2018年11月17日（土）の14時から、熊本大学黒髪キャンパス教育学部棟2 H201教室で、以下の発表を行います。ご興味のある方がいらっしゃいましたらどうぞお越しください。
タイトル
｢言語教師認知研究における物語様式と二人称的アプローチ」
当日投影するスライド
スライドPDFのダウンロード用QRコード
当日配布する資料
要旨
（ただし当日の発表は日本語で行います）
The narrative mode and the second person approach
in language teacher cognition research
Yosuke Yanase
Language Teacher
Cognition Research (LTCR) changed understanding of actions of language teachers
by investigating how teachers think and feel internally. However, as long as
the means of the investigation is limited to the first person report by
teachers themselves, the findings may have limitations. More specifically, if
the language in the report is used in the logico-scientific mode, which many
modern intellectuals regard as ‘paradigmatic’ in academic discourse, teachers
are obliged to use language to describe something objectively definable. They
thus lose their ability to express their feelings and emotions in particular.
Thus, my first
contention is that the language of the narrative mode should be positively
promoted in LTCR, rather than reluctantly tolerated. In the narrative mode,
teachers are licensed to use ambiguous expressions to describe the feelings and
emotions they cannot delineate. They may use metaphors and other evocative
rhetorical devices to connote and suggest the ‘potentiality’ of meaning, not
just its ‘actuality.’ (Luhmann, 1990) They are encouraged to depict multiple
realities, either indicative or subjunctive, that different perspectives recognize,
without concluding on one single reality that is deemed to be universally true.
However, this kind
of language of the narrative mode demands creativity in readers more than the
language of the logico-scientific mode does. Readers have to decide (or
‘write’) their own version of understanding from the plentiful possibilities of
interpreting the report to learn something that they can generalize from
(‘reader generalizability’). In this creative interpretation, readers may run
the risk of deviating from the possible range of the meaning that the original
report offers. If we are to defend the notion of reader generalizability, which
I do, we need a certain stance to avoid the irresponsible version of relativism
(‘Anything goes’).
Therefore my
second contention states that we need what I term as the ‘second person
approach’ in reading the reports by the teachers or in co-constructing the
interviews with the teachers. The second person approach requires you to
connect with the author of the report, either in written or oral form, as a responding
person. You owe personal ‘responsibility’ to create your own version of the
story that you read into the report. This is why, in an interview, you ask
questions, suggest your interpretation and co-construct discourse with the
author; you ‘respond’ to the author. Even in reading the report where the
author is not present, you are also engaged in a dialogue (an imagined one,
though) with the author, trying to create your responsible understanding that
the author would agree on, not capriciously taking away any message you like.
This second person
approach is unlike what I similarly term as the third person approach, in which
you are detached from the author and abandon your personal responsibility. In
the third person approach, you only obtain information that is universally
agreed upon. This is what the standardized multiple choice tests measure, where
the single correct option must be undeniably true and other incorrect options
must be flatly false and cannot be even controversial or plausible. The third
person approach requires you to be impersonal and cease to create your own
understanding. Thus you are forced to recognize only the literal meaning of
language (or the ‘actuality’ of meaning), ignoring its potentiality. Apparently,
the third person approach is possible and desirable in the logico-scientific
mode, but not in the narrative mode.
To conclude, I
argue that we need the narrative mode in LTCR, and that it requires the second
person approach. With theoretical understanding of the narrative mode (against
the logico-scientific mode) and of the second person approach (against the
third person approach), I believe LTCR may obtain understanding that cannot be
gained by other types of research that are constrained by the doctrine of
objectivism.
プログラムはこちらのPDFをダウンロードしてください。
追記（2018/11/22）
講演の音声データ（約60分）を公開します。ご興味のある方は、以下からダウンロードしてください。
2018/11/17 熊本大学での講演（主に物語論について）
当日は、学生さんが非常に多かったので、わかりやすさを追求した話し方をしましたので、後半部分の二人称的アプローチについてはほとんど触れることができません。しかし、その分、前半部分の物語論についてはある程度（私にしては、の話ですが）丁寧に説明できたのかもしれません。
音量がときにやや小さくなったりしますが、それは集音マイクが固定式なのにもかかわらず、私がうろうろ歩き回ったせいです（苦笑）。ある先生は、私が「聴衆の気配を巧みに感じて動いている」と評してくれましたが、それよりも「知的多動気味だから」という説明の方が個人的にはしっくりきます（笑）。
投稿
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