ㆙ሗ⨨ࡼࡾὠ Ἴ㆙ሗࢧࣞࣥࢆ㬆ࡽࡍࡇࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ᪉ࠊ㜵⅏↓⥺࡛ゝⴥࡼࡿ㆙ሗ࣭ὀពሗࢆᨺ㏦ࡍࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ ࡕࡽࡶఫẸࡢὀពࠊ㆙ᡄࢆಁࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊゝⴥ࡛ఏ࠼ࡿ᪉ࡀෆᐜࢆࡼࡾヲࡋࡃఏ࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ ࡿࡢࡣᙜ↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊ ࠕὠἼࡢᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠖ࠸࠺ᨺ㏦ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ࠺࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡇ ࡢⓎヰ㸦ᨺ㏦㸧ࢆ⪺࠸ࡓேࠊ࠼ࡤࠊᾏᓊ㏆ࡃ࡛ാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿேࡣ༶ᗙ㧗ྎ㏨ࡆࡼ࠺ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࢥ࣮ࢻࣔࢹࣝࡼࡿㄝ࡛᫂ࡣࠊࡇࡢⓎヰࡣࠊ ࠕࡁ࡞ὠἼࡀ᮶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠖࡇࢆఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡍࡿ ࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋࡋࠊᐇ㝿ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡶࡋᾏᓊ㏆ࡃ࠸ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࡢⓎヰࡽࠊ ࠕ㧗ྎ㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖࡲࡓࡣࠊ ࠕ㧗࠸ࣅࣝⓏࡗ࡚ୗࡉ࠸ࠖ࡞࠸࠺ពࡶఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ᥎ㄽࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ ࠺ࠊேࡣࠊⓎヰࡢᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢពࡢࠊヰ⪅ࡀఏ࠼ࡓ࠸ពᅗࡋࡓពࡶ᥎ㄽࡼࡗ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ ࡇࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ഃ㠃ࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡇࡣࠊ 㜵⅏ࡢࡇࡤࢆ⪃࠼ࡿୖ࡛㠀ᖖ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊⓎࡏࡽࢀࡓゝⴥࡼࡿ㆙ሗ࣭ὀពሗ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑࡢᚋࡢ⾜ືࡘ࠸࡚ពᛮỴᐃࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵࠊ ゝⴥࡼࡿ㆙ሗ࣭ὀពሗࡢᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢពࡼࡾࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ᥎ㄽࡍࡿࠕ㆙ሗࢆฟࡋࡓேࡀពᅗࡋࡓࡔࢁ ࠺ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠖពࡢ᪉ࡀ㔜せ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺⪃࠼ࡿࠊゝㄒᏛࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰゎ㔘ࢆ᥎ ㄽࣔࢹ࡛ࣝㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽࡣࠊࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡞ሗఏ㐩ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿୖ࡛≉ᙺ❧ࡘᏛၥ࡛࠶ࡿゝ࠺ࡇ ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ 㸱㸬ゝⴥࡼࡿሗఏ㐩ࡢ≉ᚩ 㸱㸬㸯㸬Ⓨヰ࡛ఏࢃࡿ㸱✀㢮ࡢព 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠶ࡿⓎヰࡽཷࡅྲྀࡿពࡣ㸱ࡘࡢ✀㢮ࡀ࠶ࡿࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠕὠἼࡢᜍ ࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠖࢆࡗ࡚ࡳࡿ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡿࠋ (1) ⓎヰࠕὠἼࡢᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠖࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ 3 ࡘࡢព ձゎㄞⓗព:㸸グྕࢆゎㄞࡋࡓព ЍࠕὠἼࡢᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠖ ղ⾲ព㸸ゎㄞࡋࡓព⪺ࡁᡭࡢ᥎ㄽࡼࡗ࡚ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗⓎᒎࡉࢀࡓព 㸦ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗⓎᒎ㸻ᣦ♧ࠊ୍⩏ࠊ┬␎ࡉࢀࡓせ⣲ࡢ⿵ࠊ⮬⏤࡞ᣑ࡞㸧 Ѝࠕࡇࢀࡽࡁ࡞ὠἼࡀᢲࡋᐤࡏࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࠸࠺ᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ ճ᥎ព㸸⾲ពࢆ๓ᥦࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᣢࡘࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺⓗᐃ↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏ ࡚ฟࡿ⤖ㄽࡋ࡚ࡢព Ѝࠕࡍࡄ㧗ྎ㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ Ѝࠕ㧗࠸ࣅࣝⓏࡾ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ ᮾᆅ᪉ᖹὒἈᆅ㟈ࡼࡿὠἼ⿕ᐖࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓὠἼ㆙ሗᨵၿྥࡅࡓຮᙉ㸦௨ୗࠊὠἼ㆙ሗຮᙉ 㸧➨ 3 ᅇྜࡢ㈨ᩱࡋ࡚ฟࡉࢀࡓࠕ୰㛫ࡾࡲࡵᑐࡍࡿពぢࠖࡢ୍⯡ࡢேࠎࡽࡢពぢࡣࠊ ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ❧ሙࡽὠἼ㆙ሗ㛵ࡍࡿከࡃࡢၥ㢟ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ࠼ࡤࠊ ࠕ5 ࣓࣮ࢺࣝࡢἼࡣ㧗࠸ࡀ 3 −2− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 3 ࠕ3 ࣓࣮ࢺࣝࡢἼࠖࡣࠊ༑ ࣓࣮ࢺࣝࡢἼࡣప࠸ᛮ࠺ேࡀ࠸࡚ࡶᛮ㆟ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࠸࠺ពぢࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ 2ࠋ ศே㛫ࡢ㌟㛗ࢆ㉸࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᾏᓊ㏆ࡃ࠸ࡿேࡣࠊ ࠕ㧗࠸ࠖឤࡌࠊࡍࡄ㏨ࡆ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣᛮ࠺ ࡔࢁ࠺ࡀࠊࣅࣝࡢ 5 㝵࡛ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿேࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ ࠕప࠸ࠖἼ࡞ࡾࠊࡑࡢࡲࡲࣅࣝ␃ࡲࡿ࠸ ࠺㑅ᢥࢆࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡲࡓࠊࡢពぢࠊ ࠕὠἼ㆙ሗࡀฟࡲࡋࡓࠊࡣ᭱⣭ࡢὠἼࡀࡃࡿࡒࠊ࠸࠺㆙ሗࡔࡗࡓᛮ࠺ࡀ㆙ ሗ࠸࠺ゝⴥࡣࡑࢀࡉࡋࡏࡲࡗࡓ༴㝤ࢆឤࡌࡉࡏ࡞࠸ࠋ ࠖ ࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ ࡑࡢ㆙ሗࡢ⾲ពࡣ ࠕ ὠἼ㆙ሗࡀฟࡲࡋࡓ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊⓎ௧ࡋࡓഃࡀពᅗࡋࡓࠕ᭱⣭ࡢὠἼࡀࡃࡿࠖࢆ᥎ㄽࡍࡿ࠺ ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⨨ࢀࡓ≧ἣ㸦ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ㸧ࡼࡗ࡚㐪ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࠊ ࠕ㠀ᖖࡣࡃ༴࡞࠸࠸࠺࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆᗈሗࡍࡿࡇᚭࡍࡿࡁࠖࡸࠊ ࠕ㆙ሗࡣཧ⪃ ⛬ᗘࡋ࡚ࠊࡃ㧗࠸ࡇࢁ㏨ࡆࢁࢆᚭᗏࡋࡓ᪉ࠎࡀ⏕ࡁṧࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡣࠖ ࠊ࠸࠺ពぢࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ ࡇࢀࡽࡢពぢࢆ㚷ࡳࡿࠊẼ㇟ᗇࡽฟࡉࢀࡿࠕ㆙ሗࠖᆅ᪉⮬యࡀฟࡍࠕ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ࠖࡢ㐪 ࠸ࡀ୍⯡ࡢேࠎࡣࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࠸࠺ၥࡀᾋࡪ 3ࠋ Ẽ㇟ᗇࡽⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿ㆙ሗࡣࠊ᪥ᮏᅜྠఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡼࡗ࡚ព ࡣࡃ␗࡞ࡿࠋὠἼ㆙ሗࡣᾏᓊ⥺ఫࡴேࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ ࠕ㑊㞴௧ࠖཷࡅࡿ(᥎ㄽࡍࡿ)ࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ ࡀࠊᾏࡢ࡞࠸㒔㐨ᗓ┴ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁὶࡋ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ሗࡢ࡞ࡿࠋ⥭ᛴែ࣭㠀ᖖែ⪺ࡁᡭព ᅗࢆṇࡋࡃఏ࠼ࡿࡓࡵࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀཷࡅྲྀࡿពࡀࡢࡼ࠺ព࡞ࡿࡢ㸦⾲ពࡣఱࠊ᥎ពࡣ ఱ㸧ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚⾲⌧ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ 㸱㸬㸰㸬ሗෆᐜࡢ✀㢮ࡢ㐪࠸ Ẽ㇟ᗇࡢࠕ⥭ᛴ㜵⅏ሗ㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝࠖሗ࿌ࡢ➨ 3 ❶㜵⅏ሗఏ㐩࣭ᥦ౪ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ⌧≧(3-2)ࠊ ࠕẼ ㇟ᗇࡀⓎ⾲ࡍࡿẼ㇟㆙ሗ➼ࡣࠊྛᆅࡢᆅ᪉Ẽ㇟ྎࡽ࡛࢜ࣥࣛࣥ㒔㐨ᗓ┴ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࠊ㒔㐨ᗓ┴ࡼ ࡾᕷ⏫ᮧఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࠊሗ㐨ᶵ㛵➼ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊఫẸ࿘▱ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊẼ㇟ࠊὠἼࠊ㧗₻➼ ࡢ㆙ሗࡣࠊ㆙ሗࡢ✀㢮ᛂࡌ࡚┤ࡕ㆙どᗇࠊᾏୖಖᏳᗇࠊᅜᅵ㏻┬➼ࡢ㛵ಀ┬ᗇ࠾ࡼࡧ㹌㹆㹉➼ࡢ ሗ㐨ᶵ㛵ఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ㆙ሗ➼ࡣ㹌㹒㹒ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࡶᕷ⏫ᮧఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠖ ࠶ࡿࠋ ᅗ㸯 −3− 4 緊急事態と非常事態における情報伝達―関連性理論におけるコミュニケーションの効率性― ᅗ㸯ࡽࢃࡿࡼ࠺ࠊẼ㇟ᗇࡽࡇࡢὠἼ㆙ሗࡀⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿࠊ㒔㐨ᗓ┴ࡽᕷ⏫ᮧఏࢃࡗࡓ ሗࡣࠊ ࠕ㑊㞴່࿌➼࣭ᣦ♧ࠖ࡞ࡗ࡚ఫẸᒆࡃࠋࡋࡋࠊẼ㇟ᗇࡽ┤᥋ሗ㐨ᶵ㛵ࡸሗ㓄ಙᴗ⪅ ᒆ࠸ࡓሗࡣࠊ㆙ሗࡋ࡚ࢇࡑࡢࡲࡲࡢᙧ࡛ࢸࣞࣅ࡞࡛ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡛ࠊ୍⯡ࡢேࠎ ሗ୰ᚰࡢ㆙ሗࠊఫẸ୍␒㏆࠸ᕷ⏫ᮧࡀฟࡍᣦ ᣦ♧࣭௧୰ᚰࡢ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ ࡣࠊሗ㐨ᶵ㛵ࡀฟࡍ ࢆΰྠࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋḟࡢࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ (2) Ẽ㇟ᗇ ὠἼ㆙ሗ ࠕᕧὠἼࡢᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋ ࠖ ࠕ3 ࣓࣮ࢺࣝࡢὠἼࡀ฿㐩ࡍࡿᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋ ࠖ ࠕὠἼࡢ➨㸯Ἴ฿㐩้ࡣ༗ᚋ 3 30 ศࡈࢁ࡛ࡍࠋ ࠖ࡞ ᕷ⏫ᮧ 㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ ࠕࡓࡔࡕ㧗ྎ㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ ࠖ ࠕᾏᓊ㏆࠸ࡿேࡣ┤ࡕ㧗ྎ㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ ࠖ ࠕࡁ࡞ὠἼࡀほ ࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋࡍࡄ㧗ྎ㏨ࡆ࡚ୗࡉ࠸ࠋ ࠖ࡞ Ẽ㇟ᗇࡽࡢ㆙ሗࡣࠊᕷ⏫ᮧࢆ⤒⏤ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᆅᙧࡸఫᒃࡢ≉ᚩᛂࡌ࡚ࠊࡲࡓࡣࣁࢨ࣮ࢻ࣐ࢵࣉ ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊ௧࣭ᣦ♧୰ᚰࡢࠕ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ࠖ࡞ࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀྠࠊࢸࣞࣅࡸࣛࢪ ࡛࢜ࡣࠊẼ㇟ᗇࡢሗ୰ᚰࡢ㆙ሗࡶࡑࡢࡲࡲఏ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡇࡢ 2 ✀㢮ࡢሗෆᐜࡣࡢࡼ࠺㐪࠺ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋⓎヰ࡛ఏࢃࡿ㸱ࡘࡢព࡛ㄝ᫂ࢆࡍࢀࡤࠊẼ㇟ᗇ ࡀฟࡍࠕὠἼ㆙ሗࠖࡣࠊゎㄞⓗព⾲ពࠊࡉࡽ᥎ពࡀ᥎ㄽࡉࢀࡿⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿゝ࠺ࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ⾲ពࡀࠕᕧὠἼࡢᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡿ࡛ࠖ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ᥎ពࡣࠕ⣲᪩ࡃᏳ࡞ሙᡤ㏨ࡆࢁࠖ࡞ࡿࡇࡶ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡋࡋࠊ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ࡣࠊࡍࡍࡄࡑࡢ௧ࡸᣦ♧ᚑࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊಶேⓗ࡞ุ ᩿ࢆࡍࡿᬤࢆ࠼࡞࠸ࠊ᥎ពࡀ࡞ࡿࡃ᥎ㄽࡉࢀ࡞࠸⾲⌧(௧ᙧ)࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡘࡲࡾࠊ㆙ሗࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭពᛮỴᐃࢆಁࡍࡓࡵࡢሗఏ㐩࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ࡣࠊ≧ἣࡀ⥭㏕ࡋ ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊᕷ⏫ᮧ㸦㤳㛗㸧ࡀពᚿỴᐃࢆ⾜࠸ࠊಶேពᛮỴᐃࢆ࡞ࡿࡃࡉࡏ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺௧࣭ᣦ♧ ࡢᙧ࡛ࡢሗఏ㐩࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺㸰ࡘࡢ␗࡞ࡗࡓ✀㢮ࡢሗෆᐜࢆ᭱⤊ẁ㝵ࡢఫẸ࠸࠺⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠊ␗࡞ࡗࡓᵝࠎ࡞࣓ࢹ ࡽྠ⪺ࡃࡇ࡛ΰࡋࠊᑓ㛛⏝ㄒࡀࢃࡽࡎࠊᩘ್ࡢ༢ࡸពࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡲࡍࡲࡍΰ ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ๓⠇࡛㏙ࡓࡼ࠺ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜࡞࠼ࡤࠊ ࠕࡃ㏨ࡆࡿࠖ࠸࠺✀㢮ࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ ࣮ࢪࡣࠊ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧࡛ࡣ⏝࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ㆙ሗ࡛ࡣఏ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡀࢃࡿࠋ 㸲㸬ேࡣࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሗ⪥ࢆഴࡅࡿࡢ㸦ሗពᅗఏ㐩ពᅗ㸧 ḟ⥭ᛴែࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿሙྜࢃࢀࡿᨺ㏦┠ࢆྥࡅ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋᨺ㏦ࡣࠊࡶࡶ≉ᐃከᩘྥ ࡗ࡚ὶࡉࢀࡿሗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞✵ ࡛ࡢࡧฟࡋᨺ㏦ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ (3) a. ࣘࢼࢸࢵࢻ⯟✵ 800 ౽ࢽ࣮࣮ࣗࣚࢡ⾜ࡁࡈ⏝ࡢ࠾ᐈᵝࡣࠊ࠾ᛴࡂ 37 ␒ࢤ࣮ࢺࡼࡾࡈᦚୗ −4− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 5 ࡉ࠸ࠋ b.ࣘࢼࢸࢵࢻ⯟✵ 35 ౽ࢯ࢘ࣝ⾜ࡁࡈᦚணᐃࡢᒣ⏣ኴ㑻ᵝࠊ࠾㏆ࡃࡢᆅୖಀဨ࠾⏦ࡋฟࡃࡔ ࡉ࠸ࠋ 㸦㸱a㸧㸦㸱b㸧ࡣࠊྠࡌࡼ࠺✵ ࡢࣟࣅ࣮࡛ᨺ㏦ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ(3a)ࡣࡑࡢ౽ࡿ≉ᐃከᩘྥࡅ࡚ ሗఏ㐩ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ 㸦㸱b㸧ࡣᡤᅾ᫂ࡢࡓࡗࡓ 1 ྡࡢᐈྥࡅ࡚ࡢሗఏ㐩࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ ᣑኌჾࡸᨺ㏦ჾල࡛ᗈ⠊ᅖ㡢ኌࢆࡅࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࠊ ከࡃࡢேࠎࡀ⪺ࡃࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ ࡑࡢᨺ㏦ࡢᑐ㇟ࡣఱⓒே࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡶ࠶ࢀࡤ 1 ಶே࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ≉(3㹠)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࡣࠊࡑࡢ ᑐ㇟ࡢே≀௨እࡢேࠎࡗ࡚ࡣᚲせࡢ࡞࠸ሗ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊከࡃࡢேࡣ᭱ᚋࡲ࡛⪺࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࠼ࡤࠊ᭱ึࠊࣘࢼࢸࢵࢻ⯟✵⏝⪅ࡀ⪥ࢆഴࡅࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ35 ౽ࢯ࢘ࣝ⾜ࡁࡽ࡞࠸ேࡣࠊࡑ ࡇ࡛⪺࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ35 ౽ࢯ࢘ࣝ⾜ࡁࡿேࡶࠊಶேྡࡀ⪺ࡇ࠼ࡓⅬ࡛⮬ศ࡛࡞࠸ࡇࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠊ ᭱ᚋࡲ࡛⪺ࡃࡇࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟ࢆḟࡢࡼ࠺ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿⓎヰࢆ⾜࠺ࡁࠊࡑ ࢀࡀࠕពᅗ᫂♧ⓗఏ㐩㸦ostensive communication㸧 ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿሙྜࡣࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡢఏ㐩ࡢཎ⌮ࡀാࡃࡋ࡚ ࠸ࡿࠋ㛵㐃ᛶࡢఏ㐩ࡢཎ⌮ࡣࠊ ࠕሗពᅗఏ㐩ពᅗࡢ 2 ࡘࢆᣢࡗࡓⓎヰࡣࠊ࠶ࡿᚰ⌮ⓗຠᯝ(ㄆ▱ຠᯝ) ࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣὀពࢆྥࡅࡿࠖಖ㞀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄆ▱ຠᯝࡣࠊ⮬ศࡀࡍ ࡛ᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሗࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ሗࡀࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࠊࡑࡇ࡛┦స⏝ࡀ㉳ࡁࠊ࠶ࡿ⤖ㄽࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡛ ࠶ࡿࠋゝ࠸࠼ࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሗኚࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜឤࡌࡿຠᯝࡢࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋሗពᅗ ఏ㐩ពᅗࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࠋ (4) Informative intention: to make manifest or more manifest to the audience a set of assumptions I. (ሗពᅗ㸸ᐃࡢ㞟ྜ㹇ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ᫂♧ⓗࠊࡲࡓࡣࡼࡾ᫂♧ⓗࡍࡿࡇ) Communicative intention: to make it mutually manifest to audience and communicator that the communicator has this informative intention. 㸦ఏ㐩ពᅗ㸸ఏ㐩⪅ࡣሗពᅗࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ⪺ࡁᡭఏ㐩⪅ࡢ┦㛫࡛᫂♧ⓗࡍࡿࡇ㸧 (Sperber & Wilson (1996) p58-61) ࠶ࡿᐃࡢ㞟ྜ㹇ࡣࠊఏ㐩⪅ࡀఏ࠼ࡓ࠸ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሗࡢࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊఏ㐩⪅ࡀሗព ᅗࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦࠶ࡿሗࢆఏ࠼ࡓ࠸ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࡀࠊࡑࡢࡇࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡀẼ࡙࡞࠸ሙྜ㸦ఏ㐩ព ᅗࡀ┦㛫࡛☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜ㸧ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑࡢⓎヰࡣὀពࢆྥࡅ࡞࠸࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ✵ ࡢࢼ࢘ࣥࢫヰࢆᡠࡍࠊ(3b)ࡢᨺ㏦ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡁࠊ᭱ึ⪥ࢆഴࡅ࡚࠸ࡓ✵ ࠸ࡿࣘࢼࢸࢵࢻ ⯟✵⏝ணᐃᐈࡶࠊࡑࡢᨺ㏦ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ពᅗࡀ࡞࠸☜ㄆࡋࡓⅬ㸦35 ౽ࢯ࢘ࣝࡣࡽ࡞ ࠸ࠊᒣ⏣ኴ㑻ࡌࡷ࡞࠸㸧࡛ὀពࢆྥࡅࡿࡢࢆࡸࡵࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠼ࡤࠊ㜵⅏↓⥺࡛ࠊ ࠕࡁ࡞ὠἼࡀ฿㐩ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㧗ྎ┤ࡕ㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࠸࠺ᨺ㏦ࢆ⪺࠸ ࡚ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊㄡྥࡅ࡚ఏ㐩ពᅗࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሗ࡞ࡢࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ ࠕ㹼⏫ࠊ㹼ᆅ༊ࡢⓙࡉࢇࡣࠊࡁ࡞ὠἼࡀ฿㐩ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㧗ྎ┤ࡕ㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࠸࠺ᨺ㏦࡛ ࠶ࢀࡤࠊࡑࡢヱᙜᆅ༊ࡢேࠎࡗ࡚ࠊఏ㐩ពᅗࡀࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀࡁ࠸⪃࠼ࡽ ࢀࡿࠋ −5− 緊急事態と非常事態における情報伝達―関連性理論におけるコミュニケーションの効率性― 6 ᅗ㸯࠶ࡿࡼ࠺ࠊ㜵⅏⾜ᨻ↓⥺ࡣࠊఏ㐩ࡢ୍ࡘࡢ⤒㊰ࡋ࡚ࠊẼ㇟ᗇࡽὠἼ㆙ሗࡀฟ࡚ࠊᆅୖ⣔ ࡲࡓࡣ⾨ᫍ⣔ࡼࡾᕷ⏫ᮧఏ࠼ࡽࢀࠊࡑࢀࡀ⮬ືⓎಙ(ྠሗ)ࡼࡾ㜵⅏⾜ᨻ↓⥺࡛ࢧࣞࣥ๓㘓 㡢㡢ኌ࡛ఫẸఏ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ⮬ືⓎಙ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ᭱ࡶ᪩ࡃఫẸఏ㐩࡛ࡁࡿ࠸࠺ Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ㆙ሗࡣẼ㇟ᗇࡽ┤᥋᮶ࡿሗ୰ᚰࡢሗෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᗈᇦὶࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇ ࢀࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊㄡྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊㄆ▱ຠᯝࡶ࠶ࡲࡾ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠸࠺ࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋᕷ⏫ᮧࡢⓎಙ⪅ࡣࠊࡇࡢ㜵⅏⾜ᨻ↓⥺ࡢᚋࠊ࡞ࡿࡃ⊃࠸⠊ᅖᑐᛂࡋࡓಶูࡢ࣓ ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆ௧࣭ᣦ♧୰ᚰࡢሗࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡇࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ 㸳㸬㛵㐃ᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡓࡵ㸦ㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆࡁࡃࡋࠊฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡽࡍࡇ㸧 ᪂㸦2011㸧࡛ࡣࠊ᭱ࡶㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀࡁࡃࠊฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡽࡋࡓ௧ࡋ࡚ࠊ⯟✵♫ࡢ⥭ᛴࡢ⾪ ᧁ㜵Ṇጼໃࡢ௧ࡸ㑊㞴ㄏᑟ௧ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡓࠋ⯟✵ᶵᨾࡣࡑࡢ㸷㸮㸣௨ୖࡀ㞳╔㝣㉳ࡁ࡚࠾ ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㉳ࡁࡓ㐣ཤࡢᨾࡢ✀㢮ࢆᐃࡋ࡚ࠊົဨࡢカ⦎ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋ⬺ฟ௧ࡣࠊணᮇࡉࢀࡿ ⥭ᛴ╔㝣࣭ணᮇࡉࢀ࡞࠸⥭ᛴ╔㝣ࠊࡲࡓࡣࠊணᮇࡉࢀࡿ⥭ᛴ╔Ỉணᮇࡉࢀ࡞࠸⥭ᛴ╔Ỉࡁࡃࢃࡅ ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢែᐈࡀ㌟ࡢᏳࢆᏲࡿࡁጼໃ⾜ືࡀ௧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࠼ࡤࠊ⥭ᛴ╔㝣ࡢ㝿ࠊᗙᖍ࡛㌟ࢆᏲࡿጼໃ(ᅗ㸱)ࢆࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࡢ௧ᩥࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ ࡿࠋ ᅗ2 㸦http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5402342.stm㸧 (5) a.ࠕ㊊㤳ࢆࡘࢇ࡛㸦ࡃࡔࡉ࠸㸧 ࠋ ࠖ b.ࠕఅࡏ࡚㸦ࡃࡔࡉ࠸㸧 ࠋ ࠖ c.ࠕࡑࡢࡲࡲ࡛㸦࠸࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸㸧 ࠋ ࠖ d. ࠕ⾪ᧁ㜵Ṇጼໃࢆࡗ࡚㸦ࡃࡔࡉ࠸㸧 ࠋ ࠖ ணᮇࡉࢀ࡞࠸⥭ᛴ╔㝣ࡢ㝿ࠊᶵయ࡞ࡾࡢ⾪ᧁࡀ㉳ࡇࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀࡁ࠸ࡓࡵࠊᐈࡢ㌟ࢆᏲࡽࡏࡿ ┠ⓗ࡛(5b)ࡸ(5c)ࡢࡼ࠺௧ࡋࠊ⾪ᧁ㜵ṆጼໃࢆࡽࡏࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᨾⓎ⏕ᶵࡀ☜ᐇṆࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࠊ ືࡃ༴㝤࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᶵ㛗ࡽࡢ⬺ฟ௧ࡀฟࡿࡲ࡛ࠊ(5d)ࡢ௧ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊᩥࡀ▷ࡃࠊ⌮ ゎࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࡓࡵฎ⌮ປຊࢆ᭱㝈ῶࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡽࡏࡤ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ㧗ࡲࡾࠊᐈຠᯝⓗ ࡞ሗఏ㐩࡞ࡿࠋ ᪉ࠊ(5d)ࡢ⾪ᧁ㜵Ṇጼໃ࠸࠺࠶ࡲࡾ⪺ࡁ័ࢀ࡞࠸ゝⴥࡣࠊฎ⌮ປຊࡀࡿゝⴥ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊணᮇ −6− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 7 ࡉࢀࡿ⥭ᛴ╔㝣࡛╔㝣ࡲ࡛㛫ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࠊ⾪ᧁ㜵Ṇጼໃࡢ⦎⩦ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡇࡢゝⴥࢆ⪺࠸ࡓࡽጼໃ ࢆࡿࡼ࠺ᣦᑟࡍࡿࠋ㞴ࡋ࠸ゝⴥࡶ๓ࡶࡗ࡚ពࢆ㝈ᐃࡋ࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜࡞ࡗࡓୖ࡛⏝ࡍࢀࡤࠊฎ⌮ປ ຊࡶୗࡀࡾࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡶ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ㑊㞴ㄏᑟࡢ㝿ࢃࢀࡿ௧ᩥࡣࠊฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡽ ࡋࠊㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆୖࡆࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ࡛᭱ࡁࡿࡼ࠺௧ᩥࢆᕤኵࡍࡿࡇࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ 㸱㸬㸯࡛㏙ࡓࡼ࠺ࠊ㆙ሗ㑊㞴່࿌࣭ᣦ♧ࡣࠊฟࡍሙᡤࠊ┠ⓗࠊሗෆᐜࡍ࡚␗࡞ࡿ✀㢮ࡢࡶ ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㑊㞴່࿌㑊㞴ᣦ♧ࡶ⥭ᛴᗘࡀ␗࡞ࡾࠊᚋ⪅ࡣ๓⪅ࡼࡾࡍࡄᑐᛂࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ㠀ᖖ༴㝤࡛ ࠶ࡿሙྜฟࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ⾜ᨻ࡛⏝ࡉࢀࡿゝⴥ㸦ᑓ㛛⏝ㄒ㸧ࡘ࠸࡚ࡁࡕࡗㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ఫẸࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠕ່࿌ࠖࠕᣦ♧ࠖࡣࡕࡽࡀ⥭ᛴᗘࢆቑࡍゝⴥ࡞ࡢࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ ゝⴥࡢ▱㆑ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࡓࡵฎ⌮ປຊࡀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊ ࠕ㑊㞴່࿌ࡀฟ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠖఏ ࠼ࡿࡼࡾࠊ ࠕᛕࡢࡓࡵ㹼ࡢ㑊㞴ᡤ㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖࡢ᪉ࡀࠊࡲࡓࠊ ࠕ㑊㞴ᣦ♧ࡀฟࡲࡋࡓࠖࡼࡾࡶࠕࡓ ࡔࡕ㹼ࡢ㑊㞴ᡤ㑊㞴ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖࡢ᪉ࡀࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ㧗࠸௧ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿゝ࠺ࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ 㸴㸬࠾ࢃࡾ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊὠἼ㆙ሗ࡞ࡢ⥭ᛴែࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿ㝿ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽ㸦㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ㸧 ⓗどⅬࢆຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡛ࠊၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᩚ⌮ࡋࠊࡼࡾຠ⋡ࡢⰋ࠸ሗఏ㐩᪉ἲࢆぢࡘࡅࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇࢆ ㄽࡌࡓࠋ ⥭ᛴែࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᡂຌࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰゎ㔘࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ▱ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ ࡢഃ❧ࡗࡓሗఏ㐩᪉ἲࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋᮏ✏ࡣὠἼ㆙ሗࡢࡳࢆᢅࡗࡓࡀࠊ⥭ᛴᆅ㟈㏿ሗࠊྛ ᆅࡢ㟈ᗘ⾲♧ࠊ㟈※ᆅ࣭ᆅ㟈ࡢつᶍ㛵ࡍࡿሗఏ㐩ࡶࠊྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ㄢ㢟ࡀṧࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚋࡶゝ ㄒᏛ◊✲⪅ࡢ❧ሙࡽࠊ⥭ᛴែ࣭㠀ᖖែࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡘ࠸࡚◊✲ࢆ⥆ࡅࡓ࠸ࠋ ὀ㸸 㸯㸬Ẽ㇟ᗇ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪࡼࡿࠊ㆙ሗὀពሗࡣẼ㇟ᗇࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨࡏࡽࢀࠊ ࠕ㞵ࡸᙉ㢼࡞ࡢẼ㇟⌧ ㇟ࡼࡗ࡚⅏ᐖࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ࠾ࡑࢀࡢ࠶ࡿࡁࠕὀពሗࠖࢆࠊ㔜࡞⅏ᐖࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ࠾ࡑࢀࡢ࠶ࡿࡁ ࠕ㆙ሗࠖ ࠖࢆⓎ⾲ࡋࠊὀពࡸ㆙ᡄࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿࠊ࠶ࡿࠋ 2.. 㔠ࠊᓥࠊඣ⋢ࠊ∦⏣(2011)ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ᥎ㄽࡍࡿ᥎ពࢆࠊ ࠕゝእࡢពࢆᬯ♧ࡍࡿࡶࡢࠖࡋ࡚ ࠕ࣓ࢱ࣭࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࠖ࠸࠺⏝ㄒࢆࡗ࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ㑊㞴່࿌࣭㑊㞴௧➼ ࢆⓎࡍࡿሙྜࠊ ⅏ᐖⓎ⏕ఫẸࡢ㑊㞴ࡢពᛮỴᐃࡣࡇࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚㏦ಙ ࡍࡿࡇࡢ㔜せᛶࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 3. රᗜ┴⠛ᒣᕷࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪࡼࡾࠋ㑊㞴່࿌㑊㞴ᣦ♧ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆศࡾ᫆ࡃゎㄝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ −7− 8 緊急事態と非常事態における情報伝達―関連性理論におけるコミュニケーションの効率性― ᘬ⏝ᩥ⊩ ᪂ᜤᏊ. 2011.ࠕ⥭ᛴែࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ̿㑊㞴௧ࡢఏ࠼᪉ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠖ⤒Ⴀㄽ㞟 69 ྕࠊᮾி㸸 ᮾὒᏛ⤒ႠᏛ㒊 㔠ᫀಙ࣭ᓥ୍࣭ඣ⋢┿࣭∦⏣ᩄᏕ. 2011.ࠕὥỈ㑊㞴㛵ࡍࡿ⾜ືᣦ༡ሗࡢ࣓ࢱ࣭࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪຠᯝ ࡢ᳨ウࠖ⅏ᐖሗ No.9ࠊᮾி㸸⅏ᐖሗᏛ Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance – Communication and Cognition, 2nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Wison D. 2004-2005. ,Pragmatic Theory (PLIN M202) Lecture Notes 㸦㑥ᙪ⦅ࠊ㛛ுヂ 2010.ࠗ᭱᪂ㄒ⏝ㄽධ㛛 12 ❶࠘ᮾி㸸ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ㸧 ཧ⪃࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ Ẽ㇟ᗇ ࠕ ࠕᮾᆅ᪉ኴᖹὒἈᆅ㟈ࡼࡿὠἼ⿕ᐖࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓὠἼ㆙ሗᨵၿྥࡅࡓຮᙉࠖ㈨ᩱሗ࿌᭩ http://www.seisvol.kishou.go.jp/eq/tsunami_kaizen_benkyokai/index.html ࠕὠἼ㆙ሗࡢⓎ⾲ᇶ‽➼ሗᩥࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉㛵ࡍࡿ᳨ウࠖ㈨ᩱሗ࿌᭩ http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/press/1110/19a/tsunami_kentokai_1st.htm Ẽ㇟ᗇᴗົἲ http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/kishou/minkan/happyo_law.html ⥲ົ┬ᾘ㜵ᗇ http://www.fdma.go.jp/ http://www.bousai.go.jp/3oukyutaisaku/higashinihon_kentoukai/4/syoubou1.pdf (ᮾ᪥ᮏ㟈⅏࠾ࡅࡿ㜵⅏⾜ᨻ↓⥺ࡼࡿሗఏ㐩ࡘ࠸࡚) ἲົ┬ ⅏ᐖᑐ⟇ᇶᮏἲ http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/S36/S36HO223.html −8− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆ຓモࠕࠖ ̿ࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢᑐ↷ࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞࡢ⪃ᐹ̿ Tiwuk Ikhtiari W. ி㒔ᏛᏛ㝔ே㛫࣭⎔ቃᏛ◊✲⛉ <Abstract> Japanese connective particle “to” has several meanings in its use. Particle is one of Japanese language characteristic and this often confused Japanese learner because one particle may contain several meanings or one particle can be replaced with another with the same meaning. In this paper, I try to consider how Japanese “to” corresponds to several Indonesian conjunctions. In the last section I will argue that the study of theme/rheme of Functional Sentence Perspective can be used as an instrument of linguistic analysis to contrast Japanese and Indonesian. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆モࠕࠖࠊࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ”begitu”, “ketika”, “kalau”ࠊࢸ ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞ 㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ ᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆ຓモࠕࠖࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ begitu, ketika, kalau ࡢ ᑐᛂ㛵ಀࢆ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࡇࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᥋⥆モᑟࢀࡿᩥ㸦๓௳㸧ᚋ௳࠾ࡅࡿሗ㛵ಀ㸦ࢸ ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞ㸧ࢆ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸰㸬᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆ຓモࠕࠖ ⶈ (1992)ࠊ㕥ᮌ (1986)ࠊ㇏⏣(1978, 1983)ࡣࠊࠕࡢ⏝ἲࠖࡢࠕࠖࢆᐇⓗ⏝ἲࡪࠋᙼ ࡽᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ ࠕࠖࡣ㐣ཤ୍ᅇⓗ㉳ࡗࡓ᪤ᐃࡢែࡢ㛵ಀࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕࠖࡢ ⏝ἲࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ a) ືసࡢ㐃⥆㸸 ➨୍ࡢືస࣭ኚ㐃⥆ࡋ࡚ࠊྠ୍యࡀ➨ࡢືస࣭ኚࢆ㉳ࡇࡍ࠸ࡗࡓ㛵ಀࢆ ⾲ࡍࠋ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠊ୕ே⛠ㄒࡢពᚿⓗ⾜Ⅽࡢࠕ㐃⥆࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ −9− 日本語の接続助詞「と」―インドネシア語との対照とテーマ・レーマの考察― 㸬ᙼࡣ㒊ᒇධࡿ ࠊࡔࡕ㟁ヰࡋࡓࠋ b) Ⓨぢ㸸 ๓௳ࡀⓎぢࡢዎᶵ࡞ࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾲ࡋࠊᚋ௳࡛ࡣࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨぢࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡢᏑ ᅾࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ ࠊ┠ࡢ๓ῐ㊰ᓥࡀぢ࠼ࡓࠋ 㸬❆ࢆ㛤ࡅࡿ c) Ⓨ⌧㸸 ๓௳ࡀ⥅⥆ⓗ࡞ືస࡛ࠊᚋ௳࡛ࡣࡑࡢືసࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞ែࡢฟ⌧ ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ ࠊேࡽ㟁ヰࡀࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ 㸬࠾㢼࿅ධࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ d) 㸸 㛫ࡢ᥎⛣క࠺᪂ࡓ࡞ែࡢฟ⌧ࡸ≧ἣࡢ㐍ᒎ࣭ኚ࠸ࡗࡓ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ ࠊࡦࡃ ᗘࡀୖࡗࡓࠋ 㸬༗ᚋ࡞ࡿ e) ᛂ㸸 ๓௳ࡢືసࡸኚᛂࡋ࡚ࠊᚋ௳ࡢືసࡸኚࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ࠸ࡗࡓ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ ࠊᐊෆࡢ ᗘࡣᛴ⃭ୗࡀࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋ 㸬ࢫࢺ࣮ࣈࢆᾘࡍ ࡲࡓࠊ㕥ᮌ (1986) ࡣࠊ୍ᅇⓗ࡞㛵ಀࡢ㞟✚ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆ⾲ࡋ⤒㦂ࡀ✚ࡳ㔜࡞ࡗࡓࠊ ࠕࠖࡣ ⓗ࣭ᮍ᮶ࡢࡶࢃࢀࡿࡍࡿࠋ ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᆤᮏࡣែࡢ⤊Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿ࠺࠸࠺ࡇࡼࡾ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࠖࡣḟࡢ୕ࡘ༊ู ࡍࡿࡇࡀฟ᮶ࡿࡍࡿࠋ A. ⣔ิ㸸๓௳ࡢฟ᮶ࡀ㉳ࡗࡓᚋࠊḟࡢᚋ௳ࡢฟ᮶ࡀ㉳ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࡘࡢฟ᮶ ࡀ⣔ิࡼࡗ࡚㉳ࡇࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦㸻ືసࡢ㐃⥆ࡣࠊࡇࡢ⣔ิࡢᆺⓗ࡞࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸧 B. Ⓨぢ㸸࠶ࡿែࡀࡢែࡢࠕࠖᑐࡋ࡚㔜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ(overlapping) 㸦㸻ୖ㏙ࡓⓎぢࠊⓎ⌧ࠊࠊᛂࡣࠊࡑࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸧 C. ᮲௳㸸⮬↛ⓗ࣭ᚲ↛ⓗ࡞⤖ࡧࡘࡁࢆ⾲ࡋࡲࡍࠋA ࠸࠺㇟ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࠊB ࠸࠺ ㇟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࡀఱᗘࡶ⤒㦂ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦㸻୍ᅇⓗ࡞㛵ಀࡢ㞟✚ࡋࡓࠕࠖ㸦ⓗ࣭ᮍ᮶ࡢ㸧ࡢ⏝ἲࡣࡑࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸧 㸱㸬ࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ begitu, ketika, kalau 㸱㸬㸯㸬Begitu1) Sneddon (1996), Soebardi (1973)ࡼࢀࡤࠊbegitu ⠇ࡀ⾲ࡍែࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚ࡽࡍࡄḟࡢែ ࡀ㉳ࡇࡗࡓ࠸࠺㛵㐃ࡅࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋbegitu ࡣࠊ㐣ཤࡢ୍ᅇ㝈ࡾࡢࠊࡲࡓࡣᮍ᮶ࡢ −10− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ (1) Begitu saya masuk ke dalam rumah, saya mendengar telepon berdering. As soon as I enter to inside house I hear phone ring As soon as I entered the house, I heard the phone ringing. (Soebardi 1973:358) 㸱㸬㸰㸬ketika Sneddon (1996), Soebardi (1973), Dardjowidjojo (1978), Kähler (1965)ࡣࠊketika ࠸࠺᥋⥆モࡣࠊ 㐣ཤࡢ୍ᐃࡢᮇ㛫ࠊ୍ᐃࡢែࡀ㉳ࡇࡗࡓࡇࢆ⾲ࡍ࠸࠺ࡇࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (2) Ketika saya di Amerika, saya bertemu dengan orang dari Jepang. When I in US I meet with person from Japan When I was in the States, I met a man from Japan. (Dardjowidjojo 1978:160) 㸱㸬㸱㸬kalau Kalau ࡣࠊࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢ᮲௳ᩥࡢᶆ♧ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋඛ㏙ࡓ ketika ࡼ ࡿ୍ᅇⓗ࡞ࡣࠊkalau ࢆ࠺ሙྜࡣࠊᮍ᮶ࡢࢆ⾲ࡋࡲࡍࠋ (3) Kalau hujan turun, kami tidak pergi ke taman. If rain fall we not go to park If it is raining, we won’t go to the park. 㸲㸬᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆ຓモࠕࠖࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒ᥋⥆モ begitu, ketika, kalau ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀ ➹⪅ࡣࠕࠖࡼࡿᩥࢆ㞟ࡵ࡚ࠊࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒ⩻ヂࡋ࡚ࡳࡓࠋࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺࡼࡿ ሗࡶ᥇ࡾධࢀࡿࡇࡋࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆ຓモࠕࠖࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ begitu, ketika, kalau ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡣࠊ⾲㸯ࡢࡼ࠺♧ࡍࡇࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ ⾲㸬㸯 ᪥ᮏㄒ ࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒ ⣔ิࡢࠕࠖ㸦ືసࡢ㐃⥆㸧 begitu Ⓨぢࡢࠕࠖ㸦ⓎぢࠊⓎ⌧ࠊࠊᛂ㸧 ketika, begitu ᮲௳ࡢࠕࠖ kalau ࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢ begitu ᑟࢀࡿ⠇ࡢືモࡣ accomplishment ࡸ achievements ࡢሙྜࡣࠊ᪥ ᮏㄒࡢ͆ືసࡢ㐃⥆͇ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕࠖᑐᛂࡍࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ௨እࡢືモࢆ࠺ሙྜࡣࠊ ͆Ⓨ ぢ͇ࡢࠕࠖᑐᛂࡍࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ −11− 日本語の接続助詞「と」―インドネシア語との対照とテーマ・レーマの考察― ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢ ketika ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ͆Ⓨぢ͇ࡢࠕࠖᑐᛂࡍࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋఱᗘ ࡶ⤒㦂ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࠊ㞟✚ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࢆ⾲ࡋࠊᮍ᮶ࡢࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡣࠊkalau ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ 㸳㸬᥋⥆ຓモࠕࠖ࠾ࡼࡧࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢ᥋⥆モࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞࡢ⪃ᐹ ࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊHalliday (1974), Daneš (1974), Firbas (1974), HajiĀová (2010) ཧ↷ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺࡛ࡣࠊࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞ㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡣࠊయྠࡌ ὶࢀࡸሗᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㸦௨ୗࡣࠊ Halliday ᚑ࠸ࠊศᯒࢆࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ㸧 㸳㸬㸯㸬⣔ิࡢࠕࠖࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ begitu Micro-structure㸸 (4) Theme I -----II ࣞࢥࡉࢇࡣ III -----Theme I ------ Rheme ࠕࣄ࣭࣒࢝ࢬ࣭ࢨ࣭ࢧࣥࠖࢆှ࠸⤊ࡿ ࢠࢱ࣮ࢆዪࡢᏊ㏉ࡋ ࡲࡓ FM ᨺ㏦ࢆࡘࡅ࡚ࡃࢀゝࡗࡓ Rheme Begitu selesai menyanyikan Here Comes the Sun As soon as finish sing II Reiko-san mengembalikan gitar itu kepada si gadis III ------ lalu memintanya menyalakan siaran Return (5) Theme I ᙼዪࡣ II ----III ----Theme I ----- guitar that to Then ask-her Rheme turn on the girl FM broadcast lagi FM again ᡠࡗ࡚ࡃࡿ ᪑⾜㠜ࡽ↦㣰ࡢ⨁ࢆฟࡋ࡚ ࡢ࠾ࡳࡸࡆࡔゝࡗࡓࠋ Rheme Begitu kembali As sooner back II Ia He/she III ----- mengeluarkan kaleng opak dari take out can chips from tasnya bag-her ini oleh-oleh untukmu, katanya This gift for-you said-she/him ྛ⠇ࡢ micro-structure 㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊྛ⠇ࡣࠊྠࡌ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡣ୍ᗘ⌧ ࢀࢀࡤࠊࡢ⠇࡛┬ࡃࡇࡣྍ⬟ࡔ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢ begitu ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⣔ ิࡢࠕࠖ㐪ࡗ࡚ࠊ௨ୖࡢᩥࡢ୧᪉ࡶࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡣ␒┠ࡢ⠇㸦⠇㸧⌧ࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࣥ ࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢᚑᒓ㛵ಀࡢᆺⓗ࡞≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊㄒ࣭⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀྠࡌሙྜࡣࠊᚑᒓ⠇࠾ ࠸࡚┬␎ࡉࢀࠊ⠇⌧ࢀࡿࠋ 㸳㸬㸰㸬Ⓨぢ᮲௳ −12− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Micro-structure㸸 (6) Theme I ----- II Rheme ചࡉࡉ࡞࠸ ࡎࡪࢀ࡞ࡗࡕࡷ࠺ࡼ ----- Theme I Rheme ----- Kalau tidak pakai payung If II kita neg use umbrella akan basah kuyup we Will wet through (7) Theme Rheme I ----II ࠊ୕ேࡢዪᛶࡀࡍࡄୗࢆ㏻ࡾࡍࡂ࡚࠸ࡃࡢࡀ Theme I II Rheme Ketika aku mengintip dari jendela When look I terlihat ----ࡳࢇ࡞ Theme I Kalau kita When we II mereka They from window dua-tiga perempuan lewat tepat di bawahku Be seen (8) Theme I II ྎᡤࡢ❆ࡽࡢࡒ࠸࡚ࡳࡿ ぢ࠼ࡓ two three woman pass right at below-me Rheme ࡑ࠺࠸࠺࢚ࣆࢯ࣮ࢻࢆࡦࡘධࢀ࡚࠾ࡃࡡ ࡍࡈࡃ႐ࡪࡢࡼ Rheme memasukkan satu riwayat insert one history sangat senang very happy ௨ୖࡢࡽࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢሙྜࡣㄒ࣭⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀࡼࡃ┬ࢀࠊࡑࢀࡣᩥ⬦ࡲࡓࡣࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ㸦≀ ㄒࡢⓏሙே≀㸧ࡸ୍⯡㸦ඹ᭷㸧ࡢ▱㆑ࡽ᥎ ࡉࢀࡿ㸦(6)(8)㸧ࠋ (7)࡛ࡣࠊࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞࡣ㏫࡞ࡿࠋࣥࢻ ࢿࢩㄒࡢሙྜࡣࠊ͆ぢ࠼ࡓ͇࠸࠺ࡇࡀࢸ࣮࣐ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢሙྜࡣࠊ ࠕࠊ୕ேࡢዪᛶࡀࡍࡄୗࢆ㏻ࡾࡍࡂ࡚࠸ࡃࡢࡀࠖࡣ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢฟⓎⅬࠊࡘࡲࡾࢸ࣮࣐ࡋ࡚ ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ௨ୗࠊFirbas ࡢほⅬࡽぢ࡚ࡳࡿࡇࡍࡿࠋ ᪥㸸ࠊ୕ேࡢዪᛶࡀࡍࡄୗࢆ㏻ࡾࡍࡂ࡚࠸ࡃࡢࡀ ぢ࠼ࡓ Rheme Theme 㸸Terlihat dua-tiga perempuan lewat tepat di bawahku Theme Rheme Firbas ࡢศᯒᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒ࠾ࡅࡿࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞࡢศᕸࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ ࠕぢ࠼ࡿࠖࠊ ࠕ⪺ࡇ࠼ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ືモࡀࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᩥࡣࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒ࡛ࡣ inversion㸦ಽ⨨㸧 ࡞ࡿሙྜࡀࡼࡃ࠶ࡿ㸦ᬑ㏻ࡢᵓ㐀ࡣࠊ”Dua-tiga perempuan lewat tepat di bawahku terlihat”㸧ࠋ −13− 日本語の接続助詞「と」―インドネシア語との対照とテーマ・レーマの考察― ࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒ࡛ࡣࠊಽ⨨ࡉࢀࡓᩥࡢሙྜࡣࠊࠕぢ࠼ࡿࠖࠊࠕ⪺ࡇ࠼ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ືモ”lah”࠸ ࠺᥋ᑿ㎡ࢆࡅࡿࠊࡑࡢᩥࡣᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࣮࣐ࣞ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ”lah”ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࡀࠖ ྠࡌാࡁ㸦᪂ሗࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋࠊ↔Ⅼࡍࡿᶵ⬟㸧ࢆᣢࡘࠋ㸦㸻terlihatlah(Rheme) dua-tiga perempuan lewat tepat di bawahku(Theme)㸧 㸳㸬㸱㸬⫼ᬒ࠾ࡼࡧ↔Ⅼࡉࢀࡿሙྜ ᚑᒓ⠇ࡀ⫼ᬒࡋ࡚⨨ࢀࡿࡇࡣࡋࡤࡋࡤ㉳ࡇࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊᚑᒓ⠇ࡣ⫼ᬒࡢሗࢆᣢࡕࠊ⠇ࡣ ๓ᬒࡢሗࢆᣢࡘ࠸࠺ࡇࡣࡼࡃᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊḟࠊୖ㏙ࡓᆤᮏࡢ⫼ᬒࡘ࠸࡚ ሗᵓ㐀ࡽぢ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ᛮ࠺ࠋᆤᮏᚑ࠸ࠊ ࠕࠖᑟࢀࡿ⠇㸦≉ࠕⓎぢࠖࠕ᮲௳ࠖࡢ ⏝ἲ㸧ࡣ⫼ᬒ࡞ࡾࠊ⠇ࡢែࡣ↔Ⅼࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕࠖ⠇࡛ࡶ↔ Ⅼࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ⾲㸬㸰 (9) (10) ᪥ᮏㄒ∧ ࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒ∧ 㸦๓␎㸧ᆅୗ࠶ࡿ DUG ࡣ࠸ࡗ࡚࢘ ࢛ࢵ࣭࢝ࢺࢽࢵࢡࢆᮼࡎࡘ㣧ࢇࡔࠋ㸦୰ ␎㸧ࠕࡑࢇ࡞࠾ࡽ㣧ࢇ࡛ࡿࡢ㸽ࠖ 㸦୰␎㸧ࠕࡓ ࡓࡲୡࡢ୰ࡀ㎞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠊ ࡇࡇ᮶࡚࢛࢘ࢵ࣭࢝ࢺࢽࢵࢡ㣧ࡴࡼࠖ (48) ࠕᙼዪࡣṌࡁ࡞ࡀࡽ✵ࢆぢୖࡆࠊ≟ࡳࡓ ࠸ࡃࢇࡃࢇໝ࠸ࢆ࠸ࡔࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠕ㞵 ࡢໝ࠸ࡀࡍࡿࢃࡡࠖゝࡗࡓࠋ㸦୰␎㸧 ࡇࡇ㛗ࡃ࠸ࡿ✵Ẽࡢໝ࠸࡛ࡔ࠸ࡓ࠸ ࡢኳẼࡣࢃࡿࡢࡼࠖࣞࢥࡉࢇࡣゝ ࡗࡓࠋ(8) 㸦๓␎㸧di bawah tanah, lalu memesan vodka tonic masing-masing dua gelas. 㸦୰␎㸧”Kamu sering minum siang-siang begini?” 㸦୰ ␎㸧”K Kalau beban hidupku lagi berat, aku suka datang ke sini dan minum vodka tonic.“(322) Ia berjalan sambil menengadah ke langit dan mengendus-endus bau seperti anjing. "Bau Kalau berada di hujan ya," katanya. 㸦୰␎㸧"K sini cukup lama, kita akan bisa mengetahui cuaca hanya dengan membaui udara," kata Reiko-san.(284) 㸦ኴᩥᏐࡣ↔Ⅼࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㒊ศ㸧 ⾲㸬2 ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡣࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒྠᵝࠊ(9)ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊࠕ࢛࢘ࢵ࣭࢝ࢺࢽࢵࢡࢆ㣧ࡴࡇࠖ ࡣࠊ๓ࡢᩥ❶ࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊḟࡢᩥ❶࡛ࡣᪧሗ࡞ࡾࠊ ࠕࠖࡼࡿ⠇ࠕࡓࡲୡࡢ୰ࡀ㎞ ࠖࡣࠊ᪂ሗ࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊ↔Ⅼࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡃ࡞ࡿ (10)࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠕ✵ࡢໝ࠸࡛ኳẼࡀࢃࡿࠖ࠸࠺⠇ࡀࠊᩥ⬦ࡢែࡽࡳ࡚ࠊᪧሗ࡞ࡾࠊ ࠕࠖࡢ⠇ࠕࡇࡇ㛗ࡃ࠸ࡿ ࠖࡣࠊࠕ✵ࡢໝ࠸࡛ኳẼࡀࢃࡿࠖࡼ࠺࡞ࡿ᮲௳ࢆ㏙ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ ࠕࠖ⠇ࡀ↔Ⅼࡉࢀࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡇࢀࡽࡢࡽࠊᆤᮏࡢㄝࡋ࡚ࠊ⠇࠾ࡅࡿࠕⓎぢࠖࡸࠕ᮲௳ࠖࡢែࡀࠊㄯヰ࣭ࢸ࢟ࢫ ࢺࡢୡ⏺࡛ࡣࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ↔Ⅼࡉࢀࡎࠊ⠇ࡀࡓࡔ๓ࡢែࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍሙྜࡣࠊᪧሗࡉࢀࡿ ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ −14− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 㸴㸬⤖ㄽ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᥋⥆ຓモࠕࠖࡣࠊࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ “begitu”, “ketika”, “kalau” ᑐᛂ㛵ಀࢆ ᣢࡘ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ⠇ࡸᩥࡢせ⣲ࢆ᫂ࡽࡋࠊࢸ࣮࣐ࡢⓎ ᒎࡢ≉ᚩࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡇࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࢸ࣮࣐࣮࣐ࣞࡢᇶ┙ࡽࠊ᭦ ᪥ᮏㄒࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢඹ㏻Ⅼ┦㐪Ⅼࢆぢࡘࡅฟࡏࢀࡤᛮ࠺ࠋ ὀ㸧 1) begitu ࡼࡿ⠇ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢືモࡍ࡚ᑐᛂࡍࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ Vendler ࡼࡿḟࡢືモࡢศ㢮 (Steube 1980:56) STATES ACTIVITIES ACCOMPLISHMENT ACHIEVEMENTS be tall, search, write a novel, find, die, be ill wait break a glass discover 2) ⣔ิࡢࠕࠖࡢᩥࡣࠊࣥࢻࢿࢩㄒࡢ᥋⥆モ lalu㸦ࡘࡢែࢆ㛫ⓗ๓ᚋ㛵ಀ࠾࠸࡚ ୪ࡿࡓࡵࡢ᥋⥆モ࡛ࠊⱥㄒࡢ „then“ ᑐᛂࡍࡿ㸧ᑐᛂࡍࡿᩥࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡍࡿࠋ ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ Akatsuka, Noriko.1986. “Conditionals are Discourse-Bound.” In Elizabeth Closs Traugott et al (ed). On Conditionals, 333-351.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ᭷⏣⠇Ꮚ. 1999. ࠕࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉࡽぢࡓ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᮲௳ᩥࠖ ࠗゝㄒ◊✲࠘155, 77-108 Daneš, František.1974.Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague: Academia. Firbas, Jan. 1974. “Some Aspects of the Czechoslovak Approach to Problem of Functional Sentence Perspective.” In František Daneš (ed). Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague: Academia. Haiman, John. 1978. “Conditionals are Topics.” Language 3. 564-589 HajiĀová, Eva. 2010. “Information Structure from the Point of View of the Relation of Function and Form.” In Martin Procházka et.al. (eds.) The Prague School and Theories of Structure, 107-127. V&R unipress. Halliday, M.A.K. 1974. “The Place of “Functional Sentence Perspective” in the System of Linguistic Description.” In František Daneš (ed). Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague: Academia. ⶈᏊ 1993. ࠕࠕࡓࡽࠖࠕࠖࡢᐇⓗ⏝ἲࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖࠊ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ(⦅)ࠗ᮲௳⾲⌧࠘ ࠊࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ ∧ ⶈᏊ 2001. ࠗ᮲௳⾲⌧࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧ Kähler, Hans. 1965. Grammatik der Bahasa Indonesia. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sneddon, James Neil 1996. Indonesian Reference Grammar. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Soebardi, S. 1973. Learn Bahasa Indonesia Pattern Approach. Kanisius-Bhratara Steube, Anita 1980. Temporale Bedeutung im Deutschen. Akademie-Verlag Berlin. −15− 日本語の接続助詞「と」―インドネシア語との対照とテーマ・レーマの考察― 㕥ᮌ⩏ 1986. ࠕ᥋⥆ຓモࠗ࠘ࡢ⏝ἲពࠖࠗᅜᩥㄽྀ࠘13 ྕ㸦⚄ᡞᏛᩥᏛ㒊ᅜㄒᅜᩥᏛ㸧 ㇏⏣㇏Ꮚ 1978. ࠕ᥋⥆ຓモࠗ࠘ࡢ⏝ἲᶵ⬟㸦I㸧 ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛᰯㄽ㞟࠘5 ྕ ㇏⏣㇏Ꮚ 1979. ࠕⓎぢࡢࠕࠖ ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘36. ㇏⏣㇏Ꮚ 1982. ࠕ᥋⥆ຓモࠗ࠘ࡢ⏝ἲᶵ⬟㸦IV㸧ࠖ ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛᰯㄽ㞟࠘9 ྕ ᆤᮏ⠜ᮁ 1992. ࠕ᮲௳ࡢ㐃⥆ᛶ̿⣔ิ⫼ᬒࡢㅖ┦̿ࠖ ࠊ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ(⦅)ࠗ᮲௳⾲⌧࠘ࠊࡃࢁࡋ ࠾ฟ∧ ᘬ⏝సရ ᮧୖᶞ 2004. ࠗࣀ࢙ࣝ࢘ࡢ᳃㸦ୖ㸧㸦ୗ㸧࠘ㅮㄯ♫ Murakami, Haruki. 2005. Norwegian Wood. Jakarta: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia. −16− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝࡀ⾲ࡍࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ ࡘ࠸࡚ ୖཎ ⏤⨾Ꮚ ⚄⏣እㄒᏛ [email protected] 㸺Abstract㸼 A certain kind of shiteiru of future perfect as well as a kind of shiteiru of future progressive expresses consideration for the hearer. However these two kinds of shiteiru have also different points. An important difference is that the former can be replaced by suru and the latter cannot. In the case where the shiteiru of the future perfect is replaced by suru, the sentence does not express consideration for the hearer. In this kind of sentence, the choice between shiteiru and suru depends on the speaker, and the choice reflects the speaker's consideration for the hearer. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠊࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࠊࢩࢸࣝࠊ㓄៖ 㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ ྠ୍ࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺᙧᘧࡀࢩࢸࣝࡢᩥࢫࣝࡢᩥࡀࠊࡕࡽࡶⓎヰࡉࢀᚓࡿሙ ྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࡚ࠊ㸦㸯㸧㸦㸰㸧࠾ࡼࡧ㸦㸱㸧㸦㸲㸧ࡢヰ㸰⤌ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ 㸦⫋ሙ࡛ࠊྠ㸿㹀ࡀ୍⥴㆟ฟᖍࡍࡿࡓࡵ࢜ࣇࢫࢆฟࡼ࠺ࡋࡓࡇࢁࠊ㸿 㟁ヰࡀࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ࠸࠺≧ἣ࡛㸧 㸦㸯㸧 㸿㸸࠶ࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋࡕࡻࡗ㟁ヰࡀ࣭࣭࣭ࠋ 㹀㸸࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡲࡍࠋ 㸦ࢩࢸࣝ㸧 㸦㸰㸧 㸿㸸࠶ࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋࡕࡻࡗ㟁ヰࡀ࣭࣭࣭ࠋ 㹀㸸࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜ࡁࡲࡍࠋ 㸦ࢫࣝ㸧 㸦ඛ㣗ࡢሙࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡓ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡢ୍ே㹀ࠊ㛤ጞ㛫ูࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮㸿ࡽ㐜 ࢀࡿ᪨ࡢ㟁ヰࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ㹀ࡀࡑࢀ⟅࠼ࡿ㸧 㸦㸱㸧 㸿㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࡈࡵࢇࠋ㸯㸮ศ㐜ࢀࡑ࠺ࠋ −17− 未来パーフェクトのシテイルが表す、聞き手への配慮について 㹀㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࢃࡗࡓࠋࡌࡷ࠶ࠊጞࡵ࡚ࡿࡼࠋ 㸦ࢩࢸࣝ㸧 㸦㸲㸧 㸿㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࡈࡵࢇࠋ㸯㸮ศ㐜ࢀࡑ࠺ࠋ 㹀㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧 㸸 ࢃࡗࡓࠋࡌࡷ࠶ࠊጞࡵࡿࡼࠋ 㸦ࢫࣝ㸧 㸦㸯㸧㹼㸦㸲㸧ࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿࠊࢩࢸࣝࡢᩥ㸦㸦㸯㸧ࠊ㸦㸱㸧㸧ࡣࢫࣝࡢᩥ㸦㸦㸰㸧ࠊ㸦㸲㸧㸧ࡼ ࡾࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋゝ࠸࠼ࡿࠊࢫࣝࡢᩥࡢ᪉ࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࡀࠊࡸࡸ෭ࡓ࠸ឤࡌࡀࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ㸦㸯㸧㹼㸦㸲㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ ⪅ࡀ୍⥴⾜ືࡍࡿࡇ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ∦᪉ࡀඛ⾜࠺᪨ࢆࡶ࠺୍᪉࿌ࡆࡿሙྜࡢ ゝ࠸᪉ࡋ࡚ࠊࢫࣝࢩࢸࣝࡢ୧᪉ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇࠊࡑࡢሙྜࠊࢩࢸࣝࡢ᪉ࡀ┦ᡭ ࡢ㓄៖ࢆྵࡴゝ࠸᪉ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡇࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡢࢩࢸࣝࡀᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡ ࢺࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆ㏙ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢࢩࢸࣝࡀ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡍࡿ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ⌮ ⏤ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ௨ୗࠊ➨㸰⠇࡛ࡣࠊࢩࢸࣝࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡇ㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜ ◊✲ࢆᴫほࡋࠊ➨㸱⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ࢩࢸࣝࡀࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡋ࡚ࡣᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺ ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆ㏙ࡿࠋ➨㸲⠇ࡣࠊࡲࡵᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸰㸬ࢩࢸࣝࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࢩࢸࣝࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍࡇࢆᣦࡋࡓ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࢆᴫほࡍࡿࠋ ࢩࢸࣝࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ㓄៖㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺㏙࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠕ㸦␎㸧ࢸࣝᙧࡣࠊ༢࡞ࡿࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡲࡽࡎࠊ࠶ࡿᩥ⬦ࠊ≧ἣୗ࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁ ᡭᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ࠶ࡿ✀ࡢᚰ⌮ⓗ㓄៖ࢆྵពࡋࡓࡾࠊⓎヰ♩ⓗ࡞⾲⌧ຠᯝࢆࡶࡓࡏ ࡓࡾࠊฟ᮶ࢆᐈほⓗ㏙❧࡚ࡓࡾ࠸ࡗࡓࠊヰࡋᡭࡢఱࡽࡢẼᣢࡕࠊᚰⓗែᗘ㸦࣒ ࣮ࢻ㸧ࢆᫎࡍࡿሙྜࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺ᛮ࠺ࠋ ࠖ 㸦㇂ཱྀ 1997: 143ࠊୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅㸧 ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡣࠊࢫࣝࢩࢸࣝࡢẚ㍑ࡋ࡚㸦㸳㸧㸦㸴㸧ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦㸳㸧ࡀࢩ ࢸࣝࠊ㸦㸴㸧ࡀࢫࣝࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦㸳㸧a. ఱ࠶ࡗࡓࡽࢇ࡛ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛࣮࣡ࣉࣟࢆᡴࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠋ b. 㸦㸴㸧a. b. ࡍࡄᖐࡗ࡚ࡁࡲࡍࡽࠊࢸࣞࣅ࡛ࡶぢ࡚࠸࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ ?ఱ࠶ࡗࡓࡽࢇ࡛ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛࣮࣡ࣉࣟࢆᡴࡕࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠋ ?ࡍࡄᖐࡗ࡚ࡁࡲࡍࡽࠊࢸࣞࣅ࡛ࡶぢ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ (㇂ཱྀ 1997: 144 ) −18− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡣࠊ௨ୖࡢࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࢫࣝࢩࢸࣝࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ㸦㸵㸧 㸦㸶㸧 ࡢࡼ࠺㏙࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦㸵㸧 ࢫࣝ㸦㠀ࢸࣝᙧ㸧࡛ࡣࠊ 㸦␎㸧ヰࡋᡭࡀᡭ⾜ືࡍࡿឤࡌ࡞ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ 㓄៖ࡣᕼⷧ࡞ࡿࠋ 㸦㇂ཱྀ 1997: 144ࠊୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅㸧 㸦㸶㸧 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊࢸࣝᙧࡣࠊᮍ᮶ࡢฟ᮶ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࠶ࡿືసࢆࡋ࡞ࡀ ࡽ┦ᡭ࠺ࡇࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸ࡗࡓࠊ࠸ࢃࡤヰࡋᡭ┦ᡭࡢࠕᚅࡕྜࢃࡏࠖⓗ࡞ ゎࢆᬯ♧ࡍࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢸࣝᙧࡣࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗゝ࠼ࡤࠊᮍ ᮶࠾ࡅࡿືసࡢ㐍⾜ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢືసࡢᇶ‽Ⅼࡀᩥ⬦ୖࠊ┦ᡭ ࡍࡿⅬタᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡛࠶ࡿゝ࠼ࡿࠋ 㸦㇂ཱྀ 1997: 144ࠊୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅㸧 ࡲࡓࠊ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡣ᪥ᮏே␃Ꮫ⏕ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢヰࡋ࡚㸦㸷㸧ࢆᣲࡆࠊࠕ㸦␎㸧ẕㄒ ヰ⪅࡞ࡽࡤࠊୗ⥺㒊ࢆࠕᚅࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠖࢸࣝᙧ࡛⾲ࡍࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࠖ 㸦ྠ㸸145㸧 ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦㸷㸧 ࠶ࡿ᪥ᮏே㸦㹒㸧␃Ꮫ⏕㸦㹑㸧ࡢࡸࡾࡾ 㹒㸸 ࡍ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࠋࡕࡻࡗࠊᛀࢀ≀ࢆࡗ࡚ࡁࡲࡍࠋ 㹑㸸 ࡣ࠸ࠊ࠺ࡒࠋࢃࡓࡋࡣࠊࡇࡇ࡛ᚅࡕࡲࡍࡽࠋ 㸦㇂ཱྀ 1997: 145) ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡣࠊࡇࡢࢩࢸࣝࡢ⏝ἲࡀ㠀ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡗ࡚㞴ࡋ࠸⌮⏤ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ ࠕ㸦␎㸧 ືసࡢ㐍⾜ࡢᇶ‽Ⅼࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶ᫂ゝࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ㠀ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡗ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡾ㞴ࡋ࠸ ⏝ἲ࠸࠼ࡿࠋࠖ㸦ྠ㸸145㸧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࠊ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡼࡿࠊࢩࢸࣝࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࡘ࠸࡚ࡲࡵࡿࠊࡇࡢ ࡼ࠺࡞ࢩࢸࣝࡣࠊᮍ᮶࠾ࡅࡿືసࡢ⥅⥆ࢆ⾲ࢃࡋࠊࡑࡢືసࡢᇶ‽Ⅼࡀᩥ⬦ୖࠊ┦ ᡭࡍࡿⅬタᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡽࠊ ࠕᚅࡕྜࢃࡏࠖⓗ࡞ゎࢆᬯ♧ࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢ࡛ ࠶ࡿࠊ࠸࠺ࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊᮍ᮶࠾ࡅࡿ⥅⥆ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࢩࢸࣝࡀࠊ┦ᡭࡍࡿⅬࢆᇶ‽Ⅼࡋ ࡚ࠕᚅࡕྜࢃࡏࠖⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡕࠊࡑࢀࡀ┦ᡭ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡇࡘ࡞ࡀࡿⅬࡣࠊᚋ㏙ ࡍࡿࡼ࠺ࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ㓄៖ඹ㏻ࡍࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ ࡇࡢᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸࣝࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝࡣ␗࡞ࡿⅬࡀ࠶ ࡿࠋ㸯 ୧⪅ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊḟ⠇࡛⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ −19− 未来パーフェクトのシテイルが表す、聞き手への配慮について 㸱㸬⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍࠊᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ࢩࢸࣝࡀࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡋ࡚ࡣᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆࠊ ᕤ⸨㸦1995㸧ࡢࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢㄝ᫂ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ᅗᘧ࡛♧ࡍࠋࡉࡽࠊࡇࡢࢩࢸࣝࡣ➨㸰 ⠇࡛ᴫほࡋࡓ㇂ཱྀ㸦1997㸧ࡢᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸࣝࡣ␗࡞ࡿⅬࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࢆ☜ㄆࡋࠊ ┦㐪Ⅼࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡘ࠸࡚㸦ᕤ⸨㸧 ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢつᐃࡋ࡚ࠊᕤ⸨㸦1995㸧࡛ࡣ㸦㸯㸯㸧ࡢ㸱Ⅼࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦㸯㸯㸧 ձⓎヰⅬࠊฟ᮶Ⅼࡣ␗࡞ࡿ㸺タᐃⅬ㸼ࡀᖖ࠶ࡿࡇࠋ㸦௨ୗࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀᑐࡋ ࡚㹑㹒㸪㹃㹒㸪㹐㹒࠸࠺␎⛠ࢆ࠺ࡇࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㸧 ղタᐃⅬᑐࡋ࡚ฟ᮶Ⅼࡀඛ⾜ࡍࡿࡇࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡚ࠊࢸࣥࢫⓗせ⣲ࡋ࡚ࡢ㸺 ඛ⾜ᛶ㸼ࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡇࠋ ճࡋࡋࠊ༢࡞ࡿ㸺ඛ⾜ᛶ㸼࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊඛ⾜ࡋ࡚㉳ࡇࡗࡓ㐠ືࡀタᐃⅬࡢࡴࡍࡧࡘࡁ 㸻㛵㐃ᛶࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡽ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ㐠ື⮬యࡢ㸺ᡂᛶ㸼ࡶࠊ ࡑࡢ㐠ືࡀᐇ⌧ࡋࡓᚋࡢ㸺ຠຊ㸼ࡶ」ྜⓗᤊ࠼ࡿ࠸࠺ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗせ⣲ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ ࡇࠋࠖ (ᕤ⸨ 1995: 99, ୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅) ࡉࡽࠊࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊタᐃⅬࡀⓎヰⅬࡼࡾᮍ᮶࠶ࡿࠕᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࠖ ࡢࡋ࡚㸦㸯㸰㸧ࡀࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࡑࢀࢆᅗᘧࡋࡓࡶࡢࡋ࡚㸦㸯㸱㸧ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦㸯㸰㸧 ↛ࡋ⚾ࡣࡑࡢせồࢆᯝࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋࡶ࠺ఱࡶࡍࡿࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋࡇࡢᡭ⣬ ࡀ㈗᪉ࡢᡭⴠࡕࡿ㡭ࡣࠊ⚾ࡣࡶ࠺ࡇࡢୡࡣ࠸࡞࠸࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋࡃṚࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡛ࡋ ࡻ࠺ࠋ (ࡇࡇࢁ㸧 (ᕤ⸨ 1995 : 98) 㸦㸯㸱㸧 㸦Ṛࡠ㸧 ە 㹑㹒 㹃㹒 㸦ᡭ࠾ࡕࡿ㸧 | 㹐㹒 (ᕤ⸨ 1995 : 100) ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝ ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ࢩࢸࣝࡀࠊ㸦㸯㸱㸧ࡢᅗᘧ࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠊᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺ࡛࠶ −20− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ࡲࡎࠊෑ㢌ࡢ㸦㸱㸧ࡢ B ࡢⓎヰࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࠊB ࡢⓎヰࡣࠊA ࡀ฿╔ࡍࡿⅬࢆ᫂♧ ࡣࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊࠕA ࡀ฿╔ࡍࡿࡁࡣࠊ᪤㣗ࡀጞࡲࡗࡓ࠶࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࠸࠺ࡇ ࡀྵពࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋ 㸦㸯㸱㸧࡞ࡽࡗ࡚ᅗᘧ࡛⾲ࢃࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ㸦㸯㸲㸧ࡢࡼ ࠺࡞ࡿࠋ 㸦㸱㸧㸦ᥖ㸧 㸿㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࡈࡵࢇࠋ㸯㸮ศ㐜ࢀࡑ࠺ࠋ 㹀㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࢃࡗࡓࠋࡌࡷ࠶ࠊጞࡵ࡚ࡿࡼࠋ 㸦ࢩࢸࣝ㸧 㸦㸯㸲㸧 (㹀ࡀጞࡵࡿ) 㸦㸿ࡀ฿╔ࡍࡿ(㠀᫂♧㸧㸧 | ە 㹑㹒 㹃㹒 㹐㹒 㸦㸯㸲㸧ࡣࠊ ࠕ㸿㸦⪺ࡁᡭ㸧ࡀሙ฿╔ࡍࡿࡼࡾ๓㹀㸦ヰࡋᡭ㸧ࡀ㣗ࢆጞࡵࡿࠖ ࠸࠺ࡇ㸦ඛ⾜ᛶ㸧ࢆ⾲ࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊB ࡢⓎヰࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ ࠕB ࡣ A ࡀືసࢆ⾜࠺ Ⅼ㸦㹐㹒㸧ࢆ⪃៖ධࢀ࡚Ⓨヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ ࡇࢀࢆࢫࣝࡢᩥ㸦㸲㸧ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ 㸦㸲㸧ࡢゎ㔘ࡣࠊ ࠕB ࡀ㣗ࢆጞࡵࡿࠖ࠸࠺ࡇ ࡔࡅࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊA ࡀືసࢆ⾜࠺Ⅼࢆ⪃៖࠸ࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆᅗᘧ࡛⾲ ࢃࡍࠊ༢⣧࡞ᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ㸦㸯㸳㸧࡞ࡿࠋ༢⣧࡞ᮍ᮶ࡣࠊReichenbach㸦1947:290㸧 ᚑ࠸ࠊタᐃⅬⓎヰⅬࡣྠ࡛࠶ࡿࡍࡿࠋ 㸦㸲㸧㸦ᥖ㸧 㸿㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࡈࡵࢇࠋ㸯㸮ศ㐜ࢀࡑ࠺ࠋ 㹀㸦㟁ヰ࡛㸧㸸 ࢃࡗࡓࠋࡌࡷ࠶ࠊጞࡵࡿࡼࠋ 㸦ࢫࣝ㸧 㸦㸯㸳㸧 (㹀ࡀጞࡵࡿ) ە 㹑㹒,㹐㹒 㹃㹒 㸦㹑㹒㹐㹒ࡣྠࡌⅬ㸧 ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺ࠊࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝࡀࠊタᐃⅬ㸦RT㸧ࢆⓎヰⅬ㸦ST㸧ࡣ␗࡞ ࡿⅬࡶࡘࡇ࡛ࠊ⪅㛫ࡢヰ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢ⾜ⅭࡢⅬࢆ⪃៖ධࢀࡓⓎヰࡀ ྍ⬟࡞ࡿࡇࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋෑ㢌㸦㸯㸧㹼㸦㸲㸧࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛ࠊࢫࣝࢩࢸࣝࡢ ୧᪉ࡀⓎヰࡉࢀ࠺ࡿሙྜࠊࢫࣝࡀࢩࢸࣝࡼࡾ෭ࡓࡃឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ㹀ࡀ⮬ศࡢືసࡔ ࡅࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㸿ࡢືసࢆ⪃៖ධࢀ࡚Ⓨヰࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇࡽ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ⪃ −21− 未来パーフェクトのシテイルが表す、聞き手への配慮について ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡞࠾ࠊྠࡌࢩࢸ࡛ࣝ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡇࡢᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝ➨㸰⠇࡛ぢࡓᮍ᮶ ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸࣝࡣⱝᖸࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋẚ㍑ࡢࡓࡵࠊᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸࣝ 㸦㸳a㸧ࢆᅗᘧ࡛⾲ࡍ㸦㸯㸴㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡿࠋ 㸦㸳a㸧㸦ᥖ㸧 ఱ࠶ࡗࡓࡽࢇ࡛ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛࣮࣡ࣉࣟࢆᡴࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠋ (㇂ཱྀ 1997: 144 ) 㸦㸯㸴㸧 㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡪ㸧 RT ە | 㹑㹒 |-------------| ET (ヰࡋᡭࡀᡴࡘ㸧 ᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢሙྜࠊタᐃⅬ㸦RT㸧࠾࠸࡚ฟ᮶Ⅼ㸦ET㸧ࡀ⾲ࡍ㇟ࡀ⥅⥆୰࡛ ࠶ࡿࡇࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊฟ᮶Ⅼ㸦ET㸧ࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ㇟㸦㸯㸴ࡢᅗ࡛ࡣࠕᡴࡘࠖ㸧ࡢ ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺᙧᘧࡣࢫ࡛ࣝࡣ࡞ࡃࢩࢸ࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿࡇࡀࡰ⩏ົⓗ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࡣࠊ㇂ཱྀ 㸦1997㸧ࡀࠊࢫࣝࡢᩥࢆࠕ㸽ุ᩿ࠖࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊ␃Ꮫ⏕ࡢⓎヰࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚ࠊẕㄒヰ⪅ ࡞ࡽࢩࢸࣝࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ୍⮴ࡍࡿࠋ➹⪅ࡢᩥἲᛶุ᩿ࡶ㇂ཱྀ 㸦1997㸧୍⮴ࡍࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ㸦㸯㸧㸦㸱㸧ࡢᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢሙྜࠊྠ୍ࡢ≧ἣ࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢫࣝࡶࢩࢸࣝࡶ ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡼࡗ࡚⮬↛Ⓨヰࡉࢀᚓࡿࡀࠊୖ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺ࠊࢩࢸࣝࡢᩥࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄 ៖ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡢᑐࡋࠊࢫࣝࡢᩥࡣࡑࢀࢆ⾲ࢃࡉ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࢩࢸࣝ ࢫࣝࡢࡕࡽࡢ⏝ࡶᩥἲⓗࡣṇࡋࡃࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ᛂࡌ࡚୧᪉ࢆ࠸ ศࡅࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖㛵ࡍࡿព㆑ࡀᩥἲᙧᘧࡢ㑅ᢥ ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠼ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰࡋᡭࡢ㑅ᢥࡢ≧ἣࢆ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࡇࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡍࡿ㓄៖ࢆ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆ᥈ࡿ᪉ἲ࡞ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ᮏ⠇࡛ᢅࡗࡓᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࢩࢸࣝࠊ➨㸰⠇࡛ぢࡓᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸࣝ ࡢẚ㍑ࢆ⾲㸯ࡲࡵࡿࠋ −22− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ⾲㸯⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠊᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸ ࣝࡢẚ㍑ ᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝ ᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸࣝ ඹ ⓎヰⅬ␗࡞ࡿタᐃⅬ㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡢືసࡢⅬ㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ ㏻ 㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ 㸰 Ⅼ ␗ タᐃⅬฟ᮶Ⅼࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋ タᐃⅬฟ᮶Ⅼࡣ㔜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡞ 㸦ฟ᮶ⅬࡣタᐃⅬඛ⾜ࡍࡿ㸧 㸦タᐃⅬ࠾࠸࡚ฟ᮶ࡣ⥅⥆୰࡛ ࠶ࡿ㸧 ࡿ Ⅼ㸱 ࢫࣝ⨨ࡁ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㸦ࡓࡔࡋࠊ ࢫࣝ⨨ࡁ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ ࢫࣝࡢሙྜࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࡀឤ ࡌࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ㸧 㸲㸬ࡲࡵᚋࡢㄢ㢟 ௨ୖぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺ࠊᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝࡣࠊᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸࣝ ྠᵝࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋ୧⪅ࡣ␗࡞ࡿⅬࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅ ⥆ࡣࢫࣝ⨨ࡁ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝࡣࢫࣝ⨨ࡁ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝࢆࢫࣝ⨨ࡁ࠼ࡓሙྜࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࡣឤࡌࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ ࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢᩥ࠾࠸࡚ࢫ࣭ࣝࢩࢸࣝࡢ㑅ᢥࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ௵ព࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㑅ᢥࡣ ヰࡋᡭࡢ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡍࡿ㓄៖㛵ࡍࡿព㆑ࡀᫎࡉࢀࡿ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡣᮏ᮶ࠊ㇟ࡢ㛫ⓗᒎ㛤㛵ࢃࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮࡛ࣜ࠶ࡾࠊᑐேⓗ࡞㓄៖ࡣ┤ ᥋ࡣ㛵ಀࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡋࠊࡇࡢࢩࢸࣝࡢࡢࡼ࠺ࠊヰ࠾࠸࡚⤖ᯝⓗ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ 㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᑐே㓄៖㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊㄒᙡࡸ⾲⌧ࡢ㑅ᢥࠊㄯヰࡢᵓᡂ࡞ࠊ㓄៖ ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࡀẚ㍑ⓗぢ࠼ࡸࡍ࠸⾲⌧᪉ἲẚࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡢࡼ࠺࡞㓄៖┤᥋㛵ಀࡢ࡞࠸ ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢᩥἲᙧᘧࡼࡿ⾲⌧ࡣࠊ㓄៖ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࡀぢ࠼ࡃ࠸ࠋࡋࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰ ࡋᡭࡀ↓ព㆑⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㑅ᢥ⾜ືࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇࡣࠊࡲࡔ᫂ࡽࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸᪥ᮏㄒ ࡢᑐே㓄៖ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆ᥈ࡿࡇ㈉⊩ࡍࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⏝ࡸ㑅ᢥࡀヰࡋᡭࡢ௵ព࡛࠶ࡿᵝࠎ࡞ᩥἲᙧᘧࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࢀࢆ 㑅ᢥࡍࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡛⪅ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍࢆ㞟ࡋࠊࡑࡢ㑅ᢥࡢ⫼ᚋ࠶ࡿ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᑀࡉ㛵ࡍࡿつ๎ࡢ୍⯡ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㓄៖ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆ᫂ࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ −23− 未来パーフェクトのシテイルが表す、聞き手への配慮について 㸯㇂ཱྀ㸦1997)࡛ᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ୰࡛ࠊືస⥅⥆࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡔ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ ࡀ୍࠶ࡿࠋ ࠕ 㸦㣗༟࡛ẕぶࡀ㸧࠾∗ࡉࢇ㐜࠸ࡡ࠼ࠋࡑࢀࡌࡷࠊࡶ࠺㣗࡚࠸ࡼ࠺ࠋ ࠖ 㸦㇂ ཱྀ 1997: 144) 㸰 ࡇࢀࡣࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡢࡶࡘࢱࢡࢩࢫ㸦ฟ᮶㛫ࡢ㛫ⓗ࡞┦㛵ಀ㸦ᕤ⸨ 1995 : 21-25 㸧㸧ࡢ ᶵ⬟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ 㸱 ⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜ࡛┬␎ࡋࡓࡀࠊ ࡶ࠺୍ࡘ␗࡞ࡿⅬࡋ࡚ࠊ୧⪅ඹ㉳ࡍࡿྃࡢ㐪࠸ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ ᮍ᮶ࣃ࣮ࣇ࢙ࢡࢺࡢࢩࢸࣝࡣࠊ ࠕඛࠖ ࠕࡶ࠺ࠖ࡞ࡀඹ㉳ࡋࠊᮍ᮶ࡢືస⥅⥆ࡢࢩࢸࣝࡣࠊ ᮇ㛫ྃ㸦ࠕ㸯ࡽ㸰ࡌࡲ࡛ࠖ 㸧ࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࠋ ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ ᕤ⸨┿⏤⨾. 1995. ࠗࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࣭ࢸࣥࢫయ⣔ࢸࢡࢫࢺ㸫⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㛫ࡢ⾲⌧㸫࠘ᮾ ி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ. Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press. ㇂ཱྀ⚽. 1997. ࠕࢸࣝᙧ㛵ࡍࡿ࣒࣮ࢻⓗഃ㠃ࡢ⪃ᐹࠖ ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘ࠊ92ࠊ143-152. −24− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Ꮡᅾ⾲⌧ࡢ㐺⏝̿̿ࠕࡸࡿࠖࠕࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲ̿̿ す ⨾✑㸦ONISHI, Miho㸧 ྡྂᒇᏛᏛ⾡◊✲ဨ㸦Nagoya University㸧 㸺Abstract㸼 This paper investigates the novel usage of two transitive verbs u-ru "to sell" and ya-ru "to do". With the imperfective marker -teiru "-ing", these verbs are often used as intransitive verbs mainly in informal contexts. Previous studies argue that these phenomena suggest the change in the system of Japanese grammar. However, further observation reveals that the motivation for the new usage of u-tteiru and ya-tteiru differs from each other despite the similarity of the phenomena. This suggests that the change is motivated by specific contexts in which each verb is used. The difference can be explained based on a dynamic usage-based model (Langacker 2000). ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ 㸸Ꮡᅾᩥࠊ⮬ືモືモࠊどⅬࠊືⓗ⏝౫ᣐࣔࢹࣝ ࡣࡌࡵ ࠕ࠶ࠊᨺ㏦ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡸࠕ㩾ࡢ࢚ࢧࡀ⮬ື㈍ᶵ࡛ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊᆺⓗ ࡣࡇࡢⓎヰヰ⪅ࡢ║๓࡛≉ᐃࡢࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌ࡀᨺᫎ୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡸࠊၟရࡀ㈍୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ ࢆ⾲ࡍẚ㍑ⓗ᪂ࡋ࠸⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚲࡎࡋࡶ㐺᱁࡛࠶ࡿุ᩿ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ ࡀࠊࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࡣࠊືモࠕࡸࡿࠖࡸࠕࡿࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⮬ືモᩥࡢᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࢁࡀࠊ ࡇࢀࢆㄗ⏝᩿ࡎࡿࡣฟ⌧㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸࠸࠺ࡇࡀඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡶ 2000 ᖺ௦๓༙ࡽ ᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ཪᖹ 2001ࠊ⏣ᕝ 2002ࠊᑠཎ 2009 ࡞㸧1ࠋ ࡇࢀࡽࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᙜヱࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲయ⣔ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢኚࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧ ၀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ᥦࡋࠊ ࠕࡿࠖ ࠕࡸࡿࠖ௨እࡶᗈࡀࡾࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿ࠸࠺ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ♧ ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ㝿ࡢಶูࡢ⏝ືᶵࢆᥦࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊ ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏝ἲࡀ㝈ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆ᰿ᣐࠊ⌧Ⅼ࡛ࡣࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡀ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲయ⣔ࡢ୰࡛⏕⏘ ⓗ࡞ࢡࣛࢫࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸࠸࠺⪃࠼ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ᪂つ⏝ἲࡢືᶵࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃ᐹ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ ࠊ ࠕࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࢆほᐹࡋࠊ୧⪅␗࡞ࡿ⏝ࡢືᶵࡀ࠶ ࡿࡇࢆᣦࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡢᩥࡢᐜㄆᗘุ᩿ࡣ◊✲࡞ࡢሙ࡛ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ ᯝ࠾ࡼࡧゝㄒ㈨※࡛ࡢ⏝ᩘ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ➹⪅ಶேࡢෆ┬ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ 2.1. ࠕែᛶྡモ㸩ࡀ㸩ࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ Ꮡᅾᩥࡣ║๓ࡢฟ᮶ࢆᥥࡍࡿ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦 ࠕᏑ⌧ᩥࠖ 㸦すᒣ 2003㸧 㸧 ࠋ(1)ࡣ║๓ࡢ≀ࡢᏑᅾ ࢆ㏙࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㐺᱁࡞Ꮡᅾᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(2a)ࡣⓎヰⅬᙜヱࡢ␒⤌㸦 ࠕᨺ㏦ࠖ 㸧ࡀᨺᫎ୰ ࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ព࡛ࡣゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᏑᅾᩥࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ(2b)ࡢࡼ࠺ࠕᨺ㏦ࠖࡢணᐃࢆ㏙ࡿ −25− 存在表現の適用――「やる」と「売る」の自動詞用法―― ព࡛ゎ㔘ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(1)ᖹ⾜ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࡣᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ᪥ᖖヰ࡛ࡣ(2a)ࡢࡼ࠺ ࡞Ꮡᅾᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ(2c)ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ ࠕࡸࡿࠖࡢࢸࣝᙧࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠋ (1) (2) 㸦෭ⶶᗜࢆ㛤ࡅ࡚㸧࠶ࠊ෭ⶶᗜࣅ࣮ࣝࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ a. 㸦ࢸࣞࣅࢆࡘࡅ࡚㸧*࠶ࠊᨺ㏦ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ b. ኪᨺ㏦ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ c. 㸦ࢸࣞࣅࢆࡘࡅ࡚㸧࠶ࠊᨺ㏦ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࡣᇶᮏⓗᮍែ㸦"imperfectives", Langacker 2008: 147㸧ࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞║๓ ࡢ≀ࡢᥥࡢሙྜࠊࡇࡢᮍែࡢࡉࡽ┤♧ⓗᒁ㠃ࡢࡳࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᮍែ࡛࠶ࡿ ࡓࡵࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࡢᙧࡀ⏝࡛ࡁࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(2)ࡢࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࡣࠊ⌧ᅾᙧ࡛ணᐃࡀ⾲ࡏࡿࡓࡵࠊែ 㸦"perfective", Langacker 2008: 147㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲ࠾࠸࡚║๓ࡢᥥࢆࡋࡓ࠸ሙྜࠊࡶࡋࠕ࠶ ࡿࠖࢸࣝᙧࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠕ࠶ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾲⌧࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ ࡋࠊࡇࡢᙧࡀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ௦᭰࡞ࡿ⾲⌧ࡀᚲせ࡞ࡿࠋ(2c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡀ⏝ࡉࢀ ࡿࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⎔ቃ࠾࠸࡚࠸࠺ࡇ࡞ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ ࠕࡸࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡣࠊᏑᅾືモࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࡢ⏝⠊ᅖࡢḞⴠࢆ⿵ࡍࡿᙧ࡛⏕ ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ(3)ࠊ(4)ࠊ(5)ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ║๓ᥥ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸⏝ἲࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ ࠕ㹼 ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉࡣࠊ║๓ᥥࢱࣉ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࠊࡇࡢࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉᇶ࡙ࡁ࿘ ㎶ⓗ࡞ᣑᙇࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ௨ୗࠕ㹼ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡀ⏝ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ ែࢆ 3 ࢱࣉ㸦ᨺᫎ㢮ࠊබ㛤㢮ࠊႠᴗ㢮㸧ศࡅ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ(3)ࠊ(4)ࠊ(5)ࡑࡢࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ (3) ᨺᫎ㢮 a. ࡇࢁ࡛ࠊࠊගࢸࣞࣅ࡛ࠕࢳࣕࣥࢢ࣒ࠖࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦║๓ᥥ㸧 b. ࡇࡇᩘᖺࢸࣞࣅ࡛ዪᏊࣇࢠࣗࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡔ࠸ࡓ࠸ぢ࡚͐㸦⩦័㸧 c. ᮶㐌ࡣ࢞ࣥࢲ࣒ࡢ⥲㞟⦅ࡀࡸࡿࡳࡓ࠸࡛ࡍࡋ࡚ࡶᴦࡋࡳ࡛ࡍࡡࠋ 㸦ணᐃ㸧 (4) බ㛤㢮 a. 㣗ᩱရሙࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡓࡽࠊᾏ㐨≀⏘ᒎࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ 㸦║๓㸧 b. ᅜ❧⨾⾡㤋࡛࣮ࠗࣝࣈࣝ⨾⾡㤋ᒎ࠘ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡋ͐㸦ᮇ㛫୰㸧 c. 7 ᭶ 2 ᪥ࡽୖ㔝ᅜ❧⛉Ꮫ༤≀㤋࡛ᜍ❳ᒎࡀࡸࡿࡽࡋ࠸ࠋ 㸦ணᐃ㸧 (3)࡛ࡣࠊࢸࣞࣅࡸᫎ⏬ࡢ␒⤌ࡢ✀㢮ࡸࢱࢺࣝࡀࠊ(4)࡛ࡣࠊᒎぴࡸㅮ₇ࠊබ₇࡞ࡀࠊ࢞᱁ྡ モࡋ࡚⏕ࡌࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ Web ୖࡢᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ20 ྡࡢ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡼࡿᐜㄆᗘุᐃ࡛ ࡣࠊྛ(a)ࡀ᭱ࡶᐜㄆࡉࢀࠊ(b)ࠊ(c)ࡢ㡰࡛పࡃ࡞ࡿࠋྛ(a)ࡣ║๓ࡢᥥࠊ(b)ࡣࠊ(3b)࡛ࡣ⩦័ࡋ ࡓࢣ࣮ࢫࠊ(4b)ࡣⓎヰྠ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ║๓ࡢᥥ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ(4c)ࡣࠕࡸࡿ࡛ࠖணᐃࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠾ ࡾࠊุᐃᙜࡓࡗࡓẕㄒヰ⪅ࡼࡿࠊ ࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ᪉ࡀ⮬↛࡞ࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ௨ୗ ࡢ(5)ࡢႠᴗ㢮࡛ࡣࠊᘓ≀ࡸタࢆ⾲ࡍྡモࡀ࢞᱁ྡモࡋ࡚⏕ࡌࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀ✵㛫࠾࠸࡚Ꮡᅾࡍ ࡿ࠸࠺ព࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ ࠕ㐠Ⴀࠖ࠸࠺ែࡢᏑᅾࢆ⾲ࡍព࡛ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢႠᴗ㢮࠾ࡅࡿᘓ ≀ࡸタࡀࠊ ࠕࡸࡿࠖ࠸࠺ฟ᮶ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍయ࡛࠶ࡿࠊࡑࢀࡶᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿࡣุࡌࡀࡓ ࠸ࡓࡵࠊ(3)ࡸ(4)ࡣ୍⥺ࢆ⏬ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࢱࣉ࡛ࡣ(5a)ࠊ(5b)ࠊ(5c)ࡶẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡀ㧗 ࡃࠊࡲࡓࠊ ࠕ㹼ࡀࡸࡿࠖࡢࡣほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ −26− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 (5) Ⴀᴗ㢮 a. ㏵୰ࠊ㔮ලᒇࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛ሗ㞟ࡀ࡚ࡽᐤࡗ࡚ࡳࡓࠋ 㸦║๓㸧 b. ᖹ᪥࡞ࡽࡤᮅ᪩ࡃࡽ࢝ࣇ࢙ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ 㸦⩦័㸧 c. ᫂᪥ࡽ࠾┅ᮇ㛫ධࡿⅭ㝔ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀࢃࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ 㸦ᮍ᮶ࡢ≧ែ㸧 ௨ୖࡢほᐹࡽࡣࠊ ࠕ㹼ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢ⏝ࡀពⓗୖ㏙ࡢ 3 ✀㢮㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ ࠕࡸ ࡿࠖࡀ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡍ࡚ࡢ⏝ἲ㸦 ࠕᐟ㢟ࢆࡸࡿࠖ࡞㸧㐺⏝࡛ࡁࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇࡶ࠶ࢃࡏ࡚ ᣦ࡛ࡁࡿ2ࠋ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࡸࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡀࠊᏑᅾືモࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࡢ⏝⠊ᅖࡢḞⴠࢆ⿵ࡍࡿᙧ࡛⏕ࡌ࡚ ࠸ࡿࡇࢆㄽࡌࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ ࠕ㹼ࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣࠊ≉ᨺᫎ㢮ࠊබ㛤㢮࠾࠸࡚ࠕ║๓ࠖࡽࠕ⩦ ័ࠖࡢពࠊ ࠕࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡽࠕࡸࡿࠖࡢ⏝ἲ࠸࠺ᣑᙇࡢ᪉ྥᛶࢆᣢࡘࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉ࢝ࢸ ࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ ࠕ࡛㸭㸩ࡀ㸩ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ (6)ࠊ(7)࡛ࡣࠊၟရࡀ࢞᱁ྡモࡋ࡚⏕ࡌࠊ ࠕ[ၟရ]ࡀ㸩ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠸࠺ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘࠋࡇࡢᵓ 㐀ࡣࠊ(8)ࠕ[ሙᡤ]ࠖࡀ⏕ࡌࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿ㸦ཪᖹ 2001㸧 ࠋ (6) (7) (8) ࢚ࢧࡀ⮬ື㈍ᶵ࡛ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ⸆ᒁ⾜ࡗࡓࡽࢱ࣮࢞ࣂ࣮࣒ࢯࣇࢺࡗ࡚ࡢࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛㈙ࡗ࡚ࡳࡓࠋ ㇂ࣟࣇࢺᦠᖏ⏝ワࡵ᭰࠼ࣁ࣑࢞࢟ࢥ࠸ࢀࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ 㸦ཪᖹ 2001: 98㸧 ពㄽⓗࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ࡛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿၟရࡢᏑᅾࡢఏ㐩ࡀ┠ⓗࡉࢀࠊྵពࡢ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡣࠊࡑ ࡢၟရࡢධᡭྍ⬟ᛶࢆఏ㐩࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ពࡸྵពࡣࠊᡤ᭷ࡢ⛣ື࠸࠺ฟ᮶ⓗ࡞㇟ ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᏑᅾ࠸࠺≧ែᛶࡢ㇟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡍࢀࡤࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ ࡣࠕࡿࠖࡢ㈙࠸࠺㇟࠸࠺ࡼࡾࠊ ࠕᏑᅾࠖ࠸࠺㇟ࢆᇶ┙ࡋࡓᩥᵓ㐀࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽ ࢀࡿࠋ ࠕ⮬ື㈍ᶵࠖࡸࣞࢪಀ࡞ࠊࡾᡭࡽ┤᥋ၟရࢆ㉎ධࡍࡿࡇࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡢᑠࡾ㈍ ࡢ⤌ࡳࢆ⪃៖ධࢀࡿࠊゝㄒୖࡢࠕࡾᡭࠖࡢᕼⷧࡣࠊᐇ♫࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡾᡭࠖࡢ Ꮡᅾࡢᕼⷧࡢᙳ㡪ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀຍ࠼ࠊၟရሗࡀ౯್ࢆᣢࡕࠊࡢࡼ࠺࡞ၟရࡀ㈍ ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࠊࡲࡓࡇ࡛ධᡭ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠸ࡗࡓሗࢆ↔Ⅼࡋ࡚ఏ㐩࡛ࡁࡿᩥᵓ㐀ࡀᚲせ ࡉࢀࡿ♫ⓗ࡞⫼ᬒࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤ(7)࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࢱ࣮࢞ࣂ࣮࣒ࠖ࠸࠺㌾⭯ࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞ጜጒရ ࡋ࡚ࠕࢱ࣮࢞ࣂ࣮࣒ࢯࣇࢺࠖࡀὶ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀሗࡋ࡚↔Ⅼࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢၟရࡀ ┠᪂ࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡣࠕ 㸦ࢱ࣮࢞ࣂ࣮࣒ࢯࣇࢺ㸧ࡗ࡚ࡢࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᘬ⏝⾲⌧ࡽࡶศࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࡿࠖࡢ㇟ᵓ㐀ࡢኚࢆᫎࡋࡓᩥࡢᵓ㐀ࡣࠊࡢࡼ࠺ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡢ ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡎࠊ ࠕࡿࠖࡣࠕX ࡀ Y ࢆ㸦Z 㸧ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞┠ⓗㄒࢆకࡗࡓ⏝ἲ࡛⏝ࡉࢀ ࡿࡇࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࠋX ࡣࡾᡭ㸦࢞㸧 ࠊY ࡣၟရ㸦ࣤ㸧 ࠊZ ࡣ㈙࠸ᡭ㸦ࢽ㸧ࡢᙺࢆࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࡘࡲࡾࠊ║๓࡛ၟရࡀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊ ࠕ࠾ࡌࡉࢇࡀ㐨࡛㔝⳯ࢆࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣཷࡅ㌟ ࡛ࠕ㐨࡛㔝⳯ࡀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇࡀつ⠊ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠊືモࡢ࢞᱁ࢆྲྀࡿ࠸ ࢃࡺࡿㄒࡣࠊືసࡢᙺࢆᣢࡘయ࡛ࠊၟရࡣ㈙⾜Ⅽࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡿᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ ࠕ㹼ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓ㐀ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ(9)ཪᖹ㸦2001㸧ࡽࠊ ᙧᘧⓗ≉ᚩᛮࢃࢀࡿᣦࢆᣠ࠸ࡔࡋࡓࠋ −27− 存在表現の適用――「やる」と「売る」の自動詞用法―― (9) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. ࠕ㹼ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢᙧᘧⓗ≉ᚩ㸦ཪᖹ 2001㸧 ၟရࡀືモࠕࡿࠖࡢ࢞᱁⌧ࢀࡿࠋ 㸦pp. 93-4㸧 ၟရࡀ࢞᱁࡛ฟࡿሙྜࠊ ࠕࡿ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠕࡽࢀࡿࠖࡍࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦p. 93㸧 ᚲࡎࠕࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺ࢸࣝᙧ࡛⌧ࢀࡿࠋ ࠕ≧ែࠖࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦p. 98㸧 ࠕ᪂₲ࡢ᯽㣰ࡗ࡚ࡢࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛…ࠖ 㸦p. 97㸧ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ ࠕࡗ࡚ࡢࠖࡀࢃࢀࡿࡇ ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᘬ⏝ᙧᘧ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊᑐヰࡢሙྜࡇࡢྡモࡀᣦࡍෆᐜࡣヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭඹ᭷ࡉࢀ ࡚࠸࡞࠸▱㆑࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊఏ㐩ෆᐜࡣࠊၟရࡢᏑᅾࢆ▱ࡾ㈙࠾࠺ᛮࡗࡓࡇࡢሗ࿌ ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ሗࡢᥦ౪࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦pp. 97-8㸧 ⾜Ⅽࡢ[ሙᡤ]ࢆ⾲ࡍࢹ᱁ࡢࠊᏑᅾࡢ[ሙᡤ]ࢆ⾲ࡍ᱁ຓモࠕࠖࡀࢃࢀࡿࡇࡀ࠶ࡿ 㸦 ࠕ㇂ࣟࣇࢺᦠᖏ⏝ワࡵ᭰࠼ࣁ࣑࢞࢟ࢥ࠸ࢀࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠖ 㸧 ࠋ 㸦p. 98㸧 ࢸࣥࢫࡣࠕࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸭ࡓࠖࡕࡽࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ 㸦p. 98㸧 ࡾᡭࠊ㈙࠸ᡭࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ 㸦pp. 98-9㸧 ࡲࡓࠊពⓗ≉ᚩࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ(10)ࢆᣦࡋ࡚ࡿࠋ (10) h. ࠕ㹼ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢពⓗ≉ᚩ㸦ཪᖹ 2001㸧 ၟရࡢᡤ᭷ᶒ⛣ື࠸࠺ྵពࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ 㸦p. 100㸧 ≉(h)ࡢពⓗ≉ᚩᇶ࡙ࡁࠊཪᖹࡣࠊᡤ᭷ࡢ⛣ືඛࡀྵពࡉࢀࡿࠕ㈙࠺ࠖࡸࠊၟရࡢ⛣ືࡀྵ ពࡉࢀࡿࠕࢀࡿࠖࡀࠊࡲࡓࡾᡭࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀྵពࡉࢀࡿࠕࡽࢀࡿࠖࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕࡿࠖ࠸ ࠺ືモᑐᛂࡍࡿ⮬ືモ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢពࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵࡣࠕࡿࠖࡣ↓ᑐືモ ࡛࠶ࡿ㏙ࠊᑐ࡞ࡿ⮬ືモࢆࠕ㹼ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡛ࠖ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿศᯒࡍࡿࠋ ᮏ✏ࡣࠊཪᖹࡀࠕၟရࡢᡤ᭷ᶒ⛣ືࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞㇟ࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬὀ┠ࡍࡿࠋ ᮏ✏ࡢᙇࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪂ࡓ࡞㇟ࡢᵓ㐀ᑐࡍࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡀ࡞࠸ࡇࡀࠊ ࠕ㹼ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ ࠸࠺᪂ወ࡞⾲⌧ࡢⓎ⏕ࡁࡃ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ ࠊ ࠕࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢ⏝ࡢືᶵࡘ࠸࡚♧ࡋࡓࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ≉ࠕࡗ ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢᩥࡢᵓ㐀ࢆࠕࡿࠖࡢពࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠊ㇟ᵓ㐀࡞ࡢほⅬࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ ࠕࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡢ≉ᚩ̿㇟ᵓ㐀ࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠊどⅬ ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡣࠊ↓ᑐືモࠕࡿࠖࡀࠊᑐᛂࡍࡿ⮬ືモⓗ࡞ែࢆ⾲ ⌧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡗࡓ㸦ཪᖹ 2001㸧࠸࠺ㄝ᫂ࡸࠊືモࡀࢸࣝࡼࡿ≧ែࠊ ㄒࡢ๐㝖ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧᑐ㇟ࡢㄒ⨨⏕㉳࠸࠺୍㐃ࡢ᧯సࢆཷࡅࡓ㸦⏣ᕝ 2002㸸 ࠕᨃఝ⮬ືモࠖ 㸧 ࠸࠺ㄝ᫂ࡀࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ ᮏ✏ࡢ௬ㄝࡣࠊ ࠕࡿࠖ㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᏑᅾࡢ㇟ᵓ㐀ࡢ㐺⏝ࡼࡿ㈙ࡢ㇟ᵓ㐀ࡢ⫼ᬒࡀ㉳ ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࠊືモࠕࡿࠖࡼࡗ࡚㝿❧ࡘཧ⪅ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠑၟရࠒ ࠸࠺ẚ㍑ⓗලయⓗ࡞ཧ⪅ᙺࡀࠊᏑᅾ⾲⌧ࡢࠑᏑᅾ≀ࠒࡢᙺࢆᣢࡘྡモࢆ⢭⦓ࡍࡿ3ࠋ୍ ᪉ࠊ ࠑࡾᡭࠒ ࠊ ࠑ㈙࠸ᡭࠒ࠸ࡗࡓཧ⪅ࡣ⫼ᬒࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ⪃࠼ࢆࠊ(9)ࡲࡵࡓᙧᘧⓗ≉ᚩ ࢆᡭࡀࡾࠊ㡰᳨ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ Jࠑࡾᡭࠒ ࠊ ࠑ㈙࠸ᡭࠒࡢ㠀᫂♧ ㇟ᵓ㐀ࡢ≉ᚩࡀ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺ゝㄒᵓ㐀ᫎࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࠑ㈙࠸ᡭࠒࡣࠑᏑᅾ≀ࠒ 㸦ࡘࡲࡾࠑၟရࠒ 㸧 −28− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࢆほᐹࡍࡿᙺࢆᢸ࠺ࡀࠊ ࠑほᐹ⪅ࠒࡣླྀ㏙ࡢᑐ㇟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃླྀ㏙ࡢయ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡣ ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢླྀ㏙ࡢయࡢ♧၀ⓗ࡞Ꮡᅾࡣㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࠾ࡅࡿࠕయ࡛ࠖㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ⣬ᩘࡢ㒔ྜࡶ࠶ࡾヲ⣽ࢆ♧ࡏ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡇࢀ௨㝆ࠕ ࠑ㈙࠸ᡭࠒ㸭ࠑほᐹ⪅ࠒࡢどⅬࠖ࠸࠺ ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢᬯ♧ⓗ࡞Ꮡᅾࢆ♧ࡍࡇࡍࡿࠋ Fࢸࣝᙧࡼࡿ≧ែ㸭D࢞᱁ྡモࡀࠑࡾᡭࠒ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠑၟရࠒ ࠕࡿࠖࡢពᵓ㐀ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺᙧᘧࠕ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢ㛵ಀࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡿࠋࡇࡢ㛵ಀࡣ(a)ࡢ ືసࡢពᚿᛶࡶ㛵ࢃࡿࡓࡵࠊ࢞᱁ྡモࡢၥ㢟ࡶࡇࡇ࡛ㄽࡌࡿࠋ ⥅⥆≧ែࡢⅬࡽࡣࠊ ࠕ[ၟရ]ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣࠊ㔠Ỉ㸦2000㸧 㸦ࡀࠕᙅ㐠ືືモࠖࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠕỈ㐨ࡀṆࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ 㸦p. 24-5㸧㏆࠸ࠋࡇࡢࢱࣉࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊពᚿᛶࡀపࡃࠊ⥅⥆ࡢࠑ㐍⾜ࠒ ࠑ⤖ᯝࠒࡢ⩏ࡢ㛫࡛᭕࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠕࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ࠑࡾᡭࠒࡀ⫼ ᬒࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࠑၟရࠒࡀ๓ᬒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋពᚿⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽࡢ㐍⾜ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠕࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ᭱୰ࡔࠖ ࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ ࠕၟရ౪⤥୰ࠖ࠸࠺⫼ᬒⓗ࡞౪⤥⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡼࡿᙅ㐠ືࡢ⥅⥆ࡋ࡚ࢁ࠺ࡌ ࡚ࠑ㐍⾜ࠒᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ືసࡢ⫼ᬒࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ ࠕࡿࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ ࠑၟရࠒࡀ࢞᱁ࡢ⨨⏕ࡌࠊ⮬ືモⓗ࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆసࡿࠋᑐᛂࡍࡿពࡣᐈయኚⓗ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࠊ࢞᱁ᐈయࡀ⌧ࢀࠊᐈయࡢኚࡢ⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ ࠕ[ᐈయ]ࡀࡋ࡚࠶ࡿࠖࡢࡼ ࠺࡞ࢸࣝᙧࡀつ⠊ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ ࠕ[ၟရ]ࡀࡗ࡚࠶ࡿࠖࡣࠊ୍㒊᪉ゝࢆ㝖ࡁࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ ࠕࢩ࣮ࣝࡀᙇࡗ࡚࠶ࡿࠖ ࠊ ࠕὀព᭩ࡁࡀ᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡿࠖ࡞࠾ࡅࡿ⾜Ⅽࡢ⤖ᯝࡢᏑ⥆ࡸ⤖ᯝࡢ≧ែ ␗࡞ࡾࠊ ࠕ[ၟရ]ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣࠊᙅ࠸㐍⾜≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࡽ࡛ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㇟ᵓ㐀ࡢᆺࡀࠊ ࢸࣝᙧࢆ᎘ࡗࡓ⪃࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ Eࣦ࢛ࢫࡢ᭰㸭Gၟရࡢ↔Ⅼ㸭Iࢸࣥࢫ㸦㐣ཤࠊ㠀㐣ཤࡶᐜㄆ㸧 ᡴࡕᾘࡉࢀࡿࡁṧࡿ 1 ࡘࡣࠊ ࠕၟရࡀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ཷࡅ㌟ࡼࡿ⾲⌧ᡭẁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ཷࡅ㌟ࡢࣦ࢛ࢫࡢ᭰ࡣᙉ࠸ືᛶᑐᛂࡋࠊཪᖹࡢᣦ࠾ࡾືసࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆྵពࡍࡿࠋ ࡇࢀຍ࠼ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢሙྜࠊどⅬࡀၟရഃ࠶ࡿ࠸࠺Ⅼࡀၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆ ᣦࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ⩻ࡗ࡚ࠕ[ၟရ]ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊどⅬࡣࠊၟရࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿླྀ㏙ࡢయࡢ ᪉࠶ࡿࠋ ࠕ ࠑ㈙࠸ᡭࠒ㸭ࠑほᐹ⪅ࠒࡢどⅬ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢどⅬࡣ₯ᅾⓗ࡞ࠑ㈙࠸ᡭࠒ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿ⪺ ࡁᡭඹ᭷࡛ࡁࡿどᗙ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ₯ᅾⓗᾘ㈝⪅㛫ࡢၟရሗఏ㐩ࡣዲ㒔ྜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(9d)ࢆゎ Ỵࡍࡿࠋ(9f)ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊၟရ㈍ᮇ㛫࠸࠺ᐈయⓗែక࠺㛫㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊၟရⓎぢ࠸ ࠺యഃࡢどⅬᇶ࡙ࡃࢸࣥࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇࡽ㆟ㄽྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞どⅬ ᵓ㐀ࡀࠊ ࠕ㹼ࡀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢ⏝ࡢศᕸ㡿ᇦࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ ࠕ㹼ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡀ㣗࠸㎸ࡴ⌮ ⏤࡞ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ௨ୖࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠕࡿࠖᏑᅾࡢ㇟ᵓ㐀ࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆᥦࡋࠊࡉࡽᙧᘧⓗ࡞≉ ᚩࡋ࡚ࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࣦ࢛ࢫࡢⅬࡽつ⠊ⓗ࡞ᙧᘧࡀ᎘ࢃࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠸࠺Ⅼࢆㄽࡌ ࡓࠋ๓⪅ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣḟ⠇࡛ࡉࡽヲ⣽ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ Hሙᡤྃࢽ᱁ࡶྲྀࢀࡿ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕ[ၟရ]ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠸࠺ᵓ㐀ࠊ ࠕᏑᅾࠖࡢ㇟ᵓ㐀ࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆࠊ ᵓᩥᩥἲ㸦Usage-based model㸦Langacker 2000㸧ᇶ࡙࠸࡚♧ࡍࠋᅗ 1 ࡣࠊLangacker㸦2000: 34㸧 ࡢᵓᩥࢫ࣮࣐࢟ᣑᙇࡢࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡᅗᇶ࡙࠸࡚సᡂࡋࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏑᅾ⾲⌧ࡽࠕࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ ࡢ⏝ἲࡢᣑᙇࡢࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡᅗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ −29− 存在表現の適用――「やる」と「売る」の自動詞用法―― L L NP ࡀ L NP ࡀ V ⨨ࡍࡿ ၟရࡀ ࠶ࡿ ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ L ၟရࡀ ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ ேࡀ L࡛ ၟရࢆ ၟရࢆ ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ ᅗ 1 ࠕࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢᵓᩥᣑᙇ ᕥࡢࡣࠊ ࠕL NP ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࠸࠺Ꮡᅾ⾲⌧ࡢᵓᩥࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸦እᯟ㸧ࡼࡿᵓᩥ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࠊྑ ࡢࡣࠊ ࠕࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢㄒᙡⓗ≉ᚩࡼࡗ࡚ᵓ㐀ࡉࢀࡿᵓᩥࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡢ 㔜࡞ࡿ㒊ศࡣࠊ(9e)ࡢၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠊ ࠕL ၟရࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠸࠺ᣑᙇⓗ࡞ୗࣞ࣋ࣝࢫ࢟ ࣮࣐ࡀࡋࡓࡇࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୗࣞ࣋ࣝࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡼࡿᣑᙇࡣࠊ㐣ᗘࡢ୍⯡ࢆྰᐃ ࡋࠊᣑᙇࡢືᶵࡀໟᣓⓗ࡞ᩥἲつ๎ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࡇࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ ௨ୖࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣཪᖹ㸦2001㸧ࡢᙧᘧⓗ≉ᚩ(9)ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࠊᮏ✏ࡢᙇࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡢᣑࡀࡾࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃ᐹ ᪥ᮏㄒࡣࠊືモࡢ⮬ࡸࠕ࠸ࡿࠖࠕ࠶ࡿࠖࡢᑐ❧ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ(11)ࠊ(12)ࡀ⏕⏘ⓗ࡞ᩥἲ⌧ ㇟࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡣప࠸ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㠀ᩥࡋࡓࡀ㸦つ⠊ⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࢆᣓᘼෆ♧ࡋࡓ㸧 ࠊᑠ ཎ㸦2009㸧ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢ࠺ࡕᐇࡀぢࡘࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࠋ (11) (12) ᭷ᑐືモࡀ㸩࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⮬ືモࡀ㸩࡚࠸ࡿ㸭ືモࡀ㸩࡚࠶ࡿ㸧 *ቨ⤮ࡀࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸭ࡅ࡚࠶ࡿ㸧 ↓ᑐືモ㸩࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ືモ㸩࡚࠶ࡿ㸧 *ᅗ᭩㤋ᮏࡀ⨨࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⨨࠸࡚࠶ࡿ㸧 ᑠཎࡼࢀࡤࠊ(11)ࡢᐇࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕయㄪࡀᔂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡸࠕ➎ࡀ᭤ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡞ࡢ⏝ἲࡀぢ ࡘࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ(12)ࡢ↓ᑐືモࡘ࠸࡚ࡶᐇࡀぢࡘࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⮬ືモࡢࡦࢁࡀࡾࡤࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ㏣ຍࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ(11)᭷ᑐ࣭ (12)↓ᑐࡢືモࢆ㡰᳨ウࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ᙜヱࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡣࠊᮏᙜᣑᙇഴྥ࠶ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢㄪᰝࡽࠊࡲࡎࠊ⮬ືモ⏝ ἲࡢⓎ⏕ࡣ೫ࡾࡀ࠶ࡾࠊྠࡌືモ࡛ࡶᚲࡎࡋࡶ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇࢆ㏙ ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ(13)ࠊ(14)ࠕ*᭷ᑐືモ㸩࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢࠕᔂࡍࠖ ࠊ ࠕ᭤ࡆࡿࠖࡢࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋୖࡢ(11) ᙜࡓࡿ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ➹⪅⮬㌟ࡣࠊ⏝ࡀぢࡘࡗࡓྛ(a)ࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊึࡵ࡚⪺ࡃ⾲ −30− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ⌧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ (13) ᔂࡍ a. యㄪ㸭ࣂࣛࣥࢫࡀᔂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦ᑠཎࡢᣦ㏻ࡾࠊᑡᩘ࡞ࡀࡽ⏝࠶ࡾ㸧 b. *ᓴ㸭ቨࡀᔂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦⏝࡞ࡋ㸧 (14) ᭤ࡆࡿ a. ➎ࡀ᭤ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦 ࠕ➎ࠖࡣ㔮ࡾ➎ࡢࡇࠋ㨶ࡀ➎ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡞ᘬࡁࡀ࠶ࡿࡁࡢ ⾲⌧㸧 b. *ᛶ᱁㸭⫼୰㸭㐨ࡀ᭤ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⏝࡞ࡋ㸧 ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡣᆒ㉁㉳ࡇࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྛ⏝ἲࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⏝ືᶵࡀ࠶ࡿ⪃ ࠼ࡿࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠕࡸࡿࠖ࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡍ࡛ᣦࡋࡓࠋ ⥆࠸࡚ࠊ(12)ࡢࠕ*↓ᑐືモ㸩࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢሙྜࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ(12)ࡣࠊ⏣ᕝ㸦2002㸧ࡀᩥἲయ⣔ ࡢほⅬࡽ⮬ືモࡀண ࡉࢀࡿࡍࡿタ⨨㢮ࡢືモ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ ࠕ༳㚷ࡀᢲࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ ࠊ ࠕࢩ࣮ ࣝࡀ㈞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡞ࡢࡀᑠཎ㸦2009㸧ࡼࡗ࡚㞟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (15) (16) ࠕ㈞ࡿࠖ 㸦BCCWJ㸧 a.ࠕ㹼ࡀ㈞ࡗ࡚࠶ࡿࠖ140 ᑐࡋࠕ㹼ࡀ㈞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣ 1 4 ࠕ᭩ࡃࠖ 㸦BCCWJ㸧 a.ࠕ㹼ࡀ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ 㸸 ࠕ[᭷⏕య]ࡀ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ163 ᑐࡋࠊ ࠕ[ᑐ㇟]ࡀ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣ 11 b.ࠕ[᭷⏕య]ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ13 ᑐࡋࠊ ࠕ[ᑐ㇟]ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣ 137 (15)ࠊ(16)ࡢྛ(a)࡛ࡣࠊつ⠊ⓗ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿືモ⏝ἲࡢᩘࡀᅽಽⓗඃໃ࡛࠶ࡿ୍᪉ࠊ(16b)ࡢ ࠕࡿࠖࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡁࡃ㏫㌿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢほᐹࡽࡣࠊ᭷ᑐ࣭↓ᑐࢃࡽࡎࠊయ⣔ⓗ⮬ືモ⏝ἲࡢ⏝⠊ᅖࡀᣑࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࡣ⌧Ⅼ࡛ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋ ࠕ➎ࡀ᭤ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡞ࡢ≉Ṧ࡞ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ⏝ࡢືᶵࢆ ศᯒ࡛ࡁࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊタ⨨㢮ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᪉ゝࡢᣦࡶ࠶ࡿ5ࠋ ᑐ❧ࡢ୰⌧㇟ ᐜㄆᗘᙳ㡪ࡍࡿ⌧㇟ࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖࠕ᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡿࠖࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡀ⬺ⴠࡋࠊ(17)ࡢࡼ࠺ ࠕ᭩࠸࡚ࡿࠖࡢᙧ࡞ࡾࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ୧⪅ࡢᑐ❧ࡀ୰ࡍࡿሙྜࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ (17) 㸦࣊ࣝࢩࣥ࢟ࡢࢺ࣒ࣛࡢ㸧␃ᡤྡࡀ᭩࠸࡚ࡿ PDF ࡣᮏᙜᙺ❧ࡕࡲࡋࡓࠋ(travel.jp)6 ࡇࢀຍ࠼ࠊ ࠕࢳࢦȭࡗ࡚ࡿࠖ ࠊ ࠕᨺ㏦ȭࡸࡗ࡚ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺᱁ຓモࠕࡀࠖ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕࢆࠖࡀ ⬺ⴠࡍࡿࡇࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑐ❧せ⣲ࡢ㠀᫂♧ࡣࠊᑐ❧ࡢ୰ࢆᑟࡃྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ࠾ࢃࡾ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊၟྲྀᘬࡢ㇟ᵓ㐀࡛ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠕࡿࠖ࠸࠺ືモࡀࠊᏑᅾࡢ㇟ᵓ㐀࡛ᤊ ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡛ࠊᏑᅾ⾲⌧ఝࡓᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡞ࡗࡓ⪃࠼ࠊᏑᅾ⾲⌧ࡢᵓᩥࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡢᣑ −31− 存在表現の適用――「やる」と「売る」の自動詞用法―― ᙇ㐺⏝ࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆᙇࡋࡓࠋ ࠕࡸࡿࠖ ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᏑᅾືモࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ែࠊ ࡘࡲࡾ㐍⾜୰ࡢฟ᮶ࡢᏑᅾࢆ㏙ࡿࡓࡵ⏕ࡌࡓ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࠊࡇࢀࡶᏑᅾ⾲⌧‽ࡌ࡚ ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ ࠕࡿࠖࡸࠕࡸࡿࠖ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⮬ືモ⏝ἲ࠸࠺Ἴࡀࠊ᪥ᮏ ㄒయࡢᩥἲᵓ㐀ࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞ኚ࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ᑐࡋࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ ኚࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏝ἲࡢᚲせᛶࡽ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⾲⌧ᅛ᭷ࡢ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ ⪃࠼ࢆㄽࡌࡓࠋ ὀ 1 ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ㠀ᖖᏳᐃ࡞⌧㇟ࢆᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ✚ᴟⓗㄆࡵࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ㞟ࡸุᐃ᪉ἲࡢ㞴 ࡋࡉࡶ࠶ࢃࡏ࡚ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᑠཎ 2009: 103, 106; ⏣ᕝ 2002: 27; ཪᖹ 2001: 93㸧 ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡶࠊศᯒᑐ ㇟ࡣᏳᐃࡋࡓ⌧㇟࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ぢ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 2 ࠕࡸࡿࠖࠕࡍࡿࠖࡘ࠸࡚ࡣబ⸨㸦2005㸧ཧ↷ࠋ 3 ⢭⦓ࡣㄆ▱ᩥἲࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡛ࠊ࠶ࡿ」ྜⓗ࡞ᩥᵓ㐀࠾࠸࡚ࠊពⓗ౫Ꮡⓗ࡞せ⣲ D ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞せ⣲ A ࡀᴫᛕⓗ⤫ྜࡉࢀࡿ⤌ࡳᩥἲᵓ㐀㸦A/D 㓄⨨㸧ࡀᑐᛂࡍࡿㄆ▱ⓗ࡞ ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡛࠶ࡿ㸦Langacker 2008: 198-205㸧 ࠋ 4 ࠕ⡆᫆ࣛࢱ࣮ࡣࣂ࣮ࢥ࣮ࢻࡀ㈞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡀ㸦ᚋ␎㸧 ࠖ 5 ࠕタ⨨㢮ࠖࡢࠕ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ ࠕᙇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ➹⪅⮬㌟ࡣ⏝ࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᐇࢆ⪥ ࡋࡓࡇࡣ࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊࡇࡇࡽண ࡉࢀࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢁࡢࠊ࠼ࡤࠕᕸࡀᩜ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ ࠕ⤮ࡀࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡞ࡣ⪺࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࠊ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠕ༳㚷ࡀᢲࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࢆつ⠊ⓗ ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀᐜㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࡋࡓẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀ 1 ྡ࠸ࡓࠋ 6 http://4travel.jp/overseas/area/europe/finland/helsinki/travelogue/10481233/ ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ 㔠Ỉᩄ㸦2000㸧 ࠕࡢ⾲⌧ࠖ㔠Ỉᩄ࣭ᕤ⸨┿⏤⨾࣭⏣ၿᏊ ⴭࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲ 2 ࣭ྰᐃྲྀࡾ ❧࡚࠘ 㸪ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬pp.3-92. Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. "A Dynamic Usage-Based Model." In Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.) Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA. CSLI Publications, pp.1-63. ཪᖹᜨ⨾Ꮚ 2001.ࠕ ࠕࢳࢦࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠸࠺⾲⌧ࠖ ࠊ ࠗ⟃Ἴ᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲࠘6: 93-102 すᒣభྖ 2003. ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒྡモྃࡢពㄽㄒ⏝ㄽ̿ᣦ♧ⓗྡモྃ㠀ᣦ♧ⓗྡモྃ࠘ ࠊᮾி㸸ࡦ ࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ. ᑠཎ┿Ꮚ 2009.ࠕ⮬᭰ࡢᗈࡀࡾ㸸ఝ⮬ືモᩥࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ ࠊ ࠗᓥゝㄒᩥ࠘26: 103-125. బ⸨⌶୕ 2005.ࠗ⮬ືモᩥືモᩥࡢពㄽ࠘ ࠊᮾி㸸➟㛫᭩㝔 ⏣ᕝᣅᾏ 2002.ࠕᨃఝ⮬ືモࡢὴ⏕ࡘ࠸࡚̿ࠕࢳࢦࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠸࠺⾲⌧̿ࠖ ࠊ ࠗ⟃Ἴᛂ ⏝ゝㄒᏛ◊✲࠘9: 15í18. ᩥฟ ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩ࡁゝⴥᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠘ 㸦BCCWJ㸧 ࠊᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ. −32− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ἲモ no doubt ࡢ⏝ἲ̿㸦㛫㸧ほᛶࡢほⅬࡽ̿ ᒸᮏ ⰾ㸦㔠ἑᫍ⛸Ꮫ, [email protected]㸧 㸺Abstract㸼 A modal adverb no doubt , which expresses the speaker’s mental attitude, has been considered from different perspectives. The main point of the consideration has put emphasis on the speaker’s subjective propositional attitude, but little attention has been given to the aspect of speech act and intersubjectivity which no doubt has. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that a modal adverb no doubt not only expresses the speaker’s subjective attitude and it but also has the hearer-oriented meaning (=intersubjective meaning). In addition, I would like to explain the process of (inter)subjectification of no doubt . ࠙Keywordsࠚ: ἲモࠊᚰⓗែᗘࠊヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭࠊ㸦㛫㸧ほᛶࠊ㸦㛫㸧ほ 1. ࡣࡌࡵ ヰࡋᡭࡢᚰⓗែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍἲモ no doubt㸦ㄆ㆑ⓗព:ࠕ᥎㔞ࠖ㸧ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᵝࠎ࡞ほ Ⅼࡽ⪃ᐹࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⪃ᐹࡢ║ࡣࡑࡢほⓗ࡞㢟ែᗘ⨨ࢀࠊ㛫 ほⓗ࣭ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࡣ༑ศ⪃ᐹࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊἲモ no doubt ࡀヰࡋᡭࡢほⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ᪂ࡓࠊ ヰࡋᡭࡢほⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍពࡀ⪺ࡁᡭᛮ⪃ⓗ࡞㸦㛫ほⓗ࡞㸧ពࢆ⾲ࡍࡇࢆ᫂ࡽ ࡍࡿ 1 ࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ no doubt 㛵ࡍࡿほ㛫ほࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡘ࠸࡚ࡶㄝ᫂ࡋ ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ (1) ἲモ no doubt ࡢほ࣭㛫ほ㛵ࡍࡿ௬ㄝ ࠓ௬ㄝࡑࡢձࠔ ἲモ no doubt ࡀ㛫ほⓗ⏝ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊᩥᮎ࡛⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࠓ௬ㄝࡑࡢղࠔ ἲモ no doubt ࡣ there is no doubt that S+V~ࡸ S have no doubt that S+V~࡞ࡢ⾲ ⌧ࡽ⏕ࡌࡓモ࡛ࠊព࣭⏝ἲ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕ㠀ほⓗЍほⓗЍ㛫ほⓗࠖ࠸࠺ ほࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 2. no doubt ࡢព 2 ᮏ ࢭ ࢡ ࢩ ࣙ ࣥ ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ no doubt 㛵 ࡋ ࡚ ࠊ 2 ࡘ ࡢ ⱥ ⱥ ㎡ ᭩ 㸦 Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 㸧ࡢグ㏙ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍ ࡿࠋ 2. 1. ㎡᭩ࡢグ㏙ (2)ࡣ OALD ࡢ➨ 8 ∧᭩ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄝ࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋ −33− 法副詞no doubtの用法―（間）主観性の観点から― (2) used when you are saying that something is probable. No doubt she’ll call us when she gets there. used when you are saying that something is certainly true He’s made some great movies. There is n o doubt about it. (௨ୗୗ⥺➹⪅) ḟࠊ(3)ࡣ LDCE ➨ 5 ∧ࡢ no doubt ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢㄝ࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡶ(2)ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞グ ㏙࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (3) used when you are saying that you think something is probably true. No doubt you’ll have your own ideas. She was a top student, no doubt about it. (=it is certainly true) 2. 2. ၥ㢟Ⅼ (2)(3)ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢㄝ᫂ࢆࡲࡵࡿࠊ ࠕ≀ࡀ☜࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࠸࠺ሙྜࠊno doubt about it ࡢ ⏝ ἲ ࢆ ⏝ ࠸ ࡿ ࡇ ࡞ ࡗ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ ࡋ ࡋ ࠊ ၥ 㢟 ࡞ ࡢ ࡣ no doubt ࡔ ࡅ ࡛ ࡶ ࠕ ☜ ᐇ ᛶ (certainty)ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊno doubt ࡀࠕ↛ᛶ (probability)ࠖࡔࡅ⾲ࡍ ゝ࠸ษࡿࡇࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 3. ඛ⾜◊✲ 3. 1. Swan(20053 ) Swan (2005 3 : 353)ࡣࠊἲモ no doubt ࡣ‘probably’ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊ‘I suppose’ࢆពࡍࡿ ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ 3 ࠋ (4) a. No doubt it’ll rain soon. b. You’re tired, no doubt. I’ll make you a cup of tea. (Swan (2005 3 : 353)) (4b)㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ(5a)ࡸ(5b)ࡢࡼ࠺ࣃࣛࣇ࣮ࣞࢬ࡛ࡁࡿࡇࡽࠊࡸࡣࡾ probably ࡔࡅ ⨨ࡁ࠼࡛ࡁࡿࡍࡿࡢࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺ᛮ࠼ࡿࠋ (5) a. You must be tired. I’ll make you a cup of tea. b. I expect you’re tired. Let me make you a cup of tea. 3.2. Simon-Vandenbergen (2007) Simon-Vandenbergen (2007: 12-17)ࡣࠊno doubt ࡢᩥ୰࡛ࡢ⨨ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ ୰࡛ࡶࡾࢃࡅࠊ2 ࡘࡢ⯆῝࠸ᣦࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊSimon-Vandenbergen (2007: 14)ࡣࠊ ᩥᮎ࡛⏝ࡉࢀࡿ no doubt ࡣࠕ⿵㊊(afterthought)ࠖࡢ㈨᱁ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (6) ‘Why was Rahmi arrested?” Jean-Pierre shrugged. ‘Subversion, no doubt. Anyway, Raoul Clermont is running around town to find Ellis and somebody wants revenge.’ (Simon-Vandenbergen (2007: 14)) ḟࠊSimon-Vandenbergen (2007:17)ࡣࠊࠕ☜ㄆ(confirmation)ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ no doubt ࡢࢹ −34− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣐࣮࣮࢝ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (7) ‘Well, what’s been happening in the club?’ asked Chatterton. ‘Wine, women and song, no doubt’ ‘Oh, no, Cully,’ said Glastonbury. ‘It’s been very dull since you left.’ 㸦Simon-Vandenbergen (2007: 17)㸧 Simon-Vandenbergen ࡣ(6)ࡣ afterthought ࡢ⏝ἲࠊ(7)ࡣ confirmation ࡢ⏝ἲㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚ ࠸ࡿࡀࠊᩥᮎ࡛⏝ࡉࢀࡿ no doubt ࡢᶵ⬟㛵ࡍࡿヲ⣽࡞ㄝ᫂ࡣࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ 4 ࠋ➹⪅ࡢ⪃ ࠼࡛ࡣࠊ୧ࡶព࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕ☜ᐇᛶࠖࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ┦ᡭࡢ㉁ၥᑐࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡀࡑࢀ ⟅࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 4.㸦㛫㸧ほᛶἲモ no doubt 4. 1.㸦㛫㸧ほᛶ Traugott (2010: 33)ࡣࠊほᛶ࣭㛫ほᛶࡘ࠸࡚ḟࡢࡼ࠺ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ 5 ࠋ (8)㸦㛫㸧ほᛶࡘ࠸࡚ The term subjectivity refers to the way in which natural languages, in their structure and their normal manner of operation, provide for the locutionary agent’s expression of himself and his own attitudes and beliefs. …intersubjectivity in my view refers to the way in which natural languages, in their structure and their normal manner of operation, provide for the locutionary agent’s expression of his or her awareness of the addressee’s attitudes and beliefs, most especially their “face” or “self-image.” (Traugott (2010: 33)) ⡆༢ࡲࡵࡿࠊࠕほᛶࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࡀࠊࠕ㛫ほᛶࠖࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢែᗘࡀ㛵ಀ ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡞ࡿࠋ 4. 2. 㸦㛫㸧ほᛶἲモ no doubt ࡢព ほᛶ࣭㛫ほᛶࡢほⅬࡽ⪃࠼ࡿࠊἲモ no doubt ࡢពࡣḟ♧ࡍᅗ 1 ࡼ࠺ ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ ほⓗព 㛫ほⓗព ㄆ㆑ⓗ ㄯヰⓗ ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ព㸦ࠕ⓶⫗ࠖࠊ ࠕ㛫᥋ⓗ࡞㠀㞴ࠖ ࠕ෭ࡸࡋࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ㸧 ప 㧗 Probability Certainty ᅗ 1: 㸦㛫㸧ほᛶᇶ࡙ࡃἲモ no doubt ࡢព ほⓗ࡞ព࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ㢟ෆᐜࡀ⾲ࡍฟ᮶ࡀᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ☜࡞ドᣐࡀ ࠶ࡿࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࡇᑐࡋ࡚☜ಙࢆᢪ࠸࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊcertainly ࡛ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ −35− 法副詞no doubtの用法―（間）主観性の観点から― ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ㢟ෆᐜࡀ⾲ࡍฟ᮶ࡀᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡇࢆ☜ಙࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢᡭẁࢆᣢࡗ࡚ ࠸࡞࠸ሙྜࠊprobably ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋᅗ 1 ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢពࢆㄆ㆑ⓗ࡞ᑻᗘࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㛫ほⓗ࡞ព࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕ⓶⫗ࠖࠊࠕ㛫᥋ⓗ࡞㠀㞴ࠖࠊࠕ෭ࡸࡋࠖ࠸ࡗࡓㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ ࡞ពࢆ⾲ࡍࠋno doubt ࡀ㎡᭩ⓗ⪺ࡁᡭᣦྥⓗ࡞ពࢆෆᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊ୍ ⓗࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ 5. ᐇ᳨ド ᮏࢭࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣࠊᅗ 1 ࡛♧ࡋࡓἲモ no doubt ࡢពࢆᇶࡋࠊᐇࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ ほⓗ࡞ព(5.1.~5.2.)㛫ほⓗ࡞ព(5.3.)ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⣬㠃ࡢ㒔ྜୖࠊ⏝㛵ࡋ ࡚ࡣ 2 ࡎࡘࡢ⤂ࡵࡿࠋゎ㔘ࡣᩥ⬦ࡀᚲせ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊヱᙜࡍࡿಶᡤ௨እࡶࡇࡇ࡛ ࡣ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 5. 1. ࠕ☜ᐇᛶ (certainty)ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ no doubt ḟࡢ(9)(10)ࡢࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ (9) ࣐࣮࣮࣋ࣜኵே࢝ࢫࢺẶࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࡛ࠊ࣐࣮࣮࣋ࣜኵேࡀḟࡢࡼ࠺ゝ࠺ࠋ ‘DonCaster – that’s the place he’s going to do his next murder,’ said Mrs Marbury. ‘And tomorrow! Fairly makes your flesh creep, doesn’t it? If I lived in Doncaster and my name began with a D, I’d take the first train away, that I would. I’d run no risks. What did you say, Mr Cust?’ ‘Nothing, Mrs Marbury -nothing.’ ‘It’s the races and all. No doubt he thinks he’ll get his opportunity there. Hundreds of police, they say, they’re drafting in and - Why, Mr Cust, you do look bad. Hadn’t you better have a little drop of something? Really, now, you oughtn’t to go travelling today.’ (A. Christie, The ABC Murders ) (10) ேබ࣏ࣟࡀ⊂᩿࡛⮬ศࡢពぢࢆ㏙࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ‘And now at last comes the turn of the tide. Events play against ABC instead of into his hands. He is marked down-hunted- and at last arrested. ‘The case, as Hastings says, is ended! ‘True enough as far as the public is concerned. The man is in prison and will eventually, no doubt, go to Broadmoor 6 . There will be no more murders. Exit! Finis! R.I.P. (A. Christie, The ABC Murders ) (9)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦࣐࣮࣮࣋ࣜኵே㸧ࡣ≢ேࡀ➇㤿ሙ⌧ࢀ࡚ࠊࡑࡇ࡛ẅேࢆᐇ⾜ࡍࡿᶵ ࢆ࠺ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᙉࡃಙࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(10)࡛ࡶࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦࣏ࣟ㸧ࡣࠊ≢ேࡀ∼⊹ࡘ࡞ ࡀࢀࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊ᭱⤊ⓗࣈ࣮ࣟࢻ࣒㏦ࡽࢀࡿࡇࡣỴࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊࡶ࠺ࡇࢀ௨ୖẅேࡀ㉳ࡇࡽ࡞࠸ࡇࢆᙉࡃಙࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ no doubt ࡣࠕ☜ᐇᛶࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ 5. 2. ࠕ↛ᛶ(probability)ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ no doubt ḟࡢ(11)(12)ࡢࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ −36− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 (11) Ꮫᩍᤵ࣋ࢵ࣮࢝ዪᛶࣟࢩ࢜ࡢࡸࡾࡾࠋዪᛶࡢࡑࡤࡣࢻࢶேࡢ⏨ࡀ࠸ࡿࠋ “Is there anything else?” Becker asked. “Anything you can tell me that might help?” Rocio shook her head. “That’s all. But you’ll never find her. Seville is a big city-it can be very deceptive.” “I’ll do the best I can.” It’s a matter of national security… “If you have no luck,” Rocio said, eyeing the bulging envelope in Becker's pocket, “please stop back. My friend will be sleeping, no doubt. Knock quietly. I’ll find us an extra room. You’ll see a side of Spain you’ll never forget.” She pouted lusciously. Becker forced a polite smile. “I should be going.” He apologized to the German for interrupting his evening. (D. Brown, Digital Fortress ) (12) ࣈ ࣟ ඖ㆙ 㒊 ࣮࣒ ࢫ ࢺࣟ ࣥࢢ ་ ᖌࡀ ඖ㝣 ㌷ ᑚ ࣟࣥ ࣂ ࣮ࢺ ࡢ⩦ ័ ࡘ ࠸࡚ ヰ ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࣈࣟࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺ゝ࠺ࠋ Blore said: “I bet some of his adventures have had to be kept pretty dark.” He paused and then went on: “Did you happen to bring a revolver along with you, doctor?” Armstrong stared. “Me? Good Lord, no. Why should I?” Blore said: “Why did Mr. Lombard?” Armstrong said doubtfully: “I suppose- habit.” Blore snorted. A sudden pull came on the rope. For some moments they had their hands full. Presently, when the strain relaxed, Blore said: “There are habits and habits! Mr. Lombard takes a revolver to out-of-the-way places, right enough, and a primus and a sleeping bag and a supply of bug powder, no doubt! But habit wouldn’t make him bring the whole outfit down here! It’s only in books people carry revolvers around as a matter of course.” Dr. Armstrong shook his head perplexedly. (A. Christie, And Then There Were None ) (11)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦ࣟࢩ࢜㸧ࡣࠊேࡢ⏨ᛶࡀ╀ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ☜ಙࡍࡿドᣐࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ ࡞࠸ࠋ(12)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦ࣈࣟ㸧ࡣࠊࣟࣥࣂ࣮ࢺࡀ㎶㒥࡞ሙᡤࣆࢫࢺࣝࡔࡅ࡞ࡃࠊ࠾ ࡑࡽࡃᦠᖏ⏝ࢥࣥࣟࠊᐷ⿄ࠊ㝖⏝ࣃ࢘ࢲ࣮ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡇࢆ᥎㔞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢿࢸ ࣈࢫࣆ࣮࣮࢝ࡣࠊࡇࢀࢆ probably ࢆ⏝࠸࡚᭩ࡁ࠼ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ(When Lombard goes to out-of-the-way places, he not only takes his revolver, but he probably also takes a primus, a sleeping bag and a supply of bug power.)ࠋ↛ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ no doubt 㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ ☜ᐇᛶࡢࡣ␗࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࠶ࡿࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ☜ಙ࡛ࡁࡿドᣐࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ⏝࠸ ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ 5. 3. 㛫ほⓗ࡞ no doubt ḟࡢ(13)(14)ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ −37− 法副詞no doubtの用法―（間）主観性の観点から― (13) ㆙ᐹᐁࣥࢹࣞࢪࣕࢼࡣ㌴᳨࡛ᒈᒁྥࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࣥࢹࡣ㥔㌴ሙ࡛㌴ ࢆṆࡵࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࣞࢪࣕࢼヰࡋࡅࡿࠋ “Well, now you’ve got your chance.” Andy parked in a visitor’s space and got out of the car. “Because I’m going to treat you like shit if you treat me like shit. Maybe it’s good you’re at the morgue. You can practice being nice to dead people and they won’t care if you can’t pull it off.” “That’s a great idea!” Regina enthusiastically followed Andy along the sidewalk and inside the lobby. “Except how do you worry about someone’s feelings if they can’t feel anything anymore?” “It’s called sympathy, it’s called having compassion. Words foreign to you, no doubt.” Andy stopped at the information desk and signed in. “Try to think about what the poor people down here have been through and how sad their friends and loved ones are, and for once don’t focus on yourself And if you’re obnoxious, that’s the end of your internship because I’m not going to put up with it, and I know the chief won’t put up with it. She’ll throw you out on your ass in a nanosecond.” (P. Cornwell, Isle of Dogs ) (14) He was an old man now, and Doyle pointed this out. ‘Mellowed, too, no doubt,’ added Cowley. ‘They all do. Their criminal pasts become the “good old days,” stories for the children. The violence is forgotten; the adventure and the romance of robbery is blown up. Fairy tales.’ (BNC, CE5, 667) (13)࠾࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦ࣥࢹ㸧ࡣࠕྠࠖࡸࠕᛮ࠸ࡸࡾࠖ࠸࠺ゝⴥࡀᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࣞࢪ ࢙ࢼࡗ࡚㥆ᰁࡳࡢ࡞࠸ゝⴥࡔࡣᛮࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࣥࢹࡀពᅗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠕ⓶ ⫗࡛ࠖࠊࣞࢪ࢙ࢼࢆࠕྠࠖࡸࠕᛮ࠸ࡸࡾࠖ࠸࠺ឤࡀḞࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ㠀㞴ࡋ࡚࠸ ࡿࠋ(14)ࡢࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ࢻࣝ㸧ࡢᣦᑐࡋ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦࢝࢘ࣞ㸧ࡀࡅຍ࠼࡚Ⓨ ゝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ‘Mellowed, too, no doubt,’࠸࠺ⓎヰࡣࠊࠕHe ࡀᖺࢆࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠸࠺๓ ࡢⓎヰᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕࡃࡶ࡞ࡗࡓࡡࠖヰࡋᡭࡣ⮬ಙࢆᣢࡗ࡚᩿ゝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࡢ They all do ࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡽࡶࡑࢀࡀࢃࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗࡣࠊࠕ㍍࠸෭ ࡸࡋࠖࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (13)(14)ࡢ࠾࠸࡚ࠊno doubt ࡣᩥᮎ࡛⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡀ࠶࠼࡚ᩥᮎ࡛ ⏝ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊࡑࡇ㔜せ࡞ሗࡀ࠶ࡿࡽࡔ⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡢሗࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡗ࡚ࡶ㔜せ ࡞ሗ࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀὀពࢆྥࡅ࡚ࡋ࠸࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ ែᗘࡀㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ຠᯝࢆ⏕ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࠶ࡿࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ༢ ᥎㔞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ 6. ἲモ no doubt ࡢ㸦㛫㸧ほ ඖࠎࠊἲモ no doubt ࡑࢀ⮬యࡀࠊึࡵࡽほⓗ࡞ពࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡣ⪃࠼ࡃ ࠸ࠋTraugott and Dasher (2002: 40)ࡣࠊຓືモࡢⓎ㐩ࠊㄯヰᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡗࡓモࡢⓎ㐩ࡸ ♫ⓗ┤♧モࡢⓎ㐩࡞ពኚࢆ࠶ࡆࠊ ࠕ㠀ほЍほЍ㛫ほࠖ࠸ࡗࡓ᪉ 7 ྥᛶࢆᥦၐࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋ 6.1.㸦㛫㸧ほ −38− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Traugott (2010: 35)࡛ࡣࠊほ࣭㛫ほࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ(15)ࡢࡼ࠺ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (15) a. Meanings are recruited by the speaker to encode and regulate attitudes and beliefs. b. Once subjectified, may be recruited to encode meanings entered on the addressee. (Traugott (2010: 35)) 6.2. ἲモ no doubt ࡢモ ᮏࢭࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣࠊほࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆᇶࠊἲモ no doubt ࡢモࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ ᙧᘧ ព 㠀ほⓗ 㼀㼔㼑㼞㼑㻌㼕㼟㻌㼚㼛㻌㼐㼛㼡㼎㼠㻌㻔㼠㼔㼍㼠㻕㻌㻿㻗㼂䡚 㼀㼔㼑㼞㼑㻌㼕㼟㻌㼚㼛㻌㼐㼛㼡㼎㼠㻌㼍㼎㼛㼡㼠䡚 㼀㼔㼑㼞㼑㻌㼕㼟㻌㼚㼛㻌㼐㼛㼡㼎㼠㻌㼍㼎㼛㼡㼠㻌㼕㼠㻚 㻿㻌㼔㼍㼢㼑㻌㼚㼛㻌㼐㼛㼡㼎㼠㻌㻔㼎㼡㼠㻕㻌㼠㼔㼍㼠㻌㻿㻗㼂䡚 䠿㼑㼞㼠㼍㼕㼚㼠㼥 ほⓗ 㛫ほⓗ 㼚㼛㻌㼐㼛㼡㼎㼠 㼚㼛㻌㼐㼛㼡㼎㼠 㼏㼑㼞㼠㼍㼕㼚㼠㼥㻘㻌㼜㼞㼛㼎㼍㼎㼕㼘㼕㼠㼥 㼜㼞㼍㼓㼙㼍㼠㼕㼏㻌㼙㼑㼍㼚㼕㼚㼓 ᅗ 2: ἲモ no doubt ࡢ㸦㛫㸧ほࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ ᅗ 2 ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺ࠊἲモ no doubt ࡣࠊThere is no doubt that S+V~ࡸ S have no doubt that S+V~㸦ព:ࠕ㹼࠸࠺࠸ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ㸧࡞ࡢᙧᘧ⏤᮶ࡍࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࠋThere is no doubt that S +V~࡞ࡢ⾲⌧ no doubt ࡣពࡀ␗࡞ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ㢟ෆᐜᑐࡍࡿᰝ ᐃࡶ᫂ࡽ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋThere is no doubt that S +V~࡞ࡢ⾲⌧ࡀࠊモ no doubt ࡋ࡚⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡾࠊࡑࡢពࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡞ࡗࡓ⪃࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ ほⓗពࡽ㛫ほⓗពࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ୍⯡ⓗほࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣࠕ㠀ほⓗ ЍほⓗЍ㛫ほⓗࠖ࠸࠺ὶࢀࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ 8 ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㛫ほࡣࠊṔྐⓗぢ࡚ࠊ ほࡼࡾ࠶㉳ࡇࡾࠊほࢆᇶ┙ࡋ࡚⏕ࡌࡿࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐣 ⛬ࢆ⤒࡚ࠊno doubt ࡢ㸦㛫㸧ほⓗ࡞ពࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ 7. ࡲࡵṧࡉࢀࡓၥ㢟 ἲモ no doubt ࡢㄆ㆑ⓗពࡢ༊ู㸦ࠕ☜ᐇᛶࠖࠕ↛ᛶࠖ㸧ࡣᩥ⬦㢗ࡽ࡞ࡅࢀ ࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇࡀࢃࡗࡓࠋࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㛫ほⓗ࡞ពࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡲࡔࡲࡔ⪃ᐹࡀ ༑ศ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࢆᐇドࡍࡿࡔࡅࡢࡶᑡ࡞࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ௬ㄝձղࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡇࢀࡽ ඛࡶ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃవᆅࡀṧࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊno doubt ࡢほࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᐇドⓗ࡞ ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᇶศᯒࢆ⤂ࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࠊูࡢᶵㄽࡌ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ * ᮏ ✏ ࡣ ࠊ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ⏝ ㄽ Ꮫ ➨ 14 ᅇ ࡛ ࡢ ཱྀ 㢌 Ⓨ ⾲ ຍ ➹ ࣭ ಟ ṇ ࢆ ຍ ࠼ ࡓ ࡶ ࡢ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ ྖ ࢆ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡓ ࡔ ࠸ ࡓ ෆ ⏣ ⪷ ඛ ⏕㸦 ዉ Ⰻ ዪ Ꮚ Ꮫ 㸧 ࡣ ➹ ⪅ ࡢ 㛫 㐪 ࠸ ࢆ ࡈ ᣦ ࠸ ࡓ ࡔ ࠸ ࡓ ࠋࡲ ࡓ ࠊ㉥ 㔝 ୍ 㑻 ඛ ⏕㸦 ி 㒔 እ ᅜ ㄒ Ꮫ 㸧ࠊ㕥 ᮌ ඛ ⏕㸦 ி 㒔 Ꮫ Ꮫ 㝔 㸧 ࡣ ኚ ㈗ 㔜 ࡞ ࢥ ࣓ ࣥ ࢺ ࢆ ࠸ ࡓ ࡔ ࠸ ࡓ ࠋࡇ ࡢ ሙ ࢆ ࠾ ࡾ ࡋ ࡚ ឤ ㅰ ⏦ ࡋ ୖ ࡆ ࡓ ࠸ ࠋ࡞ ࠾ࠊ ᮏ✏ࡢഛࠊㄗࡾࡣ࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 1 ࡇ ࡇ ࡛ ࡢ㸦 㛫 㸧 ほ ᛶ ࠊ 㸦 㛫 㸧 ほ ࡢ ᐃ ⩏ ࡣ Traugott (2010)ࠊ⃝ ⏣㸦 ⦅ 㸧2011 ࡞ ᚑ ࠺ ࠋLangacker Langacker ࡢ ㄆ ▱ ᩥ ἲ ࡛ ⏝ ࠸ ࡽ ࢀ ࡿ ࡑ ࡢ ᐃ ⩏ ࡣ ␗ ࡞ ࡿ ࠋ ࡲ ࡓ ࠊ ᮏ ✏ ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ ࡞ ◊ ✲ ᑐ ㇟ ࢆ no doubt ⤠ ࡿ ࠋ 2 ࡇ ࡇ ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ せ ࡞ 2 ࡘ ࡢ ㎡ ᭩ ࡢ ⾲ グ ࢆ ⤂ ࡋ ࡓ ࡀ ࠊ ࣥ ࢱ ࣮ ࢿ ࢵ ࢺ ୖ ࡢ ࢧ ࢺ TheFreeDictionary ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ 1. Certainly 2. Probably ⾲ グ ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ 㸦 ཧ ⪃ : http://www.thefreedictionary.com/no+doubt㸧ࠋ ࡲ ࡓ ࠊ 㒊 ศ ࡢ ⱥ ㎡ ࠾ ࠸ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊࠕ 1. ࡁ ࡗ ࠊ 2. ࡓ ࡪ ࢇ ࠊ 3. 㸦 ㏫ ᥋ ᛂ ࡋ ࡚ 㸧 ࡞ ࡿ 㹼 ࡔ ࡀ ࠖ ࡢ ព ࡀ グ ㍕ ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ −39− 法副詞no doubtの用法―（間）主観性の観点から― Swan (2005 3 : 353)ࡣ ࠊ ≀ ࡀ ☜ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࡇ ࢆ ゝ ࠺ ሙ ྜ ࡣ ࠊ there is no doubt that S+V~ࢆ ⏝ ࠸ ࡿ ㄝ ᫂ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿࠋ There is no doubt that the world is getting warmer. 3 4 (7) 㛵 ࡋ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊ ࢿ ࢸ ࣈ ࢫ ࣆ ࣮ ࢝ ࣮ ࡣ ḟ ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࢥ ࣓ ࣥ ࢺ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ “They’ve been enjoying themselves at the club, haven’t they?” “Yes, they have.” 5 Traugott ࡣ ⮬ ࡽ ࡢࠕ ほ ᛶ ࠖ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊLyons (1982: 102)ࡀ ⏝ ࠸ ࡿࠕ ほ ᛶ ࠖࡢ ព ྠ ࡌ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ ࠕ ほ ᛶ ࠖ ࡢ ᐃ ⩏ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊ Lyons ࡽ ࡢ ᘬ ⏝ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ 6 ࣈ ࣟ ࣮ ࢻ ࣒ 㸦 ⱥ ᅜ ࡢ Berkshire ࡢ ࣈ ࣟ ࣮ ࢻ ࣒ ࠶ ࡿ ⢭ ⚄ 㞀 ᐖ ࡢ ࠶ ࡿ ≢ ⨥ ⪅ ᐜ ࡢ ⢭ ⚄ 㝔 㸧 7 Traugott (2011) ࡶ ྠ ᵝ ࡢ ᣦ ࡀ ぢ ࡽ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋ ࣔ ࢲ ࣜ ࢸ ࡢ ほ 㛵 ࡋ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊ Bybee (1985: 166)ࡣ ࠊ ࡇ ࢀ ࡽ ࡢ つ ๎ ࢆ ࣔ ࢲ ࣜ ࢸ 㐺 ⏝ ࡉ ࡏ ࠊ deontic modality ࡽ epistemic modality ࡢ ᪉ ྥ ᩥ ἲ ࡀ 㐍 ࢇ ࡛ ࠸ ࡿ ㄝ ᫂ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ Traugott (1989)ࡶ ࡲ ࡓ ࠊ ⱥ ㄒ ࡢ ሙ ྜ ࠊ ㏻ ⓗ ࡳ ࡚ ࡶ ࠊ epistemic modality ࡀ deontic modality ࡽ Ⓨ ⏕ ࡋ ࡓࡇࡣ᫂ⓑ࡛࠶ࡿ㏙࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 8 There is no doubt that S+V~ࡸ I have no doubt that S+V~࡞ ࡣ ࡑ ࢀ ࡀ 㐣 ཤ ᙧ ࡶ ࡞ ࡿ ࠸ ࠺ Ⅼ ࡽ ࠊ ほ ⓗ ࡞ ព ࡛ ࡣ ࡞ ࠸ ⪃ ࠼ ࡿ (⃝ ⏣ 1993: 185-186)ࠋ ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English . London: Longman. Greenbaum, S. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage . London: Longman. Hooper, Paul, J. and E. C. Traugott. 