と
日本語用論学会第8回談話会(04/07/12)のお知らせ
I. Workshop on Comparative Pragmatics
-- from every aspect of perspectives -- from conversational to formal, from cognitive to societal or whatever
主催： 田中廣明（京都工芸繊維大学）
Designated discussant:
Professor Johan van der Auwera (University of Antwerp)
日時：2012年4月8日（日）13：00 ～ 14：30
場所：京都工芸繊維大学 松ヶ崎キャンパス 60周年記念会館1F 大講義室
〒606-8585 京都市左京区松ヶ崎橋上町
Tel. 075-724-7014
京都工芸繊維大学URL
http://www.kit.ac.jp/
交通案内
http://www.kit.ac.jp/01/01_110000.html
1. 京都駅より
市営地下鉄烏丸線「国際会館」行きに乗車（約18分）
「松ヶ崎駅」下車、徒歩約8分
（「松ヶ崎駅」の「出口１」から右（東）へ約400m、四つ目の信号を右（南）へ 約180m）
※なお、松ヶ崎駅は終点の国際会館の一つ手前の駅です。
2. 京阪三条駅より
市営地下鉄東西線「太秦天神川」行きに乗車、
「烏丸御池駅」で地下鉄烏丸線・国際会館行きに乗り換え、「松ヶ崎駅下車徒歩8分）
受付：12:30～
発表者(発表言語：英語）
１．13:00~13:30：Masataka Yamaguchi（山口征髙） Univsersity of Otago, New Zealand
A comparative-pragmatic perspective on the media discourse of ‘whaling’: A preliminary study of the case of Peter Bethune
2．13:30~14:00: Kaoru Amino(網野薫菊） Dalarna University, Sweden
The difference of conceptualization in the Japanese and American occupational meeting
-Through examining the pragmatic usage of discourse marker “Oh” and “Att”
3. 14:00~14:30: Risa Goto（後藤リサ） Post Doctoral Fellow，Nara Women's University（奈良女子大学）
Echoic Reformulation Marker:‘Tte-yuu / To-yuu’ and ‘Tte’ in Japanese Interrogative Utterances
Abstract:
発表者1．Masataka Yamaguchi（山口征孝）
A comparative-pragmatic perspective on the media discourse of ‘whaling’: A preliminary study of the case of Peter Bethune
Abstract: The general aim of this paper is to report on the language of ‘whaling’
in media discourse, from a comparative-pragmatic perspective of English and
Japanese (Murata 2007; cf. Blommaert and Verschueren 1998; Verschueren 1996,
1999). In order to obtain comparable data on the ‘same’ incident, I examine
news reports on the arrest of the New Zealander activist Peter Bethune and his
subsequent trial in 2010. By focusing on the media representation of Bethune in
2010, my specific goal is to generate testable hypotheses on media bias both in
English and Japanese, with reference to the news reporting on ‘whaling’. As a
conceptual framework, I combine the theories and methods of critical discourse
analysis (Fairclough 1995; van Dijk 1993, 1998), societal pragmatics (Mey
2001), and linguistic anthropology (Duranti 1997; Lucy 1993; Silverstein 1993;
Wortham 2001). In analyzing media discourse, I recognize the legitimacy of the
analysis of the ‘elite discourse,’ which pre-formulates what we perceive on
‘whaling’ (van Dijk, 1998).
