c l ulsaj.ninjal.ac.jp/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/477aea3335...iv % % >,f¾ ¤f¿>Ì ¥ 1...
TRANSCRIPT
i
20162020 5
5 51000 50
One man’s hands1
I-JAS
I-JAS 217
20
1050100
3 6
I-JAS I-JAS20
I-JAS
I-JASI-JAS
16H01934
ii
iii
iv
1
I-JAS
I-JAS
1.2012 I-JAS 2019 I-JAS
8 I-JAS
I-JAS 2I-JAS I-JAS
41050 100
4
2. I-JAS
I-JAS
2
3.
2012
3.1
2 1 2
1 NS
2 NS
1
3.2 3
Corpus of
3
Japanese as a second language C-JAS http://lsaj.ninjal.ac.jp/ C-JAS 3 C1 C3 3 K1 K3 1991 7 1994
3 3 1 8 1 60 46.557
6
1 2
4.4.1
1
2
3 JFL JSL
4
JLPT2
5
4
4.2 8
2012 8 I-JAS 1
I-JAS
2012 22012 2013
20162016 12 1
1
2015
2012 2015
1 225
2 225
3 210
5 175
4 215
‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19
5
5. I-JAS 10I-JAS 10
1 I-JAS 12
1000
2I-JAS 850 150
10050
3 7 7
4
5 4
6 I-JAS
6
7I-JAS J-CAT SPOT 2
8
9 50
20 50
10
http://lsaj.ninjal.ac.jp/
6.
I-JAS
2012 I-JAS 10
I-JAS I-JASI-JAS I-JAS
I-JAS
7
2 I-JAS 1.
I-JAS3
1 2 30 3
1
2 3 3
3
1 I-JAS *
I-JAS
2.
I-JAS2 12 17
20 10
8
2 ID
1
IID 50
2 SES 50
3 TTH 50
4 TTR 50
5
GAT/GDE 50
6 HHG 50
7 FFR 50
8 VVN 50
9 RRS 50
10
EUS/EGB/ EAU/ENZ 100
11 2 KKR/KKD 100
12 2 2
CCM/CCH/ CCS/CCT 200
13
JJC/JJE 100
14 JJN 50
15 JJJ 50
1,050
3.
9
4.
I-JAS6
1
6
2
1
ID
2
1
10
3
20
4
1 2 2 3 2 4 *
5 2
1
2
A
B
PC 2 3
5. 5.1
50 60
3
11
5.2 I-JAS 1
PC
5.3
J-CAT
6. I-JAS 6.1
I-JAS
7
76 20
10
6.2
12
31
600
11
6.3 2
4 5 23 2
1
2
2 1
3 2
13
4
6.4 30
15
I-JAS30
6.5 2
21
1
11
6.6 4
1997
6.7 2 PC
14
4050 1 10
PC 6.8
1
J-CAT SPOT 2 12
J-CAT Japanese Computerized Adaptive Test 2015
4 100
SPOT Simple Performance-Oriented Test ( 2015) TTBJ Tsukuba Test-Battery of Japanese 1
J-CAT 1 SPOT 15 7. I-JAS 7.1
I-JAS 1,000 502016 5
412
15
15
4 I-JAS
7.2
I-JAS 22 I-JAS
7.2.1
I-JAS
7.2.2
I-JAS5
2CSV
2016 5
2017 5
2018 5
2019 5
2020 3
1
15 35
2 15 35
3 15 35
4 15 35
5 15 35
6 15 35
7 15 35
8 15 35
9 15 35
10 15 35 50
11 15 35 50
12 15 35 50 50 50
13
15 25 10 25 25
14 15 25 10
15 15 35
16
5 I-JAS
2015 J-CAT Japanese Computerized Adaptive Test67-85 .
199795:37-48
2015 SPOT (Simple Performance-Oriented Test) ( ) 110-126 .
2012
2014
2016-JAS
2020 I-JAS . 1991 .
17
1.I-JAS
I-JASI-JAS
20202020
2.
L2
3 SPOT(Simple Performance-Oriented Test 2015) J-CAT (Japanese Computerized Adaptive Test 2015)
: 2012 http://www.tufs.ac.jp/ts/personal/ijuin/ YNU 2014
GLJ : 2017 http://german-opi.jpn.org/
: 2013 http://sakubun.jpn.org/OPI
KY : Lee&Nakagawa 2016http://www.opi.jp/shiryo/ky_corp.html, http://jhlee.sakura.ne.jp/kyc/corpus/
JLPTUFS 2012
1
18
I-JAS
I-JASI-JAS
SPOT J-CAT
3. I-JAS 103.1 I-JAS 10
I-JAS 2020:10-12
19
7
3.2 I-JAS
J-CAT http://www.j-cat.org/ SPOThttp://ttbj-tsukuba.org/ I-JAS 2
J-CAT Japanese Computerized Adaptive Test2015:67 J-CAT
1 23
400 2
2 J-CAT 2015:79
SPOT Simple Performance-Oriented Test
20
J-CAT
SPOT 2015:110 SPOT
SPOT 11992 2015
90
3 SPOT http://ttbj-tsukuba.org 2019.10
3.3 I-JAS
2 3 I-JAS 10004 5
4 J-CAT 1000
1. 37 3.7 2. 145 14.5 3. 318 31.8 4. 298 29.8 5. 160 16.0 6. 39 3.9 7. 3 0.3
21
5 SPOT 1000
1. 7 0.72. 184 18.43. 692 69.24. 117 11.7
4 2 5 32020 J-CAT SPOT
6 J-CAT SPOT 1000
6 J-CAT SPOT 4
4 5 6 2
6 I-JAS
4.6 I-JAS
2020 12 13
I-JAS
4.1 I-JAS
1 2
22
I-JAS 100050 jReadability https://jreadability.net/
4.2
1
1
1 1244 2 4
1
23
96 2371 2.4 4
66 174 2.6 1 1 1
1 1
2
21 21 35
24
(2018)jReadability 1,050
3
57
7 2017
0.5 1.4 1.5 2.4 2.5 3.4 3.5 4.4 4.5 5.4 5.5 6.4
1,050
25
8
40 10 50 1 2 73 98 10 183 2 1 54 219 44 2 320 3 3 16 173 133 6 331 4 1 1 41 88 35 166
7 184 541 275 43 1050
8 12 3
4
5. I-JAS 800
I-JASI-JAS
jWriter https://jreadability.net/jwriter/ jWriter I-JAS
2019
(1) 2012
(2) 1-16.
26
(2) 2015 J-CAT Japanese Computerized Adaptive Test67-85 .
(3) 2014 . (4) 2015 SPOT
110-126 . (5) 2020 I-JAS
. (6) 2017 Schriften
der Gesellschaft für Japanforschung Band2 1-19. (7) 2012 ICLEAJ
7 111-119. (8) 2017 . (9) 2019
Web ICT54-67 .
