Anda di halaman 1dari 270

www.ebook777.

com
Gender, Language and Ideology

www.ebook777.com
Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society
and Culture (DAPSAC)
The editors invite contributions that investigate political, social and cultural processes
from a linguistic/discourse-analytic point of view. The aim is to publish monographs
and edited volumes which combine language-based approaches with disciplines
concerned essentially with human interaction – disciplines such as political science,
international relations, social psychology, social anthropology, sociology, economics,
and gender studies.
For an overview of all books published in this series, please see
http://benjamins.com/catalog/dapsac

General Editors
Ruth Wodak, Andreas Musolff and Johann Unger
Lancaster University / University of East Anglia / Lancaster University
r.wodak@lancaster.ac.uk; A.Musolff@uea.ac.uk and j.unger@lancaster.ac.uk

Advisory Board
Christine Anthonissen Konrad Ehlich Christina Schäffner
Stellenbosch University Free University, Berlin Aston University
Michael Billig J.R. Martin Louis de Saussure
Loughborough University University of Sydney University of Neuchâtel
Piotr Cap Jacob L. Mey Hailong Tian
University of Łódź University of Southern Denmark Tianjin Foreign Studies
University
Paul Chilton Greg Myers
Lancaster University Lancaster University Joanna Thornborrow
Cardiff University
Teun A. van Dijk John Richardson
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Loughborough University Sue Wright
Barcelona University of Portsmouth
Luisa Martín Rojo
Universidad Autonoma de Madrid

Volume 58
Gender, Language and Ideology. A genealogy of Japanese women’s language
by Momoko Nakamura

www.ebook777.com
Gender, Language and Ideology
A genealogy of Japanese women’s language

Momoko Nakamura
Kanto Gakuin University

John Benjamins Publishing Company


Amsterdam / Philadelphia

www.ebook777.com
TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8

the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence


of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Nakamura, Momoko, 1955-


[Onna kotoba wa tsukurareru. English]
Gender, Language and Ideology : A genealogy of Japanese women’s language / Momoko
Nakamura.
p. cm. (Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, issn 1569-9463 ; v. 58)
“The Japanese version of this book, Onna kotoba wa tsukurareru [Constructing Women’s
Language], came out in 2007 and received the 27th Yamakawa Kikue Award,
which recognizes outstanding research in women’s studies, and I was invited to
speak about Japanese women’s language by universities, women’s organizations,
teachers’ unions and government agencies all over Japan.”
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Japanese language--Sex differences. 2. Japanese language--Social aspects. 3. Women-
-Japan--Languages--History. 4. Japanese language--Sex differences--History.
I. Title.
PL698.W65N3413 2014
306.44’29560082--dc23 2014030879
isbn 978 90 272 0649 7 (Hb ; alk. paper)
isbn 978 90 272 6929 4 (Eb)

© 2014 – John Benjamins B.V.


No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

www.ebook777.com
Table of contents

Acknowledgements vii
List of figures and tables xi
List of abbreviations in transcriptions xiii
Notes on Japanese names, the Romanization of Japanese language
and translation of Japanese into English xv

Introduction 1

part 1.  Women’s speech as the object of regulation: The premodern period

  chapter 1
  The norms of feminine speech 39

  chapter 2
  Normalization of court-women’s speech 55

part 2.  Gender and national language: Nation-state building


in the early modern period

  chapter 3
  Construction of a national language for men 77

  chapter 4
  Modernization of the norms of feminine speech 87

  chapter 5
  Creating indexicality: Schoolgirl speech 103

  chapter 6
  Masculinizing the national language 137

www.ebook777.com
vi Gender, language and ideology

part 3.  Women’s language into national language: The impact of war

  chapter 7
  Women’s language as imperial tradition: Legitimating colonization 159

  chapter 8
  Gendering of the national language under national mobilization 171

part 4.  Essentializing women’s language: The postwar U.S. Occupation,

  chapter 9
  Women’s language as reflection of femininity 199

  chapter 10
  A gendered Japanese national language: Symbol of patriarchy 209

Conclusion
Going beyond the gendered linguistic ideologies 227

References 231
Index 251

www.ebook777.com
Acknowledgements

I owe my greatest thanks to Yoshihiko Ikegami for having taught me the fun of
learning about language and encouraged me to continue my research from the
time I entered the Graduate School of Sophia University in Tokyo to study linguis-
tics in 1978. I knew that I wanted to study Japanese language from a feminist per-
spective, but in those days, there was no field called language and gender studies
in Japan. After finishing my MA, I was looking for an area of research that would
give me some theoretical ideas to think about the relationship between language
and gender. In 1986, Dr. Ikegami introduced me to Deborah Cameron’s Feminism
and Linguistic Theory; I was delighted to find someone doing what I wanted to do
and decided to translate the book into Japanese. I finished the translation in 1990
and it was published later that year as Feminizumu to Gengo Riron. It took me four
years, in part because I had my first child, but that was the beginning of my career
as a student of language and gender.
The Japanese version of this book, Onna kotoba wa tsukurareru [Constructing
Women’s Language], came out in 2007 and received the 27th Yamakawa Kikue
Award, which recognizes outstanding research in women’s studies, and I was in-
vited to speak about Japanese women’s language by universities, women’s organi-
zations, teachers’ unions and government agencies all over Japan. I am grateful to
the committee of the Yamakawa Kikue Award and the chair of the committee,
Teruko Inoue, for giving me the opportunity to talk about my research to a wide
audience. Many attendees asked me why women’s language became such a socially
salient notion in Japan. I learned that people wanted linguists to explain why and
how language and gender were related as they were. I started revising the key ideas
in my previous book, this time targeting general readers and reframing my argu-
ments from the perspective that the historical discourse approach can give ade-
quate explanations concerning the relationship between language and gender.
The new book came out as Onnna kotoba to Nihongo [Women’s Language and
Japanese] in 2012.
During the five years it took to complete the work, I presented an earlier
version of this book at IGALA (International Gender and Language Associa-
tion), IPrA (International Pragmatics Association), EASJ (European Association
of Japanese Studies), EASL (European Association of Sociolinguistic), AAS
(American Anthropology Society) and CAS (Canadian Anthropology Society).

www.ebook777.com
viii Gender, language and ideology

I appreciated the insightful comments given to me by the audiences attending


my presentations; yet, at the same time, I realized the challenge of formulating
my arguments in a meaningful way for non-Japanese audiences. I added new
documents and data, attempting to make my points more readily understand-
able for non-Japanese audiences. In 2010, I was invited to give a plenary speech
at the 6th International Gender and Language Conference, held in Tokyo, and
presented my arguments with the new materials and data. The Introduction of
this book is based on that speech.
I am grateful to those who made me aware of the importance of sexuality in
analyzing the relationships between language and gender. Learning from previous
studies on sexuality and English language, I devoted one chapter to language and
sexuality in Kotoba to jendaa [Language and Gender] published in 2001, the first
book in Japanese to extensively discuss language and sexuality. I included data
from a pornographic novel in Chapter 5 of this book, following Deborah
Cameron’s advice gleaned at the 3rd International Gender and Language Confer-
ence in 2004 (for which Sally McConnell-Ginet had invited me to make a presenta-
tion). An earlier version of Chapter 5 of this book, about the construction of
schoolgirl speech, was published as “Creating Indexicality: Schoolgirl Speech in
Meiji Japan” in The Language and Sexuality Reader (Routledge 2006, pp. 270–284)
edited by Deborah Cameron and Don Kulick. I would also like to thank Shigeko
Kumagai, Kyoko Sato, and Claire Maree. I learned a lot from discussions with them,
when we translated Cameron and Kulick’s Language and Sexuality into Japanese in
2009. Janet Holmes and Meredith Marra also included my essay “Women’s and
Men’s Languages as Heterosexual Resource: Power and Intimacy in Japanese Spam
E-mail” in Femininity, Feminism and Gendered Discourse they edited in 2010.
Thanks are due to those who gave me opportunities to present my research at
international conferences and to publish in journals. Miyako Inoue invited me to
join the panel that she organized for the tenth International Pragmatics Confer-
ence in 2007. I gained key critical insights about the theoretical development of
anthropological linguistics from her works. In 2008, I wrote an essay “Masculinity
and National Language: The Silent Construction of a Dominant Language Ideol-
ogy” for the special issue of Gender and Language edited by Shigeko Okamoto and
Janet S. Shibamoto Smith. Their comments helped me write about Japanese lan-
guage and Japanese women in English. Chapter 3 of this book, about the implicit
masculinity of Japanese national language, is based on that essay.
I joined the series of lectures about gender and violence organized by my
colleague, Hirofumi Hayashi, held at Center of Lifelong Study, Kanto Gakuin Uni-
versity. While preparing the book, Renzoku koogi booryoku to jendaa [Series of
Lectures: Violence and Gender], published in 2009, I had an insightful discussion
with the co-authors, Hirofumi Hayashi, Makoto Hosoya, Chieko Nishiyama and

www.ebook777.com
Acknowledgements ix

Emiko Miki. I reflect the insights I gained from them in Part 3 of this book, in
describing the process in which linguists started praising women’s language as a
Japanese tradition during WWI and WWII to legitimate colonization.
Also in 2009, I joined a panel on language and affect organized by Jie Yang at
the Canadian Anthropology Association Conference and participated in a
workshop with Jie Yang and Bonnie McElhinny. They helped me formulate my
perspective on language and affect. In Chapters 7 and 10 of this book, I discuss the
affective attachment that Japanese have with respect to Japanese women’s language.
A shortened version of Chapters 7 and 10 of this book was published as “Affective
Attachments to Japanese Women’s Language: Language, Gender and Emotion in
Colonialism” in The Political Economy of Affect and Emotion in East Asia (2014
Routledge, pp. 177–197) edited by Jie Yang.
In 2010, I submitted an earlier English version of this book as my doctoral dis-
sertation to Ochanomizu Women’s University in Tokyo. I appreciate the comments
given by the members of dissertation committee, Kazuko Takemura, Kaoru Tachi,
Midori Takasaki, Hiromi Okazaki, and Edward J. Schaefer. I am particularly grateful
to the comments given by Kazuko Takemura, chair of the committee, concerning
the theoretical framework of my dissertation, which helped me revise the manu-
script for this book. I also want to thank her for agreeing to become chair of my
dissertation committee, even though she was battling a severe illness. Learning about
this later, I suffered from a guilty conscience. She passed away at the end of 2011. I
would like to recognize her invaluable help and pray for the repose of her soul.
I am grateful to the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (grant no.
20310155) provided by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sci-
ence and Technology in 2008–2010. I would also like to show my appreciation for
the special research grant provided by the Economics Society of the College of
Economics, Kanto Gakuin University in 2011. I also want to thank the library staff
of Kanto Gakuin University. Without their help, I could not have gathered all the
data I cite in this book.
Finally, I would like to thank Ruth Wodak, Greg Myers and Johann Unger for
giving me an opportunity to publish my work in English and to thank two anony-
mous reviewers for their valuable comments to help me revise the manuscript and
make it readable for non-Japanese. Thanks are also due to John K. Gillespie for
having patiently helped me write my research in English over the years, since we
met at University of the Pacific in 1976. I am also grateful to Isja Conen and Maartje
Nuijten of John Benjamins for helping me with excellent editorial work.

www.ebook777.com
www.ebook777.com
List of figures and tables

Figures
Figure 1.1 Mi no katami [Half of the Body] (Muromachi 1392–1573). 42
Figure 1.2 Kaibara Ekiken (1710) Joshi o oshiyuru hoo [How to Educate 48
Women].
Figure 1.3 Onna daigaku takara bunko [The Treasure Box of Women’s 49
Learning] (1716).
Figure 2.1 Onna choohooki [Women’s Encyclopedia] (1692). 67
Figure 5.1 Female students in hakama around1877. 106
Figure 5.2 Female students in kimono in 1885. 106
Figure 5.3 Female students in Western dress in 1886. 107
Figure 5.4 Female students in maroon trouser skirts in 1900. 107
Figure 5.5 Female students in maroon trouser skirts at an athletic meet 110
in the 1900s.
Figure 5.6 Photographs of professional geisha in the schoolgirl uniform 111
in the 1900s.
Figure 5.7 Female students in Baika joshi no den [The Story of Miss 113
Apricot Scent].
Figure 5.8 Attitudes of four female student characters in Yabu no uguisu 121
[Bush Warbler] (1888).
Figure 5.9 Frivolous female students speaking “teyo dawa speech”. 123
Figure 5.10 Makaze koikaze [Magic Wind, Love Wind] in the Yomiuri 126
shimbun, March 14th, 1903.
Figure 6.1 Japan Reader Volume 2. 148
Figure 6.2 Gendered nationalization and linguistic ideologies in Japan’s 154
modernization.
Figure 8.1 Lesson 16 Heitai gokko [Play Soldiers] of Asahi tokuhon (1941). 185
Figure 8.2 Genealogy of gender-related linguistic ideologies. 193
Figure 10.1 Unit 7 Yukidaruma [Snowman] in Taro Hanako kokugo no hon. 210

www.ebook777.com
xii Gender, language and ideology

Tables
Table 2.1 Women’s conduct books which list court-women’s speech. 67
Table 2.2 Court-women’s speech in sample sentences in letter books. 69
Table 4.1 Discourses on women’s speech in conduct books in the Meiji 89
period (1868–1912).
Table 5.1 Use of schoolboy features by the female students of Baika joshi 114
no den (1885).
Table 5.2 Use of teyo, dawa, and noyo by the four female students 121
of Yabu no uguisu.
Table 6.1 Linguistic features masculinized in grammar textbooks 142
(1873–1922).
Table 6.2 Linguistic features feminized in grammar textbooks 143
(1873–1922).
Table 6.3 Schoolboy linguistic features in grammar textbooks 146
(1873–1922).
Table 6.4 The number of occurrences of schoolboy linguistic features 150
in school readers (1886–1993).
Table 6.5 The number of units about good-wife-wise-mother in school 151
readers (1886–1993).
Table 6.6 The rates of units using schoolboy linguistic features and units 151
on good-wife-wise-mother in national-language readers
(1886–1933).
Table 8.1 Linguistic features gendered in grammar textbooks from 180
1918 to 1945.
Table 8.2 Speakers of boku in Asahi tokuhon (1941). 183
Table 8.3 Speakers of watashi in Asahi tokuhon (1941). 184
Table 8.4 Sentence-final forms and interjections used differently 186
according to the speaker’s gender in Asahi tokuhon (1941).
Table 9.1 Characteristics of and reasons for women’s language 202
in Mashimo (1948).
Table 10.1 Number and percentage of units erased by ink in the Ink- 217
erased Readers.
Table 10.2 Speakers of boku in Taro Hanako kokugo no hon (1954). 218
Table 10.3 Speakers of watashi in Taro Hanako kokugo no hon (1954). 219
Table 10.4 Sentence-final forms used differently according to the 220
speaker’s gender in Taro Hanako kokugo no hon (1954).

www.ebook777.com
List of abbreviations in transcriptions

The following is a list of abbreviations used in the transcripts.


GEN genitive particle PAST past marker
GOAL goal marker QUOT quotative particle
HON honorific marker SFP sentence final particle
NEG negative SFX verb suffix
NOM nominative particle TOP topic marker
OBJ object marker VEF verb-ending form

www.ebook777.com
www.ebook777.com
Notes on Japanese names, the Romanization
of Japanese language and translation
of Japanese into English

In the main text, Japanese proper names are denoted with the family name
preceding the first name. In the references, to prevent misunderstanding, for the
authors of Japanese publications, colons are put after the family names. The modi-
fied Hepburn system is used to Romanize the Japanese language. However, long
vowels, including those of o and u, are marked with additional vowels rather than
with macrons, except the cases the Romanized words without double vowels are
well known such as Tokyo and Osaka. All citations are translated by the writer
(cf. Introduction, note 21). Japanese words, except proper nouns, are written in
italics with their English translations or explanations in parentheses. The titles of
Japanese publications are not capitalized except the first letter, with their English
translations or explanations in square brackets.

www.ebook777.com
www.ebook777.com
Introduction

Women’s language is a socially salient linguistic concept and a hegemonic cul-


tural notion in Japan. Many Japanese believe that women’s language has a long
history peculiar to the Japanese language and consider women’s language as one
of its most crucial characteristics. Kindaichi Kyoosuke, one of the founders of
modern Japanese linguistics, states: “In the Japanese language, masculine speech
and feminine speech are clearly distinguished and we have never heard of such
a subtle distinction being observed in the European languages, from English,
German, and French to Latin, Greek and Sanskrit” (1942: 293).1 Women’s lan-
guage is such a salient and hegemonic notion that it has always attracted na-
tional attention in Japan. National surveys on Japanese language, conducted
annually by a governmental agency and a national broadcasting corporation,
often ask people whether women and men should speak differently, whether
women use feminine linguistic features of women’s language, and whether wom-
en should speak women’s language.2 People incessantly write letters to newspa-
pers criticizing and complaining about the rough speech of women they
witnessed in a train, on the street, and in a store, claiming that these women
destroy Japanese language. As a part of common discipline, parents often scold
young girls who use vulgar speech. Moreover, as we will soon see in this chapter,
numerous etiquette books on feminine speech are published every year preach-
ing to women that they can be beautiful, attractive, and loved by speaking polite,

1. This and the subsequent citations are my translations. I added emphases to the data
throughout the book except those noting that the emphasis is original.
2. Both the Agency for Cultural Affairs (Bunkachoo) and the Japan Broadcasting Corporation
(NHK) annually conduct a national survey on Japanese language, which often includes ques-
tions about women’s language. The 2000 National Survey on Japanese Language (Kokugo ni kan-
suru seron choosa), conducted by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, for instance, was distributed
to 3,000 people throughout Japan and included this item: “It is said that the differences between
men’s speech and women’s speech have decreased. Select the answer closest to what you think
about it?” The very act of distributing, annually and to thousands of people, a statement implic-
itly presupposing that Japanese women and men have always spoken differently, transforms the
survey statement into fact and becomes a self-fulfilling philosophy. The results show: (1) Men’s
speech and women’s speech need not be different (7.8%), (2) We should accept the natural
changes occurring in the respective speeches of men and women (34.8%), (3) Men’s speech and
women’s speech should be different (52.0%), and (4) Other answers (5.3%). About half the re-
spondents prefer women and men to speak differently.

www.ebook777.com
2 Gender, language and ideology

soft, feminine women’s language. The hegemonic notion of women’s language


also constitutes a part of legitimate knowledge taught in Japanese language
grammar books and school textbooks. In the following chapters, it will be amply
demonstrated that Japanese-language school textbooks and grammar books
teach gender-differentiated usages of particular linguistic features.3 All elemen-
tary school Japanese-language textbooks used today in Japan, for instance, pres-
ent gender-differentiated use of first-person pronouns, watashi for girls and
boku for boys, in their model lessons. The gender-differentiated usages are
simply presented and no textbook explains why girls and boys use different pro-
nouns, or even prescribe the usage, making the gender-differentiated use of pro-
nouns as taken-for-granted common sense.4
Most Japanese consider women’s language as the style of speech actually spo-
ken by women. I have asked many Japanese of different gender, age and occupa-
tion, “what is women’s language,” and all of them answered that it was the speech
spoken by women. Such understanding of women’s language is most clearly mani-
fested in dictionary definitions of the phrase, “women’s language.” The item of
women’s language is cited in most large Japanese language dictionaries, either as
onna kotoba, joseigo, or fujingo, which all indicate women’s language.5 The latest

3. Hanashi kotoba no bumpoo: Kotoba zukai hen [Grammar of spoken language: On language
usage] by Mio Isago (1995[1942]) is an early example of a Japanese-language grammar book
devoting a whole chapter to women’s language.
4. Nakamura (2009) examines the five elementary-school textbooks of Japanese language for
first grade (six-year-old children), used in the 2008 school year. All of them include units in
which a girl uses the female first-person pronoun watashi and a boy uses the male first-person
pronoun boku. Kabashima, et al. (2007: 70, 75), for instance, has a unit, Minna ni shirasetai koto
(Things I want to tell everybody), which encourages students to do “show and tell.” In this unit,
a boy with a book in his hand is saying, “Boku wa toshokan de kono hon o mitsuke mashita (I
found this book in the library),” using the male first-person pronoun, boku. In contrast, a girl
says, “Watashi wa koominkan no koosaku kyooshitsu ni ikimashita (I went to the do-it-yourself
class at the public hall),” using the female first-person pronoun, watashi. There is no account of
why the girl and the boy use different pronouns.
5. Among a large number of terms referring to women in Japanese, four basic words are onna,
josei, fujin, and joshi. The word, onna, though the most basic word, is given sexual connotation
as shown in usage such as onna ni naru (to become a woman) which means that the woman had
a sexual experience. The association with sexual connotation has semantically derogated the
term. In the news, therefore, when a woman is an assaulter, she is referred to by onna, while the
female victim is called josei. The term, josei, as a result, is the most widely used term for woman
nowadays. The term, fujin, used to carry the most elegant and refined connotation, as in the us-
age fujin fuku (lady’s clothes) as contrasted with shinshi fuku (gentleman’s clothes). As the term,
fujin, has acquired the connotation of being old-fashioned, however, the term josei has taken its
place. Kokuritsu fujin kyooiku kaikan (National Ladies’ Education Center of Japan), for example,
was renamed Kokuritsu josei kyooiku kaikan in 2001. The term, joshi, has been mainly used for

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 3

edition of one of the most prestigious Japanese language dictionaries, Koojien


[Wide Garden of Words], the sixth edition, defines women’s language, under the
word josei (woman) as joseigo, as follows:
[joseigo] A style of speech peculiar (tokuyuu) to women in the uses of particu-
lar vocabularies, styles, and pronunciation. In the Heian period (from the eighth
to twelfth centuries), it was found in the avoidance of Chinese words (kango),
while, after the Muromachi period (from the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries),
it became salient in nyooboo kotoba (speech created by women working in the
imperial palace) and yuujogo (speech used by the women in licensed quarters).
In contemporary speech, it is also observed in the use of the [polite] prefix o, the
sentence-final particles such as yo and wa, and in the areas of vocabulary and
pronunciation. Fujin-go (lady’s speech). (Koojien the 6th edition, 2008)

It defines Japanese women’s language from three aspects and similar definitions
are found in most dictionaries. By looking at each aspect, we can clarify the be-
liefs and assumptions concerning the notion of women’s language shared by
Japanese people. First, it defines women’s language as “speech peculiar (tokuyuu)
to women.” The word, tokuyuu, means “peculiar, characteristic or special,” imply-
ing that women’s language is spoken only by women, or that women actually
speak women’s language. Mashimo Saburoo, a Japanese linguist who wrote one of
the earliest books on women’s language, defines women’s language “as speech spo-
ken by women” (Mashimo 1948: 3). Given this widespread notion that women’s
language equates with the way Japanese women actually use language, readers’
letters to newspapers often complain that women’s actual speech destroys the tra-
dition of women’s language and parents are expected to discipline their daughters’
speech. Second, the definition refers to nyooboo kotoba (court-women’s speech),
speech created by women working in the imperial palace since the fourteenth
century and yuujogo (play-women’s speech), speech used by women in the li-
censed quarters in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as examples of wom-
en’s language in the past, implying that Japanese women have spoken differently
from men for a long time and that such speech has naturally formed what we now
call women’s language.6 If Japanese women have spoken differently from men

schoolchildren and athletes because of its youthful and energetic connotation. Recently, more
women started referring to themselves with joshi, probably because the word josei is gradually
becoming old-fashioned. In translating contemporary Japanese discourses, therefore, I use
“woman” for onna and josei, “lady” for fujin, and “girl” for joshi.
6. For more on nyooboo kotoba (court-women’s speech), see Chapter 2. Yuujo, (lit. play
woman), refers to women working in red-light districts in large cities in Japan from the seven-
teenth to the early twentieth centuries. Contrary to the common image associated with the
word “prostitute,” play women were professional entertainers, respected for their discipline,
talent, and beauty. Upper-ranked play women were highly skilled professionals, competent in

www.ebook777.com
4 Gender, language and ideology

since the fourteenth century, women’s language becomes a tradition which has a
long history peculiar to the Japanese language. Third, the definition cites specific
linguistic features, such as the polite prefix o and the sentence-final particles, yo
and wa, as characteristics found in contemporary women’s speech, again imply-
ing that women’s language is the style of speech spoken by women.7 Behind this
definition lies the assumption that, as Japanese women have spoken differently
from men for a long time, the style of speech women have spoken has naturally
constructed the linguistic notion of women’s language. The reason why women
and men speak differently is often accounted for by women’s femininity. While
the dictionary definition carefully avoids referring to femininity, Horii Reichi, a
contemporary Japanese linguist, states that women’s speech is soft and indirect
and “such women’s linguistic expressions are rooted in women’s common sensi-
tivity based on their physiological nature” (Horii 1993: 101). What he means by
“women’s common sensitivity” is what is generally called femininity.8 Women
speak differently from men, he claims, because women use language based on
femininity they all have in common. It is widely accepted in Japan, therefore, that
Japanese women’s actual speech naturally and directly formed the notion of wom-
en’s language.
The conceptualization of women’s language as women’s actual speech has also
been the fundamental presupposition in previous studies of Japanese women’s lan-
guage. Japanese women’s language has been studied mainly in two areas, Nihongo
gaku (Japanese language studies) and shakai gengogaku (sociolinguistics). Nihongo

flower arrangement, tea ceremony, musical instruments, singing, and dancing, and many of
them were able to read and write. Yuujogo (play-women’s speech) is presumed to have devel-
oped as a common speech among play women who came from different areas of Japan with all
their different varieties of local speech. Some researchers have pointed out the influence of
yuujogo on the formation of women’s language (Sugimoto 1985; Ide & Terada 1998). Exactly
what features of yuujogo filtered into the present notion of women’s language needs further
elaboration.
7. Other than the polite prefix and the sentence-final particles, dictionaries categorize par-
ticular personal pronouns, interjections, and many other phonological and grammatical fea-
tures as women’s language. The linguistic features cited as women’s language, however, differ
depending on a dictionary and a different edition of the same dictionary, showing the difficulty
of defining Japanese women’s language simply by the use of particular linguistic features. In
contrast to Koojien, for example, Seisenban Nihon kokugo daijiten 2 [Concise Edition of Japanese
National Language Great Dictionary 2], published in 2006 by Shoogakukan includes four sen-
tence-final particles wa, dawa, yo, and noyo as women’s language.
8. Note here that Horii interprets femininity as if it is based on biological sex differences, as
shown in “based on their physiological nature.” Even after feminism has pointed out the socio-
cultural construction of gender, many linguists still claim the biological foundation of feminin-
ity when they talk about women’s language (For further argument, see Note 1 of Chapter 4).

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 5

gaku, or kokugogaku (national language studies), is the older, dominant field con-
cerned specifically with Japanese language focusing on historical studies. The re-
searchers of Nihongo gaku have established the study of Japanese language as an
important field in Japan by producing dictionaries, Japanese-language school text-
books and grammar books and, as evident throughout this book, have substan-
tially influenced language policies in Japan. Concerning the examination of the
relationships between women and language, those researchers have mainly con-
tributed by finding and analyzing historical documents. The court-women’s speech
cited in the above dictionary definition is one of the examples revealed by their
historical studies, as in works such as Kunita Yuriko (1964, 1977) and Sugimoto
Tsutomu (1985, 1998). As the researchers of Nihongo gaku have written Japanese
dictionaries, many other dictionaries also cite the court-women’s speech as an an-
cient example of Japanese women’s language. Demonstrated by the dictionary
definition of women’s language cited above, the field of Nihongo gaku assumes that
women’s language is naturally derived from women’s actual speech. The field of
shakai gengogaku (sociolinguistics), in contrast, studies Japanese language based
on the theories and frameworks proposed in sociolinguistic studies of English lan-
guage, characterized by its empirical approach. Sociolinguistic studies in the 1970s
and 80s also considered women’s language, in essence, as the language character-
istically or exclusively used by women.9 Japanese sociolinguists thus tried to delin-
eate the whole picture of women’s language by conducting empirical studies of
linguistic interactions. They assumed that informants could be neatly divided into
women and men, compared their linguistic behavior, and presented the differ-
ences between the two groups as linguistic gender differences (See Yukawa &
Saito 2004, for review). The addition of gender into linguistic study as another
demographic factor, along with class and regional factors, thus directly developed
into the so-called gender-difference studies. These studies suffered, however, from
the circular explanations given to the research results, because they mostly took
for granted that the observed gender differences were simply accounted for by the
speaker’s gender. Such research presented what Deborah Cameron (1990: 85) has
called “correlational fallacy”; it merely shows correlations between certain linguis-
tic variables and a speaker’s gender, and does not in fact explain why such correla-
tion occurs. It has been assumed in both Nihongo gaku (Japanese language studies)
and Japanese sociolinguistics in the 1970s and 80s, therefore, that Japanese
women’s actual speech naturally and directly evolved into the notion of women’s

9. The researchers of gender-and-English-language studies in the 1970s and 80s also consid-
ered women’s language as speech spoken by women. In fact, some researchers analyzed women’s
actual interactions to argue against the stereotypes of English women’s language listed by Robin
Lakoff in Language and Woman’s Place (1975) (cf. Dubois and Crouch 1975).

www.ebook777.com
6 Gender, language and ideology

language. I refer to the two fields as “Japanese linguistics” and the researchers in
both fields as “linguists” throughout the book.10
Nevertheless, recent studies of women and language have pointed out that the
conceptualization of women’s language as women’s actual speech is problematic.
The largest problem is the fact that women’s linguistic practices are too diverse to
naturally form a single category of women’s language. As we will soon see in the
following section, empirical studies on women’s linguistic interactions have dem-
onstrated that women change their ways of speaking according to the relationship
with the listener, the purpose of the conversation, and many other situational fac-
tors. Women change their way of speaking as they age. The heterogeneity of speech
is not confined to women. All speakers change their ways of speaking. It would be
very difficult for anyone to speak exactly in the same manner all the time and at
every stage along life’s way. If our linguistic practice necessarily changes and var-
ies according to contextual factors, it is impossible to assume that women’s hetero-
geneous practice naturally evolved into a single category of women’s language. To
consider women’s language as the style of speech spoken by women based on their
common femininity, moreover, defines women’s linguistic practices as if they are
homogeneous and makes the heterogeneity and creativity of women’s speech in-
visible, deviant and exceptional. We should abandon the prevalent belief that
Japanese women’s actual speech naturally and directly formed the notion of wom-
en’s language.
Once we abandon the belief, new questions arise concerning the characteris-
tics of Japanese women’s language and its differences from men’s language. First,
while Japanese regard women’s language as the norm of female speech, they do
not regard men’s language as the norm of male speech. Women’s language is con-
sidered as a polite, soft, and feminine style of speaking, so female children are
often told by their parents to speak more politely because they are women. Men’s
language is considered as a rough, direct, and masculine style, but no parents tell
their sons to speak more roughly. Why and how has only women’s language gained
such normative function? (Part1 of the book will attempt to answer the first ques-
tion.) Second, women’s and men’s languages are differently arranged in their

10. The researchers in kokugogaku and Nihongo gaku are called kokugogakusha (national-lan-
guage researchers) and those in sociolinguistics are called gengogakusha (linguists) in Japan. The
Society for Japanese Linguistics changed their name from kokugogaku (national-language stud-
ies) to Nihongo gaku (Japanese-language studies) in 2004, aiming to synthesize linguistic theo-
ries developed overseas into their studies. The change of attitude by the national-language
researchers has enhanced communication between the researchers in Nihongo gaku and socio-
linguistics and it has become less meaningful to make any distinction between the two fields. I
thus refer to the two fields as “Japanese linguistics” and the researchers in both fields as “lin-
guists” throughout the book.

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 7

relations to standard Japanese. Standard female speakers are generally expected to


speak women’s language, especially in informal conversation. The most likely
choice of male standard speakers, in contrast, is standard Japanese rather than
men’s language, and the use of men’s language is restricted to a special situation in
which a specific type of masculinity characterized by physicality, simplicity, vio-
lence, and aggressiveness, typically connected to sports, fighting, and war, is em-
phasized. This indicates that standard Japanese speakers are generally expected to
use women’s language or standard Japanese, but even men’s use of men’s language,
though it is also a standard variety, is confined to a special occasion. Why is the
use of men’s language restricted to a special occasion? (Chapter 3 takes up the
second question.) Third, women’s language is assigned more values than feminin-
ity, such as the tradition of Japanese language, which is not attributed to men’s
language. Why and how has women’s language become the tradition of Japanese
language? (Chapter 7 will answer that question.) Fourth, what we call women’s
language and men’s language are considered varieties of standard Japanese. While
we can observe subtle differences between women’s and men’s speech in some
regional varieties, many regional varieties lack the clear distinction as in standard
Japanese between women’s and men’s languages. If women naturally speak differ-
ently from men because of their femininity, the distinction should also be found
in regional dialects. Why is there such explicit distinction only in standard
Japanese? (Chapter 8 will attempt to answer the fourth question.) Finally, how has
the notion of women’s language become such a salient category in Japan? What
historical and political processes made effect on the construction of Japanese
women’s language? (The whole book will try to answer the final question.) As long
as we equate women’s language with women’s actual linguistic practice, we cannot
answer these questions.
The purpose of this book is to examine the genealogy of Japanese women’s
language, based on the historical-discourse approach, demonstrating that this ap-
proach is able to explain why and how the notion of women’s language has been
constructed in Japan and assigned the values and characteristics described in the
above five questions. The book, in other words, aims to show that, to deconstruct
and denaturalize the relationships between gender and any language, and to give
adequate explanations concerning why and how they are related as they are, we
must take into consideration history, discourse and ideology. I will argue that
Japanese women’s language is not a style of speaking that Japanese women have
long been using over the centuries, but an ideological construct historically creat-
ed by discourse, the ideologically-constructed representation of women’s linguis-
tic practices. Specifically, I will redefine the notion of Japanese women’s language
as an ideological construct consisting of a set of norms, knowledge, and values –
norms operating as a powerful hegemonic construct of preferred feminine speech

www.ebook777.com
8 Gender, language and ideology

patterns, knowledge concerning the indexical associations between particular


styles and linguistic features with particular feminine identity, and values such
that women’s language is a tradition of the Japanese language that many Japanese
women have spoken based on their “natural” femininity.
Having explicitly distinguished those norms, knowledge and values from
women’s actual linguistic practice, I will conduct historical-discourse analysis to
describe their construction process in Japanese women’s language, starting from
the premodern period of the thirteenth century to the immediate post-WWII
years (1945–1952). I will analyze the discourse produced during that period, be-
cause, though I expect further analysis of the discourse produced before and after
the period might well contribute to refining and re-enforcing my conclusions, my
research to this point has made it amply clear that the analysis of the discourse
during the period can respond quite persuasively to the above five questions con-
cerning the characteristics of contemporary Japanese women’s language and its
differences from men’s language, ultimately demonstrating the explanatory ade-
quacy of historical-discourse analysis. By analyzing discourse produced during
the period in question, I will try to show exactly why and how people believe that
heterogeneous women’s linguistic practices came to constitute a homogeneous no-
tion of women’s language, why and how particular characteristics or values have
been assigned to the notion of women’s language, and why and how the notion of
women’s language is conceptualized differently from that of men’s language.
The analysis will reveal that gender has played a crucial role in the construc-
tion processes not only of gender-related linguistic categories, such as women’s
language and men’s language, but also those categories seemingly unrelated to
gender, such as honorific language, Japanese national language, standard Japanese,
regional dialects and Japanese language. The investigation into the construction
process of women’s language, I argue, necessarily involves the investigations into
the construction processes of these categories, demonstrating that no analysis of
linguistic categories is complete without taking gender into consideration. At the
same time, by showing that the relationship between language and gender has
been dynamically changing in the shifting historical, political, and economic
processes, my analysis will demonstrate that any attempt to account for the con-
struction of gender-related linguistic categories by gender alone runs the risk of
reproducing the universal, essential conceptualization of gender. The book is not
only about Japanese language but develops arguments with significant implica-
tions for researchers studying gender and language beyond Japanese. To that end,
I will discuss the implications of the analysis in each chapter, attempting to frame
them within a general discussion of language and gender.
Analyzing the genealogy of women’s language, moreover, does not mean that
the book is only about the past, simply describing the value and function assigned

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 9

to women’s language in each period. The value and function assigned to women’s
language in one period were preserved and a new value and function were layered
in the next period. The result is the multilayered values and functions of women’s
language today. Returning to the past tells us why there are the norms of feminine
speech today, why Japanese people know specific features associated with feminin-
ity, and why women’s language is praised as a tradition of Japanese language. This
book, therefore, is not merely about the past but about how the past informs the
present state of women’s language. I do not claim, however, to present the complete
genealogy of Japanese women’s language. No book can analyze the infinite number
of discourses produced concerning Japanese women’s speech. Rather, the book
will demonstrate that the historical-discourse approach is valid in analyzing the
relationship between language and gender, by showing that approach as having
more explanatory adequacy than the previous one.

Japanese women’s language

To show why I found the historical-discourse approach necessary to investigate


the relationships between language and gender, I will start by observing that the
notion of Japanese women’s language has three important aspects – the norms of
feminine speech, the knowledge concerning what linguistic features are associated
with femininity, and the value of the tradition of Japanese language – and arguing
that the previous approach to this subject cannot give adequate explanations to
why and how the notion of Japanese women’s language has these aspects.
What constitutes women’s language has been one of the major questions in
language and gender studies. Women’s language is the very site where gender, lan-
guage, and power intersect in a complex manner. As any research is carried out
based on a specific conceptualization of the research objective, how to conceptual-
ize women’s language strongly affects the framework, research method, and inter-
pretation of the data. Previous studies on Japanese women’s language have also
been carried out based on a specific conceptualization of women’s language. In the
following discussion, I call the previous approach the essentialist-evolutionary ap-
proach, since it assumes that women’s language has naturally evolved because
Japanese women have always spoken differently from men, reflecting their essen-
tial feminine nature. In this approach, women’s linguistic practice is directly related
to the notion of women’s language and language is conceptualized as “an organic
substance that naturally changes and grows in a lapse of time” (Sakai 1996: 169).
This approach is characterized by two further arguments. First, the “origin” of
women’s language is discussed under the assumption that women’s linguistic prac-
tices in the past have naturally resulted in the present notion of women’s language

www.ebook777.com
10 Gender, language and ideology

(Ide & Terada 1998; Ide 2003). They consider the origins to be nyooboo kotoba
(court-women’s speech) spoken by women working in the imperial court in the
fourteenth century, and yuujogo (play-women’s speech) in the seventeenth centu-
ry. They claim that these special ways of speaking spread among ordinary women,
evolving into women’s language. The prevalence of court-women’s speech, they
argue, is confirmed by women’s conduct books (etiquette manuals), written in the
seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, which defined court-women’s speech as the
speech norm for women. The definition in those conduct books, however, does
not prove that Japanese women then actually used court-women’s speech. As we
will see in Chapter 2, funny stories and dramatic plays of the same period de-
scribed many merchant and servant women who hated using court-women’s
speech; not all women were willing to speak it. Court-women’s speech may have
actually spread among ordinary women in the seventeenth to nineteenth centu-
ries. However, ordinary women did not naturally use it, but were motivated to use
it by the normative value assigned to it by conduct books. As long as women’s
practice is directly related to women’s language, the effect of the normative dis-
course such as conduct books on women’s practice cannot be captured.
Second, this approach considers linguistic gender differences to be a fact ob-
served in local linguistic practice. The accumulation of gender differences found in
empirical studies of linguistic practice, it assumes, ultimately delineates the whole
picture of women’s language. Studies of local interactions in Japanese have re-
vealed, however, that women’s speech constantly changes and varies, according to
age (Okamoto & Sato 1992), family relation and generation (Kobayashi 1993),
education and occupation (Takasaki 1993), differences in everyday experience
(Takano 2000), and region of residence (Sunaoshi 2004).11 Studies on queer-iden-
tified speakers (Abe 2010) and the ideological connection between politeness and
women (Okamoto 2004) have also shown that the dominant values and functions

11. Many studies have also demonstrated that Japanese women do not speak what is called
women’s language. The actual speech of Japanese women often lacks the so-called feminine
sentence-final particles. Concerning the use of wa, a particle defined as a typical feature of wom-
en’s language in the dictionary definition, Ozaki Yoshimitsu (1997) found 15 instances of wayo,
11 instances of wane, only one instance of dawane, and no instance of dawayo in the 11,421 ut-
terances of women’s natural conversation in the workplace collected in 1993. There is a discrep-
ancy between the belief that Japanese women speak women’s language and the actual speech of
Japanese women. The discrepancy often brings a surprising experience to non-Japanese speak-
ers who visit Japan after having learned that in Japan women speak women’s language. Asahi
shimbun, one of the three leading national newspapers, reports on June 12th, 2012, an episode
that, when a Chinese woman learned Japanese at Beijing Foreign Language University, she was
taught that there is a distinction between women’s language and men’s language in Japanese.
After she came to Japan, however, she was confused to find no difference between the linguistic
practices of Japanese women and men.

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 11

of the linguistic features, norms, and categories, including those of women’s lan-
guage, can be articulated in infinite forms in specific local interactions. Female
speakers do not always use language to express their femininity nor does their use
of women’s language necessarily construct the polite, indirect, and feminine iden-
tity of the speaker.12 Those studies have demonstrated that women’s linguistic prac-
tices are far too diverse to naturally form a single category of women’s language,
explicitly refuting the assumption that the notion of women’s language has directly
evolved from women’s linguistic practice. Homogeneous “linguistic gender differ-
ences” cannot be extracted from heterogeneous linguistic practice. Rather, linguis-
tic gender differences are products of past language and gender-difference studies.
It is the very labels, such as “women’s language” or “linguistic gender differences,”
that represent heterogeneous women’s speech as if female speakers have something
in common, linguistically reproducing the myth of “innate femininity.”

Women’s language as the norm

The essentialist-evolutionary approach, furthermore, cannot account for the cru-


cial aspects of women’s language. I will mention just three of them. First, the essen-
tialist-evolutionary approach cannot capture the normative aspect of women’s
language. Any language community has certain norms concerning appropriate use
of language. Some of the norms are applied to all speakers of the community, while
others are concerned with a particular group of speakers. In Japan, there are norms
of language use applied to speakers irrespective of gender. In addition, there is a set
of norms applied only to female speakers, and women’s language is considered as
the ideal style of speaking following the norms of feminine speech. The norms of
feminine speech are a widely recognized hegemonic ideology in Japan, requiring
women to speak politely, indirectly, and, on certain occasions, even not speaking.
The norms of feminine speech are naturalized as a kind of common sense that
mothers even write letters to newspapers after listening to their daughters’ vulgar
speech. In 1988, a 41-year-old housewife wrote a letter titled, “My daughter said
‘Fuzakerunayoo (Go to hell),’” and said: “I was very shocked to hear such vulgar
and rough language from my own daughter” (Asahi shimbun, March 23, 1988).
Still, in 2006, a 37-year-old housewife wrote another letter titled, “Why does my
daughter use dirty speech,” describing the confusion she felt on hearing her daugh-
ter say, “Urusee (Shut your trap)!” and wondered, “what is happening in this

12. Analyses of conversations in Japanese comics have demonstrated that female characters use
or change to women’s language when they make direct orders, aggressive assertions, and express
evil intentions (Chinami 2010; Takahashi 2009). In these comics, women’s language is used to
construct an aggressive, strong or even snobbish identity of the speaker.

www.ebook777.com
12 Gender, language and ideology

society?” (Asahi shimbun, July 1, 2006). Responding to the 2006 letter, a 29-year-
old female worker wrote, “Parents should scold their children’s dirty speech,” be-
fore wondering “what is happening in this society?” (Asahi shimbun, July 4, 2006).
The hegemonic status of the norms of feminine speech is further demonstrated
by the fact that etiquette manuals of feminine speech are constantly on bestseller
lists. The following is the result of searching books on amazon.com by josei (woman)
and hanashikata (way of speaking) in June 2008. Although 73 books, all etiquette
manuals of feminine speech, are listed, I translate the titles of the first seven books:
(1) a. Josei wa hanashikata de kyuu wari kawaru
[Women Can Change 90% by Changing Their Way of Speaking]
b. Zettai shiawase ni nareru hanashikata no himitsu: Anata o kaeru “ko-
toba no purezento”
[The Secrets of Speech That Bring Absolute Happiness: “Gifts of Lan-
guage” That Change You]
c. Josei no utsukushii hanashikata to kaiwa jutsu: Kookan o motareru ko-
toba no manaa
[Woman’s Beautiful Way of Speaking and Conversation Techniques:
Language Manners That Make a Favorable Impression]
d. Soomei na josei no hanashikata
[How a Wise Woman Should Speak]
e. “Hinkaku aru otona” ni naru tameno aisareru Nihongo
[Japanese Language to be Loved: How to Become “an Elegant Adult”]
f. Ereganto na manaa to hanashikata: Miryokuteki na josei ni naru 77 no
ressun
[Elegant Manner and Way of Speaking: Seventy-seven Lessons to Be-
come a Charming Woman]
g. Bijin no hanashikata: Sono hitokoto de anata wa aisareru
[How a Beauty Speaks: Just One Word, Then You Will Be Loved]
They all emphasize that a woman can improve her attractiveness by changing her
way of speaking, and by speaking feminine women’s language, she can be elegant,
wise, beautiful, happy, and loved. Woman’s value and femininity are strongly
connected to her way of speaking.13 At the same time, these books testify that

13. By listing the titles of etiquette manuals, I imply neither that all Japanese women buy such
etiquette manuals nor believe in or follow the norms included there. Rather, the very prevalence
of these titles of etiquette manuals in bookstores, on the Internet, in advertisements on trains,
and in newspapers and magazines is effective enough to connect femininity with women’s way
of speaking for most Japanese.

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 13

feminine speech is the norm women need to learn by reading them. There are of
course many etiquette manuals for male speakers. They mostly give lessons, how-
ever, about how to talk to your boss or to your subordinate at work or how to in-
crease your sales by speaking efficiently to your clients, and no book claims that a
male speaker can be attractive and loved by changing his way of speaking. If wom-
en’s language naturally emerged from women’s femininity, as the essentialist-​
­evolutionary approach claims, then, all women should naturally use feminine
speech and no etiquette manual of feminine speech would be necessary.

Women’s language as knowledge

The second problem of the essentialist-evolutionary approach is that it cannot ac-


count for the fact that most Japanese learn women’s language as knowledge from
conversations in media. Most people living in Japan use their regional varieties in
their everyday interactions. But women’s language is a standard variety. This means
that most Japanese do not have a chance of listening to standard women’s language
spoken by the women around them. But they all know what kind of speech is
women’s language. Why? That is because Japanese speakers acquire knowledge of
women’s language by listening to female characters speaking in films, radio and
TV dramas, or reading comics and novels. They learn what linguistic and stylistic
features can be used to construct particular feminine identities from those conver-
sations. Women’s language is not a style of speech used by actual women as the
essentialist-evolutionary approach claims; rather, it is knowledge speakers acquire
by listening to or reading conversations in the various forms of media. As the use
of particular features by female characters in the media is repeatedly reproduced
and widely consumed by a large audience, those features become associated with
particular feminine identities.
In Japanese, the construction of indexicality through the language use of me-
dia characters is not confined to women’s language. Most Japanese know, for in-
stance, how aliens talk and what they say when them come to the Earth. They are
supposed to say, “Wareware wa uchuujin da (We are aliens from outer space),” with
a flat intonation in a shrill, mechanical voice. They speak in Japanese. The Japanese
have that knowledge not because their alien friends repeatedly say so, but because
they listened to aliens repeatedly speak in Japanese in the media. Japanese have the
knowledge of how a particular group uses language, even though the group does
not exist, because they often acquire the knowledge concerning the speech of a
particular group from conversations in the media. Accordingly, I argue that most
Japanese learn women’s language as knowledge from the media.
Women’s language as knowledge is most typically demonstrated in the transla-
tion of non-Japanese literary works (Nakamura 2007b). The Japanese translation of

www.ebook777.com
14 Gender, language and ideology

Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind (1936), first published in 1957, has been
hugely popular and an adaptation has been repeatedly played on stage from 1966
to 2011. In the novel, Scarlett O’Hara speaks typical Japanese women’s language
throughout. “It’s no use. I won’t eat it” (Mitchell 1936: 77), for instance, is translated
with typical feminine sentence-final particles, wa and noyo, as “Iranai wa. Hoshiku
nai noyo” (Mitchell 1957[1936]: 87–88). One may argue that the use of typical
women’s language reflects the 1950s, when the work was translated. Yet, this ten-
dency of translating the speech of a non-Japanese heroine into women’s language
also occurs in recent works. The following is the Japanese translation of Hermione
Granger, when she first appears in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone:
(2) a. “Maa, anmari umaku ikanakattawane. Watashi mo renshuu no tsumori
de kantan na jumon o tameshite mita koto ga arukedo, minna umaku
ittawa. Watashi no kazoku ni mahoozoku wa daremo inaino. Dakara,
tegami o moratta toki, odoroitawa.” (Rowling 1999[1997]: 158)
b. “Well, it’s not very good, is it? I’ve tried a few simple spells just for prac-
tice and it’s all worked for me. Nobody in my family’s magic at all, it
was ever such a surprise when I got my letter ....” (Rowling 1997: 117)
Her speech is translated into typical women’s language with feminine-final parti-
cles such as wane, wa, and no. Hermione, at this time, is 11 years old. I don’t know
any Japanese 11-year-old girl who talks like this. This is the kind of women’s lan-
guage we rarely hear from Japanese women, especially from girls. Hermione’s
speech is translated into typical women’s language that most Japanese girls of her
age do not use. And this is not confined to literary works. Angelina Jolie, in her
interview with a Japanese newspaper, speaks women’s language in the Japanese
translation, with feminine final forms, wa and yo.
(3) a. “Eiga o mita Braddo ga, ‘okaa-san ni niteru ne,’ to itte kureta nowa ure-
shikattawa.”
‘I was happy when Brad [Pitt], on seeing the film, said, “You look like
your mother.”’
b. “Mamagyoo ni tenshoku yo.”
‘I will concentrate on mothering.’ (Asahi shimbun, Feb. 20, 2009)
The article emphasizes that, in spite of hardships and scandals in the past, her
strong will to pursue her belief makes her shine like nobody else. This description
of her independent character, however, does not fit her women’s language. From
Scarlett O’Hara in Gone with the Wind to Angelina Jolie in her interview with a
Japanese newspaper, the speech of non-Japanese women has been translated
into feminine women’s language. Paradoxically, it is the translated speech of

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 15

non-Japanese women that has preserved the tradition of Japanese women’s lan-
guage (Nakamura 2013). Long before the term “globalization” was introduced, the
translated speech of non-Japanese women in media has been playing a crucial role
in maintaining Japanese women’s language.
This happens exactly because the belief that women speak women’s language
moves the translator to use her knowledge of women’s language in the translation
process. A well-known translator, Ooshima Kaori, confesses that:
I sometimes translate even the same words differently depending on whether they
are spoken by a man or a woman. Although I do not think that my translation
is controlled by the so-called women’s language, I realize that I restrict my own
choice of words since I am unconsciously influenced by the norms of women’s
language internalized in myself. (Ooshima 1990: 43)

What she calls “the norms of women’s language internalized in myself ” corre-
sponds with what I call the knowledge of women’s language. She states that, as
women are supposed to speak women’s language, she unconsciously uses her
knowledge of women’s language in the translation process.14 The translated speech
of non-Japanese women tends to become stereotypical women’s language, exactly
because the translator uses the knowledge of women’s language in translating
women’s speech.
Such knowledge includes phonological, morphological, syntactic, stylistic and
paralinguistic features indexically associated with gender, such as tone of voice,
interjections, sentence-final particles, personal pronouns and vocabulary. Exactly
what linguistic features constitute such knowledge differs depending on the person.
Since the distinction between women’s and men’s languages is socially salient in
Japan, however, almost all Japanese speakers can give stereotypical contrasting ex-
amples of feminine and masculine linguistic features. A high-pitched voice is linked
to femininity, while a low-pitched voice connotes masculinity. The interjections ara
and maa are regarded as feminine, and oi and kora as masculine. The sentence-final
particles, (da)wa, ne, yo, and kashira are called feminine forms, and ze and zo mas-
culine forms. The first-person pronoun, atashi, is commonly regarded as a femi-
nine pronoun, while boku and ore, and the second-person pronouns, omae and

14. Japanese translators’ use of the knowledge of women’s language, however, is largely influ-
enced by the race and social class of the original speaker as well as by gender. In fact, in Gone
with the Wind, and in many other literary works, the speech of black women and men was often
translated into a pseudo-Toohoku dialect, the speech of the northern part of Japan’s mainland
(Hiramoto 2009; Inoue 2003). Until recently, the use of women’s language was confined to mid-
dleclass white female speakers. Japanese translators’ choice of linguistic variety is not solely
based on gender but also the race and social class of the original speaker, (re)producing and
reinforcing in Japan racial, economic, and gendered prejudice of the society in which the origi-
nal text was produced (Nakamura 2013).

www.ebook777.com
16 Gender, language and ideology

kimi, are considered as masculine pronouns.15 Onaka suita is a female way of say-
ing, “hungry;” the male version is hara hetta. Thus most Japanese speakers will as-
sume that the sentence Atashi onaka suita wa (I’m hungry) is being spoken by a
woman and Ore hara hetta zo (I’m hungry) by a man. Japanese speakers, in other
words, have the knowledge of linguistic, stylistic and paralinguistic features consti-
tuting women’s and men’s languages, although they do not necessarily use those
features in their own speech. For many women, therefore, women’s language is not
the language in which they express their own identities and experiences; rather it is
merely the knowledge they glean by listening to how male commentators describe
it and to how female characters speak it in the media. We need a framework that
explicates the formation process of women’s language as knowledge, rather than
directly relating women’s linguistic practices with women’s language.

Women’s language as value

The third problem with the essentialist-evolutionary approach is that it cannot


explain why the notion of women’s language is assigned more social meanings and
value than gender alone. It is widely believed, for instance, that women’s language
has a long history peculiar to the Japanese language. As seen in the dictionary
definition, the vast majority of Japanese scholars invariably emphasize that
Japanese women have spoken a distinctive speech since ancient times, making
women’s language a tradition of Japanese. This belief is supported by another belief
that women in the past were speaking feminine language. Every time I argue that
women’s actual practices are too diverse to form a single notion of women’s lan-
guage, many Japanese respond, “Yes, women today do not speak women’s language
anymore, but women in the past were speaking feminine language and their speech
became women’s language.”
It is impossible to obtain recorded data of the speech of women in the past.
Throughout Japanese history, however, we can find documents criticizing certain
women for not speaking in a feminine manner. This indirectly shows that there
were always some women who did not use language in what was considered the
feminine way. In what most literary critics regard as the world’s first novel, Genji
monogatari [The Tale of Genji], there is a scene of young men talking about a
daughter of a learned scholar who uses many kango (lit. Chinese words, Japanese

15. In Japanese, there are many sentence-final particles and personal pronouns and the choice
of these features has more to do with the relational and affective stance between the speakers
or toward the topic of the conversation than with the propositional content of the conversa-
tion. As the use of a first-person pronoun is not grammatically obligatory and the use of a
second-person pronoun is considered rude under certain circumstances, many speakers even
choose not to use them.

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 17

words written in Chinese characters) in her speech and saying, “Where could
you find such a woman? Better to have a quiet evening with a witch” (Murasaki
1976[1003–1008]: 36).16 Even when using Chinese words was considered the ul-
timate unfeminine behavior, some women in fact used them. In one of the con-
duct books (etiquette manuals) written in the early fourteenth century, Menoto
no sooshi [The Book of the Nursemaid], there appears my favorite lesson on
women’s speech, “Any handsome mouth looks grotesque when extended freely
with laughter, showing the hole of the throat, widening of the tongue, and drip-
ping saliva from the sides of the mouth” (Hanawa 1932b: 230). This too realistic
lesson had to be included in the conduct book, we can safely assume, exactly
because many women in the fourteenth century laughed freely, showing the hole
of their throats, widening their tongues, and dripping saliva from the sides of
their mouths, against the norm of feminine speech at the time. Kobayashi
Chigusa (1996: 298) documents that in a traditional Kyoogen play in the four-
teenth century, entitled Renjaku, a female merchant, when introducing herself to
the audience, says, “Oryara shimasu (I am),” which is the most polite and elegant

16. In an English translation of The Tale of Genji, the daughter explained why the young man
had not seen her for a long time as follows:

“I have been indisposed with a malady known as coryza. Discommoded to an uncom-


mon degree, I have been imbibing of a steeped potion from bulbaceous herbs. Because
of the noisome order, I will not find it possible to admit of greater propinquity. If you
have certain random matters for my attention, perhaps you can deposit; the relevant
materials where you are.” (Murasaki 1976[1003–1008]: 35–36)

I n the Japanese text, the underlined words are written in Chinese characters. At the time The
Tale of Genji was written, the same thing could be referred to either by kango (lit. Chinese words,
Japanese words written in Chinese characters) or wago (Japanese words), and women were pro-
hibited from using Chinese words. During this period, people acquired public and academic
knowledge from kanseki (Chinese books written solely by Chinese characters), so that kanji
(Chinese characters) and kanseki were considered the most important things to learn in the
education of men. Kujoo Dono Ikai [The Family Precepts of Master Kujoo] (960) emphasizes
that “When the boys grow up, teach them Chinese texts first, then teach them penmanship, and
after that allow them to learn music and dance” (cited in Yoshizawa 1934: 31). In contrast, “it
was an era when the value of learning kangaku (learning traditional Chinese books) and kanji
was not regarded as appropriate for women’s education” (Yoshizawa 1934: 17). Right after the
above citation in The Tale of Genji, a guard officer claims:

“A reasonably alert woman does not need to be a scholar to see and hear a great many
things. The very worst are the ones who scribble off Chinese characters at such a rate
that they fill a good half of letters where they are most out of place, letters to other
women.” (Murasaki 1976[1003–1008]: 36)

 e prohibition of women’s use of kanji (Chinese characters) and kango (Chinese words) thus
Th
prevented women from getting knowledge from kanseki and kangaku.

www.ebook777.com
18 Gender, language and ideology

women’s language, but yells, “Yai, kokonamono. Sokonoke. (Hey you! Move.),” at
the man who took her place in the market. Even a woman in the fourteenth cen-
tury used a direct, strong manner of speech when necessary. These examples in-
dicate that the speech of past women also changed and varied and they did not
always speak in a feminine manner.
Why, then, is it believed that women in the past were speaking feminine wom-
en’s language? One factor related to the construction of this belief is readers’ letters
to newspapers. Many Japanese newspapers have a readers’ column and among
their favorite topics is the corruption of the Japanese language. Readers complain,
often citing women’s use of non-feminine language as a key example of that cor-
ruption. One peculiar characteristic of these letters is that they present women’s
use of non-feminine language as a recent change. Thus, almost all these letters start
with the word, saikin (recently). A 22-year-old student writes: “Recently, it seems
noteworthy that the speech of young women, including myself, has gotten worse”
(Asahi shimbun, March 11, 1999). Interestingly, such criticism of recent corrup-
tion in women’s speech can be found since the beginning of the twentieth century.
In 1905, Ootsuki Fumihiko, a linguist known for compilation of the first modern
Japanese dictionary, states that: “It is disgusting to hear a phrase popular among
female students ima (now), such as yokutte yo (all right). Before the Meiji Restora-
tion, the wives of shooguns, feudal lords, and Tokugawa retainers all used elegant
language” (Ootsuki 1905: 17). Although he uses ima (now) instead of saikin
(recently), he criticizes the speech of “recent” female students. Japanese people
have complained about the “recent” corruption of women’s speech for over one
hundred years. It is a total contradiction that any “recent” change would have oc-
curred for one hundred years. Moreover, if complaining about women’s unfemi-
nine speech has not corrected their speech for over one hundred years, one might
reasonably conclude that it is no use writing such letters to newspapers. Neverthe-
less, talking about the “recent” corruption of women’s speech has another impor-
tant function, to create the myth that women in the past indeed spoke feminine
women’s language. Criticizing recent women’s speech as unfeminine implicitly
claims that, though recent women speak in an unfeminine manner, women in the
past indeed used feminine language. In the above citation by Ootsuki, in fact, by
criticizing the speech of “recent” female students, he emphasized the elegance of
women’s speech before the Meiji Restoration of 1868. What the writer of a letter to
newspapers had witnessed was the practice of a woman who chose to use unfemi-
nine speech considering situational and interpersonal factors. It is an example of
women’s diverse linguistic practice. “Recent” discourse, however, interprets it from
a historical viewpoint, converting “synchronic diversity … into historical corrup-
tion” (Inoue 2006: 169). These letters thus play an important role in maintaining
the myth that women in the past used feminine language and, also, the belief that

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 19

such feminine speech of past women became women’s language, constructing


women’s language as a Japanese tradition.
In this section, we have seen that the notion of Japanese women’s language has
three major aspects: the norms of feminine speech, the knowledge concerning
linguistic features associated with femininity, and the value of the tradition of
Japanese language. The notion of Japanese women’s language has been assigned
more meanings and values than the aggregate of gender differences claimed in the
essentialist-evolutionary approach. In constructing and maintaining the norms,
knowledge and values of women’s language, etiquette books, conversation in the
media, and readers’ letters to newspapers have respectively played crucial roles.
Note that, while I cite the three aspects to clarify my argument, they are closely
interconnected. The norms of feminine speech, for instance, both require women
to use linguistic features associated with femininity and are legitimated as a way to
preserve the tradition of Japanese women’s language.

Women’s language in previous studies

To analyze these norms, knowledge, and values of Japanese women’s language, I


will propose the historical-discourse approach to investigate women’s language as
an ideological construct. The necessity of conceptualizing the notion of women’s
language as an ideological construct has been widely pointed out in studies of
gender and English language. I will briefly describe the development of such stud-
ies, focusing on how the researchers came to consider women’s language as an
ideological construct.
Research approaches in early studies are classified into three major models:
the deficient model, the dominance model, and the difference model (Cameron
1995). The deficient model was the label given to the study of Robin Lakoff (1975),
who argued that women’s language both reflected and perpetuated their subordi-
nate social position. The dominance model (Zimmerman & West 1975; Fishman
1983), by analyzing male-female conversation, claimed that men dominated wom-
en in conversation by interrupting and not responding to them. The difference
model (Maltz & Borker 1982; Tannen 1990) argued that women and men followed
different rules when they talked, which they acquired in gender distinctive sub-­
cultures in childhood.
Interestingly, all three models faced the same problem – namely, the heteroge-
neity of women’s linguistic practices. Many studies have shown that there was con-
siderable diversity among women’s speech depending on changing occupational
opportunities (Nichols 1983), the density of social networks (Milroy 1980; Thomas
1988), different social aspirations (Gal 1978; Holmquist 1985), and adolescent

www.ebook777.com
20 Gender, language and ideology

group affiliation (Eckert 1989). They have shown that our linguistic interactions
constantly change and vary according to several factors. If women’s linguistic prac-
tices differ and change so widely, it becomes impossible to talk about linguistic
gender differences. If there is a large variety in linguistic behavior among women,
the research objective of analyzing how women and men speak differently be-
comes meaningless. Patricia Nichols (1983: 54) has contended as early as 1983
that: “’Women’s language’ is as much a myth as ‘private language.’” Notice that this
is the same problem I have previously pointed out when I discussed the essential-
ist-evolutionary approach to the Japanese women’s language.
Underlying the problem is the presupposition that the speaker’s gender pre-
exists the language. A woman, before conducting any linguistic practice, already
possesses female gender and uses language according to her gender. In this view,
women’s language is an aggregate of linguistic interactions by those who are al-
ready women. Gender, in this framework, is conceptualized as one’s attribute; one
possesses gender or belongs to gender. Moreover, gender in these approaches is
strictly binary: there are only two kinds of gender, female and male. As gender
determines one’s practice, both the observed linguistic gender differences and the
characteristics of women’s language are accounted for by the fact that the speaker
is a woman. Such conceptualization of gender is now called essentialism.
Post-structural feminism in the 1990s, by contrast, has considered gender not
as an “essential” attribute, but as an accomplishment performed by an agent. Judith
Butler (1990: 25) has argued that “There is no gender identity behind the expres-
sions of gender; that identity is performatively constituted by the very ‘expressions’
that are said to be its results.” Gender does not pre-exist nor determine practice,
but emerges and is expressed by the speaker’s practice. This theoretical develop-
ment has radically reversed the relationship between gender and linguistic prac-
tice. While gender was the cause of one’s practice in the previous models (a woman
speaks politely because she is a woman), gender became the effect of practice (one
speaks politely to construct a particular identity). Gender changed from some-
thing one has to something one does. Some researchers started using “gender
identities” instead of “gender” in order to manifest the further paradigm shifts of
the concept. The term “gender identities,” as its plural form indicates, does not
postulate the male-female binary, but presupposes a variety of identities within
gender. Gender identity of a high school girl, for instance, can be very different
from gender identity of a middle-aged female professor. Furthermore, gender, in
this framework, constitutes only one aspect of one’s identity, which is intertwined
with other aspects such as age, ethnicity, occupation, and status.
This theoretical development has brought three crucial changes to language
and gender studies. First, the research objective shifts from the discovery of lin-
guistic gender differences to the analysis of how gender identities are constructed

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 21

through individual linguistic practices. If gender identities are being enacted by


practice, intertwining with other factors in a complex manner, we need to ana-
lyze a linguistic interaction in a specific situation. Penelope Eckert and Sally
McConnell-Ginet (1992) emphasized the need to focus on individual interac-
tions in a specific “community of practice,” instead of generalizing the research
results of particular women’s practice as the characteristics of all women. To
enrich the analyses of complex relationships between linguistic practices and
socio-cultural factors, more research on women other than white, heterosexual,
English-speaking, middleclass women is required. Second, the conceptualization
of gender not as the cause but as the effect of practice not only reversed the rela-
tionship between gender and practice but also has emphasized the agency of a
speaker. If one’s practice is not determined by the preexisting gender, the speaker
is given the agency to choose and express a variety of gender identities using dif-
ferent linguistic resources according to a different situation. Women are rede-
fined as efficient speakers who actively construct a variety of identities, rather
than as victims of male power forced to be silent. Third, research focus has shift-
ed from normative interactions expected of gender assigned to a speaker to devi-
ant practices that may resist, subvert, or contest the existing power order. The
post-structural notion of gender as performativity has made it possible to imag-
ine the transformation of gender asymmetry by subversive practices. According
to Butler (1990: 141), “The possibilities of gender transformation are to be found
precisely … in the possibility of a failure to repeat a de-formity, or a parodic rep-
etition that exposes the phatasmatic effect of abiding identity as a politically ten-
uous construction.” More attention is paid to what Mary Bucholtz (1999) has
called bad examples that break the rules and bad subjects who transgress pre-
existing identities, including linguistic practices of lesbian, gay, transsexual, and
transgendered speakers.
Responding to the theoretical development, language and gender researchers
since the 90s have concentrated on analyses of local, deviant practices (Benor,
Rose, Sharma, Sweetland & Zhang 2002; Bucholtz, Liang, & Sutton 1999; Hall &
Bucholtz 1995). Two major findings of these studies are heterogeneity of linguistic
interactions and the agency of a speaker to perform resisting, subversive, and con-
testing practice. Kira Hall (1995) has demonstrated that “fantasy-line workers”
working for telephone sex lines in San Francisco effectively utilize the so-called
“powerless women’s language” to gain economic power. In the stage performance
analyzed in Rusty Barrett (1999), African American drag queens appropriate
women’s language to parody and critique white stereotypes, including the myth of
the black male rapist. These studies have demonstrated that people sometimes uti-
lize women’s language to transgress binary gender categories. It has been claimed
that these subversive performances show the possibility to transform the existing

www.ebook777.com
22 Gender, language and ideology

power order. Since then, the analyses of local linguistic practices have been a ma-
jor approach in the field of gender-and-English-language studies.
Nevertheless, these findings lead us to two questions. First, why do subversive
performances often remain ephemeral, leaving the prevailing power order largely
untouched (Kotthoff & Wodak 1997: xi)? Susan Philips (2003: 263) has contended
that: “The kinds of resistance described did not lead to any transformation of
women’s situations.” No matter how many women use vulgar forms, how many
men speak women’s language, and how many girls and boys communicate exactly
in the same manner, these practices are ignored as deviation, exception, or
marginal, keeping the belief that women’s and men’s linguistic practices differ re-
flecting their innate differences. “To focus only on the situations where gender is
malleable diverts focus from continuing patterns of exclusion, subordination, nor-
malization, and discrimination” (McElhinny 2003: 31). To reveal how subversive
practices are rendered deviant, exceptional, and marginal, we need to go beyond
local linguistic practice and analyze broader ideological frameworks in institu-
tional and societal levels, which make us believe that certain speech styles are
natural to women so that other styles are deviations and exceptions of women’s
natural speaking styles. Second, the kind of agency assumed in the performativity
approach does not consider norms and constraints imposed on an individual
speaker. Any speaker needs to refer to the knowledge of normative, standard lan-
guage usage considered suitable and appropriate to the occasion, purpose, and
participant relationships expected of a particular interaction. In addition, there are
also particular styles of speaking considered appropriate to a certain group of
speakers. For female speakers, at least in Japan, polite and indirect ways of speak-
ing have been deemed suitable. These norms have a profound effect on our evalu-
ation and interpretation of the linguistic practices of others and our own linguistic
choices. We produce our own linguistic practices, and judge the behavior of oth-
ers, in light of these gendered norms attached to speech. The same utterance can
be evaluated and interpreted differently depending on the speaker’s gender. Those
women who do not talk in a feminine manner and men who speak like women are
socially sanctioned. In this sense, no speaker is a free agent who can always per-
form subversive practices. Miyako Inoue (2006: 73) has argued that the liberal
notion of linguistic subject formation, “The figure of the lucid subject who is au-
tonomous and self-consolidating, who … speaks for herself/himself … and con-
structs (and even “shifts” and “negotiates”) his or her identities is problematic.” To
capture these norms and constraints assigned to a particular group of speakers, we
need again to go beyond local interactions and examine the norms, beliefs, and
stereotypes about language use maintained in a society.
How should we understand these norms and constraints concerning language
use sustained on a societal level? What is women’s language to do with them? One

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 23

answer to these questions can be found by investigating what Susan Gal (1995) has
called “symbolic domination,” the cultural constructions of language, gender, and
power that shape women’s and men’s ideas and ideals about their own linguistic
practices. Gal has argued that the categories of women’s speech, men’s speech, and
prestigious or powerful speech are not just indexically derived from the identities
of speakers, but are culturally constructed within social groups. Among a large
variety of speech styles used in a society, what counts as opposite or different is
culturally defined. As a large variety of speech styles is used among women and
among men, it is impossible to neatly divide these heterogeneous styles into wom-
en’s language and men’s language. Rather, “It is the broader symbolic opposition
itself that makes the linguistic variants meaningful” (Gal 1995: 173). It is the ideo-
logical opposition between women’s language and men’s language itself that de-
fines women’s and men’s speech as different and that helps researchers discover
“linguistic gender differences.” Gal’s argument enables us to see the category of
women’s language not as just the sum total of linguistic features whose frequency
of use distinguishes women from men, but as an ideological-symbolic construct, a
discursive construct. Cameron (1997: 28) contends that: “‘Women’s language’ as a
category is no longer seen to be derived indexically from the social identity of
those who use it (‘women’), but has become an ‘ideological-symbolic’ construct
which is potentially constitutive of that identity” (emphasis original).
It is not only women’s language that has been conceptualized as an ideological
construct distinctive from practice. The difference between what is called gay
speech and different gay ways of speaking has been accounted for by the difference
between ideology and practice. Andrew Wong et al., (2002: 4) state, “The ‘gay
speech’ that many have endeavored to identify is an ideological construct that
symbolizes the imagined ‘gay community, and the linguistic features of this ideo-
logical construct in turn provide some of the resources that are used in the
construction of different gay styles.”17 Accordingly, researchers have argued that
standard language is not a specific style of speech actually used by a group of
speakers but an ideological construct of a normative speech style. James Milroy
and Lesley Milroy (Milroy & Milroy 1985: 23), for instance, define standard lan-
guage as “a set of abstract norms to which actual usage may conform to a greater
or lesser extent,” making the distinction between “abstract norms” and “actual

17. Although I do not include Japanese gay speech in my analysis, it seems highly reasonable to
consider their speech style as an ideological construct. The speech style utilized by Japanese gay
men and M-F transgendered, transsexual individuals is widely recognized as onee kotoba (lit.
elder sister speech). Abe (2010), in the first comprehensive work on the speech of Japanese gay
men and lesbians, points out that their linguistic practice changes depending on several situa-
tional, relational and social factors, demonstrating that the practice of gay men is far too diverse
and creative to be simply labeled onee kotoba.

www.ebook777.com
24 Gender, language and ideology

usage.” Japanese linguists have also analyzed the notions of Japanese national lan-
guage, standard Japanese (Komori 2000; Lee 1996; Osa 1998; Yasuda 1997) and
Japanese honorifics (Yamashita 2001) as ideological constructs. Researchers em-
phasize the importance of distinguishing between “ideology – the representations
of social types and their ways of speaking and writing which circulate in a given
society – and practice – what we observe when we investigate the behavior of real
people in real situations” (Cameron & Kulick 2003: 135 emphasis original, also
Bucholtz & Hall 1995: 5) and the need “to explore the ideological processes
through which certain linguistic features become markers of particular social
groups” (Wong et al., 2002: 3). Many linguists have pointed out, in other words,
the importance of considering linguistic notions, such as women’s language, gay
speech, national language and standard language, as ideological constructs dis-
tinctive from linguistic practice of the groups of people assumed to use those vari-
eties. Exactly how we should reformulate the notion of women’s language as an
ideological construct and how we can examine “the ideological processes” through
which such notion has been constructed, however, have not been proposed. I will
argue in this book that one way of exploring the ideological processes of con-
structing both the notion of women’s language and the links between feminine
linguistic features and female identities is to conduct the historical-discourse anal-
ysis of women’s language.18

Historical-discourse approach

In this section, I will describe the theoretical framework, the methodology, and
the data of the historical discourse approach used in this book. I propose this
approach to properly investigate the genealogy of women’s language by conceptu-
alizing women’s language as an ideological construct historically formed by meta-
linguistic discourse and media conversation (Nakamura 2014b).

Women’s language as an ideological construct

What it means to consider women’s language as an ideological construct can be


manifested by the findings and discussions in the studies concerning “language
ideologies” (Kroskrity ed. 2000; Schieffelin et al. 1998). The notion of language
ideologies usually refers to general beliefs about language, talk, and communica-
tion prevalent in a given society, and researchers of language ideologies do not

18. I will refer to three semiotic processes identified by Gal and Irvine (1995), iconization,
fractal recursivity, and erasure, of linguistic boundary construction in later chapters.

