Based on the discourse analysis of the text, this paper attempts to clarify the formation of advices in the ‘personal-advice column’. The origin of the ‘personal-advice column’ was established in the late Meiji era. In the late Meiji era, the ‘personal-advice column’ was generally dealt by the newspaper reporters. In contrast, persons in charge of advices today are professionals, for example, writers, lawyers, psychiatrists, and so forth. About 300 articles are published each year, and almost half of the advices in these articles are dealt by writers. Therefore, this paper assumes that there are some particular discourse patterns in the formation of advices created by the writers of which are not based on the professional knowledge, and categorized them into the following three patterns. Firstly, this paper focuses on their discourse to reconfirm the issues posted by contributors. Secondly, this paper looks at the process of how the writers affirm the issues. Thirdly, it focuses on the process of how the writers themselves appear as “I” in the advices. Through these devices, the discourse of advices is formed by sharing the process of creating the sense of cooperation among the writers and contributors as well as legitimates the logical righteousness of the proposed ideas by writers.
This paper aims to describe the representation of Jogis in Rajasthan by the local people and to explore the reason how such a representation has been constructed. Jogis are known as one of the generic nomad groups in Rajasthan, north western India, and now have become famous as ‘the ancestor of gypsy’. Therefore first we consider on the local and contemporary representation of Jogis by focusing on the address of gypsies. It leads the fact that they have still been seen as the lowest beggar caste by the local people, although they are recognized as the nostalgic gypsies by the foreign tourists. Subsequently we look at the representation of Jogis in the academic description by focusing on the Nath tradition. We found that Jogis are divided into two static categories such as ‘authentic’ renouncer / secular vagrant. We exemplify that such division has certainly emerged in the course of the colonial period and warn against using the divided category without critical analysis. A historically and detailed examination for the process of constructing of the dichotomy between ‘authentic’ renouncer / secular vagrant will indicate the way to understand the dynamics of the margined people.