repertoires of registers: dialect in japanese discourse

LANGUAGE

&

COMMUNICATION

www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom

Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

Repertoires of registers: dialect inJapanese discourse

Christopher Ball

Departments of Linguistics and Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA

Abstract

This paper presents discourse data to argue for the treatment of dialect as a variety in a

repertoire whose primary function is microcontextually socioindexical. Dialect forms used by

bilectal participants minimally encode stances of alterity between interactants. The association

of dialect features with regional provenance and judgments of regional identity made for di-

alect forms are treated as linguistic ideological processes. The interpretation of dialect forms in

use as interactional altering devices is explained through a specific Japanese linguistic ideology

involving uchi �in group� and soto �out group� boundaries.� 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Dialect; Register; Code-switching; Indexicality; Language ideology; Japanese

1. Dialect and indexicality

1.1. Introduction

Dialect is recognized by language users and linguists alike as identifying speakers

as being from certain regions or social strata within larger sociolinguistic unities. The

present analysis of the social pragmatic role of dialect use in discourse utilizes the

analytic category of indexicality in tying together the domain of microcontextual

signaling and the domain of metapragmatic interpretation of language forms in

wider sociocultural contexts (Silverstein, 1976).

E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Ball).

0271-5309/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2004.01.004

mail to: [email protected]

356 C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

Following Blom and Gumperz (1972) I use discourse data to argue for the treat-

ment of dialect as a variety in a repertoire whose primary function is microcontex-

tually socioindexical. I further argue that the association of dialect features with

regional provenance is parallel to the association of honorific forms with social status.

Following Agha (1993), I argue that just as honorific forms do not directly encode

social status, dialect forms do not directly encode regional provenance. Rather, ashonorific forms encode deference entitlements, dialect forms encode stances of al-

terity between interactants. The projection of the indexical values of such registered

linguistic units in use from interactional contexts to the social order is the domain

where assignments of politeness are made for honorifics, and where judgments of

regional identity are made for dialect forms. Such overt judgments I treat as a lin-

guistic ideological process. I also account for the less conscious interpretation of

dialect forms in use as interactional altering devices through a specific Japanese lin-

guistic ideology involving uchi �in group� and soto �out group� boundaries. It is crucialto note at this point that in my treatment dialect forms are metapragmatically in-

terpreted in multiple ways. The two interpretations that I focus on here are those that

assign regionality to the sign/speaker, and those that assign subtle interactional po-

sitions to speakers. These interpretations are iconically linked. While it is often as-

sumed that the assignment of regional status is the main function of dialect, I argue

that it is advantageous to begin with an analysis of the interactional function of di-

alect signs and move up. In this way, local cultural concepts of dialect can be seen as a

superposition of the �in� �out� topology mapped in interaction (Fig. 1).Indexes are defined here following Peirce�s second trichotomy of signs, whereby

an index is any sign that refers to its object by being actually modified by it. An index

occurs in contiguity with its object and in fact is always in �dynamical (including

spatial) connection both with the individual object, on the one hand, and with the

senses or memory of the person for whom it serves as a sign on the other� (Peirce,1932, p. 170). Dialect indexes are organized into pragmatic paradigms along axes of

similarity in conventionalized indexical function. Their indexical form can be vari-

ously phonological, morphological, lexical or syntactic. Such dialect signs are of thepure or non-referential class of indexes (Silverstein, 1976). They are presupposing,

appropriate to certain culturally conceived configurations of contextual factors such

as casual conversations between locals regarding local events, and are also poten-

Interaction order Social / Metapragmatic / Ideological order

dialect sign tokenassignment of regional

identity

alterity stance judgement of uchi / sotofooting

Fig. 1. Interpretations from the interaction order to the social order.

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380 357

tially creative, exploited to manipulate the boundaries of culturally conceived con-

texts, such as making implicit claims of solidarity or displays of distance.

The use and evaluation of appropriate dialect sign tokens is regulated by meta-

pragmatic rules of use. Speakers organize these normative rules according to lin-

guistic ideologies about the roles and functions of language, self and society. These

ideologies are reflexive folk distillations of linguistic, interactional and social infor-mation into concepts that fit within wider cultural systems of meaning, and must

themselves be investigated critically.

1.2. Repertoires, code switching and footing

In the landmark article, �Social meaning in linguistic structure: code-switching in

Norway�, Blom and Gumperz (1972) investigated the ways in which bidialectal

speakers code-switch and the extent to which such switching is related to socialcontextual factors. I argue below for an expanded analysis of the essentially correct

hypothesis that speakers use variation in code, specifically dialectal variation, to

achieve social goals. Blom and Gumperz asked if the ability to switch is part of the

communicative competence of bidialectal speakers, then how does their choice of

code create context rather than simply reflect it? I share this emphasis on the creative

aspect of indexicality, what they term �metaphorical switching�. Further, I follow

Gumperz� recognition of the importance of verbal repertoire, �the totality of dialectal

and superposed variants regularly employed within a community� in locating causalrelationships between language and society (Gumperz, 1968, p. 230).

Goffman (1979) briefly reviews Blom and Gumperz (1972) findings, and charac-

terizes the code switches they describe as an example of a broader phenomenon he

labels �footing.� This notion is implicitly present in the analysis I propose here. As

Goffman describes footing, a participant�s interactional alignment or stance is sig-

nalled across a non-denotationally determined strip of behaviour. Stances are

measured on a continuum, code or dialect/register switching is usually involved, and

changes in footing serve as buffers between sustained interactional episodes. Note inthis definition the common features of non-referential indexical signalling. The main

goal that I wish to accomplish in this paper following Blom and Gumperz (1972) and

Goffman (1979) is to explore in more detail the semiotic chain of using linguistic

varieties to signal stances or footing and the interpretation of these stances as

meaningful acts by participants and observers. To do so I utilize discourse evidence

of dialectal code switching in the Kansai dialect of Japanese.

2. Kansai dialect and Tokyo standard

2.1. Historical notes

Dialect, hoogen, has long been a focus of reflexive native language study in

Japan. Many classifications exist, but generally the main island of Honshuu is


divided into Eastern and Western dialectal areas, with the islands of Kyuushuu

and Okinawa forming distinct dialectal regions (Shibatani, 1990). Regional vari-

ants of political and economic importance have been, in the Western dialect area,

the variants found in the cities of Osaka and Kyoto, situated in the larger area of

Kansai, and in the Eastern dialect area, the Edo or Tokyo dialect situated in the

larger area of the Kanto plain. It is this variety that has been promoted asStandard.