1993. Gramaticalization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoye, L. 1996. Adverb and Modality in English . London and New York: Longman. Huddleston, R. and G. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J. 1982. “Deixis and Subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?” In Robert J. Jarvella and Wolfgang Klein (eds.) Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics , 101-124. New York: Wiley. Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ᒸ⏣ ఙኵ. 1985. ࠗモᤄධᩥ࠘ ᮾி: ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ. ⃝⏣ ⨾. 1993. ࠗどⅬほᛶ࠘ᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ. . 2006. ࠗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࠘ ᮾி: 㛤ᣅ♫. ⃝⏣ ⨾ (⦅). 2011. ࠗࡦࡘࡌពㄽㅮᗙ (5) ほᛶయᛶ࠘ᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ. Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2007. “No doubt and Related Expressions: A Functional Account.” In Mike Hannay and Gerard J. Steen (eds.) In Structural-functional Studies in English Grammar , 9-34. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Karin Aijmer. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty. A Courpus-Based Study of English Adverbs . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Swan, M. 2005 3 . Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 㧗⏣ ༤⾜࣭᳝ྡ ⨾ᬛ࣭ᑠ㔝ᑎ Ꮚ. 2011. ࠗṔྐㄒ⏝ㄽ࠘ ᮾி: ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ. Traugott, E. C. 1989. “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change.” Language 65: 31-55. . 2003. “From Subjectification to Intersubjectification.” In Raymond Hicky (ed.) Motive for Language Change , 124-139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 2007. “(Inter)subjectification and Unidirectionality.” In Onodera and Suzuki (eds.) Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8:2, 295-309. . 2010. “(Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)subjectification: A reassessment.” In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.) Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticlization . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. . 2011. “On the Function of Adverbs of Certainty Used at the Periphery of the Clause.” Studies in Pragmatics , 55-74. Traugott, E. C. and R. B. Dasher. 2002. Regulatiry in Semantic Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ㎡᭩ Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English , 5th ed. 2009. London: Longman. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary . 8th ed. 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/no+doubtexcept −40− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ⱝ⪅ࡇࡤ࠾ࡅࡿࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡢពᣑᙇ ⚄⃝ඞᚨ ி㒔ᏛᏛ㝔 ே㛫࣭⎔ቃᏛ◊✲⛉ [email protected] <Abstract> The prototypical meanings of Japanese verb "Moru" are "fill a container with something", "heap up", and so on. Recently, the verb has been used to represent the meanings like "make oneself cute" or "make oneself vigorous" especially among young girls. The main purpose of this paper is to reveal why and how these new meanings have been shown themselves in terms of The Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change model in Traugott and Dasher (2005). ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ ࠊពᣑᙇࠊពኚࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽࠊ౯್ุ᩿ࠊⱝ⪅ࡇࡤ 1. ࡣࡌࡵ ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ 10 ௦ᚋ༙ࠥ20 ௦๓༙ࡢዪᛶࢆ୰ᚰࡶࡕ ࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ពࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࠊTraugott and Dasher (2005)࡞ࡢពኚࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽ(The Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change model)ࡢほ Ⅼࡽ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࡇࢆ࡞┠ⓗࡍࡿࠋ 2. ◊✲ࡢᑐ㇟ព⩏ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡣࠊ ࠕ≀ࢆᐜჾධࢀ࡚‶ࡓࡍࠖ ࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖ ࠕ⸆ࢆㄪྜࡋࠊࡑ ࢀࢆ࠼ࡿࠖ ࠕ࠶ࡿࡲࡲࡾࡢ୰ูࡢࡶࡢࢆ┒ࡾ㎸ࡴࠖ 㸦ᑠᏛ㤋ࠗ㎡Ἠ࠘ 㸧࡞ࡢពࡀ㎡᭩グ㏙ࡉ ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋᐇ㝿ࡢ⏝ἲࢆࡳ࡚ࡳࡿࠊࡇࡢグ㏙࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸ᣑᙇⓗ⏝ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ㏆ᖺࠊ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡣࠊ 10 ௦ᚋ༙ࠥ20 ௦๓༙ࡢዪᛶࢆ୰ᚰࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟ ࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࡛ࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࣈࣟࢢࡽࡢᘬ⏝ࢆࡳ࡚ࡳࡿࠊ(1a)ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ ࡣ⮬ศࢆࢃ࠸ࡃᙳࡍࡿ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࡛ࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀࠊ(1b)ୗ⥺㒊ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡣᑐࡋ ࡚ࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࡛ࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ (1) a. ࠸ࡸ࠶ࠊ᭱㏆ࣉࣜࢡࣛ 1 ┒ࢀ࡞࠸ࡼ࣮ࠋ b. ࣐ࢶࢤࡀ┒ࢀ࡚࡞࠸ࠊࡶ┒ࢀ࡞࠸ᛮ࠺᪥ࡇࡢ㡭ࠋ ࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣ㞧ㄅࡸࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌࡞ࡢ࣓ࢹ࡛ࡶࡳࡽࢀࡿࡇࡽࠊ༢㞃ㄒⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡲ ࡽࡎࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢබඹᛶࡶᣢࡕྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(2a)ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡣ⢝ࢆࡍࡇࡼࡗู࡚ேࡢࡈ ࠖࡣ࠾ࡋࡷࢀࢆࡋ࡚ࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡿࠊ ࡁጼ࡞ࡿ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࡛ࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀ 2ࠊ(2b)ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡢࡇࡼࡗ࡚ࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࡛ࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ −41− 若者ことばにおける「盛る（もる）」の意味拡張 (2) a. ┒ࡾࡓ࣮࢞ࣝࠥࡍࡗࡨࢇ 3 ࡢࢠࣕࢵࣉ NO.1 Ỵᐃᡓ!!ࠥ㸦ࣇࢪࢸࣞࣅࠗ➗ࡗ࡚࠸࠸ࡶ࠘ 㸧 b. ࠾ࡋࡷࢀࡶᏳࡉࡶࡗ!!┒ࡾ┒ࡾࢧ࣐࣮㸦㞟ⱥ♫ࠗSeventeen࠘2010 ᖺ 8 ᭶ྕ㸧 ᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊTraugott and Dasher (2005)࡞ࡢពኚࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽࢆࡶࡕ࠸࡚ࠊࡇࡢពᣑᙇࡀ⏕ ࡌࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࡇࢆ࡞┠ⓗࡍࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢព⩏ࡣࠊពኚࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽࢆᨭᣢ ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢලయࢆ༢ᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡳࡽࢀࡿࡇࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸ពࡣࠊ⮬ ↛Ⓨ⏕ⓗ࡞ពᣑᙇࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୍㒊ࡢࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮≉ࡋࡓ㞃ㄒⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡶᣢࡕ ྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡽࠊ࠶ࡿゝㄒ⏝⪅ࡼࡗ࡚ពᅗᛶࢆࡶࡗ࡚㐀ࠊ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢព࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣ⮬↛Ⓨ⏕ⓗ࡞ពᣑᙇࠊពᅗᛶࢆࡶࡗࡓពᣑᙇࡢࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙ ࣮ࢫࢆࡉࡄࡿ◊✲Ⓨᒎࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 3. ᐇࡳࡽࢀࡿࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡢព⏝ἲ 3.1 ᐇࡢ᳨ウ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ 10 ௦ᚋ༙ࠥ20 ௦๓༙ࡢዪᛶࡢ㛫࡛ከࡃࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀࡿព ⏝ἲࢆ୰ᚰ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋᮏ⠇࡛ᢅ࠺ࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ࢙࢘ࣈࡽ㞟ࡋࡓ 4ࠋ (3)ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡣࠊ (4)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㎡᭩グ㏙࠶ࡿࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺ពࡽࡣᇶᮏⓗ ࡣࡁࡃࡣእࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀ(3a)ࡣ㧥ࡢ㧗ࡉࠊ(3b)ࡣ⬚ࡢ㧗ࡉ㸦ࡁࡉ㸧ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢゝཬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (3) a. ᫇ࡣ㧥ࢆ┒ࡿࡢ 1ࠥ2 㛫ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊࡣ 5ࠥ10 ศࠋ b. ୗ╔ࡗ࡚ࡇ࡛㈙ࡗ࡚ࡲࡍ㸽ኟྥࡅ࡚ྍឡࡃ࡚┒ࢀࡿࡢࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ (4) ᅵࢆ┒ࡗ࡚ࠊỈࡀධࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺ࡍࡿࠋ ࡑࡇࡽࡸࡸᣑᙇࡋࡓࡶࡢࡋ࡚(5)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕቑ㔞ࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(5a)ࡣ࢚ ࢡࢫࢸࣥࢩࣙࣥࡼࡗ࡚ࡲࡘẟࡢ㛗ࡉࢆ㛗ࡃࡋࠊ㔞ࢆከࡃࡳࡏࡿ࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡋࠊ(5b)ࡣ࣐ࢫ࢝ ࣛࡼࡗ࡚ࡲࡘẟࢆそ࠸ࠊ㔞ࢆከࡃࡳࡏࡿ࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ≀⌮ⓗࠊ㧗ࡉࢆ㧗ࡃࡍࡿࡇ㔞ࢆ ቑࡸࡍࡇࡣ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢ┦㛵ᛶࡀண ࡛ࡁࡿ 5㸦ゝㄒ⏝⪅ࡀࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞┦㛵ᛶࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ▱ ㆑ࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢᣑᙇࡣ⮬↛࡞ࡶࡢࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ (5) a. ࡲࡘ࢚ࢡ 6 ࡢ࠾ࡆ࡛ࠊẖ᪥ࡲࡘẟࢆ┒ࡿ࠸࠺ᡭ㛫ࡀ┬ࡅࡿࠋ b. ࡇࡢ࣐ࢫ࢝ࣛ࡞ࡽࠊ⮬ศࡢዲࡳ࡛ࡲࡘẟࢆ┒ࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠾ࡍࡍࡵ࡛ࡍࠋ ḟ࠶ࡆࡿ⏝ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡣᑡࡋ␗࡞ࡿࠋ(6)ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡣ≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞 ࡢኚࡘ࠸࡚࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୍✀ࡢ౯್ุ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࡶࡢࡋ࡚ࡢゎ㔘ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶ ࡿ㸧 ࠖࡣࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࡛ࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ (6) a. ᪂Ⓨࡢ"㢦ࡀ┒ࢀࡿ"㌟ᙳࢆྍ⬟ࡋࡓࠊࡃ᪂ࡋ࠸ࣉࣜࣥࢺࢩ࣮ࣝᶵ࡛ࡍࠋ 㸦ࣇࣜࣗ ࣮ᰴᘧ♫࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ㸧 b. 㸦┿ᙳࡢ㝿㸧㢦ࡢᶓᡭࢆᣢࡗ࡚᮶ࡿ┒ࢀࡿࢇࡔࡼࡡࠋ c. ⚾ࣉࣟࢹ࣮ࣗࢫࡢ࢝ࣛࢥࣥ 7ࠋྍឡࡃὴᡭ┒ࡾࡓ࠸ࡁࡣࣈࣛ࢘ࣥࠋ d. ᾎ⾰ࡗ࡚┒ࢀࡿࡅᬬ࠸ࡼࡡࠥ e. ࣓ 8 ࡀ┒ࢀࡿ㸦ᦠᖏ㟁ヰࡢ㸧ᶵ✀ࡗ࡚࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ㸽 −42− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 f. ࡞ࡐࣉࣜࢡࣛࡣࡇࢇ࡞ࡶ┒ࢀࡿࡢࠋ ࡉࡽ(7)ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ⏝ࡢࡼ࠺እぢⓗ࡞ࡇࡀࡽࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ ែࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡣࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࡛ゎ 㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋ (7) a. ࠶࣮ⰼ⢊࡛㉸⤯ࠋ┒ࢀ࡞࠸࣮ࠋ b. ࣐ࢶࢤࡀ┒ࢀ࡚࡞࠸ࠊࡶ┒ࢀ࡞࠸ᛮ࠺᪥ࡇࡢ㡭ࠋ 3.2 ⪃ᐹ 3.1 ࡛ࡾ࠶ࡆࡓᐇࡽࠊ௨ୗࡢࡇࡀ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ (8) a. ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡀ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࡢࡣࠊ(3)ࡢ≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚࡑࢀࡀᣑ ᙇࡋࡓ(5)ࠊࡑࡋ࡚(6)ࡢ౯್ุ᩿ࠊࡉࡽࡣ(7)ࡢヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࡲ࡛ࠊᣑࡀࡾࢆࡳࡏ࡚࠸ ࡿࠋ b-1. ≉౯್ุ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍ(6)ࡸヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍ(7)ࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿྍ⬟ࡢຓືモࠕࢀ ࡿࠖඹ㉳ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ b-2. ࡇࡢࡁࠊ࢞᱁┦ᙜ⨨ࡣࠊ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ࠸࠺࣋ࣥࢺ࠾ࡅࡿᑐ㇟(Object)㢮(ࠕ㢦 (6a)ࠖ ࠕ(7b)ࠖ)ࠊ㐨ල(Instrument)㸭ཎᅉ(Cause)㢮㸦 ࠕᾎ⾰(6d)ࠖ ࠕࣉࣜࢡࣛ(6f)ࠖ 㸧 ࠊሙ ᡤ(Location)࡞ࡢ≧ἣ(Setting)㢮㸦 ࠕࣉࣜࢡࣛ(1a)ࠖ ࠕ࣓(6e)ࠖ 㸧࡞ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ c. (6)ࡢ౯್ุ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡢ⏝⎔ቃࡣ࡞ࡾ೫ࡾࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊ┿ᙳ ࡢሙ㠃ࠊ࣮࢝ࣛࢥࣥࢱࢡࢺࣞࣥࢬࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿሙ㠃࡞ࡀ༙࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡛ࠊ ⏝⠊ᅖࡢᗈ࠸ࠕࢃ࠸࠸ࠖ࠸࠺ᙧᐜモࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࠕᐇ≀ ࡶቑࡋ࡚ࠖ࠸࠺ࢽࣗࣥࢫࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡞ࡾ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ d. (7)ࡢヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡢ⏝ࡣࠊ2012 ᖺ⌧ᅾ࠾࠸࡚ࡶ࡞ࡾ ⛥࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡛ࡶࡗࡶᣑᙇⓗ࡞⏝ἲ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ 4. ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡢពᣑᙇ࠾ࡅࡿືᶵ࡙ࡅ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡀࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚࡽࠊ ࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿ࠊࡉࡽࡣࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࡲ࡛ࢆࡶ࠶ࡽࢃࡍ ࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡗࡓࣉࣟࢭࢫࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ 4.1 ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡢពᣑᙇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ 4.1.1 ពኚࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽ ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡢពᣑᙇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ Traugott and Dasher (2005)࡞ࡢពኚࡢㄏ ᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽ(The Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change model)ࡢほⅬࡽ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋពኚ ࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊពᣑᙇ௨ୗࡢ 3 ࡘࡢẁ㝵ࢆᐃࡍࡿࠋ (9) ពኚࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽ࡛ᐃࡉࢀࡿពᣑᙇࡢ 3 ẁ㝵 a. ㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ (Invited Inference) ࡑࡢᩥ⬦ᛂࡌࡓࡑࡢሙ㝈ࡾࡢ᥎ㄽࡀ⏕ࡌࡿẁ㝵 −43− 若者ことばにおける「盛る（もる）」の意味拡張 b. ୍⯡ࡉࢀࡓㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ (Generalized Invited Inference) (a)ࡀࡢᩥ⬦ࡸࡢヰ⪅ࡸ᭩ࡁᡭࡶ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡿẁ㝵 c. ᪂ࡋࡃࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓព (New Code Meaning) (b)ࡀ᪂ࡓ࡞ゝㄒࡢពࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࡿẁ㝵 Traugott and Dasher ࡛ࡣࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒࡢ as long as ᑐᛂࡋࠊࡶࡶ㸺✵㛫㸼㸺㛫㸼ࡢពࢆࡶ ࡘྂⱥㄒࠊ୰ⱥㄒࡢ swa lange swa ࡀ㸺᮲௳㸼ࡢពࢆࡶࡘࡼ࠺࡞ࡗࡓࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀࡋ࡚♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊ㸺㛫㸼ࡢពࡽ᥎ㄽⓗ㸺᮲௳㸼ࡢពࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࡇࡢ᥎ㄽࡣࠊ ⠇ࡀᮍ᮶ࡢሙྜࡸࠊ⥲⛠ⓗ࡞ࡇࡀࡽࢆ㏙࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡞ࠊ㝈ࡽࢀࡓሙ㠃࠾࠸࡚⏕ࡌࡿࠋึᮇ㏆ ௦ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ㸺㛫㸼ゎ㔘ࡢඃᛶࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡀ୍⯡ࡉࢀࡓㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡢẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵 ࡛ࡣࠊ㸺᮲௳㸼ゎ㔘ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿሙྜࠊྠ㸺㛫㸼ゎ㔘ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ㸺᮲௳㸼ࡀ᪂ࡋࡃࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓព ࡞ࡗࡓࡢࡣ 19 ୡ⣖୰㡭࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊ㸺᮲௳㸼ࡀ၏୍ࡢゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿᩥ⬦ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ 4.1.2ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ࠾ࡅࡿ౯್ุ᩿ࡢពᣑᙇ 4.1.1 ࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ swa lange swa ࡀ㸺᮲௳㸼ࡢពࢆࡶࡘࡼ࠺࡞ࡗࡓࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࡳࡓࡀࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ᪥ ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡢពᣑᙇ࠾࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡇࢆᣦࡍࡿࠋ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶ ࡿ㸧 ࠖ㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᩘᖺ࠸࠺࡞ࡾ▷࠸ᮇ㛫࡛ࡇࡢពᣑᙇࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࡣࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡀ≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚࡽࠊ ࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺౯್ุ ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍពᣑᙇࡍࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ➨୍ࡢẁ㝵ࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕቑ㔞ࡍࡿࠖ ࠸࠺≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚࡽࠊ ࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿ࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡀ⏕ࡌ ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ3.1 ࡛ࡳࡓᩥ(3), (5)࠶ࡓࡿࠋࡇࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡣࠊ㧥ࡸࡲࡘẟࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣୗ╔ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬ ࡍࡿሙྜ࡞ࠊ࡞ࡾ㝈ࡽࢀࡓሙ㠃࡛⏕ࡌࡿࠋ (3) a. ᫇ࡣ㧥ࢆ┒ࡿࡢ 1ࠥ2 㛫ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊࡣ 5ࠥ10 ศࠋ b. ୗ╔ࡗ࡚ࡇ࡛㈙ࡗ࡚ࡲࡍ㸽ኟྥࡅ࡚ྍឡࡃ࡚┒ࢀࡿࡢࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ (5) a. ࡲࡘ࢚ࢡࡢ࠾ࡆ࡛ࠊẖ᪥ࡲࡘẟࢆ┒ࡿ࠸࠺ᡭ㛫ࡀ┬ࡅࡿࠋ b. ࡇࡢ࣐ࢫ࢝ࣛ࡞ࡽࠊ⮬ศࡢዲࡳ࡛ࡲࡘẟࢆ┒ࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠾ࡍࡍࡵ࡛ࡍࠋ ࡲࡓࠊ 10 ௦ᚋ༙ࠥ20 ௦๓༙ࡢዪᛶ≉ࡋ࡚ࡇࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡣࠊ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ࠸࠺ ືモ࡛࠶ࡽࢃࡉࢀࡿࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕቑ㔞ࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺ᙼዪࡽ≉᭷ࡢ≀⌮ⓗືసࡀࠊ ࠕࢃ࠸࠸ࡍ ࡿࠖ࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿῝ࡃ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢືసࡀ౯್ุ᩿࠶ࡲࡾ⤖ࡧࡘ࡞࠸⏨ ᛶࡸᖺ㓄ࡢዪᛶࡢሙྜࡣࠊ(10b,c)ࡢࡼ࠺ࡇࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡣ⏕ࡌࡃ࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇࡽࠊ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶ ࡿ㸧 ࠖࡣࠕࡗࡇࡼࡃࡍࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࡛⏨ᛶࡽࡣࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀࡃ࠸ࡋࠊ ࠕࡁࢀ࠸ࡍࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ ព࡛ᖺ㓄ࡢዪᛶࡽࡶࡶࡕ࠸ࡽࢀࡃ࠸ࠋ (10) a.㸦ⱝ࠸ዪᛶࡢⓎゝ㸧ࡍࡈࡃ┒ࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࠊࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ b. ? 㸦⏨ᛶࡢⓎゝ㸧ࡍࡈࡃ┒ࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࠊࡗࡇࡼࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ c. ??㸦ᖺ㓄ࡢዪᛶࡢⓎゝ㸧ࡍࡈࡃ┒ࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࠊࡁࢀ࠸࡞ࡗࡓࠋ ➨ࡢẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡿ୍⯡ࡉࢀࡓㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡣࠊᩥ(11)࠶ࡓࡿࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊඃඛⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࡀ࡞ࡃ ࡞ࡾࠊ≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡋࠊ ࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍ −44− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࡿࠖ࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿ࢃࡿゝཬࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ (11) a. 100 ࡔࠊ┒ࢀࡿࡘࡅࡲࡘࡆࡶᑡ࡞࠸ࠋ b. ࢼࢳࣗࣛࣝ┒ࢀࡿࡲࡘࡆ࢚ࢡࢫࢸࡢᮏᩘࢆᩍ࠼࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ c. ࡇࡢࢳ࣮ࢡࡣேࡗࡱࡃ┒ࢀࡿࠋ ➨୕ࡢẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡿ᪂ࡋࡃࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓព࠶ࡓࡿࡢࡣࠊ3.1 ࡛ࡳࡓᩥ(6)࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ ࠕ ࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿ࢃࡿゎ㔘ࡀ၏୍࡛࠶ࡾࠊ≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ࠸ ࠺ゎ㔘ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ ࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺ពࡀࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᤊ࠼ࡽ ࢀࡿࠋ (6) a. ᪂Ⓨࡢ"㢦ࡀ┒ࢀࡿ"㌟ᙳࢆྍ⬟ࡋࡓࠊࡃ᪂ࡋ࠸ࣉࣜࣥࢺࢩ࣮ࣝᶵ࡛ࡍࠋ 㸦ࣇࣜࣗ ࣮ᰴᘧ♫࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ㸧 b. 㸦┿ᙳࡢ㝿㸧㢦ࡢᶓᡭࢆᣢࡗ࡚᮶ࡿ┒ࢀࡿࢇࡔࡼࡡࠋ c. ⚾ࣉࣟࢹ࣮ࣗࢫࡢ࢝ࣛࢥࣥࠋྍឡࡃὴᡭ┒ࡾࡓ࠸ࡁࡣࣈࣛ࢘ࣥࠋ d. ᾎ⾰ࡗ࡚┒ࢀࡿࡅᬬ࠸ࡼࡡࠥ e. ࣓ࡀ┒ࢀࡿ㸦ᦠᖏ㟁ヰࡢ㸧ᶵ✀ࡗ࡚࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ㸽 f. ࡞ࡐࣉࣜࢡࣛࡣࡇࢇ࡞ࡶ┒ࢀࡿࡢࠋ ࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺ពࡀࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࡣࠊᩥ(12)ࡀ㠀ᩥ ࡞ࡿࡇࡽࡶ᫂ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ࠸࠺ ゎ㔘ࡀඃඛࡉࢀࡿ(13)࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࠸࠺ྰᐃࡢせ⣲ࢆᚋ⥆ࡉࡏࡿࡇࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ ࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿ࢃࡿゎ㔘ࡀ၏୍ࡢ(12)࡛ࡣࠊᚋ⥆ࡢせ⣲ࡢ▩┪ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡓࡵࠊ 㠀ᩥ࡞ࡿࠋ (12) a. *㢦ࡀ┒ࢀࡓࡅࠊࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ b. *࣓ࡀ┒ࢀࡓࡅࠊࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ c. *ᾎ⾰ࡗ࡚┒ࢀࡿࡅࠊࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ (13) a. 㧥ࡀ┒ࢀࡓࡅࠊࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ b. ⬚ࡀ┒ࢀࡓࡅࠊࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ c. ࣐ࢫ࢝ࣛࡗ࡚┒ࢀࡿࡅࠊࢃ࠸ࡃ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ 4.1.3ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ࠾ࡅࡿヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࡢពᣑᙇ ḟࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍពᣑᙇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ➨୍ࡢẁ 㝵࡛࠶ࡿㄏᑟ᥎ㄽࡣࠊ3.1 ࡛ࡳࡓ(3a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶ ࡿ㸧ࠖࡽࡶࠊ(6f)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౯್ุ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡽࡶ⏕ࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ๓⪅࠾ ࠸࡚ඃඛࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠺ࡲࡃ㧥ࡀࠕ┒ࢀࡿࠖయࡢẼᣢࡕࡶ 㧗ᥭࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࠸࠺᥎ㄽࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡣ⮬↛࡞ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠᵝࠊᚋ⪅࠾࠸࡚ඃ ඛࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡇᡂຌࡍࢀࡤయࡢ Ẽᣢࡕࡶ㧗ᥭࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࠸࠺᥎ㄽࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡣ⮬↛࡞ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵࡛ඃඛ ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊㄏᑟࡉࢀࡓ᥎ㄽ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡶࡢព࡛ࡢゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࠋ −45− 若者ことばにおける「盛る（もる）」の意味拡張 (3) a. ᫇ࡣ㧥ࢆ┒ࡿࡢ 1ࠥ2 㛫ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊࡣ 5ࠥ10 ศࠋ (6) f. ࡞ࡐࣉࣜࢡࣛࡣࡇࢇ࡞ࡶ┒ࢀࡿࡢࠋ ➨ࡢẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡿ୍⯡ࡉࢀࡓㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ࠶ࡓࡿࡢࡣ 3.1 ࡛ࡳࡓ(7a)ࡢᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⰼ⢊ࡢ≧࡛ᾦ ࡀฟࡿ࡞ࡋ࡚ࠊ⢝࡞ࡢ㝿ࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡋࠊࡑࡢࡇ ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ (7) a. ࠶࣮ⰼ⢊࡛㉸⤯ࠋ┒ࢀ࡞࠸࣮ࠋ ➨୕ࡢẁ㝵࠶ࡓࡿࡢࡀ 3.1 ࡛ࡳࡓ(7b)ࡢᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡣࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ ࡀ၏୍ࡢゎ㔘࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᪂ࡋࡃࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓពࡋ࡚ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ (7) b. ࣐ࢶࢤࡀ┒ࢀ࡚࡞࠸ࠊࡶ┒ࢀ࡞࠸ᛮ࠺᪥ࡇࡢ㡭ࠋ ࡓࡔࡋࠊᩥ(7b)ࡀࡼࡾ⮬↛ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊࡍ࡛ᐃ╔ࡋࡓ≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀඛ⾜ᩥ⬦⨨ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀከศᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ ࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ༢⊂࡛࠶ࡽࢃࢀࡿ(14)ࡢᩥࡣࠊ(7b)ẚ࡚ࡸࡸᐜ ㄆᗘࡀⴠࡕࡿࡼ࠺ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ (14) a. ? ᜊឡࡀ┒ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ b. ? 㐌ᮎࡢࡇࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ┒ࢀࡿࠋ 4.1.4 ࡲࡵ ௨ୖࡢ㆟ㄽࡽࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡣ(15)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ពᣑᙇࡢ᪉ྥᛶࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ (15) ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ࠾ࡅࡿពᣑᙇࡢ᪉ྥᛶ ≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ㸼౯್ุ᩿㸼ヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែ ඹⓗࡳ࡚ࡶࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡀࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࣉࣛࢫࡢឤࢆ ࠶ࡽࢃࡍᣑᙇ⩏ࢆࡶࡘࡇࡣ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋLakoff and Johnson(1980a,b)࡞ࡢᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࣮ࡢ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ ᪉ྥᛶࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࣮(orientational metaphors)ࡢࡦࡘࡋ࡚ࠊHAPPY IS UP ࠸࠺࣓ࢱࣇ࣮ࡀつᐃ ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡼࡿࠊUP ࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡣࠊHAPPY ࠸࠺ᴫᛕീࡉࢀࡿࠋゝㄒ⾲⌧࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ⪃ ࠼࡚ࡳࡿࠊ(16)ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊup ࡸ rise ࡞ UP ࡢᴫᛕ㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࡣࠊHAPPY ࠸࠺ឤ㛵ࢃࡿᴫᛕ 㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚ࡶࡶࡕ࠸ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ (16) a. I'm feeling up today. b. My spirits rose. (Lakoff and Johnson 1980b: 204) ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡶࡶࡣࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺ UP ࡢᴫᛕ㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࡔࡗࡓࡶࡢ ࡀࠊ ࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖ ࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖ࡞ࡢ HAPPY ࠸࠺ឤ㛵ࢃࡿᴫᛕ㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚ࡶࡕ ࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢពᣑᙇࡣࠊHAPPY IS UP ࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࣮ࡽ⮬↛ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ −46− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 4.2. ౯್ุ᩿ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ౯್ุ᩿ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡣࠊ≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ࠸࠺ ゎ㔘ࡣ࠾ࡇ࡞ࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ (17)ࡢ㞄᥋ᑐࢆࡳ࡚ࡳࡿࠋA ࡢၥ࠸ࡅ࠶ࡿࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ≀⌮ⓗ࡞㧗 ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢࣉࣛࢫ᪉ྥࡢኚࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࡍࡿࠊB ࡢ㏉⟅ࡣ⮬↛࡞ࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ㏻ ᖖ㛗࠸㧥ࡢ࠺ࡀࠕ✚ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡋࠊࠕቑ㔞ࡍࡿࠖࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࡀࢃࢀࢃ ࢀࡢ୍⯡ⓗ▱㆑ࡽ⮬࡛᫂࠶ࡿࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋB ࡢ㏉⟅ࡣࠊA ࡢၥ࠸ࡅ࠾ࡅࡿࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ≀ ⌮ⓗ࡞㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢࣉࣛࢫ᪉ྥࡢኚࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ౯್ุ᩿࠾࠸࡚ࣉࣛࢫㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ ࡿ᪉ྥࡢኚࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࡢࡔ࠸࠺ࡇࢆࠊB ࡀ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇࡼࡗ࡚ྍ⬟࡞ࡿࠋ (17) A: 㸦㧥ᆺࡘ࠸࡚㸧ࡢ㛗ࡉࡀ࠸ࡕࡤࢇ┒ࢀࡿࡢ㸽 B: ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅ▷࠸࠺ࡀ࠸࠸ࡼࠋ 3.1 ࡢ(8c)࡛㏙ࡓࡼ࠺ࠊ౯್ุ᩿࠾࠸࡚ࣉࣛࢫㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᪉ྥࡢኚࡀࠕᐇ≀ࡶቑࡋ ࡚ࠖ࠸࠺ࢽࣗࣥࢫࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿࡢࡣࠊ≀⌮ⓗ࡞ࣞ࣋ࣝ࠾࠸࡚ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡀ࠶ࡽࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ✚ ࢇ࡛㧗ࡃࡍࡿࠖ ࠕቑ㔞ࡍࡿࠖࡽㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᥎ㄽࡉࢀࡿ"ඖࡢ㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ቑࡋ࡚"࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡀࠊᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ ࣞ࣋ࣝ࠾࠸࡚ࡶ⥅ᢎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡼࡿࠋ㢮ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ(18)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(18a)ࡣࠕேᩘࠖ ࠊ(18b)ࡣࠕヰ ࡢෆᐜࠖࡀࠊ౯್ุ᩿࠾࠸࡚ࣉࣛࢫㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᪉ྥኚࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ ࡢሙྜࡶࠊ ࠕᐇ㝿ࡶቑࡋ࡚ࠖ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࢽࣗࣥࢫࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ (18) a. ࡇࡢேᩘ࡛࠺ࡸࡗ࡚ 17 ேࡗ࡚┒ࢀࡿࢇࡔ㸽 b. ბࢆΰࡐ࡚ヰࢆ┒ࡾୖࡆࡿヂ࡛ࡍࠋ࠶ࡲࡾ┒ࡾࡍࡂࡶ࣐ࢼࢫ࡞ࡢ࡛Ẽࢆࡘ࠺ࡼ࠺࡛ࡍࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚࡣၥ㢟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᑐヰ(19)࡛ࠊA ࡀ A1 ࡢⓎヰ࠾࠸࡚ᐇ㝿ࡢ㣗㔞ࡼࡾᑡ࡞ࡃሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇᑐࡋ࡚ࠊB ࡣ B2 ࡢⓎヰ࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕ┒ ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖ㏙࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㣗㔞ࡣᐇ㝿ࡢ㣗㔞ࡼࡾࡶᑡ࡞࠸ࡶࢃࡽ ࡎࠊࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧ࠖࡀ⏝࡛ࡁࡿࠋ (19) A1: ࡛ࡶࡉ ನ࡞ࢇࡉ ᪥ࡢᮅࡽ࡞ࡶ㣗ࡗ࡚ࡡ࠻ࡽ࣐ࢪ࡛Ṛࡑ࠺ࡔࢃࠋ B1: ࠶ࢀ㸽ࡗ࡚࠸࠺᪥ನ㣤㣗ࢃ࡞ࡗࡓࡗࡅ㸽 A2: ࡲ࠶㣗ࡗࡓࡅ࡞ࠋ B2: ࡞ࢇ࡛ヰ┒ࡿࡢ㸽 㸦ࣇࢪࢸࣞࣅࠗ⇿➗ࣞࢵࢻࢩࢱ࣮࠘9㸧 ࡇࢀྠᵝࠊᩥ(20)ࡣࠕయ㔜ࢆᐇ㝿ࡼࡾᑡ࡞ࡃሗ࿌ࡋࡓࠖ࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡶ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᕥࡢゎ㔘ࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞࠺ሙྜࠊ(20)ࡢࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡣ౯್ุ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠋ୍⯡ࠊయ㔜࠸࠺౯್ุ᩿ ࠾࠸࡚ࣉࣛࢫㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᪉ྥࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ㝈ᗘࢆ㐣ࡂ࡞࠸⠊ᅖ࡛ࠕᑡ࡞࠸ࠖ᪉࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ ౯್ุ᩿ࡣゝㄒ⏝⪅ࡀࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ♫ᖖ㆑ࡸ▱㆑ࡀከศ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (20) ᑡࡋࡔࡅయ㔜ࢆ┒ࡗ࡚ሗ࿌ࡋࡓࠋ 5. ࠾ࢃࡾ −47− 若者ことばにおける「盛る（もる）」の意味拡張 ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືモࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖ㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ 10 ௦ᚋ༙ࠥ20 ௦๓༙ࡢዪᛶࢆ୰ᚰࡶࡕ ࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ពࢆ୰ᚰᢅࡗࡓࠋ4.1 ࡛ࡣࠊTraugott and Dasher (2005)࡞ࡢពኚࡢㄏᑟ᥎ㄽ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬࡽࠊ ࠕ≀⌮ⓗືసࡶ࡞࠺㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢኚ㸼౯್ุ᩿㸼 ヰ⪅ࡢෆⓗ≧ែࠖ࠸࠺ពᣑᙇࡢ᪉ྥᛶࢆ᫂ࡽࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽࠊLakoff and Johnson(1980a,b)࡞ࡢ ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࣮ࡢ⌮ㄽࡽࠊ ࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡀࠕࢃ࠸ࡃࡍࡿࠖࡸࠕࡸࡿẼࢆฟࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣑᙇⓗព ࢆࡶࡘࡇࡣࠊඹⓗࡳ࡚ࡶ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆ㏙ࡓࠋ4.2 ࡛ࡣࠊ≀⌮ⓗ࡞㧗ࡉࡸ㔞ࡢࣉࣛࢫ᪉ྥ ࡢኚࡽࠊ౯್ุ᩿࠾࠸࡚ࣉࣛࢫㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᪉ྥࡢኚࡢᣑᙇࡘ࠸࡚ヲࡋࡃࡳࡿ ࡶࠊ౯್ุ᩿ࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠕ┒ࡿ㸦ࡶࡿ㸧 ࠖࡢࡉࡽ࡞ࡿࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࠋ2 ⠇࡛ࡶ㏙ࡓࡼ࠺ࠊᮏ◊✲ ࡣ༢࡞ࡿ◊✲ࡲࡽࡎࠊ⮬↛Ⓨ⏕ⓗ࡞ពᣑᙇពᅗᛶࢆࡶࡗࡓពᣑᙇࡢࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࣮ ࢫࢆࡉࡄࡿ◊✲Ⓨᒎࡋ࠺ࡿࠋ ⬮ὀ 1 ࣉࣜࣥࢺᴦ㒊ࡢ␎ࠋ⮬ศࡢጼࢆᙳࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆࢩ࣮ࣝࡋ࡚ᚓࡿࣉࣜࣥࢺࢩ࣮ࣝᶵࡢࡇࠋ 2 వㄯࡔࠊ ࠕ┒ࡾࡓࠖࡇࡢ␒⤌ࡢྖ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ᳃⏣୍⩏ẶࡢྡᏐࠕ᳃⏣ࠖࡀ㡢㡩ⓗඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 3 ⢝ࢆࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸≧ែࠋ 4 ୍㒊࡛ࠊෆᐜࢆ┬␎ࡋࡓࡾࠊ⾲グࢆᨵࡵࡓࡾࡍࡿ࡞ࡢಟṇࢆࡃࢃ࠼ࡓࠋ 5 6 Lakoff and Johnson(1980a,b)࡞ࡢᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࣮MORE IS UP ࡶཧ↷ࠋ ࡲࡘẟ࠾ࡇ࡞࠺࢚ࢡࢫࢸࣥࢩࣙࣥࡢࡇࠋᏛ⧄⥔࡞࡛సࡽࢀࡓேᕤẟ᮰ࢆᆅẟ᥋⥆ࡉࡏࡿ⨾ ᐜᢏ⾡ࠋ 7 ࣮࢝ࣛࢥࣥࢱࢡࢺࣞࣥࢬࡢࡇࠋ 8 ᦠᖏ㟁ヰࡢ┿࣓࣮ࣝࠋ┿ࢆᙳࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ࣓࣮࡛ࣝ㏦ಙࡍࡿ࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮍ㏦ಙࡢ≧ែ ࡛ಖᏑࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ┿ࡢࡇࡶࠕ࣓ࠖ࠸࠺ࠋ 9 ࢥࣥࢺࡢ୍㒊ࠋ᭩ࡁ࠾ࡇࡋࡣᇳ➹⪅ࡼࡿࠋ ㅰ㎡ ᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ➨ 14 ᅇ࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ࡢෆᐜࢆࡶࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋෆᐜࢆ୍㒊ಟṇࡍࡿ࠶ ࡓࡗ࡚ࡣࠊᮏⓎ⾲ࡢ㝿࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆཧ⪃ࡋࡓࠋ᭷┈࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓⓙᵝグࡋ࡚ ឤㅰࡍࡿࠋ せཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980a. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980b. "The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Conceptual System." Cognitive Science 4, 195-208. Traugott, E. C. 1989a. "On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: an Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change." Language 65, 31-55. Traugott, E. C. 1989b. "Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization." Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 406-416. Traugott, E. C. and R. B. Dasher. 2005. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. −48− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 opposite ࡢពㄽ㛵ᩘⓗゎ㔘 㯮ᕝ ᑦᙪ 㜰ᕤᴗᏛ <Abstract> This paper discusses one meaning of opposite and some different uses of it (i.e. an adjective, an adverb, a preposition, and a noun). The intrinsic features of opposite (or oppositeness) are two contrastive elements and a cline or dimension where they are opposite. The aim of this paper is to propose the encoded meaning of opposite (i.e. OPPOSITE <wrt: a> (x, y)) and illustrate how it is semantically and pragmatically resolved in each use. Furthermore, I will demonstrate that the noun phrase the opposite, unlike the other uses, is interpreted in a (mathematical) functional way. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࣭ ࠕᑐࠖ ࣭㛵ᩘⓗゎ㔘 1. ࡣࡌࡵ opposite ࠸࠺ㄒࡣࠊ(1)-(5)࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺ࠊከᵝ࡞⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ (1) Their views were completely opposite. 㸦ᙧᐜモ ླྀ㏙ⓗ⏝ἲ㸧 (2) Robyn took a seat at the opposite end of the table from Wilcox. 㸦ᙧᐜモ ᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲ㸧 (3) This picture book has pictures on the left page and a text opposite. 㸦モ㸧 (4) The dishwasher is opposite the main sink. 㸦๓⨨モ㸧 (5) Love is the opposite of hatred. 㸦ྡモ㸧 ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿရモࡢ㐪࠸ࡣ࠶ࢀࠊopposite ࡀ⾲ࡍࠕᑐࠖ࠸࠺ពࡣඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(1)ࡣࠊ㸰ࡘࡢពぢ ࡢぢゎࡢ㛫ᑐࡢ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ(2)(3)(4)ࡣࠊࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡢᗙᖍࡢ⨨ࡢ㛵ಀࠊᮏࡢ࣮࣌ࢪࡢ⨨ࡢ㛵ಀࠊ ─Ὑ࠸ᶵࢩࣥࢡࡢ⨨ࡢ㛵ಀࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀᑐ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(5)ࡣ love hatred ࡀព࠾࠸࡚ᑐ ࡢ㛵ಀ࠶ࡿࡇࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺ opposite ࡢ⏝ἲࡣከᒱࢃࡓࡿࡀࠊඹ㏻ࡢᴫᛕࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ opposite ࡢከᵝ࡞⏝ἲ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬࡽ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓពࢆᥦࡍࡿ ࡇ࡛⤫୍ⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊopposite ࡀ㸦ᩘᏛⓗ㸧㛵ᩘࡢࡼ࠺ാࡃࡇࢆドࡋࠊ≉ྡモྃ the opposite ࡢሙྜࠊDonnellan (1966)ࡢゝ࠺ᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲ㸦referential use㸧ᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲ㸦attributive use㸧┦ᙜࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢሙ ྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡍࠋ 2.ࠕᑐࠖࡢᛶ㉁ 2 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊopposite ࡀពࡍࡿࠕᑐࠖࡢᮏ㉁ࡘ࠸࡚㏕ࡿࠋ ࠕᑐࠖࡢᮏ㉁ⓗᛶ㉁ࢆ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࡣࠊࣄࢺࡀ ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ែࢆࠕᑐࠖㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡢࠊࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡀࡼ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡩࡘ࠺ࠊࠕᑐࠖㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ −49− oppositeの意味論と関数的解釈 ୕⪅௨ୖࡢ㛫࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⪅㛫ఱࡽࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊ୕ࡘᕮࡢࡼ࠺࡞୕⪅ࡀ㛵ࡍ ࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊ୕⪅ࡢ㛫࡛ࠕᑐࠖࡀ࠶ᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡣㄆ㆑ࡋ࡙ࡽ࠸ࠋࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊ௵ពࡢ⪅ࡢ㛫ࠕᑐࠖࡢ㛵 ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ ࠕᑐࠖࡢᮏ㉁ⓗᛶ㉁ࡣඖᛶ㸦binarity㸧࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࡣ Lyons (1977)ࡸ Cruse (1986, 2004)࡛ࡶ㏙ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLyons ࡣᑐ㸦opposition㸧ࢆᑐẚ㸦contrast㸧ࡢ୍✀⪃࠼ ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑐẚࡀ⣔ิ㛵ಀ࠶ࡿせ⣲ࡽᡂࡿ㞟ྜࡢせ⣲ࡢᩘࡘ࠸࡚≉ఱࡢྵពࡶ࡞࠸ࡢᑐࡋࠊᑐࡣᑐẚ ࡀ㡯ᑐ❧ࡢሙྜ㝈ࡽࢀࡿ㏙࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠᵝࠊCruse ࡶᑐ࠸࠺㞟ྜࡣ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡽᡂࡾࠊࡇࡢࡓࡵ ඖᛶࡀᑐࡢᚲせ᮲௳⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋせࡍࡿࠊ ࠕᑐࠖࡢᮏ㉁ⓗᛶ㉁ࡣඖᛶ࠶ࡾࠊ⪅㛫ᡂ❧ࡍࡿᑐ❧㛵 ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡓࡔࠊඖᛶࡀࠕᑐࠖࡢᚲせ᮲௳࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⪅ࡢ㛵ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠕᑐࠖࡢ ㄆ㆑ࡣ⏕ࡲࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ ࠕᑐ❧㍈ࠖ࠸࠺ᑐ㛵ಀࡢᇶ‽ࡶ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊ(6)ࡢ࡛ࡣࠊࢺ࣒ࡑࡢ ∗ぶࡢ㛫ᑐ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࡣ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼ࡛ᑐ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣ᫂ࡽ࡛࡞࠸ࠋ(6)ࡣࠊ ࠼ࡤࠊ(7a)(7b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (6) Tom is opposite to his father. (7) a. Tom is opposite to his father in character. b. Tom is opposite to his father in the position. (6)ࡣࠊ(7a)ࡢࡼ࠺ࢺ࣒∗ぶࡀᛶ᱁࠾࠸࡚ᑐ࡛࠶ࡿゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡓࡾࠊ(7b)ࡢࡼ࠺⨨㛵ಀ࠾࠸࡚ᑐ㛵 ಀ࠶ࡿゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋせࡍࡿࠊopposite ࡀᐇ㝿ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ㝿ࡣࠊࡢ⪅ࡀࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼ࠾࠸࡚ᑐ ࡞ࡢࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࠕᑐࠖࡢᛶ㉁ࡣඖᛶ࠶ࡾࠊࡉࡽࡣࠊ㛵ࡍࡿ⪅ࡢᑐ❧㍈ࡢྠᐃࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆぢࡓࠋ ࡇࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ♧၀ࡍࡿࡇࡣࠊopposite ࡢゎ㔘ࡣᑐ❧㛵ಀ࠶ࡿ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡢ≉ᐃࠊࡑࡢᑐ❧㍈ࡢྠᐃࡀせồࡉ ࢀࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࢆࡩࡲ࠼࡚ࠊopposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓពࢆ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࠋ 3. opposite ࡢᴫᛕ 2 ⠇࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺ࠊࠕᑐࠖࡣࠊ࠶ࡿᑐ❧㍈࠾ࡅࡿ㡯ᑐ❧ⓗᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊopposite ࡢゎ㔘ࡣࠊᑐ❧ 㛵ಀ࠶ࡿࡘࡢせ⣲ࡢ≉ᐃࡑࡢᑐ❧㍈ࡢྠᐃࡀᚲ㡲࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࡽ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓពࢆ ḟࡢࡼ࠺௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ (8) OPPOSITE <wrt: a> (x, y)1 (= x and y are opposite with respect to a) ᴫᛕ OPPOSITE ࡣ㸱ࡘࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࢆ࠶ࡿࠋࢫࣟࢵࢺ x, y ࡣࠕᑐࠖࡢ⌮ゎ࡛≉ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡁ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࢆᣦࡍࠋ ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺ<wrt: a>ࡣᑐ❧㍈ࢆᣦࡋࠊopposite ࡢᴫᛕࢆ᫂☜ࡍࡿࡇ㈉⊩ࡍࡿࠋ ࢫࣟࢵࢺ x, y ࡣពㄽⓗỴᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇࡀከ࠸ࠋ ࠼ࡤࠊ (6)࡛ࡣ x, y ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡣⓎヰෆ Tom his father −50− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࡋ࡚ゝㄒࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ2 ࡇࢀᑐࡋࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺ<wrt: a>ࡣពㄽⓗỴᐃࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇࡶከ࠸ࠋ(6)࡛ࡣᑐ❧㍈ ࡣ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺࡣ㣬㸦saturation㸧࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᧯సࡼࡗ࡚‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠋ 㣬࠸࠺᧯సࡣࠊCarston (2008)ࡼࡿࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺࡢ㊊ࡀゝㄒⓗせồࡉࢀࠊࡋࡶࡑࢀࡣ⩏ົⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ ࣎ࢺ࣒ࢵࣉ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋࢫࣟࢵࢺ<wrt: a>ࡣ x, y ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀࠊ࣎ࢺ࣒ࢵࣉ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ ࠺ࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺࡀពㄽⓗ☜ᐃࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊ㣬࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᧯సࡼࡗ࡚㊊ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣࠊ(8)࡛௬ᐃࡋࡓ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓពࡣᮏᙜጇᙜࡔࢁ࠺ࠋḟ⠇࡛ࠊ(1)-(5)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ opposite ࡢ ከᵝ࡞⏝ἲ↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏ᳨࡚ドࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ 4. 㸸opposite ࡢከᵝ࡞⏝ἲ 4 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ3 ⠇ࡢ(8)࡛ᥦࡋࡓ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓពࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ⏝ἲࡈ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࠊ(9)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᐜモࡢླྀ㏙ⓗ⏝ἲࡽぢ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺ࠋ࣓࣮ࣜࡢⓎヰࡣࢺ࣒ࡢⓎヰᑐࡍࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (9) Tom : John is tall and his father is short. Mary: They are opposite. (10) OPPOSITE <wrt: HEIGHT> (JOHN, JOHN’S FATHER) ௦ྡモ they ࡣ」ᩘࡢᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡋ࠺ࡿࡀࠊOPPOSITE ࡣ x, y ࡢ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࢆせồࡍࡿࠋ(9)ࡢヰ࠾࠸࡚ࡶࡗࡶ㛵 㐃ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡣࢪࣙࣥࡑࡢ∗ぶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ⪅ࡢᑐ❧㍈ࡣࢺ࣒ࡢⓎヰࡽ⫼ࡢ㧗ࡉ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ ࡀ᫂ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡣ(10)࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠋ ḟᙧᐜモࡢᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲࡢሙྜࢆぢࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊಟ㣭ࡍࡿྡモྃࡀ opposite ࡢ⌮ゎࡁࡃ㛵ࢃࡿࠋ (11) Robyn took a seat at the opposite end of the table from Wilcox. (=(2)) (12) OPPOSITE <wrt: THE POSITION AT THE TABLE> (WILCOX’S SEAT, ROBYN’S SEAT) (11)࡛ࡣࠊopposite ࡀಟ㣭ࡍࡿ end ࡣࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡢ୍㎶ࢆᣦࡍࠋࡇࡢ end ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࠕࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡣ㸰⤌ࡢྥ࠸ ྜ࠺㎶ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ⓒ⛉ⓗ▱㆑ࢆႏ㉳ࡉࡏࠊᑐ❧㍈ࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࢆࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡢ⨨࡛‶ࡓࡍࡇ㈉⊩ࡍ ࡿࠋ3 ࡲࡓࠊOPPOSITE ࡀゝㄒⓗせồࡍࡿ x, y ࡣࡑࡢ୍㎶࠶ࡿᗙᖍࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡇᗙࡿ⪅࡛‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠋࡼ ࡗ࡚ࠊࣟࣅࣥ࢘ࣝࢥࢵࢡࢫࡢᗙᖍࡀࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡢᗙࡿ⨨࠸࠺Ⅼ࠾࠸࡚ᑐ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺ x, y ࡣពㄽⓗỴᐃࡉࢀࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺ<wrt: a>ࡣᩥ⬦ᐃࢆ㉳ࡍࡿࡇࡼࡾㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ ྠᐃࡉࢀࠊ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺㊊ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ḟモࡢ opposite ࢆ᳨ドࡋࡼ࠺ࠋモ opposite ࡣ㡯ࢆྲྀࡿࡇࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊsat down ࢆಟ㣭ࡋࠊࡑࡢㄒࡀࢡࣜ ࢫࢸ࣮ࢼ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡽࠊᴫᛕ OPPOSITE ࡀせồࡍࡿ x, y ࡢ࠺ࡕ୍᪉ࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀࠊᑐ❧㍈ࡶᗙࡿ⨨࡛࠶ࡿྠ ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࢡࣜࢫࢸ࣮ࢼࡀᗙࡗࡓࡢࡣᙼࢥ࣮ࣄ࣮ࢆᡭΏࡋࡓᚋ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡽࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿゎ㔘ࡣࡶ࠺୍ ᪉ࡀᙼ࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢゎ㔘ࡣ(14)࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ −51− oppositeの意味論と関数的解釈 (13) Christina handed him a cup of coffee and sat down opposite. (14) OPPOSITE <wrt: THE SEATING POSITION*> (CHRISTINA, HIM) ูࡢモࡢࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ(15)ࡢⓎヰ࡛ゝㄒⓗ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࢲ࣮ࢩ࣮ࡔ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊࡇࢀࡀࢺ࣒ࡢ Ⓨヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆ⪃៖ࡍࢀࡤࠊOPPOSITE ࡀせồࡍࡿ x, y ࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡀࠊࢲ࣮ࢩ࣮ヰࡋᡭࡢࢺ࣒࡛‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇ ࡢࡼ࠺ x, y ࡢ࠺ࡕ୍᪉ࡋពㄽⓗ≉ᐃࡉࢀ࡞ࡃࡶࠊࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡣᩥ⬦ࡽㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ‶ࡓࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋࡇࡢ ゎ㔘ࡣ(16)ࡢࡼ࠺♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ (15) Tom: D’Arcy ordered, then took the seat opposite. (16) OPPOSITE <wrt: THE SEATING POSITION **> (D’ARCY, TOM) ḟࡢ(17)(19)ࡣ๓⨨モࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(17)࡛ࡣ x, y ࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡀ─Ὑ࠸ᶵࢩࣥࢡ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡀᐜ᫆ ศࡿࠋࡋࡶࠊࡇࡢ㸰ࡘࡣྎᡤ࡛⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࠸࠺ⓒ⛉ⓗ▱㆑ࡶᨭ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ ▱㆑ࡣᑐ❧㍈ࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡢ㊊㈉⊩ࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡀ༢㠃ྥ࠺⨨㛵ಀ࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࡔࡅ࡛ ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྎᡤ࠾ࡅࡿ⨨㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣⓒ⛉ⓗሗࢡࢭ ࢫࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࠊ(18)ࡢࡼ࠺ᴫᛕ OPPOSITE ࢆ㊊ࡉࡏࡿࠋ (17) The dishwasher is opposite the main sink. (=(4)) (18) OPPOSITE <wrt: THE POSITION IN THE KITCHEN> (THE DISHWASHER, THE SINK) (19) Who do you want to play opposite you? (20) OPPOSITE <wrt: THE POSITION AS AN ACTOR> (THE HEARER, WHO) ୍᪉(19)࡛ࡣᑐ❧ࡍࡿ㡯ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ you who ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿၥࡢᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡣᐜ᫆⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ ࡇࡢ⪅ࡢᑐ❧㍈ࡣⓎヰࡀ₇㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡽࠊ₇ຓ₇ࡢࡼ࠺࡞❧ሙ࠾ࡅࡿᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠸࠺ᐃࡀႏ㉳ࡉࢀࠊᴫᛕ OPPOSITE ࡣ(20)ࡢࡼ࠺‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠋ4 ᭱ᚋࠊྡモྃ the opposite 㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࡇࢀࡲ࡛ྠࡌ㆟ㄽࡀྍ⬟ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ(21)ࡢゎ㔘࡛ࡣࠊࡢ⏝ἲྠᵝ ࠊᑐ❧ࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡣពㄽⓗ love hatred ≉ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽࠊࡇࡢ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡀㄒᙡពⓗᑐ❧ 㛵ಀ࠶ࡿࡇࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᴫᛕࡢㄽ⌮㡯┠㸦logical entry㸧ྵࡲࢀࡿሗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࢡࢭࢫࡍࡿ㈇ᢸࡣ ࢇ࡞࠸ࠋ5 ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺࡀࡍ࡚‶ࡓࡉࢀࡓᴫᛕࡣ(22)♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (21) Love is the opposite of hatred. (=(5)) (22) OPPOSITE <wrt: LEXICAL MEANING> (LOVE, HATRED) −52− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࡇࢁࡀࠊḟࡢࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ྠࡌࡼ࠺ᢅ࠺ࡢࡣᅔ㞴࡞ࡼ࠺ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ(23)࡛ᑐ❧ࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࢆ ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡢࡣᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋThe opposite ࢆྵࡴ⠇ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿࡇᑐࡢࡇࢆ⾜࠺㏙ࠊࡑࡢ࠶ࡿࡇࡣඛ⾜ ⠇ࡽពㄽⓗ≉ᐃࡋ࠺ࡿẕぶࡽᜥᏊࡢ௧≉ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋྡモྃ the opposite ࡣࡑࢀࡔࡅ࡛ពࢆ ᡂࡍ࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣືモ do ྜᡂࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ௧ࡣᑐࡢࡇࢆ⾜࠺ࡇࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵࠊᑐ❧㍈ࡣືモྃࡼࡗ࡚ ⾲ࡉࢀࡿព࡞ࡿࡇࡀศࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ(24)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺㸱ࡘࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡢ࠺ࡕ㸰ࡘࡋ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡎࠊࡋࡶ ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ゎỴࡶᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ(23)ࡢゎ㔘ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࡇࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋ (23) Whatever Mother tells her son to do, he always does the opposite. (24) OPPOSITE <wrt: THE MEANING OF VERBAL PHRASE> (WHAT MOTHER TELLS HER SON TO DO, ?) ᮏ⠇࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺ࠊ(8)࡛ᥦ♧ࡋࡓ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓᴫᛕࡣ(23)௨እࡢࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇࡣ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡢ ṧࡉࢀࡓၥ㢟ࡢゎỴ⟇ࢆḟ⠇࡛᥈ࡾࠊ6 ⠇࡛ࡑࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ 5. opposite ࡢ㛵ᩘⓗᶵ⬟ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ4 ⠇࡛ྲྀࡾṧࡉࢀࡓၥ㢟ᑐࡋࠊopposite ࡢ㛵ᩘⓗゎ㔘ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡛ゎỴࢆᅗࡿࠋ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺ࠊopposite ࡢゎ㔘ࡣ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡢ≉ᐃࡑࡢᑐ❧㍈ࡢྠᐃࡀᚲ㡲࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸱 ࡘࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡀ㊊ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊopposite ࡢゎ㔘ࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇࢆពࡍࡿࠋࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㸱ࡘࡀᖖពㄽⓗ ≉ᐃࡉࢀࡿヂ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ㸱ࡘࡀゝㄒⓗ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊᩥ⬦ࡼࡗ࡚⿵ࢃࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑ ࢀࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇࢆண ࡍࡿࠋḟࡢ(25)ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊ㸱ࡘࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡢ࠺ࡕ㸯ࡘࡋ ‶ࡓࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (25) *I’m opposite. (26) Tom: I don’t like math. Mary: I’m opposite. (27) OPPOSITE <wrt: IN THEIR PREFERENCE FOR MATH > (MARY, TOM) ࡇࢀᑐࡋࠊ(26)ࡢ࣓࣮ࣜࡢⓎヰࡣࠊ(25)ࡲࡗࡓࡃྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊᩥ⬦ࡽ⿵ࢃࢀࡿࡓࡵᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ࣓ ࣮ࣜࡢⓎヰࡀࢺ࣒ࡢⓎヰᑐࡍࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ࣓࣮ࣜᑐ❧㛵ಀ࠶ࡿែࡢཧ⪅ࡋ࡚ࢺ࣒ࡀ㑅 ࡤࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࢺ࣒ࡢⓎヰࡣᩘᏛᑐࡍࡿዲᝏ㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡀᑐ❧㍈ࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࢆ‶ࡓࡍࠋ(25)ࡀ(27) ࡢࡼ࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽゎỴࡉࢀࡿࡇࡣᅔ㞴ࡔࡀࠊ(26)ࡣྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᐇࡽࠊ㸱ࡘࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡢ࠺ࡕᑡ࡞ࡃ ࡶ㸰ࡘࡣពㄽⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࡀศࡿࠋࡉࡽࡇࡢࡇࡀ♧၀ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊᑐ ❧ࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡢ࠺ࡕ୍᪉ᑐ❧㍈ࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀࢀࡤࠊṧࡾࡢせ⣲ࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛⡆༢࡞ᩘᏛࡢ㛵ᩘࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋy=ax ࠸࠺୍ḟ㛵ᩘࡢ୍⯡ᘧ࡛ࡣࠊx y ୍ḟࡢ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ ࡣ᫂ⓑࡔࡀࠊࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛵ಀࡣᐃᩘ a ࡀᮍᣦᐃ࡞ࡓࡵࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡋࠊᐃᩘ a x ࡢ್ࡀỴࡲࡾࡉ࠼ −53− oppositeの意味論と関数的解釈 ࡍࢀࡤࠊ⮬ࡎ y ࡢ್ࡣᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ㸱ࡘࡢ࠺ࡕ㸰ࡘࡢ್ࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀ࡚ࠊṧࡾࡢ㸯ࡘࡀᑟฟྍ⬟ ࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊࡲࡉ(8)࡛ᥦ♧ࡋࡓᴫᛕ OPPOSITE ࡶᛂ⏝ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛(28)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ OPPOSITE 㛵ᩘࢆ௬ᐃࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࢀࡣ୍᪉ࡢせ⣲ᑐ❧㍈ࡽࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡢせ⣲ࡀᑟฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ᳨ドࢆ(3)ࡢ㸦(29)ࡋ࡚ᥖ㸧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾜࠺ࠋ (28) y=OPPOSITE <wrt: a> (x) (29) This picture book has pictures on the left page and a text opposite. (=(3)) (30) a. y= OPPOSITE <wrt: THE POSITION OF THE PAGE> (THE LEFT PAGE) b. y=THE RIGHT PAGE (29)ࡢゎ㔘ࡢ㝿ࠊⓒ⛉ⓗ▱㆑ࡽ⤮ᮏࡀ⤮ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡽᡂࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀᑐᛂࡍࡿ㛵ಀ࠶ࡿࡇࡀศࡿࠋ ࡉࡽࠊモ opposite ࡣ on the left page ࣮࣌ࢪࡢ⨨㛵ಀ࠾࠸࡚ᑐ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡶศࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡇࡽ(30a) ࡢࡼ࠺ࢫࣟࢵࢺࡀ‶ࡓࡉࢀࠊ(30b)ࡢࡼ࠺ opposite ࡀྑ࣮࣌ࢪࢆ⾲ࡍࡇࡀ㛵ᩘⓗᑟฟࡉࢀࡿࠋ ḟࠊ๓⠇࡛ၥ㢟࡞ࡗࡓఝ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ␗࡞ࡿྡモྃࡢࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋඛ㏙ࡓࡼ࠺ࠊ(31)ࡢ the opposite ࡣືモྃࡢ୍㒊ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࠊࡇࡢࡇࡽᑐ❧㍈ࡣືモྃࡢពෆᐜྠᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࢫࣟࢵࢺ x ࡣẕぶࡀᜥᏊ ௧ࡋࡓෆᐜࠊࡘࡲࡾ stay ࡛‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀࡶࡗࡶฎ⌮ປຊࡢᑠࡉ࠸ゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(32a)ࡢࡼ࠺ x ᑐ❧㍈ࡀ ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࠊ㛵ᩘⓗ(32b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࡀᑟฟࡉࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ(32b)࡛ࡣ࠸ࡃࡘࡢゎ㔘ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ♧ࡉࢀࠊࡑ ࢀࡒࢀከᑡ␗࡞ࡿෆᐜࡔࡀࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࡑࡢሙࡽ࠸࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿⅬࡣඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽࠊࡢゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ(32a) ࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞㛵ᩘࡽゎ㔘ࡀᑟฟࡉࢀࡿ࠸࠺Ⅼࡶඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (31) Mother told her son to stay, but he did the opposite. (32) a. y= OPPOSITE <wrt: THE MEANING OF VERBAL PHRASE> (STAY) b. y=NOT STAY, LEAVE, RUN AWAY, etc. ࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊOPPOSITE ࡀ㛵ᩘⓗゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡇࡣጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋḟ⠇࡛ࠊ๓⠇࡛ྲྀࡾṧࡉࢀࡓၥ㢟 ᑐࡍࡿゎ⟅ࢆ࠼ࡿࠋ 6. the opposite ࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲ ๓⠇ࡢ᭱ᚋ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ(31)ࡢᮍゎỴࡢ(23)ࡢࡣఱࡀ㐪࠺ࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࢀࢆゎࡃ㘽ࡋ࡚ Donnellan (1966) ࡢ☜ᐃグ㏙ྃ㸦definite descriptions㸧ࡢᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲ㸦referential use㸧ᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲ㸦attributive use㸧ࢆᑟධࡍࡿࠋ (33) Smith’s murderer is insane. (Donnellan 1966) (33)ࡢ☜ᐃグ㏙ྃ Smith’s murderer ࡣ㸰㏻ࡾ᭕࡛ࠊᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࡢㄞࡳ࡛ࡣࢫ࣑ࢫࢆẅࡋࡓேࠊ࠼ࡤࢪࣙࣥࢆ −54− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ᣦ♧ࡋࠊࡋࡶ☜ᐃグ㏙ྃࡣࡑࡢࢪࣙࣥࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲࡢㄞࡳ࡛ࡣ☜ᐃグ㏙ྃࡀ⾲ࡋ࠺ ࡿே࡞ࡽㄡ࡛ࡶࡼࡃࠊ๓⪅ࡢࡼ࠺≉ᐃࡢேࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ Donnellan ࡢᴫᛕࢆ⦆ࡃ㐺⏝ ࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡪᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲࡣྡモ࡛ྃ⾲ࡋ࠺ࡿ㞟ྜࡢ⠊ᅖࢆ⾲ࡋࠊᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࡣࡑࡢ㞟ྜࡢ୰ࡢࡼࡾ ලయⓗ࡞ෆᐜࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ࡇࡍࡿࠋ ๓⠇࡛ぢࡓ(31)ࢆࡾ㏉ࡿࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺ x ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡣ STAY ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡇࡽ㛵ᩘⓗ NOT ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢᑟฟࡉࢀࡓゎ㔘ࡣࠊཝᐦ࠶ࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆᣦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿヂ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊNOT STAY STAY ࠸࠺ゎ㔘 ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ⠊ᅖࡢ ᴫᛕไ㝈ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡀᮏ✏࡛ゝ࠺ᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲᙜࡓࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ(23)ࡢ㸦(34)ࡋ࡚ᥖ㸧࡛ࡣࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺ x ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡀ(33)ẚ࡚≉ᐃⓗࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ(35a) ࡽศࡿࡼ࠺ࠊx ࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡢࡣࠕẕぶࡽᜥᏊࡢ௧ෆᐜ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊලయⓗࢇ࡞௧ࡣࡣࡗࡁ ࡾࡏࡎࠊ௧࡞ࡽఱ࡛ࡶࡼ࠸࠸࠺ᒓᛶࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊᑐ❧㍈ࡀྠᐃࡉࢀ࡚ࡶࠊ㛵ᩘⓗᑟฟ ࡉࢀࡿゎ㔘 y ࡣࠕx ࡢ್ࡢᑐࠖ࡞ࡾࠊ⤖ᒁẕぶࡢ௧ᑐࡢࡇ࡞ࡽఱ࡛ࡶチࡉࢀࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࢆពࡍࡿࠋ (34) Whatever Mother tells her son to do, he always does the opposite. (35) a. y=OPPOSITE <wrt: THE MEANING OF VERBAL PHRASE> (WHAT MOTHER TELLS HER SON TO DO) b. y=THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT MOTHER TELLS HER SON TO DO ࡘࡲࡾࠊ(31)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢱࣉࡣᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(34)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢱࣉࡣᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲぢ࡞ࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ๓⪅࡛ࡣࢫࣟࢵࢺ x ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡶ㛵ᩘⓗᑟฟࡉࢀࡿゎ㔘 y ࡶࡑࡢཬࡪ⠊ᅖࡣᣦ♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡢᑐࡋࠊᚋ⪅࡛ ࡣ x ࡢ್ࡶゎ㔘 y ࡶ₍↛ࡋࡓᒓᛶࡢࡳࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊྡモྃ the opposite ࡀ㛵ᩘⓗゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲᒓᛶⓗ⏝ἲ ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ๓⪅ࡣࢫࣟࢵࢺ x ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲ࡀᣦ♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㛵ᩘⓗ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿ y ࡶ࠾ࡼࡑᣦ♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡢᑐࡋࠊ ᚋ⪅࡛ࡣࢫࣟࢵࢺ x ࢆ‶ࡓࡍせ⣲⮬యࡀᒓᛶⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊy ࡶ x ౫Ꮡࡋᒓᛶⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 7. ⤖ㄽ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ(8)࡛♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓពࢆᥦࡋࠊopposite ࡢከᵝ࡞⏝ἲ⤫୍ⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࢆ ࠼ࡓࠋࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓពࡣࠊopposite ࡢ⌮ゎᚲ㡲ࡢᑐ❧ࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢせ⣲ x, y ࡑࡢᑐ❧㍈<wrt: a>ࡽᵓᡂࡉ ࢀࠊࡇࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࡀពㄽⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࡇࡼࡗ࡚ࠊopposite ࡢゎ㔘ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡇࢆぢࡓࠋ ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ≉ྡモྃ the opposite ࡢሙྜࠊ 㸦ᩘᏛⓗ㸧㛵ᩘࡢࡼ࠺ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࠊᣦ♧ⓗ࡞ሙྜᒓᛶⓗ࡞ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿ ࡇࢆぢࡓࠋ *ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ➨ 14 ᅇ㸦2011 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 3 ᪥ࠊ㸸ி㒔እᅜㄒᏛ㸧࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ ⾲ࡢᢡࠊྖࡢ㔠⃝ಇ࿃ඛ⏕㸦㧗▱┴❧Ꮫ㸧ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊすᒣభྖඛ⏕㸦᫂ᾏᏛ㸧࣭ஂಖ㐍ඛ⏕㸦ᯇᒣᏛ㸧࣭す⏣ග୍ඛ ⏕㸦ᮾᏛ㸧ࡽࠊⓎ⾲ࡢ‽ഛẁ㝵ࠊᗞᖾ⏨ඛ⏕࣭ᒸ⏣⚞அඛ⏕࣭㒯⪷Ợ㸦㜰Ꮫ㸧ࠊἙୖㄋసඛ⏕㸦⚄ᡞዪᏊᏛ㸧 ࡽ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬ࡅࡓࡇᚰࡽឤㅰࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏ࡢഛࡣᇳ➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࠶ࡿࠋ −55− oppositeの意味論と関数的解釈 ὀ 1. (8)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞」ᩘࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺࢆྵࡴᴫᛕࡣពㄽⓗ☜ᐃᗘ༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ Carston (2002)ࡢゝ࠺ࠕᴫᛕࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࠖࡢ୍✀ ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᴫᛕࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࡢᴫᛕࡀㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᥎ㄽࡉࢀࡿ㝿ᇶ┙࡞ࡿ࠶ࡿᴫᛕࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ ࡿࠋOPPOSITE ࡢሙྜࠊࢫࣟࢵࢺࢆㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᥎ㄽࡼࡗ࡚‶ࡓࡍࡓࡵࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࠶ࡿᩥ⬦ࠊࡘࡲࡾ࠶ࡿᴫᛕࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࢡࢭ ࢫࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ 2. ࡶࡕࢁࢇ x, y ࡢ୧᪉ࡀពㄽⓗỴᐃࡍࡿࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊᑡ࡞ࡃࡶ୍᪉ࡣᚲࡎỴᐃࡍࡿࠋ 3. ࡩࡘ࠺ࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡣ end ࡿ⟠ᡤࡣ㸲࢝ᡤ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㸰⤌ࡢྥ࠸ྜ࠺㎶ࡔ ࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(11)ࡢⓎヰࡽࡣࡇᗙࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡣศࡽ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᑡ࡞ࡃࡶ୍᪉ࡢᖍࡀỴࡲࢀࡤࠊ⮬ືⓗࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡢᖍࡶ Ỵࡲࡿࡇὀពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ 4. モ๓⨨モࡢ opposite ࡣᑐ❧㍈ࡀ position ࠸࠺ඹ㏻Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊᐇ㝿ࡢⓎヰゎ㔘࡛ࡣᩥ⬦ᛂࡌ࡚ࡼࡾ᫂☜ ࡉࢀࡓᴫᛕࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡋࡋࠊᙧᐜモࡢ opposite ࡣᑐ❧㍈ࡀ position ไ㝈ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢᑐࡋࠊモ๓⨨モࡢሙྜࡣไ㝈ࡉࢀ ࡿゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ(19)࡛ࡣ position ࡀ≀⌮✵㛫ࡢሙᡤ࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊ₇㛵ࡍࡿ୍✀♫ⓗ࡞ሙᡤࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࡣࠊモ๓⨨モࡢ opposite ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻࡉࢀࡓពࡀ(i)ࡢࡼ࠺⾲ࡉࢀࠊⓎヰᛂࡌ࡚ position ࡢᴫ ᛕࡀㄪᩚࡉࢀࡿࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡇࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊࡇࡢጇᙜᛶ㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡍࡿࠋ (i) opposite (adv., prep.): OPPOSITE <wrt: POSITION> (x, y) 5. Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995)ࡣࠊᴫᛕࡣㄽ⌮㡯┠࣭ㄒᙡ㡯┠࣭ⓒ⛉ⓗ㡯┠ࡢ㸱ࡘࡢ㡯┠ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿ௬ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠼ࡤࠊㄽ⌮㡯┠ࡣពබ‽㸦meaning postulate㸧࡞ㄽ⌮㛵ಀࡍࡿሗࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Carston, R. 2008. “Optional Pragmatic Processes or Optional Covert Linguistic Structure?” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 143-156. Cruse, A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, A. 2004. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Donnellan, K. 1966. “Reference and Definite Descriptions.” The Philosophical Review 75:3, 281-304. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics Vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson 1997. “The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 107-125. Wilson, D. and R. Carston 2007. “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In N. Burton-Roberts (ed.) Pragmatics. 230-259. Basingstoke: Palgrave. −56− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ┤᥋ヰἲࢆᑟࡃㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡢゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲ 㔝 ᫀಇ ⪷Ꮫᅬ㧗➼Ꮫᰯ < Abstract > Within the framework of relevance theory, this paper discusses discourse markers introducing direct quote structures in English. When quoting what someone said, quotation marks are often used, but when a reporter paraphrases the quoted words in his or her own words, the marks are not used. Discourse markers in question are with no quotation marks, and I discuss who to attribute them to: a character or a reporter. I also show that the discourse markers function as markers of interpretive use, conveying the reporter’s subjectivity. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲࠊㄯヰᶆ㆑ࠊ┤᥋ヰἲࠊヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ 1. ࡣࡌࡵ ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࠾ࡅࡿࠕㄯヰᶆ㆑㸩┤᥋ヰἲࠖࡢᆺࢆᡂࡍᵓ㐀ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋⱥㄒࡢ┤᥋ヰ ἲࡣ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᤄධᆺ┤᥋ヰἲ࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࠊㄡࡀゝࡗࡓࢆ⾲ࡍఏ㐩㒊(reporting clause) ࢆᣳࢇ࡛ศ㞳ࡋࡓᘬ⏝ྃࡢ༙ศࡀᘬ⏝➢ྕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ࡀࡼࡃぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ (1) Most customers, though they protect their computers, are unaware that they need to secure their phones, he said, “but the smartphones people have are computers, and the same thing that can happen on your computer can happen on your phone.” (International Herald Tribune, September 29, 2011) ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ(1)ࡢ๓༙㒊ࡀᘬ⏝➢ྕࢆࡶࡓࡎࠊᚋ༙㒊ࡢ but ௨㝆ࡀᘬ⏝➢ྕࢆࡶࡘᙧ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ෆ⏣(2011a)ࡣࠊ ࠕᘬ⏝➢ࡣࡑࡢⓎヰෆᐜࢆᙜヱே≀ᖐᒓࡉࡏࡿ(attributed)࣐࣮࣮࡛࢝ࠖ࠶ࡿ ㏙ࠊ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊᘬ⏝➢ࡣሗ࿌⪅ࡀࠕ㈐௵ࢆ㈇ࢃ࡞࠸࣐࣮࣮࢝ࠖᣦࡍࡿࠋ (2) quotation marks as noncommittal markers (ෆ⏣ 2011a: 31) (2)ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿࠊᘬ⏝➢ࢆࡶࡓ࡞࠸(1)ࡢ๓༙㒊ࡣࠊⓏሙே≀ he ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡀ୍ᐃࡢ㈐௵ ࢆ㈇ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡞ࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊⓏሙே≀ he ࡢⓎヰࡀሗ࿌⪅ࡢほⅬ࡛グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡀⓏሙே≀ࡢࡇࡤࢆ⮬㌟ࡢࡇࡤ࡛⦅㞟ࡋࡓ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ ࡿࠊࡇࡇ࡛(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ (3) In other words, says a jovial Beard, “it’s a catastrophe. Relax!” (Time, April 5, 2010) (3)ࡢ In other words ࡣࠊ(1)ྠᵝⓏሙே≀ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ Beard ࡢⓎヰࢆሗ࿌⪅ࡢほⅬ࡛ゝ࠸ ࠼ࡓࠊཪࡣ⦅㞟ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡞ࡢࠋࡑࢀࡶࡓࡔ༢ࠊグ୰ࡢヰࡢὶࢀࢆࡘ࡞ࡄࡶࡢࠊࡘࡲࡾᩥ ᩥࢆࡘ࡞ࡄࠕࡘ࡞ࡂㄒࠖ 㸦௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠕㄯヰᶆ㆑ࠖ⤫୍ࡍࡿ㸧ࡋ࡚⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࠋᮏ◊ −57− 直接話法を導く談話標識の解釈的用法 ✲࡛ᢅ࠺ࡢࡣ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ┤᥋ヰἲㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡀඛ⾜ࡍࡿ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡢാࡁࢆࠊ ሗ࿌⪅ࡢほⓗุ᩿ࢆ⾲ࡍゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲࡢ࣐࣮࣮࡛࢝࠶ࡿᙇࡍࡿࠋ 2. ᘬ⏝ㄯヰᶆ㆑ 2.1. ┤᥋ヰἲࠊ㛫᥋ヰἲࠊ⮬⏤㛫᥋ヰἲ ᮏᑠ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ┤᥋ヰἲ࣭㛫᥋ヰἲ࣭⮬⏤㛫᥋ヰἲ࠸ࡗࡓᙧᘧⓗഃ㠃ࡽㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡢ⏕㉳ࡘ ࠸࡚ᴫほࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎึࡵࠊ┤᥋ヰἲࡢࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿࡇࡍࡿࠋୖ(1988)ࡣࠊ┤᥋ヰἲࡢ ᘬ⏝ྃఏ㐩㒊ࡀᤄධࡉࢀࡿ㝿ࠊࡢࡼ࠺࡞せ⣲ࡢᚋᤄධࡉࢀࡿࢆㄽࡌ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㸯ࡘ ࡋ࡚ࡘ࡞ࡂㄒࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡀ(4)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (4) “And,” said her grandmother, “one day we hope you will be a lady, too.” (ୖ 1988: 282) (4)ࡣඛぢࡓ in other words ࡢᩥ(3)㢮ఝࡋࡓᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(3)(4)ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊࡘ࡞ࡂㄒᘬ ⏝➢ࡀకࡗ࡚࠸ࡿྰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(4)ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊᘬ⏝➢ࡀక࠺ࡶࡢࡣࠊᐇ㝿Ⓩሙே≀ࡀࡑࡢࡼ࠺ Ⓨࡋࡓࡳ࡞ࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡓࡵࠊၥ㢟࡞࠸ࠋ(4)ࡢ ‘and’ ࡣᘬ⏝➢ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊher grandmother ࡢⓎヰࡋ࡚ᖐࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ḟ ࠊ Blakemore (2010) ࡼ ࡿ 㛫 ᥋ ヰ ἲ (indirect thought reports) ⮬ ⏤ 㛫 ᥋ ヰ ἲ (free indirect thought reports)ࡢࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃࡇࡍࡿࠋ (5) Context: Jane believes that Henry has gone shopping for food and sees him return empty-handed. a. Jane: So we’ve got nothing for dinner. b. Henry: You think that we’ve got nothing for dinner. c. Henry: ??You think that so we’ve got nothing for dinner. (Blakemore 2010: 585) (6) Context: Henry has asked Jane to distribute the handouts for a lecture. a. Jane: But there are not going to be enough. b. Henry: You think that there aren’t going to be enough. c. Henry: ??You think that but there aren’t going to be enough. (Blakemore 2010: 586) ࡲࡎ(5)ࡣࠊJane ࡣ Henry ࡀ㣗⣊ࢆ㈙࠸ฟࡅࡓᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡇࢁࠊHenry ࡀᡭࡪࡽ࡛ᖐࡗ ࡚ࡁࡓሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࢆぢࡓ Jane ࡣ(5a)ࢆⓎࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊHenry ࡣ Jane ࡢᚰࡢ୰ࢆඛㄞࡳࡋ ࡚(5b)ࢆⓎࡍࡿࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡋࠊࡇࢀࡀ(5c)ࡢࡼ࠺ that ⠇ࡢ୰ ‘so’ ࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠊࡇ ࡢᩥࡣᐜㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋBlakemore (2010)ࡼࡿࠊ ‘so’ ࡣᛮ⪃ෆᐜ㈉⊩ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ ࡓࡵࠊᛮ⪃ࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿ that ⠇ࡣ⏕㉳࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊBlakemore (2010)ࡣྠᵝࠊbut ࡢ ࡶᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡀ(6)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(6)ࡢᩥ⬦ࡣࠊHenry ࡀ Jane ㅮ⩏ࡢ㈨ᩱࢆ㓄ࡿࡼ࠺㢗ࢇ࡛ ࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋJane ࡣ Henry ᑐࡋࠊ(6a)ࢆⓎࡍࡿࡇࡶ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࡋࠊHenry ࡀඛ Jane ࡢᚰࡢ୰ࢆ᥎ ࡋࠊ(6b)ࢆⓎࡍࡿࡇࡶ࠶ࡿࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡋࠊBlakemore (2010) ࡼࡿࠊඛࡢ(5c)ྠᵝࠊthat ⠇ࡢ୰ but ࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࡇࡢᩥࡣᐜㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿ࠸ ࠺ࠋࡇࢀࡶ(5)ྠᵝࠊ ‘but’ ࡣᛮ⪃ෆᐜ㈉⊩ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊᛮ⪃ࡢ୍㒊࡞ࡾ࠼ࡎࠊ ᨾࠊᛮ⪃ࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿ that ⠇ࡣ⏕㉳࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺㛫᥋ヰἲ࡛ࡣᐜㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞ −58− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࠸ࡶࡢࡶ(7), (8)ࡢࡼ࠺⮬⏤㛫᥋ヰἲ࡞ࡿࡇ࡛ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡞ࡿࠋ (7) So there would be nothing for dinner, she thought. (Blakemore 2010: 587) (ibid.: 587) (8) But there were not going to be enough, she thought. ࡇࢀࡽࡣ(5c), (6c)ࡽ ‘You think that’ ࢆྲྀࡾ㝖࠸ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊఏ㐩㒊ࡣ⿵㊊ⓗῧ࠼ ࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⮬⏤㛫᥋ヰἲࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢ㛵ᚰ࡛࠶ࡿࡽࡸࡸ㐓ࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࡇ ࡛ࡣ┬␎ࡍࡿࡇࡍࡿࠋ (5)(6)࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ㛫᥋ヰἲࡢ⿕ఏ㐩㒊ㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡀ⏕㉳࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࢆᢅࡗࡓࡶࡢ ࡋ࡚ Bach (1999)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋBach (1999)ࡶྠᵝࠊ ‘moreover’ ࡸ ‘in other words’ ࡀ㛫᥋ ᘬ⏝ࡢᙧ࡛ࡣᘬ⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡀ(9), (10)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (9) a. Moreover, Bill is honest. b. #John said that moreover, Bill is honest. (10) a. In other words, Bill is a liar. b. #John said that in other words, Bill is a liar. (Bach 1999: 341) Bach (1999: 341)ࡀᣦࡍࡿࡼ࠺ࠊ ‘moreover’ ࡸ ‘in other words’ ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭᚿྥࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡘࡲࡾࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰࡀࡢࡼ࠺ཷࡅྲྀࡽࢀࡿࡁ࡞ࡢࢆ⪺ࡁᡭఏ㐩ࡍࡿാࡁࢆࡶࡘࠋࡇ ࡇࡣࠊ㧗ḟࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡀక࠺ࠋ ‘moreover’ࡣࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰࡣ᪤㏙ࡽࢀࡓࡇᑐࡍࡿ㏣ ຍ㡯࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆྜᅗࡋࠊ ‘in other words’ ࡣࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰࡣゝࡗࡓࡤࡾࡢࡇࡢゝ࠸ ࠼࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆྜᅗࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ㧗ḟࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡣࠊࡑࢀࡣㄡࡀゝࡗࡓࡇࡤ࡞ࡢ ࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ(9), (10)ࢆぢࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊཎヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ John ࡢࡇࡤ࡞ࡢࠊࡑࢀࡶሗ ࿌⪅ࡢほⅬ࡛㏙ࡽࢀࡓࡇࡤ࡞ࡢ࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬᨭ㞀ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ(9b) (10b)ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡇࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶࡢせᅉࢆ᥈ࡿୖ࡛ࠊḟࠊᒣཱྀ (1992)&Yamaguchi (1993)ࡢศᯒࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃࡇࡍࡿࠋ 2.2. ࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰ ᚑ᮶ࠊヰἲ◊✲࠸࠺ࠊ᭩ࡁゝⴥ࠾ࡅࡿ┤᥋ヰἲ㛫᥋ヰἲࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧⓗഃ㠃┠ࡀྥ ࡅࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡑࢀᑐࡋࠊᒣཱྀ(1992, 2009)&Yamaguchi (1993)ࡣ࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰࡶ⪅ࡢⓎヰࢆ ᘬ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ヰἲ࡛࠶ࡿᤊ࠼ࡿࠋ ᒣཱྀ(1992)&Yamaguchi (1993)ࡣࠊMcCawley (1987)ࡀ࢚ࢥ࣮࡛ࡁ࡞࠸せ⣲ࡋ࡚ᣦࡋࡓࠊ 㛫ᢞモࠊࡧࡅㄒࠊᩥᮎࡢ pleaseࠊຍၥࡢ㸲ࡘᩥయ㞳᥋モࢆຍ࠼ࡓᯟ⤌ࡳࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ ḟࡣࡑࡢᩥయ㞳᥋モࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (11) JIM: Quite frankly, I’m the one who did it. TIM: *Quite frankly, you’re the one who did it? (12) JIM: Quite frankly, I’m the one who did it. TIM: Quite frankly?? I know you’re always joking. 㸦ᒣཱྀ 1992: 297, 305㸧 −59− 直接話法を導く談話標識の解釈的用法 (11)ࡣ Jim ࡢⓎヰᑐࡋࠊTim ࡀၥ࠸㏉ࡍ࢚ࢥ࣮ၥᩥࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩥయ㞳᥋モ࡛࠶ࡿ ‘quite frankly’ ࡶ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠊࡇࡢᩥࡣᐜㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿ࠸࠺ࠋࡋࡋࠊ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ ‘quite frankly’ ࠸࠺⾲⌧⮬యᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ࢚ࢥ࣮ࡍࡿࡇࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᒣཱྀ(1992)ࡣ࢚ࢥ࣮ࡼࡗ࡚ ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡵ࡞࠸せ⣲ぢࡽࢀࡿ㸳ࡘࡢ≉ᚩࢆᣦࡍࡿࠋ(ϸ)㢟ሗࢆᢸࢃ࡞࠸ࠋ(Ϲ)ヰࡋᡭࡢほ ⓗែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ(Ϻ)⪺ࡁᡭࢆᚿྥࡍࡿࠋ(Ϻ)ࢆᩥయ㞳᥋モࡢሙྜᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᩥయ㞳᥋モ ࡣ㢟ሗࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠕᩥࠖࡀࡢࡼ࠺ཷࡅྲྀࡽࢀࡿࡁ࡞ࡢࢆఏ࠼ࡿാࡁࢆࡍࡿࠋ(ϻ) 㢟ሗࢆᢸ࠺ࠕᩥࠖຍࡉࢀ࡞࠸༢⊂ࡢᙧ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ࢚ࢥ࣮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(ϻ)㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ(12)ࡀ♧ࡋ ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ࠊࡑࡢಶࠎࡢ⾲⌧ࡢࡳᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ࢚ࢥ࣮࡛ࡁࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(ϼ)ࠕᩥࠖ ୪ิࡉࢀࡓᵓ㐀ࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࠋ(ϼ)ࡣ McCawley (1987)ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ ࠕ㛫ᢞモࠖ㸩ࠕᩥࠖࡸࠕ ࡧࡅㄒࠖ㸩ࠕᩥࠖ࡞ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୍ᩥࡢ༢ࢆ㉸࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡸࠊ」ᩘࡢࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥ ࣘࢽࢵࢺࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿࡶࡢࡢࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(11)ࡢ࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢほᛶ ࢆᫎࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆᚿྥࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ ‘quite frankly’ ࡲ࡛ࡶ࢚ࢥ࣮ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠊ ‘quite frankly’ ࡀㄡࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢゎ㔘ୖࡢ▩┪ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊඖࡢࢥࣥࢸ ࢡࢫࢺ࠾࠸࡚ᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡓᶵ⬟ࡣࠊᘬ⏝ࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ࡣᶵ⬟ୖࡢ▩┪ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇ ࡍࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 2.3. ㄯヰᶆ㆑(Discourse Markers; ௨ୗ DM) DM ࡣ◊✲⪅ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊㄯヰ᥋⥆モ(discourse connectives)ࠊࡘ࡞ࡂㄒ(connectives, linking words)ࠊㄯヰ㎡(discourse particles)࡞ࠊࡑࡢࡧྡࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢ⠊ࡶ␗࡞ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ ࡛ࡣᶵ⬟ୖࡢศ㢮࡞ࡣ↔Ⅼࢆ⨨ࡎࠊDM ࡢ୍ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚≉ࠕヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࠖ࠸ ࠺ഃ㠃↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘ࠸࠺㠃㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ࠼ࡤࠊSchourup & ⏣ (1988), Swan (2005), Carter & McCarthy (2006)࡞ࡀᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ: z Schourup & ⏣ (1988: 234): ࠕᩥᩥࡢࡘ࡞ࡂㄒࡘ࠸୍࡚⯡ⓗゝ࠼ࡿࡇࡣࠊࡘ࡞ ࡂㄒࡣᐇ㛵ಀࡼࡾࡶࠊࡑࢀࢆ⏝࠸ࡿே㸦ヰࡋᡭ㸧ࡢぢゎ࣭ぢ᪉࣭⪃࠼᪉࡞ࡢ᪉ࡀࡼࡾ ࡁࡃᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ ) but, anyway ࡞ z Swan (2005: xϿ): ヰࡋᡭࡢ⌧ᅾࡢⓎゝࡢ๓᮶ࡓࡾࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡢᚋ⥆ࡃࡶࡢࢆᩥ⧅ ࡆࡓࡾࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡑࡢⓎゝᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧ࠋ ) on the other hand, frankly, matter of fact ࡞ࠋ z Carter & McCarthy (2006: 208): ㄯヰᵓᡂ࡞㛵ࡋ࡚ヰ⪅ࡢពᅗࢆᫎࡋࡓᶵ⬟ࠋ) okay, well, I mean, as you know ࡞ࠋ ࡇࢀࡽࡢࡇࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺ࠊDM ࡢᶵ⬟ࡢ୰ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍ࠸࠺ഃ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ ࡿࠋ㸰⠇ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺ࠊࡑࡢ⾲⌧ࡀㄡࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠸࠺ၥ㢟 ᐦ᥋㛵ࢃࡿሙྜࠊࡑࡢ⾲⌧ࢆᘬ⏝ࡍࡿࡇࡀ㞴ࡋࡃ࡞ࡿࡇࡣ᪤ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࠋヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࢆ ⾲ࡍ࠸࠺ࡇࡣࠊ⏝⪅ࡢᩥ⬦ࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࡶ⤖ࡧࡘࡃࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ⪅ࡢ DM ࢆᘬ ⏝ࡍࡿࠊཎヰ⪅ࡢᩥ⬦࡛⏝ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡞ࡢࠊࡑࢀࡶᘬ⏝⪅ࡢᩥ⬦࡛⏝ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ ࡀศࡽ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡾࠊ⾪✺ࡍࡿࡓࡵ DM ࡢᘬ⏝ࡣᐜㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊศᯒࡢ㐨ල❧࡚ࡋ࡚⏝ࡍࡿ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆぢࡿࡇࡍࡿࠋ −60− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 3. 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ 3.1. 㧗ḟ⾲ព(higher-level explicature) 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊⓎヰࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿᐃࡣࠊ⾲ព(explicature)᥎ព(implicature)ศ ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ᫂♧ⓗ⾲ࡉࢀࡓ㢟ෆᐜࡢ⾲♧ࢆ⾲ព(exlicature)ࡪ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ(13)ࡢ ‘I’ve got a great idea’ ࡀࡑࢀᙜࡓࡿࠋேࡣⓎヰࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿ㝿ࠊⓎヰࡣఱࡽࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡸヰ ࡋᡭࡢែᗘࡀᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡀ(13a-c)ᙜࡓࡿࠋ(13b)ࡣⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆᫎࡋ࡚࠾ ࡾࠊ(13a)(13c)ࡣⓎヰ⪅ࡢែᗘࡀ⾲᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (13) I’ve got a great idea! (a) The speaker is happy she’s got a great idea. (b) The speaker is saying she’s got a great idea. (c) The speaker believes she’s got a great idea. (Ahern 2010: 153) 㢟ෆᐜࢆᇙࡵ㎸ࢇࡔ㢟ែᗘࡸⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ(13a-c)࡛ࡣୖ⠇ᙜࡓࡿ ‘The speaker is happy,’ ‘The speaker is saying,’ ‘The speaker believes’ ࢆ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣ㧗ḟ⾲ព(higher-level explicature)ࡪࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛ Blakemore (1996)ෆ⏣(2011b)ࡼࡿゝ࠸࠼ᶆ㆑(reformulation markers)ࡢศᯒࢆ ぢࡿࡇࡍࡿࠋBlakemore (1996)ࡼࡿࠊ(14)ࡢヰ⪅ࡣ Simon ࡣ Sir Simon ࡋ࡚ࡪ ್ࡍࡿ࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢែᗘࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡇࢆ┠ⓗࡋ࡚ ‘that is’ ࢆ⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ㛵 ಀὀពࢆྥࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࠋ (14) I want you to meet Simon, that is, Sir Simon. (Blakemore 1996: 344) ࡲࡓࠊෆ⏣(2011b)ࡣࠊ ‘in other words’ ࢆⱥ᪥⩻ヂࡢどⅬࡽぢࡿࡇ࡛ࠊ㧗ḟ⾲ព㈉⊩ࡍࡿ ࡇࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (15) a. Utterances are used not only to convey thoughts but to reveal the speaker’s attitude to, or relation to, the thought expressed; in other words, they express ‘propositional attitudes’, perform ‘speech-acts’, or carry ‘illocutionary force.’ b. ゝ࠸࠼ࢀࡤࠊⓎヰࡣࠕ㢟ែᗘࠖࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡾࠊࠕⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࠖࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡾࠕⓎヰࡢຊࠖ ࢆఏ࠼ࡓࡾࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ c. ?ゝ࠸࠼ࢀࡤࠊⓎヰࡣࠕ㢟ែᗘࠖࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡾࠊ ࠕⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࠖࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡾࠕⓎヰࡢຊࠖ ࢆఏ࠼ࡓࡾࡍࡿࠋ ෆ⏣(2011b: 108) ෆ⏣(2011b)ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ in other words ᑐᛂࡍࡿࠕゝ࠸࠼ࢀࡤࠖࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᩥᑿ 㧗ḟ⾲ពࢃࡿࠕࡢࡔࠖࡢ␗ᙧࠕࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡀຍࡉࢀࡿ(=(15b))ࡋࠊࡶࡋࡑࢀࡀຍࡉ ࢀ࡞࠸⮬↛࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(=(15c))ࠋྠᵝࠊෆ⏣(2002)࡛ࡣࠊthus (ᚑࡗ࡚, ༶ࡕ), of course (ࡶࡕࢁࢇ), in short (ࡘࡲࡾ)ࡶࠕࡢࡔࠖᛂࡍࡿࡇࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢ ࡇࡽඹ㏻ࡍࡿࡇࡣࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⾲⌧ࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ DM ࡣఱࡽࡢヰ⪅ࡢែᗘ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㧗ḟ⾲ ពࡀ㛵ࢃࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ −61− 直接話法を導く談話標識の解釈的用法 3.2. グ㏙ⓗ⏝ἲ(descriptive use)ゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲ(interpretive use) Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995²)ࡣⓎヰࢆヰ⪅ࡢᛮ⪃ࡢゎ㔘ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆグ㏙ⓗ⏝ἲゎ㔘ⓗ ⏝ἲࡢ㏻ࡾศࡅࡿࠋෆ⏣(1998: 244)ࡣグ㏙ⓗ⏝ἲࢆࠕ≀ࡢ≧ែࢆᥥࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࠊᐈほⓗ ࡞グ㏙ゝ࠸࠼࡚ࡶ㛫㐪࠸࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖࡋࠊゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲࢆࠕᛮ⪃࡞ࢆゎ㔘ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡛ࠊ ࠼ࡤࡶࡢᛮ⪃ࡑࢀࢆල⌧ࡋࡓⓎヰࡢ㛫ࡣ㢮ఝ(resemblance)ࡢ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣ ヰ⪅ࡢほⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࠖ㏙ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲࢆศᯒࡢ㐨ලࡋ࡚⏝ࡍࡿ ࡇࡍࡿࠋḟࡢᅗࡣࠊグࡢඖ࡞ࡿཎヰ⪅ࡢᛮ⪃ࡀグ⪅ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀࡀㄞ⪅ᒆࡅࡽࢀ ࡿࡲ࡛ࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ཎヰ⪅ グ⪅ ㄞ⪅ ᛮ⪃ ᛮ⪃ࡢゎ㔘 ᭱ᑠປຊ࣭᭱ຠᯝ 㢮ఝᛶ(resemblance) ⦅㞟(DM ࡢ㏣ຍ➼) ᡭ⥆ࡁⓗሗ Figure 1 グࢆసࡿࡓࡵࡣࠊグ⪅ࡲࡓࡣሗ࿌⪅ࡣㄡࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆ⾜࠸ࠊグࡢඖ࡞ࡿⓎゝࢆධ ᡭࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ㝿ࠊ୍Ꮠ୍ྃ₃ࢀ࡞ࡃグ⪅ࡀྲྀࡾ㎸ࡴࡣ㝈ࡽࡎࠊཎヰ⪅ࡢᛮ⪃࣭Ⓨゝࢆṍࡵࡓࡾࠊ 㐓ࢀࡓࡾࡋ࡞࠸⠊ᅖ࡛ᛅᐇゎ㔘ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢཎヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰ࣭ᛮ⪃グ⪅ࡢゎ㔘ࡢ㛫ࡣ୍ᐃࡢ㢮 ఝᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢゎ㔘㐣⛬ࡣࠊグ⪅ࡢほⓗ࡞ุ᩿࣭ゎ㔘ࡀຍࢃࡿࠋ᭦ࠊグ⪅ࡣㄞ⪅ሗ࿌ ࡍࡿ㝿ࠊㄞ⪅ศࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࡼ࠺⦅㞟సᴗࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡇࡢసᴗ㐣⛬࠾࠸࡚ࠊㄞ⪅ࡀ᭱ᑠ㝈ࡢฎ ⌮ປຊ࡛᭱㝈ࡢຠᯝࢆᚓࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺ DM ࡞ࢆ㏣ຍ࣭⏝ࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀࡼࡗ࡚ࠊグ⪅ࡀពᅗࡋ ࡓṇࡋ࠸ゎ㔘ㄞ⪅ࢆᑟࡃࡼ࠺ྥࡅࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇࠊグ⪅ࡲࡓࡣሗ࿌⪅ࡢఱࡽࡢែᗘࡀ ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ ‘The reporter believes’ ࡸ ‘The reporter is saying’ ࠸ࡗࡓ ࡶࡢࡀࡑࡢ࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ 4. ⪃ᐹ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢ㛵ᚰ࡛࠶ࡿࠕDM+┤᥋ヰἲࠖࡢࢆ࠸ࡃࡘ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇࡍࡿࠋ㸯⠇ ࡛ᣲࡆࡓ(3)㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᩥ⬦ࢆ᫂☜ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦ࢆ㏣ຍࡋࠊ(16)ᨵࡵࡿࡇࡍࡿࠋ (16) “... Even as we speak, Bangladesh is going down because the oceans are warming and expanding and rising.” In other words, says a jovial Beard, “it’s a catastrophe. Relax!” (Time, April 5, 2010) (17) But Randi Yoder, the organization’s senior vice president of donor relations, is bracing for a funding shortfall in 2009 even as she anticipates that volunteer numbers will rise by as much as a third. That’s a tough combo. Still, says Yoder, “if someone tells us they don’t have money but they have time, we’ll find a way to plug them in.” (Time, March 30, 2009) (18) The banks are adopting a cautious approach, aware of that if credit flows were to tighten globally, the maturity and cost of borrowing would be affected. But, explains Akbank’s Melek, “only 11 percent of the banking sector funding relies on borrowing from abroad. −62− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 The major part of bank funding ̿over 60 percent̿ comes from domestic deposits.” (International Herald Tribune, November 2, 2011) (16)ࡣ Beard ࡢⓎゝࡀ⥆ࡃሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋඛ⾜ࡍࡿᩥ⬦࡛ࡣ Bangladesh ࡢ⎔ቃࡢ␗ኚࡀ㏙ࡽࢀ ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ඛ⾜ࡍࡿⓎヰᑐࡋࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡣ in other words ࢆῧ࠼ࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰࢆ┤᥋ヰἲ ࡢᙧ࡛ᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡶࡋࡶ Beard ᮏேࡀ ‘in other words’ ゝࡗࡓࡢ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᘬ⏝➢ࢆࡘࡅ࡚ሗ ࿌ࡍࡿࡇࡶ࡛ࡁࡓࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡋࡋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡀㄞ⪅ศࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࡼ࠺ㄝ᫂ⓗ㏙࡚ ࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡼࡿ Beard ࡢඖࡢⓎヰࡢゎ㔘࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕሗ࿌⪅ࡣᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ Ⓨヰࡣඛ⾜ࡍࡿⓎヰࡢ㇟࣭≧ἣࡢゝ࠸࠼࡛࠶ࡿඛྜᅗࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࠊㄞ⪅ࡢฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶ ࡌࠊຠᯝࢆ㧗ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣሗ࿌⪅ࡢ㈐௵ุ࡛᩿ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊほⓗ㛵ࡀ࠶ࡿ ࡓࡵࠊゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲ࠸࠼ࡿࠋḟ(17)ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ(17)ࡢඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊYoder ࡀ㈨㔠㊊ഛ ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ᪨ࡀ᭩ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࡢඛ⾜ᩥ⬦⥆࠸࡚ࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡣࠕStill+┤᥋ヰἲࠖࡢᙧࢆ ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ‘still’ ࡣࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡛ఱࡽࡢዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸≧ἣࡀ㏙ࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢ≧ἣࡽ⏕ࡌ ࡿᅔ㞴ࡉࢆ⦆ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡇࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥ⬦࡛㏙ࡽࢀࡿ࠸࠺ሗࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶ ࡶࡋ Yoder ࡀᐇ㝿 ‘still’ Ⓨࡋࡓ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᘬ⏝➢ࢆࡘࡅ࡚ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࡇࡶ࡛ࡁࡓࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ ࡋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡀ Yoder ࡢᛮ⪃ࢆ⿵㊊ࡋࠊῧ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࠊᚋ⥆ ࡍࡿᩥ⬦ࡀࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࢆඛྜᅗࡋࠊゎ㔘ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡌࠊຠᯝࢆ㧗ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇࡶሗ࿌⪅ࡢ㈐௵ุ࡛᩿ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊほⓗ㛵ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲ࠸࠼ ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ(18)ࢆぢࡿࡇࡍࡿࠋ(18)ࡢඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊ㖟⾜ࡢ㈚ࡀཝࡋࡃྲྀࡾ⥾ࡲࡽࢀࡿ ⏝ᙳ㡪ࡀฟ࡚ࡃࡿ࠸࠺Ᏻឤࢆᛮࢃࡏࡿࡇࡀ᭩ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊᐇ㝿ࡣ 11㸣ࡋᾏ እࡽࡢ⏝౫Ꮡࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡑࢀᠱᛕࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇࡀࠕDM+┤᥋ヰ ἲࠖࡢᙧ࡛ᑟࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦ᠱᛕ࣭Ᏻ࡞ࡿ≧ἣࡀ㏙ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ ≧ἣᑐࡋ࡚ Melek ࡀ␗ࢆၐ࠼ࡿᙧ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶྠᵝࠊࡶࡋ Melek ࡀ ‘but’ ゝ ࡗࡓࡢ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᘬ⏝➢ࢆࡘࡅ࡚ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࡇࡶ࡛ࡁࡓࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡋࡋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡀᠱᛕ 㡯ᑐࡋ࡚␗ࢆၐ࠼ࡿ Melek ࡢᛮ⪃ࢆ⿵㊊ࡋࠊ ‘but’ ࢆῧ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕሗ࿌ ⪅ࡣࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰࡣඛ⾜ࡍࡿ≧ἣᑐࡍࡿఱࡽࡢᑐẚ࡛࠶ࡿඛྜᅗࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࠊㄞ⪅ࡢ ฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡌࠊຠᯝࢆ㧗ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇࡶሗ࿌⪅ࡢ㈐௵ุ࡛᩿ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊほ ⓗ㛵ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊゎ㔘ⓗ⏝ἲ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ ௨ୖぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡞㇟ࡣࢪ࣮ࣕࢼࣜࢬ࣒ࡢᩥయぢࡽࢀࡿࠋThompson (1994: 152)ࡣࠊグ⪅ ࡣ⮬㌟ࡢពぢࢆ᫂♧ⓗࡣ㏙࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊㄡࡢពぢࢆࡢࡼ࠺ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࢆ⮬ศ࡛㑅ࡪࡇ ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࡑࡇ⮬㌟ࡢែᗘࡀ㛵ࢃࡿᣦࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕグ⪅ࡣࠊグࡢ⦅㞟࠾࠸࡚⮬㌟ࡀᑟ ࡁࡓ࠸᪉ྥㄞ⪅ࢆྥࡅࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋሗ㐨ᩥ࡛ࡣ┤᥋ヰἲࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ㝿ࠊグ⪅ࡣ Ⓩሙே≀ࡢⓎゝࢆᛅᐇ㏙ࠊ⮬㌟ࡣ୍ぢ㛵ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡼ࠺ぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊᙜヱ㇟ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ DM ࢆ⏝࠸࡚┤᥋ヰἲࢆᑟࡃࡇ࡛ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢほⓗุ᩿ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 5. ࠾ࢃࡾ ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕㄯヰᶆ㆑㸩┤᥋ヰἲࠖࡢᆺࢆᡂࡍᵓ㐀ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋࠊሗ࿌⪅ࡀ⮬㌟ࡢᑟࡁࡓ࠸ ᪉ྥㄞ⪅ࢆᑟࡃࡓࡵࠊ⦅㞟సᴗ࡛ DM ࢆ㏣ຍࡍࡿࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࠊㄞ⪅ࡢ⌮ゎࢆ ಁ㐍ࡋࠊฎ⌮ປຊࢆῶࡌࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡢពᅗࡋࡓ᪉ྥㄞ⪅ࢆᑟࡃࡇᡂຌࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ὀ *ᮏ✏ࡣⓎ⾲ᇶ࡙ࡃಟṇ∧࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲ࡢ㝿ࠊすᒣభྖඛ⏕ࠊෆ⏣⪷ඛ⏕ࠊྜྷᡂ♸Ꮚඛ⏕ሙ −63− 直接話法を導く談話標識の解釈的用法 ࡚㈗㔜࡞ࡈᣦࢆࠊࡲࡓࠊᵓࡢẁ㝵ࡼࡾࠊす⏣ග୍ඛ⏕ࡈຓゝࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡇឤㅰࡢពࢆグࡍࠋ ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ Ahern, A. 2010. “Speaker Attitude in Relevance Theory: An Overview.” In E. Waãaszewska, M. Kisielewska-Krysiuk and A. Piskorska (ed.) In the Mind and across Minds: A Relevance-Theoretic Perspective on Communication and Translation, 147-166. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bach, K. 1999. “The Myth of Conventional Implicature.” Linguistics and Philosophy 22(4): 327-366. Blakemore, D. 1996. “Are Apposition Markers Discourse Markers?” Journal of Linguistics 32(2): 325-347. Blakemore, D. 2010. “Communication and the Representation of Thought: The Use of Audience-Directed Expressions in Free Indirect Thought and Representations.” Journal of Linguistics 46(3): 575-599. Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, A. 2007. “Do Discourse Connectives Encode Concepts or Procedures?” Lingua 117(1): 149-174. ᮾ᳃࣭ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ. 2003. ࠗ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢ᪂ᒎ㛤̿ㄆ▱ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ̿࠘ ᮾி: ◊✲♫. ୖỌᖾ. 1988. ࠕᤄධ⠇ࡋ࡚ࡢ┤᥋ヰἲఏ㐩㒊ࠖࠊභ⏥ⱥㄒᏛ◊✲(⦅) ࠗ⌧௦ࡢゝㄒ◊✲࠘ࠊ 275-286. ᮾி: 㔠ᫍᇽ. McCawley, J. D. 1987. “The Syntax of English Echoes.” CLS 23(1): 246-258. Schourup, L. and ⏣⣖Ꮚ. 1988. ࠗEnglish Connectives̿ㄯヰࡢ࡞࡛ࡳࡓࡘ࡞ࡂㄒ̿࠘ ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧. Sperber D. and D. Wilson. 1986/1995². Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. 㹙ෆ⏣⪷࣭୰㐐ಇ࣭᫂Ᏽ༡ඛ࣭⏣୰ᆂᏊ㸦ヂ㸧. 1993/1999². ࠗ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ̿ఏ㐩 ㄆ▱̿࠘ ᮾி: ◊✲♫. Swan, M. 2005. Practical English Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thompson, G. 1994. Collins Cobuild English Guides 5: Reporting. London: HarperCollins. ෆ⏣⪷. 1998. ࠕࠕ(ࡢ)ࡔࠖ̿㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡽࡢどⅬ̿ࠖࠊᑠすඛ⏕ചᑑグᛕㄽᩥ㞟(⦅) ࠗ⌧௦ⱥ ㄒࡢㄒἲᩥἲ࠘ࠊ243-251. ᮾி: ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ. ෆ⏣⪷. 2002. ࠕ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡽࡳࡓ᪥ⱥㄒẚ㍑ࡢ୍どⅬࠖ ࠗே㛫ᩥ◊✲⛉ᖺሗ࠘ ➨ 17 ྕ: 7-17. ෆ⏣⪷. 2011a. ࠕᘬ⏝ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࣓̿ࢱ⾲㇟ࡢどⅬࡽ̿ࠖ ࠊṊෆ㐨Ꮚ࣭బ⸨⿱⨾㸦⦅㸧 ࠗⓎヰ ᩥࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ̿ᑐ↷◊✲ࡢどⅬࡽ̿࠘ࠊ21-42. ᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ. ෆ⏣⪷. 2011b. ࠗㄒ⏝ㄽࡢᑕ⛬̿ㄒࡽㄯヰ࣭ࢸࢡࢫࢺ̿࠘ ᮾி: ◊✲♫. ᒣཱྀᙪ. 1992. ࠕ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡏ࡞࠸ࡇࡤ̿ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡀᘬ⏝ࡶࡓࡽࡍᙳ㡪̿ࠖࠊᏳἨ(⦅) ࠗࢢࣛ ࣐࣮࣭ࢸࢡࢫࢺ࣭ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࠘ࠊ289-320. ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧. Yamaguchi, H. 1993. “Unrepeatable Sentences: Contextual Influence on Speech and Thought Presentation.” In H. Parret (ed.) Pretending to Communicate, 239-252. Berilin: Walter de Gruyter. ᒣཱྀᙪ. 2009. ࠗ᫂ᬓ࡞ᘬ⏝ࠊࡋ࡞ࡸ࡞ᘬ⏝̿ヰἲࡢ᪥ⱥᑐ↷◊✲̿࠘ ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧. −64− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࢲࢡࢩࢫ࠾ࡅࡿ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝㄒ⏝ㄽ ⃝⏣ ῟ 㟷ᒣᏛ㝔Ꮫ 㸺abstract㸼 The purpose of this paper is to propose a hierarchical model of deixis which can correctly capture and explain the distributions of English deictic motion verbs come/go. In our deictic hierarchical model, the deictic center has the following types: (i) a speaker or a hearer’s location at the utterance time (=SS/HS), (ii) a speaker or a hearer’s location at the reference time (=SR/HR), (iii) a speaker or hearer’s home base (at the reference time) (=SHB/HHB). The members of the deictic center are different in the degree of ‘deicticity’ and the selection of come and go depends on the following scale: SS/HS > SR/HR > SHB/HHB (>¬S/¬H) ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚㄒ⏝ㄽࠊࢲࢡࢩࢫࠊcome/goࠊ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ 㸯 ࡣࡌࡵ ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊFillmore㸦1965ࠊ1966ࠊ1975ࠊ1983ࠊ1997ࠊ➼㸧ࡼࡿ୍㐃ࡢ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモ come/go ࡢ◊✲ࢆⓎᒎⓗ⥅ᢎࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊ ࠕ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࠖ 㸦deictic center㸧ࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࢆᆒ㉁ⓗ࡛ ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㝵ᒙⓗᤊ࠼ࡓࠕ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝࠖ࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞ࢲࢡࢩࢫࡢศᯒࣔࢹࣝ ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ come/go ࡢศᕸ㛵ಀࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡓࡵࡣࠊ௨ୗ♧ࡍࡼ ࠺࡞┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ⢭⦓ࡀᚲせ࡞ࡿࡇࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ 㸦1㸧 ࠕ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢୗ༊ศࠖ 㸸┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࢆࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦S㸧 ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦H㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡲ ࡞ᣦᐃ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊⓎヰࡢヰࡋᡭ㸦SS㸧ࠊᣦ♧ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸦SR㸧ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ࣮࣒࣍ ࠊⓎヰࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦HS㸧 ࠊᣦ♧ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦HR㸧 ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ ࣮࣋ࢫ㸦SHB㸧 ࢫ㸦HHB㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⣽࡞࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᣦᐃࡍࡿࠋ 㸦2㸧 ࠕ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࠖ 㸸┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮㸦SS, SR, SHB, HS, HR, HHB㸧ࢆࠊ┤♧ᛶ ࡢᗘྜ࠸࠾࠸࡚ࢫࢣ࣮ࣝࢆ࡞ࡍ㝵ᒙⓗᏑᅾࡋ࡚⨨࡙ࡅࡿࠋ 㸦1㸧ࡢ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢୗ༊ศࡣࠊFillmore ࡢ◊✲ࡽᑟࢀࡿศᯒどⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ ࡣࠊࡉࡽࠊࡑࢀࢆⓎᒎࡉࡏࡓ㸦2㸧ࡢ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࡢศᯒどⅬࢆᥦࡍࡿࠋ 㸰 )LOOPRUH ࡢࠕFRPHJR ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ Fillmore ࡣࠊ୍㐃ࡢ◊✲࡛ಟṇ࣭Ⓨᒎࢆ㔜ࡡࡓᚋ㸦Fillmore㸦1965ࠊ1966ࠊ1975ࠊ1983ࠊ1997ࠊ ➼㸧 㸧 ࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ come/go 㛵ࡋ࡚ḟࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࢆᥦฟࡍࡿ⮳ࡗࡓࠋ 㸦3㸧come/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮㸸come ࡣࠊࠕⓎヰࠖ㸦coding time㸧ࠊࠕᣦ♧ࠖ㸦reference time㸧 ࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⨨ࡢ⛣ືࡸࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫࠖ 㸦home base㸧ࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࢃࢀࡿࠋgo ࡣࠊⓎヰヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸ࡿ⨨ 㸧 ௨እࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࢃࢀࡿ1ࠋ 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 61ࠊ1997: 90-91㸧 1 ࡇࡢཎ๎ຍ࠼࡚ࠊFillmore㸦1997: 98ࠊ99㸧ࡣࠊ㸦i㸧ヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭྠ⾜ࡍࡿ⛣ືࠊ㸦ii㸧ㄒࡾ࠾ࡅ ࡿヰ㢟ࡢே≀㸭ሙᡤࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡶ come ࡀ࠼ࡿ࠸࠺⿵๎ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⏝ࢆୗ −65− ダイクシスにおける直示的中心の階層スケールと語用論 ࡇࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࢆࠊศࡾ᫆࠸ࡼ࠺ࢣ࣮ࢫࡈศࡅ࡚♧ࡍࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡿࠋ come: ࢣ࣮ࢫ 1㸸Ⓨヰヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸ࡿ⨨ࡢ⛣ື ࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸸ᣦ♧ヰࡋᡭࡀ㹹࠸ࡿ/࠸ࡓ㹻⨨ࡢ⛣ື ࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸸ヰࡋᡭࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫࡢ⛣ື ࢣ࣮ࢫ 4㸸Ⓨヰ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠸ࡿ⨨ࡢ⛣ື ࢣ࣮ࢫ 5㸸ᣦ♧⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㹹࠸ࡿ/࠸ࡓ㹻⨨ࡢ⛣ື ࢣ࣮ࢫ 6㸸⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫࡢ⛣ື go: Ⓨヰヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸ࡿ⨨௨እࡢ⛣ື㸦㸻ࢣ࣮ࢫ 1 ௨እ㸧 ⾲㸯 Fillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ༊ศ ࡣࡌࡵࠊ⏝ㄒࡘ࠸࡚ 2 Ⅼ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ1 ࡘࡣࠊᣦ♧࠸࠺⏝ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋFillmore ࡼ ࢀࡤࠊᣦ♧ࡣࠊ ࠕᩥ୰࡛ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡓࡾࠊ↔ⅬࡉࢀࡓⅬࡸ㛫ࠖࡉࢀࡿࠋࡓ࠼ࡤࠊJohn was here last Tuesday.࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧ࡣࠊlast Tuesday ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࠊ↔Ⅼࡉࢀࡓᮍ᮶ࡢⅬ࡛ ࠶ࡿ㸦Fillmore㸦1997: 17㸧㸧ࠋFillmore ࡢ࠸࠺ reference time ࡣࠊReichenbach㸦1947㸧ࡢไㄽ ࠾ࡅࡿ reference time ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊevent time ᑐᛂࡍࡿᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡀࢃࡿࠋcome/go ࡢศᯒ 㛵ࡍࡿ㝈ࡾࠊFillmore ࡢ࠸࠺ᣦ♧ࡣࠕ⛣ືࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ㹹ࡿ㸭ࡓ㹻Ⅼࠖࡳ࡞ࡋ࡚ᕪᨭ࠼࡞ ࠸ࠋ ࡶ࠺ 1 ࡘࡣࠊ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫ࠸࠺⏝ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⏝ㄒࡣࠊኚ⯆῝࠸ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ Fillmore ࡣࡇࢀᑐࡋ࡚᫂☜࡞ᐃ⩏ࢆ࠼࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ⏝ࡽ᥎ᐹࡍࡿࠊヰཧ⪅ࡢࠕ⮬ Ꮿࠖࡀࡑࢀ࠶ࡓࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊcome ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᗈ⠊ᅖ᳨ウࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࠊヰཧ ⪅ࡢࠕົᆅࠖ ࠕฟ㌟ᆅࠖ ࠕᒃఫᆅᇦࠖ ࠕᡤ᭷ᆅࠖ➼ࡶ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫ࡞ࡾᚓࡿࡇࡀࢃࡿࠋᮏ ✏࡛ࡣࠊ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫࢆ㸦Fillmore ࡢᐃࡼࡾࡶ㸧ᗈࡃᤊ࠼ࠊ ࠕヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡗ࡚㛵ࢃࡾ ࡢ῝࠸ሙᡤࠖᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࠋ ࡉ࡚ࠊFillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࢆⓎᒎⓗゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ ࡋ࡚ࠊⓎヰࡢヰࡋᡭ㸦SS㸧ࠊᣦ♧ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸦SR㸧ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫ㸦SHB㸧ࠊⓎヰ ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣋ࢫ㸦HHB㸧ࡢ 6 ࡘࡀᢳฟ࡛ࡁࡿ㸦┤ ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦HS㸧ࠊᣦ♧ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦HR㸧 ࠋ ࡇࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ 1 ࡘࡀ฿╔ᆅᣦᐃࡉࢀ࡚ ♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㞟ྜ㸸 㹙SS, SR, SHB, HR, HS, HHB㹛㸧 ࠸ࢀࡤࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ come ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࠊ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡋ࡚άᛶࡍࡿせ⣲ࢆ ᅖ࠺ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡿࠋ ࢣ࣮ࢫ 1㸸 㹙SS , SR, SHB, HS, HR, HHB㹛 ᣲࡆࡿࠋ 㸦i㸧a. Would you like to {come/go} (along)? b. Can I {come/go} (along)? 㸦Fillmore㸦1997: 97㸧㸧 㸦ii㸧The men came into her bedroom. 㸦cf. *The men came into her bedroom and then came right out again.㸧㸦Fillmore㸦1983: 227㸧㸧 ⚾ぢࡼࢀࡤࠊ㸦i㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭྠ⾜ࡍࡿ⛣ືࡣࠊᣦ♧࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⛣ື㸦ࢣ ࣮ࢫ 2ࠊ5㸧ྵࡵࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࠊ⊂❧ࡋࡓࢱࣉࡋ࡚❧࡚ࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡓ࠼ࡤࠊḟࡢ࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧㸦 ᬌ㸧࠾࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸ࡿணᐃࡢሙᡤ㸦ᫎ⏬㤋㸧ࡀ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡇࡢ⛣ື㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊSR ࡢ⛣ື㸧ࡀ come ࡛ᥥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦iii㸧We’re going to the cinema tonight. Would you like to come with us? 㸦Swan㸦20053: 135㸧㸧 −66− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸸 㹙SS, SR , SHB, HS, HR, HHB㹛 ࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸸 㹙SS, SR, SHB , HS, HR, HHB㹛 ࢣ࣮ࢫ 4㸸 㹙SS, SR, SHB, HS , HR, HHB㹛 ࢣ࣮ࢫ 5㸸 㹙SS, SR, SHB, HS, HR , HHB㹛 ࢣ࣮ࢫ 6㸸 㹙SS, SR, SHB, HS, HR, HHB 㹛 ⾲㸰 ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡋ࡚άᛶࡍࡿ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ ࢣ࣮ࢫ 1 ࡽࢣ࣮ࢫ 6 ヱᙜࡍࡿ come ࡢ⏝ࢆ௨ୗᣲࡆࡿࠋ ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 1㸻SS ࡢ⛣ື㸸ヰࡋᡭࡣⓎヰ฿╔ᆅ࠸ࡿࠒ 㸦4㸧He came here two hours before I arrived. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 55; 1997: 83㸧 㸧 ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸻SR ࡢ⛣ື㸸ヰࡋᡭࡣⓎヰࡣ฿╔ᆅ࠸࡞࠸ࡀᣦ♧ࡣ࠸ࡿࠒ 㸦5㸧He’ll come to the office tomorrow to pick me up. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 59; 1997: 88㸧 㸧 㸦6㸧Carla came to Tahiti to do a commercial while we were holidaying there. 㸦Huddleston and Pullum㸦eds.㸧 㸦2002: 1551㸧 㸧 ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸻SHB ࡢ⛣ື㸸ヰࡋᡭࡣⓎヰࡶᣦ♧ࡶ฿╔ᆅࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠒ 㸦7㸧He came over to my place last night, but I wasn’t home. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 60; 1997: 90㸧㸧 㸦8㸧Jill came round last night but I missed her as I was working late at the office. 㸦Huddleston and Pullum㸦eds.㸧 㸦2002: 1551㸧 㸧 㸦9㸧It’s a pity that John’s coming to the shop tomorrow, when neither of us will be there. 㸦Goddard㸦1998: 207㸧 㸧 ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 4㸸HS ࡢ⛣ື㸸⪺ࡁᡭࡣⓎヰ฿╔ᆅ࠸ࡿࠒ 㸦10㸧I’ll come there right away. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 56; 1997: 84㸧㸧 㸦11㸧A: Doctor, this is your surgery. Please come immediately. There are a lot of patients waiting for you here. B: Yes, I’ll come immediately. Sorry! I overslept. 㸦Leech㸦1989: 80㸧 㸧 ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 5㸻HR ࡢ⛣ື㸸⪺ࡁᡭࡣⓎヰࡣ฿╔ᆅ࠸࡞࠸ࡀᣦ♧ࡣ࠸ࡿࠒ 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 57; 1997: 86㸧 㸧 㸦12㸧I’ll come there at dawn.2 㸧 㸦13㸧What time did I come to see you in the office yesterday? 㸦Swan㸦20053: 135㸧 ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 6㸻HHB ࡢ⛣ື㸸⪺ࡁᡭࡣⓎヰࡶᣦ♧ࡶ฿╔ᆅࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠒ 㸦14㸧I came over to your place last night, but you weren’t home. 㸦Fillmore㸦1997: 90㸧 㸧 㸦15㸧Jill says you were out when she came round to see you last night. 㸦Huddleston and Pullum㸦eds.㸧 㸦2002: 1552㸧 㸧 ୖ࡛ࡣࠊ1 ࡘࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡢㄞࡳ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇࢆ๓ᥦࡋࡓ⏝ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡣ 1 ࡘࡢࡀ」ᩘࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡢㄞࡳ᭕࡞ࡿࡶ࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢࡣ 6 ࡘ࡚ࡢࢣ࣮ࢫゎ㔘ࡀ᭕ ࡞ࡿ⯆῝࠸࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦44㸧John will come to the library next week. 㸦Huang㸦2007: 161㸧㸧 ␃ពࡍࡁࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿゝㄒࡢ COME ືモࡀࡇࢀࡽ࡚ࡢ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࢆཧ↷Ⅼ࡛ࡁࡿࢃࡅ ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡢ⠊ᅖࡣゝㄒẖ࡛␗࡞ࡾᚓࡿࠋ 2 㸦12㸧࠾ࡅࡿ there ࡣࠊ┤♧࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ↷ᛂ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ๓ᩥ⬦࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓᮍ᮶࠾࠸࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡀ ࠸ࡿࡇ࡞ࡿሙᡤࢆᣦࡍ㸦ࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇࡢ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢሙᡤࡣ᫂♧ⓗ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧ࠋ −67− ダイクシスにおける直示的中心の階層スケールと語用論 ࡓ࠼ࡤࠊࢩ࣋‶ᕞㄒࡢ COME ືモ ju ࡣࠊⓎヰ࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ⨨ࡢ⛣ືࡢࡳࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ ࡑࢀ௨እࡢ⛣ືࡣ࡚ GO ືモ gene ࡀᢸ࠺㸦Kubo㸦1997: 21㸧 ࠊ୰⃝㸦2008: 126㸧㸧 ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ COME ືモࡀཧ↷ࡍࡿ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡣࠊSS ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࠼ࡤࠊSR ࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍḟࡢ࡛ࡣࠊ ju ࡣ⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ 㸦16㸧cejan-de ali-me ila-me 㥐-࡛ ᚅࡘ-ᮍ ࠸ࡿ-ᮍ ilaN eriN-de {*ju/gene}. 3 - ᮶࡚㸭⾜ࡗ࡚ ࠕࡣ㥐࡛ᚅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡽࠊ3 㹹᮶࡚㸭*⾜ࡗ࡚㹻 ࠋ ࠖ 㸦୰⃝㸦2008: 125㸧㸧 ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࡴ⠊ᅖࡣࢩ࣋ㄒ⊃ࡃࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦HR, HS, HHB㸧 ࢆࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡢ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡋ࡚ཧ↷ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡢࡣࠊ⛣ືయࡀ➨୕⪅ࡢሙྜ㝈ࡽࢀ㸦୰⃝ 㸦2008: 121㸧 㸧 ࠊ⛣ືయࡀヰࡋᡭࡢሙྜࠊᑡ࡞ࡃࡶࠊ༢ᩥᖹླྀᩥࡢୗ࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ┤♧ⓗ ୰ᚰࡣ࡞ࡾᚓ࡞࠸㸦㸸ࡽࡑࡗࡕ㹹*᮶ࡿ㸭⾜ࡃ㹻ࡡ㸧 ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊྂ௦᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦࡢヰࡋᡭࡢ⛣ືࢆࠕ᮶࡛ࠖ⾲ࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࠊ⛣ືయࡀヰࡋᡭࡢሙྜ࡛ࡶ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰ࡞ࡾᚓࡓ㸦⃝⏣㸦2011ࠊ2012aࠊb㸧㸧ࠋ᪥ᮏࡢすഃᆅᇦࡢ࿘㎶㒊ࡢㅖ᪉ゝ㸦ฟ㞼᪉ ゝࠊ➼㸧࡛ࡶྠᵝࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡀࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊྂ௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㐠⏝ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢṧᏑ ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ⱥㄒࠊࢫ࣌ࣥㄒࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࠊࢺࣝࢥㄒࡢ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモࡢᑐ↷ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ Gathercole㸦1977: 91㸧 ࡣࠊCOME/GO ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࡣゝㄒẖ࡛␗࡞ࡿࡀࠊSS ࡢ⛣ືᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࡢゝㄒࡶ COME ࡢࡳ ࢆ⏝ࡍࡿⅬ࡛ゝㄒ㛫ࡢඹ㏻ᛶࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゝㄒ㢮ᆺㄽⓗどⅬࡽぢࡓሙྜࠊSS ࡢ⛣ືࡀ COME ືモࡢࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ 㸱 )LOOPRUH ࡢࠕFRPHJR ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࡢ㝈⏺ Fillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࡣࠊࢣ࣮ࢫ 1 ࢆ㝖ࡁࠊࢣ࣮ࢫ 2 ࡽࢣ࣮ࢫ 6 ࡛ࡣ come go ࡢ୧᪉ࡀ࠼ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡍࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ௨ୗࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡢ go ࡢ⏝ศᕸࡣࠊࡇࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࡼࡾ 㐺ษᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 1㸸SS ࡢ⛣ືࠒ 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 55; 1997: 84㸧㸧 㸦17㸧They {*went/came} here.3 ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸸SR ࡢ⛣ືࠒ 㸦18㸧He’ll {go/come} to the office tomorrow to pick me up. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 59; 1997: 88㸧 㸧 ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸸SHB ࡢ⛣ືࠒ 㸦19㸧He {went/came over} to my place last night, but I wasn’t home. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 60; 1997: 90㸧㸧 ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 5㸸HR ࡢ⛣ືࠒ 㸦20㸧Can I {go/come} to your office tomorrow at 12:00? 㸦Huang㸦2007: 135㸧㸧 ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 6㸸HHB ࡢ⛣ືࠒ 㸦21㸧I {went/came over} to your place last night, but you weren’t home. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 60, 1997: 90㸧㸧 ࡋࡋࠊFillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮࡛ࠖࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ศᕸࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ 㸦ࢣ࣮ࢫ 4㸧࡛ come ࡶ go ࡶ ➨ 1 ࠊFillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࡣࠊ ࠕHS ࡢ⛣ືࠖ 3 here ࡀⓎヰሙᡤ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᆅᅗୖࡢ୍ᆅⅬࢆᣦࡍࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊhere ࡀࢩࣥ࣎ࣜࢵࢡ⏝ἲ ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢪ࢙ࢫࢳ࣮ࣕ⏝ἲࡢሙྜ㸧ࠊgo ࡶ㐺᱁࡞ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊḟࡢࡢ go ࡣࠊࠕ㏻࠺ࠖࡢព࡛࠶ࡾࠊ┤♧ไ㝈ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊhere ඹ㉳࡛ࡁࡿࠋ 㸦i㸧Do you go to school here?㸦Fillmore㸦1966: 226㸧㸧 −68− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࠼ࡿࡇࢆண ࡍࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡣ go ࡣ࠼࡞࠸㸦ྠᵝࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡢᣦࡀ୰⃝㸦2002: 287㸧 ࠊ Oshima㸦2011: 117㸧ࡶ࠶ࡿ㸧 ࠋ ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 4㸸HS ࡢ⛣ືࠒ 㸦22㸧A: Maria, would you come here, please? B: I’m {coming/*going}. 㸦Swan㸦20053: 109㸧㸧 ➨ 2 ࠊFillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࡣࠊ ࠕSR ࡢ⛣ືࠖ 㸦ࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸧࡛ࡣᖖ come ࡶ go ࡶ࠼ࡿࡇࢆண ࡍࡿࡀࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞࡛ࡣ go ࡀ⮬↛࡞ࡿࠋ 㸦23㸧 㸦ヰࡋᡭࡢᐙ࡛ࡢヰ㸧I’ll be in my office all day long tomorrow. So, please {come/??go} and see me anytime you like. ➨ 3 ࠊFillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖࡣࠊSHB㸭HHB ࡢ⛣ື㸦ࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸭6㸧࡛ come ࡶ go ࡶ࠼ࡿࡇࢆண ࡍࡿࡀࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛ࡣ come ࡣ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸸SHB ࡢ⛣ືࠒ 㸦24㸧 㸦on the phone㸧I’m in New York now on business. Could you please {*come/go} to my house and get the file from my wife? ࠑࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸸SHB ࡢ⛣ື㸭ࢣ࣮ࢫ 6㸸HHB ࡢ⛣ືࠒ 㸦25㸧㸦on the phone㸧 A: I’m at the Chicago O’Hare International Airport now. I’ve forgotten to bring my passport. Could you please {*come/go} to my house and bring it to me? B: OK. I’ll {*come/go} to your house and bring it in an hour. ௨ୗࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࡼࡗ࡚ゎỴ࡛ࡁࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡍࠋ 㸲 ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ 1 ࡽ 6 ࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣࠊ฿╔ᆅࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵㸦┤♧ᛶ㸧ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋࢣ ࣮ࢫ 1㸭4 ࡢ฿╔ᆅࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠸ࡿሙᡤ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ฿╔ᆅࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵 ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗࠸ࠋࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸭5 ࡛ࡣࠊ฿╔ᆅ⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊⓎヰࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ࡛ ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ 㸦ࡑࢀࡽ㞳࣭㐟㞳ࡋࡓᚰീࡋ࡚ࡢ㸧ᣦ♧ࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊヰ ࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ฿╔ᆅࡢ㛵ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡣࢣ࣮ࢫ 1㸭4 ẚࡋ࡚ప࠸ࠋࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸭6 ࡢ฿╔ᆅ ⮳ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊⓎヰࡶᣦ♧ࡶヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ฿╔ᆅࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ 㥆ᰁࡳ࠶ࡿሙᡤ࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࡀಖ㞀ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࠋⱥㄒ ࠾࠸࡚ࠊ฿╔ᆅࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡣࠊḟࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ㸦㸼ᑠ㸧ࢆ࡞ࡍ 㸦㻀S/㻀H ࡣࠊ฿╔ᆅ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡇࢆ♧ࡍ㸧 ࠋ 㸦26㸧┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ㸦ⱥㄒ㸧 㸸 SS㸭HS 㸼 SR㸭HR 㸼 SHB㸭HHB 㸦㸼 㻀S/㻀H㸧 ⯆῝࠸ࡇࠊ฿╔ᆅࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ࡢᗘྜ࠸㸦┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢᗘྜ࠸㸧ࡀపࡃ ࡞ࡿ㸦㝵ᒙࡀୗࡀࡿ㸧ࡘࢀࠊ㑅ᢥࡀḟ➨ come ࡽ go ษࡾ᭰ࢃࡿࠋcome ࡢ┤♧ᛶࡣࠊ ࢣ࣮ࢫ 1㸭4ࠊࢣ࣮ࢫ 2㸭5ࠊࢣ࣮ࢫ 3㸭6 ࡢ㡰ᙅࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ ࠑSS㸭HS ࡢ⛣ືࠒ −69− ダイクシスにおける直示的中心の階層スケールと語用論 㸦27㸧“He {comes/*goes} here to eat every night, don’t he?” “Sometimes he {comes/*goes} here.” 㸦E. Hemingway, The Killers.㸧 㸦28㸧I’ll {come/*go} there right away. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 56; 1997: 84㸧㸧 ࠑSR㸭HR ࡢ⛣ືࠒ 㸦29㸧I’ll be in my office all day long tomorrow. So, please {come/??go} and see me anytime you like. 㸦30㸧He’ll {come/go} to the office tomorrow to pick me up. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 59; 1997: 88㸧㸧 㸦31㸧She’ll {come/go} there to meet you. 㸦Fillmore㸦1975: 59; 1997: 88㸧 㸧 ࠑSHB㸭HHB ࡢ⛣ືࠒ 㸦32㸧He {went/came over} to my place last night, but I wasn’t home. 㸦cf. Fillmore㸦1975: 60; 1997: 90㸧 㸧 㸦33㸧I {went/came over} to your place last night, but you weren’t home. 㸦cf. Fillmore㸦1975: 60, 1997: 90㸧㸧 㸦34㸧A: I’m at the Chicago O'Hare International Airport now. I’ve forgotten to bring my passport. Could you please {*come/go} to my house and bring it to me? B: OK. I’ll {*come/go} to your house and bring it in an hour. ࠑ㻀S/㻀H ࡢ⛣ືࠒ 㸦35㸧Let’s {*come /go} and see Peter and Diane. 㸦cf. Swan㸦20053: 135㸧㸧 㸦36㸧Let’s {*come/go} there. 