sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ainu language, Japanese language, Languages of Japan

Volume 7 | Issue 19 | Number 2 | ID 3138 | May 09, 2009 The Asia-Pacific Journal |

The Ryukyus and the New, But Endangered, of Japan

Patrick Heinrich, Fija Bairon, Matthias Brenzinger

state with one unifying triggered the of regional varieties (hogen) under The Ryukyus and the New, But the newly created standard ‘’ Endangered, (kokugo) all over the country (Carroll 2001). What is more, through these processes, distinct Fija Bairon, Matthias Brenzinger languages were downgraded to hogen, i.. and Patrick Heinrich mere ‘dialects’ in accordance with the dominant national ideology (Fija & Heinrich 2007).

Luchuan (Ryukyuan) languages are no longer

On 21 February 2009, the international mother language day, UNESCO launched the online version of its ‘Atlas of the world’s languages in danger’. This electronic version that will also be published as the third edition of the UNESCO Atlas in May 2009, now includes the Luchuan [Ryukyuan] languages of Japan (UNESCO 2009). ‘Luchuan’ is the Uchinaaguchi () term for the Japanese ‘Ryukyu’. Likewise ‘Okinawa’ is ‘Uchinaa’ in Uchinaaguchi. Well taken, UNESCO recognizes six languages of the Fija Bairon teaching an Uchinaaguchi Luchu Islands [] of which two language class at Duisburg-Essen are severely endangered, Yaeyama and University (Germany) , and four are classified as definitely endangered, Amami, Kunigami, Uchinaa The entire group of the Luchuan languages – [Okinawa] and Miyako (see UNESCO 2003 for linguistic relatives of the otherwise isolated assessing language vitality and endangerment). – is about to disappear. These languages are being replaced by Through publication of the atlas, UNESCO standard Japanese (hyojungo or kyotsugo) as a recognizes the linguistic diversity in present- result of the Japanization of the Luchuan day Japan and, by that, challenges the long- Islands, which started with the Japanese standing misconception of a monolingual annexation of these islands in 1872 and was Japanese nation state that has its roots in the more purposefully carried out after the linguistic and colonizing policies of the establishment of in 1879. period. The formation of a Japanese nation In public schools, Luchuan children were

1 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF educated to become Japanese and they were no (dialects of Japanese) may satisfy national longer allowed to speak their own language at demands of obedience but is problematic schools following the ‘Ordinance of dialect linguistic and historical grounds. regulation’ (hogen torishimari-rei) in 1907 (ODJKJ 1983, vol. III: 443-444). Spreading Luchuan language description and Standard Japanese was a key measure for dialectology transforming Luchu Islanders into Japanese nationals and for concealing the fact that The two most important aspects of the Japanese was multilingual and multicultural UNESCO initiative for the Luchuan languages (Heinrich 2004). are, first, the encouragement to write grammars and dictionaries, i.e. to initiate a new The US occupation of Uchinaa after World War phase of language documentation and, second, II, which – at least formally – ended in 1972, to lend support, by recognition, for community marks the final stage in the fading of the and maintenance activities. Luchuan languages. In their attempts to Despite the generally high standards of separate Uchinaa from mainland Japan, linguistic scholarship in Japan, the Americans emphasized the distinctiveness of documentation of the Luchuan languages the Luchuan languages and cultures and remains unsatisfactory (Ishihara 2009). Two encouraged their development. This US policy reasons might be responsible for this situation. of dividing Luchuan from Japan, however, First, the Luchuan languages are backfired and gave rise to a Luchuan predominantly still studied as ‘dialects’ of Japanization movement. Today, even the Japan’s ‘national language’ (kokugo), or remaining – mainly elderly - Luchuan language Japanese tout court. Second, Japan’s speakers generally refer to their languages as unfortunate division of linguistics into two hogen, i.e. Japanese ‘dialects’, accepting in so branches, i.e. ‘general linguistic’ (gengogaku) doing the downgrading of their heritage and ‘national [identity] linguistics’ languages for the assumed of national (kokugogaku) (Koyama 2003), resulted in an unity. almost complete lack of studies on Luchuan languages by general linguists. In support of the UNESCO approach, Sakiyama Osamu, professor emeritus of linguistics at the Kokugogaku linguists have always treated, and National Museum of Ethnology, stated that “a continue to treat, the Luchuan languages as dialect should be treated as an independent ‘dialects’. As a result, the Luchuan languages language if its speakers have a distinct culture” have been studied in a dialectology framework, (Kunisue 2009). However, linguistic studies which proves inadequate for documenting also prove that these speech forms should be distinct languages. Japan’s ‘National Institute treated as languages in their own right (e.g. for Japanese Language’ (Kokuritsu kokugo Miyara 2008), distinct both from Japanese as kenkyujo, literally ‘National Language well as from one another. According to results Research Institute’) lists 211 publications on employing the lexicostatistics method (Hattori the Luchuan languages in their ‘Yearbook of 1954), the Luchuan languages share only National Language Studies’ in the last 10 between 59 and 68 percent cognates with years, 90% of which refer to these languages as Japanese. These figures are lower than ‘dialects’. The category under which these those between German and English. Scholars, publications are compiled in the yearbook is as well as speakers, agree that there is no ‘Okinawa and Amami dialects’ and even the between these languages most important journal for research on the (Matsumori 1995). Thus calling them hogen Luchuan languages is incongruously named

2 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF

‘Ryukyu no hogen’ (Ryukyu Dialects). Most encourage linguists trained in language studies of Luchuan languages have been documentation to conduct research on Japan’s conducted by dialectologists, who have no endangered languages and at the same time training in language documentation. Hence, not involve the existing kokugogaku studies (and surprisingly, in employing UNESCO’s (2003) scholars) within a language documentation tool for assessing the quality of language framework. The recognition of the language documentation, the Luchuan languages score a status in UNESCO’s online atlas might prove an meagre 2 points out of a possible 5, a important influence on this new research documentation level referred to as outline. How urgent and important a thorough ‘fragmentary’. reconsidering of existing works on the Luchuan languages really is can be seen in the Language documentation has developed over publications of the ‘Endangered Languages of the last decade in response to an increased the Pacific Rim’ project. While explicitly aiming awareness of the threads to the world’s to document endangered languages, all language diversity among linguists. The global publications of the project series perpetuate spread of language endangerment became the image of the Luchuan languages as visible in the 1990s in publications such as ‘dialects’ of ‘national language’. Research of Endangered Languages, edited by this type is indifferent towards, at best, and at Robins and Eugenius Uhlenbeck in 1991. worst undermines community efforts to Studies followed, focusing on the underlying revitalizing local languages. Statements like processes that lead shift, as in the following, both taken from publications of Language Death, edited by Matthias the ‘Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim’ Brenzinger in 1992. Nikolaus Himmelmann project have a devastating effect on language (1998) and others initiated the development of documentation and maintenance activities. descriptive linguistics towards languages documentation, i.e. the recording, analysing and preserving of endangered languages. In “Apart from the material recorded addition to traditional linguistic descriptions, and preserved by researchers, the language documentation demands a traditional dialects of the islands comprehensive approach, which includes in and communities of the Ryukyus addition to classical language annotation and cannot escape oblivion.” (Uemura analysis, description of the sociolinguistic 2001: 193). environment, as well as questions concerning archiving the data. Finally, scholars, such as And Arienne Dwyer (2006), began to reflect on the relationship between linguists, speakers and languages, i.e. on ethical and legal aspects of “People have to learn a different language work. Today, language language. It is desirable for them documentation – unlike language description of to enter into the world of common the past – is predicated on a cooperative Japanese language as soon as approach, i.e. the active involvement of possible. The old traditional linguistic communities in the planning and dialects are becoming useless for conducting of fieldwork, as well as in the their social .” (Izuyama 2003: dissemination of the research results. 12).

