日本人学習者のコミュニケーション能力の発達

Introduction

Knowledge of a language is more than how to speak,buthowsentencesareusedtocommunicate.

Knowledgeofsocio-culturalrules,suchaswhento speak,whennotto,appropriateandinappropriate responses also have to be learnt along with knowledgeofthegrammaticalrules.Thisaspectof appropriateusageisoneofthefeaturesaddressed by Hymes when proposing a framework to distinguish between knowledge‘about’language forms,andthe‘rulesofspeaking’.Thedescription andunderstandingofcommonbehaviorinspecific culturalsettings,asHymesrecognizes,aretherules ofusewithoutwhichtherulesofgrammarwould beuseless(Hymes,1970,citedinJohnson&Morrow, 1981:2). The features of discourse proposed by Hymes’‘Ethnographyofspeaking’(1972)provide a framework which not only sets out his view of communicativecompetence,butalsoassessmentof oraldiscourse.Firstly,thefeaturesmostrelevant to Japanese learners are explained in this paper,

beforebeingusedtosummarizethedistinguishing characteristics of a typical foreign language communicationclassroom.Inaddition,implications for pedagogic practice and solutions to overcome anticipatedproblemsarealsopresented.

Communicativecompetence

Recognitionofcommunicativecompetencederives fromChomsky’sdistinctionbetweentheunderlying knowledge of a language structure (competence), from the application of that knowledge to language use (performance). However, presence of performance variables (cultural, cognitive etc.) dictates that performance rarely reflects true competence. For Hymes, Chomsky’s limited conceptfailstoacknowledgelanguageuseandthe socio-cultural factors in a heterogeneous speech communitywhich,Hymesargues,significantlyaffects performance.Hedistinguishesbetweenlinguistic competence and communicative competence that dealswithproducingandunderstandingsentences

Socio-culturalbarrierstocommunicativecompetenceforJapaneselearners ofEnglish

日本人学習者のコミュニケーション能力の発達

BURROWS,Christian FacultyofEducationforFutureGenerations DepartmentofEarlyChildhoodEducation 次世代教育学部乳幼児教育学科 C.バロウズ

抄録：コミュニケーション能力とは，言語使用能力に限ったことではなく，言語の扱い方において，

いかに熟達しているかを問うものである。

ハイムズ・フレイムワークによると，“認識と文化的社会要因が，コミュニケーション能力の発達に 大きく影響している”と発表している。

この論文では，これら二つの突出した要因が，日本人学習者の言語習得を阻んでいることを提唱し，

日本人学習者とそれら要因の関係性を解説する。最後には，学習者の言語習得上の障害を解決するべ く方法を提案する。

キーワード：communicativecompetence,socio-culturalfactors,languagebarriers

thatareappropriateandacceptabletoaparticular situation.ThusHymescoinsaterm“communicative competence”anddefinesitas“aknowledgeofthe rules for understanding and producing both the referentialandsocialmeaningoflanguage”(Hymes, 1972).

Theclassroomsetting

Theclassroomwillnotalwaysbeseenasameeting place between students’expectations, curricular content, and pedagogical appropriateness, due to thedifferenceinteacher/studentbeliefsinregard to what is acceptable. The teacher-centered nature of the Japanese education system shapes andmaintainsstudents’beliefsandconceptsthey hold in regard to the language learning process.

Theseexpectationsarerecognizedasapotentially significant element when making the transition to the apparent“randomness”of autonomous communicativeclassesdifficult.Itcanoftenlead to difficulty in the classroom when students are askedtoperformindependent,creative,autonomous activities,leadingsometoevenquestionwhether they should complete the speaking exercise in English or Japanese! These instances of student concernarelikelytosurfacewheneverinstructional activitiesareinconsistentwithpreconceivedbeliefs aboutlearning. Whenstudentsbecomeawareof thisdiscrepancybetweenexpectationsandwhatis actuallyhappening,ifunfulfilled,theymayresultin whatLinde(inWoods1996)terms“hotspot”.These false assumptions and prejudices which underlie theirattitudetowardstheirroleinlearningmustbe addressedor“de-conditioned”.

These“mismatches”clearlyillustratethatstudents andteachersdonotsharethesameunderstanding of what compromises proper classroom behavior.

Nunan(1989)concursthat:

nocurriculumcanclaimtobetrulylearner- centeredunlessthelearner’ssubjectiveneeds and perception relating to the processes of learningaretakenintoaccount.