In the process
of data collection, I assume that ‘intertextuality’ as implicit and explicit
connections between texts can be used as ‘source and evidence’ for a particular
framing of ‘whaling’ in newspapers (Hill 2005; cf. Urban 2001). Thus, I chronologically
trace the news reports of the case of Peter Bethune in 2010. In this study, I collect
the news reports in two newspapers published in New Zealand, the Otago Daily Times, and in Japan, the Asahi Shimbun, by using the keyword search
‘Peter Bethune’ and the Japanese equivalent (‘ピーター・ベスーン’). By focusing on the case
of Peter Bethune, I analytically put an emphasis on ‘metapragmatic discriptors’
(or verbs of saying) and quotation devices in the news reports (Silverstein
1993). With these grammatical devices, the journalist implicitly evaluates
characters in discourse while apparently speaking in a ‘neutral’ way (Wortham
and Locher 1996). Thus I carefully examine these textual devices such as metapragmatic
verbs ‘say,’ or ‘insist,’ and the forms of quotation (direct, indirect, and
quasi-direct) in media discourse. The analysis shows that the New Zealand news
reporting tends to use more negatively evaluative verbs to represent Japanese actions
(e.g. ‘insist’, ‘refuse,’ etc.) and direct quotes from Bethune and his
supporters in a positive way, while Japanese news reports use more descriptively
‘neutral’ and fewer verbs of saying, and fewer direct quotes.
In the end, I
discuss implications for making more rigorous comparative pragmatic analyses of
societal issues such as ‘whaling.’ In doing so, I also argue that we need to
take into account the ‘reception’ side or how ‘ordinary’ Japanese and New
Zealanders conceptualize the issue of whaling by using ethnographic and other
social scientific methods. Furthermore, I discuss the limitations of this
preliminary study, which is based on a small amount of data and particular
analytic points. For example, forms of variability in each language are not
found (cf. Verschueren 1996). However, it is argued that this study has
provided testable hypotheses based on systematic analyses, which deserve
further considerations.
The difference of conceptualization in the Japanese and American occupational meeting
-Through examining the pragmatic usage of discourse marker “Oh” and “Att” -
The pragmatic usage of each Discourse markers has been analyzed on its pragmatic-Through examining the pragmatic usage of discourse marker “Oh” and “Att” -
and semantic meaning on various contexts.
Some research seeks for clarifying only the major usage for the purpose of language
learning, such as the usage in dictionary. At the other hand, some claims Pragmatic
markers have a number of different functions depending on the context, questioning
whether they have one meaning or many meanings.
According to Schiffrin (1987), there are two types of discourse markers in American
discourse. One of those is the semantic-relevant usage, which focuses on the logical
aspect of markers, such as”because”, “so” or “but”. The other one is the markers such
as “well” or “oh”, which are relatively supposed not to be logical and rather their main
focus is on the emotional or turn-management effect.
Especially as for the discourse marker “oh”, though it belong to the latter type,
Schiffrin (1987) notifies all of 6 main usages from pragmatic (strong emotional state)
to semantic are based on the information management task, regardless of detailed
classification inside it.
Except the usage of each marker, this research also focuses on the perspective of
“genre discourse analysis”, as a scale to examine discourse markers. Genre is a
perspective to analyse discourse, and the definition of which is suggested by Benson
and Greaves (1981), as “the type of activity in which the discourse operates its content,
idea and institutional focus”.
This research sets the “occupational meeting “on Japanese and American as the type
of activity, and aims to find the difference of “concept of meeting” and thus “the
conceptualisation of Japanese politeness reflected in the “wakimae” principle, by
investing the pragmatic usage of “oh” American and Japanese speakers choose.
As the methodology, based on 500 turns from the speech setting of “meeting” and
“casual conversation” on both of American and Japanese corpus, the marker to show
“surprise” are extracted respectively and further divided to 6 usage along the
Schiffrin’s categorization and then cross-examined.
Consequently the result is found as next:
1. “Strong emotional state” such as showing the surprise or fear, the most pragmatic
usage is frequently found in American corpus and the frequency doesn’t show
any difference when the setting changed from the casual conversation to the
meeting. Whereas it was rare to find same usage in Japanese especially in
meeting.
2. The most pragmatic usage, which just collocates with feedback to answer, is
found frequently in Japanese especially in the meeting.
3. The usage that focus on information management aspect as “repair” or “request
of clarification” increase in American meeting, compared to that in casual
conversation, In contrast, the opposite tendency is found in Japanese counterparts.
