Standardizing Written Japanese. A Factor in Modernization
Author(s): Nanette Twine
Source: Monumenta Nipponica , Winter, 1988, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Winter, 1988), pp. 429-454
Published by: Sophia University
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2384796
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2384796?seq=1&cid=pdfreference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Sophia University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Monumenta Nipponica
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Standardizing Written Japanese
A Factor in Modernization
by NANETTE TWINE
L ' ANGUAGE planning and modernization, the relationship between language and nationalism, and the process of standardization have for
some time been the focus of sustained scrutiny by a number of socio-
linguists.' The literature discusses various points in the process of language
modernization that are to be found in the Japanese experience of standardization of the written language. Among these issues are the relationship between
standardization and colloquialization, the primacy of the written language in
standardization, the role of literature in modeling the desired norm, and the
connection between nationalism and language reform. The present article ex-
amines the way in which the standardization of written Japanese in the Meiji
period was effected both by pragmatic concerns, such as the development of
communications, education, and other necessary features of a modernizing
nation, and by nationalistic sentiment.
A survey of the literature on both nationalism and modernization, and in
particular on their sociolinguistic aspects, indicates that a standard language
has an important function both in expediting the flow of information
necessary to social change and in providing a focus for national pride. The
Sino-Japanese used by officialdom at the beginning of the Meiji period, while
esteemed by those scholars versed in the intricacies of its archaic Chinesederived syntax, vocabulary, and orthography, was far removed from the
contemporary spoken language. Before it could function efficiently as a vehicle
for the rapid development of education and information, extensive modification was required to create a modern style based on the grammar and lexicon
THE AUTHOR is lecturer in Japanese in the
cludes an extensive bibliography).
Division of Asian and International Studies,
Griffith University.
of Language Problems', and Paul Garvin,
1 For example, C. Ferguson, 'The Language Factor in National Development', in
Anthropological Linguistics, 4:1 (1962), pp.
23-27; Joshua Fishman, Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays, Newbury
House, Rowley, Mass., 1972 (this work in-
Jifi Neustupny, 'Basic Types of Treatment
'Some Comments on Language Planning', in
Joshua Fishman, ed., Advances in Language
Planning, Mouton, The Hague, 1974; E.
Haugen, 'Dialect, Language, Nation', in
American Anthropologist, 68 (1966), pp. 92235.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
430 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
of one particular variant of the spoken language chosen to be the standard.
This article will concentrate on the standardization aspect of the modernization of written Japanese,2 and will study the years leading up to the prescriptive definition of the Tokyo dialect as the standard in 1916, when the first
officially sponsored grammar of the spoken language was issued.
Ferguson defines language standardization as 'the process of one variety of
a language becoming widely accepted throughout the speech community as
a supradialectal norm.' He adds that the concept of standardization also
includes the notions of increasing uniformity of the norm itself and explicit
codification of the norm.3 Garvin and Mathiot concur, defining a standard
language as 'a codified form of a language, accepted by, and serving as a
model to, a larger speech community.'4 Standardization is often an aspect of
language planning, a conscious attempt to shape the language in a manner consistent with the objectives of the policy-makers in response to a perceived inadequacy in respect to some part of those objectives. As Haugen asserts, language
planning attempts primarily to shape the formal written manifestation of
language.5
In Japan, as elsewhere when standardization is at issue, it was the written
language that became initially the major target of scrutiny in the standardization debate, both for its own properties and as a stepping stone ultimately to
a unified form of spoken Japanese. Since a standard language is subject to
codification, and codification is more easily observable in the planned written
conventions of a language, the following discussion will be limited to the
emergence of the written form of hyojungo fTNs or standard Japanese, in the
Meiji period, except insofar as examination of the spoken form as its basis is
necessary.
The Situation in Early Meiji
In 1868, the year of the Meiji Restoration, the Japanese language presented
difficulties for a country about to enter upon a course of rapid modernization.
No standard form of Japanese existed on a nationwide basis, for the
Tokugawa policy of regional isolation had resulted in a segmented society in
which a network of regional dialects flourished. Dialectal variations aside, the
spoken and written forms of the language were markedly dissimilar. Adhering
2 For a discussion of the development of
colloquial style, see Nanette Twine, 'The Gembun'itchi Movement: Its Origin, Development, and Conclusion', in MN 33:3 (1978),
pp. 334-56.
3 Charles Ferguson, 'Language Development', in Joshua Fishman et al., ed.,
Language Problems of Developing Nations,
Wiley, New York, 1968, p. 31.
4 Paul Garvin & Madeleine Mathiot, 'The
Urbanization of the Guarani Language: A
Problem in Language Planning', in Joshua
Fishman, ed., Readings in the Sociology of
Language, Mouton, The Hague, 1972, p. 365.
5 Einar Haugen, 'Linguistics and Language
Planning', in William Bright, ed., Sociolinguistics: Proceedings of the UCLA Socio-
linguistics Conference, Mouton, The Hague,
1966, p. 53.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TWINE: Standardizing Written Japanese 431
to the literary conventions of earlier centuries, the written language was di-
vided into several discrete styles determined by the nature of the text.6 Each
of these styles drew its vocabulary and syntax from early medieval Chinese
or Japanese rather than from contemporary speech. In addition to the two
phonetic kana scripts, more than ten thousand Chinese characters (compared
to today's official 1,945 joyo kanji *)11iq) were employed, although not all
were in daily use. Intellectuals regarded the written word as an indicator of
scholarly erudition rather than a practical means of communication. The colloquial was considered too vulgar and verbose to employ in writing, and was by
and large confined to the dialogue passages of chonin UTA literature of the Edo
period; even in these popular books the extent to which the colloquial was
employed varied with the author. In short, the existing varieties of the written
language were far removed from the spoken, and required too many years of
study to convey information in an easily understandable format to the average
Japanese.
The political task facing the Meiji leaders was to establish the authority of
the state through the creation of a powerful centralized bureaucracy; this was
considered necessary if complete sovereignty, one of the principal attributes of
the modern nation-state, was to be achieved. Differentiating the concepts of nation and state, Rejai and Enloe define a nation as 'a relatively large group of
people who feel that they belong together by virtue of one or more such traits
as common language, religion or race, common history or tradition, common
set of customs, and common destiny.' A state, on the other hand, is 'an independent autonomous political structure over a specific territory with a comprehensive legal system and a sufficient concentration of power to maintain law
and order.'7 Japan was and had been for a long time a nation-state, a socially
cohesive and politically autonomous territory, but it was clearly faced with the
urgent need for modernization to secure and fortify its position in the modern
world into which it had been propelled.
The process of modernization entails the reshaping of the political, social,
and economic structures of a nation to forms better suited to the demands of
the modern world. Improved systems of communication, among them the
development of mass media, play an important role in disseminating nationwide the information and values seen by leaders as desirable to expedite the
transformation. Where the national language is not, for whatever reason, an
effective vehicle for widespread communication, it too must undergo a process
of modernization aimed at removing those aspects that hinder the smooth implementation of social change.
Major elements of language modernization vary with the particular situation. Some cases may require the choice of a national language from several
6 Twine, pp. 334-37.
7 Mostafa Rejai & Cynthia Enloe, 'NationStates and State-Nations', in Michael Smith
et al., ed., Perspectives on World Politics,
Croom Helm & the Open University Press,
London, 1981, pp. 37-38.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
432 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
regional contenders, others the replacement of the language of a colonial
power by the country's own language as the medium of education and government. In Japan, there were two requirements: (1) the colloquialization of the
written language, that is, the replacement of archaic elite-bound literary styles
with a modern colloquial style employing the grammar and vocabulary of the
spoken language, and (2) the choice of one particular variant of spoken
Japanese to be the standard upon which this new written language would be
based.
Linguistic developments often reflect non-linguistic social factors operating
in a given society, and this is particularly noticeable when we come to study
standardization as a factor in modernization. Social change may require concomitant language reform, and, as Deutsch shows, a period of active social
mobilization usually acts as a catalyst for the beginnings of nationalistic fer-
vor.8 From this it is clear that the modernization of language may become a factor in the growth of national unity and identity, just as national pride may
have a role in motivating language planning. The basis for national sentiment
derived from linguistic homogeneity was already present to a certain degree
in Japan, where the same language in one form or another was spoken
throughout the territory. The social upheavals following the Meiji Restoration
created a need to fashion and refine that language into an instrument that
would serve the nation both as a means of achieving its various planned
reforms and as a focus of national pride.9
In his discussion of language as a unifying force at both the sentimental and
instrumental levels, Kelman expands on the benefits of a common national
language: on the one hand it facilitates the central government's planning of
national development, and, on the other, it provides individuals with social
mobility and equality of participation in the system. Kelman goes on to argue
that language policies should be based on purely functional considerations and
should not be concerned with any spirit of nationalism.10
In Japan, both elements contributed to early language planning. In the case
of some other developing nations, territorial limits had been defined with little
or no reference to socio-cultural identity; several regional or local languages
often coexisted, none with any particular claim to a literary tradition; and, in
the case of former colonies, the official language of politics and higher education was sometimes that of another country.