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 25

often analyze linguistic varieties, such as women’s language, as language ideolo-


gies. Michael Silverstein (1979: 193) defines language ideologies as “sets of beliefs
about language articulated by uses as a rationalization or justification of perceived
language structure and use.” What is called a language ideology in Silverstein’s
analysis (1985) of the change that occurred to the English pronominal system in
the seventeenth century, therefore, is concerned with the emerging perspective to
value the “Plain Style of English” as a means to represent “truth” in its opposition
to the traditional authority represented by classical languages such as Latin, Greek
and Hebrew. 19According to this definition, I should consider as a language ideol-
ogy the belief about Japanese women’s speech that “women’s linguistic practice
naturally formed the notion of women’s language.” This belief rationalizes the con-
struct of Japanese women’s language, along with accompanying beliefs such as,
“women and men speak differently,” “women use language to express their femi-
ninity” and “women’s speech shares common characteristics.” Enumerating these
beliefs about women’s speech, however, tells us nothing new about women’s lan-
guage, exactly because the notion of women’s language and these beliefs perfectly
rationalize and legitimate each other. Women’s language is what women speak and
women speak women’s language because they are women. A way out of the closed
circularity is to reformulate the notion of women’s language itself as an ideological
construct, rather than a linguistic variety (if we understand the phrase, linguistic
variety, as referring to a common speech style actually used by a group of speak-
ers), and examine its historical formation. The phrase, Japanese women’s language,
is not a label referring to a linguistic variety spoken by women (practice) but an
umbrella term containing a whole set of norms, knowledge, and values concerning
Japanese women’s speech (ideology). Speakers use the norms, knowledge, and val-
ues of women’s language as linguistic resource, as argued in detail in note 20, which
simultaneously provides resources for and imposes restrictions on linguistic
practices. To define women’s language as an ideological construct, in other words,
is to reinterpret the phrase, women’s language, as referring to a set of norms, knowl-
edge, and values concerning the relationships between women and language.

19. Silverstein (1985) argues that two factors are decisive in the shift observed in English sec-
ond-person pronouns, from thou/thee/thine (T) to ye/you/your(s) (Y). The first factor was the
emergence of a language ideology that valued the “Plain Style of English.” In the seventeenth
century, various sects of Puritanism furthered the cause of “plain English” as a means of working
against established religious authority and a transparent window to “truth.” The second factor
was Quaker adaptation of language ideology to the English pronominal system. Quaker refused
to use Y forms for deference to the addressee, rationalizing that such usage was “the very op-
posite of the civil equality of all people before God” (Silverstein 1985: 249). As Quakers insisted
on use of T forms for all second-person singular address, others had to avoid it, lest they be
mistaken for members of Quakers. And the use of T forms ran its course by 1700.

www.ebook777.com
26 Gender, language and ideology

Throughout the book, I refer to women’s language as an ideological construct in-


terchangeably as “the ideology of women’s language” or simply as “women’s lan-
guage.” In generally referring to linguistic varieties and their associations with
particular features as ideological constructs, I use “linguistic ideologies.”
Another definition of “language ideologies” gives us informative insights into
our exploration of women’s language as an ideological construct. Judith Irvine
(1989: 255) defines language ideologies as: “the cultural system of ideas about so-
cial and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political
interests.” This definition contains four assertions concerning the notion. First,
language ideologies are not actual speech but ideas concerning language use. Ac-
cordingly, I will analyze Japanese women’s language not as women’s actual speech
but as the norms, knowledge and values concerning women’s speech. Second,
language ideologies constitute a system, their boundaries and values assigned in
their relationships to each other. My analysis here will show that the ideology of
Japanese women’s language is constructed in its relationship with the other lin-
guistic ideologies of Japanese, such as men’s language, Japanese national language,
standard Japanese, regional dialects and honorific language. Third, they are cultur-
ally constructed, and the system of language ideologies differs and varies accord-
ing to different political, economic and academic situations of different times and
places. My analysis will also reveal exactly how women’s language has been con-
structed in its changing relationships to the other linguistic ideologies of Japanese
in the shifting historical, political, and economic processes. Fourth, they form re-
lationships hierarchically ordered by moral and political values, such as good/bad
and correct/incorrect. The prevailing view in Japan considers Japanese women’s
language also as elegant, refined and feminine speech, possessing a positive value
of the tradition of Japanese language.
The theoretical implications to reformulate Japanese women’s language as an
ideological construct can be further clarified by the four characteristics of lan-
guage ideologies described in Paul Kroskrity (2000). First, language ideologies
represent the perception of language and discourse that is constructed in the
interest of a specific social or cultural group (Kroskrity 2000: 8). Language ide-
ologies are not merely abstract concepts but have political functions to legitimate
the domination of a specific group, exerting a material effect on the lives of the
dominated groups. This is why the researchers of language ideologies have se-
lected the term “ideologies,” rather than the terms “concept, knowledge, or no-
tion.” To regard women’s language as an ideological construct means to examine
women’s language as a political category that controls and dominates women
through language.
Second, language ideologies are profitably conceived as multiple because of the
multiplicity of meaningful social divisions (class, gender, clan, elites, generations,

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 27

and so on) within sociocultural groups that have the potential to produce diver-
gent perspectives expressed as indices of group membership (Kroskrity 2000: 12).
The multiplicity of social divisions implies that the notion of gender itself inter-
sects with other divisions in a complex manner. The interrelationships between
gender and other divisions further transform in shifting political and economic
situations in a particular historical juncture. To study women’s language as an ide-
ological construct requires examining the construction and transformation of
women’s language in socio-historical changes.
Third, members may display varying degrees of awareness of local language
ideologies (Kroskrity 2000: 18). As Japanese women’s language is constructed
within standard Japanese, for instance, the values assigned to women’s language
may differ depending on whether the speaker speaks a standard variety or not and
on whether the standard variety is considered appropriate to use or not in a
particular situation. Inoue (2006) has demonstrated that the value of Japanese
women’s language among women working in the same company in Tokyo differs
widely depending on where she has grown up and her career formation.
Finally, members’ language ideologies mediate between social structures and
forms of talk (Kroskrity 2000: 21). In other words, language ideologies mediate
between identities of a particular group with particular linguistic features. At the
center of women’s language lies the indexicality associating particular linguistic
features with a particular identity category of woman. Heretofore, scholars and
other observers in Japan have interpreted these associations to have been estab-
lished by the frequent use of these features by women. They claimed that, as wom-
en used some features statistically more frequently than men, those features
naturally formed women’s language. Nevertheless, empirical studies of linguistic
interactions have revealed that pragmatic meanings of individual linguistic fea-
tures vary depending on situational factors. Speakers use so-called feminine and
masculine features to negotiate a wide range of affective and epistemic meanings
often unrelated to gender (Miyazaki 2004; SturtzSreetharan 2009; Sunaoshi 2004).
It is impossible to find a one-to-one correspondence between a linguistic feature
and a social identity in linguistic practice. To rectify the discrepancy of the same
features both related and unrelated to gender, the conceptualization of women’s
language and men’s language as ideological constructs suggests that the associa-
tion between feminine/masculine features and feminine/masculine identities is
ideologically mediated. The ideological opposition between women’s language and
men’s language makes the distinction between feminine and masculine features
meaningful in certain situations. Kathryn Woolard (1998: 18) points out that “sim-
ply using language in particular ways is not what forms social groups, identities, or
relations (nor does the group relation automatically give rise to linguistic distinc-
tion); rather, ideological interpretations of such uses of language always mediate

www.ebook777.com
28 Gender, language and ideology

these effects.” In the following chapters, I will describe exactly what kind of ideo-
logical processes have constructed the indexical relationships between particular
linguistic features and femininity.
The historical-discourse approach thus claims to distinguish practice from
ideology, that is, to distinguish women’s linguistic practice from the ideology of
women’s language. I refer to the former interchangeably as “women’s speech, wom-
en’s (local or linguistic) practice, or women’s (local or linguistic) interaction,” and
the latter as “women’s language or the ideology of women’s language.” As we have
already seen, linguistic practice changes and varies according to many factors. By
distinguishing women’s linguistic practice from women’s language, the heteroge-
neity of women’s practice becomes, to my mind, a default state, while the ideology
of women’s language is an idea consisting of the norms, knowledge and values
concerning women’s speech. By the norms of women’s language, I refer to pre-
ferred feminine speech patterns, typically recognized as polite, soft and indirect
ways of speaking considered appropriate as well as normative for female speakers.
The knowledge of women’s language includes particular phonological, morpho-
logical, syntactic, stylistic and paralinguistic features indexically associated with
particular feminine identities. Although potentially associated with femininity,
those features are redefined as knowledge that anyone, both women and men, can
use as linguistic resources in performing particular identity in their respective
practices. The typical example of the values assigned to Japanese women’s language
is that of a tradition of the Japanese language.
I explicitly distinguish those norms, knowledge and values of women’s lan-
guage from women’s actual speech and focus on analyzing the former. This does
not mean, however, that the ideology of women’s language has nothing to do with
women’s linguistic practice. By distinguishing practice from ideology, it becomes
possible to consider the ideology of women’s language as linguistic resource that
simultaneously provides resources for and imposes restrictions on linguistic prac-
tices and to examine when and how the norms, knowledge and values of women’s
language impact our linguistic practice (Nakamura 2004).20 The distinction

20. Although this book does not directly contribute to the analysis of linguistic practice in local
situations, I have proposed to consider the norms, knowledge and values of women’s language as
linguistic resource that simultaneously provides resources for and imposes restrictions on lin-
guistic practices (Nakamura 2004). Motschenbacher (2007: 270) proposes a very similar view to
consider genderlect (the term coined by combining “gender” with “dialect”) as “resources for
gendered identity performances which can be exploited strategically or used as a form of ritual-
ised practice.” The conception of the norms, knowledge and values of women’s language as
linguistic resource enables us to ask new questions concerning deviant practice. Instead of criti-
cizing a woman’s use of men’s language as unfeminine and deviant, we can ask for what effect
and purpose the woman uses men’s language in that particular situation. The perspective also

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 29

enables us to ask new questions, such as in what situations women follow the
norms of feminine speech, when and how women and men use the knowledge of
women’s language, and how the values of women’s language influence people’s
evaluation of women’s practice. The diversity of practices can be reinterpreted as
diverse responses of speakers to the resource provided by and the restrictions im-
posed by the ideology of women’s language as well as to many other factors. Em-
pirical studies of women’s linguistic practice, in their attempts to account for the
diversity of practices, need to take into consideration not only the situational fac-
tors of individual interactions but also the social and ideological factors such as the
norms, knowledge and values expected of women’s speech in the community. In
showing that the social and ideological factors relevant to an individual interaction
are not merely the belief of an individual researcher but the historically constructed
norm, knowledge and value shared in the community, the historical-discourse
analysis simultaneously complements studies of local linguistic practice.

Discourse as data

If women’s linguistic practice has not naturally evolved into the notion of women’s
language, what has constructed women’s language? The historical-discourse ap-
proach assumes that the construction of the ideology of women’s language has
arisen from discourse rather than through repeated use by women. We have al-
ready seen that etiquette manuals of feminine speech play an important role in
maintaining the norms of women’s language. Conversations in the media and
translated works effectively reproduce the knowledge of women’s language. Read-
ers’ letters to newspapers play a major role in preserving the belief that women in
the past used feminine language. These etiquette manuals, conversations in the
media, and readers’ letters constitute what I call “discourse.” Following Michel
Foucault’s definition of discourse as “practices that systematically form the objects
of which they speak” (Foucault 1981[1972]: 49), it becomes possible to consider
women’s language as being constructed by these discourses. The essentialist-evo-
lutionary approach, as pointed out earlier, focuses on the analysis of women’s local
linguistic practices as discourses that formed the notion of women’s language. The
historical-discourse approach, by contrast, considers that discourses such as

reveals an interesting tendency that restriction imposed by a linguistic resource enables creative
linguistic practices. The features of Japanese women’s language are associated with particular
identity categories, typically that of a grown-up, heterosexual, and middleclass woman. That is
why young girls (Okamoto & Sato 1992; Miyazaki 2004) and lesbians (Maree 2007) often avoid
speaking women’s language, innovating new usages. At the end of Chapter 1, I will cite an ex-
ample in which the norms of feminine speech function as both restrictions on and resource for
women’s practice.

www.ebook777.com
30 Gender, language and ideology

etiquette manuals, readers’ letters to newspapers and media conversations have


constructed women’s language.
I call these discourses “metalinguistic practices.” Recent work in sociolinguis-
tics and linguistic anthropology on language ideologies has been concerned with
the ways our understanding of language is shaped by metalinguistic practice
(Blommaert 1999; Kroskrity 2000; Schieffelin, et al. 1998). Talk about local prac-
tice has been variously termed as metapragmatics (Silverstein 1979), metadiscur-
sive practices (Bauman & Briggs 2000), metalanguage (Jaworski, et al. 2004), or
metadiscourse (Hyland 2005), depending on which aspect of the process the re-
searcher wants to emphasize. Here I use the term “metalinguistic practices” to
emphasize the importance of locating them in a specific political process. Al-
though the term “(linguistic) practice” commonly refers to the use of language in
interactional contexts, it can also apply to metadiscursive practice, “discourse to
represent and regulate other discourses” (Bauman & Briggs 2000: 142). For in-
stance, most people have traditionally regarded grammar books as describing the
way a language is spoken. However, grammar books in fact mainly delineate one
variety of language as standard and play crucial roles in forming its normative
value, giving great privilege to those who speak it. The redefinition of grammar
books as practice, therefore, enables us to highlight who conducted these practices
in what political process and why. It relocates academic publications in what
Michael Silverstein (1998: 136) has called ideological sites, “institutional sites of
social practice as both object and modality of ideological expression.”
Metalinguistic practices have been divided into two types, explicit metaprag-
matics and implicit metapragmatics. Kathryn Woolard (1998: 9) distinguishes ex-
plicit metapragimatics, explicit talk about language, and implicit metapragmatics,
linguistic signaling that is part of the stream of language use in process and that
simultaneously indicates how to interpret that language-in-use, such as contextu-
alization cues. I argue, however, that the distinction between local practices and
both fictional and non-fictional practices in the media is more crucial in analyzing
the ideology of women’s language, since I deny the view that only women’s local
linguistic practices have constructed the ideology of women’s language. Therefore,
although I do not deny that people’s attitudes towards women’s language can be
discovered in women’s local practices, I do not include local practices as data in
this book. Instead, I claim that two types of discourse play major roles in the con-
struction of the ideology of women’s language: explicit commentary on women’s
speech produced mainly by intellectuals and language usage in the media. The
former category includes etiquette books, school textbooks, dictionaries, gram-
mar books and commentaries by intellectuals. By evaluating, criticizing, and
giving norms for women’s speech, they construct women’s speech as a socially im-
portant topic and categorize heterogeneous women’s speech into homogeneous

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 31

women’s language. The latter category includes conversations in novels, movies,


TV dramas, comics, TV games, advertisements, and folktales (Sutton 1999), and
Japanese translation of these media (Inoue 2003; Reynolds 2001). The book, there-
fore, does not answer questions such as how women and men use language differ-
ently, whether women’s speech is politer than men’s, or whether women speak
more than men, so as to find linguistic gender differences by conducting empirical
studies on linguistic interactions between women and men. Those research objec-
tives, widely considered valid in the past, become meaningless once we accept that
the linguistic practices of Japanese women are too diverse to be categorized in the
single notion of women’s language.
Both quality and quantity of metalinguistic practice are relevant to its effect on
the production of women’s language. Not all practices equally have an effect on the
creation of women’s language. Academic metalinguistic practices are assigned the
privilege to define what linguistic features should and should not be included in
women’s language. The development of mass media enables an enormous amount
of circulation and consumption of particular discourses, while ignoring others.
Metalinguistic practices conducted through these privileged channels produce,
reproduce, and, sometimes, transform the ideology of women’s language. Thus,
the data of my analysis in this study will consist of the metalinguistic discourses of
those who have enjoyed academic and political privilege and the wider circula-
tions of their statements: Japanese linguists, language-policy makers, novel writ-
ers, educators, and politicians.

Historical perspective

Its historical perspective distinguishes the historical-discourse approach to wom-


en’s language from the previous approach. By “historical perspective,” however, I
do not mean to suggest that a particular ancient language usage is the “origin” of
women’s language, assuming the direct evolution from women’s speech to the ide-
ology of women’s language. Nor does the term suggest treating written materials of
the past as directly representing women’s actual speech of the period, ignoring the
fact that they are metalinguistic comments. Rather, historical perspective is in-
sightful because it makes explicit why a particular discourse became possible, ac-
ceptable, and meaningful in what political, economic, and academic processes,
while other discourses were excluded. In the case of women’s language, I claim that
a political and economic need to distinguish people by gender and to form the
marked identity category of woman at a particular historical juncture made dis-
courses about women’s speech meaningful, and those metalinguistic discourses
produced the ideology of women’s language. As Miyako Inoue (2006: 16) has
emphasized, what is important is not so much the content of what is said about

www.ebook777.com
32 Gender, language and ideology

women’s speech, “but the sheer fact that it is said, or can be said in certain contexts
by certain agents, and the fact that what is said is intelligibly repeatable in other
domains of the society.” Historical study also needs to pay attention to what tech-
nological and industrial development made it possible for a particular discourse to
be circulated and duplicated. By revealing what social processes made whose
discourse possible and meaningful in the construction of women’s language, his-
torical studies are able to undermine the naturalized legitimacy granted to the
ideology of women’s language. The historical-discourse approach deconstructs
and denaturalizes the value and affect assigned to women’s language by describing
the exact historical process of the value assignment.
In the field of gender and English language, even after the perspective to define
women’s language as an ideological construct has been proposed, the historical-
discourse analysis of women’s language has never become a major approach. The
main reason is, I presume, that the notion of English women’s language itself is not
as hegemonic and salient as in Japanese language. In the field of gender and
Japanese language, by contrast, the theoretical development has been expanded
with the groundbreaking work by Miyako Inoue (2006). Because of its hegemonic,
normative status and rich meaning, Japanese women’s language has provided one
of the most interesting data sets for an ideological approach to language and gen-
der studies. Inoue has made great theoretical contribution to that field, arguing
that “Japanese women’s language” is not a natural outcome of women’s speech
originated at some ancient time, but emerged in a new discursive space opened up
by Japan’s modernization process in the late nineteenth and the early twentieth
century. In this discursive space, both gender and language became problematized
as targets of national and capitalist interest. On the one hand, Japan’s nation-state
formation developed modern legal and social systems, from which the new cate-
gory of “modern Japanese women” emerged. On the other hand, the language
standardization movement enhanced the rise of the novel, which, along with the
development of publication capitalism, adopted “schoolgirl speech” to create the
language of “modern Japanese women.” Women’s language, Inoue demonstrates,
was never an accurate representation of the speech of any group of women, but an
ideological construct enabled in the modern discursive space. Instigated by In-
oue’s work, several studies have been conducted to examine the genealogy of
Japanese women’s language (Endo 1997; Nakamura 2001, 2007a, 2012; Okamoto
& Shibamoto Smith 2004; Washi 2004; and the articles in Gender and Language
2[1] special issue on Japanese women and language 2008).
This book, while attempting to develop the theoretical agenda proposed by In-
oue (2006), differs from it in three ways. First, though Inoue argues that Japanese
women’s language was established in Japan’s modernization period, I will demon-
strate, by analyzing discourse in the premodern era, that Japanese women’s speech

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 33

had already been objectified and normalized much earlier than the modern period.
Part 1 will show that the norms of feminine speech and the association between
court-women’s speech and femininity were constructed in the premodern period.
This indicates that an attempt to determine when Japanese women’s language was
established comes to a different conclusion according to how the researcher con-
ceptualizes the notion of women’s language. What Inoue calls “Japanese women’s
language” does not include the premodern norms of feminine speech. I will not try
to define, therefore, when the ideology of women’s language was established, be-
cause what we now call women’s language differs from women’s language in differ-
ent periods. Rather than attempting to determine when Japanese women’s language
was established, I intend to examine the processes in which the norms, knowledge,
and values of women’s language have been constructed, transformed and layered,
responding to different political conditions of different historical periods. Second,
the conceptualization of women’s language in the book is wider in including the
norms and values as well as the knowledge of women’s language. Inoue mostly con-
ceptualizes the notion of women’s language as a set of linguistic and stylistic features
indexically associated with femininity, what I refer to as the knowledge of women’s
language. This book shows, by considering the norms and values as important as-
pects of women’s language as well, that the historical-discourse approach is effective
in analyzing the process by which the ideology of women’s language obtains a
particular normative function and affective value. Third, Inoue argues, based on
postcolonial theories, that Japanese women’s language is “vicarious language that
universally represents and speaks for the voice of Japanese women that is not theirs”
(2006: 4). This is an important argument enabling new questions concerning the
linguistic identity construction of Japanese women who are non-standard speakers.
Since Japanese women’s language is a standard variety, as she correctly points out,
female non-standard speakers experience stronger “vicariousness” than standard
speakers. Compared to the difficulty and hardship found in the linguistic identity
construction of postcolonial women, however, Japanese women are given much
more freedom to speak as they like. As Inoue’s own analysis demonstrates, female
non-standard speakers use women’s language, if they wish. To investigate the iden-
tity construction of Japanese women, it is necessary to analyze the data of discourse
in detail before directly applying postcolonial theories to Japanese women. From
Chapters 7 to 10, I analyze discourse produced during the periods of Japan’s coloni-
zation of East Asia in WWII and the U.S. occupation of Japan after WWII, attempt-
ing to show exactly what effect the colonization and the occupation had on the
relationship between women and language in the specifically Japanese situation.
I do not intend, however, to make a complete inventory of discourse on
Japanese women’s speech. The discourses analyzed constitute only a portion of dis-
courses produced in each historical period; with page limitations, I could not cite all

www.ebook777.com
34 Gender, language and ideology

the discourse data I have uncovered. Rather than attempting to cite as many dis-
courses as possible, I include the discourse data relevant to Japan’s major political
and historical junctures. By analyzing the shifting relationships between language
and women from the thirteenth century to the middle of the twentieth and describ-
ing the comprehensive genealogy of Japanese women’s language in that timeframe,
I will construct a solid basis for further analysis. Most of the data, as a result, consist
of academic discourses, demonstrating their crucial role in constructing the ideol-
ogy of women’s language. Academic discourses, though often stated in scientific,
objective, and apolitical styles, clearly wield a political function in tacitly supporting
existing power relationships. I will demonstrate that academic discourses not only
are given an authoritative privilege, but also have constituted a dense network by
referring to each other. I hope further research will analyze non-academic, sub-
cultural and popular discourses to improve, reform, and reformulate my analysis.
In my translations of the discourse data, I have chosen to keep the original
expressions and styles to the extent possible, even if that results in awkward read-
ing in English, because I am convinced that the social, affective nuances expressed
by the original discourses are crucial in conducting discourse analysis. I hope
readers will enjoy the experience of reading “the Foreign as Foreign” (Berman
2004[1985]: 277).21 In citing the discourse data, I prefer using the present tense,
with some exceptions when the present tense feels awkward in the translation.

Organization of the book

The book is divided into four parts, sequenced chronologically. In Part 1, I analyze
discourses about women’s speech in Japan’s premodern period from the thirteenth

21. In translation studies, foreignization translation has been advocated to avoid the ethnocen-
tricity in Anglo-American translation. A nineteenth-century theologian and translator, Friedrich
Schleiermacher (2004[1813]: 49) states that, as a translator is required to respond to the opposite
needs of writer and reader, there are only two possibilities, alienating and naturalizing: “[e]ither
the translator leaves the author in peace as much as possible and moves the reader toward him;
or he leaves the reader in peace as much as possible and moves the writer toward him [sic].”
While the two methods of translation, alienating and naturalizing, have remained a major theme
of translation studies, many translation scholars have advocated alienating translation. The larg-
est reason for supporting alienating translation is that naturalizing translation negates, acclima-
tizes and erases the foreignizing essence of the original text. Berman (2004[1985]: 277) argues
that “the properly ethical aim of the translating act” is “receiving the Foreign as Foreign”
(emphasis original). Accordingly, Venuti (1995: 15) points out the ethnocentricity in Anglo-
American “domestication” translation, and proposes to carry out “foreignization” translation,
giving “an ethnodeviant pressure on those values to register the linguistic and cultural differ-
ences of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad.”

www.ebook777.com
Introduction 35

to the end of the nineteenth centuries, aiming to describe how the norms of femi-
nine speech were created in Japan. Chapter 1 shows that conduct books (etiquette
manuals), discussing how women should speak for hundreds of years, constructed
the norms of feminine speech, a metalinguistic tradition still observed in etiquette
manuals today. In Chapter 2, I will examine the discourses of media and conduct
books concerning court-women’s speech from the seventeenth to nineteenth cen-
turies and delineate the process by which court-women’s speech was gradually
transformed from upper-class speech into the norms of feminine speech. The dis-
course of conduct books, I will demonstrate, exploited court-women’s speech, the
creative speech of women working in the imperial court in the fourteenth century,
to reinforce the norms of feminine speech from the seventeenth to the nineteenth
centuries. This gives one answer, I will argue, to the question asked above, why
subversive performances often remain ephemeral, leaving the prevailing power
order largely untouched.
In Part 2, I analyze discourses in Japan’s modernization period from the end of
the nineteenth century to the middle of the twentieth, demonstrating that gender
played a crucial role in the process by which nationalization and standardization
reinforced each other to construct modern linguistic ideologies in Japan. In
Chapter 3, I investigate the discourses produced by linguists and intellectuals in
the debates concerning the establishment of Japanese national language, and show
that the ideology of national language, in fact, was originally conceptualized as
men’s national language, assuming male citizens as primary speakers. The associa-
tion between national language and masculinity, I will argue, accounts for the
differences between the contemporary notions of women’s language and men’s
language. Chapter 4 analyzes conduct books (etiquette manuals) and school
moral textbooks, and examines how intellectuals rationalized reproducing the
norms of feminine speech originated in conduct books in the premodern period,
despite the radical social change of Japan’s modernization. My analysis will show
that, Japanese intellectuals, by reframing premodern norms within modern politi-
cal ideologies, transformed the premoden norms of ideal feminine speech into the
modern norms for female citizens of the modern nation state. Chapter 5 investi-
gates the construction process of schoolgirl speech by analyzing conversations in
novels and comics and comments by intellectuals concerning the speech of female
students, the newly emerging, educated, young women. The investigation
into schoolgirl speech is particularly important in the analysis of the genealogy
of Japanese women’s language, since the sentence-final forms characterizing
schoolgirl speech constitute what we now call Japanese women’s language. The
analysis demonstrates that fictional conversations in novels played a major role in
constructing associations between the sentence-final forms and the identity of
schoolgirl. A particular speech style created by some of the female students, as a

www.ebook777.com
36 Gender, language and ideology

result, was categorized into schoolgirl speech, characterized by sexuality. The


writers of novels, I will show, exploit the creative speech of female students to
transform educated, young women into sex objects for men. Chapter 6 examines
grammar books and school language readers published to prescribe Japanese na-
tional language and shows that linguists excluded linguistic features associated
with women from Japanese national language. I will conclude Part 2 at the end of
Chapter 6 and argue that the linguistic ideologies in Japan’s modernization period
were asymmetrically distinguished by gender.
In Part 3, I analyze discourses produced during the war period from 1914 to
the end of WWII in 1945 and show that it was under colonialism and national
mobilization when the ideology of a gendered Japanese national language, the be-
lief that women and men speak differently in Japan, was established. Chapter 7
demonstrates that linguists defined women’s language as an imperial tradition
originating with the emperor system, when it became necessary to prove the supe-
riority of the Japanese language to legitimate colonization of East Asian countries
by teaching Japanese language. I will argue that it was during the war period in the
middle of the twentieth century when Japanese women’s language was invented as
tradition. Chapter 8 analyzes grammar books and school language readers and
shows that linguists, by emphasizing the importance of linguistic gender differ-
ences and incorporating linguistic features associated with women into the na-
tional language, created the ideology of a gendered Japanese national language.
Linguists incorporated into national language only those feminine linguistic fea-
tures which corresponded with the definition of standard Japanese, resulting in
today’s explicit distinction between women’s language and men’s language only in
standard Japanese.
In Part 4, I analyze discourses during the U.S. Occupation from 1945 to 1952
and explore how and why the ideology of women’s language and the belief in
women’s language as a tradition of the Japanese language survived under the gen-
der-equality policy of the Occupation. Chapter 9 points out that, while some intel-
lectuals criticized women’s language as an obstacle for gender equality, linguists,
by redefining women’s language as speech based on women’s “innate femininity,”
separated women’s language from social inequality. Paradoxically, because the
Occupation authorities promoted gender equality, Japanese linguists invented the
new definition of women’s language based on women’s nature. Chapter 10 shows
that linguists stopped mentioning the emperor in their postwar discussions of
women’s language, thereby depoliticizing it, while school readers and grammar
books continued to teach a gendered Japanese language. Naturalized and depoliti-
cized, women’s language ostensibly became a tradition of the Japanese language
that Japanese women have been speaking based on their natural femininity, the
argument still prevalent today.

www.ebook777.com
part 1

Women’s speech as the object of regulation


The premodern period

The purpose of Part 1 is to investigate how the norms of feminine speech, one of
the three aspects of today’s notion of Japanese women’s language, were constructed
by examining the discourses of conduct books (etiquette manuals) from the thir-
teenth to nineteenth centuries, the premodern period. Chapter 1 analyzes the
norms that premodern conduct books gave concerning women’s ways of speaking
and the changes observed in how those norms were presented in the conduct
books. Chapter 2, focusing on nyooboo kotoba (court-women’s speech), consid-
ered an early example of Japanese women’s language (as in the Japanese dictionary
definition in the Introduction), analyzes discourses in the media and the conduct
books from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries to describe how differently
those discourses used court-women’s speech.
Before I delve into the discourse analysis of conduct books, I would like to
preface my arguments in Part 1, with a very brief sketch of Japan’s history from the
thirteenth to nineteenth centuries. Beginning with the import of Buddhist scrip-
tures and documents in the fifth and sixth centuries and, later, with the import and
full-scale adaptation of Confucianism as Japan’s prevailing socio-political philoso-
phy by the seventeenth century, Chinese culture and language profoundly
influenced Japan’s scholars and intellectuals; learning kanji (Chinese characters)
became one of the most important endeavors for male intellectuals. At some point
in the eighth to ninth centuries, the Japanese devised two simpler kinds of pho-
netic writing, hiragana and katakana, by reforming the shapes of Chinese charac-
ters. The Japanese language, therefore, has three official writing systems, kanji,
hiragana and katakana (Roman letters are also used today). As indicated in the
Introduction, women were prohibited from using, speaking and learning Chinese
characters and words and from reading Chinese books. Japan’s Middle Ages is
generally divided into the Kamakura period (1185–1333) and the Muromachi pe-
riod (1336–1573), featuring government dominated by samurai (warriors) fami-
lies. After the Sengoku period (Period of Warring State), 1493–1590, Tokugawa
Ieyasu established his feudal government at Edo (the old name for Tokyo) in 1603
and the Feudal Ages (the Edo period) began and continued until 1867. The pre-
modern period ended when the Tokugawa shogunate resigned in 1867.

www.ebook777.com
www.ebook777.com
chapter 1

The norms of feminine speech

Too many words mean speaking too much. [If a woman speaks] too much
and nags, that makes trouble for the father-son, brothers, and relatives,
and brings discord to the family. An ancient proverb says: “A woman’s long
tongue is the origin of trouble.” It means that women’s talk brings trouble
to the country. Also, Shoo sho [an authoritative book of Confucianism in
China] says: “It goes ill in the house where the hen sings.” As the singing
hen destroys the family, a woman speaking like a man brings the family
trouble. Most family trouble is caused by women. A woman’s trouble al-
ways comes out of her mouth. Restrain yourself from speaking.
Kaibara Ekiken (1710) Wazoku dooshi kun
[Lessons for Japanese Children]
In 1710, a well-known Confucian scholar, Kaibara Ekiken, in the chapter on educat-
ing women of his conduct book, Wazoku dooshi kun [Lessons for Japanese Children],
warned women not to speak, because a woman’s talk brings discord to her family
and trouble to the country (Kaibara 1977: 14). By “conduct book,” I refer to a group
of books, called jokun sho (woman’s conduct book) or joshiyoo oorai (textbook for
women), compiled in enormous numbers to educate women in the premodern and
the early modern periods, from the twelfth to twentieth centuries.1
The norms of women’s speech today, as I have shown by the list of etiquette
manuals in the Introduction, are strongly associated with femininity. Polite, soft,

1. Jokun sho (conduct books) cover a wider range of topics than etiquette manuals, from mo-
rality, citations from Buddhist and Confucian scriptures, and life stories of heroic women to
norms of calligraphy and letter writing and knowledge about the chief events of the year, geog-
raphy, history and industry, as well as etiquette in social life. Ishikawa Matsutaroo (1973: 18)
categorizes conduct books from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries into four groups; the
moral type, the epistolary type, the social type, and the knowledge type. The moral type is the
oldest type and consists of the largest number of conduct books, those giving moral and disci-
plinary lessons women should keep in mind. Lessons on women’s speech are often included in
such books. The epistolary type consists of model sentences in letters and model forms of official
documents and contracts, as well as etiquette in socializing with others. The social type teaches
about customs, cultures (e.g. how to write poems), common sense, and the chief events of the
year (e.g. how to celebrate New Year’s Day). The knowledge type gives information on various
topics such as geography, history and industry.

www.ebook777.com
40 Gender, language and ideology

and indirect speech today functions as the norm of women’s speech because it is
considered to be feminine speech. The citation by Kaibara Ekiken shows, however,
that it was deemed necessary in the eighteenth century to control women’s speech,
not because women were expected to express their femininity when talking, but
because, in Confucian teaching, women’s talk was regarded as a dangerous act that
would bring trouble to their families and country. This chapter, therefore, has two
purposes. First, by going back to women’s conduct books in the premodern period,
I will explore why and how women’s speech became the object of regulation, con-
trol and domination. Second, by analyzing the changes in how the norms of
women’s speech are presented in conduct books, I will attempt to show how those
norms which originally emerged to control women’s dangerous talk came to be
associated with femininity, and what the association with femininity implies about
the ideological domination of women’s speech.

Women’s conduct books

Women’s relation to language had been problematized long before the modern pe-
riod. Abundant comment about women’s speech occurred in conduct books for
women, which were prevalent from the twelfth to nineteenth centuries. Ishikawa
Matsutaroo (1973: 12), who, with his father Ishikawa Ken, compiled 44 books in
which they included the major textbooks used in the history of education in Japan,
states that, since the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, “as Buddhism and Confucian-
ism took root in Japan, their andro-centric view of predomination of men over
women immediately reigned supreme in women’s education in Japan.” In the seven-
teenth to nineteenth centuries, an enormous number of women’s conduct books
were published based on these doctrines. The establishment of this genre resulted in
the belief that women and men needed different forms of discipline. The books gave
instructions on various aspects of women’s lives. On language use, while the books
also referred to appropriate ways of speaking, the basic norm remained the same for
hundreds of years: women should not speak. As conduct books produced the nor-
mative discourse of how and how much women should talk and what they should
talk about for hundreds of years, women’s speech became an object of regulation,
control, and normalization. It became natural to comment on, evaluate, and criticize
women’s speech, focusing more on women’s ways of talking than on what they said.

The Kamakura and Muromachi periods (1185–1573)

During the twelfth to sixteenth centuries, as Confucian conduct books for women
flowed into Japan from China, some high-class Japanese women began writing

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 1.  The norms of feminine speech 41

their own conduct books for their daughters preparing for marriage. These early
conduct books already contained lessons on speech. For example, the writer of
Niwa no oshie [The Lessons of the Garden] (1283), also known as Uba no fumi [A
Letter from the Nursemaid], states that women should speak ambiguously, not
express emotions, and not speak carelessly:2
(1) And even when some good things happen, do not say you are happy or
that it is good…. Concerning your mind, your life, and others, speak am-
biguously and do not show your emotion. Keep everything in your mind.
It is bad to speak carelessly. (Hanawa 1932b: 208)
The book also repeats that women should not use Chinese characters: “Chinese
characters should not be used by women. But because they are used in the titles of
songs, not knowing them is troublesome” (Hanawa 1932b: 214). Chinese charac-
ters at the time were used in public and academic contexts. Women could learn
them but should not use them (cf. Introduction, note 16).
Menoto no sooshi [The Book of the Nursemaid] (late Kamakura 1192–1333)
was a conduct book for the women working in the imperial court. The author ad-
vises women to speak in a small voice and warns them not to speak roughly:
(2) When [your daughter] is about ten years old, make sure she stays deep
inside of the house and away from others. Bring her up [as a person] with
a stable mind who speaks in a small voice. Do not let her do whatever she
wants, speak roughly, or lounge near the porch. (Hanawa 1932b: 236)
The writer of Mi no katami [Half of the Body] (Muromachi 1392–1573) also re-
monstrates against speaking with the mouth wide open:
(3) No. 6 The mouth, whether it be wide or narrow, should speak in a small
voice. However good looking a mouth, it becomes ugly if it drips saliva
from the sides and laughs at funny things while wide open, with the tip of
the tongue in motion and the hole of the throat visible. However bad look-
ing a mouth, it will look good if it speaks slowly and in a low voice.
 (Hanawa 1932b: 254)
Figure 1.1 shows the page on which the above citation (3) is written. (Japanese is
written vertically and read from right to left.)

2. As the editors and authors of conduct books are unknown, with few exceptions, I refer to
the books by their titles. There are many versions of the same conduct books because early con-
duct books were hand copied and later revised for wider readers. It is impossible to obtain and
check all versions, so I cite discourses from the versions that have been reprinted.

www.ebook777.com
42 Gender, language and ideology

Figure 1.1  Mi no katami [Half of the Body] (Muromachi 1392–1573) (Digital Document
of Japan National Diet Library).

Ishikawa Matsutaroo (1973: 15) points out the differences between Menoto no
sooshi and Mi no katami, saying that while Menoto no sooshi is based on the care-
free characteristics of the Middle Ages, Mi no katami presents the influence of
Buddhism and Confucianism and is characterized by more andro-centric descrip-
tions. Their discourses on language use, however, do not show much difference;
they prevent women from opening their mouths and speaking.

The Edo period (1603–1868)

Women’s conduct books in the Kamakura and Muromachi periods, written for the
writers’ daughters and granddaughters preparing for marriage, were circulated
only among the upper classes. In contrast, Edo period conduct books were pub-
lished and duplicated in enormous numbers, extending their influence beyond
social-class boundaries. The carefree view of women in the Middle Ages and the
andro-centric view of Buddhism and Confucianism gradually merged into the

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 1.  The norms of feminine speech 43

feudal family system (Ishikawa 1973: 15). Thus the roles of yome (son’s wife) and
tsuma (wife), required to maintain the family, were framed in the form of concrete
manners and etiquette. In contrast to earlier conduct books focusing on prepara-
tion for marriage, Edo conduct books emphasized the role of the son’s wife and
taught women to obey their husbands and their husbands’ parents. Central to these
books were the Confucian lesson of shi koo (lit. four behaviors, four important
things women have to learn): fu-toku (female-virtue), fu-gen (female-­language),
fu-yoo (female-appearance), and fu-koo (female-skills). Fu-toku refers to the moral
virtues women should strictly attain and maintain. Fu-gen refers to the speech
women should use in their daily lives. Fu-yoo refers to the appearance appropriate
for women. Fu-koo is concerned with techniques in calligraphy, Japanese songs,
and sewing.3 It is worth noting that women’s speech was considered to constitute
one of the four principle aspects for women in the feudal system.
Examples of early conduct books are Jokun sho [Women’s Disciplinary Ex-
cerpts] (1642) and Katakoto [The Other Language] (1650). The second chapter of
Jokun sho, is titled Go shoo san shoo (Five troubles and three obediences), a well-
known Buddhist lesson, meaning, as a woman was born with five troubles and
cannot therefore enter Nirvana, she should obey three men; her father, her hus-
band, and her son. In the second chapter, there are descriptions of bad and good
speech. Bad speech includes forgetting that “the mouth is the origin of trouble,”
laughing freely, speaking ill of someone, and spreading rumors:
(4) If you laugh at things that are not funny, if you speak ill of someone be-
cause the person does not agree with you, if you spread rumors, if you
speak and laugh about something of which you are not supposed to speak,
and if it is heard, you will destroy yourself. The mouth is the origin of
trouble. The tongue is the root of trouble. This is the simple truth.
 (Ishikawa 1973: 86)
Good speech is to speak in a clear, small voice and not to speak too much. Notice
here that good speech defines a good woman. How she uses language determines
her value as a woman:
(5) When you speak, your voice and words should be clear. Such a woman is
a good woman…. Do not let your voice be heard beyond the walls…. Do
not praise others too much nor speak ill of others. Do not speak too much.
 (Ishikawa 1973: 75)

3. The notion of shi koo (four behaviors) comes from Jo sei [Women Sincerity] written by the
Chinese woman, Soo Taika.

www.ebook777.com
44 Gender, language and ideology

Katakoto (1650) says that children, young men, and women should speak softly,
avoid difficult or argumentative language, and use the Japanese readings of words:
(6) The words of children, young men, and women should be in a soft, small
voice. They should be in a low, small, and weak voice. Difficult, rough
words are not suitable. Chinese words should be pronounced in their Jap-
anese readings. (Shiraki 1976: 17)
Chinese characters have two ways of reading in Japanese, on yomi (sound reading)
and kun yomi (Japanese reading). The terms used for academic, legal, and political
knowledge are usually read in on yomi. The Japanese indigenous terms and those
used in everyday life are often read in kun yomi. “Chinese words should be pro-
nounced in their Japanese readings” in Katakoto, in other words, prohibit children,
young men, and women from acquiring knowledge or showing intelligence in
their speech.
In the middle of the Edo period (Genroku years 1688–1703), many kinds of
choohoo ki, encyclopedias explaining everyday knowledge in divided sections, ap-
peared. One of the most widely read choohooki for women was Onna choohooki
[Women’s Encyclopedia] (1692), written by Namura Joohaku. Nagatomo Chiyoji
(1993: 386), who edited the reprint of Onna choohooki, assumes that its popularity
was due to the new style of editing the same norms and knowledge in previous
encyclopedias (choohooki) for women “in educational stories complied in a small-
er size book with many illustrations” (Chapter 2, Figure 2.1). On women’s speech,
Onna choohooki gives four major lessons, from (7a) to (7d), by presenting explicit
norms and prohibitions with lists of concrete words.
(7) a. The prohibition against speaking too much
The section, “What Women Should and Should Not Do,” advises
women against “speaking too much, being undutiful to their mothers-
in-law, indulging in sex, smoking, and gossiping” (Namura 1993[1692,
1693]: 21). Note that “speaking too much” is prohibited as a bad
behavior comparable to “being undutiful to their mothers-in-law” and
“indulging in sex.”
b. The segregation of women’s and men’s speech
Women should not be brought up near men. Those who are brought
up among men will have a man’s heart and learn men’s speech. It is
harsh and unpleasant to listen to women who use men’s language.
Women’s speech should be ambiguous and soft. It is bad to use diffi-
cult words and try to appear sophisticated. Add o and moji to every
word to make it soft. (Namura 1993[1692, 1693]: 24–25)

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 1.  The norms of feminine speech 45

The last sentence, “add o and moji to every word,” refers to nyooboo kotoba (court-
women’s speech), characterized by the addition of the polite prefix o- as in o-gushi
(hair) and the polite suffix -moji as in so-moji (you). Here, the speech used by court
women since the fourteenth century is redefined as the norm for all women. (I will
discuss court-women’s speech in detail in Chapter 2.)
c. The negative value accorded use of Chinese words
Onna choohooki, like previous conduct books, prohibits the use of
Chinese words, the language of knowledge (cf. Introduction, note 16).
I will cite the first three sentences, in which the underlined words are
the Chinese words and the others are the Japanese words:
It is bad to say kerai (servant) or genin, when you should say uchi no
mono or shita shita. It sounds hard if you say naigi (landlady) or
naishitsu, when you should say oku-sama or ouchi-sama. It is coarse to
say teishu (husband) or otoko, when you should say tono or gotei.
 (Namura 1993[1692, 1693]: 25–26)
Note that the evaluative expressions, “bad,” “hard,” and “coarse” used in the above
examples, put an extremely negative value on the use of Chinese words by women.
d. The list of prohibited words
Onna choohooki also presents a list of words women are not allowed to
use, such as nikui yatsu (disgusting guy), shikato (certainly), hidoi
(cruel), kebiru (vulgar), yaku (jealous), and ikiji (pride), and con-
cludes: “A good woman should not say a single word on the list.”
 (Namura 1993[1692,1693]: 27)
There were, of course, norms on men’s speech. However, while women, from the
beginning, were not allowed the right to speak, men’s conduct books simply gave
instructions concerning how to use language. In Nan choohooki [Men’s Encyclope-
dia] (1693), written by the same author of Onna choohooki, for example, there is no
chapter corresponding to “On Women’s Language Use” in Onna choohooki. Nan
choohooki has the chapter, “Words Used by Feudal Lords.” This chapter simply gives a
list of words, such as “sankin means to go to Edo city,” telling that the word refers to
the alternate-year residence of a feudal lord in Edo (Namura 1993[1692, 1693]: 231).
Toward the end of the Edo period, as Japanese society saw a high cultural de-
velopment, more educational places, called terakoya (lit. temple schools, private
elementary schools for children of commoners), were established. According to
Ishikawa Matsutaroo (1973: 17–18), there were 13,816 terakoya (8,636 for both
girls and boys and 5,180 for boys) and 740,892 children (592,754 boys and 148,138
girls) went to terakoya during the period from 1804 to 1829. The city of Edo
had one of the highest literacy rates in the world. As more women began to learn

www.ebook777.com
46 Gender, language and ideology

reading and writing, a large number of women’s conduct books circulated as read-
ing-writing textbooks. There were 377 conduct books from the seventeenth to
nineteenth centuries, with the peak at the middle of the nineteenth century
(Ishikawa 1973: 46). The development of printing technology enabled the produc-
tion of many prints of the books and enhanced their circulation. Previous books
were quoted extensively and the same discourses were duplicated. They urged con-
scientious reflection on women’s speech, developing in great detail that women
were neither to speak nor laugh nor to open their mouths. As women learned
reading and writing by copying these books, learning how to read and write meant
absorbing the norms and values given to speech in these books.
More than three hundred kinds of conduct books of the period can be divided
into four groups. I will cite one example for each group to demonstrate that all of
them give very similar lessons concerning speech. The first group is called Onna
imagawa [Women’s Manners by the Imagawa Family] group. The original book of
this group is considered to be Onna imagawa nishiki no kodakara [Women’s
Imagawa Brocade Treasure of Children] (1737), which was reprinted 38 times by
1883. Regarding speech, it repeats fu-gen (female-language) and counsels against
speaking too much:
(8) There are four behaviors for women…. The second, fu-gen, is women’s
language. Women should not speak too much, should use words selec-
tively, should not say what should not be said, should say only what should
be said, should say nothing that is unnecessary, and should be careful not
to have a reputation for being talkative. (Ishikawa 1973: 199–200)
The second is Onna jitsugo kyoo [Women’s Practical Language Lessons] group.
The original book of this group is thought to be Onna jitsugo kyoo/Onna dooshi kyoo
[Women’s Practical Language Lessons/Lessons for Female Children] (1695). It also
advises against speaking too much and recommends speaking in a small voice:
(9) A talkative woman has no elegance. She is like a flattering harlot.
Do not let your words be heard beyond the threshold. Be careful even
when you think you are being quiet.
Speak quietly when you speak. Do not let your lips open.
 (Ishikawa 1973: 251–252)
The third is Kana kyookun [Lessons of Language] group. The original of this
group is said to be Kana kyookun. The seventh lesson says, “In public … both men
and women should not speak too much. The mouth is the origin of trouble. The
tongue is the root of trouble” (Hanawa 1925a: 17). Totsugi bunshoo [A Primer on
Marriage] (1841), which belongs to this group, also counsels against speaking too
much, laughing loudly, and speaking freely:

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 1.  The norms of feminine speech 47

(10) No. 7 Among people, behave cheerfully. But it is disgraceful to speak too
much and to laugh loudly. Speaking too much is bad for both men and
women. The mouth is the origin of trouble. The tongue is the root of trou-
ble. Restrain yourself from speaking. (Ishikawa 1973: 297–298)
The fourth is Onna daigaku [Women’s Learning] group. This group is based on
Joshi o oshiyuru hoo [How to Educate Women], the fifth chapter of Wazoku dooshi
kun [Lessons for Japanese Children] (1710) by Kaibara Ekiken. Kaibara was an
egalitarian who believed in equality. In the first section of Joshi o oshiyuru hoo, he
says: “The people of the land, like myself, are all children of the land, that is they
are my brothers” (Kaibara 1977: 312). Nevertheless, in this chapter, he simply
explains the typical Confucian lessons for women we have seen, such as shi koo
(four behaviors) and san jyuu (three obediences), as well as shitsu kyo (seven
leaves), seven conditions in which a man should divorce a wife; the wife who does
not obey his parents, bears no child, commits adultery, is jealous, becomes sick,
talks too much, and steals.4 Notice that talking too much is one of the seven condi-
tions in which a man should divorce his wife. On speech as well, he repeats the
Confucian fu-gen (female-language) edicts, contradicting egalitarianism:
(11) There are four behaviors for women…. The second is female-language….
Female language means a good language. [It means] not to lie, to use
words selectively, not to use rough words unsuitable for women, and to
say what needs to be said, and not say unnecessary things, so that others
will not hate what you say. (Kaibara 1977: 10)
Also, as shown in the statement cited at the beginning of this Chapter, Kaibara
warns women not to speak, because a woman’s talk brings discord to her family
and trouble to the country. Kaibara, in spite of his egalitarianism, simply repeated
the Confucian view that prohibited women from speaking. Ishikawa (1977: 4) cor-
rectly points out that Kaibara does not realize the essential contradiction of advo-
cating egalitarianism, while repeating andro-centric lessons.
The original work of the Onna daigaku group is considered to be Onna daigaku
takara bunko [The Treasure Box of Women’s Learning] (1716, the editor un-
known). Although it is said to be based on Joshi o oshiyuru hoo, according to
Ishikawa (1977) who compared the two texts in detail, Onna daigaku takara bunko
differs from it in two major respects. First, “Onna daigaku takara bunko picks up
the norms of Joshi o oshiyuru hoo based on fu-toku (female-virtue) and simply

4. Go shoo san shoo (Five troubles and three obediences) is a Buddhist lesson for women.
Confucianism also tells women to follow san jyuu (three obediences), which has the same mean-
ing as san shoo. The phrase san jyuu is written in the same Chinese characters as san shoo but
pronounced differently.

www.ebook777.com
48 Gender, language and ideology

enumerates them in nineteen lessons. As a result, Onna daigaku takara bunko


completely diminished the egalitarianism of Joshi o oshiyuru hoo” (Ishikawa 1977:
29). This erased the contradiction between egalitarianism and the andro-centrism
found in Joshi o oshiyuru hoo, but retained andro-centrism in the forms of every-
day manners and etiquette. On women’s speech, Onna daigaku takara bunko re-
peats that women’s talk brings trouble to the family:
(12) a. A woman has seven leaves, seven bad deeds…. A woman of too many
words and too much talk will break with relatives and bring trouble to
the family, so she should leave [one should divorce a talkative wife].
b. [A woman] should refrain from speaking. Do not speak ill of others. Do
not lie. When you hear someone speaking ill of others, restrain yourself
from speaking and do not say it. Speaking ill of others will create a break
with relatives and bring trouble to the family.(Ishikawa 1973: 307, 309)

Figure 1.2  Kaibara Ekiken (1710) Joshi o oshiyuru hoo [How to Educate Women]
(Ishikawa 1977: 2).

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 1.  The norms of feminine speech 49

Figure 1.3  Onna daigaku takara bunko [The Treasure Box of Women’s Learning] (1716)
(Ishikawa 1977: 43–44).

The second major difference is concerned with the form of Onna daigaku
takara bunko. For the purpose of using it for the reading-writing textbook, Onna
daigaku takara bunko are written in larger characters, puts readings (furigana) to
most of the kanji (Chinese characters) and contains many illustrations. Compare
the first two pages of Joshi o oshiyuru hoo (1710) (Figure 1.2) with how the norm of
(13) cited above is presented in Onna daigaku takara bunko (Figure 1.3). While the
norms are simply written in words in Joshi o oshiyuru hoo, Onna daigaku takara
bunko uses larger sizes of characters, puts readings (small phonetic characters on
the right sides of Chinese characters) showing how to read each kanji, with a draw-
ing at the top of the left page. These revisions were made, Ishikawa (1977: 29) pre-
sumes, to make it appropriate as a reading-writing textbook and accessible and easy
to understand for wider female learners. The norms in the four groups of conduct
books, as I will show in Chapter 4, were inherited by the moral textbooks in the
modern period, exerting an enormous influence on women’s education in Japan.

Association with femininity

In the premodern period, therefore, it was deemed necessary to police, censor, and
control women’s speech because women’s speech was regarded as a dangerous act
that could destroy the proper order among relatives, family, and even within the
country. The norms of feminine speech today, in contrast, are legitimated, because
women are expected to express femininity in their speech. How have the norms of
women’s speech, which were meant to control dangerous women’s talk, become

www.ebook777.com
50 Gender, language and ideology

associated with femininity? Related to this question were two changes observed
already in the eighteenth century in the way conduct books presented the norms
of women’s speech.
First, conduct books in the eighteenth century modified the discourse in grad-
ually deleting overtly andro-centric statements and, instead, presenting the norms
as a matter of common sense. During this period, as I have pointed out, more
women started learning reading and writing, and easy-to-read versions of conduct
books were produced for children and women who were not upper class. In the
case of the Onna daigaku [Women’s Learning] group, Ishikawa (1977: 283–293)
lists 42 different versions of conduct books in this group compiled during the Edo
period, and many more in the modern period. The newly edited conduct books
differed from the earlier ones in that, while the content was the same, they
presented the lessons in more casual ways; “they summarized the norms in easier
and shorter ways to make them appropriate for the reading-writing textbooks”
(Ishikawa 1973: 20). Many of them itemized concrete descriptions of behavior with
pictures and personal stories. As shown in Figure 1.1, conduct books in the four-
teenth to sixteenth centuries simply wrote the norms in words. An early example
of the use of pictures is Onna choohooki [Women’s Encyclopedia], written in 1692
(Chapter 2, Figure 2.1). This shift, as we have just seen, can be most vividly dem-
onstrated in the comparison between Joshi o oshiyuru hoo (1710) (Figure 1.2) and
Onna daigaku takara bunko (1716) (Figure 1.3). In the process of making conduct
books accessible and appropriate as reading-writing textbooks, the andro-centric
ideology became invisible, and each norm was presented as a simple lesson.
Second, at the same time as the first change occurred, the norms in conduct
books became imbued with the notions of hin (elegance), tsutsushimi (prudence,
discretion) and its verbal form, tsutsushimu or imashimu (be careful and restrain
yourself). As we have seen, Onna jitsugo kyoo [Women’s Practical Language Les-
sons] (1695) says in (9), “A talkative woman has no elegance” (Ishikawa 1973:
251–252). Here, “being talkative or not” is directly related to “having elegance or
not,” making talkativeness a determinant of a woman’s femininity. The notion of
tsutsushimi (prudence) first appeared in the phrase “the discretion and prudence
of language” in Fujin yashinaigusa [Book to Educate Women] in 1689 (Tanaka &
Tanaka 1971: 111). The expression tsutsushimi, since then, repeatedly appeared in
the phrase, kotoba o tsutsushimu or imashimu (restrain yourself from speaking).
The phrase, as shown in the last line of the citation at the beginning of this
Chapter, appears in Joshi o oshiyuru hoo [How to Educate Women] in 1710, is re-
cycled in Onna daigaku takara bunko [The Treasure Box of Women’s Learning]
(1716) in (12b), and Totsugi bunshoo [A Primer on Marriage] (1841) in (10), as
well as in “Language shows your nature, so be careful and restrain yourself from
speaking” (Ishikawa 1977: 65) in Shinsen onna yamato daigaku [Newly-Selected

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 1.  The norms of feminine speech 51

Women’s Japanese Learning] (1785). It also remained in use for centuries, as I will
demonstrate in Chapter 4, in the modern conduct books. The phrase “restrain
yourself from speaking,” by defining the prohibition of speaking as reflecting a
woman’s elegance and discretion, constructed the ideology that a truly elegant and
prudent woman is willing to be silent, rather than waiting to be told to shut her
mouth. Before, women were told not to speak because women’s talk brought trou-
ble. Now, women are told not to speak because a speaking woman is not elegant.
These two changes, I argue, function to increase the power of the norms.
Norman Fairclough (1989) points out that the most effective form of domination
requires naturalization of an ideology, rendering it common sense knowledge,
concealing its political function to bring benefit to a particular group, so that the
dominated are willing to follow the ideology. The shift observed in the ways the
norms were presented in conduct books is a more effective form of domination in
that it conceals the andro-centric politics of “women should not speak” and, at the
same time, is able to encourage women themselves to do their best not to speak.
The shift made it possible to ideologically control women, by making “women
should not speak” apolitical common sense. The andro-centric norms of women’s
speech, by being associated with the preferred feminine characteristics such as el-
egance and discretion, were naturalized as simple common sense women were
expected to follow. This argument implies that the etiquette manuals for women
today also naturalize their norms by imbuing them with femininity. Although to-
day’s etiquette manuals use the terms “elegant, wise, beautiful, happy, and loved”
instead of “elegance, prudence and discretion,” today’s norms of feminine speech
are also presented with ideal feminine features, encouraging women themselves to
do their best to follow these norms. The andro-centric norms given to control,
censor and regulate women’s free speech has been naturalized by being associated
with the preferred female characteristics of the time.

Conclusion

The discourse of conduct books, by continuously giving norms to women’s speech,


constructed the norms of feminine speech. By the norms of feminine speech, I
refer to a set of rules concerning how much, about what, and how women should
talk, defining a style of speaking considered ideal for women at each historical
juncture. The premodern norms of feminine speech were mainly characterized by
greater concern with whether women should talk at all, than with how they should
speak. The prohibition of too much talk seems to allow women to speak as long as
they do not speak too much. Since there is no specific quantity mentioned, how-
ever, any woman’s talk can be “too much.” The prohibition of too much talk is the

www.ebook777.com
52 Gender, language and ideology

prohibition of talking. As Dale Spender (1985: 42) points out, “The talkativeness of
women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence” (emphasis
original). The prohibitions against using Chinese words, speaking in a loud voice,
and laughing loudly also restricted women from acquiring knowledge, stating
opinions, and expressing emotion by the free use of language respectively. The
premodern norms of feminine speech emerged out of the andro-centric ideology
to dominate women by prohibiting them from opening their mouths. The main
rationalization given to the prohibition of speaking was the Confucian teaching
that a woman’s talk brings trouble, destroys the family, or even the country.
Women’s speech came to form not only a socially meaningful category attracting
people’s attention but also a dangerous category requiring constant vigilance to
police, censor, and control.
This perspective to frame women’s speech as an object of evaluation and criti-
cism has survived the emergence of Japan’s nation state and its modernization, as
we will see in Chapter 4, and wars in the early twentieth century, and has been
inherited by today’s etiquette manuals, as seen in the Introduction. Although what
constitutes feminine speech in each period differs, women’s way of talking has at-
tracted the interest and curiosity of Japanese people for a surprisingly long period
of time, maintaining and preserving the perspective of conceptualizing women’s
speech as the object of regulation, control and domination. To capture the conti-
nuity of normative discourses from the premodern to the modern period, I call the
norms of women’s speech in both premodern conduct books and today’s etiquette
manuals by the same phrase “the norms of feminine speech.” Conduct books of
the premodern period, while they did not use the term “femininity,” cited the pre-
ferred feminine characteristics of the time, such as elegance, prudence and discre-
tion. It is the long history of normative discourses that has constructed the norms
of feminine speech.
The discourse of premodern conduct books not only constructed the norms of
feminine speech but also a premodern ideology of ideal feminine speech. By that,
I mean the ideologically-constructed representation of women’s ideal linguistic
practices in the premodern period, which followed the norms of feminine speech,
such as not speaking too much, not using Chinese words, not speaking in a loud
voice and not laughing loudly. The discourses of conduct books, by giving norms
to women’s speech for hundreds of years, simultaneously defined what the ideal
feminine speech should be. Thus the ideology of feminine speech was character-
ized by its normative function, representing an ideal, model speech which female
speakers were supposed to learn and aim for. Just as the premodern norms of
feminine speech survived radical social changes from the eighteenth to the
twentieth centuries, the premodern ideology of feminine speech, as I will demon-
strate in Chapters 4 and 8, was preserved through the modern period (Chapter 4)

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 1.  The norms of feminine speech 53

and gradually incorporated into the notion of women’s language during WWII
(Chapter 8). The premodern ideology of feminine speech, in other words, would
ultimately constitute the normative aspect of women’s language, one of the three
major aspects of women’s language today. In investigating the relationships be-
tween women and language in the premodern period, therefore, it is crucial to
distinguish the premodern norms of feminine speech, the premodern ideology of
feminine speech and the actual linguistic practice of premodern women.
The norms of feminine speech are rules constructed by normative discourse
and should be strictly distinguished from women’s actual speech. The norms of
feminine speech, however, have an enormous effect on women’s linguistic practice,
policing, censoring, and controlling women’s speech. First, the norms of feminine
speech focus on how much and how women talk rather than what they say, forcing
women’s awareness of how much and how they speak when they make linguistic
choices. Second, the norms of feminine speech enable Japanese people to com-
ment, evaluate, and criticize a woman’s speech based on whether her way of talk-
ing is right or wrong, good or bad. A woman in any case, when she speaks, needs
to bear in mind the possibility that she will be criticized for speaking too much,
incorrectly, or badly. Third, it becomes legitimate to apply the same set of norms to
women’s speech no matter what their situation. In local interactions, women some-
times need to deviate from the norms. The norms of feminine speech, however,
legitimate the acts of applying the same constraints on all women’s linguistic acts
in any situation. Fourth, in addition to general norms of speech, a special norm
can be imposed on women’s speech. The general norms apply to any speaker irre-
spective of gender. The norms of feminine speech, by contrast, are applied only to
women’s speech. Any woman aiming to perform the same task as a man in her
linguistic interaction needs to consider the special constraints on women in addi-
tion to the general constraints.
The norms of feminine speech still restrict women’s free expression today,
evaluating women’s speech solely based on how she speaks rather than what she
says. In November 2009, a government committee started screening ministries’
budget requests. An Upper House female member of the committee, Renhoo, had
several fierce, face-to-face battles with bureaucrats and gained public attention.
On the last day of the committee’s deliberation, a 70-year-old male rock musician,
Uchida Yuuya, appeared in the budget-screening room. People were surprised to
find him in this most unexpected place. Why did he come? He answered a news-
paper reporter:
“The screening itself really shows democracy in action, but watching Renhoo on
TV, I got angry at her rude way of speaking. That’s why I came here today.” But,
when asked about Renhoo on that very day, he said, “Today, she was feminine.
Her voice got hoarse and I felt pity for her.” (Asahi shimbun, Nov. 28, 2009)

www.ebook777.com
54 Gender, language and ideology

The rock musician came all the way to the budget-screening room because he got
angry at her way of speaking, not at what she said. And he felt pity for her on the
day, not because she stopped attacking bureaucrats, but because her way of speak-
ing sounded feminine. Women’s speech, this indicates, is often evaluated based on
the norms of feminine speech, whether she sounds polite, soft, or indirect. At the
same time, this example shows that the norms become a resource for a woman to
emerge as an elegant, nice lady whenever she wants to. It is very possible that Renhoo
learned that there was some criticism against her way of speaking on previous days
and changed it to a more feminine style on the day the rock musician visited.
The norms of feminine speech, therefore, cannot always control women’s lin-
guistic acts. Women have a choice not to speak too much, anticipating criticism
against talking too much or trying to look elegant, or to speak freely and be ready
for the blame of being inelegant. The norms of feminine speech, because they are
abstract rules, can be reformed by women’s creative uses of language. That is why
it was necessary for the etiquette-manual discourse to continuously repeat the
norms for hundreds of years. The next chapter looks at “court-women’s speech” as
an example of such creative use of language by women and their relationship to the
norms of feminine speech.

www.ebook777.com
chapter 2

Normalization of court-women’s speech

Add o and moji to every word to make it soft.


Onna choohooki [Women’s Encyclopedia] (1692)
One of the best-seller conduct books for women in the seventeenth century, Onna
choohooki [Women’s Encyclopedia] (1692), tells women to add a prefix o and a
suffix moji to every word (Namura 1993[1692]: 25). The two affixes, o and moji,
came from nyooboo kotoba (court-women’s speech), which courtly ladies serving
in the imperial palace invented in the fourteenth century. It is not only Onna choo-
hooki that referred to court-women’s speech. Many other conduct books from the
seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries also referred to it. As we have seen in the
Introduction, moreover, court-women’s speech is still considered an early example
of Japanese women’s language in today’s many dictionary definitions. What was
court-women’s speech and what did it have to do with the norms of feminine
speech given in the conduct books?
Following a close look at the origin and development of court-women’s
speech, I have two key purposes in this chapter. The first is to analyze the dis-
courses of the media and the conduct books from the seventeenth to nineteenth
centuries and to describe how differently those discourses used court-women’s
speech. I will demonstrate that conduct-book discourse during the period rein-
forced the norms of feminine speech by defining court-women’s speech as the
ideal speech of women. The second purpose of this chapter is to argue, based on
that analysis, that the linguistic innovation of court women was exploited to rein-
force the gendered norms of feminine speech, which functioned to control, regu-
late and dominate women’s speech. I will conclude the chapter by discussing what
the argument implies about the question I posed in the Introduction – i.e., why
subversive performances often remain ephemeral, leaving the prevailing power
order largely untouched.

Court-women’s speech

Court-women’s speech (nyooboo kotoba) refers to a style of speaking invented


by nyooboo (court women), women serving in the imperial palace since the

www.ebook777.com
56 Gender, language and ideology

fourteenth century. Central to court-women’s speech is a set of vocabularies to


refer to domestic items such as food, kitchen utensils and clothes. Court women
created court-women’s speech by transforming the ordinary words. According to
Sugimoto Tsutomu (1998: 113–114), a specialist in the history of Japanese lan-
guage, their ways of creating court-women’s speech can be classified into two ma-
jor sets of operations. The first set is concerned with the form of words, consisting
of three major operations. First, they abbreviated the last syllables of general terms
and added moji (letter). So, ika (squid) became i-moji and sonata (you) became
so-moji. Second, they simply abbreviated the last syllables and transformed man-
juu (bun) into man. Third, they repeated the initial syllables, so that koo no mono
(pickle) became koo-koo. The second set of operations is based on how court
women sensed the referents, which can also be grouped into three types. First,
based on the sense of touch, mizu (water) became o-hiyashi or o-hiya, in which o
is an honorific prefix and hiya means cool. Second, based on the shape, tai (sea
bream) became o-hira, in which hira means thin. Third, based on the sense of
color, azuki (red adzuki bean) became o-aka, in which aka means red. These two
sets of operations, one based on word forms and the other based on the human
senses, testify to the linguistic creativity of court women. Because of its creative
word formation, court-women’s speech has attracted Japanese people for a long
time and some of them are still in use.
Concerning why court women created the special speech, several reasons have
been suggested. Some researchers claim that, since most words of court-women’s
speech were those for food, court women tried to avoid directly referring to food
and invented court-women’s speech as indirect expressions appropriate for a high-
class place such as the imperial palace. Others claim that court-women’s speech
was created as jargon, as the secret speech understood only among court women.
Still others argue that it was invented as the common speech among court women,
who came from different regions to work in the palace and spoke different re-
gional speech, to communicate smoothly (Sugimoto 1998: 20–21). The emergence
of court-women’s speech, in other words, has been mostly accounted for by the
nature of their job as court women rather than by their gender.
It is not known exactly when court women started speaking court-women’s
speech. Sugimoto (1998: 17) assumes that they already used court-women’s
speech at the end of the fourteenth century, because the court-women’s words,
kukon (liquor) and matsu (mushrooms), already appeared in Towazugatari [The
Confessions of Lady Nijoo], the journal by the court woman known as Lady
Nijoo, written at the beginning of the fourteenth century. The first reference to
the peculiar vocabulary of court women is found in Ama no mokuzu [Seaweed of
a Mermaid] (1420):

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 2.  Normalization of court-women’s speech 57

(1) In the imperial court, all foods are called by different names. It is confusing
for those who do not know them. Meshi (rice) is kugo. Sake (liquor) is ku-
kon. Mochi (rice cake) is kachin. Miso (bean paste) is mushi. Shio (salt) is
shiromono. Toofu (tofu) is kabe. Soomen (noodles) are hoso mono.
Matsutake (mushrooms) are matsu. Koi (carp) is ko-moji. Funa (crucian) is
fu-moji. Tsugumi (thrush) is tsu-moji. Note that thrush is not eaten. Tsuku
tsuku shi (horsetail) is tsuku. Warabi (bracken) is wara. Negi (onion) is ut-
suho. These different names are used. Nowadays, the women in the shogun’s
palace use these names, too. (Hanawa 1932c: 108–109)
It introduces these words rather critically by saying, “It is confusing for those who
do not know them.” The last line, “Nowadays, the women in the shogun’s palace
use these names, too,” shows that court-women’s speech spread from the imperial
court to the shogun’s palace in the fifteenth century. The name, nyooboo kotoba
(court-women’s speech), first appears in Oo jooroo onna no koto [The Names of the
Great Court Women] (Ashikaga Period 1436–1490). This book cites the different
names of 115 words, as the following excerpt shows:
(2) ii (rice); o-daikugo or o-naka In the Court, any offering is called kugo.
sushi (sushi); su-moji
tako (octopus); ta-moji
ika (squid); i-moji
sake (liquor); kukon
toofu (tofu); shiromono or kabe
miso (bean paste); mushi (Hanawa 1932a: 21–24)
As we have seen in Ama no mokuzu, court-women’s speech was not originally
evaluated as elegant speech. Tayasu (Tokugawa) Munetake, the first head of the
Tayasu branch of the Tokugawa clan and a philologist, in Kusa musubi [The Grass
Tie] (1771), accuses court women of destroying the beauty of traditional words,
demonstrating that court-women’s speech was still criticized even at the end of the
eighteenth century:
(3) It is in the ordinary course of worldly things that language changes. But
nothing is more absurd than women’s speech [court-women’s speech].
They [court women] change beautiful, traditional names to absurd names.
Some change the traditional names to Chinese names. It is acceptable to
change bad names. But it is very unpleasant to see new names even worse
than the original ones. (Kunita 1964: 693–694)

www.ebook777.com
58 Gender, language and ideology

From the symbol of upper class to the norm of women

Speech of the upper class

In spite of these criticisms, court-women’s speech was transmitted from the impe-
rial court to the shogun’s palace and to the mansions of samurai (warrior). Through
the daughters of merchants who served at warriors’ mansions, court-women’s
speech further spread to common women and men during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. As it became known to ordinary people, it was given names
such as jochuu kotoba (women’s speech), moji kotoba (moji speech), gosho kotoba
(palace speech), yashiki kotoba (mansion speech), asobase kotoba (idle speech)
and yamato kotoba (Japanese speech). Notice that the name nyooboo kotoba was
not used from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. Soon this manner of
speech began to appear in media such as shoowa shuu (funny stories) and kokkei
bon (dramatic comic novels). What did court-women’s speech symbolize in the
media of the Edo period? One of the light novels, Seken musume katagi [The
Nature of Common Young Women] (1716), tells the story of a woman who be-
came the wife of a merchant after serving at a samurai’s mansion.
(4) She used [palace speech] shoomei for oil light, and omura or oboso for
cheap sardines…. All her mannerisms were elegant and she called the
bean paste sasajin. So even the apprentices and the children of the house
started imitating her, and their speech improved. Her husband felt
ashamed of his speech and spent his days without saying much.
 (Ejima 1990[1716]: 138–139)
Hence, as the apprentices and the children imitated the wife’s speech, “their
speech improved.” Her speech is described here as the good speech of the upper
class, which not only women but also merchants, apprentices, and children want-
ed to imitate.
Shikitei Samba is one of the greatest writers of the Edo period. In his dramatic
comic novel, Shijuuhachi kuse [Forty-Eight Habits] (1811), consider the scene of a
merchant’s wife talking to two young women, O-fuyu (Dear-Winter) and O-aki
(Dear-Autumn), who had come back from serving apprenticeships over the past
year at warriors’ mansions. So the wife tries to talk to them in yashiki kotoba (man-
sion speech). The story is in the form of a monologue by the merchant’s wife, and
the underlined words are spoken in mansion speech:
(5) Hey, hey, O-fuyu. Put that spoon by the napkin bar. Put the rice scoop on
the pot shelf. Hang the pestle on the o-ku-moji. What? You say o-ku-moji
means pickle? Oh my. Sushi becomes su-moji and shooga (ginger) becomes
shoga-moji. So I thought kugi (nail) was ku-moji. I thought for the things

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 2.  Normalization of court-women’s speech 59

without the different names, you simply attach an o (prefix) and say moji,
moji. Dumpling is ishiishi. Spoon is kogarashi, or is it yamaarashi (moun-
tain storm)? Serving at the mansions must be troublesome. You have to
memorize those different names…. Hey, O-aki and O-fuyu. You got too
used to such speech to correct them. But you will start using the town
speech again in half a year or so. (Shikitei 1982[1811]: 310–311)
The wife knows that the two young women acquired mansion speech while work-
ing in the samurai mansions. However, in contrast to the husband in Seken musume
katagi, who “felt ashamed of his speech and spent his days without saying much,”
she unabashedly reveals that she cannot use mansion speech by saying, “I thought
of things without different names, you simply attach an o (prefix) and say moji,
moji.” Her act of adding moji to any word at all makes fun of the usage. “Serving at
the mansions must be troublesome. You have to memorize those different names,”
indicates that, in her mind, ordinary town people do not need to use mansion
speech because life in the mansions is a different world. In saying, “But you will
start using town words again in half a year or so,” she even shows pride in her own
town speech. In this excerpt, mansion speech, that is court-women’s speech, is
simply presented as the speech of the upper class. It was not the speech the town
women needed to use merely because they were women.
Another dramatic comic novel by Shikitei Samba, Ukiyo buro [Baths of the
Floating World] (1809–1812), describes a conversation among three young wom-
en in a bath. O-hatsu (Dear-First-Time) and O-same (Dear-Last-Time) have
served in samurai mansions. O-musu (Dear-Sultry-One) has no such experience:
(The court-women’s speech is underlined.)
(6) O-hatsu: Isn’t she truly admirable? We could not do as she does even if
we had a hundred [servings] of uchimaki (rice) at once.
O-musu: Well. You speak in a roundabout way. Say “a hundred [serv-
ings] of kome (rice) at once.”
O-hatsu: Oh, O-musu. Well, why not? (laugh)….
O-musu: I am a well-known tomboy…. That is why I am an o-sha-moji.
O-same: Oh my. O-sha-moji means a rice scoop. (laugh)
O-musu: Is that so, O-same? I thought o-sha-moji meant o-sha-beri (talk-
ative). Since they say su-moji for sushi and sa-moji for sakana
(side dish), it should be OK to say o-sha-moji for o-sha-beri.
O-hatsu: Isn’t that funny? (laugh)
O-same: You will learn these words, O-musu, if you start serving at a
mansion.
O-hatsu: That’s right. If you go to serve at a mansion, everything is referred
to in yamato kotoba (Japanese speech) and you will be elegant….

www.ebook777.com
60 Gender, language and ideology

O-musu: Look! O-hatsu is so o-sha-re (smart).