㸦Fillmore㸦1997:89㸧 㸧 㸧 ➨ 1 ࠊ฿╔ᆅࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ᭱ࡶᙉ࠸ࠕSS㸭HS ࡢ⛣ືࠖࡢሙྜ ࡣࠊcome ࡢࡳࡀ㐺᱁࡞ࡾࠊgo ࡣཝࡋࡃᢚไࡉࢀࡿࠋ ➨ 2 ࠊ฿╔ᆅࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀࠕSS㸭HS ࡢ⛣ືࠖẚࡋ࡚ᙅ࠸ࠕSR 㸭HR ࡢ⛣ືࠖࡢሙྜࡣࠊ ࠕSS㸭HS ࡢ⛣ືࠖࡣ go ࡢ⏝ࡣཝࡋࡃᢚไࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡓ ࡔࡋࠊ 㸦29㸧ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ⛣ືࡢ╔Ⅼ㡯ࡢ⨨ヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ⮬㌟ࡀ❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡣࠊࡑ࠺ ࡛࡞࠸ሙྜẚࡋ࡚ࠊ฿╔ᆅࡢヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ┦ᑐⓗᙉ࠸ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࠊ go ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡣୗࡀࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋ ➨ 3 ࠊ ࠕSHB㸭HHB ࡢ⛣ືࠖࡢሙྜࡣࠊ฿╔ᆅࡀヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭ㥆ᰁࡳ࠶ࡿሙᡤ࠸ ࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࡀಖ㞀ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊgo ࡢ⏝ࡣᢚไࡉࢀ ࡞࠸ࠋሙྜࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ 㸦34㸧ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊgo ࡢࡳࡀ㐺᱁࡞ࡿ≧ἣࡉ࠼Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋ 㸦34㸧࡛ࡣࠊ SS㸭HS㸦㸿Ặࡢ⌧ᅾᆅ㸧ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝࡼࡾࠊ┤♧ⓗ 㸦33㸧ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊSS㸭HS ࡀ ୰ᚰࡋ࡚ SS㸭HS ࡀ SHB㸭HHB ඃඛࡉࢀࡿࠋSHB㸭HHB ࡣࠊ㸦32㸧ࠊ ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸦ࡲࡓࡣࠊၥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࡢࡳࠊ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰ࡞ࢀࡿࠕᙅ࠸ࠖᏑ ᅾ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ➨ 4 ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࡢ฿╔ᆅࡢ㛵ࡀࡃ࡞࠸ࠕ㻀S/㻀H ࡢ⛣ືࠖࡢሙྜࡣࠊgo ࡢࡳࡀ㐺᱁࡞ࡾࠊcome ࡢ⏝ࡣཝࡋࡃᢚไࡉࢀࡿࠋ 㸦35㸧 ࠊ 㸦36㸧࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࣭⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠕໟ ྵⓗ weࠖ 㸦inclusive we㸧ࡋ࡚ඹ⛣ືయ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊヰࡋᡭ࣭⪺ࡁᡭࡀ⛣ື ࡢ฿╔ᆅᐃࡉࢀࡎࠊcome ࡣ⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺ࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ 㸦26㸧ࡢ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢ㝵ᒙࢫࢣ࣮ࣝᛂࡌ࡚ࠊcome/go ࡢศᕸ㛵ಀ ࡀỴࡲࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋFillmore ࡢࠕcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥཎ⌮ࠖ࠾࠸࡚⏕ࡌࡿၥ㢟Ⅼࡣࠊ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࢆ㝵 ᒙⓗ⨨࡙ࡅࡿࡇࡼࡗ࡚ゎỴࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ 㸳 ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモ FRPHJR ࡢ㑅ᢥㄒ⏝ㄽ SR㸭HRࠊSHB㸭HHB ࡢ⛣ືࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣࠊಶูⓗせᅉࡼࡾ come/go ࡢ㑅ᢥࡀ୍⩏ⓗ࡞ࡿ ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ₯ᅾⓗࡣ come go ࡢ୧᪉ࡀ⌧ࢀᚓࡓࠋ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࠊcome ࢆ㑅 ᢥࡋࡓሙྜ go ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࡓሙྜ࡛ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ពࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ฿╔ −70− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ᆅ㏆࡙ࡃ⛣ືࢆ↔Ⅼࡍࡿ㸦㸻฿╔ᆅᣦྥⓗ㸧ࠊฟⓎᆅࡽ㞳ࢀࡿ⛣ືࢆ↔Ⅼࡍࡿࠊࡲ ࡓࡣࠊ⛣ືࢆ୰❧ⓗᥥࡍࡿ㸦㸻㠀฿╔ᆅᣦྥⓗ㸧࠸࠺ come go ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ពⓗ┦ 㐪ࡀᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢពⓗ┦㐪ࡣࠊcome/go ࡢ㑅ᢥ࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡁ⯆῝࠸ ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ┦㐪ࢆ⏕ࡴࡇࡀ࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺㸦୧ࡶࠊHR ࡢ⛣ືࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࢆ⾲ ࡍ㸧 ࠋ 㸦37㸧Oh, you’re acting in Othello tomorrow night, are you?—I’ll {come/go} and watch you from the gallery. 㸦Brown and Levinson㸦1978: 122㸧㸧 㸦38㸧I’m {coming/going} to your graduation. 㸦Radden and Dirven㸦2007: 24㸧㸧 Brown and Levinson㸦1978: 122㸧ࡣࠊ 㸦37㸧࡛ࡢ go ࡢ⏝ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡋ࡚ࠕኚኻ♩࡛♩ ࢆࢃࡁࡲ࠼࡞࠸ࠖ 㸦very rude or non-courteous㸧ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡋࠊRadden and Dirven㸦2007: 24㸧 ࡣࠊ 㸦38㸧࡛ࡢ go ⏝ࡣࠊࠕ୰❧ⓗࠖ 㸦neutral㸧ࢽࣗࣥࢫࢆ♧ࡍࠊሙྜࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ㸦ࡓ࠼ ࡤࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ♩እࢀࡓ↓సἲ㸦misbehaving㸧࡞⾜࠸ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡛▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿே≀࡛࠶ࡿ ࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࡣ㸧ࢇ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡍࡿࠕ⬣㏕ࠖ 㸦threatening㸧࡞ࡿ࠸࠺ࠋၥ㢟ࡣࠊࡇࢀ ࡽࡢ࠾ࡅࡿ go ࡢ⏝ࡀࠊ࡞ࡐࠊ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡍࡿኻ♩ࡉࡸ⬣㏕ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࡢ࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢ❧ሙࡽࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊgo ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊ฿╔ᆅ㸻 ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ᚰࡣ┦ᑐⓗᕼⷧ࡞ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᬕࢀࡢ⯙ྎ㸦බ₇ࠊ༞ᴗᘧ㸧㛵ᚰࢆྥࡅࡎࠊ ⮬㌟ࡢ⛣ືࡢࡳࢆၥ㢟ࡍࡿࡇࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㢳៖ḞࡅࡓⓎゝཷࡅࡽࢀࡓࡾࠊ⮬ᕫ୰ ᚰⓗ࡛㌟ᡭ࡞ࡿ⯙࠸ࡋ࡚ཷࡅྲྀࡽࢀࡡ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ࡛ࡣࠊ฿╔ᆅࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᬕࢀ ࡢ⯙ྎࡋ࡚タᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ≧ἣタᐃࡀ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡍࡿ࣏ࣥࣛࢺ࡞ ຠᯝ㸦ኻ♩ࡉࠊ➼㸧ࢆຓ㛗ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ຠᯝࡣࠕㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊ࢟ࣕ ࣥࢭࣝྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋS ࡽ HR ࡢ⛣ືࢆ go ࡛⾲ࡍࡇࡀᖖ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡋ࡚࣏ࣥࣛࢺ ࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ ୍᪉࡛ࠊୖࡢぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ H ࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍ come ࡣࠊ 㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬ❧ࡘࡓࡵ㸧 ⪺ࡁᡭࡢඹឤ㸦sympathetic㸧ࢆ⾲ࡍ࣏ࢪࢸࣈ࣭࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࢆᫎࡋࡓ⏝ἲࡉࢀࡿࡇ ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦Brown and Levinson㸦1978: 121㸧 ࠊRadden㸦1996: 430㸧 ࠊRadden and Dirven㸦2007: 24㸧 ➼ࢆཧ↷㸧 ࠋ☜ࠊcome ࡢ⏝ࡼࡾࠊ฿╔ᆅ㸻⪺ࡁᡭ㛵ᚰࡀྥࡅࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊgo ࢆ㑅ᢥ ࡍࡿሙྜࡼࡾࡶ⪺ࡁᡭࡢඹឤࡀ㔊ᡂࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸࠸࠺㠃ࡣ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋࡋࠊHS ࡢ⛣ື㸦ࢣ ࣮ࢫ 4㸧࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡶࡑࡶ come ࡋ㑅ᢥࡢవᆅࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ⛣ືࡢ≧ἣ࡛ᖖ⪺ࡁᡭࡢඹឤࡀ క࠺㸦ࡲࡓࡣࠊඹឤᛶࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ࢽ࣮ࣗࢺࣛࣝ࡞⛣ືࡀᥥ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸㸧ࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ⾲⌧ୖᴟ ࡵ࡚㒔ྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢඹឤࡀకࢃ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ H ࡢ⛣ື࡛ come ࡣ࠼ࡿࠋ ࡓ࠼ࡤࠊḟࡢ࡛ヰࡋᡭࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢඹឤࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢᩥయࡢ ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ㸦speech act㸧ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡍࡿࠕ⬣㏕ࠖࡔࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦39㸧If you don’t be quiet, I’ll come over there and sort you out. 㸦Huddleston and Pullum㸦eds.㸧 㸦2002: 1553㸧㸧 come ࡢ⏝࠾࠸࡚⏕ࡌᚓࡿ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡍࡿඹឤࡶࡲࡓࠊ࢟ࣕࣥࢭࣝྍ⬟࡞ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࡞ ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋcome/go ࡢ┤♧ⓗពࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ⏝ࡼࡗ࡚ḟⓗ⏕ࡌᚓࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡸ࣏ࣛ ࢺࢿࢫࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡢពࡣ᫂☜༊ูࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ 㸴 ࠾ࢃࡾ ᚋࠊᮏ◊✲࡛⾜ࡗࡓⱥㄒࡢ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモࡢศᯒࢆᅵྎࡋ࡚ࠊゝㄒࡢ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモ ࡢᑐ↷◊✲࣭㢮ᆺㄽ◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡢୗ༊ศ㝵ᒙࡢどⅬ ࡣࠊࡑࡢ㝿ࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᅵྎ࡞ࡿᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢศᯒἲࡣࠊ┤♧ⓗ㐠ᦙືモ bring/take −71− ダイクシスにおける直示的中心の階層スケールと語用論 ࡶ㐺⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿゝ࠼ࡿࠋᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ 㹙グ㹛 ⏝ࡢุ᩿㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒࡢẕㄒヰ⪅㸦࢝ࣜࣇ࢛ࣝࢽᕞฟ㌟㸧࡛࠶ࡿ Richard Cleveland Ặ㸦㛵 すእᅜㄒᏛ㸧ࡽከࡃࡢ᭷┈࡞ࡈᣦࢆᚓࡓࠋẶࡢࡈ༠ຊឤㅰࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fillmore, Charles. J. 1965. Entailment Rules in a Semantic Theory. The Ohio State University Project on Linguistic Analysis. Report No. 10. 60-82. Fillmore, Charles. J. 1966. Deictic Categories in the Semantics of ‘COME’. Foundations of Language. 2: 269-227. Fillmore, Charles. J. 1975. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis 1971. Indiana: Indiana University Linguistic Club. Fillmore, Charles. J. 1983. How to Know Whether You’re Coming or Going (Reprint). In: Rauh, Gisa (ed.) Essays on Deixis. 219-227. Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen. Fillmore, Charles. J. 1997. Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Gathercole, Virginia. C. 1977. A Study of the Comings and Goings of the Speaker of Four Languages: Spanish, Japanese, English, and Turkish. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics. 2: 61-94. Goddard, Cliff. 1998. Semantic Analysis: A Practical Intruduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.) 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kubo, Tomoyuki. 1997. “Come” and “Go” in Sive Manchu. Saksaha: A Review of Manchu Studies. 2: 19-24. Leech, Geoffrey N. 1989. An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage. London: Edward Arnold. ୰⃝ᜏᏊ. 2008.ࠕ“come”ࡀࠕ᮶ࡿ࡛ࠖ࡞࠸ࡁʊ┤♧⛣ືືモࡢᬑ㐢ᛶከᵝᛶʊࠖ㛗㇂ᕝᑑ୍࣭C㸬࣐࣮࣭ࣛࣝ ఀ⸨ࡓࡡ㸦⦅㸧 ࠗࡇࡇࢁゝⴥʊ㐍ㄆ▱⛉Ꮫࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳʊ࠘113-127. ᮾி: ᮾிᏛฟ∧. Oshima, David Yoshikazu. 2011. Perspectives in Reported Discourse: The De Re/De Dicto Distinction, Indexicality, and Presupposition. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller GmbH 㸤 Co. KG. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Radden, Günter. 1996. Motion Metaphorized: The Case of Coming and Going. In: Eugene H. Casad (ed.) Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods. 425-458. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Radden, Günter and René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press. ⃝⏣῟. 2011.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢲࢡࢩࢫ⾲⌧どⅬࠊほᛶࠖ⃝⏣⨾㸦⦅㸧ࠗࡦࡘࡌពㄽㅮᗙ㸳 ほᛶయ ᛶ࠘165-192. ᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ. ⃝⏣῟. 2012a.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࢲࢡࢩࢫࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ◊✲ࠖ༤ኈㄽᩥࠊி㒔Ꮫ. ⃝⏣῟. 2012b.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモ㛵ࡍࡿṔྐⓗ◊✲ʊ୰ྂᩥ㈨ᩱࢆ୰ᚰʊࠖKLS. 32: 97-108. 㛵 すゝㄒᏛ Swan, Michael. 20053. Practical English Usage.Oxford: Oxford University Press. ᒣཱྀᙪ. 2002.ࠕ┤♧ືモᑐヰ✵㛫̿ⱥㄒࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࠊࡑࡋ࡚ᕞ᪉ゝࢆࡶ̿ࠖ ࠗ⚄ᡞㄽྀ࠘53(3): 51-70. −72− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ᥎ㄽࡼࡿᐃᣦ♧ࡘ࠸࡚㸫᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡢゎ㔘㸫 ᮡᒣࡉࡸி㒔ᏛᏛ㝔⏕ [email protected] <Abstract> The function of Japanese demonstrative 'so' is an unsettled issue within Japanese linguistics. The purpose of this paper is to examine usages of Japanese demonstratives 'so' which do not have their antecedents in the previous sentences and refer to somewhat indefinite entities. Their interpretations are similar to 'covariant interpretation' in Hoji et al (2003). The problem is that they have no quantifier. This paper suggests the concept of 'covert quantifier which works on situation'. Basically, 'So-NPs(noun phrases)' refers to just one entity in each situation. At the same time, however, covert quantifiers work to refer multiple situations interacting with other linguistic or non-linguistic factors. As a result, the sets of referents are construed in our mind. >࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ@ ↷ᛂࠊ≧ἣᑐࡍࡿ㔞ࠊ⥲⛠ᩥࠊࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ 1㸬 ࡣࡌࡵ 㻝㸬ࡣࡌࡵ㻌 ࢯ⣔ࡼࡿ↷ᛂࡢ୰ࡣࠊඛ⾜モࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡢ㛵ಀࡀ┤᥋⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᒣ 㻔㻝㻥㻥㻞㻕ࡢᣦࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ┤๓ࡢⓎヰෆᐜࢆࡶࡋࡓ᥎ㄽࡼࡿࡶࡢࡶከࡃぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻝㻕 ࡦ᭶୍ᗘࠊࡅ≀ࡀᒣࡽୗࡾ࡚ࡁ࡚ࠊ⏫ࡢፉࢆࡉࡽࡗ࡚࠸ࡁࡲࡍࠋኪࡣ⚾ࡢ␒࡞ࡢ ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡀᝒࡋࡃ࡚Ἵ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ 㻔ࡑࢀ㻩⚾ࡀࡉࡽࢃࢀࡿࡇ㻕 㻔ᒣ 㻝㻥㻥㻞㻦㼜㻚㻞㻞㻕㻌 㻌 ᚑ᮶ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ↷ᛂ᥎ㄽࡀᅾࡍࡿሙྜࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦ࢯ⣔ࡢ㛫㊥㞳ࡀ࠶ࡿྠ୍ᣦ♧ゎ 㔘࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㻔ᗡ 㻞㻜㻜㻤 ࡞㻕ࠋࡲࡓࠊ୍⯡ࠊ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ ࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡢ⏝ࡣⓎヰ⌧ሙᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡉ ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊḟࡢ㻔㻞㻕㻙㻔㻡㻕ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦↓ࡋࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓࢆほᐹࡍࡿ ࡇࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻞㻕 ⫱ඣࡢ⛎ジࡣࠊࡑࡢᏊࡢಶᛶࢆఙࡤࡍࡇࡔࠋ㻌 㻔㻟㻕 ࡑࡢሙᛂࡌ࡚ᶵ㌿ࢆࡍࠋ㻌 㻔㻠㻕 㻨ࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌ࢱࢺࣝ㻪 ࡑࡢࠊṔྐࡀື࠸ࡓࠋ㻌 㻔㻡㻕 㻨⤖፧ሗㄅࡢᗈ࿌ᩥ㻪 㼍㻚ࡑࡢᙼࡣ 㼎㻚ࡑࡢே㸽㻌 㻌 ࡇࡢሙྜࠊ⌧ሙᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡃࡃࠊࡲࡓඛ⾜モࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡢ㛵ಀࡀゝㄒୖ᫂ ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ⌧ሙᣦ♧࡛ࡶࠊᩥ⬦ᣦ♧࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ▱㆑㻔ຍ⸨ 㻞㻜㻜㻠㻕ࡽࡢ −73− 推論による不定指示について−日本語のソ系指示詞の解釈− ㄝ᫂ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲ㢮ఝࡋࡓࡣࠊᮤ㻔㻞㻜㻜㻞㻕࡛ࡣࠕ㝈ᐃࠖࠊᒸ㷂㻔㻞㻜㻝㻜㻕࡛ࡣ ࠕ᭕ᣦ♧⾲⌧ࠖࡤࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣ㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫㻔㻞㻜㻜㻞㻕࡛ࠕ༏ྡᣦ♧ࠊ✵ḍᣦ♧ࠖ ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕ㼘㼛㼓㼛 ᣦ♧ࠖࡤࢀࡿ⏝ἲ㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊࡇࡢ⏝ἲᑐࡋࠊ≧ἣ ᑐࡍࡿ㔞࠸࠺⪃࠼ࢆᑟධࡍࡿࡇ࡛⤫୍ⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࢆ࠼ࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻞㸬ඛ⾜◊✲ࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼ㻌 㻞㻚㻝 ᮤ㻔㻞㻜㻜㻞㻕ࠊᒸᓮ㻔㻞㻜㻝㻜㻕㻌 ᮤ㻔㻞㻜㻜㻞㻕࡛ࡣࠊࢯ⣔ࡢ࿘⦕ⓗ࡞ࡋ࡚ࠕࡑࡢ᫇ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞័⏝ྃⓗ࡞⏝ἲࠊ㻔㻢㻕ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻢㻕 ࡶࡕࢁࢇㄡ࡛ࡶேࡢᖾྠࡋ࡞࠸⪅ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢁࡀࠊࡑࡢேࡀࡑࡢᖾࢆ࠺ࡋ ࡚ษࡾᢤࡅࡿࠊᗘࡣࡇࡗࡕࡀ≀㊊ࡾ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ᚰࡶࡕࡀࡍࡿࠋ 㻔ᮤ 㻞㻜㻜㻞㻦㼜㼜㻚㻟㻞㻙㻟㻟㻕㻌 㻌 ࡇࡢാࡁᑐࡋࠊᮤࡣࠕࡑࢀ⮬㌟ᚋ⥆ྡモྃࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆᣦ♧ࡣࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑࢀࢆ㝈ᐃࡍࡿാࡁ ࡀඃໃ࠶ࡽࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ㻔㼜㻚㻟㻞㻙㻟㻟㻕ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕࡑࡢேࠖࡣࠕᖾ࡞ቃ㐝࠶ࡿே࡛ࠖ࠶ ࢀࡤࡼࡃࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣ၏୍ⓗྠᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊྠᐃྍ⬟࡞㞟ྜࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ ࠕ࡞ྠᐃྍ⬟ᛶࠖࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᮤࡢࡣࠊᒸ㷂㻔㻞㻜㻝㻜㻕࡛ࡣࠊ ᭕ᣦ♧⾲⌧࠸࠺ྡ๓ࡀ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ࠺ࡋ࡚ᐃゎ㔘ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢ ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⪃ᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ㻌 㻌 㻞㻚㻞 㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫㸦㻞㻜㻜㻞㸧㻌 㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫㻔㻞㻜㻜㻞㻕࡛ࡣࠊ㠀┤♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࡘ㠀౫Ꮡⓗ࡞ࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡢ⏝ἲࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᣦࡀ ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍ࡘࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ㼘㼛㼓㼛㼜㼔㼛㼞㼕㼏 ᣦ♧⏝ἲࠖࡼࡤࢀࡿ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻣㻕 ࡑࡢ᪥ࡀఱࡢ᪥▱ࡗ࡚࠸࡚࠸ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢࠊ⚾ࡀ᪑ඛ࡛╔࠸ࡓ᪥ࡀ᭷ྡ࡞⚍ࡾࡸ ⾜ࡢᙜ᪥ࡔࡗࡓ࠸࠺ࡇࡀࡼࡃ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㸦㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫ 㻞㻜㻜㻞㻘㻌㼜㻚㻞㻞㻡㸧㻌 㻌 ࡇࢀࡣࠊᘬ⏝⠇ࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ῝ࡃ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࢀࡣู⌧௦ㄒ࡛ࡣࠕㄡࡑࢀࠖ ࠕࡇࡑࡇࠖ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞័⏝ྃࡋṧࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠕ༏ྡᣦ♧ࠖࡸࠕ✵ḍᣦ♧ࠖࡤࢀࡿᶵ ⬟ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㻔㻤㻕ࡸ㻔㻥㻕࡞ࡶࠊ༏ྡᣦ♧ࠊ✵ḍᣦ♧࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ 㼘㼛㼓㼛 ᣦ♧⏝ἲ㐃⥆ࡍࡿ⾲ ⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻤㻕 ࡑࡢ᪥ࡢẼศ࡛║㙾ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠋ㻌 㻔㻥㻕 ࡑࡢሙࡋࡢࡂ 㸦㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫ 㻞㻜㻜㻞㻘㻌㼜㻚㻞㻞㻢㸧㻌 㻌 −74− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ᮏ✏ෑ㢌࡛ᣲࡆࡓ㻔㻞㻕㻙㻔㻡㻕ࡢࡣࠊᘬ⏝⠇ࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࠕ㼘㼛㼓㼛㼜㼔㼛㼞㼕㼏 ᣦ♧ ⏝ἲࠖࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ័⏝࡛ྃࡶ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠕ༏ྡᣦ♧ࠖࡸࠕ✵ḍᣦ♧ࠖࡶ࠸࠼࡞࠸ࠋ㻔㻤㻕 ࡸ㻔㻥㻕ࡢ⏝ἲ㏆࠸⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࠕ㐃⥆ⓗࠖ࠸࠺ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆᨭ࠼ࡿཎ⌮ࡋ࡚ࠊ㔠Ỉ㻔㻝㻥㻥㻥㻕ࡢศ㓄ㄞࡳ࠸࠺⪃࠼ࠊ㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸ ᓮ࣭᭫㸦㻞㻜㻜㻞㸧࡛ࡶゐࢀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 㻴㼛㼖㼕㻌㼑㼠㻌㼍㼘㻚㻔㻞㻜㻜㻟㻕㻌 ࡢ㻌 㼏㼛㼢㼍㼞㼕㼍㼚㼠㻌㼕㼚㼠㼑㼞㼜㼞㼑㼠㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㸦㐃ືㄞࡳࠊୖᒣ 㻞㻜㻜㻜ࠊ⏣❑ 㻞㻜㻜㻤㸧㻌 ࠸࠺⪃࠼ࢆཧ⪃ࡋࡘࡘ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻞㻚㻟 㻴㼛㼖㼕㻌㼑㼠㻌㼍㼘㻚㻔㻞㻜㻜㻟㻕 㻌 㐃ືㄞࡳ㸦㼏㼛㼢㼍㼞㼕㼍㼚㼠㻌㼕㼚㼠㼑㼞㼜㼞㼑㼠㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㸧㻔ୖᒣ 㻞㻜㻜㻜㻘㻌㻴㼛㼖㼕㻌㼑㼠㻌㼍㼘㻚㻞㻜㻜㻟㻕ࡣࠊᣦ♧モࡢࠕゎ㔘ࡀ୍ࡘỴ ࡲࡽ࡞࠸⏝ἲࠖࡢࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 ḟࡢ࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡢ┴ࠖࡢ್㐃ືࡋ࡚ࠕࡑࡢ┴ࠖࡢ್ࡀỴᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻝㻜㻕 ࡢ┴ࡢ⫋ဨࡀࡑࡢ┴ࡢ᮲୍␒㏻ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ➇࠸ྜࡗ࡚ࡳࡲࡋࡻ࠺ࠋ㻔ୖᒣ 㻞㻜㻜㻜㻦㻝㻣㻟㻌㻕㻌 㻌 ࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡢࡳぢࡽࢀࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ㻌 㻙㻺㻼 ࡸࢥ㻙㻺㻼 ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ≉ᐃࡢ ᣦ♧≀ࢆ⾲ࡍゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣ≉Ṧ࡞⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊཝࡋ࠸ไ⣙ࡀㄢࡉࢀࡿࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑ ࡢ᮲௳ࡣࠊࠕ㸦㻝㸧㻼㻲 ᵓ㐀࡛ඛ⾜ࡍࡿゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࠊࡲࡓࡣ㸦㻞㸧㻸㻲 ᵓ㐀࡛ࡢ 㼏㸫⤫ᚚࢆ‶ࡓࡍ ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࢆᚲせࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 ࡓࡔࡋࠊ㸦㻞㸧㻙㸦㻡㸧ࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢ᮲௳ࡣᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢᴫᛕࢆᣑᙇࡋࠊ ࠕ≧ἣᑐࡍࡿ㔞ࠖࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡛ゎỴࢆヨࡳࡿࠋࢯ㻙㻺㻼 ࡣᩘ㔞⾲⌧ࢆక࠺ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞ ࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊ㞟ྜࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿㄞࡳ᪉ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㻌 㻌 㻟㸬₯ᅾⓗ㔞 㻙 ᐃࡢゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒㻌 ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ࠺ࡋ࡚㻔㻞㻕ࡸ㻔㻠㻕ࡢࠕࡑࡢ㸩ྡモྃࠖࡀ≉ᐃࡢ≀ࢆᣦࡍゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ ≉ᐃᛶࢆᣢࡘゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ₯ᅾⓗ࡞ 㔞Ꮚ㸦㼏㼛㼢㼑㼞㼠㻌㼝㼡㼍㼚㼠㼕㼒㼕㼑㼞㻕㻌 ࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ₯ᅾⓗ㔞Ꮚࡣࠊᩘ㔞⾲⌧ࡀᩥྵࡲ ࢀࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᵝࠎ࡞᮲௳ࡼࡗ࡚ാࡃࠋ㻌 ࡲࡎࠊᮤ㸦㻞㻜㻜㻞㸧࡛ᣲࡆࡽࢀࡓࢆඖ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻝㻝㻕 ࡶࡕࢁࢇㄡ࡛ࡶேࡢᖾྠࡋ࡞࠸⪅ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢁࡀࠊࡑࡢேࡀࡑࡢᖾࢆ࠺ࡋ ࡚ษࡾᢤࡅࡿࠊᗘࡣࡇࡗࡕࡀ≀㊊ࡾ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ᚰࡶࡕࡀࡍࡿࠋ㻔㻩㻔㻢㻕㻕 㻌 㻌 ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࠕㄡ࡛ࡶ㹼࡞࠸⪅ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࠸࠺ᩘ㔞モࢆྵࡴ୍⯡ㄽࢆ㏙ࡿᩥࢱࣉࡢ࡞࡛ࠕࡑ ࡢேࠖࡀࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀ₯ᅾⓗ㔞Ꮚࡀാࡃゝㄒ⎔ቃࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡼࡾࠊ≧ἣࡀ 㔞ࡉࢀࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞㞟ྜࡀᚰⓗࣔࢹࣝෆᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 −75− 推論による不定指示について−日本語のソ系指示詞の解釈− ≧ἣ 㻝 ே 㻭 㸫 ྠࡉࢀࡓᖾ࡞ே 㻭 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ≧ἣ 㻞 ே 㻮 㸫 ྠࡉࢀࡓᖾ࡞ே 㻮㻌 ≧ἣ 㻟 ே 㻯 㸫 ྠࡉࢀࡓᖾ࡞ே 㻯㻌 ࣭࣭࣭㻌 㻌 ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ≧ἣࡣࠊࠕྠࡉࢀࡿᖾ࡞ࠖ࠸࠺ᒓᛶࢆᣢࡗࡓேࡀ୍ேྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≧ἣ ࢆᅛᐃࡍࡿࠊࠕࡑࡢேࠖࡣ≉ᐃࡢ್ࢆᣢࡘಶయࢆᣦࡍࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ≧ἣࡀ୍⯡ㄽࢆ㏙ࡿᩥ⬦ ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡛㔞ࡉࢀࠊ」ᩘࡢ≧ἣࢆᣦࡍࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࡋ࡚ࠊࠕㄡྠࡉࢀࡿேࠖ ࡢ㞟ྜࡀᚰⓗࣔࢹࣝෆᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻌 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺≧ἣᑐࡋ࡚₯ᅾⓗ࡞㔞モࡀാࡃ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡛ࠊᩘ㔞モࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠕᣦ♧ ᑐ㇟ࡢᐃゎ㔘ࠖࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡇࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡀࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࢀࡤ ࠸ࡘ࡛ࡶ≧ἣᑐࡍࡿ㔞ࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ≧ἣᑐࡍࡿ㔞モࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡓࡵࡣ ࠸ࡃࡘࡢ᮲௳ࡀ࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋḟ⠇ࡽࡣࠊࡑࡢ᮲௳ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻠㸬₯ᅾⓗ㔞ࡀാࡃࡓࡵࡢ᮲௳㻌 㻠㻚㻝 ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ㻌 ෑ㢌࡛ᣲࡆࡓ㻔㻞㻕ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻝㻞㻕 ⫱ඣࡢ⛎ジࡣࠊࡑࡢᏊࡢಶᛶࢆఙࡤࡍࡇࡔࠋ㻔㸻㸦㻞㸧㻕㻌 㻌 ࡇࡢࡣࠊ㻔㻝㻝㻕ࡼࡾࡶ」㞧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ⫱ඣ࠸࠺ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡽࠕᏊࠖ࠸࠺せ⣲ࡀᑟࡁฟ ࡉࢀࡿ㻔㐃↷ᛂ㻕ࠋḟࠊࠕ㹼ࡍࡿࡇࡔࠖ࠸࠺୍⯡ㄽࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿᩥᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡛ࠊ₯ ᅾⓗ㔞モࡀാࡁࠊ≧ἣࡀ」ᩘࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻔㻝㻝㻕ྠᵝࠊࡦࡘࡦࡘࡢ≧ἣ╔┠ࡍࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ≉ ᐃࡢ್ࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢࡢࠊ≧ἣࡀ」ᩘ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ㞟ྜࢆᣦࡍࡇ࡞ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 ≧ἣ 㻝 ⫱ඣ 㻭 㸫 Ꮚ 㻭 㻌 ≧ἣ 㻞 ⫱ඣ 㻮 㸫 Ꮚ 㻮 㻌 ≧ἣ 㻟 ⫱ඣ 㻯 㸫 Ꮚ 㻯㻌 ࣭࣭࣭㻌 㻌 ḟࠊ₯ᅾⓗ㔞モࡀാࡃࡓࡵࡢ᮲௳ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㸦㻝㻞㸧ࡢሙྜࠊࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡀಟ㣭ࡍ ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡣࠊ≧ἣྵࡲࢀࡿಶయ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ≧ἣ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋḟࡢࡼ࠺ࠊࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡀ ಟ㣭ࡍࡿྡモྃࢆኚ࠼ࡿ↷ᛂࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡓ࡞࠸ࠋ 㸦㻏࣐࣮ࢡࡣࠊ≉ᐃゎ㔘ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇࢆ⾲ࡍ㸧㻌 㻌 㻔㻝㻟㻕 㻏 ࡑࡢ⫱ඣࡢ⛎ジࡣࠊᏊࡢಶᛶࢆఙࡤࡍࡇࡔࠋ㻌 㻌 −76− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 㻠㻚㻞 ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ ձ ࠕࡑࡢ᪥ࠖࠕࡑࡢࠖࠕࡑࡢሙࠖ㻌 ඛ⾜ࡍࡿゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊ㐃ືㄞࡳࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୍ࡘࡣࠊࠕ᪥ࠖࡸ ࠕሙࠖࠊࠕࠖ࡞ࡀ⿕ಟ㣭ྡモྃࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻝㻠㻕 ࡑࡢ᪥ࡢẼศ࡛║㙾ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠋ㻌 㻔㻝㻡㻕 ࡑࡢሙᛂࡌ࡚ᶵ㌿ࢆࡍࠋ㻌 㻌 ࡇࡢሙྜࡣࠊ㻔㻝㻟㻕ࡢࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊࠕ᪥ࠖࠕሙࠖ࡞ࡢㄒࡣ㛫ⓗ࣭✵㛫ⓗពࢆᣢࡘࡓࡵࠊ ࡑࢀ⮬య࡛≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡍ⪃࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞㞟ྜᙧᡂࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ⪃࠼ ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࡶࠊ࠶ࡿ≧ἣࢆᅛᐃࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࠊ≉ᐃࡢ᪥ࠊ≉ᐃࡢሙࡀ࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 ≧ἣ 㻝 㸫 ࡑࡢ᪥㸦ሙ㸧㻌 ≧ἣ 㻞 㸫 ࡑࡢ᪥㸦ሙ㸧㻌 ≧ἣ 㻟 㸫 ࡑࡢ᪥㸦ሙ㸧㻌 ࣭࣭࣭㻌 㻌 ࡇࡢሙྜࠊ㠀ಟ㣭ྡモࡣࠊࢀ࡛ࡶࡼ࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࠕሙ㺃㛫ࠖ࡞ࡢ㒊ศࢆ┬ࡃ㐃ືㄞ ࡳ࡛ࡁࡎࠊ≉ᐃࡢ≀ࢆ↷ᛂࡍࡿᩥ࡞ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻝㻢㻕 㻏 ࠶ࡿ᪥ࡢẼศ࡛ࡑࡢ᭹ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠋ㻌 㻔㻝㻣㻕 㻏 ሙᛂࡌ࡚ࡑࡢᶵ㌿ࢆࡍࠋ㻌 㻌 ࡲࡓࠊࠕ㛫㺃ሙᡤ࡛ࠖ࠶ࢀࡤࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྡモ࡛ࡶࡼ࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋḟࡢࡼ࠺ࠕ᪥ࠖ࠶ࡿ ࠸ࡣࠕሙᡤࠖࡣࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓㄞࡳࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻝㻤㻕 㻏 ࡑࡢ᪥ࡢẼศ࡛᭹ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠋ㻌 㻔㻝㻥㻕 㻏 ࡑࡢሙᡤᛂࡌ࡚ᶵ㌿ࢆࡍࠋ㻌 㻌 ࡲࡓࠊࠕࡑࡢ᪥ࠖࡸࠕࡑࡢሙࠖࡢሙྜࡣࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻞㻜㻕 ࡑࡢ᪥ࡑࡢ᪥ࡢẼศ࡛║㙾ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠋ㻌 㻔㻞㻝㻕 ࡑࡢሙࡑࡢሙᛂࡌ࡚ᶵ㌿ࢆࡍࠋ㻌 㻌 ࡇࢀࡣࠊ㻔㻝㻟㻕࡛ࠕࡑࡢ㸩ྡモྃࠖࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇᑐ↷ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻞㻞㻕 㻖 ⫱ඣࡢ⛎ジࡣࠊࡑࡢᏊࡑࡢᏊࡢಶᛶࢆఙࡤࡍࡇࡔࠋ㻔㸻㸦㻝㻟㸧㻕㻌 −77− 推論による不定指示について−日本語のソ系指示詞の解釈− 㻌 ࠕࡑࡢ᪥ࠖࡸࠕࡑࡢሙࠖࡣࠊࡑࢀ༢⊂࡛」ᩘࡢ≧ἣࢆᣦࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ ゝ࠸࠼ࡿࠊ័⏝ⓗ≧ἣᑐࡍࡿ㔞モࡀ⾲⌧⮬యෆᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ ࡑࡢ⏕⏘ᛶࡣ㠀ᖖ㧗࠸ࠋ㻌 㻌 㻠㻚㻟 ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜղ 㛵ಀ⠇⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ㻌 㛵ಀ⠇⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞ࡃࡶᐃᣦ♧ࡢࢯ㻙㻺㻼 ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿሙ ྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࠼ࡤࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻞㻟㻕 ࠕ⥲ྜ㺃ᚠ⎔ᆺᆅᇦ⚟♴ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࠖࡢ≉ᚩ㻌 ࡑࡢேࡽࡋ࠸⏕ࡁ᪉㺃⏕άࢆᑛ㔜ࡋࠊᆅᇦᐦ╔ࡍࡿ㻌 㻔㻞㻠㻕 ᦆᐖ㈺ൾ Ẹุ࡛ᢅࢃࢀࠊ≀ᦆᨾ࡞࡛ࡣቯࡋࡓ≀ࡘ࠸࡚㈺ൾࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞ ࠸ࡋࠊேࢆയࡘࡅࢀࡤ⒪㈝ࢆᨭᡶࢃ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡋࠊቯࡋࡓ≀ࡸࠊയࡘࡅࡓయ ࢆࡶࡶࡍࡢࡿ㔠㢠ࢆᡶ࠼ࡤࡼ࠸࠸࠺ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ㐓ኻ┈࠸ࡗࡓࠊࡑࡢ ᨾࡀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤᚓࡽࢀࡓࡣࡎࡢ┈ࢆ௦ࢃࡾᨭᡶࢃ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ㻌 㻌 ≧ἣ㸦࠶ࡿࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ㸧 㻝 㸫 ࡑࡢே 㻭㻌 ≧ἣ㸦࠶ࡿࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ㸧 㻞 㸫 ࡑࡢே 㻮㻌 ≧ἣ㸦࠶ࡿࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ㸧 㻟 㸫 ࡑࡢே 㻯㻌 ࣭࣭࣭㻌 㻌 㻠㻚㻠 ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜճ ୍⯡▱㆑ᨭ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ 㻙 ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ㻌 ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ࡛ࡣࠊᩘ㔞⾲⌧ࠊ័⏝⾲⌧ࠊ㛵ಀ⠇࡞ࠊゝㄒⓗ⾲⌧ࡼࡗ࡚」ᩘࡢ≧ἣࡀ♧ ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋࡋࠊ₯ᅾⓗ㔞モࡀാࡃࡢࡣࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓሙྜࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ୍⯡▱㆑ࡼࡗ࡚ ₯ᅾⓗ㔞モࡀാࡃࡇࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࠼ࡤࠊࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌࡞ࡢሙྜࠊẖ㐌ࡑࡢࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌ࡀ⧞ࡾ ㏉ࡉࢀࡿ࠸࠺୍⯡▱㆑ࡽ≧ἣᑐࡍࡿ㔞ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻞㻡㻕 㻨ࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌ࢱࢺࣝ㻪 ࡑࡢࠊṔྐࡀື࠸ࡓࠋ㸦㸻㸦㻠㸧㸧㻌 㻔㻞㻢㻕 㻨ࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌ࢱࢺࣝ㻪 ࡑࡢ㢦ࡀぢ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ㻌 㻌 ≧ἣ㸦࠶ࡿ␒⤌㸧㻌 㸯㻌 㸫 ࡑࡢ㻌 㻭㻌 ≧ἣ㸦࠶ࡿ␒⤌㸧㻌 㻞 㸫 ࡑࡢ㻌 㻮㻌 㻌 ≧ἣ㸦࠶ࡿ␒⤌㻕㻌 㻌 㻟㻌 㻌 㸫 ࡑࡢ㻌 㻯㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ࣭࣭࣭㻌 㻌 −78− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࡲࡓࠊࠕᜊឡࠖ࡞ࠊ≉Ṧ࡞ᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡑࡢேࠖࡀ࠸ࡸࡍ࠸ࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊᜊឡ࡛ ࡣࠕ┦ᡭࠖࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀูࠎ࠸ࡿࡇࡀඹ㏻ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚ႏ㉳ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡑࢀࡀ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࡇࡀࡽࢆ⾲ࡍᩥᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡛ࠊ㐃ືㄞࡳఝࡓ⤌ࡳࡀാࡃ⪃࠼ࡽ ࢀࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻞㻣㻕 ࡑࡢேࢆዲࡁ࡞ࡿࡢ⫪᭩ࡁࡣ࠸ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼࡡࠋ㻌 㻔㻞㻤㻕 ࡞ࡐࠊࡑࡢேចࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡢ㻫㻌 ̿ࣄࢺࡋ࡚ࡢᜊឡᏛධ㛛 㸦ᮏࡢࢱࢺࣝ㸧㻌 㻔㻞㻥㻕 ⌮⣔ࡢࡓࡵࡢᜊឡㄽ 㻝㻤㻥㻌 㻌 ࡑࡢேࠊᮏᙜ࠶࡞ࡓࡢࠕᙼዪࠖ㻫㻌 㻌 ḟࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢᣦ♧モࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᭱㝈⏕ࡋࡓࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔㻟㻜㻕 㻨ዪᛶㄅ⤖፧≉㞟ࡢᗈ࿌ᩥ㻪 ࡑࡢᙼࡣࡑࡢே㸽 㻔㻩㻔㻡㻕㻕㻌 㻌 ࠕࡑࡢᙼࠖࡣᗈ࿌ࢆㄞࢇ࡛࠸ࡿㄞ⪅ࡢᚰࡢ୰࠸ࡿ⏨ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࠕࡑࡢேࠖ ࡣࠕ⤖፧≉㞟ࠖ࠸࠺⫼ᬒࡽᑟࢀࡓ࠶ࡿࢱࣉࡉࢀࡓ㸦ࡓ࠼ࡤࠊࠕ⌮ࡢ⤖፧┦ᡭࠖ ࡞㸧࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᗈ࿌ࢆㄞࡴேࡈ≧ἣᑐࡋ㔞ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞㞟ྜࡀᙧ ᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 ≧ἣ 㻝 ࡑࡢᙼ㸦ᗈ࿌ࢆㄞࢇࡔዪᛶ 㻭 ࡢᙼ㸧 㸫 ࡑࡢே㸦㻭 ࡀ⤖፧ࡍࡿே㸧㻌 ≧ἣ㸰 ࡑࡢᙼ㸦ᗈ࿌ࢆㄞࢇࡔዪᛶ 㻮 ࡢᙼ㸧 㸫 ࡑࡢே㸦㻮 ࡀ⤖፧ࡍࡿே㸧㻌 ≧ἣ 㻟 ࡑࡢᙼ㸦ᗈ࿌ࢆㄞࢇࡔዪᛶ 㻯 ࡢᙼ㸧 㸫 ࡑࡢே㸦㻯 ࡀ⤖፧ࡍࡿே㸧㻌 ࣭࣭࣭㻌 㻌 ࡇࢀࡽࡢࡣࠊࢱࢺࣝࡸᗈ࿌࡞ぢࡽࢀࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕࡑࡢ 㻺㻼 ࡗ࡚࡞ࢇࡔࢁ࠺ࠖࠊ ㄞ⪅⪃࠼ࡉࡏࡿࡇࡼࡗ࡚ຠᯝࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ ㏙࡚ࡁࡓ⏝ἲࡣ␗࡞ࡗࡓᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࠋ㻌 㻌 㻡㸬࠾ࢃࡾ㻌 ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࢯ⣔ᣦ♧モࡢ⏝ἲࡢ୰࡛ࠊ≧ἣᑐࡍࡿ㔞ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡋ࡚㞟ྜࡀᙧ ᡂࡉࢀࡿࡘ࠸࡚ࡳ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊ⌧ሙᣦ♧ࡶᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࡶゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊ 㔠Ỉ㸦㻝㻥㻥㻥㸧ࡢศ㓄ㄞࡳࡸࠊ㻴㼛㼖㼕㻌㼑㼠㻌㼍㼘㻚㻔㻞㻜㻜㻟㻕ࠊୖᒣ㸦㻞㻜㻜㻜㸧ࡢ㐃ືㄞࡳࠊ㔠Ỉ࣭࣭᭫ᒸᓮ㸦㻞㻜㻜㻞㸧 ࡢ 㼘㼛㼓㼛 ᣦ♧ࡸ✵ḍᣦ♧࣭༏ྡᣦ♧ఝࡓᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌 −79− 推論による不定指示について−日本語のソ系指示詞の解釈− ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣ≧ἣᑐࡍࡿ₯ᅾⓗ㔞ࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ୍ࡘ୍ࡘࡢ≧ἣ ྵࡲࢀࡿᣦ♧≀ࡣ୍ࡘࡔࡀࠊ≧ἣࡀ㔞ࡉࢀࡿࡇࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧≀ࡢ㞟ྜࡀᚰⓗᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿ ⪃࠼ࡓࠋ㻌 ࡉࡽࡇࡢ≧ἣᑐࡍࡿ㔞ࡀാࡃ᮲௳ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ◊✲ࡀᣲࡆ࡚ࡁࡓ᮲௳࡛࠶ࡿ ᩘ㔞⾲⌧ࠊ័⏝⾲⌧ࡢࠊ」ᩘࡢ≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ᮲௳ࡋ࡚ࠊ୍⯡ㄽࢆ㏙ࡿᩥࢱ ࣉࡸࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡࢆᣲࡆࡓࠋ㻌 ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᙧᘧࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡛ࠊࡼࡾཝᐦ࡞ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 ㅰ㎡ ᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ➨ 14 ᅇ࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࠋᣦᑟᩍᐁࡢ ᮾ㒓㞝ඛ⏕ࡣࠊࣈࢫࢺࣛࢡࢺࡢᥦฟࡽㄽᩥࡢᥦฟࡲ࡛ࠊ࠸ࡘࡶ᠓ษᑀࡈᣦᑟࢆ ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢሙࢆࡾ࡚ࠊ῝ㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋࡲࡓࠊྖࢆࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡲࡋࡓᒣ ཱྀᙪඛ⏕ࠊㄽᩥࢆࡈ⤂ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡲࡋࡓஂಖ㐍ඛ⏕ࠊ᭷┈࡞ࡈ㉁ၥ㺃ࡈពぢࢆୗࡉ࠸ࡲࡋࡓ すᒣ♸ඛ⏕ࠊቑ⏣ᑗఙඛ⏕ࠊ┾⏣ᩗඛ⏕ࠊᖹሯᚭඛ⏕ࠊㄽᩥᇳ➹㝿ࡋᩥࢆࢳ࢙ࢵࢡ ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡲࡋࡓᐙᮏኴ㑻ඛ⏕ᚰࡼࡾ࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋణࡋࠊᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᮏ ✏ࡢഛ࣭ㄗࡾࡣࡍ࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵ᖐࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ Hoji H, Kinsui S,Takubo Y, and Ueyama A. 2003. ͆Demonstratives in Modern Japanese,͇ Li, A. and A, Simpson (eds.), Functional Structure(s), Form and Interpretation: Perspectives from East Asian Languages. London: Routledge, 97-128. http://www.gges.org/hoji/research/hp-papers.cgi ᗡຌ㞝 . 2007.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࠾ࡅࡿ⤖᮰ᛶ࠘, ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧. ୖᒣ࠶ࡺࡳ. 2000.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡽぢ࠼ࡿࠕᩥἲࠖࡢጼࠖ.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘4 ᭶⮫ቑหྕࠊ19ࠊ169-181 すᒣ♸㸬2003㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒྡモྃࡢពㄽㄒ⏝ㄽ࠘ ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ㸬 ᒸᓮᏊ㸬2010㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢṔྐⓗ◊✲࠘ ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ㸬 ຍ⸨㔜ᗈ. 2004.ࠗࢩ࣮ࣜࢬ࣭᪥ᮏㄒࡢࡋࡃࡳࢆ᥈ࡿ 6 ᪥ᮏㄒㄒ⏝ㄽࡢࡋࡃࡳ࠘, ᮾி㸹◊✲♫. 㔠Ỉᩄ. 1990.ࠕᣦ♧モㄯヰࡢᵓ㐀ࠖ,ࠗ᭶หゝㄒ࠘19(3), 60-67. 㔠Ỉᩄ. 1999. ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モ࠾ࡅࡿ┤♧⏝ἲ㠀┤♧⏝ἲࡢ㛵ಀࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ,ࠗ⮬↛ゝㄒฎ ⌮࠘6(4), 67-91. 㔠Ỉᩄ࣭ᒸᓮᏊ࣭᭫⨾ᗒ. 2002. ࠕᣦ♧モࡢṔྐⓗ࣭ᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛⓗ◊✲-᪥ᮏㄒ࣭㡑ᅜㄒ࣭ࢺࣝ ࢥㄒ-ࠖ,ࠗࢩ࣮ࣜࢬゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ 4 ᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛ࠘, 217-247㸬ᮾி㸸ᮾிᏛฟ∧. ⏣❑⾜๎. 2008. ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢពㄽ⤫ㄒㄽࠖ.ࠗゝㄒࡢ◊✲࣮̿ࣘࣛࢩㅖゝㄒࡽࡢどᗙ ̿( ㄒᏛᩍ⫱ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ࠘➨ 16 ྕ)ᮾᩥᏛㄒᏛᩍ⫱◊✲ᡤ, pp. 311-337 . ᮾ㒓㞝㸬1999㸬ࠕㄯヰࣔࢹࣝᣦ♧㸫ㄯヰ࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ☜❧ྠᐃࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚㸫ࠖࠊࠗ⥲ ྜே㛫Ꮫ㒊⣖せ࠘6ࠊ35-46. ᒣṇ᫂㸬1992㸬ࠗ᥎ㄽ↷ᛂ࠘ ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬 ᮤ㛗Ἴ㸬2002㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モయ⣔ࡢṔྐ࠘ ி㒔㸸ி㒔ᏛᏛ⾡ฟ∧㸬 −80− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 no doubt ࡢㄯヰᶵ⬟㛵ࡍࡿᐇ㦂ⓗㄪᰝ 㕥ᮌ ([email protected])࣭͊⸨ཎ ᓫ ([email protected])͋ ͊ ி㒔Ꮫ㸦㝔㸧㸭᪥ᮏᏛ⾡⯆ ͋㏆␥Ꮫ㸦㠀㸧 <Abstract> This paper investigates whether the choice of modal adverbs in English is sensitive to the discourse context in which they occur. By adopting a questionnaire study, the paper aims to determine two factors regarding their patterns of occurrence: (i) whether they occur in the initial position or elsewhere in a clause; and (ii) whether the subject of the clause in which they appear is a pronoun or a full NP. The results of our analysis reveal that no doubt behaves at the discourse-pragmatic level, through a comparison with other synonymic modal adverbs and using this dual approach, combining a questionnaire study and a corpus study, is a fruitful way of approaching this topic. ࠙Keywordsࠚ: ἲモࠊ㢮⩏ㄒࠊゝㄒᶵ⬟ࠊㄯヰࠊࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ 1. ƸơNJƴ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᶵ⬟ㄽⓗ࡞ほⅬࡽᐇ㦂ⓗᡭἲࡼࡾㄯヰⓗሗࢆᘬࡁฟࡍࡇ࡛ࠊ ⱥㄒἲモࡢㄯヰᶵ⬟ࢆᐇドࡍࡿࠋලయⓗࡣἲモ no doubt ࢆᢅ࠸ࠊࡑࡢ㢮⩏⾲⌧ ࡛࠶ࡿ doubtless, undoubtedly, without doubt ẚ㍑ࡋࠊ1 ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝᇶ࡙ ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢㄯヰⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࠋ 2. έᘍᄂᆮƱᄂᆮƷᏑ ⱥㄒࡢἲモࡣ୍⯡ⓗ(1a)ࡢࡼ࠺ᩥ୰ࡢ⨨⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡀࠊ(1b)ࡢࡼ࠺ᩥ㢌 ࡢ⨨ࡶ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠋ (1) a. b. It was no doubt clever of him to offer his resignation at that point in the proceedings. (Quirk et al. 1985: 622) No doubt his bifocals added to this impression, as did his nonchalant gait and slouchy posture. (FICTION) (Biber et al. 1999: 854) ᐇ㝿ࡢ⏝㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⾲ 1 ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺ࠊἲモయࢃࡓࡾ࡚ࡢࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮ ࠾࠸࡚ࠊᩥ୰⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྜࡀ㧗࠸࠸࠺Ⅼࡀぢ࡚ࢀࡿࠋ2 −81− no doubtの談話機能に関する実験的調査 ⾲ 1. ࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮ẖࡢࢫࢱࣥࢫࢆ⾲ࡍモ㢮ࡢ⏕㉳⨨㸦Biber et al. (1999: 872)ࡼࡾ ᢤ⢋㸧 Initial position (%) Medial position (%) Final position (%) CONVERSATION ƔƔƔ ƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔ ƔƔƔƔƔƔƔ FICTION ƔƔƔƔƔ ƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔ ƔƔƔƔ NEWSPAPER ƔƔƔƔƔƔƔ ƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔ ƔƔ ACADEMIC ƔƔƔƔƔƔ ƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔƔ Ɣ Ɣ1 ࡘ࡛ 5%ࢆ⾲ࡍ ୍᪉ࠊno doubt ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㕥ᮌ (2011), ⚟⏣ (2010), Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer (2007)࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝᇶ࡙ࡁࠊᩥ㢌⏕㉳ࡍࡿྜࡀ㧗࠸ࡇࡀゝཬ ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅗ 1 ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺ࠊno doubt ࡢ㢮⩏⾲⌧ࡢẚ㍑ࡽࡶ᫂ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (2a–c)ࡣྛ⏕㉳⨨ࡢ୍࡛࠶ࡿࠋ no doubt doubtless undoubtedly 0% 20% initial position ᅗ 1. (2) a. b. c. 40% 60% medial position 80% 100% final position ⏕㉳⨨ࡑࡢྜ㸦㕥ᮌ (2011: 23)ࡼࡾᢤ⢋㸧3, 4 … but no doubt that was the way in which he put the case to the Cabinet. (BNC: HHX) Pupils will at first no doubt compare and contrast the past and the present. (BNC: HXF) They’re very different in many ways, no doubt. (BNC: FU8) ࡇࢁࡀඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡢせᅉࡀࠕ⏕㉳⨨ࠖᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ㝖 ࡛ࡁ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊno doubt ࡢ⏝ㄯヰⓗ࡞せᅉ࣭ᩥ⬦ࡀ┤᥋㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠺ ࡀ౫↛ࡋ࡚࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋලయⓗࡣࠊno doubt ࡢሙྜࡣ᥋⥆ㄒࡸྰᐃㄒࡢඹ㉳ࡀ ከࡃࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀࠕ⏕㉳⨨ࠖᙉࡃ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ↓ど࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ⚟⏣ −82− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 (2010)ࡣࠊ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺➼᥋⥆ࡉࢀࡓ➨㡯ࡢಟ㣭ㄒࡋ࡚ no doubt ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ ࡿࡋࠊࡢἲモࡼࡾࡶ and ࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡀᙉ࠸Ⅼࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (3) A debate even begins about whether the army is not getting a little trigger-happy in its nervous and no doubt terrified tension. (BNC: AAU) ࡑࡶࡑࡶ no doubt ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊSimon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer (2007: 122)ࡸ Biber et al. (1999: 874)࡛ᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ࠊ(4a, b)ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡋ࡚ࡢ ⏝ࡶᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊἲモㄯヰࡢ᥋Ⅼࢆ⪃࠼ࡿୖ࡛ࡶ㔜せ࡞⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿゝ࠼ࡿࠋ (4) a. b. No doubt, money played its part in this (ICE-GB: W2C-007/64) But no doubt we’ll have a few showers. (CONVERSATION) (Biber et al. 1999: 874) ࡇࢁࡀࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊయⓗ࡞ศᕸࡢഴྥࡀᢕᥱ࡛ࡁࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊᐇ㝿 ࡢࡣᵝࠎ࡞ᅉᏊࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡓࡵࠊㄪᰝࡍࡁせᅉ㝈ᐃࡋ࡚ぢࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ ࡞࠸⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ 3. ᬴ܱ 3.1 ௬ㄝ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊྛせᅉ⤠ࡗ࡚᧯సࡍࡿࡇࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿᐇ㦂ⓗᡭἲ㸦cf. Quirk (1968)㸧 ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡛ࠊࠕㄯヰᵓ㐀ࠖྛ⾲⌧㑅ᢥࡢ┦㛵ࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿࠋලయⓗࡣࠊㄯヰ ᵓ㐀᫂☜㛵ಀࡍࡿኚᩘࡋ࡚ࠊ⠇୰ࡢ(i)⏕㉳⨨ࠊ(ii)௦ྡモ╔┠ࡍࡿࠋ⏕㉳ ⨨㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊHalliday (1970)࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ(5a, b)ࡀࠕࣔࢲࣜࢸ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ ࠕ㢟ࠖ ࡢⅬ࡛␗࡞ࡿࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⠇ࡢ᭱ึ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠊࡑࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸࡢពࡀ㢟/ ࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡞ࡿࡇࡀᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Halliday and Matthiessen 2004, Hoye 1997, Halliday 1970㸧ࠋ (5) a. b. Possibly it was Wren. It may have been Wren. (Halliday 1970: 335) ḟࠊ௦ྡモࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⠇ࢆ㉺࠼࡚ᣦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ≉ᐃࡢࡶࡢࡢྠ୍ᛶࢆ♧ࡋࠊ ㄯヰ࠾ࡅࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ⾲ࡍࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Halliday and Hasan (1976), Thompson and Mulac (1991)㸧ࠋ(6)ࡢ they ࡀࡑࡢ୍࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊHalliday and Hasan (1976)࡛ࡣࠊ“they means not merely ‘three blind mice’ but ‘the same three blind mice that we have just been talking about’” ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋἲモࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿ⠇ࡢㄒࡀ௦ྡモ࠺ࢆㄪ ࡿࡇ࡛ࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾࢆぢࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡢ┦㛵ࡀᙉ࠸ࠊἲモ ࡀ⠇ᅛᐃ࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࡴࡋࢁㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (6) Three blind mice, three blind mice. See how they run! See how they run! (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 31) −83− no doubtの談話機能に関する実験的調査 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺ (i)⏕㉳⨨(ii)௦ྡモࡢྛせᅉࡢᙳ㡪ࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿࡀࠊࡉࡽࠊࡇࡢ 2 せ ᅉࡢస⏝ࡶ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ௨ୖࡽࠊୗࡢ 2 Ⅼࢆ௬ㄝࡋ࡚ᣲࡆࡿࠋ (7) a. b. ㄯヰ㛵ࢃࡿ(i)⏕㉳⨨(ii)௦ྡモࡢྛせᅉࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ no doubt ࡢ⏝ᙳ 㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍࠋ (i, ii)ࡢྛせᅉ༢⊂ࡢሙྜẚ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ 2 せᅉࡀ⤡ࡴࠊࡉࡽ no doubt ࡀ ⏕㉳ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ᩥ⬦࡞ࡿࠋ 3.2 ᐇ㦂 3.2.1 ⿕㦂⪅ ⿕㦂⪅ࡣ 20㹼50 ᡯ௦ࡢⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ 40 ྡ㸦ⱥ㸸20 ྡࠊ⡿㸸20 ྡ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 3.2.2 ่⃭ ᐇ㦂ࡢ่⃭ࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡽ᥇ྲྀࡋࡓᐇ㝿⏝ࡉࢀࡓ๓ᚋᩥ⬦ࢆ⏝ࡋࠊ(8a–d) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋἲモࡢ⏕㉳⨨㸦ᩥ୰ vs. ᩥ㢌㸧ㄒࡢྡモࡢᐃᛶ㸦 ᐃྡモ vs. ௦ྡモ㸧ࢆせᅉࡍࡿ 2×2 ࢹࢨ࡛ࣥࠊ[ᩥ୰ ᐃྡモ]ࠊ[ᩥ୰ ௦ྡモ]ࠊ [ᩥ㢌 ᐃྡモ]ࠊ[ᩥ㢌 ௦ྡモ]ࡢ 4 ✀㢮ࡢᚋᩥࢆ⏝ពࡋࡓࠋ(8a–d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ 4 ✀㢮ࡢ ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡽ࡞ࡿ⤌ࢆࢸࢫࢺᩥࡋ࡚ 4 ⤌సᡂࡋ㸦ྜィ 16 㸧 ࠊࣇ࣮ࣛࡋ࡚ 48 ࡢࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢࢆᐇ㦂ࡢ่⃭ࡋ࡚⏝ࡋࡓࠋ (8) a. b. c. d. Well, tell on to the end. The archers cut them down -- a few broke back for home unscathed. Some㸦 㸧made their way back later with their hurts. [ᩥ୰ ᐃྡモ] R. Jenkins has been a tower of strength in Rugby and under normal circumstances would probably have gained an International cap. He is㸦 㸧worthy of the honour. [ᩥ୰ ௦ྡモ] I sampled three of them -- first in Finland, then in France and finally in Switzerland. Scandinavia is where skiing began. 㸦 㸧even the Vikings got about their own snowy land on useful planks of wood. [ᩥ㢌 ᐃྡモ] Nora was not in the car. I keep telling you. I keep telling you. Nora went back to Germany.㸦 㸧she is in Germany now. [ᩥ㢌 ௦ྡモ] 3.2.3 ᡭ㡰 40 ྡࡢⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ่⃭ᩥ࠾࠸࡚ doubtless, no doubt, undoubtedly, without doubt ࡢ࠺ࡕ᭱ࡶ㐺ᙜ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ 1 ࡘࡔࡅᅇ⟅ࢆồࡵࡓࠋ 4. ኽௐƱᎋݑ ᭱ึࠊdoubtless, no doubt, undoubtedly, without doubt ࡢ 4 ࡘࡢ⾲⌧㛫㢖ᗘࡢᕪࡀ ࠶ࡿ࠺ࢆ☜ࡵࡿࡓࡵࠊࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆȮ᳨ᐃࡅࡓࠋᐇ㦂 ࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ⾲ 2 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡗࡓࠋ −84− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ⾲ 2. ᮏㄪᰝ࠾ࡅࡿ 4 ⾲⌧ࡢ㢖ᗘ ⥲ᩘ % 75 11.72 196 30.62 236 36.88 133 20.78 640 100.0 㸦Ȥ2 = 93.91, p <0.001㸧 㻌㻌 doubtless no doubt undoubtedly without doubt ྜィ ⥆࠸࡚ࠊࣛࣥἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚ୗ᳨ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡇࢁࠊ⾲ 3 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝ࡞ࡾࠊ༴ 㝤⋡ 5%ࡢỈ‽࡛ࠊundoubtedly doubtless, undoubtedly without doubt, no doubt doubtless ࡢ㛫࡛᭷ព࡞ᕪࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ doubtless doubtless without doubt no doubt undoubtedly ⾲ 3. ྛ 2 ⾲⌧㛫࠾ࡅࡿᕪ without doubt no doubt 9.06 18.9* 9.84 undoubtedly 25.16* 16.1* 6.26 㸦*ࡣ 5%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ព㸧 ḟࠊୖ㏙ࡋࡓ[ᩥ୰ ᐃྡモ]ࠊ[ᩥ୰ ௦ྡモ]ࠊ[ᩥ㢌 ᐃྡモ]ࠊ[ᩥ㢌 ௦ྡモ] ࡢ 4 ࡘࡢ᮲௳ู㢖ᗘࢆ㞟ィࡋࡓㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡀୗᅗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋȮ᳨ᐃࢆࡅࡓࡇࢁࠊ ᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ 90 80 84 72 70 60 50 40 30 20 47 29 27 20 10 59 61 45 42 35 no doubt 22 without doubt 22 19 doubtless undoubtedly 11 0 ᩥ୰ ᐃྡモ ᩥ୰ ௦ྡモ ᩥ㢌 ᐃྡモ ᩥ㢌 ௦ྡモ ᅗ 2. 4 ⾲⌧ࡢ᮲௳ู㢖ᗘ㸦Ȥ2 = 103.55, p < 0.001㸧 −85− no doubtの談話機能に関する実験的調査 㢖ᗘࡀ㏆࠸ no doubt undoubtedly ࡢ 2 ࡘ㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ⾲ 2, 3 ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺యࡢศᕸ ࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㢖ᗘࡢᕪࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞ࡗࡓࡀࠊ᮲௳ู࠾ࡅࡿ㢖ᗘࡢᕪࢆࣛࣥࡢ᪉ἲ ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ㄪࡓࡇࢁࠊ᭷ពỈ‽ 5%࠾࠸࡚[ᩥ㢌 ᐃྡモ][ᩥ㢌 ௦ྡモ]ࡢ⩌㛫 ࢆ㝖ࡃ࡚ࡢ⩌㛫࡛᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࡽࠊḟࡢⅬࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋ (9) a. b. ἲモࡢ⏕㉳⨨ㄒࡢᐃᛶࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀἲモࡢ㑅ᢥᙳ㡪ࢆ࠼ࡿࠋ ᩥ୰࡛ࡢ⏕㉳⨨ࡢ᮲௳ୗ࠾࠸࡚ࡣㄒࡢᐃᛶࡀᙳ㡪ຊࢆᣢࡘࡀࠊἲモ ࡀᩥ㢌⏕㉳ࡍࡿሙྜࡣㄒࡢᐃᛶࡢᙳ㡪ࡣ᭷ព࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ [ᩥ୰ ᐃྡモ]ࡢ⩌[ᩥ㢌 ᐃྡモ]ࡢ⩌ࠊ[ᩥ୰ ௦ྡモ]ࡢ⩌[ᩥ㢌 ௦ྡモ]ࡢ⩌ ࡑࢀࡒࢀᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇࡽ⏕㉳⨨ࡣἲモࡢ㑅ᢥᙳ㡪ࢆ࠼ࡿゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ἲモࡀᩥ㢌᮶ࡿሙྜࠊ᭷ព no doubt ࡀ㑅ዲࡉࢀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᩥ୰᮶ࡿሙྜ ࡣ undoubtedly ࡀዲࡲࢀࡿࠋḟࠊㄒࡢᐃᛶࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊἲモࡀᩥ୰࠶ࡿሙྜ ࡢࡳ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋἲモࡀᩥ୰࠶ࡿሙྜࡣࠊㄒࡀ௦ྡモࡢሙྜࠊᐃྡモ࡛ ࠶ࡿሙྜẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࡣ no doubt ࡀ㑅ࡤࢀࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊἲ モࡀᩥ㢌᮶ࡿሙྜࡣㄒࡢᐃᛶࡣຠᯝࢆࡶࡓࡎࠊ⏕㉳⨨ࡢせᅉࡢ᪉ࡀㄒࡢᐃᛶ ࡼࡾࡶἲモࡢ⏝ཬࡰࡍᙳ㡪ࡀᙉ࠸ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺ࠊᶵ⬟ࡢ┦㐪ࡽ 4 ࡘࡢἲモࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࡇࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ4 ⾲ ⌧㛫ࡢẚ㍑ࢆ⾜࠺ࠊࡾࢃࡅ no doubt ࡀㄯヰⓗ࡞ᩥ⬦ᐦ᥋㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀ ࢃࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࡣ no doubt ࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡀྡモྃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ㉳ᅉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᛮ ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊྡモྃ࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡢ≉㉁ୖࠊ⠇ࡢᵓ㐀ࡽእࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ษࡾ㞳ࡉࢀ ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࡓࡵࠊࡼࡾㄯヰⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᖏࡧࠊㄯヰ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࣞ࣋ࣝ࠾࠸࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡼ࠺ ࡞ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ 5. ƓǘǓƴ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᶵ⬟ㄽⓗほⅬࡽᐇ㦂ⓗᡭἲࡼࡾࠊ⠇ࢆ㉸࠼ࡓㄯヰࣞ࣋ࣝࡢゝㄒ⌧㇟ ࢆ᳨ドࡋࡓࠋᚑ᮶ࡢἲモࡢពࢆ㉺࠼࡚ࠊㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᶵ⬟ࡢᕪ␗ࢆලయⓗᥦ ♧ࡋࡓࠋྠࠊἲモࡢ⏝㛵ࢃࡿせᅉࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᙳ㡪ࡸせᅉ㛫ࡢ㛵ಀࡣᚑ᮶ࡢ ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝ࡛ࡣศᯒ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞᪉ἲㄽࡢᵓ⠏ྥࡅ࡚ࠊᐇ㦂ⓗᡭἲࡢ Ⅼࡶ♧၀ࡋࡓࠋ ∗ ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ➨ 14 ᅇ࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྖࢆࡋ ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࠊࡈᣦࢆୗࡉࡗࡓෆ⏣⪷ඛ⏕㸦ዉⰋዪᏊᏛ㸧ᚚ♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ᯽㔝 ḟඛ⏕㸦㜰ᶋⶱዪᏊᏛྡᩍᤵ㸧ࠊ㉥㔝୍㑻ඛ⏕㸦ி㒔እᅜㄒᏛ㸧ࠊຍ⸨ᮌ⬟ᩥඛ⏕㸦୰ ኸᏛ㸧ࠊᒸᮏⰾඛ⏕㸦㔠ἑᫍ⛸Ꮫ㸧ࡣ㈗㔜࡞ࡈ㉁ၥ࣭ࡈᣦࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢሙࢆ࠾ࡾࡋ ࡚ឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏ࡢഛࠊㄗࡾࡣ࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 1 no doubt ࡣᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᗄศࡢ࠸ࢆࡶࡘ㸦Quirk et al. (1985: 623)㸧ࠋᑠす (2006), Wilson (1993)ࡼࡿࠊno doubt doubtless ࡣࡰྠ⩏⪃࠼࡚ࡼ࠸ࡀࠊno doubt ࡢ᪉ࡀⱝᖸࠊពࡀᙉ ࠸ ࠋ Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 768) ࡣ ࠊ ࡑ ࡢ ᗘ ྜ ࠸ ᛂ ࡌ ࡚ ἲ モ ࡢ 㡿 ᇦ ࢆ (i)strong, −86− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 (ii)quasi-strong, (iii)medium, (iv)weak ࡢ 4 ࡘศࡅ࡚࠾ࡾࠊundoubtedly ࢆ(i)ࠊdoubtless ࢆ(ii)ศ 㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋBiber et al. (1999: 854)ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢ☜ಙࡸ↛ᛶࢆ♧ࡍ Doubt and certainty ࠸࠺⠊ no doubt undoubtedly ࢆྵࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 2 no doubt ࡸ undoubtedly ࡢࠊprobably, I think, in fact, really, according to …, mainly, generally, in my opinion, kind of, so to speak ➼ࡢ epistemic adverbials ࡸࠊunfortunately, to my surprise, hopefully ➼ ࡢ attitude adverbialsࠊࡉࡽࡣ frankly, honestly, truthfully, in short ➼ࡢ style adverbials ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࠋ 3 Hoye (1997)ࡸ Quirk et al. (1985)࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺ࠊモ(ྃ)ࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿ⨨ࡋ࡚ 7 ᡤࢆ♧ ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ I iM M mM eM iE E (initial) (initial-medial) (medial) (medial-medial) (end-medial) (initial-end) (end) Possibly they may have been sent to London. They possibly may have been sent to London. They may possibly have been sent to London. They may have possibly been sent to London. They may have been possibly sent to London. They may have been sent possibly to London. They may have been sent to London possibly. (Hoye 1997: 148) ᅗ 1 ࡛ࡣࠊୖグࡢ initial (I), medial (M), end (E)࠸࠺࡛࠶ࡿ 3 ࡘࡢ⨨ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ ࢃࡕࠊI ࡢ⨨ࡀ initial (I)ࠊiM, M, mM, eM ࡀ medial (M)ࠊiE E ࡀ end (E)ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊinitial (I) medial (M)╔┠ࡍࡿࠋ 4 ᅗ 1 ࡢලయⓗ࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱࡘ࠸࡚ࡣㄽᩥᮎ Appendix㸦⿵㑇㸧ࡋ࡚ࡲࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech and S. Conrad 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson. Brinton, L. J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brinton, L. J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse Consciousness and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fowler, H. W. 1998. Fowler's Modern English Usage. 3rd Edition. Revised by R. W. Burchfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ⚟⏣⸅ 2010.ࠕモ⏝ἲࡢ no doubt(1)ࠖࠊ ࠗேᩥㄽ✲࠘ 㸦ᾏ㐨ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㸧ࠊ79ࠊ1–17. Greenbaum, S. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman. Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. “Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a Consideration of Modality and Mood in English.” Foundations of Language 6, 322–361. Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halliday, M. A. K. and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd Edition. London: Arnold. Hopper, P. J. and E. C. Traugott 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoye, L. 1997. Adverbs and Modality in English. London: Longman. Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. −87− no doubtの談話機能に関する実験的調査 ᑠす㸦⦅㸧2006.ࠗ⌧௦ⱥㄒㄒἲ㎡࠘ᮾி㸸୕┬ᇽ. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. 2nd Edition. London: Longman. Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perkins, M. R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter. Quirk, R. 1968. “Co-existing Negative Preterite Forms of Dare.” In R. Quirk (ed.) Essays on the English Language: Medieval ad Modern, 114–119. London: Longman. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Simon-Vandenbergen, A. 2007. “No doubt and Related Expressions.” In M. Hannay and G. J. Steen (eds.) Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar: In Honour of Lachlan Mackenzie, 9–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Simon-Vandenbergen, A. and K. Aijmer 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Suzuki, D. 2011. “A Functional Approach to the Modal Adverbs Certainly, Surely and Definitely.” In C. Cummins, C. Elder, T. Godard, M. Macleod, E. Schmidt and G. Walkden (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research, 185–194. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research. 㕥ᮌ 2011.ࠕἲモ no doubt ࡢᶵ⬟ࡘ࠸࡚̿㢮⩏⾲⌧ࡢẚ㍑ࡽ̿ࠖࠊ ࠗⱥㄒ ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ◊✲࠘ࠊ18ࠊ17–31. Swan, M. 2005. Practical English Usage. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thompson, S. A. and A. Mulac 1991. “The Discourse Conditions for the Use of the Complementizer That in Conversational English.” Journal of Pragmatics 15, 237–251. Traugott, E. C. 1989. “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change.” Language 65, 31–55. Traugott, E. C. and R. B. Dasher 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, K. G. 1993. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. New York: Columbia University Press. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[ ⏕㉳⨨ࡑࡢᗘᩘ Initial Medial Final Total no doubt 1288 1237 176 2701 doubtless 237 492 2 731 undoubtedly 325 1873 4 2202 −88− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗほⅬࡽぢࡿ⦰⣙⾲⌧ࡢ୍⪃ᐹ ࣏̿ࣛࢺࢿࢫࢆᫎࡍࡿࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ̿ ᙇ ཪ⳹ ி㒔ᏛᏛ㝔 This paper investigates the Japanese contraction “chau” which has a function distinguished from that of its original form “teshimau”. According to Chang (2011), a difference in the meaning of aspect is observed in these two forms. It is further predicted that there might still be other differences. Therefore, I focused on the interaction between speaker and hearer, trying to discover how these two forms differ from each other. I found that “chau” has a pragmatic function of politeness and often collocates with honorific words and expressions of benefit while “teshimau” does not. ˰࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ˱ 㸸⦰⣙ᙧࠊ࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ 1 ࡣࡌࡵ ⦰⣙ᙧࡣࠊヰࡋࡇࡤ࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿㄒᙧ㡢ࡢ⬺ⴠࡸ⼥ྜࡀ㉳ࡁࡓ⤖ᯝࠊᮏ᮶ࡢᙧᘧࡼࡾ⡆␎ ࡞㡢ᙧ࡛㡢ኌᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࢆ࠸࠺㸦 ࠗ᪂∧ ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘ 㸧1ࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࢫ࣌ࢡࢺᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠕࢸ ࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࠊ⦰⣙ᙧࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋᚑ᮶ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࢆᑐ㇟グ㏙ࡋࡓ◊✲ࡀከ ࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࡀ㸦㔠⏣୍ 1955ࠊ㧗ᶫ 1969ࠊྜྷᕝ 1973ࠊᑎᮧ 1984ࠊOno 1992ࠊ㕥ᮌ 1998.ࠊ㔠Ỉ 2002㸧 ࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ⊂❧ࡋࡓᏑᅾࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࠊグ㏙ࢆ⾜࡞ࡗࡓ◊✲ࡶ࠶ࡿ㸦ᱱ 2003㸧 ࠋ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆࠕࢸࢩ ࣐࢘ࠖࡽ⊂❧ࡋࡓᏑᅾࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿጇᙜᛶࡣࠊ⦰⣙ຠᯝ㸦reduction effect㸧2ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ⏝ ἲ࠾ࡅࡿ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦ᙇ 2011㸧ࡇࡽ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡇࡽࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊࡢ ഃ㠃࠾࠸࡚ࡶ┦㐪ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡇࡀண ࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊᩗㄒࡸᜠᜨ⾲⌧ࡢඹ㉳ࡢᐜㄆᗘ⌧ ࢀࡿ㐪࠸ࡽࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ┦㐪ࢆ♧ࡋࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ⌧ࢀࡿ࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࡢ⏝ἲࡢᥦ♧ ࢆ┠ⓗࡍࡿࠋ 2 ၥ㢟ᥦ㉳ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ⏝ἲヰ⪅ࡢឤ࣭ホ౯ⓗ⏝ἲ↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚◊✲ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ 3ࠋ ࡋࡋࠊ௨ୗࡢࡣࡕࡽࡢ⏝ἲᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ 㸦1㸧 㸦๓␎㸧ࡑࢇ࡞୰࡛ࠊ㹋㹁㸦Master of ceremony㸧୰✵࠸࡚࠸ࡓࣜࢨ࣮ࣈᖍ㸦ᣍᚅᐈ⏝㸧ࠊ ✵ᖍࡀ᭷ࡗࡓࡢࢆぢࡘࡅ࡚ࠊ❧ࡗ࡚ぢ࡚࠸ࡓ࠾ᐈࡉࢇࢆࠕ࠺ࡒࠊᗙࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࠖ ᗙࡽࡏ࡚࠶ࡆࡲࡋࡓࡡ 4ࠋ 㸦1̓㸧 ࠕ࠺ࡒᗙࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ −89− 1 語用論的観点から見る縮約表現の一考察―ポライトネスを反映する「チャウ」を事例に― ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ⏝ἲࡋ࡚ぢࡿࠊ㸦1㸧ࡢࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡑࡢືసࢆ᪩ࡃ㐩ᡂࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡇ ࢆពࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆࠊ 㸦1̓ 㸧ࡢࡼ࠺ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ⨨ࡁ࠼ࡿࠊྠࡌࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗពࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ ࡢࠊ┦ᡭࢆദಁࡍࡿࠊᢲࡋࡅࡀࡲࡋࡃឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࢫࢱࣝࡢၥ㢟ࡋ࡚ぢࡿࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ ࡢ࠺ࡀᑀᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ 㸦1㸧ࡢሙྜ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⦰⣙ᙧࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ࠺ࡣ㏫ᑀࡉ ࡀୖࡀࡿࠋఱᨾヰ࡛○ࡅࡓ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ⦰⣙ᙧࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡼࡾᑀࡉࡀୖࡀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ ࢁ࠺ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖᜠᜨ⾲⌧ࡸᩗㄒࡢඹ㉳ࡢᐜㄆᗘࢆ♧ࡋࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ࣏ࣛࢺࢿ ࢫ⏝ἲࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ 3 ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢ᳨ウ 3.1ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ㛵ࢃࡿඛ⾜◊✲ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࠊ㸺㸼ࡢࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព㸺ṧᛕ㸼ࠊ㸺ᮏព㸼ࠊ㸺ணእ㸼࡞ヰ⪅ࡢឤ ࣭ホ౯ⓗពࢆᣢࡘᩥἲᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦㔠⏣୍ 1955ࠊ㧗ᶫ 1969ࠊྜྷᕝ 1973ࠊᑎᮧ 1984ࠊ㔠Ỉ 2002㸧 ࠋ 㸦2㸧ࡓࡃࡉࢇࡢ᭩㢮ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡀࢇࡤࡗ࡚ 3 ࡲ࡛㒊᭩࠸࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠋ 㸦ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ⏝ἲ㸧 㸦3㸧㈈ᕸࢆⴠࡋ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠋ㸦ヰ⪅ࡢឤ࣭ホ౯ⓗ⏝ἲ㸧 㸦᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲⦅ 2007㸸 46㸧 ヰ⪅ࡢឤ࣭ホ౯ⓗព࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࡼࡃヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡸࡍ࠸ഴྥࡀぢ ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤࡣࠊࡑࡢࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗពࡽ⏕ࡌࡿ㸦㔠⏣୍ 1955ࠊᑎᮧ 1984㸧 ࠊ 㒔ྜ࡞ࡇࠊᮇᚅࡋࡓࡇࡢᐇ⌧ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿ㸦㧗ᶫ 1969ࠊྜྷᕝ 1973㸧ศᯒࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍ ᪉ࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࠊ᰿ᮏⓗヰ⪅ࡢឤホ౯ⓗពࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰ⪅ࡢឤホ౯ࡀ㈇ṇ 㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ๓ᥦࡼࡗ࡚Ỵࡲࡿᙇࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࡶ࠶ࡿ㸦㕥ᮌ 1998㸧ࠋヰ⪅ࡢឤ ホ౯ࡀṇ㈇ࡣࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓᩥ⬦㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ᣦࡶぢࡽࢀࡿ㸦㔠Ỉ 2002㸧ࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ๓ᥦࡸᩥ⬦㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࡼࡃ㈇ࡢᩥ⬦⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇࡽࠊᇶᮏⓗ㈇ࡢ ឤホ౯⤖ࡧࡘࡃ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ 3.2ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ㛵ࢃࡿඛ⾜◊✲ ⦰⣙ᙧࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊᮾி᪉ゝࡉࢀࠊ⊂⮬ࡢ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᑎᮧ 1984㸧5ࠋࠊ ヰࡢࢹ࣮ࢱᇶ࡙࠸ࡓグ㏙㸦Ono and Suzuki 1992㸧 ࠊࡲࡓࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ⊂❧ࡋࡓᙧᘧࡋ࡚グ㏙ࡋࡓ ◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦ᱱ 2003㸧 ࠋ 3.2.1Ono and Suzuki㸦1992㸧 Ono and Suzuki㸦1992㸧࡛ࡣ ࠊヰ୰ࡢࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸦ࢳࣕ࢘㸧 ࠖࢆᑐ㇟グ㏙ࡀ⾜࡞ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 6ࠋ ࠕࢸ ࢩ࣐࢘㸦ࢳࣕ࢘㸧ࠖࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢᾘᴟⓗែᗘࡢ㸦 4㸧ࠊヰ⪅ࡢ guiltily positive attitude ࡶ⾲ࡏࡿ࠸ ࠺Ⅼࡀ⯆῝࠸㸦 5㸧ࠋ 2 −90− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 㸦4㸧ᡭ⮬ศࡔࡅ⪃࠼ࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡉࠋ 㸦Ono and Suzuki 1992㸸 207㸧 㸦5㸧࠶ࡓࡋࡉࠊ㧗ᰯ⏕ࡉࠊ㇂ࡢࡉࠊ109 ࡢ๓࡛ࡉࠊ࡞ࢇࡥࡉࢀࡕࡷࡗࡓࠋ 㸦ibid㸬 㸸 209㸧 ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡋ࡚ࠊOno and Suzuki㸦1992㸧ࡣࠊࡣࡌࡵ࡚ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ ⏝࠸ࡓ࠸࠺Ⅼࡀホ౯ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ༊ูࡏࡎグ㏙ࡍࡿࡢࡣጇᙜ࡛࠶ࢁ ࠺ࠋ㸦5㸧ࡣࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖධࢀ᭰࠼࡚ࡳࡿࠊOno and Suzuki㸦1992㸧ࡀᣦࡋࡓヰ⪅ࡢ✚ᴟⓗែ ᗘࡀᾘᴟⓗែᗘኚࢃࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡀ␗࡞ࡗࡓࡇࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࢆ༊ูࡋ࡚ㄽ㏙ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ 3.2.2 ᱱ㸦2003㸧 ᱱ㸦2003㸧࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ⊂⮬ࡢព࣭⏝ἲࠊࣉࣛࢫᛮ⪃⏝ἲ 78 ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊᥟ⏝ἲ 9 ࡸㄯ ヰ⏝ἲ 10 ࡀ࠶ࡿᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗほⅬࡽࠊࣉࣛࢫᛮ⪃⏝ἲᥟ⏝ἲࡣࠊᐇ ⌧⏝ἲ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⤖ࡢㄞࡳࡀ࡞࠸ࠋㄯヰ⏝ἲࡣࠊᩥἲⓗពࡢᕼⷧࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࠊㄯヰࡢ୰ ࡛ఱࡽࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ⦰⣙ពࡢ㛵㐃ᛶ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᱱ㸦2003㸧࡛ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ⊂❧ࡋࡓᙧᘧࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐ ࢘ࠖ␗࡞ࡗࡓ⏝ἲࢆグ㏙ࡋࡓⅬࡣホ౯࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ⊂⮬ࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢឤ࣭ホ ౯ⓗពࡢഃ㠃↔Ⅼࡀᙜ࡚ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ឤࡌࡽࢀࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗពࡢഃ㠃ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹࡀḞࡅ ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊヰ⪅ࡢឤ࣭ホ౯ⓗពࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗពࡣࡢࡼ࠺㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶ⪃ᐹࡉࢀ ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ 3.3 ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ㛵ࢃࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊḟࡢ 2 Ⅼࢆᣦࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ࡲࡎࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ㛵ࢃࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࡣࠊయⓗヰ⪅ࡢឤ࣭ホ౯ⓗពὀ┠ࡋࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗほ Ⅼࡽࡢ⪃ᐹࡀḞࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙇ㸦2011㸧࡛᫂ࡽࡋࡓࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡢ ┦㐪ࡣࠊࡢഃ㠃ࡶ┦㐪ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊᱱ㸦2003㸧ࡢࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ㛵ࡍ ࡿグ㏙ࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦┦ᡭ㸧ࢆྵࡵ࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࡢࡀḞࡅ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋඛ⾜◊ ✲࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤࠊṇࡢឤグ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶឤホ౯ࡢពὀ┠ࢆ 㞟ࡵࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2 ⠇ၥ㢟ᥦ㉳࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࡀ⌧ࢀࡓࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ ࡽࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦┦ᡭ㸧ࢆྵࡵ࡚⪃࠼࡞࠸ࠊఱᨾ࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࡀ⌧ࢀࡓࡢࡘ࠸࡚ࡢㄝ᫂ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ௨ୗࡣࠊᩗㄒࡸᜠᜨ⾲⌧ࡢඹ㉳ࡽࠊ࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࢆᫎࡍࡿࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ᳨ ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ 4 ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢほⅬࡽぢࡿࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ 4.1 ࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࢆᫎࡍࡿࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ ⦰⣙ᙧ㸦ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ㸧ࡣࠊヰࡢ୰࡛○ࡅࡓᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢඖࡢᙧᘧ㸦ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ㸧ẚࡿࠊ ᑀࡉࡀୗࡀࡿᛮࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊᐇ㝿ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦6a㸧㸦7a㸧ࡣࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ⨨ ࡁ࠼࡚ࡳࡿ㸦 㸦6b㸧ࠊ 㸦7b㸧㸧 ࠊㄒᙧࡋ࡚ࡣᑀぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊᢲࡋࡅࡀࡲࡋࡃឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋ 3 −91− 語用論的観点から見る縮約表現の一考察―ポライトネスを反映する「チャウ」を事例に― 㸦6㸧 㸦యࡀ ࡲࡿ㣗ᮦ࡛సࡗࡓჯỒࢆ⤂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧 a ࢼ࢘ࣥࢧ࣮㸸ẖ᪥࡛ࡶ㣗ࡕࡷࡗ࡚ୗࡉ࠸ࡡࠋ 㸦TBSࡣ࡞ࡲࡿ࣐࣮ࢣࢵࢺ㸧 b ࢼ࢘ࣥࢧ࣮㸸ẖ᪥࡛ࡶ㣗࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡡࠋ 㸦7㸧 㸦ྖࡀ࠾ᐈࡉࢇ✵ᖍࢆෆࡍࡿሙྜ㸧 a ྖ㸸࠺ࡒᗙࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ 㸦ಶேࣈࣟࢢ㸧 b ྖ㸸࠺ࡒᗙࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ୗࡉ࠸ࠋ 㸦6㸧㸦7㸧ࡣࠊ ࠕ㣗⤊ࡿࠖࠊ ࠕᗙࡾ⤊ࢃࡿࠖ࠸࠺ࠕࡍࡿࠖࢆពࡍࡿࡢ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡴࡋࢁ㐩ᡂ ࡋ࡚ࡋ࠸࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢẼᣢࡕࡀ㎸ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡛ࡣࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊa b ࡕࡽࡀ ዲࡲࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ┦ᡭ⾜Ⅽࡢ㐩ᡂࢆồࡵࢀࡤࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ࠺ࡀᑀࡉࡀୖࡀࡿᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊヰࡋゝⴥ࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆศࡅ࡚グ㏙ࡍࡿᚲせᛶࢆ࠶ࡽࡓࡵ࡚☜ ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓୖࠊ⦰⣙ᙧࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀࢃࢀࡿሙྜࠊ┦ᡭࡢ㓄៖ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ ⦰⣙ᙧࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࢆ⾲ࡍ࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊḟࡢ⠇࡛ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀᩗㄒࡸᜠᜨ⾲⌧ࡢᩚྜᛶࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ⏝ἲࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ 4.2 ᩗㄒࡢᩚྜᛶ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ┦ᡭఱࡽࡢືసࢆồࡵࡿሙྜࠊᙧᘧⓗࡃࡔࡅࡓࡀ┦ᡭࡢ㓄៖ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ⌧㇟ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢᩗㄒࡢඹ㉳௳ᩘࢆㄪࡓࠋᩗㄒࡢࠕྊ ࡋୖࡀࡿࠖࠊ ࠕࡈぴ࡞ࡿࠖࠊ ࠕ࡞ࡉࡿࠖඹ㉳ࡍࡿ⏝ᩘࡽࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢᩗㄒࡢᩚྜᛶࡀࠕࢸࢩ࣐ ࢘ࠖࡼࡾ࠸࠸ഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ㸦⾲ 1 ࢆཧ↷㸧 ࠋ 㸦8㸧 ࠙ᐮኳⲔࣞࢩࣆࠚࡇࢀࡔࡅࠊ⇕࠸࠺ࡕྊࡋୖࡀࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸11ࠋ 㸦9㸧ᮏᙜࡣῧဨࡢࡳࢩ࢙࡛ࡁࡿ࠾ຮᙉࡢ᪉ࢆ㸟⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊ୍⯡ࡢ᪉ࡶ≉ูࡈ ぴ࡞ࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸㸟 12 㸦10㸧࠶ࡢࠊ࠾ࣖࡔࡗࡓࡽ㐲៖࡞ࡃ๐㝖࡞ࡉࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡡ 13 ࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡀᩗㄒ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊືモࡢࠕぢࡿࠖ ࠊ ࠕ㣗ࡿࠖ ࠊ ࠕࡍࡿࠖࡢඹ㉳࡛ࡣࠊ ࡑࡢ⏝ᩘᩗㄒࡢඹ㉳ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊࡑࢀࡁ࠸ᕪࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ ྊࡋୖࡀࡿ ⾲ 1 ᩗㄒࡢඹ㉳⏝ᩘ 14 ࢳࣕࢵࢸࢡࢲࢧ ࢸࢩ࣐ࢵࢸࢡࢲࢧ 4,800 1 㣗ࡿ ࡈぴ࡞ࡿ ぢࡿ ࡞ࡉࡿ ࡍࡿ 5,830,000 1,870,000 8,080,000 4,450 122,000,000 77,100,000 0 172,000,000 2 225,000,000 4 −92− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ௨ୖࡢㄪᰝࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢᩗㄒࡢඹ㉳ࡢ┦ᛶ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ␗࡞ࡿࡇࡀ᫂ ࡽ࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢ㓄៖ࡀゝㄒᙧᘧᫎࡉࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࡢ୍ࡘࡔ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢഃ㠃࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡀᙧᘧⓗࣇ࢛࣮࣐࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢࢡ ࢵࢩࣙࣥࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧యࢆࡽࡆࡿാࡁࢆᯝࡓࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ ࣥࡢഃ㠃࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ␗࡞ࡗࡓᙺ̿ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࢆᯝࡓࡍࡇ ࡀ᫂ࡽ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ 4.3 ᜠᜨ⾲⌧ࡢᩚྜᛶ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡀ⾲ࡍヰ⪅ࡢឤ࣭ホ౯ⓗពࡣࠊᩥ⬦ࡼࡗ࡚ヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤࠊᡈ࠸ࡣṇࡢឤ ㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸦㔠Ỉ 2002㸧 ࠊᇶᮏⓗヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡸࡍ࠸⪃࠼ࡽࢀ ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣᜠᜨࢆཷࡅࡿࡇࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ̿ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࠖᩚྜࡏࡎࠊᢎ᥋ࡀᅔ㞴 ࡞ࡿࡢᑐࡋࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣṇࡢឤホ౯ⓗពࡶᐜ᫆⤖ࡧࡃࡢ࡛ࠊᜠᜨ⾲⌧ࡢᢎ᥋ࡣ⮬↛࡛ ࠶ࡿࡇࡀᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᱱ 2003㸧 ࠋ ࠕ̿ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࠖࡢࠊྠࡌᜠᜨ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠕ̿ࢸࢡࣞࣝࠖ ࡢඹ㉳ࡢࡶㄪࡓࠋࡇࡢ୰࡛ࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࡛࢘ࠖࡶࠕࢳ࡛ࣕ࢘ࠖࡶࠊᜠᜨ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠕ̿ࢸࢡࣞࣝࠖ ඹ㉳ࡍࡿሙྜࠊヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤ࣭ホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢࠊヰ⪅ࡢṇࡢឤホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊヰ ⪅ࡢṇࡢホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡍࡣࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖ⨨ࡁ࠼ࡃ࠸ࡇࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓ㸦㸦11㸧ࠊ 㸦11̓㸧 㸧15ࠋ 㸦11㸧ࣇ࣮ࢻࡀ࢜ࢩࣕࣞ࡞ࢱࣥࢡࢺࢵࣉࡢⓏሙ࡛ࡍ㸟㸟ࢱࣥࢡ㸩ࣇ࣮ࢻࡗ࡚࡞࡞↓࠸⤌ࡳྜࢃ ࡏ࡛ࡍࡼࡡ㹼㸟ࡇࡢࢸ࣒ࡣ࡚ࡶ࣮࢟ࣗࢺࡲࡵ࡚ࡃࢀࡕࡷ࠸ࡲࡋࡓ16ࠋ 㸦11̓ 㸧ࡇࡢࢸ࣒ࡣ࡚ࡶ࣮࢟ࣗࢺࡲࡵ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ 㸦12㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤࡢ⾲ࢀࡿᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ⨨ࡁ࠼࡚ࡳࡿࠊヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ ࡢឤ࣭ホ౯ࡀᙅࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦12㸧 㸦๓␎㸧⩏୧ぶ᪑⾜⾜ࡃᚲࡎ㢠⩏୧ぶࡀ㈇ᢸࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ࠾㢪࠸ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿヂࡌ ࡷ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊᚲࡎᡶࡗ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡍ17ࠋ 㸦12̓ 㸧࠾㢪࠸ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿヂࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊᚲࡎᡶࡗ࡚ࡃࢀࡕࡷ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ ☜ࠊ㔠Ỉ㸦2002㸧ࡢᣦ㏻ࡾࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡀヰ⪅ࡢṇࡢឤ㈇ࡢឤㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊᩥ ⬦ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡿࡀࠊ 㸦11̓ 㸧 㸦12̓㸧ࢆぢࡿࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀヰ⪅ࡢṇࡢឤ⤖ࡧࡃഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡛ࠊヰ⪅ࡀ㉳ࡁࡓࡇࢆᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ែࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚ࡶࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ ࡀࡑࡢ㈇ࡢឤࢆᢚ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊయⓗ῝้ࡉࡀ࠾ࡉࡲࡿᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ࡉࡽࠊḟࡢሙ㠃࠾࠸࡚㸦 13㸧 ࠊࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀࡼࡃヰ⪅ࡢṇࡢឤࡼࡃ⤖ࡧࡅࡿࡇࡀ☜ㄆ ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ 㸦13b㸧ࡣヰ⪅ࡀࠕࣉࣞࢮࣥࢺࢆࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࠸࠺ែᑐࡋ࡚ࠕ⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸ࠖ࠸࠺㈇ࡢឤ ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡢᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ 㸦13a㸧ࡣࠊ㈇ࡢឤ࠸࠺ࡼࡾᎰࡋ࠸Ẽᣢࡕࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡶࠊ㸦13a㸧⏝࠸ ࡽࢀࡓࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ┦ᡭࡢ㓄៖ࢆᫎࡋࡓࡽࡔ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ 18ࠋ 5 −93− 語用論的観点から見る縮約表現の一考察―ポライトネスを反映する「チャウ」を事例に― 㸦13㸧㸦࣮࣒࣍ࢫࢸࡢ࣍ࢫࢺࣇ࣑ࣜࡀࣉࣞࢮࣥࢺࢆࡃࢀࡓሙྜ㸧 a ࠕࡇࢇ࡞ࡶࡢࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࠊᮏᙜࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖ b ࠕࡇࢇ࡞ࡶࡢࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࠊᮏᙜࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡼࡗ࡚ᢚ࠼ࡽࢀࡓヰ⪅ࡢ㈇ࡢឤࡣࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢഃ㠃࠾࠸࡚ ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢ㓄៖ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ᮏ❶ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣᩗㄒᜠᜨ⾲⌧ඹ㉳ࡋࡓᐜㄆᗘࡽࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡢ┦㐪ࡀ ࠶ࡽࡓࡵ࡚☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗഃ㠃ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᑐே㛵 ಀࡢഃ㠃ࡶ㐪࠸ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡇࡀ᫂ࡽ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ 5 ⪃ᐹ 5.1 ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗពࡢ㛵ࢃࡾ ᙇ㸦2011㸧࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ࣭ฟ᮶ࡢయⓗ㐩ᡂ↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࡢᑐࡋࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖ ࡣࠊయⓗ㐩ᡂࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㒊ศⓗ㐩ᡂࡢゎ㔘ࢆᣢࡘࡇࡀ᫂ࡽ࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊࢫ࣌ࢡ ࢺⓗព࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ 㸦14b㸧ࡣࠕ㣧ࡳษࡿࠖࡢゎ㔘ㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿࡢᑐࡋࠊ 㸦14a㸧ࡣࠕ㣧ࡳጞࡵࡿࠖ ࠕ㣧ࡳษࡿࠖ୧᪉ࡢゎ㔘ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢྍ⬟࡞ゎ㔘ࡢ㐪࠸ࡽ㸦15a㸧㸦15b㸧ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ┦㐪ࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ 㸦14㸧a 㸦࠾㓇ࢆ㸧࠺ࡒ㣧ࢇࡌࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ㸦㣧ࡳጞࡵࡿࠊ㣧ࡳษࡿゎ㔘㸧 b 㸦࠾㓇ࢆ㸧࠺ࡒ㣧ࢇ࡛ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ㸦㣧ࡳษࡿࡢゎ㔘ࡢࡳ㸧 㸦15㸧 㸦࠾㓇ࡀ࠶ᑡࡋṧࡗ࡚࠸ࡿඛ㍮ࡢࢪࣙࢵ࢟ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿᚋ㍮ࡀ㐲៖ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ඛ㍮ಁ ࡍሙྜ㸧 a ḟࢆὀࡄࡽࠊ㣧ࢇࡌࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ b 㸡ḟࢆὀࡄࡽࠊ㣧ࢇ࡛ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ ࡘࡲࡾࠊᙇ㸦2011㸧࡛᫂ࡽࡋࡓࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ⏝ἲ̿⾜Ⅽࡢ㒊ศⓗ㐩ᡂゎ㔘࡛ࡁ ࡿࡇ࡛ࠊ ࠕ㸦࠾㓇ࢆ㸧㣧ࡴࠖ⾜Ⅽࢆ㒊㐩ᡂࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࡞ࡃࠊ㒊ศⓗ⾜Ⅽࡢ㐩ᡂࡢゎ㔘ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ ୍ཱྀ㣧ࡴ࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀチࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ┦ᡭవᆅࡀ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺ࠊࡑࡢືసࢆ㐩ᡂࡉ࠼ࡍࢀ ࡤࡼ࠸࠸࠺ྵពࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡓ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡍࢀࡤࠊ4.1 ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ 6 ࡣࠊ㒊ศⓗ㐩ᡂࡢ ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗពゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࡺ࠼ࠊ┦ᡭࡢ㓄៖ࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࡀ⌧ࢀࡓཎᅉࡋ࡚ㄝ࡛᫂ ࡁࡼ࠺ 19ࠋ 5.2 㛫ほⓗពࡢᣑᙇ ᩗㄒࡸᜠᜨ⾲⌧ࡢᩚྜᛶ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࡛࢘ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿഴྥࡽࠊ ࠕ ࢳ ࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ㛫ほⓗពᣑᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ⌧㇟ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ㛫ほⓗពࡢᣑᙇࡣࠊᩗㄒࡢᩚྜᛶ ࡸࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࡢ⌧㇟ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ᩿ゝ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࠕ㛫ほ 6 −94− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 (intersubjectification)ࠖ(Traugott&Dasher2002)ࡢࡋࡋ࡚ぢࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ 6 ࠾ࢃࡾ ᮏ⪃ᐹࢆ㏻ࡋࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡢ㐪࠸ࡀࠊࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗഃ㠃ࠊヰ⪅ࡢឤ࣭ホ౯ࡢഃ㠃 ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࠾࠸࡚ࡶ㐪࠸ࡀฟ࡚ࡃࡿࡢࡀ᫂ࡽ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ┦ᡭ ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࠾ࡅࡿࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢാࡁࢆࡋࡓ࠶ࡽࡓࡵ࡚☜ㄆࡋࡓୖࠊ୧⪅ࢆ༊ู ࡋ࡚グ㏙ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᅇ⪃៖ࢆධࢀ࡞ࡗࡓ᪉ゝᕪࠊ ᛶูᕪࠊᖺ㱋ᕪࡽࡢ⪃ᐹ࡞ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ ὀ ˮ᪂∧᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱˯ 㸦㸧ࡼࡿࠊ⦰⣙ᙧࡣࠊࡉࡽヰ㏿࡞⏕⌮ⓗ࡞⌮⏤ࡼࡗ࡚അⓎⓗ ⏕ࡌࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊࢫࢱࣝࡢᕪࡼࡗ࡚࠸ศࡅࡀࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊつ๎ⓗ㉳ࡇࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ ๓⪅ࡣࠊࡣ㸦࣮࣎࢝ࠊ࣎࢝㸧 ࠊࡕࡻࡗ㸦ࢳࣙࢺ㸧࡞ࠊᚋ⪅ࡣࠊ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㸦࢝ࢸࣝ㸧 ࠊ᭩ ࠸࡚ࡋࡲ࠺㸦࢝ࢳࣕ࢘㸧 ࠊࡑࢀࡣ㸦ࢯ࣮ࣜࣕ㸧࡞ࡀྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࢺ࣮ࢡࣥ㢖ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ゝㄒᙧᘧࡀ㸯ࡘࡢฎ⌮ࣘࢽࢵࢺࡋ࡚ࡢᆅࢆᚓࡿࡢ㝶ࡋ࡚ࠊ㡢ኌࡢ⦰⣙ኚ ࡸࡑࢀక࠺ពኚࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠊ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⌧㇟ࡣࠊࡶࡗࡥࡽㄒࡼࡾࡶࡁ࡞༢ ࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ᑐࡋ࡚࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ⥲ྜࡋ࡚ࠕ⦰⣙ຠᯝࠖࡪ㸦᪩℩࣭ᇼ⏣ 2005㸸 98㸧 ࠋ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡢヰ⪅ࡢឤ࣭ホ౯ⓗ⏝ἲࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢṧᛕ࡞Ẽᣢࡕࠊணእࡢฟ᮶ࡢⓎ⏕ࠊ↓ពᚿ ⓗ⾜࡞ࡗࡓືసࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ http://blog.k-mix.co.jp/cheers/2006/02/27-2200-3155.php?numadu-mishima ᑎᮧ㸦1984㸧࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊ ࠕᝒယࡸᚋ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ ࠕࡋࡵࡋࡵࠖ࠸࠺ឤࡌࡢࠊពእ࡞ࡢᡂࡾ ࡺࡁࢆࡼࢁࡇࡪࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࢃࢀࡿ㸦ᑎᮧ 1984㸸 155㸧 ࠖグ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡓࡔࡋࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࢆ༊ูࡏࡎグ㏙ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᱱ㸦2003㸧࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࣉࣛࢫᛮ⪃⏝ἲࡢࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡣࠊฟ᮶ࡢ⏕㉳ᑐࡋࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࠕᅔࡿࠖ➼ࡢ ㈇ࡢឤࢆᚲࡎࡋࡶᢪࡎࠊࡴࡋࢁࠕዲࡲࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖᤊ࠼ࡿࡇࢆ⾲ࡍࠖ㏙ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢヰ⪅ࡢṇࡢឤࡣࠊᑎᮧ㸦1984㸧࡛ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㛵ᮾ᪉ゝࡢࠕࡋࡵࡋࡵࠖ࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢឤࡸࠊ Ono and Suzuki1992࡛ᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿヰ⪅ࡢ guiltily positive attitude ඹ㏻ࡍࡿ㒊ศࡀ࠶ࡿᛮࢃࢀ ࡿࠋ ᥟ⏝ἲࡣࠊ ࠕほᐹ࠾ࡅࡿ⪅ࡢᵝែࢆᥟࡍࡿࡇࢆ⾲ࡍࠖ࠸࠺⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ㄯヰ⏝ἲࡣࠊ ࠕᩥἲⓗ࡞ពࡣࢇ࡞ࡃࠊㄯヰࡢ୰࡛ఱࡽࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍࠖ࠸࠺⏝ἲ࡛࠶ ࡿࠋణࡋࠊලయⓗఱࡽࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡘ࠸࡚ヲࡋࡃ㏙ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ http://www.diet-pinky.com/labo/kanten/kanten4.html http://www.sekaikikou.sakura.ne.jp/ http://blog.goo.ne.jp/tanpopo_po/e/4b2ee85e2a09bee9fa72d49a535675e5 2011/08/16 YAHOO ᳨࡛⣴ࡋࡓࠋ ࠕࡲࡵ࡚ࡃࢀࡕࡷ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠖ68,200 ௳ࠊ ࠕࡲࡵ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠖ0 ௳ࠊ ࠕ㜵ᐮࡶࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡕ ࡷ࠸ࡲࡍࠖ28 ௳ࠊ ࠕ㜵ᐮࡶࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡍࠖ0 ௳ࠋ㐺᱁ᛶࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊࢿࢵࢺ࡛ㄪࡓ⏝ᩘ ࡼࡾࠊุ᩿ࡋࡓࠋ᳨⣴᪥㸸2010/11/30ࠋ http://item.rakuten.co.jp/nadesiko/c-s08-25-106/ http://com.babycome.ne.jp/U003.php?article_id=144176 ᑀࡉ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࡢ࠺ࡀࡼࡾᑀ࡞ゝ࠸᪉ᙇࡍࡿேࡶ࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊヰ⪅ࡢឤ 7 −95− 語用論的観点から見る縮約表現の一考察―ポライトネスを反映する「チャウ」を事例に― ࡀṇ㈇ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ࠺ࡀࡼࡾ✚ᴟⓗㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ 4.1 ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ㸦6㸧ࡣࠊ ࠕࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡀ⾲ࡍࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព㸺㒊ศⓗ㐩ᡂ㸼࡛ㄝ᫂ࡀࡘ࠸ࡓࡀࠊ 㸦7㸧 ࡣࠊ๓᥋ືモࠕᗙࡿࠖࡣ▐㛫ⓗ㐩ᡂࡍࡿືసࢆ⾲ࡍືモ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⥅⥆ືモࠕ㣗ࡿࠖ␗࡞ ࡾࠊ㒊ศⓗ㐩ᡂࡢゎ㔘ࡣࡢࡼ࠺ᯝࡓࡍࡣၥ㢟Ⅼࡋ࡚ṧࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⌧Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕ㣗ࡿࠖ ࠕᗙࡿࠖࡣࠊືసࡢ㛫ᛶ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㐪࠸ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡀࠊືసయࡢពᚿⓗືసࢆ⾲ࡍⅬ࡛ྠࡌ࡛ ࠶ࡿࡇࡀ᫂ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࡢഃ㠃࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕᗙࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖࡣࠊ ఱᨾࠕ㣧ࢇࡌࡷࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖྠࡌࡼ࠺࣏ࣛࢺࢿࢫࢆ♧ࡍࡢࡣࠊࡲࡔ᫂ࡽ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞ ࠸ࠋࡇࡢⅬࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡲࡓᚋࡢ㆟ㄽ࡛῝ࡵࡓ࠸ࠋ ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ ᬕᙪ࣭▼ᕝៅ୍㑻㸬2006㸬 ࠕ⦰⣙ࡀࡶࡓࡽࡍᵓᩥࡢពⓗ࣭ᶵ⬟ⓗኚ̿ゝㄒࢥ࣮ࣃࢫᇶ࡙ࡃ there is / there’s ᵓᩥࡢ◊✲̿ࠖࠊ ࠗ⚄ᡞᏛᅜ㝿ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢭࣥࢱ࣮ㄽ㞟࠘ ࠊ3ࠊ15-36 ୖཎ ⪽࣭⇃௦ᩥᏊ㸬2007㸬ࠕㄆ▱ᙧែㄽࠖࠊ ࠗ㡢㡩࣭ᙧែࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࠘ࠊ153-207ࠊᮾி㸸◊✲♫㸬 ᑠᕝᏊ㸬2010㸬 ࠕᣦ♧⾲⌧ࡽㄯヰ⾲⌧̿ࠕࡇࡾࡷࠖ ࠕࡑࡾࡷࠖ ࠕ࠶ࡾࡷࠖࢆࡋ࡚̿ࠖ ࠊ ࠗゝㄒ ⛉Ꮫㄽ㞟࠘ ࠊ16ࠊ43-56ࠊி㒔Ꮫ㸬 ᕝ℩⏕㑻㸬1992㸬 ࠕ⦰⣙⾲⌧⦰⣙ᙧࡢᩥἲࠖࠊ ࠗᮾிᏛ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮⣖せ࠘ ࠊ2ࠊ1-24㸬 㔠Ỉ ᩄ㸬2002㸬 ࠕࡢ⾲⌧ࠖ㔠Ỉᩄ࣭ᕤ⸨┿⏤⨾࣭⏣ၿᏊ㸦ⴭ㸧 ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲ ࣭ྰᐃྲྀ ࡾ❧࡚࠘ ࠊ3-92ࠊᮾிᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬 㔠⏣୍ᙪ㸬1955㸬 ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒືモࡢࢸࣥࢫࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠖࠊ㔠⏣୍ᙪ⦅㸦1976㸧 ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒືモࡢࢫ࣌ ࢡࢺ࠘4-12ࠊᮾிࡴࡂ᭩ᡣ㸬 ᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲⦅㸬2007㸬ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ࠘ ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾㸬 Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Ryoko Suzuki. 1992. The development of a marker of speaker’s attitude: The pragmatic use of the Japanese grammaticized verb shimau in conversation. BLS. 18, 204-13. 㕥ᮌᬛ⨾㸬1998㸬 ࠕࠕ㹼࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠖࡢពࠖ ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘ ࠊ97ࠊ48-59ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ㸬 㧗ᶫኴ㑻㸬1969㸬 ࠕࡍࡀࡓࡶࡃࢁࡳࠖࠊ㔠⏣୍ᙪ㸦⦅㸧1976ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒືモࡢࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࠘ࠊ115-153ࠊ ᮾிࡴࡂ᭩ᡣ㸬 ᾆ┿ே㸬2008㸬 ࣏ࠗࣛࢺࢿࢫධ㛛࠘ࠊᮾி㸸◊✲♫㸬 ᙇ ཪ⳹㸬2011㸬 ࠕ⦰⣙⾲⌧ពኚ̿᪥ᮏㄒࢫ࣌ࢡࢺᙧᘧࠕࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࢆ̿ࠖ ࠊ KLS32:Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Annual Meeting of The Kansai Linguistic Societyࠊ181-193ࠊ㛵すゝㄒ Ꮫ㸬 ᑎᮧ⚽ኵ㸬1984㸬 ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢩࣥࢱࢡࢫពϩ࠘ᮾிࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬 Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press. ᪩℩ᑦᏊ࣭ᇼ⏣ඃᏊ㸬2005㸬ࠗㄆ▱ᩥἲࡢ᪂ᒎ㛤̿࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ⏝ἲᇶ┙ࣔࢹࣝ࠘ᮾி◊✲♫㸬 ᱱஂỤ㸬2003㸬 ࠕࠕ̿ࢸࢩ࣐࢘ࠖࠕ̿ࢳࣕ࢘ࠖࡢ┦㐪ࠖࠊ ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ᏛᏘண✏㞟࠘67-72㸬 ྜྷᕝṊ㸬1973㸬 ࠕ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒືモࡢࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡢ◊✲ࠖ ࠊ㔠⏣୍ᙪ㸦⦅㸧1976ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒືモࡢࢫ ࣌ࢡࢺ࠘ ࠊ157-307ࠊᮾிࡴࡂ᭩ᡣ㸬 8 −96− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ɼ᫆᩼ଢᅆኽௐನ૨ỉɼᛖӸᚺӟỆ᧙ẴỦॖԛႎὉᛖဇᛯႎСኖỆếẟềᴾ ᴾ ݯᬔᴾ ࡍҦᴾ ࠤܖٻᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᾋᵟᶀᶑᶒᶐᵿᶁᶒᾍᴾ This paper deals with linguistic phenomena called Implicit Theme Resultative Constructions (ITRC) in the framework of Semantics and Pragmatics, especially, Cognitive Linguistics. The main three arguments are the following way. First, this paper argues that Schlesinger’s (1995) four semantic elements for instrumental subjects are reduced to two: complexity and essential property. Second, the paper claims that the instrumental subject referent of prototypical ITRC is restricted in terms of the reduced elements. Finally, the human subject referent of peripheral ITRC is confined by means of the two factors and motivated by such metaphor as HUMAN BEINGS ARE COMPLICATED MACHINES. ᵹỿὊὁὊἛᵻᵘᴾ 㢟㠀᫂♧ᆺ⤖ᯝᵓᩥ, ㄒྡモྃ, 㐨ලㄒ, ᒓᛶ, 」㞧ᛶ ᵏᵌ ỊẳỜỆᴾ ᮏㄽࡣᑞ㤿ཬࡧ Tsushima (2007, 2008, 2010a, b, 2012, in prep a, b) ࡛ࠕ㢟㠀᫂♧ᆺ⤖ᯝᵓᩥ(Implicit Theme Resultative Constructions)(௨ୗࠊITRC)ࠖࡪḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒ⌧㇟ࡢㄒྡモྃ㛵ࡍࡿពⓗ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗไ⣙ࢆ ㄽࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (1) a. These revolutionary brooms sweep cleaner than ever. b. Concentrated washing powders wash whiter. (Aarts 1995: 85) ࡇࡢᵓᩥࡢ᭱ࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊ㢟ࡀ⤫ㄒⓗࡣ㠀᫂♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊពⓗࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ ࡿࠋ(1a)ࡢᐃࡉࢀࡿ㠀᫂♧ⓗ㢟ࡣࠕᤲࡃࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿሙᡤ(floors)࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊ(1b)࡛ࡣࠕὙ࠼ࡿ≀(clothes, shirts, sheets)࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊྛࡢ“cleaner”, “whiter”ࡣ⤫ㄒୖ㠀᫂♧ࡉࢀࡓ㢟ࡢ⤖ᯝ㏙ㄒ(RP)ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ Tsushima (2010a)࡛ࡣᵓᩥᩥἲࡢほⅬࡽ ITRC ࢆ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺ᐃᘧࡋࠊࡉࡽㄆ▱ᩥἲࡢどⅬࡽࡑࡢែㄆ ▱ࣔࢹࣝࢆᅗ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺ᥥ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (2) ITRC ࡢᙧᘧ(Form)ព(Meaning)ࡢᐃᘧ: Form: [NP1 V ȭ RP (AP or PP)] (ȭࡣ⤫ㄒⓗ㠀᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡍ) X Y Z Meaning: [X (in virtue of Property) ENABLES Y to BECOME Z] (Tsushima 2010a: 130) ᵏᵘᴾᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉʙ७ᛐჷἴἙἽᴾ ᴾ Tsushima (ibid.)࡛ࡣࠊITRC ࡣ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡽࠕ⤖ᯝࠖ࠸࠺ពࢆࠊ୰㛫ᵓᩥࡽࠕᒓᛶࠖ࠸࠺ពࢆ⥅ᢎࡋ࡚ −97− 主題非明示型結果構文の主語名詞句に関する意味的・語用論的制約について ࠸ࡿࡇࢆᙇࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡀ(2)ࡢពࡢ୰ࡶᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅗ 1 ࡢᆺⓗ࡞ ITRC ࡢែㄆ▱ࣔࢹ࡛ࣝ ࡣࠊ㐨ලㄒ(INSTR)ࡀ㢟(TH)ຊࢆ⾜ࡋ࡚ࠊᚋ⪅ࡀ◚⥺ᅄゅ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡓ⤖ᯝ≧ែ⮳ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࢺࣛࢪ࢙ࢡࢱ࣮(tr)ࠊࣛࣥࢻ࣐࣮ࢡ(lm)ࡋ࡚ࣉࣟࣇࣝࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵኴ⥺࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ 㐨ලㄒࡣ⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜ࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿࠕ㈐௵ᛶࠖࡀ⏕ࡌࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢࠕ⮬ᚊᛶࠖࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢᵝᏊࡀࡑࢀ ࡒࢀ INSTR ෆ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽࠊࡑࡢ⫼ᚋࡣ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃࣉࣟࣇࣝࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊ㐨ලࢆ㛫᥋ ⓗ᧯సࡍࡿືసࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢᵝᏊࡣ⣽⥺ࡢ AG 㔜▮༳⥺࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑞ㤿(2012)࡛ࡣࡇ ࠺ࡋࡓែㄆ▱ࡣㄆ▱ᩥἲࡢ௬ḟඖ(virtual plane)(cf. Langacker 1999 ࡞)࡛⏕ࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡣࠕᒓᛶླྀ ㏙ࠖ(cf. ┈ᒸ 2008 ࡞)ࡢ୍✀┦ᙜࡍࡿ᪨ࡀᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ITRC 㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࡋ࡚ࡣㄪࡓ㝈ࡾ࠾࠸࡚ⴭ⪅ࡢࡶࡢࢆ㝖ࡃ3 ⪅ࡼࡿᣦࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ ➨1Aarts (1995, 1997)࡛࠶ࡾ⏕ᡂ⤫ㄒㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡽ ITRC ࡢゝㄒ⌧㇟⮬యࢆᣦࡋࡓ᭱ึࡢ◊✲࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㢟㠀᫂♧ࡢ せᅉᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃࡢ୍㒊(⤖ᯝ㏙ㄒࠊㄒࠊືモࡢᛶ㉁)ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➨ 2 ࡢ◊✲ࡣ Goldberg (2001, 2005a, b)ࡼ ࡿᵓᩥᩥἲ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛࠶ࡾࠊITRC ࢆࠕ⬺ࣉࣟࣇࣝᵓᩥ(deprofiled object construction)ࠖࡢ୍✀ ࡋࠊࡢᵓᩥໟᣓⓗ┠ⓗㄒࡀ⬺ⴠࡍࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➨ 3 ࡣ Kageyama (2002)ࡢㄒᙡពㄽࡼ ࡿࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ┠ⓗㄒࡀ㠀᫂♧ࡉࢀࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࠕ㡯ࡢᢚไࠖ࠸࠺ほⅬࡽ㏙࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡉࡽࠊⴭ⪅ࡢ୍㐃ࡢ◊✲(2007, 2008, 2010a, b, 2012, in prep a, b)࡛ࡣࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢほⅬࡽ 3 Ⅼࡢᙇࡀ ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➨ 1 ITRC ࡣ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺ࡢᵓᩥࡣ࡞࠸⊂⮬ࡢᙧᘧពࡢ࣌ࣜࣥࢢࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 2 ITRC ࡢᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃ㛵㐃ᵓᩥᐃࡉࢀࡿ୰㛫ᵓᩥ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡢࡶࡢẚ㍑ࡋࠊITRC ࡣ㛵 㐃ᵓᩥ⎔ቃࡢ୍㒊ࢆ㒊ศⓗඹ᭷ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊ⊂⮬ࡢ⎔ቃࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➨ 3 ࢝ࢸࢦ ࣮ࣜᙧᡂࡘ࠸࡚ࠊITRC ࡢእ㒊࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂࡣ୰㛫ᵓᩥࡽࠕᒓᛶࠖ࠸࠺ពࢆࠊ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡽࠕ⤖ᯝࠖ ࠸࠺ពࢆ⥅ᢎࡋࡘࡘࡶ⊂❧ࡋࡓ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᨾࡇࢀࡽ 3 ࡘࡢᵓᩥࡣᐙ᪘ⓗ㢮ఝᛶᇶ࡙ࡃ ࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊෆ㒊࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ࠕ⏝౫ᣐࣔࢹࣝ(Usage-Based Model)ࠖᇶ࡙ࡁࠊࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉᇶ࡙ࡃ」ྜࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ(complex netework)ࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᐃ ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(cf. Tsushima in prep a)ࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡇࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣ✚ᴟⓗゐࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞ࡗࡓ ITRC ࡢㄒྡモྃ 㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࢆពㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࠊ≉ࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡽ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇࢆࡓࡿ┠ⓗࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢ ᵓᡂࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 2 ⠇࡛ࡣ ITRC ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋ➨ 3 ⠇࡛ࡣᮏㄽࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ ࡋ࡚ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢ㐨ලㄒᑐࡍࡿぢゎࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ➨ 4 ⠇ࡣ ITRC ࡢㄒྡモྃ㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࢆᥦࡍࡿࠋ ➨ 5 ⠇ࡣ⤖ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᵐᵌ ᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉἙὊἑểನ૨ႎؾỉಒᚇὊݯᬔᵆᵐᵎᵎᵕᵇᵊᴾᵲᶑᶓᶑᶆᶇᶋᵿᴾᵆᵐᵎᵎᵖᵊᴾᵐᵎᵏᵎᵿᵇỉௐửɶ࣎ỆὊᴾ ᵐᵌᵏ ᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉἙὊἑỉࣱឋᴾ 2 ⠇࡛ࡣ ITRC ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃࢆᑞ㤿(2007), Tsushima (2008, 2010a)ࡢᡂᯝࢆ୰ᚰᴫほࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡲࡎࠊ ITRC ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡋ࡚ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࡢࡶࡢࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠸࠺ࡇࡽ⪃ᐹࢆࡣࡌࡵࡓ࠸ࠋḟࡢࢆぢࡼ ࠺ࠋ (3) a. Our new washing machine washes cleaner! b. The new mop polishes cleaner. (Tsushima 2010a: 1) ࡇࢀࡽࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ ITRC ࡋ࡚ⴭ⪅ࡼࡾసࡉࢀࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ(constructed data)࡛࠶ࡾࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅☜ㄆࡋࡓ ࡇࢁᐜㄆࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ௨ୗࡢࢆぢࡓ࠸ࠋ (4) a. The idea that there is an investment-equivalent of the detergent that washes whiter than white just does not work. b. Many of the best slogans ʊ Colgate’s “Ring of confidence”, “Persil washes whiter”, “Oxo gives a meal man appeal”, above all, perhaps, “Guinness is good for you” ʊ are simple statements of USPs. −98− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 (ୗ⥺ࡣⴭ⪅ࠊ௨ୗྠᵝ) (BNC) (5) When it comes to the not-so-subtle art of hyperbole, marketing folks exercise a rare genius in their use of it. In this business, a detergent doesn’t just wash white but whiter than white. (8th, August, 2003, Media)(Factiva.com) (4)ࡢࡣ BNC ࡽࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊITRC ࡀᩘ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ(5)ࡣ㞧ㄅ࣭᪂ 1 ⪺᳨⣴ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫ Factiva.com ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣᩘⓒࡢ༢࡛ᐇࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡉࡽḟ ࡢࢆぢࡓ࠸ࠋ (6) a. Those who find to their surprise that washing powders wash whiter. (OED, wash㡫) b. New Jet now washes even whiter. ࠕ⌧ᅾࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢪ࢙ࢵࢺࡣࡉࡽⓑࡃὙ࠼ࡲࡍࠋࠖ (ࢪ࣮ࢽࢫⱥ㎡(㟁Ꮚ㎡᭩∧), even 㡫) (6)ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ㎡᭩ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ(3)-(6)ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡽḟࡢࡇࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊẕㄒ ヰ⪅ࡢ┤ほࢆᫎࡋࡓసࢹ࣮ࢱࡔࡅ౫ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⤒㦂ⓗࢹ࣮ࢱ(empirical data)ࡋ࡚ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡸ㎡᭩࡛ ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࡣࠊ ITRC ࡣ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘ ࠕᐃ╔(entrenched)ࠖ ཬࡧ ࠕ័⩦(conventionalized)ࠖ ࡋࡓࣘࢽࢵࢺࡋ࡚ࠊᡃࠎࡢ⬻ෆࡢᵓᩥࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡୖ⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿゝ࠼ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿ(cf. Tsushima in prep a)ࠋ ᵐᵌᵐ ᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉؕஜႎễನ૨ႎؾᵆᶁᶍᶌᶑᶒᶐᶓᶁᶒᶇᶍᶌᵿᶊᴾᶎᶐᶍᶎᶃᶐᶒᶇᶃᶑᵇᴾ ᑞ㤿(2007)ཬࡧ Tsushima (2008, 2010a)࡛ࡣ๓⠇࡛ࡳࡓࡼ࠺࡞ ITRC ࢆヲ⣽⪃ᐹࡋࠊࡑࡢࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉⓗࡢ ᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃࢆ(7)ࡢ㏻ࡾࡲࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (7) Constructional Properties of ITRCs: comparative, superlative, or positive of degree with Form: [NP1 V ȭ RP (AP or PP)] a modifier) or prepositional phrase with an adjective i. X ii. Y Z modifier; if limited to a positive meaning Meaning: [X (in virtue of Property) ENABLES Y vi Verb: verbs from which the resultative states are to Theme: implicit; themes are nonspecific referents vii. Tense: most usually the present and are predictable given our background viii. Aspect: higher-order perfective / progressive form; to BECOME Z] iii. some degree predictable possible; higher-order progressive knowledge or frame iv. Subject: instrument; noun phrases with ix. contradiction to the positive alternative) determiners or ones in the plural form without any v. Negation: not possible (unless stated in determiner; artificial objects x. Register: common in advertisements RP: obligatory element: adjective (especially xi. Aktionsart: destiny- and result-oriented ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⎔ቃࡣ⤯ᑐⓗࡘ㟼ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡋ࡚ᥐᐃࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊືⓗ࡛ẁ㝵ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࡀᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃࡣࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉࢆᡂࡍࢤࢩࣗࢱࣝࢺࡋ࡚ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ≉ᛶࢆ ‶ࡓࡏࡤ‶ࡓࡍࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉ࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿ(cf. Tsushima in prep b)ࠋ ᵑᵌ ྸᛯႎኵỚᴾ ᮏ✏ࡀ᥇⏝ࡍࡿㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕㄒࠖ㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊvan Oosten (1984: 123)࡞ࡀࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉⓗ ືసࡢᴫᛕࢆᥦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⡆⣲ゝ࠼ࡤࠊືసࡣពᚿࡸពᅗࢆᣢࡕࠊࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࡼࡗ࡚㠀ືసኚࢆ ࡶࡓࡽࡍࡓࡿ㈐௵ࢆᣢࡘே㛫࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡞ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡀᑐ㇟ࡍࡿ ITRC ࡣ㐨ලㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢศື −99− 主題非明示型結果構文の主語名詞句に関する意味的・語用論的制約について సࡋ࡚ࡢᆺᛶࡣୗࡀࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⠇ࡢ௨ୗࡢ㆟ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ㐨ලㄒ㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊඛ⾜◊✲ࡢ Schlesinger (1989, 1995)ࡼࡿ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ☜ㄆࡋࠊࡉࡽࡑࡇಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡛ࠊ㐨ලㄒ࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡀㄆ▱ⓗ㐺 ษືᶵࡅࡽࢀࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ ࡲࡎࠊSchlesinger (1989)ࡢ㐨ලㄒ㛵ࡍࡿ 2 ࡘࡢ⮬↛᮲௳ࢆぢࡿࡇࡽࡣࡌࡵࡓ࠸ࠋ (8) Natural Condition I: When the event is not instigated by a human agent, or when the agent is unknown or no longer on the scene, the instrument by means of which the action is performed or which is involved in the event may be naturally expressed as the subject. (Schlesinger 1989: 190) Natural Condition II: To the extent that attention is drawn to the instrument by means of which an action is performed and away from the instigator of the action, the former will be naturally expressed as the sentence subject. (ibid.: 191) (9) a. The rust has eaten away at the lock. b. The clock was ticking so loudly that it woke the baby. (ibid.: 190) (10) a. ?The pencil draws lines. b. The pencil draws thin lines. (ibid.: 191) (11) a. ?The spray kills the cockroaches. b. The spray kills cockroaches instantly. (ibid.) (ᐜㄆᗘุ᩿༳ࡣⓎ⾲⪅ࡼࡿ) ᮲௳ I ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ(9)࠾࠸࡚㐨ලㄒࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽࡀே㛫ࡢືసࡼࡗ࡚ᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞ ࠸ࠊືసࡀ࡛᫂࠶ࡿሙ㠃ୖᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ᮲௳ II ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ(10b) ཬࡧ(11b)ࡣ⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜ࡼࡗ࡚㐨ලὀពࡀྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡞ࡿࡀࠊ(10a)ཬࡧ(11a) ࡣࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࡸࡸ⮬↛ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋ ࡉࡽࠊSchlesinger (1995)ࡣࠊ㐨ලࡀືసࡋ࡚ࠕ⠊(recategorized)ࠖࡉࢀࡿࡇࢆᣦࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ せ௳ࢆ 4 Ⅼᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࠊ1 ࡘ┠ࡢせᅉࡣ(12)(13)ᘬ⏝ࡍࡿࠕ」㞧ᗘ(Complexity)࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ (12) […] a complex tool (e.g. rifle) is regarded as less of an instrument than a more simply constructed one, when the complexity is relevant to the activity mentioned. This is because a complex tool is viewed as functioning in a sense more independently, having more CONTROL, and thus being more agent-like […]. (Schlesinger 1995: 98) (13) The more complex the mechanism and the greater its ability to operate on its own once the operation is triggered off, the greater its degree of membership in the Agent category. (Schlesinger 1989: 193) (14) a. The car swerved and ran into a lamppost. b. ?The bicycle swerved and ran into a lamppost. c. ??The roller skates swerved and ran into a lamppost. (ibid.) (ᐜㄆᗘุ᩿༳ࡣⓎ⾲⪅) ࡇࡢせ௳ࡼࢀࡤࠊ」㞧࡞㐨ලࡣࡼࡾ⾜Ⅽᨭ㓄ᛶ(Controllability)ࢆᣢࡗࡓ⊂❧ࡋࡓືసⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡋ࡚ぢ࡞ࡉࢀ ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡀ」㞧࡛ࠊ୍᪦᧯సࡀᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀࠊ⮬ࡽࡢຊ࡛᧯స࡛ࡁࡿ⬟ຊ(ࡘࡲࡾࠊ⮬ᚊᛶ)ࡀ㧗ࡲ ࢀࡤ㧗ࡲࡿࠊືసᛶࡶ㧗ࡲࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡼࡾࠊ(14)ࡢࡿ⯙࠸ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ➨(15)ࡢࠕᒓᛶ(Essential Property)ࠖࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ (15) The more the success of the activity depends on properties of the instrument, the more the latter can be credited with CONTROL. (Schlesinger 1995: 99) ࡇࡢせ௳ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊែࡢᡂ❧ࡀ㐨ලࡢࠕᒓᛶࠖ㛵ࡍࢀࡤࡍࡿࠊ㐨ලㄒࡼࡿ⾜Ⅽᨭ㓄ᛶࡀ㧗ࡲࡿࡇ −100− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡼࡾඛࡳࡓ(10)ཬࡧ(11)ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ➨3(16)ࡢࠕ⮬ᚊᛶ(Independence)ࠖࡀᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (16) To the extent that an instrument can perform the activity without the intervention of a human agent, it will be assigned more CONTROL and be more suitable as sentence subject. […] Operation of this factor often coincides with that of the complexity factor. (ibid.) (17) a. The clock was ticking so loudly that it woke the baby. (=9b) b. The dishwasher clean the dishes. (18) a. ?The stick hit the horse. b. ?The pencil drew lines. (=10a) (ibid.: 98-99) (ᐜㄆᗘุ᩿༳ࡣⓎ⾲⪅) ࡇࢀࡣࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖྠ⏕ࡌࡿᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ㐨ලࡀே㛫ࡢ㛵࡞ࡋ⮬ᚊⓗ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜࡛ࡁࢀࡤࠊ㐨ලࡢ ࡶࡘ⾜Ⅽᨭ㓄ᛶࡣ㧗ࡲࡿࠋࡇࢀࡼࡾ(17)(18)ࡢࡿ⯙࠸ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ᭱ᚋ(19)ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࠕ㝿❧ࡕᗘ(Saliency)ࠖࡢၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (19) The greater the saliency of the instrument relative to the human agent, the greater the CONTROL that can be assigned to it. This overlaps to a large extent with that of Independence: the more an instrument can operate independently of a human agent, the more salient it will be relative to this agent. (Schlesinger 1995: 99) (20) a. *The baton conducted Copland’s symphony. b. This is the baton that conducted Copland’s symphony on its opening night. (ibid.) ࡇࢀࡣࠕ⮬ᚊᛶࠖ㔜」ࡍࡿᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊே㛫ㄒẚ㍑ࡋ࡚㐨ලࡢ㝿❧ࡕࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࢀࡤ࡞ࡿࠊ㐨ලࡢᣢ ࡘ⾜Ⅽᨭ㓄ᛶࡣ㧗ࡲࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋ(20b)ࡣ༤≀㤋ࡢᏛⱁဨࡢⓎヰ࡛ࠊゝㄒⓗ┤♧ࡢthisࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ⪅ࡽᣦ Წ(baton)ὀពࡀࡑࡽࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆẚࡿᣦᲬࡢ᪉ࡀ㝿❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿឤࡌࡽࢀࠊᨾ㐨ලࡢ᪉ࡀ ືసࡋ࡚⠊ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(20a)ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࡀ㉳ࡇࡽ࡞࠸ࡓࡵᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡇࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㐨ලㄒ࠸࠺ࡢࡣSchlesinger (1989)ࡼࡿ(8)ࡢ⮬↛᮲௳ࢆ๓ᥦࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊ Schlesinger (1995)ࡢ4せᅉࡣࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖࠕᒓᛶࠖࡢ2ࡘ㑏ඖࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀࡼࡾ㐨ලㄒࡣㄆ▱ⓗ㐺ษືᶵ࡙ ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇࢆᙇࡋࡓ࠸ࠋṧࡿࠕ⮬ᚊᛶࠖࠕ㝿❧ࡕࠖࡣ⤖ᯝⓗࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖࡢ୰㞟⣙࡛ࡁࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ」 㞧ᛶࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸㐨ලࡣே㛫ࡢ㛵࡞ࡋ⮬ᚊⓗ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺ࡇࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡋࠊ᪉ࡑࡢ㏫ࡶᡂࡾ❧ࡘࡽ࡛࠶ ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㐨ලࡢ⮬ᚊᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࠊࡑࡢ㝿❧ࡕࡶ㝶ࡋ࡚㧗ࡲࡾࠊືసࡋ࡚⠊ࡉࢀࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⤖ᯝࠊࠕ㝿❧ࡕࠖࡣࠕ⮬ᚊᛶࠖ㑏ඖࡉࢀࠊࡉࡽࠕ⮬ᚊᛶࠖࡣࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖ㑏ඖࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋ ᨾࠊ௨ୗࡢ㆟ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊITRCࡢㄒྡモྃࡢືᶵࡅ㛵ࡋ࡚ࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖࠕᒓᛶࠖ࠸࠺2ࡘࡢ㑏ඖࡉࢀࡓせ ᅉࡽ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ ᵒᵌ ᵒᵌᵏ ᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉɼᛖӸᚺӟỆ᧙ẴỦᛐჷᚕᛖܖႎᎋݑᴾ ᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉɼᛖӸᚺӟỉࣱឋᴾ ࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣ ITRC ࡢㄒྡモྃࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ(7iv)࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ᆺⓗ࡞ ITRC ࡢㄒྡモ ྃࡣ㐨ලㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ(21)ࡸ(22)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ே㛫ㄒࡢࡶࡢࡣᐜㄆᛶࡀୗࡀࡿุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿࠋ (21) a. *Mary washes whiter. b. *My mother/The cleaning woman sweeps cleaner. (22) a. ??/*Mary washes whiter with our new washing powder. b. ??/*My mother/The cleaning woman sweeps cleaner with these revolutionary brooms than ever. −101− 主題非明示型結果構文の主語名詞句に関する意味的・語用論的制約について ୍᪉࡛ࠊGoldberg (2005a, b)ࡣ(23)ࡢࡼ࠺ே㛫ㄒࢆࡿITRCࢆᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡋ࡚ᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ ࡋࠊྠࡌࢆⴭ⪅ࡀⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅☜ㄆࡋࡓࡇࢁࠊ(24)ࡢࡼ࠺ᐜㄆᗘࡀ࡞ࡾప࠸࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡀฟࡓࠋࡘࡲ ࡾࠊࡇࡇࡿ⯙࠸࠾࠸࡚ゎỴࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࣃࣛࢻࢵࢡࢫࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣḟ ⠇௨㝆࡛ゎỴࢆヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ (23) a. The kindergartener cut in straight lines. b. The sewing instructor always cut in straight lines. (Goldberg 2005b: 222) (Goldberg 2005a: 29) (24) a. ??The kindergartener cut in straight lines. b. ??The sewing instructor always cut in straight lines. ᵒᵌᵐ ᵧᵲᵰᵡ ỉɼᛖӸᚺӟỉॖԛႎὉᛖဇᛯႎСኖᴾ ࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣࠊពㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࠊ≉ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡽࠊITRCࡢㄒྡモྃ㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡃࠋ ࡲࡎࠊḟࡢ(25)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᆺⓗ࡞ITRCࡢ㐨ලㄒྡモྃࢆࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖࠕᒓᛶࠖࢆᡭࡀࡾ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ (25) a. Our new washing machine washes cleaner! b. Our new washing powder washes whiter. (26) washing machine: A washing machine is a machine that you use to wash clothes in. washing powder: Washing powder is a powder that you use with water to wash clothes. (COBUILD) (25a)ࡢwashing machineࡣ(26)࡛ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㏻ࡾࠕᶵᲔ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡇࡣ」㞧ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⾰㢮ࢆὙ࠺ ࠸࠺ᒓᛶࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(25b)ࡢwashing powderࡶ(26)ࡢᐃ⩏ࡢ㏻ࡾྠᵝࡢᒓᛶࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀྠ Ὑࡣ⾰㢮ࡢởࢀࢆὙ࠸ⴠࡍ࠸࠺≉Ṧ࡞Ꮫ≀㉁ࡢ㓄ྜࡽ࡞ࡿ」㞧ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ2 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᆺⓗ࡞ ITRCࡢㄒ㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖࠕᒓᛶࠖࡢほⅬࡽ௨ୗࡢไ⣙ࡀᑟࡅࡿࡇࢆᙇࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ (27) A Constraint on Subjects of ITRCs: Subjects of ITRCs recategorized as agents will be constrained to items that have an instrumental entity (i) with a complex mechanism and (ii) with the essential properties on which the success of the activity depends. (27)ࡢไ⣙ࡼࢀࡤࠊືసࡋ࡚⠊ࡍࡿITRCࡢ㐨ලㄒࡣ(i)」㞧࡞࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆࡶࡕࠊ(ii)ࡑࡢែࡢᡂ ❧ࡀ㛵ࡍࡿᒓᛶࢆᣢࡗࡓ㐨ල࡛࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࠸࠺ࡇ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢไ⣙ᚑࡗ࡚ḟࡢࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ (28) a. Our new fully automatic washing machine washes cleaner. b. Our new detergent-free washing machine washes cleaner. c. Our new twin-tub washing machine washes cleaner. d. *Our new washboard washes cleaner. (ᑞ㤿 2010b: 230) (28a-c)ࡣᶵᲔࡅ࡞࠸ࡗࡓ」㞧ᛶࡸ⾰㢮ࢆὙ࠺࠸࠺ᒓᛶࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ᪉(28d)ࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ ࡶࡢࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊᨾ (27)ࡢไ⣙ࢆ‶ࡓࡏࡎࠊᐜㄆྍ࡞ࡿㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽḟࡢࢆࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ (29) a. The new sewing machine sews in zigzag lines. b. The new scissors cut in straight lines. (30) a. ??The new sewing machine sews in lines. b. ??The new scissors cut in lines. (31) a. The new scissors cut in straight lines. (=29b) −102− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 b. These revolutionary brooms sweep cleaner than ever. (32) a. ?The scissors cut in straight lines. b. ?These brooms sweep cleaner than ever. (29a)ࡢㄒྡモྃࡣᶵᲔࡅ࠸࠺」㞧ᛶࢪࢢࢨࢢ⦭࠼ࡿ࠸࠺ᒓᛶࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୍᪉ࠊ(29b)ࡣ 」㞧ᛶࡣྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡲࡗࡍࡄษࢀࡿ࠸࠺ᒓᛶࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(ᚋ㏙ࡿࡼ࠺ 」㞧ᛶࡣnew࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗሗࡼࡾ⿵ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ)ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(30a, b)࡛ࡣ」㞧ᛶ㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ(29a, b)ྠࡌࡔࡀࠊ ࡕࡽࡶᒓᛶࡶឤࡌྲྀࡽࢀࡃࡃ࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊᐜㄆᛶࡀୗࡀࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(31)࡛ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀㄒྡモྃ ࡢscissorࡸbroom⮬యࡣ」㞧ᛶࡣྵࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊᒓᛶࡢࡳࡀឤࡌྲྀࡽࢀࡿࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ」㞧ᛶ㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ (31)ࡢྡモྃ⮬యࡣㄒᙡࡉࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࡢࡔࡀࠊ(33)ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞newࡸrevolutionary࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ ሗࡼࡾㄆ▱ⓗ⿵ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࢆᣦࡋࡓ࠸ࠋᐇࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢㄒྃࢆ๐㝖ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺(32)ࡢࡼ࠺ ᐜㄆᛶࡀୗࡀࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ (33) a. new: not existing before; recently made, invented, introduced, etc b. revolutionary: involving a great or complete change (OALD) ௨ୖࡢࡇࡽࠊITRCࡢㄒྡモྃࡣ(27)ࡢไ⣙ࡼࡗ࡚㐺ษㄆ▱ⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ḟே㛫ࢆㄒࡍࡿࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ ᆺⓗ࡞ITRC࡛ࡣ(7vi)ࡢࡼ࠺ே㛫ㄒࡣチࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢࡔࡀࠊ (23)-(24)࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺ࠊே㛫ㄒ࡛ࡶᐜㄆᛶࡀࢀࡿ࠸࠺ࣃࣛࢻࢵࢡࢫࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋᆺᛶࡣୗࡀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࡀࠊ ேࢆㄒࡍࡿ ITRC ࡣᮏᙜチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡔࢁ࠺㸽ḟࡢࢆぢࡓ࠸ࠋ (34) a. The previous maidservant was not good at housekeeping, but the present maidservant washes whiter and sweeps cleaner than her predecessors did. b. The new maid is more skillful than any of her predecessors, and she sweeps cleaner than anyone has ever swept it before. c. Mary never attended to housework in her school days, but after she got married, she devoted herself wholly to practicing housekeeping. Now, Mary washes whiter and sweeps cleaner than she did before. d. The more competent workers cut in straighter lines than the less competent workers. (ᑞ㤿 2010b: 231) ࡇࢀࡽࡢࡣே㛫ㄒࡢ ITRC ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅☜ㄆࡋࡓࡇࢁࠊࡃࡶࡗ࡚ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࡣࠊඛࡢ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺ࠊᩥ⬦ሗࡼࡾㄒྡモྃ」㞧ᛶࡸᒓᛶ(ࡘࡲࡾࠊ⬟ຊ)ࡀ⿵ࡉࢀ ࡿࡇ࡛ࠊே㛫ㄒ࡛ࡶ㠀ே㛫ࡋࡓࠕ㐨ලࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼┤ࡉࢀ ITRC ࡋ࡚ᴫᛕࡉࢀࡿ࠸࠺ ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᨾࠊே㛫ㄒࡣ⣧⢋࡞ືసࡋ࡚࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡢㄒྡモྃࡣ HUMAN BEINGS ARE COMPLICATED MACHINES ࠸ࡗࡓ࣓ࢱࣇ࣮ࡼࡗ࡚ᣑᙇࡋࡓ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆᙇࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡇࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊே㛫ㄒࡢ ITRC ࡢㄒྡモྃ㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࢆᑟࡁࡓ࠸ࠋே㛫ㄒࡢ ITRC ࡛ࡣㄒ ྡモྃ㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࡢࠕ」㞧ᛶࠖࡸࠕᒓᛶࠖࡣㄒ⏝ㄽⓗሗࡼࡗ࡚⿵ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡛‶ࡓࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ ࣮ゎ㔘ࡼࡾㄒྡモྃࡢே㛫ࡣ㠀ே㛫ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ(27)ࡢไ⣙ࢆ(35)ࡢࡼ࠺ᣑᙇࡍࡿࡇ ࡛㐺⏝ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ (35) A Condition on Human Subjects of ITRCs: The human subject of an ITRC can be recategorized as an agent when it is recognized as (i) possessing a complex mechanism and (ii) the essential properties on which the success of its activity depends, and (iii) is metaphorically construed as a dehumanized instrument. −103− 主題非明示型結果構文の主語名詞句に関する意味的・語用論的制約について ࡇࡢࡼ࠺⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡿࠊඛ⏕ࡌࡓࣃࣛࢻࢵࢡࢫࡣࠊᩥ⬦࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽሗࡽ」㞧ᛶࡸᒓᛶࡀ⿵ࡉࢀ(35) ࡢไ⣙ࢆ‶ࡓࡏࡤITRCࡢ࿘㎶ࡋ࡚Goldbergࡢࡼ࠺࡞ุᐃ࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࡋࠊㄒ⏝ㄽሗࡀ༑ศ࡛」㞧 ᛶࡸᒓᛶࡀ‶ࡓࡉ࡞࠸ุᐃࡉࢀࢀࡤⴭ⪅ࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡢࡼ࠺࡞ุᐃࡀୗࡉࢀࡿࡇࡀண ࡉࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3 ᵓᵌ ኽᴾ ᛯᴾ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ Schlesinger (1995)ࡢ㐨ලㄒࡢ 4 せᅉࡣ 2 ࡘ(」㞧ᛶᒓᛶ)㑏ඖ࡛ࡁࡿࡇࢆᣦࡋࠊITRC ࡢࣉࣟ ࢺࢱࣉⓗㄒࡋ࡚ࡢ㐨ලㄒ㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࡣࡑࡢ 2 ࡘࡢせᅉࡽㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆᙇࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ ITRC ࡢᣑᙇⓗࡋ࡚ࡢே㛫ㄒ㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࡣ 2 ࡘࡢせᅉຍ࠼࡚࣓ࢱࣇ࣮ࡽᤊ࠼ࡿࡇࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ ࡿࡇࢆᙇࡋࡓࠋ ᾋදᾍᴾ ᮏ✏ࡣࠕᖹᡂ 23 ᖺᗘᮐᖠᏛ◊✲ຓᡂಶே◊✲◊✲ㄢ㢟ྡ㢟㠀᫂♧ᆺ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡢࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ㛵ࡍࡿㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗ ◊✲ࠖࡢ◊✲ᡂᯝࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᮏㄽࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ➨ ᅇᖺḟ࡛◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓࡶࡢᚲせ࡞ಟṇࢆຍ࠼࡚ㄽ ᩥࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙࢆࡾ࡚ྖࡢ㯮⏣⯟ඛ⏕ࣇࣟࡽពぢࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓ᪉ࠎឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋ 1 (5)ࡢࡣ(7)ࡢᆺⓗ࡞ ITRC ࡢᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃ↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏࡿࠊࡸࡸ࿘㎶ⓗ࡞࡞ࡿࡇࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ 2 ࡇࡇ࡛࠸࠺」㞧ᛶࡣࠊὙࡀᚤ⢏Ꮚࡽ࡞ࡿ㞟ྜయࡋ࡚」㞧࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ព࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇὀពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ≉ࠊwashing powder ࡣ detergent ࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆ⪃៖ࡍࢀࡤࠊ௨ୗࡢ COBUILD ࡢᐃ⩏ࡽ᫂ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ “Detergent is a chemical substance, usually in the form of a powder or liquid, which is used for washing things such as clothes or dishes.” 