Academic and Scholarly Repository of KUIS

矢放, 昭文

2237

『日本広東学習新語書』所収仮名音注の特徴に つ
いて（2）
著者 矢放 昭文
雑誌名 神田外語大学日本研究所 紀要
号 12
ページ 134-127
発行年 2020-03-30
URL http://id.nii.ac.jp/1092/00001664/
asKUIS 著作権ポリシーを参照のこと
（101）
はじめに
前稿「『日本広東学習新語書』所収仮名音注の特徴について」（1）では；
（1）自称代詞の語系、音節末尾に /-i/ を持つこと。
（2）撮口呼を欠くこと。
（3）常用の全濁声母が有気音で記されること。
（4）中古音の以母、影母、云母字がサ行濁音で表記されており Fricative Ret-
roflex または Alveolar であったと推定できること。
以上の 4 点より、同書の A 類片仮名音注は客家方言の特徴を示すものとの
結論を示した。但しこれら 4 項目については、手続き上の問題も含めて最終的
なものではない。今後の課題として一層の詳細な報告を必要としている。
一方で、同書所収の片仮名音注の特徴を考察するには、A・B 二層のみの枠
組設定では不十分であること、様相の性格が相当に複雑であること、を認める
に至っている。
小稿では、これらの課題を解きほぐすための基礎作業として、特に人称代詞
の語形、音節末尾に /-i/ を持つこと、を手掛かりとして関連事項および資料
から判明したことを報告したい。
1 ． 人称代詞 /-i/ 尾と助数詞 /-i/ 尾について
『新語書』収録の人称詞については、その冒頭より /-i/ 形を認めることがで
きる。二人称、三人称も併せて、その字体も含む記録を挙げると以下の如くに
なる。
《論　文》
『日本広東学習新語書』所収仮名音注の特徴に
ついて（2）
矢放　昭文
134
（102）
一人称 二人称 三人称
単数 我　ゴー、ガイ 爾　ニー 伊　キー
複数 我我　ゴーゴー
阮的　グワン　テﾟツ
　　　ガイガイ
　　　ナイ
涯　ガイ（24）
你（等）ニーニー　伊們（キームン）＊
一人称代詞「我」の読音については「ゴー、ガイ」 2 種類の語音を記録して
おり「ゴー」は読書音、「ガイ」は白話音と見做すことができる。客家語白話
音についての調査報告資料には、今日では参考に資すべき資料が豊富に揃って
いる。その中で比較的古いものとして、例えば、広東省東北部五華県の華誠客
家語音を報告した李作南1965（2）を出発点に据えることできる。同氏の報告する
五華県の客家語人称代詞は下記の如くである；
第一人称 第二人称 第三人称
单数 ŋai 2 ȵi 2 ki 2
复数 ŋai 2  teu 1 ȵi 2  teu 1 ki 2  teu 1
第一人称 / ŋai 2/ については、『新語書』インフォーマントは片仮名で「カ
イ」と標記しており、李作南1965が報告する如く、語頭子音の鼻音成分をする
ことは難しい。但し遠藤雅裕2016にしたがえば鼻音成分は確認することができ
る（3）。第二人称 / ȵi 2/ は「ニー」、第三人称は「キー」となることも順当であ
る。
1 ．1 　第一人称
客家語の第一人称については、例えば李如龍・張雙慶1992によれば（4）、34調
査地のうち30地点で /ŋai 2/ 等 /ŋ-/ 声母及び /-i / 尾を有している。『新語書』
は「ガイ」とするが、片仮名では語頭子音の鼻音成分の表記ができないために
「ガイ」としているのであろう。
また前稿でも触れたが自称複数を示す「阮」字は閩語資料に認められる（5）。
同字について『新語書』は「グワンテﾟツ」「ガイガイ」「ナイ」 3 通りの語音
を示すと同時に「涯 ガイ（24）」をも注記する。「グワン」はおそらく話者に
133
『日本広東学習新語書』所収仮名音注の特徴について（2）
（103）
とり読書音を示していると思われる。
また『新語書』第一章末尾の欄外に「注意」と記し；" 阮ハ尔又ハ您ニ對シ
テ稱スル語ニシテ相對スルモノナク單ニ我等ト称スル時ニハ咱ヲ用フ "（52）
と言う注記は『新語書』インフォーマントの基礎方言考察に重要な価値を持
つ。二人称と相対して始めて成立する「我等」認識を表示するという点では、
「阮」字が閩語使用の字体であることに関係なく、『新語書』基礎方言の特徴の
一つと見做すことができるであろう。また「咱」について「相對スルモノナク
單ニ我等ト称スル時ニハ咱ヲ用フ」点も貴重な注記であるが、更に掘り下げた
議論は今後の課題としたい。
1 ．2 　類別詞（助数詞または量詞）
「ガイガイ」について、前置の「ガイ」は一人称 / ＊ ŋai/ を示すものと判断
できるが、後置の「ガイ」は助数詞（類別詞または量詞）であると思われる。
この点については小稿では J.Norman 1988の記述に従う（6）。
同氏は李方桂1971（7）に従い上古漢語 *ngar> 中古漢語 MC ngâ、を措定した
上で；The Yue dialect of Táishān has ŋoi 1  （OC *ngar>MC ngâ:） ･･･These 
two forms are also found in Kèjiā: ŋai 2  ‘I, me’and kai 5 ‘individual measure 
word’. と述べ、客家語の一人称 ‘I, me’ には語頭に鼻音成分を持つ ŋai 2を、後
置の助数詞には kai 5を比定している。
『新語書』では、例えば（P1640044）に「這個リーカイ、ツーカイ、チエー
カイ」、「彼個キーカイ、ピーカイ」、「彼彼個キーキーカイ」、「那一個ナイカ
イ、チーヂッカイ」という音注例を認めることができるが、各例の前置成分に
ついてはここでは触れないとして、後置の「個」についはいずれも「カイ」で
ある。
遠藤雅裕2016（8）は『新語書』の語学情報研究に最も近い関連性を持つと推測
される資料であるが「一個人」について ʒit 5 - 32kai 21ŋin 55を報告している。『新
語書』成立時にも kai 21という類別詞として使用されていたものと考えること
ができる。
1 ．3 　二人称
二人称については『新語書』は「ニー」とするが、李作南1965によれば
132
（104）
ȵi 2、李如龍・張雙慶1992では n（10地点）、ȵi（ 3 地点）、ni（ 6 地点）、ŋi
（ 3 地点）、gi（ 1 地点）等を参考にすることができる。また遠藤雅裕2016では
ŋi 55である。
1 ．4 　三人称
三人称については、『新語書』は字体として「伊」「彼」を使用するものの、
読音は一律に「キー」である。複数形「伊們」については、紙面の汚れのため
第一冊 P1640044では読み取ることができないが、P1640105に「阮要伊們不
要」という文例があり「ナイ　ジヤウ　キームン　ンム　ジヤウ」という音注
に従い「キームン」を採用することができる。
「私供ハ望マスガ彼人等ハ望ミマセン」という意味注記により、「伊們（キー
ムン）」は三人称複数を示す代名詞と見做すことができる。客家語白話音
「キー」と読書音「- ムン」を合成した語彙であろう。
「伊」字は『新語書』全篇を通じて「キー」と注記されている。その一部と
して；
咱去呌伊　カイ キー ハム キー　我々ハ、彼ノ人ヲ、呼ビニ往キマセウ（511）
伊欲我去　キー オイ ゴー キー　彼ノ人ハ、私ノ往クイヲ望ミマス（512）
伊常常來此處　　キー　シヨンシヨン　ロイ　ツー　チュー（749）
伊罕得出門　　　キー　ハン　テッ　チュッ　ムン（751）
伊有去彼處三次　キー ユー キー ガイ チュー サーム パイ（433）
伊來我歡喜　　　キー ロイ ゴー ホアン ヒー（622）
伊怒氣我　　　　キー ヌー ヒー ゴー　（623）
伊是造化的人　　キー ヘー ツオー ファー テﾟッ ギン（626）