Shibatani (1990) reports on the history of Kyoto dialect, Edo/Tokyo dialect and

�Standard� language hyoojun-go, and its counterpart �Common� language, kyootsuu-go. The difference in terms is nested in post war bureaucratic language policy, but the

ideology of their baptism is explained efficiently by Sibata who comments that a

regional Common language was seen as that used in a particular area by dialect

speakers and �is the speech that the local people think is used in Tokyo� (Sibata, 1999,p. 199). Standard language, on the other hand, was thought of �as a normativelanguage which does not exist at present, but will be established by the state by

whatever means� (Sibata, 1999, p. 198). The word �Standard� was seen as overly

traditional and even militaristic at the time. I will incorporate elements of both terms

and henceforth use Standard Japanese to refer to the normative orientation to the

dialect of Tokyo that is promoted by the state. Thus Standard is both what locals

think is used in Tokyo and an ideal type normative national language which does not

exist in any one place.

The transfer of the seat of government from Kyoto to Edo in 1603 led to a shiftin dialect status. Kyoto and Osaka �comprised a cultural and economic center,

which dominated the rest of Japan. However, the linguistic dominance of the

Kyoto dialect gradually eroded as Edo began to assert its political and economic

force and to develop culturally as well. . . The Edo dialect usurped the authority of

the Kyoto dialect as the standard language around the end of the eighteenth

century� (Shibatani, 1990, p. 185–186). By the Meiji restoration ca.1867, the pro-

motion of the Edo dialect as the Standard or hyoojun-go was official government

policy. 1

2.2. Contemporary divisions

Loveday (1986) reports that �the Tokyo dialect belongs to the Eastern group, but

has become increasingly westernized during the last two centuries and does not differradically from that of Kyoto except for word tones and a limited number of other

1 Note that the Edo dialect as the new register of the capital employed many Kansai features in

distinction to the local rural forms of the Kanto plain, e.g. the Tokyo use of Kyoto first person

presumptive -(y)oo vs. Kanto -bee still exists, as in ikoo �let�s go� in Kansai and Standard vs. ikubee �let�sgo� in contemporary rural Kanto. Another example of Western features adopted into the new Standard is

the preservation of Kansai adjective final -o; hayo-o, �early� vs. Eastern -ku, haya-ku �early� in lexicalized

polite expressions such as Ohayoo gozaimasu �good morning� (Shibatani, 1990, p. 199).


features� (Loveday, 1986). This suggests an ideologically based separation that serves

to further the distinction between relatively lexically close varieties in the popular

view. He presents what one might interpret as a central cultural dichotomy or series

of dichotomies; Kyoto:Tokyo :: west:east, old:new, indirect:direct that structure

metadiscourses about language varieties in Japan. �The Kyoto variety continues to

enjoy a certain prestige due to its position as former imperial capital and home oftraditional culture. It is associated with the linguistic styles of entertainers such as the

geisha and kabuki actors, craftsmen such as kimono makers and the art schools of

ikebana� (Loveday, 1986).Loveday also correctly notes another ideological regionalization of linguistic

practice, the Kyoto/Osaka distinction. �However, many young Kyotoites appear

to be shifting towards the more modern appeal of the variety of the major

economic Western centre, Osaka, which is associated with young styles promoted

by the media and a genre of comedy frequent on TV (manzai)� (Loveday, 1986).The Kyoto and Osaka varieties are formally similar, sharing general prosodic

features and a large portion of the morphology that distinguishes them from the

Standard. They may be linguistically separated most transparently through lexi-

calized sentences stereotypically associated with activities and roles typical of the

two cities.

The Osaka variety presents itself as an option for pan-Kansai/West region af-

filiation in the face of Kanto/East and trumps the East in many of the traits with

which it opposes the values of the Kyoto variety. Osaka is tough where Tokyo isweak, Osaka is funny where Tokyo is serious, Osaka is direct where Tokyo is

indirect, etc. This gives speakers in Kyoto a repertoire that is sociologically varied

and linguistically familiar. This is illustrated by an interview I conducted on Au-

gust 7, 2001 in Kyoto with a group of �30-something� women who are artists and

professionals living in the city and suburbs of Kyoto and Osaka. When asked to

discuss the differences between Tokyo and Kansai dialects, one of the women from

Osaka who attended high school in Kyoto with the other women present talked of

her experiences dating a man from Tokyo. She attributed their trouble in com-munication to the fact that �he doesn�t speak Kansai dialect�, Kare wa Kansai ben

shaberarehen. When she quoted a recent question from her boyfriend, �Have you

come to hate me?�, Boku no koto kirai ni natta no?, all of the three friends present

recoiled in shrieks of laughter and disbelief. They immediately and easily explained

to me that for a man to say such a thing is unthinkable in Osaka. It is not the

content, but the form of the question. Clearly uttered in Tokyo Standard, it is

perceived as too indirect and feminine for a Kansai speaking man. Kansai people,

they asserted, are more direct, more lively, more interested in their conversationalpartners than Tokyo people. Tokyo people, the boyfriend for example, come off as

too distant, not geographically, but interactionally because of the way they talk.

How about the traditional elegance of Kyoto? Why were these women considering

themselves rougher than a Tokyo man due to their dialect? Interestingly, they

agreed unanimously that Kyoto people are different from Osaka people, Kyoto

people keep more secrets. Indirectness surfaces again as the counterpart to Osaka

directness.


The split between the Kyoto/Osaka dialects and the Tokyo Standard is em-

bedded in this particular sociohistorical context. Unlike other dialects in Japan, the

Kansai varieties have continued to be valued as prestige lects and are able to

compete for status on a national level through various positive means of circula-

tion. However, the devaluation of rural dialect forms as low has a long history in

Japan, and so dialect forms in use that are categorized thusly will index socialhierarchical phenomenon as well as socio-regional provenance. Sibata observes,

�The �dialect (inferiority) complex� is something felt more or less by anyone who

Tokyoites would refer to as an inaka �country� person. This is true even with people

from Kyoto. The carefree use of one�s own dialect by people of the Kansai region

should actually be seen as just the reverse side of the �dialect complex’’ (Sibata,

1999, pp. 191–192).

