Watashi and shi
Reading Patricia J. Wetzel's Keigo in Modern Japan: Polite Language from Meiji to the Present, I noticed something interesting in her translation of a passage from a set of keigo guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture in 1941 under the name Reihō yōkō (礼法要項, translated "Important points in manners" by Wetzel). Here's the passage (p53):
For self (jishō) reference, one uses the usual watashi 'I'. With regard to superiors, it is a matter of using either shi 'sir' or the name. With regard to men, it is all right to use boku 'I' with equals (dōhai), but not with superiors.
And here's the original, with kanji modernized:
自称は、通常「私」を用ひる。長上に対しては氏または名をを用ひることがある。男子は同輩に対して「僕」を用ひてもよいが、長上に対しては用ひてはならない。
So, I see two errors in Wetzel's translation:
- The intended reading of 私 is surely watakushi, not watashi. I wasn't able to find an original printing of Reihō yōkō to check for furigana, but a flurry of books based on the Ministry's guidelines in 1941-1942, and they all agree that it is watakushi. My general understanding is that in 1941, watashi was still considered rather informal. (It wasn't new; it dates back to the Edo period, but, for example, the ruling class didn't use it then either.) In fact, I think that the 1952 pronouncement in the Kokugo shingikai's Kore kara no keigo ("Keigo from now on") that "watashi will be taken as the standard form" (「わたし」を標準の形とする), with watakushi designated "a special form for formal contexts" (あらたまった場面の用語) might have been watashi's big break. Certainly, declaring by fiat that the forms that were used when speaking to superiors and equals would, respectively, now be considered "standard" and "special", with no hierarchical implication at all, fits very well with the stated aim of Kore kara to transform keigo from something "based mainly on vertical relationship(s)" to something that "must be based on mutual respect" and reflects "mutual equality" (all translations Wetzel).
- The second sentence actually means "When talking to superiors, the surname (氏) or given name (名) are sometimes used [for self-reference]." Wetzel has mistaken the intended usage of 氏 for another usage of the character, which means something like to "the [aforementioned] gentleman" (in turn deriving from a usage which is more or less equivalent to "mister").
Note that I don't intend this post as a cheap gotcha. Anyone writing seriously on a topic of any depth is bound to make the occasional mistake. (I put the chances at about 50% that I've gotten something wrong in the corrections I wrote above, for example; after I hit post, the deluge of commenters providing documentary evidence that watashi was okay to use with superiors.) To be honest, I think this underscores her thesis: keigo is so prone to arbitrary redefinition and reanalysis, so liable to be discussed as a Platonic ideal rather than with reference to the actual current state of the language, that it is possible for a modern scholar to misunderstand the details in something issued to scholars, as guidance, only a couple of generations ago.
One other interesting thing about Kore kara no keigo: it specifically singles out jibun ([my]self) as something to be avoided (避けたい) as a replacement for watashi. Could this be because, as I suspect, the use of jibun was associated with the armed forces and militarism in general?
Avery:
What I want to know is, when did the delightful words 小生 and 小職 get phased out?