言語の意味的な側面に障害をもつ重度の失語症2症例に対し,描画訓練を通じて言語活動を促進することを試みた.
症例1は,この訓練により,日常生活行為の諸場面を時間的順序に従って描画できるようになった.これに伴い日常会話の理解や表出が改善した.行為-場面-物-語の間の連辞的差異関係を表象することができるようになったのだと考えられた.
症例2は,この訓練により,日常生活行為の諸空間を描画できるようになった.これに伴い定型的な日常会話の理解が改善し,断片的な言語表出も見られるようになった.行為-空間-語の間の隣接的差異関係を表象することができるようになったのだと考えられた.
描画訓練は,意味的側面に障害を持つ重度の失語症患者の差活動を活性化し,それぞれの可能レベルに応じて言語活動を促進すると考えられる.

抄録全体を表示

脳損傷による言語障害者が抱える問題に関して,これまで言語治療士が行ってきた臨床評価は,主に的および神経心理学的観察にもとづいている.しかし,患者の言語病理を理解し,治療的な関わりを試みる根拠としては不十分だと考えられる.すなわち,〈意味〉の共有が図りにくい患者の病態と心理を了解するためには,治療士がもつ考え方の枠組をシフトさせることが必要である.
そこで,筆者は,まず記号学的な観点を導入し,言語の〈差〉作用を認識することが,患者の言語病理を理解する上で有用であることを論じた.次に,治療関係・治療構造が言語臨床の内容・経過に直接影響を及ぼすことを指摘し,患者-治療士関係における治療士の〈役割〉の取り方について論じた.

抄録全体を表示

Sport consists of many different Kinds of meaning. Numerous studies investigating the meaning of sport have been conducted. These studies have traditionally focused on the meaning of sport on an individual level. However, what we must focus on here is not the interpretation of sport itself, but rather the generation of meaning in sport since it is the continual generation of meaning which allows us to develop our sporting performance. Previous studies have paid little attention to this mechanism.

The purpose of this research, therefore, is to clarify the mechanism by which meaning is generated in sport. For this purpose, several linguistic categories have been used. The results of this research are as follows.

Each sport has its own unique meaning. The meaning of sport can be found in the unique differences in each sport. A good example of this are the baseball terms “out" and “safe". Difference in sport enables the generation of new meaning. A good illustration of this is the term “libero" used in volleyball. From such results, the following conclusion can be drawn. The open structure of sport is such that it allows the differences which make the generation of meaning possible.

抄録全体を表示

Dans les recherches linguistiques, TOKIEDA et SAUSSURE ont en commun l'idée que le langage ne constitue pas une substance (=chose en soi), mais des actions de forces physiologiques, psychiques, mentales. Par conséquent, la linguistique n'a pas non plus pour objet les choses qui sont naturellement données. L'existence des unités linguistiques suppose une opération très positive de l'esprit.
Pourtant la notion d' "action linguistique" chez SAUSSURE est foncièrement différente de celle de TOKIEDA. L'essence de l'action linguistique, chez TOKIEDA, consiste dans la conceptualisation (=généralisation) des choses individuelles par la conscience des sujets parlants. Il pense qu'il y a dans le langage des associations successives qui lient les choses aux concepts et puis aux sons vocaux, et que le langage ne représente que les associations subjectives de ce type. Dans cette notion d' "action linguistique", la condition des sujets parlants est parfaitement active, et on peut aller jusqu'à dire que tous les sujets parlants possèdent la même compétence que, par exemple, celle des peintres qui généralisent les choses par les couleurs et les lignes.
Mais, chez SAUSSURE, le rôle essentiel de l'action linguistique vis-à-vis de la pensée consiste dans la différenciation de notre expérience du monde. Et cette différenciation se traduit par la délimitation des unités significatives que fait la pensée dans la masse parlée qui est informe. « La pensée, de sa nature chaotique, dit SAUSSURE, est forcée de se préciser parce qu'elle est décomposée, elle est répartie par le langage en des unités ». Donc les sujets parlants, selon lui, produisent des différences quant aux données de l'expérience, et par cette production de différences, leur pensée est décomposée, c'est-à-dire devient consciente. Les différences significatives produites par les sujets parlants organisent à leur tour la pensée des sujets parlants.
Malgré la similarité entre la théorie de TOKIEDA et celle de SAUSSURE, au moins quant à leur point de départ, on ne peut méconnaître la divergence très grave qui se fait jour dans leurs notions d' "action linguistique". Il me semble qu'il s'agit ici de deux manières de concevoir la reconstruction du monde par le langage. Et en prenant cette divergence en considération, on peut entreprendre une étude comparative utile et féconde de TOKIEDA et SAUSSURE.

抄録全体を表示

この研究の目的は,作文指導論構築の基礎として,言語表現の本質と機能を考察することにある。このため,本稿では,コミュニケーションにおける言語諸機能に注目し,それらを有機的に構造的に関連させて論じた。殊に,ソシュールのをも援用しつつ,言語表現が単なる伝達のためのものではなく,現実を二次的な価値体系として秩序化するものであることについて力説した。しかも,ソシュールで論じきれなかった,表現主体と表現対象との関係について,現象学を援用して考察した。また,言語表現において創造的想像力が一層重視されねばならないことを提唱した。以上を一つの試みとして提案することにしたい。

抄録全体を表示

This article discusses the children of “newcomers,” in particular, the children of Chinese returnees who were born in Japan. By investigating actual cases, this study clarifies that there is a limit to the educational practice focusing only on the roots of these children. It will also suggest in detail, how schools should implement their educational practices and orientation while focusing on the rearrangement of relationships surrounding Chinese children. The author has conducted field work in an elementary school. The children, who came to Japan when they were at the age for middle school, were actively separated from other children. This school not only provides Japanese language support but also helps them maintain their identity as “children with roots in China.” However, these practices do not satisfy the feelings of the foreign children who were born in Japan or that of their parents. Repellence, resistance, and sometimes abandonment and indifference have been observed at this school.

While maintaining the “boundary” as a group with roots in China, these children are required to respect individual diversity, recognize the flexible identity with generational gap in mind, and break the current boundary and make a new one. The kind of support that focuses on the “route” rather than the “roots” of these children includes learning how to overlap their identities with these changes, how to get them actively involved, and how to empower them. There is no universal way to continue living with the newcomer children. The emphasis is on the fact that it should be built in the process of getting closer to each other with respect. Building a school-specific or region-specific framework is desirable.

抄録全体を表示

The close relationship between "Law and Language" has been more and more recognised in contemporary legal theories. But, as seen in the "main stream" theory like that of R. Dworkin, too much emphasis on "internal point of view" or "participants' view" could be dangerous, in the sense that it demands the volitional committment to the regime of the day. It is rather "detatched point of view", or "Verfremdung" of the daily legal practice that is required in the scientific study of law.
In the light of "discourse analysis" under the influence of Michel Foucault, the systematism, formalism, and autonomy of languages of law are seen as an self-image born out of the long interactions between other discursive formations (like politics, economics, morals, religions, etc..). In this sense, discourse analysis challenges the self-consciousness shared among legal professions, and sheds light on the "historical a priori" which rests beyond respective judgements of legality.

抄録全体を表示

本発表では，メタファーやアイロニーなどの修辞表現の表現技法・解釈内容・表現効果の三者間の相互関係を，言語処理の認知過程から解明することをめざす「認知修辞学」の構想について述べるとともに，現在進行している認知修辞学の事例研究をいくつか紹介する．

抄録全体を表示