言語表現における意味の融通性と限定性

Problem: This experiment was intended to explain how an unbridged sentence could be reconstructed into a complete one in the process o4 psychological dynamics of words.<BR>Method: Test materials consist of; (1) Some sentences quoted from an essay, omitting all “te-ni-wo-ha,” which in Japanese, express the sense relationship of words, corresponding to English prepositions and cases. (2) Other sentences quoted from the same, omitting some nouns and verbs. (3) Some sentences taken from a traveller's sketch-book, omitting some nouns and verbs. (4) sentences taken from a novel, omitting all “te-ni-wo-ha.”<BR>For this study, a completion test was given to 220 students selected from a girls' college, who acted as subjects.<BR>Results: The average percentage of the original words inserted in the place of the omissions in the sentences of the test materials were as follows; 74.9% in Test 1, 57.3% in Test 2, 40.1% in Test 3, 65.4% in Test 4.<BR>If we should try to complete the sentences by using the words the largest num er of subjects inserted in each case, we should be able to reconstruct the sentences in nearly the same forms as their original's. By what reason is such a reconstuction. possible? It is due to the fact that the intention of constructing a sentence is directed by the order of words, and the relationship and interrelationship of words determine the complete meaning of the expression as a whole. Even from such sentences as omitting original words we could form thoughts as practically as from the unabridged ones.<BR>However, words may at ine same time (1) carry an analogous meaning, (2) convey the same thought, or (3) bc misleading.<BR>When words used alte:nately in one place for another in the same sentence can express the analogous meanings, it may be said that they have an equiva'ent meaning. When any one of the words coveying the same thought can possibly be used in the same position in the sentence without changing their proper meanings it may be said that they have a commutable meaning. When words are misleading because of their double or diverse meanings resulting from the ambiguous sentences, it may be said that they have an equivocal meaning.<BR>However the words generally have the commutability of meaning as abst-ract relevancy and at the same time the limitation of meaning as concrete relevancy. But owing to this very limitation, we are able to express the proper shade of meaning of things in our language. in order to express anything precisely, it is necessary to use words of limited meanings, and to understand any of them clearly, we must experience the meaning of things in like situation. General understading of words in any language comes from a unity in social life. But the fact that we have languages in common does not mean that we understand the meaning in the abstract. We can communicate in the concrete each other by means of words common'y used by everybody when concretely referring to certain things of events under certain circumstances.<BR>Language therefore stands for the window through which we can catch a glimpse of the world of common sense, and thus enables us to enjoy life more fully in our community. But how is it that words in our language posses such magical power?<BR>If I am. admitted to make an analogical expression in dynamical terms, it is due to our mental osmose in symbolic process. By the term of osmose, I mean the tendency of meaning transmuting each other, when in contact even with limited words of special meaning, or of making an idiomatic expression as a whole, while some words are compounded into a phrase. In a good sentence, this osmotic process of meaning is easily expressed by words which in turn convey the meaning vivid y to the mind of the thoughtful reader.