Japanese Philosophy of Language

Situated Meaning adds a new dimension, both literal and metaphoric, to our understanding of Japan. The essays in this volume leave the vertical axis of hierarchy and subordination—an organizing trope in much of the literature on Japan—and focus instead on the horizontal, interpreting a wide range of cultural practices and orientations in terms of such relational concepts as uchi ("inside") and soto ("outside"). Evolving from a shared theoretical focus, the essays show that in Japan the directional orientations inside and outside (...) are specifically linked to another set of meanings, denoting "self" and "society." After Donald L. Brenneis's foreward, Jane M. Bachnick, Charles J. Quinn, Jr., Patricia J. Wetzel, Nancy R. Rosenberger, and Robert J. Sukle discuss "Indexing Self and Social Context." "Failure to Index: Boundary Disintegration and Social Breakdown" is the topic of Dorinne K. Kondo, Matthews M. Hamabata, Michael S. Molasky, and Jane Bachnik. Finally, Charles Quinn explores "Language as a Form of Life." Jane M. Bachnik is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is presently pursuing research in Japan under a Senior Fellowship Grant from the Japan Foundation. Charles J. Quinn, Jr., is Associate Professor of East Asian Languages and Literatures at the Ohio State University. Originally published in 1994. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. (shrink)

For any reader with knowledge of the works of Ernst Cassirer, the question that will come to mind on approaching Raji C. Steineck’s Kritik der symbolischen Formen I: Symbolische Form und Funktion is: Why Japan? Cassirer’s great range of writings on the history of thought, culture, and symbol involves no sustained attention to Japanese culture. Cassirer also never addresses problems of East-West philosophy, nor did he, unlike some other German thinkers in the twentieth century, engage in correspondence with Japanese thinkers. (...) In the first volume of Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, Cassirer does make reference in several places to the Japanese language based on Johann Joseph Hoffmann’s Japanische Sprachlehre... (shrink)

Dans la double conception du sujet que précise Tokieda Motoki dans sa théorie du processus langagier : sujet subordonné au prédicat et sujet d’action langagière volontaire, conception fondée sur une théorie linguistique inspirée principalement d’études grammaticales de la langue japonaise et qui s’est donc totalement émancipée du paradigme de la grammaire des langues européennes, on peut retrouver, de manière tout à fait paradoxale et frappante, le sens originaire du sujet, à savoir celui de son origine latine « subjectum » qui (...) est d’ailleurs la traduction du mot grec « ὑποκείμενον », à double titre : celui qui est assujetti ou soumis à une instance supérieure ou plus fondamentale et celui qui est susceptible de donner lieu ou occasion aux accidents, aux faits contingents. (shrink)

斬新な視点から、やまと言葉の考察を通し、日本語の哲学の可能性を探り、「日本人の心のありか」を指し示す、刮目の書。.

This is a set of essays and translations that covers comprehensively all of Japanese philosophy.

One of the most characteristic features of the philosophy of Dōgen is his idiosyncratic use of language, in particular, the replacement of expected semantic connections between two adjacent Chinese characters with improbable, but grammatically possible ones, from which new philosophical concepts are then derived. The article places this writing technique in the context of the linguistic changes that were taking place both in China and Japan at the time of Dōgen's writing as well as the general attitude of Chan/zen thinkers (...) toward language, arguing that the Chan/zen critique was not pointed to language as such, but its reified and alienated forms. Dōgen's concept-making could accordingly be seen as an effort to keep language ‘alive.’ The article offers two possible ways of interpreting his concepts: they can either be seen as relativisations of the mainstream reading norms, or as the creation of total semantic links in which all the existing ways of linking two characters are simultaneously possible. (shrink)

