Talk:Gaijin/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →


Dictionary Definitions

Is gaijin a derogatory word? There are numerous publicly verifiable third-party reputable sources that say no, it’s absolutely not derogatory: “gaijin is a common abbreviation of gaikokujin.” The question is: are they sufficient evidence for an encyclopedia entry? My conclusion, based on a faithful reading of WP guidelines, is that they are. Each of my conclusions (below) has been cross-referenced by more than two other (indeed, many) reputable sources.

Minoru Wada, a former senior curriculum specialist for the Japanese Ministry of Education and professor at Meikai University, categorically states: “Gaijin is simply an abbreviation of gaikokujin.” He goes on to acknowledge that he personally does not use the word much anymore because he respects how some young non-Japanese (he says “Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs) on the JET Program”) mistakenly take offense. However, he also emphasizes emphatically that these ALTs, who are non-native speakers, misunderstand the situation; that the majority of Japanese speakers “usually” harbor no malicious intent—which could be true of virtually any word. Indeed, Prof. Wada and Jim Lockhart seem to share the same point. (Minoru Wada, “Education behind the scenes,” The Daily Yomiuri, 20 June, 1994, pg. 9.)

Is Prof. Wada right?

Let’s start with some dictionaries, which are not meant to be an exhaustive search by any means, but simply give a cross-referenced publicly verifiable overview of the current state of knowledge, followed later by what other academics and authors think (which is usually in agreement with Prof. Wada).

WHAT THE JAPANESE-JAPANESE DICTIONARIES TELL US

Listed by publication date, the following definitions are copied verbatim from their corresponding dictionaries. Translations and interpretations will need to be discussed later, including a careful discussion of what is the contemporary definition--which is not consistent by dictionary. Some put the historical rendering first, while other dictionaries do the exact opposite--but more on that later.

がいじん【外人】『名』①．家族、親戚、仲間などのささいの外にいる人。無関係の人。他人。②　外国人。特に、欧米人をいう場合が多い。 --Gaijin. In S. Kobayashi (ed.), Nihon kokugo daijiten (日本国語大辞典), (p. 258, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1943). Tokyo: Shogakukan.

【外人】①　仲間以外の人。門人外の人。②　ほかの人。よその人。他人。 --Gaijin. Daikanwa jiten (大漢和辞典), (p. 330, 2nd ed., 3rd pr., vol. 3). (1986). Tokyo: Taishukan shoten.

がいじん【外人】①　外国の人。外国人。特に、欧米人をいうことが多い。⇔邦人。「外人客」②　そのことに関係のない人。第三者。「外人もなき所に兵具をととのへ／平家一」 --Gaijin. In A. Matsumura (ed.), Daijirin (大辞林), (p. 397, 9th ed., vol. 1). (1989). Tokyo: Sanseido.

がいじん【外人】外国人。異人。Foreigner --Gaijin. In T. Umesao et. al. (eds.), Nihongo Daijiten (日本語大辞典:講談社カラ版), (p. 163, 1st ed., 8th pr., vol. 1). (1990). Tokyo: Kodansha.

Gaijin. (外人) n. 外国の人 a foreigner --Gaijin. In Shini Seigi (ed.), Kokugo Sogo Shinjiten (国語総合新辞典), (p. 197, 2nd ed., vol. 1). (1992). Tokyo:

がいじん。【外人】[無関係な、よそ者、の意]　外国人。[同化を拒まれている異国人、という意味で使われることが多いので、濫用すべきでない。例、「変な外人」、「外人教師」。 --Gaijin. In T. Yamada (ed.), Shimeikai kokugo jiten (新明解国語辞典), (p. 213, 5th ed., vol. 1). (1997). Tokyo: Sanseido.

がいじん。【外人】①　外国人、特に、欧米人をいう。②　仲間以外の人。他人。「外人もなき所に兵具をととのへ」〈平家・一〉【外人部隊】外国人の志願者で編制した傭兵（ようへい）部隊。 --Gaijin. In A. Matsumura (ed.), Daijisen (大辞泉), (p. 437, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1998). Tokyo: Shogakukan.

がいじん【外人】①　仲間以外の人。疎遠の人。連理秘抄「外人など上手多からむ座にては」②　敵視すべきな人。平家一「外人もなき所に兵具をととのへ」③　外国人。異人。⇔邦人。 --Gaijin. In I. Shimura (ed.), Kojien (広辞苑), (p. 438, 5th ed., vol. 1). (1998). Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.

がいじん【外人】外国人。⇔邦人。 --Gaijin. In M. Nishio et. al. (eds.), Kokugo jiten (国語辞典) , (p. 173, 6th ed., vol. 1). (2000). Tokyo: Iwanami.

