By Dan Kanemitsu

        The purpose of this introductory essay is to establish significance of researching the challenge Japanese onomatopoeia plays upon semiology dominant in the West. Incorporating Japanese onomatopoeia and mimesis into the scope of semiology will have far reaching implications for other disciplines that rely upon semiology for its theoretical foundations, modern cultural studies being a one of them.

        My methodology and scope of studies have been guided by the my search for a systemic means with which to translate Japanese onomatopoeia and mimesis into the English language. While I feel confidant that the implications of my work will go beyond the realm of technical considerations and models of translating, I must confess that ultimately the goal is to establish a set of guiding principles in translating Japanese gion(mimetic sounds), giseigo(mimetic words), and gitaigo(mimetic descriptive words) into English.

        The primary motivations for this research originate from my frustrations with previous precedents that had been established and espouced by numerous translators in the past. The Japanese language has been considered unique by many and the rich variety and frequency with which one can employ onomatopoeia and mimesis has been one element in the language that makes it stand out from others. Its rich vocabulary and flexibility in application has led other translators to conclude that there should be little effort made to re-create Japanese onomatopoeia in other languages. Much of the reasoning behind this decision has followed the logic that the information that is being communicated through gion (i.e. the "sound of silence", the "sound of flashing light", or the "sound of frustration") cannot be recreated in other languages either because there are no words in the intended language that match the original or because concept being communicated in the original language doesn't exist in the intended language.

        In other words, many have surrendered to the notion that if there are no close equilivance in the words and/or if the references are culturally too unique, its better to re-write the material as oppose to try re-creating it. While this argument may sound convincing at first glance, it also implies that people do not have the capacity to learn and go on appreciate aspects of their surroundings that they were otherwise not aware of. Furthermore, this line of reasoning insinuiates translated material must always be presented in a form that the reader can easily identify with.

        Taken to an extreme, this means the translator must stoop to the level of the lowest common denominator*1 for material intended for mass-marketed release. This methodology can result in the translation looking nothing like the original, or worst yet, the translation is packaged as "domesticized" or made to look as if it was created within the intended*2 nation to begin with. In either case the translation has ceased to become a "translation" and the text has been uprooted from its cultural heritage and contexts. I see little meaning in importing text from another culture and translating it if the process entails robbing the material of its uniqueness and independent cultural discourse.

        I also find it hard to swallow the argument that experiences based on unique perceptions cannot be shared between those of different cultures. If this truly was the case then those with different backgrounds, due to generational gaps and/or regional differences, cannot share experiences because their backgrounds were so different implying that they do not share the same culture. Hence, this line of logic tends to end up saying people never see the same color of red, which is true but that rarely impedes people from agreeing on what constitutes the color red. Furthermore, the existence bicultural children (which I am) also challenges the logic of perceptual exclusiveness based on cultural backgrounds. How can a bicultural person be capable of functioning perfectly well in radically different cultures without having different shapes of perception co-exist? I admit that this is a subjective argument based on personal experiences but this conviction has not been fundamentaly challenged as of yet.

        Is there an alternative to stooping down to the least common denominator? What does it really mean for languages to differ? Can differences in perceptions be bridged across cultural boarders? These are some of the broader questions that this prolegomena will attempt to address beyond the issue of translating.

        People are dependent on language to communicate with one another. Verbal language is only a one out of numerous mediums that we use to communicate with one another. Edward Hall's research*3 has revealed how we communicate intimacy with others based on the physical proximity and how we can communicate approval through means that do not involve any verbal interaction. Our everyday behavior reveal our attitudes and cultural understandings about we interact with the world around us, but language is much more than a common protocol for the exchange of communication. Language determines how we perceive the world around us.

        Language is the means with which we interact with our world in our minds. The words and concepts that are embodied within a language is the means with which people organize their perception of the world which they are resident in. Words give us the means of differentiating things. Chesher cats, tabby cats, black cats, and British short hair cats would be all be lumped together as being cats if it wasn't for the fact we have words such as "tabby" and "British short hair". Thanks to those words, we can differentiate the cats along pre-determined categories instead of having to describe how one cat is different from another based on physical and behavioral traits.

