@article{oai:jpf.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000160,
 author = {大野, 喜代治 and ONO, Kiyoharu},
 journal = {世界の日本語教育. 日本語教育論集, Japanese language education around the globe ; Japanese language education around the globe},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {久野(1978)は、日本語の間接話法文と視点現象との相関関係を考究し、間接話法節の中での視点制約違反を説明するため直接話法分析を提案している。次の文は氏の例である。

（1）　a.　※太郎ハ僕ニオ金ヲ貸シテヤッタ。
 　b.　太郎ハ、僕ニオ金ヲ貸シテヤッタト言イフラシテイル。
 　c.　太郎ハ「僕ハ Ｘ ニオ金ヲ貸シテヤッタ」ト言イフラシテイル。(Ｘ＝文全体の話し手)
（2）　a.　※僕ノ処ニ相談ニ行ケ。
 　b.　太郎ハ花子ニ僕ノ処ニ相談ニ行ケト言ッテイルラシイ。
 　c.　太郎ハ花子ニ「Ｘノ処ニ相談ニ行ケ」ト言ッテイルラシイ。(Ｘ＝文全体の話し手)

久野は、(1a)と(2a)が不適格文であるのに、どうして(1b)と(2b)が適格文であるかを考察し、その的確性を(1c)と(2c)に見られるような目的節の直接話法表現レベルでの適格性の問題として説明している。氏は、間接話法節中の視点制約として次の仮説を提案している。(i)文全体の話し手が、その間接話法節の聞き手である場合には、視点制約は直接話法表現レベルよりは、間接話法表現レベルで充たされなければならない。(ii)文全体の話し手が、その間接話法節の聞き手でない場合には、視点制約は間接話法表現レベルよりは直接話法表現レベルで充たされなければならない。
 本研究の目的は、授与動詞および方向動詞を含む日本語の間接話法文の適格性に関するネーティブスピーカーの判断の調査を実施し、上記久野の仮説を実証することにある。, Kuno (1978: 273ff.) examines the empathy phenomena in indirect discourse in Japanese and proposes what he calls direct discourse analysis to account for conflict in the speaker's empathy in indirectified benefactive and directional constructions. He uses the following examples:

1. a. *Taroo-wa boku-ni okane-o kasi-te yat-ta.
 Taro has lent me money.  
b. Taroo-wa [boku-ni okane-o kasi-te yat-ta] to iihurasi-te i-ru.
 Taro is spreading the word that he has lent me money. 
c. Taroo-wa "Boku-wa X-ni okane-o kasi-te yat-ta" to iihurasi-te i-ru.[where X=the speaker of the entire speech] 
 Taro appears to be saying to Hanako, "Go to X for advice." 
2. a. *Boku-no tokoro-ni soodan-ni ik-e. 
 Come to me for advice.  
b. Taroo-wa Hanako-ni [boku-no tokoro-ni soodan-ni ik-e] to it-te i-ru rasi-i.
 Taro appears to be telling Hanako that she should come to me for advice. 
c. Taroo-wa Hanako-ni "X-no tokoro-ni soodan-ni ik-e" to it-te i-ru rasi-i.[where X=the speaker of the entire speech] 
 Taro appears to be saying to Hanako, "Go to X for advice." 

Kuno considers why 1b and 2b are acceptable while la and 2a are unacceptable and attempts to explain the acceptability of the former direct discourse; specifically, the Speech-Act Participant Empathy Hierarchy, in which the speaker has to empathize more with himself than with anyone else, is satisfied while 1b and 2b are still in direct discourse as are 1c and 2c, respectively.
    Kuno's (1978: 276ff.) hypothesis depends upon who is the addressee of indirect discourse in the discourse level of speech where the Speech-Act Participant Empathy Hierarchy that should be satisfied is different. If the speaker of the entire speech is the addressee of indirect discourse, it should be satisfied more at the indirect discourse level than at the direct discourse level. If the speaker of the entire speech is not the addressee of indirect discourse, it should be satisfied more at the direct discourse level than at the indirect discourse level.
    This article is the result of a small-scale survey of native speakers' acceptability judgments on indirect discourse sentences containing benefactive and directional verbs. The goal of the survey was to find out if there are any principles like Kuno's hypothesis in which they prefer not to indirectify verbs in otherwise indirectified reported speech., 9, KJ00000611409},
 pages = {105--127},
 title = {日本語授与動詞および方向動詞の間接話法化},
 volume = {1},
 year = {1991},
 yomi = {オオノ, キヨハル}
}