Japan, in contrast, brought to its modern era a long-standing, well-defined
8 Karl Deutsch, Nationalism and Social
Nationalism, p. 5.
Communication: An Inquiry into the Foun-
10 Herbert Kelman, 'Language as an Aid
dations of Nationality, MIT Press, 1953.
9 Nationalism has been defined as 'the
organizationally heightened and elaborated
and Barrier to Involvement in the National
System', in Joan Rubin & Bjorn Jernudd, ed.,
Can Language Be Planned? Sociolinguistic
Theory and Practice for Developing Nations,
beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of societies
acting on behalf of their avowed ethnocultural self-interest.' Fishman, Language and
East-West Center Press, Honolulu, 1971, pp.
21-5 1.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TWINE: Standardizing Written Japanese 433
literary tradition and a comparatively high rate of literacy." Fishman
categorizes such a nation as a cluster B nation, or an old developing nation,
one that has for a long time embodied the attributes of both nation and
sociocultural identity.12 Such a nation does not face the problem of selecting a
national language, but rather that of modifying an existing asset. In Japan this
took the form of a classical written tradition heavily dependent on Chinese for
its source; even those varieties that attempted to eschew the foreign element
still adhered to centuries-old literary conventions. As the Meiji period wore
on, it became clear that, in order to develop the written language into a useful
resource at both instrumental and sentimental levels, classical forms should
be eliminated as far as possible and some compromise with the entrenched
influence of Chinese should be devised. In this way it would be possible
to develop a style of writing that would be much closer to a standardized form
of contemporary speech. The problems then arose of how to achieve a written
colloquial style, and what the basis for the standardized form should be.
Factors in Language Modernization
There is a close relationship between colloquialization of the written language
and language planning, whether pragmatically or nationalistically inspired. If
a literary standard understood by all members of a speech community appears
desirable to policy-makers as an instrument of national mobilization, then it
must be predicated upon a form of that language relevant to the daily lives of
the public, not rooted in the centuries-old classical tradition upheld by the elite
in government and education. Well into the Meiji period, intellectuals regarded the spoken language as unfit for use in serious literature. But the new
social mobility on both geographical and occupational levels, coupled with the
establishment of a national education system in 1872 and the development of a
modern communication network, made it obvious that the existing literary
tradition was far too unwieldy for modern needs both in its Sino-Japanese and
classical Japanese manifestations. The colloquialization of written Japanese
(gembun'itchi > <-A) at first gave rise to heated debate between intellectual
progressives and conservatives, but its practical application eventually
achieved success primarily through the medium of the new European-modeled
Japanese novel that emerged from the 1880s on. Literature can play an important part in the achievement of standardization by modeling the desired norm
in its most polished, aesthetically pleasing form.
On the instrumental level, an important motivating force in the achievement
of a standard colloquial style was that of communication, both between the
centralized bureaucracy and its constituency and between individuals. The
II For premodern literacy rates, see Herbert
Passin, Society and Education in Japan,
Teachers College Press, New York, 1965, pp.
and Types of Political and Sociocultural
Integration: A Conceptual Postscript', in
56-59.
Ferguson, Language Problems, pp. 491-98.
12 Joshua Fishman, 'Language Problems
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
434 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
replacement of autonomous feudal domains in 1871 with prefectures administered by governors appointed by Tokyo; the inauguration of the postal
service under Maejima Hisoka , 1835-1919, in the same year; the lifting
of restrictions on individual travel and choice of occupation, resulting in a new
freedom of social interaction and mobility; the development of mass communication through the increasing number of newspapers and journals after
1870, with its attendant rise of a class of professional communicators-all
these elements combined to make communication an important consideration
in the new order.
In his search for a conceptual model of the processes of nationalism and nationality, Deutsch notes that 'processes of communication are the basis of the
coherence of societies, cultures, and even of the personalities of individuals.'13
The convenient and rapid transmission of information lubricates a smoothly
functioning national machine. In order to both disseminate and receive information, a standard modern colloquial style divorced from dialectal variation
is desirable, a style that can, by its ability to express advanced concepts and
nuances, allow each individual the freedom to participate in the modernization
process in a way not permitted by the elite-monopolized classical styles. The
gembun'itchi movement of the Meiji period was instigated by progressive
thinkers who observed the advantages to Western countries of just such a
democratic literary standard, and urged the same course upon Japan. Their
campaign aroused predictable antagonism from conservatives, who saw in the
classical tradition the repository of national values and sentiments.
For colloquialization of writing to be successful on a national scale as an
aid to social change, it must be predicated upon standardization. The two
processes developed at virtually the same pace and at almost the same time
in Meiji Japan, although colloquialization became a topic of debate among
supporters of language modernization almost a decade earlier than standardization. But as support for the gembun'itchi principle grew in the second half
of the 1890s, so too did awareness that a standard language was essential to
its eventual realization. A colloquial style based on varying regional dialects
would obviously not provide a uniform means of transmitting information
from a centralized controlling agency such as the Ministry of Education. It
would, in fact, be less useful than the Classical Standard (futsubun *mi) that
came into general use in education and the press after about 1897. Futsubun
was introduced by the opponents of colloquialization as an alternative solution
to the language problem and was created by synthesizing elements of classical
varieties of writing into an all-purpose literary idiom.
To achieve the smoothest and easiest means of disseminating knowledge, the
problem of dialectal variations had to be ironed out before colloquialization
could be truly effective. At the time of the Meiji Restoration, variations were in
some cases extreme and the story is told of samurai from Kyushu having to
13 Deutsch, p. 61.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TWINE: Standardizing Written Japanese 435
transact their business with samurai from northern Japan in the language of
the noh drama based on the speech of Kyoto.14 Not all dialects were mutually
unintelligible, of course, and limited communication was possible between
many. Within each feudal domain, needless to say, the local dialect was the
standard, fulfilling the primary function of language, that is, communication.
Farmers, fishermen, and forestry workers had no need of any other medium of
communication, since restrictions on travel made it unlikely that they would
have much occasion to converse with speakers of other dialects. It was the
governing elite, and later the merchants and artisans who followed the shifting
center of power from west to east, who felt the need for a common language.
Some clarification of terminology may be helpful at this point. The terms
kyotsugo n or common language, and hyojungo, or standard language,
are both found in socio-historical descriptions of Japanese. Kyotsugo refers to
a common or standard language (German, Gemeinsprache) in the sense of a
supradialectal language of convenience that admits of the existence of dialects
and is not concerned with their eradication. Hyojungo, while still referring
to a language that is standard in that it can be used throughout the country,
incorporates further the idea of a standard of excellence to which users of
that language should aspire, and thus designates an idealized and perhaps
unattainable form of the language.
By virtue of the implication of some moral superiority inherent in hyojungo,
the use of this term as the goal of language planning in the late Meiji period led
in time to the 'dialect complex', a result of efforts to wipe out dialects through
the teaching of hy -ungo in the education system. Where hy -ungo involves a
value judgment, kyotsugo does not. Kokugogaku Jiten defines kyotsugo as
'the language in which ideas can be exchanged in common throughout any one
country,' while hyojungo is 'an ideal language controlled by fixed standards, a
polished ky6tsugo.'15 Hyojungo was used from the time that standardization
first became an issue in the Meiji period until after the Pacific War. It was then
replaced by kyotsugo in the usage of some scholars when referring to the stan-
dard form of Japanese, as it was felt that no true hyojungo yet existed.16
14 Yanagita Kunio TPO 1, H, 'Hy6jungo no Kyotsugo, Hogen' 4- + . 75, in
Hanashi' i in Yanagita Kunio Shu,
Chikuma, 1963, 18, p. 510. Also Tojo Misao
V+, 'Hyojungo to Hogen', in Kokubungaku Kaishaku to Kansho [MZP*fR
VI, 4:7 (1937), p. 100.
Even in modern times the Kagoshima and
Sendai dialects are still mutually unintelli-
gible. Hattori Shiro #RjEIRPS, Gengogaku no
Hoho -'nPoD)M, Iwanami, 1960, p. 733.
Bunkacho zZ f L , ed., Kotoba Shiriizu 6: Hyo-
jungo to Ho gen' 6kMt 3 - X 6:4 X I 5
>, Okurasho, 1977, pp. 22-32.