The Japanese marker _-te-i-_ can have progressive, resultative, and existential perfect readings and has often been regarded as ambiguous. This paper shows that there is no clear evidence that _-te-i-_ is ambiguous. It proposes a monosemous analysis of _-te-i-_ that unifies its multiple readings and shows how progressives and perfects can form a natural semantic class. Within the context of a Discourse Representation Theory, I propose that _-te-i-_ consists of an imperfective operator _-te-_ and a stativizer _-i-_. The imperfective operator (...) _-te-_ takes an eventuality as its argument and outputs a subpart of the eventuality, which precedes a reference time interval. Secondly, a stativizer _-i-_ maps the subpart of the eventuality, i.e. _-te-_'s output, onto a state which overlaps with reference time and whose category is semantically underspecified and is determined via pragmatic inferences. The vague output of the imperfective operator, i.e. whether it is a proper subpart or nonproper subpart of an eventuality, leads to the contrast between progressive readings and perfect readings of _-te-i-_. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Keigo in Modern Japan: Polite Language from Meiji to the PresentAnn WehmeyerKeigo in Modern Japan: Polite Language from Meiji to the Present. By Patricia J. Wetzel. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2004. Pp. 206.In Keigo in Modern Japan: Polite Language from Meiji to the Present, Patricia Wetzel delves deeply into social and analytical aspects of honorific and polite language from historical and contemporary perspectives. It is a work (...) unlike any other, with a rigorous analysis of "language intervention," the attempt to standardize keigo usage, over the last one hundred years. Wetzel envisions the audience for this book as the student of Japan in a broad sense, and there is much in this work to compel the attention of those in history, sociology, and anthropology, in addition to linguistics. Wetzel characterizes her work as a "search for vocabulary," a vocabulary that can account for keigo as a complex, commonsense system that native speakers feel less than secure in their use thereof.The first chapter, "Keigo in Linguistics," surveys analytic frameworks concerning the structure and syntax of honorifics within Western linguistics. Wetzel also proposes [End Page 191] one modification to theory, in arguing that it is the subject that should be regarded as the trigger for honorification in all instances, doing away with the notion of "object honorification." There is also discussion of issues that have been targeted in research on pragmatics and in research from sociolinguistic perspectives.In the second chapter, "Keigo in Kokugogaku," Wetzel locates the inception of Japanese-language studies of keigo in the Meiji period, under the influence of Latin-based Western methodologies, and the move toward universal education. Following Tsujimura's (1992) lead, she identifies three basic frameworks in the early history of the analysis of keigo, namely through "person," "meaning," and "target." Under person-oriented analyses, Wetzel discusses the work of Mitsuhashi, Tokieda, and Tsujimura; under meaning-oriented frameworks, the work of Yoshioka, Hashimoto, and Uchiyama; and under target-oriented approaches the work of Mitsuya and Matsushita. More recently, theoretical discussions have focused on just what is to be included in the analysis of keigo, and have reincorporated the concept of taigū "consideration," first introduced by Okada in 1900. The latter half of the chapter focuses on the recent work of Ō ishi, Minami, and Kikuchi and their debates on whether to incorporate socially meaningful aspects of deportment into the paradigm as well as the vulgar, demeaning, and haughty ranges of expressions.With chapter 3, "Inventing Keigo: Standardization," Wetzel turns to the ideological aspects of keigo, in an investigation of the history of language intervention in Japan. The late Meiji period witnessed the drive to unify the spoken and written idioms in the genbun-itchi movement. Keigo, like other aspects of spoken language, was part of what needed to be pinned down under the process of codifying a standard language for the nation. Wetzel chronicles the succession of official bodies created to address, first of all, standardization of language and, later, a variety of issues including orthographic reforms and keigo use. Among these official bodies are the Kokugo Chō sakai in 1899, Kokugo Chō sa Iinkai in 1902, Rinji Kokugo Chō sakai in 1921, Kokugo Shingikai in 1950, and Bunka Shingikai in 2001. Wetzel argues that keigo acquired "real salience" and "came of age" only in the postwar period. The Kokugo Shingikai issued two policy statements outlining an optimal system of keigo use: Kore kara no keigo (Keigo from now on) (1952) and Gendai ni okeru keii-hyōgen no arikata (Guidelines for respect expressions in the modern age) (1998), both of which Wetzel translates in their entirety and includes in the book's appendixes, along with the original Japanese.In chapter 4, "The Modernization of Keigo," Wetzel studies the social phenomenon of keigo anxiety, as reflected in the plethora of popular how-to manuals on keigo usage, and the occasional "manner poster" displayed in public venues. She applies Giddens' notion of "disembedding," Faircloth's notion of "technologization of discourse," and Bourdieu's concept of "linguistic capital" to help understand why it is that people feel the need to be instructed on the proper use of keigo. Wetzel herself attended several... (shrink)

