Discursos de campaña y aceptación pública en el Japón actual

ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 campaign speeches and public acceptance in contemporary japan Shoji Azuma University of Utah Resumen: Éste es un estudio de los discursos de campaña de dos políticos japoneses durante las elecciones del House of Councilors (Cámara Baja) en el verano de 2010. Aunque el lenguaje “de la información” (“report-talk”) utilizado en asuntos de estado aún lo utilizan políticos experimentados, un nuevo estilo de “rapport-talk” (lenguaje “de la afinidad”) ha surgido en la escena política japonesa. Este estilo que tiene como finalidad enfatizar las emociones y la empatía ha sido aceptado con entusiasmo por el ciudadano japonés. Esto sugiere que el discurso político japonés está en un periodo de transición. Palabras clave: discurso, empatía, japonés, lenguaje de la información, lenguaje de la afinidad. Abstract: This is a study of campaign speeches between two Japanese politicians during the House of Councilors (i.e., Lower House) election in the summer of 2010. Although the traditional “report-talk” on policies and issues is still embraced by experienced politicians, a new style of “rapport-talk” has emerged in the Japanese political scene. This style of emphasizing emotion and empathy has been accepted with enthusiasm by Japanese people. This suggests that the Japanese political discourse system is in a transitional period. Keywords: discourse, empathy, Japanese, report-talk, rapport-talk. 1. intRoduction One of the most valuable assets for a politician is his/her ability to use language in order to gain the support of voters. We have seen how U.S. President Obama delivered rhetorically elaborate, highly inspirational and effective speeches during the presidential campaign. The art of speaking is critical for a candidate like Obama, who had virtually no name recognition or political career to win the election for him. As Shea and Burton (2006) point out, the essence of politics is “talk” or human interactions through language. However, the Japanese political arena has not, historically, reflected this view of politics. This is because Japanese society is assumed to be a “high context” 38 Shoji Azuma ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 (Hall 1959, 1976) society in which overt verbal strategies are less valued than in Western, low-context counterparts. In a high context society, the linguistic utterance itself carries little information about what the speaker intends to communicate. Reischauer (1977: 136), who served as the US ambassador to Japan, states that “The Japanese have a genuine mistrust of verbal skills, thinking that these tend to show superficiality in contrast to inner, less articulate feelings that are communicated by innuendo or by nonverbal means”. How, then, have Japanese politicians strived to secure voters’ support if overt verbal communications are not particularly appreciated by the public? An examination of Japanese politics seems to suggest that, in general, politicians have resorted to the strategy of directing voters’ attention to the materialistic benefits they may receive (Takase 2005). Many traditional politicians have relied heavily on the strategy of distributing wealth to their constituents in exchange for support and votes. Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka (1918-1993), for example, was well-known for his kinken seiji (‘money politics’), the political strategy of offering infrastructure projects (e.g., bridges, dams, and highways) and in some cases, even cash, to one’s constituents. However, this strategy of distributing wealth is no longer available to today’s leaders, simply because there is no wealth to distribute due to the sluggish economy. In fact, many politicians now struggle with the serious problem of how to distribute deficits or disadvantages to the public while still receiving as many votes as possible. Unable to resort to visible material benefits, they have no choice but to use the persuasive power of language to gain support. However, this is a great challenge for many seasoned politicians who are not accustomed to using language to convince voters. Even if they become skilled in overt verbal communication, the Japanese voters may not accept such a strategy, given that they have “a genuine mistrust of verbal skills”. Studies of Japanese political discourse and communication are, thus far, under-represented. However, several studies suggest that the Japanese politicians are in transition to a more overt use of verbal skills than before (e.g., Takase 2005). Additionally, a diachronic study of sentence final expressions in parliamentary rhetoric suggests that a discourse style of “solidarity” (Brown & Gilman 1960) has been actively employed by politicians in order to secure voters’ acceptance (Azuma 2007). In this paper, we will examine two politicians who seem to represent two contrastive discourse strategies; one which uses overt rhetorical skills and one which does not. In particular, we will consider how the two politicians used rhetoric in campaign speeches given in support of candidates in the 2010 election. 