        This process of quantifying and conceptualizing the world around us in terms of words that make up our language filters as well as exaggerates information that we take in. We cannot communicate with others without resorting to language, and since words are the most specific means of communicating that information, the structure and the variety of those words heavily influence not only how we communicate, but also what we communicate.

        People tend to talk about subjects that are easier to describe and/or describe things in terms that are easy to relate and readily available for use. This force is so powerful that we find ourselves describing things in terms that are accepted, but may not be entirely appropriate for what is it is actually describing. "Cartoony", "Bad cop, good cop", "Cyberpunk", and "Teary eyed" are labels that frequency employed to describe the contents of movies, even if those concepts are extremely subjective in nature and they don't always match the content of the movie itself. But knowledge of these labels before watching movies heavily influence our understanding and judgement of the movie.

        Movies that otherwise might have been successful have crashed and burned because of failure to market the movie in a appropriate manor. If a couple hears about a "heart warming animated story where a penguin loner finds true love, learns to overcome his self -doubt and fear of the world, finally to find real happiness that he searched so long for", the couple will make associations with Disney movies because the references to animals and inferences to other romantic movies that they have seen in the past. They couple will more than likely storm out the theater door once they discover that the "Disney-esque love story" they had in mind opens with a war sequence heavily reminist of the Vietnam War, complete with helicopters and innocent civilians being slaughtered, in which the main character is left alone alive after his army buddies suffer tragic and violent deaths. If the couple were to stay on and keep watching (maybe thinking this is a good comedy) they would be treated to the protagonist returning to his home, only to begin a life of a lone homeless man after being unable to re-adjust to civilian life. They entire movie employs animated penguins but the scenery is realistic, giving the impression that this is no disjointed comedy, and all the voices are acted with a sincerity and intimacy toward the characters that are being portrayed.

        The movie would be an absolute disaster in America where animated films not catered to children are not tolerated to be a medium of dramatic storytelling in mainstream society. They pre-conceived notions of what constitutes an dramatic film and what is the type of story appropriate for the medium of animation contradicts each other in minds of most in the US. Therefore, what might have been a novel and innovative approach toward storytelling would more that like to have been laughed at or frowned upon as being highly inappropriate. The meaning were attached to words such as "drama" and "animation" impeded the ability for the viewer to appreciate the film on its own merit.*4

        I do not think I need to illustrate any further in supporting my thesis that the nature of our language molds our thoughts and feelings in shapes we can conceptualize in. We can only grasp reality in forms that are provide by our language. We see the world around us through our raw senses, but we can only identify those things in terms of the words that we have in our minds. Does this mean that people who speak different languages live in different worlds?

        Now that we have clarified and explored some of the consequences language has upon our perception of reality, let us ascertain the structure of language. By here we refer to the verbal language and the written language. While most may consider the written and the vocal language to be one and the same, research regarding the nature and the structer of languages as well as comparative analysis of different languages has indicated otherwise. But for the moment we will concentrate on the issue of spoken Western languages.

        We interact with the world around us by relying on the information provided to us through our senses. But stimuli must be organized and processed first before it means anything to us. Stimuli by itself are loud sounds and shapes of light and color. Stimuli must be differentiated, categorized, and conceptual associations must be made before we can decipher the information. This process is very quick, for most of us don't even realize that this is taking place in our minds. We tend to believe we hear people talking, but in fact we "listen" to people make audio sounds. The audio sounds are converted into words within our minds. Stimuli become concepts and tangible descriptions based on the language because language is what provides us with meaning that we can associate to individual stimuli. People are only capable of conceptualizing the world around them in terms of language at that person's disposal. We cannot describe to others what a rainbow is without using words. We cannot communicate our feelings to one another without expressing them in some tangible form.

        These are the assumptions that the research of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure was based upon and what in fact was discovered through his research. In the course of his pioneering research of semiology and linguistics Saussure established the fundamental principles regarding the nature of the relationship which operates within a language that binds meanings, concepts, and words together.