This essay investigates why and how East Asian thought, particularly Chinese thought, has traditionally developed differently from that of Western philosophy by examining the linguistic differences discerned in the Chinese language and Western languages. To accomplish this taks, it focuses on the understanding of "being" that relates to the theoretical thinking of the West and the image- thinking of East Asia, while providing a psychological basis for the latter.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:On Japanese Things and Words:An Answer to Heidegger's QuestionMichael F. MarraIt has been over thirty years since my high school teacher of philosophy, Professor Dino Dezzani, recommended a book from which to begin my study of philosophy: Martin Heidegger's (1889-1976) Unterwegs zur Sprache (On the way to language [1959]). Evidently he was aware of my interest in literature and thought that Heidegger's discussion of words, things, and poetic language (...) would give some sort of direction to my naïve and youthful questions of what literature is about and what I should hope to find in it.The impact that Heidegger's book had on this young student was much greater than my professor could ever have imagined. I would hardly have committed myself to the study of Japan were it not for my reading of "A Dialogue on Language between a Japanese and an Inquirer," which appears in On the Way to Language. The dialogue is a fictional reconstruction of an actual meeting that Heidegger had with Tezuka Tomio (1903-1983), a Japanese scholar of German literature who visited the German philosopher in Freiburg at the end of March 1954.1 In the dialogue the Inquirer (Heidegger) formulates a central question that, in my opinion, should be of fundamental interest to anyone seriously concerned with the study of Japan. The question is deceptively simple, at least compared with the difficulty of coming up with the answer-an answer that, as a matter of fact, the reader will not find fully formulated in the dialogue. The question is: "What is the Japanese word for 'language' "? The Japanese visitor (Tezuka in Heidegger's recollection) appears to have been caught off guard, as we can see from Heidegger's parenthetical remark: "after further hesitation." Had Heidegger posed the same question to a Frenchman or an Italian, the answer would have been immediate: "langue" or "lingua." The challenge for Tezuka was definitely higher since he had a variety of words from which to choose. He could have used, for example, the expression gengo, a combination of two Chinese characters indicating "the speech of words." Instead, he used an ancient Japanese word derived from the native Yamato vocabulary: kotoba, which literally means "the foliage of speech."2There should be little doubt that Tezuka's choice was prompted by his desire to please Heidegger by playing the philosopher's own game-something that Tezuka totally succeeded in doing, as Heidegger's dialogue attests. Tezuka introduced a term that lent itself to etymological play-an enterprise very close to the heart of Heidegger, and one that was also very popular among Japanese thinkers.3 In fact, the expression kotoba incorporates the word koto, which means both "thing" and [End Page 555] "word" and which is found in the basic concepts of Japanese ontology: Mikoto (God, or "the honorable thing"), makoto (truth, or "the true word"), kotodama (soul, or "the spirit of words"), and kotowari(reason, or "the splitting of things"). The association of "words" and "things" in the Japanese word for "language" must have been of particular interest to Heidegger, who, four years before his meeting with Tezuka, had written "Das Ding" (The thing), a major lecture on the notion of things interpreted in light of the fourfold earth, sky, divinities, and mortals. In the dialogue Heidegger refers to this essay, in which "things" are presented in their objectified presence-the disparaged things that modernity and technology have dispossessed of their Being (Sein). Heidegger points out that never has the distance between things and Sein been as great as in modernity, when all distances in space and time have shrunk.4 Given the unflattering position that Heidegger had taken on the notion of "things," Tezuka was forced to come to the rescue of the Japanese word kotoba by endowing koto with the meaning of two Heideggerian keywords: "event" (kotogara) and "affair" (Sache). The thingly component of kotoba was not simply an objectifiable presence that can be counted, analyzed, and disposed of, but rather a poietic "act" that has the power to create a reality by transforming the named thing (koto) into a real thing (koto).In "A Dialogue... (shrink)