In order to improve language documentation in the Luchuan islands one would need to This is not exactly the stance one might expect

3 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF from scholars working on endangered ‘homeland greater dialects’ (naichi dai-hogen). languages, but more importantly, these views This classification was established by the fuel the ideologically and political mediated founding father of Japanese dialectology, Tojo misconceptions that there is only one language Misao, in his groundbreaking ‘Dialect map of in Japan and that there is no future, even for Greater Japan’ (Dai-nihon hogen chizu). Tojo the so-called Luchuan ‘dialects’. See Heinrich (1927: 18) adopted Chamberlain's view that the (2009a) for discussion of possible uses, Luchuan languages were genealogically related functions and benefits of the Luchuan to Japanese but then concluded that both are languages in the 21st century. part of the ‘national language’ (kokugo):

The current situation of Luchuan language documentation is a result of a politically and “Since [Luchuan] is a language ideologically marred research policy. The first which has split from the same assessment of the Luchuan languages as ancestor language [as Japanese] ‘dialects’ of Japanese were made by Japanese and, besides this, the use of the administrators in the wake of Japan’s language is limited within the annexation of the Luchu Kingdom, without any boundaries of the same nation linguistic research. In negotiating with state, I would like to regard it as Luchuan, actually mainly with Chinese one dialect of the national authorities over the future affiliation and status language.” [All translations from of the Luchu Islands, ‘Ryukyu Dispensation Japanese into English by Patrick Superintendent’ (Ryukyu shobunkan) Matsuda Heinrich]. Michiyuki stressed the ‘historical, cultural and linguistic’ correspondences between Japan and the Luchu Islands (Oguma 1998: 28-29). The In a later publication, Tojo (1938: 6) first linguistic research revealed a quite substantiated his view, defining ‘dialect’ in the different picture. ’s following way: pioneering study of the Luchuan languages, conducted in 1893, established evidence of a “If a national language is broken shared Luchuan-Japanese genealogy. In up into a number of language explaining the difference between groups, which differ with regard to Uchinaaguchi [Uchinaa language] and pronunciation, lexicon and Japanese, Chamberlain (1895 [1999]: 6) wrote: grammar according to the different regions in which they are used, the “On the whole, we shall not be far various groups are called dialects.” from wrong if we compare the mutual relation of the two Based on the ideologically-driven claim of Japan languages to that of Spanish and being a monolingual nation, Luchuan people Italian, or perhaps rather of were not considered to be speaking languages Spanish and French.” of their own. Kokugogaku linguists understood it to be their duty to provide arguments that Chamberlain’s analysis did not comply with allow for classifying the Luchuan languages as Japanese national ideologies which stressed the dialects, no matter how clumsy these firm division of a ‘national language’ into two classifications might be (‘greater dialects’, ‘greater dialects’ (dai-hogen), i.e. ‘Ryukyu ‘language group’). Having established Luchuan greater dialects’ (Ryukyu dai-hogen) and as a dialect of the ‘national language’, its

4 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF speakers consequently were also Japanese. works mark a new phase of research on the Such arguments have been internalized by Luchuan languages. Karimata Shigehisa’s kokugogaku linguists ever since. Furthermore, ‘Ryukyuan audio database’ (Ryukyugo onsei this academic deprecation has led to a detabesu) on the Shuri/Naha variety of widespread acceptance of the inferior status of Uchinaaguchi and the Nakijin variety of the their language by many Luchuans. Kunigami language sets standards for the documentation of other . Easily accessible due to its internet based platform, it is helpful and popular for speakers, activists and researchers alike. Fija Bairon’s lecture on the ‘language – dialect’ issue on Youtube

Since its establishment during the period of nation state formation, linguistic research has been instrumental in creating the ideologically motivated imagination of a homogenous Japanese nation by marginalizing Japan’s minority languages (Koyama 2003). Up to now, Luchuan languages have almost exclusively been studied by dialectologists and then of course as ‘dialects’ and not by general linguists, with the notable exceptions of Osumi Midori (2001) and Matsumori Akiko (1995). There is no tradition of language documentation or sociolinguistic research of the Luchuan languages. The political Fija Bairon discussing Uchinaaguchi with downgrading of the Luchuan languages as Karimata Shigehisa ‘dialects’ has made them invisible in the international discourse on use in the Luchuan Islands languages, as for example pointed out by Brenzinger (2007: xv). It still obstructs The crucial phase of the decline of the Luchuan adequate language documentation and languages started with communal language linguistic research, and most crucially, it shifts in the 1950s. At that time, local speech undermines language maintenance and communities decided in large numbers not to revitalization attempts. transmit their languages to the following generation. Languages vanish by being used The publication of the new UNESCO atlas less often and in fewer domains. With the loss challenges these malpractices and is an of the last domain, namely the home, the important support for pioneering attempts at Luchuan languages have entered the final Luchuan language documentation, such as the phase of becoming extinct. one carried out by Shimoji Michinori. His recently compiled Reference Grammar of Irabu, Experts on Luchuan language study are in a language variety of Miyako, was accepted by complete that the natural the Australian National University as a PhD intergenerational language transmission of the thesis in December 2008. Together with Miyara Luchuan languages was interrupted in the early Shinsho’s (1995) Grammar of Yaeyama, these 1950s (Hokama 1991, 2000, Matsumori 1995,