O-hatsu: You might call that o-sha-moji, O-musu. (laugh)
O-same: (laugh)….
O-musu: Oh, it’s too difficult! A tomboy like me could never serve at a
mansion…. (Shikitei 1957[1809–1812]: 225–228)
In this conversation, both O-hatsu and O-same use the speech they acquired at the
mansions. For O-musu, who makes fun of their speech, they simply say, “You will
learn these words if you start serving at a mansion.” Here, the use of “Japanese
speech” symbolizes their experience of working with the upper class. Yet,
“Japanese speech” is also presented as speech not necessary for the townspeople,
when O-musu says, “Oh, it’s too difficult! A tomboy like me could never serve at a
mansion.” There was a clear distinction between the world of mansions and the
world of the town and a girl in town like O-musu did not think of learning court-
women’s speech as long as she stays in town. Furthermore, even O-hatsu makes
fun of the speech when she says, “You would call it o-sha-moji,” which is what
O-musu probably would say. And they laugh together. Both O-hatsu and O-same,
this shows, understand the absurdity of looking classy by adding moji to a word.
The townspeople have pride in their own speech and, again, court-women’s speech
is used to symbolize the upper social class.
Shikitei Samba symbolizes the difference between mansion life and town life
with court-women’s speech and town speech. The merchants’ daughters who served
at mansions played the role of bridging the two different worlds. Their use of court-
women’s speech in town emphasizes the differences between the two worlds and, at
the same time, reveals the absurdity of displaying one’s social class by using a dif-
ferent speech. Court-women’s speech, in his works, symbolizes the upper-class
world of mansions as clearly distinguished from the world of townspeople.
The grief of the two servant women, O-maru (Dear-Shapely-One) and O-kabe
(Dear-Square-One), in Ukiyo buro is directly caused by this association between
court-women’s speech and the upper class.
(7) O-maru: What a stupid custom! They say this and that, making up all
kinds of crazy words like o-gushi [for hair]. Those Asobase
words (idle speech words) are shabby. Say it plainly, “hair.” I
hate those words. Because a servant has no choice, I say o-mae-
sama (you), o-jibutsu-sama (Buddha), sayoo (yes), and shikara-
ba (then). But we don’t need them in a poor family. I would be
miserable if I couldn’t use my own words even in the bath….
O-kabe: It’s more than I can bear. In the house, I have to say anata (you),
doo asobase (do this), and koo asobase (do that). I seriously
hate it. (Shikitei 1957[1809–1812]: 160–161)

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 2.  Normalization of court-women’s speech 61

Court-women’s speech, in this conversation, is called asobase speech (idle speech),


which lacks the term “women.” In O-maru’s words, “we don’t need them in a poor
family,” the world of mansions and the world of a poor family are explicitly segre-
gated by speech. They “hate” speaking those words because “a servant has no
choice” but to use the speech of the world not her own. Here again, court-women’s
speech is presented as the speech of the upper-class mansion world. And the ser-
vant women hate using it even if they are women. The media discourse, therefore,
presented court-women’s speech as a symbol of the upper social class, i.e., the
world of samurai mansions. For the writers of funny stories and dramatic comic
novels, it was a good tool for linguistically distinguishing mansion world and town
world. The Edo media used court-women’s speech as the speech of the courtly
class rather than that of town women.
That fact denies the later interpretation that court-women’s speech was created
out of woman’s innate desire to speak in an indirect, feminine way. Nagao
Masanori, who wrote a whole book on women’s language in 1943, states that:
“[Court-women’s speech was used] largely because of woman’s innate nature to
avoid directly referring to things or openly expressing emotion and to say and
think indirectly, keeping most of her thoughts deep in her own mind” (Nagao
1943: 32). If women started using court-women’s speech because their innate na-
ture told them to speak in an indirect way, as he argues, how then can we explain
that the servant women hated using it? It is more reasonable to assume that, for
servant women in the early nineteenth century, court-women’s speech was a lin-
guistic skill required to attain employment at samurai mansions.

Men’s use of court-women’s speech

The association of court-women’s speech with the upper class also finds support in
that not only women but also men started using it to present themselves as upper
class. In addition to the example of Seken musume katagi [The Nature of Common
Young Women] (1716) above, other texts also show men’s use of such speech. In a
traditional Kyoogen play, entitled Ohiyashi (a court-women’s word for water), a
male servant is making fun of the male master for using court-women’s speech:
(The court-women’s speech is underlined.)
(8) Master: Hey, musube (bring) me some ohiyashi (water).
Servant: What are you talking about?
Master: I say, musube me some ohiyashi from that waterfall.
Servant: Oh, you mean to bring some water from that fall.
Master: That’s right.

www.ebook777.com
62 Gender, language and ideology

Servant: Then, simply say, “Bring some water.” Why do you say musube
some ohiyashi? (laugh)
Master: You don’t know anything. The court women in the imperial
court say, musube some ohiyashi. They don’t say, “bring some
water.” You should follow them.
Servant: I know the upper-class women, children, and young men say,
musube some ohiyashi. But to hear it from your big mouth….
(laugh) (Nonomura & Ando 1974: 72)
In this conversation, neither the master nor the servant thinks it strange for men
to use court-women’s speech. The master suggests that the male servant use it:
“You should follow them.” Similarly, the servant does not laugh at the master
because he is a man. He laughs because the speech does not fit his “big mouth,”
i.e., because court-women’s speech does not suit his social class.
In another funny story, Seisuishoo [Sobriety, Drunkenness, and Laughter]
(1628), both Oda Nobunaga (feudal warlord 1534–1582) and a male servant use
court-women’s speech:
(9) One day, the Lord Nobunaga passed near Toofukuji Temple. He was sleep-
ing on a horse. When Numa no Tooroku (the name of his servant) woke
him up, he asked, “Where are we?” “Rokujoo (Sixth Street) is on your right,
and to the front is Toofukuji Temple,” he answered. Then, Nobunaga said,
“Oh, it is shira kabe (toofu).” (Anrakuan 1964[1628]: 247)
The answer of Nobunaga is funny because he makes a pun on the name of the
temple, Toofukuji, and the court-women’s word shira kabe (white wall) for toofu.
(10) A man had just started serving in a mansion, and he thoughtlessly puts o
(the prefix of court-women’s speech) on any word. The master scolded
him, “Don’t put o in front of everything. It’s harsh on the ear.” Later, the
man was serving his master a meal and noticed some rice on his beard and
said, “There are dai-tsubu (some rice) on your togai (jaw).”
 (Anrakuan 1964[1628]: 30)
The joke here is that the servant began deleting the prefix of court-women’s speech,
o, from all words, even those for which it was not a prefix but a part of the word,
such as odai, a court-women’s word for rice and otogai (jaw).
Nichiren, a Buddhist monk (1222–1282), and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, a feudal
warlord (1538–1598), also used court-women’s speech in their letters. In a letter
of 1281, Nichiren used a court-women’s word, mi-moji, for miso (bean paste)
(Kunita 1964: 11). Toyotomi Hideyoshi, in a letter to his mother, used so-moji,
another court-women’s word for sonata (you) (Aida 1949: 540).. In an epistolary
novel, Usuyuki monogatari [The Tale of Light Snow], a man also uses so-moji in his

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 2.  Normalization of court-women’s speech 63

letter to a woman (Kinsei bungaku shoshi kenkyukai 1973: 42). Kunita Yuriko
(1977: 14) assumes that “… the speech used among court women gradually be-
came known to women in the warrior class and, further, began to be used by the
warriors themselves.” Men used court-women’s speech because it was considered
the speech of the upper class, rather than the speech of women.

Prohibition on men’s use

In the same period, nevertheless, there appeared discourses that prohibited men
from using court-women’s speech. In another story in Seisuishoo (1628), a warrior
used the court-women’s speech okabe (toofu) and na (vegetable), so the master
scolded him saying that: “Such speech is for the court women to use” (Anrakuan
1964[1628]: 77–78). Similarly, Nyooboo hippoo [How Women Should Write] (year
unknown) warns men not to use court-women’s speech, even when they write let-
ters to court women:
(11) When a man writes a letter to a court woman … he should not use court-
women’s speech. The ignorant use it, saying [they do so because] the letter
is addressed to a court woman. It is very strange. (Hanawa 1925b: 443)
Another normative discourse, Shoreishuu [Collection of Manners] (1669), also
prohibits men from using court-women’s speech in letters:
(12) When you give a present to a court woman, it is bad to use court-women’s
speech, such as o-hira, for tai (sea bream) in the letter [you send along
with the present]. You should use tai. (Sugimoto 1998: 54)
Kagomimi [Basket Ears] (1687) also warns that it is disgusting to hear the nicely
dressed-up warriors and merchants speak “women’s speech”:
(13) Among the kinds of speech, [we can distinguish] women’s speech. It is
disgusting to see a nicely dressed warrior or merchant speak women’s
speech without making this [gender] distinction. They are often observed
saying o-naka for hara (stomach), hi-moji for hidarui (hungry), ka-moji
for kami (hair), o-tsuke for shiru (soup), o-kowa for koo-han (rice), aka-
no-meshi for seki-han (red-rice), yogoshi for aemono (seasoned dishes),
kinako for mame no ko (bean powder) and so on. Watch your speech.
 (Mutoo & Oka 1976: 230)
The words listed indicate that what is called “women’s speech” here is court-wom-
en’s speech. By deleting “court,” the term related to social class, the phrase “women’s
speech” highlights the gender distinction. The emphasis on female gender, then,
legitimates prohibiting men to use the speech. “They are often observed” shows, on
the other hand, that many men, both warriors and merchants, were using it.

www.ebook777.com
64 Gender, language and ideology

On this remark in Kagomimi (1687), Kiyuu shooran [Glimpses of Edo Ludic


Life] (1830) points out that, though men’s use of court-women’s speech is not ap-
propriate, people are so used to it that it doesn’t bother them:
(14) Kagomimi said that warriors used disgusting speech…. It is unsuitable and
effeminate for a man with a beard to use such speech. But, since our
ears are used to hearing a man using the speech, it is not as disgusting as
it once was. (Kitamura 1970[1830]: 424)
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, therefore, court-women’s
speech, the symbol of the upper class, gradually spread among males as well. At
the same time, there also appeared discourses that regarded it as “women’s speech,”
as in Kagomimi [Basket Ears] (1687), and prohibited men from using it. There was
a slight shift in the symbolic meaning of court-women’s speech, from class-related
to gender-related speech.

The normalization of court-women’s speech

Along with this change, since the seventeenth century, normative discourses ap-
peared that collected and listed court-women’s speech. In contrast to the media
discourse, in which court-women’s speech symbolized higher social class, such
books redefined it as the norm for all women. The normative discourse on court-
women’s speech can be divided into two major groups. The first group contains
two Japanese-Portuguese dictionaries compiled by the Jesuit Missionary Group
(Nihon Iezusukai), Nichi-ho jisho [Japanese-Portuguese Dictionary] (1603–1604)
and Nihon daibunten [Great Japanese Language Dictionary] (1604–1608). The
second group includes an enormous number of women’s conduct books.
The first group of dictionaries described court-women’s speech as the speech
used not only by court women but by all women. Of the 25,967 words in the Japa-
nese-Portuguese Dictionary, 110 are designated as “words for women” (palaura de
mulheres). They include general terms used by women as well as court-women’s
speech. Some examples follow:
(15) Murasaqi (murasaki). Ivaxi. Sardine. A word for women.
Cucon (kukon). Liquor. A word for women.
Ixij (ishii). G ood or good taste. This word, in this sense, is usually used by
women.
Voman (o-man). B  un. Same as man-juu. It is a woman’s word and the orig-
inal, correct word is man.
 (Nihon Iezusukai 1980[1603–1604])
It defines court-women’s speech as “words for women,” rather than words of upper
class or court women. Moreover, as the explanation of o-man shows, “words for

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 2.  Normalization of court-women’s speech 65

women” were considered as “not original, not correct” words. Based on the
Japanese-Portuguese Dictionary, a Portuguese Jesuit missionary, João Rodriguez,
compiled the Great Japanese Language Dictionary. Court-women’s speech is re-
ferred to in the section on how Japanese women write letters:
(16) On Women’s Letters
In the letters addressed from women to men … [the words created by] the
first character of the word combined with the suffix moji are used to ex-
press the original words. For example, fu-moji means fumi (letter), so-moji
means sonata (you), and pa-moji means padre (Jesuit missionary).
Other than these words, there are peculiar words which are used only
among women, or spoken by a woman to a man. For example, kukon
means sake (liquor), hiyashi means mizu (water), murasaki means iwashi
(sardine), and kachin means mochi (rice cake).
 (Rodriguez 1955[1604–1608]: 724)
Again, all words listed in this excerpt are court-women’s speech, but they are ex-
plained as words all women use to write letters. It is worth noting here that women
applied the operation of word formation to create court-women’s speech to foreign
words, such as Portuguese padre, and invented pa-moji by abbreviating the last
syllable dre and adding moji. This testifies an amazing linguistic creativity of the
Japanese women in the seventeenth century.
The second group of conduct books listed them as the words all women
should use. The first example of conduct books, Fujin yashinaigusa [Book to
Educate Women] (1689), lists 121 words classified into five groups, calling them
as yamato kotoba (Japanese speech) and jochuu kotoba (women’s speech). The
name yamato kotoba, though it literally means Japanese speech, was the name
strongly associated with women. As we have seen in the Introduction, women
were prohibited from using kango (Chinese words) and taught to use wago
(Japanese words, the Japanese reading of the term wago is yamato kotoba) since
the eleventh century (cf. Introduction, note 16). The five classifications were
used as the framework for later conduct books and, as we will see in Table 2.1,
later conduct books also called court-women’s speech either as yamato kotoba
or jochuu kotoba. The five groups and some of the words listed for each group
are shown as follows:
(17) a. Yamato kotoba (Japanese speech) for cloth and tool
Say go-fuku for kosode (wadded silk garment).
b. Food
Say uchimachi for kome (rice), gugo for meshi (cooked rice), mushi for
miso (bean paste), kukon or sasa for sake (liquor), and man for manjuu
(bun).

www.ebook777.com
66 Gender, language and ideology

c. Vegetable
Say nasu for nasubi (egg plant).
d. Fish
Say o-mura for iwashi (sardine).
e. Tools
Say sha-moji for shakushi (rice scoop).
 (Tanaka & Tanaka 1971: 111–112)
Although Fujin yashinaigusa named them jochuu kotoba (women’s speech) and
yamato kotoba (Japanese speech), most of them are what we now call court-­
women’s speech. The use of the terms jochuu kotoba and yamato kotoba instead of
the terms used in the media discourse, such as moji kotoba (moji speech), gosho
kotoba (palace speech), asobase kotoba (idle speech), and yashiki kotoba (mansion
speech), emphasizes the association between these words with female gender rath-
er than with the upper social class.
Onna choohooki [Women’s Encyclopedia] (1692) inherited much from Fujin
yashinaigusa. As I cited at the beginning of this chapter, it presents court-women’s
speech as the norm of women by saying: “Add o and moji to every word to make it
soft” (Namura 1993[1692]: 25) and lists words women should use, which mostly
belong to court-women’s speech, as the following excerpt shows:
(18) a. Women’s soft speech
Say osanai for kodomo (child), omutsukaru for naku (to cry), oshizumari
for neru (to sleep) and o-gushi sumasu for kami arau (to wash hair).
b. Yamato kotoba (Japanese speech): Cloth, food, vegetable, fish, and
tools. Say uchimaki for kome (rice), mushi for miso (bean paste), kukon
for sake (liquor), man for manjuu (bun), kachin for mochi (rice cake),
ishiishi for dango (rice ball), o-kabe for toofu (toofu), o-den for den-
gaku (toofu coated with bean paste), and kinako for mame-no-ko (bean
powder). (Namura 1993[1692]: 27–39)
Notice Onna choohooki also calls what we now call court-women’s speech as yam-
ato kotoba (Japanese speech), representing it as an appropriate speech for women.
In addition to the list, as pointed out in Chapter 1, Onna choohooki, characterized
by the use of many illustrations, instructs what each word refers to by writing the
word at the side of a picture of the referent in illustrations, as shown in Figure 2.1.
Following the two books, many conduct books from the seventeenth to nine-
teenth centuries listed court-women’s speech as the speech women should use.
Table 2.1 shows the titles and publication years of 13 conduct books listing what
we now call court-women’s speech, the names used to refer to the speech, and the
number of qualifying words. Although Table 2.1 includes only a few conduct books
produced during the period, it demonstrates that they listed a large number of

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 2.  Normalization of court-women’s speech 67

Words in the illustration indicate clockwise from top right, kosode (wadded silk garment),
omoji (kimono sash), yoru no mono (night cloth), wata (cotton), ohiya (water), sekimori
(bamboo basket), kogarashi (wooden pestle), shamoji (rice scoop), uguisu (wooden spatu-
la), surusuru (dried cuttlefish), mushi (bean paste), uchimaki (rice), kukon (liquor), zoro
(noodles), yakibuki (gibel), tamoji (octopus), karamono (radish), kuro (cooking pan), kuro
(iron pot), ozooshi (paper), kugo (cooked rice), and kachoo (mosquito net).
Figure 2.1  Onna choohooki [Women’s Encyclopedia] (1692) (Namura 1993[1692]: 35).

Table 2.1  Women’s conduct books which list court-women’s speech.

Titles Names for the words Number of


[Translations] (Translations) words listed
(Years published)

  (1) Nyooboo shitsukesho nyoboo kata no kotoba


[Women’s Manner Book] (words of court women) 107
(the Muromachi period, 1392–1573)
  (2) Fujin yashinaigusa yamato kotoba
[Book to Educate Women] (Japanese speech) 121
(1689)
  (3) Onna choohooki women’s soft language use 34
[Women’s Encyclopedia] yamato kotoba 108
(1692) (Japanese speech)
  (4) Jochuu kotoba jochuu kotoba
[Women’s Words] (women’s speech) 303
(1692)
  (5) Jochuu kotoba zukai jochuu kotoba zukai
[Women’s Language Use] (women’s language use) 153
(unknown)

www.ebook777.com
68 Gender, language and ideology

Titles Names for the words Number of


[Translations] (Translations) words listed
(Years published)
  (6) Jochuu kotoba jochuu kotoba
[Women’s Words] (women’s speech) 325
(1712)
  (7) Shoreisoo onna kotoba
[Book of Etiquette and Manners] (women’s speech) 333
(1722)
  (8) Onna imagawa baika bunko [Women’s jochuu kotoba
Imagawa Apricot Blossom Library] (women’s speech) 87
(1776)
  (9) Onna terako choohooki jochuu kotoba zukai
[Young Women’s Encyclopedia] (women’s language use) 71
(1806)
(10) Onna daigaku takara bunko [The Treasure yamato kotoba
Box of Women’s Learning] (Japanese speech) 57
(1831)
(11) Onna manzai takara bunko jochuu yamato kotoba
[Women’s Humorous Language Treasure (women’s Japanese speech) 71
Library]
(1837)
(12) Onna shorei ayanishiki yamato kotoba
[Women’s Precious Brocade Book of (Japanese speech) 62
Manners]
(1841)
(13) Jokyoo taizen hime bunko jochuu kotoba
[The Complete Women’s Teaching Library] (women’s speech) 67
(unknown)

Notes:
(1) Nyooboo shitsukesho (Kunita 1964: 455–464)
(2) Fujin yashinaigusa (Kunita 1977: 565–571)
(3) Onna choohooki (Namura 1993[1692, 1693]: 27–39)
(4) Jochuu kotoba (Kunita 1977: 579–601)
(5) Jochuu kotoba zukai (Kunita 1964: 527–537)
(6) Jochuu kotoba (Kunita 1964: 549–585)
(7) Shoreisoo (Kunita 1964: 591–610)
(8) Onna imagawa baika bunko (Sugimoto 1998: 41)
(9) Onna terako choohooki (Kunita 1977: 689–695)
(10) Onna daigaku takara bunko (Sugimoto 1998: 69–70)
(11) Onna manzai takara bunko (Sugimoto 1998: 96–97)
(12) Onna shorei ayanishiki (Sugimoto 1998: 41)
(13) Jokyoo taizen hime bunko (Sugimoto 1998: 41)

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 2.  Normalization of court-women’s speech 69

court-women’s words as the words women should use. Table 2.1 also demonstrates
one interesting tendency concerning what to call court-women’s speech. I include
(1) Nyooboo shitsukesho [Women’s Manner Book], written in the Muromachi pe-
riod (1392–1573), to show that the term “court women” was used to indicate that
group of words until the sixteenth century. From the terms used to refer to the
words in the conduct books from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries (2 to
13), however, the term “court women” disappeared, replaced either by yamato ko-
toba (Japanese speech) (2, 3, 10, and 12) or by jochuu kotoba (women’s speech) (4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13). The name yamato kotoba, as we have seen, was closely as-
sociated with women. The names used to refer to the words, yamato kotoba and
jochuu kotoba, redefined the words as those appropriate for all women rather than
only for the upper class of court women.
Court-women’s speech also appeared in conduct books teaching appropriate
ways of writing letters with sample sentences that women could use in letters. In
the how-to-write-letter books as well, court-women’s speech, such as kukon
(liquor), ome-moji (to see), and fu-moji (letter), were used in sample sentences, as
shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2  Court-women’s speech in sample sentences in letter books.

Titles Sample sentence


[Translations]
(Years published)

(1) Onna bunko taka makie Thank you very much for giving me a rare
[Women’s Library for Refined Letters] kukon (liquor).
(1721)
(2) Onna bundai ayabukuro You should say ome-moji (see you) and thank
[Precious-Woven Container of Women’s you.
Letters] (1744)
(3) Joyoo bunshoo itoguruma As you allowed me, the other day for the first
[Loom of Women’s Writings] time, I was able to ome-moji (see you) for
(1772) such a long time. It was my great pleasure.
(4) Onna moroyoo bunshoo You thought of me, gave a letter to me and
[Women’s Writings for Various Uses] told me that you would ome-moji (see me). I
(1799) read the letter again and again.
(5) Onnayoo bunshoo takara kagami
[Women’s Treasure Mirror of Writings] I read your fu-moji (letter) with pleasure.
(1840)

Notes:
(1) Onna bunko taka makie (Ishikawa 1973: 445)
(2) Onna bundai ayabukuro (Ishikawa 1973: 496)
(3) Joyoo bunshoo itoguruma (Ishikawa 1973: 469)
(4) Onna moroyoo bunshoo (Ishikawa 1973: 524)
(5) Onnayoo bunshoo takara kagami (Ishikawa 1973: 575)

www.ebook777.com
70 Gender, language and ideology

Conclusion

From the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, therefore, in contrast to the media


discourse in which court-women’s speech symbolized higher social class, the dic-
tionaries and conduct books redefined it as speech all women should use. Court-
women’s speech was not considered the elegant, normative speech of women at the
end of the eighteenth century, as we have seen in Kusa musubi [The Grass Tie]
(1771). Nor was it originally the goal of all women, as shown by the town women
and servant women in Ukiyo buro [Baths of the Floating World] (1809–1812) by
Shikitei Samba, who were not willing to use court-women’s speech. Rather, court-
women’s speech became the ideal, normative speech style of women, because the
range of metalinguistic practices, such as dictionary and conduct book discourses,
gave court-women’s speech the normative value of use for all women. These meta-
linguistic practices became possible, meaningful and acceptable when the norms of
feminine speech were expected to linguistically control, dominate and regulate the
speech not only of upper-class women but also of all women from the eighteenth to
the nineteenth centuries, the period when more common women began to learn
reading and writing, as seen in Chapter 1. As a result, the linguistic norm of the up-
per class was applied beyond class boundaries, to merchant and servant women.
The connection between court-women’s speech and the female gender catalyzed
the process for framing court-women’s speech into the norms of feminine speech.
Associated with the concrete vocabulary of court-women’s speech, the norms of
feminine speech became clearer, more rigid and easier to recognize. Court-women’s
speech, originally created by women, was transformed into the norms used to dom-
inate women’s speech. This is a case in which women’s linguistic innovation, albeit
confined to a specific historical contingency, was recycled to reinforce the dominant
norms of feminine speech. I will demonstrate in Chapter 5 that a very similar pro-
cess was observed in schoolgirl speech during the modern period.
The redefinition of court-women’s speech from symbol of the upper class to the
norms of women’s speech dramatically demonstrates the powerful force of meta-
linguistic practice to assign a value to a particular local linguistic practice. The
association between court-women’s speech and female gender was created because
metalinguistic practices of the writers of dictionaries and conduct books defined
the linguistic practice of court women as the norms of feminine speech. This
indicates that metalinguistic practice has the power and privilege to define, rede-
fine and assign values to individual linguistic practice. This gives one answer to the
question I posed in the Introduction, why subversive performances often remain
ephemeral, leaving the prevailing power order largely untouched. However cre-
atively women use language, their linguistic innovation will not directly subvert the
existing power order. The dominant gender ideology has the potential to effectively

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 2.  Normalization of court-women’s speech 71

exploit the creative linguistic practices of a group of women for the purpose of
maintaining the existing power order of male domination. To answer why women’s
subversive performances often remain ephemeral, therefore, it is necessary to pay
more attention to metalinguistic practice and analyze how metalinguistic practice
defines, redefines and assigns values to women’s local linguistic practices.
Finally, I will discuss two implications of the analysis for previous studies of
court-women’s speech. First, it denies the rationalization that court-women’s
speech became prevalent among common women, merely because common wom-
en naturally started speaking the elegant court-women’s speech. Previous studies
often assumed that court-women’s speech, “as it had the value and nuance of ele-
gant speech which the so-called upper-class women were expected to use … was
gradually incorporated into the vocabulary and expressions of the speech of com-
mon women” (Sugimoto 1998: 45), without showing exactly how “the value and
nuance of elegant words” were assigned to court-women’s speech. It is reasonable
to assume that common women and men in the eighteenth century tried to imitate
court-women’s speech, as seen in the women, merchants, apprentices, and chil-
dren in Seken musume katagi [The Nature of Common Young Women] (1716),
and the male servant and male master in a Kyoogen play, Ohiyashi [Water]. The
imitation of court-women’s speech, however, was not confined to women. Reading
“since our ears are used to hearing a man using the [court-women’s] speech” in
Kiyuu shooran [Glimpses of Edo Ludic Life] (1830), we may even presume that not
only women but also men played some role in spreading court-women’s speech to
common people. The utterances of the merchant’s wife in Shijuuhachi kuse [Forty-
Eight Habits] (Shikitei 1811) and the three young women and two servant women
in Ukiyo buro [Baths of the Floating World] (Shikitei 1809–1812) show, further-
more, that court-women’s speech was not considered the norms of feminine speech
for all women at the beginning of the nineteenth century. To account for how
court-women’s speech became prevalent among common people, therefore, we
need to investigate what happened to court-women’s speech from the eighteenth
to the nineteenth centuries, exactly the period when an enormous number of con-
duct books listed court-women’s speech as the norm of feminine speech. The rea-
son why court-women’s speech became prevalent among common women involves
the range of dictionary and conduct book discourses that defined court-women’s
speech as the norm for all women. Previous studies of court-women’s speech have
completely neglected the normalization power of conduct-book discourses.
Second, my analysis strongly implies that it is not sufficient to re-evaluate and
celebrate the creativity of court-women’s speech, claiming that the creativity made
it prevalent among common people. Jugaku Akiko, a pioneer of studying Japanese
language from a feminist point of view, states:

www.ebook777.com
72 Gender, language and ideology

It [court-women’s speech] symbolized a particular world full of pride. The


function was one of transcending rather than defending. It is because of this
creativity that court-women’s speech descended onto the common world as a
kind of norm. (Jugaku 1982: 205)

I do not deny the creativity of court-women’s speech. As pointed out in the discus-
sion of pa-moji (created by adding moji to the Portuguese padre) in the Great
Japanese Language Dictionary (Rodriguez 1604–1608), the linguistic creativity of
court women to coin words is worth praising. My analysis has demonstrated, how-
ever, that women’s creative linguistic practice was easily exploited to reinforce the
norms of feminine speech, which functioned to dominate women’s linguistic prac-
tices. Simple praise of the creativity of court-women’s speech conceals the process
in which their creativity was recycled for the purpose of controlling, regulating
and dominating women’s speech. The emphasis on the creativity of court women’s
linguistic practice also conceals that the normalization of court-women’s speech
denied the linguistic creativity of other women. It was not only court women who
performed creative linguistic acts but also merchant and servant women who did
so in their own ways. To reveal the process by which women’s linguistic creativity
is exploited to sustain the gendered power order, it is crucial again to analyze in
detail how metalinguistic practice defines, redefines, and assigns values to wom-
en’s creative local practices.
Part 1 has demonstrated that the perspective to conceptualize women’s speech
as the object of regulation, control and domination has been constructed by the
long history of normative discourses since the conduct books in the premodern
period. Part 2 describes shifting relationships between gender and Japanese lan-
guage in the dynamic social and political changes of Japan’s early modern period.

www.ebook777.com
part 2

Gender and national language


Nation-state building in the early modern period

The purpose of Part 2 is to investigate the role gender played in the formation pro-
cess of the Japanese national language and the Japanese nation state during the
Japan’s early modernization, from the end of the nineteenth to the beginning of the
twentieth centuries, the so-called Meiji (1868–1912) and Taishoo (1912–1926) pe-
riods. I will examine the relationship between gender and Japanese national
language (Chapter 3), the norms of feminine speech in the modern period
(Chapter 4), the construction of schoolgirl speech (Chapter 5), and the gendering
process of Japanese national language by the discourses of grammar books and
school readers (Chapter 6). To provide the background information undergirding
my arguments in Part 2, I will briefly describe the political context of Japan’s nation-
state building at the end of the nineteenth century, focusing on the political ideol-
ogy of state-as-patriarchal family, gendered nationalization and the ideology of
ryoosai kenbo (good-wife-wise-mother). So many social and political changes oc-
curred during the period that I will describe several other key historical incidents
and political processes necessary to understand my argument in each chapter.
During the Edo period (1603–1868), the Tokugawa shogunate enforced a for-
eign-relations policy, promulgated in 1639, prohibiting foreigners from entering
and Japanese from leaving the country, with few exceptions. This policy continued
until 1867, when the 15th shogun, Tokugawa Yoshinobu, resigned and the Em-
peror Meiji restored imperial rule to Japan in 1868. Responding to the requests to
start trade with Western countries, after almost two hundred years of seclusion,
the Meiji government opened the country. Witnessing the scientific and techno-
logical developments of other modern nations, the Meiji government faced the
need to build a modern nation state. To that end, it was necessary to galvanize
people, nearly all belonging to regional clans, to be “citizens” of one country who
would be workers and soldiers of the state. That process, generally termed “nation-
alization,” was enhanced, in the case of Japan in the late nineteenth century, by
kazoku kokka kan (the ideology of state-as-family), an ideology calculated to
“connect the notion of family with the notion of state,” and to “encourage and le-
gitimate people’s loyalty to the emperor and the state” (Muta 1996: 81). In 1879,
Kyoogaku seishi (The Imperial Will on Education) set “humanity, justice, loyalty,

www.ebook777.com
74 Gender, language and ideology

and filial piety” as the principal goals of education (Mitsui 1977: 175). Kyooiku
chokugo (The Imperial Rescript on Education) in 1890 defined people as “descen-
dants and subjects of the Imperial Ancestors” (Mitsui 1977: 197). The next year,
Inoue Tetsujiro, the first professor of philosophy at the Imperial University, in his
Chokugo engi (Commentary on the Imperial Rescript) declared that “the state is an
expansion of the family” (Ishida 1992[1954]: 6). The Great Japan Imperial Consti-
tution (Dai Nihon teikoku kempoo) (1889) established the family as a patriarchy,
based on the absolute power of the father, transforming the private sphere of the
family into a minimum constituent of the state. Wakakuwa Midori (2000[1995]:
46–47) points out that the constitution, by connecting the seemingly biological
notion of family to the state, “made it possible to believe that the cultural construct
of the state was its natural formation,” correctly claiming that the biological basis
of family itself is a culturally constructed belief. By creating continuity between the
imperial state and the patriarchal family, believed by most Japanese scholars and
politicians of that time to be based on biological ties, the ideology of state-as-
family ensured that people became loyal citizens, the children of the emperor.
The ideology of state-as-patriarchal family gendered the process of national-
ization. By the term, “gendered,” I mean the process of social categorization that
regards such social categories as female citizens and male citizens not as being
equal but in an asymmetrical power relation. Indeed, Japan’s nationalization pro-
cess in the late nineteenth century positioned female citizens as inferior to male
citizens. While male citizens were expected to play the roles of worker and soldier,
the roles of female citizens were confined to wife and mother (Wakakuwa 2001:
67). The Conscription Act in 1873 was applied only to men over twenty years old.
As Ueno Chizuko (1998: 34) points out, “It was then when the ‘nation’ was divided
into ‘those who had the honor to die for the state’ and ‘those who did not,’ and only
the former were given membership in the ‘nation.’” The Great Japan Imperial Con-
stitution (1889), while giving the father absolute power over property, inheritance,
divorce, and children’s marriages, defined female citizens as hooteki munooryokusha
(legal incompetents) without the right to vote and to possess property. “Women
should be at home, as wives who regenerate male labor, and mothers who repro-
duce excellent citizens” (Wakakuwa 2001: 67). The gendered nationalization
promoted nation-state building by locating “women as secondary, marked, and
exceptional citizens who never compete with the primary, unmarked, legitimate
male citizens” (Kanai 1997: 312).
The ideal modern female citizen in the process of gendered nationalization
was a good wife and a wise mother. According to Koyama Shizuko, historian of
Japanese history and women’s education, the good-wife-wise-mother was not
the same old Confucian notion but “the key concept in the process of synthesizing
women into citizens of the modern state” (Koyama 1991: 58). To strengthen

www.ebook777.com
Part 2.  The early modern period 75

national power and promote modernization, women were required to contribute


to the state as female citizens. Industrial development in the newly emerging capi-
talist society in Japan divided workplace, where men were expected to do their
proper work, from residence, where women were expected to do theirs. Along
with the gender-based division of workplace from residence in the development of
a modern capitalist society, new abilities were required for women to manage
households and produce efficient male workers and soldiers. Thus the ideal female
citizen in Japan’s modern state became a good wife capable of managing the house-
hold and providing appropriate support for her husband, and a wise mother who
could educate and produce excellent future workers and soldiers. The ideology of
good-wife-wise-mother was promoted as the ideal behind educating and develop-
ing modern female citizen. From the late nineteenth to the early twentieth centu-
ries, therefore, the political ideology of state-as-patriarchal family, distinctively
marked by the gendered nationalization, and the ideology of good-wife-wise-
mother played crucial roles in the process of Japan’s nation-state building.

www.ebook777.com
www.ebook777.com
chapter 3

Construction of a national language for men

The standard language should be the language of a metropolis, not some


provincial location. A major metropolis is either Tokyo or Kyoto. The
speech of Kyoto, though good for women, can sound weak coming from
men. Tokyo speech has vigor and people in the provinces tend to imitate
it. So a standard language can be established by setting Tokyo speech as
the base ….
Ootsuki Fumihiko (1905) in his speech at Ueno Women’s School1
Ootsuki Fumihiko, a linguist known for his grammar of Japanese language, called
Ootsuki grammar, gave a speech at Ueno Women’s School in 1905. It was in the
period of Japan’s nation-state building when the lack of an official Japanese na-
tional language came to be considered a problem. To establish an official Japanese
national language, political leaders and intellectuals focused increasingly on which
variety of spoken Japanese should be chosen as the standard for the national lan-
guage. Here, Ootsuki argues that the Tokyo variety should be the standard lan-
guage, because “The speech of Kyoto, though good for women, can sound weak
coming from men” (Ootsuki 1905: 17). This clearly indicates that Ootsuki believed
that the national language should be appropriate for the use of male citizens, sim-
ply assuming that the speakers of the national language must be male citizens. No
one has pointed out, however, any such gender bias in the debate concerning the
Japanese national language at the beginning of the twentieth century. What effect
did such an argument make on the construction processes of the Japanese na-
tional language?
The establishment of a single standard language has been central to the cre-
ation of a homogeneous national identity. National languages have not developed
purely because of geographical and historical contingencies, but through the na-
tionalistic ideology of one language, one nation, and one state (Woolard 1998: 17).
Florian Coulmas (1988: 2) has argued that “The idea of a natural unity of nation,
state and language has proved to be one of the most successful pieces of Western

1. In this excerpt, Ootsuki uses the phrases Tokyo go (lit. Tokyo language) and Kyoto go (lit.
Kyoto language), referring to two varieties of Japanese language spoken in the Tokyo and Kyoto
areas respectively. As the word go, however, lacks the connotation of the academic term “vari-
ety,” I translate them as “Tokyo speech” and “Kyoto speech.”

www.ebook777.com
78 Gender, language and ideology

political ideology since the French Revolution,” and it is even embraced by many
postcolonial countries. The myth of people sharing the same language creates a
state as “the imagined community” (Anderson 1983). Japanese national language
and Japanese standard language have also been labeled as ideologies socially con-
structed to enhance nation-state building in the early twentieth century (Lee 1996;
Osa 1998; Yasuda 1997). Begoña Echeverria (2003: 409) argues that since gender
differences within nations also play crucial roles in nation-state building, we need
to examine how nation, language, and gender relate to one another.
The interplay of gender with standardization, however, has not been exten-
sively discussed. Yet, the intimate connection between masculinity and national-
ism has already been widely addressed. Cynthia Enloe (1990: 44) argues that “na-
tionalism typically has sprung from masculinized memory, masculinized
humiliation and masculinized hope.” George Mosse (1996) considers nationalism
a movement that began and evolved parallel to modern masculinity. Joane Nagel
(1998) notes that modern nationalism resonates with hegemonic masculinity with
its values of honor, bravery, and heterosexuality. These studies, however, do not
refer to the relationship between masculinity and national languages. This chapter,
therefore, examines how gender was related to the construction process of the
ideology of Japanese national language from the late nineteenth to the early twen-
tieth centuries.

Linguistic gender differences in the unification dispute

In late-nineteenth century Japan, there were several writing styles, such as the
Chinese style used exclusively by a small number of educated men, the Japanese
style used mostly by upper-class women, and various spoken languages totally dif-
ferent from the written ones. To import and spread Western technology and
knowledge, it was necessary to create an easier writing style all Japanese people
could commonly use. Some Japanese intellectuals thus proposed to invent such a
writing style based on speech, by unifying speech with writing, a movement known
as genbun itchi (the unification of speech and writing). The argument for it gradu-
ally emerged as a way to promote the modernization of Japan.
It was not only the practical purpose of importing and spreading knowledge
that motivated the unification movement. Ueda Kazutoshi (1968[1894]: 110), pro-
fessor at the Imperial University (from 1894 to 1926) who had just returned from
studying in Germany, declared the close connection between “state” and “national
language” in 1894, the year the Sino-Japanese war started: “Language indicates, for
the people who speak it, spiritual compatriots, just as blood indicates physical
compatriots. Therefore, the Japanese national language is the spiritual blood of the

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 3.  A national language for men 79

Japanese people.” With this representation, Ueda persuasively proclaimed the need
to establish a Japanese national language to unify the nation of Japan. His concep-
tualization of a national language as the spiritual blood of Japanese people,
furthermore, as I will demonstrate in Chapter 7, made great impact on Japan’s
colonization policy during WWII. In 1901, the Unification of Speech and Writing
Section of the Imperial State Education Committee submitted to the House of
Peers and the Lower House a petition to execute the unification of speech and
writing. It states in part: “As the independence, prevalence, and development of a
national language is the primary means to establish a unified state, to enhance the
expansion of national power, and to accelerate the development of national desti-
ny, we believe that written and spoken languages should be unified” (Teikoku
kyooikukainai genbun itchikai 1964[1901]: 288). The creation of a national lan-
guage by unifying speech and writing was considered an urgent issue to achieve
national unity, power, and destiny. Responding to the petition, the Ministry of
Education established Kokugo choosa iinkai (the National-Language Research
Committee) in 1902 headed by Ueda, which led the later language policies. Ac-
cording to Lee Yeounsuk (1996: 86), “… the ideology of ‘national language’ was
born out of the spiritual situation of the Meiji 20’s with the Sino-Japanese war
(1894–1895) at its peak … the time of the creation of synthesized ‘citizens’ and the
upsurge of the consciousness for ‘state’.”
The ideology of hyoojungo (standard Japanese) was also created to embody the
notion of kokugo (Japanese national language). In unifying speech and writing,
one of the spoken varieties had to be chosen as the standard of the national lan-
guage. If different spoken varieties were adopted, many people would not under-
stand each other. To resolve this issue, Yamada Bimyoo (1964[1888]: 235), a writer
and an advocate of the unification movement, proposed the Tokyo variant as the
standard, “because Tokyo speech is fairly well understood in any area.” Ueda
Kazutoshi (1964[1895]: 506) also claimed that the speech of “educated Tokyo resi-
dents” should be the standard: “I believe that Tokyo speech is qualified [to become
the standard language]. The term ‘Tokyo speech,’ to some people, may indicate
beranmee kotoba (a variant of Tokyo speech used in the downtown area). What I
mean by Tokyo speech, however, is the speech spoken by educated Tokyo resi-
dents.” Notice that Ueda refers to “the speech of educated Tokyo residents” as if
such speech had already been established. Many educated Tokyo residents at the
end of the nineteenth century, however, came to Tokyo from all over the country
and were speaking their regional varieties of Japanese (Tanaka 1983: 156). Ueda’s
statement, in other words, enhanced the creation of the myth that such a phenom-
enon as the speech of educated Tokyo residents actually existed, which would rep-
resent the future form of a Japanese national language. Since then, the two phrases,
hyoojungo (standard Japanese) and kokugo (Japanese national language), gradually

www.ebook777.com
80 Gender, language and ideology

came to indicate a concept of the same speech, not actually spoken by any Japanese
but imagined to be the ideal, standard language.2 At the same time, the proposal to
set the Tokyo variant, spoken by educated Tokyo residents, as the standard of a
Japanese national language effectively created a negative notion of hoogen (dialect)
as an object of descrimination.3 The speech spoken in areas outside Tokyo and
variants spoken by those in the lower classes who were largely uneducated in those
days were considered to be a hindrance to the formation of a nation state.
The argument for unification emerged in the late nineteenth century and con-
tinued until the Showa period (1926–1989), along with kokugo kokuji mondai (the
issues of national language and national characters). The disputes continued for
eighty years, from a politician Maejima Hisoka’s Kanji onhaishi no gi [the Aboli-
tion of Chinese Characters] in 1866, until 1946, when the spoken style was ad-
opted in Imperial edicts, public documents, and constitutions (Yamamoto 1965:
33). Many intellectuals, from linguists, journalists and writers to politicians, joined
the dispute. Prominent was the role of novelists in experimenting with different
ways of writing prose and conversations. The prime example was Futabatei Shimei’s
novel Ukigumo [Floating Cloud] (1887–1891), which became known as the first
novel written in the unification style. Linguists also had an eminent role in setting
language policies on orthography and national language education, publishing
school language textbooks and academic papers, and writing articles in newspa-
pers on the issue.

2. I thus use the two phrases, hyoojungo (standard Japanese) and kokugo (Japanese national
language), interchangeably, choosing the phrase that best fits the context of my argument. In
translating the discourse, I use the phrase used in the original text.
3. It was through the standardization process when the Japanese regional speech was assigned
the negative value of a non-standard dialect. One of the resolutions of the National-Language
Research Committee in 1902 was to “Explore dialects and select a standard language”
(Monbushoo kyokashokyoku kokugoka 1949: 59), which seemed to study regional variations
first and choose one as appropriate for a standard language. The true intention of the resolution,
however, was “to explore regional variants so that they can be destroyed” (Lee 1996: 144). The
regional variation spoken in Okinawa, for instance, was severely damaged by the standard lan-
guage policy. In 1880, Conversation Teaching Schools were set up in Okinawa, and “central
language education” began. From 1907, the Label Punishment System started. A student who
spoke a non-standard speech was given a wooden label and certain points were withdrawn from
the behavior points of the student according to the number of the labels. “The children spent
their days in fear, because many of them failed due to the lack of behavior points rather than
their academic points” (Hokama 1981: 326). After a period in which there was a flurry of dialect
research, the Label Punishment System revived and, in 1940 during the war years, the Move-
ment to Encourage Standard Language became one of the policies of Okinawa prefecture
(Hokama 1981: 311–342; See also Osa 1998: 147).

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 3.  A national language for men 81

While I was reading those documents, I found two contradictions in the uni-
fication dispute. First, in spite of the long-term discussion on a national scale, there
was virtually a complete absence of any argument concerning gender differences
in language use. If indeed it was so important for nation-state formation to estab-
lish one national language, why did no one question the contradiction of asking
women and men to use different speech? In setting standard Japanese, speech dif-
ferences between different social classes and districts were extensively discussed.
Shimano Seiichiroo, an advocate for the abolition of Chinese characters, points
out the diversity of regional variations and objected to “the vulgar speech [of the
Tokyo downtown area]” (Yamamoto 1965: 266). In the same year, an article in a
political journal argued for adopting Tokyo speech as a standard but objected to
some of its variants saying that: “Although Tokyo speech has a lively rhythm and
power to impress people, I want to avoid the speech of Tokyo’s inferior society”
(Yamamoto 1965: 246). Linguistic gender differences, however, did not come un-
der consideration.
The contradiction is further revealed in the prize essay, “How to unify men’s
and women’s writing styles,” submitted to an essay contest by Nakagawa Kojuuroo
and Masaki Seikichi in 1888. The essay contest was advertised by Mori Arinori, the
Minister of Education, in the journal of the Great Japan Education Society,
the predecessor group of the committee that submitted the petition to implement
the unification of speech and writing to the House of Peers and the Lower House
in 1901. The purpose of the contest thus was clearly the promotion of the unifica-
tion. The essay first points out that women’s and men’s writing differs to the extent
that they cannot understand each other and that this is caused by the different
ways women and men are taught to write, women are taught wabun (lit. Japanese
writing, a writing style mainly using Japanese phonetic hiragana) and men kanbun
(lit. Chinese writing, a writing style using only Chinese characters) (Yamamoto
1965: 405). To unify women’s and men’s writing styles, therefore, they suggest
“teaching writing not opposing their natures,” to teach them to write as they speak,
based on the theory of the unification of speech and writing (Yamamoto 1965:
406). In other words, the essay claims that if women and men write as they speak,
their writing would be the same, essentially presupposing that women’s and men’s
speech are not different. The authors further make distinctions between difficult/
everyday words, correct language/slang, and dialects/correct language, and warn
against using difficult words, slang, and dialects in schools. Nevertheless, they do
not mention gender differences in speech, as though were none. One could easily
conclude from this essay that in 1888 people did not generally believe that there
were differences between women’s and men’s ways of speaking. However, this as-
sumption was proved false in the essay written by a liberal democrat, Nakae

www.ebook777.com
82 Gender, language and ideology

Tokusuke, better known by his other name Nakae Choomin, in 1888, the same
year their essay won the contest:
(1) In all the countries in the world, there is no language in which men’s
everyday speech and women’s everyday speech are as different from each
other as Japanese.  (Nakae 1888: 18)
Furthermore, in 1896, in an anonymous essay, Shinshi no kotoba [Gentleman’s
Words], the writer points out that: “As women’s speech comes closer to men’s,
the speech spoken by men is getting closer to women’s” (“Shinshi no kotoba”
1896: 148). These discourses indicate that, in the 1890s, Japanese people believed
that there were linguistic gender differences. In their prize essay, however,
Nakagawa and Masaki propose to teach female and male students to write as
they speak to unify women’s and men’s writing styles, as if women’s and men’s
speech were not different.
The second contradiction is that many of the unification advocates were also
the good-wife-wise-mother advocates. As we will see in detail in the next chapter,
the norms of women’s speech in the good-wife-wise-mother education were al-
most the same as the norms in the conduct books in the premodern period. To
agree with the ideology of good-wife-wise-mother is to expect women to speak
following the norms in the conduct books, to expect speakers to use the national
language differently according to gender. Nakagawa and Masaki, in fact, started a
journal with the prize money from the essay contest and named it Iratsume, mean-
ing “gentle, elegant, Japanese ladies” (Yamamoto 1965: 403). The two purposes of
Iratsume were “first, to serve as a women’s magazine that discussed female educa-
tion as a social issue and, second, to help spread the unification of speech and
writing by way of novels” (Yamamoto 1965: 399). Here, they proclaim the unifica-
tion along with the ideology of good-wife-wise-mother. Another example is a
speech given by Ootsuki Fumihiko in 1905, the same speech I cite at the beginning
of this chapter. In the speech, he summarized research on regional variations that
had been carried out to unify different spoken varieties of Japanese all over the
country. Here again, though he was giving a speech about the unification issue at
a women’s secondary school, he did not mention gender differences. In his only
reference to women’s speech, he simply criticized the speech of female students
and repeated the norms of conduct books:
(2) It is disgusting to hear a phrase popular among female students now,
such as yokutte yo (all right). Before the Meiji Restoration, the wives of
shooguns, feudal lords, and Tokugawa retainers all used elegant speech. As
a lady’s speech shows her dignity, women should restrain themselves from
using such speech. (Ootsuki 1905: 17)

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 3.  A national language for men 83

The advocates for one national language not only ignored linguistic gender
differences but also expected women to speak differently from men. Meiji intel-
lectuals present the contradiction of promoting Japan’s modernization by the uni-
fication theory, on the one hand, and expecting women to remain “gentle, elegant,
Japanese ladies,” on the other. Why were they not aware of the contradiction?

The creation of a men’s national language

The answer might well be found in the discussion concerning the establishment of
standard Japanese, which explicitly or implicitly suggested that standard Japanese
should be appropriate for male citizens. Okano Hisatane, a linguist of Japanese
variations, after pointing out that there are varieties of Tokyo speech according to
the speaker’s gender and occupation, suggests that Tokyo speech be adopted as
standard Japanese: “Among such different varieties of speech, the unification of
speech and writing should choose as the standard language the speech that can be
used in any part of Tokyo society. That is the speech of men in middleclass society”
(Okano 1964[1902]: 510). This is not a new suggestion since, as noted, both
Yamada Bimyoo (1888) and Ueda Kazutoshi (1895) had already proclaimed the
speech spoken by educated Tokyo residents as standard Japanese. What is new
about Okano’s argument is his explicit mention of “men.” Okano, I assume, who
was well aware of language variations and gender differences in Tokyo speech,
added that phrase even though other researchers apparently took it for granted
and did not think it necessary to mention.
Another document showing the connection between masculinity and stan-
dard Japanese is the speech, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, given by
Ootsuki Fumihiko at Ueno Women’s School in 1905. Ootsuki makes a similar ar-
gument in his introduction that he wrote for the book by another linguist, Usuda
Suekichi, in 1909:
(3) What should be the standard of the spoken language? We should not
choose local varieties. Then, should it be Tokyo speech or Kyoto speech?
Kyoto speech, as a language for men, sounds weak and has exaggerated
intonation. It is not suitable for giving orders to soldiers, criminal exami-
nations by a judge, or telephone conversation. It is not as direct and clear
as Tokyo speech. (Ootsuki 1909: 1–2)
The movement to create one Japanese language for all citizens, in fact, was based
on the taken-for-granted assumption that the speakers of the Japanese national
language were male citizens. That is why it never occurred to many Japanese intel-
lectuals at the time that there was a contradiction in suggesting the unification of

www.ebook777.com
84 Gender, language and ideology

speech and writing, while at the same time directing women to follow the same old
norms of feminine speech.

Conclusion

The ideology of Japanese national language was, in fact, a “men’s national lan-
guage” tailored for the primary, standard, male citizens. The lack of reference to
gender differences in the unification dispute established the Japanese national lan-
guage, as a matter of course, as men’s national language. As unification aimed to
construct a national language for men, Meiji intellectuals did not consider it a
problem to expect female citizens to speak differently from men.
This accounts for why women’s and men’s languages are differently arranged in
their relations to standard Japanese today. In the Introduction, I pointed out that,
in contemporary Japanese society, female speakers are generally expected to speak
women’s language, while male speakers are usually expected to speak standard
Japanese rather than men’s language, and the use of men’s language is restricted to
a special situation in which a physical, violent, aggressive type of masculinity is
emphasized, and I asked why there were such different expectations in the uses of
women’s and men’s languages. As the actual linguistic practice of Japanese people
does not always follow these expectations, we should interpret the differences as
those found in the different ideological relations between women’s and men’s lan-
guages to standard Japanese. If the ideology of standard Japanese was constructed
implicitly associated with masculinity, as the analysis of this chapter shows, men’s
language has to be associated with masculinity that is much stronger than the im-
plicit masculinity in standard Japanese. This explains why using men’s language is
expected in special situations in which masculinity is emphasized. Summarizing
the ideological relationships between men’s standard Japanese, women’s language
and men’s language, therefore, both women’s language and men’s language consti-
tute subcategories of standard Japanese. As standard Japanese is implicitly mascu-
linized, women’s language is recognized as a female version of standard Japanese.
Thus female speakers and male speakers are usually expected to speak women’s
language and standard Japanese respectively. Men’s language, in contrast, is
considered as the speech associated with strong masculinity because standard
Japanese is already implicitly masculinized.
The masculinization of the Japanese national language was accomplished by
not referring to linguistic gender differences (Nakamura 2008). Among the nu-
merous documents produced during the unification debate from the late nine-
teenth to the early twentieth centuries, I found only three documents which stated
that a Japanese national language should be created for the use of male speakers;

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 3.  A national language for men 85

one by Okano Hisatane who claimed that “the speech of men in middleclass soci-
ety” should be the standard of national language and two by Ootsuki Fumihiko
who argued that Kyoto speech was not appropriate for the use of males speakers.
By not explicitly stating that the primary, legitimate speakers of the national lan-
guage were male citizens, the unification movement successfully naturalized the
association between masculinity and the national language, to the extent that it
was not necessary even to mention it. In analyzing what is not stated, the distinc-
tion between performance and performativity becomes crucial. Don Kulick (2003:
286) points out the importance of making the distinction and argues that “perfor-
mativity theory insists that what is expressed or performed in any social context is
importantly linked to that which is not expressed or cannot be performed.” The
construction of a men’s national language was crucially connected to linguistic
gender differences not explicitly expressed.4 The masculinization of the national
language, therefore, achieved the taken-for-granted, unmarked, and normal status
exactly because of not being explicitly stated.5
Any hegemonic ideology, at the same time, requires a negative counterpart to
sustain its unmarked status. In the case of heterosexuality, David Halperin (1995:
44) has argued that: “Heterosexuality, then depends on homosexuality to lend it
substance – and to enable it to acquire by default its status as a default, as a lack of
difference or an absence of abnormality” (emphasis original). Heterosexuality can
keep its unmarked, standard, and normal status, precisely because there is another
type of sexuality always denied and referred to as marked, deviant, and abnormal,
that is homosexuality. Similarly, to maintain the unmarked, standard, and normal
status of a national language, it was necessary to create some linguistic ideology as
the marked, nonstandard, and marginal counterpart. The unification discourses
clearly created non-standard dialects and the speech of uneducated people to ful-
fill the role of the negative counterpart. If a national language was implicitly
associated with masculinity, furthermore, there must have been some linguistic
ideology distinguished from it by gender, the ideology linked to women as the

4. It has already been pointed out that such a lack of explicit statement is an effective strategy to
implicitly constitute heterosexuality as normal, standard, and an unmarked form of sexuality. As
Vincent, Kazama, and Kawaguchi (1997: 99) claim: “It is through the lack of explicit reference that
heterosexuality can maintain the privileged status.” So, “To openly name heterosexuality, and to
speak explicitly and at length about it, removes it from the realm of the taken-for-granted, sub-
jecting it to the dangers of analysis – and the possibility of critique” (Katz 1995: 67).
5. It is worth noting here that, since the masculinization of the national language was so natu-
ralized and rarely mentioned, it was often (mis)recognized as the national language for all citi-
zens, including women, justifying teaching its grammar to both female and male students in
schools. Note, however, that this contradicted the policy for women’s education, which included
the instruction that women should speak differently from men.

www.ebook777.com
86 Gender, language and ideology

gendered negative counterpart of men’s national language. Since linguistic gender


differences were not mentioned in the unification dispute, we need to consider
other types of discourse to reveal such notion concerning women’s speech. The
next chapter attempts to find it by analyzing the discourses of modern conduct
books and school moral textbooks.

www.ebook777.com
chapter 4

Modernization of the norms of feminine speech

“Restrain yourself from speaking and do not speak too much” means to
keep silent. A proverb says, “Verbosity deprives one of grace.” In the West,
it is said that, “An empty barrel makes a loud noise.” The verbosity of a fool
should be avoided at all cost. If this is so, ladies should be much more
quiet and refined.
Fukuzawa Yukichi (1899) Onna daigaku hyooron/Shin onna daigaku
[Comments on Women’s Learning/New Women’s Learning]
Fukuzawa Yukichi is founder of Keio University and one of the most famous
Meiji intellectuals, as shown in his appearance on the Japanese 10,000 yen ban-
knote since 1984. Fukuzawa was an avid supporter of education and well known
for his democratic ideas, especially through his citation of The Declaration of In-
dependence of the United States of America, “all men are created equal,” at the
beginning of one of his best sellers, Gakumon no susume [Encouragement of
Learning] in 1872–1876. However, in the above citation from Onna daigaku
hyooron/Shin onna daigaku [Comments on Women’s Learning/New Women’s
Learning] that he wrote in 1899, he is simply repeating the old Confucian norms
of feminine speech (Fukuzawa 1977[1899]: 228). As I will demonstrate through-
out this chapter, furthermore, he was not the only one in the early modern period
who reproduced the premodern norms of feminine speech by editing and writing
women’s conduct books. How did those premodern norms of feminine speech
survive the radical social changes during the early modernization of Japan?
Among those changes were the ideas of democracy, human rights and gender
equality imported from the West. After the Meiji government opened the country at
the end of the nineteenth century, many such Western ideas, also including Western
science, technology, fashion, hairstyles, and food, flew into Japan, stimulating the
period called Bunmei kaika (Civilization and Enlightenment). The intellectual fer-
ment of this period fostered the emergence in the 1880s of the socio-­political move-
ment called Jiyuu minken undoo (The Freedom and People’s Rights Movement). The
democratic impetus, trends and thinking from the 1910s to the 1920s was named
Taishoo demokurashii (Taishoo democracy). The spread of democracy around the
world, based on equality and human rights, enhanced the idea of equality between
women and men and stimulated the emergence of women’s liberation movements.

www.ebook777.com
88 Gender, language and ideology

In 1911, Hiratsuka Raichoo, a writer and journalist, founded a Japanese feminist


magazine, Seitoo [Bluestocking], with a group of women, declaring, in the first issue
of the magazine, “In the beginning, woman was the sun.” The magazine also intro-
duced to Japanese female readers the publications of Western feminist writers, such
as those by a Swedish feminist, Ellen Key. The magazine both reflected and encour-
aged the burgeoning democratic movement in Japan, importing human rights and
gender equality during the period. All this meant, of course, that some revisions to
the modern conduct books for women would have to be made.
This chapter thus has three purposes. First, I examine modern conduct books
and analyze how different or similar the norms given in them were in comparison
with the norms of feminine speech given in premodern conduct books. Second, by
analyzing two categories of discourses – conduct books and school moral textbooks
for women – which taught lessons on women’s speech in the early stages of modern-
ization (1868–1925), I will investigate exactly how the old norms of feminine speech
were still circulated, reproduced and legitimated during the radical social changes of
Japan’s modernization. I have argued in Chapter 1 that the perspective of conceptual-
izing women’s speech in the premodern period as an object of regulation, control and
domination has been inherited by a metalinguistic tradition observed in etiquette
manuals today. I intend to verify my argument, by investigating the ways in which
modern metalinguistic discourses maintain, preserve and legitimate the premodern
norms of feminine speech against the upsurge in a modernizing Japan of democracy,
human rights and gender equality. The investigation will also reveal what kinds of
logic or rationalization were used to legitimize repeating the andro-centric ideology
of premodern conduct books at a time when counter arguments, such as the idea of
gender equality, appeared. Finally, in this chapter’s Conclusion, I will argue, answer-
ing the question posited at the end of Chapter 3, that, during Japan’s period of mod-
ernization, the modern norms of feminine speech played the key negative role
sustaining an unmarked, standard and normal status of a men’s national language.

Reproduction of the premodern norms of feminine speech

The more than three hundred conduct books for women in eighteenth-century
Japan, as noted in Chapter 1, were usually divided into four groups. According to
Ishikawa (1977: 306), the fourth group, known as Onna daigaku [Women’s Learn-
ing], “continued to be reproduced, read and learned through the Meiji and Taishoo
periods (1868–1926) until the end of WWII (1945).” Since the books of this group
“were published one after another during the early modern period” (Ishikawa
1973: 28), it is safe to assume that not only upper-class women but also common
women read them. Table 4.1 shows titles, publishing years and names of editors or

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 4.  The modern norms of feminine speech 89

Table 4.1  Discourses on women’s speech in conduct books in the Meiji period
(1868–1912).

Titles The Discourse


[Translations]
(Years published)
Editor or author

(1) Jokun As a woman is born to speak much, restrain yourself


[Women’s Discipline] from speaking and do not say unnecessary things. Too
(1874) many words make the family and relatives not get along
Takata Giho well and bring troubles to friends.
(2) Kinsei onna daigaku Women should be gentle and charming in all actions
[Modern Women’s Learning] from greetings and speech to demeanor. Being unsociable
(1874) and inhospitable is not suitable for women’s innate
Doi Kooka nature.
(3) Bunmeiron onna daigaku Restrain yourself from speaking and do not speak too
[Enlightened Women’s much. Do not blame things on others nor lie. When you
Learning] hear someone complaining, keep it in your mind and do
(1876) not tell anybody. If you talk about it, you will not be able
Doi Kooka to get along with relatives and it will bring trouble to your
family. [Note] I do not abhor verbosity. I lament words
used uselessly.
(4) Kaisei onna daigaku Restrain yourself from speaking and do not speak too much.
[Revised Women’s Learning] Do not lie, blame, nor backbite others. If you hear someone
(1880) complaining, keep it in your mind and do not tell anybody.
Seki Ashio Verbosity and arrogant words can destroy your life.
(5) Shinsen zooho onna daigaku Restrain yourself from speaking and do not speak too
[Newly Selected and Enlarged much. Do not blame others nor lie. When you hear
Women’s Learning] someone complaining, keep it in your mind and do not tell
(1880) anybody. If you talk about it, relatives will not get along well.
Hagiwara Otohiko
(6) Shinsen onna daigaku Female-language (fu-gen) means language manners, how
[Newly Selected Women’s women should speak. Good women’s language is gentle,
Learning] elegant, and not offensive…. As a talkative lady is included
(1882) in the seven types of women a man should divorce, do not
Nishino Kokai open your mouth if not necessary…. Sacred people have
also remonstrated against verbosity.

Notes:
(1) Jokun (1874) (Ishikawa 1977: 97).
(2) Kinsei onna daigaku (1874) (Ishikawa 1977: 111).
(3) Bunmeiron onna daigaku (1876) (Ishikawa 1977: 137).
(4) Kaisei onna daigaku (1880) (Ishikawa 1973: 343).
(5) Shinsen zooho onna daigaku (1880) (Ishikawa 1973: 331).
(6) Shinsen onna daigaku (1882) (Ishikawa 1973: 336–357).

www.ebook777.com
90 Gender, language and ideology

writers of the Onna daigaku [Women’s Learning] group of conduct books pub-
lished in the late nineteenth century. The right-hand columns show the principal
lessons of women’s speech given in each conduct book.
Ishikawa Matsutaroo (1973: 27–28) categorizes the modern conduct books of
the Onna daigaku [Women’s Learning] group into conservative books and innova-
tive books, according to how much content they inherited from Onna daigaku
takara bunko [The Treasure Box of Women’s Learning] (1716), the original work
of the Onna daigaku group. According to his classification, books (1), (2) and (3)
in Table 4.1 are innovative books and (4), (5) and (6) are conservative books. The
author of (1), Takata Giho, also known as Takada Yoshinami, was an educator. The
author of both (2) and (3), Doi Kooka, was a journalist, writer and politician in-
volved in the Jiyuu minken undoo (The Freedom and People’s Rights Movement)
since 1881 (Ishikawa 1977: 319). Nevertheless, the discourses in the right-hand
column of Table 4.1 show that the modern conduct books, both conservative and
innovative, cited norms of speech very similar to those in the premodern books.
Even the so-called “innovative” conduct books, (1) and (3), repeat the phrase, “Re-
strain yourself from speaking,” a familiar phrase appearing frequently in the pre-
modern conduct books. In so reiterating premodern norms of feminine speech,
modern conduct books provide solid evidence that, even with titles containing
words like “modern, enlightened, revised, and newly selected,” they simply contin-
ued to frame women’s speech as the object of regulation, control and domination.

Logic of the modern conduct books

Considering that the democratic idea of gender equality was spreading in Japanese
society at the end of the nineteenth century, however, it is difficult to assume that
the premodern norms of feminine speech were straightforwardly accepted as the
modern norms of women’s speech. Modern conduct books, therefore, must have
used some kind of logic to make the premodern norms of feminine speech accept-
able and reasonable in a modernized Japan. To reveal the approach of the modern
conduct books, we need to analyze their discourses in more detail focusing on how
they presented the idea of equal rights for both sexes. While taking widely differ-
ent positions on equal rights, however, they continued imputing norms to women’s
speech. Modern conduct books can be divided into three types, according to their
arguments on equal rights for male and female: (1) Those claiming that equal
rights for both sexes meant that women and men were equal but had different
rights; (2) those claiming that women and men were equal as subjects of the em-
peror; and (3) those asking women to speak up when necessary.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 4.  The modern norms of feminine speech 91

A good example of the first type, Jokun [Women’s Discipline] (1874) in


Table 4.1, starts with the statement that: “Women’s rights to independence and
freedom mean that women grow up and eventually become members of another
family, serve their parents-in-law, and manage and govern the household”
(Ishikawa 1977: 77). It defines “women’s rights” as the rights to get married, serve
their parents-in-law, and govern their families. On speech, as shown in Table 4.1
(1), it repeats the premodern norms of feminine speech. The only change is that
the premodern “women should not speak” has been changed to “women are born
talkative.” This change is important, because, as I argued in Chapter1, whether a
woman is talkative or not is determined by social norms, gauged in comparison
with silence. The talkativeness of women, in other words, is a matter determined
by socially constructed gender norms. The statement, “women are born talkative”
in (1), in contrast, transformed the talkativeness of women as a matter based on
biological sex difference. The differences in speech determined by gender norms
are redefined as sex-based differences. I refer here to the process in which socially
constructed gender is redefined as based on the biological sex “essentialization of
gender.”1 (2) Kinsei onna daigaku [Modern Women’s Learning] in Table 4.1 also
shows the essentialization of gender in stating “women are innately gentle”: “… as
women are innately gentle, they cannot, without men, protect their bodies nor
wealth and they cannot pursue their mental joy. Thus, to reward men’s service and
to thank men’s chivalry, women should give up some of their rights and concede

1. A major contribution of feminism to the idea of gender is to refute biological determinism


by distinguishing sex (biological distinction) from gender (social roles); that is, to refute the
belief that femininity and masculinity are innately determined, and to open the possibility of
social change. Even after biological determinism was denied, however, there has been a strong
tendency to believe in biological foundationalism – the belief that “distinctions of nature, at
some basic level, ground or manifest themselves in human identity” (Nicholson 1994: 82); in
short, one learns one’s femininity/masculinity based on one’s biological sex distinction. Accord-
ing to biological foundationalism, gender is understood to be one’s attribute, either biologically
given or socially learned. Thus, one’s linguistic practice is based on the inner attribute and one
speaks to mark the attribute already there. As I argued in Chapter 1, I call the view to consider
gender an attribute prior to practice, essentialism. Against biological foundationalism, the devel-
opment of sex science has demonstrated that biological sex itself is not binary (Fausto-Sterling
1992). It has been argued that the binary conceptualization of gender enables us to interpret
non-binary sex as binary. “Gender ought not to be conceived merely as the cultural inscription
of meaning on a pre-given sex (a juridical conception); gender must also designate the very ap-
paratus of production whereby the sexes themselves are established” (Butler 1990: 7). A doctor
can divide newborn babies into girl or boy exactly because gender is constituted in the binary.
Essentialization refers to the process in which socially constructed gender is redefined as one’s
attribute based on biological sex. The essentialization of gender often occurs when the legiti-
macy of the binary gender is questioned by a certain social change, as I will further demonstrate
in Chapters 8, 9, and 10.

www.ebook777.com
92 Gender, language and ideology

them to men” (Ishikawa 1977: 109). (6) Shinsen onna daigaku [Newly Selected
Women’s Learning] (1882) in Table 4.1 also emphasizes that women and men have
different rights, defining male rights as “to work outside and make a plan for his
wealth” and female rights as “to be at home helping her husband and managing the
household” (Ishikawa 1973: 200). The first type of conduct book, therefore,
by claiming that “equal rights for sexes” meant “women and men had different
rights,” succeeded in transforming the premodern norms of women’s speech into
modern norms, maintaining the gender distinction required for gendered nation-
alization during Japan’s nation-state building. Such books, as seen in (1) and (2) in
Table 4.1, often essentialized gender by stating that “women are born talkative” or
“women are innately gentle.” It is worth noting that the essentialization discourse
continuously appeared when social change endangered the asymmetrical order of
gender, as we also will see in Chapters 8, 9 and 10.
In contrast to the first type, the second type of conduct book defines women
as subjects of the emperor. (3) Bunmeiron onna daigaku [Enlightened Women’s
Learning] (1876) in Table 4.1 defines “equal rights for sexes” as “equal rights of
sexes as subjects of the emperor,” stating that: “Women in our Japanese Empire
possess the same rights as men as citizens of the Japanese Empire, so they have the
same responsibility to serve the Japanese Empire” (Ishikawa 1977: 136). In pre-
modern conduct books, women were expected to serve their husbands. Now they
were expected to serve the emperor alongside their husbands. Ishikawa (1977:
322) has correctly pointed out that Bunmeiron onna daigaku “incorporated the
freedom and equality of men and women into the framework of the imperial state-
as-family system.” Most Japanese had no idea what the concept of “citizen” meant.
Bunmeiron onna daigaku taught that being a Japanese citizen meant being a ser-
vant of the Japanese emperor. By redefining women as female citizens, therefore,
this book successfully rationalized and legitimated the metalinguistic practice of
applying premodern norms to modern Japanese women.
In this process of nationalizing women, the notion of “an educating mother”
was introduced. According to Koyama Shizuko (1991: 33–34), the major differ-
ence between premodern and modern conduct books was that, while the premod-
ern books “had regarded women as silly and required them to solely follow their
husbands and parents-in-law,” the modern books “considered children’s education
as an important role for women, especially from a nationalistic point of view, and
required them to gain knowledge and study.” By “a nationalistic point of view,”
Koyama refers to the political need of the Meiji government which, to enhance
building the modern nation state, expected women to produce efficient male citi-
zens, who would become workers, soldiers and tax payers. Women’s role, in
Koyama’s words, was transformed from “the borrowed womb” to “an educating
mother.” The wise, educating mother was naturally expected to set an example in

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 4.  The modern norms of feminine speech 93

terms of speech. (2) Kinsei onna daigaku [Modern Women’s Learning] (1874) in
Table 4.1 stated, “A mother should not joke nor speak carelessly. She must be the
role model for children” (Ishikawa 1973: 397). Meiji onna imagawa [Women’s
Disciplinary of the Imagawa Family in Meiji] (1880) remonstrates against “a moth-
er who does not pay attention to being a model for children and who overlooks
their incorrect language or behavior” (Ishikawa 1973: 226). As the nationalistic
view of a wise, educating mother was introduced, the norms of modern conduct
books became the responsibility of female citizens – i.e., what a wise Japanese
mother should teach her children. To overlook the incorrect speech of children or
to speak carelessly was no longer merely a source of trouble for the family as in
premodern conduct books. It would destroy the nation.2
The third type of conduct book asked women to speak up when necessary.
After the Sino-Japanese War (1894–95), as the Meiji government recognized the
importance of female citizens’ contributions to the state, the ideal of “wife”
changed. In the premodern period, simple obedience was expected of “a good
wife.” In modern times, “when the gender-differentiated roles of ‘a man works
outside and a woman stays at home’ were established, a good wife was expected to
skillfully carry out domestic labor sufficiently and manage the household”
(Koyama 1991: 46), especially in households in which men went to workplaces
outside their homes in the newly emerging modern capitalist society. These chang-
es also influenced the norms of women’s speech. Some conduct books claimed that
women should speak up when necessary. Fukuzawa Yukichi, in Onna daigaku
hyooron/Shin onna daigaku [Comments on Women’s Learning/New Women’s
Learning] (1899), as noted at the beginning of this chapter, repeats the premodern
norms of feminine speech. He also claims, however, in the same book that “teach-
ing [women] merely to maintain a taciturn silence has many problems.” He enu-
merates the situations in which women cannot use language properly, pointing out
that some women cannot even give a proper greeting or describe her physical
condition to a doctor, “bringing some difficulty or trouble to everyday interactions”

2. Why were Bunmeiron onna daigaku [Enlightened Women’s Learning] and Onna daigaku
hyooron/Shin onna daigaku [Comments on Women’s Learning/New Women’s Learning], which
had been originally written to criticize the premodern, undemocratic Onna daigaku, unable to
liberate women’s speech? Muta Kazue (1996: 127) also addresses this question pointing out that
“revolutionary thought [in Japan], which aimed to elevate woman’s position based on modern-
ization and Westernization, tended to express loyalty to the state more eagerly and welcome the
enclosure of women into the mother role.” This paradox happened, she continues, because “the
so-called ‘modern’ [Western] thought they more or less adopted accompanied the new ideology
of family which celebrated mother-wife roles and emphasized gender differences, and it fit the
requirements of the modern state.” In other words, as the modern state controls “citizens”
through the unit of “family,” the elevation of women’s positions was accomplished merely by the
elevation of mother-wife positions.

www.ebook777.com
94 Gender, language and ideology

(Fukuzawa 1977[1899]: 228). So he argues that women should speak up when


necessary. However, as his comment, “I do not positively prefer verbosity” shows,
he does not encourage the free use of language by women (Fukuzawa 1977[1899]:
228–229). His disgust for women’s free speech is also seen in his attitude towards
the speech of female students. As a democratic critic who had argued for the im-
portance of education in Gakumon no susume [Encouragement of Learning], Fu-
kuzawa proposes in his conduct book for women that they are to learn not only
characters and letter writing but also physics, geography, history and foreign lan-
guages (Fukuzawa 1977[1899]: 229). Nevertheless, Fukuzawa, in the same conduct
book, mostly abhorred the use of academic language and free discussion by female
students: “It is an ignorant sin that women, as education has developed, have be-
gun to speak in a manner that is unsuitable, and some even use bizarre words”
(Fukuzawa 1977[1899]: 264). Fukuzawa was not the only one who claimed such a
contradictory argument to encourage women to acquire knowledge, on one hand,
and to prohibit them speaking out that knowledge, on the other. In fact, Nakae
Choomin (Tokusuke), a theoretical leader of the liberal democratic movement in
Japan, criticized the tendency to condemn women who carried out discussion us-
ing academic terms: “There is no logic in grieving over women’s lack of knowledge
and asking them to study but simultaneously prohibiting them from speaking out
a word or a phrase from their mouths” (Nakae 1888: 19). Then when did Fukuza-
wa expect women to speak up? He surely wanted women to be able to give a prop-
er greeting or describe her physical condition to a doctor to avoid difficulty or
trouble in everyday interactions. He expected Japanese modern women to speak
up, in other words, when it became necessary for them to fulfill the daily, practical
roles of a good wife and a wise mother. Fukuzawa’s encouragement for women to
“speak up when necessary,” therefore, was confined to situations in which women
were required to fulfill the daily role of a good-wife-wise-mother.
What is more important about Fukuzawa’s conduct book is his criticism
against the language use of Japanese women in his day. By enumerating the con-
crete problems of modern women’s actual speech, such as their inability to greet
properly or describe their physical condition to a doctor and speaking in an un-
suitable manner using bizarre words, Fukuzawa created a new belief about wom-
en’s speech: women cannot use language properly. That kind of critical discourse
can be found in the books of many other writers in the early twentieth century.
Yokoi Tokio (1986[1902]: 204), principal of a Christian school, Dooshisha, la-
ments that, though women gossip and complain with other women, “When they
meet with men, they keep silent.” Toogoo Masatake (1986[1908]: 18), a graduate of
Dooshisha, also argues that, “If a wife does not respond or ask questions when her
husband talks about his life and thinking, he feels it is not worth speaking and fi-
nally stops telling her anything. When a husband stops talking to his wife, it is all

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 4.  The modern norms of feminine speech 95

the wife’s fault.” By criticizing the speech of women, Fukuzawa and many of his
contemporaries constructed a new belief that “women cannot use language prop-
erly.” These critical discourses against women’s actual speech emerged at a time
when the writers of conduct books were required to deal with the upsurge of de-
mocracy and gender equality, women were expected to manage their households
sufficiently while their husbands were at work, and women redefined as female
citizens were required to produce competent male citizens. The emergence of the
new discourse criticizing women’s actual speech, in other words, was the result of
the dilemma faced by those modern Japanese intellectuals who pontificated both
that the simple enforcement of silence on women was not acceptable and that
women’s free use of language had to be regulated. To resolve the dilemma,
Japanese intellectuals like Fukuzawa chose to encourage women to speak up in
situations requiring women to fulfill the daily role of good-wife-wise-mother, the
choice between the two extremes of silence and verbosity. By declaring such an-
tipathy towards women speaking, such as female students indulging in free discus-
sion, Fukuzawa denied total freedom in women’s talk. By implying that women
were not eligible to employ the right to speak granted them in modern Japanese
society, the discourses asserting that women were incapable of using language
properly functioned to legitimate the practice of continuously mandating norms
for women’s speech.
The new belief about women’s actual speech, that they “cannot use language
properly,” might initially appear different from the previous norm of “women
should not speak.” Yet, in fact, the “new” belief, in purveying the functions of reg-
ulating, controlling and dominating women’s linguistic practice, made it quite dif-
ficult for women to speak out. Whenever they spoke, they were virtually forced to
be aware that their speech was foredoomed to failure; no matter how she spoke,
her speech would be evaluated based on the belief that “women cannot use lan-
guage properly.” So the “new” belief, in conceptualizing women’s linguistic prac-
tice as the object of regulation, control and domination, had the same function as
the premodern norms of feminine speech. Since then, critical discourse against
women’s actual linguistic practice, such as “women talk too much,” “women talk
about trivial matters,” and “women incessantly change topics of their talk not
reaching to any conclusion,” have formed a major stereotype about women’s speech
until today.
My analysis of the three types of modern conduct books for women has
demonstrated that, while no conduct book explicitly denied gender equality, each
type used different logic to legitimate citing the andro-centric premodern norms,
showing the confusion and difficulty faced by conduct-book writers in their radi-
cally changing society. The logic used in the first type of conduct book held that
women and men were equal but had different rights, maintaining the gender

www.ebook777.com
96 Gender, language and ideology

distinction deemed necessary to accomplish the gendered nationalization re-


quired in building Japan’s modern nation state. To legitimate that difference in
rights, which the writers regarded as innate, the conduct books, by redefining the
differences in speech determined by the gendered norms as differences based on
sex, essentialized gender. The logic used in the second type of modern conduct
book was to claim that women and men had equal rights as subjects of the em-
peror. In redefining the norms in their books as the responsibility of female citi-
zens and emphasizing the role of mothers to educate their children, the second
type also legitimated giving premodern norms to modern women. The logic of the
third type was to encourage women to speak up in situations requiring them to
fulfill their daily role of good-wife-wise-mother. By creating a belief in the inabil-
ity of women to use language properly, the writers of this third type of conduct
book also legitimated their normative discourses. The three major lines of logic
used in modern conduct books were the emphasis on gender distinction suitable
for gendered nationalization, reframing women as female citizens based on the
state-as-family ideology, and encouraging women to speak to fulfill their daily
role of good-wife-wise-mother. In the next section, I will show that very similar
lines of logic are found in school moral textbooks used to educate women since
the end of the nineteenth century.

