東京大学外国語教育学研究会
1999 年５月２８日
｢方略的能力とは？－ 定義と研究上の問題点｣
発表者: Ｍ２ 藤尾 美佐
はじめに
方略的能力に関しては、未だ定義上のコンセンサスもなく、先行研究に関しても、その数、
質共に、極めて限られていると言える。また、方略的能力の中心となる、コミュニケーシ
ョン方略についても、teaching の中に組み込むべきかどうか、真っ向から意見が対立した
ままである。本研究では、方略的能力に関する先行研究を、I) 定義、II) 研究の概要、III)
研究上の問題点、の３点から整理し、｢方略的能力とは何か？｣について、考察を深める。
Ｉ．方略的能力(Strategic Competence)の定義と位置づけ
1.
Hymes (1972) － Communicative Competence という概念を発表
‘I should take competence as the most general term for the capabilities of a
person.
for ) use.
Competence is dependent upon both (tacit) knowledge and (ability
(1972：283)
Chomsky’s Model
Hymes’ Model
competence
components:
parameter:
communicative competence
knowledge
knowledge
ability
grammaticality
possibility
acceptability
feasibility
appropriateness
performance
Figure 1: Models of Competence (p123)
Capacity:
2.
Murata K. (1993) ‘Communicative Competence and
What’s the Difference? --- A Critical Review’ , Daigakueigokyoikugakukiyo
Canale and Swain (1980) と Canale (1983)
No.24
‘communicative competence refers to both knowledge and skill in using this
knowledge when interacting in actual communication.’ (1983:5)
a)
grammatical competence ( 文 法 的 能 力 ) - features and rules of the
language such as vocabulary, word formation, sentence formation,
pronunciation, spelling and linguistic semantic.
b)
sociolinguistic competence (社会言語的能力) - extent to which utterances
are produced and understood appropriately in different sociolinguistic
contexts depending on contextual factors such as status of participants,
purposes of the interaction, and norms or conventions of interaction.
c)
discourse competence（談話能力）- how to combine grammatical forms and
meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres.
d)
strategic competence (方略的能力) - mastery of verbal and non-verbal
communication strategies that may be called into action for two main
reasons: (a) to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to
limiting conditions in actual communication or to insufficient competence
in one or more of the other areas of communicative competence, and (b) to
enhance the effectiveness of communication (e.g. deliberately slow and
soft speech for rhetorical effect.)
3.
Bachman (1990)
言語能力と方略的能力の組み合わせで言語コミュニケーション能力
(communicative language ability)*1 が成り立つ。方略的能力を言語能力の中から
独立させ、各種下位能力の管制塔のような機能を持たせた。
‘Communicative language ability (CLA) can be described as consisting of both
knowledge, or competence, and the capacity for implementing, or executing
that competence in appropriate, contextualized communicative language use.’
(1990:84)
a)
language competence (言語能力) - a set of specific knowledge components
that are utilized in communication via language.
b)
strategic competence (方略的能力) - mental capacity for implementing the
components of language competence in contextualized communicative
language use.
c)
psychophysiological mechanism（心理生理的メカニズム）- neurological and
psychological processes involved in the actual execution of language as a
physical phenomenon.
a)
language competence (言語能力)
2
言語能力
Language Competence
編成能力
語用論的能力
Organizational C
Pragmatic C
文法的能力
テクスト能力
発語内能力
社会言語的能力
Grammatical C
Textual C
Illocutionary C
Sociolinguistic
C
b)
strategic competence (方略的能力)
‘I view strategic competence as an important part of all communicative
language use, not just that in which language abilities are deficient and must
be compensated for by other means...’
1)
(1990:100)
assessment component - determine the most effective and appropriate
forms & structure.
2)
planning component - retrieve items from language competence and
formulates a plan whose realization is expected to achieve the
communicative goal.
3)
execution component - draw on the relevant psychophysiological
mechanisms to implement the plan in the modality and channel
appropriate to the communicative goal and the context.
‘Strategic competence is seen as the capacity that relates language competence,
or knowledge of language, to the language user’s knowledge structures and the
features of the context in which communication takes place.
Strategic
competence performs assessment, planning, and execution functions in
determining the most effective means of achieving a communicative goal.’
(1990:107)
c)
psychophysiological mechanism（心理生理的メカニズム）
3
II.
方略的能力 or コミュニケーション方略(Communication Strategies)の研究概要
1.
初期の研究 - 主として定義と分類
a)
コミュニケーション方略の定義
1)
Tarone, Cohen and Dumas (1976)
‘a systematic attempt by the learner to express or decode meaning in the target
language, in situations where the appropriate systematic target language
rules have not been formed.’
2)
Tarone (1981) - interactional definition
‘a mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations
where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared’
3） Faerch and Kasper (1983) - psycholinguistic definition
‘communication strategies are potentially conscious plans for solving what to
an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular
communicative goal’
b). コミュニケーション方略の分類
１） Tarone (1981) - 添付参照
２） Faerch and Kasper (1983)
i)
Formal reduction strategies - 間違いや言いよどみを避けるため、完全に自
分のものになっていない表現（音素、文構成、語彙）を避ける
ii)
Functional reduction strategies -
問題を回避するため、意図した表現内容
を若干変更したり(topic avoidance)、一部削除したり、沈黙する(message
abandonment)方略
iii)
Achievement strategies - 何とか問題を解決しようとする方略
Compensatory strategies (代償方略)

