17 19

C
17520253

2006

17

14

Word Power

25

28

33

Langacker of

43

47

51

56

64

69

75

80

aspect

87

92

100

108

112

 17

17
SLA

 E-Gate English-Japanese Dictionary

2005 14:00

102

2005 10:30

102

2005 10 11 16:40

404

2005 11 8 16:40

404

of

2005 14 13:00 18:00

302

SFC

2006 3 14
E
(1990, 2003, 2004, 2005)

1.

(
communicative competence)
communicative competence

(Savignon
1972, Canale and Swain 1981, Backman 1990)

(1)

(2)

communicative competence

2. (individual words) :

communicative competence

[task handling]

2.1.

[language resources]

see, look, watch

keep hold
broad

wide
every each

(task handling)

inter-lexical

(language resources)

competence()

communicative competence

E-Gate

( 2.2
6

)look, see, watch

break

) to break ones oath

) to break eggs

) to break the leaves

break

(pedagogical
device)
Benesse Corporation 2003

break

Benesse Corporation 2003

(core meaning)
Langacker
(1987)
(super-schema)

Benesse Corporation 2003

(1990)

2.2.

break

break
7

idea
idea

context-sensitive

(trans-contextual)

(de-contextual)

idea

(core meaning)

A, B, C 3

()

(A wonderful idea suddenly sprang to

mind./ I wish I could come up with a good idea.)

(I have no idea what could be wrong,

but.../ I have an idea somehow that he will come.)

(Tell me your ideas on the subject

without any reserve./ willingly support the idea

2.3.

that S + V) (the idea of democracy)

(the ideas advanced in this present

article)

idea
8

Out

idea

()

Out
In
my
mind

an idea

Take an idea

3. (collocations)

(an idea) (in my mind)

(conceive an idea/ Ive got a good idea)

()

(an idea) (in my mind)

(conceive an idea/ Ive got a good idea)

(put my

ideas into shape / My idea has been shaped)

(Out)

(take an idea/ accept a new idea/

borrow the idea for X from Y)

(get rid of an idea/ give up an idea)

(develop [explore,

expand] an idea)

(keep [stick to] an idea/ The idea that S +

idea

V is firmly rooted./ The idea haunted me day and

night)(The idea died at

idea

birth)(give an idea/ put my idea

across to / plant an idea in someones mind/ sell

idea

an idea to a publishing company/ Ive run out

ideas)(share an idea with)

(exchange ideas with X on

idea

Y) (In)

(:

(Out)(put an idea into

reification)Understanding is seeing [grasping]

action/ implement an idea)

idea idea ()
: My ideas

finally took shape. / illustrate an idea / polish

an idea / get a vivid [clear, definite] idea / I

haven't

least,

slightest] idea. / The idea eludes my grasp /

catch the main idea / pursue the original idea

the

foggiest

[remotest,

idea
4.

(The mind is a container for ideas)

idea ()


5.

language resources

Why dont you ?

(pedagogical grammar)

I see what you mean, but

Id appreciate it if you

could

(chunk)

(chunking)

(Daily Functions)

(Expressing Emotions)

(Expressions for Strategic Management)

(2005, pp.100-104)

()(

think you are wrong. I may

be missing the point, but...Ive probably

misunderstood you, but...

If I were you, I would .../ It might be a good idea

if you...

(Grammar of Rules)

(
may
might
would

( were
might
would

()

be missing

Ive

misunderstood

10

(Lexically-based Grammar)
have, be, get, make to, -ing

grammar in interaction

()

A: Its much more fun before they fall in love

with you, isnt it? When youre trying to get

them. (

doing

-ing
-ing

B: Right. You do a lot of good things for her, you

(conventional

knowand shes just like, not giving you the

expressions)

time of day. (

constructions ()(Taylor, 2002)

When youre trying to get them

networking

before they fall in love with you

(even if ./ unless/ now that /as

long as/no matter what)

(if were to/if it were not for/)

before they fall in love with you

(only to/so that/for fear

When youre trying to get them

that/never to)

theyyouB

and shes just like

not giving

you the time of day

much more fun

fall in love

with youconventional expressions

before
When

()

trytry to

to(you)get them

()

()

(global)
(local)

11

 9 (1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

to 6. 7. 8.() 9.

-ing ()

()

to to to , BE
HAVE

6.

(conventional expressions)

(native-like selection &

3
E

native-like fluency)

Lewis(1993)

1. Collocation: a successful idea / entertain an idea

2. Short, hardly grammaticalised utterances: Any other

ideas?

3. Sentence heads or frames most typically the

first words of utterances, serving a primarily

pragmatic purpose: It might be a good idea to ..

4. Full sentences, with readily identifiable pragmatic

awareness-raising ( ; )

meaning, which are easily recognized as fully

networking ()

institutionalized: It seems like a good idea to me.

automatization ()

TPO

(
)

see look watch look

glance, gaze, stare, peep,
12

Development, Inc.

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in

Taylor, J. (2002) Cognitive Grammar. Oxford University

Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
(1990) :

Press.

Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1981). A theoretical

framework for communicative competence. In Palmer,

(2003)E

A., Groot, P. and Trosper, S. (Eds.), The

(2004)

construction validation of tests of communicative

121

competence. Washington, DC: TESOL.

Langacker,

Ronald

W.

(1987).

() (2005).

Foundations

of

Cognitive Grammar Vol.1. Stanford University

(2005). Idea

Press.

12

Michael Lewis. 1993. The Lexical Approach.Language

Teaching Publications.

pp.66-68.

Savignon, S. (1972). Communicative competence: An

experiment

in

Philadelphia:

foreign
The

language

Center

for

teaching.
Curriculum

SFC
SFC
kmizuno@sfc.keio.ac.jp

13

(E )
E

(Summer1995)

1.

E (2003)

30 40

2.

[ 1 ]

2.1

[]

(1994)

14

2.

3.

4.

()

[]

2.3

(2000:47)

2.2

( 1997)

1998)

1.

