人称詞の定着過程に関する一考察── 一親族の事例より ──

１　人称詞とは

1981 102

ICU 39 2007Article accepted December 7, 2007

ICU Comparative Culture No.39 [2007], pp. 53-82

54

2

1973 146-8

2

表 1 　人称詞の言語形式

1989 100

“ I ”

{ }

1

55

“you”

1

1983

1993 1998 1999

1990 1997 1997 1998

1990 2002

2002

1973

1999 1990 1992 1997

1981 1983

56

１　データ収集

Malinowski Malinowski

Trobriand Island

1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific

2 Malinowski

3

57

2 　インフォーマント

A

Labov (1972) “observer’s paradox”

Labov

A 18

A

58

A 18

A

31 31

2

表2　インフォーマント世代別人数

A

A A

13 3 A 10

A A

A A

31

31 12 3

50 70 20 40 10 3 6 5 7 7 310 13 8

59

表3　インフォーマント一覧

2002 8

12 1 2

3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 3

5 A

12 4 10

A

1 59 542 50 463 40 184 40 05 38 286 37 07 36 188 10 09 6 010 6 011 4 012 2 0

60

3 　データ録音

4

30 60

表4　参与観察　場面詳細

1 1 1 2002 8 12 143 4 2 2 1 8 17 285 493 2 2 8 19 18 244 2 3 8 19 41 265 2 4 8 22 36 326 3 1 8 26 33 137 3 2 8 27 99 148 3 3 8 27 39 239 3 4 8 28 47 4810 3 5 8 28 87 2711 4 1 12 28 58 3312 4 2 12 29 99 913 4 3 12 31 83 5514 4 4 12 31 81 4315 5 1 12 31 25 6 16 5 2 12 31 26 5217 5 3 2003 1 1 103 2918 5 4 1 1 36 1619 5 5 1 1 6 2 20 5 6 1 1 45 4521 5 7 1 1 36 4 22 6 1 1 2 110 33

61

23 6 2 1 2 39 2924 6 3 1 2 20 1425 6 4 1 2 120 2426 7 1 1 3 3 2827 7 2 1 3 30 8 28 7 3 1 3 9 2229 7 4 1 3 3 2230 7 5 1 3 3 1931 7 6 1 3 79 3532 7 7 1 3 3 5633 7 8 1 3 8 2134 8 1 1 3 50 4235 8 2 1 3 159 7 36 8 3 1 4 69 1237 8 4 1 4 43 5138 9 1 1 4 212 5439 9 2 1 5 13 5940 9 3 1 5 1 5841 9 4 1 5 16 44

41 3 52

4 41 41 3 52

62

1 　浩太の他称詞

6 2002

A

20

99 9 4 4 2

4

63

5

5

表5　裕一朗に対する対称詞・他称詞

3

4 3 45

6

6

6

8

89

12

1213

64

13 5

1311

14 2

141415

15 6

16

16 1 5

1618192020

21

22

22

23

24

30

30

32

65

5

p3

p4 5

p6

p6

p8 p12

p13

p15

2 p18 20 p13

p13 p13 22

p18

p19 p20 p22 p30

66

100

p6

2 　孝明に対する人称詞

2003

5 1

67

2

1

a　孝明に対する他称詞

6 7

表6　他称詞「裕一朗くんのおとうさん」の運用

2 1 30 8 1 94 4 5 64 4 77 6 22 23 8 2 527 6 408 2 5 528 2 518 2 528 2 538 2 53 9 1 828 2 59

68

表 7 　「裕一朗くんのおとうさん」以外の他称詞

7 6 9 4

2 1 4 4

7 6 22

6

7

b　孝明に対する対称詞

表 8 　孝明に対する対称詞

8 2 139 1 83

8 2 39 51 83 84 858 3 7 239 1 82 839 4 1

8 2 43

8 3 40

8 4 5

69

8 1

8 2 8 3 9 1 9

4

7 6

8 3 39

3 　孝明が用いる人称詞

a　孝明の自称詞

7

70

9

表 9 　孝明の自称詞

8 2

8 3

8 2

83 84

8 2 86

8 3 40

8 3 40

8 2 98 2 398 2 408 2 868 3 338 3 398 3 408 3 44

71

8 2 40

b　孝明の対称詞

10

表10　孝明の対称詞

10

7 6 218 2 29 30 32 888 3 34 358 3 39 448 2 44 498 3 35 397 6 20 22 238 2 4 5 6 9 12 27

