Language planning and language change in Japan 0700713832

Citation preview

LANGUAGE PLANNING AND LANGUAGE CHANGE IN JAPAN

NORDIC INSTITUTE OF ASIAN STUDIES Recent Monot-r;raphs 6R.

EXBIPL\RY CE'\TRE, Am.IINISTR.\TI\'E PERIPHERY

69.

FISHING VII.I.Arminology. Cooper (1989: 153) discusses some of the confusions imulved. Here I have chosen to deal only with those particularly relevant to the current work.

Language reform Perhaps the most widelv recognised and obvious kind of language planning activity is language reform. Neustupny (1983: 29) defines it as 'extt>nsive radical changes in linguistic usage as a conscious responst' to the existenct' of language problems'. Language reform is closely associated with tlw modernisation of a language, particularly its lexicon, to enable it to meet the changed needs of a speech community. As Istvan Fodor ( 1984: 442) notes, 'social evolution always has a faster rate than linguistic change'; this is particularly true where societies industrialise and modernise quickly, as was the case in Japan. Language reform is the action taken to overcome the gap between needs and linguistic resources. Nahir ( 1984: 302) points out that the direction of the reform may be affected by ideological, religious, political, and other considerations, and that reform tends to be a relatively short-term phenomenon. Since the aim of reform is to establish a (new) norm, it aims at stability and is in its nature finite. Much of language planning acti,·itv in Japan has in the past been concernt>d with reforms, mainlv of the written language and of the script; these will be outlined in Chaptt>r Two.

Language problems, language treatment A focus on 'languagt> problt>ms' developed in language planning studies in the 1960s, concentrating particularly on the developing nations and multilingualism within a nation or state (Eastman 1983: 115-1 17). The particular relevance of the term to Japan is outlined below. As Christian's definition states, language planning is an attempt to resolve perceived language problems. She makes the crucial point that what are defitJt•d and targeted as linguistic problems are usually not linguistic at heart, but rather social, political, religious, or economic in nature, regardless of whether people believe this to be the case (Christian 19H8: 197-ImJ). The main target of the language planning process is change in language and in its use, and it is clear 14

Language P{anning: 'Definitions ana 'frameworf& that language planning decisions and their implementation are motivated by nonlinguistic variables; such variables have increasingly become the su~ject of research (Daoust 1997: 439-440). For this reason, language policies and planning activities need to be considered in the context of the society or speech community in which they operate.

Standardisation and standard languages One of the key processes in raising the status of a language is standardisation, described by Charles A. Ferguson ( 1968: 31) as 'the process of one variety of a language becoming widely accepted throughout the speech community as a supradialectal n01·m '. A process of standardisation is certainly characteristic of language planning, particularly in the early stages, but the extent to which the process is the result of the actions of different kinds of planners, or occurs as a result of more subtle forces without overt intervention from official or academic bodies, is variable)! The codification of the grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, and spelling of a standard language to establish a set of norms is largely a matter of written language, simply because this provides a corpus of linguistic information which can be referred to at any time. Speech, on the other hand, was ephemeral until the invention of recording equipment, and therefore more su~ject to change. A written corpus lends itself to the extrapolation of rules that can subsequently be presented as definitive and prescriptive. Thus the spread of printed material is crucial to the standardisation and codification process, and the development of written languages for mass consumption has worked to stabilise language and slow its rate of change. This ideal of a standard language fixed in written form contributes to concern about change in language, a su~ject that I shall examine in detail in Chapter Three. Anderson (1994: 94-95) outlines three ways in which 'printlanguages' facilitated the development of national consciousness in Europe from the sixteenth century onwards. First, speakers of different dialects became able to communicate with each other via the standard vernacular, and in so doing, they became aware of 'the embryo of the nationally imagined community'. Second, printed language tends to stabilise variations in grammar and spelling over time; the resulting apparent immutability contributed towards 'that image of antiquity so central to the subjective idea of the nation'. This is an idea that applies well to Japanese attitudes to their language, in particular, the reverence traditionally accorded to the written language. Third, since the written 15

Language P[anning anti Language Change in Japan language was closer to some dialects than others, those to which it was closest gained status and 'a new politico-cultural eminence'. The situation in Japan with regard to the written language was more complex. Commercial printing developed during the seventeenth century, reflecting the spread of basic literacy, although 'the great majority of documents in Japan were routinely written by hand' until the development of word processors in the 1980s (Seeley 1991: 187). Basic literacy was a prerequisite for all village headmen by about 1660 (ibid.: 129); and thanks to the terakoya [temple schools], 'there is no question that literacy in Edo period Japan was more widespread than in other nations at that time' (Unger 1996: 28). It must nevertheless be noted that for a large proportion of the population this was what Neustupny (1984) terms 'restricted literacy', limited to a working knowledge of kana3 and passive recognition of some Chinese characters (Unger 1996: 26).4 More thorough knowledge was limited to an aristocratic elite who had the time to master thousands of characters and the difficult classical written styles. Only in the late nineteenth century, when the rulers perceived the need for education and mass literacy at a higher level as a means to achieving modernisation and strengthening national identity, were the complexities of the written language and the script recognised as problematic for the nation as a whole. The resulting reforms will be discussed in Chapter Two. IDEOLOGIES AND MOTIVATIONS

As Christian emphasises, language policy is not simply based on linguistic considerations, but exists in a matrix of social, cultural, political, and economic factors: It is important to bear in mind that language fills not only com-

munication, but also symbolic functions within a society. In many cases the policy decisions relate as much to the symbolic value oflanguage as a unif)'ing or separatist force in a community (Garvin and Mathiot 1956) as to real communication needs. As a result, political, social and economic concerns typically far outweigh linguistic considerations in language planning. (Christian 1988: 193-194) Given this interdependence, it follows that ideologies and attitudes play a mmale speech (including the characteristically masculine and feminine sentence-final particles :.e and wa) (Tanaka Akio 19H:~: 9). Tanaka also points out that heigo [honorific language], a f(~ature of the speech of imperial Kyoto, only took root in Toho speech ( Tiihyii-go) from the beginning of the nineteenth centurY (ibid.: 9) .:1 Thus, two of the features generally regarded as being most characteristic of Japanese, honorific language and masculine/feminine language, are in fact originally features of the Kvoto dialect (ibid.: 255-2()2). En·n todav, Kyoto speakers are well known for their use of honorific language.-~ Graduallv, as Edo's power and influence grew, the balance shifted in f;tnntr of the Edo dialect; so when the Meiji Restoration of I H()H mm·cd the imperial capital to the renamed Tokyo, its future as the official standard language, and not simplY as the rlr'Jftrlo common language, was virtually assured. In the event, it was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that the state defined an official standard language. The bodv charged with selecting a standard language was the Japanese Language Investi;)t

:J£istorica['Backf!round and Para[[e[s gative Committee, set up in 1902, a move prompted by Ueda Kazutoshi's proposal that Japan needed a standard language (Sanada 1987: 90-91). Its remit covered the following issues: investigation of_Japanese dialects with a view to selecting an official standard; research into the possibilities of abolishing Chinese characters and replacing them with a phonetic script (kana Uapanese syllabaries] or ri5maji [roman alphabet]); the written style favoured by the genbun itrhi [unification of written and spoken language] movement;!> and the phonetic system of Japanese. The Council carried out a large-scale survey in all the prefectures during the period 1905-06, and issued a series of reports between 1905 and 1907 which settled on the Yamanote dialect as the standard (Shioda 1973: 87). But it was not until the publication of the Ki5gohi5 [A Colloquial Language Model] in 1916 (Taisho 5) by Otsuki Kazutoshi, a leading language scholar and member of the language committees since 1900, that this decision was made widely known to the general public. Not only did it exert an enormous influence on school grammar, but it also settled the issue of an official standard language once and for all (Tanaka Akio 1991: 77).(i

Spreading the standard language The Ministry of Education's subsequent use of the Tokyo dialect, or that variety of it already widely accepted as the 'common language' (kyi5tst1go), and the style of the gn1lmn itdti movement gave them both the official seal of approval and set the scene for more vigorous promotion (Shioda 1973: 46). School textbooks were the immediate means of establishing the standard in written form amongst the upcoming generations, and these were all, as today, sanctioned by the Ministry. One example of their success in changing the language usage of the nation is provided by the now ubiquitous terms for 'mother' and 'father' ( oti5-san and okii-srm) which have replaced the variety of terms used before mass education and standardised textbooks. Tanaka ( 1991: 108-109) describes how the variant forms otottsan and ohkasan, which were usual in the Shitamachi dialect of Tokyo, largely disappeared after the introduction of approved textbooks in 1904. This is a case where standardising the written language had an impact on the spoken language: given that kinship terms are such basic lexical items, this change is testament to the power of the education system. The official sanctioning of a vernacular standard written language made it possible for linguistic assimilation to become the dominant language ideology. The standard was promoted via the national education system, and the use of non-standard dialects or other languages

Language Pfanning and Language Cliange in Japan was strongly discouraged, even punished, in schools. Regional dialects and the Ainu and Ryukyi:tan languages7 were to be replaced by Japanese, and Japan was to become a unified national community. The Ainu (the indigenous inhabitants of Hokkaido, the Kuriles, and Sakhalin)~' were subject to several changes in language policy during their centuries of contact with the Japanese. Until the late eighteenth century, they had been separated physically and linguistically from the Japanese settlers, allowed to run their own affairs, and actively discouraged from learning Japanese. The rise of Russian imperialism which threatened the north in the 1790s changed all this. The Bakufu9 intervened in what had previously been left to the political control and trade monopoly of the Matsumae domain, and implemented an assimilationist policy which encouraged the acquisition ofJapanese customs to try to ensure loyalty and obedience from the Ainu (Maher 1995: 107-108; Siddle 1996: 3240). Siddle describes the Bakufu 's policy ofJapanisation, portrayed as a 'civilising' or 'enlightening' mission, as an attempt to 'compel the Ainu to adopt Japanese dress, hairstyle, eating habits, law, religion and lifestyle' (ibid.: 41 ). Howeyer, when Ezochi was returned to the Matsumae in 1821 after the Russian threat had receded, the earlier regulations banning Japanese customs and language amongst the Ainu were brought back. When the Bakufu intervened again in 1855, the Japanisation policy was reintroduced (ibid.: 46, 52). But it was in the Meiji period that the real drive for linguistic and cultural assimilation began, with the introduction of a national education system and a standard language. At the other end of the Japanese archipelago, the inhabitants of the Rvi:tkyi:ts were su~ject to a similar process after Japan took over the islands in 1879, with efforts towardsJapanisation accelerating after the arri\'al of a new Governor in 1892 (Taira 1997: 155-156). While the process of internal assimilation via the imposition of the standard language continued, Japan was beginning to pursue a policy of external linguistic assimilation in its O\'erseas colonies. In a broader sense, internal colonisation was followed by the development of an external empire, and cultural policies applied in Okinawa and Hokkaido served as models for other territories. 10 The desire to unite these outposts of Japan led to the imposition of Japanese as the language officiallv recognised throughout the Empire. This was not to be Japanese as a foreign language, but as the national language, the nation being imperial Japan. Befu ( 1992: 140) refers to this as 'language imperialism', part of the larger political and economic control of colonies, and points out that Japan was following the European pattern in this respect. Howeve1~Japan 's imposition of the Japanese language in Korea, :)()

:Historica['Background and Para[fe[s Taiwan, Manchuria and elsewhere in China has an added dimension absent from the cases of the European colonies in Mrica, the East and the Americas: it reversed the historical process whereby Japan had been hugely influenced from the earliest times by China via Korea - in its religion, arts, and, crucially, in its language and writing system. Weiner (1994: 12-15) examines the process by which the Sinocentric world order and its definitions of civilisation and barbarianism were gradually discredited by the kokugaku thinkers and others who took up their ideas, and the superiority ofJapanese culture came to be asserted more and more stridently. But far from relying solely on nativist thinking, the idea ofJapan which developed in the late nineteenth century-a nation defined by 'racial' homogeneity!! - was also fuelled by the Western theory of Social Darwinism which provided spurious justification for the existence of a hierarchy of races. The failure of China and Korea to achieve modernisation and resist the Western powers was seen as evidence of Japan's superior position in this hierarchy (Weiner 1994: 2021).Japan's victory in the Sino-Japanese War (1894-95) was pivotal in the development of such thinking: the war was depicted by journalists, intellectuals, and other public figures as a conflict between barbarism and civilisation. Slogans denigrating the Chinese as cowards and barbarians abounded, and China was portrayed in popular songs as 'the "enemy of civilisation"' (Gluck 1985: 135-156). From this position of assumed superiority, it was easy to depict Japan as the bringer of civilisation (bunmei) to its colonial acquisitions. And with civilisation came the Japanese language in the form of kokugo. The policy of spreading the Japanese language amongst the inhabitants of the colonies began in Taiwan when the island was ceded by China to Japan in 1895. Shioda ( 1973: 23-26, 137) notes that the word kokugo began to be used in its modern sense of 'national language' in the Meiji period, but it was only with the occupation of Taiwan that it began to refer to the teaching of Japanese outside Japan, because the island was considered to be part of Japan itself (ibid.: 137). Guidelines issued by the Education Department of the Government-General of Taiwan in 1900 declared that the aim of kokugo teaching in state schools was to enable the children to talk and read 'the language of our Empire' in order to become part of it (ibid.: 25). The language was promoted vigorously, with special commendations for families whose members all spoke Japanese; and from 1913, all lessons were carried out solely in .Japanese (ibid.: 137). The 1930s saw the implementation of a ten-year plan to ensure that at least half of the population could understand Japanese; the actual percentage more than doubled from 'tl7

.Language P[anning ant! .Language Change in _1apan 20.4percentin1931 to5l.Opercentin 1940. From1937onwards,encouragement turned to compulsion: regulations were brought in requiring all new civil servants to be able to speak japanese, and the use of Taiwanese dialects was increasingly forbidden in the workplace and schools, where inadequate Japanese language skills resulted in pidgin Japanese. Those who could speak Japanese well gained privileges in education and employment (Kondo 1993: 14-17). Korea, annexed in 1910, underwent a similar acceleration of the policy of cultural and linguistic assimilation during its period of colonisation. As in Taiwan, Japanese became the medium of education, with the aim of 'the spiritual and cultural assimilation of the Korean people as su~jects of the Emperor' (Gottlieb 1995a: 107).1~ lnaba Tsugio (1993) cites various policy documents and outlines the chronology of the process. M. J. Rhee's detailed analysis of the colonial administration's language planning in Korea traces how the series of educational ordinances 'designed to make Korean a proscribed language little by little' (Rhee 1992: 91) throughout the colonial period actually strengthened the resistance to Japan's colonial rule and resulted in active promotion of the Korean language. An outright monolingual (Japanese) policy was pursued only in the last stage of the colonial occupation (193H-45 ), aftet· yeat·s of a bilingual policy that included the promulgation of rules on Korean orthography by the Japanese GovernmentGeneral in 1912 (re\'ised in 1921 and again in 1933, in the latter case by the Korean Language Research Society with the consent of the Government-General). The 19:~;~ orthographv reform included the selection of the Seoul dialect as the standard, the change to morphological syllable division, and amendments to bring the Korean script into line with contemporarv pronunciation. As Rhee ( 1992: 91-95) notes, these changes were prompted 1)\ the unification of school texthooks, and were necessary because at the time, 'the medium of written commtmication was the Chinese language' and the 'upper-class scholargentry' regarded knowledge of Chinese characters as a privilege, while the Korean script, hangul. \\'as h>r women and the lower classes. A similar situation prevailed in .Japan and became the focus of debate during the late nineteenth n·nt\ln. as oHtlined in the following section.

Reform of the written language: the genbun itchi movement Around the beginning of the Meiji period, it became clear that the gulf bt·tween the spoken language and the diverse traditions of the written language - varieties of classical .Japanese br removed from normal contemporary speech in grammar and lexis - formed an im-

J-fistorica[ 'Background and Para[fe[s

mense barrier to extending literacy to all and thus to the educational and economic development of the country. The establishment of a uniform colloquial style of writing based on the grammar and vocabulary of a standard form of the spoken language was vital. This need was recognised by the advocates of w'nbun itchi- the unification of speech and writing. In the 1870s, Fukuzawa Yukichi was one of the earliest proponents of developing a simpler style, following this principle in his writings on civil rights, education, the nature of civilisation, and other philosophical and political issues. He was '[m]otivated by a desire to reach the widest possible readership' (Twine 1991: 112). Others were also prominent both in liberal politics and the genbun itchi movement, but most early Meiji enlighteners and political theorists stuck to SinoJapanese, thereby demonstrating their view that 'serious writing, both in content and style, was the province of the educated elite' (ibid.: 130). Fukuzawa and like-minded thinkers took a diflerent view, seeing the contribution of the population as a whole as essential to Japan's modernisation. In trying to develop a simpler style of writing to improve communication, they were also promoting the actual dissolution of the class barriers which had been abolished in name in 1871 but which continued in practice because of lack of access to a sufficient level of education, and thus to information and power, for the m~jority of the population. In the 1880s, the genlmn itrhi movement gained ground in the literary world: the development of the Japanese novel, influenced by contact with the \\'est, was a major influence on the modernisation of written Japanese. In newspapers, tlw colloquial style did not become widespread until the Taisho period. The movement began the process of simplifying the confusion of written varieties in use and narrowing the gap between written and spoken languages, thereby facilitating the spread of a written standard. By extension it also contributed towards reducing the gulf between the educated elites and the rest of the population. The replacement of the various classical styles by a variety ofJapanese based on the spoken language was crucial in establishing the legitimacy and status of the standard language, and in making it into an efficient tool for communication in both spoken and written modes. However, the process was a slow and gradual one and a considerable gulf between spoken and written languages continued until the m~jor reforms that took place haifa century later immediately after World V\'ar II. Many of those involved in the movement may well haH' been motivated bv the dmocratic values of mass education and greater social :}9

Language Pfanning ani Language Cfiange in Japan equality, but its acceptance and promotion by the political leaders of the time can be seen as arising from their pragmatic and later idealistic conviction that japan's language needed reforming and modernising as part of the process of developing into a nation-state. Annette Skovsted Hansen (1996: 100) notes that the recognition of practical necessity was nevertheless counterbalanced by their 'attachment to the written style in which they had been trained'. It is perhaps this tension, between elitism and democratisation (Gottlieb 1994: 1179), that lies behind the lack of actual language reforms at this time, as noted by Hunter ( 1988: 114-115): 'A dichotomy between approval of reform in the abstract and actual hesitation when it came to carrying it out was characteristic of the history of language reform generally through the Meiji period.' Recognising the need for reform and establishing concrete policies to achieve it were very different things. The development of a colloquial written style via the genbun itrhi movement shows that language policy and planning are often prompted by influential individuals. In the long run, policy is difficult to enforce unless it is in line with the opinions of other key figures and groups, particularly those who control a large part of the language encountered by the public. In the late nineteenth century, this meant written material, and the p1·ess and writers of fiction we1·e pa1·ticularly important. The government did not take the lead here, but rather followed developments already taking place in fiction and the newspapers. They listened to the views of the genbun itrhi pressure group, studied the options (via the Language Research Council), and then gave official sanction to what was already happening. However, as Twine ( 1991: 170) points out, it would be wrong to see the Council as merely 'rubber-stamping' the efforts of the genbun itchi movement; it brought together early uncoordinated efforts, and backed them with a bureaucratic and scientific approach to language planning which combined instrumental pragmatic and sentimental idealistic goals. Today, the opinions of literary writers still matter, but the mass media, which now include not only the press but also radio and television, are recognised as the prime influence outside the familv and school (Bunkacho 1993b: 294). It is also the case that businesses, through their own 'house styles' and training which may include language usage (particularly honorific language), can have a significant influence today. Any attempts at enforcing language policies that are not broadly agreed with by such influential groups therefore stand little chance of success.

()()

J-fistorica[ 'Back,ground and ParaUefs

Early moves towards script reform Mter the resolution of the related issues of deciding on an officially sanctioned dialect as the standard one, and developing a written style closer to the spoken language, the major remaining challenge was to reform the writing system. The question was which route to take: abolition or reduction of Chinese characters; the exclusive use of hiragana or katakana; or, the most radical solution of all, a switch to romanisation? The problems caused by the complexities of the script had been an issue for some would-be reformers even before the Meiji Restoration. In 1867, Maejima Hisoka, a key Meiji figure and an early and longstanding campaigner for language reform, submitted a proposal to the Shogun for the abolition of Chinese characters. Subsequently he submitted to the government several further memoranda on script reform, sponsored a short-lived kana newspaper, and was involved with the government committees on language reform from 1899 to 1903 (Hunter 1988: 105-106). During the 1880s, the movement promotingJapanese written solely in kana grew, and three early groups amalgamated in 1883 to form the Kana no kai [Kana Club]. However, the Club failed to appreciate the need to adopt a colloquial written style as a prerequisite to script reform. There was also disagreement about the merits of historical or pronunciation-based kana usage, and the Club was in decline by 1889. At around the same time, the support for romanisation was growing, and the Romajikai [Romanisation Club] was established in 1885. It too suffered internal disagreement, in this case concerning the competing systems of romanisation (Hepburn and Nipponsiki), as well as the need to develop a colloquial written style (Seeley 1991: 138-140). However, the Club continues to exist even today, albeit with a small and largely ageing membership, promoting wider understanding and use of romanisation.13 The year 1900 saw an initial attempt by the Ministry of Education to simplify the teaching of the written language at primary level by reducing the number of characters taught, standardising the forms of kana used, and basing kana usage for Sino:Japanese vocabulary on current pronunciation. The latter aspect was particularly controversial because it did not apply to native Japanese words, and the Ministry subsequently requested that the Japanese Language Investigative Committee look into this issue (Seeley 1991: 143-146). There were simply too many competing theories at this time, but around the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth 61

Language Pfanning ana Language Change in _7apan centuries, considerable support had built up for the idea oflimiting the number of Chinese characters in general use. Colonialist expansion, with its attendant policy of linguistic assimilation outside as well as within Japan, was an important factor, highlighting the urgency of script reform. But within the support for reform, widely differing views were still held by the proponents of phoneticisation (the supporters of an outright switch to romanisation or kana) and the more conservative reformers, who wanted to retain characters but saw the need for some kind of reform. The former saw character restriction as the first step to further reforms, a way to avoid the negative effects of a sudden radical change, while the latter viewed it as the ultimate goal (Seeley 1991: 142). Victories in the Sino-Japanese war and the Russo-Japanese war ( 1904-05) boosted the sense of national pride, and this prompted renewed calls to abolish Chinese characters and replace them, not with romanisation, but with the native kana syllabaries (Gottlieb 1995a: 25). That this did not happen, despite serious discussion by the first National Language Research Council (established in 1902), can be attributed largely to the elite's strong attachment to the existing system and their prioritisation of culture and tradition over practicality. When it reported to the government in 1905, the Japanese Language Investigative Committee r~jected the arguments for abolishing Chinese characters. These subsequently resurfact'd aftt'r World War II, but in the meantime, in an early attempt at reducing the burden of characters, the Committee proposed in Mav 1923 a restricted list of 1,962 characters for general use (jiiy5 kanji). The large newspapers were about to implement this list when the Kanto earthquake of September 1923 destroyed the type, amongst much else, and delayed until 1925 voluntary implementation in the newspapers of a revised list of 2,108 Chinese characters (Seeley 1991: 146). THE

1920s: BROADCASTING - ITS BEGINNINGS AND INFLUENCE

It is at this point that a crucial influence in the spread of a spoken standard language came into being: NHK, the public broadcasting corporation, started radio broadcasting in 1925.1-t NHK has been as crucial in the diffusion of a nationally recognised and acceptable spoken standard language as has the national education system for the written standard (Lewin 1979: 90). In his study of the rise of language standards and standard languages, Joseph highlights the fact that 'the sheer numbers of people steadily exposed to standard languages by broadcasting

:Historica['Back,grounrf and Para[[e[s

greatly exceeds those previously exposed by literacy' (Joseph 1987: 78). Nevertheless, he goes on to emphasise that the extent to which this exposure alone is contributing to the spread of standards and decline of non-standard dialects is unclear, partly because the one-way nature of broadcasting makes it an inefficient means of language learning. His conclusion is that 'broadcasting has helped provide a quantitative change in the diffusion of standard languages in this century, but by no means a qualitative one' (ibid.). In Japan, broadcasting highlighted problems that still remained after the major reforms of the first two decades of the century. Most importantly, the divergence between the written and spoken language was still wide at this point, despite the success of the genbun itrhi movement. In the early days of broadcasting, everything was scripted; the news was taken directly from newspapers and press agencies, and the only concession to spoken language was to alter the formal written verb forms, for example, from de aru to the polite de arimasu. To this was added the lack of a tradition of public speaking (as opposed to reading from prepared texts) in.Japan (Inagaki 1992: passim). Thus NHKfaced the problem of defining and using a variety of spoken Japanese that was comprehensible and acceptable to the majority of the population, a spoken equivalent to the existing written standard. In doing so, it was largely on its own: The time that broadcasting began was a period when issues concerning the national language and the script were actively discussed, but the main effort was put into the Wlitten language (based on letters), and the area of spoken language (based on sounds) was hardly discussed at all. (Asai 1987: 205) When the first radio stations were established in Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya in 1925, there was apparently some discussion about using the local dialects, and in the very early days, announcers were selected by the regional stations (Tanaka Akio 1991: 36). However, any decision to use regional dialects would have presupposed that these existed in some fixed form, and this was by no means the case; they were subject to too much variation. Accordingly it was decided to use the standard dialect based on the upper- and middle-class speech of Tokyo for broadcasting throughout the nation,I5 thus continuing a process already well under way for the written language. The arrival of broadcasting provided the means for promoting the spoken standard throughout the nation. It offered spoken models of the standard language in the same way that school textbooks gave written models and were crucial in the diffusion of a written standard. 63

Language P[anning anti Language Change in Japan Since the early Taisho period there had been increased emphasis on the use of the spoken standard in schools, with children being punished for using their own dialects (Ishino 1975a: 68), just as schoolchildren in the British Isles were punished for using non-standard dialects and the Celtic languages of Wales, Scotland and Ireland (Leith 1983: 15:~-183). Although the imposition of a standard dialect might not be comparable in degree to that of a totally alien language, the feelings of inadequacy and inferiority thus engendered are likely to be equally real. It is also the case that standard japanese was imposed on the ethnic and linguistic minorities ofJapan, as discussed above: the Ainu of Hokkaido, the Koreans, and the inhabitants of the Ryukyiis. In Okinawa in 1940, the practice of making children who used their own dialects in school wear a placard proclaiming their misdemeanour until it could be passed on to another offender brought severe criticism, but it was covered up and forgotten in the more pressing problems of war (Ishino 1975a: 68).16 The practice nevertheless persisted as late as the 1960s (Field 1991: 73). Despite such draconian measures, in the early part of this century, mass education had proved insufficient for the spread of the spoken standard on a large scale, since most teachers came from the areas in which they taught and were therefore unlikely to be fluent standard speakers themselves. The development of national broadcasting was the final event that ensured the dominance of a standard dialect based on the speech of the middle and upper classes of the capital, and validated this as the variety to which to aspire. THE

1930s:

BRAKES ON REFORM

As the political climate changed during the ultra-nationalistic and militaristic 1930s, so did the direction and underlying motivations of language policy. The approach characterised by the word kaizen [improvement] changed to that of sPiri [regulation], as stated in a report issued by the Kyiiiku Shingikai [Deliberative Council on Education] set up by the Ministry of Education in 1937. The Council also noted its opposition to the previously favourable attitude to simplification of the writing system (Shioda 1973: 140). This shift in words and policy on language was symbolic of the changes at work in all aspects ofJapanese society at the time. Any moves towards replacing Chinese characters by a phonetic system (kana or riirnaji), or reducing the number of Chinese characters in general use, were halted. In particular, the Manchuria Incident in September 1931 prevented the introduction of the Interim Committee's proposed revised list of I ,856 characters. This was partly

64

Jfistorica[ 'Back;grountf anti Para[[e[s because of the need to use many characters for Chinese place names and personal names that were not common in Japan; but, more importantly in ideological terms, it was because of the military's predilection for kango [Sino:Japanese vocabulary] and difficult characters (Seeley 1991: 147). The value of Chinese characters as the repository of Japanese history, culture, and ultimately the Japanese spirit was emphasised in the prevailing political climate; they were seen as central to the preservation of kokutai [national polity] (Seeley 1991: 147; see also Miller 1982: 92-94). The irony that these characters were not indigenous, but introduced from China, seems to have been conveniently ignored in this way of thinking. However, the approach makes more sense if seen as part of the overall aim of re-aligning Japan politically and culturally with the rest of Asia, in the form of the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Chinese characters and Sino:Japanese vocabulary served particularly to re-emphasise the common links between Japan and China against the West. The natural concomitant of this espousing of Chinese characters and Sino:Japanese vocabulary is the well-known purging of foreign (Western) words and, by extension, ideas, first introduced during the Meiji period. Words of English origin like besuboru [baseball] were replaced by yakyu, and haikingu [hiking] by ensoku (now used to mean 'group excursion or trip'). In addition, English language instruction ceased (Field 1991: 114). Against this background, the more permanent National Language Council which replaced the Interim Council in 1934 had to exercise 'great circumspection in its deliberations on the reform of Chinese characters' (Seeley 1991: 148). Although a list of Chinese characters recommended for use in government offices and in general use, the hyojun kanji hyo, was issued in December 1942, it contained 2,669 characters, which represented around 700 more than the proposed 1923 list (Seeley 1991: 149). Neustupny ( 1983: 30) describes the period before World War II as being characterised by 'a struggle between the utilitarian reformists and the nationalists'. The problems of teaching Japanese to the peoples of Japan's expanding colonies boosted the claims of the reformists, and both the navy and army were initially in support of reform. The nationalists, however, won overall. Nevertheless, pragmatic considerations did outweigh ideological ones in at least one respect: in February 1940 the military was forced to simplify the nomenclature used for weapon parts and abandon the use of historical kanazukai [kana usage], replacing it with a simplified phonetic system, to describe weapons and their operation, in order to avoid the poten-

Language P[anning and Language Change in Japan tially disastrous consequences of the low level of literacy of many of its recruits (Seeley 1991: 150-151). The ultra-nationalistic and militaristic political climate naturally also influenced the national broadcasting organisation: By 1934 the situation was worse, and for the next eleven years NHK was no more than a propaganda conduit to promote nationalism and convince the people of the rightness of 'the new order in East Asia'. (Hiner 1975: 23) 17 Takagi Noritsune points out that, because NHK had been under the control of the powerful Ministry of Communications since its establishment, it became a propaganda organ of the state earlier than the print media (Takagi 1983: 171). Other developments in broadcasting language also took place during this period. In 1934 NHK set up the Hoso yiigo nambi ni hatsuon kaiun chosa iinkai [Committee for Investigation of Broadcast Language and the Improvement of Pronunciation], as well as a system of examinations for all announcers, to take place in Tokyo (Tanaka Akio 1991: 36). These two moves effectively centralised the process of defining acceptable language usage for NHK IMMEDIATE POSTWAR REFORMS

With Japan's defeat in 1945 came the opportunity for the second wave of reforms: the immediate postwar years were described in a Ministry of Education publication five vears on as 'an epoch-making period not only for our history of education, but also for the history of the national language which may be called the incarnation of our people's spirit' (Monbusho 1950: 80). In his review ofJapanese language policy, F. J. Daniels highlights the re\·ealing fact that Japan was able to spare scarce funds to set up the ~ational Language Research Institute in 194 7, at a time when the nation was desperately short of resources (Daniels 1976: 22). This gives an indication of the central importance of the language and its preservation to the Japanese state and people. The language could once again serve as a symbol of.Japanese unity and culture and a bulwark against potentially overwhelming foreign influence - as it had in the Meiji period. However, the founding of the Institute was probably at least partly in reaction to the suggestion made in 1946 by the well-known novelist, Shiga Naoya, to abandon Japanese altogether and adopt French instead, in an echo of Mori Arinori's earlier suggestion to switch to English. Shiga's suggestion was taken seriously enough to prompt Kindaichi Haruhiko to write his best-seller Nihongo ( 1957) to counter Shiga's criticisms of the Japanese language

:Historica['Back,grouna ana Para[[e[s (Miller 1982: 109-113). The symbolic and practical power that the language was seen to hold is illustrated in the Ministry of Education report on educational reform mentioned above: 'The problem of language reform not only forms the basic phase of educational reform, but it has the grave significance of revolutionizing culture and people's life from its very bottom' (Monbusho: 79). The actual degree of external threat to the language, or rather, to the writing system, which has great symbolic significance and for many is inseparable from the Japanese language itself (as discussed in Chapter Five), is investigated in]. Marshall Unger's 1996 book Litmuy and Srript Reform in Orcupation japan: &ruling between the Lines. The idea that the Japanese had to act swiftly on language reform under threat of more radical reform being imposed by SCAP (Supreme Command for the Allied Powers) is contradicted by the many preceding (purely Japanese) proposals and actual moves to limit the number of characters in general use. And although the visiting United States Education Mission recommended in 1946 that romanisation be adopted, it stressed that it'i implementation should be left to the .Japanese themselves (Unger 1996: 59).1H For those who opposed reform outright, the Occupation was a convenient scapegoat. Unger describes how key American officials undermined an experiment using romanisation in primary schools, and thus worked against radical script reform. In an earlier book, he sums up the failure to introduce romanisation to replace Japanese script as follows: The golden opportunity afforded by the Occupation was lost because proponenL'i of script reform became entangled in negative political fights, among themselves and with the government, instead of building a positive consensus among ordinary Japanese by getting them to read and write without kanji. (Unger l987b: 195) Unger's own sympathy for the idea of phoneticisation of the Japanese script is clear throughout his writings. He acknowledges the strength of the .Japanese cultural and psychological attachment to Chinese characters, but is of the opinion that practical necessity, particularly the demands of computers, should, and eventually will, outweigh such emotional arguments. Since this did not happen at the point of greatest dislocation in Japan's modern history, namely its defeat in World War II, this proposition may seem doubtful. Nevertheless, the full impact of computers on the language is as yet unknown, and the topic of the Japanese language in the information age has been on the National Language Council's agenda since 1991. Chapter Five will discuss issues related to the impact of computers on the script. 67