2.3. Structural features of Kansai vs. standard

What are some of the linguistic features which separate Kansai from Tokyo

Standard varieties? Or better for our purposes, what are those aspects of structure

that are stereotypically associated with Kansai on the one hand, and Tokyo

Standard on the other? I should stress that forms given in this section are not

meant to be interpreted as members of a uniform variety we may call Kansai

dialect. Rather, the forms presented here are commonly used in the speech ofpeople who identify with many varieties or dialects in urban western Japan

(roughly Kobe, Osaka, and Kyoto) but who share a dialectal opposition to Tokyo

Standard. Thus, Kansai dialect is as non-existent an ideal type as Standard. The

lexical forms presented below are indexes of orientation to that ideal, or to one of

the sub-varieties among which are shared stereotypical linguistic and sociocultural

attributes.

Silverstein (1981) and Koyama (2000) suggest that more segmentable, referential,

non-linguistically presupposable phenomena will be available for native speakerconscious evaluation and interpretation as dialectal. These will be the focus of at-

tention here because these are what constitute the set available for use in registers

that mark identity and context. The point here is not structural dialectal description,

but presentation of the features we will be encountering in the transcripts that ef-

fectively function as dialect forms, as Shibboleths.

There are two commonly invoked planes of distinction used to separate Jap-

anese dialects; the tonological and the morpho-lexical. The tonal contours asso-

ciated with dialects divide the lexicon into 4–6 tonological classes, which classesare establish only in this way, i.e., there is no semantic or other lexical coherence

to the classes. Such tonal distinctions are available enough to awareness that

speakers of Kansai and Tokyo standard know the usual puns made from such

word pairs and can challenge themselves to try to pronounce things in the op-

posite way. They are largely left out of Standardization processes, being viewed

as peripheral compared to more segmentable linguistic features. Also, tone pat-

terns such those indicated here are usually retained by speakers of Kansai dialect


who �switch� into Standard by utilizing e.g., distinct segmental phonology, mor-

phology and discourse particles. I will focus on non-tonological dialect markers

from this point on. 2

Relevant segmental phonological, morphological and discourse features that

separate Kansai from Standard are presented below. In (1) we see phonological

lengthening and lowering in /au/ final verb stems such as au �meet�, and, simau �putaway�. 3

(1) (a) oo-ta (b) a-tta

meet-PAST meet-PAST

�met� Kansai �met� Tokyo

(c) simoo-ta (d) sima-tta

put away-PAST put away-PAST

�put away� Kansai �put away� Tokyo

Kansai dialects are marked by the use of the Negative suffix variant -hen vs. Tokyo

Standard -nai as seen in (2).

(2)

2 Fo

Particu

in com

p. 190)

a syste

tonolo

entities

word c

denota

differen

by hav

divisio3 See

Kyoto

(a) wakaru (b) wakara-nai

understand understand-NEG

�understands� Kansai/Tokyo �doesn�t understand� Tokyo

(c) wakara-hen

understand-NEG

�doesn�t understand� Kansai

r a detailed account of tonological dialect features see Shibatani (1990) and Koyama (2001).

larly interesting is the chart of the tonal patterns of five lexical sets of bisyllabic items that are used

bination with the Nominative particle ga to display regional variation presented in Shibatani (1990,

, which can be read as though it were in fact a map of the political partitioning of Japan rather than

matic presentation of abstract linguistic structure. Also, Koyama (2001, p. 1596) argues that

gical distinctions have been a productive domain for the emblematic fixation of dialects as singular

and further for the metaphoric projection of cultural regional stereotypes onto corresponding

lasses. It is precisely because tone is a nonreferential sign that it is seen to be laid on top of the same

tional code, functioning only as an index of regionality. The different tone patterns associated with

t regions (ignoring internal variation) serve to cut up the regional space of Japan – which is defined

ing a single lexicon – into regions which share the lexicon and its apparently arbitrary internal

ns along tonal lines, but which each have a distinct �flavor� or tonal �accent�.Koyama (2001) for a detailed discussion of this difference and its prior interpretations as central to

dialect.


There is a further optional morphophonological process of vowel harmony licensed

by this suffix that is associated with Kansai dialect whereby -hen! -hin/i ___, as in

example 3.

(3) (

(4) (

(

(

(

(5) (

4 Ho

young

a) deki-hin (b) sii-hin (c) mii-hin

be able-NEG do-NEG see-NEG

�can�t do it� Kansai �doesn�t do it� Kansai �doesn�t see it� Kansai

There are cases where a different form of the stem can be optionally employed and

vowel raising does not apply, as in (4).

a) kuru (b) ko-nai (c) ki-masen

come come-NEG come-NEG.POL

�comes� Kansai/Tokyo �doesn�t come� Tokyo �doesn�t come� Tokyo

d) kee-hen (e) koo-hen (f) kii-hin

come-NEG come-NEG come-NEG

�doesnt come� Kansai �doesn�t come� Kansai �doesn�t come� Kansai

g) suru (h) si-nai (i) si-masen

do do-NEG do-NEG.POL

�does it� Kansai/Tokyo �doesn�t do it� Tokyo �doesn�t do it� Tokyo

j) see-hen (k) sii-hin

do-NEG do-NEG

�doesn�t do it� Kansai �doesn�t do it� Kansai

This morphophonologically conditioned vowel harmony is largely unknown to

the Tokyo speakers with whom I have consulted and is an oft cited mistake of

Tokyo Standard speakers attempting to imitate Kansai dialect. Kansai speakers

report to me that forms such as *sii-hen �I don�t do it� and *mii-hen �I don�t see

it� are commonly heard from Tokyo speakers and give away non-Kansai iden-

tity. 4

The honorific suffix -haru is as in (5) is characteristic of Kansai and is especiallyassociated with Kyoto.

a) yomu (b) yoma-haru (c) yoma-hari-masu

read read-HON read-HON-POL

�he reads� Kansai/Tokyo �he reads� Kansai �he reads� Kansai

wever, some Kyoto speakers report that these previously starred forms appear in the speech of

er speakers in some dialects in Kansai as well.


There is a distinction between Osaka and Kyoto dialects in the realization of

forms with the -haru Honorific suffix and the progressive form of verbs such that

the Gerundive suffix -te appears as -ta in Kyoto. This is reportedly also current

in at least some parts of Shiga, on the northern border of Kyoto. Examples are

in (6).

