Japanese Communication: Language and Thought in Context

13 More than Words: A World beyond Description

179 13 More than Words: A World beyond Description Communication in any society transcends the exchange of verbal expression, but in Japanese, there is a marked tendency to mistrust the persuasive potential of words. According to Dean C. Barnlund: To the Western argument the self-expression is valuable, the Japanese might reply that this is true only if there is first sufficient inner reflection : The quality of outer dialogue can rise no higher than the quality of an inner monologue. . . . The introspectionist emphasis found in Eastern religions is more highly regarded by and seems more congenial to the Japanese than the expressionist emphasis found in Western religions and philosophy. . . . Linked to this elevation of inner dialogue is the lower status accorded to words. There is a sense that reality cannot be captured in words, that any statement about one’s inner experience inevitably will distort and oversimplify it. (1989, 116–117) In general, American society attributes a higher status to words and to an individual’s verbal ability. Verbal skill is a survival skill in American society, where upward mobility depends on it. In a court of law, a lack of verbal skill may actually be a matter of life or death. The American philosophy of “getting it in writing” and trusting written contracts, which makes words paramount, contrasts with Japan, where written documents are often important when they are supported by both parties’ goodwill and sincerity. Given a choice between a person and his word, Americans give the impression that they are more likely to trust his word. For the Japanese people this does not necessarily hold. 180 Japanese Thought in Context The idea that language, especially written language, does not sustain a central authority in Japan is aptly described by Mara Miller as “non-logocentrism.” In Miller’s words, “logocentrism refers to an insistence on the centrality of words, or logos, usually with connotations of rationality or logical argument in addition to language per se” (1993, 482). The absence in Japan of logocentrism is expressed, among other things, by a preference for silence over speech, for the oral over the written word, for visual or kinesthetic communication over the verbal, and so on. Language as Event and Language as Manifestation of a Sincere Heart Historically the Japanese have revered kotodama ‘spirit/soul of words’ and believed that a living entity, a spirit, if you will, dwells within language. As Roy Andrew Miller (1977) explains, it is possible to comprehend the meaning of kotodama by the way it was written in Old Japanese. Two different Chinese characters were assigned for koto; koto for ‘words’ and koto for ‘affair, matter.’ According to Roy Miller, the source for this orthographic variation is found in the kotodama concept itself, “where the idea that the ‘thing’ referred to by a given word is coeval as well as coextensive with the ‘word’ that refers to it” (Miller 1977, 264). The close association between the “word” and the “affair, matter” referred to is indicative of the Japanese people’s view of language. Language is not mono ‘object,’ but koto ‘affair, matter,’ an event where a spirit resides. Yet words themselves construct only a portion of social interaction, since they “live” when one speaks from the heart and infuses them with spirit. Consequently, words form only a part of sincere communication. Language as Object and Conduit The English language tends to employ words as tools of communication , devices for expressing oneself logically, cohesively, and as clearly and convincingly as possible. Communication is a conduit, as argued by Michael J. Reddy (1979). Reddy enumerates the “conduit metaphor” in English language by referring to English sentences , including the following: (1) You have to put each concept into words very carefully. (2) Try to pack more thoughts into fewer words. More than Words 181 (3) Try to get your thoughts across better. (4) None of Mary’s feelings came through to me with any clarity. Reddy states that English treats thoughts and ideas as things contained in words—as seen in (1) and (2). They are delivered through a conduit from the originator of the message to its receiver, as in (3) and (4). This understanding of language, evidenced in English usage, skews the view of communication toward the conduit process. According to Reddy, English shows a tendency to treat language as an object that can be transmitted from one place to another, to give a false...