rffitffl~lVf~'GJ© 2008 (f-mlO ij- (20081:f:) pp. 38-53
B *llliffl~iii"¥:0

Trivialization, Generalization, and Semanticizationin the Representation of "Comfort Women" 1 Issues:
The Case of Abe Shinzo,2 the Former Prime Minister of Japan

Yurniko Ohara
Uni versity of Hawai' i at Hilo

Using the theoretical framework of critical discourse analysis, th is paper exami nes a recent di scussion
concerning "comfort women" between former Prime Min ister Abe Shinzo and Ogawa Toshio in a Diet
session. Close examination of the interaction reveals that linguistic stTategies such as trivialization, generalization, as well as semanticization were employed in an attempt to I) falsify a certain testimony bylegitimating others at the same time and 2) negotiate the meaning of the term 'coerciveness' from theodgi nal Kono Statement of 1993 with the overall effect of downplaying the role played by the Japaense
government.
Keywords:

critical discourse analysis, political discourse, comfort women, trivialization, semanticiza-tion

1. Introduction
Although 2008 marks the sixty-third year since the end of WWII, it is claimed that
there are a number of unresolved issues concerning the war responsibility of the Japanesestate. "Comfort women" is one such issue (e.g., Hayashi 2001 , 2008, Hein 1999,
Schneider 2008, Seaton 2006, Tawara 2001). In fact, it might not be an exaggeration to
say that "comfort women" is currently one of the most contested topics in Japan. Given
the great potential for words and phrases to take on various meanings due to their "inherent flexibility" (Hasan 2003), it is not surprising that the term "comfort women" itself has
been a source of great contestation within this controversy. It has been defined as "oneof the most egregious documented cases of sexual slavery" (McDougall 1999), "the worst
human trafficking crime of the 20th century" (Honda 2006), a "crime against humanity"(Amnesty International USA 2007), but it also has been referred to as "simply legalized
prostitution" (Ogata 2007), a "profitable business" (Nakayama 2007), a "total fabrication"(Reported in Tokyo Newspaper (February 12, 2006) to be said by Yonenaga Kunio), and1 As indicated by many scholars (e.g., Hayashi 2000 1, Tanaka 2000), the use of the term comfo1t
women is criticized since it is a euphem ism and does not capture the actual severity of the condition.
In this paper, I have decided to use the term because it is "the common h istorical term" (Hayashi 2001)
but with double quotation marks to capture the uniq ue semantic circumstances of the term.
2 Throughout the paper, following the Japanese custom, the last name of people is given first followed by the first name.

38

Trivialization, Generalization, and Semanticization in the Representation of "Comfort Women" Issues

39

a part of a "media war that has been set up" (Nishimura 2007).
With the diverse and even polarized viewpoints about "comfort women", it is undeniably difficult, if not impossible, to agree on a 'truth' about this controversial issue.
However, by examining the discourse used by certain groups and people to disseminate
their views in different domains, it is possible to uncover and subsequently examine crilically the discursive methods used to construct specific perspectives. Using the theor·etical framework of cti tical discourse analysis, especially the concern with political di scourse on hi storical events (e.g. , Barnard 2003 , Wodak 2003, Wodak et al. 1999), thispaper examines a recent discussion concerning "comfort women" in the Japanese
National Diet. Wodak et al. (1999) assert that critical discourse analaysis "assumes a
dialectical relationship between particular discursive acts and the situations, institutions
and social structures in which they are embedded: the situational, institutional and social
contexts shape and affect discourse, and, in turn, discourses influence social and politicalreality. In other words, discourse constitutes social practice and is at the same time constituted by it". By following the tenets of critical discourse analysis, it will be possible
in this study to observe a connection between the linguistic actions of politicians on a particular interactional occasion and the larger sociological and political issue of "comfort
women".
The main part of the data was taken from transcribed proceedings of a Diet sessionthat took place on March 5, 2007 and that was constituted by an exchange between Abe
Sinzo, the Prime Minister of Japan and a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, andOgawa Toshio, a member of the Democratic Party. T he exchange centers on a publicstatement by the politician Yosuke Kono in 1993 in which he recognized that the "comfort women" had been coerced into sexual slavery. 3 Close examination of the interaction
reveals that linguistic strategies such as trivialization, generalization (Gruber 1997) as
well as semanticization were employed in an attempt to 1) legitimate a certain testimony
and at the same time falsify others and 2) negotiate the meaning of the term 'coerciveness' from the original Kono Statement of 1993.

2.
! -..N! --Current situation of "comfort women" issue

Cun·ently, it appears that the issue of "comfort women" has reached a new era ofcontroversy by receiving global media attention. T here has been, for instance, a set ofresolutions concerning "comfort women" proposed by political entities from various
countties. Most recently on March 11, 2008, the Philippines House of Representatives
approved a resolution urging Japan to formally apologize for forcing some 200,000

3Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono on the result of the study on the issue of"comfort women". The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. <http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/
fu nd/ state9308.html>

40

·,

.........