Also, Suzuki Hideo A 'Gendai
Kyotsugo o Tsukuridashita no wa Dare ka'
Q N- A4 2l r < L) 1 D e i M h7 b, in
Kokubungaku JMZ, 27:16 (1982), pp. 52-56;
and Uemura Yukio -L f , 'Hogen,
Kyotsugo, Hyojungo' XD I <
15 Kokugo Gakkai 1 ed., Kokugogaku Jiten , Tokyodo, 1966, pp.
in Koza Gendaigo 1: Gendaigo no Gaisetsu
254 & 776.
pp. 47-63.
29fT-PM 1 J oAa)WH, Meiji Shoin, 1963,
16 Shibata Takeshi M Kt A, 'Hyojungo,
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
436 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
East- West Rivalry
Prior to the Meiji period, the problem of a standard form of written Japanese
did not arise, for the classical styles were relatively fixed and unchanging, and
were also the province of the educated elite. The common people spoke
various dialects, and their functional literacy was usually sufficient only for the
daily business of life. Written communication among the upper class was
governed by a straitjacket of rigidly classical form that permitted little deviation and constituted in itself a written norm, or rather, several different norms
depending on context. Until the middle of the Tokugawa period, the common
language used to facilitate spoken communication among those sections of
society where mobility was possible was the speech of the capital, Kyoto.
There had long been a dialectal rivalry between eastern and western Japan,
and examples may be found in Genji Monogatari 'Rwtn that show the scorn-
ful attitude of capital dwellers to the speech of the east. It was Kyoto speech
committed to writing that formed the basis of what in later centuries became
classical Japanese. This was used in kana literature, waka, and noh chants,
and in this way merited the appellation of gagen , or refined language. No
active attempt was made on the part of any agency to establish Kyoto speech as
hyojungo; as the dialect of the capital, it fuctioned as a common language for
communication among those whose business took them there, and it was
perceived as the 'best' form of spoken Japanese by virtue of the exalted status
of its speakers. Despite the shift of power to the east in the Kamakura period,
Kyoto remained the imperial city and cultural center, and so its dialect-or
rather, the upper-class variant-retained its aura of prestige and was alone re-
garded, in a country of increasingly differentiated dialects, as the 'correct'
form of Japanese.17
This situation persisted until the middle of the Tokugawa period, by which
time the language of Edo, seat of shogunal power, had achieved sufficient cohesion to become a second contender as a common language. Since the building
of the city some 150 years earlier, Edogo had evolved from a mixture of the
Kanto dialect used by the original inhabitants of the area; the Mikawa dialect
introduced by Tokugawa samurai from their home province of that name; and
17 This fact was emphasized by the betterinformed Europeans living in Japan in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In his
Arte da Lingoa de Iapam, Nagasaki, 16041608, Joao Rodrigues observes:
'The current manner of speaking in an approved and accepted way throughout Japan
by cultured people versed in their literature is
the language of Miyako, used by the kuge,
who preserve the pure and elegant language
and pronunciation of Japan', f. 83.
Rodrigues later remarks, 'The language of
Miyako is the best and should be imitated
as regards vocabulary and pronunciation', f.
169.
He points out that this accepted speech is associated not only with the capital city but also
with the Gokinai HigP region: 'Any accent
that differs in tone and pronunciation from
that of the Gokinai is regarded as wrong and
the Japanese call it namari', f. 173.
This point is also emphasized in the
Japanese-Portuguese dictionary Vocabulario
da Lingoa de Iapam, Nagasaki, 1603-1604,
which carefully distinguishes between Kyoto
and Kyushu vocabulary.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TWINE: Standardizing Written Japanese 437
the Kamigata dialect of the Kyoto-Osaka area (also known as Keihan
brought from the capital by merchants, courtesans, and court ladies and their
waiting women who came to Edo Castle. 18 The Kamigata influence was particularly strong because of the continuing cultural dominance of the Kyoto-Osaka
area. By around 1750, these three elements had blended into a characteristic
Edogo used at that time mainly within Edo itself, for the surrounding districts
still retained relatively unadulterated Kanto dialects.
Edo then began to develop its own distinct culture in opposition to that of
the Kamigata area. The growth of a popular literature in the city saw the
language of Edo employed in written form in the dialogue of genre fiction, and
it was at about this time that Edogo began to exert an influence on other
regions of Japan. The sankin kotai t-N system, whereby daimyo from all
regions of the country spent alternate years in Edo and left their families in the
city as hostage against their pledged return from the home fief, played a part in
spreading knowledge of Edogo to distant provinces. The fact that the families
of daimyo were kept in Edo meant that future heirs were brought up there and
learned early to speak the samurai variant (as opposed to the townspeople's
variant) of Edogo in order to acquit themselves honorably in future dealings
with the bakufu. The custom of sending hatamoto A,t from Edo to areas
under direct shogunate control, such as Nagasaki, Uraga, and Fushimi, further contributed to the spreading influence of Edogo outside its immediate
point of origin.'9 The constant traffic to and from Edo along the Tokaido
disseminated Edogo, while the upsurge in literary production established the
townspeople's variant of Edogo as a language suitable for literature in its own
right.
The Edogo that was beginning to rival Kyotogo as a language of wider communication was the upper-class variant. Two distinct class-bound streams had
developed in the process of maturation: the samurai variant owed most to
its Mikawa heritage and the townspeople variant stemmed from the marked
influence of the Kyoto dialect on that of the Kanto. Ando Masatsugu
characterizes the Tokugawa era as a period of dualism in Japanese linguistic
history. The spoken and written languages were vastly different, and within the
spoken language itself there were divisions between Edogo and Kyotogo, between the various dialects, and between social classes using a particular
dialect.20 This was the result of feudal geographical segmentation and social
stratification of the populace, for they had severely curtailed the operation of
those environmentally induced changes to which language is normally susceptible.
18 Yamasaki Fumoto [WJ, 'Edogo no
Kosei to Hensen' iI P {3X, in
Kokubungaku Kaishaku to Kansho, 4:7 (1939),
p. 60.
19 San'yutei Ensho ^5<#H et al., 'Edo
no Kotoba, Meiji no Kotoba' f?JiF?i: - k, H
4,od t4i, in Gengo Seikatsu , 291
(1975), p. 7.
20 Ando Masatsugu WThIED, 'Kokugoshi
Josetsu' [J K 9 @ X, in Ando Masatsugu
Chosaku Shi i I&R f, Yuizankaku,
1974, 2, p. 65.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
438 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
One side effect of the sankin kotai system was to encourage the publication
of books dealing with dialects, and those serve to illustrate the changing status
of Edogo as a language of wider communication. The earliest such works
measured dialects against the standard of Kyoto speech, ranking that of Edo
among the dialects at large. But after 1750 mention of Edogo as a central stan-
dard became increasingly frequent, as in Tsukushi Hogen ELYS and
Shimpen Hitachi Kokushi Sfiagg By this time Edogo was established as
an independent language of authority, functioning in an ever-widening sphere
as a kyotsu7go.
In the late Tokugawa period there were in fact two languages of wider
communication operating in Japan. These two languages reflected the east-west
split of political, cultural, and economic power: Edogo, functioning as a common language among the educated elite, and Kyotogo, also a kyotsugo but in
addition regarded in the light of a hyojungo, the 'best' form of Japanese.
Westerners entering Japan in the late Tokugawa and early Meiji periods
remarked on the extent to which the speech of Edo (and later Tokyo) was
understood in other parts of the country. The American missionary James
Curtis Hepburn, 1815-1911, commented in the section 'Dialects' in his A
Japanese-English and English-Japanese Dictionary, 1867, that the language of
Kyoto was considered the standard. Five years later, however, updating this
section for the second edition, 1872, he noted that since the transfer of the
capital to Edo, renamed Tokyo, it was the dialect of that city that then took
precedence and was understood throughout the country among the educated
classes. Since this change could hardly have been effected holus bolus within so
short a time in the absence of both conscious language planning on the part of
the elite and a centrally coordinated education system, the Edo dialect may be
assumed to have been widely understood for some considerable period before
the Restoration. Two decades later, Basil Hall Chamberlain, 1850-1935, in his
A Handbook of Colloquial Japanese, 1888, commented that 'the dialect of
Tokyo ... has gained an overwhelming importance as the general medium
of polite intercourse throughout the country.'22
The ascendancy of Tokyogo over Kyotogo both as the Meiji period's
language of wider communication and its perceived standard language was in
part the natural outcome of the formalization of the shift of power (in this
case, the new imperial administration) to the east by the relocation of the
capital in 1868. There were other factors in the early part of the period. One
was the abolition of the four-tiered feudal class system in 1871, as this led
gradually to the eventual relaxation of class-bound speech variants. Another
was the establishment of a national education system in the following year,
although literary styles continued to dominate textbooks in the early decades;
21 Matsumura Akira ft2JI, 'Edogo ga
22 Basil Hall Chamberlain, A Handbook of
Kyotsugo to Naru made' La 4cI
Colloquial Japanese, Crosby Lockwood, 4th
ed., 1907, pp. 8-9.
