okamoto indexical expressions in japanese

ELSEVIER Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

Social context, linguistic ideology, and indexical expressions in Japanese

S h i g e k o O k a m o t o *

Department of Linguistics, Caifornia State University, Fresno, CA 93740, USA

Abstract

Honorifics and sentence-final particles as indexical signs have been widely studied in Japanese pragmatics and sociolinguistics. Most previous studies have directly related linguistic forms to aspects of social contexts (e.g. social distance, gender), which tend to represent 'normative' usages, or the hegemonic linguistic ideology. Actual language practices of Japanese speakers, however, do not always conform to such 'normative' usages. The present study analyzes actual conversational data with regard to honorifics and 'gendered' sentence-final forms. The analysis reveals wide variations in their uses, including many 'deviant' uses. These variations suggest that social categories, such as social distance and gender, cannot be abstracted from the context as independent variables determining language choice. That is, honorifics and 'gendered' sentence-final forms cannot be regarded as direct indexes of contextual features. I argue that the choice of indexical expressions is a strategy that is based on the speaker's consideration of multiple social aspects of the context as well as on his/her linguistic ideology, or beliefs and attitudes concerning language use. Variations in indexical uses are then explained in terms of the complexity of social context and the diversity of linguistic ideologies that mediate indexical processes. The view of indexicality employed in this study enables us to account for variations in the use of indexicals in a coherent manner without marginalizing what may otherwise be considered 'deviant' practices.

1. Introduction

Linguistic expressions as indexical signs point to, or signal, certain features of the communicat ive context. In particular, they are often used to index sociocultural meanings pertaining to the speech context (Silverstein, 1979, 1985; Ochs, 1990).

~ This study was partly supported b2~ a California State University research grant. I am very grateful to those who helped me with the data collection, in particular Akiko Honjo, Chizuko Ito, Yoko Tada, and those who participated in recordirtg the conversations. I would also like to thank Mary Bucholtz, Penelope Eckert, Lieba Faier, Kira Hall, Chris Honde, Sachiko Ide, Miyako Inoue, Shoichi Iwasaki, Yoshiko Matsumoto, Naomi H. McGloin, J. V. Neustupn~, Naoko Ogawa, Janet Smith, Ryoko Suzuki, Shinji Tokuchi, and Sumiyuki Yukawa for their valuable discussions that helped shape this paper. * Correspondence to: S. Okamoto, 108 Northrop Place, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA. Fax: +1 209 278 7299; E-mail: [email protected]

0378-2166/97/$17.00 © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved PH S 0 3 7 8 - 2 1 6 6 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 7 5 - 1

796 s. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795817

Linguistic features such as honorifics and sentence-final particles have been widely studied as indexical signs in Japanese pragmatics and sociolinguistics. Most previous studies, however, have explained the use of these forms by directly relating them to particular aspects of social contexts. For example, the use of honorifics is often said to be determined by social distance, such as hierarchy and the lack of intimacy, and the use of certain sentence-final forms is directly related to the speaker's gender. These studies, often relying on researchers' introspection or self-report surveys, tend to be prescriptive, representing 'normative' linguistic usages. Actual language practices of Japanese speakers, however, do not always conform to such 'normative' usages, but rather exhibit wide variations.

The present study reexamines the nature of Japanese indexical expressions, in particular sentence-final forms and honorifics. Using actual conversational data, I analyze the variations in the use of these linguistic forms, paying special attention to 'deviant' uses (e.g. the use of 'masculine' sentence-final forms by women, the lack of honorifics when a hierarchical relation exists). A close examination of these 'deviant' uses indicates that they are in fact meaningful choices that cannot be explained by the view of direct indexicality, a straightforward mapping of linguistic forms to particular social variables. The present study then employs an alternative theory of idexicality in order to adequately account for both 'deviant' and 'normative' uses in a coherent manner without marginalizing the former as simple anomalies.

2. Relating linguistic forms directly to social variables

This section briefly reviews previous studies on the relationship between social context and the use of certain sentence-final forms and honorifics in Japanese.

2.1. Sentence-f inal f o r m s and gender

The Japanese language has been characterized as having distinct male and female speech patterns, or languages. Many previous studies have pointed out the male and female differential uses of a number of linguistic features, including sentence-final forms, self-reference and address terminology, honorifics, forms of directives, pitch heights, intonation patterns, and ellipsis (e.g. Kindaichi, 1957; Ide, 1979, 1982, 1990; Jugaku, 1979; Shibamoto, 1985, 1987, 1990; Reynolds, 1985; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; McGloin, 1990; Ohara, 1992; Smith, 1992). Due to these differential uses of linguistic features, Japanese women's speech has been described as more polite, gentle, nonassertive, and empathetic than Japanese men's speech.

One of the most frequently cited gender-marking linguistic features is sentence- final forms in informal speech styles. 1 Certain sentence-final forms, such as zo and ze are said to be used exclusively or primarily by men, while others, such as wa and

Formal/impersonal speech has been said to show few gender differences (e.g. Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987: 72).

S. Okarnoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795417 797

kashira, are said to be used exclusively or primarily by women (e.g. Ide, 1979, 1982; Reynolds, 1985; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Shibamoto, 1987; Shibatani, 1990). Whether the link between sentence-final forms and the speaker's gender is characterized as obligatory or as a matter of probability, most of these studies treat gender as a unified category which directly influences the choice of sentence-final forms (cf. McGloin, 1990). 2 That is, linguistic forms are regarded as direct indexes of gender.

Previous studies on language and gender in Japanese have made important con- tributions to the field in showing the extent of gender differences in Japanese, but at the same time they have tended to essentialize these differences as constituting distinct men's and women's languages. Actual speech of Japanese men and women, however, does not always conform to such dichotomous categorization, suggesting that language cannot be related directly to gender. Hence the need for empirical studies of within-gender variation in speech styles is now increasingly being recognized (Jorden, 1990; Okamoto and Sato, 1992; Kobayashi, 1993; Inoue, 1994; Okamoto, 1995, 1996).