Logic of the school moral textbooks

The Meiji government, well aware of the importance of education in building a


modern nation state, issued Gaku sei (The School System Law) in 1872, declaring:
“From now on, among nations in general (including nobles, descendants of sam­
urai, farmers, merchants, and women), there will be no family in any town or
village without education, nor any person in a family without education”
(Monbushoonai kyooikushi hensankai 1938: 277). More women, especially the
daughters of upper- and middleclass families, started attending school and, as we
have seen in Fukuzawa Yukichi’s negative attitude toward the speech of female
students, they evoked virulent criticism. The changing attitudes of not only
Japanese women but also Japanese men were considered to be the result of too
much Western influence. In 1879, therefore, the Meiji emperor issued Kyoogaku
seishi (The Imperial Will on Education), which remonstrated against too much
Westernization and declared the start of ethical education based on Confucianism
(Mitsui 1977: 175). In 1890, the Meiji emperor issued Kyooiku chokugo (the Impe-
rial Rescript on Education), which set the principle of moral, ethical education in
Japan, officially articulating the ideology of state-as-patriarchal family and the
Confucian teaching of patriarchal family with the emperor atop the Japanese

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 4.  The modern norms of feminine speech 97

state-as-family. That remained the fundamental principle of Japanese education


until the end of WWII. Responding to Kyoogaku seishi (The Imperial Will on
Education), the Meiji government launched a compilation of women’s moral text-
books for use in compulsory ethical education.
The school system in Japan’s early modernization period frequently changed,
but the school attendance rates of both girls and boys rapidly increased in elemen-
tary schools. From 1886 to 1890, compulsory education meant four years of ele-
mentary school (jinjoo shoogakkoo) (starting from age six) and two years of higher
elementary school (kootoo jinjoo shoogakkoo), extended in 1890 to four years. In
1907, compulsory elementary school was extended to six years with two years of
higher elementary school. According to the report, Nihon no seichoo to kyooiku
[The Growth of Japan and Education] (1962), by Monbukagakushoo (Japanese
Ministry of Education and Science), the school attendance rate of girls in compul-
sory elementary schools, though always lower than for boys until the 1920s, al-
ready exceeded 90% in 1900 and reached almost 100% after the beginning of the
twentieth century (drop-out rate not included).
Few girls, however, were allowed to receive further advanced education after
elementary school. In the school system of 1890, beyond elementary school, there
was kootoo jogakkoo (women’s secondary school), a five-year institution for girls
from twelve to sixteen years old. According to the same report, among female
students who graduated from elementary school in 1905, only 4.2% went on to
women’s secondary school, which constituted only 1.7% of twelve-year-old girls.
The Meiji government also established joshi kootoo shihan gakkoo (women’s higher
normal school) in 1890, a four-year public school for women from seventeen to
twenty-one years old, who would become teachers. According to the report, only
0.1% of seventeen-year-old girls received education beyond secondary school.
School moral textbooks were compiled, in other words, for teaching the Confu-
cian lessons proclaimed in Kyooiku chokugo (the Imperial Rescript on Education)
to the increasing number of educated girls, ensuring that the literacy and knowl-
edge acquired at school would be used solely to fulfill their principal role in life of
good-wife-wise-mother.
The school moral textbooks from the late nineteenth into the early twentieth
century can be divided into three groups, according to the content of norms taught
concerning women’s speech. The first type of moral textbook, by emphasizing the
necessity to assign distinctive norms to women and men, gave additional restric-
tions specifically on women’s speech. The writer of Shoogaku shuushinkun
[Elementary School Moral Precept] (1880), Nishimura Shigeki, even promoted
separate education for girls and boys (Monbushoonai kyooikushi hensankai 1938:
471). He says in his introduction: “There are naturally some norms only for girls.
They may be passed over when teaching boys” (Kaigo 1964a: 7). On women’s speech,

www.ebook777.com
98 Gender, language and ideology

he mentions fu-gen (female-language), one of the four Confucian behaviors of


women, frequently cited in premoden conduct books, as noted in Chapter 1. “Fe-
male-language means using language selectively, not using rough words, and speak-
ing after [thinking] for a while so that others will not hate what you say.” He also
refers to Onna daigaku [Women’s Learning]: “It is against the woman’s way of life …
to use coarse language or to start speaking before others.” (Kaigo 1964a: 20–21).
Sooga shoogaku onna reishiki [Illustrated Elementary School for Women’s Man-
ners] was compiled especially for female elementary students, from six to nine years
old, in 1882. On speech, it gives very strict instructions: “When you speak, do not
speak in too high a voice nor too low a voice, do not speak too slowly or too rap-
idly” (Kaigo 1964a: 177). Since it shows neither the appropriate tone of voice nor
the ideal speed of speaking, giving such instructions, to my mind, must have made
elementary school girls afraid of speaking up. Shoogaku sahoosho [Elementary
School Manners Book] (1883) edited by the Ministry of Education, is also charac-
terized by its emphasis on giving gendered-differentiated norms of speech. It espe-
cially warns girls that, “From childhood, you must always remember to use elegant
language and keep yourself clean” (Kaigo 1964a: 183). In Shoogaku shuushinkun
[Elementary School Moral Lesson] (1892), Suematsu Kenchoo, a Cambridge Uni-
versity graduate and member of Japan’s parliament, states: “A woman should serve
her parents-in-law, respect her husband, behave herself, and keep her language
soft….” (Kaigo 1964a: 393). The same author writes in Shuushin jokun [Moral Prin-
ciples of Women] (1893): “This textbook is compiled for the use of female students
at higher elementary schools…. We provide separate textbooks for male and female
students, following the standard set by the Ministry of Education” (Kaigo 1964a:
439). While obediently following the Ministry of Education’s policy requiring dif-
ferent moral textbooks for girls and boys, Suematsu simply repeats the now stan-
dard remonstration on verbosity and disclosure of knowledge:
(1) As speech is said to be the flower of one’s mind, your mind is known by
your speech. Restrain yourself from speaking. Intentionally androgynous
speech is indecent. Direct speech is snobbish. A woman’s good speech
should not jar one’s ear, but should be soft and lovable, and should not talk
reason…. It is especially disgusting to see a woman speak knowingly and
cleverly. (Kaigo 1964a: 460–461)
The logic used in the first type of textbook to legitimate their acts of repeating the
premodern norms of feminine speech, therefore, was to claim that women and men
needed different norms by emphasizing gender distinction, the distinction neces-
sary to accomplish the gendered nationalization. Emphasizing the importance of
giving different norms to women and men legitimated putting special constraints

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 4.  The modern norms of feminine speech 99

on women’s speech. The textbooks of this group, quite similar to the conduct book
by Fukuzawa Yukichi, also prohibited women from showing their knowledge.
The second type of textbook, compiled after the Imperial Rescript on Educa-
tion (1890), redefined speech norms as the norms of “the subjects of the emperor”
and presented the premodern norms of feminine speech as the responsibility of
female citizens. Two books, Jinjoo shoogaku shuushinsho [Elementary School
Moral Textbook] (1892) and Kootoo shoogaku shuushinsho [Higher Elementary
School Moral Textbook] (1892), by Higashikuze Michitomi, vice chair of Japan’s
Privy Council, simply repeat the premodern idea “of decreasing words” (Kaigo
1964a: 504), but they achieved distinction in their shift of emphasis from the re-
spect for parents to loyalty to the emperor. Moral textbooks had heretofore pre-
sented respect for parents in their opening pages as the most important lesson. In
Jinjoo shoogaku shuushinsho, by contrast, Higashikuze begins the first page of Vol-
ume 1 with a picture of Japan’s rising-sun flag fluttering over a village shrine. And
the first lesson in Volume 2 is “Loyalty to the Emperor,” beginning with: “The em-
peror’s blessing is limitless. Never forget to be loyal [to the emperor]” (Kaigo
1964a: 489, 531). This shift was passed on to Shimpen shuushin kyooten [Newly
Compiled Moral Scripture] (1900), complied by the Fukyuusha publishing com-
pany. The introduction defines students as “citizens,” stating the book’s purpose as,
“teaching public morals which constitutional citizens should acquire … based on
the Imperial Rescript on Education and the great duty of loyalty” (Kaigo 1964a:
587). On speech, Lesson 24, “The Manners of Girls,” of the elementary school edi-
tion, describes the “female-language” as one of the four Confucian behaviors of
women, and Lesson 20 of the higher elementary edition, jo-toku (female-virtue),
repeats this premodern notion: “To speak too much and to envy others are aspects
of woman’s evil nature, so always restrain yourself from speaking” (Kaigo 1964a:
613, 650–1). The second type of textbook, by redefining female students as sub-
jects of the emperor, successfully reframed the same premodern norms of femi-
nine speech as the responsibility of female citizens serving the emperor.
The third type of textbook mostly consisted of moral textbooks for female stu-
dents in women’s secondary schools. Published after the Sino-Japanese war
(1894–1895) and the groundswell of women’s liberation movements in the early
1900s, they show a substantial difference from the previous two groups of textbook;
while they also warned women not to speak, they simultaneously proclaimed that it
was acceptable for women to speak up when necessary. Inoue Tetsujiroo, author of
Chokugo engi [Commentary on the Imperial Rescript], which declared the ideology
of state-as-family (noted in Chapter 3), also wrote Teisei joshi shuushin kyookasho
[Revised Women’s Moral Textbook] (1907). This book, while re-enforcing the fa-
miliar premodern lessons in the sections, “Restrain Yourself from Speaking” and
“the Problems of Verbosity,” also has a section titled, “The Problems of Silence”:

www.ebook777.com
100 Gender, language and ideology

(2) However, women nowadays, different from women before, are sometimes
required to stand among many people and talk to them. So, although ver-
bosity is bad, to always remain silent should not be praised…. [A woman
should] keep silent and refrain from verbosity, but, at the same time,
should try to speak correctly when there is something that ought to be
said. (Kootoo jogakkoo kenkyuukai 1989a: 105).
The lesson on the problems of silence is also found in the moral textbooks for
female secondary school students during WWI (1914–18) and into the Taishoo
period (1912–26). In Shintei joshi shuushinkun [Newly Revised Women’s Moral
Lessons] (1918), Sawayanagi Seitaro, a Ministry of Education official, obligates
women “to speak when necessary and to shut their mouths when not” (Kootoo
jogakkoo kenkyuukai 1989a: 232). Shimoda Jiroo, professor at Tokyo joshi kootoo
shihan gakkoo (Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School) wrote Joshi shin shuush-
insho kaiteiban [Women’s New Moral Book Revised] in 1925. He also expects
women to speak: “Although speaking honestly is said to be best, poor speech is
not good when people are listening to you” (Kootoo jogakkoo kenkyuukai 1989b:
57). So when, according to these textbooks, is it necessary that something should
be said? Kootoo jogakkoo rei (Women’s Secondary School Act), issued by Educa-
tion Minister Yokoyama Toshiki in 1899, made explicit the goal of women’s
secondary school education: “to teach knowledge to become a wise-mother-
good-wife” (Fukaya 1998[1981]: 155). These textbooks of women’s secondary
schools, therefore, asked women to speak only when necessary to fulfill the roles
of a good wife and a wise mother.
On the subject of women’s speech, therefore, moral textbooks of the period
repeated the premodern norms of feminine speech. The three major lines of
logic used by each group of moral textbooks to legitimate that repetition are
quite similar to those used in conduct books. The first group of moral textbooks,
by emphasizing the gender distinction required to enhance gendered national-
ization, rationalized the assignment of additional restrictions specifically on
women’s speech. The second group reframed women as female citizens based on
the state-as-family ideology and transformed premodern norms into the re-
sponsibility of modern female citizens. The third group expected women to
speak when it was necessary for them to fulfill the role of good-wife-wise-­
mother. The spread of conduct-book norms through the medium of school text-
books transformed the traditional norms of feminine speech into the official,
legitimate norms that ought to be taught in the public educational institutions
authorized by the government.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 4.  The modern norms of feminine speech 101

Conclusion

This chapter has demonstrated that the normative discourse of conduct books and
school moral textbooks from the late nineteenth to the twentieth century success-
fully reframed the premodern norms of feminine speech as modern norms. The
perspective of conceptualizing women’s speech as the object of regulation, control
and domination, as a result, was preserved and legitimated despite the radical so-
cial changes of Japan’s early modernization period. Three major lines of logic, used
both in conduct books and moral textbooks to rationalize the repetition of pre-
modern norms, were the emphasis on gender distinction deemed necessary to
enhance gendered nationalization, the redefinition of women as female citizens
based on the ideology of state-as-family, and the encouragement of women to
speak when it was necessary to fulfill the role of good-wife-wise-mother. By re-
framing the premodern norms within the modern ideologies of gendered nation-
alization, state-as-family and good-wife-wise-mother, these books transformed
the premoden norms of ideal feminine speech into the modern norms for female
citizens. By modern norms, I refer to a set of rules concerning how much, about
what, and how women should talk, defining a style of speaking considered ideal
for modern female citizens. Accordingly, the discourses of modern conduct books
and moral textbooks successfully transformed the premodern ideology of femi-
nine speech into the modern version of that ideology, the ideal speech of modern
good-wife-wise-mothers following modern norms of feminine speech. The con-
trol and domination of women’s speech was reinforced in modernizing state insti-
tutions – above all, in schools – as inherited by a metalinguistic tradition observed
in etiquette manuals today. The norms of feminine speech, this strongly implies,
have been preserved, maintained and legitimated by being reframed in the hege-
monic ideologies of each historical juncture.3
Japan’s modernization period from the late nineteenth century and into the
early twentieth, therefore, created two gendered linguistic ideologies, men’s na-
tional language and the modern feminine speech. At the end of Chapter 3, I argue
that there must have been some ideological construct associated with women’s
speech, which functioned to sustain the hegemonic status of a men’s national lan-
guage. The modern ideology of feminine speech played the role of a negative
counterpart to maintain the unmarked, standard, and normal status of a national
language, along with the regional varieties and the speech of the often uneducated
people in lower social classes. The regional varieties and the speech of such people

3. The contemporary norms of feminine speech, as we have seen in the list of etiquette manu-
als in the Introduction, emphasizing the importance of feminine speech for women to be attrac-
tive to and loved by man, are explicitly legitimated by the hetero-romantic ideology.

www.ebook777.com
102 Gender, language and ideology

were distinguished from the ideology of national language by regions and social
class, and the modern feminine speech was contrasted with men’s national lan-
guage by gender. If we consider the types of discourse that constructed men’s na-
tional language and feminine speech and how they were related to each other, it
becomes clear that they were asymmetrically distinguished. While men’s national
language was discussed in academic, political, and literary discourses, feminine
speech was dealt with in the completely distinctive discourses of conduct books
and moral textbooks. Men’s national language was conceptualized as a goal vital to
national unity and power. Feminine speech, in contrast, remained an ideal, against
which women’s linguistic practice was constantly criticized, regulated and con-
trolled outside the legitimate ideology of national language. In the next chapter, we
will see another example of the gendered asymmetry in Japan’s modernization
period, by looking at how the speech of typically modern Japanese women –
schoolgirls – was constructed.

www.ebook777.com
chapter 5

Creating indexicality
Schoolgirl speech

Kimiko: Watashi moo itteyo. Moo itteyo. Aa kokoro ga … nuketchi-


maisoo…. Aa ii noyo.
‘I’m already coming. I’m coming now. Oh, my mind is going
crazy. Oh, it is good.’
Oguri Fuuyoo (1907–1911) Sode to sode [Sleeve to Sleeve]1
In a pornographic story, Sode to sode [Sleeve to Sleeve], written during 1907–1911,
a female student, Kimiko, is speaking with strange sentence-final forms, teyo and
noyo, when she is having sex with a man (Oguri 1998[1907–1911]: 54). The above
epigraph induces some questions. First, how did female students, educated
daughters of middleclass families, come to appear in pornographic stories as
sex objects? By the phrase “female students,” I refer to a group of women in sec-
ondary schools (kootoo jogakkoo), the five-year schools for twelve-to-sixteen-year-
old girls, and higher normal schools (kootoo shihan gakkoo), the four-year schools
for seventeen-to-twenty-one-year-old women in the 1990s school system. As cited
in Chapter 4, in 1905, girls in secondary schools were only 1.7% of twelve-year-old
girls and those in higher normal schools only 0.1% of seventeen-year-old girls.
Female students, in other words, were composed of daughters of rich, high-class
families, who constituted only a portion of women in their age group in Japan’s
early modernization period. Second, why did Kimiko, one such daughter of a rich,
high-class family, speak with the unfamiliar sentence-final forms? Those forms,
teyo and noyo, along with another sentence-final form, dawa, came to form what
was called jogakusei kotoba (schoolgirl speech) in the early twentieth century.
The investigation into schoolgirl speech is particularly important in analyzing
the genealogy of Japanese women’s language, since the sentence-final forms in-
cluded in schoolgirl speech are assumed to constitute what we now call Japanese
women’s language. What was schoolgirl speech and what did it have to do with the

1. Neither the author nor the publication year of Sode to sode [Sleeve to Sleeve] has been de-
termined, since pornography was strictly censored by the state at the time. It is assumed to have
been published between 1907 and 1911, and the author has been variously said to be Oguri
Fuuyoo, his teacher Ozaki Kooyoo, or Oguri Fuuyoo’s student, Nakagawa Hakkaku.

www.ebook777.com
104 Gender, language and ideology

transformation of female students into sex objects and, further, with the ideology
of good-wife-wise-mother set as a goal of women’s secondary education in the
gendered nationalization of building the modern nation state?
The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the construction process of school-
girl speech by analyzing the discourses about the speech of female students in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As Japan underwent modernization
during the period, several linguistic ideologies were constructed, including one of
the national language, one of schoolgirl speech (jogakusei kotoba), and another of
schoolboy speech (shosei kotoba).2 This chapter focuses on schoolgirl speech be-
cause: (1) Komatsu Sumio (1988) shows that sentence-final forms, features associ-
ated with social identities in Japanese, used in fiction, were being differentiated by
gender during the early twentieth century;3 (2) sentence-final forms included in
schoolgirl speech, such as teyo, dawa, and noyo, constitute what we now call
Japanese women’s language; and (3) the emergence, formation, and establishment
of schoolgirl identity and schoolgirl speech are historically clear.
Japanese women officially became students for the first time in 1872 when the
Japanese government issued Gaku sei (The School System Law), declaring the
importance of education for everybody, including women (Monbushoonai
kyooikushi hensankai 1938: 277). When the law was issued, there was no specific

2. Shosei (lit. writing student), is a general term for students prevalent in the late nineteenth to
the early twentieth century. It was also used to refer to young men who lived in their master’s
house to study while helping the household. The term usually indicated a male student as is ex-
emplified in the case that onna shosei (woman student), rather than shosei, was used to refer to
a female student. Shosei kotoba (lit. student speech), typically referred to peculiar speech spoken
by male students of the period. Since the term shosei mainly indicated a male student, I translate
the term shosei kotoba as “schoolboy speech.”
3. The Meiji era saw the recognition of gendered linguistic elements such as personal pronouns
and sentence-final forms. Komatsu (1988) compares sentence-final forms appearing in the two
stories published in the premodern and the modern periods, respectively, Ukiyo buro (1813) and
Sanshiroo (1909), and concludes that: 1) of the sentence-final forms used by both women and
men in Ukiyo buro, some were used either by women or men in Sanshiroo, and 2) in Sanshiroo,
there were new sentence-final forms used only by female characters. This shows that novels, such
as Sanshiroo, played an important role in gendering linguistic features in Japan’s modernization
period. Concerning the schoolgirl features, dawa and noyo, some studies show that they were
new features invented during the modern period by female students. Komatsu (1988) finds that
other sentence-final forms, avoided by upper-class women in Ukiyo buro, were used only by men
in Sanshiroo. Dawa and noyo, however, are exceptions. Although upper-class women avoided
them in Ukiyo buro, female characters still used them in Sanshiroo, demonstrating the difference
between the premodern and the modern dawa and noyo. Kinsui (2003: 144) also points out that
dawa and noyo in Ukiyo buro and those same forms in schoolgirl speech are used differently,
denying any continuity from the premodern dawa and noyo to the modern ones.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 105

identity of female students as opposed to that of male students.4 By the beginning


of the twentieth century, however, Japanese society created a social category called
“schoolgirls,” clearly distinguished by gender from the category of male students.
Honda Masuko (1990: 133) has demonstrated that symbolic devices such as attire
(ebicha-bakama [maroon trouser skirt]), hairstyle (tabane gami [tied-up hair]),
and speech (jogakusei kotoba [schoolgirl speech]) constructed the social identity
of schoolgirl. In investigating the transformation of female students into sex
objects, therefore, I use the two terms “female students” (joshi gakusei) and “school-
girls” (jogakusei) distinctively. By “female students,” I refer to students who were
women. By “schoolgirls,” I refer to the social category of female students created by
the metalinguistic discourses about their attire, hairstyle and speech, produced
during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This chapter concentrates
mainly on speech.
Before clarifying further the difference between “female students” and “school-
girls” by analyzing schoolgirl speech construction, I would like to show how
female students’ way of dressing quickly altered as the government’s policy on fe-
male education changed in the late nineteenth century. The quick transition oc-
curring with female students’ clothing, an important, if symbolic, system helping
construct the social category of schoolgirls, reflected the trial and error of the Mei-
ji government and school administrations in their attempts to define what kind of
Japanese citizen these newly educated young women should be and where to lo-
cate them in the structure of the emerging modern Japanese nation state. As we
will soon see, the trial and error of the government and school administrations
also had a great effect on the process of constructing schoolgirl speech.

Changing attire of female students

Figures 5.1 to 5.4 show photographs of female students from 1877 to 1900 (Karasawa
1958: frontispiece). One can see radical changes in their attire in little more than
two decades. Figure 5.1 is a photograph of female students at Tokyo Women’s
Higher Normal School around 1877. Wearing hakama, the trouser-style kimono
worn by male students, the girls are sitting just like boys, with their legs apart and
their arms crossed in front of them. When the School System Law was passed in
1872, there were not enough school buildings, so “in the early years after second-
ary education was first introduced, schools accepted girls and the girls entered

4. It does not mean that the term jogakusei (schoolgirl) was not used at the beginning of the
modern school system. Though I cannot determine whether the term was read as jogakusei
(schoolgirl) or onna gakusei (woman student), the term appeared in some written discourses
produced in the late nineteenth century.

www.ebook777.com
106 Gender, language and ideology

Figure 5.1  Female students in hakama around 1877.

Figure 5.2  Female students in kimono in 1885.

secondary schools [with boys]” (Fukaya 1998[1981]: 58). This means that some
women were learning alongside their male counterparts, and this situation contin-
ued until coeducation was prohibited in 1879. An article in the magazine, Shimbun
zasshi, issued in March, 1872, describes those early female students as “walking up
and down the streets in hakama and wooden clogs, their sleeves rolled up and
foreign books in their arms” (Ishii 1944: 539). Nakagawa Kenjiroo, principal

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 107

Figure 5.3  Female students in Western dress in 1886.

Figure 5.4  Female students in maroon trouser skirts in 1900.

www.ebook777.com
108 Gender, language and ideology

of Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School, wrote: “In 1872 … the government
founded their first school for women. Every time I walked around the neighbor-
hood, I saw strangely dressed girls in hakama. They were students at the school”
(Monbushoonai kyooikushi hensankai 1938: 794). These are perfect descriptions
of the students in Figure 5.1, suggesting that, on entering school, those girls did
not think that they became “female students,” but considered themselves “stu-
dents” who came to study the same as male students. This shows that neither the
Meiji government nor the school administrations gave any apparent instruction
about what to wear to these early female students, because they had not made a
decision concerning what kind of Japanese citizens the newly emerging educated
young women should be. As mentioned earlier, there was no specific social iden-
tity of female students clearly distinguished from the identity of male students in
the late nineteenth century.
The female students in male hakama received severe criticism. The magazine,
Shimbun zasshi, after describing the female students as shown in the above citation,
continues: “Even if they are female students [who study just like male students], to
wear men’s clothing and vigorously use men’s manners tells us that they have al-
ready strayed from their course of study and forgotten the important principle of
women’s learning” (Ishii 1944: 539). An article, Joseito no kutsu hakama [The Shoes
and Hakama of Woman Students], in a newspaper, Tokyo nichinichi shimbun, in
1881, reports that an Education Ministry official, inspecting women’s schools in
the Tohoku area (northeast of Tokyo) saw “many female teachers and students in
half-male-half-female attire, triumphantly wearing shoes and hakama and exul-
tantly proclaiming their superficial understanding of equal rights between the
sexes…. So everywhere he stopped he gave a speech, deploring what he had wit-
nessed” (Nanba 2012: 164). The phrase, “half-male-half-female” vividly expresses
the disgust of the official as he witnessed women transgressing the gender bound-
ary by wearing male clothing. Some observers described these women as “rough
and uncouth female students” (Karasawa 1958: 40). So jarring in fact to traditional
assumptions was the phenomenon of female students in male hakama that it made
intellectuals and bureaucrats aware of the need to distinguish students by gender.
In 1879, as we have seen, the Meiji emperor issued Kyoogaku seishi (The Impe-
rial Will on Education), which remonstrated against too much Westernization and
declared the start of moral education based on Confucianism (Mitsui 1977: 175).
Coeducation in secondary schools was prohibited in the same year (Mitsui 1977:
178). In 1881, sewing and domestic science became compulsory subjects for fe-
male students. “From 1879 to 1882, hakama for women were prohibited” (Honda
1990: 71). Instead, female students wore kimono, the traditional women’s costume.
Figure 5.2 shows female students in kimono in 1885. Kimono clearly differentiated
them from male students.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 109

In 1883, the Meiji government built Rokumei-kan (Deer-cry Hall), a Western-


style dance hall, as a diplomatic space to entertain Western visitors in Western
parties and balls. Since the wives of high-ranking Japanese men were not
accustomed to Western dancing, the government expected female students to con-
tribute to Japanese diplomacy as ballroom dancers. In 1896, the administrators of
women’s normal schools began teaching ballroom dancing and encouraging their
students to wear Western dress (Honda 1990: 75). Figure 5.3 shows female stu-
dents in Western dress in 1886.
After the Sino-Japanese war (1894–1895), many intellectuals began to recog-
nize female education as indispensable to enhancing national power. Women’s
schools were expected to produce “good wives” with high domestic abilities and
“wise mothers” who would efficiently bring up the next generation. Kootoo jogak-
koo rei (Women’s Secondary School Act), issued in 1899, explicitly stated that the
goal of women’s secondary school education was “to teach the knowledge to be-
come a wise-mother-good-wife” (Fukaya 1998[1981]: 155), clearly distinguishing
female schools from male schools, whose goal was to foster efficient workers and
soldiers. As the Women’s Secondary School Act stipulated that at least one public
women’s secondary school be established in each prefecture, new women’s sec-
ondary schools were build in Japan’s major cities. School administrators, there-
fore, thought it necessary to require uniforms for women’s secondary schools to
give the students attending them an identity distinguishing them from other
women. Neither kimono that bundled students with the traditional obi (a kind of
woven sash), nor the tight corset of a Western dress, however, was suitable for a
secondary-school uniform, especially because the importance of physical educa-
tion had been recognized in the good-wife-wise-mother education policy. Instead
of kimono or a Western dress that symbolized an obedient but incompetent wom-
an bundled in obi or in the tight corset, therefore, ebicha-bakama (a maroon
trouser skirt) was chosen as the uniform of a future good-wife-wise-mother.
Figure 5.4 shows female students in maroon trouser skirts in 1900. This new uni-
form distinguished female from male students by its color and female students
from other women by its shape.
The maroon trouser-skirt uniform, however, gradually gained an unexpected
meaning that school administrators would never have imagined; sexuality. As the
number of women’s secondary schools increased, not only the daughters of high-
class families, but also smart, ambitious women came from outside cities to attend
school and live in boardinghouses away from their families. The emergence of
young women living by themselves spawned a perception of female students as
“destroyers of the social order and deviators of sexual morals” (Honda 1990: 89).
The new school uniform of maroon trouser skirt also liberated these students from
both the obi of a kimono and the tight corset of a Western dress, and they were able

www.ebook777.com
110 Gender, language and ideology

Figure 5.5  Female students in maroon trouser skirts at an athletic meet in the 1900s
(Honda 1990: 59).

to ride bicycles and play tennis. A puff of wind would occasionally expose parts of
their active bodies. Figure 5.5 shows an athletic meet in the early 1900s at Tokyo
Women’s Higher Normal School with the students actively running, moving and
playing sports in their maroon trouser skirts, their hair waving in the wind. As
people came to recognize the maroon trouser skirt as the uniform of female stu-
dents, photographs of professional geisha in the schoolgirl uniform sold well
(Figure 5.6). Associated with the sexual conceptualization of female students, the
maroon trouser skirt was used to increase the sexual attractiveness of professional
geisha. The transition observed in the clothes of female students from male
hakama, to bundled kimono, to Western dress and finally to the maroon trouser
skirt with sexual meaning demonstrates that the identity of female students was
transforming in the late nineteenth century from diligent students who studied
along with boys to sex objects of men.

Construction of schoolgirl speech

Along with attire, language played an important role in the social construction of
schoolgirls. The formation process of schoolgirl speech can be divided into four

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 111

Figure 5.6  Photographs of professional geisha in the schoolgirl uniform in the 1900s
(Honda 1990: 29).

processes: gender-differentiation, selection, derogation, and sexualization (Naka-


mura 2006).5

Gender-differentiation: Denial of schoolboy speech

Female students in male hakama were believed to speak what was later called
shosei kotoba (schoolboy speech). A letter to the Yomiuri shimbun in 1875, in crit-
icizing female students, describes a conversation between two female students,
who want to become teachers and make their own living, rather than getting mar-
ried, so that they can freely go to the theater and keep a gigolo (Soga 1875).
(1) a. Kore wa boku no oji ga shoohoo o
this top my gen uncle nom business obj
hajime mashite senjitsu ittan boku ni hakama
start sfx the other day a roll me to trouser-style kimono
ni itase to itte tooyo sare mashitayo.
goal make quot say give do-hon sfx-past-sfp
‘My uncle started a business and gave me a roll of cloth the other day
saying I should have a hakama [made out of it].’

5. I divide the formation of schoolgirl speech into four processes. That does not mean, how-
ever, that the four processes occurred separately, one after another. Some temporarily overlapped
others. Hiraishi (2012: 76), by showing that newspaper articles in 1875 represented as sex ob-
jects not only female students but also geisha in male students’ hakama, points out that “female
students and geisha were already symbolically represented as belonging to the same category [of
sex object] in the 1870s.” This indicates that the fourth process of female students’ sexualization
had already started in the 1870s.

www.ebook777.com
112 Gender, language and ideology

b. Kimi kitto hokudoo e kotowari tamae


you must mother to refuse sfp
‘You must tell your mother that you will refuse it [marriage].’
c. Eesu, eesu, eesu, eesu
yes, yes, yes, yes
‘Yes, yes, yes, yes.’
The students use boku (the male first-person pronoun); Chinese words (Japanese
words written in Chinese characters, cf. Chapter 1), such as shoohoo (business),
tooyo (give), and hokudoo (mother); kimi (male second-person pronoun); tamae
(sentence-final form); and the English word “yes.” Their conversation contains
many of the linguistic features of what was called schoolboy speech in the late
nineteenth to early twentieth century. Komatsu Sumio (1974: 26) claims that
schoolboy speech is characterized by linguistic features such as: 1) Chinese words,
2) foreign words, 3) the first person pronouns, boku and wagahai, 4) the second
person pronoun, kimi, 5) the address form, kun, used after last name in the form,
last name-kun, 6) sentence-final forms such as tamae and beshi, and 7) shikkei
(good-bye). This indicates that, not only in clothes but also in speech, some early
female students behaved just like male students. It is worth noting, moreover, that,
in the above letter, the two students say they want to become teachers so that they
can go to the theater and keep a gigolo. They are described as students lacking
morality who just want to have fun. The letter, in other words, in letting the two
depraved female students talk in schoolboy speech, also criticized the use of
schoolboy speech by female students.
The declaration of Confucian education by Kyoogaku seishi (The Imperial Will
on Education) (1879) meant a return to the official promotion of feminine speech
as encouraged in women’s conduct books and school moral textbooks. The media
immediately apprehended the Confucian turn of female education and criticized
the use of schoolboy speech by female students. One interesting point was how
authors of novels used language to portray female student characters. Bad female
students were characterized by using schoolboy speech, while good female stu-
dents always used polite, feminine language. In 1885, Iwamoto Yoshiharu, a prom-
inent advocate of women’s education, wrote a story, Baika joshi no den [The Story
of Miss Apricot Scent] in Jogaku zasshi [the Women’s Education Journal]. The sto-
ry describes the school life of the good heroine, Ume, sharply contrasting her with
two bad female students, Sawayama and Tanaka. Figure 5.7 shows the heroine
Ume, a good student, standing by the tree, while the other girls, Sawayama and
Tanaka, are running in the schoolyard. They do not behave in a feminine manner
and apparently have lost interest in their studies.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 113

Figure 5.7  Female students in Baika joshi no den [The Story of Miss Apricot Scent]
(Iwamoto 1885: 70).

The stark contrast between good and bad female students is also emphasized
by their speech. Table 5.1 shows the linguistic features of schoolboy speech used by
female students in the story, followed by the example utterances of schoolboy
speech by each student. (A checkmark means the student uses the linguistic fea-
ture and an “×” means she does not.) Both of the bad girls, Sawayama and Tanaka,
use many features of schoolboy speech, such as the address form kun, the first-
person pronoun boku, the second-person pronoun kimi, and the sentence-final
particle tamae. The heroine Ume, in contrast, never uses them. The example utter-
ances show that Sawayama calls herself by boku, and Tanaka calls Sawayama
Sawayama-kun, using the male address form, kun, along with the sentence-final
form of schoolboy speech, tamau (tamae). They also freely use Chinese words in
their conversation. Bad female students use schoolboy features, while good female
students do not. Nevertheless, even Sawayama and Tanaka stop using schoolboy
speech and shift to polite speech when they talk to Ume. Even those female stu-
dents who spoke schoolboy speech among themselves recognized the norm of po-
lite speech.

www.ebook777.com
114 Gender, language and ideology

Table 5.1  Use of schoolboy features by the female students of Baika joshi no den (1885).

Schoolboy features Sawayama Tanaka Ume


(bad student) (bad student) (good student)

Address form kun (last name + kun) ✓ ✓ ×


First-person pronoun, boku ✓ × ×
Second-person pronoun, kimi × ✓ ×
Sentence-final particle, tamae ✓ ✓ ×

(2) Example utterances of the female students of Baika joshi no den


a. Sawayama: Bokura, iya, shoora wa kore o michibikite toosee fuu ni
suru gimu ga arimasu ze.
‘We have a responsibility to lead them and liberalize them.’
b. Tanaka: Sawayama-kun, sonnani shiranu fuu o shitamau na.
‘Sawayama-kun, do not pretend not to know so much.’
c. Ume: Sawayama-san, sakujitsu wa makoto ni arigatoo gozai
mashita.
‘Sawayama-san, thank you very much for yesterday.’
 (Iwamoto 1885: 69)
This story reveals two points about the speech of female students in the media
of the late nineteenth century. First, the writer used schoolboy speech and polite
speech as linguistic symbols to make the distinction between bad female students
and decent, good female students. Compared to Sawayama and Tanaka, who even-
tually lost interest in their studies, Ume is eager to learn. Second, even for bad fe-
male students, polite speech was recognized as the norm. Both Sawayama and
Tanaka switched to polite speech when Ume appears on the scene. The writer of the
story says: “This chapter depicts the behavior of female students exactly as they are”
(Iwamoto 1885: 71). My analysis shows, however, that the writer tactfully makes the
distinction between good/bad female students via language use, thus designating
schoolboy-speech usage as a symbol of bad female students. In both the above letter
to a newspaper and Baika joshi no den [The Story of Miss Apricot Scent], bad female
students speak schoolboy speech. By having bad female students speak schoolboy
speech, the Meiji media denied the use of schoolboy speech by female students and
thereby linguistically gender-differentiated female students from male students.

Selection: choosing “Teyo dawa speech” and western words

Around 1879, some female students started using new sentence-final forms,
such as teyo, dawa, and noyo. As Ozaki Kooyoo (1994[1888]: 4), a leading Meiji

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 115

novelist, observes: “Eight or nine years ago [1879–1880], elementary female stu-
dents began to use a strange form of language in their conversations with intimate
friends.”6 His comment includes the following examples:
(3) a. teyo
Ume wa mada sakanakutteyo.
apricot top yet bloom-neg-sfp
‘The apricot has not yet bloomed.’
b. dawa
Sakura no hana wa mada sakanaindawa.
cherry gen flower top yet bloom-neg-sfp
‘The cherry flowers have not yet bloomed.’
c. noyo
Ara moo saita noyo.
oh already bloom-past sfp
‘Oh, [it has] already bloomed.’
Takeuchi Hisaichi (1907: 24), a sculptor, also observed some changes in women’s
speech, noting that around 1877 upper-class women began using atai (first-person
pronoun), iya yo (“no” with the sentence-final form, yo), shite teyo (“do” with the
sentence-final form, teyo), and yokutteyo (“I don’t care” with the sentence-final
form, teyo).
It is not clear why they began to use such speech. Three facts imply, however,
that one major function of this speech was to resist the good-wife-wise-mother
identity that the school system officially provided for them. First, they started us-
ing this speech around the time when Confucianism and the gender-segregated
educational system were institutionalized. As already noted, 1879 was the year
when Kyoogaku seishi (The Imperial Will on Education) declared the start of the
Confucian good-wife-wise-mother education and coeducation was prohibited.
Before Kyoogaku seishi was issued, some female students, attempting to create and
express their own identity as different from that of other Japanese women, dressed
in male hakama, spoke schoolboy speech and behaved just like their male counter-
parts. Since both the male hakama and schoolboy speech were prohibited for
female students in the rapid spread of the good-wife-wise-mother pedagogical
policy, female students, attempting to construct and express their specific identity
as female students, created their new speech with sentence-final forms, such as
teyo, dawa, and noyo.

6. Once they become well known, modern novelists are ordinarily referred to by their first
names. Thus, in Japan, Ozaki Kooyoo is known as Kooyoo rather than Ozaki. In this book, how-
ever, to avoid confusion, I consistently use last names in the main text.

www.ebook777.com
116 Gender, language and ideology

Second, as seen in Chapter 4, women’s conduct books and school moral text-
books used in good-wife-wise-mother education required strict norms of femi-
nine speech. Teaching the norms of feminine speech constituted a core curriculum
in good-wife-wise-mother education. Using new speech not following the norms
of feminine speech under such circumstance, irrespective of the intention of fe-
male students themselves, functioned to resist the good-wife-wise-mother identity
devised for them by the schools. As Honda (1990: 134) points out, referring to the
“teyo dawa” new speech of female students, “They [female students] filled the
closed space of ‘girl’s school’ with ‘foreign fashion’ and ‘teyo dawa speech’ and non-
chalantly neutralized the image of good-wife-wise-mother forced on them from
outside that space.” An article in the Yomiuri shimbun in 1902 voices the prevailing
view, that for girls to use the “teyo dawa” new speech could only be negative: “Ob-
scene speech such as ii-kotoyo (fine with me), kii-teyo (listen to me) and shiranaku-
teyo (I don’t know) has an awful effect on the future wise-mother-good-wife,
[meaning female students]” (Author unknown, “Hagaki shuu”).
Third, the new speech of female students was severely criticized as originating
from “the lower social classes.” Ozaki Kooyoo (1994[1888]: 4) states that “the
daughters of the low-grade vassals in Aoyama” began to use teyo, dawa, and noyo
at the end of the Tokugawa regime. According to a literature journal in 1896: “It
spread from lower society to the mansion world” (author unknown, “Reijoo sai-
kun no kotoba”). An article in the Yomiuri shimbun in 1905 claims that, as more
daughters from the lower classes began to go to girl’s schools, “schoolgirls began to
speak the language of merchant’s children” (author unknown, “Jogakusei to
gengo”). Takeuchi Hisaichi (1907: 24–26) decided that “teyo dawa speech” was
originally spoken by geisha, some of whom were married to high-ranking men
(including many who were assigned to governmental officials because they had
served the emperor during the Meiji Restoration), and spread the speech among
high society, but “if you consider their origin, you will realize that it is not elegant
speech. It is obscene speech.” Nevertheless, Komatsu (1988: 105) denies such an
argument for the vulgar origin of the new speech, citing two examples. The first
occurs in the novel, Imo to se kagami [Mirrored Couples], by Tsubouchi Shooyoo
(1886a). In this story, a girl named O-tsuji, uses the word zentei (basically), and the
author adds a note that “this girl sometimes uses rough language” (Tsubouchi
1969[1886a]: 165). The girl also uses the sentence-final form, wa, right before and
after zentei, but the writer gives no comment, indicating that a girl’s use of wa at
the end of her utterance was not considered rough. The second example is found
in Satsuki goi [May Carp] by Iwaya Sazanami (1888), the first novel to use teyo,
according to Ishikawa Tadanori (1972: 23). In this story, daughters of rich families
frequently use teyo and dawa (Iwaya 1968[1888]: 198, 207, 203). These examples
prove, Komatsu points out, that using wa, teyo, and dawa was not considered

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 117

rough or impolite at the time when they first appeared. The argument that “teyo
dawa speech” came from “lower society,” therefore, was not based on fact. Those
who asserted this intended only to denigrate such usage; the “vulgar origin” was
invented to belittle the new speech of female students. The persistent denigration
and criticism of the new speech testifies to the power of speech to resist the good-
wife-wise-mother education. Inoue (2006: 67) argues that male intellectuals re-
garded the speech as “unpleasant to the ears,” because “it disrupts the symbolic
alignment between modernity and masculinity, for she is ‘female’ and ‘modern’”
(emphasis original). The new speech of female students functioned as the language
of resistance, no matter how much the speakers were aware of it, in the sense that
the new speech did not follow the good-wife-wise-mother norm of polite, femi-
nine speech in Japan’s modernization period. To clarify that this usage functioned
as a resistant practice at a particular historical point, I will call it “teyo dawa speech”
until we reach the stage when it is transformed into “schoolgirl speech.”
It is worth noting here that actual female students were speaking in a variety
of ways. While no data of Meiji-period speech is available, there are plenty of doc-
uments throughout the period criticizing the speech of female students for speak-
ing like male students and using “teyo dawa speech.” These criticisms indirectly
show that some female students spoke like male students, others used “teyo dawa
speech,” and some others spoke politely. Iwamoto Yoshiharu (1890: 594) criticizes
the “rough, impolite, strange, and disgusting speech” of female students, using sev-
eral examples as follows:
(4) a. Rough and impolite speech
Examples: kita (come-past), iku (go), okkasan (mother), otottsuan
(father). Iwamoto claims that female students should use politer
words, irassharu (come-past), ukagau (go), okaa-sama (mother), and
otoo-sama (father).
b. “Teyo dawa speech”
Examples: sentence-final forms, yo, teyo, and dawa, and the interjec-
tions, ara and aramaa.
c. Schoolboy speech
Examples: kimi (the second-person pronoun), boku (the first-person
pronoun), and the sentence-final form dayo.
Here, Iwamoto criticizes all speech other than polite speech. An article in the
Yomiuri shimbun in 1891 also criticizes the use of “teyo dawa speech” and school-
boy speech by female students: “An old woman knits her brows when she hears
words such as Soo nee (That’s right) and Ara yokutteyo (Ah, I don’t care). She would
be shocked to hear girls say Soo kai (Is that so?) and Ii ja nai ka (That’s good)”

www.ebook777.com
118 Gender, language and ideology

(author unknown, “Jogakusei no heifuu”). The article criticizes both “teyo dawa
speech” (Ara yokutteyo) and schoolboy speech (Ii ja nai ka) spoken by female
students. An article in the Yomiuri shimbun in 1905 continued criticizing female
students who use “teyo dawa speech” (Yokutteyo and Atai iya dawa), schoolboy
speech (boku, kimi, and Asobini ki tamae na) and English words (Miss, Mrs., and
husband) (author unknown, “Jogakusei to gengo”). Okada Yachiyo (1957: 45), a
novelist and playwright, also testifies that female students around 1910 used the
“impolite” language of male students.7 These documents reveal that female students
spoke a variety of styles, including schoolboy speech, “teyo dawa speech,” as well as
Chinese words and English words. Not all or even most female students always and
repeatedly used “teyo dawa speech.” Some of them indeed used teyo, dawa and
noyo, but this simple fact did not make it a linguistic index of female students.
Rather, it was the writers of novels who selected “teyo dawa speech” and for-
eign words as the linguistic index of female students. By having female student
characters speak “teyo dawa speech” and foreign words in fiction, they turned
these features into linguistic indexes of female students. The writers of novels striv-
ing for the unification of speech and writing tried to describe the differences be-
tween characters by having them speak in different ways. To describe different
characters, writers often used different sentence-final forms. Tsubouchi Shooyoo
(1969[1886b]: 34), a leading intellectual, translator and writer seeking to unify the
written and spoken languages, proposed that conversations be written in spoken
language. If conversations are written “directly reflecting actual speech,” he argues,
they will show the “natural activities of the speakers” (Tsubouchi 1969[1886a]:
164). Tsubouchi believed, in other words, that different groups of people spoke
different styles of speech and the writer’s task was to write conversations reflecting
their “natural” differences. Interestingly, his proposal motivated many writers to
use “teyo dawa speech” and foreign words for the speech of their female student
characters. However, as noted before, not all female students always spoke “teyo
dawa speech”; their speech did not reflect what Tsubouchi called the “natural ac-
tivities” of female students. Rather, novelists selected “teyo dawa speech” simply as
a useful linguistic resource to characterize young women characters.
The first instance of “teyo dawa speech” in a novel occurs in the translation of
speech by a young Western woman. In 1909, Tsubouchi Shooyoo and Uchida Roan
recalled the time in 1885 when Futabatei Shimei, another leading writer of novels
attempting to unify speech and writing, was translating a work by Ivan Turgenev: “He

7. Okada (1957) states that the female students used not only male students’ rough speech,
like the first-person pronoun, ore, but also extremely polite usage, like o-koohii (honorific-prefix
o in front of “coffee”). The most interesting case is using the extremely polite form of “do”, aso-
base, with very rough forms, such as asobashite yagarun datosa (Well, she can damn well do
what she pleases) resisting the normative speech symbolized by asobase.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 119

was having such difficulty [in 1885]…. [because] At the time, there was no suitable
language to describe Western women like the schoolgirl speech we have today”
(Tsubouchi & Uchida 1965[1909]: 489). (See note 9 for the first instances of teyo and
dawa in Japanese novels.) Tsubouchi Shooyoo (1977[1933]: 419) also recalled:
(5) At the time, in translation, we could not use middleclass speech, espe-
cially women’s speech, which was full of polite words. This was a hardship
and difficulty modern-day writers cannot imagine, because they are used
to listening to and using schoolgirl speech since the end of the Meiji era
and [the writers today can use] woman’s language. How lucky these mod-
ern writers are!
Therefore, Futabatei (1962[1888]: 382–384), who, in 1885, had struggled in trans-
lating the speech of a Russian girl into Japanese, used “teyo dawa speech” in 1888
when translating the speech of a Russian farm girl who appeared in Turgenev’s A
Sportsman’s Sketches. Since Western girls do not speak Japanese, the use of “teyo
dawa speech” in translation clearly shows that the writer’s choice does not reflect
“natural activities of the speakers.” Rather, the writer chose “teyo dawa speech”
from the various kinds of speech spoken by Japanese women, and, by having West-
ern women speak it in fiction, they turned “teyo dawa speech” into a symbol of the
West and modernity. At the same time, the choice of “teyo dawa speech” for
Western girls constructed female students to symbolize the West and modernity.8
After being chosen and used by writers of novels, “teyo dawa speech” became
prevalent among real-life female students. An article in the Yomiuri shimbun in 1905
denied the view that the writers used “teyo dawa speech” for their fictional female-
student characters simply because actual female students were speaking “teyo dawa
speech”: “Some of them [female students] began using English and Chinese words
as a result of reading novels. It was not that the writers of novels adopted the speech
of actual female students. On the contrary, it was the writers who made an effect on
the speech of actual female students” (author unknown, “Jogakusei to gengo”). Satoo

8. The Japanese novelists were so enthralled by “teyo dawa speech” because they considered
“teyo dawa speech” as the most appropriate as the speech of the exotic woman within modern
Japan. According to Levy (2006: 2), Japanese writers chose female students as heroines to solve
the dilemma of translation, to bridge the gap between reading Western literature and writing in
Japanese. Levy first points out that modern Japanese literature could only be achieved by means
of translating Western vernacular literature. Japanese writers at the time, therefore, faced the
linguistic dilemma not only of unifying Japanese speech and writing, but also of unifying the
vernacular West and the native body of spoken Japanese. To bridge the gap, they invented the
Westernesque femme fatale, typically the Japanese schoolgirl, as the representative par excel-
lence of exoticism within modern Japan. The unfamiliar new sound of “teyo dawa speech” must
have felt and sounded most appropriate to them for creating the textual exotic other.

www.ebook777.com
120 Gender, language and ideology

Haruo (1999[1941]: 173), a poet, writer and literary critic, also argues that the spread
of “teyo dawa speech” was motivated by readers imitating the speech of female-­
student characters in fiction: “The words used in woman’s everyday conversation
such as teyo and dawa are the result of the work of novelists…. In the beginning,
female student readers imitated conversation in novels, and now these words are
used by women in general.”9 An article in a literary journal in 1896 also points out
the divergence between the speech of actual women and that of female characters in
fiction: “If we observe the speech of middleclass women, they mix obscene slang
with difficult Chinese words, except in formal conversation. In novels about middle-
class society, however, middleclass women characters always use formal, polite
speech” (author unknown, “Reijoo saikun no kotoba”). In reality, the article argues,
middleclass women used a variety of speech in different situations. In novels, how-
ever, formal, polite speech was used to characterize their identity as middleclass
women. The spread of “teyo dawa speech” was motivated by the writer’s choice to
clearly distinguish female students as a group from other groups of women.

Derogation: Frivolous students

Frequently used in novels, “teyo dawa speech” was increasingly used to emphasize
particular characteristics of the female-student speakers. One of those character-
istics was frivolousness. Yabu no uguisu [Bush Warbler] (1888), for instance, writ-
ten by Miyake Kaho, a female-student writer herself, distinguishes female students
by their use of “teyo dawa speech.” There are four female student characters in the
story: Hattori, Saito, Aizawa, and Miyazaki. Hattori is a good girl who studies hard
and follows the prescribed Confucian norms. Saito and Aizawa are bad girls who
frivolously reject marriage and behave in an unwomanly fashion. Miyazaki can be
located between them in that she behaves in an unwomanly manner but wants to
get married after graduation. Figure 5.8 presents the four students on the axis of
the two extremes between “normative girl with a positive attitude toward mar-
riage” and “frivolous girl with a negative attitude toward marriage.”

9. The first part of Satoo Haruo’s argument can be interpreted to claim that “teyo dawa speech”
was completely the creation of novelists. The spread of “teyo dawa speech,” however, was not
merely a one-way flow from writer to reader. First, people were commenting on female students
using teyo and dawa at least seven to eight years before the speech began to appear in novels. In
the commentary cited above, Ozaki Kooyoo noticed the “strange speech” of female students
around 1879 or 1880. According to Ishikawa Tadanori (1972: 23, 25), the first appearance of teyo
was in Satsuki goi [May Carp] by Iwaya Sazanami in 1888, and dawa first appeared in Imo to se
kagami [Mirrored Couples] by Tsubouchi Shooyoo in 1886. Second, in Satsuki goi, the character
who used teyo was modeled after a particular girl – Ayako, the third daughter (nine years old) of
the Kawada family with whom Iwaya Sazanami boarded when he was sixteen (Senuma 1968:
404). It was likely, therefore, that his character spoke in the same way as Ayako.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 121

<accept marriage> <reject marriage>

<normative girl> <frivolous girl>


Hattori Miyazaki Aizawa, Saito

Figure 5.8  Attitudes of four female student characters in Yabu no uguisu [Bush Warbler]
(1888).

Table 5.2 shows what linguistic features of “teyo dawa speech” each of the four
female students uses in the story, followed by the example utterances of each student.
In Table 5.2, a checkmark means the student uses the linguistic feature and an “X”
means she does not. Their use of teyo, dawa, and noyo mostly corresponds with their
attitudes. Hattori, the most normative girl, uses none of the three features. Miyazaki
uses noyo and Aizawa uses dawa. Saito, the most frivolous one, uses all three fea-
tures. Table 5.2 indicates that “teyo dawa speech” was used as a linguistic symbol of
female students portrayed as frivolous, while it was not spoken by students por-
trayed as normative. We have seen that the distinction between schoolboy speech
and polite speech created the subcategories of “bad female students” and “good fe-
male students.” Here again, the different use of “teyo dawa speech” creates the dis-
tinction between “frivolous female students” and “normative female students.”

Table 5.2  Use of teyo, dawa, and noyo by the four female students of Yabu no uguisu.

Hattori Miyazaki Aizawa Saito

teyo × × × ✓
dawa × × ✓ ✓
noyo × ✓ × ✓

(6) Example utterances of female characters in Yabu no uguisu


Hattori: Saa, saa, o-machi asobase … maa, itte, meshi agatte irasshaina.
‘Ok, ok, please wait … well, come in and have some please.’
Miyazaki: Naichi zakkyo ni naruto dooda no kooda no to ossharu noyo.
‘[He was talking about] what happens if people from other
countries live in Japan.’
Aizawa: Honto dawa.
‘That’s true.’
Saito: Watashi wa kyoo wa nemukutte shooga nai noyo…. Yokut-
teyo…. Tanso o oidashite yarun dawa.
‘I am very sleepy today…. I don’t care…. I’ll let carbon dioxide
out of here.’ (Miyake 1972[1888]: 133–135)

www.ebook777.com
122 Gender, language and ideology

As “teyo dawa speech” became associated with frivolousness, serious matters


spoken in “teyo dawa speech” were funny in their own distinctive way. The writers
and intellectuals thus let their intelligent female characters speak in “teyo dawa
speech” when they wanted to ridicule these women. Jibore musume sakka [Con-
ceited Woman Writers] by Iwaya Sazanami (1889) features conversation between
two female writers. As is clear from the title, the aim is to ridicule them. In their
conversation, they talk about shari shugi (mercantile spirit), shoosetsu shinzui (es-
sence of the novel), and genbun itchi (the unification of speech and writing) in
“teyo dawa speech” (Iwaya 1985[1889]: 402, 404, 442). The discrepancy between
the intelligent topics of conversation and the frivolous language successfully illus-
trates the foolishness of these so-called intelligent women.
In the late-Meiji years (after 1907), “teyo dawa speech” was firmly established
as a symbol of frivolous female students. Kaburagi Kiyokata (1989: 203), a nihonga
(Japanese-style painting) artist, recalls that, in those years, teyo in Yokutteyo (I
don’t care) and wa in Shiranai wa (I don’t know) were recognized as “frivolous”
terms. Mori Senzoo (1969: 184), a historian, points out that schoolgirl speech was
so popular that it appeared even in a senryuu (a short poem of seventeen syllables,
like haiku, but featuring humor) written in 1905. A four-panel cartoon published
in 1906, Teyo dawa monogatari [Story of teyo dawa], was about modern female
students playing a traditional New Year’s card game. As shown in Figure 5.9, they
grapple in a hilarious manner with male students, all the while speaking in “teyo
dawa speech.”
Similarly, even the use of Western language, a symbol of academic knowledge
at the time, once associated with female students, came to symbolize the speaker’s
frivolousness. Shoobi no kaori [The Scent of a Rose], written by Iwamoto
Yoshiharu in 1887, centers on Eiwa Jokoo (English Women’s School), where “stu-
dents do not use Japanese from ‘good morning’ to ‘good night’” (Iwamoto 1887:
79). The writer describes those students gossiping in English and criticizes them
by saying, “They carry on their everyday conversation just like Westerners, so that
… they talk about things shy [Japanese] daughters would blush over” (Iwamoto
1887: 79). Momiji [Maple] by Aeba Kooson (1888–1889) is the story of two school-
girl sisters. Osetsu, the elder, is “elegant but not gaily dressed” and believes that “to
become a wife and a mother is a woman’s destiny.” Although she studies English,
she does not like Western dress. Okine, in contrast, the frivolous younger sister,
behaves in an unfeminine manner and often uses French words. Her first appear-
ance in the novel symbolizes her frivolousness; wearing a Western dress, she enters
a room saying, ‘“Bonjour’ in a shrill voice” and loudly discusses her “superficial”
understanding of women’s rights (Aeba 1988 [1888–1889]: 121). The use of West-
ern words and “teyo dawa speech,” characteristic of the speech of modern Japanese
educated women, therefore, was turned into the linguistic index of frivolous girls.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 123

(1) Watashi ga saki dawa. Watashi ga hayakutteyo.


‘I took [the card] first. I was faster.’
(2) Watashi dawa. Iie, watashi dawa. Aa, ude ga nuke teyo. Moo, koo nare ba kenka
dawa.
‘I [took the card]. No, I took it. Oh no, [someone is] pulling my arm. Now, I will
fight.’
(3) Ara, kutsushita no kakato kara tsuki ga moreide teyo.
‘Oh, [I can see] the moon [the heel] coming out of someone’s sock.’
(4) Goran nasai. Konnani watashi no te ni kuitsui teyo. Ara, yokutteyo. Watashi jya
nakutteyo. Uso dawa.
‘Look at this. You bit me on my hand. Oh, I don’t know. It’s not me. You are lying.’
Figure 5.9  Frivolous female students speaking “teyo dawa speech”
(“Teyo dawa monogatari” 1906: 13).

Sexualization: From “teyo dawa speech” to schoolgirl speech

After the Women’s Secondary School Act (1899) stipulated at least one public
women’s secondary school be established in each prefecture, schools were flooded
with female applicants. According to Gakusei hyakunen shi [The Hundred-Year
History of the Japanese School System] by Monbukagakushoo [the Ministry of
Education and Science] (1981), women’s secondary schools in 1894 increased
from 14 to 52 by 1900 with 11,984 students, to 100 schools with 31,918 students in
1905 and to 193 schools with 56,239 students in 1910. That number included not

www.ebook777.com
124 Gender, language and ideology

only the daughters of wealthy, upper-class families, but also ambitious common
women from outside the large cities who often lived in boardinghouses by them-
selves. The seemingly sudden emergence of large numbers of young women re-
ceiving an education evoked virulent criticism. Newspaper articles talked about
jogakusei daraku ron (depraved schoolgirl syndrome) and jogakusei seibatsu (sub-
jugation of schoolgirls) (Fukaya 1998[1981]: 200), and how offended the writers
were “by all of their behaviors, from walking to speaking” (Ubukata 1978: 236).
The attention to and criticism of female students also stimulated two key changes
to the way they were described in novels.
First, more female characters, not only students, but also women in general,
began to speak “teyo dawa speech” in novels and the labels, schoolgirl and school-
girl speech, became widely recognized. This wider use is typically observed in katei
shoosetsu (family novels), healthy stories written for family readers based on Con-
fucian or Christian ethics. In one of the family novels, Hamako [Hamako], a young
wife uses teyo and dawa (Kusamura 1969[1902]: 72, 18). In Chi kyoodai [Bosom
Sisters], both a young mother and 19 to 20-year-old women use teyo and noyo
(Kikuchi 1969[1903]: 101, 98, 212). In Meoto nami [Husband and Wife Wave], a
21 to 22-year-old wife uses dawa and noyo (Taguchi 1969[1904]: 242, 253). Inter-
estingly, “teyo dawa speech” in family novels does not function to distinguish nor-
mative from frivolous girls. For example, while Fusae, one of the two sisters in Chi
kyoodai, is a good, normative girl, “kind and affectionate,” Kimie is bad and frivo-
lous, “controlled by a woman’s vanity.” Both use “teyo dawa speech.” When Kimie
says, “Fusa-san watasha onakunarini natta okka-san no ko jya nakutteyo (Fusae, I
am not a child of our deceased mother), Fusae answers, “Sonna hazu wa nakutteyo
(That cannot be true) (Kikuchi [1969[1903]: 104]). Novelists began using “teyo
dawa speech” for young women of high social class in novels, irrespective of
whether they were frivolous or not. The association of “teyo dawa speech” with
female gender, youth and high class, is most clearly shown in Wagahai wa neko de
aru [I Am a Cat], written by Natsume Sooseki, one of the foremost novelists in the
Meiji era, in 1905. In the story, a young, high-class, female cat speaks with “teyo
dawa speech,” as in Anata taihen iro ga warukutteyo (You look pale), Ara goshujin
datte, myoo nano ne. Oshishoo-san dawa (Oh, [you call your master] goshujin.
That’s strange. [I call my master] oshishoo-san), and Ara iyada, minna bura sageru
noyo (Oh, no. Everybody will hang up) (Natsume 1961[1905]: 19).10 Natsume
could describe not only the gender but also the age and status of the cat – which

10. Natsume (1961[1905]: 15), in this work, also characterizes two male cats, Wagahai and
Kuro, by letting them use different speech, schoolboy speech and the speech spoken in the Tokyo
shitamachi (“downtown,” meaning not the business center but the older, more traditional part of
town). Novelists in the years around 1905 used schoolboy speech and Tokyo shitamachi speech,
as well as “teyo dawa speech,” to distinguish the gender, social class and age of a speaker.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 125

never speaks at all – by using teyo, dawa and noyo. “Teyo dawa speech” thus had
become a linguistic index of female gender, youth, and high social class.
The second change after the Women’s Secondary School Act (1899) was a sex-
ualization of female student characters. A typical transformation of a female stu-
dent into a sex object occurs in a scene from a novel, Makaze koikaze [Magic Wind,
Love Wind] by Kosugi Tengai published as a serial in the Yomiuri shimbun in 1903.
The heroine, Hatsuno, changes her clothes with the help of the mistress of her
boardinghouse:
(7) The wife … removed her navy blue damask belt, her padded kimono, her
silk underwear in a cherry-blossom pattern, and the flannel undergar-
ment. Then, from nowhere, came the scent of white rose. Her skin was as
white as pearls. Her breasts were plump and firm. The color of her under-
skirt appeared to be moist, and [when she took it off,] it looked as if there
were a red waterfall.
  “Oh, Madam,” she whispered, somehow twisting her body away from
view in front of the lamp.
  “Oh my! But there’s nothing wrong with it.”
  “But…” (Kosugi 1951[1903], volume 1: 51–52).
The newspaper’s front page featured an illustration of the half-naked Hatsuno
(Figure 5.10). Kan Satoko (2001: 134) points out that this illustration describes her
from the view of the man who peeps through the window enticing readers to look
at her body as a sex object. In 1889, the Ministry of Home Affairs banned the pub-
lication of a story, Kochoo [Butterfly], because of its illustration of a female body.
Given the strict press censorship at the time, the mere fact that the illustration of a
half-naked female student was put on the newspaper’s front page testifies that re-
garding female students as sex objects was widely prevalent.
Why did female students become sex objects in novels? Two major reasons are
clear. First, as Saeki Junko (1998) argues, the introduction of the Western concept
of “love,” emphasizing a spiritual connection between a woman and a man, re-
quired female students to become appropriate partners in a love relationship. The
main theme of Japanese premodern literature was a man’s iro (lit. color, erotic) re-
lationship mainly with geisha and yuujo (play women) (cf. Introduction, note 6).
Iro literature presented an artistic and disciplined culture, including physical rela-
tions as part of a sublime culture. Some geisha and yuujo were even praised as
kwannon (the Goddess of Mercy). In the modern era, however, Christianity gained
some influence in Japan and promoted the separation of body from spirit. Such
teaching ultimately denigrated the status of professional women and physical rela-
tions with them, advocating instead virginity and male-female relations based on
spiritual love. Many intellectuals argued for such relationships as the ideal for

www.ebook777.com
126 Gender, language and ideology

figure 5.10  Makaze koikaze [Magic Wind, Love Wind] in the Yomiuri shimbun,
March 14th, 1903.

intellectual men and male students. To enable a spiritual relationship, a male intel-
lectual needed a female partner who was intelligent enough to build a spiritual tie.
Instead of professional women, therefore, the newly emerging “love” literature
chose the educated daughters of middleclass families—i.e. female students—as the
most appropriate partners in the modern love relationship. The second reason
why female students became sex objects in novels is, as Kan Satoko (2001: 136)
suggests, because novel readers looked forward to stories about educated daugh-
ters of wealthy families becoming sexually corrupted. In this sense, the transfor-
mation of female students into schoolgirls, a social category conceptualizing them
as sex objects of men, began as a media response to the desire of readers.
The sexualization of female students accompanied the sexualization of their
language, “teyo dawa speech.” And the association with sexuality completed the

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 127

transformation of “teyo dawa speech” into schoolgirl speech. The sexualization of


such speech is most evident in female student characters in pornographic novels.
As noted at the beginning of this chapter, in a pornographic story Sode to sode
[Sleeve to Sleeve] (Oguri 1998[1907–1911]), three female student characters have
sex among themselves and with men as well, speaking schoolgirl speech through-
out, including when they are having sexual intercourse. By contrast, another
woman, Oteru, who is from the countryside, never uses it. The contrast becomes
even clearer if we compare the two scenes in which Oteru and Kimiko, one of the
female students, both 22 years old, are having sex with the same man, Yoonosuke.
While Kimiko uses teyo and noyo, Oteru uses masu (polite sentence-final form)
instead:
(8) a. Kimiko (schoolgirl): Watashi moo itteyo moo itteyo.
I now come now come
Aa kokoro ga … nuketchimaisoo…. Aa ii noyo.
oh mind top go out oh good
‘I’m coming, too. I’m coming now. Oh, my mind .
… is going crazy. Oh, it is good.’
 (Oguri 1998[1907–1911]: 54)
b. Oteru (non-schoolgirl): I … ii Yoo, yoono … suke … sama.
good Yoonosuke dear
Watashi … moo ikimasu Aa … ikimasu
I now come oh come
‘Good, Yoonosuke, dear. I’m coming now. Oh,
I’m coming.’ (Oguri 1998[1907–1911]: 33)
The differences between the speech styles of the two women reflect the difference
in their social status: one a schoolgirl, one not. This indicates that schoolgirl speech
was strongly linked to high social class of schoolgirls.
That connection enabled writers to express the sexuality of high-class wom-
en, as differentiated from the sexuality of other women. According to Mihashi
Osamu (1999: 13, 19), Japanese women in this period were ideologically classi-
fied into three groups by their sexuality and speech. The first, explicitly sexual
women, were professional prostitutes, who were associated with special styles of
language used in their quarters. The second, also sexual women, were widows,
stepmothers, and servant girls, indexed by non-standard Japanese. The last, and
the least sexual women, were wives and mothers of high-class families, who were
indexed by standard Japanese. The sexuality emitted by schoolgirl speech is char-
acterized by the innocence and high social class of female students, quite distinct
from the sexuality of prostitutes and non-standard speakers. Ozaki Kooyoo

www.ebook777.com
128 Gender, language and ideology

(1994[1888]: 4) notes that “some men are happy hearing the [schoolgirl] speech
because of its ring of innocence.” Honda (1990: 132) expresses this innocence as
“the irresponsible [way of speaking in which] many words are spoken but no
clear information is delivered.”11 The association between schoolgirl speech and
sexuality, therefore, brought sexuality into the world of upper-class, standard
Japanese where sexuality had been most strictly controlled. Now, women of all
classes became sex objects.
Once schoolgirl speech became associated with sexuality, writers were able to
use it in expressing the sexuality of older upper-class women. They use schoolgirl
speech, however, only in scenes in which the older, upper-class women express
their love to men. In Yabu no uguisu [Bush Warbler], a 27- or 28-year-old woman
uses dawa when talking to her lover. Her way of speaking is described as “sound-
ing innocent in spite of her age” (Miyake 1972[1888]: 127). Hamako [Hamako]
(1902) is the story of a rich family’s 23-year-old daughter, Hamako, who uses teyo
and dawa only in the scenes where she and her lover confess their love to each
other. The narrator comments: “Her way of speaking became as innocent and na-
ïve as a child” (Kusamura 1969[1902]: 63). In Sono omokage [The Silhouette]
(1906), Sayoko falls in love with her brother-in-law, Tetsuya, a 35 or 36-year-old
lawyer, after her husband dies. She uses teyo only when they are confessing their
love to each other (Futabatei 1962[1906]: 349). Sorekara [And Then] is the story of
Daisuke (30 years old) who falls in love with his friend’s wife, Michiyo, who is also
in love with him. In the scene when he finally confesses his love to her, she uses
teyo, dawa and noyo many times. And again, this is the only scene in which she
uses them (Natsume 1981[1909]: 349–356). The writers let these older women use
schoolgirl speech even though they had to add special comments such as, “sound-
ing innocent in spite of her age” and “Her way of speaking became as innocent and
naïve as a child,” exactly because schoolgirl speech was the only linguistic resource
available to express upper-class female sexuality as being distinct from the sexual-
ity of a professional geisha or prostitute.
Through the four processes of gender-differentiation, selection, derogation,
and sexualization, the discourse produced by intellectuals and writers of novels
constructed the notion of schoolgirl speech.