- C', in Kokubungaku Kaishaku to Kansho,
27:2 (1962), pp. 95-96.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TWINE: Standardizing Written Japanese 439
it was not until conscious language planning began thirty years later with the
establishment of the Kokugo Chosa Iinkai A-1k_R (National Language
Research Council) in 1902 that the classroom became significant in the
dissemination of Tokyogo as the literary norm. Other factors included the
introduction of national conscription in 1873, the development of modern
transport and communication systems, the lifting of the restrictions on travel,
and the increased coming and going between capital and prefectures under the
centralized bureaucracy.
During this early period of upheaval, Tokyo speech was itself undergoing
internal evolution from Edogo into a form characteristic of the modernization
period that was later to provide the basis for standard Japanese. Certain typifying features developed in the first two decades of Meiji as the result of
exposure to foreign influences and in the wake of internal demographic and
social change. The most striking of the former category were the borrowing of
foreign loanwords (gairaigo A4) and the invention of many new kango M,
or Chinese compounds; these kango were derived from translations of foreign
terms (for example, kisha , denki l, minken JtWf) to cope with the vast
number of new lexical items required. Certain syntactic borrowings from Euro-
pean languages also crept in, among them the increasingly frequent use in
writing of the passive voice and of both animate and inanimate grammatical
subjects. Developments brought about by domestic changes included the rising
proportion of expressions from regional dialects; the gradual flow of popula-
tion from the provinces to the capital led to other forms of spoken Japanese,
particularly that of the imperial court now residing in Tokyo, exerting an influence in the formation of Tokyogo. The disappearance of the feudal class
structure led to changes in honorifics, and masu and desu became widely used
in speech as polite forms.23
Thus by the time intellectuals began to consider the matter of a standard
language both as a convenient practical help in modernization and a focus for
a sense of national pride and unity, Toikyoigo had developed a character of
its own and consolidated its position as Japan's lingua franca. During the
same period, debate had begun on the issue of replacing classical literary styles
with a modern colloquial style based on, although naturally not a verbatim
transcript of, everyday spoken Japanese (the gembun'itchi movement). As the
focus of the colloquialization debate in time shifted away from the initial
exchange between progressive and conservatives toward a general, if uneasy,
acceptance of its necessity, a question then arose: which form of spoken
Japanese should serve as a model in the implementation of the new style? The
language of the capital came under immediate scrutiny as a matter of course.
23 Matsumura Akira, 'Tokyogo no Seiritsu1966, pp. 187-238; Tsuchiya Shin'ichi rVg:r
to Hatten' V , z33 OD k; X - Q X, in Koku-
- , 'Tokyogo no Seiritsu Katei ni okeru Ukemi
bungaku Kaishaku to KanshO, 19:10 (1954),
pp. 87-103; Sugimoto Tsutomu *t-Q tX,
Kindai Nihongo A R t FW, Kinokuniya,
no Hyogen ni tsuite' V AJes B t
<4oX; Zt, in Kokugaku MS, 51
(1962), pp. 25-43.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
440 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
Early Views
In January 1874, Nishigata Takashi 2?Nu, the Vice-Minister of Education,
published in the first issue of Mombusho Zasshi ?&gg an article discussing
the content and aim of subjects taught in the new education system. The section on the teaching of kotoba zukai - reveals the author's concern for
standardization: instructing school children in a common form of Japanese,
he pointed out, was a step toward removing the inconvenience caused by dialectal fragmentation. In pursuit of this aim, the Ministry of Education had in
1873 published glossaries and phrase sheets for use in kotoba zukai lessons.
Two of the earliest were Rengohen Ichi 1AA,-, a series of short questions
and answers, and Shogaku Ky -usho J which began with a glossary
and progressed to short sentences. In addition to Tokyo vocabulary, these
materials employed colloquial grammar, a step that drew severe criticism from
the classical scholar Kurokawa Mayori P)II,4, who believed that children
should be taught the literary grammar that they would later need as adults.24
In the following year, on 3 September 1875, Watanabe Shujiro AOPWzi
P5, 1855-1945, published in Tokyo Akebono Shimbun V-OORI an essay
titled 'Nihonbun o Seitei Suru Hoho' E tf;Z 7 $aCi A,'KT ('Ways of Regulating
Written Japanese'), in which he advocated emulation of the West's example
in colloquialization and standardization of the written language. The basis
for the standard, he declared, should be the most commonly used form of
Tokyo speech, and scholars should at once begin the codification of that
norm into dictionaries and grammars.25
Two rather more conservative approaches to the problem appeared in
Choya Shimbun Off Ogl, about a year apart. The first was an editorial on 25
February 1876, and its author reported the current division of opinion between
a standard based on contemporary speech, that is, a modern language, and
one based on gagen, a return to the Japanese of the past. He proposed a compromise: the best elements of the classics-the grace of the Heian romance, the
vigor of the Kamakura war chronicle-should be woven into the speech of
Tokyo, the center of government. The result would be a blend of the best
linguistic aspects of Japan's history. Echoing this suggestion on 16 January
1877 came 'Nihon Bunten Henshu Soron' FH *<;Af%g- ('Editing Japanese
Grammars') by Otsuki Fumihiko KtIZt, 1847-1928. Upon entering the
Ministry of Education in 1872, Otsuki had been commissioned to compile an
English-Japanese dictionary and later a Japanese dictionary. Keenly interested
in the grammar of his language, he was convinced of the need for suitable
grammars and dictionaries to facilitate education. Otsuki also advocated a mixture of modern and medieval elements, but in the event of colloquialization,
24 Kamei Takashi - $ et al., ed.,
Nihongo no Rekishi H *nr- 1P X 6: Atarashii
Kokugo e no Ayumi V lt'l l- o+tA
Heibonsha, 1965, p. 243.
25 Reprinted in Yamamoto Masahide St*
iE3, Kindai Buntai Keisei Shiryo ShUsei:
Hassei,en 198 pp. 15 4 -5 W 6 . e: A 'Ml
Ofuisha, 1978, pp. 154-56.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TWINE: Standardizing Written Japanese 441
the choice between Kyoto and Tokyo speech as the basis for the new style
should be made in favor of the new capital.26
In the 1880s, supporters of either of the two methods of orthographic
reform-the replacement of ideographic kanji with romanization or phonetic
kana-began to cite standardization as a step toward achieving their ends.27 In
1882, Yatabe Ryokichi . 1851-1899, botanist and pioneer of newstyle poetry, advocated the use of romaji in a style based on the language of
Tokyo.28 Yatabe was a founding member of the Romajikai established in 1885
to pursue the realization of the romanization goal, and was one of forty
members chosen as a committee to investigate the practical implementation of
the plan. He and five other committee members drafted a motion, published as
Romaji nite Nihongo no Kakikata Fc H A X ('How to Romanize
Japanese'), one of whose nineteen sections proposed that romanization be
based on the pronunciation of normally educated people of Tokyo. His fellow
member Hikami Kakutaro, writing in the club's journal on the colloquialization issue in 1888, observed that while regional isolation and its consequent
linguistic fragmentation might have suited the feudal authorities, it was imperative for modern Japan, now in contact with the West, to possess a uniform
language and a colloquial written style.29 In Hikami's view, standardization
was an essential prerequisite to colloquialization.
A similar concern with hyojungo was expressed by members of the other
arm of the script reform movement, and in 1883 they amalgamated four earlier
groups to form the Kana no Kai. Miyake Yonekichi _ 1860-1929,
educator and secretary of the club, was another in the increasing band of supporters of the gembun 'itchi theory of style reform. In his 'Kuniguni no Namari
Kotoba ni tsukite' ('On Regional Dialects'), 1884,30 he unfolded a three-point
plan for the future of Japanese: standardization, colloquialization, and script
reform, in that order. Adopting a conservative approach to the first of these
items, Miyake favored an indirect method of natural selection rather than
direct intervention by artificial manipulation, for he believed that any attempt
to decide arbitrarily on a standard and implement it forthwith would end only
in failure. He identified and discussed three current approaches to standardization: the gagen theory, advocating that all dialects should be replaced with a
single form of speech based on classical Japanese; the gendaigo theory, favoring the adoption of a dialect currently in use, but divided over the merits of
that of Tokyo or Kyoto; and the hogen tasuiketsu - postulating that
the standard should be the dialect with the largest number of speakers.
26 Yamamoto, pp. 167-69.
27 For script reform movements, see
Gakugei Zasshi , 7 & 8, AprilMay 1982.
Nanette Twine, 'Toward Simplicity: Script
29 Hikami Kakutaro, 'Gembun'itchi' -mc
Reform Movements in the Meiji Period', in
MN 38:2 (1983), pp. 115-32.