等を挙げることができる。
なお他の客家語資料では「渠」或いは粤語と同様「佢」を使用する例が多
く、「伊」はむしろ閩語方言字とされることが多い（9）。『新語書』「伊：キー」
が客家音を記すという点は貴重な例と言えるであろう。『新語書』インフォー
マントからみれば一種の訓読であったと思われる。
131
『日本広東学習新語書』所収仮名音注の特徴について（2）
（105）
2 ． 甚么人 : マカイギン　
「甚么人 : マカイギン：誰ダレ、誰タレ」（17）、「甚么 : マカイ：ナニ、何」
（22）について、前稿では「文言音」ではなく「白話音」であること、「『新語
書』インフォーマントは “what” に該当する漢字として「甚麼」を使用し「マ
カイ」を片仮名音注として付したことを述べるに止まった。
この語形についても、三人称「伊」「キー」と同様、一種の訓読であると判
断できる。
「誰」について遠藤雅裕2016は 「ma 33sa 55 □儕」を挙げる。また田中智子
2012は /mag`ge 麼个 / としている（10）。
李如龍・張雙慶1992は「誰」という語彙ではなく「誰的」として man 3 
ȵin 2、mak 3kai 5ŋin 2、mɛk 3nin 2等を挙げるが34調査地点を通じての共通項を見
出すことは難しい。
また同書（pp.425）は「什麼」について /mak 7kai 5/ 等を清溪、揭西、西
河、陸川、香港など 5 箇所で報告している。
因みに香港では「 mbak 2kai 53 脈個」等の、いずれも脱鼻音化した音型例が
茘枝荘、麻雀嶺、赤泥坪、楊小坑 4 箇所（新界）で報告されている（11）。
さらに『漢語方言詞匯・第二版』（1995）（12）は「誰」について「man  ȵin˩、
「什麼」について「乜个 mak˩ kɛ」を挙げる。
いずれにしても『新語書』「甚么人 : マカイギン」は「什麼」＋「人」より
構成されており「誰」そのものに人格を認めた表現ではない。
3 ． 他の語音要素
A・B 二層のみの枠組設定では不十分であり、様相の性格が相当に複雑であ
ることを語る事例として少し述べておきたい。
『新語書』第二冊 P1640105にみられる一文「阮要伊們不要 : ナイ ジヤウ 
キームン ンム ジヤウ」「私供ハ望マスガ　彼人等ハ望ミマセン」にみられる
事例では、第一人称複数形として「阮」が使用され、語音「ナイ」が充てられ
ている。或いは「カイ」の誤りであるかも知れないが「グワン テﾟツ」「ガイ
130
（106）
ガイ」以外の第三例であるならば、今のところ、解決は難しい。
「要」「不要」に充てられた「ジヤウ」については前稿で報告済みであるが、
中古以母、影母、云母字にサ行濁音を充てる例であり、遠藤雅裕2016にも多く
の事例が報告されている。
「不」について「ンム」を充てる点については、『新語書』インフォーマント
は否定詞「無」音を念頭に置いていたことに由ると思われる。『漢語方言詞
匯・第二版』（1995、pp.607）によれば、「唔 : ṃ˨」（梅県）が報告されてい
る。現代書面粤語と同様である。「ンム」はこの語音を表したものであろう。
P1640105に認められる「冇：パーン」（480）音についても客家音では解決
できない。閩語「bo」（例えば厦門）に類する語音の可能性があるが、ここで
は事例の報告に止めておきたい。
他の事例として「    」がある。P1640106に見られる「来去    不欲：往クモ
来ルコトモ好ミマセン」、「高低    好：高クテモ低クテモ宜イ」、「    未曾到：決
シテ往ツタコトハアリマセン」という文例に見られ「ルン」または「ヌン」と
標記され /n-//l-/ の混用を示している。この点についても一層の調査を必要
としている。
小結
黄遵憲（1848-1905）が「吾手写吾口」（吾が手で吾が口から出る言葉を記
す）という有名な詩句を述べたのは1868年、同氏21歳の時である。当時は、す
でにバーゼル教会所属のプロテスタント宣教士が梅県を中心として広東東北部
で布教し始めて約20年を過ぎていた頃であり（13）、黄氏が、宣教師の操る、漢
字の読み書きができない人々でも聴いて理解できる口頭講話、白話布教の力
に、何らかの啓示を覚えていた可能性は高い。
にも関わらず、士大夫、読書人などの識字層を外れた当時の人々にとり、耳
で聞いた言葉を書記することには非常な困難があったはずである。『新語書』
インフォーマントはおそらく経商従事を生業としていたと思われるが、士大
夫・読書人などの識字層とは異なる分野での、生業に必要な漢字知識は有して
いたにもかかわらず同時にその限界も想定すべきである。
『新語書』成立したのは1899～1900年間のことであり、陳独秀（1879-
129
『日本広東学習新語書』所収仮名音注の特徴について（2）
（107）
1942）、胡適（1891-1962）らが、誰でも書いて解る口語文体の実現を目指し
た、いわゆる五四白話運動の主導者となる契機としての1912年の民國革命ま
で、まだ10年以上の歳月があった。
それまでの、人々の意思疎通媒体としての文体はやはり文言文のみであった
ことを視点にいれると、『新語書』が示す読音、字体およびについての語彙・
語音の多様性はまさにこのような当時の文体を巡る事情によるところが大き
い。
だからこそであるが、自らの手で自らの発話を日本の漢字音により中国の方
言、特に東南方言について記録した資料として『新語書』は実に貴重な価値を
有していると考えることが可能である。
註
（ 1 ）矢放昭文2019「『日本広東学習新語書』所収片仮名音注の特徴について」、神田外
語大学『日本研究所紀要』第11号、pp.208（43）-199（52）。
（ 2 ）李作南1965「客家方言的代詞」『中国語文』1965年第3期、pp.224-231,205｡
（ 3 ）遠藤雅裕2016『台湾海陸客家語語彙集』、中央大学出版部。
（ 4 ）李如龍・張雙慶1992《客贛方言調查報告》廈門大學出版社、pp.419。
（ 5 ）梅祖麟2000〈閩南語複數人稱代詞形成合音的年代〉《語言變化與漢語方言 · 李方桂
先生記念論文集》丁邦新 · 余靄芹編，中央研究院語言學研究所籌備處，華盛頓大學，
pp.261-269。
（ 6 ）J.Norman 1988 “CHINESE” CAMBRIDGH UNIVERSITY PRESS,‘Dialects of the 
Southeast’ pp.212。
（ 7 ）Li, Fang-kuei 1971. Shàngǔyīn yánjīu（上古音研究）. Tsing Hua Journal of Chi-
nese Studies, New Series 9,1-61．《上古音研究》商务印书馆 , 1980, 北京。
（ 8 ）遠藤雅裕2016、上掲書、pp.433。
（ 9 ）他の客家語資料、例えば『客語聖詩』台彎教會公報社1999，田中智子2012も「佢」
を使用する。一方「渠」については李如龍・張雙慶1992などが使用する。
（10）田中智子2012『客家語入門（改訂版）』（東京外大 AA 研）。
（11）張雙慶 · 莊初昇2003『香港新界方言』商務印書館、pp.707。
（12）北京大学中国語言文学系語言学教研質編、語文出版社、pp.564。　
128
（108）
（13）JESSIE G.LUTS AND ROLLAND RAY LUTZ 1998, “HAKKA CHINESE CON-
FRONT PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY, 1850-1900”, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New 
York.
［付記］：小稿は、JSPS 科研費（課題番号17Ｋ02753）による研究成果の一部である。
127


