The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
Opening song: Charlene, “Never Been to Me” (1976)
Hey, lady / You, lady / Cursing at your life. / You’re a discontented mother / And a regimented wife. /
I’ve no doubt you dream about / The things you’ll never do. / But I wish someone had of talked to me /
Like I want to talk to you. / Ooh, I’ve been to Georgia / And California / And anywhere I could run. /
Took the hand of a preacher man / And we made love in the sun. / But I ran out of places / And
friendly faces / Because I had to be free. / I’ve been to paradise / But I’ve never been to me.
0:06:29. How it happens
Tick: I’ve got to get some space. I’ve been asked to do a show out of town.
Bernadette: That’s nice.
Tick: Why don’t you come with me? I’ll need some help and I think we could both use the break.
Bernadette: You’re not wrong. Where is it?
Tick: Alice Springs.
Bernadette: You’ve got to be fucking joking.
(Tick attends to his customer.)
Tick: Hello?
Bernadette: How long is the run?
Tick: Four weeks. Equity minimum, two shows a night, accommodation included.
Bernadette: I can’t just sit around here crying all the time. Jesus. My mascara keeps running. I look
like a raccoon.
Tick: Good girl. That’s the spirit.
Bernadette: Here’s hoping the desert’s big enough for two of us.
Tick: Um, three of us.
(Felicia sings.)
Bernadette: Why?
Tick: Why not? Look, he’s turned into a bloody good little performer.
Bernadette: That’s right. A bloody good little performer, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
I thought we’re getting away from all this shit!
Felicia: Two’s company, three’s a party, Bernadette, my sweet.
Bernadette: We’re unplugging out curling wands and going bush, Felicia. Why would you and leave
all this glamour for a hike into the middle of nowhere?
Felicia: Do you really want to know?
Bernadette: Desperately.
Felicia: Well, ever since I was a lad, I had this dream, a dream that I now, finally, have a chance to
Bernadette: And that is?
Felicia: To travel to the center of Australia, climb King’s Canyon—as a queen—in a full-length
Gautier sequin, heels, and a tiara.
Bernadette: Great. That’s just what this country needs. . . a cock in a frock on a rock.
Tick: Get back in your kennels, both of you. Now, the first thing we have to work out is how the hell
we’re going to get there.
0:16:06. On the road.
Tick: Perhaps we should have flown.
00:23:19 Going out for drinks
Shirl: Well. Look what the cat dragged in. What have we got here, eh? A couple of show girls, have
we? Where did you ladies come in from? Uranus?
Bernadette: Could I please have a St. . .
Shirl: No! You can’t have. You can’t have nothing. We’ve got nothing here for people like you.
Bernadette: Now listen here, you mullet. Why don’t you just light your tampon and blow your box
apart? Because it’s the only bang you’re ever gonna get, sweetheart.
00:32:20 Trapped in the outback
Bernadette: Oh, Felicia. Where the fuck are we?
Felicia: Shit!
Tick: Oh, shit. Well, I’ve had a look around and I think we can safely assume that I now know less
about motors than when I first lifted up that. . . bonnety thing.
Bernadette: Now what?
Tick: Let’s just not think about for the moment and eat brekkie, shall we?
Bernadette: Oh, that’s a novel idea. Let’s stuff ourselves to death. Imagine the headlines. “Whales
beach themselves in the Outback.” “Mystery Boomsticks dead in drag.”
Felicia: There’s no point in walking back. The only life I saw for the last million miles were the
hypnotized bunnies. Mostly they’re now wedged in the tires.
Tick: Somebody will drive past for sure. We’ll keep the fire burning.
1:10:02. Bernadette tries to console Felicia
Bernadette: It’s funny. We all sit around mindlessly slagging off that vile stinkhole of a city, but in its
own strange way it takes care of us. I don’t know if that ugly wall of suburbia has been put there
to stop them getting in or us getting out. Come on. Don’t let it drag you down. Let it toughen you
up. I can only fight because I’ve learned to. Being a man one day and a woman the next is not an
easy thing to do.
1:10:49 On the road again
Man: Sorry. Can’t help you.
Bob: No worries, mate.
Tick: Well, are we bunny hopping all the way to Alice?
Bob: No good. He says the man to help is a fair way out of town.
Bernadette: Like how fair?
Bob: Couple hundred clicks fair. No matter. I’ve got nothing else to do today. Let’s get out of here.
Come on, Adam, we’re not here.
1:16:33 At the hotel in Alice Springs
Doorman: Uh, excuse me sir. You can’t park your bus here. Are you planning on staying at the hotel?
Tick: Sorry. Could you direct me to Marion Barber, please? We’re the cabaret act from Sydney.
Doorman: Oh, right, right. Yeah. Just go through to reception and they’ll take you right through.
Tick: Thanks.
Doorman: No worries. It’s all right, Lenny. These are the drag queens.
Felicia: Come on, Bob. Let’s go try on your new frock.
Doorman: G’day.
1:31:57. Felicia’s dream comes true.
Felicia: I had a dream. . . . Well, we did it.
Bernadette: It never ends, does it? All that space.
Felicia: So what now?
Tick: I think I want to go home.
Felicia: Me, too.
Bernadette: Well, then. . . let’s finish the shows and go home.
Opening messages: Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander viewers should exercise caution when
watching this film as it may contain images and voices of deceased persons.
Historical background: After the bombing of Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December 1941, the Imperial
Japanese Navy steamed south, unleashing their fire on Darwin, a city in the Northern Territory of
“The Territory” was a land of crocodiles, cattle barons and warrior chiefs where adventure and
romance was a way of life.
It was also a place where Aboriginal children of mixed-race were taken by force from their families
and trained for service in white society.
These children became known as the Stolen Generations.
に軍隊が上陸したという事実はないので、そこはあくまで演出として理解したい。半世紀以上前の The
Northern Territory の雰囲気と、白人と先住民の関係などはかなり史実に忠実に描かれているようだ。
00:01:43. Nullah’s opening narration
My grandfather, King George, he take me walkabout. Teach me black fella way. Grandfather teach
me most important lesson of all. Tell ’em story. That day I down the billabong. King George, he teach
me how to catch ’em fish using magic song. See, I not black fella, I not white fella, either. Them white
fellas call me mixed blood. Half-caste. Creamy. I belong no one. That day I see ’em, them white fellas,
they were pushing them cheeky bulls across the river onto Carney land. King George angry at them
white fellas. King George say them white fellas bad spirit. Must be taken from this land.
Them coppers come take me away! They want to put me on that Mission Island. Make me into a
white fella. But they’re not coppers. And that first time I saw her, that Missus Boss. The strangest
woman I ever seen! She’s not from this land. This land my people got many names for. But white
fellas call it. . . Australia.
☞Nullah の英語は文法が簡素化されたピジン英語(pidgin English)
う彼の存在を象徴的に表している。祖父の King George が体現する世界と、Missus Boss こと Sarah
Ashley の体現する世界との狭間で、Nullah は物語の語り手としての役割を果たすことになる。彼のナレ
(frame narrative)を成していると言えるが、そうした語りの視点設定には
を、Nullah という「盗まれた世代」の眼を通して描いている点で、この映画にはきわめて政治的なテー
00: 12:59. Into the outback
Sarah: “Trusted man.” Typical of my husband.
Drover: Actually, your husband’s a pretty good bloke.
Sarah: Yes, well, he certainly knows how to choose his employees.
Drover: Employee?
Sarah: No wonder the place is bankrupt!
Drover: Lady, I’m not an employee.
Sarah: Really. So, you’re just driving me all the way out to Faraway Downs as a personal favor to my
husband, are you?
Drover: No.
Sarah: Him being such a good bloke and all?
Drover: I’m driving you out there because he promised me a drove of 1,500 head of cattle.
Sarah: What? To buy?
Drover: No, you goose, to drove. I’m a drover, right? I move the cattle from A to B, all right? I work on
commission. No man hires me, no man fires me.
Sarah: That’s. . .
Drover: Everything I own I can fit in my saddlebag, which is the way I like it.
Sarah: Yes, well, it’s all very outback adventure, isn’t it?
Drover: I’m not saying it’s for everyone.
Sarah: No. Definitely not for everyone.
Drover: Most people like to own things. You know, land, luggage, other people. Makes them feel
secure. But all that can be taken away. And in the end, the only thing you really own is your
story. Just trying to live a good one.
Sarah: Yes, yes, an adventure story. You sound just like my husband.
☞Sarah と Drover の話の噛み合わなさに注目。自らオーストラリアまで出向いてくるほどだから Sarah
抱いている。一方の Drover は、オーストラリアの典型的で神話的なヒーロー像を体現している。つまり
都市と荒野、文明と自然などの対比が、Sarah と Drover の関係のなかで寓意的に描き出されているこ
“Over the Rainbow” from The Wizard of Oz
もう一点注目したいのは、映画『オズの魔法使い』から“Over the Rainbow”の歌が効果的に引用され
ていること。Sarah が母親を亡くした Nullah を慰めるために、たまたま手元にあった新聞に広告が載っ
は何かを再確認してそこに戻るという筋書きになっている。物語の終盤 Sarah が“Let’s go home”と言
い、Drover が“There’s no place like it”と応えるところがあり、これはそのまま『オズ』からの引用に
なっている。その彼らは Nullah とともに牧場に戻って行くのだが、結末には少しだけひねりが加えてあ
Source: Atwood, Margaret. Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature. 1972. Toronto:
McClelland & Stewart, 2004. 40-42.
A. National Symbols
I’d like to begin with a sweeping generalization and argue that every country or culture has a single
unifying and informing symbol at its core. (Please don’t take any of my oversimplifications as articles
of dogma which allow of no exceptions; they are proposed simply to create vantage points from which
the literature may be viewed.) The symbol, then—be it word, phrase, idea, image, or all of
these—functions like a system of beliefs (it is a system of beliefs, though not always a formal one)
which holds the country together and helps the people in it to co-operate for common ends.
B. American National Symbol
Possibly the symbol for America is The Frontier, a flexible idea that contains many elements dear to
the American heart: it suggests a place that is new, where the old order can be discarded (as it was
when America was instituted by a crop of disaffected Protestants, and later at the time of the
Revolution); a line that is always expanding, taking in or “conquering” ever-fresh virgin territory (be
it The West, the rest of the world, outer space, Poverty or The Regions of the Mind); it holds out a
hope, never fulfilled but always promised, of Utopia, the perfect human society. Most twentieth
century American literature is about the gap between the promise and the actuality, between the
imagined ideal Golden West or City Upon a Hill, the model for all the world postulated by the
Puritans, and the actual squalid materialism, dotty small town, nasty city, or redneck-filled outback.
Some Americans have even confused the actuality with the promise: in that case Heaven is a Hilton
hotel with a Coke machine in it.
C. English National Symbol
The corresponding symbol for England is perhaps The Island, convenient for obvious reasons. In the
Seventeenth century a poet called Phineas Fletcher wrote a long poem called The Purple Island,
which is based on an extended body-as-island metaphor, and, dreadful though the poem is, that’s the
kind of island I mean: island-as-body, self-contained, a Body Politic, evolving organically, with a
hierarchical structure in which the King is the Head, the statesmen the hands, the peasants or
farmers or workers the feet, and so on. The Englishman’s home as his castle if the popular form of
this symbol, the feudal castle being not only an insular structure but a self-contained microcosm of
the entire Body Politic.