15

(1990)

Bolinger(1977)

Miller(1978)

Bolinger(1977)single overarching meaning

meaning

3. E

3.1

context-free context independent

E (
E )

2003

break(XY)

X Y ()

3 75000 context-sensitive
( 1990:21)

(core meaning)

(1)(2)

( 1990:22)

( 1990:24)

B.

3.2

break

take

( 2004:10)

110 18 69 19

break
16

Y X
()Y

break AY
BY
A
B

(1987)

(1989:397)

(p.194)

( 1987)

(2001)

3-1break an egg

break
break

( 1987:138)

3-2The sad news broke his heart

17

(1989)
(2004)

3-3He broke the bad news to her

Nagoya

3.3

Tokyo

3.2

3-4They broke their journey

journey to
to Tokyo
Tokyo at
at Nagoya
Nagoya

3-5He broke his promise to help me

( 1990:121)
E

4 (

( 2004)

(:2002)

(2004)

Ijaz(1986)

( 2004:187)

(2000)

(2004)
TPR

18

(1990)

3.4

(1989)

( 1990:126)

(1990) take

hold seize

hold seize

break

(p.194)

break

tear

(1996)

smash

crush

break

take

19

4.2

4.2.1

(E,Bialystok&K,Hakuta 2000)

()(1988)

4. E

4.1E

3 E

) ()

()

()

A B

(2004)run

( 1986,Sonaiya1991 )

run

( 2002)

20

(2004)

3 break break

(1989)

break

over

4.2.2

Lakoff(1987)

(1993)

(2004)

21

)break(p.56)

4.2.3

()(

)()/

3000

( 2000)

(Summer1995)

Luppescu and Day(1993)

()

( 2005)

Nation (2001)

(2000:44)

(2002)

(
22

 (1989)

-The Japan Times

(2002)

(2000)

29(5), 3440.

(2004)

()

TPR -
49, 299-317.

(1996)

(2002)
(2000)

(1997)

10,73-81.
(2004)

2. (1989)

(2002)-

-
10(2), 311335.

3.

(2005)

72 Proceedings105-109.

1999:3)

(2001)
()1, 29-58.

(1993)

(2005) L2

41, 243-253.

(1994)

8, 24-43.

E,Bialystok and K,Hakuta(2000)

(1998)IPAL

(())

39(9), 2603-

2612.

Ijaz,I.H.(1986) Linguistic and cognitive determinants of lexical

acquisition in a second

(1986)
5(9), 47-55.

language, Language

Learning,36(4), 401-451.
Lackoff,G..(1987) Women,Fire,dangerous things:What fategories

(1997)

reveal

(2000)
29(5), 4247.

about

the

mind.Chicago:The

university

ofChicago Press(()1993

J.V.(1999)

)
Luppescu,S. and Day,R,R.(1993)Reading, dictionaries and

vocabulary learning. Language Learning,43(2), 4263-

3-22,

287.

(1987)
19, 123-158.

Nation,P.(2001) Learning vocabulary in another language.

(1988)

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

20, 234-257.

Sonaiya,R. (1991) Acquisition as a process of continuous

(1989)

lexical Disambiguation, International Review of

21, 367-384.

Applied Linguistic in Language Teaching,29(4), 273-

(1990)

284.
Summers,D.(1995)Vocabulary learning:Do dictionaries really

help?. Language teacher, 19,25-28.

(2004)

121, 3-13
() (2003)E

23

 ()
mizurika@hotmail.com

Analysis of the dictionary which based on cognitive semantics

The validity and the limit of "E-Gate English-Japanese dictionary."
MIZUKUCHI Rika
Abstract
This paper considers the problem of the dictionaries and discusses the validity and the limit of a study
dictionary ("E-Gate English-Japanese dictionary") which were based on cognitive semantics, taking up a
dictionary as one of the teaching materials for foreign language learning. General dictionaries do not lead
learners to understand the essence of a word because of being nothing but list the meanings and examples of a
word. For such a problem, "E-Gate English-Japanese dictionary" takes "core-meaning" and "network" for
making the essence of a word understand and tries to let learners to use words properly. However, in order to
take the core-meaning in the dictionary for Japanese language learners, we must not only examine the validity
and the limit of a core-meaning but also consider the relation between the form which dictionary is and
concepts of the Cognitive Linguistics well.
Keywords Dictionary for foreign language study, core-meaning, network, polysemy

(Department of Japanese language and Japanese literature, Sungkyul University)

24


Word Power

particle phrasal verb 16

particle particle

particle phrasal verb particle

particlephrasal verb

1.

over

2.

particle(

turn overput out phrasal

over, in, down, around, back )

verb outlineinject

give up

give up

25

3.

particle 16 out, in,

into, up, down, off, away, on, over, back, about,

(a)round, across, through, by, along

particle

particle

phrasal verb

particle

(1)out

run out broke out

breakout

in

(1)When the fire broke out, people run out of the

building.

outinoverparticle

(2)She rushed in with good news.

(3)We got lost in the dark.

(4)Mary fell in love with John.

broke out

()

in

outout

(5)Its already midnight, its high time to turn in.

()

(5)

up down

in

turn in

in

turn

turn in

(6)

26

(6)If you dont want these tickets, turn them in.

turn in

particle outon

in turn

overup

phrasal verb /

putput out,

put off, put on

particle

particle

up/down,

in/out

particle

Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn(2003) Word Power: Phrasal verbs and

4.

compounds A Cognitive Approach, Mouton de Gruyter,

Berlin/New York.

1996

1994

70-88

2003

baekyiyun@yahoo.co.jp

27

(2000)

1.

I see Mt. Fuji over there.

perspective

The train came out of the long tunnel into the snow

country.

28

(2)

(3)(4)

2000

(5)

2000

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

go/come

2.

