l ;.' .t
CUL
A NDL A NG UA G E S
S T RUCT URE
, T URE
A n E s s a y c o mp a rin gt h e I n d o -E u ro p e a n ,
B y J o h a n G a lt u n g a n d F u m' ik oNi s hjmu ra
Wis s e n s c h a f t s k o lI e q z u B e rl in
l, J a llo t s t ra B e 1 9
10 0 0 B e rl ' in 3 3
J a n u a ry 19 8 3
-1
1 . I n tro d u cti o n
The purpose of this pap e r js t o e x a m' in et h e ro le o f la n g u a g e s
as carr"iers
m a ti c will
of social cosmo lo g y . I n d o in g t h is n o t h in g p ro b ' le be assumedin co n n e c t ' io nwit h t h e t e rm " la n g u a g e " :
we a r e referring to natural la n g u a g e s , a s t h e y a re writ t e n a n d a s
th e y are spoken,by men and wo me na ro u n d t h e wo rld . T h e t it le
the subject but at the samet ime in d ic a t e s t h a t it
l' imit s
is f a irly
b r o a d: "Indo-E uropeanlanguag e s " s t a n d s f o r a ma jo r f a mi' ly o r
"cl an " of languagesout of wh jc h we a re p a rt ic u la rly t h in k in g o f
the o nes we happento be familia r wjt h : No rwe g ia na n d t h e S c a n d in a via n languages in general; G e rma na n d E n g lis h a n d Du t c h ; F re n c h ,
Ital'ian and S panish and the Ro ma nla n g u a g e sin g e n e ra l; Ru s s ' ia na n d
'langua g e s .
so m eother S lavon'ic
He n c e' it ' is o n ly o u t o f t ra d it io n
in l i nguistics that we use th e t e rm " ln d o -E u ro p e a n " . S ' imi1 a 1 1 y
the word "Chinese" also stan d s f o r a f a mily o f la n g u a g e swit h c o mmo nw r i t i n g a n d
ce r ta'in common
characterjstic s a lt h o u g h it is Ma n d a rin Ch jn e s e weh a v e h a d
in m i nd, and "Japanese"stan d s f o r s t a n d a rd iz e d (n o n -v e rn a c u la r)
Ja p a nesewhich jtself is a f a mily o f la n g u a g e s , d e f in e d b y s o c ia l
r e la ti ons betweensender and re c e iv e r o f v e rb a ' l c o mmu n ic a t ' io n .
)rt
Then there 'is the idea o f c o s mo lo g y (. l is t a k e n h e re t o me a n
I n t h a t e x p lic a t io n o f t h e
co n cept somethingmore than [ ' J e ' lt a n s c h a u u nisg ' in d ic a t e d . F irs t ,
the r "e is the qual if ier "deep " - p o in t in g t o t h a t whjc h ' is n o t o n
"d e e p structure" and "deep c u lt u re " .
the surface, that which is d e e p e r d o wn , imp l ic it ,
la t e n t , n o t
talke d about in general, unq u e s t io n e d , a s s u me d .T h e n t h e re js t h e
ju xta-pos'ition of "structure" a n d " c u lt u re " , d ls o f o u n d in t h e
ti tle
of this essay. They a re h e re s e e n a s b e in g a t t h e s a me le v e l,
-2 n o n e of them preceding the ot h e r in a t e mp o ra l o r c a u s a l s e n s e ,
th e r e by rejecting both the " ma t e ria lis t " p o s it io n t h a t s t ru c t u n e
( p a r ti cularly soc'io - econo micf o rma t io n ) s h o u ld s h a p e c u lt u n e o r
the "i deal ist" posjtion that c u lt u re ' is p rima ry a n d ' is ma t e ria l iz e d
'in str ucture - positions hel d , re s p e c t ' iv e 1 y , jn c e rt a in t y p e s o f
I ib e r a l and l,larx'ist thinking, ' in t h e we s t (. 2 )T hp. o rit ' io n t a k e n h e re
i s n o t necessarily agnostic ' in t h e s e n s e t h a t ' 5 in c e we d o n o t k n o w
w hich one comesfirst
we sho u ld t a k e n o s t a n d o n t h e ma t t e r" , b u t
tr ea ted I ike a chicken and e g g p ro b le m. Ra t h e r, t h e p o s jt io n
is th a t both structure and c u lt L rre a re a p p a rit io n s o f t h e s a me
de e p e r lying phenomenon
here re f e rre d t o a s " c o s mo lo g y " . B u t t h a t
ph e n o menon
is'Ueeper lying"n o t in t h e s e n s e o f b e in g lo c a t e d s o me wh er e
be h in d, be1ow, beneath or be y o n d s t ru c t u re a n d / o r c u lt u re . Ra t h e r,
it
is deeperin the sense of b e in g ' in t h e m b o t h , b u t o n ly t o t h e
exten t that the structure an d c u lt u re in q u e s t io n a re " o f t h e s a me
ki nd "o "of the samefamily" - jn o t h e r wo rd s a re ma n ' if e s t a t jo n s o f
th e sa me,cosmology.
My right h a n d a n d my le f t
h a n d a re b o t h p a rt s
of m e , so are my thoughts an d my me n t a l a c t iv it y
- b u t o n e u s u a lly
do e s not see anyone of these a s b e jn g t h e c a u s e o r t h e e f f e c t o f t h e
othe r but rather as aspecbof " me " . T h a t " me " c a n b e c o n c e jv e d o f in
a m a terial , organic / genet ' ic s e n s e a n d / o rin a n o n -ma t e ria l me n t a l/
ge n e tic sense.One day we m ig h t p e rh a p s b e b e t t e r t h a n we a re t o d a y
a t seeing relations and simi la rit je s
b e t we e nt h e t wo . I n s o c io -
cu ltur al matters, however, t h e a s s u mp t io n h e re is t h a t we c a n a lre a d y
see such similarities,
for in s t a n c e a s is o mo rp h is msb e t we e nwh a t is
usu a lly referred to as struct u re a n d a s c u lt u re , a n d t h a t ' is e x a c t ly
w ha t
cosmology(or more p re c is e ly s o c ia l c o s mo lo g y )' is a b o u t .
Howcan'languages"beca rrje rs o f ' b o c ja l
c o s mo lo g y ? ' I n mo s t u s a g e s
o f the terms languagesare s e e n a s p a rt s o f t h e c u lt u re o f t h a t n a t io n , o r
l an g u age community.A s such t h e y s h o u ld o r mig h t e x p re s s , wh e n lo o k e d
at a long particular djmens io n s , s o me Da s lc
assumptions
of that
cultur e, carried by the very la n g u a g e ' it s e lf .
B u t t h e s a mea p p lie s
to the term "structure":
lang u a g e s in d u c e s t ru c t u re s b e t we e ns e n d e rs
an d r e ceivers of verbal com mu n jc a t ' io nal n d t h e y s t ru c t u re t h e re a lit y
wh ich they try to mirror in t h e ir e x p re s s io n s b e c a u s ea n Y ' la n o u a g e
system 'itself in its syntax , h a v es t ru c t u re s t h a t t h ro u q h s e ma n t jc
r u le s 'induce structures on th a t wh ic h is re f le c t e d . P e rh a p s jt s h o u ld
-3 b e p o inted outthat in saying t h is we
d o n o t c o n c e ' iv eo f t h e wo rd s
"str u cture" and "culture" as v e ry s e p a ra b le . 0 n t h e c o n t ra ry , t h e re
is str ucturcin culture, and e v e ry s t ru c t u re h a s o r is a c u lt u re .
The r e ason for this is that t h e t e rm " s t ru c t u re " i' s jn f a c t a mb ig u o u s :
0n th e one hand jt often ref e rs t o ma t e ria l a rra n g e me n t s ,s u c h
as u r ban arch'itecture; on the o t h e r h a n d it re f e rs
te r n
t o a n y k in d o f p a t-
which can be express e din a lo g ic a l f o rm, in t e rms o f a s e t
of ele ments and a set of rela t io n s a mo n gt h e s e e le me n t s .Ma t h e ma t ic sis
a n ab stract language carrying s t ru c t u re s jn t h is p u re f o rm.
So, the point is that
a
la n g u a g e t a k e s s t ru c t u ra l a n d c u lt u ra l
sta n d si and partly in order n o t t o h a v e t o s a y wh e t h e r t h e s e b u ilt -in
Do s'itions are inherent'ly mo re s t ru c t u re o r in h e re n t ly mo re c u lt u re ,
w eu se a term that carries the s e d e e p a s p e c t s o f e ' it h e r: c o s mo lo g y
( e xa ctly which aspects will b e e la b o ra t e d b e lo w). Ho we v e r,in s a y in g
th is jt should also be po'in t e d o u t t h a t
exp r e ssionsaretoo strong.
Ra t h e r,
both
" s t a n d " o r " p o s jt jo n " a s
o n e m' ig h t t a lk a b o u t " bja s e s "
in cer tain directions, predis p o s in g t h e me mb e rs o o
f n e la n g u a g e c o mmu ni t yt,o a c t ,
to th ihk'and perceive the wo rld ' in c e rt a in d ire c t io n s ra t h e r t h a n
o the r s. A fter al I languages a re t o a la rg e e x t e n t mu t u a lly t ra n s la t a b l e ,
with more or less suc c e s s . T h e y a re n o t d is c o n t in u o u s wjt h e a ch
othe r . A person deeply steep e d in o n e ' la n g u a g e c o mmu n it yc a n s u rf a c e
fr o m i t and get sufficient
d e p t h in
a n o t h e r t o s e rv e a s a liv ' in g b rid g e
we e n the two. He is notcutof f f ro m a n y o t h e r la n g u a g e , in p rin c ip le .
But then he 'is al so markedby h j s I a n g u a g ee x p e rie n c e f o r ' lif e a n d mor e s o t h e
'lo n g e r
. h is wo u ld a c c o u n t f o r a
he has lived in a part jc u la r la n g u a g e c o mmu n ' it y T
cer tain bias.0r, to weakenth e e x p re s s ' io ns t ill mo re : f o r c e rt a in
co m p a ti bjl'ities. B e'inga part o f o n e la n g u a g e c o mmu n it yis n o t in com p a ti ble with the type of cos mo lg yp re v a le n t in a n o t h e r la n g u a g e
com m u n ity. B ut hav'ing been train e d in o n e ' is h ig h ly c o mp a t ib le wit h
the cor r esponding cosmolgy; it c o me se a s y , b y it s e lf , s o a s t o b e
co n sid e r ed normal and natural, s o a s n o t t o s t a n d o u t ra d ia t in q in Languagepredis p o s e s , t h a t is a ll we a re t ry in g t o s a y ;
i t do e s not determine 'in any u n a mb ig u o u swa y .
com p a ti bility.
- 42 . C o smo l o gdyi me n s'i o nasn d languageanalysis
No attempt will be mad eh e re t o ju s t if y t h e s ix d . ime n s io n s
u se d in the present and re la t e d e s s a y s f o r a n a ly s is o f c o s mo lo g ie s ,
vl z.;
)TA LL
TIME
KNOI^ILEDGE
PERSON- NATURE
PERSONPERSON
PERSON
-TRANS
PERSONAL
Th e general assumpt'ionjs th a t t h e s e s ix d ime n s ' io n sa re if n o t
su fficjent,
at least necess a ry in o rd e r t o d e s c rib e a c u lt u re , a n d
m o r e p artjcularly a macro-cu lt u re , a c iv jl iz a t io n . E a c h c u ' lt u re is
se e n as having a stand, a pos jt io n o n t h e s e s ' ix d ime n s io n s , a n d t h e
qu e sti on is to what extent la n g u a g e sa re c a rrie rs o f t h a t s t a n d o r
p o siti on.
Given the point of depart u re o f t h js e s s a y t h is me a n st h a t
w e sho uld try to say somethin ga b o u t h o w t h re e la n g u a g e so r la n g u a g e
gr o u p s relate to six dimens io n s , in o t h e r wo rd s 1 B c o mb ' in a t io n s
a s in the followinq table:
Tab le 1.
The frameworkfor c o s mo lo g y / la n g u a g e
a n a ly s is
E uro p ean
Sp a ce
T'i m e
Kn o wledge
Pe r so n-Natu re
P e r s o-nP e rso n
P e r s o-T
n ransp e rso nIa
Chi n e s e
J ap a n es e
-5 Obviously, an explorato ry t a s k o f t h is k jn d c a n b e c a rrie d
o u t vertically or horizontally . T h e v e rt ic a l a p p ro a c hwo u ld
give a presentation of the la n g u a g e s , ru n n in g t h ro u g h t h e
ga m u t of cosmologyanalysis. T h e h o riz o n t a l a p p ro a c h , wh ic h
i s the one that wjll
be cho s e n h e re , wo u ld t a k e o n e c o s mo lo g ic a l
dim e nsion after the other an d c o mp a ret h e la n g u a g e so n t h e m,
pr o ce edingfrom the E uropeanv ia t h e Ch in e s e t o t h e J a p a n e s e .
Th e advantageof this appro a c h is t h a t it c o mp a re sla n g u a g e s ,k e e p in g the cosmological d'imen s ' io n c o n s t a n t , ra t h e r t h a n t h e e q u a lly in t e r e s t i n g
b u t d 'ifferent task of relatin g c o s mo lo g ic a l d ime n s io n s , k e e p in g
l an g u age group constant. sinc e b o t h a p p ro a c h e sa re s ig n if ic a n t
h o we ver, we shall start w'it h t h e h o riz o n t a l a p p ro a c ha n d t h e n
su m m arizeusing the vertjcal
a p p ro a c h , in a n e f f o rt
t o s a y s o me th in g about the language gro u p s a s a wh o lg . T h e f a c t o rs o f t h is e x e rc ise
a r e then repeated'in table 2 t o wa rd s t h e e n d ; t h e re a d e r is re f e rre d
to i t for a quick summaryat a n y t ime .
-b-
3. Th r ee Ianguagegroups: a c o mp a ris o n
SPACE
Languagesappear in two f o rms , v v rit t e n a n d o ra l; ' in s p a c e
an d j n time, respectively. We a re u s e d t o t h in k in q o f writ t e n la n g u a g e
i n ter ms of two-dimensional s p a c e , t h e h a n d -writ t e n o r p rin t e d
p a 9 € ,wherethinking in three -d ' ime n s io n a ls p a c e mig h t b e e q u a lly
r e le va nt: a book is clearly t h re e -d ime n s io n a l. A n d we a re u s e d
to th inking of speech as a s t rin g o f s o u n d s , s t re t c h e d o u t jn
tim e , starting at one point in t ime a n d e n d in g in a n o t h e r.
Actua lly, that string of soun d s c a n b e re c o rd e d o n t a p e o r in
othe r ways, thereby projecting t ime o n s p a c e . B u t f o r t h e
pr e se nt purposes the arrange me n to f la n g u a g e in jt s wrjt t e n
fo r m is seen as a key to how t h a t la n g u a g e c o mmu n it ys t ru c t u re s
spa ce , and the arrangemento f la n g u a g e in u s u a l o ra l f o rm is
cor r e spondingl y seen as a key t o h o wt ' imeis s t ru c t u re d .
A book printed in a E u ro p e a nla n g u a g e is a h ig h ly s t a n d a rd ' iz e d
an d unambiguous
arrangemento f o n e -d ime n s io n a l s p a c e jn t h re e dim e n sjonal space. The first p a g e is in f ro n t , t h e la s t p a g e
'i n th e back of the volume; t o a v o id a n y c o n f u s ' io n t h e p a g e s
dr e sspially numberedand hen c e a rra n g e d in a o n e -d ime n s io n a l
fa sh io n. The reading of a si n g le p a g e is f ro m le f t
t o rig h t
an d fr om top to bottom; anyo n e o f t h e o t h e r t h re e p o s s ib jlit ie s
wo u ld bring considerable dis c o mf o rt t o t h e re a d e r u n le s s h e
i s de l iberately in search of n o n -me a n in g .