Japanese

『日本広東学習新語書』所収仮名音注の特徴に ついて（2）

吉田, 光宏

2233

ヨシダ, ミツヒロ

Traditional Chinese

日常の「日本文化」を「外」にむけて語ることの政治性

小舘, 梓

2505

コダテ, アズサ

Kodate, Azusa

English

Obstruction or Promotion? A Study into the Effects of Educational Interventions in Peer Tutoring in Foundational English Learning

岩井, 美佐紀

2509

イワイ, ミサキ

Legal Support for the Divorced Mothers and the Mixed Nationality Children who Returned to Vietnam: Focus on Activities by Korean NGO in the Mekong Delta Region

Rose-Wainstock, Crystal

2726

SOCIAL ANNOTATION IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM

Hollinshead, Mathew

1878

ENCOURAGING PARTICIPATION IN AN ONLINE EFL CLASS 
Mathew Hollinshead 
Kanda University of International Studies 
 
INTRODUCTION 
The emergence of the novel 2019 coronavirus has brought about something of a revolution, and 
at great speed, in the education world. Writing in March this year, Hodges et al. (2020) state that 
“the speed with which this move to online instruction is expected to happen is unprecedented 
and staggering” (p.2). Such tectonic shifts in such a short time clearly require great resources of 
adaptability from educators and students alike. For English language teachers in Japan, this 
pedagogical turbulence can serve to exacerbate many of the problems they were already 
grappling with in a pre-pandemic world. One of these problems being how to encourage reticent 
students to participate more actively in their English lessons.  
PARTICIPATION IN AN EMERGENCY REMOTE TEACHING (ERT) CONTEXT 
Hodges et al. (2020) claim “the temptation to compare online learning to face-to-face 
instruction in these (emergency) circumstances will be great” (p.2) but go on to argue that this 
is not helpful for a number of reasons. However, they do provide some suggestions for 
evaluating the effectiveness of emergency remote teaching (ERT). For teachers, they suggest 
asking “did learners achieve the intended knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes that were the focus 
of the instructional experience?” While for students, they note “issues such as interest, 
motivation, and engagement are directly connected to learner success and so would be possible 
evaluation foci” (p.7). Bao (2020) likewise looks at the requirements for successful ERT. She 
provided a case study of Peking University’s ERT efforts and identified five major principles for 
success, among them “high-quality participation to improve the breadth and depth of student's 
learning” (p.1). The acquisition of skills, the degree of motivation and engagement, and 
participation, despite a move out of the classroom, remain vital. 
STUDENTS 
While it is not possible in this article to discuss the nature and dangers of stereotyping students, 
it is nevertheless possible to adumbrate a number of general observations about Japanese 
learners of English. Cohen (1995) claims that Japanese students are often viewed by their 
teachers as being passive, unwilling to contribute, and excessively concerned with errors. 
Writing almost a decade later, Saito and Ebsworth (2004) discuss a fairly comprehensive list of 
cultural differences that can often cause tension between Western language teachers and their 
Japanese students. Traits they identified as being common among Japanese students included 
a preference for indirect speech, an unwillingness to challenge either their teachers or peers, a 
deep concern with group cohesion, and widespread perfectionism. They further claimed that 
teacher expectations around challenging a student’s answer can be problematic. While a teacher 
might anticipate such a challenge generating fresh and original ideas, such challenges are likely 
to be unexpected for students and can often lead to intense embarrassment. These and other 
factors can therefore lead to a noticeable unwillingness on the part of students to participate in 
class, or at least to appear so.  
THE 5-SECOND RULE 
As part of an effort to counteract such reticence, I introduced the 5-second rule into my online 
classes. Robbins (2018) claims that whenever one has an impulse to act on a goal, they must 
physically do something within five seconds or inhibitions will take over and the impulse will be 
lost. The way to ensure action is to use what she calls the 5-second rule. One begins counting 
backwards from five and upon hitting “1-go!” they must push themselves into action. She 
explains that “this is how you do the hard stuff – the work that you don’t feel like doing, or you’re 
scared of doing, or you’re avoiding” (Robbins, 2018, para.10). The task in my classes took place 
in two stages. 
Stage One 
Students were given a short reading that explained the 5-second rule (see appendix). After 
completing the reading, students discussed with a partner the following questions: 
 
