formal forms and discernment two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness

8/16/2019 Formal Forms and Discernment Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of Linguistic Politeness

1/26

orma l

forms and discernment: two

neglected

aspects

of

universals

of

l ingu i s t i c politeness

S H I K O I E

Abstract

Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) proposed principles of language usage

according

to

politeness, which they

claim to be universal. Their principles

are supported by evidence from three languages of different origins.

However, t he universality

of the

principles

is

questionable from

th e

perspec-

tive

of

languages with

honorifics,

in

particular Ja panese. Th eir

framework

neglects tw o

aspects

of

language

and

usage which

are

distinctly relevant

to

linguistic politeness

in

Japanese.

The

neglected linguistic aspect

is the

choice

of

formal linguistic forms among varieties with different degrees

of

formality. The neglected aspect of usage is

discernment :

th e Speaker s use

of

polite expressions according t o social conventions rat

her

than interac-

tional strategy. Th is paper

Claims

that a comprehensive framework for

universals of

linguistic politeness will have

to

incorporate these aspects

and

shows how Brown and

Levinson s

framework puts these aspects outside of

their

scope. Finally,

th e

justification

of the

comprehensive framework

is

discussed in terms of W eber s typology of actions and Habermas theory of

communicative action.

ntrodu tion

In the past fifteen years, universal principles of linguistic politeness have

been presented, notably by LakofF 1973, 1975), Brown and Levinson

1978, 1987) and Leech 1983).

In

discussing

th e

problems

of

judging

the

grammaticali ty

of a

sentence,

Lakoff argues

th e

need

to

consider

the

context

of a sentence. The

context

has to be

analyzed,

she

Claims,

in

terms

of rules

people

follow

in

speaking,

Multilingua 8-2/3 1989) 223-248 0167-8507/89/0008-0223

2.00

© Mouton de Gruyter

Brought to you by | Universita degli Studi di C

Authenticated

Download Date | 3 31 16 11:24 AM


2/26

224

S

Ide

i.e. rules

of

pragm atic competence, w hich consist

of the

rule

o f

clarity

and

the rule of politeness. The rule of politeness, in turn , is elaborated into

three

further

rules .

They

are

keep

aloof,

give options

and

show

sympathy .

Basing their Claims on face and rationality , comm on properties of

human

beings, Brown

and

Levinson posit

the

universals

for o ne

aspect

of

language use, i.e. linguistic politeness,

and

they present

a

framework

of

strategies for politeness. This consists of five major clusters of strategies

with which most polite, deferential

or tactful

verbal expressions

in

different

cultures and languages can be explained. These clusters are

w ithou t redressive action, baldly , positive politeness ,

negative

politeness ,

O ff record , and

don t

do the Face Threatening

Act .

2

Leech, in attempting to present the overall principles of pragmatics,

treated the politeness principle äs one of the three principles in inter-

personal rhetoric. This politeness principle consists of six maxims: tact ,

generosity ,

approbation ,

m odesty , agreement

and

sympathy .

What is common among these pioneering works is that they claim,

whether

explicitly

or

not,

th e

universal applicability

o f

their principles

of

linguistic politeness. However, when examined

in the light of

languages

with honorifics, such

äs

Japanese, none of these frameworks appears

adequate enough.

The

major linguistic devices

for

politeness

in

Japanese

either

fall

outside of these fra m ew orks or

play

a minor part in them. The

frameworks

thus appear to be the product of the Western academic

tradition, since even Brown and Levinson, who

dealt

with Tzeltal and

Tam il besides En glish, could not avo id an ethnocen tric bias toward

Western languages

and the

Western perspective.

In this paper, neglected aspects in the so-called universal principles of

linguistic politeness are presented and explained with Illustration, focus-

ing on Brown and Levinson s framework, which is the most comprehen-

sive of the three, I

will

point out the

deficiencies

of their f ramework. I

will

then

a t tempt

to incorporate a

Western

and a non-W estern

perspective

in

terms of the sociological typology o f actions.

he

efinition

of linguistic politeness

While copious discussion on linguistic politeness has been carried

on, we find

little discussion

of

what linguistic politeness

or

politeness

itself is.


Authenticated



3/26

Formal orms and discernment 5

Lakoff states that politeness

is

something developed

in

societies

in

order to reduce friction in personal interaction (1975: 64). Brown and

Levinson state politeness,

l ike

formal diplomatic protocol, presupposes

that potential

for

aggression äs

it

seeks

to

disarm

it, and

makes

possible

communicat ion between potentially aggressive parties (1987:

1).

Leech

states that politeness is an important missing l ink between the Gricean

cooperative principle and the problem of how to relate sense to force

(1983: 104).

None

of

these works presents

a definition

which gives

us a specific

notion of

linguistic

politeness. Therefore, it seems necessary to clarify here

what we mean by linguistic politeness. I

define

linguistic politeness äs the

language

usage associated with smooth communication, realized

1)

through the speaker s use of intentional strategies to allow his or her

message to be

received favorably

by the

addressee,

and 2)

through

the

speaker s choice of expressions to conform to the expected and/or

prescribed norms

of

speech appropriate

to the

contextual Situation

in

individual

speech communities.

Here, mention

must be

made

of the

difference between

the

terms

polite

and politeness . The term

polite

is an adjective like deferential and

respectful .

It has a positive meaning: having or showing good manners,

consideration for others, and/or correct social behavior .

3

Politeness, on

the other hand, is the neutral term. Just äs

height

does not refer to the

state of

being high , politeness

is not the state of being polite .

Therefore,

when

we

talk

about

linguistic

politeness, we refer to a

cont inuum

stretching

f rom

polite to

non-polite

(i.e. zero polite, that is,

unmarked for politeness) speech.

egle ted spects

Heretofore neglected aspects

will be

discussed

f rom tw o

perspectives:

language

and

use.

Language: Formal orms

The point concerning language arises

from

the

fact

that

B rown

and

Levinson s

f ramework

fails

to give a proper account o f formal linguistic

forms such

äs

hono rifics, which

a re

among

the major

means

o f

expressing

Brought to you by | Universita degli Studi di Ca

Authenticated



4/26

226

S.

Ide

linguistic

politeness in some languages. In Japan ese, polite requests can be

expressed even

in

im perative forms,

if

h onorific verb

forms are

used.

(1)

Kore-o

yome.

(The

marks a

non-polite

sentence.)

this-ACC read

Read this.

(2) K ore-o o-yomi-nasai mase.

read-REF.

HONO.

A D.

HONO.

Read

this. '

(3)

K ore-o yoma nai ka.

NEG

QUES

Won t you

read

this?'

(4)

Kore-o

o-yomi-ni-nan mase n ka.

read-REF. HONO. AD. HONO .