3 㯮⏣⯟Ặࡽே㛫ㄒࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣ࣓ࢱࣇ࣮ⓗゎ㔘ࡼࡾ㠀ே㛫ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࠕᙺྡ(role name)ࠖ ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ᪨ࡢᣦࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢⅬࢆྵࡵࡓ㆟ㄽ㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ᾋӋༀ૨ྂᾍᴾ Aarts, Bas. 1995. “Secondary predicates in English.” In: Bas Aarts and Charles F. Meyer (eds.) The verb in contemporary English. 75-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aarts, Bas. 1997. English Syntax and Argumentation. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press. Goldberg, Adele E. 2001. “Patient Arguments of Causative Verbs Can Be Omitted: The Role of Information Structure in Argument Distribution.” Language Sciences 23. 503-524. Goldberg, Adele E. 2005a. “Argument Realization ʊ The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors.” In: Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried (eds.) Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. 17-43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goldberg, Adele E. 2005b. “Constructions, Lexical Semantics, and the Correspondence Principle: Accounting for Generalizations and Subregularities in the Realization of Arguments.” In: Nomi Eriteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport (eds.) The Syntax of Aspect. 215-302. New York: Oxford University Press. Kageyama, Taro. 2002. “On the Role of Event Argument in Voice Alternation.” ࠗேᩥㄽ✲࠘ Vol.52:1. 79-96. 㛵すᏛ㝔Ꮫ Langacker, Ronald W. 1999b. “Virtual Reality.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29.2. 77-103. ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ. 2008. ࠕླྀ㏙㢮ᆺㄽྥࡅ࡚ࠖ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ(⦅) ࠗླྀ㏙㢮ᆺㄽ࠘ 3-18. ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧. Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1989. “Instruments as agents: on the nature of semantic relations.” Journal of Linguistics 25. 189-210. Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1995. Cognitive space and linguistic case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ᑞ㤿ᗣ༤. 2007. ࠕ㢟㠀᫂♧ᆺ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡢᵓᩥⓗ⎔ቃࡑࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂࠖ ࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛㄽᩥ㞟࠘ Vol. 7. 277-287. Tsushima, Yasuhiro. 2008. “The Categorization of Constructional Families: Implicit Theme Resultative Constructions, Resultative Constructions, and Middle Constructions.” Culture and Language. ʋ 69. 69-104. Sapporo University. Tsushima. Yasuhiro. 2010a. A Cognitive Linguistic Study of Implicit Theme Resultative Constructions and Their Related Constructions. Doctoral Dissertation. Hokkaido University. ᑞ㤿ᗣ༤. 2010b. ࠕ㢟㠀᫂♧ᆺ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡢពㄽⓗ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩࡅࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛㄽᩥ㞟࠘ Vol. 10. 226-236. ᑞ㤿ᗣ༤. 2012. ࠕ㢟㠀᫂♧ᆺ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡢᴫᛕࡢୡ⏺̿ㄆ▱ᩥἲඹྠὀពࡼࡿࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ̿ࠖ ࠗᩥゝㄒ࠘ ➨76ྕ. 13-59. ᮐᖠᏛ. Tsushima, Yasuhiro. in prep a. “The Cognitive Network of Implicit Theme Resultative Constructions.” Tsushima, Yasuhiro. in prep b. “The fuzziness of the internal category of Implicit Theme Resultative Constructions.” van Oosten, Jeanne Hillechiena. 1984. The Nature of Subjects, Topic and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. <Corpus> British National Corpus (BNC). Factiva.com <Dictionary> Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary (COBUILD). 4th ed. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDOCE). 5th ed. Oxford Advanced Leaner’s Dictionary (OALD). 7th ed. Oxford English Dictionary (OED) 2nd ed. ࢪ࣮ࢽࢫⱥ㎡(㟁Ꮚ㎡᭩∧). −104− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 マスメディアの科学ディスコースを通した数の認識 ―メタファー的思考に着目して― 出口 由美 関西大学大学院 [email protected] ＜Abstract＞ This paper discusses perception of numbers in mass media discourse on science, and then shows that two kinds of metaphors are involved in the perception: Container Metaphors in Grounding Metaphors (Lakoff & Núñez 1997, 2000, 2005; Núñez 2000) and Pedagogical Metaphors (Boyd, 1993). The former is involved in the perception of various number expressions (e.g. percentages, fractional numbers, etc.). The latter aims to describe or explain unfamiliar knowledge for public. Following this analysis, I focus on manipulation about “real” (Lynch 1990), which accompanies when we perceive numbers through metaphorical thought. 【キーワード】ディスコース 科学的知識 数値 メタファー的思考 1. はじめに 本論文は、マスメディアを通し、一般人に向けて科学的な知識を伝達するディスコースを「マスメデ ィアの科学ディスコース」とし、その中に現れる数値に着目する。マスメディアの科学ディスコースを 見渡せば、数値は随所にちりばめられている。たとえば、ある調査の成果がマスメディアを通して伝達 される時、その調査方法（調査期間、被調査者数、被調査者の年齢など）や調査結果（病気になる危険 性、調査から導きだされる割合など）は数値によって、あるいは数値をともなって伝えられる。また、 私たちは日々の営みおいて、絶えず数値に接する。それは、距離、日付、気温、価格、成績などの世界 に関する重要な情報が、数値を含む形式によって捉えられることからも明らかである。 このように私たちが科学的なディスコースや日常生活を通じて接する「数」とは、いずれも具体的に はさまざまなかたちをとりうる広義の「量」を抽象化したものである。では、人間は抽象的なものとし ての数をどのような仕方で認識しているのであろうか。この問題に取り組むことは、マスメディアの科 学ディスコースにおいて数値が必然的な構成要素となっている以上、一般人による科学的知識の認識の あり方を解明することの一端を担うと考えられる。 以上を踏まえ、本論文ではこうしたディスコースに現れる数値がメタファー的な思考に基づいて認識 されることを明らかにする。さらに、メタファーを通して数値を認識する際にともなう、物理的な領域 に関する（おもに心的な）操作のありようにも取り組む。 本論文の流れは以下のとおりである。第 2 章では、マスメディアの科学ディスコースにおける数の認 −105− マスメディアの科学ディスコースを通した数の認識―メタファー的思考に着目して― 識に関与するとみられる 2 種類のメタファー（ 「基礎づけるメタファーGrounding Metaphors」と「教育的 メタファーPedagogical Metaphors」 ）を提示することで、分析の視点を明確にする。第 3 章では、この 2 種類のメタファーが、実際のディスコースにどのような仕方で現れるかに関し、具体例を提示しながら 分析を行う。続く第 4 章の分析では、メタファー的思考を通した数値の認識にともなう、物理的な領域 に関する操作について論じる。第 5 章で本論文をまとめる。 2. 数値の認識にみられる 2 種類のメタファー 本章では、マスメディアの科学ディスコースに現れる数値の認識とメタファー的思考との関連を論じ るにあたり、対象とするディスコースに示されるメタファーの性質を整理する。 まず、マスメディアの科学ディスコースに現れる数値の認識においては、Lakoff & Núñez（1997, 2000） 、 Núñez（2000）によって提案された「基礎づけるメタファー」の関与がみられる。これは Lakoff and Johnson （1980）の「概念メタファーConceptual Metaphors」を継承する概念である。図 1 に示されるように、概 念メタファーでは、具体領域の Source Domain（以下、S 領域）を抽象領域の Target Domain（以下、T 領 域）に写像する構造がみられるが、Lakoff & Núñez は、この概念メタファーの構造を数学体系に拡張し ている。そして、身体的な経験などの人間にとってより具体的な領域が、数学体系という抽象的な領域 を定義しているとみられるメタファーを基礎づけるメタファーとする（図 2） 。 T 領域 数学 S 領域 図 1 概念メタファーの構造 日常 図 2 基礎づけるメタファーの構造 この基礎づけるメタファーに属するものの中でも本論文に関連の深いものとして、 《集合は容器》 Classes Are Containers がある。まず、日常的な言語使用において広範にみられるスキーマに、 「容器のス キーマ Container Schema」があり、これは構成要素として、 「内部 Interior 」 （以下、 「内容物」 ） 、 「境界 Boundary 」 （以下、 「容器」 ） 、 「外部 Exterior」をもつ。このことに関連し、Lakoff & Núñez は集合論を構 成するさまざまな概念が、容器スキーマからの写像によって構成されていることを指摘した（表１） 。 1 表 1 《集合は容器》 T 領域 S 領域 集合（A） 空間における有界領域 集合の成員（A の外延） 有界領域の内側の対象 より広範な集合の部分集合（B） 有界領域の内側の有界領域 補集合（￣ A） 有界領域の外 A B ￣ A 図 3 集合 −106− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 3.1 では、この観点をもとに、数学の集合論のみならず、マスメディアの科学ディスコースの中に現れ る数値表現の認識に容器のスキーマの構造が反映されていることを考察する。 一方、一般人に向けた科学的知識の普及を目的とする数の使用には、当該の数値の「明瞭さ」や「理 解のしやすさ」というものに配慮したメタファーの使用が認められる。これは、一般人にとって馴染み のない科学の用語や数値にともなう単位を、すでに一般人が獲得済みである具体的な対象に言い換える という類のメタファーである。Lakoff & Núñez は、数学体系そのものには関与しないが、説明や解説を 目的に用いられるメタファーを「外生的メタファーExtraneous Metaphors」とする。その他にも、この種 のメタファーは「教育的／教訓的メタファーPedagogical or Exegetical Metaphors」 （Boyd 1993；Knudsen 2003）や「例証的メタファーIllustrating Metaphors」 （Skorczynska & Deignan 2006）などと呼ばれことから、 本論文はこれらを総じて「教育的メタファー」とする。 次章では、これまでに提示した 2 種のメタファーに関して具体例をあげながら、一般人による科学的 な数値の認識にメタファー的思考が深く関与することを示す。 3. 分析１―数値の認識におけるメタファー的思考のメカニズム 3.1. 基礎づけるメタファー マスメディアの科学ディスコースの中の数値使用をみると、パーセンテージや分数といった割合の表 現形式が頻繁に使用されている。さらに、この割合は円グラフ／比率グラフによって視覚化される。本 節では、割合に関わる数値表現の認識が、2 章に示した《集合は容器》に関連することを確認する。 《100％は容器》 たとえば、 「人間の体の 60%は水分」というクリシェにおいては、容器が人体に対応する数値で、内 容物は水についての数値である。つまりパーセンテージの使用は、100%が容器として、そしてその内の 焦点化される数値が内容物として理解される。 《分母は容器》 分数については、布団の販売文句として使用されるとみられる「人生の 3 分の 1 は睡眠」と容器のメ タファーとの関連を見る。ここでは、人生が容器となり、内容物は睡眠時間であることから、分数の場 合、分母が容器の役割をなし、分子がその内容物に対応することがわかる。 《円グラフは容器》 円グラフは、パーセンテージと分数の視覚化として捉えられるた め、これらと同じく容器のメタファーとの関連で論じることができ −107− 図 4 円グラフ（作例） マスメディアの科学ディスコースを通した数の認識―メタファー的思考に着目して― る。たとえば、本論文執筆者が作成したこの図は、肩こりに悩む人の比率に関する架空の図である。こ の円グラフにおいても、 「肩こりに悩んでいますか？」という質問の回答者全体を容器として、そして肩 こりに悩む人と悩まない人を内容物として、容器のスキーマの構成要素に対応づけることができる。 《時間は容器》 「牛は 1 日に 10 時間げっぷをする」 。これは 3.2.で示す用例にみられる数値の使用であるが、ここで も牛のげっぷ時間は「10/24 時間」というように、割合を通して認識される。実際のところ、時間は絶 えず流れるものであり、容器のように固定されたものではないが、私たちは時間という境界の定まらな い抽象概念に区切りを設けることで、時間を認識するのである。 以上、Lakoff & Núñez による《集合は容器》に関連するものとして、割合の表現形式を取り上げなが ら、 《100％は容器》 、 《分母は容器》 、 《円グラフは容器》 、 《時間は容器》という 4 つの基礎づけるメタフ ァーの存在を明らかにした。 3.2. 教育的メタファー 本節では、一般人に向けた知識の普及においてみられる、教育的メタファーを取り上げる。(1)は、朝 日新聞の「ののちゃんの Do 科学」という連載記事で、牛のげっぷが、地球温暖化の原因の 1 つとされ ることを話題にしている。 (1) 牛のげっぷはなぜ温暖化と関係あるの？ 一頭分のメタン、車並みの効果（タイトル） ［中略］ ののちゃん：でも、牛のげっぷだって量は大したことないんでしょ。 先生：牛をよく見てごらん。しょっちゅうげっぷをしているはずよ。合計すると 1 日 10 時間にも なるわ。げっぷの量は 1 千∼1500 ㍑で、家庭のお風呂おけの 5 倍にもなるの。その 3 分の 1 がメタ ンで、1 年間の排出量は、乗用車が 1 万㌔走ったのと同じくらいの温室効果があるといわれている わ。 （朝日新聞 2008. 08.10 東京朝刊: 4） (1)では、教育的メタファーが 2 つみられる。それは第 1 に、 「げっぷの量 1 千∼1500 ㍑」が「家庭の お風呂おけの 5 倍」に、そして第 2 に「1 年間で牛 1 頭のげっぷから放たれるメタンの体積」が「乗用 車が 1 万㌔走った場合の温室効果」に言い換えられている。ここでは、数値の世界で語られる「げっぷ 量」1 千∼1500 ㍑とその内の 1/3 を占める「メタンの体積」が、メタファーを通し、 「お風呂おけ」とい う日常の中でごく経験可能な対象や、 「乗用車の排出ガス」という地球温暖化問題と密接な関わりをもつ 対象に再配分されることで、より具体的に説明されている。このような再配分がみられるものとして、 倍数の使用もあげられる。 −108− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 (2) 東日本巨大地震 エネルギー 阪神の 700 倍 複数の震源が連動 （読売新聞 2011.3.12 東京朝刊: 特 4） (3) 福島原発事故の放出セシウム、広島原爆 168 倍相当 保安院試算 （朝日新聞 2011.8.27 東京朝刊: 5） ここでは、(2)の東日本巨大地震、(3)の福島原発事故といった新たな事象についての数値が、 「阪神」 や「広島原爆」という、当該の現象と比較可能な過去の事象の倍数によって説明されている。 ここで、この種の教育的メタファーの性質について留意しておきたい。本節で分析対象としている教 育的メタファーの事例では、たとえるものとたとえられるものとの間の類似性（とりわけ 2 者間の量的 な類似性）が、メタファーによってはじめて形成されている。たとえば(1)では、 「牛のげっぷ（の内の メタン） 」と「乗用車の排出ガス」といった通常は結びつけて考えられないであろうもの同士に、類似性 が差し出されている。このような現象を検討するにあたっては、 「比喩はあらかじめ存在する類似性を定 式化するというより、類似性を作りだす」 （Black 1954）という、メタファーの相互作用説に関する記述 が参考になる。つまり、一見説明のツールとして用いられているようにみえるメタファーには、類似性 を発見させたり、創造したりする側面がともなっており、メタファーを形成することによってのみ実現 できる意味が存在することも考えられる。このことが具体的に把握できる事例として、サプリメントの WEB サイト上にみられたメッセージをあげる。 (4) 食物繊維 6,000mg ってどのくらいの量？ レタス約 3 個分に相当！ http://www.takara-healthcare.com/kanten/00016.html（検索日 2011.3.1） 一般的な数値の使用では、たとえば「33%」を文脈に応じて「1/3」や「3 人に 1 人」に言い換えるこ とがあり、ここではある数値表現が、通常の数値表現単位の体系の中で言い換えられている。それに対 し、(4)では、数値の言い換えに「レタス」という通常の数値表現単位ではないものが導入されている。 よって前者は「単なる数値の言い換え」 、そして後者は「 『数値』の世界から『現実におりてくる』言い 換え」として捉えられる。というのも、ここでは “mg”という「食生活」には無関係といえる単位が、 「レ タス」という実際の食卓にあがる具体的な食品を単位として表現されることにより、 「現実の食生活の中 での食物繊維の摂取」という文脈で「食物繊維 6,000mg」が捉えなおされている。つまり、この例では メタファーを通し、 「食物繊維 6,000mg」について眺める文脈を「物理量」から「食生活」にシフトする ことで、当該の製品に栄養価の高さやその「良さ」に関わる価値付けが創造されているといえよう。 4. 分析２―物理的領域の編集 ここからは、メタファーを通して科学的な数値を認識する場合にともなう操作に着目する。本章の議 論についての重要な指摘が Lynch（1990: 154）にある。つまり、私たちが科学ディスコースを通してみ −109− マスメディアの科学ディスコースを通した数の認識―メタファー的思考に着目して― る「 『現実』とは、たとえばグラフ化などの既存の手段で表象されたものであり、不可視的な現象や抽象 2 的な関係がそのまま『目の前に現れてきている』のではない 」 、とある。この指摘が正しいとすると、 数値化とは現象や関係を理解しやすい形に再構築すること、といった意味での何らかの操作がなされて いることが考えられる。では、こうした操作は具体的にはどのように記述できるものなのだろうか。 4.1 では、物理的な状況で分散して存在する対象の数値化について、そして 4.2 では物理的には一箇所 にまとまって存在する対象の数値化に関してみる。 4.1. 分散した対象の操作―集約化― 本節では、物理的に分散して存在する対象が数値化された場合の操作性に着目する。まず、 「時間」を 単位にともなう数値の認識には、容器のメタファーが関与することをすでにみた。たとえば、(1)の例を あげると、牛のげっぷ時間を捉える場合、 「1 日」を容器に見立て、その内の牛のげっぷ時間を内容物と して認識する点である。しかしながら、物理的な領域での牛の生態を想定すると、牛は図 5 の左に示さ れるように 1 日を通して不定期的かつ散発的にげっぷを行なっていることが考えられる。しかし、 「1 日 10 時間」という場合には、物理的な領域においては分散して行われると考えられるげっぷの時間を図 5 の右に示されるように集約化して認識しているとみられる。 0 10 24 0 10 24 図 5 分散から集約化へ 1 このように物理的な領域の中では分散して存在している要素を、集約化する操作がみられる数値使用 は、時間に限らず、容器のメタファーの構造を反映する数値表現すべてに認められる。ࡑࡢࡋ࡚ࠊ 「人間の体の 60%は水分」ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ ࡑࡶࡑࡶࠊே㛫ࡢయෆᏑᅾࡍࡿỈศࡣ⾑ᾮ୰ࡸ⣽⬊ෆᏑᅾࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊᅗ 6 ࡢᕥ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺ ࠊ≀⌮ⓗ࡞㡿ᇦ࡛ࡣయ୰ࡕࡽࡤࡗ࡚Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋࡋ⚾ࡓࡕࡣ「人間の体の 60%は水分」⪺ࡃࠊᅗ 6 ࡢྑ࠶ࡽࢃࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢỈศࡀ࠶ࡓࡶࡲࡲࡗ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ ࡢࡼ࠺࣓࣮ࢪࡍࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋ 人の体内 数による認識 −110− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 3 図 6 分散から集約化へ 2 図 7 人間の体に占める水の割合 ࡓ࠼ࡤࠊே㛫ࡢయࢆಶయᾮయศࡅ࡚ࠊ3/5 ࡀỈ࡞ࡗࡓேయࢆീࡋࡓࡾࡶࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ ㄆ㆑ࡢ࠶ࡾࡉࡲࢆල⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀࠊࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺୖᏑᅾࡋࡓᅗ 7 ࡢࣛࢫࢺ࠶ࡓࡿࠋ 4.2. 集約した対象の操作̶分散化̶ 本節では 4.1 での考察を踏まえ、物理的には集約して存在する対象を数値で認識する場合のメカニズ ムをみる。こうした数値使用はごく限られたものであるが、これを観察するに適した例を以下に示す。 (5) 商 品 名： 「発酵コエンザイム Q10」 商品説明： 1 日の目安 120mg（2 粒分）を食品で摂取した場合、イワシで約 32 匹、ブロッコ リーで約 80 株、牛肉であれば約 4kg を食べる必要があります。 http://www.kyowaremake.jp/q/index01.html?banner_id=ad310200䠄᳨⣴᪥ 2011.3.10䠅 (5)では、物理的な領域ではサプリメント 2 粒の中に集約して存在していると考えられるコエンザイム Q10 が、その量をより説得的に表現するためにイワシやブロッコリーなどの食生活に関わる対象によっ て示されている（3.2.の(4) に関する議論を参照） 。ここでは、集約化とは真逆の認識が起こるというこ とが考えられる。というのも集約化とは、すでに示したように、物理的な領域では分散している要素を 集約するという操作であった。それに対し、(5)では、日常的な対象に言い換えることで、物理的にはま とまって存在している科学成分を、分散させている（図 8 と 9） 。 図 8 集約から分散化へ（イワシ） 図 9 集約から分散化へ（牛肉） つまり、ここでハイライトを当てたタイプの「個分」をともなう数値表現を認識する場合には、物理 的にはまとまって存在する要素を「分散化」させるという操作が認められる。 5. 結論 本論文では、一般人に向けられた科学ディスコースにおける数の使用を、メタファー的思考との関連 で論じた。そこには、Lakoff & Núñez が提唱する「基礎づけるメタファー」 （中でも《集合は容器》 ）と、 −111− マスメディアの科学ディスコースを通した数の認識―メタファー的思考に着目して― 伝達の要求を満たすために用いられる「教育的メタファー」が重要な役割を果たすことを例証した。 さらに、こうした 2 種類のメタファーを通して物理的な領域を認識する場合にともなう操作に取り組 んだ。そこで明らかになったのは、私たちがメタファー的思考を通して数値を認識する際には、物理的 な領域では分散して存在しているものを一箇所に集合させる集約化と、それに反し、もともとは物理的 にまとまって存在しているものを四方八方に分散させて認識する分散化という心的な働きが関与するこ とである。つまり、 「集約化」と「分散化」という互いに相反する操作が、数値をメタファー的思考によ って認識することで実現されることが明確化した。 脚注 1 Lakoff & Núñez（2000: 43-44）からの引用である。ただし、補集合と T 領域の列の括弧内は本論文執筆 者による補足である。 2 原文：… the “real” object is the representation in hand, e.g., the visual display, and not the invisible phenomenon or abstract relationship “out there”. 3 http://www.water.city.nagoya.jp/intro/lohas/kurashi/4-03.html（検索日 2011.3.10） 参照文献 Black, M. 1954. Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55, 273-294.（尼ヶ崎彬訳. 1986.「隠喩」, 佐々 木健一編『創造のレトリック』, 勁草書房） Boyd, R. 1993. Metaphor and theory change: what is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for? In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and thought, 2ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 481-533. Knudsen, S., 2003. Scientific metaphors going public. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1247–1263. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. & R. Nú ez. 1997. The metaphorical structure of mathematics: Sketching out cognitive foundations for a mind-based mathematics. In L. English (ed.), Mathematical Reasoning: Analogies, Metaphors, and Images, 21-89. NJ: Erlbaum. Lakoff, G. & R. Nú ez. 2000. Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books. Lynch, M. 1990. The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual Documentation of Objects in the Life Sciences, in M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (eds) Representation in Scientific Practice, 156-186. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nú ez, R. 2000. Mathematical idea analysis: what embodied cognitive science can say about the human nature of mathematics. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. 1, 3-22. Hiroshima: Hiroshima University. Skorczynska, H., Deignan, A., 2006. Readership and purpose in the choice of economic metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol 21 (2), 87–104. −112− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ⱥㄒ㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢ⿵ㄒศᕸࡢពㄽⓗࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ ᒓᛶ࣭≧ែླྀ㏙ࡢ㐪࠸╔┠ࡋ࡚ ୰ᮧᩥ⣖㸦᠕⩏ሿᏛᏛ㝔㸧 [email protected] <Abstract> This paper attempts to examine the complement of the English Copulative Perception Verb Construction (e.g. John looks happy.). First, this construction means that the speaker infers based on perceptual evidence that the subject referent has some property denoted by the complement, implying a two-stage process: the cognition of the subject referent and the evaluation of the subject referent by inference. Next, introducing the three-fold classification of predicates proposed in Kaga (2007), character-describing predicates, state-describing predicates and situation-describing predicates, I propose that only the first two predicates can occur with this construction because they are related to the cognition of the cognition of the inference of the subject referent. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸▱ぬືモࠊᙧᐜモࠊ⿵ㄒࠊ᥎ㄽࠊླྀ㏙ 1. ࡣࡌࡵ ⌧௦ⱥㄒࡣࠊ▱ぬ⪅࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࡀㄒ ࡞ࡿ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ the Copulative Perception Verb Construction 㸦 e.g. John looks happy.㸧ࡤࢀࡿᵓᩥࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊⱥ࠾ࡅࡿ⿵ㄒ complement ࡢ ศᕸࡀࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆㄪࠊࡑࡢ ศᕸࡢ⫼ᚋ࠶ࡿせᅉࡣఱ࡛࠶ࡿࡢࢆព ㄽࡢ❧ሙࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡛ᵓᩥ㛵ࢃࡿ࣓ ࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⥆ࡃ㆟ㄽ ࡽᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡿᙇࡣࠊ(i)ࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣࠕ࠶ࡿ ᑐ㇟ࢆ▱ぬࡋࠊࡑࡢࡇࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᚓࡓ▱ぬᑐ㇟ ࡢࡶࡘᛶ㉁࣭≧ែࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘࠖࡋࠊ (ii)ࡇࡢ▱ぬࡽ᥎ㄽ࣭ホ౯࠸࠺㡰ᗎࢆྜ⮴ࡍ ࡿពㄽⓗ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ⿵ㄒࡀㄆ ࡵࡽࢀࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ➨ 2 ⠇࡛ࡣ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢㅖ≉ᚩ ࡽᵓᩥయࡀᣢࡘᶵ⬟ࢆ᫂ࡽࡋࡓᚋࠊ➨ 3 ⠇࡛ඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ➨ 5 ⠇ࡣࠊ⤖ㄽ࡛࠶ ࡿࠋ 2. 㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ 2.1. ᵓᩥࡢㅖ≉ᚩ ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢ▱ぬືモ⤖ࡧࡘࡃ be ືモ㢮ఝࡋࡓᵓᩥࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ1ࠋࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣ ᵝࠎࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏ࡣᮏከ (2005)ೌ ࠸ࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡪࡇࡍࡿࠋ ௦⾲ⓗ࡞ᩥࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡿ㸦㇂ཱྀ 2005:213㸧: d. The cake tastes good. e. The cloth feels soft. ࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺ 3 Ⅼ≉ᚩⓗ࡞Ⅼࢆᣢࡘࠋ ➨୍ࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣ㠀⾜Ⅽ⪅ㄒᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ ࡇࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ㏻ᖖ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡸ⤒ 㦂⪅⾜Ⅽࡢᑐ㇟ࡀྠࡌሙ㠃Ꮡᅾࡍࡿሙྜ ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡸ⤒㦂⪅ࡀㄒ࡞ࡿࡇࡀከ࠸ࠋ▱ぬ ືモࡣࠊࡑࡢᛶ㉁ୖ▱ぬ⾜Ⅽ࠸࠺ែࢆព ࡍࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢሙྜ㏻ᖖ▱ぬ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺⾜Ⅽ⪅ actorࠊࡲࡓࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࡼࡗ࡚▱ぬయ㦂ࢆཷᐜࡍ ࡿ⤒㦂⪅ experiencerࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ▱ぬࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ objective ࢆྵពࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㛵ಀࢆࡢࡼ࠺ ゝㄒࡍࡿࡢ࠸࠺ࡇࡀၥ㢟࡞ࡿࠋࡇ ࡢሙྜࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅⤒㦂⪅ࡀㄒ࡞ࡾࠊᑐ㇟ࡣ ┠ⓗㄒࡋ࡚Ⓨゝࡍࡿࡇࡀ㏻ᖖ࡞ࡿࡀࠊ㐃 ⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢሙྜࡣࠊࡇࢀᑐࡋ࡚ ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࡀㄒ࡞ࡿᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡣゝ ㄒ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇࡣྠᵝ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡸ⤒㦂 ⪅ࢆ⫼ᬒࡋ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࢆ๓ᬒࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆࡶ ࡘཷືែᙜヱᵓᩥࢆᕪ␗ࡍࡿ୍ࡘࡢᇶ‽ ࡞ࡿࠋࡼࡾලయⓗ࡞ゝㄒ⌧㇟ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ⪃࠼ ࡿࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡣྡモཬࡧཷືࡍࡿሙྜࠊ๓ ⨨モ by ࡼࡗ࡚⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬື モᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊby ࡼࡗ࡚⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡸ⤒㦂⪅ࢆゝㄒ ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ (2) a. Mary is looked at by John. b. *Mary looks beautiful by John. c. John looks happy (to me). ࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ⤒㦂⪅ࢆ to ๓⨨モ࡛ྃゝㄒࡍ ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊby ࡛⾲ࢀ࡞࠸ࡇࡽࡇࢀ ࡣ see ࡢㄒ࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡞⤒㦂⪅࠸࠺ࡼࡾࠊ (1) a. John looks happy. b. It sounds reasonable. c. The flower smells sweet. −113− 英語連結的知覚動詞構文の補語分布への意味論的アプローチ:属性・状態叙述の違いに着目して ᵓᩥయ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ㢟ࢆุ᩿ࡋࡓホ౯⪅ ⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࡇࡢホ౯⪅ࡣࠊ࠶ ࡃࡲ࡛㝶ពⓗ࡞せ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ Jackendoff (1985, 2009)ࡣࠊ⥲⛠ⓗ࡞ you ࡋ࡚ グ㏙ࡋࠊTaniguchi (1997)ࠊ㇂ཱྀ (2005)࡛ࡣࠊ ヰࡋᡭࡶࡋࡃࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ேࠎࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࠊ ⏕ែᚰ⌮Ꮫࢆ⏝࠸ࡓศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓᮏከ (2005) ࡛ࡣほᐹⅬࡢබඹᛶࡽᐇ㝿ࡢ▱ぬ⪅ࡑࡢ ࡢேࠎࡀほᐹⅬࢆඹ᭷ࡍࡿࡇࡼࡗ࡚ど Ⅼࡀ୍⯡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳ ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡶࡋࡃࡣヰࡋᡭࢆྵࡴ ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ேࠎ࠸࠺୍ே⛠ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࡀ✜ᙜ࡛ ࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ➨Ⅼࡋ࡚ࠊ▱ぬືモࡀ⾜Ⅽ⪅ㄒᵓᩥ࡛ ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ ࡿ࡛ࡣᆺࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋVendler (1967)ࡣࠊ㏙ㄒࡢᆺࡣ㸲ࡘศ㢮ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ ≧ែ㏙ㄒ stativeࠊ฿㐩㏙ㄒ achievementࠊάື㏙ ㄒ activityࠊ㐩ᡂ㏙ㄒ accomplishment ࡋࡓࠋ㏻ ᖖࡇࡢᵓᩥ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ▱ぬືモࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ ⪅ࡀㄒ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࡣάືືモ࡛࠶ࡿ2ࠋࡋ ࡋࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ⌧ࢀࡓሙྜࡣࠊ ከࡃࡢሙྜ≧ែືモࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ ࡶࡶࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡛⌧ࢀࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡣ ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗࡣάືືモ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞ ࠸ࡀࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿሙྜࡣ≧ែືモ ࡞ࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࡣ௨ୗࡢᑐẚࢆぢ ࢀࡤ᫂ࡽ࡞ࡿࠋ (3) (5) 㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢព࣭ᶵ⬟ ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࢆ▱ぬࡋࠊࡑࡢࡇࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᚓࡓ ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࡢࡶࡘᛶ㉁࣭≧ែࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺▱ぬࡋࡓᑐ㇟ࢆሗ※ࡋู࡚ࡢ 㢟ࡘ࠸࡚ླྀ㏙ࡍࡿࡇࡢᶵ⬟ࡣドᣐᛶ evidentiality ࡢ୍ࡘ⪃࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋゝ ࡍࢀࡤࠊ ࠕ㸦ㄒ㸧ࡀ㸦⿵ㄒ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࠸࠺ࡇ ࢆุ᩿ࡋࡓドᣐࠊࡘࡲࡾሗ※ࠊࡀࡢ▱ぬ ࡼ ࡿ ࡶ ࡢ࡞ ࡢ ࢆ ᫂グ ࡍ ࡿ ᶵ ⬟ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ Gisborne (2010)ࡣࠊWord Grammar ࡢ❧ሙࡽࡇ ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡿ⯙࠸ࢆドᣐᛶࡢ⾲ࢀࡋ࡚⪃࠼ ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓ Whitt (2010)ࡶ▱ぬࡽ᥎ㄽ ⛣⾜ࡋࡘࡘ࠶ࡿᵓᩥࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ ࡇࡢドᣐᛶࡢᛶ㉁ୖࠊ᥎ㄽࡣ▱ぬࡢᚋ㉳ࡇࡿࡶ ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢࡇࡣ look see ࡢ㛵ಀᇶ ࡙࠸࡚⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⾜Ⅽ⪅ㄒᵓᩥ ࡢሙྜࡣࠊlook ࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡢ࠶ see ࠸ ࠺▱ぬࡀᡂ❧ࡋࡓࡇࢆྵពࡍࡿ3ࠋࡋࡋࠊ㐃 ⤖リⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢሙྜࡣࡑࡢྵព㛵ಀ ࡀ㏫㌿ࡍࡿࠋḟࡢ Rogers (1971:271)ࡢࢆぢ࡚ ࡳࢀࡤࡇࡢࡇࡀࡉࡽ᫂░࡞ࡿࠋ (7) a. John looks happy. b. *John sees happy. c. That sounds reasonable. d. *That hears reasonable. ࡇࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊlook ࡀάືືモ࡛࠶ࡿ ➨୕Ⅼࡋ࡚ࡇࡢᵓᩥࡀ⩏ົⓗ࡞⿵ㄒࢆ ࡿࡇࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢ࡛ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺ ࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ⿵ㄒࡀ࡞࠸ᐜㄆᛶࡀୗࡀ ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ⌧ࢀࡿᐇ࠾࠸ ࡚ࠊㄒࡀࡼࡃ┬␎ࡉࢀࡿࡇࡣዲᑐ↷ࢆ࡞ ࡍࠋ (4) a. John looks happy. b. *John looks. c. That sounds reasonable. d. *That sounds. ࡇࡢࡇࡽ᫂ࡽ࡞ࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣ▱ぬࡋ ࡓᑐ㇟ࡀ⿵ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿᛶ㉁ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚ ࠸ࡿࡇࢆ⾲ࡍᶵ⬟ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 2.2. ࡇࡇࡲ࡛࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࡇࢆࡲࡵࡿ௨ୗࡢ ᵝ࡞ᵓᩥࡢពࢆᑟࡁฟࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ ࠺ࠋ ᵓᩥࡢᶵ⬟ −114− a. Reuben looked stoned to me. b. Reuben didn’t look stoned to me. c. I saw Reuben. d. I didn’t see Reuben. ࡣࡌࡵࡢ 2 ࡣࠊ㐃⤖リⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ ࡀࠊ⫯ᐃᙧྰᐃᙧࡀ୪ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡩ ࡓࡘࡣඹ to me ࡀゝㄒࡍࡿⓎヰ⪅ࡀ Reuben ࢆぢࡓࡇࢆྵពࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㏫࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ ࡲࡓࠊࡉࡽ㔜せ࡞ࡇࡣྰᐃᙧࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡇ ࡢ๓ᥦ⮬యࡣྰᐃࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡋࡇ ࡢ๓ᥦࡀྰᐃࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ(7d)ࡀྵពࡉ ࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ 㐃⤖リⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ look ࡢሙྜࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ㄒᵓᩥ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢ ␗࡞ࡾࠊsee ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿどぬ⾜Ⅽࡢᡂᑵࡀ⤖ᯝ ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ๓ᥦࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇࡀࢃࡿࠋ ࡲࡵࡿࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣ(i)ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆࡢ Ꮡᅾࢆㄆ▱ࡋࠊ(ii)ࡑࡇࡽሗࢆᚓࡓୖ࡛ࠊ(iii) ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ⿵ㄒ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡗ ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࢆྵពࡍࡿࡇࢆ⾲ࡍᶵ⬟ ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 2.3. ⿵ㄒࡢ⨨࡙ࡅ ๓⠇࡛ࡣ 3 Ⅼ┠ࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡛ࡣ⿵ㄒࡀ⩏ົⓗ ࡞せ⣲ࡋ࡚⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࡓ (Taniguchi 1997)ࠋࡲࡓࠊHuddleston and Pullum (2002)ࡀᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ࠊࡇࡢ⿵ㄒࡣᖖ ㄒᚿྥⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆ᭷ࡋࠊ≉ᚩࡅ࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓ ㏻ࡾ࠶ࡿㄒᑐࡋ࡚࠶ࡿᒓᛶࡸ≧ែࢆླྀ㏙ ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࢆ㏙ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥ ࡣࠊࡑࡢ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࢆ⾜࠺࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡓ ࡵࠊbe ືモࡢࡼ࠺ከᵝ࡞⿵ㄒࢆྲྀࡿࡇࡀ ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ Gisborne (2010:243)ࡀᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ ࢆぢࡿࡇࡢࡇࡀࡼࡾࡣࡗࡁࡾࡍࡿࠋ (8) モࡢ࡛࣌ࡶᐜㄆᛶᕪࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࡽࠊࡇࡢ 㐪࠸ࡣᙧᘧⓗ࡞ၥ㢟ゝ࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊࡴࡋࢁព ⓗ࣭ᶵ⬟ⓗ࡞ไ⣙࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ ࠺࡞ၥ㢟ព㆑❧ࡕࠊᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ≉௨ୗࡢほⅬ ࡽศᯒࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ (12) a. ࡇࢀࡽࡢ࣌ࡢᐜㄆᛶࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࡇ ࡽ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࠋ b. ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑐ❧ࡣࠊ⤯ᑐⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢၥ㢟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᶵ⬟ㄽⓗศᯒࢆ⾜࠸௨ୗࡢ ᵝ࡞ᐃࡢࡶศᯒࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ a. Jane sounds nice. (ᙧᐜモ) b. Jane sounds a nice girl. (ྡモྃ) c. Jane sounds like a nice girl.㸦๓⨨モྃ㸧 d. Jane sounds like/as though she’s a nice girl. (ᐃᙧ⠇) (13) ᮏ✏ࡢᙇ ၥ୍ࡘ࠸࡚㸸ࠕ(i)▱ぬࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ(ii)᥎ㄽࢆ⾜ ࠺ࠖ࠸࠺ᵓᩥࡢពᶵ⬟⾪✺ࡋ࡞࠸⿵ㄒࡢ ࡳࡀ⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ၥࡘ࠸࡚㸸ᵓᩥࡀࠕ▱ぬࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠖ࠸࠺ ពࢆྵពࡋ࡞ࡃ࡞ࢀࡤࠊ⤖ᯝⓗၥ୍ࡢࡼ࠺ ࡞ไ⣙ࢆྵពࡋ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡾࠊไ⣙ࡀࡺࡿࡸ࡞ ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࡇࡢᵓᩥࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿୖ࡛㔜せ࡞ ⨨ࢆ༨ࡵࡿ⿵ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ⿵ㄒࡢศᕸࡘ ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂࠸࠺ࡢࡣከࡃ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ၥ㢟 ព㆑❧ࡕࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢᵝ࡞ᐜㄆ ᛶࡢᑐ❧ࡀࠊࡢࡼ࠺࡞せᅉࡼࡗ࡚㉳ࡇࡾ࠼ ࡿࡢ࠸࠺ࡇࢆศᯒࡋࠊ㐃⤖リⓗ▱ぬືモ ᵓᩥࡢᶵ⬟ࡢ୍➃ࢆ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࡇࢆ┠ⓗ ࡍࡿࠋ (9) a. John looks {intelligent, happy, angry}. b. *John looks {present, absent}. c. John is {intelligent, happy, angry}. d. *John is {present, absent}. 3. ඛ⾜◊✲ ⿵ㄒࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊGisborne (2010)ࡀࠊໟᣓⓗ࡞ ศᯒࢆ⾜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡣ⿵ㄒࡿไ ⣙ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢࡶࡢࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (13) 㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ⏕㉳ࡍࡿ⿵ㄒࡣ ⛬ᗘླྀ㏙࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ͆Their Xcomps [complements of the CPVC] have to be gradable.” (Gisborne 2010: 242) Gisborne ࡢ㆟ㄽࡢ᰿ᣐࡣ௨ୗࡢᩥࡢ࣌ࡢᐜ ㄆᛶࡢᕪࡼࡗ࡚ࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (10) a. John looks {threatening, disbelieving}. b. *John looks {running fast, breaking the glass}. c. John is {threatening, disbelieving}. d. John is {running fast, breaking the glass}. (14) a. *Jane sounds a woman. b. Jane sounds a nice woman. c. Jane sounds a fool. (11) a. John looks out of mind. b. *John looks out of the room. c. John is out of mind. d. John is out of the room. A woman ࡑࢀ⮬యࡣࠊ㏻ᖖࠕ⏨ᛶዪᛶࠖ ࠸࠺ࠕ࠶ࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᒓࡍ࠺ࠖࡢᢥ ࡢ୰࡛ㄒࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ⛬ᗘླྀ㏙ࡋ࡚ࡢᇶ‽ࢆ ‶ࡓࡉ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇࡼࡗ࡚ᐜㄆᛶࡢᕪࢆㄝ ᫂ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀᑐࡋ࡚ a nice woman ࡣ nice ࠸ ࠺ㄒࡢࡼ࠺⛬ᗘⰋ࠸ࡢ࠸࠺ࡇ㛵 ࡋ࡚⛬ᗘࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ a nice woman య ࡛ࡶࡑࡢ⛬ᗘᛶࡀಖᣢࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ⿵ㄒࡋ ࡚ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋࡢ a fool 㛵ࡋ ࡚ࡶࠊࡢ⛬ᗘ fool ࡞ࡢ࠸࠺ࡇࡣࡇࡢྡ モෆᅾࡍࡿ⛬ᗘᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ᪂ࡓ⛬ᗘᛶ ࢆࡶࡘᙧᐜモ࡞ࢆຍ࠼ࡿᚲせ࡞ࡃᐜㄆࡍࡿ ࡇࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⛬ᗘᛶ ࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊᙧᘧⓗࡣྠࡌ⠊࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽ ࢀࡿ࡛࣌࠶ࡿࠋ(9)ࡣᙧᐜモࡢ࡛࣌࠶ࡾࠊ(10) ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃࡶᙧᘧⓗࡣ⌧ᅾศモࡢ࡛࣌࠶ ࡾࠊ(11)ࡣ๓⨨モྃࡢ࡛࣌࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀᑐᛂ ࡍࡿ㐃⤖モࡢ᭱ࡶᆺ࡛࠶ࡿ be ືモࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ ሙྜࡣࡇࡢᑐ❧ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡞ࡃࠊࡍ࡚ᐜ ㄆྍ⬟࡞࡞ࡿࡇࡽࠊࡇࡢືモᵓᩥ≉᭷ ࡢไ⣙ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊྠࡌရ −115− 英語連結的知覚動詞構文の補語分布への意味論的アプローチ:属性・状態叙述の違いに着目して ࢆࡶࡘ⿵ㄒࢆせồࡍࡿࡇࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࢆࡍ ࡿఱ⪅ࡢホ౯ࢆᚲせࡍࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡘࡲ ࡾࡇࡢᵓᩥࡀࣔࢲࣜࢸ⾲⌧ modal ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊࡇࡢࡇࡣ woman ࡑࡢࡶࡢ⛬ ᗘᛶࡀࡃ⪃៖ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࠸࠺ࡇ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ሙ ྜ࠸࠺ࡇࢆணࡵ᩿ࡗ࡚࠾ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ࠼ࡤࠊa woman ᑐࢆ࡞ࡍ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ a man ࢆࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒ㛵ࡍࡿつᶍᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ ࡛࠶ࡿ British National Corpus ࢆ᳨⣴ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ ௨ୗࡢᵝ࡞ࢆぢฟࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ (15) He looked a man at last, not a school student. (BNC) ࡇࡢ࡛ࡣࠊ༢⣧࡞⏨ᛶ࣭ዪᛶ࠸࠺ᑐ❧ࡸ a man/ a school student ࠸࠺༢⣧࡞㡯ᑐ❧࡛ ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢᑐ❧ࡢ⫼ᚋ࠶ࡿࠊࠕ⏨ࡽࡋࡉ mannessࠖ࠸࠺ᴫᛕ↔Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡓࡾࠊࡇࡢᛶ ㉁ࡣ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡋ࡚ࡽ࠼ࡿ ࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡓࡵࠊa man ࢆᐜㄆࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ ࡁࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺ ࡞ពㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽ୧᪉ࡽ⪃៖ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ ࡞ ࠸ ࡇ ࢆ Gisborne and Holmes(2007) ࡣ”semantic-pragmatic conspiracy”ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ពⓗ࡞↔Ⅼࢆ⪃࠼ࡓୖ࡛ࠊ Gisborne ࡢ㆟ㄽࢆලయⓗ࡞ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵ࡞ࡀࡽ ᢈุⓗ᳨ウࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ᛮ࠺ࠋࡇࡢศᯒࡣ☜ ከࡃࡢࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊࡇ ࡢ࡛ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇࡀࡸࡸᅔ㞴࡞ࡀ࠶ࡿ ࡇࡶࡲࡓᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ௦⾲ࡀ dead alive ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ 2 ࡘࡣఏ⤫ⓗ⛬ᗘᛶࢆ᭷ࡋ ࡚࠸࡞࠸ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀᐇ㝿 ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆㄪ࡚ࡳࡿࠊ௨ୗ௦⾲ࡉࢀࡿ ࡼ࠺࡞ᐇࢆぢࡘࡅࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࠺ẚ㍑ⓗᐜ࡛᫆࠶ࡿࠋ (17) a. Dekko was almost dead with relief at how lightly he had escaped. (BNC) b. "Nowadays," observed Bromley, " one can make a corpse look almost alive." (BNC) ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ⣬ᖜࡢ㛵ಀୖ࠶ࡲࡾ῝ࡃ❧ࡕධࡽ࡞ ࠸ࡀ4ࠊၥ㢟ࡣಶูࡢᐇㄒ⏝ㄽⓗࡇࡢࡼ࠺ ࡞ㄞࡳ㎸ࡳࢆ⾜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠺࠸࠺Ⅼ ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋࡋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⛬ᗘᛶࢆぢฟࡍࡓ ࡵࡣࡸࡣࡾࡑࡢ᮲௳ࢆࡳࡓࡍࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦ࡀ ᚲせ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢព࡛ࠊ⛬ᗘᛶࢆぢ࠸ࡔ ࡏࡿ࠺ࡣศᯒࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊ ඛࡢ a man/a school student ࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊa school student ࡢࠕᮍ⇍ࡉࠖᑐẚࡍࡿᙧ࡛ࠕ୍ ே๓ࠖࡢ⏨࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡀ୪⨨ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ ࡾࠊࡇࡢព࡛ᡂ⇍ᗘ࠸࠺ᑻᗘࡢୖࢆᡂ㛗ࡍ ࡿ ࠸ ࠺ ゎ㔘 ࡀ ᚓ ࡽ ࢀࠊ ࡑ ࡇ ࡛ ࡣࡌ ࡵ ࡚ a woman ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢹࣇ࢛ࣝࢺ࡛ a man ࠸࠺㙾㠃 ⓗᑐ❧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㒊ศ↔Ⅼࡀᙜࡓࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ ㄽࡌࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋゝࡍࢀࡤࠊࡇ ࡇ࡛ᚲせ࡞ࡢࡣࠊ༢ㄒุ࡛᩿ࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ ᩥࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢほⅬࡽಶู ᑐฎࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎ(16a)࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ ࡇࢀࡣࠊṚࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ぢ࠼ࡓࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ ࡇࢁࡣ╀ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ၥ㢟࡞ࡗ ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊࠕṚࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࠖ࠸࠺ࡇࡸ≧ ែࡋ࡚ࠕࢇṚࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠖ࡞ᑐẚࡉ ࢀࡿࠕ⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࠖᆅ⥆ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡞ࢇࡽ ࡢ⛬ᗘᛶࡢ≧ែ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࠕṚࢇ࡛࠸ ࡿࠖ≧ែࢆ㉳ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢព ࡛⛬ᗘᛶ↔Ⅼࡀᙜࡓࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ ࠸ࠋࡲࡓ asleep ࡸ alone ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝࡢࡇ ࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋ (16) a. He didn't know they [the animals] were alive! We all thought they were dead. They looked dead – (COCA) b. Only her eyes looked alive -- big dark eyes in a thin white face. (BNC) (18) a. Food you shall have, and your poor lady looks asleep on her feet. You shall have our solar, my lord. (BNC) b. He had looked and sounded alone, and inadvertently given the impression of paranoia. (BNC) ࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊᆺⓗ⛬ᗘᛶࡀ࡞࠸࠸࠺ࡇࡀ ಶูࡢ࠾࠸࡚⛬ᗘᛶࢆぢฟࡍࡇࡀ ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆྵពࡋ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊඛぢࡓ a man ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊdead ࡞⨨࠸࡚ ࡶࡑࡢពᴫᛕࡘ࠸࡚ࠕṚࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ࠖ ࡸࠕ(ᐇ㝿ࡣ⏕ࡁ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࡀ)ࡲࡿ࡛⏕ࡁ࡚ ࠸ࡿࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠖ࠸ࡗࡓ⏕Ṛࡢ㛫࠾ࡅࡿ⛬ ᗘᛶ࠸࠺ࡇࢆぢฟࡍࡇࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡢࡼ ࡇࢀࡽࡶᐇ୰⛬ᗘᛶࢆᚓࡿࡇࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸ ࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ≉᭱ᚋࡢ alone ࡞ࠊ 㞳ᩓⓗ࡞ᩘࢆ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࡢ⿵ㄒࡣ⛬ᗘᛶ ࢆぢฟࡍࡇࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢࡽࠊ Gisborne ࡢศᯒࡣࠊ☜ㄝ᫂ຊࡢ㧗࠸ศᯒ࡛ ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⿵ㄒࡢໟᣓⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵࡣࠊ ಟṇࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇ ࡢ⛬ᗘᛶࡀࡇࡽ⌧ࢀࡿࡢ࠸࠺ࡇ −116− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ྃࡸ๓⨨モྃࢆྵࡴಟ㣭ྃయࡢၥ㢟࡞ࡿ ࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ Kaga (2007)ࡢ୕ศ㢮ࢆ⏝ࡍࡿࡇ ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ◊✲࠾࠸࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥἲ ࢸࢫࢺࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡇࡽᙧᐜモࡢࡿ ⯙࠸ࡣ୕ศ㢮ࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ(Kaga 2007:19)ࠋ ᡤᅾࢆࡶࡵࠊࡑࢀࢆ᥎ㄽࡢ୍ᙧែ࡛࠶ࡿ ࡋࠊḟࡇࡢ᥎ㄽࡍࡿ࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ⿵ ㄒࡢ㑅ᢥࡁ࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ ㄽࡌࡿࠋ 4. ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ 4.1. ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥࡀᣢࡘᶵ⬟ࢆ⡆༢ᗘ㏙ ࡿࠋ (22) there-inversion a. *There are doctors intelligent. b. ?? There are kids hungry. c. There are doctors available. (19) 㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢᶵ⬟ ▱ぬ⾜⾜Ⅽࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᚓࡓ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࡢࡶࡘ ᛶ㉁ࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞▱ぬЍ᥎ㄽЍㄆ㆑ࡢὶࢀࡣᴟࡵ࡚ ⮬↛࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࡞ࡽࡎࡋࡶே㛫ࡣࡍ ࡚ࢆ᥎ㄽࡼࡗ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ (23) inverted be constructions a. *Intelligent is a young doctor (who has just got a medical license). b. ??Hungry are kids c. Available is a young doctor (who has just got a medical license). (24) reading for bare plural subjects a. Doctors are intelligent. (generic reading only) b. Kids are hungry. (generic reading preferred) c. Doctors are available. (existential and generic readings) (20) ேࡀㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡣ▱ぬࡽ᥎ㄽࡀᚲ せ࡞ࡶࡢ᥎ㄽࡀᚲせ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡲ࡛㐃⥆ⓗ Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋ ᥎ㄽࡀᚲせ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡣࠊࡋ࡚᥎ㄽࡀᚲせ࡞ ࡶࡢࡢドᣐ㸦ሗ※㸧ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ ࡞ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢࡇࡣྠ᥎ㄽࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢ⤖ᯝ ࡋ࡚⏕ࡌࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇࡽࠊ௨ ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ࢆᥦၐࡍࡿࠋ (21) ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ 㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡿ⿵ㄒࡣࠊឤ ぬ࣭▱ぬࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᚓࡓሗࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ ࡑࡇࡽ᥎ㄽࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓሗ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ ࡇࡢࡇࡣᆺⓗࡣእぢࡽෆ㠃ࢆุ᩿ࡋ ࡓࡾࠊ㢦ࡢ⾲ࡽឤࢆุ᩿ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ ࡀゝㄒࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡔ⪃࠼ࡿࡇࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛ᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢⓎ⮬యࡣࠊ Gisborne (2010)ࡸ Whitt (2010)ࡢ⪃࠼᪉‽ᣐ ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊሗ※ࢆゝㄒࡍࡿ evidentiality ࡢ⪃࠼ࡲࡗࡓࡃྠ୍ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ ࡿࠋࡴࡋࢁᮏ✏ࡢຊⅬࡣࠊࡇࡢࡇࡀලయⓗ࡞ ゝㄒࡢ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢࡼ࠺࡞᧯సⓗᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚ グ㏙࡛ࡁࡿ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 4.2. ᒓᛶ⾲⌧≧ែ⾲⌧ ḟၥࢃࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ၥ㢟ࡣࠊఱࢆࡶ ࡗ࡚ࠕ᥎ㄽࡀᚲせ࡞≉ᚩࠖࡋ࡚⪃࠼࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣ ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋゝࡍࢀࡤࠊ ୖ࡛㏙ࡓ≉ᚩࢆࡢࡼ࠺ゝㄒࡢ≉ᚩࡋ ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡢ࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣᙧᐜモ −117− (25) secondary depictive predicates a. *John bought the dogi intelligenti. b. Johni came home hungryi. c.*John sent the packagei availablei. ࡇࢀࡽࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝࡼࡾࠊ Kaga ࡣ௨ୗࡢᵝ࡞୕ ศ㢮ࢆ⾜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᆺⓗ࡞ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺ ⌧ࢀࡿ(2007:25-27): (26) ᒓ ᛶ グ ㏙ ㏙ ㄒ character-describing predicates a. ᙧᐜモ㸸intelligent, tall, large, insane, etc. b. ๓⨨モ㸸of considerable talent, of no importance, of a beautiful color, etc. (27) ≧ែグ㏙㏙ㄒ state-describing predicates a. ᙧᐜモ㸸hungry, torn, angry, raw, etc. b. ๓⨨モ㸸in good health, in a desperate state, in high spirits, etc. (28) ≧ ἣ グ ㏙ ㏙ ㄒ situation-describing predicates a. ᙧᐜモ㸸present, available, visible, etc. b. ๓⨨モ㸸in the bed, on the table, in the cage, etc. 英語連結的知覚動詞構文の補語分布への意味論的アプローチ:属性・状態叙述の違いに着目して ᒓᛶグ㏙㏙ㄒࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀླྀ㏙ࡍࡿᑐ㇟ࡢෆ㒊 ᜏᖖⓗෆᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᛶ㉁ࢆᣦࡍ㏙ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ≧ែグ㏙㏙ㄒࡣᑐ㇟ෆᅾ ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᛶ㉁ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ࠸࠺Ⅼ࠾࠸࡚ࠊඹ ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ୍ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ Ⅼ࠾࠸࡚␗࡞ࡿࠋ≧ἣグ㏙㏙ㄒࡣࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛ ࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ㏙ㄒ␗࡞ࡾࠊླྀ㏙ࡍࡿෆᐜࡀᑐ㇟ ෆᅾࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㏫ᑐ㇟ࡀ࠶ࡿ≧ἣෆ ᅾࡍࡿࡇࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ㏙ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊ (28b)ࡢ๓⨨モ࡛ྃ᭱ࡶᆺⓗ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ࡼ࠺ࠊ㏙ㄒࡣᑐ㇟ࡢእ㒊Ꮡᅾࡍࡿሙᡤࢆ⾲ ࡍࡇࡀከ࠸ࠋ 4.3. ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ࡢゎ㔘 ࡇࡢศ㢮ᚑࡗ࡚ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ࢆゎ㔘ࡍ ࡿ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡿࠋ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇࡢ࡛ࡁࡿ≧ែࡣᒓᛶグ㏙㏙ㄒ ≧ែグ㏙㏙ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿண࡛ࡁࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㏙ㄒࡀ⾲ࡍࡢࡣᑐ㇟ࡢෆᅾࡋ࡚࠸ ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢෆᅾࡍࡿᛶ㉁ࢆ▱ぬ⪅ࡀㄆ▱ ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡣእ㒊ࡢ࡞ࢇࡽࡢឤぬࡽ᥎ ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡎᙧ ᐜモࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊㄝ᫂ࡢయീࢆᥥࡃࠋᒓᛶ グ㏙㏙ㄒ≧ែグ㏙㏙ㄒࢆ⿵ㄒࡿᩥࡣࠊ ᐜㄆࡉࢀࠊಶูࡢ⿵ㄒࡢពࢆࡑࡢࡢせᅉ ࡋ࡚⪃៖ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡞ ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢ୰ぢฟࡍ ࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ (29) a. John looks intelligent. (=(9)) b. Well, you look intelligent,…. (BNC) c. The guy sitting inside is thin, looks tall, and has neat dark hair. (BNC) (30) a. John looks {happy, angry}. (=(9)) b. Her eyes widened and she looked angry. (BNC) c. Meanwhile, I noticed that the people looked hungry and miserable. (BNC) (29)ࡣᒓᛶグ㏙㏙ㄒࢆࡗࡓ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(30)ࡣ≧ ἣグ㏙㏙ㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᐇ ࡋ࡚ British National Corpus ⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᐜ ㄆྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼࡚Ⰻ࠸ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊ(i)ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᐇ㝿▱ぬ⪅ࡀ ▱ぬࡋࠊ(ii)ࡑࡇࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓእぢⓗ≉ᚩࢆሗ ※ࡋ࡚᥎ㄽࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀᣢࡘᛶ ㉁ࢆ▱ぬ⪅ࡀ᥎ㄽࡍࡿ࠸࠺ᵓᩥయࡀ⾲ࡍ ᶵ⬟࡛ࢃࡿ⠊ᅖࡔ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋከࡃࡢሙྜࠊ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᥎ㄽࡣሗ※ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ほⓗ࡞ ุ᩿ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࡽከࡃࡢ⿵ −118− ㄒࡀ⛬ᗘᛶࢆᣢࡘ⮳ࡿࡢࡣ⮬↛࡞ᖐ⤖࡛࠶ ࡿࠋ ḟඛၥ㢟࡞ࡗࡓ dead/alive ࡢࡢศ ᯒ⛣ࡿࠋ (16) a. He didn't know they [the animals] were alive! We all thought they were dead. They looked dead – (COCA) b. Only her eyes looked alive -- big dark eyes in a thin white face. (BNC) ᶵ⬟ⓗศᯒ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࢀࡶྠᵝࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ(i)ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀᏑ ᅾࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ▱ぬࡍࡿࠊ(ii)ࡑࡇࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓእ ぢⓗ≉ᚩ㸦e.g. ࡲࡗࡓࡃື࡞࠸㸧ࢆሗ※ ࡋ࡚᥎ㄽࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ(iii)ࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀࠕṚࢇ ࡛࠸ࡿࠖ࠸࠺ุ᩿ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࠸࠺ࡇࢆ㏙ ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶࢇṚࢇ࡛࠸ ࡿ࡞ࡢ⛬ᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࡣᚲせ࡛ࡣ࡞ ࠸ࠋḟࡢࡣࠊࠕ⏕ࡁ⏕ࡁࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠸࠺ ព࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ༢⣧࡞ẚ㍑ࡣ࡛ࡁ ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊື࡞࠸ࠊ▖ࢆ㛢ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ➼ࡢ እぢୖࡢሗࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶṚࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡇࢆ୍ ⩏ⓗ⾲ࡉࡎࠊ╀ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ែࡸព㆑ࢆኻࡗ࡚ ࠸ࡿ≧ែ࡞➇ྜࡍࡿែࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࡼࡾ ᥎ㄽࢆᚲせࡍࡿࡢᑐࡋࠊືࡃࡇࡸᛂࡀ ࠶ࡿࡇ࡞⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿドᣐ ࡀࡰ᥎ㄽࢆᚲせࡏࡎྵពࡍࡿࡇ⏤᮶ ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ⤖ᯝⓗࠊ look alive be alive ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡃࡃࠊ࠶ ࠼࡚๓⪅࡛Ⓨヰࡍࡿᚲせᛶࢆపࡃࡋ࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ ⤖ᯝࠊlook alive ࡢᩥᏐิࡣࠕ⏕ࡁ⏕ࡁࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ ࡢព࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇࡀከ࠸᥎ ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ḟ≧ἣグ㏙㏙ㄒࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢ ᶵ⬟ㄽⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢ⠊ࡢᙧᐜモ࠾ ࡼࡧ๓⨨モྃࢆ⿵ㄒࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡓࡣᐜㄆࡉ ࢀࡃ࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ≧ἣࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ▱ぬࡢᑐ ㇟≀ࡢእぢ➼ࡽ᥎ ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑ ࡢᑐ㇟≀ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡗࡶᆺⓗ࡞ࡋ࡚ࡇࡢୡ⏺ Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠺ࢆ⾲ࡍ present/absent ࡢ࣌ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽ 2 ࡘࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᩥ ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡃ࠸ࠋ (31) a. *John looks present. b. *John looks absent. ࡇࡢࡇࡣࠊGisborne (2010)ࡀ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ to judge by ࢆࡗ࡚ᩥࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࡉࡽ ᫂ࡽ࡞ࡿࠋ 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 (32) a. #To judge by his look, John is present. b. #To judge by his sound, John is absent. c. John looks intelligent [angry]. d. To judge by his look, John is intelligent [angry]. ࢀ࡞࠸ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡋࡋࠊឤࡸ≧ែ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⾜Ⅽࡔゎ㔘࡛ ࡁࡿືモࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿゝ ࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࠼ࡤ threaten ࡣ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ ⪃࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺ ࡞ࢆࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡽぢࡘࡅฟࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࢪࣙࣥࡀࡑࡢሙᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠺ࡣࠊ࠶ ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶ᥎ㄽࡢ๓ᥦ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᥎ㄽࡢሗ※ࡋ ࡚࠺ࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ ࡣࠊ(32c-d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᒓᛶグ㏙㏙ㄒࡸ≧ែグ㏙㏙ ㄒࡀၥ㢟࡞ࡃ⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡿࡇዲᑐ↷ࢆ࡞ࡍࠋ ࡇࢀࡣ㏙ㄒࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀၥ㢟 ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ᥎ㄽࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆ ၥ㢟ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ be ືモࡢሙྜࡣࠊၥ㢟࡞ ࡃᐜㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࡇࡶ᥎ㄽホ౯ࢆᚲ㡲ࡍࡿ ࡇࢆᨭᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (33) a. John is present today. b. John is absent today. ࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡢᑐẚࡣࠊ▱ぬࢆ⏝࠸ࡓሗ㞟 ࡑࡢሗᇶ࡙࠸ࡓ᥎ㄽ࠸࠺ᵓᩥࡢᶵ⬟ ⿵ㄒ㐺ྜ࡛ࡁࡿ࠺ࡽ᮶࡚࠸ࡿ⪃ ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡇࡢศᯒࡣࠊࡢရモࡘ࠸࡚ࡶᛂ⏝ྍ⬟࡛ ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎ⌧ᅾࡸ㐣ཤศモ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊពⓗ ࡣឤࢆ⾲ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ືモࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ (36) Barnsley always looked threatening on the aerial front... (BNC) ࡇࡢࡇࡶࠊ᥎ㄽࡢవᆅࡀᐜㄆᛶࡢᇶ‽࡞ࡗ ࡚࠸ࡿࡇᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᛧࡀࡽࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡞እぢ ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࠊࡶࡗ༢⣧ゝ࠼ࡤᛧ࠸ᛮ ࠼ࡿ࠺ࡣ▱ぬ⪅ࡢุ᩿ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ ࡑࡢព࡛ disbelieving ࡸ believing ྠࡌࡃ᥎ ㄽࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡛ run ࡸ break ࡣᗄ ศ㐪࠺ᛶ㉁ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀᐜㄆᛶࡢᕪ ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ḟ๓⨨モ࡛ࡶྠࡌ༊ศࢆᑟධࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࠊ ㄝ᫂ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡍࠋᒓᛶグ㏙㏙ㄒࡸ≧ែ グ㏙㏙ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ๓⨨モྃࡣࡇࡢᵓᩥ⏕㉳ࡍ ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ (37) a. The piano sounds out of tune (key). b. *John sounds out of the classroom. c. John looks out of his mind. d. *John looks out of the classroom out of tune (key)ࡣࠕ㡢ࡀእࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊᴦჾࡋ ࡚ቯࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠸࠺ព࡛࠶ࡾࠊ≧ែ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡇࡣࠊලయⓗ࡞㡢Ⰽࡽุ᩿ࡉࢀࡓࡇ ࢆྵពࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᥎ㄽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊout of the classroom ࡣሙᡤࢆ⾲ࡍ≧ἣグ ㏙㏙ㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᥎ㄽࡢ๓ᥦ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚᥎ㄽࡋࡓ⤖ ᯝ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸Ⅽࠊᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋྠ ᵝࠊどぬࡢ࡛ࡣࠊࠕᡃࢆᛀࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠸ ࠺ព࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊ⣧⢋ሙᡤࡢ ゎ㔘ࢆࡍࡿሙྜ࡛ࡣ≧ἣグ㏙㏙ㄒࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵᐜㄆࡉࢀࡃ࠸ࠋࡲࡵࡿࠊ⿵ㄒ ⨨⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡣࠊ᥎ㄽࡢᚲせ ᛶ࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡀ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢ⏕ ㉳㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆࠊᐇࢆᣲࡆ࡞ࡀࡽㄝ ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ (34) a. John looks {threatening, disbelieving}. (=(9)) b. Jotan looked disbelieving. (BNC) c. Charles tried to sound believing, but failed. (BNC) (35) a. His face looked drawn and tired. b. Coleby looked impressed. c. Prentice didn’t sound impressed. d. She sounded put out. ࡲࡓࠊேࡢឤࢆ᧯సࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ືモࡢሙྜ ࡶࡲࡓᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࡑࢀᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾲ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ㛵ࡋ ࡚ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡃ࠸ࠋ 5. ⤊ࢃࡾ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡢ⿵ㄒࢆᢅࡗ ࡓࠋ⿵ㄒ⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡿ࠺ࡣࠊᵓᩥࡑࡇ ⏕㉳ࡉࡏࡿ⾲⌧ࡢ㛫ࡢព࣭ᶵ⬟ࡢᩚྜᛶࡢ ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓᐇ㝿ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿ࠺ ࠸࠺ព࡛ᩥ⬦ࢆ⪃៖ࡏࡡࡤ࡞ࡽࡎㄒ⏝ㄽࡶ 㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࢆ᫂ࡽ࡞ࡗࡓࠋᮏ (36) a. *John looks {running fast, breaking the grass.} b. *John sounds hit by Mary with a stick. ࡇࢀࡣ⣧⢋ែࡋ࡚ษࡾ㞳ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀ ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ែ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᥎ㄽࢆࡍࡿవᆅࡀឤࡌࡽ −119− 英語連結的知覚動詞構文の補語分布への意味論的アプローチ:属性・状態叙述の違いに着目して ◊✲࡛ࡢ◊✲ࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࢃࡅࡑࢀࡒࢀࡀ⊂⮬ࡢព㡿ศࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿㄽࡌࠊ look at ࡀఱࢆぢࡓࡇࢆពࡍࡿࡢࡣࠕᐃᖖⓗ࡞ ពᡂศ࡞ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᕥྑࡉࢀࡿ ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞᥎ㄽࡢ⤖ᯝࠖ(p.340)࡛࠶ࡿࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 4 ᙧᐜモࡢ⛬ᗘᛶࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊParadis (2001)ࢆཧ↷ ࡢࡇࠋ 1. 㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࡣࠊᶵ⬟ⓗࠕ ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆ▱ぬࡋࡓᚋࠊࡑࡢ▱ぬ ሗࢆᇶࡋ࡚᥎ㄽࡋࡓ⤖ᯝᚓࡽࢀࡓ⿵ㄒ ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿᛶ㉁࡛ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆ≉ᚩ ࡙ࡅࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺ពࢆᣢࡘࠋ 2. ⿵ㄒ⏕㉳ࡍࡿೃ⿵࡞ࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ᥎ ㄽࢆᚲせࡍࡿࡶࡢࠊࡑࡢ᥎ㄽࡢ๓ᥦ ࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡞᥎ㄽࢆᚲせࡋ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡀ ࠶ࡾࠊᵓᩥࡢᛶ㉁ୖ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬືモᵓ ᩥ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡢࡣ๓⪅ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᥎ㄽ ࢆࡑࡢពᵓ㐀ྵࡲ࡞࠸ be ືモࡣࡇࡢ ࡼ࠺࡞༊ศࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ ṧࡉࢀࡓㄢ㢟ࡋ࡚ࠊᅇࡣศ㢮ࡋࡓྛ㏙ㄒࡢ ᆺⓗ࡞ࡢࡳࢆศᯒࡋࡓࡀࠊࡲࡔࡇࡢศᯒࡀ ࢀࡃࡽ࠸ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆᣢࡘࡢࡣ࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋ ᚋࠊసࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࡼࡾໟᣓⓗ࡞㆟ ㄽࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ㅰ㎡ ᮏ◊✲ࡣᖹᡂ 23 ᖺᗘ᠕⩏ሿᏛ༤ኈ ㄢ⛬◊✲ᨭࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ㸦ሿᯟ㸧ࠕⱥㄒ࠾ ࡅࡿ୰㛫ᵓᩥࡢពᵓ㐀ࡢグ㏙ⓗ◊✲ࠖࡽ ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚࠾ࡇ࡞ࢃࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ὀ 1 ㄆ▱ᩥἲࡢほⅬࡽࡇࡢᵓᩥࢆศᯒࡋࡓࡶࡢࠊ Taniguchi (1997)ࠊ㇂ཱྀ (2005)ࠊࡢ▱ぬືモࡢ⏝ἲ ࢆྵࡵࠊࡼࡾໟᣓⓗ࡞ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡶࡢ Gisborne (2010)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ 2 ⫈ぬࡢሙྜࠊlisten ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ sound ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ ࡿⅭࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࢆࡶࡘάື㏙ㄒࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝ἲࡣᏑᅾࡋ ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ sound ࡼࡿᢚไ lexical blocking ࡢ ࡓࡵࡔ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠊᐇ㝿 Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition ࡣࠊlisten ࡀ㐃⤖モⓗ▱ぬື モᵓᩥ⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (1) a. That listened very well indeed, and we all climbed into a cabbage and vamped over. (1923 L. J. Vance Baroque xxvii. 174) b. [It] don't listen reasonable to me. (1923 L. J. Vance Baroque xxvii. 174) ࡋࡋࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒヰ⪅⪺ࡃࠊࡇࢀࡣ᪉ゝⓗ࡞Ꮡ ᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࡢุ᩿ࡀࡃࡔࡉࢀࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ㠀ᶆ‽ ⓗ࡞⏝ἲࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 3 ࡇࡢࡇࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶ▱ぬᡂ❧ࢆ⾲ࡍ see ࡀ look ࢆ ᚲせࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࡣྵពࡋ࡞࠸ࡋࠊࡑࡢ㏫ look ࢆ⾜࠼ࡤఱࡽࡢ▱ぬࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ ࡶྵពࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋ୰ྑ (1994)ࡣࠊពᅗⓗ࡞▱ぬ ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ look at ▱ぬⓗ᥋ゐࢆ⾲ࡍ see ࢆཝᐦ −120− ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ Jackendoff, Ray. 1985. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. -----. 2009. Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Gisborne, Nikolas. 2010. The Event Structure of Perception Verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gisborne, Nikolas and Jasper Holmes. 2007. “A History of English Evidential Verbs of Appearance”. English Language and Linguistics 11:1, 1-29. Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ᮏከၨ. 2005.ࠗࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫࡢㄆ▱ពㄽ㸸 ⏕ែᚰ⌮Ꮫࡽࡳࡓᩥἲ⌧㇟࠘ᮾி㸸 ᮾிᏛฟ∧ Kaga, Nobuhiro. 2007. Thematic Structure: A Theory of Argument Linking and Comparative Syntax. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. ୰ྑᐇ. 1994.ࠗㄆ▱ពㄽࡢཎ⌮࠘ᮾி㸸ಟ 㤋᭩ᗑ Paradis, Carita .2001. “Adjectives and Boundedness”. Cognitive Linguisticsi 12:1, 47-65. Rogers, Andy. 1971. “Three Kinds of Physical Perception Verbs”. CLS 7, 206-222. Taniguchi, Kazumi. 1997. “On the Semantics and Development of Copulative Perception Verbs in English: A Congnitive Perspective”. English Linguistics 14, 270-299. ㇂୍ཱྀ⨾. 2005. ࠗែࡢグྕ㛵ࡍࡿㄆ▱ゝ ㄒᏛⓗ◊✲࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Icatha: Cornell University Press. Whitt, Rechard. 2010. Evidentiality and Perception Verbs in English and German. Oxford: Peter Lang. 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆ you ࡛ㄒࡿࡇࡢព ୰ᒣ ோ ⚟ᓥ┴❧་⛉Ꮫ 㸺Abstract㸼 The personal pronoun you is sometimes used to refer to the speaker himself instead of the hearer, especially when he talks about his experience or personal opinion. This paper is concerned with the meaning and usage of this kind of you by taking into account the referential relations between the second person pronoun you and generic or impersonal you, as well as their pragmatic functions. The following discussion is based on a hypothesis that such kind of you is derived from the generic use of you. It also accounts for the pragmatic effects of you such as politeness when it refers to the speaker. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸youࠊ⮬ศࠊ⥲⛠ࠊయ㦂 1. ࡣࡌࡵ㸸య㦂࣭ಶேⓗពぢࢆ㏙ࡿ㝿⌧ࢀࡿ you ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢయ㦂ࡸಶேⓗពぢࢆ㏙ࡿ㝿ࠊ⮬ศࡢࡇࢆ , ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ\RX ࡛⾲ ࡍሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤ㸦㸧࡛ࡣࠊࢠࣜࢫேࡀ⮬ᅜࡢ㢼࿅ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ᭱ᚋࡢᩥ࡛ࠊヰ ࡋᡭࡣ⮬ศࡢ⤒㦂ࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡶࢃࡽࡎ \RX ࢆࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡣ࣓ࣜ࢝ே㸧ࠋ 㸦1㸧 When I was growing up in the U.K. and lived in the U.K. the water was heated by using what we called an immersion heater, which is basically a big tank and in that tank was a heating element immersed in the water, hence the name. […] And I always found when I ran a bath it would only fill up halfway before you ran out of hot water. 㸦English Journal, May 2011: 162㸧 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ you ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⫼ᬒࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢⓎヰពᅗࡶྵࡵ࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ࡇ ࡇ ࡛ ࡢ ᙇ ࡢ ࣏ ࣥ ࢺ ࡣ ᴫ ␎ ࠊ ձ ⮬ ศ ࡢ య 㦂 㹙 ⪃ ࠼ 㹛 ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ㄒ ࡿ you ࡣ ⥲ ⛠ ࡢ you 㸦generic/impersonal you㸧ࡢ⏝ἲᇶ࡙࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋղࡇࡢሙྜࡢ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ ㇟ࡣࠊ༢࡞ࡿࠕே୍⯡ࠖࡼࡾ⊃࠸⠊ᅖ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣヰࡋᡭࡢయ㦂ᇶ࡙ࡃ᥎ㄽࡀᙳ㡪ࢆཬ ࡰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋճ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡼࡗ࡚య㦂࡞ࢆㄒࡿ㝿ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖㸦ᑀ࡞ែᗘ࣭ὀពႏ㉳㸧 ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊࡢ 3 Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⏝ἲࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᚑ᮶ࡢㄝ᫂ࡑࢀᑐࡍࡿ ၥⅬࢆᣦࡋࡓᚋࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢᣢࡘ≉ᚩࢆᡭࡀࡾ௦ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ 2. ᚑ᮶ࡢ⪃࠼᪉ၥⅬ ࡇࡢ✀ࡢ you ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᚑ᮶ࡢㄝ᫂ࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃࡶ 2 ࡘࡢ❧ሙࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ1 ࡘࡣࠊyou ࢆ⪺ࡁ ᡭぢ࡞ࡋࠊࡑࡇヰࡋᡭࡽ⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬ⛣ືࡀ࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿ❧ሙࠊࡶ࠺ 1 ࡘࡣࠊyou ࢆ⥲⛠⏝ἲ ࡢ୍✀⪃࠼ࡿ❧ሙ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࡣ๓⪅ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᑠ᳃㸦1990㸧ᚑࡗ࡚どⅬ⛣ືࡢㄝ᫂ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ 2. 1. ⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬࢆ⏝ࡍࡿ 㸦2㸧 I’m proud to tell people I’m a policeman. For other people, I don’t know if it’s mixture of fear and respect or what, but you’re not just a regular Joe, you’re a policeman. I’m the first person in the family to be a policeman. 㸦ᑠ᳃ 1990: 191㸧 㸦2㸧ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᑠ᳃㸦1990㸧ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆ you ࡛⾲ࡍࡇࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆヰࡋᡭࡢどⅬ ᘬࡁ㎸ࡳࠊ⪺ࡁᡭඹឤࢆồࡵࡿ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊศࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸࠸࠺㸧ᚰⓗែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ゝ࠺ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊyou ࡀ┤᥋ᣦ♧ࡍࡿࡢࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢീຊࢆ⏝ࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡢᚰࢆ⌮ −121− 話し手が自分自身をyouで語ることの意味 ゎࡉࡏࡼ࠺ࡍࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ☜ࠊ㸦2㸧ࡢᩥࢆぢࡿ㝈ࡾヰࡋᡭࡣඹឤࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ぢ࠼ࡿࠋ ࡋࡋࠊྠᵝ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆ♧ࡍ you ࢆྵࡴ㸦3㸧ࡢሙྜࠊ 㸦2㸧ྠᵝࡢࠕඹឤࠖࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ࡣ ᛮ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ 㸦3㸧 We used to backpack. We would go backpacking in the Sierras. And you would hike in for miles and miles and miles with everything on your back, and usually without a tent. It would just be carrying your supplies and your sleeping bag, and then we would camp. 㸦English Journal, July 2011: 149㸧 㸦3㸧ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ᫇ࡼࡃࣁ࢟ࣥࢢ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ㡭ࡢᵝᏊࢆヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊᩥ⬦ࡽ you ࡣヰࡋᡭ ࢆྵࡵࡓࠕ⮬ศࡓࡕࠖࡢࡇࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊࡑࡢ㝿ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭඹឤࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠺ࡣࠊ ࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋᩥ୰ࡢ would ࡣ㐣ཤࡢ⩦័ⓗ⾜ືࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ㐣ཤࡢ⩦័ⓗ⾜ື࠸࠺ ᐇࡘ࠸࡚ᯝࡓࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭඹឤࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡢ࠺ࡣၥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡢሙ ྜࡣ⤒㦂ࢆ༢ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᑡ࡞ࡃࡶ㸦2㸧࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ⮬ศࡢゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ 㠀ࡶศࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࠖ࠸࠺ព㆑ࡣാ࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊ㸦2㸧㸦3㸧࡛㐪࠸ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡣࠊ㸦2㸧ࡀヰࡋᡭࡢᚰࢆ⾲ࡍ࡛࠶ࡿࡽ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ 㸦2㸧ࡢ➨㸯ᩥ㸦I’m proud to tell people I’m a policeman.㸧ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ㆙ᐹᐁ࠸࠺⫋ᴗࡢᛮ࠸ධࢀ ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡘࠊyou ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓᩥࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢࠕᙇࠖ࠸࠺ᙧࢆࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊⓎヰయ ࡋ࡚ඹឤࢆồࡵࡿᚰⓗែᗘࡀ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㸦3㸧ࡣ༢࡞ࡿయ㦂ࡢㄝ᫂࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊఱࡽ ࡢᚰࢆศࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠾࠺࠸࠺ពᅗࡣ࡞࠸ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡼࡾࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ you ࡢ⏕㉳ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕඹឤࢆồࡵࡿែᗘࠖࢆ┤᥋ࡢせᅉぢ࡞ࡍࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ ࡃࠊࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞⌮⏤࡙ࡅࡀᚲせ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢᡭࡀࡾࢆᚓࡿࡓࡵࠊḟ⠇࡛ࡣࡇࡢ ✀ࡢ you ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡶ࠺ 1 ࡘࡢㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚ࠊ⥲⛠⏝ἲࡢほⅬᇶ࡙ࡃㄝ᫂㸦♧၀㸧ࡘ࠸࡚ぢ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ 2. 2. ⥲⛠⏝ἲࡢ୍✀⪃࠼ࡿ 㸦4㸧ࡣ Quirk et al.㸦1985㸧ࡽࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦4a㸧ࡣࡈࡃ୍⯡ⓗ࡞⥲⛠⏝ἲࡢࡔࡀࠊࠊ㸦4b㸧 ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊyou ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ⏕άࡸ⤒㦂ࢆᣦࡋ࡚ヰࡍࡢࢃࢀࡿゝ࠺ࠋ 㸦4㸧 a. You can never tell what will happen. b. It wasn’t a bad life. You got up at seven, had breakfast, went for a walk… 㸦Quirk et al. 1985: 354㸧 ࡲࡓࠊࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ㸦2007㸧࡛ࡣࠊࠕ᫂ࡽ⮬ศࡢࡇࢆヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࠊI ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ you ࢆ࠺ࡇ ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖࡋ࡚㸦5㸧ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ヰࡋᡭࡣࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ㑅ᡭ㸧 ࠋ 㸦5㸧 You train really hard every day to keep in good condition. 㸦ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ 2007: 76㸧 ࡇࡢሙྜࡢ you ࡣ⮬៏ヰ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺ࡍࡿពᅗࡀ࠶ࡾࠊゝ࠸࠼ࢀࡤࠊ ࠕ⮬ศ⮬㌟㝈ࡗࡓヰ࡛ ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ㑅ᡭ࡞ࡽㄡ࡛ࡶࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࠸࠺ࢽࣗࣥࢫࡀ㎸ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿゝ࠺ࠋࡇࡇ ࡛⯆῝࠸ࡢࡣࠊ㸦5㸧࡛ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿே୍⯡ࡣࠕࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ㑅ᡭ୍⯡ࠖ࠸࠺㝈ᐃⓗ࡞ேࠎࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑࡢᑐ㇟ྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ Quirk et al.㸦1985㸧ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ㸦2007㸧ࡢㄝ᫂ࡶ࠸ࡃࡘࡢၥࡀṧࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊQuirk et al.㸦1985㸧 ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡶࡑࡶ࡞ࡐ you ࢆࡗ࡚⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆᣦࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢࠊ⌮⏤ࡀ㏙ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ㸦2007㸧ࡶୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞⡆༢࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ␃ࡲࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヲ⣽࡞ㄝ᫂ࡣࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ ࡲࡓࠊ㸦5㸧ࡢࡣヰࡋᡭࡢᙇࢆ⾲ࡍࢱࣉࡔࡀࠊ㸦3㸧ࡸ㸦4b㸧ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ༢࡞ࡿ≧ἣㄝ᫂ࢆࡍࡿ ࡣࡑࡶࡑࡶ⮬៏ࡍࡁせ⣲ࡣྵࡲࢀࡎࠊ ࠕㅬࡉࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࡣ⪃࠼ࡃ࠸ࠋࡉࡽࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆ⾲ࡍ 㸦4b㸧㸦5㸧ࡢ you ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊ୍⯡⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵពࡍࡿ࠸࠺ ᐇ▩┪ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࢆ࠺ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡶၥ㢟࡞ࡿࠋ −122− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ⥲⛠⏝ἲ㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ᳨ウࡢవᆅࡀṧࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊᑡ࡞ࡃࡶ࠸ࡃࡘ ࡢὀ┠ࡍࡁⅬࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋୖグࡢᖐ⤖ࡋ࡚㸰Ⅼࢆ㸦6㸧ᣲࡆࡿࠋ 㸦6㸧 a. ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡣ㸦どⅬ⛣ືࠊ୍⯡ㄽࡢゝཬ࡛࠶ࡿࡣูࡋ࡚㸧㛫᥋ⓗ⮬ศࢆ ᣦࡍ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㛫᥋ᛶࡼࡗ࡚ఱࡽࡢⓎヰពᅗࡀ㎸ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀண ࡉࢀࡿࠋ b. 㸦5㸧ࡢ you ࡣ༢࡞ࡿࠕே୍⯡࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ ࠕࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ㑅ᡭ୍⯡ࠖࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᩥ⬦㸦㠀᫂♧ ⓗ࡞ሗ㸧ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊே୍⯡ࡢᑐ㇟ࡀࡼࡾୗࡢ㞟ྜ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊ㸦6㸧ࢆᡭࡀࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡼࡾጇᙜ࡞ㄝ᫂ࡀྍ⬟࡞ ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡎࡣ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ≉ᚩࡘ࠸࡚☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ 3. ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ≉ᚩ Swan㸦2005㸧ࡼࡿࠊ 㸦7㸧♧ࡍࡼ࠺ࠊyou ࡣ one ྠᵝヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡴே୍⯡ࢆᣦ ࡍ㸦ࡓࡔࡋࠊone ࡣ you ࡼࡾࡶሀ࠸ㄒ㸧 ࠋලయࢆ㸦8㸧♧ࡍࠋ 㸦7㸧 you / <more formal> one = people in general including the speaker and hearer 㸦Swan 2005: 396㸧 㸦8㸧 a. If you want to make people angry, you just have to tell them the truth. b. If one wishes to make oneself thoroughly unpopular, one has merely to tell people the truth. ࡲࡓࠊ 㸦9㸧ලయ㸦10㸧࠶ࡿࡼ࠺ࠊࡑࡢࠕே୍⯡ࠖࡣࠊyou ࡛࠶ࢀ one ࡛࠶ࢀࠊࡁࢃࡵ࡚ᖜᗈ ࠸ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊᙜヱࡢែࡀㄡࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ࠸࡞ࡿࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡇࢆពࡍࡿࠋ 㸦9㸧 One and you are only used… in very general statements, when we are talking about ‘anyone, at any time.’ 㸦10㸧One/You can usually find people who speak English in Sweden. ୍᪉ࠊHuddleston and Pullum㸦2002㸧ࡣࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ே⛠ࡢ you ࡣࠕ୍⯡ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡇࡣ⪺ ࡁᡭࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠖ࠸࠺ྵពࢆᣢࡘⅬ࡛㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿゝ࠺ࠋྠ᭩ෆ࠶ࡿ㸦11㸧ࡢ࡛ ゝ࠼ࡤࠊࠕྠࡌ≧ἣ࡞ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ࠶࡞ࡓࡶ⨩㔠ࢆࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࠸࠺ྵពࢆᣢࡘࠋ 㸦11㸧 You can get fined for parking on the footpath.㸦‘you personally [the hearer] may be fined’㸧 㸦Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1468㸧 ࡇࢁࡀࠊyou ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡲ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊ 㸦12㸧ࡣࠊዷ፬ࢆᑐ㇟ࡋࡓヰ࡛ࠊ when you’re eight months pregnant ࡢ㒊ศࡽศࡿ㏻ࡾࠊ⏨ᛶࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ᫂ࡽᑐ㇟እ࡞ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁ ᡭࡢᑐ㇟ࡀ㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣ᫂ⓑ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦12㸧 You have to avoid that sort of thing when you’re eight months pregnant. 㸦Ibid.: 1467㸧 㸦13㸧ࡶྠᵝ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡲ࡞࠸࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢᩥࡣ in those days ࡛ศࡿࡼ࠺ࠊ㐣ཤࡢேࠎ ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵពࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ 㸦13㸧 a. In those days, you always tipped your hat to a lady. b. In those days you did what you were told. 㸦Bolinger 1979: 202㸧 㸦COBUILD㸧 ࡇࢀࡽࡢࡽࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢᑐ㇟ࡣࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ↓᮲௳ࠕㄡ࡛ࡶࠊ࠸࡞ࡿ࡛ࡶࠖ࠸࠺ព ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡣ᫂♧ⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࡼࡗ࡚ᑐ㇟ࡀ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇࡶ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㝿ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᑐ㇟ࡽእ −123− 話し手が自分自身をyouで語ることの意味 ࢀࡿࡇࡶ࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࡀศࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡲ࡞࠸࠸࠺Ⅼࡣࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࢆ ┤᥋ᣦ♧ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ㔜࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⥲⛠⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢ you ࢆ㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࡿ⣒ཱྀ࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿ 㸦ヲ⣽ࡣᚋ㏙㸧ࠋ ࡉࡽࠊ⯆῝࠸ࡇࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢࡢ୰ࡣࡲࡉ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ぢ࡞ࡍࡇࡢ࡛ࡁ ࡿࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦14㸧ࡣ㐣ཤࡢ࠶ࡿฟ᮶ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋHuddleston and Pullum ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢሙ ྜࠊyou ࡣࠕ㦁㡢ࡢࡍࡿ⌧ሙᒃྜࢃࡏࡓேဨࠖࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⌮ゎࡉࢀࠊྠࠊ ࠕヰࡋᡭࢆྵࢇ ࡛࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ㧗࠸ࠖゝ࠺ࠋࡍࡿࠊࡇࡢࡢ you ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡲࡎࠊᐇ㉁ⓗࠕヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ࡽ ࡢయ㦂ࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖぢ࡞ࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ㸦4b㢮ఝ㸧 ࠋ 㸦14㸧 You couldn’t hear yourself talk, it was so noisy. 㸦Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1467㸧 ࡘࡲࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡋ࡚ࡣࠕ⮬ศࡣࡑࡢሙᡤ࡛⮬ศࡢኌࡀ⪺ࡇ࠼࡞࠸⛬ࡢ㦁㡢ࢆ⤒㦂ࡋࡓࠋࡔࡽࡓࡪ ࢇࠊ⮬ศ㝈ࡽࡎࡑࡇᒃࡓࡢேࡶྠࡌࡔࢁ࠺ࠖᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆࡇࡢᩥ࡛⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ⪃࠼ ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆࡓ㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ᫂♧ⓗ࡞ࢆ Kitagawa and Lehrer㸦1990㸧࡛ぢࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ 㸦15㸧 Greathouse said he felt some obligation as Adam’s replacement. “The past three games, our running game has been a major factor. So I knew I had to gain some yards. I had to perform,” Greathouse said. “It’s not pressure. You keep it in your mind; you know you have to do it. Out there, you don’t think about it. You just go play by play.” 㸦Kitagawa and Lehrer 1990: 748㸧 Kitagawa and Lehrer ࡣࡇࡢࢆ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ୍ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆࠊyou ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕඃ⚽࡞ࣇࢵࢺ࣮࣎ࣝ㑅ᡭ ࡞ࡽࡔࢀ࡛ࡶࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺୍⯡ㄽࢆ㏙࡚࠸ࡿㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦15㸧ࡢࡣࠊ⮬ศࢆྵࡵࡓࣇࢵ ࢺ࣮࣎ࣝ㑅ᡭయࡢゝཬࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢࡇࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛ࠊඛࡢࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥࡢᣦࡋ ࡓ㸦5㸧ࡢࡁࢃࡵ࡚㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ 㸦5㸧ྠᵝࠊ୍⯡ㄽࡢᑐ㇟ࡀ㠀᫂♧ⓗ㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡘࡲࡾࠊⓎヰෆᐜࢆ㏻ࡋ୍࡚⯡ㄽࡢᑐ㇟ࡀࠕඃ⚽࡞ࣇࢵࢺ࣮࣎ࣝ㑅ᡭࡓࡕࠖศࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ ࡿࠋࡉࡽࠊ㸦5㸧ྠᵝ⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊ⮬៏ヰ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢヰࡋᡭࡢࠕㅬࡉࠖࡀࡇࡇ ࡛ࡶ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢ⥲⛠ࡢ you 㛵ࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ㝈ᐃࡢ≉ᚩࢆࡲࡵࡿ㸦16㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡿࠋ 㸦16㸧 a. ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᑐ㇟ྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦ᑐ㇟ࡢ㝈ᐃࡣ᫂♧ⓗ㸧ࠋ b. ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢࡣࠊ 㸦୍⯡ㄽࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚㸧ᐇ㉁ⓗヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿ⾲⌧ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ ୍⯡ㄽࡢᑐ㇟ࡣ༢࡞ࡿࠕே୍⯡࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㠀᫂♧ⓗ࡞ᙧ࡛㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡓே୍⯡ࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ≉㸦16b㸧ࡣࠊ⮬ศࢆㄒࡿ you ࡀ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ୍✀ࡋ࡚ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࢆ♧ࡍ᰿ᣐࢆ࠼ ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ⥲⛠⏝ἲࡢほⅬࡽࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆࡉࡽ᳨ウࡋࡓ࠸ࠋᙜ㠃ࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊ⮬ศࢆㄒࡿ you ࡀ㠀᫂♧ⓗᑐ㇟ࡢ㝈ᐃࢆ⾜࠺⫼ᬒࢆ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡼࡗ࡚ヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁ ᡭࡢ㛵ಀࡣࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡿࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆࠕヰࡋᡭࡢほᇶ࡙ࡃ ୍⯡ࠖ࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࢆᑟධࡍࡿࡇࡼࡗ࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ 4. ヰࡋᡭࡢほᇶ࡙ࡃ୍⯡ᑐ㇟ࡢ㝈ᐃ ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ㸦1990㸧ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ⮬ศࡢ⤒㦂ࡽ୍⯡ㄽࢆ᥎ᐃࡍࡿሙྜࠊㄒࢆ you ࡍࡿࡇ ࡀᐇከ࠸ࡋ࡚ࠊ㸦17a㸧࠶ࡿᩥࡢ┿ពࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦17a㸧ࡣ࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ࠶ࡿ㞧ㄅࡢグࡢ୍ 㒊࡛ࠊyou ࡣ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥࡣࠊ 㸦17a㸧ࡣ㞧ㄅグ⪅ࡢὸ࠸⤒㦂ࢆ࣮࣋ࢫࡋࡓグ㏙ ࡍࡂࡎࠊࡇࢀࢆࡶࡗṇ☜⾲ࡏࡤ㸦17b㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡿゝ࠺ࠋ 㸦17㸧 a. You don’t see many handicapped people on the streets of Tokyo. −124− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 = Anyone who visits Tokyo will be unlikely to see many handicapped people on the streets. b. When I visited Tokyo, I didn’t see many handicapped people on the streets. 㸦ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ 1990: 70-71㸧 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊⱥㄒࡢ୍⯡ㄽࡢ୰ࡣࠊಶேࡢ⤒㦂ᇶ࡙࠸࡚᥎ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡀ you ࡼ ࡗ࡚⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ you ࡢ≉ᚩࡀࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ⯡ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ゝ࠸࠼ࢀࡤࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿሙྜࡶࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⮬ศࡢ⤒㦂ᇶ࡙ࡃ୍ ⯡ㄽࡢ᥎ᐃࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡇࢀࢆࠊ᪤ぢࡓ㸦5㸧ࡢᙜ࡚ࡣࡵ࡚ࠊyou ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓⓎヰ⮳ࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡢࡀ㸦18㸧࡛ ࠶ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡢ┿ពࡣࠕ⮬ศࡣẖ᪥ࣁ࣮ࢻ࡞ࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࢆࡍࡿ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡀ⮬ࡽࡢ⤒㦂ᇶ ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ ࠕࡇࢀࡣ⮬ศ㝈ࡗࡓヰ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྠࡌࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ㑅ᡭ࡞ࡽࡔࢀ࡛ࡶࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࠸࠺⮬ ศ࡞ࡾࡢ୍⯡ㄽࡢ᥎ᐃࡢᙧ࡛⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ほⓗ࡞᥎ㄽࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡽぢࢀࡤಶேⓗពぢ ㏆࠸ࡶࡢᫎࡾࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊᐇ㉁ⓗヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢࡇࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔ࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡘࠋ 㸦18㸧 You train really hard every day to keep in good condition. 㸦=㸦5㸧㸧 Ќ <Any athlete will train really hard every day.> Ќࠕ⮬ศ㝈ࡗࡓヰ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ㑅ᡭ࡞ࡽㄡ࡛ࡶࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ㸦ほⓗ㸧 <I train really hard every day.> ྠᵝ㸦1㸧ࠊ 㸦2㸧ࢆศᯒࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ 㸦1㸧ࡣࢠࣜࢫேࡢ⤒㦂࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊyou ࡣࢠࣜࢫே୍⯡ࢆᣦࡍ ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ ࠕࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡞ࢀࡤࢠࣜࢫே࡞ࡽㄡࡔࡗ࡚ࡑ࠺࠸࠺ែࢆ⤒㦂ࡍࡿ ࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭ࡞ࡾࡢ᥎ㄽࡢᙧ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿゝ࠼ࡿࠋ 㸦1㸧 … And I always found when I ran a bath it would only fill up halfway before you ran out of hot water. 㸦2㸧࡛ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀࠕ⮬ศࡣ㆙ᐹᐁ࡞ࡢࡔࠖࠊࡶࡗゝ࠼ࡤࠕ⮬ศࡣࡾ㧗ࡁ㆙ᐹᐁ࡞ࡢࡔࠖ ࠸࠺ព㆑ࡀㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡀࠕ㆙ᐹᐁࡔࡗࡓࡽㄡࡔࡗ࡚ࡾࢆᣢࡘࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࠸࠺ࠊಶேⓗ࡞ಙ ᛕᇶ࡙ࡃ୍⯡ㄽࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ you ࡀࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ᥎ㄽࡣ⤒ 㦂࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃಙᛕᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊಙᛕࡶ⤒㦂ࢆࡶࡋࡓほⓗ࡞ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊྠᵝࡢㄝ᫂ࡀ ᡂࡾ❧ࡘぢ࡞ࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ 㸦2㸧 I’m proud to tell people I’m a policeman. For other people, I don’t know if it’s mixture of fear and respect or what, but you’re not just a regular Joe, you’re a policeman. … Ќ = <Any policeman will be proud to be a policeman.> Ќ = < I’m proud to be a policeman.> <I’m not just a regular Joe, I’m a policeman.> ௨ୖࡼࡾࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿሙྜࠊヰࡋᡭࡢほᇶ࡙ࡃ୍⯡ㄽࡢ᥎ᐃࡀᡂ ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆぢࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦⤒㦂ࡸಶேⓗಙᛕᇶ࡙ࡃ㸧ࡇࡣࠊࡑࢀࡼ ࡿ୍⯡ㄽࡢᐈほᛶࡀపࡃ࡞ࡿ㸦୍⯡ㄽࡢ㐺⏝⠊ᅖࡀ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿ㸧ࡇࢆពࡍࡿࠋ㏻ᖖࠊ୍⯡ㄽゝ ࠼ࡤᐈほᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࡇࡀ๓ᥦ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ㏻ᖖࡢ୍⯡ㄽ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㐺⏝⠊ᅖࡣヰࡋᡭ⪺ ࡁᡭࢆྵࡴࡢࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊほᛶࢆྵࢇࡔ୍⯡ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ㐺⏝⠊ᅖࡣヰࡋᡭᐤࡾࡢ୍ᐃ⠊ᅖ 㝈ᐃ㸦⦰ᑠ㸧ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࡢ୍⯡ㄽࡢᑐ㇟ࡽ㐲ࡃ㸦እࢀࡸࡍࡃ㸧࡞ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᑐ㇟እ࡞ࢀࡤࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣ⮬↛ヰࡋᡭ㞟୰ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿゝ࠼ࡿࠋ 㸦19㸧ࡶ⮬ࡽࡢࣁ࢟ࣥࢢࡢ⤒㦂ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࠊᙜࣁ࢟ࣥࢢࢆࡍࡿேࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞⾜ືࢆ −125− 話し手が自分自身をyouで語ることの意味 ᥎ᐃࡋ࡚ヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ 㸦19㸧 … And you would hike in for miles and miles and miles with everything on your back, and usually without a tent. It would just be carrying your supplies and your sleeping bag, and then we would camp. 㸦=㸦3㸧 ࡉࡽࠊ 㸦20㸧ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢࠕᝏࡃ࡞࠸⏕άࠖࢆ you ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕᝏࡃ࡞࠸⏕άࡢᆺࠖࡋ࡚ヰ ࡋᡭࡀ᥎ᐃࡋ࡚♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡢᫎぢ࡞ࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ 㸦20㸧 It wasn’t a bad life. You got up at seven, had breakfast, went for a walk… 㸦=㸦4b㸧 ⮬ศࢆㄒࡿ you ࡣヰࡋᡭഃࡢ᥎ㄽ࠸࠺ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ㛵ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿୖ࡛㏙ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ ヰࡋᡭࡢ᥎ㄽࡀࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ࡙ࡅࡿࢆ㸦21㸧ᣲࡆࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣዪඃࡢ Jodie Foster ࡢ ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ Foster ࡣࠊࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡽࠕ⮬ศࡢᫎ⏬ࡀබ㛤ࡉࢀࡓᚋࡣᗘ ࡑࡢᫎ⏬ࢆぢ࡞࠸ࠖࡢࡣ࡞ࡐ࠸࠺ၥ࠸⟅࠼࡚࠸ࡿ㸦4 ⾜┠ࡽ㸧 ࠋࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࡢጞࡲࡾ I guess ࡀ⌧ࢀࠊࡑࢀ⥆࠸࡚ you ࢆࡗ࡚ࠊ⮬ศࡢ⤒㦂ᇶ࡙ࡃ⪃࠼࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦21㸧 Gross: Foster: Gross: Foster: Can you watch your own films, and are some of your films easier for you to watch than others? [...] And then once the movie’s out, I never can watch them again. [...] Can you explain why? I don’t know. I guess it’s a moment that’s passed, and you’ve lived it so much and so intensely, but you just don’t want to go back there again. There’s part of you that just doesn’t want to go back there again. And you do feel self-conscious about it, because you have seen it either so many times or you’ve lived it so many times, you’ve talked about it so many times, you just are not ready to live through it again. 㸦ࢃࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ㐣ཤࡢࡇࡔࡽࡔᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ࡚ࡶ⇕ ᚰࠊ㞟୰ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢࢆ㐣ࡈࡋࡓࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ࡛ࡶࡓࡔࡑࡢሙᡤࡣᗘᡠࡾࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ⮬ศࡢ୰ࡑ ࡇᡠࡾࡓࡃ࡞࠸㒊ศࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡛࡚ࡶẼࡲࡎ࠸Ẽᣢࡕࡶ࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࠋ࡞ ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ࠶ࡲࡾఱᗘࡶࡑࢀࢆぢࡓࠊ࠶ࡲࡾఱᗘࡶయ㦂ࡋࠊ࠶ࡲࡾఱᗘࡶࡑࢀࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡗࡓࡽࠊࡶ ࠺୍ᗘྠࡌࡇࢆࡸࢁ࠺࠸࠺Ẽࡣ࡞ࢀ࡞࠸ࢇ࡛ࡍࠋ㸧㸦English Journal, April 2003: 24㸧 ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢࡇࡘ࠸࡚㸧⌮⏤ࢆ⪺ࢀ࡚ࠊࡼࡃศࡽ࡞࠸ࡅࢀࡶ⮬ศࡢ⪃࠼ࢆಶேⓗ࡞⤒㦂 ᇶ࡙࠸࡚᥎ㄽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᥎ㄽࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࠕ⮬ศ㝈ࡽࡎ㸦ᫎ⏬ತඃ࡞ࡽ㸧ㄡ࡛ࡶࡑ࠺࡞ࡿࡶࡢࠖ࠸ ࠺ほⓗ࡞୍⯡ㄽࢆ♧ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⮬ศࡢ⪃࠼ࢆ㏙࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀศࡿࠋ ௨ୖࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡣࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ≉ᚩᇶ࡙ࡁࠊほⓗ࡞୍⯡ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ㄒࡿࡓࡵ ࢃࢀࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࡀศࡗࡓࠋḟࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ಀࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡉࡽูࡢど Ⅼࡽ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ๓㏙ࡢ㏻ࡾࠊyou ࡀ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿሙྜࠊࡑࢀࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡉࢀࡿ୍⯡ㄽࡢᑐ㇟ ⪺ࡁᡭࡣྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡋࠊࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊyou ࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ௨ୖࠊ౫↛ࡋ࡚ே⛠ࡢពࢆఱ ࡽࡢᙧ࡛ಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࠸࠺ၥࡀṧࡿࠋ࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ே⛠ࡢ you ࡣពⓗ᫂☜࡞ቃ⏺ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊ㔜」ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊ 㸦22㸧ࡢ ヰࡢᛂ⟅㒊ศ࠶ࡿ you ࡣࠕࡶࡗດຊࡀᚲせࡔࠖ࠸࠺୍⯡ⓗ࡞ヰ࡛࠶ࡿྠࠊ⪺ࡁᡭྥ ࡗ࡚㏙ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ࡶゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿゝࢃࢀࡿࠋ 㸦22㸧 I have trouble convincing him.—Then you try harder. 㸦Bolinger 1979: 207㸧 ࡇࡢⅬࢆ⪃៖ධࢀࡿࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᣲࡆࡓ⮬ศࢆㄒࡿ you ࡢሙྜࡶࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࡑࡢሙ࠸ࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࢆ ព㆑ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺༳㇟ࢆཷࡅࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ⮬ศࢆㄒࡿ you ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵 −126− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ಀࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡍࡿᑀ࡞ែᗘࠖࠕヰᙜ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᏑᅾࡢ㓄៖ࠖ࠸࠺Ⅼ ࡽㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ 5. ᑀ⾲⌧䛸䛧䛶䛾 you Bolinger㸦1979㸧࡛ࡣࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࢆᑀ⾲⌧ࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓ࠼ࡤࠊ㸦23㸧ࡢ ヰ࡛ࠊ㉁ၥ⪅ࡣ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࢆ࠺ࡇ࡛⪺ࡁᡭุ᩿ࢆጤࡡࡿែᗘࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋྠ ࠊ⟅࠼ࡿഃࡶࠊヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ⮬ศࢆ I ࡛᫂♧ࡏࡎ you ࢆ࠺ࡇࡼࡗ࡚ᢲࡋࡅࡀࡲࡋࡉࢆฟࡉ ࡞࠸ᕤኵࡀ࡛ࡁࠊI ࡸ one ࢆࡗࡓ⾲⌧ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊ┦ᡭࡢᑀ࡞ែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿゝ࠺ࠋゝ ࠸࠼ࢀࡤࠊ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡋ࡚どⅬࡢඹ᭷ࢆಁࡍࡇࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡍࡿᩗព࡞ࡗ࡚⌧ࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦23㸧How do you make a kite?—You do it like this. 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㸦Bolinger 1979: 205㸧 Bolinger ࡣ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ≉ᚩࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸦23㸧ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊୖグࡢㄝ᫂ࡽศࡿࡼ࠺ࠊ ࡇࢀࡣᐇ㉁ⓗ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡢ୍ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࠾࠸࡚ᑀ ࡞ែᗘࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡞࠾ࠊᚑ᮶ࡢㄝ࡛᫂ᣦࡉࢀࡓどⅬࡢ⛣ື㸦㸻ඹឤࢆồࡵࡿែᗘ㸧ࡸㅬࡉࡣࠊࡇࡢᑀࡉࢆ♧ࡍ ែᗘࡢ୍㒊ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ 6. ὀពႏ㉳䛾ᶵ⬟䜢ᣢ䛴⥲⛠䛾 you ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡼࡗ࡚⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢព㆑ࡀࠕヰᙜ⪅ࡋ࡚ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᏑᅾ ࡢ㓄៖࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋලయⓗࡣࠊࡑࡢព㆑ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពႏ㉳ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࠸࠺ࡢ ࡶࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢࡢ୰ࡣࠊ⥲⛠ࡋ࡚ࡢពࡀᕼⷧ࡞ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊὀពႏ㉳ࡢᶵ⬟ࡔࡅࡀṧࡗ࡚ ࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍ࡀ㸦24㸧♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ there’s… for you ࠸࠺ᡂ࡛ྃ ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ≀ࡀࠕࡣ࡞ࡣࡔࡋ࠸ࠖࡇࡸࠕࡦ࠸ࠖࡇࢆࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤ⓶⫗ࢆ㎸ࡵ࡚ゝ࠺⾲⌧࡛࠶ ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ you ࡣࠊඖ᮶ࠕㄡࡀぢ࡚ࡶࡣ࡞ࡣࡔࡋ࠸ࠊࠊࡦ࠸ࠖ࠸࠺ே୍⯡ࢆᣦࡍព ⏤᮶ࡍࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡶࡣࡸࠊࡑࡢ⥲⛠ⓗ࡞ពࡣⷧࢀࠊࡴࡋࢁࡑࡢ≧ែࡘ࠸࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀព ࢆᘬࡃࡇ⏝ἲࡢ㍈ࡀ⨨ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏳ⸨㸦2005㸧࡛ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ you ࢆ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࠕ࠶ࢇࡓࠖ ゝ࠸࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪥ᮏㄒヂ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡶࠊyou ࡀែ┤᥋ⓗ࡞㛵ಀࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡴࡋࢁヰࡢሙ࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពႏ㉳ࡋ࡚⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡽ ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦24㸧“There’s gratitude for you,” said Patrick. “After all I did for that girl.” 㸦ࠕ࠶ࢀࡇࡑࠊ࠶ࢇࡓࠊᜠ▱ࡽ ࡎࡗ࡚ࡶࢇࡔࡐࠖ㸧㸦Ᏻ⸨ 2005: 413㸦Christie, A Murder Is Announced㸧 ࡲࡓࠊ 㸦25㸧ࡢ when you think about it ࡣఱࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡋࡓࡾࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ࢹࡀᾋࢇ࡛┦ᡭヰࡋ ࡅࡿࢃࢀࡿᡂ࡛ྃ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡶὀពႏ㉳ࢆࡋࡓ⥲⛠⏝ἲࡢ୍ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࠕ㸦ᙼ ࡽࡢࡇࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ㸧⮬ศ㝈ࡗࡓࡇ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃㄡ࡛ࡶᛮ࠸ࡔࡍࡇ࡞ࡢࡔࡀࠖ࠸࠺ពࡽⓎᒎ ࡋ࡚ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢᡂྃࡀὀពႏ㉳ࢆ┠ⓗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡣ Oxford Idioms Dictionary for Learners of English2 ࡢㄒἲグ㏙“used to draw attention to a fact that is not obvious or has not previously been mentioned”࠶ࡿࡇࡽࡶ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ 㸦25㸧They do have a big house, when you think about it. 㸦Oxford Idioms Dictionary for Learners of English2㸧 㸦ࡑ࠺࠸࠼ࡤࠊᙼࡽࡣࡁ࡞ᐙࢆᣢࡗ࡚ࡿࢇࡔࠋ➹⪅ヂ㸧 ୖグࡢ 2 ࡛ࡣࠊyou ࡣヰ㢟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿែ┤᥋ⓗ࡞㛵ಀࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࠕὀពႏ㉳ࠖ࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛⪺ࡁᡭ ⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ⥲⛠ࡢពࡣ⫼ᬒࡉࢀࠊὀពႏ㉳࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ −127− 話し手が自分自身をyouで語ることの意味 ᶵ⬟ࡀ࡞ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᙺࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡣࠊ⥲⛠ᛶࢆ⾲ࢃࡍពࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡣูࠊⓎヰࡢሙ࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ ࡢ㓄៖࠸࠺ᙧ࡛ே⛠ࡋ࡚ࡢពࢆಖࡘᕤኵࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢὀពႏ㉳ࡢᶵ ⬟ࡣࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࢆⓎヰࡍࡿሙ࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊྠᵝാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡣ༑ศ࠶ࡿᛮࢃࢀ ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆㄒࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ⮬యࡀヰࡋᡭᐤࡾࡢⓎヰ࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊヰࡢ⥔ᣢࡢࡓࡵࡣ⪺ ࡁᡭࡢఱࡽࡢ㓄៖ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࡣᙜ↛ᮃࡲࡋ࠸ࡇゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆ࡙ࡅࡿࡶࡢࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ศ⮬ ㌟ࢆㄒࡿ you ࡀὀពႏ㉳㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᛮࢃࢀࡿࢆ㸦26㸧ᣲࡆࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ࠶ࡿࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗࠊ ತඃ㸦Colin Firth㸧ࡀᏙ⊂࡞Ⓩሙே≀ࡢᙺࢆ࠺₇ࡌࡿࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡗࡓ୰ࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦26㸧 ... I mean, we can’t get inside each other’s minds and hearts and souls. You just can’t do that, you try. This is taking that reality, that truth and making a very extreme case out of it. Um, what you’ve done is, if communication’s imperfect, let’s show a man for whom it’s traumatic.㻌 㸦͐ࡘࡲࡾࠊ࠾࠸ࡢ㢌ࡢ୰ࠊᚰ ࡢ୰ࠊ㨦ࡢ୰ࡲ࡛ࡣධࡾ㎸ࡵࡲࡏࢇࠋࡑࢀࡣ࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶ࡛ࡁࡲࡏࢇࠊດຊࡣࡋࡲࡍࡀࠋࡇࡢసရࡣࠊࡑࡢ⌧ᐇࠊࡑࡢ ┿ᐇࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊࡑࡇࡽ㠀ᖖᴟ➃࡞ࢆ♧ࡋࡲࡍࠋఱࢆࡋࡓ࠸࠺ࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀ࠸࠺ヰ ࢆࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࠊࡑࢀࡀࢺ࣐ࣛ࢘࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿே≀ࢆぢࡏࡼ࠺ࠋ㸧㸦English Journal, May 2011: 86㸧 2 ⾜┠࠺ࡋࢁࡢ what you’ve done ࡣࠕ⮬ศࡓࡕࡀࡸࡗࡓࡇࠖࢆពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ୍᪉࡛ࠊྠࠊࡑ ࡢᚋࡽ㏙ࡿࡇࡢ๓⨨ࡁࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆᘬࡃᙺࡶᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿぢ࡞ࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ 7. ࡲࡵ ᮏ✏ࡢ⤖ㄽࢆ㸦27㸧ࡲࡵࡿࠋ 㸦27㸧 a. ⮬ศࡢయ㦂ࡸ⪃࠼ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿ you ࡣ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿࠋ b. ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣᇶᮏⓗ “people in general”㸦“anyone, at any time”㸧࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⮬ศ ⮬㌟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿሙྜࠊ⥲⛠ࡼࡿ୍⯡ㄽࡢᑐ㇟ࡣࡼࡾ⊃࠸⠊ᅖ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ c. ࡑࡢཎᅉࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢయ㦂ࡸ⪃࠼ᇶ࡙ࡃࠊほⓗ࡞᥎ㄽࡼࡿ୍⯡࠶ࡿࠋ d. ࡼࡾほⓗ࡞୍⯡ㄽࡢሙྜࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑࡢᑐ㇟እ࡞ࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊyou ࡼࡗ࡚ㄒࡽࢀࡿ ࡇࡣࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ㛫᥋ⓗヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢࡇ࡛࠶ࡿゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ e. ⥲⛠ࡢ you ࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㝈ࡾࠊே⛠ࡋ࡚ࡢពࡶಖᣢࡉࢀࡿࠋyou ࡣ୍⯡ㄽࡢෆᐜࡘ ࠸࡚ࡢ᭱⤊ⓗุ᩿ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭጤࡡࡿ࠸࠺ព࡛ࡢᑀ࡞ែᗘࡋ࡚⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿࠋ f. ே⛠ࡋ࡚ࡢពࡣࠊヰཧ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍ࠸࠺ᙧ࡛ࡶಖᣢࡉࢀࡿࠋ ලయⓗࡣ⪺ࡁᡭᑐࡍࡿὀពႏ㉳ࡋ࡚⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ Ᏻ⸨㈆㞝. 2005. ࠗ⌧௦ⱥᩥἲㅮ⩏࠘ᮾி㸸㛤ᣅ♫. Bolinger, D. 1979. “To Catch a Metaphor: You as a Norm,” American Speech, 54 (3), 194-209. Huddleston, R. D. and G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kitagawa, C. and A. Lehrer. 1990. “Impersonal Uses of Personal Pronouns,” Journal of Pragmatics 14, 739-759. ᑠ᳃㐨ᙪ. 1992. ࠕே⛠ࢲࢡࢩࢫࡢ☢ሙࠖ ࠊᏳἨ㸦⦅㸧 ࠗࢢ࣐࣮࣭ࣛࢸࢡࢫࢺ࣭ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࠘ࠊ185-209ࠊᮾி㸸 ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧. Laberge, S. and G. Sankoff. 1979. “Anything You Can Do,” In T. Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, 419-40. New York: Academic Press. ࣐࣮ࢡ࣭ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ. 1990. ࠗ⥆ ᪥ᮏேࡢⱥㄒ࠘ ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ. ࣐࣮ࢡ࣭ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥ. 2007. ࣐࣮ࠗࢡ࣭ࣆ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢭࣥࡢᅗゎ㸟ⱥᩥἲධ㛛࠘ ᮾி㸸ࢫࢥ࣒. Quirk, R, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Swan, M. 2005. Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. −128− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ୰ᅜㄒࡢ≀ㄒ࠾ࡅࡿᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖࡘ࠸࡚ ̿ㄯヰࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࡢほⅬࡽ̿ 㦴 ி㒔Ꮫ༤ኈㄢ⛬࣭᪥ᮏᏛ⾡⯆≉ู◊✲ဨ [email protected] Abstract: This paper, firstly, indicates the remaining problems in the selection principles of anaphoric usage of Chinese demonstratives given by the previous works. Then, in this paper, discourse structure of Chinese narratives is divided into four parts. They are introduction, procession, conclusion and comment. Finally, this paper shows that there is a deep relationship between the selection principles of anaphoric demonstratives and discourse structure. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸≀ㄒࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀ࠊᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࠊㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ ࡣࡌࡵ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀ᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ㑅ᢥࡢ㛵ࢃࡾࢆ⪃ᐹࡋ ࡓࡶࡢࡣࡲࡔぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀᑐࡋࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣ୰ᅜㄒࡢ≀ㄒ㝈ᐃࡋࠊㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ㸦Discourse Model㸦ᮾ㒓 1999, 2000㸧 㸧ࢆ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡋࠊㄯヰࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࡢほⅬࡽࠊᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࡢࠕ䘉ࠖ ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢ⏝ἲࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ 3 Ⅼࢆ㡰ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ 1) ࡲࡎࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モ㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫほࡋࠊࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᣦࡍࡿࠋ 2) ḟࠊㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ⌮ㄽࢆᑟධࡋࠊ㝵ᒙⓗ࡞ㄯヰᵓ㐀ᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ㑅ᢥࡢࢃࡾࡘ ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࠋ 3) ࡉࡽࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀ࢆࠕᑟධ㒊ࠖࠕᒎ㛤㒊ࠖࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࠖ࠸࠺ᅄᒙᵓ㐀ศ ࡅࠊྛ㝵ᒙ࠾ࡅࡿ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ⏝ἲࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ ඛ⾜◊✲ ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モ㛵ࡍࡿᚑ᮶ࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊ 3 ࡘࡢẁ㝵ࢆ⤒࡚Ⓨᒎࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ ࿅㸦1964㸧ࠊᱵ㸦1985㸧࡞ࢆ௦⾲ࡍࡿึᮇࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧モࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖ㛵ࡍࡿྐⓗ◊ ✲ࡀὶ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋࡢ➨ẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊ࿅㸦1980, 1985㸧ࠊᮒ㸦1982㸧࡞ࡣᵓ㐀⩏ゝㄒᏛ ࡢほⅬࡽࠊ ࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࢆ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋලయⓗࡣࠊ࿅㸦1980, 1985㸧ࡣ ࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖࡢᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࢆࠊࠕᙜ๓ᣦ㸦⌧ሙᣦ♧㸧ࠖ ࠊࠕᅇᣦ࣭๓ᣦ㸦ᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࡢ๓᪉↷ᛂᚋ ᪉↷ᛂ㸧ࠖ ࠊ ࠕณ✵ᣦ㸦ᯫ✵ࡢᣦ♧㸧ࠖ࠸࠺ 3 ࡘࡢࢱࣉศࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ ࠕᅇᣦ࣭๓ᣦࠖ ࠸࠺ࠕඛ⾜モí↷ᛂモࠖࡢ⾲ᒙㄒᙧⓗ࡞⪃ᐹ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖࡢᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࢆ࠺ࡲࡃㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ ࡎࠊ ࠕณ✵ᣦࠖ࠸࠺⏝ㄒ⮬యࡶၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ➨୕ẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊỿ㸦1999㸧ࠊ㧗㸦2004, −129− 中国語の物語における文脈指示詞「这」と「那」について―談話の四層構造の観点から― 2007㸧ࠊ⬌㸦2006㸧ࠊ㸦2006, 2011㸧࡞ࡣ௦⾲ⓗ࡞◊✲࡛࠶ࡿࠋලయⓗࡣࠊỿ㸦1999㸧ࡣࠕ䘉ࠖ ࡀ↓ᶆ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ ࠕ㑣ࠖࡀ᭷ᶆ࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⬌㸦2006㸧ࡣᚰ⌮㊥㞳ࡀᐇ㊥㞳ࡼࡾ 㔜せ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᚰ⌮ⓗ㏆ࡅࢀࡤࠕ䘉ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊᚰ⌮ⓗ㐲ࡅࢀࡤࠕ㑣ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ほⓗୟࡘ᭕࡞ㄝ᫂ࡣࠊ ࠕ䘉࣭㑣ࠖࡢ㑅ᢥၥ㢟ࡢゎỴ⟇࡞ ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㧗㸦2004, 2007㸧ࡣᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ほᛕᣦ♧ࢆྜࢃࡏ࡚ᗈ࠸ព࡛ࡢࠕᩥ⬦ ᣦ♧ࠖᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦2006, 2011㸧ࡣࠊ ࠕ䘉ࠖࡣࠕѤᰦ䇠ᗶ㸦୍ⓗ࡞グ᠈㸧ࠖⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࡿᑐ ㇟ࢆᣦࡋࠊࠕ㑣ࠖࡣࠕ䮯ᮇ䇠ᗶ㸦㛗ᮇグ᠈㸧ࠖⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡍ㏙࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ 㸦2010㸧ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モࠕࢯ࣭ࠖࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ほᛕᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲ ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀㄯヰࣔࢹࣝࡢ␗࡞ࡿ㡿ᇦⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ 1 ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍࡓࡵࠊ ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢ⏝ἲࢆᩥ⬦ᣦ ♧ほᛕᣦ♧࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢ⏝ἲศࡅࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧モ㛵ࡍࡿᚑ ᮶ࡢ◊✲ࢆᴫほࡍࡿࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࣭ࣞ࣋ࣝ࠾ࡅࡿࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࠊཬࡧࡑࡢᩥἲ ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡶࡢࡀᅽಽⓗከࡃࠊㄯヰࣞ࣋ࣝ࠾ࡅࡿᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ㑅ᢥㄯヰᵓ㐀ࡢࢃࡾ ὀ┠ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡣࡲࡔぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸࠸࠺ࡇࡀศࡿࠋ ㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ⌮ㄽࡢᑟධ Brown & Yule㸦1983㸧ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀሗࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡓࡵዴఱゝㄒࢆ⏝ࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑࢀࢆゎ 㔘ࡍࡿࡓࡵዴఱ࡞ࡿసᴗࢆ⾜࡞࠺ࡢࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭࡼࡿ┦⾜ Ⅽࡢ㔜せᛶࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕᩥ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠕㄯヰࠖ࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧⾜Ⅽࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ ࡃࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠸࡚ึࡵ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡿ┦ⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊᵝࠎ࡞␗࡞ࡿㄯヰࡢሙࢆ⪃៖ ධࢀࡎࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆ㝖ࡋ࡚ᣦ♧モࡢᶵ⬟ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋFauconnier㸦1994㸧ࡢ࣓ࣥ ࢱ࣭ࣝࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ⪃៖ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ⏣❑࣭㔠Ỉ㸦1996㸧ࡢ」ᩘࡢᚰⓗ㡿 ᇦࡼࡿㄯヰ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㝖ࡉࢀࠊᣦ♧モࡢᶵ⬟⏝ἲࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᮾ㒓㸦1999, 2000㸧ࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ⌮ㄽࡣ࣓ࣥࢱ࣭ࣝࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ⌮ㄽ❧⬮ࡋࠊྡモྃࡸ ௦ྡモ࡞ࡢពゎ㔘ࡢၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍࡿࡓࡵᥦࡉࢀࠊヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭࡼࡿ┦ᛶࢆ㔜どࡋ ࡓ⌮ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡇࡢ⌮ㄽࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿ㸦ୗᅗ࡛ࡣࠊDM-S ࡣヰࡋᡭഃࡢࣔࢹࣝࠊDM-H ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭഃࡢࣔࢹࣝࢆពࡍࡿ㸧ࠋ ᅗ 1. ヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ㸦ᮾ㒓 2000㸧 ヰࡋᡭࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝDM-S ඹ᭷▱㆑㡿ᇦ ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝDM-H Ⓨヰ≧ἣ㡿ᇦ ඹ᭷▱㆑㡿ᇦ ゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦ Ⓨヰ≧ἣ㡿ᇦ ゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦ ᮾ㒓㸦2000㸧ࡼࢀࡤࠊㄯヰࣔࢹࣝࡢඹ᭷▱㆑㡿ᇦࡣ୍⯡ᖖ㆑ⓗ࡞ୡ⏺㛵ࡍࡿ▱㆑ཬࡧヰ ⪅ಶேࡢ⤒㦂ࡸ▱㆑㛵ࡍࡿㄯヰᣦ♧Ꮚ㸦discourse referent㸧ࡀ᱁⣡ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ㡿ᇦ࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡ ほᛕᣦ♧ࡢࠕ㑣ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊⓎヰ≧ἣ㡿ᇦࡣヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭࢆྵࡴⓎヰࡢሙ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ ࡇࡢሙᏑᅾࡍࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ࡚Ⓨヰ≧ἣ㡿ᇦⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ⌧ሙᣦ♧ࡢࠕ䘉࣭㑣ࠖࡀ⏝ ࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ᭱ᚋࡢゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦࡣࠊㄯヰࡀጞࡲࡿ๓ࡣఱࡶⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࡎࠊヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭࡼ ࡿㄯヰࡢᒎ㛤ࡘࢀ࡚ゝㄒሗࡀධຊࡉࢀࠊ⣼✚ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡇࡢ㡿ᇦࡣᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࡢࠕ䘉࣭ −130− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 㑣ࠖࡢ㡿ᇦ࡞ࡿࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺≀ㄒ࠸࠺ㄯヰࢪࣕࣥࣝࡣࠊᑐヰࡢሙྜ␗࡞ࡾࠊ㢧ᅾⓗ࡞⪺ࡁᡭࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ ┦⾜Ⅽࡋ࡚ࡢㄯヰ࠸࠺ᛶ᱁ࡀᙅ࠸ࠋヰࡋᡭࡀᒎ㛤ࡍࡿ≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺⪺ࡁᡭࡶཧධࡍࡿࡇ ࡀせồࡉࢀࠊ୧⪅ࡣ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ୍✀ࡢඹ≢㛵ಀࢆᡂࡋࠊ≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺ࢆࡶཷᐜࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࠊᅗ 1 ࡢ DM-S ࡢゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦ DM-H ࡢゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦࡣ୍యࡋࠊᅗ 2 ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ୧⪅ඹ㏻ࡍࡿ ≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺ࡀᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ᅗ 2. ≀ㄒ࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝࡢ≧ែ ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝDM-H2 ヰࡋᡭࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝDM-S ඹ᭷▱㆑㡿ᇦ Ⓨヰ≧ἣ㡿ᇦ ඹ᭷▱㆑㡿ᇦ Ⓨヰ≧ἣ㡿ᇦ ඹ㏻ࡢ≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺ ᩥࡀ༢ㄒࡽ㝵ᒙⓗᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿྠᵝࠊㄯヰࡶ㝵ᒙⓗᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊඹ㏻ࡢ≀ ㄒࡢୡ⏺ࡶ㝵ᒙⓗᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢୡ⏺࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖࡣពⓗ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ ࡿ࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡣࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀ࡼࡿไ⣙ࡸࠊヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᡤᣢࡍࡿሗ 㔞ࡢ᱁ᕪࡼࡗ࡚㑅ᢥ࣭ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ௨ୗࡣ㝵ᒙⓗ࡞ㄯヰᵓ㐀ࢆᑕ⛬࠸ࢀࠊ ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ ㄯヰࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀 ᮏ✏࡛≀ㄒ࠸࠺ㄯヰࢪࣕࣥࣝࢆ㑅ࢇࡔ⌮⏤ࡣࠊ≀ㄒࡣ୍᪉ⓗ࡞ሗࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿ᪂⪺ࡸࢽ࣮ࣗ ࢫ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㝶➹ࡢࡼ࠺ほⓗᒎ㛤ࡉࢀࡿࢪ࡛ࣕࣥࣝࡶ࡞࠸ࠋ≀ㄒࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࢆᐃ ࡋ࡚ࠊ≀ㄒࡢ㛫ࡢὶࢀἢࡗ࡚࠶ࡿேࡸฟ᮶ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀ࡀࡼࡾ㩭᫂ ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ≀ㄒࡢෆ㒊ᵓ㐀ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡓࡶࡢࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⏣㸦2001㸧ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ⏣ࡣ≀ㄒࡢෆ㒊 ᵓ㐀ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ≀ㄒࡢᣢࡘ㛫ᛶࡢ㐪࠸ࡼࡿ㔜ᒙⓗ࡞≀ㄒീࠊ༶ࡕࠕⓎヰ㒊ࠖ ࠕ๓ᬒ㒊ࠖࠕ⫼ᬒ 㒊ࠖ ࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࠖࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⏣ࡣࠕ⫼ᬒ㒊ࠖࢆࡘࡢୗศ㢮ศࡅ ࡓࠋࡑࢀࡣ㛫ࢆయⓗྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠕᕧどⓗ⫼ᬒࠖࠊ㒊ศⓗྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠕᚤどⓗ⫼ᬒ࡛ࠖ ࠶ࡿࠋࠕどⅬࠖ⏣ࡀᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠕⓎヰ㒊ࠖࠕ๓ᬒ㒊ࠖࠕ⫼ᬒ㒊ࠖࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࠖࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࡢ㛵 ಀࢆࡵࡄࡾࠊ㔠Ỉ㸦2011㸧ࡣⰰᕝ㱟அࡢࠗ⨶⏕㛛࠘ࢆศᯒࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࡋ࡚ࠊ≀ㄒ࠾ࡅࡿ ᣦ♧⾲⌧ࡸ⛣ືືモࢆศᯒࡍࡿ㝿ࠊ ࠕᚤどⓗ⫼ᬒࠖࠕᕧどⓗ⫼ᬒࠖศࡅࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ ࡇࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ ࠗ⨶⏕㛛࠘ࡣ࠶ࡿ≉Ṧ࡞≀ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊ≉ே㛫ࡢෆ㠃ࢆᥥࡁฟࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀከࡃࠊ ≀ㄒෆ㒊ࡢ㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡘᆺⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡣゝ࠸ࡀࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ⏣㸦2001㸧ࡢศ㢮ࡣ≀ㄒ ࡢࡳᡂࡾ❧ࡘࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ≀ㄒᩥࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ㄯヰࡢෆ㒊ᵓ㐀ࡢศᯒࢆ┠ⓗࡋ࡚ࠊ ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠕᑟධ㒊ࠖࠕᒎ㛤㒊ࠖࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࠖ࠸࠺ศࡅ᪉ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࠊᑟධ㒊ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡼࡗ࡚᪂ࡋ࠸ሗࡀㄯヰᑟධࡉࢀࡿ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᑟධ㒊࡛ ࡣࠊⓏሙࡍࡿே≀ࡸฟ᮶㛵ࡍࡿሗࡀᑟධࡉࢀࡿࡢࡳࠊヲ⣽࡞ㄝ᫂ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠋḟࡢᒎ㛤 㒊ࡣࠊᑟධࡉࢀࡓሗࡀヲࡋࡃᒎ㛤ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࠼ࡤࠊ㛫㍈ἢࡗ࡚≀ㄒᮏ యࡀᒎ㛤ࡉࢀࡿ㒊ศࡣࡇࢀᙜࡓࡿࠋࡉࡽࠊ⤊⤖㒊ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᒎ㛤ࡉࢀࡓሗࢆࡲࡵࡿ㒊 −131− 中国語の物語における文脈指示詞「这」と「那」について―談話の四層構造の観点から― ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᑟධ㒊ࠊᒎ㛤㒊ཬࡧ⤊⤖㒊ࡣㄯヰࡢෆᅾⓗ࡞㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࡣࠊヰࡋ ᡭࡢ❧ሙࡽሗᑐࡋ࡚ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆࡍࡿ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡾࠊෆᅾⓗ࡞㒊ศࡽ⊂❧ࡋࡓእᅾⓗ࡞㒊ศ ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᑟධ㒊ࠊ⤊⤖㒊ཬࡧࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࡣᇶᮏⓗࡣ≀ㄒࡢ㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡢᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ ᒎ㛤㒊ࡣ㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡘࠋ ≀ㄒࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀࠾ࡅࡿࠕ䘉ࠖ ࠕ㑣ࠖ ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ≀ㄒࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀࠾ࡅࡿ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵ ࢺࡽ᥇㞟ࡉࢀࡓẸ㛫≀ㄒࢆࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡋ࡚ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ 3ࠋㄪᰝᑐ㇟ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧௦ ྡモࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖཬࡧᣦᐃᣦ♧ 4 ࡢࠕ䘉+NPࠖࠕ㑣+NPࠖࡢᙧ㝈ᐃࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊほᛕᣦ♧ࡢ ࠕ㑣ࠖ㸦᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⣔ᣦ♧モ࠶ࡓࡿ㸧ࢆྵࡴ 28 ࡢᩥࢆ㝖࠸ࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࡣୗ⾲ࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ ࡿࠋ ⾲1. ≀ㄒࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀࠾ࡅࡿࠕ䘉ࠖ ࠕ㑣ࠖ ≀ㄒ ᑟධ㒊 ᒎ㛤㒊 ⤊⤖㒊 ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊 ྜィ ࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ䘉+NPࠖ 35 129 39 17 220 ࠕ㑣ࠖࠕ㑣+NPࠖ 3 121 0 2 126 ௨ୖࡢ⾲ࡽࠊᑟධ㒊ࠊ⤊⤖㒊ࠊࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊࡛ࡣࠕ䘉ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡇࡀศࡗࡓࠋࡲ ࡓࠊᒎ㛤㒊࡛ࡣࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖࡢྜࡀࡰྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸦 2011㸧5 ࢆᣦࡍ ࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖࡢ୧᪉ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍࠕ䘉ࠖࡢࡳ⏝࠸ࡽ ࢀࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࡀศࡗࡓ㸦⾲ 2㸧ࠋ ⾲ 2. ᒎ㛤㒊࠾ࡅࡿ㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆᣦࡍࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖ ᒎ㛤㒊 㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ ໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ ࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ䘉+NPࠖ 74 55 ࠕ㑣ࠖࠕ㑣+NPࠖ 121 0 ࡲࡎࠊᑟධ㒊࡛ࡣࠕ๓ࠖ࡞ࡢ㛫⾲⌧ࢆక࠺Ꮡ⌧ᩥࡀ⌧ࢀࡸࡍࡃࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞ሗࡀヰࡋᡭࡢ ゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡼࡗ࡚ㄯヰᑟධࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢሗࡣࡲࡔ⪺ࡁᡭඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࡘࡲࡾヰࡋᡭ ࡀ㠃ⓗಖ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሗ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢሗ㔞ࡢ᱁ᕪࡀࡶࡓࡽࡍ⤖ᯝࡋ࡚ࠊ୰ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣヰࡋ ᡭࡀࡇࢀࢆࠕ㏆࠸ࠖᤊ࠼ࠊ୍⯡ࠕ䘉࡛ࠖᣦࡍࡢࡀ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦1㸧๓㸪ᅾ⚟ᘓỤすⓗ⏺ᒣୖ᭷ᗙᑠ㐨㿲㸪㐨㿲㔛ఫ╔୍୭㐨ኈࠋ䘉୭㐨ኈ6⛬୍⢏ Ṛࠋ㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾࠔ㸧 ࡴࡋࠊ⚟ᘓ┬Ụす┬ࡢቃ࠶ࡿᒣࡣᑠࡉ࡞㐨ほࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ㐨ほࡣ࠶ࡿ㐨ኈࡀ ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢ㐨ኈࡣ⪁㛗⏕ࡢ⸆ࢆ㘐ᡂࡋࡓࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧 㸦2㸧᱒ґᕷⓒ᱈ґ᱈ᅒᮧ᭷୭᷉ᮤᅒࠋ䘉ᮤᅒ⏕䮯ⓗ᷉ᮤ㸪ᯝᙧ⺅㸪⓶ⰍẂ㓒ࠋ 㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ 㞟⢨ࠔ㸧 −132− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ᱒㒓ᕷⓒ᱈㒓᱈ᅬᮧࡣࢫࣔࣔࡢᅬࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᅬࡢࢫࣔࣔࡣࠊᯝᐇࡀࡁࡃࠊ⓶ࡢ Ⰽࡀ㉥࠸ࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧 ௨ୖࡢᩥ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㐨ኈࠖࠊࠕ᷉ᮤᅒࠖ࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞ሗࢆㄯヰᑟධࡋࡓ┤ᚋࠕ䘉୭㐨ኈࠖ ࠊ ࠕ䘉ᮤᅒ࡛ࠖཷࡅࡿࡢࡣ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊᑟධ㒊࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕ䘉ࠖࡢྜࡀ㧗࠸ほᐹࡉࢀࡓ ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ḟࠊ୍᪦ᑟධ㒊ࡀ⤊ࢃࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢሗࡣ⪺ࡁᡭඹ᭷࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᒎ㛤㒊ࡢ࣐ ࣮࣮࢝ࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕ᭷୍ኳࠖ࡞ࠊලయⓗ࡞㛫タᐃࡢ⾲⌧ࡀከࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭඹ ㏻ࡍࡿゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦⓏ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄯヰᣦ♧Ꮚࡣࠊࡶࡣࡸヰࡋᡭࡢᑓ᭷≀࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡶ ⮬⏤ࢡࢭࢫ࡛ࡁࡿሗぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᒎ㛤㒊࡛ࡣࠕ㑣ࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚ሗࢆᣦࡋ♧ ࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡇⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࡓᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍࠊ ࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖࡢྜࡀ ࢇྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢᩥࡢࡼ࠺ࠊᒎ㛤㒊ࡢᣦᐃᣦ♧ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿྡモྃࢆほᐹࡍࡿࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ 㸦ࠕ≴ࠖ ࠊࠕ⻤⢾ࠖ࡞㸧ࢆᣦࡍࠊ ࠕ䘉ࠖࠕ㑣ࠖࡢ୧᪉ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊࢇࡢሙྜࡣྍ ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ᩥ㸦3㸧㸦4㸧㸧ࠋ 㸦3㸧㏵୰㸪☗฿୍୭⤾ேࠋ⤾ே⫪ୖ୍ྈ≴ࠋ䘉㸦㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸧୍ྈᗂ≴㸪㓒 ⰍⓗẟἜගਁுࠋ㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾࠔ 㸧 ㏵୰ࠊᙼࡣ୍ேࡢ⊟ᖌࡗࡓࠋ⊟ᖌࡣ୍༉ࡢ≴ࢆ⫪ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣᗂ࠸≴࡛ ࠶ࡾࠊ㉥࠸ẟࡀࡘࡸࡘࡸࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧 㸦4㸧᭷୍ḟ㸪୍୭Ӣᡉ㏦㔉୍⎼ୖ➼⻤⢾ࠋ㑣⻤⢾㸦㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸧Ⰽ⌭Ύ㓨ࠋ 㸦ࠓẸ 䰤ᨾࠔ㸧 ࠶ࡿ᪥ࡢࡇࠊぶᡉࡢ୍ேࡀᙼୖ➼ࡢ⻏⻤ࢆࡃࢀࡓࠋࡑࡢ⻏⻤ࡣⰍྜ࠸ࡀ㩭ࡸ࡛ ࡇࡃࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧 ࡇࢀᑐࡋࠊໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸦ࠕࠖࠊࠕ⾜Ѫࠖ࡞㸧ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍࠊࠕ䘉ࠖࡢࡳ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊ ࠕ㑣ࠖྍ⬟࠸࠺ࡇࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓ㸦ᩥ㸦5㸧㸦6㸧㸧ࠋ 㸦5㸧୍㸪᭰ᏝᏊᦒᒀᕸᰦ㸪ይྸ୍ୗᏊ࿈ၵ㸪᫂᫂⏨ᏝᏊ㸪༷ਈዪጿጿࠋ䱸ୡᐁ୍ྶ ይྸⓗ⚖࿌㸪ᚰ୰亯ᰦ᫂ⓑ㸪ླᗓෆୖୗே➼㸪ᢕ䘉㸦ໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸧ἥ ₃ฟཤࠋ㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾࠔ㸧 ࡋࡤࡽࡃࡋࡓࡽࠊᏊ౪ࡢ࠾ࡴࡘࢆኚ࠼ࡿࡁࠊஙẕࡀࡧࡗࡃࡾ㸟⣮ࢀࡶ↓ࡃ⏨ࡢᏊࡔ ࡗࡓࡢࠊ࡞ࡐዪࡢᏊ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㝞ୡᐁࡣஙẕࡢሗ࿌ࢆ⪺࠸࡚ࡍࡄศࡗࡓࠋ ࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࡢࡇࢆ₃ࡽࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ᗓෆࡢ⏝ேゝ࠸ࡘࡅࡓࠋ 㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧 㸦6㸧ᣨ⸝᪘ⓗ仾㸪ᢕⅼ⅊ᮅே㌟ୖᧈ୍⛇Ր㔏ⓗ傡㝖㑧㨱㕐㌟ⓗ᪉ἲ㸪⪁ኵྷ௨ѪṚ ⓗඒᏊ⿕㨱㨣㕐㌟㸪⏝⅌⅊傡㑧㸪ణԜἐ᭷฿㸪䘉୍⾜Ѫ㸦ໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㸧 ༷ᡴᄉ⧋ᤘᕼⓗ䖜ୡࠋ㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ㞟⢨ࠔ㸧 ࢳ࣋ࢵࢺ᪘ࡢ㢼⩦ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊேࡢయ⅊ࢆᧈࡃ࠸࠺ࡢࡣఏ⤫ⓗ࡞㑧Ẽࢆᡶ࠺᪉ἲ࡛ ࠶ࡿࠋ୧ぶࡣṚࢇࡔᜥᏊᝏ㨱ࡀࡁ⧳ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᛮ࠸㎸ࢇ࡛ࠊ㔩ࡢ⅊ࢆࡗ࡚㑧Ẽ ࢆᡶ࠾࠺ࡋࡓࠋࡋࡋࠊᙼࡽࡣࡇࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ࣐࢞࣎ࢩࡢ㌿⏕ࢆࡋࡓࡣᛮࢃ࡞ࡗ −133− 中国語の物語における文脈指示詞「这」と「那」について―談話の四層構造の観点から― ࡓࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧 ࡉࡽࠊ⤊⤖㒊ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᒎ㛤ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓሗࡘ࠸࡚ࡢయࡢࡲࡲࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⤊⤖㒊 ࡛ࡣࠊࡍ࡛ヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ≀ㄒࢆࡲࡵࡿໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆᣦ ࡋ♧ࡍࡓࡵࠊ ࠕ䘉ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸࠸࠺ഴྥࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓ㸦ᩥ㸦7㸧㸦8㸧㸧ࠋ 㸦7㸧“≴ጾ”ᑵ⏤䘉୭ᨾ⪋᮶㸪⧠ᅾ㸪ேԜ⏝Ꮽ᮶ẚ௫ೄ࡛ேⓗ࣯ຊḭேࠋ 㸦ࠓẸ 䰤ᨾࠔ㸧 ࠕࢺࣛࡢጾࢆࡿ࢟ࢶࢿࠖࡣࡇࡢ≀ㄒࡽ⏤᮶ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⌧ᅾࠊேࠎࡣࡑࢀࢆ ⏝࠸࡚ໃຊࢆ㢗ࢇ࡛ᙅ࠸⪅࠸ࡌࡵࢆࡍࡿ⪅ࢆࡓ࠼ࡿࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧 㸦8㸧⮬᭷䘉ཱྀỈ㸪ேԜᑵឋἐ᭷Ỉྚࠋ㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾࠔ㸧 ࡇࡢᡞࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡽࠊேࠎࡣỈࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿᚰ㓄ࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧 ᭱ᚋࠊ⏣㸦2001㸧࡛㏙ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ࠊ≀ㄒࡣ≀ㄒᮏయࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ≀ㄒୡ⏺ᑐ ࡋ࡚እᅾⓗ࡞Ꮡᅾ࡛࠶ࡿస⪅ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᇼཱྀ㸦1978㸧ࡢࠕࢥࡣ㏆࠸ࡶࡢࢆᙉⅯᣦࡍࠖ ࠸࠺ᣦྠᵝࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ≀ㄒⓏሙࡍࡿே≀ࡸ௳ᑐࡋ࡚ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡍࡿ ࠕ䘉ࠖࡀ⏝ ࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡇࡀศࡗࡓࠋ 㸦9㸧ᮒඖ⍻せ⏬୍ᕐീ㸪ὶՐྡྷୡ㸪ᢍ▱ከᑡ⏬ᐙ᮶⏬㸪㒔⛠ᚰࠋ⛠ᚰᑵせᵰே㸪 ᵰᤶⓗ⏬ᐙ᪢ᩘࠋ䘉ᕐീᑵዴṈ䳮⏬㸽ࠋ㸦ࠓẸ䰤ᨾࠔ㸧 ᮒඖ⍻ࡣᚋୡఏࢃࡿ୍ᯛࡢ⫝̸ീ⏬ࡀḧࡋࡀࡾࠊࢀࡢ⏬ᐙࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚ࡶ‶㊊࡛ࡁ ࡞࠸ࠋ‶㊊࡛ࡁ࡞ࡅࢀࡤேࢆẅࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋᙼࡀẅࡋࡓ⏬ᐙࡣᩘ࠼ࡁࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ⫝̸ ീ⏬ࡀࡇࢇ࡞ᥥࡁࡃ࠸ࡢ㸽㛫㐪࠸࡞࠸ࠋ 㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧 㸦10㸧㸦๓␎㸧ཎ᮶䘉ⓑፉᏊซே㸪⪋᮲ⓑ⺬ਈⓗ㸟㸦 ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ㞟⢨ࠔ㸧 ᐇࡣࡇࡢⓑፉᏊࡀே㛫࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊⓑ⺬ࡀࡅࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸟㸦ⴭ⪅ヂ㸧 ࠕ䘉ᕐീᑵዴṈ䳮⏬ࠖࠊ ࠕཎ᮶䘉ⓑፉᏊซேࠖ࠸࠺㒊ศࡣࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊࠶ࡓࡿࠋࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ 㒊ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢඹ㏻ࡢ≀ㄒ✵㛫ࡽ⊂❧ࡋࡓᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡾࠊస⪅࡛࠶ࡿヰࡋᡭࡼࡿ୍✀ࡢࠕ㛫᥋ ヰἲࠖᤊ࠼ࡿࡇࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡣヰࡋᡭࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ㏆࠸ሗ࡛࠶ ࡿᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊᣦ♧モ㑅ᢥࡢ㊥㞳ཎ⌮ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ ࠕ㏆ࠖᤊ࠼ࡓሗࡣࠕ䘉ࠖࢆᣢࡗ ࡚ᣦࡍࡢࡀ⮬↛࡞ࡿࠋ ๓㏙ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊᑟධ㒊ࠊ⤊⤖㒊ཬࡧࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊ࡣᇶᮏⓗࡣ㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡢᑐࡋࠊ ᒎ㛤㒊ࡣ㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡘࠋࡇࡢࡇࡽࠊ୍⯡ ࠕ䘉ࠖࡣ㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ᩥ⬦࡛ࡢᣦ♧ ᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡀࠊ ࠕ㑣ࠖࡣ㛫ࡢὶࢀࢆᣢࡘᩥ⬦࡛ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡍ⏝ ࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸࠸࠺ࡇࡶุ᫂ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢほᐹࢆゝ࠸࠼ࡿࠊࠕ䘉ࠖࡣࠕᒓᛶླྀ㏙ࠖ㸦property predication㸧ࡢሙྜ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡀࠊ ࠕ㑣ࠖࠕ㇟ླྀ㏙ࠖ㸦event predication㸧7ࡢሙྜ⏝ ࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸࠸࠺ࡇࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ࠾ࢃࡾ ᮏ◊✲ࡣㄯヰ࠾ࡅࡿෆⓗ࡞せᅉࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕㄯヰࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࡢほⅬࡽࠊ≀ㄒ࠾ࡅࡿ୰ᅜㄒ −134− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ⏝ἲࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭඹ㏻ࡍࡿ≀ㄒࡢୡ⏺࠾ࡅࡿㄯ ヰᵓ㐀ᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࡢ㑅ᢥࡢ㛫῝࠸ࢃࡾࡀ࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࡶ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ᭱ᚋࠊᮏ✏ ࡢᙇࡣ௨ୗࡢ 3 Ⅼࡲࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ 1) ୰ᅜㄒࡢ≀ㄒ࡛ࡣࠊᑟධ㒊ࠊ⤊⤖㒊ཬࡧࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊࠾࠸࡚Nj䘉njࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡀࠊ Nj䛓nj ࡣ⏝࠸ࡃ࠸ࠋ 2) 㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍNj䛓njࡀࡼࡾከࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆᣦࡍ 3) Nj䘉njࡣࠕᒓᛶླྀ㏙ࠖࡢሙྜ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡀࠊ Nj䛓njࠕ㇟ླྀ㏙ࠖࡢሙྜ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸ ࠊNj䘉njࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊNj䛓njࡣ⏝࠸ࡃ࠸ࠋ ࡍ࠸ࠋ ௨ୖࡢ 3 Ⅼࢆ⾲ 3 ࡲࡵ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ ⾲ 3. ୰ᅜㄒࡢ≀ㄒࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀࠾ࡅࡿᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モ ≀ㄒ ୰ᅜㄒ ᑟධ㒊 䘉 ᒎ㛤㒊 㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ ໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ ࠕ㑣ࠖࡣከࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ 䘉 ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㒊 ⤊⤖㒊 䘉 䘉 ㄯヰࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࡣࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モ࠾ࡅࡿၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍࡿ࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࠊ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ≀ㄒ࠾ࡅࡿ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡀࠊヰᩥࡸㄽㄝᩥ࡞ࡑࡢࡢㄯヰ ࢪࣕࣥࣝ࠾ࡅࡿᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲゐࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᚋࡣࠊࡼࡾከࡃࡢㄯヰࢪࣕࣥࣝ࠾ࡅࡿ⪃ ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊㄯヰࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀࠸࠺⌮ㄽࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࢆ⤫୍ⓗㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ ཎ⌮ࢆ᥈ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ ὀ 1. 