1) How would you explain the 5-second rule to someone? 
2) Please brainstorm some possible ways you could use the 5-second rule when learning 
English. For example, “I could use it when I want to answer a question.”  
Finally, through a class discussion, all of the ideas for question 2 were gathered onto one 
document available to everyone on a digital platform used daily for class materials.  
The priority of this exercise was to activate students towards thinking of ways they might use 
the rule to aid their learning, and in particular their participation online. Answers for question 2 
typically focused on very broad areas such as: when wanting to ask a question in class; when 
wanting to give opinions but feeling afraid; when fearing other students would see their answers 
as wrong; when wanting to use English outside of class, for example talking to a foreigner; or 
when not wanting to join the class.  
Stage Two 
For the second stage of this activity, students were asked to look back at the shared document 
the class created and to reflect on where they had the most difficulty taking action. They were 
then challenged to make use of the 5-second rule at least once a week in trying to be more active 
in these areas. In their weekly reflection journals they were asked – “can you describe one 
example of when you used the 5-second rule this week?” 
More informally, I kept the 5-second rule present as much as possible during class time. On any 
occasion in which a question to the class was met with silence, I would energetically begin 
counting backwards from 5. 
STUDENT RESPONSE TO THE 5-SECOND RULE 
The reaction of the students to the 5-second rule has been very positive. General feedback from 
students suggest that not only are they making use of the rule during class time, they are actually 
transferring it outside of the class to assist them with tasks such as homework. On the regular 
occasions when I use it to trigger participation in class I am invariably met with the voices of a 
number of students seeking to get involved. The speed with which the 2020 pandemic has 
changed the learning environment means that the findings here are purely anecdotal. However, 
an opportunity clearly exists for a more systematic survey of how students feel about the rule. 
For now, it appears to be a valuable tool in my efforts to encourage participation in my online 
EFL classes.       
 
REFERENCES 
Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking 
University. Hum Behav & Emerg Tech. 2. 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191 
 
Cohen, A. (1995). Spoken discourse analysis in Japanese university classes. Niigata Studies in 
Foreign Language and Culture, 1. p.27-32. 
 
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. & Bond, A. (2020, March 27th). The difference 
between emergency remote teaching and online learning. 
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-
and-online-learning  
 
Robbins, M. (2018, April 25th). The five elements of the five second rule. 
https://melrobbins.com/blog/five-elements-5-second-rule/  
 
Saito, H. & Ebsworth, M. (2004). Seeing English language teaching and learning through the 
eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL students. Foreign language annals, 37(1). p.111-124. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02178.x 
  
Appendix A 
The 5 Second Rule is simple. If you have an instinct to act on a goal, you must physically 
move within 5 seconds or your brain will kill it. 
The moment you feel an instinct or a desire to act on a goal or a commitment, use the Rule. 
When you feel yourself hesitate before doing something that you know you should do, count 5-
4-3-2-1-GO and move towards action. 
There is a window that exists between the moment you have an instinct to change and your 
mind killing it. It’s a 5 second window. And it exists for everyone. 
If you do not take action on your instinct to change, you will stay stagnant. You will not 
change. 
But if you do one simple thing, you can prevent your mind from working against you. You can 
start the momentum before the barrage of thoughts and excuses hit you at full force. 
What do you do? 
Just start counting backwards to yourself: 5-4-3-2-1. 
The counting will focus you on the goal or commitment and distract you from the worries, 
thoughts, and excuses in your mind. 
As soon as you reach “1” – push yourself to move. 
This is how you push yourself to do the hard stuff – the work that you don’t feel like doing, or 
you’re scared of doing, or you’re avoiding. 
That’s it. 5 seconds is all it takes. 
If you don’t act on an instinct within that 5 second window, that’s it. You’re not doing it. 
 
 
 


ENCOURAGING PARTICIPATION IN AN ONLINE EFL CLASS

Beattie, Mark

2722

 
ZOOMING OUT FROM THE TEACHER-CENTRED 
CLASSROOM 
 
Mark Beattie 
Kanda University of International Studies 
 
The 2020 pandemic has brought about a series of events worldwide which has impacted the vast 
majority of society in some way. In post-secondary education the shift from a physical classroom 
environment to online has produced a series of challenges for educators. This sudden change 
has been uncomfortable for many teachers and students, and dramatically changed the ways in 
which students interact with their peers and teachers in the context of a classroom. The 
classroom as it is commonly thought of has moved from “a unique social environment with its 
own human activities and its own conventions governing these activities” (Breen & Candlin, 1980, 
p. 98)  to an online platform with prescribed interaction, primarily decided by the teacher, and 
its own conventions more strictly regulated by the teacher. A resulting factor of these 
circumstances personally, while teaching during the pandemic, was an increase in the use of 
Teacher Talk and in turn a more teacher-centred classroom.   
 