(6)
(a) mat-te-iru (b) mat-te-haru
wait-GER-PROG wait-GER- PROG.HON

�He is waiting� Kansai/Tokyo �He is waiting� Kansai

(c) mat-ta-haru

wait-GER- PROG.HON

�He is waiting� Kyoto

There are in addition some salient Tokyo Standard versus Kansai dialect oppo-

sitional pairs that occur commonly in discourse and frequently in our transcripts.

These include use of the utterance final discourse particle, nee Tokyo vs., naa

Kansai, the Copula da Tokyo vs. ya Kansai, hontoo ni Tokyo vs. honma ni Kansai,�truly, really� and tigau Tokyo vs. tyau Kansai, �be different�. Also the discourse

particle nen, as in wakarahen nen �(I) don�t understand� is common in Osaka/Kansai

dialect. Kyoto is further marked by a general proliferation of polite forms and

honorific prefixes for inanimate objects, especially foods such as in o-udon. �Hon-

noodles�.

3. Discourse analysis

The transcripts that follow represent portions of two conversations recorded in

Kyoto, Japan. The setting for the conversations is a Japanese family home to

which the arrival of visitors provided the occasions of talk that were recorded.

Both the transcripts have in common certain participants who identify with Kansai

regionality and use Kansai dialect forms in their everyday life. These speakers are

bilectal and also use Standard type language in certain contexts. My analysis here

starts with the general observation that in group members in transcripts 1 usedialect forms as an index of solidarity and that an out group relationship between

participants is indexed by more Standard use in transcript 2. I want to call special

attention to how boundaries are negotiated using dialect and standard language in

the transcripts.

The participants in transcript 1 are S, a mid 50�s college educated woman, her

husband T, a mid 50�s �salary man�, TM, a 60-year-old housewife, her husband H,

a mid 50�s �salary man� and their daughter K, a mid 30�s woman. The researcher

was also present. S and T are visiting TM, H, and K. S is an old family friendknown by H and TM since their college days through TM�s sister primarily. S is


regarded as very intelligent and cosmopolitan. The general purpose of this visit is

to present an orei, a return gift to TM and H. S and T recently moved to a new

home, prompting a house warming gift from TM and H which is to be repayed.

S and T were also visiting for the purpose of seeing K, who had returned for a

visit after an absence of two years while living in the US.

The speakers operate in one presupposable frame of �we�-ness at the beginning,working to develop further intimate and non-intimate comparables as the con-

versation proceeds. All of this is accomplished in a volley of interactional turns.

Note especially that the two relationships between S and TM and between S and

K are differentially maintained by joint dialect use between S and TM and joint

Standard use between K and S. This is not a question of polite versus plain

forms. Although Japanese is well known for its honorific address registers, tokens

of polite forms are totally absent here. Only third person referent directed hon-

orifics are used, and these are very much Kyoto dialect solidarity markers in thiscontext. So, what we see is in effect a two register conversation where S and K

keep their �distance� through use of the Standard and TM and S are intimate

through their use of dialect forms. Without recourse to honorific register, the

participants instead use dialect and standard forms to perform a similar inter-

actional function.

The conversation opens with TM�s display to S of K�s pottery. TM is intimate

with S and uses predominantly dialect forms (Transcript 1 lines 10, 23, 27, 37). S

reciprocates when she addresses TM towards the end of the transcript (Transcript1 lines 34, 36, 38, 40) but is held back in this regard in her exchanges with K

(Transcript 1 lines, 6, 20, 22, 24, 26). S wants to impress K and display her shared

appreciation of traditional crafts. She asks questions regarding the technical as-

pects of pottery using non-dialect forms in line 6 and makes an aside comment to

her husband T that their acquaintance uses this kind of glaze. This comment

clearly has as intended recipient not only the addressee but the present overhearers

as well. Line 15 seems to be a dialect form from S in the subsection of talk where

K and S are interacting (Transcript 1 lines 2–26), but this is a pair part response,not to K, but to T, who has just finished K�s utterance. In fact the only dialect

forms used by S to K is in Transcript 1 line 18, where she breaks from semi-

technical discussion to praise K as one praises a child. Note that this inspires an

immediate humble hedge and nervous laughter on the part of K. This move by S

seems to be an inserted recalibration of the relationship between S and K–S

claiming the role of �aunt� vis a vis the child �neice�, a prompt to K to use reciprocal

uchi forms. It fails. Throughout the exchange K does not use dialect forms with the

older friend of her parents, establishing a boundary between them that is notovercome. K is typically a predominantly dialect speaker, she uses the dialect form

misen (contraction of mise-hen �show-NEG�) to her mother TM in line 2 for ex-

ample, but is clearly not presenting her uchi face to S here. Note especially the

exchange in T1 24, 25 and 26 with the parallelistic S: hontoo ni – attenai, K:

attenai, S: hontoo ni, all in Standard.

The second utterance by S in line 26, after her Standard hontoo ni to K, is

directed at TM and employs a Kansai form; denwa shitan �I phoned him�. TM


reciprocates in line 27 with the dialect version of hontoo ni, honma ni. As

�mother� and the most intimate to S, she attempts to reestablish the parameters

of �we�-ness that have shifted. She steers the conversation to the health of a

common intimate, �uncle TK�, allowing S to indulge in her most marked dialect

use, solidifying the in group membership shared among friends and family. S

turns to engage TM and uses dialect honorifics in speaking about TK to TM inlines 34, 36, 38, 40 and 42. I interpret these -haru forms as partially honorific

and partially solidarity building, that is referring to a common and respected

(Kyoto University professor) in group member with inclusive and respectful

dialect forms. Note that what could be analyzed as indexing of vertical (def-

erence) and horizontal (groupness) planes is accomplished with the use of this

particular suffix. Note also that the verb in 34 has the -teharu variant and the

verbs in 38 and 42 have the -taharu variant (see examples 5 and 6 in Section

2.3). At this point, the conversation has come back to an in group uchi

frame.

The following transcripts are intended to highlight salient dialect and Standard

features. 5 Relevant Kansai dialect forms are bold, and contrastive Standard forms are

italicized.