NEG.

'Won' t

you read

this?'

(1) is a simple impe rative w itho ut honorifics, and thus is not polite. (2) is

imp erative but refere nt and addressee h ono rifics are used. Therefo re, it is

polite. (3) is m ade polite by the use of

specific

strategies: it has been

made

less imposing

by the

strategy

of its

transformation into

a

negative

and

interrogative form . (4) is the com bination of (2) and (3), and therefore the

most polite

of

these examples.

We have seen in the example sentences that there are two types of

device to m ak e an u tterance polite: one is the choice of form al form s

äs

in

(2),

and the

other

is the u se of

strategies,

äs in

(3).

It is the

former device,

th e

choice

of

formal forms, that

is

neg lected

in the

framework proposed

by Brown

and

Levinson.

The use of

formal forms

is not

un ique

to

honorific languages. Well

k n o w n

examples

wou ld be the

choice

of the

pronoun

V

(Vous)

in

contrast

to T

(Tu)

and the

choice

of the

address

term TL N

(Title plus Last Nam e)

in

contrast

to FN

(First Name)

to

m ark politeness.

The con trast of

formal

vs. non-formal

forms

is

observed

in the

fo rm s such

äs 'hello' vs.

4

hi ' , and

'purchase' vs.

'buy '

and

'dine'

vs. eat . Besides the lexical

level,

w e have

formal

forms

on the

discourse levels. Examples

are found in

courteous

speech

formulas

such

äs ' thank you',

'excuse me', and

4

it's

my pleasure'.

Using or not

using such formal formulas

is

another example

of the

contrast of formal vs. non -formal .

Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) treat some ofthose formal forms äs

expression s of neg ative politeness strategies. How ever, they should not be

categorized

äs

strategies, since there are some fundamenta l diiferences


Authenticated



5/26

Formal forms and discernment 227

between

th e

choice

of

formal forms

and the use of

strategies.

Formal

forms are 1)

limited

in

choice,

2) socio-pragmatically

obligatory,

3)

grammatically obligatory,

and 4)

made

in

accordance with

a

person

who

is

not necessarily the addressee, the referent or the Speaker him/herself.

First, while the use of strategies allows a potentially u nlimited nu m be r

of

linguistic expressions,

the use of

formal forms

is a

matter

of choices

among a limited set of forms. It is very often the case that the choice is

made between two alternatives.

Choosing a formal form

or

expression out of limited

varieties

of

formality makes an utterance polite for the following reasons. According

to

Levinson, formal forms should

be

explained

äs

conventional implica-

ture 1983: 129ff). Implicature makes an utterance polite by its indirect-

ness. Ide states,

'When

formal forms

are

used, they create

a

formal

atmosphere w here participants

are

kept away from each other, avoiding

imposition. Non-imposition

is the

essence

of

polite behavior. Thus,

to

create a formal atmosphere by the use of formal forms is to be polite'

1982:

382).

Second, the choice of form al lingu istic form s is obligatory in the light of

social conventions.

5) jfSensei wa kore o yonda

prof.-TOP read

The

professor read this.'

6) Sensei w a kore o oyom i ni natta.

REF.HONO.

FAST

'The professor read this.'

In

6),

an honorific form is

used

in referring to the

action

of a

person

of

higher

Status,

in

this case

a

professor. This

is

because

the

social rules

of

Japanese society require

one to be

polite

to a high

Status person

like

a

professor.

This

use of an

honorific verb form

is the

socio-pragmatic

equivalent

of grammatical concord, and may thus be termed socio-

pragmatic concord. Subject-predicate concord is determined by the social

rule of the

society

in

which

the

language

is

used.

In

Japanese society

6) is

appropriate,

but 5) is

not. Thus,

the

concord

of honorifics is socio-

pragmatically obligatory.

Levinson,

in

discussing honorifics

äs the

linguistic form

in

which

socially

deictic Information

is

encoded, distinguishes

tw o

honorifics, i.e.

relational

and absolute 1983:

90-91).

He

further

states that the relational

variety

is the m ost imp ortant . How ever, it mus t be remembered that this


Authenticated



6/26

228 S Ide

can only be said w i th reference to

egalitarian

societies. In societies w h ere

an h onorific System is

elabo rately developed,

it is the

absolute variety th at

is basic. O ne finds evidence for th e abso lute variety in a diachro nic stu dy

(Brown

and

Gilman 1960)

and in the

description

of

honorific

System s in

stratified

societies (Geertz

1960,

Ko shai 1987). In Japan , too, th e ab solute

variety of

honorific

can

still

be

found.

or

example,

in the

Syuri area

of

Okinaw a Prefecture,

th e

address te rm s

for

parents

and

grandparents

and

the

response

forms

are determ ined according to the

Speakers

social

class,

i.e.

sizoku

(a family of the samurai class) or

heimin

(a com m oner) (Sibata

1988:

6). Levinson makes the general claim t ha t the absolute variety is

used

either by authorized

Speakers or

toward

authorized

recipients

(1983:91). Figure

l

i l lustrates forms

of

response

in

Syuri dialect used

by

auth orized S peakers speaking to auth orized recipients.

SPEAKER

RECIPIENT

S A M U R A I

CLASS

C O M M O N E R

S A M U R A I

CLASS

supenor

inferior

o ]

[u : ]

supenor

C O M M O N E R

ä]

o ]

inferior

Figure l . The absolute honorifics in

Shuri

dialect response forms)

The S peaker of the S yuri dialect chooses out of the po ssible repertoire

given to the social S tand ing of the speaker s

family,

a form appropriate for

the recipient s family äs well äs for the relative Status (superior or non-

superior)

of the interactants. This choice is absolute äs the

determining

factor depend s on ascribed social Sta ndin g. In the same way, the socio-

pragmatic concord il lustrated in (6) is of the absolute variety. In o ther

words,

the use of honorific,

i .e. formal forms, determined

by the

social

rules of

po liteness represents

th e

ab solute v ariety , because

the

recipient

of

the

honorific

in

(6),

th e

professor,

is

autho rized

to

receive form al form s

äs

the

token

of

d eference according

to the

social conventions

of the

society.

On the

contrary,

the use of

honorifics

and

o ther form al form s w hich

th e

Speaker can m anipulatively choose, according to his or her judgm ent of

his

or her relation to the addressee or the

referent,

shows the relational


Authenticated



7/26

Formal form s

and

discernment

229

varie ty. Thus,

the

absolute variety

is

obligatory whereas

the

relational

variety

is

optional .