In conclusion, negotiations of debating aspect are mainly cantered in American
meetings, in which the exchanges of the difference in information they have obtained
are focused. However in Japanese, the main issue are replaced by wakimae(discretion),
which require the participants to choose certain formality of the conversational settings
The Japanese language has a variety of utterance-final particles, and it is argued
that those particles represent the speaker’s attitude towards the proposition expressed
by an utterance. According to Itani’s (1993, 1995, 1998) account, ka is an
interrogative (or an exclamative) marker whereas tte is a hearsay particle reporting or
echoing an utterance. Information-seeking questions in Japanese typically contain the
following two distinct sentence-final expressions: (a) the interrogative particle ka by
itself; and (b) the combination of ka and copula da, as in (1a) and (1b) below.
Moreover, the hearsay particle to-yuu naturally co-occurs with the second case to
form a common interrogative expression to-yuu no (desu) ka, as in (1c) below.
(1) a. Paatii ni ikimasu ka?
party go Q
‘Do you go to the party?’
b. Paatii ni iku no desu ka?
party go LK COP Q
‘Do you go to the party?’
c. Paatii ni iku to-yuu no desu ka?
party go say-that LK COP Q
‘Do you say that you will go to the party?’
Maynard (1997) claims that the combined interrogative sentence-final particle to-yuu
no desu ka / tte-yuu no desu ka often indicates a rhetorical reading. In fact, the
utterance in (1c) can be preferably interpreted as a rhetorical question.
This presentation involves a comparative study of English and Japanese hearsayexpressions, especially say that and to-yuu (or tte-yuu as a colloquial form of to-yuu)
in interrogative utterances. Interrogative utterances marked with the sentence-final
particle to-yuu no-desu ka / tte-yuu no-desu ka can be preferably interpreted as
rhetorical questions. Moreover, tte can be used alone but it expresses a slightly
different meaning from tte-yuu, whereas to of to-yuu cannot be used alone. I will
investigate the process how rhetorical readings are derived and clarify the similarities
and differences between those English and Japanese hearsay expressions.
I will use relevance theoretic approaches to echoic utterances as the main
framework (e.g. Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995, Wilson and Sperber 1988, Wilson
2000, Blakemore 2006). In relevance theory, Japanese sentence-final particles such as
tte and to-yuu (tte-yuu) function as echoic use markers. It was found from some
examples that an advantage of the relevance theoretic approach to echoic utterances is
the concept of strong/weak implicatures; the concept enables us to explain the slight
distinction between the echoed sources of tte–appended utterances and to-yuu no-desu
/ tte-yuu no-desu–appended interrogative utterances.
To conclude, I will provide the new concept ‘echoic reformulation’, which is
based on Blakemore’s (2006) analysis of Reformulation Markers (RMs). I claim that
the concept of echoic reformulation should provide an accurate explanation of the
semantic/pragmatic functions of sentence-final tte as well as to-yuu no-desu ka /
tte-yuu no-desu ka; in fact, it will provide more accurate explanation than Maynard’s
(1997) concept of a fictional quotation.
II. Plenary Talk（日本語用論学会後援）
日時： 2012年4月8日（日） 15：00 ～ 18：00
場所： 同上（京都工芸繊維大学60周年記念館1F大講義室）
Professor Johan van der Auwera （University of Antwerp、ベルギー） http://webh01.ua.ac.be/vdauwera/
講演タイトル： Human impersonal pronouns: semantics and pragmatics
Abstract
The term ‘human impersonal pronoun’ (‘HIP’) refers to elements such as
German man or English one in Man lebt nur einmal/ One only lives once.
While German man and English one are rather specialized for human
impersonal reference and at least German man serves a variety of HIP
uses, other pronouns may primarily function in other domains and serve
only some of the HIP uses. Thus second and third person pronouns are
regularly used as (near-)equivalents of man and one, e.g. Mandarin nǐ
or English you (You only live once) or English they (They eat late in
Spain). One question is what determines the distribution of human
impersonal pronouns. To that effect an account will be offered that
defines genericity separately for states of affairs and their relevant
human participant. Another question is whether they are truly semantic
or only pragmatic, and if semantic, how they conventionalize out of
pragmatic uses.