(10) (2013) AELE (3), 22-31.
(11) LEE, Jae-ho & NAKAGAWA, N (2016) . KY corpus, MINAMI, Masahiko (ed.) , Handbook of Japanese Applied Linguistics, 283-312. De Gruyter Mouton.
27
1.International Corpus of Japanese as a
Second Language I-JAS
2020a I-JAS (1)
(2) 5 2-3
(3)
202050 J-
CAT 100 249 10739 85
2.2.1
3 RQ
RQ1 4 RQ2 4 RQ3 4
2.2 I-JAS 2019 2
28
2.3 I-JAS
26,729 16,397
(1) <K> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | JJJ01_ (2) |<K> | | | | | | | | | | | |<K> | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | JJJ07
(1) (2)
1
RQ1
1 RQ2 20
EAU03I-JAS
RQ3 4 501 2
2020b
29
3. 3.1 RQ1 4
4 1
1 1
1 46-56100 2
55.7 52.546.1 10
3.2 RQ2 4
4
30
1 20
22.7 15.7 22.3 27.6 11.3 10.7 10.2 24.1
7.0 4.6 6.1 9.2 3.5 3.3 3.4 7.8
2.9 2.7 3.3 6.7 2.7 2.5 2.9 6.6
2.6 2.3 2.0 4.9 2.2 2.1 2.0 4.8
1.5 1.9 1.7 4.5 1.4 1.9 1.6 4.3 1.3 1.9 1.4 4.2
1.1 1.7 1.4 4.1 1.0 1.7 1.4 3.9 0.9 1.6 1.3 3.5
0.9 1.5 1.2 3.4 0.9 1.4 1.2 2.3
0.8 1.4 1.1 2.2 0.8 1.4 1.0 2.1
0.8 1.3 1.0 2.1 0.7 1.3 0.9 2.1
10
31 1 1
1 2 2 2 2 4 5 3 89 8 7 6 20
10 3 4 5 5 14 11 3
8 6 17 7
31
6 4 5 × 7 × 6 15
3 2 3 × × ×
20
(3) <K> | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||<K> | |
|( )| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || JJJ01
(4) <K> | | | | | | |<K> | | | | | |<K> | | | |
| |( )| | | JJJ23
12
(5) <K> | | | | | | | | | | | | |<K> |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | JJJ16
(6) <K> | | | <K> | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | JJJ16
(5) (6)
3.3 RQ3 50 1 2
32
2
6 1
33
1
4. 2020a
RQ1 4
RQ2 4
20
RQ3 4
2019
I-JAS
34
2019JASLA 106-111.
2020a 142020 I-JAS pp.
167-184 . 2020b 11
2020 I-JAS pp. 123-142 .
35
I-JAS
1.
I-JAS 21
2
2
2. 1 Tarone
1983 1999I-JAS 2015
2015
15 75 ST1
SW12017
7
2
1
36
Crookes 1989, Skehan and Foster 1997, Yuan and Ellis 2003
2019 5
120 30
48 58
2 2019:162
1 2
S W 8 32 7 12
S W 5 20 17 30
S W 12 48 33 58 25 100 57 100
2019:161
2 IID22
S W
TTH04
S W
2019:162
2019
1
37
Ellis 1987worked ed went
2019:166
2005 2002
3. 2 2 I-JAS RP2
1993, 1992, 2000 1995, 1998, 2003,
2005, 2008 (1) 2017:52 (1) a.
b.
I-JAS
38
2 (2)
1
2 1 2020 (2)
CCM 45
20 2020 30 J-CAT
10 103 2017 56
3
n=10 1 10 2 20 1 10 5 50 n=10 0 1 10 0 1 10
n=10 1 10 2017 56
3
4 2017:57
39
4
SES48
FFR02 FFR37
FFR40
EAU11
CCM06
CCM07 CCM18
CCM44 CCM45
CCM08
CCM33
2017:57
1 I-JAS 12
12 85
2017:58 59
40
5 CNS07
CNS08
CNS11
2017:58 59
2
4.
41
I-JAS
(1) 1993 ---79 , 41-52.
(2) 2000 104, 79 88.
(3) 1999 3, 94-110.
(4) 2017 I-JAS 30
67-75 (5) · 2015
9 121-134.
(6) 1992 79 , 53-63.
(7) 2002 (8) 2019
I-JAS 151-168.
(9) 2017
10 , vol. 10, 50-63. (10 ) 2020 I-JAS
42
(11) 1998
98 ,73-84.
(12) 2005 29 , 8-14,
(13) 2005 124
23-32 (14) 1995
(15) 2003
52 (16) 2008
No.3, 117-129. (17) Crookes G. 1989 Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition. 11: 367-383. (18) Ellis, R. 1987 Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style in the use of
the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9: 12-20. (19) Skehan, P. and Foster, P. 1997 Task type and task processing conditions as
influences on Foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research. 1/3: 1-27.
(20) Tarone, E. (1983) On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied
Linguistics 4: 143-163.
(21) Yuan, F. and Ellis, R. 2003 The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics. 24: 1-27.
43
A-1
発表者の希望により不掲載 (p.43~48)
49
A-2
1.
International Corpus of Japanese as a Second Language I-JAScoherence
cohesion
2.2.1
Labov 19722
Labov 1972
LabovPeterson & McCabe 1983
— —
Labov
50
A-2
— —
2.2 Labov 1972
2016: 38 1
2009: 83
3.
51
A-2
3.1 I-JAS 4
50250
4J-CAT Japanese Computerized Adaptive Test
SPOT Simple Performance-Oriented Test 1 2 5
4 CCH CCM CCT 50EAU23 EUS27 KKD48 KKR2
1
12
22
1.
2.
3.2 Labov 1972 2
1
52
A-2
3.3
J-CAT 3 F (2, 247) = 44.69, p < .001 SPOT F (2, 247) = 53.65, p < .001
1 2.88 .93
2
53
A-2
J-CAT SPOTJ-CAT 1
r (48) = .30, p < .05 J-CAT 4 2
r (48) = .31, p < .05 J-CAT 2r (148) = .30, p < .01
J-CAT SPOT
r (48) = .30, p < .05r (148) = .34, p < .01
3.4 1
.69.92 2
.91 .97 40
28 2112 2 35
232
CCH 2910 2
23 1 CCM 253 2
18 1 CCT 16 4
2
54
A-2
20 1
8 4 2 6
4 1 218 3
4.
(1) Labov, W. (1972) Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
(2) Peterson, C., & McCabe, M. (1983). Developmental psycholinguistics: Three ways oflooking at a child’s narrative. New York: Plenum.
