著者
金子 拓
巻号頁・発行日
no.43, 1996
著者
藤村 達也
出版者
京都大学大学院教育学研究科
雑誌
京都大学大学院教育学研究科紀要
巻号頁・発行日
vol.67, pp.15-28, 2021-03-25

本稿は、「受験英語」における英文解釈法が歴史的にいかに展開してきたのかを、入試問題や受験生の変化といった英語教育に対する外的要因によって説明することを試みるものである。その際、「受験英語の神様」と呼ばれた英語講師、伊藤和夫による英文解釈法である「構文主義」を中心に分析した。「構文主義」以前に主流だった英文解釈法は、日本語に訳しにくい「熟語」・「公式」の暗記が中心であった。「構文主義」はこれを批判し、英文を体系的に分析する原理と、英文を「直読直解」する視点を提示し、後に「構文主義」は後者を重視するようになった。「構文主義」の登場以後は、これを批判的に継承する様々な方法が現れた。こうした展開全体を通じて、受験生の多様化および入試問題の長文化という外的変化の影響が見られることを指摘した。また、「受験英語」において様々な英文解釈法が生まれる原因として、予備校における講師間の卓越化競争の存在を指摘した。
著者
片岡 弘勝
出版者
奈良教育大学
雑誌
奈良教育大学紀要. 人文・社会科学 (ISSN:05472393)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.65, no.1, pp.1-19, 2016-11-30

The purpose of this article is to clarify the base and moment for generating “subjectivity” in UEHARA Senroku’s “The Dead Person and the living person” theroy, by focussing the “imminency” and “responsibility” for “The Dead Person”. This study analyzed UEHARA’s works texts and clarified the following five points.1. UEHARA proposed the idea of “subjectivity of the living person as media of The Dead Person”. This idea rinks to criticism to religion, that implies to find out the human abilities which have been preserved in the form of religion in histroy.2. In the case of being imminet by message of “The Dead Person” who was killed unjustly, “the living person” is stimulated and roaded to must to check and direct own’s living styles and standpoints of valuing. According to this UEHARA’s theory context, “subjectivity of the living person” is founded by listening the wording of “The Dead Person” intently and correctly.3. This study examined to compare UEHARA’s “subjectivity” theory with Emmanuel Lévinas’s “subjectivity” theory(discussed by UCHIDA Tatsuru). Then this study indicated the following two common factors and two different factors in both theories. One factor of the common factors is the idea that wording of “The Dead Person” directs “the living person”. The other factor is the strong intention for recognizing something”(“etwas”) that is cannot be described by present academic methods, namely “extremly complex realties” and “the dynamics and chaos of human mind”.4. One factor of the different factors is following point. Lévinas used wordings of “withdrawing one’s previous statesments”. However UEHARA used wordings of “checking and bounding one’s previous statesments relatively”. The other factor is following point. Lévinas supposed the “subjectivity” to responsibility for “The Dead Person” in relation to absolute “God”. However UEHARA supposed the “subjectivity” to responsibility for “The Dead Person” in relation to historical recognition to the oath of Shakyamuni and Nichiren in Buddhism thoughts.5. On this discussion context, the momnet of UEHARA’s “subjectivity” is “responsibility” for “The Dead Person” as absolute “The Other Being”. Further, the base of UEHARA’s “subjectivity” is the one’s recognition and standpoints for attaching importance to “reverence to human life” in severe situation that all persons are fronted the risk of being killed and becoming assistants of killers.