5 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF

Motonaga 1994, Osumi 2001, Uemura 1997). of an isolated island with 1.600 inhabitants. This observation has been confirmed by Also worthy of notice is the frequent local empirical research across the Luchus (Heinrich language use among work colleagues, which is 2007, 2009b). largely due to the lack of development of the secondary and tertiary economic sector in The question why occurred at Yonaguni. , however, that the local this particular time is intriguing and Nakamoto language in Yonaguni is just as rarely used (1990: 467) singles it out as one of the foremost towards children as elsewhere. As a matter of desiderata in Luchuan language studies. The fact, the restraint on use of local language reason why we still lack conclusive insights into towards children is the most consistent result these language shifts is that language shift is across the five speech communities of Amami, triggered by a complex mix of seemingly Uchinaa, Miyako, Yaeyama and Yonaguni. (The endless variables, of which some of the most sixth Luchuan language according to the important include economy, community UNESCO atlas, i.e. Kunigami, was at that time patterns, family networks, marriage patterns, unfortunately not recognized as an independent perception of cultural distance to other speech language by Heinrich). On the lower end of communities, religious practices, and language vitality, we find the Yaeyama assessment of local wealth and future language. Since endangered languages are prospects. It is this complex mixture of always spoken in multilingual communities, variables which leads Brenzinger (1997: 278) to specific domains of local language use must be observe that “no two language shifts resemble maintained to secure their continued use. The each other”, a view supported by the case of most crucial domains for local language are the the Luchuan languages. Consider the results of family and the local neighbourhood (shima or questionnaire surveys conducted by Heinrich in chima in the Luchuan languages, hence the 2005 and 2006. term shimakutuba, ‘community language’). On the basis of the results presented in Figure 1, we see that the prospects for language maintenance are, at present, most favourable on Miyako Island. For more detailed discussions on language shift in the Luchu islands see Heinrich and Matsuo (2009).

Luchuan language endangerment is the result of the local language suppression campaigns which started in 1907 and became most intense after 1940. They played a crucial role in stigmatizing these languages (Heinrich 2004). Pivotal in subsequent oppression was the Figure 1: Who do you address in local ‘Movement for enforcement of ? (448 consultants) language’ (hyojungo reiko undo). A particularly notorious and obviously quite effective form of This chart reveals different degrees of local language repression was the use of language vitality, with the local language being ‘dialect-tags’ (hogen fuda), the use of which most widely used in Yonaguni and Miyako. increased drastically in the 1920s and 1930s, Yonaguni stands out because the local peaking at the time of the general mobilization language is widely used in the neighbourhood, campaign (Kondo 2006). A stigmatizing dialect- due to the Gemeinschaft (community) character tag had to be worn around the neck to punish

6 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF students who used expressions from a Luchuan Japanese to Japan’ (nihonjin nihon e kaese). language in the classroom. The reversion movement was predominantly led by school teachers, who were responsible Political developments after 1945, with the US for both, a strong promotion of Japanese and promotion of Luchuan nationalism, led many for constituting the reversion issue as a popular Luchuans to escape the existing dismal living non-party movement. Yara Chobyo conditions by seeking reversion to Japan. While (1902-1997), one of many Luchuan teacher US occupiers sought to foster the turned politician at the time and a prominent establishment of Luchuan as a national leader of the reversion movement, promulgated language, the Luchuan people opted for the in 1968 a three-point strategy for reversion in opposite (Nakachi 1989: 27), “easily seeing which (language) features most through the ‘Ryukyu-ization’ campaign as a prominently (quoted from Anhalt 1991: 45): propaganda ploy to prolong the military occupation” (Rabson 1999: 146). Instead of an increase in language loyalty, 1. Educate Okinawan Luchuans shifted from their Luchuan languages children as Japanese to Japanese, even in their homes. The hardships according to the Japanese that Luchuans experienced under US school sysytem occupation, ranging from malaria outbreaks, 2. Inclusionon of teachers confiscation of land, the complete destruction and all interested into of infrastructure, the collapse of the education ‘pressure groups’ system to the omnipresent discrimination by US Americans (see e.g. Time Magazine 3. Spread of the reversion 1957-12-12) produced resistance measures. In movement on the Japanese 1952, on the occasion of restoring Japan’s mainland sovereignty in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, more than two thirds of the Luchuan electorate voted for a return to Japan. However, the US Since the Luchuan languages had been occupation continued (Kreiner 2001: 450-451). severely stigmatized before, these languages Nevertheless, reversion to Japan was not were given up without much regret at that welcome by all. Luchuans were left with bitter time. Hence, Japanese and not the Luchuan memories of Japan including pre-war languages served as an emancipatory tool in discriminations of various sorts and the Battle the eyes of many Luchuans under the US of Okinawa when some Japanese military units occupation, which ended in 1972 but with US imposed forced suicides (shudan jiketsu) on bases intact down to today. The languages Okinawan citizens (see Oe 2008). Many were sacrificed in hope for a better future. expressed doubts about reversion.[i] The language shifts on the Luchu Islands in the Reversion to Japan, as a means of improving 1950s were sweeping (cf. Heinrich 2007, livelihood in the Luchu islands, led many 2009b). With the rise of the popular reversion Luchuans to engage in proving their genuine movement, parents started to address their Japaneseness both to mainland Japan and to children in Japanese only. In Uchinaa, Yaeyama the US (Oguma 1998: 564). Given the and Yonaguni, those born after 1950 can ideological view of Japan as a monolingual usually no longer speak any Luchuan language. nation state, speaking Japanese became The situation on Amami and Miyako is slightly perceived as a key factor in the ‘reversion different. Amami as part of movement’ (fukki undo) which called to ‘return Prefecture, has been considered to be part of

7 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF mainland Japan since the Meiji period by many. the vicinity of Uchinaa, led to the posting of a Language shift in Amami was probably less billboard which reads ‘On Sunday it's drastic due to the fact that the Amami people community language’ (nichiyobi wa did not suffer from language repression shimakutuba) (Nishimura 2001: 164). campaigns. Therefore, language shift set in earlier in Amami than in the rest of the Luchu Today, some of the few remaining domains of islands, but it was less drastic. The linguistic Luchuan language use are arts, prayers, situation in Amami is today the most stabilized. festivals and religious rites. However, even in Mixed Amami-Japanese, called tonfutsugo these domains, the Luchuan languages have (literally potato standard) is widely used across been under pressure (see e.g. Clarke 1979, all three generations (Heinrich 2007). Ishihara 2009). What is more, these domains Secondly, in Amami the reversion movement are largely detached from daily life. The ended in December 1953, when the US current situation is what Fishman (1991) has returned the island group to Japan. Miyako also termed a ‘folklorization’ scenario, i.e. the did not experience radical language shifts, but heritage language is no longer used for for quite different reasons. Miyako people communication but merely as a symbol in very shifted only gradually to Japanese. While a limited situations. Languages can, however, not detailed account for this is not yet possible and be maintained with such symbolic functions would require detailed field work, the reasons alone. seem to include the absence of in-migration and continuance of subsistence farming. Especially among the young generation a kind of language crossing is widespread. These new Nevertheless, all Luchuan languages will hybrid varieties, in which Japanese is mixed disappear by 2050 if speech communities and with elements of Luchuan languages, are supportive linguists do not act immediately. widely used in informal situations. They are not The establishment of Luchuan heritage Creoles as some researchers claim (e.g. language education (Heinrich 2008) and of Karimata 2006), but are a specific kind of Japanese language policy supportive of . Creole languages emerge in Japanese diversity (Katsuragi 2005, 2007) are contact situations in which two speech necessary for preventing language loss. Official communities do not share a language, and support for remains hence create on the basis of their respective weak but some promising developments can be languages a third language for the sake of observed. The most important step was communication. Mixed languages, on the other certainly the establishment of the annual hand, are purposefully formed for the sake of shimakutuba no hi (community language day) setting their speakers apart from other speech in 2004, an event supported by Okinawa communities (Kaye & Tosco 2003: 22). It goes Prefecture since 2006 (Ishihara 2009). In the without saying that present-day Luchuans and absence of more comprehensive and structured mainland Japanese do not encounter institutional support, however, language communication problems which necessitate the revitalization will not be possible at some point creation of a Creole. The grammatical matrix of in the very near future, and it is already these hybrid language varieties, which differ difficult to reverse the language shift. Even in considerably between islands and generations, outlying islands (ritto) the use of Luchuan is that of standard Japanese while the or language is declining in neighbourhoods and inserted are either from the local only older generations know and speak languages or are in themselves mixtures of Luchuan languages. The retreat of local local language and Japanese (see below). In language use on Iheiya, an outlying islands in this way it is somewhat similar to incorporating