11. In a conversation between Hanako (woman) and Haruyama (man) in an essay, titled, Ara
yokutteyo [Ah, I don’t care], Hanako flatters Haruyama by using teyo, dawa, and noyo. Hanako
says, “Ara yokutteyo (Ah, I don’t care). You call me a tomboy.” To this, Haruyama is merely con-
fused, saying, “No, that’s not what I meant. You misunderstand me.” When Hanako says, “You
left me alone. You are bad [using teyo],” Haruyama can only say, “When did I leave you alone?”
(Oono 1906: 100–102). Haruyama, who responds to information in Hanako’s words, is flurried
by the irresponsibility of “teyo dawa speech.”

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 129

Dilemma of sexuality: Schoolgirl speech revised

It was the association with sexuality that simultaneously enhanced and repressed the
prevalence of schoolgirl speech, because sexuality is ambivalent, good in one sense
but bad in another. As we have seen above, writers started using schoolgirl speech for
more characters, including older standard speakers. Actual female students, further-
more, as Uchida Roan notes, enthusiastically read those novels and imitated school-
girl speech: “Recent female students are so completely addicted to the yokutteyo
novels that they read the novels when their teachers aren’t watching” (Uchida
1986[1894]: 179). Their imitation was probably motivated by the upper-class, mod-
ern, Western, and sexual identity associated with this speech. Many women’s maga-
zines published after 1890, along with the increase of women’s literacy, promoted its
dissemination.12 Schoolgirl speech, however, having been marginalized as a language
peculiar to students, had not yet gained sociolinguistic legitimacy as the speech of
upper-class women. Novelists made special comments, as noted earlier, when they
used schoolgirl speech for the older upper-class women. Even in the late-Meiji years,
writers added special comments when they let older women use it. In Mon [The
Gate] by Natsume Sooseki (1938[1910]: 8), when the wife uses teyo, the writer adds
the comment: “Her speech … has a certain sound common to today’s schoolgirls.”
In this ambivalent situation, both students and the producers of media
began to use schoolgirl speech in a slightly different way to decrease its negative
meanings of sexual derogation and frivolousness. They put the schoolgirl features,
teyo, dawa, and noyo, after the polite sentence-endings, desu and masu, forming
what can be called “revised schoolgirl speech,” desu-yo and masu-wa. Kawamura
Kunimitsu (1993) analyzes readers’ letters to Jogaku zasshi [Women’s Studies
Magazine] in 1916 and points out that those letters contained the schoolgirl speech
features. Most of the letters, however, use revised schoolgirl speech featuring wa,
ne, wane, and no with desu and masu with a few exceptions of teyo. Kawamura
emphasizes that what characterizes these letters more than sentence-final forms is
the use of English such as “heart” and “romance”; particular words such as natsu-
kashii (yearning), kanashii (sad) and sabishii (lonely); and the fact that most letter
writers identified themselves as otome (maiden).13 To express the pure and

12. Twelve women’s magazines were founded in 1901, seven in 1902, 10 in 1903, nine in 1904,
14 in 1905, and 12 in 1906 (Kawamura 1993: 25). The large number of publications was caused
by the new middleclass emerging on the post-WWI wave of prosperity and the development of
women’s education (Maeda 2001[1973]: 217–220).
13. Female students were not mere receivers of magazine information but constructed
strong networks of readers by writing letters, poems, and stories to the magazines, exchang-
ing letters and presents with other readers, and going to readers’ meetings (Imada 2002;
Satoo 1996). Soon, however, they were prohibited from meeting each other because some

www.ebook777.com
130 Gender, language and ideology

sentimental feelings of a maiden, the readers of the women’s magazines apparently


preferred revised schoolgirl speech rather than schoolgirl speech. Revised school-
girl speech was also used in cosmetics and sanitary advertisements in magazines.
Inoue (2006) analyzes advertisements in Jogaku sekai [Women’s Studies World]
(1901–1925) and Fujin sekai [Lady’s World] (1906–1933), showing how those texts
made schoolgirl speech as a symbol of the middleclass woman’s lifestyle associated
with commodities, exactly because the speech was most strongly associated with
the upper class, modernity and the West. As with readers’ letters to women’s mag-
azines, most advertisements used revised schoolgirl speech, while unrevised
schoolgirl speech was generally confined to sexualized women. For instance, a
photographic image of a modern woman drinking a glass of wine alone appeared
in Fujin sekei in 1930, with the caption, “teisoo desutte, sonna share wa imadoki
hayara nakutteyo (Chastity? It’s a joke nowadays),” using the schoolgirl feature,
teyo (Inoue 2006: 134). This suggests that, among the linguistic features of school-
girl speech, teyo implied the strongest sexual, frivolous connotation in the early
twentieth century.14 Advertisers and the editors of women’s magazines, therefore,
used schoolgirl speech as a symbol of sexuality and revised schoolgirl speech as a
symbol of the middleclass lifestyle with fewer sexual implications.
Some women continued to use revised schoolgirl speech even after they
had graduated from school. Schoolgirl speech, however, was closely tied to the
narcissistic self-image of schoolgirls floating in their memories of schooldays,
now separated from their real lives. Many of the readers’ letters that Kawamura
(1993) analyzes are from women who, after graduating from schools, moved
back to their hometowns in Japan or to Japanese colonies at the time. Since
their everyday conversation “must have been carried out in regional varieties
specific to each area” (Kawamura 1993: 103), writing those letters was a rare
occasion for them to use revised schoolgirl speech. Thus, using schoolgirl
speech in their letters to magazines, Kawamura (1993: 108) concludes, “gravi-
tated toward constructing a specific world of images, an imagined community,
through ‘fictional’ communication by the use of common speech,” common,
that is, only among schoolgirls. Schoolgirl speech functioned to index the

men tried to meet them by writing letters in women’s names. After their contact was con-
fined to letters, female students began to construct an imagined community by using what
Kawamura (1993) terms “maiden style,” an exceedingly romantic and sentimental style of
writing. As the military regime became stronger, however, the maiden style of writing and
its attendant community were rebuffed as too romantic and sentimental for fighting girls
(Imada 2002).
14. The strongest sexual, frivolous connotation of teyo may have been a principal reason why
dawa and noyo among the linguistic features of schoolgirl speech became the major linguistic
features of Japanese women’s language, while teyo was gradually excluded from it.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 131

imagined identity of schoolgirls. This corroborates my observation that both


the social identity of schoolgirls and the notion of schoolgirl speech were ab-
stract ideologies loaded with political implications. Schoolgirls were not real
people, but the persistently and fancifully imagined result of the gender ideol-
ogy of schoolgirl identity created by several symbolic systems, such as attire
and language. Similarly, no actual woman always spoke schoolgirl speech. It
was an ideological constuct created by the discourse of fiction and metalin-
guistic commentary.

Conclusion

This chapter has demonstrated that, by the beginning of the twentieth century, the
ideology of schoolgirl speech was constructed by the discourses of novelists and
intellectuals through the four processes of gender-differentiation, selection,
derogation, and sexualization. In this concluding section, I will discuss three im-
plications of my analysis concerning the issues of indexicalization, gendered na-
tionalization, and women’s linguistic resistance.
First, the formation process of schoolgirl speech analyzed in this chapter
sheds new light on the notion of indexicality, the association between linguis-
tic features and social identities. Indexicalization, a semiotic process whereby
one entity becomes a pointer to another, is assumed to account for associations
between linguistic features and social identities. The process by which a par-
ticular indexicality is created in a specific historical time and space, however,
has not been extensively studied, because many researchers have assumed that
indexicality is constructed by repeated use of particular features by a particular
group. Elinor Ochs (1992), for instance, accounts for indexicality as the pro-
cess by which some linguistic features directly index affective meanings,
through which they are indirectly associated with social identities. The
Japanese sentence-final form wa, Ochs (1992: 341–342) argues, directly index-
es delicate intensity, the preferred image of Japanese women, so Japanese
women are motivated to use it. The repeated use of wa by Japanese women
reinforces the indirect association between wa and femininity. Here, the in-
dexicality between wa and feminine identity is assumed to be constructed by
repeated use in women’s local linguistic practice. However, the logic of indexi-
cality formation by the repeated use in local linguistic practice contradicts my
argument that women’s language is not naturally formed by the repeated local
practices of women but is an ideological construct historically created by dis-
courses. The indexical association between feminine identity and linguistic
features, such as the sentence-final forms of schoolgirl speech, teyo, dawa, and

www.ebook777.com
132 Gender, language and ideology

noyo, constitutes one of the most important aspects of the Japanese notion of
women’s language. If we assume that indexicality is constructed by repeated
use, we should conclude that women’s language is also constructed by the re-
peated local practices of women. Then how are linguistic features associated
with the social identity of a particular group of speakers?
On this question, my analysis has demonstrated that the indexical association
between the linguistic features of schoolgirl speech, teyo, dawa, and noyo, and the
social identity of schoolgirl was constructed by discourses such as conversation
in fiction and metalinguistic comments by intellectuals. It was female students
who invented “teyo dawa speech” at the end of the 1880s. The use of teyo, dawa,
and noyo by female students, however, did not directly create the notion of school-
girl speech. Actual female students spoke varieties of language such as schoolboy
speech and polite speech as well as “teyo dawa speech,” until the late-Meiji years
(–1907). “Teyo dawa speech” was just one variety. Yet, novelists and intellectuals
chose to focus on “teyo dawa speech” and, by using it, criticizing it, and derogat-
ing it, successfully transformed it into schoolgirl speech. The indexicality between
particular features and schoolgirl identity was constructed by repeated use in fic-
tion and repeated metalinguistic comments. These metalinguistic discourses be-
came meaningful and acceptable in the rapid political, economic, and social
changes of Japan’s modernization, particularly the policy of gendered national-
ization, the emergence of novels enhanced by the movement to unify speech and
writing that promoted creation of the Japanese national language, the develop-
ment of publishing houses that permeated the metalinguistic discourses by pub-
lishing newspapers and magazines, and the increased literacy of print-media
consumers.15 My analysis here also denies the view that indexicality is a process
simply associating linguistic features with the identity of people already there.
The construction of indexicality is a political process by which both a social iden-
tity of schoolgirl and the ideology of schoolgirl speech are simultaneously con-
structed. The schoolgirl identity did not exist before schoolgirl speech but was
constructed along with the creation of schoolgirl speech. We should, therefore,
understand indexicality as the process of indexicalization that simultaneously
constructs both the meanings of particular linguistic features and the character-
ization of a social identity.
The second implication arising from my analysis in this chapter is that the
formation of schoolgirl speech and gendered nationalization, a policy of the Meiji

15. Silverberg (1991) points out that previous studies of Japanese identity before WWII often
defined it merely as “imperial subject,” emphasizing the importance of analyzing Japanese iden-
tity as “consumer subject” who consumed commodities, information, and images produced in
the rapidly developing media, department stores, radio, and movie theaters.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 133

government central to building its modern nation state, reinforced each other. To
answer why “teyo dawa speech” was chosen among many other varieties of speech
that female students were speaking, and why it was transformed into a symbol of
sexuality, we should consider the socio-political context of Japan’s modernization.
As presented in Chapter 3, Japan’s modernization was characterized by gendered
nationalization that ascribed to male citizens the roles of worker and soldier and
to female citizens those of wife and mother. In nationalizing women into efficient
wives and mothers, improvement in women’s education was vital. At the same
time, under the political agenda of gendered nationalization, it was crucial that the
students, the country’s future citizens, be gendered. If women received education
and became independent, however, they might refuse to fulfill the roles prescribed
for them. The writers and intellectuals, as shown in this chapter, repeatedly criti-
cized such independent female students, some of whom even denied marriage.
The emergence of young educated women, they were afraid, could be a threat to
the nationalization of women. So many educators and intellectuals considered it
necessary to distinguish female students from male students. The political agenda
of gendered nationalization enabled, made meaningful and acceptable the dis-
course of the writers and intellectuals constructing the ideology of schoolgirl
speech and the gendered special category of schoolgirls. In the case of novel dis-
course, by not choosing schoolboy speech, novel writers first differentiated female
students from male students. By not choosing polite, feminine speech, they ex-
cluded their schoolgirl characters from the category of normative female students,
the future good-wife-wise-mothers. By choosing “teyo dawa speech,” in other
words, they emphasized the sexual and social deviance of female students. One of
the differences between “female students” and “schoolgirls” was that the former
were regarded simply as students who happened to be women, while the latter
were characterized by a feminine sexuality distinct from that of geisha and prosti-
tutes; the former category, in short, was contrasted with male students, the latter
category was contrasted with other women, that is, older women, maids, and pros-
titutes. The construction of schoolgirl speech and schoolgirls, in other words,
transformed female students from potentially dangerous women, who might at-
tempt to become citizens equal to men, into sexual objects for men. “Teyo dawa
speech,” redefined as schoolgirl speech, therefore, was no longer a threat to gen-
dered nationalization. In fact, Ozaki Kooyoo, who had criticized “teyo dawa
speech” as strange in 1888, used a good deal of it in Konjiki yasha [Gilded Demo-
ness] in 1897 (Ozaki (1965[1897]: 133).
Yet, schoolgirl speech was carefully excluded from the Japanese national
language. Intellectuals criticized it even by inventing its “vulgar origin,” preventing
it from gaining legitimate status as part of the national language. The exclusion
of schoolgirl speech from the national language also denied the possibility of

www.ebook777.com
134 Gender, language and ideology

schoolgirls becoming its legitimate speakers and obtaining an identity as full-


fledged citizens. After the establishment of the schoolgirl category, the citizenship
of female students was confined to girl’s schools, temporally and spatially segre-
gated places. The social identity of schoolgirls, its link with sexuality attracting
attention from both Japanese people and female students themselves, played the
role of confirming the ideal identity of a normative, good female student who
would become a good-wife-wise-mother at a time when the government was pro-
moting gendered nationalization.
Third, my analysis in this chapter demonstrates that “teyo dawa speech,” the
speech women invented to resist good-wife-wise-mother education, was turned
into schoolgirl speech, a symbol of their sexuality. “Teyo dawa speech” was chosen
as a symbol of corrupted, frivolous students by novelists, severely criticized by in-
tellectuals, and finally linked to sexuality. As a result, “teyo dawa speech,” which
had been created by female students to resist the good-wife-wise-mother educa-
tion, was redefined as schoolgirl speech, which served to reinforce the educational
policy and, hence, the nationalization of women. This indicates that women’s lin-
guistic resistance cannot always transform the order of gender in the dominant
ideologies such as modernization and nationalization. No matter how many fe-
male students used it, “teyo dawa speech” could not index the identity of the intel-
lectual, modern Japanese woman. Rather, it was exploited to transform female
students into schoolgirls, ensuring gendered nationalization. Just as court-wom-
en’s speech was turned into the norm of feminine speech, as shown in Chapter 2,
“teyo dawa speech” was transformed into schoolgirl speech.
That gives one answer to the question posited to the post-structural feminism
that I cited in the Introduction: why do resistant, subversive performances often
remain ephemeral, leaving the prevailing power order largely untouched? The ar-
guments in Chapters 2 and 5 demonstrate that metalinguistic practices, enabled by
dominant socio-political ideologies, have the power to define, characterize, and
marginalize local practices, using the creative, resistant, local linguistic practices
of women to reinforce the dominant ideologies (Nakamura 2009). Chapter 2
showed that metalinguistic practices of conduct books turned the innovative
speech of court women into the norm of feminine speech. Similarly, Chapter 5
demonstrates that metalinguistic practices of novels and the comments of intel-
lectuals turned “teyo dawa speech,” created by female students to express their
own identity, into schoolgirl speech, a symbol of sexuality. Those metalinguistic
practices by novelists and intellectuals became possible, meaningful, and accept-
able precisely because their practices were legitimatized by the dominant political
ideology of gendered nationalization that the Meiji government adopted to en-
hance building the modern nation state in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. The ideology of schoolgirl speech has been constructed by metalinguistic

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5.  Schoolgirl speech 135

practices that effectively exploit women’s subversive performances. This denies the
argument that we can actively construct our identities by using language. Simply
using innovative language does not guarantee the creation of new identities, be-
cause it is not local linguistic practices but metalinguistic practices enabled by
dominant ideologies that define, categorize and determine the value and meaning
of the local practices.
This chapter has demonstrated that the ideology of schoolgirl speech was con-
structed by the beginning of the twentieth century. This was exactly the same pe-
riod, as shown in Chapter 3, when Japanese linguists were eager to establish the
Japanese national language. How did they treat schoolgirl speech in their attempt
to set up the national language? The next chapter will try to answer the question by
examining the discourse of grammar books and school readers that linguists were
producing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

www.ebook777.com
www.ebook777.com
chapter 6

Masculinizing the national language

Boku wa hatamochi…. Satoo-kun wa rappa o fuki tamae.


‘I will be a flag holder…. Satoo-kun, you blow the bugle.’
 Shimpoo Iwaji (1886) Nihon tokuhon [Japan Reader]
In a very early Japanese national-language school reader, Nihon tokuhon [Japan
Reader], compiled by Shimpoo Iwaji in 1886, three boys play soldiers. One boy
says, “I will be a flag holder,” and tells another boy, Satoo, to be a bugle blower.
The boy is using schoolboy speech with features such as a first-person pronoun,
boku, male address form, kun, and sentence-final form, tamae (Shimpoo
1964[1886]: 331). Japanese school readers, which were complied for the purpose
of teaching children the Japanese national language, thus obviously included
schoolboy speech in the Japanese national language. What happened to its coun-
terpart, schoolgirl speech? How did the academic discourses of grammar text-
books and school readers relate linguistic features of schoolgirl speech, such as
teyo, dawa and noyo, and those of schoolboy speech, such as boku, kimi, kun and
tamae, to the Japanese national language in the late nineteenth and early twenti-
eth centuries? It was the period when grammar textbooks and school readers
played a major role in prescribing Japanese national language. Numerous studies
have been done on the development of grammar textbooks and school readers
published during the Japan’s modernization period. Few studies, however, have
focused on how the authors of grammar textbooks and school readers contained
or excluded gendered linguistic features, such as features of schoolgirl speech and
schoolboy speech, when they were defining the national language. The purpose
of this chapter, by analyzing grammar textbooks and school readers published in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, is to reveal how differently the
academic discourses treated these gendered linguistic features in their attempt to
define and prescribe Japanese national language. Before analyzing those dis-
courses, I will describe the historical and political context framing and even
influencing the emergence of grammar textbooks and school language readers
during the period.

www.ebook777.com
138 Gender, language and ideology

Grammar textbooks and school readers as metalinguistic practices

As shown in Chapter 3, the construction of the Japanese national language was


considered crucial in forming the Japanese nation state. Ueda Kazutoshi and his
colleagues planned to establish the Japanese national language by unifying speech
and writing. To accomplish this task, Ueda, the leading advocate of unifying speech
and writing, claimed that the speech of “educated Tokyo residents” should be the
standard of Japanese national language. When he defined the speech of “educated
Tokyo residents” as the national-language standard in 1895, Ueda was expecting the
Japanese national language to naturally emerge but only on the proviso that edu-
cated Tokyo residents would “polish” their speech: “the speech of educated Tokyo
residents needs to be further polished to become the standard language of our
country” (Ueda 1964[1895]: 507). Even among educated Tokyo residents, however,
wide speech variations were used and it seemed impossible to expect their speech
to represent one national language. Usage varied not only according to social status
and occupation in the Edo Period (ending hardly three decades earlier with the
Meiji Restoration in 1868), but also “more varieties were used because people were
coming from other parts of the country to live in Tokyo….” in the late nineteenth
century (Tanaka 1983: 156). According to Okano (1964[1902]: 510), a sentence like
“Give it to me, too,” was expressed in different ways “in common language, by boys,
girls, geisha, male students, and artisans,” in Tokyo in 1902. Facing such large speech
variations, Ueda felt the need to prescribe a language policy. In 1900, he changed his
opinion to make the prescription of a standard language his top priority:
(1) We should establish Tokyo speech as the standard language as soon as
possible…. We should form its grammar, compile a dictionary, and force
its use in elementary schools all over the country…. Thus, first institute it
as the model of [standard] language, and then later, preserve it and
polish it….” (Ueda 1968[1900]: 134)
Ueda changed his opinion because so many varieties of Japanese were spoken in
Tokyo that it seemed impossible to expect the natural emergence of standard
Japanese by virtue of a public effort:
(2) Tokyo speech is not stable enough to become Japan’s standard spoken lan-
guage at all. People from Kyuushuu [the southwest island of the four main
Japanese islands] speak a Kyuushuu speech and those from Toohoku [the
northeast part of Honshuu, Japan’s main island] speak a Toohoku speech
[in Tokyo]. And they receive no sanction…. This indicates that our people
[in Tokyo] do not possess either the knowledge or conviction to con-
sciously set a standard for their spoken language.
 (Ueda 1968[1900]: 131–132)

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 6.  Masculinizing the national language 139

As Lee Yeounsuk (1996: 142) points out, Ueda’s change clearly indicates that the no-
tion of a standard language itself could be built only by “prescription from above
[the government].” A “national language” is not actually spoken but is an ideological
construct prescribed and reproduced following the language policy created by lin-
guists, politicians and intellectuals as well as through language education. Ueda and
his advocates soon launched the prescription project, notably through instituting a
language policy and publishing grammar textbooks and school language readers.
Both koogo bunten (spoken-speech grammar textbooks) and kokugo tokuhon
(national language readers), thus, played crucial roles in the process of establish-
ing standard Japanese and Japanese national language in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. Japanese language education in this period focused on
the establishment of kokugo ka (the academic subject of the national language)
and the adoption of koogo bun (spoken style of writing) in the school curriculum.
The Meiji government recognized the importance of education for the moderniza-
tion of Japan and established a school system with Gaku sei (The School System
Law) in 1872. Intellectuals stimulated furious disputes on the national language
and had a great influence on language policy; language education, as a result, was
forced to change dramatically in a short period of time. In 1886, Mori Arinori, the
first Minister of Education, started an inspection of school textbooks, which en-
hanced the emergence of a great number of school grammar textbooks. As the
unification of speech and writing proposed by Ueda Kazutoshi and others pre-
vailed, the Elementary School Amendment Law in 1900 established the national
language as a subject of school education: “The writing style in school readers
should be plain and should be a model of the national language….” (Masubuchi
1981: 50). In 1901, Genbun itchi no jikko ni tsuite no seigan (Petition for Execution
of the Unification of Spoken-Written Languages) was approved by the Imperial
Diet. The following year, the National-Language Research Committee was found-
ed. Following one of its key resolutions that “the writing [of the national language]
should adopt a style based on the unification of speech and writing,” more gram-
mar textbooks emerged (Monbushoo kyookashokyoku kokugoka 1949: 59). In
1904, the first state-appointed school reader was published “to spread and to unify
the standard of the national language by using spoken language and adopting
words used mainly in the middleclass society of Tokyo,” designating the spoken
language as the aim of national-language education (Monbushoo 1972[1904]:
477). That is why many of the grammar textbooks were called koogo bunten
(spoken-speech grammar textbooks).
The emergence and increase of grammar textbooks and school readers made
two major changes in the metalinguistic discourses concerning the Japanese na-
tional language in the late nineteenth century. First, since Ueda Kazutoshi and his
colleagues chose to prescribe a standard language by “forcing its use in elementary

www.ebook777.com
140 Gender, language and ideology

schools all over the country” as the major strategy to establish the national language,
grammar textbooks and school readers played increasingly significant roles in con-
structing it. The linguists and grammarians writing those books, therefore, assumed
increasing authority in prescribing the national language grammar by determining
the linguistic features that were and were not appropriate for the national language.
They also comprised the major authors of state-appointed school readers, starting
from 1904, that the Ministry of Education required all elementary schools through-
out Japan to adopt in teaching the national language. Taught in schools, the dis-
courses of grammar textbooks and school readers were continuously re-enforced as
“correct knowledge.” Second, in that effort, those books started referring to specific
linguistic features defining, for instance, which of the many first-person pronouns
used at the time among “educated Tokyo residents” should be considered appropri-
ate for the Japanese national language. Since then, Japanese linguists have defined
and distinguished different varieties of Japanese, such as women’s language, men’s
language and honorific language, by the specific linguistic features. This implies that
the ideology of Japanese women’s language, conceptualized in the premodern peri-
od based mainly on stylistic characteristics (like verbosity, loudness of voice, tone of
voice and topics of speech), would undergo a new phase of conceptualization, in
which specific linguistic features, such as personal pronouns and sentence-final
forms, would also be used to characterize women’s language.
If a standard language is a phenomenon needing to be prescribed, the standard
Japanese described in grammar textbooks and school readers hardly reflected ac-
tual language use; it was, rather, the result of a calculated process of selection and
exclusion. Grammar textbooks, in short, created standard Japanese by adopting
some features and rejecting others. The compilers and editors selected certain lin-
guistic features from written and spoken variations and presented them as stan-
dard Japanese. It is through this selection process that the political ideologies of
linguists, including those concerning gender, could emerge, whatever the intention
of each linguist might have been. This process is clearly seen in their treatment of
atai, one of the many Japanese first-person pronouns. The grammar textbooks
written by Kanai Yasuzoo (1901: 63) and Yoshioka Kyooho (2001[1912]: 48) ex-
cluded atai from standard Japanese, stating that it was “a term used by women.”
Some documents prove, however, that atai was also used by boys. A working-class
boy (12 to 13 years old), who appeared in a story written by Ooe Sazanami (1892:
13), called himself atai. Okano Hisatane (1964[1902]: 510), in describing different
ways of saying “Give it to me, too,” by different groups of speakers in Tokyo in 1902,
presented Atai nimo sore o okunna as a boy’s utterance and Watashi nimo sore o
choodai na as a girl’s example. Although some writers and linguists expected boys
to use atai, the two grammar textbooks regarded it as a woman’s word and so ex-
cluded it from standard Japanese. In other words, atai was excluded from standard
grammar precisely because the textbooks writers defined it as a woman’s term.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 6.  Masculinizing the national language 141

To capture how such sexist selection took shape in grammar textbooks and
school readers, it is important to analyze the discourses of grammar textbooks and
school readers as metalinguistic practices performed by a particular group of peo-
ple in a particular political process at a particular time. As I argued in the Intro-
duction, by regarding linguists’ activities of writing grammar textbooks and school
readers as metalinguistic practice, it becomes possible to consider why they se-
lected certain linguistic features and excluded others from standard Japanese. This
reveals that academic publications – the grammar textbooks and school readers –
spread the dominant political ideology that benefited certain groups in the society.
In analyzing the discourses of these books in the late nineteenth and the early
twentieth centuries, therefore, I maintain that they were metalinguistic practices
of the Japanese linguists, through which they defined the national language under
the political requirement of gendered nationalization that mandated distinctive
roles for female and male citizens.

Gender and linguistic features of Japanese national language

In analyzing how the discourses of grammar textbooks and school readers in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries treated linguistic features in their
relation with gender, it is important to remember that, when they associated cer-
tain features with gender, the association hardly reflected actual language use.
People at the time used a variety of speech, just like the contemporary speakers; it
is impossible and not worthwhile to try determining exactly which linguistic fea-
tures were actually used by women or men in the period. We should rather pay
attention to what is possible and worthwhile – i.e., the process in which, as the case
of atai shows, grammar textbooks and school readers, in prescribing which lin-
guistic features belonged or did not belong to standard Japanese, simultaneously
associated certain linguistic features with gender. In short, by focusing on that
process, we will discover how the discourses of grammar textbooks and school
readers associated particular linguistic features with gender in their attempts to
define standard Japanese. Grammar textbooks and school readers indeed did far
more than simply prescribe the linguistic features already distinctively used by
actual female and male speakers. In the first section, therefore, I will first analyze
which linguistic features grammar textbooks toward the end of the Meiji period
associated with gender and examine whether they included those features in stan-
dard Japanese. In the second section, I will investigate whether grammar text-
books and school readers included in standard Japanese the linguistic features of
schoolgirl speech and schoolboy speech, the features explicitly associated with
gender at the beginning of the twentieth century.

www.ebook777.com
142 Gender, language and ideology

Excluding features by associating them with women

In examining which linguistic features grammar textbooks associated with gender, I


analyze eleven such books (all written by linguists). Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show the books’
authors and publication years, the linguistic features grammar textbooks associated
with gender and whether they included these features in the national language.1
Table 6.1 shows that at least one of the eleven grammar textbooks regards one second-
person pronoun, kisama, and three first-person pronouns, sessha, washi, and ore, as
“used only by males” and shows how the other textbooks defined these features. Sim-
ilarly, Table 6.2 shows that at least one of the eleven textbooks describes certain lin-
guistic features as “used only by females” and shows how the other textbooks defined
these features. Notice that the choice of linguistic features does not reflect the actual
usage of women or men in this specific, late-Meiji period, but I chose these linguistic
features based on whether the feature is defined as “used only by females or males” in
any of the grammar textbooks. S, M, F, and X in the Tables 6.1 and 6.2 represent how

Table 6.1  Linguistic features masculinized in grammar textbooks (1873–1922).

Authors of grammar textbooks Personal pronoun


(Years published)
kisama sessha washi ore

  (1)  Satow (1873) S S S S


  (2)  Chamberlain (1888) S S S S
  (3)  Matsushita (1901) S S S S
  (4)  Maeha (1901)
  (5)  Kanai (1901) M M X, M S
  (6)  Usuda (1909) S M S, M
  (7)  Hoshina (1910) S
  (8)  Hoshina (1911) X X X
  (9)  Yoshioka (1912) S X
(10)  Kokugo choosa iinkai (1916)
(11)  Yamada (1922) M
Notes: An S indicates that the feature is presented as an unmarked standard. An M indicates that the feature
is described as for male use only. An X indicates that the feature is described as inappropriate for standard
Japanese. A blank indicates that the grammar textbook does not refer to the linguistic feature.

1. Previous studies on the history of Japanese spoken grammar have shown that a number of
spoken-grammar textbooks were published in the mid-Meiji era (1897–1906), aiming to establish
standard Japanese and the national language (Furuta 1965; Kasuga 1965; Nagano 1991; Hida 1992;
Santoo 2002). Although this section analyzes only a portion of the grammar textbooks published
at the time, they suffice to show the general tendency concerning how the authors of grammar
textbooks associated linguistic features with gender in their descriptions of standard Japanese.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 6.  Masculinizing the national language 143

Table 6.2  Linguistic features feminized in grammar textbooks (1873–1922).

Authors of grammar Court- Inter- Prefix Personal pronoun


textbooks women’s jection
(Years published) speech omae-san watashi atashi atai atakushi

  (1)  Satow (1873) F F F


  (2)  Chamberlain (1888) F F F
  (3)  Matsushita (1901)
  (4)  Maeha (1901)
  (5)  Kanai (1901) F F X, F X, F X, F

  (6)  Usuda (1909)


  (7)  Hoshina (1910)
  (8)  Hoshina (1911) X
  (9)  Yoshioka (1912) S S X, F X, F X, F
(10) Kokugo choosa
iinkai (1916)
(11)  Yamada (1922)
Notes: An S indicates that the feature is presented as an unmarked standard. An F indicates that the feature
is described as for female use only. An X indicates that the feature is described as inappropriate for standard
Japanese. A blank indicates that the grammar textbook does not refer to the linguistic feature.

the grammar textbooks treated these features with respect to standard Japanese.
An S indicates that the feature is simply presented as an unmarked standard, with-
out mentioning any association with gender. An M indicates that the feature is
described as for male use only. An F indicates that the feature is described as for
female use only. An X indicates that the feature is described as inappropriate for
standard Japanese. A blank indicates that the grammar textbook does not refer to
the linguistic feature.
Tables 6.1 and 6.2 both show that linguistic features were gendered differently
by each grammar textbook, indicating that linguistic features were not clearly gen-
dered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Table 6.1 shows two tendencies. First, only four features, personal pronouns,
kisama, sessha, washi, and ore, are explicitly associated with males in the eleven
grammar textbooks under examination. Second, only three books, (5), (6) and (11),
associate the four personal pronouns with males (M in Table 6.1) and the other five
books present the same features as unmarked standards (S in Table 6.1). The four
masculine personal pronouns are gradually excluded from the standard Japanese,
due, as we shall soon see, to adopting the personal pronouns of schoolboy speech.
Table 6.2 shows three tendencies. First, the eleven grammar books associated
more linguistic features with women than men. Court-women’s speech includes
special terms such as o-hiya (water), which were used by court women in the

www.ebook777.com
144 Gender, language and ideology

fourteenth century (cf. Chapter 2). Interjections include ara, maa, oya, and are.
Prefixes include honorifics such as o and go. One second-person pronoun, omae-
san, and four first-person pronouns, watashi, atashi, atai and atakushi, were also
associated with women. The grammar textbooks often describe these features as
marked, exceptional elements of a standard grammar. Indeed, there is a typical
grammar-textbook style that simultaneously associates particular features with
women, making those features marked exceptions. Grammar textbooks first list
several linguistic features of the same category, then add a special comment that
some of them are for female use. Grammar book (5) in Table 6.2, for instance, first
lists several interjections, and states that, “the last four words are mainly used by
women” (Kanai 1901: 126). Such comment simultaneously associates “the last four
words” with women and makes them marked exceptions of standard grammar, re-
quiring special comment. In fact, there is no case when grammar books comment
that “the last four words are mainly used by men.” Second, with only two exceptions,
one interjection and the first person pronoun watashi in book (9), no forms associ-
ated with women are offered as unmarked elements of standard grammar (S in Ta-
ble 6.2). Third, two grammar textbooks, (5) and (9), describe some of the features as
both used only by women (F) and inappropriate for standard Japanese (X) (X, F in
textbooks 5 and 9). Grammar book (9) in Table 6.2 states: “Use of [first-person pro-
nouns] other than watashi, varies according to sex and class so they should not
become standard [Japanese]. Atakushi, atashi, and atai are used by women” (Yosh-
ioka 2001[1912]: 48). This comment explicitly states that the first-person pronouns,
atakushi, atashi, and atai, “should not become standard” and “are used by women,”
as if the comment associated these pronouns with women to ensure the exclusion of
those features from the standard. Overall, Table 6.2 demonstrates that the authors of
grammar textbooks simultaneously associated some features with women and ren-
dered them exceptional and unsuitable for inclusion in the standard language.

Schoolboy features into the Japanese national language

This section analyzes how grammar textbooks and school readers from the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries defined the linguistic features of school-
girl speech and schoolboy speech in their prescription of Japanese standard lan-
guage. As seen in detail in Chapter 5, schoolgirl speech refers to a new style of
speaking developed by some female students in the 1880s, characterized by using
the sentence-final particles such as teyo, dawa, and noyo, Chinese words (Japanese
words written in Chinese characters), and Western words. Schoolboy speech
(shosei kotoba, cf. Chapter 5, Note 2) refers to a variety of Tokyo language “already
prevalent among doctors, samurai, and intellectuals at the end of the Edo period
[1603–1867],” which came to be recognized as schoolboy speech in the 1870s

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 6.  Masculinizing the national language 145

(Komatsu 1998: 679). The discursive formation of schoolboy speech has not been
fully investigated. I assume, however, that media discourse such as newspapers, in
which novels also appeared, played an important role. An essay in 1885 states:
“Now we can learn the Tokyo [schoolboy] speech by reading newspapers. So some
impertinent male students speak it even before they go to Tokyo” (Yamamoto
1965: 245). Male students who had never been to Tokyo could speak schoolboy
speech precisely because it was an ideological notion constructed by media dis-
course. In fact, in analyzing schoolboy speech, Komatsu (1974: 26) chooses as data
the novel Toosei shosei katagi [The Characters of Male Modern Students] (1885–
1886) by Tsubouchi Shooyoo, rather than the speech actually spoken by school-
boys in the late nineteenth century. His analysis shows that schoolboy speech was
characterized by the use of first-person pronouns boku and wagahai, the second-
person pronoun kimi, mentioning names without using honorifics, or using names
with the suffix -kun, sentence-final forms, tamae and beshi, shikkei (good-bye) as a
greeting, Chinese words, and Western words.
Both schoolgirl speech and schoolboy speech were in principle equally quali-
fied to become standard Japanese in the sense that they both fulfilled the definition
of a national language as “the language of educated Tokyo residents.” For colloquial
varieties to be recognized as legitimate standard Japanese, however, they needed to
be validated by authoritative discourse in such texts as dictionaries, school readers,
and grammar textbooks.2 And, since deliberate selection and exclusion of linguistic
features were at work in the concerted effort to prescribe a standard language, there
must have been some differences in the ways schoolgirl features and schoolboy
features were adopted in grammar textbooks and school readers.
Table 6.3 shows that the eleven grammar textbooks prescribed five schoolboy
features as standard Japanese, a first-person pronoun boku, a second-person pro-
noun kimi, another first-person pronoun wagahai, an address form kun, and a
sentence-final form tamae. An S indicates that the feature is presented as standard
Japanese without stating that it is used by men; an M indicates that the feature is
described as used by schoolboys or men; an X indicates that the feature is de-
scribed as inappropriate for standard Japanese; and a blank indicates that the
grammar textbook does not refer to the linguistic feature. While almost all these
grammar textbooks referred to two personal pronouns, boku and kimi, the other
three features, wagahai, kun and tamae, were scarcely mentioned. Among the

2. Both schoolgirl speech and schoolboy speech were spoken styles called zoku-go (colloquial
speech) at the time. Standard spoken Japanese, nevertheless, does not mean spoken styles but
“written language written as if it were spoken” (Santoo 2002: 152). According to Nagano Masaru
(1991: 189), Japanese language in early Meiji can be divided into written Japanese and spoken
Japanese. Spoken Japanese can be further divided into kootoo-go (oral language), including
zoku-go (colloquial speech) and koogo bun (writing style based on spoken language). The stan-
dard Japanese that school readers and grammar textbooks prescribed was koogo bun.

www.ebook777.com
146 Gender, language and ideology

many schoolboy features, this indicates, the grammar books mainly included the
personal pronouns, boku and kimi, in standard Japanese.
A close look at Table 6.3 shows that the grammar textbooks differed in how
they included those two schoolboy features in standard Japanese. While many
grammar textbooks list boku and kimi as standard Japanese (S in Table 6.3), about
half describe the same two words as features used only by schoolboys or men (M
in Table 6.3). In fact, even when they are included in standard grammar, as in book
(3) in Table 6.3, by Matsushita Daizaburoo (1997[1901]: 78–79), boku and kimi are
mentioned not in the section on pronouns but in the section on honorifics, indi-
cating that the two words had not become major pronouns yet. Some grammar
books also present the ambivalent status of the two personal pronouns, boku and
kimi, in their respective relationships with standard Japanese. In book (6) in
Table 6.3, by Usuda, the author lists boku and kimi as standard Japanese without
stating that they were used by male students and men (S in Table 6.3) (Usuda 1909:
47). In his table of pronouns in the same book, however, he adds the note “used
only by men” (M in Table 6.3) (Usuda 1909: 49). In two textbooks by Hoshina (7)
and (8) in Table 6.3, published in 1910 and 1911, in contrast, the author presents
both boku and kimi as standard Japanese to be taught in schools, without qualify-
ing them as masculine pronouns. In (7), Hoshina (1910: 455) states that the two
pronouns “should be taught in elementary schools,” and, in (8), Hoshina
(2001[1911]: 65) presents a table of pronouns including boku and kimi. The differ-
ent treatments of boku and kimi reveal a period in transition, with grammar

Table 6.3  Schoolboy linguistic features in grammar textbooks (1873–1922).

Authors (Years published) Schoolboy linguistic features

boku kimi wagahai kun tamae

  (1)  Satow (1873) M M


  (2)  Chamberlain (1888) S S M
  (3)  Matsushita (1901) S S S
  (4)  Maeha (1901) M M S
  (5)  Kanai (1901) M S S
  (6)  Usuda (1909) S, M S, M S, M S
  (7)  Hoshina (1910) S S
  (8)  Hoshina (1911) S S X
  (9)  Yoshioka (1912) M
(10)  Kokugo choosa iinkai (1916) M M S
(11)  Yamada (1922) S M
Notes: An S indicates that the feature is presented as an unmarked standard. An M indicates that the feature
is described as for male use only. An X indicates that the feature is described as inappropriate for standard
Japanese. A blank indicates that the grammar textbook does not refer to the linguistic feature.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 6.  Masculinizing the national language 147

textbooks elevating the status of these pronouns from colloquial words to stan-
dard Japanese. From the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries, in short, the
authors of grammar textbooks gradually transformed the features of schoolboy
speech from colloquialisms to standard Japanese.
Compared to schoolboy features, no schoolgirl features are included in the
descriptions of standard Japanese in any of the grammar textbooks listed above. I
found two cases in which schoolgirl linguistic features are abruptly used in exam-
ple sentences. Yoshioka Kyooho (2001[1912]: 156, 290) uses the sentence-final
forms dawa in an example sentence. Kokugo choosa iinkai (1980[1916, 1917]:
202) uses noyo in one of the example sentences. The authors of grammar textbooks
throughout the late-Meiji period, therefore, in selecting features for standard
Japanese grammar, elevated some of the schoolboy features, but not a single
schoolgirl one, from colloquial to standard Japanese.
This unequal treatment of schoolgirl and schoolboy features is more conspicuous
in school readers, kokugo tokuhon (national language reader), compiled as exemplars
of standard Japanese by linguists and the Ministry of Education. Nihon tokuhon [Japan
Reader] (1886), by Shimpoo Iwaji, is, I believe, the first school reader prescribing
schoolboy features. It consists of two volumes of Beginners for six-year-old first grad-
ers and six volumes of Readers for children from second to fourth grades. It is charac-
terized by abundant use of schoolboy features. Both kimi and tamae appear from the
first volume of Beginners (Shimpoo]1964[1886]: 324). The linguistic features, boku
and kun, first appear in the second volume of Beginners, in the story in which three
boys play soldiers, as shown at the beginning of this chapter (Figure 6.1). The first-
person pronoun, boku, and the address form, kun, of schoolboy speech continue to
appear in later volumes (Shimpoo 1964[1886]: 331). In Beginners, all schoolboy fea-
tures are used by boys, while in the third volume of Readers, an inanimate kite says
boku, kimi, and tamae (Shimpoo 1964[1886]: 356). In the fourth volume, a teacher
uses kimi to a student (Shimpoo 1964[1886]: 369). Although the schoolboy features
are mostly used in conversation, a boy uses boku and tamae in his school composition
in the fourth volume (Shimpoo 1964[1886]: 377). In the sixth volume, a sparrow uses
kimi, boku, and boku-ra (the plural form of boku) in speaking to a butterfly. There are
no examples of girls using these features. All eight volumes of Japan Reader, therefore,
use the schoolboy features, boku, kimi, kun, and tamae, throughout.3
In contrast, no schoolgirl features appear in Japan Reader. Instead, the emphasis
is on girls learning how to do domestic work. In the unit, “Washing,” in the third

3. Although Hida (1992: 160) argues that the first school readers presenting boku and kimi
were Jinjoo shoogaku tokuhon [Elementary School Reader] and Kootoo shoogaku tokuhon [High-
er Elementary School Reader] by the Monbushoo in 1904, Japan Reader (1886) had already
presented many of them.

www.ebook777.com
148 Gender, language and ideology

Minna de shuuren shiyoo.


‘Let’s play soldiers.’
Boku wa tenugui o boo ni tsukete hata ni suru.
‘I put a towel on a stick and make a flag.’
Boku wa hatamochi, Itoo-kun wa taishoo desu.
‘I will be a flag holder. Itoo-kun, you are a general.’
Saa, minna soroi tamae.
‘Now, everybody. Stand in a line.’
Satoo-kun, rappa o fuki tamae.
‘Satoo-kun, you blow the bugle.’
Susume, hidari, migi, hidari, migi.
‘March, left, right, left, right.’

Figure 6.1  Japan Reader Volume 2 (Shimpoo 1964[1886]: 331).

volume of Reader, a girl called O-hana-san, who does not like washing and sewing,
is contrasted to another girl, O-matsu-san, who likes doing them and concludes
that “I learn washing and sewing everyday” (Shimpoo 1964[1886]: 361). In an-
other unit, also called “Washing,” in the fourth volume, two girls learn from their
mother how to wash a doll’s clothes (Shimpoo 1964[1886]: 368–369). Thus, Japan
Reader, while adopting schoolboy features as standard Japanese, preaches to girls
on the necessity of learning domestic work. This bias is hardly surprising, given
the convictions of Shimpoo Iwaji, who wrote Japan Reader, and was a staunch
advocate of both the unification of speech and writing and the ideology of good-
wife-wise-mother. Japan Reader was “written with the cooperation of Nakagawa
Kenjiroo, Miyake Yonekichi, and Kawamura Juugo” (Shimpoo 1964[1886]: 314).

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 6.  Masculinizing the national language 149

Shimpoo, Nakagawa, and Miyake, with five others (all men), started the journal
Iratsume, meaning “gentle, elegant, Japanese ladies.” Their two-pronged objective,
as seen in Chapter 3, was to promote the unification of speech and writing and the
good-wife-wise-mother ideology. As noted in Chapter 3, Meiji intellectuals advo-
cated establishing both the ideology of a national language and the ideology of
good-wife-wise-mother. Japan Reader clearly exemplifies how the two seemingly
contradictory ideologies were substantiated in the form of a school reader. It suc-
ceeded in manifesting the two ideologies by adopting features associated with
male students while excluding those associated with female students, but, at the
same time, including units of good-wife-wise-mother.
To see whether this tendency occurs in later readers, I examine how schoolboy
features are treated in nine readers, from Japan Reader (1886) to Elementary Na-
tional Language Reader (1933). Table 6.4 shows how many times each schoolboy
feature appears in the nine readers. Readers (1) to (5) were written by specific in-
dividuals or publishers; readers (6) to (9) are state readers, approved and published
by the Ministry of Education. Four readers (2, 4, 5 and 6) in Table 6.4 were divided
into those for lower grades and higher grades. Linguistic features counted as
schoolboy features include a first-person pronoun boku, a second-person pronoun
kimi, the address form kun, a sentence-final form tamae and the plural forms of
boku (boku-ra) and kimi (kimi-ra).4 Occurrences of other plural forms, boku-tachi
and kimi-tachi, are shown in parentheses.
Table 6.4 shows three tendencies. First, reader (1), Japan Reader, by Shimpoo
in 1886, as already cited, used the linguistic features of schoolboy speech many
times, and reader (2) continued to use them.5 Second, state readers (6, 7, 8 and 9)
increasingly used schoolboy features. The more state readers were published, the
more schoolboy features were included in their descriptions of national language,
indicating that the government’s language policy promoted the elevation of school-
boy features from colloquial to standard language. Third, readers (3) to (5) hardly
used schoolboy features. This is because they were compiled to teach written, not
spoken, Japanese. Reader (1), Japan Reader, is known as the textbook that “con-
sciously adopted a style based on the spoken language for the first time” (Yamamoto

4. The school readers in this period used the second-person pronoun kimi in two different
ways. In the written style, kimi was used with the first-person pronoun, ware. In spoken style,
kimi was used with the first-person pronouns watakushi or boku. So I did not count kimi used
with ware, in writing, as a schoolboy feature.
5. Each reader is different in the way it adopts schoolboy features. While (1) Shimpoo (1886) and
(6) Monbushoo (1904) use them in conversations between boys, animals and inanimate things, (7)
Monbushoo (1910) uses them in conversations between boys and girls, thereby teaching the differ-
ent linguistic norms of boys and girls. For instance, in the unit, kiku no hana (chrysanthemum) in
the reader (7) volume 2, a boy uses a male first-person, boku, and a girl calls herself watakushi.

www.ebook777.com
150 Gender, language and ideology

Table 6.4  The number of occurrences of schoolboy linguistic features in school readers
(1886–1993).6

Number of schoolboy linguistic features

Author or publisher boku boku-ra kimi kimi-ra kun tamae


(Years published) (-tachi) (-tachi)

(1)  Shimpoo (1886) 29 1 18 6 7


(2)  Gakkai shishinsha (1892) 2 1
    Gakkai shishinsha (1893) 1 (1) 1
(3)  Imaizumi & Sunaga (1894)
(4)  Kinkoo Doo (1900)
    Kinkoo Doo (1900)
(5)  Tsubouchi (1900)
    Tsubouchi (1900) 3
(6)  Monbushoo (1904) 13 4 13 4 5
    Monbushoo (1904) 2 5 1
(7)  Monbushoo (1910) 8 7 1 4(1)
(8)  Monbushoo (1918) 52 7(1) 5 7 21 3
(9)  Monbushoo (1933) 139 16(10) 20 2 44 8

1965: 423). Indeed, as noted, during the period between readers (1) and (6), from
1886 to 1904, the Ministry of Education set teaching the spoken language as a goal
of national language education. Reader (6) was edited with the intention of in-
cluding “much spoken language” (Monbushoo 1972[1904]: 477). This suggests
that both reader (1) and state readers (6, 7, 8 and 9) included colloquial schoolboy
features as proper and legitimate for teaching spoken Japanese. Adopting the spo-
ken language enhanced adoption of schoolboy linguistic features.
In contrast, none of the school readers I examined used the linguistic features
of schoolgirl speech in their lessons and stories. Instead, these school readers con-
sistently contained the stories and lessons that taught children the ideology of
good-wife-wise-mother. Table 6.5 shows the number of units in the nine readers
featuring good-wife-wise-mother stories and lessons. “Household work” here re-
fers to stories teaching the importance for girls of sewing, cooking and washing.
“Play” refers to stories recommending different kinds of play for girls and boys.
“Four female behaviors” refers to the lessons teaching the four types of Confucian
female behavior, female-virtue, female-language, female-appearance, and female-
skills, which had repeatedly appeared in premodern conduct books (cf. Chapter 1).

6. Since the titles of the state readers are very similar, they are generally referred to by the
sounds or titles of their first units, (6) I e su shi tokuhon [I, e, su, shi Reader], (7) Hata tako
tokuhon [Flag-Kite Reader], (8) Hana hato tokuhon [Flower-Dove Reader], and (9) Sakura
tokuhon [Cherry Reader].

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 6.  Masculinizing the national language 151

Table 6.5  The number of units about good-wife-wise-mother in school readers


(1886–1993).7

Number of units about good-wife-wife-mother

Author or publisher Household Play Four female Other


(Years published) work behaviors

(1)  Shimpoo (1886) 3


(2)  Gakkai shishinsha (1892)
    Gakkai shishinsha (1893)
(3)  Imaizumi & Sunaga (1894) 1 1 1 1
(4)  Kinkoo Doo (1900) 1 1
    Kinkoo Doo (1900) 3 3
(5)  Tsubouchi (1900) 1
    Tsubouchi (1900) 1
(6)  Monbushoo (1904) 1
    Monbushoo (1904) 3
(7)  Monbushoo (1910) 2 5
(8)  Monbushoo (1918) 1
(9)  Monbushoo (1933) 2

7. While Tables 6.4 and 6.5 present the numbers of occurrences of schoolboy linguistic features
and stories concerning the idea of good-wife-wise-mother in school readers, Table 6.6 shows the

Table 6.6  The rates of units using schoolboy linguistic features and units on good-wife-
wise-mother in national-language readers (1886–1933).

Author or publisher Total number Number of units (rate) Number of units (rate)
(Years published) of units using schoolboy about good-wife-wise-
linguistic features mother

(1)  Shimpoo (1886) 198 12(6%) 3(2%)


(2)  Gakkai shishinsha (1892) 214 3(1%) 0(0%)
    Gakkai shishinsha (1893) 120 1(1%) 0(0%)
(3)  Imaizumi & Sunaga (1894) 180 0(0%) 4(2%)
(4)  Kinkoo Doo (1900) 171 0(0%) 2(1%)
    Kinkoo Doo (1900) 93 0(0%) 6(6%)
(5)  Tsubouchi (1900) 172 0(0%) 1(1%)
    Tsubouchi (1900) 89 0(0%) 2(2%)
(6)  Monbushoo (1904) 160 8(5%) 1(1%)
    Monbushoo (1904) 82 3(4%) 3(4%)
(7)  Monbushoo (1910) 301 8(3%) 7(2%)
(8)  Monbushoo (1918) 303 26(9%) 1(1%)
(9)  Monbushoo (1933) 309 36(12%) 2(1%)
Note: The percentages are rounded off to the nearest decimal point.

www.ebook777.com
152 Gender, language and ideology

“Other” refers to stories concerned with other types of female-vurtue.8 Table 6.5
shows that, except for (2), all school readers taught children the stories and lessons
of good-wife-wise-mother. In the period when spoken Japanese acquired wider
acceptance and schoolboy features gained status as part of the of a national lan-
guage, girls were expected to follow the norms of good-wife-wise-mother.9
The analyses of grammar textbooks and school readers in this chapter re-
veal exactly how these academic discourses masculinized the Japanese national
language. Academic discourse simultaneously defined and masculinized stan-
dard features mainly by two strategies. First, as shown in my discussion con-
cerning Table 6.2, grammar textbooks explicitly associated some features with

t otal number of units and the ratios of units using schoolboy features and the good-wife-wise-
mother stories. The numbers in Tables 6.6, however, are not completely determinate, for three
reasons. First, as many of the school readers start with a character chart, a vocabulary list, and
single sentences without a unit title, it is impossible to determine the total number of units. In
Table 6.6, more than three sentences are counted as a unit. Second, although each unit is usually
built around a story, the older the students, the longer the story. Finally, some units use a school-
boy linguistic feature only once, while others use it many times. Despite these discrepancies, Ta-
ble 6.6 demonstrates that more schoolboy linguistic features were used after the first state text-
book was published (6) and that stories about good-wife-wise-mother were constantly cited.
8. Reader (3) by Imaizumi and Sunaga (1894), for example, includes the following units about
good-wife-wise-mother:
(1) Household work (Volume 7 Unit 10 “Women’s responsibilities”): “Women have many
responsibilities. Cooking and sewing are the most important…. Washing and combing
hair are also what women should know. If a woman does not learn them, even if she
has knowledge, she does not uphold a woman’s responsibility.”
(2) Play (Volume 4 Unit 16 “How to play”): “Boys should do rough play like flying a kite,
spinning a circle, running, or pretending to fight. Girls should do quiet and soft play
such as Japanese badminton, bouncing a ball, or decorating a doll.”
(3) Four female behaviors (Volume 8 Unit 24 “Female four behaviors”): “Female-language
means a good language. [It means] to use words selectively, not to use rough words,
and to say what needs to be said, and not unnecessary things, so that others will not
hate what you say.”
(4) Other (Volume 4 Unit 8 “Questions and answers about birds”): Abstract: A teacher
asks three girls what kind of bird they want to be. O-matsu wants to become a bush
warbler because it sings with a good voice. O-take wants to become a mandarin duck
because it has beautiful feathers. O-ume wants to become a crow because it is obedient
to its parents. The teacher praises O-ume and tells them that beauty of mind rather
than beauty of appearance is important for women.
9. Some changes are observed in the way the ideology of good-wife-wise-mother was pre-
sented in readers, especially between state textbooks and other readers. Readers published
before state textbooks simply repeat the Confucian lessons of women’s conduct textbooks. State
textbooks published after the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) and the Russo-Japanese War
(1904–1905), however, contain stories praising women who send their children to be soldiers
and those who themselves fight for the emperor.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 6.  Masculinizing the national language 153

women and simultaneously excluded those very features from standard gram-
mar. This process made all other features part of the unmarked masculine stan-
dard, based on the widespread belief in binary gender opposition. Second, while
the authors of grammar textbooks and school readers increasingly included the
linguistic features associated with schoolboys in standard Japanese, they com-
pletely precluded the features of schoolgirl speech, promoting standardization
of schoolboy features. Here again, the masculinized features became unmarked,
standard, and central, while the feminized features were marked, exceptional,
and marginalized. The authors, all linguists or grammarians, and publishers of
grammar textbooks and school readers not only distinguished between femi-
nized and masculinized linguistic features but also asymmetrically arranged
them in their respective relationships to the national language. Moreover, the
academic metalinguistic practice of male linguists and the ideology of men’s
national language reinforced each other in the political ideology of gendered
nationalization. The ideology of men’s national language legitimated linguists’
sexist selections, while their metalinguistic practice of producing grammar
books and school readers in turn reproduced and further legitimated the ideol-
ogy of men’s national language.

Conclusion

This section concludes the four chapters in Part 2 and argues that gender played a
crucial role in the process by which nationalization and standardization reinforced
each other as Japan rapidly modernized. I cited that the invention of a national
language accompanied the construction, marginalization, and denial of regional
dialects (Chapter 3, note 3). How the establishment of the national language was
related to gender, however, has rarely been discussed. I will argue that the con-
struction, marginalization, and denial of linguistic ideologies related to women
made it possible to create a men’s national language without explicitly stating it.
Figure 6.2 illustrates the argument developed in Part 2. The lower section
shows that gendered opposition recurs on the three linguistic levels: national lan-
guage vs. feminine speech, schoolboy speech vs. schoolgirl speech, and masculine
and schoolboy features vs. feminine and schoolgirl features. I put the term “men’s”
of men’s national language in Figure 6.2 in parentheses to indicate that masculin-
izing the national language was accomplished without being explicitly stated; men’s
language was often (mis)recognized as the national language for all citizens, in-
cluding women (Chapter 3). By “feminine speech” in Figure 6.2, I refer to the mod-
ern ideology of feminine speech, the ideal speech of modern female citizens
following the modern norms of feminine speech (Chapter 4). Gal and Irvine (1995)

www.ebook777.com
154 Gender, language and ideology

[Unmarked, standard, [Marked, exceptional,


Gendered nationalization central masculinity] marginal femininity]
male citizens female citizens

Gendered linguistic ideologies

[speech of nation] (men’s) national language feminine speech

[speech of students] schoolboy speech schoolgirl speech

[linguistic features] masculine features feminine features


schoolboy features schoolgirl features

Figure 6.2  Gendered nationalization and linguistic ideologies in Japan’s modernization.

identify three semiotic processes, fractal recursivity, iconization, and erasure, of


linguistic boundary construction. Fractal recursivity means “the projection of an
opposition, salient at some level of relationship, onto some other level” (Gal &
Irvine 1995: 974). Figure 6.2 demonstrates that gendered opposition recurred on
the three levels: that of langauge spoken on a national scale, again on that of speech
spoken by a small group of students, and yet again on that of certain linguistic fea-
tures.
The term “Gendered” in Gendered Linguistic Ideologies does not indicate that
these ideologies were simply divided by gender, but that they were in an asymmetri-
cal power relationship in that feminized ideologies are assigned marked, exception-
al, and marginalized value, while masculinized ideologies are assigned unmarked,
standard, and central value. While the ideology of feminine speech was the norm
peculiar to women’s speech, (men’s) national language was presented as the norm
for the whole nation. Linguists and intellectuals continuously criticized schoolgirl
speech and excluded schoolgirl features from the national language (Chapter 5). In
contrast, they rarely criticized schoolboy speech; academic discourses increasingly
included schoolboy features in standard Japanese. Grammar textbooks excluded
some linguistic features from the national language, marking them as feminine fea-
tures used only by women, which, in turn, implicitly associated all other features
with masculinity as the unmarked standard of the national language.
The upward and downward arrows between Gendered Nationalization and
Gendered Linguistic Ideologies in Figure 6.2 indicate that gendered linguistic ide-
ologies and the political ideology of gendered nationalization reinforce each other:
“[N]ationalist [ideologies] and language ideologies often reflect and reinforce each

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 6.  Masculinizing the national language 155

other” (Echeverria 2003: 409). Gendered linguistic ideologies formed iconic


representations of male and female citizens. Iconicity, another semiotic process
that Gal and Irvine (1995) have observed in the process of boundary construction,
“involves a transformation of the sign relationship between linguistic practices,
features, or varieties and the social images with which they are linked” (Gal &
Irvine 1995: 973). The masculine linguistic ideologies helped promote the con-
struction of the unmarked, standard identity of a male citizen. Marginalized in
their relation to national language, feminine linguistic ideologies exacerbated the
positioning of female citizens as marked, “exceptional speakers” (Hall 2003). The
establishment of gendered linguistic ideologies was promoted more by prevailing
academic discourse enabled in political ideologies of gendered nationalization and
linguistic standardization than by how individual speakers actually used language.
Figure 6.2 indicates that the unmarked, hegemonic status of national language
was established in its two relationships, horizontal and vertical, to the other lin-
guistic ideologies, both of which were closely related to gender. First, in the hori-
zontal relationships, the masculine, unmarked, central status of national language
was constructed by its asymmetrical relationships with the feminized, marked,
and marginalized ideologies. Since feminine speech, schoolgirl speech, feminine
features, and schoolgirl features were highlighted both by their associations with
women and by being explicitly distinguished and excluded from the national lan-
guage, the national language implicitly acquired its association with masculinity.
The construction and denial of feminine linguistic ideologies are effective
symbolic strategies to heighten the purity and integrity of male citizens. Narita
Ryuuichi (1994: 193) points out that, after distinguishing “we” in Japan from “they”
in other countries, “differences within ‘we’ were created.” As factors of internal dif-
ference, he mentions gender difference along with the father’s occupation and
school achievements. To this, Kume Yoriko (1997: 207–208) correctly points out
that gender difference is different from other factors because neither effort nor
luck can overcome it. By emphasizing this immutable difference, Kume argues,
women were redefined as the Inside Other, who “negatively mediate to elevate the
purity and integrity of ‘we = Japanese men’ at the center.” Any group other than
educated, middleclass men could be designated as the Inside Other. The exclusion
of women, however, was particularly effective because of the irrevocable interpre-
tation of the gender distinction. Accordingly, exclusion and denial of linguistic
ideologies associated with women, such as feminine speech, schoolgirl speech,
feminine features, and schoolgirl features, functioned to symbolically invent wom-
en as the Inside Other and to enhance a highly integrated construction of male
citizens. Generally speaking, therefore, processes of creating a hegemonic ideolo-
gy, such as standardization, often require both the construction and denial of

www.ebook777.com
156 Gender, language and ideology

marginal linguistic ideologies. And, in this process, gender, the irrevocable inside
difference, is most effectively utilized.
Second, in the vertical relationships in Figure 6.2, the recursive, gendered op-
position established a strong link among masculinity, national language, and par-
ticular linguistic features. By repeating the gendered opposition from the level of
national language to the level of linguistic features, the abstract ideology of the
national language was associated with physical, concrete features, such as school-
boy personal pronouns, boku and kimi. Being given an indexical association with
concrete forms, the (men’s) national language obtained the means to be repro-
duced in everyday practice. Although the ideology of national language was
available for negotiation and contestation and did not guarantee total control of
individual practices, gendered indexicalization through everyday linguistic prac-
tices renders the andro-centric ideology of the Japanese national language into
highly naturalized “dominant language ideolog[y]” (Kroskrity 1998: 117). Gender
played a crucial role in the process of constructing the hegemonic, andro-centric
ideology of the Japanese national language in the early twentieth century.
It is worth noting here that the academic discourse developing gendered lin-
guistic ideologies in Japan became possible, meaningful and acceptable by several
key developments: the establishment of the modern school system, the emergence
of school textbooks, the improvement of literacy, the advent of print technology
and print media, and the new literary form of the novel emerging from the unifica-
tion of speech and writing, that aimed to create the national language. Those de-
velopments and the resulting social changes, furthermore, were caused by the
encounter with Western technology, military force, and science. Western language
studies made a great effect on the very notions of national language, grammar, and
school textbooks in Japan.
The gendered linguistic ideologies in the early twentieth century presented in
Figure 6.2, however, saw a radical change during the periods of war from the be-
ginning of WWI in 1914 to the end of WWII in 1945. The next chapter will inves-
tigate what occurred to the relationships between gender and linguistic ideologies
during that timeframe.

www.ebook777.com
part 3

Women’s language into national language


The impact of war

In Part 2, I have demonstrated that major linguistic varieties and features were
ideologically gendered in Japan’s early modernization period. Interestingly, the
asymmetrical relationship between feminine speech and men’s national language
dramatically changed during the war years in the first half of the twentieth century.
Women’s language became part of the national language and gained legitimate
linguistic status for the first time. Part 3 will show how this change occurred dur-
ing Japan’s periods of war, from the beginning of WWI (1914) through the end of
WWII (1945). In Chapter 7, by analyzing the discourses produced by linguists and
intellectuals concerning women’s speech, I will demonstrate that women’s lan-
guage was invented as a tradition of the Japanese language during the war period,
reflecting the Japanese government’s colonization policy in East Asian countries.
Chapter 8 will analyze how the academic discourses of grammar books and school
readers gendered linguistic features and will consider the result of that analysis as
it relates to Japan’s war-influenced political policy of National Mobilization.

www.ebook777.com
www.ebook777.com
chapter 7

Women’s language as imperial tradition


Legitimating colonization

Can we see a correct, pure Japanese language spoken in the future Man-
churia? This is an important, national task of the Japanese empire. If we
realize that the major role to fulfill this task depends on women’s speech,
however … I feel horrified and cannot help but worry about the future of
this country. Matsumoto Shigeko (1941)
 Manshuu no fujingo [Ladies’ Language in Manchuria]
Matsumoto Shigeo, a male teacher at an elementary school in the Japanese colony
of Manchuria, was offended with the Japanese women’s speech he heard in
Manchuria in 1941. Matsumoto was disappointed precisely because he was ex-
pecting the speech of Japanese women in Manchuria to fulfill “an important, na-
tional task” of speaking “pure Japanese language” (Matsumoto 1941: 28). That is
why he paid attention to women’s speech and noticed that they were not speaking
as he expected. And he interpreted this fact as a national problem that would affect
the future of Japan. Nevertheless, such nationalistic and emotional expectations
towards women’s speech were unimaginable in the previous period. As seen in
Part 2, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, women’s speech was
completely excluded from national language and remained as either the object of
feminine norms or the target of criticism. For Matsumoto to make such a state-
ment, some changes must have occurred in the way Japanese people conceptual-
ized the speech of Japanese women in the first half of the twentieth century. What
did Matsumoto mean by “national task” of speaking “pure Japanese” in Manchuria,
a Japanese colony, in the middle of twentieth century? How did Japanese people
change their ways of conceptualizing women’s speech and what political and eco-
nomic processes enabled such change during the war period? The purpose of this
chapter is to analyze the discourses of linguists and intellectuals concerning wom-
en’s speech during the war period from WWI (1914) to the end of the WWII
(1945) and, on that basis, to examine the process by which Japanese people changed
their ways of conceptualizing women’s speech. Before examining those discourses,
I will briefly describe Japan’s political situation during the period, focusing on
colonization and the role of Japanese language in the Asian colonies.

www.ebook777.com
160 Gender, language and ideology

Japanese language in the Asian colonies

In the first half of the twentieth century, the Japanese military was invading and
colonizing East Asia. After victory in the Sino-Japanese war in 1895, Japan occu-
pied Taiwan. After winning the Russo-Japanese war in 1905, Japan annexed Korea
in 1910. Although Japan experienced economic growth during WWI (1914–1918),
the government reacted to the disastrous Kanto Earthquake (1923) and the world
financial crisis (1929) with a colonial policy utilizing armed aggression. Japan oc-
cupied and began ruling Manchuria the year after the Manchurian Incident (1931).
In 1933, Japan left the League of Nations when the international body objected to
this takeover. In 1937, Japan went to war with China, and the government issued
the National Mobilization Law and claimed control over all Japanese citizens, in-
cluding women and children, for the war effort. Freedom of speech was strictly
controlled inside Japan, and invasions of Asian countries continued. The Japan’s
attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 triggered the Pacific War. The American military
dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6, and on Nagasaki on August 9,
1945. Japanese Cabinet announced the Allied Powers the acceptance of the Japan’s
unconditional surrender in the Potsdom declarations on August 14 of the same
year and the emperor’s broadcasting the surrender on August 15 terminated the
Japanese military regime.
Studies on language in Japanese colonization in the twentieth century have
shown that Japan placed excessive emphasis on teaching Japanese language to
people in the colonized areas (Kubota 2005; Lee 1996; Osa 1998; Yasuda 1997,
1998). Japanese colonization was carried out based on a policy of assimilation
(dooka seisaku), educating people in the colonies to become Japanese citizens loy-
al to the emperor and infused with the Japanese spirit. The military government,
in its effort to emphasize differences from European colonization, planned to es-
tablish an Asian imperial realm under the sovereignty of the emperor. For the
people in the colonized areas, however, the emperor was not the subject of reli-
gious worship but merely the chief colonizer. The colonized people lacked the his-
torical and religious foundations to “implement the Japanese spirit” or even to
grasp its meaning. It was impossible, therefore, to expect them to naturally come
to respect the Japanese emperor. Given that reality, both the Japanese government
and intellectuals specified the Japanese national language as probably the most ef-
fective tool for this implementation, because, as seen in Chapter 3, Ueda Kazutoshi
in 1894 had defined the Japanese national language as “the spiritual blood of the
Japanese people.” Intellectuals, especially linguists, claimed that, since Japanese
national language was “the spiritual blood of the Japanese people,” which was also
“the Japanese spirit” representing loyalty to the emperor, teaching the Japanese
national language to people in the colonies would make them complete Japanese

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 7.  Imperial tradition 161

citizens loyal to the emperor. Ootsuki Fumihiko states in his Introduction to


Koogohoo bekki [Spoken Language Grammar Separate Edition], compiled by
Kokugo choosa iinkai (1980 [1917]), that “Now that Taiwan and Korea have be-
come part of our country, teaching the Japanese spoken language is the best way to
transform those people into Japanese.” As Yasuda Toshiaki (1997: 128) points out,
“Since Japanese became the ‘national language,’ that is, ‘the language of the nation
state,’ it was claimed that [people of the colonies] should also speak it.” In Korea,
Japanese-language education was forced on the Korean people by the educational
laws issued in 1911, 1922, and 1938. In 1940, Koreans were obliged to use Japanese
names (Lee 1996: 253). In the 1940s, the military government proposed the idea of
Daitooa kyooeiken (the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere), and Japanese lin-
guists repeatedly claimed that it was crucial to teach Japanese language to succeed
in governing those countries. A linguist, Ishii Shooji (1941: 235), proposed con-
trolling East Asia through language: “the Japanese language is expected to take an
active part as the common national language in the Greater East Asia Co-prosper-
ity Sphere.” Sakuma Kanae (1942: 25), another linguist, also pointed out: “Control
of a country with a strong defense system will require strictly uniform use of the
Japanese language. Fulfilling the role of a common national language to establish
the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere will also require strictly uniform use
of the Japanese language.” What Matsumoto Shigeo, the elementary school teacher
in Manchuria, meant by “an important, national task” of speaking “pure Japanese
language,” therefore, was the task of Japanese people in the Japanese colonies to
speak and teach Japanese national language, aiming to transform people in the
colonies into the Japanese citizens loyal to the Japanese emperor.
Nevertheless, in addition to the colonies’ local resistance against the compul-
sory use of Japanese, the teachers of Japanese language in the colonies were chal-
lenged by a huge difficulty: there was no single Japanese national language even
inside of Japan. Just as people in Japan were speaking regional variations of
Japanese, Japanese language teachers in the colonies spoke their own regional
variations. Lee Yeounsuk (1996: 297–299) documents that, in the Second National
Language Measure Conference held in 1941, the major discussion theme involved
not methods of teaching Japanese in the colonies but discontent with the speech of
the teachers. The more the language policy makers tried to set one national lan-
guage as a goal of colonial education, the more they were annoyed by the fact that
there was not one Japanese national language. Komori Yooichi (2000: 258) asserts
that “It was because of this discrepancy that the myth of a single national language
had to be desired” in the colonies much stronger than inside Japan. In this situa-
tion, it was urgent to declare those characteristics of the Japanese language
that proved its superiority and legitimated Japan’s invasions. Hoshina Kooichi
(1942: 199) had no doubt about the superiority of the Japanese language: “Since

www.ebook777.com
162 Gender, language and ideology

the language of a superior nation always possesses a strong influence, it is obvious


that the Japanese language, the language of the leader of the Co-prosperity Sphere,
meets the qualifications.” The idea of a superior country with a superior language,
he assumed, should legitimate Japanese domination of its colonies. I will argue in
the following sections that the need to prove the superiority of Japanese language
over other languages changed the ways the linguists and intellectuals produced
discourse concerning women’s language during the war period.

Women’s language in the war period

The discourses concerning women’s language produced by the linguists and intel-
lectuals during the war years can be divided into three categories: (1) discourses
that constructed women’s language as a tradition of Japanese language; (2)
discourses that constructed women’s language as a symbol of Japanese cultural
superiority; and (3) discourses that assigned women the role of protecting and
maintaining the national language.