        Saussure theorized that language, in its most basic form, was comprised of two separate elements. Everything that can be described or talked about is in fact a combination of two separate elements. People employ words to communicate to one another and words, in turn, are comprised of the signified and the signifiers. When I employ the word "cola", I refer to a drink that tastes sweet and usually is dark brown in color. The word "cola" is signifying the attributes that are associated to the drink. Therefore it can be argued that the word "cola" is made up of two different entities. The symbol of the object (such as the word "cola") and the objects itself (dark colored, sweet drink.) The representation itself is the "signifier" and the object of the representation is referred to as the "signified". Together, signifiers and signified constitute a "sign", or in the most basic sense, a word. For in each word, there exists a meaning or a representation associated to an object.

        The structure of signs are assumed to work universally. Everything in our word that has a word associated to it has a meaning attached to it. The signifier is only the label for the object or concept, bound to the meaning or the object of the representation, and it is independent from the meaning or object itself

        Furthermore, Saussure hypothesized that the relationship between the signified and signifier is completely arbitrary. There is no inherit reason behind associating the signifier "cola" with the signified soft drink. The relationship is a result of convention, agreed upon by those that share the culture*5 What logic is there in my name? There is no inherit reason why I should have the name Daniel. I only have this name because my parents gave it to me. What is important is that I am Daniel and not Bob. I have a unique identity to which I can associate specific meanings. I can be Dan instead of Bob. This focus on difference is very important. Saussure ultimately contended that signs only work because they provide the means with which to differentiate. The signs do not assert any identity on its own, but rather it works by setting things apart.*6 Americans can become New Yorkers and Minnesotans, and Minnesotans can become Duluthers and Minneapolisians, and on and on. Signs demarcate and distinguish differences between objects and these differences create allow meaning to develop.

        Saussure also believed that language was ultimately an auditory vehicle in the exchange of information. People communicate with one another through the medium of sound, and as such, individually distinct "sound patterns" are the vehicles that are utilized in the exchange of information. People have been talking to one another for longer then they were communicating to each other through rows of text. You do not have be literate to be able to verbally communicate with others.

        Furthermore, Saussure's established that the relationship between the signifier and the signified was completely arbitrary. The individual associations of sound pattern to specific concepts came about because of convienance.

        One source of dispute was the nature of onomatopoeia. Onomatopoeic words (words that imitate specific sets of sounds) imply a relationship between words that are not arbitrary. Saussure dismissed these words do not hold weight over the structure of language because "...(they) are never organic elements of a linguistic system."*7 Furthermore he asserts that "genuine onomatopoeia" are rare and that "... onomatopoeic words themselves may lose their original character and take that of the linguistic sign in general, which is unmotivated."*8

        Later work by Claude Levi-Stauss, Roland Barthes, and Jacques Lacan among other will expand on the pioneering work by Saussure and establish Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, and beyond. With the coming of Post-Structuralism, the nature of the arbitrary relationship between the signifier and the signified started to change. Jacques Derrida called into question the relationship that Saussure described as being unilateral between the signified and the signifier. Derrida observed that the signifier can strongly influence the how the signified is perceived. The relationship that constitutes a sign was now thought to be more bilateral. This was only a natural progression from Barthes' discourse that emphasized the multi-dimensional aspects of signs and language. What is relevant here is that the later researchers themselves have called into question of the arbitrary relationship as asserted originally by Saussure.

        Nevertheless, Saussure's legacy lives on to this day. Differentiation of cultures have led to the research of the difference in meanings that are associated to the same words. Roland Barthes plunged into the issue straight on by exposing all the arbitrary associations that are attached to symbols and words. Culture has been defined as a mutually shared system of associated meanings.

        One odd ball to all this debate has been the minority group of scholars that espoused that there indeed is a phonetic meaning inherit in language and that certain sounds tend to be associated with similar meanings regardless of culture or language in question. Numerous linguists have tackled the issue of Sound Symbolism, that is the concept that certain sounds symbolize certain meanings, and have had varying degrees of success at uncovering universal tendencies in sound association.*9

        We need not go into details regarding the results of these researchers, but does stand in question is the simplistic assumption of the arbitrary nature of language. As we expand our scope of analysis to include non-Western languages, the issues become far more complex.