28 'Romaji o mote Nihongo o Tsuzuru
A, in Romaji Zasshi , 37 & 38,
June-July 1888.
Setsu' rf-J 1w Fi *PM 7 n4q in Toyo
September, December 1884).
30 In Kana no Shirube, 2, 3 & 6 (August,
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
442 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
In Miyake's opinion, none of these was a practical plan. He believed that the
continuing encouragement of social intercourse between formerly isolated (in
terms of human geography) regions would result in a gradual blending and
smoothing out of the dialectal variations. All that was needed was the improvement of communications and the passage of time, although he acknowledged
that all dialects should be surveyed with a view to eventually deciding on a
standard. What Miyake did not realize, or chose to ignore, was that naturally
occurring linguistic change is dependent upon the luxury of time, a luxury not
high on the list of priorities of a developing nation jerked suddenly from a
feudal system into the modern industrialized world without the period of evolution experienced in the West. Given his enthusiastic advocacy of artificial
intervention in language development in the form of script reform and collo-
quialization, Miyake's laissez-faire attitude to standardization was inconsistent with his overall approach to the modernization of the language.
Three other members of the Kana no Kai advocated a more direct approach
to the fashioning of a uniform hyo-ungo as a prerequisite to colloquialization
and script reform. In 'Kanabumi o Mitori ni Wakuru Ron' ('Three Ways of
Writing in Kana'), 1885, Shimano Seiichiro A N advocated middle-class
Tokyo speech as the obvious base for a universal colloquial style, not merely
because of its prestige as the dialect of the capital, but also because it was a
composite of expressions from other dialects and therefore already qualified to
a large extent as a kyotsugo. By deleting from it all traces of vulgar expressions
and blending in more of the 'best' expressions from other dialects, it could be
made into an ideal standard, which should be codified in dictionaries and used
on all occasions.31
Concurring with this view was Katayama Junkichi tLLP, who in 'Kanazukai o Aratamen ka, Kotoba o Tadasan ka' ('Language and Script Reform'),
1886, examined standardization in terms of its effect on facilitating education
and boosting national prestige. Were Japan to follow the British example of
publishing primary texts in the language of the capital, suitably combined with
appropriate expressions from regional dialects, teaching would be simplified,
a colloquial style could be more easily spread, and Japan, with a uniform
language, would become a truly civilized country in the Western mold.32 Further stressing the instrumental aspect of standardization, although reversing
the usual order, Mozume Takami , 1847-1928, in his Gembun'itchi
(Unification of Speech and Writing), 1886, suggested the modern postal system
as an agent in spreading hyoeungo, and regarded the achievement of the gem-
bun'itchi objective as offering the ancillary benefit of a uniform language.33
By 1886, then, the overall consensus among those concerned with language
31 Kana no Shirube, 7 (January 1885).
32 Kana Shimbun, 20 (15 April 1886).
33 Reproduced in Meiji Bunka Zenshu HA S
:i:4Lt, Nihon Hyoronsha, 2nd ed., 1967,
pp. 129-39.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TWINE: Standardizing Written Japanese 443
reform was that some kind of standard was necessary as a basis for colloquial
style. The Ministry of Education, with which so many members of the gem-
bun 'itchi movement were associated, published in 1887 a reader, Jinjo
Shogaku Tokuhon <']Ji, whose introductory volume was written
almost entirely in colloquial style based on Tokyo speech. Of the three approaches to standardization discussed by Miyake, the gendaigo theory had
gained most ground, with educated Tokyo speech finding more favor than
Ky6togo. The speech of the capital seemed the logical choice. Not only did it
carry the prestige associated with the center of the nation's government, com-
merce, industry, and culture, but it was also known in other areas as Tokyo
was the center of the country's communications network as well. It would ob-
viously be easier to polish and legitimize an already existing kyotsulgo than to
set about fashioning a new one. Further, it was the form of Japanese studied
by foreigners, invested thereby with the function of representing the language
of Japan on the international front.
The premier position of the capital as a focus of the arts helped to disseminate its dialect through literature, and the ascendancy of Tokyogo was
about to become further and finally assured by its adoption as the basis for the
new colloquial style in the modern novels that began to appear in the late
1880s. Jesperson notes that 'literature plays no small part in the rise of a great
common language,' and ascribes the paramount importance of European
figures associated with national language movements, such as Dante, Luther,
and Chaucer, to their roles as literary models that provided an extra impetus to
what was already in train.34 In the Japanese case, the need for a new literary
language, already recognized from its instrumental aspects by forward
thinkers in the preceding two decades of the Meiji period, was further
highlighted by the attraction felt by young authors to Western literary theories
of realism and, later, naturalism. Rigid classical styles were judged unsuitable
for the sensitive examination of modern dilemmas and psychological intricacies.
First to attempt a modernization of style as well as approach and content
was Futabatei Shimei vVM9A, 1864-1909, who used Tokyo speech as the
basis for a colloquial style in his Ukigumo , 1887-1889, a work that is
generally recognized as Japan's first modern novel both for the innovation of
its psychological realism and the medium of its expression. He was followed by
Yamada Bimyo LLmA\, 1868-1910; Saganoya Omuro , 18631947; and, for a short time in his translations of Western literatur
AL-V, 1862-1922. By 1889, about thirty novelists had experimented with the
new style, many publishing their works in such coterie journals as Miyako no
Hana zWorL and Iratsume 21ftF), and Tokyogo was well on the way to acceptance as the new literary norm. The trend toward colloquial style survived a
34 Otto Jesperson, Mankind, Nation, and Individual, Allen & Unwin, London, 1946, p. 51.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
444 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
temporary five-year setback, 1890-1895, when there was a revival of Japanese
studies in a move away from what many perceived as excessive adulation of the
West, and it went on to flourish in later mainstream literary movements. In
fact, its influence in this sphere did much to advance the cause of style reform
in other areas. Together with colloquialization in literature went the adoption
of educated Tokyo speech as its basis, and in this way the claims of that particular idiom as the matrix for the standard language were strengthened.
Nationalism and Language Planning
The catalyst in accelerating both the return to gembun'itchi in the novel and
other writings, and the beginning of serious, coordinated examination of
language policy at the national level was the victory in the Sino-Japanese War
in 1895. It was at this point that the issue of the national language assumed
significance as a unifying force on Kelman's sentimental level. Up to that time,
discussion on the subject had centered upon the pragmatic benefits to be gained from a standard language acting as a cultural bond uniting formerly
disparate communities into the larger social unit of the nation-state and
facilitating communications at all levels of its sphere of influence.
With victory over China came an upsurge of nationalistic fervor, together
with an awareness of and pride in Japan's potential as a force in world affairs.
This in turn led to a re-examination of the Japanese language in an attempt to
disencumber it of classical Chinese influence. Modernization of the language,
now beginning to be called kokugo n4 (a term delineating a single language
representing Japan), came to be seen as an important element in fostering a
spirit of national identity and unity, a factor contributing much to the sense of
authenticity necessary to social cohesion in a developing power. The Swiss example, it is true, proves the fallacy of the assertion that a single national
language is an essential requirement of nationhood. But in the Japanese case
there was on hand just such a single linguistic heritage used by the nation
within the borders of the state, and this could, with extensive modification
of its internal inconsistencies, serve as a focus of national pride. It was time
now for government initiative in language planning to give official sanction,
encouragement, and direction to the growing movement for reform.
The active cooperation of the intellectual elite of a speech community is
needed for the standardization of its language.35 Advocates of hyojungo after
the Sino-Japanese War adopted a centralist approach to the problem, paving
the way for policy decisions at bureaucratic level. An early supporter of direct
intervention in language planning on both pragmatic and nationalist grounds
was Ueda Kazutoshi ? ['5?*, 1867-1937. As an undergraduate in the Department of Japanese Literature in Tokyo Imperial University, he had
studied under Basil Hall Chamberlain, and the British scholar's views on the
35 Paul Garvin, 'Some Comments', p. 71.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TWINE: Standardizing Written Japanese 445
need for style and orthographic reform (Chamberlain was an advocate of
romanization) stimulated Ueda's interest in the future development of his own
language. After his graduation in 1888, Ueda proceeded to postgraduate
studies, and in 1890, was sent by the government to study linguistics in Germany and France for four years, the first Japanese to do so. On his return to
Tokyo, he was given charge of the university's linguistics course and conducted similar classes at Tokyo Normal School and Tokyo Special School.
Many of his students became prominent in Japanese linguistic circles, among
them Hashimoto Shinkichi , Shinmura Izuru Vfitflz, and Hoshina
Koichi i4-. In the course of his career, Ueda produced two major dic-
tionaries, Daijiten tWt, 1917, and, in collaboration with Matsui Kanji {tZ
, Dai-Nihon Kokugo Jiten t tFi, 1915-1919. In addition he pub-
lished many discursive essays on the Japanese language.