2.2. Honorifics and social distance

The complex honorific system is often cited as an aspect of the Japanese language that reflects the nature of Japanese society and culture (Jorden and Noda, 1987; Niyekawa, 1991). Although the: scope of honorifics is broad, in this study I will focus on two major categories of honorifics: referent honorifics and addressee honorifics. The referent honorifics are subdivided into two types: the so-called sonkee-go 'respectful form', or subject honorifics, and kenjoo-go 'humble form', or non-subject honorifics. 3 Both referent and addressee honorifics are most commonly regarded as markers of social distance - i.e. hierarchical relation, the lack of intimacy, or soto 'out-group' relations as opposed to uchi 'in-group' relations. Referent honorifics are said to be used in reference to the subject or non-subject referent who is (perceived as) socially distant from the speaker (Harada, 1976; Makino and Tsutsui, 1986; Jorden and Noda, 1987; Nomotc,, 1987; Ide, 1989; Shibatani, 1990; Niyekawa, 1991; Tokunaga, 1992; Wetzel, 1994). Addressee honorifics, or the so-called teenee-go 'polite form', are said to be used in reference to the addressee who is (perceived as) socially distant from the speaker (Hinds, 1978; Ikuta, 1983; Makino and Tsutsui, 1986; Nomoto, 1987; Niyekawa, 19911; Sukle, 1994).

(1) Tanaka-sensee ga kore o o-.kaki-ni nari-mashita. 'Professor Tanaka wrote this.'

(2) Tanaka-kun ga kore o kai-ta. 'Tanaka wrote this.'

2 Regarding the use of 'gendered' sentence-final particles, McGloin (1990: 24) notes that "whether men and women actually use these particles, however, is governed by factors such as age, the sex of the addressee, the formality of the situation, etc." 3 For kenjoo-go 'humble form', the term object honorific is commonly used. However, the term non- subject honorific is more accurate; see Matsumoto (1997).

798 s. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

For example, in (1) o-V-ni nari is a subject honorific used to refer to the subject- referent's action, while mashita is an addressee honorific used for the addressee. In (2) neither a referent nor an addressee honorific is used. In (1) and (2) the subject- referent and the addressee are different persons, but the two may be the same person, as in (3):

(3) Sensee ga kore o o_-kaki-ni natta n desu ka. 'Did you (Professor) write this?'

In (3) the referent honorific o-V-n i natta is used to refer to the addressee's action and the addressee honorific desu is also used for the addressee.

While social distance is considered the major factor in the use of honorifics, other factors (e.g. the formality of the situation, the types of genres, the means of com- munication, the topics of conversation) have also been noted (Neustupn2~, 1978; Ide, 1982, 1989; Makino and Tsutsui, 1986; Minami, 1987; Matsumoto, 1988). The use of honorifics has also been related to another social variable, namely, gender. Women are said to use generally more polite or formal expressions (e.g. honorifics) than men (Jorden and Noda, 1987; Ide, 1990; Niyekawa, 1991). Further, it has been pointed out that the choice of honorifics may require a simultaneous consideration of two or more social factors (Minami, 1987; Ide, 1982; Matsumoto, 1988; Shibatani, 1990). In any event, previous studies have characterized the use of honorifics by directly relating it to social features of the context, in particular social distance. Rec- ognizing exceptions to his rules for honorific expressions, Neustupn~ (1978: 225) notes that there are many uses of honorifics which cannot be dealt with by rules that directly link social features (in particular, distance features) and linguistic expressions. That is, treating honorifics as direct indexes of certain social features may concur with 'central' or 'normative' uses, actual speech practices seem much more complex, exhibiting many apparently inconsistent uses. As in the case of the research on language and gender, the need for careful studies of actual honorific uses in diverse social contexts is now increasingly being recognized (Cook, 1996; Miller, 1996).

3. Variations in speech styles

This section presents examples of 'gendered' sentence-final forms and honorific and non-honorific forms from actual speech data to illustrate the wide variations in use. The examples come from two sets of data: Data Set I, women's dyadic conversations; and Data Set II, dyadic conversations between salespersons and customers.

Data Set I was gathered in 1992 and 1993. 4 It consists of 10 audio-taped informal conversations, each between two close female friends. The speakers were all residents

4 Part of this data set was also used in Okamoto (1995, 1996).

S. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817 799

of Tokyo. There were 5 pairs of college students, ages 18 to 20, and 5 pairs of middle-aged women, ages 43 to 57. 5 The subjects were asked to tape-record their oshaberi 'chat ' with their close friends for about 45 minutes. 6 Each conversation was transcribed to obtain 150 consecutive sentence tokens for each speaker. 7

Data Set II was obtained in 1995 in Osaka and Kyoto, Japan. It consists of many short conversations carried out between salespersons and customers in the following four places: (1) a large well-known marketplace in Kyoto that houses about 150 small shops selling fish, meat, vegetables, etc., (2) the same kind of large marketplace in Osaka, with about 170 small shops, (3) a major department store in Kyoto, and (4) a major department store in Osaka. The observation of the conversations was done by the author in late December. The conversations were recorded partly by note-taking and partly by a tape-recorder.

3.1. Variations in the use of 'gendered' sentence-final forms

The use of 'gendered' sentence-final forms was examined, using Data Set I. 8 Each sentence-final token in the data set was identified as feminine, neutral, or masculine. This identification was based mainly on the classification given in the literature (e.g. Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; McGloin, 1990). The feminine and masculine sentence-final forms were further subdivided into moderately feminine/masculine forms and strongly feminine/masculine forms. (The gender classifications of sentence-final forms used in the present study are the same as those used in Okamoto and Sato (1992)). 9

The results of the analysis show wide variations between the two age groups, as shown in Table 1.

