韓國人日本語學習者の言語能力別にみた 「共話的反應の型」の使用實態 = The Usage of `Co-Construction Responses` according to the Language Proficiency of Korean Learners of the Japanese Language

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

本稿では、韓國人日本語學習者(以下、KLJと稱する)が使用する共話的反應の型と機能に着目し、言語能力レベルごとの使用傾向を明らかにした。そして、共話的反應の型が談話の中でどのように用いられ、どのように談話を展開しているか、その特徵について母語話者と比較·考察し、次のような結果が得られた。
1．共話的反應の型においては、初級から「先取り」、「遮り」、「繰り返し」、中級からは「言い換え」の使用が確認できた。機能においては、初·中級では「補足」、「反論」、「同意」、上·超級ではこれに加えて「相手助け」の使用が確認できた。
2．學習者と母語話者の相違による、共話的反應の型および機能の違いについては、母語話者にみられた「問い返し」と「確認」がKLJにはみられなかったことが擧げられる。非母語話者には共話の使用が難しいという水谷の指摘はこの「確認」の機能に絞った議論のようである。超級になっても唯一、使いこなせない「確認」の機能は、自然習得が難しく指導の必要が考えられる。
3. また、學習者は「遮り」を、母語話者は「先取り」を、最も多く使用することが分かった。共話的反應の型の5種類の分類の中で「先取り」と「遮り」だけが、會話に意味內容を積極的に付け足すことができ、會話の內容を進めていくことが可能である。ただし、「遮り」は、相手が話しているところに割って入ることから、相手に不快感を與える場合もあるため、母語話者は多用しないのだと考えられるが、KLJは多用していることから円滑な談話展開の妨げになっている可能性が考えられる。
以上から日本語の共話は日本人との日?のコミュニケ一ションによって習得されていくと推測される。しかし一方、自然習得の難しさも浮き彫りになった。共話的反應を運用し、円滑なコミュニケ一ションを行うために日本語敎育の立場からの支援が必要と言える。

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study examines the tendency of the usage of co-construction responses and their functions according to the proficiency of Korean learners of the Japanese language (hereinafter referred to as KLJ). The following results were obtained by examining how they are used in the discourse and how they are involved in the discourse development, and comparing the characteristics of co-construction responses used by Korean learners of the Japanese language with those used by native Japanese speakers.
1. As for co-construction responses, the use of `anticipation`, `interruption`, and `repetition` was identified at beginner`s level and the use of `paraphrasing` at intermediate level. As for their functions, `supplements`, `counterarguments`, and `agreement` were used at beginner`s and intermediate levels. And `assistance` function was identified at advanced and superior levels.
2. As for the differences in the use of co-construction responses and their functions by KLJ and native Japanese speakers, `counter questioning` and `confirmation` which were used by native Japanese speakers were not found in KLJ. The report of Mizutani in 1995 that foreign learners of the Japanese language have difficulty in using co-constructions is seen as a discussion focusing on this function of `confirmation`. It is considered necessary to provide well-informed guidelines on the usage of the co-constructions to KLJ since it is difficult to naturally acquire the ability to properly use the function(s) of `confirmation` which is often not available even at advanced level.
3. Moreover, it was found that KLJ use `interruption` most frequently while native Japanese speakers use `anticipation` most frequently. Among 5 types of co-construction responses, only `anticipation` and `interruption` can make a significant contribution　to conversation and keep the conversation going on. However, since `interruption` is to interrupt while others are talking and sometimes they can be offended, it is considered that KLJ are likely to use it frequently and smooth conversation development can be interrupted, while Japanese native speakers do not use it frequently.
It is assumed that the usage of co-construction responses can be naturally acquired through daily communication with Japanese people. On the other hand, the difficulty of natural acquisition of the usage was also highlighted. Support of smooth operation and communication of co-construction responses is necessary in Japanese language education.