In this paper we analyse the etymology, the history and the first textual and lexicographical uses of the Japanese loanword manga, whose current meaning is documented for the first time in Spanish at the end of the 1980s. This word has undergone a semantic and formal modification in the borrowing language, which has been reflected in the Western adaptations: during the 19th century, in Japanese it was articulated as mangwa, but in the late 19th century the reduction to manga was completed. In the 1810s, the Japanese artist Hokusai used mangwa (meaning ‘random sketches’) to title a printed collection of his paintings; to some extent, this semantic value was retained until the early decades of the 20th century. Already in the middle of the last century, the concept was revived by mangakas such as Osamu Tezuka, who is considered by the specialized literature to be the true creator of present-day manga.
The question, “Is religion personal or social?” prompts a profound reflection on the essence and role of religion. The personal and social aspects of religion are clearly inseparable and inherently complementary. However, in an era where the privatization of religion is increasingly prevalent, if religion remains confined to providing psychological comfort or moral edification for individuals, it risks losing its fundamental meaning. In this context, Yanaihara’s case serves as a significant study of the dual nature of religion—both personal and social. Yanaihara argued that religion must play a pivotal role not only in individual salvation but also in advancing social responsibility and justice. While his faith was rooted in personal intuition, it led him to challenge the subordinate peace enforced by submission to strong state authority and to critique the wars waged under Japanese imperialism. This paper explores the role of religion and its responsibilities toward both individuals and society through an analysis of Yanaihara’s “The Ideal of the State”.
This essay examines an alternative to dominant postwar notions of subjectivity in the Japanese cultural sphere through an analysis of Miura Ayako’s mid-1960s novels: Hyōten (Freezing Point, 1964), Hitsujigaoka (Hill of Sheep, 1965), and Shiokari tōge (Shiokari Pass, 1966). It argues that Miura’s depictions of sin and self-sacrifice serve as metaphors that critique prevailing ideas of subjectivity. Her doubly minoritized position as a female writer and a Christian significantly shapes this counternarrative while simultaneously complicating its construction and expression. Drawing on Iida Yūko’s conception of ōtōsei (responsiveness) and hidokusei (being read), the essay examines the discursive stakes of Miura’s fiction. Her work debunks the myth of self-contained individuals and presents the self neither as an idealized autonomous agent nor as doomed to a precarious existence, but as relational, inherently engaged in efforts toward reconciliation with others. This counter-vision unfolds in her novels through metaphors of sin and self-sacrifice, framed within the popular domestic novel form of the 1960s.
Language and Literature, Japanese language and literature
The phenomenon of “Japanese Dostoevsky” is the subject of active discussions in literary studies all over the world. One of the central issues discussed is the problem of the textual images in the works of F.M. Dostoevsky. The use of digital humanities’ technologies, the methods of corpus and computational linguistics makes it possible to formalize literary analysis’ tasks to state the texts’ problems in the language of algorithms. In this article the mechanisms of the transformation of textual images in Dostoevsky works in the Japanese representation will be considered. Different linguistic means are used to analyze the perception of the concept “love” as love-affection or love-passion, and concept “strange” as human essential or social characteristic in Russian and Japanese. Such analysis will help also to highlight the peculiarities of the “new translation school” that adheres to the strategy of domestication, making the foreign text more readable.
both renowned scholars of Japanese studies with excellent language pro fi ciency and extensive experience of Japan ’ s higher education, have provided English language readers with a comprehensive understanding of Japan ’ s PHE, an important national case with numerous policy lessons for many other countries. This is an excellent book whose value might be enhanced if the title and subtitle switched their positions, as its key contribution to the literature is to demonstrate the impressive resilience of Japan ’ s PHE
Abstract This paper discusses spatio-temporal metaphors in three regions in and around China from the perspective of language contact, looking for evidence of areal convergence or transfer of the conceptual metaphors. The approach fits broadly within the framework of Cognitive Contact Linguistics. After a review of spatio-temporal metaphors in the Sinitic languages, I sketch out the relevant metaphors in languages spoken in northwest China (Xinjiang and the Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund), in and near northeast China, and in south China and Taiwan – many of which have not been discussed previously in the literature on conceptual metaphor. The study reveals evidence for metaphor transfer involving the up-down spatial dimension from Sinitic to Japanese and Korean, contact-facilitated extension of metaphor involving the front-back dimension in Tsou, and possible transfer of front-back metaphor to other languages of Taiwan. Several of the lexical items used in front-back metaphorical expressions in Santa, two Hmong varieties, Japanese, and Korean are borrowed from Sinitic, but these do not clearly represent transfer of the conceptual mapping.