(3) 2016pp. 35–51
(4) 2009 .
55
A-3
1.
(Competition Model; Bates & MacWhinney 1989)
(Rispoli 1989)SOV (Kuno 1973,
Matsuo et al. 2012)( 2016, Fry 2003, Matsuo et al. 2012,
Rispoli 1989, Tanaka & Shirai 2014)( 1993) ( 2016, Aida 1993, Fry 2003, Rispoli
1989) ( 1993, Suzuki 2000)(Suzuki 2013)
(Kurumada & Jaeger 2014)(Tanaka & Shirai 2014)
(Kilborn & Ito 1989, Koda 1993)(Koda 1993)
(MacWhinney 1987, Sasaki 1994)
(Rounds & Kanagy 1998, Sasaki& MacWhinney 2006)
(Bates & MacWhinney 1989)
2.(Bates & MacWhinney 1989)
(functional) (emergentist) (form)
56
A-3
(function) (cue validity)1 (cue)
(cue availability)(cue reliability)
(Kempe & MacWhinney 1998, McDonald & Heilenman 1991, Tanaka & Shirai 2014)
SOV OSV
2
3.I-JAS ( 2016)
(EAU, EUS) (KKD)
1 (1993) 2
57
A-3
( 1993, Bates & MacWhinney 1989)
J-CAT(J-CAT 2020)
EAU 22 EUS 19 KKD 22I-JAS
(valency)
1105(EAU 344; EUS 235; KKD 526)1252(EAU 543; EUS 290; KKD 419)
4.
(Tanaka & Shirai 2014)( 1993)
1
(coalition) (1) (conflict)(2) Tanaka and Shirai (2014)
58
A-3
2 (1) KKD10-I-
05340-K)(2) EAU11-I-02020-K)
(1) SOV
(2)SOV
SOV
5.
(1993) Tanaka and Shirai (2014)
59
A-3
(Koda 1993)
(1) 201623 1 8-21.
(2) 1993
(3) 2016International Corpus of Japanese as a Second Language
6 3 93-110.(4) J-CAT http://www.j-cat.org/html/ja/pages/interpret.html 2020
30(5) Aida, M. (1993) Omission of postpositions in Japanese mothers' speech to one-year-
old children. Sophia Linguistica, 33, 313-331.(6) Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989) Functionalism and the competition model. In B.
MacWhinney, & E. Bates (eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3-73.
(7) Fry, J. (2003) Ellipsis and wa-marking in Japanese conversation. New York:Routledge.
(8) Kempe, V., & MacWhinney, B. (1998) The acquisition of case-marking by adultlearners of Russian and German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 543-
60
A-3
587. (9) Kilborn, K., & Ito, T. (1989) Sentence processing strategies in adult bilinguals. In B.
MacWhinney, &, E. Bates (eds.). The crosslinguistc study of sentence processing.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 257-291.
(10) Koda, K. (1993) Transferred L1 strategies and L2 syntactic structure in L2 sentencecomprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 490-500.
(11) Kuno, S. (1973) The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(12) Kurumada, C., & Jaeger, T. F. (2014) Communicative efficiency in language
production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 152-178.
(13) MacWhinney, B. (1987) Applying the Competition Model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 315-327.
(14) Matsuo, A., Kita, S., Shinya, Y., Wood, G. C., & Naigles, L. (2012) Japanese two-year-olds use morphosyntax to learn novel verb meanings. Journal of Child Language, 39, 637-663.
(15) McDonald, J. L., & Heilenman, K. (1991) Determinants of cue strength in adult firstand second language speakers of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 313-348.
(16) Rispoli, M. (1989) Encounters with Japanese verbs: Caregiver sentences and thecategorization of transitive and intransitive action verbs. First Language, 9, 57-80.
(17) Rounds, P. L., & Kanagy, R. (1998) Acquiring linguistic cues to identify agent.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 509-542.
(18) Sasaki, Y. (1994) Paths of processing strategy transfers in learning Japanese andEnglish as foreign languages: A competition model approach. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 16, 43-72.
(19) Sasaki, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2006) The competition model. In M. Nakayama, M.Reiko, & Y. Shirai (eds.), The handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics: Vol 2,Japanese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 307-314.
(20) Suzuki, T. (2000) Multiple factors in morphological case-marking errors. In Y.Oshima-Takane, Y. Shirai, & H. Sirai (eds.), Studies in Language Sciences, 1. Nagoya:
Chukyo University. 123-134.(21) Suzuki, T. (2013) Children's on-line processing of scrambling in Japanese. Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 119-137.(22) Tanaka, N., & Shirai, Y. (2014) L1 acquisition of Japanese transitive verbs: How do
children acquire grammar in the absence of clear evidence? In S. Nam, H. Ko, & J.Jun (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 21. Stanford, CA: CSLI. 281-295.
61
B-1
1.
2.2.1
62
B-1
2.2
63
B-1
3. 3.1
3.2
64
B-1
4.4.1
65
B-1
4.2
66
B-1
5.
(1) 2012,
(2) 20178 , 215-230
(3) 2019 4
(4) 2016 International Corpus of Japanese as a Second Language
6 3 , 93-110.(5) 2018
22 , 21-30.(6) 2019
68 185-194.(7) 2020
(8) 2017(9) Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse.
Language, 56, 251-299.(10) Lavob, W. and Waletzkey, J. (1967). Narrative Analysis: Oral versions of personal
experience. In June Helm (ed.), Essays on the Visual and Verbal Arts. University ofWashington Press, 12-44.
67
B-2
I-JAS
( )
1.
( ) Sugaya and Shirai(2007)
“-te i(ru)”(2015), (2019) ( )
( )
Newbery-Payton and Mochizuki (2020)
http://ngc2068.tufs.ac.jp/corpus/
Mochizuki et.al, (2015), (2018)
I-JAS
“-te i(ru)”
68
B-2
2.I-JAS
50 200
10
1
3.Ken Mari
Ken Mari“-te i(ru)”“-te i(ru)”
1 ”-te i(ru)” 50
88% 52% 48% 22%
2
1 42% (21 ) 2% 2% 10%( ) 2 28% (14 ) 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 3 14% ( 7 ) 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
4 0% 0 42% (21 ) 44% (22 ) 18% 9 5 0% 0 2% 2% 24%(12 )
1 10
69
B-2
. 84% (42%) (28%) (14%) (1)
(JJJ01-SW1-00010-K)
(2)(JJJ12-SW1-00010-K)
(3)
(JJJ05-SW1-00020-K)
. 42%, 44%18%
(4)(CCH19-SW1-00030-K)
(5) (VVN20-SW1-00010-K)
(6)(EAU09-SW1-00010-K)
2 24%
(7)(EUS01-SW1-00020-K)
(2019:66) “
”
4.(10 ) 2
(8) a. (JJJ05-SW1-00010-K)
b.
c. One day, Ken and Mari decided to go on a picnic.(9) a. (JJJ05-SW1-00010-K)
2 (10a) While While=
70
B-2
b. 1 (-le, ) ( )
1 (-le, )
c. Mari made sandwiches and Ken packed them in the hamper.(10) a.