D. Canadian National Symbol
The central symbol for Canada—and this is based on numerous instances of its occurrence in both
English and French Canadian literature—is undoubtedly Survival, la Survivance. Like the Frontier
and The Island, it is a multifaceted and adaptable idea. For early explorers and settlers, it meant
bare survival in the face of “hostile” elements and/or natives: carving out a place an a way of keeping
alive. But the word can also suggest survival of a crisis or disaster, like a hurricane or a wreck, and
many Canadian poems have this kind of survival as a theme; what you might call “grim” survival as
opposed to “bare” survival. For French Canada after the English took over it became cultural
survival, hanging on as a people, retaining a religion and a language under an alien government.
And in English Canada now while the Americans are taking over it is acquiring a similar meaning.
There is another use of the word as well: a survival can be a vestige of a vanished order which has
managed to persist after its time is past, like a primitive reptile. This version crops up in Canadian
thinking too, usually among those who believe that Canada is obsolete.
E. Canadian National Symbol 2: What It Means
But the main idea is the first one: hanging on, staying alive. Canadians are forever taking the
national pulse like doctors at a sickbed: the aim is not to see whether the patient will live well but
simply whether he will live at all. Our central idea is one which generates, not the excitement and
sense of adventure or danger which The Frontier holds out, not the smugness and/or sense of security,
of everything in its place, which The Island can offer, but an almost intolerable anxiety. Our stories
are likely to be tales not of those who made it but of those who made it back from the awful
experience—the North, the snowstorm, the sinking ship—that killed everyone else. The survivor has
no triumph or victory but the fact of his survival; he has little after his ordeal that he did not have
before, except gratitude for having escaped with his life.
・パラグラフ A~E をよく読んでください。まずは細かいところは無視して、
・パラグラフ B、C、D をそれぞれのグループに割り当てますので、じっくり読んでください。英語の表
・Impress を使って、説明用の簡単な資料を作成します。
・発表で使用した Impress のファイルは、講師に提出してください。
Source: Bingham, Harry. This Little Britain: How One Small Country Built the Modern World.
London: Fourth Estate, 2007. 321-330.
F. British Origin of Football
Although records exist of other foot- and ball-based games, such as the Chinese cuju or the Japanese
kemari, the forerunner of football seems to have been largely concentrated in Celtic and Anglo-Saxon
areas, and it seems more than likely that the Anglo-Saxons took the game from the Celts. By
medieval times, the game was popular enough that it had to be banned. Often. Edward II, Henry V,
Edward IV, Henry VII and Henry VIII all sought to ban or restrict the sport, with obvious lack of
success. The sport continued—rough, fast, unlegislated—into the nineteenth century, played by the
working classes of town and country, and by the public schoolboys who aped the same sports. There
were no fixed rules to these games, beyond certain local customary forms. Some variants of the game
involved plenty of handling, other variants less. There was no such thing as a foul and “hacking”, or
chopping away at an opponent’s shins, was a core part of the sport’s delights.
G. Renaissance of Football
When Joseph Strutt surveyed the sports of England in 1801, he said of football that “the game was
formerly much in vogue among the common people, though of late years it seems to have fallen into
disrepute and is but little practised.” Overlooked by aristocrats, disliked by urbanites, reduced by
rural depopulation, campaigned against by Methodists, the game seemed destined to peter out.
What saved it was the collision between the emerging Victorian ethic of Christian manliness and
the unreconstructed thuggishness of those public school sports. Thomas Arnold, headmaster of
Rugby school from 1828 to 1842, launched the reform programme for public schools generally, though
he himself had little interest in sport. Nevertheless, some of his key disciples became evangelical on
the topic. Sports, properly organized and played, might turn those individualistic thugs into
responsible team players; God would surely prefer honest, rule-bound, collective endeavour to all
that physical scrapping; and just possibly, if all those hormonal teenagers could be rendered tired
enough, then they might keep their hands away from their own (or each other’s) private parts. While
it’s safe to say that not every one of those hopes was fulfilled, public schools suddenly found a passion
for sport which had never once been there before.
H. Setting the Rules
As the new generations of public schoolboys made their way on into the universities and armed
forces, the philosophy spread, and as it did so one particular problem became prominent. It was all
very well for one particular school to fashion its own particular rules for its own particular game, but
what if one school team wanted to play another? Worse still, what game would be played by a mixed
bunch of Old Harrovians, Etonians, Wykehamists, Carthusians and so on once they got to Oxford or
Cambridge? Compromise was both required and hard to find. For decades, the problem lingered on,
unresolved, plagued by issues of tradition and prestige. Finally, in 1863, a group of former public
schoolboys met in London to hammer out a common code. The two principal difficulties arose from
the dispute between those who favoured a kicking/dribbling game and those preferring a
catching/running one, and between those who favoured “hacking” and those who wanted to ban such
physical contact. Finally, and after compromise with a near-simultaneous codification effort based in
Sheffield, the Association Football rules weren’t simply agreed on paper, but on the mud and turf of
the nation’s pitches. In 1871, the aficionados of handling set up their own Rugby Football Union.
I. “Clubbishness” Characterizes the British Culture
Most societies in the world used bows and arrows, yet Brits were the first to set up archery clubs and
tournaments for fun. Though countless people have ridden horses, it took Brits to think that clubs
and rules were essential. In sailing and rowing too, the same thing happened. All the oldest sports
clubs in the world are British: the Southampton Town Bowling Club (1299), the Society of Kilwinning
Archers (1483), the Guild of the Fraternity of St George (1537), the Kilsyth Curling Club (1716), the
Royal Cork Yacht Club (1720), and the Edinburgh Skating Club and the Honourable Society of
Edinburgh Golfers (both 1744). As soon as you have clubs, you need rules: what’s permitted?; what’s
not permitted?; how should competitions be organized?; who can our club compete against? That
habit of clubbishness is the clue, the reason why the pastimes of others became sports of ours.
So why were we so very clubbable? The answer must surely lie in how very organized the country
was. From Anglo-Saxon times on, the country was ordered, from national parliament down to local
parish or manor. Members of Parliament were appointed or elected; laws were made, were locally
applied, were enforced through the courts. Nowhere else was society as minutely ordered; nowhere
else was that order so little disrupted by war, conquest or revolution. Nowhere else was physical
roughhousing less likely to spill over into serious crime.
And perhaps that’s the secret: British love of rough-and-tumble games plus British clubbishness
equals the British creation of sport. If so, it would be tempting to do as most historians have done,
and relegate the whole story of sport to little more than a colourful footnote to the main story of
Britain. Tempting, but wrong. Clubbishness matters. It’s the insight of Robert Putnam, an American
social scientist, whose book Bowling Alone traced the vast amount of social capital stored in a
nation’s clubs and associations. That social capital manifests itself as economic success, better health,
social cohesiveness—all the good things a society seeks. If Britain was vastly more associative as a
nation than others, then it almost certainly had way more social capital too. That’s no mere footnote;
that’s an observation that goes to the heart of what has made Britain distinctive, what has shaped
British national success.
D. John F. Kennedy, Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech (Los Angeles, July 15, 1960)
(JFK の大統領就任の後半部分。かつて「最後のフロンティア」と呼ばれたカリフォルニアの地で、新世
代のリーダーとして自分を売り込むために、JFK は「新たなフロンティア」に言及している。)
For I stand tonight facing west on what was once the last frontier. From the lands that stretch three
thousand miles behind me, the pioneers of old gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes
their own lives to build a new world here in the West. They were not the captives of their own doubts,
the prisoners of their own price tags. Their motto was not “every man for himself” but “all for the
common cause.” They were determined to make that new world strong and free, to overcome its
hazards and its hardships, to conquer the enemies that threatened from without and within.
Today some would say that those struggles are all over – that all the horizons have been explored –
that all the battles have been won – that there is no longer an American frontier.
But I trust that no one in this vast assemblage will agree with those sentiments. For the problems
are not all solved and the battlers are not all won – and we stand today on the edge of a New Frontier
– the frontier of the 1960's – a frontier of unknown opportunities and perils, a frontier of unfulfilled
hopes and threats.
Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom promised our nation a new political and economic framework.
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal promised security and succor to those in need. But the New Frontier
of which I speak is not a set of promises, it is a set of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer
the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride, not to their
pocketbook – it holds out the promise of more sacrifice instead of more security.
But I tell you the New Frontier is here, whether we seek it or not. Beyond that frontier are the
uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of
ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus. It would be easier to shrink
back from that frontier, to look to the safe mediocrity of the past, to be lulled by good intentions and
high rhetoric – and those who prefer that course should not cast their votes for me regardless of
But I believe the times demand new invention, innovation, imagination, decision. I am asking each
of you to be pioneers on that New Frontier. My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age – to all
who respond to the Scriptural call: “Be strong and of good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou
E. John Winthrop, “A Model of Christian Charity” (1630)
(John Winthrop はマサチューセッツ・ベイ植民地総督としてイギリスから派遣された。到着間際に船上
Now the onely way to avoyde this shipwracke and to provide for our posterity is to followe the
Counsell of Micah, to doe Justly, to love mercy, to walke humbly with our God, for this end, wee must
be knitt together in this worke as one man, wee must entertaine each other in brotherly Affeccion,
wee must be willing to abridge our selves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities, wee
must uphold a familiar Commerce together in all meekenes, gentlenes, patience and liberallity, wee
must delight in eache other, make others Condicions our owne rejoyce together, mourne together,
labour, and suffer together, allwayes haveing before our eyes our Commission and Community in the
worke, our Community as members of the same body, soe shall wee keepe the unitie of the spirit in
the bond of peace, the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us, as his owne people and
will commaund a blessing upon us in all our wayes, soe that wee shall see much more of his wisdome
power goodnes and truthe then formerly wee have beene acquainted with, wee shall finde that the
God of Israell is among us, when tenn of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies, when
hee shall make us a prayse and glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantacions: the lord make it
like that of New England: for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of
all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke wee have
undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and
a byword through the world, wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of
god and all professours for Gods sake; wee shall shame the faces of many of gods worthy servants,
and cause theire prayers to be turned into Cursses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land
whether wee are going: And to shutt upp this discourse with that exhortacion of Moses that faithfull
servant of the Lord in his last farewell to Israell Deut. 30. Beloved there is now sett before us life,
and good, deathe and evill in that wee are Commaunded this day to love the Lord our God, and to
love one another to walke in his wayes and to keepe his Commaundements and his Ordinance, and
his lawes, and the Articles of our Covenant with him that wee may live and be multiplyed, and that
the Lord our God may blesse us in the land whether wee goe to possesse it: But if our heartes shall
turne away soe that wee will not obey, but shall be seduced and worshipp other Gods our pleasures,
and proffitts, and serve them, it is propounded unto us this day, wee shall surely perishe out of the
good Land whether wee passe over this vast Sea to possesse it;
Therefore lett us choose life, / that wee, and our Seede, /may live; by obeyeing his
voyce, and cleaveing to him, / for hee is our life, and / our prosperity.
と結びつくことで、アメリカ例外主義(American exceptionalism)が生まれた。またアメリカを世界
に誇るモデル社会であるとみなす考えも、植民初期から既に存在していた。JFK の演説からも分かる
出典:上岡伸雄編著『名演説で学ぶアメリカの文化と社会』研究社、2009 年
A. Barack Obama, Keynote Speech at the Democratic National Convention (Boston, July 27, 2004)
John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper—for
alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that
we’re all connected as one people. . . . It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my
sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams
and yet still come together as one American family. . . .
Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us—the spin masters, the
negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of “anything goes.” Well, I say to them tonight, there is
not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America. There is
not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America—there’s the
United States of America. . . . We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes,
all of us defending the United States of America.
In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A
belief that there are better days ahead. I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide
working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the
homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that
we have a righteous wind at our backs and that we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make
the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us.