8 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF

English words into Japanese, a process in “[Shooganai naa. nankuru nai sa”] which pronunciation and semantic range is also tte iu no to, [[sugoku]] ganbatte affected. shigoto shite ite, nayande, “doo shiyoo. doo shiyoo.” tte mainichi Mixed language varieties (e.g. nayande ru hito ni, “[[daijoobu da Uchinaayamatoguchi in Uchinaa or Tonfutsugo yo.]] [sonna ni] nayande mo [nee,] in Amami) account for a large percentage of isshookenmei [yatteru bun language choices in private domains today. nankuru nai sa]” to iu tsukaikata Across the Luchu Islands, mixed language ryoohoo aru wake desu yo ne. varieties accounted for 35% of the language choices among the age cohort between 30 and 60; those younger than 30 chose mixed varieties in 43% of the cases for communicating in private domains (Heinrich 2007: 8-9). English

As an example of mixed Uchinaa-Japanese I mean, well, to say the person who (uchinaa-yamatoguchi) consider the following is doing the [job] [halfheartedly], transcription of a radio program in Uchinaa after having worked taken from Sugita (2009): [halfheartedly] and making a mistake, “[Well, it can't be helped, you know. You deserve it.]”, and to Yoosuru ni ano: [waja] mo [fuyuu say to the person who is working shii] suru hito :, [fuyuu shii] [[very]] hard, but being worried shita ato ni nani ka shippai shite like “[What should I do? What [[kara nye]] “[Ee shimusa: yaa should I do?]” being worried every nankuru nai sa]" tte iu no to:. day, “[[Take it easy.]] Don't worry [[Sakkoo]] ganbatte shigoto shite [so much]. When you are working ite: nayande: “[chaasu ga yaa. so hard, [it will work out.]” It is chaasu ga yaa.]" tte mainichi that we have both usages, right? nayande ru hito ni: “[[Daijoobu yo.]] [Anshi] nayande mo [yaa,] isshookenmei [soo-ru bun] The use of language mixed in such a way is [nankuru nai sa]” to. Iu tsukaikata: Uchinaayamatoguchi, with this particular ryoohoo aru wake desu yo ne:. utterance involving particularly extensive Uchinaaguchi. Despite the lack of any support [ ] uchinaaguchi and prestige, these mixed language varieties are currently spreading into an increasing [[ ]] uchinaayamatoguchi number of domains in the Luchu islands. This language change from below is significant because it testifies to the lack of Luchuan language proficiency among the younger

generations as well as the desire to use Japanese language varieties different from Standard Japanese in the Luchu Islands. Whether the Yoosuru ni ano: [shigoto] mo ongoing language shift to these mixed language [namakete] iru hito ga, [namakete] varieties will ultimately replace the local ta ato ni nani ka shippai shite languages in informal situations or whether it

9 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF will lead to heightened efforts at revitalisation majority society (Kymlicka 1995: 67). It is of the local languages can at present not be exactly this that made Kayano Shigeru, the first predicted with confidence. Ainu to become a member of the Japanese Diet in 1994, deliver his inauguration speech in Ainu Luchuan communities, in particular those in (Maher 2001). Kayano was a lifelong devotee of Amami, Uchinaa and Yaeyama are shifting from teaching and preserving Ainu Standard Japanese to mixed language in culture. And may have been one of the very last private domains today. Where the local people fluent in Ainu as a daily language as language is strongly stigmatized, as in well as a ritual language (see e.g. Kayano Yaeyama, such shift is less thorough than in 1994). It is this instrumentality of language places where the local language is less which leads May (2001: 315) to state that “the stigmatized, such as in Amami. For the time arguments of minority groups for the retention being, it seems that both the Luchuan of their ethnic, cultural and linguistic identities languages and Standard Japanese are declining are most often not characterized by a retreat in favour of the use of the mixed language. into traditionalism or cultural essentialism but, Yonaguni is an exception in this respect; mixed rather, by a more autonomous construction of language varieties are not popular mainly due group identity and political deliberation.” to the outmigration of large parts of the Readers of Japan Focus will be aware that younger generation. Yonaguni has lost two there is no shortage of arguments in the Luchu thirds of its population in the last 50 years. Islands for such deliberations. Luchuan issues such as the ‘schoolbook debate’ (Aniya 2008), The shift towards mixed language in most the ‘base problem’ (Yoshida 2008), its related Luchuan Islands today reveals a yearning for ‘environmental problems’ (Sakurai 2008) and local language. Whether this will lead to the repeated ‘rape incidents by military Luchuan language revitalization, to a further personnel’ (Johnson 2008) highlight the popularization of mixed languages or to both, necessity of renegotiating the conditions remains to be seen. Much hinges on the according to which the Luchu Islands are part question whether Luchuans can maintain and of the Japanese state. Language has not been develop beneficial usages for the Luchuan used as an by those seeking such languages in the future. renegotiation to their detriment.

Naming is yet another aspect, where the benefits of local languages is manifest. As a matter of fact, Fija Bairon, deliberately Fija Bairon speaking Uchinaaguchi with changed his name from the Japanese his Shuri language consultant Yakabi ‘Higa’ to the Uchinaa reading ‘Fija’. As motive Tomoko for changing his name, Fija points to discrimination both towards him as an Uchinaa Is there still a place for Luchuan person of Western appearance and Japanese languages? nationality, and towards the culture he identifies with, Uchinaa. Upon starting to Languages constitute important tools for appear in Uchinaa media regularly, ‘Higa protecting and expanding the rights of their Bairon’ decided to henceforth adopt the name speakers and providing a range of meaningful ‘Fija Bairon’ (see Fija & Heinrich 2007 for options. Local languages are, for instance, a details). His new name serves Fija as a powerful tool for renegotiating the terms of welcome entry to discuss naming issues with integration of speech communities within the people he meets or interacts with through the

10 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF media. It serves Fija as a means to inform and the Meiji state, i.e. the establishment of a state influence fellow Luchuans on their views on into which one imagined Japanese nation Uchinaa’s cultural and linguistic heritage as needed to be moulded. The well as on their views of him as a person. Fija 比嘉were then required to be read ‘Higa’ in also prefers the Uchinaaguchi terms Uchinaa order to assimilate Luchuans with such ‘un- [Okinawa], Uchinaaguchi [Okinawan] and Japanese’ sounding names into the newly Luchu [Ryukyu], and this article follows his invented linguistic and cultural homogeneous terminological suggestions. nation. Recovering the names as read before assimilation into the Japanese nation state exposes the problems of Luchu’s colonial past (see e.g. Christy 1993, Oguma 1998) and its lingering influences on its linguistic and cultural heritage today. How Luchuans name themselves, their islands, communities and languages has not been for Luchuans to decide. If Luchuans want to restore control over their fates, their cultural and linguistic heritage, then names might be a good place to start. This, in a nutshell, is what led Fija to abandon the Higa in favour of Uchinaa Fija.

