Itsuki NAGASAWA

第2部: 教育実践報告/調査報告

第2部: 教育実践報告/調査報告

文化庁の言語使用調査等でも指摘されているように、副詞「地味に」は近年、「地味に痛い」「地味に一番重要だ」「地味に全部消えている」等、新用法を派生させ、使用が拡大している。それら新用法の新しさとはどこにあるのか、コーパスの用例を歴史的に考察した結果、次の結論を得た。「地味に」の従来用法は専ら【様態副詞】であったのに対し、新用法はそれが【程度副詞】【叙法副詞】へと派生したものである。【様態副詞】が〈様態〉を表すと同時に〈程度〉をも表すケースを媒介として【程度副詞】が出現したとみられる。さらに、【程度副詞】において〈程度性〉の意味が後退し、〈表れ方が表立っていない〉ことを主眼とする用例が出現したことを発端に【叙法副詞】が成立したとみられる。【叙法副詞】が自己主張を和らげる控え目な表現としての機能をもったことが、使用範囲を拡大させたとみられる。様態副詞から叙法副詞への変化は日英語の副詞にも起きており、一般性のある変化傾向である。

<p>The auxiliary verb "令 shimu" was used in a causative sense in Classical Chinese writings. However, in Japanized Chinese writings in the Kamakura period of medieval Japan, it was widely used in a non-causative sense, which is presumed to have derived from a causative one. Regarding its function no agreement has been reached: some studies have suggested that the presence or absence of this auxiliary verb did not affect the meaning of a sentence; other ones have considered it to mean "humble", "reflexive", "marking volitional", etc. Focusing more on its structural function than its semantic one, we made the following conclusions. The function of non-causative shimu is to mark the following word as a verb or make the word into a verb. It was used as a substitute for the light verb suru in Japanized Chinese writing in which neither Japanese native particles nor suffixes could be used. The origin of non-causative shimu could be the Classical Chinese causative construction "S shimu V," where in some contexts shimu-V with causative meaning was semantically close to a transitive verb and shimu was reanalyzed as a marker of verbs. In the position of V stands a wide range of actions, such as both volitional and non-volitional actions, and inanimate-subjects events; it can even be an adjective. Prior research has noted that the function of shimu was similar to that of "致 itasu," but the fact that words following itasu were not verbs but nouns and semantically limited to volitional actions indicates that they function differently.</p>

留学生Ａへの作文教育の実践例を示し、指導者が留学生個人の関心や能力をどのように引き出し、日本語の文章作品として結実させ得るか、について考察した。当初、Ａの作品は、純粋な随想として執筆が開始されたが指導者の助言や添削を経て、最終的に、前半に随想3点、後半にアカデミック・レポートを置く、アカデミック・エッセイのスタイルに発展した。この実践例が示すのは、学生は〈書きたい内容〉にたどり着けば、自らの能力を活性化させ、主体的に執筆を進めるということである。よって指導者は、学生の〈書きたい内容〉を引き出し発展させられるよう、原稿や対話を通して学生の関心を汲み取る姿勢をもつことが重要だと思われる。母語と母語以外での作文教育を比較すると、「自分にしか書けないことを誰にも伝わるように書く」といった「文章の基本」は共通しているが、大きく異なるのは、母語以外の作文では〈書きたい内容〉と〈書ける内容〉が乖離することが多いという点である。このようなケースにおいて、学生の〈書きたい内容〉の方を、評価し尊重することが重要であり、以後の執筆意欲につながると思われる。同時に、学生が自力で〈書ける内容〉のレベルを高めるため、文章読解による表現の獲得、文法の基礎力養成など、インプットにあたる教育が必要である。

Nagasawa (2016) described one judge’s pioneering attempt to colloquialize Japanese court judgments in the early Showa period, before the wholesale conversion to the colloquial style that occurred after World War II. The author found that one of his successors in the Obi-ku (ward) local court (now part of Miyazaki prefecture) also had written judgments in a colloquial style. Although they were generally modeled on the predecessor’s style, they were written in his original style: he chose katakana, one of the two Japanese syllabaries, to write court judgments, instead of hiragana, the other syllabary, which his predecessor had preferred; he tried using the colloquial imperative form in one of the main texts of his judgment. The different colloquial styles of the two judges show that the colloquialization of court judgments was not a simple process.

Nagasawa (2016) described one judge's pioneering attempt to colloquialize Japanese court judgments in the early Showa period, before the wholesale conversion to the colloquial style that occurred after World War II. The author found that one of his successors in the Obi-ku (ward) local court (now part of Miyazaki prefecture) also had written judgments in a colloquial style. Although they were generally modeled on the predecessor's style, they were written in his original style: he chose katakana, one of the two Japanese syllabaries, to write court judgments, instead of hiragana, the other syllabary, which his predecessor had preferred; he tried using the colloquial imperative form in one of the main texts of his judgment. The different colloquial styles of the two judges show that the colloquialization of court judgments was not a simple process.