The goal of this paper is to examine the dynamic multi-layeredness within the idea of “Imperial Japan” through the study of Indonesian bilingual literature under the imperial Japanese occupation. Until now, research on Japanese occupation literature in Indonesia and Southeast Asia has been conducted mainly in Japanese, and there is a limit to the parameters of research which has been centered on the history of Japanese literature as well as on the linguistic centrality of Japanese. To overcome these limitations, texts written in local languages as well as those in Japanese must be included as research subjects, and literature and discourse related to the various spaces (e.g., colonial Joseon) of Imperial Japan must be compared with one another. Only through this work will the multi-layered dynamics of Imperial Japan, the characteristics of the literary discourse in Southeast Asia, and the various literary desires within the colonies become more clear, and in this way the various dynamics of “Empire” will reveal themselves.
The formation of cultural characteristics of a nation as well as the peculiarities of its worldview and ethnic psychology are largely influenced by the geographical factor which comprises the location of a country, its climate, the access or absence of access to seas, oceans, etc. One of relatively new terms in the Russian and foreign humanities is “insularity” which is understood as “isolated origin,” or “island location,” or “the island effect.” The notion of insularity is not only constituted by the fact of geographic isolation, but it also includes certain cultural, political, and ethnocultural features. The study aims to analyze the effect of the geographic insulation of Great Britain and Japan on the formation of island mentality and specific socio-cultural characteristics of these two island nations. The authors discuss the defining role of the geographical factor in the formation of the aforesaid characteristics of the British and the Japanese. The article particularly focuses on the study of national character traits typical of the two insular cultures. The study argues that the insular location of Great Britain and Japan as well as the climatic and natural conditions of these countries not only predetermined the specifics of human settlement and their economy but also shaped the mentality and worldviews of the people inhabiting the islands. The key factor in forming the national identity of both the British and the Japanese is the image of the Other, the image of the enemy. The distinction between the Self and the Other has underpinned a number of key national values. At the same time, the insular cultures of the UK and Japan display certain differences. Japan is a country with a distinct hierarchical social organization in which respect for older people and superiors is a key cultural characteristic. In contrast, the UK has a less hierarchical individualistic society. Furthermore, Japan is more conventional from the point of view of its cultural and religious institutions, norms and values. In its turn, the UK is more modern and possesses an ability to flexibly incorporate other cultural traits and new ideas. Finally, Japanese culture focuses more on collectivist practices whereas the UK being partly under the influence of European mentality is more oriented towards individualism and personal freedom.
Foreigners in Japanese are called gaijin. There is debate among the Japanese themselves regarding the meaning of this word, some people do not interpret it negatively, some others say that the word should be avoided because it has a discriminatory meaning. This was then explored further in order to get an initial picture of the research. This study aims to describe how the term gaijin relates to the mindset of Japanese society. To achieve this goal, this research will reveal how the Japanese interpret the term gaijin. It also reveals the early history of the use of the term, and the relationship between the use of the term gaijin and the mindset of Japanese society. The theoretical assumption used in this study is the opinion of Sapir and Whorf which states that every society in a certain culture, with their own language codes, will represent the world in their own way. Research data were obtained from the internet and in- depth interviews with Japanese people. The results of the analysis show that the use of the term gaijin that they practice when referring to foreigners is not a conscious characterization, but is more appropriate to be understood as a linguistic representation that shows their own cultural ideology. The use of the term gaijin is not a representation of their awareness to directly discriminate against foreigners, but rather how the Japanese show their identity in viewing people outside of themselves and their group.