Third,

th ere are no neutral forms. Levinson states, In general, in such

languages (South Hast Asian),

it is

almost impossible

to say

any th ing

a t

all which

is not

sociolinguistically m arke d

äs

appropriate

fo r

certain kinds

of addressees only (1983: 90). There fore,

th e

choice

of

hono rific

or

plain

forms

is

gramm atically

obligatory. The choices of prono uns (V or T) and

address terms (TLN

or FN) in

some Western languages

can be

explained

in the same way äs the choice of

honorifics.

The Speaker is bound to m ake

an obligatory choice between a form al form V or TLN, and a non-formal

form

T or

FN.

4

Matsumoto (1987) discusses the obligatory choice of ho norifics or plain

forms of copulas in Japanese, illustrating three variants of Today is

Saturday ,

non-FTA utterances. One is expressed in a plain form da), the

second

is in the

addressee honorific desu),

and the

third

is in the

super

polite addressee honorific de

gozaimasü). She

states that even

in

such

cases of non-FTA utterances the Speaker is required to make an oblig-

atory choice

among the

variants, with

or

without honorifics, according

to

the

formality

of the setting and the relationship among the participants.

Fourth, the choice of formal forms is made in accordance with the

referent

and/or

the

Speaker, wh ich make s

the use of

forma l forms distinct

from

verbal strategies oriented only toward the addressee. Brown and

Levinson (1978:

185ff)

and Levinson (1983: 90ff) acknowledge the referent

honorific

in the case of V/T

pronoun

alternation. (6) is an example of a

referent

honorif ic.

Th e

humble variety

of

honorifics, used

to

humble

the

Speaker, is

illustrated

in (9) below:

(7) ftWatasi- ga iku.

I SUBJ

go

(8)

Watasi-ga iki- masu.

ADD.HONO.

(9) Watasi-ga

mairi masu.

go HUM.HONO.

(8)

is a polite utteran ce compared to (7), but (9) is even more polite. In (9)

both a humble form and an

addressee

honorific are used for a

non-FTA

utterance.

It is

because

of

these fundamental differences between verbal strat-

egies

and formal linguistic forms

that

we claim here the need to


Authenticated



8/26

230

S

Ide

categorize the devices of linguistic politeness into tw o basic types. The

use of formal linguistic forms is controlled by a

different

behavioral

principle

from

that underlying

the

verbal strategies treated

by

Brown

and

Levinson.

U sage: discernment

The use of

formal forms

is

inherently dependent upon

the

speaker s

observation of the social conventions of the society of which he or she is

a member. In a society we behave according to social conventions, one

set of which we may

call

the social rules of politeness. Ide states the

social rules of politeness for Japanese: 1) be polite to a person of a

higher

social position, 2 ) be polite to a person with pow er, 3) be polite to

an

older

person, and 4) be polite in a formal setting determined by the

factors of participants, occasions, or topics (1982:

366-377).

Except for

2)

and 4), which could be relative, these social rules are essentially

absolute

in

quality. Honorifics

and

other formal linguistic forms,

in

which

the

relative rank

of the

Speaker,

the

referent

and the

addressee

are

morphologically or

lexically encoded,

are

used

so

äs

to

comply with such

rules of politeness.

The

practice

of

polite behavior according

to social

conventions

is

known äs wakimae in Japanese. To behave according to wakimae is to

show verbally and non-verbally

one s

sense of place or role in a given

Situation

according

to

social conventions.

In a

stable society,

an

indi-

vidual is

expected

to

behave according

to the

Status

and the

role

of

various

levels ascribed

to or

acquired

by

that individual.

To

acknowledge

the

delicate Status and/o r

the

role

d ifferences of the

Speaker,

the

addressee

and the

referent

in

communication

is

essential

to

keep communication

smooth

and

without friction. Thus,

to

observe

wakimae

by

means

of

language

use is an

integral part

of

linguistic politeness.

The

closest equivalent term

fo r

wakimae

in

English

is

discernment

(Hill e t

a l.

1986: 347-348). The choice of linguistic form s or expressions in

which

the

distinction between

the

ranks

or the

roles

of the

Speaker,

the

referent and the addressee are systematically encoded will be called the

discernment aspect of linguistic politeness, which I claim to be one of the

neglected aspects

in

Brown

and

Levinson s framew ork.

In contrast to the discernment aspect, the aspect of politeness which

allows

the

Speaker

a

considerably active choice,

according

to the

speaker s


Authenticated



9/26

ormal form s

and

discernment

231

In ten t ion f rom a relat ively wider ränge o f

possibilities

is called the

vo l it ionaF

aspect

(Hill et a l.

1986: 348). Both aspects

a im to

achieve

s m o o th

c o m m u n ic at io n ,

but

they

a re

d i f ferent

in

t ha t

the

speaker s focus

is placed

on the

socially prescribed n orm

in the

f o rm e r

and on

h is/her

o wn

i n t en t i on in the la t ter .

Whereas B r o w n

an d

Levinson dealt with face wants ,

the

d iscernment

aspect

o f l inguistic

politeness

is

distinguished

by its

o r ien ta tion toward

the

wants o f

roles

and

settings: discernment

is

or iented ma in ly toward

the

wan ts to

acknowledge

the

ascribed positions

o r

roles

o f the

participants äs

well äs to ccommod te to the prescribed norms of the fo rmal i ty o f

particular settings. The Speaker

regulates his

or her choice of linguistic

f o r m s so äs to show his or her sense of place. The sense o f p roper place is

determined

by wh at B row n and Levinson

te rm ed

the w eight of powe r (P),

distance (D), and r a n k (R). The weight is

perceived

by the Speaker against

the background of the social norm.

Thus,

honori f ics a re not used to raise the addressee äs B rown and

Levinson

state,

but to

acknowledge

the

Status difference between

the

Speaker and the r e ferent , who is very of ten the addressee. Unlike Brown

and Levinson, who assumed the equal Status of the Speaker and the

heare r , the Speaker of hon or if ics assum es a Status difference. For example,

in

(6), the subject o f the sentence, the professor, takes an honori f ic f o rm

for the predicate which is appropriate for his or her social Standing. The

Speaker thus accom m odates to the social conven tions, showing the

speake r s sense of the refe ren t s Status, by using a referent honor if ic to

m a r k the subject s def ere ntia l position . In the case of (9), the Speaker

accom m odates to the form al Si tuation by using both the m orphologically

encoded

fo rm o f

sel f -humbling

(a

humble honor i f ic )

and an

addressee

honor i f ic .

5

The Speakers of ho no r i f ic languages are bo und to m ake choices am on g

linguistic

fo rm s of ho nor i fics or

plain

fo rm s. Since the choices cover such

par ts

o f

speech

äs

copulas, verbs, nouns, adjectives,

and

adverbs,

the

discernment

spect

o f linguistic politeness is a m a tt e r o f cons tant

concern

in the use of

language. Since there

is no

neu t r a l f o rm,

the

Speaker

o f an

honor i f ic language has to be sensitive to levels o f f o rm ali ty in verbalizing

action s or things, just äs a n ative Speaker of En glish, for exam ple, m ust be

sensitive to the

count ble

and non -countable

property

o f

things bec use

of

a gram m atical dist inction of proper ty of the Singular and plural in

English.