Transcript 1: Kyoto 24 June 2001

5 Th

have r

effects.

is is an interpretive process for native speakers and ethnographic linguist alike. Wherever possible I

eviewed tapes with a participant for clarification on form and intuitions about any relevant social


As an extra linguistic component to the stances or footings I have claimed werebeing negotiated here, consider the presentation of the gift that S and T had brought

on this visit. The gift was given shortly after the previous section of talk. The present

was apparently chosen to match the personal tastes and artistic inclinations of H

and K. K and H are known to be potters – they have a pottery studio on the second

floor of their home. K is further known to have worked as a kimono designer for

some years, and is thus associated with traditional Kyoto arts. This leads S to a

selection of pottery as a gift. The style and piece was also chosen based on the

notoriety of the artist and S�s personal acquaintance with the artist. The gift con-sisted of an obuje �objet (d�art)�, an egg made of ceramic pieces and wrapped in paper

and enclosed in a wooden box signed by the artist and with the English inscription

‘‘Recreation’’. The presence of the box seems to be an important marker of the value

of the work, as H remarked, kore wa kati ga aru, �this is valuable�. Thus the gift wasat once a generally valuable appropriate orei, �return gift�, and also an attempted

uchi, �in group� gift.The gift did not make such a big impression on K and H despite S�s obvious desire

to have pleased them. K comments later off tape that since one example of thisartist�s work was sold at a high price, all subsequent works became excessively ex-

pensive. The price it must have cost made it a perfectly appropriate return present,

orei, but it seems to have failed as a marker of artistic taste, solidarity and intimacy.

When asked what he would do with the gift, H responded that he would display it,

especially upon S�s next visit. It then sat in the appropriate display area of the home,

the tokonoma, �alcove�, in the washitsu, �Japanese style room�, but remained in the

box – this was remarked upon by S on a subsequent visit. T and S are apparently

acquaintances of the artist, and S may have wanted to display this to two amateurartist friends.

Transcript 2 is of a dinner conversation in the same Japanese household in Kyoto

Japan, recorded 7/9/01. The participants include TM, her husband H and their


daughter K, and the researcher CB. On this evening, a Japanese colleague of the

researcher in Chicago, a native of Tokyo, SN, has just arrived at the home for a short

stay. It is well known among the participants that SN has never traveled to Kyoto or

the Osaka centered Kansai region of western Japan.

In this case the evidence of shift is negative – this transcript is lacking in many of

the overt markers of Kansai or Kyoto regional identity. Kansai dialect forms standin opposition to the standard of Tokyo. This conversation shows a distinct shift to

standard use at the morphological, lexical and syntactic levels. Prosody is not

treated in this transcript, but one native speaker participant, K, indicated upon

re-listening to the tape that TM�s speech, for example, while lacking dialect mor-

phosyntactic and lexical markers, retains a dialect intonation pattern. This would

correlate well with Silverstein (1981) contention that speakers are more likely to

have available for reflexive analysis and manipulation more segmentable, mean-

ingful elements. If one assumes that salient dialect features can be used as parts of arepertoire for some socioindexical purpose, then it should be the case that switches

occur, in order, at the level of the word, the phrase and segmental and then prosodic

phonology.

This portion of the dinner conversation is centered around the presentation of

local foods, from the characteristic freshwater eel found in Kyoto inns (Transcript 2

lines 7–18, 23–28), to chilled tofu (Transcript 2 lines 19–22, 29–31), to the maximally

local homegrown cucumber (Transcript 2 line 32). The explanation of the seasonal

summer nature of the dishes is in keeping with the cultivated attention to the seasonsand incorporation of seasonal elements into art, poetry and cuisine that is particu-

larly stereotypical of Kyoto. Thus, the introduction of these referents into discourse,

and the continued reference to and predication of states of affairs of these referents

sets the �topic� of conversation; Kyoto cuisine. Note that in this case, the denota-

tional text, what the talk is about, does not determine the choice of code. If this were

the case then we would expect that the bilectal speaker TM might display the local

Kyoto referents in local Kyoto dialect. Instead, it appears that it is at the level of the

interactional text, what social work the talk is doing, that the choice of standard isbeing determined.

There is a marked presence of polite forms in this section of talk. This signal a

shift �up� in register. This calibration to a more �formal� code is complemented with

the shift to the Standard. We saw in Transcript 1 that there was an abundance of

polite and honorific forms in Kansai dialect and plain forms in Standard. Here we

see no plain forms or honorific forms in Kansai dialect. The use of standard like

forms here is the result of orientation to SN�s speech and identity as a Tokyo native.

Note that the interactional scene and the social roles inhabited by the participants setthe register used on the axis of dialect vs. standard, not topic. Again, we might expect

TM to accompany her shift to honorific use in this encounter with a selection of

Kansai, or more precisely Kyoto dialect honorific forms, but this does not occur.

Although the topic is Kyoto and its cuisine, there is not a topic induced shift into

Kyoto dialect, but rather an accommodation to the standard variety of the guest and

the entailed effect of drawing a clear boundary between in group family and out

group guest that parallels regional affiliation. Note that in as much as the use of


Standard by e.g. TM may be motivated by a desire to put SN at ease by using a

familiar (to him) code, such a choice can be read as a solidarity building move as

well.

Transcript 2: Kyoto July 9, 2001. 6

6 In

the sam

is in S

this transcript, I have not italicized Standard forms as in Transcript 1, as they are not contrastive in

e way in this exchange. There is only one, bolded, Kansai form in line 30. The rest of this transcript

tandard register.


After viewing the transcripts and their interpretation, we should have a feel for

them – we should be clear on the use of the dialect and Standard markers and their

possible motivations and we should be clear on cultural context. Next we mustconsider how a theory of the indexical function of dialect signs might look. How

similar is it to proposals of the function of other registers such as honorifics? How do

we account for the interactional and semiotic properties of such a theory that may be

stable cross-culturally and those categories that are particular to specific cultural

systems?

