Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Kokugo and the ""nation"" in Meiji-Era Japan: language standardization, ideology, and national identity
(USC Thesis Other)
Kokugo and the ""nation"" in Meiji-Era Japan: language standardization, ideology, and national identity
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
KOKUGO AND THE “NATION” IN MEIJI-ERA JAPAN:
LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION, IDEOLOGY, AND NATIONAL IDENTITY
by
Martin Yates Triche
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(EAST ASIAN LANGUAGES AND CULTURES)
August 2012
Copyright 2012 Martin Yates Triche
ii
Dedication
To Mildew.
iii
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to thank my entire family, without whose
encouragement and support I never would have been able to pursue my graduate
studies at the University of Southern California. My parents deserve special note, as
they have fostered among me and my siblings a great respect for higher education,
and made innumerable sacrifices to ensure we all had every opportunity to continue
learning and find our place in the world. I would also like to acknowledge Asahi
Yoshiyuki of the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, who was
kind enough to meet with me to discuss my research during the Summer of 2011
and subsequently provided several recommendations that greatly aided my search
for Japanese-language reference materials. Special thanks are due to my committee
members, Professor Lori Meeks and Professor Andrew Simpson, who not only
inspired me as a student with their lectures and scholarly insight but also provided
guidance and suggestions for my research and writing. Finally, I would like to
express my sincerest gratitude and respect for my long-time academic advisor and
committee chair, Professor David Bialock. Over the past several years, he has
devoted a great many hours of his time to meeting with me, aiding me in my studies
and research, and providing the support and editorial guidance without which this
project could never have been completed.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
Abstract v
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Language and Nationalism 3
The Nation-State 8
Previous Studies on Kokugo 14
Chapter 2: Government and Society from Tokugawa to Meiji 23
Tokugawa Japan 23
Early Meiji Japan 27
Chapter 3: Popular Discourse on Language and Kokugo Beginnings 39
Inspirations and Motivations 39
Trials and Tribulations 48
Ueda Kazutoshi and the Formalization of Kokugo 68
Chapter 4: Conclusion 74
Bibliography 77
Appendix: Glossary of Terms 83
v
Abstract
The emergence of a standardized national language (kokugo) in Japan is a
relatively recent development, with its use in mandatory education only established
during the first few decades of the twentieth century. It is no coincidence, however,
that the period immediately preceding the development and implementation of
kokugo language policy was largely concurrent with a growing sense of shared
national identity throughout Japan, and multiple large-scale changes in the
sociopolitical landscape. This was a key component in the transformation of Japan
from a society marked by cultural and linguistic stratification into a modern nation-
state. With a background in both International Relations and Language Studies, I
have a particular interest in how the aforementioned phenomena combined to
shape and sustain the national consciousness still evident in twenty-first century
Japanese society, and what the formulation of a national language in the form of
kokugo meant to both the people and state. As such, my aim in this paper is to
provide an analysis that extends beyond a mere history of language policy (and
politics) in modern Japan, and contextualize the developments of the Meiji era in the
broad scope of contemporary political formations and nation-building efforts that
characterized the global system of nation-states in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
For modern students of the Japanese language, the fact that the language
they learn in school is essentially a twentieth-century creation is something of
which few are aware. The designation of such language classes as kokugo—a
compound of the Sinitic characters (kanji) for “country” or ”nation” and “speech”
or ”language“—clearly indicates the strong link between national identity and
language, with an implicit understanding that this language is Japanese.
1
However,
little indication is given in these classes of the contentious debate, tradition-refuting
reformulation, and subsequent standardization of Japanese that occurred during the
Meiji (1868–1912) and Taishō (1912–1926) periods. Spanning several decades,
public and official discourse on language made the formulation and implementation
of a standard possible, and resulted in the creation of a single common form
accessible to and intended for use by all. The significance of this sequence of events
cannot be overlooked, as the emergence of kokugo arguably enabled not only the
spread of mass education in Japan but also the fusion of a culturally and
linguistically diverse collection of people into a unified population with a shared
national identity—a process central to and characteristic of the increasingly
predominant form within the global system, the nation-state. Viewed as such, these
developments heralded the transformation of Japan from a collection of regional
1
Please refer to the appendix at the end of this paper for a glossary of terms, containing information
on the Japanese written form, phonetic transcription, and approximate translation or English-
language equivalent for all entries. Translations of terms and quoted excerpts are my own, unless
otherwise noted.
2
and social fragments into (or at least toward) a modern nation-state. This process
has been subject to numerous analyses from a variety of perspectives,
2
but there has
been a dearth of studies that balance insight into the relationship between language
policy and nation-building in Japan with careful consideration of the formative
discourses that gave rise to kokugo. The standard developed throughout Meiji and
formalized in early Taishō, born as it was from equal parts compromise and artifice,
represented one specific intersection between language planning and popular
sentiment. In order to fully appreciate the significance of kokugo, one must
therefore consider the formative context from which it emerged: the multitude of
literary forms and styles in use at the beginning of the Meiji period, varying
assessments of their functional and symbolic value by writers and politicians, and
the undeniable influence of contemporary historical events and political trends.
This paper will focus on how the debates on language reform spurred
reflection on national character and paved the way for kokugo, what the
dissemination of a linguistic standard meant to the state and its people, and why
modern scholars disagree on whether it represents a factor contributing to
nationalism or one of its products. These questions will be considered within the
greater context of national form and identity as shaped by the emergence of a truly
global system of diplomacy and commerce in the nineteenth and twentieth
2
Scholarship on modern national formation and underlying political ideology is plentiful, but key
studies centering upon or incorporating the emergence of modern Japan would include Anderson
2006, Doak 2007, Fujitani 1998, Gottlieb 2005, Heinrich 2012, Hill 2008, Lee 1996, Morris-Suzuki
1998, Osa 1998, Ravina 2006, Suzuki 1996, Toby 1991, Twine 1988 and 1991, Yasuda 1997 and
2006, and Yoda 2004, among others.
3
centuries, with the aim of providing a hybrid analysis that blends the approaches of
cultural historians and political theorists. In the introduction that follows, I will
begin with an overview of key critical concepts and the theoretical debates that have
driven discussion on language and nationalism, followed by a brief survey of
relevant kokugo scholarship.
3
Language and Nationalism
In his study of language in late Tokugawa Japan,
4
Naoki Sakai posits that
Japanese as a singular and coherent linguistic form did not exist prior to the 20
th
century development of kokugo. This modern construct is intimately tied to national
identity, he notes, because “the study of language is an instrument by which to
invent the communal self.”
5
Far from being the first to make such an argument,
Sakai was in many ways building upon the theories put forth by such scholars as
Joshua Fishman and Benedict Anderson, even if they were not directly part of his
research. Writing on the subject of language planning as well as the relationship
between language and ethnicity, Fishman has commented that language is uniquely
suited to the definition and assertion of singularity that is so crucial to validating
3
Kokugo-related studies available in English include those by Paul Clark, Hideo Kamei, Yeounsuk Lee,
S. Robert Ramsey, Christopher Robins, Hiraku Shimoda, Nannette Twine, and Atsuko Ueda (names
listed surname last, as published). Kamei and Lee have also been published in Japanese, along with
other key scholars Kamei Takashi, Komori Yōichi, Osa Shizue, Shibata Takeshi, Suzuki Yoshisato,
Tanaka Katsuhiko, Yamada Toshio, Yamamoto Masahide, Yasuda Toshiaki, and Yoshida Sumio
(names listed surname first, in Japanese name order).
4
The era of rule by the Tokugawa Shogunate (1603-1868) may also be referred to as the Edo period,
in reference to the name of the newly-relocated capital (later renamed Tokyo).
5
Sakai, Voices of the Past: The Status of Language in Eighteenth-Century Japanese Discourse (Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), 326.
4
nationhood.
6
And while the use of multiple forms in a single community and
situations involving diglossia—where language use is clearly divided between
formal and informal varieties, dependent on context and function—are not
uncommon historically, Fishman emphasizes that “modern mass nationalism goes
beyond the objective, instrumental identification of community with language… to
the identification of authenticity with a particular language which is experientially
unique.”
7
As we shall see in Chapters 2 and 3, this pattern would hold particularly
true in the case of Meiji debates on language use and the reforms introduced for the
implementation of kokugo.
Fishman’s emphasis on applied linguistics and the sociology of language
contrasts with that of Anderson, as the perspective evident in his writing clearly
reflects a background in government and international studies. Beyond those
familiar with his primary research on Indonesia, Anderson is likely best known for
his 1983 book, Imagined Communities, in which he argues that the nation is
essentially a social construct.
8
Formed on the assumption and projection of shared
experience, it represents “an imagined political community [that is] both inherently
6
“Modern societies have an endless need to define themselves as eternally unique and language is
one of the few remaining mass symbols that answers this need.” Fishman, Language and Nationalism:
Two Integrative Essays (Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, 1972), 50.
7
Ibid., 44.
8
Étienne Balibar furthers this claim, arguing that “every social community reproduced by the
functioning of institutions is imaginary, that is to say, it is based on the projection of individual
existence into the weft of the collective narrative.” Balibar, “The Nation-Form: History and Ideology,”
in Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities, ed. Étienne Balibar and Immanuel M. Wallerstein
(London: Verso, 1991), 93.
5
limited and sovereign.”
9
This process of identification was made possible by the
recent historical development of what Anderson calls print-capitalism—essentially,
the growth in commercial markets for written materials, which embraced
vernacular forms in order to increase textual accessibility and facilitate popular
consumption. Through exposure to a non-exclusive linguistic form (contrasted with
the “sacred” language of Latin), members of society were afforded greater means of
communication than previously possible, and widespread readership enabled them
to imagine a shared experience of belonging with others of common nationality.
From among those writing in the field of history and the broader social
sciences, Conrad Totman and Kevin Doak have both made significant contributions
to the discourse on nationalism and identity in modern Japan. Totman’s research
has primarily focused on the early modern period (up through the late 19
th
century),
but his analysis of group identity in the transition from Tokugawa to Meiji reveals a
great deal about how allegiance and obligation were conceived of in different eras.
At the time of his writing, Totman notes that social scientists were eager to engage
the subject of ethnicity in their studies, and the term itself was being applied to an
increasingly broad set of phenomena. As a general point of reference for the reader,
he cites a 1975 volume of essays on ethnicity compiled by Nathan Glazer and Daniel
P. Moynihan:
9
Imagined as limited by boundaries that serve to distinguish it from other nations, sovereign as it
emerged after the dynastic model had been challenged and delegitimized, a community because it
represented the ideal of equality and fraternity. Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the
Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 2006), 6–7.
6
There is some legitimacy to finding that norms of identification based on
social realities as different as religion, language, and national origin all
have something in common, such that a new term is coined to refer to all
of them—‘ethnicity.’ What they have in common is that they have all
become effective foci for group mobilization for concrete political ends
challenging the primacy for such mobilization of class on the one hand and
nation on the other.
10
Although primarily used in discussions of “sub-national” groups, Totman argues the
term also applies to those on the national scale, noting that “the sensibility we
identify as ‘nationalism’ appears to be just another form of ethnicity.”
11
Taken as
such, the primary distinction between national and sub-national expressions of
ethnicity (in the case of modern nation-states) is one based on “operative context”
rather than content: the former benefits from and is sustained by state structures,
while the latter generally lacks such an organization and often faces persecution by
the state.
12
It is from this perspective that he proceeds to investigate the Meiji
Restoration as a “manifestation of ethnicity,” an approach that, combined with the
insights of Doak (below), provides an intriguing lens through which to consider the
10
Quoted in Conrad Totman, “Ethnicity in the Meiji Restoration: An Interpretive Essay,” Monumenta
Nipponica 37, no. 3 (1982): 270. See Glazer and Moynihan, eds., Ethnicity: Theory and Experience
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975), 18.
11
Based on the Glazer and Moynihan definition, the “nationalism” discussed here by Totman would
exclude the statist or “official” (kokka) form subsequently noted by Doak. It would appear to align
more closely with the “ethnic” (minzoku) form, given its lack of reliance upon and support from state
structures, but Totman also seems to reference “civic” (kokumin) elements when emphasizing the
sustaining role such structures have on expressions of nationalism. It should be noted, however, that
discussion of kokumin or kokka elements in the context of pre-Meiji Japan is arguably anachronous,
as the distinctions upon which such terminology is based reflects analysis centering on the modern
(post-Tokugawa) system of governance and citizenship. That said, Totman does not make use of
either term in his essay.
12
Totman, “Ethnicity in the Meiji Restoration,” 271.
7
symbolic and ideological implications of kokugo and the broader historical context
detailed in Chapter 2.
Doak approaches the issue of Japanese nationalism with an emphasis on the
different types (or sub-forms)—mainly “state nationalism” (kokkashugi), “civic
nationalism” (kokuminshugi), and “ethnic nationalism” (minzokushugi)—that are
evident in both popular and scholarly discourses.
13
According to Doak, many studies
on the subject suffer from a failure to recognize the plurality of components that
contribute to and define modern nationalism.
14
Furthermore, those studies which
do manage to achieve a balanced analysis incorporating various elements are often
limited in focus to the “official” or “state” form, an approach he claims inherently
hinders their ability to distinguish “between a political nationalism centered on a
transcendental state and an ethnic nationalism conceived in opposition to it.”
15
Doak
chooses to focus on the latter form in his 2007 study, highlighting how statist
ideology in the Meiji and Taishō eras spurred widespread reflection among the
people on the nature of national character and communal belonging. Historical
events played a significant role in shaping both government policy and popular
sentiment, and the process resulting in the formulation of kokugo was a key example
13
It should be noted that, while Doak includes kokkashugi in the opening discussion of terminology
for his 2007 book, he argues that “statism” (from the French étatisme) is a more accurate translation
of the concept than the oft-used “nationalism.” Doak, A History of Nationalism in Modern Japan:
Placing the People (Boston: Brill, 2007), 2.
14
Ibid., 45.
15
Doak, “Ethnic Nationalism and Romanticism in Early Twentieth-Century Japan,” Journal of Japanese
Studies 22, no. 1 (1996): 79. Echoed in Tomiko Yoda, Gender and National Literature: Heian Texts in
the Constructions of Japanese Modernity (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004), 9.
8
of how the forces of nationalism, nation-building, and necessary projections of
culture and tradition—all operating simultaneously on multiple levels—can
coalesce to produce elements that serve as both evidence of national identity and
justification for the actions of the state.
16
This was one thread in the greater braid of
processes that shaped the social, political, and cultural contours of post-Tokugawa
Japan, and which ultimately rendered it a nation-state.
The Nation-State
The latter half of the 20
th
century saw increased activity and new
perspectives in academic research relating to regional studies, transnational
systems (both economic and political), and the process of identity formation in the
post-colonial age. As countries dissolved, divided, and re-formed in the wake of
various global conflicts and independence movements, scholars and politicians alike
endeavored to identify factors influencing national cohesion and cultural
representation. These phenomena and the conditions surrounding them were not
limited to any one global area, but studies relating to regional development in
Europe—such as those made by Fernand Braudel, among others—had a significant
impact on how history was conceived and written in the post-WWII era. Braudel
was strongly influenced by the “total history” approach of his contemporary Lucien
Febvre, who argued for a broader treatment of topics within the field of history
16
Nationalism, according to Doak, “is at once a theory of culture and a manifestation of a particular
theory of identity and politics.” Doak, History of Nationalism, 4.
9
based on his belief in the inherently historical nature of all human sciences.
17
Braudel’s research and writing represented a break from traditional methodology,
eschewing emphasis on the words and deeds of famous individuals for
consideration of the aggregate forces generated as a result of their actions.
18
This
approach provided the analytical seed from which Immanuel Wallerstein’s World
Systems Theory would later grow, oriented as it was “toward the system, its
contradictions and crises, much more than toward actors and social conflicts.”
19
For
Braudel and Wallerstein alike, whose research confirmed that other state forms had
existed during the historical arc of capitalism,
20
no unit proved more enduring or as
central to the analysis of systemic patterns and formations than the nation-state.
Not limited in significance or applicability to the studies mentioned above,
the concept of the “nation-state” is one example of how fundamentally Euro-centric
theories of political development came to be applied on a global scale. Analysis and
commentary relating to world (or global) systems is abundant in both modern
academic and government-funded institutional settings, with multiple schools of
thought positioned throughout such fields as International Relations and Political
17
A formative concept behind Braudel’s view of history as “a very imperfect science perhaps, but a
science all the same.” Braudel, The Identity of France: History and Environment, trans. Siân Reynolds
(New York: Harper-Collins, 1989), 15.
18
William H. McNeill, “Fernand Braudel, Historian,” The Journal of Modern History 73, no. 1 (2001):
146.
19
Michel Wieviorka, “From Marx and Braudel to Wallerstein,” Contemporary Sociology 34, no. 1
(2005): 4.
20
Examples include the form of empire and “the transnational politico-commercial complex,
centered on one or more cities” (e.g., the Hanseatic League). Balibar, “Nation-Form,” 88–89.
10
Science. The vast majority of research and writing done by such specialists
incorporates the concept of the nation-state, but opinions vary regarding its
characteristics and functional tendencies. Braudel and Wallerstein conceived of it
primarily as a unit in the functioning of global economic models (self-directed and
motivated by the rational pursuit of capital and protection of state interests), while
more recent scholarship in the form of World Society Theory has made the case for
viewing it as a structural manifestation of global cultural models (shaped by the
requirements of international system, characterized by institutional isomorphism
and legitimacy based on the protection of discrete culture).
21
In the latter view, the
dynamic forces of world society—thus the “World Society Theory” nomenclature—
have a far greater role in shaping nation-state institutions than any individual
society’s self-perceived/proclaimed/projected needs, as they inspire (and require)
among members of the international system a necessary level of functional
uniformity.
22
If one were to consider the nation-state as distilled to its most basic
definition by Susanne Rudolph—“a restricted territory in which there is a
presumption or at least an aspiration of congruence between the state and a nation
21
Ohn W. Meyer et al., “World Society and the Nation-State,” American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 1
(1997): 151–52.