2. two PoliticiAns The two politicians to be examined are Sadakazu Tanigaki (1945-) and Shinjiro Koizumi (1981-). They are in striking contrast to each other in almost every Campaign speeches and public acceptance in contemporary Japan 39 ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 single way except that they are both members of the same political party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). Tanigaki is currently the president of the LDP, which was the party in power for more than half a century in post-war Japan until it was defeated by the opposing Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in the 2009 general election. Tanigaki is 65 year old, an experienced politician serving his tenth term as a member of the House of Representatives. When the LDP was in power, he served as Minister of Finance (2003-2006) as well as Minister of Construction and Transportation (2008), among other governmental and official party positions. He is only the second LDP leader in history who has not simultaneously held the office of Prime Minister of Japan. Koizumi is 29 years old (almost a generation younger than Tanigaki) and the youngest member of the House of Representives first elected in 2009. Other than the fact that he is the second son of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, he has no notable politicical experience, and he was virtually unkown to the people until very recently. As such, Tanigaki and Koizumi are in sharp contrast in terms of age, experience, and political career. In terms of public acceptance, the two politicians are equally different. In the hierachical society of Japan where seniority carries great weight, it is Tanigaki but not Koizumi who is expected to receive respect, trust and support from voters. However, quite contrary to this expectation, Koizumi has ben the one gaining popularity. For example, during the 2010 election campaign, Tanigaki’s speeches attracted relatively small, unexcited audiences (ranging from approximately 50 to 300 people), despite his position as president of the LDP. It appeared that many of them attended the speeches simply to see what Tanigaki looks like rather than to listen to his speech. Once they recognized Tanigaki’s face, some of them took pictures of him and left the site of the speech before he’d finished speaking. On the other hand, Koizumi’s 2010 campaign speeches drew huge crowds wherever he went, ranging from approximately 300 to 3000 people. The audiences were excited, got wild, and always gave Koizumi an enthusiastic welcome. Many of the audience members behaved as if they were in the presence of a pop star (Shuukan Bunshun, July 22, 2010). In a country whose politicians lack star appeal, such magnetism matters. After the election, Sankei, one of the major national TV-newspaper networks, conducted a national poll in which they asked people who would be more desirable as the next Prime Minister (Sankei, July 20, 2010). According to the poll, 3.2 % of those who were polled chose Koizumi. Koizumi’s portion of the votes may seem relatively small, but it is very unusual for a first year Diet member to be chosen at all in such a poll. Incidentally, Tanigaki was named by only 2.9% of voters, which is smaller than Koizumi’s share. Furthermore, according to Mainichi newspaper (August 22, 2010), some LDP Diet members 40 Shoji Azuma ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 have proposed that Koizumi be chosen as the new Secretary General of the party. It is important to ask why the experienced Tanigaki does not attract voters as much as the unexperienced Koizumi does. Why is it Koizumi, and not Tanigaki, whose speeches won the enthusiastic applause and cheers from both men and women of various age groups? If Tanigaki is representative of old-fashioned, traditional politicians, we may say that Koizumi is respresentative of a new and upcoming kind of Japanese politician. In what follows, we will examine their respective rhetorical styles in political campaign speeches. Before going into the examination, however, a few words about political campaigning in Japan are in order. 