Forexample,theauthorhasoftenobservedmany Japanese students writing their answers during speaking activities as they assume they will be checked by the teacher. It seems therefore imperative to address these erroneous beliefs to minimizeanyresistancetoanewteachingapproach.

This recognizes that students’knowledge and attitude are the key to language success, and involvingtheminthecollaborativeprocessthrough incorporating their cognitive and learning style preferences is an essential element. This could includebeingsuppliedwithoutlinesofthe“rules”

(teacher and student) expected to narrow the expectationsandfacilitatelearningoutcomes.Itis recognizedthatthisadaptationmustbeexplained andstudentswillneedtobesensitizedtoboththe attitudinalandbehavioralexpectationsrequiredas they move from a teacher-centered system to an autonomous learning environment. While at the same time it is important that teachers are also sensitivetospecificJapaneseculturaltraditionsboth insideandoutsidetheclassroom.

Thepurposeoftheinteraction

Thefunctionofclassroomactivitiesisforstudents toimprovetheiroverallspeakingproficiencyand acquireknowledgeoflanguageuse.Alldiscourse hasapurposeevenifitisonlymaintainingsocial relations, meaning that the motivation varies from one occasion to the next. Such a purpose quitefrequentlydeterminesthemannerinwhich students speak or act. Most oral communication classesatJapaneseuniversitiesfocuslessonreading andwritingtasks,withthemainemphasisplaced on speaking proficiency. Class activities aim for studentstopracticespeakingEnglish,displaytheir knowledge of English, and to interact and solve problems using English, with the teacher’s input kepttoaminimalinordertoallowgreaterstudent interaction.

Theparticipants

Various features related to the participants

themselvesalsoinfluenceoraldiscourse.Factors suchasage,gender,relationshipandsocialstatus allhavethepotentialtoinfluencerolerelationships among participants and determine the order in which participants speak, whether or not they maintaineyecontact,useavoidancetechniques,and turn taking. This underlying set of non-linguistic rules governs how, when and how often speech occurs varies from culture to culture. This can howeverproduceconflictsbecauseofcrosscultural differences, for example in Japan silence may be anintentionalandconventionalcommunicativeact (Salzman,1988:23;Wardhaugh,1998:239).AsSearles accuratelypointsout“onecanutterwordswithout saying anything”(Searles, 1969). For university students they all share similar features so this shouldhavealimitedinfluenceontheirinteraction.

Conversely, interaction between a teacher and a studentwouldbedifferentthanonebetweenonly students,especiallyinJapanwheretheauthorityof theteacherisparticularlyrespected.Thisconcept of role and proper behavior is rigid in a vertical society like Japan’s, which sometimes makes it difficulttouncoverstudents’trueindividualityand forthemtoseeyouasmorethanan“authority”.

Teachers are accorded status and prestige and viewed as the respected“bearers of knowledge”

(Stapleton1996:14),whilethestudentsaspassive, letting“the teacher’s wisdom‘pour into’him”

(Brown 1994:17). Thus, the relationship between languageuseandsocialstructuresisclearlyrelated.

ThisraisesthequestionofwhetherJapanesebehave the way they do because of their language, or becausetheirlinguisticchoicesstemfromthesocial structures(Wardhaugh,1998:278).

These differences in conversation styles between cultures also dictate how a conversation will proceed.StudentswillstilluseaspectsfromL1in theclassroom,meaningJapanesestudentstendto bequiet,passive,andobedient,whileontheother handWesternstudentsappeartobemoreactivein comparison.Asaresult,thegroupdynamicsand active interaction between teachers and students seldomexistinJapaneseclasses.Thisdifference

inconversationstylescanbecompoundedinJapan wherestudentsoftendirectlytranslatephrasesinto English from Japanese that sound awkward and stilted.ThiswouldseemtosupportHymeswhen heclaimed(Hymes,1972:277)thatethnographyof speakingmustdescribethelinguisticoptionsopen tothespeechcommunityandlinguisticcompetence mustadjustitselftothetotalinformationalinput (Nunan,1999:9).