22
“In order to interact, states must have a minimal set of shared institutions and concepts. Increased
interaction deepens this global culture and leads to greater isomorphism… institutions of the nation-
state are thus created less by the society’s own needs than by the needs of world society, the society
of other nation-states.” Mark Ravina, “Japanese State-making in Global Context: World Culture and
Meiji Japan,” in State Making in Asia, ed. Richard Boyd and Tak-Wing Ngo (London: Routledge, 2006),
37–38.
11
or people”
23
—it would be difficult to identify any region-specific elements. Yet the
nation-state as a functional and representational unit is undeniably European in
origin, linked as it is to the historical emergence of the sovereign state in Europe.
Writing on the transformation of regional politics that accompanied this
development, Christopher Hill notes that the number of “independent political units”
shrank some ninety-five percent over four centuries (1500–1900) as this new form
became increasingly common.
24
In contrast with the once-prominent models of
empire and city-state federation, the sovereign state made its borders clear and
relatively fixed, differentiated between government and non-government
institutions, and displayed a strong tendency toward centralization.
25
The
predominance of this form gave rise to a system of (largely) peaceful interaction and
mutual recognition, with participation of other states further validating it as the
standard representation for territorial authority.
While it is tempting to consider the emergence and spread of the sovereign
state as the seed for the modern trans-regional network of commercial, political,
and cultural exchange, it is arguably more accurate to consider the “world system”
23
Rudolph, “Presidential Address: State Formation in Asia—Prolegomenon to a Comparative Study,”
The Journal of Asian Studies 46, no. 4 (1987): 736.
24
Hill, National History and the World of Nations: Capital, State, and the Rhetoric of History in Japan,
France, and the United States (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008), 7. It is worth noting that
Hill wrote his study from a different perspective than, say, Ravina or Balibar; utilizing comparative
textual analysis, he highlights how international trends in the representation of culture influenced
how certain countries (Japan, France, the United States) developed “national history” narratives to
establish their position alongside other modern nation-states.
25
Ibid. Also noted in Meyer et al., “World Society,” 153.
12
as akin to the soil in which this seed would grow, allowing the nation-state to
blossom as an international standard.
26
Central to the growth and stability of this
system was the underlying assumption of functional similarity shared among
member states, which formally rendered them "identical and interchangeable
regardless of size or actual power.”
27
This was compounded with the tendency of
national ideologies to emphasize cultural uniqueness, resulting in a paradoxical
situation where states were conceived of as common in their political standing (as
equally sovereign) yet distinct with regards to their cultural grounding.
28
It is within
this context that the construction and projection of ethnicity, theoretically rooted in
transcendent and timeless social practices yet consistently influenced by state-
formulated political ideologies and national borders, came to play an increasingly
prominent role by facilitating the delineation of culture and distinguishing of
member states from one another. The nation-state model became globally pervasive,
but there is no denying that this system was heavily biased toward its Euro-centric
origins, a fact that became increasingly evident as membership grew across
continents.
29
Studies on the emergence and development of nations in modern times
26
Anthony Giddons argues that this world system was “the condition, and in substantial degree the
very source of the development [of the nation-state].” Quoted in Ravina, “Japanese State-making,” 38.
27
Hill, National History, 8.
28
In other words, “one’s nation is like every other in that all are unique.” Ibid., 40. Prasenlit Duara
similarly notes that each nation-state member of international society “need[s] to represent both a
unique, discrete culture and a single instance of global culture… more succinctly, all nations should
be identical in their uniqueness.” Quoted in Ravina, “Japanese State-making,” 39.
13
have, as a result, increasingly focused on the question of how universal the
standards that spread throughout the system actually are, and to what degree
“modernization” has been conflated with “Westernization” in analyzing the
subsequent changes.
Any assessment of the degree to which these developments represented a
conscious trending toward “modernization” or “Westernization”—nebulous terms
frequently employed without proper consideration of their neutrality or
universality—is both validated and simultaneously limited by the scope of
investigation. The process of state building undertaken during the Meiji period was
undoubtedly influenced by the institutions and discourses that shaped Europe at the
time, and many of those involved expressed admiration for the policy models
implemented by such powers as Germany and England. To summarize the
subsequent efforts in Japan as guided solely by pursuit of a Western ideal, however,
would represent a failure to properly distinguish between factors of form and
function (emphasizing the characteristics and source of the model over the products
and benefits it may yield, directly and indirectly). In contrast, the perspective
articulated by World Society Theory proponent Mark Ravina reveals a more
29
This emphasis on European developmental narratives should not be misinterpreted as an
indication that structural elements associated with the nation-state were entirely absent before the
emergence of a global system, or that operational tendencies comparable to those that developed in
Europe were absent from other spheres. However, the concurrence in such regions of the multiple
defining characteristics noted above (by Rudolph, Hill, Ravina, and Meyer et al.) was, for the most
part, a 20
th
-century phenomenon. Japan, starting to display such characteristics before the turn of the
century, is consistently recognized as the first modern nation-state to have emerged within the East-
Asian sphere.
14
nuanced consideration of the Japanese state-building process within the greater
context of global institutional development:
The emergence of Japan as a nation-state was thus part of a much broader
process: the emergence of the modern world system. To argue that Japan
adopted ‘Western’ forms of government is to miss a broader point.
Japanese statesmen were interested in Western political forms because
they held the promise of international legitimacy and Japan’s adoption of
these forms gave the system of nation-states a newly international
dimension.
30
Viewed from this perspective, the developments that led to Japan taking the
international stage as a “proper” nation-state were more representative of the
process now known as globalization than the blind pursuit of Western models and
ideals.
31
Viewed otherwise, they would represent a significant failure on the level of
national policy and government functionality, as the legitimacy of the state is
intrinsically linked to its perceived ability to represent the will of the nation (rooted
in its people) and to protect those distinct “traditions, values, and institutions” that
comprise national culture, including its language.
32
Previous Studies on Kokugo
As a constantly-evolving medium for both everyday communication and the
preservation (and ultimately canonization) of literary history, language naturally
30
Ravina, “Japanese State-making,” 50.
31
A similar stance is taken by Carol Gluck, who notes that nationalist reformers in various countries
entering the 20
th
century “regarded the unified nation-state as the universal—not merely
European—political form of modernity, and for that reason considered it desirable, even necessary.”
Gluck, “The End of Elsewhere: Writing Modernity Now,” The American Historical Review 116, no. 3
(2011): 678.
32
“In the modern world order, nation-states exist to speak for and defend discrete cultures.” Ravina,
“Japanese State-making,” 39.
15
comes to absorb and reflect the expressive patterns and usage linked to a variety of
groups and institutions, often resulting in a plurality of cultural narratives. The
creation of a national language—formalized and disseminated with official
government support—therefore represents a distillation and projection of national
culture, as the state explicitly identifies one form to bind all members of the
population and encapsulate their shared narrative. The implications for both nation-
building and cultural standardization are vast, and the often cryptic process leading
to the designation and dissemination of such language has understandably been
subject to multifarious analyses. For the first-time reader interested in accessing the
wealth of scholarship on kokugo and related topics, the specialized terminology and
phonetic translations of Japanese words scattered throughout such texts may seem
to render them inaccessible. However, the fundamental issue of how language is
used and perceived within a society is by no means exotic or obscure, and the
information contained in these studies is both relevant to and deserving of a wide
audience. Therefore, it is important to first note certain key terms relating to the
language forms prominent in Meiji and Taishō Japan, before proceeding to a more
detailed discussion of kokugo scholarship. A brief summary of the main styles in use
at the time would include kanbun (a prestigious Sino-Japanese literary form based
on classical Chinese, with a long history of official use); wakan konkōbun (a kanbun
variant form composed with both kanji and kana, common in popular literature);
sōrōbun (a hybrid form marked by the use of the verb sōrō with Chinese syntactical
and lexical elements alongside Japanese grammar and orthography, often used in
16
letters between men); wabun (Japanese-style writing primarily rendered in
hiragana, made famous by the aristocratic poetry and prose of the Heian era); and
numerous colloquial idioms.
33
This list is far from complete, as generations of
scholars have developed an arsenal of terms to identify and describe increasingly
specific sub-types, stylistic models, and literary formulations.
34
The resulting
diversity of specialized vocabulary, while understandably daunting, serves to
highlight how methodology and perspective vary even among fellow scholars
researching and writing on the Japanese language.
Looking at kokugo studies in Japanese, aside from the research and proposals
penned by policy formulators Ueda Kazutoshi and Hoshina Kōichi (Ueda’s pupil and,
in many ways, spiritual successor), early landmark works were published by
Yamada Yoshio (1932, 1935, 1940, 1943) and Tokieda Motoki (1941, 1947, 1956,
1962). In contrast with the relatively progressive and reform-oriented works of
Ueda and Hoshina, Yamada and Tokieda both wrote from a traditionalist
perspective and were highly critical of the genbun itchi attempts to displace classical
33
Nannette Twine, “The Genbunitchi Movement: Its Origin, Development, and Conclusion,”
Monumenta Nipponica 33, no. 3 (1978): 334–36. Also see Patrick Heinrich, “Things You Have to Leave
Behind: The Demise of ‘Elegant Writing’ and the Rise of Genbun Itchi Style in Meiji-Period Japan,” The
Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6, no. 1 (2005): 115.
34
Additional stylistic terminology is included in the glossary of terms, listed in alphabetical order and
attributed to specific scholars where applicable. There is considerable overlap among descriptive
terms (especially those relating to stylistic or compositional tendencies and categorizations), with
variations in phrasing often indicating distinct assessments of literary value and propriety. For
example, Yamamoto Masahide notes how the term kana majiribun reflects a traditional view of
kanbun as the basis for all compositions (thus emphasizing the “mixing in” of kana) whereas the
alternative wording kanbun kuzushitai (“broken-down” kanbun) does not. Yamamoto, Genbun itchi no
rekishi ronkō (Tokyo: Ōfūsha, 1971), 8–9. Approaches to reading kanbun documents are discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 3.
17
writing styles and the use of historical kana orthography (rekishiteki kanazukai).
Tokieda believed that linguistics as imported from the West—grammar, in
particular—was unsuitable for analyzing Japanese, and focused on developing a
universal theory of language as mental process (gengo katei setsu, or Language
Process Theory).
35
Further Kokugo studies flourished in the post-war period, as
Yamamoto Masahide (1965, 1978, 1979, 1981) produced multiple volumes on the
subject that, along with those co-authored by Yoshida Sumio and Inokuchi Yūichi
(1950, 1962, 1964, 1972, 1973), compiled a broad swath of primary source
materials and served as key references for later scholars. Yamamoto’s works were
commonly referenced and extremely influential for many decades, although
linguists and literary scholars alike increasingly came to question the teleological
nature in which Yamamoto depicted the “evolution” of genbun itchi
36
and the
Spencerian/reductionist perspective that largely overlooked (if not intentionally
omitted) the interaction between those writing forms explicitly reflected in kokugo
as an official standard and those which failed to “survive” into the 20
th
century yet
undeniably contributed to popular awareness regarding linguistic identity.
35
Karatani Kōjin, “Nationalism and Écriture,” trans. Indra Levy, SURFACES V, no. 201 (1995): 20.
Further analysis of Tokieda’s Language Process Theory can be found in Yoda, Gender and National
Literature, 146–81. Also see John Whitman, “Kokugogaku versus Gengogaku: Language Process
Theory and Tokieda’s Construction of Saussure Sixty Years Later,” in The Linguistic Turn in
Contemporary Japanese Literary Studies: Politics, Languages, Textuality, ed. Michael K. Bourdaghs
(Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 2010), 117–32.
36
Evident in Yamamoto’s periodization for the study of genbun itchi: “Emergence” (1866–1883)
“First Period of Awakening” (1884–1889) “Stagnation” (1890–1894) “Second Period of
Awakening” (1895–1899) “Establishment” (1900–1909) “Early Development and Completion”
(1910–1922) “Later Development and Completion” (1923–1946). Yamamoto, Kindai buntai hassei
no shiteki kenkyū (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1965), 32–56.
18
More recently, Tanaka Katsuhiko (1975, 1978, 1981) has written from the
perspective of sociolinguistics, and brought renewed attention to the topic of kanji
use and its effect on functional literacy in Japan. The research and writings of Lee
Yeonsuk (1996), Osa Shizue (1999), and Yasuda Toshiaki (1997, 2000, 2003, 2006)
represent an academic sea change of sorts, reflecting the undeniable influence of
post-colonial and nationalization theories that flourished in the 1990s, and their
studies have focused on the production of “national” language, subjects, and
ideology as a result.
37
Lee’s research has emphasized both the stylistic variations
abundant during early Meiji and the post-Meiji attempt to maintain a unified
approach to language education throughout the Japanese colonies, underscoring in
both cases the plurality of histories and discourses hidden behind modern
standardized Japanese. Osa’s work has conversely focused on the post-war period,
building from detailed accounts of key trends in language education to establish a
convincing argument for the intrinsic link between kokugo and modern Japanese
nationalism. Also engaged in the deconstruction of nationalistic history surrounding
kokugo, Yasuda has expanded from a grounding in cultural studies to incorporate a
parallel analysis relating to the developmental tendencies (both institutional and
ideological) of modern nation-states and how they are reflected in the language
policy decisions of twentieth-century Japan. In this sense, his work comes closest to
achieving the balance to which this paper aspires, providing an analysis of
37
Atsuko Ueda, “Sounds, Scripts, and Styles: Kanbun kundokutai and the National Language Reforms
of 1880s Japan,” Review of Japanese Culture and Society 20 (December 2008): 131–32.
19
culturally-specific linguistic developments situated in the broader context of
systemic patterns of national formation and institutional isomorphism.
Among English-language studies, Paul Clark (2010) and Nanette
Twine/Gottlieb (1995, 2005, 2006) have both written books on kokugo and
language use in modern Japan. The influence of Lee Yeonsuk’s research is clearly
evident in Clark’s book, although he focuses primarily on the central role of Ueda
Kazutoshi in formalizing kokugo policy, and provides little critique of Yamamoto
Masahide’s depiction of such. In her full-length works, Twine (later Gottlieb)
analyzes the issues of language policy and language change as they have evolved
over the last century and a half, an ambitiously large-scale approach made possible
by her early pioneering research (1978, 1983, 1988) and intimate knowledge of
primary sources. Twine’s writings on script reform and kokugo—along with those
by Lee, Yasuda, Osa, and Shimoda—are worth noting in particular for their
integrative approach, as they manage to raise questions about the political
motivations and explicit symbolism behind “national language” education while also
identifying the practical concerns and modern demands that have influenced
language use over the last century-plus. Currents in critical theory have shifted
repeatedly over the last quarter-century, but interest in the subject of kokugo policy
and its legacy remains strong, as evidenced by articles penned by such scholars as
Joseph Essertier (2010), J. Scott Miller (1994), S. Robert Ramsey (2004), Hiraku
Shimoda (2010), Massimiliano Tomasi (1999, 2002), and Atsuko Ueda (2008).
20
Robert Miller’s 1994 piece is an excellent supplement to existing scholarship,
as it highlights how the development of shorthand writing (sokki) techniques,
employed in the transcription of oral storytelling, shaped the evolution of the
language reform discourse. In his articles, Tomasi furthers this analysis of oral
traditions and standards reflected in prose, examining the influence exerted by
Western traditions of rhetoric and oratory on Meiji-era writing styles and the value
of language for persuasion and debate.
38
Both authors note how orality and certain
standards for speech came to be absorbed into accepted literary forms, thus
representing a key instance of the linguistic validation process that facilitated the
emergence of colloquial-inspired prose and increased the popular accessibility of
such texts. Ramsey, on the other hand, presents a general overview of sorts,
touching on various episodes in the history of modern Japanese (across nearly two
centuries) while incorporating notes on etymology, stylistics, politics, etc.; his
sociolinguistic approach to the subject helps tie together seemingly distinct threads
of information, but there is little evidence of critical thought as applied to extant
scholarship and theories regarding the development of kokugo.
In an article that attempts to reframe the debate surrounding Meiji-era
language reform and how “modern” writing styles contributed to the development
of a national language, Ueda makes the case that efforts to portray kokugo as a
38
Tomasi endorses the views outlined by Miller, noting that “stenographic transcriptions of speeches
[based on modern oratory theory] helped naturalize certain vernacular modes of expression as
written forms.” Tomasi, “Oratory in Meiji and Taishō Japan: Public Speaking and the Formation of a
New Written Language,” Monumenta Nipponica 57, no. 1 (2002): 63.
21
coherent and purely modern linguistic form have consistently produced accounts in
which scholars fail (or refuse) to recognize the plurality of progressive forms that
challenged the status quo in early Meiji, thereby establishing a discursive space for
the advancement of language reform theory and practice that made later
developments possible. Essertier assesses the legacy of Meiji-era linguistic
modernization with a similar emphasis on underrepresented historical episodes,
analyzing how public opinion was shaped by debates over the value of perceived
elegance and vulgarity in written language, and the significance to those involved of
securing access to the “cultural capital” with which legitimated literary forms are
imbued.
39
Engaging the issues of legitimacy and value from another perspective,
Shimoda reveals how the development of kokugo required introducing an artificial
distinction between standardized “national language” and non-standard “regional
speech” (hōgen)—with the latter being utilized for contrastive definition of the
former—and ultimately gave rise to the government’s misguided attempt at dialect
eradication, which only served to highlight the plurality of linguistic identities
operating in the supposedly unified nation of Japan.
40
39
Essertier, “Elegance, Propriety, and Power in the ‘Modernization’ of Literary Language in Meiji
Japan,” in The Linguistic Turn in Contemporary Japanese Literary Studies: Politics, Languages,
Textuality, ed. Michael K. Bourdaghs (Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan,
2010), 246. Essertier’s argument is based on application of the sociolinguistic theories advanced by
Pierre Bourdieu, specifically those outlined in Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1991).
40
Shimoda, “Tongues-Tied: The Making of a ‘National Language’ and the Discovery of Dialects in Meiji
Japan,” The American Historical Review 115, no. 3 (2010): 714–31.