A teacher-centred classroom has many features and arguably Teacher Talking Time is a central 
pivot which determines which category the lesson assimilates to. Teacher Talk is commonly 
scored on quantity rather than quality (Cullen, 1998). Teachers have often been criticized for 
speaking too much and depriving students of the opportunity to speak, whilst speaking sparsely 
is considered to be ‘effective Teacher Talk’. This understanding has prompted more efficient 
communication on behalf of teachers with an emphasis on facilitating and promoting 
interaction (Cullen, 1998). This shift from quantity to quality communication was considered 
important, as simply reducing Teacher Talk would not improve language acquisition and would 
lead to the detriment of learner interaction (Brock, 1986). These accommodations to physical 
classroom methodology have been shown to benefit learners.  
 
However, during the pandemic many educational institutions started using a software program 
called Zoom to conduct lessons. The technology used to create the online classroom allows for 
all participants to communicate, but multiple speakers cannot speak and be comprehended at 
the same time. Therefore, communication is limited to one person speaking at a time, a form of 
turn taking that is completely regulated. In order for the online classes to function as coherently 
as possible, all participants mute their microphones, with the exception of one, the speaker. The 
teacher, by hosting the lesson, is given special control privileges as host; the ability to mute and 
unmute microphones is one of those privileges. The teacher, when using Zoom, can mute and 
unmute students in order to control the lesson. Obviously, this type of control does not exist in 
the physical classroom. The software program was created and intended for use by businesses, 
thus the control within the software is akin to that of a manager and consequently that structure 
imprints onto the online classroom, where it has its own benefits and downfalls.  
 
This shift for many from a learner-centred classroom where the teacher acts as facilitator to the 
learning process, by empowering students and by promoting pair/group work and 
communication, became very prominent when switching from the physical classroom to the 
online classroom.  Other aspects of the learner-centred classroom, such as encouraging peer 
review and preparing students for assessments relevant to a curriculum designed around these 
characteristics, became difficult. The curriculum suddenly did not fully correspond and 
cooperate with my own style of classroom teaching.  
 
Prior to the pandemic I would have considered the majority of my lessons to be learner-centred. 
Weimer (2002, pp. 75-76) describes this style of teaching as being a “guide on the side” or 
“coach”. The students have the materials and facilities that they require. They are guided to 
discover and interpret the content which they have been given. It is then through this process 
that they learn with the incorporation of their own experiences. I admittedly had been trained 
to teach in this style, and the teacher-centred approach did not appeal to me as it was considered 
by me personally to be an outdated methodology.  
 
Moving to online lessons resulted in my adoption of a more teacher-centred approach. My 
lessons at the beginning of the pandemic were very structured around who and what I imagined 
the primary focus to be during the lesson. To my discomfort, it felt that the primary focus of my 
lessons had become me presenting information to the class. As I reflected on student 
engagement and interaction, I realised that in the physical classroom a lot of my communication 
had been non-verbal. The use of gestures and the students’ reactions to my instructions were 
enough for me to know that what I had said or described was comprehended. However, online 
my communication was restricted to verbal communication with limited gestures as they could 
not be fully viewed on camera. This constraint for all participants is a limitation of the software. 
Participants have the option to view one participant on their monitor or to view all the 
participants in a grid view, which is my own default view in order to address the entire class. It is 
very difficult to see all participants and even when viewing students in grid view not all students 
are totally visible on screen. Some have their camera off for privacy reasons, and some work on 
a separate desk and thus their faces are not totally in view for the entire lesson. When in screen 
share mode, there are also limited options on how many students can be seen due to the size of 
the monitor, as sharing portions of the screen reduces the amount of screen space that can be 
used for viewing participants. To overcome this issue a second monitor could improve the 
situation by providing a dedicated screen to view participants.  
 
However, the inability to know if the students did or did not understand instructions left me with 
few options. I had resorted to asking students to communicate to me in some way using the 
reaction or chat function in the Zoom software, to indicate if they comprehended my 
instructions. This method was not always clear. In many cases students would signal with a 
reaction: some would physically react by shaking their heads, while others would use the 
reaction option within the software. Other students may also have understood but I may not 
have seen them for the brief few seconds their reaction was communicated. A number of 
students would not react at all, but it was difficult to know if they did not comprehend what was 
 
going on or if they became distracted when I asked for feedback. Consequently, this led me to 
talk more, for example repeating and rephrasing instructions, and to investigate student 
understanding by asking individual students for clarification. Realistically, however, in many 
situations I had no clear indication that all students did not understand. This increase in Teacher 
Talking Time to compensate for a missing segment in physical classroom communication, I felt, 
bored students and centred the classroom around me. Peer communication and learning could 
not take place in this environment, even for students who did fully comprehend instructions.  
 
To mitigate this issue, I resorted to giving the instructions verbally to the entire group, then 
asking students for a signal to ensure comprehension. If by approximation, half of participants 
signalled understanding of the task, I would then put students into ‘breakout rooms’, which is a 
function of the software which allows for participants of the class to form smaller groups.  I 
would then take a screenshot of the instructions and send them to the students with the 
corresponding task via a group chat software tool. The chat function within Zoom does not 
collectively allow for students to receive files while in breakout rooms. These extra steps of 
instruction and ensuring quality communication rather than quantity dramatically reduced my 
Teacher Talking Time. These steps encouraged pair/group communication, promoted peer 
scaffolding by more capable students, and allowed me to ”guide from the side“  (Weimer, 2002, 
pp.75-76) in order to help students achieve learning outcomes and to move the focus to a more 
learner-centred classroom.  
 
This development of my own personal teaching style has enabled me to adapt in order to best 
meet the needs of the students. This adaption will need to be reflected on as the pandemic 
continues and the Zoom software program evolves. As time continues, I think that the 
curriculum will itself need to change to suit the limitations of the software which have changed 
the possible outcomes of the learners. The 2020 pandemic will no doubt create further 
disruption worldwide, in different sectors and industries. As we navigate through these 
unprecedented times, we will need to consider the impact on the traditional conventions of the 
physical classroom and how teachers can create an online classroom style that corresponds with 
their preferred teaching style and the curriculum.  
 