1975
2000
3.
3.1

go/come

(a)(b)(c)(d)

(a)(b)

(1)

(a)(c)
29

(b)(d)

(c)(d)

(a)(b) come

Langacker 1991

(a)(b)

(come)

3.2

(a)

give

(b)

receive

(b)

give

(a)

give (b)

30

 receive

(b)

give

give

(a)(b)

give

(a)(b)

give,
receive

(a)(b)

(b)

(1)

(b)

(2)

(a)(b)
31

(3)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(3)

3.3

(a)
(b)

5:5-14

2000

1975

(b)(c)(c)

(c)

Langacker,

Ronald.

W.

cognitive

University Press.

(1991)

grammar.

Foundations
Vol.2.

of

Stanford

morishincc.ocha.ac.jp
32

(unidirectionality)

epistemic modality

epistemic /deontic /non-epistemic modalitydiscourse-markerpoliteness

/
epistemic

1.

(1984:422)

modal-marker

politeness discourse-marker

politeness

(2005)

politeness

social cognition

(Livnat 2002)(Choi 1995)

2.

(Heine 1993)

unidirectionality

Traugott 1995

content word

(functional

word

modal-marker

The term grammaticalization refers to the

deontic can

processes whereby items become more grammatical

33

al.(1994)

through time.
content item > grammatical word > clitic >

inflectional affix

speech act

(Hopper and Traugott 1993:2,7)

will

(decategorization)

source

(layering)

(layer)

Lexical item Syntax

Morphology (Hopper&Traugott 1993:95)

(Hopper&Traugott, 1993:125)

(Hopper and Traugott 1993)

(unidirectionality)

will, be going to3 , shall4 , be ing,

be to

()

()

()

()(

(persistence)

deontic modality

epistemic

modality

will, be

(Bybee 1985:166)

going to

epistemic modalitydeontic modality

5 (Bybee and Pagliuca

(Traugott 1989)

1985:74-5)

(semantic bleaching)

Bybee et

34

(a)

(Hopper and Traugott 1993)

(b)

( 2005)

3.

(2005:12-13)

(Newmeyer

1998 , Campbell 2001, Lass 1990)

A.

(deontic modalityepistemic modality)

(1999)

B.

must

deontic modality epistemic modality

C.

&(2005) dy

Newmeyer Hopper and

Traugott

epistemic possibility non-

(2003:130-138)

epistemic

(2005:12)Hopper and
Traugott

Livnat(2002) lay

(2003:209-216)parataxishypotaxis

perhaps epistemic

subordination

possibility suggestive speech act

althoughhowever

non-epistemic

( 2005:13)

(2005)

(2006) because

kara

2005

epistemic modality

non-epistemic 7

epistemic non-epistemic

(2005:43-44)

35

Choi1995

1
epistemic modality

deonticepistemic

deontic modality

epistemic modality

deontic epistemic
epistemic

modality

deonticepistemic

(2006)

(deontic modality)

(epistemic modality)

deonticepistemic

epistemic

modality deontic modality

(2006)

speaker-

y ng

orientedepistemic

g i yo

agent-oriented(deontic) ()epistemic

yo epistemic deontic

epistemic non-epistemic

4.

epistemic

speaker-orientedepistemic 2

10

orientedepistemic

epistemic modality

speaker-

(Hopper&Traugott 1993:125)

deontic modality epistemic

9 12

modality

epistemic

epistemic

epistemic modality

36

epistemic deontic

epistemic

non-epistemic

epistemic

5.

non-epistemic (

(1982)</>

11

<><>

interaction

<>

epistemic

2005

(2005:43-44)(2005)

(epistemic

)(non-epistemic)

(2005)

(1999)

(2005)

BECOME languageBE

(2005

12

1-2)

(199985)
(199992)

13

37

 2 deontic

can

epistemic

modal-marker

deontic modality

epistemic

modal-marker

modality

(2005)

<> epistemic modality

deontic modality

can non-epistemic

(2000253)

(1983) deontic

(dialogue)

modality

1983:17) deontic modality

(monologue)

deontic modality

deontic modality can

(politeness)

deontic modality

discourse-marker

epistemic

modality
Can I help you? ()

Can I carry your bag?

[deontic modality
epistemic modality]

[epistemic modalitynon-epistemic modality]

construe

(politeness) discourse-marker

(2000253)

discourse-marker

6. (politeness) discourse-marker

modal-marker can

4 non-epistemic

38

discourse-marker

can

discourse-marker

7. modal-marker discourse-

marker

epistemic modality

epistemic modality speaker-

oriented

politeness

specific

politeness

epistemic modality

non-epistemic

( 2005)

politeness

politeness

Politeness
8.

(Brown & Levinson 1987)

politeness

[deontic modalityepistemic modality]

deontic modality

politeness

[epistemic modalitynon-epistemic modality]

epistemic

politeness

39

 construe

7. deontic modality

deontic modality
epistemic modality

2005non-epistemic

modal-marker

8. (1991)

can

modal-marker

deontic

9. (2002:229-239)

modality can

()

can

modal-marker discourse-

marker

politeness

10. (2002:207)

politeness

11. (1982:93)

epistemic

(intersubjective)(Traugott and Dasher 2002:40)

modality

(Grammaticalization)

(Pragmaticalization)social
cognition

epistemic modality
(may, must etc.)

1.

Tom may go there.

It is possible that Tom will go
there. that

2. deontic

<

modality

>

epistemic modality

3. will be going to

will
be going to

can

may

4. shall
5. shall will
be going to

12.

6. Newmeyer(1998:263-275)
(2002:9-10)

40

Brown,P and Levinson,S.(1987) Politeness:Some universals in

language usage. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Bybee,J.L. (1985)

Morphology: A study of the relation

between meaning and form, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

DO languageHAVE

Bybee,J.L. (1988) Semantic substance vs. contrast in the

development of grammatical meaning , Berkeley

Linguistic Society, 14 , 247-264.

Bybee,J.L. & W. Pagliuca (1985) Cross-linguistic comparison

)
13.

and the development of grammatical meaning, In J.Fisiak

(Ed.) Historical semantics and historical word-formation,

Berlin: Mouton., 60-83.

Bybee,J.L., R.D.Perkins & W.Pagliuca(1994) The Evolution of

Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Language of

the World. Chicago/London: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Campbell, L (2001) Whats wrong with grammaticalization?