women to serve as wartime sex slaves. Earlier last year, the United States Congress (July
2007), the Dutch Parliament (November 2007), Canada's Lower House (November 2007),
as well as the European Parliament (December 2007) also passed similar motions. In an
unprecedented move to support these resolutions, advertisements and open letters wereplaced in U.S. newspapers critical of Japan's approach to "comfort women" issues. For
example, on April 26, 2007 a full -page advertisement sponsored by the Washington
Coalition for Comfort Women Issues and entitled "The Truth about Comfort Women" wasplaced in the Washington Post. It included editorials from the Washington Post, Asahi
Newspaper, and Wall Street Journal and a letter from Amnesty International addressed to
President Bush. The advertisement maintained that Ptime Minister Abe was "retreatingfrom previous statements of contrition and launching a campaign to deny that the government was directly involved".
As a countermeasure to this advertisement, on June, 14, 2007, over forty Diet members including the Liberal Democratic Party, the Democratic Party, and Independent Partyof Japan together with political commentators, professors, and journalists placed a fullpage advertisement titled "The Facts on Washington Post" in an attempt to coJTect information included in "The Truth about Comfort Women" that was based, in their words, on"fallacies, distortion, biases, and factual errors". The advertisement further claimed that
the U.S. congressional resolution "gravely and intentionally" distorted facts, and it denied
the coercive nature of the "comfort women" system stating that the women were authorized prostitutes who were treated well and often made more money than field officers
and even generals. These new developments in the controversy changed the overall
dynamics and direction of the dialogue from a bidirectional one with former "comfort
women" and their supporters versus the Japanese govemment to a multidirectional involving politicians as well as political entities from various nations and former "comfort
women". It was about the time when these developments were receiving media attention
that the Diet session, which constitutes the data for this paper occmTed.

3. Analysis
Data
The data were taken from the proceedings of a session of the Budget Committee
Meeting of the House of Counsilors that took place on March 5, 2007 and the exchange
centers on a public statement by Kono, the former Chief Cabinet Secretary, in 1993 inwhich he recognized that the "comfort women" had been coerced into sexual slavery. The
timing of this session is that it took place after the media converage of the U.S. resolution had started but before Abe's visit in late April to the US. First, I will focus on theterm coersiveness and the definition given by Prime Minister Abe.
3.1.

3.2.

Semanticization of coercion
The first point focuses on the meaning of the term kyoosei 'coercion' that Kono had

Trivialization, Generalization, and Semanticization in the Representation of "Comfort Women" Issues

41

used in his statement. The data excerpt below begins as Ogawa questions Abe about his
assertion that the "comfort women" had not been coerced.

saikin soori wa kyoosei wa nakatta
to iu yoo na
recen tly PM T coercion T exist-NEG-PAST QT say likeshushi no hatsugen o saremashitaka kono ianfu no mandai ni !suite
meaning LK satement 0 do-RON-PAST Q this CW LK issue concerning
Did the PM make a statement, which meant that there was no coercion concerning theissue of comfort women?
2. ABE: sono ken
ni tsukimashite mo sakunen no iinkai
de toobenthat matter concerning
also last year LK committee at reply
shita
toori de gozaimashite kono gironno zentei to naru watakushi
do-PAST as BE-HUM
this argument L K premise consist I
ga katte hatsugen o shitaiwabakyookasho ni noseru ka dooka
S in past statement 0 do-PAST so of speak textbook to print Q whether
to iu tolci no giron
ni tsuitewatakushi ga tooben o shita
QT say time LK argumenat concerning I
S reply 0 do-PAST
wake de gozaimasu soshite sono sai
watakushi ga mooshiagemashitacase BE-HUM-PRES then that occation I
S say-HUM-PAST
no wa iwaba
kyoogino imini oite no kyooseisei ni tsuite
LK T so of speak narrow sense LK meaning in
LK coercion concerningieba
kore wa sore o urazukeru shoogen wa nakatta
to iu
say-COND this T that 0 back up tesnimony T exist-NEG-PAST QT say
koto o sakunen no kokkai de mooshiageta
tokoro de gozaimasu
matter 0 last year LK Diet at say-HUM-PAST position BE-HUM-PRES
Also concerning that matter, it is exactl y as I replied during the committee last year, I
replied as a premise to this argument about whether or not to include (it) in textbooks.
What I said on that occasion was that concerning a narrow sense of coercion, there wasno testimony which backs that up, this point I stated in the Diet session last year.
to iu yoo na
3. OGAWA: kono sangatsu tsuitachi ni kyoosei wa nakatta
this March Firston coercion T exist-NEG-PAST QT say likeshushi no hatsugen o saretanjanai desu
ka soorimeaning LK statement 0 do-HON-PAST NOM BE-PRES-NEG Q PM
On March first, didn' t you utter a statement, which meant there was no coercion, Ptime
Minister?
nani o motte kyooseisei
4. ABE: desukara kono kyooseisei to iu koto ni tsuite
therefore this coercion Q say matter concerning what 0 take coercion
to iu koto ni tsuite
giron
shite iru
ka to iu koto
QT say matter concerning argument do-PRES-PROG Q QT say matterde gozaimasu
ga iwabakanken ga ie
ni oshiitte itte hito o
BE-HUM- PRES but sott of speak GA
S house in break-in go person 0
1.