複合動詞「Vおく」衰退の実態を、資料から得た実例とコーパスにおける用例数推移により示した。「Vおく」は、古代から近代まで前項Vに多様な動詞をとる生産性の高い複合動詞として多用され「送置」「差遣し置く」「要求し置く」等の形で、（a）存在、（b）効力持続を広く表すものであった。しかし、現代には、前項Vに立つのは「書く」「取る」等の限られた動詞のみとなっている。この変化について近代コーパスで調べた結果、「Vおく」の用例数は、1895年の300例あまりから徐々に減少し、1925年時点では約10分の1の30例であった。このことから、「Vおく」は近代に用法が限定化し、現代のような生産性の低い複合動詞に変化したと結論した。 identifier:http://hdl.handle.net/2237/25999

研究ノート Source Materials and Remarks

論文 Articles

Sino-Japanese word classes have changed greatly from the Early Modern Period to the Present. The phenomenon is well known, but there is little data available showing details about the changes. This paper gives the data of 700 Sino-Japanese words and identifies patterns in the changes. The author examined Sino-Japanese words based on which combinations of four word class usages (noun, adjective, adverb, and verb) were allowable in the Early Modern Period, compared to present usages. The results are as follows: 1. Over 200 Sino-Japanese words (even in the limited survey) have changed their word classes. 2. Losses of certain word class usages (as noun/ adjective/ adverb/ verb) of words greatly outnumber gains: the range of word classes of a word tends to decrease over time. 3. In many cases, the frequency of a certain word class usage became high, and then other word class usages diminished because of a gap between their meanings. As a result, the present meanings of Sino-Japanese words tend to be more distant from the literal meaning of the Chinese characters, compared to the meanings which they have lost. 4. 90 % of the words that have lost noun usages could be used in the form of zero-suffix, its modifying form -no, and adjective form -na, but they have lost both the zero-suffix and its modifying form -no usages. At present, only the adjective form -na remains. It means that Sino-Japanese words which were at first taken into Japanese as nouns with no markers of word class have fixed into Japanese as adjectives with a Japanese suffix. This phenomenon is similar to that of loan words. 5. The logically-possible combinations [adjective, verb], [adverb, verb], and [adjective, adverb, verb] have never occurred on either the Early Modern Period or present: it shows the tendency that words having usage as verbs are also used as nouns. 6. The tendency in the Early Modern Period for words that can be used as adjectives to also be usable as nouns has been lost in the present. Words in the [adjective, adverb]-only group show a significant jump from just 5 examples in the Early Modern Period to 77 in the present; 15.4 times the Early Modern Period total. 7. Many of the combinations which were theoretically possible but did not often occur in the Early Modern Period have come about due to words "gaining" usages, such as [noun, adjective]-only group picking up a verbal usage and joining the [noun, adjective, verb]-only group. 8. The above indicates that the word classes of Sino-Japanese words have changed both morphologically and semantically from the Early Modern Period to the present. The changes seem to be diverse, but words which have the same word class usages or the same forms show the same tendencies in common. That is, many of the changes occurred neither independently nor accidentally, but with general tendencies.

This paper examines, on the basis of a corpus study, how and why the modern intransitive-transitive system of Sino-Japanese verbs (Chinese loan words + the Japanese light verb -suru) has greatly changed over time. The conclusions are as follows: 1) Modern Sino-Japanese verbs can be used transitively when they represent changes in which agents are not restricted to humans (or animals); they can be used intransitively when they represent changes which come about without external human control. When both of these conditions are satisfied, they can be used both intransitively and transitively. 2) In this intransitive-transitive verb system of Sino-Japanese, only some of the verbs that have both intransitive and transitive usage have changed. These changes come in two directions: one is to lose transitive usage, and the other is to lose intransitive usage. The former happened as a condition of having transitive usage became more "severe" (verbs which express events that are likely to occur spontaneously cannot have transitive usage) due to assimilation to native Japanese verbs, many of which have a pair of different forms for intransitive and transitive verbs. The latter happened because certain verbs narrowed their semantic field to denote only events for which external human control is necessary. 3) Of these two, the verbs which have lost transitive usage greatly outnumber those that have lost intransitive usage. This can be explained through the native Japanese suffix -saseru functioning as a "causative" marker, substituting for the former transitive usage, whereas there is no "anti-causative" marker in Japanese (the passive marker -sareru does not function as "anti-causative").