【外人】①　外国人。異人。対：邦人。「外人教師」②　局外者。他人。「源平両家の童形たちのおのおのござ候ふに、かやうの外人は然るべからず候」 --Gaijin. In M. Yamaguchi et. al. (eds.), Shinkango jiten (新漢語辞典), (p. 282, 2nd ed., vol. 1). (2000). Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.


WHAT THE JAPANESE-ENGLISH/ENGLISH-JAPANESE DICTIONARIES TELL US

Foreigner. n. 1. 外国人、外人、異人（alien）. 2. 外国の産物、外国製品、外来物、舶来品。３．外国船。 --Foreigner. In J. Stein (ed.), Shogakukan’s Random House English-Japanese Dictionary, (p. 989, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1979). Tokyo: Shogakukan.

Gaijin. (外人) n. a foreigner; an alien. --Gaijin. In Koh Masuda (ed.), Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary, (p. 306, 4th ed., 11th impression). (1985). Tokyo: Kenkyushu Ltd.

Gaijin. (外人)　n. foreigner, alien. Variant: gaikokujin. --Gaijin. In The Japanese Foundation (ed.), Basic Japanese-English Dictionary, (p. 141, 1st. ed., vol. 1). (1986). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Foreigner. n. ①　外国人、外人、異人（alien）. ②　外国の物産、外国製品、舶来品。③　【話】よそ者（outsider）. --Foreigner. In T. Konishi et. al. (eds.), Shogakukan’s Progressive English-Japanese Dictionary, (p. 733, 2nd ed., vol. 1). (1987). Tokyo: Shogakukan.

Foreigner. Gaikoku’jin外国人; gaijin外人 --Foreigner. In N. Brannen (ed.), the Practical English-Japanese Dictionary, (p. 123, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1991). New York: Weatherhall.

Foreigner. n. 外国人 gaikokujin. --Foreigner. In R. Gorin and Y. Okubo (eds.), Collins Shubun English-Japanese Dictionary (p. 197, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1993). Seattle: Harper Collins Publishers & Shubun International Co., Ltd.

Gaijin. (外人) n. foreigner. Abbreviation of gaikokujin. --Gaijin. In Shigeru Takebayashi (ed.), The Kenkyusha Romanized Japanese-English Learner’s Pocket Dictionary (p. 73, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1993). Tokyo: Kenkyusha Ltd.

Gaijin, n. 外人 foreigner. --Gaijin. In Seigo Nakao (ed.), Random House Japanese-English/English-Japanese Dictionary (p. 64, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1995). New York: Random House.

Foreigner. n. 外国人; 外人 --Foreigner. In Timothy Vance (ed.), Kodansha’s Furigana Japanese Dictionary (Japanese-English/English-Japanese), (p. 227, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1999). Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd.

がいじん。【外人】a foreigner. [⇒がいこくじん] --Gaijin. In T. Watanabe (ed.), Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary, (p. 473, 5th ed., vol. 1). (2003). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

WHAT ALL DICTIONARIES HAVE IN COMMON

All consulted dictionaries support and reinforce the following two points:

1. They all agree that gaijin is a neutral contraction of gaikokujin in contemporary Japan. 2. They all agree that it is neither an epithet nor an ethnic slur, and that it carries no pejorative connotation either in either pre-modern Japan, modern Japan, or (more importantly) post-war Japan.

These glosses, based on the dictionary publication dates, cover the 1943-2003 period, so this much has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

At a later date, I'll document all of the cross-referenced academics and authors who have published on this subject in reliable third-party sources that agree with Prof. Wada. I have yet to find any that don't.