3. soAPbox sPeecH Political campaigning in Japan is clearly different from the U.S and other countries, where there are very few restrictions. For example, the Public Offices Election Law prohibits candidates and supporters from canvassing door-to- door during the campaign period, which is usually 12 days long. This supposedly prevents vote-buying or bribery. Internet campaigning is prohibited. Maintaining a web-site or blog is banned. Candidates and supporters have essentially three ways to make direct contact with voters. One way is to give soapbox speeches with loudspeakers in areas with high pedestrian traffic, such as outside a train station or some other large public venue. The second way is to give fragmented speeches, standing on street corners to hail passersby early in the morning or early evening, during peak commute times. This speech is usually conducted without loudspeakers, and the speaker does not receive close attention because the supposed “audience” rarely stops to listen to the speech. The final way is to ply the streets of an electoral district in clearly identified campaign cars blaring speeches. An uguisu-joo (‘nightingale lady’: female announcer with a lovely voice) calls a candidate’s name repeatedly from the car, but one can hardly hear even a fragment of a speech as the car passes by. These campaign speeches are permitted only between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., and the candidate must display a special flag distributed by the Election Administration Commission. Among these methods, the soapbox speech is the only occasion for a speaker to give a full speech with relatively undivided attention from the audience. For this reason, we will focus on the soapbox speeches in this paper. These speeches were given by Tanigaki and Koizumi, in support of LDP candidates, in front of the major terminals in metropolitan areas (Tokyo and Osaka) as well as on the street curb in relatively small cities in rural areas (Fukui and Kumamoto) in June and July of 2010. Each speech was tape-recorded by the author, who took field notes ranging from audience reactions (e.g., applause) to the size of the crowd. Let us first examine Tanigaki’s speech delivered on June 26, 2010 in Osaka. Campaign speeches and public acceptance in contemporary Japan 41 ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 4. tAnigAKi 4.1 Framing Sociologist Goffman (e.g., 1974) introduced the term “frame” by which we understand a conversation. The frame is much like a picture frame, which provides context for the images in the picture and tell us how to interpret what is said in a conversation. Tannen (1990) points out that meta-messages or pieces of information about the relations among the people involved in a conversation, give rise to a frame, such as helping, advising, scolding, or chatting. In his study of political discourse, Lakoff (e.g., 2008) states that frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world. In other words, we understand what is said via a frame. As such, a frame is a crucial construct for a politician to communicate his positive image to the audience. How does Tanigaki frame himself in his speech? Let us examine his introduction. In front of Osaka Station terminal, Tanigaki, the president of the LDP, begins his speech as follows. (1) Minasan, konnichiwa. tadaima shookai o itadakimashita Jiyuu Minshutoo soosai, tanigaki sadakazu desu. Kyoo wa taihen na ame no naka o watashi domo no uttae ni mimi o katamukete itadakimashite, kokoro kara orei mooshiagemasu. Hello, everyone. I am Sadakazu Tanigaki, the president of the Liberal Democratic Party, who has just now received the honor of introduction. I would like to express sincere gratitude from the bottom of my heart to all of you for listening to what we humbly wish to convey in spite of the very heavy rain. Tanigaki opens his speech with the very formal, ritualistic words of expressing gratitude, framing himself as a high-ranking, strict politician. In particular, the second sentence includes his title and the full name of the political party. He introduces himself as soosai (‘president’), even though the audience is fully aware of his official title. Furthermore, as for the party name, Tanigaki does not use the more common, shortened form Jimintoo. Instead, he uses the full party name Jiyuu Minshutoo. From Tanigaki’s view, stating his title and the full party name may reinforce his authority and legitimacy. However, from the audience’s view, all of these may contribute to a sense of distance and power. Tanigaki’s opening remark did not bring any noticeable applause or excitement from the crowd. In fact, they looked grim. In terms of its syntactic structure, the second sentence is a compound sentence, with the embedded clause of shookai o itadakimashita (‘who has just now received the honor of introduction’). Tanigaki’s use of the very polite form of the verb of this embedded clause is particularly interesting when we consider the level of formality it communicates. Japanese sentences carry the level of politeness and formality used