America! Tonight, if you feel the same energy that I do, if you feel the same urgency that I do, if
you feel the same passion that I do, if you feel the same hopefulness that I do—if we do what we must
do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to
Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as President, and John
Edwards will be sworn in as Vice President, and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this
long political darkness a brighter day will come.
B. Barack Obama, Running for the presidential election (Philadelphia, March 18, 2008)
“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.” Two hundred and twenty years ago, in a hall
that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched
America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars, statesmen and patriots who
had traveled across the ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their Declaration
of Independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed, but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by
this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention
to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least 20 more years,
and to leave any final resolution to future generations. Of course, the answer to the slavery question
was already embedded within our Constitution—a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of
equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty and justice, and a
union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men
and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States.
What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part. . .
to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this presidential campaign: to continue
the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more
caring, and more prosperous America. I chose to run for President at this moment in history because
I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together, unless
we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common
hopes; that we may not look the same and may not have come from the same place, but we all want
to move in the same direction: towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.
C. Barack Obama, Proclamation of victory (Chicago, November 4, 2008)
This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that’s on my
mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She’s a lot like the millions of others
who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is
106 years old. She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the
road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons—because she was a
woman and because of the color of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she’s seen throughout her century in America—the headache
and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can’t, and the people who
pressed one with that American creed: Yes we can.
At the time when women’s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them
stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can. . . .
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own
science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast
her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and darkest of hours, she
knows how America can change. Yes we can.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight,
let us ask ourselves—if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so
lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have
made? This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time—to put our people
back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause
of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth—that out of many, we
are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those
who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:
Yes we can. Thank you, God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
D. Bruce Springsteen, An endorsement speech for Obama (Philadelphia, October 4, 2008)
I’ve spent 35 years writing about America, its people, and the meaning of the American Promise.
That’s the promise that was handed down to us, right here in this city from our Founding Fathers,
with one instruction and that was: Do your best to make these things real: It was opportunity,
equality, social-economic justice, a fair shake for all of our citizens—the American idea, as a positive
influence, around the world for a more just and peaceful existence. These are the things that give our
lives hope, and they give our lives shape and meaning. And these are the ties that bind us together
and give us faith in our contract with one another.
I’ve spent most of my creative life measuring the distance between the American promise and
American reality. And for many Americans, who are today losing their jobs, and their homes, . . . who
have no healthcare, who have been abandoned in our inner cities, the distance between that promise
and that reality has never been greater or more painful for people.
Now I believe that Senator Obama has taken the measure of that distance in his own life and in
his work. And I think he understands in his heart the cost of that distance in blood and in suffering,
in the lives of everyday Americans. And I believe that as President—I think he would work to restore
that promise to so many of our fellow citizens who have justifiably lost faith in its meaning. After the
disastrous Administration of the past eight years, what we really need is we need somebody to lead
us in an American reclamation project.
Now in my job, I travel around the world and I occasionally play big stadiums, just like Senator
Obama. And I’ve continued to find, wherever I go, that America remains a repository of people’s
hopes and possibilities and desires, and that despite the terrible erosion to our standing in the world,
accomplished by our recent Administration, we remain for many, many people this House of Dreams.
And one thousand George Bushes and one thousand Dick Cheneys will never be able to tear that
house down. . . .
So, I say now’s the time to stand with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, roll up our sleeves, and come
on up for the rising.
A. 多様なものをいかにして統合するか
B. 「メイフラワー誓約」全文
Mayflower Compact, Agreement Between the Settlers at New Plymouth (1620)
IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our
dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King,
Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the
Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the
northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and
one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better
Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact,
constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from
time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto
which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto
subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord
King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno
Domini; 1620.
従をすべきことを誓約する。A・D・1620 年、英王国、フランス及びアイルランド王としてのジェームス王の
治世の第 18 年、スコットランド王としての治世第 54 年、11 月 11 日、ケープコッドに於いて、
以下 41 名の署名
(高木八尺訳:斉藤 358-359)
C. 独立宣言が生み出す新たな共通の価値
約に参加するという形を取ります。(...)独立にさいし、かくして 13 のステイトが出来るわけですが、そう
いう各ステイトを代表する人びとが 1787 年に集まり、今度はアメリカ全体を一つの国にする、
D. 独立宣言
Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,
laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. . . .
E. Constitution of the United States: Preamble
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
F. Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address (Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November 19, 1863)
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in
liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived
and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to
dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that this
nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . . we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow. . . this
ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor
power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can
never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished
work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here
dedicated to the great task remaining before us. . . that from these honored dead we take increased
devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new
birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish
from the earth.
G. Martin Luther King, Jr. “I have a dream” (Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C., August 28, 1963)
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the
Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions
of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous
daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the
Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One
hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of
material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of
American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to
dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic
wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were
signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all
men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this
promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred
obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked
"insufficient funds.". . .
We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march
ahead. We cannot turn back. . . .
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a
dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of
former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of
injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be
judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having
his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in
Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white
girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be
made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and
the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."
This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with. . . .
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. And so let freedom ring from the
prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the
snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.
But not only that: Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from
Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From
every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and
every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's
children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join
hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
H. アメリカは分裂しているのか――資料2、スピーチ A についての反論
Barack Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention was widely applauded, in part, we
suspect, because many heard it as a welcome call for reconciliation—a plea for Americans to
overcome their differences and discover their commonalities. As we will show in Chapters 3-6,
however, contemporary Americans are not particularly polarized in their political positions, nor have
they become appreciably more so in recent decades. Widespread beliefs to the contrary
notwithstanding, the notion of a deeply divided population is largely a myth. (Fiorina, et al. 11-12)
Source: Bryson, Bill. I’m a Stranger Here Myself: Notes on Returning to America After Twenty Years
Away. New York: Broadway Books, 1999. 101-104.
A. An astonishing research result
A researcher at the University of California at Berkeley recently made a study of the nation’s
walking habits and found that the average person in the United States walks less than 75 miles a
year—about 1.4 miles a weak, barely 350 yards a day. I’m no stranger to sloth myself, but that’s
appallingly little. I rack up more mileage than that just looking for the channel changer.
Eighty-percent of us, according to the Berkeley study, are “essentially” sedentary and 35 percent
are “totally” sedentary. We have become a nation of sitters and riders.
One of the things my wife and I wanted when we decided to move back to America was to live in a
manageably sized town within walking distance of a central business district. Hanover, where we
settled, is a small, typical New England town, pleasant, sedate, and compact. It has a broad central
green surrounded by the venerable buildings of Dartmouth College, a trim Main Street, and leafy
residential streets. It is, in short, an agreeable, easy place to go about one’s business on foot, and yet
as far as I can tell no one does.
I walk to town nearly every day when I am at home. I go to the post office or library or bookstore,
and sometimes, if I am feeling particularly debonair, I stop at Rosey Jekes Cafe for a cappuccino.
Occasionally in the evenings my wife and I stroll up to the Nugget Theater for a movie or to Murphy’s
for a beer. All this is a big part of my life and I wouldn’t dream of doing it other than on foot. People
have gotten used to this curious and eccentric behavior now, but several times in the early days
passing acquaintances would slow by the curb and ask if I wanted a ride.
“But, I’m going your way,” they would insist when I politely declined. “Really, it’s no bother.”
“Honestly, I enjoy walking.”
“Well, if you’re absolutely sure,” they would say and depart reluctantly, even guiltily, as if leaving
the scene of an accident without giving their name.
B. Why so fit?
People have become so habituated to using the car for everything that it would never occur to them to
unfurl their legs and see what those lower limbs can do. It is worth noting that 93 percent of all trips
outside the property in the United States now involve the use of a car. . . .
We have reached an age where college students expect to drive between classes, where parents will
get in a car and drive three blocks to pick up their children from a friend’s house, where the mailman
takes his van up and down every driveway on a street. We will go through the most extraordinary
contortions to save ourselves twenty feet of walking.
Sometimes it’s almost ludicrous. The other day I was in the little nearby town of Etna waiting to
bring home one of my children from a piano lesson when a car stopped outside the local post office
and a man about my age popped out and dashed inside (and left the engine running—something else
that exercises me inordinately). He was inside for about three or four minutes, then came out, got in
the car, and drove exactly sixteen feet (I had nothing better to do so I paced it off) to the general store
next door, and popped in again, engine still running.
And the thing is, this man looked really fit. I’m sure he jogs extravagant distances and plays
squash and does all kinds of exuberantly healthful things, but I’m just as sure that he drives to each
of these undertakings. It’s crazy. An acquaintance of ours was complaining the other day about the
difficulty of finding a place to park outside the local gymnasium. She goes there several times a week
to walk on a treadmill. The gymnasium is, at most, a six-minute walk from her front door. I asked
her why she doesn’t walk to the gym and do six minutes less on the treadmill.
C. Not a place for pedestrians
According to a concerned and faintly horrified recent editorial in the Boston Globe, the United States
spends less than 1 percent of its $25 billion-a-year highway budget on facilities for pedestrians.
Actually, I’m surprised it’s that much. Go to almost any suburb developed in the last thirty years and
you will not find a sidewalk anywhere. Often you won’t find a single pedestrian crossing.
I had this brought home to me last summer when we were driving across Maine and stopped for
coffee on Route 1 in one of those endless zones of shopping malls, motels, gas stations, and fast food
places that sprout everywhere these days. I noticed there was a bookstore across the street, so I
decided to skip coffee and pop over. I needed a particular book for some work I was doing and anyway
I figured this would give my wife a chance to spend some important quality time with four restive,
overheated children.
Although the bookstore was no more than seventy or eighty feet away, I discovered that there was
no way to get there on foot. There was a traffic outlet for cars, but no provision for pedestrians, and
no way to cross on foot without dodging over six lanes of swiftly moving traffic. In the end, I had to
get in our car and drive across. There was simply no other way. At the time it seemed ridiculous and
exasperating, but afterward I realized that I was possibly the only person ever even to have
entertained the notion of negotiating that intersection on foot.
The fact is, we not only don’t walk anywhere anymore in this country, we won’t walk anywhere,
and woe to anyone who tries to make us, as a town here in New Hampshire called Laconia discovered
to it cost. A few years ago, Laconia spent $5 million pedestrianizing its downtown, to make it a
pleasant shopping environment. Esthetically it was a triumph—urban planners came from all over
to coo and take photos—but commercially it was a disaster. Forced to walk one whole block from a
parking lot, shoppers abandoned downtown Laconia for suburban malls.
In 1994, Laconia dug up its pretty brick paving, took away the benches, tubs of geranium, and
decorative trees, and put the street back to the way it had been in the first place. Now people can
park right in front of the stores again, and downtown Laconia thrives anew.
And if that isn’t sad, I don’t know what is.
Source: Powers, Richard. Operation Wandering Soul. 1993. New York: Perennial, 2002. 5-8.
D. Cruising?
Kraft cruises down the Golden State: would it were so. “Cruise” is a generous figure of speech at best,
label from another time and biome still imbued with quaint, midcentury vigor, the incurably
sanguine suggestion of motion more forward than lateral. “Cruise” is for the Autobahn, the Jet
Stream, Club Med. What’s the real word, local parlance? Shoosh. Shunt. Slalom.
・midcentury とは、第二次世界大戦を経て、戦後の繁栄期までを指す。アメリカの黄金時代としてしばしばノスタルジ
E. Lane changes
Several hoods in front of him, sleek little fuel-injected Alpha particle manned by sandalwood-haired
guy hugging cellular phone swaps places with convertible Stuttgart-apparatus piloted by blond
bombshell lip-synching to the same song Kraft himself has tuned in on the radio. Eight seconds later,
for no reason in creation, the two swap back. The exchange is duplicated all across the event horizon,
a synchronized, pointless, mass red shift.