Not so wjth Chinese and J a p a n e s e .
For the latter
we ar e thinking in terms of t h e Ch in e s e c h a ra c t e rs , n o t t h e
Jap a n eseuse of the two sylla b le a lp h a b e t s (k a t a k a n a a n d
hir a g a na) and the Japaneseu s e o f " Ro ma n "c h a ra c t e rs (in ro ma -ji) A s
o p p o sedto the E uropeanrigidit y
t h e re js c o n s id e ra b le f le x jb il it y .
In th e S ino-Japaneselanguag ec o mmu n it y , b o o k sma y s t a rt in
fr o n t or in back, and at leas t t h re e o f t h e f o u r wa y s o f re d u c in g
th e two-dimens'ionalprinted o r writ t e n p a q e t o a o n e -d ime n s io n a l
Tho u g h it ma y we ll b e t h a t t h e re js a t p re s e n t a
str in g can be found.
te n d e ncy towards a reduction o f t h ' is v a rie t y in mo d e so f b o o k / p a p g l
pr o d uct'ion,vari ety sti I I the re j s .
However,there is more t o s a y a b o u t S p a t ia l a rra n g e me n tt h a n c a n b e
sa id in terms of the opos it io n b e t we e nrig id it y a n d f le x ' ib il' it y no ti ng in passing that onc e t h e c h o jc e h a s b e e n ma d ea p a rt ic u la r
C hin ese or Japanesebook bec o me sa s rig id a s a n y E u ro p e a nt e x t . T h e re
is
not only the possibil it y o f p rin t in q o r writ in g in v a rjo u s
w ays; once a choice has bee n ma d e it ma y a ls o b e p o s s ib le t o re a d
i n various ways. A E uropea ns e n t e n c e re a d b a c k wa rd s ,f ro m rig h t
on one linerltay giv e s o meme a n ' in g ,b u t u s u a lly b e s o s y n t a c t i c a l ' l y
in co r rect that "it w'il1 be r e je c t e d b y a n y la n g u a g e -s e n s jt jv e min d .
A Eu ropeanpri nted page rea d v e rt j c a l l y , f o rin s t a n c e b y re a d i n g
to l eft
the first
or the last word s o n e a c h lin e , f ro m t o p t o b o t t o m o r
fr o m bottom upwardsto the t o p will
p ro b a b ly b y mo s t me mb e rso f
th a t language communitybe re je c t e d e v e n b e f o re t h e e x p e rime n t
ha s s tarted (the reader is e n c o u ra g e dt o t ry t h ' is p a g e , f o r in s t a n c e ).
0f course the samemay b e t h e c a s e f o r Ch ' in e s ea n d J a p a n e s e .
H owever,itcanbeattempted, a n dp o s s ib ly wlt h mo re s u c c e s s . A n d wh a t
is to the point: the compos e ro f t h e p rin t e d p a g e , t h e a u t h o r a n d i
or th e printer,may arrange t h e c h a ra c t e n in s u c h a wa y t h a t a d d it io n al
m ea njngsmay
comeout of non -c o n v e n t io n a l re a d in g o rd e rs . I n f a c t
th e r e are examplesof high- 1 e v e 1 a c h ie v e me n t sin a rriv in g a t
seve ral meanjngsthis way, e v e n c o mb in in g d ia g o n a l re a d jn g a s a
po ssibility, even off -diagon a l re a d in g t . " b t c o u rs e , ' in t h e We s t t h is
'i s knownas games, immortaliz e d t h ro u g h t h e c ro s s wo rd -p u z z 1 e s .
Bu t i n S ino-Japanesespace it ma y a ls o p o in t t o a d if f e re n t wa y o f
replete wit h me a n in g , ' in a le s s u n a mb ig u o u s
co n ceiving space,
a n d l inear fashion. E ven circ u la r
a rra n q e me n rsc a n u e t o u n d . (4 )
However,there is more t o it t h a n t h a t . T h e s u m t o t a l o f me a n . in q s
a r r ived at by read'ing a row o r a c o lu mn b a c k wa rd sa n d f o rwa rd s ,
d o wn wardsor upwards, or do in g t h is f o r t h e wh o le p a g e , f f id y s e rv e a s
p o 'in ters to a meta-meaning .I f we ll c o mp o s e dt h e s u m o f o n e dim e ns'ional,partial
meaning sma y b e mo re t h a n t h e s e t o f t h e p a rt s ,
an d the step from meaningst o me t a -me a n ' inma
g y b e a c c o mp a n ' iebdy
so m ekind of quantumjump'in c o n s c io u s n e s s .T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h is
i s th e case'it'is
obvious t h a t o n e p a g e ma y c a rry mo re " in f o rma t io n "
tha n would usually be the ca s e in a E u ro p e a nb o o k .
-B A nd yet, there is still
mo re t o it
t h a n t h is . A . p rin t e d
page
i n Ch'ineseor Japanese,wit h c h a ra c t e rs a rra n g e d , u s u a lly v e ry
ne a tly,'in rows and column s c a n b e c o mp a re dt o a c o m' ics t r" ip wh e re
pictures are arranged in ro ws a n d c o lu mn s , u s u a lly wit h c h jld re n
a s r eceivers 'in E uropean
co u n t rie s . A s f o r t h e c a rt o o n s t h e re c e jv e r
ca n grasp what is happenin go rc f f rmu n ic a t e da t a me re g la n c e . O n e
se co nd or two spent on a D o n a ld Du c k c a rt o o n will t e ll t h e re a d e r
( or onlooker) what it
is ab o u t ; a f t e r t h a t h o lis t ic p e rc e p t ' io n ,
h e or she may then proceed t o t h e d e t a ils in a mo re re g u ' la r, I jn e a r
fa sh ion. S omethingof the s a me ' is t h e c a s e wit h Ch in e s e a n d J a p a n e s e
scr i pt: since the characte rs a re id e o g ra n sa q u ic k s a mpin
l g of
id e o grams,in a more or less ra n d o mf a s h io n , b u t we ll-d is t rjb u t e d
pa g e owill qive a good not'io n o f t h e c o n t e n t s b e f o re
over the
m o r e systematic reading is in it ' ia t e d . B u t t h ' is me a n st h a t t h e re
i s the possibi l ity of proc e e d in q ' ina mo re h e rme n e u t ic ama
l nner
js
th a n
usually the case w it h re s p e c t t o E u ro p e a nwrit in q s , f ro m a gr a s p
o f th e totality
to concernwit h d e t a il,
a n d back to detail again,an d s o o n . 0 f
f ro m t h e re t o t o t a lit y
c o u rs e , s o me o f t h e s a me
sam eeffecteould be obtained u s in g E u ro p e a ns c rip t ,
s a mp lin g
a w ord here and there - but t h e s e wo rd s a re u s u a lly le s s e v o c a t iv e
tha n a Ch'inesecharacter, o n e re a s o n b e in g t h a t s o ma n ywo rd s
ar e not - ljke nouns, verb s , a d je c t iv e s , a d v e rb s - c a rrje rs o f mu c hm e a n ' i n q
b u t are connectives, fill'inq- jn
wo rd swit h p a rt ic u la r s y n t a c t ic
fu n ct'ions, and so on. S uch wo rd s a re
a ls o f o u n d in c h in e s e a n d
Jap a nese, but the eye of the re a d e r will mo re e a s ily b e a t tr a cted to the characters mo re s a t u ra t e d w' it h me a n in q .
Hence, the messagesabo u t o rg a n iz a t ' io n o f s p a c e a re a c t u a lly
qu ite different when one comp a re sE u ro p e a nla n g u a g e so n t h e o n e
ha n d w'ith Ch'ineseand Japan e s eo n t h e o t h e r. T h e re is t h e d js t in c t io n
be tw een rigid'ity and f lexib il it y ' in t h e p ro je c t io n f ro m t h re e d'im e ns'ionalto one-d'imenso n asl p a c e . T h e re is t h e u s e o f f le x ib il jt y
i n o r der to arrive at more v a rie t y . T h e re is t h e p o s s ib i' lit y o f
m e ta-meaningsas the sum of p a rt ia l me a n in g s g le a n e d f ro m a n y o n e
wa y o f proc€edingin printed o r writ t e n s p a c e . A n d f in a lly t h e re
i s the potential forholistic
a n d h e rme n e u t ic a l re la t ' io n s t o
spa ce, ergendered by the org a n iz a t io n o f Ch in e s e a n d J a p a n e s e
w r i tten 'language.In short, E u ro p e a nla n g u a g e ss t a n d o u t a s
- 9s i m pl i sti c i n th e i r sp a cestr uctur e r elative to the m uchm or ecomplex
u s e o f sp a cema d eb y C h i n eseand Japanese.
TIM E
S omet h in go f t h e s a mema y b e s a id
a b o u t the organ'izat'ionof t' ime , a lt h o u g h le s s c le a rly s o .
Th e object'ion to any expiora t io n o f t h is is ' imme d ' ia t e : T h e re is
so m eth'ingabso'lute about time , ' it
f lo ws a n d f le e t s b u t o n ly in o n e
d ir e ction,whereas space ca n b e lo o k e d a t a n d h a n d le d in s o ma n y
w ays, turned upside downo a n ds o o n .
However,even if we do n o t s e e mt o b e v e ry c t o o da t n ia s t e rin q c h ro n o ' l o g i c a 1
tim e we can always do somet h in ga b o u t t h e s t rin g s o f s o u n d so a n d
the strjngs of words. The a p p ro o rla t e q u e s t io n t o a s k s e e mst o b e :
G'ivena set of words,can the y b e o rg a n iz e d in o n ' ly o n e wa y wh ic h
i s th e correct word order, o r is t h e re a c e rt a in f le x ib i1 it y s o
th a t more than one permutat io n is le g it ima t e ? A n d jf t h e la t b e r is
th e case could it then be, o n c e mo re , t h a t t h e re is a c h a n g e in
m e a ning, jf only a subtle c h a n g e , wit h t h e p e rmu t a t io n ,a n d t h a t
th e set of al1 legitimatepermu t a t io n s , limit e d b y
the set of
a ll poss'ib1epermutations, mig h t c a rry a h id d e n me s s a g e ,a me t a m ea ning?In other words: T o wh a t e x t e n t is a la n g u a g e
so rigid that it permits o n ly o n e wo rd o rd e r: o F s o f le x jb le t h a t
'it permits several word orde rs o u t o f t h e ma t h e ma t ic a llyp o s s ib le o n e s ?
And then, beyond that: not o n ly wh e t h e r la n g u a g e is f le x ib le o b u t a ' lso w h e t h e r
alter native word orders can b e u s e d a n d d o in f a c t c a rry me a n in g s ,
e ve n meaningsthat compleme n t h e s t a n d a rd me a n in gc o n v e y e d
b y the initial word order. P o e t ic p o t e n t ' ia l is o b v io u s ' if t h is ' is t h e c a s e .
Off hand one might perh a p s s u rmjs e t h a t a la n g u a g e lik e G e rma n
wo u ld be extremely rig'id w h e re a sa la n g u a g e lik e Ch in e s e mig h t b e
ve r y flexible. i,le have not c o mea c ro s s e f f o rt s
t o c o n f irm o r
di sconfi rm such hypothesi s , a 1t h o u g h t h e re mu s t h a v e b e e nmu c h
r e se arch done in this field.
T h e G e rma nwo rd o rd e r wjt h n o t o n ly
on e v erb but often several v e rb a l f o rms mo s t ly a c c u mu la i. in qa t t h e e nd o f
th e sentence does not seemto s t a n d mu c hre a rra n g e me n twit h o u t
tr a n sgressing the borderlin e s o f t h e le g ' it ima t e . 0 n t h e o t h e r
ha n d , similar rigidities se e mt o b e mu c hle s s p re v a le n t ' in Ch in e s e .
- 10 It should be emphas'ized
tha t t h e me a n in g , o f c o u rs e , c h a n g e swit h
the permutation, as it also , in g e n e ra l, will d o wh e n t h e re a d in g is
do n e in a different
direct'i o n , a s me n t jo n e d a b o v e . I t s h o u rd b e
no ted,however, that the po in t ma d eh e re a b o u t p e rmu t a t io n s g o e s
m uchfurther than what was d is c u s s e d a b o v e u n d e r t h e h e a d in g o f
sDa ce: It i s now a question o f a l I p e rmu t a t ' io n s, n o t o n ' ly f o rwa rd
an d backward, upwardsor down wa rd s .
Imagine that somestat is t ' ic a l
s t u d y h a d b e e n u n d e rt a k e n , o r
co u ld be rrrdertaken,and pro v e d t h e h y p o t h e s is b ), a n d la rg e t o b e
cor r e ct. LJhatwould be the imp l ic a t ' io n s o f t h a t ? T h a t t h e re is a t
le a st a potentia'l f lexibil it y . wh e t h e rit is re a l ly ma d eu s e o f
j s a n other matter. B ut in m a n y E u ro p e a nla n g u a g e s
t h e re ma y n o t b e t h a t
p o tent'ial
and hence much le s s o p p o rt u n it y t o p ' la y wit h wo rd o rd e r,
an d thereby also with time.
KNOt^/LEDGE
W eshall tr y to discuss this subject
un d e r three headjngs: predjc a t iv e v s . re la t io n a l; a b s t ra c t v s .
con cr ete and prec'ise vs . va g u e . B y a n d I a rg e t h e . id e a wo u ld b e
tha t Indo-E uropeanlanguagest e n d t o p ic k u p t h e f o rme r h o rn o f t h e s e t h r e e
dich o tomously expresseddjlemma s , Ch in e s e a n d J a p a n e s et h e la t t e r.
the predicative aspect of E u ro p e a nla n g u a g e s is a lre a d y s e e n in
the ty p'ical sentence structu re : t h e re is (u s u a lly )a s u b je c t , a n d
so m ething is predicated of t h a t s u b je c t - a q u a l. if je r (a d je c t iv e )
an d /or a verb, w'ith or w'it h o u t q u a l if ie r (a n a d v e rb ) . I n o t h e r
w or d s: something is atrjbut e d t o s o me t h in g , p re d jc a t e d o f s o me th in g . In fact, this struct u re is s o d e e p ly in g ra in e d in me mb e rs
of th eselanguagecommunit ie
t hsa t it is p ro p a b ly s e e n a s t h e n o rma l
wa y i n which humanthought c a n b e e x p re s s e d , t h e re b e in g n o
a I ter na ti ve .
chinese and Japanese, ho we v e r, a re e x a mp le so f a lt e rn a t iv e s .