4. The enregisterment of dialect

4.1. Mapping honorifics

Agha (1993) establishes an indexical semiotic system for the analysis of the oc-

currence of tokens of honorific linguistic forms in discourse. Agha denies that

honorific forms encode social status. Social status he defines as a monadic concept

establishing the positions of an individual in terms of variables, birth, breeding, age,profession, wealth, etc. within a system of social stratification. This describes a fixed

system of macrosocial positionality. Rather, honorifics, he claims, index relative

deference entitlements. Deference entitlement he defines as a dyadic or polyadic

concept establishing the relationship of a given interactionally positioned individual

to some other(s). Such deference specifies ordinal positions of interactants by appeal

to interactional role categories in discursive interaction. He thus specifies the in-

dexical object of the honorifically coded sign. Deference functions, states Agha, link

the signal order to the interactional order. Note that the object is an interactionally


defined property, the degree to which recruitments to role in a given discursive

context are presented as asymmetrically related. So, A utters x, and x has as its

indexical object y, the comportment, specifically deferential, of A to B (or any origo

to any recipient). The sign x performs, creates the object y. As indexes are always in a

causal relationship with their object, the object y, deference, modifies the nature of

the sign x, creates the sign qua honorific as opposed to some other alternate (hon-orifically neutral say) linguistic expression. The honorific sign x in turn signals the

spatio-temporal co-presence of its object y, deference paid to deference due.

Note that the relation of sign x to object y constitutes a ground, which is in turn

the object of another sign, in this case a sign representing a politeness judgment of

the appropriateness of the relation indexed. Politeness judgments link deference in

interaction to status categories in the social order. They take the ground of the

honorific form and its deference entitlement as object, and have that relation as their

object. Politeness judgments are the product of a metapragmatic process of evalu-ation of the efficacy of particular forms in particular situations, calibrated against

cultural categorical notions of social hierarchy. Thus, the link from the interaction

order to the social order is achieved through linguistic ideological formulations of

the use of language and social roles, appropriateness and power.

4.2. Mapping dialect forms

I will present an argument similar to that of Agha (1993) in order to demonstratethat dialect items do not directly encode socio-regional provenance. Socio-regional

provenance I define as a monadic concept establishing the position of an individual

in terms of variables; region, urban/rural, education, etc. within a system of speech

communities comprising sub linguistic communities – regional dialect norms of

Kansai, Kyoto, Tokyo Standard – and a nation state level institutionally and

ideologically reproduced Standard oriented linguistic community – The Japanese

Language. Rather, dialect forms do encode (stances on a scale of) alterity. Alterity I

define as a dyadic or polyadic relative concept establishing the relationship in termsof difference of a given interactionally positioned individual to some other(s). Thus,

the indexical object of a marked dialect sign in discursive interactional terms is not

the regional identity of the speaker (role) but simply a value of difference of the

speaker (role) from some addressee.

Note that this indexical object (value/stance of alterity) of dialect forms (non-

referential indexes) in use in context subsumes Agha�s account of honorific forms

and their indexical object, �deference entitlements�, which can now be seen as a

particular type of alterity – a marked asymmetric alterity. Agha characterizes def-erence, following Shils (1982), as �the interaction specific comportment of an indi-

vidual toward some alter� (Agha, 1993, p. 134). This is general enough to include the

social indexical function of register types such as dialect that do not always signal an

asymmetry in social relations. It would seem that Agha�s stronger statements on the

indexical object of honorific forms are correct, that honorific register use in discourse

acts to signal particular, always asymmetric stances of alterity with respect to some

other(s). This asymmetry is part of the immediate context, presupposed and created


by honorific use. We may generalize out from the specific indexical object of def-

erence indexes, what I would call asymmetric stances of alterity, to the broader

notion of alterity as a scale being a field from within which indexical objects of di-

alect register forms are calculated. It is crucial to note here that I recognize the

possible asymmetric interpretations of dialects as rural, sub standard, etc. I argue

that while the primary indexical object of honorific signs is asymmetrical, dialectalcounterpart signs do not have an asymmetrical relation as their primary indexical

object. 7 Only after the appearance of dialect forms in interactional contexts are

computed against assumed norms of preferred use may the potential for asymmetric

reading occur. The question becomes, once these stances are mapped from the signal

order to the interactional order, how are they evaluated metapragmatically in

mapping from the interactional order to the social order where judgments of socio-

regional provenance are made? Further, what is the interpretive frame for under-

standing bare indexes of difference in a culturally specific and systematic way?

5. Language ideologies and the interpretation of dialect signs

5.1. Ideologies of regional identity

Silverstein points out �the tendency to rationalize the pragmatic system of a

language, in native understanding, with an ideology of language that centers onreference-and-predication� (Silverstein, 1979, p. 208). This leads to the interpretation

of easily identifiable linguistic units in their referential or propositional capacity

rather than their indexical capacity. This accounts for how people understand dialect

forms to somehow naturally contain regionality in the sign. The sign forms become

naturally associated with wider cultural conceptions of speakers� social categories,conceptions which often fit into pairs of stereotypes. Koyama (2000) identifies the

following stereotypic oppositions between Kyoto and Tokyo (Fig. 2).

Note that the pairs of oppositions allow for a deictic reading from either one ofthe sets of characteristics such that one is �in� and the other �out�. The reckoning of

regional identity through conventions of cultural stereotypy is almost everywhere

produced from an assumed neutral point of view. For example, Tokyo natives in-

form me that the above characterization appears to be Kyoto centric. Of course all

such stereotypes are perspectival and relational. Thus, while Tokyo may appear

masculine from the point of view of Kyoto, it is feminine from the point of view of

Osaka.

Regional stereotypes may involve negative valuations, especially when theyoverlap with rural versus urban oppositions. In the case of Tokyo vs. Kyoto or

Osaka, the potential for asymmetry is less pronounced as all the localities indexed

7 With a caveat that I am attempting to move away from characterizations involving notions of vertical

and horizontal as analytic primes (cf. Brown and Gilman, 1960), I suggest as a geometric illustration only

that the honorific sign to object ground may be thought of as a vertical relation of difference, while the

dialect sign to object ground may be thought of as a horizontal relation of difference.

Kyoto beauty femininity traditional

elegance

intruded traditional Japanese

Tokyo money masculinity brute

power

intruder modern Japanese

Fig. 2. Stereotypic traits of Tokyo and Kyoto.


are generally ascribed prestige. I simply wish to point out here that whatever valu-

ations of speech forms as �good� or �bad� are involved, dialectal indexes are inter-

preted as naturally encoding a set of characteristics that are ideologically linked with

concepts of regionality. In fact, regionality cannot be indexed by any dialect formwithout evaluation in terms of cultural concepts about the constitution of society.

