We have been talking about the connection between language and character since part 43, but I’d like to wrap up this topic with two supplementary points. (Links to the other essays on this topic: part 43, part 44, part 45, part 46, and part 47)

The first supplementary point I wish to make is that although we have addressed each of the three types of connection separately, they often overlap; in fact, this is the norm.

For example, while the incomparably cool sniper Golgo 13(1) might say to a client “In other words, the target is a strongly childish man,” he would not say “In other words, the target is a botchan.” Also, he might say “He’s probably having a bit of a laugh over there,” but not “He’s probably chuckling gloatingly over there.” The minute Golgo 13 lets mundane expressions such as “botchan” or “chuckle gloatingly” slip out of his mouth, the otherworldly cool character that is Golgo 13 would fracture.

That is, “botchan” is both a character label and Role Language. “Chuckle gloatingly” is simultaneously an expression of character behavior and also Role Language. This theory comes naturally given that all language is just Role Language of differing shades (see part 28 of this series).

*

So far, we have looked at three kinds of connection between language and character, but in fact connections between language and character may not be limited to these three types. I would like to discuss this as my second supplementary point. There are verbs, such as “scold,” “lecture,” and “chide,” in which direct specification of character does not end with the performer of the behavior, but could also extend to the person at whom the behavior is directed.

The performer of such behaviors (i.e. the one who’s scolding) is an individual in possession of authority, while the person on whom such behaviors are performed (i.e. the one being scolded), does not possess authority. This distinction is one that extends to profound aspects of the people in question.

For example, on discovering a parent’s mistake, a child might “shout:” “That’s terrible!” It might even extend to domestic violence, with the child hitting the parent. However, “scolding” is not so simple. It requires a context. For example: “The parent had a number of personality flaws, and had been taken care of by the child for a long time, putting the child through great inconvenience. The child was a person of moral fiber, who usually covered for the parent. But one day, the child was no longer able to stand it.” Even in this situation, there are people who would find it difficult to use the word “scold.”

We can probably assume that designating people as being the passive objects of the verbs “scolded,” “lectured,” or “chided” also designates their character. This amounts to recognizing two subcategories within expression characters: the “performing” expression character and the “performed on” expression character. This creates a connection between language and character that is slightly different from the second type of connection (language expressing the performer of a behavior), that is, a fourth connection (language expressing the person on whom a behavior is performed). This is why I have said, since part 43, that there are “at least” three types of connection.

*　*　*