A review of discourse analysis in Japanese geography: Dispersed words converge in geographic spaces

Abstract

Many articles analyzing linguistic resources have appeared in Japanese geographic journals since the late 1990s. Although those articles discuss the same type of resources using similar methods, they have not referred to each other and been articulated. The authors assume that the reason for this is that the themes of articles have varied and many geographers are not interested in the methodologic and epistemologic issues that are shared in the articles. On the other hand, most review articles in Japanese geography have not discussed methodology but generally introduced diversity themes and trends international geography and related disciplines. The situation of Japanese geography differs from that of Anglophone geography in which methodologic and critical discussions have revolved around linguistic studies across themes and disciplines. The authors think that empirical studies are the most important while considering trends in Anglophone geography and wish to share arguments common to the humanities and social sciences. Our purposes in examining these Japanese geographic studies methodologically and epistemologically are to point out the problems and explore methods of discourse analysis in geography. First, the authors determine that Japanese geographers have analyzed various resources from the literature, newspaper articles, and reports of conferences, to dialogues from their fieldwork. Second, the authors ascertain that this concept contained these variations by performing an overview of the arguments based on the concept of discourse. Third, the authors introduce discussions by Anglophone geographers and make our stance on discourse analysis in Japanese geography clear. Finally, by examining Japanese geographers' articles regarding discourse analysis in detail, the authors identify the direction and geographic implications of this of study. Briefly, discourse analysis attempts to understand and criticize the dynamics of the discursive force that can make many people voice similar opinions and think in the same way unconsciously. Therefore we cannot avoid the matter of the language that we use without criticism and reflection, although geographic studies do not have to analyze too deeply the language itself. Geographic discourse analysis should start with an analysis of geographic content expressed in linguistic texts. The authors hope that Japanese geographers who are interested in linguistic resources will also focus on both the geographic spaces in which dispersed words converge and the process by which diverse texts are produced, interpreted, and consumed in the geographic spaces. However, since geographic studies analyzing linguistic resources include many themes, the authors do not think that it is best for geographers to standardize the wide range of studies to fit discourse analysis. Future studies investigating linguistic resources could vary in method and theme. If those studies are not consistent with expectations, we will accept them in their diversity. On that basis, it is important to examine critically the thinking that creates such differences and the problematic points in specific studies.