“Shirazaru hazu nashi,” “kitaru mono wa kobamazu,” “shison no tame o omou.” The hazu, mono, and tame here are somehow different from ordinary nouns. They seem to point at something definite, yet by themselves you cannot tell what they mean. Matsushita Daizaburō gave such nouns the name “formal noun” and gave them a clear place within the nouns. We read the subdivision of nouns in Hyōjun Nihon Bunpō (pp. 205–206) in the original. (English renderings of the quotations are ToL translations.)
Dividing nouns into three
Matsushita divides nouns into three. The criterion is whether there is a substantial meaning (a meaning with content).
本名詞とは実質的意義の確定した概念を表はす名詞である。例へば「山」「海」「鳥」「虫」「色」「音」「日本」「東京」などの類だ。
(A hon-meishi (true noun) is a noun expressing a concept whose substantial meaning is settled. For example, “yama,” “umi,” “tori,” “mushi,” “iro,” “oto,” “Nihon,” “Tōkyō,” and the like.)
代名詞とは実質的意義の定らない概念を表はして事物を指示する名詞である。例へば「我」「汝」「此れ」「其れ」「彼れ」「何」「誰」「孰れ」「某」などの類だ。
(A pronoun is a noun that expresses a concept whose substantial meaning is not fixed, and points to things. For example, “ware,” “nanji,” “kore,” “sore,” “are,” “nani,” “dare,” “izure,” “soregashi,” and the like.)
“Yama” is a mountain whenever and whoever says it. But “ware” (I) changes whom it points to as the speaker changes. So its meaning is “not fixed.” Yet Matsushita adds a reminder that pronouns do not lack a substantial meaning. It is only not settled; it is there, he says.
These two together he calls substantial nouns (jisshitsu meishi). Then what is the third?
Formal nouns — nouns from which the meaning has drained
形式名詞は形式的意義ばかりで実質的意義の欠けた概念を表はす名詞である。
(A formal noun is a noun expressing a concept with only formal meaning, lacking substantial meaning.)
The examples Matsushita gives are as follows.
| Example sentence (Matsushita’s) | Formal noun |
|---|---|
| 来る「者」は拒まず | mono |
| 堪ふる「こと」能はず | koto |
| 其の言ふ「所」要領を得ず | tokoro |
| 知らざる「筈」なし | hazu |
| 子孫の「ため」を思ふ | tame |
| 知らざる「由」を答ふ | yoshi |
| さる「かた」にあらまほし | kata |
The nouns lined up here are all ones for which you cannot tell what they mean by themselves. Matsushita explains their nature thus.
例へば「者は拒まず」「筈なし」と云つては分らないが「来る者」「知らざる筈」など云へば分る。
(For example, if you say “mono wa kobamazu” or “hazu nashi,” it is not understood, but if you say “kitaru mono” or “shirazaru hazu,” it is.)
That is, a formal noun expresses, of the meaning, only the formal part, with the substantial part removed. So when it is actually used in speech, the substantial meaning it removed must be supplied by other words, or the meaning does not hold. With “kitaru” attached, mono for the first time points at someone.
Nouns that divide the labor
Matsushita notes that a formal noun takes one concept apart, has other words express the substantial meaning, and itself expresses the formal meaning; he goes on:
概念の表はし方が分業的であるから、互に対手を自由に選択して相結合することが出来る。此の点に於て形式名詞は名詞の最も発達したものである。
(Because the way of expressing the concept is a division of labor, they can freely choose partners and combine with each other. In this respect the formal noun is the most developed of the nouns.)
Mono, hazu, and tame all have their substantial meaning decided by what word comes before them. They leave the substantial meaning to the surrounding words, and confine themselves to the role of form alone. This is the division of labor. Matsushita rates this lightness of touch as “the most developed of the nouns.”
There was no name
Another important thing is written.
欧洲語には形式名詞がない。其れ故彼等の文典にはその名称がない。日本文典にもその名称がない。
(European languages have no formal nouns. For that reason their grammars have no name for them. Japanese grammars too have no such name.)
Matsushita states plainly that European grammars have no such name, and says that Japanese grammars also lacked one. Moreover, according to Matsushita, earlier grammars defined the noun as “a word that names things,” and under that definition the formal noun does not enter the nouns. If “naming” were interpreted broadly to include formal nouns, then by force of circumstance pronouns too would be included, Matsushita goes on. It can be read that such circumstances lie behind Matsushita’s threefold division of nouns.
We also saw his doubt about the earlier definition, “a pronoun is a word standing in for a name,” in Plain-language explainer 3.
What to keep in mind when reading
First, we have not checked in this article whether Matsushita coined the name “formal noun” or whether it existed before him. Matsushita himself writes, at this point, that earlier Japanese grammars had no such name. The origin of the term “formal noun” needs separate investigation.
Second, whether Matsushita’s threefold division neatly organizes all Japanese nouns is a separate question. The content of the division rests on Matsushita’s criterion — whether there is a substantial meaning or not. To which words the same criterion extends “formal noun,” we did not check in this article.
Summary
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Threefold division of nouns | True nouns, pronouns, formal nouns |
| Substantial nouns | True nouns and pronouns. They have substantial meaning (pronouns only “not fixed”) |
| Formal nouns | Nouns with formal meaning only, lacking substantial meaning. Mono, koto, tokoro, hazu, tame, yoshi, kata, etc. |
| Nature | Meaning unclear alone; other words supply the substance (division of labor) |
| Evaluation | Free to choose partners. “The most developed of the nouns” |
| Name | Matsushita states that neither European grammars nor earlier Japanese grammars had a name |
In a nutshell — Matsushita Daizaburō placed nouns like mono, koto, and hazu, whose meaning has drained away and only form remains, within the nouns under the name “formal noun,” as nouns that divide labor by having other words supply the substance.