T h e c h i n e sep h i l o so p h e rch angtung- sur { 5J..,r elational pr esentatjon
a s m uchmo rei mp o rta n t, e ven to the point of being typical of
e
c h i n e se'l a n g u a g stru
ctu re . He quotesMenc' ius:' ,hum an
natur e towar ds
t h e go o da s w a te r d o w n w ar ds",
a fair ly optimjstic view of human
n a t u re , b u t cl e a rl y re l a tj onal. The gener al str uctur e wouldbe a quar tet,
A : B = X :Y , w h 'i chi s a mu chmor ecomplexthought str uctur e than
p r e d ica ti n g so me th i n go f a subject, p( S) .W fr atit says js that ther e
a r e t wo re a l ms o f C i sco u rse,one or them r elating to humanbeings
- 11
a n d the other one to physi c a l n a t u re . T wo e le me n t s a re p ic k e d
o u t of either, they are rela t e d t o e a c h o t h e r wit h jn b o t h
typ e s of discourse,and then t h e re la t jo n s a re re la t e d s o a s
to arrive at a quaternary re la t ' io n s h ip . T h e imp o rt a n t t h in g
a b o ut this relation is tha t it p re d ic a t e s n o t h in g in a n y p re c is e
se n se of any ofthe terms; jt o n ly s a y s t h a t t h e f o u r t e rms
ar e related to each othen in a c e rt a in wa y . Wh e re a sp re d ic a t iv e
l an g uagewould tend to be mo re s t a t ic ,
a t t rib u t in g
to someth'ingfor ever ("I a m a b o y " ), re la t io n a l
s o me t h ' in g
la n g u a g e k e e p s
th e absolute propertjes or p re d ic a t e s o p e r' , a n d p u t s t h e e le me n t
of invarjance at a higher le v e l o f a b s t ra c t io n . I t is g a lile a n ra t h e r
r4 \
tha n aristotel ian; Fqn!t'Lon s b e g rif f ra t h e r t h a n S u b s t a n z b e g rif f Y ' I n t h i s s e n s e ,
h e n ce, Chinese hasa muchmo re a b s t ra c t la n g u a g e s t ru c t u re
th a n E uropeanlanguages- a n d s in c e t h is p a rt ' ic u la r c h a ra c t e ris t ' ic o f
C h i ne sei s ta ke n o ve r b v
J a p a n e s e' it w' il I a l s o b e a p p l ic a b le
to the latter.
A nd the qua rt e t is a v e ry f re q u e n t t o . r. (7 )
An'interesting aspect o f t h is h a s t o d o wit h t h e d if f e re n c e
b e tweenthe connective that is u s e d t o p re d ic a t e s o me t h in g ,lik e " I am
a bo y", in
turopean langu a g e s (b e , s e in , 6 t re , a n d s o o n ) a n d
i n C hinese (shih L
a" - {
and h
b
) o r^ in lu p u * r.
f q g ! -q a
- n d a ru
). Wh e re a sjn E u ro p e a nla n g u a q e st,h, e s e
co n n ectives are asymmetric ,in Ch in e s e a n d J a p a n e s e , p e rh a p s
pa r ti cularly the former,they a re s e e n a s mu c hmo re s y mme t ric . I t js
I wh o possess boyishness,as e x p re s s e d in t h e s e n t e n c e a b o v e ;
jt is not "boy" which poss e s s e sI -' is h n e s s . I n Ch in e s e a n d
Ja p a nese, however, this dis t in c t ' io n is mu c h le s s s t ric t . B o t h
co n structions would be vali d ; p e rmu t a t io n s jn t h e s e n s e ma d e
ab o ve are possible. Conno t a t io n s ma y b e d if f e re n t ,
t h e me t a -
m ea ningsmay be irnportant. I n s h o rt , a o re d ' ic a t ' iv e o ro p o s it io n
m a y be r,al'idboth ways and he n c e b e c o me sre l a t i o n a l a 1t h o u g h
i n th r's case binary, not qua t e rn u ry . (B )
This general emphasiso n re la t ' io n a l e x p re s s io n s ma y o la c e
Jap a neseand Ch'inesecloser t o d ia le c t ic
re a s o n in g t h a n is t h e c a s . ef o rEu p o p e a n
la n g uages. P red'icat'iveexpre s s ' io n st e n d t o b e c o memo re s t a t jc ,
m or e "unary", hence less ma lle a b le , le s s f lu id .
gla n ce this may seemto be e x a c t lV
A t t h e f irs t
t h e o p p o s ' it e o f t h e n e x t
po in t, the predilectjon for a b s t ra c t e x p re s s jo n in I n d o -E u ro p e a n
la n g uagesas opposedto con c re t e e x p re s s io n s in Ch jn e s e a n d
Ja p a nese; but that is only a t t h e f irs t
g la n c e .
a6
-
t/
-
It is often po'inted out t h a t b o t h Ch in e s e a n d J a p a n e s ea re
ve r y concrete languagesand t h a t me mb e rso f t h o s e la n g u a g e
com munities
aredissatisfied wit h a n y t h in g b u t h ig h ly c o n c re t e
de scriptions, forinstance
in t h e f o rm o f p re c is e e x a mp le s . T h e
i de o grams,the characters t h e ms e ' lv e s , h a v ev e ry c o n c re t e o rig in s
altho ugh someof that may h a v e b e e n lo s t t h ro u g h t h e mille n n ia .
Bu t then there is anotherpoin t wh ic h h a s n o t b e e n lo s t : t h e re
ar e no artjcles
in Chinese, a s a ls o jn J a p a n e s e ,a n d t h e Ch jn e s e
ia n g uage, from the E uropea np o in t o f v ie w, h a s a n a lmo s t in c re d ib le
l ack of inflect'ion in gende r, c a s e o r t e n s e , a n d wit h re g a rd
to si ngular vs. plural.
disti nctjons
0f c o u rs e t h is in n o t , v a yme a n st h a t s u c h
cannot be expre s s e d , o n ly t h a t t h e y a re n o t b u ilt
i nto single words with appro p ria t e p re f ix e s a n d s u f f ix e s o r s imjl ar n reans,butare derivedfro mt h e c o n t e x t . B u t it d o e s me a nt h a t
th e distinction betweena t re e , t h e t re e a n d ju s t s imp ly ' t re e '
do e s not mcur automatjcally \ . v h t re e is a n y t re e , " t h e t re e " . is t h a t
pa r ti cular tree,whereas 'tree ' ' is t re e -js h n e s s - a n a b s t ra c t p ro p e rt y
of a tree, I i ke boy'ishnes s ;a n u n i v e rs a l a s p e c t o f t re e s ,
, o lnli
for the lasting controversy b e t we e nn o min a lis ma n d re a lis m. ' ' " '
ng
Thjs becomesmuchmore ' in t e re s t in g wh e n in s t e a d o f t re e s o n e
l oo ks as such concepts as " f re e d o m" a n d " e q u a 1 it y " . I n ma n y E u ro p e a n
l an g uagesthese words can be e q u ip p e d wjt h a rt r' c le s , b u t ' in g e n e ra l
a p p e ar without, denoting abst ra c t c o n c e p t s . T h e y s t a n d f o r e s s e n c e s ,
for somethingessentjal that ma y o n ma y n o t b e s a id t o e x ' is t o r
be pr esent in, for instance , c o u n t rie s .
A s s u c h t h e y a re t h e t o o ls
o f a bstract reasoning, they c a n b e u s e d a s s u b je c t s , a n d s o me t h in g
ca n be predicated of them, t h e p re d ic a t e s c a n b e c o mp a re d , a n dlo n g
ch a in s of deductive reason in g c a n b e e s t a b l' is h e d . [ u ro p e a n s ,p e rh a p s
pa r ti cularly
the Germansand t h e F re n c h c a n g o o n f o r a c o n s ' id e ra b le
l en g th of time discussing th e re la t io n b e t we e n " f re e d o m" a n d " e q u a lit y "
wi th o ut ever havj ng to use a s i n g l e e x a mpel . l' lo t s o i n Ch in e s e a n d
Jap a nese:The languagewill
f o rc e a c e rt a in c o n c re t e n e s s o n t h e
l an g uage users or at least t e n d t o b e n d t h e m' in t h a t d ire c t io n .
"You meanlike in - - -?" w o u ld b e t h e t y p ic a l q u e s t io n a s k e d
by a Sino-Japaneseto an In d o -E u ro p e a ns p e a k e r wh e n t h e a b s t ra c t
disco urse has gone on for s o met ime a n d t u rn e d ' in t o u t t e r me a n in g ( 11)
I essness from the poi nt of v i e w o f c o n c re t e n " r, .
-
tJ
-
In r e spect of these two aspec t s o f t h e e y o is t e mo lo g ic a l d ' ime n s io no f lan g u a g e
the q r ound has already been pre p a re d jn lin g u is t ic d e v e lo p me n tf o r t h e e t n e r q e n c eo f
ba sic characterist'ics of oc c ' id e n t a l in t e lle c t u a l
s t y le : a t o mis t ic
(.1 ? r.a i r.u ti veexpr essionsper m it deta
an d deducti ve'.'lyredi;cati
ch*"nt ot
on e s ubject from another in o rd e r t o a s s lg n a t t rib u t e s ;
e s s e n t ia ljs m
pe r m its deductiv'ismas a log ic a ' l o p e ra t io n , u n e n c u mb e rebdy a n y
r n isplaced concreteness.Rela t ' io n a l e x p re s sjo n s a re mu c h le s s p e rmis s ive
of atom'ismunless one should t a lk a b o u t mo le c u la ris m, t h e d e t a c h me n t
of a more comp'lexunjtfromth e re s t
s o me t h in g c o n c e rn in g t h ' is mu c hmo re c o m p l e x
wr'll be more proble ma t ic , h o we v e r. A n d jf in a d d it ' io n
r ela tjonal
e n ti ty
o f t h e u n iv e rs e , lik e in a q u a rt e t, a
tetrad. To attrib u t e
e sse ntial'ismis less develop e d d e d u c t iv e re a s o n in g wo u ld b e imp e d e d .
At this point the third a s p e c t e n t e rs wit h f u ll
f o rc e . E u ro p e a n
l an g uagesare constructed i n s u c h a wa y t h a t t h e y a t le a s t g iv e
th e impressjon that people in s u c h la n g u a g e c o mmu n it je sc a n a rriv e a t
ve r y
precise conclus'ions t h a t a re
o p e n t o f a ls if ic a t jo n ;
if
th e y cannot be "confi rmed"t h e y c a n a t I e a s t b e " d i s c o n f j rme d ' lT h e
wouldtend t o b e a p re d ' ic a t jv e s t a t e me n t , a
pr o p osjtion,and as such subje c t t o a d e c is io n , a ju d g e me n t in t e rms
con clusjon itself
of"tr ue vs. false" (or the we a k e r f o rm o f t h a t d ic h o t o my ,c o n f irme d $
fi r m ed] Not so in Ch'inese/ J a p a n e s eT. h e v a g u e n e s os f t h e a lI u s jv e ,
'l
a s " p o e t ic ' j h a s b e e n
iter ary sty'le, of ten referre d t o b y ln le s t e rn e rs
th e c onstant themeofcomm e n t u rJ l3 / , a ls o s h o wsu p wh e n J a p a n e s e
le a r n foreign languages: ex p re s s io n s s u c h a s " ma y -b e " , " v ie l 1 e ic h t " ,
t'pe u t-6tre" pop up very of t e n i n o rd e r t o re f ' le ct t h e v a g u e n e s so f
Jap a nesediscourse. A ques t jo n I ik e " Wh e nd o e s t h e t ra ' in I e a v e ? "
t h e a n s we r " t h e t ra i n
by a Norwegian husband'is I i k e ' ly t o e ' l' icj t
le a ves, frdy be, around noo n " - wh e n t h e t ra jn in f a c t (f ro m a
We stern point of view!) lea v e s a t 1 2 . 0 0 , s h a rp . I n t h is , it
sh o u ld be noted, js not only a c e rt a in v a g u e n e s s o f t h e la n g u a g e
b u t also in the self-presen t a t ' io n o f t h e s p e a k e r: t o is s u e a
p r e cise, absolute statemen t ' is t o p re s e n t o n e s e lf a s a ru le r o f
the universe, or at least a s a d ire c t o r g e n e ra l o f J a p a n Na t io n a l
Ra ilr oad (JNR). Neither is c o n s id e re d a p p ro p ria t e t o p u t it mi1 d 1 y .
Deductivism presupposesp re c is e n e s s ,if; n o t t h e wh o le p u rp o s e
o f d eductivism is lost. A nd t h e p u rp o s e ' is t h is : f ro m c le a r, p re c is e
pr e m isses via the jron laws o f d e d u c t iv e ' lo g ic t o c le a r, p re c is e
con clusions. It seemsthat b o t h t h e Ch jn e s e a n d J a p a n e s ela n g u a g e s
discon-
14wo u ld be very imperfect vehic le s f o r s u c h t h o u g h t f ig u re s , b y P e o p le
i n th e West seen as necess a ry c o n d ' it io n s f o r s c ie n c e in t h e We s t e rn
sen se. The units on which pro p o s it io n s a re b u ilt
si m ple subjects
a re n o lo n g e r
The bas'ic f ig u re s o f t h o u g h t a re re la t io n a l
th a n predicat'ive. There is lit t le
ra t h e r
o r n o t h in g o f e s s e n c e swh e re
th e l ogical nature of the'ir in t e rc o n n e c t io n c a n b e e x p lo re d , a n d
bo th beg'inning, the mjddle a n d t h e e n d o f a n a rg u me n t a t iv e c h a in
wo u ld be vaguerather than p re c ' is e . Wh ic h , o f c o u rs e , o n ly p o in t s
to other types of intellectu a l
s t y ' le s , mo re h o lis t ic ,
mo re d ' ia le c t ic ;
all the time keeping in m'in dt h a t b o t h t h e Ch jn e s e a n d t h e J a p a n e s e
'l an g uagesare
capable of ser v in g a s c a rrie rs o f b le s t e rn s c ie n t if ic
th o u gh! only that 'it comesle s s e a s ily s jn c e t h a t t y p e o f t h in K in g
h a s not developed together wit h t h e la n g u a g e s t ru c t u re .
PERSON
- NATURE
T h e re is mu c h le s s t o s a y a b o u t t h is
dim e nsion.0n the one hand s o ma n yo f t h e Ch in e s e c h a ra c t e rs a re
con crete,taken from natural o b je c t s t h a t we re
d e p ' ic t e d in e a rlie r
ver sions of the characters. I t is e v e n f o u n d ' in f a mi" ly n a me st o d a y
in Japanese,for instance: T a n a k ame a n in g " c e n t ra l p a d d y " ,I n o g u c lll
m ea ningthe"mouth ofa boar" . T h e a b s e n c eo f c le a r d js t in c t jo n s
b e t we e n
ab str act and concrete prope rt je s , o r a s p e c t s ,o f t h e s a met e rm ma k e s
all
things more equal. The re is le s s o f a wo rld o f t h e c o n c re t e
an d touchable, "nature" to wh ic h t h e h u ma nb o d y wo u ld a ls o b e lo n g ,
on th e ore hand and on the o t h e r h a n d a wo rl d o f t h e a b s t ra c t , t h a t
w h'ich can not be touched, o f e s s e n c e sa n d e v e n s o u ls , t h e e s s e n c e
of h umanbeings. B oth are c o n c re t e , b o t h a re t h e s a me .
In Europeanlanquagesby the s a met o k e n , t h e re is a ls o a c e rt a in p e rs o n i f i c a t j o n
o f n ature through the use of g e n d e rs o t h e r t h a n n e u t e r in
r eferences to nature (la nat u re , d ie Na t u r) a n d p a rt s o f n a t u re ,
su ch as anything in the bios p h e re . Ne v e rt h e le s s , jt js c le a r t h a t
e sse ncesand abstract'ions a re a t t rjb u t e d t o h u ma nb e in q s a n d t h in g s
cr ea ted by humansmorethanb t h e a n ip : a l p la n t a n d min e ra l " k in g d o ms " .
It j s typical that "foxine s s " is a n a t t rjb u t e o f c e rt a in h u ma nb e ' in gs
r ather than of a fox. S o by a n d la rg e \ v e wo u ld b e in c lin e d t o s a y t h a t
the differences betweenthe la n g u a g e f a mjlje s will p o in t ' in t h e
d'ir e ct'ion of making humanbe in g s d ' if f e re n t f ro m n a t u re in t h e
Eu r o peanlanguages, more s'imila r in Ch in e s e a n d J a p a n e s e .T h e s t e p
fr o m essence (abstractjon) t o s o u l is b u t a s h o rt o n e , a n d t h ' is js
15 w h a t 'i s a l re a d y b u i l t i n to the languagesm or pho' logica11y.
