<?page no="1"?> Japanizing English 114811 AAA 24 - Scherling_114811 AAA 24 - Scherling Titelei 17.01.12 13: 56 Seite 1 <?page no="2"?> Buchreihe zu den Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Herausgegeben von Alwin Fill, Walter Grünzweig, Walter Hölbling, Allan James, Bernhard Kettemann, Andreas Mahler, Christian Mair, Annemarie Peltzer-Karpf, Werner Wolf Band 24 114811 AAA 24 - Scherling_114811 AAA 24 - Scherling Titelei 17.01.12 13: 56 Seite 2 <?page no="3"?> Johannes Scherling Japanizing English Anglicisms and their impact on Japanese 114811 AAA 24 - Scherling_114811 AAA 24 - Scherling Titelei 17.01.12 13: 56 Seite 3 <?page no="4"?> Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http: / / dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz und des Landes Steiermark. © 2012 Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 · D-72070 Tübingen Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Gedruckt auf säurefreiem und alterungsbeständigem Werkdruckpapier. Internet: http: / / www.narr.de E-Mail: info@narr.de Druck und Bindung: Ilmprint, Langewiesen Printed in Germany ISSN 0939-8481 ISBN 978-3-8233-6696-6 114811 AAA 24 - Scherling_114811 AAA 24 - Scherling Titelei 17.01.12 13: 56 Seite 4 <?page no="5"?> For Eri and Raphael. <?page no="7"?> 7 Table of Contents Preface .............................................................................................................. 11 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 13 PART 1: Loanwords, historically 1 Japanese and its Contact Tradition ................................................ 21 1.1 On the origins of the Japanese language ...................................... 21 1.2 First contact, lasting impact - the Chinese come to visit ............ 22 1.3 An interlude: the arrival and expulsion of the Europeans .......... 24 1.4 The Meiji Restoration and beyond: English takes over ............... 25 1.5 English becomes the enemy ............................................................ 29 1.6 The postwar linguistic landscape .................................................... 31 2 Changing Attitudes: Between Infatuation and Nationalism ..... 35 2.1 Deep impact - the role of English before and during the Restoration......................................................................................... 35 2.2 Reasoning defeat - Shiga Naoya revisits Mori Arinori .............. 37 2.3 Nihonjinron: the purity theory ........................................................ 40 2.4 Political and social realities: why a Loi Toubon would not work in Japan ............................................................................................... 45 PART 2: Loanword numbers in contemporary Japanese 3 Loanword-(R)Evolution: A Diachronic View of Loanword Presence ................................... 51 3.1 A few introductory remarks ........................................................... 51 3.2 The Kotonoha Project - Japan’s first major step into Corpus Linguistics ......................................................................................... 52 3.3 Diachronic data ................................................................................ 54 3.3.1 Diachronic comparison of magazines from 1956 and 1994 ........ 57 3.3.2 An overview on loanword numbers in Japanese written media 60 3.3.3 Loanwords in television discourse ................................................ 61 3.3.4 Loanwords in scientific and technological discourse ................. 66 4 Behind the Numbers ....................................................................... 69 4.1 What lies beneath ............................................................................. 69 4.2 Word orders ...................................................................................... 69 4.2.1 Content-dependent inclinations .................................................... 71 <?page no="8"?> 8 4.2.2 The big picture ................................................................................. 75 4.2.3 Comparative view ........................................................................... 87 4.2.4 Diachronic peek ............................................................................... 88 4.3 (No) Entry - extent of naturalization of frequently used loanwords in the media .................................................................. 92 4.3.1 White papers .................................................................................... 93 4.3.2 Public Information Bulletins .......................................................... 93 4.3.3 Mainichi newspaper ......................................................................... 94 4.3.4 Magazines ......................................................................................... 94 4.3.5 Television .......................................................................................... 94 PART 3: Facets from a loanword’s life - creation, use, and troubleshooting 5 Creation, Use, and Presence of Anglicisms in Japanese ............. 99 5.1 The continuous boom ...................................................................... 99 5.2 Loanword, English-inspired vocabulary item, or Made-in-Japan English? .................................................................. 101 5.3 Lexical penetration ......................................................................... 103 5.4 Phonetic features ............................................................................. 105 5.5 Morphological features .................................................................. 106 5.5.1 Clipping ........................................................................................... 106 5.5.2 Blends ............................................................................................... 107 5.5.3 Verbalization ................................................................................... 109 5.5.4 Hybrids ............................................................................................ 109 5.5.5 Japanese word formation rules ...................................................... 110 5.6 Syntactic impact .............................................................................. 111 5.7 Semantic change .............................................................................. 113 5.8 Creative uses of Anglicisms .......................................................... 115 5.9 Popular criticism ............................................................................. 117 5.9.1 Inconsistent loanword spelling and pronunciation ................... 117 5.9.2 Lexical inconsistencies ................................................................... 120 6 Functions of Japanese Anglicisms ................................................ 123 6.1 The difficulty of creating a comprehensive model ..................... 123 6.2 The core functions of loanwords in Japanese .............................. 124 6.2.1 Import of new concepts and ideas ................................................ 125 6.2.2 Status upgrading ............................................................................. 126 6.2.3 Westernization ................................................................................ 127 6.2.4 Fashion ............................................................................................. 128 6.2.5 Image and prestige ......................................................................... 129 6.2.6 Euphemisms .................................................................................... 131 6.2.7 Obscuring ......................................................................................... 133 <?page no="9"?> 9 6.2.8 Stylistic use ...................................................................................... 134 6.2.9 Avoiding gender-related speech-restrictions .............................. 135 6.3 Summary .......................................................................................... 136 7 Problematic Issues, Part I: Comprehension and Use ................. 137 7.1 Mistaken usage or utilizing mistakes ........................................... 137 7.2 A stranger in one’s own land - problems in loanword comprehension ................................................................................ 140 7.2.1 Surveys on loanword awareness .................................................. 141 7.2.2 Diffusion of loanwords .................................................................. 145 7.2.3 Loanwords and foreign words in movie titles ............................ 147 7.3 Facing the challenge ....................................................................... 152 8 Problematic Issues, Part II: Influence of (Pseudo) Loanwords on Japanese EFL Learners .. 155 8.1 How English is Jenglish ................................................................. 155 8.2 Anglicisms as an international problem? .................................... 157 8.2.1 The issue of pseudo-anglicisms ..................................................... 157 8.2.2 When anglicisms turn English ...................................................... 159 8.3 Through the mirror - comprehension of Japanese pseudoanglicisms by American students ................................................. 161 9 From Alienation to Integration: Recent Discussions in Theory and Practice ................................. 167 9.1 How to make loans look like loans................................................ 167 9.2 The Guide for Paraphrasing Loanwords ........................................... 171 9.2.1 Basic makeup.................................................................................... 171 9.2.2 Paraphrasing problems .................................................................. 173 9.3 Three steps to integrating loanwords .......................................... 175 9.4 Spreading the word - newspapers’ loanword policies .............. 178 9.4.1 On the general function of newspapers in the distribution of loanwords ........................................................................................ 178 9.4.2 Example: The Asahi Shinbun Newspaper ..................................... 178 9.4.3 Other comparative examples ........................................................ 180 9.5 Concluding remarks ....................................................................... 181 PART 4: Empirics - context and its impact on loanword comprehension 10 Meaning, Context, and Related Semantic Issues ........................ 185 10.1 Naturalistic meaning ...................................................................... 185 10.2 Meaning through use ..................................................................... 186 10.3 In good company - opinions on context ...................................... 188 10.4 New words in context .................................................................... 192 <?page no="10"?> 10 10.5 Elusive meaning - circumventing conventions .......................... 194 10.6 Synonymy or non-synonymy? Differences of loans and ‘natives’ in context .......................................................................... 196 11 Testing Theories: Loanword Comprehension and Context ...... 199 11.1 Research questions ......................................................................... 199 11.2 Survey preparation ......................................................................... 200 11.2.1 Target audience and sampling method ....................................... 200 11.2.2 Survey design .................................................................................. 200 11.2.3 Word list and explanation ............................................................. 200 11.2.4 Part I ................................................................................................. 202 11.2.5 Part II ................................................................................................ 203 11.3 Conducting the survey ................................................................... 204 11.3.1 Universities ...................................................................................... 204 11.3.2 Number of participants .................................................................. 205 11.3.3 Testing conditions and procedures .............................................. 205 11.3.4 Survey validation ............................................................................ 205 11.4 Combined results ............................................................................ 205 11.4.1 General outcome ............................................................................. 206 11.4.2 Overall developments .................................................................... 208 11.5 Discussion ........................................................................................ 208 11.5.1 Basic requirements of context ....................................................... 210 11.5.1.1 Self-explanatory meaning .............................................................. 211 11.5.1.2 Antonymy and synonymy ............................................................. 211 11.5.1.3 Collocation and association ........................................................... 212 11.5.1.4 Co-defining keywords ................................................................... 213 11.5.2 Answering the research questions ................................................ 214 11.5.2.1 Can loanwords be equaled to foreign words? ............................ 214 11.5.2.2 To what extent does an individual’s knowledge of English influence his/ her understanding of English-based loanwords? ...................................................................................... 224 11.5.2.3 How well are loanwords understood and what role does context play in the comprehension process? ............................... 228 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 235 Bibliography ................................................................................................... 243 Webliography ................................................................................................. 254 Dictionaries ..................................................................................................... 255 Index ................................................................................................................ 257 <?page no="11"?> 11 Preface This book is based on my PhD thesis entitled “Embrassimilating the Other: Anglicisms in Japanese - A Cultural Pragmatic Model for Loanword Integration”, which was submitted to the University of Graz, Austria, in 2009. It is, in large parts, identical to the original work, though the general structure was optimized and improved, and empiric data which went into too much detail and which was not vital to the cause was removed to make the book more reader-friendly. My thanks go to my two supervising professors, Bernhard Kettemann and Walter Hölbling, and to Professor Yasuaki Abe, my supporting professor in Japan for their continuous support during the research and completion of the doctoral thesis and this book. I also owe a debt of gratitude to the Japan Foundation which provided the financial means necessary to conduct the complex research in Japan that the final product is based on, as well as to all my friends and family, both in Austria and Japan, who made all of this possible. Anglicisms have, for some time now, been hotly debated in Germanspeaking countries and beyond; their increasing importance in language - especially youth language - has often been interpreted as a form of linguistic imperialism and as corrupting the German language at its source. The initial spark for writing this book was my personal experience in Japan, where I encountered a mass of anglicisms in the Japanese language that let Germanic fears of an Anglo-American colonization of the language appear absurd, to say the least. Given the fact that the Japanese language, despite its ‘open-arms policy’ towards anglicisms is still up and healthy, it seemed like an excellent idea to take a closer look at the Japanese case in order to create a mirror for other countries to gaze at, to realize that while they are deploring the death of their mother tongues at the hand of English-based loanwords, the Japanese language has long seized the opportunities that these words are offering and has tamed the phantom of extinction that they have become associated with to become a strong and valuable ally in the fabric of the language. I hope that the publication of my PhD thesis with its societal and language-political implications will help realize that languages are not rigid, inflexible and unchangeable sets of rules and words, but living entities whose inner workings we have only begun to understand and whose destinies lie beyond human prophecies of their untimely demises. Languages have always and will forever be subject to change; but it is never linguistic change or foreign influence that kills a language, only the death of its <?page no="12"?> 12 speakers who, in their collective, form and innovate a language. In this sense, this book’s purpose is to take away widespread fears of colonization and corruption of language through the influx of loanwords and to shift the focus on the treasures that such linguistic aliens bring along - if only we let them. - Graz, winter 2011 - <?page no="13"?> 13 Introduction The dream: to know a foreign (alien) language and yet not to understand it: to perceive the difference in it without that difference ever being recuperated by the superficial society of discourse, communication or vulgarity; to know, positively refracted in a new language, the impossibilities of our own; to learn the systematics of the inconceivable; to undo our own “reality” under the effect of other formulations, other syntaxes; to discover certain unsuspected positions of the subject in the utterance, to displace the subject’s topology; in a word, to descend into the untranslatable, to experience its shock without ever muffling it, until everything Occidental in us totters and the rights of the “father tongue” vacillate […] - Roland Barthes, Empire of Signs Japan, which Roland Barthes contemplated with such utter fascination and which he called “the empire of signs”, is a land of wonder to many Western people. Its old temples, its bamboo woods shrouded in mist during the early morning hours, its ancient culture, clashing with high-tech megacities with their luxurious restaurants and bars, the thousands upon thousands of neon lights that turn night into day, the peculiar mentality of the Japanese, their friendliness and hospitality, their silent, beautiful arts like the tea ceremony or calligraphy that contrast with the shrillness of everyday life, they all contribute to the island’s air of enigma and mystery. There is, however, another mystery that engulfs this island nation, not so obvious to the casual beholder, embedded in and diffused by its language, and hidden behind a complex writing system: a conspicuous pervasiveness of English and pseudo-English words. This pervasiveness has a short, but intense history: Japan, 1853: The island nation of Japan, after two centuries of selfimposed isolation, is forced to open its ports to the rest of the world by American warships - the first real contact with the English language. Number of Western loanwords in the language: negligible. 1873: In the wake of the Meiji Restoration, following the opening of Japan, the later minister of education Mori Arinori argues for the complete discontinuation of the Japanese language and the wholesale adoption of English as the new national language of Japan. Japanese, he argues, is too inflexible for the challenges of industrialization. Number of Western loanwords codified in a Japanese language dictionary: 1,4% (551 items) by 1891 (cf. Tomoda 1999: 234) 1942: After decades of infatuation with Western culture and language, Japanese authorities seek to eliminate all English elements from the Japa- <?page no="14"?> 14 nese language as nationalistic sentiment rises in the onset of the Pacific War (cf. Ōishi 1992: 2ff). 1945-1951: Japan lies in ruins and welcomes the American occupation force as victors, seeing the American way of life and its language as superior to Japanese society and language. English becomes a symbol of success and affluence. A long history of adulation begins. Number of loanwords in a Japanese language dictionary: 3,5% (1,428 items) by 1956 (cf. Tomoda: 234). 2000 and beyond: The proportion of Western loanwords present and codified in dictionaries has exceeded 10%. Almost 140 years after Mori’s bold proposal, in a way, Mori’s dream has finally come true; or so one is tempted to remark. “Anyone who has ever even had an airport layover in Tokyo,” writes the sociolinguist James Stanlaw, “or even a cursory exposure to Japanese people - will instantly realize that English in Japan is like air: it is everywhere” (2005: 1). This is true - no average conversation in Japanese would be conceivable without the use of at least some linguistic resource originating from the English language. But, ironically, it is through this very adoption of English as an additional resource for the language that Japanese has proven its vitality and flexibility to face modernity, so in this aspect, Mori’s fears on the future of Japanese were unfounded. Within only a century and a half, English-derived loanwords have managed to become such an important part of the Japanese language that only hard-core nationalists would even start to think of making away with them anymore, so much have they been molded into the language’s lexical foundations. On January 12th, 1965, a simple poem aptly illustrated how far loanwords had by then already made inroads into the language. In the evening issues of Tokyo’s news-papers was printed a New Year’s poem by His Highness, Prince Mikasa, which read: e o okuru beruto konbea kaiten shi sūsen no hinadori muragari tsuibamu (cf. Miller 1967: 267, [my emphasis]) The almost scandalous detail in this poem lies not in its content, which merely describes young birds eating food from a conveyor belt, but in the choice of one word - beruto konbea, ‘belt-conveyor’. Traditional Japanese poetry, and even more so Imperial poetry, usually only employs ‘native’ Japanese language material, and tries to avoid even Chinese loanwords which have been in the language for hundreds of years; using an English loanword in such a poem was unthinkable. Nevertheless, there it was: an Anglicism poised in the center of one of Japan’s most treasured poetic traditions, for everyone to see. This single Anglicism in this short poem says <?page no="15"?> 15 more than any numbers can express, because it demonstrates the casualness with which Western loanwords are used, as well as the degree of lexical penetration that they had already achieved by the mid-20th century, and the fundamental role they were beginning to play in this far-away land. A Japanese professor once told me that he had made a bet with a colleague at a conference that he would be able to do his presentation about a paper of his without using a single loanword. When he was finished with his speech, and went back to his seat, he asked his colleague: “Well, how’d I do? ” “Not bad, not bad,” his colleague answered with a broad grin, “except you used the loanword pe-pa- [‘paper’] to refer to your work.” Apparently, he had been so focused on the content of the paper that he forgot he used an Anglicism to refer to it. What this small anecdote emphasizes is that even a conscious effort to avoid loanwords in Japanese altogether is bound to fail, so much are they already integrated into the basic vocabulary stock of the language. What it also shows, is that the actual awareness of loanwords as being something foreign is not as high as one might think. Most Japanese use loanwords without even thinking about their origins. The numbers of English-based loanwords, almost non-existent 150 years ago, first slowly permeated Japanese in the first decades after the opening of Japan in 1853, and then skyrocketed after the end of World War Two with the American occupation of Japan. A count by the National Institute for Japanese Language from 1970 to 1973 revealed that 8% of the total Japanese vocabulary stock was English-based, and that anglicisms made up about 94% of all loanwords present in Japanese. What is more, Englishbased loanwords nowadays by far make up the largest part (almost 60% by 1980) of new word coinages, suggesting that the growth of their numbers is steady and unabated. It can be claimed that, rather than being a foreign element infiltrating the Japanese language, English is being consciously assimilated and used by the Japanese language to enlarge and strengthen its lexical and semantic pool. As The Guardian sarcastically remarked in 1976, […] the English word looted by the Japanese can expect to be systematically stripped of its national identity after a series of cruel and little known initiation rites (cited in Loveday 1996: 138). What this implicates is that on arrival in the Japanese language any word, whatever language it may derive from, is remodeled and recreated, reborn as it were, as a Japanese word with only a slight foreign touch. The issue of Western loanwords in Japanese has been sparsely dealt with in English linguistic literature, despite its fascinating dynamics and intricacies. Miller (1967) has written extensively on the Japanese language, on its history, its grammar, its dialects, but paid only little tribute to the complex <?page no="16"?> 16 issue of loanwords; he was rather interested in contact varieties between English and Japanese. Others like Hoffer (2002) and especially Loveday (1986; 1996) have discussed the loanword issue more broadly in their works, from the sociolinguistic point of view. Kelley (1990) has also written on English loanwords in Japanese, but focuses more on its lexical impact, while Stanlaw (2005) has tried a fresh, anthropological approach by showing the many creative uses of anglicisms in the Japanese language, especially in the fields of music and advertising; his goal was to show that Englishbased loanwords are, by no means, ‘borrowed’ items from the English language, but genuinely Japanese - what he calls “made-in-Japan English” - modeled after and adapted to the Japanese language system. European linguists have been largely ignoring this phenomenon, and even in Japan the issue is discussed rather one-dimensionally. What has been missing - and what this book wishes to provide - is a comprehensive approach combining all the issues touched upon by authors like those mentioned above (lexis, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, sociology, language policy, etc.), including a current overview on the actual proportions of loanwords present in the Japanese language. By also including many Japanese books and papers, I tried to be as authentic as possible and look at this phenomenon also from a Japanese vantage point, thereby adding an important dimension to what I perceived to be the most important aspects of anglicisms in Japanese. This book wants to put the loanword situation in Japan into the greater context of the anglicism discussion, especially in German speaking countries, in order to show that a high number of English-based loanwords does not result in linguistic chaos nor in a blunt Americanization of the language. I believe that the case of Japanese, which can be seen as an unparalleled and ingenious example of loanword processing, can indeed serve as an inspiration for how to successfully deal with this complex and delicate, and most natural phenomenon. In order to do this, the loanword issue will be investigated from many different angles, and the theoretic part substantiated with an empirical part in which the ability to understand difficult loanwords on their own and in context will be tested, so as to allow a judgment on the loanword issue at the end of this book, based on a sound foundation of theory and practice. The book is roughly structured into four parts: Part 1 will introduce the issue by giving a brief overview on the contact history of the Japanese language with Chinese and several European languages which laid the fundament for its integrative approach towards foreign linguistic resources. Part 2 will be concerned with the concrete numbers of loanwords in the Japanese language, with their content and their codification in Japanese dictionaries. <?page no="17"?> 17 In part 3, I will go into detail on the characteristics of loanwords in Japanese, on their creation and their process of naturalization into the language, as well as on the manifold functions that loanwords have. This will be followed by a discussion of loanword comprehension and use and the difficulties entailed, as well as of the specific contact situation between Japanese and English and the different attitudes towards English influence. Finally, I will examine the extent to which English-based loanwords have been naturalized into the Japanese language. Part 4 covers the empiric part of this book. After an introductory chapter on the relation of context and meaning, a survey on loanwords awareness and understanding, based on three research questions, will be introduced and discussed. From the survey’s results I will derive the answers to these research questions which will then be synthesized into my conclusion of this complex issue. The main objective of this book - next to satisfying a personal fascination with the intricacies of the Japanese language - is to show that an increase of loanwords by no means necessarily results in a breakdown in communication, and that loanwords do not constitute any obstacle or ,even worse, ‘tainting’ of the national language; rather, they can be made use of to invigorate the lexical pool and to multiply the possibilities a language has to represent the outside world, as well as for individuals to express themselves. I wish to demonstrate that loanwords are a natural phenomenon and a potential enrichment to language if we rectify our perspective and attitude towards these linguistic immigrants. Japanese, I will argue, does not so much borrow English words as it creates, or recreates them through a very strong integrative force based on multiple assimilative processes that any loanword undergoes on arrival. I will also contend that the Japanese case proves that there is no such thing as an ‘overflow’ of loanwords, but that a language suffers only as many loanwords as it can digest; those it cannot find a purpose for are quickly disposed of. It is my hope that the example of the Japanese language described in this book can lead to a change in perspectives and attitudes towards the complex issue of loanwords and consequently result in a more openminded and natural approach towards these lexical items. What I want to illustrate in this book is that the Japanese, different from most European peoples, have found a way to deal with loanwords successively - by embracing and assimilating, by ‘embrassimilating’ them. <?page no="18"?> 18 A note on the transcription of Japanese words and names This book will follow the common Japanese transcription of names which mentions a person’s last name before their first name (e.g. Watanabe [last name] Shōichi [first name]). Long vowels in words of Chinese origin will be transcribed using the letters ‘ō’ and ‘ū’ (e.g. kyōryoku; jiyū), while long vowels in Western-based loanwords will be transcribed according to their realization in the Katakana syllabary by elongating the vowel using ‘-‘, as in inobe-shon or su-pa-baiza-. <?page no="19"?> --- PART 1 --- Loanwords, historically <?page no="21"?> 21 1 Japanese and its Contact Tradition 1.1 On the origins of the Japanese language Many Westerners look towards Japan with an air of fascination for the seemingly incomprehensible nature of its people, its culture and its language, which all appear so mysterious, and so different from what our eyes and ears are used to in Europe or in the United States. Linguists around the globe, too, have long been wondering about the origins of the Japanese language whose traces have faded in the course of history. This shroud of mystery that engulfs the language even on the islands of Japan itself has given birth to popular theories promoted by some Japanese scholars like Watanabe Shōichi or Suzuki Takao, who believe in a mythical and unique nature of the language, and who believe that its essence is encoded in the very blood and genetic pool of the Japanese, by definition making it impossible for foreigners to accurately grasp its meaning in full (cf. Befu 1989: 99). Original Japanese words or wago ( 和語 ), in this view, are inspired by what is called kotodama ( 言霊 ), or “spirit of the language”, which is fleeting, not graspable (cf. Watanabe 1974: 16f). The underlying hypothesis of such and similar arguments is that there exist words completely free of any foreign ‘stain’, which implies that the language evolved independently from all other of earth’s languages, making Japanese a unique language and its people unconnected, both historically and genetically, from the rest of humanity a language myth, coated in scientific terminology. This language approach has been criticized, amongst many, by the American linguist and expert on Japan Roy Andrew Miller, who maintains that [s]uch attempts are doomed from their onset since they are based on this implausible assumption concerning the origins of Japan and the Japanese. Independent evolution of man in the Japanese archipelago is possible - insofar as anything is possible. But it is so extremely improbable that it must be ruled out of serious consideration (Miller 1977: 21). On a more serious and scientific level, several Japanese and non-Japanese linguists like Miller (1971) have argued that the origins of the Japanese language can in fact be traced back to the Altaic language family (like Turkish or Mongolian). According to Kelley (1990: 18, citing Lee 1963) another linguistic closeness can be observed to the extinct Koguryo language once used in the northern part of the Korean peninsula. Research by Karlgren (1926) or Miller (1967) (both cited in Kelley 1990: 20) indicates noticeable influence by several different languages the early Japanese had contact with, conclusively embodied in a number of early loans like kuni ( 国 ) “na- <?page no="22"?> 22 tion/ state,” fune ( 船 ) “boat/ ship,” or uma ( 馬 ) “horse.” Kelley in his study remarks that such evidence “reflects a general willingness of the early Japanese to borrow from other peoples with whom they come in contact” (Kelley 1990: 20/ 1). Such contacts on the mainland and on the Japanese islands later-on left distinct traces in the language. Kelley summarizes: The texture of the language was set, as were tendencies for borrowing and the adaptation of foreign linguistic and cultural material. Also, the texture of Japanese society and thinking were set, as were the tendencies for social and psychological adaptiveness. All of these characteristics, especially the receptiveness of the tribal leaders to new, foreign cultural developments, had prepared the ground for future contacts and future borrowing (Kelley 1990: 29). In short, it can be said that Japanese does share features with other of the world’s languages and it appears that early encounters with different cultures and languages set the pattern for future language contact. However, from the time of contact with the peoples on the mainland the Japanese language developed into a distinctly different direction, which makes it difficult for linguists nowadays to get viable proof on its origins, further adding to the discussion between historical linguists arguing for a genetic relationship to other languages and purists claiming that the Japanese language and its people are unique. 1.2 First contact, lasting impact - the Chinese come to visit Japan is an island nation. As such, ever since the land bridges that connected it to the Eurasian continent subsided into the ocean many thousand years ago, its natural resources for language contact have been severely limited, as a matter of course. Compared to Europe, for example, where language contact was facilitated, even inevitable, as peoples migrated from north to south and from east to west and armies swept across the continent in conquest, the islands of Japan lived in relative peace and linguistic homogeneity - until the advent of Chinese scholars from the mainland in the 5 th century A.D, a contact that would set the precedent for Japan’s “contact tradition” (Loveday 1996: 27). What the Chinese monks brought along with them was not only their extensive knowledge of new agricultural techniques like rice cultivation, metalwork or Buddhist teachings (which led to the adoption of Buddhism in 594), but foremost and above all their system of writing incorporated in their Buddhist scriptures. The Japanese - who did not have a writing system of their own - adopted this writing system wholesale within only a few centuries, and from its complex characters created two distinct syllabic alphabets, the so-called Hiragana ( ひらがな ) and Katakana ( カタカナ ). Chi- <?page no="23"?> 23 nese and its characters, first exclusively used by Japanese scholars and Buddhist priests for reading and understanding religious scriptures, by the time of the Nara period (710-94) had created a diglossic bilingual setting, where it was being used as a high variety in the domains of administration and law. At the same time, Japanese scholars were beginning to employ a method of instant translation of Chinese texts by applying a Japanese reading to them (kundoku or kunyomi). This method helped the characters to maintain a Chinese surface while at the same time enabling people to write the words in Japanese script. The Chinese pronunciation (ondoku or onyomi) of whole sentences or word-clusters was, eventually, maintained solely for rituals like the chanting of Buddhist scriptures (cf. Loveday 1996: 26-34). Contemporary Japanese shows a balanced mixture of onyomi and kunyomi words. The influence of Chinese was to remain dominant until far into the 19 th century when successive defeats in the Opium Wars permanently damaged the prestige of the once great Chinese empire in the eyes of the Japanese. In the preceding centuries, however, Chinese was to leave a deep and lasting imprint on the Japanese language. By the 10 th century A.D. and as a result of this diglossic bilingual setting, the Chinese writing system had been fully implemented into Japanese and in the following centuries slowly found its way down, from the academic elites and upper class citizens to the common people on the streets. So fully and so smoothly was the Chinese writing system adopted into Japanese that with time people ceased to think of it as something foreign; it was perfectly assimilated, along with the words it represented, into the Japanese language, enriching its linguistic pool and effectively altering its overall structure. So perfect was the assimilation that nowadays not a single word of Chinese origin, which in their entirety after all represent about 47 percent of the vocabulary stock (cf. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 1970, 1971, 1971, 1973, cited in Stanlaw 2005: 12), features in loanword dictionaries. In addition, the syllabaries the Japanese had created alongside allowed for complete autonomy from the Chinese model because now the words could also be written without using the proper Chinese characters. A precedent setting had been created, which would influence all future language contact. In the meantime, the next challenge was already waiting at Japan’s doorstep, for the Europeans were getting ready to sail the seas in search for new profits to be made. <?page no="24"?> 24 1.3 An interlude: the arrival and expulsion of the Europeans The first Europeans to set foot on Japanese soil were the Portuguese in the 1540s, with far-reaching consequences. Not only did two cultures collide that could hardly have been more different, but also two linguistic systems clashed which differed in their very fundaments of language, most visible in the complex Japanese orthography using three different writing systems. The Portuguese and other European merchants introduced a fourth - the Latin alphabet. The alien people were first welcomed with open arms, with the usual Japanese curiosity for the different and the new. Soon, the Spanish and the Dutch followed suit. The Portuguese and Spanish had brought along not only goods for trade but also Catholic missionaries - above all the famous Francis Xavier - who immediately started proselytizing their faith, and with remarkable success. Within only a few decades, about 300,000 Japanese, amongst them influential feudal lords (daimyō) and generals, converted to Roman Catholicism (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 46). The missionaries’ practice and their success soon caused unease in the higher ranks of the military and political hierarchy. It was feared that the converts might undermine the ruling class’ authority with their new creed of personal freedom and salvation in the next world. Also, the firearms that the merchants had brought along with them, which they sold to those favorable to their cause, added further alarm and unsettlement to the ruling class’ concerns, as did several intrigues that Spanish and Portuguese nationals became involved in as European disputes started to encroach on Japan, raising fears of a pending colonization. The Japanese leaders’ fear of being colonized by European powers was not without grounds, as Asian history would later show. As a consequence, the central government in 1587 first forbid, then banned Christianity from the Japanese islands, killed all missionaries and followers who refused to renounce their faith, and - as a preemptive strike against possible future influence - in 1633 imposed and enforced a policy of self-isolation, or sakoku ( 鎖国 ), which would last for more than 200 years. No foreigners were allowed entrance into Japan, except for some Dutch and Chinese merchants on the remote and artificial island of Dejima off the coast of Nagasaki (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 47). After only 80 years the Europeans had been expelled from the Japanese islands. But even such a short time span had sufficed to leave a visible linguistic trace in the Japanese language with many loanwords having survived up to today. Portuguese loans loom large in this field, some of which include pan ( パン , ‘bread’, from Portuguese p-o), kappa ( カッパ , ‘raincoat’, from Portuguese capa), botan ( ボタン , ‘button’, from Portuguese <?page no="25"?> 25 bot-o), the ubiquitous tempura ( テンプラ , ‘food fried in a batter’, from Portuguese tempero) and the equally omnipresent tabako ( タバコ , ‘tobacco’, from Portuguese tobacco). Though fewer in number, some Spanish loans also found their way into Japanese, amongst those are meriyasu ( メリヤス , ‘stockings’, from Spanish medias), kasutera ( カステラ , ‘sponge cake’, from Spanish Castilla) or gerira ( ゲリラ , ‘guerilla’, from Spanish guerrilla). The Dutch, being the only ones to be allowed to continue trading with Japan, were the solitary source of Western loanwords through the 17 th , 18 th , and part of the 19 th century, thus the number of Dutch loanwords is by far the greatest during those times. Between 700 and 3.000 Dutch loanwords are believed to have entered the Japanese during this period (Stanlaw 2005: 48, citing Earns 1993 and Sonoda 1975). The ones featuring most prominently amongst these are garasu ( ガラス , ‘glass’, from Dutch glas), miruku ( ミルク , ‘milk’, from Dutch melk), gomu ( ゴム , ‘rubber’, from Dutch gom), kohi- ( コーヒー , ‘coffee’, from Dutch koffie) and bi-ru ( ビール , ‘beer’, from Dutch bier) (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 46ff). These Western loans have survived the centuries of isolation and are amongst those most ‘naturalized’ in the Japanese language; some of them, like tempura, ko-hior tabako, have even been assigned their proper Kanjis (i.e. Chinese characters) - 天麩羅 for tempura, 珈琲 for ko-hi- ,‘coffee’, or 煙 草 for tabako, ‘tobacco’. Western people, however, were not seen on Japan’s main islands for the next 200 years, until something happened which would shake the very foundations of Japanese society and which would cause a major political upheaval marking the end of the reign of the Tokugawa Shogunate, which had ruled Japan for over 250 years - the arrival of American war ships in Edo Bay in 1853. 1.4 The Meiji Restoration and beyond: English takes over When the American Commodore Matthew Perry sailed into Edo Bay in 1853 with his heavily armed gunboats (“black ships”, as the Japanese called them) to establish trade relations with the secluded country (by force, if necessary), the Japanese awoke to see that, while they had been living a relatively peaceful life during their time of self-isolation, the West had developed industrial and military technology that by far exceeded anything found in Japan. Reports of China’s defeat during the Opium War (1840-2) and of other Western colonization efforts in Asia shocked the Japanese and instilled fears that they might be the next in line. China’s loss of prestige was one important factor that pushed the Japanese towards an infatuation with all things Western (cf. Loveday 1996: 62). It became obvious that Japan had to deal with the West and could no longer uphold the national seclusion policy. “One solution,” writes Stan- <?page no="26"?> 26 law, “was to meet the West head-on and modernize the country, and for that enterprise, knowledge of Western customs and science was necessary. The only way to acquire this knowledge was to master their languages, especially English” (2004: 54). Influential leaders agreed, believing in the superiority of the West, and that Japan had to adapt to the West, to assimilate the Western knowledge in order to avert subordination. Soon after, a treaty was signed with the United States, granting them, amongst other things, access to five ports in Japan and extraterritorial rights for their nationals. It was during these days that the official support for the teaching of the English language started and the first English course was set up in Tokyo in 1857 at the so-called “Translation Office for Barbarian Literature” (cf. Loveday 1996: 63). This new policy, however, was felt to establish an inequality favoring Western powers and damaging national interests, as well as constituting criticism of feudal practices. All of these were thought to be among the main reasons for why China had eventually succumbed to Western forces, which eventually caused a major revolt amongst all social classes in Japan. This was only the climax of a growing feeling of disappointment and dissatisfaction, which had been evolving for many decades already. The Tokugawa Shogunate was held responsible for letting the “barbarians” into the country. When the Shogun attempted to drive back foreign influence militarily his forces were humiliated. His reign was seen unable to deal with the new situation and thus an increasing number of citizens and the military rallied behind the Emperor, crying for Sonnō jōi ( 尊皇攘夷 ), or ‘Revere the Emperor, expel the barbarians’, causing a civil war which was ended in 1868 with the resignation of the last Tokugawa Shogun (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 56; Loveday 1996: 61f). The 15-year-old Emperor Meiji took over. To the disappointment of those who had expected the emperor to employ an aggressive foreign policy, the so-called ‘Meiji Restoration’ led Japan into an age of fierce industrialization and modernization, which relied on increased contact with the West. The portals of Japan had been not so much opened as smashed open and it did not take long for Western technology, ideology and, above all, language, to once again find their way into Nippon, the Land of the Rising Sun. Sweeping changes ensued in the following decades, like the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, the development of state education, and the abolition of the feudal class-system (cf. Loveday 1996: 65). The emperor’s policy was outlined in the Charter Oath of 1868 in which he declared that “knowledge was to be sought throughout the world.” Rather than expelling the foreigners, this new policy strived for hiring additional foreign teachers and advisors for every sector of Japanese society. It is assumed that about 5 percent of total government expenditure was <?page no="27"?> 27 funneled into paying the salaries of these foreign personnel (cf. Loveday 1996: 65f). Though Dutch remained the dominant European language and the language of contact with Western powers (due to the Dutch having been the only Europeans allowed trade throughout the sakoku period), the 1870ies saw a change of paradigm (cf. Loveday 1986: 26). The key to this was the modern public education system, which was established in 1872. It was based on the American model and made English a compulsory subject in elementary and middle schools. Another factor for the spread of English (especially the American variety of English), according to Ike (1995: 4), was due to the American missionaries that arrived in Japan soon after its reopening. So popular was English among the political and educational elite that some even envisioned the adoption of English as national language or the adoption of the Latin alphabet and the abolishment of the three writing systems the Japanese employed (more on these movements in chapter 7). Japanese society, however, was strained to the extreme through this sudden infatuation with English and an anti-Western mood started to spread from the 1880s onwards. It was directed against what was seen as “‘excessive’ and overrapid westernization.” There was a nationalistic tendency towards a return to traditional Japanese values and heritage focusing on Japanese uniqueness, which was fueled by Japanese military victories against China and Russia around the turn of the century. The use of English and other foreign languages was curbed decisively in the 1890s, degrading English “to a mere instrument for translation purposes” (Loveday 1996: 67f). Books praising all things Japanese started to boom, warning the Japanese of the dangers of colonialism and emphasizing Japan’s national pride (cf. Ike 1995: 5). From a linguistic point of view, the influx of visible loanwords during the Meiji period was still negligible compared to the Taishō period (1912- 1926), since new words were mostly imported via loan translations. In Meiji Japan, Western culture was absorbed principally via the printed word, specifically, Japanese translations of Western writings. Meiji intellectuals were well-versed in the Chinese classics and had an extensive knowledge of Chinese ideograms. They applied this knowledge by creating hundreds of new words to translate foreign literature and so helped to advance Meiji culture (Ishiwata 1989: 18). The Chinese Empire’s defeat in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894/ 5 and the Quing dynasty’s collapse in 1911 marked the definite end of fourteen centuries of Chinese influence. As a consequence, the use of Kango ( 漢語 ), meaning Chinese words and characters, in the creation of new words yielded increasingly to the influence of Western words (cf. Ishiwata 1989: 19). The last years of the Meiji period witnessed the appearance of loans like purin ( プリン , ‘pudding’), hankachi ( ハンカチ , ‘handkerchief’), burashi <?page no="28"?> 28 ( ブラシ , ‘brush’) or airon ( アイロン , ‘iron’), whose diverse phonetic shapes, according to Loveday (1996: 69), reflect the fact that contact “occurred through the aural as well as the written medium.” In the long run, even the nationalistic tendencies of the end 19 th century were unable to stop the advance of Western language and cultural influence, which reached new peaks in the period immediately following the death of Emperor Meiji in 1912. The ensuing Taishō period lasted until 1926 and witnessed an unprecedented spread of Western loan words thanks to new forms of technological mass media like the radio or the cinema. All of a sudden, this far and strange new culture could be witnessed eye-to-eye in everyday life, with English being disseminated through newspapers, books, gramophone record, or the transmission of sports events through the radio. Western lifestyle proliferated, and due to this also linguistic contact increased which can be deduced from the many loanwords that stem from that period, above all the ever-prominent sarariman ( サラリーマン , literally ‘salary man’ i.e. ‘white collar worker’), who is still a characteristic feature of modern Japanese life. Arakawa’s loanword dictionary of 1931 already featured some 5,018 entries of so-called “Japanized English” (cf. Loveday 1996: 72f). This development is quite conspicuous, considering that the first modern dictionary of Japanese in 1886 lists only 410 loans (18% of which are of English origin), and the first loanword dictionary of 1912 shows a quadrupling of their numbers to 1,596 entries (75% anglicisms) (cf. Loveday 1996: 69). Stanlaw (2005) explains that, while borrowings from the Meiji period were mostly concerned with abstract concepts of Westernization and modernization, the Taishō period loanwords primarily dealt with things of everyday life or popular culture. Besides words like takushi- ( タクシー , ‘taxi’) or rajio ( ラジオ , ‘radio’), it appears that the word ‘girl’ was used most productively in coining new words (68). These included terms like kyampu gaaru (‘camp girl’), depaato gaaru (‘department store girl’), sutekki gaaru (‘stick girl’), doa gaaru (‘door girl’), gasorin gaaru (‘gasoline girl’), and ea garru [sic] (‘air girl’) […] Few of these terms survive today save for ofisu gaaru (‘office girl’), which lingers through the acronym OL (pronounced oo-eru) for ‘office lady’, the term for female office worker (Stanlaw 2005: 69). It was the Taishō period that established English as the prominent and dominant Western language, which is well reflected in the following table on the proportion of loanwords during that period. <?page no="29"?> 29 Donor language Percentage English 63,0% Dutch 14,2% Portuguese 13,0% French 3,7% Spanish 2,5% German 1,8% other 1,8% Table 1: Proportions of donor languages in the early 20th century (cf. Stan law 2005: 68) This sudden eruption of new loans in Japanese is revealing in that it shows the impact that Japan’s contact with the West had after 200 years of isolation. It also once again illustrates the disposition of the Japanese language to integrate the foreign into its linguistic and cultural system. The biggest wave of loan words and with it a near-monopoly of anglicism was yet to come; the basis for it, however, was laid during the first two decades of the 20 th century. The gradual merging of cultures was well reflected in the language. Loveday (1996: 73) remarks: The interesting patterns for integrating English which first emerged at this time reveal the socio-psychologically closer and more familiar position of English in Taishō society. Thus, hybridization, where one part of a word is Japanese and the other English, is evident in the composition of Japanese and English-derived stems at that time: modan-go (<English: modern + Japanese ‘words’ = ‘fashionable use of English-derived items’); onna-boi (<Japanese: ‘girl’ + English boy = ‘waitress’) […] In fact, well before the wave of Americanization that followed the Second World War, the most typical of Japanese-English lexical patterns had already been established (Loveday 1996: 73). It would take some time, however, before these patterns were to be fully employed, because clouds of war were gathering on the horizon as Japan’s government was gradually infiltrated by the military through several coups. For about 15 years, Japan entered what would later be euphemized as ‘the dark valley’ ( 黒い谷 or kuroi tani), a period of rampant militarism and expansionism which would eventually culminate in the Pacific War and Japan’s defeat in 1945. This period was above all marked by nationalism, and language was not exempt from its ramifications. 1.5 English becomes the enemy The roots of Japanese nationalism and militarism go back to the 19 th century, their outburst in the 1930s, however, was initiated among other things by America’s racist Anti-Immigration Laws which were also directed <?page no="30"?> 30 against Japanese immigrants (and thus broke the Gentlemen’s Agreement between The U.S. and Japan from 1907 1 ) and by the Western World’s refusal to let Japan into the ‘White Men’s Club.’ This, along with an economic crisis, was fertile ground for militarists to seize power, and they did. Also, it led to a debate for the “abolition of the English requirement in the middle school curriculum” (Ike 1995: 6). With Japan’s Imperial Army invading and occupying Manchuria in 1931, the country embarked on a course that increasingly isolated it from the Western democracies and the English-speaking world. In 1937, Japan plunged into a full-scale war with China, which eventually escalated the tensions with the Western countries who saw their Asian interests threatened. The continuing military build-up brought along, or rather intensified, an already existing virulent anti-Western ideology. The dependency on foreign resources and the embargoes the Western powers set up against Japan helped to push this ideology to its limits. The attack on the American naval base in Pearl Harbor in December 1941 was an attempt to cut the knot of dependency, and marked the beginning of the end of Japanese dreams of superiority (cf. Loveday 1996: 74). Already in the prelude to the war, English was held in suspicion. Ichikawa Sanki, one of the most important linguists of pre-war Japan predicted: The influence of foreign languages - especially English - on Japanese is of such importance that probably not only words and expressions will continue to be borrowed in greater numbers but even the structure and grammar of the Japanese language will be considerably modified (Stanlaw 2005: 69 citing Ichikawa 1931: 141). Confronted with such opinions, nationalists were highly alarmed. They felt foreign language influence to be a threat to ‘pure’ Japanese, the language of the gods. During the 1930s, English was increasingly seen as a symbol of the enemy. Thus, the teaching of English was continuously reduced. In January 1940, English was dropped from the entrance examination of several military academies, followed by the banning of English stage names in show business in March 1940, then continuing with the banning of English signs in railroad stations, of English school names, and finally - in the heat of war - of all public designations in English including popular sport names and product names. Most noticeable was the gradual replacement of anglicisms by Japanese words coined specifically for that purpose. Thus, anaunsā ( アナウンサー , ‘announcer’) became hōsōin ( 放送員 ), literally meaning ‘broadcasting person’, reko-do ( レコード , ‘record’) became onban ( 音盤 ), 1 In this agreement, Japan agreed not to issue any more passports for Japanese wishing to work in the U.S.. In return, the U.S. promised to accept the Japanese minority in California and to not legally discriminate against them. <?page no="31"?> 31 gorufu ( ゴルフ , ‘golf’) turned into dakyū ( 打球 ), marason ( マラソン , ‘marathon’) became taikyūkyōsō ( 耐久競争 ) and so on (cf. Ōishi 1992: 2ff; Loveday 1996: 74f; Stanlaw 2005: 69). However, public acceptance was low, so only few of these terms survived the war. Ōishi (1992: 6) mentions several characteristics of these anti-English measures, e.g. the fact that they were neither organized nor systematic efforts. Each ministry appears to have conducted their own campaigns without a major central planning, and at a rather sporadic level. He stresses that “the prohibition of English names took place in relation to English stage names and English school names in 1940 but that of English cigarette names and restaurant and bar names came in 1941. NHK [Japan’s national television] discontinued the use of anaunsā (‘announcer’) in 1942 but that of nyūsu (‘news’) in 1943.” These only sporadic efforts, along with the disastrous defeat in a war that had already been considered won because of the Japanese’s racial superiority, might have contributed to the quick regaining of prestige that English experienced in the immediate aftermath of the war. The nationalist ideology of ‘Japanism’ lay in ruins, and the Japanese people’s belief in its strength was shattered. Once again they looked towards the West, to America, the victor, as a model for economic and military success. It was into this atmosphere that the American troops came to stay, which decisively contributed to the unprecedented success and embracement of English in postwar Japan, and which gave birth to a particular phenomenon of language contact, whose effects can now be seen in every corner of contemporary Japanese society. Japan’s postwar years were about to be deeply influenced by the Americans’ prestige and language. Thus, ironically, the nationalism of the war-years eventually backlashed and strengthened the influence of the English language instead of strangling it. 1.6 The postwar linguistic landscape The years between 1945 and 1952, also known as the Allied Occupation of Japan (a misleading term, since the occupation army consisted overwhelmingly of American troops), saw an increased - and one-sided - language contact as well as a return and boost of pre-war infatuation with all things Western, which now equaled things American. The Allied General Headquarters under the supreme command of General Douglas MacArthur quickly set out to transform Japan into a Westernstyle democracy. A new constitution was promulgated in 1946. Interestingly, notwithstanding the fact that it was supposed to be Japan’s constitution, it was originally drafted in English by American bureaucrats of the occupation force and with American concepts of state and society, thus shaping <?page no="32"?> 32 Japan’s new fundament according to Western wishes. Only afterwards was it translated into Japanese which caused several misunderstandings - some intended, some unintended - in translation (cf. Dower 2000: 370f). The presence of some 500,000 American troops on Japanese soil made contact inevitable and even desired. The Japanese were surprised that the Americans were not the women-raping, looting barbarians they had been led to believe. The Americans, on the other side, had suspected fanatical emperor worshippers who would fight to the bitter end and instead found an insecure but friendly people who saw in them not only their saviors, but also a superior people. Hence the interest in the English language flourished as the Japanese sought to mingle with the former enemy. The American Way of Life had proven to be superior to the Japanese way; this was the ‘lesson’ that many people drew from Japan’s defeat. Also, the luxury in which American soldiers lived compared to the poverty of the Japanese was interpreted as a sign that the American Way of Life, along with English, was the necessary basis for a good life. Loveday (1996: 75), too, speaks of an outright “English fever” during the first years of the occupation, “with textbooks of conversational English becoming bestsellers and English classes being taught by American soldiers on a broad scale. Knowledge of English was seen as the key to obtaining social advantages, including access to the black market; English was also regarded as the medium through which to learn about democracy, and it regained its social appeal as a code for liberals and internationalists.” Increased contact also led to the emergence of contact varieties, of which at least two distinct forms have to be mentioned. The first variety was used primarily for communications with shopkeepers, servants, labourers, and employees at US military installations. The second considerably more specialized variety served ‘for what verbal communication [that was] [sic] necessary between non-Japanese-speaking foreigners and the extensive world of their local lady friends of every variety and description’ ([Miller] 1967: 263). Miller cites the Japanese designation for this latter type of speech as pangurisshu, or ‘street-walker English’ (Stanlaw 2005: 70). Socio-linguists like Loveday (1996) or Stanlaw (2005) agree that this change of attitude towards Western language and culture is not to be seen as a sudden development, but rather as a continuation of the infatuation with the West that had been sparked in the 19 th century and which had survived several periods of fervent nationalism. The defeat in the World War and the following occupation period, thus, served as a catalyst of an already present and well-developed interest in the West and especially America, whose - literally - groundbreaking victory had elevated the United States to a position of undisputed superiority which at least partially accounts for the overwhelming interest in English <?page no="33"?> 33 in the immediate postwar peaking in the second attempt to replace Japanese with English in 1946. In only 70 years, English had risen from an unknown language to the most popular foreign language in Japan, quickly replacing Dutch and leaving all other Western languages trailing behind its long shadow. The attitudes towards English, however, have had a turbulent history as the next chapter will outline. <?page no="35"?> 35 2 Changing Attitudes: Between Infatuation and Nationalism 2.1 Deep impact - the role of English before and during the Restoration As the previous chapter has shown, Japanese contact with the English language started comparatively late, in the 19 th century. Though a number of English sailors and merchants from England did make their way to Japan during the small time frame of 1613 to 1623 and set up a trading company in Hirado in northwestern Kyūshū, there is no ample proof for any deep contact between the two languages (cf. Loveday 1999: 59f). For 200 years thereafter no English was heard on the islands of Japan. Then, however, it celebrated a rousing comeback. While the first half of the 19 th century saw several unsuccessful attempts by British as well as American sailors to establish trade relations with Japan, it was in 1848 that the first documented and intensive contact with the English language took place, still in an atmosphere of indiscriminate hostility towards all things Western. A man named Ranald MacDonald, drawn to the mysteries of the selfisolated islands, reached the shores of Japan in June 1848 and was swiftly imprisoned on arrival. From then on, he taught English to some interpreters of Dutch in Nagasaki - the first time that the Japanese had direct access to a native speaker of English. And even though he was sent back to the United States in 1849, he still left an impressive legacy: three of his students later acted as interpreters of English, two during Commodore Perry’s second visit to Japan in 1854, and one as a member of the Japanese delegation to the United States in 1860. One of those later-on edited an English- Japanese dictionary (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 50). These first trails into unknown linguistic territory would soon open up into a vast plane for language contact, because with the arrival of American gunboats in 1853, the final proof was delivered to show that a change of policy was urgent. Aside from the political changes, an outright battle was being fought on a linguistic landscape. Increased contact with the West and especially with English fueled discussions on what Japanese thinkers saw as the “complexity and irrationality of the Japanese language, especially its writing system” (Tamotsu 1989: 26). One of these thinkers was a certain Mori Arinori (1847-1889). Raised in the final days of the Tokunaga Shogunate, he was amongst the first to be sent overseas to England to study Western knowledge and technology in <?page no="36"?