22
While varying in terms of degree and form, most scholarship dealing with the
issue of language in modern Japan incorporates some reflection on historical
disjunction, noting in particular those shifts in the functioning of society and
government that shaped demand for more accessible modes of communication and
the widespread transmission of information. Pregnant with both symbolic and
practical implications, the reformulation of sociopolitical practices and standards in
the decades following the rapid decline of shogunate power and the Meiji
Restoration was a dynamic process characterized by intense academic debate and
progressive policymaking, with an unmistakable emphasis placed on the
demarcation of Japanese culture. The issues of script reform and language
standardization were very much part of this process, as the establishment of a
national language was considered a fundamental requirement in securing
recognition as a modern nation-state. The origins of this momentous linguistic and
ideological development can be traced to the period extending from the twilight
years of the Tokugawa shogunate into the early years of Meiji, during which time
various facets of Japanese government and society experienced transformation of an
unprecedented scope and kind. In order to identify the nature and impact of these
changes so as to establish the position of kokugo and educational reform relative to
them, it is necessary to first consider more closely the historical context in which
they occurred.
23
Chapter 2: Government and Society from Tokugawa to Meiji
In studies of Japanese history, the year 1868 has generally been positioned as
a watershed moment, marking the end of the early modern period and the
beginning of the modern. Given the shift in political power and government
structure that occurred around this time (detailed below), this historiographical
distinction would certainly appear valid. However, as is the case with any form of
periodization, there are elements and events on either side of the cut-off date that
seemingly bridge the purported divide.
41
Phenomena closely related to the “modern”
transformation of Japanese society—language use, education, identity formation,
political awareness—must be considered in the broader context of history in order
to fully grasp their evolution and significance. The purpose of this chapter, therefore,
is to provide an outline of key structures and developments relating to governance
and identity from the early modern to modern periods, followed in Chapter 3 by
more specific discussions of language and nationality as related to kokugo.
Tokugawa Japan
Established in 1603, the Tokugawa shogunate was a form of military
government (bakufu) in which political supremacy was designated by the title of
shōgun, granted exclusively to a member of the Tokugawa clan. The shogun
exercised absolute authority in matters on the national level, with the sub-national
41
Karatani Kōjin warns that, while periodization is “indispensible for history,” one must be aware of
the illusion of an inherent historical narrative projected upon its object, as well as the “teleological
arrangement” imposed through the very practice of assigning a beginning and end. Karatani, “The
Discursive Space of Modern Japan,” trans. Seiji M. Lippit, Boundary 2 18, no. 3 (1991): 193.
24
unit of government comprised of the domain (han) controlled by a regional lord
(daimyō) who operated on a semi-autonomous level while remaining directly
accountable to the shogun. In order to preserve the desired balance of power among
leaders of the various domains and prevent any from accumulating such wealth or
influence as might motivate a challenge to his authority, the shogun implemented a
system known as “alternate attendance” (sankin kōtai). In accordance with this
system, daimyō were required to maintain a residence in both capital and native
han—a significant expense compounded by regular travel between the two, with
alternating years spent in each—while their wives and children stayed permanently
in Edo.
42
This ruling structure remained in place for a period of more than two and a
half centuries, during which time the imperial court wielded little or no political
power and the emperor functioned in a largely ceremonial role. Socio-political
affiliations were primarily determined by one’s location, status, and closeness to the
daimyō or shogun, and projections of shared identity were similarly limited;
pervasive awareness of the “Japanese nation” and individual association rooted in
the “people of Japan” were therefore absent during this period of social and
geographical fragmentation.
The nature and composition of national governance varied to some degree
over the course of rule by fifteen different shogun, but foreign relations from the
42
For a thorough analysis of sankin kōtai and how it contributed to cultural production and
dissemination in the center(s) and peripheries of Edo Japan, see Constantine N. Vaporis, “To Edo and
Back: Alternate Attendance and Japanese Culture in the Early Modern Period,” Journal of Japanese
Studies 23, no. 1 (1997): 25–67.
25
time of Tokugawa Iemitsu (r. 1623–1651) onward can be characterized with much
greater ease than the intricacies and fluctuations of contemporary domestic politics.
The 1630s saw the shogunate place severe restrictions on foreign access to ports
and commercial activity, effectively limiting such officially-sanctioned activity to
four areas: Chinese traders and the Dutch East India Company were allowed on the
manmade island of Dejima in Nagasaki, the Tsushima daimyō maintained relations
with Joseon Dynasty Korea, Satsuma han traded with the formerly-independent
Kingdom of Ryūkyū (later incorporated as part of Japan), and the Matsumae clan
engaged with the indigenous Ainu population in Ezo (present-day Hokkaido).
43
Due
to the exclusivity of these arrangements, the depiction of bakufu policy as defined by
national isolation (sakoku) is common to this day. However, modern historians such
as Ronald Toby have questioned the accuracy of such a description, arguing that it
over-emphasizes a disconnect from the influence of Western powers while failing to
recognize the relations that were consistently maintained with Japan’s neighbors in
Asia. The emerging consensus among such scholars is that the system of maritime
prohibitions (kaikin) adopted by the government represented an active formulation
of foreign policy, as opposed to the simple closing of national borders or refusal to
engage with other countries.
44
Terminological distinctions aside, the historical
43
Further information on such trade relations can be found in Ronald Toby, State and Diplomacy in
Early Modern Japan: Asia in the Development of the Tokugawa Bakufu (Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 1991). Also see Brett L. Walker, “Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern
Japan: A Historiographical Essay," Early Modern Japan 10, no. 2 (2002): 44–62.
44
Toby, State and Diplomacy, 6.
26
reality is that Japan during the mid-to-late period of Tokugawa rule had extremely
limited exposure to and interaction with the cultures, people, and scholarship of
most Western nations.
A look at the domestic situation during the same period reveals that strict
enforcement of a rigid class system and extensive limitations on travel between han
meant that few beyond those of the ruling elite and warrior class knew much of the
language and customs beyond their regional borders. Exposure to educational
opportunities was similarly limited, and society was marked by clear stratification
in terms of wealth, mobility, and involvement in resource management and
governance. The functional unit of government most relevant to the daily lives of
people was not the nation but the han, which Conrad Totman describes as
comprising “the real state structures, complete with governmental organizations
and regulations, armies, systems of taxation, and the authority to maintain and
operate these state apparatuses.”
45
As a result, the notion of an all-encompassing
cultural and political authority representative of the greater whole was vague if not
entirely absent for most of the Tokugawa period.
46
The lack of popular awareness regarding supra-regional developments and
trends, combined with the limited scope of interaction among members of different
social strata, effectively precluded the development of a strong and shared national
45
Totman, “Ethnicity in the Meiji Restoration,” 275.
46
Doak notes that “throughout the Edo period, and even into the Meiji period, ‘Japan’ neither referred
to a single, clearly demarcated, centralized political authority, nor to a meaningful identity for those
whom ‘Japan’ would claim to represent.” Doak, History of Nationalism, 36.
27
identity among the people;
47
for most, domanial interests were more clearly defined
than “national” or bakufu-level ones, but a system of parallel interests was
nonetheless present. A general lack of conflict between the two levels of interest
meant that the status quo of the bakuhan (bakufu + han) system was secure, absent
any divisive influence. However, Totman has noted that Japanese society in the late
Tokugawa period “began to experience stresses that activated this quiescent
ethnicity [comprised of formerly harmonious elements of] both domanial and
national levels of sentiment,” a development that set the stage for social and political
upheaval eventually triggered by the arrival of Commodore Perry’s naval fleet in
1853.
48
The ensuing decades saw the power of the shogunate crumble, support for
the imperial court grow, and an incipient national identity begin to take form, all of
which contributed to the series of events culminating in the Meiji Restoration.
Early Meiji Japan
The Meiji Restoration marked a fundamental shift in the form and nature of
Japanese politics as the emperor, previously limited to a largely ceremonial role
within the ruling structure of the Tokugawa bakufu, was nominally restored to a
position of supreme national authority, with a panel of advisors (sangi) to inform
and support him in matters of governance.
49
Following the twilight of shogunate
47
Takashi Fujitani, Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1998), 9.
48
Totman, “Ethnicity in the Meiji Restoration,” 279.
49
Takashi Fujitani has argued that this represented the establishment of a new standard rather than
“restoration” of a historical configuration, as “the great majority of common people did not recognize
28
rule, the imperial era designation of Meiji was most felicitous, written as it was with
a kanji compound translatable as “enlightened rule.” Lexical designations aside, the
character of emperor Meiji’s rule would ultimately be determined by how it utilized
the legitimating power of historical precedent while responding to the distinctly
modern challenges facing the country.
50
As the movement to topple the shogunate
had criticized the bakufu‘s capacity for advancement and adaptation, it came as no
surprise that a strong emphasis was placed by the new government on
“modernization” projects in fields ranging from popular education to military
warfare and urban planning. Motivated by the threat of Western imperialism (both
cultural and military) along with perceived deficiencies in Japan’s ability to protect
her borders and interests, these projects were both massive in scale and extremely
ambitious, and the results they produced paved the way for Japan’s emergence as a
nation-state capable of garnering the respect and attention of Western powers
dominant in the world system at that time.
51
the emperor as the central symbol of the Japanese nation.” Fujitani, Splendid Monarchy, 15. Karatani
Kōjin goes so far as to say “the emperor may as well have not existed” for most of the Tokugawa
period, explaining that he “was called forth as sovereign in order to secure the sovereignty of the
Japanese nation-state” when the bakufu proved incapable of performing such a role. Karatani,
“Discursive Space,” 206.
50
The opposition of modernity and historicity was evident in various components of the new
government, not the least of which was the newly (re-)established Council of State (dajōkan)—the
central administrative organ during the Nara (710–794) and Heian (794–1185) periods, considered
the peak period of power wielded by the imperial court—based on the so-called “constitution”
(seitaisho) promulgated in June of 1868.
51
Ravina, “Japanese State-making,” 38–39. Also Meyer et al., “World Society,” 158–63.
29
The issues of language standardization and educational reform were key to
the transformation of Meiji Japan, as their successful implementation would
subsequently enable state institutions to foster among citizens a greater awareness
of their shared culture and national identity.
52
While the centrality of these
developments to modernization efforts is clear to scholars now,
53
it was not
necessarily appreciated as such by all those in power at the time: military
modernization and development of an effective, centralized bureaucracy were
quickly recognized as major goals for the new Meiji government, but relatively few
politicians saw a pressing need to address the state of the Japanese language
through standardization and reform, failing to grasp the vast implications this
would have for national governance.
54
Ultimately, the rapid expansion of intellectual
engagement with Western scholarship and exposure of Japanese specialists to
foreign debates on language policy and education would provide the necessary
impetus; as a critical interest developed among the literati,
55
their works in turn
52
World Society Theory recognizes the nation-state “not only as a managing central authority but
also as an identity-supplying nation.” Meyer et al., “World Society,” 160.
53
Tanaka Katsuhiko points out that “although ‘modernization in language’ is normally thought to be
the result of modernization in the fields of political, economic, and social systems, in fact it is their
prerequisite.” Tanaka, “The Discovery of a National Language (Kokugo) in Meiji Japan,” trans. Ian
Astley and Ted Mack, in Canon and Identity: Japanese Modernization Reconsidered, ed. Irmela Hijiya-
Kirschnereit (Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Japanstudien, 2000), 107.
54
Yasuda Toshiaki notes that, even among those prescient enough to recognize the need for such
reform, there was a distinct lack of vision regarding the creation of a unified language education
policy. Yasuda, ed., “Kokugo” no kindaishi: Teikoku Nihon to kokugo gakushatachi (Tokyo: Chūō Kōron
Shinsha, 2006), 16–17.
55
Christopher Robins emphasizes the key role played by intellectuals, “the writers, artists, and
scholars who developed and employed the new language while creating a new social imaginary and
30
reached the greater public, thereby setting the stage for an intense and wide-
ranging debate over the nature and effectiveness of the Japanese language as a
medium for communication, and its value in representing Japanese culture.
In the years immediately following the Restoration, several measures were
implemented by the government as it worked to displace the legacy of Tokugawa
rule and reconfigure the basic units of administration and identity. The foundation
for the system of modern prefectural divisions was laid in 1871, when the network
of semi-autonomous domains designated as han was dismantled and replaced by
seventy-two prefectures under the central government; in the same year, the four-
tier class system was abolished and government posts opened to all who qualified.
56
Far from being motivated by some lofty ideal of representative government or social
equality, these actions were taken in recognition of the fact that shogunate policies
had resulted in pervasive social and cultural fragmentation; in order to effectively
govern the country as a whole and foster a common identity among the people, Meiji
leaders would therefore have to focus on policies aimed at national unification.
The abolishment of outdated and ineffective structures was a key first step
on the path toward realizing a unified people, but ultimately would serve little
purpose if not accompanied by the introduction of new ones capable of producing
and sustaining connective elements to bind the population together as a whole.
realm of public discourse.” Robins, “Revisiting Year One of Japanese National Language: Inoue
Hisashi’s Literary Challenge,” Japanese Language and Literature 40, no. 1 (2006): 41.
56
Twine, “The Genbunitchi Movement,” 338.
31
Meiji officials strove to implement policies that would produce active subjects (as
opposed to passive objects of rule) with a certain degree of shared knowledge and
strong sense of investment in the health of the nation.
57
Government-supported
mandatory education represented one such apparatus, and was identified as such—
even before the fall of the shogunate—by scholar and later bureaucrat Maejima
Hisoka, who also anticipated the debate over the ideal medium for instruction:
The foundation of a nation (kokka) is the education if its people (kokumin).
Education must be spread among all people, regardless of their social class
and status. For this purpose, we cannot but use the simplest script and
sentences possible. The goal of all learning must be to learn truth, and we
must reject the belief in cumbersome methods of instruction that a
mastery of script is the only way to understanding of all profound
academic matters. Hence, I propose that in our country also, as in the
Western countries, we adopt the phonetic script (kana) in education
instead of kanji.
58
Maejima’s critical assessment of the situation was presented to the Tokugawa
government in 1866 as “Proposal for the Abolition of Kanji” (Kanji on-haishi no gi),
underscoring his emphasis on the practical function of script in education. Only later
would the issue of national script (kokuji mondai) come to be presented in the
broader ideological context of kokugo.
Maejima’s words were prophetic in more way than one, as he not only
identified the significance of making education accessible to the greater population,
57
The goal, according to Fujitani, being to create “knowledgeable and self-disciplined subjects in the
dual Foucauldian sense—that is, subjects who were not only subject to ‘control and dependence’ but
who were also subjects possessed of their own identity by a ‘conscience or self-knowledge.’” Fujitani,
Splendid Monarchy, 19.
58
Quoted in Lee Yeounsuk, The Ideology of Kokugo: Nationalizing Language in Modern Japan, trans.
Maki Hirano Hubbard (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2010), 25.
32
but also recognized the necessarily symbiotic relationship between a nurturing
nation-state (kokka) and the collective of nation-people (kokumin) that would
identify with and support it.
59
This conception of the relationship between state and
people would not be fully developed until later in the Meiji period, but early post-
Restoration policies played a key role in facilitating public awareness regarding
rights and duties of government and the governed; with the emperor increasingly
depicted as the head of a “family nation” (kazoku kokka) to which all Japanese
belonged, a bond was created that simultaneously emphasized familial intimacy,
filial piety, and dutiful observance of one’s proper role.
60
Ueda Kazutoshi would
later incorporate language into this hierarchy of identity and belonging, presenting
kokugo as a transcendental expression of the national polity (kokutai). Closely
linked to the historical legacy of imperial rule in Japan (as in bansei ikkei no kokutai,
or the “unbroken line of special national polity”) and romanticized by Edo-period
nativist scholars and early Meiji classicists, kokutai would soon come to assume a
distinctly modern dimension, functioning as the basis for a political ideology in
59
Lee Yeounsuk notes that kokumin was not a commonly-used word at the time, and posits that
Maejima, “through his knowledge of Western civilization, must have already realized the significance
of the nation-people (kokumin) as a modern political concept.” Lee, Ideology of Kokugo, 57.
60
Tessa Morris-Suzuki argues that the “[previously] shadowy and politically insignificant figure” of
the emperor should be conceived as a father figure in this configuration. Morris-Suzuki, Re-inventing
Japan: Time, Space, Nation (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1998), 85. In contrast, Lee Yeounsuk argues for
the symbolism of a maternal figure “who could transform a forceful, merciless directive by the nation
into an affectionate one full of devotion and benevolence.” Lee, Ideology of Kokugo, 91.
33
which the emperor’s symbolic primacy was maintained while simultaneously
repositioned within the framework of the nation-state.
61
Less than a decade after Maejima’s proposal, the new government had
implemented numerous policies that set Japan on the course toward becoming a
centralized nation-state with a unified population. The first five years of Meiji saw
not only a distancing from the past in the elimination of Tokugawa class distinctions
and dismantling of the baku-han system, but also the introduction of systems
highlighting the new responsibilities of both government and citizen: compulsory
education (1872), national conscription (1872–73), and tax reform (1872).
62
These
measures were simultaneously practical and symbolic, as the goals of social
standardization and political centralization—key to Meiji Japan’s emergence as a
nation-state—could not be fully realized based on government resources alone.
63
Beyond potential benefits for increased state functionality and resource
management, these programs and policies represented an effort to extend the
“national” awareness that had begun to spread among the urban elite down through
all levels of society, a perspective very much in line with anthropologist Thomas
Eriksen’s views on national identity:
61
Lee, Ideology of Kokugo, 88–92.
62
Tomi Suzuki, Narrating the Self: Fictions of Japanese Modernity (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1996), 27; Morris-Suzuki, Re-inventing Japan, 28; Yasuda, “Kokugo” no kindaishi, 45.
63
Carol Gluck notes that, at least initially, the Meiji state “had neither the power nor the [financial]
resources to implement the surge of paper reforms it promulgated in the late 1860s and early 1870s.”
Gluck, “End of Elsewhere,” 682–83.
34
At the level of personal identification, nationhood is a matter of belief. The
nation, that is the Volk imagined by nationalists, is a product of nationalist
ideology; it is not the other way around. A nation exists from the moment
a handful of influential people decide that it should be so, and it starts, in
most cases, as an urban elite phenomenon. In order to be an efficient
political tool, it must nevertheless eventually achieve mass appeal.