for the final verb form of the main clause, rather than 42 Shoji Azuma ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 that of the embedded clause. Generally, the verb form of the embedded clause does not carry such information. The expected, unmarked form for the embedded verb is the plain, neutral form itadaita. Instead, Tanigaki chose to use the formal, polite form of itadakimashita. This usage of the polite form in the embedded clause can be viewed as a case of hyper-correction, which is the use of a nonstandard form (i.e., itadakimashita) with the belief that it is more formal (and even more correct) than the corresponding standard form (i.e., itadaita). The extra formality and the politeness have the effect of framing the speaker as a rigid, traditional, formal politician. Having established this frame, Tanigaki continues his speech with the following remarks. (2) ototoi kara hajimarimashita sanin senkyo, futatsu, futasu no imi ga arimasu. Hitotsu wa kono, jyukkagetsu kan no Minshyutoo seiken no seiji o minasan ni shikkari to seisekihyoo o tsukete itadaku koto. Korega daiichi desu. Moo hitotsu wa watashi domo Jiyuu Minshutoo, sakunen no hatchigatsu sanjuunichi, minasan kara taihen oshikari o ukete yatoo ni narimashita. Jimintoo ga moo ikkai, minasan no goshinrai o itadakeru too ninaroo, kono jukkagetsukan, naka de giron o kasane, zenkoku tsutsu uraura de kokumin no minasan no goiken o ukagaimashite, moo ikkai umarekawatte, charenjaa ni narunda to kooiu, sonokoto o minasan ni gohyooka itadaku no ga niban me no imi de gozaimasu. Regarding the Lower House election which started the day before yesterday, there are two, two meanings to be found in it. One of them is to let everyone grade the performance of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)-led government of the last 10 months. This is the first meaning. The second meaning is (as follows). We the LDP became the non-government party with reprimand on August 30th last year. We have worked to become a trustworthy party and a challenger one more time through various discussions and by listening to your opinions during the last ten months. To let everyone grade our efforts is the second meaning of this election. Notice that the embedded verb form hajimarimashita (‘started’) in the first sentence is the formal polite form, which is again an example of hyper-correc- tion. In addition, Tanigaki uses the pronominal prefix of go (‘respectful’) as in goshinrai (‘respectful consideration’) and goiken (‘respectful opinion’) to make the utterances extra formal and polite. Tanigaki continues to project himself as a rigid, traditional, and conservative politician. In August of 2009, the LDP lost the general election, which ended more than half a century of almost uninterrupted rule by the LDP. It was called “bloodless revolution” by the media, and the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) formed a new government. However, the DPJ-led government has had difficulty carrying out campaign pledges (e.g., relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Campaign speeches and public acceptance in contemporary Japan 43 ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 Futenma in Okinawa prefecture). With this political development in mind, Tanigaki claims that the meanings of the election this time are for the voters to evaluate the performances of the DPJ government and also those of his party, the LDP. It is certainly true that an election is an occasion for the public to express their judgment of political parties and their performances. In this sense, then, Tanigaki’s statement contains no new information and lacks any appealing tone. He delivers his speech like a teacher lecturing to students in an oldfashioned, formal manner about something they already know. With the opening remarks of his speech, Tanigaki has established himself as a traditional and serious politician. However, he has also shown the audience that he is yet another boring politician with no charisma. Through his formal speaking style, he reinforces the traditional politician-voters relationship, in which a politician uni-directionally gives a lecture and voters are expected to listen passively. Tanigaki’s introduction creates a traditional politician-voters or teacher-students frame from the onset, and once this frame is set, it becomes the tone of his entire speech. 