In Early-Middle Japanese, there are two forms of exclamatory expression: "nominal-kana" and "nominal-ya". Both forms require modification of the preceding nominal. On the other hand, they are different in the modifications they require. In "nominal-kana", the noun is modified by adnominal form of predicates, including auxiliary verbs of tense and honorifics. In "nominal-ya", on the other hand, the noun is modified by the stem of adjectives and the genitive marker no. "Nominal-kana" can be used regardless of social standing, and it is supposed that the speaker takes into consideration their status relative to the listener. The speaker may also use this form about events in either the past, the present or the future. From this, it is assumed that the speaker also takes into consideration when the event being discussed occurred. In contrast, "nominal-ya" is not used when the listener is of higher social status. This form is used when the speaker does not need to take into consideration the social standing of the listener. In addition, "nominal-ya" is used almost exclusively with regards to events in the present. This indicates the speaker does not take into account when the event took place. Given these examples of usage, "nominal-kana" expresses the speaker's strong emotion toward the event in question, whereas "nominal-ya" expresses the speaker's reaction to the event in the present time. These differences in expressiveness are closely related to their constructions.

View full abstract

There are two types of numeral classifiers in Japanese: those which cannot be used as a noun as -nin in 3-nin 'three (persons)' and those which can be used as a noun as -setai in 3-setai 'three (families)'. The author names the latter as nominal classifiers (noun-type numeral classifiers) in this article and examines their lexical characteristics based on two viewpoints: (i) productivity as numeral classifiers, i.e., whether they can be used with the interrogative form nan-'how many' or not, and (ii) semantic fields in the Bunrui Goihyo (Word List by Semantic Principles) they belong. The examples for analysis were extracted from a newspaper corpus. Nominal classifiers are classified into two types: container-type and non-container-type. Numeral classifiers of container-type are used to measure the volume with reference to a noun as a container, e.g., -sara in 3-sara 'three (dishes)'. Numeral classifiers of non-container-type consist of two subgroups: those which can be used with nan-'how many' (quasi-classifier) and those which cannot (pseudo-classifier), e.g., 3-setai 'three (families)'/nan-setai 'how many (families)' (quasi-classifier), 3-kakuryo 'three members of the cabinet'/*nan-kakuryo (pseudo-classifier). Quasi-classifiers are used to count numbers by accumulating them. Many of them denote abstract relations and are used to supplement the numeral classifier system in Japanese. Pseudo-classifiers, on the other hand, are temporarily used with numerals in a sentence. They tend to be composed of nouns whose concreteness is high such as persons and organizations, and have a function of endophora. The classification based on the productivity as numeral classifiers can be a perspective for interpreting classifications proposed in previous studies in an appropriate way.

View full abstract

This paper examines the word Gonbin. This word was used as a general term to refer to matters regarding pronunciation in Hokekyo-Ongi which was produced by Gigen in the middle of the Middle period. However, in the Late Middle period, it became used in the context of evaluating correct and incorrect pronunciation. In this period, the word Onbin as well as Gonbin was used for describing linguistic phenomena. This paper infers that these two words had different usages. Gonbin was used frequently in the form Gonbin zawayaca, which changed to Gonbi zawayaca in the Early Modern period. This change restrained the use of Gonbin and ultimately gave rise to a new usage of this word found in scholarly works in the Mid-Modern period. By investigating the usages of Onbin and Gonbin, this paper argues that the existence of Gonbin as a colloquial term assisted the establishment of Onbin as a technical term.

View full abstract

Kanajitai (the form of Hiragana) had already tended to be standardized in the publications such as literary works before it was officially defined in the enforcement regulations for elementary school order established in Meiji 33 (1900). This study verified whether the standardization of Kanajitai was observed in overall publications by conducting research on Yokohama Mainichi Shimbun, one of the typical Oshimbun (a newspaper for intellectuals) in the Meiji period. Also, I analyzed what kind of influence was made on Kanajitai by the introduction of the type printing. As a result of the research on the basis of the printing type used in this newspaper, it was proved that Kanajitai tended to be standardized in it. However, this standardization did not progress steadily and there were some cases where the number of Kanajitai increased. It implies that the printing type used in this newspaper greatly affected the number of Kanajitai. In addition, Kanamojizukai (how to use Kanajitai) was related to the choice of Kanajitai and more than one Kanajitai continued being used against the standardization while their distinctions in usage were valid.

View full abstract

This article examined comments on Poem Number 7 and 84 in Kokin Wakashu (Collection of Old and New Japanese Poems) from various views on kana no i ni kayou ran which was about the auxiliary verb ramu in the sixth scroll of Motoori Norinaga's Kotoba no tamanoo in order to explore their association with waka poetics and commentaries on classical literature which have not been investigated in great detail. The examination revealed that Poem Number 7, which had been considered to be drawn from Kenchu Mikkan Sho, was actually inspired by Keichu in the Kokin Yozai Sho and the subsequent commentaries on Kokin Wakashu by Kada no Azumamaro and Kamo no Mabuchi, and the interpretation that Poet Number 84 was shizu kokoro naku hana no chirukana, nan to shite shizu kokoro naku hana no chiruran was derived from commentaries on Hyakunin Isshu by Kamo no Mabuchi. Through this historical investigation, I explored the way Motoori Norinaga incorporated the results of the annotation of classics in the study of Japanese literature, which was a rising discipline during his time into his own ideas of Japanese usage.

View full abstract

1886 saw the Ministry of Education introduce a novel policy for elementary school reading books, in order to give a more sophisticated introduction to the hiragana graphemes. This was to divide the introduction into two stages: first, irohagana, a hiragana grapheme set particular to the Iroha-uta copybook, was to be learnt, and other graphemes would be introduced later. Within a few years, reading books produced by private sectors came to follow the same order. This previously unnoticed policy became clear through a closer inspection of the hiragana graphemes in reading books around that year. The two-stage introduction first appeared in ministry's reference reading books, Introduction to Reading and Writing (1 vol., 1886, Yomikaki Nyumon) and Reading Books for Ordinary Elementary School (7 vols., 1887, Jinjo Shogaku Tokuhon). It is clear that not all private sectors spontaneously enacted the phased introduction, as shown by the fact that even after 1886, some reading books contained no stages and consequently some received adverse comments in an authorisation review, which took effect in 1886. The fact that these comments were never reflected in updates to the textbooks shows why it took some years before the policy was fully adopted: the lack of support for substantive enactments and the passive direction of the authorisation reviews made it difficult to enforce. Ultimately, however, the success of the policy lead to the 1900 hiragana grapheme reformation, making it the beginning of a fourteen year-long process of standardising the hiragana graphemes.

View full abstract