This paper describes a comparative study of complaint discourse in Japanese and Indonesian focusing on modality expression. 500 items of each language were collected from TripAdvisor and usage of modality were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. As a result, modality forms have often been reported to be used to show consideration for the other person, such as avoidance of judgments and euphemisms, roundabout expressions or consideration (hairyo) for the other person are expressed. It was confirmed in complaint discourse, that there are cases in which have no consideration (hairyo) for the other person at all, rather than in a direct way of speaking. Both Japanese and Indonesian modality functioned effectively for expressing complaint. It was found that in “obvious complaint” the modality emphasizes the hotel’s faults and forces them to work appropriately, and in “implicit complaint”, the modality can express complaint with slightly reducing the burden on the hotel side by emphasizing the self-pay. The subject is used to determine whether an utterance expressing Complaint is “explicit/direct” or “implicit/indirect” in terms of the discourse level. In other words, the degree of FTA (Face Threat Act) differs depending on whether the subject is the writer (the guest) or the reader (the hotel). When the subject of “an act” is the reader (hotel side), the modality form functions to emphasize the reader’s fault (wrongness) or to force the reader (hotel side) to act. On the other hand, when the subject of “an act” was the writer, the function was to emphasize self- imposed burden or to understate the fault/burden of the reader (the hotel side).
As psycholinguists, much of our time is spent steeped in abstraction, considering the nature of the mind. Every once in a while, we might raise our heads from our desks, gaze around, and wonder at the world around us and whether anyone might improve its state. Then it is back to binding principles, implicatures, and phonotactics.
I believe in basic science, that knowledge is a per se good, and that more knowledge is more better. But I also believe that these goods will only accrue if there is a functioning society for them to accrue in – the prospect of which, as the threats of climate change, nuclear war, and genocide so frequently remind us, is by no means certain. Finally, I believe that my colleagues are possessed of a striking wealth of knowledge and ability that must, to be blunt, be good for something.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps, in the face of societal threats, our skills are entirely extraneous, and our time is best spent knocking doors, calling representatives (if we are so fortunate as to have representatives), feeding refugees, comforting the afflicted, trading in our cars for bicycles, or heading to the battlefield.
That is, I take it as a given that we should – all of us – be actively participating in constructing the world we wish to live in. Politics is not a mere spectator sport, in which we root and cheer and wear our favorite players’ jerseys. Society is what its members make it, and sitting on the sidelines affects the outcome just as much as getting out on the field. The question, then, is whether we should be contributing as psycholinguists.
Hence this special issue. The goal was certainly not to win the war through psycholinguistics. We are still (mostly) basic scientists, and even research on application unfolds too slowly to be of immediate use for the present conflict. The question, then, is whether we have anything to contribute to mitigating the consequences of the war, speeding recovery, preparing for or preempting the next one, and generally contributing to building the world we wish to live in. That question is too broad to be answered definitively with a single special issue, particularly one compiled under less-than-ideal conditions. (Many of the authors are refugees. In some cases, final revisions had to be completed on only a couple hours of electricity per day.)
Call it a pilot project.
The contributors illustrate a number of ways psycholinguists might contribute. One set of contributions considers the role of language and communication in both fomenting and responding to conflict. Isacoff provides a theoretical overview of linguistic tools for promoting sectarian violence. Krylova-Grek provides a theoretically-motivated descriptive analysis of hate speech in Russian media. Matsuoka & Matsuoka provide a detailed, line-by-line exegesis of the rhetorical strategies employed by Volodymyr Zelensky in his speech to the Japanese parliament, with a particular focus on mechanisms of building empathy and solidarity. Taking this a step further, both Ushchyna and Kovalchuk & Litkovych document in real time the emergence of new words and other linguistic devices that are allowing Ukrainians to quickly convey to one another their shared experiences and values. (American audiences may find easy analogies to the emergence of societal buzzwords like “alternative facts” or “deplorables” or “red-pilled” – phrases that quickly expanded beyond their original usage to indirectly denote a cultural affiliation.)