First Published in 2002. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Sourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy: Selected DocumentsSteven HeineSourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy: Selected Documents. Translated and edited by David A. Dilworth and Valdo H. Viglielmo, with Agustin Jacinto Zavala. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1998. Pp. xx + 420.Sourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy: Selected Documents, translated and edited by David H. Dilworth and Valdo H. Viglielmo, with Agustin Jacinto Zavala, is a new translation of twentieth-century Japanese philosophers and (...) is the second book in a series on Resources in Asian Philosophy and Religion that had been devised and edited by the late Charles Wei-hsun Fu (the first book was Stuart D. B. Picken's Essentials of Shinto: An Analytical Guide to Principal Teachings [Westport: Greenwood Press, 1994]). Here, a team of translators who are all very well known for their expert work in the field provide a series of selections from seven philosophers, each of whom is associated with the Kyoto School approach to comparative philosophical analysis.The seven thinkers include: (1) Nishida Kitarō, the founder of the Kyoto School, which is based on a synthesis of Western thought, particularly German Idealism, and the Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy of emptiness or universal nothingness (Nishida remains by far the most important representative of the school, and he has had numerous works translated into English, often by Dilworth and/or Viglielmo); (2) Tanabe Hajime, Nishida's first and foremost disciple, who approached the notion of absolute nothingness from the standpoint of Pure Land Buddhist other-power and repentance; (3) Kuki Shūzō, who was known for his travels to Europe and his work on aesthetics and contingency; (4) Watsuji Tetsurō, who pioneered the field of cultural anthropological history in Japan; (5) Miki Kiyoshi, who criticized Nishida in light of Pascal and Kierkegaard as well as Hegelian dialectics; (6) Tosaka Jun, a sharp Marxist critic of Nishida, who during the 1930s attacked the apparent accommodations of his colleagues with the Imperialist authorities; and (7) Nishitani Keiji, who developed the Zen perspective implicit in Nishida's philosophy by emphasizing the religious-conversion experience that emerges from a contemplative awareness of the universality of absolute nothingness.The translators provide a substantial introductory essay discussing the biographical and conceptual issues in the development of the life and thought of each philosopher. This section is very useful, and generally goes into more depth and detail than other materials available in English. The translations themselves, which cover a wide variety of styles and methods of argumentation, are clear and readable, though at times a bit imprecise and inconsistent. A main issue involved in evaluating the book has to do with the selection of thinkers and passages translated. Unfortunately, there are no philosophers represented here who are not in the circle of the Kyoto School. There is no question of the dominance of Nishida and his followers (and critics) in the realm of Japanese philosophy, but other voices reflecting the positions of Marxism, phenomenology, logic, structuralism, and postmodernism could have had some representation. One problem is that the reader is given very little indication of current trends (since the writings of Nishitani, the last philosopher [End Page 311] on this list, are already several decades old). And there is certainly nothing in this volume to point to future concerns and tendencies in Japanese philosophy.On the other hand, given the book's content, a positive feature is that the translators have fulfilled an important goal of choosing selections that have not previously appeared in English but which are nevertheless representative and crucial for understanding the overall significance of each thinker's approach. Therefore, Sourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy will serve as a beneficial supplement or complement to existing sources. It is a handy compendium that puts readers in touch with the full variety of Kyoto School philosophers, including those who vary from and argue with Nishida.By the late 1990s, it had become impossible to discuss Nishida and the Kyoto School without dealing at least in part with the question of political implications: to what extent, if any, were these thinkers involved in supporting and promulgating the doctrine of the imperial order, which sought hegemony throughout Asia. The key figures, especially Nishida, Tanabe... (shrink)

Nāgārjuna and Dōgen point to many of the same Buddhist insights because they deconstruct the same type of dualities, mostly versions of our commonsense but delusive distinction between substance and attribute, subject and predicate. This is demonstrated by examining chapter 2 of the "Mūlamadhyamakakārikā" and Dōgen's transgression of traditional Buddhist teachings in his "Shōbōgenzō." Nonetheless, they reach quite different conclusions about the possibility of language expressing a "true" understanding of the world.

We are born of the nothingness incomprehensible to each of us individuals and find death in the midst of the limitlessness. I have absolutely no idea why I am living here and now. I don’t know why the world is the way it is. I have been thrust into existence and am coldly surrounded by the limitless space. When humans cannot fully grasp the foundations of existence, we become encumbered by the feeling known as “fear.” I was a young boy (...) when I acquired that fear of death. (....) -/- The place where young people encounter “death” is in manga. In the last issue of Devilman, the creature was the very image of death, a disembodied torso. In the background angels are dancing on the sea. Also, in the final episode of Joe of Tomorrow, death lies in a ring. (shrink)

This study had two purposes. The first purpose was to determine whether certain aspects of the Japanese language were reflected in examples of the Japanese cultural construct of contemporary essays. The second purpose was to show how these aspects of the Japanese language reflect the intuitive, non-logical nature of Japanese thinking. ;Three characteristics of the Japanese language were first identified: orientation to a particular situation; relative freedom of word order; and ellipsis, especially omission of the subject. A contemporary Japanese essay (...) was then analyzed at the syntactic level and compared to its English translation. It was found that at the syntactic level the Japanese essay showed greater freedom of word order than its English translation and that ellipsis of the subject was present in several places in the essay. Relative freedom to express different aspects of reality and to respond to reality in an emotional way were then discussed in relation to word order, and the Japanese way of approaching reality called "no-mind" was discussed in relation to ellipsis. ;Three additional Japanese essays and three additional English-language essays were then analyzed at the macrostructure level. It was found that the Japanese essays had a much stronger situational and natural aspect than the English essays, that they had a much less rigid structure according to the rules for constructing essays in English, and that they had a much weaker logical aspect. The ways in which these four aspects of the macrostructure of the essays allow the writer to write according to his feeling or emotion, especially about nature, and how they reflect the intuitional, non-logical nature of Japanese thinking was then discussed. ;Thus at both the syntactic and at the macrostructure level, the contemporary Japanese essays exhibited aspects which are characteristic of the Japanese language and that reflect the intuitive, non-logical nature of Japanese thinking. (shrink)