> 36 1865. From there he went on to study in the United States before he returned to Japan with new ideas in 1868, on the eve of the Restoration. His career led him to become a plenipotentiary minister to Britain in 1879 after which he was named Japan’s first minister of education in 1885. As such, he introduced many reforms, which laid the foundations for the modern Japanese educational system (cf. Tamotsu 1989: 27). His most prominent proposition, however, was a different one. In the 1870s, after the political landscape had underwent radical changes and had finally regained stability, Japanese reformist thinkers started turning their attention towards the Japanese language, whose complex writing systems (Chinese ideograms - Kanji - on the one hand and phonetic symbols - Kana - on the other hand) they believed to be one of the reasons for Japan’s backwardness. While some proposed the abolition of Kanji in favor of Kana, others sought the adoption of the Latin alphabet. Mori himself wanted to go one step further - he advocated giving up the Japanese language altogether and adopting English as the new national language (cf. Tamotsu 1989: 28). Under the motto of kokugo haishi eigo saiyōron ( 国語廃止英語採用論 ) - ‘Abolish Japanese, Adopt English’ - he maintained: Under the circumstances, our meager language, which can never be of use outside our small islands, is doomed to yield to the domination of the English tongue, especially when the power of steam and electricity shall have pervaded our land…All reasons suggest its disuse (Stanlaw 2005: 65, citing Mori 1873). Though Mori clearly overstated his case, even some Japanese linguists like Tamotsu do not completely dismiss his position. “His argument may not have been completely groundless,” Tamotsu writes, “Religious Freedom in Japan, which Mori wrote in 1872 in lucid English, was a work of scholarship that could not have been written in the Japanese of that time; the language then lacked the vocabulary needed for such a treatise.” For example, “no translation for the word ‘society’ […] existed in Japanese until […] the term shakai [was coined] in 1875” (1989: 28). In the process of formulating his proposition, Mori wrote a letter to the Yale University professor and linguist W. Dwight Whitney, asking for his advice. The spoken language of Japan being inadequate to the growing necessities of the people…and too poor to be made, by a phonetic alphabet, sufficiently useful as a written language, the idea prevails among many of our best educated men and profound thinkers, that if we would keep pace with the age we must adopt some copious, expandable and expanding European language […] print our laws and transact all public business in it, as soon as possible, and have it taught in our schools as the future language of the country to the gradual exclusion of our present language, spoken and written (Stanlaw 2005: 65). However, neither abroad nor in Japan did Mori’s proposition find major consent, too radical was his proposition of forfeiting the Japanese language. <?page no="37"?> 37 Eventually, Mori was assassinated in 1889 by an ultranationalist who despised his overly pro-Western attitudes. Still, the very fact that this proposition was made by influential men like Mori shows the impact and influence of English on the Japanese language in the late 19 th century. And even though his idea was never executed, English continued to be the language of science, commerce and modernity, until the late 1920s when nationalistic tendencies gained strength and the language was forcibly cleansed from foreign influence. But this movement, too, was doomed to failure, and the end of World War Two saw a return to the Japanese infatuation with English and to the Japanese language’s self-castigation. 2.2 Reasoning defeat - Shiga Naoya revisits Mori Arinori Pro-Western sentiment was not popular during the years of the military regimes, so many people who actually entertained positive feelings towards the West readily changed their opinions in the face of consecutive military victories by the Japanese Imperial Army before and during the Pacific War. Shiga Naoya (1883-1971), one of Japan’s most popular novelists, was no exception. Opposed to the militarists’ tyranny in the 1930s, he ceased the opportunity of military victories during the war to proclaim: “Pro-Western sentiment has no place in Japan today. We, as a nation, should remain humble and united in spirit, taking care not to soil our glorious military achievements in any way. We must not repeat the mistakes of the arrogant British and Americans who have been forsaken by their God” (Tamotsu 1989: 28). The very same Shiga, however, was among the first after the war to look for the reasons of Japan’s defeat in its language. In April 1946, he wrote in an issue of Kaizō (‘Reconstruction’): Although we may not be aware of it, being accustomed to using Japanese since childhood, our language is egregiously imperfect and inconvenient. To the extent that it has impeded the development of Japanese culture it represents a grave problem, one that we must take this opportunity to solve at all costs. Unless this is done, it can truthfully be said that Japan will never join the ranks of the cultured nations (Tamotsu 1989: 29). And he goes on to say: More than once during the war, I had occasion to reflect upon the suggestion made sixty years ago by Mori Arinori about adopting English as our national language. I thought about how things might have been if his suggestion had been carried out. One may imagine that Japanese culture would surely have advanced far beyond the point where it is today. It occurred to me that most likely a war of the sort we have just been through would never have taken place. And it also occurred to me that then our scholarship would have advanced more easily, and even that we would have been able to recall our school days as having <?page no="38"?> 38 been something pleasant. We would be like our children who simply have never heard of the cumbersome old Japanese system of arbitrary weights and measures - we would all be speaking English with no consciousness that it was a foreign language - and so I got the idea, how would it be if Japan on this occasion [the defeat of 1945] acted with different and swift resolution, and simply adopted the best language, the most beautiful language in the world, for its national language! - I am not at all well-informed about the purely technical aspects of the question of switching from one language to another, but I do not believe it to be all that difficult. Once the necessary teachers have been trained, I believe that the new language can be introduced from the first year of elementary education on (Stanlaw 2005: 73, citing Miller 1977: 44-5). Different from Mori, however, Shiga was thinking not of English, but of French in which he saw logic and order. This was unthinkable for several reasons. Not only was French much less popular than English, but more importantly, the idea of replacing Japanese with any given language found few friends because the Japanese people realized that, for all the shortcomings their language might possibly have, it was what made them Japanese, and to give it up would equal cultural suicide. The fact, however, that such thoughts were uttered by a respected man like Shiga ensured considerable uproar, if only that, for the proposition went unheeded (cf. Tamotsu 1989: 29). On an orthographic level, the discussion about the abolition of the complex writing system in favor of the Latin alphabet had never fully subsided since it had emerged in the late 19 th century. However, disagreement within the movement as well as practical notions such as ambiguity that would arise among the many homophones within Japanese vocabulary eventually brought such plans to a halt, the postwar linguistic climate to the contrary. What did happen, though, was a simplification and standardization of the writing system, which had been very idiosyncratic. The number of Kanji was sharply reduced and the characters themselves were simplified (cf. Tamotsu 1989: 30). Here, too, the underlying supposition appears to have been that the Western writing system, in its simplicity, was to be emulated or at least adapted to. Not everyone welcomed these reforms. Many critics maintained that to indiscriminately adulate and emulate the West constituted a threat to Japanese roots and culture and that it was at the very least questionable, if not plainly insensible, to take the Western model as an ideal for every other language and culture in the world. This criticism has not yet subsided. Maruya (1989) contends the legitimacy of the implicit argument that “Western values enjoy an exclusive claim to validity,” saying that “[i]f in fact Japanese culture is predisposed to a different outlook on written symbols, then the emulation of European attitudes poses a serious threat to Japanese cultural values. I cannot shake the suspicion that language reform has the potential to compromise the entire culture” (32). As much as his <?page no="39"?> 39 criticism of the exclusive claim to validity of Western values deserves attention, his second deterministic claim on the predisposition of Japanese to their present writing system can be easily discarded. It was, after all, only thanks to the probabilities of geographic vicinity that the Japanese adopted and developed their writing system as they did, modeled and based on the Chinese system. The same can be said, of course, of the apologetics of modernization who claimed that the reasons that Japan lagged behind in technology and scientific progress were to be found in the complexity of the language. “This notion,” deplores Maruya, “fueled the movement to simplify and restrict the number of kanji in common use and to phoneticize the use of the kana syllabary […] In fact, however, these reforms destroyed the internal logic of the writing system, making it harder to learn and, by many accounts, actually hampering the acquisition of scientific knowledge” (1989: 33). It seems plausible, that a basically iconic writing system like kanji is fueled by an internal logic and that therefore any ‘simplification’ of it could result in confusion and an increased difficulty for learners. Maruya also mentions a proposition by the Japanese press for introducing spaces between the words so as to make possible the elimination of more kanji in favor of kana, arguing that this would make it easier for foreigners to learn the language too. Maruya protests in a rather agitated manner: Where on earth is there a country idiotic enough to reform its own language for the convenience of foreigners? Japanese is first and foremost for the Japanese. Moreover, to the extent that Japanese find the language structurally consistent and logical, foreigners, possessing the same basic mental faculties, will find it easy to learn […] [T]he arbitrary restriction of kanji is a joke. And as for leaving spaces between words, in an agglutative language like Japanese this is practically impossible. If the newspapers do not believe me, they should try it themselves for just one issue. [This approach] vividly reveals the basic intent of the postwar language reforms - to coat the Japanese language with a superficial European veneer. It goes on to advise, “the idea of [eliminating the use of kanji and] using only kana or the Roman alphabet, the subject of earnest debate in the immediate postwar period, deserves to be reconsidered.” […] Ignoring the way in which the Japanese language functions as a whole and as a part of Japanese culture, they seek to impose on it arbitrarily a more Western-looking writing system. Yet in this their attitude toward language is anything but European. A truly European approach would insist that a given language be respected as an organic whole and as an integral part of the culture that has fostered it through the ages (1989: 34). Criticism such as of orthographic adaptations to the Western model has also been raging ferociously on the level of vocabulary, where an increasing number of loanwords are flowing into the language. The fundament beneath such concern is the traditional Japanese conception of their language, namely the concept of a ‘pure’ Japanese, devoid of any foreign in- <?page no="40"?> 40 fluence that lies at the core of the language and only through which the Japanese ‘soul’ can be expressed. 2.3 Nihonjinron: the purity theory Ever since contact with the West intensified, Japan has been confronted increasingly with the question of its cultural identity. The massive influx of new technologies, of new life-styles and new philosophies has been accompanied by a sudden foreign linguistic input to account for each new concept. The restructurings - political, technological, cultural - have left deep imprints on the surface of Japanese identity which was unable to keep pace with change on all fronts and which has left Japanese society deeply confused about its own roots - fertile ground for nationalistic theories that stress Japanese uniqueness and mysticism against an ever more secularized and westernized world. These theories on the characteristic traits of the Japanese in all strata of society, published in books, articles, or on TV, have been subsumed under the term Nihonjinron ( 日本人論 ) - ‘Theory of the Japanese.’ Kubota explains that, Nihonjinron as a reaction against Westernization tends to stress the uniqueness of Japanese culture compared to the West. In this discourse, Japan is usually juxtaposed with the West, while non-Western cultures are excluded from the scope (Kubota 1998: 301). By December 1987, some 1.000 titles had been published in this category (cf. Befu 1987: 97). Some of these have become nationwide bestsellers. At the core of such literature often lies the implicit or explicit supposition that the Japanese language and culture are unique and that its soul lies encoded in the Japanese blood, implying that anyone not a member of the Japanese ‘genetic pool’ cannot fully grasp either language or culture of the Japanese. While such radical beliefs are only fully shared by a small fragment of Japanese society, a survey conducted by Befu and Manabe in 1987 reveals that “for less than 30% of those surveyed, ‘Japanese blood’ was considered crucial for competence in Japanese language, for communication, for understanding Japanese culture, or for becoming full-fledged members of Japanese society” (Befu 1987: 99). The same survey showed 63% stating that foreigners are incapable of completely understanding Japanese culture while some 35% believed foreigners could never master Japanese (cf. Befu 1987: 100). This shows a certain ambiguity concerning the nature of the Japanese language and culture - an ambiguity which is welded into “an instrument of nationalistic pride” by many writers of Nihonjinron (Befu 1987: 102). These writers, therefore, use a wide range of attitudes within the population and meld them into a conglomerate whole which, in its completeness as such, does not reflect the thinking of the majority. <?page no="41"?> 41 One of the main problems of Nihonjinron from a scientific point of view is its questionable methodology. Many of its writers, a lot of whom, incidentally, are Westerners, produce what Manabe calls “essays based on individual impressions or reviews based on individual interpretations” (Manabe et al. 1988: 37). There is thus a lack of empiric data which is sacrificed to philosophical treatises appealing more to human aesthetics and nationalistic feelings than to logic, in what Manabe refers to as “barbershop talk” (Manabe et al. 1988: 37). These scientific objections to the contrary, Nihonjinron has had a considerable impact on public opinion until at least the 1990s, if only through the public’s constant exposure to it in the media, and therefore its role in opinion making should neither be undernor overestimated. The inherent problem of Nihonjinron, according to Befu, is that it is a normative model disguised as a descriptive model. “It is probably more effective,” she writes, “though more insidious perhaps, to slip imperative implications in descriptive statements. In this way, people are led subliminally from approval of descriptive statements to espousal of imperative commands. Nihonjinron as a model of behavior thus becomes one for behavior” (Befu et al. 1991: 104). This is why Nihonjinron’s approach to the topic of loanwords, too, deserves closer scrutiny. Watanabe Shōichi, a university professor of English literature with a doctorate in Western philosophy, argues in an article of the magazine Japan Echo in favor of a unique character of the Japanese language. His main argument is about the so-called koto-dama ( 言霊 ), or ‘spirit of the language,’ which he believes to be embedded only and exclusively in what he calls ‘Yamato words,’ i.e. indigenous Japanese words or wago ( 和語 ). He maintains that the Western creed of “everyone is equal in the eyes of God” in a Japanese context becomes “everyone is equal before waka” (31-syllable odes). For the composition of waka, only wago was used, therefore, in Watanabe’s opinion, making it accessible even to uneducated people (cf. Watanabe 1974: 9ff). As for Japan, where “equality before waka” has been a basic tenet of life, these verses are supposed to consist of “Yamato” words (ancient Japanese words), and the use of loanwords is discouraged. Adoption of words of foreign derivation would give rise to a “discrimination by education”. As long as the vocabulary permissible for use in waka composition remains restricted to Yamato words, which all Japanese have learned from their mothers on their knees in childhood, there is no danger of verbal discrimination (Watanabe 1974: 15). Loanwords as an instrument of discrimination by education, this is what Watanabe goes to great lengths to argue in his article. Based on the notion of pureness that indigenous Japanese words are supposedly en- <?page no="42"?> 42 dowed with, he creates a dichotomy between these Yamato words and, in this case particularly, Chinese borrowings. It may be said that Yamato words, which are intertwined with koto-dama of ancient times, emerge in the mind of men when something pulls at their heartstrings, while borrowing from Chinese are employed at a time when the mind is intellectually at work for external development. In other words […] the Yamato language is often the vehicle by which to describe the mind moving introversively and yearning for something to embrace, whereas borrowings tend to be indiscriminately used when the mind is extroversive, ambitious and aggressive (Watanabe 1974: 18/ 9). This kind of discourse might be what Manabe had in mind when she mourned the lack of scientific methodology in Nihonjinron writers, and what she called “individual impressions” (Manabe et al. 1988: 37). Miller (1977) equally criticizes Watanabe’s treatise, saying that the “proposed dichotomy between Yamato forms and loans into Japanese is real enough, when and if it can be established by historical linguistics. But Watanabe […] has manipulated the dichotomy so that it tends to become almost solely a mystical factor and not at all a criterion of historical linguistics” (Miller 1977: 20). The problem starts at the point where Nihonjinron writers imply that there is something like pure Yamato forms. Seeing that there is enough proof of early loans having entered Old Japanese from Old Chinese (cf. chapter 1; Kelley 1990: 20/ 1), for example, there are abundant reasons to doubt this claim. However, many Japanese language scholars flatly deny the possibility of such early loans having taken place (cf. Miller 1977: 25f). Still, opinions like those expressed in Watanabe’s essay are not to be underestimated. As Miller explains, [T]he fact that the Japanese diplomatic establishment felt that the article was important enough to be included in the second issue of its Japan Echo should also not be overlooked. By providing this prominent and elaborate forum for Watanabe’s discussion on the Japanese language, they document in the most effective manner possible just how seriously contemporary Japanese society takes all the sociolinguistic issues under discussion here (Miller 1977: 27). Within such frames of thought there is, apparently, much room for a purist approach to language issues, and therefore a tendency to see Western influence as purely damaging. For Miller, such kinds of writing are used as “a metaphor for the rapidly escalating corruption of Japanese life and thought […] Minds raised in constant confrontation with imported ideas and forced from an early age into repeated contact with imported ideas […] lose their freshness and have their limpid bloom destroyed.” In this view, “contact with the West exposes the Japanese language to a fatal infection, whether the contact is firsthand or only secondhand, through the reading of translations” (Miller 1977: 65/ 6). <?page no="43"?> 43 Such notions have also seeped through to people outside the linguistic or literary field. One editor of a haiku journal wrote in an article called “Japanese Language Runs Wild” published in the newspaper Mainichi Shinbun on what he experienced as ‘foreign contamination.’ [W]hen I was in Europe, and using that language they have over there […] every day, I found that when I tried to use Japanese and write a haiku, what do you suppose happened? I myself was startled to find that my own Japanese language had begun to show signs of becoming disordered, or what one might call “foreign-language-style craziness” […] I was startled to find that my Japanese language as Japanese had lost its potency […] even in using Japanese for conversation with other Japanese […] I found that the balance […] of my Japanese had collapsed […] Truly, Japanese is a mysterious thing (from Miller 1977: 67/ 8). Boyé Lafayette De Mente tells a similar story: The Japanese say that English and Japanese are so different that they are “processed” in different parts of the brain. This difference makes speaking English exhausting to the Japanese. According to Dr. Tadanobu Tsunoda, an authority on the functioning of the brain, the Japanese language is processed by the right side of the brain, while English is a “left-brain” language. When the Japanese are called upon to understand and speak English, they must shift to the left side of their brain. Not only is this process extraordinarily tiring, says Dr. Tsunoda, it results in the Japanese not being able to “think like Japanese,” and they find themselves in an alien world. This, Dr. Tsunoda continues, is why the Japanese are so uncomfortable when dealing with foreigners and particularly when participating in international conferences, forums, and negotiation meeting that are conducted in English and other Western languages. Many Japanese who are required to function in an English-speaking environment for an extended period of time - two or three days, for example - require several days to recuperate from the experience (De Mente 2005: 115). Such discourse, though lacking any scientific foundation, naturally creates the impression that Japanese, and only Japanese, is something so special that it needs a different part of the brain to function and that it takes harm by extended contact to other languages. Other comments are more sober and remind strongly of similar debates in Austria or Germany. These include comments on the use of loanwords, stating that instead of these borrowings “beautiful words in the Japanese language” ought to exist which should be used, demanding to “respect our own language” first, and lamenting that “it is [not] necessary to use English words in advertisements aimed at Japanese people,” because “I cannot think of any other country where propaganda for the native people is in a foreign language” (cf. Miller 1977: 68/ 9). In short, there is a strong collective social consciousness concerning the influence of foreign languages - especially English - on Japanese, and its <?page no="44"?> 44 ramifications are being thoroughly discussed, even today. What is clear, however, is that there is no going back. The roots that loanwords have struck in the Japanese language reach far into its core and tearing them out, even if it were technically possible, would open a gap that would leave the Japanese linguistically paralyzed for a long time. Despite these aspects, the Nihonjinron myth still looms large, also thanks to what Miller calls “the striking absence of any demythologizing forces within the culture” (Miller 1977: 94). While many voices reaffirm the myth that has been built up around the language, there are virtually none protesting against it. Different from Western countries, for example, where scholars raise their concern and work to deconstruct any language myths, “[t]he scholars professionally concerned with these topics in Japanese academic life are not the demythologizers; they are the principal perpetuators of the myth and the chief practitioners of the mystical cult” (Miller 1977: 94). However, as Befu (1991: 102) asserts, “Nihonjinron as a folk model is not a folk model of Japanese culture as a whole, but it is a model of a certain segment thereof.” But even the vanguards of language purism are unable to stop the advance of English-based words in the Japanese language. As Matsuda Yutaka, Professor of English at Kwansei Gakuin University explains, In fact, the Japanese people cannot possibly lead their daily lives without using words borrowed from Western languages, particularly from English. After getting up, they go to toire […] (toilet) where they consume toiretto pēpā (toilet paper), and manipulate ha-burashi (toothbrush). At breakfast they eat tōsuto (toast) and batā (butter), māgarin (margarine), jamu (jam), or māmarēdo (marmalade), washing it down with kōhī (coffee) with or without kurīmu (cream). If a male Japanese happens to be a sararī-man (salaried man), who has risen late for the office, he hops into a takushī (taxi), which is propelled by gasorin (gasoline), gets off in front of the biru (building) where he works, and rushes for the target, taimu rekōdā (time recorder). Meanwhile, the wife at home watches the students’ violent demo (demonstration) on terebi (television) leisurely, though not unapprehensively, or feeds the baby with miruku (milk), or tries to repulse an omnipresent sērusu-man (salesman) over the intāhōn (interphone). Thus westernization […] has grown so widespread […] that the people cannot for anything part with the borrowed English words, let alone the worldly comforts and conveniences which the American way of life offers (Matsuda 1986: 48). Ishiwata (1989) goes into a similar direction, stating that “[f]ar from being linguistic purists, the Japanese are pragmatic and economical in language as in much else. If a word fulfills its function, they will use it without stopping to consider its origin.” He also sees this openness to foreign linguistic influence reflected in the Japanese writing system, “which mixes together two […] syllabaries […] and a large number of ideograms that often have several readings […] This complex writing system suggests an expedient, <?page no="45"?> 45 flexible, and eclectic attitude toward language, a far cry from the purist, conservative tendency evident in some countries” (Ishiwata 1989: 21). 2.4 Political and social realities: why a Loi Toubon would not work in Japan Japan has historically had a very liberal attitude towards influences from other countries, though the present discourse on loanwords might sometimes give a different impression. Japan, for all its island character, has always been open, even hungry for new concepts; after all, Japanese more or less imported the whole system of Chinese characters. Japanese with its versatility and richness in vocabulary would be unthinkable without this positive attitude towards things new and foreign. Still, Japanese books and essays (e.g. Jinnouchi 2007: 116ff) sometimes positively mention France and its famous language law, the Loi Toubon, which restricts the use of anglicisms in the French language by formulating an obligation to use the French language in public discourse and which ignores the language’s nature and heritage for the sake of linguistic populism (cf. Theisl 2006, 23ff; Kubarth 2002: 181ff ). The question being inferred in such writings is why does not Japan adopt similar laws to regulate the influx of loanwords which is, after all, much larger than in the case of France and, from that point, would give much more reason for worry. Japan, however, handles things differently. Even though the increased use of loanwords especially in government language represents a real challenge particularly to elder generations (cf. chapter 6), the only official act taken to address this issue was to propagate and support the founding of the so-called ‘Loanword Committee’ ( 外来語委員会 ) by the National Institute of the Japanese Language which has since worked out ‘suggestions’ for paraphrasing loanwords (cf. chapter 8; Jinnouchi: 132); these, however, have no binding status and have thus remained just that: suggestions. Loanwords, therefore, do not appear to be a hot political topic in the Japanese agenda. Jinnouchi argues that language laws as in France would never be successfully applicable in Japan for two main reasons. Reasoning that the main reason for France to adopt such laws was to protect its culture and identity from unwanted foreign influence rather than prevent communication problems, he continues: まず［・・・］日本文化はそもそも「雑種文化」であり、外からのものを貪欲 かつ柔軟に吸収し、それをわがものとするところにそのアイデンティティーが ある。明治維新以降の欧米化、第二次大戦後のアメリカ化は、「自主的」にな された部分が多く、言葉だけがこの流れに逆らうということはありえない ( 陣内 ２００７：１４１ f) 。 <?page no="46"?> 46 First of all […], Japanese culture is a ‘hybrid culture’ to begin with, and has both avidly and flexibly absorbed things coming from outside before turning them Japanese. It is this characteristic of the culture where the Japanese ‘identity’ lies. There are many parts of both the Westernization following the Meiji Restoration and the Americanization after WW2 which have grown independently, without outside pressure; it would be inconceivable only for language to go against this trend (Jinnouchi 2007: 141f). (my translation) Japanese, in short, not only has a heritage of absorbing all things foreign (which it shares with many or most other languages), but also this is considered to be a crucial part of its identity, which distinguishes it from languages like French which in popular opinion are often considered ‘selfsufficient’ and ‘immune’ to foreign influence. That the fear of Japanese about the downfall of their traditional ways because of Western loanwords is not of primary concern is shown in the results of a survey by the National Institute for Japanese Language, in which this answer only took the third place when asked what the bad sides of using loanwords were (cf. Jinnouchi 2007: 143). The answers on the first and second place both addressed concerns about the breakdown of communication. This illustrates that for Japanese pragmatic and practical aspects have priority over concerns for an obscure ‘cultural identity’, though of course there are exceptions, especially in the academic world as could be seen in the subchapter on Nihonjinron above. The second reason why language laws in Japan would not be successful, according to Jinnouchi, is the following: ふたつ目に、日本人は国による言語統制に一種の嫌悪感と危機感を持っている ことがある。たとえば NHK が１９９５年に行った世論調査によると ［・・・］、国による外来語規制に対しては圧倒的に否定的である（反対がお よそ７割）。個人の言語使用はお上が決めることではないという国民感情があ ることが分かる（陣内２００７：１４２）。 Secondly, the Japanese people bear a strong dislike and a kind of sense of crisis against language control by the government. For example, in an opinion poll by the NHK [National Japanese Television] in 1995, about 70% of the people strongly opposed a regulation of loanwords by law. This shows that individual language use is not perceived as something to be regulated from above (Jinnouchi 2007: 142). (my translation) Based on these two reasons, Jinnouchi concludes that language laws modeled after France would be pointless in Japan and he might well be correct. Stanlaw adds: [T]here is no Japanese equivalent of the Academie Française which establishes language policy or polices usage. Indeed, there are often government statements […] that regularly condemn loanwords and language ‘pollution’ (usually oddly enough filled with the very borrowings they are condemning). But these have had no legal sanctions or repercussions (Stanlaw 2005: 90). <?page no="47"?> 47 The government’s criticism feels more like lip-service than truly felt anxiety, and does not really transmit to the population. Free use of language, in general, appears to be a hallmark of Japanese language where every writer uses words - known or unknown - as he or she sees fit. Idiosyncratic readings are sometimes arbitrarily assigned to Chinese characters normally pronounced differently in cases when the connotations of the actual pronunciation are undesirable while the denotation of the characters is wanted (or the other way around), a feature especially prominent in literature. 2 Miller (1967) critically remarks: The writer’s motto in Japan has always been, “Let the reader beware,” and this remains unchanged even today, though in modern times, to be sure, somewhat more concern is being paid to elementary considerations of intelligibility in most writing (Miller 1967: 245). The Japanese’s love for creative language (cf. also chapters 4 and 5), hence, would appear to be the greatest obstacle to legal directives aimed at regulating language. In addition, for all the huge number of loanwords present in the language, the Japanese people do not seem to mind and, it can be conjectured, do not see a cause for major worry. The NHK, Japan’s national television, after conducting a survey on loanwords in Japanese, summarizes: 日本人は全体として、外来語がはんらん状態にあることは認めながらも、その ことに対してそれほど抵抗感を抱いてはいないらしいです。「別になんとも感 じない」「別に気にならない」「ある程度はしかたがない」といった答えが通 常半数近くを占めている（石野１９８２ b ：３２）。 Most of the Japanese feel that there is an overflow of loanwords, but at the same time they seem to hold no antipathy against them. Answers like ‘I have no feelings whatsoever towards them’, ‘I do not really mind them’, or ‘To some extent, it can’t be helped’ made up about 50% of the answers [in the survey] (Ishino 1982b: 32). (my translation) The report does not mention why there is no antipathy towards overflowing loanwords, but it can be assumed that it has something to do both with the history of the language, in which import and assimilation of foreign words and concepts was one of the driving forces, and with the adulation of all things American which arose from out of the ashes of defeat in World War II. 2 For example, the characters 他人 are pronounced tanin and mean ‘another person’, ‘others’. Now, some people might harbor negative connotations with this word because of its somewhat cold undertones, but they still wish to express ‘others’, but without its negative connotations. What is done then, for example, is to take another word with a similar meaning, 人 (hito) or ‘person’ in this case, and assign its reading to the other characters, thus replacing its real reading with its negative connotations. 他人 (tanin), thus, by way of idiosyncratic allocation, is suddenly read as hito by attaching this syllabic reading above the characters - an often used freedom in writing. <?page no="48"?> 48 These very ashes, it turns out, have proven to be a fertile ground for the birth of a great number of new anglicisms. The next chapter will therefore be concerned with pointing out the true dimensions of this phenomenon in the Japanese language. <?page no="49"?> --- PART 2 --- Loanword numbers in contemporary Japanese <?page no="51"?> 51 3 Loanword-(R)Evolution: A Diachronic View of Loanword Presence It is an indisputable fact that loanword numbers in Japanese have been steeply rising ever since the end of World War II. Never before had Japan seen so much foreign presence, let alone an extensive period of occupation. Language contact and cultural impact both skyrocketed and resulted in the Japanese language thrusting open its doors widely to new words, new concepts, and new linguistic resources and tools from outside with which to merge. It is difficult to fathom the dimensions of the actual impact that this development has been having on the Japanese language. However, the influx of loanwords has profoundly altered its outward appearance and allowed new words to enter its linguistic pool on a daily basis with journalists, politicians and even the average person readily creating new loanwords - often nonce words - on the spot. Sometimes these almost instantly disappear from the language again without leaving any trace, but also, it appears, without causing any real and lasting confusion or irritation- with maybe the exception of the very abstract loanwords politicians are known to employ. 3.1 A few introductory remarks When engaging in research in Japanese linguistics, a foreign researcher faces multiple problems. Not only does the multi-layered writing system constitute a notable obstacle in deciphering meaning, but it is also this very system which, in its complexity, has thus far apparently prevented the creation of a comprehensive corpus of written Japanese. The fact that Japanese uses three different writing systems - four if we include the Latin alphabet - has made it difficult for linguists and programmers to digitalize texts into a feasible corpus, because not only do the Chinese characters themselves have to be recognized correctly but also their reading(s). Other than Chinese which assigns one reading to one character, the Japanese have multiple readings for almost any character, divided into Chinese reading(s) and Japanese reading(s), the allocation of which depends on the character’s position and its syntactic role as either a noun, or a verb, or an adjective. Therefore - and also for more pragmatic reasons of copyrights - the creation of a comprehensive corpus of written <?page no="52"?> 52 Japanese has not yet made a headway comparable to that of Western languages. Gotō (2007) comments: Linguistics in Japan has failed to develop corpus-based language studies into corpus linguistics, inspite of the long history of computer-based mathematical linguistics dated from the 1960s and sporadic contacts with English corpus linguistics since the 1980s. This is contrastive to the situation in Britain, where corpus linguistics has been established since the early 1980s, with grammatical and lexicological studies as the main foci of studies. It is noteworthy that there is no Japanese corpus, available to researchers, which could be safely claimed as representative, so that researchers are now obliged to use a haphazardous collection of electronic texts as a corpus. Usefulness of such a corpus is evident […] but inevitably limited. A representative corpus would serve better to linguistic research (Gotō 2007: 58). Accordingly, in order to obtain any corpus-based data on the status of loanword numbers in the Japanese language for this book, different paths had to be treaded. 3.2 The Kotonoha Project - Japan’s first major step into Corpus Linguistics Corpus Analysis in Japan as a whole is yet in labor, so to speak, and only very few select institutions are seriously specializing in it. The only institution accessible to the general public concerned with the creation of a national corpus of the Japanese language is the 国立国語研究所 , or National Institute for the Japanese Language (NIJL). The NIJL is making an effort in accumulating data for a comprehensive corpus of both written and spoken Japanese from the Meiji period (starting 1868) to the present. In 2006, a symposium was held to introduce what was termed the Kotonoha project. [S]tudy of the Japanese language lags behind as long as modern corpus linguistics is concerned. It is widely acknowledged by those who work in the field that one of the fundamental problems in Japanese corpus linguistics is the lack of a so-called ‘balanced’ corpus, a corpus that represents the whole range of the target language in statistically unbiased manner. To fill this lag, the National Institute for Japanese Language (NIJL) is going to launch a new corpus creation project this spring. Adopting an archaic Japanese meaning ‘word’ and/ or ‘language’ the project is named Kotonoha project. <?page no="53"?> 53 (http: / / www.tokuteicorpus.jp/ result/ pdf/ 2006_007.pdf [Online], Mar 26 2008) This kind of linguistic corpus is a novelty in Japanese linguistics and, as of yet (i.e. 2009), still in preparation. The prospect, of course, is very promising, since it has been announced that the complete corpus will not merely include written data from books, newspapers and magazines, but also a corpus of spoken Japanese which will make it easier for linguists to engage in their research on a digital basis without having to be enrolled in or involved with a university and without having to sift through magazines and newspapers with their own eyes. The only publicly available corpora at present, according to the NIJL, are the Corpus of Spontaneous Japanese and the so-called Taiyo Corpus, which is a corpus of text from articles in a magazine called Taiyo representing a critical period in the Japanese writing system between 1895 and 1925 when the colloquial modern writing system ( 口語文 , Kōgobun) was established (cf. Maekawa 2ff.). These corpora, as valuable as they certainly are for any research pertaining to the development of modern Japanese or language variation, are not particularly useful when researching contemporary written Japanese. The Kotonoha project will be making an effort to represent the entire span of over 150 years of Japanese language development since the days of the Meiji Restoration. The size of the corpus has been set at one hundred million words for the time of publication, with constant enlargements of about one million words per year (cf. Maekawa 7). This corpus would certainly have been ideal for the research of this book; alas, its publication (as of October 2008) is pending for 2011, because it will be at least another three years until the whole corpus is completely assembled, all copyrights dealt with, and the database made accessible to the public, as the NIJL revealed on request. There is, however, a demo version of the Kotonoha project available online at http: / / www.kotonoha.gr.jp, which will be used later on for a concordance analysis of some English-based words in Japanese in chapter 12. The NIJL, however, thanks to its decades of research also on the topic of loanwords, is in possession of important data on the development of loanword numbers from the postwar times until recently which it is, to some extent, posting on its homepage for download (cf. http: / / www.kokken.go.jp). For lack of viable alternatives, I will rely on this data for my demonstration of loanword inflation over recent decades. (Maekawa, Kikuo. “Kotonoha, the Corpus Development Project of the National Institute for Japanese Language.”) <?page no="54"?> 54 3.3 Diachronic data The discussion so far has shown that indeed there has been a remarkable increase in the use of Western loanwords over the last few decades. However, the scope of the numbers is astonishing. In order to illustrate not only the increase in numbers, but also the gap between codified loanwords (i.e. loanwords officially incorporated in dictionaries) and loanwords in actual use, it is useful to look at current counts of word classes in Japanese dictionaries. Prior to that, however, let us take a look at past counts of dictionaries which were made in 1956 and 1982, to demonstrate the rise in loanword numbers also within codified dictionaries, before looking at the present situation in the 新選国語辞典８版 (Shinsenkokugojiten, 8 th edition), which the NIJL analyzed. These diachronic counts showed the following results: Chart 1a: Word count in the Reikokugojiten (1956) (cf. 文化庁１９９７：２ ７。 [Bunkachō 1997: 27.]) Chart 1b: Word count in the Kadokawakokugojiten (1982) (cf. 文化庁１９ ９７：２７。 [Bunkachō 1997: 27.]) 35,60% 53,60% 3,50% 6,20% 例会国語辞典(Reikaikokugojiten, 1956) 和語(Japanese words) 漢語(Chinese words) 外来語(loanwords) 混種語(hybrids) 37,10% 52,90% 7,80% 2,20% 角川国語辞典(Kadokawakokujiten, 1982) 和語(Japanese words) 漢語(Chinese words) 外来語(loanwords) 混種語(hybrids) <?page no="55"?> 55 Chart 1c: Word Count in the Shinsenkokugojiten (2002) ( 国立国語研究所「外来語」委員会２００６：２３０。 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo “Gairaigo” Iinkai 2006: 230]) As can be deduced from these pie charts, the number of loanwords codified in dictionaries has more than doubled from 3,5% in 1956 to 8,8% in 2002 while at the same time Japanese words and Chinese words have decreased notably. This suggests a shift in new word creations from Japanese or Chinese linguistic resources to Western loanwords, as well as a trend for loanwords to become more than just a temporary phenomenon. And indeed, statistics prove that most neologisms are loanwords as the following comparative graph shows: Chart 2: Proportions of neologisms according to word type One reason for the decrease of Kanji-based neologisms, according to Tomoda (1999: 249), is that postwar “national language reforms limited the 33,80% 49,10% 8,80% 8,40% 新選国語辞典(Shinsenkokugojiten, 2002) 和語(Japanese words) 漢語(Chinese words) 外来語(loanwords) 混種語(hybrids) 1,90% 3,60% 28,80% 40,20% 57,60% 43,10% 11,70% 13,10% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1980 1960 和語(Japanese words) 漢語(Chinese words) 外来語(loanwords) 混種語(hybrids) <?page no="56"?> 56 number of Kanji in use, thereby constraining the creation of neologisms by the established method of compounding kanji.” This, of course, shifted the power towards neologisms with a Western-based origin. If we consider, as the next chapter will show, that about 90% of all Western loanwords are anglicisms and that, furthermore, the greater part of the hybrids includes anglicisms as well (cf. Aizawa 2005a: 132f), the true extent of English-based loanwords in the Japanese language becomes feasible and should be above 10% of the corpus. 3 Loanword dictionaries, too, show a drastic increase of loanwords contained over the last few decades. Hoffer remarks, The 1965 [loanword dictionary] from Shueisha Publishing contained some 10,000 entries. The Sanseido Publishing Company’s dictionary, first published in 1972, was in its fourth edition in 1987 and contained over 33,000 entries (Hoffer 1990: 3). Tomoda gives an even more detailed overview: Dictionary Name No. of Entries Nichiyō-hakuraigo-binran 1912 1,500 Nihon-gairaigo-jiten 1915 6,800 Gairaigo-jiten 1916 10,000 Gairaigo-shinjiten 1932 2,200 Bankokushingo-daijiten 1935 29,000 Gairaigo-shōjiten 1959 10,290 Gairaigo-jiten 1966 15,000 Kadokawa Gairaigo-jiten 1967 25,000 Kadokawa Gairaigo-jiten 1977 27,000 Gairaigo-jiten 1990 30,500 Table 2: Loanword entries in loanword dictionaries (adapted from Tomoda 1999: 234) These numbers suggest a massive rise in loanword numbers over a time span of only a few years. Nevertheless, they are not very telling by themselves, since it is the nature of many loanwords to be short-lived and a product of present times. As a consequence, many loanwords do not even make it into dictionaries, even if their numbers are rising. Therefore, for all their factual numbers, dictionary entries cannot show the true extent of the number of loanwords actually used in discourse. Entries in magazines, on 3 As a point of comparison: for German, a language closely related to English, Kettemann (2002: 61) calculates that, of the 500.000 vocabulary items that make up the corpus of the German language, about 4.500 to 5.000 (only about 1%! ) are anglicisms. <?page no="57"?> 57 the other hand, can help to get closer to the numbers of loanword actually in use because they employ their target audience’s everyday language. 3.3.1 Diachronic comparison of magazines from 1956 and 1994 According to a comparative survey conducted by the NIJL juxtaposing data obtained from 90 weekly and monthly magazines published during 1956 and 70 monthly magazines published in 1994, the development of the ratio of word tokens (where every word is counted, even if the same word occurs several times) looks as follows: Chart 3: Token count of 1956 and 1994 magazines (Yamazaki, Makoto (yamazaki@kokken.go.jp). (2008, April 4). Re: Re: 日本語話し言 葉コーパス . E-Mail to Johannes Scherling (johannes2112@yahoo.co.jp).) This count ignored auxiliary words, names of people and place names which would shift the proportions strongly to the advantage of loanwords, because the Japanese language usually terms names of foreign countries by their original names remodeled into the Japanese Katakana syllabary. Looking at this data, it becomes obvious what changes the Japanese language is undergoing: original Japanese words are apparently on the retreat while loanwords, in this count, have multiplied their numbers by almost five times. While already amazing, a count of the same data based on word types - i.e. every word is counted only once, multiple occurrences are ignored - shows yet a completely different picture, with the ratio of words shifting dramatically in favor of loanwords and Japanese and Chinese words lagging behind in the 1994 count. 35,70% 53,90% 49,80% 41,30% 12,20% 2,90% 2,10% 1,90% 0,00% 20,00% 40,00% 60,00% 1994 1956 混種語(hybrids) 外来語(loanwords) 漢語(Chinese words) 和語(Japanese words) <?page no="58"?> 58 Chart 4: Type count of 1956 and 1994 magazines (Yamazaki, Makoto (yamazaki@kokken.go.jp). (2008, April 4). Re: Re: 日本語話し言 葉コーパス . E-Mail to Johannes Scherling (johannes2112@yahoo.co.jp)) This development over almost 40 years clearly shows a growing predominance of loanwords in everyday discourse. While the use of Wago, or original Japanese words, has dropped drastically from 36,7% to some 25,3%, the number of Kango, words of Chinese origin, has decreased even more sharply from 47,5% to only 32,6% with hybrids being relatively stable at around 6%. The only variable having overwhelmingly increased in this chart is that of loanwords, which have more than tripled their type presence in magazines since 1956. In a dictionary called 「分かりやすく伝える外来語言い換え手引き」 (roughly: For easier communication - How to paraphrase loanwords) which was published by the NIJL (National Institute for Japanese Language) - from whose Internet page the above data is taken - the differences between the dictionary count in chart 1 and the above count in chart 4 are explained thus: 図１の２００２年刊行の国語辞典のグラフと、図２の雑誌のグラフのうち１９ ９４年刊行のものとを比較してみましょう。８年の時間差がありますが、単語 を正確に調査したデータが得難いものですので、この二つのデータを比較しま す。それによれば、国語辞典と雑誌とで、語種構成に大きな違いがあることが わかります。雑誌では、外来語の比率が最も高くなり、わずかの差で漢語が続 き、３番目が和語、という順序になります。日本語の規範を掲げる性格の強い 国語辞典では、外来語の比率が低いですが、日常の生き生きとした話題や多様 な情報を載せる雑誌では、外来語の比率が非常に高くなっているのです。 また、図２の雑誌のグラフにおいて、１９５６年刊行のものと１９９４年刊行 のものとを比較してもると、そこにも大きな違いが見て取れます。約４０年の 間に外来語の比率が実に３．５倍以上に増加しているのです。 25,30% 36,70% 32,60% 47,50% 34,90% 9,80% 6,20% 6% 0,00% 20,00% 40,00% 60,00% 1994 1956 混種語(hybrids) 外来語(loanwords) 漢語(Chinese words) 和語(Japanese words) <?page no="59"?> 59 このように、外来語は私たちの日常生活において多く使われ、その数は大変な 勢いで増加してきたということが確かめられます（国立国語研究所「外来語」 委員会２００６：２３１）。 Let us try to compare the data from 2002’s Japanese language dictionary in chart 1 with the data from the 1994 count of magazines in chart 2. We are aware that there is a gap of 8 years between them; however, accurate survey data on word numbers is difficult to come by, so we have decided to compare these two. According to this comparison, then, there is a remarkable difference in the word type composition of these two sources. In the case of magazines, the proportion of loanwords is the biggest, followed closely by Kango, with Wago on the third place. In the case of the Japanese language dictionary, which attempts to represent a model-language, the ratio of loanwords is naturally lower. However, in magazines dealing with up-to-date topics of daily lives and with many other different news items, the proportion of loanwords grows unproportionally bigger. Also, if we try to compare the 1956 data with the 1994 data […], we see a great difference. In a span of almost 40 years, the proportion of loanwords has increased by more than 3.5 times. The mere fact that loanwords are being used so frequently in our everyday lives amply shows with what great a force their numbers are growing (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo “Gairaigo” Iinkai 2006: 231). (my translation) 4 This growth is all the more observable because loanwords in Japanese are eye-catching in that they have their own syllabary - Katakana - with its characteristic straight strokes and angular corners, which stand out from any text. Their presence, therefore, is more perceivable than that of their counterparts in other languages, which should leave them more exposed to public criticism. Such broad criticism, however, has yet to surface. It must, of course, be added that the number of loanwords and their ratio within a text varies not only by the source being used but also by the paradigms that underlie such a counting. If, as in the above case, the counting is made by types the loanword numbers are likely to be higher because, as it is, there are many different ones in use but each is probably only used once or twice within a text or even within an entire issue of a magazine. If, however, the counting is based on tokens, Japanese words (Wago) and Chi- 4 The data this citation is referring to is slightly divergent from the one in chart 3. It is from the same count, however some parameters were different resulting in a variation of 0,9% in the type count. (cf. 国立国語研究所「外来語」委員会 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo “Gairaigo” Iinkai] ：２３１ ). Since there was no comparable token count available for the same parameters, I chose to use the data provided on the NIJL homepage for this example. Since the differences are negligible, the statement remains valid all the same. <?page no="60"?> 60 nese words (Kango) take the lead because they represent the fundamental vocabulary which makes up almost every sentence. 3.3.2 An overview on loanword numbers in Japanese written media Accordingly, in the subsequent chart based on surveys by the NIJL which counted word tokens in magazines, newspapers, public information bulletins, and White Papers, the ratio between Wago, Kango, and loanwords differs greatly. The survey was conducted with data from issues of 36 white papers from 2003, 61 information bulletins from 2003, the 2003 issues of the Mainichi Shinbun, and the 70 issues of the above magazines from 1994, and reveals the following results: Chart 5: Comparative token count among several media publications (2003) ( 国立国語研究所「外来語」委員会：２３２。 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo “Gairaigo” Iinkai: 232]) It is clear from these results that the proportion of loanwords decreases as the official and public character of the publications increases. It is remarkable, however, that White Papers (themselves, by the way, a loan translation into 白書 , Hakusho, ‘white’ + ‘writing’) show merely such a small presence of loanwords since Japanese politicians are renowned for their heavy use of difficult and abstract English-derived words. Thus, at first sight, the above 50,40% 53,60% 61,50% 37,30% 45,60% 41,70% 33,40% 48,30% 2,80% 3,40% 3,90% 12,40% 1,20% 1,30% 1,10% 2,00% White Papers Public Information Bulletins Newspapers Magazines 混種語(hybrids) 外来語(loanword) 漢語(Chinese words) 和語(Japanese words) <?page no="61"?> 61 chart might surprise a little in that respect. However, as the editors of the book this chart was taken from remark, こうした媒体の中をもう少し詳しく見ていくと、外来語の使い方に注意すべき ところがあることに気付きます。 […] 使用回数の多い方から１０位程度までは理解率の高い語ばかりですが、１５位 以下では理解率の低いものも目立つことが分かります。公共性の高い媒体であ りながら、分かりにくい外来語が多く使われていることを示しています（国立 国語研究所「外来語」委員会２００６：２３４）。 If we take a closer look at the data, it becomes obvious that there is one point we have to pay attention to. […] Amongst the ten most frequently used loanwords are mainly such that are well understood. However, it is striking that the words from place 11 to 15 [and beyond, my annotation] are poorly understood. This shows that even public media are often using difficult loanwords (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo “Gairaigo” Iinkai 2006: 234). (my translation) This comment somewhat betrays the statistics; it shows that even though the mere numbers of loanwords might seem small and insignificant, the fact stands that their presence alone, no matter what their scope is, represents a challenge to understanding and should therefore not be ignored. However small the number of loanwords might be, if the context provided is inadequate, even such small numbers can become an obstacle to comprehension, especially as their degree of abstractness increases. In addition, it must be mentioned that token counts are not as conclusive as they appear to be. As explained above, token counts very much privilege native words, which are much more entangled with basic syntax and semantics, so that they are required for building even the simplest sentence, thus boosting their numbers to the disadvantage of loanwords. Type counts, in this context, are much more informative since they reveal the variety of words used, making it clear that loanwords have already attained a very large range of use, and seem to be applied to express many different semantic contents. Eventually, this says much more about the influence of loanwords than a token count can. 3.3.3 Loanwords in television discourse The NIJL has not only examined loanword numbers in written media, but also conducted surveys on television programs. One of these, from 1989, <?page no="62"?> 62 was a thorough survey conducted within a three months’ period among 7 channels of 6 broadcasting stations featuring a wide range of programs, and showed the following results: Chart 6: Mean value of word types in television programs (cf. 文化庁１ ９９８：２８。 [Bunkachō 1998: 28]) 5 This count excluded commercials which are naturally bound to use more loanwords than normal speech. Accordingly, the loanword ratio in the commercials observed during this period is 16,8% for tokens and 15,7% for types - rather high, even more so when the year this data stems from is considered - 1989. The following count differs from the one in Chart 6 in that it represents not a mean value of the results from the word count of each respective program but that it was extracted from the total of the data observed. This might sound like a formality; the numbers, however, differ tremendously. 5 The reason this count does not add up to 100% is that it is based on a mean value of the results of each respective television formats observed. 70,50% 61,30% 16,40% 21,50% 3,10% 3,50% 7,50% 10,00% Token Types 和語(Japanese words) 漢語(Chinese words) 外来語(loanwords) 混種語(hybrids) <?page no="63"?> 63 Chart 7: Overall count of all television programs observed (cf. 国立国語 研究所外来語検討委員会２０００ a ：２７８。 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo Gairaigo Kentō Iinkai 2000a: 278]) Compared to the prior count, the number of types has almost tripled, representing almost 10% of all words used on TV during that particular period. What is especially salient in this graph is the large number of hybrids in television programs. None of the written media show any comparable tendency towards hybrids. These, it appears, are more a feature of spoken language. While the loanword ratio is not overly high in the overall context of loanword presence in Japanese media, it is still impressive. Furthermore it must also be kept in mind that many of these hybrids are drawing on loanword resources. Aizawa (2005a: 132f), for example, divides two-parthybrids into six categories, four of which include loanwords, and threepart-hybrids equally into six categories, all of which include loanwords. This suggests a much higher rate of loanwords in television programs because the borders between categories like loanwords and hybrids are blurred at best. Regrettably, no surveys of television programs have taken place since, although one has been scheduled, even if its financing seems to be uncertain. It can be conjectured, though, that the number of loanwords will have increased. By how much, however, is yet more of an educated guess. For 1989 survey, the following breakdown into the different programs shows which of them tend to use loanwords more than others. 69,80% 31,60% 18,00% 34,30% 4,20% 9,60% 8,00% 24,50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Token Type 和語(Japanese words) 漢語(Chinese words) 外来語(loanwords) 混種語(hybrids) <?page no="64"?> 64 Chart 8: Proportion of loanwords according to program category (cf. 文 化庁１９９８：２９。 [Bunkachō 1998: 29]) The only value that really catches the eye is the type value of sports programs, which is not really surprising, since sports have long been known to rely heavily on American expressions. Research on technical terms in Japanese sports has shown that in some cases the overwhelming majority of terms consists of loanwords, while especially traditional Japanese sports like Sumo do not use any loanwords at all. Here is a small excerpt: 3,00% 3,40% 2,00% 2,40% 2,50% 3,00% 3,80% 5,70% 3,20% 4,70% 1,70% 2,30% 2,10% 12,50% 3,70% 3,60% 0,00% 2,00% 4,00% 6,00% 8,00% 10,00% 12,00% 14,00% Token Types News programs Education programs Do-it-yourself programs Music programs Variety programs Movies/ Drama Sports programs Others <?page no="65"?> 65 Chart 9: Count of word types in sports terminology (cf. 文化庁１９９７：２９。 [Bunkachō 1997: 29]) It is a widely known fact that loanwords are generally high in sports terminology; that their numbers only barely stop short of 100% in tennis terminology and reach almost 90% in soccer terminology, on the other hand, is astonishing. Nonetheless, it can be deduced from these numbers that the more a certain sport is rooted in Japanese tradition, the lower the loanword presence becomes. Little wonder, therefore, that Sumo, the traditional Japanese sport, employs no loanwords in its terminology. On the other hand, it is interesting to observe that, except for Sumo, none of the other examples show any significant number of Wago (Japanese words). It appears that the Japanese language has a tendency to employ loanwords and Kango (Chinese words) for such technical terms. Except for sports, the general levels of loanword numbers might seem low compared to those we find in the written media; their numbers, however, are still well in the average of Japanese loanword usage. Again, it can be assumed that loanword usage in absolute numbers would be much higher if loanwords used in hybrids were included in the count. 94,50% 87,20% 24,70% 9,50% 0,00% 3,00% 5,20% 50,70% 22,10% 8,40% 0,00% 0,70% 4,00% 2,50% 63,90% 2,50% 6,90% 20,70% 56,90% 27,70% Tennis Soccer Rifle Shooting Gymnastics Sumo 外来語(loanwords) 漢語(Chinese words) 和語(Japanese words) 混種語(hybrids) <?page no="66"?> 66 Within these programs, the NIJL analyzed whether there was any difference in the loanword use of male and female speakers, visible in the following graph. Chart 10: Proportion of loanword usage by male and female television speakers (cf. 文化庁１９９８：２９。 [Bunkachō 1998: 29]) While the difference is not eye-catching, it can be gathered from this graph that male speakers tend to use slightly more loanwords than female speakers. In addition, the data shows that the number of loanwords also depends on the target audience, with a preference for young viewers (around 10% proportion of loanwords) and decreasing steadily when the target audience is 30+ (cf. 文化庁１９９８：２９。 [Bunkachō 1998: 29]). 3.3.4 Loanwords in scientific and technological discourse As a matter of course, the influence of loanwords in Japanese also extends to the areas of science and technology. Like in many other areas, America’s scientific and technological progress has resulted in numerous technical terms in these fields being coined in English and exported to the world. Needless to say, Japan is also affected and the headway that English loanwords have made in these areas is indeed impressive. The following graph shows a selection of scientific and technological areas ranging from such with a high proportion of loanwords to such with only a few. 4,20% 9,30% 3,50% 8,90% 0,00% 2,00% 4,00% 6,00% 8,00% 10,00% Token Type Female speakers Male speakers <?page no="67"?> 67 Chart 11: Loanword proportion in various scientific and technological fields (cf. 文化庁１９９７：３０。 [Bunkachō 1997: 30]) With the exception of chemistry where, for example, the names of chemical elements were imported wholesale from Western science, the fields that comparably employ most loanwords are those related to engineering, all of which are relatively new, and therefore especially exposed to foreign influence because of globalization and the rising influence of the United States after World War II. Those fields with fewer loanword proportions have been practiced in Japan already since the Meiji era (1868-1912), which had a strong tendency towards loan translations. This is why, even though most of these areas of course have been influenced or even incepted by European and American science, this influence is hidden under the cover of Chinese characters (cf. 文化庁１９９７：３０。 [Bunkachō 1997: 30]). In spite of some examples of small loanword numbers, the total sum of loanword proportions of 30,1% amongst the 23 different scientific and technological fields examined suggests a massive loanword presence in most of these. As was frequently pointed out, the Japanese counts always include a small percentage of non-English loanwords. In order to prove that their share of the total loanword numbers is indeed negligible, the following chapter will be concerned with word lists illustrating that the vast majority, if not all of the most frequent loanwords in the different genres are in fact English-based. 41,30% 33,30% 31,00% 29,20% 28,40% 4,60% 5,60% 6,60% 30,10% 0,00% 10,00% 20,00% 30,00% 40,00% 50,00% <?page no="69"?> 69 4 Behind the Numbers 4.1 What lies beneath Numbers and statistics alone can only display a rather superficial picture of loanword presence in Japanese. Behind those numbers and percentages lies the realm of words and facts which those numbers both represent and blur to the casual beholder. Token counts are less reliable than their reputation apparently makes them seem, and the pictures they draw on the relations of word groups can be misleading. Even though it seems sensible to count each and every word before passing judgment on the number of loanwords, the truth is that words derived from a foreign language have a natural disadvantage in such token counts - they are content words, not function words; they express certain new concepts or images, not syntactic relations and not basic structures; and they do not usually feature in the numeric system of a language. 4.2 Word orders These disadvantages are relevant because native words are bound to infiltrate every sentence, because without them even the most simple sentence could not be expressed; because they are essential to syntactic meaning. Therefore, a look at the words hiding behind the numbers shows that, while there are virtually no loanwords amongst the first hundred most used words in the magazines surveyed above, were we to strip the data of such basic words and expressions, the sequence and relation of words might be quite different. Here are some examples of the leading words in these magazines. The first fifty words alone include twenty-nine numerals, some 60% of the whole. The rest consists of very basic words like する (suru, ‘to make’, which is so frequent because it is used to verbalize nouns), 居る (iru, ‘to be’), 言う (iu, ‘to say’), 事 (koto, ‘thing’, also used to nominalize verbs), なる (naru, ‘to become’), 有る (aru, ‘to exist’), 御 (o or go, Japanese honorific prefix), 円 (en, ‘Japanese Yen’) or 無い (nai, ‘not to be, to not exist’) - in short, very basic words which build the framework of the language and upon which most, if not all structures are built. The first loanwords, or rather foreign words, start appearing around the 100 th place. They are mostly characters from the alphabet led by ‘F’ (98 th place), ‘A’ (99 th place) and ‘B’ (116 th place). The first real loanword, ミリメ <?page no="70"?