著者

崔 惠秀

出版者

国文学研究資料館

雑誌

国際日本文学研究集会会議録 = PROCEEDINGS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON JAPANESE LITERATURE (ISSN:03877280)

巻号頁・発行日

no.39, pp.102\n(27)-85\n(44), 2016-03-17

---

It is widely known that Daibosatsu-toge, which is considered as an origin of popular modern Japanese literature, was written in a familiar ‘desu, masu’ style. However, descriptive texts were written not only in distal style but also in direct style, and both of past and present tense were mixed in this work. In addition, a style ending sentences with a noun (or noun phrase) was used as well. This presentation aims to analyze a formation process and features of various sentence styles in Daibosatsu-toge. Also, I would like to discuss its meaning by comparing style in this novel with a modern novel’s narrative strategy, which is said to have completed its style by using ‘da, de aru’ in the end of the sentences.First of all, this presentation will focus on drastic changes from first publishing of Daibosatsu-toge in Miyako-Shinbun to rewritten version which had been published as a form of book since February 1918, and analyze patterns of changes in descriptive texts until its style was stabilized (manuscripts appeared serially by 1921.10.17, which are correspond to by vol.21 ‘Umonsankyu-no-maki’ in a book form), in other words, until Kaizan didn’t make a revision on the end of sentences.Sentences in the first period(Sep 1913~Jul 1915)that did not have periods (。) in the end had been put in order by using periods when they were rewritten. And in this process, many sentences have been corrected into the form ending with a noun or noun phrase. Also, it must be noted that there are a lot of delicate corrections in the end of sentences concerning the past/present tenses and distal/direct style all over the texts that originally appeared in Miyako-Shinbun, even though there was no change in the meaning of the contents.Through analyzing what meaning and effect this changes in the form of the sentences have, this presentation is going to clarify that Kaizan was well aware of ‘modern novel’ and remeasured the distance between a narrator and characters as well as between a narrator and readers when making revisions on manuscripts, which I assume is connected to the effort trying to maintain dialogicality and polyphony in his style.