T h ' is a g a in is a f a irly
- P E RS ON
PERS ON
top ic,
c o mp re h e n s i v e
and of course of imme n s eimp o rt a n c e t o s o c ia l s c ie n t is t s
sin ce this is where social re la t io n s a re b e in g imp l ic it ly
d e f jn e d ,
by certa'i n tendenciesor bi as e s a l re a d y b u i I t i n t o t h e 1a n g u a g e .s
i,r lsh
e al l try to discuss th'is imp o rt a n t a s p e c t o f c o s mo lo g y' in g e n e ra l
an dso cial cosmologyin part ic u la r, u n d e r t h re e h e a d in g s : c o 1le c t iv is t
VS. i ndividual ist,
vertical
a n d in s id e v s . o u t s jd e -
v s . h o liz o n t a l
the g eneral thesis being tha t J a p a n e s ewill
t e n d t o p ic k u p t h e f o rme r
h e a d of these three d'ilemm a sa n d E u ro p e a nla n g u a g e st h e la t t e r,
with Chinese be'ing moreinS e t we e nb u t t e n d ' in gin t h e J a p a n e s ed ' ire c t io n .
Let us start with the c o ' lle c t iv is t
v s . in d iv id u a l is t d ime n s ' io n
an d wjth a somewhatmetaph o ric a l b u t ' in o u r
v ie w u s e f u l wa y o f
ap p r oaching the problem. Ima g in e o n e c o me sa s a t o t a l f o re ig n e r
to a c ommunitywhere E nglis h , o r Ch in e s e , o r J a p a n e s eis s p o k e n .
The newcomeris completely ig n o ra n t o f t h e la n g u a g e , u n d e rs t a n d in g n ot h i n g .
It comesas a f low of sound s , u n d ' if f e re n t ia t e d , mo re o r le s s l' ik e
a w aterfall,
like t.he chirp in g
o f b ird s , t h e g ru n t in g o f a n ima ls .
tJo u ld there in all of this b e o n e s o u n d t h a t s t a n d s o u t , o n e t h a t -a f t e r
r u ld re c o g n iz e a n d t h e n
listening to the phenomeno n -t hnee wc o mewo
r er e cognize to the point of u s in g it a s t h e f irs t s o u n d h e mig h t
r ep e at,with a questioning e x p re s s io n ' in h is f a c e , t ry in g t o e lic it
som etype of interpretation?
Here three candjdates a re s u g g e s t e d : t h e " I ' in t h e E n g lis h
' la n g u a g e ,
a n d t h e " h a ' i" jn
la n g uage, the "wU-men"
in the Ch ' in e s e
th e J apaneselanguage. The f irs t o f t h e s e is s imp ly in t e rp re t e d : it
'is th e assertive first pers o n s in g u la r p ro n o u n , t h e s y mb o l o f
in d 'ividual ism and selfassert io n , e v e n c a p it a l jz e d in writ jn g (' l " )
so th at it stands out, shou t jn g it s me s s a g eo f in d iv id u a l is m t o a n y
e ye trained on this phenome n o n ' ina p a g e f ille d wit h E n g lis h
p n in t. The second one is als o a s s e rt iv e , jt is t h e f irs t p e rs o n
p 1 u r a1 pronoun, "we". The in d iv id u a l s p e a k e r p re s e n t s h ims e lf
( o r h erself, but then Chine s e d o e s n o t re f lo c t g e n d e r) a s
16a pa rt, even a particle in a g ro u p , t h e c o lle c t iv e l, J e .T h is we
js a subject, a potential or e v e n a c t u a l a c t o r. A n d t h is d if f e rs
fr om the ubiquitous "hai" fo u n d in J a p a n e s ed is c o u rs e , s o me t ime s
( i nco rrectly) translated int o t h e E n g lis h " y e s ' J a n d ' it s e q u iv a le n t s
i n other languages. One int e rp re t a t io n o f t h is " h a i " , wh jc h a c c o rd in g
to the tone in which jt js u t t e re d a ls o ma y c o mec lo s e t o " n o " ,
w ou ld be something like this : " 1 a m t u n e d ro n y o u , I a m re c e iv in g
th e signal s you emit, I am s wit c h e d o n " t . ' ' 1 t ma y , h o we v e r, a ls o
ha ve a connotation of subs e rv ie n c e a s it js t h e u n d e rd o gra t h e r
th a n the topdog who has to c o n f irm t h a t h e is t u n e d in , t h a t t h e
swj tch rema'inson . l^lhenthe t o p d o g u t t e rs
q u e s t i o r , o l^ a s e m'-i
qu e stion,th'is may release a c a s c a d e o f " h a i " a mo n gu n d e rd o g' l is t e n e rs ,
an d the questi on 'is of ten f o rmu la t e d i n s u c h a wa y t h a t t h e ' rh a' i rl
can be given jn affirmat'ive in t e rp re t a t io n . I n s h o rt , " h a i" s t a n d s
fo r somekindofvve-ness
only t h a t jt js re la t io n a l b e t we e nt h e s e n d e r
a n d the receiver, a symbol t h a t t h e y a t le a s t f o r t h e t ime b e in g
con stitutea languagecomm u n it y ,a re la t io n ,
n o t o n ly a g ro u p o f p e o p l e .
This can then be contra s t e d wit h t h e we ll-k n o wn J a p a n e s e
r elu ctance to use the first
but
also to someextent'in
p e rs o n p ro n o u n , p a rt ic u la rly in t h e s in g u la r ,
t h e p lu ra l. O n e ma y e v e n t a lk a b o u t a n
a n ti - i nd'ividualism built'into
t h e lin g u is t jc h a b it s . I mp e rs o n a l
exp r essions can be used: Ins t e a d o f s a y in g " I a m q o in q t o
Yo ko hama
tomorrow" one m' ig h t s a y " t o mo rro w - t o g o t o Y o k o h a ma
the r e is a p1an")'Rdflexive v e rb s ma y b e u s e d ' imp e rs o n a liz in g
th e actjon, or at least putt in g t h e a c t ' io n a wa y f ro m t h e s p e a k e r.
0f course, this is not u n k n o wnjn o t h e r la n g u a g e s , f o r in s t a n c e
i n Spanish. A managerof a ja m f a c t o ry in Ch i' le o n c e h a d t h e p ro b le m
tha t a worker had lost a the rmo me t e rin t h e ja m (wh ic h h a d t o b e
tr ea ted at very defjnite
te mp e ra t u re s ). I t wa s a n imp o rt a n t a c t ,
e ve n a grave one as the thermo me t e rmig h t d is in t e g ra t e in t o t h e
ja m . The worker, muchto the irrit a t jo n
o f t h e ma n a g e ro u t t o d is t rib u t e
g u i1 t, expressedwhat had ha p p e n e dn o t b y s a y in g " Y o p e rd i e 1 t e rm om etro"but by saying "e1 te rm6 me t ro s e p e rd id " - " t h e t h e rmo me t e r
lo st itself".
Obviously this c o u ld b e in t e rp re t e d a s a n e x c u lp a t o ry
fo r m ulation, and as such ve ry u s e f u l in a s it u a t io n lo a d e d wit h
ten sion. It should be pointe d o u t t h a t in a la n g u a g e lik e No rwe g ia n
the corresponding reflexive s e n t e n c e wo u ld b e a wro n g ly f o rmu la t e d
sen tence, making this type o f d e p e rs o n a liz a t io n d if f ic u lt .
I n E n g lis h
-
41
lt
"t h e th e rmo me tegro t l o st" does not expr essthe sam e:the ther mometer
b e i n q a su b j e ct ca p a b l eo f ' losinq itself.
Still
another way in w h ic h t h is s u p p re s s io n o r d e n ig ra t io n
o f the'indiv'idual expresses it s e lf
in J a p a n e s ewo u ld b e t h ro u g h
se lf- effacing
comments.If re f e re n c e h a s t o b e ma d et o o n e s e lf
the n they should at least b e n e g a t iv e ; t h e o p p o s it e
b e in g
un b e arab'lyself-assertive.
A n d t h a t b rin g s o u t h o w l, rle s t e rn e rs
i n thejr speech comeacross t o J a p a n e s e : a s e g o c e n t ric a n d s e lf l au d atory, and also as self-a s s e rt iv e , p re s e n t in g t h e ms e lv e s a s
a lwa ys 'in command
of the s'it u a t io n (I a mg o in g t o Y o k o h a ma
tom o rrow),and with themse lv e s jn t h e c e n t e r o f t h e s c e n e .
Then there is the other s id e o f t h e c o l le c t ' iv is t -in d iv id u a l is t
d jm e nsion: not only avoiding in d iv id u a l is t e x p re s s ' io n s , b u t
ma k in g f u 1 1
u se of collectivist expres s ' io n s . I t d o e s n o t n e c e s s a rily t a k e t h e
fo r m of the f jrst person p. lu ra l p ro n o u n , b u t o f s o me ' id e n t if ie d c o lle c t i v i t y
n a m ed,to wh'ich one belong s . A l^ le s t e rn e rmig h t p re s e n t h ims e lf a s
"Joh a n Galtung from the Un jv e rs it y o f 0 s lo " , s t a rt in g f ro m t h e
in sid e with the personal at t rib u t e ,
fa m 'i1y nameand then institut io n a l
t h e f irs t
n a me , t h e n t h e
b e lo n g in g n e s s . A J a p a n e s ewo u ld
do j ust the opposite: "Univ e rs i t y o f O s lo ' s G a lt u n g J o h a n" . F i rs t
defi n in g o n e s p o s it io n in s o c ie t y , t h e p la c e
of w ork, then a genitive po s s e s s iv e c o n n e c t iv e , t h e J a p a n e s e
com e sthe collectivity
"no ") , then the family namet o s y mb o liz e b io lo g ic a l b e lo n g in g n e s s ,
an d at the end what to the We s t e rn e rwo u ld b e " mv s e lf " .
[^/herewould a Chinese b e lo c a t e d o n t h is d ime n s io n ? P ro b a b ly
som ewherei n -between, capab le o f u si n g f i rs t p e rs o n p ro n o u n s,
bo th in singular and plural,
th e l atter.
b u t wit h a c e rt a in p re d ile c t io n f o r
B ut they would a ls o b e p e rf e c t ly c a p a b le , lin g u is t ic a lly ,
of not using them, letting
t h e m b e imp lie d b y t h e c o n t e x t . A n d
th is brings out an aspect o f Ch in e s e a lre a d y h ' in t e d a t s e v e ra l t ime s .
C hin ese is a languagewhich c a n e a s ily b e s t re t c h e d b o t h in t h e
We sternand'in the Japanes ed ire c t io n , a la n g u a g e in t h e mid d le ,
a r eal zhb'ngw6n (middle la n g u a g e ) a s o n e mjg h t e x p e c t f ro m a
zr r 6n ggud (middle kingdom). 1 t t a k e s le s s d e f in it e s t a n d s .
. 18 Let us then look at the n e x t a s p e c t , v e rt ic a l v s . h o riz o n t a l.
N o l anguage is jnsensjtjve t o v e rt ic a l s o c ia l d is t a n c e (" c la s s d if f e ren c e " ,
a ltho ugh this is a somewha ljmit
t
in g
t e rn i) a n d h o riz o n t a l s o c ia l
d 'istance, the distance to fo re ig n e rs o f v a rio u s k jn d s , t h e d if f e re n c e
b e tw een'insjde and outside (t rre t a n g u a g ec o mmujtny ), t o b e d . is c u s s e d
be lo w. E ach social layer has it s wa y o f u s in g t h e la n g u a g e , it s
p a r ti c ular vocabulary, 'its o wn g ra mma t icp a ra d . ig ms ,id io ma t ic e x pr e ssions, perhaps syntax, e v e n s e ma n t ic s , ' it s in t o n a t io n . T h e
socja l group at the top'is
u s u a lly a b le t o d e f in e t h e wa y it
speaks
th e language as the "correct " u s a g e , t h e o t h e rs b e in g d e v ia t io n s
a n d a berrations, even jncor re c t , e v e n " v u lg a / ' . 4 1 s o , t h e s o c ia l g ro u o i n
the centre of the languagec o mmu n it y ,wh e t h e r jt js o r n o t t h e s o c 1 a l
gr o u p at
the top,
js usu a lly a b le t o d e f in e ' it s u s a g e o f t h e
la n g uage as "national",
"sta n d a rd " , a n d o t h e r u s a g e sa re d e f in e d
a s "vernacuIar". A nd this b e c o me se v e n mo re t h e c a s e f o r wo rld
la n g uagessuch as E ng'lish. Na t ' io n a 1 1 yo t h e r g ro u p s t h a n t h o s e a t t h e
top a nd/orin
the centre ma y f ig h t ,
r i gh ts within the total
e v e n s u c c e s s f u lly , f o r e q u a l
lan g u a g e c o mmu n it y .B u t in t e rn a t ' io n a 11 y
it seemsto be taken for gr a n t e d t h a t t h e c o u n t ry o f o rig in ,
s u c h a s E n g l a n dh
, as
the rjght to define c o rre c t u s a g e a n d o t h e r c o u n t rie s n o n e ,
a ll
r e g a r dless of how muchthe la n g u a g e is a " wo rld la n g u a g e " . F o r t h a t rea s o n
En q lish
could be seen a s b e lo n g in g t o t h e wo rld , ju s t a s a
"na ti onal lanquage" is
more a n d mo re s e e n a s b e in g a p a rt o f a
n a ti onal heritage, meaningb y t h a t a ll
6 ljte.
p a rt s o f t h e n a t io n , n o t o n ly t h e
A ll users could be s e e n a s h a v in g mo re e q u a l r' ig h t s in d e f in in g
the language.
Standard Oxbridge or "K in g ' s " E n g lis h ; Ha n n o v e rG e rma n ,t h e
Fr en ch of the Toura'ine, the I t a lia n o f T o s c a n a / Umb rja ,t h e S p a n is h
o f Salamanca,the Chjnese of B e ijin g , T o k y o J a p a n e s e- a ll o f
the se are examplesof the pa t t e rn ju s t me n t io n e d , t h ru s t ' in g we d g e s between "standard" an d " v e rn a c u la r" , " d ia ' le c t " . I n d o in g s o
g e o g rapllvis equipped with a v e rt ic a l g ra d ' ie n t , c la s s if y in g d ' is t ric t s
as w ell as jnd'ividuals. There js mo re o v e r t h e ' in t e ra c t iv e a s p e c t
of thjS , al S O found 'in al 1 la n g u a g e s : s p e e c h d if f e rs a c c o rd in g t o
so cia l relat'ions, one does no t t a lk in t h e s a mewa y t o t h e F o re ' ig n
M i n'ister and to his driver. A n d ' it is n o t o n ly a q u e s t io n o f wh ic h
p e r so nal pronoun i s used (i n E n g li s h t h e d if f e re rrt ia t io n c a n b n a d eb y rle a n s
namer e s p e c t iv e ly , wh e re a G e rma nmig h t u s e
a French y9!! 0r t u ; it js _ . a ls o a q u e s t io n o f t o n e o f
of la st nameor first
Si e or du
i evo ice , and the choice of vo c a b u lu ru l' f l s e n t e n c e s p o k e n u p wa rd : b
com e slonger: oFt"tdto;the sa mec o n t e n t e x p re s s e d d o wn wa rd sma y
-1 9 be comeshonter, more direc t .
