The name of this series is “Modern Classics of Japanese” (Kindai koten no kokugo). The word “kokugo” was, for the nine scholars, not merely an object of study. It was tied to the task of making a national language. (Overall timeline)
This article neither praises nor condemns; it looks back, separating what was written at the time from how it was treated in later times.
A dictionary begun as a state undertaking
Ōtsuki Fumihiko’s Genkai was begun on the order of the Ministry of Education. Around 1875, compilation began on the order of Nishimura Shigeki, head of the Ministry’s editorial bureau, and it took about fourteen years from the order to the completion of the first edition (the Ōtsuki Fumihiko feature).
The state needed a dictionary of the national language. That dictionary became the model of the Japanese dictionary — gojūon order, pronunciation, parts of speech, definitions in Japanese. This is as far as this group of features can confirm. Going deeper into the relation between dictionary compilation and the state is beyond its scope.
Ueda Kazutoshi — “Kokugo to kokka to”
Ueda Kazutoshi was a researcher of sound, and at the same time spoke of “kokugo” as a task of the state (the Ueda Kazutoshi feature).
The verdict article graded the two separately. The idea that a standard language was originally a dialect, developed by human hands, remained as an idea, in the same direction as the genbun itchi movement. On the other hand, the claim of “Kokugo to kokka to” to protect “the agreement of language and the agreement of race” was greatly reexamined in later times.
The same man was a researcher of sound who worked from evidence, and also an advocate of kokugo as a child of his time. The verdict article recommends reading these two faces separately.
Kanazawa Shōzaburō — “Chōsen ni okeru kokugo mondai”
Kanazawa Shōzaburō’s Kokugo no kenkyū (1910) came out in the year Japan annexed Korea. The piece “Chōsen ni okeru kokugo mondai,” near the end of the book, was written in that political setting (the Kanazawa Shōzaburō feature).
What can be confirmed in the original is two sides.
- He was cautious about a sudden replacement by Japanese alone. He said the development of language cannot be steered at will.
- That caution did not mean regarding Korean as an equal language. He placed Korean as something to be embraced within the imperial language as “a dialect of the empire,” and this framework was tied to the Japanese–Korean kinship theory.
Researchers of later periods have critically discussed how such kinship and common-ancestry theories were often tied to arguments justifying Japanese rule, under colonial rule. A hypothesis not proved scholarly was used in the political arena as though it were firm. This point, apart from any judgment of Kanazawa as an individual, needs to be confirmed as the later history of the kinship hypothesis. (Kanazawa’s verdict article)
What the two examples show
What the cases of Ueda and Kanazawa share is that scholarly claims and political claims were mixed within the same work by the same person. The verdict articles consistently recommended reading them apart.
- Among the scholarly claims, those with evidence remained (P, name of thing ⇄ action word, etc.).
- Those for which no evidence was shown were not proved (the Japanese–Korean kinship theory).
- The political claims, apart from the question of scholarly correctness, were recorded as facts of their time.
Under the word “kokugo,” scholarship and politics at times stood side by side on the same page. Remembering that fact was one of the aims of this group of features.
The limits of this group of features
Finally, we write down honestly what we have not read.
One, we have not taken up every representative figure of the era. Of the original candidates, Tokieda Motoki is not taken up because his works are not freely viewable at the National Diet Library. How the nine were chosen was also influenced by the practical condition of whether the primary sources are freely viewable.
Two, the fields covered are limited to sound, grammar, words, and “kokugo” as a task. Script, dialects, honorifics, and prose style are not covered.
Three, we read only a small part of each of the nine’s main works. For example, Matsushita Daizaburō’s Hyōjun Nihon Bunpō runs over 660 pages, and what we read was the general introduction, the general remarks of the theory of elements, and part of the theory of parts of speech. In the other features too, what we read was chosen passages of the main works.
Four, the “present treatment” is a generally known summary. The verdict articles do not check each paper one by one. It is always possible that the assessment has changed in the latest research.
Five, influences are tied only within what was confirmed. Relations confirmed within a feature, like Hashimoto and Arisaka, are written, but other lines of influence are not asserted.
As future candidates there are Yanagita Kunio’s Katatsumuri-kō and Iha Fuyū’s Ko-Ryūkyū. Tokieda Motoki too we would like to take up once his primary works become freely viewable.
Summary
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Ōtsuki | A dictionary begun on the Ministry of Education’s order. Discussion of its relation to the state is outside the scope of this group |
| Ueda | Scholarly claims (P, standard language) remained; “agreement of language and race” was reexamined |
| Kanazawa | Cautious about sudden replacement; but the framework of Korean as “a dialect of the empire” was tied to the kinship theory |
| What it shows | Scholarly and political claims were mixed within the same work. Read them apart |
| Limits | Tokieda Motoki not taken up; fields limited; only part of each main work read; “present treatment” is a general summary |
In a nutshell — Under the word “kokugo,” scholarship and politics at times stood side by side on the same page. Scholarship with evidence remained, and a hypothesis not proved was made to carry more weight than it should in the political arena. We remember both, apart.