It is recognized expectations of‘autonomous learning’,‘student-independence’,and‘student- autonomy’arelearningstrategieswhichvaryfrom Japan’s pedagogical traditions. These Western cultural traditions render expectations of student input, independence, and cognitive processing, unrealisticastheyfailtoacknowledgethecognitive processingabilityofJapanesestudents.Whathas beendescribedasa“lackofpredominantlearning style”meansthatthedifferenceincognitivestyle suggests the communicative language approach favors Western students more than Japanese ones.Thiswouldsuggestthatitisnotenoughfor studentstosimplyimmersethemselvesinthetarget languageandhopethatacquisitiontakesplace.

Suchlearningstyles,vieweddifferentlybyteachers

andstudents,illustratethatstudentsdonotlearn

thesameway,andsotoavoidfrustrationmustbe

graduallytaughtwaystolearn.Otherwiseifgiven

achoicetheywillchooseastyleoflearningbased

ontheirexpectations,thusnegatingtheobjective

ofanapproachwhichenvisagesstudentsengaged

inmeaningful,independentinteraction.Ittherefore

seemsimportantforteacherstoraise“awareness

about the pedagogical approaches of the course”,

andexplaintherationaleunderlyingtheselectionof

tasks,asthenotionoflearner training demandsthat

studentsbetaughthowtolearnlanguagesaswell

asbeingtaughtthelanguageitself.Thiswillhelp

recognize that teaching an autonomous approach

is not a simple transmission of knowledge but a

collaborationasstudentsattempttoexpresstheir

ownmeaningsfortheirownlearningpurposes.

Furthermore, to develop Japanese students’

cognitiveprocessingitmaybeimportantatfirstto maketherelationshipbetweenformandfunction transparent. An effective style could include creatingamorestructuredbutsomewhatinformal classroom atmosphere to ease students out of their formality. As Williams and Burton (1997) point out, it is important to present tasks which tapinto,notrelyon,students’learningstyle.This inputmustprovidetheinformationnecessaryfor identifying the elements and their combinations andapplications.Althoughitisnotsuggestedthat studentsaresimplyprovidedwithcomprehensible input, most teachers now accept that some focus on form is necessary to optimize the second languageacquisitionprocess.Thisconsciousraising could involve the teacher providing instruction on grammar with varying degrees of elaboration and explicitness. For example, rote-learning could play a part in second language acquisition on the grounds that it reinforces the target language, especially among lower level students.

Despiteconcernsthatitlacksthemeaningfulness necessary for successful acquisition it does allow students’progresstobeassessed,aswellasallow valuableconfidencebuilding.Inaddition,whileits limitations are acknowledged it has been pointed outthatlearningisacquiringknowledgebystudy, experienceorinstruction,inotherwords,theresult of reinforced practices. It is generally accepted thatthistypeofinstruction(asopposedtoamore autonomous approach) speeds up the rate of languagedevelopmentandraisestheultimatelevel ofattainment,seeminglyjustifyingCLA’sclaimsthat a“rulewillnotbeinternalizeduntilthelearner’s developinglanguagesystemcanaccommodateit”

(Nunan,1989).

Key

Keyisthemannerinwhichsomethingissaidand includes“the tone, manner or spirit in which an actoreventisperformed”(Coulthard,1985:48)and maydifferdependingonthetopic,participants,and purposeofanact.Theuniversityclassinteractions

areusuallyrelaxedasallmembersarefriendsso they do not feel threatened. As mentioned, they wereusuallyingroupsoftheirownchoicesothey feelunthreatenedastheyknowhowtointeractand whatreactionstoexpect.Theseandotheraffective factors (self-esteem, empathy, anxiety, attitude, and motivation) can influence language learning success or failure (Oxford 1990:140). Members of all societies recognize certain communicative routes characterized by special rules of speech.

Forexample,withintheJapanesesettingharmony withinthegroupisespeciallyvalued,meaningthat eachpersonwithintheuniversitygroupisafforded anequalchancetocontributetotheconversation.

Duringgroupdiscussionseachpersontakesturns to give their opinion in a methodical and orderly way.Thisallowstheparticipantstofeelrelaxed take their time to compose their own answers.

Thisspeechstylehasbeencomparedtobowlingin contrasttothevolleyballstyleofwesternspeech stylesinthatJapanesespeakerspatientlytaketurns whilewesternersreactasquicklyaspossible.

Channels

Thisreferstothechoiceofmethodoftransmission.

