72864
The following is from [this](https://www.fukuishimbun.co.jp/articles/-/946344)
article.

> 関電は日本の原子力事業の旗振り役となってきた経緯があり、この問題がもたらす影響は計り知れない。

I am not sure what value となってきた経緯があり brings to this sentence. Is it simply a
more formal or poetic alternative to となり or となってきて?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-01T15:59:14.833
72855
2019-11-08T16:48:15.420
32979
question
meaning nuances ambiguity
The redundance of 経緯
> Is it simply a more formal or poetic alternative to となり or となってきて?

By the title, you are confused with combo of 「となってきた + 経緯」 and you feel the
explanation is redundant rather than it is a more formal or poetic alternative
to となり or となってきて , right?

If I adopt this, the explanation is below.

  * 「となってきた」here describes the moment of events actually has been going on.
  * 「経緯」here describes "a series of event" rather than what they are actually working on.

Let's say, buying some can of beverage from vending machine.

Putting money into the machine and choose one of the beverages, you will see
the moment the beverage and money actually are dropping out into the slot from
the machine. And, you might say something like
that「お金を入れると自販機から、缶とたくさんお釣りが出てきた。」

However, if the vending machine won't give anything by putting money into, you
might need to explain a series of events what you have done so far and where
you felt something wrong happened rather than saying the concrete moment you
were working on to fix the error. It's「お金と飲み物が自販機から出てこない経緯」.

So, 経緯 describes the reason and sequences of events rather than just
concatenating each moments.

> 関電は日本の原子力事業の旗振り役となってきた経緯があり、この問題がもたらす影響は計り知れない。

_Since Kanden has been a leading player of Nuclear Industry in Japan so far,
the impact that this issue would make is unmeasurable._
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-02T01:52:01.747
72864
2019-11-02T01:52:01.747
34735
72855
answer
経緯 tends to be used in more formal situations but has no poetic streak.

In general, there can be a subtle--almost unnoticeable--difference in meaning
between となってきた and となってきた経緯があり. But I believe there is no semantic difference
in the case of the sentence in question, so the segment 経緯があり here is
considered redundant in terms of comprehending what it means.

For native Japanese speakers, the expression（〜という）経緯があり is useful when
explaining a series of events (what has been going on) because it gives a more
sophisticated and more professional impression. As such, people sometimes
abuse it without noticing. The sentence is such an example.

Therefore, there is no difference between となってきた and となってきた経緯があり, when
translating the following sentence.

> 関電は日本の原子力事業の旗振り役となってきた経緯があり、この問題がもたらす影響は計り知れない。

My translation is:

This issue could have profound and far-reaching implications, given Kansai
Electric Power Co. (Kepco) has been playing a leading role in the nuclear
power industry in Japan.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-03T11:38:54.380
72884
2019-11-03T11:38:54.380
35664
72855
answer
What you see is an _appositive clause_. For example, we can say in English:

> The fact that his fingerprints were not detected at the crime site did not
> change the conviction.

The word "fact" just refers to the same thing the whole clause led by "that"
does. Is the "fact" redundant, that is, useless? While it is technically
omissible, the wording using "the fact that" has its own place in English
expression. Plus, strictly speaking, it does add a piece of meaning that what
said after is a "fact".

経緯 works similarly in Japanese. If we make a translation leaving out the word,
it'd be like:

> For KEPCO has a 経緯 that it has been a standard-bearer of the nuclear
> industry in Japan, this issue could have an immense impact [on the
> industry].

The Japanese word 経緯 roughly means "background", "historical development", or
"the story so far", and very frequently used in such a way accompanied by an
appositive clause. Obviously, English does not seem to have a word that can
directly translate it, so you may simply omit it in translation (that may be
why it strikes you as redundant), or show it by other means:

> Considering (the background) that KEPCO has been...  
>  Since KEPCO has been known for being...  
>  Given the KEPCO's established reputation being...
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-08T16:42:07.943
72985
2019-11-08T16:48:15.420
2019-11-08T16:48:15.420
7810
7810
72855
answer