・lip-synching とは、いわゆる「口パク」のこと。歌に合わせて声は出さずに口だけ動かす。英米のゴシップ紙では、ど
の歌手が lip-synch したとかしなかったとかという記事をよく見かける。
作者 Powers はもともと物理学専攻なので、しばしばこういった用語が小説に登場する。
F. Kraft’s experiment
Fortunately, most everyone is a diploma holder here. Driver’s Ed: the backbone of the high school
certificate. One might emerge from the system unable to add, predicate, or point to Canada on a map,
but thanks to rigorous requirements would still be able to Aim High in Steering, Leave Oneself an
Out, Second-guess the Other Guy. . . . He takes his hands from the steering wheel, passes his
extended fingers in front of one another in unconscious imitation. Time. . . for an experiment:
infinitesimal easing up on the throttle produces a gap between his grille and the nether parts of the
Marquis in front of him. The instant this following distance exceeds a car length, the two vehicles on
either side both try to slither in.
・Driver’s Ed(ucation)とは、運転講習のこと。16歳で免許が取れて、自動車で通学する生徒も多いので、アメリカでは
高校にもこういった教科がある。Harold Smith らが考案した Smith System of Defensive Driving の中の安全運転五
カ条が良く教材として教えられる。引用中の Aim High in Steering と Leave Oneself an Out などのスローガンはそこ
から来ている。(Second-guess the Other Guy は作者の創作。)
G. The result
Proof. This short-blast stream of continuous lane change is not prompted by anything so naïve as the
belief that the other queue is actually moving faster. The open spot simply must be filled on moral
grounds. A question of commonweal. Switching into a slower-moving lane gives you something to do
while tooling (tooling; that’s the ticket) along at substandard speed through the work crews surfacing
the next supplementary sixteen-lane expansion. Fills the otherwise-idle nanosecond. A way to absorb
extraneous frontier spirit.
るところが面白い。最終行の extraneous は、「本来のものではない、本質から外れた」という意味でいまひとつ分か
りにくいが、かつてのフロンティア精神からするとかなり様変わりしてしまった、現代 LA でのフロンティア概念を指し
H. How much it takes to build freeways
He read somewhere, a year ago, while still in the honeymoon, guidebook phase, that a mile of
freeway eats up forty acres of land, give or take the mule. The whole idea came from the Nazis.
Shoulders, median, dual carriageway, transition-free exit and entry ramps: the total driving
environment. How many thousand acres thrashed in Angelinoland alone? Lord, I’m five hundred
continuous north-south miles without a traffic light away from home. Throw in the east-wests, the
redundant routes, the clover leafs, the switchbacks and tributaries, and pretty soon you’re talking
real real estate. . . .
・「ラバ一頭分」とあるのは、Kraft が今、かつて家畜を追って歩いた道の上を走っているフリーウェイを走行中だ
から。LA では、他にも開拓者が通った道や、スペイン系の修道士が布教のために歩んだ道などに沿って幹線
道路が作られていることが多い。道路脇に“Historic Route”というサインが出ているのでそれと分かる。
・一度も信号のあるところを通らずに遠くまで移動できるというのは大事なポイント。Bryson も書いていたが、アメリカ
では道を渡るのにも一苦労することが多い。特に日本人の感覚からすると、LA には驚くほど歩行者用信号が少なく、
I. The moment
He merges right, having long ago noticed that nine of ten pileups originate in the outside lanes.
Across the divider, oncoming traffic starts to bottle up too. The drivers smell something burning.
Both directions max out to full carrying potential, a premature peak-volume hour. All hours are rush,
here and throughout the network. Everybody on earth and his poor relations are desperate to
relocate. Kraft can hardly wait until the Chinese can claim what so proudly we already hail: a
national front-seat capacity fitting every citizen on the books with seats to spare. The curve of
mobility will sidle up ever more intimately to asymptote until that moment at decade’s, century’s,
and millennium’s end when the last living road-certified creature not yet on rolling stock will creep
out onto the ramp in whatever vehicle it can muster, and poof: perpetual gridlock.
・幸いまだ経験したことはないが、LA のフリーウェイの渋滞は凄まじいらしい。特に混む道路というのがあるそうで、住
民は慣れっこになっている。とはいえ文字通り Free(無料)で移動に便利なので、LA ではフリーウェイの活用法をま
・ここで Kraft は、いつの日にか世界中で道路渋滞が限界を超えて、永遠に車が動けなくなる最悪の gridlock が訪れ
る日を想像している。gridlock とは、ひとつの道路網全体が渋滞に陥る状態を指す言葉で、一般にどうにもならない
膠着状態を比喩的に表現することもある。LA といえば gridlock というほどに、当地では恒常的な問題となっている。
Tom Hanks のスピーチは、この gridlock の解消法という話題から始まっている。
J. The consequences of American entrepreneurship
He has lived through evacuations, but never one on this scale. The fabled civil-defense drill gone real,
all the more panic-stricken in that everybody in this one acts piecemeal, deep in the dream of free
agency. Given the apotheosis of private transport all around him, Kraft finds it hard to credit the
shrill fact beloved of the guidebooks, that Angel City once possessed the most extensive urban transit
system in the country. The tales of spanking red turn-of-the-century electric carriages smack now of
Hans Christian Andersen. Nothing in human ingenuity’s arsenal could have staved off this freeway.
It is the peak of private enterprise, as inevitable and consummate as death.
・かつて LA では公共交通機関が整備されていたというのは事実で、長距離列車の到着地である Union Station
(1939 年建造)は、ロサンゼルス発祥の地とされるオルベラ街にもほど近く、由緒ある建物である。しかし 1970 年代
以降は飛行機と自動車に主要な移動手段の座を奪われ、LA では鉄道やバスはあまり重要視されなくなった。アメリ
れないということらしい。とはいえ、ニューヨークならまだしも、LA の人はおしなべてフレンドリーなので、必ずしもそ
れが理由ではないと思うのだが。Powers も、引用箇所をみる限りでは、個人主義の行きつく先が車社会であり、永
遠に終わらない gridlock だと言っているようだ。Hanks の意見も聞いたうえで、さらに考えてみたい。
出典:上岡伸雄編著『名演説で学ぶアメリカの文化と社会』研究社、2009 年
K. Tom Hanks, “The Power of Four” (At Vassar Collage, New York, May 22, 2005)
Not long ago I was reading about the problem of gridlock on the freeways of Southern California,
the traffic jams which cripple the city, stranding millions and laying waste to time and energy and
the environment. Gridlock is as serious and as impenetrable a problem as any we face, a dilemma
without cure, without solution, like everything else in the world it seems.
Some smart folks concocted a computer simulation of gridlock to determine how many cars should
be taken off the road to turn a completely jammed and stilled highway into a free-flowing one. How
many cars must be removed from that commute until a twenty-mile drive takes twenty-five minutes
instead of two hours? The results were startling.
Four cars needed to be removed from that virtually stuck highway to free up that simulated
commute—four cars out of each one hundred cars. . . .
Now, if this simulation is correct, it is the most dramatic definition in earthly science and human
nature of how a simple choice will make a jaw-dropping difference to our world. Call it “The Power of
Four.” One commuter in your neighborhood could put the rush back into rush hour. So, if merely for
people out of a hundred can make gridlock go away by choosing not to use their car, imagine the
other changes that can be wrought by just four of us—four of you—out of a hundred. . . .
If only one out of four of each hundred of you choose to help on any given day, in any given cause,
incredible things will happen in the world you live in. Help publicly. Help privately. Help in your
actions by recycling and conserving and protecting, but help also in your attitude. Help make sense
where sense has gone missing. Help bring reason and respect to discourse and debate. Help science
to solve and faith to soothe. Help law bring justice, until justice is commonplace. Help and you will
abolish apathy—the void which is so quickly filled by ignorance and evil.
Life outside of college is just like life in it: one nutty thing after another, some of them horrible, but
all interspersed with enough beauty and goodness to keep you going. That’s your job—to keep going.
You duty is to help—without ceasing.
・「4の力」とは何か? またその言葉は一般的な言い回しのパロディになっているが、それは何か?
・gridlock はあくまで話の枕で、問題はもっと一般的である。ではそうした問題を解決するために乗り
・第4段落3行目、“put the rush back into rush hour”とはどういう意味か?
Source: Gaunt, Jon. Gaunty’s Best of British: It’s Called Great Britain Not Rubbish Britain. London:
Virgin Books, 2008. 69-72.
L. Brits love the motorcar, but. . .
Ford may have invented the modern motor car but it was Britain and Brits who styled the Jaguar,
the Roller, the Mini and dreamed up the Aston Martin. Mr Ford gave you it in any color as long as it
was black, but British engineering gave the motoring world flair, culture, design classics and a
motoring heritage that most countries would die for. Then there are the British motoring heroes from
Stirling Moss through Jackie Stewart and Roger Clarke to Colin Macrae and now Lewis Hamilton.
And only British could create a programme like Top Gear where three petrol heads can command an
audience of millions (350 million in fact—it’s one of our most successful TV exports and also one of
the most popular TV shows anywhere in the world). Us Brits are proud of our motoring history and
love our motors.
So that’s why for a nation whose economic strength is largely built on our heavy industrial
heritage and the motor industry in particular, I find it amazing the way the British motorist is
treated by politicians of all parties.
Instead of being seen as a potential electoral force motorists are treated as cash cows and pariahs
by the self-serving pigs of Westminster.
However, if a political party actually became the motorists ally they would be bound to win the
next election, but instead they just continue to burden us with ever-increasing taxes and regulations
which we have plenty of time to think about when we are stuck in traffic jams in gridlocked
Britain. . . .
M. Public transport is not for everyone
Politicians, who are largely based in London, don’t understand that the majority of us haven’t got
any choice but to use our cars; we haven’t got chauffeur-driven cars or even the tube or late night
buses to transport us to and from our workplaces.
I commute into London every day from Milton Keyes and I’ll be honest the service is pretty reliable,
but to guarantee a seat—and in my opinion therefore my safety—I am forced effectively to buy a
first-class season ticket. Either that or be transported in conditions that loopy animal-rights
protesters would be bombing scientists’ homes for if animals were force to travel like that. I also live
in a rural environment where the bus service, along with the police and every other public service, is
woefully inadequate. For my neighbours and myself the car is definitely a necessity—for some even a
lifesaver— and without a shadow of a doubt never a luxury.
However, even if you live in the city, why is it such a sin to want to drive? The car was and it the
liberator of the working class. It allowed, for the first time in the early Sixties, ordinary workingclass people to get into the car and get out and about without the necessity of having Mussolini’s
standard of understanding of a rail timetable. Just as cheap budget airlines are now opening up
major European cities to families that would have been previously out of reach for ordinary
working-class people, the car fulfilled the same role and still does. . . .
N. Greens are the new red: What does it mean?
Clearly the unrepresentative greens have seized too much of the agenda and for those of us with
more important and urgent issues to worry about, such as immigration, law and order, and knife and
gun crime, they are dictating social and taxation policy. That’s why I believe that green has become
the new red. It’s just a new way of screwing more and more money out of us who are working and
already contributing to British society. If you don’t believe me let’s have another fact: did you know
that the environmental costs associated with motoring are less than £6 billion a year? So again, if
you deduct that £6 billion from the £48 billion we are all paying you can still see there is massive
inbalance and that motorists are clearly paying through the nose for other public spending
initiatives that have nothing to do with motoring or motorists.
I might not even mind this rip-off if I actually thought that green issues were as high up on the
political agenda of most ordinary Brits as pompous politicians and of course the Biased Broadcasting
Corporation would have us believe. But green issues are clearly not our biggest concern because if
they were we would have more of the lentil-eating, yoghurt-knitting 2CV drivers in Parliament,
getting their noses into the no doubt organic trough.
