From “Retorika”(レトリカ ) to “Giron no hō” ——The Generation of Rhetoric Terminology in Pre-Modern Japan

Studies in Logic, Vol. 18, No. 6 (2025): 104–124         PII: 1674-3202(2025)-06-0104-21

Jin Gan

Abstract. The generation of terminology related to Rhetoric in pre-modern Japan evolved in roughly three phases. The first phase (1603-1771), dominated by linguistic contact with missionaries, rendered “Rhetorica” by direct katakana transliteration as retorika (レトリカ ) or retōrika (レトーリカ ) during the initial introduction of Western learning. This phase is characterized by knowledge transplantation primarily through transliteration. In the second phase (1771-1789), as Western knowledge was introduced more systematically via Chinese translations of Western works—especially through the dissemination of Xi Xue Fan and Tengaku shokan taiisho, which used Lè duó lǐ jiā as the translation of “Rhetorica”—Japanese intellectuals gained a preliminary, systematic understanding of the content, nature, and teaching methods of Western rhetoric. The third phase began in the Kansei era (1789), when the term giron was gradually adopted as a translation of Western logic and applied in related translation practices. By 1814, the term rhetorick was clearly translated as giron in Angeria gorin taisei. Research evidence suggests that the term giron originated from the “Giron no hō” proposed in Xi Xue Fan, and that this book clearly influenced the adoption of “giron” in Dutch-Japanese dictionaries. From the first to the third phase, both Japanese missionaries and Chinese intellectuals drew on Buddhist knowledge to introduce Western rhetoric, interpreting it through terms such as dangi, rongi and giron, thereby reframing it within the Buddhist concept of debate. After the Meiji period, giron was gradually abandoned and replaced by shūji. This shift in terminology not only marked the modernization of Japan’s rhetorical terminology system but also signaled a cognitive and identity transformation: Japanese intellectuals began to reposition China from an object of cultural identification to a cultural “Other”.