64
The manufactured nature of national identity is only obfuscated once the general
public both embraces and lays claim to the “nation” as a representative unit.
Similarly, the value (if not existence) of the nation as a group identifier is reliant
upon the participation and affiliation of constituent members, yet such members
only “belong” to the group once they project their collective ownership upon it. As
Étienne Balibar has noted, “such a people does not exist naturally… the fundamental
problem is therefore to produce the people. More exactly, it is to make the people
produce itself continually as national community.”
65
In many ways, the reality of
early Meiji Japan was that the state enjoyed a concrete existence before the nation
did, as divisions among the people would have to be overcome before a common
identity could be envisioned.
66
Compulsory education and military conscription
brought together large portions of the population, thereby facilitating contact and
the growth of bonds between formerly disparate social groups; yet certain barriers
to greater national unity remained, often stemming from differences in educational
64
Eriksen, Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives (London: Pluto Press, 2010), 126.
65
Balibar, “Nation-Form,” 93.
66
Suzuki Yoshisato argues that the emergence of “Japan” as national entity—above and beyond the
limited vision formed through individual experience and familiar geographical boundaries—was
intimately tied to the growth of the Meiji state. Suzuki, Tsukurareta Nihongo, gengo to iu kyokō:
“Kokugo” kyōiku no shitekita koto (Tokyo: Yūbun Shoin, 2003), 7.
35
exposure and established tendencies toward social typecasting. Ultimately, it was
only a matter of time before the government realized that the production of a
unified national people required the development of a unified national language.
67
If activism and collective identity were to be instilled as virtues among
citizens of the “nation” of Japan, the state would inevitably have to find a way to
contextualize its own actions and modern political legacy. Regardless of whether it
qualified as a revolution (or even a true “restoration” of historical patterns), the
Meiji Restoration had effectively established a precedent for the challenging and
replacement of a government deemed non-functional; the new government was
therefore particularly motivated to establish a statist ideology that justified those
actions as both necessary and non-repeatable. Karatani Kōjin argues that the
resulting rhetoric emphasized the singular authority of the emperor, which had
been “restored” by the anti-Tokugawa forces, thereby eradicating the pluralistic and
feudalistic power structures enforced by the bakufu—effectively the same pattern of
events that had unfolded throughout Europe, as part of “an unavoidable process in
the establishment of the modern nation-state.”
68
Imperial sovereignty was thereby
established, and the function of the state legitimated. But the apparent soundness of
67
S. Robert Ramsey emphasizes that “linguistic unity was a sine qua non for building the
infrastructure of a modern industrial and military society.” Ramsey, “The Japanese Language and the
Making of Tradition,” Japanese Language and Literature 38, no. 1 (2004): 88. Kamei Takashi similarly
argues “that which necessitated [the creation of] kokugo was the national unification (kokka tōitsu) of
a new Japan.” Kamei et al., eds., Nihongo no rekishi, vol. 6, Atarashii kokugo e no ayumi (Tokyo:
Heibonsha, 2007), 38.
68
Karatani, “Discursive Space,” 207.
36
the logic defending this change in government was no salve for those who lost
power and influence as a result of the reconfiguration, nor did it provide any
assurances to the greater masses that their interests would be any better served
than they had been previously.
It was in the aforementioned context that the Freedom and People’s Rights
Movement (jiyū minken undō, also known as the Popular Rights Movement) formed,
pushing for government reform along the lines of Western-style democracy. Key
goals for its supporters included the establishment of a representative national
assembly and constitution, reduction of land taxes, autonomy of local government,
and the repeal of unequal treaties with foreign powers. In spite of its relatively short
period of activity (spanning less than two decades), the movement would prove to
be hugely significant, shaping the course of political developments for years after it
ceased to exist. Membership grew from a limited group of former samurai
(shizoku)—unhappy with their lot in life following the abolishment of privileges
they had previously enjoyed under the bakufu—in the late 1870s to a much broader
segment of the national population by the mid-1880s, before various political
developments and government actions brought the movement to an end later that
decade.
69
While the movement initially represented the interests of a select few, it
came to function as a lightning rod for public discontent regarding the less-than-
69
Tomi Suzuki notes that shizoku were joined in the movement by commoners (heimin) including
land-holding farmers who sought local political representation, and it reached a peak in 1880 “when
over 240,000 people signed a petition calling for the establishment of a parliament.” Suzuki,
Narrating the Self, 27.
37
transparent functioning of the government, limited nature of political franchise, and
lack of a public forum for the airing of such concerns.
70
To return to a point discussed earlier, one of the main factors behind the
rapid growth of the Freedom and People’s Rights Movement, according to
Massimiliano Tomasi, was the adoption of Western-style rhetoric and increasingly
high standards for oratory exhibited by the movement’s leaders, whose political
speeches (seidan enzetsu) stirred interest and inspired activism among their
audiences.
71
The government responded to the growing popularity of such
gatherings—and their potential to incite more than passive interest—by limiting
speech content and activity with the 1878 Regulation of Public Speaking Ordinance
(enzetsu torishimari rei) and imposing severe restrictions on political assembly with
the Public Assembly Ordinance (shūkai jōrei) of 1880. These represented a natural
extension of the censorship-inducing policies already in place for print media,
including the 1869 Publication Ordinance (shuppan jōrei) and both the Press
Ordinance (shinbunshi jōrei) and Libel Law (zanbōritsu) of 1875. Through a
combination of such regulatory measures and the 1881 promise of the
establishment of a national assembly and promulgation of a constitution to be
granted by the emperor within the decade, the government managed to contain the
70
Kevin Doak emphasizes that this was a period “when the goal of Japan emerging as a true nation
seemed most attainable and when the hopes for building a democratic national society were most
palpable,” with great interest and concern among the populace as to “how much autonomy society
would have from the state, and how strongly democratic values would be supported by the new
social order.” Doak, History of Nationalism, 63.
71
Tomasi, “Oratory in Meiji,” 47–50.
38
liberal wildfire that was Freedom and People’s Rights Movement. The elements of
political awareness, popular activism, and a modern approach to public speech and
debate, however, would prove much more lasting.
39
Chapter 3: Popular Discourse on Language and Kokugo Beginnings
Discussions on language use and proposed “improvements” grew in
frequency and scope in the period immediately preceding and subsequent to the
Meiji Restoration, but awareness of the critical and fundamental link between script
and style (as targets for reform) was often lacking. What began as a theoretical
debate over the respective merits of different scripts (kanji, kana, and rōmaji) in the
transmission of information and knowledge morphed rapidly, as it became
increasingly clear that the issue of writing style had to be addressed if any change in
script use were to prove meaningful. As a result of this shift in focus, the discourse
on language expanded to include a larger segment of the population; views
expressed by state-supported educators and bureaucrats were no longer
guaranteed primacy, as a plurality of perspectives emerged based on the
participation of writers, translators, and literary critics. Popular awareness of and
participation in the debate grew as competing views and proposals found their way
into print, and theoretical approaches to reform gave rise to concrete manifestations
in the form of stylistic “experiments” involving poetry and prose. Over the course of
several decades, this expansive discourse saw multiple shifts in public sentiment
and official involvement, thereby establishing the parameters for the eventual
formulation and implementation of kokugo policy.
Inspirations and Motivations
The significance of how certain Western countries had managed to harness
the potential of a unified people and project this power globally was not lost on the
40
Meiji elite. Indeed, such forces—manifested in the form of lopsided political treaties
and trade agreements forced upon the shogunate—had shaped the events that led
to the Restoration. It was not surprising, then, that the new government looked to
learn from the policies and experiences of its global peers: various programs were
established to send official delegations on research trips abroad and support
extended study at foreign universities by prominent members of academia.
72
Paul
Clark refers to this development as “the professionalization of the Japanese
government bureaucracy” and lists it, along with the experimental efforts of certain
writers and translators to render a simplified form of Japanese, as a key factor
influencing early Meiji views on language.
73
Exposure to the governing strategies
and scholastic culture of European nations such as France and Germany provided
Japanese officials with new perspectives, informing their subsequent policy goals
and decisions. At the same time, it also served to highlight the numerous challenges
facing the country in its effort to assume the form and function of a modern nation-
state.
While government bureaucrats and specialists were busy working to
determine an appropriate course of action that would enable the country to move
72
These programs were not entirely unique to the Meiji era, as the bakufu had sponsored similar
diplomatic and information-gathering trips toward the end of the Tokugawa period. Fukuzawa
Yukichi (United States, France, England, Netherlands, Prussia, Russia) and Nishi Amane
(Netherlands) were both dispatched to Europe before the Meiji Restoration. The new government
sent Mori Ōgai (Germany) to learn about military medical administration, Maejima Hisoka (England)
to research a modern postal system, and Ueda Kazutoshi (Germany, France) to study linguistics as a
Tokyo Imperial University graduate student.
73
Clark, The Kokugo Revolution: Education, Identity, and Language Policy in Imperial Japan (Berkeley:
Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, 2009), 12.
41
forward, the writers and translators mentioned by Clark were struggling to
accurately represent the multitude of new terms and literary styles flowing in from
the West. The challenges facing these groups, while seemingly disparate, were in
fact intimately connected; the Japanese language at the time was neither suitable for
the purpose of advancing education for the masses nor capable of reflecting new
patterns of speech and thought in a uniform manner. Perhaps the biggest problem
facing those working with the language or on language policy was the fact that
neither the spoken or written forms were standardized, and there was the added
complication, touched on earlier, that several different writing styles were in use at
the beginning of the Meiji era. That said, the lack of a single standard did little to
hinder the development of an active discourse on the state and future of the
language—it even encouraged it—with the range of assessments and proposals
easily surpassing the variety of styles in which they were written.
The timing of Maejima Hisoka’s aforementioned proposal to the shogun—
submitted, as it was, to a ruler more focused on political survival than policy
reform—may have seen it fall on deaf ears among policymakers, but its message
reverberated in the burgeoning discourse on language during the early decades of
Meiji.
74
Scholars such as Nishi Amane (born Tokishige) and Watanabe Shūjiro
approached the issue of language with a similar disregard for tradition, identifying
the need to free Japanese from the impractical limitations of classical writing styles.
74
It is worth noting that Maejima continued to write on the subjects of education and language
reform during the early years of Meiji, and ultimately served as chairman of the National Language
Investigative Committee (kokugo chōsa iinkai).
42
Nishi advocated the use of the Latin alphabet (rōmaji) for writing the language—
explicitly identified as the national language in his 1874 essay “Writing Japanese in
Western Script” (“Yōji o motte kokugo o shosuru no ron”); Watanabe conversely
promoted use of the native kana syllabaries, with writing modified to reflect spoken
form, the standard for which would be the language used in Tokyo.
In order to establish a standardized form of Japanese, the spoken and
written languages must be unified… based on the most commonly-used
form, that which is used in Tokyo.… First and foremost, grammars and
dictionaries must be compiled, with characters arranged in accordance
with the iroha standard.
75
Nishi’s essay appeared in the first issue of Meiroku zasshi, the official journal of the
Meiji Six Society (meirokusha), which had been formed as Japan’s first intellectual
society based on a proposal made by Mori Arinori in 1873.
76
The meirokusha
brought together some of the most active and progressive thinkers of early Meiji,
77
and while publication of the journal would only reach 43 issues before being halted
in late 1875, the active discussion of matters relating to Western theory and
modernization by society members would have a significant impact on intellectual
culture for years to come. Watanabe’s article appeared in the political newspaper
Tōkyō akebono shinbun in September of 1875, a mere month after staff writer
75
伊呂波(いろは), or the traditional ordering of the Japanese syllabary. Quoted in Yamamoto
Masahide, Kindai buntai keisei shiryō shūsei: Hassei-hen (Tokyo: Ōfūsha, 1978), 154.
76
After spending several years studying in Britain, Mori returned following the Meiji Restoration to
join the new government. He served as Japan’s first envoy to Washington (1871–1873), and would
later take office as the first Minister of Education following the 1885 restructuring of government
and implementation of the cabinet (naikaku) system.
77
Founding members included Mori and Nishi, along with Nishimura Shigeki, Fukuzawa Yukichi,
Katō Hiroyuki, Mitsukuri Rinshō, Mitsukuri Shūhei, Nakamura Masanao, Sugi Kōji, and Tsuda
Mamichi. Maejima Hisoka and Ōtsuki Fumihiko would later join, among others.
43
Suehiro Shigeya (Tetchō) became the first person to be arrested under the recently-
promulgated Press Ordinance and Libel Law, which he staunchly opposed and had
openly criticized. The newspaper quickly developed a reputation for critical and
often anti-government journalism, a characteristic that changed little thereafter, and
which arguably contributed to its relatively short publishing lifespan of four years
(1875–1878). Watanabe’s article was hardly as controversial as some other topics
covered in the paper’s pages, but the ultimate fate of Tōkyō akebono shinbun and
Meiroku zasshi alike underlines the limitations on public discourse and precarious
nature of print journalism at the time.
A look at the content and form of early writings on kokuji mondai—as
represented by the writers and views highlighted above—reveals that, while they
engage the issue of language standards in a fairly progressive manner, the critiques
and proposals they present are often limited in scope to the orthographic
representation of Japanese.
78
Furthermore, one could easily argue that many such
writings focused on the modification of Japanese for purposes of facilitating
importation and absorption of Western ideas, rather than the strengthening of
communication or removal of barriers among all levels of society. Even among those
intellectuals and officials later considered relatively progressive, the legacy of
Tokugawan societal views was evident in their approach to language reform:
78
Watanabe’s proposal to use Tokyo speech as a standard arguably represents an exception, given its
inherent grammatical and social implications. Yanagita Kunio noted this in his 1943 study on genbun
itchi, where he identified it as the first conscious exhortation of the need to unify speech and writing.
Cited in Yamamoto, Kindai buntai hassei, 133.
44
proposals calling for “top-down” policy implementation were common,
79
and little
consideration was given to commoners’ right to linguistic self-determination.
80
In
contrast with subsequent stages in the discourse on language, during which greater
emphasis was placed on ideological and symbolic considerations, these early
writings reflected primarily utilitarian concerns.
81
At the same time, these
fundamental discussions on script reform effectively prompted those very
developments, highlighting as they did the political and sentimental elements
involved in issues of linguistic representation.
A major influence on the language standardization discourse was exerted by
the supporters and critics of the genbun itchi movement, which argued for the
creation of a standardized form of Japanese that would unify both spoken and
written language. The most divisive issue relating to this proposal was the
determination of a suitable form, and the variant upon which to base it. As
previously noted, a variety of written forms were in use during the latter half of the
nineteenth century, with a great deal of training and exposure required to read and
79
Yasuda, “Kokugo” no kindaishi, 37; Shimoda, “Tongues-Tied,” 724; Lee, Ideology of Kokugo, 101.
According to Yasuda, this “top down” approach was characteristic of the proposals made by Maejima
Hisoka, Nishi Amane, Fukuzawa Yukichi, and other supporters of the “civilization and enlightenment”
(bunmei kaika) movement. Shimoda emphasizes that laissez-faire approaches to language reform
were proposed by certain scholars, but ultimately fell by the wayside as expectations for state
intervention grew. Language policy formulator Ueda Kazutoshi (cited by Lee) subsequently
recognized the need for such direct intervention, noting in 1900 that the standardization of kokugo
could only occur if institutionalized “from the top.”
80
Not surprising if one considers Germaine Hoston’s assertion that “as products of the rigid social
hierarchy of the Tokugawa era, liberal Meiji elites held firmly to distinctions among classes and had
limited faith in the ability of commoners to rule themselves.” Hoston, The State, Identity, and the
National Question in China and Japan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 296.
81
Osa Shizue, Kindai Nihon to kokugo nashonarizumu (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1998), 27.
45
use most all of them. The situation with regard to popular literacy and educational
access was therefore far from inclusive, and some scholars even argued that the
nature of written language represented an inherent class-based bias:
82
Numerous Sinitic compounds (kango) are not readily understood based
on sound alone. When spoken that way, those that are listening will not
necessarily comprehend them. That being the case, such language will be
accessible only to those above the middle class (i.e. those with the luxury
of time for study), thereby assuming a character that can only be called
aristocratic (kizokuteki).
83
While educational reforms were being formulated by the government with the aim
of increasing popular access to general education, the issue remained that most
written Japanese was simply not intended for or read by the vast majority of the
population, and the spoken language reflected various class and sex-based
distinctions that could easily lead to discrimination.
84
For Taguchi and fellow
genbun itchi promoters, this new approach to writing—not based on archaic
standards and flowery prose, but instead linked to the way one actually spoke—had
the potential to make language a resource of and by the people, accessible to all
levels of the population.
85
The movement to bring written Japanese into closer
alignment with the spoken language therefore represented a democratic appeal of
sorts, as it would arguably increase the familiarity and relative ease with which a
82
Lee, Ideology of Kokugo, 39; Ueda, “Sounds, Scripts, and Styles,” 136; Robins, “Revisiting Year One,”
40. Fukuzawa Yukichi (cited in Lee) echoed this concern over class distinctions reflected in language,
as did later critics of the supposedly “universal” form of kokugo (noted by Ueda and Robins).
83
Taguchi Ukichi compiled in Yamamoto, Kindai buntai keisei, 208.
84
Yasuda, “Kokugo” no kindaishi, 4–5.
85
Essertier, “Elegance, Propriety, and Power,” 260.
46
non-member of the academic or bureaucratic elite could approach a newspaper
column or government edict. For a variety of reasons, however, the idea of
promoting colloquial language for general use in writing was not welcomed by all
members of society.
Generation after generation, members of the political and academic elite had
been trained to express themselves with flowery and archaic forms of prose that
resembled the spoken word very little, if at all.
86
As a result, supporters of the
genbun itchi movement were faced with an uphill battle when attempting to
convince bureaucrats and scholars to abandon their antiquated forms in favor of
one based on modern vernacular. For those well-educated members of the Meiji
elite, “classical Chinese was the vehicle for serious thinking. It was the only medium
[they] could use to take in so many new things so quickly.”