㸦2010㸧ࡣᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࡢࠕ㑣ࠖࡀㄯヰࣔࢹࣝࡢゝㄒᩥ⬦㡿ᇦᒓࡋࠊほᛕᣦ♧ࡢࠕ㑣ࠖࡀඹ ᭷▱㆑㡿ᇦᒓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄯヰࣔࢹࣝࡢ 3 ࡘࡢ㡿ᇦࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡢࡕࡢ➨୕ ❶࡛ヲࡋࡃㄽࡌࡿࠋ 2. 㢧ᅾⓗ࡞⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ⪺ࡁᡭഃࡢㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ DM-H ࢆⅬ⥺࡛♧ࡍࠋ 3. ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ㞟⢨ࠔࠊࠓẸ䰤ᨾࠔࠓẸ䰤ᨾࠔࡼࡾィ 90494 Ꮠࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠾ࡅࡿᆅࡢ ᩥࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋ 4. ᗡ㸦2007㸧ࡼࡿࠊᣦᐃᣦ♧࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ ࠕࡇࡢ㸩NPࠖ ࠕࡑࡢ㸩NPࠖయ࡛ඛ⾜モ↷ᛂࡍ ࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸸᪥㏆ᡤ࡛ࡍࡋࢆ㣗ࡓࠋࡇࡢ/ࡑࡢࡍࡋࡣ࠺ࡲࡗࡓࠋ 5. 㸦2011㸧࡛ࡣࠊࢺࣆࢵࢡࡣໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡ㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢࡘศࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࡣࠊ ࠕヰࠖࠊ ࠕࡇࠖࡸࠕ௳ࠖ࡞ࠊヰⓏሙࡍࡿᑐ㇟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊㄯヰ యࢆࡦࡗࡃࡿࡵࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࡣࠊ ࠕยࠖࠊ ࠕ⏨ࠖࡸࠕ㒊ᒇࠖࡢ ࡼ࠺ලయⓗ࡞ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊㄯヰྵࡲࢀࡿᵓᡂせ⣲ࢆᣦࡍࠋ 6. ᮏ✏࡛ࡣඛ⾜ᩥ⬦ࢆⅬ⥺࡛♧ࡋࠊ↷ᛂモࢆᐇ⥺࡛♧ࡍࠋ 7. ┈ᒸ㸦2008㸧ࡼࡿࠊᒓᛶླྀ㏙ࡣࠊᡤࡢᑐ㇟ࡀ᭷ࡍࡿᒓᛶ㸦≉ᛶࡸᛶ㉁㸧ࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿ ࡶࡢࠋ㇟ླྀ㏙ࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢ✵㛫ฟ⌧ࡍࡿฟ᮶㸦ືⓗཬࡧ㟼ⓗ࡞ฟ᮶㸧ࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿ ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ −135− 中国語の物語における文脈指示詞「这」と「那」について―談話の四層構造の観点から― ⏝ฟ ࠓẸ䰤ᨾ㞟⢨ࠔhttp://www.360doc.com/content/11/0506/19/804207_114874943.shtml ࠓẸ䰤ᨾࠔhttp://www.tom61.com/ertongwenxue/minjiangushi ࠓẸ䰤ᨾࠔhttp://www.junmeng.org.cn/book.asp?GoBor=Read&bID=64 ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ Brown, G. and G. Yule㸦1983㸧Discourse Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Fauconnier, G.㸦1994㸧Mental Spaces, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 㧗 Ⱉ㸦2004㸧 ࠕ⌧௦୰ᅜㄒࠕ䘉ࠖ ࠕ㑣ࠖࡢᣦ♧ෆᐜ㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ᐹʊᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞㐲㏆ᴫᛕࡢ㛵ࠖ, ࠗከඖᩥ࠘, Vol. 4, ྡྂᒇᏛᏛ㝔ᅜ㝿ゝㄒᩥ◊✲⛉, pp.1-13 㧗 Ⱉ㸦2007㸧 ࠕ୰ᅜㄒ࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧モどⅬ⛣ືʊᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࢆ୰ᚰࠖ,ࠗከඖᩥ࠘, Vol. 7, ྡ ྂᒇᏛᏛ㝔ᅜ㝿ゝㄒᩥ◊✲⛉, pp.119-134 Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan㸦1976㸧Cohesion in English, London: Longman ⏣ ⚽㸦2001㸧 ࠕ≀ㄒࡢᅄᒙᵓ㐀ࠖ,ࠗㄆ▱⛉Ꮫ࠘, Vol. 8-4, ᪥ᮏㄆ▱⛉Ꮫ, pp. 319-326 ⬌ ಇ 㸦2006㸧ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧モࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᑐ↷◊✲ʊᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ࡢሙྜࠖ,ࠗᆅᇦᨻ⟇⛉Ꮫ◊ ✲࠘, Vol. 3, 㮵ඣᓥᏛᏛ㝔ேᩥ♫⛉Ꮫ◊✲⛉, pp. 1-23 㔠Ỉ ᩄ㸦2011㸧 ࠕ≀ㄒᵓᡂࡢࡓࡵࡢ㝵ᒙⓗ㛫ᢕᥱʊⰰᕝ㱟அࠗ⨶⏕㛛࠘ࢆʊࠖ, 㸦ඖ ⚽๛࣭⏣ᑦ࣭᫂㔠Ỉᩄࠕไయ⣔ࢆࡵࡄࡿᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛⓗどⅬࠖ㸧,ࠗࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒᏛ◊✲࠘➨ 45 ྕ, pp. 120-124 㦴㸦2010㸧 ࠕࠗ㑣࠘ࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧ほᛕᣦ♧ʊㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ⌮ㄽࡼࡿศᯒࠖ,ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ ➨ 12 ᅇㄽᩥ㞟࠘,᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ, pp.313-316 㦴㸦2011㸧 ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥ⬦ᣦ♧モࠗࡇࡢ࠘ࡢᑐ❧ᆺ⼥ྜᆺʊㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ⌮ㄽࡼࡿศᯒࢆ ࡶࠖࠗKLS࠘, Vol. 31, 㛵すゝㄒᏛ, pp. 72-83 ུ•㸦1964㸧ࠕ㏆௦ᣦ♧䇽ࠗ䘉࠘ⓗ᮶※ࠖࠗ୰ᅜ䈝ᩥ࠘1964 ᖺ➨ 4 ᮇ, pp. 442-444 ུ•㸦1980㸧ࠕ⧠௦≹䈝ඵⓒ䇽ࠖेӜ˖ၟ࣑༳Җ侶 ུ•㸦1985㸧ࠕ㏆௦≹䈝ᣦ௦䇽ࠖк⎧˖Ꮫᯘฟ∧♫ ᱵ ♽㯌㸦1985㸧 ࠕයன㏆௦≹䈝ᣦ௦䇽—䈫ⴭࠗ㏆௦≹䈝ᣦ௦䇽࠘ࠖ ࠗ୰ᅜ䈝ᩥ࠘1985 ᖺ➨ 6 ᮇ, pp. 401-412 ỿ ᐙ↣㸦1999㸧ࠗሩ⛠ḷ䇠䇪࠘⊏㾯˖Ụすᩍ⫱ฟ∧♫ ᮾ㒓㞝㸦1999㸧ࠕㄯヰࣔࢹࣝᣦ♧-ㄯヰ࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ☜❧ྠᐃࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖ,ࠗி㒔 Ꮫ⥲ྜே㛫Ꮫ㒊⣖せ࠘, ➨ 6 ᕳ, ி㒔Ꮫ⥲ྜே㛫Ꮫ㒊, pp.35-46 ᮾ㒓㞝㸦2000㸧 ࠕㄯヰࣔࢹࣝ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モࢥ࣭ࢯ࣭ࠖ,ࠗி㒔Ꮫ⥲ྜே㛫Ꮫ㒊⣖せ࠘, ➨ 7 ᕳ, ி㒔Ꮫ⥲ྜே㛫Ꮫ㒊, pp.27-46 ᶘ ⋢⋹㸦2006㸧 ࠕঅ୭ࠗ䘉࠘ࠗ㑣࠘⠍❶ሩ⛠◊✲ࠖ ࠗୡ⏺≹䈝ᩍᏛ࠘2006 ᖺ➨ 4 ᮇ, pp. 33-41 ᶘ ⋢⋹㸦2011㸧 ࠕྍཬᛶ⌮䇪ཬࠗ䘉࠘ࠊ ࠗ㑣࠘⠍❶ሩ⛠◊✲ࠖ ࠗἙ༡♫⛉Ꮫ࠘➨ 19 ༹➨ 2 ᮇ, pp. 201-204 ᮒ ᚫ⇊㸦1982㸧ࠗ䈝ἲ䇢ѹ࠘ेӜ˖ၟ࣑༳Җ侶 −136− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࠕ⮬ศࠖࠕ⮬ᕫࠖ ứ Ᏹ ᮾி⚟♴Ꮫ 㸺Abstract㸼 There are several reflexive pronouns in Japanese. To choose a proper reflexive and to understand the implicated meaning of a selected reflexive are not easy for a Japanese learner. This study discusses the differences between two reflexive pronouns jibun and jiko. We introduce a comprehensive approach that regards syntax, semantics, and pragmatics as one system. In the perspective of syntax, the antecedent of jibun is not necessary to be local (i.e. within the same clause), while that of jiko must be local. In semantics, jibun is much “closer” to the speaker. In pragmatics, although the general frequency of jibun is higher than jiko , jiko was chosen in some fields such as a statute. Finally we show that implicated meanings and the potential functions of each word are related to all the three perspectives of our approach. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸࠸ศࡅࠊ⥲ྜⓗࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࠊ⏝ຠᯝ 㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ ࠕ⮬ศࠖࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣࠊᖐⓗᣦ♧ᶵ⬟ࢆඹ᭷ࡍࡿ୍᪉ࠊ࠸ศࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡢሙ 㠃࡛ࡢ༢ㄒࢆ㑅ࡪࠊࡲࡓࡑࢀࢆ㑅ࡪࡇࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡢࡼ࠺࡞ពྜ࠸ࡀㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿ ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡗ࡚㞴ࡋ࠸ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲ ࠗ᪂∧࠸᪉ࡢศࡿ㢮ㄒゎ㎡࠘ࡣࠊ ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣࠕලయⓗࠖࠕᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࠖࡢ ࠸ࡎࢀ㛵ࢃࡿሙྜࠊࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣࠕᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࠖ㛵㐃ࡍࡿࡔࡅ⌧ࢀࡿ࠸࠺ࠋࠗ㢮ㄒ ᪂㎡࠘ࡣࠊࠕ⮬ศࠖࢆ≉ᐃࡢᩥయᖐᒓࡉࡏ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣࠕᩥ❶ㄒࠖศ㢮ࡋ࡚ ࠸ࡿࠋ ࡋࡋࠊලయⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࢃࢀࡿࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡶᐇ㝿ぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ (1) ࡇࡢἲᚊ࠾࠸࡚ࠕ⊩యࡢពᛮࠖࡣࠊ⮬ᕫࡢ㌟యࢆ͐ゎ๗యࡋ࡚ᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇࢆ ᕼᮃࡍࡿࡇࢆ࠸࠺ࠋ http://law.e-gov.go.jp/cgi-bin/strsearch.cgi −137− 「自分」と「自己」 Ꮠ₎ㄒࡢࠕ㌟యࠖࡣࠊ༢⊂ฟࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡕࡽ࠸࠺ࠊᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ᴫᛕࢆᣦࡍ࠸ ࠺༳㇟ࢆཷࡅࡿࡀࠊ(1)࡛ࡣࠕゎ๗యࡋ࡚㸦ே㸧ᥦ౪ࡍࡿࠖ࠸࠺㏙ㄒඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡘࡳࡇࢁࡢ࡞࠸ࠕᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ᴫᛕࠖ࠸࠺ࡼࡾࠊᥦ౪⪅ࡢࠕయ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠕලయ ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࠖࡋ࡚⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊ ࠗ㢮ㄒ᪂㎡࠘࠶ࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕᩥ❶ㄒࠖ࠸࠺༊ูࡣ࠾࠾ࡊࡗࡥ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏ ㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢃࢀࡸࡍ࠸⏝ᇦࠊࡑࡢຠᯝࢆලయⓗグ㏙ࡍࡿᚲせ ࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ 㸱㸬⥲ྜⓗࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ ᩥࡢᵓ㐀ࡸពࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ๓ᚋᩥ⬦ࡸሙ㠃ࡢሗ࡞ࡶ㛵ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⤫ㄒ࣭ព ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ୕ࡘࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡽ⥲ྜⓗㄽࡌࡿࠋ 㸲㸬⤫ㄒ ≉ᐃࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡍሙྜࠊ ࠕ⮬ศࠖࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡀඛ⾜モࡼࡾᵓ㐀ⓗࡼࡾࠕୖࠖ࠶ ࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸࠸࠺᮲௳ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ (2)a. [ᙺேࡽ i ࡀ [㹹⮬ศ i 㸭⮬ᕫ i㹻ࡢᐙ᪘ࢆᏲࢁ࠺ࡋࡓ]] b. *[㹹⮬ศ i㸭⮬ᕫ i 㹻ࡢᐙ᪘ࡀ [ᙺேࡽ i ࢆᏲࢁ࠺ࡋࡓ]] ࠕ⮬ศࠖࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣඛ⾜モໟࡲࢀࡓᙧࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕໟࡳᵓ㐀ࠖࡢ୰࡛ࠊ ࠕ⮬ᕫࠖ ࡣ᭱ࡶ㏆࠸㏙ㄒືモࡢືస㸦┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸㸧ࢆᣦࡍࡀࠊ ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣ⠇ࡸᩥ༢ࢆ㉸࠼ ࡓඛ⾜モࡸࠊሙྜࡼࡗ࡚ㄒ⨨ࡋࠊヰཧຍ⪅ࢆᣦࡍࡇࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ (⠇༢ࢆ㉸࠼) (3)a. ࠶ࡢဴᏛ⪅ i ࡣ࠸ேࡀ⮬ศ i ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࢆㄝ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࠋ b. *࠶ࡢဴᏛ⪅ i ࡣ࠸ேࡀ⮬ᕫ * i ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࢆㄝ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࠋ (ᩥ༢ࢆ㉸࠼) (4)a. ࠶ࡢဴᏛ⪅ i ࡣᝎࢇ࡛࠸ࡓࠋ࡞ࡐேࡀ⮬ศ i ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࠋ b. ࠶ࡢဴᏛ⪅ i ࡣᝎࢇ࡛࠸ࡓࠋ࡞ࡐேࡀ⮬ᕫ * i ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࠋ (ㄒ⨨) −138− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 (5) ࡶ㹹⮬ศ㸭*⮬ᕫ㹻ࡶ㍤࠸࡚ࡿ㸽㸦,PDJH*URXS࣭ྡྂᒇᆅୗ㕲࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧 ࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡢᣦ♧ࡣᵓ㐀౫Ꮡࡍࡿᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗࠸ࡢᑐࡋࠊ ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢᣦ♧ࡣ࡞ࡾᗈ࠸⠊ ᅖ࡛ཧ↷࡛ࡁࠊ୍ᐃࡢ⮬⏤ࡀチࡉࢀࡿࠋ 㸳㸬ព ே⛠モẚࠊ୧᪉ࡶࠕෆⓗ࣭⚾ⓗ⮬ᕫࠖࢆពࡍࡿ㸦ᗈ℩ 1997㸧ࠋ (6) ࡸࡗࠕᙉ࠸⚾ࠖ࠸࠺Ẇࢆ◚ࡾࠊᙅ࠸㹹⮬ศ㸭⮬ᕫ㹻ࢆぢࡘࡅࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ ࡑࡢ㐪࠸ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ㛵㐃ᗘ࠶ࡿࠋࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ㛵ࢃࡾࡀᐦ᥋࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕ⮬ ᕫࠖࡣヰࡋᡭ࠶ࡲࡾ㛵ࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ㛵㐃ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ㸲⠇࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺ヰࡋᡭཬࡧࡑࡢどⅬࡢ⨨ ࢀࡓᣦ♧ᑐ㇟↷ᛂࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ㛵㐃ᗘࢆ᳨ド࡛ࡁࡿ⌧㇟ࡀࡶከࡃ࠶ࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ ձ 」ྜㄒࡢㄒᵓᡂ (7)a. ⮬ศ᥈ࡋࠊ⮬ศዲࡳࠊ⮬ศ࡞ࡀࡽ㸦㸦ࠕ⚾ࠖ⨨ࡁ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸧 b. ⮬ᕫ᥇Ⅼࠊ⮬ᕫホ౯ࠊ⮬ᕫ◚⏘㸦ࠕ⚾ࠖ⨨ࡁ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸㸧 ղ 」ྜㄒࡢㄒᙧᡂつ๎ ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣ័⏝ᗘࠊࡘࡲࡾゝㄒ⏝⪅ࡗ࡚ࡢࠕ㥆ᰁࡳࡸࡍࡉࠖࡼࡿࠋ (8)a. ⮬ศ☻ࡁ 㸦័⏝ᗘ㧗࠸㸧 b. ⮬ศ㈙࠸ 㸦ప࠸㸧 c. *⮬ศ㉸࠼ 㸦័⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧 ୍᪉ࠊ ࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡘࡃᙧែ⣲ࡣ័⏝ᗘࡼࡿไ㝈ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊ᪥ᖖⓗࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㞴ࡋ࠸ ༢ㄒ࡛ࡶࡼ࠸ࠋ ճ ๓ᚋᩥ⬦ࡢ࡞࠸⏝ࡳࡽࢀࡿゎ㔘ࡢ㐪࠸ ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟㛵ࡍࡿᩥ⬦ࡢ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊ ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣどⅬே≀ࣜࣥࢡࡋࡸࡍ ࡃࠊࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣࣜࣥࢡࡋࡃ࠸ࠋ −139− 「自分」と「自己」 (9)a. ⮬ศࡢ࠺ࡕ㸦ヰࡋᡭࡢᐙ㸧 b. ⮬ᕫࡢ࠺ࡕ㸦ಶࠎேࢆྵࡴே㛫ࡢ㞟ྜࡢෆഃࠊ୍⯡ㄽ㸧 ࡲࡵࡿࠊ ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ㛵㐃ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃࠊヰࡋᡭࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣどⅬே≀ࡢᛮ⪃࡛࠶ ࡿࡇࢆᙉࡃᬯ♧ࡍࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ ࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ㛵㐃ᗘࡀపࡃࠊಶࠎࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࢆྵࡴ⥲ ⛠࠸࠺ᢳ㇟ᴫᛕࢆ⾲ࡍഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ 㸴㸬ㄒ⏝ㄽ ᅜ㆟㘓ࠊ⌧௦ࢻ࣐ࣛࠊᗈ࿌ᩥࠊᮅ᪥᪂⪺ࠊἲ௧ࠊ㟷✵ᩥᗜࡢභࡘࡢ⏝ᇦࢆㄪࡓ ⤖ᯝࠊ ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣἲ௧ࢆ㝖ࡃࡢ⏝ᇦ࡛ࡶᅽಽⓗከࡃࢃࢀࠊ≉᪥ᖖヰ㏆࠸ࢻࣛ ࣐ᗈ࿌ᩥ࡛ࡣࠕ⮬ศࠖࡋ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ ࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣ⏝ࡀ࡞ࡾ㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᪂ ⪺グᑡࡋ⌧ࢀࡓࠊἲ௧ࡣ㠀ᖖ㧗࠸㢖ᗘࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡛ࡣᗈ࿌ᩥἲ௧ ⤠ࡗ࡚ࠊࠕఏ㐩≧ἣࠖࠕఏ㐩ຠᯝࠖࡢࡘࡢ༢ࡽศᯒࡍࡿࠋ 㸴㸬㸯 ᗈ࿌ᩥࢃࢀࡿࠕ⮬ศࠖ ձ ఏ㐩≧ἣ ᗈ࿌ᩥࡣࠊ࣓ࢹࢆ㏻ࡌࠊ≉ᐃከᩘࡢᾘ㈝⪅ྥࡅ࡚Ⓨಙࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎಙ ⪅ཷಙ⪅ࡀ┤᥋ⓗᑐ㠃ࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊሙ㠃ࡸୖୗぶ㛵ಀࡀ⪃៖ࡉࢀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ ཷಙ⪅ࡢෆഃ❧ࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᚰࢆỮࡳྲྀࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ղ ఏ㐩ຠᯝ (10) ࡶ⮬ศࡶ㍤࠸࡚ࡿ㸽 Ⓨಙ⪅ཷಙ⪅ࡢቃ⏺ࡀᏑᅾࡏࡎࠊᛮ⪃ෆᐜࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(10)ࡣಶࠎࡢᾘ㈝⪅ᑐࡋࠊ ࡢෆᐜࡀࠊ⮬ศࡗ࡚ᐇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࠊ⮬ศࡢᏑᅾ౯್⣡ᚓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࠊ ࠸࠺ෆ┬ࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿࠋ 㸴㸬㸰 ἲ௧ࢃࢀࡿࠕ⮬ᕫࠖ ձ ఏ㐩≧ἣ ἲ௧ࡣ♫つ⠊ࢆᐃࡵࡓ㈨ᩱ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ♫࠾࠸࡚⤯ᑐⓗ࡞ᶒጾࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊಶࠎே −140− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࢆ㥙ࡋࠊඹ㏻ࡍࡿ⌮ᛕࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ղ ఏ㐩ຠᯝ ≉ᐃࡢࠊಶู࡞ࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛࡞ࡃࠊಶࠎࡢヱᙜ⪅ࢆࡦࡗࡃࡿࡵࡓࠕ⥲⛠ࠖࢆពࡍࡿࠕ⮬ᕫࠖ ࡣἲᚊᩥࡀồࡵࡿࠕᐈほᛶࠖ㐺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࡓ࠼≉ᐃࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ(12) ࡢᩥ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢሙ࠸ࡿ≉ᐃࡢ⿕࿌ࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྠࠊ ࠕㄡ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶྠࡌฎ ⨩࡞ࡿࠖ࠸࠺ពྜ࠸ࡀㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿࠋ (11) ㄽ࿌᳨࡛ᐹഃࡣࠕ⮬ᕫࡢ❧ሙࢆ⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊ≢⾜ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚࠸࡚ᴟࡵ࡚ᝏ㉁ࠖᣦ ࡋࡓࠋ (ᮅ᪥ᮅห 2009/11/21) 㸵㸬ࡲࡵ ఏ㐩ຠᯝࡣ⤫ㄒㄽ࣭ពㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢሗࢆ⥲ྜⓗ⪃࠼ࡓ࠺࠼࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡘࡲࡾࠊᗈ࿌ᩥ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣ ձᵓ㐀ୖ⮬⏤㔞ࡢవᆅࡀ࠶ࡾ ղពࡋ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦ヰࡋᡭࡢどⅬ㸧ᐦ᥋㛵ࢃࡾ ճᗈ࿌ᩥࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡢෆᚰッ࠼࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ሙ࡛࠶ࡿ ࡢ࡛ࠊಶࠎࡢᾘ㈝⪅⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆ┬ࡳࡿᶵࢆ࠼ࡿຠᯝࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡓࠋ ୍᪉ࠊἲ௧⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ⮬ᕫࠖࡣ ձᵓ㐀ୖ⮬⏤࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ ղពࡋ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ㛵㐃ᗘࡀపࡃ ճἲ௧ࡣࠊ♫つ⠊࡛࠶ࡿ ࡢ࡛ࠊಶࠎࡢ᮲ࡀ≉ᐃࡢಶே࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊヱᙜ⪅ࡢࡍ࡚ࢆࡦࡗࡃࡿࡵࡓࠕᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞Ꮡᅾࠖ ࡋ࡚ᣢࡕฟࡍຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ −141− 「自分」と「自己」 ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㸸 㒆ྖ 㝯⏨. 2002. ࠗ༢ㄒᩥࡢᵓ㐀࠘ ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ. ࣁࣜࢹ࣮࣭ࣁࢵࢧࣥ㑥ヂࠗᶵ⬟ᩥἲࡢࡍࡍࡵ࠘ࠊಟ㤋᭩ᗑ ᗈ℩ᖾ⏕࣭ຍ㈡ಙᗈࠗᣦ♧↷ᛂྰᐃ࠘ࠊ◊✲♫ฟ∧ ᒾబ ᐩ⏨. 2006. ࠕ୍⯡ᩥἲᚊᩥ࠾ࡅࡿἲ௧⏝ㄒࡢ࠸᪉ࡢᐇ㊶ⓗ◊✲ࠖࠊࠗ┳ㆤ ሗ࠘ࠊVol.13:95-100. ஂ㔝ᬿࠗㄯヰࡢᩥἲ࠘ࠊಟ㤋᭩ᗑ 㛵ἑⱥᙪࠕෆ࡞ࡿኌࡋ࡚ࡢᗈ࿌ே⛠モᗈ࿌࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢྠ୍⌧㇟ࠖࠊ The journal of communication studies 23, 37-60. −142− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Identity in practice: The use of terminological resources and identity formation at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan Cade Bushnell University of Tsukuba [email protected] Abstract: A number of conversation analytic studies have engaged CoP in recent years. However, if and how the participants organize their group as community, and work up and manage identities as practitioners within that community, constitute empirical questions. In the present study, I examine interactions at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan. The analyses focus on how the participants use terminology during their participation in doing data analysis, and how such terminology use is implicated in constituting their group as a community, and in working up and managing identities within that community. ࠙KeywordsࠚConversation analysis; Membership categorization analysis; Communities of practice; Identity 1. Introduction This study uses conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis to examine interactions by a group of Japanese language users participating together in conversation analytic data sessions. Data sessions involve several conversation analytic researchers gathering together to view/listen to and discuss segments of interactional data provided by one of the participants in the group. In their groundbreaking study on an interaction taking place at a data session, Antaki, Biazzi, Nissen, and Wagner (2008) describe the ways in which their participants reformulate their evaluative, non-technical comments into technical conversation analytic terms. In so doing, their study robustly demonstrates the validity and richness of data gathered at conversation analytic data sessions. In my research, I am interested in providing an ethnomethodological respecification of the communities of practice (CoP) notions of community and identity (see Lave & Wenger 1991 and Wenger 1998). The analyses of the present study focus in particular on the ways in which the participants use conversation analytic terminology during their participation in doing data analysis at the data sessions, and how such terminology use is implicated in constituting a community and in working up and managing identities within that community. 2. The use of terminology at the data sessions The conversation analytic terminological resources used at the data sessions may be roughly divided into three types, English, Anglo-Japanese, and Japanese. An important point to note here in terms of the present study is that there are instances where these three sets of terminological resources overlap. That is, it is frequently the case where English, Anglo-Japanese, and Japanese terms are available to do reference to single concepts and actions. A major focus of the analyses below is on how the participants differentially deploy such co-available terminology, and what kinds of actions they accomplish in so doing. In the first 3 excerpts, we will look at examples of the participants’ differential use of English, Japanese, and Anglo-Japanese terminology, respectively, in referring to a single referent: the conversation analytic notion of try marking (see Sacks & Schegloff, 1979). Excerpt 1 begins with Elmer asking about the intonational characteristics of one interactant’s deployment of the word kuruma. (See Appendix 1 for transcription conventions). Excerpt 1 01 02 E: (1) .hh [ano kuruma wa:] (.2) ano: t.hh 03 04 M: E: 05 Y: um car T um .hh um a:s for car (.2) um t- r[(x x x x x)] a- aga (.5) tte (.4) rising o ku [ruma.o car. o car.o −143− t- r- Identity in practice: The use of terminological resources and identity formation at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan 06 E: [masita kke?= was Q P: was (it) rising?= =.FFF (.5) 08 E: =.FFF (.5) tr- [ano tr- try mark (.3) sareteru= 09 W: 10 E: 07 .fff tr- um tr- try mark being done [okuruma.o un. car yeah =ka doo ka. Q how Q whether or not (it) was being (.3) tr- um tr- try marked. In line 2, Elmer initiates a new sequence by topicalizing the element kuruma (“car”). After some self repair, he incrementally produces aga (.5) tte (.4) masita kke? (“remind me was it rising?”) (lines 4 and 6). In line 5, Yi displays her understanding of the trajectory of Elmer’s utterance-in-production by quietly enacting the intonational contour in question. Then, in line 8, Elmer employs the English term try mark to ask whether or not the participant’s production of kuruma featured try marking. In Excerpt 2, Elmer requests a Japanese equivalent for the English try mark. In this way, he displays an orientation to the Japanese language as being the medium of the interaction on this occasion (see, e.g., Gafaranga, 1999, 2000; Gafaranga & Calvo, 2001). In response to Elmer’s request, the Japanese term sikoo hyoosiki (“try mark”) is collaboratively provided by Murata and Yi. Excerpt 2 14 Y: a: koko ni [:, a here DA a: here, 15 M: [>^a sikoo a try 16 ^a try hyoosiki (da)<.= 17 mark.= =sikoo hyoo [siki? mark E: try C mark =try mark? 18 M: [sikoo hyoosiki (xxx)= Y: try mark (xxx)= [a:: a:: ha:i= try 19 a mark a yes a:: a:: ye:s= 20 M: =so so soo. that that that =right right right. Prior to line 14, Yi was searching for an answer to Elmer’s question in an article she had brought to the meeting. In line 14, she claims success in her search, and identifies the location through a pointing gesture and the word koko (“here”). In line 15, Murata overlaps with a sikoo hyoosiki da (“oh it’s try mark”). This utterance 1) claims a recognition of and validates the word in the article as being the relevant answer, and 2) makes the word available to Elmer, for whom the article was not visible. Then, in line 17, Elmer moves to obtain a confirmatory response, this utterance is overlapped with confirmation displays from Murata and Yi in lines 18 through 20. −144− ʹ 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Finally, Excerpt 3 provides an example of the participants’ use of an Anglo-Japanese term. Approximately five minutes after Excerpt 2, Murata briefly leaves the room, and Yi, Elmer and Wendy are discussing the data in her absence. Excerpt 3 16 Y: u:n. so- sono baai mo aru n yeah th- that case also exist N 17 yea:h. (there) are those cases too desu yo ne, 18 E: right, u:n. Y: yea:h. torai ma [aku tte [yu no wa: W: as far as try mark goes [u:n. C P P yeah 19 try 20 mark QT say N T yeah yea:h 21 E: [u:n. soo desu ne, yeah that C P yea:h. right, ((lines omitted)) 34 W: [((noise from mouse)) 35 Y: de soo yu koto na n da kedo:, and that say thing C N C but 36 and that’s how things are bu:t, koko de wa soo yu torai maa (.3) ka 37 jana:i kara: [.sss] 38 the try mar (.3) ker here is no:t that kind so: .sss [u:n.] here C-NG E: at T that because say try mar ker .sss yeah yea:h. 39 (.5) In line 19, Yi produces torai maaku (“try mark”). Compared to the participants’ just prior production of sikoo hyoosiki, for which joint effort and reference to an article was necessary, Yi’s production of torai maaku is smooth and without hitch. Yi also produces an additional instance of torai maaku (omitted lines), and a morphological variant, torai maakaa (“try marker”) in line 36. Excerpts 1 through 3 show the participants using an overlapping set of terminological resources in order to refer to the notion of try marking: try mark, sikoo hyoosiki, and torai maaku/torai maakaa. Questions arise in regard to the interactional work accomplished by such differential use terminology. For instance, how do the participants co-constitute certain terminological resources as being valued for participation? How does the participants’ use of terminology function to constitute the data session group as a community? How is the deployment of terminological resources involved in working up identities as practitioners at the data sessions as a community? 3. The use of Anglo-Japanese terms for doing data analysis Ethnomethodology views social order as being an ongoing members’ accomplishment (Garfinkel, 1967). Sacks (1984) adopts this stance in discussing how people accomplish “being ordinary.” Sacks argues that being ordinary is not a given, but that it is accomplished by “making a job of, and finding an answer to, how to do ‘being ordinary’” (1984, p. 415). In other words, according to Sacks, being ordinary is accomplished in and −145− ͵ Identity in practice: The use of terminological resources and identity formation at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan through ongoing work to constitute actions and states of affairs as being unremarkable and usual. Such a viewpoint is relevant to the analyses of this section. As we will see, the participants treat certain terminology as constituting an unremarkable and unnoticeable participatory resource. Prior to the following excerpt, Zed had noted an area in the data where he claimed that the participants could have accomplished a topical shift but did not. Zed formulates a description of the area. The excerpt begins with Yi requesting a clarification in regard to Zed’s prior talk. Excerpt 4 01 Y: nana juu nana gyoo me de hoka no otoko no seven ten seven line.number at other M 02 child C M Q QT say thing by how boy?” by saying this (1.1) how owarase:reba ii ka ga? 03 cause.to.end 04 05 06 man at line number seventy-seven “is it another ko desu ka? tte yu koto de: (1.1) doo Z: good Q S to end it is? (.6) ((sound of pages turning)) soo. (.2) de(h)su ne, nanka nana .hh (.8) that C P some seven .hh right. (.2) le(h)t’s see, like seven .hh (.8) k- ko- koko de wa: ano hanashi wo tenkan 07 k- ko- here at T um talk O change h- he- here um changing the topic shite mo ii desu kedo: .hh [kore wo (.4) 08 alright.to.do C but .hh this O would be alright bu:t .hh this (.4) 09 Y: [u:n. un 10 Z: yea:h. mae no hanashi (watashi wa) wakarimashita yo front M 11 talk I T understood P tte yu: .h koto shimesu tame ni kono nana juu QT say .h thing show so.that this seven ten in order to show that “I understood the prior talk” this line number seventy nana gyoo me no .hh [hoka no otoko no ko 12 seven line.number M .hh other M man M child seven “is it another boy?” 13 Y: [a::. a a::. 14 Z: desu ka? tte yu C 15 QT yoo na (.) ma ripea tte yu ka say appearance M well repair QT say Q this kind of (.) well repair or .hh sono: watashi wa rikai siteiru tte .hh 16 Q that I T comprehend doing QT .hh tha:t “I understand” yu yoo na (1) situmon wo sita n desu yo ne? say appearance M question O did N C P P he asked this kind of (1) question, you know? In line 14, Zed deploys ripea (“repair”) as part of his response to the request by Yi in lines 1 to 3. Following Yi’s request, there is a .6 second pause filled with the sound of pages turning. Then, in line 6, Zed produces soo (“right”). This seems to treat Yi’s lines 1 to 3 as a request for confirmation rather than clarification. However, −146− Ͷ 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 following a .2 second pause during which he receives no uptake from Yi, Zed produces further talk in lines 6 through 16, which ends up reformulating his description and naming of the interactant’s actions. It is in the course of this activity, in line 14, that Zed produces ripea (“repair”). This item is produced following a micropause, prefaced by the discourse marker ma, which can display a tentative stance, appended with the self repair initiation marker tte yu ka (“or rather”) (Rosenthal, 2008) and followed up with a reformulation of Zed’s just prior suggestion. These features, taken together, indicate that Zed has used ripea as a provisional name for the actions. It is important to note that ripea is deployed smoothly within the intonational contour of the phrase ma ripea tte yu ka (“well repair or rather”). In this way, Zed treats the term as an unremarkable solution to the problem of providing a provisional name for the actions. Thus, Excerpt 4 is an example of how the Participants treat their deployment of Anglo-Japanese terminology as an unnoticeable and unremarkable event. 4. Terminology use and identity in the community 4.1 Self repair and constructing an identity as a practitioner We may now examine some cases where the unnoticeable is made noticeable, so to speak. This is done primarily through the use of self repair. A point that requires emphasis here is that, in most instances, the terminology which participants target with self repair is mutually understandable for all co-present. In other words, the self repairs are not relatable to problems in intelligibility. Just prior to Excerpt 5, the Participants were discussing whether or not the participant’s actions observable in the data at hand are analyzable as constituting embedded correction (see Jefferson, 1983). Excerpt 5 01 Y: ah. (.) e. (.2) juu go de: ah e ten five 02 ah. e. (.2) at fifteen (.2) isu?= 03 A: (.2) chair?= =i- a: ju [u go de Y: =i- a: at fifteen [tte yuu. A: say. is [u tte yuu to [ka, at chair i- 04 a ten five at QT 05 chair 06 07 S: Y: QT say say and.so.forth say chair and so forth [un. a:. [sore wa: (1.3) that 08 well repair 09 10 T that is (1.3) maa <syuufuku> (.4) inisieesyon. Y: initiation well <repair> (.4) initiation. (.3) a- a- n. ripea inisiee [syon. a a n repair initiation a a n repair initiation 11 S: [u:n.= yeah yea:h. In line 5, Abe asks a hypothetical question in regard to what kind of action would be instantiated were the participant to have said isu (“chair”) rather than mono (“thing”). In response, in line 8, Yi produces syuufuku inisieesyon (“repair initiation”). This element is prefaced by the discourse marker maa, which functions to −147− ͷ Identity in practice: The use of terminological resources and identity formation at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan display a tentative stance. This, taken together with the 1.3 second delay (line 7), and the slowed production of syuufuku (“repair”), functions to frame the element syuufuku as being the tentative upshot of a word search. Line 8 is a possible completion point for Yi’s turn, and is followed by a .3 second transition space during which none of the participants offer any talk. Then, Yi breaks the silence with a self repair initiation (“a- a- n.”), and then replaces the element syuufuku with ripea (“repair”) (line 10). Thus, in lines 7 to 10, Yi treats the term ripea as being relevant and valued for participation at this time. Also, though orienting to using the valued term, she simultaneously accomplishes the group as a group, with certain valued resources, and her participation as a display of membership in that group. 4.2 Terminology use in accomplishing the visibility of otherness So far, we have seen how the use self repair can display orientations to using certain terms over others, and how this functions in working up and managing group membership. A corollary to this is categorization as a newcomer or relative outsider through assembling self and other into separate categories. One procedure used to accomplish such categorization is the deployment of everyday Japanese terminology (rather than the terminology of the community) in utterances directed to incipient group members. Such terminology use effectively treats incipient members as not sharing the terminological repertoire of the community. The term used regularly by the Participants during their participation in doing data analysis to refer to the notion of pre-action (see, e.g., Schegloff, 2007) is purii (“pre”). In Excerpt 6, however, this term is avoided, and an alternate term from everyday Japanese, maeoki (“preface, introduction”), is used instead. In the excerpt, Ru, who had participated in only one prior data session, uses this shift between activities as an opportunity to ask a question to Zed. Excerpt 6 01 R: sumimasen. excuse.me 02 Z: excuse me. hai. yes 03 R: yes. zed san wa (.2) ano ima mondai Zed Mr. T uhm now problem 04 siteru tokoro wo moo itido 05 ukagatte mo yorosii de [su kah? u heh 06 would it be alright if I were to ask once the place (.2) you are probleming? u heh [a eet:o: .hh doing place O more alright.if.I.ask-H Z: once C Q a uhm u heh .hh a uh:m: .hh futatu aru n desu ke [do: 07 two.items exixt N C but there are two items bu:t 08 [((nods)) [hai. R: yes 09 Z: yes. hitotu wa juu go gyoo me:, (.2) R: one is line number fiftee:n, (.2) hai.= one 10 T ten five line.number yes 11 Z: yes.= =no:. (.3) eeto puro tosite M uhm pro as −148− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 12 motitakunai desu ka? [tte yu no ga: don’t.want 13 R: C Q QT say one S =whe:re. (.3) uhm the one ‘as a pro don’t you want to have it?’ is [((nodds)) [un. yeah 14 Z: yeah. .hh maa n:anraka no kooi no (.2) pu.hh 15 DM uhm 16 17 some.kind preface M pr- becoming QT say R: Z: fuu ni kanjita n R: .hh well I felt like it forms a (.2) pu- maeoki for s:ome kind of action bu:t [hai. like 18 M action ano::: maeoki ni natteiru [to yu felt [((nods)) [desu kedo: N C but yes 19 Z: yes. sore ga doo yu kooi no maemuki that S what say action M positive 20 ni natteru ka wo .hh (.4) kijutu 21 suru no ga hitotu no mokuteki: de ((continues)) becoming do N Q S O one .hh M describe purpose C what kind of action it forms a positive for .hh (.4) describing this is one purpo:se and The center of focus for the analysis below is on Zed’s self repair work in lines 14 and 15. These lines are produced by Zed as part of his answer to Ru’s question about the area of the data in which Zed is interested (lines 3 to 5). Zed indicates that his answer will be organized into two parts (line 7). In the analysis, we will examine only the first part of Zed’s two part answer. In lines 9 to 12, Zed first indicates an area on the transcript and then quotes the interactant’s utterance at this location. He then indicates that the quoted utterance might instantiate a pre for some kind of action (lines 14, 15, and 17). In line 14, Zed produces what is almost certainly the first part of purii (“pre”), pu- (line 14). However, Zed cuts off mid production and follows with the considerably sound stretched filler ano::: (“uhm”). Zed then resumes by producing maeoki (“preface, introduction”). Ru receipts this with a nod (line 16), and Zed continues on smoothly (lines 15 and 17). As discussed above, the participants occasionaly apply self repair to replace certain terminological items. In so doing, I argued, they are able to constitute their group as a community with a shared set of resources, and themselves as practitioner-members within that community. Notably, however, the instances examined above involved replacement with a term treated by the community as a resource for participation in doing data analysis. Zed’s self repair work in lines 14 and 15, however, is the inverse of this. In other words, rather than using a valued terminological resource to replace another term, here Zed replaces a valued term, purii (“pre”), with an everyday term, maeoki (“preface, introduction”). In this way, Zed treats purii as being possibly problematic in some respect, while simultaneously treating maeoki as being unproblematic in that respect. Importantly, this action is assembled as part of a response to Ru. Thus, Zed constitutes identities for (a) himself, as a practitioner who prioritizes the use of community resources (i.e., he initially starts to produce purii), and (b) Ru, as an outsider or newcomer who is not yet conversant with community resources. It may be further noted that, in line 19, Zed also deploys maemuki (“positive, forward facing”). Because this word does not make sense within this context, and because it employs an utterance format identical to that in lines 14 and 15, that is, X kooi no Y (“action X’s Y”), it seems that maemuki here is a slip of the tongue production of maeoki. Assuming that this is the case, this subsequent use of a replacement term for purii further displays an orientation to purii as requiring a substitute term from everyday Japanese on this occasion. −149− Identity in practice: The use of terminological resources and identity formation at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan 5. Conclusion The analyses have demonstrated that the participants’ differential deployment of terminological resources is deeply intertwined with membership categorization work implicated in the constitution of identities related to the participants’ joint activity of doing data analysis. First, it was demonstrated that the participants treat certain terms as being unremarkable resources for participation. This behavior was discussed in relation to the ethnomethodologically-based argument by Sacks (1984) that being ordinary is accomplished in and through work members perform as they make an ongoing job out of doing being ordinary. Then, it was shown how the participants display an interactional attention to the terminology they use through the application of self repair. I argued that this display of attention functioned to make visible for one another the data session as a community, and the participants’ membership in that community. This was shown to be tied to the reflexive constitution of terminology as being valued by community members, and making the data session group mutually visible as a community with a shared set of participatory resources. In this way, for the participants, identity, shared resources, and community are reflexively constituted in and through their behavior in interaction while participating in doing data analysis at the data sessions. Appendix 1: Transcription conventions (see Jefferson, 2004) ^word heh hah ĹĻ >words< <words> wo[rd wo]rd = (3.3) (.) (xxx) glottal stop laughter tokens high or low pitch quicker than surrounding talk slower than the surrounding talk beginning of overlapped speech end of overlapped speech latching (no pause between utterances) pause (seconds and tenths of seconds) pause less than one tenth of a second unrecoverable utterance Key for Interlinear Abbreviations C: Copula M: Noun modification particle (no, na, etc.) N: Nominalizer NG: Negative O: Object marker ((words)) wo:::rd WORDS °words° words woa:: a:: , ? . commentary by transcriptionist sound stretch louder than surrounding talk softer than surrounding talk more emphasis than surrounding talk cut-off rising intonational contour falling intonational contour level or slightly rising intonation fully rising intonation falling, final intonation P: Interactional particle (yo, ne, sa, na, etc.) Q: Question marker QT: Quotation marker S: Subject marker T: Topic marker Works cited: Antaki, C., Biazzi, M., Nissen, A., & Wagner, J. 2008. Accounting for moral judgments in academic talk: The case of a conversation analysis data session. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 28: 1–30. Gafaranga, J. 1999. Language choice as a significant aspect of talk organization: The orderliness of language alternation. Text, 19: 201–225. Gafaranga, J. 2000. Medium repair vs.other-language repair: Telling the medium of a bilingual conversation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4: 327–350. Gafaranga, J., & Calvo, M.-C. T. i. 2001. Language versus Medium in the study of bilingual conversation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5: 195–219. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. Jefferson, G. 1983. On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In J. R. E. Lee & G. Button (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 86–100). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Philadelphia: Benjamins. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenthal, B. M. 2008. A Resource for Repair in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction: The Phrase TTE - YUU - KA. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41: 227. Sacks, H. 1984. On doing “being ordinary.” In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 413–429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington Publishers. Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: Volume 1: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. −150− ͺ 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Mental causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF clauses: A case study of grammar-pragmatics interface Hirohito KATAOKA (Osaka Dental University) [Abstract] The paper discusses a close connection between causal sentences and what Dennett calls ‘intentional stance.’ Sometimes contexts license paradoxical combination of factivity and counterfactuality in causal clauses, while other contexts prohibits. The former cases involve the intentional stance, while the latter do not. 1 The problem This cognitive ability to attribute intentional states such as beliefs, desires, and intentions to other agents, or what Dennett calls "intentional stance," plays an important role in our comprehension of ordinary utterances. Consider the examples below: (1) It was 12 p.m. She/I went home. (2) The guests were boring. She/I left the party early. (Pander and Degand 2001: 218) These utterances hardly make sense without taking into account what 'she' or 'I' believed and intended. She didn't mechanically go home driven by invisible force of time. The guests' being boring did not directly cause her leaving the party early with no awareness of it. As Pander and Degand (2001: 218) point out, these discourses implicitly requires attribution of reasoning and awareness to the protagonists: i.e. it requires intentional stance. Now my claim is that the intentional stance could be a key to understand some apparently paradoxical constructions like these: (3) They refused the chicane because it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous." (GrandPrix, Jun 22, 2005) (4) I’ll take an umbrella because/if it will rain. (cf. ‘if it rains’) These are paradoxical mainly for two reasons. First, BECAUSE-clauses and counterfactuality. The causal construction in (3) contains a counterfactual clause, which is a full-frontal violation of the usual factive constraint posed by the BECAUSE-clause. That is to say, BECAUSE-clauses, or causal clauses in general, presuppose that the embedded proposition is taken for granted to be a fact. We can observe this constraint at work in (5): 1 −151− Mental causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF clauses:A case study of grammar-pragmatics interface (5) He came back because he loved her. #But he didn't loved her. Since the BECAUSE-clause presupposes the fact that he loved her, denial of the same proposition will be contradictory. Indeed, it is contradictory and unnatural to say (6): (6) Last week it was warm *because (a) it would have been raining. (b) it wasn’t raining. This observation precludes a possible objection. One might say, "there is no paradox here, because the causal clause just presupposes the truth of the proposition, and counterfactual propositions do have truth-values; so there is nothing weird for the embedded counterfactual propositions to be presupposed to be true." If so, the example just mentioned should have been perfectly well-formed and acceptable. The objection have missed something important, and that is the semantic clash between factivity and counterfactuality. This is the Apparent Paradox I to be addressed here: (7) In some cases, factive because-clauses do license an embedded counterfactual proposition, while in other cases they don't. As far as I know, this problem has been mostly unnoted in the literature, let alone left unsolved. Second reason for the paradox is the reversed temporal relation. This is what Palmer (1974: 148) has once called 'reversal of time relations.' In (8), the time of taking the umbrella precedes the time of possible raining: taking the umbrella comes first, the event of raining follows it. (8) [=(4)] I’ll take an umbrella because/if it will rain. (cf. ‘if it rains’) This goes the opposite direction of causality. The speaker says the cause is the raining, real or hypothetical, and the effect is his/her taking the umbrella. So you can see the direction of causality goes backward from the following event to the preceding event, apparently. And this is apparently paradoxical, since we usually assume that the direction of causality goes from a preceding event to the following event: A fire causes a smoke, not a smoke causes a fire. Note that the allegedly unusual occurrence of the modal WILL in the subordinate clause1. If it were absent, the temporal relation would be usual one: it starts raining, and you'll take your umbrella. Now this is the second paradox to be addressed. (9) The events are in the reversed order that goes the opposite of the causal relation. It is a well-established fact that usually modal WILL can’t occur in subordinate clauses even though the clause refers to a future event: a. If it rains (*will rain) tomorrow, the match will be cancelled. b. If it rained (*would rain) tomorrow, the match would be cancelled. c. If it had rained (*would have rained) yesterday, the match would have been cancelled. 1 (Haegeman and Guéron 1984: 45) 2 −152− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 2 The claim Now my main idea is, "There are no paradoxes in the first place." They are just apparently and seemingly paradoxical, and the concepts of mental causation and intentional stance will help us explain why. The overall picture here is something like this (Fig 1). A causal construction with the form 'P BECAUSE Q,' where P and Q stand for states of affairs, will be interpreted as involving implicit beliefs and intentions, with causal relation holding between the belief that Q and intention that P, not between P and Q themselves. Now what we have to show is that we do actually infer implicit beliefs and intentions in specific cases. Fig 1. Situation Q Belief(Q) Situation P CAUSALITY Intention(P) 3 Mental causation and belief implication Searle (2001: 41) has coined the term ‘mental causation.’ (10) There is only one kind of causation, and it is efficient causation. However, within efficient causation, there is an important subcategory having to do with mental state, or where a mental state causes something else. And within the subcategory of mental causation, there is yet another subcategory, that of intentional causation. We will use the term for a causal relation that holds between mental states such as beliefs, desires, intentions, perceptions, emotions, and so on. Take a simple example to illustrate the notion. (11) He opposed torture because he thought it was a violation of the American tradition of respect for human life and human rights. In this case, BECAUSE-clause denotes his thought (a subtype of mental state) and the main clause denotes an intentional action: there is an implicitly underling intention to oppose torture (notice how odd it is to say “He opposed torture without any intention to do so”). Direct cause of his opposition is his intention to do so. Thus the causal construction denotes a causal relation that hold between (a) his thought and (b) intention to oppose torture – between two distinct mental states. In linguistic terms, a diagnostic feature of mental causation is implication of belief. Compare the examples below: (12) He opposed torture because it was a violation of the American tradition of respect for human life and human rights. 3 −153− Mental causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF clauses:A case study of grammar-pragmatics interface (13) … But he didn’t think so. [i.e. He didn’t think that it is a violation of the American tradition of respect for human life and human rights.] The example (12) does not have the matrix clause "he thought" in (11). Yet, both of them can't be followed by (13) without giving rise to contradiction, which suggests that 'because it was a violation' somehow implied that he thought it was a violation. In other words, we've automatically applied some inferential rule from 'because p' to 'because someone believes p.' Notice that an identical BECAUSE-clause will imply a belief in some cases while it won't in others: (14) So he got into the van and drove to the bottom end of the paddock because he was so tired and needed some sleep. a. #But he wasn’t tired. b. #But he didn’t think he was tired. [belief implication] (15) Even though he didn’t think he was tired, he missed the ball because he was so tired. [no belief implication] The difference between the two is that (14) is an instance of mental causation while (15) an instance of non-mental causation. Generally speaking, mental causation implies some belief on the part of the agent/protagonist, while non-mental causation does not. Consider the following examples: (16) He skipped spending sunset on the beach because it was cloudy. [mental causation] (Los Angeles Times, May 12, 1988) (17) I drank hot tea instead of my usual orange juice this morning because it was cloudy. (Sacramento Business Journal, Dec 21, 2001) [mental causation] (18) He further testified that he took his jacket because it was cloudy (...)[mental causation] (California Courts of Appeal Reports, Oct 9, 1961) (19) Then they[=Solar Cars] couldn't get any power because it was cloudy. [non-mental causation] (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jul 28, 1990) Since the subordinate clauses are identical, the trigger of the inference can't be the linguistic expression per se. Rather, it must be the type of causal relation the construction denotes: mental vs. non-mental causal relations. 4 Intentional stance as an inference rule The latter half of the overall picture is concerned with intentions. As I’ve said, an intentional action is construed as being caused by the very intention to do so. Jackendoff (1995: 214-215; 2007: 4 −154− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 265) has formulated this as a default inference of intentional stance (this is inspired by Dennett’s work, but should not be confused. For one thing, Dennett’s version of intentional stance is not confined to intention, but more widely concerned with mental states in general). (20) The intentional stance [as an inference rule] [X ACT] эdefault ǃ Xǂ ACT [[FROM [ǂ COM [Situation, +Action ǃ]]] (Jackendoff 1995: 214-215; 2007: 265) The formula might seem rather complicated at first sight, basically it says that "if there is an action in a given semantic structure, take it to be intentional." We call this inference “default” since it is cancellable: “unless there is evidence otherwise, we assume that any action is intentional” (Jackendoff 2007: 265). Take (12) for example again. At face value, the sentence seems to denote a causal relation between two states of affairs – between the fact that torture is a violation of the American tradition and his opposition to torture. But the inference of intentional stance brings in his intention behind the opposition as the immediate cause of the action. The fact that torture is a violation of the American tradition can’t be a cause/motivation of his intention unless it is accessible for him. This is why belief implication occurs in the case of mental causation. Hence we end up with an instance of mental causation – a causal relation holding between inferentially introduced mental states rather than two explicit states of affairs P and Q. 5 A solution to the Apparent Paradox I Now it's time to show the solution to the Apparent Paradox I: Why could a counterfactual proposition could be embedded in a factive causal clause. There are two facts we should recall here. First, counterfactual propositions could be embedded in mentally causal clauses, while they couldn't be in non-mentally causal clauses. Second, mentally causal clauses imply some agent's belief(s). Now the solution is not hard to see. The counterfactual propositions can be embedded in mentally causal clauses since the clauses have implicit belief operators (probably in their conceptual/semantic structures). In fact, the examples below are perfectly well-formed: (21) The Euromobile was supposed to visit Denmark in April. But the trip was called off because the government thought it would have been inopportune on the eve of the national referendum on the Maastricht treaty. (New York Times, June 12, 1992) (22) Some International Olympic Committee members said that the vote was not a rejection of Mr. Obama and that his presentation was formidable. Richard W. Pound, a committee member from Canada, said that the other cities wanted to knock Chicago out early because they thought it would have been more difficult to do so in the later rounds. 5 −155− Mental causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF clauses:A case study of grammar-pragmatics interface (New York Times, October 2, 2009) Notice that the counterfactuality is ascribed to the speaker's perspective, not to the protagonist's perspective. What the government thought/believed in (21) is something like "it will be inopportune," since the government didn't know the outcome at the point of time. This is probably due to the intensional-with-an-S context created by the psychological predicate. Let us summarize the question and the answer. Question: Why don't the counterfactual propositions give rise to semantic clash with factive constraint of the causal clauses? – Answer: Because they are implicitly embedded in the scope of belief operators. Now let us take a closer look at specific examples. (23) They refused the chicane because that it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous. This utterance contains a counterfactual clause it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous, which presupposes that nothing unfair was done in fact, in reality. Taken at face value, this should cause semantic anomaly due to the clash between factuality implication of the BECAUSE-clause and the counterfactual meaning of the subjunctive past perfect. However, insertion of a belief operator changes the face value to something that can be paraphrased as follows: (24) They refused the chicane because they believed that it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous. Since their mental state of believing the proposition is not counterfactual, there will be no semantic clash between because and the embedded counterfactual proposition. Note that the situation designated by the counterfactual clause was not counterfactual until they refused the chicane. The same explanation applies to other examples. Consider the following one: (25) Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton said the legislation “never got through the House.” The House did pass a bill to define patient’s rights in August 2001. But Democrats denounced it as a sham, because it would have limited patients’ ability to sue insurers for injuries caused by the denial of care. And the two houses of Congress never reached agreement. (New York Times, Jan 7, 2006) Insertion of a belief operator into the conceptual structure that corresponds to the because-clause results a meaning that could be paraphrased like this: (26) … because they [=Democrats] believed it would have limited patients’ ability to … Again, the expected semantic clash can be avoided by the insertion, deriving exactly what the 6 −156− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 utterance is intended to mean. The above examples might give the impression that the believer role of the inserted belief operator should be identified as the grammatical subject of the matrix clause. However, this impression is wrong. There are more complicated cases. Consider the example below: (27) Democracy arrived so late in Mexico not because it was infeasible, but because it would have diluted the political control of elites. (D. Acemoglu and J. Robinson, "On the economic origins of democracy," Daedalus, Winter 2007) This example is complicated in three respects. First, the surface sentence does not describe the entire causal chain that leads to the delayed democratization in Mexico. Rather, it just picks up two situations as focal points, leaving the rest to be inferred by the addressee. The entire causal chain could be depicted as a historical tree. The tree has three branches that indicate alternative histories. The causal chain implicitly involves some action taken by the ‘elites’ to interrupt the process of democratization in Mexico. Second, the believer of the propositional content embedded in the because-clause is not the grammatical subject of the main clause (i.e. Democracy), but the elites. Thus, the simple explanation that the grammatical subject should be the believer fails to explain the interpretation. Third, what is contrary to fact is not the propositional content of the because-clause: Democracy actually arrived and their political control was diluted in the end. Yet, as we can see from the historical tree in the Diagram, there is an alternative history where democracy arrived earlier if the elites had not interrupted the democratization. The subjunctive past perfect construction invokes this hypothetical history along with other possible alternatives. What is crucial to the utterance interpretation, though, is the insertion of the belief operator. Without it, the construction would be totally incomprehensible. 6 A solution to the Apparent Paradox II What solved the Apparent Paradox I also solves the Apparent Paradox II. At first sight the (28) might seem like a case of temporal reversal, but the causal clause is construed to embed the proposition ‘it will rain’ in the scope of the speaker’s prediction: (28) I’ll take an umbrella because it will rain.2 [cf. because it rains] School grammars sometimes suggest that WILL should not be used in certain syntactic circumstances including if, when and because clauses, but we do sometimes find instances of WILL in because-clauses: e.g. (i) We are aware we are going to be caught on the weekend again, because it will rain, then it will freeze. (CBC.ca, Dec 20, 2007) (ii) Keep that raincoat or umbrella handy if you plan any outdoor activities this weekend, because it WILL rain on Saturday. (Atlanta Journal Constitution, Nov 28, 2008) 2 7 −157− Mental causality in BECAUSE/SINCE/IF clauses:A case study of grammar-pragmatics interface References Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Declerck, Renaat and Susan Reed 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Declerck, Renaat 2005. "The relation between temporal and modal uses of indicative verb forms." Cahier Chronos 13: 215-227. Dennett, Daniel 1989. Intentional Stance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Guéron, Jacqueline “On the temporal function of modal verbs," J. Guéron and J. Lecarne (eds.) Time and Modality, pp. 143-172, MIT Press. Haegeman, Liliane and Herman Wekker 1984. "The syntax and interpretation of futurate conditionals in English." J. Linguistics 20, 45-55. Jackendoff, Ray 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ؐؐؐؐ 2007. Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. MIT Press. McIntosh, A. (1966). "Predictive Statements." In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, and R. H. Robins (eds.), In Memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longmans. Palmer, Frank R. 1994. "Mood and modality." In R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 5, pp. 2535-2540. Oxford: Pergamon Press. ؐؐؐؐ 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reinhart, Tanya 1984. "Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts." Linguistics, 22, 779-809. Searle, John R. 1998. Mind, Language, and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. New York: Basic Books. ؐؐؐؐ 2001. Rationality in Action. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ؐؐؐؐ 2004. Mind: A Brief Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.㸦࣐ࣥࢻ㸸ᚰࡢဴ Ꮫ㸬ᮾி㸸ᮅ᪥ฟ∧♫㸪2006 ᖺ㸬㸧 Sweetser, Eve 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wekker, H. (1976). The Expression of Future Time in Contemporary British English. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Werner, Tom 2005. "The temporal interpretation of some modal sentences in English (involving a future/epistemic alternation)." Cahier Chronos 13: 247-259. 8 −158− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Modal concord in Japanese: some initial observations1 Lars Larm Lund University [email protected] Abstract Modal harmony occurs when one single modality is realised as two modal expressions, as in: ‘Possibly this gazebo may have been built by Sir Christopher Wren’ (Halliday 1970: 328). The importance of this phenomenon is reflected in papers such as Geurts and Huitink (2006), who coined the term ‘modal concord’, and Huitink (in press). In light of this recent development, this paper focuses on the following question: How can the study of Japanese modality contribute to the ongoing discussion of modal concord as a general and cross-linguistic phenomenon? Japan has a rich tradition in the field of modality, and valuable research has been conducted on patterns of co-occurrence between modal adverbs and grammaticalized modal markers. There is thus a solid theoretical and empirical foundation for cross-linguistic work. I discuss collocational patterns described in the literature on Japanese modality and suggest that Japanese has the following types of modal concord: epistemic, evidential (including reportative), and possibly deontic and exclamative concord. Keywords: Modal concord, modal harmony, epistemic, deontic, evidential, adverb-modal collocations 1. The topic This paper focuses on the following research question: How can the study of Japanese modality contribute to the ongoing discussion of modal concord as a general and cross-linguistic phenomenon? However, before turning to the discussion of Japanese, I shall introduce some general aspects of the topic. The term ‘modal concord’ (also called ‘modal harmony’) is used for cases where one single modality is expressed by the combination of two modal expressions, as in Halliday’s example below (Halliday 1970: 328, boldface added): (1) Possibly this gazebo may have been built by Sir Christopher Wren. Halliday (1970: 331) notes that ‘possibly’ and ‘may’ in (1) “reinforce each other (as ‘concord’)”. In discussing this example, Huitink (in press: 2) explains that it “doesn’t express that it is possible that it is possible that Sir Christopher Wren built this gazebo”. Halliday shows that such examples differ from those where the modal expressions are “cumulative in meaning”, as in his example below (Halliday 1970: 331): (2) Certainly he might have built it (‘I insist that it is possible’ or ‘I grant that it is possible’). Consider also the following examples from Huitink (in press: 2): (3) My eyes must certainly be deceiving me. (4) My eyes must be deceiving me. (5) My eyes are certainly deceiving me. Huitink (in press: 2) explains: “although sentence [3] contains both a modal verb and a modal adverb, it seems to express just a single modality. In fact, [3] expresses what could also be expressed by using [4] or [5]”. As seen in the examples above, for modal concord readings to occur, the modal adverb and the auxiliary must be semantically compatible in modal force. Sawada, making reference to Halliday, noted −159− 1 Modal concord in Japanese: some initial observations1 such collocational possibilities already in 1978 (Sawada 1978: 9). Since Halliday (1970), modal harmony has been noted by Lyons (1977: 807-808), Bybee et al. (1994: 214-225), and Hoye (1997). The term ‘modal concord’ was coined by Geurts and Huitink in their important 2006 paper. Since then some papers have appeared, for example, Zeijlstra (2008) who argues that “modal auxiliaries are semantically vacuous in languages like English and Dutch”. See Huitink (in press) for a review of different approaches to the phenomenon. 2. Types of modal concord Examples (1) and (3) above exhibit epistemic concord. In the literature there are also examples of deontic concord, as in: (6) Power carts must mandatorily be used on cart paths where provided (Geurts and Huitink 2006: 15). (7) Students must obligatorily register (Zeijlstra 2008). Further, Schenner (2008) was, to the best of my knowledge, the first to use the term ‘evidential concord’. He poses the following question (2008: 209): Given one or more evidentiality markers EV1 ..., EVn in a language L, can two or even more instances of these markers occur in the same clause or sentence? If yes, does a cumulative or concord interpretation result? Schenner presents examples with the German sollen (2008: 210): (8) Anna soll angeblich krank sein. Anna should allegedly sick be Cumulative reading: ‘it is said that it is said that Anna is sick’ Concord reading: ‘it is said that Anna is sick’ Note also that the English ‘must’ has, in addition to its deontic and epistemic readings, an evidential use. As Hoye (1997: 275) notes, it is collocable with evidential adverbs such as ‘apparently’, ‘evidently’, ‘inevitably’, and ‘obviously’. The following sentence, from Palmer (1990: 27), seems to me to be an example of evidential concord: (9) Evidently, she must have talked to her mother about them, you see, because…. In addition to these basic types of modal concord, one may also make a distinction between what I call modal concord in the narrow and broad sense. The former refers to cases where the modal expressions are clause-mates, as in all examples above. Consider now the following example, in which there is interclausal modal harmony between ‘think’ and ‘may’. (10) Mary thinks it may rain. Portner (2009: 260) says, about (10), that “two modal elements are really present, but their combination happens to be equivalent to a single operator”. 3. Modal concord in Japanese With the basic distinctions presented above in mind, I now turn to Japanese. Narrog (2009: 76) states that “modal adverbs in Japanese usually co-occur with modal markers in the verbal complex”. He also points out the similarity to English modal concord when saying: “this is similar to English where Hoye (1997) speaks of ‘adverb satellites’ for modals”. Furthermore, although it seems that the terms −160− 2 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ‘modal harmony’ or ‘modal concord’ are not used in Japanese linguistic literature, the phenomenon as such, is well known. Japan has a rich tradition in the field of modality, with prominent linguists such as Haruhiko Kindaichi, Yasushi Haga, Takashi Masuoka, Akira Mikami, Fujio Minami, Yoshio Nitta, Harumi Sawada, Yukinori Takubo, Hideo Teramura, Minoru Watanabe, and the list goes on (see Larm 2006 for a review of the Japanese tradition). Japanese grammarians have described different types of ᛂ ko-oo ‘agreement’ relations, including adverb-modal co-occurrence (see for example Kudo 2000, Morimoto 2011 and Sugimura 2009). Thus, I do not claim originality to the data presented below. On the contrary, my point is that there is a solid theoretical and empirical foundation for cross-linguistic work. Japanese has modal concord both in the narrow and in the broad sense. To start with the latter, epistemic modal harmony occurs interclausally between the propositional attitude verb omou ‘think’ and the subjective epistemic daroo as in (Larm 2009: 73): 2 (11) Ashita wa ame ga fur-u daroo to tomorrow TOP rain NOM fall-NPAST CONJ COMP ‘I think that it will probably rain tomorrow.’ omo-u. think-NPAST Note that when omou ‘think’ is in the nonpast form, the cognitive agent must be the speaker. The function of this construction seems to be to reinforce the subjective modality. Although interclausal modal concord is worth further attention, I shall not pursue it in this paper. As for modal concord in the narrow sense, where the modal expressions are clause-mates, Japanese has the following types of concord: epistemic, evidential (including reportative), and possibly deontic and exclamative. The collocational properties of the examples below are well attested in Japanese linguistic literature. Epistemic concord occurs with the subjective marker daroo, as in (12) where it combines with tabun ‘perhaps’ (see Larm 2009 for a discussion of subjective and objective modality): (12) Tabun Ken wa ik-u daroo. perhaps Ken TOP go-NPAST CONJ ‘Perhaps Ken will go.’ Epistemic concord is also observed in the following examples with the objective markers kamoshirenai ‘may’ and nichigainai ‘must’. The former often co-occurs with hyottoshitara ‘possibly’ and the latter is collocable with kitto 'certainly': (13) Hyottoshitara kare wa kuru kamoshirena-i. possibly he TOP come.NPAST SPEC-NPAST ‘There is a chance that he will come.’ (14) Kitto kuru nichigaina-i. certainly come.NPAST DED-NPAST ‘There is no doubt that (s/he) will come.’ Japanese also has evidential concord. Consider the sensory evidential –sooda in (15), the inferential yooda in (16), and the external evidence marker rashii in (17), all three of which can collocate with dooyara ‘apparently’: (15) Dooyara hare-soo da. apparently clear up-SENSEV COP.NPAST ‘It looks as if the weather is going to clear up.’ −161− 3 Modal concord in Japanese: some initial observations1 (16) Dooyara ame ga yan-da yoo da. apparently rain NOM stop-PAST INF COP.NPAST ‘It appears to have stopped raining.’ (17) Dooyara kare wa hon o yon-de i-ru rashi-i. apparently he TOP book ACC read-GER be-NPAST EXEV-NPAST ‘He seems to be reading the book.’ (Aoki 1986: 234, original translation, gloss modified) There is also a subtype of evidential concord which may be called ‘reportative’ or ‘quotative’ concord. The quotative sooda (not to be confused with the sensory evidential –sooda above) marks reported evidence and thus collocates with nandemo, which may be translated, as least in the example below, as ‘reportedly’: (18) Nandemo Ken ga reportedly Ken NOM ‘I hear Ken is getting married.’ kekkon suru soo da. marriage do.NPAST QUOT COP.NPAST It has been difficult to find Japanese examples with deontic concord. However, the following sentence with kanarazu ‘necessarily’ and –nakereba ikenai ‘must’, provided by my informant, seems comparable with the English sentence (7) above. (19) Gakusei wa kanarazu tooroku student TOP necessarily registration ‘Students must necessarily register.’ shi-nake-reba ik-e-na-i. do-NEG-PROV go-POT-NEG-NPAST Thus we see that Japanese has epistemic, evidential, and possibly deontic concord. In addition, I suggest that the Japanese exclamative construction, where nante ‘how; what’ combined with no daroo, can be characterised as ‘exclamative’ or ‘mirative’ concord, as in: (20) Kesa wa nante samu-i no this morning TOP how cold-NPAST NML ‘How cold it is this morning!’ daroo! CONJ It would be of value to investigate whether there are similar examples in other languages. 4. Collocational range By shifting the attention from the grammaticalized modal markers themselves to their possible combinations with modal adverbs, as in the above examples, we can get a grip of their meaning. For example, the subjective epistemic daroo is context dependent to the extent that it could be argued that it lacks a fixed semantic meaning. As Takubo (2009: 175) puts it, “the modal force of daroo is not lexically specified, so the exact translation cannot be given out of context. It can be glossed as ‘will probably’ or ‘will without doubt’ depending on the modal adverb it co-occurs with.” As is well known, daroo may co-occur with adverbs such as tabun ‘perhaps’, osoraku ‘probably’, and kitto ‘surely’: (21) Tabun/osoraku/kitto Ken wa ik-u daroo. perhaps/probably/surely Ken TOP go-NPAST CONJ ‘Perhaps/probably/surely Ken will go.’ Daroo does not, however, co-occur with hyottoshitara ‘possibly’: (22) * Hyottoshitara Ken wa possibly Ken TOP ‘Possibly Ken will come.’ kuru daroo. come.NPAST CONJ −162− 4 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Kamoshirenai and ni chiganai are more specified for modal force. As was shown in (13), kamoshirenai co-occurs with hyottoshitara ‘possibly’, but it does not readily combine with osoraku ‘probably’, and it cannot co-occur with kitto ‘certainly’ (examples from Sawada 1993: 228): (23) ? Sekigunha wa osoraku ima, Arujeria ni i-ru kamoshirena-i. the Red Army TOP probably now Algeria in be-NPAST SPEC-NPAST (Presumably intended to mean) ‘Probably the Red Army may now be in Algeria.’ (24) * Sekigunha wa kitto ima, Arujeria ni i-ru kamoshirena-i. the Red Army TOP surely now Algeria in be-NPAST SPEC-NPAST (Presumably intended to mean) ‘Certainly, the Red Army may now be in Algeria.’ Ni chiganai collocates with kitto ‘certainly’, as in (14) above, but not with hyottoshitara ‘possibly’ and osoraku ‘probably’: (25) * Hyottoshitara kare wa kuru ni chigana-i. possibly he TOP come.NPAST DED-NPAST ‘(lit.) Possibly, he must come.’ Thus, the collocational possibilities of a modal marker make clear its range of meaning in terms of modal force. Moreover, collocability is also useful for distuingishing evidential and epistemic modality. Evidentials do not co-occur with epistemic adverbs such as kitto ‘certainly’, osoraku ‘probably’, and tabun ‘perhaps’: (26) * Kitto/*osoraku/*tabun kuru rashi-i/ ki-sooda. certainly/probably/perhaps come.NPAST EXEV-NPAST/ come.SENSEV ‘Certainly/probably/perhaps (s/he) seems to come/it looks as if (s/he) is coming.’ (27) * Kitto/*osoraku/*tabun kuru yooda/sooda. certainly/probably/perhaps come.NPAST INF/QUOT ‘Certainly/probably/perhaps (s/he) appears to come/(s/he) is said to come. And, conversely, the epistemic markers daroo and ni chigainai do not co-occur with the evidential adverb dooyara ‘apparently’: (28) * Dooyara kuru daroo/ni chiganai. apparently come.NPAST CONJ/DED ‘Apparently (s/he) will/must come.’ As for kamoshirenai, Sugimura (2009: 242) says that it is compatible with dooyara as in (29), but my informant finds this example a little odd: (29) Ashita wa dooyara ame ga fur-u kamoshirena-i. tomorrow TOP apparently rain NOM fall-NPAST SPEC-NPAST ‘(Presumably intended to mean) Apparently it may rain tomorrow.’ 5. Concluding remarks After having considered examples of epistemic, evidential, deontic and exclamative concord, the question arises: Why does modal concord occur? Huitink (in press: 8) suggests that “concord readings arise out of the need to disambiguate lexically underspecified modal expressions”, but this does not seem to be the case in Japanese, or, at least it is not the whole story. In contrast to English, where modals such as ‘must’ and ‘may’ have both epistemic and deontic readings, modal concord in Japanese occurs with modals that are unambiguous in terms of modal flavour. Modals such as daroo, kamoshirenai, and −163− 5 Modal concord in Japanese: some initial observations1 nichiganai are not used deontically. As for modal force, disambiguation may be involved in the case of daroo, which is highly context dependent, but modal concord also happens with the less ambiguous kamoshirenai and nichigainai. It should be pointed out that Huitink is well aware that modal concord may work differently in other languages, and that there can be other reasons for this than disambiguation. She also presents the English counterexample ‘You might perhaps have overlooked this counterexample’ where the “reason might be politeness” (Huitink, in press: 10). Srdanoviü Erjavec, Bekeš and Nishina (2008: 252) point out that “co-occuring of modal adverbs and clause-final modality forms in the Japanese language exhibits a strong agreement-like behaviour”. Referring to the work of Kudo, they state that “the function of modal adverbs is to secondarily reinforce the primary sentence and clause-final modality” (Srdanoviü Erjavec, Bekeš and Nishina 2008: 254). In this connection it is to be noted that Japanese differs from English in that some modal adverbs, for example hyottoshitara ‘possibly’ and dooyara ‘apparently’, almost require a corresponding sentence final modal. The following examples ending with the nonpast, conclusive form are somewhat unnatural: (30) ? Hyottoshitara kare wa possibly he TOP ‘(lit.) Possibly, he will come.’ kuru. come.NPAST (31) ?Ashita wa dooyara ame tomorrow TOP apparently rain ‘Apparently, it will rain tomorrow.’ ga fur-u. NOM fall-NPAST These sentences can be rescued by making their endings less conclusive. Although this need not necessarily be done by an epistemic or evidential marker, there is nevertheless a sense that the modal adverb anticipates a corresponding modal expression. Thus, the motivation for modal concord may be different in Japanese and English. A more in-depth discussion of this issue will, however, have to be left to future work. 1 I wish to thank Dr. Janneke Huitink for comments on aspects of modal concord. I would also like to thank the audience at this conference for their helpful feedback. As this paper represents the content of my presentation, I have not incorporated all the comments and suggestions here, but they will certainly be useful in my future work on this topic. It was a valuable experience for me to take part in the conference; my network has been enriched with new ‘modality-friends’. 2 The abbreviations used in this paper are: ACC = accusative, COMP = complementiser, CONJ = conjectural, COP = copula, DED = deductive, EXEV = external evidence, GER = gerund, INF = inferential, NEG = negative, NML = nominaliser, NOM = nominative, NPAST = nonpast tense, PAST = past tense, POT = potential, PROV = provisional, QUOT = quotative, SENSEV = sensory evidential, SPEC = speculative, TOP = topic. References Aoki, H. (1986). Evidentials in Japanese. In Chafe, W.L. & Nichols, J. (eds). Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology (Advances in Discourse Processes 20). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. 223í238. Bybee, J.L., Perkins, R.D. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Geurts, B. & Huitink, J. (2006). Modal concord. In Dekker, P. & Zeijlstra, H. (eds), Proceedings of the ESSLLI Workshop Concord Phenomena at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Málaga. 15–20. −164− 6 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Halliday, M.A.K. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6:3, 322í361. Hoye, L. (1997). Adverbs and modality in English. Longman: London and New York. Huitink, J. (to appear in Journal of Semantics). Modal concord: A case study of Dutch. Kudo, H. (2000). Fukushi to bun no chinjutsutekina taipu. (Adverbs and types of predicational sentences). In Moriyama, T., Nitta, Y. & Kudo, H. Modaritii (Nihongo no bunpoo 3) (Modality (Japanese Grammar 3)). Tokyo: Iwanamishoten. 163í234. Larm, L. (2006). Modality in Japanese. DPhil thesis. University of Oxford. Larm, L. (2009). West meets East: a Kindaichian approach to subjective modality. In Pizziconi, B & Kizu, M. (eds), Japanese modality: exploring its scope and interpretation. Palgrave Macmillan. 56í86. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morimoto, J. (2011). Nichieigo no shukansei o arawasu fukushi nitsuite. (On Japanese and English adverbs expressing subjectivity. In Sawada, H. (ed.), Shukansei to shutaisei (Hitsuji imiron kooza 5) (Subjectivity (Hitsuji semantics series 5)). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo. 211í229. Narrog, H. (2009). Modality in Japanese: The Layered Structure of the Clause and Hierarchies of Functional Categories. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English modals (2nd edn). Longman: London and New York. Portner, P. (2009). Modality (Oxford Surveys in Semantics and Pragmatics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sawada, H. (1978). Nichieigo bun fukushirui no taishoo gengogakuteki kenkyuu: ‘speech act’ riron no shiten kara (A contrastive study of Japanese and English sentence adverbials: from the viewpoint of speech act theory). Gengo Kenkyu (Language Research) 74. 1í36. Sawada, H. (1993). Shiten to Shukansei: Nichiei Jodooshi no Bunseki (Point of View and Subjectivity: an Analysis of Japanese and English Auxiliaries). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo. Schenner, M. (2008). Semantic Complexity of Evidentials: Some Typological Parameters. In Kokkonidis, M. (ed.): Proceedings of LingO 2007. University of Oxford: Oxford. 204í211. Srdanoviü Erjavec, I., Bekeš, A. and Nishina, K. (2008). ‘Distant collocations between suppositional adverbs and clause-final modality forms in Japanese language corpora’. In Tokunaga, T. and Ortega, A. (eds). Large-scale knowledge resources: construction and application (Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Large-Scale Knowledge Resources). Springer-Verlag. 252í266. Sugimura, Y. (2009). Gendai Nihongo ni Okeru Gaizensei o Arawasu Modaritii Fukushi no Kenkyuu. (A Study of Modals Expressing Probability in Modern Japanese). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo. Takubo, Y. (2009). Conditional modality: two types of modal auxiliaries in Japanese. In Pizziconi, B & Kizu, M. (eds), Japanese modality: exploring its scope and interpretation. Palgrave Macmillan. 150í182. Zeijlstra, H. (2008). Modal Concord is Syntactic Agreement. In Gibson, M. & Friedman, T. (eds). Proceedings of SALT XVII. Ithaca: CLS Publications. 7 −165− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech Chad Nilep Nagoya University [email protected] Abstract This paper examines metaphorical promising, wherein a political actor is held accountable for some future action or state as a result of a discourse jointly constructed by the politician and others. Metaphorical promises are labeled “promises” by, for example, news media yet they do not comprise a single speech act. They are complex discourses jointly constructed by multiple speakers, hearers, and referees, but with outcomes attributed to a single actor. ࠙Keywordsࠚmetaphorical promising, political discourse, media discourse, speech acts 1. Introduction: Canonical speech acts Political promising can be dangerous. Within societies that hold what Alessandro Duranti (1988, 1994) calls personalist ideologies, an individual speaker is held responsible for the content and the consequences of his or her acts of speaking. In mainstream Japanese, British, or American society, as in many other societies, dominant language ideologies hold that speakers can make promises which they are then committed to fulfill. Political actors, in particular candidates for elected office, will frequently promise that if they are given a position they will undertake certain actions for the society and specific positive results will follow. Since the speaker is seen as having both the obligation and the power to fulfill these promises, if the anticipated results do not follow, the politician risks loss of popular support and political power, and possible removal from office. Speech Act Theory as traditionally construed holds to such a personalist ideology. In his 1969 essay, Speech Acts, John Searle defines the act of promising in terms of the actions and the intentions of the speaker: the speaker expresses a proposition; the proposition predicates a future act by the speaker; the speaker intends to do the action; the speaker obliges himself to act; etc. Such a formulation implies that meaning and intent are psychological properties of an individual, the speaker, and that they exist within the speaker prior to the moment of linguistic interaction. S sincerely and non-defectively promises that p to H if and only if the following conditions 1-9 obtain: 1. Normal input and output conditions obtain. 2. S expresses the proposition that p in the utterance of T. 3. In expressing that p, S predicates a future act A of S. 4. H would prefer S's doing A to his not doing A, and S believes H would prefer his doing A to his not doing A. 5. It is not obvious to both S and H that S will do A in the normal course of events. 6. S intends to do A. 7. S intends that the utterance of T will place him under an obligation to do A. 8. S intends (i-I) to produce in H the knowledge (K) that the utterance of T is to count as placing S under an obligation to do A. S intends to produce K by means of the recognition i-I, and he intends i-I to be recognized by virtue of (by means of) H's knowledge of the meaning of T. 9. The semantical [sic] rules of the dialect spoken by S and H are such that T is correctly and sincerely uttered if and only if conditions 1-8 obtain. Figure 1. John Searle’s (1969) definition of a promise −167− Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech Such personalist ideologies are not universal, however. Michelle Rosaldo (1982), for example, argued that members of Ilongot society in the Philippines do not have folk theories of speaker intent, so that they do not consider sincerity and felicity as elements of verbal interaction. Rosaldo's analysis of Ilongot speech acts removes the individual speaker from the central position and considers the social context of hearing. Similarly, Duranti (1988, 1994) describes a Samoan tradition of interpretation in which an utterance's meaning is understood as the change it helps to affect among hearers, without regard for the speaker's intentions. Jane Hill (2001) points out that the “danger” of political promising holds within personalist regimes such as that in the United States. Thus, my remarks about the dangers of political promising should be seen not as universal but as an element of linguistic interaction in particular social settings, specifically, in Japanese and American electoral politics. 2. George H.W. Bush: Read my lips Hill (2001) analyzes a classic example of dangerous political speech which uses a canonical – that is non-metaphorical – but indirect promise. In his speech at the 1988 Republican National Convention accepting the party's nomination as candidate for president, George H.W. Bush told a narrative that foresaw his own future actions. Speaking of the United States Congress, Bush said, “The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I’ll say to them, ‘Read my lips: No new taxes’” Two years later in negotiations with the Congress, then-President Bush agreed to new taxes on alcohol and tobacco, as well as an increase in the top income tax rate. Although some aides to the president, including Peggy Noonan, who had written the “No new taxes” speech, insisted that the speech was not intended as a promise, critics, including Bush's rivals within the Republican party, charged that he had broken a promise and that he had lied about his intentions. Hill (2001) analyzes these competing claims in terms of two social expectations placed on American politicians. On one hand, politicians are expected to present an emotionally appealing self-image, which Hill labels the discourse of theater. In the discourse of theater a political campaign constructs a message through images and music as well as emotionally appealing speech from the candidate. On the other hand, politicians are also expected to provide specific information about their plans for the future, which Hill labels the discourse of truth. In the discourse of truth a politician gives voters his or her word by expressing goals for the future. This expression of goals is bound by H. Paul Grice's maxim of quality: “Try to make your contribution one which is true” (1975: 27). If a politician's word is found to be untrue, that politician will be held unworthy of election. In this case, George H.W. Bush was judged insincere and lost his bid for reelection in 1992. Speech act theory has long recognized that surface linguistic form is neither necessary nor sufficient for identifying a speech act. Speech acts may be indirect. Thus, “I'll say to them, 'Read my lips: No new taxes,” may serve as an act of promising, equivalent to “I hereby promise not to raise taxes,” if the speaker and the hearer share the necessary beliefs, intents, and understandings. This case seems also to suggest, contra Searle, that at least in political promising, the understanding of hearers and referees may play a more important role than the intent of the speaker in determining whether an utterance constitutes a promise. Although Bush did not intend to promise, listeners understood him to have promised; the effect of the speech was to create an obligation in accordance with the hearers’ understanding. Let me turn to two more cases of political promising in which the understandings of hearers do not seem to match the intent of the speakers. What makes these cases especially interesting is not just the match between understanding and intent. These are internal states −168− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 which are, of course, impossible to read directly from the discourse. What makes the cases notable is the match between effects and actual utterances. In each of these cases, an individual politician is charged with having broken his word, yet in neither case is there an utterance in which that word is given. I present two cases. The first, concerning George W. Bush and AmeriCorps, is based on preliminary analysis of a corpus of 190 newspaper articles published between 2001 and 2003 in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. The second case, concerning Yukio Hatoyama and Marine Air Station Futenma, is drawn from my contribution to the forthcoming book Discourses of War and Peace. It is based on a corpus of approximately 450 newspaper articles published in English between 2009 and 2010 in Daily Yomiuri, the International Herald Tribune Asahi, The Japan Times, and the Kyodo news service, as well as the 2009 election manifestos of various political parties 3. George W. Bush: AmeriCorps and community service Although the George W. Bush administration is today generally regarded as a conservative American government, at the time of the younger Bush's election in 2000 he was regarded as a “third way” politician in the mold of Bill Clinton or Tony Blair, neither purely of the political right or left (Milbank 1 Feb 2001). One of the first activities undertaken by the Bush White House was the establishment of an “Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives”, a program that would provide federal funding to religious organizations so that they in turn could provide various community services (LA Times 30 Jan 2001). One of the first things Mr. Bush did to expand community service was to appoint one of his advisers, Steve Goldsmith, to oversee the existing AmeriCorps program (Washington Post 30 Jan 2001). AmeriCorps is a program created by President Clinton to encourage young people to do volunteer community service by helping them pay back their student loans. Largely because of his support for two programs - AmeriCorps and his Faith-Based Initiatives - Bush was labeled a “communitarian”, a leader dedicated to community service. Throughout 2001, as a law to establish and fund the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives made its way through the legislature, newspaper editorials and reporting in the United States made note of this commitment to community. On September 11th, 2001, terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. Bush would soon launch the so-called “War on Terror” as a heading for numerous military attacks as a response (see e.g. Hodges and Nilep 2007 among many others). But some of his earliest speeches after the attack were further calls for community service and civic unity. In January 2002 Mr. Bush gave his first State of the Union address. It included the following lines. USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers. And America needs citizens to extend the compassion of our country to every part of the world, so we will renew the promise of the Peace Corps, double its volunteers over the next five years and ask it to join a new effort to encourage development and education and opportunity in the Islamic world. [Bush 2002] Like his father's narrative of future events (“I will say to them...'no new taxes',”), the younger Bush's description of future events could be understood as an indirect promise. And indeed, AmeriCorps and Senior Corps did recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers over the next −169− Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech five years. According to the most recent information on Senior Corps' web site, that group now has more than 400,000 volunteers, while AmeriCorps has approximately 85,000, up from 50,000 in 2002 (seniorcorps.gov 2011). Applications to the Peace Corps also increased by 39% following Bush's 2002 State of the Union address. Within about a week of the president's speech, charities began predicting that it would be difficult to train and administer all of these new volunteers, given that there was not much increased funding promised (Salmon 8 Feb 2002). Newspapers noted a disparity between socalled “values conservatives” such as the president and “anti-government conservatives” in Congress who vowed not to increase government spending in support of these volunteer organizations (Balzar 17 Feb 2002). The Congress, divided between conservative and progressive members, did not agree on funding for these programs during 2002, despite calls for support of the programs by, among others, Democratic former president Bill Clinton and Republican former cabinet secretary William Bennett. Unlike Clinton or Bennett, though, George W. Bush did not push for increased funding. In December 2002, and again in February 2003 the Washington Post suggested that the White House was not lobbying the government to fund these volunteer programs. The Post cited anonymous members of Congress among other sources for the claim. In the spring of 2003 the White House Office of Management and Budget, the office that oversees accounting of government spending, found technical errors in AmeriCorps's accounts. In order to correct these errors and replace money it had spent inappropriately, the organization would need to cut about $64 million from support for current volunteers. In response the House of Representatives authorized an emergency spending bill. But the Senate, the upper house of Congress, did not approve that bill, meaning that the money could not be spent. The White House made no argument on the issue of emergency spending. A July 17th editorial in the New York Times suggested that by failing to speak on the issue of emergency spending, Mr. Bush was “betraying his oft-repeated promise to expand” AmeriCorps. George Miller, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives said, “at the end of the day he [Bush] broke his promise” (New York Times 26 August 2003). Hillary Clinton, a senator from New York, said that her husband, Bill Clinton, had asked Mr. Bush “to take care of AmeriCorps,” but she charged, “So far, that promise made... has not been fulfilled.” What we see in the case of AmeriCorps is two promises. The first is a relatively straightforward, if indirect, commisive speech act. Mr. Bush said in a public speech, “USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers.” In so saying, he obliged himself to create USA Freedom Corps as a White House program, and further obliged USA Freedom Corps to expand and improve AmeriCorps and Senior Corps. USA Freedom Corps was created, and AmeriCorps and Senior Corps did expand (though more slowly and less evenly than supporters may have wished). The episode also features a second 'promise': Mr. Bush was, in the minds of many people, obliged to lobby on behalf of AmeriCorps and to help secure its funding. We know that people including Hilary Clinton, George Miller, and the editorial board of the New York Times understood this obligation to exist since they accused the president of failing to discharge it. In each case, they called this failure an unfulfilled or broken promise. Unlike the promise to create USA Freedom Corps, however, this obligation was not a direct consequence of any one statement by the president. Instead, a complex chain of discourse, including the president's statements in support of AmeriCorps, statements by rival politicians against increased funding, and statements in news reporting, among others, jointly created the obligation. This resembles a canonical promise in some ways – a message is communicated so −170− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 that an obligation exists – but it also differs in crucial ways. The message is not delivered by the person obligated, but is jointly created by multiple speakers across multiple occasions. It is, in short, a metaphorical promise. 