REFERENCES 
 
Breen, M. P., & Candlin, C. N. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language 
teaching. Applied Linguistics, I(2), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/i.2.89 
Cullen, R. (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal, 52(3), 179–187. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.3.179 
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass. 
 


ZOOMING OUT FROM THE TEACHER-CENTRED CLASSROOM

Bonner, Euan

2499

!
!
USING&BACKCHANNELING&TO&SUPPLEMENT&REAL3TIME&
LESSONS&DURING&EMERGENCY&ONLINE&LEARNING&
&
Euan&Bonner&
Kanda%University%of%International%Studies%
&
INTRODUCTION&
&
In%Japan,%during%the%opening%months%of% the%2020%pandemic,% it%became%clear% to%university%
administration,% that% regular% in>person% lessons%could%not%start%as%usual%at% the%beginning%of%
April.%The%decision%was%made%to%delay%the%commencement%of%the%semester%by%three%weeks%
while% an% emergency% online% learning% system%was% developed% to% enable% both% students% and%
teachers%to%participate%in%online%lessons%from%their%own%homes.%The%university%decided%to%use%
the%video%conferencing%software%Zoom%as%the%primary%real>time%lesson%communication%tool.%
As%a%part%of%my%role%in%the%Online%Lesson%Support%Team%for%the%university,% I% identified%the%
need%for%backchanneling%to%support%the%real>time%Zoom>based%lessons%to%help%teachers%and%
students% better% communicate% during% this% period% of% disruption.% This% paper% describes% the%
reasoning%behind%the%selection%of%LINE%OpenChat%for%this%purpose%and%its%use>cases.%
%
BACKCHANNELING&
&
Backchanneling,% also% known% as% audience% response% systems,% are% methods% of% providing%
members%of%an%audience%with%a%means%to%communicate%with%the%host%without%interrupting%a%
lesson% or% presentation% (Kay% &% LeSage,% 2009).% Backchanneling% has% mainly% been% used% in%
language% learning% education% to% gather% student% feedback,% check% understanding,% and% for%
informal%assessment%during%lessons%(Reinders,%2014).%It%has%also%helped%provide%students%with%
a%tool%for%communicating%with%their%teacher%without%the%fear%of%interrupting%the%lesson%and%
drawing%the%focus%of%the%class.%During%a%period%of%emergency%online%learning,%it%can%also%play%
a% more% direct% role% by% providing% an% additional% communication% channel% for% students%
experiencing%various%issues%during%a%lesson.%Students%can%contact%their%teacher%and%receive%
assistance% when% their% primary% method% of% communication% in% the% lesson% (e.g.% video%
conferencing%software)%is%compromised.%
%
In% practical% terms,% the%most% common%method% for% creating% backchanneling% opportunities%
would%be%to%use%a%smartphone%messaging%application.%This%would%allow%students%to%directly%
communicate% with% the% teacher% outside% of% the% video% conferencing% software% to% check%
understanding,%provide%feedback%and%even%receive%technical%support.%
%
In%Japan,%the%overwhelming%popularity%of%LINE%(“Number%of%monthly”,%2020)%would%make%it%
the%most%obvious%candidate%for%creating%a%group%chat%room%as%an%online%lesson%backchannel.%
However,%there%is%also%a%need%to%consider%user%privacy%and%confidentiality%when%selecting%a%
suitable%real>time%communication%tool.%Often%messaging%applications% require% the%use%of%a%
single%user%profile,%meaning%that%participation%in%an%online%group%can%also%expose%users%to%
harassment%and%unwanted%communication%via%direct%messages%from%other%members.%
%
!
!
Ideally,%the%perfect%solution%for%these%circumstances%would%be%a%messaging%application%that%
has%a%group%chat%functionality%that%not%only%prevented%direct%messaging%of%group%members,%
but%also%required%the%creation%of%new%aliases.%After%some%investigation,%it%was%discovered%that%
LINE%had%such%capabilities.%LINE%OpenChat%is%a%method%of%creating%and%participating%in%LINE%
group% discussions% without% revealing% a% participant’s% LINE% identification.% After% a% period% of%
evaluation%and%testing%with%co>workers,%I%decided%to%proceed%with%using%OpenChat%with%both%
my%first%and%second>year%student%classes.%
%
FEATURES& &SETUP&
&
The%process%for%setting%up%OpenChat%chat%rooms%was%relatively%simple.%When%I%created%the%
rooms%for%class%use,% I% selected%a%name%and%profile%photo% for% the% room%and%deselected%the%
option%for%“Allow%search”,%which%sets%the%room%to%only%be%accessible%by%those%with%the%link%
(see%Fig.%1).%Links%are%available%as%URLs%or%QR%codes%and%were%shared%with%students%via%email%
and%Google%Classroom.%The%link%directed%students%to%a%simple%signup%page%which%asked%them%
to%create%a%new%pseudonym%and%select%a%profile%picture%(see%Fig.%2).%No%other%information%was%
requested.%
%
Fig.%1:%Creating%a%new%OpenChat%room;%Fig.%2:%Setting%up%an%OpenChat%profile%
%
%
For%OpenChat%room%administrators,%there%are%a%variety%of%settings%to%control%the%postable%
content,% including% activating% AI% bots% that% can%monitor% the% room% to% automatically% delete%
specific%words,%and%even%provide%computer>generated%translations%between%languages%(see%
Fig.%3).%There%is%also%an%anti>phishing%capability%that%automatically%deletes%any%attempt%by%
