28.2794, Review: Japanese; Historical Linguistics; Sociolinguistics: Shibamoto-Smith, Okamoto (2016)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-2794. Fri Jun 23 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.2794, Review: Japanese; Historical Linguistics; Sociolinguistics: Shibamoto-Smith, Okamoto (2016)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:06:16
From: Patrick Heinrich [patrick.heinrich at unive.it]
Subject: The Social Life of the Japanese Language

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36264837


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/27/27-3264.html

AUTHOR: Shigeko  Okamoto
AUTHOR: Janet S.  Shibamoto-Smith
TITLE: The Social Life of the Japanese Language
SUBTITLE: Cultural Discourse and Situated Practice
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2016

REVIEWER: Patrick Heinrich, Università Ca' Foscari di Venezia

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY
 
Japanese sociolinguistics is a fragmented field of study, and this has often
had negative effects and has stalled advances in this field. New approaches
have not found entry into Japanese sociolinguistics and sociolinguistic
generalization that take account of Japanese have often drawn on outdated and
ideologically biased information (Heinrich 2015). There exists an indigenous
tradition which predates Western sociolinguistics by three decades and
continues to be influential until today, although its original name “language
life” (gengo seikatsu) is rarely used anymore. This approach has retained a
rather narrow field of research and a rather light treatment of
sociolinguistic theory and methodology. There is a critical branch of
sociolinguistics in which scholars from neighboring fields such as history,
sociology or media studies (critically) address issues ignored by the former
branch (Heinrich and Masiko 2015). Then there is what we may call
international sociolinguistics on Japanese, mostly pursued by scholars of
Japanese Studies abroad with limited involvement of sociolinguists based in
Japan. Such type of sociolinguistic study places research on Japanese into the
context of methodologies and research trends outside of Japan. ''The social
life of Japanese'' by Shigeko Okamoto and Janet Shibamoto-Smith is a rare
example of the latter type of approach. It discusses the three topics which
have received the most attention in Japanese sociolinguistics (1) standard
language and local dialects, (2) honorifics and (3) language and gender. 
 
There has recently been a great amount of critical and empirical research
published in the three fields this book addresses, making it a welcome
opportunity to readdress or adjust claims made about Japanese before. Each of
the three parts is made up of two chapters. The first chapter of each part
presents historical background and a discussion on how language norms have
been formed and how they are meta-pragmatically reproduced in the media, among
educators and in scholarship, while the chapter that follows presents a
detailed analysis of these issues on the basis of linguistic data. In so
doing, this book brings together “cultural discourses and situated practice”,
the subtitle of this volume. 
 
The book opens with an introduction in which the authors argue for a dynamic
model of Japanese. By that they mean studying ideology and language norms, on
the one hand, in order to explore congruencescongruencies, on the one hand, 
and contradictions to language practices, on the other hand. Okamoto and
Shibamoto-Smith are to be praised for bringing together such perspectives in
one book, because they tend to be discussed in isolation from one another. The
authors announce that (p. 5) “we cannot understand the macro-level
enregistration of sociolinguistic patterns of variation as identifiably
associated with particular groups without attending to micro-level language
use in interaction and vice versa. Throughout the chapters of this volume we
strive to connect these two levels iteratively and dialectally, and to develop
a systematic account of how they are mutually constitutive.” In doing so, they
seek to de-essentialize language by paying attention to the multiple and
various ways in which linguistic forms generate social meaning. Towards this
end, the ideas of indexicality as advocated by Michael Silverstein, Penelope
Eckert and others are employed. In other words, they engage in what is now
commonly called the “third wave approach” of research on language variation
(Eckert 2012).      
 