Ho rjz o n t a l la n g u a g e , t o e q u a ls , ma y De
l oca ted somewherein betwe e n . B u t t h a t d o e s n o t n e c e s s a rjly d e f . in e it
a s the national language. I t ma y b e v e ry lo c a l. T h e s 1 a n g , ja rg o n ,
a r g o t, of equals may vary b e t we e nc ra s s e s a n d f ro m p la c e t o p l* -" (t z 1
T his, honever, is a un' iv e rs a l p h e n o me n o na lt h o u g h it d if f e rs
in degree from one languagec o mmu n it yt o t h e o t h e r. T h u s , in
N or wegianthere'is certain] y n o t mu c h le f t o f t h js k in d o f d -if f e ren ti ation particular'ly afte r t h e s e c o n d p e rs o n a l p ro n o u n s in g u la r
"d u " is now almost un-ivers a l;" De " h a v in g a ' lmo s t d . is a p p e a re d .
But Japaneseas a langua g e g o e s f a r b e y o n d t h is , e v e n t o t h e
po in t that one might talk ab o u t f o u r d ' if f e re n t la n g u a g e s : a d o wn w ar d language,an upward lang u a g e , a v e ry mu c hu p wa rd la n g u a g e ,
a n d a horizontal language. T h e s y n t a x wil' l d if f e r, a n d s o will t h e
co n crete words used,even to c o n v e y mo re o r le s s t h e s a meme a n ' in g .
C on sequently,
the Japane s eh a v e t o k n o wwh e re t h e y s t a n d in re la t io n
to ea ch other before correc t v e rb a ' l c o mmu n ic a t io nc a n s t a rt . T h e p ro v er b i a l
a ct o f introduction to each o t h e r, wit h t wo J a p a n e s eg e n t le me n , b o t ho f t h e m
dr e ssed in black, approachin g e a c h o t h e r, g ra d u a l' ly b o win g d o wn
w i th straight'legs
and straig h t b a c k s :
r ela ti ve anale at the hips t ill
e X p e rime n t ' in gwit h t h e
t h e y , b y u t t e rjn g s o u n d s o f b e lo n g in g n e s s
an d n ames,havefound out wh a t will
b e t h e c o rre c t re la t iv e a n q le ;
u n d e rp'inningthe mutual pres e n t a t io n b y f is h in g o u t o f t h e b re a s t
po cket of the jacket a visit in g
c a rd (a e n e ra lly
o f t h e s a me
si ze) becomesmeaningful. I t is a p re c o n d it io n f o r t a lk .
But can they not simp'ly ma k eu s e o f h o ri z o n t a l ' la n g u a g e ?T h a t
'i s the language of mass commu n ' ic a t io no, f n e ws p a p e rs ,ra d jo a n d T V ,
to be used in impersonal re la t ' io n s wh e re t h e s e n d e rs d o n o t k n o w
wh o the receivers are, only t h a t t h e y will b e s c a t t e re d a ro u n d j. n
Jap a nesesociety in such a wa y t h a t n o n e o f t h e t h re e v e rt ic a l
l an g u agescan be used.0f c o u rs e t h is wo u ld h a v e b e e n t h e a n s we r jf
Jap a nesehad been a Western la n g u a g e ; it wo u ' ld h a v e mo v e din t h e s a me
d i r e c ti o n , I i ke N o r^ w e g i an
has
a t a mo re s u p e rf ic ja l
I e v e l. B u t t h e
othe r Japanese
languagesare t h e re , c ry in g t o b e u s e d , d e f in in g
socia l relations of superord in a n c ea n d s u b o rd in a n c e . O n e d a y t h e y
m a y b e given up, horizontal J a p a n e s ema y s p re a d a t t h e e x p e n s eo f t h e v e r t i c a l
ve r sions of Japanese B rrt t h a t d a y is p ro b a b ly s t ill f a r a wa y .
-2 0 This, however, does not me a nt h a t h o riz o n t a r la n g u a g e ' is n o t
use d in personal relations, o n ly t h a t jt is f ra g me n t e d . O n e g ro u p
m ay use this type of horizo n t a l la n g u a g e , a n o t h e r o n e t h a t t y p e de p endingon gender, dge, o c c u p a t io n a l c a t e g o ry , g e o g ra p h . ic a l
lo ca tion (and probably also o t h e r f a c t o rs ).
A g a jn t h is me a n st h a t
l an g uage becomesa symbol o f s o c ia l a t t rib u t io n ,
o f b e ' lo n g in g n e s s
a s well as relationship in a mo re v e rt ic a l s e n s e . A lmo s t e v e ry
l i ng u'ist'ic act def jnes attr ib u t e s a n d re ' la t ' io n s , me a n in gt h a t
th e spoken and written lang u a g e ' is n o t o n ly a s o c ia l a c t jn t h e
usu a l sense of being interac t iv e o b u t in t h e s e n s e o f p o in t in g
o u t, underlining, even ree n f o rc in g s o c ia l d ' iv is io n s a n d re la t ' io n s .
Th e y function like a map of t h e u n d e rly in g s o c ia l t e rrit o ry ; wit h o u t
tha t map territorial
locat ' io n a n d re la t io n wiil g e t 1 o s t , a n d t h e
i nd ividual Japanesewould f e e l a t a lo s s . T h is , in c id e n t a l 1 y ,
will also be a leason why J a p a n e s eo f t e n k e e p q u ie t
in c o n t e x E wh er e lr lesternerswould not: the s it u a t io n ma y n o t b e c le a r e n o u g ht o
d e fi ne the adequate languag e . A n d t h e p ro b le m is n o t s o lv e d b y
l oa d ing one's languagewith h o n o rif ic s t o b e o n t h e s a f e s jd e : t o
talk too muchupwardsmay b e a s jn s u lt in g t o t h e o t h e r p e rs o n
( a n d thereby also to onese lf ) a s t h e o p p o s it e mjs t a k e . Wh e nin
d o u b t, keep qu'iet, wait and s e e, wai t a n d I ' is t e n , t ill s o me b o d v
e lse defines the situat'ion.
However,a1'l of thi's i s mo re t h a n me re ly a n a n a lv t ic e x e rc is e .
The r e js a concreteappljc a t io n o f t h e p rin c ip le o f b u ' ilt -in
ver ti cality,
morphologically t h a t is , in
t h e J a p a n e s ela n g u a g e
th a t
could be mentioned. I s a s t u d e n t re v o lu t io n , o r a n y re v o lu t io n
po ssible jn that society at a ll, wit h o u t a ls o c h a n g in g t h e la n g u a g e ?
On e basic aspect of revolutio n is t o b u ild d o wns o n re
ver ti c alityo
f o rms o f
folinstance
re la t in g t o c o mma nodv e r me a n so f
pr o d uction, or command
ove r me a n so f re p ro d u c t io n - wh e t h e r t h e la t t e r
the b iolog'icai sphere,Iinke d t o a ris t o c ra c y , o r in t h e s p h e re
o f socjal reproduct'ion in g e n e ra l, ljn k e d t o me n it o c ra c y . T h e
stu d ent revolution of the la t e 1 9 6 0 s c a n b e t a k e n a s a n e x a mp le .
The 'b tudent revolution' is a c h a jn o f e v e n t s , wh jc h a c t u a lly s t a rt e d jn
L a tj n A merica in the early 1 9 6 0 s , t h e n a p p e a re do n t h e t d e s t c o a s t
of the United S tates in the f o rm o f t h e " f re e s p e e c h " mo v e me n t ,
an d then exploded in China d u rin g t h e Cu lt u ra l Re v o lu t io n 1 9 6 6 -6 9 ,
I a ter on
to aopear i n lnle s t e rnE u ro p ea n d E a s t e rn Uni t e d S t a t e s
ts 1n
-
a4
al
an d then finally
in E astern E u ro p e (b u t n e v e r t o a p o e a r in a n y f o rm,
i t seems,in the S ov'iet unio n a n d ' in I s ra e l ). p ro f e s s o rs we re b u ilt
d o wn, other membersof the u n jv e rs it y we re t o s o mee x t e n t b u ilt u p ,
po ssibly as a hoped for co n s e q u e n c eo f b u ild in g p ro f e s s o rsd o wn .
On e way of do'ing this was b y c h a n g in g s p e e c h h a b it , a d d re s s in g t h e m
with fewer honorifics, with le s s re s p e c t , e v e n wjt h d . is re s p e c t . I n
som elanguagesthis couldb e a q u e s t io n o f c h a n g in g f ro m' , s ie , ' t o
"du '! but without at the samet jme c h a n g in g f r: o m f a mi' ly la me t o f irs t
n a m esince the latter migh t b rin g t h e c la s s e n e myu n c o mf o rt a b ly
clo se.
B ut in Japan no such at o mis t ic c h a n g e c o u ld b e d o n e . No t
on ly language molecules,but t h e wh o ' le la n g u a g ewo u ld h a v e t o b e
cha n ged. Horizontal langua g e ,in d ic a t in g a b e lo n g in g n e s st o t h e s a me
gr o u p,bordering on intimacy , wa s o u t . He n c e , t h e o n ly a lt e rn a t jv e
to vert'ical up-languagewo u ld b e v e rt ic a l
we stern mind it might be dif f ic u lt
m ea nssince it
goes so far
f u lly
d o wn -la n g u a g e .F o r t h e
t o c o mp re h e n d
wh a t t h js
b e y o n d a me re c h a n g e in p e rs o n a ' l
p r o n oun. There are stories o f J a p a n e s ep ro f e s s o rs h a v in g c o mmit t e d
suicjde after having been e x p o s e dt o a n e x p e rie n c e o f t h a t t y p e .
As a consequenceone might d ra w t h e c o n c lu s ' io n t h a t t h js a p Dro a c his no t
on ly too dramatic, but also n o n -re v o lu t io n a ry o r e v e n a n t i-re v o lu t io n a r y ,
un le ss one assumesthe d'ic t a t o rs h ip o f t h e p ro le t a ria t (" s t u d e n t ia t " ? )
as th e goal of a revolutiona ry p ro c e s s . A n a t ' io n wid eh o riz o n t a l
socie ty would not at presen t f in d ' it s I in g u is t ic e x p re s s io n w. it h in
Ja p a neselanguage,as jt
is k n o wn , a n dt h is c o n s t it u t e s a ma jo r imp e d ' im e n t
to a ny such change. whatev e r c h a n g e d o e s t a k e p la c e la n g u a g ewill
com mand
consciousnessin the s p e a k e r o f wh o js h ' ig h a n d wh o is lo w.
An d when all
djmensions of h ' ie ra rc h y h a v e b e e n e ljmin a t e d s o men e w o ne s w o u l d
h a ve to take their p1ace. T h js h a d a c t u a lly h a p p e n e do n c e , a f t e r
th e fleiji revolution, placin g t h o s e wit h h ig h e r e d u c a t io n f p e 6 e lit e
i nst'i tutions at the
top a n d o t h e rs b e lo w a t v a rio u s le v e ls in
a"d e greeocracy'lasa succes s o r o rd e r t o t h e p re c e d in g a rirt o . ru . y ! 1 8 )
He n ce, it could very easily h a p p e na g a in , jf f o r n o o t h e r re a s o n , t h e n
fo r p urely 1ingujstic
reason s :v e rt . ic a l it y re p ro d u c e d b y
In a sense the jnside-ou t s id e d is t in c t io n
ver y bas'ic Japanesepeculiarit y :
1in g u is t jc
a ls o p o in t s t o a
a s h a rp b o rd e rlin e b e t we e nJ a p a n
an d the rest of the world, b e t we e n n ' ih o n (t h e O rig in o f t h e s u n )
ne c e s s i t y .
a n d g a i -ko ku (o u ts'i d eco u ntr y,"abr oad") . Most im por tantis the way
a re ta l ked about and addr essed.Theyar e ta' lked
i n w h i ch fo re 'i g n e rs
a b o u t, to a l a rg e e xte n t, as non- per sons,us' ingconstr uctionsthat co ul d al s o
anima ls a n d c o mmo d it ie s (J g )ft h e f o re iq n e r
Japanesea problem aris e s : wh e re d o e s s / h e f it jn t o t h e
b e approorjate for
ta lks
Ja p a nesehiearchy? W hat kjn d o f la n g u a g e s h o u ld b e u s e d ? I f t h e re
i s no answer to these impo rt a n t q u e s t io n s t h e n t wo p o s s ' ib iI it ' ie s
rema'in: to use a fore ig n la n g u a g e ( o f wh ic h t h e J a p a n e s e
ar e i ncreasingly capable), o r t o u s e n o la n g u a g ea t a ll, k e e p q u ie t .
ttal smil e miqht b e o n e s o ' lu t io n i n t h a t k i n d o f
A no n-commi
still
si tu a tion.
Addedto thjs comesa b a s ic c h a ra c t e ris t ic o f J a p a n e s ea n d
C hin ese from the point of v ie w o f t u ro p e a n la n g u a g e s : t h e ir in acce ssabjlity. Not only E uro p e a n s ,a ls o t h e J a p a n e s ea n d Ch in e s et h e m se lve s would need the full d u ra t ' io n o f e le me n t a ry s c h o o l jn o rd e r
to a cquire adequatemastery o f t h e ir o wn la n g u a g e , in o rd e r t o b e
"a lp h abet'ized",whjchof cours e is a wro n g e x p re s s jo n s in c e t h e re a re c h a r a c t e r s
' la n g u a g e
le a rn in g
an d no alphabet ('bharacteriz e d " ? ). A s f o r mo s t
increase wjt h jn c re a s in g a g e o f t h e s t u d e n t .
th e djfficulties
follows that o n e a lmo s t h a s t o b e a me mb e ro f t h o s e
so cieties in order to beco meme mb e rso f t h e la n g u a g e c o mmu n it ' ie-s
n o t quite, but almost. A nd f ro m e le me n t a ry k n o wle d g e(e . g . o f t h e
( 2n\
fam o us lB 50"E haracters pres c rib e d b y t h e J a p a n e s eMin is t ry o f
Edu cation aS the basic mus t f o r a n y J a p a n e s e )t h e re is a v e ry 1 o n g ,
G i ven this'it
see mjngly endless ladder to c ljmb t o wa rd s h ig h e r le v e ls o r ma s t e ry '
pe r fecti on. Most Japanesea n d Ch ' in e s et h e ms e v' le s wi I I n e v e r b e
a b le to comevery high on t h o s e la d d e rs , t h e re b y re ' in f o rc ' in g wh a t eve r rank differentials th e re ma y b e wjt h in t h o s e s o c ' ie t ie s .