(JJJ05-SW1-00020-K)
b. zhe zhe
(yao ) (Er )
1(-le, ) 2(-le, )
c. They were so busy they didn’t notice their dog Rover sneak into the kitchen.While Ken and Mari were looking at a map deciding where to go, Rover jumpedinto the open hamper.
(10a)
“ ” (Er )
“ 2(-le, )”3 “While”
“while ”=“ ”
(11) a. (JJJ05-SW1-00040-K)
b. (-le, )
c. Ken and Mari set off on their picnic.(12) a.
(JJJ05-SW1-00040-K)
b. 4 dang: When
3 1 (-le, ) 2 (-le,) (1997)
4
71
B-2
(~ ),
c. They walked across the grass to a nice spot and Ken put down the hamper.
and
(13) a. (JJJ05-SW1-00040-K)
b. (-le, ) (-le, )
c. At that moment, to their surprise, Rover jumped out of the hamper and ran offdown the field.
“to their surprise”
(14) a. ( ) JJJ33-SW1-00040-K
b. ( )
bei de
(-le1 -le2 )
c. Ken and Mari looked into the hamper in despair. Rover had eaten the picnic food they had lovingly prepared! ( , Ken and Mari Rover
! )
“-te i(ru)” 10
9 “ (-le1 -le2 )”
< i> b
72
B-2
5.(2018) I-JAS
(15)
(15) ( 2018 )a. JJJ 50
40 = 18.00, p < .0001b. CCM 50 :
31 2 (1, N = 50) = 2.88, p < .10c.
EAU 14 EUS 24
2018
2018I-JAS
(1) (2018) I-JAS
. 2018 12 22.
(2) (2015) - Processability.
(3) (2019)173 . 61-68. .
(4) (1997) 55 55 -71.http://repository.tufs.ac.jp/handle/10108/23655
(5) (2018)
3 , 83-100. .(6) Mochizuki, K. et.al, (2015) “Cross-Linguistic Error Types of Misused Chinese Based
on Learners’ Corpora”. Computational Linguistics and Chinese LanguageProcessing 20 (1), 97-113. The Association for Computational Linguistics andChinese Language Processing. http://www.aclclp.org.tw/clclp/v20n1/v20n1a6.pdf.
(7) Newbery-Payton, L. & Mochizuki, K. (2020) “L1 Influence on Use of Tense/Aspect byChinese and Japanese Learners of English” Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and the World4, 67-93. Kobe University.
(8) Sugaya,N.&Shirai,Y.(2007) “The acquisition of progressive and resultative meaningsof the imperfective aspect marker by L2 Learners of Japanese: Transfer, universals,or multiple factors?” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1),1-38.
73
B-3
1.
1 a b
2019
2.2.1
4
20132007 QN 1
NQ
QN
2.2 2009
2019 2009N
2019CCM CCM QN NQ
1 2013 Q N C 1Q NC N 1QC NC1QN1QC 4
QN NQ
74
B-3
2
2009 2019
2
3.I-JAS CCM 50
2019CCT 50 JFL
JFL
Japanese Computerized Adaptive Test J-CAT2
2 3JJJ 50
1
J-CAT 3
CCM 50 103 354
235 153,075 117
26 19
CCT 50 188 321
251 149,093 132
20 21
JJJ 50 246,459 205 49
4.4.1
QNNQ QN
CCM NQCCT NQ
QN NQ
2 2019 3
75
B-3
NQCCM CCT QN
4.2 2019 CCM
CCT
3 * CCM48-ST1
4 * CCT33-ST1
5 ?? CCM18-I 2019
6 ?? CCT40-I )
7 ?? CCM43-I 2019
8 ??CCT27-ST1
CCMCCT
4.3 QN QN
2015
76
B-3
CCMCCT QN
9 ?? CCM18-I
10 ??CCT15-I
20132019
1Q NCCCT 11
??CCM11-SW1
12 ??CCT19-I
5.QN NQ
QN QN
(1) 2013(2) 2009
17, 39-48.
(3) 201932, 249-275.
(4) 2007 ,185-202.
(5) 201511, 146-153.
PU108-11100-A07
77
A-4
1.
2. 2.1
(grammatical complexity)(Complexity) (Accuracy) (Fluency) CAF
SLA Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998, Ellis and Barkhuisen 2005, Housen et al. 2012
T (T-unit)Biber et al.(2011) T
(Lu 2011, Taguchi et al. 2013, Liu & Li 2016, Kyle & Crossley 2018) ( 1993, 1997, Lee
2006, Iwashita 2006, Hirotani 2013)
2.2 1
78
A-4
23
3.3.1
I-JAS ST1, ST2SW1, SW2 50 50
4 5
ST1 SW1ST2 SW2
J-CAT2 12 16 13 7
I-JAS
3.2 1)
1002
3 1
ST
44.1
1ST1 ST2 SW1 SW2
1 EST ESW JST JSW
79
A-4
4.2 4.2.1
2
2 ST1 SW1 ST2 SW2
ST SWSW
ESW1 EST1 8 ESW2 EST2 14
80
A-4
4.2.2
3
3 ST SWST2
SW2 SW1SW1 ST SW
ST SWST SW1
SW2
4.3 4
4 ST SWST SW SW1
SW STEST2 ESW2
81
A-4
5
2.2
Biber et al.(2011)
(1997) 1 2 :
82
A-4
13 , 67-77. (1993)
81 , 43-54. Lee (2006)
(4) 399-412 Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation
to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45-1, 5-35.
Ellis, R. & Barkhuisen, G. (2005) Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hirotani, M. (2013) Syntactic complexity development in L2 writing: A longitudinal study using blog corpora. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language, 16, 142-159. Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I.(eds.)(2012) Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Iwashita, N. (2006) Syntactic complexity measures and their relation to oral proficiency in Japanese as a foreign language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3-2,151-169.
Kyle, K. & Crossley, S.A. (2018) Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal, 102-2, 333-349.
Liu, L. & Li, L. (2016) Noun phrase complexity in EFL academic writing: A corpus-based study of postgraduate academic writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 13-1, 48-65.
Lu, X. (2011) A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45-1, 36-62.
Taguchi, N., Crawford, W., & Wetzel, D.Z. (2013) What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case study of argumentative essays in a college composition program. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 420-430.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H-Y. (1998) Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy & Complexity. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.
JSPS JP18K00690
83
A-5
1.