Language Pfanning and Language Change in _'Iapan The changes that actually did take place in this second major wave of reforms were a continuation of the process started at the beginning of the twentieth century, and fall into three phases: the immediate postwar period, the 1960s to 1980s, and the 1990s and beyond. The first phase saw reform leading to the toyo kanji hyo [List of Characters for Current Use],l9 announced and promulgated by the Cabinet on 16 November 1946. This was a restricted list of l ,850 Chinese characters to be used by all government organisations, press, etc., that is, in the public domain. It was smaller than the proposed l923list by only about 100 characters, which supports Unger's argument that it was not a radical move imposed by the Occupation but rather a continuation of an existing trend. Gottlieb gives a fascinating insight into the ad hoc and informal nature of the decisions on characters to be included in the toyo kanji list, which were not always particularly scientifically based but rather relied on a more common-sense approach. The extreme of this is revealed in the following observation: So many meetings were evenly split over whatever wa being discussed that day that Hara [head of the subcommittee working on the list] wa often reduced to canvassing suggestions from old ladies and greengrocers and putting them fonvard a'> tie-breakers. (Gottlieb l995a: 153) The preface to the Wr6 kanji list states that: 'This table sets forth the Chinese characters that are to be used in laws and ordinances, public documents, newspapers, magazines, and in general in society' (translated in Yamagiwa 1948: 47). Thus areas where the tiJ_vo kanji do not apply are not explicitly stated (in contrast to the later joyo kanji hyO), and there is a clear statement that the list should be strictly adhered to by writers in the aforementioned fields. Seeley (1991: 154-155) also notes that scientific terms were revised to keep within the list as much as possible. The list was a compromise between the radical reformers in favour of phonetic script and the conservatives who wanted to maintain the (unworkable) status quo. This position potentially allowed movement in either direction: towards the complete abandonment of characters advocated by some, or towards the maintenance of, and/ or gradual increase in, the number of characters officially recommended. For those in fayour of radical reform, it was a first step along this road; for those in opposition, it was a holding position, a fending-off of the alternative irreversible steps of moving towards use of kana only or of romanisation, against the day when their more conservative views would again be in the ascendancy. One contemporary commentator from the USA opines with confidence that '[t]he 6H

:Jlistorica{ 'Bacl(grouruf aruf Para«e{s

reduction to 1850 characters is undoubtedly meant to antiCipate a future time when all the kanzi will be outlawed and when the Japanese language will be written entirely in romanization' (Yamagiwa 1948: 47). As will be made clear, this confidence has to date been entirely misplaced. At the same time as the tiiyo kanji list, the Cabinet also issued the Language Council's recommendations on gendai kanazukai [modern kana usage]; these brought the script in line with current pronunciation. The new rules were implemented immediately in all official writing and in the press, and from April 1947 in school textbooks. Seeley ( 1991: 154) points out that both of these reforms were based on earlier proposals made - and rejected - in 1942. What had changed in the intervening five years was of course the political climate. Further measures to 'tidy up the loose ends' were taken in the 1950s: in May 1951 a separate list of 92 characters permitted specifically for personal names (jinmei yo kanji beppyii) was issued (Seeley 1991: 152-157); and in July 1959, rules on okurigana20 that tended towards more explicit usage appeared. 21 All of these reforms worked to simplifY the script and make it more accessible, thus contributing to the process of democratisation promoted by both the Occupation and Japanese reformers. A key document in the promotion of a reformed written language and script was the new Constitution of May 1947. It used a limited number of Chinese characters in conjunction with hiragana [cursive syllabary characters] rather than the katakana [square syllabary characters] traditionally used for official documents, and 'was written in colloquial Japanese readable for any citizen of Japan in contemporary society' (Inoue Kyoko 1982: 281). By appearing in this form, it gave authority to the restricted Chinese character list and proved that it was possible to write the most important legal document in the land in a style comprehensible to all. It was therefore an important symbol of democracy and ensured that all future official documents would be written in the same style.22 In his analysis of the Constitution, Koseki Shoichi (1988: 240) attributes the use of the vernacular to pressure from the Kokumin no Kokugo UndO Renmei [National Language Alliance],23 composed of scholars and intellectuals. An outline draft of the Constitution was made public in March 1946; this version was still written in the particular form of classical Japanese used by the Emperor. The Alliance reacted to this draft with a number of recommendations, including the use of the colloquial style, not classical Japanese; the use of hiragana; the avoidance of difficult Chinese characters and phraseologies; restricting the number of Chinese characters used; and the use of punctuation 69

Language Pfanning ana Language Change in _7apan marks and other orthographic devices employed in ordinary written materials but not in the MeUi Constitution (Inoue Kyoko 1982: 281). Inoue goes on to outline Shimizu Shin's theory that, for Matsumoto Joji, the drafter of the Japanese text, the prime motivation for the adoption of colloquial Japanese was not the democratisation urged by the National Language Alliance but the desire to make the text (translated from the original English draft) appear more natural in the little time available to him (ibid.: 2H I). From the summary abo\'e, it is apparent that the written language, particularlv the writing system itself, was the main focus of language policy during the immediate postwar period. But the upheavals brought about by the war andJapan's subsequent defeat were also felt in the spoken language. As had happened before in the Meiji period, Japan was now subjected to a great influx of foreign culture and foreign words, that is, largely American culture and American English words. The Occupation's priority was the democratisation of state and society, by the reorientation of the country in political, economic and technical terms (Lewin 1979: 94). This process naturally had social and cultural repercussions, too. The emphasis on democracy and equality brought by the Americans was incompatible with the previously existing strict and complex system of honorific language, based on relative status and the Confucian hierarchical view of society with the Emperor at its apex, and which was bound up with correct moral behaviour.~-! At this time of flux in the language and t;u·-reaching changes in society, the phrase kokugo no midare reappears (Lewin 1979: 94-95), echoing comments about confusion in honorific language made during the war (Miller 1971: 609-610). The phrase lwtoba no midrmhad appeared much earlier, in the late 1870s and 1880s in connection with the influx of European words and massive increase in Sino:Japanese neologisms (Hansen 1998). In the breakdown of the ole\ system of honorific language, the Emperor himself led the way: firstly, at the opening of Parliament in 194 7, by referring to himself using the straightforward term watakushi, as used by any ordinary Japanese person; and secondly, at the same ceremony in 1948, by using the -masu verb ending, which indicates a certain level of politeness to the hearer. Subsequently, NHK issued new guidelines for its announcers on the appropriate level of honorific language to be used in referring to the imperial family (Lewin 1979: 98). Uncertainties about correct usage grew. In 1952 the National Language Council produced recommendations on the su~ject, under the title KorP kam no kPigo [Honorific language henceforth]. The foreword to this document recognises that honorific language does not simply 70

:Historica['Background and Para[fe[s concern language, but forms part of the manners and behaviour of people's way oflife. Consequently there was a need for clear and simple new rules on honorific language (together with new manners and behaviour) that fitted the way of life in this new age. The old system had many now unnecessary complexities, and was based on relative status, that is, superior-inferior relations. Modern usage should avoid complexity and be as simple and clear as possible. Henceforth, honorific language usage should be based on the idea of mutual respect for each other as human beings, a principle arising from the drive to democratisation of the immediate postwar years (Bunkacho 1952: 408). Details of the specific recommendations made and the extent to which they were effective wiJJ be discussed in Chapter Three. THE

1960s TO THE 1980s:

REVIEW AND REVISION

Although the tayii kanji and kana lists were widely accepted, and used in government publications, school textbooks, newspapers, and magazines, not everyone was happy with them. The argument about the tayo kanji list continued: some widely used characters were found to have been omitted, while others included in the list were no longer considered essential. Sugano Ken ( 1973: 76) summarises the arguments of the critics of the list thus: cultural matters should not be dealt with by state authority; the number of Chinese characters on the list should be trebled and then decreased gradually; a clearer basis for the limitation and selection of characters was necessary; the relevance to proper nouns needed to be considered; basic research was needed; the advantages of characters were ignored; and the idea of a restricted list placed greater value on machines than on language. Growing discord within the National Language Council during the 1950s was finally brought to a head by the 1958 'Rules on okurigana usage'; the traditionalists saw the tendency towards more explicit usage (that is, more okurigana) as eroding the status of characters (Gottlieb 1995a: 156). The disagreement culminated in a highly publicised walkout of five conservative members of the Council in 1961. The Liberal Democratic Party set up its own language committee in 1966, and this ultimately was a major factor in the subsequent reversal in language policy (ibid.: 166-171). Gottlieb examines the political machinations behind the scenes in detail, whereas other researchers, such as Seeley, take a more purely linguistic approach. In referring to this period, he does not mention the upheaval amongst the members of the Language Council at all, and simply describes the discussions and 71

Language Pfanning and Language Cliange in Japan revisions ofthe 1960s and 1970s (Seeley 1991: 159-165 ). Other Western researchers such as Neustupny argue that since this period there has been a shift away from the aim of encouraging democracy of the immediate postwar years towards conservatism. The views ofJapanese scholars range from the Marxist interpretations ofMiyajima Tatsuo and Suzuki Yasuyuki, to the right-wing publications of Maruya Saiichi and Ono Susumu. The former argue that collusion between an increasingly right-wing government and the National Language Council led to the shift from a radical to a revisionist approach. The conservatives view the postwar reforms as detrimental to Japan's culture and point to the later success ofJapanese language word processors as proving that the script is not a barrier to technological progress (summarised in Gottlieb 1995a: 35-36). This view is not shared by scholars such as Unger, as I shall discuss in Chapter Five. Gottlieb herself attributes the shift to 'a combination of increased social leisure to reflect on the nature of things Japanese and political interference, manipulated to the full by those who had never supported the reforms in the first place' (Gottlieb 1995a: 17). A she indicates, this power shift from the reformers to the traditionalists needs to be viewed against the social, political, and economic background of the period. Japan had stabilised and was beginning its postwar economic boom; the conservative Liberal Democratic Party had established it"elf as the 'natural' party of government, a situation that was to continue until the early 1990s; and both the opportunity and perceived need for radical reform in language, as in other areas, had faded. Growing confidence overall meant more confidence in the language. The shift in power in the early 1960s prompted a cycle of review of the immediate postwar measures, a process which constituted the second phase of postwar reforms and lasted the twenty-five years between 1966 and 1991 (Showa 41-Heisei 3). This resulted in the joyo kanji hy6 [List of Characters for General Use] (October 1981), revised recommendations on modern kana usage (March 1986), and the writing of loanwords (June 1991). The Cabinet announcement stresses that the jiiy6 kanji list is a nu;asu - a standard, a set of guidelines for legal, official, press, broadcasting and general use. It also explicitly states that the list does not extend to science, technology and the art-;, nor indeed to private use (Bunkacho 1986a). This limited demarcation of areas in which the list is recommended is a clear move away from the aims stated in the 1946 list, where the implication is that it should be applied in all fields. The new list is a recommendation rather than a definite set of rules; it embodies the move from the notion of seigen 72

Jlistorica[ 'Back,ground and Para[fe{s [limit] implicit in the tayo kanji to meyasu [guideline]. However, given that these are the Chinese characters stipulated by the Ministry of Education for use in school textbooks, the influence of the list, like that of the preceding tii_vo kanji list, is still considerable. In addition to the change in perspective from 'limit' to 'guideline', the joyo kanji list contains 1,945 characters, ninety-five more than the toyo kanji list, and therefore makes manifest a clear reversal in the original idea of the toyo kanji list being the first step along the road to further character reduction as originally intended by the Council (Gottlieb 1995a: 136). Instead, the toyo kanji became a permanent foundation on which to base revisions that now appear to be moving in the opposite direction - towards further consolidation of the existing writing system. Neustupny argues that this increase in the number of recommended Chinese characters reflects an anti-reformist tendency, one that has been growing since the external pressure from the Occupation was removed, and since the more conservative side of Japanese politics gained strength after the uncertainties of the immediate postwar period. He describes the draft joyo kanji list issued in 1977 as follows: 'It refuses a reformist platform, respects current usage- and takes no account of language users other than the typical middle-class user of the Standard language' (Neustupny 1977: 8). The swing from radical reform to revisionism and tinkering with the status quo is summed up by Gottlieb: With the issue of a policy document 'The Writing of Foreign Loanwords' in 1991, the twenty-five year cycle of reflection on and revision of the postwar revisions requested by the Minister [of Education] came to an end [... ]. [l]n all matters relating to characters there had been a definite reversal of previous policy, confirming the central importance of characters to written Japanese, removing strict limits on their use, and sidelining those, such as the romanisation groups and the Kanamojikai, who had hoped to see the eventual abolition of characters. (Gottlieb 1994: 1194) Since this second phase finished in 1991, attention has widened, to move away from just the written language. Discussions on this new phase began with the opening of the nineteenth session of the National Language Council in September 1991. This major shift in emphasis in Japanese language planning is a particular focus of the current work.

73

Language Pfanning and Language Change in _'Iapan INTO THE 1990s: A BROADER PERSPECTIVE

The nineteenth session2:i of the Language Council had forty-five members from various academic fields, and from journalism, business, broadcasting, and the literary world. The membership was significantly broader than that of previous postwar sessions, when experts in linguistics and script dominated (Mizutani 1993). For example, the sixteenth session ( 1984-86) included two school principals, sixteen university professors, six newspaper representatives, two representatives from broadcasting, one fi·orn publishing, the head of the Boy Scout movement, and the head of the Kydo News Agency. The nineteenth Council included three school principals, twelve university professors, six newspaper representatives, four from broadcasting, one from publishing, the Chief of the Cabinet Office Legislation Bureau, the Director of the Environmental Research Institute, one actress, one singer, and two authors/playwrights. This broader membership is part of the trend to examining wider issues related to language as a whole, while the particular concern with spoken language and the influence of broadcasting is indicated by the doubling of representatives from broadcasting and the inclusion of people working with their voices actors and singers- rather than with pens and word processors. The shift in emphasis reflected the changing circumstances in which japanese was now functioning (Mizutani 1993: 4), as well as the fact that the cycle of revision of script reforms begun in 1966 was now considered complete and a fresh look at language problems was needed. At the end of the two-year term of the nineteenth session, the Council produced a new set of issues to be discussed in the following session; these were listed under five main headings and outlined in a report issued in June 1993 (Heisei 5), (;nl(lai no kokugo o meguru shomondai ni tsuite [Some problems concerning the contemporary national language] (Bunkach 1993b). It was followed by a report from the twentieth session2ti in Noyember 1995 entitled Atamshii jidai ni ojita kokugo shisaku no arikata ni tsuitP [On language policies appropriate for a new age 1 (Bunkach 1996b). Both reports outlined five areas for consideration: language usage (kotobazukai); the shift to the information society (joholw); international societv (kolmsai shakai); language education and research; and script. If these five areas to be investigated and the general views expressed on them are compared with policy in the past, it is possible to see how the climate has changed and continues to change, and how the issues under discussion have broadened out

i4

Jlistorica[ 'Back;grountf and Para[[e[s from the narrow one of script to include other aspects of language, much as in the early days of language planning in Japan. This historical overview has emphasised a number of recurrent themes in Japanese language policy and planning discussions. The dichotomy between the spoken and the written language, although reduced greatly by the reforms of the early twentieth century and immediate postwar period, still persists to some degree, and is a particular issue in broadcasting. This is one area where the tension between the desire to maintain the Japanese language as a repository of national culture and identity on one hand, and ensuring its ability to act as an efficient tool of communication (in both written and spoken form) on the other, is evident. In addition, the emphasis traditionally placed on the written language in Japanese education and society is now shifting as society's needs are changing. The major phases of language reform were prompted by contact with other countries, and today, the trend towards internationalisation and its impact on the language is one of the m~jor themes of discussion on language planning. But in the minds of the public, the phrase most widely associated with language planning during the early 1990s was kotoba ga midarete iru- 'the language is in a state of confusion'. Since this, or the variation kotoba no midare 'confusion in the language' appears to be a catch-all phrase mirroring deeper concern about changes in various areas, I have chosen to begin my analysis of language planning during the 1980s and 1990s by examining the idea of language as an indicator of the behaviour and attitudes ofJapanese society.

7'0

State of the Language, State of the 9\[ation Language is such a fundamental part of daily life and so closely bound up with identity that it is not surprising that it should be seen as indicative of other aspects of society. Ager ( 1996: 192) highlights the metaphor of linguistic health that underlies much of the discourse on the French language, pointing out that the language is a symbol of France, and linguistic change is traditionally seen as decadence or as a form of illness or disease. In other cultures, language has frequently been regarded as a barometer of the moral state of the nation. As Crystal (1987: 4) notes, language change is the focus of more public attention and criticism that any other linguistic issue, and change is widely associated with deterioration and corruption. With regard to English in the eighteenth century, Cooper quotes Samuel Johnson, who equated language change with 'corruption and decay'; Cooper (1989: 136) argues that Johnson's view was consistent not only with elite ideology, 'but also with the notion that the standard embodies moral and civic virtue and should therefore be maintained. Refusal to accept a reigning ideology is a symptom of civic disaffection and thus moral turpitude'. Similarly, in 1712, Swift opined that the licentiousness of the Restoration 'infected' religion and morals and corrupted the language (Milroy and Milroy 1985: 50). In her detailed analysis of the de bate on the teaching of English language in England and Wales during the 1980s, Deborah Cameron (1995: 82-85) likens its emotional nature to other kinds of moral panic, in which 'some social phenomenon is suddenly foregrounded in public discourse and discussed in an obsessive, moralistic and alarmist manner, as if it betokened some imminent catastrophe'. One of the early proponents of the debate on grammar, John Rae (a former public school headmaster), went so far as to argue that the decline of grammar 76

State of the Language, State of the 'll[ation actually caused other kinds of decline, rather than accompanied them (ibid.: 85-86) .1 Cameron's subtitle for her chapter, 'The great grammar crusade', highlights the links with morality and the parallels with religious zealotry. The following comment can also be applied to concern about deterioration of language standards in general: 'A panic about grammar is [ ... ] interpretable as the metaphorical expression of persistent conservative fears that we are losing the values that underpin civilization and sliding into chaos' (ibid.: 95). In Japan, such views are strongly held by some purists, particularly those who tend to a nihonjinron world-view, and are often expressed by individuals in the media, but the extent to which their views are representative or influential is debatable. The Language Council takes a more balanced perspective and is careful to avoid any statements along these lines, while nevertheless stressing the links between language and society and culture. The degree to which today's language is in reality changing compared with the past is difficult to ascertain, but written language, particularly printed language, tends to have a stabilising effect.2 Although vocabulary continues to increase to cope with new phenomena and technology, the grammar of written languages is less subject to change because of the existence of a standard along with mechanisms that work to maintain and reproduce it- national education systems, dictionaries, reference grammars, books and newspapers, and, more recently, broadcasting. On the other hand, change is now more noticeable simply because the written or printed language provides a norm with which to compare current usage. Perceptions matter more than reality in such areas. In Japan the notion that the language has become disordered, corrupt, or confused ( rnidarete iru) is not new, but has recurred at various times, focusing on different aspects of the language. In 1941, Matsuo Chozo, head of the Bureau of Publications, wrote shortly after the establishment of the Language Section that people needed to look at their language and realise how disordered both speech and writing had become, and that regulation was needed to purify and standardise the language (Gottlieb 1995a: 93). The link between language and morality was also made in this period: the conservative Shinmura lzuru, writing shortly before World War II, felt that maintaining standards in writing was equivalent to maintaining standards of morality (ibid.: 44). This reflects the importance traditionally placed on literacy and knowledge of Chinese characters, an attitude that continues to this day. In her examination of Japan around the time of the death of the Showa Emperor, Norma Field describes

77

Language Pfanning and Language Change in _1apan a society where proper execution of Chinese characters has been equated not only with intellectual but moral worth, an ideolot,'Y mobilized to produce a statistically stunning literacy in the postwar decades, thus contributing the sense that traditional virtues underpin economic might. (Field 1991: 135) This description sums up the way in which .Japan's rapid modernisation (often seen as \\'esternisation) and economic success is ostensibly reconciled with - and even explained by -.Japan's moral strength and traditional culture. In his examination of honorific language and modernisation, Miller (1971: () 12-614) analyses in detail a study by the National Language Research Institute (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkytuo 1957). The study describes honorific language as the manifestation of mutual respect, which in turn forms the basis of democracy. Miller goes on to make the point that such comments are not fundamentally about language, but rather are concerned with popular morality; both appear to have been subject to criticism throughout historv as 'had, mixed up, and in a state of confusion'. Today, as before, honorific language is portrayed in academic and popular descriptions as a crucial feature of the .Japanese language; its interdependence with social structures and relationships is axiomatic. Perceived problems in honorific language and discussions on language planning to resohe these problems are therefore examined in detail later in this chapter. Concern about language seems to surhtce at times of social upheaval. This is demonstrated in the case ofJapan, where two such periods have been highlighted in the historical m·erview given in Chapter Twothe Meiji period, and the immediate postwar years. To discover what underlies the •·ecent resurgence of discussion in official language planning circles about language confusion or breakdown, it is necessary to place this against the background of established language policy, and, more importantly, to examine the SlllTounding social circumstances. Accordingly, this chapter focuses on the Language Council discussions of the earlv to mid-1990s on the theme of confusion in language. It also makes use of opinion polls and research on specific aspects of language that are seen as being in disorder, placing these in the context of social changes to elucidate wll\ theY arc perceived so negatively. Newspaper headlines at the opening of the Language Council's twentieth session highlighted the htct that this was the first time that it would discuss spoken language (f(Jr example, Mainichi Shinbun, 23 Nm·emlwr 1993: I; }(nniuri Shinbun, 2;~ Nm·ember 1993: ;)0). The Council's discussions of the earlY 1990s emphasised the links between ian7X

State of tfze .Language, State of tfze 9{ation guage and society; the 1993 final report stresses that 'language is the foundation of a country's culture' (Bunkacho 1993b: 292). The Council also points out that it is not only necessary to value linguistic traditions, but also to look to the future and cooperate closely with relevant ministries and other bodies to promote policies actively. In this way, the relationship between language and society in a broad sense is tacitly acknowledged. The Council recognises the difficulties inherent in trying to establish any kind of guidelines for the spoken language. Speech is htr more closely bound up with an individual's sense of identity than is the written language; it is ephemeral, only subject to limited control within certain areas, such as broadcasting and official language usage. In contrast, recommendations on script are relatively easy to enforce, at least in the public domain. The rest of this chapter is divided into four sections, dealing with disorder in language, honorific language, young people's language, and male and female language. These areas are interlinked: young people are frequently criticised for misusing the language and contributing to many aspects of its 'disorder'; honorific language is seen as being su~ject to much change and misuse, particularly by young people; and the perceived decline in the use of feminine language is seen as another symptom of falling standards. Although only honorific language is dealt with in any detail in recent National Language Council reports (under the heading of lwtobazulwi [language usage] in the 1993 and 1995 final reports, and as one of the two main sul~jects of the 1998 progress report), the other topics are mentioned and at-e discussed at some length in Council meetings; they also appear frequently in the media. All are closely associated with social roles and relationships and hence with concerns about the structure and functioning of society. KOTOBA NO MIDARE- DISORDER IN LANGUAGE

In Japan, the idea that disorder in language is a symptom of problems elsewhere in society goes back at least as f~tr as the kolwgaku mm·ement in the late eighteenth century, with the nativist scholar Motoori Norinaga laying great emphasis on the avoidance of disorder in language: ·[I] f language order fell into disarray, nothing remained but misunderstanding and political disorder' (Harootunian 19HH: 62). Harootunian argues that the nativists must have been convinced that language usage had become problematic, and that clarif~·ing proper linguistic usage was the key to solving other problems (ibid.: 70). \tVhile this approach mig-ht be seen todav as simplistic, it is an attitude that echoes throug-h 7~)

Language Pfanning ana Language Cfzange in Japan discussions on language to the present day. Similarities can also be drawn with the Confucian concept of the rectification of names, in which names represent a correct model of social roles to which reality should conform, thereby viewing language as a means of political control.~

Some analysis of the implications of the term rnidare is useful at this point.-l In the recent japanese literature, two different words are used to describe the phenomenon of language change: midare and _v-ure. The former connotes 'disorder, disarray, confusion, chaos', whereas the latter refers rather more neutrally to a 'shift' or 'change'; it parallels the use of 'language change' or 'shift' as an academic linguistic term in English. It is also used to refer to coexisting alternatives, such as atatakai/attakai, where the English term 'variation' would be more appropriate. As Mizutani ( 1993: 4) notes, those who describe the language as midarete iru have an idea oflanguage based on a traditional historical viewpoint. The term midare implies a su~jective value judgement, where the emphasis is on movement away from one's own standard or yardstick of how things should be (jibun no monosashi ham zuretf' iru). There is an implied desire for things to return to a previous state of affairs. Midarf' therefore has a somewhat negative image." However, midarf' is used in official surveys, such as those carried out by the National Language Section (for example, Bunkacho Bunkabu Kokugoka 1995), perhaps because this is a term better understood by the public. NHK uses yure, which it sees as being a more objective term, in its publications on language, although its public opinion polls use midmt'. The Language Council carefully describes the phenomenon as 'the problems known as disorder or change in language' (iwayuru kotoba no midare ya ywt' no mondai) in its I 993 final report, after some inconclusive discussion of the terms (Bunkacho l993a: 176-177). However, its 1995 final report (Bunkach(> 1996b: 296) prefers yurf', while acknowledging the popular awareness of midarf'. A newspaper article (Asahi Shinbwz, lOJune 1993: 2) discussing the appropriateness of both terms, makes the telling point that another way of looking at the issue would be in terms of social problems, such as manners ( rPif.fi), rather than as problems oflanguage. This idea is of course at the heart of the issue: sociolinguistic changes reflect changes in people's behaviour, and if the latter are seen as negative, then so are the linguistic changes associated with them. Consequently, they are characterised not as 'change' but as breakdown, disorder, deterioration, and decay. 6 Writing about criticism of the 'deterioration' of American English, Ferguson argues:

HO

State of tfie Language, State of tfie 'll(sltion The function of expressing beliefs in deterioration and the need for action seems to be to provide an accepted channel of reaction to social stratification. It is sometimes a nice way of pointing out that other people do not have the benefits of one's own education. (Ferguson 1996: 297) Inagaki and Inoue ( 1993: 6) take a similar position, pointing out that it is older people and those from the higher social classes in japan who think that language is getting confused. In a society that professes homogeneity, and in which 90 per cent of those surveyed regularly claim to be middle class, to assert that the way other people use the language is becoming confused provides one possible way of expressing the feeling that one is different from- or better than -other people. Thus the notion of disorder in language is based on the idealised linguistic norms of the more educated classes; the language of those who do not adhere to those norms - including the less educated and the linguistic minorities- is by implication characterised as 'mixed-up' and 'chaotic'. The overview of the history of Japanese language policy and planning in Chapter Two showed that, with the exception of the official sanctioning of a dialect to form the basis of the standard language at the beginning of this century, and the 1952 recommendations on honorific language, the main focus has been the written language. However, despite this long-standing emphasis, a shift in public perceptions of what language planning and policy are concerned with has become apparent in recent years. When I began my research on language planning in the mid- to late 1980s, those to whom I mentioned this interest assumed that this was concerned with Chinese characters. By 1994, however, the reaction had changed to what seemed to have become a set phrase: kotoba ga midarete iru [the language is falling into disorder]. The phrase is by no means newly coined. For example, Lewin ( 1979: 95) refers to its frequent use in the immediate postwar period, and the National Language Research Institute's 1957 study on honorific language mentions concern over 'confusion in honorific language' (keigo no konmn) 7 both before and after the war, while Gottlieb ( l995a: 52) notes the use of midare and konmn in the 1960s with regard to the script. But it appears to be only since the early 1990s that the association of the phrase with language planning and official policy has entered the public consciousness. This is not just a shift in public perceptions: the focus of official policy had indeed changed during this period, broadening out to consider wider language issues. Given the intensity of debate over HI

Language P[anning and' Language Cliange in Japan script reform, the significance of the decision to consider other aspects of language, particularlv speech, cannot be under-estimated. It is difficult to ascertain where the current preoccupation with 'disorder' in the language first arose, since the influence between public opinion and language planning is reciprocal. There is a cycle in which the Language Section feeds areas of public concern (elicited via its public opinion surveys) to the Agency of Cultural Affairs, which advises the Education Minister. He or she then sets out the broad parameters for the deliberations of the National Language Council at the beginning of each two-year term (Gottlieb 1995a: 18). Finally, the Language Section publicises and implements (where appropriate) the Language Council's conclusions and recommendations. But what is clear, not only from my conversations with Japanese language specialists and acquaintances in various fields, but also from newspaper articles during this period, is that the theme of disorder in language is now firmly established as a potential target of planning and policy. It is this official recognition of perceived problems, particularly in the spoken language, together with the desire to do something about them, that distinguishes the current discussions on language change from those of earlier times. The current wave of discussions centring on the theme oflanguage breakdown goes back at least to the mid-1970s, although an NHK poll in 196() already showed that i">H.2 per cent of those surveyed felt that spoken language was becoming confused (Takeda Sue 1966: 2). The phrase lwtoba no midarPalso appears in Language Council discussions on variation in pronunciation in 1965 (Bunkacho 1966: 109). It also seems to be from around the mid-1970s that the idea became prevalent that the language as a whole, rather than specific aspects such as the writing system or honorific language, was f~1lling into disarrav (Ishino and Inagaki 19H6: 3). Since the theme of language breakdown is a recurrent one, and the complexities of linguistic attitudes cannot be reduced to simplistic cause-and-effect arguments, it is difficult to pinpoint precise reasons for this de\'elopment. \ie\'ertheless, the socioeconomic changes brought about bY the economic boom that began in the 1960s -rapid urbanisation, increasing mobil it\, rising educational standards, the growth of white-collar \\·ork and the sen·ice sector, the mass media - all had an impact on people's pattems of communication and heightened awareness of language usage. It is also possible that the se\'ere economic and social problems resulting from the oil crisis of 1974-7!1 and fears about Japan's Yulnerability were echoed to some extent in concerns about the language. In such circumstances, change

State of tfie Language, State of tfie 9\&tion was more likely to be regarded as negative, as signifying breakdown and disorder, rather than development and progress. More specifically, interest in language was stimulated as a direct consequence oflanguage policy. In 1972 the Language Council made a recommendation that language education and awareness amongst the general public should be promoted; this resulted in the Kotoba Shiriizu [Language Series] published by the Language Section since 1973. Gottlieb ( 1995a: 21) notes that the series is a best-selling government publication and that its success is a reflection of the growing interest in language since the 1970s. The books are also distributed to all schools, libraries, and other relevant institutions. It is not surprising that heightened language awareness encouraged both by official promotion and by popular books on language should lead to more sensitivity to change. Public opinion surveys from the late 1970s through to the 1990s show first an increase and then a stabilisation in the numbers of people feeling that the language was 'confused' to a greater or lesser extent. The NHK Broadcasting Research Section carried out surveys on language in 1979 and 1986, and discovered that the percentage of people agreeing with the question: 'Is Japanese in a state of disorder?' increased slightly from 71.8 per cent to 75.8 per cent (Ishino and Inagaki 1986: 3). Agreement was particularly strong amongst female respondents; this fits with the idea advanced by sociolinguists such as Trudgill and LabovR that women's linguistic behaviour is oriented more towards overt, standard language prestige norms, whereas men respond more to covert, vernacular prestige norms (Eckert 1997: 214). However, the situation is more complicated than the dichotomy that this theorv implies. Labov's own research demonstrates that women are more conservatiYe in their use of stable linguistic variables, but lead men in some changes (ibid.: 215). There is similat- evidence for .Japanese. Janet Shibamoto's field survey in Mitaka, a Tokyo suburb, indicates that women are less conservative than men in their use of certain rules, for example, those governing word order and deletion (Shibamoto 1985: 148).!> More recently, Yoshioka Yasuo's research in Kyttshtt on the speech of people in their teens and twenties shows that both men and women are involved in linguistic innovation in casual speech. In his study women tended to prefer soft-sounding linguistic forms (yawamlwi hibihi no gvl 1996b: 299). Despite the fact that, according to surveys, a high proportion of the public feel that the language is falling into disorder, it is noteworthy that opinion polls also show resistance to the idea of state interference to resolve the perceived problems of disorder in language. NHK's 1988 Tokyo survey on language attitudes included four questions about of~ ficiallanguage policy. In answer to the question: 'Should the country/ state (huni) act more positively to get rid of disorder in language?', onlv 33 per cent said 'yes'; in contrast, 60 per cent agreed that 'there is no need for special policies'. This finding is in contrast to attitudes expressed in the same survey to the jO,vii Jwnji list: 52 per cent agreed that it was 'natural that the state should decide on correct usage of Chinese characters; 24 per cent said it was not desirable, although some standard for characters was needed; only 10 per cent said the state should not intervene (NHK Ht>so Bunka Kenkyt~jo 1993b: 181-183). It seems that most people are willing to accept regulation of some kind in the script, since this does not necessarily impinge greatly on their daily lives. Moreover, the script is learnt in school, not acquired naturally as spoken language is, so people are used to the idea of formal rules in this aspect of language. Given that script reform has reduced the overall burden oflearning, it is also likely to be seen as positive. In contrast, the suggestion of any kind of intervention in the spoken language, despite people's professed concern about it, is a different matter. The researchers suggest that the apparent contradiction between awareness of problems and the resistance to intcr\'ention to impro\'e the situation

Hi

Language Pfanning and Language Change in Japan probably stems from the use of kuni [state, nation, country]: people dislike the idea of intervention from the state in language, which is simultaneously a public and private phenomenon. Many interpret 'intervention' as 'regulation, oppression'; perhaps if kuni were replaced by 'mass media' or 'someone to take the lead', the result might have been different (NHKHoso Bunka Kenkyi:uo 1993b: 181-183). This is an interesting idea, particularly coming from NHK's own researchers. They conclude that it may be not so much a matter of 'intervention' as of whether this would be accompanied by 'compulsion': maybe people do not mind what recommendations the government produces as long as they are not compulsory and can be ignored. It is easy to say that language is in disarray and that something should be done about it, but in practice people tend to think that their own usage is good and that other people are the problem, as Inagaki and Inoue ( 1993: 6) point out. Somewhat different results emerged from a survey carried out by the Cultural Affairs Agency in 1995: 46.5 per cent agreed with the statement: 'The state needs to show a lenient/tolerant (yuruyaka-na) standard for language usage', and 40.2 percent disagreed. Approximately 70 per cent I:> agreed that The state needs to make efforts to maintain the correctness and beauty of Japanese' and The state needs to make efforts to raise public awareness of the importance of correct usage' (Bunkacho 1996b: 297). The difference may be partly accounted for by the phrasing of the questions in the two surveys, but I would suggest that the potential contradiction between what people say and what they really think which is an important factor in all public opinion surveys is also influential here: people are probably more likely to agree that the state should do something when responding to a survey carried out by a government body. Recognition of the need for public consultation was a feature of the j6J6 kanji list, a reaction to criticism of the way the earlier toyo kanji list had been produced. In the case of spoken language, sensitivity to public opinion is all the greater. Language planning in Japan has largely been a matter of following existing trends, of refining and formalising them- hence its success. As Hansen points out (1996: 90), official language reforms in the past 'appear to have been few, largely limited to script reform, and only launched after they had practically taken effect in reality'. Anv guidelines on spoken language are likely to follow the same pattern.

