Basic Information
Summary
A special lecture will be given on the topic, “Context and Literary Style of Modern Japan.”
Participants will be undergraduate and graduate students studying Japanese language and literature at National Taiwan University.
Host
KAKENHI Program “Development of the Next Generation of East Asian Classical Studies through International Collaboration: From the Perspective of the Frontier of the Realm of Chinese Characters”
Department of Japanese Language and Literature at National Taiwan University
Reports
National Taiwan University Special Lecture (1)
By MATSUBARA Mai (Tokyo University, Special Researcher)
A special lecture by Prof. Saitō Mareshi entitled “Bunmyaku and Buntai in Modern Japan” was held at the National Taiwan University (NTU). Due to the ongoing COVID pandemic, the lecture was given online from Japan, but was attended by approximately a hundred students and faculty members working in Japanese language and literature at the university.
The lecture was divided into several sections, in which Prof. Saitō meticulously explained how the concepts of buntai (lit. style) and bunmyaku (lit. context) were established in modern Japan.
In the first part of the lecture, entitled “Nation-State and Language,” he cited Man’nen Ueda’s “On the Study of the National Language” (“Kokugo kenkyū ni tsuite”) in elaborating upon Ueda’s view of buntai and bunmyaku. Ueda pointed out that the oppositions of “dignified/profane” and “inside/outside” are articulated in terms of “buntai” and “bunmyaku,” such that kanbunmyaku (Sinitic style) is noble and wabunmyaku (Japanese style) is vulgar. Additionally, underlying the notion that wabun (Japanese writing) is natural and kanbun (Sinitic writing) is unnatural, he placed value on “vernacular style” and “vernacular form” according to the “natural national language.” At the root of this, however, was a nationalistic view of the Japanese language influenced by the Sino-Japanese War, one that sought to help the Japanese language regain its former status and make it “the lingua franca of the entire Orient.” From this nationalist insistence, “bunmyaku” and “buntai” were established, and the formation of a new national language was planned, for which “national language research” was conducted.
In the second part, Prof. Saitō discussed the emergence of the consciousness over “buntai.” Prior to the modern era, within “buntai” was a strong awareness of genre, poetic form, and sentence pattern. The different “buntai” had different functions and purposes, or, in other words, “buntai” existed as something that differentiated functions and purposes. Since the advent of modernity, the “style” of writing has also come to be referred to as “buntai.” He also explained that there are two systems of classifying “buntai,” each with their own sets of criteria: one of danwatai (lit. colloquial style) and bunshōtai (lit. written style), one of wabuntai, kanbuntai and ōbuntai (lit. “European style”).
In the third part, “bunmyaku” and “buntai” were addressed. “Bunmyaku” originally referred to the flow or coherence of a sentence, and it also assumed that a particular utterance or discourse has a supporting corpus or context. One modern concept of “bunmyaku” was proposed by Mozume Takami. Mozume first introduced the term “gomyaku” in the fifth volume of Questions and Answers on Japanese Grammar (1886), while dedicating a section in Genbun itchi [Unifying Speech and Writing] (1886) entitled “Why one says ‘bunmyaku.’” Then, in an article titled “Kokubun sōwa” (Kokugakuin zasshi, 1-1.1894), he lamented the current situation in which many of the texts written were not only a mixture of languages and styles from different periods, but also sometimes amalgamated kanbunmyaku and yōbunmyaku. Ultimately, he yearned for the purity of bunmyaku.
The fourth part of the lecture focused on the formation of linguistic norms. Before the modern era, there was no unified national language, but during the Meiji period (1868-1912), kundokutai was becoming the official writing style. Mozume criticized this, but the emergence of this view of the nation-language had become the trigger for the birth of bunmyaku.
In the final part, to summarize his lecture, Prof. Saitō argued that “bunmyaku” and “buntai” straddle multiple linguistic spheres.
In “bibun” (lit. ornate/elegant style), “kanbunmyaku,” “wabunmyaku,” and “yōbunmyaku” (c.f. ōbun) were treated as base materials, and that of the Japanese, Sinitic, and Western were mixed under the super-concept of “bibun.” However, this kind of writing practice that distanced itself from the modern buntai as a functional style was also sought after.
In addition to “myaku” and “tai” functioning as ways of examining multiple linguistic spheres mediated by corpus and context, they also have the dual quality of the “myaku” being a linguistic resource and the “tai” a linguistic norm. In the formation of the modern Japanese national language, this “buntai” and “bunmyaku” came under hightened scrutiy, though as aforementioned, it was rooted in nationalistic ideas. However, first and foremost, mankind imitates one another’s words, through which a shared sphere by way of using a unified system of communication is created. It can perhaps be said that, then, it is not only that the corpus is divided according to the locale, but that each mixes with one another, and that people live inside multiple linguistic spheres.
During the Q&A session, there was a lively exchange of opinions from the floor. One participant pointed out that while the Japan’s buntai has a quality of mixture and is freely structured, this was due to the fact that there was kanbun (literary Sinitic) as the official writing system, and wabun (Japanese writing) as the unofficial system, which allowed for a high degree of freedom in writing.
We want to thank again both Prof. Saitō Mareshi for the enriching lecture and those who participated.