code switching （記号転換）

interlingual transfer （言語間の干渉）

IL based strategies （中間言語に基づく方略）

generalization （一般化）

paraphrase
（言い換え）

word coinage
（造語）

restructuring （再構築）

cooperative strategies
(協調の方略)

non-linguistic strategies
(非言語的方略)
Retrieval strategies （復元方略）
4
2.
研究の転機 - The Nijmegen Project (1990)
a)
Definition of CS - ‘strategies which a language user employs in order to
achieve his intended meaning on becoming aware of problems arising during
the planning phase of an utterance due to (his own) linguistic shortcomings.’
b)
Aims:
1)
Investigate the relationship between CS use and the learners’ proficiency
level,
2)
c)
d)
Establish the relative effectiveness of particular CS types.
Subjects - 3 groups of Dutch learners of English of different proficiency levels:
1)
15 second-year university students of English (advanced),
2)
15 fifth-grade secondary school pupils (intermediate),
3)
15 third-graders (low).
Tasks:
1)
to name or describe in English 20 concrete objects,
2)
to describe 12 complex abstract figures, both in Dutch and in English,
3)
to retell in English 4 one-minute stories told in Dutch,
4)
to have a 15 minute interview on everyday topics with a native speaker of
English.
e)
Analysis:
1)
Conceptual - manipulation of the concept that they’re trying to convey,
2)
Linguistic - resort to L1 or L2 and morphological creativity.
Archistrategies
Communication Strategies
Conceptual
1.
Analytic (circumlocution, description,
and paraphrase)
2.
Holistic (the use of a superordinate,
coordinate, or subordinate term)
Linguistic
3.
Transfer (borrowing, foreignizing, and
literal translation)
4.
Morphological creativity
f) Results:
1)
L2-proficiency level predominantly affects the number of CS used, and has
little effect on CS choice,
2)
Task is a much more dominating factor with respect to CS use than
proficiency level (greater variation in CS types in tasks 3) and 4)).
3)
The comparison of L1 & L2 referential behavior failed to reveal any
significant differences.
5
g)
Observations - As to learner-characteristics, two factors might be relevant:
focus on grammatical correctness and motivation to reach understanding.
1)
Subjects who focus on grammatical correctness typically have long pauses
when they are confronted with problems.
Rather than solve problems,
they tend to avoid them,
2)
Those who were motivated to reach understanding used many strategies
to overcome their problems.
Very often they did not stick to a single CS,
but tried different ones until understanding was reached. (Poulisse: 1990)
3.
９０年代の研究
a)
特徴：1) divergence 2) recognition of L1 CS
b)
Pros & Cons (Yule & Tarone 1997)
Pros
Basic Attitude
Cons
profligate, liberal expansion of conservative,
categories (Tarone,Yule)
reduction
parsimonious
of
categories
(Bongaerts, Kellerman)
Taxonomic
reduction and achievement S compensatory
Approach
(Faerch & Kasper, Tarone)
Description
taxonomic
observed
description
forms
in
L2
learner
(Bongaerts,Poulisse,Kellerman)
of description
of
underlying
output, psychological process, internal
external and interactive
L1 CS
(achievement)S
and cognitive
performance L2
learner
compared to TL native speaker compared
to
performance
their
own
L1
performance; many differences performance: many similarities
found
found
Elicitation
elicitation
prompts
prompts
real-world objects
Interlocutor
listening
partner,
are elicitation prompts are abstract
shapes
with
a no listening partner present
purpose, present
Type of L1
L2 learners with different L1s; L2 learners with same L1;
L1s mostly dissimilar to TL
L1 very similar to TL
Pedagogical
CS should be taught
CS should not be taught
issues
(Dornyei, Tarone, Yule)
(Bialystok, Kellerman)
6
III.
先行研究の問題点と今後の展望
１． 先行研究の問題点
The research to date has:
a)
concentrated almost exclusively on lexical problems,
b)
discovered little about the developmental nature of CS in L2 production,
c)