Ueda arrived home from Germany to find nationalistic sentiments very
much in evidence as a result of the war with China. A return to things Japanese
was being advocated on all fronts, language included. Ueda suggested several
ways in which his mother tongue might be improved, one of them being the
adoption of a standard form of Japanese. In a lecture titled 'Kokugo to Kokka
to' [M`A k ('Language and Nation'), 1894, he described language as the
spiritual bond uniting the Japanese people. The national language, as the identifying mark of a state and the mother of its people, must be respected and protected, he said, citing the movement for the purification of the German
language as an example of what could be accomplished by a people bent on
refining their mother tongue.36
A few months later, in January 1895, Ueda published 'Hyojungo ni tsukite'
r,*`AA7cX ('A Standard Language'), in which he put forward the concept
of hyojungo as that language among those spoken in a given country that is
understood by most people throughout that country, as opposed to regional
dialects used only in circumscribed areas. He gave the English 'standard
language' and the German 'Gemeinsprache' as examples and added that a
standard language acts as the model for the country. In order to establish the
standard satisfactorily, attention must be paid to both its oral and written
forms. It must be based upon a dialect actually in current use somewhere
within the country, and must then become the literary norm. Writing reaches a
wider audience than speaking, and it remains for posterity. The written word
in various forms was now capable of swift dissemination. The speech of
educated people of Tokyo had the potential to become the hyojungo of the
future, provided it received considerable polishing. Particular areas deserving
both academic study and the best efforts of those engaged in their associated
linguistic activities were the language of education, the courts, the Diet, the
theatre, and literature. Ueda larded his text with European examples support36 Meiji Bungaku Zenshu, Chikuma, 1968, 44, pp. 108-13.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
446 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
ing his thesis, mentioning among others the role of the French theatre and
Academie Fran9aise in working for the improvement of the French language.37
In the same month, Ueda addressed the Dai-Nihon Kyoikukai on the necessity of establishing a standard language as a plank in the education system. In
his lecture 'Kyoikujo Kokugogakusha no Hoki shi-iru Ichidai Yoten' d [4 4
Ao_QtJ -?kJA ('A Major Oversight by Language Scholars in Education'), he expressed his wholehearted support for a coordinated centralist approach to language planning. He pointed out that as the national language
formed the basis for universal education, its future development must be
carefully structured to further that objective. Teachers must themselves first be
trained in the standard language, for example at Tokyo Imperial University,
before attempting to impart it to their students in the classroom. Ueda stressed
the interdependence of colloquialization and standardization, and asserted
that true education could not begin until Japan had achieved a uniform colloquial style.38
Next to call for direct intervention was Okakura Yoshisaburo [Aft_hN,
1868-1936, linguist and English-language scholar credited with being the first
to use the term hyojungo in 1890.39 In his 'Oyo Gengogaku JukkaiKowa' YLI
?r SC ('Ten Lectures on Applied Linguistics'), 1902, Okakura spoke of
the unification of the national language as essential to national progress. Decrying the centralist approach-allowing several main dialects in place of one
standard language-as ultimately harmful to national solidarity, he rejected
Miyake's earlier indirect method of natural selection, conceived in a less nationalistic day. Such a method, he maintained, was unsuitable in that it was by
no means certain that only the most desirable elements of different dialects
would intermingle. Okakura's own preferred option was to use the classroom
as a forum for correcting and eradicating dialectal usage and inculcating a
standard language, thus making education the vehicle for propagating the
norm. Common to both his and Ueda's theories was the notion that dialects
were a social evil that should be rooted out rather than allowed to coexist with
hyojungo.
Japan was about to embark at a bureaucratic level upon what Neustupny
has termed the policy approach to language problems characteristic of a modernizing society.40 Issues of standardization, colloquialization, and orthographic
reform had been debated with increasing urgency by intellectuals for some
time before the upsurge in nationalism of the 1890s (later also fuelled by the victory in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905) increased the momentum. Two
groups dedicated to the reform of the national language were now set up and
they were to prove instrumental in inducing the government to begin coordinated language planning.
37 Teikoku Bungaku VWfZ<;, 1 (January
1895).
38 Published later in Kokumin no Tomo 1
A, April 1985.
39 Suzuki, p. 52.
40 Neustupn', p. 39.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TWINE: Standardizing Written Japanese 447
The first was Gengo Gakkai 4 , a linguistic society established by Ueda
in May 1898; its bulletin Gengogaku Zasshi > iteL, 1900-1902, provided a
forum for advocates of language reform to air their views. The founding
members of the society included graduates of Ueda's courses, among them
Shinmura Izuru, Hoshina Koichi, and Fujioka Katsuji Wfj . In addition
to these members, its many contributors included Okakura Yoshisaburo,
Shiratori Kurakichi mAtW (1865-1942, professor of oriental history at Tokyo
Imperial University), and Okada Masayoshi [4FFYK+, 1871-1923. Okada was
professor of Japanese literature at Tokyo School of Foreign Languages, and in
1895 had published a long essay advocating the total disappearance of Chinese
characters .41
The primary concern of these men was the development and implementation
of a colloquial style. They also recognized the need for choosing a standard
variant of Japanese on which to base that style, and many of the articles
published in Gengogaku Zasshi reflected this concern. 'Gembun'itchi ni tsuite'
>tc-c~ iR; , an unsigned piece appearing in April 1900, called for Japan
to follow the European example in establishing a uniform colloquial style,
advocating as the standard a polished and refined form of the language used
by the middle class in Tokyo.42
In the following year Fujioka Katsuji published 'Gembun 'itchi Ron'
R, in which he stressed the need for standardization and described the colloquial style as the standard language set down in writing. Citing the commonly
held opinion that the standard should be the speech of educated residents of
Tokyo, Fujioka went on to outline steps to achieving this aim. Provincial
primary school teachers should be brought to the capital to learn to speak
Tokyogo; future primary texts should be composed in colloquial style, and
existing books rewritten. A program aimed at gradually standardizing the
dialects of Tokyogo should be worked out; dialect dictionaries should also be
published. Scholars must research the nature of the standard language and
publish guidebooks; their essays and model compositions could be issued by
the Ministry of Education in a monthly bulletin. Through these and other
means, every effort should be made to achieve reform of the written language.43
A second pressure group committed to the same objective was the Gembun'itchikai, formed in March 1900 under the auspices of the country's most
influential body of educators, the Teikoku Kyoikukai Ht*; its aim was to
promote the spread of colloquial style outside literature. In the previous year
41 'Kanji Zempai o Ronjite Kokubun
Kokugo Kokuji no Shorai ni oyobu' iCr?
X - riAe C X 1 1X , [ 7M" , 214X; R Bs in
Teikoku Bungaku, 1: 10 (1895).
42 Cited in Yamamoto Masahide, "'Gen-
X'I , ] L - c - A, in Kokugo to Kokubungaku [Al Wc [dZ, 44:4 (1967), pp. 5455.
43 Yamamoto, "'Gengogaku Zasshi"', pp.
57-59.
gogaku Zasshi" to Gembun'itchi' M. 4MF
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
448 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
the association had set up a Kokuji Kairyobu [1Q$tj (Script Reform Section), headed by Maejima Hisoka. Maejima had been the earliest advocate of
script and style reform with his 1866 petition to the shogun calling for the abolition of Chinese characters and a concomitant simplification of style as steps
in facilitating education. In addition to four subsections dealing with the
examination of various script reform options, this section subsumed a fifth,
known as the Kokubun Chosabu M1aAA (Language Investigation Section),
commissioned to investigate ways of implementing colloquial style and to
establish a polished version of educated Tokyo speech as the standard. When
the more high-powered Gembun'itchikai began its activities, reflecting the increased importance placed on language reform, the Kokubun Chosabu ceased
operation and its members were absorbed by the larger body. Although drawn
mainly from educators and scholars, the members of the Gembun'itchikai also
included a few journalists, among them being Nakai Kitaro r-tPF, editor
of the Yomiuri Shimbun, which often published items on the activities of the
club.4
Shiratori Kurakichi and Shinmura Izuru served as members of the fifteenman committee; the latter scholar was further entrusted with the task of
editing model compositions in colloquial style. At the club's second public lecture meeting in February 1901, Shiratori addressed the club on historical factors pointing to the need for colloquialization. Otsuki Fumihiko spoke at the
third public lecture meeting on 'Gembun'itchi no Hy-5ungo' ('A Standard
Language in Colloquial Style').45
It may be seen, therefore, that Gengo Gakkai and the Gembun'itchikai
worked together to achieve the same objective, namely, the adoption of a
standardized colloquial style, and to this end brought pressure to bear upon
the government to extend official sanctions to future language-planning
efforts.