Hence, the m or e elaborated the linguistic System of form ali ty, the

greater the

p rt

the discernment aspect of language use plays in the


Authenticated



10/26

232 S Ide

language. It follows that languages wi th

honorif ic

Systems have a strong

concern for the discernment aspect of linguistic politeness.

6

Typology of inguistic Politeness

Tw o Types

Figure 2 summarizes the System of two types of linguistic politeness: one

is that of discernment, realized mainly by the use of fo rmal linguistic

forms ,

and the other is that of volition, realized mainly by verbal

strategies. It is the latter — volition realized through verbal strategies —

that Brown and Levinson treat, and the

fo rmer

— discernment realized

through

formality

of linguistic forms — that they neglect, äs discussed

above.

Discernment

and

vo lit ion

are

points

o n a

co nt inuum

and in

m ost actual

language usage one f inds that most utterances are neither purely one nor

th e other, but to some extent a mixture of the t w o . In exam ple 4), bo th

aspects

are used: the honorifics

represent formal linguistic forms,

and the

negation and interrogative markers show verbal strategies.

US E

(Speaker s Mode

of

Speaking)

DISCERNMENT

VOLITION

LANGUAGE

Kinds o f Linguistic

Device

Mainly

Used

FORMAL

FORMS

honorifics

pronouns

address

te rms

speech levels

speech

formulas

etc.

V E R B A L STRATEGIES

Seek agreement

Joke

Question

Be

pessimistic

Minimize

th e

imposi t ion

etc.

EXAMPLE

SENTENCES

2)

6)

8)

9)

4)

3)

Figure

2. T w o

Types

of

inguistic Politenes s


Authenticated



11/26

Formal

forms and discernment 233

Cross-Cultural Comparison

of

the Discernm ent Aspect

Each language and society is presumed to have at least these two types

of

linguistic

politeness. Fu rthe r,

we

assume th at each cultu re

is

different

in

the relative

weight

it assigns to

them.

As an

example,

the

relative we ight

of the

discernment aspect

in

Japanese

and in

American English will

be

shown using the figures of the previous empirical study Hill et al. 1986:

357-358 .

These figures are based on empirical data collected by means of

questionnaires given to about 1000 students in Japan and the United

States.

In the

questionnaires, both Japanese

and

American students were

asked

to

choose

from a

list

of

expressions those they

would use to

request

a pen from various categories of people. The figures show a correlation

between

the

expressions

and

people categories.

The

survey

was

conducted

on the assumption that we choose expressions of

different

degrees of

politeness according to social variables attributed to the people categories

of

the

addressees.

The

expressions given

to the

subjects were distributed

from

polite

to non-polite

expressions, although

th e

order

w as

scrambled.

The

people categories were chosen

to be

äs similar äs possible

in

both

countries and to represent a ränge of difference in terms of power and

distance between the interactants. In this way, the survey w as designed to

show q ua ntita tive ly the discernmen t aspect of linguistic politeness. In

othe r w ords, it was designed to

show

how linguistic politeness operates in

the two cultures if examined from the point of

view

of linguistic po liteness

in

Japan.

The figures are drawn based on the computation of the degree of

politeness obtained from the qua ntitative data

7

so tha t the expressions are

vertically arranged from the

most

polite to the least polite ones, and

people categories are arranged horizontally

from

the

left

to the right

according

to the decreasing degree of politeness required in interactions

with

them.

Figure 3 shows how Japanese students use

different

expressions when

asking for a pen

from

addressees of various people categories. The size of

the do ts indicates the frequency of response fo r a particular form used for

the particular person category.

We see the

clear correlation between

the

expressions

and

people categories.

Expressions above

the

horizontal dotted

line

include honorific mor-

phemes desu, masu, desyoö), while the ones below the

dotted

line have no

honorifics.

People categories to the

left

of the dotted line are a professo r in


Authenticated



12/26

234

S

Ide

okarisitemoyorosiidesyooka

kasiteitadakemasenka

kasiteitadakitaindesukeredo

okaridekimasuka

kasiteitadakemasuka

kasitekudasaimasenka

kasitemoraemasenka

kasitekudasia

kasitekuremasenka

iidesuka

kasitehosiindakedo

tukatteii

kariteii

kasitekureru

kasiteyo

i i

pen

kariruyo

kasite

aru

5 2 ·*

S

l

00 < u 13

C

— ¼ f |

S c P ^ o

2

§ -*

o o

'

C

j § O

:

O , _

<

t / 5 < S ~ i 8

t ù ) - ^ ^

o o ^ i S

S ^ S S

1 1

i 1

1

i

1

1

1 1

< x

a c « c « a

- , a O > , c «

|

ö · · . .

ö·

· · · l

··········

•

·ö··ö·

·

,

•

· t · · · ·

·

* . * * . . . · · ·

· ·

,

• ·

·

· · · ·

•

· · ·* 1

1

.

l

1

i

l

t

1

477 459 474 395 465 478 395 286 357 479 370 475 373

Figure 3

Correlation

of request

forms

and poeople

categories Japanese


Authenticated



13/26

ormal orms

and

discernment 35

y I â

i

2

é

l

1

1 1

u

s

Ã É

É

1 1

1 é

S 1 i 3 1

S

· · · · ·

•

·

ö·

······

_

^̂ 1̂̂

362

855

27 4

678

1061

279

697

395

393

311

66

109

316

356

98

439

207

184

963

260

399

503 338 489 256 497 338

83 3

19

2 39

4 39

6 79

8 99

1 119

12 139

14 159

16 179

18 199

2 219

Brought to you by | Universita degli Studi di Cagl

Authenticated



14/26

236 S

Id e

oo

T±

VO

o\

r

m s

< u

^z :

< u o

*

l

| I S

É ú À ¹

É ß û Ì É

i l

5

5

i «

̂ ̂ ̂ Q

i

5

t

5

-g 2

-

Z

O e

_

3

Î

s.

Î

ß À


Authenticated



15/26

ormal

forms

nd

discernment 37

N

OO

Os

» / ->

Tf

Tf

Ã-·

tO

~ oo

r-

oo

•

·

•

• · ·

. ·

•

·

w

•

·

• ·

• ^ • O O O OO N Tf -̂

CN

Ã — O Os Ï ÃÌ O < ^ > «O

Ï Ï Ã ~ - T f Ot - - V O C N SO

• ·

•

• ·

•

·

· ·

•

•

•

ä

s

s Ö

O » ^ « -H

t>* o O |

.« P

o o o

-̂


16/26

238

S Ide

bis o ff ice ,

a

middle aged stranger wearing

a

sui t Standing be hind

you in a

post office,

a

physician

in

his/her office,

a

secretary

o f a

univers i ty

department , e tc . They are those who have higher soc ial Status o r m o r e

po w e r ,

who are o lder

than

the

subjects,

o r who are

unfamil iar people.