The first part is titled “The notion of Nihongo” (Japanese). The first chapter
thereof discusses the emergence of standard language and the idea of national
language in Japan from the end of the 19th century onwards, summarizing the
many works which have been produced on this topic. The idea of national
language was adopted from Europe (in particular from Germany) and the idea
that all Japanese have always been united by one national language spread,
despite evidence to the contrary in the form of indigenous linguistic
minorities in Japan. Standard Japanese, codified in the early 20th century was
to represent national language. It was based on the speech of a particular
part of Tokyo (Yamanote) that was adapted for writing novels in “spoken
language”. In a situation where the West was rather critical whether Japan as
a non-Western nation could really become modern – Japanese was the first
non-Western language to be modernized and Japanese modernizers had to prove
that this was feasible – language planners in Japan developed a particular
fervor for standardizing and prescribing language. One effect thereof were
attempts to eradicate Japanese dialects and minority languages. While this
attitude was revised in Japanese language policies after the war, Okamoto and
Shibamoto-Smith (p. 49) state that up until today “very little space has been
made in the Japanese ideological imaginary for language diversity.” Today,
Japanese dialects are seeing a comeback as “dialect-lite” in language
crossings of younger speakers that draw on the limited dialect features they
are conversant with. 
 
The second chapter explores actual uses of Standard Japanese and dialects on
the basis of data drawn from surveys, blogs and an analysis of language use on
TV. All findings illustrate that the idea of a functional allocation of
Standard Japanese for formal settings and of local dialects for informal
settings is a stark oversimplification. Such differentiated use
(''tsukaiwake'') may have been in place in Japan in the early decades of
Standard Japanese language spread, but it no longer constitutes a model for
explaining language choices in contemporary Japan. The very idea of two
separate language systems (standard versus dialect) in the repertoire of
speakers must also be called in question. Rather (p. 119), “Standard and
regional varieties as linguistic commodities are valued differently in
different contexts”, and are used accordingly in a wide and diverse range of
settings. What is more, there is no singular explanation that can account for
the language choices of all Japanese. Standard Japanese and dialect tend to
surface together in utterances, making it impossible to state whether an
utterance is in dialect or in standard language (p. 99). Such ambiguity
deserves attention because it points to the fact that variation on language
use and the use of dialect (elements) are frequently no longer simply a matter
of regional background or of language socialization, but a matter of language
style.
 
Chapter 3 is the first of two addressing honorifics. It first discusses how
honorifics became part of Standard Japanese. Like many other Japanese
dialects, the language variety spoken in Edo (renamed Tokyo in the modern
period) did originally not have an honorific system. Honorifics originating
from the court in Kyoto and spread into the Edo, seat of the last Shogunate.
The absence of a honorific system in the language repertoires of most speakers
of Japanese at the onset of modernity notwithstanding, honorifics were
identified early on as an important feature which would promote Japanese as a
modern language. At the time, a complex towards Western languages was
deeply-rooted and the fact that Japanese has no grammatical gender or number
was seen as a possible sign of (linguistic) inferiority. Hence, honorifics
(also “women’s language”) were seen as vital elements to promote Japanese as a
modern, valuable and unique language. Honorifics became seen as something that
makes Japanese in this respect superior to Western languages. As an effect,
everyone had to learn honorifics and became evaluated on the norms of how to
use them. Norms and guidelines how to use honorifics changed through time, and
they have never been uncontroversial or unambiguous. This notwithstanding,
there remains a strong belief that there is one singular and correct way of
using honorifics and that rigorous rules governing their “correct use” exist.
Linguistic insecurity, language purism, debate, disagreement and a large
number of self-help books are the result. 
 
Chapter 4 studies attitudes towards and uses of honorifics. It reveals
changing attitudes. A considerable number of Japanese regard honorifics asto
be difficult to use and asof having non-transparent rules. Simplification is
desired by some. Also, a large percentage of the population is seen to accept
uses that are prescribed as “wrong” (i.e. double honorifics). Use of
honorifics can also be interpreted quite differently in one and the same
interaction. There is a thin line between being “refined” orand “polite” and,
on the other hand,  between “displaying superiority” orand “putting on airs”.
Not everyone comes always to the same conclusions. Furthermore, just as in the
case of Standard Japanese and local dialects, the question is not simply that
of making the appropriate or correct code-choice according to context (here,
plain, polite or honorific speech). Rather people mix codes and the right
amount of “mixture” matters. In the words of the authors (p.198-199): “The
linkage between honorifics and their stereotypical social meanings is in fact
in constant negotiation with a wide variety of contingencies in actual
practice, and this in turn requires us to recognize the polyindexial nature of
honorific forms.” Some reject honorifics when others insist on using them it
in one and the same situation. Unsurprisingly, speakers have different
rationales for their respective code-choices, too (see, e.g. p. 160). Very
obviously, the ideas of language being plain, polite or honorific have been
based on the fact that distinct morphologies expressing plain, polite or
honorific language exist in Japanese. It has simply been assumed that function
follows form – always and everywhere. The matter is more complicated though,
but a new framework showing how these codes relate to one another is not
presented here.  
 