87
Not only was classical
Chinese (kanbun) viewed with great prestige, the use of obscure characters and
poetic references was considered a sign of intelligence and erudition, much in the
way that knowledge of Latin phrases is esteemed in English writing. Some scholars
and bureaucrats were moved by the realization that respected literature in other
countries was written with a form closely related to the spoken language, but many
were outspoken in their belief that spoken Japanese lacked the refinement and
86
Nannette Twine, “Standardizing Written Japanese: A Factor in Modernization,” Monumenta
Nipponica 43, no. 4 (1988): 429.
87
Ramsey, “The Japanese Language,” 92.
47
history of the written forms.
88
This would lead to a situation in early Meiji where,
due to the abundance of new terms (borrowed, translated, or created) in various
fields and continuing use of rigid kanbun-based standards for writing, attempts to
maintain “elegant” language in formal documents such as government edicts
produced a cryptic form few members of society could be reasonably expected to
fully understand.
89
Among those pressing for reform of the standards for written language were
young writers and translators who had been exposed to popular Western novels of
the time, in which the theories of realism and naturalism were actively employed in
a manner that seemed impossible to emulate in Japanese due to the structural and
stylistic constraints of the written language.
90
Sensitivity to the issue of linguistic
ossification was not limited to the aforementioned groups, however, as university
lecturer and occasional lexicographer Mozume Takami made clear in his 1886
collection of essays Genbun Itchi:
91
88
Clark, The Kokugo Revolution, 64–65.
89
Fukuchi Gen’ichirō used the term “phantom compositions” (yōma bunshō) to describe such
documents, laden with esoteric terminology based on a very particular sensibility and thus rendered
effectively meaningless and incomprehensible to most readers. Cited in Lee Yeounsuk, “’Hōjū fuhō’
kara ‘yōma bunshō’ e,” in Kyōkasho keimō bunshū, ed. Saitō Toshihiko et al., vol. 11 of Shin Nihon
koten bungaku taikei Meiji hen (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2006), 7–8.
90
Considering the demands of such approaches to literary expression, “rigid classical styles were
judged unsuitable for the sensitive examination of modern dilemmas and psychological intricacies.”
Twine, “Standardizing Written Japanese,” 443.
91
It is worth noting that Mozume was trained in both Western (rangaku) and Chinese (kangaku)
studies before studying under nativist (kokugaku) scholar Tamamatsu Misao. He was well exposed to
classical language, and held positions at the Ministry of Education and [Tokyo] Imperial University.
The modern dictionary Nihon Daijirin is based on his lexicographical efforts, with other works
including the Kōbunko literary encyclopedia and accompanying Gunsho Sakuin index. Nihon
48
What emerges from one’s own heart (hara) is alive since it is natural, but
that which results from the imitation of others is dead since it is not
genuine… I consequently believe it best to abandon the nonfunctional,
imitative (hito mane no), parrot-like written language (ōmu bun), and
pursue instead the direct transcription of the vigorous (kappatsu na),
living discourse that spontaneously and naturally (tennen shizen to)
springs forth (waki deru) from our mouths.
92
Even with an increased awareness of the need for active language reform measures
spreading throughout society, genbun itchi supporters could not expect real
(institutionalized) change based on critiques and lamentations alone. To make any
headway, they were first going to have to prove that a form inspired by or
incorporating colloquial Japanese could be practical and effective in conveying a
writer’s thoughts and opinions, and hope the resulting prose struck a chord with the
greater population.
Trials and Tribulations
As the language reform discourse gained momentum and became an
increasingly public matter, several contemporary trends in academia and politics
came to exert a significant influence on how proposed changes were viewed by
specialists and commoners alike. Among language scholars, intellectual engagement
with theory prominent in Western linguistic discourses saw greater emphasis
placed on the identification and valuation of “living” language forms (in contrast
with such “dead” languages as Greek and Latin, primary objects of study by classical
daihyakka zensho via Japan Knowledge, s. v. ”Mozume Takami,” by Furuta Tōsaku, accessed June 15,
2012, http://www.jkn21.com.libproxy.usc.edu.
92
This translation represents an amended version of that found in Suzuki, Narrating the Self, 43.
Japanese original compiled in Yamamoto, Kindai buntai keisei, 276.
49
philologists), a development which only served to highlight the gap that existed
between written forms of Japanese steeped in classical tradition and the spoken
vernacular of the Meiji people.
93
This emphasis resulted from the efforts of pioneers
in the field of comparative linguistics, who felt that scholarly traditions until that
point had valued the written form of established (classic) languages to the exclusion
of what philologists portrayed as other “primitive” tongues. This debate would take
on a popular dimension due to the political ideals and standards for public speech
associated with the Freedom and People’s Rights Movement, but would also later
assume a distinctly non-academic dimension in the years surrounding the Sino-
Japanese War (1894–1895). This would prove to be just one of several examples
where contemporary events influenced the public mindset, shaping views on what
constituted national culture and greatly impacting the popular perception of the
desirability and need for progressive language reform.
94
The prestige attributed to classical forms of written Japanese was at least
partially rooted in a perceived antiquity of such language, which by the Meiji period
had come to represent both cultural heritage (key to the modern construct of
Japanese “tradition”) and baggage. In a time when Japan sought to distance itself
from the legacy of Chinese culture and establish a distinct identity as a member of
93
Lee, Ideology of Kokugo, 75; Ueda, “Sounds, Scripts, and Styles,” 137–39.
94
Atsuko Ueda notes “the desire for language reform [was] motivated by not only practical but
emotional resistance to kanji, which increased in intensity as foreign relations between China and
Japan (via Korea) produced great anxiety about Japan’s position in East Asia.” In such a context, the
already-heated debate over language reform rapidly assumed political and symbolic dimensions
linked to the delineation of Japanese culture. Ueda, “Sounds, Scripts, and Styles,” 136.
50
international society, many decried the abundance of Sinitic elements present in the
written language. Others were less concerned about issues relating to linguistic
heritage than the practical limitations they faced when attempting to use
established forms of Japanese to reflect new ways of thinking and approaches to
writing. Futabatei Shimei and Yamada Bimyō are representative of this latter group,
and have been recognized by modern scholars as some of the first Japanese authors
to successfully experiment with the use of colloquial-inspired language and
structures in their writing. To properly assess their relationship with and
contributions to the genbun itchi movement, one must start by identifying those
forces which shaped their personal philosophies and professional ambitions.
Futabatei’s interest in developing a new written style based on the spoken
word was strongly influenced by the thoughts and works of Tsubouchi Shōyō, who
contributed to the debate on language reform by questioning classic forms’ capacity
for realistic depiction of new modern realities.
95
Tsubouchi decried the state of
writing in Japan, and his two-volume work The Essence of the Novel (Shōsetsu
shinzui) raised several key questions regarding the current state and future
potential of the Japanese novel (shōsetsu).
If the shōsetsu has such values [to concretely represent the invisible and
mysterious mechanism of human life, as the most advanced literary art], it
behooves us to reform and improve our immature shōsetsu-haishi to
perfect them so that they surpass the Western shōsetsu, thereby making
our shōsetsu the greatest art, the flower of our nation (kokka no hana). If
we really desire to achieve this goal, we should first investigate why and
95
Suzuki, Narrating the Self, 30–31.
51
how advanced civilizations obtained their strength while avoiding their
past mistakes. Unless we study and follow the superior ways of the West,
thereby creating the basis for a superior haishi, our Eastern shōsetsu-
haishi will remain at the stage of the Western romance and never have the
opportunity to progress.
96
Tsubouchi’s evaluation of the limitations faced by writers at the time—and the
potential for future resolution and growth—reveals a mindset shared by many
progressive thinkers of the time: Western models and methods can and should be
used to assess the comparative value of those native to Japan, thereby aiding in the
identification of “flaws” or “weaknesses” (or, alternatively, highlighting relative
strengths) and spurring new approaches aimed at elevating the Japanese version to
equal, if not greater, status.
Tsubouchi primarily made use of the gazoku setchū style of writing—a
hybrid form based on classical written Japanese (bungotai) standards interspersed
with colloquial expressions (kōgo) for scenes with dialogue—in his 1885–1886
works The Essence of the Novel and Temper of Students in Our Times (Tōsei shosei
katagi), with neither representing a significant shift in written form from those
already in use.
97
Yet Temper of Students in Our Times did break with tradition in its
method of narration, utilizing colloquial language in narrative passages (ji no bun)
98
to present an intimate perspective that captured the attention of readers. Analyzing
96
Quoted in Suzuki, Narrating the Self, 20.
97
Yamamoto , Genbun itchi, 11.
98
Michael Bourdaghs describes ji no bun as “[those] passages attributed not to one of the characters
in the work but rather to the narrator—the passages of narratorial ‘background’ against which the
‘figure’ of spoken dialogue emerges.” Kamei Hideo, Transformations of Sensibility: The Phenomenology
of Meiji Literature, trans. and ed. Michael K. Bourdaghs (Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies,
University of Michigan, 2002), xxiii.
52
this approach, Japanese literary scholar Kamei Hideo notes that fiction until that
point had been predominantly narrated from “the aloof, transcendent perspective of
an omnipresent gaze,” and that Tsubouchi facilitated reader involvement by opting
instead to locate this viewpoint within the context of each scene. In doing so, Kamei
believes Tsubouchi effectively embodied “the practice of realism of this period,
which aimed above all at creating interest that could be shared with the reader.”
99
The book was in many ways a new twist on an old favorite, sharing as it did certain
structural elements with the form of popular fiction known as katagimono,
100
but
the content and presentation delivered by Tsubouchi likely made a strong
impression on readers, that of having experienced something entirely new.
101
Although his writing represented genbun itchi more in spirit than in form,
Tsubouchi’s efforts to develop a new approach to novel-writing influenced many
young writers, inspiring them to adopt a writing style closer to the spoken language
of everyday life.
While Futabatei Shimei (born Hasegawa Tatsunosuke) was much like
Tsubouchi in his eagerness to challenge the shōsetsu status quo, he was not in
complete agreement regarding the latter’s views on the value of and optimal
99
Kamei, Transformations of Sensibility, 60–61.
100
By focusing on a particular social standing, familial role, or occupation, and emphasizing (if not
exaggerating or distorting) common traits or characteristics of their subjects, such stories effectively
presented contemporary society as a collection of categories and types.
101
Kamei Takashi emphasizes the “newness” of English colloquial terms used by students in the text,
rendered in writing at a time when readers had a degree of sensitivity to such language that cannot
be fathomed in retrospect. Kamei et al., eds., Nihongo no rekishi, 38.
53
approach to realism in “new” novels. Tsubouchi argued that realistic depiction of the
everyday world in written form was best achieved through emphasis on human
passions or feelings (ninjō) and cultural mores (setai fūzoku), while Futabatei
argued for greater consideration of the character (seikaku) and psyche (shinri) of
one’s subjects. These were essentially kindred approaches separated by personal
preference in the intended practice of realism, the exact nature and form of which
had yet to be fully established in Japanese literature. Futabatei did have a distinct
frame of reference when compared to Tsubouchi, though, as he had personal
experience in the translation of Russian realist works by such now-famous authors
as Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev, and had on occasion opted to write early drafts
of his own work in that language (to avoid the limitations of bungotai).
102
Both
authors were nevertheless recognized for their contributions to changing the form
and style of the Japanese novel, but Futabatei is generally considered to have
written in a more progressive style, and gains recognition from some as author of
Japan’s first “modern” novel in Drifting Clouds.
Published in serial form starting in 1887, Futabatei’s Drifting Clouds
(Ukigumo) is considered a seminal work by many, with its unorthodox narrative
structure and writing style setting it apart from other literature of the time.
Conventions and form differ among the three volumes that comprise the work, with
the first sharing many elements with gesaku popular fiction from the Edo period,
102
Lee, Ideology of Kokugo, 19; Suzuki, Narrating the Self, 30–32; Clark, Kokugo Revolution, 66–67.
54
and the latter two establishing a more colloquial tone while incorporating many
new forms of punctuation (including the now-standard use of 「」brackets to
distinguish sections of dialogue).
103
The actual language used by Futabatei was a
stylistic amalgam—kanbun syntax was blended with features of comedic
storytelling (rakugo), loanwords and concepts from Western literature, and various
classical literary elements.
104
While scholars continue to debate whether the style
found in Drifting Clouds represents genbun itchi in concrete form,
105
the presence of
such diverse elements clearly shows the mixed heritage which modern linguists
have identified as characterizing the genbun itchi style.
106
The end result of
Futabatei’s grand “experiment”—whether truly ground-breaking or merely
inspirational to those struggling to effect change in the world around him—was
more well-received by the public than the man himself, as he appeared to lose faith
in his writing ability for a period of several years following the serialization of
103
Suzuki, Narrating the Self, 31–32; Yamamoto, Genbun itchi, 13–14. Suzuki describes the
commonalities with gesaku, while Yamamoto details the elements of colloquial language and
punctuation in Futabatei’s work.
104
Suzuki, Narrating the Self, 31; J. Scott Miller, “Japanese Shorthand and Sokkibon,” Monumenta
Nipponica 49, no. 4 (1994): 482. Suzuki also notes the apparent influence of the Fukugawa dialect (of
Tokyo), and comments that the oral storytelling features were likely inspired by sokki-facilitated
transcriptions of popular rakugo artist Sanyūtei Enchō’s performances. The latter point is similarly
made by Miller, who cites documentation that Tsubouchi specifically advised Futabatei to study
Enchō’s narrative style for inspiration.
105
Kamei, Transformations of Sensibility, 8–9.
106
Morioka Kenji identifies the spoken language (gen) portion of genbun itchi as originating in the
oratory (yūben) or public speech (enzetsu) style; Tanaka Akio further posits that gen represented the
speaking style of one addressing a larger group, evident in public lectures (kōshaku), “lay sermons”
(shingaku dōwa), and rakugo of the Edo period. Cited in Heinrich, “Things You Have to Leave Behind,”
118.
55
Drifting Clouds, choosing to focus on further translations of Russian literature and
his new job as employee in the office of government publications.
107
Even with such
a truncated writing career, Futabatei nevertheless played a significant role in
transforming genbun itchi from a theoretical ideal, discussed and pondered by an
exclusive group of literary artists and critics, into something tangible and capable of
engaging the interest of general members of the reading public.
Yamada Bimyō, a contemporary of Futabatei, is well known for his early
novels Musashino (1887) and Butterfly (Kochō, 1889), along with his 1888 essay
detailing the “theory” of genbun itchi (“Genbun itchi ron gairyaku”) and other
contributions to Meiji literary culture. With regard to his writing style, linguistic
historian Yamamoto Masahide notes that numerous modern elements—
personification, passivity, inversion, abbreviation, contemporary idioms, Western-
style punctuation—were consistently present in Yamada’s works, yet emphasizes
that the forms he used for sections of dialogue were remarkably non-colloquial.
108
His execution of a “modernized” writing style for literature may seem lacking in
retrospect, but Yamada’s greatest contributions to the language reform debate were
arguably based on the critical awareness with which he approached self-perceived
shortcomings in his attempts at realizing genbun itchi.
107
For a detailed discussion on Futabatei’s writing and translations, see the studies of Hiroko
Cockerill, among others. Cockerill, Style and Narrative in Translations: The Contribution of Futabatei
Shimei (Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2006). Cockerill, “The –ta Form as die reine Sprache (Pure
Language) in Futabatei’s Translations,” Japanese Language and Literature 42, no. 1 (2008): 171–95.
108
Yamamoto, Genbun itchi, 15. Also mentioned in Suzuki, Narrating the Self, 44.
56
The process of writing Musashino sparked Yamada to both personal
introspection and a careful consideration of the state of the written language,
subsequently reflected in the 1888 essay penned as a rebuttal to conservative
attacks on the value and viability of colloquialized writing.
109
In it, he displays a
combination of insight relating to the popular perception of propriety and elegance
in language, optimism as well as conviction regarding the potential for colloquial-
inspired prose (zokubun), and a clear commitment to advancing the formulation and
perfection of a genbun itchi standard. His progressive views placed him in stark
contrast with those supporting the so-called “standard writing” style of futsūbun,
who were extremely vocal in their opposition to certain genbun itchi proposals. In
particular, they claimed that the application of colloquial standards for expression
would rob the written language of its inherent beauty, and that such attempts at
reflecting contemporary usage were doomed to fail. Over the span of fifteen or so
pages, Yamada deconstructs these and other futsūbun-related arguments one by one,
leaving little doubt as to his skills in rhetoric, analysis, and persuasion.
Addressing the question of how language reform can occur when standards
for expression are far from fixed, Yamada willingly concedes that linguistic forms—
along with perceptions of their value and “modernity”—are subject to constant
change, while emphasizing that a proactive approach is better than none at all:
109
Yamada Bimyō, “Genbun itchi ron gairyaku,” in Meiji no bungaku, Vol. 10, Yamada Bimyō, ed.
Tsubouchi Yūzō and Arashiyama Kōzaburō (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 2001), 281–96.
57
The statement “language that is colloquial today becomes archaic
tomorrow” is not without reason, but the exclusive preaching of such a
destructionist view (hakaishugi o tonaete nomi) does not allow for the
possibility of invention or the development of new approaches to language,
to say nothing of the reform of words and prose.
110
The need for such innovation should be eminently clear to those engaged in the
literary craft, as writers increasingly face the need to improvise in order to capture
the changes occurring in modern society. Ignoring the implications of this trend will
only result in confusion and disorder, whereas “to reform our modern prose is to
establish now and for the future the foundation for literature.”
111
He notes that
people have grown accustomed to the language and diction found in tone-based or
melodic works,
112
and therefore perceive it as elegant and graceful as a matter of
course. This contributes to a situation where common forms of the spoken language
are deemed unrefined by comparison, and therefore less suitable for literary
expression. The resulting bias, while unrelated to functional merit, clouds our
judgment and is perpetuated through blind adherence to classical standards:
[The bias against colloquial forms] is simply a product of the imagination;
driven by the power of this supposition, such language actually becomes
perceived as vulgar or crude (jissai ga iyashiku naru)… When forerunners
such as [Geoffrey] Chaucer insisted upon use of the vernacular in their
writings, there were those convinced of the elegance of classical prose
who took great issue, but the tide of social progress (shakai no shinpo no
chōsui) does not stop at the seashore of ancient times (kodai no teibō).