Language Sciences 23, 113-162

Choi,S.(1995) The development of epistemic sentence-ending

(2002)

modal forms and functions in Korean children, In J. Bybee

(2005

& S.Fleischman (Eds.), Modality in grammar and

(1984) A

discourse , Amsterdam/ Philadelphia :John Benjamins, 165204.

(1982)

Coates, J.(1983) The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries,

London & Canberra: Croom Helm.

67110

Heine,B.(1993)

(1999)
281, 8494.

Auxiliaries:

Cognitive

Forces

and

Grammaticalization. Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Higashiizumi, Y (2006) From a Subordinate Clause to an

(2000)

Independent Clause: A History of English Because-Clause

(1999)

281, 8494.

and Japanese Kara-Clause , Hitsuji Shobo

Hopper,PJ.&E.C.Traugott(2003[1993])

(2005)

Grammaticalization.

Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. Press.

JCLA
Conference Handbook ,179-182

Langacker,R.W.(1990) Subjectification, Cognitive Linguistics

1(1),5-38.

(2005)

Lass, R. (1990) How to do things with junk: exapation in

language evolution Journal of Linguistics 26, 79-102

(1983)
17, 5-18.

Livnat, Z (2002) From epistemic to deontic modality: evidence

2005
Deontic Epistemic

from Hebrew Foria Linguistica Historica XXIII(1/2), 107114

Newmeyer, F.J.(1998) Language Form and Language Function,

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

2005
1-3222, 32-46

Traugott,E.C.(1982) From Propositional to Textual and

&(2005)

Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic-Pragmatic Aspects

5, 197-207

of Grammaticalization , Perspectives of Historical

(2002)

Linguistics (ed.) by Winfred P.Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel,

245-271. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Traugott,

(2006)
yng

gi yo

E.C.

(1988)

Pragmatic

Strengthening

and

Grammaticalization, Proceedings of the Fourteenth

45, 175-188

Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 406416.

(1999)
3, 123-136

Traugott, E.C. (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in

English: An example of subjectification in semantic

(1991) 165, 26-

change, Language , 65 , 31-55.

37.

Traugott, E.C. (1995) Subjectification in Grammaticalization,

41

Subjectivity and Subjectivization: Linguistics Perspectives,

Change. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Visser, F. Th (1963-73) An Historical Syntax of the English

(eds.) by Dieter Stein and Susan Wright. 31-54. Cambridge:

Language Vols. b. Leiden: Brill.

Cambridge Univ. Press.

Traugott, E.C. and R.B.Dasher (2002) Regularity in Semantic

makuro@law.nihon-u.ac.jp

42


Langacker of

of
on

toof
of
of
of
of
of

1. of

onto

of

2. of

of
Langacker2000

of

the bottom of the jar

of

on
to

of

ofof

1 3

of

of

1the bottom of the jar

2the label on the jar

(2)

3the lid to the jar

3
1 4

intrinsic relationship
(extrinsic relationship)

4the tip of my finger

of 1

of

2 3

of

of

of

on 3

to

5the chirping of birds; the consumption of

alcohol; the destruction of the Iraqi army

of
43

 9chanting of slogan

6a ring of gold; a book of matches; a man of

integrity

10chanting of demonstrators
11chanting of slogan by demonstrators

7) the state of California; the crime of shoplifting

a distance of 10 miles
8an acquaintance of Bill; the chief of this tribe;

the father of the bride

9 10

of

11

of

of

ofby

1 of

(a) Prototypical Value

(b) Schematic Value

of

1of

of

Langacker 2000 :74

lm
tr

(a)

4.1of

of

of

lm

tr(b)of

3
of

of

of

of 9

11)

44

4.2

(1972)(1997)

(1972 N

N2
N1 N2

4.3 the meaning of of

Langacker 2000

Langacker(2000

of

of

(1997)
N N2

of

13

of

of

of

Langacker(2000

(2003)N1 N2

of

N1 R N2

N1 N2 N N2

N2

N1 N2 N 5

free variable

N1 N2

1.

2. trajector

N1 N2
N1 N2
45

3.

1997) UI

81-110.
Langacker, Ronald W. (2000) the meaning of of, in Grammar

1997

and conceptualization, Mounton de Gruyter, 74-90.

()2004

(2003)

hs36152001@yahoo.co.jp

46

0.

Clark(1972, 1973) Sinha(1982, 1983)

Rohlfing(2001)

1987,

Clark

1982

( 2005)

Clark(1973)

1. Rohlfing(2001)

1.1

(1) LM

TR

(2)LM TR
Clark Sinha(1982, 1983)

Rohlfin

IN ON / AUF

IN ON

18

23

1.2

18

Rohlfing

Rohlfing
47

1.3.4

NA ON

1.3.
1.3.1

IN

23

ON / AUF

24

IN DO NA

13 11

20 26

DONA

1.3.2

INON
DONA

Rohlfing 2
TR LM

TR

LM 2

LM TR

NA

1.4

1
1

2 TR

LM NA

(3)TRLM

(4)TRLM

LM

(5)TRLM

TR

2 TRLM

NA

ON

1.3.3

NA NA

1 1

1 NA

123

TRNA

Rohlfing

1.5

48

(LM)

2 NA

2.2

NA

NA

1.6

(1987)(1982)

(6)

Rohlfing

(6)

1.7

(7)(8)(9)(10)

(7)

(8)
(9)

(10)

(7)(8)

Rohlfing

(7)

(8)

2.

2.1 TRLM

Rohlfing

NA 2 TRLM

(9)(10)

(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)

(11)
(12)

TRLM

(11)(12)

(11)

TR LM

(11)

TR

(12)
49

2.3

2.5

(2005)

TR LM

TRLM

(13)

Setting 1

(13)

(14)
1

(14)

(2001)

Q&A80

(1992)[][]

(1987)

(14)

12-17
(1982)

(1982)

TRLM

454-455

(2005)

2.4

(
14 16

(C)(2) 102-110

Rohlfing, K. J. (2001) No preposition required. The role of

preposition for the understanding of spatial relations in

Q&A80

language

acquisition,

Applied

Cognitive

Linguistics

:Theory and Language Acquisition, Mouton de Gruyter,

229-247

come ing
to

50

1.