4.2 Report-talk After making a rather formal, non-appealing start, Tanigaki jumps into a criticism of the performance of the DPJ government, briefly mentioning various political issues one by one. He lists individual issues with no cohesive, constructive, or positive message, and his comments take the form of criticism for the sake of criticism. The following statements represent some of Tanigaki’s many criticisms of the DPJ. (3) Futenma no mondai ni shitemo kono aida okinawa dee ni , Kan san wa soori daijin to shite hajimete okinawa ni ikaremashita. shikashi, mondai o kaiketsu suru tameno atarashii teian, teian wa nani mo arimasendeshita. In addition, concerning the problems with Futenma, Prime Minister Kan visited Okinawa for the first time on the occasion of Okinawa Memorial Day. However, there was no new proposal from him. The DPJ-led government’s promise that Futenma airfield would be relocated “at least outside the Okinawa prefecture” was not fulfilled and the issue was pushed back to square one. Here, Tanigaki criticizes the inability of the DPJ government to keep their promise. He argues that Prime Minister Kan was unable to propose any substantial plan that would be agreeable to all relevant parties, including local governments and the US. In her study of “genderlect” or speech style differences between men and women, Tannen (e.g., 1990, 1994) has observed that there is a tendency for men to emphasize information over relationship and for women to emphasize 44 Shoji Azuma ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 relationship over information. She calls the information-oriented talk “reporttalk” and the relationship-oriented talk “rapport-talk”. If we apply the dichotomy of reportversus rapport-talk to speeches in politics, we may characterize Tanigaki’s style as mostly that of report-talk. He talks about political issues (e.g., the aforementioned Futenma airfield relocation) rather than feelings, emotion and empathy. For old-fashioned Japanese politicians like Tanigaki, political speeches should be all about information —issues, facts, figures— and nothing else. Tanigaki continues to read his list of criticisms attacking the DPJ. Observe the following. (4) Mata kooteeeki no mondai demo seiji shudoo to iu bimei no moto ni, kikikanri de aru koto ga rikai dekinakatta. Furthermore, as for the spread of foot-and-mouth disease (among livestock), the government failed to understand the importance of crisis management due to their false pride in the “politicians’ initiative”. The relentless spread of foot-and-mouth disease among livestock severely damaged the local economy of the southern prefecture of Miyazaki. It has been pointed out that the government was too slow and careless in their efforts to prevent the disease from spreading at the initial stage. Again, Tanigaki, criticizes the incompetence of the DPJ government, who claims to have fleshed out a mechanism for taking the policy development initiative out of the hands of bureaucrats and giving it to the politicians. According to Tanigaki, the government lacks a sense for effective crisis management. From here, his criticism goes on, issue by issue. In other words, he continues his report-talk. (5) shikashi nani yori mo ikizumatta koto wa sakunen no manifesuto nan desu. Kodomo teate, koosoku dooro ryookin no muryoo ka, aruiwa, nooka no kobetsu hoshoo, ironna koto o yakusoku shimashita. However, the very thing which came to a deadlock more than anything else is last year’s campaign promises. Various promises were made such as governmental payment of child allowances, making highway tolls free, and government compensation for each individual farmer. The DPJ campaign promises were indeed not kept in their original forms. The free highway toll promise, for example, has not been fulfilled in its original full scale. Instead, a reduced fee system, effective only on weekends, was carried out in the same manner as the LDP government’s fee reduction. Given that Japan has the worst track record of heavy dependence on debt financing among the developed nations, the government has no choice but to work out a way to Campaign speeches and public acceptance in contemporary Japan 45 ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 put itself on a path toward fiscal rehabilitation. However, according to Tanigaki, the DPJ government recklessly spends money to lure the public, allowing the national debt to keep increasing. Again, this is an example of report-talk, one of the main characteristics of Tanigaki’s speech. Tanigaki presents himself as a serious businesslike man, as many other traditional politicians do. However, he does nothing but list issues one by one (i.e., report-talk), criticizing the DPJ, and offering no accessible visions or values for the audience to identify with and understand. Essentially, Tanigaki is interested solely in providing facts and issues. He focuses only on report-talk, giving no consideration to the audience members’ grasp of the issues at hand. Observe the following discussion of the national debt. (6) Kotoshi no yosan wa zeishuu sanjuu nana chooen, dakeredomo shakkin wa yonjuu yonchoo sanzen oku en. Zeishuu yori mo shakkin no ooi yoo na yosan o