Language rights and true recognition Fija Bairon at Radio Okinawa Within the discourses on linguistic diversity, Personal names and toponyms give testimony four different directions can be discerned, a to Luchu’s oppressed past. Consider once more linguistic, an aesthetic, an economic and a the example of Fija / Higa. The name was moral discourse. The linguistic discourse is originally written with the Chinese character rather straightforwardly concerned with the denoting ‘east’ (東) which was read ‘Fija’. It ongoing loss of linguistic diversity on an was only after 1624, when the Satsuma Domain unprecedented scale. It has been framed in a (today’s ), which had seminal article by Michael Krauss (1992: 10) in invaded the Luchu Kingdom in 1609, tried to which he wrote “[o]bviously we must do some conceal its influence on the Kingdom from the serious rethinking of our priorities, lest Shogunate, that Luchuans were forcefully made linguists go down in history as the only science to change the written characters of their that presided obliviously over the names. The reason was that Satsuma wanted disappearance of 90% of the very field to which them to appear more ‘foreign’ in order to it is dedicated.” This line of thought underlies a obscure its influence on the Kingdom. This is large part of endangered language studies, the background upon which the Chinese which seek to describe languages before they characters denoting ‘Fija’ were changed from vanish in order to gain a better understanding 東 into 比嘉 (Beillevaire 2001: 83). Still, the into parameters of language or into name continued to be read as ‘Fija’. After all, histories of language development and spread. Fija sounded ‘un-Japanese’ enough to the The latter point has been repeatedly made with Satsuma colonizers. regard to the Luchuan languages (e.g. Uemura 2003). The aesthetic discourse is likewise Things changed again with the establishment of straightforward. Many of us enjoy diversity,

11 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF regardless of whether it is in , in main objective of the Luchuan irredentist landscape, climate or in language. Luchuan reversion movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It ‘folk music’ (Roberson 2003), literature is hence not surprising to see that the sole (Molasky & Rabson 2000) or speech contests attempt, to date, to claim language rights by (Hara 2005) enjoy the popularity they do the Okinawan Society for Language largely due to an audience enjoying the Revitalization (Uchinaaguchi fukyu kyogikai) in diversity which is thereby presented. Economic 2005 has so far been totally ignored. One of the discourse, that is to say, assessing the key tasks in language maintenance and the economic benefits which specific languages rationalization for language documentation and offer their speakers and the way such benefits language education will thus be to frame the can be measured and influenced, is the least relevance of such endeavors in a Japanese developed field. Pioneering work in this context. Here, again, the inclusion of the direction has been undertaken by scholars such Luchuan languages into the ‘Atlas of the as Coulmas (1993) and Grin (2003). Such work world’s languages in danger’ provides for much still awaits application in the field of Luchuan needed assistance to all those who seek to languages. maintain the Luchuan languages or to establish Luchuan heritage language education. The moral discourse, finally, is well developed in the West but underdeveloped in Japan. Moral At present, institutional support for language discourse on language endangerment stresses documentation and education programs is that it is the languages of those on the shorter dismal. There exists only one chair for Luchuan end of the power divide which get lost. The linguistics (Prof. Karimata Shigehisa at the major underlying sentiments of this kind of University of the Ryukyus), too little for discourse are that of fairness and support for overseeing the six Luchuan languages on the linguistic diversity. Language frequently various levels of linguistic description. No appears in key documents of the United study program on Ryukyuan linguistics has Nations on human rights and there is a growing been established. Contrary to expectations, the literature on this topic in Western scholarship ‘Research Centre for the Languages of (e.g. de Varennes 1996). In Japan, the issue of Okinawa’ (Okinawa gengo kenkyujo), founded language rights has yet to emerge as a in 1978, has no rooms, no budget, no phone prominent form of discourse. The large scale number, no homepage. It is merely a name lack of such discourse is primarily due to under which activities of predominantly absence of a frame for ethnic autochthonous dialectological research are summarized. Three minorities in Japan (see Nakamura 2006). That research institutes for Luchuan Studies exist is to say, in contrast to the West, no worldwide (Hosei University Tokyo, Waseda interpretive schema is readily available in University Tokyo, University of Hawai’i). The Japan where the right to use one’s language notable fact is that none of them is located in can be derived from one’s ethnic, cultural or the Luchu Islands. Language documentation otherwise framed minority status. Most programs are not established at these centres Luchuans do not conceive of themselves as at present, nor does language constitute a language minorities. Despite compelling research focus there. No archive exists where evidence that the Luchuan language varieties Luchuan language data is collected, maintained are languages in their own right, the majority and made accessible to researchers and of Luchuans call these language varieties community members. There are no conferences ‘dialects’ (see Fija & Heinrich 2007). As we on Luchuan linguistics and no plans or have seen above, the framing of Luchuans initiatives exist for establishing institutions for being part of the Japanese ‘nation’ was the Luchuan language documentation and

12 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF maintenance. In short, the lack of adequate consultants across the Luchuan Islands support institutional support and funding is another the idea of introducing their respective local factor which contributes to the endangerment language into local school education. In view of of the Luchuan languages. Nevertheless, there such changing language attitudes, the are some promising developments. They restoration of the local languages might include the establishment of the ‘Society for become possible. This requires the Okinawan Language Revitalization’ establishment of language documentation, (Uchinaaguchi fukyu kyogikai) in 2000, the revitalization and teaching programs. Towards establishment of a ‘Sub-committee of this end, a reorientation of linguistic Endangered Languages’ (Kiki gengo shoikai) at scholarship is unavoidable. the Linguistic Society of Japan in 2003, and Shimoji Michinori’s recently established Luchuan linguist mailing-list. Many more such activities need to follow.