Women’s language as Japanese imperial tradition

The first type of discourse typically argued that the origin of women’s language was
nyooboo kotoba (court-women’s speech) and keigo (honorific language). Washi
Rumi (2000: 20) finds the paper by Kikuzawa Sueo (1929), “Fujin no kotoba no
tokuchoo ni tsuite [On characteristics of ladies’ language],” particularly important,
because “it was the first paper connecting women’s language to court-women’s
speech.” Kikuzawa claims in the paper that four characteristics of court-women’s
speech – (1) use of polite speech, (2) use of elegant speech, (3) an indirect way of
speaking, and (4) avoidance of unrefined Chinese words – were also the character-
istics of women’s speech in 1920s, implying that the origin of women’s language is
court-women’s speech. He simply presupposed that court-women’s speech in the
fourteenth century and women’s speech in the 1920s had common characteristics,
despite the fact that the two types of speech were spoken in the periods separated by
more than five hundred years. He assumed, in other words, that it was women’s in-
nate nature, the only common point between court women in the fourteenth cen-
tury and women in the 1920s, which somehow characterized their way of speaking.
We have seen in Chapter 4 the problems in such view of essentialization of gender.
Despite its problem, Kikuzawa’s paper had a great effect among linguists and
on the subsequent discussion of women’s language. Hoshina (1936: 228–229) re-
peats Kikuzawa’s four characteristics of court-women’s speech as also true of wom-
en’s language: “Generally, women’s speech, compared to men’s, is characterized by

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 7.  Imperial tradition 163

its softness. Women try to use elegant, polite expressions as much as possible even
when they are not speaking honorific language. They have the habit of not express-
ing anything directly and this gives an elegant and refined impression…. Until the
Meiji era, women did not use hard-sounding, difficult Chinese words.” Ishiguro
Yoshimi (1943: 227), a linguist, makes similar observations: “The characteristics of
women’s language are making a refined and elegant impression, not expressing
anything directly, being polite, and avoiding Chinese words that sound awkward
as a part of the Japanese language.” Nagao Masanori (1943: 27) considers court-
women’s speech to be the origin of women’s language, stating that “the first separa-
tion of women’s language [from men’s language] was court-women’s speech in the
Muromachi period [in the fourteenth century].”
Hoshina Kooichi (1936: 227) also associates women’s language with honorific
language: “In our country, women generally use many more polite words than
men.” Kindaichi Kyoosuke (1942: 296) further asserts that women’s language and
honorific language have the same origin: “Women’s language is characterized by its
abundance of honorific language. The development of honorific language cannot be
discussed separately from the emergence of women’s language. To consider the ori-
gin of honorific language, therefore, is to consider the origin of women’s language.”
These discourses by linguists were reproduced in etiquette books. Court-
women’s speech and honorific language were not only repeatedly referred to but
also turned into the norms for women. Yanagi Yae (1941), a female journalist,
describes women’s language as having Kikuzawa’s four characteristics, among
which (1b), (1c), and (1d) were presented as norms with “must” and “should”:
(1) a. The first characteristic of [women’s] good language is elegance (with
examples of court-women’s speech).
b. Women’s speech must, first and foremost, be polite.
c. Women should avoid speaking directly and … should make descrip-
tions and express emotion that present no more than 70% of what they
actually want to say.
d. Women should never fail to use honorific language.
 (Yanagi 1941: 253–259)
Morita Tama (1943: 100, 104), a female writer and politician, in her etiquette book
for women, also emphasizes the importance of speaking politely and presents in-
direct speech as the norm.
Why were court-women’s speech and honorific language referred to during
the war as the origin of women’s language? To answer this question, we need to
know what they were considered to represent. First of all, the linguists’ discourse
shows that court-women’s speech was understood in terms of its connection with
the emperor. Kikuzawa (1933: 40) asserts that the elegance of the emperor’s family

www.ebook777.com
164 Gender, language and ideology

has continued in the form of court-women’s speech: “Court-women’s speech orig-


inated in the gracious imperial court, spread to women in the Shoogun families, to
the wives of feudal lords, then to good families in the common population, and
they are still used today.” Ishiguro (1943: 226) also considers that the elegance of
court-women’s speech was due to its origin in the imperial court: “Court-women’s
speech originated in the gracious imperial court and … we can assume [from this
fact] how elegant it was.” Nagao (1943: 30) praises court-women’s speech as the
tradition of the Japanese national language and the imperial realm: “[Court-­
women’s speech], which originated in the imperial court, spread to the inner pal-
aces of the Shoogun and are still in use in our everyday lives. They present a long,
precious tradition of the Japanese national language and … a tradition representa-
tive of the beauty and nobility of the imperial realm.” It must be recalled, however,
that, as seen in Chapter 2, it was not the emperor or the members of the emperor’s
family but women working in the court who started using court-women’s speech.
Court-women’s speech was not initially considered elegant speech. The first refer-
ence to court-women’s speech, found in Ama no mokuzu [Seaweed of a Mermaid]
(1420) regards it as negative ((1) of Chapter 2). Kusa musubi [The Grass Tie] (1771)
also criticized it for changing beautiful, traditional names ((3) of Chapter 2). The
linguists in the war period, in other words, redefined court-women’s speech as an
elegant symbol of the emperor’s family.
Next, the linguists of the period considered honorific language to be one of
the characteristics of the Japanese language of which the entire country could be
proud. Hirokoo Ryoozoo (1941: 448) asserts that honorific language was created
by the polite nature of the Japanese nation and considers it a matter of Japanese
pride: “The fact that our national language possesses honorific language clearly
shows the deeply respectful nature of the Japanese people. It is the characteristic
of our national language that most clearly distinguishes it from any other.”
Kindaichi (1942: 307) also considers honorific language as a symbol of the supe-
riority of Japan: “Our national language has nothing else we can be proud of com-
pared to Western languages…. This category of honorific language usage is what
we can be fully proud of…. It is women’s language that shows a particularly subtle
and fine use of honorific language.” Some linguists refuted such a view of honor-
ific language. Tokieda Motoki (1941: 449) states that: “To regard honorific lan-
guage simply as a reflection of our laudable custom to respect politeness does not
account for the system of honorific language itself. Polite ways of speaking can be
found in foreign languages, too.” However, some people even argued that honor-
ific language was a tradition originating out of respect for the emperor. Nagao
Masanori (1943: 99–100), who wrote a whole book on women and language dur-
ing the war period, says: “Women especially should not forget that the lives of the
Japanese have always been filled with manners and ethics, and that the tradition

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 7.  Imperial tradition 165

of the emperor has always been associated with beauty and nobility…. We should
not forget that the honorific language women use today has its roots in the gra-
cious imperial family.” The linguists in the war period, these discourses show,
positively evaluated both court-women’s speech and honorific language by em-
phasizing their connections with the emperor system.
The association with court-women’s speech and honorific language construct-
ed women’s language as a Japanese imperial tradition originating with the emperor
system. As Eric Hobsbaum (1983: 1) suggests, tradition is invented, and “[invented
traditions] normally attempt to establish continuity with a suitable historic past.”
The assertion that court-women’s speech and honorific language were the origin of
women’s language is an attempt to establish continuity with the past. The war-time
discourse invented women’s language as a Japanese imperial tradition originating
with the emperor system and maintained by Japanese women. By “imperial tradi-
tion,” therefore, I mean the tradition recognized as derived from the emperor and
the emperor system. As observed in the Introduction, contemporary Japanese dic-
tionaries still refer to court-women’s speech as an old example of women’s lan-
guage. The analysis of this section shows, however, that it was during the periods
of war in the first half of the twentieth century when court-women’s speech was
invented as the origin of women’s language.

Women’s language as a symbol of Japanese superiority

The second type of discourse spoke of women’s language as if it were peculiar to


the Japanese language and argued that it showed the superiority of the Japanese
language and of Japan. Tanizaki Junichiroo (1975[1934]: 157), modern Japanese
writer, states: “That languages spoken by men and women are different is an advan-
tage only the Japanese spoken language possesses. This cannot be found in any na-
tional language other than Japanese” (emphasis original). Kindaichi (1942: 293)
considers Japanese women’s language as “a phenomenon uncommon in the world
because it is based on Japanese women’s way of living.” For Ishiguro (1943: 236),
women’s language is “one of the beauties of the Japanese language that no other
national language is allowed to follow.” Dan Michiko (1943: 97), a female writer,
after showing how women should use different levels of honorific language, says:
“These things may appear troublesome … but only Japanese citizens, with their
history of more than two thousand years, can use it. Those citizens [of countries]
lacking a history cannot use it.” These discourses, by praising and characterizing
women’s language as a phenomenon found only in Japan, used it to promote the
superiority of Japan over other countries.

www.ebook777.com
166 Gender, language and ideology

Female citizens as protectors of the national language

The third type of discourse assigned women the role of protecting and main-
taining the national language. As women’s language became a Japanese tradi-
tion, women were expected to cooperate with the military regime by preserving
this tradition. Shinmura Izuru (1938: 96), a linguist known for compiling many
Japanese dictionaries, emphasizes the role of female citizens: “Now and in the
future, women’s contribution to language is especially important in our coun-
try.” Kindaichi (1942: 309) declares: “To become a complete Japanese woman,
she must, more than anything, acquire this traditional Japanese women’s lan-
guage, complete with its exquisite use of honorific language, something very
rare in the world.” This made the acquisition of women’s language the primary
condition for becoming a female citizen. According to Ishiguro (1943: 280),
“Throughout history, both Japanese citizens and the national language have
been protected and fostered at the hands of women.” Nagao (1943: 39, 58, 93)
believes that women should be thankful to be given the role of preserving the
tradition of the Japanese national language, and that they should protect it with
their lives: “Women should be proud that they have preserved and polished the
traditions of the national language…. It was women who acquired the beauty of
the national language, preserved it, and fostered it…. Women should not forget
that it is their power and lives that preserve the legitimacy of the national lan-
guage and make its purity, elegance, flexibility, and simplicity eternal.” These
linguists, to our surprise, boldly declared that women had protected and fos-
tered Japanese national language, even though their predecessors had excluded
feminine linguistic features from the national language several decades ago, as
shown in Part 2.
Female citizens were also expected to teach the “correct” national language to
children. These discourses can be divided into two groups: those that required
women to protect the national language, and those that blamed women for caus-
ing disorder in speech. The importance of education at home was often mentioned
in discourses by the government. The Ministry of Education issued instructions
about family education in 1930, and emphasizing that, “although both the father
and mother have responsibility for education at home, the responsibility of women
is especially important” (Mitsui 1977: 665). The Ministry of Education, again in
Reihoo yookoo [Gist of Manners] (1941), claims the importance of teaching lan-
guage use at home: “At home, family members should be careful about the lan-
guage they use, and we should make sure that children always hear correct, refined
language so that they will naturally use it themselves” (Reihoo yookoo kenkyuukai
1941: 54). According to Ishimori Nobuo (1941: 103), “as instruction in language
is often given at home rather than at school, both family and school should

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 7.  Imperial tradition 167

cooperate … so that the language of children won’t decline.” Shinmura Izuru, in


his speech in 1942, asks women to present models of correct language usage: “We
need some models in language usage, too…. At home, mothers and sisters should
train sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters” (Shinmura 1972[1942]: 379). Similarly,
Ishiguro (1943: 277) considers teaching the correct national language as the task
of female citizens: “Women constitute half the nation. They are and should be the
first national-language teachers. The beauty and correctness of women’s speech is
concerned not only with making half the national language correct but also mak-
ing its future correct. It is woman’s responsibility to build the basis of a beautiful,
correct Japanese language.”1
The other group of discourses by linguists blamed women for causing dis-
order in speech. Hoshina (1936: 231) warns: “Recently in our country, the lan-
guage of young men and women has declined dramatically…. Although school
[teachers] should be careful about it, it is more crucial for mothers at home to
pay close attention to it.” Ishii (1941: 232) asks parents “to pay attention to the
use of [masculine pronouns] kimi and boku [by girls].” Kindaichi (1942: 308)
severely criticizes mothers who do not teach the correct national language:
“Since children’s language all depends on mothers, it shows their frivolous ir-
responsibility in allowing children to use [English words for parents] papa
and mama.” Morita Tama (1943: 96) laments: “Although mothers were respon-
sible for language training, this system has been destroyed … since the end of
Meiji.” And Nagao Masanori (1943: 114) declares: “The destruction of women’s
language today is caused by a lack of strict discipline in childhood. Women are
born to be mothers and teachers. It is women’s responsibility to preserve and
respect the legitimate national language.” These discourses ask women to speak
the “correct” national language themselves and to teach it to their children. The
two groups of discourses functioned to force women, both positively and nega-
tively, into the role of protecting the national language. Nishihara Keiichi
(1941) starts his book, Kotoba no shitsuke [Discipline of Language], with the
following poem:

1. Teaching language was also motivated by claims that people in high society trained their
children to speak properly. Yanagi Yae (1941: 252) states: “The completion of one woman’s lan-
guage takes about fifty years, through the three generations from her grandmother and her
mother.” Dan (1943: 86) claims: “Language is passed on through three generations…. Those
who can lay claim to achieving status as the first generation of those [speaking correct language]
will be able to hear correct language in the generation of their grandchildren.” The expression,
“Those who can lay claim to achieving status as the first generation,” shows that speech was
considered an indication of one’s social class. This was reason enough for mothers who wanted
their daughters and granddaughters to get into high society to pay attention to the speech of
their daughters.

www.ebook777.com
168 Gender, language and ideology

(2) The precious nature of children’s language


It is the triumphant shout of their lives as they grow to be the citizens of
the imperial realm.  (Nishihara 1941: Introduction)
According to him, language discipline was crucial to “make them always aware
that they are the children of a country with a high-level defense system,” which
required them to fight and die for the emperor (Nishihara 1941: Introduction).
These discourses transformed women into the protectors and teachers of national
language, expecting them to fulfill the role of female citizens to continue produc-
ing efficient soldiers loyal to the emperor. The male teacher in Manchuria, cited at
the beginning of this chapter, listened to the speech of women and got worried
about the future of Japan, exactly because women were to bring up efficient sol-
diers by speaking correct women’s language, the symbol of imperial tradition in
the middle of the twentieth century.

Conclusion

During the war years, therefore, women’s language was praised as a Japanese
imperial tradition originating with the emperor system and a symbol of
Japanese cultural superiority that, these writers were convinced, could not be
found in any other country. It was during the war period in the 1930s and 40s
when Japanese women’s language became the tradition of Japanese language.
Why did the linguists and intellectuals suddenly begin to praise women’s lan-
guage as a tradition of the imperial realm during the war period? As described
in the beginning of this chapter, the Japanese government, in its attempt to
govern the Japanese colonies by forcing the teaching of Japanese language, was
facing the problem that there was no single Japanese national language. To le-
gitimate Japan’s linguistic invasion, therefore, it was urgent for the government
to declare those characteristics of the Japanese language that proved its superi-
ority over other languages. In ensuring close corporation with the government,
I argue, linguists used women’s language to the fullest to give substance to the
discussion of the superiority of the Japanese language. By making women’s lan-
guage a Japanese tradition rooted in the imperial realm and a characteristic
unique to the Japanese language, the superiority of the Japanese language ap-
peared unequivocal. Praise for women’s language functioned to maintain the
Japanese military regime and legitimize its invasion. Discourses praising wom-
en’s language became meaningful and acceptable, when it was necessary to vali-
date teaching the Japanese national language in the colonies and to legitimate
the Japanese colonization.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 7.  Imperial tradition 169

Highly praised because of its perceived value, women’s language was not al-
lowed to change. Osa Shizue (1998: 150) points out, in discussing the language of
Okinawa, that “making the Okinawan language special by stating that it preserves
old Japanese terms results in substantiating it among those people and refusing its
changes.” Assigning value to the Okinawan language resulted in refusing its chang-
es. Similarly, women’s language, given the value of the imperial tradition, became a
national notion not allowed to change, because any loss or change in women’s lan-
guage meant loss or change in that tradition. That is why many linguists regarded
the use of women’s language as the primary task of female citizens. Kindaichi (1942:
309) declares: “To become a complete Japanese woman, she must, more than any-
thing, acquire this traditional Japanese woman’s language.” Kieda Masuichi (1943:
85) claims: “If a young woman uses boku or kimi … I should say that such a wom-
an is not a Japanese woman.” These rather emotional statements reflect a latent fear
of losing or experiencing any change in the imperial tradition, a fear also shared by
the male teacher in Manchuria (cited at the beginning of this chapter).
Linguists during the war period, this chapter has shown, obviously changed
their evaluation of women’s language, giving it a highly positive redefinition as
integral to the imperial tradition. The next chapter will examine if similar change
occurs in academic discourses such as grammar textbooks and school readers.

www.ebook777.com
www.ebook777.com
chapter 8

Gendering of the national language under


national mobilization

The power of women’s language, the language of love, comfort, and friend-
ship, during this time [of war], along with the solemn, simple language of
soldiers [which expresses] determination and responsibility, strengthens
the unity of those who fight and promotes the will to cooperate with each
other. Nagao Masanori (1943) Josei to kotoba [Women and language]
In this statement by Nagao Masanori, a male linguist, women’s language is con-
trasted with soldiers’ language, both of which are conceptualized as supporting the
military regime, like the wheels of a car (Nagao 1943: 131). As the National Mobi-
lization Law (Kokka soodooinhoo) in 1938 required women to “serve the country
behind the guns,” women’s language was expected to serve through “love, comfort,
and friendship.” Linguistic gender differences were considered crucial in keeping
women in their role behind the guns. This statement shows, furthermore, that
women’s language was redefined as an indispensable part of Japanese national
language along with soldiers’ language, men’s language. This is a great change con-
sidering that, as seen in Part 2, from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth
centuries, women’s speech was completely excluded from national language. It
indicates that another change had occurred to women’s language, along with the
new conceptualization of women’s language as imperial tradition, covered in
Chapter 7, from the early twentieth century till the end of WWII. This chapter
intends to delineate the process in which academic discourse placed women’s lan-
guage within the national language during a time when National Mobilization re-
quired female citizens to contribute to the war. Before analyzing that discourse, I
will describe Japanese women’s roles under the National Mobilization to show
what was expected of women’s language in the war period.

Women’s roles in national mobilization

In 1938, the Japanese government issued the National Mobilization Law; women,
who had been defined as “secondary citizens” by the Great Japan Imperial Consti-
tution, were also required to contribute to the war. The government actively

www.ebook777.com
172 Gender, language and ideology

cultivated women as subjects of the emperor by assigning female intellectuals to


governmental committees and combining female socio-political groups. In 1937,
Yoshioka Yayoi, founder of Tokyo Women’s Medical College, was assigned to a
position in the Education Committee. Subsequently, many female leaders such as
Ootsuma Kotaka, founder of Ootsuma Women’s College, Inoue Hideko, Principal
of Nihon Women’s College, and Muraoka Hanako, a writer, were assigned to posi-
tions in governmental committees. From such vantage points, the government
encouraged women to cooperate with the military government (Suzuki 1997:
17–19). Women, who had not only been denied suffrage but also participation in
political meetings, suddenly were given opportunities to speak out. Both female
educators, such as Takara Tomi and Hani Motoko, and female political activists,
such as Ichikawa Fusae and Yamataka Shigeri, welcomed the National Mobiliza-
tion as an opportunity for women to participate in national politics and social ac-
tivities (Suzuki 1997). Ichikawa Fusae, who led the women’s suffrage movement
throughout the pre- and postwar periods, stated: “We promoted women’s partici-
pation in governmental administration and other political groups as women’s po-
litical participation, a way to liberate women” (Suzuki 1997: 103).
Two major female groups, Aikoku fujinkai (The Patriotic Lady’s Group) and
Dai Nihon kokuboo fujinkai (The Great Japan National Defense Lady’s Group) mo-
bilized women in general. While the former group was founded in 1901 for mid-
dleclass women, the latter was founded in 1932 by the military government to
embrace housewives, as well as factory workers and prostitutes. For housewives,
confined to their homes, this was a chance to participate in social activities, such
as seeing soldiers off, making care packages, asking people to make thousand-
stitch belts on the street, greeting the arrivals of soldiers’ remains, and visiting
injured soldiers in hospitals.1 Armed with an official excuse to leave home, they
experienced the true meaning of “liberation” for the first time. Doing these activi-
ties with factory workers and prostitutes, Japanese housewives also experienced
the importance of “equality” for the first time (Kanoo 1995: 96). In 1942, the two
groups were combined into Dai nihon fujinkai (The Great Japan Lady’s Group),
which included every Japanese woman over the age of 20, with the aim of “serving
the country of the emperor” (Suzuki 1997: 19–20). Both female leaders and wom-
en in general, therefore, worked diligently to contribute to the war, much more
than the military government had expected.2

1. The thousand-stitch belt is a strip of cloth, decorated with 1000 stitches, each by a different
woman, which women gave as an amulet to soldiers on their way to war during WWII.
2. According to Washi (2000), female leaders’ efforts in cooperation with the military regime
were also observed in the field of language policy. Kokugo kyookai (National Language Society),
established by the Ministry of Education in 1930 suddenly started a Ladies’ Section in 1939 and
appointed major female educators as committee members. The Society and the Ladies’ Section

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 8.  Gendering of the national language 173

National Mobilization, however, did not require women to fulfill the same
roles as men. The military government did not consider the conscription of wom-
en. Since the first conscription law in 1873, the government had consistently re-
cruited men only. As Prime Minister Tojoo Hideki stated in 1943, “We are not
considering the conscription of women at all now. If we enlist women, following
the U.S. and Britain, what would happen to our important family system?”
(Wakakuwa 2000[1995]: 44). Even during the last years of the war, the military’s
top brass vehemently refused the idea of female conscription, arguing that “to en-
list women or to recruit women would lead to the fundamental destruction of our
national system” (Ooe 1988: 442).3 In short, the military government strongly be-
lieved that “the destruction of the family system is the destruction of the country”
(Wakakuwa 2000[1995]: 45).
Why was the government so afraid of changing the family system? One reason
was the perceived necessity to increase the population. Population control was
launched in 1938, aiming to shore up both the military and the labor force. In
1941, the population policy set a goal of increasing Japan’s total population to
100,000,000 by 1960. The policy clearly stated that, to accomplish the goal, the
employment of women over twenty years old should be repressed to encourage
them to marry (Kondoo 1995: 491–492). Even under National Mobilization, there-
fore, women were expected to become mothers and to produce soldiers, rather
than to become soldiers themselves.
Another, more significant reason for refusing the conscription of women
was to maintain the patriarchal family system, which had been very effective at
controlling and mobilizing the Japanese nation. As indicated at the beginning
of Chapter 3, the Great Japan Imperial Constitution (1889) established the pa-
triarchal family, based on the father’s absolute power, turning the private sphere
of the family into a minimum unit of the state. By creating continuity from the
patriarchal family to the imperial state, the ideology of state-as-patriarchal fam-
ily successfully presented the whole nation as the children of the emperor.4 The

both agreed on the basic principle that women should speak feminine language. Here again,
female leaders decided to work together with the Society, because “feminine speech was elevated
to the goal of the government’s language policy” (Washi 2000: 68).
3. The statement that they do not recruit women soldiers, however, was merely the principle.
In practice, many women were forced into military training and some women actually joined
the military toward the end of the war. The army recruited female telephone operators in 1943
and airplane maintenance women in 1945. In June 1945, the law to recruit men from 15 to 60
years old and women from 17 to 40 years old passed parliament, but the war ended before any-
one was drafted.
4. According to Wakakuwa (2005: 70), the ideology of state-as-family was the governing prin-
ciple born in China and imported into Japan with Confucianism.

www.ebook777.com
174 Gender, language and ideology

natural expansion of the private family as coterminous with the whole country,
it was claimed, gave soldiers a powerful motivation to fight. Hani Motoko,
founder of Jiyuu Gakuen School, pointed out in 1943 that, while soldiers in
other countries lose the will to fight when they long for their families back
home, in Japan, since the emperor is their father and the country is their im-
mediate family, the more they think of their families, the stronger they are
motivated to fight (Suzuki 1997: 79). Conscription of women was denied, there-
fore, because it was considered to cause destruction of the patriarchal family
system, of national mobilization through the patriarchy, and of sustaining the
soldiers’ will to fight.
Thus, there were three majors roles expected of women during the war peri-
od. The first was that of gunkoku no haha (mother of the militant nation). Their
job was to send their husbands to the front and to bear male children who would
become soldiers and serve gladly under the emperor. Wakakuwa Midori
(2000[1995]), by analyzing the illustrations of women’s magazines during the pe-
riod, documents mothers’ repeated presentation with their baby boys worship-
ping the souls of their dead husbands at Yasukuni Shrine. Women’s second role
was to provide subservient labor. They were to work in the munitions industry, as
military nurses, and in the home. As the war situation worsened, the government
in 1943 enlisted unmarried women over fourteen years old to work in airplane
and munitions factories. The next year, the complete mobilization of women
forced all women, including students, to work in rough environments. Their
third role was that of cheerleader for the war effort, as we can see from the social
activities women participated in outside their homes. Wakakuwa (2000[1995]:
22) points out that there was a symbiotic relationship between the war and the
patriarchal system and that the three major roles given to women in the war were
“merely compulsory enforcement of the roles assigned to women in the tradi-
tional system of patriarchy.” With these roles forcing women to work outside
their homes, the traditional family system was practically destroyed. Yet, it was
precisely at such a critical time when the myth of traditional patriarchy and the
myth of gendered citizenship should have been most desperately defended. Dur-
ing the war years, therefore, what we can properly regard now as an obvious and
uncomfortable contradiction came portentously to the fore with the requirement
to nationalize women as Japanese citizens while at the same time keeping the
asymmetrical distinction between female and male by making women second-
class citizens.
I maintain that, through language, too, National Mobilization kept women
in the position of second-class citizens. Considering that the construction of
linguistic ideologies often form iconic representations of citizens, as seen in
Chapter 6, women’s language had to be incorporated into men’s national language

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 8.  Gendering of the national language 175

to make women serve the war as subjects of the emperor. However, women’s
language was not to be given the same status as men’s language in the national
language. To maintain women’s position “behind the guns,” it was necessary to
create gender differences in the national language, rendering women’s language
as an exception at the margin of the national language. How did the wartime
discourses accomplish these dual tasks of simultaneously incorporating women’s
language into the national language while keeping the explicit gender distinc-
tion? This chapter will describe that process by analyzing intellectuals’ com-
ments, and the discourses of grammar textbooks, books on etiquette, and school
readers, mostly produced by linguists.

Gender in academic discourse

In this section, I will analyze academic discourses produced during wartime from
three different perspectives. First, I will examine the discourses of linguists and
intellectuals from the perspective of whether and how they located women’s lan-
guage in its relationship with national language. Second, I will investigate the dis-
courses of grammar textbooks and examine how they located linguistic features
associated with gender in their prescription of national language. Third, I will ana-
lyze the discourses of school readers from the perspective whether and how they
used linguistic features differently according to speakers’ gender in their model
stories and lessons.

Locating women’s language at the margin of standard Japanese

Surprisingly, during the war years, despite press control and the lack of paper,
many books about language continued to be published (Miki 2001: 17–29). After
the Ministry of Education made teaching standard Japanese language a goal of
school education, many standard-language grammar textbooks, teachers’ manu-
als, and school readers were published. In the 26 years from 1918 to 1944, I found
29 such publications. References to women’s language increased from a few com-
ments, to a book chapter, to a whole book. The number of books on women’s
language peaked in 1943. All of them discussed women’s language in terms of eti-
quette; none were grammar textbooks on women’s language. Military censorship
cleared all these books for publication, testament that the Japanese government
was fully aware of the necessity to reinforce National Mobilization from the aspect
of language.
Some grammar textbooks published during the war show two tendencies very
similar to books published in the prewar period. First, some regard male-related

www.ebook777.com
176 Gender, language and ideology

features as standard without referring to gender differences. The grammar


textbooks by Yamada Yoshio (1922), Maruyama Rinpei (1935) and Hashimoto
Shinkichi (1938) simply present male-related features as standard. The second,
more frequent tendency regards masculine features as standard, but adds feminine
features as nonstandard exceptions. Matsushita Daizaburoo (1924: 625), for
example, states that the “wa [sentence-­final form] in general use indicates the
obviousness of a statement to others, but in women’s language, it is pronounced
heavily and is used to appeal to the emotion of others.” What is implied by “in
general use” here is male use. Nagata Yoshitaroo (1976[1935]: 108) comments that
“words listed after o-deki are generally used but words listed before o-deki are con-
fined to women” (1976[1935]: 108). By the phrase, “generally used,” Nagata means
words spoken by middleclass men. These descriptions create men’s usage as the
norm and women’s usage as the exception.
The grammar textbook, Hanashi kotoba no bumpoo: Kotoba zukai hen [Gram-
mar of spoken language: On language usage] by Mio Isago (1942), is of particular
interest, since he devoted his whole last chapter to women’s language. He explains
the reason for including this chapter:
(1) I touched on women’s language in previous chapters. However, as I
described general language use based on male language as standard
Japanese, some of my descriptions do not fit women’s language. In general
usage (including written language), the da-form and desu-form are clearly
distinguished. In women’s spoken language, by contrast, they cannot be as
clearly distinguished. (Mio 1995[1942]: 403)
What is called “general language use” or “general usage” here is, of course, men’s
usage. By including a separate chapter on women’s language at the end of his book,
Mio successfully marginalized women’s language with respect to the national lan-
guage. Furuta Toosaku, in his commentary written for the 1995 reprint, praised
Mio for writing this chapter: “In the case of what is called spoken-language gram-
mar, there was a tendency to present norms only, and little was written about
women’s language” (Mio 1995 [1942]: 451). This comment ironically proves that
men’s usage is still considered the norm of standard spoken Japanese today.
It was not only women’s language that received such biased treatment in
grammar textbooks. Languages not spoken by “educated Tokyo residents,” such
as regional varieties of Japanese and those spoken by uneducated speakers were
excluded from the standard language. Kieda Masuichi (1943: 86) prohibits the
use of feminine personal pronouns such as watai, atai, and wate because “they
are merely dialects.” Washi Rumi (2001) shows that the speech of village girls and
female factory workers was rejected in the war years, and proposes to call

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 8.  Gendering of the national language 177

accepted women’s language of this period by the term, “standard women’s lan-
guage.” This indicates that the definition of standard Japanese as the speech of
“educated Tokyo residents” was also applied to women’s speech, and the speech
of “educated Tokyo women” was adopted as women’s language. Nevertheless,
grammar textbooks’ treatment of women’s language differed from their treat-
ment of regional varieties and variations spoken by uneducated speakers; while
grammar textbooks increasingly referred to women’s language use, regional vari-
eties and the speech spoken by uneducated speakers were completely ignored.
Compared to women’s language, located at the margin of (within) standard lan-
guage, regional varieties and the speech of uneducated speakers were located
outside standard Japanese.

Gendering the national language

The starkest difference between the prewar and the wartime academic discourses
was an increasing reference to gender differences. As noted in Chapter 3, there
were few references to linguistic gender differences in the argument to unify
speech and writing in the prewar period. During the war, however, more linguists
and intellectuals began to refer to linguistic gender differences in their discus-
sions of standard Japanese. The prominent grammarian, Matsushita Daizaburoo
(1930a: 379), creates the distinction between women’s “weak” language and men’s
“rough” language: “Women of any age should use the beautification [prefix o].
Otherwise, her language sounds rough…. In contrast, if a young man uses this
beautification, his speech sounds feminine and weak.” Tanizaki Junichiroo (1975
[1934]: 217), argues for gender distinction in writing: “Since equal rights for sex-
es do not mean changing a woman into a man, and the Japanese language has a
system for distinguishing the sex of the writer, I want women’s writing to express
womanly softness.” Shinmura Izuru (1938: 96), though recognizing that women’s
and men’s speech were getting closer, still promotes the difference: “Although we
do not approve of linguistic equality between men and women in the national
language … we cannot help noticing that … the language of the two sexes is get-
ting closer…. Nevertheless, the proximity of linguistic differences of social classes
and sexes should have their own limitations.” Morita (1943: 96) also grieves over
the proximity of women’s and men’s speech as a problem similar to the inflow of
foreign words.
The military government strongly emphasized the importance of maintaining
linguistic gender differences. In 1941, when the Pacific War began, the Ministry of
Education issued Reihoo yookoo [Gist of Manners]. In the fifth chapter, “On lan-
guage use,” it emphasizes the importance of gender differences as well as class
differences. According to Reihoo yookoo kaisetsu [A General Commentary on

www.ebook777.com
178 Gender, language and ideology

Gist of Manners], Reihoo yookoo emphasizes the importance of linguistic gender


differences by stating: “Men’s honorific language and women’s honorific language
are different,” “Women should not use [masculine first-person pronouns] waga-
hai, wareware, and boku,” and “For people younger than you, men should use
kimi and women should use anata and omae-san so that it sounds soft.” As for
replies, it states “un and aa can be used only among very intimate equals and
people younger than you. Women should never use them” (Reihoo yookoo
kenkyuukai 1941: 58, 59, 61, 65–66). In short, Reihoo yookoo requires “All men to
use manly language and all women to use womanly language” (Reihoo yookoo
kenkyuukai 1941: 65), making a strict linguistic distinction between female and
male citizens. The government, linguists and intellectuals of the war period, by
frequently referring to the importance of linguistic gender differences, gendered
the national language.
One other group of discourses during the war demonstrates the strong inten-
tion of gendering the national language. These can be called essentialization
discourses, asserting that women’s language is based on women’s innate character-
istics (cf. Chapter 4, note 1). As Yoshida Sumio (1935: 145, 149) argues, “the ele-
gance of women’s language has its root in women’s innate nature, meaning that it
is probably eternal,” and that “men’s language is intellectual and logical … and
women’s language emotional and affective.” Ishiguro Yoshimi (1943: 224) argues
similarly that women’s language was naturally born out of sex distinction: “The
origin of women’s language is her sex. So any female language from any country
will have pronunciation, vocabulary, and usage different from men’s language.”
There were, however, arguments that directly contradicted these essentialization
discourses. For example, during the same years, Kikuzawa (1940: 228) declares,
“Our national language is emotional rather than logical, feminine rather than
masculine, and simple and clear rather than complicated,” indicating that these
characteristics of Japanese language were true of both female and male speakers.
And Kasuga Masaharu (1985[1918]: 80) adds that, “basically, the difference be-
tween men’s language and women’s language increases as [the speaker begins to
use] adult speech. Children’s speech, especially that spoken by six-to-seven-­year-
olds, has extremely small [gender] differences.”
This last argument, for socially learned linguistic gender differences, is a com-
plete contradiction of the above claim by Ishiguro Yoshimi that “women’s language
has its root in women’s innate nature.” Why then did many linguists assert that
women’s language was based on women’s innate nature? What made their dis-
courses possible, meaningful and acceptable? I argue that the strong intention of
government, linguists and intellectuals to gender the national language was the
pivotal factor here. To construct women’s language based on women’s innate char-
acteristics was to make the linguistic difference eternal, based on nature; such

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 8.  Gendering of the national language 179

claims, we can logically conclude, were made with the deliberate intention of gen-
dering the national language.
Grammar textbooks that associated individual linguistic features with
women further promoted gendering the national language. Table 8.1 shows lin-
guistic features associated with either males or females in 16 grammar textbooks
of standard Japanese, published during the twentieth century periods of war. I
selected the linguistic features, based on whether they are defined as “women’s
word, feminine form or used only by women” or “men’s word, masculine form or
used only by men” in the 16 grammar textbooks. The letter “m” in parentheses
indicates that the linguistic feature is assigned to men. The letter “f ” in parenthe-
ses indicates that the feature is assigned to women. An asterisk indicates those
features assigned to women that had been recognized as features of schoolgirl
speech during the prewar period. Table 8.1 contains two masculinized personal
pronouns, boku and kimi, eight sentence-final forms and one feminized honorific
prefix, o. Of eight sentence-final forms, three forms, ze, zo and ka, were masculin-
zed (m), meaning at least one of the grammar textbooks referred to them as fea-
tures used only by men. The feature ka refers to an interrogative sentence-final
form. Five of the eight sentence-final forms were feminized (f), meaning that at
least one of the grammar textbooks referred to them as features used only by
women. Of the five feminized sentence-final forms, three, (da)wa, no(yo), and
te(yo), were features that had been recognized as schoolgirl features. Some of the
schoolgirl features in parenthesis in Table 8.1 were occasionally deleted; when a
grammar textbook mentions either dawa or wa, therefore, the reference is almost
certainly to (da)wa. A check mark in the table means the grammar textbook re-
fers to the indicated linguistic feature. A blank indicates that the grammar text-
book does not refer to the linguistic feature.
Table 8.1 shows three major tendencies. First, there was inconsistency concern-
ing which features should be associated with gender, except the sentence-final form,
wa. While some grammar textbooks did not refer to gender differences, other text-
books emphasized gender differences. In textbook (10), Sakuma (1983 [1940]:
61–62) states, “Both zo and ze are used only by men. Wa is used frequently by
women.” He then devotes a section to “wa as a woman’s word,” further stressing the
gender difference (1983 [1940]: 66). In book (16), Iwai Yoshio also emphasizes gen-
der differences, stating that “Boku is a special word for men of the educated class,”
“Wa is used only by women” and “Zo and ze are used mostly by young men” (Iwai
1944: 17, 150, 151). As for the sentence-final form wa, after the prominent linguist
Matsushita Daizaburoo classified it as a woman’s word in 1924, other textbooks fol-
lowed his classification and described it as a feminine form. Nevertheless, the
authors of four textbooks, (7) Maruyama (1935), (9) Hashimoto (1938), (11)
Tokieda (1941), and (13) Kindaichi (1942) do not call wa a feminine form. Those

www.ebook777.com
180 Gender, language and ideology

Table 8.1  Linguistic features gendered in grammar textbooks from 1918 to 1945.

Personal Sentence-final forms Prefix


pronouns

Authors (m) (m) (f)* (f) (f) (f)* (f)* (m) (f)
(Years published) boku, ze,zo (da)wa wayo wane no(yo) te(yo) ka o
kimi

  (1)  Yamada (1922)


  (2)  Matsushita (1924) ✓
  (3)  Matsushita (1930a) ✓ ✓ ✓
  (4)  Matsushita (1930b) ✓
  (5)  Kieda (1931) ✓ ✓ ✓
  (6)  Nagata (1935) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
  (7)  Maruyama (1935)
  (8)  Matsuura (1936) ✓
  (9)  Hashimoto (1938)
(10)  Sakuma (1940) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
(11)  Tokieda (1941)
(12)  Hirokoo (1941) ✓
(13)  Kindaichi (1942)
(14)  Mio (1942) ✓ ✓ ✓
(15)  Fujiwara (1944) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
(16)  Iwai (1944) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Notes: An (m) indicates that the linguistic feature is assigned to men. An (f) indicates that the feature is as-
signed to women. An asterisk indicates that those features had been recognized as features of schoolgirl
speech during the prewar period. A check indicates the grammar textbook refers to the linguistic feature.

four authors and Yamada (1) (1922) – i.e., five of the 16 textbooks – moreover, do
not associate any linguistic features with gender. This suggests that, when those
five grammar textbooks were published, gendering linguistic features was a work
in progress; Japanese linguists were still at work differentiating what they regarded
as feminine or masculine features. This endeavor of gendering features has no end
since, as argued in the Introduction, speakers use linguistic features for varying
pragmatic and epistemic purposes according to different contexts. The analysis
here demonstrates that one justification of a linguist allotting linguistic features
between feminine and masculine features can be found in a classification in a pre-
vious study. After the prominent linguist Matsushita classified wa as a feminine
feature, other linguists followed suit. The gendered categorization of linguistic
features, in short, is often constructed and legitimated by the academic tradition of
referring to previous studies, another metalinguistic practice.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 8.  Gendering of the national language 181

Second, grammar textbooks published for use in Japanese colonies empha-


sized gender differences much more than those published for use in Japan. Book
(15) in Table 8.1, Japanese: Standard spoken grammar of the Co-prosperity Sphere,
by Fujiwara Yoichi (1944), was intended as a language textbook for people in
Manchuria and China who were forced to learn Japanese. Of the 16 textbooks in
Table 8.1, this one classifies the greatest number of features according to gender of
the speaker. Fujiwara states: “Kimi, boku, and ore are called men’s words” and “Men
do not use wa … because the sentence-final form wa … is a woman’s word.” About
the use of ka in interrogative form, Fujiwara holds that “women ask [a question]
without adding ka” (Fujiwara 1944: 18–20, 40, 54, 111). He divides many of the
sentence-final forms according to gender and describes in detail differences
according to age, social class, and gender of the speaker, suggesting that these dif-
ferent usages prove the peculiarity and superiority of the Japanese language. As
discussed in Chapter 7, with no single Japanese national language inside Japan, the
myth of such a language was promoted in the colonies. Similarly, with no clear
gender distinction of linguistic features, the myth of a gendered Japanese national
language had to be created in the colonies.5
Third, Table 8.1 shows that schoolgirl features, teyo, dawa, and noyo, which
were severely criticized during the prewar period, were included in standard gram-
mar textbooks. As seen in Chapter 5, these features had become symbols of frivo-
lous female students and feminine sexuality, and were excluded from the national
language in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In the wartime gram-
mar textbooks, however, schoolgirl features appeared as legitimate standard lan-
guage for women and were not criticized. Textbook (6) by Nagata (1976[1935]: 95)
in Table 8.1 simply presents wa as a woman’s word: “teyo aside, wa became a wom-
an’s word in general use.” Nagata also presented teyo simply as a feminine form
without any criticism (1976[1935]: 114). The grammar textbook (10) by Sakuma
(1983 [1940]: 78) even defends woman’s use of no, te, and koto as substitutes for ka

5. This tendency to emphasize linguistic gender differences in teaching Japanese to non-native


speakers of Japanese is also observed in recent Japanese language textbooks such as Mizutani
and Mizutani (1977: 208), which presents the following as a model conversation:
Husband: Aa, tsukareta. (Oh, I’m tired.)
Wife: Ofuro ga waite iru kedo. (The hot bath is ready.)
Husband: Atode hairoo. Sutoobu wa tsuiteiru? ([I’ll take a bath] later. Is the stove on?)
Wife: Ee, tsukete aru wa. (Yes, I turned it on).
Husband: Konban Kawakami-san ga kuru soo dayo. (Tonight, Kawakami is coming.)
Wife: Soo. Hisashi buri ne.
(Is that right? It’s been a long time [since I met Kawakami].)
I n addition to the surprisingly patriarchal roles assigned to husband and wife, the speech of the
wife is distinguished by the use of the feminine sentence-final forms wa and ne.

www.ebook777.com
182 Gender, language and ideology

in interrogative forms: “they were all created to soften the demanding connotation
implied in ka.” Textbook (14) by Mio (1995 [1942]: 404–405) also refers to teyo as
an “ending form of women’s language,” without any criticism.
In addition to the textbooks cited above, books written by linguists for general
Japanese readers during the period also supported the inclusion of schoolgirl fea-
tures into standard Japanese. Hoshina (1936: 224), in his book, Kokugo to Nihon
seishin [National Language and Japanese Spirit], emphasizes gender differences in
saying that wayo, noyo, and wa “are for female students and male students should
not use them,” but he does not criticize the use of these forms by women. The
book, Utsukushii Nihongo: Josei shinsho [The Beautiful Japanese Language:
Women’s Book], written by Ishiguro (1943: 234–235), simply enumerates wa(ne),
no(ne), and no(yo) as women’s language, also without criticism.
Why did schoolgirl speech, continuously criticized in the pre-WWII era, sud-
denly gain standard status during the war? In answering this question, it is useful
to consider that linguists of the same period rigorously criticized some other us-
ages of female students, such as the use of masculine pronouns kimi and boku.
Hoshina (1936: 225) rejects such usage: “Recently, some schoolgirls use personal
pronouns of [male] students such as kimi and boku. However, it is a kind of meta-
morphosis and, in our country, men’s and women’s usage has always been strictly
distinguished.” Kikuzawa (1940: 303) concurs: “If we recognize the difference be-
tween men’s and women’s language, we should not let women use the masculine
kimi or boku.” Kieda (1943: 85) even claims, somewhat grandiloquently, that
“women should never use [boku]. If a young woman uses boku or kimi … I should
say that such a woman is not a Japanese woman.” In other words, these writers
reinforced gender distinction in their grammar textbooks by incorporating
schoolgirl features into standard Japanese, while simultaneously criticizing those
features that crossed the border of gender distinction. This is ample evidence that
the writers of these textbooks were strongly focused on constructing a gendered
national language. In so doing, they thus adopted the language of “educated” fe-
male students, which would be easily accepted as standard language, rather than
the language of non-Tokyo or “uneducated” women. These writers adopted
schoolgirl features into standard Japanese not because schoolgirl speech had
gained status, but because it enabled them to emphasize gender differences within
the national language.

Teaching gender differences in national language readers

As discussed in Chapter 6 (cf. Table 6.4), national language school readers – from
the first state textbook in 1904 to the fourth in 1933 – increasingly incorporated
schoolboy features into the national language, while excluding features associated

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 8.  Gendering of the national language 183

with women and schoolgirls. Thus, this section analyzes the fifth state textbook,
Asahi tokuhon [Sunrise Reader], used from 1941 to 1945. Asahi tokuhon was com-
piled by the Ministry of Education with the purpose of “especially teaching the
glory of the imperial realm, fostering the nation’s spirit, and making them [stu-
dents] realize the responsibility of being the emperor’s subjects” (Kaigo 1964b:
710). It includes many materials emphasizing the divinity of the emperor, respect
for soldiers, and admiration for Japan as the leader of East Asia. It is composed of
nineteen volumes, two volumes each of Yomikata [Readings] and Kotoba no
okeiko [Language Lessons] for first and second graders, another four volumes of
Yomikata [Readings] and Kotoba no okeiko [Language Lessons] for third graders,
eight volumes of Shotooka kokugo [Elementary School National Language], and
three volumes of Kootooka kokugo [Higher Elementary School National Lan-
guage]. I will analyze four of them, Yomikata 2, Yomikata 4, Shotooka kokugo 2,
and Shotooka kokugo 4 (Monbushoo 1964[1941]).
The first characteristic of Asahi tokuhon is that it teaches the first-person pro-
noun, boku as a boy’s pronoun, in contrast with watashi as the more general first-
person pronoun used by both girls and boys. Tables 8.2 and 8.3 show whether a
girl or a boy uses boku and watashi in the four volumes of the school reader I ex-
amined. Boku-tachi and watashi-tachi are plural forms of boku and watashi respec-
tively. Boku and watashi in Tables 8.2 and 8.3 include those words written in the
three Japanese orthographies, katakana, hiragana, or kanji. In Table 8.2 and 8.3, a
check indicates that the speaker uses the pronoun irrespective of the number of
times; (c) indicates the speaker uses the pronoun in conversation; and (n) indi-
cates the speaker uses the pronoun in narrative description. Tables 8.2 and 8.3 do
not present the first-person pronouns of adults. Most adults use watashi, and there
were no occurrences of boku used either by an adult man or an adult woman.

Table 8.2  Speakers of boku in Asahi tokuhon (1941).

Speaker Title of Readers boku (c) boku (n) boku-tachi (c) boku-tachi (n)

Yomikata 2
Girl Yomikata 4
Shotooka kokugo 2
Shotooka kokugo 4
Yomikata 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Boy Yomikata 4 ✓ ✓ ✓
Shotooka kokugo 2 ✓ ✓ ✓
Shotooka kokugo 4 ✓ ✓ ✓

www.ebook777.com
184 Gender, language and ideology

Table 8.3  Speakers of watashi in Asahi tokuhon (1941).

Speaker Title of Reader watashi (c) watashi (n) watashi-tachi (c) watashi-tachi (n)

Yomikata 2 ✓
Girl Yomikata 4 ✓
Shotooka kokugo 2 ✓ ✓
Shotooka kokugo 4 ✓ ✓
Yomikata 2 ✓ ✓ ✓
Boy Yomikata 4 ✓
Shotooka kokugo 2 ✓ ✓
Shotooka kokugo 4 ✓

Notes: A check indicates that the speaker uses the pronoun irrespective of the number of times; (c) indicates
the speaker uses the pronoun in conversation; and (n) indicates the speaker uses the pronoun in narrative
description. Boku-tachi and watashi-tachi are plural forms of boku and watashi respectively.

Tables 8.2 and 8.3 show four points. First, boku, and its plural form boku-
tachi, are used in almost all volumes in both conversation and narrative. Boku
appears in the title of Unit 12, Boku no booenkyoo [My Telescope] of Shotooka
kokugo 2. Second, the use of boku is strictly confined to boys. Third, girls nev-
er use boku but use watashi in both conversation and narrative. Fourth, boys
sometimes use watashi. They call themselves watashi when they talk to older
persons. The boy character of a well-known great man uses watashi even in his
childhood. Over all, Asahi tokuhon taught children the gendered use of
the first-person pronouns boku (for boys only) and watashi (for both boys
and girls).
The second characteristic of Asahi tokuhon is the gendered use of sen-
tence-final forms and interjections. Although the school reader uses these lin-
guistic features differently depending on the speaker’s age and social class, the
gender of the speaker is an important determinant of the choice. As shown in
Figure 8.1, Lesson 16 of Yomikata 2, Heitai gokko [Play Soldiers], presents con-
versations between boys and girls who play soldiers. The boys declare one after
another what kind of soldier they will be playing, saying, “Boku wa hohei dayo
(I will be an infantryman),” “Boku wa kihei dayo (I will be a cavalryman),”
“Boku wa hoohei dayo (I will be an artillery man),” “ Boku wa eihei dayo (I will
be a guard),” and “Boku wa senshahei dayo (I will be a tankman),” all using the
sentence-final form, dayo. Then two girls finally declare that, “Watashi tachi
wa kangofu ni nari mashoo (We will be nurses),” using mashoo rather than
dayo. The repeated use of dayo by boys followed by the use of mashoo by girls
explicitly told the children that women and men should use different sentence-
final forms.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 8.  Gendering of the national language 185

Figure 8.1  Lesson 16 Heitai gokko [Play Soldiers] of Asahi tokuhon (1941)
(Kaigo 1964b: 368).

To see whether such tendency is observed throughout Asahi tokuhon, Table


8.4 shows how the sentence-final forms and interjections are used differently, ac-
cording to the gender and age of the speaker in the four volumes of Asahi tokuhon
I examined. In Table 8.4, I divide the sentence-final forms into eight groups, from
(1) to (8), according to the gender and age of the speaker using the feature. Inter-
jections are shown in (9) of Table 8.4. The “Girls” column indicates female children
of various ages, including younger and older sisters; “Women” indicates adult
women, including mother, grandmother, and aunt; “Boys” includes male children
of various ages; and “Men” includes father, grandfather, and uncle. A check indi-
cates that the speaker uses the feature, irrespective of how frequently. Each volume
of Asahi tokuhon contains several different kinds of reading materials, such as con-
versation, story, old myth and descriptive essay. I analyzed the use of sentence-final
forms and interjections only in conversation. I excluded from the data conversa-
tions conducted by animals and natural objects, since their gender could not be
determined. I did not include conversations within old myths because the speak-
ers were talking in old Japanese. Different pragmatic functions of each feature have
been extensively studied. Table 8.4 is not concerned with pragmatic effects caused
by using different features but presents some features used exclusively according to
the speaker’s gender.6
Table 8.4 verifies that some sentence-final forms and interjections are used
differently according to the gender of the speaker. The features in (1) and (2) show
differences between adult women and men. Sentence-final forms desu and masu in

6. Grammar textbooks during the war period, as seen in the previous section, often referred
to the three schoolgirl features, teyo, dawa, and noyo, as typically feminine features. These fea-
tures were not used in the school reader under analysis. It is especially interesting to note that
the most typically feminine particle nowadays, wa, does not appear in the school reader.

www.ebook777.com
186 Gender, language and ideology

Table 8.4  Sentence-final forms and interjections used differently according


to the speaker’s gender in Asahi tokuhon (1941).

Group of features Linguistic features Girls Women Boys Men

(1) desu-form desu, deshita ✓ ✓ ✓


masu-form masu, mashita, masen ✓ ✓ ✓
(2) desu,masu+yo desu-yo ✓
masu-yo ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
desu,masu+ne desu-ne ✓ ✓ ✓
masu-ne ✓ ✓
(3) da-form noun+da ✓ ✓
adjective+da ✓
koto-da ✓
noda ✓ ✓
dayo, tayo ✓ ✓
dana,danaa ✓ ✓
dane ✓
daroo ✓ ✓
(4) Masculine tamae ✓
zo ✓ ✓
sa ✓
na ✓
(5) Hortative mashoo, deshoo ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ikoo, miyoo, shiyoo ✓ ✓
+ne mashoo-ne, deshoo-ne ✓ ✓
(6) yo-form noun+yo ✓
adjective+yo ✓
verb+yo ✓
(7) ne-form noun+ne ✓
adjective+ne ✓
verb+ne ✓ ✓
(8) Feminine none ✓ ✓
da-koto ✓ ✓
desu-mono ✓
(9) Interjection maa ✓ ✓
ara ✓
oo ✓
oyaoya ✓
oya ✓ ✓

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 8.  Gendering of the national language 187

(1) are used by all speakers except adult women. Instead of desu and masu, adult
women use desu yo, desu ne, masu yo and masu ne, adding yo or ne, as shown in
(2). The sentence-final forms categorized into the groups (3) and (4) show clear
linguistic gender differences. The various da-forms in (3) are used only by boys
and men and what I call masculine sentence-final forms in (4) are also used only
by boys and men. While mashoo and deshoo in (5) are used by all speakers, the
sentence-final forms in the second line of (5), ikoo (let’s go), miyoo (let’s see), shi-
yoo (let’s do), are used only by boys and men, and the forms with ne in the third
line of (5), mashoo-ne and deshoo-ne, are used only by girls and women. Where
boys and men say, ikoo (Let’s go), girls and women say, iki-mashoo or iki-mashoo-
ne. Among the yo-forms in (6), girls use noun+yo, while boys use the other forms.
The sentence-final forms in (7) and (8) include features mostly used by girls and
women. Although adult men use verb+ne of ne-forms in (7), boys never use any of
the ne-forms in (7). The features in (8), none, koto, and mono, are used only by
female speakers, so I call them feminine sentence-final forms. (8) shows that, since
only boys and men use the da-forms as shown in (2), when girls and women use da-
forms, they say da-koto adding koto after da. Finally, the exclamations in (9) are used
mostly by girls and women. Table 8.4 shows, in short, that the school reader Asahi
tokuhon taught children the gendered use of sentence-final forms and interjections.
Unit 18 of Shotooka kokugo 2 of Asahi tokuhon, Ume (Apricot), demonstrates
exactly how the school reader presented the different uses of sentence-final forms
and interjections by the speaker’s gender:
(2) Unit 18 Ume (Apricot)
A ume da. Ume ga saite-iru to
oh apricot sfp apricot top bloom-sfx quot
Isamu-san ga ii mashita.
boy’s name top say vef-past
‘“Oh, an apricot tree. The apricot tree is in bloom,” said Isamu.’
Maa ureshii. Haru ga kita none to
oh happy spring top come-past-sfp quot
Haruko-san ga ii mashita.
girl’s name top say vef-past
‘“Oh, I’m happy. Spring has come,” said Haruko.’
Mada samui noni kanshinna hana dakoto to
yet cold inspite good flower sfp quot
Yuriko-san ga ii mashita.
girl’s name top say vef-past
‘“It’s still cold. What impressive blossoms,” said Yuriko.’

www.ebook777.com
188 Gender, language and ideology

Hana mo kirei dakeredo nioi ga ii none to


flower also beautiful but scent top good sfp quot
Harue-san ga ii mashita.
girl’s name top say vef-past
‘“The blossoms are beautiful but their fragrance is good, too,” said Harue.’
Ume wa hana yorimo nioi ga saku nodesu to
apricot top flower more scent top bloom vef quot
Masao-san ga ii mashita.
boy’s name top say vef-past
‘“Apricot trees flower more in their fragrance than in their blossoms,” said
Masao.’
In this unit, three girls, Haruko, Yuriko, and Harue, and two boys, Isamu and
Masao, talk about the same subject, an apricot tree, in a very similar pattern. The
repetition of the same pattern highlights their gendered use of linguistic features.
The girls use the sentence-final forms, none and koto, and interjection, maa, while
the boys use da and desu. The purpose of this unit was not to teach children how
to talk about apricot blossoms but to teach them the norm of linguistic gender dif-
ferences. Widely used during the war period, Asahi tokuhon taught students that
girls and boys should use language differently.

Conclusion

This chapter has demonstrated that academic discourse, such as grammar text-
books and school readers, published during the war years from early to mid-twen-
tieth century began actively referring to linguistic gender differences and women’s
language. Linguists, intellectuals and the military government emphasized the
importance of maintaining linguistic gender differences of Japanese national lan-
guage. The grammar textbooks and school readers published before the war peri-
od, as seen in Chapter 6, excluded linguistic features associated with women and
schoolgirl speech from Japanese national language. The grammar textbooks of the
war period, in contrast, not only classified linguistic features by gender, but also
included schoolgirl features in the national language. The school readers of the
war period also taught children that women and men should speak differently by
letting the fictional characters in their model stories use different personal pro-
nouns, sentence-final forms and interjections. Women’s language, in short, was
incorporated within the national language for the first time.
That change parallels the enormous social change in the status of Japanese
women, highlighted by female leaders being appointed to governmental committees

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 8.  Gendering of the national language 189

and many women for the first time began participating in various social activities
outside their homes. Thus the shift observed in the relationship between women’s
language and national language was directly reflected the shift that occurred to the
status of female citizens. The change, however, did not render women’s language as
a legitimate part of the national language but located it at the margin of the na-
tional language, as an exception. The wartime linguists, by stating that women’s
language was not in “general use” or “general usage,” defined men’s language as
standard Japanese and women’s language as an exception of standard Japanese. As
suggested in the first section of this chapter, the National Mobilization issued by
the government required intellectuals to accomplish the dual tasks of simultane-
ously incorporating women’s language into the national language, while maintain-
ing the explicit gender distinction. The analyses of this chapter demonstrate that
academic discourse successfully accomplished its goal of incorporating women’s
language at the margin of the national language. Women’s language, therefore, be-
came part of the legitimate national language for the first time, and the notion of a
gendered Japanese national language – the belief that the Japanese language con-
tains women’s language – was established.
The ideology of a gendered national language was created to reproduce in the
language the patriarchal family system crucial to the war effort. By the term, “gen-
dered,” I mean that the national language was not simply divided into women’s and
men’s languages according to gender, but that national language was asymmetri-
cally divided into the unmarked, legitimate men’s national language and the marked,
exceptional women’s language. “Gendered” implies not only distinction but also
asymmetrical power relations. The gendering of a national language symbolically
enhances the gendering of Japanese citizens. It reproduces the ideology that men are
the legitimate, unmarked standard of primary citizens and women are exceptional,
marked, secondary citizens. During the war, when national mobilization was pro-
moted by expanding patriarchal aspects of the family to the state itself, it was crucial
that the national language, the linguistic symbol of the nation state, be gendered.
In the following discussion, I will conclude the two chapters in Part 3 and dis-
cuss the implications of their respective analyses. Women’s language as an imperial
tradition originating with the emperor, discussed in Chapter 7, and the gendered
national language, analyzed in this chapter, reinforced each other to underline the
close connection between the Japanese emperor system and the patriarchal family
system. The construction of women’s language as imperial tradition linguistically
established the historical justification of both Japanese national language and the
emperor system. The Japanese national language functioned as a linguistic repre-
sentation of the Japanese imperial state during the wartime, as shown in Chapter 7.
Since women’s language, redefined as an imperial tradition, was incorporated into
the national language, it could now embody the traditional aspect of Japanese

www.ebook777.com
190 Gender, language and ideology

national language. At the same time, a gendered national language linguistically


gave shape to the patriarchal family system, in the sense that women’s language was
incorporated at the margin of the national language as a marked exception.
Nevertheless, the notion of a gendered national language sounds absurd, if we
consider that the ideology of a national language generally develops by denying
and excluding variations, such as regional and class varieties. Why did academic
discourse suddenly begin to include women’s language into national language,
while still excluding regional varieties and the speech of uneducated speakers? It
was because incorporating women’s language into the national language was
essential to the nationalization of women. Wakakuwa Midori (2000[1995]: 57)
discusses the fundamental difference between racism and sexism:
Both racism and sexism share the same ideology of synthesizing a national iden-
tity by excluding others. Racism and discrimination against women, however,
cannot be carried out using the same method. As is clear in the example of Nazi
Germany, they could not destroy women in the same manner as they destroyed
the Jews. If they had tried that, they would have ended up destroying their own
race altogether. The essential point is, therefore, not to destroy them [women], but
to keep them in an inferior place and let them fulfill their own particular tasks.

Only women can produce the next generation of workers and soldiers. It becomes
crucial, therefore, in nationalizing women, “not to destroy them, but to keep them
in an inferior place and let them fulfill their own particular tasks.” That is why
linguists, intellectuals, and the government, major producers of grammar text-
books and school readers, suddenly began to incorporate women’s language into
their national-language prescriptions. Women’s language was not destroyed but
was incorporated at the margin of the national language and was given the par-
ticular task of linguistically representing the superior imperial tradition. Women’s
language was assigned the value of a superior imperial tradition to incorporate
women into the imperial state as second-class citizens.
Another reason why linguists, intellectuals, and the government, chose wom-
en’s language, rather than regional varieties, to be a tradition of the imperial state
and patriarchal system was that nationalism often tries to solve its temporal
discrepancy by assigning the past to femininity and the future to masculinity
(McClintock 1995; Robertson 1998; Sievers 1983; Yuval-Davis & Anthias 1989).
Nationalism necessarily embraces the temporal contradiction of simultaneously
looking to both past and future. The nation state cannot be imagined simply by
possessing a certain space of land. It is necessary to look to the past to invent its
shared history and tradition and look to the future to visualize the present as a
process yielding the glorious days to come. And the temporal incongruity of na-
tionalism is often resolved by metaphorically applying gender distinction:

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 8.  Gendering of the national language 191

[T]he temporal anomaly within nationalism … is typically resolved by figuring the


contradiction in the representation of time as a natural division of gender. Women
are represented as the atavistic and authentic body of national tradition (inert,
backward-looking and natural), embodying nationalism’s conservative principle
of continuity. Men, by contrast, represent the progressive agent of national moder-
nity (forward-thrusting, potent and historic), embodying nationalism’s progres-
sive, or revolutionary principle of discontinuity. (McClintock 1995: 358–359)7

If nationalism necessarily connects tradition, nature, and continuity from the past
to femininity, and modernity, progress, and discontinuity to masculinity, it was a
logical consequence that women’s language was chosen during the war as the sym-
bol of the imperial tradition and patriarchal family system. This suggests that
women’s language played a crucial role in the political process of nationalization
and National Mobilization, and it was the promotion of an academic discourse by
linguists that accomplished it. The belief that the Japanese language contains wom-
en’s language was born from the necessity to promote and legitimatize imperial
Japan’s war and accompanying aggression elsewhere in Asia. Women’s language,
believed by many nowadays to be a beautiful tradition of the Japanese language,
was assigned such value of tradition, closely interrelating with the national mobi-
lization and colonialism during the war years.
The incorporation of women’s language into the national language during the
war was a significant turning point in the historical generation of women’s lan-
guage. Figure 8.2 presents genealogy of gender-related linguistic ideologies I have
analyzed in previous chapters in three different time periods: premodern
(1603–1867), modern (1868–1926) and wartime (1914–1945). In Figure 8.2, the
two-way arrows (⇔) between gender-related political ideologies and linguistic
ideologies indicate that they reflect and reinforce each other. The three phrases,
Confucian ideology, Gendered nationalization, and Nationalization of women,
under the column of “Gender-related political ideologies,” are intended to include
other political ideologies of each period discussed in preceding chapters. Linguistic

7. The association between femininity, tradition and past in nationalism has also been pointed
out by other researchers. Yuval-Davis and Anthias (1989: 7) categorize symbolic roles of women
in nationalism into five: 1) a mother who biologically reproduces national members, 2) a repro-
ducer of national boundaries by marriage, 3) a successor and creator of national tradition, 4) a
symbol of national differences, and 5) a participant in national struggles. The third of these roles,
“a successor and creator of national tradition,” shows that women are symbolically expected to
preserve and create tradition in nationalism. Sievers (1983: 15), noting that the Meiji government
allowed men short hair while it banned short hair for women, states that “it can be seen as a
symbolic message to Japan’s women to become repositories of the past, rather than pioneers, with
men, of some unknown future.” Robertson (1998: 125) also points out a strong tie between native
land and mother, arguing that “By collapsing native place and mother, nostalgic men … can
proclaim the inclusion of precisely what they exclude from the process of nation-making today.”

www.ebook777.com
192 Gender, language and ideology

ideologies before the war were clearly gendered. Chapter 1 has demonstrated that
Confucian women’s conduct books from 1180 to 1867 produced the ideology of fem-
inine speech, a women’s ideal style of speaking ([1] in Figure 8.2). Chapter 4 has
shown that the ideology of feminine speech was maintained through the early
modern period of the Meiji era (1868–1912) by conduct books and moral text-
books in schools ([2] right in Figure 8.2). In the same period, the ideology of
(men’s) national language was constructed to synthesize a nation state ([2] left in
Figure 8.2). The term “Men’s” of men’s national language is put in parentheses to
indicate that the masculinization of the national language was accomplished with-
out being explicitly stated, so that it was often (mis)recognized as the national
language for all citizens including women (Chapter 3). The construction of femi-
nine speech and (men’s) national language reinforced, and was reinforced by, gen-
dered nationalization, the political ideology during Japan’s modern nation-state
building. Academic discourse during the war period, however, dissolved the gen-
dered distinction and incorporated the language of educated Tokyo women into
the margin of the national language ([3] in Figure 8.2). The process reinforced and
was reinforced by the political ideology of the nationalization of women, which
made women secondary citizens of the military regime. The incorporation of
women’s language into the national language during the war broke down the gen-
dered linguistic ideologies. It was the establishment of a gendered Japanese na-
tional language during the war period that constructed the belief prevalent among
contemporary Japanese that the Japanese language has women’s language.
This change accounts for two significant characteristics of women’s language
today. First, it accounts for the fact that the normative aspect of Japanese women’s
language today is concerned with both stylistic as well as linguistic features.
Okamoto Shigeko and Janet Shibamoto Smith (2008: 105) distinguish two kinds of
norms that constitute the speech norms for Japanese women today: (1) general sty-
listic features, such as polite, gentle, and refined (the first-order norms), and (2)
specific linguistic forms, including phonological, morphological and lexical features
(the second-order norms). The authors argue that the indexical process through
which the second-order normative forms are linked to the first-order norms of
gentleness, politeness, and refinement is ideological. Figure 8.2 demonstrates ex-
actly how the stylistic features and the linguistic features were related within the
different political and linguistic ideologies of the three periods. The ideal feminine
speech constructed by normative discourse in the pre- and early modern periods
(right of [1] and [2] in Figure 8.2) included stylistic features such as speaking po-
litely, gently and in a refined manner. In the early modern period, linguists pro-
duced a massive amount of academic discourse, such as grammar textbooks and
school readers, in their attempts to prescribe Japanese national language (left of [2]
in Figure 8.2), and those academic discourses began to refer to specific linguistic

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 8.  Gendering of the national language 193

Time Gender-related Linguistic ideologies Linguistic ideologies


political ideologies constructed by academic constructed by conduct-
discourses book discourses

[1]
Premodern
(1603 Confucian ideology ⇔
Feminine
1867) speech

[2]
Modern
(Men’s)
(1868 Feminine
National
Gendered language speech
1926) nationalization ⇔

[3]
War (Men’s)
Nationalization Women’s
(1914 National
of language
women ⇔ language
1945)

Figure 8.2  Genealogy of gender-related linguistic ideologies.

features. During the war, the same academic discourses incorporated women’s lan-
guage into the national language by referring to specific linguistic features and to
general stylistic features ([3] in Figure 8.2). This simultaneous reference to both
stylistic and linguistic features by academic discourse, I argue, enhanced the con-
struction of indexical association between specific linguistic features with a par-
ticular affective stance, such as the politeness, gentleness, and refinement required
of ideal feminine speech. Women’s language in Figure 8.2 [3] of the war period, in
short, consisted of both the modern ideology of feminine speech in [2] and par-
ticular linguistic features associated with women by the academic discourses dur-
ing the modern and war periods. And these academic discourses became possible
and meaningful in specific political ideologies in each period – the prescription of
the national language and gendered nationalization in the early modern period,

www.ebook777.com
194 Gender, language and ideology

and the nationalization of women and the gendering of the national language in
the war period. Here again, as demonstrated in Chapter 5, indexicality was not
created by repeated use by women themselves, but by the political ideology of na-
tionalizing women, which, in turn, enabled and enhanced academic discourse to
include women’s language within the national language by simultaneously refer-
ring to both stylistic and linguistic features.
Second, the analysis in this chapter accounts for the explicit distinction be-
tween women’s language and men’s language only in standard Japanese today.
Some researchers have claimed that women’s language is found only in standard
Japanese, because the speech of middleclass women in the uptown section of
Tokyo constituted women’s language. (Note that this is an essentialist-evolutionary
argument, in assuming that the speech of middleclass women in the uptown sec-
tion of Tokyo naturally became women’s language.) Nevertheless, the analysis in
this chapter suggests a reversed process. During the war, as nationalization of
women promoted the incorporation of women’s speech into the national language,
academic discourse began to refer to linguistic features related to women. Such
references, however, were confined to those features fulfilling the definition of the
national language, the language of educated Tokyo residents. As shown in this
chapter, among linguistic features associated with women, linguists included in
the national language those features corresponding with the definition of the na-
tional language such as schoolgirl features, rather than the features associated with
non-Tokyo or uneducated women. Since then, the ideology of women’s language
has been maintained by incorporating features of standard Japanese. Uptown lin-
guistic features are typical examples of standard Japanese. Some features of up-
town speech are found in women’s language today, not because the speech of To-
kyo uptown women became women’s language but because academic discourse
has been including the features of Tokyo uptown women as women’s language.
Part 3 has shown that, during the war period, discourses of linguists and intel-
lectuals established women’s language as the symbol of imperial tradition, the tra-
dition originating with the emperor system. Contemporary Japanese, however, do
not connect women’s language to the emperor system at all, but rather interpret
women’s language as a natural reflection of women’s femininity. In Part 4, I will
show how the ideology of Japanese women’s language was separated from the em-
peror system, by analyzing the discourses produced during the American occupa-
tion period after the end of WW II.

www.ebook777.com
part 4

Essentializing women’s language


The postwar U.S. Occupation

After its unconditional surrender on August 14th, 1945, Japan was to transform
itself from a military regime to a democratic nation. On August 30th, the Supreme
Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP), Gen. Douglas MacArthur, arrived in
Japan to launch the next seven years of the US occupation (I will henceforth refer
to the American Occupation Administration located in Tokyo after the war as
GHQ [General Headquarters]). The first of the five reform orders MacArthur an-
nounced to Prime Minister Shidehara on October 11th concerned the liberation
of Japanese women by giving them suffrage.1 Japan at that time followed the Impe-
rial Constitution, promulgated in 1889, in which women were legal nonentities
without the right to vote or to possess property. In families, the male head was
given absolute power to determine property, inheritance, divorce and children’s
marriages. The equality policy of women and men promoted by GHQ dramati-
cally changed the legal and institutional rights of Japanese women, who had been
expected to serve in the war as second-class citizens. In 1946, the vote was ex-
tended to women over twenty years old and women’s liberation movements
emerged. The new Constitution of Japan, issued on November 3rd, stipulated fun-
damental human rights, including two articles, Article 14, “Equality of the sexes,”
and Article 24, “Equality of husband and wife.”2 The women’s equality and rights
guaranteed in these articles “went far beyond what the U.S. Congress, the state

1. The five reforms ordered by MacArthur were “to extend the franchise to women, promote
labor unionization, open schools to more liberal education, democratize the economy by revis-
ing ‘monopolistic industrial controls,’ and in general eliminate all despotic vestiges in society”
(Dower 1999: 81).
2. It was Beate Sirota Gordon, one of the members of the Civil Rights Committee, who wrote
Articles 14 and 24 on women’s rights. Her draft, revised by the Constitution Steering Commit-
tee, sparked a great controversy in the Japanese government and was finally promulgated on
November 3, 1946. Article 14 states: “All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be
no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social
status or family origin” (Takayanagi et al. 1972: 446). Article 24 states: “Marriage shall be based
only on the natural consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation
with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis. With regard to choice of spouse, property
rights, inheritance, choice of domicile, divorce and other matters pertaining to marriage and the

www.ebook777.com
196 Gender, language and ideology

legislatures, and many Americans are willing to accept in their own country”
(Pharr 1987: 222). An amendment to the Civil Law the next year dissolved the
patriarchal family system and allowed equal inheritance for women and men. This
does not mean, however, that the Japanese government and people all welcomed
the gender equality policy promoted by GHQ. “Japanese authorities made a persis-
tent effort to dilute, omit, or change the intent of SCAP’s women’s rights provi-
sions. Their main target was Article 24” (Pharr 1987: 231). Beate Sirota Gordon,
the only female member of the Civil Rights Committee, wrote the drafts of Articles
14 and 24 on women’s rights. She testifies that, at the meeting between the Consti-
tution Steering Committee and representatives of the Japanese government on
March 4th, 1946, “the Japanese side strongly opposed women’s equality” and their
argument was “as heated as in the matter of the emperor system” (Doi and Gordon
1996: 19–20). The Japanese government, this indicates, was opposed to the idea of
women’s rights presented in Articles 14 and 24 of Japan’s new constitution. Despite
such opposition, the U.S. draft was promulgated with almost no revision, princi-
pally because the Japanese government was afraid that the emperor might be tried
as a war criminal.3 General Whitney asked the Japanese government to accept the
draft stating that:
[The Supreme Commander wants to] defend your emperor against increasing
pressure from the outside to render him subject to war-criminal investigation….
He feels that acceptance of the provisions of this new Constitution would render
the emperor practically unassailable. (Shimizu 1962: 326–328)

It was an irony of history that the government had to give up the patriarchal
family system, though it was virtually inseparable from the emperor system, to
protect the emperor. The seven-year occupation by GHQ, in short, was the period
when equality between women and men in Japan became a crucial social issue.
Since the ideology of women’s language during the war period functioned as the
iconic representation of female citizens who served the war as secondary members

family, laws shall be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality
of the sexes” (Takayanagi et al. 1972: 450).
3. The largest concern of the Japanese government under the Occupation was kokutai no goji
(the preservation of the emperor system), which GHQ seemed to know, considering that the US
military had avoided attacking the emperor during the war because: “the Japanese regarded
their sovereign with religious awe and would be even more inclined to fight to the death if he
were attacked….” (Dower 1999: 281). MacArthur first asked the Japanese government to draft
the new constitution. However, as the Japanese draft by State Minister Matsumoto left “substan-
tially unchanged the status of the Emperor with all rights of sovereignty vested in him”
(Takayanagi et al. 1972: 40–42), he concluded on February 3, 1946, that GHQ should draft a new
constitution. Work soon began on the new constitution with the aid of Japanese who also hoped
to change Japan into a democratic country.

www.ebook777.com
Part 4.  The postwar U.S. Occupation 197

in the patriarchal family system, the women’s rights defined in the new Japanese
constitution must have changed the ways linguists and intellectuals produced dis-
courses concerning women’s language. What effect did these legal and institution-
al changes giving equal rights to women and men have on the ideology of women’s
language? Did the equality policy of the Occupation make Japanese intellectuals
find it problematic to have women speaking differently from men?
By “the matter of the emperor system” in the above citation, Beate Sirota
Gordon referred to the definition of that system in the new constitution. Even as
the Allied Powers sought to have the emperor take responsibility for the war,
MacArthur was planning to proceed the occupation through the emperor system,
mainly because he believed that “retaining the emperor [system] was crucial to
ensuring control over the [Japanese] population” (Bix 2000: 545). To get rid of his
militaristic image, the emperor declared, over national radio in January 1946, his
transformation from “god” to “human.” The Showa Emperor, generally known out-
side Japan as Hirohito, who, as Japan’s sovereign, had been worshipped as a living
god during the war, declared his humanity, and the new constitution reformulated
him as the “symbol” of the State. As a result, Hirohito was not designated a war
criminal in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. His transforma-
tion from divine head of the Japanese patriarchal family system to the symbol of
Japan further confirmed GHQ’s dismantling of the patriarchal family system. This
fundamental change, I maintain, could only have had profound effect on the
discourses of linguists and intellectuals involving women’s language, since, during
the war period, as seen in Part 3, women’s language functioned as the symbol of
imperial tradition, originating with the emperor system, and the ideology of a gen-
dered national language linguistically gave shape to the patriarchal family system.
The purpose of Part 4, therefore, is to examine the shifts in definition and
interpretation occurring in the ideology of women’s language by analyzing the dis-
courses of linguists and intellectuals produced during the Occupation, from 1945
to 1952. Chapter 9 investigates what effect the gender-equality policy promoted by
GHQ had on the discourses concerning women’s language and how those dis-
courses redefined women’s language. Chapter 10 examines the academic discourse
of grammar books and school language readers to reveal the extent to which lin-
guists and intellectuals modified their prescriptions for women’s language under
GHQ’s gender-equality policy.

www.ebook777.com
www.ebook777.com
chapter 9

Women’s language as reflection of femininity

Features of women’s language based on differences in social class or edu-


cation – social conditions – will fade away…. However, those features
based on women’s psychological, physiological conditions – natural con-
ditions … such as pronunciation, voice, sentence-final particles, and in-
terjections, will ultimately remain.
Nagano Masaru (1955) Danjo dooken de nai Nihongo
[The inequality of men and women reflected in Japanese]
In 1955, ten years after WWII, a linguist, Nagano Masaru, wrote a chapter entitled,
Danjo dooken de nai Nihongo [The inequality of men and women reflected in
Japanese], in a book edited by Kindaichi Haruhiko (Nagano 1955: 81). The title
obviously indicates the author’s belief that Japanese language discriminated against
women, implying that some Japanese linguists during the Occupation began con-
sidering Japanese language from the perspective of how it was related to gender
equality in Japan. In the excerpt cited above, however, Nagano proposed to sepa-
rate features of women’s language into two categories, one based on social condi-
tions, the other on natural ones, and claimed that the latter would never change.
Why would Nagano argue that certain aspects of women’s language would never
change, while at the very same time he apparently was seeking to criticize the gen-
der inequality in the Japanese language? Why did he have to make the distinction
between social and natural linguistic features of women’s language? What postwar
processes made him write such a seemingly contradictory statement? This chapter
thus analyzes the discourse of linguists and intellectuals produced during the
Occupation (1945–1952), attempting to answer these questions.

