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