4. Yukio Hatoyama: U.S. Marine Air Station Futenma Let us consider a second metaphorical promise, one which had much more 'dangerous' results for the politician it obligated. In August 2009 Yukio Hatoyama became the prime minister of Japan when the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) took control of the Diet by defeating the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in a general election. A public opinion survey found 72% approval for the Hatoyama government at its launch in September 2009. Within nine months, however, approval had fallen to around 20% and newspapers, opposition politicians, and even former coalition partners were calling for Hatoyama’s resignation (Japan Times 2010, May 5). Press coverage cited two causes for the rapid fall in the government’s popularity: a financial scandal and a broken promise. The financial scandal involved former DPJ president Ichiro Ozawa, an ally of Hatoyama who would later face trial over his alleged misdeeds. The charge of false promises, though, is trickier to untangle. According to news coverage and editorials, Hatoyama failed to deliver on his promise to remove US Marine Corps Air Station Futenma from Okinawa. Of course Hatoyama did not remove the base, and his handling of the issue has made subsequent negotiations between Washington, Tokyo, and Okinawa increasingly difficult. What makes this 'promise' interesting to me, though, is the fact that Hatoyama did not specifically mention the base during the election campaign. Indeed an editorial in the International Herald Tribune Asahi newspaper just before the election expressed disappointment that the DPJ did not promise to remove the base (IHT/Asahi 2009, July 27). Yet by the following spring the same newspaper was among those charging that Hatoyama “failed... on his promise to move the facility” (IHT/Asahi 2010, May 15). A chain of discourse produced by Hatoyama, members of his cabinet, rival politicians, and the news media among others came to be understood in retrospect as a promise attributed specifically to Hatoyama. A 2006 agreement between the Japanese and American governments called the “Roadmap for Realignment Implementation” (MOFA 2006) called for the removal of U.S. Air Station Futenma from the city of Ginowan in Okinawa prefecture. Foreign Minister Taro Aso and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice signed the agreement (henceforth the Aso-Rice agreement), laying out plans to build a replacement base, to move some of the Marines and their families to Guam, and to return the Futenma facility to the Japanese people. Although this plan would remove the base from the city of Ginowan, it was still unpopular with critics who noted that the replacement facility would be nearby on the same Okinawan island. Despite objections, though, subsequent governments made no move to change it. In its 2009 manifesto the DPJ made only one passing mention of military realignment, in Point 51. ᪥⡿ᆅ༠ᐃࡢᨵᐃࢆᥦ㉳ࡋࠊ⡿㌷⦅ࡸᅾ᪥⡿㌷ᇶᆅࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶぢ┤ࡋࡢ᪉ྥ ࡛⮫ࡴࠋ[DPJ 2009a] Propose the revision of the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement. Move in the direction of re-examining the realignment of the U.S. military forces in Japan and the role of U.S. military bases in Japan. [DPJ 2009b] −171− Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech As the party's primary campaign document, the manifesto can be understood as a political promise. It is not clear, though, what is promised. The document mentions a re-examination, but even then promises only to “move in the direction of re-examining.” This imprecise language seems to be the product of disagreement among DPJ politicians. While some favored removal, others opposed it. The rival Liberal Democratic Party’s manifesto criticized this DPJ position, suggesting, “We cannot entrust the safety of Japan to a political party... that cannot even reach agreement among its members about their stance on these [military and diplomatic] issues” (LDP 2009). The Democratic Party won the election on August 30th and began negotiations with the Social Democratic Party and the People's New Party to form a coalition government. According to the Japan Times, the Social Democrats wanted the new government to renegotiate the Aso-Rice agreement, but the DPJ refused, not wanting to show any disagreement with the US (Japan Times 2009, September 11). Over the next few weeks, various cabinet members made conflicting statements on realignment. The State Minister for Okinawa suggested that the government may revisit the Aso-Rice agreement (Kyodo 2009, October 3a), but the Defense Minister said that it would be difficult to find any other solution (Kyodo 2009, October 2). The Foreign Minister said that he planned to renegotiate the agreement with the United States in exchange for Japan's continued support of the war in Afghanistan (Kyodo 2009, October 3b). Eventually, Prime Minister Hatoyama held a press conference to address these conflicting statements. He said that the party's manifesto “is certainly one promise we have made,” but added “I would not deny the possibility that it could change in terms of time” (Kyodo 2009, October 7). Hatoyama's remarks frame the manifesto as a promise, but they do not make clear what if any action was promised. In October and November parliament met in extraordinary session. Since the United States Congress had recently voted to accept the Aso-Rice agreement, editorials from the major newspapers all called for the government to announce its relocation plan quickly (Daily Yomiuri 2009, October 14; Japan Times 2009, October 23; IHT/Asahi 2009, October 27). When the Diet session ended without addressing the issue, editorials criticized Hatoyama (Daily Yomiuri 2009, December 4; IHT/Asahi 2009, December 5). In December Hatoyama announced that he would not make any decision on the Futenma relocation issue before the end of the year. Public approval for the government fell from around 70% to less than 50% with many respondents expressing displeasure with the prime minister’s lack of leadership (IHT/Asahi 2009, December 23). In January 2010 Hatoyama announced, “The government shall decide on a specific replacement site by the end of May” (Kyodo 2010, January 30). Unlike earlier statements, this was a clear and specific commitment to a future action: Hatoyama promised that his government would make a decision by the end of May. By April editorials in the major papers were referring to Hatoyama’s plural “promises” (IHT/Asahi 2010, March 6; Daily Yomiuri 2010, April 15; Japan Times 2010, April 24). Hatoyama insisted to reporters that neither the DPJ manifesto nor any official statement from the government had ever promised to remove the base from Okinawa. On May 6th he told reporters, “Moving it at the very least outside the prefecture merely represented my own thinking” (Asahi.com 2010). Editorials, however, seized upon the words “at least outside the prefecture,” and cast this not as an excuse for why the government might not act but as a promise that it would. The Japan Times, for example, wrote on May 7th, “Before the Aug. 30 Lower House election last year, Mr. Yukio Hatoyama... made a campaign pledge to move U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Okinawa, outside −172− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Okinawa or even abroad.” Media and party documents from 2009, however, record no such pledge. On May 13th the DPJ released its revised base realignment plan. Contrary to expectations, it was substantially identical to the 2006 Aso-Rice plan, with several minor modifications. Hatoyama seemed to feel that he had delivered on his promise, as the government did decide on a replacement plan before the end of May. Since the decision did not meet the public's expectations for major change, however, the press declared that Hatoyama “has effectively reneged on his promise” (IHT/Asahi 2010, May 15). Amid growing criticism from the news media and from the coalition partner Social Democratic Party, Hatoyama announced his intention to resign on June 2nd, 2010. In the events as I have just described them, Yukio Hatoyama produced three relevant spoken utterances - his statement that the DPJ manifesto constituted a promise, his promise that the government would announce a plan by the end of May, and his hedge that moving the base outside of Okinawa was a personal preference but not a political promise. Hatoyama should also be regarded as an author of the party's election manifesto. In addition, though, several other individuals or groups also contributed to this discourse. They include Taro Aso, Condoleeza Rice, and other contributors to the Roadmap for Realignment; members of the Hatoyama cabinet; the Social Democratic Party, which urged the government to renegotiate; and many news reports and editorials. By May 2010 there was an expectation that the government would do something about Air Station Futenma (though there does not seem to be any broadly shared notion of what that something was). There was also a belief that, as the head of the government, Yukio Hatoyama was responsible for fulfilling this expectation. When the government's plan disappointed most observers, news media and editorials declared that Hatoyama had broken a promise. 5. Metaphorical promising and canonical promises As a metaphor features a match between some, but not all, of the semantic features of the vehicle and the target, the description and what is described, a metaphorical promise features a match with some, but not all, of the characteristics of a traditional promise. In the discourses described above, the 'promise' is not a particular utterance produced by an individual speaker, but a chain of utterances and interpretations. Clearly such a discourse cannot fulfill the usual conditions for the speech act of promising, which center on the speaker, the proposition, and the speaker's intentions. Just as clearly, though, this discourse has consequences similar to those of other political promises for the individual held responsible for its effects. Like a traditional promise, a metaphorical promise is politically dangerous. canonical promise metaphorical promise locutionary act “I promise that A” (“I can do A for you” etc.) [multiple utterances, events, and speakers] illocutionary act S promise H that S does A H expects that S does A perlocutionary act S is obliged to do A Figure 2. Canonical promises and metaphorical promises S is obliged to do A None of the preceding should be taken as political apologetic. I am not concerned here with whether it is more politically effective to make plans individually or in concert, nor if it is better to express those goals directly or indirectly. Neither are my remarks a criticism of the media sources analyzed. It seems that English uses the same label, promise, both for the −173− Metaphorical Promising: Joint Construction of Political Speech commissives traditionally analyzed in speech act theory and for the related but more complex discourse chains analyzed here. Thus for the media to refer to metaphorical promises as “promises” might reveal something about English meta-linguistic categories, but it says nothing in particular about the individuals who use the word. Instead, these remarks are intended to provide a new analytic lens for the understanding of discourse in political and other interpersonal domains. The metaphorical promises described above resemble the traditional speech act of promising in important ways. In either case, an individual – we could call him or her S – is obliged to undertake a particular action. In both cases, the expectation that S will undertake that action comes about as a result of spoken or written discourse. What differs is the nature of the actual discourse. Unlike the promises traditionally analyzed by speech act theory, metaphorical promises are not spoken by that individual, S. Instead, the discourse is jointly produced by multiple speakers, and then attributed to S. References Duranti, A. 1988. Intentions, language, and social action in a Samoan context. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 13-33. Duranti, A. 1994. From Grammar to Politics: Linguistic Anthropology in a Western Samoan Village. Berkeley: University of California Press. Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58. Hill, J. 2001. “‘Read My Article’: Ideological complexity and the overdetermination of promising in American presidential politics.” In P. Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe: SAR Press, 259-292. Hodges, A. and C. Nilep. 2007. Discourse, War and Terrorism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nilep, C. forthcoming. Promising without speaking: military realignment and political promising in Japan. In A. Hodges (ed.) Discourses of War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosaldo, M. 1982. “The things we do with words.” Language and Society 11:2, 203-237. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cited data sources Balzar, J. 17 February 2002. Charity doesn’t begin in the House [commentary]. Los Angeles Times. Bumiller, E. 26 May 2003. Bush 'compassion' agenda: An '04 liability? New York Times. Bush, G.H.W. 18 August 1988. Address to the Republican National Convention. New Orleans. Bush, G.W. 30 January 2002. State of the Union Address. Washington. Democratic Party of Japan [DPJ]. 2009a. Minshuto no seiken seisaku manifesto 2009 [Democratic Party's government policy manifesto 2009]. http://www.dpj.or.jp/ policies/ manifesto2009 DPJ. 2009b. 2009 Change of government: The Democratic Party of Japan's platform for government. http://www.dpj.or.jp/english/manifesto/manifesto2009.pdf IHT Asahi. 27 July 2009. Minshuto on policy [editorial]. IHT Asahi. 19 May 2010. What is DPJ thinking? [editorial]. Japan Times. 7 May 2010. Mr. Hatoyama at an impasse [editorial]. Liberal Democratic Party [LDP]. 2009a. Jiminto seisaku [Liberal Democratic Party policy]. http://www.jimin.jp/jimin/jimin/2009_yakusoku/contents/04.html LDP. 2010. Liberal Democratic Party: The ability and strength to be responsible for protecting Japan. http://www.jimin.jp/jimin/english/pdf/2009_yakusoku_e.pdf Milbank, D. 5 September 2003. Point of contention evokes points of light pledge. Washington Post. Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MOFA]. 1 May 2006. United States-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation. http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/scc/doc0605.html New York Times. 17 July 2002. Timely help for AmeriCorps [editorial]. Salmon, J. 8 February 2002. Non-profit groups cool on call for volunteers. Washington Post. −174− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac Sumiyo Nishiguchi Tokyo University of Science [email protected] <Abstract> This data is from my fieldwork in 2005−2006 and 2011. In Dhaasanac, stress on negative sentences cancels negation and emphasizes an affirmative answer. Such polarity reversal requires specific context such as the presence of really or the hearer's doubt. As the non-truth-conditional interpretation of negation is a characteristic of metalinguistic negation (Horn 1985), I will argue that the focused negative sentence expresses objection toward the previous utterance, and that disbelief is not allowed in any of the deontically accessible worlds of the speaker. ࠙Keywordsࠚ㸸focus, really, bias, truth-condition, modality 1. Focused Negation in Dhaasanac Dhaasanac is a Cushitic language spoken by approximately 40,000 people in Ethiopia and Kenya (Lewis 2009). Apart from the studies conducted by Sasse (1976), Tosco (2001), and Nishiguchi (2007, 2009), there is little linguistic literature available on Dhaasanac. The data used in the present study is based on my fieldwork conducted in 2005 and 2006 in New York State and summer 2011 in Kenya. 1. Negation Negation in Dhaasanac is an obligatory bipartite, that consists of the negative marker ma ‘not’ and a negative verbal suffix an or n. (1) would form a negative answer to an unbiased question as in (2A). (1) Yaa ma dhaanan. I not swim.PERF.NEG ͂I did not swim.’ (2) A: Ko dhanate? you swim.2SG.PAST ͂Did you swim?’ B1: Yaa dhandhe. I.NOM swim.1SG.PAST −175− 1 Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac ͂I swam.’ B2: Yaa ma I.NOM not dhanan. swim.1SG.PAST ͂I did not swim.’ Speaker A does not have any preconceived idea about whether the hearer swam or not. Neither the affirmative answer in (2B1) nor the negative answer in (2B2) has a sharp pitch or intensity accent, which is present in the following example. 2. Focus and Bias On the contrary, the biased question with the presence of kin ‘really’ triggers pitch and intensity accent to have a rising intonation on negative verbs as in (3). Interestingly, stress on negative sentences, as in (3B), reverses the polarity and emphasizes the affirmative answer. I did not swim with stress means I did swim. In particular, pitch and intensity accent with rising intonation on negative verbs emphatically affirms the positive counterpart as demonstrated in (4). (3) A: Ko kin dhanate? you really swim.2SG.PAST Did you really swim?’ ͂ B: {YÁÁ/YU} ma DHAnan.i I.NOM/I.ABS not swim.1SG.PAST ͂I did swim, didn’t I?’ (4) a. Yaa ma sien. I not go.1SG.PAST.NEG ͂I did not go.’ b. YAA ma SIEN. I not go.1SG.PAST.NEG ͂I did go.’ Such affirmative interpretation of focused negative sentences requires specific context, such as the presence of really in the question in (3A) or the hearer’s doubt with regard to the affirmative answer. Really is known to signal the questioner’s bias toward the negative answer, and is called the VERUM focus operator (Romero & Han 2004). 3. No Embedding Focused negation in embedded clauses, as in (5), is never interpreted to be positive. Affirmative interpretation of focused negation is limited to simple sentences. −176− 2 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 (5) Baalii keiye yaa{i=speaker} ma dhanan. Baali say.3SG.PAST I.NOM not swim.1SG.NEG ͂Baali said {he/I} did not swim.’ 4. PPI Licensing by Focused Negation Maadhat ‘someone’ is a positive polarity item (PPI) antilicensed by negation, while maa ‘person’ is a negative polarity item (NPI) licensed by negation as in (6B2) (cf. Klima 1964). The PPI maadhat ‘someone’ is grammatical in (7B), where negation is focused and receives affirmative interpretation. (6) A: Ko kin maadhat argiye? you really someone see.PAST ͂Did you really see someone?’ B1: Yaa (maadhat) arge. I someone see.PAST ͂I saw someone.’ B2: Yaa maa I.NOM person arge man. see.PAST not ͂I didn’t see anyone.’ (7) A: Ko kin maa argiye man? you really someone see.PAST.2SG not ͂Did you really see someone?’ B: Yu I someone maadhat ma not arging. see.PAST ͂I did see someone.’ 2. Descriptive Negation If we interpret focused negation truth-conditionally, an affirmative interpretation would not be obtained from negative propositions. (8) a. {YÁÁ/YU} ma DHAnan. I.NOM/I.ABS not swim.1SG.PASt ͂I did swim, didn’t I?’ b. YAA ma SIEN. I not go.1SG.PAST.NEG ͂I did go.’ (9) [[ ¬¬ p ]] = [[ p ]] = [[ ¬pF ]] 3 −177− Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac Since the sentences in (8) are negative, we have no other way apart from interpreting the focus to be equivalent to another negation, and to reverse polarity. According to the law of double negation, focus is supposed to cancel the other negation. For example, Baali didn’t go with focus in (8b) is equivalent to it is not true that I didn’t go, which is the same as I went. Focus appears to substitute for another negation, which cancels the predicate negation. However, is this actually the case? 3. Metalinguistic Negation 1. Metalinguistic Negation According to Horn (1985), non-truth conditional interpretation of negation is considered one of the characteristics of metalinguistic negation. Therefore, some kinds of negation are not treated as semantic or truth-functional operators but rather as devices for objecting to a previous utterance. In the original example in Russell (1905), The present king of France is not bald, neither the present king of France is bald nor the present king of France is not bald is true if the king in France is absent. Supposing that there is a king of France, an existential presupposition of the definite description the king of France is preserved under the negation in (10a). Not is a predicate negation that negates the predicate be bald. In contrast, negation in (10b) cancels the existential presupposition of the king of France. (10) a. The king of France is not bald. He still has hair. b. The king of France is not bald. There is no king in France. Internal negation, as in (10a), is truth-conditional or descriptive negation, which preserves presuppositions. The definite description the king of France maintains existential import. Negation is a hole for presuppositions. On the other hand, external or metalinguistic negation, such as in (10b), cancels presuppositions. There is no king in France; therefore, the negation negates the assertability of the utterance. Metalinguistic negation is used to negate the phonetic sound (11a), to express unwillingness to assert conditionals (11b), and to cancel scalar implicature (11c). The negation in (11a) negates the pronunciation of ‘7-CL’ in western Japanese dialect. In (11b), the negation does not negate the proposition, but instead cancels material implication—when the antecedent it rains is true, the consequent the mall gets crowded holds false (Grice 1975). Negation eliminates upperbounded implicature associated with the scalar adverb predication. In (11c), Mao skated well implicates that 4 −178− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Mao’s skating was not excellent or perfect which are located at higher scalar points. (11) a. I did not say hichinin. I said shichinin. [pronunciation] b. It is not true that if it rains, the mall gets crowded. There was no one there last Sunday when it rained. [conditional] c. Mao did not skate well. She performed perfectly. [scale] In each case, metalinguistic negation signals the speaker’s unwillingness to assert a given proposition and registers objection to a previous utterance, including its pronunciation. 2. Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac Adopting Horn’s theory can allow for the explication of a curious phenomena in Dhaasanac. Since negation does not negate the proposition—NOT I swam does not mean I did not swim—focused negation in Dhaasanac is not descriptive negation, but instead metalinguistic negation. Negation is used to express the speaker’s objection to content. 2.1. Modality The question ‘Did you really swim’ in (3A) signals the speaker’s bias that s/he does not believe that the hearer actually swam. In all accessible worlds compatible with the available evidence, the hearer did not swim in (12). (12) [[Ko kin dhanate? ‘Did you really swim?’]] ~> ∀w’∃e[Epi(w)(w’) Ѝ swim(e)(w’) & agent(e) = h & time(e) = t & t طnow] (w: actual world, h: hearer, Epi: epistemic accessibility relation, α طβ indicates α proceeds β in time) (13) [[YAA/YU ma dhanan ‘I did swim’]] ~> ∀w’∃e [Deon(w)(w’) Ѝ [say(e)(w’) & theme(e) = Yaa ma dhanan & agent(e) = h] (w: actual world, h: hearer, Deo: deontic accessibility relation) In the hearer’s response in (13), the focused negative sentence expresses objection toward the previous utterance. Specifically, the previous event by the addressee, uttering disbelief for the fact is not allowed in any of the worlds that are deontically accessible from the actual world. The hearer should not have asked such an inappropriate question if the rules for conversation or proper manner are strictly enforced (Grice 1975). 2.2. Negation Outscopes TRUE Now that focused negation is a non-truth-conditional negation, what exactly does it contribute to? As NPIs are ungrammatical under metalinguistic negation, Linebarger (1981) formalizes external negation by 5 −179− Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac representing the logical form of denial. The LF in (14b) suggests that the NPI red cent fails to be licensed by negation because the negation applies to a semantic TRUE and denies the truth of the statement, not the propositional content. If Linebarger (1981)’s analysis is applied to metalinguistic negation in Dhaasanac, we obtain the LF in (15): (14) a. *The king of France didn’t contribute one red cent because there is no king of France. b. (15) NOT TRUE (the king of France contributed one red cent...) NOT TRUE (Yaa dhandhe ‘I swam.’) Negation cancels the assertability of the utterance I swam. The speaker is expressing unwillingness to assert the proposition. 2.3. Negation Outscopes VERUM Reminiscent of Linebarger (1981)’s analysis, Romero and Han (2004) analyze preposed negative questions and explain non-truth-conditional interpretations of negation by scopal interaction between verum focus operator and negation. Verum focus (stress on polarity elements (Höhle 1992)) signals the presence of the VERUM operator in LF (cf. really) (Romero & Han 2004). Romero and Han (2004) claim that preposed negative yes-no questions contain the epistemic conversational operator VERUM. Their argument is based on the fact that in contrast with nonpreposed negative yes-no questions (16S2), preposed negation in yes-no questions necessarily contributes to positive implicature when the speaker is positively biased (16S1). (16) a. A: Jane came. S1: Didn’t Pat come too? [Positive epistemic implicature: The speaker believes or at least expects that Pat came.] b. S2: Did Pat not come too? [No epistemic implicature] LF: [CP Q NOT VERUM [TP Pat is coming ]] In preposed negative yes-no questions, as in (16aS1), negation is not interpreted clause-internally since the VERUM operator intervenes between the proposition and the negation, as shown in the LF in (16b). On the other hand, without the presence of VERUM or epistemic bias in nonpreposed negative yes-no-questions, negation is interpreted internally. The speaker’s bias or the presence of VERUM is also signaled by polarity focus or the lexical item really. Positive bias licenses the PPI too in (18a), because too is not in 6 −180− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 the scope of negation that is metalinguistic, while a negatively biased question licenses the NPI either in (18b). (17) (18) A: After all the studying he did, Tom got an A in Ling106. S3: DID he study for that class? (negatively biased) S4: Did he REALLY study for that class? (negatively biased) LF: [CP Q VERUM [NOT [TP he studied for the class]]] a. S: Isn’t Jane coming too? (positive bias) LF: [CP Q NOT [VERUM [TP Jane is coming too]]] S: Isn’t Jane coming either? (negative bias) b. LF: (19) gx/i [[VERUMi]] [CP Q VERUM [NOT [TP Jane is coming too]]] = [[reallyi]]gx/i = [[be sure]]([[i]]gx/i) = λp<st>.λws: ∀w͛∈ Epix(w)[p(w’) = 1] (i: addressee or the individual sum of the addressee and the speaker) (20) Assumption: Focus on negative sentences necessarily contributes an epistemic operator VERUM. In Dhaasanac negation, speakers presuppose that Baali went, that is, positively biased. The implicature raised by focused negation is a positive implicature. The VERUM operator is explicit in focus (Romero & Han 2004). VERUM that arises from polarity focus (focus on polarity elements such a verb and auxiliaries) contributes to positive implicature, and outscoped negation is not interpreted clauseinternally. (21) (22) a. Baali ma sien. b. LF: [CP NEG [TP Baali went ]] a. Baali ma sien. b. LF: [CP VERUM NEG [TP Baali went ]] Thus, the presence of the VERUM operator, signaled as the speaker’s bias, blocks the clause-internal interpretation of metalinguistic negation. 4. Conclusion This paper presented new data on Dhaasanac, an understudied language. In this language, when a speaker wishes to correct a hearer’s belief regarding a negative proposition, the speaker uses greater intensity and rise-and-fall intonation on a negative verb, thereby causing the utterance to be interpreted as affirmative. Such 7 −181− Metalinguistic Negation in Dhaasanac negation is not truth-conditional or predicate negation, but metalinguistic negation. Epistemic bias signaled by focus blocks the clause-internal interpretation of negation. NOTE i Dhaasanac is a tone language, as the following minimal tonal pairs suggest: (i) a. ár ‘bull’ - ar ‘song’ b. éllu ‘back’ - ellu ‘cheeks’ REFERENCES Grice, P. 1975. "Logic and Conversation." In Syntax and Semantics 3, Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Höhle, T. N. 1992. "Über Verum Fokus in Deutschen." Linguistische Berichte, 112– 141. Horn, L. R. 1985. "Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity." Language 61, 121–174. Klima, E. 1964. "Negation in English." In J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz (eds.) The Structure of Language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lewis, M. P. 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (16th ed.). Dallas: International Academic Bookstore. Linebarger, M. 1981. The Grammar of Negative Polarity. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. Nishiguchi, S. (2007) "Bimoraic Filter and Sonority Sensitive Syllable Contact in Dasenach Imperfective." Research in African Languages and Linguistics (RALL) 7, 43-58. Nishiguchi, S. (2009) "Polarity Focus in Dhaasanac." IHAFA: A Journal of African Studies, 5: 3, 244-259. Romero, M. and C.-h. Han. 2004. "On Negative Yes/No Questions." Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 609–658. Russell, B. 1905. "On Denoting." Mind 14, 479–493. Sasse, H.-J. 1976. "Dasenach." In M. L. Bender (ed.) The Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia, 196–221. East Lansing, MI: African Studies Center, Michigan State University. Tosco, M. 2001. The Dhaasanac Language. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. −182− 8 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 "Okay" in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions of International Scientific Conference Presentations Yusuke Okada Ritsumeikan University <Abstract> This conversation analytic study aims to clarify what the type of "okay" accomplishes, which is employed in the pre-second (i.e. pre-answering) position after a question from an audience member. The analysis of four examples found in the corpus of 41 Q&A sessions of international scientific conference presentations discovered that "okay" is employed at the pre-second position in a specific sequential environment. The analysis indicates that "okay" is tactically employed by the presenters in that environment as a transition marker to maximize reclamation of presenter's knowledge on the questions being asked by the audience members. [Keywords]: 1 okay, 2 pre-second position, 3 knowledge construction, 4 Q&A sessions, 1. Introduction The act of questioning reveals any given participants' knowledge on the issue that the question addresses. Questioning makes an answer conditionally relevant (Schegloff, 1968): therefore, when an answer is not given to a question, an implication is drawn. In debate, for instance, failing to oppose an interlocutor's question means the respondent's failure to defend his or her position on the issue raised by the question (Bilmes, 1999, 2001). The power of questioning is very strong and one cannot "'naively choose' not to answer" a question (Schegloff, 1968, p. 1086). In addition, the design of a question limits or biases the format and amount of the response to the question. However, there is a sequential slot in which a respondent can show his or her epistemic stance free from the question format on the issue being topicalized by the question: that is, the pre-second position ⎯ the sequential position before the second-pair part which is relevant to the second pair part rather than the first There are some studies on response tokens used in the pre-second position (e.g. "oh" by Heritage, 1984 and "well" by Schegloff & Lerner, 2009) and how they contribute to the discursive knowledge construction of a participant. "Okay" can be considered as one of the response tokens. It has been found that "okay" in the third-turn position (i.e. the turn taken by the imitator of an adjacency pair after the second pair part is performed). shows that the initiator of an adjacency-pair accepts the second pair part performed by the co-conversationalist and also displays the initiator's orientation to close the sequence and the topic developed by the adjacency pair (e.g. Beach, 1993; Gurthrie, 1997; Pillet-Shore, 2003; Schegloff, 2007). However, what "okay" performs at the pre-second position has not been addressed so far, although "okay" in the pre-second position is found in my data corpus of a type of naturally-occurring interaction. The aim of this study is to describe the participants' use of one of the response tokens⎯"okay"⎯in the pre-second position in the question-answer sequence and to investigate how such use of the token is related to the construction of the interactant's knowledge on a specific issue being asked by the questions. The findings of this study will contribute to the effort that the past research studies have made for explicating the ways knowledge is discursively constructed. −183− "Okay" in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions of International Scientific Conference Presentations 2. The data The data used for this chapter are from the corpus of video-recorded data of 41 Q&A sessions of scientific presentations at an international scientific conference. It was held in Japan and 204 research studies were presented over four days. The participants of the conference came from 22 countries and regions. Each presentation had a 12-minute presentation part and a 3-minute Q&A session. In the presentations, English was used as lingua franca. Of the 41 data, all the presenters were English as second or foreign language speakers except for one presenter. 3. Data Analysis Out of the 41 Q&A-sessions data, four cases were found in which the presenters used "okay" in the pre-second position. The segment below is an example of that type of "okay." Segment 1 [10QA: 1-D-IV-1] ('Q' for Questioner (Japanese), 'P' for Presenter (Japanese)) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Æ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Q: Q: P: P: Q: thank you very much for your: presentation. I have some question. (0.3) the: there is uh (.) eh three components of (.) turbulent (0.3) heat flux. (0.3) you show the:: (.) ehto ehto- ehto- (0.3) (the) components (0.3) eh:to of the dublyu (("W")) (0.2) seeta (("ș")) (0.2) to the .hh (0.5) ↑did you, (0.5) observe (no) measure (.) (than the) there are the other (.) components. (1.2) (than-) three components. (0.7) uh okay a:nd uh: (0.2) the- uh: (0.4) open spaces is maybe uh: the: cases are heat sources are (.) uh the- surfaces uh (0.5) uh >ground surfaces.< .hhh an’ then the: are: ↓the:: (.) this cases uh maybe uh the: ↓uh:: measure of heat transfer from the vertical uh directions. .hhh but (0.4) a:n’ then the: (0.2) >(urban)< spaces in the: ↓uh the (0.3) wall and (.) uh:: road (.) .hh this case is maybe uh:: (0.5) uh: >maybe-< very complicated but .hh the: uh: from the surface, (0.4) uh: the heat transfer (0.5) uh:: w- (0.3) we can (.) exact- eh- (0.2) uh: exact uh: the: (0.2) °Ļu:n° measure- (0.3) measures (.) is: (0.2) very- uh difficult. .hhh an’ then a- another po- uh the maybe the (adbiction) te:rms (0.4) from the: (0.4) horizontal (0.3) uh maybe the ex ((“X”)) and wai ((“Y”)) (0.4) uh: component. maybe uh the: (0.3) uh some cases very important. .hhh but uh this cases are only uh the: uh: (0.3) ↓u::n (0.4) my uh: our: uh attention is this uh: (0.2) uh heat=transfer from the vertical heat transfer only. .hh uh: (0.9) y- uh (0.2) i know uh what you say uh: the very important uh: point. (0.2) uh: the in the future that i: would try it. (1.5) °(i’m okay)° In line 22, the presenter uses "okay" before specifically addressing the question initiated in lines 13–18 and 20. Therefore, the "okay" appears in the pre-response part of the question-answer adjacency pair. Looking at the question turn format, we can see it is prefaced with a specification of the point which is delivered in the presentation lines 14–17 and is −184− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 formatted with a kind of negative interrogative "did you, (0.5) observe (no) measure (.) (than the) there are the other (.) components." (lines 17–18). The design of this question suggests that the questioner expects that the presenter did not measure besides the components introduced in the presentation and this question format invites a negative answer (see Heritage 2010). Therefore, the design of the question-turn can be considered as challenging: if the presenter answered "no," then the next question would be "why didn't you measure it?" or some similar kind of accusation would be issued; if the presenter replied "yes," then "why didn't you talk about it in the presentation" would be a possible next question. So in either way, the presenter has to give a detailed account on the issue and this of course requires a certain amount of relevant knowledge. However, in the next turn after the question, which is normatively attributable to the presenter because of conditional relevance (Schegloff, 1968), he does not respond to the question and a 1.2-second gap of silence is produced. The questioner treats the 1.2-second gap of silence as the presenter's trouble in understanding the question and executes a repair for a possible trouble source, that is, a part of his question by rephrasing "(than the) there are the other components" (line 18) to "(than-) three components" (line 20). However, this does not result in getting a reply, with a 0.7-second gap of silence being left. Then, after this gap, the presenter says "uh okay a:nd uh: (0.2) the- uh: (0.4) open spaces is" in line 22. His reply extends to lines 46. The questioner accepts the presenter's answer with the third turn position "okay" in line 48. In this segment, although "okay" is used in the pre-answer position, it does not come immediately after the question; a certain amount of silence precedes the "okay." As reviewed in the previous section, the presenter's job in the Q&A session is to defend his or her position delivered in the paper presentation part, because the main activity of the Q&A sessions is an evaluation of the presenter's point of view. Therefore, if the presenter fails to give a response to a question, then an unfavorable inference is normatively made (Bilmes, 1993): that is, the presenter is seen to be unknowledgeable on the topic of the question, although a question in Q&A sessions is normatively supposed to be related to the contents of the presentation. While the silence in line 19 is constructed as a questioner-caused trouble due to the questioner's repair (line 20) of his clumsy question construction in line 18, the silence occurs after the repair in line 20, which retrospectively implies that the silence in line 19 is caused by something other than trouble in the construction of the question. Therefore, in this segment of interaction, the presenter's being silent in line 21 and also in 19 retroactively implicates that he cannot answer the question because of some kind of trouble of his own. "Okay" is used in this sequential environment and it seems to achieve three interactional effects in the pre-second position: first, it indicates the presenter's acceptance of the previous question; second, by displaying his acceptance, "okay" puts a period on the sequence in which the presenter's knowledge on the issue is questioned; and third, since "okay" works as a quasi-answer to the question, it invalidates the bias made on the answer format by the questioning turn design. The first two points is made possible by the conventional meaning of "okay" which is seen at the third turn position. Because the conventional meaning, "okay" in the pre-second position makes the presenter look competent enough to at least understand the question and move to the postponed second pair part. The last interactional value of "okay" is specific to the "okay" employed in the pre-second position. Although it is not a corresponding answer to the question and therefore cannot be categorized as one which appeared in the pre-second position, it is a kind of reply to a question: after the "okay" any form of answering is acceptable. This is what the presenter does in line 22: his response to the question is neither "yes" nor "no" but after the "okay" is " a:nd uh: (0.2) theuh: (0.4) open spaces is". A similar pattern is found in the segment below. −185− "Okay" in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions of International Scientific Conference Presentations Segment 2 [04QA: 1-B-III-2] ('Q' for Questioner (Japanese), 'A' for Audience members; 'P' for Presenter (Japanese)) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Æ 43 Q: P: A: Q: Q: P: Q: Q: Q: P: Q: Q: P: P: ( ) is Mitsui °from ( ) university.° uh- uh- I understand the: £flow pattern of the ( )£ haha hehehe but >I JUST WON-< (0.2) wonder uh: the (0.3) can we ss (0.2) call this tube as micro channel? (1.1) yeah because uh: the I think uh the ( ) flow is dominant and the du- due to maybe due to the very low (0.5) uh:::n density ratio. °I thi[nk ° [yeah. (0.9) so (0.3) i- it too looks uh: uh ( ) conventional chch- uh ch- channel. (0.3) so: i- (0.8) u- usually (.) in the mini channel or micro channel. uh: the ( ) or (0.6) ( ) flow is dominant and the ss sometime¿ (.) nyean .h very often (0.2) uhn the:: (0.6) the:: very big, (0.6) (bubble) (1.3) such as two hole of the two and thus (0.7) the flow pattern is a (0.2) ↓very different from this:. (2.1) yeah. so- [so- so(h)rry. heh .h [( ) (0.3) difficult question but (1.4) yes. [( ) [eh:: (1.4) oka(h)y. (0.4) ((turns to the slide)) eh (0.8) this uh: (0.4) this period show uh shows the flow It is obvious that the presenter's knowledge on the question topic is cast into doubt because of his silence in the face of a challenging question and the questioner's subsequent explicit disagreement to the presenter's position as well as the questioner's categorization of the question as a difficult question. In this interactional environment, "okay" in line 42 seems to achieve the same interactional effects that we saw in the previous segment: that is to say, "okay" indicates that the presenter's understands the question and projects he can answer it while invalidating the imposed answer format and the tilted answer type by the questioning-turn design. The question was "but I wonder, can we call this tube as micro channel" (lines 16–17), so this design invites a negative answer, but after "okay" in line 42, the presenter does not start with "not" but rather an explanation of the diagram shown in the PowerPoint slide. In the segment below, "okay" is used after a repair-sequence initiated by the presenter, which is directed to a part of the question asked by the chairperson. Segment 3 [18QA: 1-E-II-2] ('C' for Chairperson (Japanese), 'P' for Presenter (Chinese)) 6 7 8 9 10 C: C: any questions? (10.6) okay >a- a- a- I-< I have a a one- one question. s- very very simple- question. ↑how about, (0.2) the increase ( ) in the pressure track. −186− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 P: C: P: C: C: P: C: Æ P: P: C: (1.2) yeah ↑increase grade of what. pressure track. (0.6) pressure? pressure. (1.0) required for the: (0.3) making the flow. oh okay. the PRESSURE TRACK.= =yes. okay .hh and the pressure track, (0.4) uh uh: we did a measure ( ) (0.3) but i- it’s ( ). yeah it (would not) be small. (1.0) yeah okay [thank you. [fine. The pre-second position "okay" comes in line 21. The construction of the turn shows that "okay" is not oriented to the previous repair-sequence in lines 12-20 but to the question delivered in lines 9–10. It does not appear as an isolated item but as a part of a turn-constructional unit: the prosody of "okay," indicates that more items to be given and in fact the in-breath and "and the pressure track," follow. Although a 0.4-second pause is there, the prosody of "pressure track," suggests that the presenter does not yield but holds the turn and in fact the presenter continues speaking (and in addition the chairperson does not take the turn), executing a reply directly relevant to the question ("uh uh: we did a measure ( ) (0.3) but i- it’s ( ). yeah it (would not) be small."). The meaning of the utterance "and the pressure track," works as the presenter's (re)setting of the question agenda. It is not certain whether the presenter's "okay" in the pre-answer position of this conversational segment is successful in invalidating the forced answering format, since the question ("how about") invites a variety of response forms. However, it can be seen that the "okay" is employed to make a sequence transition to move on to executing an answer to the question, announcing the presenter's ability to respond to the question. The following segment is the final example of the type of "okay" that is used in the pre-second position. Segment 4 [26QA: 2-C-I-3] ('C' for Chairperson (Japanese), 'P' for Presenter (American)) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Æ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C: C: P: C: P: C: P: =hh hehe so uh:: .hh £any ↑question °or° comment,£ (0.6) °suggestion from audience?° (5.4) >↑okay< so:: >I have a question for you< so: .hh >uh to be honest< so uh:: I’m so: (0.2) >not so familiar with this field uh so< .hhh >I’d like to< make sure so: (.) >what’s the meaning< °of the° ah in the title so you mention ↓so:: uh >experimental condition is twenty five degree see ((‘°C’)) and- (0.6) pee eich ((‘pH’)) four point five. oh the [( ) [>↑what's the meaning.< (0.4) [okay first (of all) (0.4) good point. we (control)= [°( )° =these experiment (of) pee eich ((‘pH’)) for forty five. °( )° .hh pee eich ((‘pH’)) sixty °we didn’t want- didn’t show you but it’s quite interesting.° (.) .hhh the (0.5) REASON for the particular choice, (0.8) is that the (0.3) <purification> (0.4) lysozyme is u:sually taken from precipitation from .hhh excess −187− "Okay" in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions of International Scientific Conference Presentations 27 28 ( ) is a precipitant. this is normally than, (0.3) at- pee eich ((‘pH’)) four point fi:ve. The question "what’s the meaning< °of the° ah in the title" is initiated by the chairperson in line 12. However, the chairperson does not yield the turn to the presenter, instead holding it to clarify the point of his question with " so you mention ↓so:: uh >experimental condition is twenty five degree see and- (0.6) pee eich four point five.", which (25°C pH 4.5) is part of the presentation title. The presenter's "oh" in line 16 indicates that he does not expect such a question (Heritage, 1998). Overlapping a part of the presenter's turn, the chairperson re-issues his question "↑what's the meaning.". However, the presenter's reply does not immediately follow it and a 0.4-second gap of silence occurs in line 18. The presenter employs "okay" in the next turn and this is followed by an assessment of the chairperson's question "first (of all) (0.4) good point". After this, his answer to the question follows. The "okay" makes a sequential transition by showing the presenter's acceptance of the question. The microanalysis of the four cases shows that "okay" is employed at the pre-second position in a sequential environment in which a distance (either in the form of a gap of silence, a repair-sequence, or a combination of the two) is interactionally produced between the first-pair part and the second-pair part. In such an interactional environment, "okay" at the pre-second position works as a transition marker that announces the speaker's acceptance of the first-pair part and thereby closes the sequence which has postponed the second-pair part. This interactional effect of "okay" discursively constructs the knowledge in the Q&A sessions: it makes the speaker looked knowledgeable at least enough to understand the question. In addition, as "okay" can serve as a kind of reply to the question though it is not a corresponding answer to the issue delivered in the question, it invalidates the required answer format and the speaker can choose from a variety of ways to construct the answer turn. A question arises here: why do the presenters choose "okay" in this interactional environment when there must be other alternatives? In the Q&A session corpus, one case was found in which one of the possible formulations "I understand" is employed at the pre-second position. A comparison will indicate the differences between "okay" and "I understand" and suggest a reason why the presenters of the four cases employed "okay." Segment 5 [33QA:2-D-III-2] ('Q' for Questioner (Japanese), 'P' for Presenter (Japanese)) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Q: Q: P: C: P: C: C: my name is hirakawa from ( ) University. (0.3) um you show the (0.2) uh: (0.5) the consideration of the continuous background (0.6) uh: ( ) uh >(influence),< (0.5) and:: (.) so could you ↑tell me the (.) uh thishh method apply to the another (.) ( ) system. (0.5) uh it’s except for your system,(0.5) and: other, (.) uh (0.6) a:nd conversion condition. (15.7) °so° (3.3) °so° (0.7) so °↑can I add some (to) (.) his question?° ↓uh::m he: asked that in this uh (0.6) conclusion uh: (0.3) measurement technique can be applicable to the: other system. (0.8) it’s except for your s- uh: (1.1) experimental (0.4) uh (.) system. (2.0) −188− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 31 32 33 34 Æ P: C: °u::n° (0.4) I ↑un- understand ↓um: (0.7) the question (.) .hhh uh bu(h)t huh (3.8) ↓uh:: I answer, (2.4) I cannot- (0.4) .hhh (11.5) okay I:’ll repl(h)y .hh huh instead of ↑you, . The presenter's utterance "I understand" appears in line 31. The turn previous to this presenter's turn is the chairperson's repair on the question initiated by an audience member in lines 15–16. It is apparent in the sequence of this segment that the presenter is having a lot of trouble, so the chairperson's repair is aimed at helping the presenter understand the question. However, the presenter responds to the chairperson's repair with a claim that he understands, but cannot respond: "I ↑un- understand" (line 31) but "I answer, (2.4) I cannot-" (line 33). After that, the chairperson, who is in fact a co-author of the presenter, says that he will reply to the question instead of the presenter. "I understand" is therefore simply a display of the presenter's comprehension of the previous question and does not indicate he or she has the competence or sufficient knowledge to respond to the question. The difference between "okay" and "I understand" suggests the tactical nature of the presenters' use of "okay" at the pre-second position. When an answer to a question is delayed, the presenter's knowledge is normatively doubted because the context of the talk (a Q&A session) is programmatically relevant to the defensive response to a question raised by audience members and chairperson. Since "I understand" only suggests the presenter's understanding of the question, it is not enough to dismiss the doubt: understanding and being able to give a response are two different matters. On the other hand, "okay" encompasses understanding of a question and also projects an ability to answer the question. In addition, it can invalidate a forced answering format by the question. Therefore, in the four cases, in which the presenters' answers are delayed, they select "okay." 4. Discussion Q&A sessions are institutional talk in which the presenter's knowledge on his or her research study explained immediately before the session is challenged (Jacoby & McNamara, 1999; Stubbs, 1983; Wulff, Swales & Keller, 2009): therefore the presenter has to defend his or her position through answering the question asked by audience members or chairpersons. If the presenter fails to answer a question that is supposed to be related to the content of the presenters' studies, the value of his or her study can be cast in doubt. In order to prevent or at least suspend for a certain amount of time such a negative inference, "okay" is selected as a formulation at the pre-second position. "Okay" is employed at the pre-second position on the basis of its conversation meaning: it conventionally indicates understanding and acceptance of prior talk and orients to closing the topic. This conventional meaning of "okay" makes it suitable to be used in the pre-second position in which the speaker fails to give an immediate response to a question asking the speaker's knowledge on an issue that the speaker should know. "I understand" cannot be selectable in that sequential and contextual environment because it does not project the speaker's knowledge to answer a question; nor would the behavior of nodding be chosen, since the nonverbal behavior is more indexical. Importantly, while the four presenters' linguistic skills in English are apparently different, the commonality in their use of "okay" in the same sequential position to exert the same interaction force suggests the conventional meaning of "okay" is shared by them; in addition, the fact that the questioners in the four segments wait the presenters' answering after the pre-second position "okay" indicates that the questioners also share the conventional meaning of "okay" regardless of their linguistic ability in English. −189− "Okay" in the Pre-second Position in Q&A Sessions of International Scientific Conference Presentations The best way for presenters to maximally advertising their knowledge on the issues raised by questions will be an immediate, direct, and clear-cut logical reply to the question. When a speaker's knowledge on an issue is once cast into doubt because of the failure to give such a reply, how to minimize the negative inference on his or her knowledge and how to maximize the re-advertisement of his or her knowledge on the questioned issue are called for. The use of "okay" at the pre-second position is a way to maximize knowledge reclamation. "Okay" is seemingly a small token, but it in fact has an influence on such knowledge construction in interaction. References Beach, W. A. 1993. Transitional Regularities for 'Casual' "Okay" Usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–352. Bilmes, J. 1993. Ethnomethodology, Culture, and Implicature: Toward an Empirical Pragmatics. Pragmatics, 3, 387-409. Bilmes, J. 1999. Questions, Answers, and the Organization of Talk in the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate: Fundamental Considerations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 213–242. Bilmes, J. 2001. Tactics and Styles in the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate: Question Placement. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34,151–181. Edwards, D. 2000. Extreme Case Formulations: Softeners, Investment, and Doing Nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 4, 347–373. Guthrie, A. M. 1997. On the Systematic Deployment of Okay and Mmhmm in Academic Advising Sessions. Pragmatics, 7, 397–415. Heritage, J. 1984. A Change of State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action, 299-345. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. 1998. Oh-prefaced Responses to Inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291–334. Heritage, J. 2010. Questioning in Medicine. In A. Freed., S. Ehrlich (eds.), Why Do You Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, 42–68, New York: Oxford University Press. Jacoby, S., & McNamara, T. 1999. Locating Competence. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 213–241. Pillet-Shore, D. 2003. Doing "Okay": On the Multiple Metrics of an Assessment. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36, 285–319. Pomerantz, A. 1986. Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–30. Schegloff, E. A. 1968. Sequencing in Conversational Openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–95. Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E A., & Lerner, G. H. 2009. Beginning to Respond: Well-prefaced Responses to Wh-questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42, 91–115. Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Wulff, S., Swales, J. M., & Keller, K. 2009. "We Have about Seven Minutes for Questions": The Discussion Sessions from a Specialized Conference. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 79-92. −190− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO Abstract Relatively few studies have investigated the role of language in exposing ideology in society. As asserted by Huckin (1997), whenever language is studied, one should not forget to include the society and the context where language exists. This study explores the ways in which forms of language, from individual words to complete discourse structures, encode something of the beliefs and values held by the language users, particularly the ideology on power in society. The study examines 40 blogs of freshman students of Mindanao State University—Iligan Institute of Technology and analyzes them using the three Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) methods: transitivity, presuppositions, and deixis. The results reveal that the 40 blogs of the respondents follow the recurring presentation-opinion pattern. Using the three CDA methods, the ideology on power consists of fifteen types which are reflected in the 40 blogs. These types of power are manifested through the roles they play in the sentences. Using transitivity and thematic role method, the powerful entities function as agents. In the presupposition, the ones assumed as dominant and influential by the bloggers are considered powerful forces. Using deixis, the place, time, and person frequently referred to are the ones regarded as powerful. The results of the study suggest that indeed language encode, shape and maintain ideology in the society that proves the assertion that language and power always go together. On the basis of the results of this study, the following recommendations are presented to future researchers: (1) that other methods of critical discourse analysis be used to determine the ideologies and powers revealed in the blogs of professionals such as teachers, lawyers, businessmen and others; and (2) that other social networking sites be considered for critical discourse analysis. Introduction It is a human impulse to express opinions and feelings. Expressions come in varied ways through writing and speech. Hence, a lot of studies have been done on these expressions to try to explain matters. However, most of these studies are more on the linguistic aspect—studying phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. It is as though language is produced in isolation (or simply a text), which is not really the case. Language exists in “some real-world context,” so it is very much affected by such factors as the production, interpretation, and context (Huckin, 1997). So whenever language is studied, one should not forget to include the society and context where it exists. __________ RABINDRANATH S. POLITO, Instructor, College of Arts and Social Sciences, MSU-Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT), Iligan City, holds a Master’s Degree in English Language Studies (2011) and Bachelor’s Degree in English (2006) at MSU-IIT. −191− Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO Since a particular text (spoken and written) exists in a particular context which has varied meanings depending on the process of production and interpretation, linguists like Saussure and philosophers like Wittgenstein agree that language plays an important role in structuring and creating reality and ideology of a society (Clark, 2007). The study which focuses on eliciting ideology from both written and spoken texts is the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). CDA, until now, does not have a formal methodology on analyzing particular texts; thus, it is believed to be an approach or an attitude toward textual analysis which makes it unique from all other textual analysis in six major respects as presented by Thomas N. Huckin (1997). First, it analyzes texts in a real-world context and it tries to take into account the most relevant textual and contextual factors including history. Second, it studies text in three levels (production, interpretation, and context). Third, it concerns with the societal issues overtly or covertly manifested in texts. Fourth, it draws attention to the imbalances, injustices, and inequality in a society. Fifth, by revealing negative practices in a society, it aims to support the victims of oppression to reconstruct the society for a change. Finally, it uses clear and simple words to reach nonspecialists in society. Statement of the Problem This study focuses on the 40 blogs of MSU-IIT freshman students because blogging is the most modern and accessible way through which these students express their ideology on power. The objective of this research is to study the 40 blogs and to explain and answer the following questions: 1. What is the structure of the students’ blogs? 2. What ideology on power is embedded in the language of their blogs? 3. How is this ideology expressed in their blogs? Critical Discourse Analysis In a capsule, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) attempts to study the structures of ideology, especially on power and authority, which underlies the acts of both speech and writing (Clark, 2007). In the context of this study, writing with its associated practices, helps construct and shape the ideology, reality and the world. CDA is critical in the sense that the readers, when reading texts, like blogs, should not remain passive and take all the assumptions raised by the blogger. Instead, every reader should question these assumptions. Also, the readers are encouraged to analyze the social issues raised in the blogs as these issues are constructed in the blogs and how these contribute to the construction of ideology in the society. Furthermore, Clark (2007) emphasizes that CDA actually is a fusion of theories from sociology, critical theory, and linguistics as it tries to elicit the power relations, including issues on gender, ethnicity, and social class. CDA best fits the study of blogs because its approaches and analytical methods allow researchers to study written language in all genres (Clark, 2007). The linguists working using CDA believe that language is an important tool in the production, maintenance, and change of social relations of power. CDA’s aim is to make the users of language become conscious of how language conveys the domination and control of people in society. Fairclough (2001, as cited in Clark, 2007) asserts that CDA is a means of “helping people to see the extent to which their language does rest upon −192− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 common-sense assumptions and the ways in which these common sense assumptions can be ideologically shaped by relations of power” (p. 154). Blogging A blog is a type of website or part of a website. Blogs are usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video (www.blog.com). A blog can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog. The person who posts blogs is called a blogger and the very act or process of doing blogs is blogging. Many blogs include commentary or news on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, Web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability of readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs. Most blogs are primarily textual, although some focus on art (Art blog), photographs (photoblog), videos (video blogging), music (MP3 blog), and audio (podcasting) (www.blog.com). Blogging is a good material for CDA for at least two reasons. The first one is that there is no study conducted yet using CDA on blogs (at least after reading CDA articles and books). The other one is that blogs have political impact that can be a very good subject of CDA, as it tries to analyze the politics of language. The impact of blogs gives greater credibility to blogs as a medium of news dissemination. Though often seen as merely gossips, bloggers sometimes lead the way in bringing key information to public light, with mainstream media having to follow their lead. More often, however, news blogs tend to react to material already published by the mainstream media. Research Design and Methodology This study uses a qualitative research paradigm to describe and analyze the 40 blogs of freshman students enrolled in English 1 at MSU-IIT under Prof. Lynnie Ann P. Deocampo during the first semester of SY 2010-2011. The blogs are chosen through random sampling to ensure no bias or personal preferences and to assure equal probability for each blog to be chosen as a sample. To interpret the blogs, three CDA methods of analysis are employed: transitivity (Clark, 2007) and thematic roles (O’Grady & Archibald, 2001) to reveal the recurring agents of the clauses; presuppositions (Huckin, 1997; Brown & Yule, 1989) to expose the recurring assumptions in the sentences; and deixis (Fromkin & Rodman, 1983; Lyons, 1987) to divulge the frequent time, place, and person references in the paragraphs. The Structure of Blogs It has been observed that the students’ blogs follow a recurring presentationopinion pattern. In the presentation part, the blogger presents a topic or idea to be commented on in the blog. Presentation varies according to the choice of discussion of the blogger. Usually, this part is also accompanied by a short background or a brief summary of a story or of an issue. The next part of the blog is the opinion. It is in this part where the bloggers express their opinions about the topics presented. In this study, the opinions are divided −193− Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO into three categories: (1) comments, (2) suggestions/advices, and (3) edifications. For comments, the bloggers simply add information which is highly opinionated on the idea or topic presented. For suggestions, the blogger simply presents a suggestion or an advice to the readers for solving an existing problem or for answering a question. The third category of opinion is edifications. This type of opinion teaches or enlightens the readers. In relation to ideology on power, the presentation part of the blog becomes the avenue for exposing power as perceived by society as a whole and the opinion part becomes the place for revealing power as perceived by the blogger as an individual. Transitivity and Thematic Roles One of the common methods used in CDA in studying language is transitivity. In this study, transitivity is fused with thematic roles since both more or less share the same elements. The participants in transitivity are expressed as agents and themes in thematic roles. In the blogs of the freshman students of MSU-IIT, ideology on power is clearly reflected. In this study, seven ideologies on power are identified from the blogs of the students: gender, social class, religion, government, media, family, and language. In this article only two types of power are discussed. Gender The first type of power disclosed using transitivity and thematic roles is on gender. While focusing on social issues in the society, most CDA analysts, like Van Dijk (2008), Clark (2007), Huckin (1997), and McCarthy and Carter (1994), inevitably reveal biases as regards gender. To be specific, the ones who hold power and authority in society are the males and this is clearly reflected in the blogs of the freshman students. In the blog entitled Mayon, the blogger explains the legend of Mount Mayon, a famous active volcano in the Philippines. In this blog, one can confirm that the Philippines is a male dominated country because most of the agents in the sentences are males. O’Grady and Archibald (2001) define agent as the “entity that performs the action” (p. 265). In the blog Mayon there are only four instances in which the maiden Daragang Magayon functions as agent: “She fell in love,” “She told,” “Daragang learned,” and “She hurriedly went.” The rest of the clauses and sentences have males, Tiong (her father), Panganoron (her beloved), and Paratuga (the villain) functioning as agents. Here are some of the sentences that show males as agents of the clauses: • …he still told her… • • • • • …he will find the best way… Paratuga kidnapped… …he planned to save the girl… He loves… Tiong Makusog buried… The sentences above contain males functioning as agents or doers of the actions. Although there are times that Daragang Magayon plays as a participant, she only functions as theme, or plainly the receiver of the action performed by the male characters −194− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 like her father and lover. Theme, according to O’Grady and Archibald (2001) is “the entity undergoing an action or a movement” (p. 265). Religion The other type of power drawn from the blogs pertains to religion. Pierrce (2003), after giving a series of definitions of ideology, comments that “language is the key in the process of creating the personal, social, economic, and governmental structures that guide, promote, and constrain life” (p. 296). The last phrase is striking as it tells that ideology is present to “constrain life” or restrict or limit the people in society. This concept is clearly manifested in the structure of the language used by the freshman students. In the following blogs, the word “religion” is not explicitly stated, but the idea of God is recurring in the content. There are seven blogs which show how God controls the life of the bloggers. The blogs I Will Soar On Wings Like Eagle, Parent Trap, HAPPYness, Stairway to Heaven, Make Things Possible, Make Peace, and an untitled blog depict God as a powerful being as shown through the different roles God performs: agent, theme, source, and goal. However, in most of the clauses, God functions as agent. Below are the examples of God functioning as agent: • • • • God has given us the chance …the time God has given us? …the life that He gives…. …and He gives second chances…. In all the examples above, it is learned that the noun God clearly performs the process give or has given. All these verbs are examples of material process. The other verb which is also recurring next to give is help. • • • • God helps me…. He will help me…. He helps you…. God will help you…. God’s power is demonstrated through the various roles God performs. In material, mental, behavioral, verbal, and relational processes, God acts as agent, theme, goal, and source, respectively. Presuppositions Brown and Yule (1989) assert that in discourse analysis, one should also consider presupposition. They define presupposition as “the assumption the speaker makes about what the hearer is likely to accept without challenge” (p.29). Huckin (1997) agrees with them that one of the various methods he suggests for analyzing using CDA is presupposition. He defines presupposition as the use of language in a way that appears to take certain ideas for granted, as if there were no alternative (Huckin, 1997, p. 83). This −195− Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO idea is also confirmed by Fromkin and Rodman (1983) for they define presupposition as the “explicit assumptions about the real world” (p. 189). In the blogs of the freshman students of MSU-IIT, more issues on society are clearly reflected using presupposition. In this part of the study, twelve issues were discovered through the blogs of the said students: gender, social class, education, occupation, religion, values, media, Philippine products, places, relationships, cosmetics, and language. In this article, only two are presented. Social Class One type of power exposed in the blogs of the students using presupposition is social class. A reflection on the story Hani and My Missions in Life are two blogs reflecting the assumptions on people belonging to the lower class. In this blog, the blogger explains how the story of Hani inspired a lot of people. Hani is a story of a young girl who pursues her dreams despite the financial status of her family. After presenting a brief summary of the story, the blogger then starts to give comments and realizations. It is in those parts where the assumptions about social class are revealed. Consider the sentence below: • During those times when we were not having a good life, I mean when we don’t have that much money, I studied better compared to now. It is very clear that in the first subordinating clause, the blogger says when we were not having a good life. It is interesting to note that there is an explanation to that subordinating clause with not having a good life and that is found in the next subordinating clause when we don’t have that much money. In other words, not having a good life is equivalent to not have enough money. This is a common perception in society that if one does not have enough money then it must mean he does not have a good life. Since the rich have enough money or even much money so they are perceived as enjoying a good life or even a better life. People not only think that the poor do not have a good life but also think that they are suffering from poverty. Consider the example below: •…we suffered how hard it is to live if you don’t have enough money…. In the above example, it is shown in the main clause that the pronoun we undergoes the verb suffer and the reason for such suffering is in the subordinating if-clause. The reason is found in the phrase not have enough money. The discussion earlier presented is that not having enough money is equivalent to not having a good life. Now, it is made even worse because not having enough money is equated to suffering. This appears to be the reason for thinking that the poor, because they do not have enough money, not only have a good life but also a life of suffering. Thus, because the rich have money, they have good life and they do not suffer, and so people think of them as superiors. −196− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Philippine Products Another type of power revealed in the blogs of the students using presupposition is the Philippine products. It is already known to most Filipinos that the Philippines has been colonized by the Spaniards, Americans, and the Japanese. Such colonization has made a great impact on the Filipinos even after the colonizers have left the country. One of these effects is the idea that Philippine products are substandard or inferior to those produced by the Americans or even the Japanese. This ideology is assumed by at least two blogs about two views from freshman students in MSU-IIT: Bagong Buwan and GRANDCHASE-BEST ONLINE GAME EVER. In Bagong Buwan, the blogger made a comment why he liked the movie. He mentioned that he liked the movie so much because it has inspired him to become a peacemaker in response to the Christian-Muslim conflict in Mindanao. The blogger was convincing Filipinos to help build peace and unity in Mindanao. The message of the blogger appears to be pro-Philippines; however, there is one comment in this blog which manifests his assumption on Philippine movies. Consider his statement below: •I have a great interest in this movie even though it is only a Filipino created movie…. The comment included that he is interested in the movie Bagong Buwan even though it is only a Filipono created movie. A reader of this blog may accept such concept that it is only a Filipino created movie but the question is: Why consider it as only a Filipino created movie? What is with Filipino created movies? The adverb only is used in this statement, which means “nothing more.” This blogger clearly assumes that when it is a Filipino movie it is substandard and inferior compared to Hollywood movies or probably movies made outside the Philippines. In the blog GRANDCHASE-BEST ONLINE GAME EVER, the blogger described his favorite online game which is Grandchase. According to him, “Grand Chase is a freeto-play, two-dimensional side-scrolling MMORPG developed by the Korean company KOG Studios.” Also, this game has servers in Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Brazil, Philippines, United States, Thailand, Japan, and Indonesia. Later, this blogger explains how the game works and how young people find it interesting. During the near end of the blog, there is a comment on such version in the Philippines: •Right now, The Grandchase Philippines is still on the state of update from the mainframe. The blogger mentioned that there is this Grandchase Philippines. The information may be positive because the game is truly a hit among the youth today. However, there is a comment that it is still on the state of update from the mainframe. Such statement has two assumptions: (1) that there is a non-updated version in the Philippines; and (2) that such version needs to reach the level of the standard of a mainframe, which definitely is not in the Philippines. Because it is not updated and it still has to conform to the mainstream, the Philippine version is thus considered to be substandard and inferior. −197− Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO Deixis The term deixis, to Lyons (1978), comes from a Greek word meaning “pointing” or “indicating” (p. 646). Fromkin and Rodman (1983) further explain that deixis is an aspect of pragmatics which uses words or expressions whose references rely entirely on the circumstances of the utterance and can only be understood if one knows these circumstances. With that, they categorized deixis into three: place, time, and person. This article focuses only on the analysis using person deixis method as the place and time deixis methods simply confirm the findings using transitivity with thematic role and presupposition methods. Person Deixis The blogs of the freshman students contained two main person deixis—the pronouns I and you. Since all blogs include personal commentary on a particular subject, bloggers cannot help but use the pronoun I to refer to themselves and the pronoun you to address their readers. After thorough reading of the blogs of these students, it is observed that the most powerful being in blogging is the blogger because he can manipulate and control the topic and readers. First, a blogger can discuss anything in his blogs from personal to political. As found in the discussions under transitivity and presupposition, the subjects discussed by the bloggers are varied. Consider the example below from Filipino versus English: •I am just wondering why these two languages compete in many different ways. This sentence begins with a person deixis I showing that such thought refers to the blogger’s. This is just an example of how a blogger begins a blog with a person deixis or the personal pronoun I to indicate that the following discussion is the blogger. Second, a blogger has all the freedom to take different turns in the selected topic. In other words, a blogger can choose any related topic to develop his blog. Consider these examples below from the blog My Missions in Life an example of this kind of development: •Ever since I was a child, I really wanted to become a doctor. •I also wanted to become a doctor to bring joy to my parents. •So I plan to have only a small family. •I hope that He guide me in all the things that I do and never to let me stray in my path. The first sentence comes from the opening part of the blog. In the sentence, the person deixis I confessed his desire of becoming a doctor. So from that, a reader may expect to read the ways the I is doing to become a doctor. The blogger did include those ways for her to be a doctor, and she also incorporated the topic on family as she opened the second example above in the middle of the blog. Thus, the topic now is developed from ways of becoming a doctor to reasons of becoming a doctor. The third example shows that the blogger now takes the discussion to not only becoming a doctor but also to planning a family in the future. Here, the blogger now shifts from why she wants to be a doctor to −198− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 when she becomes a doctor. According to her, when she becomes a doctor, she wants to have a small family. Then, before the end of the discussion, she opened a topic on God as the one who can make her dream of becoming a doctor possible. In summary, she begins with I want to be a doctor to I want to be a doctor because of my parents then shifts to I want a small family in the future and finally to God guides me. Clearly, the blogger can always manipulate the blog in the sense that he has this liberty to insert and shift topics anytime. Finally, a blogger manipulating the readers is indicated by the use of the person deixis you and we, by strong suggestions. There were 33 of the 40 blogs of the students that contained strong suggestions. (Actually, all the blogs contained suggestions but the researcher cannot identify the type of suggestions used in the seven blogs for now. Thus, only the two types from the 33 blogs are named in this study.) Most of the times, the blogger used the pronoun we or us (called the inclusion type, since it includes the blogger) when suggesting, and sometimes, the pronoun you (called the exclusion type, since it excludes the blogger) is also used in suggesting ideas to the readers. The exclusion type uses the pronoun you and is obvious. In this case, the blogger, the pronoun I, is directly giving suggestions to the readers. Its usual form is the pronoun you plus a modal, like must, should, ought to, have to etc. A variety of this type uses an imperative form, hiding the pronoun you and proceeding right away to the main verb. Here are some examples: •You can’t judge a person for what they think is moral or ethical, or even justifiable. •So when you watch it, you better have a bucket to fill up for your tears. •Live and enjoy LIFE but know your limitations to prevent unwanted frustrations. •Remember that God had teach us to become righteous. •Just do your job, and you may not know that everybody else is doing it too. The first two sentences are examples of the exclusion type with the pronoun you. In these sentences, the bloggers suggest to the readers to not judge a person (in the first example) and to not bring a bucket when watching the movie (in the second example). The last three sentences are examples of the exclusion type that is imperative. In these sentences, the readers are suggested to live and enjoy life (in the third example), to remember God’s teaching (in the fourth example), and to do one’s job with good manners (in the last example). The exclusion type appeared in almost 40 % of the 33 blogs that contained strong suggestions. The 60 % of the blogs used the inclusion type. This type is subtle yet stronger than the exclusion type because it positions the readers to the level of the blogger to give a sense of participation. Its form is the pronoun we plus a verb or a modal, like should. A variety of this type uses the objective type of pronoun us and the genitive type of pronoun our. Below are some of these examples: •We should always remember that there are still some loyal people that can always be trusted. −199− Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO •We should have to treat them [Filipino and English] equally. •We should not put the blame to our forces and our government…. •…we should be one to make our country a better place. •So we should alot time to practice them. •God had teach us to become righteous even in simple ways and we ought to do that. Through person deixis, it has been discussed that the blogger is the most powerful being in blogging because he can manipulate the topic, the development of the topic, and even the readers by using either the inclusion and exclusion types of suggestions. It is therefore proven that the use of deixis, particularly person, as a method of analysis can definitely reveal ideology in relation to power. That the blogger has power is supported by Douglas Brown (2001) and Barbara Kroll (1990). Brown claims that a writer holds power as he writes. This power includes the power “to emend, to clarify, to withdraw” (p. 341). Such power is further explained and elaborated upon in the three writing theories presented by Barbara Kroll. Results and Discussion Findings of the present study have shown that the forty blogs follow a recurring presentation-opinion pattern. The presentation part contained ideology of the society in general, and the opinion section expressed the ideology held by the bloggers. The study also reveals that the students’ blogs conveyed the following types of power as part of Filipino ideology: (1) Males are superior individuals in society; (2) The rich are only for the rich and are the only ones who have the right to be happy; (3) Education gives power because of the knowledge it provides; (4) Medical doctors are superior because of their help and money, and the OFWs have the power to help the country through the dollars they send; (5) God is powerful being because He is the source (of strength, wisdom, understanding, success, help, and life), a hero, a controller of events, a cause for success, and the reason for honor; (6) Good values make one superior because they make people moral; (7) The media is powerful because of the positive and negative effects it has on people; (8) Foreign products are preferred by Filipinos because they are of good quality and standard; (9) The tourist spots, like Bohol is superior to any place in the Philippines because it is preferred by both Filipinos and foreigners; (10) Love is power because it can make a girl a real girl, it controls one’s thoughts, it can change one’s activities and feelings; (11) Cosmetics is power because it makes women beautiful and attractive; (12) The English language is superior to the Filipino language because English can financially help its users, it is an international language, it offers benefits to its users, it is an intellectual language, and it is the language of the rich; (13) The parents, especially the father, are considered as powerful entities because they can motivate their children to study and affect their children’s decision; (14) The government has power because it can affect and control people’s activities and it is believed to save society from troubles and problems; and (15) The blogger is powerful because he can manipulate and control both the topics and the readers. Furthermore, this study discloses that all the fifteen types of power were reflected through the language used by the bloggers. By using transitivity, the powerful sectors in −200− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 the society participated as agents in the sentences and the inferior sectors were conveyed as passive and functioned as mere themes or recipients of the actions performed by the agents. By using presuppositions, the power from the dominant sectors in the society was assumed to be superior. Finally, by using place, time, and person deixis, the types of power found in transitivity and presuppositions were validated. However, it is also discovered that the most powerful being in blogging was the blogger himself. The blogger was considered powerful because he controlled and manipulated the development of the blog; therefore, he had the influence over the readers. Conclusions It can be concluded from the findings of the study that the students’ blogs are structured to accommodate the ideology of society in relation to power as a whole and that of the bloggers as individuals in society. This shows that blogging, just like newspapers and magazines, is also an avenue for building and maintaining power in society. Then, the Philippine society manifests ideology in relation to power similar to that of the Western countries. In fact, most of the types of power revealed in the students’ blogs are from the ideology of the colonizers. This suggests that the Filipinos have maintained the ideology on power instilled by the colonizers, resulting in deethnicization, cultural immersion, and hybrid identity. Also, the structure of the language of the 40 blogs clearly revealed ideology on power in society. Such ideology on power being reflected in the blogs confirms the idea of Fairclough (2001) and McCarthy and Carter (1994) that language helps in shaping and maintaining ideology in the society because the language itself reflects ideology and power. The fact that the language of the freshman students in MSU-IIT reflects ideology and power proves the assertion that language and power always go together. Recommendations On the basis of the results of this study, the following recommendations are presented: 1. that other methods of critical discourse analysis be used to determine the ideologies and powers revealed in the blogs of professionals such as teachers, lawyers, businessmen and others; 2. that other social networking sites be considered for CDA to compare with the findings of this study; 3. that plays, novels, poems, and short stories by Filipino authors be studied to validate the claims on post-colonial ideologies; and 4. that the discourse between teachers and students in the classroom be considered for CDA analysis to expose the dominant entity in the classroom. −201− Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO BIBLIOGRAPHY Books: Ashcroft, Bill, et. al. The Empire Writes Back. England: Clays Ltd., St. Ives plc., 1989. Bressler, C. E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1999. Brown, Douglas. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. USA: Pearson Education Company, 2001. Brown, G. and Yule, G. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. USA: Heinle, 2008. Clark, U. Studying Language: English in Action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Fromkin, V. and Rodman, R. An Introduction to Language. USA: CBS College Printing, 1983. Kroll, Barbara. Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. USA: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Lyons, John. Semantics. USA: Cambridge University Press, 1987. McCarthy, Michael and Carter, Ronald. Language Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. New York: Longman Publishing, 1994. O’Grady, W. and Archibald, J., Eds. Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Bedford St. Martin’s, 2001. Pierce, Dann L. (2002). Rhetorical Criticism and Theory in Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, 2002. Said, Edward W. (1993). Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. Sharp, J. Geographies of Postcolonialism. SAGE Publications, 2008. −202− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Articles: Dewan, R. “Deethnicization: A Study of Language and Culture Change in the Sindhi Immigrant Community of Metro”. Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (Bautista, M. L. S., Ed.). Philippines: De La Salle University Press, 1989. Huckin, T. N. “Critical Discourse Analysis”. Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (Miller, T., Ed.). USA: US Information Agency, 1997. Journals: Al Jarf, Reima. “The Impact of English as an International Language (EIL) upon Arabic in Saudi Arabia”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 10, No. 4. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/December_08_raj.php, 2008. Ansarin, Ali Akbar & Rashidi, Farzad. “Discourse Community or Cultural Conventions: Rhetorical Analysis of Research Abstracts”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 11, No. 3. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_2009_aa.php, 2009. Birjandi, Parviz and Tabatabaei, Omid. “The Impact of Gender on the Incidence and Quality of Form-focused Episodes in Task-based Conversational Feedback Among EFL Learners”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 11, No. 4. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/December_2009_pb.php, 2009. Chiu, Chi Yen. “The Discourse of an English Teacher in a Cyber Writing Course: Roles and Autonomy”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 10, No. 1. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/March_08_cyc.php, 2008. Dewi, Anita. “Shifts in NNESTs’ Professional Identity: An Impact of Language and Culture Immersion”. Asian EFL Journal”. Vol. 9, No. 4. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/Dec_2007_ad.php, 2007. Ellis, Rod. Learner Beliefs and Language Learning. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 10, No. 4. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/December_08_re.php, 2008. Hsiu-Chinh, Sheu. “EFL Children’s Views on English Picture Story Books”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 11, No. 4. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/December_2009_sc.php, 2009. Liyanage, I., Grimbeek, P., and Bryer, F. “Relative Cultural Contributions of Religion and Ethnicity to the Language Learning Strategy Choices of ESL Students in Sri Lankan and Japanese High Schools”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 12, No. 1. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_2010_il.php, 2010. Melendy, Galon A. “Motivating Writers: The Power of Choice”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 10, No. 3. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_08_gm.php, 2008. −203− Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis RABINDRANATH S. POLITO Wang, Lixia. “Theme and Rheme in the Thematic Organization of Text: Implications for Teaching Academic Writing”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 9, No. 1. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_07_lw.php, 2007. YÕldÕrÕm, Rana and Okan, Zuhal. “The Question of Global English-Language Teaching: A Turkish Perspective”. Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 9, No. 4. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/Dec_2007_ry&zo.php, 2007. Dissertation: Ng, Siew H. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Representations of Bilateral Issues Concerning Malaysia and Singapore in Mainstream Newspaper Editorials. Published Dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 2008. Unpublished Materials: Fajardo, Loreta. L. Her Language: Her Culture? An Analysis of Diction Used in the Selected Poems of Cebuano Women Writers and their Cultural Implications. Graduate Research Paper, Mindanao State University—Iligan Institute of Technology, 2010. Polito, Rabindranath S. and Celiz, Maryrose R. Identity and Hybridity: The Filipino in Ten Selected Poems of Gumercindo Rafanan. Undergraduate Thesis, Mindanao State University—Iligan Institute of Technology, 2006. Internet Source: Van Dijk, T. A. “Discourse and Power: Contributions to Critical Discourse Studies”. Houndsmills: Palgrave MacMillan. http://psasir.upm.edu.my/5646/, 2008. −204− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically: A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions Tohru Seraku St. Catherine’s College, Oxford <Abstract> This paper defends the thesis that what are usually conceived as “syntactic” issues are fruitfully dealt with in light of “semantics/pragmatics”, as modelled within Dynamic Syntax. To this end, this paper presents a case study of island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese clefts. As widely noted, two types of clefts differ in terms of whether a focus item can be associated with the gap inside an island. This apparently syntactic difference emerges as an outcome of semantic/pragmatic tree growth. The analysis to be presented is preferable over previous accounts in that it handles the data in a uniform fashion. It is also argued that “topic” and “focus” effects in clefts are viewed as a by-product of gradual updating of a semantic/pragmatic tree. <Keywords> dynamic syntax, incrementality, complex NP, topic, focus 1. INTRODUCTION In Japanese, there are two types of cleft constructions, depending on whether a focus item has a particle. (What is meant by “a focus item” is a pre-copula item, like kono-huku (= ‘this-cloth’) in (1, 2); the notion of “focus” is clarified in Section 4.) I shall call clefts without a particle, as in (1), “clefts–P”, and call clefts with a particle, as in (2), “clefts+P”. As observed in Hoji (1990), clefts–P are insensitive to island constraints, while clefts+P are sensitive to island constraints. ki-teiru] hitoi]-ga kawaiku-mieru (1) [[[ei ej wear-CONT] person]-NOM cute-look [[[ kono-hukuj da. this-cloth COP ‘It is this cloth xj that the person who wears xj looks cute.’ (2) *[[[ei ej ki-teiru] [[[ wear-CONT] kono-hukuj-o da. this-cloth-ACC COP hitoi]-ga person]-NOM kawaiku-mieru cute-look no]-wa NO]-TOP no]-wa NO]-TOP Here, the island is the Complex NP [ki-teiru] hito (= ‘a person who wears ej’) (cf. Ross 1967). In (2), where the focus item kono-huku (= ‘this-cloth’) has the accusative case particle o, the string is unacceptable presumably because the focus item is associated with the gap inside the island. In (1), where the focus item lacks a case particle, the string is acceptable despite the island. In the literature, this island puzzle has been treated syntactically on the basis of syntactic operation or representation (e.g. Hiraiwa and Ishihara to appear, Hoji 1990, Kizu 2005). This paper addresses the issue from the perspective of how an interpretation is incrementally built up as a string is parsed word-by-word, as modelled within Dynamic Syntax (Cann et al. 2005). Through this case study, I shall defend the thesis that what are usually construed as “syntactic” issues are fruitfully handled “semantically/pragmatically”. −205− Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically:A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions 2. FRAMEWORK This paper is couched within Dynamic Syntax (Cann et al. 2005). In this framework, a string is mapped onto a semantic/pragmatic tree incrementally as the string is parsed word-by-word online. The initial state of tree growth is specified as (3) by the AXIOM. (3) AXIOM ?t, ݔ ?t is a requirement that this node be decorated with type-t content. Thus, semantic/pragmatic tree growth is goal-driven, the goal being to construct type-t content, or an interpretation of the string. The root node is also decorated with the pointer ݔ, which indicates a node under development. Once the initial node is set out, it is incrementally updated by a combination of computational, lexical, or pragmatic actions. For a model of pragmatics, I assume Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1995). This set of actions constitutes the grammars of natural languages; “syntax” is nothing over and above this set of actions, and an independent level of syntactic structure is not postulated. Semantic/pragmatic tree growth comes to an end when a well-formed final state (i.e. tree without requirements) arises. A string of words is said to be grammatical iff there exists a well-formed final state of tree transitions. To take the English string He smokes as an example, the parse of the string updates the initial state progressively, yielding the well-formed final state (4). (4) Parsing He smokes smoke’(Tom’) : t, ݔ Tom’ : e smoke’ : (eЍt) Each node, if fully decorated, represents semantic content and type. Content of a mother node is calculated on the basis of the contents of its daughters by functional application, and the type of a mother node is calculated on the basis of the types of its daughters by type deduction. Content of he is a place-holding variable, but it is pragmatically assigned the value Tom’. Such pragmatic processes are accommodated over the tree, since what is built up is a semantic/pragmatic tree. In addition to these general machineries, there are two other mechanisms to be noted. First, a node may be initially underspecified for its place in a tree and will be fixed at a later point. This apparatus dispenses with “movement” in GB-Theory or “internal merge” in Minimalism. To take the topicalization string Tom, Mary likes as an example, the node for Tom is initially unfixed and, after the parse of likes has created an object node with a place-holding variable, the node for Tom unifies with the object node, substituting the place-holding variable with the value (i.e. content of Tom). Second, tree growth involves paired structures, where one structure is LINKed to the other in virtue of the presence of a shared term. Once a LINK relation is built up, it is “evaluated”; that is, the content of a LINKed structure is incorporated into the content of a main structure. These mechanisms of “structural underspecification and subsequent resolution” and “a LINK relation” are relevant to my analysis of clefts, and they will be illustrated in the next section. 3. ANALYSIS Before presenting the analysis of the asymmetry between (1) and (2), it might be helpful to sketch the heart of the analysis in an intuitive way. In general, the sequence “NP + case-particle” tells a parser whether the NP is a subject, or an object, etc. of a predicate, and that the relation between the NP and the predicate is non-global (i.e. put theoretically, “not across an island boundary”). It −206− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 is this non-global nature of case particles that prevents an island-involving tree from being further updated. The crucial point is thus that a string of clefts with an island structure is parsable (hence, island-insensitive) only if the focus item lacks a case particle. 3.1. Clefts–P Let’s start with the cleft–P (1), repeated here as (5). (5) hitoi]-ga kawaiku-mieru [[[ei ej ki-teiru] wear-CONT] person]-NOM cute-look [[[ kono-hukuj da. this-cloth COP ‘It is this cloth xj that the person who wears xj looks cute.’ no]-wa NO]-TOP As mentioned in the last section, the starting point of tree transitions is always determined by the AXIOM, as in (3). Starting with this initial state, the first item to be parsed is the predicate ki (= ‘wear’). Since Japanese is a fully pro-drop language, it is a predicate that constructs a template for a propositional structure. Thus, the lexical actions of ki update the tree (3) into (6), yielding an open proposition with subject and object slots. These slots correspond to the gap ei and the gap ej in (5). The content of a gap is notated as a type-e term, such as (Ȝ, x, P(x)), in Epsilon Calculus. In this calculus, a term is defined as the triple: an operator, a variable, and a restrictor. To take the term (Ȝ, x, P(x)) as an example, Ȝ is an existential operator that binds the variable x, and P(x) is a restrictor, where P is an abstract restrictor (Kempson and Kurosawa 2009: 65). (6) Parsing Ki ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(Ȝ, y, Q(y)) : t, ݔ (Ȝ, y, Q(y)) : e ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : (eЍt) (Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e ki’ : (eЍ(eЍt)) In this paper, I disregard the parse of tense or aspectual particles, such as teiru in (5), which is not directly relevant to the current discussion. In order to parse the head noun hito (= ‘person’), the computational action LINK ADJUNCTION introduces an inverse LINK relation from the current type-t node to a type-e-requiring node. This LINK relation is expressed by the curved arrow in (7). The head noun hito is then parsed at this type-e-requiring node, and the node gets decorated with content of hito, and it is also specified as a type-e node. The computational action LINK EVALUATION incorporates the content at the type-t node into the type-e node. This type-e node is initially unfixed, since a parser cannot see at this point whether the head noun hito will be a subject, or an object, etc. In (7), the node has been fixed as a subject node by the lexical actions of the nominative case particle ga. (7) Parsing [[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga ?t, ݔ ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(Ȝ, y, Q(y)) : t (Ȝ, y, Q(y)) : e (Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : e ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x)) : (eЍt) (Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e ki’ : (eЍ(eЍt)) −207− Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically:A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions Here, I follow Cann et al.’s (2005: Ch.6) treatment of Japanese relatives, but their analysis is not formally licit in that it introduces two unfixed nodes hung from the same node during tree growth. I sidestep this issue in the tree (7), since it is not directly pertinent to the current discussion; see Seraku (2012) for an alternative analysis of Japanese relatives within Dynamic Syntax. The current node in (7) is enriched by the parse of the predicate kawaiku-mieru (= ‘look-cute’). (8) Parsing [[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t, ݔ ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(Ȝ, y, Q(y)) : t (Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : e k-m’ : (eЍt) The internal structure of the relative clause is abbreviated by a triangle in (8). In addition, content of the predicate kawaiku-mieru is notated as k-m’. Cann et al. (2005: 285) regard no as a nominalizer that copies a term (in the present case, the term (Ȝ, x, P(x)) in (8)), and pastes it at a type-e node to which the type-t node is LINKed. This LINK relation is expressed by the arrow with the notation “no” in (9). (9) Parsing [[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru no “no” k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t (Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e, ݔ In (9), the whole structure that has been constructed prior to the parse of no (i.e. the tree (8) as a whole) is schematized by a triangle for the sake of brevity. Then, the lexical actions encoded in the topic particle wa (Cann et al. 2005: 268) put at a LINKed type-t-requiring node the requirement ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x)), for more on which see below. (10) Parsing [[[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru no]-wa “no” k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t (Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e “wa” ?t, ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x)), ݔ What comes next is the focus item kono-huku (= ‘this-cloth’). In order to parse a type-e item within an island, an inverse LINK relation is introduced, as in (11). This updating is formalized as a computational action in Cann et al. (2005: 169). (11) INVERSE-LINK INTRODUCTION “no” k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t (Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e “wa” ?t, ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x)) ?e, ݔ −208− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 The type-e-requiring node is fleshed out by the lexical actions of the focus item kono-huku, and once decorated by the processing of kono-huku, this decoration is incorporated into another node as ?<D>(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)), a requirement that a node somewhere below the current node should be decorated with the term (Ƞ, x, huku’(x)). This requirement ensures that the term (Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) is used in the construction from the current type-t-requiring node (Cann et al. 2005: 169). (12) Parsing [[[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru no]-wa kono-huku “no” k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t (Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e “wa” ?t, ?<D>(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)), ݔ (Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) : e Note that the requirement ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x)), which was present in (11), has been deleted in (12). This is because the new requirement ?<D>(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) is stronger than the old one; that is, if the new requirement is satisfied, the weaker initial form of requirement will also be satisfied. Finally, the lexical actions of the copula da put a place-holding variable at a type-t-requiring node (Seraku 2011). This place-holding variable licenses the re-run of a set of previous actions to construct a propositional structure. In the present case, what is re-run is a set of previous actions creating the structure of the pre-no clause (i.e. the structure which is schematized by a triangle in (12)). During this re-run, the node for the gap gets decorated with (Ƞ, x, huku’(x)), which meets the requirement ?<D>(Ƞ, x, huku’(x)). (13) Parsing [[[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru no]-wa kono-huku da “no” k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t (Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e “wa” k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ƞ, x, huku’(x))(y)) : t, ݔ (Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) : e This is the final state of the tree transitions for the cleft–P (5). The current node in (13) represents the interpretation of the cleft–P (5): ‘It is this cloth xj that the person who wears xj looks cute.’ The presence of tree transitions that lead to a well-formed final state ensures that the cleft–P (5) is grammatical, and it further shows that clefts–P are not sensitive to island constraints. 