Of the nine scholars, four dealt with how sentences work: Ōtsuki Fumihiko, Yamada Yoshio, Hashimoto Shinkichi, and Matsushita Daizaburō. The four differ in what unit they cut a sentence into, and in what they wanted to explain. We look at one sentence in four ways. (Overall timeline)
Note that the application of “Hana ga saku” below is our side-by-side arrangement of ideas confirmed in each feature. The four scholars did not themselves analyze this sentence.
The four views
| Scholar | Main work | Unit / tool | What it wants to explain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ōtsuki Fumihiko | Genkai (1889–1891) | Parts of speech (sorting words into classes) | How, in a dictionary, to classify and explain words |
| Yamada Yoshio | Nihon bunpō-ron (1908) | Predication (chinjutsu), kakari-musubi | Why a sentence becomes a “completed whole” |
| Hashimoto Shinkichi | Shin bunten bekki (1935) | Bunsetsu (breaks in pronunciation) | Cutting a sentence in a way the ear can verify |
| Matsushita Daizaburō | Hyōjun Nihon Bunpō (1924) | Words and elements (parts) | Whether o, ni, tari are words |
Ōtsuki Fumihiko — attaching parts of speech to a dictionary
Ōtsuki’s Genkai built the model of a dictionary combining gojūon order, pronunciation, parts of speech, and definitions in Japanese. The classification of parts of speech is one piece of that skeleton (the Ōtsuki Fumihiko feature).
For “Hana ga saku,” a dictionary tells the person looking up “hana” and “saku” what part of speech each is and how it is used. The tool of classifying words before discussing how a sentence works was set in place here.
Yamada Yoshio — why does a sentence “complete”?
Yamada’s Nihon bunpō-ron states his own theory after examining, by name, nearly all grammarians from the Edo period to Meiji (the Yamada Yoshio feature). The core is his theory of predication (the completeness of a sentence) and his theory of kakari-musubi (the mechanism of agreement).
Yamada asks where the difference between “Hana ga saku” and “Hana ga saku ka” comes from. The insight that a sentence is not complete until it is finished is treated in the verdict article as “still alive.” On the other hand, the part that explains the mechanism by the German-psychology notion of “apperception” has been rewritten by later researchers.
Hashimoto Shinkichi — the “bunsetsu” cut by ear
Hashimoto cuts a sentence where the voice breaks. “Hana ga / saku” cuts into two bunsetsu (the Hashimoto Shinkichi feature).
The verdict article says the bunsetsu “remains as a classroom tool,” because it is a division based on breaks in pronunciation, one the ear can verify. But in the research world it is used alongside other units such as words and phrases, and is not universal.
Matsushita Daizaburō — are o and ni words?
Matsushita starts from a point different from the grammar taught in school. He divides language into three steps — danku (unit of utterance), nenshi (word), genji (part of a word) — and says particles like ga and auxiliaries are not words but parts of words (the Matsushita Daizaburō feature).
Seen in Matsushita’s way, “Hana ga saku” makes “hana ga” and “saku” each one word. Ga is a part. Matsushita’s five parts of speech remove particles and auxiliaries from the parts of speech, and this was not adopted by school grammar. Still, the observation that they “cannot stand on their own” is shared by school grammar.
Do the four conflict?
The four views are not so much in conflict as answering different questions.
- Ōtsuki: How to divide and explain words within a dictionary.
- Yamada: Why a sentence becomes one completed whole.
- Hashimoto: How to cut a sentence in a way the ear can verify.
- Matsushita: Whether o and ni are words or parts.
However, Hashimoto’s bunsetsu and Matsushita’s word look, at a glance, alike. But Matsushita’s word is fixed by the criterion “does it express one idea by its own power,” while Hashimoto’s bunsetsu is a break in pronunciation. They cannot be called the same unit. This is a caution we also wrote in the Matsushita feature.
Present treatment (general summary)
| Scholar | Present treatment |
|---|---|
| Ōtsuki | The dictionary skeleton (parts of speech + definitions) still lives |
| Yamada | The insight of “predication” remains. The explanatory theory was rewritten |
| Hashimoto | The bunsetsu remains as a classroom tool. Not universal |
| Matsushita | The term “formal noun” remains. Removing particles/auxiliaries from the parts of speech was not adopted by school grammar |
Summary
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| The four questions | Classifying words (Ōtsuki) / completeness of a sentence (Yamada) / how to cut a sentence (Hashimoto) / what a word is (Matsushita) |
| Applied to the example | Bunsetsu: “hana ga / saku.” Matsushita’s words: “hana ga,” “saku,” but ga is a part |
| Common ground | That particles and auxiliaries “cannot stand on their own” is shared by school grammar and Matsushita |
| Caution | The bunsetsu and Matsushita’s word look alike but are not the same unit |
In a nutshell — In the grammar thread, four eyes — one that classifies words, one that asks about completeness, one that cuts by ear, one that divides into parts — were each trying to answer a different question about the same Japanese sentence.