CThe chapters 5 and 6 discuss gendered use of Japanese, first with regard to
norms and then on the basis of empirical data. Just like honorifics, so-called
“women’s language” (''joseigo'') became a matter of “language engineering” (my
term) and this was directly interrelated with the ideological imagination of
“modern Japanese women” during the modernization period. Despite being largely
an artifact, “women language” was then linked to the past and became
proclaimed as another element (next to honorifics) that characterized
Japanese. Chapter 5 sums up the great amount of work that has been done in
this field over the last two decades. The modernist ideas of how women should
talk could potentially affect all women, although not all are found to speak
in that imaginary way or to have mastered such a kind of speech. Masculine
speech, on the other hand, was rarely studied and this remains so until today.
While the ways how women ought to talk manifest in various ways in blogs,
editorials and self-help books, concern for male speech remains a niche for
specialists. Yet, changes have been noted in the last field, too, with
preferred norms shifting from “manly manly” to “softly male” speech. The
chapter also points out that there are exist various ways of expressing
femininity and masculinity that affect code-choices differently. Chapter 6
confirms this on the basis of metapragmatic comments in blogs and on the basis
of real situated speech. There is also a rural and urban divide in that
prototypic “women’s language” is associated with (middle-class and elderly)
Tokyo speakers while “men’s speech” from Tokyo is seen by non-residents of
Tokyo to be lacking in masculinity. This is an important finding because it
illustrates  as it does that social variables such as gender, region, age and
class intersect and that one cannot simply contrast women and men, urban and
rural, young and old, etc., in order to account for variability in Japanese.
To add to the complexity, norms are currently changing and people differ very
much in their opinion of how men and women should talk in what settings, and
thus what constitutes appropriate gendered speech in what kind of setting. The
conclusion is similar to that of the previous parts of the book (p. 290):
“speakers are neither completely conforming nor completely ignoring linguistic
gender norms.” It’s more complicated than that. Why this is so is however not
explained. The authors, in general, content themselves to deconstruct ideas
about Japanese by identifying contradictions between “cultural discourses” and
“situated practice”. New explanations or theorization of the situated
practices described are absent. 
 
There are no “Conclusions” in this book, and this is a real pity, given the
great discussions and deconstructions that precede the final chapter. The book
ends with “Reflections”, which are however very useful for all those
conducting sociolinguistic research into Japanese. It points out, for example,
that the problem of social class has never been appropriately studied in
Japan, due to the myth that Japanese society is  allegedly class-less. As a
resultan effect, there remain a number of blind spots in our understanding of
Japanese language and society. Addressing these is important, as are more
focused studies departing from the insights provided by this book. 
 
EVALUATION

This is the best book on Japanese sociolinguistics available, written by two
keen and long-time observers of Japanese language and society. There is no
doubt that this book will serve as an important basis for new, broader and
more detailed research into Japanese sociolinguistics henceforth. It
skillfully sheds light and discusses problematic and contested issues, and how
such uncertainty has come about. The book shows that variation and different
language attitudes and repertoires have always existed in Japan, but that
ideologies claiming strict norms and homogeneity have overshadowed such
plurality. Language norms are ambiguous today and this process and the
linguistic uncertaintyuncertainness and insecurity that accompany it could
have served as the main threadthreat uniting the three parts of this book. It
is truly a pity that this chance has been missed in this book, because it
prepares the ground for such an important discussion for the first time for
the case of Japanese. 
 