A n i n t e r a c t i o n i n v o l v e s n o t o n l y v e r b a l communicationbutalsoparalinguisticelementsof speech such as pitch; stress and intonation. Also includedarenon-linguisticelementssuchasgestures andbodylanguage,facialexpressions,whichmay accompany speech or convey message directly withoutanyaccompanyingspeech.Inaddition:

Thereistremendousvariationcross-culturally and cross- linguistically in the specific interpretationsofgesturesandbodylanguage.

(Brown1994:241)

Classroominteractionsarepredominantlyoraland

studentsareinstructedastohowtocompletethe

taskandwhattypeofphrasesaremostcommonly

usedinaninteractivediscussion,i.e.whatchannelto

use.Withoutsuchspecificinstructionthestudents

wouldlacktheinitiativetoinstigateinteractionby

themselves.

The cultural influence also plays a large part in howJapaneseinteract.Thedistinctdifferencefrom Westerninteractioncouldhelptoillustratecommon frustrationsthatthestudents“don’ttalkenough”.

Anothercommoncomplaintamongteachersisthat to overcome the shyness factor the teacher will allocate small groups that reduce the risk to the students and offer a supportive atmosphere that is conducive to developing their communicative competence.Yetdespitethispreparationminimal interaction may only be evident. According to Yamada (1997), this is because Japanese follow a Listener Talkapproachtoconversationwhichtends to value reticence and orderly turn taking with lessinclinationtodominatetheconversation.This may explain students’reluctance to utilize such speakingstrategiesascheckingforunderstanding, andseekingclarificationiftheyareunsure.With thisstyleofinteractiontheonusisonthelistener tounderstandwhatisbeingsaid,ratherthanask for clarification. This contrasts with the type of interactionwhichmostWesternteachersdreamof, with students engaged in continual interaction in whatweperceivetobeanormalexchange.This Speaker Talk approach includes all the strategies whichweteachstudentstoassistthemwiththeir negotiation of language learning, and so is more applicabletoaWesternstyleofcommunication.

Content

Hymessuggeststhat“contententersanalysisfirst of all perhaps as a question of topic, and change of topic”(Hymes, 1972). In the case of Japanese students,iftheyareabletopersonallyrelatetoa subjectthentheycanproduceinteraction,however, atopicthatisunrelatedorabstractcanoftenprove problematic.Yearsofassessmentonthecorrectness of grammatical translations has made accuracy a largepartofthestudents’learningstyle,sorather than be encouraged to be creative and original, students are urged to memorize knowledge for examinationpurposes.Manyoftheactivitiesthat

areusedincommunicativeclasshavethepossibility to be expanded upon and digressed from. This was something which the teacher is continually encouragingstudentstodo.Ifstudentsonlyadhere tothetask,thentheirinteractioncanbelimitedand mechanical.Itiswellknownthateachlanguagehas itsownrulesofusageastowhen,how,andtowhat degreeaspeakermayimposeagivenbehavioron his/herconversationalpartner.Duetotheinfluence orinterferenceoftheirownculturalnorms,itcan behardfornon-nativespeakerstochoosetheforms appropriatetocertainsituations.Ifthestudentsare abletodevelopandfullyinteractthentherewould bethepotentialformorenaturalandmeaningful communication. The inability to initiate and continuedialogueisduetoseveralfactorsincluding thefearofmakinganerror,animportantaspectof Japan’sform-orientatedvaluesystem:

“They(Japanesestudents)feelthatanyfailure isanaggressionagainstauthority…therefore any unforeseen situations which cannot be handled by rote are frightening to them.”

(Wadden,1993:189)

Theformofthemessage

Messageforandcontentarecloselyrelated.The message form refers to how something is said and how interpersonal factors affect the speech act, as Hymes suggests,“how something is said ispartofwhatissaid”(Hymes,1974:5).Asmany Japanese students are self-conscious as they are cautious about making errors in the belief that such‘ignorance’wouldbeacauseto“loseface”

(Dimitrios,2004).Inclassroomactivities,todirectly askothermembersinthegrouptheiropinioncould causeanuncertainsituationfortheothermembers.

Manystudentsarepooratavoidancetechniquesso areforcedtoconveytheiruncertainnessthrough non-linguistic means such as silence or gestures.

As a last resort the student will revert to using

Japanesetoshowthattheyareuncertainofhowto

answer.Thestudentwhoaskedthequestionwill

allowthistopassasameanstoavoidanyfurther

discomfort without any attempt to explain the meaning.Thiscanbeobservedasmanystudents quicklysay“change”toseekagreementtoproceed tothenextquestion.

