8

I encountered (for me) the rare use of this expression in the title of a book: "Literacy and Script Reform in Occupation Japan"

There's an article in Wikipedia with a 'post-' prefacing it, that sounds right: Post-occupation Japan If there's a 'post-occupation Japan' there must be an 'occupation Japan' as well, right?

Is "Occupation Japan" idiomatic? Instead of "occupation of Japan", "occupied Japan" or "occupation-era Japan". Would "occupation Germany" also be alright? Were these OK, but have fallen in disuse?

Quora Feans
  • 398
  • 1
  • 4
  • 10
  • 2
    ... the high rate of syphilis and gonorrhea during the first two years of the occupation. This fact of occupation life had led to continual MP raids of the brothels frequented by GI’s. The result of these raids is a vast expanse of statistics that bear out the terrible rampage of venereal disease in early occupation Germany. From a PhD dissertation at Ohio State University in 2003 – Michael Harvey Jul 19 '22 at 19:29
  • 7
    It's not idiomatic to my Canadian ear, but the intent is clear, and it doesn't sound wrong. In academia, it may be normal though. To me, "occupied Japan" is idiomatic. – gotube Jul 20 '22 at 02:01
  • 5
    It's certainly not idiomatic today -- as Jeffreys answer illustrates it's a usage that has fallen out of favor for 'occupied ______' – eps Jul 20 '22 at 07:04
  • 2
    @MichaelHarvey Notice that your example has a modifier ("early"), similar to "post-" in the OP's quote. – Barmar Jul 20 '22 at 14:30
  • 2
    As to post-occupation Japan, I really can't think of another way of describing the years after the Americans went home; it really was a post-occupation period. The post is a modifier to occupation, not to occupation Japan – Flydog57 Jul 21 '22 at 16:17
  • 1
    A similar usage: Searching Google Scholar for "Reconstruction South" returns About 7,220 results. – dbc Jul 21 '22 at 19:08
  • @dbc No doubting the count, there… and who says "Reconstruction South" is a similar usage? Clearly they're grammatically similar and isn't the Question about idiom, not grammar? – Robbie Goodwin Aug 08 '22 at 20:59

5 Answers5

26

I have just searched academic articles indexed by EBSCO, a database used by scholars. I find 248 references to Occupation Japan. Here are three titles that come up in the first page of matches:

The Police in Occupation Japan
Literacy and script reform in occupation Japan
Imaging Hope and Despair in Occupation Japan:

So the phrase is apparently common in the academic world. I notice, however, that most of these works were written in the 20th century.

In contrast, the phrase Occupied Japan yields 867 matches. Titles include the following:

Streetwalking in Occupied Japan
Nuclear Fear, the Red Scare, and Science Policy in Occupied Japan
California, Diplomacy, and Occupied Japan

Furthermore, most of these works were written in the 21st century. So both phrases have been common in academic writing, with Occupied Japan being used 3-4 times more frequently overall and more commonly in recent years.

Jeffrey Carney
  • 6,991
  • 1
  • 19
  • 33
  • 3
    Having spent my school-age years (and then some) in the last quarter of the 20th century, I'd venture that Occupation ___ was already out of use by the 70s, at least, probably 60s if you consider the publication dates of some of the text books I used early on. When in the 20th Century were those 248 references published? Y2K certainly isn't the demarcation point. – FreeMan Jul 20 '22 at 16:46
  • 1
    @FreeMan, actually, a lot were circa 1997 or so. Journal article databases get spotty before the 90s. – Jeffrey Carney Jul 20 '22 at 18:29
  • Interesting. I would not have expected that. – FreeMan Jul 20 '22 at 19:14
  • 5
    Worth pointing out that phrases like "pre-occupation Japan" and "post-occupation Japan" would still be used. It's just the plain "occupation Japan" that now sounds odd to my ears. – Muzer Jul 21 '22 at 09:57
  • 1
    So to conclude, it appears to be a phrase that has historical use, but should be avoided in new writing, as linguistic preferences have changed over time. – A. R. Jul 22 '22 at 20:03
  • @JeffreyCarney Did you notice how unlikely it is that a worthwhile source could return a fewer than 1,200 hits on Occupation or Occupied Japan combined? Do you not think those results must be insignificant, compared to the extant literature? Don't you think there should be many more than 1,200 newspapers interviews, never mind published memoirs by US GIs, let alone any other participants?

    We might take your sources as valid and extrapolate - though on what basis? We might also take the numbers as suggesting those sources are not to be trusted.