        Applying the research conducted by these European researchers to the Japanese language provides us with substantial insight as to the nature of the sign as conceptualized by semiology.

        Takao Suzuki has been a pioneering Japanese linguistics that has gone to extraordinary lengths to reveal the inappropriateness of blindly applying the linguistic principles espoused by Western researchers against the Japanese language. He has been a enthusiastic opponent of "Westernizing" the Japanese written language and has gone to lengths to describe some special unique characteristics of the Japanese language. In "Tozasareta Gengo - Nihongo no Seikai (The Closed Language : The World of the Japanese Language)", he has been very critical of Japanese linguists who have steadfastly advocated the adoption of the Western alphabet and phasing out the Japanese alphabets. His opposition to this is based on the fact that the Japanese written language is an integral element within the language itself, and it cannot be considered to be a passive reflection of the oral language.

        While experts in the West have assumed that the written language by itself does not influence the nature of the ("true") spoken language, Suzuki contends that it indeed actually does. There are numerous instances where the name of a location or the name of an individual sounds nothing like how the place or name is spelled. This is the natural result of "drifting" in the pronounciation that occurs within small communities. But when strangers who are not familiar with the "wrong" but established pronunciation come in large numbers into the community and start pronouncing it the "right" way, the old pronounciation can at times die out.*10

        One strong element that favors the English and other European languages is that there is virtually no limit to the number combinations of distinct syllables that could be employed into the formation of a word. Estimates for the number of distinctly pronounced syllables in the English language reach the range of several thousand. In contrast, the Japanese language does not separate its written alphabet into consinants and vowels. Each letter in the phonetic (kane) alphabet is an distinct sound.*11 There are no more then 47 (48 depending on if you count a passive vowel) distinct sounds in the language. The net effect is that the language is extremely dependent on the written language in order to differentiate large number or words that are similarly pronounced.

        I believe it would be difficult for many of us to function in a society where the number of distinct sounds is extremely limited. According to Saussure, sounds are words and visa versa, so the number of identically pronounced words will be high. We would have to associate numerous meanings to the same sound. Beyond the communication difficulties, it will be difficult to keep track of all the different meanings if there was no means to distinguish them. The Japanese language countered this problem by associating specific visual patterns, or ideograms, to differentiate the meanings. In other words, a Japanese person associates concepts and objects to a set of audio and visual signifiers. When I think of something in Japanese, I conceptualize both the audio signifier and the visual signifier. In conversation, if the two signifiers don't match, I might not understand what the other person is saying and ask the individual to clarify his statement by asking him how that word is written.

        I believe that it is safe to say that depending on the language in question, the written form of the text can have a distinct and unique influence on the spoken language, and furthermore, sounds can embody meaning on its own. Hence, the sound patterns, the visual patterns, and signs*12 are mutually dependent but distinct entities that interact with one another. The interaction of these separate entities constitutes the cognitive process behind the speaker or writer of that language. Let's take a closer look at the Japanese language with the last statement in mind.

        Some fundamental differences between English and Japanese must be established before we go any further. In its written form, Japanese is essentially an ideographic language. While Japanese does have a phonetic alphabet and it is possible to write out entire Japanese sentences in this phonetic form, few dare to. The reason is because many Japanese words are phonetically identical, making it very difficult to communicate long, complex concepts with only a combination of sounds of which you are essentially limited to under 75.*13 The sound pattern "Ueno" could signify a geographical location, a surname, or describe a vertical relationship between objects.

        Another unique aspect of the Japanese language is the availability of three separate alphabets. The Japanese writer has the choice between the Hiragana (the standard, default phonetic alphabet), Katakana (the alternate phonetic alphabet), and Kanji. Kanji are comprised of thousands of Chinese ideographic characters that were imported from China nearly one thousand years ago and have changed little since then. The Kanji characters are comprised of simple ideograms that have meaning on their own but combined with others will take on different meanings as well.