> 70 ートル (mirime-toru, ‘millimeter’), takes place 120, followed by ‘S’ (136 th place), センチメートル (senchime-toru, ‘centimeter’, 138 th place), and メート ル (me-toru, ‘meter’, 180 th place). Here is a list of the 20 most used loanwords in the 70 magazines surveyed in 1994: 1. エフ（ F) 11. セット (set) 2. エー（ A) 12. テル（ tel ） 3. ビー（ B) 13. キロメートル (km) 4. ミリメートル（ mm ） 14. グラム (g) 5. エス（ S) 15. エム（ M) 6. センチメートル（ cm ） 16. サイズ (size) 7. メートル（ｍ） 17. エンジン (engine) 8. アール（ R) 18. エイチ（ H) 9. シー（ C) 19 ジー（ G) 10. タイプ（ type ） 20. モデル (model) Table 3: 20 most used loans in a survey among 70 magazines (Yamazaki, Makoto (yamazaki@kokken.go.jp). (2008, April 4). Re: Re: 日本語 話し言葉コーパス . E-Mail to Johannes Scherling (johannes2112@yahoo.co.jp)) Since this count includes foreign material, as these letters of the alphabet undoubtedly are, it is not as conclusive as it might have been had such material been excluded from the count. The content of such lists, naturally, much depends on what criteria where used in the counting. In the above case, all foreign material was included in the count among magazines. If we take a look at the top 20 of the 1956 magazines, which used a different method of counting, the impression gets rather different. 1. センチ (centimeter) 11. メートル (meter) 2. センチメートル (cm) 12. デザイン (design) 3. パーセント (percent) 13. カメラ (camera) 4. スカート (skirt) 14. ダーツ (darts) 5. エー (A) 15. ミリ (millimeter) 6. ウエスト (waist) 16. ヤール (yard) 7. ページ (page) 17. バス (bus) 8. トン (ton) 20. スター (star) 20. スポーツ (sports) 20. テレビ (TV) 20. ポケット (pocket) 10. ドル (dollar) 10. ファン (fan) Table 4: 20 most frequently used loans in magazines from 1956 (Yamazaki, Makoto (yamazaki@kokken.go.jp). (2008, April 4). Re: Re: 日本語話し言葉コーパス . E-Mail to Johannes Scherling (johannes2112@yahoo.co.jp)) <?page no="71"?> 71 This word list is certainly more significant than the one in table 3 since it shows to what extent loanwords had already penetrated everyday vocabulary even in 1956. Needless to say, all of these words are still in frequent use, and many others have joined them, making English-based loanwords already an indispensable part of Japanese vocabulary and expression. 4.2.1 Content-dependent inclinations It is interesting to note that even written media with a high public character with only about 2-4 % token count of loanwords still employ their very own loanword corpus, very well distinguishable from other media. In a follow-up study about loanwords characteristic to newspapers, public information bulletins and white papers, Tanaka (cf. 2007: 325ff) found out that each of these media had a quite different list of loanwords inclined to being used to a greater extent in one media rather than the other. As a database he used random, nationwide samples of public information bulletins as well as 36 digitalized White Papers and a digital database of the Mainichi Shinbun Tokyo Edition, all published in 2003. One of the problems he encountered was that the word count (or rather, character count) for all three media was profoundly different, which made it difficult to directly compare them to each other. The character count was 7,003,448 for the white papers, 1,221,318 for public information bulletins, but a huge 52,156,602 for the Mainichi newspaper. In order to make some sort of comparative statement, Tanaka, after counting the number of times each loanword appeared in each medium, employed statistical mathematic formulae to calculate which of all counted loanwords were used in which medium with the highest probability. In our case, the only medium that can claim exclusive usage of several words is the newspaper thanks to its much bigger scale and its broader range of topics which are not touched upon in White Papers or Public Information Bulletins. The following is a list of semantic fields and their contents (and ranks) which are mostly used in each of the three media: White Papers economy, business パートタイム (‘part-time’; 1) 、ユーザー (‘user’; 5) 、グ ローバル (‘global’; 6) 、シェア (‘share’; 10) 、インフラ (‘infrastructure’; 12) 、キャリア (‘career’; 14) 、フリー ター (‘freeter’; 16) 、チャリティー (‘charity’; 17) 、プロ ジェクト (‘project’; 24) 、デフレ (‘deflation’; 25) 、ロボ ット (‘robot’; 31) 、バブル (‘bubble’; 34) 、コスト (‘cost’; 38) 、メーカー (‘maker’; 41) 、ベンチャー (‘venture’; 48) 、エネルギー (‘energy’; 49) 、ダム (‘dam’; 50) information コンテンツ (‘contents’; 4) 、データベース (‘database’; 9) 、バイオマス (‘biomass’; 15) 、アクセス (‘access’; <?page no="72"?> 72 26) 、ハイテク (‘high-tech’; 27) 、ネットワーク (‘network’; 28) 、ブロードバンド (‘broadband’; 43) 、 データ (‘data’; 45) security, disaster/ damage prevention モニタリング (‘monitoring’; 2) 、セキュリティー (‘security’; 13) 、ヘリコプター (‘helicopter’; 20) 、ミサ イル (‘missile’; 40) 、タンク (‘tank’; 47) welfare ライフスタイル (‘lifestyle’; 11) 、バリアフリー (‘barrier-free’; 39) diplomacy イニシアティブ (‘initiative’; 3) 、ガイドライン (‘guideline’; 7) 、サミット (‘summit’; 37) environment モニタリング (‘monitoring’; 2) 、バイオマス (‘biomass’; 15) abstract terms メカニズム (‘mechanism’; 8) 、サイクル (‘cycle’; 18) 、 リスク (‘risk’; 19) 、シズテム (‘system’; 21) 、ニーズ (‘needs’; 22) 、プロセス (‘process’; 23) 、ノウハウ (‘know-how’; 29) 、ベース (‘base’; 30) 、グリーン (‘green’; 32) 、モデル (‘model’; 33) 、メリット (‘merit’; 35) 、ピーク (‘peak’; 42) 、レベル (‘level’; 44) 、シナリ オ (‘scenario’; 46) others コラム (‘column’; 36) Table 5: Classification of loanwords used in White Papers (cf. 田中２０ ０７：３３０。 [Tanaka 2007: 330]) Many of these terms are indeed very abstract and technical terms that well describe the contents of White Papers. The expressions most prominent are subsequently also among those most criticized for their opacity, because most of them refer to concepts outside of everyday experience and are nontransparent technical terms that average people have no access to. In fact, 11 of these 50 words are included in the NIJL’s Guideline to Paraphrasing Loanwords (cf. chapter 8), because their frequent appearance causes notable problems in comprehension. It should be noted, though, that the difficulties in understanding these words by all probability stem little from the fact that they are loanwords, but more from the opaque discourse that is dominant in this particular field. It should also be noted that of these 50 words only one is not completely English-based (furi-tawhich is a hybrid between English ‘free’ and German ‘Arbeiter’). A closer look at what areas loanwords cover in Public Information Bulletins make this fact apparent and show that in a different discourse openly aimed at informing the public (something that White Papers obviously are not intended for) completely different kinds of loanwords are found which have more rooting in everyday life. <?page no="73"?> 73 Public Information Bulletins Life チャレンジ (‘challenge’; 2), バレーボール (‘volleyball’; 15), コンサート (‘concert’; 22), バスケットボール (‘basketball’; 23), サポート (‘support’; 16), リズム (‘rhythm’; 18), スポーツ (‘sports’; 29), ゲーム (‘game’; 37), テニス (‘tennis’; 39), リレー (‘relay [race]’; 40), ダ ブルス (‘doubles [match]’; 41), キャンプ (‘camp’; 44), スキー (‘ski’; 47), コンクール (‘concours’; 26), イベン ト (‘event’; 27), クリスマス (‘Christmas’; 45) Places コーナー (‘corner’; 1), プール (‘pool’; 3), ホール (‘hall’; 5), ギャラリー (‘gallery’; 6), センター (‘center’; 9), グ ラウンド (‘[play]ground’; 11), コース (‘course’ i.e. ‘lane’; 7), チャンネル (‘channel’; 21), ステージ (‘stage’; 31), クラブ (‘club’; 14), クラス (‘class’; 33), チーム (‘team’; 42) Objects チケット (‘ticket’; 8), プレゼント (‘present’; 13), パネ ル (‘panel; 17), ペットボットル (‘pet bottle’; 19), ピア ノ (‘piano’; 25), パン (‘p-o’ [Portuguese for ‘bread’]; 32), メニュー (‘menu’; 35), パソコン (‘personal computer’; 38), バス (‘bus’; 46), ペット (‘pet’; 48) Media ページ (‘page’; 4), ポスター (‘poster’; 10), ファックス (‘fax’; 20), メール (‘mail’; 28), メールアドレス (‘mail address’; 30), ホームページ (‘homepage’; 36), コピー (‘copy’; 49), メッセージ (‘message’; 50) Qualifications モニター (‘monitor’; 34) Abstract terms サイズ (‘size’; 12), ミニ (‘mini’; 24), ジュニア (‘junior’; 43) Table 6: Classification of loanwords in PIBs (cf. 田中２００７：３３２。 [Tanaka 2007: 332]) It is striking that the word fields most used in Public Information Bulletins have very little in common with those in White Papers. Since the audiences addressed and the purposes pursued are fundamentally different, this should come as no surprise. It can, however, serve as an explanation for why Public Information Bulletins use a lot of commonplace loanwords which, for the most part, are already well established in the Japanese language and can be regarded as everyday vocabulary, concerned especially with free-time activities. Therefore, none of these words is found in the NIJL’s suggestions for paraphrasing loanwords. In the case of this word list, too, only two of the fifty words are not English-based (konku-ru from French ‘concours’, and pan from Portuguese ‘p-o’). <?page no="74"?> 74 Newspaper discourse, finally, can be supposed to walk a line between those two opposite genres, though naturally leaning more towards terms referring to sports or entertainment in comparison to the above media. Mainichi Newspaper Sports ソロ (‘solo’; 1), プレーオッフ (‘playoff’; 2), シード (‘seed’; 3), アンダー (‘under’; 4), パー (‘par’; 5), ラリー (‘rally’; 6), バーディー (‘birdie’; 9), シュート (‘shot’; 10), レスリング (‘wrestling’; 11), スライダー (‘slider’; 12), ボギー (‘bogie’; 14), ピンチ (‘pinch’; 15), トレード (‘trade [of players]’; 16), メダル (‘medal’; 20), ゴロ (‘grounder’; 21), ヤード (‘yard’; 22), エース ‘ace’; 26), リーグ (‘league’; 28), バット (‘bat’; 29), ストレート (‘straight’; 30), ハム (‘ham’ i.e. ‘amateur radio operator’; 33), ラグビー (‘rugby’; 34), パス (‘pass’; 36), トラ イ (‘try’; 39), マウンド (‘mound’; 43), コーチ (‘coach’; 48) Public Entertainment ドリーム (‘dream’; 8), ユース (‘youth’; 13), シーン (‘scene’; 18), ヒット (‘hit’; 24), ファン (‘fan’; 25), デビ ュー (‘début’; 31), ランキング (‘ranking’; 35), ドラマ (‘drama’; 37), スポンサー (‘sponsor’; 40), アマ (‘amateur’; 42), プロ (‘professional’; 44), スター (‘star’; 46) Business セール (‘sale’; 45), コンビニ (‘convenience store’; 49) Information テレ (‘television’; 7), デスク (‘desk’; 23), ジャーナリス ト (‘journalist’; 27), プロデューサー (‘producer’; 38), クローズアップ (‘close up’; 42) Politics マニフェスト (‘manifest’; 17) Abstract terms フル (‘full’; 19), キロ (‘kilometer’, ‘kilogram’; 32), セン チ (‘centimeter’; 47) Others クローズアップ (‘close up’; 41) Table 7: Classification of loanwords in the Mainichi newspaper (cf. 田中 ２００７：３３３。 [Tanaka 2007: 333]) Many technical terms from sports can claim exclusive usage in newspapers; their technicality, however, makes them difficult to understand for anyone who is not so involved in the various kinds of sports. The same can be maintained for terms pertaining to public entertainment, where the society segment addressed is primarily young people who are used to such words from their intra-generational discourse. These lists have shown the disposition of certain media for the use of specific loanwords which are intrinsically connected to their respective <?page no="75"?> 75 fields of discourse. While this data is informative in that it shows that also the choice of loanwords in Japanese is subject to inclination and purpose - making a general statement like ‘loanword use’ seem improper - the following subchapter will be concerned with lists of loanwords independent of the specialization coefficient, depicting which loanwords were used most frequently in an overall context. 4.2.2 The big picture The following lists will show the most frequently used loanwords in various media - White Papers, Public Information Bulletins, magazines and television - and thus make it possible to assess whether the most frequent loanwords can be categorized as difficult expressions or whether the impression that there are many difficult words used stems rather from certain singular, obscure loanwords which leave deeper impressions in readers than those everyday loanwords they are already familiar with. As for White Papers, the NIJL has published a list of loanwords collected from White Papers from six different fields - environment, science, construction, welfare, commerce and crime - published in 1998. The list shows the 100 most frequently used loanwords within these White Papers. Rank Word Freq. Rank Word Freq. 1 サービス (service) 905 " コミュニティ (community) 47 2 システム (system) 801 52 フロンティア (frontier) 45 3 シェア (share) 590 53 マイナス (minus) 43 4 エネルギー (German: Energie) 560 " マスタープラン (master plan) 43 5 リサイクル (recycle) 370 55 フロン (JE: fl[uorocarb]on) 42 6 センター (center) 335 56 プロセス (process) 41 7 ネットワーク (network) 333 " マネジメントシステ ム (management system) 41 8 ガス (gas) 332 58 イメージ (image) 40 9 コスト (cost) 291 " セミナー (seminar) 40 10 ベース (base) 279 " バブル (bubble) 40 11 ダム (dam) 212 " フローアップ (follow-up) 40 12 ニーズ (needs) 208 62 ワークショップ (workshop) 39 13 メカニズム 197 " セメント (cement) 39 <?page no="76"?> 76 (mechanism) 14 モデル (model) 179 64 ノウハウ (knowhow) 38 15 データ (data) 160 " ハイテク (high-tech) 38 16 トン (ton) 158 " アセスメント (assessment) 38 " レベル (level) 158 " グリーン (green) 38 18 プロジェクト (project) 154 " マンション (mansion) 38 19 オゾン (ozone) 148 69 ホーム (home) 37 " グローバル (global) 148 70 ライフサイエンス (life science) 36 21 ドル (dollar) 142 71 メーカー (maker) 35 " ダイオキシン (dioxin) 142 72 プラン (plan) 34 23 ストック (stock) 113 " タイプ (type) 34 24 ルール (rule) 111 " コース (course) 34 25 ピーク (peak) 110 75 ファイバー (fiber) 33 26 リスク (risk) 107 " オキシダント (oxidant) 33 " ライフスタイル (life style) 107 " パートタイム (parttime) 33 28 エイズ (AIDS) 104 78 ガラス (Dutch: glas) 32 29 テーマ (German: Thema) 103 " シンポジウム (symposium) 32 30 プログラム (program) 98 " ルート (route) 32 31 ポイント (point) 87 " トラック (truck) 32 32 モニタリング (monitoring) 86 " レーボル (label) 32 33 グローバライゼーショ ン (globalization) 85 " ロケット (rocket) 32 34 データベース (database) 84 84 セクター (sector) 31 35 ガイドライン (guideline) 79 " ビオトープ (German: Biotop) 31 36 インフラ (infrastructure) 77 86 ライフサイクル (life cycle) 30 37 コンピュータ (computer) 72 87 メタン (German: Methan) 28 38 インターネット (Internet) 67 " フロー (flow) 28 " ソフト (soft) 67 " アウトソーシング 28 <?page no="77"?> 77 (outsourcing) 40 プラスチック (plastics) 65 " マニュアル (manual) 28 41 アジェンダ (agenda) 56 " カドミウム (cadmium) 28 42 レート (rate) 55 92 シフト (shift) 26 43 グループ (group) 54 " フォーラム (forum) 26 " ボランティア (volunteer) 54 " ホルモン (German: Hormon) 26 " リクリエーション (recreation) 54 " マクロ (macro) 26 46 アクセス (access) 53 " マネジメント (management) 26 47 サミット (summit) 50 97 アルミニウム (aluminium) 25 " バス (bass; bus) 50 " ゼロエミッション (zero emission) 25 49 ハード (hard) 48 99 ブロック (block) 24 50 アンケート (French: enquête) 47 " パートナーシップ (partnership) 24 Table 8: Most frequently used loanwords in White Papers (cf. 国立国語 研究所２０００ a ：１ ff 。 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 2000a: 1ff]) This list too has a very low proportion of non-English-based loans. Only seven out of a hundred of them (7%) come from languages other than English - German, Dutch, French, with one being of Japanese making (‘flon’ < short for ‘fluorocarbon’). In general, the list contains a great many difficult words from the fields of chemistry, physics, technology and commerce (like ‘cadmium’, ‘Metan’, ‘fiber’, ‘globalization’ etc.), and it entails numerous words with very unclear meanings in Japanese, like ‘frontier’, ‘shift’, or ‘life science’. Several of the words with a high specialization coefficient from the list above can be found amongst these hundred most frequent loanwords, for example ‘needs’, ‘global’, ‘peak’ or ‘monitoring’. This shows that White Papers not only contain their special vocabulary, but that they also use this vocabulary frequently in relation to other, more common loanwords. Judging from the list above, Public Information Bulletins, on the other hand, can be conjectured to employ less technical terms and more words related to people’s everyday lives, since their obvious purpose is to inform people on happenings that they might be interested in. The following list of the hundred most frequently used loanwords is based on 31 Public Information Bulletins from 28 cities from all over Japan, all published in 1998. <?page no="78"?> 78 Rank Word Freq. Rank Word Freq. 1 センター (center) 10499 51 デイサービス (daycare) 256 2 サービス (service) 2296 52 ピアノ (Italian: piano) 241 3 スポーツ (sports) 1795 53 インターネット (Internet) 240 4 コーナー (corner) 1310 54 グラウンド (ground) 237 5 コース (course) 1244 55 カード (card) 235 6 ボランティア (volunteer) 1206 56 キロ (French: kilometer/ gram) 232 7 ページ (page) 1195 57 メンバー (member) 228 8 バス (bus) 1191 " センチ (centimeter) 228 9 テーマ (German: Thema) 1126 59 ビデオ (video) 227 10 チーム (team) 1094 60 フォーラム (forum) 224 11 ホール (hall) 933 61 ルール (rule) 223 12 クラブ (club) 865 62 ギャラリー (gallery) 220 13 イベント (event) 784 63 バドミントン (badminton) 218 14 リサイクル (recycle) 751 " トンネル (tunnel) 218 15 メートル (French: mètre) 685 65 ペットボトル (pet bottle) 214 16 グループ (group) 664 " シリーズ (series) 214 17 ホーム (home) 643 67 イメージ (image) 212 18 プール (pool) 629 " ホームヘルパー (home helper) 212 19 パーセント (percent) 532 69 モニター (monitor) 211 20 テレビ (television) 508 70 パック (packing) 209 21 コミュニティセンタ ー (community center) 468 71 テニス (tennis) 207 22 スキー (ski) 450 72 ソフトボール (softball) 205 23 プラザ (plaza) 448 73 リクリエーション (recreation) 204 24 ファクス (fax) 443 74 チェック (check) 203 25 スタート (start) 432 75 ネットワーク (network) 201 <?page no="79"?> 79 26 パソコン (personal computer) 395 76 デザイン (design) 200 27 オープン (open) 377 " トレーニング (training) 200 28 システム (system) 374 78 ポスター (poster) 198 " デイサービスセンタ ー (daycare center) 374 79 ガラス (Dutch: glas) 196 30 エネルギー (German: Energie) 369 80 キャンプ (camp) 195 31 セミナー (seminar) 368 " ステージ (stage) 195 32 コンサート (concert) 359 " ホームページ (homepage) 195 33 サークル (circle) 347 83 ビル (building) 193 34 ダイオキシン (dioxin) 332 84 ホテル (hotel) 192 35 カレンダー (calendar) 323 " プラネタリウム (German: Planetarium) 192 36 ガイド (guide) 319 86 コミュニティ (community) 190 37 クイズ (quiz) 308 87 ゲートボール (gateball, Japanese croquet) 188 38 リハビリ (rehab) 299 88 ストレス (stress) 185 39 ポイント (point) 298 " シンポジウム (symposium) 185 40 コンクール (French: concours) 287 90 サロン (French: salon) 184 " サッカー (soccer) 287 91 プラン (plan) 179 42 アンケート (French: enquête) 286 92 クラス (class) 176 43 プレゼント (present) 284 " パート (part) 176 " クリニック (clinic) 284 94 パネル (panel) 174 45 バレーボール (volleyball) 281 " ロビー (lobby) 174 46 トイレ (toilet) 267 " サービスコーナー (service corner) 174 " ガス (gas) 267 97 ワープロ (word processor) 173 48 フェスティバル (festival) 266 98 タオル (towel) 168 49 ダンス (dance) 265 " モデル (model) 168 <?page no="80"?> 80 50 ゲーム (game) 262 100 セット (set) 167 Table 9: Most frequently used loanwords in PIBs (cf. 国立国語研究所２ ０００ a ：６７ ff 。 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 2000a: 67ff]) This list shows a much wider use of everyday expressions, most of which hardly any Japanese will have problems understanding because they represent things that people are confronted with on a daily basis and that they, consequently, are already used to. Many of these loanwords describe freetime activities (‘sports’, ‘course’, ‘event’, ‘concert’ etc.), while others refer to place designations (‘center’, ‘hall’, ‘club’, ‘plaza’ and so on), or to entertainment (‘television’, ‘quiz’, ‘game’, ‘video’), to sports (‘soccer’, ‘volleyball’, ‘badminton’, ‘tennis’), to welfare and health (‘rehab’, ‘clinic’, ‘home helper’, ‘volunteer’). There are hardly any complex or abstract loanwords used with a notable frequency, with the exception of ‘dioxin’, probably in connection with environmental issues. This list also shows only a small share of non-anglicisms, with only ten out of a hundred (10%) being of German, French, Italian, or Dutch origin. Overall, this list illustrates that Public Information Bulletins have a tendency to employ comparably easy and easily recognizable loanwords that root in people’s everyday experience. For the loanword ranking in newspapers, all December 1998 issues of the Mainichi Shinbun were used as a base for the word count. Rank Word Freq. Rank Word Freq. 1 メートル (French: mètre) 1534 51 ホームページ (homepage) 147 2 キロ (French: kilo) 888 52 シリーズ (series) 145 3 ドル (dollar) 774 53 コース (course) 144 4 リーグ (league) 772 " クリスマス (Christmas) 144 5 チーム (team) 704 55 シーズン (season) 143 6 テレビ (television) 687 " レース (race) 143 7 グループ (group) 677 57 イメージ (image) 140 8 プロ (professional) 505 " エイズ (AIDS) 140 9 メダル (medal) 494 59 ゴルフ (golf) 139 10 システム (system) 410 " ボール (ball) 139 11 センター (center) 403 61 ファン (fan) 137 12 ユーロ (Euro) 337 " ツアー (tour) 137 13 メーカー (maker) 331 " デジタル (digital) 137 14 サッカー (soccer) 319 64 セット (set) 136 15 サービス (service) 314 65 コンピューター 132 <?page no="81"?> 81 (computer) 16 スタート (start) 301 66 オープン (open) 129 17 センチ (centimeter) 299 " ベスト (best) 129 18 テーマ (German: Thema) 295 " スキー (ski) 129 " トップ (top) 295 " デザイン (design) 129 20 ミサイル (missile) 286 70 ロイター (Reuters) 128 21 カレー (curry) 274 71 グラム (gram) 127 22 ケース (case) 266 72 プラス (plus) 126 23 ポイント (point) 248 73 ボランティア (volunteer) 125 24 マイナス (minus) 240 74 カード (card) 124 25 メンバー (member) 239 75 マーク (mark) 123 26 インターネット (Internet) 238 76 マンション (mansion) 120 27 データ (data) 236 77 エース (ace) 119 28 パソコン (personal computer) 235 78 スーパー (super) 118 29 スポーツ (sports) 233 " コーチ (coach) 118 30 バブル (bubble) 219 " ネット (net) 118 31 ドラマ (drama) 204 81 デビュー (French: début) 117 32 レベル (level) 199 " プレー (play) 117 33 二ユース (news) 196 83 ゲーム (game) 115 34 ポスト (post) 179 " ホーム (home) 115 35 ホテル (hotel) 175 85 ルール (rule) 114 36 クラブ (club) 170 " ジャンプ (jump) 114 37 ヒット (hit) 169 87 ソフト (soft) 113 " ホルモン (German: Hormon) 169 88 ダイエー (Daiei: name of a Japanese Supermarket) 112 39 ゴール (goal) 167 " マラソン (marathon) 112 40 トン (ton) 166 90 ビデオ (video) 111 41 ガス (gas) 163 91 オリンピック (Olympics) 109 42 ホール (hall) 160 " サラリーマン (Japanese English: Salary Man) 109 <?page no="82"?> 82 43 コスト (cost) 157 93 トラブル (trouble) 108 " リストラ (restructuring) 157 " ゼネコン (general contractor) 108 " バス (bus) 157 95 ページ (page) 106 46 ビル (building) 155 " ベース (base) 106 47 サイン (sign) 153 97 チェック (check) 104 48 ラグビー (rugby) 152 " イベント (event) 104 49 ローン (loan) 150 99 トラック (truck) 102 50 エネルギー (German: Energie) 148 100 バランス (balance) 101 Table 10: Most frequently used loanwords in the Mainichi newspaper (cf. 国立国語研究所２０００ a ：１０９ ff 。 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 2000a: 109ff]) This list, which includes several proper names like ‘Reuters’ or the supermarket chain ‘Daiei’, more or less presents a general overview on some of the most frequently used loanwords in all major areas of Japanese society, since newspapers touch on all of these. There are many sports-related terms (‘league’, ‘team’, ‘medal’, ‘soccer’, etc.) amongst them, which underlines the significance of sports in Japan. Overall, there are more than 20 terms directly related to sports within these 100 most frequently used loanwords. Other areas well represented include business (‘maker’, ‘minus’, ‘plus’, cost’, ‘restructuring’, ‘general contractor’), information (‘television’, ‘Internet’, ‘personal computer’, ‘news’, ‘homepage’), and entertainment (‘drama’, ‘début’, ‘game’, ‘video’, ‘event’). Also place designations (‘hotel’, ‘hall’, ‘center’) can be found, next to measures and weights (‘meter’, ‘kilo’, ‘centimeter’, ‘ton’), and terms referring to health and welfare (‘AIDS’, ‘volunteer’). In short, this list is different from the previous ones in that it comprises a greater variety of topics and fields that its loanwords represent. Like in the other lists, the number of non-English-based loanwords is minimal, mainly concerning two terms for measures and one for entertainment derived from French and three from German, thus a mere 6% of all loanwords listed here. A closer focus on sports, fashion and entertainment can be expected from the loanword ranking based on 70 different magazines of various genres published in 1994 that the NIJL examined. This word list was based on incomplete data because it was published while research was still underway. Thus, the data here represents about 1/ 16 of each page of these 70 different magazines (cf. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 2000a: 151). Accordingly, the words’ frequency levels appear relatively low. <?page no="83"?> 83 Rank Word Freq. Rank Word Freq. 1 タイプ (type) 332 51 ファン (fan) 104 2 サイズ (size) 326 " メンバー (member) 104 3 セット (set) 298 53 パワー (power) 103 4 エンジン (engine) 293 54 ゴルフ (golf) 102 5 スキー (ski) 252 55 オープン (open) 99 6 デザイン (design) 246 " キット (kit) 99 7 コース (course) 243 57 ベース (base) 96 " レース (race) 243 " ボディ (body) 96 9 モデル (model) 242 59 スタート (start) 95 10 カラー (color) 220 " トップ (top) 95 11 メートル (French: mètre) 210 " バッグ (bag) 95 12 シリーズ (series) 204 " カメラ (camera) 95 " チーム (team) 204 63 デビュー (French: début) 94 14 ホテル (hotel) 203 64 バイク (bike) 93 15 ポイント (point) 192 65 カタログ (catalogue) 92 16 テレビ (television) 189 " シーズン (season) 92 17 ビル (building) 188 67 アップ (up) 90 18 プレゼント (present) 181 " ガン (Japanese: gan, 'cancer') 90 19 システム (system) 173 69 カード (card) 89 20 ページ (page) 168 " パンツ (pants) 89 21 イメージ (image) 164 71 シンプル (simple) 88 " シャツ (shirt) 164 " オリジナル (original) 88 23 バス (bus) 163 73 ライン (line) 86 24 クラス (class) 160 " エネルギー (German: Energie) 86 25 メーカー (maker) 150 75 ゲーム (game) 84 26 バランス (balance) 147 " ブロック (block) 84 27 プロ (professional) 144 77 スタッフ (staff) 83 28 センター (center) 143 " キロ (French: kilo) 83 29 スポーツ (sports) 142 " パーツ (parts) 83 " センチ (centimeter) 142 80 レベル (level) 82 31 ピアノ (Italian: piano) 138 81 ベスト (best) 81 <?page no="84"?> 84 32 ケース (case) 136 82 ガラス (Dutch: glas) 79 33 サービス (service) 131 " カップ (cup) 79 34 スタイル (style) 128 " サラダ (salad) 79 35 テーマ (German: Thema) 126 85 ビタミン (vitamin) 78 " データ (data) 126 " ジャズ (jazz) 78 " ソフト (soft) 126 87 リーグ (league) 75 38 クラブ (club) 124 88 プラス (plus) 74 39 チェック (check) 119 " ガイド (guide) 74 40 ボール (ball) 116 90 タイヤ (tire) 73 41 ブラック (black) 115 91 イラスト (illustration) 72 42 ホール (hall) 114 " レストラン (French: restaurant) 72 43 ジャケット (jacket) 111 " ブルー (blue) 72 " アルバム (album) 111 " スカート (skirt) 72 45 ミリ (French: milli-) 109 95 スペース (space) 70 46 ドア (door) 106 " コート (coat) 70 47 グループ (group) 105 " スーパー (super) 70 " コーナー (corner) 105 98 カット (cut) 69 " ママ (mama) 105 " ツアー (tour) 69 " パソコン (personal computer) 105 100 カバー (cover) 68 Table 11: Most frequently used loanwords in various magazines (cf. 国立 国語研究所２０００ a ：１５３ f 。 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 2000a: 153f.]) Due to the manifold magazine genres this list is based on, there is a wide range of fields that these loanwords belong to. As expected, however, fashion, sports, lifestyle and entertainment loom large. Fashion is largely represented by terms like ‘size’, ‘design’, ‘model’, ‘color’, ‘shirt’, ‘style’, ‘jacket’, ‘body’, or ‘skirt’. Sports, too, are a well-covered topic in magazines which is illustrated by terms like ‘ski’, ‘race’, ‘team’, ‘professional’, ‘corner’, or ‘golf’. Both lifestyle and entertainment also frequently mentioned fields of interest, represented by words like ‘type’ (especially denoting a person, like in ‘he is my type’) or ‘image’ and ‘television’, ‘club’, ‘game, or ‘début’. There are also some terms related to cars, like ‘engine’, ‘power’ or ‘tire’, as well as from music (‘album’, ‘cover’, ‘jazz’). There can be no doubt that this variety originates only from the fact that so many different magazines were selected, ranging from sports to fashion to music to special interest. There are, however, certain traits towards general usage that can also be extracted <?page no="85"?> 85 from this list and which could indicate that at least some of the words on it are rather general usage than adherent to only one magazine discourse. This will be investigated in a subchapter following this discussion. What can be claimed, though, is that this list of loanwords also shows the dominance of English-based loanwords. Only 9% of these words originate from languages other than English, and again these are French, German, Italian and Dutch. In order to allow for a comparison of possible differences in loanword use between written and spoken Japanese, the following list is based on 8 different television programs (information programs, edutainment programs, music programs, variety programs, sports programs, dramas/ movies, others) from 1989 (cf. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 2000a: 193). The data therefore is relatively old, which makes direct comparison difficult. Still, as a point of reference, and for understanding which loanwords have survived into present use, this will suffice. Rank Word Freq. Rank Word Freq. 1 テレビ (television) 43 " トイレ (toilet) 9 2 ニュース (news) 42 " キャッチャー (catcher) 9 3 アイアイ (aye-aye: a kind of monkey) 35 " バッターボックス (a batter's box) 9 4 ゲーム (game) 32 " ヤクルト (Yakult: a company owning a baseball team) 9 5 ピッチャー (pitcher) 32 " ユニフォーム (uniform) 9 6 チャンス (chance) 29 " リード (lead) 9 7 ファン (fan) 27 " スピン (spin) 9 8 セクシー (sexy) 25 " セレクト (select) 9 9 スポンサー (sponsor) 24 " ゼロ (zero) 9 10 イメージ (image) 23 60 マスター (master) 8 " ホームラン (home run) 23 " カメラ (camera) 8 12 ボール (ball) 20 " ビール (beer) 8 13 バッター (batter) 16 " グループ (group) 8 " ヒット (hit) 16 " スタッフ (staff) 8 15 プラス (plus) 15 " インタビュー (interview) 8 " チーム (team) 15 " システム (system) 8 17 ビデオ (video) 14 " ドラマ (drama) 8 " リズム (rhythm) 14 " マラソン (marathon) 8 <?page no="86"?> 86 " カーブ (curve) 14 " カレー (curry) 8 " ファースト (first [base]) 14 " セーフ (safe) 8 21 ジバン (Portuguese: gib-o, 'undershirt') 13 " ドライバー (driver) 8 " コーナー (corner) 13 " プレー (play) 8 " スタート (start) 13 " マウンド (mound) 8 24 レース (race) 12 " セクシャルマジック (sexual magic) 8 " テーマ (German: Thema) 12 " タイミング (timing) 8 " パパ (papa) 12 76 ボス (boss) 7 " ポイント (point) 12 " プロ (professional) 7 " ツーアウト (two outs) 12 " コレクション (collection) 7 " マンション (mansion) 12 " ゴールデンウィーク (Golden Week) 7 " ストライク (strike) 12 " ジュース (juice) 7 " ランナー (runner) 12 " ストレート (straight) 7 " リクルート (recruit) 12 " キャベツ (cabbage) 7 " ワンアウト (one out) 12 " タフ (tough) 7 34 マシーン (machine) 11 " マイナス (minus) 7 " ゲスト (guest) 11 " キムチ (Korean: Kimchi) 7 " コマーシャル (commercial) 11 " デモ (demonstration) 7 " レベル (level) 11 " ピン (pin) 7 " エネルギー (German: Energie) 11 " ブロック (block) 7 " トップ (top) 11 89 ライブ (live) 6 40 ポーズ (pose) 10 " クラブ (club) 6 " ショック (shock) 10 " ケース (case) 6 " タイトル (title) 10 " コンサート (concert) 6 " バス (bus) 10 " ホテル (hotel) 6 " アウト (out) 10 " ママ (mama) 6 " バランス (balance) 10 " スタイル (style) 6 " セカンド (second [base]) 10 " ピンチ (pinch) 6 47 センター (center) 9 " ボタン (button) 6 <?page no="87"?> 87 " スタジオ (studio) 9 " カルシウム (Dutch: calcium) 6 " メンバー (member) 9 " キャッチフレーズ (catch phrase) 6 " コート (coat) 9 100 グリーン (green) 6 Table 12: Most frequently used loanwords in various television programs (cf. 国立国語研究所２０００ a ：１９５ ff 。 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 2000a: 195f]) Television discourse, too, seems to favor sports, for amongst the most frequently used loanwords from the analyzed 8 television programs, there are many terms referring to sports, especially baseball, the Japanese national sport; ‘pitcher’, ‘fan’, ‘home run’, ‘ball’, ‘batter’, ‘hit’, ‘team’, ‘corner’, ‘strike’, ‘runner’, ‘two outs’, they all range among the 30 most used loanwords. There is also a tendency to metadiscourse on the medium of television itself (‘television’, ‘news’, ‘studio’, ‘drama’), but also on the topic of food and drink (‘curry’, ‘Kimchi’, ‘beer’, ‘juice’, ‘cabbage’), on entertainment (‘concert’, ‘game’, ‘video’) and fashion issues (‘style’, ‘pin’, ‘coat’, ‘uniform’). Generally speaking, television discourse utilizes well acquainted and familiar loanwords that the audience can be expected to be accustomed to. Content-wise, they capitalize on fields concerned with entertainment in the widest sense. Here, too, the percentage of non-English related loanwords is low at only 5% of the whole, coming from German, Dutch, Portuguese and Korean. 4.2.3 Comparative view It is clear that different media with different audiences and different purposes use different vocabulary befitting to the area of their distinctive discourse. However, a quick glance at the lists above demonstrates that there are many loanwords that are used regardless of genre and which therefore can be said to be part of the general Japanese vocabulary. A comparison of the lists shows that amongst the 500 most frequently used loanwords are some 103 - which amounts to 20,6% - that are often used in more than one of these media. Many words that have not made it into the top 100 lists, however, are represented in the latter ranks, making the actual number of conjointly used words much larger. Such words include: akusesu ( アクセス , ‘access’), intabyu- ( インタビュー , ‘interview’), enjin ( エンジン , ‘engine’), karenda- ( カレンダー , ‘calendar’), ju-su ( ジュース , ‘juice’), shinpuru ( シンプル , ‘simple’), suka-to ( スカート , ‘skirt’), gesuto ( ゲス ト , ‘guest’), koma-sharu ( コマーシャル , ‘commercial’), sarada ( サラダ , ‘salad’), saizu ( サイズ , size’), chansu ( チャンス , ‘chance’), and many more. The reason these words do not come up more often is that each of them derives <?page no="88"?> 88 from a certain topical field (like fashion or information) which are not equally represented in all the five media analyzed here, and therefore, while highly present in some, are dwelling in lower ranks in others. This gives reason to assume that many or most of the loanwords used with high frequency are actually quite integrated into the Japanese language. In the following, a diachronic comparison of loanword lists in newspapers shall help in ascertaining whether there is a great mobility amongst the most frequently used loanwords or whether these are relatively stable, a verification of which would help in showing that there is no overly excessive use of newly created loanwords in the media. This could show that the use of at least the most frequently used loanwords is not as fleeting and short-lived as is often assumed, but that there is a certain continuity to it. 4.2.4 Diachronic peek In order to do this, the above list from the December 1998 editions of the Mainichi Shinbun will be compared with a combined list from the years 1994 to 2003 (which excluded proper names), also conducted by the NIJL. This comparison will clarify whether there were any notable fluctuations in the numbers of the most frequently used loanwords or whether these remained more or less unchanged. For the sake of easier comparability, the lists were rearranged alphabetically and not according to rank. Rank Word Rank Word 82 アピール (appeal) 3 テレビ (television) 49 イベント (event) 52 テレビ (television) 29 イメージ (image) 54 テロ (terror) 68 イメージ (image) 77 ドーム (dome) 13 インターネット (Internet) 10 トップ (top) 62 インターネット (internet) 57 トップ (top) 88 インタビュー (interview) 50 トラック (truck) 39 エース (ace) 47 トラブル (trouble) 29 エイズ (AIDS) 88 トラブル (trouble) 78 エイズ (AIDS) 16 ドラマ (drama) 67 エネルギー (German: Energie) 71 ドラマ (drama) 25 エネルギー (German: Energie) 53 ドル (dollar) 33 オープン (open) 2 ドル (dollar) 63 オープン (open) 20 トン (ton) 46 オリンピック (Olympics) 80 トン (ton) 99 オリンピック (Olympics) 70 ニュース (news) <?page no="89"?> 89 37 カード (card) 40 ネット (net) 89 カード (card) 76 ネット (net) 21 ガス (gas) 84 ネットワーク (network) 61 ガス (gas) 23 バス (bus) 11 カレー (curry) 75 バス (bus) 93 キャンプ (camp) 63 パソコン (personal computer) 1 キロ (French: kilo) 14 パソコン (personal computer) 51 キロ (French: kilo) 15 バブル (bubble) 18 クラブ (club) 74 バブル (bubble) 69 クラブ (club) 50 バランス (balance) 36 グラム (gram) 98 バランス (balance) 27 クリスマス (Christmas) 97 ビール (beer) 4 グループ (group) 19 ヒット (hit) 54 グループ (group) 100 ヒット (hit) 11 ケース (case) 45 ビデオ (video) 62 ケース (case) 83 ビデオ (video) 42 ゲーム (game) 23 ビル (building) 75 ゲーム (game) 66 ビル (building) 27 コース (course) 31 ファン (fan) 72 コース (course) 67 ファン (fan) 40 コーチ (coach) 65 ブッシュ (bush; G.W. Bush) 20 ゴール (goal) 36 プラス (plus) 22 コスト (cost) 41 プレー (play) 82 コスト (cost) 4 プロ (professional) 95 コメント (comment) 53 プロ (professional) 30 ゴルフ (golf) 48 ページ (page) 64 ゴルフ (golf) 48 ベース (base) 33 コンピューター (computer) 34 ベスト (best) 79 コンピューター (computer) 81 ベスト (best) 8 サービス (service) 98 ベテラン (veteran) 56 サービス (service) 42 ホーム (home) 24 サイン (sign) 81 ホーム (home) 7 サッカー (soccer) 26 ホームページ (homepage) 79 サミット (summit) 85 ホームページ (homepage) 46 サラリーマン (Japanese English: Salary Man) 30 ボール (ball) 77 サリン (sarin) 72 ボール (ball) 28 シーズン (season) 21 ホール (hall) <?page no="90"?> 90 89 シーズン (system) 73 ホール (hall) 5 システム (system) 12 ポイント (point) 55 システム (system) 56 ポイント (point) 43 ジャンプ (jump) 17 ポスト (post) 26 シリーズ (series) 18 ホテル (hotel) 71 シリーズ (series) 58 ホテル (hotel) 96 シンポジウム (symposium) 37 ボランティア (volunteer) 39 スーパー (super) 68 ボランティア (volunteer) 90 スーパー (super) 19 ホルモン (German: Hormon) 34 スキー (ski) 38 マーク (mark) 90 スキー (ski) 80 マーク (mark) 8 スタート (start) 12 マイナス (minus) 57 スタート (start) 94 マイナス (minus) 78 スピード (speed) 83 マスコミ (mass communication) 15 スポーツ (sports) 45 マラソン (marathon) 61 スポーツ (sports) 93 マラソン (marathon) 32 セット (set) 76 マンション (condominium) 85 セット (set) 38 マンション (mansion) 47 ゼネコン (general contractor) 10 ミサイル (missile) 86 ゼロ (zero) 66 ミサイル (missile) 6 センター (center) 73 ミス (miss) 55 センター (center) 7 メーカー (maker) 9 センチ (centimeter) 60 メーカー (maker) 59 センチ (centimeter) 1 メートル (French: mètre) 65 ソウル (soul; Seoul) 51 メートル (French: mètre) 44 ソフト (soft) 87 メール (mail) 87 ソフト (soft) 5 メダル (medal) 58 タイ (a tie; Thailand) 97 メッセージ (message) 44 ダイエー (Daiei: name of a Japanese Supermarket) 69 メディア (media) 95 タイトル (title) 13 メンバー (member) 92 タイプ (type) 60 メンバー (member) 3 チーム (team) 100 モデル (model) 52 チーム (team) 6 ユーロ (Euro) 49 チェック (check) 24 ラグビー (rugby) 84 チェック (check) 94 ラジオ (radio) <?page no="91"?> 91 86 チャンス (chance) 2 リーグ (league) 31 ツアー (tour) 74 リード (lead) 14 データ (data) 22 リストラ (restructuring) 64 データ (data) 91 リストラ (restructuring) 9 テーマ (German: Thema) 43 ルール (rule) 59 テーマ (German: Thema) 92 ルール (rule) 35 デザイン (design) 28 レース (race) 91 デザイン (design) 16 レベル (level) 32 デジタル (digital) 70 レベル (level) 96 デジタル (digital) 25 ローン (loan) 41 デビュー (début) 35 ロイター (Reuters) 99 デビュー (début) 17 二ユース (news) Table 13: Diachronic comparison of loanword lists from the Mainichi newspaper in alphabetical order (cf. 田中２００７：３３５。 [Tanaka 2007: 335]; 国立国語研究所２０００ a ：１１１ f 。 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 2000a: 111f.]) The direct comparison shows a correlation of 69%, that is 69 of 100 loanwords are amongst the most frequently used loanwords both in December 1998 and in the overall count of all newspaper issued between 1994 and 2003. Some of the differences derive from the fact that the December 1998 count included proper names; the overall count only does so when their spelling and pronunciation coincide with homonymic content words. Therefore, the 10 year count includes words like タイ (Tai, for ‘tie’ and ‘Thailand’), and ブッシュ (Busshu, for ‘bush’ and ‘George W. Bush’). Since neither Tai nor Busshu are often used in their meanings of ‘tie’ and ‘bush’, but rather in their meanings as ‘Thailand’ and ‘President Bush’, it can be assumed that their real position in the ranking would be much lower than expressed here, if their times of use as proper names were excluded. Other words like センター (senta-, ‘center’) or クラブ (kurabu, ‘club’), too, are partly used in proper names, making their real use in general discourse difficult to assess. In any case, while some of the differences originate from this difference in counting, others simply can be traced to certain topics which were not important at a certain time, but very important at some other points or over longer periods. Such lists always are a product of the times, and reflect certain topics that were much discussed at certain points in time. In the overall count word list, such words include テロ (Tero, ‘terror’), which can be surmised to relate to the 9/ 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the ensuing terror wave throughout the world, as well as ガス (gasu, ‘gas’) <?page no="92"?> 92 and サリン (sarin, ‘sarin’), whose frequent use is assumedly due to the Aum sect’s poison gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995. If these factors are taken into consideration, a correlation of loanwords in frequent use of 69% can certainly be seen as a remarkable number which illustrates that over a span of 10 years there has been no significant shift in the kind of loanwords that are used in actual newspaper discourse. There are fluctuations, to be sure, in the ranking and frequency of certain words; this, however, does not affect their presence in the top 100 list. Judging from this result, it can be supposed that words which are used so frequently over such an extended period of time have become familiarized enough not to cause confusion amongst readers over their meaning and use any more. In order to clarify whether this assumption really holds true, the next subchapter will be concerned with examining whether these frequently used loanwords have been assessed as being already a part of the national language by checking if they have been included in a monoglot dictionary of Japanese, or in loanword dictionaries, which would at least show that, although not yet considered completely naturalized, they are not just individual creations but sufficiently widely used and on their way to becoming naturalized. 4.3 (No) Entry - extent of naturalization of frequently used loanwords in the media It is often alleged that loanwords, in general, have a short life span; that they are an expression of nowadays’ fast-paced life and that many of them fade out as quickly as they have appeared. Whether such a general statement is really applicable can be shown by a comparison of the loanwords in the lists above with entries in present dictionaries, a loanword dictionary (Gakken Loanword Dictionary edition 2003 and 2007) and a Japanese language dictionary (Shinseido Japanese Language Dictionary edition 2002 and 2008). Since several years have passed since the above data was taken, the entries in present dictionaries will show to what extent these loanwords have survived into present-day usage. By comparing these entries with those in older dictionaries, it will also be possible to reconstruct how many of these loanwords were new and have since become standard Japanese. This might allow a judgment on the basic character of loanwords in Japanese and indicate whether they are really just fleeting phenomena or whether the part they play within the language is lasting and their linguistic footprints permanent. <?page no="93"?> 93 4.3.1 White papers What is most surprising is that not only all of the 100 most frequently used loanwords in White Papers from 1998 have found their way into the 2007 edition of Gakken’s Loanword Dictionary - which might be seen as natural since an entry in such dictionaries does not precondition wide usage - but that all but one (‘management system’) can also be found in the 2008 edition of Shinseido’s Japanese Language Dictionary, by definition a much more conservative dictionary. When considering this fact along with the allegations that especially White Papers use many unknown and difficult loanwords, it becomes obvious that even such loanwords that are deemed difficult to understand with time find their way into normal usage, which shows that human language and pragmatic abilities are more flexible than is generally thought and that the notion of non-understanding, too, is only subject to habit, and habits change with use. In addition, most of the words in this list were already present in much earlier dictionaries, the 2003 edition of the Gakken Loanword Dictionary and the 2002 edition of Shinseido’s Japanese Language Dictionary. Only 15 words (‘outsourcing’, ‘agenda’,’ infrastructure’, ‘globalization’, ‘sector’, ‘zero emission’, ‘partnership’, ‘fiber’, ‘flow’, ‘follow-up’, ‘masterplan’, ‘management system’, ‘monitoring’, ‘life science’, ‘label’) were not yet included in the Japanese Language Dictionary, 1 (‘management system’) was missing from the Loanword Dictionary. We can therefore surmise that, while some of the loanwords used in White Papers in 1998 were yet uncodified and thus not familiar to people in general, these loanwords have proven to be important and useful enough to survive to the present day and become a part of standard Japanese language. Of course, this does not eliminate the comprehension problems that people at that time might have had understanding these loanwords, but it demonstrates that they had a semantic justification to exist which has enabled them to persist to the present day. 4.3.2 Public Information Bulletins In this case, the degree of naturalization is even higher than with White Papers, owing to the nature of Public Information Bulletins which have to be close to the people they address. Only 5 of these loanwords (‘community center’, ‘service corner’, ‘day-service’, ‘day-service center’, ‘home helper’) had not yet been codified in the Japanese Language Dictionary by 2002, 1 (‘service corner’) by 2008; all except for one are present in both editions of the Loanword Dictionary. This suggests that most of these loanwords already were sufficiently naturalized at the time they were used for people to understand their meaning. <?page no="94"?> 94 4.3.3 Mainichi newspaper There are only two loanwords that did not find their way into neither the 2002 nor the 2008 edition of Shinseido’s Japanese Language Dictionary: Daiei and Roita- (’Reuters’), both proper names, the first of a supermarket chain, the second of a news agency. The rest of the loanwords appear to have been well naturalized in the Japanese language - the worry that frequently used loanwords in newspapers are difficult to understand might thus be unfounded, as they seem to be established enough to be included in national language dictionaries. With the exception of proper names, all of the high-frequency loans were present in both the Gakken Loanword Dictionary and the Shinseido Japanese Language Dictionary from at least as early as 2002. 4.3.4 Magazines Magazines give a similar picture to the previous media: only 2 of the most frequently used loanwords (‘kit’, ‘parts’) had not yet been included in the Shinseido Japanese Language Dictionary by 2002, but are contained in the 2008 edition; all others seem to have been sufficiently naturalized by the time they were used in the magazines surveyed or at least shortly after. Most of them can be said to be commonly used in contemporary Japanese another example that shows that a high number of loanwords does not necessarily result in any obstacles in communication. 4.3.5 Television Television discourse being the only oral/ auditory amongst the analyzed media, it could be presumed to be the medium with the most problematic and flexible lexical stock of loanwords. Japanese television features many talk-show formats which abound with (often idiosyncratic) loanwords and nonce formations. A back check of the high-frequency loans used in the surveyed television discourse, however, demonstrates that either television mostly employs commonly used loanwords or that loanwords used on television quickly find their way into the lexicon. 10 out of 50 most frequently used loanwords (‘aye-aye’, ‘gib-o’, ‘spin’, ‘sexual magic’, ‘select’, ‘two outs’, ‘a batter’s box’, ‘Yakult’, ‘live’, ’one out’) were not part of the 2002 edition of Shinseido’s Japanese Language Dictionary. Half of these turn out to be proper names and baseball terminology - not exactly common vocabulary. Present dictionaries, however, include most of these terms (exceptions: ‘gib-o’, ‘sexual magic’, ‘two outs’, ‘Yakult’), which shows both the cultural impact of baseball and the impact of television discourse on language. In any case, none of the selected media employs overly difficult and unfamiliar or short-lived loanwords in large numbers. Those few terms which <?page no="95"?> 95 appear uncommon at the time of their use can be observed to become common usage within a few years. Loanwords, too, are subject to the same requirements for survival as any other words; and the fact that they have survived into proper dictionaries of the Japanese language illustrates that they are both a vivid and an important resource in the lexical pool of the Japanese language, and that their presence, by no means, endangers communication or the language itself. Rather, their continued and persistent presence shows a lasting need for new linguistic material to continually enrich the language’s already rich realm of semantic nuances. Whether use precedes naturalization or whether naturalization precedes use is, then, only an academic question. Whichever comes first, the fact remains that, by the end of the day, often-used loanwords become naturalized because they have proven their functional value and their comprehensibility through their frequent use. Those which are of no use to a language inevitably leak through the lexical filter. Now that it has been established that the main source of Western loanwords in Japanese is actually English (their numbers ranging from 90%- 95% of the most frequently used loanwords in the lists presented in this chapter), let us take a closer look at the diversity of the loanword issue in Japan. The following chapters will therefore cover the creation, functions, and comprehension of loanwords, especially anglicisms, in the Japanese language. <?page no="97"?> --- PART 3 --- Facets from a loanword’s life - creation, use, and troubleshooting <?page no="99"?> 99 5 Creation, Use, and Presence of Anglicisms in Japanese 5.1 The continuous boom As the previous chapters have illustrated, the influence of English on Japanese has a comparatively short, but all the more intense history. In only a few decades time, English loans in Japanese did not only overtake the previously dominant Dutch borrowings in terms of numbers, but they also cornered the linguistic market in which elements of other languages gradually subsided to the overwhelming supremacy of the English language. Especially postwar Japan has seen an unprecedented rise in the number of anglicisms which has continued ever since and still shows no signs of abating any time soon. Even as the prophets of cultural decay warn of the gradual submission of Japanese to English dominance, English loans or pseudo-loans keep entering the language at an increasing rate. While the occupation by the mainly American forces as well as the ensuing Security Treaties (which granted the United States several bases on the Japanese islands and thus perpetuated the presence of English there) have certainly played their part in this phenomenon, there are other reasons as well. Morrow (1987), for example, explains: The past 40 years have seen unprecedented industrial growth, and this has been accompanied by increasing trade relations between Japan and other countries, especially the United States. There has also been a substantial rise in the standard of living, which has in turn led to higher levels of education for a larger segment of the population. It has also brought more Japanese into contact with English through the mass media. The present popularity of English in Japan is due in large measure to Japan’s economic prosperity, the need for foreignlanguage skills which industrialization had brought about, and the favorable attitudes toward the west which developed during Japan’s industrialization (Morrow 1987: 50). Statistics confirm such statements. They all show in overwhelming accordance that not only the attitudes towards English have improved (at least until the 1990s), but also that English influence on the Japanese language has increased drastically. Loveday (1996: 77) quotes several sources (Tamamura 1981; Ozawa 1976), which show that between 1955 and 1972 the proportions of English loans have increased by a third. Additionally, “European-derived single words represented 77 per cent of new vocabulary in 1955, but 82 per cent in 1975 […] On the other hand, coinages exploiting indigenous (non-Chinese-based) resources, already low in 1955 at 5 per cent, dropped to 2 per cent in 1975; Chinese-based coinages have also <?page no="100"?> 100 significantly declined [single words: from 19% in 1955 to 16% in 1975; compounds: from 52% to 41%] (Loveday 1996: 77). Another statistic taken from Tomoda (1999: 234) shows the rising number and percentage of Western loanwords included in Japanese dictionaries. Dictionary Title Publication date Total loans Proportion of loans Genkai 1891 551 1.4% Reikai-kokugo-jiten 1956 1,428 3.5% Iwanami’s Kokugo-jiten 1963 2,918 5.1% Kadokawa-kokugo-jiten 1969 4,709 7.8% Shinmeikai-kokugo-jiten 1972 4,558 7.8% Shinmeikai-kokugo-jiten 3 rd ed. 1987 6,675 11.8% Nihongo-daijiten 1989 13,300 9.95% Table 14: Diachronic comparison of loanword presence in dictionaries This table shows that the influx of Western loans is basically a recent phenomenon, and that it has gained momentum in the years after 1945. Another statistic, also taken from Tomoda (1999: 234), indicates a rise of loanwords used in current speech. While the 1960 Edition of the Gendaiyōgo no kisochishiki dictionary of current terminology includes 43% loanwords, its 1980 edition reveals an increase to a total of 58%. It has to be mentioned, though, that due to variations in the spelling of Western loans in the Japanese syllabary (cf. subchapter 4.4 on borrowing by eye and ear) there is a tendency for certain words to be present more than once, which of course slightly inflates the numbers. On the other hand, strict criteria by editors concerning the naturalization-stage of certain loans sometimes curbs down the proportion of loanwords in a dictionary. There is, thus, a certain inaccuracy innate to such dictionaries, even more so since there are many different companies publishing these dictionaries on their own standards. The amount of loanwords in dictionaries is evidence of their use in writing and speech. There has been extensive research into the presence of these gairaigo ( 外来語 ) - literally ‘words from outside’, i.e. loanwords - conducted, amongst others, by the National Institute for Japanese Language. Tomoda quotes data from their research, saying that “[i]t is evident […] that there has been an increase in the proportion of gairaigo in print to the extent that it can account for between 4 and 16 per cent of the vocabulary of a text and from 1 per cent to over 20 per cent of total lexical items [depending on the type of text and the topic]” (Tomoda 1999: 236). Concerning their use in spoken Japanese speech research is sparse, due to the difficulty of creating true-to-life atmosphere for authentic conversa- <?page no="101"?> 101 tions and the problem of idiosyncrasies in individuals’ speech. Tomoda estimates that 13 per cent of words used in everyday conversation [are] foreign words. A survey of seven people’s spoken language over 42 hours revealed 10.1 per cent of word types and 3.2 per cent of word tokens were gairaigo […] This suggests that the proportion of loan-words used in speech is similar to that in prose but considerable variation could be expected between different topics and speakers (Tomoda 1999: 236). It can therefore be conjectured that there is a massive presence of these relatively new loanwords and that their influence is expanding, though into which direction is difficult to say. 5.2 Loanword, English-inspired vocabulary item, or Made-in-Japan English? Before discussing the different kinds of anglicisms in Japanese, it seems appropriate to outline three different approaches for the analysis of English vocabulary in the Japanese language - the ‘loanword approach’, the ‘English-inspired vocabulary item approach’, and the ‘Made-in-Japan English approach’ (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 19). The ‘loanword approach’ sees an impossibility in trying to detach anglicisms from their original English source and therefore deems the term ‘loanword’ to be appropriate. It claims that such elements are and remain foreign and can never be fully naturalized into the borrowing language. Followers of this theory stress the importance of the underlying concept a word carries around and speak of a ‘cultural payload.’ They argue that, for example, “the use of the English loans hazu (‘husband’) and waifu (‘wife’) […] carry with them a range of connotations, e.g. modern attitudes to marriage, greater equality between the sexes, the changing role of motherhood, etc.” (Stanlaw 2005: 19). Thus, the argument goes, words transcend the culture that imports them and serve as transmitters of a foreign culture, and this function prevents loanwords from ever getting fully nativized (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 19). The ‘English-inspired vocabulary item approach’, instead, contends that ‘borrowing’ is the wrong term to describe linguistic contact in the first place, since technically no borrowing occurs because nothing is ever returned. Its followers further argue that in many instances there is no reciprocal relation between ‘borrowings’ and their originals. This means that such vocabulary items would be, in our case, English on the surface but Japanese on a semantic level and thus be incomprehensible to native speakers of English. They are terms created exclusively for speakers of Japanese. Instead of the term ‘loanword’ or ‘borrowing’ Stanlaw suggests <?page no="102"?> 102 the - rather bulky - term ‘English-inspired vocabulary items’ for this approach. While English is acknowledged as motivational force in the creation of an English-inspired term, the transfer of lexemes from donor language (English) to recipient language (Japanese) is denied. English is used by the Japanese language system to create new words. In consequence, there might be a certain overlapping between the original English word and the new vocabulary item, but in essence these would be Japanese items, independent from the English form (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 19/ 20). The third approach, the so-called ‘Made-in-Japan English approach’, is a stronger version of the ‘English inspired vocabulary item approach’. People subscribing to this theory argue that actually most of the English words in Japanese vocabulary originate directly from Japan, without any outside influence. These are called ‘Japanese-made-English,’ or wasei eigo ( 和製英 語 ), as the Japanese diction goes. Stanlaw, himself an adherent to this approach, concedes that it is difficult to weaken the counter-argument to this theory, which claims that actually most English words used in the media or in academic writing still retain their original meanings and are therefore indistinguishable from the original items. One difficulty in responding to this argument directly is that no accurate figures are available to distinguish ‘normal’ English loanwords from wa-sei eigo loanwords, for a number of reasons, not least because of the difficulty in distinguishing ‘type’ from ‘token’ in this context […] For example, the 2001 September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center added teroru (‘terrorism’) to the language alongside the previously extant tero. These terms are not exactly equivalent, as tero is a noun and teroru can be a verb, and seems to permit a wider range of usage than tero. For example, tero-teroru! (‘That’s terrorism, I tell you! ’) can be applied to situations that are metaphorically, rather than literally violent, such as clothes with loudly-clashing colours. Thus, the range of meanings associated with teroru are very different than those associated with the original English source or even the earlier loan tero, the usage of which is arguably somewhat closer to the English ‘terror’ (Stanlaw 2005: 20). As a means to weaken the above argument, Stanlaw says that even if an English word keeps to its original meaning, with time it will acquire a wider range of meanings or its range of meanings will be narrowed. Anyway, it will be “re-made in Japan,” thus effectively rendering all English vocabulary items into wasei eigo (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 20f). While loanwords remain conspicuous because they are written in the katakana syllabary, they are “structurally and semantically treated as Japanese words” (Hoffer 2002: 269). All these loanwords are, upon their arrival in the Japanese language, subjected to what many linguists have referred to as “Nipponicization,” i.e. they are japanized, as it were, to fit into the overall structure of Japanese grammar and phonology. The foreign nails, so to speak, are hammered into the linguistic floor until they are no longer dis- <?page no="103"?> 103 tinguishable from ‘standard’ Japanese. This is also what Hoffer (1990) claims: In the Nipponicization of loanwords, the absorption of English vocabulary has, it would seem, reached the point where the next step will be the further nativization of the loans so that eventually their uses and functions will be undistinguishable from all other vocabulary. This process may take 50 or hundred years or more, but it appears to be happening now (Hoffer 1990: 19). In this context it seems to make little sense to cling to the traditional idea of ‘borrowing’, for indeed the dynamics of Japanese loanword creation and adaptation do not permit such a static description. 5.3 Lexical penetration Though there are differences of opinion when it comes to the definition of loanwords, their impact on the Japanese language is uncontested. Their lexical penetration reaches into every corner of the language, making it increasingly difficult to imagine Japanese communication without the use of its mainly English-derived loans. Loveday (1996) quotes studies showing “that loans are particularly high in the areas of fashion, cosmetics, food, audio technology, sport, housing, music, art, business management, and engineering.” Additionally, “English-based loans have grown conspicuous in a number of Japanese taxonomies: English-derived items make up 52 per cent of flower names, 30 per cent of fruit names, 35 per cent of vegetable names, 24 per cent of animal designations, and 9 per cent of colour names” (Loveday 1990: 79). This gives an indication of just how far loanwords have become a part of the everyday linguistic landscape of Japanese. In fact, especially in the field of color names, English terms have started to replace the original Japanese terms to such an extent that the latter are starting to drop out of the modern corpus altogether. A survey conducted by Stanlaw (2005) shows that there are at least three color terms - namely pinku (pink), orenji (orange), and gurē (gray) - which “seem to be as basic as their native Japanese equivalents, and in fact, may be replacing them for all practical purposes” (Stanlaw 2005: 232). The Japanese terms for ‘pink’ - momoiro ( 桃色 ) - and ‘orange’ - daidaiiro ( 橙色 ) - were named least amongst all color terms. Stanlaw predicts that this substitution process will continue. Still, he maintains that despite this process, the original color terms still have their own semantic fields, since they match slightly different color nuances (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 211ff). Matsuda (1986) argues for an even deeper penetration of the language, claiming that Western words reach also far into such diverse fields as politics, society, education, literature, art, religion etc. <?page no="104"?> 104 Consequently the Socialist Party may issue a sutētomento (Statement) that they will support the labor unions’ sutoraiki (strike) demanding bēsu appu […] (Japlish base up, a raise of wage base). A critic may say in his bukku rebyū (book review) that the book is a komedi (comedy) full of yūmoa (humor) and points out [sic] that the hiroin (heroine)’s true colors are revealed at the kuraimakkusu (climax), and a teacher of a misshon sukūru (mission school, Christian school) may easily be understood by his students when he advises them to read baiburu (Bible) so they can grasp the significance of kurisumasu (Christmas) (Matsuda 1986: 47/ 8). Even English numerals can be found in everyday use. Especially the numeral ‘one’ is ubiquitous and fondly used in compounds, in words like wan man ( ワンマン , ‘one man,’ meaning ‘autocrat’, as in wan man basu - ‘bus without a conductor’), wan pata-n ( ワンパターン , ‘one pattern,’ meaning repetitive or insipid) or wan pi-su ( ワンピース , ‘one piece,’ i.e. a one-piece dress), or in hybrids like wangiri ( ワン切り , letting the phone ring just once to, for example, let the other person know that one is ready to be picked up etc.) (cf. also Matsuda 1986: 48). Interestingly, the Japanese government - the very same government which has proclaimed that loanwords have become a threat to Japanese and has promised to curb their use - has recently been known to use an increasing number of English loans in documents or in naming projects. NHK, Japan’s national television channel, in a survey conducted in the 1980ies found out that out of 11,835 names of local government projects some 2,970 (25.2%) contained gairaigo, i.e. Western loans (cf. Tomoda 1999: 243). According to Tomoda, loanwords used by local authorities or the national government often show a “a tendency to use unclear but modernsounding names which do not provide much indication of what the project is actually about” (Tomoda 1999: 244), while a particularity of gairaigo used in documents is “their vagueness of meaning when removed from context. Words such as haibijon [high vision] sound ‘good’, ‘modern’ and ‘new’ due to the inclusion of hai (high), a word which has long been used to denote ‘modern’, but beyond this its meaning is unclear” (245). Stanlaw (1987), too, maintains that [t]he curious thing, however, is that, while officially the Japanese government is somewhat negative concerning this encroachment of English, government department names and documents seem to reflect, if anything, a greater use of loanwords than might be found even in the private sector (Stanlaw 1987: 104). Thus, English has pervaded the Japanese language down to almost every level of society. Hoffer (2002) mentions that “[o]ne of the few areas where English has not made an impact is in religious ceremonies where the sacred languages are preserved” (Hoffer 2002: 269). But beyond this, there seem to be no limits to the inclusion of gairaigo into even the basics of Japanese life. <?page no="105"?> 105 5.4 Phonetic features All English words undergo a process of phonetic adaptation when they are incorporated into the Japanese language system. The Japanese linguistic system only permits vowels or consonant-vowel couples; there is no way to phonetically integrate mere consonants with the exception of ‘n’. This necessitates that all words that include CC constructions be modified by inserting a vowel between the consonant clusters or after consonant endings. Therefore, English ‘bus’ becomes Japanese basu ( バス , with the vowel ‘u’ inserted to make pronunciation easier), ‘ham’ becomes hamu ( ハム ), ‘goal’ becomes go-ru ( ゴール ) and ‘pet bottle’ turns into petto bottoru ( ペットボッ トル ). The more modifications have to be applied to an English word the more it becomes alienated from its original source. Thus, ‘McDonald’s’ turns into makudonarudo ( マクドナルド , shortened to maku in informal speech) and ‘Christmas’ becomes kurisumasu ( クリスマス ) (cf. also Stanlaw 2005: 73). This of course makes it difficult for native speakers of English to recognize such ‘Japanized’ words, but on the other hand it not only helps integrate them into the Japanese phonetic system but also naturalize them to Japanese ears. The intake of English words happens in two ways, through borrowing by eye and borrowing by ear, which sometimes results in the same word being borrowed twice with two different spellings. Examples of words which seem to have been borrowed by eye rather than by ear are nyu-su ( ニ ュース ), ‘news’, which was imported with a voiceless syllable ending while in English the ‘s’ is actually voiced, or motto- ( モットー ), ‘motto’, which differs from the English word in the implementation of a double consonant where there is no glottal stop between the two ‘t’s in English. Other words, however, are introduced based on an auditory intake of the original word. The term ‘jitterbug’, for example, was brought into Japanese as jiruba ( ジル バ ), the ‘r’ in which results probably from the American pronunciation of the double ‘t’ as a double ‘d’. Suka-to ( スカート ) for ‘skirt’, mishin ( ミシン ) for ‘sewing machine’, and usutaso-su ( ウスターソース ) for ‘Worcestershire sauce’ or purin ( プリン ) for ‘pudding’ are other examples for a borrowing by ear (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 91/ 2). Another modification concerns vowels and certain consonants unknown to the Japanese. Roughly speaking, Japanese has only five vowels - [a], [e], [i], [o], [u] - the Japanese [a] substituting for the English [æ], [∂], [Λ] and it is lacking the English consonants [v], [], [ð], [ž], [l]. Therefore, barē stands for both ballet and volleyball, basu for bus and bath, [raito] for light and right. Since [l] is always changed into [r], deadlock is pronounced [deddo rokku] here, which led [people] to take the second constituent of the original word for rock. This misunderstanding was powerful enough to spawn a curious idiom “deddo <?page no="106"?