Fija Bairon discusses Uchinaaguchi teaching materials with Sugita Yuko

Matthias Brenzinger with linguistics Japan’s newly recognized in the students at the University of the Ryukyus UNESCO Atlas raises some inconvenient questions about Japanese scholarship. How is it Since language shift in the Luchu Islands that Japan, a country with hundreds of originated as a product of Japanese language universities and thousands of linguists never nationalism, reversing language shift requires doubted that it was monolingual? What is it the reversal of the ideological views which led which makes scholars term languages Luchuans to abandon these languages in first ‘dialects’, despite the well known lack of place. To a considerable extent, language mutual intelligibility and unshared linguistic attitudes in the Luchu Islands have already innovations between them, the need to develop changed. This is evidenced by the positive distinct , independent language language attitudes many hold towards local development going back to pre-history, in other languages today. A questionnaire survey by the words, clear indications that they are dealing local newspaper Ryukyu Shinpo revealed that with languages? Linguistic scholarship in which more than 90% expressed some kind of such questions are not tackled reflects a clear affection for hogen, i.e. the Luchuan local political agenda. It reproduces Meiji period languages (Ryukyu shinpo sha 2007: 25). nation-imagining ideology despite the fact that Questionnaire surveys conducted by Heinrich such ideology has long been critiqued (see e.g. revealed that an average of 73% of all Koyama 2003, Lee 1996, Yasuda 1999). The

13 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF suppression of linguistic diversity in Japan ‘foreignness’ of foreigners and, of equally takes sometimes bizarre forms. A talk by Fija crucial importance, debunking the idea of an Bairon at the University of the Ryukyus titled inherent and uniform ‘Japaneseness’ among ‘Hogen aibiran, Uchinaaguchi’ (‘It is not a Japanese nationals. In this sense, the Luchu dialect, but Uchinaa language’) was reported Islands can serve as an important means for upon in BBTV’s ‘Dialect news’ (hogen nyusu) the ‘de-parochialization’ of Japan’s majority, program in February 2009. On the other hand, which recognizes only their language and it is exactly these kinds of contradictions which culture. It can serve as a means to create more lead to reflection and discussion about the tolerant orders and attitudes, more befitting status of the local languages in the Luchu today’s diversifying and globalizing world. islands. The release of the online version of the Recognition of Japan’s linguistic diversity does UNESCO Atlas is an important instance of not Japanese citizens alone. Recognition internationalizing the discourse on Japan’s of Japanese linguistic diversity and a shift language situation. The release of the atlas towards valuing Japan’s multilingual heritage coincided with a workshop on language also affects perspectives and treatment of the documentation of the Luchuan languages languages of Japanese migrants. Japan’s policy (‘Linking language and heritage’), held at the of internationalization (kokusai-ka) University of the Ryukyus in Nishihara Town, incorporates strong elements of nationalism. Okinawa. Kokusai-ka policy has placed much attention on national pride as a basis for Japanese interacting on a global level. Hence, the running gag that kokusai-ka (‘internationalization’) is actually kokusui-ka (‘nationalization’). Much Japanese discourse on kokusai-ka regularly perceives internationalization as requiring a reaction to counteract unwelcome outside influences. It thus reproduces a rigid confrontation between the Japanese state and the outside world (see e.g. McVeigh 2002).

In language shift driven by language nationalism, the loss of local languages is the victory of uniformity and of cultural and The organizers of the workshop Ishihara linguistic intolerance. A state and its Masahide and Patrick Heinrich inhabitants not valuing the linguistic and cultural plurality within the confines of its own Leading scholars on the Ryukyuan languages borders cannot convincingly claim to be just were part of this workshop and the UNESCO doing that with regard to international initiative triggered an academic discourse languages and cultures. One either values among them. Most scholars welcomed the plurality or one does not. Gottlieb (2007) is acknowledgment of the Luchuan speech forms right in her assessment that Japan’s as languages and took this as a chance for internationalization crucially requires an encouraging language documentation. Others undoing of the foreigner-Japanese binary, reacted defensively and felt uneasy about this which, in turn, involves reducing the emancipatory step pushed from abroad. Some

14 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF feared that the UNESCO atlas might have opened a Pandora’s Box in that “we might end up with hundreds of languages in Japan”.

At the language documentation workshop: Hara Kiyoshi, Matthias Brenzinger, Karimata Shigehisa, Patrick Heinrich

Christoph Goro Kimura (right) reporting For decades, Japan and Japanese scholars have the release of the UNESCO Atlas to played leading roles in UNESCO activities participants of the workshop (from left: related to the documentation and support of Shibuya Kenjiro, Yamada Takao, Patrick endangered languages all over the globe. It Heinrich) was long overdue that the Japanese finally also started to look at the language diversity in their Some linguists frankly confess that even though country. The new, now international discourses their own research findings prove a deeply on Japanese language diversity will hopefully rooted linguistic distance between Japanese not only spur language documentation, but also and the Luchuan languages and also among foster language maintenance activities. At a them, they still opt for retaining the term market in Matsuo in Naha City, an elderly hogen, i.e. dialect, for purely socio-political woman stated that only old people and reasons. Even speaking about Luchuan foreigners are interested in Uchinaaguchi. She ‘languages’, to them is almost a rebellious act, further suggested that professors at the challenging no less than the unity of the University are much better consultants on Japanese nation state. Whether language or Uchinaaguchi than the speakers on the ground. dialect, however, is not a question of personal taste or an academic dalliance; the fate of the Discrimination against the Luchuan languages, Luchuan languages heavily depends on the by downgrading them to Japanese dialects, has right choice. The right choice, we argue, can had far-reaching effects: Even though many only be that of a linguistic scholarship which is thousand still speak the Luchuan languages, detached from Japanese nation state ideology most are no longer confident of their language and squarely centred on linguistic facts. skills. They furthermore are reluctant to speak their languages in public. Community language activities on Uchinaaguchi generally do not include ‘ordinary speakers’, such as taxi drivers or local traders. Language related activities are confined to selected groups of intellectuals, who focus on discussing Uchinaaguchi as a

15 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF cultural treasure, with strong elitist See in addition: Jon Mitchell, Byron Fija is on a pretensions. Those still speaking the languages quest to rescue cultural distinctiveness from on a regular basis are not part of such the brink of extinction activities. They are not even aware of the fact that they are the true speakers, the only ones who can actually safeguard the Luchuan References: languages. Anhalt, Gert (1991): Okinawa zwischen und Tokyo: Betrachtungen zur politioschen und sozialen Entwicklung Matthias Brenzinger, from the Institut für 1945-1972, Marburg: Marburger Japan Reihe. Afrikanistik at the University of Cologne, Germany, coordinates the information on Aniya, Masaaki (2008): Compulsory mass endangered African languages south of the suicide, the Battle of Okinawa, and Japan’s Sahara in UNESCO's Atlas of the World's textbook controversy. In: The Asia-Pacific journal – Japan focus.. Languages in Danger. He is Secretary General of WOCAL (World Congress of Beillevaire, Patrick (2001) : Les noms African Linguistics) and congress chair of d’Okinawa. Une japonité singulière. In: Mots. WOCAL6, which will be held at the University Les langages du politique 66 : 71-89. of Cologne in August 2009. Since 1995, he has been concerned with language documentation Brenzinger, Matthias (1997): Language in Japan and by Japanese scholars. He can be contact and language displacement. In: contacted by e-mail: Matthias.Brenzinger@Uni- Florian Coulmas (ed.): The handbook of Koeln.de sociolinguistics, Oxford: Blackwell.

