2014年3月23日のシンポジウム「ことば・認知・インタラクション2」の発表スライドです．

1.
2014/02/23
2
@NII

3. ...

4.
2009;
2007 etc.)
(cf. 1974;

5. (2006:1728)
1

6. 1.
2.

7. 1:
2007

8. 2:
2

9.
1

10. 1.
2.
3.
(formulaicity)

11. Fillmore (1979: 93‑94)
One kind of fluency is simply the ability to talk at length
with few pauses, the ability to fill time with talk. ... ...
First of all there is simply the speakerʹs knowledge of
fixed linguistic forms, represented as the size and
character of the speakerʹs repertory of morphemes,
words, idioms, and fixed phrases.

12. Pawley & Syder (1983: 208)
Memorized clauses and clause‑sequences form a high
proportion of the fluent stretches of speech heard in
everyday conversation. ... ... Speakers show a high
degree of fluency when describing familiar experiences
or activities in familiar phrases.

13.
...

15. Question

16.
2
1

17. 3
201
50
44
RDB

18. 1 ―
1.
2.
3.
4.
, paused/not paused
dep)
(endClause)
(other)
0.1
(dep/no
(penultClause)

20. dep
no dep
1:
not paused
73631 (89.94%)
69152 (63.07%)
142783 (74.56%)
paused
8238 (10.06%)
40492 (36.93%)
48730 (25.44%)
81869
109644
191513

21. 4
1
1

22. 2:

23. dep
no dep
3:
not paused
16364 (89.13%)
1993 (72.92%)
18357 (87.03%)
paused
1996 (10.87%)
740 (27.08%)
2736 (12.97%)
18360
2733
21093

24. 9
dep/not paused
1
7

25. 1
1
7 5

26. 2 ―
1.
2.
2

27. CSJ
1
3:

28. 4:
{ /
{ /
total
}X
}
X
X
X
# tokens
843
224
42
30
919
2058

29. 4
ʺKEYʺ
X
X
X

31. 5:
KEY
# tokens
{ /
}
2844
{ /
}
1525
813
168
total
5350
LUW
5
5,

32. 6:
{
/
}
# tokens
# pauses
426
295
252
109
49
395
1526
12
7
18
2
5
59
103
2.82%
2.37%
7.14%
1.83%
10.20%
14.94%
6.75%

33. 7:
{
/
}
# tokens
# pauses
1303
404
80
44
42
971
2844
34
5
6
2
7
121
175
2.61%
1.24%
7.50%
4.55%
16.67%
12.45%
6.15%

34. 8:
# tokens
# pauses
115
52
46
42
18
540
813
10
4
13
4
3
93
127
8.70%
7.69%
28.26%
9.52%
16.67%
17.19%
15.60%

35. 9:
# tokens
# pauses
50
46
9
64
169
3
4
0
7
14
6.00%
8.70%
0.00%
10.94%
8.28%

37. 10:
{
/
}
5
# token
# pauses
284
185
128
110
92
53
35
8
24
10
18.66%
18.92%
6.25%
21.82%
10.87%

38. 11:
{
/
}
5
# token
# pauses
90
62
57
52
45
10
1
4
6
1
11.11%
1.61%
7.02%
11.54%
2.22%

39. 12:
5
token
183
118
71
60
41
paused
1
0
1
2
0

40. 13:
5
token
27
19
19
9
9
paused
0
0
0
0
0

42. 2
X
{ /
X
}X
{ /
}
X
{ /
X
X
}X
{ /
}

44.
1

46. 14:
KEY
# tokens
{ /
}
2844
{ /
}
1525
813
168
total
5350
5,
5

48.
(
(Endo 2010)
2002)
1

49. (cf. Ashby 2006; Lin 2010)
ex.

50. Ashby, Michael. 2006. ʺProsody and Idioms in Englishʺ,
Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.38, No.10, pp.1580‑1597.
Elsevier.
Du Bois, John. 2007. ʺStance triangleʺ, Robert Englebretson
(ed.), StanceTaking in Discourse, Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins, pp.139‑182.
Endo, Tomoko. 2010. ʺEpistemic stance marker as a
disagreement preface: Wo juede ʹI feel/thinkʹ in Mandarin
conversation in response to assessmentsʺ,
, Vol.29, pp.43‑76.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1979. ʺOn Fluencyʺ, Individual
Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior,
pp.85‑101. New York: Academic Press.
. 2012.
RDB
, 1
, pp.355‑364.

51. Lin, Phoebe Ming Sum. 2010. ʺThe phonology of formulaic
sequences: A reviewʺ, Perspectives on formulaic language:
Acquisition and communication. Continuum, pp.174‑93.
. 2009.
,
:
.
Pawley, Andrew and Frances Hodgetts Syder. 1983. ʺTwo
puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and
nativelike fluencyʺ, Language and communication, pp.191‑
225.
. 1997.
,
, pp.167‑196,
:
.

52. .
2007.
,
.
. 2007.
, Vol.14, No.5, pp.167‑197.
, pp.510‑513.
. 2014.
,
,
13
20