also made no attempt to investigate the relationship between the use of CS and
acquisition,
d)
been limited to specific L1s
e)
not studied interlocutor-effects on the choice of CS
2.
今後の展望
In future studies, the following perspectives should be incorporated:
a)
grammatical, pragmatic problems other than lexical ones,
b)
the relationship between the use of CS and acquistion,
c)
sociocultural factors,
d)
learner’s variety
e)
the relationship with other strategies.
Notes：
1.
Bachman は Fundamental Consideration in Language Teaching (1990)の中で、
competence、ability 等の用語使用について以下のように述べている。
‘I use knowledge and competence more or less synonymously, to refer to entities
which we may hypothesize to be in the minds of language users.
The term
ability includes both knowledge or competence and the capability for
implementing that competence in language use - ‘the ability to do X’. The term
use and perform are more or less synonymous, referring to the execution, or
implementation of abilities....’
＜参考文献＞
石井敏他編 （1996）『異文化コミュニケーションハンドブック』 有斐閣書店
垣田直己(監修)、岡秀夫(編) (1984)『英語のスピーキング』 大修館書店
酒井志延 (1991) ｢英語のオーラルコミュニケーション能力を測定するテストの開発｣
『STEP Bulletin』pp 59-72
日本コミュニケーション学会 橋本満弘、石井敏編 （1993） 『コミュニケーション論入門』
『日本人のコミュニケーション』『英語コミュニケーションの理論と実際』 桐原書店
馬場哲生(編) (1997)
『英語スピーキング論』 河源社
7
平野絹枝 (1985)
｢日本人学生のコミュニケーション方略に関する一考察｣『関東甲信越英語
教育学会紀要』1, 55-67
平野絹枝 (1987)
｢教室内コミュニケーションの指導と評価｣『中部地区英語教育学会紀要』
16: 190-195
平野絹枝 (1993)
｢コミュニケーションにおける｢態度｣の指導と評価｣『現代英語教育』６月号、
12-15
古田暁（監修）石井敏他（編）(1987)『異文化コミュニケーション』,有斐閣選書
本名信行他編 （1994） 『異文化理解とコミュニケーション』
三修社
松畑煕一、和田勝明著(1995) 『コミュニケーション能力の育成と評価』開隆堂
リチャーズ J.他編 (1988)『ロングマン応用言語学用語辞典』南雲堂
ロボ F. (1983) 『英語コミュニケーション論』大修館書店
Bachman L.F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing, Oxford: OUP
Bachman L.F and Palmer A.S. (1982) ‘The Construct Validation of Some Components of
Communicative Proficiency’
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1980)
TESOL 16-4
Teaching the Spoken Language, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Brown G. and Yule G. (1983) Discourse Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M. (1987）Speaking, Oxford:Oxford University Press
Canale, M. (1983) ‘From communicative competence to communicative language pedagoty’,
J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds)
Language and Communication, Longman, pp2-27
Dornyei Z (1995) ‘On the Teachability of CS’ TESOL 29-1, pp55-85
Dornyei Z & Thurrell S. (1991) ‘Strategic competence and how to teach it’, ELT45-1,
pp16-23
Ellis, R. (1984) ‘Communication strategies and the evaluation of communicative
performance’, ELT38-1, pp39-44
Ellis, R. (1994)
The Study of Second Language, Oxford: OUP
Faerch C. & Kasper G. (Eds) (1983) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, Longman
Hymes D. H. (1972)
‘On Communicative Competence’, in J.B.Pride & J.Holmes
Sociolinguistics, Penguin pp269-293
Johnson K. & Johnson H. (Eds) (1998) Encyclopediac Dictionary of Applied Linguistics,
Blackwell , pp57-67
Murata K. (1993) ‘Communicative Competence and Capacity: What’s the Difference? - A
Critical Reveiw’, Daigakueigokyoikugakukiyou No.24
Nakamura Y. (1993) ‘Measurement of Japanese College Students’ English Ability in a
Classroom Setting’, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, ICU
Poulisse N. (1990) ‘Variation in Learner’s Use of Communication Strategies’, in Duda &
8
Riley
Leaning Styles: Proceedings of the 1st European Seminar pp77 - 87
Tomiyama M (1980) ‘Grammatical Errors Communication Breakdown’, TESOL 14-1,
pp71-79
Yule G and Tarone E (1997) ‘Investigating communication strategies in L2 reference: pros
and cons’, in G. Kapper and E. Kellerman
(Eds) Communication Strategies, New York:
Addison Wesley Longman
Yule G and Tarone E (1990) ‘Eliciting the performance of strategic competence’, in
R. Scarcella, E. Anderson & S. Krashen (Eds)
Developing communicative competence in
a second language, pp179-194, New York: Newbury House
9