There is also wide within-group variation, 1° as the range for each average per- centage in Table 1 shows. But, generally speaking, the older women tended to use more ' feminine' sentence-final forms than did the younger women. All the older women except one used ' feminine' forms more often than 'masculine' forms. In contrast, all the younger women except two used 'masculine' forms more often than ' feminine' forms. Furthe:r, many of the older speakers used 'strongly feminine' forms quite frequently, but the younger speakers hardly used them. For

5 All of the college students were attending private colleges. Three of the middle-aged women had full-time jobs; one of them worked for the family business; five of them had part-time jobs, although they identified themselves as housewives; only one was a full-time housewife. 6 Topics for conversation were not specified, although sample topics were suggested, among them school matters, friends, shopping, and travel. 7 See Okamoto (1994, 1995) for a detailed description of the kinds of sentence tokens that were not included in the analysis. 8 In Okamoto (1996), I analyzed the use of four gender-related linguistic features: sentence-final forms, honorifics, the prefix o- for nouns, and 'vulgar' or 'strongly masculine' lexical items. In this study, I discuss only the first two features to illustrate variability in the use of indexical signs. 9 See Okamoto and Sato (1992) for a detailed description of the gender classification of sentence-final forms. ~0 See Okamoto (1996) for each speaker's use of gendered sentence-final forms.

800 S. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

Table 1 Use (in %) of gendered sentence-final forms for the two age groups

Sentence-final forms Students Middle-aged women (ages 18-20) (ages 43-57)

% (Range) % Range)

Feminine forms 12 (5-19) 36 (10-61) - Moderately feminine forms 8 (3-10) 18 (5-27) - Strongly feminine forms 5 (2-12) 18 (5-34)

Masculine forms - Moderately masculine forms - Strongly masculine forms

19 (11-25) 12 (2-23) 18 (8-25) 12 (2-23)

1 (0-3) 0 (0-1)

Neutral forms 69 (59-77) 51 (37-73)

Total 100 100

The number of subjects is 10 for each age group. Total number of tokens = 3,000 (150 tokens for each subject)

example, the younger group used the typical ' f emin ine ' particle wa only twice in the entire data set. The older group used it 55 times. The underlined forms in example (4) illustrate the use o f strongly feminine sentence-final forms by older women :

(4) (middle-aged women, talking about their physical problems) SP A: Ha ni kita no. Moo doo shiyoo mo nai wa yo, watashi. / ? / g a t a g a t a ,

karada. ' I t (the symptoms of strain) came to my teeth. I ' m h o p e l e s s . / ? / M y body is all getting ruined. '

SP B: Me ni kita. 'Mine comes to my eyes. '

SP A: Dakara iki-nagara chiryoo-shite moratta. [laughter] 'So I had them fixed while going there. '

SP B: l i wa nee. M e ni kuru no. Sore ga nee, atashi wa muchuu ni natte yacchau desho ? Yari-hajimeru to. 'Tha t ' s nice. Mine comes to my eyes. Well, I do it forgetting myself, once I start doing it.'

S P A : Un. 'Yeah . '

S P B : Soo su to ne, 'Then , '

SP A: Me mo tsukareru wa yo ne. 'Your eyes get tired, r ight? '

S. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795--817 801

Note, however, that although younger speakers hardly used strongly feminine forms for their own speech, they used them when they quoted older women (i.e. their mothers and female teachers), as shown in example (5):

(5) Sore okaasan ni hanashitara, ja watashi ga morau wa yo to ka itte. 'When I told that to my mother, she said, "Then I will get it." '

What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that almost all younger women as well as many of the older women used 'moderately masculine' forms quite frequently. Although forms such as da and its variants (e.g. da yo, da yo ne) and yo (preceded by a plain form of a verb or a so-called/-adjective) are normally regarded as 'male' or 'masculine' forms in the literature (e.g. Ide, 1982; Reynolds, 1985; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Shibamoto, 1987; Miura and McGloin, 1994), they were widely used by the subjects, as illustrated in examples (6) and (7):

(6) (students, talking about skiwear) A: lya da, are.

'I don't like that.' B: Kawaii jan.

'It 's cute, isn't it?' A: Ageru ~ , moo.

'I will give it to you.' B: A, jaa hoshii y_O_, moo, honto ni.

'Oh, then I want it, really.' (7) (middle-aged women, talking about a hotel)

A: Un, soo da yo ne. 'Yeah, that's right.'

B: Un, toreru to omon d.__qa. 'Yeah, I think we can get it.'

A: Waa, suteki da nee. 'Wow, it's nice.'

As Table 1 shows, most of the 'masculine' sentence-final forms used by the subjects were 'moderately masculine' forms. But many younger subjects also used 'strongly masculine' forms, though on a limited basis. Examples (8)-(11) illustrate the use of 'strongly masculine' forms by younger speakers:

(8) (students, talking about the location of an office) A: Ii na. Watashi Maruno-uchi de hatarakitakatta naa.

'That's nice. I wanted to work in Maruno-uchi.' B: lya datte tooi zo.

'But it's far away.' (9) (students, talking about a ,;ki trip)

A: Gondora. 'It 's a gondola.'

802 S. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

(lO)

(11)

B: Gondoro ka. 'I see, it's gondoro (gondola).'

A: Gondoro ja nee, gondora. [laughter] 'It 's not gondoro, it's gondora.'

(a student, responding to the interlocutor's teasing remark) Katte ni itte ro tte. 'Say whatever you want to say.' (students, talking about junior members of their tennis club) A: Nama yuu na yo, mitai na kanji. [laughter]

'It 's like, 'Don't be cheeky." ' B: Un, mitai na.

'Yeah, like that.' A: [laughter]

In sum, the speech styles of the speakers in Data Set I showed wide variability, including many uses of 'masculine' forms. Wide variations and 'deviations' in the use of 'gendered' sentence-final forms as well as other gender-related linguistic features (e.g. honorifics, lexical items) have also been reported in other studies (Okamoto and Sato, 1992; Kobayashi, 1993; Takasaki, 1993; Okamoto, 1994, 1996). Further, it has been pointed out that gender distinction in speech style in Japan is more an urban phenomenon than a rural one (Kitagawa, 1977: 292). Sunaoshi (1995), for example, notes that her subjects, speakers of Ibaraki dialect, rarely used 'feminine' forms; in particular those with a thicker regional accent used features considered 'masculine' according to the normative characterization. Miyake (1995:219) also points out that "many features of men's rough speech in Standard Japanese are used by both men and women in the Tohoku Dialect". In Tokyo itself there are two regions, Yamanote 'the hillside' and Shitamachi 'the downtown', although their boundaries are now less clear than they once were. And it is the idealized 'feminine' speech style of the former that is usually described as 'women's language'. I1

3.2. Variations in the use of honorifics

Data Set II exhibited wide variations in the use of both referent and addressee honorifics. There was a striking difference between the speech of salespersons in the department stores and that of vendors at the markets even though all conversations involved the same kind of relationship (i.e. salesperson and customer). Although there were variations at each type of venue, generally speaking, salespersons at the two department stores used much more formal speech styles than vendors at the two markets. The former most often used both referent and addressee honorifics when talking to customers, whereas the latter (particularly vendors at the market in Osaka) often did not use honorifics at all.

lI See Kondo (1990) and Hibiya (1995) for further discussion of Yamanote-kotoba and Shitamachi- kotoba.

s. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795~817 803

Examples (12) and (13) illustrate this contrast. (In the following examples, S stands for salesperson, and C customer.)