> 106 rokku ni nori ageru” (lit. go on a dead rock) which actually signifies “come to a deadlock” (Matsuda 1986: 49). As these examples show, the phonetic assimilation of English words into Japanese leads to several cases of homophonous terms and as a consequence also to misunderstandings, not so much amongst Japanese, whose mother tongue is already full of homophones, as between Japanese and foreigners who are not yet accustomed to Japanese phonetic patterns and loanword assimilation rules. I will not go into all the details of phonetic loanword integration, as they are not of primary interest here. Suffice it to mention those above since they create semantic ambiguities which have to be taken into account in the research for this paper. 5.5 Morphological features On the morphological level, there are several processes of loanwordformation that can be observed, but truncation, acronym formation, affixing and compounding are among the most frequent. 5.5.1 Clipping Loanwords that undergo the process of truncation, or clipping, are abbreviated by cutting off the latter part of the word. Examples given by Stanlaw (2005: 75) include homo from ‘homosexual’, kiro ( キロ ) from ‘kilometer’ and ‘kilogram’, roke ( ロケ ) from ‘location’ (of a film), puro ( プロ ) from ‘professional’, reji ( レジ ) from (cash) ‘register’, su-pa- ( スーパー ) for ‘supermarket’, depa-to ( デパート ) for ‘department store’, terebi ( テレビ ) for ‘television’, apato ( アパート ) for ‘apartment’ or ea kon ( エアコン ) for ‘air conditioner’. It has also been argued that English loanwords lose their inflectional endings when they enter the Japanese language. This becomes apparent in words like sarari-man ( サラリーマン , ‘salaried man’), ko-nbi-fu ( コーンビーフ , ‘corned beef’), or in surisutoraiku ( スリーストライク , ‘three strikes’) (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 75 citing Sonoda 1975). The following table, adapted from Loveday (1996: 143), demonstrates how this process works. 1.) Clipping of single words illustration > irasuto building > biru guarantee > gyara, ‘performance fee’ cash register > reji <?page no="107"?> 107 2.) Compound with one clipped element taitoru-bakku (< title + back[ground], ‘background scene with titles’) omu-raisu (< ome[lette] + rice) masu-komi (< mass + comm[unication]) nyū-aka (< new + aca[demics]) bodi-kon (< body + con[scious]) 3.) Compounds with both elements clipped dan-pa (< dan[ce] + pa[rty]) han-suto (< hun[ger] + st[rike]) en-suto (< en[gine] + sto[p], ‘engine breakdown’) wa-puro (< wo[rd] + pro[cessor]) ame-futo (< Ame[rican] + foot[ball]) Table 15: Examples for loanword clipping 5.5.2 Blends Compounds and blends are another major category in Japanese loanwordformation. Compounding is being widely seen as the creating force of about two-thirds of all English loanwords in Japanese (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 75). In the case of blends the process overlaps with that of truncation or clipping described above. This category is especially prominent with socalled Made-in-Japan-English as the following examples show. The variety of examples underlines the prominence that this process holds in the Japanese language. Again, the table has been taken and adapted from Loveday (1996: 142f). 1.) Noun + Noun imēji-chenji (< image change), often truncated to imechen koin-rokkā (< coin locker) gasorin-sutando (< gasoline stand, ‘petrol station’) shugā-katto (< sugar + cut, ‘reduction in sugar’) furonto-gurasu (< front + glass, ‘windscreen’) 2.) Noun + Preposition imēji-appu/ daun (< image + up/ down, ‘image improvement/ impairment’) bēsu-appu/ daun (< base + up/ down, ‘raising/ lowering average salary’) kosuto-appu/ daun (< cost + up/ down, ‘raising/ lowering of costs’) gōru-in (< goal + in, ‘scoring a goal’) shīzun-ofu (< season + off, ‘off season’) 3.) Preposition + Noun ōbā-dokutā (< over + doctor, ‘surplus of those holding doctorates’) ōbā sukiru (< over + skill, ‘surplus of skilled workers’) ōbā doraggu (< over + drug, ‘overdose’) <?page no="108"?> 108 4.) Noun + Verb enjin-sutoppu (< engine + stop, ‘car engine breakdown’) dokutā-sutoppu (< doctor + stop, ‘doctor’s orders to stop’) bebī-sutoppu (< baby + stop, ‘abortion’) botoru-kīpu (< bottle + keep, ‘keeping a bottle of alcohol with one’s name on as a regular customer’) 5.) (Clipped) Verb + Noun engēji-ringu (< engage + ring, ‘engagement ring’) purē-gaido (< play + guide, ‘ticket agency for all entertainment’) sutāto-rain (< start[ing] + line) setto-rōshon (< set[ting] + lotion) furai pan (< fry[ing] + pan) sumōku chīzu (< smok[ed] + cheese) 6.) Adjective + Noun nō-katto (< no + cut, ‘uncensored’) nō-tacchi (< no + touch, ‘nothing to do with’) nō-airon (< no + iron, ‘non-iron’) hai-tīn (< high + teen, ‘person in late teens’) hai-misu (< high + miss, ‘elderly spinster’) hai-sensu (< high + sense, ‘stylish’) rō-tīn (< low + teen, ‘person in early teens’) mai-kā (< my + car, ‘private car’) mai-hōmu (< my + home, adjective, ‘a homeand family-centered way of life’) 7.) Verb + Verb gō-sutoppu (< go + stop, ‘traffic lights’) 8.) Affixation misu-kopī (< mis- + copy, ‘failed photocopy’) semi-hando-mēdo (< semi- + hand-made) korekusshonā (< collection + -er) 9.) Adjective + Noun + Noun wan-man-kā (< one man car, ‘one-man bus, bus without a conductor’) 10.) Acronym + Noun NHK anaunsā (< N[ippon] H[ōsō] K[yōkai], ‘Japan Broadcasting Association’ + announcer) CM songu (< C[ommercial] M[essage] + song, ‘radio or TV jingle’) Table 16: Examples for loanword blends In many of these cases we can observe an immanent lack of syntactic and morphological features present in the donor language, English in this case. The reason for these rather peculiar patterns of loanword integration and <?page no="109"?> 109 compounding can be found in the patterns used for integrating Chinese loans some 1.200 years ago which have since become a paradigm for the way the Japanese deal with foreign words entering the language. Loveday mentions that Chinese words were “almost entirely indeclinable and monomorphemic” (1996: 140). In addition, Chinese was extremely resistant to any formal word class analysis…extraordinary freedom [was enjoyed by] almost any word…to enter into what one might call atypical syntactic functions; nouns can function like verbs; verbs and adjectives, likewise, may be used like nouns or adverbs, depending on the syntactic and semantic context…most words [could] function as other parts of speech depending on their place in the sentence (Loveday 1996: 140, citing Norman 1988: 87). This appears to provide an explanation for the seemingly loose ways in which Japanese handles syntactic and morphological features of English loans, the clipping of morphological features like plural or progressive form, or the tendency to convert verbs into nouns (engl. ‘get’ becomes jap. getto suru, ゲットする , literally ‘to make a get’) and similar assimilative processes. Especially the last case, however, is in great part due to the syntactic structures of Japanese which make it impossible to use an English verb in its original form and requires it to be nominalized and applied like a cluster of Chinese characters which in turn can be verbalized by adding the auxiliary verb suru (‘to make’). However, once the loanwords are integrated into the Japanese language, the borders of their original syntactical functions start breaking down, making the shift from verb to noun to adjective possible. 5.5.3 Verbalization Yet another way of assimilation of English-based loanwords to Japanese morphology consists in the direct verbalization of clipped loan-nouns, resulting in the new words being inflected like Japanese verbs rather than being treated as nouns. Examples are memoru ( メモる ), deriving from English ‘memo(randum)’ and meaning ‘to take a memo,’ or demoru ( デモる ), from ‘demonstration,’ meaning ‘to demonstrate,’ as well as makuru ( マク る ), from ‘McDonald’s’, meaning ‘going to eat at McDonald’s’. The latter appears to no longer be widely used, but it shows the ingenuity and flexibility of the Japanese language in creating new words (cf. also Hoffer 1990: 8/ 9). 5.5.4 Hybrids Another feature of Japanese compounding is the frequent use of hybrids, of compounds, therefore, which are created by melting a Japanese word with an English loanword. This process, too, has become so firmly established in Japanese that it is not seen as strange or unnatural. Examples are shirubai <?page no="110"?> 110 ( 白バイ , Japanese shiro - 白 - ‘white’ + English ‘bicycle’ > bai, a white police motorcycle) or kuchikomi ( 口コミ , Japanese kuchi - 口 - ‘mouth’ + English ‘communication’ > komi, meaning by-word-of-mouth communication). Some of these hybrids have already claimed a lasting place in Japanese vocabulary, like tonkatsu ( 豚カツ , from Japanese ton - 豚 - ‘pork’ and English ‘cutlet’ > katsu, which is a pork cutlet fried in bread crumbs) or karaoke ( カラオケ , from Japanese kara - 空 - ‘empty, without’ and English ‘orchestra’ > oke, that ominous and popular spare time activity in which people sing to recorded tunes of their choosing with the lyrics displayed on a screen) (cf. Matsuda 1986: 55). 5.5.5 Japanese word formation rules In general, one can say that the word-creation processes for loanwords in Japanese are modeled closely after the standard word-formation processes from within the original Sino-Japanese linguistic pool. This also explains the Japanese predilection for clippings which we find abundantly in loanword formations. This process is often used in Japanese with longclustered words to save time or make a text more reader-friendly. The more significant and meaning-defining parts of a cluster of characters are chosen and combined with one another to create a clipped version of the same word. Thus, Nagoya Daigaku ( 名古屋大学 ), ‘Nagoya University’, becomes Meidai ( 名大 ) but refers to the same university (mei being an alternate - Chinese - reading of the character ‘ 名 ’, whose Japanese reading is na), in same way as Tōkyō Daigaku ( 東京大学 ), ‘Tokyo University’, is shortened to Tōdai ( 東大 ). Another example is the longish word Jidōhanbaiki ( 自 動販売機 ) or ‘vending machine’ which is usually clipped to Jihanki ( 自販機 ). This language ecology is an important factor in Japanese word-formation and usage and therefore inevitably also affects loanwords. The following table - contrasted to the last table - shows some of these parallels in word formation between loanwords and native words (adapted from Loveday 1996: 146f). 1.) Noun + noun god + wind: 神風 kami-kaze, ‘suicide plane’ art + person: 芸者 gei-sha, ‘traditional hostess skilled in various arts’ 2.a.) Noun + verb ~ prepositional meaning value + up: 値上げ ne-age, ‘increase in price’ value + down: 値下げ ne-sage, ‘cut in price’ 2.b.) Noun + relational noun ~ preposition direction + up: 向上 kō-jō, ‘progress’ <?page no="111"?> 111 3.) Relational noun ~ preposition + noun up + person: 上人 shō-nin, ‘exceptional person’ behind + aid: 後援 kō-en, ‘support, patronage’ 4.a.) Noun + verb in Kunyomi (Japanese reading) person + kill: 人殺し hito-goroshi, ‘murder’ flower + see: 花見 hana-mi, ‘cherry-blossom viewing’ 4.b.) Noun + verb in Onyomi (Chinese reading) middle + stop: 中止 chū-shi, ‘cancel’ 5. a) (Clipped/ no suffix) verb + noun in Kunyomi preserve (ike[ru]) + flower (hana): 生花 ike-bana, ‘flower arrangement’ sleep (ne[ru]) + sake: 寝酒 ne-zake, ‘nightcap’ 5.b.) Verb + noun in Onyomi see + thing: 見物 ken-butsu, ‘sightseeing’ enter + hospital: 入院 nyū-in, ‘hospitalization’ 6.a) Adjective (i-stem) + noun old + book: 古本 furu-hon, ‘secondhand book’ 6.b.) Adjective (na-Adjective) base + noun safe + zone: 安全地帯 anzen-chitai, ‘safety zone’ 6.c.) Pseudo-prefix adjectival noun + noun new + constitution: 新憲法 shin-kenpō, ‘new constitution’ Table 17: Examples of general Japanese word formation rules 5.6 Syntactic impact It has been argued by many linguists that the exposure to Western languages and especially to English is beginning to alter Japanese syntax to a certain extent. The use of pronouns appears to have been significantly affected by the contact to Western countries, their languages and ideologies. Stanlaw notes that although personal pronouns such as kare (‘he’) or kanojo (‘she’) do exist in Japanese, traditionally, these were far less frequently used than in Western languages. However, many linguists have noted a substantial increase in their use over the last century or so, an innovation thought by some to be traceable to the influence of English (Stanlaw 2005: 78). And indeed, personal testimony by Japanese educated in the immediate postwar gives ample proof of that influence. I still remember vividly how strange and amusing the translation lessons of English into Japanese struck me when I was taught [English] for the first time. The frequent repetition of kare (he) and kanojo (she) astonished me in that classroom. Then, at age thirteen, I knew the use of these two pronouns, but had nev- <?page no="112"?> 112 er felt the necessity of using them, because we Japanese can rather freely dispense with sentence subjects, especially personal pronouns without causing ambiguity, and besides the two pronouns kare and kanojo sounded foreign and stilted to me (Matsuda 1986: 72). In an article published in the Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese in 1979, Akira Miura, who has written several books on anglicisms in Japanese, suggests there are, in all, 14 grammatical innovations attributable to the influence of European languages, above all English. Amongst those are: inanimate things as subjects, frequent use of pronouns, tense, long prenoun modifiers, conjunctions, comparisons, relative pronouns, personification, prefixes, suffixes, new idioms (e.g. kai o motsu - 会を持つ - literally ‘to hold a meeting,’ formerly exclusively kai o hiraku - 会を開く - or ‘to open a meeting’) and punctuation marks (cf. Morrow 1987: 56). Pronouns have also had an impact on the coinage of new words. The English pronoun ‘my’ has been imported into Japanese as mai and has hence been used as a prefix to denote individual ownership or individuality in general. It has been attached to many English-derived loans and has created a variety of new expressions like mai kā ( マイカー , ‘one’s own car’), mai ho-mu ( マイホーム , literally ‘one’s own home’ but used as an adjective referring to someone for whom family is more important than anything else), mai bu-mu ( マイブーム , meaning things that one is interested in at the moment) or mai pe-su ( マイペース , ‘one’s own pace’). The use of mai is, by the way, not restricted to the first person singular but rather refers to the person talked about, i.e. one can ask a friend what his/ her mai-bu-mu is. This prefixation, according to some linguists, has enhanced the possibilities to express individuality in Japanese which had been difficult to do without sounding selfish before. Kelley (1990), too, sees this “introduction of Western ego-centric ideas into Japan” as an “important point of influence.” He adds that “[s]ince in both classical Chinese and pre-modern Japanese there was very little emphasis on the ‘first person’, or indeed, on the use of any of the possessive or other forms of pronouns, the egocentricity implicit or explicit in certain words and concepts coming from the West has had a clear influence” (Kelley 1990: 115/ 6). Many words of foreign origin, however, are not visible on first sight, unlike direct loans, and therefore their influence on Japanese life and culture is not so easily discernable, because until the loanword boom started through in the latter part of the 20 th century, many new concepts and ideas were imported through loan translations. Words like minshushugi ( 民主主 義 ), ‘democracy’, or reisen ( 冷戦 ), ‘Cold War’, have been assimilated into Japanese even on the orthographic level and thus make the count of loanwords as well as a conjecture of their true impact a difficult undertaking (cf. also Kelley 1990: 115; 125). These hidden loans, however, will not be part of my research since none of their features are perceived as foreign. <?page no="113"?> 113 5.7 Semantic change The influx of loanwords does not stop at the surface level. Their reach goes further down to the semantic level where they are altered and adapted to the recipient language’s needs. The same, on a much broader scale, is invariably also valid for the Japanese gairaigo. The three main processes involved are semantic restriction, semantic shift and semantic extension. In the case of semantic restriction the particular word has several meaning in its original language but only one in the recipient language. For example, English ‘machine’ becomes Japanese mishin ( ミシン ), but denotes only sewing machines. Another example would be German ‘Karte’, Japanese karute ( カルテ ), which refers only to a patient’s chart in the hospital. We speak of semantic shift when there is a slight shift in meaning between a word’s original meaning and its meaning in the recipient language. Thus, Japanese baiku ( バイク ) denotes English ‘motorbike,’ sain ( サ イン ) refers to ‘signature’ (originally from ‘to sign’ but now used both as a noun and verb), sutairu ( スタイル ) means ‘figure, shape’, and suma-to ( スマ ート ) denotes ‘slim, slender’. A more radical case of semantic shift took place in the case of the loanword feministo ( フェミニスト , ‘feminist’), which is not a feminist in the sense of the Western hemisphere, but rather someone who treats women with respect, a gentlemen as it were. Finally, semantic extension describes loanwords which acquire new and different meanings after their implementation in the recipient language. Japanese sa-bisu ( サービス , ‘service’), for example, refers to a complementary gift given by a business establishment or a restaurant to a customer. Another example is Japanese dorai ( ドライ , ‘dry’), which does not refer to humidity, but means ‘unsentimental’ (cf. Loveday 1996: 79f; Morrow 1987: 52). Another semantic dimension to the loanword-issue is that of parallel denotative but differing connotational meaning connected with loanwords and their Japanese equivalents. Many loanwords, thus, denote the same concept as a native Japanese word, but are used in different contexts because they carry slightly different, non-predisposed meaning. Sometimes, according to Tomoda (1999), such gairaigo are also used for euphemisms. For example, rōn (loan) and kurejitto (credit) have very different images to shakkin and geppu. If I say ‘rōn de kuruma o kaimashita’ [I bought a car on credit] instead of ‘shakkin de kuruma o kaimashita’, the effect is different. The gairaigo seems less embarrassing and does not bring the direct image of financial difficulty that the Japanese word does (Tomoda 1999: 243). Therefore, gairaigo can be used to express things in a way which is not so burdened with acculturated use. Another semantic function of loanwords is that their meaning is not as definite as the meaning of their Japanese counterparts. Tomoda (1999) attributes this to “a feeling of reality which <?page no="114"?> 114 seems linked to the vagueness as well as to the newness of these terms. Since their meanings are not concrete, they can stimulate the imagination of the listener or reader while evading the reality which clarity of meaning can bring” (Tomoda 1999: 243). This is a valid point since most gairaigo originate from European languages with which there is no immediate historical linguistic connection. This causes a loanword’s meaning to be allocated only after its arrival in the language, sometimes with very little relation to the original meaning. This process along with the vagueness resulting from the newness of the linguistic constituents (i.e. morphemes of a foreign nature) nourishes an idiosyncratic usage of these new terms, thus further adding to their ambiguity of meaning. It should be added at this point that Japanese is, by its very nature, a semantically ambiguous language whose transmitted meaning depends very much on the context within which it is communicated. The frequent omission of the subject in sentences is a prime indicator of this peculiarity, and of the importance of context in Japanese. The ambiguity of gairaigo, therefore, appears quite fitting for this language and its context-dependent, evanescent semantics. Of course, gairaigo cannot all be generalized into having an undefined, blurred meaning. Such claims are mostly valid in fields where the imported item is of an abstract nature in its donor language already, and they cannot be made to the same extent for concrete terms like basu ( バス , ‘bus’), takushi- ( タクシー , ‘taxi’), ko-hi- ( コーヒー , ‘coffee’), doa ( ドア , ‘door’), beddo ( ベッド , ‘bed’) or ke-ki ( ケーキ , ‘cake’), where the original meaning tends to concur (at least in parts) with the applied meaning in the recipient language. These, on the other hand, are seen by many as an intrusion of a foreign culture into the Japanese home-culture, with Western concepts threatening traditional Japanese concepts in present-day society. However, as Loveday (1996) maintains, “since the Japanese have succeeded in preserving - admittedly with changes and adaptions - fundamental aspects of their institutions, norms, and values in the face of Western models and pressures throughout the last and this century [the 20 th century], it seems likely that they will continue to maintain certain native cultural ways” (Loveday 1996: 81). Loveday also argues that in many cases there are “pairs of semantic opposition”, with the wago or kango referring to a phenomenon characteristic of Japanese culture and the gairaigo denoting the ‘Western version’ of the same phenomenon. Such semantic oppositional pairs would be shōji ( 障子 , Japanese sliding door) - doa ( ドア , Western style door), futon ( 布団 , quilted bedding) - beddo ( ベッド , Western style bed), or tatami ( 畳 , matting) - kapetto ( カーペット , carpet) etc. (cf. Loveday 1996: 81). While there is undoubtedly truth to this statement, in some cases the borders between these semantic opposites have begun to break down. One of the examples often <?page no="115"?> 115 cited is that of gohan ( ご飯 ) and raisu ( ライス , ‘rice’). Gohan used to be explained as rice served in a rice bowl in the traditional way as a side dish to Japanese food, while raisu denoted rice served on a plate along with Western food. Recently, however, some restaurants have been known to use raisu for Japanese-style food as well. It is difficult to tell whether this is exemplary of a change such semantic opposites are subjected to or whether this is merely the exception to the rule. Considering that the difference between gohan and raisu is only a situational or contextual one while that of the examples above is also conceptual, it is rather likely that most of these opposite pairs will remain in their complementary positions (cf. also chapter 5.2.1). 5.8 Creative uses of anglicisms Given that the creative processes of English-based loans in Japanese are so innovative it seems logical that the use of such resourcefully conceived loanwords would be similarly creative. The vagueness in meaning of many words in the Japanese lexicon, especially of wago (what some people have somewhat elevatedly referred to as the “ephemeral nature” of Japanese), permits their usage in many different and new contexts and generates an atmosphere of creativity. Additionally, the many homophones within the Japanese lexicon have given birth to a tradition of word-puns, which is ubiquitous amongst Japanese people. Loanwords, therefore, constitute a whole new resource and a new orthographical way for word play, which is an intrinsic part of Japanese culture. Already the Chinese characters, or kanji ( 漢字 ), offered an almost infinite supply for creativity, through equal readings of different characters several messages could be conveyed with the use of select characters. Stanlaw (2005) provides an interesting example for this when he mentions an advertisement on the back cover of the June 2001 issue of Gengo (‘Language’). The ad says: これは読です (kore wa doku desu, ‘This is a “ 読 ”). The pun in this sentence lies in the reading of the Chinese character ‘ 読 ’, doku. This character is normally not read this way (i.e. the orginal Chinese reading) when it stands alone, but it is used as a verb with a verb-suffix, mu ( む ), as yomu ( 読む ), ‘to read’, but in combination with other characters its Chinese reading applies, as in dokusho ( 読書 ) - ‘reading’. The reason why the character stands alone here without the verbal suffix is to evoke the Chinese reading to make way for a homophony with another character with the same reading - doku ( 毒 ), ‘poison’. The sentence would thus mean: ‘This is poison.’ However, within the Japanese reader, this evokes yet another association. Doku ( 毒 ), the character for ‘poison’, is part of a compound, namely chūdoku ( 中毒 ), which means ‘addict, addictive’. The sen- <?page no="116"?> 116 tence thus becomes ‘This is addictive’. But thanks to the chain of associations triggered by the use of the character ‘ 読 ’ the message is: ‘Reading is addictive’. The chain of implications spans from yomu ( 読む ), ‘to read’, via doku-sho ( 読書 ), ‘reading’, to doku ( 毒 ), ‘poison’, and finally chūdoku ( 中毒 ), ‘addictive’, and all of these meanings are included in the final message (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 143/ 4). For a non-Japanese speaker, these associations may seem a little far-fetched, but for the average Japanese speaker this is a normal process. The same method that applies to wordplays with homophonous kanji also applies to loanwords. The linguistic ambiguities that emerge from their use are cleverly implemented to generate new layers of meaning. Both Hoffer (1990) and Stanlaw (2005) give several interesting examples of creative use of loanword-kanji homophony used in ads or in names, like that of a company with various clubs across Japan which calls itself ‘ 友＆愛 ’. The Onyomi (Chinese reading) for ‘ 友 ’ is yuu and denotes ‘friend’, while ‘ 愛 ’ is pronounced ai and means ‘love’. The full reading of this name, then, is ‘yuu & ai’ which is homophonous to English ‘You and I’. Hoffer interprets: “The meaning of the whole is a combination which is mutually reinforcing: you and I, friends who like each other. For places where friends meet, it is an interesting and catchy name” (Hoffer 1990: 10). Stanlaw mentions an advertising campaign by JAL (Japan Air Lines) in 1983 in which packaged tours were promoted with the slogan ‘ I NEED 遊 ’. The character ‘ 遊 ’ - meaning ‘to play, to be idle, to take a holiday’ - is pronounced yuu and from this derives its double meaning of ‘I need you (i.e. a packaged tour)’ and ‘I need a vacation’, with both messages reinforcing each other (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 161). The coinciding of kanji pronunciation with English vocabulary offers a rich linguistic pool for use in the advertising industry as also the next two examples show, which both revolve around the name of a peninsula southwest of Tokyo named Izu ( 伊豆 ). Hoffer provides an example of an ad used by the Japan National Railways to promote tourism to Izu. The ad reads: “This 伊豆 Map” (“This Izu Map”). What sounds like a case of erratic grammar is actually another example of a reinforced message. The Japanese transcription for the English verb ‘is’ is izu ( イズ ) because of the voiced ‘s’ in ‘is’. Therefore the pronunciation for the peninsula Izu overlaps with the pronunciation for ‘is’, the message thus being ‘This is a map of Izu’, reinforced through the double meaning of Izu (cf. Hoffer 1990: 11). Stanlaw’s example uses the same pattern. In a campaign started by the tourist association of the Izu Peninsula the phrase ‘THIS IS 伊豆 ’ (‘This is Izu’) was used. [P]ictures of the many famous places in the area were shown in the background in beautiful colour while this striking phrase jumped right out of the middle of the page. As the Izu Peninsula is a very popular travel spot […] this pun is very <?page no="117"?> 117 effective advertising. Ideas of ‘THIS is it! ’, ‘This IS Izu’, and ‘Izu is IT! ’ all simultaneously come into mind as this intriguing word play casts a hold on an unsuspecting reader (Stanlaw 2005: 161). Such examples can be found on an everyday basis and show the Japanese people’s predilection for wordplays and puns, and they offer an interesting resource for linguists and semioticists to investigate, as well as for mere passersby who find pleasure in reading and deciphering these highly creative uses of language. For Hoffer, “these creative uses of English loans signal one of the major late stages in the borrowing process”, and they bear certain similarities to the period of massive Chinese borrowings in the 8 th century A.D., for “the proliferation of uses of the loans and their introduction into almost all areas of Japanese language use is similar if not equivalent to the massive influence of the Chinese language in Japan one and onehalf millennia ago (Hoffer 1990: 11). In fact, Western loanwords have reached proportions that have given rise to fears that Chinese words are being ‘devoured’ by them ( 「漢語が外来語に食われる」 ) (cf. Jinnouchi 2007: 130). 5.9 Popular criticism Japan, different from other countries like France, has no laws or official rules concerning loanwords, but rather enjoys a playful freedom with regards to the import and use of foreign material, something which has had a long tradition in Japan and has never been questioned. In the age of mass media, however, the number of people engaging in a critical discourse on loanwords is on the rise. There are several points which are particularly the focus of criticisms. 5.9.1 Inconsistent loanword spelling and pronunciation As I mentioned above, the spelling of loanwords, i.e. the transliteration of certain foreign phonemes into Japanese varies greatly depending on whether the respective words were borrowed by eye or ear. These different modes of borrowing result in certain phonemes being realized in different ways within different loanwords, and thus in certain inconsistencies which some people perceive as problems. It is very betraying, though, that most of the people who lament the different phonetic realizations of loanwords (exclusively, by the way, of English-based loanwords) as being an impediment are non-Japanese. The following is an excerpt of an essay in the Mainichi Shinbun written by a native English speaker. He complains in Japanese: 信じてもらえないかもしれないが、ボクは外来語が苦手なんだ。発音は紛らわ しいもん。「猫の図」はキャットのカット。長い単語になると、途中で障害物 競走をやらされている気持ちになる。音節ごとに、陥れようと手ぐすねひいて <?page no="118"?> 118 難問が持つ。「語彙」は「 vocabulary 」もすらすら言えるが、片仮名で言えと 言われたら．．．．「ボ」を伸ばすか伸ばさないか、「カ」か「キャ」、 「ブ」か「ビュ」か、「ラリ」はいいとして最後に音引きが要るかどうか。も ういいや。辞書で調べよう。「ボキャブラリー」。日本語を勉強して十五年。 一度もちゃんと発音したことがないと思う（大石２００１：２０５）。 You may not believe it, but loanwords [in Japanese] are my Achilles’ heel. After all, their pronunciation is confusing. “A cat’s cut” becomes kyatto no katto. When the word gets longer it feels like a hurdle race. After each syllable I have to look out for traps. I can say both ‘goi’ [Japanese for ‘vocabulary’] and ‘vocabulary’ smoothly, but if I was told to pronounce it in Katakana…. Should I elongate the bo or not, is it ka or kya, bu or byu, and even if rari poses no problem, there is still the question whether to lengthen the last vowel or not. I’ve had enough, let’s look it up in the dictionary. It’s bokyaburari-. I have been studying Japanese for 15 years, and yet I believe I have never pronounced a loanword correctly (Ōishi 2001: 205). (my translation) What on the surface seems like a singular funny anecdote is really but an example of an outright wave of opinions mostly uttered by foreigners in Japan, which, thanks to the high status that English enjoys in Japan, are quite influential also amongst Japanese scholars who join in the complaints and bemoan the lack of rules for Katakana words. Ōishi (2001), for example, elaborates: ある単語では「キャ」と発音したり、ある単語では「カ」と発音している。例 えば、 ca- は cap （キャップ）、 career （キャリア）の場合は「キャ」であるが、 casual の場合はカジュアルで「カ」と発音している（大石２００１：２０ ８）。 [The English ‘ca’] is sometimes realized as kya, sometimes as ka. For example, in the case of ‘cap’ (kyappu) or ‘career’ (kyaria) ‘ca’ is realized as kya, but in the case of ‘casual’ (kajuaru), it is pronounced as ka (Ōishi 2001: 208). (my translation) It should not come as a surprise that such incongruities might confuse foreign learners of Japanese, but this is not the point. The point is that this problem of JFL learners is used as a basis for criticizing loanwords altogether (also see chapter 8). No attention is paid to the linguistic reasons for these differences which, incidentally, do not trouble native Japanese speakers who do not bother questioning the underlying reasons. There is no mentioning of different dialect areas from which these words might have been imported to account for different pronunciations, no mentioning of borrowing by eye or ear to explain multiple spellings, but merely a reference to problems encountered by foreign language speakers of Japanese. As troublesome as such differences might be for foreigners learning the Japanese language, it should be pointed out that Kango (or Chinese words) are equally affected by them, but not involved in a discourse on the problems they pose to foreigners and how to accommodate them by synchro- <?page no="119"?> 119 nizing their pronunciation. Nozumi (1998) points out the following example: もっとも日本に入ってきた中国語は、時代により違いがある。その入ってきた 時代に応じて日本ではちがう読み方をするので、難しいことになる。たとえば 「行」という一字は、「修行」というときはギョウと読み、これは＜呉音＞と 言って、中国・揚子江河口地方の中国の発音が百済を通して日本に入って来た ものだ。「旅行」というときはコウと読み 、これは＜漢音＞と呼び、唐の時代 に都の長安地方の中国語の発音が入って来たものだ。「行灯」ではアンと読む が、これは＜唐宋音＞と呼び、杭州を中心とする地方の中国音が入って来たも のである（野角１９９８：４８）。 In the case of Chinese which entered Japanese in numbers unlike any other language, there are differences [in pronunciation] depending on the period of entry. Each different period resulted in different readings of the same characters, which causes many difficulties. For example, the character 「行」 is read as gyō in 「修行」 [shugyō], which is called the ‘Go-on’ pronunciation. It derives from the pronunciation common at the Yangtze River’s estuary and came into Japan through the country of Paekche [one of the old Korean kingdoms]. In the case of 「旅行」 [ryokō] it is pronounced kō, which is called ‘Kan-on’ pronunciation, entered Japanese during the Tang period, and is the Chinese pronunciation used in the area of Changan in [today’s Xian]. Finally, in the word 「行灯」 [Andon], it is read as an. This is called the ‘Tōsō-on’ pronunciation and derives from the pronunciation common in the Hangzhou region of China (Nozumi 1998: 48). (my translation) Considering that beside these pronunciations there is also a Japanese reading of Chinese characters and that this is only one example of a countless number of similar cases which form the lexical basis of the Japanese language, it is understandable that such facets of the language should pose considerable difficulties to both foreign learners of Japanese and the Japanese themselves when confronted with unknown or seldom used words. And yet, no one would ever even conceive the idea of criticizing these innumerable incongruities in Japanese and demand a standardization, and rightfully so. Foreign words are not imported arbitrarily; there is a method and a reason for the forms and pronunciations they get in the receiver language, historic reasons which cannot be merely brushed aside for the sake of convenience. This argument aimed at the seemingly random pronunciation and spelling of English-based loanwords in Japanese does not take into account these linguistic factors, nor does it consider the complex language system, but it merely focuses on the pronunciation problems that these loanwords pose to foreigners - a rather unsound and questionable form of criticism. 5.9.2 Lexical inconsistencies A similar point of criticism concerns the lexical and semantic level. Owing to the many sources of import, there are often different words denoting the <?page no="120"?> 120 same concept, but in different contexts. This is what a native English speaker criticizes in the following essay. いやに細かい使い分けをするから余計こんがらがっちゃう。ガラスでできた飲 み物用の容器はグラス。コーヒーはカップで飲むが、ビールはコップで飲む。 ビアガーデンで。「コップ」「ビール」と昔オランダ語経由で入ったやつが、 後からニュアンスや使用範囲を微妙に変えて「カップ」「ビア」と英語経由で 入ってきちゃったわけだ （大石２００１：２０６）。 I get too tangled up by these minute differentiations of use. A drinking vessel made of glas is called gurasu. Coffee is drunk from a kappu, but bi-ru [beer] from a koppu. In a biaga-den. Koppu and bi-ru are both words which entered Japanese through the Dutch and experienced a subtle change in nuance and in their range of use, while Kappu and bia both derive from English (Ōishi 2001: 206). (my translation) This semantic differentiation is apparently seen as a major problem for this essayist. What is not mentioned, though, is that such differentiation is not only present amongst loanwords but is a major characteristic of the Japanese language which differentiates very much between various uses for the same object, hence also the differentiation of the word ‘rice’ into the Chinese Gohan ( 御飯 ), the Japanese Meshi ( 飯 ) and the Anglicism Raisu ( ライ ス ), or into Shōji ( 障子 ) and doa ( ドア ) for the dichotomous concept of ‘door’ (Japanese-Western) (cf. also Stanlaw 2005: 14f; 79ff). Yet even though in rough terms these words denote the same universal concepts, each word’s semantic specifics are different. The case here is identical. The same object is referred to by different loans to denote different purposes of use. The fact that they sound similar but are written differently is owed to the fact that they derive from two related, but distinct languages, as the essayist mentions. It appears strange that while he mentions their difference in semantic usage he does not really accept it but sticks to his criticism that this constitutes too much differentiation and is unneeded. It may be worthwhile to note that English, too, uses ‘cup’ for coffee and ‘glass’ or ‘pint’ for beer, which makes this criticism even more bizarre. Frequently, as these examples have shown, Japanese loanwords of English origin are criticized by native speakers of English who seem to claim exclusive rights to the English language. Their goal is to rectify what they perceive as mistaken use of English-based loanwords in the Japanese language. If their concern was actually unintelligibilities in the Japanese language for JFL learners, these fervent critics would have to aim equally at all the other seeming ‘inconsistencies’ of the Japanese language which wait at every arm’s length and which cause more problems to foreigners than a few easily confusable Western loanwords. The nonexistence of such criticism suggests that the issue is not really about comprehension problems as much as it is criticism of ‘inappropriate’ use of linguistic material from the <?page no="121"?> 121 English language. That such criticism is uttered so publicly in Japanese newspapers gives testimony to the influence it has, this criticism of a foreigner struggling with a foreign language whose intricacies he is apparently too ethnocentric and too unwilling to understand. This is consistent with what some Japanese scholars have argued at several points in recent history (cf. chapter 2), when they called for a simplification of the language and its writing system for the sake of foreign learners - a quite unique way of language criticism which ignores native speakers’ opinions and problems to accommodate foreign speakers of Japanese. Having reached this point in the discussion of loanword creation, presence, and critique warrants a closer look at the various functions that these mostly English loanwords fulfill within the framework of the Japanese language and which give proof to their manifold uses and raison d’être. <?page no="123"?> 123 6 Functions of Japanese Anglicisms 6.1 The difficulty of creating a comprehensive model Loanwords serve various functions. Some of those are universal to all languages, such as the use of loanwords for words that express new concepts unknown to the receiving language or their use for the sake of prestige or group affiliation. These seem to be functions of loanwords all around the globe, with different languages being dominant, because of being prestigious, in different fields. Italian, for example, is renowned as the language of music, German used to be the language of medicine, and French is favored by some as the language of love or of philosophy. Other functions are language-specific, depending on the surrounding cultural and sociological context. Basically the same can be applied also to the Japanese language, the only difference being that a differentiation of loanword-usage according to the prestige of the donor language is no longer a valid factor in the face of the almost monopolistic influence exerted by the English language. According to some linguists, this position of strength the English language has gradually reached in the decades after 1945 has resulted in a homogenization of loans to the effect that older loanwords from French or German, for example, are frequently being replaced by newer loans originating from English. Miller (1967), for example, argues that “[b]y and large, whenever a loanword from French or German comes into conflict in modern Japan with a loanword from English, the English loan soon pushes it out of the picture” (Miller 1967: 243). His examples include the shift from German betto ( ベット , ‘Bett’) to English beddo ( ベッド , ‘bed’), from German burutto ( ブルット , ‘Blut’) to English buraddo ( ブラッド , ‘blood’) and finally from French konku-ru ( コンクール , ‘concours’) to English kontesuto ( コンテスト , ‘contest’) (Miller 1967: 243f). While the first two are indeed no longer commonly used, he was mistaken at least in the latter case, because konku-ru is still being widely used, especially in the field of music or movie contests, so instead of one loan eliminating the other, the two have come to cover different semantic fields. Matsuda (1986: 58), too, maintains that Miller’s generalizations go too far and names several cases where the English word was unable to replace the older loans from German or French. Such circumstantial contemplations notwithstanding, the functions of loanwords in the Japanese language show a great variety and lend support to propositions by linguists like Stanlaw (cf. 2005: 2) who maintain that, rather than speaking of loanwords from outside the language, English- <?page no="124"?> 124 motivated vocabulary items or English in general should be viewed as but another linguistic resource available within the language. Some of the models describing the functions of gairaigo, i.e. loanwords of non-Chinese origin, in the Japanese context concentrate on basic functions common to all languages, which disregards the cultural context almost entirely; others are more elaborate and go deep into Japan-specific details. To focus on the most elaborate models would go beyond the scope of this paper, necessitating a balanced approach to this question by providing a framework that takes into account the peculiarities without getting lost in too much detail. One difficulty in defining the functions of anglicisms in Japanese, according to Loveday (1996: 189), is that “borrowing constitutes only one type of contact among many others, such as hybridization, monolingual Anglicization, creative coining, acronyming, code-mixing, so that a complete functional explanation of the Japanese case must treat all these phenomena as a coherent whole”. No comprehensive model has yet been created to explain all implications and functions of loanword use in the rather special Japanese context. To define such a model would be a thesis of its own. It seems therefore sensible to focus on the core functions which are shared by the majority of loanwords. 6.2 The core functions of loanwords in Japanese Some of the main functions of Western loanwords in Japanese differ considerably from English loanwords in European languages, for example. Since there is no immediate or even intermediate historic and linguistic connection between the two languages, the important part of loanwords is not so much their original meaning than their often radically newly acquired meaning in the Japanese context and the connotations they carry. Image, thus, is often more important than content. Also, the factor of ‘Westernization’ adds a facet to the whole which is unknown within the European context, as a matter of course. In some cases, the borders between the various functions are not easy to draw. Almost every linguist tends to group them in a different manner. While some differentiate between, for example, the import of new concept vs. the import of new technologies and their vocabulary or between the function of prestige as against the function of fashion, others group those together into one. While I have decided to combine the former, I have kept the differentiation for the latter, because fashion words tend to have a shorter life span while prestige words often survive much longer until they are eventually seen as part of the normal corpus. This rarely happens with fashion words. <?page no="125"?> 125 6.2.1 Import of new concepts and ideas Naturally, loanwords as an embodiment of new concepts, new ideas, and new technologies have also played an important role in the case of Japanese. Ever since the opening of the secluded country in the mid-19 th century and the ensuing Meiji Restoration, Japan had been striving to catch up to the technologically advanced nations of the West. In the process, many new terms denoting newly imported items and concepts found their way into the language, some as direct loans, some as loan translations. Words like doa ( ドア , ‘door’), beddo ( ベッド , ‘bed’) or restoran ( レストラン , ‘restaurant’) permit a duality of terms, distinguishing between Japanese and Western realizations of similar concepts, while words like demokurashi- ( デ モクラシー , ‘democracy’, also loan-translated into minshushugi, 民主主義 ), sutoraiku ( ストライク , ‘strike’), or puraibashi- ( プライバシー , ‘privacy’) introduced completely new concepts formerly unknown to the Japanese. However, also simple and everyday things like fo-ku ( フォーク , ‘fork’), supu-n ( スプーン , ‘spoon’), sha-tsu ( シャーツ , ‘shirt’), or ji-nzu ( ジーンズ , ‘jeans’) fall into this category. Loveday (1996: 81) provides the following table of examples for lexical complementarity: Original Japanese Word Western-style, English-based loan tō/ shōji (=siliding door) doa (‘door’) futon (=quilted bedding) beddo (‘bed’) tatami (=matting) kāpetto (‘carpet’) zabuton (=thin cussion) kusshon (‘cushion’) hashi (=chopsticks) naifu, fōku, supūn (‘knife’, ‘fork’, ‘spoon’) kashi (=Japanese cakes) kēki, bisuketto (‘cake’, ‘biscuit’) amedama (=gluten sweets) kyandē (‘candy’) ryōriya (=restaurant serving only Japanese food) resutoran (‘restaurant’) kinoko (=mushrooms) masshurūmu (‘champignons’) Table 18: Complementary lexical dualities btw. loanwords and ‘natives’ (adapted from Loveday 1996: 81) When it comes to new technologies, it is easier to import an already existing designation for a new invention than to create one from scratch in one’s own language. Especially since the development in computer technologies and science are so rapid, it would require an unproportionally great effort to render everything into terms of Japanese origin, in our case. Simply put, it would be impractical. Thus, terms like ho-mupe-ji ( ホームページ , ‘homepage’), dejitaru kamera, often clipped to dejikame ( デジカメ , ‘digital camera’) or inta-netto ( インターネット , ‘Internet’) are imported unalteredly into the language (except for phonetic changes or clippings, in case of long- <?page no="126"?> 126 ish words) (cf. Holst 2000: 42f). This process allows for a quick dissemination of new technologies since such terms can be imported without any delay. These are the most obvious loans and those most likely to be called ‘borrowings’ since their Japanese meanings tend to be and remain for the most part identical to their meanings in the donor language. Such words are an expression of intercultural contact and exchange. 6.2.2 Status upgrading This function serves a socio-stylistic purpose; it is an aspect of ‘impression management’ (Loveday 1996: 202). The important reason for the choice of a loanword instead of a native word is, in this case, the more ‘estimable’ quality of the loanword, its contribution to the “imposition of a ‘better’ Japanese reality” (Loveday 1996: 202). Thus, in case of the loanword use for status upgrading, the important aspect lies not so much in the denotation (which it often shares with an ‘indigenous’ word) but in the connotational value of a loanword. The connotation, in this specific case, is the status of the donor language which resonates in such loans, and the air of sophistication it entails. To a certain extent, this functions overlaps with the function of image-building that will be dealt with later-on. Thus, guzzu puropo-za- ( グッズプロポーザー , ‘goods proposer’, i.e. ‘salesperson’) is as much an attempt of status upgrading as it wants to communicate a certain image. Above that, such namings are also used to address a certain clientele, a topic which an article in the Nihon Keizai Shinbun from 1990 discusses. カタカナで職種のイメージを一新し、若者や女性の関心を引きつけようという のが、企業側のもくろみ。 [...] 運送会社のアートコーポレーション [...] は引っ越し作業員の呼び名を「モービン グアドバイザー」に改め、求人活動をしている。引っ越しといえば重い荷物を 運ぶ「きつい仕事」。どちらかといえば若い人たちも敬遠しがちだ。そこで 「アドバイザー」の名をつけ、引っ越しの “ 専門家 ” である点をアピールするこ とにした。 […] 同じ運送業の共同サービス（東京）は、配送車の女性運転手を「キューポータ ーレディー」と呼ぶ。クイック（速い）の頭文字 Q に、ポーター（運び役）を 付けた。「なかなか男性の運転手が集まらず、女性の手を借りなければ仕事が 進まない。そのため名前をソフトにして女性受けを狙った」と採用担当者は説 明する（野角１９９８：２１ f ）。 Companies know that with the help of Katakana, the images of jobs can be renewed, and the interest of young people and women can be aroused [...] <?page no="127"?> 127 The transportation company Art Corporation [...] has replaced the names of their workers to ‘moving advisor’ in their recruitment activities. When people hear house-moving, they think of heavy things to carry, of hard work - to the effect that young people steer clear of this job offering. That is why they added the designation “advisor”, so as to appeal to people by emphasizing that they will be “experts” in house-moving. […] Another transportation company from Tokyo named Kyōdō Service calls their female delivery car drivers “Q-porter lady”, a designation that is made up of the first letter of ‘quick’ and ‘porter’. The corporate recruiter explains: “We couldn’t gather enough male drivers, so there was a need to appeal to women or else we wouldn’t have got the job done. That’s why we made the name softer, in order to appeal to women” (Nozumi 1998: 21f). (my translation) In these specific cases, this might have been successful; however, as Loveday accurately states, “[i]t is also important to bear in mind that items which originally started with an upgraded status can, over time, lose their positive semantic charging and end up connotatively neutral, or even negative” (Loveday 1996: 202). He gives the example of the fabled sarari-man ( サ ラリーマン , ‘white-collar worker’) whose positive connotations have mostly faded especially in young peoples’ usage where it has become something undesirable affiliated with a complete loss of freedom and independence. Therefore, such upgrading words are very much subject to change because eventually a word’s connotation of the new is often overtaken by the concept it denotes, and the changes in the evaluation of this concept is a mirror of a societal change of value. However, even if the process of upgrading is achieved through the use of foreign-language-resources, the possible downgrading of a word with time is mostly unconnected to the origin of the loanword unless the donor language has suffered a severe deterioration of its subjective status value. 6.2.3 Westernization Kokusaika ( 国際化 ), vaguely translatable as ‘internationalization’, is a Japanese trend that has its roots in the 1970ies, when Japan wanted to show the world a more international face than had been the custom before. In its course, among many other measures, English education was boosted, being regarded as the tool for an increased internationalization. This trend has also left its imprints on language in public space, with a large number of English words and phrases being present around every corner. Loveday (1996) defines this function as seeking “to fuse and blend foreign derivations into the native matrix in order to express and symbolize a new, internationalized Japanese identity that superficially appears to have much in common with the admired and idealized aspects of the prestigious, external model-culture and its members” (Loveday 1996: 202). This <?page no="128"?> 128 means that foreign language material is used in order to create a surface identity which is modeled after, in our case, American identity. Its realization, in most cases, is accomplished through what Loveday calls “monolingual encoding in the foreign language” (Loveday 1996: 202); that is, English words or phrases on public signs, shop signs, T-shirts, product descriptions, in advertisements and so forth. The main characteristic of this feature is that the use of loanwords is for the most part purely cosmetic, with no inherent message apparent other than the image communicated through their use. The decorative function of ‘romanized’ (i.e. written in the Latin alphabet, called rōmaji - ローマ字 , or ‘Roman letters’ - in Japanese) loanwords is most apparent in their use on T-shirts in the form of short phrases which lack any sense or even grammatical coherence and are often misspelled, and only serve a visual function that relies on the image of English. Thus, sentences like “What’s going on ・ I know with you ・ keep wasting my just time ・ never happend ・ made believe something SOMETHING” as seen on a T-Shirt are not perceived to be strange in any way, since hardly anyone - except for curious foreigners - bothers reading them and deciphering their meaning because they are merely decoration. This function, by the way, is one of the most criticized aspects of the use of English resources in Japanese. Especially native English teachers see them as a threat to their students’ English performance because it is both incorrect and often bereft of meaning, as well as an offense to their eyes (cf. Ōishi 2001: 200ff). Another aspect of westernization includes the re-naming of companies, by either replacing the old Japanese names with acronyms or loanwords. Nozumi (1998) shows that of 2413 companies registered in the autumn 1990 version of Nikkei Kaisha Jōhō (an information magazine on companies in Japan) 49 had changed their names in the year before, some of which merely re-wrote their names from Chinese characters into the Katakana syllabary, while others started using Western-sounding names. The reasons for each name change has not been made public; it can be assumed, however, that one reason was that names written in Katakana - the syllabary used for loanwords - or the Latin alphabet stand out and give the company an international flair (cf. Nozumi 1998: 125). 6.2.4 Fashion Fashion words are mostly constructed using foreign language material because of its inherent connotations of novelty and difference. Their function is to make the speaker sound up-to-date, to create a certain image. Especially within youth culture these loans play an important role as a kind of jargon, the proficiency in which reflects an up-to-dateness of the speaker. <?page no="129"?> 129 Words used for reasons of fashion are particularly frequent in youth magazines or in television programs. The life span of these fashion words varies, but is usually short. Because of their sheer numbers created almost every day, some do not make it very far because they are not accepted by the readers or the audience. Others, however, are disseminated quickly and are readily used by certain age groups or, in some cases, by a great part of the population, at least for a short while. Eventually, it is difficult to say where fashion use ends and standard use begins, or whether there was something like a ‘fashion use’ to begin with, or even if there was a lexical need which was satisfied by the creation of the new loanword, especially if one considers the possibility that English-derived loans are only employed as shells to increase the linguistic pool for word creations reflected in the great number of wasei eigo ( 和製英 語 ) or ‘made-in-Japan-English’ found in this category. One example is the use of ‘now’ that was common in Japanese until recently, both as nau-no ( ナ ウの ) and naui ( ナウい ), either one used as an adjective to denote contemporariness. Another would be the acronym ‘OL’ in its realization as o-eru ( オーエル ) meaning ‘Office Lady’ and denoting a female office worker, a term which replaced the older ‘BG’ or ‘Business Girl’ which continued to be used by the older generation and thus served as a linguistic demarcation line between ‘old’ and ‘contemporary’ (cf. Hoffer 1990: 9ff.). Also some features of teenager or university student jargon fall into this category, like the suffixation of -chikku (< -tic, as in poetic) to nouns in order to create creative new adjectives like poteto-chikku ( ポテトチック , ‘potato’ + ‘-tic’, ‘peasant-like’) or okama-chikku ( オカマチック , ‘effeminate man’ + ‘-tic’, ‘camp’) (cf. Loveday 1996: 195). Anyone, therefore, who manages to keep track of these very fast-paced developments of words coming in and out of the language, can claim to be up-to-date and aware of present fashions. 6.2.5 Image and prestige Sometimes, loanwords have direct equivalents in the Japanese language, but are preferred because of their associations with a Western lifestyle or because their use is experienced as sophisticated. As many countries around the world do, Japan, too, looks up to the United States of America as a model. Until not too long ago, however, Chinese used to be the language of the educated person and had been so for many centuries. Using Chinese loans was seen as a marker of social standing. Nowadays, Chinese-based loans have become common usage owing to the high level of education most Japanese hold, and their existence is no longer perceived as constituting a foreign element, but rather as intrinsically Japanese. Instead, English has risen to replace Chinese as the language from which most new loanwords - <?page no="130"?> 130 and most new coinages - are taken and which holds the highest prestige amongst all foreign languages (although it is in decline), not only thanks to its position as a world language. Especially during and until fairly after the immediate postwar period, Americans and the American Way of Life were seen as the embodiment of progress, prosperity and freedom. The poverty and plight of the common people after the war as opposed to the affluence of the American soldiers in the occupation force was fertile ground for the formation of a frame of mind that equaled all that was American with a good and successful life. The reason for military defeat was now seen in an intrinsic superiority of the ‘white race’. This inferiority complex that developed from the devastating defeat epitomized in the double shock of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ironically helped very much in creating the unprecedented appeal that English now has in Japan. English was seen as the key to embarking on this famed American Way of Life. Nowadays, English is especially present in the fields of high technology, where a large number of loanwords are used, serving as a prestige marker for the educational level of the speaker and/ or listener. Certainly, official documents still more or less cling to native words (this, too, however, is changing gradually), and the vocabulary of Buddhism or the Japanese Shinto religion and of things connected to the High Court and the Emperor is and may forever remain untouched by Western loanwords. But according to Hoffer, “English words are making inroads in some areas such as the public media, with less and less reluctance being shown by some stations to use loanwords” (Hoffer 1990: 15). Zapping through Japanese television programs or browsing a Japanese newspaper or magazine, it becomes obvious just how deep these inroads already go. Loveday argues that, while “Chinese-based resources can produce an erudite, classical effect, and purely native vocabulary (wago) can also achieve a traditionally respected image in certain contexts,” both of these are felt to be “inappropriate, inadequate, or unappealing in constructing a modern, Westernized image” (Loveday 1996: 203). This is where English loanwords fall into place, their intrinsic appeal helping to construe an image that other, native words could not. This prestige function is most easily identifiable in the use of loanwords in advertisements, in product-labeling, shop names, on clothes and many other occasions which foreground representation and appeal over meaning for the sake of image-building, which is “achieved through the symbolic exploitation of the associational value of the donor code as a carrier of an imputed ‘worldliness’, ‘modernity’, and/ or ‘sophistication’” (203). Such are encountered in Japan in an abundance that makes European discussions of overflowing anglicisms appear petty and superfluous. In Japan, however, they are a normal part of every- <?page no="131"?> 131 day life and nothing unusual, let alone reason for heated public discussions. Loveday also identifies a trend to spice up job designations through anglicisms (a trend also prominent in German-speaking countries) like guzzupuropo-za- ( グッズプロポーザー , < ‘goods proposer’, i.e. ‘salesperson’) or terehon-kondakuta- ( テレホンコンダクター , < ‘telephone conductor’, i.e. ‘assistant conducting market research by telephone”) (cf. Loveday 1996: 204). Stanlaw, on the other hand, argues that the prestige factor is not of primary importance in importing foreign words. “If English was so prestigious,” he maintains, “one would think that there would be more valiant attempts to try and ‘get it right’ (in terms of spelling, grammar, or meaning). Most English, however, is the made-in-Japan variety, with little or no connection to native speakers’ English (and this lack of connection is no concern to most Japanese)” (Stanlaw 2005: 168). While his ‘made-in-Japan’ argument is certainly convincing, the primary ‘decision’ to use English loanwords as a new resource must have had at least some rooting in the prestige that the Japanese attribute, or attributed, to the English language (especially its American variety). It has to be added, though, that Stanlaw does not entirely negate the factor of prestige, he only attributes more importance to emotional categories which are created through English-based loans. 6.2.6 Euphemisms Like in the case of status upgrading, the use of loanwords for euphemistic means relies heavily on their connotational value or, rather, on obfuscating a negative connotation inherent to a native word. In this case, in fact, it is the lack of any deeper connotations that makes the loanword an attractive resource since it allows people to talk about certain issues without having to suffer the consequences of using native words which are imbued with deeply rooted cultural and social values and connotations which are considered undesirable in a certain context. The somewhat blurry nature of loanwords (in that their meaning is not so canonized and culturally ‘burdened’) makes it possible to circumvent directness and say things in an indirect, i.e. euphemized way, thus rendering them more agreeable. This starts with very basic concepts like ‘toilet’ which has many realizations in Japanese like benjo ( 便所 ) or otearai ( お手洗い ), the latter of which is already a euphemism which means ‘the place for washing hands’, but also the loanword toire ( トイレ , ‘toilet’), which Hoffer argues has in most cases substituted the original Japanese names for the room (Hoffer 1990: 14). This, however, is a too simplistic explanation because toire tends to imply that it is a Western style toilet, as opposed to the traditional Japanese toilet which has no seat. Therefore, this term has as much the function of euphe- <?page no="132"?> 132 mism as it is a representative for the imported concept of a Western-style toilet. Another such euphemistic term would be shiruba-shi-to ( シルバーシ ート , ‘silver seat’), which denotes seats for the elderly or physically challenged people or pregnant women, with the ‘silver’ probably referring to the grey hair of elderly people these seats were initially set up for. A good example for the euphemistic function of a loanword is the replacement of the native word for loan, shakkin ( 借金 ) with the Anglicism ron ( ローン , ‘loan’). Shakkin is a word which is quite loaded with cultural background. Hoffer explains, In Japan, things borrowed were traditionally returned by the beginning of the New Year. Falling into debt was considered disgraceful. A person who wanted to purchase something was expected to save the money for it and to repress his desire until he could afford it. The fairly recent influx of consumerism and commercialism has changed the life-style patterns of many Japanese, but the shame attached to being in debt is still present. The use of / rooN/ alone for / šakkin/ is not sufficient to avoid the negative connotations. / rooN/ is used in the sense of J / rooN wo kumu/ , where / wo/ is the object marker and / kumu/ refers to the formation of something. “Forming” a loan refers to the structured process which involves a bank or other economic organization, a legally binding repayment system, and so on. A / rooN/ has become a well-planned economic activity and a / rooN/ carries not a negative connotation but a connotation that the borrower has a healthy and secure financial future (Hoffer 1990: 14). Loanwords, thus, thanks to their comparatively neutral meaning at the time of primal implementation, serve to erase negative connotations cultivated throughout history. In commercials, this euphemizing nature of loanwords is intentionally used in order to evade the embarrassment connected to financial matters. Words like ‘money loan’, ‘family lease’, ‘money plan’, or ‘fresh start’ are useful in convincing people to make use of their services (cf. Loveday 1996: 197). Euphemizing is also an important issue concerning certain taboo topics like sexuality. Japanese makes rich use of anglicisms in order to obfuscate what is still considered to be an improper subject. Those ubiquitous hotels made for the sole purpose of short-time romantic intercourse (rooms can be rented from one hour upwards, and are often used by unmarried couples or by people engaged in an extramarital affair) are euphemistically called rabuho ( ラブホ , short for ‘love hotel’), while young and unmarried couples are sometimes referred to as abekku ( アベック , from French ‘avec’), and young gay males have been known as shisuta-bo-i ( シスターボーイ , ‘sister + boy’) (cf. Loveday 1996: 197). Things related to eroticism are often euphemized by the use of the color adjective ‘pink’. Therefore, erotic movies are referred to as pinku eiga ( ピンク映画 , ‘pink’ + Jap. ‘movie’), a sizzling erotic atmosphere is called pinku mu-do ( ピンクムード , ‘pink mood’), and bars also offering services of a sexual nature are euphemized as pinku saron ( ピ <?page no="133"?> 133 ンクサロン , ‘pink salon’). Any kind of sexual talk and its vocabulary relies heavily on the ambiguous nature of English loanwords (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 245). 