State of tfte .Language, State of tlie 'JI(p.tion K.EIGO- HONORIFIC LANGUAGE

One aspect of language that features prominently in discussions of language breakdown is honorific language.l6 The interdependent con-cepts of hierarchy and group affiliation which are deeply ingrained in Japanese culture are expressed linguistically through keigo. 17 The use of particular lexical items, morphemic and syntactic patterns indicate humility and respect, psychological distance or closeness; these are accompanied by appropriate non-verbal behaviour, such as bowing, nodding to indicate one is paying attention, and body posture. Agnes Niyekawa (1991: 35) notes that keigo has two meanings in Japanese: in the narrower sense, it refers to individual words and morphemes used to express politeness; in the broader sense, it refers to the whole system of honorific language. Traditionally, there are three main sub-categories of kPigo: kenjogo (generally translated as 'humble language'), sonkeigo ('respect' or 'exalted' language), and teinPigo (usually translated as 'polite language'). Miller (1967: 268-292), and Coulmas ( 1992) provide fuller English-language descriptions of keigo in this narrow sense, but more recently, Japanese researchers such as Kikuchi ( 1994), Sugito ( 1997), and Kabaya et al. (1998) have placed kPigo in a broader context. Both Kikuchi and Kabaya use the idea of taigii hyogen ['the linguistic treatment of self and others in conversation' (Niyekawa 1991: 35)], which Niyekawa refers to as an alternative term frequently used today to refer to the kPigo system as a whole (ibid.). This concept of 'linguistic treatment' includes such elements as the selection of a broader range of lexical items and syntactic structures than are traditionally included in honorific language, the use of donatory verbs, and the presence or absence of elision (Sugito 1997: 5-6).1il Sugito and others take the idea further by looking at whether, for example, the reason for making a request is included in an utterance, and including such factors in the expression of 'respect' (kPii). Sugito notes that this concept of the expression of respect has in recent years been discussed both in western theories of politeness and pragmatics and in Japanese theories of linguistic acts (gPngo kodo) (ibid.: 7).19 Kabaya Pl al. develop a new approach, including a detailed analysis of the properties of kPigo combining connotations of benefit and formality with the traditional tripartite division of honorific language ( 199R: 4 7-58). A broader interpretation of hPigo was taken up by the Language Council during its deliberations in the twenty-first session,~O and features strongly in its progress report, discussed below.

Language P[anning and Language Change in Japan It must also be noted that the use of honorific language has another important linguistic function: in Japanese the grammatical subject is frequently omitted, pn)\'ided that it is clear from the context, of which respectful and humble structures often provide a crucial part (Bunkacho 1996a: 156; Coulmas 1992: 314). Exploitation of this feature is particularly noticeable in literature: for example, Miller (1971: 614615) quotes Tanizaki.Jun'ichi on the usefulness of the tool provided by the variety of honorific language forms. For this reason alone, honorific language is unlikely to disappear completely, unless substantial changes in other aspects of usage, for example the routine inclusion of the grammatical subject, occur to compensate. However, it is the sociocultural implications of changes in honorific language usage that are the focus for concern on the part of the Language Council and amongst the wider public. Since honorific language is the linguistic expression of social relations, its use is commonly seen as mirroring the functioning of society. This concern is anything but new. Miller ( 1971: 60 1-602) quotes one of the earliest references to the difficulties of honorific language: a passage from Sei Sh{magon written almost a thousand years ago, which criticises servants referring to their husbands using the wrong level of language as 'very bad' and 'disagreeable'. But according to Miller ( 1971: 60H-609), the emphasis on honorific language as a phenomenon uniquely and highly den'loped in .Japan:! I was one that evolved in the late Meiji and early l;tish{J periods, and was stimulated by Basil Hall Chamberlain's lHHH Handbook o/Colloquia!Jajmnesp; this examined honorific language in detail and treated it as a unified system. The extent to which awareness of honorific language and its implications was present in the wider population is perhaps illustrated in Gluck's example of a village assembly chief in l H90 \dlO complained about people addressing him as !(irfu) [chairman] without the honorific san, a usage that heregarded as an outrage and evidence of moral decline (Gluck l9H5: Ill) .:>2 Miller notes without surprise that 'during the war vears kei!(O hecanw one of the favorite themes for those who were most eager to visit the advantages ofJapanese culture and societv (if not citizenship) upon the inhabitants of less bn>red areas'. Nevertheless, hooks written during this period referred to honorific language as being in a state of confusion. and this was seen as a problem to be resolved, part of the purification of the national language (!\tiller 1971: 609-61 0). Attitudes changed in the immediate posl\l"ar period: ' [I] t was thought that honorific language was a leftover habit from the feudal period and ought properlv to he liquidated (,1Pi.1a11) in a democratic !)()

State of tfie .Language, State of tfie :tl{_ation world' (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyi"uo 1957: 1, translated in Miller 1971: 613). However, this view was short-lived and instead, the idea of honorific language as a tool for expressing the mutual respect which is the basis of democracy became the official line. This is not to say that honorific language continued to exist in the same way as before: there has been a general trend towards simplification since the war, encow·aged by official guidelines and the abandonment of a whole level of language specific to the imperial household (Lewin 1979: 98). The Language Council issued recommendations on usage, Kore lwra no keigo [Honorific language henceforth] in 1952, where the shift in emphasis of the perceived function of honorific language is made explicit: To date, honorific language has developed mainly on the basis of superior-subordinate relations, but from now on, honorific language must be established on the basis of mutual respect which values each person's basic humanity' (Bunkacho 1952: 408). Despite this official pronouncement, the use of honorific language is still strongly associated with expressing relative status, and hierarchy continues to play an important role in Japanese society. A growing number of companies are introducing a policy of the reciprocal use of san as a term of address to replace status terms such as lwrlul [section head], budul [division head]. This trend is apparentlv partly the result of the expansion of middle management and the difficulty of coining new titles; but more significantly, it represents a shift from a vertical to a more horizontal management structure ( }(nniuri Shinbun, 19 October 1993: 9). In one internationally based company, the reciprocal use of san was introduced by the managing director, in an effort to improve communications from the lower to higher levels; at the same time, the traditional status titles were 1·eplaced by English job titles represented by initials, such as GM (general manager). It seems that the policy has not been verv successful in promoting better communication: whether or not Japanese status titles are used, people are still verv aware of their place in the hierarchy)!:l As is frequently pointed out in the debate over 'politically correct' language in the USA and UK, changing linguistic form does not necessarily change attitudes. Views on status and honorific language appear to be resistant to change: in the Language Section's 19!)!) sur\'ey. 91.3 per cent of those questioned agreed that 'one should use honorific language to one's superiors'. The highest le\'el of agreement came from males aged f()-19 years, e\'idence of the continuing importance attached to honorific language used as an indicator of relatiYe status in the workplace. A f;tr higher percentage of \\'omen than men, across all 91

Language Pfanning and Language Change in Japan age groups, agreed that 'depending on circumstances, one should use honorific language to younger people' (Bunkacho Bunkabu Kokugoka 1995: 14-15). This points to differences in the way men and women use and view honorific language, which have been examined elsewhere, for example, by Ide ( 1982). Women are stereotypically seen as being more polite than men, and Hubbard's research affirms that 'it is indeed the case that Japanese women tend to employ politer forrns of language more often than men do' (Hubbard 1994:86, author's italics). Ide has concluded from survey results that three factors lead to the higher overall level of politeness in women's speech: firstly, women assess the politeness levels of linguistic forms lower than men do; secondly, they judge a higher level of politeness appropriate for the same type of addressee; and thirdly, they are more frequently involved in the kind of interaction requiring higher linguistic forms (Ide 1990: 65-66). Women are also more likely to use honorific language reciprocally to express respect, politeness, and good manners, and for aesthetic effect. Maynard ( 1997: 63) notes that a woman may use honorific expressions even in casual situations to 'show off somewhat indirectly that she has mastered a difficult and elaborate task and therefore comes from a high social dass'.24 Men tend to use honorific language to their superiors, in formal situations, and on a less reciprocal basis. The honorific language system has evolved over centuries and continues to change. Coulmas ( 1992: 311) argues that group membership has become more important as a factor in determining the choice of honorific expressions, interacting with relative status. Kikuchi notes that the historical development of honorific language has been characterised by a shift from absolute to relative honorific language; the development of a more addressee-oriented system (taiwa no keigo); and the complementary phenomena of devaluation of respectful forms and their replacement with new ones. All these trends continue, but Kikuchi notes a new one: the popularisation (taishtl.ka) of honorific language, by which he means the growing number of people who use it, or who are expected to do so, in a modern highly industrialised society in which white-collar and service sector jobs play a major role (Kikuchi 1994: 345-351). Upper- and middle-class norms of language usage are increasingly being imposed on or aspired to by all classes as the old boundaries between social classes have blurred. Here is at least a partial explanation for the perceived disorder in the use of honorific language: a far larger proportion of the population than ever before is now placed in situations where honorific language is desirable or required, but they ha\'e not necessarily learnt it within the family or

State of tfie Language, State of tfie 9\{_ation elsewhere and are therefore liable to make mistakes. Hence also the sudden growth in popular guides to using honorific language from the 1970s onwards, which is noted by Kikuchi. The enormous changes that japan has undergone since Kore kara no keigowas issued have not meant that honorific language is disappearing; on the contrary, there is evidence that many people still attach great importance to its correct usage. Books explaining correct usage are best-sellers; schoolteachers are asking the Education Ministry for guidelines; new company employees are specifically trained in its use; and complaints about its misuse are frequently voiced in the media. A 1997 public opinion poll showed that 84.4 per cent of those surveyed thought that training in the use of honorific language in the home was important, and 77.2 per cent thought it was important to give sufficient guidance on it in school (Bunkacho Bunkabu Kokugoka 1997: 63). The continuing centrality of honorific language to Japanese sociolinguistic norms is evident in the fact that many of the current complaints focus not just on its absence, but on its perceived misuse or inappropriate use or absence. Commonly cited examples include the use of a respectful verb in place of a humble one when addressing an out-group member to refer to someone higher in status but in one's in-group; or the hypercorrect combination of the respectful passive together with other respectful constructions, for example, aide ni narareru,25 sensei ga ossharareru,2fi (Bunkacho 1996b: 303).27 Comparison of some of the points at issue today with Miller's 1971 ( 643-651) analysis of popular self-help books on honorific language highlights similarities. The 1952 official guidelines described combining the honorific construction o- + ni naru with the respectful (passive) form of the verb naru as 'an exaggerated type of expression which is not to be encouraged in the future and will gradually drop from usage' (Miller 1967: 287). But although the pattern appears as an error in Miller's overview of books published in the 1960s, its popularity has not faded: in NHK's 1987 survey, only 12 per cent of respondents thought that this pattern was odd ( okashii) (NHK 1994a: 7). The evidence is more ambiguous on the use of another pattern, o- +verb stem suru, to express respect to the referent (interlocutor or third person), rather than self-deprecation on the part of the speaker as standard usage dictates. It is noted as an error in the texts studied by Miller, who argues that this is a case where two originally distinct honorific language patterns have blended or conflated to produce a new and different pattern which now exists as an honorific language element in its own right, and that the prescriptive usage manuals have simply not caught

Language P{anning and Language Change in Japan up (Miller 1971: 650-6:)1). Nearly thirty years on, the change is still in progress: Kikuchi ( 1994: 361-368) describes the apparent shift of o- + verb stem suru from humble to respectful form in detail and examines the implications for the future of the system of honorific language if the trend continues. That this is an area still in flux is shown by the NHK 1987 survey finding that only 30 per cent of the respondents in Tokyo and 20 per cent in Osaka thought that this pattern was odd (NHK Hoso Bunka Kenkyiijo 199:~a: 7): the usage has still not been totally accepted, but it appears to be gaining ground, no matter what the traditional grammar books say. Two NHK surveys showed a drop in the number of people who felt that the use of honorific language had become confused, from 50 per cent in 1979 to 43 per cent in 1986 (Ishino and Inagaki 1986: 4). Since then, the figure has risen considerably and stabilised around the turn of the decade. In 1989, 64 per cent of men and 67 per cent of women cited honorific language as an aspect of language that had fallen into disorder (NHK H(>s(> Bunka Kenkyftio 1993a: 46). A government survey in 1992 gave the similar figure of 67.3 per cent (Inagaki and Inoue 1993: 5). Some valuable data on the aspects of honorific language usage that cause concern is prm·ided by a 1979 NHK language survey, in which 48 per cent of respondents felt that the use of honorific language was 'in disorder' in two respects: firstly, people did not know when to use honorific language, and to what extent; secondly, misuse of honorific language was a matter for concern. The first category included examples of children htiling to use honorific language to their teachers, or media people overusing it to sports stars and other celebrities (Bunkach(> 1986c: 44). Such complaints can be seen as evidence of social change -those previously seen as meriting respect are now not receiving it, and those whom many see as undeserving of such respect, such as the tarento [celebrities] of debatable talent, are being accorded high status by virtue of the language used to them. However, a look at earlier writings on these issues shows that these perceived problems have not suddenly appeared in the last ten or even twenty vears. The long historv of complaints about particular structures being misused has already been noted, and Miller's ( 1971: 602-603) examination includes extracts from newspaper articles and letters criticising the inappropriate use or non-use of honorific language back in 196f>. Particularly interesting is the quote from an article by a professor ofJapanese literature, who complains about the non-systematic use of honorific language to refer to teachers in primary school textbooks, specifically the use of the neutral verb iu [say] instead of the 94

State of the Language, State of the !J{g.tion respectful ossharu. The writer also makes the crucial point that the Ministry of Education approves all school textbooks. This means that the Ministry itself was approving inconsistent models of honorific language usage more than a decade after Korf kara no kPigo was issued (although it is true that the guidelines made no specific mention of the level oflanguage to be used to refer to teachers). If officially sanctioned textbooks were not presenting consistent models of honorific language, how could schoolchildren be expected to acquire them? And if the examples presented in texts were inconsistent thirty or forty years ago, it is perhaps not surprising that today's children do not always use honorific language to and about their teachers. But there are deeper changes at work in the education system and society which are reflected in language usage. Although the status of teachers in Japan has traditionally been high and they continue to be respected, tensions are increasing in a pressurised system where success in later life can depend on passing exams at a very young age.28 These pressures are seen by many commentators as responsible for the negative and growing trends that have been the subject of much discussion in the media and education circles for the last two decades: school refusal (toko kyohi), bullying ( ijime), violence against teachers, and school-age suicide.29 While the absence of respectful language about or to a teacher cannot, of course, be seen as equivalent to a physical attack on him or her, for those who bemoan the decline of honorific language usage by young people, both are indicative of a loss of respect for the role of the teacher.3° With the disappearance of SensPi ga irasshatta [Teacher is here/has come] (respectful verb) and its replacement with SPnsei ga kita [Teacher is here/has come] (neutral verb) the first step in a process of erosion has been taken, according to critics. It is the sociolinguistic parallel of the idea underlying the reply that I was given by a high school teacher in the early 1980s when I asked why the pupils were not allowed to dye their hair: 'Because it is the first step to juvenile delinquency'. 31 Criticism of the overuse of honorific language to people seen as undeserving of it is a more recent phenomenon, tied up with the rise of the media, particularly television. Broadcasters such as NHK have produced their own guidelines, but not all those appearing on television are trained employees, and strict recommendations are easier to follow in scripted news bulletins than in live interviews. I would also argue that underlying the unease about the perceived overuse of honorific language in such cases is the knowledge that it continues to express relative status, rather than simply mutual respect between 95

Language Pfanning and Language Cfw.nge in Japan individuals as stated in Kore kam no keigo. If young sports stars and media celebrities are being addressed with respectful language previously reserved for one's superiors and authority figures such as teachers or doctors, this indicates changes in the social class system. Rapid urbanisation, economic success, and japan's integration into a capitalist, freemarket system have put great pressures on the existing social structures; changing patterns in honorific language usage can be interpreted as an external sign of underlying structural movements in the hitherto accepted status hierarchies. That money and stardom might be worth as much as education and age in sociolinguistic terms is a subversive thought in a nation conditioned by Confucian respect for the latter. On the surface, it is traditional norms and standards of behaviour, in particular the respect owed by youth to its elders, that are being eroded, However, in a broader sense, it is the concept of clearly defined relative class status that is being undermined. As to the chances of success of any specific recommendations on honorific language usage that the Council may make in the future, a comparison between the 1952 guidelines and current use and misuse indicates that these vary. Miller ( 1967: 285-287) gives a useful English summary of the nine point~ of the 1952 guidelines. The first recommends the use of watashi as standard for first pet·son reference, although the use of boku is considered suitable for use among males until they leave university and enter society, at which point they should switch to watashi. Anyone living in Japan today is easily able to verifY that this particular recommendation has had little effect: men of all ages continue to use boku in informal situations, and there is even a trend (noted in the Language Council's 1993 report) for girls and young women to use boku to refer to themselves. The suggestion that anata should become the standard second person pronoun has also had little effect, and discussions in the relevant subcommittee during the Language Council's twentieth session showed an extremely high level of opposition to the suggestion (Bunkach(> l996a: 168). The use of dono as a title in official correspondence was to be replaced by sama. In fact, local governments reviewing their language use in the 1980s were still making the same point (see Chapter Four). If this official recommendation has taken so long to be noted within the world of government bureaucracy, it is easy to predict that the general public is even less likely to conform. Other recommendations on greetings, the use of the honorific prefixes o- and go-, and the use of the polite desu/-masu style for general conversation, appear to be more in line with current usage.

96

State of tfte Language, State of tfte 'JWtion

Recent recommendations on honorific language Honorific language became an important topic of discussion for the Language Council in the 1990s, reflecting the salience of the topic in the wider concern about language breakdown. The Council's 1993 final report describes honorific language as extremely important, vital for smooth and harmonious human relations, and goes on to state the need to look at honorific language in both spoken and written language. The 1995 final report reiterates the specific points made in Kore kara no keigo, comparing them with current usage, and looks at the progress made in encouraging people to align their usage with those guidelines; as outlined above, this has been variable. The report makes no new recommendations, leaving further research and debate to the following session. Whether or not the Language Council should be seeking to set guidelines for honorific language at all is an issue raised by Kikuchi. He argues that there is a wide range of individual differences and issues in the use of honorific language, including many debatable points on which it is difficult to make a definitive ruling; people are unlikely to take to norms set by the state; and the very act of the Council laying down rules or recommendations would interfere with natural change (Kikuchi 1994: 376-378). These points were also raised during Language Council discussions throughout the 1990s. However, the fact that Kore kara no keigo was becoming increasingly out of date prompted action, and at the beginning of its twenty-first session, the Head of the Agency for Cultural Mfairs specifically asked the Council to focus on two issues, both following on from the recommendations of the preceding session. The first was the problem of variation in character forms or typefaces used in computers for characters outside the jiiyo kanji list; these issues will be discussed in Chapter Five. The second was the need to set some kind of guidelines for honorific language usage within a broader investigation of language usage (kotobazukai) and language change (kotoba no yure) (Bunkacho 1998a: 48). Two subcommittees were subsequently established, and their conclusions form the interim report issued at the end of the session in 1998 (Bunkacho 1998b); feedback on this report will be sought before the final recommendations are made. The Council's discussions provoked much interest in the press and academic journals during the session. One member of the subcommittee on honorific language, Shinoda Shinji (a junior high school principal), was quoted as saying that the decline in the use of honorific language could be taken positively, as a sign that japanese society was becoming 97

Language Pfanning ana Language Change in Japan more dmocratic (jajmn Times, 7 August 1997: 5). The journal Nihongogalw had a special issue in December 1997 on honorific language education. One contributor, Nomoto Kikuo ( 1997), a former Head of the National Language Research Institute and long-serving Council memlwr (until 1995), argued that Kore kara no keigo had various faults, and was even somewhat extreme, being strongly influenced by the postwar promotion of democracy. He argued that the document no longer corresponded to current usage, and that it should be abandoned as a first step towards any new recommendations. Although the Council's 1998 report does not explicitly recommend abandonment of Kore kam no keigo, it does note that the 1952 recommendations on usage are uniform and do not allow for the variety of human relations and situations that exist. Kore kara no keigo takes the traditional narrow view of honorific language, and excludes important items such as imssharu (respectful verb: 'come, go, be') and ukagau (humble verb: 'visit, ask') (Bunkacho 1998b: 348-349). By implication, the 1998 report acknowledges that Kore kam no keigo is out of date, and it offers a new view of honorific language; but again, specific recommendations on usage are left until the following session, with the 1998 report restricting itself to two areas, 'Communication and language usage' (Komyimik1shon to kotobazukai) and 'Expressing respect' (Keii hyogn1 no arikata) under tlw general heading, 'Expressing respect today' ((;endai ni oknu keii hyogen no arikata). A third area, 'How to use contemporary expressions of rspect' ( Gnulai keii hyogen no tsukaikata), which will give guidelines on usage, is planned for the final report of the twenty-second session. The first section of the 1998 report~2 outlines the broader perspective on the expression of respect characterised within sociolinguistics by the concepts of taigii hy6gen and wakimae, discussed above. The expression used in the report is kPii hyogen, since the other terms are unf~uniliar to the general public (Bunkacho 1998a: 301). The presence on the subcommittee of Ide Sachiko, a sociolinguist whose own research focuses on this area, is significant. An early oral report from the subcommittee to the Council is based largely on her comments (Bunkacho 1998a: 189-191) and this feel through to the interim report, together with input from other sociolinguists not on the Council but participating in the Round Table Discussion on National Language Policy. During the subcommittee's discussions, the point was raised that Kore kam no keigo was based on the concept of a democratic age, and it was felt that any new recommendations would need a new philosophy to underpin them, a new wav oflooking at honorific language. The broader 9H

State of tfte Language, State of tfte :A(g.tion idea of 'expression of respect', allowing for variations in circumstances and personal preferences, and the role it plays in en-suring that 'communication progresses smoothly/harmoniously' (korn_viiniki'slwn ga enkotsu ni susumu) (Bunkacho 1998b: 345) appear to be the main elements of the new approach. The second section of the report notes that consideration for others can be shown without honorific language, for example, by the use of appropriate particles or donatory verbs. There may be cases where it is better to a\'Oid honorific language, in order to establish a sense of closeness; but care is needed, since this can be perceived as overfamiliar behaviour if the situation is mi~udged. Moreover, expressions of respect can be used in a variety of ways: to put distance between the speaker and hearer, or to show kindness and consideration for one's juniors as well as demonstrating respect for one's superiors. The various functions of honorific language are listed: it can elevate one's interlocutor; put distance between the speaker and interlocutor if they do not know each other well; express formality; and be used to maintain one's own sense of dignity. Changes in the way that honorific language is used are noted: recent years have seen a decline in the use of respect and humble language, while the use of polite language (teineigo) is increasing: for example, the desu/-masu style is now considered standard (ibid.: 349-351). Examples of expressions of respect and consideration are also provided (ibid.: 354-357). Finally, the report stresses the need for better education in the expression of respect in this new broad sense, noting that the opportunities for children to learn to use respect and humble language appropriately are decreasing, and that both home and school have an important role to play (ibid.: 353). The overall picture, of respect combined with appropriateness and flexibility, is far richer than that given by Kore kara no keigo, despite the latter's promotion of democracy- a reflection of the complexities of contemporary society. WAKAMONO KOTOBA- YOUNG PEOPLE'S LANGUAGE

A review of issues relating to the spoken language in the japanese Language Studies Annual Survey and Bibliography 33 (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyi'~jo 1986: 9-11) focused on links drawn by many newspaper articles between the increase in bullying and violence in schools, which appeared to escalate into a major social problem in 1985, and the deterioration of the language used there by both teachers and pupils. The author, Watanabe Tomosuke, quotes a small-scale survey in Akita Prefecture in which almost 80 per cent of elementary and junior high 99

Language Pfanning antf Language Cfiange in Japan school pupils said that their homeroom teachers:l4 did not advise them on their language usage. On the evidence of a number of newspaper stories - somewhat limited and anecdotal evidence35 - Watanabe speculates that this is because the teachers are unable to do so, since their own language skills are lacking in various ways. He suggests that the deterioration of language and behaviour in school is partly the result of a lack of suitable role models from the teaching staff. One newspaper report lists insults cited by junior and senior high school pupils as having been used to them by teachers. These included: 'You're stupid, aren't you' (Baka da naa), 'Drop dead' (Shine), and 'Don't come to school' ( Gakki5 ni kuru na); and particularly hurtful comments included 'Fatty' (Debu), 'Ugly' (Busu), and 'Blockhead' (Manuke). Another quotes teachers in Osaka using very blunt language to their pupils, including 'Shut up' (Damare), noting that these were women teachers, and this, in the writer's view, made it even worse. A third says that not only are more and more schoolgirls using male language, but young female teachers are doing the same. It is particularly interesting that criticism should focus on young female teachers who are seen to be failing in presenting good models of feminine, polite language usage to their pupils. One Japanese informant with teacher friends made the point that if, as is widely claimed, children are less disciplined than they used to be and have less respect for their teachers, a noisy junior high school class may be difficult to control. Using honorific language while shouting is a sociolinguistic contradiction; thus a vicious circle of language use between teachers and pupils may develop. Reynolds (1990: 137-141) offers an explanation for the linguistic dilemma faced by female junior high school teachers who need to display both solidarity and authority in order to control male pupils while maintaining a good relationship with them. Informal male speech can simultaneously encode both authority and solidarity, whereas' [f] emale informal speech, which has long been restricted to private discourse among women, does not work in the same way as male informal speech in the public environment' (ibid.: 138). But by using male informal speech, the female teachers are open to the criticism fi·om parents, school principals, and society at large that they have abandoned traditional feminine behaviour and speech; they themselves often feel negative, or at least ambivalent, about being forced into this linguistic behaviour. Criticisms of changes in female speech extend far beyond students and teachers and are discussed in more detail below. 100

State of tfie Language, State of tlie :A{.ation Concern about young people's language has continued to grow and is an important feature of the recent debate over standards. Within this concern there is doubtless the age-old and universal cry that 'language isn't what it used to be' and 'young people don't/can't speak/write properly these days'. The Language Council's 1993 final report notes that rapid changes in society naturally lead to a widening gap between the language usage of different generations. Language and social behaviour interact; growing mobility, including work transfers, and changing life and work patterns bring about changes in language usage. It is natural that different kinds oflanguage should have evolved within different groups or generations, and that language usage varies according to the private or public sphere, but it is when the distinction between these worlds gets forgotten that damage to human relations and communication can occur (Bunkacho 1993b: 293). Features that characterise young people's language as discussed by the Language Council and in the press include the use of particular phrases which are seen as vague, such as X toka (X and so on, X and whatever), mitai (like), nanka (such as, and so on); words and phrases such as so jan(= soja nai), maji (really);36 the lengthening of particles ( watashi waa, sore dee); the high frequency of katakanago;37 fast speech; abbreviated words; and the misuse or absence of honorific language. One member of the Language Council, Tawara Machi,3H attributes the tendency to speak quickly to the impact of television, where speakers seek maximum impact for their words within a short space of time (Asahi Shinbun, 23 August 1993: 10). Young people are also criticised for being weak or poor (yowai) in their vocabulary and ability to express themselves, and this appears to be cause for concern on the part of young people themselves. Almost half the young people in an NHK survey on comprehension of literary (bungoteki) expressions gave 'unskilfulness, lack of vocabulary and poor expressive ability' as one of their worries about language ( Mainichi Shinbun, 11 September 1993: 4). However, this tendency may be falling overall: two NHK surveys showed a decrease in the number of people who felt they 'frequently' or 'sometimes' had trouble expressing themselves, from 79.4 per cent in 1979 to 73.5 per cent in 1986 (Ishino and Inagaki 1986: 13-14). The ubiquity of the word taka has led to young people's language being termed taka-ben [taka dialect]; but it is interesting that the Head of the Cultural Mfairs Agency (Kawamura), who mentions the use of taka, uses the same word himself in describing the phenomenon (Bunkacho 1993a: 47). The concept of vagueness or lack of clarity as a feature of Japanese sociolinguistic behaviour has featured strongly in descriptions 101

Language Pfanning all!! Language Change in _1apan of the language and society, and is cited by Miller (1982: 121-124) as a characteristic of the 'myth of nilwngo'. One Japanese professor cited in an article on the disorder in young people's language makes this very point, arguing that adults mav use different, more formal structures such as to iu mikata mo aru [there is also X way of looking at it] and watashi kojin no iknz to itashimashiiP wa [as fc>r my personal opinion], but they are just as vague and non-committal as the expressions used by young people (Mainidti Shinbun, II September 1993: 4). The issues of disorder in language, honorific language, and young people's language are intertwined: much concern is voiced over young people's lack or misuse of honorific language and their inability to adapt their language to formal situations.'\9 One university professor echoes the point made in the Language Council report, arguing that disorder in language is more a matter of breakdown of the distinction between public and private, which leads to a lack of differentiation in language usage ( Yorniuri Shinbun, 13 June 1993: 19). This comment highlights a key distinction in Japanese society, between inside and outside- urhi and solo. 40 Much of the way the Japanese language is used is predicated upon the distinction between in-group and out-group; it interacts with the concept of relative status in the selection of appropriate vocabulary, verb forms, and honorific language.41 If young people do not distinguish between 'in-group talk' and 'out-group talk' they are htiling to comply with established patterns of social interaction. This worry over young people's language is a surface manifestation of deeper fears about changes in young people's behaviour, about the breakdown of the structure of a society and family structure built on the ideas of hierarchy and respect for one's elders. Life is changing at an ever quickening pace. Since the post-1960s economic boom, young Japanese have grown up with f~tr higher material living standards and expectations than any pre,·ious generation; the first generation of people to do so are now parents themselves. Yonekawa Akihiko, a linguist who has specialised in research on young people's language,42 argues that what is criticised as 'disorder' in young people's language arises from their desire for freedom from 'correct' usage and for fresh, new, powerful language. He also sees this freedom and desire to play with language as a product of modernisation, made possible by Japan's postwar prosperity (Yonekawa 1994: 10). For him young people's language simply reflects the changes in adult society: young people have become egoistic as a result of the consumer society geared towards consumption and entertainment (Sato Shigekuni 1999). Toyama Shigehiko (a professor of English language and literature) is one of ]()~

State of the Language, State of the :l"{ation those who argues that the idea of abolishing honorific language which became popular after the war means that families no longer place as much emphasis on language discipline or training (shitsuke) as before. The rise of the nuclear family and the weakening of hierarchical relations within the family work to increase this trend, since children frequently no longer have the examples provided by the traditional three-generation household (Yomiuri Shinbun, 15 April 1993: 18).43 In such patrilocal households the relationship between a wife and her parents-in-law was very much a matter of relative status, and would be evident in the language used.44 Recently, the idea of dual-household (three-generation) houses with separate entrances and kitchens has been marketed with some success, albeit only amongst those with sufficient income. Such dwellings facilitate a compromise between independence and close contact between the generations, and mean that grandparents are available to help out more with childcare for working mothers. If similar living arrangements become more popular and begin to reverse the trend of fewer elderly people living with their children, it will be interesting to see what impact this has on children's language training.45 One recurring comment in the debate is that adults cannot understand what school pupils and students are talking about. Nakanishi Akira, a former junior high school principal, says that the confusion or corruption in the language used by junior high school pupils has gone so far as to make one wonder if they are really Japanese (Bunkacho l993a: 47).4ti Nakanishi's remark is a telling one, indicative of the extent to which the language is seen as a manifestation of national identity. The fear is not simply that the generation gap is becoming wider or that society is changing, but that young people are becoming 'un:Japanese', and in a society that prides itself on its homogeneity, that idea is a threatening one. In reality, Japanese society is far less homogeneous than allowed for by the standard image, purveyed by the nihonjinron and accepted by many western writers. 47 As Weiner (1997: xiii) emphasises, '[d]espite a master narrative of "racial" and cultural homogeneity,Japan is home to diverse populations'. Another characteristic of young people's language is the preponderance of katakanago, used by teenagers and university students as 'ingroup' language (Loveday 1996: 195). One variety which attracted particular attention in the late 1990s was dubbed kogyarugo [high school gals' language] (International Herald Tribune, 23 October 1997: 7). This in-group language combines foreign (overwhelmingly English) and Japanese words and morphemes to produce a speech style intentionally 103

Language Pfanning ana Language Cfiange in Japan impenetrable to adults. Media reports on kogyarugo were just part of the high school girl boom in popular culture that peaked during the period 1994-98 (Kinsella 1999, 2000). In particular, media hype and hysteria about high school girls acting as casual prostitutes to earn money for designer goods focused attention on this section of society. AJarm about their moral standards was mirrored in criticism of their rejection of standard and feminine language. Despite widespread criticism of young people's language, the Language Council presents a carefully balanced view on the issue, noting that it has much that is fresh and gives a good feeling (kokan); that many features will disappear naturally; and that when its use is restricted to within the group, there is no problem. Problems arise when young people use the same language to people who are not their peers, or in more formal settings, so it is desirable that they are given guidance from the home, school, and community in using appropriate language in these situations (Bunkacho 1996b: 305). Again, the official pronouncements are generalised statements on desirability; future Council discussions may provide more detail. In the meantime, moves to introduce more spoken language into school kokugo classes are partly an attempt to address this issue. MALE AND FEMALE LANGUAGE

In any description of the Japanese language and its sociolinguistic conventions, the difference between male and female language is prominent. Male language is characteristically blunt, using less honorific language, more plain forms, and certain sentence-final particles; female language tends towards greater use of honorific language, particularly reciprocal usage, different sentence-final particles, omission of plain verb forms, and to be gentler overali.4H Although these speech styles are characterised as masr young girls to use male language amongst themselves (A'lainirhi Shinbun, 8 August 1993: 5). Another member tells of hearing a female elementary school teacher using male language, pointing out that it is useless to tell girls not to speak like this when they are presented with such models (Bunkacho 1993a: 85-86). One feature of such language is the use of the male self-referent boku by girls, heard in kindergartens, elementary schools,junior high schools, and spreading to senior high schools (Bunkacho 1993a: 57) ..'i:l However, a 1993 field study of women's language in the workplace found no instances of boku as a self-referent, even in the youngest age-group (Gendai nihongo kenkytt-kai 1997: 120-123). This might indicate either that the change has not yet spread to young working women but may do so as the schoolgirls now using it grow older; or that this usage is restricted in terms of age and is abandoned as girls become shakaijin (full members of society) when they graduate and begin work. Given the startling transformations that can occur at this life-stage, the latter hypothesis currently seems more credible. In a discussion between female academics, one suggests that girls only use boku amongst their friends, a view that fits with Nakanishi's observation (Reynolds-Akiba 1993: 8). Fair notes that it is used by girls in informal settings, with friends, mothers, older siblings, and teachers with whom they have close relationships. Teachers and parents say they use it to people they want to amaeru,!>4 whereas girls say they use it to assert themselves (Fair 1996: 169-172). These differing perceptions are themselves indicative of, on the one hand, a traditional Japanese view of human relations, and, on the other, a more western attitude of self~assertion. The changes in women's language usage that are becoming apparent are related to changes in their social and economic circumstances. A'> women have gained more choices in the roles they take on, and as they have become more economically independent, the boundaries between male and female roles are beginning to blur; linguistic habits follow suit. Under the 1947 Constitution, women and men are considered equal. In reality, the statuses of men and women are still dif~ ferent in many ways; nevertheless, it is true to say that women's standing in society has grown over the last fifty years. The rising average educational level, together with Japan's postwar prosperity, has led to increased employment opportunities. With these has come a growing economic independence,55 together with the possibility of assuming 107

Language Pfanning ana Language Change in Japan roles other than that of 'the good wife and wise mother'. !i6 An increased ability to support themselves has led to a sharp rise in the average age at which women marry, from 25.10 in 1980, to 26.86 in 1990 and 27.17 in 1995 (Nipponia 9, 1999: 11) .57 Economic factors, noticeably the phenomenal rise in land and housing prices, have also meant that continuing to work after marriage and even after having children has increasingly become a necessity, whereas before it was frequently not even an option: companies would put strong pressure on women to stop working once they got married or had their first child (Condon 1991: 185). :)8 In 1984, two-thirds of working women were married, as compared to one-third in 1962 (Cherry 1987: 96), and the major shift occurred during the two intervening decades. Figures from 1984, 1989, and 1990 show comparative stability: approximately 59 per cent of working women were married, around 32 per cent unmarried, and approximately 9 per cent were widowed or divorced (JETRO 1992: 126). The Equal Employment Opportunity Law of 1986 aimed at equality in working conditions for men and women (recruitment, employment opportunities, promotion) and, despite its problems, is an indication of the changes at work in japanese society.!i9 These shifts in working patterns highlight the point that many of the differences between male and female language usage at·e not absolute, but rather a matter of degree. Women in senior and professional positions tend to use less overtly feminine language; although they do not take on very blunt male language, their language style is more gender-neutral. In contrast, men frequently use gentler language when speaking to children. As Hori (1986: 374) argues, the apparent male/ female difference in the use of honorifics is 'not sex-oriented, but social-role oriented'. In other words, differences between male and female speech patterns arise from 'the different sorts of company men and women keep or the different roles they play in society' (ibid.: 385). As these roles change and as women move more in different circles, so will the language they use also change. Two recent studies illustrate the complexity of working women's linguistic behaviour. One is based on recordings of nineteen women from a range of age-groups and working in various kinds of workplace and types of work (Gendai nihongo kenkyiikai 1997). It examines some specific phenomena, including the communicative functions of the particle ne, terms of address and personal pronouns, and honorific language. The study concludes that the language of working women is very varied, and individual women have a wide linguistic range. Depending on the workplace and type of work, women may use somewhat 'rude' (ranbO) language without lOR

State of the Language, State of the ~tion

honorific expressions; but overall, women tend to use gender-neutral language, and it seems that there is a trend away from what is traditionally considered women's language (ibid.: 238). The second study examines a specific type of speech act, directives, used by women in positions of authority (Smith, Janet l992a). Smith's interviews with urban professional women supported Lebra's claim that the hierarchical orientation of Japanese society overrides gender (Lebra 1984: 242-243): the women reported that male and female subordinates accepted them as long as they stressed solidarity over authority, and were gentle, open and considerate. However, this does not mean that women in authority speak in the same way as men. Smith's analysis of directives used by women in selected television programmes categorises them into two strategies. The first she terms 'Motherese', that is, forms that are frequently used by mothers speaking to their children; in her data, these are used primarily by women and exclusively to much younger subordinates in relatively informal situations. The second category, designated the Passive Power Strategy, uses either no verb and no overt directive morphology, or an auxiliary verb construction (in its positive assertive form), indicating receipt of a favour (for example, -tf' rnoraimasu). Smith goes on to suggest that the use of the Motherese Strategy in the public domain and the creation of the Passive Power Strategy are ways of women empowering their speech (Smith l992a: 77-78). These studies indicate a rich area for future research. Finally, it is interesting to note that the discussion- and, indeed, the research- focuses almost entirely on changes in female language usage. This may be partly because of the common assumption, particularly by male writers on language, that male language is the norm, and women's language is the marked variety (Anderson, Roger 1988: 197). However, an alternative perspective is offered by Fair's argument that the idealised image of women's language is the norm 'not only for good or beautiful Japanese speech, but also for Japanese culture in general' ( 1996: 24). There are some indications that male language usage is changing, too, but in less noticeable ways than women's language. NHK's 1986 survey notes that 37 per cent of those surveyed thought that men are using more gender-neutral language. In a book on women's language, female academics comment on the increasing use by men of the honorific prefix o- and the sentence-final particle nP, usages that would once have been considered kimorhiwarui [unpleasant, uncomfortable]. However, although anecdotal evidence suggests that male usage of such patterns is increasing, they are not yet common. In social terms, too, changes in women's language are particularly important, since 109

Language P[anning antf Language Change in Japan they bear by far the greater responsibility for child-rearing.60 Fair ( 1996: 146) notes criticism of mothers failing to correct their sons who imitate their own language; if women are not using the language 'properly', what does this mean for the next generation?