Best, J Readings 18:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure what the point of this is. Was there ever any doubt that the term gaijin is not derogatory? And gaijin is not merely a contraction of gaikokujin. There are two terms (gaijin and gaikokujin). The word gaijin is much, much older. Gaijin is only a contraction of gaikokujin from the late 19th century, which very recent. Bendono 21:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
To which I say, show us the third-party reliable source(s) that make(s) the point that gaijin is not simply a contraction of gaikokujin in contemporary Japan (what I actually wrote), and we will all take the point under advisement. Until then, we obviously only work with verifiable third-party secondary sources. You already know (or at least you should) the WP guidelines, Bendono, why do you resist them? J Readings 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are quoting Heike and others, then what relevance is contemporary Japanese? As well as most of your resources are for historical usages as well. Please read carefully the resources that you quoted. I own just about all of them and are very familiar with them. For example, your very first references. (Why are you using the obsolete first edition? The second edition is much better in that it gives dates for each example. Anyway, the old edition will still suffice, as long as you are willing to look up the dates yourself.) For the most part, I generated the above graph from it, and you should be able to regenerate it yourself as well. Look at the dates for the quotes (from the dictionary) and you should notice that the word "gaijin" does not ever mean a foreign national until the late 19th century. And that is (obviously) after the term "gaikokujin" appears. Gaijin only means gaikokujin after the term gaikokujin appears and becomes a contraction of gaikokujin, thus merging. It should be clear from the facts (dated quotes in the dictionary) why gaijin never originally meant foreign national. It only takes on the foreign national meaning after it becomes a contraction for gaikokujin. Here is your resource:
I have cited resources. I am the one who gave the reference to Heike in the main article; it was left un-cited before. I also gave quotes from several of the relevant resources. Are there any that I am missing that you would like? Bendono 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You guys would have to come back with this on a day when I’m loaded to the gills with work! <g> Bendono, I’m not quite sure that I get your point about gaijin pre- and post-19th century. I have objected to the references to pre-19th century and post-19th gaijin because I believe they are essentially different words that merely look alike, so extrapolating derogatory meaning into the post-19th century abbreviation for foreigner from its pre-19th century meaning of “outsider” and whatnot, is misleading (I also have my doubts that it was derogatory in those pre-19th century meanings as well, though there are lots of people who read pejorativeness into any word might exclude others—but that is a retroactively applied ideological interpretation, not necessarily a reflection of reality). I’ll have to get back to you guys on this in a day or so, after I’ve clear the decks here. Jim_Lockhart 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Take your time. There are no deadlines here on Wikipedia. I think we are all generally making the same case. I do not think that the term gaijin is derogatory nor am I aware of any specific references that make that suggestions.
Pre 19th century, the word gaijin has absolutely no semantic relevance to country (国). Nor should it as it is not an abbreviation for gaikokujin (外国人) but is an entirely separate lexical term. It only assumes the meaning of gaikokujin late in the 19th century when gaijin becomes an abbreviation for gaikokujin. In this sense, there are two essentially different words that merely look alike': pre-19th century gaijin and post-19th century gaijin. That is essentially what the above graph attempts to illustrate: two separate words (gaijin and gaikokujin) merging into one (gaijin). With that merger, gaijin now assumes both meanings: 1) an outsider (etc.) and 2) a foreigner. The focus of the article is surely on the foreigner aspect. However, it is only part of the story. If the wording is misleading, then surely it can be improved. But that should not come at the sacrifice of a fuller, more detailed explanation. Bendono 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, there you have it, Bendono: I think this is exactly what J. Readings and I have been trying to get across all along about the word. The challenge for us is how to compose the article in such a way that it mentions all these aspects, and addresses the controversy as typified by some people feeling hurt by the expression, without misguiding anyone. Thanks! And thank Goodness for no deadlines. :) Jim_Lockhart 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'm a strong believer in putting all of my cards on the table's talk page for all to see. Put differently, if we can cite all of the relevant sources pertaining to gaijin in the beginning, we can then re-work the article to reflect a very strong overview of what the academic, non-fictional literature says about the word, before confusing its contemporary usage in fiction with what the experts (lexicographers, linguists, and other academics) published on the subject. I'm not a big fan of ad hoc additions to most encyclopedia articles because it sometimes places undue weight to either minority or (worse) ill-informed opinions. To answer Bendono's question on why it's necessary to get this issue of connotation out of the way, too many people in the WP archives were citing things like e-mail rants (e.g., Debito Arudou's "The Case for Gaijin as a Racist Word"), personal opinions (e.g., "I'm offended by the word, let's incorporate that into the article as fact about its nature..."), anecdotes (e.g., "I have friends who know it to be a racist word, we should incorporate that into the article..."), and fictional movies (e.g., "Tokyo Drift says that gaijin is *gasp* a bad word!") as authoritative references. Most additions are completely unacceptable in Wikipedia, and even the latter would be the equivalent of citing Michael Crichton's State of Fear as a scientific rebuttal to global warming or novelist Amelie Nothomb's Fear and Trembling as a serious analysis of corporate Japan. Those types of fictional references have their place in popular culture or the usage sections, but they shouldn't be used as authoritative references on the word itself. The bottom-line is that we should start from scratch. List all the sources over the next few months, and then completely rework the article to reflect a publicly verifiable account of the known facts. Personally, I think that it's a reasonable strategy in the face of a controversial subject. It certainly couldn't hurt. I hope you agree. Best, J Readings 15:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)