users%to%share%their%true%LINE%identification.%Students%who%did%wish%to%become%direct%LINE%
friends%with%other%students%were%encouraged%to%use%less%public%methods%to%directly%connect%
with%one%another.%
%
%
!
!
Fig.%3:%AI%bot%features%available%for%OpenChat%room%administrators%
%
%
The%setup%process%for%my%classes%went%smoothly,%with%all%students%successfully%joining%their%
class’s%OpenChat%room%by%the%commencement%of%the%first%lesson,%after%having%received%the%
links%in%the%classroom%syllabus%one%week%beforehand.%
%
USAGE&SCENARIOS&
&
Over%the%course%of% the% first%semester%of%emergency%online% learning,% the%OpenChat% rooms%
were%utilised%in%a%variety%of%ways%to%aid%in%teaching%and%managing%students:%
%
Polling&Classes&
The%main%method%used%to%backchannel%with%the%classes% for% feedback%and%comprehension%
checking%was%the%use%of%OpenChat’s%poll%system.%LINE%features%the%ability%to%poll%chat%rooms%
anonymously,%which%allowed%my%students%to%voice%their%opinions%and%provide%honest%answers%
without%revealing%their%identities%to%the%class%or%even%to%me.%This%proved%invaluable%in%getting%
students%to%participate%when%they%appeared%much%more%reluctant%to%publicly%participate%in%
the%Zoom%video%sessions.%While%Zoom%also%had%this%feature,%the%creation%of%Zoom%polls%was%
a%much%more%involved%process,%whereas%on%LINE,%it%was%possible%to%create%new%polls%on%the%
spot.%
%
Video&Breakout&Sessions&
Many%real>time%activities%facilitated%the%use%of%“breakout%sessions”%using%Zoom’s%ability%to%
divide%students%into%smaller%private%video%conferencing%groups%that%were%isolated%from%the%
main%video%conferencing%session.%During%this%time,%the%only%method%of%communication%from%
me%was% via% a% small% notification%message% that%would%appear% at% the% top% of% each% student’s%
screen%for%a%few%seconds.%However,%students%were%able%to%switch%applications%from%Zoom%to%
other%collaborative%classwork%applications%such%as%Google%Docs%or%Google%Slides.% In% these%
applications,% Zoom% notifications% were% not% displayed,%meaning% students% were% completely%
isolated% from% communicating% with% me% unless% I% entered% each% breakout% session% directly.%
OpenChat% enabled% continued% communication% with% the% class,% enabling% me% to% check%
understanding%and%provide%additional%information%as%students%worked.%
%
!
!
Video&Conferencing&Technical&Issues&
During% the% period% of% emergency% online% learning,% there% were% significant% issues% with% the%
internet% connections% of% both% students% and% teachers.% This% resulted% in% occasions% where%
students%were%unable%to%maintain%a%reliable%connection%to%the%real>time%lessons.%However,%
using%OpenChat,%my%students%were%able%to%report%connection%issues%to%me%immediately%via%
their%mobile%phone%cell>data.%Similarly,%there%was%a%single%occasion%where%my%own%internet%
connection% became% unstable% and% continuing% the% Zoom% session% became% impossible.%
Fortunately,% via% OpenChat,% I% immediately% informed% my% students% that% I% would% post% the%
lesson’s%classwork%on%Google%Classroom%and%asked%them%to%use%the%remaining%class%time%to%
work%on%these%activities.%
%
Classwork&Reminders& &Prompts&
In%one%instance,%a%lesson%was%divided%into%a%real>time%video%lecture%and%a%Google%Classroom>
based%classwork%activity.%It%was%noted%shortly%after%the%end%of%the%Zoom%session%that%some%
students%did%not%begin%work%on%their%online%documents.%A%message%was%quickly%sent%to%the%
OpenChat%room%reminding%them%that%the%lesson%was%not%over%and%to%work%on%the%classwork%
activities%immediately.%This%proved%to%be%an%effective%method%of%keeping%everyone%on>task%
outside%of%video%conferencing%lessons.%
%
CONCLUSION&
%
While%video%conferencing%software%can%help%to%provide%a%continuation%of%real>time%education%
during%periods%of%emergency%online%learning,%there%still%exists%a%need%for%a%greater%ability%to%
check% student% understanding,% gather% feedback% and% provide% informal% assessment% during%
these%times.%Backchanneling%between%teachers%and%students%has%the%potential%to%provide%a%
means% to%help%address% this% issue.%Using%LINE%OpenChat%as% a%backchanneling% tool%helped%
provide% this% functionality,%while%also%addressing%the%need% for% student%privacy%and%helping%
them%separate%their%online%educational%identities%from%their%social%ones.%
%
%
REFERENCES&
&
Kay,% R.% &% LeSage,% A.% (2009).% Examining% the% benefits% and% challenges% of% using% audience%
response%systems:%A%review%of%the%literature.%Computers%&%Education,%53,%819>827.%%
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131509001134%
%
Number%of%monthly%active%LINE%users% in%Japan%from%1st%quarter%2013%to%4th%quarter%2019%
(2020).%https://www.statista.com/statistics/560545/number>of>monthly>active>line>appuser%
s>japan/%
%
Reinders,% H.% (2014).% Backchannelling% in% the% Language% Classroom:% Improving% Student%
Attention%and%Retention%with%Feedback%Technologies.%The%Journal%of%Language%Teaching%and%
Learning,%4.% 84>91.% % https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323185308_Backchannelling%
_in_the_Language_Classroom_Improving_Student_Attention_and_Retention_with_Feedb
ack_Technologies%