3.2. Clefts+P Let’s now move on to the cleft+P (2), repeated here as (14). ki-teiru] (14) *[[[ei ej wear-CONT] [[[ kono-hukuj-o da. this-cloth-ACC COP hitoi]-ga person]-NOM kawaiku-mieru cute-look no]-wa NO]-TOP Prior to the case particle o, the tree transitions for this string are the same as those for the cleft–P counterpart. That is, the tree (15) is engendered. (If the content of kono-huku is incorporated into the LINKed type-t-requiring node as a requirement, the tree (12) will emerge. In the present case, −209− Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically:A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions however, before this incorporation process occurs, the case particle o needs to be parsed.) (15) Parsing [[[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru no]-wa kono-huku “no” k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t (Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e “wa” ?t, ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x)) (Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) : e, ݔ The next item is the accusative case particle o. In this tree state, however, case particles cannot be parsed, as their lexical actions have the following two conditions (Cann et al. 2005: 236). (16) a. The pointer ݔmust be at a type-e node. b. If the pointer moves up, it must reach a type-t-requiring node without crossing a LINK relation. In (15), since the pointer ݔcannot arrive at a type-t-requiring node without crossing the LINK relation, the condition (16b) is not satisfied. This captures the ungrammaticality of the cleft+P (14). One may argue that there may be an alternative analysis of the cleft+P (14). In fact, prior to parsing the focus item, a parser could use the computational action GENERALIZED ADJUNCTION, which introduces a globally unfixed type-t-requiring node that may be resolved across a LINK relation. This global underspecification is notated by the dotted line in (17). (17) Parsing [[[Ki-teiru] hito]-ga kawaiku-mieru no]-wa kono-huku “no” k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t (Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e “wa” ?t, ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x)) (Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) : e, ݔ The next item to be parsed is the accusative case particle o. Case particles cannot be parsed in this environment due to the constraint (16b), but a parser could use the computational action INVERSE LOCAL *ADJUNCTION, which updates (17) into (18), where the node for the focus item is unfixed non-globally relative to a type-t-requiring node, which, in turn, is globally unfixed relative to another type-t-requiring node. The non-global underspecification is notated by the dashed line. (18) INVERSE LOCAL *ADJUNCTION “no” k-m’(Ȝ, y, hito’(y)&ki’(Ȝ, x, P(x))(y)) : t (Ȝ, x, P(x)) : e “wa” ?t, ?<D>(Ȝ, x, P(x)) ?t (Ƞ, x, huku’(x)) : e, ݔ −210− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 This tree state allows the case particle o to be parsed, because the current node is a type-e node, satisfying the condition (16a), and it is also unfixed non-globally with respect to a type-t-requiring node, satisfying the condition (16b). After the pointer ݔmoves up to the higher type-t-requiring node, the parse of the copula da posits a type-t place-holding variable, licensing the re-use of previous actions to build up a propositional structure (i.e. the structure schematized by a triangle in (18)). Now, the unfixed node for the focus item kono-huku must be fixed as an object node in this emergent propositional structure. However, such a fixation is not possible, since MERGE, a computational action that resolves structural underspecification by unifying an unfixed node with a fixed node, is inapplicable to global underspecification. (Recall that in the tree (18), there is global underspecification, as visually shown by the dotted line.) Thus, a well-formed final state cannot obtain in these tree transitions. In sum, the cleft+P (14) cannot be mapped onto a well-formed final state, and it is thus regarded as an ungrammatical string. This, in turn, characterizes the island-sensitivity of clefts+P. 3.3. Significance of the Account This section has analyzed the island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese clefts in terms of how a parser constructs a semantic/pragmatic tree incrementally. Since the data discussed in this section can also be handled by the previous syntactic studies (e.g. Hiraiwa and Ishihara to appear, Hoji 1990, Kizu 2005), the significance of my analysis is to be explicated. These previous syntactic studies account for the data by postulating distinct derivations for the two types of clefts. The established view is to assume that movement is involved in clefts+P but not in clefts–P. The exception is Kizu (2005); she uniformly utilizes movement for the derivations of both types of clefts, but ends up assigning quite different derivations to them. Contrary to these ambiguity accounts, my analysis provides a uniform account; every lexical item in clefts is assigned a single entry, and no distinct tree transitions are assigned to the two types of clefts. Thus, from the viewpoint of theoretical parsimony, my analysis is preferable over the aforementioned syntactic analyses. 4. RE-THINKING TOPIC AND FOCUS In Japanese clefts, the pre-no clause, which conveys presupposition, is nominalized by no, and it is further marked as a “topic” by the particle wa. With respect to this topic, the pre-copula item expresses a “focus”. As stated in Erteschik-Shir (2007: 26), however, such notions as topic and focus are elusive to formulate, since they are related to various phenomena (e.g. topicalizations, clefts, wh-questions), and these phenomena behave differently cross-linguistically. In general, a “topic” is old or given information which stands in an aboutness relation to the information expressed by the non-topicalized part of the sentence; a “focus” is more difficult to define, but in the case of assertion, it is part of the propositional content of a sentence that assigns a value to an issue under discussion. For more discussion of these concepts, see Lambrecht (1996). In this section, I shall explore how my analysis characterizes the notions of “topic” and “focus” in Japanese clefts. To this end, I follow Cann et al. (2005: 183-4) and Kempson et al. (2006) in claiming that there are neither primitive concepts such as topic and focus nor theoretical constructs that are tied to them. This stance is contrasted with other approaches to topic/focus constructions; for instance, in the “cartographic” approach to the left periphery (Rizzi 1997 and subsequent works), syntactic projections for topic and focus (i.e. TP, FP) are postulated. In the Dynamic Syntax view, the notions of topic or focus are not articulated over a tree, but their effects emerge as a result of incremental tree updating. More specifically, topic effects arise when a term is presented as a context relative to which a parser starts to build up a propositional structure; by −211− Addressing Syntactic Issues Semantically/Pragmatically:A Case Study of Island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese Cleft Constructions contrast, focus effects arise when a parser has constructed an open proposition and the provision of a term serves as an update to the open propositional structure (cf. Gregoromichelaki (2010)). Given these premises, topic and focus effects in Japanese clefts can be taken to arise as a result of certain forms of tree updating. First, the node created by no is decorated with the content of the gap in a cleft, and the topic marker wa introduces a LINK relation from this node to an emergent propositional structure, posing a requirement that the content of the gap should be present in the emergent propositional structure. This updating yields what one associates with a topic effect in a cleft sentence. Second, the structure built up by the parse of the pre-no clause involves a term representing the content of the gap in a cleft, and a parser expects a concrete term to obtain which specifies the content of the gap. It is by the parse of the pre-copula item that such specification is made; that is, the abstract content of the gap in the previous structure gets specified as concrete content in the new structure by the parse of the pre-copula item (and the copula). These transitions invoke what one normally regards as a focus effect in a cleft sentence. 5. CONCLUSION This paper has argued that the island-(in)sensitivity in Japanese clefts follows from incremental growth of a semantic/pragmatic tree. The analysis is preferable over previous accounts in that it offers a uniform analysis of clefts. This case study has implications for the study of semantics and pragmatics. First, it characterizes topic and focus effects as a by-product of gradual tree updating. Second, it challenges the traditional view that structural puzzles are to be addressed syntactically. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I’d like to thank David Cram, Stephen Horn, Ruth Kempson, Jieun Kiaer, and the participants of my talk at the PSJ 14 for their helpful suggestions. REFERENCES Cann, R., Kempson, R., and Marten, L. et al. 2005. The Dynamics of Language. Oxford: Elsevier. Erteschik-Shir, N. 2007. Information Structure. Oxford: OUP. Gregoromichelaki, E. 2010. “A Dynamic Perspective of Left-Right Asymmetries.” In Walker, H. and Webelhuth, G. (eds.) Rightward Movement from a Cross-linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hiraiwa, K. and Ishihara, S. to appear. “Syntactic Metamorphosis.” Syntax. Hoji, H. 1990. Theories of Anaphora and Aspects of Japanese Syntax. Ms., USC. Kempson, R., Cann, R., and Kiaer, J. 2006. “Topic, Focus and the Structural Dynamics of Language.” In Molnár, V. and Winkler, S. (eds.) The Architecture of Focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kempson, R. and Kurosawa, A. 2009. “At the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface.” In Hoshi, H. (ed.) The Dynamics and Mechanism of Language. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Kizu, M. 2005. Cleft Constructions in Japanese Syntax. New York: Palgrave. Lambrecht, K. 1996. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge : CUP. Rizzi, L. 1997. “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In Haegeman, L. (ed.) Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Seraku, T. 2011. “On the Polyfunctionality of Copula Sentences in Japanese.” In Cummins, C. et al. th (eds.) Proceedings of the 6 Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research. Seraku, T. 2012. “Complex NPs in Head-final Languages.” Ms., University of Oxford. nd Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance, 2 edition. Oxford: Blackwell. −212− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Allo-repetition to Develop the Story: From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives Lala Uchida Tokyo Denki University ࠑAbstractࠒ My aim is to shed light on how repetition of story-recipients' utterances by storytellers affects storytelling. I investigate the use of allo-repetition, focusing on three components proposed by Ochs et al. (1992): explanatory, challengeability, and redrafting. The data consists of ten audiotaped face-to-face conversations between English speakers. This analysis shows that storytellers repeat the story-recipients’ words chiefly as answers and links, to summarize and develop their story. In addition, answering is fulfilled the most in challengeability, while linking occurs most frequently in explanatory and redrafting. I identify two kinds of collaboration being encouraged by repetition: contextual collaboration and expressional collaboration. ࠙Keywordsࠚ: allo-repetition, storytelling, theory-building activity, joint construction 1. Introduction People share experiences with their interlocutors through narratives. Researchers in sociolinguistics or discourse analysis have argued that narratives are created by collaborations between storytellers and story-recipients (Ochs et al. 1992; Nishikawa 2005). To illustrate this, we need to focus on the linguistic strategy that both participants use to complete a single narrative together. In particular, repetition is an effective tool in the joint construction of contextual meaning (Tannen 1989) because of being identified as a limitless resource for interpersonal development and being regarded as a strategy of “positive politeness” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 102) in establishing common ground with interlocutors. I have analyzed the use of immediate allo-repetition in English-language narratives to describe how repetition by storytellers to story-recipients affects storytelling. I have also investigated the use of allorepetition in terms of place, form, and content, focusing on the components of storytelling that Ochs et al. (1992) had initially proposed in their model of narrative as a theory-building activity. I relied on the definition of a narrative by Sugita (2006)—a discussion of a particular past event using a series of sequentially ordered clauses created through cooperation between storytellers and recipients. 2. Previous studies 2.1. Narrative Labov and Waletzky (1967) and Lerner (1992) have analyzed how storytellers develop their stories or convey important points. They have suggested that as storytellers relate details of an event, storyrecipients react to them. At the same time, however, this pattern is not always maintained throughout a narrative; rather, recipients also contribute to the progression of a story. In contrast, Ochs et al. (1992) and Nishikawa (2005) focused on collaboration in narrative building and emphasized the contribution of recipients to the completion of narratives. Ochs et al. (1992) compared everyday storytelling to theory-building activities, arguing that a story is collaboratively constructed by both the storyteller and the story-recipient. Nishikawa (2005) applied this concept of −213− Allo-repetition to Develop the Story: From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives narrative as a theory-building activity to Japanese conversational data. She was able to support the idea of co-constructing a narrative on the part of all interlocutors by showing that Japanese conversations had a structure similar to the one that Ochs et al. (1992) had identified in English language storytelling. However, no study has analyzed how narratives are created from one linguistic expression. Uchida (2010) clarified the function of repetition on the part of story-recipients in the construction of narratives. According to her research, the way a storyteller reacts to a recipient’s repetition clearly demonstrates that repetition is used to help clarify the story and bring the narrative to completion, thus contributing to joint construction in storytelling. However, no study has revealed how repetition by storytellers of words or phrases spoken by story-recipients, who have less information on the story told, is linked to the completion of a narrative. 2.2. Components of theory-building activities in narrative According to Ochs et al. (1992), narratives in ordinary conversations include collaborative theorybuilding activities. These activities involve the following three components: (1) explanatory (storytellers suggest at least one problematic event that frames or changes other narrated events); (2) challengeability (both storytellers and listeners can actively contribute to narrative completion by pointing out a problem area in a previous narrative or by presenting new ideas to render the problematic event as being much more comprehensible); and (3) redrafting (storytellers respond to interlocutors’ attempts to elaborate on the narrative or provide alternative explanations, framings, and the outcomes of the previous speakers’ rough description). I clarified the processes by which narratives are completed through the use of allorepetition and expanded on the above research of Ochs et al. (1992). 2.3. Allo-repetition Allo-repetition is the repetition of story-recipients’ utterances by storytellers in the same conversation. It involves phrases that can effectively introduce the speaker's own ideas or opinions via the “voice” of others (Bakhtin 1981) and is thus a significant element that contributes to the joint construction of narrative. Kim (2002) noted that repetition manifests as either exact repetition or partial repetition of some preceding turn, most commonly involving what the speaker has just said sententially, clausally, phrasally, or lexically. Exact repetition occurs when the same wording is used between repeated and repetition usually in the forms of single words or phrases. According to this definition, even one- or two-word noun phrases are defined as repetition. Partial repetition includes deixis, tense shift, speaker change, and changes of prosody. I have excluded paraphrasing because it is too difficult to identify the extent to which paraphrasing reflects a speaker’s linguistic form and contributes to that of the listener. This analysis deployed Kim’s definition and considered as true repetition only the direct quotation of the immediately preceding utterance. Direct quotation can be given when story-recipients hear preceding words and repeat all or some part of them lexically. 2.4. Functions of repetition I measured the following eight functions of allo-repetition in English on the basis of previous studies of repetition, including the illustration of a range of functions served by repetition of words, −214− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 phrases, and clauses in a conversation (Tannen 1989); the identification of six social actions performed by second-position repetition (Kim 2002); and the quantitative analysis of English allo-repetition (Machi 2007): agreement, confirmation, questioning, answering, acceptance of humor, linking phrases, correction, and surprise. 3. Research questions A brief review on previous research of narrative and repetition indicates that analyzing repetition with regard to the components proposed by Ochs et al. (1992) may provide significant information on how repetition functions as an interactive feature and the extent to which it influences the direction of narratives. I conducted this investigation by focusing on allo-repetition to identify the form of cooperative interaction that each repetition takes and the manner in which it contributes to narrative completion. Functional analysis, on the other hand, can clarify the meaning that each repetition adds to a narrative and help us understand how repetition is used in storytellers’ redrafting. Taking this into consideration, I will address the following two questions: “(1) For what function do storytellers use repetition?” and “(2) How does functional distribution of repetition differ among the three components?” 4. Materials and methods I used transcriptions of audio recordings of 10 face-to-face conversations between native English speakers from the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English Part 1, lasting a total of about 229 minutes. I identified 104 instances of allo-repetition by storytellers to story-recipients. I classified these data according to the three components of theory building in narratives to conduct a functional analysis. 5. Analysis 5.1. Functional distribution of allo-repetition according to the eight functions Quantitative and qualitative analyses reveal that storytellers repeat the story-recipients’ words primarily as answers (31.7%) and links (31.7%) (Table 1), whose examples will be shown below: Table 1: Allo-repetition by storytellers to story-recipients according to the eight functions Functions Agre Conf Ques Answ Number (%) 12 (11.5) 6 (5.8) 4 (3.8) 33 (31.7) Humor Link 5 (4.8) 33 (31.7) Corr Surp TOTAL 11 (10.6) 0 104 (1) Answering ࠙Actual Blacksmithingࠚ(LYNNE = storyteller; LENORE, DORIS = story-recipients)1 01 LE: ... So you don't need to go ... borrow equipment from anybody, 02 to -Ѝ 03 ... to do the feet? 04 ... [Do the hooves]? 05 LY: [(H)=] <YWN Well, 06 we're gonna have to find somewhere, 07 to get, 08 (Hx) ... something (Hx) YWN>. 09 D: .. So, −215− Allo-repetition to Develop the Story: From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives 10 [~Mae-] -11 LY: [I'm gonna] (Hx) -12 D: [2~Mae ~Lynne XX2] э 13 LY: [2(H) We're not2] gonna do the feet today, 14 I'm gonna wait till like, 15 early in the morning=, 16 .. to do those, 17 cause y- -18 I mean you get s=o ti=red. The participants of this conversation are LYNNE (a student of equine science), LENORE (a visitor and near stranger), and DORIS (LYNNE’s mother, who is doing housework). LENORE, one of the storyrecipients, inquires about the purpose of borrowing equipment during a training session on horse trimming. LYNNE, the storyteller of this narrative, answers her question in line 13 by repeating part of LENORE’s phrase, especially the utterance in line 03 that she is not going “to do the feet”—a phrase LENORE uses to ask about LYNNE’s purpose for borrowing equipment. This repetition serves as feedback to the story-recipients, showing the storyteller’s consideration toward the degree of storyrecipients’ understanding in order to clarify information and develop the narrative. (2) Linking phrases ࠙This Retirement Bitࠚ(ANGELA = storyteller; DORIS, SAMANTHA = story-recipients) 01 A: (H) It had a, 02 (H) it had a, 03 ... one of tho=se ... bottoms that -04 D: ... Oh=. 05 A: are -06 ... what do you call it. 07 S: .. A tail? 08 D: ... No. Ѝ 09 The tight. Ѝ 10 It- [% % the band]. 11 S: [Oh]. э 12 A: [The t- the] tight band around [2the bottom2] [3of it3]. 13 D: [2B-2] [3band3]. 14 S: [3I don't3] like those. 15 A: ... I don't either. 16 D: ... Makes your butt look [thin]. 17 A: [Most] all of em are that way. 18 D: [2Makes your hei- -19 A: [2(H) And do you know2], 20 D: makes your2] heinie look thinner. This conversation took place among three friends (ANGELA, DORIS, and SAMANTHA), all of whom are retired women. ANGELA, the storyteller of this narrative, forms her utterance and develops it by linking two phrases “The tight” in line 09 and “band” in line 10. These two phrases are taken from story-recipient DORIS’ answer to ANGELA’s question about the name of a beads accessory. Here, the utterance in line 12 serves as feedback to both story-recipients, which includes the information from DORIS and assimilates the understanding of SAMANTHA. This segment helps clarify the narrative content by combining story-recipients’ fragmentary words to create one phrase. 5.2. Functional distribution of allo-repetition according to the three components Next, the functional distribution of allo-repetition according to the three components by storytellers −216− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 to story-recipients most frequently involves responding to challenges (34.3%), whereas linking occurs most frequently in the context of explanation (50%) and redrafting (56%) (Table 2). I will demonstrate three instances below with involving the three components: Table 2: Allo-repetition by storytellers to story-recipients according to the three components Functions Expla (%) Chall (%) Redra (%) Agre Conf Ques Answ Humor 0 0 1 (8.3) 4 (33.3) 0 10 (14.9) 5 (7.5) 3 (4.5) 23 (34.3) 4 (6) 2 (8) 1 (4) 0 6 (24) 1 (4) Link Corr 6 (50) 1 (8.3) 13 (19.4) 9 (13.4) 14 (56) 1 (4) Surp 0 0 0 TOTAL 12 67 25 (3) Linking phrases in the explanatory component ࠙Appease the Monsterࠚ(MARCI = storyteller; WENDY, KEVIN, KENDRA = story-recipients) Ѝ 01 W: All of our alterations go to !Edna, 02 M: (H) Ѝ 03 KEV: !Edna. ࠙pre-explanatory componentࠚ 04 KEN: .. <FOOD I go to [!Rita FOOD>]. 05 W: [and] __ э 06 M: !Edna's left our church. 07 Did you know that? 08 .. [Did] she tell [2you2]? 09 KEV: [(DRINK)] 10 W: [2Hm2]_m. 11 KEV: .. Hm_m. 12 M: They've go=ne [.. to=] .. a sou=th, 13 KEN: [(THROAT)] 14 M: .. a church down south, a little tiny one? ࠙explanatory componentࠚ 15 KEV: (H) 16 M: (H) And when !Edn=a told me about it, .. %it was because they sort of wanted to go=, .. to a smaller congregation. 17 KEV: [Hm]. 18 M: [(H)] But when they announced it in church, and we prayed for them, it was becau=se, they, .. um, ... they were gonna go out %, ... because they felt called. ... [So], 19 KEV: [Hm]. 20 M: .. I don't know what the real story is, but, ... it sounded kinda neat. 21 KEV: .. [Hm]. 22 W: [(TSK) Well it] must % __ Their, I think thei=r motives must .. be pretty solid, if they're willing to talk to !Ron about it, and [make it a pub]lic thing, 23 M: [Oh yeah]. Yeah[2=2], ࠙challengeability componentࠚ 24 W: [2So2], ... [3(H)3] 25 M: [3Yeah3]. This is a family conversation at a birthday party. Among the participants, KENDRA (the person celebrating the birthday) and KEVIN are siblings, MARCI is their mother, and WENDY is KEVIN’s wife. MARCI, the storyteller, repeats WENDY’s word in line 01 and KEVIN’s word in line 03—both of them are in the pre-explanatory component—to begin a story about Edna changing churches in line 06, a part of the explanatory component. This leads to clarifying information about Edna by bringing the story-recipients’ words together and linking them. It acts as feedback to the story-recipients, which is an effective way to show commonality on a topic. −217− Allo-repetition to Develop the Story: From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives (4) Answering in the challengeability component ࠙A Book about Deathࠚ(PAMELA = storyteller; DARRYL = story-recipient) 01 P: (H) I'm thinking one thing my mother always used to say=, 02 when I wouldn't go bicycling with my [father], 03 D: [<@ ~Pamela], 04 you are [2@@@, 05 P: [2she would say2], ࠙explanatory componentࠚ 06 D: you are @@@ @>2] -07 P: she would say, 08 (H) <Q you'll be s=orry when we're dead Q>. Ѝ 09 D: @Because you would[n't bicycling]? 10 P: [@@ <@Mm@>]. э 11 Because I wouldn't go bicycling with my father. 12 D: Oh. ࠙challengeability componentࠚ This is a conversation between a couple who is lying in bed. PAMELA, the storyteller, raised a point in line 08—a part of the explanatory component—that her mother said PAMELA would be sorry when her parents were dead. The story-recipient DARRYL questions her point at line 09 in the challengeability component, which she summarizes in line 11 by giving feedback to the story-recipient with regard to the degree of his understanding. Here, she affirms DARRYL’s question by using the same phrases to express a high level of empathy in response to the challenge from the story-recipient. (5) Linking phrases in the redrafting component ࠙Conceptual Pesticidesࠚ(MARILYN = storyteller; PETE, ROY = story-recipients) 01 M: But -02 .. Yeah. 03 .. (H) Actually, 04 you know, ࠙explanatory componentࠚ 05 .. Zeke the sheik .. is a local. 06 ... You know, 07 the guy whose compost pile blew up? 08 P: ... Oh no I don't know a[bout this]. 09 M: [Didn't you hear] about him? 10 P: [2No2]. ࠙challengeability componentࠚ 11 M: [2It -12 it2] caught fi- -: 24 you wanna butter these? ࠙redrafting componentࠚ 25 R: 26 P: 27 R: 28 M: 29 R: 30 P: Ѝ 31 R: The grass clip[pings]. [Mhm]. <X A X> huge [2ceme2]tery, [2Yeah2]. they would [3mow their3] lawns, [3Yeah3]. .. he would take [4the grass clippings4]. 32 M: [4And he asked em4], э 33 if he could have the grass clippings, 34 for like fifteen years. ࠙challengeability componentࠚ ࠙redrafting componentࠚ This example was extracted from a conversation among three friends who are preparing dinner together. ROY and MARILYN are a married couple, and PETE is a friend visiting from out of town. The −218− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 storyteller, MARILYN, develops a topic about a Muslim patriarch, Zeke, whose compost pile blew up. ROY, one of the story-recipients, uses the phrase “the grass clippings” in line 31—a part of the challengeability component—to refer to the grass required to restore the burned compost pile. MARILYN links the phrase to her narrative and repeats it in line 33 in the redrafting component. This acts as feedback to the story-recipient to help in assimilating his understanding of the information. It also clarifies the relationship with the previous expression of the phrase and develops the present narrative in the redrafting component in which Zeke asked if he could have the grass clippings. 6. Discussion Clarifying the function of repetition will bring us an opportunity to learn more about the extent to which it contributes to narrative completion. By adopting the story-recipients’ information and understanding through repetition, storytellers summarized the conversation so far and assimilated storyrecipient with the pace of a given narrative in respect of the degree of participants’ information and understanding as feedback. Then, the storytellers brought close to a conclusion of their own narrative. Here, responding to stories by repetition can be used as a signal for the storyteller to be ready for the recipients’ contribution to a particular story. Utterances from listeners can give storytellers more information about how to complete a certain narrative in a more detailed and comprehensible way (Tannen 1978; Norrick 2008). Repetition is often regarded as a pivot for both of the participants in narrative, a signal to restart and develop the storytelling, which indicates that certain focal points should be clarified for storytellers and story-recipients (Uchida 2010). Also, repetition is a tool for joint construction of narrative. Through repetition, the following two kinds of collaboration are enabled or encouraged: (1) contextual collaboration, which helps to clarify story content; and (2) expressional collaboration, which helps synchronize two voices. In contextual collaboration, repetition is often regarded as a signal to restart the storytelling, leading to the clarification of focal points. Indeed, story-recipients typically have less information about the topic at hand than do storytellers, creating a situation in which listeners must keep pace with the speaker to develop the ongoing narrative. Additionally, storytellers can use repetition to confirm listeners’ understanding and incorporate their words into the stories. During expressional collaboration, each repetition belongs to a speaker in his/her role as an “animator” (Goffman 1981: 144). At the same time, however, the repeated words were initially uttered by a previous speaker and thus also belong to that original speaker in his/her role as “author” (ibid.). The expressive similarity between the two voices enables storytellers and story-recipients to build cooperative relationships in the service of completing a given narrative. 7. Conclusion The results of this study highlight the importance of repetition in the co-construction process of conversational storytelling and help clarify how interlocutors jointly construct information in narratives. At the same time, however, framework of linguistic anthropology, such as indexicality (Silverstein 1976; Kataoka 2002; Hata 2008), must be adopted in a further research. Analyzing repetition from the perspective of indexicality enables us to deepen our understanding on the role of allo-repetition in narrative development, because indexicality argues that each linguistic device clarifies its meaning −219− Allo-repetition to Develop the Story: From Storytellers to Story-recipients in English Narratives through detailed information about context and that interaction between speaker and listener, including collaborative constructing of narratives, is focused on to explain creative meaning of indexicality. Notes 1. Transcription conventions (Du Bois et al. 1993) Intonation .: final ,: continuing ?: appeal (TSK): click VOX: voice of another pause ...: middle (0.3 s < X < 0.6 s) ..: short (X < 0.2 s) (H): inhalation (Hx): exhalation [ ]: overlap <Q Q>: quotation <X word X>: uncertain hearing !: booster @: laugh =: latching %: glottal stop wor-: word truncation References Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. In M. Holquist (ed.), C. Emerson and M. Holquist (trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Du Bois, J. W., S. Schuetze-Coburn, S. Cumming and D. Paolino. 1993. “Outline of Discourse Transcription.” In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lampert (eds.) Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for discourse research, 45-89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hata, K. 2008. “How Direct/indirect Indexicality Functions in Japanese Women’s Narratives of Childbirth and Childcare Experiences: A Study of the Relationship between Sociocultural Context and Representation of Social Norms.” Studies in English and American Literature 43, 55-77. Kataoka, K. 2002. “Shijiteki, Hishijiteki Imi to Bunkateki Jissen: Gengo ni okeru ‘Shihyousei’ ni tsuite (Referential/nonreferential Meaning and Cultural Significance: ‘Indexicality’ in Language Use).” The Japanese Journal of Language in Society 4:2, 21-41. Kim, H. 2002. “The Form and Function of Next-turn Repetition in English Conversation.” Language Research 38:1, 51-81. Labov, W. and J. Waletzky. 1967. “Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience.” In J. Helm (ed.) Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, 12-44. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Lerner, G. H. 1992. “Assisted Storytelling: Deploying Shared Knowledge as a Practical Matter.” Qualitative Sociology 15:3, 247-271. Machi, S. 2007. “Disukoosu ni okeru Kurikaeshi no Kinoo no Nichiei Hikaku—‘Our Story’ Moderu vs. ‘My/your Story’ Moderu—(Comparative Study of Function of Repetition between English and Japanese Discourses—‘Our Story’ Model vs. ‘My/your Story’ Model—).” HLC Handbook 2007: Abstracts and Handouts of the 33rd Spring Seminar, 29-30. Nishikawa, R. 2005. “Nichijoo Kaiwa ni Okoru Naratjibu no Kyoodoo Keisei—Riron-koochiku Katsudoo toshite no Naratjibu (Collaborative Formation of Conversational Narratives—Narratives as a Theory-building Activity).” The Japanese Journal of Language in Society 7:2, 25-38. Norrick, N. 2008. “Negotiating the Reception of Stories in Conversation: Teller Strategies for Modulating Response.” Narrative Inquiry 18:1, 131-151. Ochs, E., C. Taylor, D. Rudolph and R. Smith. 1992. “Storytelling as a Theory-building Activity.” Discourse Processes 15, 37-72. Silverstein, M. 1976. “Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description.” In K. Basso and H. Selby (eds.) Meaning in Anthropology, 11-55. New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press. Sugita, K. 2006. “Shitashii Yuujin Dooshi no Kaiwa ni okeru Naratjibu no Nichi-bei Taishoo Bunseki (Comparative Study of Narratives between Friends in English and Japanese).” Proceedings of the 17th Conference in the Japanese Association of Sociolinguistic Sciences, 92-95. Tannen, D. 1978. “The Effect of Expectations on Conversation.” Discourse Processes 1:2, 203-209. Tannen, D. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Uchida, L. 2010. “Clarifying the Story: An Analysis of Allo-repetition by Story-recipients in English.” Paper Presented at Sociolinguistic Symposium 18. Southampton, U.K. −220− ポスターセッション Poster Sessions 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 対話の参与者間における言語的響鳴と連鎖 伊澤宜仁 慶應義塾大学大学院 ＜Abstract＞ What enables us to communicate with others easily? On this point, dialogic syntax of Du Bois (2001) is thought-provoking. Dialogic syntax puts a strong emphasis on parallelism between utterances, which is defined as resonance. In this juxtaposed structure, there are syntagmatic and paradigmatic similarities between elements, and the following speaker reuses the preceding utterance, including both words and syntactic relations. Resonances make it possible to produce a multi-layered connection between adjacent utterances, and this could lead to various properties such as retrospectiveness. In conclusion, resonance can be regarded as a device which facilitates the sequence perception and cognitive processing in interactions. 【Keywords】 ：対話統語論、響鳴、くり返し、遡及的連鎖、対話コーパス 1. はじめに ヒトが社会生活を営む上で、他者との意思疎通 は不可欠である。複数の参与者間における情報の やり取りは様々な媒体を通して成立するが、特に ヒトに固有な言語の役割を考察することは、イン タラクションの構造を究明・応用する上で大きな 意義を有すると言える。本研究は、理論的背景と し て Du Bois (2001) の 提 唱 す る 対 話 統 語 論 (dialogic syntax)を設定し、響鳴(resonance)という 「対話の参与者間における類似発話の使用」に着 眼する。その上で、観察可能な言語的振る舞いの 集積として対話コーパスを採用し、言語的響鳴が いかなる効果をもたらすか考察を試みる。本研究 の目的は以下の 2 点に集約される： i. 2. くり返し 対話においては、先行発話と類似した後続発話 がしばしば生起する。このような、参与者間での 類似発話の使用は、伝達上は冗長とも感じられる。 なぜそのような発話が生じるか、という問題意識 から、類似発話は従来の研究においてくり返し (repetition)として議論されてきた。代表的な知見 としては、以下のものが挙げられよう： 先行研究 Jakobson (1970) ii. ・先行発話の記憶/修正/評価/ 相槌といった調整的機能 Bock (1986) ・構造プライミングという 認知的機能 Tannen (1989) 言語的響鳴と対話の連鎖構造がいかなる ・押韻等に基づく詩的機能 Beun (1985) 類似発話の分析により、参与者が先行発話 をどのように利用するか考察する くり返しの機能 ・対話への関与(involvement) という社会的機能 関係を持つか考察する なお、コーパスの便宜から対象は英語に限定し、 アノテーションが豊かな対話コーパスとして SBCSAE (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English)を援用する方針を採る。 しかし、先行研究は分析の媒体が限定的であり、 発話間の類似性を記述する手法も乏しいという 問題点があった。類似性は、完全な反復から部分 的反復という連続性を示すが、そのような連続性 を反映できる枠組みが必要である。 −221− 対話の参与者間における言語的響鳴と連鎖 3. 対話統語論 くり返しの先行研究と比較して、対話統語論の 特色は構造的並行性(structural parallelism)にある。 対話統語論は、従来くり返しと呼ばれてきた現象 を響鳴として再規定し、ダイアグラフ(diagraph) という連辞・連合関係の表記から、響鳴の記述・ 分析を進める。簡例として以下を参照したい。 (diagraph) 1 Joanne; it ’s kind of like ^you Ken . 3 Ken; that ’s not at^all like me Joanne . 響鳴の記述例（Du Bois 2001: 4; 左はコーパスのライン番号） この対話では、like と’s が語彙的に一致しており、 指示対象としては it = that / you = me という一致 が見られる。また、末尾の Ken と Joanne は両者 ともに呼格であり、kind of と not at all には互換 性が想定される。これらは、共に類似点を有する コピュラ述語文でありながら、肯定と否定という 反対の意味を持つのである。Du Bois (2001)は、 響鳴は語・統語・形態素・音声・指示等に見られ、 くり返し・変形・代入・言い換え等で実現される としている。このように、対話統語論は参与者間 における心的表象の提携を基盤としつつ、語や統 語といった様々なレベルで生じる響鳴に着眼し、 その原理や動機付けを探究する枠組みである。 また、対話統語論は、参与者間にプライミング 効果に基づく様々な心的表象の提携を措定する。 これは、Chafe (1994)の情報の活性化(activation) 理論にも係る知見である。つまり、対話の参与者 がある発話をする際、その発話は聴者の心的表象 を活性化させており、聴者は続いて発話する際に その活性化された心的表象を使う傾向にある、と 考えるわけである。ここで重要な点は、活性化さ れる心的表象は話者の企図に即する必要はなく、 その他の統語構造等の抽象的なパターンも同時 に活性化されており、時としてインタラクション の資源として利用され得るという点であろう。 以上の響鳴は、先行発話からスキーマを抽出・ 利用するという、対話でのパターン発見の能力 (Tomasello 2003)とも関係すると考えられる。なお、 構造プライミングの持つ抽象性に対し、具体性が 付与された現象として捉えることも可能である (DuBois 2001)。 4. 言語的響鳴の事例 響鳴の性質について考察するため、本研究は、 英語対話コーパス(Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English; SBCSAE)内の 19 の 2 人対話を 媒体とし、響鳴例を人手(+コンピュータの補助) により網羅的に抽出した上で、傾向を観察した。 抽出の際、響鳴の規範的単位とされる複数話者に よる「隣接発話対」に則り、共話や重複、yeah-yeah 等の一語発話対を除外して考察を行った。また、 響鳴を[SVO-SVO]といった抽象的な統語構造ま で拡張すると、議論が煩雑化する可能性がある。 これは、類似性の度合いに関する low-resonance の問題と言われるが、本研究では、上記のような 「考えようによっては似ている発話対」には立ち 入らず、あくまで語と統語構造の 2 軸に類似性が 観察されるものを響鳴として扱った。 結果として、SBCSAE の 2 人対話においては、 全 166 の響鳴が抽出された。全体的に、対応関係 を示しつつ一部を置換したものや、響鳴部に節を 追加した連鎖が多く見られた。また、形態上では 4 語以下の響鳴が多くを占めたが、これは発話の イントネーション・ユニットの傾向(Chafe 1994) と関係するものと考えられる。一部の例として、 以下の事例を挙げる。 Example 1 (SBC006 Cuz: 513-523) *ALIN: She ۀwouldn't eat her lunch because she wanted dessert . *ALIN: (..) Dessert comes around (.) Mom had cut all the pastries in half ? *ALIN: (.) &=in Cassandra takes five of them . *ALIN: (.) &=in She took (.) a: bite *ALIN: (.) That was it . *ALIN: (.) &{l=VOX I don't want any mo:ڿre &}l=VOX ۀ. (.) from each one . {& ہl=X Cause &}l=X ۂshe gets away with it . *LENO: *ALIN: (..) &=tsk Gets away with it . (diagraph) 522 LENO; 523 ALIN; −222− Cause she gets away with it . Gets away with it . y Cause she の省略を除いて発話間の対応関係 が保たれており、これは ALIN の発話が Gets で始まることからも明らか y 先行研究における相槌 / 関与示唆の機能 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Example 2 (SBC058 Swingin’ Kid: 287-292) *STEV: (..) Yeah but *SHER: Unhunh . there is something in here that +... *STEV: (..) The Doctor Dreadful f- (..) drink lab . *SHER: (..) The who what ? *STEV: (..) &{l=VOX The Doctor Dreadful drink lab &}l=VOX . を指す。ここで、響鳴の構築は後続発話に依り、 先行発話の類似発話が産出されて初めて発話間 に関係性が生じる点を踏まえると、響鳴の事後性 と遡及的連鎖は互いに無関係ではない。以上より、 一部の連鎖構造と響鳴は互いに関連すると想定 されるが、これは対話における「意味の遡及性」 について考察する上でも示唆的と言える。 (diagraph) 290 STEV; The Doctor Dredful f... drink lab . 291 SHER; The who what ? y The によって発話間の対応関係を保ちつつ、 対応する要素を疑問詞へと置換 y 修復開始発話(repair initiating utterance) Example.3 (SBC005 A Book About Death: 104-113) *DARR: (.) I ۀdidn't like the book the way I +/. 5. 考察 類似発話に基づく発話間の提携は、どのような 性質を持ち、さらにどのように連鎖と関わるのか。 対話は、発話毎に産出された内容を、参与者間の 共有基盤(common ground; Clark 1996)に付与する 営みである。そして、参与者はそこから共同注意 のフレームを形成し、特定の対象へと注意を共有 して対話を進めていく(Tomasello 2003)。これらに 関係する原理の 1 つとして、DuBois (2001)の関与 の原則が考えられる： *DARR: the minute I looked at it . *PAME: (..) You didn't . 関与の原則(Principle of Engagement ) *DARR: No . ・Engaged forms make engaged meanings (Du Bois 2001: 19) *PAME: That's cause you . *DARR: (..) That's because I have my own ideas about it 形式上の提携に伴う性質を考える前に、まず響鳴 の下位分類について言及しておく。対話統語論は、 響鳴の下位分類として、以下の連辞型 / 連合型 響鳴を想定する： I guess . *DARR: That I'm (.) pretty comfortable with . *PAME: (..) ah . (diagraph) 109 PAME; That ’s cause 110 DARR; That ’s because (diagraph) you I have my own ideas about it y 発話間の対応関係を保ちつつ、末尾の要素 を節により置換 y 置換 / 追加部分の有標化 例 3 では下線部が言語的響鳴の事例であるが、後 続の話者は先行発話の類似表現を用いることで、 当該の先行発話との関係性を保ちつつ、先行発話 の修正を行っている。その証左は後続する ah の 生起であり、これは Heritage (1984)における認知 状態の変化を表す oh と同種の表現と考えられる。 また、これは Schegloff (2007)における遡及的連鎖 (retro-sequence)とも関係する知見と考えられる。 遡及的連鎖とは、話者の意図と聴者の解釈という 推論モデルの流れとは異なり、先行発話の意味が 後続の話者により遡及的に規定される言語連鎖 1 JOANNE; 3 LENORE; yet he ’s still ^healthy . he ’s still walking ^around . (Du Bois 2001: 5) 上記の例においては he’s still＿が連辞型響鳴とし て機能し、発話間の対応関係の基盤を作るとされ る。Du Bois (2001)は、一定の語が響鳴において くり返され、そこから構成体が創発する可能性を 指摘しているが、このような観点は Hopper (1998) 等の創発文法(emergent grammar)に類するもので ある。一方、上記の発話対でより重要な点は、 healthy と walking around という単独では結び付き 難い表現が、連辞型響鳴の構造的並行性によって 明確に対比されるということである。このような 連合軸における響鳴が連合型響鳴であり、連辞軸 の表現に基づき、多様な要素が強固に対比される。 発話における特定部の有標化は、主に連合型響鳴 を通してなされると考えられる。 −223− 対話の参与者間における言語的響鳴と連鎖 ここで、発話間の提携がどのような性質を持ち、 どのように連鎖と関わるかという問いに戻ろう。 響鳴は、連辞型響鳴により発話間の関係性を担保 し、連合型響鳴により先行発話への同意や対比を 表すものと考えられる。特に、本来的な対応関係 のない対も形成する、という性質が特徴的である。 また、響鳴は後続の発話が生じて初めて成立する という点を踏まえると、類似発話による発話間の 提携 / 共有基盤の修正の際に、響鳴連鎖が特定 の連鎖に繋がる可能性がある。これらをまとめる と以下の通りである： 響鳴の性質 A) 先行発話の認識・注意の共有を明示 B) 先行発話の一部を焦点化 / 修正 響鳴には多様な性質が想定されるが、1 つとして、 参与者の共有基盤に加わった言語的資源に対し、 主体がその内のどこを焦点化するかを明示する という機能が考えられる。焦点化により、聴者は 産出の際、先行発話のどの部分に対しどのような 立場を採るかを、容易に伝達することが出来る。 また、響鳴と連鎖に関しては、立場の明示や焦点 化に伴って、共有基盤を事後的に構築するための 修復 / 遡及的連鎖の形成が考えられる。 6. 結語 本研究は、理論的背景として Du Bois (2001)の 提唱する対話統語論を設定し、響鳴という現象に 着眼した上で、対話コーパスによって言語的響鳴 がいかなる効果をもたらすか考察を試みた。冒頭 で示した目的は、次の通りにまとめられる： I. 参与者は先行発話をどのように利用するか y 先行発話からパターンを抽出し、それに 基づく焦点化を伴う発話で対話を円滑化 II. 響鳴と連鎖構造がいかなる関係を持つか y 響鳴による発話間の提携は、その提携の 種類により遡及性を帯びた連鎖を展開 参照文献 Beun, R. J. 1985. “The function of repetitions in information dialogues”. IPO Annual Progress Report 20, 91-98. Bock, J. 1986. “Syntactic Persistence in Language Production”. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355-87. Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Du Bois, J. 2001. “Towards a Dialogic Syntax”. University of California, Santa Barbara [manuscript]. Du Bois, J., Chafe, W., Meyer, C., & Thompson, S. 2000. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. Du Bois, J., Chafe, W., Meyer, C., Thompson, S., & Martey, N. 2003. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. Du Bois, J., & Englebretson, R. 2004. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 3. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. Du Bois, J., & Englebretson, R. 2005. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. Heritage, J. 1984. “A Change-Of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement”. In J, MaxwellAtkinso & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. 299-345. Hopper, P. 1998. Emergent grammar. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.) The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and functional Approaches to Language Structure. Lawrence Erlbaum. 155-75. Jakobson, R. 1970. “On the Verbal Art of William Blake and Other Poet-Painters”. Linguistic Inquiry 1:1, 3-23. Schegloff, E. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannen, D. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. より網羅的なデータの抽出と統計的処理、抽象的 統 語 構 造 の 議 論 (e.g. 受 動 文 → 受 動 文 ) 等 の low-resonance 問題の扱いは今後の課題である。 −224− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ㄗఏ㐩㸸ᴫᛕᵓ㐀ࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉ ⟄ಙ࣭⟄㸦ᡂ⏣㸧⨾ὠᏊ ᾏ㐨ᩍ⫱Ꮫ࣭⸨ዪᏊᏛ LGXWVX#JPDLOFRPPL]XWVX#IXMLMRVKLDFMS <Abstract> The present article proposes a conceptual description of linguistic communication modeled on Reddy’s (1979) “toolmakers paradigm,” thereby identifying the mechanism through which linguistic miscommunication arises. It further conducts a prototype-semantic analysis to elucidate the elusive and intractable aspects of such miscommunication. ࠙keywordsࠚࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊሗఏ㐩ࣔࢹࣝࠊẼࡀࡘࡁࡃ࠸᪉ゝࠊㄗゎࠊㄗ⾲♧ ࡣࡌࡵ ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊReddy (1979)ࡢ toolmakers paradigm ౫ᣐࡋࡓᴫᛕᵓ㐀グ㏙ࠊColeman and Kay (1981)࡛ lie 㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉពㄽ ࡼࡿศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕㄗఏ㐩ࠖࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ⤌ࡳࠊ ࡑࡢࠕᤊ࠼ࡃࡉ(elusiveness)ࠖ୪ࡧࠕᢅ࠸ ࡃࡉ(intractability)ࠖࢆ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࠋ ࡁᡭ(A)ᥦ♧ฟ᮶ࡿ㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊࡑ ࡢ instructions ࢆ ཧ ↷ ࡋ ࠊ ヰ ࡋ ᡭ ࡢ ព ᅗ ࡋ ࡓ repertoire member ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿࡇࡣฟ᮶࡚ࡶࠊ ࡑࡢ repertoire member ࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆᚓࡿࡇࡣฟ ᮶࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ repertoire member ࡢᵓᡂࡢసᴗࡣࠊ ᡭ㛫ࡀࡾࠊ࡚ࡶ㦵ࡢᢡࢀࡿసᴗ࡛࠶ࡿ (Reddy ibid.: 295)ࠋ ఏ 㐩 ࡢ ᴫ ᛕ ᵓ 㐀 㸸 FRQGXLW PHWDSKRU WRROPDNHUVSDUDGLJP Shannon and Weaver (1949)ࡢࠕᩘᏛⓗሗ⌮ㄽ (mathematical information theory) ࠖ௨᮶ᥦࡉࢀ ࡚ࡁࡓሗఏ㐩ࣔࢹࣝࡢᴫᛕⓗᇶ┙ࡣ conduit metaphor ࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࡓࡵࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆ⏝ࡋࡓே 㛫ࡢゝㄒཬࡧ⾜ືࡢ◊✲ࡣኻᩋ(“failures”)⤊ࢃ ࡗࡓ(Reddy 1979: 304)ࠋconduit metaphor ࡛ࡣࠊᅗ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊே(S)ࡣヰࡍ࣭᭩ࡃࡇ࡛ “repertoire member”(Q) (“ideas/thoughts/meanings/feelings”) ࢆ “signals”(P) (“word/phrase/sentence/poem”) ධ ࢀ ࡚㏦ࡾࠊゝㄒࡣࡑࢀࢆ┦ᡭ(A)ᒆࡅࡿࠋ┦ᡭࡣ ࡑࢀࢆ⪺ࡃ࣭ㄞࡴࡇ࡛ཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓ P ࡽ Q ࢆ ྲྀࡾฟࡍࠋᐇ㝿ࡣࠊP ࡀ Q ࢆᐜࡍࡿࠕෆഃࠖ ࢆᣢࡘࡣࡎࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࡢఏ㐩ࣔࢹࣝࡣࠊ࠶ࡃ ࡲ࡛ࡶẚ႘ⓗ࡞⌮ゎ㐣ࡂ࡞࠸(ibid.: 290-291)ࠋ S A S A S S P Q A Q S A Q S A Q Q ’ P P ᅗ 2㸸 TOOLMAKERS-PARADIGM MODEL OF COMMUNICATION ゝㄒఏ㐩OLQJXLVWLFFRPPXQLFDWLRQࡢᐇ㝿 ㄗ ఏ 㐩 ࡢ ⤌ ࡳ ࡢ ⌮ ゎ ࡣ ࠊ toolmakers paradigm ࢆㄆࡵࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊ ᡞእࡢ㞄ேࡽࠕ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡼࠖኌࢆࡅࡽࢀ ࡓ፬ࡀࠊᩘ㛫๓Ὑ℆≀ࢆᗞᖸࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡽࠊ ヰࡋᡭࡀពᅗࡋࡓෆᐜࡣࠊࡰ☜ᐇࠕὙ℆≀ࢆ ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡳ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ࠸࠺㢮ࡢࡶࡢ⤠ࡾ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࠋ ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓఏ㐩ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡣࠊᅗ 3 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ఏ㐩 ࣔࢹࣝࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᅗ୰ࡢ SࠊA ᭩ ࢀࡓࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀヰࡋᡭࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆ⾲ࡋࠊࡑ ࢀࡒࢀ᥋ࡍࡿࡁ࡞ṇ᪉ᙧࡣࠊ᪉ࡀᴫᛕࡍ ࡿෆᐜࢆᅖࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡀ࠶ࡿ⾲⌧ࢆⓎࡍࡿ 㝿ࠊࡑࡇࡣⓎヰࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ⌧ࡋࡼ࠺ពᅗࡍࡿ ㇟(Q)ࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊࡑࡢᐇ⌧ᑟࡃᙺ࣭᥎ㄽ ⓗ(calusal/inferential)⤒㊰(X)ࡀ㉳ࡉࢀࡿࠋ A P S P Q P A Q Q ᅗ 1㸸 CONDUIT-METAPHOR MODEL OF COMMUNICATION ゝㄒࡼࡿᐇ㝿ࡢఏ㐩ࡣࠊReddy ࡀ toolmakers paradigm ࡪࣔࢹࣝ㏆࠸ࠋᅗ 2 ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ ࠺ࠊࡇࡢࣔࢹ࡛ࣝࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭࡣᴫࡡ㢮 ఝࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿูࠎࡢ㝸㞳✵㛫࠸࡚ࠊ ᑠࡉ࡞⣬ษࢀࡢࡸࡾࡾࡣฟ᮶ࡿࡀࠊ࠸ࢆ㝸࡚ ࡿቨࢆ㉺࠼࡚⛣ືࡍࡿࡇࡣฟ᮶࡞࠸ࠋヰࡋᡭ ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ✵㛫࡛࠺ࡢ౽࡞ࡶࡢ ࢆⓎ᫂ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡑࡢసࡾ᪉ࢆ⣬᭩࠸࡚ࡸࡾࡾ ࡋࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎ᫂ࡋࡓࡶࡢฟ᮶ࡿࡔࡅ㏆࠸ࡶࡢࢆ ⮬ศࡢ✵㛫࡛⌧ࡍࡿࡓࡵດຊࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢⓎ᫂ ရ ࡇ ࡑ ࡀ ࠊ conduit metaphor ࡛ ゝ ࠺ repertoire member ᙜ ࡓ ࡾ ࠊ ࡸ ࡾ ࡾ ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ⣬ ษ ࢀ ࡣ “signals” ┦ ᙜ ࡍ ࡿ ࠋ ヰ ࡋ ᡭ (S) ࡣ ࠊ repertoire member (Q)ࢆእ㏦ࡾฟࡍࡇࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࢀࢆ ᵓᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ instructions ࢆ signals (P)ࡋ࡚⪺ S A intended event (Q) causal/inferential chain (X) reconstructed event (Q’) causal/inferential chain (X’) linguistic meaning (M) linguistic meaning (M’) linguistic form (F) linguistic form (F’) phonetic/orthographical realization (P) ᅗ 3㸸 PROCESSES INVOLVED IN ACTUAL COMMUNICATION 1 −225− 誤伝達：概念構造とプロトタイプ ࡀゝཬࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡣࠊX ࡀ Q ࡢᐇ⌧ࢆᑟࡃ ᙺ࣭᥎ㄽⓗ㇟㐃㙐ࡋ࡚㉳ࡉࢀࠊX ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ ࡢ୍㒊㸦Searle (1975: 72)ࡢ conditions ࡲࡓࡣ reason ᙜࡓࡿせ⣲㸧ࡀ㑅ࡧྲྀࡽࢀ࡚ࠊᑐᛂࡍࡿ M/F ⤖ࡧࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࡢせ⣲ࡶࠊdirect speech act ࡢሙྜྠᵝࠊindirect speech act ࡋ ࡚ࠊἲຓືモࢆ⏝࠸ࡓၥᩥࡢࡼ࠺࡞୍ᐃࡢ M/F ័⩦ⓗ㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀከ࠸ࠋ ࡇࢀࡽ㇟㐃㙐ࡢᐃࡸࡑࢀࡽࡢㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲⓗ ࡞័⩦㛵ࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛫⏕ࡌࡿ 㱈㱒ࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤㄗఏ㐩ࢆច㉳ࡍࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊඛ ࡢࠕ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡼࠖኌࢆࡅࡓ㞄ேࡣࠊ༢ኳ Ẽࡢࡺࡃ࠼ࢆண ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼ࡓࡗࡓࡔࡅࡔࡍ ࢀࡤࠊࡑ࠺ゝࢃࢀࡓ፬ࡀ(1)ࡢ㇟㐃㙐ࢆ㉳ ࡋࡓࡇࡣࠊX X’ࡢ㱈㱒࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ ࠕX’ Q’ࡢᑐᛂࠖࡶ S ࡢពᅗࡋࡓࠕQ X ࡢᑐᛂࠖ ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋࡶࡋࠊ፬ࡀᗞࡢὙ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ ࡔᚋࡔࡗࡓࡍࢀࡤࠊࠕኵࠊࡶ࠺ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡔ ࡽࠖ⟅࠼࡚ࠊኌࢆࡅࡓ㞄ேࢆᙜᝨࡉࡏࡓ ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ࡞ㄗఏ㐩࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ(2)(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡢ a ࡢᩥࡣࠕ౫㢗ࠖ ࡢ㛫᥋Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ⾲⌧࡞ࡿࡀࠊb ࡢᩥࡀ࡞ࡾࡃ ࠸(Searle 1975:75) ࡢࡣࠊㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲⓗ࡞័⩦ ㉳ᅉࡋࠊࡑࡢ័⩦ᕪ␗ࡀ࠶ࡿヰ⪅㛫࡛ࡣㄗ ఏ㐩ࡀ⏕ࡌᚓࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ㣧ࡳㄏࢃࢀ࡚ࠊࡑࢀ ࢆ᩿ࡿ㛫᥋Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚(4)ࡀᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ ࠺ࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ྠኈ࡛ࡶ␗࡞ࡿࠋࡘ ࡲࡾࠊྠ୍ゝㄒࡢヰ⪅㛫࡛ࡶ X(’) M(’)/F(’)ࡢ ᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡶ୍ᵝ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊせ⣲ᑐᛂᕪ␗ࡀᏑᅾ ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡣ༑ศ⏕ࡌᚓࡿࠋ S ࡣࠊᴫࡡ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙺ࣭᥎ㄽⓗ㇟㐃㙐(X) ࢆ㉳ࡋࠊࡑࡢ୍㒊ࢆ㑅ࢇ࡛ࠊㄒᙡᩥἲࡼࡗ ࡚ᐃࡵࡽࢀࡓព㸦ᅗ୰ࡢ M)ᙧᘧ㸦ᅗ୰ࡢ F㸧 ࡢグྕⓗ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ(symbolic unit)ᑐᛂࡉࡏࠊ ࡑࡢ㡢㡩ⓗᙧᘧࡀ㡢ኌ࣭ᩥᏐ(P)ࡋ࡚ල⌧ࡉ ࢀࡿࠋS A ࡀඹ᭷࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡣ P ࡢࡳ࡛ࠊA ࡣ S ࡀ᧯సࡋࡓ QࠊXࠊMࠊF ᥋ࡍࡿࡇࡀฟ᮶࡞ ࠸ࠋࡇࡢⅬࡀࠊtoolmakers paradigm ࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞せ ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (1) X㸸㺀㞵ࡀ㝆ࡾࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁ ᡭఏ࠼ࡿࠖэࠕ㞵ࡀ㝆ࡿࡇࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡀព ㆑ࡍࡿࠖэࠕ㞵ࡀ㝆ࡗࡓࡽᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿὙ℆≀ ࡀࢀࡿࡇࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡀព㆑ࡍࡿࠖэࠕ⪺ࡁ ᡭࡀὙ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࡴ(Q)ࠖ ࠋ ୍᪉ࠊP ࢆឤཷࡋࡓ A ࡣࠊS ࡀ㋃ࢇࡔᡭ㡰ࢆᗘ ㏫㎺ࡿࡼ࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊP ࡽ F’/M’࠸࠺ゝㄒ⾲ ⌧ ࢆ ᵓ ᡂ ࡋ ࠊ mutual knowledge (Clark and Marshall 1981)ࢆཧ↷ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ M’᭱ࡶᐦ᥋ 㛵ಀࡅࡽࢀࡿ㇟㐃㙐(X’)ࢆ㉳ࡍࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ A ࡣࠕ᥎ㄽゎ㔘ࡢవᆅࠖ୪ࡧࠕⓎヰពᅗゎ 㔘ࡢ⮬⏤㑅ᢥࠖࡀ≉ᶒⓗ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࢀ ࡽࡢẁ㝵ㄗఏ㐩ࡀ⏕ࡌࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ ௨ୖ㏙࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࠊᐇ㝿ࡢఏ㐩࠾࠸࡚ヰ ࡋᡭ࣭⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㎺ࡿ㐣⛬ࢆ toolmakers paradigm ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡴࠊᅗ 4 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ model ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࠋ௨ ୗࡢ㆟ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ model ࢆཧ↷ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊලయ ⓗ࡞ㄗఏ㐩ࡢグ㏙࣭ศᯒࢆヨࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ S A S A S Q Q Q’ X X X X’ M F P M F M F P (2) a. Do you want to hand me that hammer over there on the table? b. Do you desire to hand me that hammer over there on the table? (3) a. Can you reach the salt? b. Are you able to reach the salt? (4) a. ⾜ࡅࡓࡽ⾜ࡃࡼࠋ b. ⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡃࡼࠋ A Q M’ F’ P ᅗ 4㸸REVISED TOOLMAKERS PARADIGM MODEL OF COMMUNICATION ྠ୍ゝㄒヰ⪅㛫ࡼࡾࡶࠊᐃࡢ୍⮴ࡀ⏕ࡌࡸ ࡍ࠸␗ゝㄒヰ⪅㛫ࡢఏ㐩࡛ࡣࠊQ(’) X(’)ࡢᑐᛂ ࡀࡑࡢศࡔࡅ␗࡞ࡾࡸࡍࡃࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡢ༴㝤ᛶࡣ୍ ᒙ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ┤ሯ(1980)ࡢ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேࢶ࣮ ࢞ࢻࡀ࣍ࢸࣝࡢࣟࣅ࣮ࡽ࣓ࣜ࢝ேኵጔࡢ 㒊ᒇ㟁ヰࢆධࢀࠊ10 ศᚋ“at the front”࡛࠺ ࿌ࡆࡓࡀࠊ࢞ࢻࡀ‘at the reception desk’ࡢࡘࡶ ࡾ࡛⏝࠸ࡓ⾲⌧ࢆࠊᐈࡣ‘at the front of the building’ ⌮ゎࡋࡓ㸦M(‘)ࡢ F(‘)ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡢ㱈㱒㸧ࠋࡑࡢ ࡓࡵࠊ୧⪅ࡣ࠸୍㛫ᚅࡕࡰ࠺ࡅࢆ㣗࠺ࡇ ࡞ࡿࠋᚅࡕࡃࡓࡧࢀࡓᐈࡣࠊࣟࣅ࣮ධࡗࡓ ࡇࢁ࡛࢞ࢻࢆぢࡅࠊఱᨾ㐜ࢀࡓࡢワၥ ࡋࡓࠋ࢞ࢻࡣࠊ⮬ศࡣ☜⣙᮰ࡢ㛫⣙᮰ ࡢሙᡤ࠸ࡓ⟅࠼ࡓࡀࠊᐈࡀბࢆࡘࡃ࡞㈐ࡵ ࡓࡓࡵࠊᡞᝨࡗ࡚“Well, I’m sorry.”ㅰࡗࡓࠋࡍࡿ ࠊᐈࡣࠊ࢞ࢻࡀ⮬ศࡢბࢆㄆࡵࡓゎࡋ࡚ࡋ ࡲࡗࡓ࠸࠺ࠋヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᛣࡾࢆ㙠ࡵࡿࠖࠊ ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ಀࢆಟࡍࡿࠖࢆ Q ࡋ࡚ពᅗ ࡋࡓࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠕヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭㅰࡿࠖэࠕヰ ࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศࡢ㠀ࢆㄆࡵࡿࠖэࠕヰࡋᡭࡣ⮬ศࡢბ ࢆㄆࡵࡓ(Q’)ࠖ࠸࠺㇟㐃㙐 X’ࢆཧ↷ࡋࡓࠋ ゝㄒⓗㄗఏ㐩OLQJXLVWLFPLVFRPPXQLFDWLRQ ࡢㅖ┦ ᅗ 3, 4 ♧ࡋࡓゝㄒⓗఏ㐩࡛ S ࡀ㎺ࡿᅄࡘࡢẁ 㝵(QэXэM/FэP)⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㎺ࡿᅄࡘࡢẁ㝵(P эM’/F’эX’эQ’)ࡣࠊ㞄ࡾྜ࠺ẁ㝵ࡢせ⣲ࡀᑐᛂ ࡉࡏࡽࢀࡿᙧ࡛㛵ಀࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋQ Q’ࡀ␗࡞ ࡿࡇࡀㄗఏ㐩┦ᙜࡍࡿࡀࠊS A ࡀ᪉ࡢᑐ ᛂࡍࡿẁ㝵࡛␗࡞ࡿせ⣲ᑐᛂࢆ⾜࠺ࡇࡀㄗఏ 㐩ࡢせᅉ࡞ࡿࠋM(’)/F(’) P ࡸ M(’) F(’)࡛ࡢ せ⣲ᑐᛂࡣࠊྠ୍ゝㄒࡢヰ⪅㛫࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㧗࠸ඹ ㏻ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵࠊ⏕ࡌࡿ㱈㱒ࡣゝ࠸㐪࠸࣭⪺ࡁ㐪 ࠸(e.g., M ‘ᡭ⾡’; F /sjudjutsu/; P /sjuzutsu/)㝈ࡽ ࢀࡿࡀࠊQ(’) X(’)ࡢせ⣲ᑐᛂࡣࠊindirect speech act ࡞࡛」ᩘࡢ␗࡞ࡿᐃࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡓࡵࠊྠ୍ ゝㄒࡢヰ⪅㛫࠾࠸࡚࡛ࡉ࠼㱈㱒ࢆ⏕ࡌࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ Q ࡀゝཬࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊX ࡣ Q ࡰ୍ᑐ୍ ᑐᛂࡍࡿ direct speech act ࡢ㇟㐃㙐࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊ ᑐᛂࡍࡿ mood ࡸ performative verbs ࠸࠺୍ᐃࡢ M/F 㛵ಀࡅࡽࢀࡿ(cf. Searle 1969)ࠋ୍᪉ࠊQ 2 −226− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ᪉ ゝ ⓗ ᕪ ␗ ࡼ ࡿ ㄗ ఏ 㐩 GLDOHFWDO PLVFRPPXQLFDWLRQ ␗࡞ࡿゝㄒࡣࠊᆅᇦ᪉ゝⓗ࡞㐪࠸ࠊ♫᪉ゝ ࡸಶே᪉ゝⓗ࡞ᕪ␗ࢆࡶྵࡴࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓព࡛␗ ࡞ࡿ⫼ᬒࢆᣢࡘヰ⪅㛫࡛ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ྠ୍ゝㄒヰ⪅ྠ ኈ࡛㧗࠸ඹ㏻ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࡣࡎࡢ M(’) F(’)ࡢᑐᛂ㛵 ಀࡉ࠼☜࡞ࡶࡢ࡞ࡾᚓࡿࠋ(5)ᣲࡆࡓ ࣝࣛࣥࢻⱥㄒࡢ᥋⥆モࡣࠊࡢⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ ࡢᑐヰ࠾࠸࡚ㄗఏ㐩ࢆ⏕ࡌࡿ༴㝤ᛶࢆᣢࡗ࡚ ࠸ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᶆ‽ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒࡢ when ┦ᙜࡍࡿ ࡶࡢࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ(5b)ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡌ ࡿㄗఏ㐩ࡣ≉῝้࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡢᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ whenever ࡀ⛬ᗘࡢᕪࡇࡑ࠶ࢀゎ㔘ᅔ㞴࡞ࡓࡵࠊ when ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀᚓࡿࡀࠊ(5b)࡛ࡣࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ ࡉࢀࡿᭀຊࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓㄗఏ 㐩ࡣࠊྠ୍ゝㄒ࠸࠺๓ᥦࡺ࠼ࠊヰࡋᡭ࣭⪺ࡁ ᡭࡗ࡚ࡣ୍ᒙẼࡁࡃࡃࠊᑐฎࡋࡃ࠸ࠋ 㐩࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡢุ᩿ࠕ⮬ಙࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ㸦7 Ⅼ㸧ࠊࠕࡲ ࠶ࡲ࠶⮬ಙ࠶ࡿࠖ 㸦6 Ⅼ㸧 ࠊ ࠕ࠶ࡲࡾ⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ 㸦5 Ⅼ㸧ࠊࠕࡕࡽࡶゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠖ㸦4 Ⅼ㸧ࠊࠕㄗఏ㐩࡛ ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖࡢุ᩿ࠕ⮬ಙࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ㸦1 Ⅼ㸧 ࠊࠕࡲ࠶ ࡲ࠶⮬ಙࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ 㸦2 Ⅼ㸧 ࠊ ࠕ࠶ࡲࡾ⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ 㸦3 Ⅼ㸧ࡢุ᩿ࢆ౫㢗ࡋࡓ㸦᭷ຠᅇ⟅ 43 ே㸧ࠋ⾲ 1 ྑ➃ࡢᩘᏐࡣࠊᅇ⟅⪅ࡢⅬᩘࡢྜィ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ Q IS NOT Q’ I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. 㸩 㸩 㸩 㸩 㸩 㸩 㸩 㸩 㸫 㸫 㸫 㸫 㸫 㸫 㸫 㸫 S OR A BELIEVES Q’ TO BE Q 㸩 㸩 㸩 㸩 㸫 㸫 㸫 㸫 㸩 㸩 㸩 㸩 㸫 㸫 㸫 㸫 P DOES NOT EVOKE Q 㸩 㸩 㸫 㸫 㸩 㸩 㸫 㸫 㸩 㸩 㸫 㸫 㸩 㸩 㸫 㸫 P DOES NOT EVOKE Q’ 㸩 㸫 㸩 㸫 㸩 㸫 㸩 㸫 㸩 㸫 㸩 㸫 㸩 㸫 㸩 㸫 SCORE 227 173 247 157 173 176 215 155 78 104 139 70 138 150 143 136 ⾲ 1㸸ㄗఏ㐩ࡢ PROPERTY ྛᩥࡢᚓⅬ (5) a. Whenever I saw her I fell for her. b. Whenever he came in he hit me. c. My husband died whenever I was living on the New Lodge Road. d. Whenever Chomsky wrote Syntactic Structures there was a revolution in linguistics. (Milroy 1984: 19) (7a)ࢆ‶ࡓࡍ I ࡽ VIII ࡲ࡛ࡢᩥࡀ 155 Ⅼ௨ୖ ࡞ࡢᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ‶ࡓࡉ࡞࠸ IV ࡽ XVI ࡲ࡛ࡢ ᩥࡀ 150 Ⅼ௨ୗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡽࠊ(7a) ࡀࠕㄗఏ㐩ࠖ ┳ࡉࢀࡿ࡞せᅉ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡀ☜ㄆฟ᮶ࡿࠋ ࡇࢀࡣࠕㄗఏ㐩ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⌮ゎ ୍ ⮴ ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ 㝿 ㉳ ࡇ ࡿ (“Miscommunication occurs (...) when there is a mismatch between the speaker’s intention and the hearer’s interpretation.”)ࠖ Milroy (1984: 8)ࡀ㏙࡚࠸ࡿࡇ୍⮴ࡍࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊဨࡀࠕࡕࡽࡶゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠖᅇ⟅ࡋࡓ ሙྜࡢ 172 Ⅼࢆᖜୖᅇࡿ 200 Ⅼ௨ୖࢆ♧ࡋࡓ IࠊIIIࠊVII ࡢᩥࡣࠊ(7a)ຍ࠼࡚(7d)ࡢ property ࢆ‶ࡓࡍ࠸࠺ඹ㏻Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ⪺ࡁ㐪 ࠸ࠖ࡞࠸ࡋࠕᛮ࠸㐪࠸ࠖࡼࡿㄗゎ㔘ࡀࡼࡾㄗఏ 㐩ࡽࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ┳ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀศࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢᐇ㦂⤖ᯝࡽࠊヰࡋᡭࡢㄗ⾲♧ࡣㄗఏ㐩 ཷࡅṆࡵࡽࢀࡃ࠸ࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄗゎ㔘ࡣㄗఏ 㐩ཷࡅṆࡵࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡇࡀศࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢㄗ⾲♧ẚ࡚ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢㄗゎ 㔘Ẽࡁࡃࡃࠊຍ࠼࡚ࡢⓎヰࡸᩥ⬦ࢆཧ↷ ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⮬ࡽࡀ㉳ࡋࡓ㇟㐃㙐ࢆ㐃ⓗᣑ ᙇࡋ⥆ࡅࡿࡇ࡛ࠊࠕヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࢆᵓ⠏ࡋࡓ ࡶࡢ(Q’)ࠖࢆ༙ࡤ㌟ᡭ㑅ࡧྲྀࡿ⮬⏤ࢆ࠼ࡽ ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽ㉳ᅉࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄗゎ㔘ࡣࠊ ᙜ↛ヰࡋᡭࡶẼࡁࡃ࠸ࡓࡵࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡣ᭦ ₯ᅾࡋࠊ୍ᒙ῝้࡞ࡶࡢ࡞ࡿࠋㄗఏ㐩ࡢⴭࡋ ࠸ᢅ࠸ࡃࡉࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢⅬෆᅾࡍࡿࠋ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ♫ゝㄒᏛ࡛ࠕẼࡀࡘࡁࡃ࠸᪉ゝࠖ (Ἀ 1999)⛠ࡉࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࡶࠊྠᵝ࡞ㄗఏ㐩㛵ࢃ ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊᾏ㐨᪉ゝࡢ୍ẁά⏝ື モࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ make let 㢮ఝࡋࡓ✀㢮ࡢ ᙺᙧࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ㸦⟄࣭⟄ 2011㸧ࡀࠊࡑࢀ ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ᪉ゝヰ⪅ࡣࠊ(6)ࡢࡢ B ࡢⓎヰ ࢆ⪺࠸࡚ㄗゎࢆࡋࡡ࡞࠸ࠋ㏉⟅ࡢពᅗࡀศࡽ ࡞ࡃ࡚ᡞᝨ࠺ࡇࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊྠ⩏ࢆࡋ࡚ᚐ ㄽࡋࡼ࠺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿཷࡅྲྀࡿࡇࡶ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡑࡢࡼ࠺ࡋ࡚ A B ࡢ㛫⏕ࡌࡓㄗఏ㐩ࡣࠊ ࠸ࡀྠ୍ࡢゝㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿᛮ࠸㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ ࡿࡀࡺ࠼ࠊᤊ࠼ࡃࡃࠊᢅ࠸ࡃ࠸ࠋ (6) A㸸ሿ࡛ⱥㄒࡢຮᙉࡉࡏ࡚ࢇࡔࡗ࡚㸽 B㸸 ࠸ࡸࠊࡉࡏ࡚ࢇ࡛࡞࠸ࡢࠋࡸࡽࡏ࡚ࢇࡢࠋ ᮏேࡀࡸࡾࡓ࠸ࡗ࡚ゝ࠺ࡽࠋ ゝ ㄒ ⓗ ㄗ ఏ 㐩 ࡢ ࣉ ࣟ ࢺ ࢱ ࣉ ព ㄽ SURWRW\SHVHPDQWLFV ᭱ᚋࠊColeman and Kay (1981)ࡀ‘lie’ࡢศᯒ ⏝࠸ࡓ prototype semantics ࡢᡭἲࢆ⏝ࡋ࡚ᚓࡓ ᐇ㦂⤖ᯝᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡀᮏ᮶ⓗᣢࡘࠕᤊ ࠼ࡃࡉࠖࠕᢅ࠸ࡃࡉࠖࢆᥥࡁฟࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ (7)ᣲࡆࡓ 4 ࡘࡢ property ࢆከࡃ‶ࡓࡍࠊࡼ ࡾㄗఏ㐩ࡽࡋ࠸ࡶࡢุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿ௬ᐃࡋࡓࠋ ࠾ࢃࡾ Toolmakers paradigm ౫ᣐࡋࡓᴫᛕᵓ㐀グ㏙ ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺ࠊゝㄒࡼࡿఏ㐩ࡣࠊከᒙ ⓗ࡞ẁ㝵ࢆ⤒࡚ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ⛬ᗘࡢᕪ ࡇࡑ࠶ࢀࠊྛẁ㝵㛫࡛ࡢせ⣲ᑐᛂࡀヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁ ᡭࡢ㛫࡛␗࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡼࡗ࡚ㄗఏ㐩ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ༴ 㝤ᛶࡀᖖᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ ᭦ࠊࠕヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࡢពᅗ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⌮ゎࡣ Ỵࡋ࡚ྠࡌࡣ࡞ࡾᚓ࡞࠸ࠖ࠸࠺ᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᐇ ࢆᛀࢀ࡚㸦ࡘࡲࡾ conduit metaphor ࢆ๓ᥦࡋ࡚㸧 ゝㄒఏ㐩ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡇࡼࡾࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡣ୍ᒙಁ ࡉࢀᚓࡿࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡢ┦㐪ࡸⓎヰ ពᅗࡢ⌮ゎࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ㣗࠸㐪࠸ࡽㄗఏ㐩ࡀ⏕ࡌ ࡓ㝿ࠊヰࡋᡭ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࢀẼ࡞࠸ࡇ (7) S intends P to evoke Q and A interprets P to evoke Q’; a. Q is not Q’. b. S or A believes Q’ to be Q. c. P does not evoke Q. d. P does not evoke Q’. ⾲ 1 ♧ࡋࡓ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛ 4 ࡘࡢ property ࢆྵࡴ ࡼ࠺ࠊ㘓ᣲࡆࡓ I ࡽ XVI ࡢᩥࢆసࡾࠊ ⸨ዪᏊᏛࡢⱥㄒᩥᏛ⛉ࡢᏛ⏕ 45 ேࠕㄗఏ 3 −227− 誤伝達：概念構造とプロトタイプ 㸦₯ᅾ㸧ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊㄗఏ㐩ࡣ୍ᒙ῝้ࡍࡿࠋ ࣉࣟࢺࢱࣉពㄽᇶ࡙ࡃᐇ㦂ࡢ⤖ᯝࠊヰࡋ ᡭࡢⓎヰ(P)ࡑࡢពᅗ(Q)ࡲࡓࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⌮ゎ (Q’)ࡢ㛫㱈㱒ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚ࡶࠊconduit metaphor ࡀ๓ ᥦ࡞ࡿ(7b)ࠊ῝้࡞ㄗఏ㐩ཷࡅṆࡵ࡞ࡽࢀ ࡞࠸ࡇࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓ㸦IX-XI㸹≉ IX ࡣㄗఏ㐩せ ⣲࡞ࡋࡢ XII ㏆࠸್㸧ࠋࡑࢀࡇࡑࡀゝㄒࡼࡿ ఏ㐩ࢆྍ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ྍ⬟ࡔゝㄒ⏝⪅ࡓࡕ ࡀಙࡌ㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ㸧ᡤ௨࡛࠶ࡿྠࠊㄗఏ㐩 ࡢ᰿※ⓗ࡞ཎᅉ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋㄗఏ㐩ࡀᐇ㝿ࡢゝㄒఏ 㐩ࡢᑡ࡞ࡽࡠྜࢆ༨ࡵࠊࡑࢀ࡛࠸࡚₯ᅾࡋ ࡸࡍ࠸࠸࠺ᐇࡣࠊゝㄒࡢศᯒ⪅ࡗ࡚ࡶࡲ ࡓࠊㄗఏ㐩ࢆᤊ࠼ࡃࡃࠊᢅ࠸ࡃ࠸ࡶࡢࡍࡿࠋ 㘓 (I) ኴ㑻ࡣ(Q)ႃࡀῬ࠸ࡓࡇࢆẕぶఏ࠼ࡓࡗࡓࡀࠊ ࠺ࡗࡾࠕ࡞ࢇࣄ࣐ࠖゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡇࢁࠊẕ ぶࡣ(Q’)࠾⭡ࡀ✵࠸ࡓࡢࡔࢁ࠺ᛮࡗ࡚ࠕ∵ங࡛ࡶ㣧ࡳ ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (II) ኴ㑻ࡣ(Q)ႃࡀῬ࠸ࡓࡇࢆẕぶఏ࠼ࡓࡗࡓࡀࠊ ࠺ࡗࡾࠕ࡞ࢇࣄ࣐ࠖゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡇࢁࠊẕ ぶࡣ (Q’) ㏥ᒅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔᛮࡗ࡚ࠕࢸࣞࣅ࡛ࡶぢࡓ ࡽࠖ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (III) (Q)୍ே࡛㐟ࢇ࡛㏥ᒅࡋࡓኴ㑻ࡀẕぶࠕ࡞ࢇࣄ ࣐ࠖゝ࠺ࠊẕぶࡣ(Q’)࠾⭡ࡀ✵࠸ࡓࡢࡔࢁ࠺ᛮࡗ ࡚ࠕ∵ங࡛ࡶ㣧ࡳ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (IV) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀ㐲ࡲ ࢃࡋࠕ(Q’)㞵㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼࡡࠖゝ࠺ࠊ㞼⾜ࡁࡢࡋ ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ᘓᚿࡀࠕ࠸ࡸࠊ㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࠖ ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (V) (Q)ႃࡀῬ࠸ࡓࡇࢆఏ࠼ࡼ࠺ࡋ࡚ኴ㑻ࡀẕぶ ࠕ࡞ࢇࣄ࣐ࠖゝ࠺ࠊẕぶࡣ(Q’)࠾⭡ࡀ✵࠸ࡓࡢࡔ ࢁ࠺ᛮ࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡶศࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠕ∵ ங࡛ࡶ㣧ࡳ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (VI) (Q)ႃࡀῬ࠸ࡓࡇࢆఏ࠼ࡼ࠺ࡋ࡚ኴ㑻ࡀẕぶ ࠕ࡞ࢇࣄ࣐ࠖゝ࠺ࠊẕぶࡣ(Q’)୍ே࡛㏥ᒅࡋ࡚࠸ ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺ᛮ࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡶศࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡾ࠶ ࠼ࡎࠕ∵ங࡛ࡶ㣧ࡳ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (VII) (Q)୍ே࡛㐟ࢇ࡛㏥ᒅࡋࡓኴ㑻ࡀẕぶࠕ࡞ࢇࣄ ࣐ࠖゝ࠺ࠊẕぶࡣ(Q’)࠾⭡ࡀ✵࠸ࡓࡢࡔࢁ࠺ᛮ ࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡶศࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠕ∵ங࡛ࡶ㣧 ࡳ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (VIII) (Q)ࡇࢀࡽ୍⥴㣗࡛ࡶ࠺⪃࠼࡚Ṋᚿ ࡀࠕ(Q’)࠾⭡✵࠸ࡓࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࠖᑜࡡࡿࠊ⚈୍ࡣ(Q’) Ṋᚿࡀ࠾ⳫᏊఱࢆ⏝ពࡋࡼ࠺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡶࡋ ࢀ࡞࠸ᛮ࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡶศࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠕ࠸ ࡸࠊࡲࡔ✵࠸࡚࡞࠸ࠖ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (IX) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀࠕ㞵 㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠖゝ࠾࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠺ࡗࡾࠕ㞵㝆ࡽ࡞ ࠸ࡡࠖゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡇࢁࠊ㞼⾜ࡁࡢࡋࡃ࡞ࡗ ࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ᘓᚿࡣࠕࠗ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࡡ࠘ࡢゝ࠸㛫 㐪࠸࡛ࡋࡻࠖ⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ ࠸ࡢࡔ࡞ᛮࡗ࡚ࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡌ ࡷ࠾࠺ࠖ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (X) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀࠕ㞵 㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠖゝ࠾࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠺ࡗࡾࠕ㞵㝆ࡽ࡞ ࠸ࡡࠖゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡇࢁࠊ㞼⾜ࡁࡢࡋࡃ࡞ࡗ ࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ᘓᚿࡣࠕ࠺ぢ࡚ࡶ㝆ࡾࡑ࠺࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠖ ⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ࡢࡔ࡞ᛮ ࡗ࡚ࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡌࡷ࠾࠺ࠖ ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (XI) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀ㐲ࡲ ࢃࡋࠕ㞵㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼࡡࠖゝ࠺ࠊ㞼⾜ࡁࡢࡋࡃ ࡞ࡗࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ᘓᚿࡣࠕࠗ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࡡ࠘ࡢゝ ࠸㛫㐪࠸࡛ࡋࡻࠖ⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ ḧࡋ࠸ࡢࡔ࡞ᛮࡗ࡚ࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ ࢇࡌࡷ࠾࠺ࡼࠖ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (XII) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀࠕ㞵 㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠖゝ࠺ࠊᘓᚿࡣ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ࡢࡔ࡞ᛮࡗ࡚ࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ ㎸ࢇࡌࡷ࠾࠺ࠖ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (XIII) (Q) Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀ ࠕ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠖゝ࠾࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠺ࡗࡾࠕ㞵㝆 ࡽ࡞࠸ࡡࠖゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡇࢁࠊ㞼⾜ࡁࡢࡋࡃ ࡞ࡗࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ᘓᚿࡣࠕࠗ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࡡ࠘ࡢゝ ࠸㛫㐪࠸࡛ࡋࡻࠖ⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆᚰ㓄ࡋ࡚࠸ ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺⪃࠼ࡓࡀศࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡾ࠶࠼ࡎ ࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇࡌࡷ࠾࠺ࠖゝⴥ ࢆຍ࠼ࡓࠋ (XIV) (Q) Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀ ࠕ㞵㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠖゝ࠾࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠺ࡗࡾࠕ㞵㝆 ࡽ࡞࠸ࡡࠖゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡇࢁࠊ㞼⾜ࡁࡢࡋࡃ ࡞ࡗࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ᘓᚿࡣࠕ࠺ぢ࡚ࡶ㝆ࡾࡑ࠺࡛ࡋ ࡻ࠺ࠖ⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ࡢࡔ ࢁ࠺⪃࠼ࡓࡀศࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠕࡌࡷ ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡶ࠺ࠖゝⴥࢆຍ࠼ࡓࠋ (XV) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀ㐲 ࡲࢃࡋࠕ㞵㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼࡡࠖゝ࠺ࠊᘓᚿࡣ㞼⾜ࡁ ࡢࡋࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ❆ࡢእࢆぢ࡚ࠕ࠸ࡸࠊ㝆ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࠖ ⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ(Q’)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸⪃࠼ࡓࡀ ศࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠕᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ ࡌࡷ࠾࠺ࡼࠖ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ (XVI) (Q)Ὑ℆≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ᛮࡗࡓ⏤⣖ࡀ㐲 ࡲࢃࡋࠕ㞵㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼࡡࠖゝ࠺ࠊᘓᚿࡣ(Q’)Ὑ℆ ≀ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ḧࡋ࠸ࡢࡔࢁ࠺⪃࠼ࡓࡀศࡽ࡞ ࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊᖸࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ≀ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ ࡌࡷ࠾࠺ࠖ⟅࠼ࡓࠋ ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ Clark, Herbert. H. and Catherine R. Marshall. 1981. Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge. In Aravind. K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber, and Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding, 10-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coleman, Linda and Paul Kay. 1981. Prototype Semantics: The English Word Lie. Language 57-1: 26-44. ⟄ಙ࣭⟄㸦ᡂ⏣㸧⨾ὠᏊ㸬2011㸬ࡉࡏ࡚ࢇ࡛࡞ ࠸ࡢࠊࡸࡽࡏ࡚ࢇࡢ㸸ᾏ㐨᪉ゝぢࡽࢀࡿࡘࡢ ᙺᙧ㸬 ࠗ♫ゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ➨ 27 ᅇⓎ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘㸪 70-73㸬 Milroy, Lesley. 1984. Comprehension and Context: Successful Communication and Communicative breakdown. Trudgill, Peter (ed.), Applied Sociolinguistics, 7-31. London: Academic Press. ┤ሯ⋹Ꮚ㸬1980㸬 ࠗḢ⡿ேࡀỿ㯲ࡍࡿࡁ㸸␗ᩥ㛫ࡢ ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࠘㸬ᮾி㸸ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ㸬 Ἀ⿱Ꮚ㸬1999㸬Ẽࡀࡘࡁࡃ࠸᪉ゝ㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘18: 156-165㸬 Reddy, Michael J. 1979. The Conduit Metaphor̿A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 284-324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, John R. 1975. Indirect Speech Acts. In Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 59-82. New York: Academic Press. Shannon, Claude and Warren Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana Champaign: University of Illinois Press. グ ᮏⓎ⾲ࡣࠊ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠㸦ᖹᡂ 23㹼26 ᖺᗘ ᇶ┙◊✲ C㸧 ࠕᨃఝඹ㏻ㄒ⾲⌧㉳ᅉࡍࡿࠕㄗゎࠖࡢ◊ ✲ࠖ㸦ㄢ㢟␒ྕ 23520517ࠊ◊✲௦⾲⪅: ⟄⨾ὠᏊ㸧 ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 4 −228− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 has gone is gone ࡢฟ⌧⎔ቃពࡢືᶵ ᒾ⏣┿⣖ ி㒔ᏛᏛ㝔 [email protected] <Abstract> A resultant state of an event can be expressed by have p.p. (the resultative perfect). In some intransitive verbs, it can also be expressed by be p.p. (be-perfect). Their meanings are regarded as the same, but close observation shows that these two constructions express different things. The resultative perfect refers to both the resultant state and the process, whereas the be-perfect focuses only on the resultant state on the discourse ground. The resultant meaning of the resultative perfect comes from the construction whereas that of the be-perfect comes from the past participle. The two constructions convey different meanings. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ ⌧ᅾ resultativeࠊbeࠊ⤖ᯝ≧ែࠊㄯヰࡢሙࠊ㛫ⓗᣑᙇ 㻝㻚㻌 䛿䛨䜑䛻㻌 ⌧ᅾ have + p.p.㸯ࡀ⾲ࡍពࡢ 1 ࡘࠊ resultative ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋresultative ࡣ㐣ཤࡢ࣋ࣥ ࢺࡢ⤖ᯝ≧ែࡀ⌧ᅾㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡇࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࠊ (1)ࡣᙼࡀ⌧ᅾࡇࡇࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࡇࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (1) He has gone. ᩥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊcome, do, fall, finish, go, grow ࡞ࡢ ⮬ືモࡣࠊbe + p.p.ࡢᙧ࡛ືస࣭⾜Ⅽࡀࡋࡓ ࡇࡼࡿ⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡋ㸦௨ୗࠊbe 㸧 ࠊ⌧ ᅾࡢ resultative ྠࡌពࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡉࢀ ࡿࠋ (2) a. All my money is gone. b. All my money has gone. ࡋࡋࠊᙧᘧࡀ␗࡞ࡿ 2 ࡘࡢ⾲⌧ࡀ⾲ࡍពࡀࠊ ྠࡌ࠸࠼ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ᮏ✏ࡣ has gone is gone ࢆࢣ࣮ࢫࢫࢱࢹ ࡋࠊThe British National Corpus (BNC)ࡢࢹ ࣮ࢱࡽࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ⎔ቃࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ ᣦࡋࠊ୧⪅ࡢ⾲ࡍពࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇࢆ᫂ࡽ ࡍࡿࠋࡉࡽࠊពࡢ㐪࠸ࡣㄯヰࡢሙ㸰ࡢ㛵㐃 ࡢ᪉ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆᫎࡍࡿࡇࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ 㻌 㻞㻚㻌 ඛ⾜◊✲㻌 Michaelis (1988: 211-212)ࡣࠊᵓᩥᩥἲࡢ❧ሙ ࡽࠊresultative be ࡢ㛫ࡣྠ⩏ⓗᑐ❧ 㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡾࠊḞᛶࡢᑐ❧(privative opposite)ࢆ♧ ࡍศᯒࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺㏙ࡿࠋ resultative ࡣ⤊Ⅼࢆᣢࡘ㸦telic㸧ືモ࠶ࡿ࠸ ࡣ⮬ືモࡢ㐣ཤศモᙧࡢㄒᙡࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ 㸦Aktionsart㸧ࡽ⌧ࢀࡿࠊゝㄒእᩥ⬦ᇶ࡙ ࠸࡚ィ⟬ࡉࢀࡿ⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡇࢀᑐࡋࠊbe ࡣ⤊Ⅼࢆᣢࡘ⮬ືモࡢ㐣ཤศモࡋ⌧ࢀࡎࠊ ₍↛ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡉࡽ ࠊVP ෆ⤊Ⅼ᱁ࢆᣢࡘ㏙㒊(goal complement) ࡣ⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ Michaelis ࡢศᯒࡣᵓ㐀ⓗほⅬࡽࡢࡶࡢ࡛ ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰࡢሙࡢ㛵ಀࡽࠊ ୧⪅ࡢពⓗᕪ␗ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡼࡿ KDVJRQH LV JRQH ࡢẚ㍑ BNC ࡢ 1980s-1993 ᖺࡢヰࡋゝⴥ࣭᭩ࡁゝⴥ ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡼࡾࠊhas gone is gone 㛵ࡋ࡚ ௨ୗࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᚓࡓࠋhas gone is gone ࢆศ ᯒࡢᑐ㇟ࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊis gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡀ ࡢືモࡢ be ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡼࡾከ࠸ࡓࡵ −229− has goneとis goneの出現環境と意味の動機 ࡛࠶ࡿ㸱ࠋhas gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡣ 1876 ಶࠊ is gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡣ 184 ಶ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ 㻌 㻟㻚㻝㻌 ᚋ⥆䛩䜛せ⣲㻌 has goneࠊis gone ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ(3)-(5)ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡ ࣥᩘࢆㄪࡓࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀ(a)ࡣ has goneࠊ(b)ࡣ is gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘཬࡧࡑࢀࡒࢀ࠾ࡅࡿ ྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (a) 54 (27%) (b) 13 (43%) (9) 㐣⛬㸲 (happily, sadly ࡞) (a) 4 (2%) (b) 0 (10) 㛫 (just, now, since ࡞) (a) 124 (62%) (b) 16 (53%) (11) ホ౯࣭ែᗘⓗ (unfortunately ࡞) (a) 8 (4%) is gone ࡢඹ㉳ࡣࠊᙉពモ㛫モ 㝈ࡽࢀࡿࠋ (3) ᚋ⥆せ⣲࡞ࡋ(⠇ᮎࠊᩥᮎࡢฟ⌧) (a) 297 (16%) (4) ኚモࡀᚋ⥆ (b) 119 (65%) 㻟㻚㻟㻌 㛫モ䛸䛾ඹ㉳㻌 ฟ⌧⨨ࢃࡽࡎࠊ㛫モඹ㉳ࡍࡿ has goneࠊis gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡣࠊhas gone 132ࠊis gone 32 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ㛫モࡢࢱࣉ ࡣࠊis gone ࡛ࡣ(12)-(15)ࡢ 4 ✀㸳㝈ࡽࢀࡿࠋ (a)ࡣ has goneࠊ(b)ࡣ is gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘཬ ࡧࡑࢀࡒࢀ࠾ࡅࡿྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (a) 1247 (66%) (b) 44 (23%) (a) モ 636ࠊ๓⨨モ 611 (b) モ 27ࠊ๓⨨モ 17 (5) ᙧᐜモࡀᚋ⥆ (a) 118 (6.2%) (b) 0 (b) 2 (0.1%) ୧⪅ࡢ㔞ⓗ≉ᚩࡋ࡚ࠊis gone ࡣᚋ⥆せ ⣲ࡀ⥆ࡁࡃ࠸ࡇࠊhas gone ࡣኚモࡀ ⥆ࡁࡸࡍ࠸ࡇࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ ᙧᐜモࡣᚋ⥆ࡋࡃ࠸ࠋ ㉁ⓗ≉ᚩࡋ࡚ࠊhas gone ࡣᵝែࡢモࡀ ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࡀࠊis gone ࡣᵝែࡢモࡀᚋ⥆ࡋ ࡓࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊモࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘ ࡣ has gone ᅽಽⓗከ࠸୰࡛ࠊnowࠊ for ever ࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩘࡣ is gone ࡢ᪉ࡀከࡃࠊhas gone now 4 ࠊis gone now 8 ࠊhas gone for ever 3 ࠊis gone for ever 7 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ ᚋ⥆ࡢᙧᐜモࡣㄒ NP ࡢ≧ែࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿࡶ ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࡣᑡ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ 㻟㻚㻞㻌 ୰㛫⨨䛾モ㻔ྃ㻕䛾≉ᚩ㻌 ୰㛫⨨⌧ࢀࡿモ(ྃ)ࠊࡣ has gone ࡛ ࡣ 49 ✀ 199 ࠊis gone ࡛ࡣ 14 ✀ 30 ࡛࠶ ࡗࡓࠋᒸ⏣(1985)ࡢモࡢศ㢮ࢆࡶࡑࢀࡒ ࢀࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘࢆศ㢮ࡋࠊ௨ୗࡢ⤖ᯝࢆᚓࡓࠋ (a)ࡣ has goneࠊ(b)ࡣ is gone ࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘཬ ࡧࡑࢀࡒࢀ࠾ࡅࡿྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (12) now (a) 45 (34%) (b) 11 (34.4%) (13) long (a) 8 (6%) (b) 9 (28.1%) (14) forever (a) 10 (7.6%) (b) 9 (28.1%) (15) already (a) 18 (13.6%) (b) 3 (9.4%) has gone ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ just (20 (15%))ࠊ since (10 (7.6%))ࠊrecently (8 (6%))ࠊ always (7 (5%))ࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࠋ 㻟㻚㻠㻌 ㄒ䛾≉ᚩ㻌 has goneࠊis gone ࡀ⠇ᮎࡲࡓࡣᩥᮎ⌧ࢀ ࡿሙྜࡢㄒࡢ᭷⏕/↓⏕ࠊᐃ/ᐃࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥ ᩘࡢ⥲ᩘࡣࠊhas gone 297ࠊis gone 119 ࡛࠶ ࡗࡓࠋ௨ୗࡢ(a)ࡣ has goneࠊ(b)ࡣ is gone ࡢ ࢺ࣮ࢡࣥᩘཬࡧࡑࢀࡒࢀ࠾ࡅࡿྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (16) ᭷⏕≀㸸↓⏕≀ (6) 㡿ᇦ (ideologically, physically ࡞) (a) 2 (0.5%) (b) 0 (7) ㏣ຍ (also, again ࡞) (a) 81 (27.2%) : 216 (72.7%) (b) 35 (29.4%) : 84 (70.5%) (17) ᐃྡモྃ㸸ᐃྡモྃ (a) 8 (4%) (b) 0 (8) ᙉព (surely, completely ࡞) (a) 263 (88.5%) : 34 (11.4%) (b) 107 (90.7%) : 11 ( 9.2%) −230− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࡤࠊㄯヰࡢሙㄒ NP ࡀࡶࡣࡸᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸≧ែ ࢆࣉࣟࣇࣝࡍࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ is gone ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ๓⨨モࡢ✀㢮ࢆほᐹࡍࡿࠊ fromࠊtoࠊwithࠊthroughࠊintoࠊinࠊbeforeࠊ amidࠊacross ࡢ 9 ✀(17 )࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ ╔Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍ to(4 )ࠊintoࠊinࠊamid(ྛ 1 )ࠊ ጞⅬࢆ⾲ࡍ from(5 )ࠊ⤒㊰ࢆ⾲ࡍ throughࠊ across(ྛ 1 )ࠊ๓ᚋ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍ before(1 )ࠊ 㝶కࡢ with(2 )ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊhas gone ࡣ╔ⅬࠊጞⅬࠊ⤒㊰ࠊ⨨ࢆ ⾲ࡍ✵㛫ࡢ๓⨨モ 33 ✀(603 )ࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࠋ୰ ࡛ࡶࠊ╔Ⅼ(343 )ጞⅬ(72 )࡛ࡰ 7 ࢆ༨ ࡵࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࡽࠊ(20)⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ㄒྡモྃ㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ has goneࠊis gone 㛫 ≉ᚩࡢᕪࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ↓⏕≀ࡀከࡃࠊᐃྡ モྃࡀᅽಽⓗከ࠸ࠋ 㻟㻚㻡㻌 䝁䞊䝟䝇䝕䞊䝍䛻䜘䜛ẚ㍑䛾䜎䛸䜑㻌 has gone is gone ࡢඹ㉳㛵ಀࡽぢࡓ≉ᚩ ࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢⅬࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋhas gone ࡣ ኚモࡀᚋ⥆ࡋࡸࡍࡃࠊis gone ࡣ⠇ᮎࠊᩥ ᮎฟ⌧ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊis gone ࡣ≧ែኚ ࢆ⾲ࡍᵓᩥ “NP go ᙧᐜモ” ࡣᴟࡵ࡚ฟ⌧ ࡋࡃ࠸ࠋモࡢඹ㉳㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊis gone ࡣᙉពモࠊ㛫モࡋඹ㉳ࡏࡎࠊhas gone ẚࡿᙉពモඹ㉳ࡍࡿྜࡀ㧗 ࠸ࠋhas gone ࡣࡈࡃࢃࡎ㐣⛬モ(ᵝែ モ)ࡢඹ㉳ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ (20) have gone ࡣ⛣ືࡢ࣋ࣥࢺࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧ ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ 㻠㻚㻌 ⪃ᐹ㻌 ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢹ࣮ࢱࡼࡾ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓ ≉ᚩࢆࡶࠊㄯヰࡢሙࡢ㛵ಀࡽࠊhas gone is gone ࡢពⓗᕪ␗ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ ௨ୗࡣ is gone to NP ࡢ 4 ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠺ࡕ 3 ࡣ࣓ࢱࣇ࣮ࡋ࡚ࡢ⛣ື࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (21) a. a copy of the enquiry form, which, the original is gone to the central record. (BNC) b. “And Michael is gone to our aunt in the mountains for a week.” (BNC) c. “The Volvo is gone to who knows where.” (BNC) d. I took each upon my knee and told them that Mamma is gone to Heaven, to God Almighty,… (BNC) 㻠㻚㻝㻌 ᚋ⥆せ⣲䛛䜙ぢ䜛 㼔㼍㼟㻌㼓㼛㼚㼑 䛸 㼕㼟㻌㼓㼛㼚㼑㻌 3.1 ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺ࠊis gone ࡣᚋ⥆せ⣲ࡀ⥆ ࡁࡃ࠸ࠋࡉࡽࠊgo ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ๓⨨モ㸩NP ⌧ࢀࡿ๓⨨モࡣࠊ฿㐩Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍ to ࡀ᭱ࡶከ ࠸ࡀࠊhas gone to NP ࡣ 166 ࡛࠶ࡿࡢᑐ ࡋࠊis gone to NP ࡣ 4 ࡲࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ ࡽࠊ(18)⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ (18) be gone ࡣ⛣ືࡢ╔Ⅼࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿ⛣ື ⾲⌧ࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡃ࠸ࠋ ᚋ⥆せ⣲ࡋ࡚ᙧᐜモࡀ⥆ࡃࡣ 2 ࡛࠶ࡗ ࡓࡀࠊ࠺ࡕ 1 ࡣᴟࡵ࡚㠀ᶆ‽ⓗ࡞Ⓨヰෆ⌧ ࢀࡿࡇࡽࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞⏝ࡣ⪃࠼ࡃ࠸ࠋ ࡶ࠺ 1 ࡶⓎヰෆ⌧ࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࡽࠊ(19) ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ (19) be gone ࡣ≧ែኚ⾲⌧ᴟࡵ࡚⏝࠸ࡽ ࢀࡃ࠸ࠋ (18)ࠊ(19)ࡼࡾࠊbe gone ࡣㄒ NP ࡢ⛣ືࡸ ኚᚋࡢ≧ែࢆࣉࣟࣇࣝࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ ㄒ NP ࡀ⛣ືࡋࡓᚋࡢㄯヰࡢሙࡢ≧ែࠊゝࡍࢀ ࡇࡢࡇࡽࡶࠊis gone ࡣᐇ㝿ࡢ⛣ືࡢ࣋ ࣥࢺࢆ⾲ࡋࡃ࠸⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ 㻠㻚㻞㻌 ඹ㉳䛩䜛モ䛛䜙ぢ䜛 㼔㼍㼟㻌㼓㼛㼚㼑 䛸 㼕㼟㻌㼓㼛㼚㼑㻌 is gone ࡣ has gone ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊඹ㉳ࡍࡿモ ࡣᙉពモࠊ㛫モ㝈ࡽࢀࡿࠋhas gone ࡣ ࡑࢀ௨እ㡿ᇦࠊ㏣ຍࠊ㐣⛬ࠊホ౯࣭ែᗘモ ඹ㉳ࡋࡓࡀࠊࢃࡎ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ(18)ࠊ (20)࡛ᣦࡋࡓࡼ࠺ࠊis gone ࡣ⛣ືࡢ࣋ࣥ ࢺࢆ⾲ࡋࡃࡃࠊhas gone ࡣ⾲ࡍ⪃࠼ࡿࠊ ඹ㉳ࡍࡿモࡢᩚྜᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋhas gone ࡛ࡣ⛣ືࡢ㐣⛬ࢆಟ㣭ࡉࢀࡿࡇࡀࢃࡎ࡞ࡀ ࡽ࠶ࡿࡢᑐࡋࠊis gone ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ −231− has goneとis goneの出現環境と意味の動機 is gone ࡣᙉពࡢモඹ㉳ࡍࡿྜࡀ㧗࠸ࡀࠊ is gone ඹ㉳ࡍࡿᙉពࡢモࡣࠊࡍ࡚୰㛫 ⨨㸦“is ᙉពモ gone”㸧⌧ࢀࡿࠋᙉពモࡀ ಟ㣭ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ࣋ࣥࢺయ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ gone ࡛࠶ ࡿࡇࡀࢃࡿࠋ 㻠㻚㻟㻌 ㄒ䛾ᐃᛶ䚸⛣ື䛾୍ᛶ䛸Ọஂᛶ㻌 ⠇ᮎಟ㣭ㄒྃ࡞ࡋ࡛⌧ࢀࡿሙྜࠊis gone ࡶ has gone ࡶㄒࡣᐃྡモ࡛ྃ࠶ࡿࡇࡀከࡃࠊ ᣦ♧≀ࡀㄯヰࡢሙࡽ⛣ືࡋࡓࡇࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊis gone ࡣ୍ⓗ࡞⛣ືࡢሙྜࡣ ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ (22) “ … We shall never be again as we were. Dennis is gone, and we are the poorer.” She looked away, biting her lip. “But in the midst of death, we are also in life. …” (BNC) (23) The husband of Julie Godwin, who was murdered while on holiday with a friend in South Africa, says he’s …. Tomorrow is the second birthday of the couple's daughter. Sophie Godwin is still asking where her mother has gone. (BNC) (22)࡛ࡣᚋ⥆㒊ศࡼࡾ Dennis ࡀஸࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ ࡇࡀ᫂ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(23)ࡣࠊẕ ࢆẅࡉࢀࡓࡇࢆㄆ㆑࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ፉࡢⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ be gone ࡣ(24)ࡢࡼ࠺ࠊྠ୍ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ୰ “replace”ࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡀᩓぢࡉࢀࡿࠋbe gone ࡀ ୍ⓗ࡞ᾘኻ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇࡢഐド࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ (24) She added: “I put my life and my memories into this house and now everything is gone.” I wasn't insured and the things stolen were worth £150,000. I can't replace them, I can't rent out rooms and …. (BNC) ௨ୖࡢࡇࡽࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺⪃࠼ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ ࡁࡿࠋbe gone ࡣㄒྡモྃࡀ⛣ືࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ ㄯヰࡢሙᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡇࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ ࡿࠋㄯヰࡢሙࡣࠊኚࡢవᆅࡀ࡞࠸⤖ᯝ≧ែ ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋㄯヰࡢሙࡔࡅࢆࣉࣟࣇࣝࡋࠊ ⛣ືࡢ࣋ࣥࢺࡣ⫼ᬒࡉࢀࡿࠋㄯヰࡢሙࡽ ࡢ㛫ⓗᣑᙇࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡢពࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡢ ࡣࠊ㐣ཤศモ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ have gone ࡣ“go”ࡼࡿ⛣ືࡢ㐣⛬ࡶࣉࣟࣇ ࣝࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄯヰࡢሙ௨๓⛣ືࡢ ࣋ࣥࢺࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊㄯヰࡢሙࡣࡑࡢ࣋ࣥࢺ ࡢ⤖ᯝ≧ែࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊㄯヰࡢሙࡽ ࡢ㛫ⓗᣑᙇࡀ࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋពࢆ⾲⌧ ࡍࡿࡢࡣ have + p.p.࠸࠺ࡢᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㻌 㻡㻚㻌 䜎䛸䜑㻌 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡ྠ⩏࠸ࢃࢀࡿ has gone is gone ࡢពⓗᕪ␗ࢆࠊㄯヰࡢሙࡢ㛵㐃ࡽ ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋhas gone ࡣࡢᙧᘧࡼࡾࠊᩥἲ ⓗㄯヰࡢሙࡽࡢ㛫ⓗᣑᙇࢆྵࢇࡔ⤖ᯝ≧ ែࢆ⾲ࡍࠋis gone ࡣㄒᙡⓗㄯヰࡢሙ࠶ࡿ⤖ ᯝ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ୧⪅ࡢពࡣࠊྠࡌ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠸ ࠼ࡿࠋ has gone ᙧᐜモࡀᚋ⥆ࡋࡸࡍࡃࠊis gone ᙧᐜモࡀᚋ⥆ࡋࡃ࠸ࡇ㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊgone ࡢ ᩥἲࡢ⛬ᗘࡀ㛵ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ 㸯 㸰 㸱 㸲 㸳 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ㐣ཤศモࢆ p.p.⾲ࡍࠋ Langacker (1991)ཧ↷ࠋ ࡢព࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ be + p.p.ࡢࢺ࣮ ࢡࣥᩘࡣࠊis come 24ࠊis gone 184ࠊis done 74ࠊ is fallen 6ࠊis grown 29 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ is gone 1 ぢࡽࢀࡓ is happily gone ࡣᩥ ಟ㣭ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿࡓࡵࠊᩘࡽ㝖እࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ for ever, forever, for good ࡣྠ⩏࡛࠶ࡿࡇ ࡽࠊྠ୍ࢱࣉࡳ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠙ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ࠚ Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. vol.II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Michaelis, Laura A. 1998. Aspectual Grammar and Past-Time Reference. London: Routledge. ᒸ⏣ఙኵ1985.ࠗモᤄධᩥ࠘ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ ࠙ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠚ The British National Corpus. −232− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࠕඹヰࠖࡢほⅬࡽࡳࡓ࣐࣮ࣞࢩㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕศᯒ ⏣ 㡰Ꮚ ྡྂᒇᏛᏛ㝔༤ኈㄢ⛬ [email protected] 㸺Abstract㸼 Analysis of Back-Channels by Malay Native Speakers – from the perspective of KYOOWA StyleJunko Katsuda Nagoya University Graduate School This study observes listeners’ responses by native Malay speakers. Mizutani (1984) defines “Kyoowa style” as “a conversational style in which a listener listens, saying back-channels very frequently, confirming and reinforcing what a speaker says, and sometimes completing a speaker’s sentence.” She claimed this style is distinctive in Japanese native speakers. Kurosaki (1995) divided Kyoowa into 5 categories. This study analyses whether these 5 categories appear in Malay native speakers’ conversations. It was found that 3 out of the 5 categories were present, so it could be said that Malaysian conversations also have some of Kyoowa characteristics. All of them were found in the middle of a speaker’s talk, half of those overlapping with a speaker’s statement. This phenomenon is different from the characteristics of Japanese Kyoowa style, hence further study on this aspect should be done. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚඹヰࠊ࣐࣮ࣞࢩㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᛂࠊඛྲྀࡾࠊ࣮࢜ࣂ㸫ࣛࢵࣉ 1. ࡣࡌࡵ ᖺ௦ࡽ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࣓ࣜ࢝ேⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡢヰࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡘ࠸࡚ ࡢ◊✲㸦Ỉ㇂ ࠊ࣓ࢼ࣮ࢻ ࠊ &ODQF\HWDO ➼㸧ࡀ㐍ࡵࡽࢀ࡚ࡁ ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㏆ᖺࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேᡈ࠸ࡣእᅜே◊✲⪅ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅୰ᅜㄒヰ⪅ࠊ㡑 ᅜㄒヰ⪅ࡢヰࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡞ࡢ࣑ࢡࣟⓗ࡞どⅬࡽࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ ࠊ㈩ ࠊ㔠 ࠊࠋࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ ⱥㄒࠊ୰ᅜㄒཬࡧ㡑ᅜㄒ௨እࡢእᅜㄒヰ⪅ࡢヰ୰ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᑐ↷◊ ✲ࡣࠊ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾ࡛ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ ᮏ◊✲ࡣ࣐࣮ࣞࢩㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢぶࡋ࠸ྠᛶ㸦ዪᛶ㸧ࡢேྠኈ࠾ࡅࡿᑐ㠃⮬⏤ ヰࢆࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢഃ㠃ࡽ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⌧ᅾ◊✲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿእᅜㄒヰ⪅௨ −233− 「共話」の観点からみたマレーシア語母語話者のあいづち分析 እࡢヰࡢ≉ᚩࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࠊ࣐࣮ࣞࢩㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢヰࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ ࡍࡿࡶࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢヰࡢ≉ᚩẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡇࡶ┠ⓗࡍࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻞㸬ඛ⾜◊✲㻌 ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢヰࡢ㐍ࡵ᪉ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊỈ㇂㸦㻝㻥㻥㻤㸧ࡣࠊࠕ㢖⦾࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆᡴ ࡕࠊ┦ᡭࡢゝࡗࡓࡇࢆ☜ㄆࡋࠊ⿵ᙉࡋࠊࡣ┦ᡭࡢᩥࢆᡂࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊヰࢆ⪺ࡃࠖ ᵝ࡞ࢱࣉࡢヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋỈ㇂ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰࡢࢫࢱࣝࢆࠕඹヰࠖ ྡ࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㯮ᓮ㸦㻝㻥㻥㻡㸧ࡣࠊỈ㇂ࡢࠕඹヰࠖࡢ⪃࠼ࢆ᭦᥎ࡋ㐍ࡵࠊࡇࡢࠕඹヰࠖ ࢆ 㻡 ࡘ㢮ᆺࡋࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊỈ㇂ࡽࡼࡗ࡚᪤㏙ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠕඛྲྀࡾᆺࠖࠕ⿵ ㊊ᆺࠖຍ࠼࡚ࠊࠕຓࡅ⯚ᆺࠖࠕゝ࠸࠼ᆺࠖࠕඹឤᆺࠖࢆ㏣ຍࡋࡓࠋ࠼ࡤࠕඛྲྀࡾ ᆺࠖࡣࠊ㻭ࠕࡕࡻࡗࢽࣗࣥࢫࡀࡡ࣭࣭࣭ࠖ㻮ࠕ࠼࠼ࠊ㐪࠸ࡲࡍࡡ࣭࣭࣭ࠖࡢࡼ࠺ ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࡢ⥆ࡁࢆ୰᩿ࡋࠊヰࡋᡭࡢゝ࠾࠺ࡋࡓࡇࢆඛྲྀࡾࡋ࡚ ㏙ࡿᆺ㸦㯮ᓮ 㻝㻥㻥㻡㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕඹヰࠖⓗ࡞ヰࡋ᪉ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ ࡋ࡚ࠊᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅࡞ࡣࡇࡢࠕඹヰࠖࡣᑐᴟ⨨ࡍࡿࠕᑐ ヰࠖࢫࢱ࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Ỉ㇂ 㻝㻥㻤㻠ࠊ࣓ࢼ࣮ࢻ 㻝㻥㻥㻟 㸧ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᩥ ἲⓗࡶࡃ␗࡞ࡿ࣐࣮ࣞࢩㄒ㸦㻿㼂㻻 ᆺ㸧ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㯮ᓮ㻔㻝㻥㻥㻡㻕ࡢඹヰࡢ 㻡 㢮ᆺࡢฟ⌧ࡢ᭷↓ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻟㸬ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ㻌 ࣐࣮ࣞࢩㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㸦ዪᏊᏛ⏕ࡢேྠኈ㸧ࢸ࣮࣐ࡣ࠼ࡎࠊ⮬⏤࠾ࡋ ࡷࡾࢆࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸㸦⣙ ศ㛫㸧ࠊࡑࡢᵝᏊࢆࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛཬࡧࠊ㻵㻯 ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮㘓 㡢ࠊ㘓⏬ࡋࡓࠋヰࡣ࡚ᩥᏐཬࡧ⩻ヂࡋࠊศᯒࡢᑐ㇟ࡋࠊ㯮ᓮ㸦㻝㻥㻥㻡㸧ࡢࠕඹ ヰࠖࡢ㸳㢮ᆺࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ㻌 㻌 㻠㸬ศᯒ⤖ᯝ㻌 ࠕඹヰࠖࡣࠊ⥲ィ 㻝㻟 ศ 㻟㻜 ⛊㛫ࡢヰ࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㻝㻠 ᅇぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ㯮ᓮࡢࠕඹヰࠖࡢ 㸳㢮ᆺᚑࡗ࡚ศ㢮ࡋࡓࡇࢁࠊࠕඛྲྀࡾᆺࠖ㻥 ࠊࠕຓࡅ⯚ᆺࠖ㻟 ࠊࠕඹឤᆺࠖ㻞 ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋୖグࡢ 㻝㻠 ࡣ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢヰࡢ㏵୰࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨヰࡉࢀ ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ 㻣 ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࣛࢵࣉࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢࠕඹ ヰࠖ࠾ࡅࡿ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࣛࢵࣉࡣ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ヰ࡛ࡣ㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ሗ࿌ࡣ⟶ぢ ࡢ㝈ࡾ↓ࡃࠊ᪥ᮏேࡢඹヰࡢ≉ᚩࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௨ୗ࣐࣮ࣞ ࢩㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㺀ඛྲྀࡾᆺ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ㺁ࡢࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 −234− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࣐࣮ࣞࢩㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ㻌 㻌 㸧 㺀ඛྲྀࡾᆺ㺁㻌 㻌 㻌 㻝㻭㻦㻌㼟㼑㼎㼍㼎㻌㼗㼕㼚㼍㼔㻌㼙㼑㼙㼍㼚㼓㻚㻚㼙㼑㼙㼍㼚㼓㻌㼍㼐㼍㻌㼚㼕㼍㼠㼘㼍㼔㻌㼚㼍㼗㻌㼍㼙㼕㼗㻌㼟㼑㼙㼑㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㼜㼑㼚㼐㼑㼗㻌㼠㼍㼜㼕㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ࢟ࢼ㻔㻮 ࡢྡ๓㻕ࡣᮏᙜࠊᮏᙜࢩ࣮ࣙࢺࢭ࣓ࢫࢱ࣮ࢆྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ពᅗࡀ࠶ࡿࡽࠊ࡛ࡶ㻌 э㻞㻮㻦㻌㼍㻦㼟㼑㼎㼍㼎㻌㼠㼍㼗㻌㼐㼑㻌㼟㼡㼎㼖㼑㼗 ὀ㼇㼥㼍㼚㼓㻌㼚㼍㼗㻌㼐㼕㼍㼙㼎㼕㼘㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ᩍ⛉ࡀ↓࠸ࡽ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻟㻭㻦㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㼇㼟㼑㼎㼍㼎㻌㼠㼍㼗㻌㼐㼑㻌㼟㼡㼎㼖㼑㼗㻌㼥㼍㼚㼓㻌㼚㼍㼗㻌㼐㼕㼍㼙㼎㼕㼘㻌㼟㼛㻌㼖㼍㼐㼕㻌㼠㼍㼗㻌㼎㼛㼘㼑㼔㼘㼍㼔㻌㼚㼍㼗 㻌 㻌 ྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ᩍ⛉ࡀ↓࠸ࡽࠊࡔࡽࠊ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㼍㼙㼕㼗㻚㻌㼟㼑㼙㼑㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㼜㼑㼚㼐㼑㼗㻚㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ࢩ࣮ࣙࢺࢭ࣓ࢫࢱ࣮ࡣྲྀࢀ࡞࠸㻌 㻌 㸯㻭 ࡽ㸱㻭 ࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㻭 ࡣࠕ㻮 ࡣྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ᩍ⛉ࡀ࠶ࡿࡽ࠸࠸ࡀࠊ⮬ศ㸦㻭㸧ࡣ↓ ࠸ࡢ࡛ྲྀࢀ࡞࠸ࠖ࠸࠺ࡇࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢෆᐜࡣ 㻭 ୍ேࡢⓎヰࡽ ࡣᵓᡂࡉࢀࡎࠊ㸰㻮 ࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ᩍ⛉ࡀ↓࠸ࡽࠖࠊ㻮 ࡀ 㻭 ࡢḟゝ࠾࠺ ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰࢆඛྲྀࡾࡋ࡚ゝ࠺ࡇ࡛ࠊ㻞 ேࡀඹྠࡋ࡚Ⓨヰࢆ⤌ࡳ❧࡚࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲ ࡓࠊࡇࡢ 㻮 ࡢඛྲྀࡾⓎヰࡣࠊḟࡢ㸱㻭 ࡢⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ࡛ࡶࠊྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ᩍ⛉ࡀ↓࠸ࡽ࣭࣭࣭ࠖ ୍㒊࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࣛࢵࣉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻡㸬⪃ᐹ 㻌 ࠕඹヰࠖࡣ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢ≉ᚩࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡢእᅜㄒ㻔ⱥㄒࠊ୰ᅜ ㄒ࡞㻕ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㡑ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ⌧㇟ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ ࡀ᪥ᮏேྠ⛬ᗘࡢ㢖ᗘ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅇࡢ㺀ඹヰ㺁ࡢ 㻡 㢮ᆺࡢほⅬࡽ ࡣࠊ࣐࣮ࣞࢩㄒヰ⪅ࡢヰࡶࠕඹヰࠖࡢせ⣲ࢆഛ࠼࠾ࡾࠊ᭦ࡑࡢ㢖ᗘࡀ᪥ᮏㄒヰ ⪅ࡢࡶࡢࡼࡾ㧗࠸ࡇࡽࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡼࡾࡶ᭦ඹヰⓗ࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦㯮ᓮ 㻝㻥㻥㻡 ࡼࡿࠊㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅ࡢᖺ㱋ࠊᛶู➼ࡀᖜ␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⣧⢋࡞ẚ㍑ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞ ࠸ࡀࠊ ࠕ㔝᪉ゝㄯヰࠖ㻟㻜 ⦅㸦ᑠᏛ⏕ࡽ⪁ᖺࡲ࡛ࡢヰ⪅㸧࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ࠕඹヰࠖࡣ 㻝 ศᙜࡓࡾ 㻜㻚㻣 ᅇぢࡽࢀࡓ࠶ࡿࠋᅇࡢ࣐࣮ࣞேẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢヰ࠾࠸࡚ࡣ 㻝 ศ㛫 㻝㻚㻜㻠 ᅇぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ㸧ࠋ㻌 ࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᅇࡢ࣐࣮ࣞࢩㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕඹヰࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࣛࢵࣉࡍࡿࡇࡀከࡃ㸦యࡢ 㻡㻜㻑㸧ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ㔜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡶⓎヰࢆࡍࡿ ࠸࠺⌧㇟ࡢ⫼ᚋࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㺀⮬ศࡢពぢࢆゝ࠸ࡓ࠸㺁ࠕ⮬ศࡶⓎゝࡋࡓ࠸ࠖ࠸ ࠺ࡼࡾᙉ࠸ⓎヰࡢせồࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ௦⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠕඹヰࠖࡢᴫ ᛕᛶ㉁ࢆ␗ࡍࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᭦࡞ࡿヲ⣽࡞ศᯒࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻢㸬⤊ࢃࡾ㻌 ᅇࡣࠊヰࡢ㠀ᖖ㝈ࡽࢀࡓ࣑ࢡࣟⓗ࡞⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢ୍㒊㸦㯮ᓮ 㻝㻥㻥㻡 −235− 「共話」の観点からみたマレーシア語母語話者のあいづち分析 ࡢࠕඹヰࠖࡢ 㻡 㢮ᆺ㸧ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪᰝࠊ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡲࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᅇࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡣ ヰࡣ㸯࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡽࠊࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ୍⯡ࡍࡿࡇࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࡀࠊᚋከᩘࡢヰ ࢆศᯒࡋࠊᅇࡢㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ᳨ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ㻌 㻌 㻔ὀ㻕 㼇 ࡣࠊࡑࢀ௨㝆ࡢⓎヰࡀ㔜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㻌 㻌 ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ 㯮ᓮⰋ(1995)ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࣮ࣙࣥ㺀ඹヰ㺁ࡘ࠸࡚࣮࠘ᅬ⏣ᏛᅬዪᏊ Ꮫㄽᩥ㞟 30-I㸸45-60 ㈩⌹(2008)ࠕᑠ㞟ᅋウㄽሙ㠃࠾ࡅࡿヰ⪅᭰ࡢ᪥୰ᑐ↷◊✲ࠖ ࠗୡ⏺ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘ 18㸸73-94 㔠ᚿᐉ(2000)ࠕturn ཬࡧ turn-taking ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢヨࡳ㸫㡑࣭᪥ࡢᑐ↷ヰศ ᯒ㸫ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘105 ྕ㸸81-90 㔠ᚿᐉ(2001)ࠕturn-taking ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥཬࡧࡑࡢ㐃㙐ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ㸫㡑࣭᪥ࡢᑐ↷ヰศᯒ 㸫ࠖࠗே㛫ᩥㄽྀ࠘4 ྕ㸦࠾ⲔࡢỈዪᏊᏛᏛ㝔ே㛫ᩥ◊✲⛉㸧㸸153-165 Clancy, P. et al. (1996) The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26: 355-387 㝞ጼⳡ(2005)ࠕ᪥ྎࡢ㟁ヰヰ࠾ࡅࡿ᪂ࡓ࡞ࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ㛤ጞ㸫࠶࠸࡙ࡕ⏝ࡢ᭷↓ ࠸࠺ほⅬࡽ㸫ࠖࠗୡ⏺ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘15㸸41-58 Ỉ㇂ಙᏊ(1984)ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ヰࡋゝⴥࡢᐇែ㸫࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢศᯒ㸫ࠖࠗ㔠⏣୍ᙪ༤ ኈྂᕼグᛕㄽᩥ㞟 ➨ᕳゝㄒᏛ⦅࠘ ୕┬ᇽ㸸261-279 (2007)ࠕ୰᪥ẕㄒሙ㠃ࡢヰ㢟㌿ࡢẚ㍑̺ヰ㢟⤊ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫὀ┠ࡋ࡚㸫ࠖ ࠗୡ ⏺ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘17㸸37-52 −236− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࠕྡモྃࡽࡢእ⨨㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ࠖࠕᣦ♧ࠖࡢ㛵ಀࡘ࠸࡚ ୰⏣ ᬛஓ ி㒔ᏛᏛ㝔 < Abstract > This paper intends to investigate “the restriction involved in extraposition from NP”. In my discussion I will show the great importance of the concept of “reference”. When modifiers appear in a certain kind of NPs, they would contribute to “the attainment of reference”. Therefore in that kind of NPs “the connection” of heads and modifiers is strong. This strong connection works as the restriction against the dislocation of modifiers from their heads. This concept of “connection” is clearly a pragmatical one produced by the interaction of speakers and hearers. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸㸯ࠊྡモྃࡽࡢእ⨨ 㸰ࠊไ⣙ 㸱ࠊᣦ♧ 㸲ࠊྠᐃ 㸳ࠊ⤖ࡧࡘࡁ 㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊྡモྃࡽࡢእ⨨㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᣦ♧ࡢᴫᛕࢆ୰ᚰᤣ࠼࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋྡ モྃࡽࡢእ⨨ࡣࠊḟࡢ(1b)ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (1) a. A man who was wearing a black hat just came in. b. A man just came in who was wearing a black hat. (1b)࡛ࡣࠊྡモྃࡢಟ㣭せ⣲ࡀせ㒊ࡽษࡾ㞳ࡉࢀࡿᙧ࡛ᩥᮎ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢁ࡛ࠊྡモྃࡽ ࡢእ⨨ࡣ୍ᐃࡢไ⣙ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊ୍⯡ⓗᐃྡモྃࡽࡢእ⨨ࡣᐜㄆᗘࡀప࠸ࡉࢀࡿࠋ (2) a. The man who was wearing a black hat just came in. b. ?? The man just came in who was wearing a black hat. ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࠕྡモྃࡽࡢእ⨨㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ࠖࢆᢅࡗࡓ࡞ඛ⾜◊✲ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊZiv & Cole(1974)ࠊ Guéron(1980)ࠊHuck & Na(1990)ࠊTakami(1992)࡞ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡀ ␗࡞ࡿ⌮ㄽⓗᇶ┙౫ᣐࡍࡿᙧ࡛ࠊྡモྃࡽࡢእ⨨ࠊཬࡧࡑࢀ㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳ࡚ ࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࡣࠊྡモྃࡽࡢእ⨨ࡢ㐺ྰࢆ⪅ᢥ୍ⓗண ࡍࡿ࠸ ࠺ඹ㏻ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⌮ㄽᑐࡋ࡚ࠊStucky(1987)࡛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ⌮ㄽࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ㐺᱁ண ࡉࢀࡿᩥࡶࠊุ᩿⪅ ࡗ࡚ฎ⌮ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢀࡤ㐺᱁࡞ࡾᚓࡿࡇࡀ୍⩌ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᇶ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋStucky ࡢᙇࡣࠊ እ⨨ࡢ㐺ྰᑐࡍࡿ⪅ᢥ୍ⓗ࡞ண ၥࢆᢞࡆࡅࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࡇࡢぢゎࢆᨭᣢࡍ ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞ไ⣙ࡣ⤯ᑐⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᅇ㑊ࡉࢀࡿࠕഴྥࠖ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕഴྥࡋ࡚ࡢไ⣙ࠖᑐࡋ࡚ᣦ♧ࡢၥ㢟ࡀ῝ࡃ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࠶ࡿࠋ 㸰㸬⏝ㄒ࣭ᴫᛕࡢつᐃ ࠕᣦ♧ࠖࠕྠᐃࠖࡣᐦ᥋࡞㛵ಀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞୍㐃ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇࡀ ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ −237− 「名詞句からの外置に関わる制約」と「指示」の関係について (3) ྡモྃࡢⓎヰ Ѝ ྡモྃࡼࡿᑐ㇟ࡢᣦ♧ Ѝ ⪺ࡁᡭࡼࡿᑐ㇟ࡢྠᐃ ࡇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ͆John arrived͇࠸࠺ලయⓗ࡞ᩥ㐺⏝ࡍࢀࡤḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡿࠋ (4) ͆John͇ࡢⓎヰ Ѝ ͆John͇ 㸦࠸࠺㡢ኌ㸧ࡼࡿಶேࡢᣦ♧ Ѝ ⪺ࡁᡭࡼࡿಶேࡢྠᐃ ࡇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ᭱ᚋࡢẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡿࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡼࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢྠᐃࠖࡣࠊⓎヰ⪅ࡢഃࡽ⾲⌧ࡍࢀࡤ ࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖ࡞ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࠾࠸࡚ࡇࢀࡽࡘࡢ⏝ㄒࡣྠ⩏࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୧⪅ඹୖࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ ⤖ࡋࡓࡇࢆពࡍࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛͆A man arrived͇ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࡘ࠸࡚ࡶゐࢀ࡚࠾ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ ᩥ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ͆a man͇ࡀⓎヰࡉࢀࡿࡇࡼࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣᙜ↛ఱࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋࡋࡋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ ᅛ᭷ྡ͆John͇࡞ࡢሙྜࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ≉ู࡞ᩥ⬦ࢆᐃࡋ࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࡢಶேࡋ࡚ࡢᑐ ㇟ࢆྠᐃࡍࡿࡇࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢࡣୖࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣヱᙜࡋ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ࡇࡢ✀ࡢᑐࡋ࡚ࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖᡈ࠸ࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡼࡿྠᐃࠖ࠸࠺⏝ㄒࢆ㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡇࡣࡋ࡞ ࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᚐ࡞㆟ㄽࡢ」㞧ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࠊ ࠕಶయ㸦ಶே㸧ᣦ♧ࠖཬࡧࠕಶయ㸦ಶே㸧ྠᐃࠖࡢ ࡳࢆၥ㢟ࡍࡿࠋ 㸱㸬ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡼࡿࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࡢᐤࠖ 3.1. Grice ࡢ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮㸦Cooperative Principle㸧 ௨ୗࡢ㆟ㄽ㛵ࢃࡿ㝈ࡾ࡛ Grice(1975)ࡼࡿ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮㸦Cooperative Principle㸧ࢆࡾ㏉ࡗ࡚࠾ ࡃࠋGrice(1975)࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊヰࡣ༠ㄪⓗ࡞࡚ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࠊཧຍ⪅ࡣࡑࡢ࡚ࡢ୰ඹ㏻ࡢ┠ ⓗࢆぢฟࡍࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵཧຍ⪅ࡀ㑂Ᏺࡍࡁ୍⯡ཎ⌮ࡀᐃᘧ ࡉࢀࡿࠋ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮ࡣࡋ࡚ᅄࡘࡢ᱁⋡ࠊཬࡧࡑࡢୗ᱁⋡ࡽᡂࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡘࡢ᱁⋡ࡢࡳࢆ ᘬ࠸࡚࠾ࡃࠋ 㔞ࡢ᱁⋡ 㸯㸬 㸦ゝⴥࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡢᙜ㠃ࡢ┠ⓗࡢⅭࡢ㸧せồぢྜ࠺ࡔࡅࡢሗࢆ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨゝࢆ⾜࠸࡞ࡉ࠸ 㸰㸬せồࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ௨ୖࡢሗࢆ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨゝࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ ᵝែࡢ᱁⋡ ̿ 㸦ୖ᱁⋡ࡋ࡚㸧ࢃࡾࡸࡍ࠸ゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡋ࡞ࡉ࠸ 㸯㸬᭕࡞ゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡋ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ 㸰㸬ከ⩏ⓗ࡞ゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡋ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ 㸱㸬⡆₩࡞ゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡋ࡞ࡉ࠸㸦వィ࡞ゝⴥࢆࡗ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸㸧 㸲㸬ᩚ↛ࡋࡓゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡋ࡞ࡉ࠸ 㸦Ύሯ 1998: 37-39㸧 3.2. ྡモྃࡢศ㢮 ḟࠊྡモྃࢆࠕ⏝ࡢពᅗࠖ࠸࠺ᇶ‽࡛ࡘูࡍࡿࠋ 㸦i㸧 Ⓨヰ⪅ࡀᙜヱࡢྡモྃࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᣦ♧ࢆ㐩ᡂࡋࡼ࠺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ 㸦ii㸧 Ⓨヰ⪅ࡀᙜヱࡢྡモྃࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᣦ♧ࢆ㐩ᡂࡋࡼ࠺ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜ ࡇࡢศ㢮ἲࡣḟࡢࡘࡢほⅬࡼࡾࡑࡢጇᙜᛶࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ➨୍ࡢほⅬࡣࠊᣦ♧ࢆ⾜࠺ࡢࡣ⾲⌧㸦ྡ モྃ㸧࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࡑࢀࢆ⏝࠸ࡿே㛫࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢほⅬࡣ Strawson(1950)࠾࠸࡚ᙇ ࡉࢀࡿࠋ➨ࡢほⅬࡣࠊྛࠎࡢ⾲⌧ࡣࡑࢀࢆ⏝࠸࡚ఱࢆ⾜࠺㛵ࡍࡿ୍ᐃࡢつ๎ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊ ࡑࡢつ๎ࡣ⤯ᑐⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢࡘࡢほⅬࡣᐦ᥋㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦i㸧ࡢ ┠ⓗࡢࡓࡵࡣࠊᆺⓗࡣᐃྡモྃࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊ㸦ii㸧ࡢ┠ⓗࡢࡓࡵࡣࠊᆺⓗࡣᐃྡモྃࡀ −238− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࠼ࡤⓎヰ⪅ࡀ͆John͇࠸࠺ಶேࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿ┠ⓗ࡛͆A man͇ࢆⓎヰ ࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ͆John͇ࢆṇࡋࡃྠᐃࡍࡿ࠸࠺≧ἣࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡇࡣ༑ศྍ⬟࡛ ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࡣ➨ࡢほⅬࢆドࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᆺⓗ࡞⏝ἲࢆ㐓⬺ࡋࡓ ྡモྃࡢ⏝ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡣࠊ➨୍ࡢほⅬࡼࡾࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ 3.3. ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡼࡿࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࡢᐤࠖ ୖࡢศ㢮ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊྡモྃࡽࡢእ⨨ไ⣙ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡣ㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗᐃྡ モྃࡽࡢእ⨨ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡀప࠸ࡇࡀ♧ࡍࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸦ii㸧ࡢሙྜࡣၥ㢟࡞ࡃಟ㣭せ⣲ࢆእ⨨ࡍ ࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗᐃྡモྃࡽࡢእ⨨ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡇࡀ♧ࡍࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸦ii㸧 ࡢሙྜࡣ࡞ࡐእ⨨ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿࡇࡣࠊ 㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜไ⣙ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇࢆᑐẚⓗ࡞どⅬ ࡽᢕᥱࡍࡿࡓࡵࡶ㔜せ࡞ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊᮏㄽࡢࡓࡿ┠ⓗࡣྡモྃࡽࡢእ⨨㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࠶ࡾࠊࡉࡽࡣ⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜࡽࠊ௨ୗ࡛ࡣ㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜࡢࡳࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇࡍࡿࠋ 㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜࡣḟࡢࡇࡀྵពࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊᙜヱࡢྡモྃࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡗ࡚ྠᐃྍ ⬟࡛࠶ࡿⓎヰ⪅ࡣ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ➨㸰❶࡛⾜ࡗࡓ⏝ㄒࡢつᐃక࠺ࡇ࡛ ࠶ࡿࠋࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡼࡿྠᐃࠖࡣྠ⩏࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖࢆពᅗࡍ ࡿࡇࡣࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡼࡿྠᐃࠖࢆពᅗࡍࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊᮏ❶࠾ࡅࡿ ᙇࡣḟ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (5)ࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖࡀពᅗࡉࢀࡓྡモྃෆ⌧ࢀࡿಟ㣭せ⣲ࡣࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖࡢᐤࢆⅭࡍ ௨ୗࠊ(5)ࡀᙇࡉࢀࡿ⮳ࡿ⤒⦋ࢆලయⓗ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࠊྡモྃෆಟ㣭せ⣲ࡀ⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡿࠋ (6) a. Peter just came in. b. The man just came in. (6a)ࡢࡼ࠺ᅛ᭷ྡࡀ⏝ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡸࠊ(6b)ࡢࡼ࠺せ㒊ࡢࡳ࡛ᣦ♧ࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊಟ㣭せ⣲ ࡣせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࡣ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮ࡢ[㔞ࡢ᱁⋡ 2]㛵ࢃࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ḟྡモྃෆಟ㣭せ⣲ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿሙྜࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ (7) a. Peter with the black hat just came in. b. The man who was wearing a black hat just came in.( = 2a) ࡲࡎ(7a) ࡘ࠸࡚ࠋ ͆Peter͇࠸࠺ྡࡢே≀ࡀ」ᩘ࠸ࡿሙྜࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡗ࡚ࡣࠊࡢ͆Peter͇ࡀᣦ ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆỴᐃࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢሗࡀᚲせ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛(6a)ࡢࡼ࠺Ⓨヰࡉࢀࡓࡔࡅ ࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣၥ㢟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ͆Peter͇ࢆྠᐃࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ௬ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡁ͆Peter͇ ࡀࢺ࣮ࣞࢻ࣐࣮ࢡࡢࡼ࠺࠸ࡘࡶ㯮࠸ᖗᏊࢆ⿕ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊಟ㣭せ⣲͆with the black hat͇ࡀⓎ ヰࡉࢀࡿࡇࡼࡗ࡚ၥ㢟ࡢ͆Peter͇ࡀṇࡋࡃྠᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢⓎヰࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ ࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ḟ(7b)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊࡇࡢᩥඛ⾜ࡍࡿᩥ⬦࡛ࠕⓑ࠸ᖗᏊࢆ⿕ࡗࡓ⏨ࠖࠕ㯮࠸ᖗᏊࢆ⿕ࡗࡓ⏨ࠖ ࡀၥ㢟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛(6b)Ⓨヰࡉࢀࡓࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࡕࡽࡢ⏨ࡀᣦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ(7a)ࡢሙྜྠᵝࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡶಟ㣭せ⣲͆who was wearing a black hat͇ ࡀⓎヰࡉࢀࡿࡇࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ ࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖࡀពᅗࡉࢀ࡚ఱࡽࡢྡモྃࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࡢྡモྃෆ ⌧ࢀࡿಟ㣭せ⣲ࡣࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖᐤࢆⅭࡍࠋࡇࡢࡇࡣࠊ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮ࡢ[㔞ࡢ᱁⋡ 1]ࡼࡗ࡚ᨭ −239− 「名詞句からの外置に関わる制約」と「指示」の関係について ᣢࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸲㸬せ㒊ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢࠕ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࠖ ᮏ❶࡛ࡣࠊ๓❶ᘬࡁ⥆ࡁ㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ(5)ࢆᇶࡉࡽ࡞ࡿᙇࢆᑟࡁฟ ࡍࠋ(5)⥆࠸࡚Ⅽࡉࢀࡿᙇࡣḟ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (8)ࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖࡀពᅗࡉࢀࡓྡモྃෆ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊせ㒊ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢࠕ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࠖࡀᙉ࠸ ๓❶࠾࠸࡚(5)ࢆᑟฟࡍࡿ㐣⛬࡛ࠊ㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜࠊྡモྃෆಟ㣭せ⣲ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࡢಟ㣭せ ⣲ࡣᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࡢࡓࡵྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡀࢃࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇࡽ㸦i㸧ࡢሙྜࠊᣦ♧ࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿ ࠸࠺┠ⓗࡼࡗ࡚ࠊⓎヰ⪅ࡣࠊせ㒊ࢆⓎヰࡋࡓ࡞ࡽࡤ⥆ࡅࡊࡲಟ㣭せ⣲ࢆⓎヰࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ ࡞࠸࠸࠺ࠕᙉไຊࠖࡀാࡃ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋྠᵝࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊせ㒊ࢆ⪺࠸ࡓࡔࡅ࡛ࡣᑐ㇟ࢆྠ ᐃࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇࡼࡾࠊ᪩ࡃಟ㣭せ⣲ࢆ⪺ࡁࡓ࠸࠸࠺ࠕせồࠖࡀാࡃࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ≧ἣ࠾࠸࡚ࠊせ㒊ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢ㛫ఱࡽࡢせ⣲ࡀධࡍࡿࡇࡣࠕᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࠖᡈ ࠸ࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡼࡿྠᐃࠖࡢጉࡆ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮ࡢ[ᵝែࡢ᱁⋡]⯡㛵ࢃࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (8)࡛ゝ࠺ࠕ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࠖࡣࠊ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊⓎヰ⪅ാࡃࠕᙉไຊࠖ⪺ࡁᡭാࡃࠕせồࠖࡢ┦ స⏝ࡀ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎヰ⪅ࡀᣦ♧ࢆ㐩ᡂࡋࡼ࠺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊྡモྃࡽࡢ እ⨨ࡣไ⣙ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿഴྥ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⌧㇟ࡢཎᅉࡣࠊせ㒊ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢࠕᙉ࠸⤖ࡧࡘࡁࠖࡀࡑࢀ ࡽࡢศ㞳ᑐࡍࡿไ⣙ࡋ࡚ാࡃࡇ࠶ࡿࠋ 㸳㸬࠾ࢃࡾ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣྡモྃࡽࡢእ⨨㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ࢆࠕഴྥࡋ࡚ࡢไ⣙ࠖᤊ࠼ࠊࡑࢀࡀ⏕ࡌࡿせᅉࡘ ࠸࡚ࠊᣦ♧ࡢᴫᛕࢆ୰ᚰᤣ࠼࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ➨୍ࡢᙇࡣࠊᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࡀពᅗࡉࢀࡓྡモྃෆ ⌧ࢀࡿಟ㣭せ⣲ࡣᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂᐤࢆⅭࡍࡇ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ➨ࡢᙇࡣࠊᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࡀពᅗࡉࢀࡓྡ モྃෆ࠾࠸࡚ࡣせ㒊ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡀᙉ࠸ࡇ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ⤖ㄽࡋ࡚ࠊᣦ♧ࡢ㐩ᡂࡀព ᅗࡉࢀࡓྡモྃෆ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊせ㒊ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢᙉ࠸⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡀࡑࢀࡽࡢศ㞳ᑐࡍࡿไ⣙ࡋ࡚ ാࡃࡇࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ ᮏ✏࠾࠸࡚ࡣእ⨨ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿሙྜࡘ࠸࡚ࡣゐࢀࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡶࡼࡾᮏ◊✲ࡣࠕእ⨨ 㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ࠖࢆࡓࡿ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢၥ㢟ᵓᡂࡽࡣࠕእ⨨ࡀ⏕ ࡌࡿせᅉࠖࡸࠕእ⨨ࡢᶵ⬟ࠖ࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡣḟⓗ࡞ࡶࡢṆࡲࡽࡊࡿࢆᚓ࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓၥ㢟ࢆ ࡶໟᦤࡍࡿᙧࡢࠊࠕྡモྃࡽࡢእ⨨ࠖ࠸࠺⌧㇟ࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆᑐ㇟ࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ 1.Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Cole, P. & J.L. Morgan. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press. 2.ࢢࣛࢫ, H.P. Ύሯ㑥ᙪヂ. 1998.ࠕㄽ⌮ヰࠖࠗㄽ⌮ヰ࠘31-59. ᮾி: ວⲡ᭩ᡣ. 3.Guéron, J. 1980. “On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition.” Linguistic Inquiry 11, 637-678. 4.Huck, G.J. & Y. Na. 1990. “Extraposition and focus.” Language 66:1, 51-77. 5.Strawson, P.F. 1950. On referring. Mind 59: 320-344. 6.Stucky, S.U. 1987. “Configurational variation in English: A study of extraposition and related matters.” In Huck, G.J. & A.E. Ojeda. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 20: Discontinuous Constituency, 377-404. New York: Academic Press. 7.Takami, K. 1992. “On the definiteness effect in extraposition from NP.” Linguistic Analysis 22:1-2, 100-116. 8.Ziv, Y. & P. Cole. 1974. “Relative extraposition and the scope of definite descriptions in Hebrew and English.” Chicago Linguistic Society 10, 772-786. −240− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 䛂䜶䝁䛃䛿䜘䛔䛣䛸㻫䇷ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䛾❧ሙ䛛䜙䇷㻌 ୰㔝㻌 㜿బᏊ㻌 㛵すᏛᏛ㝔㻌 㻌 㻌 㻨㻭㼎㼟㼠㼞㼍㼏㼠㻪㻌 㼀㼔㼕㼟㻌㼞㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔㻌㼒㼛㼏㼡㼟㼑㼟㻌㼛㼚㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼕㼙㼍㼓㼑㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼡㼟㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌䇾㼑㼏㼛䇿㻌㼕㼚㻌㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚㼑㼟㼑㻚㻌 㻌 㻵㼠㻌㼕㼟㻌㼍㼚㼍㼘㼥㼦㼑㼐㻌㼎㼍㼟㼑㼐㻌㼛㼚㻌㻯㼞㼕㼠㼕㼏㼍㼘㻌 㻰㼕㼟㼏㼛㼡㼞㼟㼑㻌㻭㼚㼍㼘㼥㼟㼕㼟㻘㻌㻯㼛㼞㼜㼡㼟㻌㼎㼍㼟㼑㼐㻌㼍㼚㼍㼘㼥㼟㼕㼟㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㻿㼑㼙㼍㼚㼠㼕㼏㻌㻰㼕㼒㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼠㼕㼍㼘㻌㼀㼑㼏㼔㼚㼕㼝㼡㼑㻚㻌 㻌 㼀㼔㼑㻌㼐㼍㼠㼍㻌㼕㼟㻌㼒㼞㼛㼙㻌 㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚㼑㼟㼑㻌 㼏㼛㼞㼜㼡㼟㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㼣㼑㼎㻌 㼞㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔㻘㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㼠㼔㼑㻌 㼑㼤㼜㼑㼞㼕㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌 㼣㼍㼟㻌 㼏㼛㼚㼐㼡㼏㼠㼑㼐㻌 㼒㼛㼞㻌 㻝㻜㻥㻌 㼟㼠㼡㼐㼑㼚㼠㼟㻚㻌 㻌 㼀㼔㼕㼟㻌 㼞㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔㻌㼟㼔㼛㼣㼟㻌㼠㼔㼍㼠㻌䇾㼑㼏㼛䇿㻌㼣㼍㼟㻌㼛㼞㼕㼓㼕㼚㼍㼘㼘㼥㻌㼟㼠㼍㼞㼠㼑㼐㻌㼠㼛㻌㼡㼟㼑㻌㼎㼥㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼓㼛㼢㼑㼞㼚㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼕㼠㻌㼔㼍㼟㻌㼞㼑㼜㼞㼑㼟㼑㼚㼠㼑㼐㻌 㼓㼛㼛㼐㻌 㼕㼙㼍㼓㼑㻚㻌 㻌 㼀㼔㼑㼞㼑㼒㼛㼞㼑㻌 㼕㼠㻌 㼠㼑㼚㼐㼟㻌 㼠㼛㻌 㼎㼑㻌 㼡㼟㼑㼐㻌 㼖㼡㼟㼠㻌 㼍㼟㻌 㼍㻌 㼎㼞㼍㼚㼐㻌 㼕㼚㻌 㼎㼡㼟㼕㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌 㼚㼛㼣㼍㼐㼍㼥㼟㻘㻌 㼣㼔㼕㼏㼔㻌 㼔㼍㼟㻌 㼚㼛㻌 㼙㼑㼍㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌㼛㼒㻌䇾㼑㼏㼛㼘㼛㼓㼥䇿㻌㼍㼚㼥㻌㼙㼛㼞㼑㻌㼕㼚㻌㼟㼛㼙㼑㻌㼏㼍㼟㼑㻚㻌 㻌 㻵㼚㻌㼏㼛㼚㼏㼘㼡㼟㼕㼛㼚㻘㻌䇾㼑㼏㼛䇿㻌㼔㼍㼟㻌㼎㼑㼑㼚㻌㼍㻌㼢㼑㼞㼥㻌㼡㼟㼑㼒㼡㼘㻌㼠㼛㼛㼘㻌㼠㼛㻌 㼒㼍㼟㼏㼕㼚㼍㼠㼑㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼏㼡㼟㼠㼛㼙㼑㼞㻌㼕㼚㻌㼠㼔㼕㼟㻌㼏㼍㼜㼕㼠㼍㼘㼕㼟㼠㻌㼑㼏㼛㼚㼛㼙㼥㻚㻌 㻌 㻌 䛆㻷㼑㼥㼣㼛㼞㼐㼟䛇㻌 ⎔ቃ䚸ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䚸䝁䞊䝟䝇䚸㻿㻰 ἲ㻌 㻌 㸬ࡣࡌࡵ 㻌 ᮏ✏䛷䛿 㼢㼍㼚㻌㻰㼕㼖㼗㻌㻔㻝㻥㻤㻤㻕䚸㼃㼛㼐㼍㼗㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㻹㼑㼥㼑㼞㻌㻔㻞㻜㻜㻝㻕䛺䛹䛾ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䛾❧ሙ䛛䜙䚸᪥ᮏㄒ䛻 䛚䛡䜛䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛔䛖ㄒ䛾⏝䜢ᢈุⓗ䛻᳨ウ䛩䜛䚹㻲㼍㼕㼞㼏㼘㼛㼡㼓㼔㻔㻝㻥㻤㻥㻕䛾㏙䜉䜛㏻䜚䚸ゝㄒ䛿ᶒຊ䛾⥔ ᣢ䛻⏝䛥䜜䜛䚹䛂䜶䝁䛿䜘䛔䛣䛸䛃䛸䛔䛖ゝㄝ䛿 㻝㻥㻥㻜 ᖺ௦䛻䛂䜶䝁䝬䞊䜽䛃䛸䛔䛖ྡ⛠䛷䚸ᨻᗓᑟ䛷 ᑟධ䛥䜜䛯䚹䛭䛾ᚋ䚸䛂䜶䝁䝞䝑䜾䛃䛂䜶䝁䜹䞊䛃䛂䜶䝁䝫䜲䞁䝖䛃䛺䛹䚸ᩘ䚻䛾㐀ㄒ䜢⏕䜏䛺䛜䜙⎔ቃಖ ㆤ䛸⠇⣙䜢ᢡ⾺䛧䛯㒔ྜ䛾䛔䛔ㄒ䛸䛧䛶䝡䝆䝛䝇䛾ᑐ㇟䛻䛺䜚䚸ᴗ䛻䜘䜛ᾘ㈝⪅䛾↽ື䛻⏝䛥 䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸䛣䜜䜙䜢ᚑ᮶䛾ᢈุⓗศᯒ䛾ᡭἲ䛻௦䛘䛶䚸䝁䞊䝟䝇䚸ᐇ㦂䚸䛚䜘䜃 㼃㼑㼎 ᳨ ⣴䛻䜘䜛ᐇ㝿䛾⏝䜢ᑐ㇟䛸䛧䛶ศᯒ䜢⾜䛖䚹㻌 㻌 ࢹ࣮ࢱ ࠕ࢚ࢥࠖࡢึฟᖺḟ⏝㢖ᗘ᥎⛣ ᪥ᮏㄒ᭩䛝ゝⴥᆒ⾮䝁䞊䝟䝇 㻷㻻㼀㻻㻺㻻㻴㻭 䜘䜚䛂䜶䝁䛃䛾⏝䛻䛴䛔䛶௨ୗ䛾䝕䞊䝍䜢ᚓ䛯䚹㻌 㻌 1991 ᖺ 1993 ᖺ 1999 ᖺ 2000 ᖺ 2003 ᖺ 2004 ᖺ 2008 ᖺ 2009 ᖺ ࢚ࢥࣟࢪ࣮ ࢚ࢥ࣐࣮ࢡ ࢚ࢥࣅࣞࢵࢪ ࢚ࢥࢩࢸ ࢚ࢥ࣐ࢿ࣮ ࢚ࢥࢶ࣮ ࢚ࢥᘓ⠏ ࢚ࢥ࣏ࣥࢺ ࢚ࢥࣁ࢘ࢫ ࢚ࢥࣇࣥࢻ ࢚ࢥࢪ࢙ࢵࢺ ᘙ ᵏᴾ ẐỺἅẑử̅ဇẲẺᡯᛖỉИЈ࠰ഏᴾ ᴾ −241− 「エコ」はよいこと?―批判的談話分析の立場から― 㻌㻌㻌㻌 㻌 ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᵏẐỺἅẑỉ̅ဇ᫁ࡇਖ਼ᆆᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᵐẐ̬ؾμẑểẐ̬ؾᜱẑỉ̅ဇ᫁ࡇਖ਼ᆆᴾ 㻌 6' ἲᇶ࡙ࡃ᳨ド 䛂䜶䝁䛃䛾ዲ䜲䝯䞊䝆䛿䚸㻿㻰 ἲ䠄ពᚤศἲ䠅䜢⏝䛧䛯ᐇ㦂䛷᫂☜䛻䛷䛝䜛䚹䛣䛾ᐇ㦂䛷䛿䚸ᒾୗ (1983)䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶䛂䜶䝁䛃䛚䜘䜃㛵㐃䛧䛯䛂䜾䝸䞊䞁䛃䛂⎔ቃಖㆤ䛃䛾ศᯒ䜢 2010 ᖺ 11 ᭶䛻Ꮫ⏕ 109 ྡ䜢ᑐ㇟䛻⾜䛳䛯䚹ᐇ㦂䛻䛿䚸20 䛾ᙧᐜモᑐ䠄Ⰻ䛔ᝏ䛔䚸ᙺ❧䛴ᙺ❧䛯䛺䛔䚸䛝䜜䛔ở䛔䚸ὶ ⾜䛺ὶ⾜䛷䛺䛔䚸᪂䛧䛔ྂ䛔䚸᫂䜛䛔ᬯ䛔䚸⤒῭ⓗ䛺⤒῭䛺䚸㌟㏆䛺⦕㐲䛔䚸ືⓗ䛺㟼ⓗ 䛺䚸⬟ືⓗ䛺ཷືⓗ䛺䚸㛗ᮇⓗ䛺▷ᮇⓗ䛺䚸䜔䜟䜙䛛䛔䛛䛯䛔䚸ዲ䛝᎘䛔䚸㍍䛔㔜䛔䚸ዪ䜙䛧 䛔⏨䜙䛧䛔䚸᫂ⓑ䛺䛒䛔䜎䛔䛺䚸ຊ䛾䛝䛔ຊ䛾ᑠ䛥䛔䚸ᐜ᫆䛺」㞧䛺䚸⮬↛䛺⮬↛䛺䚸㧗 ౯䛺Ᏻ౯䛺䠅䜢⏝䛔䚸1䡚5 䛾 5 ẁ㝵䛷ホᐃᖹᆒ䜢⟬ฟ䛧䛯䚹 ᴾ ᵑẐỺἅẑểẐ̬ؾᜱẑỉỶἳὊἊൔ᠋ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᵒẐỺἅẑểẐἂἼὊὅẑỉỶἳὊἊൔ᠋ᴾ ᴾ ⏝ 㻔㻝㻕䡚㻔㻟㻕䛿 㻷㻻㼀㻻㻺㻻㻴㻭 䛾⏝䚸㻔㻠㻕䡚㻔㻢㻕䛿 㼓㼛㼛㼓㼘㼑 䛻䜘䜛 㼃㼑㼎 ᳨⣴䛛䜙䛾⏝䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸䛂䜶䝁䜹䞊 䝨䝑䝖䛃䛂䜶䝁䝣䜯䞁䝗䛃䛂䜶䝁ほග䛃䛂䜶䝁Ꮿ㓄䛃䛂䜶䝁䜺䞊䝹䝈䛃䛺䛹ᵝ䚻䛺ศ㔝䛷䛂䜶䝁䛃䛜⏝䛥䜜䛶 䛔䜛䚹㻌 䠄1䠅䝗䜲䝒⏕䜎䜜䛾䜶䝁䜹䞊䝨䝑䝖䜢ᢅ䛖䝅䝵䞊䝹䞊䝮䚹䝗䜲䝒䛾ཝ䛧䛔ᑂᰝ䜢䜽䝸䜰䛧䚸⎔ቃၥ㢟䜔ᗣ䛻㓄៖ −242− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 䛄᪂䛧䛔ఫ䜎䛔䛾タィ䛅 2005 ᖺ 6 ᭶ྕ ᢇ᱓♫ 2005 (2)䜶䝁䝣䜯䞁䝗䛻⤌䜏ධ䜜䜙䜜䜜䜀䠈䛭䛾ᴗ䛾ᰴᘧ䛾ᕷሙ౯್䛿㧗䜎䜚䠈㈨㔠ㄪ㐩䛜ᐜ᫆䛻䛺䜛 䛄ᇶ♏ ⎔ቃᏛ䛅 ⏣୰ಟ୕⦅ⴭ ඹ❧ฟ∧ 2003 (3) 䛂⎔ቃ䜔⮬↛䜢ษ䛻䛩䜛䜶䝁䝒䞊䝸䝈䝮䠈䜾䝸䞊䞁䝒䞊䝸䝈䝮䛾᥎㐍䛃䜢ᥖ䛢䛶䛚䜚䠈䜶䝁ほග䛾ྍ⬟ᛶ䜢 ㏣ồ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛩䛺䜟䛱䠈ி㒔䛾䜒䛖䠍䛴䛾䜚≀䛜⮬↛䛷䛒䜛䚹 䛄䛚䛣䛧䜔䛩䛾ほගᡓ␎䛅 ᒣୖᚭ⦅ⴭ ἲᚊᩥ♫ 2001㻌 (4) ᱁ᏳᏯ㓄䛾䜶䝁㓄 www.ecohai.co.jp/㻌 ᱁ᏳᏯ㓄䛺䜙䚸䜶䝁㓄䚹ᮾྡ㜰䛻୍ᚊ 330 䛷⩣᪥䛻ᒆ䛡䜛᱁Ᏻ Ꮿ㓄䝃䞊䝡䝇䛷䛩䚹㔜㔞ไ㝈↓䛧䛷᭱ᘬ 260 䛛䜙䟿 (5) ྂ╔䞉䝤䝷䞁䝗ရ䞉ィ㈙ྲྀ䛾䜶䝁䝇䝍䜲䝹 style-eco.com/ ᮾி䞉ᶓ䞉ᯇ䞉ᇸ⋢䞉ᒱ㜧䛷ὒ᭹䜔䝤䝷䞁䝗ရ䛾㧗౯㈙ྲྀ䝸䝃䜲䜽䝹䝅䝵䝑䝥䛸ゝ䛘䜀䜶䝁䝇 䝍䜲䝹䟿ᅜ 12 ᗑ⯒ᒎ㛤୰䚸ᴗ 2001 ᖺ䚹㈙ྲྀᐇ⦼䛿 30 ௳䜢✺◚䟿 (6) 䜶䝁䜺䞊䝹䝈䞉䝥䝻䝆䜵䜽䝖 䜸䝣䜱䝅䝱䝹䝤䝻䜾 ameblo.jp/eco-with/ 䜶䝁䜺䞊䝹䝈䞉䝥䝻䝆䜵䜽䝖䛾බᘧ䝤䝻䜾䛷䛩䘊⚾䛯䛱䛸୍⥴䛻䛂䜶䝁䛃䛻䛴䛔䛶⪃䛘䜎䛧䜗 䖪eco ᳨ᐃ䞉䜶䝁䜰䜲䝗䝹䞉䜶䝁䝍䝺䞁䝖䞉䜶䝁䜰䞊䝔䜱䝇䝖. ศᯒ 㻌 ⾲ 㻝 䛿䚸ᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ䛻䜘䜛䡞⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩䛝ゝⴥᆒ⾮䝁䞊䝟䝇䡟KOTONOHA 䜈䛾䛂䜶䝁䛃䜢 ⏝䛧䛯せ䛺㐀ㄒ䛾ึฟᖺ䛷䛒䜛䚹䜶䝁䝬䞊䜽ᑟධ䛛䜙ᮏ᱁䛧䛯䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䛂䜶䝁䛃䛾⏝䛿䚸ᖺ ௦䜢ୗ䜛䛻䛴䜜䚸䛂䜶䝁䛿䜘䛔䛣䛸䛃䛸䛔䛖ゝㄝ䜢ᙧᡂ䛧䛺䛜䜙䚸ᖜᗈ䛔ศ㔝䜈ᣑ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹 㻌 ᐇ㝿䚸ᅗ䠍䜢䜏䜜䜀䚸⥲ᩘ䛻䛚䛔䛶䜒䚸㻤㻜 ᖺ௦䛻䛿 㻞 ௳䛻㐣䛞䛺䛛䛳䛯䛂䜶䝁䛃䛾⏝䛜䚸㻥㻜 ᖺ௦䚸 㻞㻜㻜㻜 ᖺ௦䛻ྥ䛛䛖䛻㐃䜜ᩘⓗ䛻ቑຍ䛩䜛䚹䛣䜜䛻ᑐ䛧䚸ᅗ 㻞 䛻ぢ䜛䜘䛖䛻䚸䛂⎔ቃಖ䛃䛿 㻞㻜㻜㻜 ᖺ 䛻ධ䛳䛶ῶᑡഴྥ䛻䛒䜚䚸䛂⎔ቃಖㆤ䛃䛿ୖ᪼䛧䛶䛔䜛䜒䛾䛾䚸䛂䜶䝁䛃䜋䛹ఙ䜃䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹 㻌 䛂䜶䝁䛃䛾⏝㢖ᗘ䛜ୖ᪼䛧䛯㔜せ䛺せᅉ䛸䛧䛶䛿䚸䜶䝁䝬䞊䜽䜔䜶䝁䝫䜲䞁䝖䛾ᨻᗓ䛻䜘䜛ᑟධ䛚 䜘䜃⎔ቃព㆑䛾ྥୖ䛜䛒䜛䛸ᛮ䜟䜜䜛䛜䚸䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛔䛖ㄒ⮬㌟䛾ዲ䜲䝯䞊䝆䛜ᙉ䛟స⏝䛧䛶䛔䜘䛖䚹 㻌 ᅗ䠏䛿䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛂⎔ቃಖㆤ䛃䛾ẚ㍑䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸䛂⎔ቃಖㆤ䛃䛻ᑐ䛧䚸䛂䜶䝁䛃䛿䛂㧗౯䛺䛃䜲䝯䞊䝆䛜ᖜ 䛻ప䛟䚸䛂㍍䛥䛃䛂ᐜ᫆䛥䛃䛾ほⅬ䛷ᖜ䛻ୖᅇ䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸䜶䝁䛜⎔ቃ䛾䜏䛺䜙䛪䛂䜶䝁䝜䝭䞊䛃 䜒ྵព䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䚸䛚䜘䜃䚸䜹䝍䜹䝘ㄒ䛷㔜ⱞ䛧䛔ឤ䛨䛜䛧䛺䛔䛣䛸䜢♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹 㻌 ୍᪉䚸ᅗ䠐䛻♧䛩䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛂䜾䝸䞊䞁䛃䛾ẚ㍑䛷䛿䛂㍍䛥䛃䛂ᐜ᫆䛥䛃䛷䛿䜘䛟ఝ䛯ഴྥ䜢♧䛩䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䚸 䛂䜾䝸䞊䞁䛃䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䛂䜶䝁䛃䛿䛂ὶ⾜ᛶ䛃䛂⬟ືᛶ䛃䛂ືⓗ䛥䛃䛷ᖜ䛻ୖᅇ䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹 㻌 䛩䛺䜟䛱䚸䝥䝸䜴䝇䛺䛹䜶䝁䜹䞊䛾ᡂຌ䛻䜘䜛䜶䝁䝡䝆䝛䝇䜈䛾ὀ┠䛻ຍ䛘䛶䚸ୖ㏙䛾䜘䛖䛺ዲ䜲䝯 䞊䝆䛛䜙䚸䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛔䛖⏝ㄒ䛿䜂䛸䛴䛾䝤䝷䞁䝗䛸䛧䛶䛚䜚䚸ᴗ䛜ᾘ㈝⪅䜢↽ື䛩䜛㐨ල䛸䛺䛳䛶 䛔䜛䛸ゝ䛘䜛䚹㻌 −243− 「エコ」はよいこと?―批判的談話分析の立場から― 㻌 䛭䜜䛿ୖグ䛾⏝䛛䜙䜒᫂䜙䛛䛷䛒䜛䚹(1)(3)䛷䛿䚸ほගඛ㐍ᅜ䛾䝗䜲䝒〇䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛰䛡䛷䛂䜶䝁䜹 䞊䝨䝑䝖䛃䛸䛔䛖⏝ㄒ䛜⏝䛥䜜䚸ி㒔䛻⮬↛䛜ከ䛔䛰䛡䛷䛂䜶䝁ほග䛃䛸䛔䛖ྡ⛠䜢㐀ㄒ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹 䛂䜶䝁䝣䜯䞁䝗䛃䛻ධ䜜䜀䚸ᴗ౯್䛜ୖ䛜䜛(2)䚹ᕷෆ㓄㐩㒊ศ䜢⮬㌿㌴䛷⾜䛖䛣䛸䛷䛂䜶䝁Ꮿ㓄䛃䜢 ᶆᴶ䛧䚸᱁Ᏻ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢ㅻ䛖(4)䚹䝸䝃䜲䜽䝹䛸䛔䛖ほⅬ䛛䜙䛩䜉䛶䜶䝁䛷䛒䜛㉁ᒇ䛜䛒䛘䛶䛂䜶䝁䝇䝍 䜲䝹䛃䛸䛔䛖ᗑྡ䛻䛧䛶ὀព䜢ႏ㉳䛩䜛(5)䚹ᴟ䜑䛴䛡䛿䜶䝁䜺䞊䝹䛸䛔䛖䜰䜲䝗䝹䜾䝹䞊䝥䜢⤖ᡂ䛩䜛 䝥䝻䝆䜵䜽䝖䛷䛒䜛䠄6䠅䚹 㻌 䛣䜜䜙䛾⏝䛜♧䛩䜘䛖䛻䚸䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛔䛖䝤䝷䞁䝗䛥䜜䛯ㄒ䛿䚸᪥ᮏ᮶䛾䜶䝁䝻䝆䞊䛸䛔䛖ព䜢 ㉸䛘䛯䚸䛒䜛䛔䛿㐓⬺䛧䛯䜒䛾䛸䛧䛶ከ⏝䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛻䜒䛛䛛䜟䜙䛪䚸䛭䜜䛿䛒䛯䛛䜒⎔ቃ䛻㓄៖䛧䛶 䛔䜛䛛䛾䜘䛖䛻㘒ぬ䛥䛫䜛ຊ䜢⛎䜑䜛䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹 ⤖ㄽ 㻌 ᮏ✏䛷䛿ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䛾❧ሙ䛛䜙䚸᪥ᮏㄒ䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂䜶䝁䛃䛸䛔䛖ㄒ䛾⏝䜢ᢈุⓗ䛻᳨ウ䛧䛯䚹 ලయⓗ䛻䚸᪥ᮏㄒ䛾䛂䜶䝁䛃䛿ᨻᗓᑟ䛷ᑟධ䛥䜜䚸Ⰻ䛔䜲䝯䞊䝆䜢ᣢ䛳䛯⏝ㄒ䛸䛧䛶ᐃ╔䛧䛶䛔䜛 ഴྥ䜢♧䛧䛯䚹䛥䜙䛻᪥䛷䛿䛂䜶䝁䝻䝆䞊䛃䛸䛔䛖ᮏ᮶䛾ព䜢㐓⬺䛧䛯⏝ἲ䛜ከᩘ☜ㄆ䛥䜜䚸䛂䜶 䝁䛃䛿୍✀䛾䝤䝷䞁䝗䛸䛧䛶䝡䝆䝛䝇䛾ᡭẁ䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢㏙䜉䛯䚹௨ୖ䛻䛴䛔䛶ᮏ✏䛷䛿䝁䞊䝟 䝇䚸ᐇ㦂䚸䜲䞁䝍䞊䝛䝑䝖䛛䜙䛾ドᣐ䜢⏝䛔䚸ከ㠃ⓗ䛻ᙇ䜢ㄽド䛧䛯䚹㻌 ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power, London:Longman. Fairclough, N. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language second edition, London:Longman. van Dijk, T.A 1988. News as discourse. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wodak, R. and M. Meyer eds. 2001. Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage. ᒾୗ㇏ᙪ 1983. 䛄SD ἲ䛻䜘䜛䜲䝯䞊䝆䛾 ᐃ䇷䛭䛾⌮ゎ䛸ᐇ䛾ᡭᘬ䛝䇷䛅 ᕝᓥ᭩ᗑ ᜠ⏣⣖᫂ 1970. 䛂༳㇟ᙧᡂ㐣⛬䛻㛵䛩䜛ᐇ㦂ⓗ◊✲䇲ᑐ㇟䛻ㄆ▱䛥䜜䛯ព≉ᚩ䛸ዲᝏឤ䛃ཎ ಖ㞝⦅ 䛄᫂㙾ᅜㄒ㎡䛅 ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ ᚰ⌮Ꮫᐇ㦂ᣦᑟ◊✲ 1985. 䛄ᐇ㦂䛸䝔䝇䝖䠙ᚰ⌮Ꮫ䛾ᇶ♏䇷ᐇ⩦⦅䇷䛅 ᇵ㢼㤋 ᚰ⌮Ꮫᐇ㦂ᣦᑟ◊✲ 1985. 䛄ᐇ㦂䛸䝔䝇䝖䠙ᚰ⌮Ꮫ䛾ᇶ♏䇷ゎㄝ⦅䇷䛅 ᇵ㢼㤋 ⏣୰㟹ᨻ 1969.䛄䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䛾⛉Ꮫ䛅᪥ᮏホㄽ♫ ⏣୰㑥ኵ 1969.䛂ᑐே㛵ಀព㆑䛾ᵓ㐀䇶SD ἲ䛻䜘䜛䜰䝥䝻䞊䝏䛃䛄ᚅවᒇᒣㄽྀ䛅䠏,11䌦26 ᯘ ♩Ꮚ 2006.䛂䝕䜱䝇䝁䞊䝇䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ᵓ⠏䇷䝅䝻Ⰽ䛜䝆䜵䞁䝎䞊䛾ព䜢⋓ᚓ䛩䜛▐㛫䇷䛃䛄ゝ እ䛸ゝෆ䛾ὶศ㔝䛅ᑠἨಖ༤ኈചᑑグᛕㄽᩥ㞟 Ꮫ᭩ᯘ, 487-506. 䛸䛾㛵ಀ䛃 䛄NHK ᩥ◊᭶ሗ䛅 −244− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ⼔႐ߦ߅ߌࠆᶎ႐㕙ߢߩഥ⠪ߣ↪⠪ߣߩ㑐ଥ᭴▽ 㧙ࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞ࠪࡈ࠻ߣࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉࡐࠗ࠻ࡀࠬࠬ࠻࠹ࠫ߆ࠄߩ⠨ኤ㧙 ฎ↰ሶ㧔ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮࿖㓙⸒⺆ᢥൻ⎇ⓥ⑼㧕ၳᳯ ⮍㧔ฬฎደᄢቇ㧕 <Abstract> In a nursing care environment, bathing in particular has many possible face threatening acts. This study aims to find out what sort of methods are used to build relationships between carers and those they care for. It was found that carers used speech-level shifts and positive politeness strategies such as words of praise and jokes to build relationships with those they care for. However, when carrying out their job as a caregiver, carers were found to use elderspeak. ޤ࠼ࡢࠠޣ㧦1 ޔ㑐ଥ᭴▽ 2 ࠻ࡈࠪ࡞ࡌ࠴ࡇࠬޔ3ࠫ࠹࠻ࠬࠬࡀ࠻ࠗࡐࡉࠖ࠹ࠫࡐޔ 1. ߪߓߦ ᣣᧄ␠ળߩ㜞㦂ൻߪടㅦߔࠆ৻ᣇߢࠆޕౝ㑑ᐭ߆ࠄߐࠇߚޟᐔᚑ 23 ᐕᐲ 㜞㦂␠ળ⊕ ᦠޔߣࠆࠃߦޠ㜞㦂⠪߇✚ੱญߦභࠆഀวߪㆊᦨ㜞ߩ 23.3㧑ߢޔ࿖㓙ㅪว߇ޟ㜞㦂ൻ␠ ળߣޠቯ⟵ߔࠆޟ7㧑ࠍޠᄢ߈ߊ࿁ߞߡࠆޔߚ߹ޕ75 ᱦߩᓟᦼ㜞㦂⠪߇භࠆഀวߪ✚ ੱญߩ 11.8㧑ߢޔߦ․ޔ23 ᐕᐲߪᓟᦼ㜞㦂⠪ߩᄢ߈ߥჇട߇ႎ๔ߐࠇߡࠆߩߘޕޔ75 ᱦ એߦߥࠆߣ⼔ⷐޔ⠪ߩഀว߽㜞ߊߥߞߡࠆޕ ߢߪ߇⺕ޔ㜞㦂⠪ߩ⼔ࠍᜂߞߡࠆߩߛࠈ߁߆ޕవߩ⊕ᦠߦࠃࠇ߫ ⼔ⷐޔ5㧔㊀ᐲ㧕 ߩ㜞㦂⠪ߩ 51.7㧑ߪᣉ⸳ࠍ↪ߒߡ߅ࠅޔ⍮∝ߩᣉ⸳↪⠪ഀว߽ 15.3㧑ߦࠎߢࠆޕ ߊ߹߁ޟᐕࠍ㊀ߨߡߊߣ߁ߎߣߪޔᔃりߩஜᐽߛߌߢߥߊ␠ળߣߩ❬߇ࠅࠍᜬߟߎߣ ߢࠆ╩(ޠ⠪⸶)㧔Rowe and Kahn 1997㧕ߣ⸒ࠊࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦࠍࡦ࡚ࠪࠤ࠾ࡘࡒࠦߣੱޔ࿑ࠆ ߎߣߪޔ㜞㦂⠪ߦߣߞߡᄢ߈ߥᗧࠍᜬߟޕ ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪ⍮∝ߩ㜞㦂⠪߇ห↢ᵴࠍߒߥ߇ࠄ⋡ࠍ┙⥄ޔᜰߔࠍޠࡓࡎࡊ࡞ࠣޟข ࠅߍࠍࡦ࡚ࠪࠤ࠾ࡘࡒࠦޔㅢߒߡޔഥ⠪ߣⵍഥ⠪㧔એਅޔ↪⠪㧕ߩ㑐ଥ᭴▽ࠍ⠨ ߃ࠆ⼔ޔߦ․ޕ႐ߦ߅ߡࡈࠚࠗࠬଚኂᐲ߇㜞ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆᶎഥਛߩഥ⠪ߣ ↪⠪ߣߩࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡚ࠪࡦࠍᛒ߁ޔߡߒߘޕᶎഥ႐㕙ߢഥ⠪߇↪⠪ߣࠃࠅ⦟㑐 ଥࠍ▽ߊߚߦߥ߁ࠃߩߤޔᣇ⇛ࠍ↪ߡࠆߩ߆ࠍࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞ࠪࡈ࠻ߣࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉ ࡐࠗ࠻ࡀࠬࠬ࠻࠹ࠫߩⷰὐ߆ࠄࠄ߆ߦߔࠆߎߣࠍ⋡⊛ߣߔࠆޕ 2. వⴕ⎇ⓥ Brown & Levinson(1987) (એਅ㧮㧒㧸)ߪࡈࠚࠗࠬ㧔⥄Ꮖߩ᰼᳞㧕ߣ߁ᔨࠍ↪ߡੱޔ㑆 ߦߪੱߦ┙ߜࠄࠇߚߊߥࡀࠟ࠹ࠖࡉࡈࠚࠗࠬߣ⥄ޔಽࠍߡ᰼ߒߣ߁ࡐࠫ࠹ࠖ ࡉࡈࠚࠗࠬ߇ࠅޔ೨⠪ߩⷐ᳞ߦ߈߆ߌࠆࠬ࠻࠹ࠫࠍࡀࠟ࠹ࠖࡉࡐࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ ࠬ࠻࠹ࠫޔᓟ⠪ࠍࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉࡐࠗ࠻ࡀࠬࠬ࠻࠹ࠫߣቯ⟵ߒߚ࠻ࠬߩࠄࠇߎޕ ࠹ࠫߪੱ㑆㑐ଥߩ᭴▽ߦᄢ߈ߥᓎഀࠍᜂߞߡ߅ࠅߥ߹ߑ߹ߐޔ႐㕙ߢߘߩലᨐ߇ᔕ↪ߐ ࠇᆎߡ᧪ߡࠆޕ −245− 介護現場における入浴場面での介助者と利用者との関係構築−スピーチレベル・シフトとポジティブ・ポライトネス・ストラテジーからの考察− ศጟ(2011)ߪޔක⠪ߣᖚ⠪ߩࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡚ࠪࡦߦ߅ߡ߽ޔක⠪߇ᖚ⠪ߦኻߒߡᣇ⸒ࠍ↪ ࠆߎߣޔᖚ⠪ߩദജࠍߡⶋࠆޔㆊߥᢘ⺆ࠍㆱߌࠆߥߤߩࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉࡐࠗ࠻ࡀ ࠬࠬ࠻࠹ࠫߪᖚ⠪ߣߩᔃ⊛〒㔌ࠍ❗ࠆലᨐ߇ࠆߣ␜ໂߒߡࠆޕ Backhaus (2009)ߪ⼔႐ߢߪᶎޔឃᴭߥߤߩⴕὑ⥄߇↪⠪㧔ⵍ⼔⠪㧕ߦߣߞߡ ߪࡈࠚࠗࠬࠍ⢿߆ߔⴕὑߢࠅ✭ࠍࠇߘޔߔࠆߚߦ↪⠪ࠍⶋߚࠅޔ౬⺣ࠍ⸒ߞߚࠅ ߔࠆࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉࡐࠗ࠻ࡀࠬࠬ࠻࠹ࠫ߇ⷰኤߐࠇ⺆⸒ޔᒻᑼߣߒߡ᥉ㅢ㧔Ᏹ㧕 ߇ࠊࠇࠆߎߣ߇ᄙߣႎ๔ߒߡࠆޕ ੱ㑆㑐ଥߩ᭴▽ߦߪ߽࠻ࡈࠪ࡞ࡌ࠴ࡇࠬޔነਈߒߡࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆޕ ࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞ࠪࡈ࠻ߣߪߒޔᚻ߇⡞߈ᚻߣߩᔃ⊛〒㔌ߩᄌൻߦࠃࠅޔᢘ㧔ߢߔ ߹ߔ㧕߆ࠄᏱ㧔ߛ㧕߳ޔᏱ߆ࠄᢘ߳ߩಾࠅᦧ߃ࠍ␜ߔ߇ޔ㚍ᷨ(2010)ߦࠃࠆߣޔ ഥ⠪ߩࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞ࠪࡈ࠻ߪ⋧ᚻߦࠃߞߡಽߌࠄࠇߢߣߎࠆߌߛߊޔᚲ⠪ߣߩ〒 㔌ࠍ❗ࠆല↪߇ࠆߣߒߡࠆޕ ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪߎࠇࠄߩవⴕ⎇ⓥࠍ〯߹߃ࠬࠗࠚࡈޔଚኂᐲߩ㜞ᶎഥ႐㕙ߢߩࡐࠫ࠹ࠖ ࡉࡐࠗ࠻ࡀࠬࠬ࠻࠹ࠫߣࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞ࠪࡈ࠻ߦߟߡಽᨆޔ⠨ኤࠍⴕޔ ഥ⠪ߣ↪⠪ߣߩ㑐ଥ᭴▽ߦߟߡࠄ߆ߦߔࠆߎߣࠍ⋡⊛ߣߔࠆޕ 3. ⺞ᩏߩⷐ ⺞ᩏදജ⠪ߪޔᐶ⋵ߩࠣ࡞ࡊࡎࡓߩᚲ⠪(એਅޔ↪⠪)7 ฬ(76 ᱦ㨪91 ᱦߩ↵ᕈ 1 ฬߣᅚᕈ 6 ฬ)ߣߘߎߢߊ 6 ฬߩᅚᕈࡋ࡞ࡄ㧔એਅޔഥ⠪㧕ߢࠆޕ7 ฬߪ⍮∝ࠍᖚ ߞߡ߅ࠅ┙⥄ޔᐲߪੱᏅ߇ࠅޔ6 ฬ߇ᶎഥࠍᔅⷐߣߒߡߚޕᒰᣣߦᶎഥࠍ ᜂᒰߔࠆߩߪ 1 ฬߩഥ⠪ߢࠆޕ ᶎഥࠍⷰኤߔࠆߦߚࠅ⎇ᧄޔⓥߢߪޟԘ⣕ഥĺԙᶎഥĺԚ⌕ഥ৻ࠍޠ ㅪߩⴕὑߣߒߡᝒ߃ߚߩࠇߙࠇߘޔߢߣߎࠆߔ߁ߘޕഥ႐㕙ߩ․ᓽࠍ⸥ㅀߒޔߦ․ޔഥ ⠪ߣ↪⠪߇ቢోߦ 1 ኻ 1 ߦߥࠆᶎቶߢߩᶎഥߣߘߩ೨ᓟߩഥࠍᲧセߢ߈ࠆߣ⠨߃ߚ ߆ࠄߢࠆޕഥ⠪ߣ↪⠪ߩ⥄ὼળߪ IC ࠦ࠳ߦ㍳㖸ᓟޔᢥሼߎߒࠍⴕࡇࠬޔ ࠴ࡌ࡞ࠪࡈ࠻ߣࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉࡐࠗ࠻ࡀࠬࠬ࠻࠹ࠫߩ 2 ߟߩⷰὐ߆ࠄಽᨆޔ⠨ ኤࠍⴕߞߚޔߚ߹ޕᓟᣣޔഥ⠪ 6 ฬߦࡈࠜࡠࠕ࠶ࡊࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘࠍታᣉߒߚޕ 4. ⚿ᨐޔ⠨ኤ 4.1 ࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞ࠪࡈ࠻ ഥ⠪ߩࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞ࠪࡈ࠻ߦߟߡߪޔ2 ߟߩ․ᓽ߇ࠄࠇߚޕ ߹ߕޔᶎഥਛߦߪᏱ߆ࠄᢘޔᢘ߆ࠄᏱ߳ߩࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞ࠪࡈ࠻߇㗫࿁ߦ ⷰኤߐࠇߚޔߦ․ޕ↪⠪ߦኻߒߡᣣᏱ⊛ߦᏱࠍ↪ߡࠆഥ⠪ߢ߽ޔᶎഥਛߪޟ㧔߅ −246− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 100 80 60 40 20 0 ⣕ᤨ ᶎᤨ ⌕ᤨ ࿑ 1. ᶎഥ႐㕙ߦ߅ߌࠆᏱߩഀว ḡࠍ㧕߆ߌߡ߈߹ߔޟޠ㜬ߩᲫ߆ࠄᵞ߹ߔޟޠ⡊߃ߡߊߛߐޠߔ߹ߌߟࡊࡦࡖࠪޟޠ ߥߤߪᢘߦߥߞߡߚⴕ߁ⴕࠄ߆ࠇߎޔߪࠄࠇߎޕὑࠍ೨߽ߞߡ↪⠪ߦ⍮ࠄߖࠆߎߣߢޔ ᔃߩḰࠍߐߖࠆᓎഀ߇ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆޔߚ߹ޕㅢᏱળߪ㑐ᑯߢ߽ޔ⸥ߩㇱಽߪᮡ Ḱ⺆ߢߐࠇߡߚߎߣ߆ࠄޔᐲ⊛ޔ␞⊛ߥᓎഀ߇ࠆߣ⸒߃ࠆޕ ᰴߦ⌕ߩޔ⣕ᤨߩഥᤨߣᶎഥᤨߩࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞߇⇣ߥߞߡߚ⌕ߩޕ⣕ ഥᤨߦᢘࠍᄙߊ↪ߒߡߚഥ⠪ߪᶎഥᤨߦߪᏱߢ⌕ޔ⣕ᤨߦᢘࠍᄙߊ ↪ߡߚഥ⠪ߪޔᶎഥᤨߦߪᏱࠍᄙߊ↪ߡߚ⌕ޕ⣕ᤨߩࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞ ߪޔㅢᏱߩ↪⠪ߣߩળߩ߿ࠅߣࠅߩᤨߣหߓࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞ߢߞߚߎߣ߆ࠄޔഥ⠪ ߪᶎᤨߩ↪⠪ߣߩ߿ࠅߣࠅࠍ․ߦᝒ߃ߡࠆน⢻ᕈ߇⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆޕ ߩ࿑ 1 ߪޔ⣕ഥޔᶎഥ⌕ޔഥߦ߅ߌࠆᏱߩഀวࠍ␜ߒߚ߽ߩߢࠆޕ ⸥ߢㅀߴߚࠃ߁ߦޔᶎቶߢߩᶎഥᤨ߇৻⇟Ᏹߩഀว߇ૐ(ᢘ↪ഀว߇㜞)ߎߣ߇ ߡߣࠇࠆޔߪࠇߎޕᶎቶߣ߁ⅣႺ(ࠪࡖࡢߩ㖸)ߢ㜞㦂⠪ߣળࠍߔࠆߩ߇࿎㔍ߢࠆߎ ߣߦട߃ޔ↪⠪ߩ⺞▤ℂߩߚߌߛࠆ߈ߢޔ⍴ᤨ㑆ߦഥࠍᷣ߹ߖࠃ߁ߣߔࠆഥ⠪ߣ ߒߡߩᓎഀ㧔ᵞ㜬ޔりߩᵞᵺߩഥ㧕߇⸒⺆ᒻᑼߦߒߚὑߛߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆޕ 4.2 ᶎഥᤨߦⷰኤߐࠇߚࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉࡐࠗ࠻ࡀࠬࠬ࠻࠹ࠫ 㧮㧒㧸ߩℂ⺰ߢߪࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉࡐࠗ࠻ࡀࠬࠬ࠻࠹ࠫߣߒߡޔ15 ߩᣇ⇛߇ߍࠄࠇ ߡࠆ߇ޔഥ⠪߇↪⠪ߩᶎഥࠍߔࠆ㓙ߦࠄࠇߚⶋ౬⺣ᗵߩ 3 ߟߪࡐࠫ࠹ ࠖࡉࡐࠗ࠻ࡀࠬࠬ࠻࠹ࠫߦ߹ࠇࠆޕ ߹ߕ(ߪߦⶋޔ1) ↪⠪ߩり⊛ߥ․ᓽ (2)↪⠪ߩ㘃ߥߤߩᜬߜ‛ (3)り⊛⢻ജ߿ ↪⠪ߩദജߩ 3 ⒳㘃߇ⷰኤߐࠇߚޕり⊛ߥⶋߦߪޠߨߔߢ⿷ࠊ߆ޟ ߥࠇ߈ޟ⢛ਛ ߢߔߨޕ⢛ਛߛߌߚࠄޔ30 ઍޟޠ㜬ߩᲫᄙߨోޟޠὼ⊕㜬ߥߥ㨪 ߔߏߥ㨪ޔߤߥޠ ⶋߩਛߢᦨ߽ᄙߊⷰኤߐࠇޔ↪⠪ߩ⽎ࠍޠߐ⧯ޟᓽߔࠆ߽ߩߢߞߚޔߚ߹ޕ ߘߒߕߔޟ ߁ߥ⌕߿ࠊߣޠ↪⠪ߩ㘃ࠍⶋߚࠅޟޔᤄ߆ࠄ㗻ᵞ߁ߩᚻ߿߽ࠎߨࠆߔߦࠇ߈ޟޠ ߨ㧔⥄ಽߢりࠍᵞߞߡࠆߩࠍߡ㧕ޟޠᣣ◲ߊߏߔޔනߦᚻߦߢ߈ߚߥ㨪ޠᶎᮏ߆ࠄ ࠆᤨߦߏߔޟ㧔⿷߇㧕ࠃߊ߇ߞߚޔߤߥޠࠅߊߞ߮ޔ↪⠪ߩ⢻ജ߿ᶎᤨߩദജߦ ኻߔࠆⶋ߇ࠄࠇߚޕ ⶋߪ␜⊛ߣᥧ␜⊛ߦಽࠄࠇࠆ߇ޔᄢ㊁(2007)ߪ␜⊛ߥߪޢޡޟ ࠊ߆ޡ ⹏ߩߤߥޢଔ⺆ࠍ߇⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆޔࠅ߅ߡߒߣޠഥ⠪ߩ↪⠪߳ߩ 3 ⒳㘃ߩⶋ ߪ⹏ଔ⺆ࠍ↪ߚ␜⊛ߥⶋߢߞߚޕ↪⠪ߪ⍮∝ࠍᖚߞߡࠆߚޔ␜⊛ߥⶋ −247− 介護現場における入浴場面での介助者と利用者との関係構築−スピーチレベル・シフトとポジティブ・ポライトネス・ストラテジーからの考察− ߩᣇ߇⋥ធ⊛ߢℂ⸃ߒ߿ߔߣ߁ߎߣ߽ℂ↱ߩ৻ߟߣ⸒߃ࠆߛࠈ߁ޕ ࿁ߩ⺞ᩏߢߪޔ౬⺣ߪ߶ߣࠎߤഥ⠪߆ࠄ⊒ߖࠄࠇޔ↪⠪ߩ╉ࠍ⺃⊒ߒߚߒߘޕ ߡߢ߹ࠇߘޔഥ⠪ߦᢘߢฃߌ╵߃ࠍߒߡߚ↪⠪ߩࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞߇Ᏹߦࠪࡈ࠻ߒ ߚ႐㕙߽ߞߚޕ႐߿ᤨ㑆ࠍߔࠆߎߣߢ〒㔌߇❗߹ࠅޔ↪⠪ߩ✕ᒛ߇⸃ߌߚߎߣߢ ഥ⠪ߣ↪⠪ߩ㑆ߦࡐ࡞߇↢ߓߚ⍍㑆ߛߣផ᷹ߢ߈ࠆޕ ᗵߦߟߡߪޔ ߅ޟ㘑ํߪ᳇ᜬߜߨ㨪ޔ߿ޠᤄޔሶଏߩᤨߦ⽶ߞߚἫ்ߩߎߣࠍߒ ᆎߚ↪⠪ߦߪᧄޟᒰߦㄆᕁߒߚࠎ߿ߨߣޠᗵࠍ␜ߒߚޕ↪⠪ߩ᳇ᜬߜ߿㛎ࠍ ߔࠆߎߣߢޔഥ⠪ߪ↪⠪ߣߩᔃ⊛〒㔌ࠍ❗ࠃ߁ߣߒߡࠆߣ⸒߃ࠆߛࠈ߁ޕ 4.3 ഥ⠪ߣⵍഥ⠪ߣߩജ㑐ଥ ৻ᣇޔᶎቶߢߩᵞ㜬ޔりߩᵞഥߪ࡞࠹ࠖࡦൻߒߡ߅ࠅߥ߁ࠃߩߤޔᚻ㗅ߢⴕࠊࠇࠆ ߆ߪޔഥ⠪ߦࠃߞߡࠄࠇࠆߣ⸒ߞߡ߽ㆊ⸒ߢߪߥⵍޔࠅ߹ߟޕഥ⠪ߪഥ⠪ߦᓥ ࠊߑࠆࠍᓧߕޔജ㑐ଥߢߪޔഥ⠪ߩᣇ߇ⵍഥ⠪ࠃࠅ߽ߢࠆޔ߫߃ߣߚޕഥ⠪߇ ↪⠪ߦኻߒߡޔ ߩߤߥޠߎߎޔߎߎޟᜰ␜⺆߿ޟᐳߞߡޔᐳߞߡⴕߩߤߥޠേᜰ␜߇ࠄࠇߚ ߇ߪࠄࠇߎޔኻ㜞㦂⠪ળߦࠄࠇࠆ Elderspeak ߢࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆޕ Elderspeak ࠍᦨೋߦឬ౮ߒߚߩߪ Caporael(1981)ߢޔ㜞㦂⠪ߣߩળߦࠄࠇࠆࠅ➅ޟߒޠ ⺆ޟ᳇ࠍᒝߚᆭ⊛ߥ⸒േޠ ޠߔࠅߊߞࠁޟ ޟන⚐ߥ⸒⪲ߩ↪ޔߪࠇߎޔ߇ߔ␜ࠍߤߥޠ ഥߔࠆߣߐࠇࠆߣߩജߩᏅ߇ⷐ࿃ߦߥߞߡࠆน⢻ᕈ߇㜞ޕ 5. ߹ߣ ᶎߪォୟ߇ߎࠆෂ㒾ᕈ߇ࠆ߇ޔ↪⠪ߦߣߞߡߪᔃりߦ࠶ࠢࠬߢ߈ࠆᤨ 㑆ߢࠆࠍ┙⥄ޔ߽ߢࡘࡆ࠲ࡦࠗࡊ࠶ࠕࡠࠜࡈޕଦߒߥ߇ࠄᶎࠍᭉߒࠎߢ߽ࠄ߁ߚ ߦ㑆ࠍߒߚࠅ↪⠪ߩ⍮ߞߡࠆߎߣࠍߨߚࠅߒߡࠍࠄ߆ߎߘޔᐢߍߡߊദജࠍ ߒߡࠆߣ╵߃ߚഥ⠪߽ߚޕ࿁ߩ⚿ᨐ߆ࠄ߽ޔഥ⠪ߪࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞ࠪࡈ࠻߿ࡐ ࠫ࠹ࠖࡉࡐࠗ࠻ࡀࠬࠬ࠻࠹ࠫࠍ㚟ߒߡޔ↪⠪ߣߩ㑐ଥࠍ᭴▽ߒࠃ߁ߣߒߡ ࠆ⁁߇ࠄ߆ߦߥߞߚޕ ߒ߆ߒߥ߇ࠄޔഥ⠪ߣ߁┙႐ࠍߣࠆ႐㕙ߦ߅ߡߪޔ↪⠪ߦኻߒߡ Elderspeak ߩ৻ ⒳ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ⸒⺆ⴕേ߇ⷰኤߐࠇߚޕElderspeak ߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߥ႐㕙ߦࠊࠇᤃߩ߆ߪޔ ᓟߩ⺖㗴ߣߒߚޕ ෳ⠨ᢥ₂ (৻ㇱ) Backhaus, Peter (2009). Politeness institutional elderly care in Japan: A cross-cultural comparison, Journal of Politeness, 5(1), 53-71. Brown , Penelope, & Stephen, C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 㚍ᷨ↱⟤ሶ (2010). ⼔ޟ႐ߦ߅ߌࠆࠬࡇ࠴ࡌ࡞ࠪࡈ࠻␠ޡޠળ⸒⺆⑼ቇળ╙ 25 ࿁ ᄢળ⺰ᢥ㓸ޢ, 128-131. ᄢ㊁ᢘઍ (2007).߶ޟޟᗧ࿑ߩޠᨒ⚵ߺߣᯏ⢻ޡޠᣧⒷ↰ᄢቇᣣᧄ⺆⎇ⓥ(ޢ16), 109-120. Rowe, J.W. & R. L. Kahn (1997). Successful aging, The Gerontologist (37), 433-40. ศጟᵏᄦ (2011).␠ߩࡦ࡚ࠪࠤ࠾ࡘࡒࠦޡળ⸒⺆ቇޢᄢୃ㙚ᦠᐫ −248− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࡞ࡐࠊᚑᒓ⠇ྰᐃࡼࡾࡶ⠇ྰᐃ㸦ྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆᩥ㸧ࡢ᪉ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡢ㸽 ᳃ ㈆ ⚟ᕤᴗ㧗➼ᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯ ࠑAbstractࠒ It is well known that transferred or main clause negation (henceforth MCN) (e.g. I don’t think [p]) is dominant over subordinate clause negation (henceforth SCN) (e.g. I think [㻀p]). Bubliz (1992) claims that this is because MCN is much better suited for expressing politeness than SCN. Konishi (1996) anticipates that SCN will be preferred to MCN when [p] is you are {wrong/bad/ugly/stupid}, because SCN is more polite (comfortable) to the interlocutor you than MCN in that the former conveys a stronger degree of certainty about the preposition you are not {wrong/bad/ ugly/stupid} than the latter. However, that is not the case, i.e. MCN is preferred to SCN. It is argued that MCN is preferred to SCN because the former is better suited for expressing the speaker’s inclination toward [ 㻀 p] without worsening the social relationship between the interlocutors, i.e. the speaker and the hearer. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ 㸸㸯ࠊྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆ 㸰ࠊ⠇ྰᐃ 㸱ࠊᚑᒓ⠇ྰᐃ 㸲ࠊᑀ⾲⌧ 㸳ࠊྰᐃⓗᙇྰㄆ 㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ 1 ே⛠༢ᩘ⌧ᅾ࡛⠇ືモྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆ(NR)㏙ㄒࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᩥࢆྰᐃࡍ ࡿሙྜࠊୗグ♧ࡍࡼ࠺ࠊᚑᒓ⠇ྰᐃ(I think [㻀p])ࡼࡾࡶ⠇ྰᐃ(I don’t think [p])ࡢ᪉ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇࡣⰋࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (1) a. I {do not/don’t} think {you’re/you are} i b. I think {you are not/you’re not/you aren’t} . ii . right good beautiful intelligent MCN (i) 1881 (92%) 186 (78%) 319 (99.7%) 36 (88%) SCN (ii) 168 (8%) 53 (22%) 1 (0.3%) 5(12%) * MCN = main clause negation, SCN = subordinate clause negation ⾲ 1㸸Google ᳨⣴ࡼࡿ MCN࣭SCN ࡢศᕸ≧ἣ Bubliz(1992)࡛ࡣࠊୗグࡢ⌮⏤ࡽࠊMCN ࡣ SCN ㍑࡚ࠊᑀࡉ(politeness) ࢆ♧ࡍᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗ࡃࠊࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊMCN ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (2) Of course, there is nothing new about the view that I think is used “to express −249− なぜ、従属節否定よりも主節否定（否定辞繰り上げ文）の方が多用されるのか？ […] politeness/deference” (Perkins 1983: 147). What I have tried to establish is rather more complex: the effect created by modalizing one’s utterance using I think, etc. can be reinforced by transferring negation,… (p. 571) (3) The interplay of the (subjective) epistemic modality of the verb and the transferred negative item helps to weaken and downgrade the degree of certainty and strength of the speaker’s implied claim to truth to such an extent that a state of social balance is reached which helps to preclude the possibility of disagreement and conflict. (p. 572) ࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊḟ⠇࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺ࠊSCN ࡢ᪉ࡀ MCN ࡼࡾࡶᑀࡉࢆ♧ࡍᗘྜ࠸ࡀ 㧗࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ࠙ᑀࡉࢆ♧ࡍᗘྜ࠸ࡢ㧗࠸⾲⌧ࡢ᪉ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠚ࠸࠺ Bubliz (1992)ࡢᙇࡀṇࡋ࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢሙྜࠊSCN ࡢ᪉ࡀ MCN ࡼࡾࡶከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ ࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⤫ィࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ࡣࠊࡑ࠺࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊMCN ࡢ᪉ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 㸦⾲ 2 ཧ↷ࡢࡇ㸧ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊูࡢほⅬࡽࠊSCN ࡼࡾࡶ MCN ࡀከ ⏝ࡉࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ 㸰㸬SCN ࡀ MCN ࡼࡾࡶ㧗࠸ᑀࡉࢆ♧ࡍሙྜ (4a)࣭(4b)ࢆ㍑ࡓሙྜࠊᚋ⪅(SCN)ࡢ᪉ࡀ㧗࠸ᑀࡉࢆ♧ࡍ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ (4) a. I don’t think you are {wrong/bad/ugly/stupid}. b. I think you are not {wrong/bad/ugly/stupid}. ࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠊ[You are not {wrong/bad/ugly/stupid}]ࡣࠊ⫈⪅ࡗ࡚ desirable ࡞ 㢟࡛࠶ࡾࠊthe degree of certainty ࡀࡁ࠸ SCN ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ࠺ࡀ⫈⪅ࡼࡾࡁ࡞ Ᏻᚰឤ㸦ᚰᆅࡼࡉ㸧ࢆ࠼ࡿࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊMCN ࡢ(4a)ࡼࡾࡶ SCN ࡢ(4b) ࡢ᪉ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇࡀண ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ᑠす(1996)ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞グ㏙ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ (5) I think ࡣ⾲⌧ࢆ㛫᥋ⓗࡍࡿ⦆ླྀㄒࡋ࡚ࡢാࡁࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᬑ㏻ࡢヰࡢ୰ࡼ ࡃᤄධࡉࢀࡲࡍࠋ≉┦ᡭྥࡗ࡚ࠊ┦ᡭࡢ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇࡸ┦ᡭࡀྰᐃࡋࡑ࠺ ࡞ࡇࠊ┦ᡭࡢ❧ሙࡀᝏࡃ࡞ࡾࡑ࠺࡞ࡇࢆ㏙ࡿ I think ࢆ࠺⾲⌧ࢆ ࡽࡆࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡍࠋ 㸦୰␎㸧I think that…࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡣྰᐃㄒࡀධࡗ࡚ࡃࡿሙ ྜࠊㄽ⌮ⓗࡣ that ⠇ࡢ୰ྰᐃㄒࡀධࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡁ࡞ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ࠸ࡕࡤࢇゝ࠸ ࡓ࠸㒊ศ㸦=that ⠇㸧ࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࡢ࡛┤᥋ⓗ㡪ࡁࠊI think ࢆ࠺ពࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡇ࡛㏻ࠊI don’t think that…ࡢᙧࢆࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࠋࡋࡋࠊ ┦ᡭࡀぶࡋ࠸㛫࡛ࠊㄽ⌮ⓗពࡀඛ⾜ࡍࡿሙྜࡣ that ⠇ࡢ୰ྰᐃㄒࡀධࡿࡇ ࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡋࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺᩿ゝⓗࡁࡗࡥࡾ㏙ࡿ࠺ࡀ┦ᡭᏳᚰឤࢆ࠼ࠊ ෆᐜࡼࡗ࡚ࡣዲពⓗࡽࢀࡿሙྜࡶ that ⠇ࡢ୰ྰᐃㄒࡀධࡾࡲࡍࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ I don’t think you are wrong. ࡼࡾࡣࠊI think you are not wrong.ࡢ࠺ࡀ┦ᡭ −250− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ᑐࡋ࡚ኻ♩࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋ (p.149) ࡋࡋࠊGoogle ᳨⣴ࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࠊࡑࡢண ࢆษࡿࡶࡢ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (6) a. I {do not/don’t} think {you’re/you are} i b. I think {you are not/you’re not/you aren’t} . (=4a) ii . (=4b) wrong bad ugly stupid MCN (i) 256 (98%) 1552 (97%) 184 (90%) 912 (98%) SCN (ii) 5 (2%) 51 (3%) 20 (10%) 18 (2%) ⾲ 2㸸Google ᳨⣴ࡼࡿ MCN࣭SCN ࡢศᕸ≧ἣ ඛ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺ࠊMCN ࡼࡾࡶ SCN ࡢ᪉ࡀ⫈⪅ᑐࡋ࡚ࡼࡾᑀ࡞⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡣࡎ࡛ ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡣࠊMCN ࡢ᪉ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸱㸬௦ I think [㻀p] ࡢ I think ࡣᙉໃⓎ㡢ࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢ I think ࡣ Wierzbicka (2006)࡛ᥦࡉࢀࡓ ✀㢮ࡢ I think ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ๓⪅┦ᙜࡍࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࠸࠺ ࡢࡶࠊ๓⪅ձࡢሙྜࡣᙉໃⓎ㡢ࠊᚋ⪅ղࡢሙྜࡣ↓ᙉໃ࣭పࣆࢵࢳ࡛Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀࡿഴྥ ࡀ࠶ࡿࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (7) In the modally qualified or exclamatory sentences, ձthe component “I say I think like this, I don’t say more” implies that what I say is my personal opinion, which doesn’t have to be shared by others. In the unqualified (“plain”) declarative sentences, however, I think ȭcarries an additional implication: in saying I think ȭrather than I think that , ղthe speaker disclaims knowledge – not by saying “I don’t know” but by saying “I don’t say: I know it.” (p.38 ᅖࡳᩘᏐ࠾ࡼࡧୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅ࡼࡿ) ࡇࡇ࡛ὀពࡍࡁࡣࠊ I THINK [㻀p] ࡢⓎヰ㸦ᩥᏐ⾲グࡣᙉໃⓎ㡢ࢆ♧ࡍ㸧ࡣࠊ ࠙[㻀p] ࡣヰ⪅ࡢಶேⓗぢゎ࡛࠶ࡾࠊேྠពࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࢃ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶᵓࢃ࡞࠸ࠚ࠸ ࠺ࡇࢆ imply ࡍࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ࠼ࡤࠊI think you are not wrong.ࡢⓎヰࡣࠊ ࠙[You are not wrong] ࡣヰ⪅ࡢಶேⓗぢゎ㸦ุ᩿㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊேࡀ [You are wrong] ุ᩿ࡋ࡚ࡶࡑࢀࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠚ࠸࠺ࡇࢆఏ࠼ࡿྍ⬟ᛶ㸦༴㝤ᛶ㸧ࡀ ࠶ࡿࡇࢆពࡋࠊࡦ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⫈⪅ࡢᑐே㛵ಀࢆᝏࡉࡏࡿࡇࡶࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࠋࡋ ࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ༴㝤ࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡓࡵ SCN ࡢ⏝ࡀ㑊ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࡇࡀ ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ᪉ࠊI don’t think [p] ࡣࠊ[㻀p] ࢆ⦆ⓗᙇࡍࡿ⏝ἲ㸦NR ゎ㔘㐺⏝㸧ࡢ 㸦⪅ࡼࡗ࡚ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ㸧[p] ࢆྰㄆࡍࡿ⏝ἲ㸦NR ゎ㔘㐺⏝㸧ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ⾲ 2 ࡢ MCN ࡣᚋ⪅ࡢ⏝ἲ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᥎ ࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ −251− なぜ、従属節否定よりも主節否定（否定辞繰り上げ文）の方が多用されるのか？ 㸲㸬ࡲࡵ ௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺ࡲࡵࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ (8) [㻀 p] ࡀ ⫈ ⪅ ࡗ ࡚ undesirable ࡞ ෆ ᐜ ࡢ ሙ ྜ 㸦 ࠶ ࡿ ࠸ ࡣ ࠊ desirable ࡛ ࡶ undesirable ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ሙྜ㸧ࠊヰ⪅ࡣࠊMCN ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ [㻀p]ࢆ⦆ⓗᙇࡍࡿࡇ ࡛⫈⪅ᑐࡋ࡚ᑀࡉࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ᪉ࠊSCN ࡣ㠀⦆ⓗ࡞ᙇ࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑ ࡢ⏝ࡀ᥍࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸦୍⯡ࠊ㠀⦆ⓗ࡞ᙇࡼࡾࡶ⦆ⓗ࡞ᙇࡢ᪉ࡀᑀ࡞ ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿぢ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࠋ (9) [㻀p] ࡀ⫈⪅ࡗ࡚ desirable ࡞ෆᐜࡢሙྜࠊヰ⪅ࡣࠊMCN ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ [p] ࢆྰ ㄆࡍࡿࡇ࡛⫈⪅Ᏻᚰឤࢆ࠼ࡿࠋ᪉ࠊSCN ࡣ ⪅ࡀ [p] ุ᩿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࡇࢆヰ⪅ࡀᐜㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆࡢࡵࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢ⏝ࡀ᥍࠼ ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊMCN ࡢ᪉ࡀ SCN ࡼࡾࡶከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣୖグ(8)(9)ࡢ⌮⏤ࡼࡿ⤖ ㄽ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ せཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ Bubliz, Wolfram. 1992. “Transferred Negation and Modality.” Journal of Pragmatics 18, 551-578. Israel, Michael. 2006. “The Pragmatics of Polarity,” In Horn, Laurence R. and Gregory Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 701-723. Oxford: Blackwell. Ἑୖㄋస. 1984.ࠕᩥࡢព㛵ࡍࡿᇶ♏ⓗ◊✲ࠖࠗ㜰ᏛᩥᏛ㒊⣖せ࠘24. ⾰➟ᛅྖ. 2010.ࠗGoogle ᳨⣴ࡼࡿⱥㄒㄒἲᏛ⩦࣭◊✲ἲ࠘㛤ᣅ♫. ᑠす. 1996.ࠗᇶᮏࡢࡋࡃࡳࡀࢃࡿᇶᮏືモ 24࠘◊✲♫. Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics, London and New York: Longman. Mori Sadashi. 2009. The NEG-Raising Phenomenon: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach , ᮍබห༤ኈㄽᩥ㸦㔠ἑᏛᏛ㝔ே㛫♫⎔ቃ◊✲⛉㸧 ୰ᮧⰾஂ. 2010.ࠕྰᐃ(㛫)ほᛶࠖࠊຍ⸨Ὀᙪ࣭ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ࣭ோ⏕⨾(⦅) ࠗྰᐃ ゝㄒ⌮ㄽ࠘424-442ࠊᮾி㸸㛤ᣅ♫. ኴ⏣ ᮁ㸬1980.ࠗྰᐃࡢពࠑពㄽᗎㄝࠒ࠘ᮾி㸸ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ. Sheintuch, Gloria and Kathleen Wise. 1976. “On the Pragmatic Unity of the Rules of Neg-raising and Neg-Attraction,” Chicago Linguistic Society 12, 548-557. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and Culture , Oxford: Oxford University Press. −252− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 What do Honorifics Convey? -----A relevance-based approach----Yuko Koizumi Tokyo Marine University 㸺Abstract㸼 Japanese honorifics offer interesting data in politeness studies. They have been analysed to indicate a socially-characterized distance between people. Nonetheless, it is thought that various contexts and context-related issues for interpreting honorifics need further analysis. This paper aims to show an account for honorifics from a view point of cognitive pragmatics, relevance theory. The modularity of the brain and the mind-reading ability proposed in relevance theory is thought to show the direction for accounting for the roles of honorifics in language use, and the relationship between the use of honorifics and politeness. ࠙Key wordsࠚ1.honorifics, 2.politeness, 3.Relevance theory, 4. mental modules 1. Introduction This paper aims to show an account of honorifics with a framework of relevance theory (RT henceforth). Japanese honorifics have been studied in politeness studies. Aside from the issues of cultural diversities in politeness, there is a question that all the features of honorifics could be explained in the study of politeness. The politeness theory proposed by Brown and Levinson (B&L henceforth) is very influential among politeness studies, but has given rise to controversy by their claim that their politeness theory is universal. B&L have introduced the notion of ‘face’, which are public self-image and basic wants. There are two types of face: negative and positive. B&L assume that illocutionary-associated acts are potentially face-threating-acts (FTAs), either to negative face or to positive face, and some are threatening to the addresser, and others, to the addressee. Politeness is regarded as face-saving strategies, and the level of politeness depends on the weightiness of FTAs, which involves three sociological factors: the social distance (D), relative power (P), and the absolute ranking (R) of impositions in the particular culture. 㸯.Previous Studies on Japanese Honorifics on Politeness Among the criticisms towards the theory by B&L, example sentences provided by Matsumoto (1989) gave impact: sentences with an honorific form are produced in a situation with no FTAs. Matsumoto points out that “no utterance in Japanese can be neutral with respect to the social context”. Japanese honorifics are divided into two, addressee honorifics and referent honorifics. −253− What do Honorifics Convey? (1) Kyoo -wa doyoobi -----A relevance-based approach----- desu. COPULA-polite (from Matsumoto) “Today is Saturday.” Addressee honorifics as in (1) could appear as a sentence-final expression in a sentence, in which nothing about the addressee and the addresser is contained, and no FTAs. It is thought that Matsumoto claims social contexts more important than FTAs for using honorifics. Usami (2000) supports the politeness theory by B&L. Analyzing the language manipulation in Japanese dyadic conversations between newly-acquainted people, she proposes ‘discourse politeness,’ which is defined as “the dynamic whole of functions of various elements in both linguistic forms and discourse-level phenomena that play a part within the pragmatic politeness of a discourse” (p.4), and ‘pragmatic politeness’, as “functions of language manipulation that work to maintain smooth human relationship” (p.4). Language manipulation is shown, in her analysis, in the downshift in speech-level with the more uses of non-honorific addressee forms, which means that interactions between negative face (honorifics) and positive face (non-honorifics) are observed in the data. On the other hand, she points out that B&L’s theory needs to be improved in two points: politeness as discourse phenomena and “ordinary politeness in ordinary life (p.25)”. Usami also seems to suggest that social contexts even without FTAs need to be taken into consideration in their theory. Takiura (2005) reexamines various studies on honorifics in Japan from the view points of the politeness theory by B&L. Centering the notion of distance in honorifics, he introduces the notions of ‘distanciation’ and ‘de-distanciation’, for the interpersonal interaction whether verbal or nonverbal, which (mostly) correspond to the roles of honorifics and non-honorifics. Takiura discusses the ambiguous (and misleading) features, passive (forced to choose the way of politeness and the linguistic forms) and active (choose them intentionally) in the politeness proposed by B&L. Even with the passive and normative feature, he regards (non)-honorifics as also being used for active purpose as a strategic means of expressing human relationship. Although he highly evaluates the theory by B&L, he points out the limitation of their theory, claiming that we need pragmatics to explain the interpretation of either active or passive aspects of (non)-honorifics. Furthter, Takiura analyses that referent and addressee (non)-honorifics possess different dimensions in communication as shown in (2) below. (2) sochira o that OBJECT o-mochi-ni-na-ru no-ne. carry-honorific/respect+addressee-plain “Will you carry that one?” −254− question (from Takiura) 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 Takiura accounts for the discrepancy between the level of politeness in (2) between the referent honorific form and the addressee non-honorific form like this: while the speaker shows deference with referent honorifics (from an objective perspective) to indicate distanciation, the speaker does indicate close relationship or de-distantiation (from a relational perspective) with the use of an addressee non-honorific form. Takiura comes to a conclusion that Japanese honorifics are phenomena eventually requiring the key notions of in-group and out-group, whose boundary he regards as fluid, not rigid. This analysis by Takiura is thought to have more implication. In addition to the roles of (non)-honorifics themselves, I presume that various types of discrepancy or contrast, not only in the type in (2), observed in the use of Japanese (non)-honorifics seems significant in accounting for the interpretation of (non)-honorifics. I would like to explore this issue and show that the contrast between the use of (non)-honorifics convey a variety types of (sense of) distance as well as (non)-honorifics themselves do and that the contexts of honorifics might be wider than expected in Takiura. 㸱 Relevance theory Relevance theory was inspired by Paul Grice’s pioneering work dealing with inferential aspect in communication and utterance interpretation. The purpose of RT is to construct a cognitively plausible account of pragmatics, and to explore how language interacts with other cognitive systems. To fill the gap between sentence meaning and speaker’s intended meaning, context plays an important role. Any input to cognitive processes could be relevant which interacts with background information and yields conclusion. RT offers a variety of perspectives to account for honorifics as linguistic forms, as well as with the cutting-edge issues of RT, a meta-psychological process of utterance interpretation, the mental modularity and lexical pragmatics. I will illustrate how the notions of RT show the direction for the accounts for Japanese (non)-honorifics. (1) RT regards context as playing an important role for interpretation. Social contexts and interpretaion of (non)-honorifics are thought to need more examination and analysis. (Non)-honorifics have been analyzed to indicate social distance among people, nonetheless, the sense of distance are characterized with its sub-constituent related factors, such the speaker, the addressee or the occasion of an utterance, which will be meaningful for the further account for the relationship of honorifics and propositional contents of utterances. (3) The mental modularity proposed in RT, which enables to explain spontaneous and quick interpretation, will help to show the process for the interpretation of (non)-honorifics, and utterance interpretation inclusive of (non)-honorifics. As Wilson suggests, honorifics system are thought to have a cluster within a (specific) language cluster, which “might be seen as linked to the capacity for social cognition”. −255− What do Honorifics Convey? -----A relevance-based approach----- (4) Lexical pragmatics assumes that conceptual and procedural information in each word are not mutually-exclusive, and that gradable adjectives (such as high and short) encode the same minimal conceptual content (pro-concept) but differ in procedural orientation. Although honorifics do not seem to contribute to the propositional contents, the behavior of (non)-honorifics is observed to share the same or a similar property. (5) The notion of meta-representation or metalizing proposed in RT explains the process of utterance interpretation. The way of metalization and the difference of the objects metalized are thought to clarify their differences between politeness and (non)-honorifics. (Non)-honorifics require a variety of perspectives for their accounts and there are many other issues left to fully account for (non)-honorifics and their behaviours. One is the relationship between (non)-honorifics, and the propositional content and the speech act of an utterance. As they have been studied independently from them, social factors could be thought to construct different layers or different dimensions from the propositions and the speech act of an utterance. (Non)-honorifics are thought to be linked more closely to the entire utterance rather than the propositional content. They behave as if they were the presupposition of an utterance or the contexts of the propositional content of an utterance, though which need more examination. Another is the issue of new and old information related to the notion of relevance. The issues of styles also need to be considered. RT offers a variety of perspectives to account for honorifics as linguistic forms and one of the social factors in the use of language. References Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1978/1987) Politeness: Some universals in linguistic usage. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and Conversational Universals. Observations from Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics; 12. 403-426. Sperber,D.,and Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford: Takiura, M(2005). Japanese Theories of Honorifics -Its Reexamination by Politeness Theory. Tokyo: Taishukan. Usami, M.( 2002). Discourse politeness in Japanese conversation : some implications for a universal theory of politeness. Tokyo : Hituzi Syobo. Wilson, D.(2011). The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future, in Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, Aoife Ahern (ed.) Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, Volume 25), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.3-31 −256− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 The Meaning of Diminutive Shift in Japanese: Its Dimensionality, Regularity and Pragmatic Effect* Osamu Sawada Mie University [email protected] <Abstract> This paper investigates the interpretive mechanism of the diminutive shift in Japanese in terms of the semantics/pragmatics interface. I will argue that the function of diminutive shifting (from [s] to [tᖮ](or [ᖮ]) is to shift the degree of maturity of the speaker to be extremely low. It will be shown that (i) the meaning created by the diminutive shifting is a productive/rule-based conventional implicature (unlike word-based conventional implicatures, e.g. frankly speaking (Grice 1975; Potts 2005) and that (ii) the effect of diminutivization can differ depending on where it arises. This paper will provide new perspectives for the nature of conventional implicature in natural language. 1. Introduction Studies of child language acquisition have shown that in the early stages of acquisition of Japanese as a first language, there is a tendency for babies to pronounce [tᖮ](or [ᖮ]) instead of [s] (e.g. Murata 1970). Interestingly, this phonological error committed by babies has been conventionalized in adult grammar as a device for creating a flavor of baby talk (e.g. Okazaki and Minami 2011). For example, when the performative honorific suffix desu in (1a) (Harada 1976; Potts and Kawahara 2005) becomes dechu, as in (1b), the sentence implies that the speaker is talking to the addressee in a polite way and that the speaker is behaving like a baby: (1) a. Kore-wa hon-desu. (normal polite talk) This-TOP book-PERF.HON At-issue: This is a book. Implicature: I am talking to you in a polite way. b. Kore-wa hon-dechu. (baby polite talk) This-TOP book-PERF.HON.DIM At-issue: This is a book. Implicature: I am talking to you in a polite way ∧ I am talking to you like a baby. What is interesting about the Japanese diminutive shift is that it is productive and it can appear in any lexical item: (2) Examples of diminutivization Normal form Diminutive form NOUN/ADJ-desu ‘performative honorific’ usagi ‘rabbit’ kusai ‘smells bad’ sukoshi ‘a bit’ Ȁ asobu ‘play’ sosite ‘and/then’ NOUN/ADJ-dechu ‘performative honorific. baby talk’ uchagi ‘rabbit. baby talk’ kuchai ‘smells bad. baby talk’ chukochi ‘a bit. baby talk’ sukochi ‘a bit. baby talk’ achobu ‘play. baby talk’ chochite ‘and. baby talk’ sochite ‘and. baby talk’ * I thank Ryan Bochnak, John Du Bois, Shigeto Kawahara, Chris Kennedy, Tetsuharu Koyama, Susumu Kubo, Martina Martinoviü, Shunichiro Nagatomo, Chris Potts, Harumi Sawada, Jun Sawada, Hajime Takeyasu, Ryan Taylor, Alan Yu and the audience at Pragmatic Society of Japan for valuable discussions and comments on the current/earlier versions of this paper. Parts of this paper were also presented at the prosody-discourse interface workshop at Salford University (2011) and the NELS (2011), and I thank the audiences for their valuable discussions. This work is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B), No. 40598083). All remaining errors are of course mine. −257− The Meaning of Diminutive Shift in Japanese: Its Dimensionality, Regularity and Pragmatic Effect* Although many studies have been made of the meaning of diminutives (e.g. Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994; Wierzbicka 1991; Sifianou 1992; Jurafsky 1996), to the best of my knowledge, no serious attention has been paid to the phenomenon of the Japanese diminutive shifts like (1) and (2). In this paper we will investigate the interpretive mechanism of the diminutive shift in Japanese in terms of the semantics/pragmatics interface and argue for the following points. First, we will argue that the function of diminutive shifting is to shift the degree of maturity of the speaker to be extremely low in the domain of conventional implicature (CI). I will then argue that (i) the meaning created by the diminutive shifting is productive and/but (ii) the effect of diminutivization can differ depending on where it arises. If the self-diminutivization occurs in a performative honorific, its meaning scopes over an entire mode of utterance. However, if the self-diminutive shift occurs in other lexical categories, it only scopes over the targeted lexical items, the result of which is to create a ‘metalinguistic’ expression. This paper will provide new perspectives on the nature of conventional implicature (CI) in natural language and suggest a new direction of research for the theory of CI. 2. The Pragmatic Status of the Self-dimuntive Shift in Jpanaese Let us now consider the status of the meaning of the two kinds of diminutive shifts. I argue that the meaning triggered by the two kinds of diminutivization is a conventional implicature (CI). In the Gricean theory of meaning, CIs are considered to be part of the meaning of words, but these meanings are not part of ‘what is said’ (e.g. Grice 1975; Potts 2005). Furthermore, it is often assumed that CIs have a semantic property of speaker-orientedness (by default) (Potts 2005, 2007). One piece of evidence that shows that the meaning created by a diminutive shift is not part of ‘what is said’ is that the diminutive meaning cannot be targeted. For example if we utter iya, chigau-yo ‘No, that’s false!’ after (3), the negative response can only target the at-issue part of the sentences: (3) Kore-wa hon-dechu. (baby polite talk) This-TOP book-PERF.HON.DIM At-issue: This is a book. CI: I am talking to you in a polite way ∧ I am talking to you like a baby. 3. The Meaning of the Self-diminutive Shift The question is how the meanings of the two kinds of diminutivization are interpreted. Let us first consider the meaning of the self-diminutive shift based on the following example: (4) Kore-wa hon-dechu. (cf. desu) This-TOP book-PERF.HON.DIM At issue: This is a book. CI: I am talking to you in a polite way ∧ I am speaking to you like a baby. Building on Mester and Itô’s (1989) analysis of mimetic palatalization, I will argue that diminutive forms are morphologically complex. In this approach, the form dechu in (4) is considered to be derived by lexical association from a diminutive morpheme DIM that has a phonological feature of [+delay release]: (5) a. [+delay release] DIMINUTIVE b. desu The bearer of the DIM morpheme is the voiceless alveolar fricative [s]. Then what is the meaning of the DIM morpheme? I would like to propose that the diminutive morpheme in (14) has the following CI meaning: (6) [[ DIMPERF.HON]] = ȜF<ta,tc>Ȝp. F(p) = 1 ∧ ∃d[d<!STAND ∧ mature(sp) = d ∧ d<!actual degree of maturity of sp] ∧ sp utters p −258− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 The DIM morpheme in (6) conventionally implicates that: (i) there is a degree d such that the degree of maturity of the speaker (sp) is less than a contextual standard by a large amount; (ii) d is significantly less than the actual degree of maturity of the speaker; and (iii) the speaker utters p. (The symbol <! stands for ‘less than a standard by significant degree’ (Kennedy and McNally 2005)). The second component creates a large gap between the diminutive state and the actual state in terms of the degree of maturity of sp, and this creates a new utterance context wherein an adult speaker behaves like a baby. Recall that the self-diminutive shift is productive. This means that we should consider that DIM morpheme is polymorphic as in (7): (7) a. [[DIMADJ]] = ȜG<ea,da>. ∃d[d<!STAND ∧ mature(sp) = d ∧ d<!actual degree of maturity of sp] ∧ sp utters G b. [[DIMVERB.INTR]] = ȜP<ea,ta>. ∃d[d<!STAND ∧ mature(sp) = d ∧ d<!actual degree of maturity of sp] ∧ sp utters P Notice that because of the phonological component of DIM, the actual pronunciations of G and P are different (i.e. phonologically shifted). The crucial point here is that in the non-honorific diminutive forms like (7), the meaning of diminutivization only scopes over a word. These diminutivizations are ‘metalinguistic’ (e.g. Horn 1989) in the sense that the speaker only targets a particular word and pronounces it like a baby. This clearly contrasts with the case of diminutivization of the performative honorific. 4. Scope of Self-diminutivization We have so far considered cases where diminutivization occurs only once within a single utterance. However, as the following example shows, there can be multiple occurrences of diminutive shifts in a single sentence: (8) Are-wa uchagi -dechu. (cf. usagi = ‘rabbit’) That-TOP rabbit.DIM-PERF.HON.DIM At-issue: That is a rabbit. CI: I am talking to you in a polite way and I am talking to you like a baby. In (8) diminutivization occurs two times within the same sentence, i.e. in the noun usagi and in the performative honorific suffix desu. Note, however, that we don’t have to always diminutivize every potential target within a sentence. Compare the following examples. (For the sake of simplicity, here I neglect the politeness meaning of desu): (9) a. Usagi-wa kawaii-dechu. rabbit-TOP cute-PERF.HON.DIM At-issue: A rabbit is cute. CI: the speaker is talking like a baby. b. ?? Uchagi-wa kawaii-desu. rabbit.DIM-TOP cute-PERF.HON At-issue: A rabbit is cute. CI: I am uttering the word usagi like a baby. (9a) is natural baby talk but (9b) is not, because the diminutivization in the latter case only targets the noun part, while the entire mode of speaking is adult talk. Thus, there is an inconsistency/discrepancy in terms of the mode of speaking. On the other hand, (9a) is considered natural baby talk because diminutivization is done on a performative honorific, which affects the entire mode of speaking. Based on the above asymmetry I propose the following generalization: (10) The pragmatic effect of self-diminutivization can differ depending on where it arises. 5. Conclusions In this paper we have investigated the meanings and distribution patterns of the diminutive shifts (self-diminutives) in Japanese from the standpoint of the semantics/pragmatics interface. I argued that the conventional implicature of diminutive shifting is productive and rule-based (unlike word-based conventional implicatures, e.g. frankly speaking). −259− The Meaning of Diminutive Shift in Japanese: Its Dimensionality, Regularity and Pragmatic Effect* I also argued that the effect of diminutivization can differ depending on where it arises. If it occurs with ordinary words, the meaning of the self-diminutive shift only scopes over the given lexical item, the result of which is to create a metalinguistic expression. Studying the Japanese diminutive shift provides important theoretical implications for the theory of CI. First, the phenomenon of Japanese diminutive shifts provides strong proof that some CIs have a productive/rule-based property. In the pragmatics literature conventional implicatures are usually considered to be part of the meanings of particular words and not to be productive (e.g. frankly speaking, therefore). However, the phenomenon of the Japanese diminutive shift suggests that there is a rule-based/productive CI as well. Second, the Japanese diminutive shift shows that CIs are sensitive to the grammar/meaning of at-issue contents. That is, there is an interaction between a CI and other grammatical components. I hope this paper sheds new light on the meaning of diminutives and the nature of CI in natural language. In a future study I would like to investigate in greater depth the meaning/distribution patterns of the Japanese diminutive shift and its sensitivity to grammar from both an empirical and a theoretical perspective. I would also like to investigate the use of diminutive shifts from an inter-personal perspective in order to clarify how the diminutive shift affects an entire discourse context. References Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Grice, Paul H. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics (Volume 3), speech acts 43-58. New York: Academic Press. Harada, Shin-ichi. 1976. “Honorifics.” In M. Shibatani (ed.) Syntax and Semantics (Volume 5), Japanese Generative Grammar, 499-561. Academic Press. Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. “Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive.” Language 72:533-578. Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally. 2005. “Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates.” Language 81:345-381. Mendoza, Martha. 2005. “Polite diminutives in Spanish: a matter of size?” In R. Lakoff and S. Ide (eds.) Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness, 163-173. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Mester, Armin R, and Junko Itô. 1989. “Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics.” Language 65:258-293. Murata, Koji. 1970. Yooji no kotoba to hatuon. (The language and sound of infants) Tokyo: Baifukan. Okazaki, Tomoko and Yuri Minami. 2011. “Yakuwarigo to site no ‘Yoojigo’ to sono syuuhen” (Baby talk as a role language and related issues). In S. Kinsui (ed.), Yakuwarigo kenkyuu no tenkai (Investigation of role language), 195-212. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Potts, Christopher. 2007. “The expressive dimension.” Theoretical Linguistics 33:165-197. Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Potts, Christopher and Shigeto Kawahara. 2004. “Japanese honorifics as emotive definite descriptions.” In K. Watanabe and R.B. Young (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14, 235-254. Ithaca, NY: CLC. Sifianou, Maria. 1992. “The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: Modern Greek versus English.” Journal of Pragmatics 17:155-173. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. −260− ワークショップ Workshop Sessions 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࠕ⏨ࡽࡋࡉࠖࡢ༴ᶵ㸽 㸫ࣈࣟࢢぢࡿࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖࡢホ౯̿ ࢇ ࡔࡸ ࡍ ࡇ ⚄⏣㟹Ꮚ 㜰Ꮫ㝔Ꮫ([email protected]) <Abstract> The phrase ‘herbivorous men’, a term applied to men who are home-oriented and not aggressive toward women, seems to have rooted in Japanese society since it first appeared in the media. This shows that the antagonistic concept to the so-called traditional ‘masculinity’ has been accepted by Japanese. In this paper, adopting the Appraisal Theory by Martin and White(2005) , I will examine contemporary media blogs to investigate: 1)the spread of the discourse and its establishment, 2) their evaluation of the phenomenon, and 3) the presumed image of ‘masculinity’. [࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ] ⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠊࣈࣟࢢࠊࣉࣞࢨࣝ⌮ㄽࠊホ౯ 㸯㸬┠ⓗ ⌧ᅾࠊࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖ࠸࠺ゝⴥࡑࢀࢆయ⌧ࡍࡿ⏨ᛶࡓࡕࡣࡍ࡛᪥ᮏ♫ᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࡳ࠼ࡿࠋࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖࡣࠊ ᖺ௦ᚋ༙ࡼࡾቑຍࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠕ᪂ࡋ࠸ࢱࣉࡢ⏨ᛶࠖࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ ዪᛶᑐࡍࡿᾘᴟᛶࠊ⮬ᕫ୰ᚰⓗࡘ⪅౫Ꮡⓗ࡞ゝືࠊฟୡ࡞ࡢୡ㛫ⓗホ౯ࡢ↓㛵ᚰࠊ ࠸ࡗࡓࠕᚑ᮶ࡢ⏨ࡽࡋࡉࠖࡣᑐᴟⓗ࡞≉ᚩࢆᣢࡘࡉࢀࡿ⏨ᛶࢆᣦࡍࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖ ࠸࠺ゝㄝࡢᗈࡲࡾᐃ╔ࠊࡑࢀᑐࡍࡿホ౯ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ୍⯡ⓗ᪥ᮏேࡢᥥࡃࠕ⏨ࡽࡋࡉࠖࡣఱ ࢆࠊಶேࣈࣟࢢࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇࡼࡗ࡚᫂ࡽࡋࡼ࠺ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸰㸬ศᯒ㈨ᩱ᪉ἲㄽ ࣈࣟࢢࡣࡑࡢ༏ྡᛶࡼࡾࠊಶேࡢᚷ៸࡞ࡁឤࡸពぢࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡉࢀࡿ㸦ᒸᮏ 2007㸧 ࡓࡵࠊ୍⯡ேࡢឤࡸホ౯ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡣ᭱㐺ࡢ࣓ࢹ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣศᯒ㈨ᩱࡋ࡚ࠊ2008 ᖺࡽ 2011 ᖺࡢྛᖺࡘࡁ⣙ 100 ᮏࡎࡘࡢಶேࣈࣟࢢࢆ Yahoo ࣈࣟࢢࢧࢺࡽ㞟ࡋࠊࣈࣟ ࣮࢞ࡢࣉࣟࣇࣝࡽྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾᛶูᖺ㱋ࢆ≉ᐃࡋࡓࠋศᯒ⨨ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊಶேⓗዲᝏࡸ㐨 ᚨⓗホ౯࠸ࡗࡓ㉁ⓗศᯒຍ࠼୍ᐃ㔞ࡢ㔞ⓗศᯒࢆࡶྍ⬟ࡍࡿ Martin and White(2005)ࡢ ࠕࣉࣞࢨࣝ⌮ㄽࠖࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࡓࠋ ࠕࣉࣞࢨࣝ⌮ㄽࠖࢆᛂ⏝ࡋࡓඛ⾜◊✲ࡣࢹ࣐࣮ࣥࢡࡢ㑇 ఏᏊ⤌ࡳ࠼㎰⏘≀ᑐࡍࡿ᪂⪺ሗ㐨ࢆศᯒࡋࡓ Lise-Lotte Holmgreen (2009)ࡸࠊ᪥ᮏࡢࣈࣟࢢ ഴྥࢆศᯒࡋࡓబ㔝ᶞ (2009, 2010)࡞ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ 㸱㸬ࣉࣞࢨࣝ⌮ㄽࡑࡢ㐺⏝ ࠕࣉࣞࢨࣝ⌮ㄽࠖࡣࠊMartin and White㸦2005㸧ࡀࠊேࡸேࡢ⾜Ⅽࠊ㇟࡞ᑐࡍ −261− 1 「男らしさ」の危機か？ −ブログに見る「草食男子」への評価― ࡿ᭩ࡁᡭࡢホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡍゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡀࡢࡼ࠺య⣔࡛ࡁࡿὀ┠ࡋࠊ㑅ᢥయ⣔ᶵ⬟ゝㄒ⌮ㄽ 㸦SFL㸧ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡽศ㢮ࠊయ⣔ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡀࠕࣉࣞࢨࣝ Appraisalࠖྡ࡙ ࡅࡿホ౯ evaluation ࡣ(1)ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ⾲ࡉࢀࡓ㢟㛵ࡍࡿ᭩ࡁᡭࡢኌࡢ⨨࡙ࡅࢆ⾲ࡍࠕᙧໃホ ౯ Engagementࠖ(2)Ⓨヰࡢᣢࡘᑐேⓗࣥࣃࢡࢺࡸᙉࡉࢆ⦆ࡋࡓࡾࠊቑᖜࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࠕḟホ ౯ Graduationࠖࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ(3)ᚰࢆ⾲ࡍࠕែᗘホ౯ Attitudeࠖࡢ㸱ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡽᡂࡿࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏ ◊✲ࡀࡓࡿ⨨ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡿࠕែᗘホ౯ࠖࡣࠊࡉࡽձᑐ㇟ᑐࡍࡿෆⓗᚰࢆ⾲ࡍࠕឤホ ౯ Affectࠖղ㐨ᚨⓗᇶ‽↷ࡽࡋࡓࠕ㐨ᚨホ౯ Judgementࠖճ㇟ࡢ౯್ࢆ⨾ⓗᇶ‽↷ࡽࡋࡓ ࠕほ↷ホ౯ Appreciationࠖࡢ㸱ࡘࡢ㡯┠ศ㢮ࡉࢀࠊࡉࡽࡑࢀࡒࢀୗ㡯┠ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊゝ ㄒ⾲⌧ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ᫂♧ⓗ࡞ㄒᙡࢆ⏝ࡍࡿࠕ㖭グ Inscribeࠖࠊẚ႘ⓗ⾲⌧ࡸྵព ࡼࡿࠕⓎື Invokeࠖศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿ㸦ヂㄒࡣబ㔝(2009)ࡼࡿ㸧ࠋ௨ୖࡢⅬࡽࡇࡢホ౯ࢩࢫࢸ ࣒ࡣࣈ࣮ࣟ࢞ࡀࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣⲡ㣗⌧㇟ࠖࡢࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼࢆࡢࡼ࠺ホ౯ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢆศ ᯒࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ᭷⏝ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ 㸲㸬ࣈࣟࢢෆᐜࡢศᯒ 4.1㸬ࣈࣟࢢෆᐜࡢศ㢮 ࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖࢆྵࡴࠕⲡ㣗ࠖࢆ᳨⣴ㄒ⏝࠸ࡓࡓࡵෆᐜࡣࠊ(1)ࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚ㸦⌧㇟㸧ࠖࢆࡲࡶ ྲྀࡾୖࡆ㆟ㄽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ㸦65㸣㸧ࠊ(2)ࠕⲡ㣗ࠖ࠸࠺ㄒࡀ༢࡞ࡿᙧᐜモࡋ࡚⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ࡶࡢ㸦18㸣㸧 ࠊ(3)ࠕⲡ㣗ࠖࢆື≀Ꮫⓗ࡞ grass-eating ࡢពࡽㅊㅩⓗ㺀⳯㣗㺁࠸࠺ព࡛⏝ ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ㸦17㸣㸧ࡢ㸱ࡘศ㢮ࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊ(1)(2)ࢆែᗘホ౯ࡢศᯒᑐ㇟ࡋࡓࠋ 4.2㸬ࣈ࣮ࣟ࢞ࡢែᗘ㸫ࠕᢈุὴࠖࠕ⫯ᐃὴࠖ ୖグࣈࣟࢢయࡢ㸲ᖺศࡘ࠸࡚ࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖᑐࡍࡿホ౯ࡀ⫯ᐃⓗᢈุ㸦ྰᐃ㸧ⓗࡢኚ ࢆࡳࡓ⤖ᯝࠊᢈุὴࡣయࡢ 27Ѝ43Ѝ36Ѝ39㸣ࡰኚࢃࡽࡎࠊ⫯ᐃὴࡣ 33Ѝ18Ѝ18Ѝ14% ῶᑡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࠕⲡ㣗ࠖゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࣀ࣮ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡸホ౯᫂ࡢࡶࡢࡣቑຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ 4.3㸬ែᗘ⾲᫂ࡢㅖ┦ ࡲࡎᩘⓗከࡗࡓᢈุὴࡢពぢࢆࡳࡿࠋࣈࣟࢢࡢᚋࡢᣓᘼෆࡣᖺᗘࠊ㏻ࡋ␒ྕࠊᛶูࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ ࠕᢈุὴࠖ 㸬⮬ศࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᖖୖࢆྥ࠸࡚Ṍ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡢⱝ⪅ࡣ⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿᐇឤࡀឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡢ ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋኻᩋࡋ࡚ࡶ࠼࠼ࡸࢇࠋ㸦㸬0㸧 㸦✚ᴟⓗ࡞ኵࢆ㈹㈶ࡋࡓୖ࡛㸧ჾ⏝࡛ࡶ⏨Ẽࡢ࠶ࡿ⫼୰ࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ዪࡣྂ࠸ࡢ ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋ) ᪥ࡣ ዲࡁ࡞ேᒃ㓇ᒇࢹ࣮ࢺࠋ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ ࠾ヰࡋࡲࡋࡓࡀ⚾ࡢࡇࢆࡍࡁ࡞ࡢ ࠸ࡲ࠸ࡕ☜ಙࡀ ᣢ࡚ࡎࠊᡭࡶ ᥱࢁ࠺ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ㸦␎㸧࠺㹼ࢇࠊࡇࢀࡣ┦ᙜ࡞ ᣢஂᡓ ࡞ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔ㸦)㸧 ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡣࠕⓎືࠖࡼࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡀᾘᴟⓗ࡞⏕ࡁ᪉ࡀホ౯ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࣈࣟ ࢢࡢ㊃᪨ࢆศ㢮ࡍࡿ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡗࡓࠋᣓᘼෆࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢホ౯ࡢୗ㡯┠࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ឤホ౯㸦VHFXULW\ᏳᚰឤࠊKDSSLQHVVᖾ⚟ឤ࡞ࡼࡿホ౯㸧 VHFXULW\࿈ࢀࠊᏳᚰ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠊᏳࠊ㦫ࡁࠊ࿈ࢀࠊࣛࣛࡍࡿࠊࢡࣛࢡࣛࡍࡿ −262− 2 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 KDSSLQHVVዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࠊዲࡁࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࠊ࠸ࡸࠊ᎘࠸ࠊチࡉࢇࠊᚰ㓄ࠊᏳࠊἽࡅ࡚ࡃࡿ 㐨ᚨホ౯ QRUPDOLW\ᬑ㏻ࡉࠊWHQDFLW\ಙ㢗ᛶࠊFDSDFLW\⬟ຊࠊSURSULHW\㐨ᚨࠊYHUDFLW\ㄔᐇࡉࡼࡿホ౯ QRUPᤣ࠼⮃ࡃࢃ࡞࠸ࠊ㏦ࡾ⊋ࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠊ㈋ஈࠊ⫗ḧῐࠎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊᛶ⾪ືࡀ㉳ࡁ࡞࠸ WHQ ⪁ኊᛮࡢᣢࡕ࡛ᚅࡕࡢጼໃࠊ㢗ࡾ࡞࠸ࠊẆࡇࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠊぞẼࡀ࡞࠸ࠊኻᩋࢆᜍࢀࡇࡖࢇࡲࡾࠊ ᾘᴟⓗࠊ⮬ศࡽ⾜ືࢆ㉳ࡇࡉ࡞࠸ࠊ࠸ࡊ࡞ࡿ㏨ࡆ⭜࡞ࡿ FDS≀㊊ࡾ࡞࠸ࠊᑠᚰࠊࡦᙅࠊᩥྃࡤࡾゝ࠺ࠊỴࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠊ⪃࠼ࡀ⏑࠸ࠊ㠃ಽࡃࡉࡀࡾࠊࣁࣥࢢ࣮ࣜ⢭ ⚄Ḟࡅࡿࠊໟᐜຊᑠࡉ࠸ࠊ㣗ࡀ⣽࠸ࠊゝ࠸ヂࡀከ࠸ SURSࢹ࣮ࢺ࡛ࡾ຺ࢆࡍࡿࠊᖹẼ࡛ࢆᣄྰࡍࡿࠊே㊥㞳ࢆ⨨ࡃࠊ⮬ᕫ୰ᚰⓗ ⨾ⓗホ౯ 㸦LPSDFWཷࡅࡿ༳㇟ࠊTXDOLW\㉁ࠊFRPSOH[LW\」㞧ࡉ࡞ࡼࡿホ౯㸧 LPSDFWࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࠊ࡞ࡼ࡞ࡼࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ㨩ຊឤࡌ࡞࠸ࠊேࡋ࡚ࡣࡼ࠸ࠊ⮬↛ࠊࢿ࢞ࢸࣈ TXDOLW\ᙅࠎࡋ࠸ࠊ⣽࠸ࠊ㸦యࡀ㸧ኵࢃࡏࡿࠊ㔝⏕Ḟࡅࡿ ᢈุὴࡢㄽᣐࡢẚ⋡ࡣࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖࡢ⾜ືࡸ⩦ᛶࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ㐨ᚨホ౯ࡀ᭱ࡶ㧗ࡃࠊឤホ౯ࠊ ⨾ⓗホ౯⥆ࡃࠋࡾࢃࡅ୰ᖺᒙࡣྰᐃⓗぢࡿࡶࡢࡀ┠❧ࡗࡓࡀࠊ㐣ཤࡢ♫ⓗつ⠊ࢆࠕࣀ ࢫࢱࣝࢪࢵࢡࠖᣢࡕฟࡋ࡚⮬ᕫࡢ⏕ࡁ᪉ࢆ⫯ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ࡳ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓⱝ࠸ዪᛶࡶࠕᙉ ࡃࡸࡉࡋࡃ࣮ࣜࢻࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖ⏨ᛶീࡀ₯ᅾⓗ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡛ࠊࡑࢀ␗࡞ࡿ⌧ᐇࡢ⏨ᛶᡞᝨࡗ ࡚࠸ࡿጼࡀࡳ࡚ࢀࡓࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡢᢈุࡶᗏὶఏ⤫ⓗ⏨ᛶつ⠊ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇࡀぢ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠕ⫯ᐃὴࠖ ḟ⫯ᐃὴࢆࡳ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋᑡᩘ࡞ࡀࡽࡶㄽᣐࡣ☜ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ⲡ㣗ࡣࡸࡉࡋࡃໟࡳ㎸ࢇ࡛ࡃࢀࡿࠋ) ࡢⱝ⪅ࡣୖୗ㛵ಀࡢព㆑ࡀⷧ࠸ࠊᖐᒓព㆑ࡀᙅ࠸ࡶ࠸ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡶࠊ◳┤ⓗ࡞⤌⧊ ᩥ࣭⤊㌟㞠⏝ࠊᖺຌᗎิ࣭ᴗᡓኈ័ࡽࡉࢀ⥆ࡅࡓேࡢ୍᪉ⓗ࡞ゝ࠸ศࡔࠋⱝ࠸ୡ௦ ࡣࠊ♫㈉⊩ࡢ㛵ᚰࡀ㧗࠸࠸࠺ഃ㠃ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ㸦0㸧 㹹ࡢⲡ㣗ᢈุࡣ᪤ᡂࡢ౯್ほᇶ࡙࠸ࡓࡶࡢࡋ࡚㹻ⲡ㣗⣔ⱝ⪅ࡣࢲ࣓࡞Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚ᢅࢃ ࢀࡲࡍࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡣࠊ♫ࡀࡲࡔᑐᛂ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸᪂ࡋ࠸౯್ほࢆල⌧ࡋ࡚ࠊᮍ᮶ࡢ౯್ほࢆ ᇉ㛫ぢࡉࡏ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡶ▱ࢀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ㸦0㸧 ឤホ౯ VHFXULW\ ࡴࠊᏳᚰࠊẕᛶᮏ⬟ࡃࡍࡄࡿࠊ⒵ࡉࢀࡿࠊࡗࡍࡿࠊໟࡳ㎸ࢇ࡛ࡃࢀࡿ KDSSLQHVVዲࡁࠊዲࡲࡋ࠸ࠊዲࡁ࡞㒊ศ࠶ࡿ 㐨ᚨホ౯ QRUP⏕ࡁ᪉ࡀࡼ࠸ WHQ࣐࣮࣌ࢫ࡛⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠊࡀࡘࡀࡘࡋ࡞࠸ࠊᐙࡀዲࡁࠊᩱ⌮ࡍࡿࠊ⮬ศࡢ⏕ࡁ᪉ࢆ㈏࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠊࡺࡗࡃࡾࠊ ⮬ศࡢ㊃ࢆ☻ࡃࠊ♫㈉⊩ᚿྥࠊ㠀ᭀຊⓗࠊ㣗ࡿࡇࢆ㔜どࠊ┦ᡭࢆㄆࡵࡿ FDSᩱ⌮ୖᡭࠊᡭඛࡀჾ⏝ࠊᐙࡀୖᡭ SURS⧄⣽ࠊẼࢆ࠺ࠊࡢࢇࡧࡾᒇࠊࡸࡉࡋ࠸ࠊᰂ࡞㞺ᅖẼࢆᣢࡘࠊ⬺ຊࡉࡏ࡚ࡃࢀࡿ YHUㄔᐇࠊຮࠊᏲࢀࡿࡇࡔࡅཱྀࡍࡿࠊ┿ᚰࡀ࠶ࡿࠊሀᐇᚿྥࠊぢᰤᾘ㈝ࡣࡋ࡞࠸ࠊࢹ࣮ࢺࡣࡾ຺ࠊ ࣇࣛࣥࢡࡁྜ࠼ࡿࠊ᱁ዲࢆࡘࡅ࡞࠸ࠊ↓⌮࡞⫼ఙࡧࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠊ⣧⢋ࠊࡋࡀࡽ࡞࠸ࠊㄔᐇࠊ⮬↛య ⨾ⓗホ౯ −263− 3 「男らしさ」の危機か？ −ブログに見る「草食男子」への評価― LPSDFWࢯࣇࢺࠊࡸࡉࡋ࠸ࠊࡑࢀ࡞ࡾ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸ࡇࢁࡶ࠶ࡿ TXDOLW\⥡㯇ࠊ▱ⓗ࡞║ᕪࡋࠊ⣽࠸ࠊࡇࡊࡗࡥࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊࢫ࣐࣮ࢺࠊࢣ࣓ࣥࠊぢࡓ┠ࡀࡼ࠸ࠊ⏑࠸࣐ࢫ ࢡࠊࣇࢵࢩࣙࣥࢭࣥࢫࡼ࠸ࠊ࠾ࡋࡷࢀࠊⓑ㤿ࡢ⋤Ꮚࡢ࣓࣮ࢪࠊ➗㢦ࡀ⣲ᩛࠊࡉࢃࡸࠊୖရࡳ࠼ࡿ FRPSOH[LW\ࢩࣥࣉࣝ ⫯ᐃὴࡣᖺ㱋ᒙ㛵ಀ࡞ࡃᗈࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄽᣐࡣᢈุὴࡀᣦࡋࡓࡢྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ ㏫ࡑࢀࡽࢆ⌧௦♫ࡢࣥࢳࢸ࣮ࢮᤊ࠼࡚⫯ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ⯆῝࠸ࠋࡾࢃࡅ⤒῭ᡂ 㛗ᮇࡢ๓㐍ᚿྥࢆ⤒㦂ࡋࡓୡ௦ࡸࠊ⌧௦ࡢ➇த♫ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ᮾ᪥ᮏ㟈⅏ᚋࡢᝒ࡞≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊ ࡑࡢࡸࡉࡋࡉࡀࠕ⒵ࡋࠖࡋ࡚ዲࡲࡋࡃᫎࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 4.4. ࠕⲡ㣗ࠖࡢᙧᐜモⓗ࣭ෙモⓗ⏝ἲ ࠕⲡ㣗ࠖࡀෙࡉࢀࡿ⿕ಟ㣭ㄒࡣࠕேࠊ⤌⧊ࠊᅜᐙࠊᨃேࡉࢀࡓື≀ࡸ᳜≀ࠖ࠸ࡗࡓࠕே 㛫άືࡢయࠖࡸࠕពⓗ⏕⏘≀ࠊ⮬↛⌧㇟ࠊேᕤ≀ࠖ࠸ࡗࡓࠕ㇟࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ ࠕ᪥ᮏࡣⲡ㣗⣔ᅜᐙ࡞ࡢ࡛ᡓதࡣ᮶࡞࠸ࠖ࠸࠺ホㄽᐙࡀ࠸ࡓࡀ͐) ࡦࡽࡀ࡞ࡣⲡ㣗ࡳࡓ࠸࡛ᙅࠎࡋ࠸ࠋ࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼࡣࡗࡇ࠸࠸⫗㣗ࠋ㸦)㸧 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊ ࠕⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࠖࡢ⾜ືᛶྥࡸእほࡽཷࡅࡿ༳㇟ࡀពᣑࡋࠊ ࠕࡦᙅࠊ࠾࡞ࡋ࠸ࠊ ᨷᧁⓗ࡛࡞࠸ࠊࡺࡗࡃࡾࡋࡓ⾜ືࠊ࣐࣮࣌ࢫࠊࡸࡉࡋ࠸ࠊ⨾ࡋ࠸ࠖ࠸ࡗࡓྵព࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚ ࠸ࡿࠋࠕⲡ㣗ࠖࡀࠕᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࣮ࠖ࡞ࡾࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ 㸳㸬ࡲࡵ ⤒ᖺኚࢆࡳࡿࡲࡶ࡞㆟ㄽࡀῶᑡࡋᙧᐜモⓗ⏝ἲࡀቑຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇࡽࠕⲡ㣗⏨ Ꮚࠖࡣ᪤▱ࡢᴫᛕࡋ࡚ᐃ╔ࡋࡓぢࡿࡇࡶ࡛ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋᢈุὴࡢᙇࡢࡼ࠺ⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚࡢ㠀♫ ⓗ࡞⾜ືࡸே㛫ᛶࡢḞⴠࡀᑗ᮶ࡢᏳ㏻ࡌࡿ࠸࠺ぢ᪉ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋ㏫ぢࢀࡤୡⓗ ྡࡢࡓࡵࡢ⮬ᕫ≛≅ࡸయ㠃ࡢಖᣢࢆམ࠸ࠊ⮬ᕫᛅᐇ⏕ࡁࡿே㛫ീ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ ࠕ⏨ࡽࡋࡉࠖ ࠸࠺ࡼࡾ⏨ᛶዪᛶࢆ㉸࠼ࡓࠕே㛫ࡽࡋࡉࠖࢆぢ┤ࡍᶵࢆ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡶゝ࠼ࡿࠋࣈ࣮ࣟ࢞ࡓࡕ ࡣࡇࡢ≧ἣᡞᝨࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ⌧≧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡞ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ ῝⃝┿⣖㸬2007㸬ࠗⲡ㣗⏨Ꮚୡ௦̿ᖹᡂ⏨Ꮚᅗ㚷࠘ ගᩥ♫ Holmgreen, Lise-Lotte, Torben Vestergaard.2009.Evaluation and audience acceptance in biotech news texts. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 586-601 ⚄⏣㟹Ꮚ࣭㧗ᮌబ▱Ꮚ⦅ⴭࠗࢹࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡽࡋࡉࠖࡢ⾲㇟࠘㜰බ❧Ꮫඹྠฟ∧㸦2013 ᖺห⾜㸧 Martin,J.R.and P.R.R.White.2005. “The Language of Evaluation - Appraisal in English”. Palgrave Martin.J.R. and P.R.R. White.2005.Appraisal Website Home Page (accessed 20110329) http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/AppraisalGuide/Framed/Frame.htm ᒸᮏ┿୍㑻.2007.ࠕࣈࣟࢢࡢᚰ⌮Ꮫⓗ≉ᚩࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘26 ᕳ㸲ྕ బ㔝ᶞ㸬2009㸬ࣈࣟࢢ࠾ࡅࡿホ౯ሗࡢศ㢮య⣔㸫ࣉࣞࢨࣝ⌮ㄽࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸬ಙᏛᢏሗ 2009㸫39㻌 బ㔝ᶞ㸬2010㸬ホ౯⾲⌧ᇶ࡙ࡃࣈࣟࢢศ㢮ࡢヨࡳ㸬ゝㄒฎ⌮Ꮫ➨ 16 ᅇᖺḟ pp.174-177 −264− 4 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ᪥ᮏ䛾୧ぶྥ䛡⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛻䛚䛡䜛∗ぶ䜙䛧䛥䞉ẕぶ 䜙䛧䛥䛾⾲㇟ 䛶㢖ฟ䛩䜛㢟䛸ẕᛶ䛜ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛᪉ἲ䜢ㄪᰝ䛧䛯䚹⤖ᯝⓗ ✄Ọ▱ୡ 䛔䛖䜘䜚䠈䛂ẕぶ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛃䛸⤖䜃䛴䛡䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸⤖ㄽ䛡䛯䚹䛥 㝣Ꮫ䠄㠀䠅䞉㜰ᗓ❧ᏛᏛ㝔 䜙䛻䚸䝔䜽䝇䝖䛾୰䛷ゝ䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛸ྠᵝ䛻ゝ䜟䜜䛶䛔䛺䛔䛣 䛻䚸䛣䜜䜙䛾䝬䝙䝳䜰䝹䛷䛿⫱ඣ䛜䛂୧ぶ/䝟䞊䝖䝘䞊㛫䛾ඹ᭷䛃䛸 䛸䛾㔜せᛶ䜢ᙉㄪ䛧䛯䚹Sunderland䠄2000䠅䛿ⱥᅜ䛾⫱ඣ䝔䜽䝇䝖 䛻䛚䛔䛶䛹䛾䜘䛖䛻∗ぶ䛜⾲㇟䞉⫼ᬒ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛾䛛䚸䝕䜱䝇䝁 䞊䝇ୖ䛾㠀ᑐ⛠䛜Ꮡᅾ䛩䜛䛾䛛䜢ㄪᰝ䛧䛯䚹䛭䛾⤖ᯝ䚸‘Part-time 䠘Abstract䠚 This paper analyzes the representation of parental roles in Japanese father / Mother as main parent’䚸‘Father as baby entertainer’䚸‘Father parenting magazines based on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). as mother’s bumbling assistant’䚸‘Father as line manager’ discourses This paper aims to examine how paternity and maternity is assumed. ➼䛾Ꮡᅾ䜢ᣦ䛧䚸∗ぶ䛿Ꮚ౪䛸㐟䜃䚸⫱ඣ䛻័䜜䛺䛔Ꮡᅾ䛸䛧 We particularly focus on (1) genres, (2) discourses, and (3) styles 䛶⾲㇟䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䚸䝔䜽䝇䝖୰䛻ẕぶ䛸∗ぶ㛫䛾䝕䜱䝇䝁䞊䝇 (Fairclough: 2003). Although the parenting magazines target fathers ୖ䛾㠀ᑐ⛠䛜Ꮡᅾ䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛧䛯䚹ୖグ䛾◊✲䛿䝯䝕䜱 as well as mothers, we find that mothers are assumed as full-time 䜰䝕䜱䝇䝁䞊䝇䛷ᖖ㆑䛸䛧䛶ᢅ䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䜒䛾䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛩䜛䛾 parents engaged in childcare and housework, while fathers are 䛻᭷ຠ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛯䛰䛧䚸ᮏ◊✲䛜 genres 䛸 styles 䛻䜒ὀ┠䛩䜛䛸䛔 part-time parents that just help their partners. This indicates that 䛖Ⅼ䚸ᮏ◊✲䛾䝕䞊䝍䛜᪥ᮏ䛾⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖Ⅼ䛜ඛ⾜◊ traditional gender roles still persist. ✲䛸䛾㐪䛔䛷䛒䜛䚹䛂䜲䜽䝯䞁䛃䛸䛔䛳䛯⫱ඣ䛻✚ᴟⓗ䛻ཧຍ䛩䜛 䛆䜻䞊䝽䞊䝗䛇䠖ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䚸䝆䝱䞁䝹䚸䝕䜱䝇䝁䞊䝇䚸䝇䝍䜲䝹䚸 ∗ぶ䛺䛹䛜䝯䝕䜱䜰䛷ྲྀ䜚ୖ䛢䜙䜜䜛୰䚸᪥ᮏ䛾⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛾୰䛷 ⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ 䛂ᙜ↛ど䛃䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛∗ぶീ䛸ẕぶീ䜢ぢ䜛䛣䛸䛿ព⩏䛜䛒䜛䚹 1. 䛿䛨䜑䛻 ᮏ◊✲䛿᪥ᮏ䛾⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ 13 ✀㢮䠄2008 ᖺ 4 ᭶䡚2010 ᖺ 3 ᭶Ⓨ 4. 䝕䞊䝍 ศ䠅䜢ศᯒᑐ㇟䛸䛧䚸௨ୗ䛾୧ぶྥ䛡⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛾≉㞟グ䜢ྲྀ ᮏ◊✲䛿ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ䠄CDA䠅䜢⏝䛧䚸᪥ᮏ䛾୧ぶྥ䛡⫱ ඣ㞧ㄅ䛻䛚䛡䜛䚸∗ぶ䛸ẕぶ䛾⫱ඣᙺ䛻㛵䛩䜛⾲㇟䜢ศᯒ䛩 䜚ୖ䛢䜛䠖䛄᪥⤒ Kids +䛅䠄2009 ᖺ 12 ᭶ྕ䠅䚸䛄AERA with Baby䛅 䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸∗ぶ䜙䛧䛥䛸ẕぶ䜙䛧䛥䛜䛹䛾䜘䛖䛻ᐃ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛾 䠄2009 ᖺ 10䚸12 ᭶ྕ䠅䚸䛄AERA with Kids䛅䠄2009 ᖺ⛅ྕ䚸2010 ᖺ 䛛䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛩䜛䚹 ྕ䠅䚹ୖグ䛾㞧ㄅ䛿ẕぶ䛰䛡䛷䛺䛟∗ぶ䜒ㄞ⪅ᑐ㇟䛸䛩䜛⫱ඣ 㞧ㄅ䛷䛒䜛䚹ᚑ䛳䛶䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䠄author䠅䛜ẕぶ䜔∗ぶ䛾⫱ඣᙺ 2. ᪉ἲㄽ 䜢ᖹ➼䛻⾲㇟䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜ᐃ䛥䜜䜛䚹 ᮏ◊✲䛿 Fairclough䠄1992, 2003䠅䛻ᇶ䛵䛟 CDA 䛾ᡭἲ䜢⏝ 䛩䜛䚹Fairclough䠄1992䠅䛿 discourse 䜢䠄1䠅䝔䜽䝇䝖䚸䠄2䠅ㄯヰⓗᐇ㊶䚸 5. ศᯒ䛸⪃ᐹ 䠄3䠅♫ⓗᐇ㊶䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙ศᯒ䛩䜛䚹䛣䛾ほⅬ䛻ᚑ䛳䛯ศᯒⓗᯟ 5.1 䛄᪥⤒ Kids +䛅 ⤌䜏䛿䠄1䠅䝔䜽䝇䝖ศᯒ䚸䠄2䠅ㄯヰⓗᐇ㊶䛾ศᯒ䚸䠄3䠅♫ⓗᐇ㊶ <䝕䞊䝍 1>2009 ᖺ 12 ᭶ྕ䛂ぶ䛾䜂䛸ゝ䛷Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾ᚰ䛜ᙉ䛟䛺 䛾ศᯒ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䛾୰䛷䚸ㄯヰⓗᐇ㊶䛾ศᯒ䠄Fairclough, 2003䠅䛿䚸 䜛䟿䛃䠄P13䠅 䛂ㄯヰ䛾⛛ᗎ䠄orders of discourse䠅䛃䚸䛴䜎䜚䚸ゝㄒ⏝䛻㛵䛩䜛♫ 䠄1䠅ㄞ⪅ 䝟䝟䚸䝬䝬䛻⪺䛝䜎䛧䛯㻌 䛂䛖䛱䛾Ꮚ䚸䜂ᙅ䛛䜒䞉䞉䞉䞉䞉䞉䛃 ⓗつ⠊䜢ᵓᡂ䛩䜛せᅉ䜢≉ᐃ䛩䜛䚹䛣䜜䜙䛾ㄯヰ䛾⛛ᗎ䜢ᵓ 䛸ᛮ䛖䛸䛝 ᡂ䛩䜛せ⣲䛸䛧䛶䚸Fairclough 䛿䠄1䠅genres䠄⾜Ⅽ䛾᪉䠅䚸䠄2䠅 Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾ᵝᏊ䜢ぢ䛶䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛧䛳䛛䜚䛧䛶䜋䛧䛔䛃䛂䛡䛺䛔䛃䛺䛹 discourses䠄⾲㇟䛾᪉䠅䚸䠄3䠅styles䠄Ꮡᅾ䛾᪉䠅䛻ὀ┠䛩䜛䚹䛣 䛸ᛮ䛳䛯⤒㦂䛿䠄2䠅䛒䜚䜎䛫䜣䛛?䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖䜢ᐇ䛧䛯䛸䛣䜝䚸⣙ 䜜䜙䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛩䜛䛯䜑䛻䚸䠄1䠅Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䚸ླྀἲ䠄genres䠅䚸䠄2䠅ㄒ ༙ᩘ䛾䠄3䠅ぶ䛜䛂ᛮ䛳䛯䛣䛸䛜䛒䜛䛃䛸ᅇ⟅䚹䜏䜣䛺䛾ពぢ䜢ཧ⪃ ᙡ䚸♫ⓗ⾜Ⅽ⪅䛾⾲㇟䚸ᐃ䚸ືᛶ䠄discourses䠅䚸䠄3䠅䝰䝎䝸 䛻䚸䠄4䠅䜟䛜Ꮚ䛾䛣䛸䜢䠄5䠅䜚㏉䛳䛶䜏䜎䛧䜗䛖䚹 䝔䜱䚸ホ౯䚸ே⛠௦ྡモ䠄styles䠅䛺䛹䛻↔Ⅼ䜢ᙜ䛶䜛䚹 ᮏ◊✲䛿ㄯヰⓗᐇ㊶䛾ศᯒ䜢⏝䛧䚸∗ぶ䜙䛧䛥䛸ẕぶ䜙䛧䛥 㻌 discourses 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䠄1䠅䛷䛿䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛿∗ぶ䞉ẕぶ୧⪅䜢 䛻㛵䛩䜛ㄯヰ䛾⛛ᗎ䜢ᵓᡂ䛩䜛䚸genres䚸discourses䚸styles 䜢᫂♧ ㄞ⪅䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸∗ぶ䞉ẕぶ䛜Ꮚ౪䛾⢭⚄ຊ䜢㣴䛖䛣䛸䛻 䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜚䚸᪥ᮏ䛾୧ぶྥ䛡⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛾グ䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸∗ぶ ᚑ䛩䜛♫ⓗ⾜Ⅽ⪅䛸⾲㇟䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䠄3䠅䛷䛿䚸䛂ぶ䛃 䛸ẕぶ䛾⫱ඣᙺ䛻䛚䛡䜛๓ᥦ䜢⪃ᐹ䛧䛯䚹 䛸䛔䛖ㄒᙡ䛜䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿㣴⫱⪅䜢⥲⛠䛩䜛⏝ㄒ䛷䛒䜚䚸 3. ඛ⾜◊✲ ྵ䜎䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸‘Mother and Father as main parent’ 䠄1䠅䛸䛾ㄒᙡⓗ⤖᮰ᛶ䛛䜙䚸䛣䛾䛂ぶ䛃䛻䛿ẕぶ䛰䛡䛷䛺䛟䚸∗ぶ䜒 discourse 䛜ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䚸∗ぶ䞉ẕぶ୧⪅䛜Ꮚ౪䜢⢭⚄ⓗ䛻ᙉ䛟䛩䜛 Marshall䠄1991䠅䛿䚸ⱥᅜ䛾⫱ඣ䝬䝙䝳䜰䝹䛻䛚䛔䛶ẕᛶ䛻㛵䛧 1 −265− 日本の両親向け育児雑誌における父親らしさ・母親らしさの表象 䛸ྠ䛨ᝎ䜏䜢ඹ᭷䛧䛶䛔䜛༳㇟䜢䛘䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䠄7䠅䛸䠄11䠅䛾Ⓨ 䛣䛸䛻㛵䜟䜛䛸䛔䛖ᐃ䜢ぢฟ䛩䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸genres 䛻㛵䛧 䛶䛿䚸≉㞟グ genre 䛾୰䛷䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 genre 䛜⏝䛔䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹 ヰᶵ⬟䛿㉁ၥ䚸䠄9䠅䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛿ᥦ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䠄10䠅䛿 2ே ຍ䛘䛶䚸䠄2䠅䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛜㉁ၥ䚸䠄5䠅䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛜ᥦ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸 ⛠௦ྡモ䛷䛒䜛䚹ᚑ䛳䛶䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛾ㄞ⪅䛸䛾┦⾜Ⅽ䛜ල⌧ 䛛䜙䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛾ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䛜ල⌧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䜜ᨾ䚸 䛥䜜䚸ㄞ⪅䛾┦ㄯ┦ᡭ䛸䛧䛶䛾䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䛜⾲䛥䜜䛶䛔 ヰ genre 䜒ᇙ䜑㎸䜎䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸styles 䛻⛣䜛䚹䠄2䠅䛿㉁ၥ 䜛䚹 䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䛯䛩䚹䛣䜜䛿ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䜢ල⌧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹 䛥䜙䛻䚸䠄4䠅䛾䛂䜟䛜Ꮚ䛃䛾䛂䜟䛜䛃䛿䛂ໟᣓⓗ䛃we 䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䛾ໟᣓ <䝕䞊䝍 2>2009 ᖺ 12 ᭶ྕ䛂᭷ྡᑠᏛᰯ䛻ཷ䛛䛳䛯Ꮚ䛿ఱ䜢Ꮫ䜣 ⓗ we 䛾⏝䛻䜘䜚䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䜒ㄞ⪅䛸ྠ䛨ᝎ䜏䜢ඹ᭷䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸 䛰?䛃䠄P69䠅 䛔䛖༳㇟䜢䛘䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䠄5䠅䛿ᥦ䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢ᢸ䛔䚸䠄2䠅䛸ྠ 䛂“䛚ཷ㦂”䜢㏻䛧䛶䛷䛝䜛䜘䛖䛻䛺䜛䛣䛸䛃 ᵝ䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛾ㄞ⪅䛸䛾┦⾜Ⅽ䜢ල⌧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸ᑟ ぶ䛿Ꮚ䛹䜒䛻ᑐ䛧䚸䛂䛔䛴䛛䛷䛝䜛䛃䛂䛔䛴䛛⌮ゎ䛩䜛䛃䛸⪃䛘䛜䛱 ධ㒊䛷䛿䚸ㄞ⪅䛾┦ㄯ┦ᡭ䛸䛧䛶䛾䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䛜⾲䛥䜜䛶 䛰䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸ᩍ䛘䛺䛡䜜䜀Ꮚ䛹䜒䛿↓▱䛾䜎䜎䚹ཷ㦂䛸䛔䛖┠ᶆ䛜 䛔䜛䚹 䛒䜛䛛䜙䛣䛭䚸ぶᏊ䛷䛥䜎䛦䜎䛺య㦂䜢䛧䚸▱䜛䛣䛸䚸䛷䛝䜛䛣䛸䛜䛠 䜣䛠䜣ቑ䛘䜛䚹… P18䡚P19 ADVANTAGE 䛂ᖸ΅䛧䛩䛞䚸ᨺ௵䛧䛩䛞䛷䠄6䠅䜟䛜Ꮚ䛾䛯䛟䜎䛧䛥䚸䠄7䠅䛴䜆䛧䛶 䠄14䠅ぶᏊ䛾ゐ䜜ྜ䛔䛜䜘䜚῝䜎䜛 䛔䜎䛫䜣䛛?䛃 ᑠᏛᰯཷ㦂䜢䜂䛸ゝ䛷䛔䛘䜀䚸䛂䜟䛜Ꮚ䜢䛹䛖⫱䛶䚸䛹䛖ᡂ㛗䛥䛫 ᅔ㞴䛻䜆䛴䛛䛳䛯䜙䛹䛖䛩䜜䜀䛔䛔䛛䜢⪃䛘䚸⮬ศ䛾ຊ䛷䜚㉺ 䛶䛔䜛䛛䛃䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䜢ከ᪉㠃䛛䜙ၥ䜟䜜䜛ヨ㦂䚹䠄15䠅䇾㔝ᨺ䛧䇿䛷 䛘䛶䛔䛟…䚹䛭䜣䛺䛯䛟䜎䛧䛔Ꮚ䛻⫱䛶䜛䜹䜼䛿䚸䠄8䠅ぶ⮬㌟䛾䛛 䛿ᙜ↛ཷ䛛䜙䛺䛔䚹䠄16䠅ẕぶ䛿䛧䛴䛡䜔䝨䞊䝟䞊ᑐ⟇䜢㏻䛧䛶䚸 䛛䜟䜚᪉䛻䛒䜛䚹Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾䛯䛟䜎䛧䛥䜢䛴䜆䛧䛶䛔䛺䛔䛛䛹䛖䛛䚸 䜘䜚୍ᒙᏊ䛹䜒䛸᥋䛧䚸∗ぶ䛿ព㆑䛧䛶Ꮚ䛹䜒䛸䛾㛫䜢䛴䛟䜛䚹ኵ 䠄9䠅☜ㄆ䛧䛶䜏䜘䛖䚹 ፬㛫䛷ᐙᗞᩍ⫱䛾䛒䜚᪉䛺䛹䛾ヰ䜒ቑ䛘䜛䚹ྠ䛨┠ᶆ䛻ྥ䛛䛳 Ꮚ䛹䜒䛜䛣䜣䛺䛸䛝䚸䠄10䠅䛒䛺䛯䛺䜙䠄11䠅䛹䛖䛩䜛?… 䛶ດຊ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷ᐙ᪘䛾䛝䛪䛺䜒῝䜎䜛䚹 Q2. 䝃䝑䜹䞊䛜䛪䜀䛼䛡䛶䛖䜎䛔Ꮚ౪䛜䚸䛂䝃䝑䜹䞊㒊䛨䜓䛺䛟䛶䚸䝁 㻌 䜎䛪䚸discourses 䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸䠄14䠅䛷䛿䚸䛂ぶ䛃䛿∗ぶ䛸ẕぶ䜢⾲ 䞊䝷䝇㒊䛻ධ䜚䛯䛔䛃䛸ゝ䛔ฟ䛧䜎䛧䛯䚹䛹䜣䛺ゝⴥ䜢䛡䜎䛩䛛? ㇟䛩䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸䠄16䠅䛾๓༙䛂ẕぶ䛿䈈䜘䜚୍ᒙᏊ䛹䜒䛸᥋䛧䛃䛛䜙䚸 ձ䞉䞉䞉䝃䝑䜹䞊䛾䜋䛖䛜ྥ䛔䛶䛔䜛䛾䛻䚹䜒䛳䛯䛔䛺䛔䜣䛨䜓䛺 䛂ẕぶ䛿ᬑẁᏊ౪䛸ゐ䜜ྜ䛳䛶䛔䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖ᐃ䛜స⏝䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹 䛔? 䛭䜜䛿䚸䛂䜘䜚୍ᒙ䛃䛛䜙ุ᩿䛧䛶䚸䛂ᬑẁ䜘䜚䛃䛜┬␎䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛯 ղ䞉䞉䞉䛘䛳䚸䝁䞊䝷䝇䠛ྥ䛔䛶䛺䛔䠄12䠅䜟䜘䡚䚹 䜑䛷䛒䜛䚹୍᪉䚸䠄16䠅䛾ᚋ༙䛂∗ぶ䛿䡚䛴䛟䜛䛃䛿䚸䛂∗ぶ䛿Ꮚ䛹䜒 ճ䞉䞉䞉ḷ䛖䛣䛸䛻⯆䛜䛒䜛䠄13䠅䛾䛽䚹䛭䛳䛛䚸䝁䞊䝷䝇㒊䜢ᴦ䛧 䛸ゐ䜜ྜ䛖㛫䜢ᬑẁస䜙䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ᐃ䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎 䜣䛷䠄14䠅䛽䚹 䜚䚸䛂∗ぶ䛿ᐙ䛾እ䛷ᛁ䛧䛟ാ䛝䚸䛭䜜ᨾດຊ䛧䛺䛡䜜䜀㛫䜢స 䜜䛺䛔䛃䛣䛸䛜ᙜ↛ど䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸∗ぶ䛸ẕぶ䛷䛿䝕䜱 䝇䝁䞊䝇ୖ䛾㠀ᑐ⛠䛜Ꮡᅾ䛧䚸‘Part-time father / Mother as main discourses 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䠄8䠅䛿∗䛛ẕ䛛䜢᩿ᐃ䛫䛪䚸䠄10䠅䛿 2 ே ⛠௦ྡモ䛷䛒䜛䚹୍ぢ䚸∗ぶ䛸ẕぶ䛾⫱ඣ䜢♧၀䛧䛶䛔䜛䛜䚸 parent’ discourse 䛜⏕⏘䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹genres 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸ᐉゝᩥ 䠄12䠅䛛䜙ẕぶ䛾ཧຍ䛜ᐃ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛜䜟䛛䜛䚹䛂䜟䛃䛿⾲⌧ 䛾ླྀἲ䚸䛥䜙䛻䛿䚸㝞㏙䜔ᥦ䛾ᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䛯䛩ᩥ䛾⏝䛛䜙䚸䜰 䜢䜙䛢䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛻ാ䛝䛛䛡䜛ᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䛯䛧䚸䛂䜘䛃䛿ぶ䛧䜏䜢㎸䜑 䝗䝞䜲䝇 genre 䛜⏝䛔䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸≉㞟グ genre 䛸䜰䝗䝞 䛶䚸᩿ᐃ䛺䛹䜢ఏ䛘䜛ᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䛯䛩⤊ຓモ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛂䜟䜘䛃䛿ዪᛶ 䜲䝇 genre 䛾 genre ΰ䛜㉳䛣䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹᭱ᚋ䛻䚸styles 䛻䛴䛔䛶 䛜㢖⦾䛻⏝䛩䜛䛸ゝ䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ຍ䛘䛶䚸䠄13䠅䛾䛂䛾䛃䛿⣡ᚓ䛩 䛿䚸䠄15䠅䛻ὀ┠䛩䜛䚹䛂㔝ᨺ䛧䛃䛾⤖ᯝ䛜䛂ᙜ↛ཷ䛛䜙䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖䚸 䜛Ẽᣢ䛱䛷☜ㄆ䛩䜛ព䜢⾲䛩ᶵ⬟䚸䛂䛽䛃䠄䠄14䠅䜒ྠᵝ䠅䛿ぶ䛧䜏 ཷ㦂䛷䛿᭱ᝏ䛾⤖ᯝ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢♧䛩䚹䛂㔝ᨺ䛧䛃䜢ᮃ䜎䛧䛟䛺䛔䛸 䛾Ẽᣢ䛱䜢䛣䜑䛯☜ㄆ䜢⾲䛩ᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䛯䛩䚹䛣䜜䜒ዪᛶ䛻ከ⏝䛥 ホ౯䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜚䚸䛭䛾ᚋ䛾ᥦ䛾ᚲせᛶ䜢ᬯ♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䠄16䠅 䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䜜䜙䛾ຓモ䛾⏝䛛䜙䚸ඃ䛧䛟ㄒ䜚䛛䛡䜛ẕぶീ䛜⾲ ௨㝆䛾ᥦ䛷䛿䚸䝰䝎䝸䝔䜱䛿㉳䛣䛳䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹䛭䜜ᨾ䚸ᥦ ㇟䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸“Part-time father/ Mother as main parent” 䛾ᚲせᛶ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ᙉ䛔ᚰⓗែᗘ䛜⾲䛥䜜䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛸 discourse䚸“Mother appealing to their child” discourse 䛜ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䛶 䛧䛶䛾䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䛜♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹 䛔䜛䚹genres 䛻⛣䜛䚹䝅䝭䝳䝺䞊䝅䝵䞁ᙧᘧ䛾 Q&A 䜢⏝䛔䜛䛣䛸䛻 䜘䜚䚸䝅䝭䝳䝺䞊䝅䝵䞁 genre 䜢⏝䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䠄7䠅䛸䠄11䠅䛷 5.2 䛄AERA with Baby䛅 䛿㉁ၥ䚸䠄9䠅䛷䛿ᥦ䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢⏝䛔䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜚䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛾 <䝕䞊䝍 3>2009 ᖺ 10 ᭶ྕ䛂Ꮚ౪䛾䛤䛿䜣䚸ᡭᢤ䛝䛧䛶䛔䜎䛫䜣 ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䚸䛴䜎䜚ヰ genre 䜢ල⌧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸styles 䛛?㻌 ษ䛻⪃䛘䛯䛔㻌 㞳ங㣗䞉ᗂඣ㣗䛃䠄P30䠅 䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸䠄6䠅䛂䜟䛜Ꮚ䛃䛿䛂ໟᣓⓗ䛃we 䛷䛒䜚䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䜒ㄞ⪅ 䠄17䠅䛂䛔䛯䛰䛝䜎䛩䟿䛃䛂䛤䛱䛭䛖䛥䜎䟿䛃䛾ኌ䛜㡪䛟ᅋ䜙䜣䛿䚸ᐙ 2 −266− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ᪘䜏䜣䛺䛾ᖾ䛫䛾䛒䛛䛧䚹 䛯䜑䛻㞧ㄅ䜢ㄞ䜐Ꮡᅾ䛷䛿䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ᐃ䛜ാ䛔䛶䛔䜛䚹⤖ᯝ ᰤ㣴䛾䛣䛸䜒䚸㣗䜉䛺䛔ᝎ䜏䜒䛸䛝䛻䛿䛱䜗䛳䛸⨨䛔䛶䛚䛔䛶䚸ᴦ ⓗ䛻䚸‘Part-time father / Mother as main parent’ discourse 䛜⏕⏘ 䛧䛔㣗༟䛵䛟䜚䛻䛴䛔䛶䠄18䠅⪃䛘䛶䜏䜘䛖䚹… 䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹genres 䛻⛣䜛䛸䚸䠄23䠅䛛䜙䚸≉㞟グ genre 䛾୰䛷䜰 䛂䛚⤥䛃䛿䜔䜑䛶୍⥴䛻㣗༟䛻䛴䛣䛖䟿 䞁䜿䞊䝖 genre 䛜⏝䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䠄25䠅䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛿㝞㏙䚸 㻌 ⦅㞟㒊䛜⾜䛳䛯䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖䛛䜙䚸ఇ᪥䛾ኪ䛿䛂ᐙ᪘ဨ䛷㣗 䠄22䠅䛿ຍၥᩥ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䜢ල⌧䛥䜜䚸 䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖ே䛜᭱䜒ከ䛔䜒䛾䛾䚸ᖹ᪥䛾ኪ䛿༙ᩘ㏆䛟䛾ᐙ ヰ genre 䜒⏝䛔䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹᭱ᚋ䛻䚸styles 䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸䠄21䠅䛿 ᗞ䛷䛂ẕぶ䛸Ꮚ䛹䜒䛃䛰䛡䛷㣗䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛜䜟䛛䜚䜎䛧 䛂ໟᣓⓗ䛃we ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ䜸䞊䝃䞊䜒ㄞ⪅䛸ྠ䛨ᝎ䜏䜢ඹ᭷䛧䛶䛔䜛 䛯䚹䠄19䠅∗ぶ䛾ᖐᏯ㛫䛜㐜䛡䜜䜀䚸Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾⏕ά㛫䜢⪃䛘 ༳㇟䜢䛘䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䠄22䠅䛿ຍၥᩥ࡛ࠊㄞ⪅䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ㄒ䜚 䛶䚸䛒䛘䛶ᚅ䛯䛪䛻Ꮚ䛹䜒䛸ẕぶ䛷㣗䜉䜛䛾䜒⌧ᐇⓗ䛺㑅ᢥ䛷䛩 䛛䛡䜢ල⌧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䜜ᨾ䚸ㄞ⪅䛾┦ㄯ┦ᡭ䛸䛧䛶䛾䜰䜲䝕 䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䛜⾲䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹 discourses䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䠄19䠅䛾䛂∗ぶ䛾ᖐᏯ䛜㐜䛡䜜䜀䛃䛿ᚑᒓ ⠇䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸䛂∗ぶ䛿እ䛷ാ䛔䛶䛔䜛䛯䜑䚸ᖐᏯ䛜㐜䛔䛣䛸 P61 䛜䛒䜛䛃䛣䛸䛜ᙜ↛ど䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢ព䛩䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊 Ꮚ䛹䜒䛿ぢ䛶䛔䜛䠄26䠅䝟䝟䜒ᐙ䜢䛧䛶䛔䜎䛩䛛? 䛿䚸∗ぶ䜢ᚅ䛯䛪䛻Ꮚ౪䛸㣗䜢䛩䜛䜘䛖ẕぶ䛻ಁ䛩䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸 䛂∦䛡䛺䛥䛔䛃䛸Ꮚ䛹䜒䜢ᛣ㬆䜛㞄䛷䚸ᖹ↛䛸㣗䜉䛳䜁䛺䛧䚸ฟ䛧 䛂ẕぶ䛜䚸፬䛷䛒䜛䛛ྰ䛛䛻㛵䜟䜙䛪䚸ᐙ᪘䛾䛯䜑䛻㣗䜢స 䛳䜁䛺䛧䛾ኵ䚹䠄27䠅Ꮚ䛹䜒௨ୖ䛾㞴ᩛ䜢䚸䠄28䠅䛹䛖䛧䛯䜙䛔䛔?… 䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖ᐃ䛜⾲ฟ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸‘Part-time father / 㻌 䛔䛟䜙䝬䝬䛜Ꮚ䛹䜒䜢䛚ᡭఏ䛔䛻ㄏ䛳䛶䜒㞄䛷䝟䝟䛜ᐷ䛶䛔䛯 Mother as main parent’ discourse䚸‘Mother as family cook’ discourse 䛾䛷䛿䚸ㄝᚓຊ䛻Ḟ䛡䛶䛧䜎䛔䜎䛩䚹䛂䛄䝟䝟䛰䛳䛶䛧䛺䛔䜘䛅䛸ཱྀ 䛜ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹genres 䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸≉㞟グ genre 䛾୰䛻䜰 ⟅䛘䛥䜜䛶䚸ㄽ䛷䛝䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ㄞ⪅䜒䚹 䞁䜿䞊䝖 genre 䛜ᇙ䜑㎸䜎䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䜎䛯䚸䠄18䠅䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛜ᥦ 㻌 䛂Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾ᐙ䜈䛾䛛䛛䜟䜚᪉䛿䚸ᐇ䛿∗ぶ䛾ᙳ㡪䛜䛝䛔䜣 䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䜢ල⌧䛥䜜䚸ヰ genre 䜒ᵓ 䛷䛩䛃䛸㎮ᕭ䛥䜣䛜ヰ䛧䜎䛩䚹 ⠏䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸styles 䛻⛣䜛䚹䠄17䠅䛾䛂ᖾ䛫䛾䛒䛛䛧䛃䛿䛂䛔 㻌 䛂∗ぶ䛾ୡヰ䜢䛺䜣䛷䜒ẕぶ䛜䛩䜛䛸䚸ᐙ䛿ẕぶ䛾䛸ᛮ䛖 䛯䛰䛝䜎䛩!䛃䛂䛤䛱䛭䛖䛥䜎!䛃䛾㡪䛟ᐙ᪘ᅋ䜙䜣䛜ᮃ䜎䛧䛔≧ែ䛸ホ 䜘䛖䛻䛺䛳䛶䛧䜎䛖䚹ᑡ䛧䛷䜒᪩䛔䛖䛱䛻䚸䛄Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾ᩍ⫱䛾䛯䜑䛻䚸 ౯䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䛣䛾≧ែ䜢┠ᣦ䛩䜘䛖䛻䛸ᬯ♧ⓗ䛻ᣦ♧䜒䛧 䜒䛖ᑡ䛧䛣䜣䛺䛣䛸䜢䛧䛶䜒䜙䛘䛺䛔䛰䜝䛖䛛䛅䛸෭㟼䛻ヰ䛧䛶䜏䜛䛣 䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䠄18䠅䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛿ᥦ䛷䛒䜚䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛾ㄞ⪅ 䛸䛿ษ䛷䛩䛽䛃 䛸䛾┦⾜Ⅽ䜢ල⌧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹᭱ᚋ䛻䚸䠄19䠅䛾 䛂⌧ᐇⓗ䛺㑅ᢥ 㻌 䛂䝟䝟䛻䜒ά㌍䛷䛝䜛㡿ᇦ䛾ᐙ䜢᥈䛩䛣䛸䜒᭷ຠ䛷䛿?䛃䛸ゝ䛖 䛷䛩䛃䛿䝰䝎䝸䝔䜱䛜䛺䛥䜜䛪䚸∗ぶ䛾ᖐᏯ䜢ᚅ䛯䛪䛻ẕぶ䛸 䛾䛿ᒾ❧ඛ⏕䛷䛩䚹䛂䠄29䠅䛤䜏䜢ฟ䛩䛺䛹䝟䝟䛾ฟ␒䜢䛴䛟䜚䚸 Ꮚ౪䛷䛤㣤䜢㣗䜉䜛䛸䛔䛖㑅ᢥ⫥䜢䛂⌧ᐇⓗ䛃䚸䛴䜎䜚ᮃ䜎䛧䛔䛸ホ 䛭䜜䛰䛡䛿ẖᅇ䛧䛶䜒䜙䛖䜘䛖䛻䛩䜛䛸䛔䛔䛸ᛮ䛔䜎䛩䜘䛃… ౯䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ᚑ䛳䛶䚸䛣䛾㑅ᢥ⫥䛻ᑐ䛩䜛䜸䞊䝃䞊䛾ᙉ䛔ᚰⓗែ ᗘ䛜⾲䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹 䜎䛪䚸discourses 䜢⪃ᐹ䛩䜛䚹䠄26䠅䛾ຓモ䛂䜒䛃䛿ẕぶ䛜䛩䛷䛻 ᐙ䛻ᦠ䜟䛳䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢♧䛩䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䛿㉁ၥ䛷䛒䜚䚸 <䝕䞊䝍 4>2009 ᖺ 12 ᭶ྕ䛂(20) 䝟䝟䛸䝬䝬䛸୍⥴䛻ᑠ䛥䛺䛚ᡭ ∗ぶ䛜ᐙ䜢䛧䛺䛔ྍ⬟ᛶ䜒♧၀䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸䠄27䠅䛾䛂㞴ᩛ䛃 ఏ䛔䛃䠄P53䠅 䛿ᡓத䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛷䛒䜛䚹∗ぶ䛿䛂ᩛ䛃䛸䛧䛶䛘䜙䜜䚸Ꮚ౪䜘䜚䜒 䝝䝷䝝䝷䚸䝗䜻䝗䜻㻌 Ꮚ䛹䜒䛾䛂䛚ᡭఏ䛔䛃 ᡭᙉ䛔䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸∗ぶ䛿ẕぶ䛜⡆༢䛻䛿㈇䛛䛫䛺䛔Ꮡᅾ䛸䛧䛶ᥥ 㻌 䛚ᡭఏ䛔䛜ୖᡭ䛻䛺䛳䛶䜋䛧䛔䛡䜜䛹䚸⮬ศ䛾㣗䛥䛘䛚䜌䛴 䛥䜜䚸∗ぶ䛜⮬Ⓨⓗ䛻䛿ᐙ䜢䛧䛺䛔䛣䛸䛜ᙜ↛ど䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹 䛛䛺䛔䠄21䠅䜟䛜Ꮚ䜢ぢ䜛䛸䚸䛂䜎䛰ᩍ䛘䜛䛾䛿᪩䛔䛛䛺䠛䛃䛸䠄22䠅 䛴䜎䜚䚸ẕぶ䛿⫱ඣ䛰䛡䛷䛺䛟䚸ᐙ䜒㐙⾜䛩䜛ᚲせ䛜䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖 ⪃䛘䛶䛧䜎䛖䜒䛾䛷䛩䜘䛽䚹 ᐃ䛜స⏝䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸䠄29䠅䛾䛂䝟䝟䛾ฟ␒䜢䛴䛟䜚䛃 䚸䛂䛭 㻌 䠄23䠅⦅㞟㒊䛜1~5ṓ䛾Ꮚ䛹䜒䜢ᣢ䛴403ே䛾ẕぶ䜈䛾䜰䞁䜿䞊 䜜䛰䛡䛿ẖ᪥䛧䛶䜒䜙䛖䜘䛖䛻䛩䜛䛃♫ⓗ⾜Ⅽ⪅䛿ẕぶ䛷䛒䜛䚹 䝖ㄪᰝ䛻䜘䜛䛸䚸䛚ᡭఏ䛔䜢䛂䛥䛫䛶䛔䜛䛃䛂䛥䛫䛯䛣䛸䛜䛒䜛䛃䛜ྜ ẕぶ䛿∗ぶ䛻ᐙ䜢䛩䜛䜘䛖ാ䛝䛛䛡䜛Ꮡᅾ䛸䛧䛶䜒⾲㇟䛥䜜䛶 䜟䛫䛶⣙ 90%䚹ከ䛟䛾䠄24䠅䝬䝬䛯䛱䛜䚸Ꮚ䛹䜒䛜ᑠ䛥䛔䛖䛱䛛䜙ఱ 䛔䜛䚹䛭䜜ᨾ䚸‘Part-time father / Mother as main parent’ discourse䚸 䜙䛛䛾䛚ᡭఏ䛔䜢䛥䛫䛶䛔䜛䛾䛜䠄25䠅䜟䛛䜚䜎䛩䚹… ‘Mother as manager of the father’s role in housework’ discourse 䛜ᵓ ⠏䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹genres 䛻ὀ┠䛩䜛䚹๓༙䛷䛿㝞㏙䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ 䛯䛩ᩥ䛜⏝䛔䜙䜜䚸ᚋ༙䛷䛿┤᥋ヰἲ䠄䚸䛂Ꮚ䛹䜒䜈䛾䡚䛝 䜎䛪䚸discourses 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䠄20䠅䛾䛂䝟䝟䛸䝬䝬䛃䛸䛔䛖㓄⨨ 䠄Fairclough, 2003䠅䛻ὀ┠䛩䜛䚹䛂䝟䝟䛃䛜䛂䝬䝬䛃䛾๓䛻㓄⨨䛥䜜 䛔䜣䛷䛩䛃䠅䜢⏝䛔䛶䚸ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛾ゝⴥ䜢┤᥋ᘬ⏝䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸 䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸∗ぶ䛜䛚ᡭఏ䛔䛾䛺ᚑ⪅䛸ᥦ♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹 ᘬ⏝ genre 䛜ᇙ䜑㎸䜎䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸ᘬ⏝ genre䚸䝙䝳䞊䝇 䛧䛛䛧䚸䠄23䠅䛾䛂ẕぶ䛃䜔䠄24䠅䛛䜙䜟䛛䜛䜘䛖䛻䚸䛣䛾䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖ᑐ グgenre 䛾 genre ΰ䛜㉳䛣䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸styles 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸 ㇟⪅䛿ẕぶ䛾䜏䛷䛒䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䛂∗ぶ䛿⫱ඣ䛾ᝎ䜏䜢ゎỴ䛩䜛 䠄26䠅䛸䠄28䠅䛿㉁ၥ䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢㐙⾜䛧䚸ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䜢ල⌧ 3 −267− 日本の両親向け育児雑誌における父親らしさ・母親らしさの表象 䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䠄26䠅䛿∗ぶ䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䜢♧䛩䛜䚸䛭䛾ᚋ䛿ẕぶ䜈䛾 䛔䜛䚹䛣䛾Ⅼ䛛䜙䚸ヰ genre 䛜ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸ㄞ⪅䛸䛾 ㄒ䜚䛛䛡䛷䛒䜛䚹䜎䛯䚸䠄29䠅䛾䛂䈈䛸ᛮ䛔䜎䛩䜘䛃䛿∗ぶ䜢ື䛛䛩 ᑐヰᛶ䛜ල⌧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛯䛰䛧䚸ᑐヰᛶ䜢ල⌧䛩䜛䛰䛡䛷 䜘䛖䛻䛸䛔䛖䚸ẕぶ䜈䛾ᣦ♧䛾୍㒊䛷䚸ほⓗ䛻䝬䞊䜽䛥䜜䛯䝰䝎 䛺䛟䚸㝞㏙䜔ᥦ䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢ᢸ䛖ᩥ䜢⏝䛔䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜚䚸ᑓ㛛ᐙ 䝸䝔䜱䛷䛒䜛䚹∗ぶ䛾⫱ඣ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ᙅ䛔ᚰⓗែᗘ䜢♧䛩䚸ᑓ㛛ᐙ 䛸䛧䛶䛾 advice genre 䜒ඹ㉳䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸styles 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸 䛾Ⓨゝ䛾ᘬ⏝䛷䛒䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸ㄞ⪅䛾┦ㄯ┦ᡭ䛸䛧䛶䛾䜰䜲䝕 䠄32䠅䛿ぶ䛜෭㟼䛻䛺䜛ᚲせᛶ䛻㛵䛩䜛㝞㏙䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䛣䛷䚸෭㟼 䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䚸䛥䜙䛻䚸ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛾Ⓨゝ䛻ᇶ䛵䛝䚸∗ぶ䛾⫱ඣ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛 䛻䛺䜛䛣䛸䛜䛂ษ䛃䛸ホ౯䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜚௨㝆䛾ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛻䜘䜛䜰䝗 ᚲせᛶ䜢ᙅ䜑䜛䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䜒♧䛥䜜䜛䚹 䝞䜲䝇䛾ᚲせᛶ䛜♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛥䜙䛻䚸䛂䛛䜒䛧䜜䜎䛫䜣䛃䛿䝰䝎 䝸䝔䜱䛷䛒䜚䚸ぶ䛜෭㟼䛻䛺䜛ᚲせᛶ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ᙅ䛔ᚰⓗែᗘ䛜 5.3 䛄AERA with Kids䛅 ⾲䛥䜜䚸䛣䜜䛿෭㟼䛥䜢Ḟ䛔䛶䛧䜎䛖ㄞ⪅䛻ᑐ䛩䜛㓄៖䛷䛒䜛䚹䛥 <䝕䞊䝍 5>2009 ᖺ⛅ྕ䛂୰Ꮫཷ㦂㻌 ∗ぶ䛾䝧䝇䝖䝫䝆䝅䝵䞁䛃 䜙䛻䚸䠄39䠅䚸䠄40䠅䛿ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛻䜘䜛ホ౯䛷䛒䜚䚸䝰䝎䝸䝔䜱䛿䛥䜜 䠄P102䠅 䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹䛭䜜ᨾ䚸ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛸䛧䛶ᐈほᛶ䜢ᣢ䛴䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䛜 䠄30䠅∗ぶ䛾䜋䛹䜘䛔㊥㞳ឤ䛸䛿?㻌 Ꮚ䛹䜒䛰䛡䛷䛺䛟䚸ዟ䛥䜣䜈䛾 ♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹 䠄31䠅䝣䜷䝻䞊䜰䝑䝥䜒ᛀ䜜䛪䛻! 6. ⤖ㄽ ヰ䜢⪺䛔䛯୰Ꮫ⏕䛯䛱䛿䚸୰Ꮫཷ㦂䛻㛵䜟䜛∗ぶ䛾Ⰻ䛔䛸䛣䜝䜒 ᝏ䛔䛸䛣䜝䜒䚸ᛮ䛔䛾䜋䛛෭㟼䛻ぢ䛶䜎䛧䛯䚹䜐䛧䜝∗ぶ䜒ẕぶ䜒 ᪥ᮏ䛾୧ぶྥ䛡⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛾グ䜢ศᯒ䛧䚸genres䚸discourses䚸 ே䛾䜋䛖䛜䚸䠄32䠅䜒䛖ᑡ䛧෭㟼䛻䛂❧䛱⨨䛃䜢ぢᴟ䜑䜛䛣䛸䛜 styles 䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙∗ぶ䛸ẕぶ䛾⫱ඣᙺ䛜䛔䛛䛻⾲㇟䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛 ษ䛺䛾䛛䜒䛧䜜䜎䛫䜣䚹 䛾䛛䜢⪃ᐹ䛧䛯䚹䛭䛾⤖ᯝ䚸ୖグ䛾⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛿∗ぶ䜒ㄞ⪅ᑐ㇟䛸 బ⸨ඛ⏕䛾䠄33䠅∗ぶ䛾䜋䛹䜘䛔Ꮡᅾឤ䛾ぢ䛫᪉ 5 䜹᮲ 䛧䛶䛔䜛䛻䜒㛵䜟䜙䛪䚸䛂ẕぶ䛜䛻⫱ඣ䞉ᐙ䛻ᚑ䛧䚸∗ぶ䛿 … ẕぶ䜢ᡭఏ䛖Ꮡᅾ䛻䛩䛞䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ఏ⤫ⓗᐃ䛜⾲㇟䛥䜜䛶䛔 3䠄34䠅ጔ䛾䛂ᑟᶒ䛃䜢ᑛ㔜䛩䜉䛧 䜛䛣䛸䛜᫂䜙䛛䛸䛺䛳䛯䚹䜎䛪䚸genres 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸≉㞟グ genre 䠄35䠅ཷ㦂ຮᙉ䛾᪥㡭䛾㠃ಽぢ䜢ጔ䛻௵䛫䛶䛔䜛䛾䛷䛒䜜䜀䚸 䛾୰䛷䚸䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 genre䚸䜰䝗䝞䜲䝇 genre 䛸䛔䛳䛯ᵝ䚻䛺 genres 䠄36䠅䛂ጔ䛾ᑟᶒ䛃䜢ᑛ㔜䛧䚸ጔ䛾⪃䛘䚸ពぢ䛻༑ศ⪥䜢ഴ䛡䜛䚹 䜢⏝䛧䚸㐍Ṍⓗ䛺⫱ඣ㞧ㄅ䛸䛧䛶∗ぶ䛸ẕぶ䛾⫱ඣᙺ䜢⾲㇟ 䛯䛰䛧䚸┦ㄯ䛥䜜䛯䛸䛝䛻䛿䚸⮬ศ䛾⪃䛘䜢䛝䛱䜣䛸ఏ䛘䛔䛾ඹ 䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ᑟධ㒊䛷䛿䚸ヰ genre 䜒⏝䛧䚸ㄞ⪅䛜グ䛻ධ䜚䜔 ㏻ㄆ㆑䜢䚹 䛩䛔䜘䛖䛻䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛰䛜䚸discourses 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸‘Part-time father 4䠄37䠅ጔ䜈䛾༠ຊ䜢ᝰ䛧䜎䛺䛔 / Mother as main parent’ discourse䚸䛭䜜䜢ᨭᣢ䛩䜛 discourses䠄䚸 䛹䛖䠄38䠅༠ຊ䛧䛯䜙䛔䛔䛛䜢⋡┤䛻ጔ䛻⪺䛝䚸䛷䛝䜛䛰䛡䛭䛾ᕼ ‘Father as mother’s bumbling assistant,’ ‘Mother as manager of the ᮃ䛻ἢ䛳䛯ᙧ䛷ດຊ䛩䜛䚹䛡䛳䛧䛶䛂༠ຊ䛧䛶䜔䛳䛶䛔䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖 father’s role in housework’䛺䛹䠅䛜䛻⏕⏘䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸 ព㆑䛷䛿䠄39䠅䝎䝯䚹⢭⚄ⓗ䛻ᙇ䜚䛴䜑䛶䛔䜛䠄40䠅ጔ䜢䝣䜷䝻䞊䛩 ∗ぶ䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸ẕぶ䛜䛺ᐙᚑ⪅䛰䛸䛔䛖ఏ⤫ⓗᛶูᙺศ ᴗ䛜๓ᥦ䛸䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹styles 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸ㄞ⪅䛸䛾ᑐヰᛶ䜢ල⌧ 䜛ኌ䛡䜒䠄41䠅䚹… 䛧䚸ㄞ⪅䛾┦ㄯ┦ᡭ䜔ᑓ㛛ᐙ䛸䛧䛶䛾䜰䜲䝕䞁䝔䜱䝔䜱䜢ΰ䛥 㻌 discourses 䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䠄30䠅䛸䠄33䠅䛾䛂䜋䛹䜘䛔䛃䛛䜙䚸∗ぶ䛾⫱ 䛫䛺䛜䜙䚸䜸䞊䝃䞊䛿ẕぶ䛾⫱ඣ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ᙉ䛔ᚰⓗែᗘ䚸∗ぶ ඣ䜈䛾㛵䛿 ᐃ䛥䜜䜛䜒䛾䛸䜏䛺䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹∗ぶ䛿㊥㞳䜢ಖ 䛾⫱ඣ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ᙅ䛔ᚰⓗែᗘ䜢♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹 䛱䚸㐺ᗘ䛻⫱ඣ䛻ᚑ䛷䛝䜛䛸䛔䛖⾲㇟䛿䛂䛩䛷䛻⫱ඣᚑ⪅䛜 䛚䜚䚸䛭䜜䛿ẕぶ䛷䛒䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖ᐃ䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸ẕぶ ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ 䛜⫱ඣ䛾୰ᚰ䛷䛒䜚䚸∗ぶ䛜㛵䜟䜙䛺䛟䛶䜒ၥ㢟䛺䛔䛣䛸䛜ᙜ↛ Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press. ど䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸䠄34䠅䛸䠄36䠅䛿䚸ẕぶ䛜୰Ꮫཷ㦂䛾䛺ᚑ ʊʊ. (2003). Analyzing Discouse: Textual Analysis for Social ⪅䛷䛒䜚䚸∗ぶ䛾ᙺ䛾⟶⌮䜒䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖ᐃ䜢⾲ฟ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛥 Research. London: Routledge. 䜙䛻䚸䠄31䠅䚸䠄37䠅䚸䠄38䠅䚸䠄40䠅䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿䚸䛂∗ぶ䛃䛾⫱ඣෆᐜ䜢 ⾲䛩ㄒᙡ䛿䚸䛂ඹ᭷䛃䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸䛂༠ຊ䛃㛵ಀ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸∗ぶ䛿 Marshall, H. (1991). “The social construction of motherhood: an ୰Ꮫཷ㦂䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸ẕぶ䛾ᡭຓ䛡䜢䛩䜛䛻䛩䛞䛺䛔䛸䛧䛶⾲㇟䛥 analysis of childcare and parenting manuals.” In A. Phoenix, A. 䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹᭱ᚋ䛻䚸䠄35䠅䛷䛿ᚑᒓ⠇䛂䡚䛷䛒䜜䜀䛃䛾⏝䛛䜙䚸 Woollett, and E. Lloyd (eds.) Motherhood: Meanings, Practices and Ideologies, 66-85. London: Sage. 䛂∗ぶ䛿᪥㡭୰Ꮫཷ㦂䛾㠃ಽ䜢ぢ䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ᐃ䛜ാ䛔䛶䛔䜛䚹 䜎䛯䚸䛂∗ぶ䛜ẖ᪥䛾୰Ꮫཷ㦂䛾㠃ಽ䜢䜏䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛃䛿ㄞ⪅䛻♧ Sunderland, J. (2000). “Baby entertainer; bumbling assistant and line 䛥䜜䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸‘Part-time father / Mother as main parent’ manager: discourses of fatherhood in parentcraft texts.” Discourse discourse䚸‘Father as mother’s bumbling assistant’ discourse 䛜ᵓ⠏ & Society 11:2, 249-274. 䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹genres 䛻⛣䜛䛸䚸䠄31䠅䛿ᥦ䛾Ⓨヰᶵ⬟䜢ᯝ䛯䛧䛶 4 −268− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ാࡃዪᛶࠕዪࡽࡋࡉࠖɆ᪥ᮏࡢ࣮࣐࢟ࣕࣜ࢘ࣥ㞧ㄅࡢㄯヰศᯒɆ 㜰ᗓ❧Ꮫ 㧗ᮌ బ▱Ꮚ 㸺Abstract㸼 This study clarifies the qualities Japanese society expects in career women. On the basis of Talbot’s (1992) notion of “text population” and Fairclough’s (1995, 2001) concepts of Critical Discourse Analysis, I analyzed magazine articles on Japanese career women in terms of writer-reader interactions, linguistic factors and presuppositions. The results showed that the writer establishes a close relationship with the readers in that the writer appreciates the readers’ abilities and accepts their lack of confidence and imperfection. By denaturalizing the representations of Japanese career women, I determined how two seemingly contradictory qualities ̿ the representations of “femininity” and “identity as career women”̿coexist in the articles. ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ 㸸㸯㸬࣓ࢹࠊ 㸰㸬ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒࠊ㸱㸬ࢹࣥࢸࢸ 㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ ᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࡢാࡃዪᛶᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࣓ࢹ࡛ࡣࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲㇟ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ ࢆ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋୖ㸦㸧ࡣࠊ ࠕ࣓ࢹࡢᥥࡃዪᛶീࡣࠊࡑࡢ௦ࡢࡑࡢ♫ ࡀᮇᚅࡍࡿࠊዪᛶࡢጼᙧࡸ⏕ࡁ᪉ࡸࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕዪᛶࡽࡋࡉࠖ࠸ࡗࡓࠊዪࡘ࠸࡚ࡢつ⠊ࡀ⾲ ⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦୰␎㸧࣓ࢹࡢᥥࡃዪᛶീࡣࠊ༢ࠕ࠶ࡿࡁࠖࠕ࠶ࡿࡣࡎࡢࠖࡶࡢࡲ ࡽࡎࠊ ࠕ⌧ᐇࠖࡢዪᛶീࡶ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࠖ㏙࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ୖ 㸸㸧ࠋࡇࡢゝⴥࡣࠊࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ ࣮㛵ࡍࡿつ⠊ࡀ࣓ࢹࡢ୰ぢࡽࢀࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࣓ࢹࡢሗࡢཷࡅᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ⚾ࡓࡕ ࡀࡑࡢつ⠊ྜࢃࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ࠸࠺ᙳ㡪ࡲ࡛ࡶ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙳ㡪ຊࡀ࠶ࡿࡉࢀࡿዪᛶ㞧ㄅࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ㞧ㄅࡢグ᪥ᮏࡢ࢟ ࣮࣐ࣕࣜ࢘ࣥࡢࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲㇟ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇࡼࡾࠊ♫ࡀാࡃዪᛶ ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢࡼ࠺࡞つ⠊ࡸ࣓࣮ࢪࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆ᫂ࡽࡋࡼ࠺⪃࠼ࡿࠋ 㸰㸬᪉ἲㄽඛ⾜◊✲ 㸰㸬㸯 ᪉ἲㄽ ᮏ◊✲ࡢ❧ሙࡣࠕゝㄒࢆᢈุⓗぢࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࡣࠊゝㄒࢆᙜ↛どࡋ࡞࠸ࠖ࠸࠺ Talbot㸦1992㸧 ྠᵝࠊᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ (CDA) ࡢほⅬᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋCDA ࡣࠊᑐ㇟࡞ࡿࢹࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢࢥ ࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡋ࡚ࠊ♫≧ἣࡸ♫⤌⧊ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡸヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸⌧ᐇࢆࡾฟࡋࠊ ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ࢆ⾲ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆ᫂ࡽࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ࡣ⏝ࡉࢀࡿゝㄒ 1 −269− 働く女性と「女らしさ」―日本のキャリアウーマン雑誌の談話分析― ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ୍㈏ᛶࡀ☜❧ࡉࢀࡿࡁࠊࡇࡢᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡓࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ࡣࠊᙜ ↛どࡉࢀࡿ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡇࡢ CDA ࡢどᗙࠊ≉ Fairclough (1995, 2001)ࡢほⅬࠊTalbot㸦1992㸧ࡢ text population ࠾ࡅࡿ interactants, characters, subject positions ࡢせᅉࡢศᯒࠊ࡞ࡽࡧㄒᙡࡢศᯒࡼࡾࠊ ᭩ࡁᡭㄞ⪅ࡢ㛫࡛ࡣࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣥࢱ࣮ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࠊᙼࡽࡢࢹࣥࢸ ࢸࡣࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ୰࡛ఱࡀ๓ᥦ࡞ࡾࠊఱࡀᙜ↛どࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆ⪃ᐹࡍ ࡿࡇࡋࡓࠋ 㸰㸬㸰ඛ⾜◊✲ ඛ⾜◊✲ࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠕゝㄒࡀዪᛶࢆࡢࡼ࠺࡞♫ⓗయࡋ࡚ࠗᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠘ࠖࡘ࠸࡚⪃ ᐹࡍࡿ◊✲࡛࠶ࡿୖグࡢ Talbot㸦1992㸧ࡢࠊ௨ୗࡢ◊✲ࢆཧ↷ࡋࡓࠋ Hayashi(1997)ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࡢዪᛶ㞧ㄅࡢゝㄒⓗ࣭┦స⏝ⓗ≉ᚩࡢศᯒࡼࡾࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡣࢹࢫ ࢥ࣮ࢫࡢࣃ࣮࣡ࡼࡗ࡚ㄞ⪅ࡢࠕ♫ⓗࢹࣥࢸࢸࠖࢆᵓ⠏ࡋࠊㄞ⪅ࡢ㛫 “ hierarchal interdependence”ࡢ㛵ಀࢆసࡾ࠶ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆᣦࡋࡓࠋRadha(2009.)ࡣࠊࣥࢻࡢ᪂⪺ࡸ㞧 ㄅࡢ୰࡛ዪᛶ㉳ᴗᐙࡢࢹࣥࢸࢸࡀࡢࡼ࠺ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆ᫂ࡽࡋࡓࠋ Hung-Chun㸦2009㸧ࡣࠊྎ‴ࡢࢱࣈࣟࢻ⣬࠾ࡅࡿዪᛶ࣮ࢸࢫࢺ⏨ᛶ࣮ࢸࢫࢺࡢ ⾲㇟ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊዪᛶᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ♫ࡢᮇᚅࡀዪᛶࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱࣉⓗ࡞グ㏙ ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ᫂ࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸱㸬ࢹ࣮ࢱ ᮏ◊✲ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ᪥ᮏࡢ᭶หㄅࠗ᪥⤒࣮࣐࢘ࣥ࠘ࡢ 2010 ᖺ 1 ᭶ࡽ 12 ᭶ࡲ࡛ࡢ 12 ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ ࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊㄞ⪅ࢻࣂࢫࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ≉㞟グࡢぢฟࡋ㒊ศࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ≉㞟グࡣẖ ᭶ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢ≉㞟ࡢෆᐜࡣẖᅇ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡢࡼ࠺࡞ interactants ࡼࡗ ࡚ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣥࢱ࣮ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࠊࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒⓗ≉ᚩࡼࡗ࡚ࡢࡼ࠺ ࡞ subject positions ࡀ⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡢࡼ࠺࡞ characters ࡀࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ୰࡛ᵓ⠏ ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋ 㸲㸬ศᯒ⪃ᐹ ࡲࡎࠊグࡢㄒᙡࡸࢫࢱࣝࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚ࣥࢱ࣮ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢᶵ⬟ࢆศᯒࡋࠊࡢࡼ࠺࡞ዪᛶ ᛶ࢟ࣕࣜᛶࡀ⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽࠊ๓ᥦࡢほⅬࡽᾋࡧୖࡀࡿ࢟ࣕࣜ ࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡢࢹࣥࢸࢸࡶ᫂ࡽࡋࡓࠋ 㸲㸬㸯 ࣥࢱ࣮ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢᶵ⬟ ࣥࢱ࣮ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢᶵ⬟ࡣࠕᥦࠖࠕ☜ㄆࠖ ࠕ㉁ၥࠖࠕᙇࠖࡢ㸲✀㢮ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡓࠋ ࡲࡎࠊࠕᥦࠖࡢࣥࢱ࣮ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ࡛ࡣࠊ ࠕࢥࢶࢆᢲࡉ࠼࡚ࠖ࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡼࡗ࡚ㄞ⪅ࡢ ㈇ᢸࢆ㍍ῶࡋࠊ ࠕࡁࡗࡅࡋ࡚ࡳ࡚ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢝ࢪࣗࣝ࡞ࢫࢱࣝࡼࡾࠊᙉไࢆ㑊ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡑࡇࡣࠊ ࠕࢫࢣࢪ࣮ࣗࣝ⟶⌮ࡢࡸࡾࡓཎᅉࠖ࠸࠺᭩ࡁᡭࠊィ⏬㏻ࡾ⏕άࡋࡓ࠸࣮࣡࢟ 2 −270− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࢘ࣥ࠸࠺ࠊ୧⪅ࡶࣉࣟࣇ࢙ࢵࢩࣙࢼࣝ࡞どⅬࡢ subject position ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ୍᪉ ࡛ࠊ᭩ࡁᡭㄞ⪅ࡢ㊥㞳ࡢ᭱ᑠぶࡋࡉࡢ⾲᫂ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊぶࡋ࠸௰㛫ࡋ࡚ࡢ subject position ࡶྲྀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊඃࡋࡃᑟࡃࣥࢱ࣮ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡼࡾࠊTalbot㸦1992: 189㸧 ࡼࡿ sisterly relationship ࡢᵓ⠏ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀศࡗࡓࠋ ࠕ☜ㄆࠖࡢࣥࢱ࣮ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ࡛ࡣࠊ┤᥋ᘬ⏝ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ㝿ᝎࡳࢆᢪ࠼࡚࠸ࡿዪᛶࡢ character ࢆసࡾୖࡆࡿࡇ࡛ࠊ⮬ಙࡢ࡞࠸࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡀ⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭩ࡁᡭࡣࠊぶ ࡋࡉ࢝ࢪࣗࣝࡉࡀఏ࠼ࡽࢀࡿㄒᙡࢫࢱࣝࡼࡾࠊㄞ⪅ᐤࡾῧ࠸ࠊ⌮ゎࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸୍᪉࡛ࠊࡁࡕࢇᑐฎࡋ࡚ࡋ࠸⪃࠼ࡿ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡢせồᛂ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠕ㉁ၥࠖࡢࣥࢱ࣮ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ࡛ࡣࠊㄒᙡࡸ๓ᥦᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡢᗣ ࡸ⏕ά㠃㛵ࡋ࡚ᠱᛕࡸ㠀㞴ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡣࠊㄞ⪅ᚷ៸ࡢ࡞࠸ពぢࡀゝ࠼ ࡿຓゝ⪅ࡢ subject position ࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄞ⪅ࡣࠊࡁ࠶࠸ࡸ⩦࠸ࡸࣇࢵࢩ࡛ࣙࣥ㡹ᙇࡿ ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࡛࢘ࣥ࠶ࡿ୍᪉ࠊඃᰂ᩿࡛ᩚ⌮ୗᡭ࡛ᅔᝨࡋ࡚࠸ࡿዪᛶࡢ subject position ࢆ ྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ࡛ࢃ࠸࠸ࠊ࠸࠾ࡋ࠸ࠖㄞ⪅ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࡚ࢆ᩿ࡕษࡿࡢ࡛ ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢤ࣮࣒ឤぬ࡛ศࡅ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺࠸࠺ࠊᩚ⌮ᩚ㡻ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㍍࠸ຓゝࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽࠊⓗ࡞ㄒᙡࡀຓゝ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢁࡽࠊࡑࢀࡀࡁࡕࢇ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿ ࠸࠺ࠊ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡢ࢟ࣕࣜᛶࡶ⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ ࠕᙇࠖࡢࣥࢱ࣮ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ࡛ࡣࠊ∦ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠊ⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸࠸࠺ࢹࣥࢸࢸ ࢆᣢࡘேࡀㄞ⪅ࡢ୰࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࠊࡲࡓࠊ∦ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇࡸ⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸ࡇࡣⰋࡃ࡞ ࠸ࠊኚ࠼ࡿࡁࡔ࠸࠺ࡇࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊዪᛶᛶ࢟ࣕࣜᛶࡢ୧᪉ࡢせᅉࡀ๓ᥦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄞ⪅ࡢ㏞࠸ࡸᏳᑐࡋࠊ┦ᡭࡢ⬟ຊࢆ⫯ᐃࡍࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ ࠕ∦ࡅ࣋ࢱࡉࢇࠖ࡞ࡢ ࢃ࠸࠸ྡ⛠ࡢ character ࢆసࡗࡓࡾࠊ࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼࡢ⏝࡛῝้ᗘࢆᙅࡵࡓࡾࡋ࡚ࠊㄞ⪅ࡢᚰࡢ㈇ᢸ ࢆ㍍ࡃࡋ࡚ᙇࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺ࠊㄞ⪅ࡢ࢟ࣕࣜᛶᑐࡍࡿホ౯ఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ዪᛶᛶ ࡢ㓄៖ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ 㸲㸬㸰 ࣮࣐࢟ࣕࣜ࢘ࣥࡢࢹࣥࢸࢸࡢ⾲㇟ ࡲࡎࠊ ࠕඖẼാࡃࡁ࣮࣐࢟ࣕࣜ࢘ࣥࠖ࠸࠺⾲㇟ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࢹ࣮ࢱࡽࠕዪᛶࡣ࡛⑂ ࢀ࡚ᖐࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠸࠺๓ᥦࡸࠕḟࡢ᪥ฟࡿࡁࡣࠊඖẼ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ ࡞࠸ࠖ࠸࠺๓ᥦࡀㄞࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋḟࠊ ࠕ⎍࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࣮࣐࢟ࣕࣜ࢘ࣥࠖࡢ⾲㇟ࡀࠊㄒᙡࡸྡ モࡼࡿㄞ⪅ࡢ‶ࡸហ⑵ࡢᥦ♧࡛ぢࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ⎍࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ ࡇࡼࡾࠊ ࠕࣉࣞࢵࢩ࣮ࣕࢆឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࣮࣐࢟ࣕࣜ࢘ࣥࠖࡢ⾲㇟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ∦ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ ࡸ⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸ࡣⰋࡃ࡞࠸࠸࠺๓ᥦࡽࠊㄞ⪅ࡀᅔᝨࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡀᥦࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࣥ ࢱ࣮ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡑࢀࡼࡾㄞ⪅ࡢᅔᝨࡀ⌧ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠸ ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸳㸬ࡲࡵ ᮏ◊✲࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࣮࣐࢟ࣕࣜ࢘ࣥ㞧ㄅࡢグࡣࠊࡸ▱㆑㛵ࡍࡿ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣮࣐࢘ࣥࡢ 3 −271− 働く女性と「女らしさ」―日本のキャリアウーマン雑誌の談話分析― ࢟ࣕࣜᛶࡶࠊㄞ⪅ࡢᙅࡉࡸ㢗ࡾ࡞ࡉࡶ⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀศࡗࡓࠋࢆ㡹ᙇࡗ࡚ ࠸ࡿ༙㠃ࠊኚ⑂ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊᛁࡋࡃ࡚∦ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸࠸࠺⌧ᐇࡢ≧ἣࡀࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࠶ࡿࠗ᪥ ⤒࣮࣐࢘ࣥ࠘ࡢグ࠸࠺ࡇࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ぢࡽࢀࡓࠕዪᛶᛶࠖࡣࠊ ࠕ࢟ࣕࣜᛶࠖࡢ୍ 㠃ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⎍ࢆồࡵࡽࢀࠊࣉࣞࢵࢩ࣮ࣕࢆࡅࡽࢀࡿࡀᨾࡢࠊࡶ ࢁࡉࠊᙅࠎࡋࡉࠊ㢗ࡾ࡞ࡉ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᙼዪࡓࡕࡢ㡹ᙇࡾࡳࡽࢀࡿᙉࡉࡢഃ࠶ࡿࠊຓࡅ࡚ ࠶ࡆࡓࡃ࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡉࡸᙅࡉ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡽࡀࠊ⫯ᐃࡉࢀࡿ౯್ほࡋ࡚⾲㇟ ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ୍ぢ▩┪ࡍࡿࡼ࠺ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡇࡢΰᅾࡍࡿ⾲㇟ࡀࠊ⌧௦ࡢാࡃዪᛶᮇᚅ ࡉࢀࡿࢹࣥࢸࢸࡔ࠸࠺ࡇࡀศࡗࡓࠋ ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. ïïï. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold. ïïï. 2001. Language and Power (second eidition). London: Longman. ïïï. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Gauntlett, D. 2008. Media, Gender and Identity 2nd edition. London: Routledge. Hayashi, R. 1997. “Hierarchical interdependence expressed through conversational styles in Japanese women’s magazines.” Discourse & Society 8:3, 359-389. ᯘ ♩Ꮚ㸬2008㸬ࠕ⤫ᣓⓗಶேࠖࠊᯘ Ꮿ⏨㸦⦅ⴭ㸧ࠗㄯヰศᯒࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳɆ⌮ㄽᐇ㊶Ɇ࠘ 261-264ࠊᮾி㸸◊✲♫㸬 ᯘ Ꮿ⏨㸦⦅ⴭ㸧㸬2008㸬ࠗㄯヰศᯒࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳɆ⌮ㄽᐇ㊶Ɇ࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫㸬 ୖ ㍤Ꮚ㸦⦅ⴭ㸧㸬2009. ࠗ᪂⦅ ᪥ᮏࡢࣇ࢙࣑ࢽࢬ࣒㸵 ⾲⌧࣓ࢹ࠘ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬 ୖ ㍤Ꮚ㸬2009㸬 ࠕ࣓ࢹࡀዪᛶࢆࡘࡃࡿ㸽 ዪᛶࡀ࣓ࢹࢆࡘࡃࡿ㸽ࠖୖ ㍤Ꮚ㸦⦅ ⴭ㸧ࠗ᪂⦅ ᪥ᮏࡢࣇ࢙࣑ࢽࢬ࣒㸵Ɇ⾲⌧࣓ࢹɆ࠘1-38ࠊᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬 Iyer, R. 2009. “Entrepreneurial identities and the problematic of subjectivity in media-mediated discourses.” Discourse & Society 20:2, 241-263. 㧗ཎ ⬶࣭ᯘ Ꮿ⏨࣭ᯘ ♩Ꮚ㸬 2002㸬ࠗࣉࣛࢢ࣐ࢸࢵࢡࢫࡢᒎ㛤࠘ᮾி㸸ວⲡ᭩ᡣ㸬 Talbot, M. 1992. “The construction of gender in a teenage magazine.” In Norman Fairclough (ed.) Critical Language Awareness 174-199. Wang, H. 2009. “Language and ideology: gender stereotypes of female and male artists in Taiwanese tabloids.” Discourse & Society 20:6, 747-774. ㅰ㔝ᬗᏊ㸬1921㸬ࠕ፬ேᴦ㒊 㟷✵ᩥᗜࠖhttp://www.aozora.gr.jp(2011/10/10 ࢡࢭࢫ)㸬 ศᯒ㈨ᩱ ࠗ᪥⤒ WOMAN࠘2010 ᖺ㸯᭶㹼12 ᭶ ᮾி㸸᪥⤒ BP ♫ 4 −272− シンポジウム Symposium 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 −273− −274− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 −275− −276− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 −277− −278− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 −279− −280− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 −281− 付 録 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 入 会 案 内 ［入会手続きについて］ 以下の手続き（１）と（２）をお済ませください。 ●手続き（１） 電子メールにて以下の「記入の項目」をご記入の上、 psj.treasurer -at- gmail.com （龍谷大学社会学部・五十嵐海理宛） （スパムメール防止のためにこのような表記となっております。） へお送り下さい。なお、その際、 「会費を払い込んだ」かどうかを付け加えていただけ れば幸いです。メールをいただければ、事務局よりreplyをいたします。なお、今後の 会員の住所・所属変更は、必ず事務局宛にメールでご連絡下さい。 ・記入の項目 ○ 名前（ふりがな） ○ 所属 ○ 教員か学生か団体かの別（教員、大学院生、学部生、非常勤講師、一般、団体など） ○ 郵便番号及び住所 ○ 電話番号／ Fax番号 ○ E-mail address ●手続き（２） 年会費（一般会員：5,000円、学生会員：4,000円、団体会員：6,000円［平成18年３月21 日運営委員会決定］ ）を郵便局に備え付けの郵便振り込み用紙で、以下の口座にお振り 込み下さい。また、通信欄には、何年度の年会費かのみを明記ください。 00900-3-130378 口座名：日本語用論学会 （＊こちらに届く郵便振り込み用紙が、字がかすれて読めない場合がありますので、郵 便振り込み用紙のみでの新入会員申し込みではなく、必ず上記手続き（１）と（２）を お済ませくださるようお願い申し上げます。） −283− 会費振り込みについて、振り込み用紙を使用されない場合は、以下のゆうちょ銀行の 口座へお振り込みください。各銀行のご自分の口座から振り込みができます。なお、そ の際、こちらへはお名前しか届きませんので、psj.treasurer -at- gmail.com（学会会計 担当）へ、会員番号、振り込み年度と、住所変更などありましたら必ずメールにてお知 らせください。 会費納入先：ゆうちょ銀行 支店名：099店 口座種類：当座 口座番号：130378 口座名義：日本語用論学会 ＜個人情報の取り扱いに関する御連絡のお願い＞ 本学会では、この度、学会の更なる発展と会員相互の連絡交流の促進を計ることを念 頭に、会員名簿を作成することになりました。名簿の発行に付きましては、近年、特に 個人情報保護の観点から、様々な問題が指摘されていることは御承知の通りです。そこ で、本学会でも、これらの情報につきましては、その適正な取扱いの確保と個人の権利 や利益の侵害の防止を図る為、その公表には慎重な取り扱いをさせていただく所存であ ります。つきましては、新しく本学会に入会希望をお届けの際には、 １．氏名 ２．住所 ３．所属（身分＜教員、学生、非常勤等＞） ４．電話番号 ５．ファックス番号 ６．メールアドレス のうち、項目別に、会員名簿上に掲載を不可とするものがありましたら（また代替の情 報がある場合はその内容を）事務局にメールでご連絡いただきますようお願いします。 特にご指定がなければ、ご氏名、ご所属、メールアドレスのみ公開可とさせていただき ます。 = 記 = 『語用論研究』は毎年12月に刊行、Newsletterは毎年４月末と10月末にお送りしてい ます。会員になられると、『語用論研究』、Newsletter、大会プログラムなどをお送りい たします。 −284− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 日本語用論学会規約 第１章 総則 第１条 本会は「日本語用論学会」（The Pragmatics Society of Japan）と称する。 第２条 本会は語用論ならびに関連諸分野の研究に寄与することを目的とする。 第３条 本会は次の事業を行う。 １．大会その他の研究集会。 ２．機関誌の発行。 ３．その他必要な事業。 第４条 本会は諸事業を推進するため運営委員会および事務局を置く。 第５条 運営委員会の承認を経て、支部を各地区に置くことができる。 第２章 会員 第６条 本会の会員は一般会員、学生会員、団体会員の３種類とする。 第７条 会員は、本会の趣旨に賛同し所定の手続きを経て本会に登録された個人及び団 体とする。 第８条 会員は諸種の会合及び事業の通知を受け、事業に参加することができる。また、 所定の手続きを経て、研究集会で研究発表し、機関誌に投稿することができる。 第３章 役員 第９条 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 副 会 長 １名 事 務 局 長 １名 運 営 委 員 若干名 会計監査委員 １名 また、顧問を置くことがある。 第10条 運営委員会は、会長、副会長、事務局長および運営委員から構成される。 第11条 会長、副会長、および事務局長は運営委員会で選出され、運営委員は会員より 選出される。 第12条 運営委員会は次の任務を遂行する。 １．機関誌および会報誌等の編集・刊行にかかわる事項の決定。 ２．大会および研究集会等にかかわる事項の決定。 ３．予算案および収支決算案の作成。 −285− ４．その他運営委員会が必要と認めた事項。 第13条 運営委員会の中に次の委員会を置く。委員は運営委員会の議を経て会長が委嘱 し、兼任することができる。各委員会は会務を遂行するために、運営委員会の 承認を得て有給の事務助手を置くことができる。 １．編集委員会 ２．大会運営委員会 ３．事業委員会 ４．広報委員会 第14条 各委員会の業務を調整するために代表連絡会議を開く。代表連絡会議は、会長、 副会長、事務局長、編集委員長、大会運営委員長、事業委員長、広報委員長か ら構成される。 第15条 本会の会則は、会員総会で承認を得るものとする。 第16条 会員の中から会計監査委員を１名選出する。任期は２年とし、１期に限る。 第４章 会議 第17条 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 事務局 第22条 事務局を事務局長もしくは運営委委員の所属する大学に置く。 第７章 事務局および委員会に関する細則 １．事務局は、事務局長、事務局長補佐、会計、会計補佐から構成され、対外折衝、運 営委員会・総会の企画・運営、会員名簿の管理、会費の徴収、会計、機関誌・大会予 稿集等の販売、会員への連絡など、学会の運営にかかわる諸々の業務を担当する。事 務局は、業務を遂行するために、運営委員会の承認を得て有給の事務助手を置くこと ができる。 −286− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 ２．編集委員会は、委員長、副委員長、委員から構成され、機関誌『語用論研究』の編 集と刊行に関わる業務を担当する。 ３．大会運営委員会は、委員長、副委員長、委員から構成され、大会企画と大会実行の 二つの業務を担当する。大会企画担当の委員は、ワークショップ、研究発表、シンポ ジウム、講演等、大会全般を企画・提案し、大会予稿集Program and Abstractsを編 集・刊行する。大会実行担当の委員は、会長から委嘱された大会開催校委員と協力し て、大会の実行にあたる。 ４．事業委員会は、委員長、副委員長、委員から構成され、講演会、セミナー等の企画、 運営、実行にあたる。 ５．広報委員会は、委員長、副委員長、委員から構成され、会報誌・Newsletter、ホー ムページ等の編集と発行に関わる業務を担当する。 第８章 会長選出に関する細則 １．この細則は、会則第９条と第11条のうち、会長の選出方法と任期について定める。 ２．会長は、会員の中から、就任時に65歳以下のものを運営委員の投票によって選出す る。投票は郵送による無記名とする。 ３．投票の結果、過半数の得票を得た者を会長とする。過半数を得た者がない場合、得 票上位者２名についての決選投票を行う。尚、得票数が同数の場合は、最年長者を会 長とする。 ４．前条によって決定された会長は、改選の前年度の定例総会において承認を得るもの とする。 ５．会長の任期は２年とし、２期までとする。 ６．会長選挙管理委員は、現会長が運営委員会の中から必要数を選出する。 附則：この細則は、平成17年10月５日から実施する。 平成10年12月５日（制定） 平成15年12月６日（改正） 平成17年10月５日（改正） −287− 『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）執筆規定 日本語での発表をされた方用 日本語用論学会では、2005年度より、毎年の大会で発表された論文をと りまとめ、大会後に、 『大会発表論文集』を発行しています。つきましては、 大会の「研究発表」 、「ワークショップ発表」 、「ポスター発表」で、発表 されました皆様には、以下の要領で原稿を提出していただくことになり ますので、予め、お知らせいたします。 １．執筆規定 １．用紙・枚数：A4用紙、横書き。「研究発表」は８ページ以内、「ワークショップ 発表」、「ポスター発表」は４ページ以内（注：要旨、参考文献を含む）。字数は 自由。 ２．書式： ａ．余白は上下30mm、左右25mmとする。１行文字数、行数、段組などは自由（た だし、文字のサイズは極端に小さくしないこと）。 ｂ．原稿の１ページ目には、タイトル、氏名、所属（E-mailアドレスは任意）を記し、 そのあと２行開けて要旨、本文を続ける。 ｃ．「はじめに」または「序論」の節は０．からではなく、１．から始めること。 ｄ．例文の前後は１行、各節の前は１行開ける。 ｅ．注を付ける場合は、巻末とし、本文と参考文献の間にまとめて入れる。 ｆ．参考文献のフォーマットは『語用論研究』の執筆要領に従うこと（本学会のホー ムページ参照）。 ３．要旨： ａ．要旨は（日本語での論文も含め）全て英語によるものとし、約100語で書く。 ｂ．要旨は＜Abstract＞とページの左上に記し、原稿の１ページ目には、タイトル・ 氏名・所属と要旨を記すこと。 ４．キーワード ａ．要旨の下に【キーワード】 ：或いは【Keywords】 ：と明記して、日本語の論文 は日本語で、英語の論文は英語で、５個以内を添えること。 ｂ．キーワードと本文との間は２行アケとすること −288− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 見分けのイメージ（１ページ目） タイトル○○○ 氏名○○ 所属○○ ＜要旨＞ ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 【キーワード】 ：１、２、３、 本文 ２．その他の注意事項 ａ．執筆者は、前年度の大会の「研究発表」、 「ワークショップ発表」、 「ポスター発表」 での報告者に限る。 ｂ．内容は、大会発表に沿ったものとする（但し、必要な修正を施すこと）。 ｃ．使用言語は原則として日本語とする。 ｄ．『プロシーディングズ』に掲載した内容は、さらに発展させて、『語用論研究』に 投稿することができる。その場合は、必ず十分な加筆・修正を施すこと。 ｅ．別のカバーシート用紙（A4）に次の事項を記入して提出すること： ・「研究発表」、「ワークショップ発表」 、「ポスター発表」のいずれであるか。 ・発表論文タイトルと発表者名（日本語） 氏名（ふりがな） ・発表論文タイトルの英語訳と発表者名のローマ字表記。ワークショップ発表の代 表者はワークショップの全体タイトルの英訳も記入のこと。 ・連絡先：E-mailアドレス −289− Request of submitting the manuscripts for the Proceedings For participants who presented papers in English Since 2005, the Pragmatics Society of Japan has been publishing presentations given at its Annual Conference for publication in a volume of proceedings. The following are instructions for use in preparation of manuscripts by those who have presented their work at the Conference as lecture presentations, in workshops, 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 the abstract and the reference list. There is no restriction on the number of words or characters per 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 author s name, and the author s affiliation (e-mail address optional) , followed, after two blank lines, by the abstract 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 the reference list. f. References should follow the style sheet of Goyoron Kenkyu (Studies in Pragmatics) (see the 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, author s −290− 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号 name, and author s affiliation. The abstract should begin with the word Abstract in the upper left corner. 4. Keywords: a. A maximum of 5 keywords should be given below the abstract, preceded by 【Keywords】 . [Refer to the figure below.] b. Main text should be preceded by two blank lines. Title Author s name Author s 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 a poster presentation at PSJ s 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 for review to PSJ s Journal Goyoron Kenkyu (Studies in Pragmatics) . In that case additions and corrections should be made to the original manuscript. e. On a separate (A4) coversheet, please indicate the following information: i. Whether your presentation was a lecture, a workshop, presentation, or a poster presentation. ii. The title of your paper and your name. iii. Your e-mail address −291− <第15回大会で発表された方へのお知らせ> 第15回『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings） （第８号） 掲載論文原稿執筆のお願い。 日本語用論学会では、2005年度より、毎年の大会で発表された論文をとりまとめ、大 会後に、『大会発表論文集』を発行しています。つきましては、今年度の大会の「研究 発表」 、「ワークショップ発表」 、「ポスター発表」で、発表されました皆様には、原稿を 提出していただくことになりますので、予め、お知らせいたします。尚、原稿の提出先 や提出期限等の詳しいことは、追って、HPやニュースレターでもお知らせします。次 号（第８号）の発行は、来年度の大会時となります。 （日本語用論学会 事務局より） −292− Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan 編集後記 『日本語用論学会 第14回大会発表論文集』第７号をお届けいたします。日本語用論学会 では、2005年度より、年次大会でのご発表内容を論文集としてとりまとめ、大会後に発行す ることになりました。今号では、研究発表27件（日本語発表18件、英語発表9件）、ワークショッ プ発表1件、ポスターセッション10件（日本語発表8件、英語発表2件）、シンポジウム１件、 合計39件のご寄稿をいただきました。『大会発表論文集』創刊号を発行し今年で７年目とな ります。語用論研究がますます発展することを願っております。なお創刊号からすべて国立 国会図書館（東西）に永久保存されております。第15回大会後は『日本語用論学会 第15回 大会発表論文集』第8号を発行する予定でございますので、どうぞご期待ください。 （『大会発表論文集』編集担当：鈴木光代 森山卓郎） 日本語用論学会 第14回大会発表論文集 第７号（2012） （Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan） 発 行 日 2012年11月3日 代 表 者 林 宅男 編集・発行 日本語用論学会 事務局 （The Pragmatics Society of Japan） 〒564-8680 大阪府吹田市山手町3-3-35 関西大学 外国語学部 山本 英一 研究室内 E-mail: [email protected] 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
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz
