CopyRight YANABU Akira
§ 10 彼女･彼 (kanojo, kare she, he)
− from thing to person, and to lover
Is 'he' the same as kare?
The instances used kare for the translating word of the third person pronoun of Western language was since old ages. In "Haruma wage (Interpretation into Japanese)" (1796), zijn (his) was put as kano hito * (that person), sono hito * (this person). And de zijne (independent his) was put as kare, which is in Japanese today kare no mono (his thing). Afterwards Dutch scholars often used kare for the third person pronoun, and for woman, used kano onna * . For example, a Dutch scholar, Fujibayashi Fuzan * wrote in his "Orandago houge * (Explanation of Dutch)" (1815):
Zij is zeer schoon.
kano onna wa nari hanahada bi
kano onna wa hanahada bi nari *
In Morrison's "English-Chinese dictionary", he was rendered as '他, 彼, 伊, ', and 'she' was explained not to be rendered into Chinese, written as well as 'he', 他. The translating word 彼女 was, therefore, made in Japan. The first time when 彼女 was read as kanojo was the examples in Tsubouchi Shouyou's "Tousei shosei katagi # (The student character of today)"(1885-86).
From the end of the Tokugawa era to the beginning of the Meiji era, in the dictionaries of English, German and French, the translating words of he, er, il were almost kare or kare wa, and she, sie, elle were translated as kare or kano onna.
As far as I have explained above, our kare may look like nearly the same meaning as 'he' etc. Is that the case?
That is not the case, I think, he and kare are unexpectedly greatly different from each other.
At first, he is the third person pronoun, while kare has been originally a demonstrative pronoun. There has not been the third person pronoun in Japanese, and even today, it is better to think we have not it either, which seems for us Japanese quite difficult to understand, for the intellectuals who have learned foreign languages in particular.
The third pronoun is used in principle to inherit a preceding noun, and used in stead of repeating it, then the meaning of the third person pronoun is just the same as that of the preceding noun. For instance, at first saying 'Robert', and in the following sentence saying 'he', the meaning of this 'he' is equal to 'Robert'.
On the other hand, kare has been used in the same way as are in ko-so-a pronoun, kore (this) sore (this or that) are (that) in Japanese. For instance, in case of konata (here) sonata (here or there) anata (there), kanata has been used in the same way as anata.
Ko-so-a is used properly, kore, kochira etc. refer to being close to the speaker, sore, sochira etc. refer to being close to the hearer, are, achira etc. refer to being removed from both the speaker and the hearer.
Namely, kare like are used to indicate being linked with the position of the speaker. While the third person pronoun she/he etc. refer what is already uttered, without relation to the position of the speaker. For example, indicating someone that is seen first, 'he' cannot be used as a rule, but are or kare naturally can be used.
Next, the third person pronoun is for form's sake equivalent to the first and the second personal pronouns, they are hence formally interchangeable each other. A person said 'he' is opposed equally to a person said 'I' or 'you'. While kare is removed farther than kore or sore, hence weaker in its meaning and lower in value. For instance, we may say indicating someone 'are' even today, which meaning implies some despising tone, kare was once used in the same way.
As we can see as I explained so far, kare originally did not indicate always a person only, but indicated a thing too. I will research this matter in dictionaries.
In Hepburn's "Japanese-English dictionary" (1867), KARE was 'that thing, that person, he', which explained at first thing, and next person. In the third edition of this dictionary the explanation was the same. In Takahashi Goro's "Chinese-English and Japanese ABC dictionary" (1894), kare was '彼、 、夫、ano hito, he, that man or woman", in which there is no thing, persons only. In Mozume Takami * 's "Nihon daijirin # (The General dictionary of Japanese)", by contraries
there is no person, and things only, kare was 'are, word calling in stead of the names of remote things'. "Genkai (The sea of words)" in 1891 and 1909 editions, and Kanazawa Shouzaburou $ 's "Jirin (The
forest of words)" (1911), all put kare as a pronoun referring to persons first, and next things.
Concluding above, kare had been a pronoun referring to both persons and things till the beginning of modern ages, and it had been changing on the whole, from the first half of this period when it referred to things rather than persons, to the latter half when persons rather than things.
As I explained so far, kare had been greatly different from the third person pronoun in Western languages. Since kare was used as the translating word, however, it came to change its meaning. How has it changed? Did it become the same as 'he'? − No, then let's think of its changing.
The change or transformation of kare after modern ages was, at first because it was used as the translating word, and secondly because Japanese writings has changed modeling after Western writings, and in these new writings it became used, in which the use in the modern novels was especially important, namely, the role in writing Japanese
was the first. Afterwards it became used in ordinary Japanese and is being used well today, which use is however under the influence of the writing.
Okumura Tsuneya * wrote an article "Consideration of pronouns, kare, kanojo, karera (they)" * . Its fundamental viewpoint is different from mine though, this is an excellent research. Hence I will describe my research comparing with it.
First, he wrote on the circumstances that kare etc. have been so much used:
Futabatei's translation "Ukigusa * (Floating grass)" (1895) was rendered from Turgenev's "Rudin", which was translated again by Yonekawa Masao * in 1952. In the former, kare was used only 4 times, while in the latter, kare was 302, kanojo was 154, and karera was used 2 times. To such an extent, these are not because of difference of individual styles, but we feel here the general development of Japanese language itself.
This is true, I would notice here however, as the result of 'the general development of Japanese language itself', kare of Japanese did not become used frequently similarly to he etc. For instance, a contemporary writer, Abe Koubou # 's "Yume no heishi $ (The Dream Soldier)" and its translation into English by A. Horvat, in the former
kare was used only 1, but in its translation, 'he' was used 26 times. Between kare and he, it must be said to be still a gap difficult to cross.
Kare has become used more frequently however. In what role it has become used, Okumura argued in the article:
Let's compare Futabatei's translation "A portrait" in 1895 (the original was written by Gogol) and the translation by Hirai Hajime "A portrait" in 1937, … in Hirai's translation:
Once again trying to look at the strange eyes, kare came to the portrait,
While Futabatei translated:
And approached to see the strange eyes of the portrait,
thus, such a simple abbreviation is the most, which were used 84 times (the subjective case 68, the genitive case 16, the objective case 5), these are 66.1 % of all.…
That is, the new word kare did not appear in place of some word, but functioned to fill up the place which had been blank. And filling up the place of the subjective case was the most (77 times, 62 %).
Perhaps most Japanese intellectuals agree to this opinion. However, just against this I will object. In the writings of translation and the translative writings in Japanese, subject like kare has become numerous. These have never been used to fill up the place which had been blank. In a language system, there is no 'blank'. When Japanese language was compared with Western languages, if Western languages had been regarded as the models, Japanese language would have come to have blanks. And afterwards, Japanese writings have changed and soon people have accustomed to it, when looking back upon the previous Japanese, they might feel that once there has been blanks in Japanese.
The translating word kare have not entered into Japanese for filling up blanks, but have invaded as a superfluous or unnecessary word, which was clear in particular at the beginning of modern ages.
As superfluous words, kanojo and kare can be observed in examples of the day as the word feeling of people. Okumura Tsuneya's word feeling did not overlook it, which was described as follows:
In Tsubouchi Shouyou's "Tousei shosei katagi" (1886):
So to speak a 'kitten', but students would welcome and speak of the girl 'Kanojo is lively.'
Here is an example. It indicated a harlot however, having some nuance of a jargon, it may be difficult to call it a real pronoun, but this seemed to be the first use of kanojo.
In "Ruten (Changing)" kare was used 2 times, in "Muko erabi (Choosing a groom)" kare; 1 and karera; 2, however, this kare indicated an insincere person, and karera were adovocates of social intercourse between man and woman, who were regarded as heresies in those days, hence these could not be said real pronouns, they were rather used as emphasizing contempt with curiosity as Kouyou * had tried in his early works.
Here, 'some nuance of a jargon' or 'contempt with curiosity' may have been the word feeling which kare and kanojo had.
Such a word feeling as I explained, derived from kare of ko-so-a pronoun, which implies some despising tone. Moreover, they have also the meaning of the third person pronoun, he and she, to some extent. Namely, these two meanings were together in a word. And the circumstances that these words were used well by young people was known through the description of "Tousei shosei katagi". kanojo and kare were the words which had the effect peculiar to the translating words, and through this effect, they invaded into Japanese as the superfluous words.