OGAWA:

42

hitosarai no gotoku tsurete iku to iu soo iu kyooseisei wa nakatta
kidnapper LK liketake go QT say so say coercion T exist-NEG-PAST
to iu koto de wa nai
ka to koo iu koto de gozaimasu
QT say matter exist-PRES-NEG Q QT this say matter BE-HUM-PRES
Therefore, concerning coercion, (we) are arguing that what we take to mean coercion,such as whether or not, for example, a government authority comes into a house and takessomeone away like a kidnapper, that sort of coercion, clid not occur.
Utterance 1 is a question by Ogawa about Abe's recent statement concerning coercion,and in utterance 2 Abe answers Ogawa by refening to a discussion that occurred in a
meeting the year before about whether to include "comfort women" issues in textbooks. 4
He then states that "concerning a narrow sense of coercion, there was no testi mony whichbacks that up". In utterance 3, Ogawa rephrases his earlier question by stating the specific date of Abe's statement, and in utterance 4, Abe further explains his position by giving a definition of coercion. In doing so, Abe seems to suggest that there is more than
one meaning of coercion as he states that one meaning would be " a government authority comes into a house and takes someone away like a kidnapper". He next quickly
asserts that this kind of coercion did not take place. This (re)defining of the meaning of
coercion continued a few utterances later as Abe gives a broader meaning of the term,again after being prompted by Ogawa's question.

ichido kakunin shimasu ga soosuruto ie
ni norikonde muriyari
once confirm do-PRES but therefore house in go inby force
tsurete kite shimatta yoo na kyoosei wa nakatta
to ja doo iu
bring-PASTsuch coercion T exist-NEG-PAST QT then what kindkyoosei wa atta
to soori wa ninshiki
sarete iru
ndesu
coercion T exist-PAST QT PM T understand do-HON-PROG NOM BE-PRESka

7.

OGAWA:Q·-

I'd like to confirm once, but then the type of coercion wasn' t to the extent of going intoa house and bringing (them) in by force. Then, what is the PM's understanding of thecoercion that occurred?
8. ABE: kono kakkai
no ba de koo iu girono enen to suru
this Diet session LK place at this say discussion 0 endlessly do-PRESnoga watakushi wa amari seisanteki da
to wa omoimasen
NOMS I
T much productive BE-PRES QT T think-PRES-NEG
keredomo aetemooshiagemasu ga iwaba
kore wa sakunen nobut
reluctantly say-HUM-PRES but sort of speak this T last year LK

4This Budget Committee meeting took place on October 6, 2006.

Trivialization, Generalization, and Semanticization in the Representation of "Comfort Women" Issues

43

kokkai de mo mooshiagemashita yoo ni sono toki no keizai
jyookyoo toDiet at also say-HUM-PAST likethat time LK economic situation QT
iu mono ga alta
wake de gozaimasu gohonnin ga susun de soo
say matter S exist-PAST case BE-HUM-PRES HON-self S willingly so
iu michi ni susumoo
to omottakatawa osoraku
say path to go forward-VOL QT think-PAST person-RON T probably
orarenakattandaroo
to kono yoo ni omoimasu mataexist-RON-PAST-NEG NOM BE-TENT QT thi s likethink-PRES andaida
ni haitta
gyoosha ga jijitsujoo kyoosei o shite ita
tobetween in enter-PAST dealer S in reality coercion 0 do-PROG-PAST QT
iu keesu mo alta
to iu koto de gozaimasu
soo iu imini
say case also exist-PAST QT sat matter BE-HUM-PRES so say meaning inoite koogi
no kaishaku
ni oite no kyooseisei ga atta
toas broad meaning LK interpretation in as LK coercion S exist-PAST QT
iu koto de wa nai deshoo ka
say matter BE-NEG-TENT Q
I do not think having a discussion such as this endlessly in this Diet session is very productive, but reluctantly I would say, as I said in the Diet session last year, there was an
economic situation at the time. I presume that probably there was no one who wanted totake the path willingly, this is what I think. Also, it was also the case that a dealer who
was in between, in reality, performed coercion. In such a way, isn ' t it the case that there
was coercion in a broad sense?
Phrasing his question as an attempt to confirm Abe's previous response, Ogawa in utterance 7 first reiterates that Abe does not think it was the type of coercion in which someone is taken from their house before asking Abe what type of coercion he thinks occurred.
After expressing his reluctance to engage in this kind of a discussion in utterance 8, Abeassigns a "broad meaning" to the term. He explains that due to the economic situation at
the time in which the coercion occurred, many women were driven to become "comfort
women". He also suggests that there might have been dealers, not members of the government or of the military, working in the middle who coerced women to serve theseroles. Basically, then, Abe has taken the term coercion and divided it into two, a "narrow meaning" in which "the government authotity breaks into a house and abducts someone" in order to coerce that person into doing something, and a "broad meaning" in which
women were forced to become "comfort women" either by the economic situation or bydealers.
Abe's discursive act here is similar to the action of semantic shift described by
Gruber (1997) (also see Hasan 2003) in which users of language attempt to shift themeanings of words through discourse. Abe, however, seems to be doing more than shifting the meaning. He is overtly defining the term coercion as the interaction unfolds.
Accordingly, I refer to this process as semanticization to highlight a social actor's attempt

44

to define (or perhaps redefine) a term. And perhaps more important than Abe's engaging
in the process of semanticization is the immediate discursive result of this process. Byclaiming a narrow and broad definition, Abe is able to deny that one of the meanings, thenarrow meaning, did not occm. Moreover, by applying this new definition to the earlier
statement made by Kono, Abe is able to reinterpret an accepted part of history. Kono, in
other words, had accepted the Japanese government's role in coercing the "comfort
women", but Abe uses semanticization to create doubt about just how much coercion theJapanese state engaged in. According to Abe, the government did not coerce the "comfort women" in the nan·ow sense; Japan did not just snatch them from their homes andforce them to work.