発表言語：英語
-----------------------------------
日本語用論学会第8回談話会のお知らせ
演題：「属性表現と語用論的解釈：語用論はどこまで意味論から自由であるか」
講師 西山 佑司（明海大学）
司会 山梨 正明 (京都大学）
日時 2012年4月7日（土） 15:30～18:30 （受付：15:15～）
場所 京都工芸繊維大学 松ヶ崎キャンパス 60周年記念館2F大会議室
〒606-8585 京都市左京区松ヶ崎橋上町 Tel. 075-724-7014
京都工芸繊維大学URL http://www.kit.ac.jp/
交通案内 http://www.kit.ac.jp/01/01_110000.html
1. 京都駅より 市営地下鉄烏丸線「国際会館」行きに乗車（約18分） 「松ヶ崎駅」下車、徒歩約8分 （「松ヶ崎駅」の「出口１」から右（東）へ約400m、四つ目の信号を右（南）
へ 約180m） ※なお、松ヶ崎駅は終点の国際会館の一つ手前の駅です。
2. 京阪三条駅より 市営地下鉄東西線「太秦天神川」行きに乗車、 「烏丸御池駅」で地下鉄烏丸線・国際会館行きに乗り換え、 「松ヶ崎駅」下車、徒歩約8分
属性表現と語用論的解釈：語用論はどこまで意味論から自由であるか
西山佑司（明海大学）
アブストラクト
人は、文を発話することで、その文の意味よりはるかに豊かな思考を伝達するこ
とができる。発話として使用された言語表現自体の意味は、話し手の思考という
観点からすればきわめて不完全で断片的である。それにもかかわらず、聞き手は話し手の意図した豊かな思考（話し手の意味）を瞬時に把握できる。これは一体なぜであろうか。妥当な語用理論は、それがいかなる立場であれ、この問いに答えることができなければならない。関連性理論によれば、聞き手は、推意
(implicature) を把握するときはもちろん、表意(explicature)を把握するときにも、関連性の原理に従った推論を駆使しているとされる。関連性理論の最近
の研究は、表意の導出にかかわる語用論的プロセスとして、(i) 曖昧性除去
(disambiguation)、(ii) 飽和化(saturation)、(iii) アド・ホック概念形成(adhoc concept construction)、(iv) 自由拡充(free enrichment) の４つのタイプを区別する。この発表では、まず、これら４つのプロセスを「言語的制約のもとにあるか否か」という観点から整理し、とりわけ自由拡充が、他の３つのプロセスとは本質的に異なる「純粋に語用論的なプロセス」であることを確認する。 自由拡充とは、例えば、女の子がトラックにひかれた現場で(1)が発話されたと き、それを括弧のなかの要素を付加して解釈するプロセスである。この要 素の復元の引き金となるものは文の論理形式には一切なく、純粋に語用論的なものでしかない。
(1) [女の子をひいた] トラックの運転手が逃げた。
では、自由拡充は言語的制約から完全に自由かというとそうではない。例えば、(2)の発話を括弧のなかの要素を付加して解釈することは不可能である。
(2) あの男は、[*女の子をひいた] トラックの運転手ではない。
(2)では「トラックの運転手」が属性を表す叙述名詞句として機能しているからである。そこから西山＆峯島(2006)、Nishiyama & Mineshima (2010) は(3)の仮説をたてた。 (3) 自由拡充は叙述名詞句の解釈において阻止される。 この仮説は、自由拡充の適用可能性に対して意味論的な制約が存在することを述べている。では、なぜこのような制約があるのであろうか。この発表では、「対象を指示する機能」と「属性を表わす機能」という意味機能上の区別が語用論的プロセスの適用可能性に決定的に効いてくるという点に着目してこの問題を検討する。この検討を通して、「語用論はどこまで意味論から自由であるか」という問題を考えてみたい。