The reality of course is that for the majority of us feeding the kids, keeping a roof over our heads
and protecting both our borders and our loved ones are of much more importance than whether or
not a polar bear is having to take swimming lessons. . . .
The political elite are so far removed from the real-life experience of the rest of us and they must
start listening to motorists and our concerns. Instead of tinkering at the edges of our transport
problems with congestion charges, road pricing or the ridiculous idea of using hard shoulder, they
need to fund a massive road-building programme.
・Gaunt の論調では、善と悪がはっきりしている。では、彼が考える善とは誰で、悪とは誰のことだろ
うか? また悪玉はなぜ悪いと言っている?
・Green が新たな Red だというのはどういう意味か?
・Gaunt の環境問題に対する意見は果たして正しいだろうか?
か? あるいはトム・ハンクスのスピーチと比較してみるとどうか?
Bryson, Bill. In a Sunburned Country. New York: Broadway Books, 2001. 73-75.
O. It reminds me of something
And yet the striking thing about this area [around the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney] was how
thoroughly delightful and accommodating it appeared. The farms were neat and trim, and the towns
I passed through gave every air of a comfortable prosperity. It was impossible to believe that a
metropolis of 4 million people lay just over the hills behind. I felt as if I had stumbled into some
forgotten, magically self-contained world. There were things out here I hadn’t seen in years. Gas
stations with old-fashioned pumps and no canopies over the forecourt, so that you pumped your gas
in full sun, as I am sure God intended it. Metal windmills of the sort that used to stand in every
Kansas farm field. Little towns with people in them—people going about their business, greeting
each other with a smile and a nod. It all had a familiarity about it, but the familiarity of something
half forgotten. Gradually it dawned on me that I was in the American Midwest—but it was the
American Midwest of long ago. I was, in short, in the process of making the marvelous and
heartwarming discovery that outside the cities it is still 1958 in Australia. Hardly seems possible,
but there you are. I was driving through my childhood.
P. The first reason
Partly it was to do with that dazzling light. It was the kind of pure, undiffused light that can come
only from a really hot blue sky, the kind that makes even a concrete highway painful to behold and
turns every distant reflective surface into a little glint of flame. Do you know how sometimes on very
fine days the sun will shine with a particular intensity that makes the most mundane objects in the
landscape glow with an unusual radiance, so that buildings and structures you normally pass
without a glance suddenly become arresting, even beautiful? Well, they seem to have that light in
Australia nearly all the time. It took me a while to recognize that this was precisely the light of Iowa
summers from my childhood, and it was a shock to realize just how long it had been since I had seen
Q. The second reason
Partly, too, it was to do with the road. Almost all Australian highways are still just two lanes wide,
and what a difference that makes. You’re not cut off from the wider world, as you are on a
superhighway, but part of it, intimately connected. All the million details of the landscape are there
beside you, up close, not blurred into some distant, tediously epic backdrop. It changes your whole
outlook. There’s no point in hurrying when all it’s going to do is put you in the feathery wake of that
old chicken truck half a mile ahead. Might as well hold back and enjoy the scenery. So there’s none of
that mad, pointless urgency—gotta pass this guy, gotta keep pushing, gotta make some miles—that
makes any drive on an interstate such an exhausting and unsatisfying business. When you come to a
town on such a road it is an event. You don’t fly through at speed, but slow down and glide through,
in a stately manner, like a float in a parade, slow enough to nod to pedestrians if you wish and to
check out the goods in the windows on Main Street. “Oh, there’s a good price on men’s double-knit
shirts,” you observe in a thoughtful tone, or “Those lawn chairs were cheaper in Bathurst,” for,
needless to say, you are talking to yourself by now. Sometimes—quite often, in fact—you stop for a
coffee and a browse around the shops.
Afterward you return to the open road and naturally at first you go a little too fast, for speed is an
instinct, but then—whoops!—you round a bend to find yourself fast approaching the back of a dump
truck kicking out smoke and laboring heavily up a slope. So you drop back and take it easy. You lean
an arm on the windowsill, lay a finger on the wheel, and cruise. You haven’t done this for years. You
haven’t been on a drive like this since you were a kid. You’d forgotten motoring could be fun. I loved
・Bryson はオーストラリアの風景をみて何を思い出したのだろうか? そして、つまりオーストラリア
・理由その二として挙げられているのはズバリ道路だが、Bryson は何に驚いているのだろうか? 言い
・オーストラリアについて Bryson が感じたことは正しいのだろうか? 彼なりの偏見が混じってはいな
て、Bryson の本の他の個所やその他の資料を読んでいくことにします。
正式名称:The Commonwealth of Australia――Commonwealth は連邦と訳され、かつては大英帝国の
が盛んに行われたが、1999 年の国民投票の結果、現行体制の継続が決まった。国旗には南十字星と
らは旧植民地(現在は州)の州都。キャンベラは、アメリカのワシントン D.C.と同じく、連邦の首
都として割譲され、新たに建造された特別行政区で、どの州にも属していない(Australian Capital
Territory として別に分類されている)。
国土面積:約 760 万平方キロメートル。世界最小の大陸であり、世界最大の島。また一つの大陸が一つ
の国家で占有されている唯一の例。広大なため、国内に三つの標準時(time zones)が設定されてい
人口(2009 年推計)
:約 2,200 万人。したがって、人口密度は一平方キロメートル当たり 2.8 人程度と極
“Good day, mate”や“No worries”がある。前者をはっきりと「グッダイ、マイト」
Key words and phrases:オーストラリアについての本や映画などには、次のような言葉が良く出てくる。
・Tall poppies
・Australian salute
・Anzac Day
Bush, outback and Uluru
I believe I first realized I was going to like the Australian outback when I read that the Simpson
Desert, an area bigger than some European countries, was named in 1932 for a manufacturer of
washing machines. (Specifically, Alfred Simpson, who funded an aerial survey.) It wasn’t so much the
pleasingly unheroic nature of the name as the knowledge that an expanse of Australia more than
100,000 miles square didn’t even have a name until less than seventy years ago. I have near relatives
who have had names longer than that.
But then that’s the thing about the outback—it’s so vast and forbidding that much of it is still
scarcely charted. Even Uluru, as we must learn to call Ayers Rock, was unseen by anyone but its
Aboriginal caretakers until only a little over a century ago. It’s not even possible to say quite where
the outback is. To Australians anything vaguely rural is “the bush.” At some indeterminate point
“the bush” becomes “the outback.” Push on for another tow thousand miles or so and eventually you
come to bush again, and then a city, and then the sea. And that’s Australia. (Bryson 20)
Tall poppies
成功者をオーストラリア人は「ノッポのひなげし」[tall poppies]と呼び、彼らを疑いの目で見ます。そ
げし症候群」[tall poppy syndrome]と言いますが、これこそオーストラリア社会の健全さの現れのひと
(デール 55-56)
壁をよじ登っている 2 匹のハエにもオーストラリア人は賭けをする、と言われていますが、実際に、国
民 1 人あたり年間 2100 ドルという数字は、欧米のどの国よりもギャンブルにお金を使っていることを表
州政府はギャンブル産業から年間 21 億ドルを税金として徴収しています。もしその収入がなければ、住
ンブル産業のおかげで 3 万 2000 人に対する仕事が確保されています。
ーストラリアではそれを「ポーキー」と呼んでいます。オーストラリアには 12 万台のポーキー(人呼ん
)があり、年間 250 億ドルがつぎこまれ、そのうち 210 億ドルが払い戻されていま
(デール 146)
Australian salute
オーストラリアの海岸線を探検した 18 世紀のヨーロッパ人の日記に、不思議にも記載されていない生き
ーストラリアン・サルート[great Australian salute]」
.)19 世紀までには、ハエは国のシンボルの 1 つとなりました。白人がハエをオーストラリアに
運んできたのでしょうか? そうではありません。でも、白人は牛や羊を運んできました。
Anzac Day
4 月 25 日はオーストラリアの国民の祝日です。わが国最大の戦没者を出した戦いのひとつを記念する日
うイギリスの作戦案を実行しました。その結果、7600 人のオーストラリア軍将兵と、2500 人のニュー
1915 年 4 月 25 日、オーストラリア・ニュージーランド連合軍(アンザック)はガリポリ岬のガバ・
結局、トルコ軍に対して効果的な攻撃ができないまま 8 ヶ月が過ぎ、とうとう 12 月に撤退することにな
捨て石に使ったのではないか、ということです。しかし、イギリスもガリポリで 4 万人の将兵を失って
(Gallipoli, 1981)で詳細に描かれているので是非観ていただきたい。
A. A heritage-sights guide in Sydney: Part 1
Guide: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name’s James and I’m going to be your delightful(1)
host over the next hour and three quarters as we take in some of the beautiful heritage(2) sights in
the Rocks here in Sydney. Tonight we’ll be going to three heritage pubs. You’ll be hearing stories,
some of the, I guess, more saucy stories embedded in the walls of some of our more famous drinking
institutions. You’ll also be taking in three delightful ales, as well as any other stories that you might
be interested in. Just before we head off I’d like to point out this area behind you. It’s now called
Circular Quay. It used to be called Sydney Cove and even before that by the Cadigal people of the
Eora nation, this body of water in front of you was called “Warrang.” Can you say that? Can you say
with me a-one (Tourist: Warang.) two. . . no, no, wait for it, one, two, three. . .
All: Warrang!
Guide: That’s very good, congratulations.
Tourist: Thank you.
Guide: Thank you very much. Now I hope you all like a drink.
Tourist: Yep.
Guide: Yep? Delightful. Because that’s one of the basic building blocks of our fine nation, and that’s
alcohol. We have a great tradition here in Australia of drinking right from the time the first fleet
arrived(3). One of our first trading currencies was in fact rum, or grog. Grog, by the way, was the
generic term for anything that could get you drunk, so we’ll be looking at far more refined types of
alcohol today. So, are we all thirsty?
Tourist: Yep.
Guide: Delightful. You’ll have to wait, just hold back. . . hold back, haha. . . ok, the first pub that
we’re gonna go to today is one of Australia’s oldest pubs. It’s called “The Lord Nelson Hotel.” They
have a microbrewery on site and 90% of the ales they serve there are brewed actually in the building
and I have to say it’s one of my personal favorites is a particular beer called “Quayle Ale.”
註1 delightful という言い回しはこの人の口癖のようだ。こういう文脈で、あまりアメリカ人は使わなさそうな言葉。発
註2 heritage は「遺産」「文化的伝統」と言った意味。今回聞いたスピーチでは、この言葉が繰り返される。オーストラ
リアはご存知の通り歴史が浅く、独自の伝統がないということが特徴である(次の B および D を参照)。伝統の欠如
註3 イギリスから持ち込まれ定着した伝統として、飲酒の習慣があるということ。オーストラリアにはイギリス式のパ
外国ではあまり普及していない)。最初の船団(the first fleet)は、囚人を運んできた船団のことで、1788 年 1 月 26
日にシドニー湾の近くに上陸しイギリス国旗を掲げた。1 月 26 日はオーストラリア・デイとして祝日になっている。
B. A heritage-sights guide in Sydney: Part 2
Guide: Compared to many of the countries that you people would have come from, our heritage is,
European heritage in Australia is really, really quite short. I mean if you compare it to some of the
temples you might see in Southeast Asia, most of our structures only go back, you know, roughly 150,
200 years but the areas that you’ll be walking through today are some of the oldest.