        The availability of three alphabets adds credence to my contention that Japanese is an essentially an ideographic written language because the use of one set of alphabet over another provides the reader with important contextual information. For example, foreign names and onomatopoeia are common written out using the alternate alphabet, Katakana. By writing out something in Katakana, I instruct the reader not to make further inferences regarding what the word means and accept the word either as a distinct sound or pronoun. If I do not do this and write the same word out in Hiragana, the reader will more then likely run through his mind any number of possible Japanese words that fit the phonetic profile of the word in question. In this sense both Kanji and Katakana instruct the reader how a word should be interpreted.

        One more relevant issue is the high context nature of the Japanese language. Suzuki, Gudykunst, and many others have characterized the Japanese language and culture as being "high-context" communication orientated*14. This means that the listener or the reader of Japanese must be more alert to the context of the speech conducted. Not everything is spelled out and the statements may appear uselessly vague when in fact it is actually quite specific. One element which makes high-context communication possible is the sharing of a wide cultural / knowledge database. Confidence in sharing a specific and large cultural referent system allows the speaker to speak in complex and vague terms.

        The Japanese language provides the Japanese speaker and writers with tools that are radically different from that of the English language. One of the most pronounced contrasts between Japanese and English language is the vast difference in the size and structure of onomatopoeic words and mimetic words (words that imitate certain actions and phenomena). While onomatopoeia and mimesis exists in both languages, the nature of these words are so radically different, they should be considered to be close relatives to one another as opposed to twins.

        One more issue must be addressed before we compare the role of onomatopoeia in the two languages. A Japanese person can accept a sound to be a sound more readily then an American. When a Japanese person sees a single syllable, he can simultaniously interpret this as a sound of in it self, as well as accept it as being a building block for a word. "Go" can be interpreted as being the sound of someone being hit, the heavy sound of something making impact, the sound of some one drinking, or a piece in word. I would argue that this has more to do with cultural upbringing and familiarity with learning to accept the concept of sounds in itself existing independent of language as opposed to some intristic nature in the two languages. Different scholars have addressed the issue of how individuals can simultaniously shift between different modes of interpretation*15, but the issue at hand for us is that the Japanese ear is a lot more open to the possibility that the sound they hear or see (be that in the form of a verbal pronouncement or a single letter on a page) is a sound in itself, and not a building block for a word.

        While Saussure may have had the liberty to disregard onomatopoeic words and the challenge it poses to his theory because there are relatively few of these words in the European languages (or so he claims), to ignore onomatopoeia and mimesis would mean disregarding an integral segment in the Japanese language.

        Onomatopoeia and mimesis are everywhere in the Japanese linguistic and cultural landscape. Corporate marketing of products commonly incorporates these words as part of the name of their products. Traditional poetry relies upon them to enrich the songs and prose. They have become an integral and complex part of the Japanese comic books. New words and novel innovations in sound symbolism are invented everyday by that medium, allowing its vocabulary to grow ever richer. Celebrities boast of creating new ones from time to time. You see them every day in what you read. You use them all the time to describe things to people. You think and feel in those terms. Onomatopoeia and mimesis have been with the Japanese for a long time and they will probably continue to be with them for a long time.

        With these elements in mind, let us turn our attention back to the unique problem that faces the translator of Japanese onomatopoeia into English. As stated previously, the two languages differ significantly in language structure and onomatopoeia and mimesis are no exception to this.

        One very unique language is that there is an internal logic at work behind the phonetic association of onomatopoeia to specific sounds. Certain groups of sounds are associated together and the onomatopoeia that represents those sounds is correspondingly similar. Let us examine two groups of Japanese onomatopoeia to illustrate: Sounds that are associated to pumping of fluids and sounds that are associated with metallic sounds produced during the operation of machinery.