LANGUAGE BREAKDOWN, SOCIAL BREAKDOWN? Cameron points out that in Britain, 'conservatives use "grammar" as the metaphorical correlate for a cluster of related political and moral terms: onln; tradition, authority, hinw·chy and rulfs.' The opposites signify the breakdown of social relations: · dismdn; changf, J1'(lgmf'ntation, anarchy and lawlfssness' (Cameron 1995: 95). These words have obvious parallels in the Japanese discourse of 111idare, which covers a wider range of' linguistic issues. Grammar is included, but also highlighted are honorific language and female language - key sociolinguistic manifestations of social relations and social structure and of what is perceiYecl as essential Japanese culture. Whilst uncertainty and disquiet on·r social change lila\' be at the root of concern about language, it may be politicallv easier to talk about language and try to do something about linguistic change than to deal with the underlying issues. In its pronouncements, the Language Council is keen to present a balann·d, objective picture, stressing that language always changes and must do so to meet the changing needs of society. However, it acknowledges that not all the changes are desirable, and that the best of the language (and of societY) must be preserYed. Pervading the discussions is the sense that linguistic changt· sYmbolises changes in society, some of which are seen as positi\'e, but mall\' of which are not. Social issues such as changing male and female roles, the generation gap, influences from abroad, the fragmentation of society, and increasing Yiolence all have their parallels in concerns m·er linguistic changes. In seeking to increase language a\\·arcness and good language usage, and to promote a sense of valuing the national language, Japanese language planners are implicitly also seeking to strengthen the sense of national identity which stresses a harmonious, ,,·eJI-onlered societv, and exploiting the 'powerful s1mholism in \l'hich language stands f(>r other kinds of order - moral. social, and political' (Cameron 1995: 25). This chapter has f(>etlsed on how language change is linked to developments in the moral and social spheres, but as Cameron indicates, a political dimension is htr from absent. In the next chapter, theretre, I shall examine in more detail some of the wa\s in which language reflects and defint·.~ the 1·elationship between the state and the Japanese peoplt>. Jill

Language: State and Citizens The previous chapter discussed language as an indicator of social structures, of people's behaviour and attitudes, and of social norms. In contrast, the focus in this chapter will be on language as a reflection of the relationship between the state and its citizens, and how language planning has acted to influence this. The most obvious aspect of this relationship is official language, that is, the language used by the state bureaucracy (at central and local government level) in its communications with the general public. 1 In terms of a global examination of language planning and its implications, official language has a significant role as both an important tool in, and a reflection of, the relationship between the state and the individual, between government and governed. Looking at japan's postwar language policy in this area, it is possible to see a continuum: from the Emperor indicating his change in status after the war by abandoning the special style of language exclusive to the imperial household, to today's user-friendly language of local government offices. The first section of this chapter looks at the development of official language in Japan, giving a brief overview of the historical background to place recent developments in perspective, and to demonstrate how the relationship between the state and the populace has changed. Policy at national government level is contrasted with efforts at simplifying language usage at local government level during the 1980s and 1990s. Although the need for efficient communication might seem paramount in these circumstances, it is clear from the statements made by the administrations pursuing such policies that building a closer relationship with the public is a major motivation. I would argue that this desire reflects a fundamental shift in the relationship between these local administrations and their communities. In the second Ill

Language Pfanning ana Language Cfzange in Japan section, therefore, I shall look at how the balance of power between state and citizens has shifted and how this is reflected in policy on official language. The emphasis here will be on social and political cohesion, rather than sociocultural norms as discussed in Chapter Three. Finally, I shall examine the issue of discriminatory language, taking into account the influence of pressure groups, and the impact of the political correctness movement from the USA. The tension between Japan's self-image as a homogeneous society and reality, which is far less uniform, will be highlighted by these issues. OFFICIAL LANGUAGE AND EFFICIENT COMMUNICATION

In countries such as Japan, where specific language policies are formed and promoted by government agencies, it is natural that the language of government itself should be an area susceptible to immediate and close scrutiny. Through its own language usage, the state can promote major linguistic change as part of wider social, political, and economic policies; or it can act as a force for resistance to such change where governing elites are concerned to maintain the status quo. The various agencies of the state- government ministries and departments, the civil service at all levels- can be important instruments in the implementation of language policy. This is potentially the most accessible area for implementation of official language policy. Am· decisions made by the state can in theory be enforced within its own departments and agencies, whereas adherence to such decisions in the media and other areas, let alone among the general public, may be more problematic. In practice, the situation is not so simple: in Japan the press and the literary world were enthusiastic early proponents of language reform, but the state bureaucracy lagged far behind in its language usage. Official language provides one role model which may influence the language use of the rest of society. Of the vast body of written (and spoken) material available to the public, official communications form a relatively small part, and it would be hard to argue that official language usage has the same influence as, for example, the mass media, and, more traditionally, literature. Nevertheless, it is unique in that it represents an officially sanctioned view of language, albeit of a particularly limited variety; it provides one of a range of models that, together, form that elusive idealised concept, the standard language. Barbaud, writing particularly from the viewpoint of the French language, argues thus: 112

Language: State ana Citizens '[T] he language of the state represents to [the speaker-citizen's] eyes if not the most typical, at least the most prestigious usage of the national language' ( 1983: 401). In fact, public attitudes may be more ambivalent than this statement allows. While official language may indeed enjoy overt prestige, negative feelings are also frequently expressed. 'Officialese', 'gobbledygook', 'bureaucratic jargon' -these are some of the derogatory terms long used in English to refer to the language used by the state to communicate within its own organs and with the population it exists to serve. Japanese refer to the same phenomenon as yakusho kotoba [government office language], often with the honorific prefix o - an appropriate, possibly ironic, nuance for a genre notorious for its formality. The more formal, official terms are kayobun [official/ government terminology] and kanrho yogo [government office terminology]. Both of the latter terms are pure onyomi;'2 the first is a mixture of the Chinese reading of yakusho [government office] and the kunyomi 3 of kotoba [language, words]. Even in the words used to refer to official language, the dominance of Sino-Japanese vocabulary in this register is apparent, and is symbolic of the way that official language diverges from everyday spoken language. A similar alternative is kanryo no kotoba [language of the bureaucracy], which combines the Sino:Japanese kamyo with the Japanese kotoba. Here is a description of the typical shortcomings of yakusho kotoba: 'difficult to understand, cold and unfriendly, special terminology and expressions' ( wakarinikuku, shitashirninikui yakusho dokutoku no yogo, iimawashi) (Ehime-ken 1987a: 1-2). The language of bureaucracy has its uses in internal communications: every profession or job or social grouping has its own particular jargon which can improve efficient communication between members of the group, enabling short-cuts for otherwise lengthy paraphrases. The problems occur when this same register is used for communication with laypeople outside the group of initiates, in this case, when officials use the same jargon in their dealings with the public. This has a twofold effect. Firstly, it tells the public that the bureaucracy is a caste apart with its own language and customs, and it is the public who must adapt to deal with this, not vice versa; it therefore defines the relative statuses and roles of the participants, with the bureaucracy holding the superior position. Secondly, it gives the communicative advantage to the bureaucracy or state, since it is they that establish the rules for communication. The citizen is rendered a passive recipient, removed from his/her place in the dialogue of normal communication, and the normal communicative circuit of mutual feedback is broken (Barbaud 1983: 397). This linguistic distancing and lack of power is reinforced in II~

Language P[anning antf Language Change in Japan spoken interactions by the physical barrier of a counter between civil servant and client. In Chapter One, the impact of pressure groups on reform of official language in Britain and other countries was mentioned. japan presents quite a different picture: there is no equivalent of the Plain English Campaign (PEC) crusading for plain Japanese. However, grassroots movements complaining about the language used by politicians did start to appear in the early 1990s; the timing is significant, as I emphasis«:> in the discussion below. To understand the shift in attitudes that this recent phenomenon represents, it is necessary to look first at the sociocultural background that has worked against such movements in the past. In a culture that values endurance and compliance (Rohlen and LeTendre 1996: j)(tssim), rather than individual assertiveness (Beer 1984: II G), the lack of directly voiced complaints from the public in the form of pressure groups is perhaps not surprising. As Beer (ibid.) notes: 'The individual taken alone does not often tend to assert publicly his or her rights, views, feelings, complaints, petitions, or protest, but instead tends to be rather passive and long-suffering, especially vis-a-vis social authorities'. However, the postwar period has seen the rise of groups and movements strongly opposed to such issues as the American militarv presence, Narita airport, and emironmental pollution, not to mention the radical student movement of the late 1960s. In comparison, the problems resulting from official language may seem a minor matter, unlikely to produce 1m~jor protest movements. But the PEC in the UK, while successful and with a relativelv high profile, is likewise not on the scale of such movements as CND, animal rights, or anti-road protesters. The bet that there is no comparable movement in Japan t heref(>re still needs to he explained. In f~1ct, local government surwvs indicate that comprehensibility is not seen as a m;~or problem.-' This in itself may go a long way towards explaining the lack ofpr«:>ssure groups. hut in turn it raises the question of whv official language seems to present less of a comprehension barrier in Japan than in mam· other countries. One partial explanation is prmided by Japan's extrcmeh· high official literacy rate. Although precise cross-cultural comparisons are almost impossible, illiteracy has been estimated bY some to be as high as 20 per cent in the United States, hut below I per cent in .Japan (Vogel 1979: 161 ). There is general agreement among comn~t·ntators that Japan's population is highly literate ( t(>r example, Neustllpnv 1987: I :~6), but official figures are open to question in several respects. One crucial point is the definition 114

Language: State and Citizens ofliteracy itself. The term covers a multitude of interpretations ranging from the ability to sign one's name in an eighteenth-century European parish registe1~ to a high level of reading and writing skills and education. UNESCO uses the term 'functional literacy' to refer to the essential knowledge and skills which enable [one] to engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning in [one's] group and community, and whose attainment~ make it possible for [one] to continue to use these skills towards [one's] own and the community's development. (Graff 1979: 3) A reasonable definition of functional literacy in Japan would be the ability to read a newspaper, which is the level aimed for by the Ministry of Education at graduation from junior high school (at 15 or 16). Since school attendance to the end ofjunior high school is compulsory, and actual attendance is about 99.9 per cent, it is possible for the following deduction to be made: 'the literacy rate [ ... ] is assumed to closely parallel school attendance rate' (Horiuchi 198g: 10-11). This assumption is, of course, erroneous, since it equates the aim with its realisation, as Brown ( 1991: 19) notes. Moreover, official Japanese literacy figures tend to refer to absolute, rather than to functional illiteracy: the official definition of literacy in Japan is the ability to read and write using han a (Brown 1991: 20). Whilst over 99 per cent of the population may indeed be able to use kana, knowledge of Chinese characters is far more variable, and the vast number of characters in use makes measurement difficuJt.:i Rohlen's book on Japanese high schools in the 1980s describes the real Iiteracv levels of those at the lowe1· levels of the educational system as much lower than in the official view ( I98g: 28go); and Unger cites research which indicates that ~Japanese children are just as likely to hill behind in reading as American children' ( 1992: I 03). The Ministry tacitly acknowledges that the official rosy picture conceals some problems, and in 1982 began to give funding to municipalities for literacy classes (¥67 million in 1988) (JajJa/1 'times Week(\', 21 May 1990: 5). The assumption that school attendance automaticallY leads to a reasonablv high level of literacy also focuses on those currently in the education system, ignoring adults who may not have completed as many years of education and who mav consequently be less literate. The number of those unable to function at a level of literan· equivalent to junior high school graduation is estimated by somt· to be as high as three million (ibid.). Demographic changes and minority groups are an important f~tctor here. Since the late 1980s there has been a substantial increase in the lllllllber of foreign residents - migrant workers, ref11gees, and brides l l:i

Language Pfanning and Language Cfiange in Japan from the Philippines, Thailand, and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. In the case of these foreign residents, literacy levels are just one aspect of the issues ofJapanese language proficiency. Kanagawa Prefecture's Literacy Project was set up to tackle the growing problem of illiteracy amongst these sectors of society, as well as amongst long-term Korean residents (Kanagawa, Oct.-Nov. 1990: 5). But the main category of people facing literacy problems is the Buraku communities: a government survey in 1985 showed that 16 per cent of those from Buraku areas were functionally illiterate (Motoki and Mori 1990: 40-41). Those with problems were predominantly older women who had received little education (jajJan Times WPekly, 21 May 1990: 5). In 1990 it was estimated that 220,000 people in Buraku districts had barely attended school because of discrimination and poverty (Kido 1990: 451) .fi As in other countries, literacy problems correlate strongly with class and poverty. In Japan, official acknowledgement of illiteracy has been limited because it would contradict the image of a middle-class, cultured, well-educated, and, above all, homogeneous society, since the groups who experience these problems are discriminated against as outsiders and minorities. In the local government surveys discussed in this chapter, the relative lack of criticism of comprehensibility may be somewhat misleading in view of the absence of data on class (indicated, for example, by level of income, type of employment, level of education achieved), and of any other information on whether people from the sections of society who experience literacy problems were included in the sample.

Language reform at national government level During the postwar period, and particularly in recent years, policy on official language has emphasised ease of communication with the public. To understand the fundamental shift in attitudes that this represents, it is necessary to look briefly at the historical development of official language and its broader social context. In pre-MeijiJapan, communication between the state and ordinary people was generally a one-way process of the state communicating down to the people, a sociolinguistic manifestation of the strictly feudal nature of a society where [!Jaw, justice, authority, administration, and custom were tightly inter'W 19H6a: 197). The de aru grammatical style recommended for general use by the National Language Investigative Council in 1905 (Shioda 197:~: 46) was now to be used in official language, along with a modernised lexicon, and Chinese characters were to be restricted to the t6yii lwnji list of 1946. Himwma were to be used instead of lwtalwna, which were previously used in official writings, except for foreign loanwords, which continued to be written in katalwna. Specific ref(mns included changing the layout of government forms and other official communications: from vertical right to left, to horizontal left to right.7 These changes continued the process begun by the f!/'1/bu 11 it chi movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which had changed the style of novels and newspapers but left the bureaucratic world largely untouched. They constituted a massive transformation of official language, and contributed greatly to its simplification. In comparison with its prewar manifestations, official language usage is now far more accessible to the general public (Mi'tllcr 197:): 132). Nevertheless, there are still areas of legislation left more or less untouched even today: the Justice Ministry's intention to revise the Criminal Code (in force since 1907 but including re\·isions of certain articles) and update its language, which was planned lr the late 1990s, has not vet been realised. In 1993 the Japanese Federation of Bar Associations ( i\'ilwu Bengiishi Ren 'ailwi) was lobbying for debate about this colloquialisation amongst the general public, on the grounds that the Ia\\' concerned everyone (Mainichi Shinbun, 21 Fehruarv I ~)9c~: 1). In the Ia\\' courts too, there is a movement to reform legal language (Bunkach(> 19~Ua: 119). Since the major ref(mn drin~ of the mid-19!l0s to mid-1960s, civil seryants have generalh· continued to follow the examples of their predecessors. At central goYernment level, there seems to be no particular consciousness of problems \\'ith official language and the public's reaction to it; emplmees simplv tend to copy what alreadv exists and are not greath· aware of their language usage.~' This is in contrast to the importance gin·n to the topic in other countries over the last two decad\·s, for example, the l'K. the USA, Australia and Sweden. This lack of interest at central government level can he attributed to various bctors, rooted both in the organisation of the Japanese bureaucracy and in more general social and cultural bctors ..\sin other IIH

Language: State and Citizens countries, civil servants in the central administration (in government ministries) are frequently transferred from one section to another; they have little chance to become 'veterans' through long experience in one particular job. Those dealing with language are not usually specialists.Y There is perhaps an inevitable tendency toward inertia in any large organisation; changes take a great deal of time and effort to effect, and it is simpler to carry on as before. The following quotation is taken from a local government publication, but its summing up of the prevailing attitude and consequent obstacles to reform of any kind, including linguistic, is perhaps even more pertinent to the central administration: Government olllce culture is based on legislation and systems; it is something that ha~ originated in and developed from within the structure that supports administration [ ... ] Since fairness and the public good arc desirable for the improvement of the welfare of the community, great importance is attached to the restrictiveness and continuity of administration. Accordingly, [administration being]uni(()l'm and inflexible, a closed society with it~ vertical divisions, there is a tendency to attach great importance to precedent. These character" is tics also appear in language usage. ( Kanagawa-ken 1985 Cyi}~Pi 11 i shimin no lwu o: 'Kotohato ishihi' no lwihaku o mPZmhilP, quoted in Inagaki and Mogami 1985: 5) Moreover, civil servants closeted in the ministries around Kasumigaseki 10 may have little or no contact with ordinary members of the public, and so have little direct experience of problems that their language usage may cause. Detailed guidelines on language usage in official communications, internal and external, are issued and regularly updated by the National Language Section. It is stressed that these guidelines are not compulsory, but given the .Japanese propensity for 'going by the book', they are likely to be widely adhered to. This was indicated by a comment from a member of the Language Section in an interview: 'It's the national character- if there's no standard/ guideline, we are uneasy, we can't tolerate it.' 11 The Lan)4uage Section's publication, Klzyobu n no Kakiarawashikala no Kijun [Standards for Official Writin)4] (Bunkach() 19H2a, 19H6a), includes detailed lists of the joy! hanji and gendai lwnazulwi with preciselv detailed information on acceptable variations in the writin)4 of the characters. Lists of vocabulary are given with alternatives to a\·oid the use of characters not prescribed in the j6y6 kanji list and to promote the use of everydav vocabulary instead of bureaucratic jargon. Thus attention is being paid at central government level to the lin)4uistic 119

Language Pfanning and Language Change in Japan problems of communication with the general public. However, these efforts seem largely limited to vocabulary, and do not extend to a comprehensive review of the syntactic patterns and other factors that can cause antagonism and difficulties for understanding among the public. The guidelines also provide examples of form layouts: compared with their British equivalents, substantially revised in a major government drive of the early 1980s (Cabinet Office, UK 1985; HMSO, UK 1982, 1985), the Japanese forms appear old-fashioned, making little use of bold print, headlines, varying print sizes and other such graphic devices to aid comprehension and completion. Apart from referring to the Language Section's guidelines, each government department has its own guidelines on particular language problems, largely matters of vocabulary and related problems with Chinese characters, specific to its own functions. These are to a large extent derivative of the Language Section's guidelines and tend to overlap much of the information found there, for example, on kana use. Despite the cross-departmental influence of the Language Section, there are some discrepancies in usage, echoing the long-standing factionalism and conflicts between ministries. The potential for conflict was built into the system from its establishment in the Meiji period (Kishimoto 1988: 86). Civil servants are recruited through a highly competitive examination svstem; once established in a ministry, they are very likely to stay there throughout their employment. Although moved around different sections, they therefore build up a strong sense of loyalty to their ministrv in the process. Factionalism and rivalry among ministries may militate against cooperation in setting of common norms and improvements in language. The conventions for writing foreign words in .Japanese in katakana, particularly place names and personal names, provide a dear example of ditlering approaches. Where there are alternative versions, the Language Section recommends the more traditional usage; these adapt foreign sounds to a closer approximation of the Japanese phonemic system, for example 'bi' rather than 'vi'. The Foreign Office, on the other hand, favours the usages which approximate most closely to the sounds of the source language, by using innovative lwtakana combinations whose use is limited to the representation of foreign phonemes, for example 'v' in 'Soviet" .I~ The Foreign Office's decision to use the katakana version closest to the foreign language original has practical benefits in f~Kilitating communication in both directions: it encourages more accurate pronunciation of foreign languages by Japanese natiYe speakers, and it renders Japanese pronunciation more 120

Language: State and Citizens accessible to foreign ears. Foreign Office policy on this matter shows concern for international acceptance and willingness to accommodate. A parallel case is the BBC, which has increasingly made it a matter of policy to render pronunciation of foreign words, particularly people and place names, in as close an approximation to the original language as possible. 13 The National Language Section, on the other hand, has a different political and ideological role to play. It follows the decisions and recommendations of the National Language Council, with which it works closely, and it recommends following the tradition of:Japanising' foreign elements. Recommendations from the Language Council in 1991 favoured the more traditional approach, but also accepted the innovative kana combinations where they are felt to be more suitable, so the potential for variation amongst the different government departments persists (Bunkacho 199la: 1-16).

Language reform in local government In contrast to central government, local administrations have shown considerable interest over the last two decades in modifying their language usage to meet the needs of the public more effectively. Since the mid-1970s there has been an increase in investigations at prefectural, city, or municipal leveJsl4 into the characteristics of official language and attitudes towards it. These smaller local administrations are potentially more flexible than central government departments; their employees are far more closely and directly involved with the general public. Not only do they have more opportunity to become aware of comprehension problems created by abstruse language usage, but they are also more likely to be concerned with improving relations with the local population. The desirability of projecting a modern, efficient and friendly image of the administration of the municipality I city /prefecture and of promoting a strong sense of local community is a common theme in publications on this su~ject: We prefectural employees and the prefectural population are bound together through language. And it is through language that the public learn about the work of the prefecture and come to hold an image of it [ ... ] Accordingly, there is a need for us to take a new look at the language used in documenL~ and re\'ise it to make it easy to understand, and friendly and accessible. This f(mns the basis of a modern, advanced, kind and friendly administration. (Ehime-ken 1987a: 1-2) It is worth noting that the report takes its own advice, in that it uses the dP.su/-masu grammatical style usual in polite speech and letters, in contrast to the de ant impersonal formal written style used in ad121

Language P[anning ana Language Cliange in _'Iapan mmtstration and other formal written contexts. This rfpsu/-masu style conveys the notion of a dialogue between writer and reader, and helps to suggest cooperation and interaction between the administration and the public. As noted above, initiatives in Japan to clarify and simplify the language used in forms, leaflets, and letters destined for the general public do not have their origins in vociferous protest from pressure groups. Rather, thev have come from the officials themselves as part of the 'open government' ( alwreta gyiisPi) campaigns launched by various local administrations from the mid-l970s onwards, aiming to make the population take a more active interest in local government. The movement began at prefectural level: some of the earliest examples were Saitama Prefecture's f.,')'iisPi no lmnlw-ka [cultural change in administration] and Kanagawa Prefecture's shin-bun-Ju-uru/6 [new style of writing movement) beginning in the mid-1970s; Hokkaidd language register to maintain its distance. There are signs of new attitudes here too: Kawamura Tsuneaki (Head of the Agency for Cultural Affairs) feels that voung people no longer want to use government office tenninoloh'Y (kanrlui yi~o), and that it will gradually disappt>ar (Bunkach 1993a: 117). One way of looking at how tlw relationship between state and citizens has changed is via the metaphor of t:m1ily relationships. The idea of the state as a hunilv, with the Emperor as father of the nation, was developed during the Me~ji period as a tool to create a relationship betwet>n the new nation-state and its people. This was epitomised in the word ust>d to translate the English word 'state', which combined the characters for 'country' and 'household, family' to give kokka. Relation126

Language: State and Citizens ships within families were, according to the Imperial Rescript on Education (1890), to be based on the Confucian notion of filial piety; language usage reflected this. In the 1947 Constitution, which of course bore a strong American influence, the emphasis was placed on equality between individuals. Although the family-state is no longer the dominant official doctrine, the idea cannot be said to have completely disappeared; and just as linguistic patterns within the family have become more egalitarian, so they have between the state and the people.

Establishing rapport and serving the public Barbaud ( 1983: 401) argues that linguistic forms which invite reciprocity, that is, authentically vernacular forms, are carefully excluded from the language of the state. These include forms expressing the phatic, metalinguistic, and emotional functions of language. While this may be true in terms of the kind of conversational devices cited by Barbaud, such as 'You see what I mean?', research carried out by the National Language Research Institute (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenky1~o 1986; Sugito 1985: 66-67) indicates that the metalinguistic, phatic and emotional aspects of communication are in fact an important part of Japanese official communications with members of the public. However, they are often encoded in expressions that are both formulaic and formal in nature. Examples of metalinguistic phrases which frequently occur in official communications include o-shirase itashimasu [we inform you], go-annai moshiagemasu [we notify /invite you], and ukagaimasu [we request]; all use humble verbs. The Institute's surveys showed that metalinguistic phrases were widely used in communications from both central and local governments, although the degree of use naturally varied according to the type of document. There was also variation amongst the different levels of administration: cities and prefectures used such phrases to a lesser extent than town and village administrations; 28.5 per cent of the latter thought it was better to use such phrases compared to only 9.1 per cent of prefectural governments. On average, 78.1 per cent agreed that the sentences including metalinguistic phrases were more polite than those without, and politeness seems to be the prime motivation for their use (Sugito 1985: 67-68). Metalinguistic phrases are a prominent ritual feature of formal speeches, and their appearance in official written communications echoes this tendency. Greetings also feature frequently: the example used in the survey cited above makes reference to the season and expresses the hope that 127

Language Pfanning arui Language Cfiange in Japan the recipient is in good health.l9 Such phrases are examples of what Malinowski termed 'phatic communion' (Crystal 1987: 10). Their function is not to communicate information but to build or maintain a relationship. Such phrases are almost ubiquitous in private and business letters, and although the reader may only skim them, their absence would be noted. Official communications that include them are therefore complying with general sociocultural norms, although they are not considered obligatory in such contexts (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkylijo 1985). Both phatic and metalinguistic phrases, particularly when expressed in deferential language, can be seen as part of a desire to build a relationship with the recipient. Moreover, there is an element of presenting the information nicely, which conforms with the strong Japanese theme of wrapping, both literal and metaphoricaJ.20 The growth in the number of local government offices using 'cute' names for administrative sections to give a user-friendly image also contradicts Barbaud's argument that emotional elements are completely excluded from official language. A 1993 newspaper report broke down the types of names used into several categories (Asahi Shinbun, 12 October 1993: 3). The first and largest category was 'easy to understand and user-friendly', and includedfureai ka [Contact Section], kodomo ka [Children's Section], and gomi o herasu ka [Reducing Rubbish Section]. The second was 'town promotion'; examples given were ganbaro ka ['We'll do our best' Section], which promotes Yasaka town as a tourist resort; shiawase ka [Happiness Section]; and kaze okoshi taisaku shitsu, which translates loosely as 'group for measures to encourage a breath of fresh air [to local government]'. The third category was 'famous local products or people'; these included ringo ka [Apple Section], onsen ka [Hot Springs Section], and Chikamatsu ka [Chikamatsu Section]. The last of these refers to a famous playwright whose grave is in Amagasaki City; the Section runs an annual Chikamatsu arts festival in the city. This is very similar to the use by British Tourist Boards of epithets based on famous writers, heroes, or films and television series: Bronte Country, James Herriot Country, Rob Roy Country, Shakespeare Country. The newspaper article cites the earliest use of such names as Matsuda City's sugu yaru ka ['We'll do it straight away' Section] as far back as 1969. It also notes that the introduction of such names begins when major public facilities have already been established, and the public demands the construction of a more individual local identity or a more personalised service from the local government. Unusual section names are also a way of expressing a corresponding change in administrative style ( Yomiuri Shinbun, 13 October 1993: 3). This trend is 128

Language: State and Citizens doubtless partly a reaction to criticism of the cold, impersonal bureaucratic approach; it is also noticeable that almost all of the examples given are at city or town level, where ties with the local population are likely to be closer than at prefectural level and hence the need to create a positive image is greater. The influence of advertising and commercial concerns is evident. One more area where the influence of advertising appears to have crept in is in newspapers and leaflets published by city and prefectural administrations. These are often liberally spattered with katakanago, along with photographs, bright graphics (particularly manga [cartoons], which have a long tradition in japan), and are well laid out and printed. They are in fact advertising their activities; endeavouring to show that public money is being put to good use, and encouraging the public to take an interest in local government. To do so they must present an appealing face to a public accustomed to glossy commercial magazines. However, these publications present a stark contrast to the forms used in city and prefectural offices, which tend to be printed in small, fine type on thin paper, and are totally devoid of flowcharts, colour, and other devices to aid comprehension and ease of completion. Perhaps an element of compulsion is the source of the discrepancy. People have no choice about filling in forms to register changes of address, births, deaths, and marriages, so there is no pressing need for the administration to make these materials attractive. Magazines and leaflets, by contrast, are not obligatory reading and must therefore appeal to potential readers.

Terms of address: dono and sama The use by local governments of the two alternative written terms of address dono and sama21 has been examined in a number of surveys since the mid-1980s (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyiijo 1985; Sugito 1986, 1988; Sakurai 1992). Because they set the tone of every written communication to a member of the public, they have become symbolic of the way that those in the bureaucracies see their relationship with the public. In Korf' kara no kf'igo, the National Language Council recommended the replacement of dono with sama both in official language and in more general language usage (Bunkacho 1952: 409). Despite this recommendation, there remains a good deal of variation: dono persisted in between 75.0 and 83.4 per cent of local administrations, according to a 1984-85 National Language Research Institute survey of 852 local public bodies.22 The highest figure for the use of sama was found at prefectural level (25 per cent), with only just over 15 129

Language P[anning and Language Change in _1apan per cent of town and village local administrations using it in preference to dono (Sugito 1986: 12). This finding is in keeping with others in the survey: changes tend to start at prefectural level and gradually filter down to the smaller and most rural administrative levels. When the results are examined on a regional basis, it becomes clear that those relatively rare town and village administrations using smna are clustered together in those prefectures that use it themselves (Akita. Saitama, Chiba, and Shizuoka prefectures) (Sugito 1988: 6869). Clearer evidence of this is seen in later surveys: Sakurai (1992: 86) finds that cities generally follow the lead of the prefecture and rarely change of their own accord. Sakurai's studies also show a growing trend towards sarna, with 55.6 per cent of prefectures and 58.7 per cent of town and ward offices2:1 using sama by 1990. He predicts that up to 75 per cent of local administrations will be using santa in a few years if the trend continues (ibid.: 82-84).24 Here too, there is a contrast between local and central government: despite the recommendation in Kou' lwm no kPigo over thirty years earlier, the term dono was still widely used by central government in the early 1990s. Even amongst those local administrations that had switched to sama, there were some that continued to use dono for forms that had to be sent to central government (Sakurai 1992: 84). A change to sama on the part of the central administration would probably be emulated in local administrations,2:i but it is the prefectures that are leading the change. Various factors account for the persistence of dono and the shift to sarna, and the reasons given by the administrations shed light on their changing relationships with their local communities. There is a clear distinction between the public and private spheres in Japanese society; dono is perceived by those in the civil service, academia, and the general public in favour of its retention as being more formal, associated with the public domain, and hence more suitable for official communications (Sugito 1986: 7-8). Dono is traditionally seen as being appropriate for communications directed to someone in an official capacity (shopkeeper, company section chief) rather than as a private individual (ibid.: 21). By extension, official communications are not being addressed to someone as an individual, but in his/her function as a taxpayer/voter/participant at the local sports day; the importance of role as opposed to individual identity is underlined. Arguments against dono focus on its derivation from and continuing association with joi katatsu [the Emperor's wishes as commands to subordinates] and its connotation of officialdom arrogantly looking down on the general public. For the latter faction, sama is more polite and respectful (ibid.: 130

Language: State and Citizens

7-8). Those who oppose the use of sama in official contexts contend that it lacks formality, being associated with private messages (shishin) and the private sphere, and is therefore inappropriate for official communications. However, for officials aiming to open up government and make it more accessible to the general public, it is this very association of sama with the private domain that recommends its use in official communications. It addresses each member of the public as an individual and shows respect and politeness; it is also seen as more democratic (Sakurai 1992: 91). The negative connotations of dono as outlined above are in direct opposition to these aims, maintaining hierarchy and a gulf between officialdom and the public.