Fija Bairon hosts a radio show in Uchinaaguchi Brenzinger, Matthias (2007): Language on Radio Okinawa every Sunday from 13:00 to endangerment throughout the World. In: 15:30. He teaches Uchinaaguchi at various Matthias Brenzinger (ed.): Language diversity endangered, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: IX- culture centres in Okinawa and has also taught XVII. the language at Germany’s Duisburg-Essen University. He can be contacted by e-mail in Brenzinger, Matthias (ed.) (1992): Language Japanese: [email protected] death. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Patrick Heinrich is a sociolinguist and visiting Carroll, Tessa (2001): and researcher at the University of the Ryukyus. He language change in Japan, Richmond: Curzon. is currently conducting language documentation on Yonaguni Island. He can be Chamberlain, Basil Hall (1999[1895]): Essay in contacted by e-mail: heinrich@ll.-ryukyu.ac.jp aid of a grammar and dictionary of the Luchuan language, Tokyo: Yumani shobo. Recommended Citation: Fija Bairon, Matthias Brenzinger, Patrick Heinrich, "The Ryukyus Christy, Alan S. (1993): The making of imperial and the New, But Endangered, Languages of subjects in Okinawa. In: Positions 1.3: Japan" The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 19-2-09, 607-639. May 9, 2009. Clarke, Hugh (1979): Language and life on an Okinawan island. Some observations

16 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF concerning Kohamajima. In: Ian Nish & Hattori, Shiro (1954): ‘Gengo nendai-gaku’ Dunn (eds.): European studies on sunawachi ‘goi tokeigaku’ no hoho ni tsuite – Japan, Tenterden: Paul Norbury: 259–265. nihon sogo no nendai [On glottochronology or the methodology of lexical statistics – the age Coulmas, Florian (1992): Die Wirschaft mit der of Japan’s parent languages]. Gengo kenkyu Sprache [The economics of language], [Journal of the linguistic society of Japan] Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 26/27: 29-77.

De Varennes, Fernand (1996): Language, Heinrich, Patrick (2009): The Ryukyuan minorities and human rights, The Hague: languages in the 21st century global society. Nijhoff. In Masanori Nakahodo et al. (eds.): Human migration and the 21st century global society. Dwyer, Arienne M. (2006): Ethics and Okinawa: University of the Ryukyus: 16-27. practicalities of cooperative fieldwork and analysis. In: Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P. Heinrich, Patrick (2009b): Ryukyu retto ni Himmelmann & Ulrike Mosel (eds.): okeru gengo shifuto [Language shift in the Essentials of language documentation. Ryukyu Islands]. Patrick Heinrich & Shin Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 31-66. Matsuo (eds.): Higashi ajia ni okeru gengo fukko [Language revitalization in ], Fija, Bairon & Patrick Heinrich (2007): ‘Wanee Tokyo: Sangensha. Uchinanchu – I am Okinawan’ – Japan, the US and Okinawa’s endangered languages. In: The Heinrich, Patrick (2008). Establishing Asia-Pacific journal – Japan focus. Okinawan language heritage education. In: Patrick Heinrich & Yuko Sugita (eds.): Fishman, Joshua A. (1991): Reversing language Japanese as in the age of shift, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. globalization. Munich: Iudicium: 65-86.

Gottlieb, Nanette (2007): Challenges for Heinrich, Patrick (2007): Look who’s talking. language policy in today’s Japan. In: Florian Language choices in the Ryukyu Islands. (= Coulmas (ed.): Language regimes in LAUD Linguistic Agency: General and transformation. Future prospects for German theoretical papers 691), Essen: LAUD. and Japanese in science, economy and politics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 33-52. Heinrich, Patrick (2004): Language planning and language ideology in the Ryukyu Islands. Grin, Francois (2003): Language policy Language policy 3.2: pp.153-179. evaluation and the European charter for regional or minority languages, New York: Heinrich, Patrick & Shin Matsuo (2009.7) Palgrave. (eds.): Higashi ajia ni okeru gengo fukko [Language revitalization in East Asia], Tokyo: Hara, Kiyoshi (2005): Regional dialect and Sangensha. cultural development in Japan and Europe. International journal of the sociology of Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (1998): language 175/176: 193-211. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36:161-195. Harrison, David K. (2007): When languages die. The extinction of the world’s languages Hokama, Shuzen (1991): Okinawa no kotoba and the erosion of human knowledge, Oxford: [The language of Okinawa], Tokyo: Chuo Oxford University Press. koron.

17 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF

Hokama, Shuzen (2000): Okinawa no kotoba to okeru kyoiku to kokumin sogo [Education and rekishi [Okinawa language and history], nation building in Modern Okinawa], : Tokyo: Chuo koron. University Press.

Ishihara, Masahide (2009.7): Ryukyugo no Koyama, Wataru (2003): Language and its sonzoku-sei to kiki-do. Gyakko-teki gengo double. A critical history of metalanguages in shifuto wa kano ka [Ryukyuan language Japan, University of Chicago: Unpublished vitality and endangerment. Is reversing PhD Dissertation. language shift possible?]. In: Patrick Heinrich & Shin Matsuo (eds.): Higashi ajia ni okeru Krauss, Michael (1992): The world's languages gengo fukko [Language revitalization in East in crisis. In: Language 68: 4-10. Asia], Tokyo: Sangensha. Kreiner, Josef (2001): Okinawa und Ainu Izuyama, Atsuko (2003): The Grammar of [Okinawa and Ainu]. In: Klaus Kracht & Ishigaki Miyara dialect in Luchuan. In: Atsuko Markus Rütterman (eds), Grundriß der Izuyama (ed.): Studies on Luchuan grammar, Japanologie [Outline of ], Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz: 433-474. : ELPR: 1-162. Kunisue, Norito (2009): UNESCO: 8 languages Johnson, Chalmers (2008): The ‘rape’ of in Japan could disappear. In: Asahi shinbun, Okinawa. In: The Asia-Pacific journal – Japan Online edition 2009-02-21. (accessed 12 focus. March 2009) Karimata, Shigehisa (2006): Okinawa Kymlicka, Will (1995): Multicultual citizenship, wakamono kotoba jijo – Ryukyu kureoru Oxford: Oxford University Press. nihongo shiron [The situation of youth language in Okinawa – a tentative assumption Lee, Yeounsuk (1996): ‘Kokugo’ to iu shiso [An on Ryukyu Creole Japanese]. In: Nihongogaku ideology called ‘kokugo’], Tokyo: Iwanami. [Japanese language study]: 25.1: 50-59. Maher, John (2001): Akor itak – Our language, Katsuragi, Takao (2007): On language policy in your language: Ainu in Japan. In: Joshua the age of globalization with good governance. Fishman (ed.): Can threatened languages be In: Florian Coulmas (ed.): Languages regimes saved? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters: in transformation. Future prospects for 323-349. German and Japanese in science, economy and politics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 1-17. Marti, Felix et al. (eds.) (2005): Words and worlds. World languages review, Clevedon: Katsuragi, Takao (2005): Japanese language Multilingual Matters. policy from the point of view of public philosophy. In: International journal of the Matsumori, Akiko (1995): Ryukyuan. Past, sociology of language 175/176: 41-54. present, and future. In: John C. Maher & Kyoko Yashiro (eds.): Multilingual Japan, Kayano, Shigeru (1994): Our land was a forest: Clevedon: Multilingual Matters: 19–44. An Ainu memoir, Boulder: Westview Press. May, (2001): Language and minority Kaye, Alan S. & Tosco, Mauro (2003): Pidgin rights. Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics and Creole languages, Munich: Lincom. of language, Harlow: Longman.