In

o ther wo rds, they are the peo ple w ho have powe r or who are dis tant

f r o m

the subjects . On the other hand, people categories to the r ight of the

vertical

dot ted

line are

bro ther /siste r , mo ther ,

close

fr iend, e tc . They

are

the peo ple w ho have l it tle po we r o ver the subjects o r who are no t distant

f rom th e

subjects.

In

o ther wo rds, people categor ies

left o f the

dotted l ine

all fall

i nt o w hat

w e call O u tg ro u p soto)

catego ry, whe reas tho se r ight

o f

th e do t ted line fall into the

ingr o up

uchi ) ca tegory.

8

W e s e e h o w clear cut the distinction is in the choice of expressions;

f o r m a l

expressions, realized

by

various degrees

o f honorif ics , are

used

in

addressing pe o ple catego ries in the o utgroup, whe reas

n o n - f o r m a l

expres-

sions

are

used

to

people categories

in the

ingro up.

In

o t he r w o r ds, f o r m al

expressions

are

used

f o r

addressees with h igh power

and

distance,

while

n o n - f o r m a l

expressions

are

used

f o r

addressees with l i t t le power

and

distance . Thus,

th e

choice

o f

expressio n

is

made acco rding

to the

variable

o f

p o w e r

and

distance

of the

addressees.

(In

this study,

th e

weight

of the

imposition,

terme d by Bro wn and L evinso n äs rank , was kept co nstant by

making

it the re quest f o r a pen.) This c hoice o f expressions is ex ac tly wh at

we

mean by the choice of linguistic f o r m s according to discernment. The

co mpa rtme ntalization o f the do tted and w hite areas seen in Figure 3

shows

th e

visual representation

of the

discernment aspect

o f

linguistic

politeness in Japanese.

Let us now ex amine the A me rican respo nses in Figure 4. I t can be said

that the

c learer

the

dist inction betwee n

the

w hite area

and the

do tted

a rea ,

th e

h igher

th e

re lat ive weight

o f

d iscernment . However ,

w e see

some

expressions,

such

äs Can I

use , used

fo r

a lmost

all the

people categories .

The

distr ibution

o f

responses

is very

bro ad, with l it tle co mpa rtme ntaliza-

t ion. This shows

the lo w

degree

o f

re levance

o f the

discernment aspect

o f

linguistic politeness fo r American English Speakers.

Problems

of

rown

and

Levinson s Framework

Categories

o f Strategies

Let us

e xam i ne B r o w n

and

Levinson s

f r a m e w o r k and

discuss

the

Problems in the light of the neglected

aspects.


Authenticated



17/26

ormal

forms

nd discernment 239

First, the i r list of four specific strategies shows a mix tu re o f categories.

The c rucia l er ror is mixing behavior strategies and linguistic strategies.

They p u t behavior strategies such

äs

Notice a t tend to

H ,

Seek

agree-

m ent , Offer ,

p rom ise ,

Be pessimistic , M inim ize the im po sition , and

Give

deference in parallel with l ingu istic strategies such äs Use in-group

identity

m arkers ,

Quest ion, hedge ,

Impersonalize

S and H , o r

Nomi-

nalize . The result is confu s ion in the categorization o f expressions. Some

linguistic

expressions,

l ike

p lura l personal pronou ns we

an d vous , are

categorized under th e linguistic strategy Impersonal ize S and H , whi le

they cou ld also be examples for the behavior strategy Give deference .

The

confus ion could be resolved

if

they distinguished consistently

between behavioral and linguistic strategies and if they allowed some

strategies to be categorized under the aspects of formal forms and

discernment .

For

example, nominalize

is a

l inguistic strategy which

makes an expression formal. T he nominalized expression It is m y

pleasure ...

is

chosen instead

o f

It

is

ple asing ... , acc ording

to

Brown

and

Levinson, äs

a

strategy

o f

ne gative p olitene ss

to

m aintain

th e

negative

faces of the Spe aker and the hearer. Bu t i t yields a more c ohe rent the ory if

on e

regards

the use o f I t is m y

pleasure ... äs

th e

choice

o f

conventional

implica ture to accommodate to a form al setting. Just like the use of TLN

in

a

formal set t ing,

i t is a way of

showing discernment .

Using the concepts of formal forms and discernm ent

will al low

u s

r oom

to locate m ore p roper ly some of the expressions in Brown and Levinson s

strategies. For example, honorifics are f ound under th e strategy

Give

deference : the Speaker humbles and abases

h im/herself ,

or the Speaker

raises the hearer (Brown and Levinson 1978: 183). However,

äs men -

t ioned above, the choice o f hon orifics or non-hono r if ics is obligatory eve n

for a

non-FTA u t t e rance

in

Japanese. Thus,

th e

p r imary

use is for

showing d i s cernme nt . Brown

and

Le vinson also c ategorize

the use of

sir

by

a

lower

Status p erson äs an instanc e of the s trategy of give defe renc e .

However, this

i s

better exp lained

n o t

äs

th e

speaker s vo lit ion al choice

to

raise th e hearer , which is the m anipu la tive use , bu t rather

äs

th e

speaker s

observat ion of conventional

ru les

of politeness to show discernment.

Similarly,

th e choices o f second person pronouns and address

terms,

which are listed äs realizations of Give deference , and /or impersonalize

S and H

would

be better exp laine d

äs

realization s o f d i scernmen t

th rou g h

formal f o rms äs argued above.

The use of polite

formulas äs

discussed in et iquette books w as

outside

th e scope of Brown an d Levinson s w ork. There is also n o mention of


Authenticated



18/26

240 S Ide

Speech

levels.

In defining

linguistic politeness, Brown

and

Levinson state

that they

are

concerned with

the

perspective

beyond

table m anners

and

etiquette

books

(1987:

1).

However,

we may

argue that nobody

c an

deny

that to offer greetings,

or

to use conventional speech formulas in

introducing a

friend

is a matter of politeness. It is equally a matter of

politeness

to

choose

a

formal speech level suitable

to a

form al situational

contex t. These examp les are not subject to volitional choice but are to be

selected according

to

discernment.

Expanding Brown

and

Levinson s

framework to

include

th e

category

of

formal

forms and

discernment

will

open

a place for

these expressions.