29 30 34 45 859 1 4 23 819 3 1

72

8 3 8 3 39

44

p43

p39 40 43 p39

8 3

c　孝明の他称詞

表11　孝明の他称詞

8 2 308 2 308 2 439 1 3 68 2 868 2 478 3 35

9 1 13 5 88 2 868 3 98 2 338 3 378 2 298 2 318 3 359 1 6

73

8 2 30

2

8 2 43 8

2 p34 p43 43

11

8 2 33

8 3 36

4 2

74

100

3

4 2 1

1 100

7 6 9 4 3

75

Giles & Powesland 1975, Thakerar et al. 1982

N.Coupland (1984) Coupland

4

/ t /

/ t / / d /

25 / d /

75 / d / 70

/ d / 10 / d / 10

/ d / / d /

convergence

divergence convergence Coupland (1984)

divergence

2

76

5 13

19 20 22 30

6

9

11

2

convergence

77

6 40

78

1 1979

2 1992:129-131 L. Milroy (1980), Li Wei (1994), P. Eckert (2000)

3 Milroy (1987), Milroy & Gordon (2003)

4

5

62 1 30 2 1 30

7 1973 1999

79

19811997 2 16 91998 17 91993 12 6

1989 4 1990

1998 17 91999

2002

2002

19921997

26 619731999 11992 11 91997

19831983

20011990 9 91990

9 91979 2

Coupland, N. (1984) Accommodation at work: some phonological data and their applications. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46, 49-70.

Eckert, P. (2000) Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Giles, H. and P. F. Powesland. (1975) Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.Labov, W. (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Li Wei, (1994) Three Generations, Two Languages, One Family. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Milroy, L. (1980) Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.

80

Milroy, L. (1987) Observing and Analysing Natural Language: A Critical Account of Sociolinguistic Method. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Milroy, L. and M.Gordon. (2003) Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell. Thakerar, J. N., Giles, H. and Cheshire, J. (1982) Psychological and linguistic parameters of

speech accommodation theory. In Fraser, C. and Scherer, K.R. (eds.), Advances in the social psychology of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 205-55.

81

A Study of Person Deixis in the Process of Fixation: A Case Study of a Family

KOMORI, Yuri

Person deixis indicates the system of expressing the first person, the second

person and the third person. It is linguistically realized in Japanese by various

forms such as first names, surnames, personal pronouns and demonstratives.

There is a tendency that previous studies explore the factors which have an

influence on the selection of one from various forms of person deixis, presupposing

that a single basic form is always used by the same interlocutor. However, it can be

assumed that the speaker does not necessarily start to employ a specific term to call

the addressee as soon as they become acquainted, and that it takes the interlocutor

a certain amount of time to find appropriate forms as address and reference terms.

This study aims to highlight the dynamics underlying person deixis in the process

of fixation and to deal with how the interlocutor chooses a basic form.

This study employs participant observation to gain access to data. The author

spent some time observing 31 members of a family who live in Wakayama-ken

and recorded their conversation in August and December, 2002 and January, 2003.

This study focuses on 2 informants out of 31 as these two people are new members

of the target family. The recorded data can allow us to examine what kind of

linguistic forms are used as the norms of address and reference among various

members of the family.

The detailed investigation of the recorded data has revealed that some

informants including the two informants, Kota and Takaaki are in the process of

selecting an appropriate term and trying the possible forms. Although Kota and

Takaaki have membership in the family, they have had very few contacts with

82

other members so far. Consequently, they do not know how to call and refer to

other members of the family. Takaaki, in particular, uses various forms as terms of

address and reference while he is talking with his nephews and niece in law. This

means that he is finding a certain form which other members will accept.

This progression toward the fixation of forms can be analyzed in a framework

of Speech Accommodation Theory proposed by Giles and Powesland (1975) and

Thakerar et al.(1982). This theory claims that speakers tend to adjust their speech

toward that of their addressees in order to win their approval. Since Kota, a 6-year-

old boy is not old enough to accommodate his usage to the norms used among

the family, the members around him try to identify his usage of terms and to use

the same form as his. On the other hand, Takaaki himself tries to imitate linguistic

norms of deixis in the family. As long as the choice of a term is recognized as

normal for a family, the speaker can be considered to be the member. The present

study has clarified that new members tend to adjust their forms of address and

reference to those of other members so that they can be integrated in the family.