6.2.7 Obscuring In other cases, it is the very intransparency of loanwords that constitutes the reason for their use. In certain contexts, loanwords are employed to slow down the comprehension process or even prevent decoding altogether. According to Loveday, this serves several social functions, namely politeness, rebellion, elusion/ derision and group solidarity (cf. Loveday 1996: 206f). Politeness demands avoidance of undesirable effects on the listener and is therefore one of the main fields of application for the use of indirect and obscuring expressions. One example for a loanword in this context is ecchi suru ( エッチする , ‘H’ + Jap. ‘do’), where the ecchi is the pronunciation of the English letter ‘h’ which, in turn, stands for hentai ( 変体 , ‘perverted’) (cf. Loveday 1996: 206). The whole expression therefore denotes sexual intercourse, but the multiple obscuring by abbreviating the word into one letter and then coat it with an English-based pronunciation softens the impact and averts, in most cases, an undesirable effect. In the case of rebellion, obscuring serves the purpose of shielding off outsiders by using a group-specific jargon which sets the respective group apart from the mainstream. This in-group jargon is often created by clipping, thus rendering already foreign words even more incomprehensible. Loveday gives the example of torabu suru ( トラブする , ‘trouble’ + Jap. ‘to make’), in which case ‘trouble’ is shortened to ‘troub’ to create opacity (cf. Loveday 1996: 207). This example, however, already shows the fate of many of such in-group words - they become mainstream, since the word toraburu ( トラブる , ‘troub[le]’ + Jap. verb ending ru, ‘to make trouble’) has become widely used and understood. Still, for a limited amount of time such innovations remain group-specific. According to Loveday, rebellion against the mainstream is therefore achieved through two linguistic processes: “First, resources from a foreign language are selected for the negative, instead of the usually positive, evaluation of a significatum. Secondly, deviant lexical innovation is constructed which challenges and breaks away from standard usage” (Loveday 1996: 207). When loanwords are used for elusive and derisive purposes, the obscurity of the loan helps to soften the direct derisiveness of the content by veiling it into a not immediately transparent mantle. This serves as a protective shield for both the addressor and the addressee in terms of guilt and shame. Examples provided by Loveday include DC Burando (DC ブランド , DC=’discount’ + ‘brand’) which was originally a clothes store popular in <?page no="134"?> 134 the 1980s which sold Japanese brands at discount prices and which was at the same time also used to address students whose school records consisted primarily of Ds and Cs. Another example is sebun irebun teishu ( セブンイ レブン亭主 , ‘Seven Eleven’, the name of a convenience store, + ‘husband’) which uses the Seven Eleven chain store’s name to denote a husband who departs early in the morning (‘seven’) and comes back late at night (‘eleven’) when everyone is already asleep. A prominent feature of loanwords serving this function is their reference to consumer-related items, and they gain their derisive effect by highlighting certain semantic aspects of these foreign words (cf. Loveday 1996: 207). Metaphorization is also quite common for this purpose. The function of group solidarity serves the purpose of identification within a certain group and of creating unity amongst its members. Since the access towards decodification methods of loanwords used in group jargons is strictly limited, it strengthens the ties of those happy few who have gained access (cf. Loveday 1996: 207/ 8). 6.2.8 Stylistic use An intrinsic feature of Japanese language use is that of wordplay which was already referred to in the previous chapter. This wordplay derives its attraction and its impact mostly from the use of homophones and the ambiguous meaning that results from them. Interestingly enough, while many languages use loanwords in order to avoid homophony (and thus ambiguity), the Japanese often aim for homophony when importing loanwords, and these homophones are then put to use in poems or in songs to create a kaleidoscope of different meanings which complement and reinforce each other. There is a lot of associational force at work in such cases which helps to develop multiple meanings. Another way of using loanwords in music or in literature is by making use of their connotations, or their lack of fixed meanings to create a certain atmosphere. According to Stanlaw, who has written extensively on the use of English words and loanwords in Japanese pop songs and modern poetry (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 101ff), “[t]he use of English words can be a powerful tool in the construction of new analogies, metaphors, metonyms, in Japanese verbal art of all kinds.” Additionally, they “also have a potential for the kinds of ambiguities and indeterminacies exploited by poets in their craft […] English loanwords can simultaneously be both more and less symbolically meaningful than their native Japanese counterparts” (Stanlaw 2005: 122/ 3). <?page no="135"?> 135 6.2.9 Avoiding gender-related speech-restrictions Mainly due to Confucian influence, the position of women in Japanese society used to be one of subordination; women lacked representation in the public sphere and faced restraints in the manners of speaking. Women, in general, were taught to use politer speech than men, thus barring them from openly expressing their opinions. The high level of politeness prevented any direct output and softened the statement to a degree where it was difficult to deduce the original meaning. Nowadays, this is slowly but steadily changing, and women are gaining ground in most segments of society. Stanlaw (2005: 127ff) argues that, actually, women are the dominant force behind the current fad for importing English loanwords because they help free them from the speech limits previously imposed on them. Stanlaw also maintains that the use of English or English-based loans especially proliferates in pop music written by women and that it is therefore “likely that Japanese women songwriters are using English to avoid some of the linguistic restrictions placed upon them by the Japanese language” (Stanlaw 2005: 127). Equally, advertisements and magazines aimed at a female audience appear to have a greater tendency to use Englishrelated items in higher numbers. This data points to the assumption that loanwords might be a tool for women to take a more active part in public discussions. An anecdote told by Stanlaw seems to confirm this. “Female members,” he recounts, “of one of the nationally-known Japanese debate teams told me a few years ago that it is almost impossible for women to be argumentative in Japanese; and as far as they knew, all debating contests in Japan that involved women were conducted in English […] [T]here seems to be little doubt that Japanese women are restricted in certain ways when saying certain things” (Stanlaw 2005: 139). Stanlaw predicts that, thanks to the increasing use of English-based loanwords, women will be occupying an increasingly bigger segment of public life while the men’s persona will more and more subside into the private. “[T]he judicious use of English loanwords,” he argues, “will give Japanese women greater rhetorical power, more linguistic options, and perhaps even more freedom, than they have previously had” (Stanlaw 2005: 142). Although this seems an overly optimistic prospect, which ignores other and more severe social reasons for the discrimination of women, it still is an interesting and thought-provoking impulse which deserves further study. <?page no="136"?> 136 6.3 Summary These are only some of the functions of loanwords in Japanese. Linguists like Loveday (1996: 189ff) divide these functions into many more categories (twentyone in his case), but to adopt his approach would go beyond the scope of this book. Thus I have subsumed some functions under the same heading and left out others which I deemed of less import for my case. The ones that are mentioned here, however, should give the reader an idea of how central loanwords are to the Japanese language nowadays whose everyday use would be rendered nearly impossible, were loanwords to be deleted from its corpus. These important functions that loanwords fulfill nevertheless cannot conceal that the constant influx and the huge number of new and nonassociable loanwords still pose a challenge to the average Japanese which must not be underestimated. In the following chapter I will touch on this subject and show the major problems pertaining to loanwords, both from the perspective of the Japanese and from the English language community. <?page no="137"?> 137 7 Problematic Issues, Part I: Comprehension and Use Despite the unquestionable fact that English loanwords are an essential part of Japanese linguistic reality and despite also the fact that they also have become so central to everyday conversations and to understanding the media, their very numbers and the speed with which they enter and leave the language create great challenges for the Japanese people. Their frequency and their seeming ambiguity of meaning can sometimes result in severe comprehension difficulties, especially with older generations some of who are entirely unfamiliar with the workings of the English language. Also younger speakers, however, occasionally seem to have their troubles handling this linguistic resource properly. A further problematic point of the loanword issue - at least from an English speaker’s perspective - is the seemingly mistaken use of English words and grammar, especially in the sphere of advertisements, product descriptions, or design elements. Since this one is the most eye-catching and most problematic item - it is, after all, evaluated mostly by voices from outside the speech community - I will discuss it first. 7.1 Mistaken usage or utilizing mistakes? It is a very frequent observation as well as complaint by native speakers of English in Japan that the usage of English on products and in public places is bristling with mistakes in lexicon and orthography as well as in syntax. A quick glance into any T-shirts store or one-hundred-yen-shop will reveal a small universe of spelling mistakes and English slogans bereft of meaning and grammar which perplex the casual beholder. Whole websites have been created dedicated to this phenomenon which is experienced as a marvelously ignorant use of the English language (e.g. http: / / www.engrish.com). Even the most basic articles like notebooks or pencils are adorned with sentences in English which, apart from frequent spelling errors, mostly lack any discernible sense. English speakers are often amused, some dismayed by this - in their eyes - startling ‘abuse’ of the world’s leading language. This perception, however, is problematic in that it originates from outside of the Japanese speech community for which such writings are exclusively intended. Were these findings from within any given English-speaking country, the commotion would be understandable; Japan, however, obeys its own rules. <?page no="138"?> 138 The problem here is twofold. While, for example, English for informational purposes is usually both generated and checked by a native speaker of English, the English used for promotional purposes, by and large, is not. This suggests that it is basically Japanized English, or Japanese given an English appearance. There seems to be little willingness to have it proofread by an English speaker in general, and even in cases where it is proofread, the issue can sometimes be a sensitive matter. Seaton quotes from a personal communication with a native speaker with experience in proofreading who says: I think much of Japlish [Japanized English] happens because of the Oriental (not only Japanese) ‘face’. Let’s say a Japanese person in a position of authority believes his English to be good, and it might very well be. So he writes the copy….To question his ability (and, worse, to find it wanting) would cause him to lose face (Seaton 2001: 241). But this is merely a marginal factor, and not key to understanding the underlying concept and meaning of such ‘Japanized English’, and to capitalize only on this would be passing a superficial judgment. Considering that the average proficiency of English, due to inefficient teaching methods (primarily the continued use of the grammar-translation method) is low (cf. Reischauer 1971: 299, quoted in Kachru 2005: 74, Ōishi 1990: 65ff; Loveday 1996: 97f), it appears like wasted time and energy to go through all the lengths of writing, re-writing and correcting promotional texts only to have them in perfect English which is then not properly received by the target audience. Rather, these texts are created by Japanese for Japanese, exclusively, so to judge those by native English standards would be misguided and could be interpreted as proof of Western ethnocentric thought. The gist of understanding the workings of Japanese promotional usage of English is not to “insist that the Japanese copy is translatable into a system that you understand. That is the tail wagging the dog. When you are marketing in Japan, all that matters is what makes sense to the Japanese consumer” (Seaton 2001, citing Fields 1983: 106). So if the reason for using English lies not in its transparent meaning, why should the correct spelling or grammar be of any concern? As Seaton remarks, “The English is being used only for design reasons and so its meaning and accuracy are irrelevant” (Seaton 2001: 241). Of course, as I mentioned in an earlier chapter, sometimes the English does transport meaning, like in wordplays that rely on English-Japanese homophony, but in most cases of English print on clothes, notebooks, food products etc. it can be safely alleged that the reason for using English is purely for design purposes and therefore subjective concerns by English native speakers about the accuracy of the data used are irrelevant. In the sphere of this ‘Domesticated English’, as Stanlaw calls it, “English spelling and semantics are not of primary concern” (Stanlaw 2005: 153). Seaton gives an example <?page no="139"?> 139 of a Japanese shampoo entitled ‘Shampoo for Extra Damage’ which would be a deterring name for any English speaker, but does not seem to bother the Japanese at all. This is, according to Seaton, because its meaning “metamorphosed from ‘extra damage’ to ‘damaged hair’ in the process of being adopted as a loan word. The Japanized English is not so much incorrect English as a grammatically correct English sentence in which two Japanese loan words, which have retained their English spelling, are included” (Seaton 2001: 243). He further argues that “the hermeneutic meaning is more important than the transparent meaning and the people do not look closely at the English. What meaning is to be gleaned from Japanized English is learned by deducing the obviously intended meaning from the key words, rather than the sentence as a whole” (Seaton 2001: 244/ 5). When it comes to loanwords proper, some of the criticism gets even more absurd. Many English speakers of Japanese object to the Japanese language’s use of English loans, which they feel to be semantically and syntactically wrong. The original mistake of this is the assumption that a word, only because it is based on English, has to be identical in usage in both the donor and receptor language. Based on this assumption, many foreigners in Japan attempt to use English loans in a way identical to what they are used to. This, however, results in serious problems in communication because the meaning of English loanwords in Japanese, for the most part, is not identical to the original meaning, but differs sometimes slightly, sometimes fundamentally from the source word. 6 Thus, the word nai-bu ( ナ イーブ , from Engl. ‘naïve’) is rather used with the meaning of ‘sensitive’, while calling someone a feminisuto ( フェミニスト , from Engl. ‘feminist’) means calling him a ‘gentleman’, in which case its meaning would be rather opposed to the original. However, the primary error in the mistaken usage of the word obviously lies not in a mistaken import of the word, but in the ethnocentric usage of people from outside the Japanese speech community, because for Japanese this ‘distorted’ usage makes perfect sense, probably precisely because the original word is not so well known. Seaton (2001), for example, cites Tanaka (1994: 128) who argues: A Japanese audience would understand the use of the lone [sic] word feminisuto, whether or not they knew the meaning of the English word ‘feminist’. It would not be necessary for them to know the meaning of the word in advance. An addressee would learn how feminisuto should be understood through the context in which the Japanese word was being employed. Even an addressee who knew the English word would quickly realise that the Japanese way of using it was 6 Holst (2000: 46ff), in a preliminary study conducted with students, in which he had them list examples of English loanwords they encountered during the summer holiday, found that only 19% of these samples could be counted as native English, while some 77% were different to the original English either in meaning, form, or usage. <?page no="140"?> 140 different, not because of her previous knowledge of the English word, but in spite of it (Seaton 2001: 243). As Loveday elaborates, “[Loanwords] appear to lack the ‘real’ significatory force of the Japanese language. It must be remembered that those involved in such deviant innovation [i.e. deviant from the original meaning of the English word] generally lack a working knowledge of the contact language; its forms tend to lack psycho-semantic reality - being studied only through translations and dictionaries in school - and thus some teenagers do not hesitate to ‘play around with’ it” (Loveday 1996: 208). The more a word is ‘played around with’, the more it becomes alienated from the original source, and the more it turns into genuine Japanese. Therefore, what to an English-speaking non-Japanese might look like mistaken spelling, grammar, and/ or meaning is actually a perfectly fine Japanese form, because - and that is the point - it no longer is an English word, but domesticated Japanese only loosely related to its English source. Stanlaw argues along the same lines, saying that “we should not expect these loanwords to conform to any preconceived contextual or linguistic notion simply because we happen to be native speakers of English. As one informant said to me, ‘The important thing is that we Japanese understand what is being said, right? ’” (Stanlaw 2005: 273). The usage of English linguistic material is therefore not ‘mistaken’, but rather meaning acquired through use. The only ‘problem’ in this field concerns “the unwary nonnative speaker of Japanese armed only with a knowledge of the originals of many such loanwords” (Miller 1967: 252), which thus constitutes a nonproblem for the Japanese language community which can be blissfully ignored. 7.2 A stranger in one’s own land - problems in loanword comprehension The biggest problem with English-based loanwords in Japanese, however, is intra-language confusion. This is a problem shared by all speech communities around the world, and German-speaking countries have had their fair share of discussions about comprehension-related problems with anglicisms. In Japan, however, the case differs from what we are experiencing in Europe. Firstly, the numbers of anglicisms that enter Japanese each year are enormous compared to those few that German speakers have to deal with. And secondly, while German and English both belong to the West- Germanic language group and share a common history and a respectable stock of vocabulary, Japanese and English have no such common ground. Therefore, the possibility of guessing the meaning of anglicisms through <?page no="141"?> 141 similarities with words in one’s own language or with other European languages is non-existent. This inevitably leads to problems in comprehending these new loanwords which get broadcast every day on countless television channels and which challenge the reader of any given magazine or newspaper. While some loans are well established and pose little problems, the frequent ad hoc creation of loanwords which might never be used again thereafter (socalled nonce creations), forces many Japanese to their knees. 7.2.1 Surveys on loanword awareness In 2003, the NIJL conducted several surveys on the Japanese people’s awareness towards loanwords, which showed some alarming results. When asked whether they had ever encountered problems when dealing with loanwords, a random sample of 4500 people gave the following answers: Chart 12: Survey “Have you ever had trouble understanding loanwords? ” (cf. 相澤２００６：３１。 [Aizawa 2006: 31]) According to this survey, a great majority of Japanese has already encountered problems because of loanwords they did not understand. 私どもの研究所で、２００３年に全国の一般の国民の方を対象にアンケート調 査を行ないましたところ、外来語が分からず困ったことがあるという回答をさ れた方が約８割でした。また、これ以上外来語が増えるのは困ると回答をされ た方が約６割でした。（ 国立国語研究所２００６：１２。） In 2003, we conducted a nationwide survey amongst average citizens. In it, about 80% percent of the participants answered that they had already experienced problems with loanwords they didn’t understand. Also, about 60% stated that any further rise of the number of loanwords would be problematic (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 2006: 12.). (my translation) One of the reasons for these sentiments is of course the actual and dramatic rise of loanwords in the last decades. 24,40% 53,30% 16,30% 4,80% 1,20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Often Sometimes Seldom Hardly ever Don't know <?page no="142"?> 142 確かに外来語は増え続けてきたようです。研究所が調査をしたところ、１９５ ６年の雑誌には外来語の延べ語数が全体の３％だったのが、１９９４年の雑誌 では１１％弱になってる。単語の種類（異なり語数）で見ましても、約１０％ から約３０％へと増えている。いずれも約３倍の増加です。（ 国立国語研究所 ２００６：１２。） Certainly, the numbers of loanwords seem to be on the increase. The surveys conducted by the National Language Institute show that, while in 1956 the magazines contained about 3% of loanword tokens, in 1994 their number had increased to about 11%. Even if we look at types, there is an increase from about 10% to about 30%, in either case a rise by 3 times (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 2006: 12.). (my translation) It is obvious that such a sudden increase of foreign-based vocabulary numbers could generate comprehension-related problems. The survey, however, also shows rather big differences in the results between the different age groups and sexes, as the following charts show. Chart 13a: Male Respondents of different age groups (cf. 相澤２００６： ３１。 [Aizawa 2006: 31]) 14,80% 11,40% 36,10% 39,80% 58,00% 42,90% 34,10% 22,70% 13,40% 10,20% 7,40% 5,10% 1,10% 0,60% 3,90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Ages 10-20 Ages 30-40 Ages 60 above Often Sometimes Seldom Hardly ever Don't know <?page no="143"?> 143 Chart 13b: Female Respondents of different age groups (cf. 相澤２００ ６：３１。 [Aizawa 2006: 31]) The gap in understanding between the young and the old is not new, since the young are by nature at the source in matters of language change and are more susceptible to new fashion words used in their cliques. Additionally, they are not yet exposed to input from sources that are known to use difficult terminology, like White Papers. What does surprise a little, though, is that there is a notable difference in the self-assessment of male and female respondents. Between ages 10 and 20, 65,4% of the female respondents told that they had at least sometimes had problems understanding loanwords, whereas only 54,6% of all male respondents said they did. With respondents from ages 30 to 40, 79,7% of all female respondents admitted having had trouble with loanword comprehension, while - in relation - only 69,4% of male respondents did. Another question concerned the areas in which the participants felt that loanwords should be paraphrased for better understanding, with these results: 14,90% 12,90% 37,80% 50,50% 66,80% 41,30% 28,70% 18,80% 12,40% 5,00% 1,50% 6,10% 1,00% 2,40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Ages 10-20 Ages 30-40 Ages 60 above Often Sometimes Seldom Hardly ever Don't know <?page no="144"?> 144 Chart 14: Areas in which participants think more paraphrasing to be appropriate (cf. 国立国語研究所「外来語」委員会（２００ ６）：１６。 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo “Gairaigo” Iinkai. 2006: 16]) This chart shows that the participants saw an indisputable necessity for clearer and more understandable wording in the areas of politics, economy and medical care - areas that tend to concern elderly people more than young people. Areas in which younger generations show particular interest - like fashion, sports, or music - were rarely named. This seems to confirm that the desire for paraphrasing loanwords is one that, understandably, can be backtracked to elder generations. Politics - being the area in which most paraphrasing is being desired is particularly renowned for the use of abstract loanwords (in the overall context of unclear wording) which represents a challenge not only to average people but also to interpreters of the law. However, these surveys warrant no tendency toward an overall policy against an ‘overflow’ of loanwords in general, though they do make it seem prudent to take another approach in areas that directly affect the here and now of people’s lives, like politics and medical care. It is also notable that only 27,8% of the respondents stated that they consulted a dictionary when they encountered an unknown loanword, while 47,5% said they did not (cf. 国立国語研究所２００４：２５ f 。 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 2004: 25f]) which of course means that the comprehension problems remain unsolved. Another interesting statistic demonstrates the main aspects of why people think that using loanwords is good or bad, respectively. The top three in both cases are: 56,40% 56,00% 41,30% 8,90% 5,50% 5,20% 5,20% 4,30% Paraphrasing desirable None Music Cooking Sports Fashion Computer Medical care/ Welfare Politics/ Economy <?page no="145"?> 145 Good Bad Loanwords are convenient and make communication easier Loanwords make communication more difficult Loanwords convey a feeling of newness Loanwords cause misunderstandings Loanwords enable people to talk about new things and ways of thinking Loanwords destroy the traditions of the Japanese language Table 19: Opinions on merits and demerits of loanwords (adapted from 国立国語研究所「外来語」委員会２００６：２３６。 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo “Gairaigo” Iinkai 2006: 236]) What is intriguing about these answers is that they are so contradictive. While more than 40% of the people under 30 said that one advantages of loanwords was to make communication easier, 50% of the people under 30 chose the exact opposite answer as a disadvantage, with 40% saying loanwords cause misunderstandings (cf. 国立国語研究所「外来語」委員会 [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo “Gairaigo” Iinkai] ２００６：２３６ f). This shows that the whole topic of loanwords in the Japanese language is a little schizophrenic by nature and that there is no single answer to the problems that are entailed. But what it also illustrates is that loanwords do serve an important purpose in the Japanese language because they can make communication easier. It is the responsibility of those who use them to make sure that they are understood, so as to avoid obstacles in communication and misunderstandings that are caused by using loanwords irresponsibly. 7.2.2 Diffusion of loanwords The wide diffusion of loanwords throughout all fields is another issue. Whereas in German-speaking countries, the main fields of application of anglicisms are fashion, sports, promotion, computerand youth-related topics, anglicisms in Japanese are spread widely and almost equally between all fields of life except for traditional arts and religion. This enlarges the base for possible misunderstandings, because while a German speaker is relatively safe unless he or she tries their luck with a teenage magazine, for example, a Japanese speaker cannot enjoy the privilege of ignorance since anglicisms concern every part of Japanese daily life. As a result, comprehension of English-based loanwords varies according to occupation and education level with respect to each field of use. Every age and/ or occupational group understands different loanwords to different degrees, depending on which are closest to their daily experiences, including the media they resort to. NHK (short for Nihon Hōsō Kyōkai, 日本放送協会 ), Japan’s national television, regularly conducts surveys concerning the degree of recognition <?page no="146"?> 146 and understanding of anglicisms. In their 9/ 2000 issue NHK presents interesting results showing not only different degrees of comprehension depending on age and occupation, but also a corresponding feeling that English-based loans are abundant in the fields the respondents are less concerned with. Thus, for example, young people in their 20ies feel that there is an overflow of anglicisms in fields of politics and economy, while older participants of the survey pinpointed commercials and mass communication as the place for an over-use of such loans. The survey states: この設問は、各年代が好んで見る番組を反映してるといえる。男女を含めて２ ０歳代が好んで見る番組は、ドラマ・バラエティー番組・音楽番組などで、あ まり見ない番組は、ニュース・スプーツ中継などである。よく見る番組に出て くる外来語はある程度理解できるので、多いとも感じないが、政治経済などの ニュースは実生活からかけ離れており、理解できないということが、答えに影 響しているのだろうか（坂本２００１：４７ f ）。 It can be said that this question reflects the kind of programs that the respective age groups like to watch. Male as well as female viewers in their 20ies like to watch TV series, variety shows, music programs and the like, while they do not particularly watch such programs as news or sports broadcasts. Those loanwords which are used in programs they often watch are being understood to a certain degree and their numbers don’t feel to be so large. On the other hand, the fact that news programs about politics or economy are rather far removed from their life situations and therefore loanwords used therein cannot be understood, might have had an influence on their answers (Sakamoto 2002: 47f). (my translation) The survey moreover shows that a large gap exists between recognition and understanding of loanwords. While some loanwords score remarkably high in both recognition and understanding, others, though not seldom used in newspapers or on television, meet with widespread ignorance. In the September 2002 issue of the NHK report, the 17 loanwords tested met with a degree of comprehension ranging from some 93% for risutora ( リス トラ , shortened from English ‘restructuring’) down to only 20% for haza-do mappu ( ハザードマップ , ‘hazard map’) (cf. Sakamoto 2002: 30). 7 NHK also took a look at the number of times that these 17 words were actually used in three of Japan’s leading newspapers between 1985 and 2001 which showed that even the least understood loan in the list, haza-do mappu, was used some 200 times in these years, while the word infura ( インフラ , shortened from ‘infrastructure’), which was only understood by 32%, was used between 2500 and 3500 times (cf. Sakamoto 2002: 42). 7 Another study of 64 loanwords published in the same issue showed an even greater gap between the highest-scoring borantia ( ボランティア , ‘volunteer’) with 97% and the lowest-scoring riterashī ( リテラシー , ‘literacy’) with only 3% degree of comprehension (cf. Sakamoto 2002: 40). <?page no="147"?> 147 An interesting point in the loanword issue is that there appears to be a considerable discrepancy between the individuals’ understanding of English loanwords - or his or her impression as to what extent a loan has become ‘Japanese’ respectively - and their judgment concerning the use of these in television broadcast. A 1982 NHK study shows that, while words that many people already consider being ‘Japanese’ are not thought to be proper for television use, others which are still felt to be ‘foreign’ are deemed suitable for television. NHK calls these “inevitable loanwords” ( 「やむをえざる外来語」 ). Among these are special jargon words which might lose meaning in translation, like sofutowea ( ソフトウェ ア、 ’software’) or words which are thought to be practical to use, like wasuto ( ワースト , ‘worst’) (cf. The NHK Report on Broadcast Research 03/ 1982: 25). Matsuda points to another feature of loanwords which is intrinsically connected to the former, namely ambiguity deriving from misunderstanding. She presents parts of a NHK survey in which people had to pick a definition of a loanword that best expressed its meaning. Therein, echiketto ( エチケット , ‘etiquette’) was defined by 77% as ‘good manners’, but by 20% as ‘public morality’, boryu-mu ( ボリューム , ‘volume’) was received by 58% as meaning ‘volume’ but by some 20% as meaning ‘sound’, while jiremma ( ジレッマ , ‘dilemma’) was split between only 21% who defined it as ‘dilemma’, 33% defining it as ‘impatience’, and 11% who picked ‘serious suffering’ (cf. Matsuda 1986: 63). Such ambiguity is born, as a matter of course, from poor understanding of a word’s intended meaning, and therefore can be an obstacle to the correct reception of the intended meaning while at the same time giving birth to new idiosyncratic meaning. 7.2.3 Loanwords and foreign words in movie titles Another small, but interesting example of how much loanwords, and English, have found their way into everyday Japanese life is the naming of foreign movies in Japan. Movie titles were usually translated into Japanese, but recently there appears to be a tendency toward direct transcription of the original English title into the Japanese Katakana syllabary, regardless to whether these English words already exist in the Japanese vocabulary or whether the titles are non-translatable puns. A survey conducted by Yamada (2005) on movie titles between 1945 and 2002 showed the following results: <?page no="148"?> 148 One reason for the sudden increase around the year 2000 is the use of different movie encyclopedias for the years 1945-1999 and 2000-2002 by the author. However, as he comments, 「サンプル数は九九年以前と二 ○○○ 年 以後で大きく異なっている。しかし、得られた数値からは、明らかに一定 の傾向が読みとれる。」（山田 [Yamada] ２００５：１７９） (There is a big difference in sample numbers between the years until 1999 and after 2000, but the result obviously shows a certain tendency nonetheless [my translation]). The development of the ratio of Katakana titles, taken from the same statistic, shows the development even more impressively. Chart 16: Development of the ratio of Katakana movie titles after 1945 0,00% 20,00% 40,00% 60,00% 80,00% Ratio of Katakana Titles Chart 15: Development of numbers of translated and transcribed movie titles ( 山田２００５：１８１ [Yamada 2005: 181]) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2002 Katakana Titles Translated Titles <?page no="149"?> 149 The real boom for Katakana titles, according to this graph, set in around the 1980ies, when the transcribed titles for the first time exceeded those which were translated into Japanese. The problem, in this case, consists of the fact that the titles are transcribed one to one from the original, leaving the Japanese spectator with much to wonder what the content of the movie might be. これらの題名は、原題を単にカタカナ書きしただけである。外国映画の題名に は、いま、このようなものがふえ、輸入映画全体のかなりの部分を占めてい る。 カタカナ書きされただけの題名は、わかりにくい。これらの題名から内容を想 像できる日本人は少ないだろう。相当な英語力がなければ無理であるし、日本 人一般にそのような英語力を期待することはできない相談である（山田２００ ５：１７７）。 These titles are simply the original titles written in Katakana. Similar examples can be seen frequently and concern a significant part of imported movies nowadays. Movie titles which have only been transcribed into Katakana are difficult to understand and those Japanese who can fathom the movie’s content from such titles are probably very few in number. It requires a sufficient proficiency in English and there is agreement that this cannot be expected from the average Japanese (Yamada 2005: 177). (my translation) Since this phenomenon has been prominent since the 1980ies, it is not surprising that already at that time some media commented on its effects, like this newspaper article from 1981: 「スフィンクス」とか「ジャズ・シンガー」くらいなら、まだわれわれ一般日 本人に、まあなじみのあるカタカナ題名、と言えるのかも知れない。しかし 「プライベート・ベンジャミン」とか「アルタード・ステーツ」とか「コンペ ティション」「マルホランド・ラン」に至っては、舌でもかみそうな発音のタ イトルで、一度や二度広告を見たくらいでは、正直なところ、どれがどれや ら、作品の区別もつけ難い映画題名とでもいう他ないだろう（山田２００５： １７８）。 Titles written in Katakana like „Sphinx“ or „Jazz Singer“ even we average Japanese can still somehow understand, I guess. But when it comes to titles like „Private Benjamin“, „Altered States“, „The Competition“ or „King of the Mountain“, I almost bite my tongue trying to pronounce them. To be honest, such titles make it difficult for me to distinguish the one from the other (cited in Yamada 2005: 178). (my translation) Here we have an interesting point. Not only does the indiscriminate use of the original title rewritten in the Japanese syllabary pose a noticeable obstacle to the understanding of and distinction between different titles, but there are also some films where the Japanese ‘English’ title is different from the original, and as a consequence even more difficult to understand. What <?page no="150"?> 150 was translated in the above citation as “King of the Mountain” reads “Mulholland Run” in Japanese, which would probably make it difficult even for an English native speaker to fathom the content of the movie. This habit of translating the English title into a different English title and then, as it were, sugarcoat it with Japanese spelling, has survived until today. In 2001, a movie called “3000 Miles to Graceland” was mysteriously featured in Japan as 「スコーピオン」 (‘Scorpion’), without this having any apparent reference in the movie. This habit, along with the direct transcription of English titles, can be supposed to represent a reasonable comprehension barrier. Yamada (2005), in a related survey conducted in 1999, examined how such movie titles were actually understood by Japanese people. For this survey, he randomly selected 25 international movies released in Japan after 1970, whose titles were phonetically transcribed into the Katakana syllabary. The participants were asked if they understood the movie title and if yes, to translate it into Japanese. The movie titles which were most understood were 「サブウェイ」 (“Subway”), and 「インデペンデンス・デ イ」 (“Independence Day”) which 55,3% of all participants understood correctly. On the other side of the scale were the movie titles of 「リーサ ル・ウェポン」 (“Lethal Weapon”) and 「リアリティ・バイツ」 (“Reality Bites”) with only 2,2%. The average value of all 25 titles taken together ranged at merely 16,4% (Yamada 2005: 186). Of course, since this survey was aimed at people of all ages, it goes without saying that the results of people from thirty upwards corrected the total result downwards. The following graph shows in blue the number of titles which achieved 0% of comprehension amongst the various age groups. Chart 17: Comprehension levels of movie titles according to age (cf. Yamada 2005: 186) 1 0 5 5 8 24 25 20 20 17 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Age 10-19 Age 20-29 Age 30-39 Age 40-49 Age 50-59 0% Above 0% <?page no="151"?> 151 To assume from this data that the level of comprehension amongst 10 to 30 year-olds is satisfactory, however, is wrong. Their average level of comprehension was a mere 22%. Interestingly, such low comprehension levels to the contrary, the general opinion does not indicate a wish for change. In a follow-up questionnaire by Yamada, the following answers were given: Chart 18: Opinions on how movie titles should be transcribed ( 山田２０ ０５：１８７ [Yamada 2005: 187]) With the wish for a Japanese translation being the least favored among the major choices, these results once more show the strangely ambiguous attitude of the Japanese towards loanwords and foreign words - even though they might have problems understanding some of them, they still feel that these words have their place within the Japanese language and society. The fact that most people expressed the wish to keep the original title also suggests that foreign elements have their function and status in the Japanese context. In the case of movie titles, Yamada argues, this could be their air of specialness, of out-of-the-ordinariness that engulfs them and that helps making a movie more remote from everyday life (cf. Yamada 2005: 188ff). Despite such facets of style, it is a fact that many foreign elements enter everyday situations and sometimes pose a threat to unimpaired communication. However uncontended they might be amongst Japanese speakers, the question remains to what extent this effects the comprehensibility of communication in everyday Japanese. 16,90% 41,10% 38,20% 3,80% 0,00% 20,00% 40,00% 60,00% Other The present method of transcribing is fine The original title should be used Foreign movie titles should be translated into Japanese <?page no="152"?> 152 7.3 Facing the challenge Studies as the one by Yamada show the problematic situation of Englishbased loanwords in Japan and the linguistic challenges that a Japanese speaker is faced with on a daily basis. Matsuda (1986) maintains: However familiar these terms [fashionable or technical loanwords] are to the speakers and writers themselves, the hearers or readers may be puzzled by the words unfamiliar to them, unable to understand the literal meanings, although they might enjoy the emotion evoked by the expressions. They may even be in danger of misconstruing the crucial points of the statements (Matsuda 1986: 62). To counter the danger of misunderstanding, newspapers and magazines sometimes provide annotations to explain the meaning of the gairaigo they use. NHK, the Japan Broadcasting Corporation, too, has made it a policy “to avoid unfamiliar and opaque foreignisms in the language of its own announcers, and, where necessary, to accompany loan-word terminology with a Japanese explanatory paraphrase” (Loveday 1996: 160). However, this method, too, is problematic and only partly a solution, as the following quote from an NHK report shows: どの外来語まで注釈をつけるのかという明確な基準いわゆる「線引き」は難し い。ニュースなど原稿にする場合はある程度可能であるが、出演者が話す外来 語まで規制することはできない。 たとえ明確な基準を作ったとしても、外来語の理解度は日に日に変化する。基 準を作って規制することで、生き生きとした会話やコメントができなくなるこ とさえ懸念される。（坂本２００２：４６） It is difficult to draw a clear line between loanwords that need annotations and such that don’t. In the case of manuscript-based news this is possible to a certain extent, but it is impossible to regulate the loanwords used by newscasters or commentators when they are talking freely. Even if there were to be clear-cut guidelines concerning their use, the level of understanding of loanwords keeps changing every day. It is to be feared that by using guidelines and restraints it will become impossible to have a natural and lively conversation or commentary [on TV] (Sakamoto 2002: 46). (my translation) Explanations and annotations, as mentioned above, constitute a major break in the fluency of both reading and speaking, affecting the natural flow of language, and are therefore a method to be employed with care. The effort to constantly create new annotations, make away with redundant annotations or rewrite annotations for a different context might be much too large to be worthwhile. Also, it would raise questions as to the sense of using loanwords if you have to explain them all the way. It would seem to be more sensible to rely on people’s natural sense of their mother <?page no="153"?> 153 tongue in the derivation of meaning than to prescribe meaning, but still, the predicament of comprehension does loom large. The issue of loandwords, of anglicisms in the Japanese language, however, does not only encompass intra-language concerns, but also such that focus on their impact on the correct acquisition of English. The concern is that both the different meaning of English loanwords in Japanese compared to their English originals as well as pseudo-anglicisms that do not exist in the English language could result in a negative cross-linguistic transfer, thus becoming obstacles in acquiring the English language proficiently. This is an issue that the next chapter will discuss. <?page no="155"?> 155 8 Problematic Issues, Part II: Influence of (Pseudo) Loanwords on Japanese EFL Learners Despite all problems accompanying loanword influx and use in the Japanese language, statistics show that Japan’s youth - like in other countries too - has the least troubles dealing with loanwords and are the first to embrace and remodel them into additional parts of the Japanese lexicon. For all their English looks, their core is hence Japanese. 8.1 How English is Jenglish? Of course, the conclusion that the majority of English loanwords has been adapted orthographically, phonetically, morphologically, syntactically and/ or semantically to the Japanese language and are therefore really Japanese words with an English shell on the one hand helps in combating notions of a corruption of language by foreign words; on the other hand, however, this can also become an obstacle for Japanese EFL learners. Especially differences in meaning and morphology, the existence of pseudoloanwords, as well as the phonetic differences that originate from the conversion of English words into the Japanese syllabary constitute critical points for a Japanese speaker learning English as a foreign language. Deceptive cognates, for instance, which are similar in form but different in meaning in each language, have been known to be problematic. Kimura (2004) elaborates: For example, Lado (1972: 285) says “Japanese borrowed the word milk from English but restricted its meaning to canned milk.” Miura (1979: 102) also explains that the Japanese borrowed the English word “milk,” but “milk” in Japanese means “either warm milk served with sugar at a coffee shop or powdered milk solid in a can.” Japanese “milk” does not include the English sense of “fresh milk” (Kimura 2004: 12). Also other examples, like the already cited feministo and similar words fall into this category. So there appears to be a tendency of EFL learners to define the meaning of an English word that is also a loanword in their native language based on the meaning it holds in the latter (cf. Kimura 2004: 21f). However, this linguistic transfer appears only to slow, not prevent the acquisition of the correct range of meaning when learning the English language; the new meaning is gradually extracted from the context the word is used in. Kellerman (cited in Kimura 2004: 42), for example, argues that <?page no="156"?> 156 the primary meaning of a word is the one most easily transferable into another language. Kimura, therefore, makes the case that “the most commonly used correct meanings among the primary meanings of English words tend to become English loanwords in Japanese”, with some exceptions like in the case of ‘milk’ cited above (Kimura 2004: 42f). This, consequently, would imply that English loanwords are in fact helpful in acquiring English vocabulary more quickly, in that they are familiar through their use in Japanese and therefore more easily recognizable in English, too. Also, since primarily the original English words’ core meanings are transferred into the respective loanwords in the receiving language, their correct range of meaning is acquired earlier. The full validity of this supposition, however, is in doubt. While Lado comes to the conclusion that “loanword knowledge limits the range of English meanings known to learners” (Daulton 1998: 3), Kimura and several others contradict this opinion in their findings. In several studies on the effect of English loanwords in Japanese on EFL and ESL learners (Yoshida 1978, Brown and Williams 1985, Kimura 1989) it was found that not only were L2 words which had basewords (i.e. L2-derived loanwords) in L1 acquired more quickly, but also, as Kimura suggests, “that loanword knowledge can encourage learners to add more meaning to the loanword meanings they already know” (Daulton 1998: 3). In short, the existence of loans seems to facilitate vocabulary acquisition in the donor language, at least to some extent. The more serious interference in communication seems to be posed by phonological and morphological differences to the original words. Since all English-based loanwords, upon import, are absorbed and remodeled into the Japanese syllabic system, the eventual pronunciation sometimes differs greatly from the original. Given that, in cases where English is taught by non-native speakers, English pronunciation is often rendered in the same manner (i.e. adapted to Japanese phonology), this causes Japanese EFL learners to speak English in a profoundly Japanized way, making it difficult to comprehend for ears not familiar with Japanese phonology. Conversely, Japanese EFL learners not used to native English pronunciation have similar difficulties understanding English native speakers’ speech. The problem here lies foremost in the teaching method used in Japan which is based almost solely on writing and reading, instead of speaking and listening, which some, like Loveday (1996), attribute to the importance of English tests in university entrance exams which focus more or less entirely on reading and comprehension. What is more, sometimes English loanwords which have been clipped are used in their abbreviated forms in English conversation. Words like pasokon ( パソコン , clipped from ‘perso[nal] com[puter]’) are tempting to use but are incomprehensible to English speakers. The cause of confusion <?page no="157"?> 157 here, however, is not directly related to the loanwords and their pronunciation, but lies in the educational system which still puts too little weight on teaching native pronunciation instead of transcribing English words into the Japanese syllabary for the sake of easier pronunciation. Generally speaking, Japanese EFL learners’ difficulties are likely to originate from one or more of the following Japanese-specific loanword characteristics: 1. Japanese English - words of English origin which have been transformed into new compounds or phrases that do not exists in English 2. False friends - English words that have a different meaning and use in Japanese 3. Katakana words seldom used in daily conversations by native speakers of English 4. Non-English Katakana words & names 5. British-derived katakana words that are not used by Americans 6. Katakana words where the meaning and pronunciation is quite different from the original 7. Katakana words where the beginning or middle section is omitted from the original 8. Other katakana words that won’t be understood in English (Holst 2000: 45) Again, this is not a problem caused by the loanwords as such, but a problem which could be solved by raising awareness on the ‘Japaneseness’ of loanwords embodied in the different pronunciation and morphology which distinguishes them clearly from their English counterparts. 8.2 Anglicisms as an international problem? 8.2.1. The issue of pseudo-anglicisms A critical field, however, is that of English pseudo-loanwords. These are words that look like English because they employ English language material, but have no corresponding source word in English. Different from German, for example, where pseudo-loanwords are a comparably rare phenomenon, Japanese has a great repertoire of these, and new ones are frequently created following the logic inherent to the Japanese language. The interference originating from these words is much more serious than that coming from ‘standard’ loanwords whose meaning only differs from the original in some aspects. Generally, the problem is that the Japanese appear to be unaware of the nature of these loanwords they are using every day. Gabbrielli (2005) concluded from his research on awareness of English loanwords in Japanese <?page no="158"?> 158 commercials that “Japanese people may be unaware of the differences between [a] nativized variety and standard English” (79). He maintains that there is some cause for concern as the general public does not seem to be able to discriminate between the English promoted by advertisers and copywriters and the standard English taught as a subject in the school curriculum. Consequently, the potential for communication breakdown is increased when - in an international context - intended and received meanings may not be jointly constructed or shared (Gabbrielli 2005: 80). This inter-language problem is one of the main arguments by many Japanese and non-Japanese scholars who see the use of anglicisms whose meaning differs from their originals in the English donor language as a bad linguistic habit and as embarrassing, and who declare the problem an intralanguage problem, i.e. a problem within the Japanese language itself. The consequence is that the solutions proposed do not target English education with which such loanwords sometimes interfere, but rather the Japanese language itself, within which they are usually being used without much trouble. While some see loanwords as both a good starting point for Japanese students of English, helping them increase their vocabulary easily by relying on their knowledge of English loanwords in Japanese, others oppose this view and the use of loanwords if their meaning differs from that of the original English expressions. 和製英語に対する否定的な考え方もあり、２００１年１２月には「通じないカ タカナ英語追放シンポジウム」が福岡で開催され、２００５年には英語母語話 者が書いた「恥ずかしい和製英語」［．．．］という本が出版された。「朝日 新聞オンライン記事データベース聞蔵」によれば、２０００年１月１日から２ ００５年１２月３１日の間に「朝日新聞」、「アエラ」、「週刊朝日」に６８ 件の和製英語に関する記事や意見が掲載されたが、「外国では通用しない和製 英語を、なるべく速く消し去るほうが先決ではあるまいか」［．．．］のよう に、和製英語に対する強い反発も見られた。否定的な意見の主旨としては、日 本人が英語だと思って使う和製英語が実は日本語であり、英語母語話者に通じ ることはなく混乱を招くということのようである ( 柴崎２００７：８９ f) 。 There are also negative opinions on pseudo-anglicisms. In December 2001, a symposium was held in Fukuoka on the topic of “Routing out incomprehensible Katakana English”, and in 2005 an English native speaker published a book entitled “Embarassing pseudo-anglicisms in Japanese”. According to the “Asahi Shinbun Online Database”, there have been 68 articles and opinions published on pseudo-anglicisms in the Asahi Shinbun, Aera, and Weekly Asahi between January 2001 and December 2005. Amongst these were opinions like “Wouldn’t it be best to get rid of pseudo-anglicisms as quickly as possible if they are not understood in foreign countries? ”, i.e. opinions that strongly opposed pseudoanglicisms. The tenor of these negative opinions was that pseudo-anglicisms are used by Japanese as English expressions when in fact they are Japanese, and that <?page no="159"?> 159 this causes confusion because these are not understood by native speakers of English (Shibasaki 2007: 89f.). (my translation) The main point made here is not that anglicisms cause comprehension or communication problems among speakers of Japanese, but rather that they constitute a communication problem between Japanese speakers of English and native speakers of English. Interestingly enough, the debate - especially on pseudo-loanwords but also on loanwords whose meaning has drifted from the original English meaning - is being led by taking the vantage point of foreigners, rather than by looking at the situation within the Japanese language community within which they are used. It is a quite unique facet of the Japanese language that it criticizes its loanwords based on the problems they pose to foreign speakers of the language or to foreigners who are confronted with loanwords from the Japanese language put to use in English. 8.2.2 When anglicisms turn English Inspired by such fears of miscommunication, Ōishi (2001) created a questionnaire concerning the awareness of the differences between pseudoloanwords and loanwords with changed meanings, and the corresponding English expressions. The hypothesis on which he based his questionnaire was that カタカナ英語は英語学習の障害となってしまうことが珍しくない。それは、英 語学習者にとってカタカナ英語と本物の英語を区別することが困難なことが多 く、その結果、和製英語やカタカナ英語などを本物の英語と誤解して覚えてし まうことがあるからでしょう（大石２００１：１５２）。 [i]t is not rare that Katakana-English becomes an obstacle for studying English. It is often difficult for English students to differentiate between this Katakana- English and real English, with the result that many memorize Japanese English or Katakana-English mistaking it for genuine English (Ōishi 2001: 152). (my translation) In order to investigate his hypothesis Ōishi distributed his questionnaire to 101 university students in 1999. The questionnaire asked for the English translation to a number of Japanese sentences, all of which included a loanword or pseudo-loanword. He provided a list of possible answers to choose from, one of which was the one-to-one translation of the (pseudo) loanword without regard to the different meanings it might have in English, while one (or more) were meaning-corresponding expressions used in actual English. For example, he asked if Japanese オープンキャンパス (literally ‘open campus’) in English was either “open campus”, “open house”, or “open day”, or whether Japanese キスマーク (literally ‘kiss mark’) translates as “kiss mark”, “hickey”, or “lovebite” (cf. Ōishi 2001: 152f). Of all the <?page no="160"?> 160 words he inquired about, 19 were mistaken by at least one third of the participants. These were: Loanword Comprehension Corresponding English Expression キスマーク (‘kiss mark’) 70,8% hickey, lovebite ファミリーレストラン (‘family restaurant’) 66,0% restaurant タウンページ (‘town pages’) 57,2% Yellow Pages オープンキャンパス (‘open campus’) 57,2% open house タッチアウト (‘touch out’) 55,3% tag out フリージャーナリスト (‘free journalist’) 51,4% free-lance journalist キッチンドリンカー (‘kitchen drinker’) 44,6% closet drinker マインド (‘mind’) 44,6% (consumer) desire ペーパーカンパニー (‘paper company’) 42,7% bogus company ブランド (‘brand’) 39,8% brand-name リフォーム (‘reform’) 39,8% remodel フライドポテト (‘fried potato’) 36,8% French fries, chips バージンロード (‘virgin road’) 34,9% the wedding aisle ダイヤルイン (‘dial in’) 33,9% Phone メリット (‘merit’) 33,0% advantage リタイヤ (‘retire’) 33,0% drop out (of a race) リニューアル (‘renewal’) 33,0% remodel Table 20: Awareness of the English meaning of pseudo-anglicisms in Japanese (adapted from Ōishi 2001: 161) This list therefore represents several examples of loanwords (with altered meanings) and pseudo-loanwords in Japanese which Japanese students mistook for being genuine English words and which Ōishi conjectures are adopted unchanged in English communication (cf. Ōishi 2001: 161). This could cause problems in direct communications with English speaking people when the intended meaning differs from the received meaning. Due to this problematic side of loanwords Ōishi calls them a “nuisance” ( 「迷 惑」 ; cf. Ōishi 2001: 162) for students of English. His conclusion is: ここで扱った表現は、ほんの一例にすぎないが、一見英語らしく見えながら本 物の英語でないカタカナ英語表現は、ほかにもたくさん存在する。悲劇的現実 <?page no="161"?> 161 は、そのような言わば偽りの英語表現が、マスコミなどを通じて日常茶飯に用 いられ、日本人英語学習者を迷わせているということである。［．．．］ 以上のことから考えると、カタカナ英語の弊害を日本人全体が認識し、正しい 英語表現を使うよう努力しなければならない。特にマスコミ、官庁、産業界で カタカナ英語を作り出している人々は、その悪習を即刻中止し、［．．．］国 際社会で通用している本物の英語を使うことに留意すべきである（大石２００ １：１６２）。 The expressions used here are merely a small example, but there are many more Katakana-English expressions that look like genuine English at first sight. It is a tragic truth that such so-called fake-English expressions are being used in everyday situations through the influence of mass media, and are confusing Japanese students of English […] If we think about the above, there is a necessity to raise awareness in all Japanese for the harmful influence of Katakana English, and to make an effort to use correct English expressions. Especially the people creating Katakana English in the mass media, the government, and the industrial world should immediately stop this ill practice and give consideration to using genuine English expressions instead […] in order to be able to use them within the global community (Ōishi 2001: 162). (my translation) This fiery conclusion, though based on serious facts, seems rather excessive, ignoring the basic workings of language which do not answer to human wishes of meaning and use, but which have a momentum of their own. However much Ōishi wishes loanwords to be based and locked on the English model, their meanings would change nonetheless, as they have done anytime and anywhere. What is irritating in his chain of argument - and in the entire discussion - is that he defines a loanword’s value not according to its comprehensibility and function in the Japanese language, but according to its usability for international communication, something for which no loanword was ever intended. Although Ōishi’s conclusions are radical, the results that he gained from his questionnaire do give reason to worry about unfavorable influences that loanwords can have on the acquisition and competence of English without proper precautions. However, regulation, as always, cannot be the answer in language. 8.3 Through the mirror - comprehension of Japanese pseudo-anglicisms by American students In order to ascertain what kinds of Japanese pseudo-anglicisms actually pose a problem for inter-language communication - and to what extent - Shibasaki, Tamaoka and Takatori (2007) conducted a survey among American students in which they asked their test persons the English meaning of several Japanese pseudo-anglicisms. The test persons were divided into <?page no="162"?> 162 two groups of 36 people each, one with students of the Japanese language and one with students who had never studied Japanese. The results were manifold, an excerpt of which is shown in the following chart. The correct answers are in bold. Pseudo Anglicism Learners of Japanese Non- Learners of Japanese Choice of Answers ライブハウス (‘live house’) 5,6% 5,6% 75,0% 2,8% 16,7% 13,9% 41,7% 25,0% a restaurant with live seafood a lovely house a bar with live music a house where lively people live モーニングサービ ス (‘morning service’) 2,8% 61,1% 0,0% 33,3% 0,0% 22,2% 2,8% 72,2% special breakfast in church breakfast special a morning tennis match the earliest mass in a day ペアルック (‘pair look’) 5,6% 61,1% 11,1% 19,4% 13,9% 30,6% 13,9% 36,1% to look at each other wearing the same outfit to look at a boy/ girl friend twins ペーパドライバー (‘paper driver’) 0,0% 55,6% 0,0% 44,4% 5,7% 88,6% 0,0% 2,0% a driver who likes reading a paper a newspaper delivery person a paper doll shaped like a driver a person who has a driver’s license but never drives ニューハーフ (‘new half’) 25,0% 38,9% 16,7% 13,9% 5,7% 48,6% 14,3% 28,6% transvestite in the morning a fresh half of fruit the first thirty minutes of a day オープンカー (‘open car’) 2,8% 8,3% 86,1% 2,8% 25,0% 11,1% 61,1% 2,8% unlocked car doors a car show convertible cars with no owners デッドボール 80,6% 55,6% hit by a pitch <?page no="163"?> 163 (‘dead ball’) 0,0% 13,9% 2,8% 11,1% 27,8% 5,6% a black ball a very old ball to die by a ball ゲームソフト (‘game soft’) 83,3% 13,9% 2,8% 0,0% 47,2% 41,7% 5,6% 5,6% a software game an easy game soft touch game fishing テーブルセンター (‘table center’) 13,9% 36,1% 33,3% 16,7% 8,3% 30,6% 52,8% 8,3% a commercial center a furniture store a centerpiece a central figure マナーモード (‘manner mode’) 5,0% 16,0% 11,0% 66,0% 13,9% 25,0% 19,4% 38,9% a good mannered person a good example of manners a trend to respect good manners silent mode on a portable phone Table 21: Comprehension of pseudo-anglicisms by American students (adapted from 柴崎 [Shibasaki]2007 ： 102) As this chart shows, some of the pseudo-loanwords are not so difficult to understand for native speakers of English because their meaning appears to be inferable to some extent. Therefore, a general claim that pseudoloanwords impede communication between Japanese speakers of English and English native speakers cannot be made. Rather, there seem to be fine nuances in the degree of ‘Japaneseness’ that make up such words. In an abstract, the authors of the above study summarize their results thus: In terms of knowledge scores, no significant difference was shown between the learners and non-learners groups. Nevertheless, the learners group showed higher scores in inferring the meanings of unknown Japanized English loanwords than the non-learners group. In addition, item-by-item analysis in the present study showed the likelihood that the meanings of Japanized English loanwords of two-unit compounds were easier for native English speakers to infer due to 1) similarity to English forms, or 2) structures containing secondary words being semantic heads which were modified by initial words. On the contrary, compound loanwords whose meanings were difficult to infer 1) ignored English word order rules, 2) shared a lesser degree of English meanings, or 3) had neither an initial word nor secondary word as a semantic head (Shibasaki 2007: 110). This explains why, for example, Japanese ‘live house’ was easily understood because its constituents’ respective meanings and the meaning of the whole compound stand in a semantic relation, while Japanese ‘new half’ <?page no="164"?> 164 contains a figurative meaning derived from Japanese ハーフ (ha-fu, ‘half’), denoting a person of mixed ethnic origins. The addition of ‘new’ changes the meaning of the word from person of mixed ethnic origins to a person of mixed genders, thus ‘transvestite’. The conclusion drawn by the authors of the study is convincing and shows well that neither loanwords nor pseudo-loanwords can be lumped together into one entity to pass judgment on. Therefore - besides that it goes against the natural laws of language - it would make no sense to just ‘abolish’ loanwords wholesale that differ in meaning from their English counterparts. The main reason, and problem, behind this way of thinking is that loanwords are not seen as a part of the Japanese language, but as mistaken English. Shibasaki et al. maintain: 以上の結果から、和製英語は英語を短縮したり、文法規則を無視したり、英語 の意味概念から離れたり、実に様々な過程を経て造語された語彙であることが わかる。このような性質を持った和製英語は、しばしば英語表現の誤りとして 取り上げられてきた […] が、間違った英語として見るよりも、日本語の造語生に 大らかで豊かなものを見出すという捉え方もありうるのではないだろうか。和 製英語は日本語であるというごく当然の見方からすれば、英語母語話者に通じ ないから恥ずかしいとする主張 […] はむしろ不自然な印象が受ける（柴崎２００ ７：１０３）。 From the results above it becomes clear that the hallmarks of Japanese English include abbreviating English words, ignoring English grammar rules, and moving away from the concept of meaning of the original English word and therefore run through various processes in their coinage. Japanese English has often been identified as erroneous English because of such characteristics; however, rather than looking at them as mistaken English, we could also look at them as making Japanese word creation richer and more plentiful. Observed from the logic perspective that Japanese English words are Japanese, it seems, on the contrary, rather unnatural to allege that they are embarrassing because they are not understood by English native speakers (Shibasaki 2007: 103). (my translation) This comment illustrates nicely what is basically wrong with this part of the debate on English loanwords in Japanese - that the arguments used do not target loanwords as a part of the Japanese language and as analyzable only within its linguistic systems, but as an obstacle to communication in English if used outside of a Japanese language context. While the nationalists and purists among the opponents of English loanwords in Japanese concentrate their arguments on either the potential for miscommunication amongst Japanese or the pollution of the Japanese language, the apologists of the opposite view bemoan the negative effects these Japanized loanwords might have on international communication - two different views whose arguments contradict each other. The purists maintain that loanwords are not understood by the Japanese and are therefore a problem; the internationalists, as they can be called, on the other hand contend that loanwords are so integrated into Japanese that they serve as a base for er- <?page no="165"?> 165 roneous English communication because of their different meanings and forms. Incompatible viewpoints, however their suggested solutions are similar to some extent, if for different reasons - both would like to proclaim a ban on loanwords. Yet this cannot, and can never be the solution. Concerning the problems that loanwords undoubtedly entail when it comes to English communication, Jinnouchi (2007) has a more sensible, pragmatic approach. 日本語の中の外来語を材料にして、たとえば次のような話題をめぐって、理解 を含めることができるのではないかと思う。 ・外来語の発音はなぜ英語と違うのか。どのように変形されるのか。 ・日本人の英語はなぜカタカナ式（開音節）になるのか。 ・和製英語はどこが本物と違うのか。なぜそうなるのか。 つまり、外来語を「鏡」として、そこに現れた日本語の特徴から日本語の「正 体」を学ぼうとするのである（陣内２００７：１５２）。 I believe that it is possible to deepen the understanding [of the workings of language], if we take the loanwords existent in Japanese as material to build with, and cover topics like the following [at school]: - Why is the pronunciation of loanwords different from English? What modifications are made? - Why do Japanese talk English Katakana-style (that is, with open syllables)? - How does Japanese English differ from genuine English? Why is this? In short, loanwords should be used as a mirror through which to understand characteristics of the Japanese language that become apparent through them, and through which to learn the true character of the Japanese language (Jinnouchi 2007: 152). (my translation) This suggested approach takes into account both problems that can occur by the incorrect use of loanwords outside the Japanese language as well as the fact that loanwords are a linguistic reality that cannot be forcefully curbed or willfully abandoned. It is useful in that it helps Japanese students realize 1.) that there are English-based words in their language, 2.) that and where these sometimes differ notably in meaning and form from corresponding expressions in English, and that 3.) they have their own logic within the Japanese language system, which is not applicable to the English language. This teaching approach admits that language cannot be controlled by regulations and that problems that arise in certain areas cannot be ruled away, but that rather awareness has to be raised in order to encourage speakers of a language to avoid such problems. Solutions can only come through a change in language education, which has the responsibility to outline to Japanese students the major difference between English-based loanwords and English vocabulary items - the former are Japanese words, the latter English words. A focus has to be laid on underlining the disparity in pronunciation and in meaning, therefore creating a dichotomist con- <?page no="166"?