        Doku Doku signifies the pumping motion and sound of fluids. You would use doku doku to describe the pumping of the blood by the heart, the operation of a mechanical pump, and/or the flow of fluids that resulted from the pumping action. What is significant is not whether or not the heart actually makes those sounds, but that fact that many Japanese onomatopoeia that represent similar pumping and fluid movement description incorporate the doku doku core root sounds. The thumping of the heart can also be described with doki doki. Sudden surprises that makes one feel as if their heart was about to jump out of their mouths are described with doh-king (single thump.) Do Do Do describes the heart racing. The onomatopoeia for drinking is goku goku. The discharging of fluids in separate intervals is described with dopyu dopyu. Notice that all these sounds are fairly similar. One could argue that even if you did not know the meaning of goku goku, if you knew what doku doku meant, you might be able to make a educated guess as to ascertain that the sound was related to the pumping action of fluids.

        This also holds true in the case of metallic sounds. Metallic sounds are characterized by sharp, distinct high frequency sounds. The clashing of metal against metal is described as kin or kan. This kin / kan sound forms the core root sound for many other sounds. The pumping action of a shotgun: zya-kin. The cracking sound of a trigger: kaki. The twisting / spinning sound of machinery: kiri kiri. The clicking sound when a switch is pressed: kachi. The ticking of the clock: kachi kochi or chiki chiki. The sound of a can rattling about as it falls down a flight of stairs: karan kachan kakin kara kara kara. (Could you tell that the sound at the very end signified the sound of a can wobbling about on a flat surface spinning faster and faster until it finally comes to rest?) All these similar words are share the same core root sounds.

        One can almost say that Japanese onomatopoeia, however crudely, tries to "re-create" sounds as they are created in our environment. The samples are limited in representation by the 50 plus available basic Japanese phonetic alphabet but the clear emphasis is on re-creation not re-wording the sounds. These core root sounds may be crude but the words they build are certainly a far cry from being arbitrary associations.

        Japanese core root sounds are expanded upon but are rarely overturned. New words may be created to differentiate the sounds even further, i.e. the pumping action of thick fluids as opposed to less dense liquids, but all the new words must incorporate the core root sound for it to be recognizable as being part of that family of sounds. These and many other conventions and rules maintain structure and consistency in the ever-expanding world of Japanese onomatopoeia.

        These observations undoubtedly undermine the "sound pattern arbitrary" element of Saussure's theory. Japanese onomatopoeia seem to represent a structure of language where the associations of the words and the sound patterns are not entirely arbitrary and in fact strive to "re-create" the sounds with the phonetic alphabet that is available.

        Furthermore, these same principles that apply to Japanese onomatopoeia are also at work behind the structure of mimetic words. Now mimetic words should be prime examples of the arbitrary nature of language, for no or little sounds distinct enough originate from acts of states of being that mimetic words are trying to portray. And yet Japanese mimesis follow the principle of sound symbolism, where certain sounds and tones are associated to specific meanings and furthermore, mimesis follow the same complex set of rules that oversee onomatopoeia.

        Take for example the Japanese mimetic words that are associated with thick liquids. Now liquids, by itself, does not produce sounds, so the association of the core root sound "doro~" is unquestionably arbitrary. But once this association is established, all other mimesis that incorporate elements of thick liquid in its meaning stubbornly retain association to this core sound. The pouring action of liquids is described in the terms of Dorori. Surfaces covered with thick goo are Doro Doro. Slick surfaces are Nuro Nuro / Nuru Nuru. Doku Doku and Doro Doro go hand in hand as they usually are employed to describe thick fluids. As you can tell, these conventions retain surprising consistency across the board in Japanese language.

        Furthermore the platalization, where the sounds of a word are reinforced the act of palatized pronounciation, bring about similar reinforcements in the meaning of mimesis. "Kusha kusha" (frustrated) will become "Gusha gusha" (emotional turmoil). "Kera kera" (light laughter) becomes "Gera gera" (outburst of laughter). "Sara sara" (smoothing, fine consistency) becomes "Zara zara" (rough, corse surface). In all these cases the original word either was reinforced.

        Even if one were to say that the association of the sounds with mimetic words is an arbitrary act, the phenomenon witnessed with palatization is a clear example of sound symbolism at work.

        In conclusion I believe it is safe to say that certain phonetic sounds have loose associations to certain signified concepts, and these "core sounds" are employed to construct more elaborate and diverse descriptions of concepts.