From bureaucrats to politicians Until this point I have concentrated on the relationship between the state and its citizens as realised through official language, that is, the language of the bureaucracy at central and local level. However, 1993 saw the birth of citizens' groups campaigning for improvements in the language used by politicians. It was, significantly, a crucial year in Japan's postwar political history. From the summer of 1993 onwards, m~jor corruption scandals and failed attempts at political reform led to public anger and to turmoil in the Diet, and ultimately to the LDP losing its majority in the Lower House for the first time in almost forty years (Pyle 1996: 282). New political parties were formed, and Hosokawa Morihiro, the leader of the New Japan Party, became Prime Minister, falling ti·om power in early 1994. There followed a period of political instability and frequent changes in party leadership, which, together with the uncovering of numerous cases of serious corruption amongst both politicians and bureaucrats, led to growing disillusionment and resentment on the part of the public. The appearance of pressure groups agitating for change in the language of politicians is an expression of these feelings. One example is the Tokyo group calling itself 'Akarda kohlwi' o tsukuru tsudoi jihko iinkai [Committee for the Realisation of an 'Open Diet') ( Yorniuri Shinbun, I 0 November 1993: 19). According to the rorniuri report, this group was one of many starting up all over the country, claiming that one reason that politics and the administration were divorced from the citizenry was the characteristic language of politics and the bureaucracy. The Tokyo group called for the deliberations of the Diet to be conducted in ordinary Japanese, and for the bureaucracy to communicate in language showing their true intentions (horme), not in bureaucratic writing. Some typical bureaucratic evasive phrases such as mae1~1

Language Pfanning ana Language Cfiange in Japan muki ni taisho [deal with positively], and hairyo shimasu [we will consider it] are listed in the newspaper article, together with explanations of their real meanings: 'Something may get done in the future' and 'We'll leave it piled up on the desk'. The Japanese bureaucracy is by no means unique in employing such euphemistic evasions: similar tendencies in the British civil service were lampooned in the television series Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister in the 1980s. But the complaints from Japanese citizens about such language are interesting in that these and similar phrases are commonly cited in writings about communicating with the .Japanese aimed at foreign (mainly American) business people, usually under the general rubric of Japanese never saying 'No'. The underlying assumption is that .Japanese understand these communicative rules, but foreigners do not- one facet of Miller's language myth. Criticism from native speakers indicates that not all Japanese approve of these circumlocutions, even if they understand them. The link between people's disillusionment with the 'old guard' of politicians and criticism of their language becomes clear in a comparison of comments on the future role of the Self Defence Force made by Hosokawa and his predecessors. The typically bureaucratic phrases used by earlier Prime Ministers leave the subject of the sentence as ambiguous; in contrast, Hosokawa clearly states that the opinions of the people ofJapan will be sought. A professor specialising in political communication comments that, while Hosokawa may not have completely succeeded in moving away from bureaucratic language, he was making an effort to do so and had the right attitude ( Yomiuri Shinbun, 10 November 1993: 19). How successful such groups campaigning for more transparent language- and, by implication, for more honest politicians and civil servants- will be, remains to be seen. Nevertheless, their very existence at a critical point in Japan's postwar political history is symbolic of changing attitudes and expectations. DISCRIMINATORY lANGUAGE If pressure groups agitating for change in the language of politicians and bureaucrats are a relatively recent phenomenon, those criticising the use of discriminatory language have a far longer history. From the mid-1920s onwards, the Buraku liberation movement began to campaign against such language. 26 Its success in the early 1970s encouraged other sectors of society to protest: women's groups, prompted by the women's liberation movement; disabled people, whose claims were boosted by the International Year of the Disabled in 1981; ethnic 132

Language: State and Citizens minorities; and foreigners (Gottlieb 1998b). It is not my intention here to examine the activities of these groups and particular words targeted in detail; Takagi Masayuki ( 1992) and Gottlieb ( 1998b) provide valuable information in this respect.27 Rather, I shall focus on the reactions of government bodies and the media to this issue, and on how the apparent resurgence in the 1990s of concern about discriminatory language ( Yamiuri Shinbun, 9 January 1994: 11) sheds light on changes in Japanese society. The technical term used to describe discriminatory language is sabetsu yoga [discriminatory terminology], and its meaning is as clear as its English equivalent.2R But there are other terms used particularly with reference to language unacceptable to disabled people: fukai yoga [unpleasant/ displeasing terminology] and futekisetsu yoga [inappropriate terminology] (Gottlieb 1998b: 165). The term enryaga [restrained/ discreet language], referring to the opposite phenomenon -language that shows consideration and restraint- also appears in the Language Council discussions (for example, Bunkacho 1996a: 87). All these terms seem to relate more to what is deemed 'proper' or 'nice' than to be associated with any notion of prejudice; they lack the force and clarity of meaning of terms that include the word sabetsu. Japan's self-image as a homogeneous, harmonious society is contradicted by the very acknowledgement that discriminatory language is a problem. As Gottlieb ( 1998b: 172) concludes, 'the issue of discriminatory language and its regulation is contentious and has inflamed tempers on both sides in Japan, as in other countries where debate on political correctness in language has provoked both passionate defence and equally passionate condemnation.' The media have been the main target ofBuraku campaigns: first the press, during the 1950s and 1960s, and then, from the early 1970s, television, with intimidation being resorted to in some cases. From the mid-1970s onwards, press and television companies responded to criticism by compiling lists of words and phrases to be avoided, whether in relation to the Buraku or other groups discriminated against. However, they then faced the charge of self~censorship, which led many media organisations, such as the Mainichi Shinbun and the Yomiuri Shinbun, to deny the existence of such lists. A few organisations- NHK, the Kyodo News Service, and the Jiji News Service - do publish their guidelines (Gottlieb 1998b: 159-162, 168). Moreover, although a researcher interviewing a representative from the Yomiuri Shinbun in 1994 was told the newspaper could not admit to having such guidelines (ibid.: 168), in his 1994 book on discriminatory language, Tettei states 133

Language Pfanning and .Language Change in Japan that his selection of words and phrases judged to be discriminatory to a greater or lesser degree are based on the }(nniuri's 'Handbook of discriminatory expressions, unpleasant words, words that demand special attention'. The guidelines divided the problematic items into three categories: those that should not be used; those that should not be used except in special circumstances; and those that should generally be avoided but may be used depending on context (Tettei 1994: 225-235). While groups campaigning for those with physical or mental disabilities have also complained to the media, they have particularly targeted government: the International Year for the Disabled in 19tH prompted a movement to remove potentially offensive terms from legal statutes. Just as local governments were at the forefront of other aspects of official language reform during the 1980s, so they were in dealing with discriminatory language: in 1980 a disabled city councillor in Nagano Prefecture suggested that official language needed to be reformed to fit the welfare era. The council made proposals on terminology revisions and suggested that national and prefectural administrations do likewise. National government, in particular, the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Prime Minister's Office, took up the suggestion (Takagi 1992: 135-I:n; Gottlieb 1998b: 165). Prefectural and local governments made similar moves: for example, in 1981, Kanagawa Prefecture and the cities ofYokohama and Kawasaki changed a number of terms used in their ordinances to refer to disabled people (Kanagawa,June-::July 1981: 8). The rising status of women, in legal and economic terms, has had a substantial impact on discriminatory language. Gottlieb (1998b: 166) describes, f(x example, how the Equal Employment Opportunity Law in 1986 allowed successful hmsuits against Kinokuniya (bookshops) for a confidential companv document that specified women who were busu [ugly] or rhibi [tiny] should not be employed. Advertising was also severeh· criticised, but here, as in other countries, many of the complaints concern the images rather than the words used (Takagi 1992: 146-150). Takagi (1992: 17-63) notes that the wordjosei (woman) has been substituted torfujin [lady] by many local governments. However, in 1993, when the Labour Minister, Murakami Masakuni, suggested to the Cabinet that this change should be made in laws and official documents at national level, to parallel the use of dansei lrnan], the Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei (also Minister for Women's Issues) only promised that the government would study the issue further- a typical non-committal political answer (Japan Times Week()\ 31 May 199:~: 4). One point that neither Gottlieb nor Takagi raises is the issue of the 1~4

Language: State and Citizens sexism inherent in Chinese chara J9q()b: 317-311:l).2~ From this perspective, communication skills arc not regardd as language-specific, but rather as a set of skills that can b de\'eloped and applied to languages other than one's mother tongue. It is a pragmatic approach, in which communication problems are attributed to the way that people use language, not to the .Japanese language itst>lf being inherenth' vague, illogical. or inadequate in some \\'a\', as freqnently portravcd in the nilwnjinmn Yiew (:Vliller I~JH2: 102-126). It is worth noting that l'V1izutalli gradnated from an edncation f~ICI!]tv and has spent nH1ch of his professional life im'olved in th teaching of.Japanese

Speech ana Writing, Cu[ture ana Communication in an Intemationa[ 5!.ge to foreigners. Representing the subcommittee, he argued for a change from thinking oflanguage planning in terms of kohugo seisalw [national language planning] to the wider perspective of gengo seisaku [language planning] (Bunkach 1996a: 262), as well as neologisms coined from foreign elements. The speed with which new foreign words are introduced by the media and broken do\\'n for semantic recycling means that there is an inevitable lag between their introduction and integration as an accepted part of the Japanese lexicon. It is this gap that leads to comprehension problems and concern on the part oflanguage planners as well as members of the public (for example, Bunkacho Bunkabu Kokugoka 1997: 70-74; Asahi Shinbun, 13 November 1993: 5; Yorniuri Shinbun, 19January 1993: 19;Japan Timf's, 18 April 1997). In a 1993 lf>H

Speech and 'Writing, Cu[ture and Communication in an Intemationa[ ~ge newspaper article, Konomi Jin, a journalist writing for Japanese-language newspapers in the USA, writes about the 'wild vogue' of English words entering Japanese. Some of his comments show a lack of understanding of the linguistic processes that loanwords undergo: for instance, he writes that many words are 'mispronounced', with 'virtual' becoming biicharu, when this is simply accommodation to the native phonological system. But he makes the useful point that, historically, words have been taken from one language into another following wellestablished patterns: they have followed military actions, ethnic migrations, and commercial and cultural exchanges. In the case of Chinese words enteringJapanese along with the writing system, cultural exchange was the stimulus. Konomi argues that katakanago do not fit any of these patterns. However, specialist and technical terminology makes particular use of such words and these could therefore be included in the category of cultural and commercial exchange. I would also suggest that katakanago do fit the pattern of commercial and cultural exchange if the English language itself is viewed as a commodity, in the same way that rural dialects are part of the furusato package for tourists, as will be discussed in Chapter 6. Loanwords are a central issue of language planning in a number of countries, where there are concrete policies attempting to restrict them: France is probably the best-known example.27 Thomas notes: 'Since loanwords constitute the most readily recognisable element of foreign influence in a language, it is hardly surprising that they should be the most prone to puristic intervention' (1991: 68). Herbert Passin points out that languages vary in their degree of penetrability to foreign words ( 1980: 60). This is not related to language family or geographical region: for example, the current openness of Japanese to foreign loanwords contrasts with the attitude in South Korea, which tries to restrict the influx of foreign words and has an advisory commission on loanwords attached to the Ministry of Education (ibid.: 55). Rhee ( 1992: 88) also notes that the Korean government is attempting to eliminate Japanese expressions introduced during the colonial period. In japan, although traditionalists and right-wingers have since the 1960s called for a relaxation of the limits on characters to protect the traditional culture regarded as being implicit in the script, loanwords have not been an issue in the same way. The focus on the script throughout the postwar period until the early 1990s has meant that relatively little attention has been paid to other issues, including the lexicon. When loanwords have been considered, it is only in the context of how to write them using lwtakana (as in the 1991 Language Council recomrnenda159

Language Pfanning and Language Cfiange in Japan tions), not on their use per se. Nor is resistance from the public particularly strong: in a 1991 survey only 21 per cent of respondents thought the potential increase in loanwords and foreign words would be a negative change in the language, whereas almost three times as many (59 per cent) thought the loss of honorific language would be undesirable (NHK Hoso Bunka Kenky\\jo 1993b: 137). Thomas (1991: 68) outlines various factors that may influence receptiYeness to loanwords, and his description provides a useful framework within which to analyse Japan's linguistic receptiveness. According to Thomas's analysis, loanwords are more likely to be accepted if any or several of the following conditions are met: • they are so completely integrated into the phonological and morphological system that only close etymological analysis would reveal their foreign origin; • they are long accepted as occupying an important niche in the lexicasemantic system; • they are represented in a wide variety of languages; • they are not borrowed from competing or neighbouring languages; • they are borrowed from languages of the same language family, particularly at times of pan-national solidarity; • there is no native synonym to replace them. Historically, at least one of these factors has been a major stimulus to the receptiveness to loanwords in japanese: the need for words to fill a particular lexica-semantic niche. This was particularly the case during the Meiji period, when rapid modernisation necessitated the coining of many neologisms, using Chinese characters, for new concepts and artefacts. The first condition, integration into the phonetic and morphological system, is facilitated by the various processes that foreign words undergo in Japanese, which Motwani (1991: vii) succinctly describes as truncation, restriction, blending, or extension. Loveday (1996: 80) notes three different aspects of semantic change in the adoption of foreign words in Japan: restriction (for example, karute from German Karle, to mean 'medical chart/record'); shift (for example, handoru from English 'handle', to mean steering wheel); and extension (for example, dorai from English 'dry,' to mean 'unsentimentai').2R Once taken into Japanese, words are frequently abbreviated, which accelerates their integration into the phonological system and makes it difficult to trace their etymology, as Motwani notes. Truncation is frequently a necessary step if a word is to become widespread: adaptation to the mora structure of Japanese (vowel or consonant plus vowel) 160

Speecfi antf'Writi'!tJ, Cu{ture am£ Communication in an IntemationaUtge lengthens the word compared to the original and may make it unwieldy. One well-known and long-standing example of this is suto (from sutoraiki- 'strike'); more recent ones are seku hara from 'sexual harassment', pasokon [personal computer], and anakan [unaccompanied baggage]. What is perhaps most noticeable to foreigners is the tendency for elements of foreign words to be combined with elements from other words or with Japanese or Chinese morphemes to form new compounds and hybrids. This process parallels the way that Chinese characters are combined to form new words or abbreviations; English syllables, once japanised', are treated in the same way (Loveday 1996: 114-156). Examples include the nouns enko ('engine breakdown', from 'engine' and koshii), and namakon ('raw concrete', from nama and 'concrete') (Passin 1980: 66-67). Particularly interesting is the formation of verbs by adding the verbal ending -ru, as in saboru ('to play truant', from 'sabotage'). It is this final stage that works towards integration of loanwords into the native morphological system. I would suggest that this flexibility and willingness to manipulate foreign elements and combine them with native and Chinese ones to form new meanings contribute to the general climate of openness to foreign words and loanwords, despite the concerns that are expressed and which I discuss below. Much of the disquiet in France about the 'invasion' of English is based on the feeling that it is a cultural invasion: with the foreign words come foreign concepts or artefacts and a consequent dilution of French culture and identity. In Japan, the words are kept separate by being written in katakana. Moreover, the linguistic changes outlined above are a crucial mitigating factor. Words are not taken in 'lock, stock, and barrel', but are altered phonologically, morphologically and semantically, in a process of cultural assimilation that japanises' foreign words to meet the needs of Japanese societyor at least, certain sections of it. As Loveday (1996: 157) concludes, 'intensive Anglicization is [ ... ] associated with the public spheres of marketing and does not extend to ordinary interaction in the speech community'; the exception to this is Japanese youth (ibid.: 157-158). The Ehime survey cited in Chapter Four showed that age was a key factor in views on this topic: between 67 and 70 per cent of the categories aged over 40 said katakanago should not be used as a basic rule. This view did not appear at all among those in their twenties; on the contrary, the latter felt that their use was positively good (Ehimeken somubu gakt!_jibunshoka 1987b: 30-31).29 This trend is confirmed in the government survey that took place a decade later: 67.4 per cent of women and 62.2 per cent of men aged over 60 said they 'sometimes' 161

Language Pfanning and Language Cliange in Japan or 'frequently' had trouble understanding the meaning of katakanago, compared to 32.5 per cent of men and 46.5 per cent of women in their twenties (Bunkacho Bunkabu Kokugoka 1997: 73-74). Given the prominence of katakanago in advertising and their associations with modernity, fashion, and popular culture, it is not surprising that the younger generations have less difficulty than their elders and a more positive attitude to katakanaf{O. The gender gap in the younger age groups is harder to explain: it may be that men are less willing to admit incomprehension than women; or that men encounter more katakanago than do women in their daily lives and genuinely have fewer problems. A more detailed analysis of the semantic areas in which katakanaf{O frequently occur might shed some light on this issue.30 Such variations in levels of comprehension of and attitudes towards these words are yet more evidence that Japanese society is not homogeneous in linguistic terms. Apart from these linguistic processes, broader sociocultural factors must also be taken into account. Although English words started to enter Japanese in the Meiji period, the great influx began after defeat in World War II with the (largely) American Occupation. Since opposition to English loanwords was strongly and negatively associated with the linguistic purges of the prewar period, a postwar swing the other way was perhaps inevitable - part of the wider democratisation and re-opening of Japan. Katakanago have connotations of modernity and cosmopolitanism and are therefore popular with those wishing to convey an up-to-date, forward-looking, and internationally aware image; they are also used where existing Japanese synonyms or nearsynonyms do not quite convey the desired meaning or associations. Certain in-group language varieties make extensive use of loanwords and foreign words: the high frequency of katakanago in young people's language has already been mentioned, and Loveday notes that the Japanese underworld draws on English to preclude intelligibility to outsiders ( 1996: 196). The excessive use of such words can cause problems as well as negative reactions: older people in particular often have trouble understanding new loanwords and foreign words. Foreigners also sometimes find the plethora of 'made in Japan' katakanago impossible to decode, all the more so because many Japanese assume that any word written in katalwna is foreign and therefore comprehensible to foreigners. Loveday ( 1996: 159) notes complaints about the excess of English words in plans for current government-sponsored pn~ects and budget statements. During Language Council discussions, Yoshimura cites the use 162

Speech am{ 'Writing, Cu[ture and Communication in an Internationa[:Jige of sukiirnu [scheme] by the Finance Ministry and city office officials, which is then picked up and used by newspapers accompanied by a Japanese gloss ( wakugumi). As he points out, this involves seven characters where the Japanese word by itself would only use three (Bunkacho 1996a: 261). Local administrations appear particularly prone to extensive use of these words. Reacting to this trend, two lawyers filed a petition against the Shimane Prefectural Assembly in 1990, demanding that it should stop using japanese English' in its project titles and official documents (Loveday 1996: 160). Overall, it seems that lack of comprehension, rather than 'notions of preserving linguistic purity', is the main source of resistance to katakanago (ibid.: 162). In the Language Council debates of the early 1990s, the increase in gairaigo and excess (karla) of gaikokU!fO were frequently raised topics, deliberated at length by the second subcommittee of the twentieth session. There was some discussion over the appropriateness of the term 'excess', but in the end it was retained (Bunkacho 1996a: 141). Indeed, the general tone of the discussions throughout was critical of the enormous increase in such words in recent years. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that Council members themselves frequently make use of katakanago, apparently unconscious of any irony in doing so. The transcriptions of the meetings held during the nineteenth Council session provide examples such as sosaiPtii [society], pendingu [pending], onparedo [on parade], and rajikaru [logical] (Bunkacho 1993a: passim). In at least two of these cases, there are perfectly good Japanese alternatives- shakai for 'society' and romiteki for 'logical'. The fact that even a group of people who frequently express their objection to the unnecessary use of loanwords and foreign words themselves continue to use them is a measure of their all-pervasiveness and the air of erudition that may be attached to them. It is also evidence that katalwnagoare not restricted to young people, whatever the newspapers may say, since the m~jority of Language Council members are aged over 60 (Bunkacho 1996b: 287). Other government advisory councils are equally enthusiastic in their use of foreign words and phrases. A 1992 report by the Economic Advisory Council (Keizai Shingikai) included the following terms: raifusutairu [lifestyle], niizu [needs], fwfr purposes of recognition onh and for reproduction; some suggest around 3,000 characters for the f(mner and J,000 li>r the latter.--,~ Howen·r, tllt're is as \'et no indication that the Council plans to mon· in this direction. The 17~)

.Language Pfanning ana .Language Change in Japan 1995 final report includes the relevant findings of the Language Section's 1995 survey, as well as views from the education world. In the latter, the positive aspects are stressed: for example, interest in characters is growing; children learn more efficiently different characters with the same reading; and the ease with which they can change and correct text increases their ability to write (Bunkacho 1996b: 308-315). The second finding appears to contradict the general perception that confusion of such characters is increasing, but it is impossible to compare the behaviour of children in the process of acquiring the script with that of adults. Longitudinal studies might show that children who have learnt characters at least partly via computers experience fewer problems of this kind, but no conclusions can be drawn at present. As both Unger and Hannas argue, the issues related to processing .Japanese script for computers have certainly not been fully resolved. Typing in a string of syllables or words on an alphabetic keyboard, converting them into Japanese script, and then checking that the correct characters have been selected, is still far more time-consuming that typing in the roman alphabet; characters or character forms used historically or currently only in names are often not included in the software; and as applications multiply and computers work ever more quickly, the extra time involved in processing .Japanese script becomes more, not less, problematic This last problem does not go unrecognised: in 1993, almost a decade on from the first mass-market word processors- and a decade is a long time in computing- Umesao said at a conference that .Japan was falling behind other countries in an age of increasingly rapid inf(mnation exchange because of the problems posed for computers by the script; he advocated switching to romanisation (A.sahi Shinbun, l May 1993: 11). Hannas ( 1997: 258-276) gives a detailed analysis of the processes invoh'ed in computing with Chinese characters and comes to the same conclusion, highlighting the difference between the early word processors, basically glorified typewriters, and the ways in which computers are rapidly becoming 'extensions of our lives- and, for all intents, our minds' (ibid.: 259). The journalist Tanaka Ry()ta argues that the Council wishes to avoid dealing with the issues raised by the spread of word processing because of the controversy of the postwar script reform debates (Gottlieb 1995b: 67), but Gottlieb considers that the Council is not ignoring them, but simply adopting a 'wait and see approach'. Although it did focus after 1995 on the impact of word processors on the script, the investigation concerned only a very limited aspect of that impact, variant character forms. If Hannas's prediction is correct, the Council's carefully conIHO

Speecfi am{ 'Writing, Cu[ture and Communication in an Internationa[Jlge sidered recommendations on character forms may simply be a case of rearranging the furniture on the Titanic: '[C]omputers and phonetic conversion software in particular are laying the foundation for the replacement of Chinese character writing in a way that no "positive" reform could accomplish or the designers of character-capable computers ever imagined' (Hannas 1997: 275-276).

FROM SCRIPT TO SPEECH - AND BACK AGAIN? The forces of technology and globalisation are playing an increasingly important role in the minds of language planners in Japan. A shift in priorities at the beginning of the 1990s is evident, but the decision of the nineteenth session of the Language Council to look at issues surrounding the spoken language was following existing trends in society rather than taking a lead. The return to looking at language in its broadest sense indicates a reviewing of Japan's position a century on from the official discussion and subsequent decision on what was to be the standard language. Having completed the revisions of the immediate postwar script reform, the Council needed a new focus. The importance of facilitating mass education, a theme of the early language reforms, can be seen in a rather different form today: now the pressing need is seen to be the development of spoken skills to match the high literacy rate and foster Japan's relations- economic, political, and diplomatic - with the rest of the world. But the writing system cannot be ignored either: the twenty-second Language Council session is committed to continuing the debate on character forms, and in the longer term, computers may lead to far greater changes which the Council and other language planning bodies will not be able to ignore. At the beginning of this chapter I noted that the idea of the Japanese language as a cultural repository was based, in terms of language planning, on dominant, mainstream cultural values, and that these could be exclusive as well as inclusive. The treatment of non-standard dialects is an area where such issues are relevant, and this will be the focus of the next chapter.

IHI

~tiona[and2?ggiona[

Identities in ~[u~ Throughout the current study I have emphasised the role that language can play in establishing and defining national identity, and how this has been used by language planners in Japan. In contrast to the image of a homogeneous, unified nation that such policies aim to construct and disseminate, the focus of this chapter is the link between language and identity at the local level, where heterogeneity has always existed and is now being reasserted. Changes in tone and attitude have gradually become evident in policies and recommendations on these issues, particularly in education, but while this shift is indicative of a more tolerant official attitude towards regional variation in language, I would argue that it would not have come about without the success of earlier policies aimed at disseminating the standard language. EDUCATION: FROM DIALECT ERADICATION TO CODE-SWITCHING

For the language planners of the Meiji and Taisho periods, the paramount need to establish both a national means of communication accessible to all and a unified sense of national identity resulted in a state language policy which vigorously promoted the standard language while seeking to eradicate local dialects (hogen).l The main channel for this was the education system. Although there was no diktat by Tokyo that local dialects should be rejected, in practice, the needs of the education system resulted in their stigmatisation (Sato Kazuyuki 1992: 101), in a process ofinternallinguistic assimilation as outlined in Chapter Two and which paralleled the suppression of minority languages and dialects elsewhere in the world. In the British Isles, schoolchildren who used Gaelic (Scots or Irish) and Welsh were 182

:r{ptiona{ ana 'l(egiona{ Irientities in '.J{ul(_ ridiculed and physically punished, while in the Netherlands, teachers 'were led to believe that only standard speakers would be received into Heaven' (Cheshire et al. 1989: 5). Edwards and Alladina (1991: 3) note reports of Lancashire teachers sent into the playgrounds to detect 'lapses of speech', and national reports on the teaching of English in the 1920s and 1930s referred to 'slovenly, ungrammatical and often incomprehensible' non-standard English and 'evil habits of speech'. The narrator of a recent BBC radio series on the development of spoken English records how he and his schoolmates were scolded, particularly by the female teachers, for 'talking broad' in the Cumbrian village school of his youth in the 1950s.2 Despite the lessening in intensity of the 'national drive towards cultural and linguistic homogeneity' after World War II (Maher 1995: 105), the policy of dialect eradication in the name of education continued in some form for almost eighty years, until the end of the Showa 30s (mid-1960s). In the immediate postwar years policy was still unequivocal on this point. The 1947 kokugo curriculum for elementary schools stated that correct forms should be used and slang and dialect avoided as much as possible. The 1951 guidelines took the same approach, stating that pupils should become aware that their own language contained elements that were childish, vulgar, or from their local dialect, and should gradually be taught to use 'good language' - the common language (kyiitsugo). This was to be achieved not only via textbooks, but also by reading widely and by listening to the radio (Bunkachi:-> 1977: 92) - a recognition of the way that broadcasting supported the efforts made in school. In his sumrnarv in the Language Series book, Hyojungo to Hi5gen, Ft~jihara Hiroshi argues that these statements were distorted when they were interpreted as meaning that dialects were the same as rude, vulgar language, and that the resulting erosion of dialects and feelings of inferiority associated with them were an accidental consequence of the policy of disseminating the standard (Bunkach() 1977: 92). But it is difficult not to interpret such statements in this way: dialects are mentioned solely in a negative context, included amongst the kind of language to be avoided; and local education hoards and schools appeared to be in no doubt about what they meant. Examples of the continuing drive to spread the common language include the replacement of the 'dialect placard' (hiigen fuda) in Okinawan schools (described in Chapter Two) by a system of attaching a plate to the doors of families speaking the common language, in a kind of positive reinforcement. This practice continued into the Showa 40s (the mid-1970s) (Sato Kazuyuki 1992: 101). At the other end of the IH?>

Language P[anning and Language Cfuznge in Japan country, the desire of Aomori prefectural education board to raise pupils' ability to speak the common language was still being stated in official guidelines issued in 1964 (ibid.). Writing around this time, Miller notes that teachers and even university lecturers found it hard to avoid using the pitch-contrast system of their own local dialects, despite their more successful efforts to avoid nonstandard vocabulary, syntax, and morphology while teaching (1967: 144-145). This is a good example of k_yotsiigo in practice - an approximation of the standard language that nevertheless retains some features of the speaker's nonstandard local dialect. Local education authorities varied in their guidelines on language: anecdotal evidence suggests that people in large urban centres were under less pressure to change, presumably partly because they might expect to find employment and stay in the area. In more rural areas where the dialects were furthest from the standard, greater emphasis was placed on the development of skills in the common language to enable students to move around to obtain work and participate in wider society without being subject to prejudice and ridicule. Personal testimonies of the effectiveness of the policies denigrating local dialects are numerous: a newspaper letter from a reader from Yamagata Prefecture who received most of her education during the 1960s told how she was taught not to use 'bad language' (warui kotoba) -that is, dialect- in elementary and junior high school; she added that her senior high school regulations encouraged the use of the standard language within the school. As a result, she lost the ability to speak her native dialect (Asahi Shinbun, 8 September 1993: 5). The equation of dialect with 'bad' language is a key strategy in the stigmatisation process; the standard language is simultaneously presented as 'good' or 'beautiful' language, and its status is reinforced by the contrast with the 'bad', non-standard dialects. The standard is presented as the norm, and benefits from a gradual accretion of legitimacy and positive associations, in a process well described by Maher: It is no accident that when one particular dialect is selected for standardization into a national language propaganda rapidly redesigns it~ crest. The dialect rapidly acquires a lineage, a 'soul', a 'noble tradition' whilst the other dialect f(mns remain where they are. (Maher 1995: 100)

The most overt discouragement of regional dialects faded out around the late 1960s to early 1970s. Although Ft~jihara argues that curricula statements from 1968 and 1970 are almost the same as guidelines from the late 19!)0s, there are in fact significant differences. The IH4

'll[sztiona[ ana '1\.egiona[ Itfentities in 'J[Ul( httter state that efforts should be made for children to use 'the language used throughout the country' in writing and speech as far as possible; in the 1968 and 1970 curricula, 'as far as possible' changes to 'asappropriate' ( tekisetsu ni) (Bunkacho 1977: 89-90). The 1968 elementary school Year Four guidelines still stressed the need for exposure to the common language to encourage pupils to move towards using it; this included having students rephrase in the common language their utterances originally made in dialect. At the same time, they were to be taught that dialects had positive aspects (ibid.: 89). By 1978, the approach had been modified to stating the importance of providing guidance in the standard language as an accompaniment to guidance on speaking without accent or mannerism ( namari ya kuse no nai tadashii hatsuon de hanasu koto) (Monbusho 1978: 54). Writing about the 1970s, Fujihara argues that the focus in kokugo education on the common language was not intended to denigrate dialects, but necessitated by limited time; there was no need to teach dialects especially, as people would pick them up naturally (Bunkacho 1977: 91). The most recent Ministry-prescribed curricula for kokugo at primary and secondary levels (issued in the late 1980s and early 1990s) explicitly state that pupils should first learn to understand the differences between (their) local dialect and the common language, and then learn to use each appropriately, according to setting and circumstances ( ba ya jokyo ni ojite). This idea is first introduced in Year Four of elementary school (pupils aged 9 years). Pupils are to be taught to do the following: understand the difference between the common language and dialects via comparison of the two; learn the special characteristics of each; and learn how to use both in speech according to setting and circumstances (the common language is to be used for written work) (Monbusho 1989e: 72; 1992a: 16). The second half of this statement is repeated in the guidelines for Years Five and Six, but dialects are not specifically mentioned in the curriculum for junior high schools until Year Two, when pupils should understand the different roles fulfilled by the common language and local dialects respectively (Monbusho 1992b: 11). The elementary school Year Five guidelines emphasise the need to practise using the common language in formal contexts within school, such as school assemblies, internal broadcasting and debates (ibid.: 90). The junior high school guidelines for Year Two are particularly interesting in that they echo wider discussion about the threat to dialects. They stress the increased need to understand the significance of the existence of dialects now that they are changing because of improved communications and information transmission, and to make pupils 185

Language Pfanning ana Language Cfiange in _'Iapan understand the role of dialects and to have respect for them (Moobush 19H9d: 76). The idea of using diflerent language \'arieties according to setting and circumstances- shifting between dialect and common languageis the kev to the current approach. Instead of the replacement of local dialect by the standard, code-switching has become the ideal to be encouraged via the education system. Each individual is seen as being simultaneously a member of the local community and of the nation, and as using two different kinds of.Japanese in these different roles; children need to learn how to use both appropriately (Bunkacho 1977: 91). Shibatani ( 1990: li-\7) notes that textbooks include chapters on dif· ferent forms of.Japanese and point out that they are used in different domains; he argues that 'the basic idea of bilingualism is beginning to figure in the minds of language policy makers'.:\ Ftuihara gives examples from elementary school textbooks from the 1970s which already display this attitude (Bunkacho 1977: 9~-96). One, aimed at Year Four elementary school pupils, encourages a balanced approach: 'At the same time as we trv to acquire the common language properly, we should also value the good points about local dialects, and try to make our national language richer' (ibid.: 95). This stratef,')' seems to be the preferred solution to what Maher refers to as 'the double bind of educational bureaucracy's struggle to admit linguistic variety whilst at the same time eradicate it' (1995: IOH). In .Japan, despite the more positive comments on dialects in curricuhnn guidelines, the emphasis is largely on tolerance, rather than any active promotion of dialects. Bidialectism is not to be specifically taught, but acquired, based on the assumption that children will pick up and continue to use the dialect at home and in the community, and their use of it will be tolerated in certain situations in school, not discouraged or ridiculed as was previoush· the case. In hlct, there is some evidence that children are not now necessarily acquiring local dialects at home. Viewed in the long term, the decreasing emphasis on the need to teach the common language can he at least partially attributed to the success of the dialect eradication policY amongst earlier generations and ofbr greater exposure to the standard via broadcasting. Noguchi's study of code-switching on Yoron island. Ka~oshima Prefecture, supports this hypothesis. He demonstrates that the situations in which people acquire dialect and the standard have changed: children used to speak Yoron dialect at home and learn the standard at school; now it appears that thev learn the standard at home, encouraged by parents who themsel\'es were not allowed to use dialect in school. Around highIH!i