USING BACKCHANNELING TO SUPPLEMENT REAL-TIME LESSONS DURING EMERGENCY ONLINE LEARNING

Yoder, Heather

2724

GROUP LEADERS FOR EFFECTIVE BREAKOUT ROOM 
SESSIONS 
 
Heather Yoder 
Kanda University of International Studies 
 
THE PROBLEM 
 
Like many schools currently teaching online due to the 2020 pandemic, the university is relying 
on Google Classroom for classroom management and Zoom for synchronous teaching. Zoom is 
a useful tool, as it features “breakout rooms”, so that participants of a meeting can move to 
smaller groups for group discussion, instead of always being in the main meeting. This is 
particularly useful in a class setting, as students in the breakout rooms can talk and work 
together more easily. 
 
However, teachers cannot monitor all the breakout rooms at the same time and must either wait 
in the main meeting or move from breakout room to breakout room. Compared to on-campus 
classes, this makes it difficult for teachers to monitor the students and help them when they 
have questions. 
 
In the first few weeks of teaching online, I also noticed that it took students longer to organize 
themselves and begin tasks or discussions in breakout rooms than in classrooms. This, combined 
with feedback from students that breakout rooms were difficult for them to use, prompted me 
to rethink the structure of the breakout rooms. 
 
THE SOLUTION 
 
I decided to implement a simple solution – group leaders. I hoped that the group leaders would 
facilitate group discussions and also be able to share the group’s activity with the teacher since 
the teacher could not be in the breakout room. 
 
At the beginning of the semester, students were assigned new groups every time they had a 
breakout room session. However, with the group leaders, students stay in one group of four to 
five people all class. Group leaders are assigned at the beginning of each lesson according to the 
class list order; I mark who has done it each day to ensure that all students get an equal chance 
to be the leader. In the event of student absence or tardiness, I simply skip them and assign them 
as group leader the next time they are in class.  
 
Group leaders have several jobs. These jobs were briefly discussed in class when we began using 
group leaders and are included in the daily PowerPoint slides for student reference. While this 
was useful at the time, in the future I hope to have a more in-depth discussion and gain more 
student input and ideas in negotiating the role of the leader. I discuss this in more detail later in 
this paper. The group leaders’ jobs include: 
 
1. Starting the conversation - for example, if the group is discussing a question, the 
leader reads the question to the group.  
2. Ensuring that everyone in the group has a chance to share their opinion by asking 
each person for their input.  
3. Acting as a liaison between the group and the teacher / class - if the group has a 
question, the leader is in charge of using, or asking someone else to use, the call 
feature on Zoom to ask the teacher to join them. The leader should also be prepared 
to share the group’s ideas with the teacher when the teacher visits the breakout room. 
In addition, the leader has the option to share ideas and answers with the class or 
assign a group member to do so as a “reporter.”  
 
As the semester progressed, I noticed several benefits of having appointed group leaders 
through observation of the breakout rooms: 
1. Better time management – since students know who will start and guide their 
discussion, they do not spend extra time deciding that by themselves. 
2. Improved participation – with an assigned leader, the strong personalities in the class 
do not always end up in the leader position, allowing others a chance to lead. 
Furthermore, since leaders make sure to ask each person to participate, students who 
are shy or quiet get a chance to share their opinions. 
3. Possible increased English use in breakout rooms. If a group finishes talking about an 
assigned topic, the group leader can continue the conversation by asking follow-up 
questions or suggesting a different topic. Also, I observed a few instances of leaders 
encouraging their group to use English, which suggests that some group leaders may 
feel empowered by their leadership position to encourage their classmates to talk 
about a problem in English, instead of defaulting to Japanese.  
 
I am not the only person who has noticed the benefits of having group leaders; in general, 
informal feedback indicates that students have also been positive about having this added 
structure in the breakout rooms, and many students seem to be more comfortable with one 
person as a designated leader. 
 
FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 
 
As with any new activity, there remains room for improvement in using group leaders. The 
implementation evolved as the semester went on; in some cases, I realized there were more 
issues I wanted to address with the group leaders and felt as though there was not enough time 
to fully discuss these with the class. In addition, assigning group leaders at the beginning of each 
class can take time which could be more effectively used in other ways. Finally, some students 
may be uncomfortable acting as leader or may be overpowered by stronger personalities in the 
group. Therefore, in the event of online classes next semester, I plan to make several changes.  
 
First, to provide more support for students, we will do some group leader training at the 
beginning of the semester. This will include a discussion of what they expect from their group 
leaders, what, if anything, they need to do to prepare for being a group leader and the creation 
of a list of useful phrases for group leaders to use. This information will then be made available 
on Google Classroom for students to reference throughout the semester. This will not only help 
students feel more comfortable acting as a leader, it will also create a common understanding 
of the expectations of the leader’s role and resources which students can refer to throughout the 
semester.  
 
Currently, I assign group leaders at the beginning of class. However, I would like to make a 
schedule for group leaders and post it on Google Classroom. This way, students will know when 
their turn is coming, and they can mentally prepare. Hopefully, this will be beneficial to students 
who do not want to be the leader or who feel uncomfortable being the leader. It could also tie in 
well with the reflective journaling that some students do in their classes.  
 
This semester, my students have been completing reading reports using Flipgrid. In these 
reports, students give basic information about a text they have read, such as title and summary. 
They also reflect on the text and connect it to their life before finally asking their classmates a 
discussion question. Their classmates can then make a response video sharing their answers to 
the question. However, next semester I plan to have students give smaller reports in the 
breakout rooms. If group leaders are assigned from the beginning of the semester, they can also 
be assigned to do their reports on the same day, so they can integrate being the group leader 
and giving their report to their group. Although the details of this are still being worked out, this 
would most likely happen as part of a warm-up. The leader would share the details of their text 
(title, summary, and so forth) before leading the group in a short discussion based on questions 
the leader has created. Thus, the assignment would actually change to become a more 
interactive discussion. Each student would be a group leader around three to four times during 
the semester, so they would prepare and lead this short report / discussion three or four times, 
each time using a different text from their journal. 
 
Finally, I would like to do some reflection with students to see how, and if, the experience of 
being group leader affected either their English use or their view of themselves as learners. In 
addition, I hope to gain more concrete knowledge of why students are so in favor of having group 
leaders. 
 
 


GROUP LEADERS FOR EFFECTIVE BREAKOUT ROOM SESSIONS

成, 昊慶

2259

ソン, ホギョン

‘界面’の意味と由来について
著者 成 昊慶
雑誌名 韓国語学年報
号 16
ページ 101-117
発行年 2020-04
URL http://id.nii.ac.jp/1092/00001681/
asKUIS　著作権ポリシーを参照のこと
－ 101 －
－ 102 －
－ 103 －
－ 104 －
－ 105 －
－ 106 －
－ 107 －
－ 108 －
－ 109 －
－ 110 －
－ 111 －
－ 112 －
－ 113 －
－ 114 －
－ 115 －
－ 116 －
－ 117 －


‘界面’の意味と由来について

Not a member yet

『日本広東学習新語書』所収仮名音注の特徴について（2）