Generalization and trivialization
Semanticization was a part of two other related processes, generalization and trivialization. The following excerpt of data provides some examples. It is a continuation of
Abe's utterance shown in line 4 above. It begins as Abe introduces other aspects of coercion including a testimony by Yoshida Seiji.

3.3.

somosomo
kono mandai no hottan
toshite kore wa tashika asahi
the first place this matter LK beginning as
this T probably Asahi
shinbundatta
to omoimasu ga yoshida seiji to iu hito ga ianfu
newspaper BE-PAST QT think
but Yoshida Seiji named person S CWgari o shita to iu shoogen o shita wake de arimasu
ga kono shoogen
hunt 0 did QT say testimony 0 did case BE-HUM-PRES but this testimony
wa mattaku nochi ni decchiage datta
koto ga wakatta
wake
T totally later
fabrication BE-PAST matter T understand-PAST casede gozaimasu tsumari hottan wa kono hito ga soo iu shoogen o shita
BE-HUM-PRES in short origin T thi s personS so say testimony 0 do-PAST
wake de gozaimasu ga ima mooshiagemashita yoona tenmatsucase BE-HUM-PRES but now say-HUM-PAST like circumstances
ni natta to iu koto ni tsuite sono go iwaba
kono yoo ni
became QT say matter concerning that later sort of speak this like toianfu gari no yoo na kyooseisei kanken ni yoru kyoosei renkoo teki na mono
CM hunt LK likecoercion GA
bycoerced taking such matterga atta
to iu koto o shoomei suru shoogen wa nai
to iu
S BE-PAST QT say matter 0 prove do testimony T exist-NEG QT say
koto de gozimasu
matter BE-HUM-PRES
In the first place, the origin of this problem, I believe it was Asahi Newspaper stated thata person named Yoshida Seiji testified that he was involved in round-ups of comfort
women; however, we learned that later it was total fabrication. In shmt, the origin waswith the person who made such testimony but as I said now, concerning that case, it

4.1

Abe:

·":"""""

Trivialization, Generalization, and Semanticization in the Representation of "Comfort Women" Issues

45

turned out the way it did, after that, there is no testimony that supports the use of coercion by government authority.
5. OGAWA: ima shoogen wa nai
to iimashita ne shikashi jissai ni
now testimony T do not exist QT say-PAST IP however fact
amerika no kain ni oite amerika gasshuukoku no kain ni oite ianfu. oAmetica LK HR at
US
LK HR atCM 0
sareteitakata
ga soo iu kyoosei ga atta
todo-HON-PAST people-HON S so say coercion S exist-PAST QT
iu shoogen o shiteiru
dakara !win de ketsugian ga saitaku
say testimony 0 do-PRES-PROG so
HR at resolution S adopt
sareruka dooka to iu koto ni natte iru
ndo-PRES-PASS Q whether QT say matter to become-Pres-PROG NOM
ja nai desuka ima shoogen ga nai
to osshaimashita ne jissaz m
BE-PRES-NEG Q now testimony S not- exist QT say-HON-PAST IP fact insoo iu taikeno shita
to iu fuu ni shoogen shite iru
ianfu gaso say experience 0 do-PAST QT say like testify do-PRES-PROG CM S
gen ni zru
wake desu
yo soo itt hitotachi no hatsugen wa
actually exist-PRES case BE-PRES IP so say person PL LK statement T
shoogen ja nai
n
desu
ka
testimony BE-PRES-NEG NOM BE-PRES Q
You said now that there is no testimony but in fact, in the House of Representatives ofAmerica, former comfort women are testifying that that type of coercion occurred; therefore, isn' t that the basis of the situation such that the resolution might be passed? You
said that testimony does not exist, right? T here are comfort women who are testifyingthat they underwent such experiences. Aren' t those people's testimonies such testi. ?
momes.
6. ABE: iwaba
urazuke no ant shoogen wa nai
to iu kotoso of speak back up L K exist testimony T not-exist QT say matterde gozaimasu shoogen to ieba
saki hodo mo mooshiagemashita
BE-HUM-PRES testimony QT say-COND before
also say-HUM-PAST
yoo ni yoshida seiji shi
no shoogen mo shoogen ja nain desuka
likeYoshida Seiji mister LK testimony also testimony BE-PRES- NEG Q
mattakku kono hito no shoogen wa decchiage datta
to iu kotoabsolutely this person LK testimony T fabrication BE-PAST QT say matterde gozaimasu
BE-HUM-PRES
It is the case that there is no testimony with evidence, so to speak. If we talk about testimony, then, as I said earlier, the testimony by Mr. Yos hida Seiji, isn' t that also testimony? It is the case that this person's testimony was absolute fa brication.
In utterance 4.1 Abe introduces a testimony by Yoshida Seiji in which Yoshida claimed