> 166 sciousness of English-based loanwords in Japanese and their English model-words. However one sees it, the topic of English loanwords in the Japanese language is a complex issue with many interconnections that make easy solutions impossible. Whether loanwords impede or boost international communication or whether they pose a threat to the Japanese language or enrich it is eventually an ideological discussion, or at least it is led that way in Japan. What is fact, though, is that their numbers within the Japanese lexis are great, as is their use in everyday situations. As previous chapters have shown, their percentage in newspapers, magazines etc. is at a very high level, and it is still increasing. This poses a constant challenge to readers and speakers to understand these loanwords and, for all the discussion on future methods to deal with them, this is a very real and present issue. Yet, despite the constant increase of anglicisms and the problems they entail, daily communication in Japan relies heavily on this additional resource, and it seems to work. If loanwords really constituted a crucial obstacle in communication, there would be no more loanwords because languages have a tendency to clean themselves of factors which hinder communication, so words which are neither used nor understood cease to exist over time (cf. Kettemann 2002: 256). This means, that these loanwords, in all their mass, their newness and strangeness, must somehow have their place and be understood, but not thanks to their similarities to native or related words, as is sometimes the case in European languages; the method of comprehension must rely rather on different factors, removed from inter-language similarities. The large number of English loanwords in the Japanese language demands not only a remarkable effort in order to comprehend, but each of them must equally be endowed with an environment that guarantees understanding on at least a minimal level. That they have not ceased to exist yet is proof to their usefulness and to the predilection of the Japanese language for new linguistic resources from outside. The issue of how to deal with the rising number of Western, mostly English loanwords in the Japanese language has been broadly discussed in academic circles ever since Japanese came into contact with them in the second half of the 19 th century. The scope of opinions is very broad between liberal and conservative - even loanword-hostile - approaches, which is what the next chapters will attempt to outline. <?page no="167"?> 167 9 From Alienation to Integration: Recent Discussions in Theory and Practice Different from Europe, where nations like France pursue a curious mission of law-enforcement to keep all foreign - especially American-English - influence from ‘tainting’ their language, in Japan loanwords do not appear to be a topic of much public interest. Rather, the Japanese have come to terms with their language, and go along with its new trends without paying too much heed to the linguistic origins of the words they use. Basically, due to the fact that loanwords are transformed on arrival from the alphabet to the Japanese Katakana syllabary gives them an integrated, Japanese feel which might account for the lack of consciousness on the actual presence of loanwords in the language. Gabrielli (2005), after conducting his survey on English loanwords in Japanese television commercials, noted that “the […] participants, as nonlinguists, seemed unable to spot the English in the commercials unless they were specific words or phrases already in daily circulation. This suggests that the average Japanese person is perhaps unaware of the nativization process because English loanwords and phrases are everywhere to be seen in society” (Gabrielli 2005: 79). Therefore, and possibly thanks the Japanese language’s long history of linguistic import, the discussion on loanwords is not very salient to the average Japanese. There is, however, a lot of discussion going on in Japan’s academic circles, about the limits of the need for loanwords. Considering the numbers of loanwords entering the Japanese language every year, this is an understandable debate. These discussions range from the question of how to write loanwords and how to distinguish them from foreign words, to how much they interfere with Japanese students’ command of English, or how to make them more understandable to the Japanese people. Some of these discussions will be presented here. 9.1 How to make loans look like loans The basic system of the Japanese language, as we have seen, tends towards immediate integration of foreign linguistic material, both phonetically and orthographically. This process guarantees that every loanword is instantly embedded into the Japanese linguistic system, hence its air of the foreign is relatively low to begin with and there is no confusion on how to pronounce <?page no="168"?> 168 it once it has been transformed into the Japanese syllabary 8 . Inukai (2002) comments, 語形の発音は様々の変容を加えられて、日本語の音韻体系に大筋で位置付ける ことが可能なものになる。表記もカタカナで書かれるようになるので、より一 層の日本語化がすすむ（犬飼２００２：２３）。 The pronunciation of the word-form [of loanwords] undergoes various transformations so that it becomes basically possible to position it within the Japanese phonological system. Since the word is then written in the Katakana syllabary, it takes another big step towards integration into Japanese. (Inukai 2002: 23) (my translation) However, this total integration into the Japanese language is what bothers Inukai. Since the immersion into Japanese is so complete that it becomes impossible to discern a loanword from a foreign word, at least from the orthographic and phonetic point of view. All words, upon arrival, look like Japanese words to the casual beholder. Now, the question of how useful it is to even make a distinction between loanwords and foreign words is open to debate; for Inukai, at least, this is of great import. He insists on calling words of foreign origin which are not yet naturalized enough to be called loanwords ( 「外来語と言えるほどには一般に定着していない」（２７） ) ‚foreign words’ ( 「外国語」 -Gaikokugo). His argument is that the Japanese language has got enough power to create words from its own linguistic pool - he is referring to Wago - but that, deplorably, Japan has no such tradition, and he brings an example where a word of Japanese origin - とお めがね (looking glass) - was replaced by a Chinese word - 望遠鏡 (bōenkyō). He continues, その伝統によって、（主として欧米からの）外国語の流入に何の規制も加えら れないので、外国語もどきの「外来語」が今、いわゆるカタカナ語として世に あふれている。それらの語は、口頭の会話においても文献においても communication の成立を妨げ、それらの語を使う人々が自分たちだけで凝り固 まる要因の一つになっている。もちろん、技術や学問の進展に伴って、新しい 名称や術語がつくられ輸入されるのは必然であるが、それが優れたものであれ ばあるほど、一握りの人々にしか通じない状態が放置されるのは良くない（犬 飼２００２：２７）。 In accordance with this tradition, foreign words (mostly from Europe and America) are entering the language without restraints, causing these foreignlooking loanwords to flood over in our society as so-called Katakana-words. These words impede both oral and written communication, and thus become a factor leading to exclusive group building by the people using them. Certainly, along with progress in the fields of technology and learning, it is inevitable that new terms are created and imported, but the more exceptional these are, the 8 This is different, for example, from German, where loanwords are imported in their original spelling, thus making it difficult to create a distinct German pronunciation from the start and hindering a smooth integration into the language. <?page no="169"?> 169 higher the probability that they are only understood by a handful of people. To do nothing about this would be problematic (Inukai 2002: 27). (my translation) This is a common argument amongst language purists and focuses on the unrestrained intrusion of foreign words into the language. The danger of this is demonstrated by drawing a threatening picture of a break-down of communication because of a flood of unknown, and unknowable, words. It is also common practice that loanwords are generously tolerated in special fields where ‘progress’ is concerned, while at the same time the danger of such words leaking through to everyday discourse is emphasized. Something that is striking about the citation above is the choice of writing the word ‘communication’ in the alphabet rather than in the Katakana syllabary as it usually is. This is not a coincidence, but an early glance at the author’s eventual proposed solution for the perceived loanword/ foreign word problem. His proposition is: 本稿の筆者は［．．．］外国語を表記しなくてはならないとき、できるだけ原 語のつづりで書くようにしている。その前に、まず、漢字かひらがなで書ける 語を使おうとすることは言うまでもない［．．．］カタカナから正しい語義が 得られないことをおそれるのである。もちろん、すでに外来語であるか、まだ 外国語であるか、判断に迷うものが多くある。その場合、本稿の筆者は、でき るだけ外国語寄りに判断している（犬飼２００２：２７／８）。 When there is a need to write a foreign word, I try to write it in its original spelling. It goes without saying that before doing so, I try to use Kanji and Hiragana words [i.e. Chinese and Japanese words] as much as possible. [...] There is reason to be concerned that the meaning of a word does not get properly communicated by using the Katakana syllabary [instead of Chinese characters which carry meaning in their orthography]. Of course I often hesitate whether a word is already a loanword or still a foreign word. In the case of doubt, I usually tend towards classifying it as a foreign word (Inukai 2002: 27/ 8). (my translation) This rather forced attempt to differentiate between foreign word and loanword does not seem to have any scientific basis rather than being based on individual impressions. It appears to be an attempt at stigmatizing loanwords as something foreign through the effect of orthographic salience. This is successful by allowing foreign words to linger on in texts in an ostentatious alphabetic spelling as elements not belonging to the Japanese language, while those loanwords which Inukai is willing to permit should stay within their limited fields like technology and not intrude on everyday communication. The whole chain of argument seems to be leading towards a gradual ousting of loanwords by replacing them with ‘foreign words’ written in the alphabet so as to discourage their use because of their being labeled as being ‘outside the Japanese language’. In his attempt to justify his proposition, Inukai - who after all published this article in a collection of research reports published by the National Institute for Japanese Language - cites other scholars with similar opinions <?page no="170"?> 170 to his own. One of them, Tamamura, proposes to write loanwords in their Japanese spelling, but using the alphabet instead of the Katakana syllabary. 「意味の正確な伝達を十分に保証するためには、それが外来語であることが表 記の上で示されていることが望ましい。そのためには、（中略）そのことを示 す特徴を付加した方がよい」として、外来語は欧文活字の字体をかえて書く か、大文字にするか、引用符・下線付きなどで区別し、さらに、 “Koodo(code)“ のように、多義を回避するために原語のつづりを付記する、外 国語は原語のつづりのまま書くべきである、と。［．．．］本稿の筆者は、玉 村の提案に全面的に賛成する（犬飼２００２：２８／９）。 Tamamura maintains that “in order to ensure a correct transmission of meaning, it would be advisable to identify loanwords by way of writing. Therefore, it would be prudent to add distinguishing features that demonstrate this [i.e. that they are loanwords].” He proposes to distinguish them either by writing loanwords in European font, or in big letters, or by quotation marks or underline. Additionally, as for example in “Koodo(code)”, he advises to include the original spelling in order to avoid polysemy. [...] I completely agree with Takamura’s proposal (Inukai 2002: 28/ 9). (my translation) What Tamamura proposes, and Inukai embraces, is yet another step towards an unnatural isolation of loanwords by artificially labeling them as alien material. Also, it is unclear what purpose it would serve to first distinguish loanwords by way of orthography, only to then write them according to the changes they would be subjected to had they been written in Katakana. The authors here do not seem to be certain on what they actually want to achieve. What is certain, though, is that by writing loanwords using the alphabet - and adding the original spelling - the problem of comprehension would be joined by the problem of pronunciation and a complete confusion on how to write or read a loanword, to the effect that people would either have to stop using them - which is probably both Inukai’s and Tamamura’s goal - or, more likely, many idiosyncratic spellings would emerge, causing even more confusion. As is also visible in the authors’ suggestions to avoid polysemy, they are entirely ignorant to the fact that the Japanese language already harbors thousands of homophonic words which may be distinguishable by their use of different characters in the written language, which however could be confused with other words using the same pronunciation in spoken Japanese. If these can be distinguished without their representing characters, then surely loanwords, too, can be distinguished by the same mental faculty. Evidently, though, Inukai’s goal is not an objective evaluation of the need for loanwords, but rather their disuse. やはり、中期的には、先にも述べたように、広く受け入れられた外来語はカタ カナで、一般性をもたない語は外国語あつかいして原語のつづりで書き、中間 のものをできるだけつくらないのが良いと思う。外来語そのものに何らかの制 <?page no="171"?> 171 限を加えることも望ましい。それが日本語と日本語の文字の将来のためになる と信ずる（犬飼２００２：３０）。 As I said before, in the long run widely accepted loanwords should be written in Katakana, all others should be treated as foreign words and be written in their original spelling. A mix between these two ways of writing would be unwise. Also, it is desirable to impose certain restrictions on loanwords altogether, for the good of the Japanese language and its characters (Inukai 2002: 30). (my translation) Leaving aside the problem of defining which loanwords are “widely accepted” and which are not, the use of such a distinction is more than questionable, and the future of words written in the alphabet more than uncertain, since the author himself later-on states that alphabet writing within an otherwise Japanese text feels “out of place” ( 「違和感がある」 ) (cf. Inukai 2002: 30). The final purposeof this proposition, it can be wagered, is to isolate and stigmatize loanwords (meaning only English-based loanwords) and thus encourage their disuse by creating an ‘out-of-place-feeling’ in the reader/ speaker. Such positions are not majority opinion, and there are those who have much more moderate and practicable approaches to this matter, which focus more on integration than isolation. The trend, however, to replace at least certain loanwords with Japanese words is one that is also pursued by more official quarters, like the 国立国語研究所 (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo), the National Institute for Japanese Language (NIJL). 9.2 The Guide for Paraphrasing Loanwords 9.2.1 Basic makeup Since 2003, the National Institute for Japanese Language has been working on a book (first published in 2006) focusing on a select number of loanwords - 176 words by 2008 - which were considered both hard to understand and expendable, and which could be replaced using the linguistic repertoire of Wago and Kango. Most of these loanwords are such that are employed especially in the field of politics, but also words used in standard newspapers. These were collected and, together with their suggested replacements, published as 「分かりやすく伝える：外来語言い換え手引き」 (roughly: For easier communication: A guide to paraphrasing loanwords). The books preface says, 国立国語研究所の調査によれば、国の省庁の白書や新聞など公共性の高い文章 にも、一般の人々にとってなじみの薄い分かりにくい外来語が多く使われてい ます。公共的な機関が不特定多数の人々に情報を伝える場合、読み手にとって 分かりやすい表現を心がけることが、何よりも大切です。ところが、このよう な外来語の使用状況を見ると、読み手の分かりやすさに対する配慮よりも、書 <?page no="172"?> 172 き手の使いやすさを優先しているように見えます。公共的な機関は、分かりや すい表現を工夫する努力を惜しむべきではありません。また、一般の人々の言 語生活でも、話題や場面、伝える相手によって、分かりやすい言葉を選んで使 う工夫が必要になるでしょう。 上に述べたような問題意識にもとづき、国立国語研究所「外来語」委員会で は、「『外来語』言い換え提案 — 分かりにくい外来語を分かりやすくするため の言葉遣いの工夫 — 」という提案を、４回にわたって発表してきました。これ は、公共性の高い文章で使われている分かりにくい外来語を一つ一つ取り上 げ、言い換えたり説明を付けたりする、分かりやすい表現のための具体的な方 法を提案したものです（国立国語研究所「外来語」委員会２００６：２）。 According to surveys conducted by the National Institute for Japanese Language, writings with a high public nature like White Papers issued by national government offices or newspapers use a lot of loanwords whose familiarity among average people is very low. When an institution of high public nature wants to communicate information to a large number of unspecified people, though, it is important to lay a focus on using words which can be easily understood by the reader. However, if we take a look on how loanwords are used [in such writings], it seems as if the convenience of the writer is more important than the comprehension by the reader. Public institutions should not be stingy in their efforts to devise easily understandable expression. In the future, also concerning the language life of average people, it will be of import to consider the use of words according to the topic, the situation, and the addressee. Based on the problems mentioned above, the National Institute for Japanese Language’s ‘Loanword Committee’ has presented their Suggestions for Paraphrasing Loanwords - how to make difficult loanwords more comprehensible four times already. In this book, from a list of loanwords which are difficult to understand, we select one at a time, and add a paraphrase and an explanation of the respective meaning, therefore providing a concrete method for easier understanding (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo “Gairaigo” Iinkai 2006: 2). (my translation) As it says in the preface, this book contains a list of loanwords which, based on surveys by the NIJL, constitute a potential obstacle to trouble-free communication between the Japanese people. In order to anticipate any possible imputations that such actions constitute a prelude to getting rid of loanwords altogether, the NIJL makes clear that 「言い換え提案」と言うと、外来語であればとにかく何でも言い換えてしまお うとする運動のように聞こえるかもしれませんが、決してそのようなものでは ありません。現状において見過ごすべきではない外来語の問題を、まずはこれ だと見定めて、適切な対応策を考えているわけです（相澤２００６：３０）。 [h]earing “Suggestions for paraphrasing”, one might think this simply means to paraphrase every loanword, but this is certainly not the case. What we intend is simply to acknowledge the problems people have with loanwords, ascertain where the problem lies, and then think of ways to solve these problems (Aizawa. 2006: 30) (my translation) <?page no="173"?> 173 As the surveys by the NIJL presented in one of the previous chapters have shown, the growing numbers of loanwords leave a lot of ground for misunderstandings or, indeed, non-understanding in public media and writings, which the National Institute for Japanese Language intends to help overcome with its publication on the paraphrasing of loanwords. Therefore, to pick up on this topic and try to provide a method to circumvent future confusion is a worthy cause. The effectiveness of its methods, however, is a matter of interpretation. 9.2.2 Paraphrasing problems The Guide to Paraphrasing Loanwords presents a list of 176 loanwords, each displaying, in a five-star-system, the level of comprehension by those aged 60 and above and by all respondents taken together. This is then followed by one or several suggestions for paraphrasing - depending on how many fields of meaning the loanword covers in the Japanese language. The difference in use is then demonstrated by example sentences, showing in which contexts each of the new paraphrases is to be used. In order to avoid any danger of misunderstanding, an explanation of the loanword’s meaning is supplied, followed by a comment on the nature and level of naturalization within the Japanese language. In some cases, several other words are presented as possible candidates for avoiding the use of the respective loanword and, if the loanword is also used as a compound word, then solutions for these cases are also offered. The purpose is to supply writers (and speakers) with one or more alternatives to the use of difficult loanwords by trying to cover all their possible semantic fields with already existing Japanese or Chinese words and by providing explanations which could be added to loanwords if their use was deemed inevitable for any reason. While the explanations, though lengthy in part, could be put to good use in newspapers or other public writing, the problem lies in the paraphrases meant to replace the difficult loanwords. Jinnouchi (2007) comments thus on the paraphrases in the Guide for Paraphrasing Loanwords: 野村（ 2004 ）では、「外来語のイイカエ」という節でこの言い換え提案に言及 している。それによれば、第２回目までの言い換え対象外来語１０９語に対し て、言い換えた語１２２語の語種をカウントすると、漢語が圧倒的に多いとい う結果が出ている（漢語１０４語、和語９語、混種語９語）。そして、その漢 語も４字以上の漢語が多く、このような長い言い換え語はあまり意味がないと している。また、漢語はどうしても同音語や類音語が多く、耳で聞いた時に分 かりにくいという（陣内２００７：１３５）。 Nomura (2004) makes a reference to the suggestions for paraphrasing [by the National Institute for Japanese Language] in his chapter “Paraphrasing Loanwords”. According to this, for the 109 words included in the second publication [note: the Guide to Paraphrasing Loanwords was the fourth publication, the first in <?page no="174"?> 174 book-form] there are 122 words suggested for paraphrasing. Looking closely it becomes clear that the overwhelming majority of these are Kango [i.e. Chinese words] (Kango: 104 words, Wago: 9 words, Hybrids: 9 words). Also, among these Kango are many which have 4 characters or more. Nomura remarks that such long paraphrases do not really make sense. Additionally, there are a lot of homophones and assonants present in Kango, which makes them difficult to distinguish orally (Jinnouchi 2007: 135). (my translation) Therein lies the problem of the NIJL’s Guide to Paraphrasing Loanwords: in order to avoid using difficult Western loanwords it suggests the use of equally difficult Chinese words which, similar to German nouns, can be compounded easily, resulting in very long words which are difficult to understand. According to Jinnouchi, this movement to replace loanwords with Kango is the result of a commonplace fear that Kango might be ‘devoured’ by loanwords ( 「漢語が外来語に食われる」 ), a fear which, looking at the statistics (see chapter 3), does seem to be justified to some extent. Pragmatically speaking, however, the increased use of Kango is not desirable as they can be difficult to understand, have many homophones and are therefore very hard to differentiate in speech without looking at the meaning-distinguishing characters. Jinnouchi (2007: 136) suggests the use of Wago - Japanese words - which are much easier to distinguish and understand. The NIJL, too, has become aware of this problem, as this statement from one of its researchers demonstrates: The Foreign Word Committee of the National Institute for Japanese Language is working on the paraphrasing of foreign words. In the process of paraphrasing, Sino-Japanese words are chosen in many cases. Sometimes, it turns out that the meaning of the paraphrased Sino-Japanese words is not easily understood or a paraphrased word can’t be used because of the Kanji restriction 9 . In modern Japanese society, there is a generation of people who are strong in Kanji and another generation of people who are weak in Kanji, but good at English. It is a problem that due to the fast-moving times, gaps in linguistic competence between different generations are showing up. Our institute should not only conduct research on foreign words, but we also need to do surveys on the usage and the comprehension level of Kanji characters (Aizawa 2005b: 144) This self-criticism gives reason for hope that future publications will consider the problems caused by the present suggestions for paraphrasing. While certainly the NIJL’s assessment of the problem is correct, its suggestions regrettably fall short of providing a real solution, because they focus more on the symptom than the cause. In addition, nearly none of the discussed loanwords could be rephrased by a single word, but owing to the varied semantic spaces that they cover, various paraphrases were needed to cover the whole range of meanings. This, of course, cannot be claimed to 9 The use of Chinese characters in Japanese has been limited by the government in order to prevent problems with characters that are rarely used and therefore not known to most Japanese. <?page no="175"?> 175 constitute a step towards better understanding. Also, considering how many loanwords are in use in the Japanese language, it is questionable how much difference paraphrasing these few select ones will make. Jinnouchi (2007) himself takes a more offensive approach targeted not so much at paraphrasing, but at the gradual integration by use of difficult loanwords into the Japanese language, aiming at engaging the problem by embracing it. 9.3 Three steps to integrating loanwords Undeniably, according to many surveys the number of loanwords in Japanese is continually increasing and in some situations poses a threat to understanding, especially for elder generations (cf. Jinnouchi 2007: 83). In opposition to the approach described in subchapter 9.1., the one by Jinnouchi (2007) does not concern itself with purist issues where loanwords are seen as a threat to Japanese language, but it focuses on pointing out more pragmatic topics pertaining to the recognition and understanding especially of newly created loanwords. While admitting the natural tendency in any language to keep only those words that fulfill a lexical or semantic need, Jinnouchi maintains that, 社会的不平等をもたらす危険性に気づかない鈍感な意見ともいえる。カタカナ 語が分からないために必要な情報から取り残されたり、社会的サービスを受け られないなどの不利益を被る「カタカナ語弱者」にとっては、現実の生活が問 題なのであり、１００年後の日本語がどうなっているかということは関係ない のである。つまり、日本語の「共時態」に焦点があるのであって、カタカナ語 の洪水に溺れかけている人をどのようにして救うかが緊急の課題なのである （陣内２００７：８５）。 [t]his view is insensitive to the fact that there is a danger of social discrimination. People who are poor at understanding Katakana words suffer from being excluded from important information just because they do not understand loanwords, from being unable to use social services and other disadvantages; for them, this represents a real life problem, and it has nothing to do with how the Japanese language will look like in a hundred years. In other words, it has a synchronic focus, and it is a question of immediate concern how to save those people who are drowning in the flood of Katakana words (Jinnouchi 2007: 85). (my translation) It can hardly be denied that the constant increase of often very abstract loanwords in areas that closely concern people’s lives and where a clear understanding of content is pivotal constitutes a serious problem. Jinnouchi analyzes the problem thus: 最近出現した公共性の高いカタカナ語を眺めていると、現在のカタカナ語問題 は、専門用語が日常生活の中にそのまま染み出しているところにあるといえ る。それぞれの専門分野で用いられている一種の集団語としての外国語や外来 <?page no="176"?> 176 語が、行政を通して一般に発信される際、日常語として流布しているかどうか 十分にチェックされていないことが問題なのである。ひとつひとつの分野では 少量であっても、それが集まると多量のカタカナ語となる（陣内２００７：８ ７）。 If we take a look at those Katakana words which have recently appeared in literature with a high public nature we can say that all sorts of technical terms are seeping through into everyday life. The problem is that when foreign words and loanwords which are used in all kinds of special areas as one form of group jargon are used in a public context by way of the administration, there is not enough attention being paid as to whether these are already circulating in everyday language. Even though the numbers of loanwords coming from each respective field might be low, in total they amount to a great number (Jinnouchi 2007: 87). (my translation) The main problem, as Jinnouchi sees it, is not so much the use of loanwords itself, but the increasing dissemination into everyday language of loanwords which are used as technical terms in certain fields and whose transparency in meaning is low, owing to their high degree of abstractness. Jinnnouchi cites a report by the Japanese Language Council ( 国語審議会 ), with whose opinion he basically concurs: 外来語・外国語は基本的にその語に対する知識がないと伝達不能になることが 多い。そういう意味で、広く国民一般を対象にしている官公庁、新聞、放送等 では、簡単に日本語に言い換えられる外来語・外国語や耳慣れない外来語・外 国語などは安易に使わないようにすべきである。どうしても使わざるを得ない 場合は注釈を付けて使うなどの配慮が必要であろう（陣内２００７：１１５／ ６）。 In the case of loanwords and foreign words, usually if you do not know a loanword then communication becomes impossible. In that sense, institutions like public agencies or media like newspapers or television who target a wide, general audience, should avoid using loanwords/ foreign words that could easily be rephrased in Japanese or such loanwords/ foreign words that people cannot get accustomed to. If, for any reason, there is no way around using a certain loanword/ foreign word, it may be necessary to consider adding explanatory notes (Jinnouchi 2007: 115/ 6). (my translation) This seems a much more reasonable approach to deal with those loanwords which are difficult to understand than the first approach described in this chapter which added to the problem by representing ‘nonnaturalized’ loanwords in foreign writing. The Japanese Language Council cited by Jinnouchi also tries to take into account the degree of naturalization of each loanword; it classifies them into three categories and differentiates the necessary approach accordingly. These categories are paraphrased below: - Loanwords that are widely used by the general public and which can be considered to be sufficiently established like ストレス (su- <?page no="177"?> 177 toressu, ‘stress’), スポーツ (supo-tsu, ‘sports’), ボランティア (borantia, ‘volunteer’): these should be used without any change - Loanwords that are not sufficiently established and which could be easily paraphrased into Japanese like イノベーション (inobe-shon, ‘innovation’, which could be changed into 革新 - Kakushin) or イン センティブ (insentibu, ‘incentive’, which could be changed into 誘因 [Yūin], 刺激 [Shigeki], or 報奨金 [Hōshōkin], according to the necessitated meaning): these should be paraphrased into Japanese - Loanwords that are not sufficiently established, but for which no satisfying paraphrase exists like アイデンティティー (aidentiti-, ‘identity’), アプリケーション (apurike-shon, ‘application’), ノーマラ イゼーション (no-maraize-shon, ‘normalization’), or バリアフリー (bariafuri-, ‘barrierfree’): to make these easier to understand, explanatory notes or similar aids to understanding should be provided (cf. 陣内 [Jinnouchi] ２００７：１３３ ). The problem with this classification is that its differentiation between the second and the third category appears to be rather arbitrary. After all, who decides which loanword has a suitable equivalent in Japanese? Other institutions, like the National Institute for Japanese Language, for instance, have proposed Japanese alternatives to ‘normalization’, which the Council sorted under ‘no equivalent existent’. The borderline between these two categories is very thin, which is why it seems prudent not to differentiate between them at all. Rather, as Jinnouchi himself proposes later on in the text, a consistent method should be applied. He suggests three phases for the gradual integration of loanwords (cf. Jinnouchi 2007: 134): - Phase 1: Using the paraphrase, with the loanword in brackets Examples: ‘recipe’ - 調理法（レシピ）、 ’daytime care’ - 日帰り介 護（デイサービス） - Phase 2: Using the loanword, with the paraphrase in brackets Example: ‚recipe’ - レシピ（調理法 ） , ‘daytime care’ - デイサービ ス（日帰り介護） - Phase 3: Using only the loanword Example: ‚recipe’ - レシピ , ‘daytime service’ - デイサービス This is doubtlessly the most sensible approach among the three cited in this chapter, because on the one hand it takes into consideration the problems that people are having in understanding loanwords while on the other hand it does not attempt to kill off a natural linguistic phenomenon by artificial and ineffective means. Although the problem of how to measure the degree of naturalization and recognition by the people remains, this method still promises to be of much more use to the Japanese people struggling with the growing number of loanwords than a method of loan- <?page no="178"?> 178 word isolation or one of merely exchanging loanwords for difficult ‘native’ terms. Of course, these are not only academic discussions that are being led merely on a theoretical basis, but they are put into practice every day by those who of all public institutions probably have most contact with people of all layers of society - newspapers. 9.4 Spreading the word - newspapers’ loanword policies 9.4.1 On the general function of newspapers in the distribution of loanwords It is commonly understood that readers often look to newspapers as their reference for current language use as well as for new words or other changes in language. Newspapers are more or less the distributors of new (often equals ‘foreign’) words, also due to the fact that it is them who report first hand on new developments (cf. Plümer 2000: 83f). Plümer (cf. 2000: 83) calls them “multipliers” (“Multiplikatoren”) of neologisms. Their wordings and phrasings are usually accepted by readers as standard use, and their lexical influence, their influence on people’s awareness of language, is substantial. Plümer (2000) explains: Für den Großteil einer Sprechergemeinschaft gelten Zeitungen nicht nur als reine Informationsquelle, sondern auch als sprachliche Bezugspunkte. Neues Vokabular, neue Sprachformen und neue Sprachinhalte dringen über journalistische Veröffentlichungen oft sehr schnell in den allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch ein (Plümer 2000: 85). In the case of Japanese, this is no different, as Loveday (1986: 28) remarks: “The main Japanese agents of dissemination [of language] are copywriters, journalists, media personnel, translators and academics.” Owing to this responsibility, the treatment of new and sometimes difficult loanwords has to happen using a great deal of sensitivity so as not to cause too much confusion. The way newspapers handle loanwords can be an important factor in whether people fear or embrace these words. 9.4.2 Example: The Asahi Shinbun Newspaper In the 19 th issue of its Shin Kotoba Series ( 新「ことば」シリーズ ), a magazine which focuses on all aspects of Japanese language and answers critical questions by readers pertaining to language, the National Institute for Japanese Language investigated the approaches of different newspapers concerning the use of loanwords. The Asahi Shinbun is the second most sold daily newspapers in Japan, with over 8 million copies sold daily (cf. “Asahi Shimbun”. Wikipedia <?page no="179"?> 179 [Online]. http: / / en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Asahi_Shimbun [2008, Sept. 19]). It can thus be said to be very influential in Japanese society. Its main principle concerning loanwords is to use them only when necessary, meaning that they use difficult loanwords only if there is no Japanese word available for a certain context. Essentially, the Asahi Shinbun appears to be following some of the NIJL’s suggestions for paraphrasing loanwords; in some cases, however, they stick to loanwords that they have paraphrased in other articles, especially when citing someone who has used the respective loanword. In such cases, the Asahi Shinbun’s policy is to provide the corresponding Japanese rewording or similar annotations in brackets after the loanword (cf. 福田２００６：５１ f 。 [Fukuda 2006: 51f]). In other cases, like the one cited below, the newspaper tries to embed the respective loanword in a context that makes the loanword’s meaning more or less self-explanatory. The following example shows how the loanword 「ワンストップ」 (wansutoppu - ‘one stop’, denoting being able to complete multiple errands at just one place), is put into context to clarify its meaning. 保育や年金、研修など再就職に必要な情報を１カ所で得られる「ワンストップ 窓口」を地域ごとに設ける（福田２００６：５２）。 The “one-stop counter”, a place where you can get all the necessary information concerning childcare, pension, study training or reemployment, is provided in all districts (Fukuda 2006: 52). (my translation) Putting a loanword into a proper context is definitely a fruitful approach to this topic. It would appear to be more sensible to use words already in circulation in a self-explanatory way, if necessary, rather than using complicated Japanese rephrasings to express what can be said with one single loanword. If we take the word wansutoppu from above, we realize how economic it is to use the loan instead of a paraphrase, which more or less makes up the rest of the sentence. In other cases, when the inclusion of an explanation into the article itself would make the article unnecessarily long and difficult to read, the Asahi Shinbun sometimes adds a small article about this loanword, explaining its meaning and use to the reader. In cases where certain loanwords are thought to become important in near-future discourse, longer articles concern themselves with the implications of these words and the principal ideas they are based upon (cf. Fukuda 2006: 52). The Asahi Shinbun, therefore, tries to strike a compromise between paraphrasing and annotating - or explaining - loanwords which probably is the way that the majority of the Japanese feels most comfortable with. <?page no="180"?> 180 9.4.3 Other comparative examples Japanese newspapers in general are very much aware of the problems that have arisen from the continuing increase of loanwords in the Japanese language, which is why newspapers note in their respective glossaries 10 : “We try to refrain from using loanwords which are not in general use as best as we can” ( 「一般化していない外来語は極力、使用を控える」； cf. Fukuda 2006: 54). This, by the way, is also how newspapers treat Chinese characters, whose use is generally limited to those included in the list of Chinese characters in common use ( 常用漢字表 [Jōyō Kanjihyō]). Since loanwords by nature are created at a very fast pace, there is often no choice but to use them in order to refer to the new concept they denote. Therefore, no general rules exist, nor would they make sense in a field as dynamic as that of loanwords (cf. Fukuda 2006: 51). Broadly speaking, other Japanese newspapers, too, attempt to avoid unnecessary loanwords or, if that is not possible, make efforts to render them comprehensible in their own ways. The Yomiuri Shinbun, Japan’s bestselling newspaper, tries also to adopt the NIJL’s suggestions for paraphrasing loanwords, as the Asahi Shinbun does. Interestingly, however, their definitions of which loanwords should be paraphrased apparently differ. While, for example, the Yomiuri has been trying to curb the use of the loanword リニューアル (rinyu-aru - ‘renewal’) by changing it, depending on the context, into 改装 (Kaisō - ‘renovation’) or 刷新 (sasshin - ‘reform’) and thus managed to decrease the loanword’s use from 171 times in the year 2000 to only 45 times in 2004 (about 500 times in 5 years), the Asahi used the loanword about 1000 times in the same five-year-span (cf. Fukuda 2006: 54). The lack of common rules for loanword paraphrasing makes it difficult for readers to adopt the same approach themselves, because there is no specific and fixed method to it. The newspapers’ basic approach can be divided into two camps. The one, which newspapers like the Yomiuri or the Nihon Keizai Shinbun, a business newspaper, adhere to, focuses on trying to provide Japanese rewordings for difficult loanwords, either by replacing them completely or at least by adding an explanatory paraphrase in parentheses, since at times no fitting paraphrase is available for a loanword in a certain context. The other approach, taken by the Asahi Shinbun or the Mainichi Shinbun and several others, is a more liberal one, adapting the method to what the respective situation requires. Sometimes this means that words are paraphrased; at other times an explanation is added. Similarly, the latter newspapers’ glossary does not include paraphrases for loanwords, like the one of the Yomiuri, but only examples of use, which show the loanword em- 10 Many Japanese newspapers publish their own glossaries, or dictionaries, in which they explain technical terms or loanwords that are being used in their articles. <?page no="181"?> 181 bedded in context. The result of these different approaches, however, does not warrant the conclusion that the eventual extent of use of loanwords is altogether different. Since even the newspapers employing the paraphrasing approach have to admit that there is no magic formula for paraphrasing each and every loanword, the comparative results show that no notable difference in the amount of loanword numbers can be detected (cf. Fukuda 2006: 54f). Obviously, a word’s meaning slightly changes, depending on the context, which makes a permanent and fixed paraphrase nearly impossible. 9.5 Concluding remarks The discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of loanwords is being waged quite intensively, albeit only by official institutions or academic circles. The main topic it revolves around is to what extent and in what form the use of loanwords is necessary and what can be done to preclude any comprehension problems connected to them. The proposals born from this discussion span from more or less expelling loanwords by visually isolating them from the rest of the Japanese lexis, to suggestions for gradual integration of difficult loanwords in the light of the fact that loanwords are a natural phenomenon that cannot be simply ruled away. The impression is that moderate circles are predominating in the actual implementation of methods to anticipate a crisis of comprehension. No doubt, there is a need to deal with the loanword issue in a way that provides means for the average person to understand media discourse. To impose a curfew on loanwords, however, cannot be a solution. To try this seems like an attempt to prevent the wind from blowing. The conciliatory path that most written media are treading - on the narrow line between excluding and embracing loanwords - is a sensible one, although more unity in the manner of its execution appears desirable. More than trying to paint over loanwords, an increase in awareness on the manifold meanings and uses of loanwords within the Japanese language may be required. The people’s fear of loanwords and their impression that there are so many of them may well originate from the sometimes short lifespan that many loanwords enjoy - as may the argument that there are so many difficult loanwords: 外来語には急に使われるようになり、また急に消えて行く語が目立つようで す。この辺りが実際の使用数の割に「分かりにくい語が多い」と感じられる理 由ではないでしょうか（福田２００６：５１）。 Amongst loanwords, those who suddenly come into use and disappear just as quickly seem to stand out. This might be the reason why people feel that “there are so many difficult loanwords”, in relation to their limited times of use (Fukuda 2006: 51). (my translation) <?page no="182"?> 182 There might be some truth to that statement. Seeing that many loanwords come into use the one day and fade out of use the other day, it is reasonable to conclude that there is not enough time to get even slightly familiar with a word’s meaning and use. It is only natural that such sudden developments could unsettle members of a speech community, and it is the responsibility of the government and the media, who are, as we have established, “multipliers” of new developments in language, to pave the way for a barrier-free understanding - based on a spirit of integration and embracement, not on language regulation. It is important to raise awareness for the lexical roles and semantic advantages that loanwords offer to a language. It is, however, just as important to show that loanwords are not so much foreign material as neutral linguistic resources put to use by a language and painted into its proper colors, for the lack of understanding of the differences between loanwords and the words they originated from can lead to considerable problems, as we have seen, when the use of loanwords interferes with the language competence of foreign language students of the donor language who are unable to distinguish Anglicism from English vocabulary. The question remaining to be answered, is how do Japanese people deal with these loanwords in their own language and what factors influence whether they understand them or not. All surveys conducted to this point have shown the problems that people have in understanding loanwords, but all of them have been focusing on the mere word, disregarding the function of the text surrounding it. After all, even native words are sometimes difficult to understand without the context they are used in. This leads us to the main question of this paper: How important is context in the comprehension process of unknown or little known words - of loanwords, in this case - in the Japanese language? To help answer this question, part 4 will provide some theoretical basis on meaning and context as a fundament for the ensuing empirical part of this book. <?page no="183"?> --- PART 4 --- Empirics - context and its impact on loanword comprehension <?page no="185"?> 185 10 Meaning, Context, and Related Semantic Issues Language functions as an interconnected system based on fundamental syntactic rules and endowed with semantic meaning which, in turn, is mainly derived from a constant interplay of words and structures defining a word’s position, function and meaning in a text. Language, thus, rather than being a lifeless and rigid corpus of words and syntax, is a living organism in constant flux, which continually redefines itself and its constituents in time through use, re-use and disuse. Within such an ever-changing system, the only constant can be the rules, or faculties, which underlie our patterns of understanding and which enable us to derive meaning even from obscurity, ignorance, and intransparency. Amongst these faculties lies our ability to deduce meaning from the linguistic, social, and perceptual environment a certain word is set in. The question is only, to what extent does context define the meaning of the words we use. In the discussion about the meaning of words, there are two diametrically opposing points of view amongst which many moderate theories have grown, leaning either more towards the one or the other, or trying to be neutral among them. 10.1 Naturalistic meaning The one major theory, going back to the teachings of Plato in his dialogue with Kratylos, postulates that words carry an intrinsic meaning, which is fixed and unalterably decided. This meaning can be found, as it were, within the very fabric of a word, and can be traced in its etymology. Consequently, the meaning of a word would also exist outside an immediate linguistic environment and linguistic boundaries and would not be influenced by context or use, but rather be subject to a definition by learned men. SOKRATES: Weißt du auch das nicht zu sagen, wer uns die Worte überliefert, die wir gebrauchen? HERMOGENES: Auch das weiß ich wieder nicht. SOKRATES: Dünkt es dich nicht der Gebrauch und die eingeführte Ordnung zu sein, was sie uns überliefern? HERMOGENES: Das scheint wohl. <?page no="186"?> 186 SOKRATES: Es ist also ein Werk dessen, der die Gebräuche einrichtet, des Gesetzgebers, dessen jener Belehrende sich bedient, wenn er sich der Worte bedient? HERMOGENES: So scheint es mir (König ed. 2007: 22). According to Plato, words do not get their meaning by use - because this would randomize their meaning - but by creation and definition by scholars, who derive their meanings from the words’ core, into which they are inherently embedded. This theory implies that there is always a traceable connection between the word’s form and the concept it signifies, and that this connection exists outside of text and use. Hall (1997) calls this “the reflective approach” (Hall 1997: 24). In the reflective approach, meaning is thought to lie in the object, person, idea or event in the real world, and language functions like a mirror, to reflect the true meaning as it already exists in the world (Hall 1997: 24) This reflective approach, however, evokes many objections, the most evident of which is formulated by Crystal (1995: 101): Träfe die naturalistische Sichtweise zu, erschlösse sich die Bedeutung von Wörtern beim bloßen Hören. Dies ist jedoch nur bei lautmalerischen Wörtern [...] der Fall, und selbst diese sind von Sprache zu Sprache unterschiedlich (Crystal 1995: 101). This idea of meaning is of course untenable, and is opposed by the socalled conventionalist position. 10.2 Meaning through use The other theory, represented by Wittgenstein, for example, sees the meaning of a word as relatively undetermined in itself, as volatile and in flux. Meaning, according to Wittgenstein’s strong thesis, is determined not by its definition in a dictionary, but by the context it is used in, and by the associations it evokes through its uttering. “’Red’”, he writes, “means the colour that occurs to me when I hear the word ‘red’” (cited in McGinn 1984: 28). This is a very radical idea of meaning, since it categorically denies any inherent meaning in words but leaves the meaning-creating process entirely to the mind of the reader/ listener. “[M]eaning something,” McGinn reformulates one of Wittgenstein’s idea, “is having something like an image of it come before the mind” (McGinn 1984: 52). This, of course, is only a minor offshoot from Wittgenstein’s central idea of meaning, namely meaning as use. In his work Remarks on the Foundation of Mathematics he states that “only in the practice of a language can a word have a meaning” (cited in McGinn 1984: 36). So for Wittgenstein, the action of understanding and the action of using words are intrinsically connected, so that the one presupposes the other and the other way around. As <?page no="187"?> 187 McGinn puts it: “[T]o know the meaning of a word is to be able to use it; linguistic knowledge is a kind of knowing-how […] there is a direct conceptual connexion between the concept of understanding and concepts of action, in particular linguistic action” (McGinn 1984: 122). In McGinn’s opinion, Wittgenstein sometimes provocatively seems to hand the creation of meaning completely over to idiosyncratic use. The suggestion might be that here Wittgenstein is committing himself to the idea that ‘meaning is created by use’: that is, the meaning of a word is progressively constituted or created by its use over time - determinate meaning is the final result of temporally extended use […] use produces (is the source of) meaning. […] [S]ince no entity whose essence it is to be created can exist until the requisite acts of creation have been carried out, meaning (rules) cannot exist unless and until the creative acts of linguistic use have been performed (McGinn 1984: 134). This thesis of Wittgenstein is a very daring one and one that probably not many linguists can agree with in its totality, since its wholesale application would result in a linguistic chaos where words are used idiosyncratically by every speaker. However, in our case - i.e. in the case of anglicisms - it can be supposed that this theory bears a fragment of truth. Whereas the meaning of so-called ‘native’ words is, to a great extent, fixed by the rules of meaning already attached to them by definition, words which enter a language from the outside hold none or only a small degree of predetermined meaning to those who are not familiar with the donor language. It seems sensible that such vague words would, to some extent, be used idiosyncratically since their meaning cannot be perceived by merely looking at them. Their respective meanings, therefore, have to be determined by use, in an environment that allows for a problem-free understanding - in short: context is key to the use and understanding of such words. Naturally, such ideas have to be pursued with great care, since an overgeneralization or carte blanche for idiosyncratic use could endanger communication. For McGinn, thus, Wittgenstein’s so-termed ‘creative thesis’ undermines the whole idea that words can be wrongly used - indeed it undermines the distinction of truth and falsity as applied to sentences. For, if every application of a word contributes to fixing its meaning by virtue of what it is applied to, then no use could be deemed incorrect (McGinn 1984: 137). The application of a theory with such far-reaching consequences for meaning and communication would naturally pose a problem. It might therefore be prudent to interpret Wittgenstein’s thesis in a weaker way, to avoid such linguistic mayhem, which is also the conclusion McGinn reaches. For him, Wittgenstein’s fundamental thesis, eventually, “can be seen as a position which avoids the normative anarchy of the creative thesis while not <?page no="188"?> 188 falling into the trap of making meaning magically contain all of future and counterfactual use” (McGinn 1984: 138). This appears a basis sensible enough to build on when dealing with the mechanisms of understanding of such a complex topic as anglicisms in the Japanese language. Still, it is reasonable to take a look at how other linguists or scholars view the topic of context and meaning. 10.3 In good company opinions on context The idea that meaning is derived from and dependent on context is no singular opinion. Especially in language philosophy the concept of meaning through context has been widely embraced. “Meaning must be recognized as bound to contexts of meaning”, writes H.G. Callaway following the thoughts of the philosopher John Dewey (1993: 4). Similarly, the German philosopher Gottlob Frege maintains that a word without context is without meaning. In his book The Foundations of Arithmetic, he states that “we are seriously mistaken to ask after a meaning of a word in isolation. Instead, ‘it is only in the context of a sentence that a word has a meaning’” (Callaway 1993: 34, quoting Frege 1953: x). Therefore, the context is the defining aspect in a word’s meaning without which a word cannot be properly understood. For Frege, “a sense, or meaning, is […] a special abstract entity, which is ‘grasped,’ when the corresponding expression is understood” (Callaway 1993: 34). We can derive from this that the surrounding words form a network which, in its completeness, gives meaning to an otherwise obscure linguistic entity. No word, according to this theory, can semantically exist in an isolated condition. John Locke, for example, wrote the following lines on the meaning of words: Thus we may conceive how words […] come to be made of use by men, as the sign of their ideas; not by any natural connexion that there is between particular articulate sounds and certain ideas, for then there would be but one language amongst all men; but by a voluntary imposition, whereby such a word is made arbitrarily the mark of such an idea (cited in Alston 1964: 23). Locke’s theory, too, can be summarized as ‘meaning is use’, and therefore subsumed under Wittgenstein’s principal idea of meaning in context. As W.P. Alston says: “It is only because we feel a need to convey our thoughts to each other that we have to make use of publicly observable indications of [our] ideas […] A linguistic expression gets its meaning by being used as such an indication” (Alston 1964: 23). Leonard Bloomfield, at least in this respect, had a similar idea on the meaning of words. In his book Language he says that the “meaning of a linguistic form [is] the situation in which the speaker utters it and the response which it calls forth in the hearer” (1935: 139, cited in Alston: 26). <?page no="189"?> 189 This, of course, makes the creation of meaning a purely subjective and volatile process which is in danger of relativizing any fixed concepts of meaning. If this train of thought were pursued consequently, there would be no stable meaning and thus no sensible communication possible. Therefore, some constraints have to be raised in order to bring order to chaos while preserving the idea of context-dependence in word-meanings. According to Alston, the following requirements have to be met: If this is to work, there must be features that are common and peculiar to all the situations in which a given expression is uttered in a given sense, and there must be features common and peculiar to all the responses that are made to the utterance of a given expression in a given sense (Alston 1964: 26). In a way, the context in which a word is used and received has to be defined in order for the meaning to be stable enough to allow for a communication without a great margin for misunderstanding. The meaning of a word is, so to speak, closely tied to stable associations of the word to a certain context by both the speaker/ writer and the hearer/ reader. Alston proposes that “in order for an expression to be meaningful in my current use of it, it is necessary that there be a tendency for the word to elicit in me a certain idea and vice versa” (Alston 1964: 66). Again, we can see here that it is essential to have some boundaries to the arbitrariness of word meaning. Only under these conditions can context-dependence of meaning be acceptable. If these conditions are met, then there can be a certain flexibility and idiosyncrasy of meaning within a defined linguistic territory. Jason Stanley (2005), who in his essay “Semantics in Context” maintains that words’ literal semantic content can become deferred to become what he calls “enriched meaning”, argues: Since [...] virtually any word can have a deferred meaning, it follows that any word could in principle acquire any meaning, via a sense-transfer function. The available sense-transfer functions are constrained only by pragmatics. So, the resulting semantic theory is one according to which semantic content is unconstrained by conventional meaning. The semantic content of the word ‘house’ could be the property of being a dog - the only thing that would prevent it from acquiring this semantic content is pragmatic facts about a context (Stanley 2005: 230). Yet even within this pragmatic framework, the meaning of words is only defined to some extent. There is always room for ambiguity and misunderstanding. There is no way to ensure that the idea in the speaker’s mind is transmitted unalteredly to the hearer’s mind. Bronislaw Malinowski, a Polish-born anthropologist maintained that “meaning is not inherent to words or propositions, but is dependent upon what he termed the ‘context of situation’. That context is often such that what we traditionally reckon to be the meaning of utterances is not their effective meaning at all” (cited in Joseph 2004: 17). So the meaning of words is sometimes manifold, depend- <?page no="190"?> 190 ing on whoever perceives them in a certain context. This means that it is difficult to precisely ascribe one ‘real meaning’ to every word. [W]henever we isolate language from the people who speak and interpret it and the context in which they speak and interpret it, we are not getting closer to some kind of essential truth about language. We are getting further from it, toward a generalization that may well have its uses […] but can also take the form of a pure abstraction for which the only use is to be worshipped as a kind of fetish (Joseph 2004: 24). Strictly speaking, this would mean that there is no ‘theoretical’ meaning, but only a practical one, a meaning through use. If we pursue this thought, it follows that the meaning of a word could be understood even if the linguistic material were alien (i.e. from a foreign language), if only the context provided were adequate to define a certain meaning. The English linguist J.R. Firth in some of his essays promotes the idea of meaning as “situational relations in a context of situation” (Firth 1969: 19). The defining element for Firth is the function an element has within the structure which in turn defines its meaning within the whole construct. “Meaning”, writes Firth, “is to be regarded as a complex of contextual relations, and phonetics, grammar, lexicography, and semantics each handles its own components of the complex in its appropriate context” (Firth 1969: 19). In Firth’s opinion, thus, all other components that make up a word and its function are merely servants to context in its creation of a word’s meaning. They all adapt themselves to the respective contexts, and are put into place to ensure meaning. So while there are several rather extreme theories on the importance of context - Leisi (1973), for example, cites I.A. Richards (who co-wrote The Meaning of Meaning [1923] saying “ein Wort habe an sich überhaupt keine Bedeutung, es empfange Bedeutung erst in einem gegebenen Kontext“ (1973: 21) - the more moderate theories stress the necessity of a stable basic system of meaning which can be slightly altered and adapted according to the requirements of context. Noam Chomsky, for example, elaborates his notion that [t]here is good evidence that words have intrinsic properties of sound, form, and meaning; but also open texture, which allows their meanings to be extended and sharpened in certain ways; and also holistic properties that allow some mutual adjustments (Chomsky 1996: 52, cited in Pietroski 2005: 255). Similarly, the Swiss linguist Ernst Leisi maintains: Mit guten Gründen hält man sich heute an die These de Saussures, Gegenstand der Sprachwissenschaft sei nicht der beständig wechselnde individuelle Sprechakt, sondern das dahinterliegende System. Wir müssen deshalb auch unter „Bedeutung“ etwas verstehen, was nicht von Situation zu Situation wechselt (1973: 34/ 5). <?page no="191"?> 191 According to Leisi, meaning must be something at least basically predefined because otherwise this would leave the field wide open to a confusingly idiosyncratic definition of meaning which would bring the linguistic system to its knees. Context, in his opinion, is only a mutational force to a core meaning. “Der Kontext”, he writes, “hebt ja die ursprünglichen Bedingungen [des Wortgebrauchs] nicht auf, er variiert sie nur.“ Therefore, in Leisi’s opinion, context cannot be the primal force behind the creation and extraction of meaning, it can only be an alternating factor. Leisi, however, also elaborates that in his opinion many factors are crucial in determining the meaning of a word other than the signified alone. His example refers to the sport of cricket, which uses many words that are only understandable within the whole context of the game. He states: [E]s zeigt sich auch hier deutlich, daß ein Begriff sich durchaus nicht in der Beschreibung des Bezeichneten erschöpft, daß vielmehr eine ganze Anzahl von Faktoren außerhalb des Bezeichneten relevant sein können (Leisi 1973: 87). These other factors that Leisi refers to all boil down to context, which, eventually, is the pivotal force in the comprehension of words, since it alone focuses in onto one single point in the relatively vague scale of a word’s meaning. Use, as the incarnated shape of context, is at the core of what defines meaning. For Leisi, it is clear that “im Prinzip müssen wir deshalb sagen, daß eine Wortbedeutung mehr durch Konvention und Tradition als direkt vom Bezeichneten her bestimmt ist” (Leisi 1973: 93). And, quoting de Saussure: “Ein sprachliches Element soll deshalb nicht für sich allein betrachtet werden sondern als Teil eines Ganzen“ (Leisi 1973: 94). For Leisi, meaning is tantamount to what he calls “Bedingungen des Wortgebrauchs”, i.e. conditions of word usage. This means that there is no exclusivity of meaning bound to some theoretical definition in a dictionary, but that rather word meaning is born from the role a word takes within the fabric of a text, but is based on a more or less wide pool of meaning which contains the theoretical span of meaning a word can embrace (cf. Leisi 1973: 134). The conclusion is obvious, and is well formulated by Alston: “[T]he fact that a linguistic expression has the meaning it has is a function of what the users of the language do with that expression” (Alston 1964: 39). More recently, Wierzbicka (1991) has also stressed the importance of syntax and sentence for the understanding and creation of meaning. [W]ords or morphemes by themselves cannot really express any meanings: they can only contribute in a certain way to the meaning expressed by a sentence. If we want to identify meanings […] we must look not for isolated lexical items but for commensurable lexical items used in commensurable sentences (Wierzbicka 1991: 14). We can conclude from this that only “commensurable sentences” using “commensurable grammatical patterns” can express meaning clearly. Be- <?page no="192"?> 192 ing in context alone is therefore not sufficient, but the context has to fulfill certain criteria, so that all factors - words, sentence, and syntax - work together to create meaning. From a more sociological perspective, Hall (1997) defines wordmeanings as “representations” of cultural and social conventions and negates any fixed meaning of words. He argues that, if meaning is the result, not of something fixed out there, but of our social, cultural and linguistic conventions, then meaning can never be finally fixed. We can all ‘agree’ to allow words to carry different meanings - as we have for example, with the word ‘gay’, or the use, by young people, of the word ‘wicked! ’ as a term of approval […] […] The main point is that meaning does not inhere in things, in the world. It is constructed, produced. It is the result of a signifying practice - a practice that produces meaning, that makes things mean (Hall 1997: 23f). This constructionist approach (cf. Hall 1997: 25) focuses on the artificial nature of linguistic signs, all of which are constructed by the speakers of a language community. Because of their symbolic nature, their meanings get defined only through their use in a system. “Meaning,” explains Hall (1997: 28), “is produced by the practice, the ‘work’ of representation. It is constructed through signifying - i.e. meaning-producing - practices.” The most important of these “meaning-producing practices” is use in language, through which words are put in place and subjected to definition through their relations to other words in the text. Hall quotes Saussure who insisted on […] the arbitrary nature of the sign: ‘There is no natural or inevitable link between the signifier and the signified.’ Signs do not possess a fixed or essential meaning. […] Signs, Saussure argues, ‘are members of a system and are defined in relation to the other members of that system’ (Hall 1997: 31). Context, therefore, as the physical representation of these “relations” of signs, is the core of and key to the creation, reception, and decoding of meaning of words. Through context, in which the relation of signs is expressed, the process of comprehension gets its most important ally. 10.4 New words in context Unnecessary to say, it would be overly simplistic to yield inspiration of meaning solely to context. As Kent Bach (2005) stresses: [N]o matter how context “determines” the standard that figures in the content of a […] sentence, the content is not hostage to the context. This content is a proposition that can be expressed in a context-independent way […] (Bach 2005: 59). <?page no="193"?