Obviously, if you look around now you’ll see lots of beautiful restaurants and pubs and hotels for
people to stay(4). But if you went back to around 1900 you would have found a very, very different
atmosphere whilst walking through these streets. We used to have a particular type of chap that
inhabited this area. They were called “Larrikins”(5) and they were gang members, really quite
註4 hotels for people to stay「宿泊のためのホテル」――つまり宿泊するためのものではないホテルもあるということ。
“I should just note that in an Australian context “hotel” can signify many things: a hotel, a pub, a hotel and pub”
(Bryson 36)と言われるように、パブのことをホテルと呼ぶことも多い。
註5 Larrikins は「不良」とでも訳すことができるオーストラリア独特の言葉。オーストラリア英語は地域ごとの方言が
想像すると、オーストラリア英語の実像に近い。とはいえ、larrikins のような、外国人には理解しがたい独特の言葉も
C. A media coordinator from Melbourne
Duglass Hocking: Melbourne was actually settled(6), whereas Sydney was actually. . . well that’s
when the. . . the convicts(7) came and landed here and they developed Australia from Sydney. But
because Melbourne was settled, it was actually designed. The shapes of the roads are in a grid
pattern and are very, very easy to understand. The people that went and stayed in Melbourne had a
little bit of money behind them, so they brought their European heritage with them, and a lot of this
European feel(8) is still left in Melbourne and so when you go and when people go to visit Melbourne,
they do feel like they’re stepping back into a little bit of Europe.
They’ve got fabulous arcades; they’re absolutely beautiful. They’ve got fabulous foods that they go
to. Sitting outside chatting with friends is one of the great things Melbournians like to do. The
fashion is great here, the music scene is fantastic, the people are friendly. Melbourne is a city you go
to, for you to enjoy the city.
註6 settled「定住した」――次の註7とは別に、自らオーストラリアにやってきて定住した人々もおり、メルボルンはそ
註7 the convicts「受刑囚」――註3でも述べたとおり、イギリスから犯罪者を送り込むための流刑地として、西洋人
註8 European feel 「ヨーロッパの雰囲気」――ヨーロッパ、特にイギリスにルーツを持つ人が多いオーストラリアでは、
D. A culinary educator in Melbourne
Graham Dark: Australian cuisine(9): what is it? We’re very lucky(10) in Australia to have a great range
of influences from nationalities from all over the world. We’re also very lucky that we don’t have a
long tradition or a long history(11) that has influenced the cuisine and the influences are in fact from
the new Australians(12). When immigrants have come here they have brought demand for the
ingredients that they have been used to eating and so with advances in horticultural techniques and
people being prepared to grow those ingredients, it then allows us to cook those foods as well.
So, Australian cuisine is in fact a combination of a whole host of cuisines from different
nationalities(13). We are lucky that we are. . . each of those cuisines readily accepts the food from
other nationalities and the Australian people are very happy to readily try something that’s new,
something that they haven’t done before. Cookery techniques tend to be a combination from all of
those influences as well.
註9 Australian cuisine 「オーストラリア料理」――cuisine は特に洗練された料理の場合に使う。オーストラリアと言え
註10 この人は、オーストラリアは「幸運だ」と繰り返し言っている。どういう意味でそうなのだろうか。
註11 やはり長い伝統や歴史がないことが言及されている。しかし料理に関しては、そのことがプラスに働いたとい
註12 the new Australians は第二次世界大戦後に移住してきたイタリア人やギリシャ人、アジア各国の出身者を指す。
註13 つまり「これ」というオーストラリア料理があるわけではなく、様々な国から持ち込まれた食文化を柔軟に取り入
E. A vast space, small population
万人の人口の 80 パーセント近くが、たった 10 の都市に住んでいます。それもみな海沿いの都市で、ま
国土の大半はガラガラです。人口密度は世界最低の 1 平方キロあたり 2 人。ちなみに、カナダですら 3
人ですし、アメリカは 26 人、インドネシアは 99 人、イギリスは 235 人、日本は 328 人です。
「郊外型」と言った方が妥当でしょう。それというのも、人口のおよそ 70 パーセント
My intention over the next couple of weeks was to wander through what I think of as Civilized
Australia—the lower right-hand corner of the country, extending from Brisbane in the north to
Adelaide in the south and west. This area covers perhaps 5 percent of the nation’s land surface but
contains 80 percent of its people and nearly all its important cities (specifically Brisbane, Sydney,
Melbourne, Canberra, and Adelaide). In the whole of the vast continent this is pretty much the only
part that is conventionally habitable. Because of its curving shape, it is sometimes called the
Boomerang Coast. . . . (Bryson 66-67)
F. The New Australians
世界で一番つまらない国と思われていたオーストラリアは 1950 年代から 1990 年代の間に世界で一番面
やアジアから 500 万人の移民がやってきました。その人たちがこの変化の主な要因です。新移民たちは
1947 年の国勢調査によりますと、人口の 90 パーセントがオーストラリア生まれで、8 パーセントがイ
なっていました。1901 年の移民制限法の下、移住希望者は「ヨーロッパ言語」の聞き取りテストに合格
などの知識はまったくありませんから、その結果は惨めなものでした。このような白豪主義は 1959 年に
正式に廃止されましたが、水面下では 1973 年まで続きました。この年、ホイットラム労働党政権は「人
今日、人口の 78 パーセントがオーストラリア生まれで、イギリス生まれが 6 パーセント、ニュージー
ランドとイタリアがそれぞれ 2 パーセント、旧ユーゴと中国または香港がそれぞれ 1.5 パーセント、ギ
リシャとベトナムがそれぞれ 1 パーセントです。
近年、移民の受け入れを極端に抑えていて、現在では年間 7 万人しか受け入れていません。ところが、
新しくやって来た人たちは、前からいる人たちよりも頭が良いと見えて、その 11.4 パーセントが「管理
職」にあります。後者の場合は 10.9 パーセントです。(デール
In World War II it had suffered a kind of blunt trauma when, after the fall of Burma and Singapore,
Britain pulled out of the Far East, leaving Australian suddenly alone and dangerously exposed. . . .
Australia escaped but it was left with two scars—a realization that Britain could not be counted on
to come to its rescue in a crisis, and a sense of immense vulnerability to the teeming and unstable
countries to the north. Both of these matters deeply influenced Australian attitudes in the postwar
years—indeed still do. Australia became seized with the conviction that it must populate or
perish—that if it didn’t use all that empty land and fill all those empty spaces someone from outside
might do it for them. So in the years after the war, the country threw open its doors. In the half
century after 1945 its population soared, from 7 million to 18 million.
Britain alone couldn’t provide the necessary bodies, so people were welcomed from all over Europe,
particularly Greece and Italy in the immediate postwar years, making the nation vastly more
cosmopolitan. Suddenly Australia was full of people who liked wine and good coffee and olives and
eggplants, and realized that spaghetti didn’t have to be a vivid orange and come from cans. The
whole warp and rhythm of life changed. Good Neighbor Councils were established everywhere to
help the immigrants settle and feel welcomed, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation offered
English-language course which were enthusiastically taken up by tens of thousands. By 1970 the
country could boast of 2.5 million “New Australians,” as they were known. (Bryson 159)
G. Australian English
残念ながら「グッダイ」[Good day]はハリウッド映画に出てくるような言葉ではありません。オースト
「一蓮托生」[old mates’ act] の考えのもと、お互いに助け合うことが必要だと思っています。しかし、
、open slather(全くの自由)、
ています。そのほかにも、kangaroo、dingo、gone bung(壊れた)、hard yakka(きつい仕事)、within
cooee(声の届く範囲)など約 400 語が日常用いられています。
しかし、多くの伝統的な言い回しがアメリカ英語に代わりつつあります。いまや女性のことを sheila
と言う人はほとんどいませんし、fair dinkum(正真正銘の、正直な)や true blue(根っからの保守)
などは地方のお年寄りが使うだけです。また、cobber(友だち)や bonzer(すばらしい)は 1956 年の
テレビの到来と共に廃れました。一方、bastard と bugger は現在でも「奴」くらいの意味で使われてい
「偉大なるオーストラリア形容詞」の異名を持つ bloody の方は、もっとインターナショナルな f
で始まる語に大きく取って代わられました。悲しいのは、goodonya(でかした)が go for it(がんばれ)
サい人を dag(もともとの意味は、羊のお尻のまわりにある糞まみれの毛)と言ったりしますが、アメリ
カ人にはピンとこないでしょう。また、うぬぼれた人を wanker と呼び、マスターベーション(アメリ
カ人なら jerk-off と言うでしょうが)を big wank と言います。
「garbos(清掃局員たち)は arvo(午後)に a smoko(一服)する。ただし、take a sickie(ず
が家の barbie(バーベキュー)のところで kiddies(子供たち)に Chrisse pressies (クリスマス・プ
レゼント)を渡そうかと思うので、tinnies(缶ビール)と cossie(水着)と mossies(蚊)除けを持参
(デール 28-29)
休暇を過ごしたりします。さらに、毎年 50 万ものニュージーランド人を受け入れています。
ニュージーランドの 2 つの島が、オーストラリアと合併して、第 7、第 8 の州になる理由は十分にあり
1994 年にオーストラリア人はショックを受けました。それは、間もなくオーストラリア人もニュージ
にある。推移が終われば、コミュナケーションは少なくとももっと楽になるだろう[Et least ut wull make
communucation easier]、と。(デール
H. Transportation of the convicts: the origin of Australia
Never before had so many people been moved such a great distance at such expense—and all to be
incarcerated. By modern standards (by any standards really), their punishments were ludicrously
disproportionate. Most were small-time thieves. Britain wasn’t trying to rid itself of dangerous
criminals so much as thin our an underclass. The bulk were being sent to the ends of the earth for
stealing trifles. One famously luckless soul had been caught taking twelve cucumber plants. Another
had unwisely pocketed a book called A Summary Account of the Flourishing State of the Island
Tobago. Most of the crimes smacked either of desperation or of temptation unsuccessfully resisted.
Generally the term of “transportation” was seven years, but since there was no provision for their
return and few could hope to raise the fare, passage to Australia was effectively a life sentence. But
then this was an unforgiving age. By the late eighteenth century Britain’s statute books were
weighty with capital offenses; you could be hanged for any of two hundred acts, including, notably,
“impersonating an Egyptian.” In such circumstances, transportation was quite a merciful alternative.