2001
2019a
I-JAS
2.2019a
2019bJSL 2019a JFL
2019b
JFLJSL
JFL JSLJSL JFL
JSLJFL
3.
JFL JSL2
84
A-5
1 JFL JSL 2
4.4.1
I-JASI-JAS JNS
CNS SW2 4
2
2016
4.2 2008
20091
5. 1
JSL JFLJSL JFL
1 JFL JSL JFL JSL 1111 JFL
JSL
1
85
A-5
JFL JSL J-CATSPOT
JFL JSL1
JFL 11 JSL 11 JFL 11 JSL 11 JNS 11
0 0.18 0.39 0.55 0.99 0.73 0.96 2.18 1.19
0 0 0.27 0.62 0.36 0.48 0.36 0.48
0 0.18 0.39 0.27 0.45 0.36 0.48 1.82 0.94
2 JFL JSL 22JSL JFL
F (1,43)=0.65, n.s. , F (1,43)=0.14, n.s. , F (1,43)=0.13, n.s.
F (1,43)=5.81, p .05. , F (1,43)=6.62, p .05.F (1,43)=3.57,
n.s.
1
6. 2
1 2
2I-JAS
J-CAT SPOT3 JFL 2 20 JSL 20
JNS 20 JFL 1
2 2 JFL1JFL2 JSL JFL1
86
A-5
JFL2 JSL J-CAT SPOT
2 JNS JFL1 JFL2JSL JFL1 JSL
2
JFL1 20 JFL2 20 JSL 20 JNS 20
0.30(0.56) 0.05(0.22) 0.40(0.92) 1.90(1.10)
0.15(0.48) 0.00(0.00) 0.00(0.00) 0.35(0.48)
0.15(0.36) 0.05(0.22) 0.40(0.92) 1.55(0.87)
JFL1 JFL2 JSL 3
H(2)=3.57, n.s. , H(2)=4.07, n.s. ,H(2)=3.21, n.s.
2
7.7.1
JSLJFL
VanPatteminput intake developing system output 3
2010intake developing
system 3
2010
2010
87
A-5
JSL JFL
7.2
JNSJNS
JNS
1JJJ08
2JJJ07
JNS
3JFL HHG33
4JSL JJC31
5 JFLCCM54
JNS
JNS
7.3 2
2019a
88
A-5
JSL JFL
8.
JFL JSL
(1) 2008.
(2) 2016International Corpus of Japanese as a Second Language
6(3) 93-110. (3) 2010
. (4) 2019a
27 21-36. (5) 2019b
2019 518-523. (6)
10. (7) 2008 6 11 . (8) 2001
109 50-59.
11 2019 3
89
A-6
1.
2.
Comrie 2002relative clause
Comrie Matsumoto 1997attributive
clause Matsumoto, Comrie and Sells 2017General Noun-Modifying Clause Construction GNMCC
gap1a
Comrie
Comrie 2002: 30 1bmodifying clause head noun
1 a. [ ] b. [ ]
GNMCC
GNMCC
2008
90
A-6
2013 2008 KY
2013
GNMCC
GNMCCGNMCC
3.
I-JAS 151 30
I-JAS15
I-JAS15
115 I-JAS
J-CAT Japanese Computerized Adaptive Test 1515
15 F(3,56)=0.178, n.s. 4
682475
Diessel and Tomasello (2000)
91
A-6
4. 4.1
1 11000 1 1
1000 GNMCC 5.85.5
3.5 GNMCC 2.5 10008.6
F(3,56)=3.795, p<0.05 Tukey HSD
GNMCCGNMCC
GNMCC
1000
13.3 5.8
16.0 5.5
6.5 2.5
10.5 3.5
31.7 8.6
4.2
Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy NPAH
NPAHKeenan & Comrie 1977
1 2.4.2 20180502 I-JAS _20180521
92
A-6
SU The man who lives next door…
DO The man whom I saw…
IO The man to whom I gave a present…
(OBL) The man about whom we spoke…
GEN The man whose wife had an accident…
OCOMP The man that I am richer than…
NPAHEckman, Bell, & Nelson, 1988
2008 Ozeki and Shirai 2007 GNMCC
Comrie
NPAHIO 2008 2008
IODO OBL 2008
NPAHGNMCC SU
SU 28.8%
GNMCC
SU DO IO OBL
34.0% 16.0% 0.0% 27.0% 23.0%
43.8% 20.5% 0.0% 21.3% 11.3%
35.7% 8.3% 0.0% 25.0% 29.8%
46.2% 17.1% 0.0% 19.0% 17.1%
28.8% 11.4% 0.0% 23.8% 34.5%
93
A-6
4.3 1975
2
1981: 92 3
1975: 109 GNMCC
2 [ ] 3 [ ] 1975
GNMCC34.5%
5.
GNMCC
GNMCC
SUGNMCC
29
94
A-6
(1) (2008) (2) (2013)
46 , 1-10. (3) (1975) 4
, 71-119. ( (1992) 157-207 ) (4) (1981) ( ) (5) (1992) (6) Comrie, B. (2002) Typology and language acquisition: The case of relative clauses. In
A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp.19-37). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(7) Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2000). The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 131-151.
(8) Eckman, F. R., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1-20.
(9) Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(10) Keenan, E. L. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.
(11) Matsumoto, Y. (1997). Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame-semantic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(12) Matsumoto, Y., Comrie, B., & Sells, P. (2017). Noun-modifying clause constructions in languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries. In Y. Matsumoto, B. Comrie, & P. Sells (Eds.), Noun-modifying clause constructions in languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries (pp. 3-21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(13) Ozeki, H. & Shirai, Y. (2007). Does the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy predict the difficulty order in the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 169-196.