> 193 In an excessively codified world, definitions of meaning in dictionaries are just as pivotal in that they lend stability to a language by providing a framework within which meaning can be developed, extended or limited in accordance to the overall structure of the respective tongue. Accordingly, J.R. Firth (1969), quoting Erdmann (1922), splits up meaning into these three categories: (1) Begriffsinhalt, or Hauptbedeutung, roughly our Essential or Central Meaning or Denotation; (2) Nebensinn or Applied Meaning or Contextual Meaning; and (3) Gefühlswert or Stimmungsgehalt or Feeling-Tone (Firth 1969: 10). The central meaning is the meaning perpetuated in dictionaries, precisely defined and laid down. These definitions are a necessity, of course, and be it only as an archive of a language’s riches of meaning. However, in immediate situations, when we are suddenly confronted with unknown words and required to make meaning on the spot, these definitions cannot be accessed and are thus useless. It is in such immediate situations that contextual meaning becomes essential, because when all we have to rely on is the context surrounding an unknown word, all we can do is to derive its meaning from the overall construct of the text. This derivation of meaning has as much to do with context as it has with personal experience. Alston writes: A word gets a meaning by becoming associated with a certain idea in such a way that the occurrence of the idea in the mind will set off (or tend to set off) the utterance of the word, and hearing the word will tend to bring about the appearance of the idea in the mind of the hearer […] In this way, all meaning is necessarily derived from sense experience (Alston 1964: 63/ 4). This, of course, means that even more than defined meanings, the associations we have in our minds between an idea and a word are important - associations we gain from experiencing words in context. Therefore, it can be assumed that the prime and most important factor in understanding new words is the immediate surrounding they are embedded in. Context is key to gaining access to meaning in as much as it is part of an interconnected and interdependent structure in which any given part is vital to the whole. J.R. Firth, in his essay “The Technique of Semantics” draws on three guiding principles of word meaning put forth by the Society’s Dictionary: The first principle is that a certain component of the meaning of a word is described when you say what sort of word it is, that is, when you identify it morphologically, and give it what the Dictionary calls a Grammatical Designation. Secondly, the complete meaning of a word is always contextual, and no study of meaning apart from a complete context can be taken seriously. But what made the Society’s Dictionary different was the third member of the trinity - the Historical Principle [i.e. etymology] (Firth 1969: 7). <?page no="194"?> 194 In the case of loanwords, which enter languages continuously, only two of these principles of meaning can apply for the average person. Since loanwords are not genuine products of the language that receives them (i.e. they do not originate from the language’s ‘genuine’ linguistic material), any attempt at historical definition (except maybe by a person well-versed in languages) would be futile. To define them only morphologically or through their syntactic function does not help either. And since such often fast-lived words, at least in first contact situations, defy any dictionary meaning by definition because their sudden appearance requires them to be understood on the spot, the only viable way for meaning, the only common denominator under which all words can be subsumed, is meaning in context, meaning through use. This, it appears, is the only way which allows for understanding even in fast-lived situations where written definitions of word-meaning cannot be drawn upon. Jason Stanley (2005) proposes a different trinity for the definition of meaning. The semantic value of a basic constituent of a sentence is what is determined by speaker intentions together with features of the context, in accord with the standing meaning of that lexical item (Stanley 2005: 226). This threefold definition relies upon more individual factors in the grasping of a word’s meaning. This seems sensible, since both sides of the communicational process are eventually left with but their own intentions and intuitions in using or perceiving a word, while both have to be based upon a broad ‘predefined’ range of meaning within which utterance and reception can occur. In the case of new words, however, and especially when it comes to loanwords, a “standing meaning” can seldom be presupposed, once again leaving us merely with context. Undoubtedly, to extract meaning from context is a task with very individual outcomes. Context is not as dogmatic as entries in dictionaries are. It allows for a level of vagueness inherent especially to new or structurally and morphologically unknown words, which is not entirely undesirable. There are positive, even indispensable facets to vagueness, which underline the importance of foreign words in particular within a homogeneous language such as Japanese. 10.5 Elusive meaning - circumventing conventions The concept of ‘vagueness’, in general, is not met with much sympathy with regards to language, especially in the sciences. There is a general notion that precision in language is of the essence and that any trait of vagueness represents an obstacle to understanding and to communication. This <?page no="195"?> 195 rather dogmatic view, however, misinterprets the function of language as much as it over-simplifies it. Language is not merely about ‘communicating’, but it is equally about obfuscating, about diffusing and circumventing a concrete definition of meaning. “We need vague terms,” writes Alster, referring to the field of diplomacy, where directness and completeness is often unwanted, even counterproductive (cf. Alster 1964: 86). Of course, we do not have to refer to such unique cases in order to give an example for the advantages of vagueness. In everyday life, too, it is of great import. “Often our knowledge is such”, states Alster, “that we cannot formulate what we know in terms that are maximally precise without falsifying the statement or going far beyond evidence” (Alster 1964: 86). Vague terms, in such cases, help to find a way around having to say something for which we do not have enough evidence, thereby violating the Gricean Maxims. Or even simpler, vague terms help us to navigate around linguistic conventions which would otherwise constrain our way of expression. This is even more valid in a linguistic community whose very foundations are rooted in tight pragmatic rules and conventions which allocate specific linguistic roles to individuals according to their sex and status, and which strongly affirms linguistic taboos - a linguistic community like that of Japanese. In Japanese, therefore, this semantic vagueness that engulfs loanwords, even in context, can serve an important purpose - that of evading strict conventions and penetrating taboos without actually breaking them (cf. chapter 6 on loanword fucntions). Certainly, this advantage does not come without a price. The linguistic comfort comes at the cost of clear comprehension, but not so much because such words are incomprehensible, but because their meanings can often not be pinpointed exactly. Alster warns against condemning vagueness in language. [W]hen we use a word that has the semantic characteristic of vagueness, it may or may not be a liability. The failure to distinguish this semantic characteristic from defects of discourse to which it may give rise has led to an unfortunate transference of the negative evaluation of the latter to the former. Thinking about language has often been dominated by the unformulated and unexamined assumption that vagueness as a semantic characteristic is always undesirable and that an “ideal” language would contain no vague words (Alster 1964: 86). This fate has frequently befallen loanwords as well, whose often inherent vagueness has given rise to fears and concerns about misor discommunication when in fact they serve an important purpose. Their somewhat vague meaning and lack of any deeply founded connotations make them ideal in undermining conventions and taboos which have outlived them- <?page no="196"?> 196 selves in the minds of members of a linguistic community, as well as in obfuscating meaning. 10.6 Synonymy or non-synonymy? Differences of loans and ‘natives’ in context Another meaning-related issue that is often brought up against loanwords is that they are superfluous because they only rephrase concepts which are already present in a language. Loanwords, in the views of many, are not much more than a stylish upgrade of already existing native language material. They are generalized into some obscure ‘youth language’ whose main goal it is to give language a modern touch by replacing native terms with trendier foreign ones in order to appear up-to-date. If this were the case, loanwords would have to bear the same meaning as the original native words they are trying to replace. Now, how can synonymy be asserted? [I]t would seem plausible to think of two words as having the same meaning if and only if they make the same contribution to the illocutionary-act potentials of the sentences in which they occur; and whether or not they do can be tested by determining whether replacing one with the other would bring about any change in the illocutionary-act potentials of the sentences in which the replacements are carried out (Alster 1964: 37). This way of ascertaining whether two words have identical meanings is apt to disprove this major prejudice against loanwords which, in effect, denies them their semantic right to exist. In fact, loanwords do take up different places, if not so much semantically then at least pragmatically. Alster distinguishes the following three factors which result in a difference of meaning. 1.The social environment in which the utterance of a word is appropriate. We get something of this difference with ‘sick’ and ‘ill,’ the latter being more suited to polite discourse. […] Almost any two “synonyms” will exhibit this difference to some extent. 2.Associations. Any two words will show this sort of difference, but with many pairs it is not easy to give an adequate formulation. Consider ‘earth’ and ‘ground.’ ‘Earth’ conjures up all sorts of associations - earth mother, fertility […], that are lacking for ‘ground.’ […] 3.“Emotive force.” We can find pairs of words that seem to be synonymous apart from the fact that one carries a certain attitude or evaluation while the other carries a different one or none at all (Alster 1964: 45). Considering these factors makes it very unlikely that loanwords even could be used as synonyms, considering the very special functions they are endowed with and that distinguish them from native words with the same <?page no="197"?> 197 denotation. In addition, in the case of Japanese, as we have seen, loanwords also tend to be used to allow for semantic dichotomy of terms, between Japanese concepts of e.g. ‘door’, ‘bed’, ‘tea’, etc., and Western concepts thereof (see also chapter 12.4.1.). It is therefore highly unlikely that loanwords carry absolutely equivalent meanings to the native words they bear similarity to as well as to the original words they are based on, but only the fulfillment of these requirements would make them actual ‘foreign’ linguistic material. If that were the case, people with an educational background in the donor language should have no problems defining their meaning. The ensuing empiric part will reveal whether English education really constitutes an advantage and whether non-context definitions of Englishbased loanwords differ significantly according to the test person’s educational background. This will show whether another widespread prejudice against loanwords is founded on facts, namely that their use represents discrimination by education. The main goal of the following survey, however, will be to demonstrate the importance of the factor of context which, if well used, dissolves fears that loanwords might ‘contaminate’ language and that they might make a language incomprehensible to the average native speaker. Rather, they are a useful, fresh resource which can be used to expand the limits of any language’s linguistic pool, to the advantage of all its speakers. In the words of Peter von Polenz: Die Beziehungen der Wörter zu ihrem pragmatischen und sozialen Kontext sind der entscheidende Gesichtspunkt, unter dem die Rolle der Lehnwörter in der Sprache und im Sprachgebrauch betrachtet werden muß und unter dem auch heute noch - jenseits puristischer Sprachideologie - eine ‚Fremdwortkritik’ möglich und notwendig ist. Es kommt sehr darauf an, ob Fachwörter und gelehrte Wörter in einem Kontext verwendet werden, der ihre Bedeutung auf den sprachüblichen Sinn hin bestimmt, und ob sie gegenüber Gesprächspartnern oder einem Publikum verwendet werden, die aufgrund ihrer sprachsoziologischen Voraussetzungen diese Bedeutungsbestimmung nachvollziehen können (Polenz 1978: 29). To determine whether this is the case with Japanese - which can be seen as the model for the loanword phenomenon - is the prime intention of this book. In a language which is confronted with new English-based loanwords on a daily basis and beyond any degree experienced in contemporary European languages, what are the factors that guarantee an understanding of new words when no dictionary is at hand and when words have to be understood on the spot? Can a well-constructed context deliver people from a fate of unintelligibility? <?page no="199"?> 199 11 Testing Theories: Loanword Comprehension and Context Meaning, as the last chapter has established, is not a fully autarkic entity that draws its life force only from itself, but it is interdependent with its surroundings, from the workings of which it gains its full signifying force. Without context, words lose their semantic borders, because only through context they are contained to a certain meaning befitting a certain situation. In this sense, no word, not even an unknown word, is without meaning, but it is endowed with meaning by context and the associative and imaginative power of the recipient. As de Saussure (cf. 2001: 89) maintains, there is no reason why any given word cannot be associated with any given idea. This is even more valid for loanwords, whose newness and relative independence from pre-associated meaning makes them easy material to mold - something which is revealed, especially in Japanese, by the great number of pseudo-loanwords whose only common ground with the original word often is their shell, sometimes less. Therefore, the important step, it seems, is to provide a context which helps to focus the recipient’s associative force on the word’s intended meaning, thereby defining the word’s semantic borders through its function in the text. To test this hypothesis is one of the main objectives of the survey that will be discussed in the following chapter. 11.1 Research questions This survey is to be understood within the greater context of loanword discussions (cf. especially chapters 2, 7, 8 and 9) in which those opposing loanwords frequently claim that a.) loanwords are basically merely ‘foreign’ words and therefore b.) alien to a language, constituting obstacles to understanding, and that c.) loanwords derive from foreign languages and therefore privilege those familiar with the respective language and exclude those who are not. The survey will serve as an attempt to disprove these assumptions by focusing on the case of Japanese, which, probably more than any other language, has accepted English loanwords into its lexicon and which should provide an example for other languages on how to deal with the issue of loanwords. <?page no="200"?> 200 The research questions are as follows: 1.) Can loanwords be equaled to foreign words? 2.) To what extent does an individual’s knowledge of English influence his/ her understanding of English-based loanwords? 3.) How well are loanwords understood and what role does context play in the comprehension process? 11.2. Survey preparations 11.2.1 Target audience and sampling method A national survey with random sampling among all ages and social strata would have been desirable, but would have required much more financial effort and personal resources than a single researcher has at his disposal. This is why, eventually, university students were selected as the target audience by means of judgment sampling, being the most easily accessible group while also being the group most exposed to loanwords in their daily lives and therefore the one of the groups facing the most challenges in comprehension. In order to examine whether loanword understanding is dependent on the knowledge of English, the target groups were divided into students of English and non-students of English where possible. 11.2.2 Survey design The survey’s design was aimed at eliciting whether there is a notable difference in loanword comprehension with and without context. For that cause, the survey was divided into two parts: the first asked for a definition of selected loanwords without context, while the second inquired the meaning of the same words - in different order - this time embedded in context; in both cases the solution had to be selected from a multiple choice of four possible answers. 11.2.3 Word list and explanation 50 English-based loanwords were eventually selected for this survey. Several of these hold meanings that are at least partially equivalent to the original English word; others, however, have either undergone a process of semantic change or have been created in Japanese in the first place, so that no original word exists. The following lists will give an explanatory overview on the loanwords used in the survey: <?page no="201"?> 201 - Words with largely similar or identical meaning and form to the original English word: スーパーバイザー (su-pa-baiza-, ‘supervisor’) ダンサブル (dansaburu, ‘danceable’) インカム (inkamu, ‘income’) マイナートラブル (mainatoraburu, ‘minor trouble’) アンソロジー (ansoroji-, ‘anthology’) バイオ (baio,‘bio’) インスパイア (insupaia, ‘inspire’) イニシエーション (inishie-shon, ‘initiation’) トリッキー (torikki-, ‘tricky’) ガバナンス (gabanansu, ‘governance’) フィーチャー (fi-cha-, ‘to feature’) アナーキー (ana-ki-, ‘anarchy’) ユニバーサル (yuniba-saru, ‘universal’) ローエンド (ro-endo, ‘low-end’) ペンディング (pendingu, ‘pending’) オーバーユース (o-ba-yu-su, ‘overuse’) カオス (kaosu, ‘chaos’) インセンティブ (insentibu, ‘incentive’) ポテンシャル (potensharu, ‘potential’) ロールアウト (ro-ru auto, ‘roll-out’) メロディアス (merodiasu, ‘melodious’) オンブズマン (onbuzuman, ‘ombudsman’) ブラッシュアップ (burasshu appu, ‘brush up’) マスタープラン (masutapuran, ‘master plan’) ラグジュアリー (ragujuari-, ‘luxury’) インタールード (inta-ru-do, ‘interlude’) オーバーラップ (o-ba-rappu, ‘overlap’) ワークライフバランス (wa-ku raifu baransu, ‘work-life balance’) ポピュリズム (popyurizumu, ‘populism’) イノベーション (inobe-shon, ‘innovation’) ワーキングプア (wa-kingu pua, ‘working poor’, i.e. ‘lacking the necessary money to live despite work’) Table 22a: Anglicisms with similar/ identical meanings to original - Words which differ morphologically from the original English word, but carry similar meanings: フリーランス (furi-ransu, ‘freelance [journalist]’) インスト (insuto,‘inst[rumental]’) リリック (ririkku, ‘lyric[s]’) トラッド (toraddo, ‘trad[itional]’) <?page no="202"?> 202 ハートウォーム (ha-to uo-mu, ‘heartwarm[ing]’) Table 22b: Anglicisms with morphological differences but similar meanings to original - Words with identical form but restricted or different meanings: アッパー (appa-, ‘upper’, i.e. ‘exaltation’) ネグレクト (negurekuto, ‘neglect’, i.e. ‘child neglect’) ハイダウェイ (haidauei, ‘hideaway’, i.e. ‘a secluded resort’) アクチュアル (akuchuaru, ‘actual’, i.e. ‘current’) プレゼンス (purezensu, ‘presence’, i.e. ‘s/ o’s presence felt by others’) スキーム (suki-mu, ‘scheme’, i.e. ‘a systematic plan’) Table 22c: Anglicisms with restricted/ different meanings from original - Pseudo-anglicisms, which share only appearances with English but exist exclusively in Japanese: ダウンタイム (daun taimu, ‘downtime’, i.e. ‘time needed for wounds to heal’) ダウンスパイラル (daun supairaru, ‘down spiral’, i.e. ‘an inescapable plight’) ミックスダウン (mikkusu daun, ‘mixdown’, i.e. ‘merging several record tracks into one’) ベースアップ (be-su appu, ‘baseup’, i.e. ‘a salary raise’) アップチューン (appu chu-n, ‘uptune’, i.e. ‘a song/ tune that puts the listener into a good mood’) セレブニート (serebu ni-to, ‘celebrity NEET’, i.e. ‘living on unearned income without working’) タイドアップ (taido appu, ‘tied-up’, i.e. ‘a style of fastening a necktie’) タウンユース (taun yu-su, ‘town use’, i.e. clothes that can be used on an everyday basis for any purpose’) Table 22d: Pseudo-anglicisms 11.2.4 Part I The answer choices were created such that they could mislead the participants to choose the wrong meaning if they did not know the respective loanword well enough. In creating these answers, the help of a native speaker of Japanese was acquired to generate or check the multiple-choice answers. Here is one example: - プレゼンス (Purezensu, ‘presence’) had the following four choices: ‘attendance’ ( 出席 ), ‘present/ gift’ ( 贈り物 ), ‘presence’ ( 存在感 ), ‘presentation’ ( 発表 ). ‘Attendance’ and ‘presence’ are both mean- <?page no="203"?> 203 ings included in the original English word, but only ‘presence’ is the meaning the Japanese loanword is actually used for. The choice of ‘present’ (‘gift’) alluded to the two loanwords’ similarity, namely purezensu and purezento, while ‘presentation’ made use of the fact that it can be expressed in Japanese also by the loanword purezente-shon, or its truncated form purezen, which can easily be mistaken by someone not firm in the knowledge of the loanwords’ respective meanings. The reason for this answer design was to create good distracters with a high likelihood of misleading all those not already well familiar with the real meaning of the respective loanword, and to make it more difficult for them to guess the correct answers by providing other choices which also appeared probable. 11.2.5 Part II The second part of the survey contained the same loanwords as part one, this time embedded in a context taken from select newspapers or magazines, so as to show the loanword in actual use and see if comprehension of the selected words was in any way facilitated thereby. The design of the second part varied from the first part in several ways. First, the order of the words was randomly rearranged. Second, and more importantly, the answers had to be presented differently. Hence, instead of offering four choices of meaning for the loanwords, the meaning of the whole context containing the loanwords was rephrased in a way that made any answer appear plausible if the real meaning of the loanwords was not yet sufficiently clear to the participants. The answers in part two were also created with the aid of Japanese native speakers who helped conceive probable answers. The context was selected from the same sources the loanwords were taken from in the first place. In some cases, the context provided was extensive, in other cases rather rudimentary. The reason was to see what requirements context had to meet to sustain the comprehension process. It was presupposed that the context had to contain some semantic clues or syntactic structures framing the meaning of the word. It was further supposed that the more abstract a word becomes the more clues are needed in order to make the word’s meaning sufficiently clear to the recipient. The following will provide three examples of English loanwords in context and the choices that were supplied for answers. Clearly, translating the Japanese contexts in which these words were used into English is not very meaningful, but in order to clarify the method that was used this is necessary. <?page no="204"?> 204 - ワーキングプア (wa-kingu pua, ‘working poor’): “The daily lives of our population are now in a state of danger. A lot of young people are either ‘working poor’ or seeking refuge in Internet cafes and have to lead very hard lives.” a.) Many young people don’t have a job b.) Many young people don’t want to work c.) Many young people don’t have enough money even though they are working d.) Many young people are constantly changing their jobs - インスパイア (insupaia, ‘inspire’): “I have said before that I think you are a really strong woman, Agnes, but in reality I am inspired by you. Having overcome your illness you are, in a way, putting your life on the line for the sake of singing.” a.) The speaker is astonished by Agnes b.) The speaker has taken an interest in Agnes c.) The speaker is encouraged and motivated by Agnes’ story d.) The speaker cannot understand Agnes - ダウンタイム (dauntaimu , ‘downtime’): “(After the face-lifting operation) there is almost no swelling and you can immediately do make-up or wash your face, so the downtime is short.” a.) The time for doing make-up is short b.) The time it takes the wounds to heal is short c.) The depression after the operation lasts only shortly d.) Wasted time is short The choice had to be so as to ensure that most or all possible answers contained a high degree of probability in order to impede chances of picking the correct answer by accident. 11.3 Conducting the survey 11.3.1 Universities The survey was conducted at the following three Japanese universities: - Nanzan University (Nagoya) - Kobe University (Kobe) <?page no="205"?> 205 - Kinki University (Osaka) 11.3.2 Number of participants The final number of participants was 142 students (43 male, 99 female) aged between 19 and 22, 58 of who were students of English. 11.3.3 Testing conditions and procedures As indicated above, the survey consisted of two separate parts, asking for the meaning of the same fifty loanwords with and without context. While both parts were distributed together, participants had to hand in part one as soon as they were done with it in order to prevent them from comparing the two parts. The students were told that they had 40 minutes to finish the survey and that they should try not to overthink their answers but rather be spontaneous as they would have to be if they came across the loanword in a newspaper or magazine, or during a conversation. They were reassured that they were allowed, even expected, to make mistakes. Since the survey was conducted anonymously they did not have to fear losing their face because of ‘bad’ results. All surveys were conducted between June and November 2008. 11.3.4 Survey validation The results were validated using a variance analysis, which focused on the differences and interdependencies between comprehension without and with context, between English and non-English students, and between different universities, and through which the necessary significance of the data procured (p0,05 for the humanities) was certified. I used a multifactorial variance analysis with one within factor (with/ without context) and two between factors (English/ Non-English and university) and the number of correct answers as dependent variable. This was done using the SPSS 15 statistical software at the Department of Psychology at the University of Graz, and was applied to the results of all universities. 11.4 Combined results The individual university results sometimes differed from one another in one or the other detail. In general, however, they showed similar trends. Combining these single results allows an overall view on general basics and developments that all have in common and therefore supplies the basis for an in-depth analysis of the survey. <?page no="206"?> 206 11.4.1 General outcome The sum of all survey results put together produces this final statistic: Chart 19a: Combined result of all surveys (in numbers of correct answers) This is a plus of 1513 words (+21,31%) in comprehension when context was added. In percent, the result looks like this: Chart 19b: Combined result of all surveys (in percent) The increase observable between the comprehension of loanwords without context and then with context constitutes about 21%. This result is the gist of all 7 surveys conducted at 3 different universities, each of which yielded slightly different results but similar developments. Several test groups had results far above this average value, some far below, but all showed significant improvements in comprehension in context. In order to enable a better 5069 3556 2031 3544 0 2000 4000 6000 Part 2 Part 1 Correct Answers Incorrect Answers 71,39% 50,08% 28,60% 49,91% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Part 2 Part 1 Correct Anwers Incorrect Answers <?page no="207"?> 207 evaluation of this overall result, the following is a comparative list of all results, juxtaposed with the average result of all surveys. Chart 20: Comparative overview on all survey results based on the mean values of correct answers derived from the variance analysis (E=English, NE= Non-English) This comparison demonstrates that three out of six test groups had results above or far above the average and that three had lower results, though all of them showed very significant improvements (p<0,01). The reason why the average is still comparatively low are the unarguably lower levels of loanword comprehension in the surveys at Kinki University (after all more than 20% difference between the highest score at Kobe University and the lowest score at Kinki University), which caused the general result numbers to drop as they did. But despite all the differences, the impact of context on understanding was equally large in all cases. 80,35% (40,1765) 80% (40,0000) 75,35% (37,6774) 71,31% (35,6571) 71,39% (35,6972) 69,45% (34,7273) 59,25% (29,625) 58,47% (29,2353) 59% (29,5625) 52,97% (26,4839) 49,60% (24,8000) 50,08% (25,0423) 45,27% (22,6364) 40,50% (20,25) Kobe (NE) Kobe (E) Nanzan (E) Nanzan (NE) Average Kinki (E) Kinki (NE) Correct Part 1 Correct Part 2 <?page no="208"?> 208 11.4.2 Overall developments Looking at the summary of developments within each group, the following results can be observed: 0−0 ✕ −0 ✕ − ✕ 0− ✕ Nanzan Non-English 668 580 301 201 Nanzan English 3rd year 360 232 89 69 Nanzan English 4th year 302 274 134 90 Kobe Non-English 419 264 89 78 Kobe English 396 244 83 77 Kinki Non-English 419 529 424 228 Kinki English 188 194 107 61 Sum 2752 2317 1227 804 Percent 38,76% 32,63% 17,28% 11,32% Table 23: Comparative developments of all surveys Rendered graphically, the above result yields this chart: Chart 21: Overall developments of all surveys Almost 39% of all words were well recognized throughout the survey, both in context and without it. Another one third (about 33%) of the surveyed loanwords displayed a positive development in meaning recognition by participants through their embedding in context. The number of wordmeanings which remained unrecognized in both parts (17,28%) outweighs the number of those which were wrongly defined only in part two of the survey (11,32%), when presented in context. 11.5 Discussion In order to get an overview on which words had positive developments in terms of comprehension, which words stagnated, and which declined and by how much, the following chart will display the fifty loanwords from the 38,76% 32,63% 17,28% 11,32% Correct-Correct Incorrect-Correct Incorrect-Incorrect Correct-Incorrect <?page no="209"?> 209 survey according to the development they underwent through the addition of context. Chart 22: Increase/ decrease of correct answers for all loanwords in the survey when context was added (values displayed in numerals) -88 -50 -42-30-18 -18 -14-4 -3 0125591118 18 21 22 24 25 26 27 30 32 3541 41 43 47 48 50 50 51 54 57 59 61 65 67 69 72 77 78 81 8290101 105 up-tune tied-up low-end tricky brush-up pending base-up overlap downspiral interlude presence universal down-time actual feature supervisor masterplan celeb NEET neglect town-use mix-down freelance minor trouble anthology income scheme traditional governance roll-out hideaway danceable initiation luxury instrumental chaos potential inspire ombudsman melodious lyrics incentive bio work-life balance anarchy working poor heart-warm upper overuse populism innovation <?page no="210"?> 210 Measured on the average comprehension increase of 21,3% (an average plus of 30 correct definitions per word) of the whole that was mentioned earlier, it becomes obvious that many of the loanwords whose meaning was inquired experienced a higher, or much higher rise in comprehension than is displayed in an average value. The average value was dampened by some words below this average and a few which had a very negative development. Eventually, 24 of the 50 words had a lower development rate than the average, 26 were above it. Theirs was an average rise of 61 (or 43% of the whole), which is much higher than the average. Of course, some of the words (like ‘income,’ ‘chaos’ or ‘potential’) started from a high level of comprehension in the first place and therefore did not have many resources left for a high increase. The loanwords with the highest rises in reverse also had the lowest initial comprehension levels and were the least familiar. The fact that such loanwords received such a broad base of comprehension demonstrates the power of context and the critical force it represents in the process of understanding and in dealing with unknown words. However, as the cases of ‘innovation’ or ‘populism’ etc. illustrate, context does not sustain comprehension by its mere existence or by definition, but it has to meet certain criteria in order to be an adequate aid in the understanding of difficult, abstract, or unknown words. 11.5.1 Basic requirements of context Context is the most fundamental requirement in the process of understanding unknown words. As part one of the survey has sufficiently proven, words on their own tend to get lost in the vast semantic universe. Especially in a language as distant from English in every aspect as Japanese, people need to have a reference point from which to derive meaning from Englishbased loanwords, or else such words might really become a discriminating force by education. In Japanese, the meaning of words is mostly derived from the Chinese characters that are used to represent most nouns, verbs and adjectives, and from whose outward appearances Japanese speakers get a notion of what the word refers to; loanwords do not have this iconic character, so the next step would be to compare them phonetically to corresponding words in the donor language and interpret them accordingly. This, however, seldom yields the meaning that they hold within the receiving language, not to mention that this would require being constantly equipped with an English dictionary. In order to be able to classify and narrow down the meaning of such a word, its pragmatic use within a text is essential, which shows it as part of the signifying practice of a culture and its language. Based on the experience gained from this survey, these are some of the basic requirements a context has to meet in order to be a suitable support- <?page no="211"?> 211 ing factor in the comprehension process (the originally Japanese contexts provided have been translated into English here for easier understanding). 11.5.1.1 Self-explanatory meaning The most direct way to facilitate the comprehension process of an unknown or little-known loanword is for it to be embedded in a context that explains the word’s semantic function, either by rephrasing it in terms of original or well-established language resources, or by determining it closer through an explanatory relative clause. An example for this is ‘up-tune’: “’Impossible Miracle’, is such an up-tune that is full of a feeling of happiness.” In this case, the relatively little-known pseudo-loan ‘up-tune’ is clearly defined by the following relative clause as a ‘song that conveys a feeling of happiness’. The “up” therefore refers to a positive impact on the mood of the listener. This construction was the foundation for the spectacular rise of 105 correct definitions - a plus of 74% - to a final comprehension level of 125 (88%). 11.5.1.2 Antonymy and synonymy Structuralists maintain that a word gains its meaning through opposition to other words in the lexical matrix. This is indeed a valid claim, especially in the case of unknown words, whose meaning often can be derived only through their relation to other words in the text. Besides the aforementioned paraphrasing, putting the unknown word into an antonymic relation with a well-known word can be informative and revealing of its intended meaning. ‘Low-end’ is an example in which this technique was successfully employed: “Selling products on the Japanese market is difficult, because the standards demanded by customers, like technology or quality, are so high. In China, on the other hand, there are many low-end products”. Here, ‘low-end’ (which, like ‘up-tune’, scored low comprehension rates without context) is semantically framed by its opposition to the ‘high standards in technology and quality’ in the preceding sentence, its possible meanings therefore narrowed down by the introduction “on the other hand” to ‘cheap and low quality’. This method of meaning-derivation requires more reading skills than the previous one; it is, however, more effective since it produces a frame of meaning that is more pragmatically rooted, because it shows the word acting in actual relation to other words, which is more than can be achieved by merely rephrasing it. Owing to this method, comprehension levels of ‘low-end’ experienced a rise by 90 correct definitions (+64%) to a final level of of 108 correct answers (76%). <?page no="212"?> 212 ‘Downspiral’, too, is an example of this method, used in combination with paraphrasing. “I thought it was inevitable to let him fall into a downspiral. There is no way that the final scene would be effective with only a slight fall, which is why I decided to make his downfall so hard.” The meaning of ‘downspiral’ is derived both from its opposition to ‘slight fall’ as well as from its rephrasing into 転落 (tenraku, ‘fall’), the Sino- Japanese word for ‘downfall’. The result was an increase by 69 correct answers (49%) and a final comprehension rate of 130 (92%). Introducing synonyms, however, can also be problematic, as some examples in the survey have shown (cf. ‘bio’, ‘tricky’, or ‘base-up’). Apparently, some participants tried to avoid synonymy and often gave the loanword a meaning different from the one which the Japanese synonym presented. This might be representative of a general notion that loanword meanings subtly differ from those of ‘native’ words with an allegedly identical meaning. Rephrasing of loanwords, too, has to be done with care, and it has to be made sufficiently clear that there is a synonymic connection between the respective words. 11.5.1.3 Collocation and association Another way of successfully implementing a little-known loanword into a sentence is by employing collocations that exist for similar or identical and well-established words in the recipient language or by building on associations that are triggered by certain semantic constructions and by using them to point to the intended meaning of the loanword. In the words of J.R.Firth: “You shall know a word by the company it keeps” (cf. Crystal 1995: 105). ‘Tied-up’ in an example for this method: “As an adult, it would be a little out of place to come with just a surfer shirt and blue jeans. Your host might even be a little offended. Still, wearing a suit with a tied-up at a friend’s place would be too much.” Actually, this example is a combination of the antonymic method outlined in b.), and method c.). The word is first positioned in an antonymic relation to ‘shirt and jeans’, and consequently put into an associated relationship with ‘suit’. Like ‘jeans and shirt’, the couple ‘suit and necktie’ is bound together by common association. This makes it easy for readers to define ‘tied-up’ as a certain style of tying a necktie, proven by the rise of 101 correct answers (an increase by 72%) and a final comprehension rate of 93% (132 correct answers). <?page no="213"?> 213 An example for the ample use of an existent collocation is ‘overlap’: “As for the song’s content, I’d think that it overlaps with the experience of many people.” In this case, the collocation of ‘experience’ with the verb ‘overlap’ is made use of by exchanging the original Japanese word for ‘overlap’ ( 重なる , kasanaru) with the anglicism of the same meaning. The familiarity of this expression in Japanese (‘overlapping experiences’, 「経験が重なる」 ) facilitates recognition of the loanword’s meaning, which is reflected in an increase by 72 correct definitions (or 51%) to a final comprehension level of 99% (140 correct answers), the highest of all loanwords inquired. Of course, the condition for this kind of usage is that the word that is being replaced is at least mostly identical with the replacing loanword. When that is the case, it is a highly effective method for familiarizing people with a loanword’s semantic function even in a very minimalistic context. Of course, such collocations can also backlash, as the case of ‘scheme’ has demonstrated. A lot of participants chose the meaning ‘connection’ for ‘scheme’ because the collocation with ‘profitable’ it was presented in - 利益 をもたらすスキーム (rieki wo motarasu suki-mu),‘profitable scheme’ - was deeply associated with ‘connection’ (i.e. ‘business connection’) which often collocates with ‘profitable’. The choice of expressions, thus, has to be made with care, because idiomatic expressions are deeply rooted in the minds of the speakers of a language community. Choosing the wrong idiom could then easily result in a mistaken comprehension of meaning. 11.5.1.4 Co-defining keywords The meaning of unfamiliar loanwords can also be defined by a concerted effort of surrounding keywords that share the loanword’s semantic field and so help identify its semantic function in the respective context. Through their own functions in the text, they help create a network of meaning, as it were, which is dependent on the loanword’s adoption of the intended meaning in order to make sense. ‘Income’ is such a case. “In my case, if I deduce costs for everyday life and my business from my income, and even if I add the free cash flow after tax deduction to my working assets, it doesn’t feel as though I have more to live on.” The overall context refers to the semantic area of money, of costs and wages. There are ‘costs’, there is ‘deduce’, ‘business’, ‘free cash flow’, ‘assets’ which interweave into a structure that leaves little sensible choice than to define ‘income’ in the way intended. A plus of 29 correct answers to a final comprehension rate of 97% (138 correct answers) shows the effectiveness of this method. <?page no="214"?> 214 ‘Down-time’ can be seen as another example for this method. “(After the face-lifting operation) there is almost no swelling and you can immediately do make-up or wash your face, so the down-time is short.” Here the surrounding words come from the semantic field of cosmetic operations; ‘face-lifting’ and ‘operation’ in connection with ‘swelling’, ‘make-up’ and ‘face-wash’ connected by ‘immediately’ and supported by a syntactic causal construction quite clearly indicate that the meaning of ‘down-time’ must be the time needed for operational wounds to heal because this is the requirement for doing make-up or being able to wash one’s face again. ‘Down-time’, too, had a respectable result with a rise by 59 correct definitions (+42%) to a final comprehension rate of 67% (95 correct answers), which may be below the average, but is still a notable rise based on its conjoint formation of meaning by the surrounding words and syntactic constructions. These are some basic, though by no means comprehensive requirements for the comprehension of unknown and little-known loanwords that can be derived from the results of the survey. The more of these requirements are met, the more likely it is that a loanword is understood and miscommunication or obstacles to communication are avoided. Of course, these requirements are applicable not only to loanwords, but to all new or difficult words in a language. It is of great importance that such criteria are taken into account when employing unfamiliar or newly arrived words in language in order to evade unnecessary comprehension problems. 11.5.2. Answering the research questions Four research questions were presented at the beginning of this chapter. A close look at the survey results willingly provides answers to all of them. 11.5.2.1 Can loanwords be equaled to foreign words? No. The choice of loanwords for this survey reveals that a great part of them only share a superficial identity with the original English words, while their content reflects local usage, i.e. they cover semantic fields that the language requires them to fill, while other meanings, which are also covered in their original English usage, are neglected or ignored. In addition, many of these words do not or no longer conform to English morphological rules, but have been adapted to the Japanese linguistic fabric or have been assigned a different syntactic function than they hold in English. An example is furi-ransu, which can either be viewed as a truncated version of ‘freelancer’ or partial rendition of ‘freelance journalist’, both possible because of the strong Japanese tendency for language economy, <?page no="215"?> 215 for truncated words and blends. ‘lyrics,’ too, which is realized as ririkku, makes do without the plural ending and has thus been ‘japanized’. ha-touo-mu (from ‘heart-warming’), insuto (from ‘instrumental), or toraddo (from ‘traditional’) are other such examples of morphological assimilation. Tordaddo has additionally been adapted semantically to only refer to ‘fashionable’ tradition. Many of the loanwords used in the survey were pseudo-anglicisms which do not exist in the English donor language and are the best proof that loanwords do not equal foreign words, but are rather their opposite - an invention and creation of the receiving language, what Stanlaw calls “Made-in-Japan English” (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 20f). ‘Down-time’, ‘mix-down’, ‘up-tune’, ‘upper’, ‘tied-up’, ‘down-spiral’, ‘base-up’, or ‘celeb NEET’ all share their place of origin - Japan - and none of these could probably be understood by native speakers of English without help (cf. also chapter 8). This is another indication that the term ‘foreign words’ is inadequate, even unsuitable to designate such words. Yet other words only focus on one of the many meanings expressed by the original English word. This semantic narrowing shows that languages select words and their meaning according to their own needs and do not import words and meanings wholesale. To emphasize this point, a concordance analysis will be conducted with a few selected words. For the Japanese words, the beta version of the online concordance software Kotonoha (http: / / www.kotonoha.gr.jp, mentioned in an earlier chapter) will be used, while the corresponding English words will be analyzed with the online Cobuild Concordance and Collocation Sampler (http: / / www.collins.co.uk/ Corpus/ CorpusSearch.aspx). ‘Hideaway’, for instance, has a restricted meaning of ‘hidden resort’ or ‘destination resort’. The online concordance software by the NIJL yields only a single result on this loanword, suggesting that it is very rare in use. It is also not present in dictionaries, except for one on the Internet, which defines it as: “a destination resort which is located in an isolated spot” (cf. http: / / www.weblio.jp/ content/ ハイダウェイ [Online], 28.01.2009). The context in which it was used in the survey clearly shows a usage in the semantic field of holiday resorts. 前文脈 検索文字列 後文脈 けど、 さらに前の年に 行ったアイランド・ ハイダウェイ の モルディビアンのダ イビングスタッフと Table 24a: Concordance analysis for the loanword haidauei (‘hideaway’) (http: / / www.kotonoha.gr.jp) In English, however, this is different. <?page no="216"?> 216 The `Boot Bench pound; 149.99, is the perfect hideaway for muddy wellies, while the terracotta hose from scratch to create a totally new idyllic hideaway [/ h] Ursula Hubener first visited Majorica big, wide gate into what he calls his `secret hideaway' you are immediately struck by the used to dream about as a child. It was a real hideaway with low ceilings and anyone taller than Leamington Pavilion in Barbados, a fabulous hideaway and a theatrical setting for entertaining in 1881 as a hunting lodge, this peaceful hideaway is situated in beautiful grounds surrounded and one of the most exclusive small hideaway hotels in the Caribbean. It perches cosily of a restaurant has long been a favourite hideaway with the locals. Fernando's resembles a the final touch of atmosphere to this cosy hideaway.' John Eareckson went about building the m. This is what Moro's captors read in their hideaway: I write to you, men of the Red Brigades: Table 24b: Concordance analysis of the English word ‘hideaway’ (http: / / www.collins.co.uk/ corpus/ corpussearch.aspx) These examples illustrate that in English the word ‘hideaway’ is used for private places that individuals go to in order to relax, while in Japanese it is, by definition, used for hotels or resorts located in remote places. ‘Scheme’, too, ignores additional English meanings like ‘plot’ or ‘color scheme’ and focuses exclusively on its meanings of ‘plan’, ‘strategy’. 前文脈 検索文字列 後文脈 は不良債権の処理を進めて いくという一連の スキーム に従ってやっていく。た だ、市場におきまし 資金を借りて料金で返済し ていくというこの スキーム をとり、税金は一般道路と いうことで来た流 を行っていく、四十五年で 返すという法案の スキーム でありますので、本当に四 十五年で債務の返 ．６９億ドル、二国間援助 の１０．１％）、 スキーム 別では、有償資金協力が約 ６％で、残りは無 じゃないんです、今の新規 建設のいろいろな スキーム についてお伺いをしても。 鉄道と道路が違う Table 25a: Concordance analysis for the loanword suki-mu (‘scheme’) (http: / / www.kotonoha.gr.jp) <?page no="217"?> 217 In all of these cases, ‘scheme’ is being used only in connection with politics, money, or construction engineering, and always with the meaning of ‘plan’ or ‘strategy’ - obviously a much narrower meaning, thus, than the English original. bouquet and head-dress provided a vivid colour scheme which Helen coordinated with the outfits of was one of the pilots trained under this scheme and his, and others', personal accounts are peoples income. The decision not to adopt that scheme is being seen in some quarters as a victory onto a committee to oversee the housing repair scheme, and houses that need to be repaired are put a return visit. A Treasury spokesman said the scheme was likely to be restricted due to a lack of that they could aspire to, which in Frank's scheme was no advancement at all but eternal refused? " Regarding the emergency training scheme for teachers, `How many recruits have been has helped Gestetner to promote itself. The scheme has made people outside the industry aware the province's jails under a revised remission scheme introduced to try to help the peace process. board, provided ample evidence of a dishonest scheme in which all the appellants played their Table 25b: Concordance analysis of the English word ‘scheme’ (http: / / www.collins.co.uk/ corpus/ corpussearch.aspx) Apparently, the English word ‘scheme’ holds a much greater variety of meanings than the Japanese version. While the Japanese meaning of ‘plan’ or ‘strategy’ is also included, other usages pertain to colors, plots, or programs, which are absent in the Japanese loanword. The same is valid for ‘neglect’, whose meaning is narrowed to ‘child neglect’ only, without references to neglecting other duties. 前文脈 検索文字列 後文脈 るような気がする。 そし てまた幼児虐待や ネグレクト などの頻発する昨今の社会 が、また将来この ，身体的虐待が最も多く， 次に保護の怠慢（ ネグレクト ），そして心理的虐待，性 的虐待の順になっ と、過保護や過干渉という よりむしろ虐待や ネグレクト （育児放棄）の犠牲者であ るケースが多いこ ることには変わりない。 ネグレクト が四四％、暴力行為が二 <?page no="218"?> 218 九三年の虐待は、 四％、性的虐待が一 をしている親を逮捕するこ とはできますか？ ネグレクト なども含めて。 児童虐待 の防止等に関する Table 26a: Concordance analysis of the loanword negurekuto (‘neglect’) (http: / / www.kotonoha.gr.jp) As the above concordance analysis illustrates, the word is used only in connection with childcare. The fact that only five hits were displayed might express that the topic is not so present in Japanese, the loanword therefore seldom used. The English word ‘neglect’, on the other hand, shows a much more diverse use. fertiliser to encourage flowering. [p] Do not neglect your watering as some of your trees will from fragments of scores after falling into neglect soon after its first series of performances was of a patient that had this left side neglect, but a left side neglect of a very simply on those grounds it seemed foolish to neglect them. I rang up Nancy Weston and (in to flake off in unsightly scabs from months of neglect. It looked deserted. [p] Graham, his right theory by those Marxists who decried its neglect of the concepts of MOP and of class t lavish attention and toys on one child and neglect the other. But in all sorts of subtle ways those of us who are in good physical shape may neglect our mental wellbeing. Don't. For others the economic environment but to the deliberate neglect of the export sector, a neglect encouraged child protectors began to emphasize child neglect as well as abuse, the former encompassing a Table 26b: Concordance analysis of the English word ‘neglect’ (http: / / www.collins.co.uk/ corpus/ corpussearch.aspx) Besides the fact that ‘neglect’ in Japanese is used only as a noun, its English usage demonstrates that it is used mainly with the meaning of not doing something because of oversight or carelessness. Obviously, the word was only taken into the Japanese language to express the phenomenon of child neglect. It is similar to such loanwords as ‘domestic violence’ (domesutikku baiorensu) or ‘sexual harassment’ (truncated into seku hara), which were also assimilated into the Japanese language in order to circumvent the difficulty <?page no="219"?> 219 of addressing such phenomena in Japanese. The reason for their use is obviously that of bypassing social taboos. Toraddo (‘traditional’) is another of these semantically narrowed words. While in English it is being used in a wide array of fields, its Japanese counterpart is strongly associated with the world of fashion and clothes as the following excerpts show: 前文脈 検索文字列 後文脈 ンチで細身・どちらかとい えばかわいい系や トラッド 系の服が好きです。年は３ ０代半ば。こんな にしか売ってなくて知らな い人が多いですが トラッド 系ならお勧めです 彼女は うまく着こなして １０５ ● バラクータ イギ リスのブランド。 トラッド 少年に人気があります。１ ０６ ● スイング・ 名盤を手にした時の感動も ないが、その頃は トラッド ・ジャズ・ファンなどは、 古いレコードを手 に、私が、これはいいと感 じたレコードを、 トラッド ・ジャズに限り、少し記し ておきたい。 ま ト・ハウス 渋谷二丁目に ある、異常人気の トラッド ・ショップ。人が多すぎ て、アーア。品物も 間もかかる。シックな装い にしたいのだが、 トラッド だのボディコンだのとファ ッションセンスを Table 27a: Concordance analysis of the loanword toraddo (‘traditional’) (http: / / www.kotonoha.gr.jp) Most sentences include references to the aforementioned fields of clothes and fashion, two refer to jazz, demonstrating that semantic narrowing has bound this word tightly to these domains. On the other hand, ‘traditional’ in English is a very universal word denoting physical or mental concepts that have a longer history behind them. even more aware that they're not part of a traditional family. The extension would provide a site as Heycock Hall, Traherne Hall is a traditional hall of residence accommodating 272 s famed seafood restaurant and the more traditional menu found in the "Schoenberger Krug". [p] Hassan Erraji, who learned the secrets of traditional singing and drumming from the cradle. Born coffee, lunches and afternoon teas. [p] Traditional Christmas decorations in the restaurant. displaying on its unobtrusive base. With its traditional fruits design it conjures images of <?page no="220"?> 220 subtler too than those of printed colors. Traditional fit. Machine wash. Made in USA. Orange elegant, the perfect setting for excellent, traditional Swiss cuisine. The hotel bar and public pound; 9.955 [h] Duvet delight [/ h] [p] Traditional Indian batik in dramatic blue and white sound, blending traditional and non-traditional instruments, and their incredible. Table 27b: Concordance analysis of the English word ‘traditional’ (http: / / www.collins.co.uk/ corpus/ corpussearch.aspx) The collocations of the English word ‘traditional’ listed above indicate that it can be used in a wide array of semantic fields - architecture, food, music, events, family, etc. The Japanese re-creation of the word has its use only in the world of fashion or music where Western concepts of ‘tradition’ are probably more attractive to young people than the Japanese ones. There are, of course, many loanwords which carry narrower, wider or just different meanings from their alleged English originals, obvious or subtle, but their presence makes it hard to keep arguing that loanwords can be equated with foreign words. Rather, their existence and unconventional usage seems to demonstrate that they are well capable to stand their ground without their etymological forefathers. As a follow-up to this argument, I will present three additional high-frequency anglicisms from everyday Japanese whose usage differs from their English originals. ‘Sense,’ for instance, is an often-used word in Japanese everyday speech. Its usage, however, is very restricted in comparison to its English counterpart. 前文脈 検索文字列 後文脈 、商品の価値を見抜くことにか けては抜群の センス をもっていた。その呂 不韋のアンテナに、人 質問です★ 自分が読んでい て、好きだな、 センス がいいな、と思うファ ッション雑誌はなんで 英語ではもう一つの意味があ り、ユーモアの センス という意味もあるんで すよ。これはＴＶでは ご覧いただければよく分りま す。 小川の センス 最高！！！ あるはず。 式場と提携の写 真屋さんで、 センス のいいところは少ない です。 独自でやって Table 28a: Concordance analysis of the loanword sensu (‘sense’) (http: / / www.kotonoha.gr.jp) <?page no="221"?> 221 Sensu ( センス , ‘sense’), as a Japanese word, is used exclusively with the meaning of ‘taste’, as in ‘taste in men/ women’, or ‘taste in clothes’. This makes the word differ greatly from the English word ‘sense’, whose meanings are manifold. and he remained calm, buoyed up by a new sense of power over his fate. It wasn't final. She Haig's rise was fuelled by an all-consuming sense of patriotic duty. A child of the British which these opposites are resolved and make sense. [p] Edgar Cayce defines the purpose of life the delusion is a desperate attempt to make sense of frightening phenomena, and thus less of losing our faculties of memory and reason a sense of persecution can result. Deafness also in it. When people attain Enlightenment in this sense, it means that everything is Enlightenment Some new ones have been formed that make more sense geographically or from the point of view of which is your trouble, but lack of common sense, I hope that you will pull yourself out of in the same poem (so RSV), then it makes better sense from the mouth of the beloved than it does time he'd done it in the family home. He had a sense of family ethics that you didn't cheat on Table 28b: Concurrence analysis of the English word ‘sense’ (http: / / www.collins.co.uk/ corpus/ corpussearch.aspx) As can be derived from these examples, the use of ‘sense’ in English differs fundamentally from its Japanese usage. Mostly, it is being used in the collocation ‘make sense’ or ‘common sense’, i.e. in the sense of ‘reason’ or ‘meaning’, sometimes ‘sense’ is utilized as ‘awareness’. There is not much common ground for these two words except for their shell. They appear to have a common etymology, yet their pragmatic uses are very different in the two languages. Suma-to ( スマート , ‘smart’) is another high-frequency loanword, which differs in usage from its English original. 前文脈 検索文字列 後文脈 うなスリムサイズのシガレット である。その スマート さと、柔らかな香りが うけて、都会人に好評 マシンだった。今のマシンは空 力を重視して スマート に作られるからこれ以 上のタンク増量は無理 たのを思い出してね」 ＲＶ車 スマート だが、運転する松浦の <?page no="222"?> 222 にしては割と ハンドルさばきは、少 載してますます巨大化し、より 快適に、より スマート に車の姿を変えていっ た。例えばキャデラッ 。ホンダ車って若者が好むよう なスタイルが スマート でカッコイイ車が多 く、日産ってどことな く Table 29a: Concordance analysis of the loanword suma-to (‘smart’) (http: / / www.kotonoha.gr.jp) Though it has to be added that recently the loanword ‘smart’ has also come to be used with the meaning of ‘clever’, its main usage remains with the meaning of ‘slim’ or ‘stylish’, as in the examples above. In English, on the other hand, its main area of use focuses on another meaning: a cabinet shower, where the pump is housed in a smart case which is part of the controls, or a supermodel. She's svelte, sexy, twenty-six and smart enough to know she doesn't want this life for feelings were still mixed, [p] If I was really smart I could have had Milton Berle's in-drag for a big promotional event in June, as well as smart guys nationwide, for lucrative escort work! could say a lot of folk art isn't particularly smart, even at times crudely constructed. It may or Handsome Asian Male 30, 5'8 tall, single, smart, honours graduate and on executive salary. approach should be. She's like the terrifyingly smart headmistress of some school which has very [h] Favourite cakes that are simple to make and smart enough for a [/ h] celebration. By Nigel with such style and efficiency and form such smart premises that it seems the fish and chipsadmitted. `I like your dad, and he's pretty smart." Smarter than I like to think." Chiku Table 29b: Concordance analysis of the English word ‘smart’ (http: / / www.collins.co.uk/ corpus/ corpussearch.aspx) In English, ‘smart’ is mostly used in connection with mental faculty, with cleverness, only in some cases does it denote ‘fashionable’ or ‘stylish’, while Japanese mostly employs ‘smart’ to denote slim objects or people. Yet another word which is frequently used in a different meaning from the original word is rifo-mu ( リフォーム , ‘reform’). <?page no="223"?> 223 前文脈 検索文字列 後文脈 れる増築・改築工事と、エアコ ンや家具等の リフォーム 関連の家庭用耐久消費 財、インテリア商品等 、ライフステージに応じた住替 え、買換え、 リフォーム を通じて、消費者が既 存住宅ストックを安心 ラリーマンには得といえるかど うか。ただ、 リフォーム せずにご自分が住むの であれば、裁判所の職 てる？ 職員の家に行ってごら んな、 大抵 リフォーム 済みだからさ 以前は 洋酒飲み放題だったん つくって裏をかく！ これから 家を建てる、 リフォーム をするという場合に は、隠し引き出しや隠 し Table 30a: Concordance analysis of the loanword rifo-mu (‘reform’) (http: / / www.kotonoha.gr.jp) The word is used exclusively under the denotation of ‘remodeling’ or ‘renovation’, mostly in the areas of housing or fashion. The English version of the word denotes something completely different. Wendy Davies, makes a powerful case for the reform of a system which offers rural workers and sport, and that is a commitment to political reform in Russia. [p] In a country which rates chess officers, are trying to speed the military reform in our country. So I think there's no sign of delegates that the green light for economic reform had first been given five years ago at the Mr Walesa meanwhile demanded faster reform because, he said, he feared the beautiful reform. Unfortunately we have no hope for such reform we have no hopes connected with this The conference will consider Labour's plans to reform the employment laws and as Stephen Cape a result of the hardships that are part of the reform programme, the resignation of the government Cold War. They described him as a champion of reform in Eastern Europe and said he'd played a liability, he has promised a review and reform. But this threatens to be a costly exercise, Table 30b: Concordance analysis of the English word ‘reform’ (http: / / www.collins.co.uk/ corpus/ corpussearch.aspx) <?page no="224"?> 224 Obviously, the English ‘reform’ is used for the remodeling or renewal of a system, rather than that of a concrete material entity like a building. The loanword, therefore, formally looks like the English word, but content-wise the two do not share much common ground. The word is thus no foreign word, and can never be defined as one. These examples must suffice here to show that often the only thing that connects English-based loanwords in Japanese and their alleged English originals is their form, though in fact not even that, since Japanese assimilates all words into its Katakana syllabary upon arrival. Their adoption into a completely different language system itself guarantees that their meanings cannot be identical to their English model words, because they have different functions to fulfill and roles to play in this new and alien syntax. Even in cases where meanings might be identical, the morphological and phonological differences between loanwords and English words alone warrant that the two can never be seen as identical. The same is true for loanwords and ‘native’ Japanese words which are often supposed to have identical meanings suggesting that the loanwords threaten to make native words redundant. These, too, are hardly ever completely identical. Morrow (1987: 51) comments, [ L]oanwords allow speakers to express certain nuances, which would not be expressed by the Japanese word. There are many cases of parallel vocabulary items - Japanese words and English loanwords - which have the same denotative meaning, yet differ in the connotations they convey. The difference of connotation may be one of formality, degree of technicality, attitudinal neutrality, and so on (Morrow 1987: 51). The answer to this first research question can therefore only be that loanwords can never be equaled to foreign words because even if they share the original words meaning in full, their use in another language by itself already defines them as members, as living resources of that language, and through their use they have become part of a process that will invariably alter their semantic structures and nuances to adapt them to the needs of the other language until, like in many cases of anglicisms in Japanese, merely their form will be a dim reminder to their past origin. 11.5.2.2 To what extent does an individual’s knowledge of English influence his/ her understanding of English-based loanwords? The assumption at the beginning of the survey was that, while even those without any significant knowledge of English can be expected to understand anglicisms well enough, those with a higher English competence have a slight advantage especially with regards to understanding anglicisms without context. <?page no="225"?> 225 Divided between English and non-English students, the results were: Chart 23a: Survey results of English students Chart 23b: Survey results of non-English students These results speak a clear language: The overall comprehension rates of English students markedly exceed those of students of other majors. This is also confirmed by the results of the variance analysis, which measured the mean value of comprehension of both parts taken together. 75,04% 69,27% 80% 78,90% 72% 52,62% 45,27% 59% 57,20% 49% Total Kinki Kobe Nanzan 4th year Nanzan 3rd year English Students Correct Answers Part 1 Correct Answers Part 2 70,28% 59,19% 80,35% 71,31% 49,52% 40,50% 58,47% 49,60% Total Kinki Kobe Nanzan Non-English Students Correct Answers Part 1 Correct Answers Part 2 <?page no="226"?> 226 Mean value of comprehension of English students 31,848 (63,696%) Mean value of comprehension of non-English students 29,957 (59,914%) Table 31: Mean values of comprehension by English/ Non-English students based on a variance analysis With a significance value of p=0,019, the difference between the results of English students and non-English students can be called significant. Chart 24: Comparison of average comprehension values Both with and without context, the comprehension rates were higher for students of English, by 5,27% (without context) and 6,67% (with context), respectively. These results appear to suggest a clear advantage of English students over students in other fields. However, let us have a closer look. Even though the surveys among students of other majors at times yielded very low scores, there were also respectable results among these, which were, in fact, better than some obtained from English students. The non-English students from Nanzan University, for example, drew even with the 3 rd year English students from the same university, while the non-English students from Kobe University even exceeded the same university’s English students’ results by 0,35%. So even though the remaining results from Kinki University changed the overall result in disfavor of this group, it is difficult to make a general statement that holds universal validity. There were some English students who performed better than their non- English counterparts and vice versa. A look at the results from Kinki English students illustrates that studying English alone is not sufficient to guarantee a good understanding of anglicisms; rather than a good knowledge of English, general problem solving and comprehension strate- 75,04% 52,62% 68,37% 47,34% Correct Answers Part 2 Correct Answers Part 1 Non-English English <?page no="227"?