The role of she and he etc. in Western languages is at first, the function of grammatical construction to clarify the subject as the subject of behavior. In Western writings, she and he etc. are repeated frequently, not only because of necessity to understand, but because ofthe demand of grammatical form. The sentences in which plenty of personal pronoun such as the third person pronoun are used are the first terms to have intimacy for Western readers. In its background, there is the structure of thought always to declare the subject of behavior, and to clarify the responsible person as individual.
That in Japanese writings grammatical subjects are usually not so many has been explained in various ways. The explanation that subjects are abbreviated in Japanese writings presupposes that writings should essentially have subjects, which models after Western writings. This thinking is not reasonable. The view that subjects are not expressed except when they are necessary agrees more with Japanese language.
Another view says that in Japanese there are cases subjects are difficult to express, for instance, the case that auxiliary verb of spontaneity is used. When I write like this book, if I write '… to watashi wa kangaeru. * (I think that …)', then I must be responsible all I have said, if I write however,'… to kangaerareru.# (it can be
thought that … )', then it seems for me to be reduced the responsibility, hence while being a little diffident I would like to use such a wording. The expression 'kangaerareru (it can be thought)' keeps naturally out of subject.
It is said that Japanese like a verb, naru (to become) better than suru (to do). For instance, people say that reporting at a meeting, saying 'I have done it thus.' would meet with resistance, saying 'It has become thus.' would be however, accepted by others rapidly. In such cases, is it true to say that 'it ' did not 'has become' but one 'have done it'? When a greengrocer says 'These vegetables have become cheap', is it true to say that they did not 'have become cheap', but the greengrocer made them cheap? It may be said that in the greengrocer's behavior of 'becoming cheap', not only he, but his fellow traders and customers take part, to some extent. When one write 'it can be thought that … ', in the contents of the writing, not only the writer himself, but other writers and readers may take part, to some extent.
Well now, kanojo and kare soon entered into Japanese, and the writings clarifying the subject of behavior became being written. They are the Japanese writings of novels influenced by Western novels and of their translation novels. The naturalism literature beginning in 1900s was the type. I will research how kanojo and kare were used as shown under.
In 1908, Tayama Katai * who had published "Futon # (Bedding)" the
year before, wrote a short story "A soldier", its beginning was as follows:
Kare began to walk.
A musket is heavy, a knapsack is heavy, feet are heavy. A cup made of aluminum is clattering hitting a bayonet carried by his side.
In the following, this hero was always called kare. The subjects of sentences were not so many but sometimes used, many of which were kare.
On the way, another soldier appeared, he was described as:
Someone cried in a line. Being surprised and looking at there, sono heishi (this soldier) stumbled and fell down, blood was colored profusely in the hot setting sun. A bullet hit the breast. Sono heishi had been a nice guy, cheerful, unconstrained and easy for everything, who was born in Shinjo Machi and had to have a young wife. After having disembarked, we have often requisition together, chased about pigs. Ano otoko (that man) however is no longer alive.
Here, the words italicized are, supposing written in English, they should have been written as 'he', sono otoko said twice nearly successively in particular, at least the latter of which of course should have been 'he'.
That is, if kare which Katai used in this novel had been the third person pronoun like he, Katai should have used here kare, the fact not being so meant that kare used since the beginning of the novel was not the third person pronoun, and it was the word which indicated the particular person, the hero only. It was lacking even the essential function of a pronoun. It was not used in stead of a noun.
In the beginning, kare existed. Of course it was not the third person pronoun. It was similar to ko-so-a pronoun mentioned above, because it could be used in the beginning. And with respect that it is used over again in the writing, it seems similar to the third person pronoun. From the viewpoint that it did not indicate anyone other than the peculiar person, it is difficult to be said a pronoun. This kare is rather similar to a proper noun.
This novel ended in such a scene:
'Sure, where the poor man comes from?'
A soldier fumbled in kare no (his) pocket. A military notebook was pulled out. In kare no eyes, the black and sturdy face of the soldier and the appearance approaching nearby a candle on a desk to read the notebook were seen. Then reading voice was heard … Mikawano Kuni, Atsumi Gun, Fukue Mura, Katou Heisaku. Then the scenery of the country appeared once again in front of the eyes. The face of mother, the face of wife, the large house surrounded by zelkovas, the smooth beach continued from the backyard, the blue sea, the faces of familiar fishermen, … .
The two men stand still. Their faces are pale and dark. At times sympathizing words are exchanged. Kare is already conscious of death, which is however not felt in particular painful or sad. What the two men are questioning is thought not kare-self, but another thing seems to exist. Only this pain, kare wished to escape this unbearable pain.
Soon after, kare died, and the novel ended.
Beside dying kare, a soldier read the name of kare, Katou Heisaku … .
Listening to it, kare thought 'What the two men are questioning is thought not kare-self, but another thing seems to exist.'
In the beginning kare existed. It was separated from the usual convention of the world such as 'Mikawano Kuni … Katou Heisaku'. It seemed like the third person pronoun, and also seemed like the first person pronoun, and after all neither of them, it was beyond personal pronouns. To something called kare, the writer Tayama Katai entrusted a destiny, which was most similar to that of the writer himself, not the writer of the first person pronoun however.
Kare existed at first, and was a strange 'cassette'. Since its meaning was unknown, the writer entrusted the meaning to it, in which he could begin to create the meaning.
Before the year "A soldier" was written, Katai published " Futon (Bedding)", which was the well known work which marked a new epoch in the modern history of Japanese literature. I have explained "A soldier" previously at first, because it expressed typically the structure that a word kare played the crucial function in the art of Katai's novel. "Futon" was also described based on the same sort of kanojo and kare.
"Futon" began this way:
Walking down the gentle slope from Kirishitan slope to Gokuraku-sui, kare thought: 'Thus the relation between kanojo and I have settled for the time being. Being already thirty six years old, and besides having three children, it's ridiculous that I've imagined like that. But … , but … , was this true? … '
And all through the first chapter of "Futon", only kanojo and kare were used, and it ended as:
'But, nothing doing!'
Kare again scratched the head.
And the second chapter began like this:
The name of kare was Takenaka Tokio.
Thus the hero living in the convention of the world was going to be described. The name was in the real world, even though the author had invented it, once being named just like a real one, it could not get out of the real convention. In "A soldier" also, the name Katou Heisaku appeared with the address, and in the following 'The scenery of the country appeared'.
Kare did not exist in the world, because the ordinary Japanese living in the world did not have kare. I think Katai dared to use consciously such kanojo and kare. 'Consciously' I say means not to be conscious of its meaning, but that being conscious of sufficiently the sense of incompatibility with Japanese context, he dared however to try to use it. For instance, in the first chapter he described:
In any case, the chance has passed. Kanojo has been already the other's girl.
Kare cried thus and scratched the head while walking.
Even today, kanojo and kare appear quite rarely in the conversations of Japanese novels. There ought not have been such a wording in those days. The word kanojo made Katai write such a wording.
At any rate, Katai desired to use kanojo and kare, not because they were lacking in Japanese writings, nor because Katai's thought required them, but the translating words kanojo and kare tempted him. In the Western novels Katai read and enjoyed then, she and he were frequently used everywhere. The style of modern novels using the third person pronoun was completed and matured. She and he in Western writings were nothing strange nor superfluous at all. When they were translated into Japanese however, some strange and superfluous words kanojo and kare appeared, it was the time when they began to appear.
Katai was being obsessed by these words seemingly necessary and superfluous for Japanese, as the result of which these words came to bear the crucial role ever unknown among Japanese people.
When kanojo and kare were dared to use, perhaps an unexpected world opened. Kare was neither the first person pronoun nor the third person pronoun, the result of which it played some indefinite role, occasionally the first person pronoun and at times the third person pronoun.
"Futon (Bedding)" was said to be the origin of Japanese shi shousetsu * (I-novel or first-person novel). What I have considered is kare shousetsu # (he-novel), and it did not talk on 'I' itself, but
talked on I entrusting to kare. Thus 'I' was dared to question and was being created as the existence to be exposed. The author's I came to be the third person pronoun and to be objectified within the limits that kare was the third person pronoun.
Kanojo and kare become fairly used even in ordinary Japanese conversation today, most of their wording seem not to have so changed that of Katai's novels, namely, they are considerable the third person pronoun, but not so much as she and he. And different from a pronoun of ko-so-a, they indicate quite limited peculiar persons, they are like pronouns and like nouns too. And they indicate some existence of affirmative value. Namely, they are similar to the words used when young Japanese indicate their girl friend or boy friend, such as 'your kanojo' or 'my kare'.