        In the preface I high lighted the tendencies of translators of Japanese material to avoid the issue of translating Japanese onomatopoeia into English. It has been argued that each languages have their strengths and weaknesses. I have no intention of undermining the argument that prose and rythem are effective means of conveying onomatopoeic sensations in the written world. But the validitity in argument fails miserably with regarding to comic books. Constructing a sequences of words that can convey onomatopoeia is not an option available to the translators of Japanese comic books because the gion employed there is an integral aspect of the visual content of the text. Japanese comic book "sound effects" are intended to be felt, percieved, and/or "heard", and not be read.

        Numerous elements are at work when a comic book is being read by an individual. Motion must be imagined and sounds must be re-created within the mind of the reader. Meaning and signs are conveyed through the selection of scenes and visual elements may be exaggerated to bring to the attention particular aspects of the text. Among all of this is the gion. Japanese onomatopoeia and mimesis that has grown inseparable for some forms of dramatization in Japanese comic books.

        Some comic books have even argued that the Japanese gion could never be properly replicated with the English alphabet because the letters are too "round". Sharp, obnoxious sounds are symbolized in the comic book by writing the gion with sharp angular edges and making them stand out form other visual elements within the page. While I have full faith that this problem for the English alphabet can be overcome with the aid of flexible creativity and experimentation, the argument high lights the complex set of signs that are being sent through the selection of gion and the manor with which they are rendered on the page.

        This complexity in the vocabulary of gion did not come about over night but it has developed to such a point where specific rules and guidelines are distinguishable. As comic books became more sophisticated and complex conventions were formed, comic book authors began to expand the breath and scope of their vocabulary by building on top of the core root sounds that were available to them.

        But what of the differences in perception?

        "When a European gazes at a snowscape, he or she sees snow. An Eskimo looking at the same snowscape would see much more, the reason being that Eskimos have over fifty words to describe snow. Therefore an Eskimo and a (sic) European standing together surveying the snowscape would be in fact be seeing two quite different conceptual scenes."*16 Differences in the perception of reality is one of the hardest gaps to bridge and translators of Japanese comic books into English cope with this issue every day that they work. Translating onomatopoeia and mimesis in Japanese comics is extraordinary frustrating. Translating involves identifying and associating the equivalents between languages in order to re-create the original text in another language. The key question here is finding equivalents. Are English onomatopoeia close equivalents to the Japanese onomatopoeia? Can the existing English onomatopoeia and mimesis structure (or lack there of) be expected to satisfactorily accommodate the subtle differences between specific words? Are there equivalents in English language that corresponds with Japanese mimesis at all?

        Differences in the approaches of translators compel different answers to these questions. What is clear is that any translations conducted will involve the stretching the envelope on one side or another. Either the original Japanese text will have to be stretched in order for it to be more easily understood by their new readers, or the English audience will have stretch themselves to accept conceptualizations that are not common in their language at this time yet.

        I prefer the latter approach because I feel that the translation will remain more faithful to the original text that way. But faithfulness is only one criterion in evaluating the appropriate methodology to employ. Mass appeal and marketability must remain an issue. The translation must be re-produced in a form that is accessible for the new audience, or else there is no meaning behind conducting the translation to begin with. Even taking this into account, I still argue that the audience should push themselves closer to the text rather then the other way around. Many college level textbooks are written in a form that alienates the general public. Those that mean that those books are utter failures? On the contrary, those books are difficult because the content itself is difficult. They are designed so that those that aspire to further their knowledge may find them to be meaningful. Obscure technical jargon maybe frustrating but the alternative is to have text books that are two to three times as long because they must make itself easily understood to even the most novice of readers.

        The lesson is clear. Books should be written in a form appropriate for its audience and provide it with knowledge that it can uniquely and effectively provide. The distinctive onomatopoeia and mimesis in Japanese comic books can be made into a leverage instead of a liability. If there was someway to allow the English speaking audience to appreciate the nuisances of the Japanese onomatopoeia and mimesis, the very cultural hindrance could be touted as a sophisticated literary tool unique to itself which sets it apart from others. For these reason and more, I firmly believe that devising an onomatopoeia and mimesis system unique to English is advantageous. The Pseudo Sounds Project. There is no reason why the English language could be made richer in scope and vocabulary.