> 227 gies of students are of the essence in order to correctly understand anglicisms. It catches the eye that, rather than being an issue of English versus non- English students, the results seem to suggest a difference between universities and regions. While, for instance, a university like Kobe did extraordinarily well in all respects, Kinki had dramatically lower scores, both in case of Non-English students and of English students. Therefore, the pivotal point in understanding anglicisms does not appear to be only a matter of English education, but also dependent on the students’ place of education. In Japan, there are fairly great differences in quality between the many universities throughout the country. Regularly, every university’s quality standards are assessed and made public for the people to be able to compare and judge where they want or can afford to send their children. These rankings can be viewed on the Internet page http: / / www.yozemi.ac.jp/ rank/ daigakubetsu/ index.html and show the following rank order (date: spring 2009) for the departments concerned of the universities involved in the survey: University name Score Average Final Comprehension Rate in Survey Kobe University 63 80,175% Nanzan University 59 74,07% Kinki University 53 64,23% Table 32: National rank score of the universities involved in the survey 11 The results of the survey oddly reflect these university rankings, and the correlation is indeed curious. As a consequence, it becomes even harder to assess the results gained as being mainly due to English competence, when detailed results show a correlation of comprehension levels and the level of the educational institution the survey was conducted at. The variance analysis also shows a significant difference between the mean results of the different universities. Mean value of correct answers at Nanzan 31,155 (62,31%) Mean value of correct answers at Kobe 34,744 (69,488%) Mean value of correct answers at Kinki 26,810 (53,62%) Table 33: Mean values of correct answers according to university The differences between the various universities are very significant (p<0,01), and therefore a causal relation between the comprehension of 11 For the purpose of comparison: Tokyo University, Japan’s most famous and bestranking university has a score of about 70. <?page no="228"?> 228 anglicisms and the university the survey was conducted at can be assumed. By how much this factor influences comprehension, though, is uncertain. Formulating cautiously, it can be concluded that a higher English competence to some extent favors the first contact with and comprehension of anglicisms in Japanese, though it does not, in any way, appear to be a major necessary requirement for apt and quick understanding, as the results from non-English students at Nanzan and Kobe have shown. In the end, understanding of loanwords - in context - is mainly a matter of welldeveloped comprehension skills. Also in comprehension without context, the advantage of English students is rather small, as the numbers show. The hypothesized disadvantage of students of English - i.e. that because of their knowledge of English they would pick meanings that the original English word entails but not the loanword - was compensated because non-English students picked different wrong answers and had no advantage on this point. In response to this research question: knowledge of English can, but does not have to be a critical factor in the comprehension of English-based loanwords. There are many other factors which influence understanding, like the overall standard of education or the individual’s ability to read and understand texts conclusively. Hence, based on the survey’s results, the claim that loanwords constitute a discrimination by language education can be negated as being too strong and too undifferentiated. 11.5.2.3 How well are loanwords understood and what role does context play in the comprehension process? The rate of incorrect definitions was high in the first part of the survey - 49,92%, almost half of all loanwords. In part one, the answers were created having in mind the inner workings of the Japanese language, so that if the participants were not familiar with a word they would be tempted to select one of the other answer choices. The purpose was to minimize successful guessing, although it cannot be excluded that correct answers were sometimes picked at random. Part two, however, showed a remarkable rise in comprehension levels. The overall comprehension rate among all 142 participants reached 71,39%, the rate of wrong definitions thus dropped below 29%. Context appears to cancel the effect of unfamiliarity of words for the most part. <?page no="229"?> 229 Chart 25: Increase in comprehension levels between part 1 and 2 By putting them to applied use in a text, knowledge and understanding even of previously unknown words have shown respectable growth and comprehension in general - some exceptions excluded - can be assessed as very high. The importance of previously knowing a word appears to be diminishing when the respective word is actively employed and semantic traits are provided to show the word’s place in the text. Therefore, even though comprehension of loanwords on their own might sometimes be unsatisfactory, their comprehension in use greatly exceeds non-context performance, which is what is important in the process of comprehension of a written or spoken text. As the chart above demonstrates, the understanding of the loanwords used rose notably through their embedding into context. While the comprehension of the words on their own, selected according to their low degrees of familiarity, was suboptimal, framing them in context helped participants to see the meaning behind the otherwise abstract loans. The difference in comprehension visible between words in and out of context underlines the role and impact that context plays in the process of understanding, and in the construction of meaning. Whereas in the case of a loanword without context, blind guessing and free association are often the only way to make sense, once the word is contained within the interdependencies of text, the interplay of lexis and syntax helps to reveal meaning. The final results of the survey support this view: 71,39% 50,08% 0,00% 20,00% 40,00% 60,00% 80,00% 100,00% Correct Answers Part 1 Correct Answers Part 2 <?page no="230"?> 230 Chart 26: Comprehensive overview of results of each loanword in part 1 and 2 0 50 100 overlap potential tied-up melodious chaos up-tune danceable masterplan celeb NEET work-life balance low-end universal presence governance tricky lyrics heart-warm downtime instrumental initiation hideaway feature scheme incentive populism Correct answers part 1 Correct answers part 2 <?page no="231"?> 231 8 out of 50 words, according to this chart, developed negatively in terms of correct meaning definitions by putting them into context. But all of these can be assigned to insufficient or fragmentary context and ambiguous multiple choice answers, which led the wrong answers to appear more adequate to the context than the right ones. In fact, most of the words that were badly understood in context appeared to be quite known when presented on their own, which underscores these deficiencies. Most of the other 43 words show stable upward developments of comprehension levels, with a plus in correct definitions ranging from 1 to 105, a development which was only made possible by showing these often little known loanwords in practical use. While their meanings to a great extent remained unclear in isolation, their application in a meaningful text revealed their semantic status and use and thus enabled participants to recognize their meaning. The results of the variance analysis equally demonstrate the positive and significant effect of context in the comprehension of the loanwords used in the survey: Mean value of correct answers w/ o context Mean value of correct answers in context 25,0423 (50,0846%) 35,6972 (71,3944%) Table 34: Mean value of correct answers w/ o and in context (all surveys) The analysis shows a very significant rise (p<0,01) through the use of context. Context was thus a decisive factor in the comprehension of the loanwords used in the survey. The use of context procured an average rise of 21% from a value of 50% to a mean comprehension level of over 71%. In the case of difficult words, i.e. of relatively unknown words, the development was even more dramatic. The rate of understanding for these words without context was basically very low, because neither were there any extra-lingual associations for them in the donor language, nor was there an intra-lingual trait that would help to gather their meanings. In other words, neither were participants familiar with the original English word (if one exists), nor did the loanword itself give any clues because its basic resource comes from outside the Japanese language. In such cases, the importance of context becomes most obvious and its impact visible. <?page no="232"?> 232 Chart 27: Loanwords whose comprehension rates benefitted most from context What becomes apparent here is that almost all of these low-comprehension loanwords experienced an extraordinary rise by putting them into context. Interestingly, many of them are actually pseudo-anglicisms, i.e. words with an English look that were created in Japan. This might explain their low ratings when their meaning was inquired without context - there was no frame of reference present for these words since there is no original word which could be referred to for guidance. Eventually, however, these same 97 103 107 129 123 104 70 103 102 95 132 73 56 125 75 100 108 54 46 46 48 45 39 40 36 35 36 31 32 31 20 21 18 18 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 mix-down actual universal brush-up pending presence scheme base-up interlude downtime tied-up minor trouble roll-out up-tune feature tricky low-end Correct answers part 1 Correct answers part 2 <?page no="233"?> 233 words scored very high comprehension rates within context, which could hint to the possibility that pseudo-anglicisms are more easily understandable (at least in context) because they were created by the language obeying its proper word creation rules to fit its syntax and fulfill its semantic needs. As a result, they fill out their place more exactly and comprehensibly than ‘normal’ anglicisms. In any case, the understanding of the low-comprehension loanwords in chart 26 increased between 20% and 70% due to context, making them the most valid proof that there is nothing like ‘incomprehensible’ loanwords or a general obstacle to communication by using loanwords - if the crucial requirements for context are met. Even these difficult loanwords, which had no chance of being understood on their own, were eventually framed into meaning through their applied use in a context that supported their creation of meaning in the minds of the readers. Their obscure nature was reshaped into a clear semantic silhouette, their meaning was created - not by something that the loanwords had incorporated in their lexical matrix, but by their active employment in a text, where the other lexical and syntactic players assigned a unique semantic position to them which attentive recipients were able to decipher, equipped with only their basic abilities to read and comprehend a text. For in the end, dictionary definitions are not helpful in immediate situations of contact with unknown words, they might not even exist yet if the word is a nonce formation or if it has just been created. Context, then, is the only instance that can be relied upon in situations where instantaneous comprehension is of the essence. It is the only instance that can help in the creation of meaning in the mind of the recipient, when there are no dictionaries at one’s disposal. Therefore, the importance of context cannot be overestimated, and those who like to use loanwords on the spot without considering whether they are already existent or not must bear in mind that it is their responsibility to create context in a way that enables readers or listeners to construe meaning merely by listening or reading, without consulting any other authority. If loanwords are used responsibly, in a context that supports and defines them, then discussions about the danger of loanwords to unimpeded communication will no longer have any fertile ground to grow on. This must be the main objective of users of a language community and especially of the media which are the main propagators of language and language change, because loanwords are a natural and necessary phenomenon which cannot be stopped; they have to be employed with due care if they are not to cause unduly confusion. The case of English-based loanwords in Japanese has demonstrated well that there is not necessarily a connection between a great number of loanwords in a language and a breakdown in communication, nor practi- <?page no="234"?> 234 cally between knowledge of English and comprehension of English-based loanwords. It is all only a question of attitudes and of adequate usage. What this survey has mainly shown is that meaning does not primarily lie buried in words themselves, but that meaning is part of our signifying practice, that it is a living entity which is created and recreated within a word through the context it is embedded in. It has shown that truly “meaning is use,” and that meaning is a factor of context, and through this interdependence can be derived from context which it is formed by and which, in turn, it defines. It has shown that loanword-comprehension works like the comprehension of any other - also native - word, and that there is no need for an artificial and imposed dichotomy between loanwords and socalled ‘native words’. If the context is semantically and syntactically adequate, any unknown word can be understood and recreated - whatever its origin may be. <?page no="235"?> 235 Conclusion Languages are greedy. Probably no language has ever been content solely with the lexical materials available from its own resources; and perhaps every language has from time to time increased the range and span of its vocabulary with what are generally called loanwords […] (Miller 1967: 235). As this book has shown, Japanese is an extraordinary example for this hunger of languages for more than they can provide for on their own. There is probably no comparable case worldwide to the success-story of loanwords in the Japanese language, and there is hardly a language that renders its loanwords so visible for everyone’s eyes to see. The Chinese loans - having long ago ceased to be called ‘loans’ - are salient through their unaltered orthography as Chinese characters, while Western loanwords are highlighted through the use of the Katakana syllabary. Despite this conspicuousness, however, no other language seems so at ease with its foreign-based vocabulary stock as the Japanese language. Miller remarks, It would be difficult to find another language in the world - except perhaps English during the first few centuries after the Norman invasion - which has been as hospitable to loanwords as has Japanese. At all times in their history the Japanese have avidly introduced new vocabulary items into their own lexical stock, where great numbers of them have remained as permanent evidence for many of Japan’s contacts with the always remote outside world (Miller 1967: 236). This attitude towards anything foreign or new has enabled the Japanese language to enlarge its lexical corpus to a veritable size that does not stand back to the richness of the English language. In both these languages, it was only thanks to lexical resources from outside the own language that they have grown to be so diverse and wealthy in vocabulary, in semantic nuance, and idiomatic expression. Loanwords, therefore, must not be seen as a weakness, as dominance of one language over another, but rather as a sign of strength and vitality, as a strategy to meet the requirements of an increasingly complex world. The Japanese case has shown that an open attitude towards loanwords, to anglicisms, does not necessarily result in linguistic chaos and does not stop at a simple import and imitation of the foreign. “One thing that seems certain,” Hasegawa (cited in Hoffer 2002: 266) maintains, “is that Japan will never stop at out-and-out imitation of the West.” What the Japanese do - and do well - is to appropriate a word’s function, not its underlying philosophy. This is how they manage to look foreign, but stay Japanese. The slogan from Meiji times “Western technology, Japanese spirit” (Kay 1995: <?page no="236"?> 236 67) has been adapted to the times, but not forsaken, and has enabled the country to welcome many thousands of foreign-based words into the language without ever being in danger of losing its identity. Even though some people bemoan the ‘corruption’ of the Japanese language, it has in fact always been the loanwords that have kept it alive and going. Word borrowing - as the wholesale adoption of Chinese characters in the first millennium A.D. has shown - has always been an important method in the creation of new words, which helped propel Japanese language and culture into new ages. Of course, there are not only bright sides to the increase of Englishbased loanwords in the Japanese language; especially elderly people maintain that they are confused by the many new expressions they are confronted with in areas that concern their lives most, but - as surveys by the NIJL have amply shown - they are not the only ones; people of all ages admit to having already encountered problems in the understanding of loanwords. Interestingly, though, the calls for a restriction of their numbers are manageable. Rather, the Japanese seem to have come to terms with the challenges that loanwords pose, and it can even be suggested that the awareness of what constitutes a ‘loanword’ is rather low, so much have they already become a part of Japanese. Morrow (1987: 55f) presumes, Probably the Japanese who use English loanwords frequently but have no communicative command of English view the words as being Japanese in the same way American English speakers view French loanwords (e.g. expertise, chandelier, chaperone and chauffeur) as being English and no longer French (Morrow 1987: 55f). This is also an experience that I have personally made during the research for this book and during my years of studying the Japanese language. Often I would confront Japanese native speakers with anglicisms that I found intriguing, only to hear them say, “It’s a loanword, really? Strange, I’ve never thought of it as anything else but Japanese.” This embracing attitude may be what saves the Japanese from open and unconstructive discussions on the raison d’être of loanwords in the language. In fact, it is conspicuous that the Japanese themselves rarely use the Japanese term for ‘loanwords’ - gairaigo ( 外来語 ), meaning ‘words from outside’. Rather, they prefer to call them with reference to their orthography, as ‘Katakana words’ - Katakanago ( カタカナ語 ) - which carries connotations of being a part of the language already because it describes loanwords not as something coming from the outside, but as manifestations of Japanese, which, in fact, they are. Yamazaki (2003) comes to a similar conclusion: We noticed that the term katakana rather than the term gairai-go or loan words was used by all but one [loanword] dictionary to categorize these words. This does not mean that LWs [loanwords] are treated less importantly but only <?page no="237"?> 237 shows the fact that the term no longer represents the current state of treatment of these words by dictionaries (Yamazaki 2003: 130). It can be assumed that it is partly due to this orthographic assimilation of loanwords that they are not perceived as foreign and that their huge numbers, though causing comprehension problems for many people, are more or less silently acknowledged and their further rise accepted. The myth that so many new and difficult loanwords are used can be dismissed, at least for the case of Japanese. As the data has shown, almost all of the most frequently used loanwords in newspapers, magazines, public information bulletins, television, and even white papers are already part of the codified Japanese language; they have found their way into current usage, and can no longer be seen as obstacles because of their non-Japanese origins. Whatever challenges remain to native speakers of Japanese, they originate not so much from the words themselves than from their conditions of use, and can therefore be overcome. History has demonstrated that random and forced replacing of loanwords by paraphrases is no solution. Those anglicisms that were removed during the heat of war have found their way back into the language and are still in use today, while their replacements have been forgotten, their existence only documented as a footnote in history. This illustrates that there is no alternative to loanwords, whose survival depends, and always has depended, on their usefulness to a language. As long as a word - whether loanword or ‘native’ word - serves a function, it will be preserved; when it ceases to do so, it is disposed of. Thus there is no real basis for fears that loanwords undermine or subvert a language. Of course, this is not to say that there are no comprehension problems; there are, especially in first contact situations, but these occur for all words, regardless of their origin. Certainly, it seems sensible to familiarize members of a language family with unknown or difficult loanwords, and not just throw them at them. For this cause, the approach taken by Jinnouchi (cf. chapter 9) appears to be the most suitable: to gradually integrate loanwords into the language, when necessary, by adding a corresponding Japanese explanation in brackets before, in due time, releasing them into liberty. An even simpler and more intuitive approach would certainly be to yield the derivation of meaning entirely to the reader/ hearer (which is doubtlessly practiced with neologisms of Japanese or Chinese origin), by providing a framework that enables people to construe the word’s meaning through its applied use in the text. The survey conducted in the process of this book has clearly shown that the meaning of words that are unknown when encountered in isolation, in most cases becomes sufficiently clear when employed in a context that allows the loanword to unfold its meaning in the mind of the recipient. On the other hand, when the context does <?page no="238"?> 238 not consider the loanword it is supposed to both rely on and define, then - the survey has demonstrated - the comprehension process is inhibited and the word’s meaning gets lost in semantic space. There is a need for caution in language, as well as for empathy towards other people by using words with care, and with regard to how they might be perceived by others. This is especially true for written texts where there is no opportunity to ask for an explanation of a word’s meaning, but also in spoken language where there is rarely a dictionary available in which to back-check unknown words. What the survey has sufficiently proven is that any word can be understood if certain conditions for comprehension are met, and that any word can be misunderstood if the context leaves too much room for semantic ambiguity. If the environment surrounding a word is stable enough to support its meaning, then there is no need to fear an inhibition in communication, because the meaning explains itself. In that sense, it is wrong to differentiate between loanwords and ‘native’ words in the first place, because ultimately they both depend on and follow the same rules. It might help to consider how young children deal with language, for whom technically any word is a ‘foreign’ word, whose meaning they have to acquire by witnessing and testing out its use. In a way, words can be compared to tools: whenever we are confronted with a new tool, we have to see it in use first in order to know its function. Sometimes, when the tool is similar to another one we already know, we will probably be able to guess its meaning through association, but in other cases it is so different that we have to see a practical demonstration in order to be able to use it. Words are not much different. If we know English, for example, we might be able to derive an anglicism’s meaning by relying on the English word we know (if they are near-synonyms), but if we are not familiar with English, or if our vocabulary stock is small, then we will have to see the word used in context to extrapolate its intended meaning. Naturally, the same applies for words consisting of our ‘native’ language material - if we are lucky we can combine the word’s meaning by relying on its compound words or derivations, but if the word’s meaning has been abstracted from its components’ literal meanings in any way, we must know its usage in language first. Seen from this perspective, thus, loanword discussions miss the point - if loanwords are not understood it is not because they are foreign, but because they are used with no regard to comprehensibility. A rather odd aspect of the loanword discussion in Japan is its concern with the loanwords’ impact on non-Japanese nationals, especially Englishspeaking people. One of the most frequent arguments used against loanwords is that they are hardly understood by native speakers of English. Strangely enough, many of the people getting really enraged about angli- <?page no="239"?> 239 cisms in the Japanese language are such native speakers, many of them English teachers in Japan. Their irritation with how the Japanese are ‘abusing’ the English language appears to be one of the driving forces behind such criticism by Japanese scholars and propositions to redefine the meaning of anglicisms in Japanese according to their English source-words and to abolish pseudo-anglicisms altogether, as was outlined in chapter 8. The loanword issue, thus, is frequently discussed not from the vantage point of the Japanese people and their comprehension problems, but from that of native English speakers and the negative interference that loanwords can cause in English conversations between Japanese speakers and English speakers. This rather queer altruism, rather than the large number of anglicisms, appears to be a sign of dependence on American opinion and of a lack of self-confidence in the strength of the Japanese language. What must be reasserted is that anglicisms as such have nothing to do with their English heritage nor are they a sign of cultural domination; they are independent lexical entities that only superficially mimic English words. An increase in consciousness is needed concerning the worldwide market of language: no language, not even English, has a monopoly concerning the exclusive use of its resources; they are at free disposal to any language willing to use them and offering a place and function to them within its linguistic system. What kind of function they are eventually awarded is entirely the matter of the recipient language, and not subject to any endorsement by English native speakers. Therefore, any consideration for the feelings of English speakers towards anglicisms in Japanese is misplaced and would be better spent for those directly concerned - native speakers of Japanese who have to be made aware of the fact that they are using Japanized English words which not seldom differ notably from the original English term; teachers of Japanese and of English in Japan both have to make sure that the differences between anglicism and English word are acknowledged and the two kept apart from the start in order to prevent any undesirable inter-language interference which, in turn, could give rise to an over-generalized critique of loanwords that could mislead the discussion once more into a territory outside of Japanese proper and misconstrue it as an inter-language problem instead of an internal Japanese matter. On the other side of the scope is the purist approach of the advocates of Nihonjinron. With their nationalistic discourse on the nature of the Japanese they focus on the myth of uniqueness of the Japanese language and people; they create a pseudo-scientific setting that tries to establish a mythological framework for the Japanese language based on unrealistic suppositions of linguistic purity. In this view, loanwords compromise the very soul of the language, destroying its foundations. This is a kind of discourse that is not unfamiliar to German speakers, because it has often been engaged in by <?page no="240"?> 240 apologists of a model of purity of the German language. Luckily for the Japanese, however, both the purist approach and the internationalist approach described above are, for the most part, purely theoretical and academic with little practical rooting in the thinking of the average Japanese who mostly do not even stop to reflect whether the words they are using are ‘pure’ Japanese or of foreign origin. This pragmatic approach harmonizes well with the natural flow of language which asks for purpose and not for etymology. This connects to another major problem concerning loanwords, namely people’s attitude towards them. In this book, I have tried to show that the Japanese people, in spite of some critical comments, are generally very open and tolerant towards loanwords. For many centuries, the Japanese have been experimenting with foreign language material, and molded it into distinctively Japanese lexical items. The easiness - yes, almost impudence - and creativity with which foreign resources are drawn on regardless of their original meaning to express new things or convey subtly different nuances is astonishing. There is a non-chalance about the Japanese’s use of loanwords that is difficult to understand from the vantage point of a continent like Europe in which language is politicized and the use of English-based loans equaled to American domination. The content of discussions being led in Austria or Germany reveals a small-minded way of thinking and an ignorance of language nature and history. Trying to stigmatize loanwords as something not belonging to one’s mother tongue is where the loanword problem really becomes a problem. Seeing loans as something fundamentally alien gives way to nationalistic ways of discourse on ‘corruption’ in language, which takes the issue to an emotional level where it is difficult to argue on a logical and factual basis. The Japanese language has an advantage in this field, because even though its orthography of loanwords in the eye-catching Katakana syllabary clearly identifies words as loans, the very process of remodeling their orthographic and phonetic shapes on arrival imparts a Japanese identity on them. Especially the phonetic adaption to the Japanese system can be perceived as one of the corner stones to the success of loanwords in Japanese; their pronunciation follows the general pronunciation rules of the language and therefore makes them inconspicuous in an auditory manner, which is different from anglicisms in German which have a tendency to retain their original pronunciations to some extent (including sounds that are not part of the German phonetic system), making them easily identifiable as ‘foreign’ and wide open to criticism. The Japanese model of immediate phonetic and orthographic assimilation seems to be the more productive approach in this matter. This book set out to prove that loanwords - and in the case of Japanese especially anglicisms - are a valuable linguistic resource which can and <?page no="241"?> 241 should be made use of by all languages. Japanese, as we have seen, has managed to not merely import and create words based on the English language, but to fully appropriate them as well. By adapting these words orthographically, phonetically and morphologically, they are rendered completely Japanese, and the semantic changes that many of the established anglicisms have experienced suggests that the assimilation of loanwords happens in their entirety; they are morphed, clipped, and combined almost ruthlessly and regardless of their original status - if there ever was any - in the English language. The Japanese are professionals at appropriating foreign linguistic material, as the case of Chinese characters (Kanji) has shown; these have been perfectly embedded in the language and have come to live a life of their own, independent from their Chinese heritage. There are many Kanji words that Chinese cannot understand, and vice versa; Japanese Kanji have been adapted, gradually, to the semantic needs of the national language, some being discarded, some being created by the Japanese, which do not exist in Chinese at all. Japan’s relation to the English language appears to be embarking on a similar path of assimilative appropriation, which guarantees that Japanese will stay well and alive in the future as well. As Hoffer says, The basic features of the English borrowings are indeed similar to language borrowing in other languages. Yet the grammatical features and some of the functional uses of the borrowings are particular to Japanese. In other words, just as happened with the Chinese borrowings earlier, the English borrowings are being “Nipponicized” into the Japanese language (Hoffer 2002: 272). There is, therefore, no reason to fear that the sudden influx of Englishbased words will follow any other path than that treaded by all other loanwords before. It is this spontaneous and positive attitude towards the foreign that appears worth imitating also in European language communities. Awareness must be raised that there is hardly a linguistic phenomenon more natural than the adoption of words from other languages and that all languages as we know them would not exist, were it not for occasional vitalizing refreshments through the injection of foreign lexical material. Rather than looking at loanwords with suspicion, they should instill us with awe at the sheer power of language to mold and adapt anything to its own linguistic fabric. We should contemplate language with fascination, enthralled by its almost living, organic nature which evolves as a whole and which has the faculty to create, change, and dismiss meanings as it sees fit to ensure its vitality. Realizing how much their own language has been depending on foreign-based resources might awaken people to the fact that the current trend to employ English-based words at an increasing rate is but a single wave within a constantly moving tide that washes against the shores of languages, enriching the soil with its waters. A look at the Japanese case, <?page no="242"?> 242 too, could help to see that even if loanwords enter the language in huge proportions and at an astonishing rate, the digestive forces of language do not fail, communication does not break down, and the language does not perish; rather, the new resource slowly yields to the workings of the recipient language and, with the loss of its original identity, is awarded with new meaning and new purpose to work in the new surroundings it has been thrust into. There are also problems, yes, but they can be mastered - by a careful use of loanwords and a meaning-supporting framework around them. But the fear of Americanization through an increased use of anglicisms is unfounded, as the example of Japanese shows, which - more than any other language - has literally been devouring English-based words for use in the language. We, too, can learn from the Japanese case, which proves that language is not subject to loanwords, but that loanwords are subject to language. To speak with Hasegawa, “[T]he real question is not whether the new elements [loanwords] would change Japanese culture, but rather the real question is how Western civilization would be Nipponized” (cited in Hoffer: 266). This perspective on loanwords is the key to a healthy relationship with this phenomenon, and can only be recommended for other languages as well, for sometimes changing the angle by just a little bit reveals that what we thought of as a problem is really a chance for us to grasp. Whether we take this perspective or not is up to us, but the Japanese language has powerfully demonstrated that the best way to deal with loanwords is not by fighting them, but by embracing them. <?page no="243"?> 243 Bibliography Aitchison, Jean (1991). Language change: progress or decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 相澤、正夫（２００３）。「日本語コミュニケーションにおける外来語使 用の功罪」。日本語コミュニケーションの言語問題。東京：国立 国語研究所。７９ − ８８。 (Aizawa, Masao (2003). “Nihongo Komyunike-shon ni okeru Gairaigo Shiyō no Kōzai.” Nihongo Komyunike-shon no Gengo Mondai. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. 79-88) 相澤、正夫（２００５ a ）。「日本における「外来語」の状況」。 世界の ＜外来語＞の諸相。東京：国立国語研究所。１３０ − １４２。 (Aizawa, Masao (2005a). “Nihon ni okeru ‘Gairaigo’ no Jōkyō.” Sekai no “Gairaigo” no Shosō. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. 130- 142) 相澤、正夫（２００５ b ）。「質疑応答」。 世界の＜外来語＞の諸相。東 京：国立国語研究所。１４３ − １４４。 (Aizawa, Masao (2005b). “Jitsugi Ōtō.” Sekai no “Gairaigo” no Shosō. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. 143-144) 相澤、正夫（２００６）。「「外来語」言い換え提案は何を目指している か」。 新「ことば」シリーズ１９。東京：国立印刷局。２８ − ３ ６。 (Aizawa, Masao (2006). “’Gairaigo’ Iikaeteian ha nani o mezashiteiru no ka.” Shin”Kotoba”Shiri-zu 19. Tokyo: Kokutritsu Insatsukyoku. 28-36) Alston, W.P. (1964). Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. “Asahi Shimbun” (2008, Sept). Wikipedia[Online]. http: / / en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Asahi_Shimbun [2008, Sept. 19]. Bach, Kent (2005). “The Emperor’s New ‘Knows’.” In: Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter, eds. Contextualism in Philosophy - Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 51-89. Barthes, Roland (1981). Das Reich der Zeichen. Frankfurt am Main: Edition Suhrkamp. Befu, Harumi and Kazufumi Manabe (1987). “An Empirical Study of Nihonjinron: How Real is the Myth? ” Kwansei Gakuin University Annual Studies 36: 97-111. Befu, Harumi and Kazufumi Manabe (1991). “Nihonjinron: The Discursive Manifestation of Cultural Nationalism.” Kwansei Gakuin University Annual Studies 40: 101-115. Bernard, Russel H. (2006). Research Methods in Anthropology. London: Sage Publications. <?page no="244"?> 244 Blankley, Tim (2000). “By Learning Language Are We Learning Culture? ” Language Studies 8: 73-82. Bloomfield, Leonard (1935). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. Bortz, Jürgen (2005). Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaften, 6 th ed. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. Braun, Peter, ed. (1979). Fremdwortdiskussion. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Brown, J.B. and C.J. Williams (1985). “Gairaigo: a latent English vocabulary base? ” Tohoku Gakuin University Review: Essays and Studies in English Eibungaku 76: 129-146. Brown, James Dean (2001). Using Surveys in Language Programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 文化庁（１９７６）。「外来語」。「ことば」シリーズ４。東京： 大蔵省 印刷局。 (Bunkachō (1976). “Gairaigo.” “Kotoba”Shiri-zu 4. Tokyo: Ōkurakushō Insatsukyoku) 文化庁（１９９７）。「言葉に関する問答集 — 外来語編」。新「ことば」 シリーズ６。東京：大蔵省印刷局。 (Bunkachō (1997). “Kotoba ni kansuru Mondōshū”. Shin”Kotoba”Shiri-zu 6. Tokyo: Ōkurashō Insatsukyoku) 文化庁（１９９８）。「言葉に関する問答集 — 外来語編（２）」。新「こ とば」シリーズ８。東京： 大蔵省印刷局。 (Bunkachō (1998). “Kotoba ni kansuru Mondōshū - Gairaigohen”. Shin”Kotoba”Shirizu 8. Tokyo: Ōkurashō Insatsukyoku) Busse, Ulrich (2008). “Anglizismen im Deutschen. Entwicklung, Zahlen, Einstellungen.” In Sandro M. Moraldo, ed. Sprachkontakt und Mehrsprachigkeit. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. 37-68. Calichman, Richard F., ed. (2005). Contemporary Japanese Thought. New York: Columbia University Press. Callaway, H.G. (1993). Context for Meaning and Analysis: A Critical Study in the Philosophy of Language. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Carstensen, Broder (1978). “Zur Intensität und Rezeption des englischen Einflusses.” In: Peter Braun, ed. Fremdwort Diskussion. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. 321-326. Chiba, Reiko et al. (1995). “Japanese attitudes toward English accents.” World Englishes 14.1: 77-86. Chomsky, Noam (1996). Powers and Prospects. Boston: South End Press. Crystal, David (1995). Die Cambridge Enzyklopädie der Sprache. Frankfurt: Campus. Cutting, Joan (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge. Daulton, Frank E. (1998, January). “Japanese Loanword Cognates and the Acquisition of English Vocabulary.” The Language Teacher Online. [Online] <?page no="245"?> 245 http: / / www.jalt-publications.org/ tlt/ files/ 98/ jan/ daulton.html [2006, May 5]. De Mente, Boyé Lafayette (2005). Japan Unmasked: The Character and Culture of the Japanese. Singapore: Tuttle Publishing. Dower, John (2000). Embracing Defeat - Japan in the Wake of World War II. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Earns, Fumiko Fukuta (1993). “Language adaptation: European influence on Japanese syntax.” PhD Dissertation University of Hawaii. Erdmann, Karl Otto (1922). Die Bedeutung des Wortes, 3 rd ed. Leipzig: Avenarius. Fields, G. (1983). From Bonsai to Levi’s. New York: Mentor. Finker, Thomas (1999). “Anglizismen in der Kleinen Zeitung.” Diploma Thesis Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Firth, J.R. (1969). Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press. Frege, Gottlob (1953). The Foundations of Arithmetic. Oxford: Blackwell. Frege, Gottlob (2002). Funktion-Begriff-Bedeutung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. French, Gary (2005). “The cline of errors in the writing of Japanese university students.” World Englishes 24.3: 371-382. Fröschl, Petra (1995). “Anglizismen im Wortschatz der Österreichischen Presse.” Diploma Thesis Karl-Franzens Universität Graz. 深草、耕太郎（１９９９）。「外来語が伝わっているか」。放送研究と調 査４９．８：５４ − ６１。 (Fukakusa, Kōtarō (1999). “Gairaigo ga tsutawatteiru no ka.” Hōsō Kenkyū to Chōsa 49.8: 54-61) 福田、亮（２００６）。「新聞記事の外来語」。 新「ことば」シリーズ１ ９。東京：国立印刷局。４８ − ５７。 (Fukuda, Akira (2006). “Shinbunkiji no Gairaigo.” Shin”Kotoba”Shiri-zu 19. Tokyo: Kokutritsu Insatsukyoku. 48-57) Gabbrielli, Richard R.P (2005). A Sociolinguistic Analysis of English Loanwords in Japanese Television Commercials - A Case Study. Hiroshima: Keisuisha. 後藤、斉（２００７）。「コーパス言語学と日本語研究」。日本語科学２ ２：４７ − ５８。 (Gotō, Hitoshi (2007). “Ko-pasu Gengogaku to Nihongo Kenkyū.” Nihongo Kagaku 22: 47-58) Haarmann, Harald (2002). “Sprachenvielfalt im Globalisierungsprozess.” In: Rudolf Hoberg, ed. Deutsch-Englisch-Europäisch: Impulse für eine neue Sprachpolitik. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. 9-29. ハイダウェイ ( はいだうぇい ) (2009, Jan.). [Online] http: / / www.weblio.jp/ content/ ハイダウェイ [2009, January 29]. Hall, Stuart (1997). “The Work of Representation.” In: Stuart Hall, ed. Representation - Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage Publications Ltd. 13-64. <?page no="246"?> 246 橋本、和佳（２００１）。「高校国語教科書における外来語の使用状 況」。日本語科学９：１２３ — １４５。 (Hashimoto, Waka (2001). Kōkō Kokugo Kyōkasho ni okeru Gairaigo no Shiyōjōkyō.” Nihongo Kagaku 9: 123-145) 橋本、和佳（２００７）。「外来語の通時的推移」。言語３６．６：３０ − ３６。 (Hashimoto, Waka (2007). “Gairaigo no tsūjiteki Suii.” Gengo 36.6: 30-36). Hatch, E. and A. Lazarton (1996). The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Rowley: Newbury House. Hayashi, Takuo and Reiko Hayashi (1995). “A cognitive study of English loanwords in Japanese discourse.” World Englishes 14.1: 55-66. Heller, Klaus (2002). “Was ist ein Fremdwort? Sprachwissenschaftliche Aspekte seiner Definition.” In: Rudolf Hoberg, ed. Deutsch- Englisch-Europäisch: Impulse für eine neue Sprachpolitik. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. 184-198. Hino, Nobuyuki (1988). “Nationalism and English as an international language: the history of English textbooks in Japan.” World Englishes 7.3: 309-314. Hoberg, Rudolf (2002). “English rules the World. Was wird aus Deutsch? ” In: Rudolf Hoberg, ed. Deutsch-Englisch-Europäisch: Impulse für eine neue Sprachpolitik. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. 171-183. Hoffer, Bates (1990). “English Loanwords in Japanese: Some Cultural Implications.” Language Sciences 12.1: 1-21. Hoffer, Bates L. (2002). “The Impact of English on the Japanese Language.” In: Ray T. Donahue, ed. Exploring Japaneseness: on Japanese enactments of culture and consciousness. Westport: Greenwood Publishing. 263-273. Hofman, Dirk (2002). “Do you understand Denglish? Eine Umfrage zum Anglizismenverständnis.” In: Rudolf Hoberg, ed. Deutsch-Englisch- Europäisch: Impulse für eine neue Sprachpolitik. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. 218-234. Holst, Mark (2000). “Awareness Raising of English Loanwords in Japanese.” Language Studies 8: 41-58. Horn, Laurence R (1990). “Pragmatic Theory.” In Frederick J. Newmeyer, ed. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Volume 1: Linguistic Theory: Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 113-145. Huber-Grabenwarter, Gerlinde (2000). “Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Einschätzung und tatsächlichen Anglizismenhäufigkeit in Der Standard, Kurier und Täglich Alles. Diploma Thesis Karl-Franzens- Universität Graz. Ichikawa, Sanki (1931). “Foreign influences in the Japanese language. In: I. Nitobe, ed. Western Influences on Modern Japan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 141-180. <?page no="247"?> 247 Ike, Minoru (1995). “A historical review of English in Japan (1600-1880).” World Englishes 14.1: 3-11. Inagaki, Yoshihiko (1989). “Our Favorite Words.” Japan Echo 16: 22-25. 犬飼、隆（２００２）。「外国語・外来語とその表記」。国立国語研究所 （編集）。日本語の文字・表記 — 研究会報告論集。東京：国立国 語研究所。２３ − ３１。 (Inukai, Takashi (2002). “Gaikokugo, Gairaigo to sono Hyōki.” Nihongo no Moji, Hyōki - Kenkyūkai Houkokuhenshū. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. 23-31) 石野、博史（１９８２ a ）。「外来語をどう見るか」。文研月報３２． ２：１８ − ３１。 (Ishino, Hiroshi (1982a). “Gairaigo o dou miruka.” Bunkengeppō 32.2: 18-31) 石野、博史（１９８２ b ）。「外来語の現状」。文研月報３２．８：３１ − ４０。 (Ishino, Hiroshi (1982b). “Gairaigo no genjō.” Bunkengeppō 32.8: 31-40) Ishiwata, Toshio (1989). “Loanwords in Historical Perspective.” Japan Echo 16: 17-21. Iwasaki, Yasufumi (1994). “Englishization of Japanese and acculturation of English to Japanese culture.” World Englishes 13.2: 261-272. 陣内、正敬（２００７）。「外来語の社会言語学 — 日本語のグローカルな 考え方」。京都：世界思想社。 (Jinnouchi, Masataka (2007). Gairaigo no Shakaigengogaku - Nihongo no guro-karu na Kangaekata. Kyoto: Sekai Shisoōsha) Joseph, John E. (2004). Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kachru, Braj B. (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kachru, Yamuna and Cecil L. Nelson (2006). World Englishes in Asian Context. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Karlgren, Bernhard (1926). Etudes Sur la Phonologie Chinoise. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag. Katō, Hidetoshi et al. (1989). “The Globalization of Japanese.” Japan Echo 16: 61-68. Kay, Gillian (1995). “English loanwords in Japanese.” World Englishes 14.1: 67-76. Kelley, David Byron (1990). A study of the influence of Chinese and English (and other Western languages) on the Japanese language. Ann Arbor: UMI. Kettemann, Bernhard (2002a). “Anglicisms in German: Enrichment or Intrusion? ” AAA-Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 27.2: 255- 271. Kettemann, Bernhard (2002b). “Anglizismen allgemein und konkret: Zahlen und Fakten.” In: Rudolf Muhr and Bernhard Ketteman, eds. Eurospeak. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 55-86. <?page no="248"?> 248 Kettemann, Bernhard (2006). “Morphologische Integration von und semantische Differenzierung durch Anglizismen im Deutschen.” In: Christian Mair et. al., ed. Corpora and the History of English. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. 169-182. Kimura, Masanori (1989). “The Effect of Japanese Loanwords on the Acquisition of the Correct Range of Meanings of English Words.” Master’s Thesis, Brigham Young University, Dept. of Linguistics. Kimura, Masanori (2004). The Effect of Japanese Loanwords on the Acquisition of the Correct Range of Meanings of English Words. Kyoto: Dōmeisha. Kobayashi, Toshihiko (2002). “English as an International Language.” Language Studies 10: 41-48. Koike, Ikuo and Harumi Tanaka (1995). “English in foreign language education policy in Japan: Toward the twenty-first century.” In: World Englishes 14.1. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 13-25. Koizumi, Tamotsu (1989). “Linguistic Revolutionaries of Modern Japan.” Japan Echo 16: 26-30. 国立国語研究所外来語検討委員会（２０００ a ）。「白書、広報紙等にお ける外来語の実態（資料編）」。東京：国立国語研究所。 (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo Gairaigo Kentō Iinkai (2000a). Hakusho, Kōhōshitō ni okeru Gairaigo no Jittai (Shiryōhen). Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo) 国立国語研究所外来語検討委員会（２０００ b ）。「白書、広報紙等にお ける外来語の実態（本編）」。東京：国立国語研究所。 (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo Gairaigo Kentō Iinkai (2000b). Hakusho, Kōhōshitō ni okeru Gairaigo no Jittai (Honpen). Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo) 国立国語研究所（２００３ a ）。「日本語コミュニケーションの言葉問 題」。東京：国立国語研究所。 (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo (2003a). Nihongo Komyunike-shon no Kotoba Mondai. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo) 国立国語研究所（２００３ b ）。「言葉に関する問答集 — よくある「こと ば」の質問」。新「ことば」シリーズ１４。東京：財務省印刷 局。 (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. “Kotoba ni kansuru Mondōshū - yoku aru ‘Kotoba’ no Shitsumon” (2003b). Shin”Kotoba”Shiri-zu 14. Tokyo: Zaimushō Insatsukyoku) 国立国語研究所（２００４）。「外来語に関する意識調査報告書」。東 京：国立国語研究所。 (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo (2004). Gairaigo ni kansuru Ishiki Chōsa Hōkokusho. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo) 国立国語研究所（２００５）。「外来語に関する意識調査報告書 II 」。東 京：国立国語研究所。 (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo (2005). Gairaigo ni kansuru Ishiki Chōsa Hōkokusho II. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo) <?page no="249"?> 249 国立国語研究所（２００６）。「外来語と現代社会」。新「ことば」シリ ーズ１９。東京：国立印刷局。 (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo (2006). “Gairaigo to Gendaishakai”. Shin”Kotoba”Shiri-zu 19. Tokyo: Kokutritsu Insatsukyoku) 国立国語研究所（２００７）。「公共媒体の外来語 — 「外来語」言い換え 提案を支える調査研究」。国立国語研究所報告１２６。東京：国 立国語研究所。 (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo (2007). Kōkyōbaitai no gairaigo - “Gairaigo” Iikaeteian o sasaeru Chōsa. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo) 国立国語研究所「外来語」委員会（２００６）。「外来語言い換え手引 き」。東京：ぎょうせい。 (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo “Gairaigo” Iinkai (2006). “Gairaigo Iikaetebiki. Tokyo: Gyōsei) König, Burghard, ed. (2007). Platon: Sämtliche Werke, Band 3. Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rohwolt Taschenbuch Verlag. Kubarth, Hugo (2002). “Anglicismes - non merci. Französische Sprachpolitik heute.” In: Rudolf Muhr and Bernhard Ketteman, eds. Eurospeak. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 181-208. Kubota, Ryuko (1998). “Ideologies of English in Japan.” World Englishes 17.3: 295-306. Lado, Robert (1972). “Patterns of difficulty.” In K. Croft, ed. Readings on English as a Second Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publisher, Inc. 277-291. Lee, Ki-Moon (1963). “A Genetic View On Japanese.” Chōsen Gakuho 27: 94- 105. Leisi, Ernst (1975). Der Wortinhalt - Seine Struktur im Deutschen und Englischen. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Leisi, Ernst (1973). Praxis der Englischen Semantik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Loveday, Leo (1986). Explorations in Japanese Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Loveday, Leo (1996). Language Contact in Japan. New York: Oxford University Press. Maekawa, Kikuo (2006, July). “Kotonoha, the Corpus Development Project of the National Institute for Japanese Language.” [Online] http: / / www.tokuteicorpus.jp/ result/ pdf/ 2006_007.pdf [2008, March 26]. Manabe, Kazufumi et al. (1989). “An Empirical Investigation of Nihonjinron: The Degree of Exposure of The Japanese to Nihonjinron Propositions and the Functions These Propositions Serve.” Kwansei Gakuin University Annual Studies 38: 35-62. Manabe, Kazufumi et al. (1990). “An Empirical Investigation of Nihonjinron: The Degree of Exposure of The Japanese to Nihonjinron <?page no="250"?> 250 Propositions and the Functions These Propositions Serve (Part 2).” Kwansei Gakuin University Annual Studies 39: 139-167. Maruya, Saiichi (1989). “The Folly of Language Reform.” Japan Echo 16: 31- 34. Masanori, Higa (1979). “Sociolinguistic Aspects of Word-Borrowing.” In: William Francis Mackey and Jacob Ornstein, eds. Sociolinguistic Studies in Language Contact. New York: Mouton Publishers. 277- 292. Masui, Megumi (1998). “Linguistic Identity Change in the Japanese Speakers of English as a Foreign Language.” Diploma Thesis Nanzan University. Matsuda, Yutaka (1985). “Cross-Over Languages: Japanese and English (I).” Kwansei Gakuin University Annual Studies 34: 41-69. Matsuda, Yutaka (1986). “Cross-Over Languages: Japanese and English (II).” Kwansei Gakuin University Annual Studies 35: 47-80. Matsuura, Hiroko et al. (2004). “Research Report: The officialization of English and ELT in Japan: 2000.” World Englishes 23.3: 471-487. McConnell, David et al. (1988). “Nihonjinron: Whose cup of tea? ” Kwansei Gakuin University Annual Studies 37: 129-133. McGinn, Colin (1984). Wittgenstein on Meaning. Oxfiord: Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd. Miller, Roy Andrew (1967). The Japanese Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Miller, Roy Andrew (1977). The Japanese language in contemporary Japan. Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Miller, Roy Andrew (2000). Die japanische Sprache: Geschichte und Struktur. München: Iudicium-Verlag. Miura, Akira (1979). English Loanwords in Japanese. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company Inc. Miura, Akira (1985). English in Japanese. Tokyo: Yohan Publications Inc. Moeran, Brian (1989). Language and popular culture in Japan. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Moody, Andrew J. (2006). “English in Japanese popular culture and J-Pop music.” World Englishes 25.2: 209-222. Moraldo, Sandro M. (2008). “Sprachkontakt und Mehrsprachigkeit. Zur Anglizismendiskussion in Deutschland, Österreich, der Schweiz und Italien.” In Sandro M. Moraldo, ed. Sprachkontakt und Mehrsprachigkeit. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. 9-36. Mori, Arinori (1873). Education in Japan: A Series of Letters Addressed to Prominent Americans to Arinori Mori. New York: D. Appleton & Co. Morrow, Phillip R. (1987). “The users and uses of English in Japan.” World Englishes 6.1: 49-62. <?page no="251"?> 251 Muhr, Rudolf (2002). “Anglizismen als Problem der Linguistik und Sprachpflege in Österreich und Deutschland zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts.” In: Rudolf Muhr and Bernhard Ketteman, eds. Eurospeak. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 9-54. 中西、進（２００５）。「基調講演「日本文化と外来語」」。世界の＜外 来語＞の諸相。東京：国立国語研究所。１８ − ２８。 (Nakanishi, Susumu (2005). “Kichōkōen ‘Nihonbunka to Gairaigo’.” Sekai no “Gairaigo” no Shosō. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. 18-28) Nishiyama, Sen (1995). “Speaking English with a Japanese mind.” World Englishes 14.1: 27-36. Norman, Jerry (1988). Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 野角、幸子（１９９８）。日本社会にあふれるカタカナ語。東京：新風 舎。 (Nozumi, Yukiko (1998). Nihonshakai ni ahureru Katakanago. Tokyo: Shinpūsha) Oda Tanaka, Sachiko (1995). “The Japanese media and English.” World Englishes 14.1: 37-53. Oda Tanaka, Sachiko and Harumi Tanaka (1995). “A survey of Japanese sources on the use of English in Japan.” World Englishes 14.1: 117- 135. 大石、俊一（１９９０）。「「英語」イデオロギーを問う」。東京：吉岡 文栄社。 (Ōishi, Toshiichi (1990). “Eigo”Ideorogio tou. Tokyo: Yoshioka Buneisha) Ōishi, Itsuo (1992). “Japanese Attitudes Toward the English Language During the Pacific War.” Seikei Hōgaku 34: 1-19. 大石、五雄（２００１）。「カタカナ英語と変則英語 — 危険な日本英語の 実態に迫る」。東京：鷹書房弓プレス。 (Ōishi, Itsuo (2001). Katakana Eigo to Hensoku Eigo - Kiken na Nihoneigo no Jittai ni semaru. Tokyo: Takashobōyumi Puresu) Omori, Miya (2001). “Returnees to Japan.” In: Hidetada Shimizu and Robert A. Levine, eds. Japanese frames of mind: cultural perspectives on human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 228- 253. Ozawa, Katsuyoshi (1976). “An Investigation of the Influence of the English Language on the Japanese Language through Lexical Adaption from 1955-1972.” PhD Dissertation Ohio University. Pietroski, Paul M. (2005). “Meaning before Truth.” In: Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter, eds. Contextualism in Philosophy - Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 255-299. Plümer, Nicole (2000). Anglizismus-Purismus-Sprachliche Identität: Eine Untersuchung zu den Anglizismen in der deutschen und französischen Mediensprache. Frankfurt am Main: Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften. <?page no="252"?> 252 Polenz, Peter von (1978). “Fremdwort und Lehnwort sprachwissenschaftlich betrachtet.” In: Peter Braun, ed. Fremdwort Diskussion. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. 9-31. Portner, Paul H. (2005). What is Meaning? Oxford: Blackwell. Reischauer, Edwin O. (1971). Japan: The Story of a Nation. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company. 坂本、充（２００２）。「理解度に差がある外来語」。放送研究と調査５ ２．９：２８ − ４９。 (Sakamoto, Mitsuru (2002). “Rikaido ni Sa ga aru Gairaigo.” Hōsō Kenkyū to Chōsa 52.9: 28-49) Saussure, Ferdinand de (2001). Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: de Gruyter. Seargeant, Philip (2005). “Globalisation and reconfigured English in Japan.” World Englishes 24.3: 309-319. Seaton, Philip (2001). “’Shampoo for extra damage’: making sense of Japanized English.” Japan Forum 13.2: 233-247. 柴崎、秀子・玉岡賀津雄・高取由紀（２００７）。「アメリカ人は和製英 語をどのぐらい理解できるか」。日本語科学２１：８９ − １１０。 (Shibasaki, Hideko et al. (2007). “Amerikajin ha Wasei Eigo o donogurai Rikai dekiruka.” Nihongo Kagaku 21: 89-110) 塩田、雄大（２００７）。「放送における外来語」。言語３６．６：３８ − ４４。 (Shioda, Takehiro (2007). “Hōsō ni okeru Gairaigo.” Gengo 36.6: 38-44) Shimizu, Hidetada (2001). “Beyond Individualism and Sociocentrism.” In: Hidetada Shimizu and Robert A. Levine, eds. Japanese frames of mind: cultural perspectives on human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 205-227. Sonoda, Koji (1975). “A descriptive study of English influence on modern Japanese.” PhD Dissertation New York University. Spitzmüller, Jürgen (2002). “Selbstfindung durch Ausgrenzung - Eine kritische Analyse des gegenwärtigen Diskurses zu angloamerikanischen Entlehnungen.” In: Rudolf Hoberg, ed. Deutsch-Englisch- Europäisch: Impulse für eine neue Sprachpolitik. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. 247-263. Stanlaw, James (1987). “Japanese and English: borrowing and contact.” World Englishes 6.2: 93-109. Stanlaw, James (2005). Japanese English: Language and Culture Contact. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Stanley, Jason (2005). “Semantics in Context.” In: Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter, eds. Contextualism in Philosophy - Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 221-253. Takashi, Kyoko (1990). “A sociolinguistic analysis of English borrowings in Japanese advertising texts.” World Englishes 9.3: 327-341. Tamamura, Fumio (1981). “Wago no hataraki.” Gengo Seikatsu 359: 36-45. <?page no="253"?> 253 Tamotsu, Koizumi (1989). “Linguistic Revolutionaries of Modern Japan.” Japan Echo 16: 26-30. Tanaka, Keiko (1990). “’Intelligent elegance’: women in Japanese advertising.” In: Eyal Ben-Ari et al., eds. Unwrapping Japan : society and culture in anthropological perspectives. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 78-96. Tanaka, K. (1994). Advertising Language: A Pragmatic Approach to Advertisements in Britain and Japan. London: Routledge. 田中、牧郎（２００６）。「現代社会における外来語の実態」。 新「こと ば」シリーズ１９。東京：国立印刷局。３８ − ４６。 (Tanaka, Makio (2006). “Gendai Shakai ni okeru Gairaigo no Jittai.” Shin”Kotoba”Shiri-zu 19. Tokyo: Kokutritsu Insatsukyoku. 38-46) 田中、牧郎（２００７）。「媒体別の外来語の特徴」。 公共媒体の外来語 — 「外来語」言い換え提案を支える調査研究。東京：国立国語研 究所。３２５ − ３３５。 (Tanaka, Makio (2007). “Baitaibetsu no Gairaigo no Tokuchō.” Kōkyōbaitai no Gairaigo - “Gairaigo” Iikaeteian o sasaeru Chōsakenkyū. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. 325- 335) Theisl, Roswitha (2006). “Media Discourse about and Language Attitudes towards Anglicisms in French.” Diploma Thesis Karl-Franzens- Universität Graz. Tomoda, Takako (1999). “The impact of loan-words on modern Japanese.” Japan Forum 11.1: 231-253. 鳥飼、玖美子（２００７）。「カタカナ語に見る意味のずれ」。言語３ ６．６：５２ − ５９。 (Torikai, Kumiko (2007). “Katakanago ni miru Imi no Zure.” Gengo 36.6: 52-59) Tsuboya, Yoko (1996). “English and Culture-Based Ways of Thinking.” Language Studies 4: 115-119. Tsujimura, Natsuko (1996). An Introduction to Japanese linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Tsujimura, Natsuko, ed. (2002). The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Watanabe, Shoichi (1974). “On the Japanese Language.” Japan Echo 1.2: 9- 20. Weinrich, Harald (2002). “Europa - Linguafrancaland? ” In: Rudolf Hoberg, ed. Deutsch-Englisch-Europäisch: Impulse für eine neue Sprachpolitik. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. 30-43. Wierzbicka, Anna (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: the semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (2003). Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Würnsberger, Doris (1998). “Anglizismen in News, Profil und Trend.” Diploma Thesis Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. <?page no="254"?> 254 山田、雄一郎（２００５）。「外来語の社会学：隠語化するコミュニケー ション」。横浜：春風社。 (Yamada, Yūichirō (2005). “Gairaigo no Shakaigaku: Ingoka suru Komyunike-shon.” Yokohama: Shunpūsha) 山田、雄一郎（２００７）。「現代のコミュニケーションと外来語」。言 語３６．６：２２ − ２８。 (Yamada, Yūichirō (2007). “Gendai no Komyunike-shon to Gairaigo.” Gengo 36.6: 22-28) 山口、昌也（２００７）。「新聞記事における語彙の時間的変化分析」。 公共媒体の外来語 — 「外来語」言い換え提案を支える調査研究。 東京：国立国語研究所。３７９ − ３８６。 (Yamaguchi, Masaya (2007). “Shinbunkiji ni okeru Goi no jikanteki Henka Bunseki”. Kōkyōbaitai no Gairaigo - “Gairaigo” Iikaeteian o sasaeru Chōsakenkyū. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. 379-386) 山下、洋子・加藤昌男（２０００）。「これからの日本語に影響を与える ものは？」。放送研究と調査５０．９：４８ − ６７。 (Yamashita, Yōko and Masao Katō (2000). “Korekara no Nihongo ni Eikyō o ataeru mono ha? ” Hōsō Kenkyū to Chōsa 50.9: 48-67) Yamazaki, Tatsuroh and Stella Mentel Yamazaki (2003). “Can Image-Up improve the Image of Japan? ” Hosei University Tama Bulletin 19: 127-142. Yamazaki, Makoto (yamazaki@kokken.go.jp). (2008, April 4). Re: Re: 日本語 話し言葉コーパス . E-Mail to Johannes Scherling (johannes2112@yahoo.co.jp). Yoshida, M. (1978). “The acquisition of English vocabulary by a Japanesespeaking child.” In: E.M. Hatch, ed. Second Language Acquisition. New York: Newbury House. 91-100. Webliography The Kotonoha Japanese Corpus Project http: / / www.kotonoha.gr.jp The Cobuild Concordance and Collocation Sampler http: / / www.collins.co.uk/ Corpus/ CorpusSearch.aspx Engrish.com http: / / www.engrish.com The National Institute for Japanese Language English page http: / / www.kokken.go.jp/ en/ Japanese University Ranking http: / / www.yozemi.ac.jp/ rank/ daigakubetsu/ index.html <?page no="255"?> 255 Dictionaries 例解新国語辞典（第６版）。東京：三省堂、２００２。 (Reikai Shinkokugojiten, 6th edition. Tokyo: Sanseidō, 2002) 国語辞典（第６版）。東京：三省堂、２００８。 (Kokugojiten, 6th edition. Tokyo: Sanseidō, 2008) カタカナ新語辞典。東京：学研、２００３。 (Katakana Shingojiten. Tokyo: Gakken, 2003) カタカナ新語辞典（第２版）。東京：学研、２００７。 (Katakana Shingojiten, 2nd edition. Tokyo: Gakken, 2007) <?page no="257"?> 257 Index A American occupation .... 31f, 51, 99, 130 Anglicisms attitudes towards language laws ........................................ 45 blends ...................................... 107 clippings.......................... 106, 154 comprehension by English native speakers ................... 159 comprehension problems ..... 140 comprehension problems caused by ............................. 156 creative uses of....................... 115 criticism of ............117, 139, 156ff definition of ............................ 101 development of numbers in Japan....................................... 99 differences to English ............ 163 hybrids .................................... 110 impact on English communication ................... 158 impact on the acquisition of English ................. 153, 154, 157 Japanese peculiarities ............ 139 lexical impact.......................... 103 morphological changes ......... 106 pairs of semantic opposition115, 125 phonetic adaptations ............. 105 problems in use...................... 137 rise of......................................... 27 seeming inconsistencies ........ 117 semantic changes .. 113, 139, 153, 157 syntactic impact ..................... 111 verbalization........................... 109 Arinori, Mori .............................. 35ff C China, influence of.......... 22, 27, 129 Chinese characters .. 47, 51, 115, 178 Chinese loanwords ....42, 54, 59, 99, 108, 117ff, 130, 172 context and new words .......................190 importance of.........see meaning, importance of context E English first contact with.......................25 infatuation with..................32, 35 teaching in Japan ....................154 Europe first contact with.......................24 F Frege, Gottlob ..............................186 J Japanese diachronic data .........................54 discussion on orthography .....38 language contact with English35 myths about the nature of .......41 native words .. 21, 41, 59, 65, 115, 166 word formation rules.............110 Japanese corpus .............................51 Japanese plans to abolish.........................36 Japanized English........................137 K Kango.............. See Chinese loanwords L loanwords approaches to..........................165 classification of naturalization level.......................................174 comprehension problems according to gender and age ...............................................142 consciousness on presence of165 contextualization ....................177 dictionary entries .....................92 diffusion of..............................144 <?page no="258"?> 258 discrimination through . 166, 173 Dutch origin ............................. 25 euphemisms ........................... 131 explanatory notes ........151, 174ff functions of..................... 123, 193 gender-related speech restrictions ........................... 135 import of new concepts......... 125 importance in everyday language ................................ 44 in Japanese media .................... 69 in magazines............................. 57 in movie titles ......................... 146 in science and technology....... 66 integration of ........153, 165, 173ff morphological changes ......... 154 most frequently used loanwords in Japanese media ................................................. 75 newspaper policies on........... 176 obscuring ................................ 133 on television ............................. 62 opinions on usage .................... 46 paraphrasing . 143, 151, 169, 177f paraphrasing, problematic issues ............................ 171, 175 phonetic adaptations ............. 154 Portuguese origin .................... 24 prestige and image ................ 129 proportions of neologisms...... 56 reasons for frequent usage ..... 91 Spanish origin .......................... 25 status upgrading.................... 126 stigmatization of .................... 165 stylistic use ............................. 134 surveys .................................... 141 taboo areas for use ................. 130 use for job descriptions ......... 131 vagueness of meaning of.......193 vs. native words .....................194 Westernization........................127 word lists...................................69 M meaning arbitrariness of........................187 categories of ............................191 constructionist approach.......190 importance of context ...185, 186, 189, 191 in isolation...............................187 naturalistic view .....................183 pragmatic approach ...............184 reflective approach.................184 representational function ......190 requirements ...........................189 requirements for.....................187 vagueness of ...........................192 media, importance in distributing loanwords................................176 Meiji Restoration ...........................25 N nationalistic tendencies ..... 27ff, 40, 166 Nihonjinron .....................................40 criticism of.................................42 literature ....................................40 P Plato .. See meaning, naturalistic view Pseudo Anglicisms................... 153ff purification attempts ....................30 W Wago ......... See Japanese, native words Wittgenstein, Ludwig . See meaning, pragmatic approach