2006

2.

2004

2005

20052006

2005

2004

2006
51

20042005

2006

2002

1982
1994

1992

3.

3.1 20051

2005

3.2

1988

2005

2004

85

52

will
must

can
deontic

modalityepistemic modality

deontic modality

2004

epistemic modality

2003

Sweetser

1990must

4.

10

30 60

20 60

2 3 19 21

30 3

30 2

10

900

3.3

10

53

90%

10%

2002

70%

30%

45%

55%

97%

3%

50%

50%

40%

60%

90%

97%

2005

15

15

55%

60%

5.

54

2004

7 325-334

2005

2006

22 19-31

6.

2002

1996

1982

71 3

45-92
2003
Deontic Epistemic

1988

1992

7 1-17

2003
(

3 )

1994

2002

146-168

1. 2005

2. 1

Langacker, Ronald W.2000

3.2006

61-143
Sweetser, Eve E.1990from Etymology to Pragmatics:
Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic

Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2000

1999

mychong1979@yahoo.co.jp

55

(2005)

1.

2005 14 16

C(2)

14510615

21 12

8.

A: 1) (5)

2) (7)

3) (7)

B: 1) (6)

2) (21)

C:

(12)

2.

2.1

56

2005

2.2

200513

2005

tr

PATMVR

57

(1993)wear

wear

200547

20057-26

58

2.3

(2005102-121)

(1)(2)

(1)

2005112-118

(2)

200555

(3)

(1)

(2)

(3)

59

3.

2005136-143

(1993)Shirai(1995)Ijaz(1986)

60

4.

usage-based model

61

2.3

5.

2000
Cognitive Linguistics11

2001

Cognitive Linguistics Research19Mouton de

GruyterApplied Cognitive

linguistics

2004 Cognitive

Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and

Foreign Language TeachingMouton de Gruyter

62

(1993)

41,

pp.243-253
(2005)

14

16

C(2) 14510615

21:63-80

http://jsl.li.ocha.ac.jp/morishin1003/
Ijaz,

I.

H.(1986)

Linguistics

and

cognitive

determinants of lexical acquisition in a

second language. Language Learning., pp.36-4

Shirai, Y.(1995) The Acquisition of the basic

verb PUT by Japanese EFL Learners:
Prototype and Transfer
12, pp.61-92

1.

E Benesse

morishincc.ocha.ac.jp

63

zh
n

1.

deixis

1 Achin Eschbach

Deixis

2.Deixis

2.1

deixis

index

deixis

2.3

proximal
distal

deictics

Peirce,Charles

2.2

64

3.2

3.

thisthat

3.1

3.3

65

12

3.4

1999 12

31
1999 12 31

1999 12

3.5

31
1999 12 31

1999 12 31

3.3

66

1.

2.

1996

Achim Eschbach: Deixis In: Papers In Honor Of Yoshihiko

Ikegami, The Locus Of Meaning (1997) 115-122 Kurosio.

2001

mmnn163@hotmail.com

67

The Use of the Demonstrative Pronouns "zhe"and "na": Application to Chinese language edecation
NIINUMA, Masayo
Abstract
In the common language presently spoken in China (Putonghua or Mandarin), there are two main
demonstrative pronouns: zheand na. Usually, the use of zhe refers to proximal objects, whereas the use of
na refers to distal objects. In this paper, it is pointed out that besides the local distance, the use of zhe and
na is influenced according to the psychological distance between the speaker and the objects. In addition, this
paper suggests that the schematization of zhe and na in the cases than those indicating a time matter, try to
help the learners of Mandarin the better understanding of demonstrative pronouns.
Keywordsdeixis, proximal, distal, local distance, psychological distance, zhe, na

(Department of Chinese Language and Literature, Graduate School, Ochanomizu University)

68

1.

Richards, et al. 1988

2004

p.56

2.

2.1

(p.)
(2000)

(p.6)

(sentence)
(utterance)

(semantics)(pragmatics)

inference

(p.10)

(p.11)

69

3.

3.1

(Maxims of Conversation)

it that

it

that

(Cooperative

Principle)

(conversational implicature)

it that

(irony)

(metaphor)(euphemism)

2.2

2.1

it that

It it

it

(Austin, John)(Searle, John)

it

(p.17)

that

that that

It that

2.1

Lakoff(1973)Leech(1983)
Brown and Levinson(1987)

3.2

(politeness)

(Keenan

(aspect)(tense)(modality)

1976)

(p.21)

perfective
imperfective

70

Perfective imperfective

information)

(interpersonal

(p.80) function)
must have towillcan

(p.89)

a.

Oil floats on water.

b.

Oil will float on water.

a. *

b. Ron came before Jo *comes / came yesterday.

(p.116)

would

3.3

(p.116)

(p.130)I

love you

(p.102)

(p.130)

(reference point)

(topic sentence)

(information structure)
(new information) (old
71

4.

4.1

(p.170)

(p.137)

Langacker(1995)

(naming)

(p.138)

(similarity)

(p.174)

4.4

(contiguity)

(oxymoron)

(metonymy)

(arbitrary)

(motivated)

()

(p.178)

(p.178)

4.5

(synecdoche)

(whole)(part)

(p.146)

4.2

(genus)(species)

(p.168)

Lakoff(1987)(prototype effect)

4.3

72

(p.183)

(p.230)

1970 (Gumperz, John)

Gumperz(1982a, 1982b)

(p.184)

4.6

(ethnicity)

(transferred epithet)

(conversational analysis)

a.
b.

He was now smoking a sad cigarette.

(p.234)

She tapped Bruton Street with a testy foot.

(p.237)

(p.184)

6.

(p.185)

(temporality)

(causality)(p.251)

(p.186)

5.