95
B-4
1.1
A 2
B
1 2
I-JAS
2007
1988 1987
2008
1967 1 3 11
1990
3 M 1 6 4 2 2
96
I-JAS
5 <C>1 <K>2
<C> CCM10-I J-CAT235 6 <K>
EAU15-I J-CAT231
3 4
2006
2000
32005 30
92
199830.5
2001 36
2
JSL JFL
97
2008
4.4.1
I-JAS12 JFL 15 180
JJN 15 JJC 15JJJ 15 8 1 RP1 2 RP2
I 3 1 RP1 2 RP2
1 RP1/RP2
RP1/RP2 1 1
JJJ 15 45 3.0 13 86.7% 78 5.2 13 86.7%
JJN 15 11 0.7 4 26.7% 40 2.7 13 86.7% JJC 15 0 0.0 0 0.0% 59 3.9 14 93.3% JFL 180 15 0.1 10 5.6% 738 4.1 157 87.2%
1. JJJ JJN JJC JFL 85%
JJJJJN JJC JFL
JJN JJC JFLRP1/RP2
JFL180 15I
98
2 I
I 1
JJJ 15 630 42.0 15 100.0%JJN 15 237 15.8 13 86.7%JJC 15 40 2.7 7 46.7%JFL 180 340 1.9 68 37.8%
2 1247 JJJ 100 JJN JJC JFL1 JJC JJN
JFL JJN JJC JFL
4.2
JFL 150 J-CAT
3
3 RP1 RP2 I
RP1 RP2 I
J-CAT-100 0 0 0.0%100-150 2 0 0.0%150-200 26 4 15.4%200-250 62 23 37.1%250-300 52 30 57.7%300-350 7 6 85.7%350-
1 1 100.0%
99
1
1 RP1 RP2 I
JFL
5.I-JAS
RP1/RP2 JJN JJC JFLJSL JFL
I
RP1 RP2 I
I-JAS 11
100
(1) 1990 (2) 1967 (3) 2000 4 vol.19,140-152. (4) 2006 —
18 (5) 1998
10 ,83-110. (6) 2008 6 (7) 2001
22 ,50-62. (8) 2007
(9) 1987 — 3 13,73-91.
(10) 2001 1 8 ,260-299.
(11) 1988 15,99-121.
(12) 2005 16
101
B-5
I-JAS
1.
(variability)
L2
I-JASL2
2.
(variability) 70Tarone(1983)
Bialystok &Sharwood Smith (1985)L1 L2
(1989)
Ellis2005, Ortega1999, Yuan&Ellis2003
Sangarun2005, 2012 L2
102
B-5
2008
3.3.1
I-JASL1 JFL 15 75 2
(J-CAT SPOT90)15 1
3. 2 I-JAS
2
3
4.4.1
4
1 2 Labov 1972
Complication Action Evaluation
3
4
103
B-5
S WS W S
W S W SW S W
S W S W S W S W S W
S WS W
W5
2 L1 3 5
V
V
V
V
4.3 S W
S WS W
S W S W
5
S W S W S W4 1 12 1 23 1 10 1 4
104
B-5
1
SW (
42)
4.4 S W
6
WS
S W
6
105
B-5
4 S W
03
26
16
42
23
16
20
49
22
06
15
27
5.
106
B-5
(2) (2012)
, 109-130. (3) (2008) NICT JLE VS. JWFLL:n-gram
15 , 119-133. (4) (1989)
No.19, 205-215. (5) Bialystok,E.&M.Sharwood Smith. (1985) Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An
evaluation of the construct for second-language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6, 101-117.
(6) Ellis, R. (2005) Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (eds.), Planning and task performance in a second language, John Benjamins. 3-34.
(7) Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
(8) Ortega, L. (1999) Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 21, 109-148.
(9) Tarone, E. (1999) Research on interlanguage variation: Implications for language testing. Bachman, L. F. A.D. Cohen. (Eds.) Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge University Press.
(10) Yuan, F., and Ellis, R. (2003) The effect of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1-27.
JSPS JP16H0193
2016 12 3
(2015)
9 , 121-134.
107
B-6【未発表】
I-JAS に基づく日本語学習者の他称詞の使用傾向に関する研究
-中国語・韓国語・英語母語話者を中心に-
張佩霞(湖南大学)
黄炯(湖南大学)
発表者の希望により不掲載 (p.107~112)
113
A-7
1.
2007 2009Iwasaki 2011
2015
3 1 2 3
2.I-JAS 20170519 2
I-JAS180 2016:198
SPOT 180SPOT
3 49 3350
30I
RP 2 4 5ST 2
I RP ST
2016:177
1 2018 2018 2 2018 2018 1 20171124
FI-JAS
3 SPOT 55 81
114
A-7
F
F
1
I RP ST
17,492 96,750 3,025 14,686 1,662 11,736 22,179 123,172 69,299 466,631 13,528 81,854 7,112 59,475 89,939 607,960 9,709 109,955 1,904 16,600 629 9,507 12,242 136,062
12,356 195,576 1,971 20,561 690 11,055 15,017 227,192
3.
3030
30 90%1997 2002
2008 20172
4. 4.1
1 103
10 1
36
6
115
A-7
1 380 21% 312 21% 278 31% 2 305 17% 279 19% 154 17% 3 289 16% 155 10% 100 11% 4 192 11% 153 10% 98 11% 5 171 9% 143 6% 69 8% 6 128 7% 93 6% 54 6% 7 83 5% 93 2% 38 4% 8 42 2% 33 2% 21 2% 9 15 1% 20 1% 9 1% 10 12 1% 11 1% 8 1%
1616 90% 1292 87% 830 87%
116
A-7
2
11%5% 4
4 65
3
4ID EUS23 I
5ID CCM23 I
6ID KKD07 I
4.2
2 3
3 1I RP ST
I RP
1995 ST
1995
2017 ST
3
4Ward
2017;116
117
A-7
ST IRP
5 6
6 3
118
A-7
1997 ST
5.
1
2
3
2017 . Iwasaki, Noriko. 2011. Filling Social Spase with Fillers: Gains in Social Dimension after
Studying Abroad in Japan. Japanese Language and Literature.45, 169-193. 2017 R 2 . 2018
15, 91-105 2009
19, 39-46. 2007
27, 43-54. 2015
, 149-165. 1995
108, 74-93. 2016
I-JAS 24251010 . 2008 1
, 29-52. 1997
, 257-279. 2002 .
119
A-8
1.
1 ( )
I JAS
3
2.