'l{fltiona[ and 'Rggiona[ Identities in :J[zq_ school age, they begin to acquire Yoron dialect as a teatw·e of their social identity (Noguchi 1987). Parallels for the more tolerant approach to dialects in education can be found in other countries. In Denmark · [ t] here seems to be almost unanimous agreement that the school must teach the standard and accept the dialect' (J0rgensen and Pedersen 1989: 36). Elsewhere, more proactive policies have been pursued. For example, in the Netherlands, Frisian is recognised as a separate language from Dutch and has since 1974 been allowed as the medium of instruction in all grades and a compulsory su~ject in all primary schools in Friesland (Hagen 1989). Similarly, since 1994, special provisions have been made for Breton and Basque bilingual schools in France (Ager 1996: 69). In the UK, the late 1980s saw enormous debate on the teaching of the English language in schools as part of the National Curriculum for England and Wales; Cameron provides a detailed analysis of what she terms 'the great grammar crusade' (1995: 78-115). Although, as her phrase indicates, the f(xus was on grammar, the issue of the standard language and dialects was necessarily involved, since much of what is frequently criticised as 'ungrammatical' is in fact consistent with the grammar of the speaker's local dialect. Cameron (1995: 101) cites multiple negation as one example of this - correct in London English, but incorrect in standard English. Both the Kingman Report (Department of Education and Science, UK 1988) and the Cox Report (Department of Education and Science, UK 1989) on the teaching of English 'moved away from the liberal pluralism of "all varieties are equal", by placing much more emphasis on standard English [ ... in view of] its status as a lirtf.,"1W franm'. Nevertheless, neither report claimed that the standard was superior to other varieties (Cameron 1995: 100-10 I) .4 The resulting emphasis on language awareness and appropriateness appears similar to the current Japanese approach, but it is important to note that in the case of England and \\'ales, the stronger emphasis on the standard was a reversal of the trend during the 1960s and 1970s, and was made under the influence of a conservative government set on radical reform. InJapan in the same period, the shift was in the opposite direction, away from strict enforcement of the standard towards a more flexible approach. The recommendation that schoolchildren should learn to use the standard and dialect as appropriate according to the circumstances demonstrates official approya] of the situation that actually prevails for much of the Japanese population already. In a 1995 sur\'ey. 75.1 per cent of the respondents said one should use either the common language or dialect according to setting and interlocutor; 17.9 per cent IH7

Language Pfanning and Language Change in Japan said one should basically use the common language and try not to use dialect. Age was a factor: of those over 60, the latter statement was agreed with by 24.0 per cent of women and 30.4 per cent of men; this reflects a more flexible attitude amongst younger people. There was also variation according to region, with Kyiishu having the highest rate of approval for code-switching (79.8 per cent)5 compared to 69.6 per cent in Hokkaido, which also had the highest rate of 'can't say either way' answers (Bunkach6 Bunkabu Kokugoka 1995: 8-9). This difference can be explained by the fact that Hokkaido, being settled from the nineteenth century onwards by migrants from all over the rest ofjapan, has out of communicative necessity developed a variety of language close to the standard or common language (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyujo 1965). The dialects of Kyilshtl, on the other hand, are very different from standard japanese, and the need to code-switch according to situation is more obvious. Naturally, the degree of code-switching that takes place varies among individuals according to the distance between the speaker's native dialect and the standard language. Tokyo natives may only adjust their language minimally according to the formality of the situation; speakers from Akita or Kagoshima, on the other hand, may make quite distinct switches between the two codes. This is comparable to the situation in Britain, where southern English speakers may 'slide up and down' a social dialect continuum according to formality, but Lowland Scots speakers may ~jump rather than slide', a difference that is also apparent in schools (Trudgill 1983: 190). My own experience of working in provincial high schools in Japan suggests that teachers already provide models of code-switching when talking to pupils, whether or not thev are conscious of doing so. A number of factors appear to be involved, such as formality, type of school, and the idiolect of the individual teacher. Individuals vary of course in the degree to which they are able and wish to switch between standard and local dialect; bllt in general, it appears that teaching staff tend to use the standard language, or an approximation of it, during classes, while switching to local dialect (to a greater or lesser extent) in less formal interactions with students. This code-switching can be used to signal a temporary shift in the nature of the teacher-pupil relationship, f()r example, to indicate closeness and empathy. In two years of working in senior high schools in Hiroshima City in the early 1980s, 1 was frequently able to observe this phenomenon. In an academic senior high school, one English language teacher appeared to use more or less standard Japanese in her classroom interactions; when encouraging or reprimanding individual pupils outside class, however, she switched to IHH

:A{gtiona{ and 'Rggiona{ identities in ~fu:t local dialect. The use of dialect in this situation served to minimise the teacher-as-tutor aspect of the relationship and emphasise its in loco parentis aspect, by speaking to the pupil as his/her parents might. Hirayama ( 1968, cited in Maher 1995: 98) argues that the distinction between urhi (inside) and soto (outside) domains, which is a fundamental part ofJapanese culture, aids the acquisition of the standard. In this example, it seems that the teacher was in effect switching from a soto mode of interaction to an uchi one. Although this is anecdotal observation, such behaviour does fit the general model of code-switching now being recommended in official guidelines.6 Home, as the place where local dialect is most likely to be spoken, is exclusively urhi and is thus unlikely to provide the environment to train children in such behaviour. School is the ideal setting in which to present models of code-switching between standard and dialect in formal and more informal situations. The potential for the school to act in this way is of course reinforced when the teachers themselves are from the local area, as is often the case. Moreover, teachers in the public education system take examinations to be employed by particular prefectural or municipal education boards, and are consequently more likely to stay in one particular area, since a move elsewhere would require sitting different appointment examinations (Monbusho 1993: 86-87). Against such factors that work to maintain local dialects must be set the fact that teachers have themselves grown up in an environment stressing fluency in the common language. Just as in the years when dialects were discouraged and denigrated, local education boards vary in their approach today. Some have taken a very proactive stance. For example, the education board ofYame City in northern Kyushu issued to all children a set of cards with key elements of the local dialect on them, in a move to aid its preservation (Hendry 1992: 350). Other areas show a high level of tolerance of the local dialect: the reader from Yamagata who wrote to the Asahi Shinbun about her experience of losing her native dialect because it was discouraged in school also gives an example of how things have changed since her schooldays in the 1960s. Moving to Toyama in 1992, she was surprised to discover that everyone, children and adults, young and old, spoke in the local dialect, and that this was also the case at school. Her children complained that they only understood half of what the teachers were saying in class because they were using Toyama dialect (Asahi Shinbun, 8 September 1993: 5). One caveat regarding the letterwriter's implicit conclusion about the change in official attitude must, however, be noted. Her comparison is between two different geoIH9

Language P[anning ana Language Cfiange in :fapan graphical areas, and behaviour and attitudes to dialect use vary significantly from region to region, as well as over time. Whereas the Tohoku dialects, including that of her native Yamagata Prefecture, have been particularly subject to negative attitudes which persist today, the Toyama dialect is not noted in the same way in the literature; it may be that policy in schools in the Tohoku region has not changed as much as elsewhere. Changes in policy and attitudes in schools have been followed by statements from the Language Council: both the 199:1 and 1995 final reports explicitly state the need to value regional dialects alongside the standard language. However, such official pronouncements need to be considered in the context of the lack of detail given. Neither report goes beyond stating that this is a desirable state of affairs, and there is no indication of how it is to be achieved. Nor does the topic receive much discussion in the preceding debates of the nineteenth and twentieth sessions ( 1991-95) beyond the suggestion that, ideally, people should be able to speak both the standard language and their local dialect and be able to use each in appropriate circumstances (Bunkacho 1993a: 129). The report from the twenty-first session reiterates the importance of rediscovering and renewing understanding of the value of the dialects that support rich human relations and transmit local culture and traditions (Bunkach(> 1998b). It is difficult to see these statements about the need to value dialects as much more than formalities combined with a certain nostalgia, made possible precisely because of the success of the earlier policy of spreading the standard to the detriment of local dialects. There is certainly no expectation that dialects will compete against the standard in formal contexts; rather, they are to be preserved as part of local culture and their use confined to local settings. THE CHANGING STATUS AND IMAGE OF LOCAL DIALECTS VERSUS THE STANDARD LANGUAGE The tendency for city inhabitants, particularly those of the then capital, Kyoto, to ridicule non-standard usage, is attested as far back as the eleventh century in the Gmji JVIonoKalari; but it was the longstanding nation-wide education policy of denigrating dialects that spread amongst the wider population the negative attitudes formerly held by the elites. In extreme cases, this was manifested in severe linguistic insecurity on the part of non-standard dialect speakers, termed lu~e;m konjmrrkkusu [dialect complex ].7 Newspapers and 190

:JI[gtiona( and 'l(egiona( Identities in :J(Ul(

linguistics journals feature personal accounts by people from the provinces moving to Tokyo and being mocked about the way they spoke, resulting in depression and even suicide (NHK Hoso Bunka Kenkyiijo 1993a: 63; Sato Kazuyuki 1992: 101).8 Such experiences are, of course, not unique to Japan, but in a society where conformity is highly valued, the pressure to acquire the standard language has been particularly great. The policy of spreading the standard language owes a large part of its success to the mobilisation of such social pressures. But these would have been insufficient without the major socioeconomic changes that have occurred during this century, particularly during the postwar period: increased mobility in study and work, improvements in transport, mass education, and, most importantly, the development of the mass media. In the process the differences between regional dialects and the standard have been reduced, with the former adjusting towards the norms of the latter (for example, Egawa et al. 1986). Shibatani sums up the current situation well: While the idea of Standard Japanese lives on in the minds of language policy makers, the spread and the leveling of the variations of kyotsii-go fostered by the movement of people and mass communication, have achieved the major linguistic goal of the founding fathers of modem Japan. (Shibatani 1990: 187) The standard language - or common language - and regional dialects have very different sociocultural and psychological associations. In a 1990 NHK survey carried out in the Tokyo area, the most popular terms to describe the standard language included 'correct', 'beautiful', 'polite', 'formal', 'stiff, 'insipid', 'bureaucratic' ( tadashii, kirei, teinei, yosoiki, katai, aji ga nai, kanryoteki). Dialects were described as 'warm', 'expressive', 'of the common people', 'for among friends', 'having depth' and 'gentle' (atatakai, aji ga aru, shominteki, fukami ga aru, yawarakai). Only 1 per cent of female and 2 per cent of male respondents described dialects as 'wrong language'; 3 per cent of women and 4 per cent of men surveyed said they were 'slovenly' (kitanai). In contrast, 45 per cent of men and 54 per cent of women said dialects were 'warm' (NHK Hoso Bunka Kenkyiijo 1993a: 64). The standard language is associated with modernity and efficient communication - the very purposes for which it was developed and promoted. Dialects, on the other hand, represent tradition, feelings, and human relations.Jugaku Akiko, a kokugo scholar and writer on women's language who comes from Kyoto, writes in the Yomiuri Shinbun that the expression of logical meaning does not require the use of dialect, but that dialect is needed to express feelings such as profound sadness (Jugaku 1993). One study 191

Language P[anning and Language Cfiange in Japan of regional dialect speakers living in Tokyo showed that they used their own dialect, the language of the home, for psychological support, whereas the common language was associated with stylishness (Koike 1991, cited in Maher 1995: 98-99). The different characteristics of the standard and dialects are expressed in school textbooks, too: one cited by Ft~jihara makes a distinction between functioning as a member of society, when it is necessary to speak and write the common language correctly, and interacting with one's family or local people, when the use of local dialect enables one to communicate better using the more vital, lively language that has developed over a long period amongst people living in the same area (Bunkacho 1977: 96). The depiction of the standard language and local dialects as having these opposing characteristics presents one possible resolution to the paradox of the conflict of modern versus traditional Japan, or pragmatic versus emotional needs - the best of both worlds. The distinction is also reminiscent of one aspect of the nihonjinron view ofJapanese compared to other languages, particularly English: Japanese is seen as being emotional, ambiguous and imprecise, in contrast to logical, rational English. But in terms of a more general sociolinguistic analysis, the clusters of characteristics associated with standard and non-standard dialects are classically those associated with the concepts of overt and covert prestige. Overt prestige refers to the status attached to the use of a language variety which conforms to the norms set by influential members of society, associated with education, culture, and authority; covert prestige assigns positive values to vernacular forms (such as regional dialects), and emphasises solidarity and local identity (Crystal 1999: 244-45). Noguchi's (1987) study ofyoung people on Yoron island, discussed above, is one example of covert prestige at work. The overwhelmingly positive characteristics now attributed to dialects are evidence that public attitudes have changed, or at least that people are now more willing to acknowledge publicly the covert prestige associated with regional dialects and accents. CITY SLICKERS AND COUNTRY BUMPKINS

Comparison of a Prime Minister's Office survey with one carried out by NHK highlights some apparent paradoxes in attitudes to dialects. According to the former, the less urban the area, the more people agreed with the statement that dialects should be valued, preserved and maintained. However, an NHK survey which asked whether language education in future should place value on dialects or direct 192

'J{ationa[ aruf 'l(ggiona[ /([entities in :J[u;c energy into education in the standard language showed that respondents from the more urban areas tended to place greater emphasis on dialects. In addition, the more educated that people were, the more they tended to value dialects. Nomoto deduces from these findings that although people in urban areas may objectively value dialects, in fact they have no relation to such people's everyday lives (Bunkacho 1993a: 213), a suggestion which implies that dialects are largely perceived as a rural phenomenon. Another Council member points out that respondents to surveys often give what they think is the desired answer, so results cannot be completely reliable (ibid.: 214). Such findings may appear contradictory, but in fact, the questions posed are quite different in nature: it is not so surprising that respondents from rural areas should feel a greater need for education in the standard language, since it is they who suffer most if they are unskilled in its use. A~ for the importance given by urban respondents to dialects, this can be partly explained by the nostalgia for traditional, rural Japan that is manifested in the furusato phenomenon, which I shall discuss below. This rural-urban distinction is an important feature of attitudes towards dialects in Japan, as in other countries. Attitudes to regional dialects and accents are frequently quite specific in relation to particular language varieties. Japanese dialects divide broadly between those ofEastern and Western Japan, and people tend to associate certain characteristics with speakers from the different regions.9 Sociolinguistic research in other countries indicates that accents are judged less by the sounds themselves than by the characteristics of the areas from which they are known to come. In experiments, the opinions of non-native speakers on different regional accents!O were elicited and found to bear little similarity to the judgements of native speakers (Trudgill 1983: 214-225). For example, in Britain, the Birmingham accent is widely perceived by native speakers as ugly and has low prestige; but this appears to be due more to its associations with a major industrial city than to any intrinsic sound qualities. In contrast, accents from the Scottish Highlands receive very positive evaluations because of their association with beautiful scenery (ibid.: 218-219). Such judgements result from social and cultural norms rather than any inherent aesthetic or other qualities (ibid.: 211). Similar stereotypes exist in Japan. The Kyoto dialect has continued to enjoy high status partly because of the city's centuries-long status as capital; it is widely seen as being more beautiful, gentle and refined than Tokyo or standard speech. In contrast, speakers of the dialects of the Tohoku region, the so-called ziizii-ben, II continue to be seen as country bump193

Language Pfanning ana Language Change in Japan kins and figures offun;12 it is not difficult to make the connection with the fact that this is one of the most rural areas of Japan, with low socioeconomic status. Research amongst college students in Tokyo about perceptions of the Okinawan dialects resulted in the following attributes: 'old', 'complicated', 'difficult to understand', 'closed', 'soft', and 'feminine' (Agarie 1983, cited in Maher 1995: 112-113). Tokugawa ( 1992: I :~3) highlights one feature that may account for these associations: honorific language relating to social status and class is more highly developed in Okinawan than in many other dialects. Some urban dialects are enjoying a resurgence. Since the late 1980s, the dialects of the Kansai area around the three major cities of Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe have become more popular, with talk of an Osaka-ben boom ( }(uniuri Shin bun, I R March 1993: 1) or a Kansai-ben counterattack (Nilwngo, August 1988). This phenomenon is particularly interesting because of the light it sheds on the way that sociolinguistic attitudes interact with socioeconomic and cultural factors. The recent popularity of the Osaka dialect in particular appears to have its origins in the city's commercial power and the mass media; a large number of popular television celebrities are from the Kansai area, and they continue to use their native dialect in their work. Their language has therefore developed positive, modern connotations for the wider populace. Kitamura (1988) demonstrates how the commercial broadcasters used Kansai dialect from the early days, because of the region's associations with entertainment- f()r example in mkugo [comic stories] and rnanzai [comic dialogues], and notes that television dramas using Kansai dialect increased from the late 1970s.l3 Surveys of non-Kansai speakers show that attitudes vary greatly according to age, with a very clear divergence between respondents in their teens and twenties on the one hand, and those in their thirties and above on the other. For older people, Osaka dialect had negative connotations: it was described as sounding 'pushy/intrusive', 'garrulous', and 'over'-familiar' (oshitsukegarnashii, kudoi, narenareslzii). In contrast, a survey amongst young people in Tokyo showed that they thought of it as being 'interesting/ fun', 'lively', 'straightforward and frank', and 'warm' (omoshimi, genkiga aru, sutorito dP sappari shitf iru, atatakai) ( YrJrniuri Shinbun, 8 November 1993: 13). One newspaper article reported the use of Kansai-bm, in particular, the expression oki ni [thank you] at a takoyaki [fried octopus snack] stall in Tokyo (ibid.). This was viewed positively by the customers; it had become part of the marketing, part of the product image language as commodity. Such phrases as oki ni were also explained on posters in the Tokyo subway (Honolulu Advn-tisn; 4 November 1992: 194

11{ptiona[and 'l?ggiona[ Identities in 'f[ul(_ A28). One Osaka-born assistant professor teaching kokugo at Tokyo University says he uses his native dialect in lectures and seminars; he takes the view that young people in Tokyo only have the common language, which is artificial, and need the rich expressive possibilities offered by dialects ( romiuri Shinbun, 18 March 1993: 1). While the urban dialects of Kansai are gaining popularity, the old rural dialects are under threat of disappearance, declining with depopulation and the dying out of old ways of life. In his analysis of dialects in the UK, Trudgill argues that, although rural dialects are being lost or diluted, urban ones are still evolving and diverging from one another (1983: 191). A similar trend is observable in japan. Inoue Fumio ( 1986) suggests that the so-called deterioration or decay of the Japanese of young people in Tokyo seems to be related to new forms of dialect. He characterises these new dialects as being used by young people, used in informal settings, and differing significantly in structure from the standard. Thus the concept of midare, which has featured so heavily in discussions of the Japanese language during this period, might be more accurately considered as the manifestation of an evolving dialect, centring on Tokyo, but defined less by geography than by age and popular culture. As such language spreads outside Tokyo, it interacts with local dialects to form new variants, as illustrated by Yoshioka Yasuo 's study ( 1994). Yoshioka examines the speech of young people in Kumamoto City and the surrounding area in Kyiishii, demonstrating how they combine new and fashionable words with elements of traditional local dialect and the standard language in their informal speech with friends to produce a new local variety which then spreads from the provincial towns to the surrounding area and to older generations. Thus although the traditional rural dialects may fade away, this does not mean that regional dialects will be completely replaced by the standard, but rather that they may evolve with the generations into new forms which are closer to the standard but nevertheless retain many distinctive local features. However, the newly evolving urban dialects are viewed less positively than the old rural dialects, lacking the associations with traditional ways of life.

REGIONALISM, FURUSATO AND THE DIALECT REVIVAL

Throughout the century following the Meiji Restoration, Japan grew more and more industrialised, urbanised, and centralised. Rural depopulation resulted, and a series of policies have been introduced to 1%

Language Pfanning ana Language Cfiange in Japan counteract this trend. The first began in the 1960s: the largely unsuccessful kigyo yuchi [enticing industry] strategy, whereby rural administrations tried to encourage industry to relocate in their villages (Knight 1993: 206). During the 1970s, the dominant political and economic centralising tendency began to give way to a policy of developing the regions, and since the late 1970s, when the expression chiho no jidai [age of localism] was coined (Robertson 1988: 502), politicians have encouraged development of the provinces as a counterbalance to the centralising pull of Tokyo.l4 However, the problems persisted: in the early 1990s, the imbalance between the financial, political and administrative power held by central government on the one hand, and provincial governments on the other, was still great enough to be considered a problem by the latter. Local administrations and businesses, such as JR (Japan Railways), have increasingly taken matters into their own hands, encouraging tourism as well as the return of former inhabitants in a 'U-turn' to their home towns and villages (Harnischfeger 1992: 12-13). Moon (1989: 6) notes that people may cite pollution in the cities, lack of living space or good jobs as reasons for this reverse migration, but a more important reason is that many Japanese villages have become sufficiently prosperous, through prqjects such as those outlined below, to attract people back. This latest strategy for rural revitalisation is known as mum okoshi [village revival] (Knight 1993: 207). Even major national companies have become involved: in 1992, the Sumitomo Corporation sponsored symposia across the country addressing the issue of the revival of regional culture. Sumitomo 'decided to advocate re-examination of the cultural diversity of Japan, as an important step toward achievement of Japanese social maturity' ( Sumitomo Corporation Newsletter, January 1992: 14). While the precise meaning of the phrase 'social maturity' is unclear, the statement implies that variety and pluralism are desirable. The idea of Japan as a homogeneous society is a popular one, particularly in nihonjinron discourse, but many rural communities have made efforts to reassert, if not reinvent, distinct identities. This may be part of a tourism promotion strategy, finding 'unique selling points'. There are many welldocumented cases of villages that have successfully developed and marketed themselves, for example, Jackson H. Bailey's study of a Tohoku village which developed its own dairy and marine product labels as well as a small tourist industry (1991). Another is Okpyo Moon's study of the transformation of a predominantly agricultural mountain village in Gunma Prefecture to an ultra-modern ski-resort 196

g{p.tiona[ and 'R.ggiona[ Identities in 'J[wc

which has nevertheless reconstructed certain aspects of its traditional lifestyle, such as charcoal-burning hearths, as part of its marketing strategy (Moon 1989). Culture has become a commodity, and language is part of that culture. If regionalism as social and economic policy can be linked to the resurgence of pride in dialects, the most influential factor within this range of policies is probably the furusato boom. The idea of furusato (literally: 'old village'; more accurately: 'native place') became a key concept in the early 1980s, appearing in advertising slogans and used by central and local government in their campaigns to revitalise depopulated rural communities. The strength of furusato lies in its emotional appeal. Its success is partly because it manages to combine both local and national identity in its portrayal of the archetypal village, which may vary in detail but which nevertheless has certain core attributes that are recognised as essentially Japanese: a village with a river, trees, hills, thatched farmhouses and rice fields. Jennifer Robertson lists the key furusato components as 'nostalgia, pleasant scenery, local dialect, compassion, camaraderie, motherly love, enriching lifestyle' (Robertson 1988: 502). Thus local dialect is part of the furusato image, associated with positive qualities and partaking of the overall rehabilitation and 'image change' of inaka [the sticks]. Nakanishi even claims that dialects have the imprint of rivers and mountains in them (1993). The obvious point to be made here is that since furusato is an image of a rural home village, it is associated specifically with rural dialects. It is also an image promoted more to city dwellers than to those who actually live in the country, in an effort to encourage people to visit as tourists or former inhabitants to consider returning there. Knight ( 1993: 207) highlights the way in which 'furusato is used as an idiom through which those unrelated to the village can be incorporated into it'. Moreover, the idea of returning is used more in a metaphorical than a literal sense: people who may never have lived in the country are encouraged to 'return' to a kokoro no furusato [spiritual homeland] which denotes 'a spiritual sense of belonging, a cultural and emotional home intrinsic to the Japanese experience' (Reader 1987: 290). I would suggest that this is the key to the apparently paradoxical pattern of urban and rural attitudes towards dialects mentioned above. The furusato is not a real hometown/area, but a created, imagined, idealised image of a rural idyll, which bears little relation to real life as it was lived in the past or is lived now in the country. Rural dialects are part of a myth which can be very attractive to urban Japanese who do not deal with the daily realities of such a life. 197

Language Pfanning ana Language Change in Japan William Kelly highlights the paradoxes for the inhabitants of one such community of the juxtaposition between these two concepts of inakawhich needs to be modernised and rationalised- and furusato- which needs to be preserved as it is and which 'provides a rhetorical defense against the felt excesses of the national society its residents otherwise eagerly embrace' (Kelly 1986: 611). The fitrusato village is a national archetype realised within a local setting; as Kelly (ibid.: 613) puts it, '[t] he .furusato boom has appropriated the individual's homeplace as the nation's heartland'. People have become aware that regional dialects, particularly rural ones, are being diluted and are at risk of disappearing. Instead of being seen as a positive step tmvards national integration, however, this has been viewed as a threat to local identity. The attachment to dialects grows as their field of use is reduced (Sanacla and Long 1992: 79). Since the mid-1980s, this threat has stimulated local movements dedicated to the promotion of their local dialects as part of local culture in many areas of the country. Similar movements do exist in the UK, but according to Trudgill. in England at least, '[m]ovements for the preservation of conservative rural dialects are not particularly strong' (1983: 192). In contrast to the situation in England, Scots and its dialects have et~joyed a resurgence since the late 1970s, linked to a growing national confidence and a recently successful demand for more political power. Scots is reappearing in schools ( Gumdian [Education], 13 September 1994: 8; S'mt.l'lllan, 13 November 1996: 13), and in 1994, the first Master's dissertation written in Scots was accepted at Glasgow University ( Gumdian, 8 July 1994: 8). Since the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, pressure groups have begun to lobby for recognition for official status for Scots. I would suggest that one reason why dialect promotion is more popular in Japan than in England is that Japan's industrialisation and urbanisation is a far more recent process than in England. E\·en in the biggestJapanese cities, the ultra-modern and the traditional are often juxtaposed (for example, in architectural terms), and people have a greater sense of change and a more immediate sense of what is being or has already been lost. One example of the moYements that have sprung up all over rural Japan is in the Kesen area of lwate Prefecture; the original impetus came in 1986 with the publication of an introductory grammar textbook of the Kesen dialect (entitled KPsm-go Nyumon), written by a local doctor, Yamaura Harutsugu. This was an attempt to restore people's pride in their native speech and the local culture that it represents ( Yomiuri Shinbun, 9 November 1993: 19). In her study of diversity in the

'l{fltiona[ am{ '1\.egiona[ Identities in 'J[wc

nation-state, Gaynor Macdonald ( 1995: 307-308) analyses a 1990 Asahi Shinbun article about Yamaura's efforts, which she describes as 'a declaration of independence designed to wipe out the unfounded discrimination towards the Tohoku dialect'. But Macdonald goes on to point out that both the tone of the article- ~jocular banter'- and the accompanying photograph, taken at a local festival, support her argument that '[e]fforts of marginalised people to assert themselves in terms contrary to those of the state are derided, the media often depicting them as romantic, bizarre or quaint'. Local study groups and dramatic performances followed the publication of the Kesen grammar, and in September 1993, a 'Kesen language speech festival' was held. The situation in one three-generation family, the Utenas, illustrates not only how language behaviour and attitudes differ between generations, but also how such local movements may bring about subtle changes in those attitudes. The grandparents use Kesen dialect in their daily working lives (seaweed cultivation); their sarariiman [office worker] son and daughter-in-law understand but hardly use it; and the grandchildren only encounter the dialect through their grandparents, hardly hearing it at school and spending much of their time watching television. When the grandfather won a prize in the speech contest, his granddaughter (a senior high school pupil), normally embarrassed by hearing him use local dialect, said to him that Kesen language was 'great' (Yomiuri Shinbun, 9 September 1993: 19). This does not give reason to think that she will now start using the dialect herself, but it may be evidence that attitudes can be modified: a rural dialect previously considered to be old-fashioned and 'country bumpkin-ish' may be able to undergo that popular Japanese process, imiiji-appu [an image boost] .15 Nevertheless, the photograph accompanying the article shows the Utena grandparents at work on the beach, dressed in suitable working clothes and laughing cheerfully - a similarly quaint image to the one described by Macdonald. Individuals may also use their status within companies to promote local dialects. One example was reported in the same year as the Sumitomo symposia: Maeda Kisaburo, the president of a printing company in Kagoshima, found that most of his locally recruited new employees spoke only standard japanese- a testament to the success of the education system. Maeda was described as being 'irate· at this discovery, and had his aides set about producing a 153-page two-way (standard language-Kagoshima dialect) dictionary for use by local residents and visitors alike, in an attempt to preserve the local culture (Asahi Shin bun Japan Arress, 20 April 1992: 8). It is particularly inter199

Language Pfanning ana Language Change in Japan esting that this should happen in Kagoshima, an area historically renowned for being strongly independent, and said to have deliberately developed a dialect incomprehensible to outsiders which specifically aimed at excluding those from central government (Hendry 1992: 350). Despite this history, the promotion of the standard seems to have been successful for the generation educated during the 1980s, notwithstanding the more flexible approach that had already begun to appear in the kokugo curricula issued by the Ministry of Education in the 1970s. But Maeda's conclusion about the inability of young people to speak Kagoshima dialect needs to be examined critically. An article on the threat to the Osaka dialect (Hoshina 1991) describes the experience of the director of a local commercial broadcasting company when interviewing candidates. Since two-thirds of them were from Osaka and attending universities in the Kansai area, he asked them questions in Osaka dialect but approximately half of them responded in standard language; it was as if they had learned the answers in standard language off by heart rather than using their own natural dialect. Possible reasons for such behaviour are not explored in the article; but if the candidates were indeed making an effort to use the standard, even in circumstances which might in many respects call for use of Osaka dialect, this is ultimately the result of each individual's judgement on appropriate code-switching behaviour. In a formal interview situation, involving a very clear difference in relative status, it is not surprising that many should feel the standard language to be more appropriate, even when being addressed in the local dialect. If this thinking is applied to the case of the Kagoshima company, it is again not surprising that new employees should try to use standard language in the presence of the company president. It may well be that the employees did indeed use dialect within their own work-groups, within an uchi context. It is clear that the situation is far more complex than the newspaper headlines about disappearing dialects allow; but what is interesting is that they articulate fears that have prompted people to take some kind of action, however flawed the logic behind it may be. THE ROLE OF BROADCASTING The key role of broadcasting in disseminating the standard language, leading to the decline of local dialectwnrP: On Gmda and Language. London: Sage Publications. Crowley, Tony (1989), ProjJPr A'nglish? Readings in !Jmguage, History and Cultumlldmtity. London: Routledge. Crystal, David ( 1985), A Dictionary o{ tinguistirs and Phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell in association with Andre Deutsch. 236

'13i6fiograpfiy - - ( 1987), The Cambridge Jrd UniYersity Press. Field, ;\lorma ( 1991), In thr Nmlm of' a Dying bnfmor:Jaf}([n at Cmtury \ New York: Vintage Books.

l~'nd.

Fishman, Joshua A. (I 972), f.rtfl!,l'1W{!/ and .Vatiml(l{ism: hoo lnll'[!;rrtlillf J~'s.1ays. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. - - ( 1973), 'Language modernization and planning in comparison with

other tvpes of national modernization'. l.an!,T1laf!:P in SoriPty 2: pp. 2343. - - (1996), In Praise ofthl' Bt'lovnl l.anguagP: A C'ompamtir•e \'iew ofPositivf J~'thnolinguislir

ConltioU.IIII'Ss. Berlin: Mouton de Gruytcr.

- - ( 1997), 'Language and cthnicity: the ,·iew from within', in Florian

Coulmas (ed.), Tht' Handbook ofSoriolin,i.,l'1listirs. Oxford, UK, and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, pp. 327-343. Fodor, IstYi.lmlWil' and ldi'Ology in Tokugawa Nativism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Havens, Thomas R. H. ( 1983), 'Nationalism', in Korlansha l:'nrydoj)f'(lia of .Jajmn. Vol. 5. Tokyo: Kodansha, pp. 342-343. Hayashi Oki (1988), 'Kokugo mondai to kokugo seisaku' [National language problems and national language policy], in Kindaichi Haruhiko, Hayashi Oki and Sibata Takesi (eds), Nihon[.;o Hyakka.Jitm [Encyclopedia of the Japanese language]. Tokyo: Taishi"1kan, pp. 1227-1244. Hay hoc, Ruth ( 1979), 'Written language reform and the modernisation of the currriculum: a comparati\·e studv of China, .Japan and Turkey'. Canadian lntPmalional h/umlion8(2): pp. 14-33. Held, David PIal. (eels) (1983), Stall's and SoriPiif's. Oxford: Martin Robertson in association with the Open UniversitY Hendry, Joy (1992), 'Honorifics as dialect: the expression and manipulation of boundaries in .Japanese'. i\lultilinguall (4): pp. 341-354. 240

'Bi6[iograplig - - ( 1993), WrafJfJing Culture: Politeness, Presentation and Power in Japan and Other Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henshall, Kenneth G. ( 1999), Dimensions ofJapanese Society: Gender; Margins and Mainstream. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Hiner, Richard (1975), 'NHK: Japan's other miracle'. Publir Telecommunications Review 3(3): pp. 22-31. Hirataka Fumiya ( 1992), 'Language-spread policy of Japan'. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 95: pp. 93-108. Hirayama Teruo ( 1968), Nihon no Hogen [Dialects of Japan]. Tokyo: Kodansha. Honey, John (1997), 1-rmguagf Is Power: 17w Strrry ofStandard r,'nglish and Its Enemies. London: Faber & Faber. Honna Nobuyuki (1980), 'Cultural pluralism in Japan: a sociolinguistic outline'.JafJanAssociation ofLanguagf TearhersJournal2: pp. 5-29. Hori Motoko (1986), 'A sociolinguistic analysis of the Japanese honorifics'.Journal oJPragrnatirs 10: pp. 373-386. Horiuchi Mamoru (1983), 'Literacy rate', in Kodansha l~m}dojwlia o{ Jajmn. Vol. 5. Tokyo: Kodansha, pp. 10-11. Hoshina Tatsur(> ( 1991), ]imoto demo hyobutai oware Osaka-ben zetsumetsu no kiki' [Driven from the stage even locally, Osaka dialect is in danger of extinction]. Asahi Shinbun WeekZv AHM. 30 July 1991: pp. 10-15. Hubbard, Maki ( 1994), 'Towards a re-definition offemininity in Japanese women's speech'. Women\ Studies in Communimtion 17 (Spring): pp. 69-91. Hunter, Janet (1988), 'Language reform in MeUi Japan: the views of Maejima Hisoka', in Sue Henny and Jean-Pierre Lehmann (eds), 77zemPI and Thmrifs in Modern.JajHtni'Sf Histmy: Essays in Mnnory o{ Rirhard Slurry. London: Athlone Press, pp. 101-120. Hutchinson, John and Anthony D. Smith (eds) (1994), Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ichikawa Atsunobu (1992), 'Bunka, gengo, nihongo, soshite kokugo' [Culture, language, Japanese, and national language]. Nilwngogaku [Japanese language studies] 11: pp. 4-9.January. Ide Sachiko ( 1982), 'Japanese sociolinguistics: politeness and women's language'. Unf...rua 57: pp. 357-385. - - (1986), 'The background of Japanese sociolinguistics.' .Journal o{ Pmgmatin 10: pp. 281-286. - - ( 1989), 'Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness'. Multilingua 8(2/3): pp. 223-248. 241

Language P[anning and Language Change in Japan - - ( 1990) 'How and why do women speak more politely in .Japanese?', in Sachiko Ide and Naomi Hanaoka McGloin (eds), AsjJwts o/ W£mtl'n:1· l,aJIKilaKt'. Tokyo: Kurosio, pp. 63-78. Ide Sachiko, Beverley Hill, Yukiko M. Carnes, Ogino T.~unao and Kawasaki Akiko ( 1992), 'The concept of politeness: an empirical study of American English and .Japanese', in Richard \\'atts, Ide Sachiko and Konrad Ehlich (eels), PolilmPss in /_an,t.,'1WgP: StudiPs in Its History, '11!1'01)' and Pmrtirl' (/}Pnds in UnKuistin StudiPs and MonO!,'TafJhs 59). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 281-297. Ide Sachiko and Naomi Hanaoka McGloin (eds) (1990), AljJPrts n/ W£nnm \ lJtiiKlWf:!;t'· Tokyo: Kurosio. Inaba Tsugio (1993), 'Chsen: "naisen ittai" no kakegoe no moto ni ky{>sei (> sarcta nihongo' [Korea: Japanese made compulsory based on the cry of Japan and Korea, one body']. (;pkkan NihonKo (Japanese language monthly], August: pp. 24-28. Inagaki Yoshihiko (1992), 'Writing a speech'. SPnri Ethnologiml Stu diPs 34: pp. 6:i-75. Inagaki Yoshihiko and Inoue Fumio (1993), 'Kotoba no "henka" ni "midare" ron wa tsukimono' [Language 'change' is always accompanied by talk of 'disorder']. (;pkfam Nilumgo (Japanese language monthly], March: pp. 4-13. Inagaki Yoshihiko and Mogami Katsuya ( 1985), 'Kotoba no fO'tlkalw' no susuml'. 1fJkusluilu1lui 390 [Promotion of 'official reform of language'. Special issue bulletin]. September. Tokyo: NHK H{>s(> Bunka Ch{>sa Ken kvttjo. Inagaki Yoshihiko, Ikeda Sue and Ishino Hiroshi ( 1974), (;aimigo to lu1s6lu1sr1 no lwtoba dai-6-lwi r!u1.1hisha r/u)sa hiilwku (Bunknt KP/J/H) 49-nl'n I, 2, 6, /, H-gatw-gtl nuliiz.uri) [Loanwords and broadcasting - report on sixth audience surYeY on language of broadcasting (offprint from Bunlir'll (;1'/J/HI.January, Fehruary,June,July, August 1974)]. December. Toho: NHK Sgo l-f{>s Bunka Kenkyt~jo. Inoue Eimci ( 1990), 'Differences between Nihongo and Kokugo'. Dai(y 'rlnniuri, lO Mav: p. 7. Inoue Fumio ( 1986). ·sociolinguistic aspects of new dialect forms: language change in progress in Tokyo'. lntnnalional Journal o{lhl' Sociology ofLangtutgp :>~: pp. 73-Wl. Inoue Kmko ( 1982). The making of a .Japanese constitution -a linguist's perspectin·'. [,anguagt' J>m!Jlnns and l,an,t.,'1ut,!!/ Planning 6(3): pp. 271280. Fall. - - ( 1991 ), MruA.rt!tur\ Constitution: A Unguislir and Cullum! Sturzy o/lls Making. Chicago: UninTsitv of Chicago Press.