46

that he was involved in ianfugari ' rounding-up of "comfort women"'. Abe quickly points
out that his testimony turned out to be decchiage ' fablication' , and Abe further states that
there are no other testimonies that Japan engaged in coercion like rounding up of "comfort women". In response in utterance 5, though, Ogawa refers to the U.S. House of representative resolution and says that former "comfort women" testified that such coersion
indeed occurred . In utterance 6, Abe claimed that there is no testimony with proof andrefers back to the testimony of Yoshida Seiji wruch turned out to be decchiage 'fabrication ' . In utterance 4.1 and 6 alone, Abe uses the name Yosruda Seiji and the words ianfugari and decchiage twice each to make his point. I will come back to these later in thediscussion section, but it can be noted that Abe's move in utterance 6 equates the testimonies offm·mer "comfort women" with the testimonies of Seiji Yoshida (Yosruda 1977,
1983), which were said to be either totally fabricated (Rata 1999) or at least partially fictionalized (Uesugi 1996). He is, in short, engaging in the process of generalization; byquickly restating Yoshida Seiji's case in utterance 6, he is asserting that the "comfort
women"'s testimonies referred to by Ogawa in 5 will turn out to be either fab rication orlack supporting evidence.
Furthermore, by engaging in the process of generalization to link the testimonies of"comfort women" to that of Yoshida Seiji, Abe is at the same time working to trivialize
the statements of the "comfort women". Although they have gone through considerable
trouble to have their voices heard (e.g., Shin 2003, Yoshimi 2000, Violence Against
Women in War - Network Japan 2000), Abe's use of generalization suggests that their
voices are not important, or at least that they should not be paid attention to. They are
ttivial because they ultimately, according to Abe, tell us nothing; they will turn out to belies or Lacking in proof.

3.4.

~~

.· : . - t

Kono statement

At the center of this exchange between Ogawa and Abe was the Kono Statement of
1993. In the next excerpt, Ogawa and Abe further discuss coercion but this time specifically in relation to the Kono Statement. Examination of Abe's discussion of the Kono
Statement fmther shows not only how he attempted to define coercion but also bow heattempted to trivialize the importance of the original 1993 statemnt. Utterance II is aclarification and further question by Ogawa concerning the type of coercion that occurred,and utterance 12 is the first instance of the comment by Abe 'it is as written (in the Kono
Statement)' that he repeats on several occasions.
11.

dakara soori watashi wa kiite iru
janai desu
ka ie
so that PM I
T ask-PRES- PROG BE-PRES-NEG Q houseni norikonde tsurete itte shimau yoo na kyoosei wa nakatta
toin gel into take go
likecoercion T exist-PAST-NEG QT
ja doo iu. kyoosei ga atta
n
desu
ka to
then how say coercion S exist-PAST NOM BE-PRES Q QT case

OGAWA:

Trivialization, Generalization, and Semanticization in the Representation of "Comfort Women" Issues.. ·.j.I

47

yokiite iru
wake desu
ask-PRES- PROG case BE-PRES IP
So, Prime Minister, I am asking, aren't I? (You said) a type of coercion of going into ahouse and taking (someone) away did not occur. Then l am asking what kind of coercion did occur.
ni kaite aru toori
12. ABE: moo sude ni sore wa kono danwa
that T Kono Statement in write-exist exactly
alreadyde arimasu
sore o nankai mo ogawa iin
ga doo iu shiwaku ga
BE-HUM-PRES that S many times Ogawa member S how say intension S
atte koko de sore o toriagete iru
ka to iu koto wa watashi wa
exist here at that 0 take up-PRES-PROG Q QT say matter T I
Tyo/at wakaranai
wake de arimasu
ga ima masa ni amerika dewell understand-NEG case BE-HUM-PRES but now certainly America in
sao iu ketsugi
ga wadai ni natte iru
wake de gozaimasu ga soko
so say resolution S topic
become-PROG case BE-HUM-PRES but there
ni wa yahari
JL]ztsu goninga ant to iu no ga watakushi
at T as expected fact misunderstand S exist QT say LK S I
domo
no tachiba de gozaimasu
PL-HUM LK position BE-HUM-PRES
That is already w1itten exactly in the Kono Statement. I do not understand well fo r what
intention Committee Member Ogawa is bringing it up endlessly, but now certainly sucha resolution is becoming a topic in America, but it is our position that there is a mistakein the facts in there.
In utterance 11 , Ogawa again refers to Abe's " narrow" definition of coercion of abducting someone ti-om their house to ask a direct question, if that kind of coercion did notoccur then what kind of coercion occurred? In response, Abe immediately says that it has
already been written in the Kono Statement. He then moves the discussion to the resolution being made in the United States, and states that it "our position that it is based ona mistake in the facts". I did not include it here, but following utterance 11, Ogawa asked
Abe if he planned to igmore the resolution since it is based on nonfactual testimonites.
Abe's response was that they will not apologize since the resolutiom is not based on subjective facts. Abe has thus used the question about coercion from Ogawa to invoke theKono Statement and ultimately trivialize the resolution made in the United States. Like
Yoshida Seiji's testimony, the resolution is not based on fact, instead, it is based on a mistake. Accordingly, it is not worthy of an apology.
Shortly after the last exchange between Ogawa and Abe, Ogawa followed up on
Abe's invocation of the Kono Statement by attempting to clarify the Kono Statement. He
states the position of Kono Statement conceming coercion, namely, that the military was
involved in the development and management of comfort stations as well as transfer of"comfort women" and asks Abe "whether he acknowdges that or not". Like Abe's reply

48

in utterance 12, he begins his utterances in 16 and 18 with "it is as written".
15.