1989
20142018
3. 3.1
1
120
A-8
I JAS 2.4.2. 20190510 2
I-JAS
100
3
3.2
JSLJFL 4
JFL 4 650 12 13 5050 700
4. 4.1
1 PMW 12
PMW1
64 5210 14 18 18
2 I-JAS https://chunagon.ninjal.ac.jp/ijas/search (2019 8 21 ) 3 2 2
1 4 3 50 4
50
1 PMW
2
121
A-8
229 23 19
4.2
PMW
50 9 0.18 18 0.36 2 123.39
50 24 0.48 117 2.34 4.88 687.82
50 14 0.28 41 0.82 2.93 283.43
50 32 0.64 145 2.9 4.53 845.72
50 13 0.26 27 0.54 2.08 184.41
50 12 0.24 25 0.5 2.08 144.29
50 7 0.14 9 0.18 1.29 58.11
50 9 0.18 14 0.28 1.56 84.89
50 26 0.52 75 1.5 2.88 427.34
50 21 0.42 90 1.8 4.29 588.77
50 10 0.2 14 0.28 1.4 41.88
( ) 50 5 0.1 5 0.1 1 29.91
50 17 0.34 35 0.7 2.06 185.61
650 199 0.31 615 0.95 3.09 268.57
50 25 0.5 58 1.16 2.32 217.98
700 224 0.32 673 0.96 3 263.3
122
A-8
23 3
4 44.063, p<.01p<.01 p<.05 p<.01
6 4 4
5 2005
6 SPOT SPOT
3
182 29.6 188 30.6 132 21.5 88 29.6 25 29.6 615
2 3.4 10 17.2 33 56.9 10 17.2 3 5.2 58
4
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
18 (43.9) 11 (26.8) 7 (17.1) 3 (7.3) 2 (4.9) 41
149 (28.5) 166 (31.8) 114 (21.8) 72 (13.8) 21 (4 ) 522
15 (28.8) 11 (21.2) 11 (21.2) 13 (25 ) 2 (3.8) 52
4
3
123
A-8
7
3
4.3
5
1
18
7 2018 8 9 I-JAS I-JAS
1 <C> …… #
<K>
…… GAT38
5 (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
173 (94) 167 (84.3) 158 (95.8) 75 (77.3) 27 (93.1) 600 (89.2)
11 (6) 31 (15.7) 7 (4.2) 22 (22.7) 2 (6.9) 73 (10.8)
184 198 165 97 29 673
124
A-8
10
2018
2
5
I-JAS
,
(1) 2016Vol.6pp.93-100
(2) 2014 63 pp.269-277
(3) 2018pp.1-26
(4) 1989 (5) (1994 (6) (1989) 1 pp. 63-88 (7) 1971
10 1989
( )
2 <C> …… #
<K> #
<C> #
<K> …… TTR61
125
A-9
I-JAS
/
1.
2016
1988
2.
2020I-JAS
FTA
2018
3
126
A-9
3. 3.1
International corpus of Japanese as a second language I-JAS I-JAS 12
1000 5050
KKD/KKR I-JAS
4 5 2 ST1 ST2
2 RP1 RP2 1 1 2020 2
2018 I-JAS ST1 ST2 RP1RP2
ST1 ST2 RP1 RP2ST1 ST2 ST RP1 RP2
RP 3.2
I-JAS
TI-JAS
I-JAS 2.4.2 2019052020
1. T
127
A-9
2.3.4.5. 6.
ST RP STRP 1000
4.4.1
RP ST ST163.8 31.7
1 1000
RP 84.4 39.1 ST 163.8 31.7
248.2 70.8
2 2RP ST RP 75.4
ST 151.0 RP ST 2RP 89.3
77.5 ST 92.2 62.4
2 1000
RP 9.0 10.7% 75.4 89.3% 8.8 22.5% 30.3 77.5% ST 12.7 7.8% 151.0 92.2% 11.9 37.6% 19.8 62.4%
128
A-9
4.2
32020
1 RP ST248.2 70.8 152.8 20.9
ST13
3 1000 ( 2020 )
RP 48.0 18.7 ST 104.8 2.4
152.8 20.9 4.3
50SPOT 20 20 4
4 SPOT
20 65.9 41 74 20 85.5 81 90
ST
5 ST52.7
0.9 1.510.3 8.0
129
A-9
5 ST
15.9 9.3 6.6 41.529.1 12 17.1 58.845 21.3 23.7 52.7
ST 6 6ST
73.1%
(1)
(2) 2
6 ST /
205 35 78 41 41 1094 16 21 20 29 8
111 19 57 21 12 854.1 54.3 73.1 51.2 29.3 20.0
(1) KKD17-ST1
(2) / KKD19-ST2
130
A-9
5.
I-JAS ST RP
STST
ST
2020FTA
ST
2018
2020 I-JAS.
2018 —— 3,pp.468-474.1988 ( )
2 pp. 343-364. .2020
8,pp.1-18.2016
pp.205-223. .2018
21(1),pp.113-128.
131
A-10
1.
1997 1991
2018 2019
JFL JSL
2.2.1
RQ1. RQ2. RQ1
2.2 (International Corpus of
Japanese as a Second Language I-JAS RP1
2019 I-JAS1
3I-JAS Japanese Computerized Adaptive Test
J-CAT 50
1 10 102 10 10 3 10 10
1 1535
25 35
132
A-10
5% t 1 t (9.219) 0.016785, p .987 2 t (10.459) 0.055057, p .9571 3 t (18) 0.22114, p .8275 1 3
F(2,27) 3.35413, p .001 ,F(2,27) 3.35413 , p .001
2.3
2018
p.120 2019 20189
A BID JJJ46 46 CCM45
45 2019
a) ( ) JJJ46
A B b) JJJ46
A B : c) JJJ46
A B d) JJJ46
A e) JJJ46
B A: B NS1
133
A-10
f) JJJ29 A
g) CCM45 A
h) JJJ46 A
i JJJ46 A
2.4
2.3 a) i)
input
3. I-JAS 1 9
2
134
A-10
2
p .05 ( ) ( )( ) ( )
a d h i
bc
e f
g e
f
g
e, f, g 4.
3 3 e f2
e,f
input output
input output
CCT39 inputoutput e f
CCT39(CCH11) (CCS58)
e f
135
A-10
input output 3input output
JJC34 inputoutput JJE72 input
e JJE72
3 1
4
3-1 2 e, f 3
inputoutput
e, f e, f input
136
A-10
JJE55 8 JJE27 4e, f input output
5.I-JAS
3RQ1.
RQ2. input outputinput
2020
A16H01934
1 199175 pp.87-99.
2 199795 pp.37-48.
3 2018 International Corpus of Japanese as a SecondLanguage I-JAS : ,
25 pp.133-149 4 2018
5 20192019
pp.434-439
137
B-7
1.
2. 2.1
I-JASI-JAS
15 CJ 15GJ 15 JJ
15 CC 15 GG
1 (2019)
138
B-7
20182
CC GG2
2.2 CC GG
CJ GJ JJCC GG A
C
2 1 GAT45
2
GAT46
B
3
CCM52 C
CJ GJ 4
4
CCM28 CJ GJ CC GG 2
3. 1
JJ 2 (1)=2.40, p>.05 CJ2(1)=0.06, p>.05 CC 2(1)=1.98, p>.05 GJ ( 2(1)=0.09, p> .05 GG 2(1)=0.72,
p>.05 S W 2 CJ CC GJ GG 2
3 2 CJ CG
2 5
139
B-7
2(1)=3.31, p>.05 GJ GG 2(1)=1.08, p>.05
JJ CJ CC GJ GG
10 8 5 21 23
20 20 18 5 4
30 28 23 26 27
JJ CJ JJ GJ CJ GJ CC GG CJ CC GJ GG
0.13 6.79 14.77 20.29 0.31 0.18
.72 .05 .05 .05 .58 .67
2 CJ GJ CC GG 2
CJ GJ 2(1)=17.07, p<.05 CC CG2(1)=20.29, p<.05
4 JJ CCCJ GJ
JJ CJ CC GJ GG
5/10 6/8 2/5 2/21 10/23
13/20 12/20 5/18 0/5 2/4
S W
JJ ( ) 3 12 7 8
CJ ( ) 4 9 4 11
CC ( ) 1 10 4 8
GJ ( ) 10 2 11 3
GG ( ) 12 3 11 1
140
B-7
CC CJ GG GJ GG GJCC CJ GJ
4.