(p.254)

(p.254)

(Hopper, P.J.)(Thompson, S.A)

(p.222)

(Hymes 1964)

73

(2004)

K(2000)

(p.269)

Brown,P and Levinson,S.C.(1987)Politeness: Some universals in

language usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz,J.J.,ed.(1982a)Language

(p.275)

and

social

identity,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz,J.J.,ed.(1982b)Discourse

strategies,

Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hymes,D.

7.

(1964)Introduction:

Toward

ethnographies

of

communication, American anthropologist, 66, 1-34.

Keenan,E.O. (1976)The university of conversational postulqtes,

Language in society,5, 67-80.

Langacker,R.W.(1995)Raising and transparency, Language, 71,

1-62.

Lakoff,G.(1987)Women, fire, and dangerous things: What

categories reveal about mind. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, (
)

Lakoff, R.(1973)The logic of politeness; or, minding your ps

and qs, Chicago linguistic society, 9, 236-287.

Leech,G.N.(1983)Principles of pragmatics, London: Longman,

()1987

Richards,J., Platt,J., & Weber,H.(1985) Longman dictionary of

applied linguistics,
1988

tohyama@law.ritsumei.ac.jp

74

Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching

Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching
12

2.1 Achard and Niemeier(2003)

1.
1980 Lakoff Langacker

Achard and Niemeier

Langacker(1987)

1)

2)3)

Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language

Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching

Langacker(1987)

Fillmore(1982)Lakoff(1987)

ICM Wierzbicka(1988)

2. Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language

Usage based model

Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching

Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition,

Tomasello(2000)

and Foreign Language Teaching

Usage based model

12

75

2.4 Lowie and Verspoor(2003)

Lowie and Verspoor

2.2 Oadierno(2003)

Oadierno

75

25 4

Oadierno(2003) Kellerman(1978,1986)

2.5 Niemeier(2003)
Niemeier

2.3 Warra(2003)

Warra

get
get

1 1

76

2.10 Boers(2003)

Boers

2.6 Grundy(2003)

Grundy

2.11 Csabi(2003)

2.7 Goddard(2003)

Goddard

hold keep

hold keep

hold keep

2.8 Achard(2003)

Achard

2.9 Athanasiadou(2003)

2.12 Tyler and Evans(2003)

Tyler and Evans over

Athanasiadou when, as

long as, as soon as, as, since, while

Tyler and Evans

77

over

over

3.2

Winke and kim(2002) over

Athanasiadou(2003) Boers(2003) Csabi(2003)

Tyler and Evans(2003)

over

over

3.2.1

over

Athanasiadou(2003)

over

Tyler and Evans(2003)

3.

Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language

Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching

12

3.2.2
Boers(2003)Csabi(2003)

3.1
Goddard(2003)

78

Csabi(2003)

Csabi(2003) Tyler and

Csabi

Evans(2003)

Winke and kim(2002)

3.2.3

Achard, Michel. Niemeier, Susanne. (2003) Cognitive

Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign

Tyler and Evans(2003)

Language Teaching , Mouton.

over

Fillmore, Charles. (1982) Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic

Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm.

Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.

Kellerman, E. (1978) Transfer and non-transfer: where are we

now? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2: 37-57.

Kellerman, E. (1986) An eye for an eye: crosslinguistic

constraints on the development of the L2 lexicon. In E.

Kellerman & M. Sharwood Smith. (eds), Cross-linguistic

influence in second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive

Boers(2003)

Grammar.,Vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford

University Press.

Lakoff, George. (1987)Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:

What

Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Categories

Reveal

about

the

Mind.

Tomasello, Michael. (2000)Do young children have adult

systematic competence?Cognition 74: 209-253.

Wierzbicka, Anna. (1988) The Semantics of Grammar.

4.

Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamines.

Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language

Winke, Paula. and YiYoung Kim. (2002) Poster presented at

Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching

Second Language Research Forum. Toronto, Canada.

(Octorber 2002)

chimpui-chimpui@infoseek.jp

79


Ellis,N.(2002)

Ellis, N. (2002)

Ellis

1. Ellis,N.(2002)

frequency

1.2

PHONOTACTICS

1.1 frequency learning

PHONOLOGY AND

Hasher, & Chromiak,1977)

1.3

spelling sound

1.4 LEXIS

Balota & Chumbly,1984

L1 L2

80

1.5 MORPHOSYNTAX

Pinker(1990)

(e.g., went)

(e.g., slung)

The plane left for the East Coast.

plane

left

plane

(Rumehart and McCelland,1986)

left

The spy saw the cop with the

binoculars.with the binoculars.

1.6

saw cop

60%40%

1.8

OF GRAMMATICALITY

THE VARABLE NATURE

1.7 LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION

81

1.9

SYNTAX

morphosyntax

Chomsky

1957)

Goldberg

construction-based theories

(Tomasello,1999,2000)

stochastic

slot-and-

grammars

frame

Tomasello

L2 L1

SLA

1.10

2 L1

1.11

L2

L2

3 L2 L1

.
1.12

82

1.13

Skinner(1957,1969)

THE SYSTEMATICITY OF

VARIABILITY

Lado

Lado

1.14

Lado

1.15

Lado (1990)

Verbal Behavior

ALM

Lado

ALM

ALM

Mindless repetition

focus on form consciousness raising

Mindful repetition

1.16 :LADO and LATER

10

SLA

Harris(1955,1968)

1.17

83

Ellis

Slobin,1997

Ellis

Ellis

L2

40

Ellis

2.