'Bi6[iography Ishino Hiroshi ( 1975a), Hii.1iiyr~e;o to hyiijungo (Hr)srl yrlgo nm rlai-1-hu rlai-3-sho nukizuri) [Broadcast language and standard language (Broadcast language discussion 1.3 offprint)]. Tokyo: NHK Si:lgo Hs Y6go Kenkyf1bu. - - ( 1975b), Hiisii ni okmt gaimigo no monrlai ( Hrlsrl yrlgo ron rlai-2-bu rlai-6slw nuhizuri) [The problems of loanwords in broadcasting (Broadcast language discussion 2.6 offprint]. Tokyo: NHK Sgo H{>st> Bunka Kenkyt~jo, Ht>St> W>go Kcnkyt1hu. - - (1982), 'Gairaigo o &> miru ka- yushokusha an keto (dai-3-kai) kekka ht>koku' [How do you view loanwords? Report on results of third survey of working people]. Bunhm Gt"jJjJri. March: pp. 18-31. - - ( 1986), Nilwngo no hoku.wika to /u)srl y~e;o ( Hiisrl lnmha duJ.1a hPnhy1i nmpri 31 nuhizuri) [Broadcast language and the internationalisation of Japanese (Broadcasting culture research annual report 31 offprint)]. Tokyo: NHK Ht>st> Bunka Ch6sa Kenkyfuo. Ishino Hiroshi and Inagaki Yoshihiko (1986), 'Nihongo wa yahari midarete iru ka (kotoba no ishiki ciH->sa h{>koku)' [Is Japanese really falling into disorder? (Results of survey on language awareness)]. Hrl.wlhPnhy1i to Clul.w [Broadcasting research and sun·eys]. August: pp. 2-16. Ishiwata Toshio ( 1992), 'Wapuro ni nozomn' [What I wish for from word processors]. Nilwngogahu lJapanese language studies] 11: pp. 28-29. January. Ito Masami (1978), Brorulmsting in .Japan. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul in association with the International Institute of Communications. Iwao Sumiko (1993), '11tP.JajHtni'St' Woman: 'JI-aditionallmagp and Chan1,ring Rmlit_r. New York: The Free Press. JETRO (Japan External Trade Organisation) ( 1992), .JEFHO Businl'ss Fal'ls and FiptrP.I. Tokyo:JETRO. Jorden, Eleanor H. ( 1978), 'Linguistic fraternization: a guide for the gaizin', in Pmrwding~ of' the .\)mjmsium on .fajJrml'.\'f' Sociolinguistirs, '17tl' Sumnwr lnsitull' of'thl' L'iA (July 28-29, 1977). San Antonio: TrinitY llniwrsity, pp. 103-124. - - ( 1983a), 'Feminine language·, in 1\orlan.llw F111ydojwlia ojJajJrm. Vol. 2. Tokyo: Kodansha, pp. 250-251. - - (1983b), 'Masculine language', in 1\or/ansha buy-loj)('(/ia oj:JafHm.\'ol. 5. Tokyo: Kodansha, pp. 124-125. J0rgensen, J. Normann and Karen Margarethe Pedersen ( 1989), 'Dialect and education in Denmark', in JennY Cheshire, ViY Edwards, Henk Mi'mstermann and Bert Weltens (cds), l>iall'tl and fdumtion. CleYedon: Multilingual Matters: pp. 30-47.

Language Pfanning and Language Cfzange in Japan Joseph, John Earl (1987), EloqumtP and Pow~Cr: ThP Rise of l.anguage Standards and Stanrlarrll.angurt!(I'S. London: Frances Pinter. Jugaku Akiko (1993), 'Geni h6gen wa osoroshiya' [Really dialects are awesome]. Yomiuri Shinbun (evening), 6 May 1993: p. 5. Kabaya Hiroshi, Kawaguchi Yoshikazu and Sakamoto Megumi (1998), KPigo Hyogm [Honorific language expressions]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten. Kasza, Gregory (1988), The State and Mass Media in }afJan 1918-1945. Berkeley, C::A: University of California Press. Kellas, James G. ( 1998), The Politics o{ Nationalism and 1\thnirity (2nd edition). Basingstoke: Macmillan. Kelly, William W. (1986), 'Rationalisation and nostalgia: cultural dynamics of new middle-class.Japan'. American l~thnologist 13/14: pp. 603-618. Kelman, Herbert C. (1971), 'Language as an aid and barrier to involvement in the national system', in .Joan Rubin and Bjorn H. Jernudd (eds), Can /,anguagP BP Plannnl? Soriolin[.,ruislit Theory and Pmclitl' j{1r IJn,PlofJing Nations. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, pp. 21-51. Kennedy, Chris (ed.) (1984), l.anf..11Utp;P Planning and!Jtn{.,rurtgP 1\rlucation. London: Allen & Unwin. Kido Noriko (1990), 'Ima, naze "shikiji" na no ka' [Why 'literacy' now?]. 1!Js!wkrm Zasshi [Library magazine] 83(3): pp. 49-51. Kikuchi Yasuto (1994), Keigo [Honorific language]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten. Kindaichi Haruhiko ( 1978), ThP .fapanni' l.an~-,11wgl'. Rutland, VT: Tuttle. Translated by Hirano Umeyo from Nilwngo (1957, 1978). Kindaichi Haruhiko, Hayashi Oki and Sibata Takesi (1988), Nihongo HyakkafitPn [Encyclopedia of the .Japanese language]. Tokyo: Taishtlkan. Kinsella, Sharon (1999), 'High school girl subculture and the "loss of subjectivity" in contemporarY .Japan'. Seminar at Scottish Centre for .Japanese Studies, U niw~rsitY of Stirling, 27 November 1999. - - (2000), RP-0ril'nfalising Fashion. Richmond: Curzon Press and University ofHawai'i Press. Kishimoto K{>ichi (1988), Politics in i\lorlm1 JrtjHln (3rd edition). Tokyo: Japan Echo Inc. Kitagaki Hiromi ( 1997), 'Japanese-langua?;C education as foreign policy strategy' . .fafmn Quartnly.JulY-Septcm her: pp. 90-96. Kitaga\\·a, .Joseph M. ( 1987), On l. 'ndmtanrling.fafHtnl'sP !Migion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kitamura Hideo (1988), 'Seit(>ha Kansai-ben no h()kai' [Collapse of orthodox Kansai dialect]. (;l'klwn Nilwngo [Japanese language monthly], August: pp. 22-25. 244

'Bi6fiograph!J Kitta Hirokuni (1992), Nippon no romazi-undo 1582-1990 Uapan's romanisation movement 1582-1990]. Tokyo: Nippon no romaji-undo. Kloss, Heinz ( 1969), Resmrrh Possibilities on Group Bilingualism: A Report. Quebec: Universite Laval, International Centre for Research on Bilingualism. Knight,John (1993), 'Rural kokusaika? Foreign motifs and village revival in .Japan'.JafJan Forum 5(2): pp. 203-216. Kobayashi Yoshihiko (1978), 'The Japanese way of thinking and selfexpression'. The.Jajmn Foundation Newsl£'lter6(l): pp. 8-10. Koester, David ( 1995), 'Gender ideology and nationalism in the culture and politics of Iceland'. Ameriran 1\thnolo[!;ist 22(3): pp. 572-588. Koike Y (1991), 'Regional dialects in Tokyo: a socio-psychological study of speakers, attitudes and preferences'. Unpublished M.A. thesis, International Christian University, Tokyo. Kokugo Gakkai [[National/Japanese Language Association] ( 1972), Koku,;ogaku .Jiten [Dictionary of national language studies]. Tokyo: Tokyodo Shuppan. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyujo [National Language Research Institute] ( 1957), Keigo to Kei,;o lshiki: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenk_vujo Hilkoku 1 I [Honorific language and honorific language awareness: National Language Research Institute report 11]. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyi:ijo. - - ( 1965), K_vilts1~go-ka no Katei: Hokkaidil ni Okeru O_vaji San-dai no Kotoba. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyujo Hiikoku 27 [The process of standardisation: the language of three generations in Hokkaid6. National Language Research Institute report 27]. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyujo. - - ( 1985), Bun.~ho no Teikei Hy1~f{en: Chiluijirhitai Shokuin no lshiki Cluisa [Types of written expressions: survey of awareness of employees in local governments]. August. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyt"uo. - - (1986), Koku,;o Nenkan 1986 [Japanese Language Studies Annual Survey and Bibliography 1986]. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyiuo. Kondt) Sumiko (1993), 'Taiwan: "Naichi" nami o mezasu mo atsukatta "kokugo" shCttoku no kabe' [Taiwan: Aiming to be just like the mainland: the solid barrier of mastering 'the national language']. Gekkan Nihon,;o Uapanese language monthly], August: pp. 14-18. Konomi.Jin (1993), 'Rising tide of English in .Japan is drowning out logic' . .Jafmn Times Weekly International },'dition, 11-17 October: p. 8. Koschmann, J Victor (ed.) (1978), Authorit_v and the Individual in JafHm: Citizen ProlPsl in Historiml PerspectivP. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Koseki Shoichi ( 1988), 'Japanizing the constitution' .Jafmn QuarterZv 10(3): 234-240. 245

.Language P[anning and .Language Change in Japan Koyasu Nobukuni ( 19R3), 'Kokugaku' [National learning], in Kodansha lc'l/(yrlojJNlia o!Jajmn. \'oL 4. Tokyo: Kodansha: pp. 257-259. Kunihiro Masao ( 197:~), 'Indigenous barriers to communication'. ThP .fajJanlntnjiiPlnR(l): pp. 96-108. Wintn: - - ( 1976), The Japanese language and intercultural communication'. Tht•.fajHm lntnf11Pln I 0: pp. 267-2R3. Winter. Kurita Ynkio ( 19R9), 'Local Administration and Revitalization of the Hometown in Japan'. I .ecturc at Japan Information Centre, London, 14 June 19R9. Kuroda Isamu ( 1991), 'Gaikoku toshite no "Kansai" I - terebi bangumi no naka no Kansai hv{>gen' ['Kansai' as foreign country 1: Kansai expressions in tele\'ision programmes]. Osaka Kei::.ai /)aiKaku Ky~vr!-bu Kimku [Bulletin of the Department of Education, Osaka University of Economics]. 9, December: pp. 21-37. Kurokawa YtW (1992), 'Nihongo wa muzukashii ka' [Is Japanese diffintlt? ]. Gailw Forum. October: pp. 9R-99. Kuroki T~utomu (19RI ), An lntmdul'lion tofajmni'SI' (;mwmmmt Publimtions. Oxf(>rd: Pergamon Press. Labov. William (1990), The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change', in Jennv Cheshire and Peter Trudgill (eds), Tltl' Soriolii!KIIistirs Hmrln· \(J{. 2: (;mdrr and Dismunl'. London: Arnold, pp. 7-52. Originally published in l.ariKWlKf' \'ariation and (;/1(11/KP 2 ( 1990). Lawson, Mark (199R), T\' is the perp'. Gumdirw, 21 March 198R: p. 25. I.e bra, Takie Sugiyama ( 19R4), .fajHllli'St' Womm: Constraint and Fu.ljilfmmt. Honolulu: U nin·rsity of Hawai 'i Press. Leith, Dick (19R3), A Social Hist111y ojl:'ngli.1h. London: Routledge & Kegan PauL Lcitnn, (;erhard (19RO), 'BBC English and Deutsche Rundfunksprache: a comparative and historical arhin~; and l"f'aming in .fafmn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 275-294. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983), Pmhrynatirs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewin, Bruno (1979), 'Demokratisierungsprozesse in der modern en Sprachentwicklung', in Klaus Kracht (eel.), .Jajwn 1zrtrh /945. Wiesbaden: Sammlung Harrosowitz, pp. 87-lOl. Loveday, Leo J. (1986), :Japanese sociolinguistics: an introductory survey'. Journal oj'Pmwnatirs 10: pp. 287-326. - - ( 1996), 1-rm,!.,"'.lflgf' Contact in .fajmn: A Soriolinguistir History. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Macdonald, Gaynor (1995), The politics of diversity in the nation-state', in John C. Maher and Gaynor Macdonald (eds), I>ivn:1·ity in .JajHtnf'Sf' Culturf' and 1-rtngtwt;f'. London: Kegan Paul International, pp. 291-315. McGregor, Richard ( 1996),.fajHm Swing~: Polilir.~, Cultuw and Si'x in ihf' Nrw .Japan. St Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Mach ida Morihiro ( 1997), 'Ki.'ltf>gakk(l ni okeru keigo kyf>iku no genj{> to kadai' (Current situation and issues in honorific language education in senior high schools]. Nilwngogaku [Japanese language studies] 16: pp. 14-22. December. Mackey, William F. (1991), 'Language din~rsity, language policy and the sovereign state'. HislOI)' ofEurojJntn !rims 13( I /2): pp. 51-61. Maher, John C. (1995), 'The right stuff: towards an environmental linguistics', in John C. Maher and Gaynor Macdonald (eds), f)ivenil)' in JajHtnf'SI' Cultuw and l.anguagf'. London: Kcgan Paul International, pp. 95-128. Maher, John C. and Gaynor Macdonald (eels) ( 1995), I>irwnity in.fajHIIII'.\F Culturf' and l.anguaf!l· London: Kcgan Paul International. Malkiel, Yakov ( 1984), 'A linguist's view of the standardization of a dialect', in Aldo Scaglione (ed.), '11tf' bnngnuF of'Nalional/,rmA"'Irtgf'.l. Ravenna: Lango Editore, pp. 51-73. Mannari Hiroshi and Harumi Befu (eds) (Hl8:~). Tlu' (.'flallmgl' of.fajian\ fnlanationaliwtion, Organization and C'ultwP. Tokyo: Kwansci Gakuin UniYersity and Kodansha International. Matsumoto Michihiro ( 1984), Hamf!ti [Communication without words]. New York: Kodansha International. Matsumoto Yoshiko ( 1989), 'Politeness and conversational uniYersals obscn·ations from Japanese'. A1ullilingua 8(2/3): pp. 207-221. Maynard, Senko M. (1997) . ./aj)(trtf'.IF C'ommttnimtion: l.an~;uagP and '/1wught in Conlf'xl. Honolulu: U nin.·rsity of 1-lawai' i Press.

Language Pfanning and Language Cfzange in Japan Miller, Roy Andrew ( 1967), TheJajHlnese htn[.,rurtge. Tokyo: Tuttle. - - ( 1971), 'Levels of speech (keigo) and the Japanese linguistic response to modernization', in Donald H. Shively (ed.), Tradition and Modernization in Japanese Culture. Princeton, f\{f: Princeton University Press, pp. 601-665. - - ( 1977), 'The "spirit" of the Japanese language'. Journal of.fajHlnese Studies 3(2): pp. 251-298. - - ( 1982), Japan\ Modnn Myth: The htn[.,ruage and Bryond. New York: Weatherhill. Milroy, James and Lesley Milroy (1985), Authority in IJmguage. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Mitchell, Richard (1976), Thought Control in PrewarJaj}({n. London: Cornell University Press. Miyanaga Kumiko (1993), T'he Creative Edge: /•;merging Individualism in Jajmn. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Mizutani Osamu (1993), "'Kokumin no ky{)kan" ga kiten ni' ['Population's response' is starting point]. Mainirhi Shinbun, 8 August 1993: p. 4. - - (1998) 'Kore kara no kokugo kyt>iku' [National language education henceforth]. Nihongogaku Uapanese language studies] 17: pp. 14-18. January. Mogami Katsuya ( 1984), O~vakuslw wa kalak an ago ga o-suki? (Hiisii kenkyu to duisa Slulwa 59, 8-gatsu nukizuri) (hiisrl ylgo hozonjmn 29) [Do government offices like lwtakrma words? (Broadcasting research and surveys, August 1984 offprint) (Broadcast language archive edition 29) ]. August. Tokyo: NHK H{)s() Kenkyubu. - - ( 1985), Kotoba no f!;yrlkaku: kanrhrl yrlgo no sho-rnondai ( H6s6 kenkyu to rhtisa Shrlwa 60, 7-gatsu) (luisrl y£1go hozonjmn 40) [Official reform of language: some problems of official language (Broadcasting research and surveys,July 1985 offprint) (Broadcast language archive edition 40)]. July. Tokyo: NHK H6s{) Kenkyf1bu. Moon, Okpyo (1989), From Parlr~)' Field to Ski SlofJe: 'J'hp Rruitalisation of 1hulition in JafxmP.\P \'illagP Ufi>. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Motoki Ken and Mori Minoru ( 1990), 'Literacy and literacy activities in Japan'. Asian South Pruifir Bwnw oj'Adult Erlumtion CourierSn1lirPs49/ 50: pp. 39-44. December. Motwani, Prem (1991), Xirhijrl Gaimi[;o Yr!luJ.fiten - A Dirtionary of l~orm­ wonls UmgP Katakana-/:'nglish. Tokyo: Maruzen. Mouer, Ross E. and Sugimoto Yoshio (1980), 'Competing models for understanding Japanese society'. Soria[ Ana~vsis 5/6: pp. 194-204. December. 248

'13i6fiograpfiy - - ( 1983), 'Internationalization as an ideology in Japanese society', in Hiroshi Mannari and Harumi Befu (eds), The Challenge o{Japan\ Internationalization, Organization and Culture. Tokyo: Kwansei Gakuin University and Kodansha International, 267-297. Muller, Brigitte ( 1975), Koy6bun: Ein Beitrag zur jajmnis('hen SjnnrhjJolitik seit dern zweiten Weltkrieg. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Myers, Ramon H. and Mark Peattie (eds) (1984), The Japanese Colonial ErnjJire, 1895-1945. Princeton, J\!J: Princeton University Press. Nagata Yuriko (1991 ), 'Linguistic apartheid- some thoughts on Kankyaku Nihongo (Special .Japanese)'. Proceedings o{ Seventh Biennial Conferenre ofJajHmese Studies Association of Australia, pp. 231-236. Nahir, Moshe ( 1984), 'Language planning goals: a classification'. I.anguage Prvblerns and I.anguage Planning 8 ( 3): pp. 294-327. Nairn, Tom (1983), 'Nationalism and the uneven geography of development', in David Held et al. (eds), States and Societies. Oxford: Martin Robertson in association with the Open University, pp. 195-206 (extract from Tom Nairn, The Break-Up of Britain: Crisis and NeoNationalism [ 1977]). Nakamoto, M. ( 1983), Okinawa no Hiigen [The dialect(s) of Okinawa]. Tokyo: Ofiisha. Nakanishi Susumu (1992), 'Gengo masse kan o megutte' [On the view of language as degenerating]. Nihongogaku [Japanese language studies] 11: pp. 10-15 . .January. - - (1993), 'Utsukushii ka iya ka ga mondai' [Whether it's beautiful or ugly is the question]. Mainirhi Shinbun, 8 August 1993: p. 5. Nakano Osamu ( 1988), 'A sociological analysis of the "new breed'". Jajmn l~cho 15: pp. 12-16. Naotsuka Reiko, Nancy Sakamoto, et al. (1981), Mutual Understanding o{ Diff'erent Cultures. Tokyo: Taishukan. National Women's Education Centre (1990), WornPn in a Changing SociPty: ThPJrtj)(lnese Srene. Tokyo: Unesco. Neary, Ian (1989), Politiml Protest and Social Contml in Pw-WarJajmn: Thl' Ori&rins of Bumku l.ibm1tion. Tokyo: Kobunsha. - - (1997), 'Burakumin in contemporary .Japan', in Michael A. Weiner ( ed.) ,Jajmn \ Minmities: Thl' Illusion ofHornogeneity. London: Routledge, 50-78. Neustupny, .Jirf V. ( 1974), 'The modernization of the Japanese system of communication'. l.anguagl' in Society 3 ( 1): pp. 33-50. - - (1976), 'Language correction in contemporary .Japan.' !Jmguagl' Planning Newsll'tti'T2(3): pp. l-5.

249

Language P[anning and Language Change in _1apan - - ( 1977), 'Revision of an important language regulation in Japan'. l.anguaw Planning l\'nus{pl/n 3('2): p. 8. - - ( 1978), Post-Strurtuml AfJfJroarhn to l.anguaw' and 1-rmguaw Theory. Toho: University of Tokyo Press. - - ( 1983), Japanese language reforms', in Kodrmsha J''nr)·rlofmlia o{ Japan. Vol. 4. Tokvo: Kodansha, pp. 29-30. - - ( 1984), 'Literacy and minorities: divergent perceptions', in Florian Coulmas (ed.), l.inguistir AlinoriliPs and l.itnwy: l.anguagP Poliry fs.wps in /)nlf'lojJing Count riPs. Amsterdam: Mouton. - - ( 1987), Communimti ng with lhP.fajmnP.\F. Tokyo: The Japan Times. NHK ( 1985), Nilwngo Hatsuon Akusmlo .film [Japanese pronunciation accent dictionary]. Tokyo: NHK Shuppan Kykai. - - ( 1987), NHK Hrlsii no Kotoha Hrmdolwldw [NHK language of broadcasting handbook]. Toho: Nihon H{>s{> Shuppan Kykai. - - ( 1992) NHK Smkan '92 [NHK yearbook '92]. Tokyo: NHK. NHK Anaunsu Shitsu/Nihongo Senta [NHK Announcers' room/Japanese Language Centre] ( 1993), Hana.1hilwtoha (2 & A [Spoken language Q & AI. Tokyo: NHK. NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute (n.d., but post-1984), NHK Bmrulmsting Culllm' Rl'.lt'mrh lnstitull'. Tokyo: NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute. NHK IV>s{> Bunka Kcnhttjo [:-.JHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institlllc I ( l993a), (;nulaijin no ( ;l'llgo Ka nkyrl Cht~m 1: dai-1-/wi ( 1987.2)-dai-4kai ( /990.3) [Surveys on language emironment of people today 1: 1-4 (Fdmtary 1987-March 1990]. Mard1. Toho: NHK IV>so Bunka Kenkyt~jo. - - ( 1993b), (;nulaijin no (;mgo Krwkyrl Oui1a II: dai-5-/wi ( /99/.2)-dai-6kai ( l 991. II) [Surn·ys on language environment of people today II: 56 (February-November 1991) ]. March. Tokyo: NHK Hrlso Bunka Kenkyttjo. Nilwngogalw (Japanese language studies] ( 19~)4), 1:), October. 'Tokushtt:

Wakai josei no kotoba · [Special issue: nntng women's language]. Nishio 1\.ciko ( 1992), 'Kokusaikajidai mo nihongo o kangaeru' [Thinking about Japanese in an international age]. Nilwngop;alw (Japanese language studies] 11 (JanuarY): pp. 16-21. Nivekawa, Agnes ( 1983), 'Honorific language', in Kodansha FlliJdOjJI'(/ia of .frtjHIII. \'ol. 3. Toho: Kodansha, pp. '22-t-226. - - ( 1991), i'vlinimuin 1~\smtial Politmns: A (;uidl' to thP.fajJrllii'SI' Honorific l.rn1guaw. Tokyo: 1\.odansha International. Noguchi Katsuhiro ( 1987), 'Dialect acquisition and code-switching on Yo ron Island'. /)l'.ltTijJ/ i111' and AjJjJlinl l.i nguislirs 20: pp. 1;~?l-143.

'13i6fiography Nomoto Kikuo (1992), 'Kore kara no nihongo to kokugo mondai shingi' [Deliberations on Japanese and national language problems henceforth]. NihonKoKahu [Japanese language studies] 11: pp. 21-26.January. - - (1997), 'Kokugo Shingikai to keigo' [National Language Deliberative Council and honorific language]. NilwnKOKftku [Japanese language studies] 16: pp. 47-54. December. Nornes Abe, Hideko (1995), 'From stereotype to context: the study of women's speech'. Fi>minist StudiP.\ 21 ( 3): pp. 64 7-671. Ochiai Emiko ( 1997), ThP Jajwni'.\P Family Svstnn in Transition: A Soriologiml Ana(vsis oj' Fami(v Chanw' in Postwar.Jajwn. Tokyo: ITCB International Library Foundation. Ogden, C. K. ( 196H), Basir /\'nKlish: lnfl'mrtlional Smmd IJmf,'lutgP: A Rroisnl and l~J no naka no keigo" chsa kara' [From surveys on 'honorific language in schools']. Nilwngowthu (Japanese language studies] 16 (December): pp. 34-46. Pagel, Ulrich (1994), 'Buddhism', in Jean Holm with John Bowker (eds), Sannl Writing:> London: Pinter, pp. I 0-43. Passin, Herbert (19HO), Jajirliii'St' anrllht'}ajHlllt'SI' /,an,t.,'lHtgl' and Cultuw. Tokvo: Kinseido. 2:11

Language Pfanning atuf Language Cliange in Japan - - (1983), 'Overview: the internationalization of Japan - some reflections', in Mannari Hiroshi and Befu Harumi (eds), The Challenge of japan\ lntnnationalization, Organization and Culture. Tokyo: Kwansei Gakuin University and Kodansha International, pp. 15-30. Peng, Fred (1986), 'Sociolinguistics in Japan: an introduction'. lnternationaljournal of thl' Sociology of /,an!ftlagl' 58: pp. 7-24. Pharr, Susan (1990), l-osing Far!': Status University of California Press.

Politir.~

in Jajwn. Berkeley, CA:

Philips, Susan U., Susan Steele and Christine Tanz (eds) (1987), Lan!ftlagl', G!'ndn; and Si'x in ComjJarativl' PI'T~fJI'rtivl' (Studies in the Soria[ and Cultural Foundations o{ Vm!fUagl' No 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PHP Institute (1989), ~Vhat \ M-'hat in Jajwn \ DiPI, Govrrnmmt, and Publir Agmril's. Tokyo: Japan Times.

Pyle, Kenneth (1996), '17le Making of Modrrn Jajmn (2nd edition). Lexington, MT: D.C. Heath and Company. Reader, Ian ( 1987), 'Back to the future: images of nostalgia in a Japanese religious context' .Jajwnesejournal ojiifligiou~ Studies 14( 4): pp. 287-303. - - (1994) :Japanese religions', in Jean Holm with John Bowker (eds), Saaed Writing:~. London: Pinter, pp. 187-188. Reynolds, Katsue Akiha [Reynolds-Akiba] (1990), 'Female speakers of Japanese in transition', in Sachiko Ide and Naomi Hanaoka McGloin ( eds), AsjJI'I:ts o{ Women\ 1-rtnf..ruage. Tokyo: Kurosio, pp. 127-144. Reynolds-Akiba, Katsue [Reynolds] (1993), Onna to Nilwngo [Women and Japanese]. Tokyo: Yltshincl. Rhee, M. J. (1992), 'Language planning in Korea under the Japanese colonial administration, 1910-1945'. 1-an!ftlage, Culture and Currirulum 5(2): 87-97. Robertson, Jennifer ( 1988), 'Furusato Japan: the culture and politics of nostalgia'. Politirs, Cultwl' and Soril'ty I ( 4): pp. 494-518. Rohlen, Thomas P. (19R3),.fajmn \High Srhool~. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Rohlen, Thomas P. and Gerald K. LeTendre (1996), Teadzinganrf/_earning injajmn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rubin, Joan (1984), 'Bilingual education and language planning', in Chris Kennedy (ed.), /_anguagl' Planning and Language Hrlumtion. London: Allen & Unwin: pp. 4-16. Rubin, Joan and Bjorn H. Jcrnudd (1971), Can 1-rtnf..ruaw bl' Planned? Sorioliu{.,l'ltistir Theory and Pral'lirejin· DnwlojJing Nations. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. 252

'13i6fiograph!J Rubinger, Richard ( 1992), 'Literacy West and East: Europe and Japan in the nineteenth century'. Senri l\'thnologiml Studies 34: pp. 77-92. Ryang, Sonia ( 1997), Mrrth Kureans in.JajHln: l.anguage, ldmlogy, and Identity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Saint:Jacques, Bernard (1983), 'Language attitudes in contemporary Japan'. Thefapan Foundation Newsletter 11 ( 1/2): pp. 7-14. July. Sakurai Mitsuaki ( 1992), 'Todofukench oyobi shikuyakusho ni okeru "dono" "sand' no shiy Kazuyuki (1992), 'Gendaijin no h(Jgen ishiki' [Dialect awareness of people today]. Nihongogaku [Japanese language studies] ll (November): pp. 98-110. Sato Shigekuni (1999), 'Wakamono shoryakugo otona shakai no kagami' [Young people's abbreviated words mirror adult society]. Asahi Shinbun WeekZv AERA, 26 April 1999: pp. 26-27. Scaglione, Aldo (1984), 'The rise of national languages: East and West', in Aldo Scaglione (ed.), The Emergmt:e of National l.anguages. Ravenna: Lango Editore, pp. 9-49. Schiffrin, Deborah ( 1994), AjJjJroarhes to Discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Schoppa, Leonard James (1991), l\'dumtion IU>form in Jajmn: A Case of' lmmobilist Politics. London: Routledge. Searle, John R., Ferenc Kiefer and Manfred Bierwisch ( 1980), Speerh Art Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Seeley, Christopher ( 1991), A History of Writing in JafHln. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Seki Masaaki (1993), 'Manshii: dokuritsu kuni no tatemae ga unda tayo-na kykasho, "ky~juh6'" [Manchuria: variety of textbooks and 'teaching

2S3

Language Pfanning and Language Change in Japan methods' produced by the official stance of Manchuria as an independent country]. {;pkkrm Nilwngo (Japanese language monthlv], August: pp. 19-23. Sellek, Yoko and Michael Weiner ( 1992), 'Migrant workers: the Japanese case in international perspective', in Glenn D. Hook and Michael A. Weiner (eds), ThP lntnnatirmali.mtion oj:Jrtf)(ln. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 205-228. Seybolt, Peter J. and Gregorv Kuei-ke Chiang (1979), l~allf.,"lWKf' RP{orm in China: Donunmts and Commmtary. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Shibamoto,Janet S. [Smith] (19H5),JafH111PSP Womm\ !Jmr;uagP. New York: Academic Press. - - ( 19H7a), The womanh woman: manipulation of stereotypical and nonstereotypica\ features of Japanese female speech', in Susan U. Philips, Susan Steele and Christine Tanz (eels), !.anf.,"lWgP, Gmrln; and SPx in ( :omjmmtiw Pn:~JII'I'lil'P (Sturlil's in tltl' So!'ial and Cultural Foundations of !.anguagl' /1./o 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 26-49. - - (1987b), '.Japanese sociolinguistics'. Annual Rn.1inv o{Anthrofmlogy 16: pp. 261-278. Shibatani Masayoshi ( 1990), Thl' l.rmguagr~ o!JajHm. Cambridge: Cambridge Unin~rsity Press. Shimada Masahiko ( 19H3), 'Council on the national language', Korlrmsha J~'nrydofJNiia olfajiall. Vol. 2. Tokvo: Kodansha, pp. 38-39. Shinoda Aiko ( 1973), 'Classifications of.Japanese speech \eye\s and styles'. Pajwn in JajHtllfSf l.inguislirs 2( I), University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Shioda Norikazu ( 1973), Xihon no (;mgo St'isalw no Kmkyfi [Research on .Japan's language policies]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Sibata Takesi ( 19H8), 'Hanashikotoha' [Spoken language]. Kokugo Nmkrm /988 lJapanesc language studies annual survey and bibliography 19H8]. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Ken hl"tjo, pp. 7-9. Siddle, Richard (1996), Rat!', HP1i1laluP and the Ainu of'Jajlan. London: Routledge. Smith, Anthony D. ( 19H2), ·Language and nationalism'. Thf /nrmj}()m/rd l.inguist21 ( 4): pp. 144-147. - - ( 1991), Nationalis111 and Cultumlldrnlil): London: Penguin. Smith, Janet S. [Shibamoto l ( 1992a), 'v\'omen in charge: politeness and directi\'es in the speech ofJapancse women'. l.rmguagP in SoriPty 21: pp. :19-H2. - - (1992b) 'Linguistic pri\'ilege: ':just stating the facts" in Japanese', in Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz and Birch Moonwoman (eels), l.omting Pown: ProcwdinKs of thf Sn'Oiu/ Bnkfll)' Womf'n and l.anguagp Conji"''l'lltf',

'Bi6fiograpfi!J Afiril4 and 5 1992Vol 2. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language

Group, pp. 540-548. Steele, M. William ( 1995) 'Nationalism and cultural pluralism in modern .Japan: S{>etsu Yanagi and the Mingei Movement', in .John C. Maher and Gaynor Macdonald (eds), Divenity in}afHmese Culture and 1-anf!:IUtKe London: Kegan Paul International, pp. 27-48. Stern, H. H. (1983), Fundmnental Conref>l.\ o( l.anguaw' Tmrhing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stockwin,.J. A. A. (l975),}rtf)(ln: Divided Politir.1 in a Growth J,·mnmny. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Sugano Ken (1973), Kokugo seisaku to luisil _ViiKf> no tachiba. NHK luisii bunka chiisa kml!yft nmf>ii No. 18 nukizuri [National language policy and the perspective of broadcast language. NHK broadcasting culture survey research annual report 18 offprint]. Tokyo: NHK S6g6 H{>s6 Bunka Kenkyt~o.