113
110
Yamada, “Genbun itchi,” 285.
111
Ibid., 294.
112
音調専門の物 (onchō senmon no mono); a reference to poetry and song, specifically, but in this
context it arguably also applies to prose influenced by the stylistic standards established in such
works. Yamada, “Genbun itchi,” 290.
113
Ibid., 291–92. Portions of this translation incorporate wording from the essay summary found in
Essertier, “Elegance, Propriety, and Power,” 257–58.
58
Sentiment and tradition naturally influence our perspective on language, but reform
cannot be effectively realized without an objective assessment of the potential
means. “It is therefore necessary,” Yamada tells his readers, “to remove any and all
prejudice or partiality (ikko no aizō) from one’s heart and keep an open mind
(kyoshin heiki) in order to select that which is most advantageous.”
114
He
emphasizes that zokubun exhibits a grammatical consistency and abides by
compositional rules that make it suitable for teaching, whereas futsūbun is lacking in
both categories.
115
As such, it is hard to justify the abandonment of this colloquial
form as a potential candidate for implementing reform, and similarly difficult to
assign any real value to the latter.
Yamada was not alone in recognizing the significance of public sentiment
(and sentimentality) relating to language use, and its capacity to either expedite or
hinder language reform efforts. In broaching the potentially controversial subject of
what specific language might best facilitate communication throughout Japan, his
proposal supporting the form used in Tokyo—based on an assessment of its
relatively low degree of unintelligibility when compared to other forms—
highlighted Yamada’s ability to make a convincing and objective argument, along
with an awareness of the need for concrete measures in advancing language
reform.
116
For this very reason, Yamada remains a key figure in studies of language
114
Yamada, “Genbun itchi,” 294.
115
Ibid., 295–96.
116
Lee, Ideology of Kokugo, 46. Endorsement of Tokyo language found in Yamada, “Genbun itchi,” 282.
59
modernization, even while his works (beyond Musashino and Butterfly) typically
receive little recognition in literary histories.
During the period when writers such as Futabatei and Yamada were busy
developing a new approach to writing based on colloquial elements and influenced
by Western literature, there were others who felt that a new style could be distilled
from among those already in use. Opposed to the “vulgarity” and lack of refinement
they claimed were characteristic of written adaptations of the spoken form,
proponents of the futsūbun style decried by Yamada argued for what amounted to a
colloquialized version of classical forms. While these different approaches may have
appeared to be in direct opposition, in reality they represented varying degrees of
progressiveness embraced in an attempt to deal with the issue of language
reform.
117
Aside from a brief surge in popularity and use in the late 1880s to early
1890s—as supporters of moderate language reform measures made concerted
attempts to appeal for preservation of literary culture and encourage more
widespread questioning of the value and appropriateness of vernacular-as-writing
approaches—futsūbun was not able to garner the support necessary to displace the
more colloquial genbun itchi as the eventual basis for realizing the standardized
national language. Regardless of the outcome, the presence of these competing
117
Ibid., 281. Support for this view can be found in Yamada’s aforementioned essay, where he notes
that advocates of genbun itchi (as an ideal, rather than fixed style) were divided into two groups:
those intent upon bringing the spoken language closer to the written (futsūbun supporters), and
those who sought to bring the written language closer to the spoken (zokubun supporters). Use of the
term genbun itchi has since changed, as it became increasingly associated with the stylistic approach
of the latter group, while that of the former has come to be viewed in diametric opposition (in spite of
their shared origin).
60
forms and the critical discourse that subsequently developed proved indispensible
to the process of formulating kokugo.
118
Yano Ryūkei (penname of Yano Fumio) was a Meiji contemporary to the
aforementioned authors Yamada Bimyō and Futabatei Shimei, arguably best known
for his political novel Illustrious Tales of Statesmanship (Keikoku bidan, 1883–84)
and 1886 treatise A New Theory of Style and Orthography in Japan (Nihon buntai
moji shinron). While he vehemently opposed the colloquialization-of-writing efforts
of genbun itchi advocates, Yano was not motivated by a desire to preserve classical
forms of the language. Instead, he believed that a new style could be created based
on elements found in or inspired by modern kanbun, and that such an approach
could produce a form unparalleled in its capacity for concise expression and
adaptability while avoiding the shortcomings of its historical predecessor. In order
to understand Yano’s conception of kanbun kundoku (ordered readings of kanbun)
as functionally modern and distinct from kanbun,
119
a more detailed discussion of
how approaches to the latter were utilized in early to mid-Meiji is necessary.
Kanbun, as noted in the brief overview of stylistic terms contained in the
introduction, was extremely well-established in terms of literary and administrative
118
Patrick Heinrich’s 2005 essay includes a detailed account of the interaction of futsūbun advocates
and their more radical genbun itchi counterparts that occurred in the pages of the literary journal
Bun over several months in 1889, highlighting the effect that such back-and-forth debates had on
both the idea and practice of modern colloquial-inspired writing. Heinrich, “Things You Have to
Leave Behind,” 118–30.
119
Saitō Mareshi traces the process through which kanbun kundoku (or kundokubun) came to be
clearly distinguished from kanbun, and how this active distancing from the legacy of the latter
influenced popular perception regarding the modern functionality of the former. Saitō, Kanbunmyaku
to kindai Nihon: Mō hitotsu no kotoba no sekai (Tokyo: Nihon Hōsō Shuppan Kyōkai, 2007), 78–116.
61
use during the Tokugawa period. The transition to Meiji governance did little to
change the status quo, as kanbun remained prominent in the linguistic landscape for
decades following the Restoration. However, it is worth noting that many different
methods of writing—and subsequently deciphering—kanbun existed, a reality often
obscured by the singularity of the term applied to them. Some documents were
composed in “pure” kanbun (kanji written in a grammar reflecting classical Chinese,
with no additional markings to indicate Japanese syntactical order or verb endings),
while others included annotations or glosses to aid readers as they deciphered
expressions into common vernacular form. The latter gave rise to what is known as
yomikudashi, which effectively presented kanbun rewritten in accordance with the
aforementioned ordering and suffix notes.
120
As many kanbun documents were written without annotations, multiple
approaches to reading them were developed based on context and convention, and
broadly referred to as kanbun kundoku (ordered readings of kanbun).
121
Journalist,
120
Kamei Hideo notes that kanbun documents of the late 1870s often included notations such as
kaeriten (word-order markings) and okurigana (Japanese suffixes appended to kanji), representing
“a close antecedent to yomikudashi” as a composite style of writing (separate from, but strongly
influenced by, the yomikudashi approach to deconstructing and reordering kanbun compositions).
Kamei, Transformations of Sensibility, 24–25.
121
With regard to the multiplicity and apparent interchangeability of different terms used to describe
compositions (bun) derived from or relating to the processing of kanbun (such as kundokubun,
bungobun, kintaibun, and yomikudashibun), Saitō Mareshi points out that these are essentially
kindred forms based on variations in the application of kundoku practices. Saitō, Kanbunmyaku, 78.
In his extensive work on writing and language in pre-modern Japan, David Lurie devotes quite a few
pages to the historical development of kanbun kundoku in theory and practice, shedding light on the
aforementioned situation by noting the unique qualities of kundoku: it is interlingual (not bound to
explicit expressions of linguistic difference), reversible (functioning as a method of writing as well as
reading), productive (giving rise to numerous different styles of logographic inscription), and often
invisible (if not explicitly indicated by diacritic marks or annotations). Lurie, Realms of Literacy: Early
Japan and the History of Writing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2011), 180–84.
62
novelist, playwright, and Yano contemporary Fukuchi Gen’ichirō (a.k.a. Fukuchi
Ōchi) wrote about such stylistic approaches to kanbun kundoku in his 1893 editorial
on Meiji prose (“Meiji konnichi no bunshō”), identifying the minimalistic bōdoku
(“plain gloss”) and more elaborate yakudoku (“translated-reading”) styles as the
most well-established; the former enjoyed extensive use among early Meiji literati
while the latter, historically established among a wider audience and accessible to
even those with minimal education, saw decreased use as compositions based on
bōdoku became more and more common.
122
For those not familiar with pre-
standardized forms of written Japanese, and the great many historical variations in
writing and reading kanbun documents in particular, it may be somewhat difficult to
visualize the difference between the “plain gloss” and “translated-reading” styles
outlined by Fukuchi.
123
Kamei Hideo recognized this potential obstacle in his work
Transformations of Sensibility, where he borrowed Fukuchi’s categorizations for
illustrative purposes in order to provide a concrete example of how one kanbun
passage (A) would be rendered according to the bōdoku (B) and yakudoku (C) styles:
(A) 当是時臣唯独知有韓信不知有陛下也
(B) 是時ニ当リ臣唯独韓信アルヲ知リ陛下アルヲ知ラザル也
(C) 是時に当りて臣は唯独り韓信あるを知りて陛下のましますを知り奉
らざるなり
124
122
Ibid., 25–27.
123
Even those familiar with kanbun would not necessarily understand such specialized vocabulary;
yakudoku as a descriptive term is undoubtedly more common, having been used in a variety of texts
on the subject, but bōdoku is largely absent from modern dictionaries and arguably represents an
early attempt to differentiate between emerging standards, with limited use beyond this period.
124
Quoted in the original Japanese publication of Transformations of Sensibility. Kamei, Kansei no
henkaku (Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1983), 32–34.
63
Compared to the brevity of the “pure” kanbun from which they are drawn, the “plain
gloss” (B) and “translated-reading” (C) versions both end up visibly longer. The
former uses katakana for particles and inflections, while the latter instead uses
hiragana and introduces honorific language (underlined) absent from the original.
Furthermore, while not explicitly noted in the example above, different approaches
to kanbun kundoku often exhibited a tendency to prioritize certain readings of kanji
(which often have multiple accepted pronunciations). This was particularly true in
the case of bōdoku transcriptions, for which on’yomi (Chinese-derived phonetic
readings, often monosyllabic) were emphasized far more frequently than kun’yomi
(readings based on the native Japanese, generally involving more syllables).
125
In terms of the practical advantages inherent to the different styles, Ueda
Atsuko notes how the “plain gloss” style demonstrated a greater capacity to
incorporate new kanji compounds and phrases introduced through translations of
foreign words, and the inverse relationship between lexical expansion and general
accessibility that developed as a result:
On the one hand, kanbun kundokutai proved to be extremely functional
and versatile in absorbing new knowledge, but, on the other hand, this
very versatility alienated the less-literate townspeople and peasants
because it introduced many new terms and phrases that were beyond
their literacy. It produced an ironic situation in which the very literati who
were concerned about disseminating new knowledge increased the
difficulty of the language, leading them to further lament the fact that too
many people in Japan were uneducated.
126
125
Yano defended this tendency in his later writings, arguing that the phonetic brevity resulting from
kundoku based on primary use of on’yomi represented a linguistic advantage (based on articulatory
phonetics), as such transcriptions required less effort to read. Ueda, “Sounds, Scripts, and Styles,” 141.
126
Ibid., 134.
64
For proponents of the futsūbun approach to linguistic modernization, the
aforementioned scenario underscored the difficulty of the task with which they
were faced: maintaining classical elegance in writing while realizing a style capable
of responding and adapting to modern demands, not the least of which was the need
for an easily-mastered and standardized language for use in national compulsory
education. The resulting efforts, while often overlooked in teleological depictions of
national language history, were as much a part of the language reform process and
emergence of kokugo as any genbun itchi-inspired novel or newspaper editorial, and
played a key role in spurring the necessary reflection on national character and
identity without which the “nation” of Japan as a nation-state could not exist.
Returning to the writings of Yano Ryūkei, Illustrious Tales and New Theory
provide great insight into how Yano viewed the problem of language, both from the
practical standpoint of a writer struggling to express new ideas and with the critical
insight of one reflecting on the transformations within Meiji society. Both works
contain sub-sections devoted to buntai-ron, or a discussion (ron) on the matter of
style (buntai),
127
in which he comments on the various styles in use at the time and
traces their respective origins. Despite the nearly consecutive publication of these
works, a shift in Yano’s perspective on language is evident when comparing their
content and tone, reflecting perhaps the shifting political landscape as state
regulation of the media expanded, popular rights activism and related uprisings
127
In her 2006 essay on Yano Ryūkei and early-Meiji writing, Lee Yeonsuk clarifies that buntai is not
a matter of the characters or orthography used to write, but rather an analysis of the fundamental
characteristics present in a given style or composition. Lee, “’Hōjū fuhō’ kara,” 5–6.
65
were quelled, the government was reconfigured based on the cabinet (naikaku)
system, and the language reform debate became increasingly divisive. The relatively
laissez-faire approach to stylistic reform (from within) that Yano seemed to
embrace in Illustrious Tales—where the lack of standardization, abundance of
competing styles, and essentially unregulated attempts at modernizing prose
represented the chaos from which new order would naturally emerge—gives way to
proposals for the application of fixed standards and stylistic formalization from
without.
New Theory makes explicit the views which shaped Yano’s approach to
writing Illustrious Tales, as he bemoans the insufficiency of existing forms and the
impracticality of pursuing their rigid implementation: stylistic standards are
naturally reflective of the cultural epochs from which they spring forth, and thus
display consistent inconsistency over the course of history. As such, he argues there
is little, if any, value to be found in adhering to outdated rules and standards (zenjin
no kakuhō,
128
or “the customs of previous generations”) when the new era of Meiji
clearly required the development of a suitably new writing style. Based on this
mindset, Yano proposed in New Theory the development and implementation of
what he called ryōbuntai (“twofold style”), which would take the basic format of
kanbun kundoku writing formulated in Japanese reading order and include kana
glosses for all kanji, thus utilizing the efficiency of kanji as ideographs and kana as
128
Quoted in Lee, “’Hōjū fuhō’ kara,” 5–6.
66
phonetic aids.
129
Furthermore, his proposal for language reform included a
recommendation to limit the number of kanji for use in everyday writing to three
thousand characters or less, motivated by a concern for the establishment of
guidelines that would help standardize print media and improve educational
efficacy (if properly supported by official government institutions).
130
Considering the contentious atmosphere surrounding the language reform
debate and increasingly common view that kanbun-inspired prose was incapable of
representing the “living” language (due to a perceived lack of phonetic elements
reflecting actual speech), Yano’s proposal for stylistic reform and standardization
was remarkable in more ways than one. Not only did he manage to develop a
convincing argument for kanbun kundokutai as a modern standard distinct from the
outdated and non-functional kanbun of the past, but he also succeeded in
highlighting the value of kanji’s orthographic efficacy and inherent phonetic
component with his proposed ryōbuntai, all while tackling the issue of language
reform with a measure of objective awareness and concern for functionality not
seen in the approaches of many other would-be reformers (proponents of futsūbun
and zokubun alike).
129
Ueda, “Sounds, Scripts, and Styles,” 140.
130
Yano did not envision a strict limitation on characters in all forms of writing, but proposed that it
should be applied to so-called “popular works” (futsūsho; including government edicts and
announcements, textbooks for public and private school use, newspapers and magazines intended
for broad readership, and everyday letters) while allowing for flexibility in “literary works”
(bungakusho; popular fiction and historical shōsetu intended for entertainment purposes, essays and
articles intended for highbrow readership and specialists, and all non-futsūsho historical documents
or accounts). Cited in Yamamoto, Kindai buntai keisei, 301–5.
67
Entering the latter half of the Meiji period, the nascent genbun itchi
movement was still very much in search of a comprehensive approach to
modernizing the language, and obstacles remained to establishing both popular and
official support for its cause. Yet there can be no doubt that these earliest of efforts,
despite (or perhaps because of) their mutual inconsistencies, managed to pave the
way for developments that would revolutionize how language was used in Japan. In
many ways, the wide-open nature of the language debate and stylistic experiments
of this early period
131
prompted those involved to question the fundamental
characteristics of language—whether intended for limited use among social and
political elites, widespread educational use and promotion of literacy, or genre-
specific literary expression—and the value of an ideal (if not yet existing)
standardized form capable of supporting the modern advancements and changes
spreading throughout society.
132
This reflection on linguistic functionality and
symbolic value paralleled a similarly ongoing process in which the state assumed
more modern functions and form through the reformulation of government
structures and responsibilities, representing dual phenomena crucial to the
131
In his research on the development of the modern colloquial form, Yamamoto Masahide
characterizes 1868–1885 as the “Period of Confusion and Disorder” (kontonki), followed in 1886–
1899 by the “Period of Search and Exploration” (mosakuki) for a modern style. Yamamoto, Genbun
itchi, 8–9.
132
The central role of language in facilitating communication, often taken for granted in societies
where written and spoken forms are not so profoundly distinct (compared to Japan, Taiwan, parts of
India, etc.), becomes exceedingly clear when projects such as the military conscription, policy
reformulation and pronouncement, industrialization, and compulsory education undertaken in Meiji
Japan bring together or attempt to address diverse segments of the population. Without efficient
means to disseminate information in a consistent and accessible manner, the modern nation-state
cannot function.
68
projection and realization of Japan as a modern nation-state. Both would continue to
evolve throughout the latter half of Meiji and well into the Taishō period that
followed, as language reform and government function intersected in the official
research, development, and dissemination of kokugo. The events of this period are
well documented and have been subject to thorough analysis in the many extant
studies cited earlier in the introduction to this paper, and to engage in a detailed
discussion of them here would therefore be superfluous. But certain credit and
attention must be given to “founder of modern Japanese linguistics” Ueda
Kazutoshi,
133
whose efforts as a linguist and language planner gave the ideals of
genbun itchi purpose and value beyond the world of literature by repurposing them
for the realization of a standardized national language.
Ueda Kazutoshi and the Formalization of Kokugo
Ueda Kazutoshi entered Tokyo Imperial University in 1885, originally
focusing on Japanese literary studies (wabungaku) under such tutors as Tsubouchi
Shōyō, before developing an interest in linguistics following exposure to the lectures
and teachings of Basil Hall Chamberlain. With his fluency in multiple languages
(English, French, and German), experience living in Europe, and scholarly interest in
colloquial Japanese along with Ainu and Ryukyuan, Chamberlain presented a unique
perspective on language and culture. Published in 1888, his A Handbook of
Colloquial Japanese challenged the commonly-held view that the spoken language
133
Introduced as such by Michael Bourdaghs in the commentary on Natsume Sōseki’s Theory of
Literature. Bourdaghs et. al, Theory of Literature and Other Writings (New York: Columbia University
Press, 2009), 270.