199610
1978
GG S W 30 23
CC 5 “ ”
5 (SW:CNS05)
‘ ’1993 CC CJ
20171987
CJ JJ GJ2009
2016
1985
141
B-7
2018
GAT161996
20092016
L2 Conceptual Transfer3 CJ CC GJ GG CJ GJ CC GG
5.I-JAS
3 L2
Jarvis and Pavlenko2010 Odlin2005
142
B-7
Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25
JSPS JP16H0193(2019)
37,79-93.
143
B-8
Dang Thai Quynh Chi
1.
I-JAS STSW ST SW
2.
19961999 2010 2017
200510
20052005
STSW
144
B-8
3.1
4 4 I-JAS 12
4 2019 5 10 EUSCCM KKD VVN
SPOT
EUS CCM KKD VVN 13 41 26 28
13 13
1ST 30
SW
4.4.1
2VVN ST SW
JJJ EUS CCM KKD VVN ST SW ST SW ST SW ST SW ST SW 10 10 0 1 5 4 1 1 1 5 13 15 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 19 10 12 9 6 7 5 6 3 1 42 35 12 11 11 11 6 8 4 8
145
B-8
ST SW 1 1
ST VVN24 SW VVN24
4.1.1 4.1.24.1.3 3
1 STSW
2 STSW
3 STSW
ST SW
2 1
2 ST: SW: JJJ46
4.1.1
JJJ EUS CMN KKD VVN 1 8 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 3 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 5
146
B-8
ST CCMSW
2 SW 1 3
3 STSW ST
1 VVN SW 5
3 ST: SW: VVN24
4 ST: SW: VVN47
5 ST: SW: VVN51
6 ST:
SW: VVN24
7 ST: SW: VVN43
VVN SW 3 5 JJJ6 7
EUS ST SW1 CCM KDD VVN 8 SW
8 ST: SW: KKD06
147
B-8
4.1.2 JJJ ST SW ST
SW
JJJ EUS CMN KKD VVN 1 10 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 0 1 2
CMN ST SW EUS KKD VVN SW
9 ST:
SW: EUS17
10 ST:
SW: VVN29
SW
4.1.3 ST SW
JJJ EUS CMN KKD VVN 1 9 8 4 4 1 2 10 4 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 2 0
148
B-8
ST JJJ 4ST SW
ST SWST EUS CCM KKD VVN
SW EUS CCM KKD
VVN ST SW
5 ST SW
SWST
ST SWSW
ST
(1995)9 pp.281-292
(2005)21 pp.1-9
(2010)59 pp.289-298
(2017)8 pp.93-
105
6
149
B-9
1.
2004
2. 2.1
2012
6
20042 /1
2.2 2011
1
2
150
B-9
1 2
2.3
20185 KY
10
2
1KY
2.4
3. 3.1
I-JAS1
20 12 100050 2020 3 1050
1 I-JAS International Corpus of Japanese as a Second Language I-JAS
2020
151
B-9
I-JAS 2.4.5 2020.03
100 5050 50
RP1 1
1
2 12 1
3.2
1) 2
1 I-JAS
152
B-9
3
1
1
2
3
3.3
3 4
3 IID19-010-K 4 JJJ07-008
153
B-9
5 HHG16-008 6
5
6
4.
3
10JJJ37_004
JJJ25_008
2018
154
B-9
/
5. I-JAS
(1) (2011)15, 201-221,
(2) (2018)Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and the World 3, 177-187, School of
Languages & Communication Kobe University (3) (2020) I-JAS
(4) (2018)
, 479-499, (5) (2012)
11, 1-14, (6) (2004)
14, 1-14,
A 16H01934
155
B-10
1.
Bachman & Palmer1996
Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993, Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984, Beebe, Takahashi & Ulisse-Weltz 1990
2.
50
1
20162000
2 https://chunagon.ninjal.ac.jp/static/ijas/about.html
156
B-10
3. 3.1
( ) ( )Bulm-Kulka & Olstain 1984
50 274
2 ( )
{ ...}
(11 )(FFR54 )
FFR10
(FFR06 ) (
4 27 3 75% 1765% 6 33% 1 1
157
B-10
) 12 11
(3 ) 25
3
3
3.2
J-CAT 4
( ) 3
n=4
n=26
n=19
n=1
n=50 n=12
) 1 (25%) 5 (19%) 8 (43%) 15 (30%) 3 (25%)
2 ) 1 (25%) 2 (8%) 2 (10,5%) 1 (100%) 13 (26%) 1 (8,35%)
) 1 (5%) 4 (8%)
2 ) 1 (2%)
) 3 (11,5%) 1 (8,35%)
) 1 (25%) 3 (11,5%) 2 (10,5%) 10 (20%)
) 12 (46%) 5 (26%)
2 ) 1 (5%)
) 1 (25%) 6 (12%)
2 ) 1 (4%) 1 (2%)
) 7 (58,3%)
4 (100%) 26(100%) 19(100%) 1(100%) 50(100%) 12(100%)
158
B-10
23
2(FFR03 )
2
(FFR15 )
( )
pouvoir
(FFR62
) 2
3.3
(FFR08 )
159
B-10
3.4
3{ }
2
30 11
(Brown & Levinson1978/87)
Higashi 2018 4.
5
( )
()
(1) (2000
5 Leech1983
160
B-10
10410 . 129-145.
(2) (2016) (2)JCJLE2016 .
(3) Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A.S. (1996) Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(4) Beebe, L.M., Takahashi T. & Ulisse-Weltz, R. (1990) Pragmatic Transfer in SESL Refusals. in Scarcella, R.C., Andersen, E.S. & Krashen S.D. (eds.) In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language. NewyYork: Newburry House Publishers. 55-74.
(5) Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984) Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, Vol. 5, No.3. 196-213.
(6) Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C (1978/87) Politeness - Some Universals in language usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(7) Culpeper, J., Mackey, A. & Taguchi, N. (2018) Second Language Pragmatics, New York: Routledge.
(7) Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993) Interlanguage Pragmatics, Oxford: University Press.
(8) Higashi, T (2018) La requête et le refus : une approche pragmatique contrastive à partir d’un corpus d’apprenants, 13ème colloque SFEJ, EHESS, Paris, 13-15 décembre 2018.
(9) Leech, G.N. (1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
I-JAS
161
28 31 A 16H01934
159