The feeding of such indexes through these conceptual sociological �maps� entails theinvocation of all manner of ideological stereotypes. Important here is the way in

which the linguistic sign is seen to embody the cultural trait it betrays; elegant speech

belies an origin in an appropriately elegant locale, etc. Further, any reflection at all

tends to reveal the secondary nature of especially pejorative associations with certain

speech forms, while the brute fact of regionality is usually mistakenly seen as a

simpler, more objective index of the first order.I suggest that there is a basic underlying meta-level or reflexive system within

which difference at the level of interaction as well as the level of region can be un-

derstood. Uchi and soto are Japanese cultural concepts which are grounded in the

core semantic notions inside and outside and which operate in structuring Japanese

cultural notions of language, self and society. The basic ideology surrounding this

dichotomy can be simply read as stipulating that one uses X forms to uchi and Y

forms to soto, where X¼ dialect and Y¼ Standard, for example. Uchi and soto

groupings are inclusively recursive, they move from Japan as uchi and the world assoto down through regional identities and intimate social relations. To say that uchi

and soto are linguistic ideological primes in Japanese culture relies not on an as-

sumption that such a unity is preexistent, but suggests that such primes work to

create at least the appearance of this unity at a fundamental level. The circulation of

linguistic ideological concepts such as this is often mediated by institutional struc-

tures at the national or state level. Academia, medicine, the media and politics are all

potential domains of ideological reproduction.

5.2. Linguistic ideology with a psychological mask

Let us explore the ability of speakers to interpret dialect use according to ideol-

ogies of membership in groups �below� the level of the region. This level of inter-

pretation, which in our discussion might best be characterized as a reflexive

engagement with the domain of interaction, is often characterized as belonging to the


domain of psychology. In Japan, the circulation of uchi and soto as technical terms is

linked up with a popular psychological literature exemplified by the widely read and

translated work of Takeo Doi, MD. Doi (1985) represents and promotes an eth-

nopsychology that seeks to explain the hidden structure of the Japanese psyche. Key

to this effort are the oppositions uchi vs. soto, omote (face) vs. ura (mind), and honne

(true self) vs. tatemae (presented self). Doi states that the �consciousness of graspingthings simultaneously in terms of both their aspects of omote and ura is especially

well developed in the Japanese language. I say this because I think omote and ura

correspond to the distinction between soto (outside) and uchi (inside) that is often

prominent in the Japanese consciousness of human relations� (Doi, 1985, p. 24).

These oppositions are used to frame the psychological presentation of inner sub-

jectivity to outer society. Further, the dynamic nature of the opposition of these

concepts is used to express the relational nature of Japanese self and society. Doi

stresses the relative aspect of these terms,

since soto and uchi are different for each individual, what is soto for one

person may become uchi for a person included in that soto. Clearly, the

former�s omote becomes the latter�s ura. In this sense, omote and ura

are extremely relative, and it is for this reason that they suggest a quality

of two sidedness� (Doi, 1985, p. 29).

The micro level and the macro level of the Japanese psychological experience

present themselves recursively in the work of Doi, the individual is masked to hisinterlocutor as the Japanese self is to the Japanese society and as the Japanese society

at large is masked to the West.

The theory is presented as a psychological and cultural analysis, but it is really

an ideology of language. Doi�s discussion is largely a presentation of nouns, their

senses and combinatorics and how these can be linked metaphorically and etymo-

logically.

Since omote and ura mean �face� and �mind�, we can conclude that the re-

lationship between omote and ura is modeled on the relationship between

face and mind and that it is constituted by a generalization and abstrac-

tion of that relationship. In the relationship between face and mind, the

face usually expresses the mind. When we say that a person�s face is

�aglow� (kao ga kagayaite iru), or that it is �cloudy� (kao ga kumotte

iru), or that it is �a face deep in thought� (kangaebukai kao), we are speak-ing directly of the face. What we mean, however, although it is expressed

indirectly, is the mind as it appears on the face (Doi, 1985, p. 25).

Doi likewise references historic uses of omote and ura in 18th century textualinterpretation to establish their importance. He promotes other popular conceptions

of language in his discussion, such as the view that Japanese are not analytic in their

use of language while Westerners are. He also states, �words are totally monothetic

and most of them are used with implied value judgments of good and bad� (Doi,

1985, p. 29). For Doi, what is thought to be good is displayed to soto through omote

and what is thought to be bad is shut away in uchi/ura.


Doi�s work represents a sophisticated exposition of Japanese cultural categories

and their metaphoric extension through domains of social life ranging from internal

psychology to everyday talk to poetics and even the organization of society itself. It

also represents an uncritical reproduction of these categories as analytic primes

through the Japanese institutional regimentation and authoritative production of

scientific medical discourses on cognition. This works within Japan and abroad, as anative yet scientifically filtered psychocultural explanation of the hidden Japanese

psyche.

5.3. Indexical function of uchi and soto

The ideology of uchi and soto as relational components of a psychology of self-

hood is based in a broader logic that divides inner from outer. The topology can be

projected into various realms of social life, resulting in recursive organizationalregularities. Bachnik (1994) presents a range of contemporary views on the cultural

distillation of the basic relational concept of the �in�/�out� topology. Bachnik (1994)

comments on the series of dichotomies related to uchi and soto that have been in-

voked in the literature as organizational keys for the study of Japanese society.

Bachnik recognizes Doi�s basic insights while moving beyond his basically semantic

(metaphorical, symbolic structural) analysis to an indexical account of uchi and soto.

She states,

we focus especially on uchi/soto (although we include the other paired

terms as well). We propose that the significance of uchi/soto extends be-

yond the directional coordinates of �inside� and �outside�; and that, specif-

ically, these terms link the directional coordinates with self, society, andlanguage; moreover, they provide an organizational dynamic for this

linkage. To put this another way, we propose that the universally defined

orientations for inside/outside are linked with culturally defined perspec-

tives for self, society, and language in Japan. Consequently, the organiza-

tion of all three have striking parallels, derived from the directional

orientations of inside/outside. Moreover, the directional coordinates of

uchi/soto are basic to the other paired sets of terms as well, making

uchi/soto the most fundamental of all the terms� (Bachnik, 1994, p. 7).

Here Bachnik seeks to extract the �in�/�out� topology and generalize it across levels.

Her statement points to the indexical linking of the inside/outside coordinates

to micro contexts and the role of this dynamic as an interactional universal plane.

This corresponds to my linking of the signal order to the interactional order on theplane of alterity stances, a horizontal move on an axis of inside to outside, a pre-

sumably universal characteristic function of non-referential indexical �dialectal� signsin use.