In January 1900, a month before the formation of the Gembun'itchikai, its
parent body, the Teikoku Kyoikukai, had presented to both Houses of the
Diet a petition titled 'Kokuji Kokugo Kokubun no Kairyo ni kansuru Seigan-
sho' MS, ('A Petition for the Reform of Our
Script, Language, and Style'), requesting the establishment of a government
agency to undertake the implementation of script and style reform. The Upper
House passed the petition in the following month. Instrumental to this success
was Ueda Kazutoshi, who, in his capacity as parliamentary councillor of the
Ministry of Education, had defended the motion during question time in the
Lower House. Ueda had been agitating for the establishment of a national
44 The chairman of the club was Maejima
Hisoka. Many members also belonged to
Gengo Gakkai and/or contributed to
Gengogaku Zasshi, among them Ueda
Kazutoshi, Okada Masayoshi, Okakura
Yoshisaburo, Otsuki Fumihiko, Shiratori
Kurakichi, Shinmura Izuru, Hoshina Koichi,
and Fujioka Katsuji.
45 Yamamoto, "'Gengogaku Zasshi"', p.
54.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TWINE: Standardizing Written Japanese 449
body for some time. In 1898, while continuing in his appointment at Tokyo
Imperial University, he had been further appointed head of the Ministry of
Education's Special Education Bureau as well as its parliamentary councillor.
As a result of both diligent lobbying on Ueda's part and the petition from the
Teikoku Kyoikukai, the government announced the appointment, in April
1900, of a seven-member committee to begin preparatory investigation to determine the direction of future language planning.46
Ueda was not yet satisfied. As head of the Special Education Bureau, he had
been working within the Ministry of Education for the improvement of
Japanese-language education, in cooperation with Sawayanagi MasatarO gNpp
i&tPF5 1865-1927, head of the General Education Bureau. As a result of their
collaboration, the Shogakko Rei 'J4] a ('Elementary School Ordinance') of
August 1900 limited the number of Chinese characters to be used and
stipulated revisions in the orthography of phonetic script, both to take effect
from the publication of new readers in 1902.
Convinced of the need for a national language research council with a clearly defined charter to bring about changes that would support these initiatives,
Ueda and other members of the Gembun'itchikai then began a period of
intensive lobbying, concentrating their efforts on Kikuchi Dairoku tkft,
1855-1917, Minister of Education from 1901 to 1903. A known supporter
of language reform, Kikuchi had addressed the first public meeting of the
Gembun'itchikai in January 1901, prior to his appointment as Minister of
Education, at which time he had stressed the importance of style reform to
education.47 Ueda and his supporters therefore determined to appeal to Kikuchi to press for the establishment of a national body. To this end, they
adopted several tactics, including another petition to the Diet, pressure on
Kikuchi himself, and active lobbying of other influential groups within the
government.
Ueda's views on language as a unifying national force were well known from
his early lectures and essays. The connection between language and state had
been further emphasized by Shiratori Kurakichi in an address to the Gembun'itchikai in December 1900. In his speech he related the degree of a
language's development to the state of its country's fortunes, citing Manchuria, Turkey, Korea, and other places as illustrations of his thesis that a
strong nation has a developed, pure language while a weak nation's language
shows signs of corruption by outside influences.
It was at this meeting that the decision was taken to petition the Diet in
46 The commissioners were Maejima
Hisoka (head), Ueda Kazutoshi, Naka Tsuisei
M$A* kL- (1857-1925, educator and publisher).
#1SA#t, Otsuki Fumihiko, Miyake Setsurei 47 Yamamoto Masahide, Gembun'itchi no
Rekishi Ronko Ofuisha,
-tTSM (1860-1945, educator and publisher),
Tokutomi Soho d (1863-1957, journalist and publisher), and Yumoto Takehiko
1971, 2, p. 285.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
450 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
the following year for the immediate establishment of a national language
advisory council; the petition was to stress the importance of language modernization to national unity and request the implementation of colloquial style as
a national enterprise. Journalist Nakai Kitaro was commissioned to draft the
petition, titled 'Gembun'itchi no Jikko ni tsuite no Seigansho An' ->.R
fT-A,-co_9NMc, which was then submitted to both Houses in February
1901.48
The gist of the document was as follows. The development of a nation's
language is intimately connected to both the unity and the destiny of that nation. The fact that the written form of European languages was based on the
contemporary speech of the country contributed to the degree of civilization
and strength attained in the West. This stood in contrast with the example of
certain oriental countries whose failure to take steps to strengthen and develop
their own language was linked with their eventual political decline. Japanese
children must not only master their own difficult language but also SinoJapanese and various European languages in order to proceed to higher education. The time and energy thus wasted in struggling with the form before being
able to extract the content constituted not only a personal loss but also a
serious economic threat to Japan, now in the arena of world competition. It
was therefore imperative that a colloquial style be brought into use so that
students could divert the time thus saved into attaining other valuable
knowledge. The implementation of such a style must be achieved before other
educational reforms could be realized. Previous representations concerning
the setting-up of a national language research council had not met with success. In the belief that there is a strong connection between the state of the
language and the fortunes of the nation, and that the implementation of colloquial style was a matter of the utmost urgency, the organizers of the petition
renewed the request for the formation of such a body and urged that style
reform be made a national enterprise.
The petition was passed in the Lower House in March and forwarded to the
Upper House. Aware that this second stage was crucial, Gembun'itchikai
members kept up the pressure. In June, Kikuchi was invited to a club meeting
at which several influential members expressed the hope that he would do his
utmost to plead the case in the forthcoming Diet session, and to see that funds
would be earmarked for the council. Kikuchi indicated his approval of the
project; he referred to the difficulty of obtaining funding, but reaffirmed his
willingness to help, suggesting that club members might themselves do the
necessary research into how to put colloquial style into general use. A few
months later, deputations of club members made an official visit to both
Kikuchi and the Minister of Finance to urge their case for funding, and also
approached other influential bodies.
48 The petition was published in the
Yomiuri Shimbun on 14 February 1901.
Reproduced in Yamamoto, Gembun'itchi no
Rekishi Ronko, pp. 290-91.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TWINE: Standardizing Written Japanese 451
These efforts were crowned with success when in March 1902 the Diet ap-
proved funds for the immediate setting up of the Kokugo Chosa Iinkai
established under the auspices of the Ministry of Education to carry out a full-
scale investigation into the state of the language.49 Following a series of
meetings discussing policy and method, the council published its proposed
plan of action in the government gazette of 4 July 1902 under the title 'Kokugo
Chosa Iinkai Ketsugi Jiko' M r A tl ('Resolutions of the National
Language Research Council'). Four major problem areas in the language were
identified. The tasks of the Council were to investigate the relative merits of
kana and romaji with a view to adopting a phonetic script; to examine ways
of bringing colloquial style into widespread use; to study the phonemic system
of Japanese; and to survey the dialects and settle upon a standard language.
The wording of this program drew comment from Hoshina Koichi in his article, 'Kokugo Chosa Iinkai Ketsugi Jiko ni tsuite', published in Gengogaku
Zasshi in August 1902.50 Hoshina was concerned about the brevity of the stat
ment, for it gave no concrete details as regards methodology and objectives.
More information was particularly needed in the case of the fourth point, as
procedures and results would greatly differ depending on which of the two
current approaches to standardization was adopted. If the dialects were to be
widely surveyed and the most attractive elements of each extracted to create
an artificial hyojungo, using perhaps honorifics from Tokyo, negative forms
from Kyoto, and so on, no one could foresee what the end result would
be. Although many scholars espoused this method, Hoshina himself opposed
it on the grounds that such a survey would prove impossibly time-consuming
and the standard language thus created would be too unnatural and stilted to
survive for long in everyday use.
Hoshina favored a second approach, which proposed that a survey of the
dialects, rather than their being viewed as the matrix from which a man-made
standard would spring, should be no more than an auxiliary step in the process
of deciding upon a hyojungo. One dialect would first be chosen in its entirety
to become the norm; it would then be polished and refined, with reference to
other dialects, which would be surveyed to assist in this process. The safest
choice for the standard, Hoshina felt, was the language of the middle and upper classes of Tokyo. But this in its present form was not suitable, for it required much work to smooth over the rough edges and make up deficiencies.
As a reference for this refining process, the dialects should be surveyed as
regards pronunciation, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary.
49 Its members were as follows. Chairman
Kato Hiroyuki, Ueda Kazutoshi, Kano
Jigoro, Maejima Hisoka, Sawayanagi Ma-
i1ES#, and Shigeno Yasutsugu If.
