Volume 4, May 2013

A diachronic analysis of keyhole tomb (zenpōkōenfun) construction in the Kinki region of central Japan suggests the coexistence of two disparate lines of tombs adopting separate blueprints. A clear reason for this, however, has yet to be proposed. I have come to view the nature of Kofun-period rulership as divided between two kings: one orchestrating state ritual and the other managing administrative affairs. This view, known as “sacred-secular dual kingship,” has long been espoused by historians of Japan’s early texts. Even from an archaeological perspective, the tombs of the incipient Ōyamato Tomb Group suggest the coexistence of two different types of kings. Arguments for “sacred-secular dual kingship,” however, have focused on a gendered division of labor between male and female paramounts, while nevertheless adhering to the image of a monolithic imperial line of male administrative emperors, informed by Japan’s earliest domestic histories, the Kojiki (712) and Nihon shoki (720). In this paper, however, I propose a politico-ritual model of dual kingship in which two coexisting male kings assumed different leadership roles; furthermore, I suggest that even the role of the sacred king (often framed as a shamanistic queen) had been filled by a male from early on. There were thus two nuclei of authority in the Kofun period. Before unifying into a single line in the early-6th century, however, this structure was responsible for political instability and regime changes.

This is a streamlined version, prepared for English translation, of an article originally appearing in volume 208 of Historia (2008). I have added supplementary notes when introducing research newer than the original article’s publication date.

It is commonly understood that noun phrases that function as topics must be definite noun phrases (in other words, noun phrases for which the hearer can identify the referent). Li and Thompson (1976), who studied topics and subjects typologically, noted that “one of the primary characteristics of topics is that they must be definite,” and this restriction also basically holds true in Japanese as well. However, in Japanese topic-statement relationships, there are those that question the existence or nonexistence of the topic noun phrase (X)’s referent, and the focus of this paper is that indefinite noun phrases (in other words, noun phrases for which the hearer cannot identify the referent) can function as the topic in these types of sentences.

This paper comprises Chapter 5 of the author’s book, Nihongo no Daimokubun (Topic Sentences in Japanese) (Izumi Shoin, 2006). In this book, topics in Japanese are divided into two groups: “topics of property/situation” and “topics of existence.” “Topics of property/situation” include:

Predicates that express property such as:

The earth is round.

and predicates that express states or events such as:

Taro is hungry.

Yamada-san came back yesterday.

These express interest in “what kind of property X has or what kind of situation it is in.” On the other hand, “topics of existence” express interest in “whether X exists or not,” such as:

Is there a post office around here?

Because these two categories are similar in that they relate to “about X, saying P,” differentiation has conventionally not been made between the two. However, the observation in this paper that, “topics of property/situation” are limited to definite noun phrases while “topics of existence” may include indefinite noun phrases, indicates the importance of differentiation.
This paper first introduces the differentiation between definite noun phrases and indefinite noun phrases in Section 1. As the Japanese language does not contain articles, definite and indefinite noun phrases must be determined through their meaning. Examples where indefinite noun phrases function as the topic in “topics of property/situation” are given in Section 2. However, these are special cases that are close to definite noun phrases. In Section 3, the observation that indefinite noun phrases can function as the topic in “topics of existence” is noted along with the structural variations in this type. Section 4 summarizes the relationship of “topics of existence” to “topics of property/situation,” and to the use of wa in ways other than that of topics.
There are language forms other than wa for expressing topics, and examples of particles such as nara, tte and toiu-no-wa are also included in this paper. These have characteristics of meaning slightly different from wa, which, although explained in the book, are not dealt with in this paper.
At the same time, while wa is oftentimes divided into “topic use” and “contrastive use,” the book divides it into the following four uses:

Topic use:

The earth is round.

Contrastive use:

I ate a little but I didn’t eat a lot.

Contrastive topic use:

Yamada is serious but Tanaka is not serious.
(A use that expresses both contrast and topic)

Simple presentational use:

Now that this has happened, the only thing to do is to give up.
(A use that does not express topic or contrast, but has the function of presenting an element that　precedes wa.)

These can be summarized in the following table (also shown in the introduction to the book):

In the sentence X wa P, these four uses have the similarity that, by stating the phrase X wa, they form the problem of what is assigned to it and they have the structure where “P” is assigned to it in the predicate (called “problem structure”). The table in Section 4 of this paper further details the table above, dividing the “presented as topic” portion into cases that are about “property/situation” and those that are about “existence.”