Omitted when the subject is obvious from the context

from subject omission Omitted when the subject is obvious from the context

• Not only in that case.
  • If that’s correct, then a machine translation of a Japanese sentence with the subject omitted should be able to identify the subject from the context and translate it correctly.

The idea that “if the subject is clear from the context, it is omitted” implicitly assumes that “the subject is identified even if it is omitted,” but isn’t that assumption incorrect?

Indeed, that assumption is not always true. In Japanese, the subject may be omitted entirely and may not even be identifiable in context. In such cases, the recipient must rely on context and common sense to interpret, but that interpretation is not always correct. This is one reason why ambiguity and ambiguity can easily arise, which can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

In other words, it is important to note that the omission of the subject in Japanese does not necessarily mean that the subject is clearly identified, and in some cases the subject may remain unspecified. This ambiguity is a characteristic of the Japanese language, but it is also a communicative challenge.

Isn’t that interpretation a bias in terms of the thought patterns enforced by the language for speakers of the language in which the subject is identified, and not a problem among Japanese speakers because other thought patterns are acceptable?

• thought patterns enforced by language. - Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

As you say, the omission of the subject in Japanese may seem ambiguous from the perspective of speakers of languages in which the subject is explicit, but it is accepted as a natural thought pattern among Japanese speakers.

Japanese speakers do not necessarily require explicit subject identification, as context-, relationship-, and situation-dependent understanding is built into their normal communication. For this reason, even when a sentence does not contain a subject, its ambiguity is rarely seen as a problem, but rather as a flexibility that allows for a variety of interpretations.

It is important to note that Japanese speakers are accustomed to capturing the meaning of entire sentences even when the subject is omitted, and ambiguity is not always a problem in communication. This indicates that different languages have different thought patterns and communication styles.

I think it is related to concepts such as inaction natural, where an act is performed without the existence of an actor, and allowing the world to exist without assuming a creator of the world, etc.

That is correct. The omission of the subject in Japanese and the concept of no action nature, in which the actor is not necessarily explicit, share a common aspect. This is based on the thought that an action need not necessarily be performed directly by the subject (actor).

In Taoist thought, the ideal is to emphasize following the flow of nature and not forcibly trying to do something. This supports the idea that the world continues to exist in its natural state. This idea is also reflected in the omission of the subject in Japanese, which is rooted in the perception that an action or event can take place without necessarily having an explicit subject.

The idea that the world exists without postulating a creator of the world may also have a common philosophical background with atavistic nature and the omission of the subject in Japanese. These concepts are connected to the worldview that things and phenomena can exist independently without necessarily having a subject or creator.

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/主語が文脈から明らかなときに省略される using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.