This actua'l1y meansthat t h e in s ' id e -o u t s id e me t a p h o r is o n ly
cor r ect up to a certain po in t . T h e re is a s t e e p d ic h o t o my b e t we e n
spe a kers and non-speakerso f t h o s e la n g u a g e s in c lu d in g t h e wa y
th e y are addressedand talk e d a b o u t . B u t o n c e t h a t b o rd e rlin e h a s
b e e n passed there are even c o n s id e ra b le d ' is t a n c e s b e t we e np e rip h e ry
an d centre of I i ngui sti c comp e t e n c.e
lJ-
In E uropeanlanguagest h e re is h a rd ly a n y p a rt ic u la r d ' is t in c t io n
b e tw eenhow insiders and ou t s id e rs a re a d d re s s e da n d t a lk e d a b o u t .
l 4o r e over, the reaction to fore jg n e rs a q u irin g E u ro p e a nla n g u a g e s
from the reactio n s f o u n d in Ch in a a n d J a p a n . P a rt ic u la rly
i n Japan a foreigner capable o f s p e a k in g a d e q u a t e J a p a n e s ema y b e o o r
m ay differ
u n e a s in . rr(. 2 1 il.o r^
eve n s hould be, cons'ideredwit h a c e rt a in t a c it
'
in
t
o
jn t e rn a l s o c ia l a rra n g e me n t s ,
sh e wi I I bring difficul ties
i ne vjtably. Moreover, he or s h e p e n e t ra t e s ' in t o a c o rp u s
m ysti c um, a society reserved f o r jn s ' id e rs . L in g u is t jc c o mp e t e n c e
is no t enoughto acquire
me mb e rs h ip ;v e ry c o mp le t e s o c ja l
be lo n gingness includ'ing po s ' it io n ' in a J a p a n e s eo rg a n iz a t io n ,
pr o b ably also Japaneseeduc a t io n wo u ld b e re q u ire d . A n d e v e n if
th e se membershipcriterial
m i gh t st'ill
a re f u llf r' lle d
t h e ra c ia l d is t in c t ' io n s mig ht
stand out, E as t a n d S o u t h e a s t A s ' ia n s t o s o mee x t e n t
exce pted. A ll of this actually o n ly u n d e rlin e s t h e mu c hmo re s o c ia l
ch a r a cter of the Japanese'la n g u a g e ,v e ry s imp le (f o r E u ro p e a n s )in t in g u i s t i c
gr a m mar,very complex in soc ia l g ra mma r.
For the Chinese someth' in go f t h e s a mema y a p p ly a lt h o u g h t h e
socia l grammaraspect of Ch in e s e is mo re c o mp a ra b let o E u ro p e a n
la n g u ages. A civiljzation
set t in g it s e lf
a p a rt , d ra win q lin e s
be tw eenthe Chinese on the o n e h a n d a n d t h e b a rb a ria n s (No rt h , t a s t ,
So u th and W est) on the othe r is n o t a c iv iljz a t ' io n t h a t wo u ld e a s ily ad m i t
02\
fo r e 'ignersi-dnd linguistic o b s t a c le s c a n b e u s e d t o k e e p f o re ig n e rs
ou t. In a sense one might e v e n t u rn t h is a ro u n d f o r E u ro p e a n
l an g uagesand say that the re l a t ' iv e e a s e w' it h wh ic h a t I e a s t s o me
of th em can be aquired (suc h a s S p a n is h , t o s o mee x t e n t a ls o
Eng lish) S erV eSaS a meansto le t f o re ' ig n e rs in , t o b e c o mea p a rt o f
th e communitiyat 1arge. Th e re is e v e n c o n s ' id e ra b le s a t is f a c t io n
wh e n a foreigner atta'ins
1in g u is t ic c o mp e t e n c e :s o mek in d o f
co n fj r matjon of the unjversa l v a lid it y
o f t h e la n g u a g e , a n d mo re
so th e more exotic the fore ig n e r. F ra n c e is p e rh a p s t h e e x t re me
exa m pleof this,with
the Fr e n c h s e e min g ' lyre g a rd in g t h e ir la n g u a g e
as la langue un'iverselle. A n A f ric a n t a lk in g F re n c h p e rf e c t ly is
on e more confirmation, walkin g o n t wo f e e t , o f t h a t p ro p o s it io n .
Pr ecjsely the opposite may a p p ly t o Ch in e s e a n d J a p a n e s e .No t o n ly
d o they not regard their lan g u a g e sa s u n iv e rs a l la n g u a g e s ; t h e y
m a yn oteven want them to be u n ' iv e rs a l, b u t t o b e p a rt ic u la r, la n g u a g e s
for themselves, not necess a rjly f o r o t h e rs . T h e s e la n g u a g e sa re jd e a l f o r
se ttin g the membersof the lan g u a g e c o n mu n it y a o a rt t o d e f e n d t h e ir id e n t i t y .
The y a r e less adequate as offe n s iv e lin g u is t ic
in s t ru me n t s t o c o n q u e r t h e w o r l d .
( ??\
- 24- TRA NS P E RS ONA L
PERS ON
Canone say that these languagestake
a stand on the transperson a l, e v e n t h e t ra n s c e n d e n t a l? I n a s e n s e
yes, but perhaps only indjre c t ly s o . L o o k ' in qa t J a p a n e s e , f o r in s t a n ce ,
th e c oncreteness
of the lang u a g e , t h e re la t iv e a b s e n c eo f e s s e n t ja lis m ,
m i gh t make
the languag e le s s c a p a b le o f jmb u in g a n y t h ' in g
w i th soul-ljke characteristic s o b e t h a t n o n -a n ima t eo r a n jma t e
na tur e, and for the latter
n o n -h u ma no r h u ma n .B e c a u s eo f t h is
sym metry,with everything e me rg in g lin g u is t ic a lly
wit h o u t a n
in n e r Wesen,onemay of cours e c h o o s e e it h e r in t e rp re t a t jo n : t h a t
hu m ansare without sou'1, or t h a t e v e ry t h in g e ls e js wit h s o u l;
Jan p anese is
so different
f ro m E u ro p e a nla n g u a g e sb e c a u s eo f t h e d e -
pe r sonification of personsqp a rt ic u la rly
o f o n e s e lf , t h a t t h is c a n n o t b e
wi th out i mp'li cati ons.
A t the sametjme the Jap a n e s ela n g u a g e h a s a s p e c ia l v a rie t y
fo r talking "very much" upwa rd s . B u t t h a t la n g u a g e is n o t f o r t a lk in g
with God, but for talking
o r t h in k in g a b o u t , f o r in s t a n c e , t h e
Em p eror. In other words, one mig h t s a y t h a t
e x a c t ly b e c a u s et h e
l an g uage is so steeply vertic a ' 1 , a n d n o n e t h e le s su s e d o n e a rt h , t h e
pyramid remains a n o n -t ra n s c e n d e n t a l o n e . T h a t d o e s n o t
m e a nthat the E mperorjs a p e rs o n , h e is p ro b a b ly a t ra n s -p e rs o n , o r w a s ;
ver ti c al
e m b o dyingJapan and the Jap a n e s e . B u t h e is s t ill
o f t h is wo rld ,
m e a n inqthat God has becom en o n -t ra n s c e n d e n t a l. A n d t h is me a n s
c o mp a t ' ib lewit h t wo b a s ic
ch a r acterjstics of the buddh is t b e l ie f - s y s t e m: n o n -s o u l a n d
th a t
Japaneseas such is e n t ire ly
n o n - God,meaningno person a l g o d .
A ll E uropeanlanguages re n d e r t h e ms e lv e se a s ily t o t h e a t t rib u t io n
o f soul-like characterjstics .
T h e re is a ' ls o a s p e c ia l la n g u a g e f o r t a lk i n g b
( so m emight say with) God: q u a in t p a t t e rn s o f v e ry p o lit e a d d re s s ,
a lso used for k'ings, f ike t h e E n g lis h f o rms t h o u a rt , t h o u h a s t .
Bu t this js certainly also a v a ila b le in J a p a n e s e ,me a n in gt h a t
'i n somefuture, when E mpero rwo rs h ip h a s c o mp le t e ly d is a p p e a re d
th e n the'linguistic
forms m ig h t b e re s u rre c t e d a n d f ille d
wit h a
m o n o theistic content. Thjs is n o p re d ic t ' io n t h a t J a p a n ' in t h e
becomeCh ris t ia no r t ' lu s lim, o n ly a n in d ic a t io n
th a t the languagewould not s t a n d ' in t h e wa y wh e re v e rt ic a lit y is
con cerned. lhere is enough v e rt ' ic a lit y t o s e rv e a ls o t h is p u ro o s e . B u t
21 st century will
a s it
stands today social co l le c t ' iv is m a n d n o n -t ra n s c e n d e n t a l v e rt ' ic a 1i t y
a r e e minently compatible wjt h b u d d h is mo f a ma h a y a n av a rie t y . A n d t h a t c o l le cti vism
or anti-individua lis m, wo u ld s t a n d ' in t h e wa y o f O c c ' id e n ta lr e l ' i g ' i o n s .
pa r ti cularly of indjvidual iz in g P ro t e s t a n t Ch ris t ja n it y . (2 3 )
- 25-
4 . C o nc
I u s'io n
It'i s n o wti me fo r a n attempt to pu11all of this together and th e
f i r s t ste p i s th e su mma ry
p resented' inTable 2, which is noth' ingother
t h a n T ab l e 1 w 'i th th e co n cl usionsof the analys' isin section 3 in highl y
c o n c e ntra te d ,e p 'i g ra mma tifor
c m. In contr ast with the explor ator y
h o r i z o nta 'la p p ro a chu se d j n the pr ecedingsection,1et us nowtr y to
r e a d T a b l e 2 ve rti ca l l y to s ee what this tells us about the lanquaqes
a s c a r r i e rs o f co smo l o g y.
l a n guages:Both spaceand t' im ear e enAs r e ga rd 5th e E u ro p e a n
d o w e dw i th re l a ti ve l y ri g i d and r ather sim ple str uctur es. Ther e
i s a po i n t o f d e p a rtu rea n d a point of ar r jval, what js in- between
i s I j n e a r a n d re l a ti ve l y ri gid, unam biguous.
The knowledge
str uctur e
c o m eso u t a s p re d i ca ti ve (attr jbutjve) , and at the samet' im eabstr act
a n d pre ci se . In sh o rt, th e r ight type of languagefor both atom jstic,
d i c h o to mo uasn d d e d u cti ver easoninq. As concer nsthe oer son- natur e
the lang u a g e sa t le a s t p e rmit c o n c e iv in g o f
dim e nsion
na tur e and humansas differe n t (a lt h o u g h n o t v e ry c le a rly s o ), a n d i f we now makea jump-also ma k e it p o s s ib le t o c o n c e jv e o f G o d a n d
hu m ansas different,
the lat t e r
e q u ip p e d wit h a s o u 1 ,p o s s ' ib 1 y
r ela tjng to a possible God. I n s h o rt , t h e re ' is a h ie ra rc h y wit h
G od o n top, then humanbe'in g s , t h e n n a t u re ; G o d b e in g a b s t ra c t ,
e sse nt'ialist
although equip p e d wit h h u ma nf e a t u re s . A t t h e in t e r-
t h e re is a p re d jle c t io n
fo r i ndividualism but then t h e re a re n e v e rt h e le s s o p e n in q s f o r v e rt ic al a s w e l
pe r sonal level the language sa re f le x jb le :
a s horizontal relations, and n o s h a rp d is t ' in c t io rs b e t we e nin g ro u p s
a n d o utgroups.
One may conclude in say in g t h a t t h e s e a re la n g u a g e st h a t a re
co m p at'iblew'ith E uropeanun iv e rs a lis m, in c o rp o ra t ' in g t h e re s t o f
jn soc'ial fo rma t jo n s t h a t a lt h o u g h in d iv id u a l is t a re
th e world,
acco mmodating
to both
Th is flexibility
ve rt ' ic a l a n d h o riz o n t a l a rra n g e me n t s .
is lost wh e n o n e lo o k s a t t h e o rg a n iz a t jo n o f
spa ce, time and knowledge:a ll o f t h e m rig id ,
lin e a r, c e n t ra lis t .
As r e g ards Japanese, here'in a s e n s e we f in d e x a c t ly t h e o p p o s jt e p a t t er n '
wh e re t h e o rg a n jz a t io n o f s p a c e ,
Th e r e js considerable flexibilit y
tim e and knowledge,asexpres s e d in lin g u ' is t ic p a t t e rn s , a re c o n c e rn e d.
- 26Tab le 2.
L a n g u a g eass C ar nier sof Cosm ology:
A Summ ar y
Sp a ce
Kn o wledge
i E u ro p e an
Ch 'ni e s e
I 'inear
rigid
guo u s
I unambi
fl exi bl e
a mbi g u o us
me t a -me a nnig s
fl exi bl e
am ibguou
s
meta- mean
i ngs
I inear
f le x ib le
f le x ib le
r inid
m eta- meaningsme t a -me a n in g s
p re d i ca tjve
a b stra ct
re la t io n a l
c o n cre t e
vague
re l a t i o n aI
c o n cre t e
vague
n a t u re a n d
n u ma n ss a me
n a t u re a n d
n u ma n ss a me
nr o.
P e r so-nN a ture
i cp
nature an d
humansdif f e rent
Pe r s o n -P e rso n i nd'ividua l i s t
vertjcal a n d
horizontaT ingroup an o
outgroup
symbol: I
P e r so n -T ra n s- soul vs. b o d y
-_--.-;persona I
c o lle c t iv is t
ver ti cal and
hor i zontal
ingr ouponlY
i c o lle c t iv ' is t
a n t i-' in d iv id u a lis t
v e rt ' is 3 l ma in 1 y
h o riz o n t a l p o o rly
in g ro u p o n lY
r w6- m ens y mb o :l h a ' i
sym bol
no soul
d'ichotom y
God vs. hu ma n s n o G o d
di chotomy
-2 7
-
Ne jther space, nor time, no r k n o wle d g eis e q u ip p e d wit h a c le a r
cen tre, the latter becauset h e la n g u a g e is n o t a d e q u a t e f o r t h e o rie s w i t h c l e a r
d e d u ctive reasoninq imply'ino t h a t a ll p ro p o s jt jo n s t h a t c a n b e
cor r ectly formulated are tru e o r f a ls e a n d c o n t ra d ic it io n s wjll n o t
a p p e ar. Then the transpers o n a l, p e rs o n a l a n d n a t u re s p a c e s a re
m or e placed at the same leve l, a t le a s t lin g u is t ic a lly . T h e re is
n o t that tremendousgap bet we e na p e rs o n a l y e t t ra n s c e n d e n t a lG o d , v ia h u m a n
b e in g sto an 'inanimatenutrr.(. 2 4 ie rt ic a l it y , h o we v e r, is c le a r' ly e x p re s s e d
i n socjal organization, and is we ll re f le c t e d jn o n e o f t h e wo rld ' s m o r e e x t r e m e
l an g uages in th'is regard. An d t h a t la n g u a g e a ls o d ra ws a s h a rp
l'in e betweeningroup and out g ro u p , ma k in g J a p a n e s ea n y t h in g b u t
a ca ndjdate for a position a s
u n iv e rs a l la n q u a q e .
As reqards Chinese,nnyb et h is wo u ld b e t h e c a n d id a t e f o ru n jv e rs a lit y ,
be ca useit
not on'ly
is the language s p o k e n b y t h e la rg e s t f ra c t io n o f
( rq\
hu m ankind?\'It is flex'ible b o t h we re s p a c e , t ime a n d k n o wle d g eis c o n c e r n e d ,
an d also in terms of
rela t io n s t o n a t u re , t o o t h e r h u ma nb e in g s
an d to the transpersonal.
I t s t a n d s o u t a s t h e ric h e s t
l an g uagefamily amongthe t h re e c o mp a re d n
, o t t a k in g s u c h
cl ea r stands, leaving
opt io n s o p e n . I n a s e n s e it ' is t o s o cja l c o s m o ' l o o y
w ha tthe Russian language is t o p h o n e t ic s . B u t t h e re is o n e ra t h e r
ba sic shortcoming: the inac c e s s ib ilit y
- Ch in e s e t e n d s t o re ma in
a n i ngroup language for that re a s o n . Ho we v e r,wh a t a b o u t t h e v a q u e n e ss
a n d a nrb'igujty? This is not n e c e s s a rily a n o b je c t ' io n . O n e miq h t a rg u e , a s
re a lit y is a mb ig u o u sa n d h e n c e
C hin eseoften tend to do, th a t
i na d e quately mirrored
in o v e r-p re c is e s t a t e me n t s .