Discursive conflict over women’s language

The democracy, human rights, and equal rights of women and men, introduced by
GHQ into Japan after the war, stimulated arguments linking speech differences
with class and gender differences. Women’s language was also criticized as a factor
keeping Japanese women from gaining social status. The discourses of criticism
against women’s language can be divided into two groups. The first group of

www.ebook777.com
200 Gender, language and ideology

discourses argued that linguistic gender differences produced gender differences


of social positions and rights. A journalist, Suzuki Bunshiroo (1948: 60–61), devel-
ops an early example of the first type of discourse: “Although people talk about
equality of individuals or equal rights among the sexes, as long as men’s speech
differs from women’s speech so clearly, women themselves cannot help but violate
equality on a daily basis.” Although some writers and literary academics praise
women’s language as a beautiful feature of Japanese, he continues, “it simply proves
that they are not even a step away from the old belief that women are ultimately
ornaments and should live to serve men” (Suzuki 1948: 64). A socialist, Takakura
Teru (1951: 38), regards women’s language as a symbol of women’s lower social
status: “The status of men and women is completely different. That has been a ma-
jor characteristic of Japanese society. The sex difference in speech is its mere lin-
guistic representation. And it goes without saying that sex differences in social
status are a characteristic of the feudal age.” A critic, Furuya Tsunatake (1953),
considers the decline of women speaking women’s language as a symptom show-
ing that those women “are in the process of growing up to be independent per-
sons.” He criticizes women’s language by stating that “the past ‘soft women’s
language’ is the language of weak, unconfident women who, their power deprived
by men, had to live assiduously studying the pleasure of men and trying painfully
to show coquetry and flirtation…. It is the language of slaves.” Nagano Masaru
(1955: 71), in his essay cited at the beginning of this chapter, warns: “We should
not overlook the ideology of the predominance of men over women implicit in the
differences between the speech of men and women.”
The other group of discourses also criticized women’s language, arguing that
women’s language prevented women from speaking up. Kugimoto Hisaharu (1952:
25), a linguist, argues: “Women’s language has grown to become the language of the
whole society…. The old-fashioned virtue of Japanese women, such as becoming
speechless in front of people, should be abandoned.” Ookubo Tadatoshi (1956: 109),
another linguist, states that the norm for women to speak more politely keeps wom-
en from speaking freely. “Those who claim, ‘It’s nothing if you are used to it,’ or
‘Honorific language is beautiful,’ ignore the troublesome burden they impose on
minds, especially those of women…. More complicated, logical discussion requires
greater care and women won’t be able to talk…. The troublesome language of wom-
en does not allow them to speak casually and restrains them.”
These discourses demonstrate that both Japanese linguists and intellectuals
identified problems with Japanese women’s language and even proposed to aban-
don women’s language to realize a gender-equal society in Japan. It is worth
noting that many Japanese linguists and intellectuals, even though they started
criticizing women’s language only after GHQ proclaimed the gender-equality pol-
icy, developed their arguments specifically about women’s language. Since GHQ

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 9.  Reflection of femininity 201

did not problematize Japanese women’s language, this implies that these linguists
and intellectuals had already been aware of the problems of asking women to
speak women’s language. The gender equality policy of GHQ enabled those dis-
courses to emerge.

Essetialization of women’s langauge

To compete with those discourses in denying women’s language, several discours-


es vindicating women’s language emerged. The most prevalent among them
concerned essentialization. By this, I mean the process by which a socially-con-
structed ideology of women’s language is reinterpreted as a naturally determined,
biological construct – i.e., merely an outgrowth of women’s innate nature. Restated,
essentialization is the process that turns a phenomenon related to gender into one
based on biological sex distinction (cf. Chapter 4, note 1). As seen in Chapters 4
and 8, the essentialization of linguistic gender differences also occurred during the
modernization and war periods. In the postwar period, however, a larger number
of essentialization discourses was produced and accepted.
A typical example of the essentialization discourse emerges in Mashimo
Saburoo’s book Fujingo no kenkyuu [A Study of Lady’s Language], published in
1948. Before analyzing Mashimo’s discourse, I would like to emphasize that he
wrote this book to argue against the criticism of women’s language produced by the
linguists and intellectuals during the Occupation. He was fully aware that many
linguists and intellectuals were criticizing women’s language, when he stated at the
beginning of his book, “Some call [women’s language] the representation of feudal,
subordinate personalities [of women]” (Mashimo 1948: 1). Ishikawa Ken, who
wrote the introduction for Mashimo’s book, was also aware that intellectuals were
criticizing women’s language as the result of the feudal system, when he said: “Lady’s
language has a flash of quality and strength [brought out by] women’s nature, so
that we should not abandon it under the name of ‘the feudal system’” (Mashimo
1948: 3).1 This suggests that Mashimo developed his essntialization argument not
based on empirical studies but to counter the criticism of women’s language.
In the book, Mashimo first claims that women’s speech in the past was femi-
nine speech reflecting women’s innate nature and the loss of feminine speech dur-
ing the war means that “women lost femininity” (Mashimo 1948: 131). He argues

1. Mashimo was not the first who associated women’s language with innate femininity; the
essentialization discourse is also found outside Japan. Jespersen (1922: 246), for example, states
that “There can be no doubt that women exercise a great and universal influence on linguistic
development through their instinctive shrinking from coarse and gross expressions and their
preference for refined and (in certain spheres) veiled and indirect expressions.”

www.ebook777.com
202 Gender, language and ideology

Table 9.1  Characteristics of and reasons for women’s language in Mashimo (1948).

Characteristic of women’s speech Reason for the characteristic (page)

(1)  Women’s vocabulary is small [because] they have an innate, conservative nature
to preserve moderate, neutral words (32).
(2)  Women avoid Chinese words [because] they do not speak from intelligence or
intention, but from emotion and feeling (33)….
The teaching [of avoiding Chinese words] has
been continued…. The cumulative result is that it
has inevitably formed women’s innate nature (34).
(3) Women use polite prefixes, o, go, [because] they have gradually come to believe
and omi that, without the use of prefixes, femininity and
politeness cannot be expressed (38).
(4) Women avoid vulgar, indecent [because] they have a strong consciousness not to
words express immodesty (42).
(5) Women create words different from [because] they hate being immodest; in other
men, e.g. court-women’s speech words, they want to express femininity (45).

(Emphasis added)

for the connection between women’s language and women’s “innate femininity”
most clearly in a section titled “Lady’s vocabulary.” Table 9.1 shows the character-
istics of women’s speech and the reasons for the characteristics Mashimo cites in
the section. Characteristics from (2) to (5) in Table 9.1 correspond with what Ki-
kuzawa (1929) called four characteristics of court-women’s speech during the war
period. As seen in Chapter 7, Kikuzawa (1929) assumed that characteristics of
women’s speech could be traced back to court-women’s speech in the fourteenth
century, which was characterized by 1) use of polite speech, 2) use of elegant
speech, 3) an indirect way of speaking, and 4) avoidance of Chinese words. Char-
acteristic (5) in Table 9.1 also takes court-women’s speech as a typical example of
“different words women create.” To argue that women’s speech in the fourteenth
and the twentieth centuries shares similar characteristics, however, is to argue that
women’s speech is determined by women’s innate nature, the only common point
between court women in the fourteenth century and women in the 1940s. The
reasons given in Table 9.1, such as “innate nature” and “femininity,” show, further-
more, that Mashimo apparently argued that women used language based on
“women’s innate femininity.” Mashimo states: Women use a small vocabulary be-
cause they are “innately conservative”; women avoid Chinese words because they
speak from “emotion and feeling”; women add prefixes because “they cannot ex-
press femininity without them”; and women avoid vulgar words because “they
want to express femininity.” Mashimo develops here very strong arguments of es-
sentialization, reinterpreting a socially-constructed women’s language as speech

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 9.  Reflection of femininity 203

created by “innate femininity.” The phrase, “innate femininity,” sounds contradic-


tory, since numerous gender studies have demonstrated that femininity is a social-
ly-constructed and culturally-varied ideology. Mashimo, however, conceptualizes
femininity as women’s innate nature.
Mashimo’s argument basing women’s language on women’s “innate feminini-
ty,” nevertheless, causes serious contradictions, when he claims to teach feminine
speech at school and at home. Mashimo (1948: 125) argues that, though regional
varieties are corrected at school, “we should distinguish varieties that should be
definitely corrected … from those that children should be encouraged to use. The
linguistic sex difference – i.e., the distinction between men’s speech and women’s
speech, is the only and last variety of the latter type.” Yet, a few lines later, he states
that linguistic sex differences are observed “as early as the speech of three-year-
olds.” If three-year-old boys and girls already speak differently, why do they need
to be taught to speak differently at school? His argument for women’s language
based on women’s innate femininity further contradicts his claim that the role of
the mother in language teaching is important because “language is completely
non-innate” (Mashimo 1948: 152–153).
To conceal such a glaring discrepancy, he introduces the distinction between
social equality and biological differences:
(1) We should not equate women’s use of men’s speech with the equality of the
sexes or democracy. Although men and women are originally equal in the
sense that they are both invaluable human beings, they have different na-
tures and distinctive roles according to the differences…. For example,
love, tenderness, modesty, and prudence are characteristics with which
women are endowed, and they constitute that which we call femininity.
Therefore, humble, respectful speech, which flows naturally from femi-
ninity, represents women’s language. In other words, speech without a
modest attitude represents a poor mind lacking natural femininity. For a
woman to use such [immodest] speech, therefore, means that a woman
has lost the woman inside of her. (Mashimo 1948: 132)
Here, Mashimo assiduously separates women’s language from social inequality
and attempts to connect it to natural femininity. Men and women are socially
equal but biologically different. This biological difference comprises women’s in-
nate femininity. And such innate femininity is the source of women’s language. As
a result of connecting innate femininity to women’s language, however, he has to
claim that a woman who does not use women’s language has lost “the woman in-
side of herself ” – a strange argument. If femininity is innate, how can a woman
lose her “innate” femininity?

www.ebook777.com
204 Gender, language and ideology

Mashimo’s strategy to distinguish social equality from biological differences


had great effect. Following his lead, subsequent essentialization discourses devel-
oped, distinguishing linguistic features of women’s language into those based on
social conditions from those based on biological differences. The authors often
started their arguments by stating that women’s language had a detrimental effect
on the equal treatment of the sexes. Nevertheless, by making distinctions between
features of women’s language based on social conditions from those based on
women’s nature or physiological characteristics, they argued for abandoning the
former but keeping the latter. Suzuki Bunshiroo (1948: 62), as cited above, de-
clared that women should stop speaking women’s language. Later in the same
book, however, Suzuki states that “although [I argue] to neutralize women’s lan-
guage, as long as there is sex distinction, men’s and women’s speech naturally dif-
fer,” presupposing “natural sex difference” in speech. An anonymous essay in a
women’s magazine, “Josei wa utsukushiku [Women should be beautiful]” (“Josei
wa utsukushiku” 1951: 144), also argues: “We should abolish the distinction be-
tween men’s language and women’s language…. Even if men and women use the
same words, however, as men and women have different types of voices, men’s
speech sounds masculine and women’s speech sounds feminine.” By claiming that
a difference, such as voice quality, cannot be erased, the article proposed “a new,
beautiful distinction” of linguistic gender differences that reflected such natural
sex differences. Kugimoto Hisaharu (1952: 180–181) first argues that “it is not
fair to ask only women to use polite, elegant speech different from men,” but con-
tinues: “However … if we merely pursue equal rights and equal opportunity in
speech, it would be a lot of trouble for women to have to always speak like men. It
would make it difficult for women to effectively express the social, inner desire
peculiar to women,” assuming that women have “inner desire” peculiar to them.
Yazaki Genkuroo (1960: 210–211), a linguist, also first denies gender differences
stating: “The distance between women’s and men’s … speech is getting closer. It is
a good tendency. As Japan has equality of the sexes … too much difference is un-
desirable,” but he continues to argue that “[but I would like women] to use femi-
nine sentence-final forms and soft speech peculiar to women and expect them to
express femininity.”
These essentialization arguments, rather than directly asserting the natural,
innate foundation of women’s language, first distinguished features of women’s
language based on social conditions from those based on nature, then proclaimed
that the Japanese would and should preserve the latter features. Such strategy was
necessary because simply to promote and compel the use of women’s language
did not work under the democratization policy of the Occupation. To develop a
laudable argument under such social change, the linguists and intellectuals had to
show their recognition of the problem of women’s language first. Yet, by creating

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 9.  Reflection of femininity 205

the distinction between “natural” and “social” features of women’s language, some
of those features were defined as irrelevant to social inequality of gender. The
distinction between “natural” and “social” features was necessary to separate
women’s language from social inequality between women and men, and to make
it possible to preserve the ideology of women’s language as a natural phenomenon
that continued irrespective of social change. By making the distinction between
“natural” and “social” women’s language, linguists and intellectuals succeeded in
preserving the ideology of women’s language in spite of the drastic social changes
after the war.
Accordingly, Nagano Masaru entitled his chapter Danjo dooken de nai Nihon-
go [The inequality of men and women reflected in Japanese], as mentioned at the
beginning of this chapter, precisely because it was necessary for him to show that
he had no intention to oppose the gender equality promoted by the Occupation.
After presenting himself as an intellectual intelligent enough to accept the gender
equality of democracy, Nagano distinguished features of women’s language into
two categories based on social conditions and on natural or innate characteristics
– a strategy already prevalent and proven effective in preserving, maintaining and
legitimating women’s language.
The prevalence and effectiveness of that strategy is proven concretely by the
fact that it has continued to preserve and legitimate women’s language until today.
Sugimoto Tsutomu, a prominent linguist on modern Japanese, states:
(2) I want to note here that there are two types of women’s language. The first
type has been constructed by men who believe that women are inferior to
them both as human and as social beings. The second type of women’s
language has been created by the authentic feminine physiology, psychol-
ogy and spirit. I believe that the second type of women’s language is what
women’s language should be. We should distinguish women’s language
based on social, artificial conditions from women’s language based on hu-
man, natural conditions. (Sugimoto 1975: 30)2

Conclusion

Right after the war, therefore, a conflict between two types of discourses on wom-
en’s language emerged, one criticizing its negative effect on equal rights between
women and men, and the other advocating women’s language, claiming that it was
based on “women’s innate femininity.” The second type of discourse, distinguishing

2. The reprint of this book was published in 1997 with another title, Onna to kotoba konjaku
[The Present and Past of Women and Language] by the same publisher.

www.ebook777.com
206 Gender, language and ideology

between the features of women’s language based on social conditions and those
emerging from women’s “innate femininity,” argued that Japanese should pre-
serve women’s language. This second type of discourse developed the essential-
ization argument by reinterpreting socially-constructed women’s language as bi-
ologically-based natural speech. Many linguists reproduced similar discourses
and ultimately redefined women’s language as speech reflecting the innate femi-
ninity of women, which was irrelevant to social issues such as gender equality.
The redefinition enabled the linguists to preserve, maintain and legitimate wom-
en’s language. Although Japanese women gained legal rights incomparable to the
prewar period, the equally important ideology of women’s language assumed an
unchangeable nature.
It is worth noting here that the essentialization argument was not advanced to
assert a natural foundation of women’s language but was developed to compete
with the criticism of women’s language as an obstacle to gender equality. Under the
Occupation, some Japanese intellectuals argued for gender equality and they came
to recognize the domination of women by the gendered national language as a
social problem. It was under such circumstances that a group of discourses rede-
fining women’s language as based on biological sex distinction became meaningful
and acceptable. These discourses emerged under the social processes in which the
Occupation fostered women’s liberation, women’s rights became a socially crucial
issue, and many intellectuals questioned the ideology of women’s language. These
discourses became possible and meaningful, in short, when people came to recog-
nize the ideology of women’s language as a social problem.
The political measure of gender equality advanced by the Occupation, this
suggests, paradoxically promoted and enabled the emergence of essentialization
discourses defining femininity as based on biological sex differences. This shows
that, when gendered power relationships become a social problem, gender often
becomes essentialized, redefined as based on natural, biological sex, to counter the
ensuing criticism (cf. Chapter 4, note 1). That is exactly the process in which gen-
der is “the discursive/cultural means by which ‘sexed nature’ or ‘a natural sex’ is
produced and established as ‘prediscursive,’ prior to culture, a politically neutral
surface on which culture acts” (Butler 1990: 7) (emphasis original). In the case of
women’s language, when the Occupation set the policy liberating women and a
gendered national language was criticized as causing gender inequality, that is,
when the ideology of women’s language was on the verge of extinction, the essen-
tialization discourse emerged and redefined women’s language as based on
“women’s innate femininity.” To maintain women’s language without denying the
equality policy supported by both the Occupation and many Japanese women and
men, it was necessary to de-politicize and essentialize women’s language as speech
based on natural femininity.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 9.  Reflection of femininity 207

Why did the essentialization discourse gain predominance in the discursive


conflict during the postwar period and successfully enhance the survival of the
ideology of women’s language? The next chapter attempts to answer that ques-
tion by analyzing another type of discourse produced in the same period, aca-
demic discourse related to women’s language, such as in grammar textbooks and
school readers.

www.ebook777.com
www.ebook777.com
chapter 10

A gendered Japanese national language


Symbol of patriarchy

Taroo: Yukidaruma-kun, konnichiwa.


Hanako: Yukidaruma-san, konnichiwa….
Snowman-address form hello
‘Dear Snowman! Hello!’
Hanako: Doko e ittan deshoo.
Taroo: Doko e ittan daroo….
where to go-past sfp
‘Where did it go?’
Taroo: Kawaisoo danaa.
Hanako: Kawaisoo nee….
pitiful sfp
‘That’s pitiful.’
Taroo: Yukidaruma -kuun me o wasureteiru yoo.
Hanako: Yukidaruma-saan o-meme o wasureteiru wayoo.
Snowman-address form eye obj forget-past sfp
‘Dear Snowman! You left your eyes.’
 Unit 7 Snowman in Taro Hanako kokugo no hon 1954[1950]
In 1950, the national language school reader, Taroo Hanako kokugo no hon [Na-
tional Language Reader for Taroo and Hanako], was approved by the Ministry of
Education. It was the first school reader whose volumes for all grades passed the
inspection of the Ministry of Education after the war. Taroo and Hanako are,
respectively, typical male and female first names. The above citation is from
Yuuyake [Sunset Glow], one of the three volumes for the first grade of Taroo
Hanako kokugo no hon. In Unit 7, Yukidaruma [Snowman], Taroo and Hanako
make a snowman together and talk about it. In the model dialogue cited above,
they say the same thing using different linguistic features, foregrounding the gen-
dered use of linguistic features. While Taroo calls the snowman with the address
form, kun, Hanako calls it with san. In saying, “Where did it go?” Taroo uses the
hortative, daroo, and Hanako uses deshoo. Taroo uses the sentence-final form,
danaa, to say, “That’s pitiful,” and Hanako ends the same sentence with nee. To
express eyes, Taroo uses me and Hanako uses o-meme, adding a honorific prefix

www.ebook777.com
210 Gender, language and ideology

o. Taroo ends the sentence, “You left your eyes,” with yoo, and Hanako ends the
same sentence with wayoo. According to the teacher’s manual for Taroo and
Hanako, children were expected to memorize the conversation until they could
perform it in a play, as shown in Figure 10.1. Clearly, one of the goals of Taroo
Hanako kokugo no hon was to teach children that girls and boys should speak
differently. Does it mean that the Ministry of Education approved this school
reader despite the gender-equality policy of GHQ? How did linguists change
their discourses to reflect the gender-equality policy? This chapter thus aims to
reveal how academic discourse in grammar texts, books about Japanese national
language and school language readers changed their prescriptions of women’s
language under the Occupation from 1945 to 1952. I will start by describing the
educational reform promoted by the Japanese Ministry of Education under the
gender-equality policy of GHQ.

Figure 10.1  Unit 7 Yukidaruma [Snowman] in Taro Hanako kokugo no hon


(Nihon shoseki kokugo henshuu iinkai 1954[1950]: 85).

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 10.  Symbol of patriarchy 211

Language education and linguists under the U.S. Occupation

During the Occupation, gender equality became a crucial issue in educational in-
stitutions. Following the gender-equality policy of the Occupation, the importance
of gender-equal education gained wider recognition and reform of the education-
al system proceeded. In December 1945, the Japanese Ministry of Education
issued the Plan for Reform of Women’s Education, aiming to “provide equal edu-
cational opportunity and equal education for men and women” (Mitsui 1977: 899).
The Plan for Reform proposed to teach the same subjects at both women’s and
men’s secondary schools and make universities co-educational. The Constitution
of Japan, issued in 1946, declared “Equality of the sexes” (Article 14) and “Equal-
ity of husband and wife” (Article 24). Accordingly, the Ministry of Education
issued the Organic Law of Education in 1947, which prohibited gender discrimi-
nation in educational opportunity and approved co-education.
As for school textbooks, the Japanese Ministry of Education, assuming that
GHQ would regard school language readers as the root of military education, had
already launched the reform of school language readers, even before GHQ issued
the order to do so. The national language school reader used as the war ended in
1945 was the fifth state textbook, compiled by the Ministry of Education in 1941
and called Asahi tokuhon [Sunrise Reader]. As seen in Chapter 8, this reader con-
tained many stories about the emperor’s divinity, emphasizing militarism and ul-
tra-nationalism. It was obviously unacceptable for use under the Occupation. On
September 15, 1945, the Ministry of Education, lacking time to compile complete-
ly new school readers, issued a notice to teachers to be very careful using the old
school readers and advised that “parts of the textbooks which should be corrected
and deleted will be shown” (Yoshida 2001: 27). On September 20, the First Note on
Ink-erasure was issued. Ink was to be used to cross out words and stories in school
readers that (1) emphasized the national defense force, (2) whipped up war senti-
ment, (3) disturbed international relations, (4) were remarkably removed from the
reality of war closure, and (5) others (Yoshida 2001: 34). As GHQ did not consider
the First Note on Ink-erasure good enough, the Ministry of Education issued the
Second Note on Ink-erasure in January 1946, which ordered erasure of stories
about state-Shintoism from school readers.1 Based on the two Notes, teachers
asked children to erase words and stories perceived as linked to militarism, ultra-
nationalism, and state-Shintoism in elementary school language readers. Children

1. Shintoism is the indigenous spirituality of Japanese people, its practice already described in
the country’s ancient written documents in the eighth century. State-shintoism refers to shinto-
ism utilized by the Japanese government as a major force for mobilizing loyalty to the emperors
in the period 1868–1945.

www.ebook777.com
212 Gender, language and ideology

had to cross out, cut out, or cover with paper parts of the school readers, that, to
be sure, they had been taught to treat with special care. Sunrise Reader, reformed
by these procedures, was called suminuri kyookasho (the ink-erased school read-
er). The Ministry of Education under the Occupation focused in this way on re-
forming national-language readers among many other school textbooks, used
during the war period.
While the Ministry of Education was reforming school language readers, lin-
guists were initiating reforms of Japanese language. The governmental committee
of linguists, Kokugo shingikai (The Japanese National-Language Council), pro-
posed a sequence of new language policies immediately after the war. In 1946, the
Council submitted the modern kana (phonetic orthography) system and a list of
Chinese characters for daily use. In 1947, the Council submitted a list of Chinese
and Japanese pronunciations of Chinese characters for daily use, a separate list of
Chinese characters for daily use and, in 1948, a list of the revised forms of Chinese
characters for daily use. These were all originally based on two proposals made by
the Japanese National-Language Council in 1935 and on one of the principles of
Kokugo choosa iinkai (the National-Language Research Committee) originally
advanced in 1902. The main concern of linguists, therefore, was to realize their
longstanding desire to reform kana and decrease the number of Chinese charac-
ters in regular use, problems that had been pending since long before the war.
Kurashima Nagamasa (2002: 31) notes: “These national-language policies were
implemented simply by following proposals made before the war. [Linguists could
promote them because] of the wave of drastic postwar social changes.” These lan-
guage policies had nothing to do with the corruption of the military government
or the introduction of democracy by the Occupation. This apolitical attitude was
aided in part by GHQ, which said little about the Japanese language, except for the
Second American Education Delegation that, in 1950, advised writing Japanese in
Roman letters.
Japanese linguists were certainly not unaware of the notions of human rights
and democracy brought into Japan by the Occupation. After the war, linguists
began to re-evaluate dialects, often suppressed and discriminated against in the
near frantic, confusing effort to establish standard Japanese in the early twentieth
century. Imaizumi Tadayoshi (1954: 20), in his grammar textbook, emphasizes the
importance of dialect: “Dialects are the mother’s womb of our national language.
If we despise dialects, it is hardly possible to think about improving our national
language.” Yamaguchi Kiichiroo (1951: 222), in his book about national-language
education, argues against prohibiting the use of dialect at school: “Students speak
dialects in their everyday lives. [Teachers] should not prohibit them from speaking
their dialects when they are not studying in the classrooms and when they are
playing.” Ishiguro (1951: 129) regards standard Japanese and dialects as having

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 10.  Symbol of patriarchy 213

equivalent values: “[We should not] contrast standard language and dialect in
terms of good standard, bad dialect. The relationship between standard language
and dialect is the same as the relationship between international language and
national language.” Fujiwara (1962: 119) even argues for the complete restoration
of dialect: “Some people think that dialect is bad. How about you? It is such think-
ing that is bad.” These discourses of re-evaluation and restoration of dialect show
that linguists gradually realized that the denial of a dialect could deny the human
rights of the people who speak it – i.e., linguists became aware of the effect of lan-
guage on human rights.
During the Occupation, therefore, the Ministry of Education was promoting
education-system reform, based on gender equality, and reforming school lan-
guage readers. Linguists were not deprived of initiating language reforms; they
were not simply forced to follow Occupation policies. Some linguists were cer-
tainly aware of the potential impact of denigrating dialects on the human rights of
dialect speakers. Furthermore, as seen in Chapter 9, women’s language was criti-
cized for having an ill effect on gender equality. Within that context, teaching lin-
guistic gender differences in grammar textbooks and school readers could have
been considered an obstacle to gender-equal education. What effect did the notion
of linguistic gender equality make on academic discourses? Previous research on
academic discourse under the Occupation has focused on negotiation between the
Ministry of Education and GHQ. This chapter analyzes the effect of gender-equal-
ity awareness of both the Ministry of Education and Japanese linguists on the
treatment of linguistic gender differences in academic discourse.

Grammar textbooks during the Occupation period

Preservation of a gendered national language

Grammar textbooks published during the Occupation showed little difference


from those published during the war. This is particularly clear in that well-known
grammar textbooks published during the war by prominent male linguists were
reprinted afterwards. Yamada Yoshio’s Nihon bumpoogaku gairon [Introduction to
Japanese Grammar], first published in 1936, came out in a third edition in 1948,
three years after the war, and a sixth edition appeared in 1954. It describes features
associated with men as the national-language standard, without mentioning any
gender differences. Yamada lists the male first-person pronouns, boku and ore, as
the personal pronouns of standard Japanese and uses the address form, kun, the
male first-person pronoun, boku, and the masculine sentence-final form, zo, in the
model sentences without noting that they were used by men (Yamada 1936: 129,

www.ebook777.com
214 Gender, language and ideology

471, 528). This grammar textbook, in sum, consistently prescribed man’s language
as standard Japanese.
Kieda Masuichi’s Kootoo kokubumpoo shinkoo: Hinshi hen [New Lectures on
High School National Grammar: Parts of Speech], first published in 1937, saw its
twelfth edition in 1940, fifteenth in 1942, and was reprinted in 1948 by another
publisher. It, too, lists the male personal pronouns, boku, washi, ore, and kisama,
as standard Japanese (Kieda 1937: 96). In teaching usage of the feminine sentence-
final forms, wa and dawa, Kieda explicitly states that they are women’s words.
Kieda mentions the masculine sentence-final form, ze, however, without noting its
use by men. This grammar textbook describes features associated with men as the
national-language standard but includes features associated with women as excep-
tions, with explanatory notes such as “female usage.”
Sakuma Kanae’s Gendai Nihon gohoo no kenkyuu [A Study of Modern
Japanese Usage], written in 1940, was revised in 1952, seven years after the war.
The revised edition continued to emphasize gender differences. In teaching usage
of sentence-final forms, Sakuma states: “Only men use zo and ze now. Wa is used
mostly by women” (Sakuma 1940: 61–62). Sakuma also points out that the sen-
tence-final form, wa, expresses the speaker’s femininity (Sakuma 1940: 68).
Kindaichi Kyoosuke’s Nihongo no shinro [The Course of the Japanese Lan-
guage] was less a grammar textbook than a book about the national language writ-
ten for general Japanese readers. It was published in 1948, but it contained the
speech he had given at Japan Women’s University in 1944, a year before the war
ended. In the speech, he criticizes women’s use of men’s language – “[We should
not allow] the masculinization of contemporary women’s speech” – declaring the
importance of the gendered national language (Kindaichi 1948: 78).
Taken together, these books repeated the arguments that the national-language
standard was men’s speech, while women’s language constituted an exception to
that standard. As shown in Chapter 8, grammar textbooks during the war estab-
lished the ideology of a gendered national language by incorporating women’s lan-
guage at the margin of the national language, as exceptional. That these wartime
books continued to be published after the war testifies that the ideology of the
gendered national language and the belief that the Japanese language has women’s
language were also preserved throughout the defeat in the war and during the
Occupation. Postwar grammar textbooks preserved the gendered national lan-
guage by paying no attention to the argument that linguistic gender differences
produced gender inequality in Japanese society. Neither the war’s end nor the sub-
sequent Occupation appeared to affect the discourse of these linguists.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 10.  Symbol of patriarchy 215

The separation of women’s language from the imperial tradition

Linguists during the war, as seen in Chapter 7, defined court-women’s speech as


the origin of women’s language. Postwar discourses about women’s language show
two changes concerning the ways they described court-women’s speech. First, al-
though linguists still mentioned court-women’s speech in discussing women’s
language, some linguists began to state that, as court-women’s speech prevailed
outside the imperial court, both men and women were now using it. Mashimo
Saburoo (1948: 72) states: “Although few [court-women words] are used only by
women today, by having become words for both men and women, they are deeply
rooted in Japanese.” Iwabuchi Etsutaroo (1948: 101) also refers to men’s use of
court-women speech: “Court-women words were first used as substitutes for words
that were taboo. As this form of speech was used by court ladies, it was considered
an elegant style of speaking; women in general began to use it as women’s language
and, later on, men began to use it, no longer considering it to be women’s language.”2
Second, in discussing the relationship between women’s language and court-wom-
en’s speech, they no longer mentioned the emperor system. As seen in Chapter 7,
linguists during the war strongly associated court-women’s speech with the em-
peror system. In the above discourses about court-women’s speech, however,
neither Mashimo nor Iwabuchi refers to the emperor. During the Occupation, fur-
thermore, linguists stopped mentioning the emperor not only when discussing
court-women’s speech but also women’s language and Japanese language. Nagao
Masanori, who during the war had most clearly praised women’s language as an
imperial tradition, apparently stopped writing after the war.3 As discussed in the
previous section, the Ministry of Education had ordered the deletion of school
materials linked to militarism, ultra-nationalism, and state-Shintoism, even before
GHQ ordered such action. Under such circumstances, it was likely that linguists
also voluntarily decided not to refer to the emperor in their discussions about
women’s language. The non-reference to the emperor in postwar academic

2. In relating women’s language with court-women’s speech, academic discourse started refer-
ring to a specific feature such as the polite prefix, o, as a feature still used mainly by women.
Imaizumi (1950: 221) argues that the o of court-women’s speech is the origin of the o of women’s
language: “In modern spoken language, the polite word o is found in the speech of urban areas and
that of women…. The Japanese-Portuguese Dictionary compiled at the end of the Muromachi era
[14th–16th centuries] shows that the polite word o originally appeared as a woman’s word.”
Kunita Yuriko (1964: 48) also states that even though most court-women words are already used by
both women and men, the polite prefix o and the polite suffix moji are still used mainly by women:
“In modern Japanese, many court-women words are not recognized as such any more. Many are
recognized as general terms, not related to the speaker’s gender. But the polite words o and moji are
still considered to be elegant words and found more frequently in women’s language.”
3. There is no record of any postwar publication by Nagao.

www.ebook777.com
216 Gender, language and ideology

discourse separated both court-women’s speech and women’s language from the
emperor system. This de-politicization of women’s language by separating it from
the imperial tradition certainly helped preserve women’s language after the war.
Yet, postwar linguists continued referring to Kikuzawa’s (1929) four character-
istics of women’s language and its relation to honorific language. As shown in
Chapter 7, Kikuzawa had argued that women’s language was characterized by (1)
use of polite speech, (2) use of elegant speech, (3) an indirect way of speaking, and
(4) avoidance of Chinese words. Mashimo Saburoo (1948), as seen in Chapter 9,
cites all four as characteristic of women’s language in the book he wrote during the
Occupation. Yoshida Sumio (1952: 34) echoes Mashimo: “[Women’s language is
characterized by,] first, use of elegant or special feminine words, second, frequent
polite speech, third, an indirect way of speaking and fourth, the avoidance of
Chinese words.” Yazaki Genkuroo (1960: 209) follows suit: “Women’s language
uses words specific to women, avoids vulgar, violent words, prefers elegant, polite
expressions, and an indirect way of speaking. Thus, women’s language frequently
uses honorific language.” As shown in the Yazaki’s citation, linguists also contin-
ued to associate honorific language with women’s language, following the argu-
ment proposed by Kindaichi Kyoosuke (1942) during the war. Mashimo (1948:
168), citing Kindaichi (1942), states: “Women and polite expressions are insepa-
rable.” Kindaichi (1948: 91) himself maintains his argument: “Polite usage is in-
separable from women’s language.” By contrast with the argument that considers
court-women’s speech the origin of women’s language, the honorific-language ar-
gument was not avoided after the war. Linguists continued referring to honorific
language in their discussions of women’s language, mainly because the main pro-
ponent of the argument, Kindaichi, did not associate honorific language with the
emperor but with language taboo. According to Kindaichi, a language taboo be-
tween women and men caused the emergence of women’s language and this, in
turn, became honorific language: “Taboos between the sexes were strictly adhered
to in ancient society…. It was a strong taboo for a wife to call her husband by his
given name…. From such taboos emerged speech specific to women…. This is the
origin of honorific language in an uncivilized society” (Kindaichi 1949: 118).
Under the Occupation, with references to the emperor strictly censored, linguists
referred to honorific language. Women’s language after the war, therefore, while
separated from the emperor, was still considered to be the tradition of the na-
tional language, characterized by politeness, indirectness, and elegance. As a re-
sult, both the ideology of a gendered national language and the belief that the
Japanese language has women’s language were maintained.

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 10.  Symbol of patriarchy 217

School readers during the Occupation period

While grammar textbooks and books about Japanese national language main-
tained the ideology of women’s language, did linguists change their prescriptions
of women’s language in school readers during the Occupation? I will start my anal-
ysis from the first school reader used after the war, the Ink-erased school reader,
actually titled Asahi tokuhon [Sunrise Reader], compiled in 1941, with words and
stories linked to militarism, ultra-nationalism, and state-Shintoism erased.
The data used here are four volumes of Asahi tokuhon, Yomikata 2 (for first
graders), Yomikata 4 (for second graders), Shotooka kokugo 2 (for third graders),
and Shotooka kokugo 4 (for fourth graders) (Monbushoo 1985[1941–1942]). The
procedure for ink-erasure differed by region and time period (Yoshida 2001). I
chose the four volumes because the First Note on Ink-erasure issued by the
Ministry of Education gave clear instructions concerning which units of the four
volumes should be ink-erased and the reprint of the ink-erased four volumes has
been published (Oozorasha 1985).4
The result is that there was no data in the Ink-erased Readers showing that
teaching linguistic gender differences was considered problematic. As seen in
Chapter 8, Asahi tokuhon taught the contrastive use of the masculine first-person
pronoun boku and general first-person pronoun watashi. In the Ink-erased Read-
ers, the gendered use of the first-person pronouns was not deleted. Similarly, the
gendered use of sentence-final forms and interjections observed in Table 8.4 was
not erased. In Chapter 8, I cite Unit 18, Apricot of Shotooka Kokugo 2, as an ex-
ample of teaching gendered use of the national language. According to Yoshida

4. Table 10.1 shows the percentage of units erased in the four volumes. Unexpectedly many
units were deleted. The higher the grade, the more units were erased. Seventy to eighty percent
of Shotooka kokugo 4 was deleted. Table 10.1 shows only the cases in which whole units were
erased. It does not include other cases, in which a word or a phrase related to militarism or ultra-
nationalism was deleted.

Table 10.1  Number and percentage of units erased by ink in the Ink-erased Readers.

Textbook title Number of units erased/number Number of pages erased/number


of all units of all pages

Yomikata 2 3/24 (12.5%) 12/108 (11.1%)


Yomikata 4 9/25 (36%) 34/126 (27%)
Shotooka kokugo 2 12/24 (50%) 74/146 (50.7%)
Shotooka kokugo 4 19/24 (79.2%) 91/138 (65.9%)

Note: The percentages are rounded off to the nearest tenth. (From Oozora Sha 1985: 46)

www.ebook777.com
218 Gender, language and ideology

Hirohisa (2001: 154), no case has been found in which this unit was ink-erased.
Right after the war, therefore, teaching linguistic gender differences was not con-
sidered to be a problem in terms of gender-equal education.
The above results are not surprising, given the purpose of ink-erasure to delete
lessons concerning militarism, ultra-nationalism, and state-Shintoism. Gender
equality and its relation to linguistic gender differences were far beyond their con-
cern. Furthermore, as shown in Chapter 9, the criticism of women’s language,
based on its effect on women’s lower social status, began to appear around 1948.
Therefore, we shall here analyze school readers widely used and published later
than 1948.
In 1946, Zantei kokugo kyookasho [Temporary National Language Textbook]
was compiled by deleting the ink-erased parts of Sunrise Reader. In 1947, the sixth
state national language textbook was published by the Ministry of Education.
However, GHQ ordered that the first two volumes for first graders be reformed, so
newly edited volumes were introduced after 1949. The Organic Law of Education
in 1947 reformed the system of school readers. During the war, the Ministry of
Education had published all school textbooks. According to the Organic Law of
Education, any textbook could be used if approved by the Ministry of Education.
However, in 1948, when the first multi-volume school readers were submitted for
approval, no school reader with volumes for all grades received approval. The
school reader Taro Hanako kokugo no hon [National Language Reader for Taro
and Hanako] (henceforth, Taro and Hanako), cited at the beginning of this chap-
ter, was the first to finally pass inspection, on its third submission, by the Ministry
of Education. The main editor, Inoue Takeshi, was not included among the con-
tributors (Yoshida 2001: 627). Of Taro and Hanako’s thirteen volumes, three were
for first graders and two each for second to sixth graders. The set was used for a full
decade, from 1951 to 1960. I will analyze gender differences in the three volumes
for first grade, Ohayoo [Good Morning], Akai tori [Red Bird], and Yuuyake
[Sunset Glow], published by Nihon shoseki kokugo henshuu iinkai in 1954.

Table 10.2  Speakers of boku in Taro Hanako kokugo no hon (1954).

Speaker Title of reader boku (c) boku (n)

Good Morning
Girl Red Bird
Sunset Glow
Good Morning
Boy Red Bird
Sunset Glow ✓ ✓

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 10.  Symbol of patriarchy 219

Table 10.3  Speakers of watashi in Taro Hanako kokugo no hon (1954).

Speaker Title of reader watashi (c) watashi (n)

Good Morning
Girl Red Bird
Sunset Glow ✓ ✓
Good Morning
Boy Red Bird
Sunset Glow

Notes: A check indicates that the speaker uses the pronoun irrespective of the number of times; (c) indicates
the speaker uses the pronoun in conversation; and (n) indicates the speaker uses the pronoun in narrative
description.

Tables 10.2 and 10.3 show whether a girl or a boy uses the male first-person
pronoun, boku, and the female first-person pronoun, watashi, in the four volumes
of Taro and Hanako I examined. Plural forms of boku and watashi, boku-tachi,
boku-ra and watashi-tachi, do not occur in any of the readers. Boku and watashi in
Tables 10.2 and 10.3 include those words written in the three Japanese orthogra-
phies, katakana, hiragana, or kanji. A check mark indicates that the speaker uses
the pronoun irrespective of the number of times; (c) indicates the speaker uses the
pronoun in conversation; and (n) indicates the speaker uses the pronoun in narra-
tive description. Tables 10.2 and 10.3 demonstrate two points. First, use of the
first-person pronoun is observed only in the volume Sunset Glow. The other two
volumes contain such little conversation that the first-person pronoun does not
appear. Second, in spite of the small number of occurrences, gender difference of
girls using watashi and boys using boku is clearly maintained in both conversation
and narrative description.
Table 10.4 shows how Taro and Hanako uses the sentence-final forms differ-
ently according to the speaker’s gender. It does not include usage by adult women
and men, since the textbook mostly consists of conversation between children. A
check mark indicates that a speaker uses the feature irrespective of the number of
times. I divide the sentence-final forms in Table 10.4 into nine groups, from (1) to
(9), according to the gender of the speaker using the feature. In groups (1) and (2),
I categorize features used only by boys. The da-form of (1), such as in Mari da
[noun+da] (It’s a ball) and Ippai da [adjective+da] (It’s full), are used only by boys.
When boys use the da-form, girls use other forms, emphasizing contrastive use
according to gender. When a boy uses the adjective+da form, Ijiwaru da (That’s
cruel), for example, girls use the adjective+wa and dawa form of (9), such as Hidoi
wa (That’s cruel) and Kawaisoo dawa (That’s pitiful). Similarly, when a boy says
Sabishisoo dana (That looks lonely), a girl answers Kawaisoo ne (That’s pitiful),
making a contrast between dana and ne of (5). When a boy says Momiji no ha dane

www.ebook777.com
220 Gender, language and ideology

Table 10.4  Sentence-final forms used differently according to the speaker’s gender
in Taro Hanako kokugo no hon (1954).

Group of features Linguistic features Girls Boys

(1) da-form noun+da ✓


adjective+da ✓
da yo, da-tta yo ✓
da na, da naa ✓
da ne ✓
da roo ✓
da mono ✓
da gana ✓
(2) Masculine Imperative ✓
zo ✓
adjective+sa ✓
adjective+na ✓
verb+ka ✓
naa ✓
(3) Hortative mashoo, deshoo ✓
ikoo, miyoo, shiyoo ✓
+ne mashoo ne, deshoo ne
+ne ikoo ne, miyoo ne ✓
(4) yo-form noun+yo ✓
adjective+yo ✓ ✓
verb+yo ✓
-no yo ✓
-wa yo ✓
-te yo ✓
(5) ne-form adjective+ne(e) ✓
dawa+ne ✓
wa ne ✓
(6) mono-form desu mono ✓
(7) choo dai choo dai ✓
(8) no (interrogative) na no ✓
ta no ✓
verb+no ✓ ✓
(9) wa-form adjective+wa ✓
verb+wa ✓
dawa, tawa ✓

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 10.  Symbol of patriarchy 221

(It’s a maple leaf) with the dane form, a girl responds Kirei da wa ne (It’s beautiful)
with dawane of the group (5). When a boy asks Doko e ittan da roo (Where did it
go?), a girl asks Doko e ittan deshoo (Where did it go?), contrasting da roo and
deshoo. A girl says Datte watashi me o tojite itan desu mono (I closed my eyes) and
a boy says Boku ni kiiroi ha o aterun da mono (You gave me a yellow leaf), distin-
guishing desu mono of (6) and da mono of (1).
The group (2) in Table 10.4 also shows sentence-final features used only by
boys. Here again, when boys use these features, girls use other features emphasiz-
ing gendered use. For instance, when a girl claims that Taroo eki nante okashii wa
(Taro Station sounds strange) with wa of (9), a boy insists that Okashiku nai sa (It’s
not strange) using sa of (2). A girl says Ureshii wa (I’m happy) and a boy repeats
that Ureshii na (I’m happy) contrasting wa of (9) and na of (2).
The hortative features in (3) are also gender-differentiated in that mashoo and
deshoo forms are used by girls, while ikoo and miyoo forms are used by boys. When
a boy says Jyaa hajime yoo (Let’s begin), a girl responds Ee hajime mashoo (Yes,
let’s begin). The groups from (4) to (9) show features mainly used by girls. Among
them, only four forms are used both by girls and boys, adjective+yo and verb+yo
of (4) and ta no and verb+no of (8). When boys use verb+yo in (4), girls use
verb+wa in (9). A boy says Boku tako ni naru yo (I’ll be a kite) and a girl says
Watashi ume ni naru wa (I’ll be an apricot).
In Taro and Hanako, therefore, first-person pronouns and sentence-final
forms are used differently according to the speaker’s gender. In addition, Taro and
Hanako further emphasizes gender differences by repeatedly showing girls and
boys talking about the same things in different ways throughout the main texts, as
shown at the beginning of this chapter.
This section has demonstrated that the ink-erased school readers used imme-
diately after the end of WWII and Taro and Hanako used from 1951 to 1960 both
continued to teach linguistic gender differences, especially of personal pronouns
and sentence-final forms. The gender-equality reform of the educational system
had no influence on gender differences in national language school readers. School
readers during the Occupation kept reproducing the norm in schools, that women
and men should use language differently or that women and men should be lin-
guistically distinguished. The language school readers continued to support the
ideology of a gendered national language after the war. The Japanese Ministry of
Education under the Occupation, this indicates, had no intention of changing the
distinction between (men’s) national language and women’s language.

www.ebook777.com
222 Gender, language and ideology

Conclusion

This chapter has demonstrated that postwar academic discourse concerning wom-
en’s language was hardly different from the war period, except for the separation of
women’s language from the emperor system. Chapter 9 covered conflict between
two types of discourse on women’s language, the criticizing discourse and the es-
sentialization discourse; the latter type successfully redefined women’s language as
a reflection of femininity. Why were discourses criticizing women’s language as an
obstacle to gender equality not accepted, circulated or prevalent? One reason, this
chapter shows, is that linguists writing grammar books and school readers ignored
the criticism of women’s language and kept reproducing the ideology of the gen-
dered national language. The discourse that they produced was not only assigned
academic privilege, but also grammar books and school readers enjoyed over-
whelmingly lucrative circulation channels by being printed in massive numbers,
distributed to schools nationwide, and taught as the norm. It was not deemed nec-
essary for such a privileged discourse to take the trouble to refute the criticizing
discourse. By completely ignoring the criticism of women’s language and simply
repeating the time-honored discourse of the war years, linguists could enhance the
redefinition of women’s language as a symbol of femininity.
This chapter’s analysis also has demonstrated that, under the Occupation,
when the question of the emperor became highly sensitive, linguists stopped men-
tioning the emperor in discussing not only Japanese language but also women’s
language. This explains why the contemporary notion of women’s language is un-
related to the emperor system. I pointed out at the end of Chapter 8 that the con-
temporary notion of Japanese women’s language has little connection with the
emperor system but rather is interpreted as a natural reflection of women’s femi-
ninity. As shown in Chapter 9, postwar linguists, while halting references to the
emperor, redefined women’s language as speech based on “innate femininity.” The
essentialization discourse, by separating women’s language from the social in-
equality between women and men, de-politicized women’s language. Although
references to the emperor disappeared, linguists continued to mention the four
characteristics of women’s language and its association with honorific language,
maintaining the recognition that women’s language is a tradition of the Japanese
language. By taking away anti-democratic meaning from women’s language, lin-
guists de-politicized and naturalized it. John Dower (1999) cites a letter Prime
Minister Yoshida Shigeru wrote to his father-in-law Makino Shinken, a former
keeper of the privy seal, acknowledging that he saw a sliver of hope in the emper-
or’s transformation from divine sovereign to politically detached symbol of State.
Yoshida Shigeru writes that the emperor’s “‘position within,’” – by which, Dower
notes, Yoshida is probably referring to the emperor’s spiritual role – “‘will become

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 10.  Symbol of patriarchy 223

that much more enlarged, and his position will increase in importance and
delicacy’” (Dower 1999: 390). Just as the emperor survived defeat by giving
up sovereignty and becoming the symbol of State, women’s language survived rad-
ical postwar social change by abandoning its association with the emperor and
becoming de-politicized and naturalized. Accordingly, detached from politics and
newly associated with feminine nature, the notion of women’s language grew in
importance and delicacy, becoming a tradition of Japanese language and tran-
scending any social and political changes.
Here I will conclude the two chapters in Part 4 and argue that the redefinition
of women’s language as integral to the tradition of Japanese language, based on
women’s “innate femininity” and the maintenance of gendered national language
by academic discourse, came to assign specific symbolic function to the ideology
of women’s language. The symbolic function thus assigned, I maintain, accounts
for why women’s language became such a socially salient category in Japan after
the war.
The defeat in war and the Occupation denied the emperor system, which had
been the center of Japanese tradition, pride and social order during the war years.
So the Japanese government, while reluctantly accepting the U.S. draft of the new
Japanese constitution, which reformulated the emperor as the symbol of the State,
strongly opposed the destruction of the patriarchal family system, which was in-
separably intertwined with the emperor system. Since the end of the nineteenth
century, the ideology of state-as-family, connecting the patriarchal family system
to the emperor system, had been among the most dominant ideologies controlling
the Japanese nation. The strong tie between the patriarchal family system and the
emperor system becomes evident in the controversy in the Japanese government
surrounding the U.S. draft of the new constitution, when the seemingly unrelated
issues of women’s liberation and the emperor system were understood neverthe-
less to be closely linked. Article 24, therefore, guaranteeing the equality of husband
and wife, received the strongest objections. At a plenary session of the House of
Representatives on June 26, 1946, a member of the Diet, Hara Fujiroo states:
(1) It is needless to say that the family system and the emperor system in
Japan are very closely related ancient customs…. The family system can be
referred to as God’s road for our nation, the system we have maintained
since the beginning of the world. We believe that it is our family system
that leads us along the wide road to the foot of the emperor.
 (Shimizu 1962: 501)
For those who believed in the inseparable connection between the two systems, as
Kawashima Takenori (1950: 175) asserts, “even to give the slightest doubt to the
preservation of the patriarchal family system… may be interpreted as blasphemy.”

www.ebook777.com
224 Gender, language and ideology

Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru described the liberation of Japanese women by


GHQ as the destruction of “a good, refined custom peculiar to Japan” (Shimizu
1962: 501).
The patriarchal family system leading to the emperor had two characteristics.
First, women were given no rights concerning property, divorce, or inheritance.
As Susan Pharr observes: “An early Japanese rewrite of Article 24 dropped all of its
concrete guarantees of equality for women in matters of divorce, inheritance, and
so on” (Pharr 1987: 231). Second was the gendered division of labor – women were
expected to stay home as wives and men were expected to work outside. At a com-
mittee session of the House of Representatives on July 5, 1946, Miura Toranosuke
argued that gender equality and the gender-differentiated division of labor did not
contradict each other:
(2) Men and women are equal and they have the same rights. But in a family,
they each have their own duties. Women have the duty of wife at home.
Men have their jobs…. They should keep their own duties and that does
not impede equality between the sexes. (Shimizu 1962: 503)
The belief in gendered citizens was so natural and persistent, these arguments in-
dicate, that some Japanese intellectuals could not even imagine that the notion of
gendered citizens was incompatible with the realization of gender equality. It is not
surprising, therefore, to discover that those intellectuals, even after the new
Japanese constitution abolished the patriarchal family system, made great effort to
keep citizens gendered by preserving other institutions. One of these was the ide-
ology of national language gendered by women’s language.
Being de-politicized by the separation from the imperial tradition and natu-
ralized by the association with “innate femininity,” women’s language became one
of the few ideologies which had used to represent the imperial tradition and pa-
triarchal family system but survived the defeat in the war and the Occupation.
The Japanese government and intellectuals, in seeking to recover and rebuild the
stability of Japanese society and identity after the war, thus translated the histori-
cal trajectory of women’s language into the expectation and anticipation towards
women’s language to represent, symbolize and sustain Japanese tradition, pride
and social order. As pointed out at the end of Chapter 8, a nation facing such
drastic social change often attempts to maintain social order by associating tradi-
tion with femininity. Song Youn ok (2009: 201), in discussing close relationships
between colonialism, sexism, and racism in Korea, comments: “[Sexist] tradition
is often invented, reinterpreted, or reinforced by those males whose pride has
been damaged after the domination by different races.” It was through the his-
torical process in which women’s language survived the total loss of Japanese tra-
dition, pride, and order in the war that Japanese intellectuals found a felt space of

www.ebook777.com
Chapter 10.  Symbol of patriarchy 225

possibility and potentiality to recover Japanese social order and identity at the
intersection of women and language (Nakamura 2014a).5 As Lisa Mitchell (2009:
214) has argued, “emotional attachments to language, far from being naturally
inherent in speakers’ relationships to the words that they use, are historically situ-
ated.” Ultimately, through that very historical process, the Japanese people came
to possess emotional attachment to women’s language and women’s language be-
came a socially salient category in Japan.
The postwar ideology of women’s language was created by the ideological
struggle between the American-led Occupation, democratization, and liberation
of women, on the one hand, and the attempt of the Japanese government to main-
tain control of the nation by the ideology of state-as-family and the effort of
linguists to defend the tradition of the Japanese language, on the other. I should
conclude that the linguists’ attempt to de-politicize and essentialize women’s lan-
guage was successful, because the new definition of women’s language as “a tradi-
tion of the Japanese language that many Japanese women have been speaking
based on their natural femininity” corresponds with the essential-evolutionary
view of women’s language outlined in my Introduction.

5. Some observers have pointed out that, after the war, male scholars of Japanese literature
also associated femininity with tradition. Suzuki Tomi (1999) argues that, during the postwar
period, Japanese male intellectuals invented the genre of diaries written by noble women in the
tenth century as traditional classics of Japanese literature. By defining the literary genre of fe-
male diaries as classic, Suzuki argues, postwar male intellectuals invented a Japanese literary
tradition to psychologically get over the defeat in war. Along with women’s language, this indi-
cates, the genre of women’s diaries was created as a symbolic means to recover Japanese tradi-
tion, pride and social order.

www.ebook777.com
www.ebook777.com
Conclusion
Going beyond the gendered linguistic ideologies

This book has demonstrated that Japanese people have always been criticizing,
praising, referring to, citing, and talking about women’s speech in a long history of
metalinguistic discourse in Japan. The relationship between women and language
has constituted one of the major interests of the Japanese. Women’s language be-
came a socially salient ideology in Japan, exactly because there have always been
political and economic conditions making metalinguistic discourse on women’s
speech possible, acceptable and meaningful. Part 1 showed that, during the pre-
modern period, when the andro-centric lessons of Buddhism and Confucianism
were imported from China, the norms of feminine speech were invented to domi-
nate and censor women’s speech. Part 2 demonstrated that, from the late nine-
teenth to early twentieth centuries, when the Japanese government enforced
gendered nationalization to build a modern nation state, the norms of feminine
speech and the ideology of schoolgirl speech were produced as negative counter-
parts to justify and intensify the legitimacy of a men’s national language. Part 3
showed that, during WWII, women’s language was linked with the imperial tradi-
tion originating with the emperor system to legitimatize the colonization of East
Asia, while simultaneously being incorporated at the margin of the national lan-
guage, gendering Japanese national language. Under the Occupation after the war,
as Part 4 demonstrated, women’s language, being associated with “innate feminin-
ity,” became a symbol of the Japanese tradition and order. Women’s language
should not be thought of as an apolitical tradition of the Japanese language, but an
ideology loaded with political and economic meaning. Women’s language has
been constructed, transformed and effectively utilized to reinforce, and be rein-
forced by, the gendered power relationship in each historical juncture.
Although the present study has analyzed only a portion of the metalinguistic
discourse in each period, it highlights three implications concerning the construc-
tion of linguistic ideologies. First, gender has played a crucial role in structuring
linguistic ideologies in Japan, reinforcing each other with oppositions such as Ja-
pan/West, state-family-nation/individual, modern/tradition, and future/past. In
the modern period, the gendered asymmetry between the marked, exceptional,
marginal woman and the unmarked, standard, central man was mapped onto the

www.ebook777.com
228 Gender, language and ideology

marked, exceptional, marginal ideologies of feminine speech and schoolgirl speech


and the unmarked, standard, central ideology of men’s national language. During
the war, gender was mapped onto the distinction between modern and traditional,
enabling the redefinition of women’s language as the tradition of the imperial state.
Gender is often used to create asymmetrical relationships of different linguistic
categories, because many people do not distinguish the social notion of gender
from the natural notion of sex and consider gender to be a natural power relation-
ship not open to change. Accordingly, by mapping gender onto a linguistic opposi-
tion, it becomes possible to turn the opposition into a natural asymmetry not open
to change. It is crucial, therefore, to refer to gender when studying linguistic ide-
ologies and to refer to linguistic ideologies when studying gender.
Second, the relationships between linguistic ideologies change as politics, eco-
nomics, and society change. At the same time, as those relationships change, par-
ticular stylistic and linguistic features associated with each ideology of linguistic
variety change, as do the political function and cultural value assigned to each of
them. Chapter 8 demonstrated that, during the war, the assimilation policy of
turning people in the East Asian colonies of Japan into Japanese resulted in em-
phasizing linguistic gender differences, defining women’s language as a symbol of
imperial tradition. Chapter 9 revealed that women’s language, located outside the
national language in the prewar period, was included in the national language
during the war, making women’s language representative of female citizens fight-
ing behind the gun. Chapter 10 showed that women’s language was essentialized in
response to the Occupation army’s policy on equality, becoming an apolitical no-
tion based on women’s innate nature.
Third, the features and values assigned to linguistic ideologies can be ambigu-
ous, inconsistent, and contradictory. People do not have the same understanding
concerning what stylistic and linguistic features constitute women’s language or
feminine speech. While the ideology of a national language is associated with mas-
culinity, it is also associated with maternity, as exemplified by the well-known
term, bogo (mother tongue). These ambiguous, inconsistent, and contradictory
constitutions, however, function as the perfect ideology to completely repress
voices of the dominated speakers. To criticize any woman’s speech is acceptable
exactly because the ideology of women’s language embraces two contradictory
ideologies, the norms of feminine speech and the belief that women’s language is
what women speak. The logical contradiction contained within the discourses ef-
fectively and systematically functions to impair the dominated groups.
Considering women’s language as an ideological construct brings new insights
into our understanding of the relationship between language and domination. As
women’s language was equated with women’s linguistic practices, previous studies
have focused on analyzing the speech women use in concrete situations. In

www.ebook777.com
Conclusion 229

discussing the relationship between language and domination, therefore, the gen-
dered power relationship was directly connected to particular usages. In an ex-
treme case, some sociolinguists argued that, as women’s sentence-final forms wa
and yo were less affirmative than men’s forms da and zo, women could not speak
persuasively. Nevertheless, the pragmatic function of a particular linguistic feature
changes, depending on the context in which it is used, and it is completely possible
to persuade others by speaking with wa and yo. The analysis in this book, in con-
trast, presents the possibility of examining the relationship between language and
domination from two different perspectives. One is to analyze how metalinguistic
practice categorizes, assigns value, and locates a particular local linguistic practice.
We have seen that metalinguistic discourse, particularly academic discourse, cre-
ated the ideology of women’s language by defining, adopting, and exploiting wom-
en’s creative speech. Chapter 2 showed that the normative discourse of conduct
books turned the innovative speech of court women in the fourteenth century into
the norms of feminine speech in the premodern period. Chapter 5 demonstrated
that the modern writers of novels turned “teyo dawa speech,” created by female
students to express their own identity, into schoolgirl speech, a symbol of sexual-
ity. Metalinguistic practices fueled the ideology of women’s language by trans-
forming women’s creative linguistic practices and incorporating them into
women’s language. This indicates that, in studying the relationship between lan-
guage and domination, it is important to analyze metalinguistic practice as data. It
is necessary to pay more attention to metalinguistic practice in examining how the
speech of young people, non-heterosexuals, non-Japanese, and regional speakers
as well as women, is dominated.
The other perspective is to analyze the ways linguistic ideologies both provide
resources for and restrict linguistic practice. Japanese speakers can use the knowl-
edge of women’s language, stylistic and linguistic features associated with women,
as linguistic resources to express a particular femininity (cf. Introduction, note
20). Linguistic ideologies, however, latently restrict speakers’ choices so that they
are willing to make the restricted choice. Chapter 1 showed that the norms of
feminine speech were later imbued with the notions of elegance, prudence and
discretion, promoting women themselves to follow the norms. We have seen in
Chapter 9 that linguists redefined women’s language as speech based on “innate
femininity.” Since women’s language was imbued with discretion and femininity,
women were not only expected to speak politely if they want to prove their femi-
ninity, but also to be evaluated on their femininity based on their speech. In fact,
in Japan, if a female victim of sexual harassment uses rough language, her lack of
femininity, rather than the act of the assailant, may be considered as the source of
the problem. What dominates women’s linguistic practice here is the connection
between women’s language (linguistic ideology) and femininity (gender ideology).

www.ebook777.com
230 Gender, language and ideology

By looking at women’s language as ideology, it becomes possible to analyze such a


form of ideological dominance.
Finally, I would like to propose a three-part strategy to reform the gendered
linguistic ideologies. The first part would be to emphasize that women’s linguistic
practice is far richer than we believe. Women’s speech has varied and changed in a
variety of ways and will continue to do so. To homogenize the varieties of speech
into a single category of women’s language and to talk about, criticize, and normal-
ize it, as if all women use language in a similar way, therefore, constitutes a very
political act of dominance over women’s linguistic practice. The second part of the
strategy would be for women to produce metalinguistic discourse, as I have begun
to do in this book. It is especially important to talk about the relationship between
language and masculinity; men’s speech, after all, acquired its unmarked, standard,
and central privilege by not being discussed. Chapter 3, by revealing the covert
connection between the national language and masculinity, questions its un-
markedness. The third part would be to watch and supervise the process by which
metalinguistic practice utilizes women’s creative linguistic practice to reinforce he-
gemonic gender ideologies, as shown in the cases of court-women’s speech and
schoolgirl speech.

www.ebook777.com
References

Abe, Hideko. 2010. Queer Japanese: Gender and Sexual Identities through Linguistic Practices.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Aeba, Kooson. 1988[1888–1889]. “Momiji [Maple] 5.” In Shoonenen (fukkoku ban) 1 [Shoo-
nenen (reprint), Vol. 1], ed by Fuji shuppan, 13–14. Tokyo: Fuji shuppan.
Aida, Niroo. 1949. Nihon no komonjo: Joo [Japanese old documents: The first volume]. Tokyo:
Iwanami shoten.
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Na-
tionalism. London and New York: Verso.
Anrakuan, Sakuden. 1964[1628]. Trans. Toozoo Suzuki. Seisuishoo [Sobriety, drunkenness,
laughter]. Tokyo: Heibonsha.
Barrett, Rusty. 1999. “Indexing Polyphonous Identity in the Speech of African American Drag
Queens.” In Reinventing Identities: The Gendered Self in Discourse, ed. by Mary Bucholtz,
A.C. Liang and Laurel A. Sutton, 313–331. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bauman, Richard, and Charles L. Briggs. 2000. “Language Philosophy as Language Ideology:
John Locke and Johann Gottfried Herder.” In Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities and
Identities, ed. by Paul V. Kroskrity, 139–204. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American
Research Press.
Benor, Sarah, Mary Rose, Devyani Sharma, Julie Sweetland, and Qing Zhang (eds). 2002. Gen-
dered Practices in Language. Leland Stanford Junior University: CSLI Publications.
Berman, Antoine. 2004[1985]. “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign.” In The Translation Stud-
ies Reader, 2nd ed., ed. by Lawrence Venuti, 276–289. New York and London: Routledge.
Bix, Herbert P. 2000. Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. New York: Harper Collins Pub-
lishers.
Blommaert, Jan (ed.). 1999. Language Ideological Debates. Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Bucholtz, Mary. 1999. “Bad Examples: Transgression and Progress in Language and Gender
Studies.” In Reinventing Identities: The Gendered Self in Discourse, ed. by Mary Bucholtz,
A.C. Liang and Laurel A. Sutton, 3–24. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall. 1995. “Introduction: Twenty Years after “Language and Woman’s
Place.” ” In Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self, ed. by Kira Hall
and Mary Bucholtz, 1–22. New York and London: Routledge.
Bucholtz, Mary, A.C. Liang, and Laurel A. Sutton (eds). 1999. Reinventing Identities: The Gen-
dered Self in Discourse. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York and
London: Routledge.
Cameron, Deborah. 1990. “Demythologizing Sociolinguistics: Why Language Does not Reflect
Society.” In Ideologies of Language, ed. by John E. Joseph and Talbot J. Taylor, 79–93. Lon-
don and New York: Routledge.

www.ebook777.com
232 Gender, language and ideology

Cameron, Deborah. 1995. “Rethinking Language and Gender Studies: Some Issues for the
1990s.” In Language and Gender: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Sarah Mills, 31–44.
New York: Longman.
Cameron, Deborah. 1997. “Theoretical Debates in Feminist Linguistics: Questions of Sex and
Gender.” In Gender and Discourse, ed. by Ruth Wodak, 21–36. London: Sage.
Cameron, Deborah, and Don Kulick. 2003. Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chamberlain, Basil H. 1999[1888]. Trans. Kazuo Maruyama and Setsuko Iwasaki. A Handbook
of Colloquial Japanese, 3rd ed. Tokyo: Oofuu.
Chinami, Kyoko. 2010. “Manga: Jendaa hyoogen no tayoo na imi [Manga: Multiple meanings of
gender representations].” In Jendaa de manabu gengogaku [Learning linguistics from gen-
der], ed. by Momoko Nakamura, 73–87. Kyoto: Sekai shisoosha.
Coulmas, Florian. 1988. “What is a National Language Good for?” In With Forked Tongues: What
are National Languages Good for?, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 1–24. Singapore: Karoma.
Dan, Michiko. 1943. Josei to kotoba [Women and language]. Tokyo: Sakuragi shobo.
Dower, John W. 1999. Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company.
Doi, Takako, and Beate Sirota Gordon. 1996. Kempoo ni danjo byoodoo kisoo hiwa [The secret
story of including equality of the sexes in the constitution]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Dubois, Betty Lou, and Isabel Crouch. 1975. “The Question of Tag-questions in Women’s Speech:
They Don’t Really Use More of Then, Do They?” Language in Society 4: 289–294.
Echeverria, Begoña. 2003. “Language Ideologies and Practices in (En)gendering the Basque Na-
tion.” Language in Society 32: 383–413.
Eckert, Penelope. 1989. “The Whole Women: Sex and Gender Differences in Variation.” Lan-
guage Variation and Change 1: 245–268.
Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1992. “Think Practically and Look Locally: Lan-
guage and Gender as Community-based Practice.” Annual Review of Anthropology 21:
461–490.
Ejima, Kiseki. 1990[1716]. Edo no fuuzoku shoosetsu: Seken musuko katagi, seken musume kata-
gi [Light novels in the Edo period: The nature of common young men, the nature of com-
mon young women]. Tokyo: Shakai shisoosha.
Endo, Orie. 1997. Onna no kotoba no bunka shi [The cultural history of women’s language].
Tokyo: Gakuyoo shobo.
Enloe, Cynthia. 1990. Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Poli-
tics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London and New York: Longman.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1992. Myth of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men, revised
ed. New York: Basic Books.
Fishman, Pamela. 1983. “Interaction: The Work Women Do.” In Language, Gender and Society,
ed. by Barrie Thorn, Cheris Kramarae and Nancy Henley, 89–101. Massachusetts: Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
Foucault, Michel. 1981[1972]. Trans. A.M. Sheridan Smith. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New
York: Pantheon Books.
Fukuzawa, Yukichi. 1977[1899]. “Onna daigaku hyooron/Shin onna daigaku [Comments on
women’s learning/New women’s learning].” In Onna daigaku shuu [A collection of women’s
learning], ed. by Matsutaroo Ishikawa, 201–273. Tokyo: Heibonsha.

www.ebook777.com
References 233

Fujiwara, Yoichi. 1944. Nihongo: Kyooeiken hyoojun koogohoo [Japanese: Standard spoken gram-
mar of the greater co-prosperity sphere]. Tokyo: Meguro shoten.
Fujiwara, Yoichi. 1962. Watashi tachi no kokugo [Our national language]. Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Fukaya, Masashi. 1998[1981]. Ryoosai kenbo shugi no kyooiku [Education of the doctrine of
good-wife-wise-motherism]. Tokyo: Reimei shobo.
Furuta, Toosaku. 1965. “Koogo bumpoo no seiritu [Formation of spoken grammar].” In Koogo
bumpoo kooza 1: Koogo bumpoo no temboo [Lectures on spoken grammar 1: Survey of spo-
ken grammar], ed. by Motoki Tokieda and Yoshimoto Endoo, 40–62. Tokyo: Meiji shoin.
Furuya, Tsunatake. 1953. “Onna kotoba [Women’s language].” Mainichi shimbun, March 4.
Futabatei, Shimei. 1962[1888]. “Aibiki [Secret meeting].” In Nihon gendai bungaku zenshuu 4:
Tsubouchi Shooyoo, Futabatei Shimei [A complete collection of Japanese modern litera-
ture 4: Shooyoo Tsubouchi and Shimei Futabatei], ed. by Sei Ito, et al., 380–385. Tokyo:
Koodansha.
Futabatei, Shimei. 1962[1906]. “Sono omokage [The silhouette].” In Nihon gendai bungaku zen-
shuu 4: Tsubouchi Shooyoo, Futabatei Shimei [A complete collection of Japanese modern
literature 4: Shooyoo Tsubouchi and Shimei Futabatei], ed. by Sei Ito, et al., 298–379. To-
kyo: Koodansha.
Gakkai Shishinsha. 1964b[1892, 1893]. “Teikoku tokuhon [Imperial reader] and Kootooka yoo
teikoku tokuhon [Imperial reader for higher elementary school].” In Nihon kyookasho tai-
kei kindai hen 5: Kokugo 2 [A great collection of school textbooks in Japan 5: National lan-
guage 2], ed. by Tokiomi Kaigo, 433–673. Tokyo: Koodansha.
Gal, Susan. 1978. “Peasant Men Can’t Get Wives: Language Change and Sex Roles in a Bilingual
Community.” Language in Society 7: 1–17.
Gal, Susan. 1995. “Language, Gender, and Power: An Anthropological Review.” In Gender Ar-
ticulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self, ed. by Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz,
169–182. New York and London: Routledge.
Gal, Susan, and Judith T. Irvine. 1995. “The Boundaries of Language and Disciplines: How Ide-
ologies Construct Difference.” Social Research 62 (4): 967–1001.
“Hagaki shuu [Collection of postcards].” 1902. Yomiuri shimbun, December 26.
Hall, Kira. 1995. “Lip Service on the Fantasy Lines.” In Gender Articulated: Language and the
Socially Constructed Self, ed. by Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz, 183–216. New York and Lon-
don: Routledge.
Hall, Kira. 2003. “Exceptional Speakers: Contested and Problematized Gender Identities.” In The
Handbook of Language and Gender, ed. by Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 353–380.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Hall, Kira, and Mary Bucholtz (eds). 1995. Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Con-
structed Self. New York and London: Routledge.
Halperin, David M. 1995. Saint=Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Hanawa, Hokiichi (ed.). 1925a. Zoku gunsho ruijuu 32 ge: Zatsu bu [A sequel of various books
on similar topics 32 the last volume: Others]. Tokyo: Zoku gunsho ruijyuu kanseikai.
Hanawa, Hokiichi (ed.). 1925b. Zoku gunsho ruijuu 24 ge: Buke bu [A sequel of various books on
similar topics 24 the last volume: Warrior families]. Tokyo: Zoku gunsho ruijyuu kanseikai.
Hanawa, Hokiichi (ed.). 1932a. Gunsho ruijuu 23: Buke bu [A sequel of various books on similar
topics 23: Warrior families]. Tokyo: Zoku gunsho ruijyuu kanseikai.
Hanawa, Hokiichi (ed.). 1932b. Gunsho ruijuu 27: Zatsu bu [A sequel of various books on simi-
lar topics 27: Others]. Tokyo: Zoku gunsho ruijyuu kanseikai.