(12) (at a women's clothes section of the department store in Kyoto; a saleswoman, talking to a customer) S: lrasshaimase. Doozo goran kudasaimase.

'Welcome. Please take; a look at them.' (13) (at a fish shop in the market in Osaka; a male vendor, talking to customers,

trying to catch their attention) S: Chuu-toro ya, chuu-toro, li no haitte ru yo. Mite itte yo, mite itte.

'(It 's/We have) chuu-toro, chuu-toro (a kind of fish). Good ones are in. Take a look at them, take a look at them.'

The speech in (12) is very formal, using both referent and addressee honorifics: In the first sentence, the speaker used irraishaimase 'welcome' rather than more informal irasshai, which lacks the addressee honorific -mase; in the second sentence she used the subject honorific goran 'to look' to refer to the addressee's action, and the formal request form -kudasaimase 'please do ... ' , which consists of the subject honorific -kuda- sai and the addressee honorific -rnase. The speech in (13), in contrast, does not contain any honorifics. All sentences end in a plain form rather than an addressee honorific form. For example, the first sentence Chuu-toro ya 'It's/We have chuu-toro' lacks an addressee honorific, desu or de gozaimasu (i.e. Chuu-toro desu/degozaimasu). The third sentence makes the same kind of request as in (13) but it lacks both referent and addressee honorifics: The addressee's action is referred to by the non-honorific verb form mite it- and the request is made in an informal style, using the verb gerundive form (it)te.

The following example further illustrates the use of honorifics in the department stores:

(14) (at a women's clothes section of the department store in Osaka; A female customer asks a saleswoman who was talking with another customer.) C: Kore no ooki no nai?

'Don't you have this in a larger size?' S: Hai shooshoo o-machi-itadakemasu ka.

'Yes, could you please wait for a moment? '

In (14) the customer spoke in an informal style, but the salesperson spoke in a very formal style, using a subject honorific (o- machi 'wait'), a non-subject honorific (itadake '(lit.) possible to receive (the favor)'), and an addressee honorific (masu). Note also that she used the word shoo shoo 'for a moment' rather than a more informal equivalent chotto. In (12) and (14) the salespersons at the department stores are female. But male salespersons at the department stores also most often spoke in formal styles, as illustrated in (15) and (16):

(15) (at a coffee shop in the department store in Kyoto) Waiter: O-sara no hoo o-sage-shite yoroshii desu ka.

'Would that be all right if I took away your plate?'

804 S. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

(16) (at the food section of the department store in Kyoto; a male salesperson, talking to a male customer) S: Irasshaimase.

'Welcome.' C: /?/aru no?

'Do you have /? / ? ' S: Hai, gozaimasu.

'Yes, we do.'

In (15) the waiter used a non-subject honorific (o-sage-shite) and an addressee honorific (desu). He also used the polite prefix o- for a noun (o-sara 'your plate') and the formal form yoroshii 'all right' (rather than the plain form ii). In (16) the customer spoke in an informal style, but the salesperson used addressee honorifics (mase in irasshaimase and gozaimasu).

The following three examples further illustrate the lack of honorifics in the speeches of salespersons in the markets. Note that the vendors in (18) and (19) are female, while those in (13) and (17) are male.

(17) (at a fish shop in the market in Kyoto; a male vendor, talking to a male customer) C: Dooshite oitoitara ii?

'How should I keep/leave this?' S: Hikage ni oitoite hoshii.

'I want you to leave it in the shade.' (18) (at a fish shop in the market in Osaka; a female vendor, talking to a female

customer) C: O-shoogatsu made motsu ?

'Is this going to last until the new year?' S: Motsu yo. Tsumetai toko i oitoite. Reezooko iretara akan.

'It will. Place it in a cool place. You shouldn't put it in the refrigerator.' (19) (at a meat shop in the market in Osaka, a female vendor, talking to cus-

tomers) S: Koobe-niku yasui yo yasui yo, negittara maketoku yo.

'Kobe beef, it's cheap, it's cheap. If you haggle, we will make it cheaper.'

The vendors and the customers in (17)-(19) all spoke in informal style. In particular, the vendors did not use referent honorifics to refer to the customers' actions. Nor did they use addressee honorifics in any of the sentences.

Regarding the formality differences in speech between the department stores and the markets, one notable point is the use of (de) gozaimasu, an addressee honorific that is much more formal than desu. Salespersons at the department stores used both desu and (de) gozaimasu frequently, while vendors at the two markets sometimes used desu but not (de) gozaimasu. The use of (de) gozaimasu in the department stores is illustrated in (16) and (20):

S. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817 805

(20) (at the department store in Kyoto) C: Suimasen, hankachi no uriba wa doko desu ka.

'Excuse me, where is the handkerchief section?' S: A, hankachi wa choodo kono oku no hoo de gozaimasu.

'Oh, handkerchiefs are just in back of this place.'

It is to be noted that although many vendors at the markets did not use honorifics at all, there were also many vendors who used them, as illustrated in (21):

(21) (at a vegetable shop in the; market in Osaka; a male vendor, talking to a female customer) S: Hai, yon-hyaku-en ne. Fukuro iremasho ka.

'Here, it's 400 yen. Shall I put them in a bag?' C: A, sakki / ? / haitteru kara ...

'Oh, a little while a g o , / ? / i t ' s in, so . . . ' S: A, ii desu ka.

'Oh, it's all right? (you don't need it?)'

In (21) the salesperson's speech is relatively formal, using the addressee honorifics masho and desu, although it is not the most formal one in that he did not use a non-subject honorific for the verb ireru 'put in' (i.e. o-ire-shi-mashoo ka).

Particularly interesting was the mixing of honorific and non-honorific expressions in the same sentence or across sentences in the same conversation. The phrase iremasho ka in example (21) illustrates the intra-sentential mixing of a non-honorific form (i.e. the lack of a referent honorific in ire) and an addressee honorific (masho). Examples (22) and (23) also illustrate the intra-sentential mixing, but unlike (21), they include a referent honorific, but not an addressee honorific.

(22) (at a fish shop in the market in Kyoto; a male vendor, talking to a female customer) S: Kotchi shi-hattara ee wa.

'You should take this one.' (23) (at a shop of tofu products in the market in Kyoto; a female vendor, talking to

a female customer) S: Reetoo-shi-hatte mo ii yo.

'You could also freeze it.'

In (22) and (23) the vendors used hat, a subject honorific in the regional dialect, to refer to the customers' actions, but they did not use any addressee honorific for the same customers.

Example (24) illustrates the inter-sentential mixing of addressee honorifics and plain forms in the same conversation:

(24) (at a dried goods shop in the market in Kyoto; a female vendor, talking to a female customer) S: Chotto yoko nine, oka-hattara kiree ya shine.

' If you put them a little bit by the side, it's pretty.'

806 s. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

C: A, soo ka. Kore to kore to, nan ka kiree ne.

'Oh, I see. This and this, it's kind of pretty, isn't it?' S: Soo ya nee, hai.

'That 's right, yes.' C: /? / S: / ? / D o t c h i demo yoroshi i desu ka.

' / ? /Wi l l either one do? '

In (24) an addressee honorific was not used in the first two sentences of the salesperson, but it was used in the third sentence of the same speaker. Note also that a subject honorific hatta was used in the first sentence to refer to the addressee's action, while no addressee honorific was used in the same sentence.

Data Set I also showed variations in the use and non-use of honorifics. The speakers in Data Set I did not use honorifics for each other, because they were close friends. However, when they talked about certain third persons (i.e. their superiors and persons they did not know well), they sometimes used referent honorifics. The use of these honorifics was relatively rare among the younger group. In contrast, such honorifics were frequently used by the older group, although there were also many instances in which the older speakers did not use them when applicable.

Examples (25)-(27), spoken by middle-aged women, illustrate the use of referent honorifics:

(25)

(26)

(27)

Go-shujin mo issho ni irashita kara ... 'Her husband also came with her, so . . . ' Okeeko ni wa ne sore de ii tte ossharu n da kedo.

'(The teacher) says that for practice that will do.' A: Kore totte kudasatta no ga wakai j o see no kata datta n de ...

'The one who kindly took this (picture) was a young woman, so . . . ' B" Un.

'Yeah.' A: Chotto, chotto shinpai datta no.

' ! was a little bit, a little bit worried.'

In (25), (26), and (27), the speakers used subject-referent honorifics (irashita 'came', ossharu 'say', kudasatta 'gave (a favor)', respectively) for the referents' actions. In (25) the speaker also used the honorific form go-shujin 'husband' to refer to her friend's husband.

Examples (28)-(30) illustrate the lack of referent honorifics. Examples (28) and (29) were spoken by students, and example (30) by middle-aged women:

(28) Soo. Sensee wa sensee de j ibun no heya de osake nonde ru shi. 'Right. The teacher was drinking sake in his own room.'

(29) X-sensee ga sono, nan ka, nani, ma, tesuto no koohyoo mitaina no itte te - , nan ka, nan-nin, nan-nin, go, roku-nin, shichi, hachi-nin, da ka, nan da ka, wakan nai kedo, nan ka yokatta hito no namae dake itta no yo- .


(30)

'Professor X was saying, uh, some, some, uh, comments on the test, and said only the names of those who did well, I don't know how, how many, how many, five or six, seven or eight.' A: X-san te, hora, o-isha-san no musuko-san ga o-isha-san ni natta tte hito ...

'Mr. X, you know, that person who is a doctor, and whose son also became a doctor, . . . '

B: Un, un.

'Yeah, yeah.' A: ano hito mo o-baa-chan ga kiteta no, oya ga.

'his mother also came, his parent.'

In these examples the speakers ,:lid not use honorifics (i.e. underlined verbs) for the referents' actions, although there was social distance between each speaker and the referent.

Other recent studies also show examples in which 'expected' honorifics were not used: Sukle (1994), for example, provides conversations in which the vendor in a vegetable shop sometimes spoke to customers in an informal style without honorifics. ~2 Miller (1996) gives examples in which subordinate workers did not use honorifics when talking to their bosses. Cook (1996) provides examples in which honorifics were not used towards unfamiliar addressees. It has also been noted that honorifics may be used in 'unexpected' situations - e.g. toward the addressee who is close to the speaker (see Section 6). 'Deviant' cases such as these, and the examples we saw above, cannot simply be attributed to a speaker's inability to use honorifics appropriately. Rather, these usages deserve careful study.

4. Describing/prescribing linguistic 'norms'

A close examination of the variations in the use of 'gendered' sentence-final forms and honorifics suggests that the use of these linguistic forms cannot be adequately accounted for by directly relating linguistic forms to certain social variables, that is, by treating linguistic forms as direct indexes of contextual features. Such a treatment does not allow linguistic variation and change. Further, it is to be emphasized that the usages defined based on direct indexicality are not mere overgen- eralizations in linguistic description. Rather, they tend to represent 'normative' usages, or the hegemonic linguistic ideology. Silverstein (1979: 204) points out that scientific studies of language have tended to analyze the native ideology of language use, as though it were an objective description of the relation between linguistic forms and social context. This is often applicable to the case of both 'gendered' sentence-final forms and honorific,; in Japanese.

With regard to gender and language, the speakers in Data Set I used 'masculine' forms quite frequently. In fact, among the twenty speakers in Data Set I, only three

~2 Sukle explains this lack of honorifics in terms of uchi 'in-group' relations based on the view of direct indexicality.

chunqiuli

Hervorheben

808 s. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

middle-aged women used a very ' feminine' speech style. Yet, this hyper ' feminine ' speech style is what is usually described as Japanese women 's language. Gal (1995: 171) argues that categories such as women 's speech and men 's speech "are not just indexically derived from the identities of speakers", but rather are "culturally constructed within social groups". 'Japanese women 's language' is thus a constructed category based on standard Japanese-in particular, the idealized speech style of traditional women in the upscale Yamanote area of Tokyo. It is what 'proper ' women are expected to use. It is thus class-based and normative, representing the hegemonic linguistic and gender ideology (see also Inoue, 1994, and Okamoto, 1994, 1995). Women ' s speech styles that do not conform to ' w o m e n ' s language' may be criticized as unfeminine, unattractive, ignorant, and symptomatic of improper upbringing. Such ideological conflicts are sometimes expressed in the media:

"It is often said that young women nowadays - whether they are students or working women - cannot use honorifics well . . . . I sometimes hear female teachers use the same language as male teachers . . . . women using men's language unnaturally. Are they ignorant or lazy, or are they making foolish efforts not to be dominated by men?" (Sumie Tanaka, Kashikoi Hito ni Narinasai, 1986; translated from the Japanese original) 13

Similarly, the discussions of honorific uses in the literature most often represent 'canonical ' usage, the forms that 'socially refined' Japanese are expected to use. Like women 's use of 'men ' s language', ' incorrect ' uses of honorifics are often criticized as indicative of ignorance, improper upbringing, or foolishness. Numerous books, magazine articles, and programs in popular culture offer guidance on how to use honorifics (Miller, 1996). Miller (1996) argues that this emphasis on 'correct ' honorifics, or tadashii keigo, indicates that the knowledge of honorifics is seen as linguistic capital for improving one's social identity - an essential part of one's sociolinguistic competence. This class-based ideology of honorifics, according to Miller (1996: 2), is often shared by academic literature on honorifics, which provides "essentially prescriptive characterizations".

5. Indexical process: Language, linguistic ideology, and social context

Despite the emphasis on 'normative ' usages of 'gendered' sentence-final forms and honorifics, Japanese speakers often diverge from those usages. As mentioned above, the proliferation of 'deviant ' uses suggests that linguistic forms are not directly linked to such features of social context as gender and social distance. Relat- ing linguistic forms directly to particular social variables - that is, treating linguistic forms as direct indexes, or markers, of particular social features - is problematic in two respects: One is the treatment of a particular social category as an independent variable, and the other the direct mapping of a linguistic form to a particular feature of the social context. The diverse linguistic uses presented in Section 3, for example,

t3 See Okamoto (1995) for more excerpts from the media that illustrate the ideological conflicts regarding women's speech.

S. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795817 809

suggest that social categories such as gender, status, and intimacy cannot be abstracted as independent variables determining language choice (see also Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1992). I argue that the choice of speech styles is a strategy based on a speaker's consideration of multiple social aspects of the context (e.g. gender, age, intimacy, genre, domain, speech-act type) 14 as well as on the speaker's linguistic ideology, or beliefs and attitudes, concerning language use. Based on their perception of multiple social aspects of the context, actors employ the linguistic expressions they consider most appropriate.

Silverstein (1979: 193) defines linguistic ideologies as "any sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use". Woolard (1992: 235) characterizes language ideology as "a mediating link between social structures and forms of talk". Similarly, Irvine (ibid.: 252) points out that fob:ms of talk and forms of social structure cannot be correlated straightforwardly. Rather, the relationship between the two "is more pro- ductively sought in cultural ideologies of language - those complex systems of ideas and interests through which people interpret linguistic behaviors". Further, Kulick (1992: 295) notes that "language ideologies seem never to be solely about language - they are always about entangled clusters of phenomena, and they encompass and comment on aspects of culture like gender and expressions and being civilized". As discussed by Silverstein (1979) and Irvine (1992), ('dominant') ideology affects speakers' strategies of language use, but it is important to distinguish particular beliefs about language use from actual distribution of uses.

My analysis of the data in the present study suggests that actual language uses are not always consistent with the normative' linguistic usage, or 'dominant' ideology, because of the complexity of aclual social context and also because of the diversity of linguistic ideologies that mediate the indexical process. That is, while the 'normative' usage emphasizes, or highlights, a certain cultural value relating to a particular social variable (e.g. the importance of acknowledging gender difference or social distance), actual use requires a consideration of multiple social aspects of the context. Further, the choice of a linguistic form :is not determined by a contextual feature; rather it is based on the speaker's judgment about the appropriateness of the linguistic form in a given situation. The 'dominant' linguistic ideology influences actual language use, but it is not exercised by everyone in exactly the same way at all times. Individuals may have different ideas about language use and form different relations between linguistic forms and social context. ~5 Further, these ideas about ways of speaking may vary in small and subtle ways. In this respect, they may be better considered as speakers' context-sensitive linguistic strategies, or concerns about language use.

Ochs (1990, 1993), distinguishing direct and indirect indexes, claims that the relation between language and certain contextual information, such as gender and the

14 AS mentioned in Section 2.2, Minami (1987) and others consider the use of honorifics as involving a consideration of multiple social factors. ~5 For discussions of the multiplicity, diversity, and contention of linguistic ideologies involved in var- ious levels of linguistic phenomena in other languages, see, for example, Silverstein (1979, 1985, 1992), Briggs (1992), Errington (1992), Gal (1992), Hill (1992), and Morgan (1994).

chunqiuli

Hervorheben

810 s. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 ( 1997) 795-817

nature of social relations (i.e. indirect indexes), is mediated and constituted through the pragmatic meanings of linguistic features, such as affective stances, social acts, and social activities (i.e. direct indexes). For example, regarding the relation of language to gender, Ochs explains that certain sentence-final particles in Japanese (e.g. ze and wa) directly index affective stances of "coarse versus delicate intensity", which in tum relate to gender and gender images as indirect indexes (1993:150-151) (see also McGloin, 1990, and Reynolds, 1990). Similarly, honorifics, according to Ochs (1990: 297), directly index "affective dispositions of the speaker (e.g. humility, admiration, love)", which in turn relate, as indirect indexes, to contextual information, such as the social positions of participants in a conversation. This notion of indirect index is particularly important in that it allows the possibility of speech style variations. However, Ochs' account, which mainly focuses on "normative" linguistic usages, is only implicit with regard to how the pragmatic meaning of a linguistic form is related to social context. ~6 To account for speech style variations, then, I emphasize the role of linguistic ideologies that mediate indexical processes. That is, the relation between the pragmatic meaning of a linguistic form and social context may vary because the two are related by way of the speaker's beliefs and attitudes concerning language use.

Associating, for example, the 'coarse intensity' of the particle ze with masculinity and the 'delicate intensity' of the particle wa with femininity is not straightforward; rather it is a function of one's attitudes toward speech styles for men and women. Different attitudes and expectations may evoke different associations. In other words, the pragmatic meanings (e.g. coarse intensity, delicate intensity, (in)directness) of 'gendered' sentence-final forms may not necessarily be associated with gender or femininity/masculinity. For example, in choosing sentence-final forms characterized as 'masculine' in the 'normative' usage (e.g. da, ze), women may express - through their pragmatic meanings (e.g. directness and assertiveness) - such social meanings as intimacy, solidarity, power, emotions (e.g. anger), and speech-act types (e.g. criticism), but not masculinity (see also Okamoto, 1995). On the other hand, the indirectness or formality of sentence-final forms regarded as 'feminine' (e.g. wa, kashira) may be interpreted as implicating such social meanings as the speaker's class status, social distance, and speech-act types (e.g. sarcasm). 17

Likewise, the presence of a certain contextual feature (e.g. social difference) may not necessarily trigger the use of honorifics. That is, the pragmatic meanings, or affective dispositions, expressed by honorifics cannot be straightforwardly related to certain contextual features. Using honorifics to express formality or deference

~6 Ochs (1993: 154) discusses marked and unmarked speech styles for men and women, recognizing the existence of diversity in speech styles. Yet, her model of indexical process is only implicit with regard to the linguistic ideology, or the agent, that relates the pragmatic meaning of a linguistic form to social context. ~v See also Faier (1995), in which she argues that the relation between language and gender may shift between utterances, even if the same linguistic features are employed. For example, Faier (1995: 7) points out that "accommodating language" - the communicative style of white middle-class U.S. mothers (Ochs, 1993) - may be used by women sarcastically to patronize, that it may be used when speaking to a pet to "humanize" the animal, and that it may also be used by men/fathers.

chunqiuli

Hervorheben

S. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795417 811

toward a socially higher person, tbr example, is based on one's judgment about what constitutes an appropriate social behavior in a particular situation. In some situations such 'normative' usage may not be followed or interpreted differently. For instance, the lack of referent honorifics, or the informality expressed toward the referent, does not necessarily mean the lack of social distance between the speaker and the referent, but may index indirectly other social meanings, such as intimacy or friendliness toward the addressee, the nature of the conversational setting, and speech-act types (e.g..warning, exclamation). On the other hand, the use of referent honorifics, or the formality expressed toward the referent, may not always index only the social distance between the speaker and the referent, but may implicate some other meanings, such as the speaker's class status, distance vis-~t-vis the addressee, and speech-act types (e.g. request, sarcasm). Further, as seen in Section 3, honorific and non-honorific forms may be mixed to express different degrees of formality that are thought be appropriate for a given situation (see Section 6 for further discussion).

Thus the same linguistic form, or its pragmatic meaning, may be interpreted differently (as indirect indexes) due to different ideas about language use. In other words, the potential values of indirect indexes of linguistic forms are multiple and indeterminate, although some may be more salient and emphasized in the abstract as linguistic and cultural 'norms'. An adequate understandings of indexical meanings in actual language use requires the; consideration of the multiplicity and diversity of linguistic ideologies, or speech-,style strategies. To put it differently, by examining variations in the use of indexical expressions, we can infer diverse and complex ideas about language use. In the remainder of this paper, I will elaborate on this argument, using examples.

6. Indexical meanings in specific social contexts

As we saw earlier, the young speakers in Data Set I rarely used 'strongly feminine' sentence-final forms (e.g. wa, kashira). However, they did use them when quoting their mothers and female teachers. Some young women told me that they think feminine speech is elegant and nice, but they don't want to use it. They also said they find the use of feminine speech styles among themselves to be inappropriate because they sound 'aralamatta' (formal) and 'kidotta' (prudish). 'Strongly feminine' particles, such as wa and kashira, make speech acts indirect or less assertive (Uyeno, 1971; Reynolds, 1985; Ide, 1990), which in turn may be interpreted as indexing distance (with or without femininity). On the other hand, the younger group used 'moderately masculine' sentence-final forms (e.g. da, da yo) frequently. A number of young women told me that they do not perceive 'moderately masculine' sentence-final forms to be masculine at all. For them, the directness or assertiveness (i.e. the pragmatic meanings) of such forms seems to (indirectly) index intimacy rather than roughness or the lack of femininity.

The young group in Data Set I also used 'vulgar' or 'strongly masculine' expressions (i.e. sentence-final forms, lexical items) on a very limited basis. Some of the subjects explained that they use such expressions only with close peers. Although

812 S. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795817

their use of 'moderately masculine' forms is rather casual, their use of 'strongly masculine' forms seems to be a highly conscious decision. Subjects often qualified 'strongly masculine' expressions by giggling (e.g. examples (9) and (11)) or using hedges (e.g. examples (10) and (11)). Such devices indicate that the speakers are aware of the 'markedness' (Ochs, 1993: 154) of these forms, particularly for conversations that are recorded. Yet they choose to use them, which in turn serves to reinforce solidarity.