C on clusion: languagesare c a rrje rs o f c o s mo lo g )ta, lo n g s id e
t h e o rg a n iz a t io n o f s p a c e a n d t i m e ,
' la n g u a g e
c o mmu n jt y ;
an d so on\'"languagescondit jo nt h o u g h t in t h e
r e ligion,
-
technology, sp o rt a n d a rt ,
lc c \
th e y do not determine thoug h t . T h e y in d u c e a n d c o n d ' it io n s t ru c t u re s ;
the y do not determ'inethem. A n d c u lt u re / s t ru c t u re c o n d ' it ' io rsla n q u a g e s;w e a v in g all
of this together, n o t s e a mle s s iy , b u t t o a f a n rily , a s c h e me
o f th ings. A nd that is what c o s mo lo g y ' is a ll
about.
N O T ES
A fi rst ve rs'i o no f this paper , "Language
Str uctur e and Social
S t r u c tu re : th e C a seo f Ja p an"waswr itten in 1972and since that tim e
b o t h o f u s h a ve b e e nd i scu ssingthese top' ics in lectur es and sem inar s ,
p a r t i cu l a rl y a t th e In te r-Univer sity Centne,Dubr ovnjk;Univer sit' i
S a i n s Ma l a ysi a(l g l g ) ; 0 st-AsiatischesSem ' inarFr
, e' ieUn' iver sit?it,
Be r l ' i n (1 9 8 3 ). Wea re i n d e btedto discussantsall places, and par tic u l a r ly to E i n a r F l yd a l a n d Yti, Cheung- Lieh.
' in a pr el im' inar y
( 1 ) T h e co smo l o gpy e rsp e ctivehas beendeve' loped
f o r m i n Jo h a nGa l tu n g ,w i th Tor e Heiestadand Er ik Rudeng,"0n the
L a s t 2 5 0 0Y e a rsj n We ste rnHistor y, And Som eRem ar ks
on the Com ing
M oder nHistor y, Com pan' ion
5 0 0 ", i n T h e N e w C a mb ri d ge
Volum e,Cam br idge,
C a m bri d gU
e n i ve rsi ty P re ss, 1979,pp. 318- 362.
( Z ) As a n e xa mp 'loef a n e ffor t to give a m or esym m etr icposition
t o m ate ri a l /stru ctu ra l a n d non- m ater ial/str uctur alfactor s, see Johan
G a l t u n g , " S tru ctu re , C u l tu re and IntelIectual Style: An EssayCom par i ng
S a x o ni c,T e u to n i c, Ga lI j c a nd Nippon' icAppr oaches",
in Social Sc' ienc e
I n f o r ma t'i o n(S A GEL, o n d o na nd Bever ly Hills) 20,6,1981, pp.B17- 55.
M a "v bth
e e b a si c p o i n t i s the r elative absenceof tense in Chinese/
J a p a ne se
ma k'i n gth e e xp re s sionsless tim e- boundthan in past- or esentW er nerM ijller , in "Spr acheund Natur f u t u r e co n sci o u sIn d o -E u ropean.
a u f f a ssu n gb e 'i d e n S i o u x" , in Unter demPflaster liegt der Str and,
r e r lag, Ber lino 1981points out that Bibr i
H . P . D u e rr, e d ., K ra me V
' i n C o staR i ca cl a ssi fi e s th ' ingsas r ound, and in that categor yar e
n o t o n l y fru i ts a n d o ra n g es,but also year s, say' ingm uchabout how
t h a t l an g u a g eco n ce i ve so f that par ticular un' it of t' ime. The basic tex t i n
dge,
Thoughtand Reality, M IT Pr es s , Cambri
t h i s f i e l d re ma 'i n sB .L . b l hor,f Language,
( 3 ) A co n d i ti o n fo r th i s, of cour se, is the high 1eve1of flex' ibility
i n t h e C h i n e sel a n g u a g e ." Br oadlyit m aybe sa' id that any wor d m ay
d o d u ty fo r a n y p a rt o f sp eechwithin the limits set by its intninsic
m e a n 'i n 9ai n d , p a rti cu 'l a r1 y, that what seemat fir st s' ight to be adj e c t i v e s a re 'i n a ve ry l a rge num berof casescapableof use as nouns
a n d v erb s, a n d a l mo st u n 'i v er sal' lyusedas adver bs."
I n a d i scu ssi o no f " T h a t A wful Ger m an",bV Br adleyGr aham,Inter nation al
H e r a l d T rj b u n e9 Ja n u a ry1 980( p.1a) ' it is pointed out howlong Ger m an
by even
w o r d sh a vea te n d e n cyto b e, and that "these wor ds, accompanied
l o n g e r mo d 'i fyi n gcl a u se s, alwaysseemto com ebefor e the ver b, wh' ich,
n n te n ce sa ppear sat the end, whenone finally lear ns
i n m a n yGe rma se
- 2w h a t is h a p p e n i n g" . l l e ca n not r es' ist including his r efer enceto M ar k
T w a ' i n":I h e a rd 1 a te 1 yo f a wor n and sor ely tr ied Amer icanstudent who
u s e d t o f1 y to a ce rta j n Ger man
wor d for r elief whenhe could bear
u p u n d e rh i s a g g ra va ti o n sno longer - the on' ly soundwas sweetand
p r e c i o u sto h i s e a r a n d h e afing to h' is lacer ated spir it. This was the
w o r d da mi t. It w a s o n l y th e soundthat helpedhim, not the m eaning
( i t m e a n sme re l y h e re w i th ) ; And soo at 1ast, whenhe lear ned that the
e m p h a s'iwsa s n o t o n th e f i rst sylab' el , his only stay and suppor twas
g o n e , a n d h e fa d e d a w a ya n d died."
R .A.D. Forrest'in The Chine s e L a n g u a g e ,F a b e r a n d F a b e r, L o n d o n 1 9 7 3 .
( 4)
S ee Nakamurao
Hajime, Wa y so f T h in k in g o f E a s t e rn P e o p le s :
Ind ia - China-T'ibet-Japan,Ho n o lu lu , T h e Un iv e rs it y P re s s o f Ha wa ii,
1 9 6 4 , p . 1 8 4 . S u chp a tte rn s, however wer
,
e also found in ancient Gr eek .
I n g e n e ra '|,th e cycf i ca l n atur e of Gr eektime per spectiveis compatibl e
w i t h t h i s typ e o f w ri ti n g , as it js for Ch' inese- not meaningby that
c y c l i c a l a s to ta l l y e xc'l u s ' iveof I inear per spectives.For a gener al
d i s c u ssi o no f th 'i s se e Jo sephNeedhamTim
, eand Easter nMan,London,
R o y a lA n th ro p o l o g i ca lIn si titute, 1965,par t' icular ly chapter VIII,
"T i m ea n d H 'i sto ryi n C h i n aand the W est", pp.45- 52.
( 5 ) C h a n gT u n g -S u n g",A C hinesePh' ilosopher ' Theor
s
yof Knowledge"
Y e n c hi n gJo u rn a l o f S o ci a l Studies, Vol. I, n0.2, Beijing, 1939,p. ? 5.
W eh a vema d eu se o f a tra n slation into Nor wegian,( "Kinesisk og vestf i g t e n kn i n g " , V 'i n d u e t,0 sl oo 1971,no. 1, pp. 1B- 28,' in tur n based
o n a t ra n sl a ti o n 'i n to F re n ch,pubfishedin Tel Quel, no.38/1969) .
( 6 ) Th e sete rms a re u se dher e to point out an essential differ ence
i n h o wto co n ce 'i veo f re a l i ty, essentially as statjc, or essentially
a s d y n a m'i c.
A cco rd 'i n g
to th e for m er per spectivebod' ies,or things,
a t r e st, o r w i th p e rma n e nt
char acter istics wer e mor er ea1, the tr ans i e n t b e i n g e p h e me ra '1
A ccor
.
dingto the latter per spectivebodies, or
t h i n g s ca n b e se e na s re a l also whennot at r est becausetheir movement
i s a c co rd i n gto ce rta i n i n var iances( suchas the gali' lean law of motio n) .
A p r e d " i ca ted e fi n e s a su b j ect in an"invar iant way; a r elation places
t h e ' i n va ri a n cea t a h i q h e r level .
J e a n - Fra n E o iBs i l l e te r, 'i n "Ding, der Koch, zer legt ein Rind",
As i a t i sch e S tu d " i e n /E tu d eAsS' iatiques
, 36( 2) 1982,quotes Paul Va16r y,
C a h i ers, B i b l i o th -e q u d
e e l a Pl6iade, Callimar d, Par is, 1973- 74on
t h e r e l a ti o n b e tw e e nth o u g ht and speech:"Les 3/4 de la m6taphysique
c o n s t itu e n t u n si mp l e ch a p itr e de I' histoir e du ver be Etr e". Va16r y
- 3-
p o i n ts o u t h o wth e ve ry c'i r cumstance
that a cor r ect sentencein an
I n d o - E u ro p e al n
a n g u a g eh a s a nounand ver b imposesa causal or der ,
"N o t re p h ra seo ccj d e n ta l ec r 6e de la causalit6" ( p. BB) .
T h 'i s b e co mepsa rti cu lar ly impor tantwhenthe ver bs ar e tr ansjt ' i v e . T h u s, i t co u l d b e a rguedthat the ver bs "d- evelopperand
" "fgr mer "
i n F r e n chsh o u l d b e i n tra n sitive only, not tr ans' itive. A constr uction
s u c h as " L e s p a ys ri ch e s d dveloppent1es pays pauvr es"shouldbe as
i m p o ssi b l el i n g u i st'i ca 1 1 y as it seemsto be in social r eality. The
c o n s tru cti o nu si n g re fl e xj v e for m s, however ,' is valid both lingu' ist"ica11y
a n d e mp i ri ca l l y: " i J se d 6 v eloppc","elle se for m e". This constr uction
m i g h t so u n dso me w h aatrti fi c' ial in English, however .
( 7 ) Tw oe xa mp l e so f typ i cal quar tets: "no destr uct' ion,no constr uction" ,
a n d "c o n stru cti o nIj ve s'i n destr uctjon". It does not say that ther e
' i s o r sh o u l db e d e stru cti o n or constr uction: what is po' intedout
i s o n l y h o w i n ti ma te l y th e two ar e r elated. I yin' i yang chih wei lqp;
p o s i t ive a n d n e g a ti vee l e mentsm aketao. ( Chang,,9p:_91! p.2Z) ,' 0nedj v i d e s i n to tw o " a n d " T w ou nite jnto one" ar e quar tets along this Iine.
A s f o r q u a rte ts so a l so fo r duets: "cr isis" becomes
"danger /oppor tuni ty " :
"c o n t r a d i cti o n " b e co me"sspear /shield"; "thing" becomes
"East/W est":
"c o s mo s"b e co me"sti me /sp ace". "Unity of oppos' ites"is the gener al fo r m ul a.
( B) A g a i n , i t sh o u l d b e e mphasized
that ther e is no str ict dividing
l ' i n e b e tw e e nIn d o -E u ro p e an
languagesand these 0r ienta' l languages.
I n R ussi a n" l a ma b o y" 'i s "ja m al' chjk", but the ' inver sion, "m al' chik
j a " m i g h t co mecl o se r to the secondinter pr etation m ent' ioned
in the
text.
( 9 ) T h e e xa mp l ei s ta ke n from I. Elder s, "Les r appor ts de la langue
e t d e 1 a p e n sd ej a p o n a i se s", RevuePhilosoph' ique,
No. 156, 1966,pp.
3 9 1 - 40 6 .E l d e rs p o i n ts o u t that k' i stands for the wooden
m ater ial
j n t h e tre e ra th e r th a n th e idea of the tr ee; henceone cannotsay
t h a t a kj i s i n b l o sso m,the flower s of the tr ee m aybe in blossom .
As a n oth e re xa mp 'loef th e c oncr eteness
of the Japanese
languagehe
t a k e s th e w o rd tsu mi , w h i ch stands both for "s' in" and for the infr action
- 4-
o f a r e g u l a tj o n ; j u st l i ke kimochistands for m y "inner state" both
' i n t h e se n seo f " h e a l th " , and "m ood".To m akeclear what' is meantthe
J a p a ne se
w o u l dh a veto u se concr eteexamples,or r ely on the context.
( t O 1 T h i s d e b a te , th e n , a bout whether"essences"can be said to have
a n i n dp e n d e net x'i ste n cep ri or to the things, ante r em, or on' ly in the
t h i n g s th e mse l ve s,i n re b u s , is mor em eaningfulwithin the context
o f I n d o -E u ro p e ath
n a n th e se Or iental languages.
( 1 1 ) E l d e rs, o p .c'i t., p .4 05, makesthe point that the examplesar e
c a r r y i n g th e b u rd e no f p ro of: "La d€:monstr ation,
au sens str ict du mot,
e s t s ou ve n tp re sq u ea b se n te.Uneanalysedes concepts, une division
d u t h 6 mee t d e s d e fi n i ti o n s ne sont pas n6cessa' ir es,
par fois elles
s o n t md me
e mb a rra ssa n te s.
Ce sont 1es exemplesqu' i 1e plus souvent
e n t r a i n e n t I'a d h 6 si o n " E
. l d er s is pr obablynot him self awar eof hjs ow n
c u l t u r a l l i mi ta ti o n w h e nh e r efer s to what appear sto be deductive
r e a s o n i n ga s d e mo n stra tj o n"au sens str ict du mot".
( 1 2 ) B o th a to mi sma n d d e d uct' ivism
can both be associatedwith Descartes .
S e e nf r o m th e o u tsi d e th e se p' i11ar sof W ester nepistemologyhaveas
t h e i r co n se q u e n ce
th a t e n ti ties ar e fr agm ented' intosmaller units
t h a t a re th e n stu d i e d se p a r ately, and r elinked to each other deductjv el y .
T h e r e i s a p ri ma cyo f l o g i cal over other ( "or ganic", "inner m eaning" )
l i n k a g e s. A g a i n We ste rnl a n guagesar e not the sam ein th' is r egar d.
A s A r th u r K o e stl e r sa i d i n an' inter view sent after h' is death ( ' in hlest
T V ,4 Ma rch1 9 8 3 ): " Youcannot say in English ' die inner e
G e r m an
L o g i k d e r E re 'i g n i sse '- th e r e is only one 1ogic",
( 1 3 ) Ja me sA . Mi ch e n e ri n the best- seller Sayonar a,Cor gi 1979, pp.
1 6 4 - 65 ,g i ve s so mee xa mp 'l es
of the am b' iguitiesof the Japaneselanguage,
c o n c l u d i n g" j t i sn 't cl e a r, becauseI' m only guessingthat' s what the
s t r a n ge r me a n t- Ou r l i fe i n Japanjs one of implied meanings,hidden
s i g n ' i fi ca n ce s."
-c-
( 1 4 ) T h e P o l i sh w o rd ta k ( "yes") m aybe inter pr eted
the sameWdY
'
h a v in ga ve ry h i g h fre q u encyin polish par lance. In Nor wegian
man! y6g6g
p e o p 'l eu se th e w o rd ri kti g ( ,,cor r ect,,)the sam eway, m eaning
"go on" o
n o t " I h e re b yce rti fy th a t what you havesaid is cor r ect,,.
( 1 5 ) E l d e rs, o p _ .ci !., p . 398. As Elder s adds: ,,pour
la femm ede
c e t h o mme
i l e st cl a i r q u e c' est son mar i qui vientpar tir en voyage,,.
H o w e ve ro
E ]d e rs a d d s th a t the youngergener at.ion
and those whohave
b e e nmo rei n co n ta ct w i th for eigner s ( m eaning' ,l,,[ester ner s,,)
,' ut.ilisent
p 1u s so u ve n tI e s p ro n o n sper sonnel
s,,.