kumazaru o enakatta n desu. This year’s budget consists of a tax revenue of 37 trillion yen (about $400 billion) and a debt of 44.3 trillion yen (about $478.9 billion). (The government) was forced to form a budget in which the debt far exceeded the revenue. Even though Tanigaki provides exact figures in yen, it is difficult for the audience (i.e., laymen in budget issues) to digest such large numbers without any concrete illustration. Rhetorically, any metaphor, simile or figurative expression helps people to understand what is said, but Tanigaki rarely uses such rhetoric. The only metaphor he offers in his speech is the following. (7) ima no Minshutoo no seiken ga konomama susunde ikeba, nihon maru wa zashoo shi, chinbotsu suru koto, sonna ni tooku arimasen. Mazu daiichi ni ima no Minshutoo no zaisei unei, keizai unei dewa nihon o girisha ni shite shimau no de wa nai ka. If the present DPJ government is allowed to continue, the ship of Japan will soon become stranded and sink. First of all, the budget and economy management under the DPJ government will turn Japan into Greece. Tanigaki compares Japan to a ship which is about to be stranded. With this metaphor, the audience can visually imagine the current situation of the devastated Japanese economy, even though the metaphor is a cliché. Unfortunately, Tanigaki does not go on to use any more figurative language. The scarcity of metaphor leaves the audience with little imagery to work with, and his reporttalk is rendered obtuse and ineffective. 52 Shoji Azuma ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 (Our goal) is not to build a country in which you must depend on politicians. Ours is not a politics of depending on your country. Let each one of us become independent, help ourselves, and work hard for ourselves. Koizumi pushes this theme of involvement over and over again. He is not like traditional politicians who promise things (sometimes more than they can actually accomplish). Rather than painting a rosy picture for the audience, Koizumi asks them to work as hard as they can. Recall that Tanigaki simply stated that he will work hard for the people and did not ask for the audience’s participation (aside from voting for his party). However, in Koizumi’s speech, people are asked to do their part. When people feel that their contribution is expected and valued, they are likely to feel a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction beyond simply being served. This bi-directional communication strengthens Koizumi’s bond with the audience. 5.4 issue versus value: deep structure Tanigaki’s July 26 speech is essentially a report-talk on various political issues, including the relocation of U.S. airfield, wide-spread disease, government pension, and the government budget. Each issue is presented without a cohesive theme, or more fundamentally, without any supporting values or ideologies. Lakoff (2008: 54) points out the ineffectiveness of such report-talk by using the term “issue silo”. He states that “talking in terms of facts and figures and serving the interests of demographic groups tends to lead to ‘issue silos’, the isolation of one issue from the other”. Koizumi avoids creating these “issue silos”, focusing instead on values and even his world view beyond the level of superficial political issues. Observe the following. (21) ima no wakai hitotachi no aida ni wa, hodohodo no doryoku de, hodohodo no shiawase ga tsukamereba, sore de ii. soo iu omoi ga wakai hito tachi ni dete kite iru. shikashi, watashi wa aete iitai. soreja dame nan desu. watashi tachi wa isshoo kenmei ganbatte, isshoo kenmei hatarai te sono kekka, yutakana nihon o mezasoo ja arimasenka. Among young people, the following idea prevails: it is just fine to get moderate happiness through moderate efforts. However, I dare to say, that is not good. Let us work hard, do our best, and as a result, let us aim to create an affluent Japan. Koizumi’s speech is not a mere political campaign speech. It goes beyond that. He is not afraid to make certain groups of people unhappy. Instead of pleasing everyone (which is impossible) like many politicians attempt to do, Koizumi literally “dare[s] to say” what he believes to be right. Interestingly, he Campaign speeches and public acceptance in contemporary Japan 53 ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 uses an analogy of the Japanese World Cup team to illustrate this point for those in the audience who may not be interested in politics. (22) ima no sakkaa nihon daihyoo o mite kudasai. Hodohodo no doryoku o shite, hodohodo no kekka o nokosoo to omottemasu ka. Please take a look at the World Cup soccer team of Japan. Do you think they plan to achieve moderate results through moderate efforts? Koizumi points out that the soccer team reached their level