Sugimoto Yoshio and Ross E. Mouer (1980), 'Reappraising images of .Japanese society'. Soria! Analysis 5/6 (December): pp. 5-19. Sugito Se~ju ( 1985), 'Bunsho no teikei hy6gen: chih() jichitai shokuin no ishiki ch{>sa kara' [Types of written expressions: from survey on awareness of local government employees]. Gengo Seikatsu [Language life] 408 (November): pp. 62-71. - - (1986), 'K{>bunsho no atena no keish{>: ippan kojin ate no bai' [Terms of address in official written communications: addressing ordinary individuals]. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyiijo Hiikoku 85 Kenkyu Hrikoku SMi [National Language Research Institute report 85 collection of research reports) 7: pp. 1-97. - - (1988), '"Dono" "sama" rons(>: oyakusho bunsho no atena no keish' ['Dono' and 'sama' debate: terms of address in government office written communications]. Gekkrm NilwnKo (Japanese language monthly], August: pp. 68-69. - - (1997), 'Keigo ky{>iku no kadai'[Issues in honorific language education]. NihongoKaliu (Japanese Language Studies]l6 (December): pp. 4-13. Sumitmno CorfJOmlion Ne-ws (1992), 'Regional culture revival symposia held',

January: p. 14. Suzuki Takao (1978), JafHw and the }rtfHmesl': Words in Culture. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Translated by Miura Akira. - - (1984), Words in Contl'xt. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Tada Michitarii (1977), 'The etiquette of the .Japanese language (I)'. JafJan },'dw4(4): pp. 131-140. - - ( 1978), 'The etiquette of the .Japanese language (2)' .JrtfHln l~dw 5(1): 116-121.

Language Pfanning ami Language Cfiange in Japan Taira Kmin o ysei suru kyoiku' [South sea islands: education to train the islanders became an aid to the Japanese]. Gekkrm Nihongo [Japanese language monthly], August: 29-32. Tannen, Deborah (1990), }(w Just Don't Understand: WtmzPn and Mm in ConvPrmtion. New York: Ballantine Books. Tettei Tsuikytt (1994), 'Kotobagari' to Sabetsu ['Word hunting' and discrimination]. Tokyo: Shttkan Bunshun. Thomas, George (1991), Unguistir Purism. London: Longman. Tokugawa Munemasa (1992), 'The ups and downs of dialects in Japan'. Srnri /Wznolot,riml Stu diPs 34: pp. 123-135. - - (1994), 'Nihongo no hgenjij' [The situation of.Japanese dialects]. Nifwngo Kyr.liku 'HfHhin (Japanese language education news] 20 (August): p. 7. Tollefson, James W. ( 1991), Planning /,anguagP, Planning fnpquality. London: Longman. 256

'Bi6fiograpfiy Trudgill, Peter ( 1972), The Social Differentiation of English in Norwirh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - - (1983), On Dialer/: Soria[ and Ceogmphiral PenfJeclives. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Tsuchimochi, Gary H. (1991), 'Education reform under the American Occupation'. Jinbun .'l'hakai Kagaku Ron Shu 3 Toy6 Eiwa Jogakuin Daigaku:pp. 25-39. Tsuji Kiyoaki (1984), Publir Administration in Jaf)(ln. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Tsurumi, E. Patricia (1984) 'Colonial education in Korea and Taiwan', in Ramon H. Myers and Mark Peattie (eds), The Japanese Coloniali~mfJire, 1895-1945. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, pp. 275-311. Twine, Nanette [Gottlieb] ( 1978), The genbunitr:hi movement: its origin, development, and conclusion'. Monumenta NipfJonira 33(3): pp. 333-356. - - (1988), 'Standardizing written Japanese: a factor in modernization'. Monurnenta NifJfJonira43(4): pp. 429-454. - - ( 1991), hmguage and the Modem ,)'tate: The Reform o{ Written .faf){lnese. London: Routledge. Ujihara Kiyoshi (1997), 'Keigo ky6iku o kangaeru' [Thinking about honOI'ific language education]. Nihongogaku (Japanese language studies] 16 (December): 55-66. Uleman, Frederick M. (1992), Review of Kyoko Inoue 'MacArthur's Constitution: A Linguistic and Cultural Study of its Making'. Journal o{ Japanese Trade and industry 4: p. 55. Umesao Tadao (1992), 'Keynote address: The comparative study of ch•ilization as it relates to language and writing'. Senri f"'thnolo,1.,Jiml Studies 34: 1-8. Unger, J. Marshall ( 1987a), The Fifth Cenemtion Falla1y: W7ly Jafmn is Betting its Future on Artijiriallntelligenre. New York: Oxford University Press. - - (1987b), 'Kanji: Japan's Achilles heel?'. '[{JkyoJournal, November: pp. 24-27. - - ( 1990), The very idea: the notion of ideogram in China and Japan'. Monurnenta NifJponim45( 4): pp. 392-411. - - (1992), 'Literacy East and West: data from linguistics and psycholinguistics'. Senri Ethnologiral Studil!s 34: pp. 93-107. - - (1996), Uterruy and Srript Reform in Oaufmtion Japan: &ruling bPtween the Lines. New York: Oxford University Press. - - (1998), Review of William C. Hannas 'Asia's Orthographic Dilemma'. Journal offapane.\P Studil!s 24 ( 1): pp. 197-201. Uno Yoshikata (1985), KPigo o Dono Yrl ni Kangal!ru ka [What do people think about honorific language?]. Tokyo: Nan'undo. 257

Language Pfanning and Language Change in _1apan Vagle, Wcnche ( 1991), 'Radio language- spoken or written?' lnkrnational .Journal o{AjJjJlinll.inguistics I (I): pp. 118-131. Vasishth, Andrea ( 1997), 'A model minority: the Chinese community in Japan', in Michael Weiner (eel.), Jajwn \ MinoriliPs: 'flu' Illusion ol Hoi!W!fi'TIPity. London: Routledge, pp. 108-139. Vogel, Ezra F. (1979), .fajHI/1 as Numbn 011!'. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weiner, Michael (1994), Hac!' and Mi[..r;ratirm in lmjJmal.faj)([n. London: Routledge. - - ( e(l.) ( 1997), .Jrtjwn \ A1inorities: Thl' Illusion of HrmwgenPily. London: Routledge. Weinstein, B. ( 1980), 'Language planning in francophone Africa'. l.rulguagt Pmblnns and l.ai1,1.,'1Ullfl' Plrmning4: pp. 55-77. - - ( 1990), !Jmi,'1Ullfl' Poliry and Politiml DPvl'lopmmt. Norwood, J\!J: Abwood. West, .Jonathan (1984), 'A historical survey of the language planning movement in Wales', in Istvan Fodor and Claude Hagege (eels), l.rwguagP RPjiJrm: Histmy and Futurl', Vol. III. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, pp. 383-398. Wilson, Dick (1986), 'f'hl' Sun at Noon: An Anatomy of' Modrrn Jajmn. London: Hamish Hamilton. Wright, Sue (1995), 'Language planning and policy-making in Europe'. l.anguagP Tmching28(3): pp. 148-159. Yamagiwa,Joseph K. ( 1948), 'Reforms in the language and orthography of newspapers in Japan' . .Journal o{A.nwrimn Orimtal Socil'ly 68: pp. 45-52. Yashiro Ky6ko (1995), The right to speak: language maintenance in Japan', in John C. Maher and Gaynor Macdonald (eels), Divn:~ity in .fajHtni'SI' Cultuw and l.arii,J'lutgP. London: Kegan Paul International, pp. 227-248. Yonekawa Akihiko ( 1994), 'Wakai josei no kotoba no shinrigakuteki, shakaiteki haikei' [The psvchological and social background of young women's language]. .\'ihongogalw [Japanese language studies] 13 (October): pp. 4-1. - - (l995a), 'Wakamonogo no sekai' [The world of young people's language] [Part 3]. .\'ilwngogalw lJapanese language studies] 14 (January): pp. 114-123. - - (1995b), 'Wakamonogo no sekai' [The world ofyoung people's language] [Part 4]. Nilwngogahu (Japanese language studies] 14 (February): pp. 98-107. Yoshino Kosaku (1992), Cullum{ Nationalism in Con/nnjmml)'.fajHm. London: Routledge.

13i6fiograpliy Yoshioka Yasuo ( 1994), 'Wakai josei no gengo kd{>' [Young women's linguistic behaviour]. Nilwn~,;owtku [Japanese language studies] 13 (October): pp. 33-44.

OFFICIAL PUBliCATIONS

Japan Central government Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of.Japan ( 1973), Cultural Policies o{lhe Agpmy ji1r Cultural Affairs. Tokyo: Bunkach{>. Bunkach. - - (1977), Hyiijungo to Hiigen (Kotoba Shiriizu 6) [The standard language and dialects (Language Series 6) ]. Tokyo: Bunkach{>. - - (1978), Wago Kango (Kotoba Shiriizu H) [Native Japanese words, SinoJapanese words (Language Series 8) ]. Tokyo: Bunkach. - - (1979), Nilwngo no '/(ikuslwku (Kotoba Shiliizu 10) [The special characteristics of_Japanese (Language Series I 0) ]. Tokyo: Bunkach6. - - (1980), Hanashikotoba (Kotoba Shiriiw 12) [Spoken language (Language Series 12) ]. Tokyo: Bunkacht>. - - (1981) Aisatsu to Kotoba (Kotoba Shiriiz.u 14) [Greetings and language (Language Series 14) ]. Tokyo: Bunkach(>. - - ( l982a), Kiiycibun no Kakiarawashikata no Kijun (shityci shu) [Standards for official writing (collection of materials)]. Tokyo: Bunkach{>. - - (l982b), Kanji (Kotoba Shiriizu 16) [Chinese characters (Language Series 16)] . Tokyo: Bunkach{>. - - ( 1985), Hanashikala ( Kotoba Shiriizu 22) [Ways of speaking/Spoken skills (Language Series 22) ]. Tokyo: Bunkach6. - - ( 1986a), Kr~viibun no Kak iamwashikata no Kijun (shityci slllt) (kaitei-lum) [Standards for ofllcial writing (collection of materials) (revised edition)]. Tokyo: Bunkach{>. - - (1986b), Kokugo Shinf..rikai Hrllwkuslw 16 [National Language Deliberative Council Report 16]. Tokyo: Bunkach{>. - - (1986c), Zoku Keigo (Kotoba Shiriizu 24) [Honorific language continued (Language Series 24)]. Tokyo: Bunkach{>. 259

Language P[anning anti Language Change in Japan - - (1987), Nihongo to Gaikokujin (Kotoba Shiriizu 26) (Japanese and Foreigners (Language Series 26)]. Tokyo: Bunkach(>. - - (l988a), Kokugo Shingikai Hiikokusho 17 [[National Language Deliberative Council Report 17]. Tokyo: Bunkacho. - - (l988b), Kotoba no HPnka (Kotoba Shiriizu 28) [Language change (Language Series 28)]. Tokyo: Bunkach6. - - (1989), Kotoba no /Jmtatsu (Kotoba Shiriizu 30) [Language as a means of communication (Language Series 30)]. Tokyo: Bunkach6. - - (1990), Kotobazukai (Kotoba Shiriizu 32) [Language usage (Language Series 32)]. Tokyo: Bunkach. - - ( 1991a), Kiiyobun no Kakiarawashikata no Kijun (shiryo shu) (zoho-han) [Standards for official writing (collection of materials) (supplement)]. Tokyo: Bunkach6. - - ( 1991 b), Kotoba no Imi ( Kotoba 5)hiriizu 34) [The meaning of words (Language Series 34)]. Tokyo: Bunkach. - - (1992), Hanashiai (Kotoba Shiriizu 36) [Negotiating and discussing (Language Series 36)]. Tokyo: Bunkach. - - ( 1993a), Kokugo Shingikai H6kokusho 19 [National Language Deliberative Council Report 19]. Tokyo: Bunkach. - - (1993b), 'Gendai no kokugo o meguru sho-mondai (Kokugo Shingikai hkoku)' [Some problems concerning today's national language (National Language Deliberative Council report)]. Kokugo Shingikai H6kokusho /9. Tokyo: Bunkach(>, pp. 289-297. - - (l993c), 'Gendai no kokugo o meguru sho-mondai ni tsuite (shingi keika h6koku)' [On some problems concerning today's national language (interim report)]. 19 June 1992. Kokugo Shingikai H6kokusho 19. Tokyo: Bunkach, pp. 273-288. - - (1993d), Kotoba to Kankyri (Kotoba Shiriizu 38) [Language and environment (Language Series 38)]. Tokyo: Bunkach. - - ( 1994), Kotoba no Kylilw ( Kotoba Shiriizu 40) [Language education (Language Series 40)]. Tokyo: Bunkach6. - - ( 1995a), Kokusaika to Xilwngo (Shin Kotoba Shiriizu 1) [Internationalisation and Japanese (New Language Series I)]. Tokyo: Bunkach(>. - - (1995b), Kotoba ni Kamum Jl,fondri Shu: KPigo Hm (Shin Kotoba Shiriizu 2) [Collection of questions and answers on language: honorific language (New Language Series 2)]. Tokyo: Bunkach. - - ( 1996a), Kokugo Shinf.,rikai Hiikokusho 20 [National Language Deliberative Council Report 20]. Tokyo: Bunkach. - - (1996b), 'Atarashii jidai ni sei. - - ( 19S9e), S/u)gakkii Shidii-sho: Kokugo Han [Elementary school guidelines: Japanese]. Tokyo: Gn->sei. - - (1992a), S/u)gakkii Gakushii .'-ihirlii Viityi ( Mon/mshii kokuji) [Elementary school curriculum guidelines (Ministry of Education notification)]. Tokyo: Gy{>sei. - - (1992b), Cluigaldui Ga/wslul Shirlrl Yiity! ( Monbuslui kolwji) [Junior high school curriculum guidelines (Ministry of Education notification)]. Tokvo: Cp->sei. - - [Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (Research and Planning Statistics Division, Minister's Secretariat)] ( 1993), !>'dum/ion in Japan /994: A Gmj1hic Pt"l'sl'nlation. Tokyo: Gy(-Jsei. Naikaku s(->rida~jin Kanb(-> Sfmmka [General section, Prime Minister's secretariat, Cabinet Office] (1986, l9H7), Shin Kr~villmn Yriji Yiigo RPi Slui [New collection of examples of official language, characters and terminology]. Tokvo: Cy{>sei.

Local government Ehime-ken s{>Inubu gakujibunshoka [Official wntmg section, general affairs department, Ehime Prefecture] (l987a), Kotoba no lPhiki dai-1-go: slwlwinlwm mila wtlwsho lwtolm: ki ni naru lwtolm, konnalwtoha ni iikal'lam.

[Language handbook I: official language as seen by employees: words that annoy; how about changing words like these?]. Ehime-ken s{mntbu gakujibunshoka. - - (19H7b), Kotobrt no IPbiki dai-2-go: kPnmin kam mila yakusho kotobakPnsPi monitrl, ankao rlu~w kPklw [Language handbook 2: official language as seen by the public of the prefecture - prefectural government language monitors, questionnaire survey results]. Ehime-ken s{nmtbu gakujibunshoka. - - ( 1988), Kotoba no lPbiki dai-3-go: wakariyasui kakikotoba, hanishilwtoba: yakuslw-kotoba nao.1hi kiil'nlwi himlw [Language handbook 3: easily understood written and spoken language: record of discussion group on imprm·ement of ol1iciallanguage]. Ehime-ken somubu gakujibunshoka. Isawa-chi"> bunsho jimu kaizen pun~jekuto chiimu [lsawa town official language office work irnpron·ment team] (1987a), Kotoba no t,_rvilkaku ( luilwlwsho) [Official reform of language (report)]. Jsawa-ch{> hishoki"lhi"lka. Isawa-chi"> hishok{>IH->ka [Isawa town secretarial oflicial report section] ( l987b), /sawa-dui lwtoba no gyrikaku a nkP!o kl'kka shiryil: Ismoa-dul duisa monitrl no minasrm ni imi shill' rhi!min I 00-nin ni o-kiki shinwshita [Materials on results of Isawa town questionnaire on official reform of Ian262

'Bi6uograpfig guage: Isawa town survey monitor commissioned all survey monitors and asked 100 local citizens]. Isawa-ch6 hishok6hi">ka. Hokkaid(> guriipu kotoba no gykaku (shingishitsu) [Hokkaid6 language reform group (discussion room)] ( 1984), Kotoba no p;yiikaku o susumml tmnf ni: kaku loki hanasu loki [For the promotion of official reform of language: when writing, when speaking]. Hokkaid(> guriipu kotoba no gy(>kaku (shingishitsu).

United Kingdom Central government Cabinet Office (Management and Personnel Office) (1985), Rroino o{Adminislmlivf Forms: Third Progrfss RejHn·l to tltf Primf Ministn: .July, London: HMSO. Department of Education and Science (1988), RfjJort of thf CornmiltPf o{ Inquiry into /hi' Tmrhinr; o{ thf Hnr;lish Vtnf.r;uagl' [Kingman Report]. London: DES. - - (1989), lc'nglish jiJr Ar;Ps 5-16 [Report of the National Curriculum English Working Group chaired by Professor Brian Cox]. London: DES. Department of Health and Social Security (1983), 'f7zp Good Forms GuidP. London: DHSS. Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) ( 1982), Administrative Forms in Cowrnmmt (White Paper, Command 8504). London: HMSO. - - (1985), Ufting thP Burden (White Paper, Command 9571). London: HMSO.

NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES Asahi Shinbun, 'Kanji o meguru krytl ni kitai suru (shasetsu)' [Expect-

ations of cultural exchange on Chinese characters (editorial)], 29 June 1984. (Also translated into English as 'Chinese Characters'). - - , "'Ra-nuki" kotoba gaikoku de mo V>hyiku ga h{>gen shimedasu' [Standard language education shuts out dialects], 8 September 1993. - - , 'Mei wa sabisu o arawasu?' [Does the name express the service?], 12 October 1993. - - , 'Imi wakaranu katakana kotoba' [Katakana words whose meanings are not understood], 13 November 1993. - - , 'Tensei.Jingu' [Vox Populi], 22 November 1993. - - , 'Sabetsu hygen mondai de kenkyukai' [Conference on problem of discriminatory expressions], 13 December 1993.

Asahi Shinlmn.fajmn Accl'ss, 'Learning the local lingo', 20 April 1992. --,'Help preserve vanishing dialects,' 22June 1992.

Dai(v 'li4R,t.,rmjJh, '"We need a bit of posh to balance the rough stuff': Peter Foster finds that presenters welcome a range of accents', 8 October 1999. Gurmlian, 'Quantum lowp takes Scots tongue to bentap of academe', 8July 1994.

- - , [Education] 'Flower of Scotland', 13 September 1994.

Honolulu ArlvertisPr, 'Dialects rebounding as .Japanese begin to reject "Tokyo way"', 4 November 1992. International Herald Tribunl', '"Wonchu" \Vows the Girl in Japan', 23 October 1997. Japan Timl'.l, 'Borrowed words confusing to .Japanese', 18 April 1997.

- - , 'Making a linguistic mess out of the art of "keigo'", 7 August 1997 . .Jajmn Times WPekZ'Y International hlition, 'Programs provide hope for the hidden illiterates', 21 May 1990. Kanawlloa, 'No more "unpleasant \·ocabulary" in official documents', June-:July 1981:8.

--,'International Literacy Year', October-November 1990.

Mainichi Shinbun, 'Keih{> no kgoka nichibenren ga shian' (Japanese Federation of Bar A~sociations proposes colloqualisation of criminal law], 21 February 1993. - - , '"Midare" de wa nai wakamono kotoba' [Young people's language not 'disorder'], 11 September 1993. - - , 'K{>k{>sei no 6-wari "bon yomanu"' [6 out of 10 senior high school students 'don't read books'], 28 October 1993. 264

'13i6fiograpliy - - , "'Hanashikotoba" hajimete shimon e' [To deliberate on 'spoken language' for first time], 23 November 1993. - - , Voroku [NHK Hos(> Bunka Kenkyiijo no "wakamono to kotoba" anketo ni tsuite]' [Additional report (On NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute's survey on 'young people's language')], 25 November 1993. - - , 'Wakamono kotoba' [Young people's language], 3 December 1998 . .\'wtland on Sunday, 'Companies take a creche course in equality', 18 August 1996. --,'English-only debate heating up in US', 15 December 1996. NijJponia (1999), 'SiW de miru nihonjin no kekkon' (Japanese marriage in figures], 9. Scotsman, 'Schools going native', 13 November 1996. Yomiuri Shinbun, '0-yakusho-kotoba wakariyasuku' [Making official language easier ot understand], 27 October 1987. - - , 'Katakanago no chiitohanpa na ranyo kakkowarui yo' [Careless misuse of katakana words is clumsy], 19 January 1993. - - , 'Kiiwado wa kokusai, sogo, ningen' [Keywords are international, general, human], 7 February 1993. - - , 'Henshii techo ("Chikyu jidai no gengo seisaku juritsu ni kansuru teigen" chikytt sangyo bunka kenkyl"uo kara)' [Editor's notebook ('Proposal for establishment of a language policy for the global age' from Global Enterprise Culture Research Institute], 28 February 1993. - - , 'Kgi kate tsukte masse' [I use (dialect) in lectures too], 18 March 1993. - - , jidai to tomo ni kawaru keigo' [Honrific language changing with the times], 15 April 1993. - - , 'Wakamono kotoba' [Young people's language], 13June 1993. - - , 'Kodomo ni "hanashikotoba" kyiku' ['Spoken language' education for children], 23 June 1993. - - , 'Hiragaru "san zuke undo"' [Spreading movement for using san], 19 October 1993. --,Tokyo de tabu no Kansai-ben wakamono wa sunnari shinto' [Kansai dialect: taboo in Tokyo but easily spreads amongst young people], 8 November 1993. - - , 'Kimochi sotchoku ni hyogen dekiru seikatsu ni mitchaku shita Kesen-go' [Kesen dialect: closely linked to way of life where you can express feelings frankly], 9 November 1993. - - , 'Kanry6 doktUi no iimawashi shimin kankaku to no aida ni sa' [Gap between viewpoint of public and bureaucratic euphemisms], 10 November 1993. 265

.Language Pfanning anti .Language Change in Japan - - , 'Kanj{> tsutaeru no ga tokui "higengo hy6gen" yutaka ni' ['Nonlinguistic expression' good for communicating feelings], 11 November 1993. - - , '"Hanashikotoha" h~jimete rongi' [Debating 'spoken language' for first time], 23 November 1993. - - , 'Sahetsu hygen minaoshi no imi' [Meaning of reviewing discriminatorv expressions], 9January 1994.

MISCELLANEOUS WRITTEN MATERIALS Information leaflets, forms, magazines and newspapers published by Nishinomiya City Office, Osaka Prefectural Office, Mim-> Town Office, Toyonaka Town Office.

INTERVIEWS

CorresjJondence and interviews with jJt>OjJle from the following government offices and other organisations in Japan: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture National Language Research Insitute National Language Section, Ministry of Education NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute RmojJle from the following government ojji(·es and other organisations in the UK: BBC (Radio 4, BBC Pronunciation Unit) Cabinet Office DHSS Plain English Campaign

266

Inde~ References to major entries are in bold typeface. Amdhnif h"rtn("rtisl'. SPP French

Canada language planning in 26 status of languages in 17 causative verh f(mn, changes in 219 n. 12 Characters f(>r Current Use. SPP tllwl

Academv Aaadnnia ddla Crusta 25 address, f(mns of 90-91, 96, 1291~1, 210 dono and sama 96, 129-131, 224

kanji

n.21,22,2~

san90-91, 210,220 n. 22 advisory councils 4~. 21.') n. ?.7 Agency f(>r Cultural Aflairs 41, 21.') n.'J'J Ainu fl6, 211 n. ~ (intro.), 216 n. 7 Sl'f also linguistic minorities Ancl{> Masatsugu '!>I

·

Characters for General Use. SPPjliyrl kanji

China common language 2H-29 script ret(mn 16H, 172-17'!>, 22H n.~4

Chinese characters 7, 229 n. 42 in Buddhism 171 in China 16H, I 72-1 7'!> and computers 16H-169, 175-181 cultural and psychological importance of65, 77-7H, 170-174 in East A~ia 65, 167-169, 22H n. ~f) in education 17~-174, 229 n. 44 and elite values 171-172 for and against 169-17.') f(mns 16R-169, 177-178, 229 n. 4H and homonvms 169 as ideogran{s 170, 174, 229n. 41 international discussion on simplification of 16H-169 in Korea 5H, 167 in Language Sel'ies 16R, 174 lexical productivity of 'JH-?.9, 160-161, 174 lists ~2. 4~. 62, 64-6:), 6R-69. 71, 179. Sl'l' alm trlyl kanji;jifyl kanji sexism in I ?.4-1 '!>5 in Taiwan 167, 169, 22H n. 'JH Chinese commtmitics in Japan 211 n. 4 (intro.) .11'1' also linguistic minorities code-switching IR5-1H9, 200 in schools 1H5-IHH, 2~0 n. 6 on Yo ron island, I H6-l H7

Basque 17-IH, IH7 BBC (British Broadcasting ( :orporation) and regional dialects and accents 201-202 and standard language 201-202, 212 n. I~ pronunciation of f(>reign names 121 Belgium, status of languages in 17 braille, Japanese 169 broadcasting 62-64 commercial 47 influence on children's language 164-l(i.') and regional dialects and accents 6'!>, 200-202, 2~ I n. I'!> and standard language 24-2.'), 62-6~.200-201

NHK Bunlwrlul. SP!' Agency f(>r Cultural Sfl'(llHJ

Affairs Buraku communities 225 n. 26 andliteracv 116, 22?. n. 6 and discri1~1inatory language 1:{2-I'J~

267

Language Pfanning and Language Cfiange in Japan colloquial written style. SPP grnbun itrhi common language 30-31,54, IR3IR6, 191 communication skills 143, 146-157, 207, 221 n. 32 and internationalisation 153-157 in Language Series 14H-150 recommendations on 156-157 perceived deterioration in 14R149 public interest in 146 in schools 149, 150-153 and socioeconomic change 149150 communicative style 37, 106, 132, 141, 149-150, 157,209,221 n. 32 companies, language training in 49,60,123 computers and Chinese character forms 16H-169, l77-17H impact on language skills 17'5, 178-180 implications for Chinese characters 175-IHI processingjapanese script 175176, IRO-IHI Conference on National Language Problems (Kokugo mondai kmkyzi kyogikai) H7 conservatism in language planning 73 Constitution 107, 126-127 language of69-70, 117, 217-21H n.22 covert and overt prestige H3, 192

increasing tolerance of I R5-190 in Language Series 183, 1H6, IHH National Language Council's views on 190 promotion of in other countries IH7 public opinion surveys 1H7-IHH, 191-194,200-201 psychological and sociocultural associations of 191-195 revival and promotion of 1H9, 194-195, 19H-200,203-205 rural 193-194 school curriculum guidelines on IH3-IH6 in UK IH3, IH7, 193, 195 urban 194-195 SI'P also Ainu; Buraku communities; Chinese communities in .Japan; code-switching; Edo dialect; Kagoshima dialect; Kansai dialect; Kesen dialect; Koreans in .Japan; Kyoto dialect; Kyttsh\t dialect~; Okinawa; Osaka dialect; Tohoku dialects; Tovama dialect; Yoron dialect · discriminatory language 132-137 and Buraku communities 132-134 and disabled 132, 134 in media 133-136, 225 n. 27 National Language Council's views on 135-136 terms for 133, 225 n. 2H and women 134-135 disorder in language 70, 77-88, 94, 102, 110, 195, 21H nn. 4, 6, 7 National Language Council views on 77, H6-H7, 110 and public opinion surveys H2-H5 specific areas of H4-R6

Deliberative Council on Education 64 democratisation in language planning 19, 40, 51, 59-60, 70, 9091, 9H Denmark, tolerance of dialects in IH7 Dl'ulsrhP Uu ndfunksjmu-ftp 212 n. 13 dialects 53-54, IH2-205 in broadcasting 194, 200-202 complex 190-191 eradication policy I H2-l H4 and ji1 rusalo boom 197-19H

Edo dialect, 54 language education svstem .Japanese language education. SPP kokugo education pressures and problems 95, 99, 151,220 n. 2H, 221 n. 29 rdi>rm 150, 226 n. 16, 227 n. 23 role in spreading standard language 55-5H, 63 .In' also Tokyo

26H

Inde?( Emperor language of 40, 70, Ill language used to refer to 70, 221 n.30 English language debate on teaching of in England and Wales 76-77 imposition of in British Isles lR, 64, IR2-1R3, 217 n. 16 USA's imposition of R see also standard English Equal Opportunity Employment Law lOR, 134,223 n. 59

gmbun itchi [unification of speech and writing] 41,58-60, 118 movement for 25, 29,58-60, 216 n ..5 gendai karwzukai. SeP kana usage, current gntgogaku [linguistics] 27, 45 gengo seisaku. See language planning, definitions of, Japanesegmgo shisaku. SPe language planning, definitions of, JapaneseGerman nationalism 35, 217 n. 11 hangul. S!'e Korean script Hawaiian language I 7 Hebrew, revival of 19, 21, 212 n. 11 Herder, on German nationalism 35 himgana [cursive syllabary J 69, 11 R,

family language usage in 148-149 as metaphor for state 126-127 structure I 03, 148-149, 222 nn. 43,45 female language. SPP women's language foreign languages, attitudes towards, 154 Foreign Office, katakana usage of 120-121 foreigners, attitudes towards 146, 153-156 France Basque and Breton bilingual schools 187 lang·uage planning agencies 25-26 policy on loanwords 25-26, 159, 161,213 n. 18,227 n. 27 French Academy 25, 29, 213 nn. 15, 17 French Terminology Commissions 23,25-26 Frisian 187 Fukuzawa Yukichi 59 .Jitrusato phenomenon 197-198, 203

211 n. 3 hiigm. SeP dialects Hokkaido 56, 1R8 homogeneity of'japanese society 5, 103, 112, 116, 133, 139-140, 222 n. 47 homonyms and Chinese characters 169 honorific language 54, 70-71, 78, 89-99, 143, 21911. 16 categories 89 in dialects 222 n. 44 expressing respect 71, 89-92, 9899 functions of 89-90, 99 and group membership 89, 92 his to rica! development of 90-92 male and female usage 91-92 misuse of 93-96 National Language Council recent recommendations on 97-99 in other languages 220 n. 21 popularisation of 92-93 in postwar period 90-99 public opinion polls on 91-94 in schools 9R, 99, 221 n. 39 and social change 91-99, 221 n. 32 and status 70-71, 89-92, 95-96, 21R n. 24 usage guides 93 Sl'f also Korr kam no krigo hY£Yungo 30-31. SPI' alm standard language

Gaelic resurgence of in Scotland 231 n. 15 suppression of in Ireland and Scotland 64, IR2-1R3 gaikokuw1 [foreign words] definition of 158 gaimigo [loanwords] definition of !58 269

Language P[anning and Language Change in Japan Ide Sachiko YH in-group and out-gnmp 102, 1!17, IH9,:!:!1 n.40 Interim Committee on the ;-.;ational Language 42, 64, 21!1n. :IS internationalisation 7, 14:1. I :1:1, '227 n. 20 and commtmication skills I :)c'l-1 !l7 internationalism 18-19, :l:l

Krtnamojikai. .'i!'l' Kana Societv lwufnw .[Chinese classics] :14, 226-

227 n. lH lwugo [Sino:Japanese words] 2H, li."i, '22!l n. H kanji. Si'i' Chinese char·actcrs kanjikanamajirilmn [texts in mix-

ture of Chinese and .Japanese characters] 17!1, 176, '229 n. 47 Kansai dialect 194-19!) krtlakrnta [square syllabary] 7!'i. 11 H, 2lln. :1 (ch. 1) comentions 39, 73. 120-121, l!l9-160 lwtakalutgo 124, 158-164, 221n. :17 definition of ISH, 221 n. 37 in media and advertising 161-162 in official language 124,161-164, '2'27 n. 29 public opinion surTeys on 1'24, 160-1()2 in mung people's language I 0:1104, 124, I 62 Sf'!' also loanwords kl'igo. St'l' honorific language Kesen dialect 19H-199 Kindaichi Haruhiko 7, 66 kinship tcnns :J5, 137, 14H, 22!l n. 31 kt~l.,")·amgo [high school gals' language] I 0:1-1 04 lwlwm [heart, spirit] 226 n. 9 lwkulmu [Japanese liter·ature] :14 kokuga/!11 [national learning] :14, :~7. 79,214 n. 24 lwlwgo [national language] :14, :J7, '203 definition of'2H-'29, 147,226 n. 1'2 education 151-153. 173-174 Kolwgo Chti.mkai. .'it'!' National Language EnquirY Board Kolwgo Uui.m linlwi. .'in'.)apanese I .anguage Inn·stigatin~ Committee l•:olwgo (;akkai [!\ational.Japanese Language Association] 49 lwlwgogalut [national language studics]45, 1·1:l, 22() n. 10 Kolwgolw. St'l' ;-.;at ional Language Section lwlwgo 11/ondai [national language problems] 29-:~o

.Japan Foundation 46 .Japanese language and culture 7, :~2. characteristics of 1!l5 contact with other Asian languages 22H n. :16 ideal state of :~2. 4H, 140, I 6:> imposition of in Empire 56-58, (i:i, '217 n. 12 and national identitY :lc~-40, :l:l, '217 n. 11 ' proposals li11· replacement of public interest in 144, 146 stereotYped views of I :l4-\:i(i . .'in' also mvth of ni/wugo as tool of communication !1-li, ~~2. :)2 sn' rtf.1o standard .Japanese .Japanese Language Investigative Committee (Kolwgo Chr!.\a linlwi) 41-4'2, !">4-5!l, 215 n. :ti .Japanese I.anguage Studies Annual Surn·v and Bihliographv ( Ko/!11go .\'mlwn) :10, 4!l, '221 n. :1:1 .JIS (Jap