In general, both authors seem to not want to overreach in their analysis. They
basically do two things across the book:, (1) they connect cultural discourses
with situated practice and (2) they connect these discussions with ongoing
debates in sociolinguistic research outside of Japan. This is praiseworthy but
more could have been possible. The authors have gutted the stock-and-trade of
academic Japanese sociolinguistics of any genuine significance, that is, the
notion that Japanese has since immemorial time been special because of
“linguistic unity”, “honorifics” and “women’s language”. Much more could have
been made from this. To my surprise, some of the most noteworthy observations
are to be found in the footnotes, e.g. the importance for language modernizers
that Japanese has honorifics but Western languages have not (p. 131), the
possibility of different interpretations of honorifics according to region (p.
166), the interrelation between gender and honorifics (p. 190), or the
incomplete sentence as a strategy to deal with ambiguous norms of honorific
forms (p. 183). “Upgrading” these remarks into the main text and having them
discussed in full detail would have been very instructive. At times, a
self-imposed restraint manifests in “taking shelter” behind Western
scholarship. There is a repetitive pattern in this book. (1) Identify
contradictions between language ideology and language practice and then (2)
point out that these practices have been observed outside of Japanese
contexts, too. Conclusions at the end of the chapters tend to not propose new
views. In other words, they do not resolve the contradictions that emerge from
the juxtaposition of ideology and practice by proposing new ideas and
frameworks. The analytic circle is not completed. For example, the relation
between standard and regional varieties in Japan is portrayed to be different
from mainstream descriptions, but we are not offered a new perspective on what
the relation between them is today, and how it should be studied accordingly
from now on. In the same way, we do not learn whether honorifics are part of
the language system or whether their useit is a social register. Such
important questions are not resolved. Rather, Western scholarship is used to
“normalize” Japanese and point out  at either shared features with other
languages or with general (etic) principles governing language variation and
code-choices. For example, part one concludes with Eckert seeing speakers as
stylistic agents (p. 122), and part two with Eckert’s idea of polyindexicality
and Irvine and Gal’s ideological erasure. The part on gendered speech differs
and is exemplary in making full use of the insights that discuss the case of
Japanese for sociolinguistics could have. (More) Japanese theorization would
be highly welcome for the sociolinguistic of Japanese, and for
sociolinguistics in general. 
 
Last but not least, for a book titled “The Social Life of the Japanese
Language” the scope of the discussion is limited and centered on topics which
have already received lots of attention in Japanese sociolinguistics. Chapters
could have also addressed social relations outside the work/friends settings
(courts of law, doctor-patient, ''senpai-kohai'', job interviews,
professors-students, etc.). Furthermore, the “Japanese language” does not have
“a social life”, strictly speaking. Its speakers have a linguistic life, and
not all speakers are Japanese monolingual as it appears in this book. Thriving
fields in sociolinguistics such as language contact, language endangerment,
bilingualism, linguistic landscape, language management, etc. are not
addressed.
 
All in all, this remarkable book calls out for more work on Japanese
sociolinguistics, and nobody endeavoring to contribute more to our insights
into this field can ignore this work. It is well written, but it is not easy
to read. It addresses an advanced readership who have an understanding of the
topics discussed here and the way in which they are discussed. No other such
book is available at the present, neither in Japanese nor in any other
language. 
 
REFERENCES

Eckert, Penelope (2012) Three Waves of Variation Study: The Emergence of
Meaning in the Study of Sociolinguistic Variation. Annual Review of
Anthropology 41. 87–100.
 
Heinrich, Patrick (2015) The Study of Politeness and Women’s Language in
Japan. In Dick Smakman and Patrick Heinrich (eds.), Globalising
Sociolinguistics: Challenging and Expanding Theory, 178–193. Routledge.  
 
Heinrich, Patrick and Hideo Masiko (2015) Japanese Sociolinguistics: A
Critical Review. Contemporary Japan. Ca’ Foscari Japanese Studies 3. 249–266.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Patrick Heinrich is associate professor of Japanese language and linguistics
at Ca' Foscari University of Venice. His focus is on language endangerment and
language in the city with a regional focus on Japan.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-2794	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/