of success by making more than just moderate efforts, and he invites the audience to follow in their footsteps. After embedding his values and morale view in the analogy, Koizumi returns to the subject of politics. (23) watashi tachi Jimintoo ga mezasu kuni zukuri. sore wa kitsui koto kamo shirenai. Minasan no kikitaku nai koto kamo shiremasen. shikashi hodohodo no doryoku ja dame nan desu. isshoo kenmei ganbarimashoo yo. isshoo kenmei hatarakimashoo yo. (applause) Speaking of the country we, the LDP, are trying to build, it may be difficult. (It) may not be what you want to hear. However, moderate efforts are not good enough. Let’s work hard. Let’s do our best. Even though it may not sound sweet to the ears of the audience, he asks them to work hard as well. He tries to remind us of the important ethics of hard work, which many in the audience may have forgotten. The audience members feel encouraged and empowered by his remarks and give applause for themselves as well as for Koizumi. When Koizumi’s speech reaches this point, it is no longer simply a political campaign speech. It has been transformed into an emotional, spiritual and moral experience. It is a rapport-talk that far surpasses Tanigaki’s dry, superficial report-talk, uniting people with a shared sense of national pride and satisfaction. 6. tv coMMeRciAls In this age of mass-communication, TV commercials have become increasingly popular. They are aired nationwide and instantly reach the large number of voters who watch TV at home. For the 2010 election campaign, the LDP created two TV commercials, one featuring Tanigaki and one featuring Koizumi. Interestingly, even in those prepared commercials, the short speeches given by the two politicians are very contrastive. Consider the script of each 15 seconds TV commercials, found below. 54 Shoji Azuma ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 (24) Tanigaki watakushi wa keizai no tatenaoshi o, kurashi no antei o anata no koto o ichiban ni kangaemasu. nippon ga mata sekai de ichiban shiawase na kuni ni naru tameni jikkoo shimasu. nippon no seitoo, Jimintoo. I consider the top priorities to be rebuilding the economy, stabilizing life, and you. I will execute (my plan) in order to make Japan the happiest country (to live in). LDP: the Japanese party. (25) Koizumi Hodohodo no doryoku de wa hodohodo no shiawase mo tsukamenai. isshoo kenmei gannbatte isshookennmei hataraite yutakana ichiban no kuni o tsukurimashoo. issho ni ganbarimasu. nippon no seitoo, Jimintoo. Moderate efforts cannot bring moderate happiness. Let’s work as hard as we can. Let’s build an affluent, number one country. Together, we will do our best. LDP: the Japanese party. Tanigaki talks about the voters’ interests by promising what he will do for them. Again, he sounds like a typical politician, telling everyone what he will do for them. Koizumi, on the other hand, talks about value and encourages participation and involvement. He does not mention group interests; instead, he speaks of shared work ethics and happiness. In short, Tanigaki delivers a reporttalk and Koizumi a rapport-talk. Tanigaki pushes interests and Koizumi shows empathy for the voters. In terms of syntactic structures, Tanigaki’s commercial contains two relatively long sentences while Koizumi’s commercial fits three sentences in the same amount of time. Both sentences in Tanigaki’s commercial end with the formal polite –masu form. On the other hand, Koizumi utilizes various sentence forms. He closes his first sentence with the informal plain form (tsumakenai) and his second with the informal inviting form mashoo (‘let’s’). In the third sentence, he returns to the formal polite form –masu. In other words, Tanigaki’s sentences are all formal and static, lacking the variety found in Koizumi’s speech. These levels of formality are characteristic of the two politicians, as we can clearly see by looking at the forms of sentence final expressions in their campaign speeches. The following table shows the relative frequency of the formal polite –masu form in the speeches of Tanigaki (June 26, 2010) and Koizumi (June 29, 2010). Campaign speeches and public acceptance in contemporary Japan 55 ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 table 2. Frequency of the formal polite –masu form Notice that Tanigaki uses the formal polite -masu form more than twice as frequently as Koizumi. Nearly half of Tanigaki’s sentences end with the formal polite form, while Koizumi’s usage of –masu constitutes less than 20% of his speech. It can be said, based on this abundance of polite speech and other factors noted above, that Tanigaki’s formal, static use of language confines his speeches to a very traditional, politician-like style. On the other hand, Koizumi’s language is less formal and more dynamic, reaching out to the audience and thus allowing him to avoid speaking only to the “inner circle” of politicians. 