OGAWA:

kana danwa
wa tan ni gyoosha ga kyoosei shita dake de nakute
Kono Statement T simply dealer S coercion do-Past only Be-NEG
ianjo
no secchi ya kanri
ianfu no isooni taisuru
confort station LK set up and management CW LK transfer at concerninggunno kanyoo nintei shita
to itte oru
wakemilitary LK involvement 0 confirm do-PAST QT say-PRES-PROG casedesu kono koto ni lttite
soori wa mitomeru
n
desu
ka
BE-PRES this matter about PM T acknowledge NOM BE-PRES Q
mitomenaindesuka
acknowledge-PRES-NEG NOM BE-PRES Q
It is the case that Kono Statement says that it acknowledges not only that dealers coerced
but the military was involved in setting up and managing comfort stations and the transfer of comfort women. Do you acknowledge or do you not acknowledge this point?
16. ABE: desukarasaki hodo rai mooshiageteorimasu
yoo ni
BE-PRES because before
say-HUM-PRES-PROG likekaite ant toori de arimasu
write-exist exactly BE-HUM-PRES
Therefore, as I have been saying for a while, it is exactly as it is written.
17. OGAWA: kaite ant toori wa kaite aru no wajujitsu desuyo
wtite-exist exactly T wtite-exist LK T fact Be-PRES IP
wa soori ga sore o sao iu fuu ni omotteimasu
ka tokaite ant nowrite-exist NOM T PM S that 0 so say like think-PRES-PROG Q QT
kiite irundesu
ask-PRES-PROG NOM BE-PRES
What is written is what is written. What is written is true, what is written. (I) am asking
if the PM thinks that way.
18. ABE: desu
karakaite ant
toori de arimashite sore oBE-PRES because write-exist-PRES exactly BE-HUM
that 0yondeitadakereba sore ga se!fu
no ima no tachiba de arimasu
read-HON-COND that T government LK now LK position BE-RON-PRES
Therefore, it is as written. If you were to read it then that is the position of the government now.
Abe' s responses in 16 and 18 are seen as elusive because they follow his previous actionsof redefining 'coercion' and of generalizing and trivializing the testimonies of the "comfort women" and the resolution made in the United States. If Abe had made these
responses in utterances 16 and 18 without having first engaged in the processes of semanticization, generalization, and ttivialization, then we might understand him to be agreeing
with the Kono Statement that Japanese government had been guilty of involvement in the"comfort women" issues. Yet, because Abe has already discursively defined 'coercion',

Tri vialization, Generalization, and Semanticization in the Representation of "Comfort Women" Issues

49

generali zed the false testimony of one person to the entire set of "comfort women", andtrivialized the testimonies of "comf01t women" and the US resolution, his position has
already emerged through the discourse. Instead of agreeing with the Kono Statement,
Abe appears in this last exchange as avoiding or eludi ng the question. Undoubtedly, thisis responsible for the increased frustration in the tone of Ogawa's voice as he tried several times to get Abe to clarify his position.

4. Discussion
Using processes such as semanticization, generalization, and trivialization, Abe,despite his elusiveness in some parts, puts fo rth a certain view of "comfort women" inthis exchange with Ogawa. Before further commenting on his view, it is worthwhile andnecessary to situate this exchange in the surrounding discourse concerning "comfort
women". First, let's consider a comment made by Nakayama Nariaki, chair of the
Subcommittee on the Comfort Women Problem of the Diet Representatives' Association
for the Consideration of Japan's Future and History Education of the House ofRepresentatives who was also a former Education Minister. At a meeting of the Special
Committee for Educational Reform in the House of Representatives on Aplil 20, 2007 ,he argues about the problem of including issues concering "comfort women" in history
textbooks by stating that the testimony by Yoshida Seiji concerning ianufugari 'roundingup of comfo rt women' and a 'large scale campaign by a certain newspaper' in relation to
Yoshida's testimony turned out to be a lie. Nakayama stated that there are three points
to his argument for not including the issues; first, most of those women were Japanese,
second, prostitution was legal at the time, and third, he felt sony for their situation but
on the other hand "as expected, it is a fact that it (the "comfort women" system) was aprofitable business" since " their monthly salary was one hundred times more than a regular soldier".
Similar arguments can be found in the writing of Ogata Yoshiaki (2007), a memberof the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Facts. He blames the testimony of
Yoshida Seiji, Asahi Newspaper, information manipulated by left-leaning forces, and theposture of the Japanese government as "The main source of the myth that comfo rt women
were fo rcibly taken". He stated that "comfort women" were "licensed prostitutes" and" these women were making per month between I00 to 250 times what soldiers were".
Concerning the Kono Statement, Ogata claimed that no evidence was ever found showing that anyone was taken by force. Similarly, Fujioka Nobukatsu (2007), chair of the
Jiyuushugi Shikan Kenkyuukai [Association for Advancement of Unbiased View ofHistory (previously Association for Advancement of a Liberal View of History)] and professor of Takushoku University, talks about "swindler Yoshida Seiji" and his "fake book"about his testimonies concerning ianjitgari 'roundng up of comfort women'. Anotherstatement of a similar vein came from Yonenaga Kunio, a member of the Tokyo
Metropolitan Government Board of Education, when he delivered a lecture at the inau-