L2

1 Ellis(2002)

notice consciousness

2.1

raising

Focus

on Form Consciousness Raising

Ellis

exempler

2006

Ellis

Ellis

ALM

ALM

Prasada, Pinker, and Snyder(1990)

84

Ellis

Elliss The plane left for the East Coast.

plane

J2

plane

2.2

2.3

Ellis

Ellis

Ellis

Forcus on Form, Consciousness Raising

Long & Robinson (1988)

(2005)

2005

2005

,12-36
(2005)

85

review with implication for theories of implicit and explicit

2006

language

acquisition:

Study

of

Second

language

Acquisition: 24, 143-188

Ellis, N. (2002) Frequency effects in language processing. A

okajima-yuko@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp

THE ROLE OF FREQUENCY EFFECTS

IN A LANGUAGE EDUCATION OF COGNITIVE APPROACH
Suggestions from Ellis,N.(2002) FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE
PROCESSING.
A Review with implications for Theories of Implicit and Explicit Language
Acquisition
Okajima Yuko
Abstract
Ellis.N(2002) observed languages are acquired by the piecemental learning of many thousands of
constructions and the frequency-biased abstraction of regularities within them. And he also said that
learners sensitivity to frequency in phonology, reading, lexis, morphosyntax, garammaticality,
sentence production, and syntax has implications for theories of implicit and explicit learning. In this
report, I review Elliss paper and examine how we can apply this knowledge to the Japanese education
field.
Keywordsfrequency, Japanese education, repetitious practice, fluency, schema
(Japanese Education Course, Graduate School, Ochanomizu University)

86

aspect

Langacker2001perfective
progressive
imperfective
aspect
Langacker2001

2.

1.

2.1.

perfective verb

imperfective verb

run
build

know

perfective process

like

(1)a

Langacker2001perfective (1)b

progressiveimperfective

(1)a. *He builds a house. a'. He is building a house.

[perfective]

b. He knows the truth. b'. *He is knowing the truth

Langacker2001

[imperfective]

Langacker (2001: 11)

Langacker

2001 Langacker2001

(a)

(b)(c)

Langacker 2001(a)

(c)

MSMaximal Scope
ISImmediate Scope

87

(a)

(b)

(c)

Langacker, R. W. (2001) Cognitive linguistics, language pedagogy, and the English present tense. In: M. Ptz, S.
Niemeier and R. Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language acquisition. pp.3-39.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter..

MS IS

(2) Live

(a)(b)

(2) I {live / am living} in Chicago.

(c)

Langacker (2001: 131)

(b)(a)

(b) IS

IS1

IS2

2.2.

(1)
(a)

2.2.1.

(1)a

(a)(1)a

(b)

(c)

promisebeg

sentence

(3)

zooming in

(3) a. I promise to cooperate.

internal view

b. I beg you to give me another chance.

MSMaximal scope

c. I hereby sentence you to 30 years in prison.

Langacker (2001: 27)

(1)b

(a)
88

3.

Langacker2001

2.2.2.

(6) (7) (8)

habitual/ repetitive

(6)

(7) []

(8)

[]
[]

(6) (7)

(4)b

(4)c

3.1

(4)d

2 Langacker

2001

(4) a. Our new furniture comes tomorrow.

3.2

b. ?? Our new furniture comes.

Langacker2001

c. ?? An earthquake strikes next week.

c. There it is on the monitorour bus leaves at noon..

Langacker (2001: 31)

3.1. Langacker 2001

4(a)(c)

(5)

(9) a.

b.

(5) Im driving home last night and I hear a siren. I pull

over and stop. This cop comes up and starts writing

me a ticket.

Langacker (2001: 22)

(10) a.
b.

89

3.2.1.

1984

(11)

(11)

Langacker2001

(b)

3.2.

(12) a

2000 1995,

1984 1976

(12)a

1995

(12)b

(12)c

3.2.2.

90

(13) a
b

4.

Langacker 2001

actual

(2000)

(1995)

(14) []

( cf[])

(1984)

(1976)

,155-327.

Langacker, R. W. (2001) Cognitive linguistics, language peda-

(15)c

gogy, and the English present tense. In: M. Ptz, S.

Niemeier and R. Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language acquisition, 3-37. Berlin/

New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

(15) a

mine_fuyuki@yahoo.co.jp

91


Tomasello,M.2003 (2004)

Tomasello2003 A Usaged-Based Theory

2004 Tomasello2003

1. 1

Chomsky 1960

70

You cant get there

from here.e.g. Gleitman and Wanner,1982

continuity assumption

Pinker,1984

Children can get there from

here.

Skinner(1957)

Intention-reading pattern-

finding

Chomsky(1959) Skinner

9-12

Tomasello,1995a

Chomsky(1968,1980a,1986)

92

item

structure

A structured inventory of

construction

()

A structured inventory

of construction

children can get from here to there

(1)

2 You cant get there from here.

(2)

Chomsky

formal languages 2
(1)

2. 2

(2)
core

periphery

2.1

dual process

Usage-Based Linguistics

Langacker,1987a,1991,2000

93

item

2.1.1

[] in the side of inside of

2.1.2

going to

gonna

[] He pulled the door and it opened.

He pulled the door open.

going to

gonna

(2)

(3)

Tomasello1999)

2.1.3

,coast,

shore,

beach

2.2

94

joint attentional frames

2.2.1

comunicative
intentions

conreversal imitation

face-to -face

protoconversation

2.2.2

912

95

2.2.3

3symbolic gestures

2.3

joint attentional

2.3.2 Early Holophrases

frames

2.3.

Rockin;

(1) ritualizations

Tomasello,1992a

up, down, on

(2) deictic

(relational words)

gestures

96

 I-wanna-do-it,

Lemme-see.

the part-to-whole

polysynthetic the

whole-to-parts

Tomasello2003

Usaged-Based Theory

2.

Tomasello

Tomasello (1999)

3.1.1

Tomasello

912

Tomasello

2005,p.5556

97

Tomasello

3.1.4

Tomasello

Tomasello

(P.5)

p.72

p.72

3.1.2

Tomasello

Tomasello

3.1.5

P.55

Tomasello

p.39

Tomasello

Tomasello

Tomasello

3.1.3

Tomasello

Tomasello2003 1

98

(2004)

Tomasello,M. (2003) Constructing a language:a usage-based theory

of language acquisition, First Harvard University Press paperback
edition.

okajima-yuko@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp

Constructing a Language Tomasello, M. 2003an abstract of the 1 & 2 chapter

& the comparison with Developmental Psychology
Okajima Yuko
Abstract
Tomasello(2003) was written to establish a new paradigm as a antithesis of Chomskys Universal Grammar. For
the sake of this, he took the way to watch the process how children learn language, and find the essence of language
inductively. In this report I made an abstract of the first & second chapters of his book which I think shows his theory
typically. Then I compared Tomasello(2003) with Uchida (2004) which viewed a language development from the aspect
of Developmental Psychology.
Keywordslanguage acquisition,

joint attention,

intention-reading,

pattern finding,

language symbol

(Department of Japanese Education, Graduate School, Ochanomiz )

99

2 2 Tomasello Constructing a
Language(2003)1 2

Constructing a Language

1.