69
was unsuitable as a subject for academic study, and undoubtedly inspired his
students to reconsider its value for research and analysis.
134
At the same time, Ueda
was strongly influenced in his study of classical Japanese language and literature by
Toyama Masakazu, under whose tutelage he completed his undergraduate studies,
and who would continue to act as his mentor in the graduate school and provide key
support during the early years of his career. It was clear, however, that Ueda’s
interests had grown beyond mere literary composition or analysis, a reality quickly
discerned by his graduate peers and advisors, and central to the course of events
that would lead to the study and application of modern linguistic theory in Japan.
In 1890, the year the new Meiji Constitution was enacted, Tokyo Imperial
University President Katō Hiroyuki ordered Ueda to travel to Europe in order to
study Western linguistics, revealing an awareness of the potential implications for
developing academic resources and strengthening the school’s curriculum.
135
Ueda
would spend the next three years studying comparative linguistics in Berlin and at
Leipzig University, where he was exposed to teachings of the Neogrammarian
(Junggramatiker) school by Sanskrit scholar and linguist Karl Brugman, before a
brief stay in Paris and his return to Tokyo in mid-1894. By the time Ueda returned
from abroad, his country was on the verge of war with China; within a year, Japan
emerged victorious from its foray into modern military conflict, the spoils of war
134
Yamamoto, Genbun itchi, 428–30.
135
Patrick Heinrich, The Making of Monolingual Japan: Language Ideology and Japanese Modernity
(Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2012), 70.
70
making it Asia’s first imperialist power.
136
Ueda’s return thus coincided with a
notable shift in public sentiment regarding the value and orientation of Japanese
culture, language, and politics—the latent (or manufactured) seeds of common
national identity sprouted into at least one form of nationalism, pride was voiced for
Japan’s cultural history while support for progressive government policies grew,
and the contours of the modern state grew increasingly clear as comparisons to its
Asian neighbors were made with some frequency. This confluence of events,
combined with his unique exposure to the assimilationist language policy and
political ideology of newly-unified Germany,
137
motivated Ueda in his emphatic
appeal for a comprehensive national language policy which would serve to unite and
bind the population of Japan.
Soon after assuming the distinguished position of professor of linguistics at
his alma mater, Ueda began hosting a series of lectures
138
that detailed his vision for
136
After defeating Chinese forces on the mainland, the Japanese took control of the islands
surrounding Taiwan, which they subsequently demanded as part of the territorial concessions and
maritime privileges formalized with the Treaty of Shimonoseki (signed April 17, 1895). While Japan
would be forced to abandon claims to the Liaodong Peninsula due to pressure from Russia, Germany,
and France—each of which had vested interests in the region—the withdrawal of Chinese influence
from Korea and access to new resources on the continent ensured that Japanese ambitions for
industrial growth and military expansion would only heighten in the years to come. Recent
scholarship on the Sino-Japanese War includes S.C.M. Paine, The Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895:
Perceptions, Power, and Primacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), and David Noble’s
translation of Saya Makito, The Sino-Japanese War and the Birth of Japanese Nationalism (Tokyo:
International House of Japan, 2011).
137
Technically the German Empire (1871–1918), which built on Otto Van Bismarck’s policy of
Germanic unification (and Austrian exclusion) partially realized in the North German Confederation
(1867–1871) and later expanded to include Bavaria and several other southern states under the
emperorship of Kaiser Wilhelm I, established following the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) and
subsequent Treaty of Frankfurt (1871).
138
Compiled in the 1895 collection of essays, For the Sake of Kokugo (Kokugo no tame).
71
a unified kokugo and the essential role it would play in substantiating the nation-
state (kokka) of Japan.
139
Just as Futabatei and Yamada had enriched and elevated
the stylistic discussion surrounding genbun itchi with their practical knowledge of
writing and professional awareness of literary culture, Ueda devoted himself to
giving concrete form to the largely amorphous concept of kokugo. His efforts
ensured that a scholarly pedigree and “scientific” grounding in linguistics
140
was
recognized following the introduction of kokugogaku (kokugo studies) into
university curricula, and repeated petitioning of the National Diet led to the
establishment of an official government body for research into language reform and
policy formulation (the National Language Investigative Committee or NLIC).
141
Kokugo thus began its transformation from ideal to practice.
Having witnessed firsthand the development of language and educational
policies aimed at the production of national subjects during his time in Europe, Ueda
appreciated the symbolic value tied to the rich history of the Japanese language
139
For Ueda, kokugo was to be the basis for national education, the purpose of which was “to raise a
person to be an excellent member of the ideal nation.” Quoted in Lee, Ideology of Kokugo, 94.
140
Lee Yeonsuk notes that Ueda valued the “scientific principles” (kagakuteki genri) found in
Western linguistics, which his contemporary Ochiai Naobumi believed he would utilize in order “to
give the right direction to kokugo, to develop it by enhancing its merit and abolishing its defects, by
eliminating inefficiency and pursuing efficiency; hence to create the orderly kokugo of our Great
Empire of Japan.” Quoted in Lee, Ideology of Kokugo, 76–77.
141
Ueda was admittedly one of many activists pushing for government-sponsored language reform
and corresponding education policy, but receives particular attention due to his activity as
parliamentary councilor for the Ministry for Education and close relationship with Toyama Masakazu
(Education Minister, 1898–1900). For a detailed summary of the societies and groups active in the
period before NLIC establishment, see Clark, The Kokugo Revolution,108–24.
72
while also recognizing the lack of modern functionality from which it suffered.
142
The distinction associated with his position as Japan’s first Western-trained linguist,
employed at one of the most respected Universities in the country, imbued his views
with a certain degree of objective credibility, allowing Ueda to make critiques of the
language and policy recommendations that likely would have inspired public
outrage had they been made at an earlier time or voiced by a figure of lesser
perceived neutrality.
143
He understood the intimate link that existed between
language and nationalism,
144
and the dualistic nature that characterized national
language education; properly executed, the resulting form would appear
simultaneously natural and refined, popular and official. This new standard would
bind together the nation-people (kokumin) of Japan and safeguard their culture,
representing a common privilege shared by all but possessed by none.
145
However,
just as genbun itchi had begun as an ambitious concept with little discernible
content, kokugo would not be fully realized in form and function for many years
142
Yasuda Toshiaki, Teikoku Nihon no gengo hensei (Tokyo: Seori Shobō, 1997), 6–7.
143
Following the demise of the People’s Rights Movement, genbun itchi advocates found their
attempts at reform stemmed by a groundswell of conservative sentiment, rooted in counter-
movements for the “preservation of national essence” (kokusui hozon) that were extremely critical of
government policies and intellectual discourses they perceived as unabashedly Western and devoid
of any appreciation for indigenous customs and mores. Yasuda, “Kokugo” no kindaishi, 48–50.
144
Lee, Ideology of Kokugo, 86.
145
Étienne Balibar identifies schooling as “the principal institution [producing] ethnicity as linguistic
community,” but also stresses that “the state, economic exchange and family life are also schools in a
sense, organs of the ideal nation recognizable by a common language which belongs to them ‘as their
own’.” It is crucial “that the national language should [not only] be recognized as the official language,
but, much more fundamentally, that it should be able to appear as the very element of the life of a
people, the reality which each person may appropriate his or her own way, without thereby
destroying its identity.” Balibar, “Nation-form,” 98.
73
after Ueda first extolled its great virtue, practical value, and imminent realization.
But with the necessary resources and political mandate secured and a little over a
decade of research, debate, policy formulation, and formalization,
146
kokugo would
emerge as a comprehensive educational standard and fundamental tool for the
dissemination of statist political ideology, thereby assuming a key role in the official
construction and projection of national character. What began with a seemingly
simple debate over the most basic component of literacy-promoting educational
reform (with the script and orthography proposals of early Meiji) had therefore
morphed into a fundamental reformulation of the means and objective of modern
compulsory education, as well as the communicative basis supporting state-subject
and subject-subject relationships. Kokugo made it possible for the people to
recognize their role and responsibilities as national subjects (kokumin), instilled in
them a state-approved and shared national identity, and thus provided the
formalized structure necessary to incorporate and cement the “nation” in the newly-
realized nation-state of Japan.
146
Many key findings on language use and decisions regarding kokugo policy were made within a
relatively short period following the 1902 establishment of the NLIC, but a dearth of comprehensive
guidelines and reference materials persisted until the publication of Problems of Orthography (Gimon
Kanazukai, 1912) and Rules of the Spoken Language (Kōgohō, 1916). Policy revision and
reformulation thereafter was an ongoing process, continuing throughout the Taishō and subsequent
Shōwa (1926–1989) periods, with a spike in activity during the immediate post-war period in
particular.
74
Chapter 4: Conclusion
The construction of national identity, which many would prefer to depict as a
naturally-occurring process rooted in intrinsic ethnic or cultural patterns, is very
much a matter of effort and artifice. This does not mean that every element present
in the final product is artificial or dubious in its symbolic value, but rather that a
concerted attempt at defining such elements—whether identified in existing
cultural patterns, projected upon “national” history from a modern perspective,
distilled from narratives deemed more representative than others, or indeed
fabricated—was required in order to make them appear self-evident. The process
that facilitated, formulated, and yielded kokugo is but one example of this modern
phenomenon, yet deserves particular attention due to the enormous potential that
language (and language study) has for influencing group identity and cohesion. By
giving the Japanese language a standardized form for the use and benefit of all
members of the nation, those involved in this process were acting as cultural
arbitrators—whether they accepted and understood the implications of their
actions (as politicians, linguists, and some writers undeniably did), or naively
conceived of their efforts as having only limited impact on other members of society
(as some writers, bureaucrats, and early policymakers may have). Regardless of the
category they may represent, these participants in the discourse on language reform
and education all had a hand in producing kokugo, which in turn helped give form to
and spread awareness of national identity in Japan.
75
Kokugo is well-recognized for the indispensible role it has played in the
implementation and development of mass education in modern Japan, and often for
its contributions to cultural standardization and ideological inculcation, as well. But
the process noted above and detailed in this paper—the questioning of tradition,
stylistic experimentation, debates over functionality and symbolism, reflection on
character and values, and official formulation—was at least as important as the final
product, and deserves recognition as such. The course of events that preceded
kokugo highlighted in many ways the influence of social and political developments
during early Meiji, as the government assumed new forms and functions in
accordance with modern demands and aspirations. One of the greatest challenges
faced by the state was the unification and mobilization of the national populace,
which would ultimately require the development of an ideology that emphasized
participation and responsibility (for both state and subject). The activism that took
root with the Freedom and People’s Rights Movement showed the double-edged
nature of such civic “participation,” but the subsequent shift towards a more
representative and transparent form of government arguably contributed to an
increased sense of investment and involvement among the general public. At the
same time, the government also developed a greater appreciation for the power it
could wield by controlling the availability and flow of information, and the need to
establish an ideological framework in support of statist principles for dissemination
among the people. Not surprisingly, both of these points were intimately related to
the development of a standardized national language.
76
If the development and implementation of kokugo was only a matter of
serving the needs of the Meiji state, it would be nearly worthless as an indication of
popular awareness and communal belonging. Needless to say, that is not the case. As
the discourse on language reform expanded to include and affect a broader portion
of society, the variety of proposed measures and increasingly passionate nature of
debates between opposing schools of thought ensured that even those not directly
involved in the discourse were likely to have at least some awareness of the matters
being discussed. It matters less whether proponents of zokubun were “right” or if
futsūbun was more “elegant,” and far more that these exchanges occurred in a public
forum, thereby engaging the interest of general members of the population and
spurring them to reflect on the nature of language as well. This form of civic
involvement was what brought real weight to the ideas discussed, many of which
were later incorporated into the research and development process for kokugo.
Thus the pursuit and formulation of a standardized national language in Meiji Japan
was not a single narrative limited to the actions of the state, but also built upon the
involvement of the general public. Furthermore, it represented both a domestic
development significant to the advancement of socio-linguistic unification, and also
an international one due to its contribution to Japan’s emergence as a nation-state,
and membership in the modern global system.
77
Bibliography
Anderson, Benedict R. O’G. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and
Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 2006.
Balibar, Étienne. “The Nation-Form: History and Ideology.” In Race, Nation, Class:
Ambiguous Identities, edited by Étienne Balibar and Immanuel M. Wallerstein,
86–106. London: Verso, 1991.
Braudel, Fernand. The Identity of France: History and Environment. Translated by
Siân Reynolds. New York, NY: Harper-Collins, 1989. Originally published as
L’identité de la France (Paris: Arthaud Flammarion, 1986).
Bourdaghs, Michael K., Atsuko Ueda, and Joseph A. Murphy, eds. Theory of Literature
and Other Writings. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.
Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Clark, Paul H. The Kokugo Revolution: Education, Identity, and Language Policy in
Imperial Japan. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California,
2009.
Cockerill, Hiroko. Style and Narrative in Translations: The Contribution of Futabatei
Shimei. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2006.
———. “The –ta Form as die reine Sprache (Pure Language) in Futabatei’s
Translations.” Japanese Language and Literature 42, no. 1 (2008): 171–95.
Doak, Kevin M. “Ethnic Nationalism and Romanticism in Early Twentieth-Century
Japan.” Journal of Japanese Studies 22, no. 1 (1996): 77–103.
———. A History of Nationalism in Modern Japan: Placing the People. Boston: Brill,
2007.
Eriksen, Thomas H. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives. London:
Pluto Press, 2010.
Essertier, Joseph. “Elegance, Propriety, and Power in the ‘Modernization’ of Literary
Language in Meiji Japan.” In The Linguistic Turn in Contemporary Japanese
Literary Studies: Politics, Languages, Textuality, edited by Michael K. Bourdaghs,
245–64. Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 2010.
Fishman, Joshua A. Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House Publishers, 1972.
78
Fujitani, Takashi. Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
Furuta Tōsaku and Tsukishima Hiroshi, eds. Kokugogakushi. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku
Shuppankai, 1972.
Glazer, Nathan and Daniel P. Moynihan, eds. Ethnicity: Theory and Experience.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.
Gluck, Carol. “The End of Elsewhere: Writing Modernity Now.” The American
Historical Review 116, no. 3 (2011): 676–87.
Gottlieb, Nannette. Kanji Politics: Language Policy and Japanese Script. New York:
Kegan Paul International, 1995.
———. Language and Society in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2005.
Heinrich, Patrick. The Making of Monolingual Japan: Language Ideology and Japanese
Modernity. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2012.
———. “Things You Have to Leave Behind: The Demise of ‘Elegant Writing’ and the
Rise of Genbun Itchi Style in Meiji-Period Japan.” The Journal of Historical
Pragmatics 6, no. 1 (2005): 113–32.
Hill, Christopher L. National History and the World of Nations: Capital, State, and the
Rhetoric of History in Japan, France, and the United States. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2008.
Hoston, Germaine A. The State, Identity, and the National Question in China and Japan.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Howell, David L. Geographies of Identity in Nineteenth-Century Japan. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2005.
Kamei Hideo. Transformations of Sensibility: The Phenomenology of Meiji Literature.
Translated edited and with an introduction by Michael K. Bourdaghs. Ann
Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 2002. Originally
published as Kansei no henkaku (Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1983).
Kamei Takashi, Ōtō Tokihiko, and Yamada Toshio, eds. Nihongo no rekishi. Vol. 6,
Atarashii kokugo e no ayumi. 2nd ed. 1976. Reprint, Tokyo: Heibonsha, 2007.
79
Karatani Kōjin. “The Discursive Space of Modern Japan.” Translated by Seiji M. Lippit.
In Boundary 2 18, no. 3 (1991): 191–219.
———. “Nationalism and Écriture.” Translated by Indra Levy. In SURFACES V, no.
201 (1995): 4–25.
Komori Yōichi. Nihongo no kindai. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2000.
Lee Yeounsuk (Yi Yon-suk). “’Hōjū fuhō’ kara ‘yōma bunshō’ e.” In Shin nihon koten
bungaku taikei Meiji hen, Vol. 11, Kyōkasho keimō bunshū, edited by Saitō
Toshihiko, Kurata Yoshihiro, and Tanikawa Keiichi, 5–8. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten,
2006.
———. The Ideology of Kokugo: Nationalizing Language in Modern Japan. Translated
and edited with an introduction by Maki Hirano Hubbard. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawai’i Press, 2010. Originally published as “Kokugo” to iu shisō:
Kindai Nihon no gengo ninshiki (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1996).
Lurie, David B. Realms of Literacy: Early Japan and the History of Writing. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2011. Distributed by Harvard University
Press.
McNeill, William H. “Fernand Braudel, Historian.” The Journal of Modern History 73,
no. 1 (2001): 133–46.
Meyer, Ohn W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez. “World
Society and the Nation-State.” American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 1 (1997):
144–81.
Miller, J. Scott. “Japanese Shorthand and Sokkibon.” Monumenta Nipponica 49, no. 4
(1994): 471–87.
Morioka Kenji. “Genbun itchitai seiritsu shiron.” Kokugo to kokubungaku 62, no. 5
(1985): 78–92.
Morris-Suzuki, Tessa. Re-inventing Japan: Time, Space, Nation. New York: M.E.
Sharpe, 1998.
Osa Shizue. Kindai Nihon to kokugo nashonarizumu. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan,
1998.
Paine, S. C. M. The Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
80
Ramsey, S. Robert. “The Japanese Language and the Making of Tradition.” Japanese
Language and Literature 38, no. 1 (2004): 81–110.
Ravina, Mark. “Japanese State-making in Global Context: World Culture and Meiji
Japan.” In State Making in Asia, edited by Richard Boyd and Tak-Wing Ngo, 35–
52. London: Routledge, 2006.
Robins, Christopher. “Revisiting Year One of Japanese National Language: Inoue
Hisashi’s Literary Challenge.” Japanese Language and Literature 40, no. 1
(2006): 37–58.