50

gural convention of the Teachers Federation of Tokyo Metropolitan Government on
February 11, 2006. He stated that "Military comfort women as well as the nanking massacre are decchiage 'fabtication "' (Tokyo Newspaper, February 12, 2006).
In examining the discourse concerning "comfort women", it becomes clear that theterms used by Prime Minister Abe such as Asahi Newspaper, Yoshida Seiji, im1fugari' rounding-up of comfort women", and decchiage 'fabtication' are in fact keywords in therevisionist view (e.g., Barnard 2003) of "comfort women" issues . Abe, thus, by invoking
these terms, is connecting his claims to the larger discourse of the revisionists and f urther
disseminating the view to an even larger audience. When we consider the discussion
between Abe and Ogawa in light of the greater competing discourses regarding not only
war responsibilities but also the national identity of Japan, we can begin to see the relationship of Abe's discourse to the role of the Japanese govemment. Abe's attempts tomanipulate the meaning of 'coercion' , to generalize the false testimony of Yoshida Seiji,
and to trivialize the testimonies of the "comfort women" all work to downplay the role
played by the Japanese government in what some claim to be war atrocities. Put a different way, these lingui stic strategies are a part of a larger discourse that constructs a specific meaning concerning WWII, which in tum contributes to the competing discourses
surrounding a unique national identity for the Japanese. The representations of histmical
events are not merely the results of a recounting of ' naturalized facts' (e.g., Fairclough1998) but are sites for negotiation and contestation of different versions of 'facts' to be'naturalized' and disseminated into the conscious of the public.
To be sure, this occasion was not the first time for Abe or others to engage in semanticization of the term "coercion". As Abe stated in utterance 2 above in response to oneof Ogawa's questions, he pett'ormed the same semanticization in the Budget Committee
session in October 2, 2006. Futher, the semanticization can be traced back to the wtitingof Yutaka Sakamoto (200 I: 29-32), a Japanese political scientist who held post of thechairman of the board of directors of Atarashii Kyookasho o Tsukurukai [JapaneseSociety for History Textbook Reform]. As has been illustrated, Abe' s arguments are renditions of some of the repeated formulations of the past events by revisionists such as
Jiyuushugi Shilcan Kenkyuukai [Association for Advancement of Unbiased View ofHistory (previously Association for Advancement of Liberal View of History)] andAtarashii Kyookasho o Tsukurukai [Japanese Society for History Textbook Reforms], andthe Society for the Dissemination of Historical Facts. The collective effect of the processes employed by Abe in the discourse shown in this study is a construction of a JapaneseWorld War II history in which Japan is not liable for an issue some claim to be "one of
the most egregious documented cases of sexual slavery" (McDougall 1999) and a "ctime
against humanity" (Amnesty International USA 2007). This study emphasizes that a specific way of thinking about Japan 's history is not just a ' natural ' depiction of the events
but rather a constructed history that will and should continued to be the object of more
contestation in the future.

Trivialization, Generalization, and Semanticization in the Representation of "Comfort Women" Issues

5.

51Conclusion

This study has examined the details of an exchange in the Japanese Diet between
Ogawa and Abe in order to investigate a discursive connection between the interaction
and the larger competing discourses that surround the "comfort women" issue in Japanand throughout the world. The analysis focused on three processes employed by Abe in
the discourse, semanticization, generalization, and trivialization to put forth a certain viewof the issue. Semanticization occurred as Abe worked to divide the term 'coercion' into
"nan·ow" and "broad" meanings so that Abe could claim that coercion of a narrow definition was not engaged in by the Japanese government and military. Generalization was
employed by Abe as he attempted to generalize the possibly partial fabrications of one
person, Yoshida Seiji, to the testimonies of others, especially "comfort women" themselves. Trivialization was closely connected to generalization as Abe suggested that thetestimonies of "comfort women" and the resolution in the US which is based on suchtestimonies were not worthy of serious consideration by the Japanese government because
they were not based on tmstworthy evidence. These processes at the disursive level thus
allowed Abe to construct a view of the "comfort woman" issue that downplayed the roleof the Japanese government, thereby contributing to a revisionist view of Japanese history and Japanese identity that continues to be contested in Japan and on a global level.
This study sought to contribute to the larger project of critical discourse analysis inwhich researchers have attempted to uncover the processes at the level of discourse thatserve as the basis for various ideologies. By focusing on the level of interactional discourse, this study was able to el ucidate some of the processes used by one of the leadersof a world power to reinforce a view of a controversial issue, namely "comfort women",that takes responsibility away from Japan for an occurrence refened to as a great atrocity.

Abbreviations·. ·. ; i

BE (various forms of the verb 'be')COM (command form)
HON (honorific form)
HUM (humble form)
GA (government authorities)
NEG (negative form)
0 (direct object)
PAST (past form)
PM (Prime Minister)
PROG (progressive form)
QT (quotative marker)
T (theme marker)
VOL (volitional form)

CM ("comfort women")
COND (conditional expression)
HR (the House of Representatives)
IP (interactional particle)
LK (particle linking nominals)
NOM (nominali zer)
PASS (passive form)
PL (plural marker)
PRES (present form)
Q (questions marker)
S (subject marker)
TENT (tentative form)

