Japanese Communication: Language and Thought in Context

16 Speaking as Self-Narrative: The World as a Subjective and Interpersonal Place

191 16 Speaking as Self-Narrative: The World as a Subjective and Interpersonal Place Tokieda’s theory of language as process emphasizes the speaker’s subjectivity. In his theory, Tokieda makes a triangle of the three necessary elements for the existence of language. These are (1) shutai ‘the speaker, the speaking self,’ (2) bamen ‘place, situation inclusive of the addressee,’ and (3) sozai ‘material.’ Tokieda states, “Language exists when someone (speaking self ) tells someone (situation ) about something (material)” (1941, 40– 41). Speaker Subjectivity Tokieda’s notion of the “speaking self” is the core of his view of language . In a sentence like Watashi wa yonda ‘I have read,’ Tokieda explains, one must recognize that the “I” is not the speaking self. Rather, it is the objectified “I” that is part of the linguistic material. In fact this “I” is, in terms of linguistic material, no different from “cat” in the sentence “The cat ate a mouse.” One may refer to this “I” as the grammatical subject, but it is not the speaking self. The speaking self is never expressed in the same way as the linguistic material. Compare the case of a painter who does a self-portrait. The self represented in the portrait is not the actual painter, but an objectified and materialized self. The subject is the painter. To comprehend the subjective voice inherent in linguistic expressions, one must consider the whole of such sentences as “I have read” as 192 Japanese Thought in Context shutaiteki hyoogen ‘subjective expressions,’ created by a separate speaking self. Tokieda finds the ultimate power of language in this subjective personal expression. A linguistic expression does not simply “refer” to objects; it manifests personal emotion and thought. According to Tokieda: The meaning [of language] does not exist as the content or material of language; rather, I think that the meaning is the very way the speaking self grasps [observes, interprets, understands, and expresses] the material . Language does not express the material of language in the way that a photograph reflects objects as they are; rather, language expresses the way the speaking subject grasps the material, and such expression evokes the material in the mind of the listener. This is just like the case of a painter who tries to express, never the material itself, but rather the way he or she grasps [and interprets] the material. The true meaning of language must be the very way that the speaking self grasps the material; that is, it must be the subjective act of giving meaning to the objects. (1941, 404; my translation) The Importance of Modality in the Japanese Language This bifurcation of language is equivalent to the two discrete elements in language as given in contemporary terms: objective information (propositional meaning) and subjective expression. Subjective expression encompasses the modal aspects of language. This understanding of language as inclusive of dual and interdependent elements continues to influence language scholars in Japan. For example, Minoru Watanabe (1971), by reexamining the traditional concept of chinjutsu ‘modality’ in Japanese, brings into focus the concept of the modal nature of language. Watanabe (1971) identifies jojutsu ‘speaker’s act of describing facts and things,’ and chinjutsu ‘act of expressing that description toward the addressee.’ “Chinjutsu refers to the relational function that the speaking self finds existing between himself or herself and the description completed or the description yet to be completed, as well as the relationship the speaker finds toward objects and the addressee. Internal meanings the function of chinjutsu creates include the speaker’s judgment, questioning, exclamation, appeal, and address” (1971, 106–107; my translation). Language scholars in Japan traditionally recognize the modal nature of language as a significant—often critically important— Speaking as Self-Narrative 193 ingredient of language. This contrasts with western language scholars , who view language primarily as a tool for the transfer of propositional information. This does not mean, however, that modal meaning in language is totally ignored in western linguistics. The development of pragmatics and discourse analysis in the West over the past two decades has contributed to the exploration of nonpropositional meanings. Yet analysis of language with modality and personal “voices from the heart” as primary focus has never gained enough force to cause a major shift in thinking about language. Historically, the West has tended to marginalize the modal view of language. Language as a device for conveying information that can be logically characterized seems to have an enduring...