Social

Variables

Brown and

Levinson

extensively

discuss social variables

for the

assess-

ment

of the seriousness of an FTA

(1978:

78-89).

These

are

power (P),

distance

(D) and

rank (R). However,

it is not clear how

these variables

can

help a

Speaker choose

an

expression

or a

strategy.

It is

difficult,

for

example,

to apply

these variables

to the

positive politeness strategy

Notice, attend

to

H .

For

this kind

o f

strategy

of

positive po litene ss, such

psychological variables

äs affinity,

affect or int imacy, which are deter-

mined by the speaker s psychological attitude rather than social variables,

may be

relevant.

It is

m ainly

in

assessing

th e

degree

of

politeness

within

th e discernment aspect

of

linguistic politeness that those social variables

of

power, distance

and

rank

are

relevant,

because

they

are

them selves

conventionally determined

by social

rules

of politeness.

Assumptions

Brown

and Levinson s assump tion of the universality of

face

and

rationality provides the basis of their framework. Let us

examine

th e

concepts

from

a non-Western

perspective.

Face

Brown and

Levinson explain face

äs

follows:

Central

to our model is a

h ighly

abstract

notion

of face

which consists

of two

specific

k inds

of

desires ( face -wants ) attributed

by

interactants

to one

another:


Authenticated



19/26

ormal form s and

discernment

241

the desire to be unimpeded in

one s

actions (negative face), and the desire (in some

respects) to be approved of (positive face). This is the bare bones of a notion of

face which

(w e argue) is universal , but which in any particular society w e w ould

expect

to be the

subject

of much cultural

elaboration

(1987:13).

This notion of

face

is derived

from

that of

Goffman,

wh ich is the key to

account for the

phenomena

of

human interaction. Brown

and

Levinson

treat it äs though it were th e sole notion to account for politeness

phenomena:

... while the content of face will differ in different cultures,

w e are assuming that the mutual knowledge of mem bers public self-

image

or

face

and the

social necessity

to

Orient

oneself

to it in

interaction,

are universal (1978:

66-67).

To the mind of a non-Westerner, how ever, w hat is crucially different is

not the

content

of

face

but

rather

th e

weight

of

face itself.

In a

Western

society w here individualism

is

assumed

to be the

basis

of all

interaction,

it

is

easy

to

regard face äs

the key to

interaction.

On the

other band,

in a

society

w here group mem bership

is

regarded

äs th e

basis

for

interaction,

the role or

Status

defined

in a

particular Situation rather than

face

is the

basis of interaction.

In

fact,

Brown and Levinson cite Rosaldo (1982) in which speech act

theory,

th e

product

of the

Western perspective,

is criticized on the

basis

of

an ethnographical study among the Philippine Illongot.

Rosaldp ( 1982 ) . ..

argues that the Illongot do not Interpret each others speech in

terms of the

ex pression

of

sincere

feelings and

intention,

but

stress

the

expecta-

tions due to

grou p mem bership, role structures,

and

situational constraints (1987:

14-15).

What Rosaldo

aptly

describes speech äs —

the

expressions of group

membership,

role structures, and situational constraints — characterizes

the content of the discernment aspect.

Though the details of language use among the Illongot must be

assumed to be

different

from

those

o f

Japanese,

i

t is surprising to find

that

Rosaldo s ex plana tion ap plies to the use of

honorifics

in Japanese. For a

Japanese Speaker,

to

speak w ith

the proper use of

honorifics where

it is

required

is to

express

that th e

Speaker know s

his or her

expected

place in

terms

of

group membership (in-group

or

out-group), role structures

(relative Status, power relationship, specific role relationship such äs

selling and buying), and situational constraints (formal or non-formal

settings).


Authenticated



20/26

242

S de

The use of honorifics,

thus,

is not

just

the

speaker s strategy

to

humble

the

Speaker

and to

raise

the hearer s

Status

to

minimize threat

to the

hearer, äs m aintained

by

Brown

and

Levinson. M oreover, honorifics

are

used even for a non -FTA utterance, äs evidenced by the use of hon orific s

äs pragmatic concord in example sentence (6). In other words, honorifics

are used even where neither the speaker s nor the addressee s face has

anything to do

with

th e

utterance.

Rationality

Brown and

Levinson elaborate their framework

by

assuming

a

Model

Person (MP), a

willful

Speaker of a n ative language, who is endowed

with

two special properties — rationality and

face.

By rationality they mean

the availability to our MP of a precisely

definable

mode of reasoning

from ends to the means that will achieve those ends (1978: 63).

It

is this

rationality, they believe, tha t m akes it possible for the Speaker to m ake an

utterance systematically according

to his or her

intention. They further

state, It is our belief

that

only a rational or logical use of strategies

provides

a

unitary explanation

of

such diverse kinesic, prosodic,

and

linguistic usages (1978: 61).

However,

we

have seen above that

the use of

honorifics

can be

simply

socio-pragmatic concord, which operates just äs automatically äs gram mati-

cal concord, independen t of the speaker s rational in tention .

If

the frame-

work

of


is to

restrict

its

scope

to a

rational

or

logical

use

of the strategies, we

will

have to exclude n ot only the use of hon orifics but

also greetings, speech

formulas

used for rituals, and many other

formal

speech elements which

are

used according

to

social conventions.

Brown and Levinson are aware of this limitation.

Note

that we shall be

attempting here a reduction of some good, solid, D urkheimian social facts

— some

norms of

language usage

— to the

outcome

of the

rational

choices of individuals (1978: 64). They

justify

their assumption of

language use based on rationality over language use according to

convention thus: conventions

can

themselves

be

overwhelming reasons

for

doing things ... and there can be, and perhaps

often

are rational bases

for conventions (1978: 64). H owever, they

fail

to explain how rationality

operates actively

in

conventional use.

As

Brown

and

Levinson

state,

there

can be

rational bases

for

c onvention, which must work

on a different level

from

the individual rational action. The logical reasoning must work on


Authenticated



21/26

ormal

form s

and

discernm ent 243

th e

level of the

funct ion

of

society

äs

well äs

on the

level

of the

i nd iv idua l .

For

e laborated explanat ion,

f u r t he r

invest igation

is

needed.

To a n ativ e Speaker of on e of the

non-Western

languages, this

f ramework

based on face and rat ional i ty makes i ts authors appear to be

looking at

supposed universa l phenomena

of

l inguist ic pol i teness

w i th

only one eye — that is , a Western eye biased by individual ism and the

Western

academic tradi t ion

of

emphasizing rat ional i ty. Linguist ic

politeness

seen throu gh

a non -Western eye is the

phen om eno n associated

main ly w i th proper behav ior in a social organization by com plying w ith

the

social con v en tions. This,

of

course,

is

looking w ith anoth er single eye.

oward n

incorpor ted

framework

We

hav e been assert ing that Brow n and Levinson s f ram ew ork of

universals

of

l inguistic politeness

has

neglected

certain

aspects.