I n g e n e ra l H i n d i se e msto havemost char acter istics in comm on
with
I n d o - E u ro p e al n
a n g u a g ei n gener al, as it should;butthen ther e ar e
c h a r a cte ri sti cs th a t a re mor ein the dir ection of Chineseand Japanes e.
T h u s , " H i n d i sp e a ki n gIn d i ans havea tendencyto use the wor dsham,
"w e " an d h a ma ra o" o u rs" w her eDaneswouldsay and m ine. I think this
f
i s d ue to th e ci rcu msta n cethat Indians havea tender r cyto see
thems e l v e s a s a p a rts o f a b 'i ggerunit, wher ethe Daneis inclined to put
h i m s e l f i n th e ce n te r.,,
F r o m" N o g l eB e tra g tn i n g e rover Spr ogetsMedvir kenved Dannelsen
at Ver dens bi l l edet,,
D a n ma rks
L e re rh d j sko l e , C openhagen,
1gBZ,by Finn Thiesen,p. 1gg.
( 1 6 ) T h e fo l l o w i n g fo u r e xpr essionsall stand for "welcom home",
e
b u t a t fo u r d i ffe re n t l e ve ls of social r elations:
o k a e rj -a so b a seo; ka e rj -n a saimase;
okaer i- nasai; okaer i. 0f cour se, honor i fi c s ,
p o l i t en e ss ma ya l so b e a technjqueto cr eate djstance, Distanceand ve r ti c a l i t y ma yg o to g e th e r a s i n the im po' litepoljteness of bur eaucr ats.
A n i s ol a te d vj l l a g e ma yd e fenditself against "intr uder s" with excess i v e
\ p o l i t e n e ss, w h i ch ma ya l so be a way of m akingfun of people.
/ Be r n h ard K a rl g re n , i n S o u ndgnd
Umbol in Chinese,HongKongUn' iver si ty
Pr e s s, H o n gK o n g1 9 6 2 , h a s this ir r esjstible anecdoteas an illustr ation
i es ( p. 9a) :
o f w h at C h in e se p o 1i te n e ss ' im p1
A vi si to r ca l l e d , cl a d jn his best r obes, and awaitedthe ar r ival
o f h i s h o st se a te d 'i n th e reception r oom.A r at, which had beendisp o r t i ng i tse l f u p o nth e b e amsabove, insinuating' its nose into a jar
o f o j l w h 'i chw a s p u t th e re for safe keeping,fr ightened at the sudden
i n t r u s 'i o n o f th e ca 1 'l e r, ra n away,and' in so do' ingupset the oi1- jar ,
w h ' i c hfe l l d i re ctl y o n th e c aller , str iking him a sever eblow, and
r u i n i ng h i s e 'l e g a n tg a rme ntswith the satur at' ionof the oil. Just as
t h e f a ce o f th e g u e st w a s p ur ple with r age at th' is disaster , the host
r
wer e per for med,after wh' ichthe
e n t e r e d , w h e nth e p r" o p e salutatjons
g u e s t p ro ce e d e d
to e xp l a i n the s' ituat' ion. ' As I enter edyour honour abl e
a p a r t m e na
t n d se a te dmyse l f underyour honour ablebeam,I inadver tentl y
-o-
t e r r i f ie d yo u r h o n o u ra b l er at, which fled and upset your honour able
o i 1 - j ar u p o nmy me a na n d 'i nsignificant cloth' ing, which is the r eason
o f m y co n te mp ti b l ea p p e a rance
in your honour ablepr esence.,
( 1 7 ) T h i s se e msto b e w h er esocio- linguistics enter s with par ticular
f o r c e n o t so mu che xp l o ri ng the social sign' ificanceof the djffer ences
b e t w ee na s w i th i n l a n g u a g es.A bookwith the attr active title Language
i n J ap a n e se
S o ci e ty: C u rrent Issues in Sociofinguistics, F.C.C.
P e n g ,e d i to r, U n i ve rsi ty o f TokyoPr ess, Tokyo, 1975conta"insnoth' ing
o f d i r e ct re ve re n ceto th e pr esent explor ation. Discontentis also
for m ulated by S . Takdjr A l'is ja h b a n a , ' in h is T h e F a ilu re o f Mo d e rn
L i l g u 'i sti cs'i n th e F a ceo f Linguist' ic Pr oblem sof the TwentiethCentur y ,
K u a l aL u mp u r,U n j ve rsi ty o f M alaya1965. He points out that "while
t h e o th e r so ci a l sci e n ce s, I jke economics,politics - even soc' iology
a n d a n th ro p o l o g y- a re j n tens' ive1yinter ested' in natjonal and jnter nat'i onal
d e v e l o p me n t,
stru ctu ra l l i nguistjcs and phonologyhavem or eand m or e
i s o l a te d th e mse l ve sfro m socjal and cultur al pr ob' lems
- - " ( p.8) and
"Wh a t they/the Ieaders of de v e lo p in g n a t ' io n s / n e e dis n o t d e s c rip t jv e , bu t prescri pt'ive linguistics.
It is thus v e ry re g re t t a b le t h a t p re c is e ly ' in t h e s e
p r o c e sse sa n d p ro b l e msth a t ar e cr ucial for the languagesof develop'i ng
c o u n trj e s, p ro ce sse sa n d p r oblemswhich can be for m ulatedsuccinctly
m oder nf inguistics,
i n t h e te rms sta n d a rd i za ti onand m oder n' ization,
t h r o u g h 'i ts sta ti c, fo rma l and m icr o appr oach,is least able to contr i l' ike botany. Howb u t e " (p . 1 5 ). In o th e r w or ds, ' lingu' isticsbecom es
e v e r , A l i sj a h b a n ad o e s n o t discuss howlanguagesm aycannydevelopmental
c o d e s,w h 'i chmi g h t b e a mor eim por tantaspect of the inter face betwee n
' l a n g u a g easn d d e ve l o p me nthan
t
the linguistic engineer ingpr oblems
A l i sj a h b a n ah a s 'i n min d .
( 1 8 ) T h e p re ce d i n go rd e r was by and' lar ge by bjr th, the sh' i- no- ko- sho
( s a m u ra 'i -fa rme r-a rti sa n -mer chant)
system :"degr eeocr acy"
wouldbe by
t h e m e ri t a ccu mu l a teth
d ro ughdegr ees,the point being not the r ank' ing
o f t h e p e rso na cco rd i n gto subject or gr ade, but of the univer sity acc or di n g t o p re st'i g e . S e eJo h a nGa1tung,"Social Str uctur e, Education
St r u c tu re a n d L i fe -1 o n g E d ucat' ion:The Caseof Japan", Essaysin Peac e
1976,chapter 11.
R e s e a rchV o 1 , III, E j l e rs, Copenhagen,
( 1 9 ) T h u s, " P r^o fe ssoGa
r l tungis giving lectune thene" wouldbe
" ' if Galtung wer e a Japanes e:
"G a tl un g -se n sew'iaa chj ra d ek6gish' iteor ar em asu
"G a l t un gw a a so ko d ek6 g i sh iteim asu"as he is not. The total lack of
h o n o ri fi cs ma ke sth e e xp re ssions' im ilar to one that could also be used
of the nai- gai distinction m ioht be
f o r d og s. T h a t th i s cl e a r demar cation
p a i n f ul fo r th e Ja p a n e se
w ife of a ga' i- jin goeswithout saying.
-7
-
( 2 0 ) It sh o u l d b e p o i n te d out that this ' is a m' inim um,
and although
j t a s su re sso meco mp e te n ce
it mayalso ser ve to r einfor ce the class
s t r u c tu re o f a so ci e ty ru n as a "degr eeocr acy",
by defjning a minimum
f o r t he l o w e r ra n ks o f T h e social or den. SeeA Guideto Reading&
W r i t ' in gJa p a n e seT, h e 1 .8 5 0 Basic Char acter sand the KanaSyllabar ies ,
T u t t l e, T o kyo , 1 9 7 5 .T h e 1 850char acter sinclude the "881 chanacter s
d e s i g n a te db y th e Mi n i stry of Educationas the basic r equir em ent
f o r t he si x Y e a rso f e l e mentar yschool"( p.7) .
D e r k Bo d d e ,C h i n a 's C u l tu ral Tr ad' ition, Dr ydenPr essHinsdale, Illinois
1957h a s th e fo l l o w i n g to say about class differ ences' in Chinese( p. 1 3) :
e ve n a n a ti ve C h i n e ser equir es year s of study to m asterthe wr itten
l a n g ua g e(a l so co mmo n lkn
y ownas liter ar y or class' ical Chinese) .Andy et
il
---
s o g r ea t w a s th e p re sti g e of the ljter ar y languagethat until r ecently
a l m o st e ve ryth 'i n gw a s w rj tten in it, aside fr om fictjon and dr ama( wh i c h
f o r t h e ve ry re a so nth a t they followed the colloqu' ia1idiom, wer e look ed
d o w non 'i n tra d 'i ti o n a l C h 'ina) .
( ? 1 ) T h i s p a rti cu l a r th e meis elabor atedat somelength by RoyA. Mill er
i n J a pa n 'sMo d e rnMyth , T h e Language
and Beyond,W eather hill, Newyor k &T ok y o,
. fo re i g n e r capableof somephr asesin Japaneseis ver y
1 9 8 2c, h .B ,p .1 5 7 A
m u c hap p re ci a te d a fo re i g n er capableof r ea11ytalking Japaneseis
n o t . Bu t th i s d o e s n o t o n 'l y apply to languagebut also to insight in
m a t t e rs Ja p a n e sei n g e n e ral. A for eigner whohas under stooda little
o f J a pa ni s co mp l i me n te dwhen
the under standing
;
star ts gett' ing deep
h e i s fe a re d . We ste rnu n i ver sal' ismpr oducesfor eigner s with a ver y h' igh
l e v e l o f j n si g h t i n th e We st; they ar e welcom ed
and pr aised although
u s u a l ly a cco rd e do n l y se co ndar ypositions. Japanese( and Chinese)par t i c u l a r i sm p ro d u ce sa stro n g inside- outside, nai- gai divide: for eigner s
a r e t o b e ke p t a t a d 'i sta n ce.All of ch. B ' in M iller ' s bookdeals with thi s .
( ? 2 ) 0 f co u rse , d fl y l a n g u agejs also the car r ier of a cer tain cultur a l
c o d e a n d h e n cen o t u n i ve rsal insofar as the adoptionof that language
w o u l db e a tth e e xp e n seo f other cultur al codes. But Chineseand Japan es e
a r e a lso d i ffi cu l t, i n th e senseof tim e- consum ' ing,
to lear n for an
of the language.Howeveras
a d u l t wi th n o p ri o r kn o w l edge
, a sem i- sec r et
l a n g u a g eth e y a re ve ry a d e quate:a networ kof Chinese( or Japanese)
a b r o a d ,e g C h i n e seb e l o n g i ngto the sameclan, or Japanese
belonging
t o t h e sa meco mp a n y,
w i l l to someextent be shielded off fr om peeping
T h e Ja p a nese
W e s t erne ye s.
could colonize Taiwan( 1894- 1945)
and
K o r e a(1 9 1 01/ 1 -1 9 4 5 )a l so 1inguistically, using Chinesechar acter sas
a b a s is; b u t i t i s d o u b tfu l whetherthey could havedoneso' in countr i es
w j t h oth e r syste mso f w n i ti ng.
- B-
A n i n te re sti n g stu d y a b o u t Chinesem ar xist ter ms has beenm adeby W olfgang
L i p p ert, E n tste h u n gu n d F u nktioneiniger Ch' ines' ischer
m ar xjstischerTe
^ r m j nj
F r a n z S te i n e r V e rl a g , Wi e s baden,
1979.The basic point js that m ar xist
t e r m s ca mei n to C h i n e sevi a Japanese
and under wentconsider ablechange
o n t h e w a y: " E i n e R e i h emar xistischerTer m ini, die aus demjapanische n
i n s c hi n e si sch eL i b e rn o mmen
wur den,er hielten in der Folge e.inever t i n d e rl i ch esp ra ch l 'i ch eGe stalt" ( fr om the pr eface) . The bookmayser ve
a s o n e co n t'i n o u sw a rn 'i n ga gainst believing that Ch' inese
m ar xist ter m in o l o g yca n b e d i re ctl y u n d er stoodthe sam eway as it js in the west.
( 2 3 ) E l d e rs, o p . ci t., p .p .403 f." - - on voit combienla str ucutr e du
l a n g u a g ee st p ro ch ed e l a pens6ebuddhiste,od tout de v' ient un flottem ent
s u b j e c ti f" .
attitude in this
N a k a m u rao,p . ci t. p .5 7 5 char acter izesthe Japanese
c o n n e cti o na s fo l l o w s: " T h us, the Japanesepeoplehave seldomconfr onted
subiects. This
o b j e cti ve re a l i ty a s sh a rp ly dist' inguishedfr om know' ing
way of th' inking. It is often sa' id
a t t i t u d e ma yb e ca l l e d th e ir comm on
t h a t th e y a re p ra cti ca l a n d adept in techniquesof act' ion, but that
t h e y are ra th e r w e a ki n studying the objective bas' isof their pr act' ica1
a c t ' i o n b e ca u seth e y a re to o anxiousto accomplishthe action. It is
p a r t i a 'l 'l y o w 'i n gto th j s ch ar acter istic that they havebeenincl ined,
f o r c e n tu ri e s, to fo l l o w for eign ideas wjth an uncr itical mind".
that W ester nthought ' is someT h i s j ud g e me n t,o f co u rse , pr esupposes,
a ever able to wr ite
h o ws up e ri o r a n d d o e s n o t explain howNakamurwas
h i s s up e rbb o o k -'i n Ja p a nese.Never thelessit' is clear that a language
l i k e En g l i sh , fo r i n sta n ce, has gr eat capacity for pr oducinqabstr acti ons ,
s i m p ' l yb y me a n so f q e ru n d s,adding- ing to ver bs, or addino- ty to
m a n yn o u n so r a d j e ct'i ve s.
( 2 4 ) In th e tJe stth 'i s g a p is per hapsnowher eso clear ly expr essed
js, wjth manabov ew om en'
in Genes
a s . i n th e ve ry f.i rst p a g e sof the Old Testament,
can be
com r ade, Genosse
I t . i s j n te re sti n g to n o te that in spanish
But this
a'
o,
u s e d b o th i n ma scu l i n ea n d feminine: compafi' er compader
not havea
d o e sno t w o rk fo r th e b o ss: like in Fr enchle chef does
( it does in contem pof e m i n j n efo rm, e l i e fe d o es not in Spanishe' ither
maybe equa1,but not abov e.
r a r y Ge rma nh, o w e ve r,d i e Chef.in) .FemaleS
and femininespeec h'
F o r an e xp l o ra t'i o no f d i ffer ences betweenmasculine
par r er s mascur
ins, par r er s f6min' ins,P ar .i s , 1983'
s e e V . A e b i sch e ra n d c. F or er,
-9 -
( 2 5)
H o w e veor n e su b d 'i vi
des the ch' ineseI anguagecom m jun
ty i t com es
o u t co n si d e ra b l ya b o veth e num berof peopletalking English ( 350 m ill i on) ,
S p a n i sh(2 0 0 mj l l i o n ), A rabic ( 120 m ' illion) , Por tugese( 115 m illion) .
F i g u re sfro m T h e E co n o mist,26Januar y1980,basedon a study m ade
b y L e Mo n d e .
( 2 6 ) T h 'i s i s th e th e meo f a for thcom ingstudy, JohanGaltung,soc.ia l
C o s qg ]o g y,A n A p p ro a chto Civ_L' lization
Theor y.