Another set of contributions focuses on the linguistic consequences of conflict. Yeter, Rabagliati, & Özge draw on a broad literature to consider how the refugee experience interrupts children’s linguistic & cognitive development. Labenko & Skrypnyk complement this with a detailed linguistic analysis of sixty child refugees from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Chrabaszcz and colleagues present a more strictly applied study, addressing an even more direct consequence of displacement: many refugees land in countries where they do not know the language. The authors report on two crowd-sourced projects to provide virtual language instruction to refugees.
A possible application for many of these lines of work is to monitor and track societal mood in real time. Karpina & Chen use computational methods to analyze Ukraine-related statements on Twitter by four prominent Western politicians during the early course of the war. Zasiekin, Kuperman, Hlova, & Zasiekina apply similar methods to analyzing mental state from Ukrainian war narratives posted on social media. The scope of both projects is limited by time pressure, power outages, and the like, but they join a larger literature in which researchers are increasingly using computational analysis of speech for applications ranging from monitoring hate speech to neuroclinical assessment (Lehr et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2022; Schmidt & Wiegand, 2017).
As of writing, the war in Ukraine continues. Psycholinguistics will not end it. I leave it to the readers of this issue to determine, after having considered the contributions herein, whether psycholinguists qua psycholinguists have a role to play in the broader societal context, and what, if any, your own role should be.
Much has been written about Japanese law within the context of Japan. Less is known about the application of Japanese legal models outside Japan. A prevailing view among some commentators is that Japanese law scholarship does not offer insights that are useful beyond Japan-based legal studies. Other scholars challenge this perception by invoking Japan’s legal development aid projects in the Mekong subregion of ASEAN—especially in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. These projects have been in operation for over twenty years and aim to foster the economic growth of host countries. This article aligns with the view that Japanese law exists beyond, and is influential outside, Japan. It calls for further action by legal specialists to re-examine and re-assess the corresponding influence of Japanese positive law in these countries, both in improving the transparency of those legal systems and enhancing communication among local, comparative and Japanese law experts.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the popularity of Japanese lesson study (JLS) beyond Japan and the challenges this translation might pose. It notes that there is not a universally accepted definition of lesson study (LS) and seeks to identify the “critical components” of JLS through a review of the literature. It then uses a systematic literature review of recent studies of the implementation of LS with in-service teachers beyond Japan to analyse the models of LS used against these seven critical components in order to explore the degree of fidelity to the Japanese model. Design/methodology/approach A broad review of the literature on JLS available in the English language identifies seven “critical components”. A systematic literature review of 200 recent English language studies of the implementation of LS with in-service teachers beyond Japan is then carried out. Articles published between 2005 and 2015 are explored, including peer reviewed articles, scientific journals, book chapters and PhD dissertations. This systematic review enables an analysis of the models of LS used in studies from beyond Japan against the “seven critical components” of JLS. Findings The analysis shows that there is not an internationally shared understanding of Japanese lesson study (JLS) and that many of the missing components are those which distinguish LS as a research process, not simply a collaborative professional development approach. It also reveals that UK LS models seem particularly far from the Japanese model in those critical components which connect teachers’ knowledge and understanding within groups, to knowledge and understanding that exists beyond it. The study discusses whether these differences could be attributed to structural or cultural differences between Japan and other nations. Research limitations/implications The search for descriptions of the JLS is limited to articles available in the English language, which, therefore, represent a quite limited body of authority on the “critical components” of LS. The systematic review is similarly limited to English language articles, and there is a clear bias towards the USA, with the Far East and the UK making up the majority of the remaining studies. The study suggests that future research on LS beyond Japan should consider teachers’ attitudes towards the research elements of the process as well as their skills and confidence in carrying out research into practice. Practical implications The study strikes a note of caution for schools wishing to implement JLS as an approach to teacher professional development in the UK and beyond. Japan’s systemic approach has embedded LS experience and expertise into the education system, meaning a uniform approach to LS is much more likely. In addition, other systemic challenges may arise, for example, UK professional development time and resources is not designed with JLS in mind and may therefore require a significant reworking. Originality/value Whilst several systematic reviews of LS have explored its growth, geographical spread, impact and key features, this study provides a different perspective. It analyses whether and to what degree the “lesson study” models these studies describe align with the literature on JLS, and the implications of this for researchers and practitioners.