N o w w e

would

like

to discover how w e can inc orporate the aspects of vol i t ion and

discernment

i n to a un i ted f ramework .

Brown an d

Lev inson state

the

re levance

of

the i r m odel

to Max

Weber s

theory of social actions. According to Weber, there are four ways act ions

m ay be

de te rm ined .

These are (1) instrumental rat ional act ion, which is

determined by

consciously calculat ing at tempts

to

attain desired ends

with the

choice

of appropriate

means ,

(2) v a lue-rat ional

ac t ion, which

is

determined

by a conscious belief in the intrinsic

v a lue

of act ing in a

certain

w a y ,

(3) affectual

ac t ion, which

is

de termined

by

specific

affects

and feeling

Status,

and (4)

t radi t ional /convent ional ac t ion, which

is

determined by

ingrained habitu ation (Weber 1972).

Of

these fou r types

of

social

ac t ion, Brown

an d

Lev inson s m ode l concern

the

type

of (1)

i ns t rumenta l

ra t ional ac t ion:

w e

take

in Weber ian terms th e

m o r e

s t rongly

ra t ional

zweckrational

m o d e l

o f

i ndiv idua l

action because

th e

wertrational model (which would

treat

face

respect

äs

an unque s tio na b l e v a lue o r

n o rm ) fails

to

account

for the fact

that

face

respect

is

not an unequ iv o c a l r ight (1978: 67).

They

discuss

the

value-rat ional type

an d

a rgue

for its

exclusion from the i r

perspective. But the

o ther

tw o

types,

affectual an d

t radi t ional /conven-

t ional

types

of

actions,

are not

ment ioned. These non-ra t iona l types

lie

outside the ir view , because their concern is on ly rat ional act ion.

It

should

be

ev iden t tha t Brown

an d

Lev inson

do no t

take

äs

their poin t


Authenticated



22/26

244

S

Ide

of departure the overall scope of social actions, but focus on only one

aspect, i.e. instrumental rational action. This stance may be

justified

because they base their theory on the

assumption

that interactions are

carried out by rational

face

bearing agents. However, if their aim is to

postulate universals

o f

language usage, they might better Start from

an

overall perspective of human actions rather than only one type. As

illustrated above , linguistic politeness is also established according to

traditional/conventional actions. It

is for

this reason

that

incorporating

th e discernment

aspect into

th e f ramework o f


is

essential.

In order to incorporate discernment into the same f ramework

with

volition, W eber s typolo gy of social actions and its

reformulation

by

Habermas, which is supposed to account for all human actions, is

introduced here. The relative positions of volition and discernm ent in the

context o f W eber s and

H aberm as

theories of social actions are presented

in F igure 5. This is based on M iyah ara s figure Weber s Typology of

Action:

Two

Dim ensional Reconstruction (M iyahara 1986).

M O D E

OF

ACTION

DEGREE

OF

RATIONALITY

STRATEGIC

(oriented

to success)

OMMUNI TIVE

(oriented to

understanding)

RATIONAL

VOLITION

(1 ) instrumental-

rational

(interest)

(2 )

value-rational

(value)

N O N - R AT IO N AL (3 )

affective

(drive/feeling)

DISCERNMENT

(4)

traditional

(convention)

Figure

5. Framework

Incorporating Volition and

Discernm ent

in

terms

of W eber s Typology

of Act ions and its Reformu lation by Habermas

If we

look

at these types of action in terms of the degree of rationality,

the

volitiona l aspect is the most rational and the discernment aspect is the

least

rational. Thus, volition and discernment represent the two extreme

ends

of the

continuum

of

rationa lity

in the

Weberian typology

of

action.

In reform ulating Weber s typology o f actions, Habermas proposed a

two-dimensional mode

of

action

and

distinguished between

action


Authenticated



23/26

ormal

forms

and discernment 45

oriented

to

success

and act ion

oriented

to

unders tanding .

The mode of

action oriented to success is called Strategie or inst rumental action

when

the action can be understood

äs

follow ing rules of rational choices

and can be evaluated in terms o f

efficiency.

Action oriented to under-

stand ing is called com mun icative action.

Communicative action occurs when social interaction is coordinated

through

the

mu tua l

and

cooperative achievement

o f

unders tanding

amon g part icipants .

O n the

o ther hand,

a

Strategie action

is

made through

the strictly personal calculations of the success of the actor äs an

individual (Roderick 1986: 109). Miyahara (1986) states that

a

Strategie

action is fairly close to Weber s instrumentally rational action. In

contrast, communicative action is oriented to the pursuit of individual

goals u nde r the con dit ion that they can harmo nize their p lans o f action on

the basis of common Situation definitions .

Ex am ining tw o ty pes of linguistic politeness in the

light

of this typo logy

of

modes

of action, we see that the volitional aspect is the realization of

Strategie action and the discernmen t aspect is the realization of comm uni-

cative

ac t ion.

9

Thus, in providing a

model

w hich can incorporate volition

and d iscernment, the Weber/Habermas ty pology of social action Sup ports

our

claim

that discernment must be included in a t ruly universal

f ramework

of l inguistic politeness.

oncluding

Remarks

For the Speaker of an

honorific

language, linguistic politeness is above all

a

ma t t e r

of

showing discernment

in

choosing

specific

l inguist ic forms,

while the Speaker of a

non-honorif ic

language, it is ma in ly a ma t te r of the

vol i t ional

use of verbal strategies to ma in ta in the

faces

o f p ar t ic ipants .

These look like entirely distinct

Systems

of language use w o r k i n g in

different

languages and societies.

How ever,

the tw o aspects are integ ral to

the

universals

of

l inguist ic poli teness, working potential ly

in

a lmost

all

languages;

the

discernment aspect

is

actually observed

in the use of

non -

honorif ic languages äs much äs the volitional aspect is observed in

speaking honorif ic languages.

Given the facts that discernment and volition are both relevant in the

universals

of linguistic politeness, w e have sought a w ay to incorpo rate

them into a comprehensive framework. The four d imensional analysis of

universal

social actions by Weber and the two dimensional analysis by


Authenticated



24/26

246

S Ide

Habermas aptly explain the complementary relationship between the

volitional and the discernment aspects of linguistic politeness.

Finally,

we

mu st remind

ourselves

that wh at

we

have discussed here

are

but two

aspects

out of

four potential types

of

social

actions. There may be

a

society where

a

value-rational type

of

action

or an affectual

type

of

action dominates. If so, we would expect there to be different Systems of

linguistic politeness.

W e

will have

to

wait

to

posit

a

true universal

until we

have examined many more languages

and

societies.