(L1 )( Tomasello
L2 )

7 L1

L1 L2

Constructing a Language

8 L2

L1
2

4. Tomasello

L2

4.1 Tomasello
Constructing a Launguage(2003)

Michael Tomasello
Tomasello

2.

L1 (L1

Tomasello Constructing a

First

Language(2003)

verb(1992)

L2

()

3.

100

4.2 Tomasello

O + O (Ball table, Mommy sock. (

)

1950

3 (1)

(2) 2

Tomasello

(3)

5. 2 19601970

1960 1970

()

Slobin(1973)

Tomasello

5. 3

(joint attention)

Tomasello

(Semantic relations

approach)

Tomasello
Constructing a Language

5.

Agent, Action, Object Agent-Action-Object

5.1 1950
1960

1950 1960

Braine(1963)

L1

5. 4 1980

()

1980

GB
(Government and binding theory)(LFG)

Pivot + O (More juice. More milk)

O + Pivot (Juice gone, Mommy gone)

2
101

Chomsky(UG)

(
1 )

5. 5

6.2 Construction()

()

()
(
)

(
)

()

(Structured Inventory)

()

1 1

6.

6.1

()(

102

2 1

Ex.) let alone

er

there

Ex.) This hairdryer needs fixing.

7.

7.1

Ex.) Him be a doctor!

L1 1824

My mother ride the train!

(participants)
1

Ex.:

(manipulative activity scenes)

3 (figure-ground scenes)

)
()

(possession scenes)

(1)

6. 3

(2)

()

103

(replacement)

7.2

Ex. More!

Do you want more grapes?

More grapes

More milk, More grapes, More juice

1
18

ball table

(Braine 1976)

Allgone sticky

14 18

Gone juice, Juice gone

14

23

(Piaget)

2 (1)
(2)

1 1(vertical structure) 1

2(replacement)

2 Throw X X

Ex.

More!

You want some grapes?

more grapes

(verb-specific)

Do you want your shoes?

On!

shoes on

(syntagmatic categories)(agent)

( Ex.

(patient)(recipient)

More juice! Shoes on!)

104

Tomasello(1992)

)1

(Light Verb)

L1 L2

L2

(2004) L2

L2

Constructing a Language

(Tomasello 2003)

8. L2

L2

L2

8.1 L2

L2

L2 L1

L1 L2

L2

1970 L1L2 L1 L2

L1 L2

Tomasello

105


L1
L2

8.2

1.

2.

3.

4.

(2004)

L2

()

Braine, M. (1963) The ontogeny of English phrase structure.

L2

Language 39, 1-14.

Braine, M. (1976) Childrens first word combinations.

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development 41(1) .

L2

Brown, R. (1973) A first language: The early stages. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Slobin, D. (1973) Cognitive prerequisites for the development of

grammar. In C. Ferguson and D. Slobin, eds., Studies of

child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart,

L1

Winston.

Tomasello, M. (1992) First verbs: A case study of early

grammatical development. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based

theory of language acquisition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Tomasello

University Press.

hashimoto_ys@ybb.ne.jp

106

The background of Usage-based model and language acquisition at early stages

-Application to L2 acquisition-

HASHIMOTO Yukari
Abstract
It is useful to apply the knowledge of L1 to the process of L2 acquisition. In this report, I review Constructing a
Language (Tomasello 2003) to clarify how the Usage-based model appeared and how young children acquire a
language at early stages, and examine how the acquired knowledge can be applied to the field of L2 acquisition.
KeywordsUsage-based model,

word combination,

schema,

107

verb island hypothesis


Bores, F. (2003)

Bores(2003)Bores

1.

Bores(2003)

Bores

Bores

2. Bores(2003)

2.1

2.2

Boers (2000), Bores and Demecheleer

(2001)Bores(2003)

Bores(2003)

108

2.2.1

2.3

2.3.1

2
30

30 up-down

19

1 up-down

2.3.2

2.2.2

Breatheing flames Being a flame-

throwerUnchaining ones anger Letting anger

out of a cage

2.4

109

3.2

JFL

JSL

under ones own

Bores(2003)

steam

under way

JSL

EFL

2.5

3.3

2.2.1

Those are inflammatory remarks.

She was doing a slow burn.
He was breathing fire.
Your sincere apology just added fuel to the
fire.
After the argument, Dave was smoldering
for days.

SLA

3.
Bores(2003)

3.1

110

That kindled my fire.

Boy, am I burned up!
He was consumed by his anger.

He has a ferocious temper.

He has a fierce temper.
Its dangerous to arouse his anger.
That awakened my ire.
His anger grew.
He has a monstrous temper.
He unleashed his anger.
Dont let your anger get out of hand.
He lost his grip on his anger.
His anger is insatiable.

2.3.2

4.

3.4

Bores(2003)

Bores(2003)

Bores(2003)

Bores, Frank. (2000) Metaphor awareness and Vocabulary

retention. Applied Linguistics 21(4):553-571.

Bores, Frank. (2003) Expanding Learners Vocabulary

Through Metaphor Awareness: What Expansion, What

3.5

Learners, What Vocabulary, Studies on Language

Acquisition, Mouton, 211-232.

Bores, Frank and Murielle Demecheleer

(2001) Measuring

the impact of cross-cultural differences on learners

comprehension

of

imaginable

idioms.

English

Language Teaching Journal 66(3):355-262.

chimpui-chimpui@infoseek.jp

111

1719

(C)

17520253

2006 3 31

112