DuetothenatureofEnglishclasses,thepurpose, form,keyandcontentareeasytoidentifyinthe university classroom discourse. The purpose is oftendeterminedbytheteacherandasmentioned, howtheinteractionwillproceedcanbeanticipated tosomeextentwithintheJapaneseclassroom.This isparticularlyevidentwithturn-taking(inturnsand unnatural) and linguistic elements (basic, silence, noqueryingorclarification).Forthestudentsto digress from the target language would be seen by them as“incorrect”, which means to some extent this type of interaction is unnatural and forced. Despite the author’s attempt to produce thought-provoking questions that would allow such expansion, the author felt that due to the immaturityofmanystudentstheyhadnotformed anyopinionandwereunabletodiscusssuchtopics amongthemselves.Thesettingisalsoapowerful psychologicalfactorwhichhasasignificantaffecton studentsinahierarchicalsocietysuchasJapan.

Culturefactor

Evenwithintheclassroomthesituationisnotonly determinedbycognitiveandexpectancyconcerns, butalsosocialandaffectivedimensions.Suchisthe strength of these dimensions that they can often determinethelevelofparticipationamongstudents, and even render opportunities to communicate andexpressfeelingsunproductive.Consequently, rather than be a motivation to use the language, activities can result in the prominent use of L1, correctlylabeledas“themostprominentdifficulty students experience during a communicative lesson”(Eldridge, 1996), indicating that although therationaleforpair/groupworkisforstudentsto engageinmeaningfulcommunication,theuseofL1 isinconflictwiththesegoals.Thisisevidenteven fortaskswhichstudentscouldeasilyperforminL2, when the context was personalized and relevant,

yetstillresultedinminimalL2interaction.Only onseveraloccasionsdidtheauthoractuallyheara studentaskafellowstudenttospeakinEnglish,or admonishtheirpartnerforusingtoomuchJapanese.

Thesepowerfulcounteractingforcesareconnected with socio-cultural factors, the most relevant of which is especially prominent in a collectivist countrysuchasJapan:

…shynessismoreprevalent…thaninanyother culture we surveyed. For 3 in 4, shyness is viewedasa‘problem,’withover80%labeling themselvesasshy…morethananyothernation.

TheJapanesereportfeelingshyinvirtuallyall socialsituations…(Zimbardo,1977)

Manifestations of this influence which can be observedintheJapaneseclassroominclude(Wadden, 1993):

1.Studentsseldominitiatediscussion.

2.Studentsgenerallyavoidbringingupnewtopics.

3.Studentsrarelyseekclarification.

4.Studentsarereluctanttovolunteeranswers.

Thesignificanceofthesefactorsisillustratedinthe followingcommoncomplaintamongnativeEnglish teachers:

…[students]seldomvolunteeranswers,atrait thatmanyWesterninstructorsfindextremely frustrating. Most Japanese will only talk if specificallycalledupon,andthenonlyifthere isaclear-cutanswer.Thisdoesnotnecessarily signify an unwillingness to comply, but may simplyindicatethatthestudentistoonervous torespond,ortoouncertainoftheanswerto riskpublicembarrassment.

(AndersoninWadden,1993)

MinimizingAffectivefactors

Thereisageneralacceptanceintheliteraturethat

there are certain personality traits which have a

beneficialinfluenceonthelearningprocess.These languagelearningcharacteristicsare:

…behavior or actions which learners use to makelanguagelearningmoresuccessful,and include any set of operations used by the learnertolearnandtoregulatetheirlearning.

(Rubin’s,1981)

They can lead to effective communication and include strategic competence to compensate for pragmatic failure because of certain linguistic limitations.Forexample,theliterature(Rubin,1981;

Willis1996b;Naimanetal.1978)listsstrategiesused bygoodlearnersasincluding:

1.Clarificationstrategies 2.Monitorsprogress 3.Memorization

4.Guessing/deductiveinference 5.Deductivereasoning

6.Practice

The rationale behind the research into the characteristics of successful language students is pedagogicalinthatitassumesthatstrategiesused by good language students can be identified and taughttoweakerstudents.Svanes(1988)pointsout thatincombinationwithmotivationthesearethe bestpredicatorsoflanguagesuccess.Developing these skills therefore grows out of student acceptanceofresponsibilityfortheirownlearning andassumingsomeoftheinitiativesthatgiveshape anddirectiontothelearningprocess,whilesharing inthemonitoringprogresstoevaluatetheextentto whichlearningtargetsareachieved.