Japan Womeris

University

Tokyo

ot s

1.

An

earlier Version

of

this paper

was

presented

at the

1987 International Pragmatics

Conference at Antwerp, Belgium, 17-23 August 1987. I am grateful for my co-

researchers, Tsunao Ogino, Akiko Kawasaki, Shoko Ikuta and Beverly Hill, whose

partnership in pursuing the project of the comparison of Japan-U.S. linguistic

politeness

has

been

the

source

of my

present work.

My

thanks

also go to

Kojiro

Miyahara who assisted me in understanding preliminary

sociological theories.

Beverly

Hill, Marie-Louise Liebe-Harkort, Richard Watts and Virginia LoCastro read the

earlier versions

and

gave valuable comments

on

style

and content, fo r

which

I am

grateful. All the shortcomings, however, are my own responsibility.

2. Brown and Levinson presume that some acts intrinsically threaten face. Assuming that

all hu m an beings have face w ants which consist of two specific kinds of desires,

negative

face

wants and positive face wants, they set up a model of strategies

fo r

minimizing the face threatening acts, i.e. FTA (1978: 65).

3. Longman Dictionary

of Contemporary English

1978.

4.

This

is the

primary

use of

pronouns

a nd

address

terms.

It is

only

in man ipulative use of

this prim ary usage that a Speaker has the liberty of choosing F N instead of TLN. Brown

and Levinson (1978: 88-99 deal only with this manipulative use of

address

terms and

pronouns äs examples of a verbal strategy of negative politeness,

failing

to acknowledge

the

underlyin g formal requirement

o f

primary usage.

5.

The

language

use

according

to

discernment

is

observed

in the use of

ex pressions

at the

discourse level

äs

well. An

utterance such äs

Gokurousama desita

[Thank

you for

you r

trouble . FORMULA] is im polite (marke dly m inus polite), if used by the

inferior

to the

superior,

whereas

it is

expected

for the

superior

to

employ

it in

speaking

to the inferior.

The

rule

u nd erly ing this usage is the paterna l social convention in Japanese society

where

the role of the superior is to care fo r the inferior, not vice versa. The inferior s use

of the utterance is impolite

because

the use of the utteran ce violates discernment of roles

of the society. Similarly, if a listener who is not acquain ted w ith the lecturer says

Senseino ohanasi

w a omosirokatta

desu

[Your (Professor s) lecture w as interesting], he or

she is condemned

äs

being impo lite. such an utterance is allowed only by those who are

of equal or sup erior

Status

or on familiär terms wi th the lecturer. Such a usage is tak en

äs

impolite

because an au dience member who is supposed to be in the

role

of listening and

learning should not

assume

an equal position by m ak ing comm ents to the lecturer. It is

a

violation

of

discernment.

6. Honorific

Systems

seem to be related to the degrees of discernment of polite

behavior.


Authenticated



25/26

Formal forms and discernment 247

In

J a p a n ,

the end of

W orld

War I I

marked

a

drastic change from

a

hierarchical

to an

egalitarian society.

I t w as

expected

t hat

the new

egalitaria n social

System wou ld s top th e

use

o f

honorifics.

However ,

con t rary

to

that expectation,

honorifics

con t inue

to be

used

extensively

even today.

It is

presumed that

th e

existence

of an

honorific

System affects

the people s behavior or discernment . How ever, we see that the content of discernment

has been gradually

changing, even thou gh the essent ial na ture is unchan ged. The

change

is seen in the

de termin ing

factor for the

choice

of honorifics. The use of honorifics to

m a r k horiz on tal distances between

th e

Speaker

and the

addressee (and

th e

referent)

is

increasing.

The

degree-of politeness

is

obtained

by

Ogino s method

of quantif icat ion of

politeness

(Ogino

1986: 39). It is computed from th e f requencies of the correlation of expressions

and

people

categories.

The idea un derlying this com putat ion is that the degree of

politeness

of

expressions

is

determined

by the

f requency

of

their

u se

toward

th e

addressee (people categories), an d the degree of politeness w ith w hich addressees are

treated

is

determined

by the

f requency

of

each expression used toward

the

addressee.

As is

often ment ioned

by cu l tural

anthropologists ,

one of the determining factors of

Japanese

people s behav ior is the distinction between in grou p and outgrou p.

Whe n

Jürgen

Habermas came

to visit Japan for a few weeks in 1981, he gave his

observation of

Japanese

people s

behavior

in an

in terview.

C

I w as

very much impressed

by

th e

comm unica t ive

in teract ions among the Japanese people

My quest ion is how

this is

go ing

to be in future. In the

W est,

for centuries,

capitalism

has eroded th e

cushion

of t radi t ions

and con vent ions . Now we have worn them out . H ere in

J apan ,

it

seems

to

m e, th e process of

m odern ization

has

affected

it s

cultural Situat ion

in a

different w a y .

Since

there is no inherent relat ion between th e cushion of t rad it ions /conv ent ions and

modern iza t ion , it is m y interest to

observe

how these traditions/conventions in J a pa n a re

going

to develop in the

fu ture

[author s translation] (Haberm as 1982). This teils u s t hat

th e

basis

for

social interact ion,

different from

that

of the

West , predominates

in J a pa n .

The

exp lana t ion

for how

modernizat ion

by means of

capitalism

has

been

successful in

Japan while m a i n t a in i n g the

t radi t ional /convent ional

pat tern o f social interactions

will

have to wa i t for future s tudy. W e must s t ress again that the use of honorifics has not

decreased in accordance wi th modern izat ion . The existence of honorifics and the

discernment

aspect

of

l anguage

u se

m ay

be

p l ay ing

a role in

keeping

th e

Japanese

interactional style

in its

present

form.

eferen es

B r o w n , Pene lope an d Lev inson , Stephen

1978

Un ive r sa l s

in

language usage: politeness phenomena.

In

Goody, Esther

N .

(ed.),

Questions

and

Politeness.

Cambridge: Cambridge Universi ty Press,

56-289.

1987 Politeness: some universals

in

language

usage

Cambridge: Cambridge U n i -

versity Press.

B r o w n ,

Roger an d Gi lman, Alber t

1960 The

P r o n o u n s

of

Power

and Sol idari ty. In

Sebeok, Thomas

A .

(ed.)

Style in

Language.

Boston:

M IT

Press,

253-276.

Geertz,

Cliford

1960

The

Religion of Java.

Glencoe,

1 1 1 :

Free

Press.

Habermas , Jürgen

1982

Gourisei

no

yukue:

Kyou iku

kaikaku

sin

hosyusyugi

seikatusekai.

[The

f u t u r e


Authenticated



26/26

248

S Id e

of rationality: Reformation

formal forms and discernment two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness

Documents