Rudolph, Susanne H. “Presidential Address: State Formation in Asia—Prolegomenon
to a Comparative Study.” The Journal of Asian Studies 46, no. 4 (1987): 731–46.
Saitō Mareshi. Kanbunmyaku to kindai Nihon: Mō hitotsu no kotoba no sekai. Tokyo:
Nihon Hōsō Shuppan Kyōkai, 2007.
Sakai, Naoki. Voices of the Past: The Status of Language in Eighteenth-Century
Japanese Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992.
Saya Makito. The Sino-Japanese War and the Birth of Japanese Nationalism.
Translated by David Noble with a forward by Mitani Hiroshi. Tokyo:
International House of Japan, 2011. Originally published as Nisshin Sensō:
“Kokumin” no tanjō (Tokyo: Kōdansha, 2009).
Seeley, Christopher. A History of Writing in Japan. New York: E.J. Brill, 1991.
Shimoda, Hiraku. “Tongues-Tied: The Making of a “National Language” and the
Discovery of Dialects in Meiji Japan.” The American Historical Review 115, no. 3
(2010): 714–31.
Shirane, Haruo and Tomi Suzuki, eds. Inventing the Classics: Modernity, Identity, and
Japanese Literature. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000.
Suzuki, Tomi. Narrating the Self: Fictions of Japanese Modernity. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 1996.
Suzuki Yoshisato. Tsukurareta Nihongo, gengo to iu kyokō: “Kokugo” kyōiku no
shitekita koto. Tokyo: Yūbun Shoin, 2003.
Tanaka Akio. Kindai Nihongo no bunpō to hyōgen. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin, 2001.
81
Tanaka Katsuhiko. “The Discovery of a National Language (Kokugo) in Meiji Japan.”
Translated by Ian Astley and Ted Mack. In Canon and Identity: Japanese
Modernization Reconsidered, edited by Irmela Hijiya-Kirschnereit, 107–16.
Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Japanstudien, 2000.
———. “The Ideology of National and State Language.” Hitotsubashi Journal of Social
Studies 21, no. 1 (1989): 167–74.
Toby, Ronald P. State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia in the Development
of the Tokugawa Bakufu. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1991.
Tomasi, Massimiliano. “Oratory in Meiji and Taishō Japan: Public Speaking and the
Formation of a New Written Language.” Monumenta Nipponica 57, no. 1 (2002):
43–71.
———. “Quest for a New Written Language: Western Rhetoric and the Genbun Itchi
Movement.” Monumenta Nipponica 54, no. 3 (1999): 333–60.
Totman, Conrad. “Ethnicity in the Meiji Restoration: An Interpretive Essay.”
Monumenta Nipponica 37, no. 3 (1982): 269–87.
Twine, Nannette. “The Genbunitchi Movement: Its Origin, Development, and
Conclusion.” Monumenta Nipponica 33, no. 3 (1978): 333–56.
———. Language and the Modern State: Reform of Written Japanese. New York:
Routledge, Chapman & Hall, 1991.
———. “Standardizing Written Japanese: A Factor in Modernization.” Monumenta
Nipponica 43, no. 4 (1988): 429–54.
———. “Toward Simplicity: Script Reform Movements in Meiji Japan.” Monumenta
Nipponica 38, no. 2 (1983): 115–32.
Ueda, Atsuko. “Sounds, Scripts, and Styles: Kanbun kundokutai and the National
Language Reforms of 1880s Japan.” Review of Japanese Culture and Society 20
(December 2008): 131–54.
Vaporis, Constantine N. “To Edo and Back: Alternate Attendance and Japanese
Culture in the Early Modern Period.” Journal of Japanese Studies 23, no. 1
(1997): 25–67.
82
Walker, Brett L. The Conquest of Ainu Lands: Ecology and Culture in Japanese
Expansion, 1590–1800. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
———. “Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical
Essay." Early Modern Japan 10, no. 2 (2002): 44–62.
Whitman, John. “Kokugogaku versus Gengogaku: Language Process Theory and
Tokieda’s Construction of Saussure Sixty Years Later.” In The Linguistic Turn in
Contemporary Japanese Literary Studies: Politics, Languages, Textuality, edited
by Michael K. Bourdaghs, 117–32. Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies,
University of Michigan, 2010.
Wieviorka, Michel. “From Marx and Braudel to Wallerstein.” Contemporary Sociology
34, no. 1 (2005): 1–7.
Yamada Bimyō. “Genbun itchi ron gairyaku.” In Meiji no bungaku, Vol. 10, Yamada
Bimyō, edited by Tsubouchi Yūzō and Arashiyama Kōzaburō, 281–96. Tokyo:
Chikuma Shobō, 2001.
Yamamoto Masahide. Genbun itchi no rekishi ronkō. Tokyo: Ōfūsha, 1971.
———. Kindai buntai hassei no shiteki kenkyū. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1965.
———, ed. Kindai buntai keisei shiryō shūsei: Hassei-hen. Tokyo: Ōfūsha, 1978.
———, ed. Kindai buntai keisei shiryō shūsei: Seiritsu-hen. Tokyo: Ōfūsha, 1979.
Yasuda Toshiaki, ed. “Kokugo” no kindaishi: Teikoku Nihon to kokugo gakushatachi.
Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Shinsha, 2006.
———. Teikoku Nihon no gengo hensei. Tokyo: Seori Shobō, 1997.
———, ed. Tōgō genri to shite no kokugo: Kindai Nihon gengoshi saikō III. Tokyo:
Sangensha, 2006.
Yoda, Tomiko. Gender and National Literature: Heian Texts in the Constructions of
Japanese Modernity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004.
Yoshida Sumio and Inokuchi Yūichi, eds. Kokuji mondai ronshū. Tokyo: Toyamabō,
1950.
83
Appendix: Glossary of Terms
Note regarding orthographical standards: the phonetic transcriptions included below
represent alphabetic approximations for Japanese terms, incorporating some specialized
characters (a macron—the line that appears above some vowels—is used to indicate the
extended sound of a long vowel) and rendered in accordance with the Revised Hepburn
romanization system employed by the Library of Congress.
Phonetic Transcription Japanese Term
①
Translation/Equivalent Term/Meaning
Bakufu 幕府 Military government
Bakuhan 幕藩 Baku[fu] + han ruling structure
Bansei ikkei no kokutai 万世一系の国体 Unbroken line of special national polity
Bōdoku[tai] 棒読[体] [Style based on] plain gloss (yomikudashi)
(lit. “limited reading”; a.k.a. kenpakutai)
Bungotai 文語体 Style based on literary/written language
Bunmei kaika 文明開化 Civilization and enlightenment
Buntai ron 文体論 Discussion of (writing) style; stylistics
Daimyō 大名 Daimyō/daimyo; (han/domainal) lord
Dajōkan
②
太政官 Grand Council of State
Enzetsu[tai] 演説[体] [Style mimicking] (public) speech/address
Enzetsu torishimari rei 演説取締令 Regulation of Public Speaking Ordinance
①
Key to descriptive terminology attributed to specific authors, studies, or works (where applicable):
* Yamamoto Masahide, Kindai buntai hassei, 2.
° Suzuki Yoshisato, Tsukurareta Nihongo, 83.
† Yano Ryūkei’s New Theory cited in Lee, “’Hōjū fuhō’ kara,” 5.
‡ Yano Ryūkei’s Illustrious Tales cited in Ibid., 6.
②
Read as daijōkan when referring to the central administrative organ under the ritsuryō system of
the Nara and Heian periods, or dajōkan when used as general term for the pre-cabinet system Meiji
government (1868–1885).
84
Futsūbun[tai] 普通文[体]*° [Style based on] “standard writing”
(Shirane: form of wakanyō konkōbun)
Futsūsho 普通書 Popular works (Yano categorization)
Gabun[tai] 雅文[体] [Style based on] “elegant prose” (essentially
modified/updated wabun; a.k.a. gikobun)
Gazoku setchūtai 雅俗折衷体* Hybrid classical-colloquial literary style
Genbun itchi[tai] 言文一致[体]* [Style based on] unification of spoken and
written language
Gengo katei setsu 言語過程説 Language Process Theory
Gesaku 戯作 Late-Edo light/popular literature
Haishi 稗史 Popular/fictionalized historical account
Han 藩 Han; domain
Heimin 平民 (Class/group of) commoners
Hōgen 方言 Dialect (lit. “regional speech”)
Iroha 伊呂波 Traditional ordering of kana syllabaries
Ji no bun 地の文 Narrative passages/prose
Jiyū minken undō 自由民権運動 Freedom and People’s Rights Movement
Kaeriten 返り点 Diacritical markings used in kanbun texts to
indicate reading order in accordance with
Japanese syntax (Lurie: a.k.a. kunten,
“marginal glosses of kundoku readings”)
Kaikin 海禁 Maritime prohibition(s)
85
Kana[tai] 仮名[体]† [Style characterized by the exclusive use of]
the hiragana and katakana syllabaries
[Kanbun] fūzokushi [漢文]風俗史 [Kanbun] depiction(s) of manners/customs
(Bourdaghs: “descriptions of everyday life”)
Kanbun hentai 漢文変体† “Variant” kanbun style (a.k.a. waka kanbun,
kirokutai, azuma kagamitai)
Kanbun kundoku[tai] 漢文訓読[体]° [Style based on] ordered reading of kanbun
(Lurie: “reading [of kanbun] by gloss”)
Kanbun kuzushitai 漢文崩し体* Style based on “broken down” [reading of]
kanbun (a.k.a. kana majiribun)
Kanbun[tai] 漢文[体]°†‡ [Style based on] Sino-Japanese writing
Kangaku 漢学 Chinese studies; study of Chinese classics
Kango 漢語 Sinitic compounds (includes both terms of
Chinese origin and Japanese constructs)
Kanji 漢字 Sinitic characters
Katagimono 気質物 Edo popular fiction sub-category
Kazoku kokka 家族国家 “Family nation”
Kizokuteki 貴族的 Aristocratic
Kōgo[tai] 口語[体] [Style based on] spoken language
Kokkashugi 国家主義 Official/state nationalism
(lit. “state”/”nation” + “ism”)
Kokugaku 国学 National studies; nativism
86
(Heinrich: “national philology”)
Kokugo 国語 (Japanese) national language
Kokugo chōsa iinkai 国語調査委員会 National Language Investigative Committee
Kokugogaku 国語学 National language (kokugo) studies
Kokuji mondai 国字問題 Issue(s) of national script
Kokuminshugi 国民主義 Civic nationalism
(lit. “citizen”/”subject” + “ism”)
Kokusui hozon 国粋保存 Preservation of national essence
Kokutai 国体 National polity
Kontonki 混沌期 “Period of Confusion and Disorder”
(Yamamoto periodization)
Kōshaku 講釈 Public exposition (storytelling based on
embellished historical narrative; kōdan)
Kun’yomi 訓読み Kanji reading based on native Japanese
equivalent; kun reading
Meiji 明治 Meiji (regnal designation)
Meirokusha 明六社 Meiji Six Society
Minzokushugi 民族主義 Ethnic nationalism
(lit. “ethnicity” + “ism”)
Mosakuki 模索期 “Period of Search and Exploration”
(Yamamoto periodization)
Naikaku 内閣 Cabinet; (government) ministry
87
Ninjō 人情 Human passions/desires
Ōbun chokuyakutai 欧文直訳体*°‡ Style based on the direct translation of
Western/European [written] languages
(kanbun kundokutai variant, incorporating
expressions modeled on Western phrases)
Ōbun myaku 欧文脈 Japanese prose reflecting the literary
characteristics of Western language[s];
rooted in above “direct translation” style
Okurigana 送り仮名 Kana suffixes appended to kanji characters,
indicating verb or adjective inflection and
complete Japanese reading (kun’yomi)
On’yomi 音読み Kanji reading based on phonetic
approximation of the original Chinese
pronunciation; on reading
Rakugo 落語 Comedic (oral) storytelling
Rangaku 蘭学 Dutch (a.k.a. Western) studies
Rekishiteki kanazukai 歴史的仮名遣 Historical kana usage
Rōmaji ローマ字; 羅馬字 Latin (Roman) alphabet
Ryōbuntai 両文体† “Twofold” style (Yano categorization)
Sakoku 鎖国 Closed country; national isolation
Sangi 参議 Councilor/advisor (to the emperor)
Sankin kōtai 参勤交代 Alternate attendance (system)
88
Seidan enzetsu 政談演説 Political speech(es)
Seikaku 性格 Character; personality
Seitaisho 政体書 Meiji “constitution”/administrative code
Setai fūzoku 世帯風俗 Cultural mores
Shinbunshi jōrei 新聞紙条例 Press Ordinance
Shingaku dōwa 心学道話 Lay sermon (by followers of Edo-period
Sekimon Shingaku religious movement)
Shinri 心理 State of mind; mentality; psyche
Shizoku 士族 (Class/group of) former samurai
Shōgun
③
将軍 Shōgun/shogun; generalissimo
Shōsetsu 小説 Novel
Shūkai jōrei 集会条例 Public Assembly Ordinance
Shuppan jōrei 出版条例 Publication Ordinance
Sokki 速記 Shorthand; stenography
Sōrōbun 候文° Epistolary writing [style] marked by use of
the verb ending sōrō (a.k.a. shokanbun)
Taishō 大正 Taishō/Taisho (regnal designation)
Wabungaku 和文学 Japanese literary studies
Wabun[tai] 和文[体]°‡ [Style based on] classical (native) Japanese
writing (mostly hiragana, from Heian era)
③
Abbreviation of the title 征夷大将軍 (Seii taishōgun), “barbarian-subduing great general.”
89
Wakan konkōbun 和漢混淆文° Mixed native & Sino-Japanese writing
(Shirane: a.k.a. hentai kanbun)
Wakanyō chōwatai 和漢洋調和体* “Harmonized” style incorporating wabun,
kanbun, and Western language elements
(a.k.a. wakanyō konkōbun)
Yakudoku[tai] 訳読[体] [Style based on] elaborated (yomikudashi)
(lit. ”translated reading”)
Yōma bunshō 妖魔文章 “Phantom compositions” (Fukuchi term)
Yomihontai 稗史体 Stylistic sub-category of gazoku setchū tai,
biased toward “elegant words” (gagen)
Yomikudashi[bun] 読み下し[文] Kanbun transliterated into Japanese
(a.k.a. kundokubun, kakikudashibun)
Yūben 雄弁 Oratory; eloquence
Zanbōritsu 讒謗律 Libel Law
Zatsubuntai 雑文体† “Assorted” style (Yano category)
Zenjin no kakuhō 前人の各法 Laws/customs of previous generations
Zokubun[tai] 俗文[体] Colloquial (vernacular) writing [style]
(lit. “vulgar”/”popular” + “writing”)
Zokugo rigentai 俗語俚言体‡ “Local vernacular” style
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The emergence of a standardized national language kokugo in Japan is a relatively recent development, with its use in mandatory education only established during the first few decades of the twentieth century. It is no coincidence, however, that the period immediately preceding the development and implementation of <italic>kokugo<italic> language policy was largely concurrent with a growing sense of shared national identity throughout Japan, and multiple large-scale changes in the sociopolitical landscape. This was a key component in the transformation of Japan from a society marked by cultural and linguistic stratification into a modern nation-state. With a background in both International Relations and Language Studies, I have a particular interest in how the aforementioned phenomena combined to shape and sustain the national consciousness still evident in twenty-first century Japanese society, and what the formulation of a national language in the form of <italic>kokugo<italic> meant to both the people and state. As such, my aim in this paper is to provide an analysis that extends beyond a mere history of language policy (and politics) in modern Japan, and contextualize the developments of the Meiji era in the broad scope of contemporary political formations and nation-building efforts that characterized the global system of nation-states in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Making the modern scholar-priest: Buddhist universities and clerical education reform in Meiji Japan
PDF
The lady of the eighth ward: political, economic, and military power of nyoin during the twelfth century, Japan
PDF
The stars and the state: astronomy, astrology, and the politics of natural knowledge in early medieval Japan
PDF
Sick days in the Konjaku monogatari-shū: healing and epidemics in late Heian Japan
PDF
Late medieval Japan's Seto Inland seascape: shipping, sailors, and seafaring
PDF
Binding and scope dependencies with 'floating quantifiers' in Japanese
PDF
Networks of space and identity: origin narratives and manifestations of the Itsukushima deity
PDF
Art into everyday life: department stores as purveyors of culture in modern Japan
PDF
The new generation on screen: youth cinema and youth culture in South Korea since the 1990s
PDF
Language, soundscape, and identity formation in Shanghai fangyan literature and culture
PDF
One foot in the past, one foot in the future: Japanese cultural identity and preservation law 1868-1950
PDF
The appeal of the fox: the cult of Inari and premodern Japan
PDF
Noise & silence: underground music and resistance in the People's Republic of China
PDF
Projected coevalness and post-colonial tourism: the persistence of cultural hierarchy in contemporary Japanese-Taiwanese film
PDF
Cyber-nationalism in China: the relationship between government and netizens
PDF
Embracing the demon: the monstrous child in Japanese literature and cinema, 1946-2008
PDF
Forced march to modernity: State-imposed cultural change and regime stability in 20th-century east Asia
PDF
Securitizing language: political elites and language policy securitization in South Korea
PDF
Animation before the war: nation, identity, and modernity in Japan from 1914-1945
PDF
Waves of Japanese foreign policy: from constrained bilateralism and political multilateralism to reinforced bilateralism in the post-Cold War era
Asset Metadata
Creator
Triche, Martin Yates
(author)
Core Title
Kokugo and the ""nation"" in Meiji-Era Japan: language standardization, ideology, and national identity
School
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
East Asian Languages and Cultures
Publication Date
08/06/2012
Defense Date
07/26/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
identity,Kokugo,language policy,Meiji,national language,nationalism,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Bialock, David T. (
committee chair
), Meeks, Lori R. (
committee member
), Simpson, Andrew (
committee member
)
Creator Email
mtriche@usc.edu,ultraman9000@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-87739
Unique identifier
UC11289166
Identifier
usctheses-c3-87739 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-TricheMart-1018.pdf
Dmrecord
87739
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Triche, Martin Yates
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
Kokugo
language policy
Meiji
national language
nationalism