(Bryson 48-49)
The gold rush transformed Australia’s destiny. Before it, people could scarcely be induced to settle
there. Now a stampede rose from every quarter of the globe. In less than a decade, the country took
in 600,000 new faces, more than doubling its population. The bulk of that growth was in Victoria,
where the richest goldfields were. Melbourne became larger than Sydney and for a time was
probably the richest city in the world per head of population. But the real effect of gold was to put an
end to transportation. When it was realized in London that transportation was seen as an
opportunity rather than a punishment, the convicts desired to be sent to Australia, the notion of
keeping the country a prison became unsustainable. A few boatloads of convicts were sent to Western
Australia until 1868 (they would find gold there as well, in equally gratifying quantities) but
essentially the gold rush of the 1850s marked the end of Australia as a concentration camp and its
beginning as a nation. (Bryson 80-81)
I. Parks in Australian cities: a British heritage
Central Adelaide boasts almost eighteen hundred acres of parks, less than Canberra, but a great
deal more than most other cities of its size. As so often in Australia, they reflect an effort to recreate
a familiarly British ambience in an antipodean setting. Of all the things people longed for when they
first came to Australia, an English backdrop was perhaps the most outstanding. It is notable, when
you look at early paintings of the country, how awkward, how strikingly un-Australian, the
landscape so often appears. . . . Australia was a disappointment to the early settlers. They ached for
English air and English vistas. So when they built their cities, they laid them out with rolling
English-style parks arrayed with stands of oak, beech, chestnut, and elm. . . . Adelaide is the driest
city in the driest state in the driest continent, but you would never guess it from wandering through
its parks. Here it is forever Sussex. (Bryson 124)
J. Australiana
Probably because new books have always been expensive in Australia, the country has outstanding
secondhand bookshops. These always have a large section devoted to “Australiana,” and these
sections never fail to amaze, if only because they show you what a remarkably self-absorbed people
the Australians are. I don’t mean that as a criticism. If the rest of the world is going to pay them no
attention, then they must do it themselves surely. That seems fair enough to me. But you do find in
any trawl through the jumbled stacks the most wondrous titles. One of the first I took down now was
called That’s Where I Met My Wife: A Story of the First Swimming Pool in the National Capital at
Canberra. Nearby was a plump volume entitled A Sense of Union: A History of Sydney University
Football Club. Beside that was a history of the South Australia Ambulance Service. There were
hundreds of titles like this—books about things that could never possibly have been of interest to
more than a handful of people. It’s quite encouraging that these books exist, but somehow faintly
worrying as well. (Bryson 121)
K. The Northern Territory
The Northern Territory has always had something of a frontier mentality. In late 1998 the
inhabitants were invited to become Australia’s seventh state and roundly rejected the notion in a
referendum. It appears they quite like being outsiders. In consequence, an area of 523,000 square
miles, or about one-fifth of the country, is in Australia but not entirely of it. This throws up some
interesting anomalies. All Australians are required by law to vote in federal elections, including
residents of the Northern Territory. However, since the Northern Territory is not a state, it has no
seats in Parliament. So the Territorians elect representatives who go to Canberra and attend
sessions of Parliament (at least that’s what they say in their letters home) but don’t actually vote or
take part or have any consequence at all. Even more interestingly, during national referendums the
citizens of the Northern Territory are also required to vote, but the votes don’t actually count toward
anything. They’re just put in a drawer or something. Seems a little odd to me, but then, as I say, the
people seem content with the arrangement. (Bryson 224)
L. Pessimistic?
One of the oddest things for an outsider to do is watch Australians assessing themselves. They are an
extraordinarily self-critical people. You encounter it constantly in newspapers and on television and
radio—a nagging conviction that no matter how good things are in Australia, they are bound to be
better elsewhere. . . .
If Australians lack one thing in their lonely eminence Down Under, it is perspective. For four
decades they have watched in quiet dismay as one country after another —Switzerland, Sweden,
Japan, Kuwait, and many others—has climbed over them on the per capita GDP table. When news
came out in 1996 that Hong Kong and Singapore had also squeezed ahead, you’d have thought from
the newspaper editorials and analyses that Asian armies had come ashore somewhere around
Darwin and were fanning out across the country, appropriating consumer durables as they went. . . .
At the time of my visit, Australia was booming as never before. It was enjoying one of the fastest
rates of economic growth in the developed world, inflation was invisible, unemployment was at its
lowest level in years. Yet according to a study by the Australian Institute, 36 percent of Australians
felt life was getting worse and barely a fifth saw any hope of its getting better. (Bryson 128)
A. New Yawk Tawk
Some time ago I received an email from William Safire’s research assistant. “For a special issue on
New York (a survival guide for newcomers and immigrants),” she wrote, “can you give Mr. Safire a
rundown on New York-specific pronunciation and what might be the most difficult for new arrivals?”
When the longtime language maven of The New York Times Magazine asks for your help, you don’t
tell him where to get off the subway. You hop to it and do your best.
In a New York minute, I composed this reply:
You say you want to know what New Yawk Tawk might be most difficult for new arrivals, and I’m
assuming you mean most difficult to understand rather than to master. Well, because New York
speech is some of the speediest English on the planet, I’d say the first challenge for a New York
newcomer would be simply distinguishing where one word ends and the next begins.
Particularly difficult to decipher are the many slurred exclamations—the various grunts, growls,
and barks—for which New Yorkers are infamous. Here are some of the printable ones:
whaddayanutz, whaddayatawkinabaw, yagoddaprollumwiddat, the much-imitated fuggeddaboudid,
and geddaddaheeuh. These are what are you, nuts? ; what are you talking about (typically
pronounced without an interrogative inflection); you got a problem with that? ; forget about it ; and
get out of here (which usually means “I don’t believe it” rather than “please leave”).
Some of my other favorite high-RPM New York Slurvianisms include smatter for “What’s the
matter?”; omina or ongana for “I’m going to”; jeet for “Did you eat?”; and alluhyuz for “all of you,” in
which yuz (or yooz in a stressed position) is the New York equivalent of the Southern y’all.
The New Yorker’s propensity for slurvy pronunciation can sometimes be nothing short of
miraculous. When I lived in New York, I remember how conductors on the Long Island Rail Road
managed to slur the name of a certain station, Woodside, into the unintelligible wuss-eye (the eye of
a wuss?).
New Yawk Tawk also features a diphthongal /aw/ sound that in heavy Nooyawkese sounds almost
disyllabic. It’s impossible for me to transliterate this elongated /aw/ here, but ask a dyed-in-wool New
Yorker to pronounce talk, lawn, dog, coffee, or because and you will hear it. In fact, because could
well serve as a shibboleth for identifying a New Yawk Tawker. In the purest Nooyawkese, it comes
out almost like bee-KOO-uhz. Think of the /aw/ sound of fall, put a heavier /w/ in it, and you’ll come
close. (This sound typically does not occur in frog and golf, as some now-New Yorkers believe. They
are pronounced with the dentist’s /ah/.)
Another notable characteristic of the New York accent that may confuse newcomers is the distinct
way of pronouncing the consonant blend /th/. Father and mother often come out fahdda and mudda,
with becomes wid of wit, and this and that becomes dis’n dat.
New Yorkers are also renowned r-droppers. Day eat wid a fawk (they eat with a fork), day wawk
onna flaw (they walk on a floor), an day drink adda bah (and they drink at a bar). The
superintendent on their apartment building is da soopuh, and The New York Times is da paypuh.
When newcomers attend a Mets or Yankees game, they will need to know that bee-uh-hee-uh! means
“[I’m selling] beer here.” (Elster 206-207)
B. Americanization and Mexicanization
Let’s talk more about food. While I was staying in the city, West (the Sunday magazine of the Los
Angeles Times) carried a fine, quirky article by Dagoberto Gilb about how in the past couple of
generations, Mexican food has become Americanized. Apart from words like “tortilla” and “taco,”
which are now so familiar it’s hard to imagine any English-speaker in North America not
understanding them, Gilb deployed the following terms: masa, serranos, carne picada, queso fresco,
rajas, huevos rancheros, árbol, espinaca, hongo, pozple, taquería, menudo, lengua, machacado, carne
guisada, chicharrón, caraitas, manteca, limón, hijole, lonche, chalupa, fideo, grito and cochinita pibil.
All these words, remember, appeared not in some scholarly journal but in a mainstream magazine,
one that aims to deliver an up-to-the-minute portrait of life in LA.
Gilb also used the phrases N’hombre, que pinche desmadre! (not translated) and lo barato sale caro
(translated), and he finished his piece with a joke: el perro caliente. This is not a Spanish phrase
—yet. But to catch the point, you have to know that perro is a dog and caliente means hot. Gilb was
making a bilingual pun in a single language. On the magazine’s cover was the word chalupa,
untranslated. Editors are paid to know their readers. And what these decisions suggest is that the
Americanizing of Mexico’s food goes fork in fist with the Mexicanizing of America’s language.
My elephant in the room, of course, is the phenomenal growth of Latin-American communities,
cultures and languages in southern California. A few numbers are perhaps in order. Figures from the
California Department of Education show that in 2005, in Los Angeles County alone, more than
561,000 children were classified as “EL”: they had a mother tongue other than English, a language in
which their skills were deemed inadequate for success in school. Of that total, almost 504,000 spoke
Spanish. The combined figure for all other languages was only 57,000.
If you add in the numbers from Orange, Riverside, Ventura and San Bernardino counties—what
might be called “Greater Los Angeles” or “the LA sprawl”—you find more than 823,000 Spanishspeaking children were said to be struggling with English. The five counties also contained 461,000
Spanish-speaking children who had moved up from El to “FEP”: in other words, they once had
trouble with English but now spoke it fluently. The total number of residents in LA County exceeds
10 million; Latinos are very close to (indeed, they may already form) an absolute majority. In today’s
Los Angeles United School Districts, roughly 73 percent of children are Latin American by origin;
blacks, whites and Asians make up the remaining quarter.
I mentioned this last statistic to a woman whom I met over lattes at a museum. “Yes, but that’s
just the public system,” she replied, as though private academies could somehow transform the
picture, or as if children in public schools don’t matter. In her world—the 2006 movie Friends with
Money gives a fair idea of it—Mexican Americans are scarcely visible. You see them as janitors, cooks,
waiters, gardeners, garage attendants, maids, construction workers, nannies, cashiers, chauffeurs,
street cleaners, busboys—in short, you don’t really see them at all. They form the unobtrusive
backdrop of your life. You certainly don’t listen to their voices. (Abley 129-131)
C. English: Whose language is it?
We could start by considering what the English have given the world.
And here is the first problem. For the greatest legacy the English have bequeathed the rest of
humanity is their language. When an Icelander meets a Peruvian, each reaches for his English. Even
in the Second World War, when the foundations were being laid for the Axis pact between Germany,
Japan and Italy, Yosuke Matsuoka was negotiating for the Emperor in English. It is the medium of
technology, science, travel and international politics. Three quarters of the world’s mail is written in
English, four fifths of all data stored on computers is in English and the language is used by two
thirds of the world’s scientists. It is the Malay of the world, easy to learn, very easy to speak badly; a
little learning will take you quite a ling way, which is why an estimated one quarter of the entire
world population can speak the language to some degree. By the late 1990s, the British Council was
predicting that at the turn of the millennium 1 billion (thousand million) people would be learning
Some of these students will become highly fluent, like the Dutch Secretary General of NATO, Dr
Josef Luns, who once remarked that he preferred English because “when I speak in my own
language I feel as though I am vomiting.” But most want to learn the language as a means to an end.
The compliers of the Oxford English Dictionary—the Bible of the English language—keep no records
on where new words originate, but it is a safe bet that of the 3,000 or so new words which enter their
database each year, only a minority have been minted in England; the rest come from America,
Australia or the international language of computing and science. After all, of the 650 million or so
people who speak English as a first or second language, perhaps 8 per cent are English.
The moment a Frenchman opens his mouth, he declares his identity. The French speak French.
The English speak a language which belongs to no one. Professor Michael Dummett, Wykeham
professor of Logic at Oxford, once stood in line to buy a railway ticket in Chicago and struck up a
conversation with a fellow traveller. After a time, the man said, “You must be from Europe.” “Yes,
from England,” said Dummett. To which the Spinoza beside him replied, “You speak pretty good
English.” Dummett was so astonished that he found himself blurting out that he was English. It was
only later that he realized that for many Americans, “English” is just the name of a language spoken
in America, as “Dutch” is the language spoken in Holland. The paradox of language is that it is at
once precious and personal to the speaker and at the same time the property of everyone. What
happens to a people if they cease to own their language? (Paxman 234-235)
a. Karen Higgins: A white woman in the South
My name is Karen Higgins. I live in North Carolina. I er. . . speak with a typical southern accent. I
was born and raised in the, um, central part of North Carolina. . . near Charlotte. I have had people
who, er, tell me that dialects are different from one end of this state to the other, so I’ve, I’ve not
found that to be true myself because, um, I don’t know, I think we all sound the same. (Track 7)
Always I, er, have been many places where my accent was remarked upon. I have had, um, people in
California make fun of the way we talk. Of course we are bad to drop our “gs” and the tireder I get
and the more drink or course the more “gs” I drop. (Track 8)
So we’re “drinkin” instead of “drinking.” I’ve also had the experience I’ve been to New York several
times, New York City, and had the experience of, er, meeting people there who I could hardly
understand because they talk so fast. It’s true that southerners do talk a little bit slow at times.