    Which would be your own choice?

     – Robbie Goodwin Aug 08 '22 at 21:11
10

"Occupied Japan" seems more likely, for example there is a book Beneath the Eagle's Wings: Americans in Occupied Japan or a paper Occupied Japan: Embracing Defeat or Surviving the Americans?

I can't find use of "Occupation Japan" (it appears in phrases such as "During the occupation, Japan was ...") I don't think "Occupation Japan" is idiomatic. And likewise I'd use "Occupied Germany" in preference to "Occupation Germany".

James K
  • 217,650
  • 16
  • 258
  • 452
9

Yes, this is idiomatic in the sense of 'Japan at the time of its occupation'. Similar expressions are 'Renaissance Italy', 'Tudor England', 'Pre-Civil War America'.

Kate Bunting
  • 54,408
  • 4
  • 69
  • 110
  • 3
    Restoration England? – Michael Harvey Jul 19 '22 at 21:56
  • There's a subtle difference in my mind between "at the time of its occupation" and "at the time of The Occupation". In other words, I would find "occupation Japan" with a lower-case "o" odd; but "Occupation Japan" would put me in mind of the other examples you give, where "The Occupation" is a kind of proper noun referring to a specific time period. – IMSoP Jul 21 '22 at 14:21
  • 1
    I sort of disagree with this. ‘Renaissance’ and ‘pre–Civil War’ are unambiguously periods of time, whereas ‘occupation’ is primarily an act and only secondarily refers to a time frame (‘Tudor’ is different in that it doesn’t use time as the framing). It’s understandable, but it’s not idiomatic to me, though ‘occupation-era Japan’ is. Similar with ‘invasion[-era] Ukraine’, ‘Revolution[-era] Russia’, etc.: used absolutely, these nouns do not result in idiomatic constructions; they need something extra to become adjectival enough to really work. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 22 '22 at 10:07
  • Sorry, Kate… those are only grammatically similar unless you can explain how "'Renaissance" or "Tudor" or "Pre-Civil War" idiomatically equate to "Occupation".

    For comparison, how often have you heard "Occupation…" as opposed to "Occupied…" France or Europe?

    "Japan at the time of its occupation" might by itself be fine, were it not an obvious construct, but how could that justify "Occupation Japan"?

    I think you're trying to justify cheese with chalk; apples with oranges.

     – Robbie Goodwin Jul 28 '22 at 23:58
  • @RobbieGoodwin - 'Japan at the time of its occupation by the Allies' seemed to me to equate with 'Europe at the time of the Reformation/Renaissance' and (as Michael suggested) 'England at the time of the Restoration of the Monarchy'. – Kate Bunting Jul 29 '22 at 07:25
  • @Kate So it should, but that's logic. Where can you find instances of anyone using that idiom? The same applies to "Occupation Channel Islands/Europe/France/ Germany/et al" – Robbie Goodwin Jul 29 '22 at 20:45
  • @RobbieGoodwin - I can't say that I've read much on the subject personally, but others have said that the expression was used in academic writing, even though it's less common today (see Jeffrey Carney's answer below). – Kate Bunting Jul 30 '22 at 07:56
  • @KateBunting Others can say what they like, and what examples have you yourself come across? It remains true both that logically, "Occupation (anywhere)" should work and that that will not work until someone - including, perhaps, you yourself - can cite several examples. Why not cite some examples here and now? – Robbie Goodwin Jul 30 '22 at 21:11
  • @RobbieGoodwin - Since you are determined to argue, I've done an Ngram search. Many results are actually post-occupation Japan or overlap the end of a sentence, but there are certainly some for the exact phrase, e.g. US Courts Martial in Occupation Japan My last word. – Kate Bunting Jul 31 '22 at 07:52
  • @KateBunting I must bow to your research, even though you Post no quantities… Ouch! – Robbie Goodwin Aug 06 '22 at 00:18
2

You already have good answers addressing your main question, so I'll just tackle this aside:

If there's a 'post-occupation Japan' there must be an 'occupation Japan' as well, right?

The construction "post-<noun>" functions more like an adjective or prepositional phrase than a noun. For example, we can obviously say "the occupation was […]", but we don't say *"the post-occupation was […]". (Actually there are two relevant-seeming Google hits for the latter, but it's rare to the point of being negligible.) So the acceptability of "post-occupation Japan" says little about the acceptability of "occupation Japan", just as the acceptability of "occupational hazard" says little about the acceptability of "occupation hazard".