7. iMPlicAtion An important finding in sociolinguistics is that speakers do not use language in the way they do simply because of their social identities or because of other situational factors. For example, Gumperz (1982) argues that an individual’s choice of speech style has symbolic value and interpretive consequences that cannot be explained simply by correlating the incidence of linguistic variants with independently determined social or contextual categories. In other words, speakers exploit the possibility of linguistic choices in order to convey intentional meaning of a socio-pragmatic nature. Linguistic choice is a dynamic event, and it is no longer seen as influenced only by situational factors. Scotton (1983) extends this view of linguistic choice to the concept of negotiation between a speaker and a hearer. According to her, the negotiation principle guides speakers to “choose the form of your conversational contribution such that it 56 Shoji Azuma ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 symbolizes the set of rights and obligations which you wish to be in force between speaker and addressee for the current exchange” (Scotton 1983: 116). The Japanese context poses an interesting challenge to this view of language use as a dynamic interpersonal negotiation. This is because a speaker of Japanese is likely to be confined to the rather static use of language in accordance with socially prescribed norms such as wakimae (‘discernment’) rather than the speaker’s volition (e.g., Ide 1989). The present study examined the campaign speeches of two politicians as a case study. One of the findings is that the view of language as a dynamic interpersonal negotiation is valid even in the supposedly conservative Japanese political discourse system. More specifically, Koizumi, who delivered a rapport-talk using a strategy of involvement, gained much more approval from the voters than Tanigaki, who delivered a report-talk and confined himself to a language of wakimae. It can be said that a Western style of speech based on the concept of solidarity (Brown and Gilman 1960), which encourages equal and affective relationships between speakers and listeners, is rising to acceptance in Japan. The finding from the 2010 election campaign suggests a shift from static report-talk to more dynamic rapport-talk as a desirable political discourse in Japan. references Azuma, S. (2007). Rekidai shushoo no gengoryoku o shindan suru. Tokyo, Kenkyusha. Brown, R. and A. Gilman. (1960). “The pronouns of power and solidarity”. style in language, T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 253-276. Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis, An essay on the organization of experience. London, Harper and Row. Gumperz, J. 1982. discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, E. (1959) (reprinted in 1976). The silent language. New York, Anchor Books. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics, An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. Ide, S. (1989). “Formal forms and discernment, neglected aspects of linguistic politeness”.. Multilingua 8, 2, 223-248. Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. —, (2008). The political mind. Penguin Books “Jimin shikkoobu ni wakate tooyoo mo”. MAINICHI SHINBUN (‘Mainichi Newspaper’). August 22, 2010:3. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). “Reexaminations of the universality of face”. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 4, 403-426. —, (1989). “Politeness and conversational universals, observations from Japanese”. Multilingua 8, 2, 3, 207-221. Campaign speeches and public acceptance in contemporary Japan 57 ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 26/1-2 (2012) 37-57 Miller, G.A. (1956). “The magic number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information”. Psychological Review 63, 2, 81-97. Reischauer, E. O. (1977). The Japanese. Cambridge, MA, Belknap Press. Shea, D., and M. Burton. (2006). campaign craft, The strategies, tactics, and art of political campaign management. Westport: Praeger. “Honsha FNN goodoo choosa”. sAnKei sHinbun (‘Sankei Newspaper’). July 20, 2010: 5. “Shin-samaa, Koizumi Shinjiro”. sHuuKAn bunsHun (‘Weekly Bunshun’). July 22, 2010: 26. Scotton, C.M. (1983). “The negotiation of identities in conversation: a theory of markedness and code choice”. international Journal of sociology of language 44, 115-136. Takase, J. (2005). buki to shite no kotoba seiji. Tokyo, Koodansha. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand, women and men in conversation. New York, William Morrow. —, (1994). gender and discourse. Oxford, Oxford University Press.