!.-

52

References
Amnesty International USA. 2007. Public Statement. The homepage of Amnesty In ternational
USA. <http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id =ENGASA220 172007>
Barnard, C. 2003. Language, Ideology, and Japanese Histo1y Textbooks. London and New York:
Routledge.
Fairclough, N. Language and Power. London : Longman.
Fujioka, N. 2007. "Beikain · Eianfu Tainichi Hinan Ketsugi no Shinsoo" [The US House ofRepresentative ·The Deep Structure of the Resolution that is Critical of Japan Concerning
Comfort Women]. The homepage of Association for Advancement of Unbiased View ofHistory (previously Association for Advancement of Liberal View of History). <http://www.
j iyuu-shikan .orglrekishi 144. html>
Gruber, H. 1997. "The Rhetoric of Trivialization: The Coverage of Right Wing Extremism andNeonazism in Austria's Most Read Tabloid." Political Discourse 11, 129-156.
Hayashi, H . 2001. "The Japanese Movement to Protest Wartime Sexual Violence: A Survey ofJapanese and International Literature." Critical Asian Studies 33:4, 572-580.
Hayashi, H. 2008. "Disputes in Japan over the Japanese Military "Comfort Women" System and
Its Perception in Histmy." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 617, 123- 132.
Hasan, R. 2003. "Globalization, Literacy and Ideology." World Englishes 22:4, 433-448.
Hata, I. 2007. "No Organized or Forced Recruitment: Misconceptions About Comfort Women and
the Japanese Military." (First published in Shokun May, 2007 issue in Japanese. Translated by
the Soceity for the Dissemination of Historical Facts) The homepage of the Soceity for theDissemination of Historical Facts. <http://www.sdh-fact.com/index.html>
Hcin, L. 1999. "Savege Irony: The Imagi nati ve Power of the 'Military Comfort Women' in the
1990s." Gender & Hisoty 11 :2, 336-372.
Honda, M. 2006. United Slates House of Representatives House Resolution 121. McDougall, G.
1998. "Contemporary Forms of Slavery-Systematic Rape, Sexual Slavery armed Slaver-like
Practives during Anned Confliect." The homcpage of United Nations. <http://www.
unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/0/3d25270b5fa3ea998025665f0032f220?0penDocument>
Nakayama, N. Session of the Special Committee for Educational Reform in the House ofRepresentatives on April 20, 2007.
Nishimura, Y. (ed.). 2007. 'lanfu ·Nankin' no Shinjitsu: Shikakerareta Joohoosensoo ni Katsu
Hoho (The Truth About 'Comfort Women and Nank ing': Methods for Winning the MediaWar that Has Neen Set Up). Tokyo: Okura Shuppan.
Ogata, Y. 2007. "The Truth about the Question of 'Comfort Women'." The homepage of theSociety for the Dissemination of Historical Facts. <http://www.sdh-fact.com/index.html>
Sakamoto, T. 2001. Towareru Nihm(jin no Rekishikankaku lThe Questionable Historical Understanding of Japanese]. Tokyo: Keisoshobo.
Schneider, C. 2008. "The Japanese History Textbook Controversy in East Asia Perspective." The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 617, 107-122.
Seaton, P. 2006. "Reporting the 'Comfort Women' Issue, 1991- 1992: Japan 's Contested War
Memories in the National Press." Japanese Studies 26: 1, 99-112.
Shin, S. 2003. "Justice Delayed: Accountability in the 'Comfort Women' Case." In: J. Stromseth(cd.) Accmmtability for Alrocities: National and International Responses, 413-448. New

Trivialization, Generalization, and Semanticization in the Representation of "Comfort Women" Issues

•

I

·~

53

York: Transnational Publishers.
Tanaka, Y. 2002. Japan 's Comfort Women: Sexual Slave1y and Prostitution During World War II
and the US Occupation. London and New York: Routledge.
Tawara, Y. 2001. Kyookasho Koogeki no Shinsoo~ 'Janfu Mondai' to 'Jiyuuchugishikan' no
Sajutsu LThe Deep Structure of Textbook Aattacks: The Tricks of 'Comfort Women' Issues
and the 'Liberal View Toward History']. Tokyo: Gakushuu no Tomo Sha.
Tokyo News Paper article. February 12, 2006. http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/OO/tko/200602 12/Jcl_
tko_003.shtml
Uesugi, S. I 996. 'Ianfu' wa Shookooi ka~ ' Ianfu ' Mondai no Shinj i tsu~Ianfu wa S hokoi ka [Thetruth about 'comfort women ' isses~Are 'Comfort Women ' Business Endeavors?] The homepage of the Center for Research and Documentation on Japan's War Responsibility. <http://
space.geocities.jp/ japanwanes/center/library/uesugiOl.htm>
Yoshida, S. 1977. Choosenjin lanfu to Nihonjin [Korean Comfort Women and Japanese People].
Tokyo: Shin Jinbutsu Oraisba.
Yoshida, S. 1983. Watashi no Sensoo Hanzai~Chosenjin Kyoosei Renkoo [My War Crim es~The
Forced Transport of Koreans]. Tokyo: Sanichi Shobo.
Yoshimi, Y. 2000. Comfort Women: Sexual Slave1y in the Japanese Military During World War
IJ. New York: Columbia University Press.
Violence Against Women in War~Netwo rk Japan (ed. ). 2000. Josei Kokusai Senhan Hotei noZen.kiroku [The Complete Record of the International Women's Tribunal for War Crimes]. I
and II. Tokyo: Ryokufu Shuppan.
Wodak, R. 2006. "History in the Making/The Making of History: The 'German Wehrmacht' inColl ective and Ind ividual Mem01ies in Austria." Journal of Language and Politics 5: I, 125154.
Wodak, R., R. de Cillia, M . Reisig! and K. Liebhart. 1999. The Discursive Construction of National
Identity. Edin burgh: Edinburgh University Press.