So it's perfectly consistent that "occupation Japan" seems to be controversial (judging from the other answers) even though I don't think anyone would bat an eye at "post-occupation Japan".

Likewise for "pre-<noun>", "mid-<noun>", and "inter-<noun>".

ruakh
  • 4,528
  • 19
  • 26
-5

"Literacy and Script Reform in Occupation Japan" is at best not idiomatic English. What else might matter?

Whether or not it's a published title, what you Posted isn't incapable of being understood but "(anything) in Occupation Japan" at best fails to be a synonym for "Occupied Japan" or "Japan during the occupation."

Is it not obvious that "Literacy and Script Reform (anywhere or when)" will refer to something more obscure rather than anything generally understood?

How could (for you) the rare use of any expression matter? Would you rather drop that or show both where and how you came across it, and then how it might matter?

Is it not clear that there being a "post-occupation Japan" is at best a flimsy hook on which to hang there being an "occupation Japan", right?

"Occupation Japan" is not idiomatic; less so if compared to "occupation of Japan".

Either way, "occupied Japan" or "occupation-era Japan" are not comparable; neither is "occupation Germany"?

Were those OK, they might have fallen into disuse and was that what you meant, or exactly what?

Robbie Goodwin
  • 1,107
  • 7
  • 13
  • 2
    Only the first sentence here seems to even attempt an answer at the question, and it basically just says "no" without any detail or supporting references. The start of the second paragraph is possibly trying to add detail, but even as a native English speaker I'm struggling to understand it, so it's not going to be useful for someone trying to learn the language ("isn't incapable"? "at best fails"?). The rest of the post appears to consist of questions to the author, which isn't what should go in the Answer box on this site, which is very explicitly not a forum. – IMSoP Jul 21 '22 at 09:24
  • @IMSoP Sorry and only if you don't believe what was said, could your objections matter. If you didn't get it, then by definition my Post wasn't clear enough and let's be certain that here, that means clear enough "for you." – Robbie Goodwin Aug 08 '22 at 20:23
  • Well, given that 2 people have upvoted my comment, 4 (plus me) have downvoted your answer, and none have upvoted it or given any other comment, it would seem I am not alone in not understanding how this answers the question. "Believing what was said" has nothing to do with it; I am not questioning the truth of what you wrote, I am questioning whether it belongs in the Answer section of a Question and Answer site. – IMSoP Aug 08 '22 at 20:27
  • @IMSoP Thanks for explaining that, which wasn't clear.

    What do you object to in "Literacy and Script Reform in Occupation Japan" is at best not idiomatic English. What else might matter?

    What do you object to in 'what you Posted isn't incapable of being understood but "(anything) in Occupation Japan" at best fails to be a synonym for "Occupied Japan" or "Japan during the occupation" '?

    If to you queries to Authors don't belong in Answers, why are you following this or any forum?

    Is it more more polite to say "You're wrong!" or "Could it be otherwise?"

     – Robbie Goodwin Aug 08 '22 at 20:49
  • As I said in my first comment, this site is explicitly not a forum, as the [tour] presented to all new users makes clear. The idea is that somebody asks a question, other people attempt to answer it, and that's all that happens. In this case, somebody asked a question, and you rambled on about why the answer doesn't matter anyway, and asked lots of largely rhetorical questions of your own. – IMSoP Aug 08 '22 at 21:35
  • As for "isn't incapable of being understood", what I object to is that it's an impenetrable mess of double negatives. Remember that your audience is someone who doesn't speak English as a first language. If your verbiage gives a native speaker like me headaches trying to follow it, what chance do they have? – IMSoP Aug 08 '22 at 21:42
  • @IMSoP Oh. Sorry. I deleted that apparently irrelevant Comment.

    I meant what I said in my Answer and if that doesn't work for you, of course you're entitled to Reply or Comment. You're not entitled to pretend I had no right to Post an Answer.

    If you'd like to argue, please take yourself to Chat.

     – Robbie Goodwin Aug 08 '22 at 21:56
  • At no point did I say you had no right to post an answer; I tried to explain why I think what you posted is a bad answer, in the context of this site: it is unclear, lacking detail and references, and includes questions to the author which they have no way to answer in the format of this site. My hope was that you would use that information to improve the answer, making it more useful to the person who asked the question; or, at least, to consider how future answers you write might be better received. – IMSoP Aug 08 '22 at 22:01
  • @IMSoP Thanks and please take yourself to Chat. – Robbie Goodwin Aug 08 '22 at 22:04