Kondo, Kenichiro (2006). Kindai Okinawa ni McVeigh, Brian . (2002): Self-Orientalism

18 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF through Occidentalism. How ‘English’ and hogen sonkei e [From Dialect Prohibition to ‘foreigners’ nationalize Japanese students. In: Dialect Esteem.] Kotoba to shakai [Language Brian J. McVeigh (ed.): Japanese higher and Society] 5: 164-184. education as myth, Armonk: Sharpe: 148-179. ODJKJ = Okinawa dai-hyakka jiten kanko Miyara, Shinsho (2008): ‘Uchinaaguchi’ to wa jimukyoku (1983) (eds.): Okinawa dai- okinawago? Okinawa hogen? [Is hyakka jiten [Encyclopaedia of Okinawa], ‘Uchinaaguchi’ Okinawa language or Okinawa Naha: Okinawa taimusu. dialect?]. In: Ryukyu daigaku-hen (eds.): Yawarakai minami no gaku to shiso [Informal Oe, Kenzaburu (2008): Misreading, espionage studies and thought of the south], Naha: and ‘beautiful martyrdom’. On hearing the Okinawa taimusu. Okinawa ‘mass suicide’ suit court verdict. In: The Asia-Pacific journal – Japan focus. Miyara, Shinso (1995): Minami Ryukyu http://japanfocus.org/-Oe-Kenzaburo/2915. Yaeyama Ishigaki hogen no bunpo [Grammar of the Ishigaki dialect on Yaeyama on the Oguma, Eiji (1998): ‘Nihonjin’ no kyokai [The south Ryukyus], Tokyo: Kuroshio. boundaries of the ‘Japanese’], Tokyo: Shinyosha. Molasky, Michael & Stephen Rabson (2000): Southern exposure. Modern Japanese Osumi, Midori (2001): Language and identity literature from Okinawa, Honolulu: University in Okinawa today. In: Mary Goebel-Noguchi & of Hawai'i Press. Sandra Fotos (eds.): Studies in Japanese bilingualism, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters: Motonaga, Moriyasu (1994): Ryukyu-ken 68–97. seikatsu-go no kenkyu [Studies in the daily language in the Ryukyus], Tokyo: Shunjusha. Rabson, Steve (1999): Assimilation policy in Okinawa. Promotion, resistance, and Mühlhäusler, Peter (2003): Language of 'reconstruction'. In: Chalmers Johnson (ed.): environment - environment of language, Okinawa: Cold War Island, Cardiff: Japan London: Battlebridge. Policy Research Institute: 133-148.

Nakachi, Kiyoshi (1989): Ryukyu-U.S.-Japan Roberson, James E. 2003: Uchina pop. Place relations 1945-1972, Quezon City: Hiyas and identity in contemporary Okinawan Press. popular music. In: Laura Hein & Mark Selden (eds.): Islands of discontent: Okinawa Nakamoto, Masachie (1990): Ryukyu retto no responses to Japanese and American power, hogen kenkyu [Dialect studies in the Ryukyu Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield: 192-227. arcipelago]. In: Nihon hogen kenkyo-kai [Research circle of Japanese dialects] (eds): Robins, Robert H. & Eugenius M. Uhlenbeck Nihon hogen kenkyu no ayumi [The course of (eds.) (1991): Endangered languages, studies in the Japanese dialects], Tokyo: Oxford/New York: Berg. Kadogawa shoten: 453-467. Ryukyu shinpo-sha (2007): Okinawa kenmin Nakamura, Karen (2006): Deaf in Japan. ishiki chosa hokokusho [Survey report on Signing and the politics of identity, Ithaca: Okinawa prefectural citizen’s attitudes], Cornell University Press. Naha: Ryukyu shinpo.

Nishimura, Hiroko (2001): Hogen kinshi kara Sakurai, Kunitoshi (2008): Okinawan bases,

19 7 | 19 | 2 APJ | JF the and environmental archipelago], Tokyo: Sanshod: 311-354. destruction. In: The Asian-Pacific journal – Japan focus. UNESCO (2009): Interactive atlas of the world’s languages in danger, (accessed 12 Sugita, Yuko (2009.7): “Jissen to shite no March 2009). gengo’ no kiroku hozon. Uchinaa no tagengo shakai saisei mukete [Documenting ‘language UNESCO ad hoc expert group on endangered as practice’. Towards a regeneration of languages (2003): Language vitality and Uchinan multilingual society]. In: Patrick endangerment, (accessed 12 March 2009). Heinrich & Shin Matsuo (eds.): Higashi ajia ni okeru gengo fukko [Language revitalization in Yasuda, Toshiaki (1999): ‘Gengo’ no kochiku East Asia], Tokyo: Sangensha. [The construction of ‘language’], Tokyo: Sangensha. Time Magazine (1957): Anti-American feeling on the Okinawa Base. In: Time (1957-12-12 Yoshida, Kensei (2008): US bases, Japan and issue): 122-124. the reality of Okinawa as a military colony. In: The Asia-Pacific journal – Japan focus. Tojo, Misao (1927): Dai-nihon hogen chizu [Dialect map of Greater Japan], Tokyo: Ikuei shoin.

Tojo, Misao (1938): Hogen to hogengaku [Dialect and dialectology], Tokyo: Shun'yodo [i] Consider for instance the following letters to shoten. the editor ofRyukyu shinpo during the occupation period: Uemura, Yukio (2003): The Ryukyuan language, Koto: ELPR. “Are we really Japanese?” Ryukyu( shinpo 29.7.1965) Uemura, Yukio (2001): Endangered languages in Japan and related linguistic problems. In: “A rebuttal to ‘Are we really Japanese?’” Osamu Sakiyama (ed.): Lectures on (Ryukyu shinpo 1.8.1965) endangered languages II, Kyoto: ELPR: 187-202. “Japan is not the motherland” (Ryukyu shinpo 24.1.1966) Uemura, Yukio (1997): Sosetsu [Introduction]. In: Kamei Takashi et al. (eds.): Nihon retto no “A rebuttal to ‘Japan is not the motherland’” gengo [The languages of the Japanese (Ryukyu shinpo 15.2.1966)

20