Auxiliary members were Hayashi Yasunori
tkX, Hoshina Koichi, Okada Masayoshi,
sataro, Otsuki Fumihiko, Tokutomi Soho,
Shinmura Izuru, and Oya Toru t$9.
Mikami Sanji Ltk, Inoue Tetsujiro t?f
JZM, Takakusu Junjiro JI1ik1, Watanabe
Tonosuke AiI+WTh, Kimura Masakoto tt4
pp. 70-86.
50 Gengogaku Zasshi 7 n t, 3:2 (1902),
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
452 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
Hoshina's support for Tokyogo was echoed by a second article in the same
issue of Gengogaku Zasshi, 'Hyo-jungo ni tsuite' by Okano Hisatane i fA) L.5'
Of the language problems then faced in Japan, Okano stated, the most important was the matter of a standard form of Japanese for the colloquial
style. A polished form of the speech of middle-class Tokyo males should be
that standard.
These endorsements of Tokyo speech as the norm followed sustained discussions on the subject at Gembun'itchikai meetings in the previous year. Nakai
Kitaro had addressed the club on the issue, and a sub-committee of thirteen
members, including Otsuki Fumihiko, Fujioka Katsuji, and Hoshina Koichi,
was set up to carry out general research into all aspects of the colloquial style.
The adoption of simple, middle-class Tokyo speech was the starting point for
their draft of ground rules relating to writing. The Script Reform Section of
the Teikoku Kyoikukai meanwhile arrived at a similar consensus, resolving to
develop a colloquial style based on a polished version of the speech of the
educated people of Tokyo. Thus by the time the Kokugo Chosa Iinkai published its resolutions, there was substantial support among interested parties for
the choice of Tokyogo as the standard form of Japanese.
The influence of the Kokugo Chosa Iinkai made itself felt in the publication
in 1903 of the first state-compiled school texts.52 With the exception of a few
tentative forays into colloquial style as a stepping-stone to more advanced
methods of writing, earlier textbooks had adhered to classical literary modes.
The Ministry of Education had given initial support to a program of hyo-jungo
education in 1900, when the Shogakko Rei Shiko Kisoku 'J\tXtQi
('Rules for the Enforcement of Elementary School Regulations') designated
practice in futsugo, another term referring to a standard form of Japanese, as
part of kokugo education. This was followed in 1901 by the announcement
that thenceforth the Japanese taught in schools would be that of the middle
and upper classes of Tokyo. The Ministry's first series of state primers, Jinjo
Shogaku Tokuhon ('Elementary Primers'), 1903-1904, contained a high proportion of colloquial style and a vocabulary adhering to the stipulated range;
the stated aim of these texts was to spread a standard form of Japanese. The
Teikoku Kyoikukai's Script Reform Section had been involved in this enterprise, for it had petitioned that the style to be used in the new primers should
be that endorsed by the October 1901 meeting of the Section, that is, a colloquial style based on Tokyogo as the standard.53
The 1909 series, Kaitei Kokutei Shogaku Tokuhon aATMVJ\X* ('Revised
National Primers') followed the same path. It achieved an even greater degree
of colloquialization and further disseminated Tokyo speech throughout the en51 Yamamoto, "'Gengogaku Zasshi'", p.
66.
52 Control of textbooks had reverted to the
government following allegations that pub-
lishers had offered bribes to members of textbook selection committees.
53 Yamamoto, Gembun'itchi no Rekishi
Ronko, p. 332.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TWINE: Standardizing Written Japanese 453
tire country. From then on, classical styles began to disappear from textbooks,
and standardization of the written language developed; Tokyogo was adopted
as the medium not only of formal education but also of literature and, to an
increasing extent, the mass media. Standardization of spoken Japanese was,
of course, a different matter, and was not to be rapidly achieved. For a long
time hyo-jungo education was largely a matter of reading and writing. Little
attention was paid to training in the spoken language, perhaps because
many teachers themselves still slipped back into local dialects and were unable
to provide correct models for student emulation.
The task of codifying the desired norm proceeded under the auspices of the
Kokugo Chosa linkai with the completion of the first official normative grammars. The publication of several surveys on dialects, phonology, and aspects
of the spoken language and colloquial style led eventually to the publication of
Kogoho n1t ('A Grammar of Spoken Japanese'), 1916, edited by Otsuki
Fumihiko, Ueda Kazutoshi, and others. This was followed a year later by a
supplementary volume, Kogoho Bekki n J Kogoho clearly defined the
standard language as that currently spoken by the educated people of Tokyo.s4
It is true that there had been earlier grammars of colloquial Japanese,55 but
these were the first to carry the weight of state authority. Their prescriptive
definition of Tokyogo as the standard ended this phase in the modernization of
the language. The subsequent development of language policy, with special
reference to the movements for the purification of language and the extinction
of dialects in the Showa period, makes an interesting study, but it is beyond
the scope of the present article to pursue the issue beyond the conscious normalization of the literary language.56
Having achieved two of its aims with the setting up of the Kokugo Chosa
Iinkai and the adoption of colloquial style in school textbooks, the Gembunitchikai scaled down its activities after 1904 and disbanded in December 1910.
The Kokugo Chosa Iinkai itself ceased operation in 1913 as a result of administrative reshuffles. It was replaced between 1921 and 1934 by the Rinji
Kokugo Chosa Iinkai 2"MA4= t- ('Interim National Language Research
54 As universal education was by then into
its fifth decade, 'educated people' accounted
for a much higher proportion of Tokyo
citizens than had been the case in Edo, where
formal education remained the privilege of the
elite.
Theater in Tokyo in June this year, Kasuga
Ikko H F, Diet member and honorary advisor for the Democratic Socialist Party,
declared that Nagoya-ben was soft and delicate, as opposed to the strong and rather
impolite Edo dialect on which standard
Japanese is based.
55 Among them were Satomi Yoshi WT Q A,
Gazoku Bumpo W#f@A;, 1877; Matsushita
Daizaburo 6 Tt Th3, Nihon Zokugo Bunten
F4i z, 1901; and Yoshioka Goho 7F-1
VM, Nihon Kogoho H * n 4iA, 1906.
56 The choice of Tokyogo as the standard
still does not meet with universal approval.
Speaking at a meeting of the Nagoya-ben o
Zenkoku ni Hiromeru Kai at the National
Pointing out that Hideyoshi, Nobunaga,
and Ieyasu had all been raised in the Nagoya
region, Kasuga suggested that Nagoya-ben
might have been the standard language in the
late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries,
and he urged the audience to use the dialect as
much as possible.
The Japan Times, 3 July 1988, p. 2.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
454 Monumenta Nipponica, 43:4
Council'). This was in turn succeeded in 1934 by the Kokugo Shingikai P=
A ('National Language Council'), likewise an organ of the Ministry of Education, formed to advise the government on matters concerning the teaching,
development, and romanization of the language. Its activities have related to
kana usage and romanization, and the specification of the toyo ffM and more
recently the joyo kanji. In 1948, another body, the Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyui-
jo - ('National Language Research Institute'), was set up to carry
out detailed and wide-ranging research into theoretical and applied linguistics,
particularly sociolinguistics, a task it continues today.
Garvin and Mathiot have identified three functions of a standard language:
1. The unifying function, in that it unites speakers of different dialects into a
single speech community with which the speakers then identify.
2. The separatist function, in that by its opposition to other languages as a
separate entity it becomes a powerful and emotionally charged symbol of
national identity.
3. The prestige function, whereby its existence enables a nation to claim equality,
in terms of linguistic unity, with other admired nations.57
These three factors were prominent in the arguments of advocates of stan-
dard Japanese in the Meiji period, for they were striving in part to provide a
linguistic element in that sense of national pride necessary to fuel the modernizing nation for its ventures into international relations. Language standardization was important on both the instrumental and sentimental levels in the
Japan of that time. Those products of the modernization process that offered
avenues for the implementation of standardization-the education, communications, and media systems-were at the same time dependent upon that
implementation to enable them to reach their own full potential, and this
situation provided a powerful incentive for the selection of a norm. The
nationalism of the 1890s and 1900s aided in the achievement of this goal. The
activities of committed scholars who played upon the theme of the relationship between language reform and national destiny added fuel to the debate,
reinforced existing initiatives, and eventually brought about government
intervention in future language development. As a result, the first formal
state-backed language planning initiatives were set in motion.
Which was the more important aspect-nationalism or pragmatism-in the
final analysis is difficult to gauge. Nationalism provided the impetus for the
instrumental agencies to become fully realized agents of social change by
virtue of their role in spreading that standard Japanese so necessary to their
own effective operation. Given the constant reciprocal interaction between
the component parts, it is futile to try to assign greater importance to one
aspect than to the other.
57 Garvin & Mathiot, pp. 369-70.
This content downloaded from
99.24.230.26 on Sat, 26 Apr 2025 04:00:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms