Pragmatic Functions of Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse

Abstract

Traditional analyses describe Japanese honorific use as determined by situational factors. By contrast, this article takes an agent-centered approach to demonstrate how Japanese speakers use humble forms to perform a variety of pragmatic functions in ceremonial discourse. The analysis demonstrates that even in ceremonial speech contexts, speakers are not consistent in their use of humble forms, but rather shift between humble and nonhumble forms to index shifts in footing and the social persona they present to the audience. [honorifics, Japanese discourse, speech styles, style shifting, speaker agency] A major focus of research in linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics has been the relationship between patterns of language use and social context. Work in these areas has focused on describing general patterns of language use in relation to contextual features, often in the form of "rules" of use. Yet the actual range of speaker practices cannot be accounted for by models that present linguistic variation as a rule-governed response to contextual features. Thus, Romaine (1984) critiques variationist sociolinguistics for creating overly deterministic models of language use that ignore speaker agency. Studies of style and code shifting have repeatedly found that speakers not only shift varieties when shifting from one speech situation to another but also shift styles or codes within speech situations to redefine the situation or the associated social roles and relationships. These patterns of shifting have been conceptualized as contrasts between situational and metaphorical shifting (Blom and Gumperz 1972), responsive and initiative shifts (Bell 1984), and unmarked and marked code choices (Scotton 1988). Similarly, phonological variation has increasingly been seen as an active construction of identity rather than a simple reflection of the speaker's preexisting social characteristics (e.g., Coupland 2001;Eckert 2000). These new approaches have attempted to incorporate understandings of speaker agency and creativity into our models (Ahearn 2001). More broadly, linguistic anthropologists have sought to demonstrate that language use does not simply reflect a preexisting social reality, but is part of what constitutes that reality (Goodwin 1990;Cameron 1990; Duranti 1992; Hill and Manheim 1992).This article addresses these issues of speaker agency and linguistic variation with regard to Japanese honorific use. Traditional analyses present honorific use as determined by situational factors such as the relative social status of the interlocutors and the formality of the speech situation. Yet traditional models of honorific use as rule-governed and obligatory cannot adequately account for the variation found in actual discourse. Empirical evidence shows that speakers are not always consistent in their use of honorifics, even when talking about the same person in the same

A scientist or salesman? Identity construction through referent honorifics on a Japanese shopping channel program

“…Miller (1996), for example, reports that Japanese educators and linguists are reluctant to believe that subordinates speak to their boss without any honorifics in Japanese workplaces even when they are shown a video depicting such scenes. Despite the Japanese people's deep-seated ideology and insecurity about honorifics, my personal observations and other research on referent honorifics based on naturally occurring data (Okamoto 1998;Dunn 2005;Cook 2011;Shibamoto-Smith 2011;Barke 2010) suggest that Japanese speakers competently use referent honorifics strategically to meet the communicative goals at hand. We still do not know, however, how frequently referent honorifics are actually used and in what ways they serve as linguistic resources for the construction of social worlds in different social contexts.…”

“…The speaker can show deference to the addressees (and/or their group) or the third party members by exalting them (sonkeigo) or by humbling him-or herself (kenjoogo). See Dunn (2005), and Pizziconi (2011) for more information on the forms and functions of Japanese honorifics.…”

“…Brown & Levinson 1987), and markers of deference (cf. Martin 1964) both empirically and theoretically (Agha 1993(Agha , 2002Cook 1998Cook , 2006Cook , 2008Dunn 2005;Duranti 1992;Okamoto 1998;Pizzi-Brought to you by | Western University Authenticated Download Date | 6/8/15 2:15 AM coni 2003). In particular, recent studies on honorific language based on naturally occurring data have found that honorifics are not always used according to the prescribed usage (i.e., reflecting the relative social status of the interlocutors or a particular social context).…”

The Impact of Primary Schools on the Differential Distribution of Samoan Adolescents’ Competence with Honorific Language

“…Linguistic anthropologists have long been interested in these honorifics, because studying them reveals not only how semiotic resources can be used to pay respect to others but also how they can be used to negotiate shared understandings about ranked relationships between in-dividuals and groups (Agha 1994;Beeman 1986;Dunn 2005;Errington 1988;Keating and Duranti 2006;Levinson 1983). Although most honorifics come in the form of specialized pronouns or terms of address, a number of genetically unrelated languages, including Hindi-Urdu, Lhasa Tibetan, Burmese, Thai, Tamil, Zuni, Nahuatl, Javanese, Korean, Japanese, Tongan, and Samoan, have far more numerous and elaborate semiotic resources that can be used for these purposes.…”

“…For example, the everyday word for "know," iloa, can be replaced with a marked honorific form, silafia, to show respect for a particular addressee or bystander. As Keating and Duranti (2006:149) note, speakers can also signal rank and status differences by using the everyday lexemes to humble themselves or other and thus implicitly elevate another (for comparable usage in Japanese, see Dunn 2005). Although extensive, the Samoan honorific lexicon focuses on the possessions, bodies, mental states and cognitions, and activities of highly ranked persons (Duranti 1992;Keating and Duranti 2006;Shore 1982).…”