Second is her indexical linking of the microcontext to sociocultural macro con-

texts of interpretation. This corresponds to my linking of the interactional order to

the social order, whereby perspectives on the appropriateness and effectiveness of

linguistic forms in context are formed against the overall organizational ideological


primes uchi and soto. Note that this works to separate in part the universal inter-

actional tendencies at work in language use from particular culturally pregnant

construals of these. Note further that the reason why these need to be separated, that

is why these are not immediately apparent as separate, is the organizational parallels

that they share. This corresponds to my iconic mapping from interaction to sociality,

whereby diagrammatic signs of regional sameness and difference and interactionalfamiliarity, solidarity, and difference are superposed one to the other. As Irvine and

Gal (2000) make clear, this iconization or naturalization of the relationship between

levels – linguistic interactional particulars and their broad sociological consequences

– erases other potential associations of form with indexical meaning. The result is a

simple and natural association of dialect forms with regional provenance, social

strata, or other categories conceived at the cultural categorical level, and obfuscation

of more subtle interactional consequences of dialect use, real as these are.

6. Conclusion

A backward glance at the transcripts and the discussion of their features in

Section 3 will illustrate the applicability of the general analysis just proposed. In light

of the discussion of the uchi/soto ideology, we may identify a very consistent lin-

guistic construction of boundaries in the three way exchange between TM, K, and S

in Transcript 1. Further, we see that the construction is collaborative, that is, itemerges in discourse between active parties in dialogue. TM and S maintain an uchi

stance with regard to each other, indexing this through predominantly Kansai dialect

forms. S and K maintain a soto stance with respect to each other through the use of

predominantly Standard forms. Note that S is constantly shifting between linguistic

components of her repertoire and the footings they index.

In Transcript 2, TM displays the versatility of her repertoire, and the effectiveness

of its indexical capacity in use. She presents a soto �face� through the use of Standard.

Further, the repertoire of SN being grounded more centrally in Standard, there is asense in which he may interpret this as an uchi move whereby TM goes out of her

way to make him feel at home. The nature of the in/out topology indexed here is of

course relative. Consider the claim reported in Section 2.2 that Kansai women may

regard Tokyo men as not direct enough, too interactionally distant by virtue of their

inability to speak (some variety of (a)) Kansai dialect. Recall that all of the women in

the conversation reported are competent in some version of the Standard variety,

and within Kansai dialect, claim to be comfortable with both some characteristic

Osaka and Kyoto ways of speaking. They identify with being variously from Kansai,Osaka or Kyoto. I wish to point out here the relational aspects of the presentation of

self as belonging to a Kyoto identity group or an Osaka identity group and the

expression of such alignments in Kansai dialect. Note the relativity of uchi and soto

with respect to in group identification. It seems that the dialect of Kansai – as for-

mally cohesive as such a unit can be claimed to exist – is less a marker of regional

provenance than an index of positions of identification within fluid circles of social

space.


Let me conclude by restating the general point that the indexical function of the

group of forms culturally recognized as Kansai dialect and Standard are employed in

particular instances of talk to very subtle interactional ends and often very personal

effects. The sociolinguistic interest for me, at least, is to start here with the ways in

which these fundamental indexical values signal dyadic interactional stances of

sameness and difference. Only then can we move to how these signs are overtly in-terpreted as marking regional stereotypes and how they are much less consciously

interpreted as being appropriate and effective for a given interaction, as letting one

into or excluding one from an in group, as breaking down or drawing boundaries

between interactants.

Acknowledgements

I thank friends and family in Kyoto for their hospitality and support during theSummer of 2001, before and since. Arigatoo gozaimasita. I owe a great debt to

Michael Silverstein and Susan Gal for their invaluable guidance during the devel-

opment of this project. John Lucy and Amy Dahlstrom also provided valuable

comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I thank Shunsuke Nozawa and Ichiro

Yuhara for detailed and insightful suggestions regarding Japanese language and

culture. Paul Manning and Adi Hastings offered great encouragement in the prep-

aration of this draft. All errors are of course my own.

References

Agha, A., 1993. Grammatical and indexical convention in honorific discourse. Journal of Linguistic

Anthropology 3 (2).

Bachnik, J.M., 1994. Introduction: uchi/soto: challenging our conceptualizations of self, social order, and

language. In: Bachnik, J.M., Quinn Jr., C.J. (Eds.), Situated Meaning: Inside and Outside in Japanese

Self, Society, and Language. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Blom, J., Gumperz, J., 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structure: code-switching in Norway. In:

Gumperz, J., Hymes, D. (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. Blackwell, Oxford.

Brown, R., Gilman, A., 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Sebeok, T.A. (Ed.), Style in

Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 253–276.

Doi, T., 1985. The Anatomy of Self: The Individual Versus Society (Mark Harbison, Trans.). Kodansha

Press, Tokyo.

Goffman, I., 1979. Footing. Semiotica 25 (1–2), 1–29.

Gumperz, J., 1968. The speech community. In: Giglioli, P. (Ed.), Language and Social Context. Penguin

Education, pp. 219–231.

Irvine, J.T., Gal, S., 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In: Kroskrity, P.V. (Ed.),

Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. SAR Press, Santa Fe.

Koyama, W., 2000. From Universal Grammar to Local Discourse, Ideology and Politics. Unpublished

dissertation proposal, University of Chicago Linguistics Department, November 29, 2000.

Koyama, W., 2001. Dialects of dialect and dialectology: culture, structure and ideology of �the Kyoto

Dialect� of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 1571–1600.

Loveday, L.J., 1986. Japanese sociolinguistics: an introductory survey. Journal of Pragmatics 10, 287–326.

Peirce, C.S., 1932. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce II: Elements of Logic. Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, MA.


Shibatani, M., 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Shils, E., 1982. Deference. In: The Constitution of Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 143–

175.

Sibata, T., 1999. In: Kunihiro, T., Inoue, F., Long, D. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics in Japanese Contexts.

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.

Silverstein, M., 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In: Basso, K., Selby, H.

(Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 11–56.

Silverstein, M., 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In: Clyne, P., Hanks, W., Hofbauer, C.

(Eds.), The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, Chicago Linguistic Society.

Silverstein, M., 1981. The limits of awareness. In: Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 84. Southwest

Educational Research Laboratory, Austin.

repertoires of registers: dialect in japanese discourse

Documents