(Track 9)
b. Tim Kane: An African-American man in Philadelphia
My name is Tim Kane. I’m originally from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. My father is a southerner
from North Carolina. My mother grew up in Philadelphia but her parents grew up in New England.
When I go home I find myself talking with my boys and it’s more of a “yo bro ’sup,” ehm, “how ya
doin’?” Everything is. . . everything, you know, it’s er very quick, very casual relaxed sound, er quite a
bit of difference between most of the conversation or “conversatin” that I have to do outside of that in
the business, but er you do find yourself falling back into it. It’s a part of the color of speech. It’s part
of the color of music. Music is very big in Philadelphia. (Track 22)
I find that when I go down South to visit my family down there it takes actually several hours before
I can really understand what they’re saying. Ehm, it’s a completely different sound. It’s voweled out
where a simple word like “had” just lasts for days, it seems like. A simple example of that is a phrase
like “are you going to go to the store?” In Philadelphia with my boys, it would probably be more
something like “hey brother you ready to head out?” or er “are you ready to bounce to the store?” and
in the South it would be something like “Tim, you finnin’ to roll to the store?” and that phrase alone
was enough to send me into confusion. I didn’t know what “finnin” was, but it’s “fixin.” Sometimes it’s
er an amalgamation of a few different words er but it all means “prepared,” “ready,” “set to go.”
(Track 23)
My father grew up in central North Carolina. He moved to Philadelphia in his late teens, early
twenties. He still holds very much the southern cadence of his speech. I always laugh at him because
one of his little expressions, you know, before we’re getting ready for dinner is “er, Tim, you wash
your hand?,” making hand a singular er is one of my favorite little things that he does. He also er
likes to ask me er “we’re going out to the store later on today, I want you to get right.” Ehm, another
one of those “get prepared,” you know, er “if you fixin’ to go to the store you better get right.” (Track
I went to school in Western Pennsylvania which has another speech pattern that I was unfamiliar
with. It’s not a huge difference but there are other regionalisms and I think it was living out there
that made me realize that Philadelphia had its own set of speech patterns and unique phrases. From
there, spending time in the South, ah, in the Virginia Tidewater area and having worked in Jackson,
Mississippi and in Florida which also has er more of a southern sound than I guess I expected, ehm,
these experiences introduced me to the idea or at least to a better understanding that your speech
can set you apart. (Track 25)
アメリカ南部の独特の発音は southern drawl と呼ばれ、アメリカ英語の方言の一つとして最もよく引き
合いに出されるもの。母音を引きずるように間延びして発音するところが特徴的(b のスピーチでは
“voweled out”と表現されている)
また Tim Kane さんが解説しているように、南部方言には独特の言い回しや文の構造がある。例えば
Karen Higgins さんが言うように、“ing”の g を発音しないことが多く、ブルースやロックの歌詞など
詞でよく見かける(例えば多くのアーティストがカバーしている“Train Kept A-Rollin’”や、ボブ・デ
ィランの“The Times They’re A-Changin’”など)
。資料1の A に出てきた“y’all”も南部方言の典型的
な例で、you の複数形として用いられる。
“What’s up”
(調子はどう? という挨拶)などの言い回しが独特。これらを黒人以外が真似し
また“Are you ready to go?”の“are”を省略したりすることが多いが、Kane さんの説明にもあるよ
D. American Black English
It goes by several names, all of them problematic: Black English, Black Vernacular, African
American English (AAE) and African American Vernacular English (AAVE), to mention a few. In the
mid-1990s the term Ebonics (a blend of “ebony” and “phonics”) lurched to sudden fame after the
Oakland Unified School Board passed a well-meaning but misguided resolution declaring Ebonics to
be the “predominantly primary” language of black children. Many of those children floundered in
school, where teachers scorned their accents and their speaking habits. But instead of focusing on
practical ways to improve the teaching or to boost inner-city kids’ chances in the classroom, the
creators of the Oakland resolution announced that Ebonics was no kind of English—not even, they
said, any kind of Indo-European language—but rather a “genetically based” member of the “West
and Niger-Congo African Language Systems.” If they wanted to make their cause look intellectually
ridiculous, they could hardly have made a better job of it.
In fact, the informal English spoken on occasion by most black Americans is closely related to the
dialect of southern whites. The lengthening of short vowels, a reliance on double negatives, some
systematic changes in verb forms—all these are qualities of white speech in states like Alabama and
South Carolina and of black speech across the United States. Given the cruelties of history, the
resemblance may appear ironic. But it should not be surprising, given that both dialects emerged
from the same principal source: the nonstandard English that belonged to the Scots, Welsh, Irish and
emigrants from rural England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. There were the colonists
who had the greatest contact with newly arrived African slaves, sometimes overseeing their labor,
sometimes working beside them in fields and plantations. These were the people whose voices most
strongly influenced the slaves as they embarked on the painful task of becoming English-speakers.
(Abley 146-147)
E. The Southern drawl
The phonological feature most associated with Southern English is the so-called “southern drawl.”
This is realized by the prolongation of certain vowel sounds and the “breaking of vowels and
diphthongs into triphthongs.” For example, “there” can be pronounced /ðajæ/ and “bad” /bæeɛd/.
Upgliding diphthongs occur in “pass,” “bath” and “after” to give the vowel sound /æɛ/ or /æy/.
Another distinctive characteristic of Southern English is the merging of the vowel sounds /I/ and /e/
as in the words “pin” and “pen.” This distinctive southern drawl excites prejudice in some people, as
illustrated in the following quotes. . . . The first demonstrates the speaker’s surprise that someone
who spoke with a southern drawl might be intelligent and the second. . . that a highly educated
person—a one-time President of the United States—could speak with a southern drawl:
“. . . Beneath that deceptive North Carolina drawl, there’s a crisp intelligence.”
“Governor Clinton, you attended Oxford University in England and Yale Law School in the Ivy
League, two of the finest institutions of learning in the world. So how come you still talk like a
These quotes show that people who speak with the southern drawl may be considered ill-educated.
The quotes were about men’s speech, however. The third quote below is from a woman, herself a
speaker of the southern drawl, expressing frustration that her accent means that listeners do not
take her seriously:
“Instead of listening to what you’re saying, they’re passing the phone around the office saying,
‘Listen to this little honey from South Carolina.’ ”
. . . The different type of prejudice to the southern drawl if the speaker is a woman is also evident in
the next quote. The speaker is a woman who sells mailing lists over the phone. She is describing the
effect her southern drawl has on men:
“It’s hilarious how these businessmen turn to gravy when they hear it. I get some of the most
callous, and I start talkin’ to them in a mellow southern drawl, I slow their heart rate down and I
can sell them a list in a heartbeat.”
As we can see from this quote, attitudes towards the southern drawl and “style” are not always
negative. Southerners are thought to have “elaborate civility” and to be more polite, more eloquent
and less direct than their northern compatriots. (Kirkpatrick 65-66)
F. Differences between British and American variations of English
What are some of the differences between the standard British and American dialects? As with all
varieties, the most noticeable difference between them is in their different pronunciations. One
difference is that the /j/ glide after certain consonants does not occur in American English. Thus a
“duke” is a /dju:k/ in conservative RP, but is a /du:k/ in American English, although /dʒu:k/ is also
common in Britain. Stress patterns on words also differ. A British “laboratory” has four syllables
with the main stress on the second, an American “laboratory” has five syllables with more or less
equal stress on each. “Extraordinary” has four syllables with the main stress on the second syllable
in British English, but six syllables and main stresses on the first and third syllables in American
English. “Fertile” is /fɜːtaIl/ in British English and /fɜ:təl/ in American. Similarly, a “missile” is a
/mIsaIl/ in British and a /mIsəl/ in American. The American pronunciations are not necessarily
newer than the British ones. For example, the American pronunciations of “fertile” and “missile”
retain the original English pronunciations of these two words.
There are also many differences in vocabulary. . . . [W]hen the British and Americans talk about
cars and driving, you would think they were talking about completely different things. In England,
cars have bonnets, boots, gear levers, number plates, tyres and windscreens. In America, they have
hoods, trunks, stick shifts, license plates, tires and windshields. In England, drivers stop at
pedestrian or zebra crossings and at traffic lights. They go round roundabouts and avoid driving on
the pavement. They drive on motorways and ring roads, they pull off at junctions and pull up on the
hard shoulder. In America, drivers stop at crosswalks and stop lights. They go round traffic circles
and avoid driving on the sidewalk. They drive on interstates and beltways and exit at exits and pull
off at pull offs.
There are also grammatical differences. In certain contexts, an American can use the past simple
tense when a British speaker would use the present perfect. For example, “Did you buy your car yet?”
is possible in American English but, in British English, a speaker would say “Have you bought your
car yet?”
Differences also exist in the way people speak to each other. For example, when greeting and leave
taking the British may say “How are you?” and “Goodbye,” while Americans may say “How are you
doing?” and “Have a nice day.” (Kirkpatrick 58)
G. Classification of World Englishes
Perhaps the most common classification of Englishes, especially in the language teaching world, has
been to distinguish between English as a native language (ENL), English as a second language (ESL)
and English as a foreign language (EFL).
In this classification, ENL is spoken in countries where English is the primary language of the
great majority of the population. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the
United States are countries in which English is said to be spoken and used as a native language.
In contrast, ESL is spoken in countries where English is an important and usually official
language, but not the main language of the country. These countries are typically ex-colonies of the
United Kingdom or the United States. Nigeria, India, Malaysia and the Philippines are examples of
countries in which English is said to be spoken and used as a second language.
The final classification of this model is EFL. EFL occurs in countries where English is not actually
used or spoken very much in the normal course of daily life. In these countries, English is typically
learned at school, but students have little opportunity to use English outside the classroom and
therefore little motivation to learn English. China, Indonesia, Japan and many countries in the
Middle East are countries in which English is said to operate as an EFL.
This ENL/ESL/EFL distinction has been helpful in certain contexts. There is no doubt, for example,
that the motivation to learn English is likely to be far greater in countries where English plays an
institutional or official role than in countries where students are unlikely to hear any English
outside the classroom or ever need to use it. This classification, however, has shortcomings. One is
that the term “native language” is open to misunderstanding. As speakers in ENL countries are
described as native speakers, people feel that the variety used is a standard variety that is spoken by
all of the people. People then feel that ENL is innately superior to ESL and EFL varieties and that it
therefore represents a good model of English for people in ESL and EFL countries to follow. In actual
fact, however, many different varieties of English are spoken in ENL countries. The idea that
everyone speaks the same “standard model” is simply incorrect. Second, the suggestion to use ENL
as “the model” ignores the fact that such a model might be inappropriate in ESL countries where the
local variety would be a more acceptable model, as there are many fluent speakers and expert users
of that particular variety.
A second shortcoming of the classification is that the spread of English also means that it is more
difficult to find countries that can be accurately classified as EFL countries. As we shall see, English
is playing an increasing role in EFL countries such as China and Japan. The ESL vs EFL distinction
appears to be more valid when applied to the contrast between city and countryside. City dwellers in
both ESL and EFL countries have far more opportunity and need to use English than their rural
counterparts. Furthermore, ESL varieties are said to operate in countries that were once colonies of
Britain or America, but. . . the type of colony has influenced the current roles of English in such
countries. (Kirkpatrick 27-28)

4 - 大阪大学世界言語eラーニングサーバ