        One needs not disregard the conventions that have been established already in the English language. Systemic organization and devising basic principles that guide the use and the development of English onomatopoeia and mimesis can take into account the previous vocabulary. What is more important is those that employ the new "pseudo-sounds" to recognize and properly understand the principle that govern language in general. This will both guide and give structure to his or her work.

        By this time my readers must understand what compelled me to mount the Pseudo Sounds Project. While you may not be in agreement over the methodology that I plan to employ in translating Japanese onomatopoeia and mimesis into English, the reader should clearly see that a significant obstacal remains in the path before Americans can appreciate Japanese comics closer to its native form. If one can devise other effective approaches toward resolving this issue, I would love to hear it. However for the moment, the Pseudo Sound Project appears to be the only means with which to reach that goal.

 

*1 The "lowest common (cultural) denominator" is the body of references and conceptualizarions that the vast majority of the members of that culture is considered to share.  While similar cultural literacy, LCCD is better understood as standards that text must abide by in order to avoid challanging the perceptions of the wide public and onform to the specifications of the culture's hegemony.

*2 Through out this essay, the term "intended" and "target" is used to describe the language that the translation is being attempting to conform to.  By the same virtue, "orginal" and "master" is used to describe the original language or culture in which the material being translated was created in.

*3 The masterful anthropologist's research has been published in paperback form by Doubleday Abchor for both "The Silent Language" (originally published 1959) and "The Hidden Dimension" (published 1966).

*4 While the situation that I have described here is a simulation, the movie described is real.  "Penguin Memories" was released in 1985, Japan.  One a related note, the failure of one animated Japanese movie at the box office, "The Wings of Honemise" has been attributed to the marketing strategy of catering the advertisements toward family with chidren when in fact the movie was social commentary presented through an space race that takes place in a fictional (but very realisticly presented) world.  Philosophy laden images interspersed between a slow plot line was not what single child families of Japan had in mind, appearently.

*5 John Storey, An Introductory Guide to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, Athens, GA: University of Gerorgia Press, 1993, p. 70

*6 Ibid.

*7 Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans. Roy Harris, London: Duckworth, 1983, p. 69

*8 Ibid.

*9 Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols, and John Ohala, "Introduction: Sound-symbolic processes" in Sound Symbolism, Ney York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 1 - 10.  See also Reuven Tsur, What makes sound patterns expressive?, London: Duke University Press, 1992 and Robin Allott, "Sound Symbolism" in Language in the Ice Age ed. by U. Figge and W. Koch. Bochum: Brockmeyer. 1995.

*10 Takao Suzuki, Tozasareta Gengo - Nihongo no Sekai, Tokyo: Shinchousha, 1975, pp. 59 - 64.

*11 When my name (Kanemitsu) is pronounced in Japanese, the words are phonetically in CV-CV-CV-CV manor, but my first name (Daniel) reveal a very different phonetic pattern of CvC VvC.  Most Japanese words will only look like CVCVCV if written in the English alphabet.  See Ibid., pp. 41 - 46 for more.

*12 Here I refer to the "Sign" as envisioned by Saussure where a signified and the signifier comprise one distinct conceptual building block employed for communciation.  I guess you could I refer to the "word in itself".

*13 This includes some of the more common palatalization of the sounds.  Assuming that the average length of a word is 3 syllables, the Japanese language's maxium number of theoretically possible combinations of 75 x 75 x 75 x 75 = 421875.  Now this may sound large but the English language, with it's thousands of distinct sounding syllables (let's be really conservative and say 1000) can have anything upto 1000 x 1000 x 1000 = 1000000000 different combinations.

*14 See William B. Gudykunst and Tsukasa Nishida, Bridging Japanese / North American Differences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994. and Communication in Japan and the United States, edited by William B. Gudykunst, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993

*15 Richard Rhodes, "Aural Images" in Sound Symbolism, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 276 - 292. and R. Tsur, What makes sound patterns expressive?, 1992.

*16 Storey, 1993, p. 71.