Chapter 6The History of Ainu Language Description and Previous Research

6.1 Early written records

Early records of Ainu were produced for trade, travel, administration, and missionary work. Refsing describes Matsumae no koto — Ezo kotoba no koto, dated to around 1600, as a collection of 117 words and short phrases for merchants. She also discusses Jeronymo de Angelis's 1621 list, whose 54 items include 36 numerals Refsing (1986: §1). Their selection of vocabulary reflects their immediate purposes.

The 蝦夷方言藻汐草 (Ezo hōgen moshiogusa), compiled by Uehara Kumajirō and Abe Chōzaburō, was published in 1792 and again in 1804. Refsing describes nearly 3,000 words organized by meaning, together with phrases and short texts. She traces its use by later scholars, including Pfizmaier's nineteenth-century grammatical work in Europe Refsing (1986: §1).

The early record also includes material from the Kurils and Sakhalin. Its geographical provenance, spelling practices, copying history, and translations must be considered before drawing phonological or grammatical conclusions Refsing (1986: §1). The conventions of historical sources are examined in Chapter 14 (Historical Orthographies and the Batchelor Tradition).

6.2 Batchelor and Piłsudski

John Batchelor's Ainu–English–Japanese dictionary appeared in several editions, from 1889 to the revised fourth edition of 1938. His publications also included translations and grammatical description, written in a Latin transcription that influenced later readers' access to Ainu Refsing (1986: §2.1); Batchelor (1905); Batchelor (1938).

Refsing recounts Chiri Mashiho's criticism of mistranslations, unattested entries, and incorrect forms in the dictionary. Her assessment allows for useful material while requiring individual entries and analyses to be checked Refsing (1986: §2.1). This affects the use of Batchelor as evidence: a printed form establishes what his edition records, while its accuracy as an Ainu expression requires further support.

Bronisław Piłsudski's Materials for the Study of Ainu Language and Folklore, published in 1912, contains Sakhalin texts with translations Piłsudski (1912); Refsing (1986: §1). This documentary tradition provides a basis for comparison with Hokkaido material, as well as evidence for Sakhalin Ainu in its own right. Regional differences are treated in Chapter 162 (Sakhalin and Northern Kuril Comparisons).

6.3 Ainu writers and the Kindaichi–Chiri descriptions

Chiri Yukie's アイヌ神謡集, published in 1923, presents Ainu divine songs with Japanese translations Chiri Yukie (1923). Kannari Matsu recorded a large narrative repertoire in manuscript. Refsing describes the seventy notebooks associated with Kindaichi's work on their translation and annotation Refsing (1986: §2.2). Ōno places both women's writing in the history of Ainu people recording their own language Ōno (2022: §3).

Kindaichi's grammatical studies were closely connected with his interpretation of oral literature. The 1936 outline by Kindaichi and Chiri brought together an account of Ainu grammar; Chiri's 1942 study focused on Sakhalin Kindaichi & Chiri (1936); Chiri (1942). Chiri subsequently developed lexical, etymological, and place-name research, including his classified dictionaries Refsing (1986: §2.3).

The analyses changed the interpretation of familiar forms. Refsing credits Kindaichi with recognizing bound person affixes and with distinguishing the ordinary noun form from a form related to a possessor. She then compares the different restrictions Kindaichi, Chiri, and Tamura placed on that nominal opposition Refsing (1986: §2.4.1). The forms are described in Chapter 44 (Concept, Affiliative, and Personal Forms).

Refsing also contrasts their methods of organizing the description. A classification beginning with semantic relations such as location or possession can group together expressions with different grammatical distributions. Her own approach, following Tamura's use of formal criteria, asks which forms occur in the same positions and constructions Refsing (1986: §2.4.1). This methodological difference helps explain why the same material may appear under different word-class or construction labels in successive grammars.

6.4 Dialect comparison and post-war grammars

Hattori and Chiri's 1960 lexicostatistical study compared nineteen dialects using a 200-item basic-vocabulary list Hattori & Chiri (1960); Refsing (1986: 52). Hattori's later dialect dictionary supplied a larger comparative lexical resource Hattori (1964). The classifications drawn from such material and their limitations are discussed in Chapter 159 (Dialect Classification and Dialectometry).

Tamura's work on Saru includes studies of morphology and syntax, recorded texts, a dictionary, and a grammar. Her analysis of form and distribution is an important point of comparison in Refsing's Shizunai description Refsing (1986: §3.4). The Saru dictionary Tamura (1996) and the English grammar Tamura (2000) provide different routes into that body of work. Citations marked as reported identify uses of the grammar through another publication.

Refsing's monograph describes Shizunai morphology and syntax and contains an extended comparison with earlier analyses Refsing (1986). Other regional descriptions include Asai's Ishikari study and Murasaki's Sakhalin grammar Asai (1969); Murasaki (1979). Shibatani's survey places Ainu alongside Japanese and Ryukyuan in a broader account of the languages of Japan Shibatani (1990).

Chitose documentation expanded through work by Satō, Nakagawa, and Bugaeva from the 1980s onward Nakagawa (2024: 96). Satō's 2008 grammar is based on material supplied by Shirasawa Nabe. Its preface records her request that her words remain attributable to her and explains Satō's decision to preserve her expressions in the examples Satō (2008: preface). Such provenance is part of the descriptive record, alongside the analysis supplied by the linguist.

6.5 Specialist studies and published corpora

The Handbook of the Ainu Language, edited by Bugaeva, brings together studies of documentation, phonology, grammar, dialectology, historical linguistics, oral literature, and revitalization Bugaeva (2022). Its chapters give separate treatments of such domains as phonology Shiraishi (2022), valency Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022), reconstruction Alonso de la Fuente (2022), and dialectology Nakagawa & Fukazawa (2022).

Nakagawa's 2024 reference grammar is based chiefly on Saru, with frequent Chitose examples and comparisons across several other Hokkaido varieties. Its introduction explains both that dialectal scope and its intended use as a reference for people speaking or writing Ainu Nakagawa (2024: 16). The descriptions overlap enough to permit comparison, but their evidence differs in dialect, speaker, and genre.

Studies devoted to individual constructions include work on applicatives Bugaeva (2010), incorporation Satō (2016), and evidentiality Dal Corso (2018). These studies address questions that a general grammar may handle briefly, including the diagnostics for a particular analysis and variation across contexts. The relevant grammatical chapters compare their findings.

Published recordings and annotated corpora make some of the underlying speech accessible alongside its transcription and translation. NINJAL’s Glossed Audio Corpus of Ainu Folklore presents such materials Nakagawa et al. (2016). Their speakers, genres, and annotation practices are described in Chapter 8 (The Oral-Literature Corpus and Spoken-Language Data). They complement grammatical publications by allowing particular analyses to be checked against the recorded examples.