It is accepted that these skills are beneficial to students, but to be taught as a by-product of language learning seems ineffective. Moreover, the importance of these strategies requires that Japanesestudentsbetaughtthesebeforelanguage learningsothatstudentsarefullyequippedwhen they enter a communicative class. Since many students lack strategic knowledge about how to

approachlanguagelearningitseemsimportantto givethemtheseandothermeta-cognitivelearning strategiessothatfeaturesmadeavailablethrough teacher correction, conscious raising and, in particular,instancesofnegotiationofform,become optimallysalient.Thiswillallowfordetectionand rehearsalwhenstudentattentionisstretchedtothe maximum.

Conclusion

Thispaperhashighlightedthatsomeofthefeatures fromHymes’frameworkareespeciallyprominent inaJapanesesetting.Theclassroomisapowerful settingforJapanesestudentsandhasasignificant affectovertheirinteraction.Duetotheaffectofthe Japanesesocialstructurethestudentsareawareof howtointeractwithotherstudentsandteachers whichalsohasasignificantaffectonturn-taking, face-savingandotherspeechacts.Withknowledge of such features and the affect they are exerting oninteractionteacherswillbebetterequippedto overcomeanyculturalorlinguisticbarriers.Itcould makethemawareofhowtoinstructthestudents, whatactivitiesarethemostaffective,andhowto questionandinteractwiththestudents.

An understanding of these factors could help

to understand the implications for how learners

performincertainsituations.Itwillnotonlybenefit

the teacher but also students who are unaware

of the various ways to interact. Many students

havetobetaughtexplicitlinguisticfeaturewhich

many teachers automatically assume students

possess.Itcanthereforeleadtomisunderstanding

when students can neither perform the acts nor

the teacher understand the reason for students

lackofdiscussion.ManyforeignEnglishteachers

can struggle to adapt to the different cultural as

well as linguistic aspects of the country. This

framework is especially useful for teachers to be

abletoanalyzehowstudentswillreactandperform

incertainsituationsandbeawareofwhatfactors

actually affect interaction. It provides a means

to not only evaluate but also predict interaction

which could enable teachers to prepare for any problemsaswellasmakethemawareoftheactual natureoftheproblem.Anyanalysiswhichassists theunderstandingofthelexicalandparalinguistic communication act serves a useful purpose as it allowsfullawarenessaswellasknowledgeandcan thereforehelpreduceculturalmisunderstanding.

In conclusion, foreign language teachers coming to Japan have to expect the students to remain quiet because of the setting, therefore they need to employ techniques to overcome this barrier.

Theyshouldalsoprovidesignificantlexicalitems to encourage interaction as the Japanese speech stylevaries(turn-takingetc.).Thestudentscannot beassumedtopossesssuchtechniquesandmust therefore be taught them. With the provision of suchtechniquesteacherscanmoreeffectivelytarget theirlessonswithabetterprospectofsuccess.

References

Brown,H.B.(2000)Principles of Language Learning and Teaching(4

Ed.)Longman

Dimitrios–developingteachers.com

Eldridge, J. (1996). Code-switching in a Turkish secondaryschool.ELTJournal,50,4:303-311.

Hymes,D.(1972)OnCommunicativeCompetence.

In Pride, J.B. and Holmes, J. Sociolinguists.

Harmandsworth.Penguin

Hymes,D.(1974)Foundations I Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach.Philadelphia:University ofPennsylvaniaPress

Johnson,K.andMorrow,K.(1981).Communication intheClassroom.London:Longman.

Nunan, D. – Second Language Teaching and Learning(1999)

Heinle&HeinlePublishers

Oxford, R.L. (1990) Language learning strategies:

What every teacher should know. New York:

NewburyHousePublishers

Rubin,J.andThompson,I.(1982)Howtobeamore Successful Language Learner. Boston: Heinle andHeilne.

Salzman,Z.(1998)Language, Culture and Society: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology(2

Ed)

WestviewPress

Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the PhiloscphyofLanguage.Cambridge:MITPress.

W a r d h a u g h , R . ( 1 9 9 8 ) A n I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Sociolinguistics(3

edn)BlackwellPublishers Zimbardo,P.G.(1977).Shyness:Whatitis,whatto

doaboutit.Reading,MA:PerseusPress.

（平成22年11月19日受理）