www.ebook777.com
234 Gender, language and ideology

Hanawa, Hokiichi (ed.). 1932c. Gunsho ruijuu 28: Zatsu bu [A sequel of various books on similar
topics 28: Others]. Tokyo: Zoku gunsho ruijyuu kanseikai.
Hashimoto, Shinkichi. 1938. Kaisei shin bunten bekki: Koogo hen [Revised new grammar sepa-
rate edition: Spoken language]. Tokyo: Fuzanboo.
Hida, Yoshifumi. 1992. Tokyo-go seiritsushi no kenkyuu [A study on the history of the formation
of Tokyo language]. Tokyo: Tokyodoo shuppan.
Hiraishi, Noriko. 2012. Hanmon seinen to jogakusei no bungakushi: Seiyoo o yomikaete [A report
on literature of anguished young men and schoolgirls: Reinterpreting “West”]. Tokyo:
Shinyoosha.
Hiramoto, Mie. 2009. “Slaves Speak Pseudo-Toohoku-ben: The Representation of Minorities in
the Japanese Translation of Gone with the Wind.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (2): 249–263.
Hirokoo, Ryoozoo. 1941. Hyoojun koogohoo kaisetsu [Standard spoken language commentary].
Osaka: Kyoogoku shoten.
Hobsbaum, Eric. 1983. “Introduction: Inventing Traditions.” In The Invention of Tradition, ed. by
Eric Hobsbaum and Terence Ranger, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hokama, Shuzen. 1981. Nihongo no sekai 9: Okinawa no kotoba [The world of Japanese 9: Lan-
guage of Okinawa]. Tokyo: Chuuoo kooronsha.
Holmquist, Jonathan. 1985. “Social Correlates of a Linguistic Variable: A Study in a Spanish Vil-
lage.” Language in Society 14: 191–203.
Honda, Masuko. 1990. Jogakusei no keifu: Saishiki sareru Meiji [The genealogy of schoolgirl:
Painted Meiji]. Tokyo: Seidosha.
Horii, Reichi. 1993. “Joseigo no seiritsu [The formation of women’s language].” Nihongogaku 12:
100–108.
Hoshina, Kooichi. 1910. Kokugogaku seigi [Lecture on national language studies]. Tokyo:
Doobunkan.
Hoshina, Kooichi. 2001[1911]. Nihon koogo hoo [Japan spoken language grammar]. Tokyo:
Bensei shuppan.
Hoshina, Kooichi. 1936. Kokugo to Nihon seishin [National language and Japanese spirit]. Tokyo:
Jitsugyoo no nihonsha.
Hoshina, Kooichi. 1942. Daitooa kyooeiken to kokugo seisaku [The greater East Asia co-prosper-
ity sphere and national language policy]. Tokyo: Tooseisha.
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse. London and New York: Continuum.
Ide, Risako, and Tomomi Terada. 1998. “The Historical Origins of Japanese Women’s Speech:
From the Secluded Worlds of ‘Court Ladies’ and ‘Play Ladies.’” International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 129: 139–156.
Ide, Sachiko. 2003. “Women’s Language as a Group Identity Marker in Japanese.” In Gender
across Languages, ed. by Marlis Hellinger and Hadumod Bubmann, 227–238. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Imada, Erika. 2002. “Shoojo zasshi ni okeru “shoojo netto waaku” no seiritsu to kaitai: 1931–
1945 nen no shoojo zasshi tookoo bunseki o chuushin ni [The formation and destruction
of “girls’ networks” in girls’ magazines: Centering on the analysis of reader’s letters to girl’s
magazines from 1931 to 1945].” Kyooiku shakaigaku kenkyuu 70: 185–201.
Imaizumi, Sadasuke, and Wasaburoo Sunaga. 1964b[1894]. “Jinjoo shoogaku dokusho kyoohon
[Elementary school reading textbook].” In Nihon kyookasho taikei kindai hen 5: Kokugo 2
[A great collection of school textbooks in Japan 5: National language 2], ed. by Tokiomi
Kaigo, 675–785. Tokyo: Koodansha.

www.ebook777.com
References 235

Imaizumi, Tadayoshi. 1950. Kokugo gaku gairon [An introduction to national language study].
Tokyo: Yuuseido.
Imaizumi, Tadayoshi. 1954. Kokubumpoo no kenkyuu [A study on national language grammar].
Tokyo: Oobunsha.
Inoue, Miyako. 2003. “Speech without a Speaking Body: ‘Japanese Women’s Language’ in Trans-
lation.” Language & Communication 23: 315–330.
Inoue, Miyako. 2006. Vicarious Language: Gender and Linguistic Modernity in Japan. Berkeley,
Los Angeles andLondon: University of California Press.
Irvine, Judith T. 1989. “When Talk isn’t Cheap: Language and Political Economy.” American
Ethnologist 16 (2): 248–267.
Ishida, Takeshi. 1992[1954]. Meiji seiji shisoo shi kenkyuu [Studies in the history of political
thinking in the Meiji period]. Tokyo: Miraisha.
Ishiguro, Yoshimi. 1943. Utsukushii Nihongo: Josei shinsho [The beautiful Japanese language:
Women’s book]. Tokyo: Koofuukan.
Ishiguro, Yoshimi. 1951. Nihonjin no kokugo seikatsu [National language life of the Japanese].
Tokyo: Tokyo daigaku shuppanbu.
Ishii, Kendoo. 1944. Zooho kaitei Meiji jibutsu kigen jookan [A revised and enlarged origin of
things in Meiji, Vol. 1]. Tokyo: Shunyoodoo.
Ishii, Shooji. 1941. “Chuutoogakkoo no kokugo kyooiku [Language education in secondary
school].” In Kokugo bunka kooza 3: Kokugo kyooiku hen [Lectures on language and culture 3:
National language education], ed. by Asahi shimbun, 222–235. Tokyo: Asahi shimbunsha.
Ishikawa, Matsutaroo (ed.). 1973. Nihon kyookasho taikei oorai hen 15: Joshi yoo [A great collec-
tion of school textbooks in Japan, Letters 15: For women]. Tokyo: Koodansha.
Ishikawa, Matsutaroo (ed.). 1977. Onna daigaku shuu [A collection of women’s learning]. Tokyo:
Heibonsha.
Ishikawa, Tadanori. 1972. “Kindai joseigo no gobi: Teyo, dawa, noyo [Word endings of modern
woman’s language: Teyo, dawa, noyo].” Kaishaku September: 22–27.
Ishimori, Nobuo. 1941. “Kokumin gakkoo no hanashikata [Language usage in national schools].”
In Kokugo bunka kooza 3: Kokugo kyooiku hen [Lectures on language and culture 3: Na-
tional language education], ed. by Asahi shimbun, 80–103. Tokyo: Asahi shimbunsha.
Iwabuchi, Etsutaroo. 1948. Kokugo gaisetsu [Introdution of national language]. Tokyo: Shihan
gakkoo kyookasho kabushiki-gaisha.
Iwai, Yoshio. 1944. Hyoojungo no gohoo [Grammar of standard language]. Tokyo: Sankaido.
Iwamoto, Yoshiharu (Tsuki no sha, Shujin). 1885. “Baika joshi no den 3 [The story of Miss Apri-
cot Scent 3].” Jogaku zasshi 4: 68–71.
Iwamoto, Yoshiharu (Tsuki no sha, Shinobu). 1887. “Shoobi no kaori 8 [The scent of a rose 8].”
Jogaku zasshi 74: 78–82.
Iwamoto, Yoshiharu (Hagetsushi). 1890. “Josei no kotobatsuki [Women’s speech].” Jogaku zasshi
221: 594.
Iwaya, Sazanami. 1968[1888]. “Satsuki goi [May carp].” In Meiji bungaku zenshuu 20: Kawakami
Bizan, Iwaya Sazanami [A complete collection of Meiji literature 20: Bizan Kawakami and
Sazanami Iwaya], ed. by Shigeki Senuma, 193–213. Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Iwaya, Sazanami. 1985[1889]. “Jibore musume sakka [Conceited woman writers].” In Genyuushakei
zasshi shuusei: Garakuta bunko, 1 and 2 [Collection of magazines of Genyuusha group: Gara-
kuta bunko, Vols. 1 and 2], ed. by Mitsuko Iwata, 398–405, 441–446. Tokyo: Yumani shobo.
Jaworski, Adam, Nikolas Coupland, and Dariusz Galasinski. 2004. Metalanguage: Social and
Ideological Perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

www.ebook777.com
236 Gender, language and ideology

Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origin. London: George Allen &
Unwin Ltd.
“Jogakusei no heifuu 3 [Bad custom of schoolgirls 3].” 1891. Yomiuri shimbun, Sep 8.
“Jogakusei to gengo [Schoolgirl and language].” 1905. Yomiuri shimbun, March 16.
“Josei wa utsukushiku [Women should be beautiful].” 1951. Fujin kooron March :144–155.
Jugaku, Akiko. 1982. “Joseigo no seikaku to sono koozoo [The characteristics and structures of
women’s language].” In Nihon joseishi 2: Chuusei [The history of Japanese women 2: The
middle ages], ed. by Joseishi soogoo kenkyuukai, 173–208. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
Kabashima, Tadao, et al. 2007. Kokugo 1 (joo): Kazaguruma [National language 1st grade, first
volume: Pinwheel]. Tokyo: Mitsumura tosho.
Kaburagi, Kiyokata. 1989. Meiji no Tokyo [Tokyo in the Meiji]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Kaibara, Ekiken. 1977[1710]. “Joshi o oshiyuru hoo [How to educate women].” In Onna daigaku
shuu [A collection of women’s learning], ed. by Matsutaroo Ishikawa, 1–26. Tokyo: Heibonsha.
Kaigo, Tokiomi (ed.). 1964a. Nihon kyookasho taikei kindai hen 2: Shuushin 2 [A great collection
of school textbooks in Japan, The modern period 2: Moral 2]. Tokyo: Koodansha.
Kaigo, Tokiomi (ed.). 1964b. Nihon kyookasho taikei kindai hen 5: Kokugo 2 [A great collection of
school textbooks in Japan, The modern period 5: National language 2]. Tokyo: Koodansha.
Kan, Satoko. 2001. Media no jidai: Meiji bungaku o meguru jookyoo [The time of media: Circum-
stance around Meiji literature]. Tokyo: Soobunsha shuppan.
Kanai, Keiko. 1997. “Jigazoo no ressun: Jogaku sekai no tookookiji o chuushin ni [The lesson of
self-portrait: Centering on the reader’s columns in Jogaku sekai].” In Media, hyooshoo, ideo-
rogii: Meiji 30 nendai no bunka kenkyuu [Media, representation and ideology: Cultural
studies of Meiji 30’s], ed. by Yooichi Komori, Kensuke Koono and Osamu Takahashi, 288–
318. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Kanai, Yasuzoo. 1901. Nihon zokugo bunten [Japan colloquial grammar]. Tokyo: Hooeikan.
Kanoo, Mikiyo. 1995. Onna tachi no “juugo”: Zooho shinpan [“Behind the guns” of women: A
revised and enlarged new edition]. Tokyo: Inpakuto shuppan.
Karasawa, Tomitaroo. 1958. Nihon no joshi gakusei: Sandai joshi gakusei no seishunfu [Japanese
female students: A record of youthful days in three generations of female students]. Tokyo:
Dainihon yuubenkai koodansha.
Kasuga, Kazuo. 1965. “Koogo bumpoo no ayumi [Development of spoken grammar].” In Koogo
bumpoo kooza 1: Koogo bumpoo no temboo [Lectures on spoken grammar 1: Survey of spo-
ken grammar], ed. by Motoki Tokieda and Yoshimoto Endoo, 63–88. Tokyo: Meiji shoin.
Kasuga, Masaharu. 1985[1918]. “Kokubumpoo kyooiku [Education in national language gram-
mar].” In Kasuga Masaharu chosaku shuu 7 [Collected works of Masaharu Kasuga 7], ed. by
Haruo Kasuga, 1–298. Tokyo: Benseisha.
Katz, Jonathan Ned. 1995. The Invention of Heterosexuality. New York: Dutton, Penguin.
Kawamura, Kunimitsu. 1993. Otome no inori: Kindai josei imeeji no tanjoo [The maiden’s prayer:
The birth of the image of modern women]. Tokyo: Kinokuniya shoten.
Kawashima, Takenori. 1950. Nihon shakai no kazoku koosei [Family structure of the Japanese
society]. Tokyo: Nihon hyooronsha.
Kieda, Masuichi. 1931. Kootoo koogohoo koogi [Secondary spoken language grammar course].
Tokyo: Meguro shoten.
Kieda, Masuichi. 1937. Kootoo kokubumpoo shinkoo: Hinshi hen [New lectures on high school
national grammar: Parts of speech]. Tokyo: Tooyoo tosho.
Kieda, Masuichi. 1943. Kotoba zukai no sahoo [The manner of language use]. Osaka: Osakadoo
shoten.

www.ebook777.com
References 237

Kikuchi, Yuuhoo. 1969[1903]. “Chi kyoodai [Bosom sisters].” In Meiji bungaku zenshuu 93:
Meiji katei shoosetsu shuu [A complete collection of Meiji literature 93: Meiji family novels],
ed. by Shigeki Senuma, 89–240. Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Kikuzawa, Sueo. 1929. “Fujin no kotoba no tokuchoo ni tsuite [On characteristics of ladies’
language].” Kokugo kyooiku 14 (3): 66–75.
Kikuzawa, Sueo. 1933. “Kokugo isooron [Variations of national language].” In Kokugo kagaku
kooza 3: Kokugo gaku, ippan to tokushu [Lectures on national-language science 3: National
language study, general usage and special usage], ed. by Sueo Kikuzawa, 3–67. Tokyo: Mei-
ji shoin.
Kikuzawa, Sueo. 1940. Kokugo to kokuminsei: Nihon seishin no senmei [National language and
nationality: The clarification of Japanese spirit]. Tokyo: Shuubunkan.
Kindaichi, Kyoosuke. 1942. Kokugo kenkyuu [A study of the national language]. Tokyo: Yagumo
shorin.
Kindaichi, Kyoosuke. 1948. Nihongo no shinro [The course of the Japanese language]. Kyoto:
Kyoto inshokan.
Kindaichi, Kyoosuke. 1949. Kokugo gaku nyuumon [An introduction to national language stud-
ies]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa koobunkan.
Kinkoo Doo. 1964[1900]. “Jinjoo kokugo tokuhon [Elementary school national language read-
er] and Kootoo kokugo tokuhon [Higher elementary school national language reader].” In
Nihon kyookasho taikei kindai hen 6: Kokugo 3 [A great collection of school textbooks in
Japan, The modern period 6: National language 3], ed. by Tokiomi Kaigo, 5–193. Tokyo:
Koodansha.
Kinsei bungaku shoshi kenkyuukai (ed.). 1973. Kinsei bungaku shiryoo ruijuu kanazooshi hen
13: Usuyuki monogatari, Ominaeshi monogatari [A collection of modern literary docu-
ments, Story books in kana 13: Usuyuki monogatari and Ominaeshi monogatari]. Tokyo:
Benseisha.
Kinsui, Satoshi. 2003. Baacharu Nihongo: Yakuwarigo no nazo [Virtual Japanese: The mystery of
social role word]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Kitamura, Nobuyo. 1970[1830]. Kiyuu shooran 9 (2): Gengo [Glimpses of Edo ludic life 9 (2):
Language], ed. by Keizoo Kondoo. Tokyo: Meicho kankookai.
Kobayashi, Chigusa. 1996. “Josei no ishiki to joseigo no keisei: Nyooboo kotoba o chuushin ni
[Women’s consciousness and the construction of women’s language: Centering on court-
women’s speech].” In Onna to otoko no jikuu: Nihon joseishi saikoo 3 [The space-time of
women and men: The reconsideration of Japanese women’s history 3], ed. by Haruko Oka-
no, 293–336. Tokyo: Fujiwara shoten.
Kobayashi, Mieko. 1993. “Sedai to joseigo: Wakai sedai no kotoba no ‘chuuseika’ ni tsuite [Gen-
erations and women’s language: On ‘gender neutralization’ of young generations].” Nihon-
gogaku 12 (6): 181–192.
Kokugo choosa iinkai. 1980[1916, 1917]. Koogohoo, Doo bekki [Spoken language grammar, Spo-
ken language grammar separate edition]. Tokyo: Benseisha.
Komatsu, Sumio. 1974. “Toosei shosei katagi no edogo teki tokushoku [The Edo language char-
acteristics in Toosei shosei katagi].” Saitama daigaku kiyoo 9: 17–28.
Komatsu, Sumio. 1988. “Tokyo-go ni okeru danjo sa no keisei: Shuujoshi o chuushin toshite
[The formation of sex differences in Tokyo speech: Centering on the sentence-final parti-
cles].” Kokugo to kokubungaku 65: 94–106.

www.ebook777.com
238 Gender, language and ideology

Komatsu, Sumio. 1998. “Kimi to boku: Edo Tokyo-go ni okeru tsui shiyoo o chuushin ni [Kimi
and boku: Centering on the paired-use in Edo and Tokyo speech].” In Tokyo daigaku koku-
go kenkyuushitsu soosetsu hyakushuunen kinen kokugo kenkyuu ronshuu [Collections of
treatises on national language for the hundred year anniversary of national language stud-
ies at Tokyo University], ed. by Tokyo daigaku kokugo kenkyuushitsu soosetsu hyakushu-
unen kinen kokugo kenkyuu ronshuu henshuu iinkai, 667–685. Tokyo: Kyuuko shoin.
Komori, Yooichi. 2000. Nihongo no kindai [The modern age of the Japanese language]. Tokyo:
Iwanami shoten.
Kondoo, Kazuko. 1995. “Onna to sensoo: Bosei, kazoku, kokka [Woman and war: Motherhood,
family, and state].” In Onna to otoko no jikuu: Nihon joseishi saikoo 5 [Female and male
space: Reconsideration of Japanese women’s history 5], ed. by Akiko Okuda, 481–515. To-
kyo: Fujiwara shoten.
Kosugi, Tengai. 1951[1903]. Makaze koikaze [Magic wind, love wind]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Kootoo jogakkoo kenkyuukai (ed.). 1989a. Kootoo jogakkoo shiryo shuusei 10: Shuushin
kyookasho hen [A collection of documents in higher women’s school 10: Moral textbook].
Tokyo: Oozorasha.
Kootoo jogakkoo kenkyuukai (ed.). 1989b. Kootoo jogakkoo shiryo shuusei 11: Shuushin
kyookasho hen [A collection of documents in higher women’s school 11: Moral textbook].
Tokyo: Oozorasha.
Kotthoff, Helga, and Ruth Wodak. 1997. “Preface.” In Communicating Gender in Context, ed. by
Helga Kotthoff and Ruth Wodak, vi–xxv. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Koyama, Shizuko. 1991. Ryoosai kenbo toiu kihan [The norms of good-wife-wise-mother]. To-
kyo: Keiso shobo.
Kroskrity, Paul V. 1998. “Arizona Tewa Kiva Speech as a Manifestation of a Dominant Language
Ideology.” In Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, ed. by Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn
A. Woolard and Paul V. Kroskrity, 103–122. New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kroskrity, Paul V. 2000. “Regimenting Language: Language Ideological Perspectives.” In Regimes
of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, ed. by Paul V. Kroskrity, 1–34. Santa Fe, New
Mexico: School of American Research Press.
Kroskrity, Paul V. (ed.). 2000. Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe,
New Mexico: School of American Research Press.
Kubota, Yuko. 2005. Shokuminchi Choosen no Nihongo kyooiku: Nihongo niyoru “dooka” kyooiku
no seiritsu katei [Japanese language education in Korean colonies: The formation process of
“assimilation” education by Japanese language]. Fukuoka: Kyuushuu daigaku shuppankai.
Kugimoto, Hisaharu. 1952. Gendai no Nihongo: Sono jootai to mondai [Modern Japanese: The
present state and problems]. Tokyo: Kokin shoin.
Kulick, Don. 2003. “No.” In Language and Sexuality Reader, ed. by Deborah Cameron and Don
Kulick, 285–293. London and New York: Routledge.
Kume, Yoriko. 1997. “Shoojo shoosetsu: Sai to kihan to gensetsu soochi [Girl’s novels: The dis-
cursive apparatuses of differences and norms].” In Media, hyooshoo, ideorogii: Meiji 30 nen-
dai no bunka kenkyuu [Media, representation and ideology: Cultural studies of Meiji 30’s],
ed. by Yooichi Komori, Kensuke Koono and Osamu Takahashi, 195–222. Tokyo: Iwanami
shoten.
Kunita, Yuriko. 1964. Nyooboo kotoba no kenkyuu [A study on court-women’s speech]. Tokyo:
Kazama shobo.

www.ebook777.com
References 239

Kunita, Yuriko. 1977. Nyooboo kotooba no kenkyuu: Zoku hen [The study on court-women’s
speech: The sequel volume]. Tokyo: Kazama shobo.
Kurashima, Nagamasa. 2002. Kokugo hyakunen: Nijusseiki Nihongo wa donoyoona michi o
ayunde kitaka [100 years of national language: The path of the Japanese language in the
20th century]. Tokyo: Shoogakukan.
Kusamura, Hokusei. 1969[1902]. “Hamako [Hamako].” In Meiji bungaku zenshuu 93: Meiji katei
shoosetsu shuu [A complete collection of Meiji literature 93: Meiji family novels], ed. by
Shigeki Senuma, 3–88. Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York, Evaston, San Francisco, and Lon-
don: Harper & Row Publishers.
Lee, Yeounsuk. 1996. Kokugo toiu shisoo [The ideology of national language]. Tokyo: Iwanami
shoten.
Levy, Indra A. 2006. Sirens of the Western Shore: The Westernesque Femme Fatale, Translation,
and Vernacular Style in Modern Japanese Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Maeda, Ai. 2001[1973]. Kindai dokusha no seiritsu [The formation of modern reader]. Tokyo:
Iwanami shoten.
Maeha, Nakao. 2001[1901]. Nihon goten [Japan word grammar]. Tokyo: Bensei shuppan.
Maltz, Daniel D., and Ruth A. Borker. 1982. “A Cultural Approach to Male-female Miscommu-
nication.” In Language and Social Identity, ed. by John Gumperz, 195–216. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Maree, Claire. 2007. Hatsuwasha no gengo sutoratejii toshiteno negoshieeshon kooi no kenkyu [A
study on negotiation act as a speaker’s linguistic strategy]. Tokyo: Hitsuji shobo.
Maruyama, Rinpei. 1935. Gendai gohoo gairon [Introduction to modern word usage]. Tokyo:
Diichi shobo.
Mashimo, Saburoo. 1948. Fujingo no kenkyuu [A study of lady’s language]. Tokyo: Tooa shup-
pansha.
Masubuchi, Tsunekichi. 1981. Kokugo kyooikushi shiryo 5: Kyooikukatei shi [Historical docu-
ments of national language education 5: History of educational systems]. Tokyo: Tokyo
hoorei shuppan.
Matsumoto, Shigeo. 1941. “Manshuu no fujingo [Ladies’ language in Manchuria].” Manshuu
kokugo 9: 25–28.
Matsushita, Daizaburoo. 1997[1901]. Nihon zokugo bunten [Japan colloquial grammar]. Tokyo:
Bensei shuppan.
Matsushita, Daizaburoo. 1924. Hyoojun Nihon bumpoo [Standard Japanese grammar]. Tokyo:
Kigensha.
Matsushita, Daizaburoo. 1930a. Hyoojun Nihon koogohoo [Standard Japanese spoken grammar].
Tokyo: Chuubunkan shoten.
Matsushita, Daizaburoo. 1974[1930b]. Kaisen hyoojun Nihon bumpoo [Revised standard Japa-
nese grammar]. Tokyo: Benseisha.
Matsuura, Keizoo. 1936. Bungo koogo taishoo: Gendai Nihongo bumpoo [Modern Japanese gram-
mar: The written and spoken languages contrasted]. Tokyo: Bunkyuudoo.
McClintock, Anne. 1995. Imperial Leather: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest.
New York and London: Routledge.
McElhinny, Bonnie. 2003. “Theorizing Gender in Sociolinguistics and Linguistic Anthropolo-
gy.” In The Handbook of Language and Gender, ed. by Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff,
21–42. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

www.ebook777.com
240 Gender, language and ideology

Mihashi, Osamu. 1999. Meiji no sekusharitii: Sabetsu no shinseishi [Sexuality in the Meiji period:
The psychological history of discrimination]. Tokyo: Nihon editaasukuuru shuppambu.
Miki, Hiroko. 2001. “Senjika no josei zasshi: 1936 kara 1943 no shuppan jookyoo to dantai ki-
kanshi o chuushin ni [Women’s magazines in the war: Focus on the situation of publication
and periodicals of groups from 1936 to 1943].” In Sensoo to josei zasshi: 1931 kara 1945
[War and women’s magazines: From 1931 to 1945], ed. by Kindai josei bunkashi kenkyuu-
kai, 14–43. Tokyo: Domesu shuppan.
Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy. 1985. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescrip-
tion and Standardisation. London and New York: Routledge.
Milroy, Lesley. 1980. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Mio, Isago. 1995[1942]. Hanashi kotoba no bumpoo: Kotoba zukai hen [Grammar of spoken
language: On language usage]. Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan.
Mitchell, Lisa. 2009. Language, Emotion, and Politics in South India: The Making of a Mother
Tongue. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Mitchell, Margaret. 1936. Gone with the Wind. New York: Macmillan.
Mitchell, Margaret. 1957[1936]. Trans. Yasuo Ookubo and Michinosuke Takeuchi. Kaze to to-
moni sarinu [Gone with the wind]. Tokyo: Shinchoosha.
Mitsui, Tametomo (ed.). 1977. Nihon fujin mondai shiryoo shuusei 4: Kyooiku [A collection of
materials on women’s issues in Japan 4: Education]. Tokyo: Domesu shuppan.
Miyake, Kaho. 1972[1888]. “Yabu no uguisu [Bush warbler].” In Gendai Nihon bungaku taikei 5:
Higuchi Ichiyoo, Meiji joryuu bungaku, Izumi Kyooka shuu [The great collection of contem-
porary Japanese literature 5: Ichiyoo Higuchi, Meiji female writers, and Kyooka Izumi], ed.
by Chikuma Shobo, 125–145. Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Miyazaki, Ayumi. 2004. “Japanese Junior High School Girls’ and Boys’ First-person Pronoun
Use and Their Social World.” In Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models
and Real People, ed. by Shigeko Okamoto and Janet S. Shibamoto Smith, 256–274. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mizutani, Osamu, and Nobuko Mizutani. 1977. An Introduction to Modern Japanese. Tokyo:
Japan Times.
Monbukagakushoo. 1962. “Nihon no seichoo to kyooiku [The growth of Japan and education].”
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpad196201/hpad196201_1_001.html
Monbukagakushoo. 1981. “Gakusei hyakunen shi [The one-hundred year history of Japanese
school system].” http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/others/detail/1317552.htm
Monbushoo. 1964[1904]. “Jinjoo shoogaku tokuhon [Elementary school reader], Kootoo
shoogaku tokuhon [Higher elementary school reader] (I e su shi tokuhon).” In Nihon
kyookasho taikei kindai hen 6: Kokugo 3 [A great collection of school textbooks in Japan, The
modern period 6: National language 3], ed. by Tokiomi Kaigo, 378–614. Tokyo: Koodansha.
Monbushoo. 1972[1904]. “Jinjoo shoogaku tokuhon hensan shuisho [Principle of editing ele-
mentary school readers].” In Meiji ikoo kokugo mondai shoan shuusei: Goi, yoogo, jiten,
kokugo mondai to kyooiku hen [Collection of national language policies after the Meiji pe-
riod: Vocabulary, word usage, dictionaries, national-language problems, and education],
ed. by Sumio Yoshida and Yuuichi Inoguchi, 476–491. Tokyo: Kazama shobo.
Monbushoo. 1964[1910]. “Jinjoo shoogaku tokuhon [Elementary school reader] (Hata tako
tokuhon).” In Nihon kyookasho taikei kindai hen 7: Kokugo 4 [A great collection of school
textbooks in Japan, The modern period 7: National language 4], ed. by Tokiomi Kaigo, 7–
259. Tokyo: Koodansha.

www.ebook777.com
References 241

Monbushoo. 1964[1918]. “Jinjoo shoogaku kokugo tokuhon [Elementary school national lan-
guage reader] (Hana hato tokuhon).” In Nihon kyookasho taikei kindai hen 7: Kokugo 4 [A
great collection of school textbooks in Japan, The modern period 7: National language 4],
ed. by Tokiomi Kaigo, 261–555. Tokyo: Koodansha.
Monbushoo. 1964[1933]. “Shoogaku kokugo tokuhon [Elementary school national language
reader] (Sakura tokuhon).” In Nihon kyookasho taikei kindai hen 7: Kokugo 4 [A great col-
lection of school textbooks in Japan, The modern period 7: National language 4], ed. by
Tokiomi Kaigo, 557–715. Tokyo: Koodansha.
Monbushoo. 1964[1941]. “Kotoba no okeiko, Yomikata, Shotooka kokugo [Language lesson,
Readings, Elementary school national language].” In Nihon kyookasho taikei kindai hen 8:
Kokugo 5 [A great collection of school textbooks in Japan, The modern period 8: National
language 5], ed. by Tokiomi Kaigo, 259–709. Tokyo: Koodansha.
Monbushoo. 1985[1941–1942]. Fukkoku suminuri kyookasho [Reprint of ink-erased textbook].
Tokyo: Oozorasha.
Monbushoo kyookashokyoku kokugoka (ed.). 1949. Kokugo choosa enkaku shiryoo [Historical
materials on national language research]. Tokyo: Monbushoo.
Monbushoonai kyooikushi hensankai (ed.). 1938. Meiji ikoo kyooiku seido hattatsushi 1 [The
history of educational institutions after Meiji 1]. Tokyo: Ryuuginsha.
Mori, Senzoo. 1969. Meiji Tokyo itsubun shi 2 [The unknown episodes of Meiji, Tokyo 2]. Tokyo:
Heibonsha.
Morita, Tama. 1943. Fujo tokuhon [A reader for women]. Tokyo: Seikatsusha.
Mosse, George L. 1996. The Image of Man: The Creation of Modern Masculinity. New York: Ox-
ford University Press.
Motschenbacher, Heiko. 2007. “Can the Term ‘Genderlect’ be Saved?: A Postmodernist Re-def-
inition.” Gender and Language 1 (2): 255–278.
Murasaki, Shikibu. 1976[1003–1008]. Trans. Edward G. Seidensticker. The Tale of Genji. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Muta, Kazue. 1996. Senryaku toshite no kazoku: Kindai Nihon no kokumin kokka keisei to josei
[A family as a strategy: The nation-state formation in the modern Japan and woman]. To-
kyo: Shinyoosha.
Mutoo, Tadao, and Masahiko Oka (eds). 1976. Hanashi bon taikei 4 [A great collection of funny
stories 4]. Tokyo: Tokyodoo shuppan.
Nagano, Masaru. 1955. “Danjo dooken de nai Nihongo [The inequality of men and women re-
flected in Japanese].” In Kooza Nihongo 3: Nihongo no shushusoo [Lectures on Japanese 3:
Aspects of Japanese], ed. by Haruhiko Kindaichi, 67–81. Tokyo: Ootsuki shoten.
Nagano, Masaru. 1991. Bumpoo kenkyuushi to bumpoo kyooiku [The history of grammatical
studies and the education of grammar]. Tokyo: Meiji shoin.
Nagao, Masanori. 1943. Josei to kotoba [Women and language]. Tokyo: Tsukuda shobo.
Nagata, Yoshitaroo. 1976[1935]. “Kyuu shiiki no onin gohoo [Phonemic usage in the old quar-
ters of Tokyo].” In Tokyo hoogen shuu [Dialects in Tokyo], ed. by Shuuichi Saito, 19–143.
Tokyo: Kokugo kankookai.
Nagatomo, Chiyoji. 1993. “Kaisetsu [Commentary].” In Onna choohoo ki, nan choohoo ki: Gen-
roku wakamono kokoroe shuu [Women’s encyclopedia, men’s encyclopedia: A collection of
common knowledge for young people in Genroku], ed. by Chiyoji Nagatomo, 382–393.
Tokyo: Shakai shisoosha.
Nagel, Joane. 1998. “Masculinity and Nationalism: Gender and Sexuality in the Making of Na-
tions.” Ethnic & Racial Studies 21 (2): 242–269.

www.ebook777.com
242 Gender, language and ideology

Nakae, Tokusuke (Choomin). 1888. “Fujin kairyoo no issaku [A measure to reform ladies].”
Kokumin no tomo 25: 17–19.
Nakamura, Momoko. 2001. Kotoba to jendaa [Language and gender]. Tokyo: Keiso shobo.
Nakamura, Momoko. 2004. “‘Let’s Dress a Little Girlishly!’ or ‘Conquer Short Pants!’: Construct-
ing Gendered Communities in Fashion Magazines for Young People.” In Japanese Lan-
guage, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People, ed. by Shigeko Okamoto and
Janet S. Shibamoto Smith, 131–147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nakamura, Momoko. 2006. “Creating Indexicality: Schoolgirl Speech in Meiji Japan.” In The
Language and Sexuality Reader, ed. by Deborah Cameron and Don Kulick, 270–284. Lon-
don and New York: Routledge.
Nakamura, Momoko. 2007a. Onna kotoba wa tsukurareru [Constructing women’s language].
Tokyo: Hitsuji shobo.
Nakamura, Momoko. 2007b. Sei to Nihongo: Kotoba ga tsukuru onna to otoko [Sex and Japanese:
Woman and man constructed by language]. Tokyo: Nihon hoosoo shuppan kyookai.
Nakamura, Momoko. 2008. “Masculinity and National Language: The Silent Construction of a
Dominant Language Ideology.” Gender and Language 2 (1): 25–50.
Nakamura, Momoko. 2009. “Metalinguistic Practices vs. Subversive Practices.” Nature-People-
Society 46: 1–20.
Nakamura, Momoko. 2012. Onna kotoba to Nihongo [Women’s language and Japanese]. Tokyo:
Iwanami shoten.
Nakamura, Momoko. 2013. Honyaku ga tsukuru Nihongo: Hiroin wa onna kotoba o hanashi
tsuzukeru [Translation constructing Japanese: Heroines speak women’s language]. Tokyo:
Hakutakusha.
Nakamura, Momoko. 2014a. “Affective Attachments to Japanese Women’s Language: Language,
Gender and Emotion in Colonialism.” In The Political Economy of Affect and Emotion in
East Asia, ed. by Jie Yang, 177–197. London and New York: Routledge.
Nakamura, Momoko. 2014b. “Historical Discourse Approach to Japanese Women’s Language:
Ideology, Indexicality, and Metalanguage.” In The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sex-
uality, 2nd ed, ed. by Susan Ehrlich, Miriam Meyerhoff and Janet Holmes, 378–395. Ox-
ford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Namura, Joohaku. 1993[1692, 1693]. Onna choohoo ki, nan choohoo ki: Genroku wakamono
kokoroe shuu [Women’s encyclopedia, men’s encyclopedia: A collection of common knowl-
edge for young people in Genroku], ed. by Chiyoji Nagatomo. Tokyo: Shakai shisoosha.
Nanba, Tomoko. 2012. Gakkoo seifuku no bunkashi: Nihon kindai ni okeru joshiseito fukusoo no
hensen [The Cultural history of school uniforms: The transition of female students’ attires
in the modern Japan]. Osaka: Soogensha.
Narita, Ryuuichi. 1994. “‘Shoonen sekai’ to dokusho suru shoonen tachi: 1900nen zengo, toshi
kuukan no nakano kyoodoosei to sai [‘Shoonen sekai’ and the reading boys: Before and after
1900, similarities and differences in the space of metropolis].” Shisoo November: 193–221.
Natsume, Sooseki. 1961[1905]. “Wagahai wa neko de aru [I am a cat].” In Nihon gendai bungaku
zenshuu 23: Natsume Sooseki shuu 1 [A complete collection of modern Japanese literature
23: Sooseki Natsume 1], ed. by Sei Ito, et al., 5–201. Tokyo: Koodansha.
Natsume, Sooseki. 1981[1909]. Meicho fukkoku Sooseki bungaku kan: Sorekara [The great works
of Sooseki reprinted in the literature: And then]. Tokyo: Horupu shuppan.
Natsume, Sooseki. 1938[1910]. Mon [The gate]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.

www.ebook777.com
References 243

Nichols, Patricia C. 1983. “Linguistic Options and Choices for Black Women in the Rural South.”
In Language, Gender and Society, ed. by Barrie Thorne, Cheris Kramarae and Nancy Hen-
ley, 54–68. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Nicholson, Linda. 1994. “Interpreting Gender.” Signs 20 (1): 79–105.
Nihon Iezusukai. 1980[1603–1604]. Trans. Tadao Doi, Takeshi Morita and Minoru Choonan.
Nichiho jisho [Japanese-Portuguese dictionary]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Nihon shoseki kokugo henshuu iinkai. 1954[1950]. Taro Hanako kokugo no hon [National lan-
guage reader for Taro and Hanako]. Tokyo: Nihon shoseki.
Nishihara, Keiichi. 1941. Kotoba no shitsuke [Discipline of language]. Tokyo: Kooseikaku.
Nonomura, Kaizoo, and Tsunejiroo Ando. 1974. Kyoogen shuusei [A collection of kyoogen].
Tokyo: Nooraku shorin.
Ochs, Elinor. 1992. “Indexing Gender.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phe-
nomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 335–358. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Oguri, Fuuyoo. 1998[1907–1911]. Sode to sode [Sleeve to sleeve]. Tokyo: Kawade shobo shinsha.
Okada, Yachiyo. 1957. “Konogoro no kotoba [Language use today].” Gengo seikatsu 64: 44–45.
Okamoto, Shigeko. 2004. “Ideology in Linguistic Practice and Analysis: Gender and Politeness
in Japanese Revisited.” In Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and
Real People, ed. by Shigeko Okamoto and Janet S. Shibamoto Smith, 38–56. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Okamoto, Shigeko, and Shie Sato. 1992. “Less Feminine Speech among Young Japanese Females.”
In Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, ed.
by Kira Hall, Mary Bucholts and Birch Moonwomon, 478–488. Berkeley: Berkeley Women
and Language Group.
Okamoto, Shigeko, and Janet S. Shibamoto Smith (eds). 2004. Japanese Language, Gender, and
Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Okamoto, Shigeko, and Janet S. Shibamoto Smith. 2008. “Constructing Linguistic Femininity in
Contemporary Japan: Scholarly and Popular Representations.” Gender and Language 2 (1):
87–112.
Okano, Hisatane. 1964[1902]. “Hyoojungo ni tsuite [On standard language].” In Meiji ikoo koku-
go mondai ronshuu [Collection of papers on national language issues after Meiji], ed. by
Sumio Yoshida and Yuuichi Inoguchi, 509–514. Tokyo: Kazama shobo.
Ooe, Sazanami. 1892. Toosei shoonen katagi [Character of contemporary boys]. Tokyo:
Hakubunkan.
Ooe, Shinobu (ed.). 1988. Juugo nen sensoo gokuhi shiryooshuu 9: Shinajihen Daitooasensoo kan
dooin gaishi [A collection of secret documents in the fifteen years of the war 9: The short
history from the China Incident to the Great East Asia war]. Tokyo: Fuji shuppan.
Ookubo, Tadatoshi. 1956. Machi no gengogaku [Linguistics on the street]. Tokyo: Kawade shobo.
Oono, Wakasa. 1906. “Ara yokutteyo [Ah, I don’t care].” Bungeikai 5 (2): 100–102.
Oozorasha. 1985. Fukkoku suminuri kyookasho kaisetsu [Reprint of the commentary on the ink-
erased textbook]. Tokyo: Oozorasha.
Ooshima, Kaori. 1990. “Onna ga onna o yakusu toki [A woman translating a woman].” Honyaku
no sekai 15 (11): 42–45.
Ootsuki, Fumihiko. 1905. “Nihon hoogen no bumpu kuiki [The distribution of Japanese dia-
lects].” Fuuzokugahoo 318: 12–17.
Ootsuki, Fumihiko. 1909. “Jo [Introduction].” In Nihon koogohoo seigi [Lectures on Japan spo-
ken language], written by Suekichi Usuda. Tokyo: Shooha sanshoodo.

www.ebook777.com
244 Gender, language and ideology

Osa, Shizue. 1998. Kindai Nihon to kokugo nashonarizumu [Modern Japan and the nationalism
of national language]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa koobunkan.
Ozaki, Kooyoo. 1994[1888]. “Hayari kotoba [Trendy words].” In Kooyoo zenshuu 10 [A complete
collection of Kooyoo 10], ed. by Makoto Oooka, 4–5. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Ozaki, Kooyoo. 1965[1897–1902]. “Konjiki yasha [Gilded demoness].” In Meiji bungaku zen-
shuu 18: Ozaki Kooyoo shuu [A complete collection of Meiji literature 18: Kooyoo Ozaki],
ed. by Kiyoto Fukuda, 127–327. Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Ozaki, Yoshimitsu. 1997. “Josei senyoo no bunmatsu keishiki no ima [The present use of female
exclusive sentence-final forms].” In Josei no kotoba: Shokuba hen [Women’s speech: At
workplace], ed. by Gendai nihongo kenkyuukai, 33–58. Tokyo: Hitsuji shobo.
Pharr, Susan J. 1987. “The Politics of Women’s Rights.” In Democratizing Japan: The Allied
Occupation, ed. by Robert E. Ward and Yoshikazu Sakamoto, 221–252. Honolulu: Univer-
sity of Hawaii Press.
Philips, Susan U. 2003. “The Power of Gender Ideologies in Discourse.” In The Handbook of
Language and Gender, ed. by Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 252–276. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Reihoo yookoo kenkyuukai. 1941. Reihoo yookoo kaisetsu [A general commentary on gist of
manners]. Tokyo: Kookoku seinen kyooiku kyookai.
“Reijoo saikun no kotoba [Language of daughters and wives].” 1896. Waseda bungaku February:
148.
Reynolds, Akiba Katsue. 2001. “Direct Quotation in Japanese: A Site for Stereotyping.” In Pro-
ceedings of the Twenty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, ed. by
Charles Chang, Michael J. Houser, Yuni Kim, David Mortensen, Mischa Park-Doob, and
Maziar Toosarvandani, 215–228. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Robertson, Jennifer. 1998. “It Takes a Village: Internationalization and Nostalgia in Postwar Ja-
pan.” In Mirror of Modernity: Invented Traditions of Modern Japan, ed. by Stephen Vlastos,
110–129. Berkeley and London: University of California Press.
Rodriguez, João. 1955[1604–1608]. Trans. Tadao Doi. Nihon daibunten [Great Japanese lan-
guage dictionary]. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Rowling, J.K. 1997. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. London: Bloomsbury.
Rowling, J.K. 1999[1997]. Trans. Yuuko Matsuoka. Harii pottaa to kenja no ishi [Harry Potter
and the sorcerer’s stone]. Tokyo: Seizansha.
Saeki, Junko. 1998. “Iro” to “ai” no hikaku bunka shi [The comparative cultural history of “iro”
and “ai”]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Sakai, Naoki. 1996. Shizansareru Nihongo, Nihonjin [The stillbirth of the Japanese language and
the Japanese]. Tokyo: Shinyoosha.
Sakuma, Kanae. 1983[1940]. Gendai Nihon gohoo no kenkyuu: Kaiteiban [A study of modern
Japanese usage: Revised edition]. Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan.
Sakuma, Kanae. 1942. Nihongo no tameni [For the Japanese language]. Tokyo: Kooseikaku.
Santoo, Isao. 2002. Meiji zenki Nihon bunten no kenkyuu [A study on Japanese grammar books
in the first half of the Meiji period]. Osaka: Izumi shoin.
Satoo, Haruo. 1999[1941]. “Kokugo no junka bika [The refinement and beautification of na-
tional language].” In Teihon Satoo Haruo zenshuu 22 [Authentic Texts: A complete collec-
tion of Haruo Satoo 22], ed. by Shinichiroo Nakamura, et al., 166–177. Kyoto: Rinkawa
shoten.

www.ebook777.com
References 245

Satoo, Sakuma E. 1996. “‘Kiyoki shijoo de gokoosai o’: Meiji makki shoojo zasshi tooshoran ni
miru dokusha kyoodootai no kenkyuu [‘Let’s interact on clean pages’: A study on readers’
communities revealed in the reader’s letters of girl’s magazines in the late Meiji period].”
Joseigaku 4: 114–141.
Satow, Ernest. 1998[1873]. Kaiwa hen: Twenty-five exercises in the Yedo colloquial. Yokohama:
Lane, Crawford & Co. Reprinted in Collected Works of Ernest Mason Satow, Vol. 1. UK:
Ganesha Publishing.
Schieffelin, Bambi B., Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds). 1998. Language Ideolo-
gies: Practice and Theory. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 2004[1813]. “On the Different Methods of Translating.” In The Trans-
lation Studies Reader, 2nd ed., ed. by Lawrence Venuti, 43–63. New York and London:
Routledge.
Senuma, Shigeki (ed.). 1968. Meiji bungaku zenshuu 20: Kawakami Bizan, Iwaya Sazanami [A
complete collection of Meiji literature 20: Bizan Kawakami and Sazanami Iwaya]. Tokyo:
Chikuma shobo.
Shikitei, Samba. 1982[1811]. “Shijuu hachi kuse [Forty eight habits].” In Shinchoo Nihon koten
shuusei 52: Ukiyo doko, Shijuu hachi kuse [Shinchoo collection of Japanese classics 52:
Ukiyo doko and Shijuu hachi kuse], ed. by Yasuo Honda, 189–385. Tokyo: Shinchoosha.
Shikitei, Samba. 1957[1809–1812]. “Ukiyo buro [Baths of the floating world].” In Nihon koten
bungaku taikei 63: Ukiyo buro [A great collection of Japanese literary classics 63: Ukiyo
buro], ed. by Michio Nakamura, 1–310. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Shimizu, Shin. 1962. Chikujoo Nihonkoku kempoo shingiroku 2 [Report on the article-by-article
discussion of the Japanese Constitution 2]. Tokyo: Yuuhikaku.
Shimpoo, Iwaji. 1964[1886]. “Nihon tokuhon [Japan reader].” In Nihon kyookasho taikei kindai
hen 5: Kokugo 2 [A great collection of school textbooks in Japan, The modern period 5:
National language 2], ed. by Tokiomi Kaigo, 311–432. Tokyo: Koodansha.
Shinmura, Izuru. 1938. “Josei no kotoba [Language of women].” Fujin no tomo September: 96–98.
Shinmura, Izuru. 1972[1942]. “Kokugo no kijun [The basis of national language].” In Shinmura
Izuru zenshuu 2 [Complete works of Izuru Shinmura 2], ed. by Chikuma shobo, 301–413.
Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
“Shinshi no kotoba [Gentleman’s words].” 1896. Waseda bungaku February: 148.
Shiraki, Susumu (ed.). 1976. Katakoto [The other language]. Tokyo: Kasama shoin.
Sievers, Sharon L. 1983. Flowers in Salt: The Beginning of Feminist Consciousness in Modern Ja-
pan. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Silverberg, Miriam. 1991. “Constructing a New Cultural History of Prewar Japan.” Boundary 2
18(3): 61–89.
Silverstein, Michael. 1979. “Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology.” In The Elements: A
Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, ed. by Paul R. Clyne, William Hanks and Carol
L. Hofbauer, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Silverstein, Michael. 1985. “Language and the Culture of Gender: At the Intersection of Struc-
ture, Usage, and Ideology.” In Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspec-
tives, ed. by Elizabeth Mertz and Richard J. Parmentier, 219–259. Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
Silverstein, Michael. 1998. “The Uses and Utility of Ideology: A Commentary.” In Language Ide-
ologies: Practice and Theory, ed. by Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard and Paul V.
Kroskrity, 123–145. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

www.ebook777.com
246 Gender, language and ideology

Soga, Tatsuyuki. 1875. “Kaika hyaku baka no yon [A hundred fools of civilization 4].” Yomiuri
shimbun, October 3.
Song, Youn ok. 2009. Datsu teikoku no feminizumu o motomete: Choosen josei to shokuminchi
shugi [Searching for the de-imperialistic feminism: Korean women and colonialism]. To-
kyo: Yuushisha.
Spender, Dale. 1985. Man Made Language, 2nd ed. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
SturtzSreetharan, Cindi L. 2009. “Ore and Omae: Japanese Men’s Uses of First- and Second-
person Pronouns.” Pragmatics 19 (2): 253–278.
Sugimoto, Tsutomu. 1975. Onna no kotobashi [The report on women’s language]. Tokyo: Yuu-
zankaku.
Sugimoto, Tsutomu. 1985. Edo no onna kotoba: Asobase to arinsu to [Women’s language in the
Edo: Asobase and arinsu]. Tokyo: Sootakusha.
Sugimoto, Tsutomu. 1998. Sugimoto Tsutomu chosaku senshuu 2: Kindai Nihongo no seiritsu to
hatten [Selected collections of the works of Tsutomu Sugimoto: The formation and devel-
opment of modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Yasaka shobo.
Sunaoshi, Yukako. 2004. “Farm Women’s Professional Discourse in Ibaraki.” In Japanese Lan-
guage, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People, ed. by Shigeko Okamoto and
Janet S. Shibamoto Smith, 187–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sutton, Laurel A. 1999. “All Media are Created Equal: Do-it-yourself Identity in Alternative Pub-
lishing.” In Reinventing Identities: The Gendered Self in Discourse, ed. by Mary Bucholtz, A.C.
Liang and Laurel A. Sutton, 163–180. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Suzuki, Bunshiroo. 1948. Bunshiroo zuihitsu [Bunshiroo essays]. Tokyo: Chuuoo kooronsha.
Suzuki, Tomi. 1999. “Jyanru, jendaa, bungakushi kijutsu: ‘Joryuu nikki bungaku’ no koochiku o
chuushin ni [Genre, gender and the historical description of literature: Centering on the
construction of women’s diaries].” In Soozoo sareta koten: Kanon keisei, kokumin kokka,
Nihon bungaku [The invented classics: The canon formation, nation state and Japanese lit-
erature], ed. by Haruo Shirane and Tomi Suzuki, 85–127. Tokyo: Shinyoosha.
Suzuki, Yuuko. 1997. Shinpan feminizumu to sensoo: Fujin undooka no sensoo kyooryoku [Femi-
nism and war revised: War cooperation of woman’s liberation activists]. Tokyo: Marujusha.
Taguchi, Kikutei. 1969[1904]. “Meoto nami [Husband and wife wave].” In Meiji bungaku zen-
shuu 93: Meiji katei shoosetsu shuu [A complete collection of Meiji literature 93: Meiji fam-
ily novels], ed. by Shigeki Senuma, 241–364. Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Takahashi, Sumire. 2009. “Akujo no yakuwari: Shoojo manga ‘Raifu’ ni miru shoojo no ‘onna
kotoba’ [The role of bad woman: A girl’s use of ‘woman’s language’ in the girls’ comic ‘Life’].”
Gender and Sexuality 4: 17–38.
Takakura, Teru. 1951. Nippon no onna [Japanese women]. Tokyo: Rironsha.
Takano, Shooji. 2000. “The Myth of a Homogeneous Speech Community: A Sociolinguistic
Study of the Speech of Japanese Women in Diverse Gender Roles.” International Journal of
the Sociology of Language 146: 43–85.
Takasaki, Midori. 1993. “Josei no kotoba to kaisoo [Women’s language and classes].” Nihon-
gogaku 12 (6): 169–180.
Takayanagi, Kenzoo, Ichiroo Ootomo, and Hideo Tanaka (eds). 1972. Nihonkoku kempoo seitei
no katei: Rengookoku sooshireibu gawa no kiroku ni yoru: 1 Genbun to honyaku [The making
of the constitution of Japan: Based on the documents of the Allied Force Headquarters Vol.
1: Documents and translation]. Tokyo: Yuuhikaku.
Takeuchi, Hisaichi. 1907. “Tokyo fujin no tsuuyoogo [Common speech of Tokyo ladies].” Shumi
2 (11): 24–26.

www.ebook777.com
References 247

Tanaka, Akio. 1983. Tokyo go: Sono seiritsu to tenkai [Tokyo language: Its formation and trans-
formation]. Tokyo: Meiji shoin.
Tanaka, Chitako, and Hatsuo Tanaka (eds). 1971. Kasei gaku bunken shuusei zoku hen: Edo ki 4
[A collection of studies on domestic science, a serial, the Edo period 4]. Tokyo: Watanabe
shoten.
Tanizaki, Junichiroo. 1975[1934]. Bunshoo tokuhon [A writing reader]. Tokyo: Chuuoo kooronsha.
Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New
York: William Morrow.
Teikoku kyooikukainai genbun itchikai. 1964[1901]. “Genbun itchi no jikkoo ni tsuite no seigan
[Petition for execution of the unification of spoken and written languages].” In Meiji ikoo
kokugo mondai ronshuu [Collection of papers on national language issues after Meiji], ed.
by Sumio Yoshida and Yuuichi Inoguchi, 288–289. Tokyo: Kazama shobo.
“Teyo dawa monogatari [The story of teyo dawa].” 1906. Tokyo pack January 1st: 13.
Thomas, Beth. 1988. “Differences of Sex and Sects: Linguistic Variation and Social Networks in
a Welsh Mining Village.” In Women in Their Speech Communities, ed. by Jennifer Coates
and Deborah Cameron, 51–60. London and New York: Longman.
Tokieda, Motoki. 1941. Kokugogaku genron [Theory of the national language research]. Tokyo:
Iwanami shoten.
Toogoo, Masatake. 1986[1908]. “Danshi no kogoto [Man’s scolding].” In Fukkoku Nihon no fujin
zasshi 3 [Reprint of Japanese women’s magazines 3], 15–18. Tokyo: Oozarasha.
Tsubouchi, Shooyoo. 1969[1886a]. “Imo to se kagami [Mirrored couples].” In Meiji bungaku
zenshuu 16: Tusbouchi Shooyoo shuu [A complete collection of Meiji literature 16: Shooyoo
Tsubouchi], ed. by Tatsuroo Inagaki, 164–248. Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Tsubouchi, Shooyoo. 1969[1886b]. “Shoosetsu shinzui [The essence of the novel].” In Meiji bun-
gaku zenshuu 16: Tusbouchi Shooyoo shuu [A complete collection of Meiji literature 16:
Shooyoo Tsubouchi], ed. by Tatsuroo Inagaki, 3–58. Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Tsubouchi, Shooyoo. 1977[1933]. “Kaki no heta [The calyx of persimmon].” In Shooyoo senshuu:
Bessatsu 4 [The selected works of Shooyoo: Separate volume 4], ed. by Shooyoo kyookai,
393–670. Tokyo: Daiichi shobo.
Tsubouchi, Shooyoo, and Roan Uchida. 1965[1909]. “Hasegawa kun no seikaku [Personality of
Mr. Hasegawa].” In Futabatei Shimei [Shimei Futabatei], ed. by Shooyoo Tsubouchi and
Roan Uchida, 223–243. Tokyo: Nihon kindai bungakukan.
Tsubouchi, Yuuzoo. 1964[1900]. “Kokugo tokuhon: Jinjoo shoogakkoo yoo [National language
reader: Elementary school], Kokugo tokuhon: Kootoo shoogakkoo yoo [National language
reader: Higher elementary school].” In Nihon kyookasho taikei kindai hen 6: Kokugo 3 [A
great collection of school textbooks in Japan, The modern period 6: National language 3],
ed. by Tokiomi Kaigo, 197–385. Tokyo: Koodansha.
Ubukata, Toshiroo. 1978. Meiji taisho kembun shi [The personal record of Meiji and Taisho].
Tokyo: Chuuoo kooronsha.
Uchida, Roan. 1986[1894]. “Bungakusha to naru hoo [How to become a novel writer].” In Uchi-
da Roan zenshuu 2 [The complete collection of Roan Uchida 2], ed. by Takashi Nomura,
175–299. Tokyo: Yumani shobo.
Ueda, Kazutoshi. 1968[1894]. “Kokugo to kokka to [National language and state].” In Meiji bun-
gaku zenshuu 44: Ochiai Naobumi, Ueda Kazutoshi, Haga Yaichi, Fujioka Sakutaro shuu
[The complete collection of Meiji literature 44: Naobumi Ochiai, Kazutoshi Ueda, Yaichi
Haga and Sakutaroo Fujioka], ed. by Senichi Hisamatsu, 108–113. Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.

www.ebook777.com
248 Gender, language and ideology

Ueda, Kazutoshi. 1964[1895]. “Hyoojungo ni tsukite [On standard language].” In Meiji ikoo
kokugo mondai ronshuu [Collection of papers on national language issues after Meiji], ed.
by Sumio Yoshida and Yuuichi Inoguchi, 502–508. Tokyo: Kazama shobo.
Ueda, Kazutoshi. 1968[1900]. “Naichi zakkyogo ni okeru gogaku mondai [Language problems
caused by having foreign residents inside of Japan].” In Meiji bungaku zenshuu 44: Ochiai
Naobumi, Ueda Kazutoshi, Haga Yaichi, Fujioka Sakutaro shuu [The complete collection of
Meiji literature 44: Naobumi Ochiai, Kazutoshi Ueda, Yaichi Haga and Sakutaroo Fujioka],
ed. by Senichi Hisamatsu, 131–137. Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Ueno, Chizuko. 1998. Nashonarizumu to jendaa [Engendering Nationalism]. Tokyo: Seidosha.
Usuda, Suekichi. 1909. Nihon koogohoo seigi [Lectures on Japan spoken language]. Tokyo: Shoo-
ha sanshoodo.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New
York: Routledge.
Vincent, Keith, Takashi Kazama, and Kazuya Kawaguchi. 1997. Gei sutadiizu [Gay studies]. To-
kyo: Seidosha.
Wakakuwa, Midori. 2000[1995]. Sensoo ga tsukuru josei zoo: Dainiji sekai taisenka no Nihon
josei dooin no shikakuteki puropaganda [Portrait of women created by the war: Visual pro-
paganda for promoting women’s corporation under the World War II]. Tokyo: Chikuma
shobo.
Wakakuwa, Midori. 2001. Koogoo no shoozoo: Shooken kootaigoo no hyooshoo to josei no ko-
kuminka [The portrait of empress: The representation of empress Shooken and the nation-
alization of women]. Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Wakakuwa, Midori. 2005. Sensoo to jendaa: sensoo o okosu dansei doomei to heiwa o tsukuru
jendaa riron [War and gender: Men’s alliances cause war, gender theory creates peace].
Tokyo: Ootsuki shoten.
Washi, Rumi. 2000. “Nyooboo kotoba no imi sayoo: Tennoo sei, kaisoo sei, sekushuariti [The
semiotic process of court-women’s speech: Imperial system, social hierarchy, and sexuali-
ty].” Joseigaku nenpoo 11: 18–35.
Washi, Rumi. 2001. “’Onna kotoba’ to kenryoku: Shoojo zasshi no kotoba kara mieru mono [The
power of ‘women’s language’: What we can see in the language of magazines for girls].” Jo-
seigaku 9: 6–24.
Washi, Rumi. 2004. “‘Japanese Female Speech’ and Language Policy in the World War II Era.” In
Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People, ed. by Shigeko
Okamoto and Janet S. Shibamoto Smith, 76–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wong, Andrew, Sarah J. Roberts, and Kathryn Campbell-Kibler. 2002. “Speaking of Sex.” In
Language and Sexuality: Contesting Meaning in Theory and Practice, ed. by Kathryn Camp-
bell-Kibler, Robert J. Podesva, Sarah J. Roberts and Andrew Wong, 1–21. Stanford, Califor-
nia: Center for the Study of Language and Information CSLI.
Woolard, Kathryn A. 1998. “Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry.” In Language Ideologies:
Practice and Theory, ed. by Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard and Paul V. Kroskrity,
3–47. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yamada, Bimyoo. 1964[1888]. “Genbun itchiron gairyaku [An outline of the arguments on the
unification of speech and writing].” In Meiji ikoo kokugo mondai ronshuu [Collection of
papers on national language issues after Meiji], ed. by Sumio Yoshida and Yuuichi Inoguchi,
234–245. Tokyo: Kazama shobo.

www.ebook777.com
References 249

Yamada, Yoshio. 1922. Nihon koogo hoo koogi [Lectures on Japan spoken language grammar].
Tokyo: Tokyo jitsubunkan.
Yamada, Yoshio. 1936. Nihon bumpoogaku gairon [Introduction to Japanese grammar]. Tokyo:
Hoobunkan.
Yamaguchi, Kiichiro. 1951. Hanashi kotoba to sono kyooiku [Spoken language and pertinent
education]. Tokyo: Tookoo shoin.
Yamamoto, Masahide. 1965. Kindai buntai hassei no shiteki kenkyuu [Historical study on the
emergence of modern styles]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Yamashita, Hitoshi. 2001. “Keigo kenkyuu no ideorogii hihan [A critic of ideology in the studies
of honorific language].” In Tadashisa eno toi: Hihanteki shakaigengogaku no kokoromi
[Question on correctness: A study of critical sociolinguistics], ed. by Kayoko Noro and
Hitoshi Yamashita, 51–83. Tokyo: Sangensha.
Yanagi, Yae. 1941. “Fujin no kotoba [Ladies’ language].” In Kokugo bunka kooza 3: Kokugo kyooi-
ku hen [Lectures on language and culture 3: National language education], ed. by Asahi
shimbun, 248–268. Tokyo: Asahi shimbunsha.
Yasuda, Toshiaki. 1997. Teikoku Nihon no gengo hensei [The language organization of the Japa-
nese empire]. Kanagawa: Seori shobo.
Yasuda, Toshiaki. 1998. Shokuminchi no naka no kokugogaku [National language studies in the
colonies]. Tokyo: Sangensha.
Yazaki, Genkuroo. 1960. Korekara no Nihongo [Modern Japanese language]. Tokyo: Mikawa
shobo.
Yokoi, Tokio. 1986[1902]. “Fujin to danwa [Lady and speech].” In Fukkoku Nihon no fujin zasshi
3 [Reprint of Japanese women’s magazines 3], ed. by Kuni Nakajima, 203–206. Tokyo: Oo-
zorasha.
Yoshida, Hirohisa. 2001. Sengo shoki kokugo kyookasho shi kenkyu: Suminuri, zantei, kokutei,
kentei [The historical study of national language textbooks of the early postwar: Ink-erased,
temporary, state, and approved textbooks]. Tokyo: Kazama shobo.
Yoshida, Sumio. 1935. “Fujin no kotoba [Ladies’ language].” In Kotoba no kooza 2 [Lectures on
language 2], ed. by Tokyo chuuoo hoosookyoku, 145–156. Tokyo: Nihon hoosoo shuppan
kyookai.
Yoshida, Sumio. 1952. Kinseigo to kinsei bungaku [Language and literature of modern times].
Tokyo: Tooyookan shuppansha.
Yoshioka, Kyooho. 2001[1912]. Bungo koogo taishoo gohoo [Written and spoken languages: con-
trastive grammar]. Tokyo: Bensei shuppan.
Yoshizawa, Yoshinori. 1934. Hiragana no kenkyuu: Kokugo kagaku kooza 8: Moji gaku [A study
on hiragana: National language lecture 8: Character study]. Tokyo: Meiji shoin.
Yukawa, Sumiyuki, and Masami Saito. 2004. “Cultural Ideologies in Japanese Language and
Gender Studies: A Theoretical Review.” In Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cul-
tural Models and Real People, ed. by Shigeko Okamoto and Janet S. Shibamoto Smith, 23–
37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yuval-Davis, Nira, and Floya Anthias (eds). 1989. Women-Nation-State. London: Macmillan.
Zimmerman, Don H., and Candace West. 1975. “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Con-
versation.” In Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, ed. by Barrie Thorne and Nan-
cy Henley, 105–129. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.

www.ebook777.com
www.ebook777.com
Index

A fu-gen (female-language)  43, 46, I


Aeba, Kooson  122 47, 89, 98, 99, 150, 152 Imaizumi, Sadasuke  150–152
Ama no mokuzu [Seaweed of a Fujin yashinaigusa [Book to Imaizumi, Tadayoshi  212, 215
Mermaid]  56, 57, 164 Educate Women]  50, 65-68 Inoue, Miyako  15, 18, 22, 27,
Anthias, Floya  190, 191 Fujiwara, Yoichi  180, 181, 213 31–33, 117, 130
Asahi shimbun  10–12, 14, 18, 53 Fukaya, Masashi  100, 106, 109, Inoue, Tetsujiroo  74, 99
124 Irvine, Judith  24, 26, 153–155
B Fukuzawa, Yukichi  87, 93–96, 99 Ishiguro, Yoshimi  163–167, 178,
Barrett, Rusty  21 Furuya, Tsunatake  200 182, 212
Bauman, Richard  30 Futabatei, Shimei  80, 118, 119, 128 Ishii, Kendoo  106, 108
Borker, Ruth  19 Ishii, Shooji  161, 167
Briggs, Charles  30 G Ishikawa, Ken  201
Bucholtz, Mary  21, 24 Gaku sei (The School System Ishikawa, Matsutaroo  39, 40, 42,
Butler, Judith  20, 21, 91, 206 Law)  96, 104, 139 43, 45–50, 69, 88–93
Gal, Susan  19, 23, 24, 153–155 Ishikawa, Tadanori  116, 120
C genbun itchi (The unification Ishimori, Nobuo  166
Cameron, Deborah  5, 19, 23, 24 of speech and writing)  78, Iwabuchi, Etsutaroo  215
Coulmas, Florian  77 79, 81–84, 118, 122, 139, 148, Iwai, Yoshio  179, 180
149, 156 Iwamoto, Yoshiharu  112–114,
D Genji monogatari [The Tale of 117, 122
Dai Nihon teikoku kempoo Genji]  16, 17 Iwaya, Sazanami  116, 120, 122
(The Great Japan Imperial Gordon, Beate Sirota  195–197
Constitution)  74, 171, 173 Go shoo san shoo (Five troubles J
Daitooa kyooeiken (The Greater and three obediences)  43, 47 Jespersen, Otto  201
East Asia Co-prosperity Jugaku, Akiko  71, 72
Sphere)  161 H
Dan, Michiko  165, 167 Hall, Kira  21, 24, 155 K
Doi, Kooka  89, 90 Halperin, David  85 Kaburagi, Kiyokata  122
Doi, Takako  196 Hani, Motoko  172, 174 Kagomimi [Basket Ears]  63, 64
Dower, John  195, 196, 222, 223 Hara, Fujiroo  223 Kaibara, Ekiken  39, 40, 47, 48
Hashimoto, Shinkichi  176, 179, Kan, Satoko  125, 126
E 180 Kanai, Keiko  74
Echeverria, Begoña  78, 154 Higashikuze, Michitomi  99 Kanai, Yasuzoo  140, 142–144, 146
Eckert, Penelope  20, 21 Hiraishi, Noriko  111 kango (Chinese words)  3, 16,
Enloe, Cynthia  78 Hiratsuka, Raichoo  88 17, 65
essentialization (of gender)  91, Hirokoo, Ryoozoo  164, 180 Karasawa, Tomitaroo  105, 108
92, 162, 178, 201, 202, 204, 206, Hobsbaum, Eric  165 Kasuga, Masaharu  178
207, 222 Hokama, Shuzen  80 Katakoto [The Other
Honda, Masuko  105, 108–111, Language]  43, 44
F 116, 128 Katz, Jonathan  85
Fairclough, Norman  51 Horii, Reichi  4 Kawaguchi, Kazuya  85
Fishman, Pamela  19 Hoshina, Kooichi  142, 143, 146, Kawamura, Kunimitsu  129, 130
Foucault, Michel  29 161–163, 167, 182 Kazama, Takashi  85

www.ebook777.com
252 Gender, language and ideology

kazoku kokka kan (The state-as- Maruyama, Rinpei  176, 179, 180 Niwa no oshie [The Lessons of
family ideology)  73, 74, 92, Masaki, Seikichi  81, 82 the Garden]  41
96, 97, 99–101, 173, 223, 225 Mashimo, Saburoo  3, 201–204, Nyooboo hippoo [How Women
Kieda, Masuichi  169, 176, 180, 215, 216 Should Write]  63
182, 214 Masubuchi, Tsunekichi  139
Kikuzawa, Sueo  162, 163, 178, Matsumoto, Shigeko  159, 161 O
182, 202, 216 Matsushita, Daizaburoo  142, Ochs, Elinor  131
Kindaichi, Kyoosuke  1, 163–167, 143, 146, 176, 177, 179, 180 Oda, Nobunaga  62
169, 179, 180, 214, 216 Matsuura, Keizoo  180 Oguri, Fuuyoo  103, 127
Kiyuu shooran [Glimpses of Edo McClintock, Anne  190, 191 Ohiyashi [Water]  61, 71
Ludic Life]  64, 71 McConnell-Ginet, Sally  21 Okada, Yachiyo  118
Kobayashi, Chigusa  17 McElhinny, Bonnie  22 Okamoto, Shigeko  10, 29, 32,
Kokka soodooinhoo (The Menoto no sooshi [The Book of 192
National Mobilization the Nursemaid]  17, 41, 42 Okano, Hisatane  83, 85, 138,
Law)  160, 171 Mihashi, Osamu  127 140
Kokugo choosa iinkai (The Milroy, James  23 Onna choohooki [Women’s
National-Language Research Milroy, Lesley  19, 23 Encyclopedia]  44, 45, 50, 55,
Committee)  79, 80, 139, 142, Mi no katami [Half of the 66-68
143, 146, 147, 161, 212 Body]  41, 42 Onna daigaku takara bunko
Komatsu, Sumio  104, 112, 116, 145 Mio, Isago  2, 176, 180, 182 [The Treasure Box of
Komori, Yooichi  24, 161 Mitchell, Lisa  225 Women’s Learning]  47–50,
Koojien [Wide Garden of Mitchell, Margaret  14 68, 90
Words]  3 Miura, Toranosuke  224 Onna daigaku [Women’s
Kootoo jogakkoo rei (Women’s Miyake, Kaho  120, 121, 128 Learning]  47, 50, 88, 90, 98
Secondary School Act)  100, Miyazaki, Ayumi  27, 29 Onna imagawa nishiki no
109, 123, 125 Mori, Arinori  81, 139 kodakara [Women’s
Kosugi, Tengai  125 Mori, Senzoo  122 Imagawa Brocade Treasure of
Kotthoff, Helga  22 Morita, Tama  163, 167, 177 Children]  46
Koyama, Shizuko  74, 92, 93 Mosse, George  78 Onna jitsugo kyoo/Onna dooshi
Kroskrity, Paul  24, 26, 27, 30, 156 Muta, Kazue  73, 93 kyoo [Women’s Practical
Kugimoto, Hisaharu  200, 204 Language Lessons/Lessons
Kulick, Don  24, 85 N for Female Children]  46, 50
Kume, Yoriko  155 Nagano, Masaru  142, 145, 199, Ooe, Sazanami  140
Kunita, Yuriko  5, 57, 62, 63, 200, 205 Ooe, Shinobu  173
68, 215 Nagao, Masanori  61, 163, 164, Ookubo, Tadatoshi  200
Kurashima, Nagamasa  212 166, 167, 171, 215 Ooshima, Kaori  15
Kusa musubi [The Grass Tie]  57, Nagata, Yoshitaroo  176, 180, Ootsuki, Fumihiko  18, 77, 82,
70, 164 181 83, 85, 161
Kyoogaku seishi (The Imperial Nagel, Joane  78 Osa, Shizue  24, 78, 80, 160, 169
Will on Education)  73, 96, 97, Nakae, Choomin Ozaki, Kooyoo  103, 114–116, 120,
108, 112, 115 (Tokusuke)  81, 82, 94 127, 133
Kyooiku chokugo (The Imperial Nakagawa, Kenjiroo  106, 148, Ozaki, Yoshimitsu  10
Rescript on Education)  74, 149
96, 97, 99 Nakagawa, Kojuuroo  81, 82 P
Nanba, Tomoko  108 Pharr, Susan  196, 224
L Narita, Ryuuichi  155 Philips, Susan  22
Lakoff, Robin  5, 19 Natsume, Sooseki  124, 128, 129
Lee, Yeounsuk  24, 78–80, 139, Nichi-ho jisho [Japanese-Portu- R
160, 161 guese Dictionary]  64, 65, 215 Reihoo yookoo [Gist of
Levy, Indra  119 Nichiren  62 Manners]  166, 177, 178
Nichols, Patricia  19, 20 Renhoo  53, 54
M Nicholson, Linda  91 Robertson, Jennifer  190, 191
MacArthur, Douglas  195–197 Nishihara, Keiichi  167, 168 Rodriguez, João  65, 72
Maltz, Daniel  19 Nishimura, Shigeki  97 Rowling, J. K.  14

www.ebook777.com
Index 253

ryoosai kenbo (good-wife-wise- Sunaoshi, Yukako  10, 27 Wakakuwa, Midori  74, 173,
mother) Suzuki, Bunshiroo  200, 204 174, 190
in education  82, 109, 115–117, Suzuki, Tomi  225 Washi, Rumi  32, 162, 172, 173,
134 Suzuki, Yuuko  172, 174 176
as identity  115, 116, 133, 134 West, Candace  19
as ideology  73–75, 82, 101, T Wodak, Ruth  22
104, 148, 149 Takakura, Teru  200 Wong, Andrew  23, 24
in school readers  150-152 Takata, Giho  89, 90 Woolard, Kathryn  27, 30, 77
as role  94–97, 100, 101 Takeuchi, Hisaichi  115, 116
Tanizaki, Junichiroo  165, 177 Y
S Tannen, Deborah  19 Yamada, Bimyoo  79, 83
Saeki, Junko  125 Teyo dawa monogatari [The Yamada, Yoshio  142, 143, 146,
Sakuma, Kanae  161, 179–181, 214 story of teyo dawa]  122, 123 176, 180, 213
Satoo, Haruo  119, 120 Tokieda, Motoki  164, 179, 180 Yamaguchi, Kiichiro  212
Satow, Ernest  142, 143, 146 Toogoo, Masatake  94 Yamamoto, Masahide  80–82,
Seken musume katagi [The Totsugi bunshoo [A Primer on 145, 149
Nature of Common Young Marriage]  46, 50 Yanagi, Yae  163, 167
Women]  58, 59, 61, 71 Toyotomi, Hideyoshi  62 Yasuda, Toshiaki  24, 78, 160,
shi koo (Four behaviors of Tsubouchi, Shooyoo  116, 161
women)  43, 47 118–120, 145 Yazaki, Genkuroo  204, 216
Shibamoto Smith, Janet  32, Tsubouchi, Yuuzoo  150, 151 Yokoi, Tokio  94
192 Yomiuri shimbun  111, 116–119,
Shikitei, Samba  58–60, 70, 71 U 125, 126
Shimpoo, Iwaji  137, 147–151 Uchida, Roan  118, 119, 129 Yoshida, Hirohisa  211, 217, 218
Shinmura, Izuru  166, 167, 177 Uchida, Yuuya  53 Yoshida, Sumio  216
Shoreishuu [Collection of Ueda, Kazutoshi  78, 79, 83, 138, Yoshida, Shigeru  222, 224
Manners]  63 139, 160 Yoshioka, Kyooho  140, 142–144,
Sievers, Sharon  190, 191 Ueno, Chizuko  74 146, 147
Silverstein, Michael  25, 30 Usuda, Suekichi  83, 142, 143, 146 Yuval-Davis, Nira  190, 191
Song, Youn ok  224
Spender, Dale  52 V Z
SturtzSreetharan, Cindi  27 Vincent, Keith  85 Zimmerman, Don  19
Suematsu, Kenchoo  98
Sugimoto, Tsutomu  4, 5, 56, 63, W
68, 71, 205 wago (Japanese words)  17, 65

www.ebook777.com

Anda mungkin juga menyukai