This feature began with the overview article and went on to read, in Matsushita Daizaburō’s original, the three units, the five parts of speech, interjections and pronouns, the theory of genji, and formal nouns. Last, we sort out how each is treated today.
Note that the “present treatment” in this article is a generally known summary of Japanese linguistics; it is not a check of each paper one by one. To avoid overstating, we separate what is fairly firm from what is not.
What survived — the term “formal noun”
Calling nouns of thin substantial meaning — mono, koto, tokoro, hazu, tame — formal nouns is still ordinary practice in present-day grammars and dictionaries. As we saw in Close reading 2, Matsushita placed this kind of noun clearly as a kind of noun.
However, whether the name “formal noun” begins with Matsushita we have not confirmed in this feature. Matsushita himself writes that earlier Japanese grammars had no such name.
What was not adopted — the five parts of speech, and the “shoes” idea
On the other hand, the grammar taught in schools, based on the theory of Hashimoto Shinkichi, divides words into ten parts of speech and counts particles and auxiliaries as dependent words (fuzokugo), as one of the parts of speech. (For Hashimoto, see the Hashimoto Shinkichi feature.) Matsushita’s five, which remove particles and auxiliaries from the parts of speech, was not adopted in this, so to speak, standard stream.
This does not mean Matsushita’s idea was “wrong.” The observation that o, ni, and tari cannot stand on their own is shared by Matsushita and school grammar alike. What divided them is how they are handled. School grammar made them a kind of word, “dependent words.” Matsushita made them, like “shoes,” parts of words.
Present-day Japanese linguistics also has ways of thinking that treat particles and auxiliaries not as words but as elements attached to words (closer to affixes and endings). Matsushita’s view can be said to have something in common with such thinking. But that does not mean Matsushita anticipated modern theory. We have not checked the relation between the two in this article.
What was bold — the breadth of “verb”
Matsushita’s “verb” included words like fukashi, which school grammar counts as adjectives. This too has not been carried over as it stands into present general classifications of parts of speech. Still, the observation that a word like fukai shares with a word like hashiru the fact that it conjugates lives on today within the grouping yōgen (conjugating words).
What we do not know
What we could read in this feature is only a small part of Hyōjun Nihon Bunpō. Of a book of over 660 pages, we read the general introduction, the general remarks of genji-ron, and part of the theory of parts of speech. Parts 4 and 5, on “vertical” and “horizontal” properties (the detailed systems of verb conjugation and case relations), we have not read. The value of Matsushita’s grammar can be judged only with this detailed system included.
How Matsushita was received in his lifetime we also have not confirmed in this feature. In recent years, pieces looking back on his achievements have appeared (for example, Masuoka Takashi, “Matsushita Daizaburō,” Nihongogaku, vol. 39, no. 1, 2020). Their contents were not checked.
Summary
| Point | Present treatment (general summary) |
|---|---|
| Formal noun | Still widely used as a term. Origin of the name unchecked |
| Five parts of speech (without particles/auxiliaries) | Not adopted by school grammar; particles and auxiliaries count as dependent words |
| The “shoes” observation | That they cannot stand alone is shared with school grammar |
| Breadth of “verb” | Including fukashi among verbs has not been carried over as it stands |
| Most of the system | Vertical and horizontal properties etc. are unchecked in this feature |
In a nutshell — Matsushita Daizaburō took a road different from school grammar: not counting o and tari as words. The whole of that road, in this feature, is still visible only as far as its entrance.