We also saw wide variations in speech styles among the older women in Data Set I. Some used very 'feminine' styles, others relatively 'unfeminine' styles. However, their conversations may also be perceived differently. One of the older women, who used 'unfeminine' expressions frequently, criticized the yamanote style of 'feminine' speech as insincere and as a device for distancing. That is, the indirect and relatively formal speech styles of some of the older women could be interpreted as an index of class status or even as a device for distancing. On the other hand, the direct and forceful speech styles of some of the older speakers may be intended as expressions of intimacy or solidarity. To add another example, Japanese professional women, such as teachers and politicians, are often criticized for their 'unfeminine' speech styles, as illustrated by the media excerpt in Section 4. However, as Reynolds (1990: 138) explains, such usage by professional women may be intended to strengthen solidarity without losing authority - i.e. to express and construct both power and solidarity.

Further, women may use 'strongly masculine' or 'vulgar' forms to express not only identities and social relations but also their emotions or particular types of speech-acts. For example, young subjects used 'strongly masculine' or 'vulgar' expressions for emphasis (e.g. example (8)), when joking or teasing (e.g. example (9)), or when criticizing or protesting (e.g. examples (10) and (11)). One of the older subjects also used 'vulgar' forms when expressing her anger toward her in-laws. As these examples indicate, forceful expressions are considered by the speakers as effective for certain speech acts. One more example of this is the use, or exploita- tion, of 'gendered' linguistic forms to express sarcasm. On a television show, in which a group of young contemporary women talk about men, one 19-year old participant, trying to break into the conversation, said Chotto ii kashira 'I wonder if I may (speak)' in a high-pitched voice. The rest of the group as well as the studio audience burst into laughter. Earlier on, this participant had been very assertive, expressing her 'liberal' opinions directly. Her 'strongly feminine' expression (i.e. kashira and high-pitched voice) was thus sarcastic, inviting laughter.

With regard to honorifics, we saw in Section 3 a sharp difference in the speech styles of salespersons in the two department stores and those in the two markets. All of the dialogue involved social distance: a power, or hierarchical, relation (between salesperson and customer) and a lack of intimacy, since most customers do not know salespersons personally. ~8 The non-use of honorifics by many vendors at the markets, however, does not mean that the vendors disregard social distance. As Miller

~s The two markets are huge markets where many customers go only once in a while; they are not small neighborhood stores that have many regular clients (cf. Sukle, 1994).

S. Okamoto / Jo~,rnal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817 813

(1996: 7) points out, social distance or deference may be expressed by other means (e.g. bowing and greeting). It ,;eems that using non-honorific forms rather than formal honorifics is considered suitable to the setting, conveying friendliness and the casual, lively atmosphere of the market. The use of very formal honorific expressions at the department stores, in contrast, can be interpreted as a sign of the stores' social status as well as marking ,explicitly the perceived social distance between the speaker and the addressee.

As mentioned, the difference in speech styles between the two types of stores was not clear cut. For example, while many vendors at the markets did not use honorifics for the addressee, many others used them. This suggests that it is not simply the social distance or the setting that dictates the use and non-use of honorifics. Rather, the variation reflects the differences in the speakers' speech style strategies vis-a-vis their evaluation of multiple social aspects of the context. Some vendors may think the use of honorifics is not suitable for the informal atmosphere of the setting; others may think showing some degree of formality to the customer by the use of honorifics is appropriate. It is also possible that vendors use different strategies for different kinds of customers based on how customers talk, dress, etc.

Further, some vendors at the markets mixed honorific and non-honorific expressions in the same conversation, as illu,;trated in examples (21)-(24). Similarly, salespersons at the department stores once in a while inserted plain forms in their formal speech. This was observed particularly in the basement departments, where all sorts of foods are sold, and also when salespersons were engaging in a long conversation with customers, trying to sell the merchandise. It is difficult to explain these style-mixings (for the same referent/addressee) in terms of social distance alone, unless one were to posit that the perception of social distance between the same people changes from moment to moment in the same conversation (cf. Sukle, 1994). Instead, such style-mixing is best understood as a speaker's strategies to express the desired degree of formality in situations in which using either honorifics or informal forms consistently is thought to sound too formal or too informal. That is, the relation between (non-)honorific forms and social context is adjusted throughout the conversation, suggesting that the expression of formality or deference is considered both locally and globally.

There was also wide variation in the use of referent honorifics among the women in Data Set I. Although the use of honorifics is often correlated with women's speech, many speakers did not use referent honorifics when talking about their superiors or people whom they did not know well. However, these speakers did use both referent and addressee honorifics in the conversations I had with them, which were carried out in formal styles. The non-use of referent honorifics in the data, then, seems primarily motivated by the speaker's concern that the formality expressed toward the referent who is not present might be taken as a sign of formality or distance toward the addressee, and hence found inappropriate in a conversation between close friends. Note, however, that this judgment was not shared by everyone. Some speakers, especially older women, did use referent honorifics for those who were not present. According to Ide (1982: 382), Japanese women may also use honorifics and formal forms "to impress others as being a member of a prestigious group". (See also Ide, 1990, and Niyekawa, 1991.) Thus the frequent uses of referent honorifics

814 s. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

by some of the older speakers in Data Set I may also be taken as an index of the speaker's class status (with or without femininity).

Recognizing linguistic ideologies in the use of honorifics can also account for their non-reciprocal use as well as the variations in their non-reciprocal use. It is often noted that in a hierarchical situation the person of higher status will speak in plain forms, but the lower-status person will use honorifics (e.g. Niyekawa, 1991). This non-reciprocal use of honorifics, in particular the use of plain forms by a higher-status person, cannot be fully explained in terms of social distance, because the distance in question is the same for both speakers. Rather, the use of plain forms by a higher-status person can be regarded as a reflection of his/her judgment that it is appropriate to employ plain forms in order to express his power and/or friendliness through the informality of such expressions. Other higher-status speakers, however, will prefer to use honorifics to address a lower-status person in order to maintain a certain formality toward the addressee or to avoid sounding too authoritative. For example, compare (14), (16), and (20) in the present data. Although these conversations all took place in the department stores, the customers in (14) and (16) used plain forms, while the customer in (20) used an addressee honorific. That is, different attitudes towards the use of honorific and non-honorific expressions may bring about different applications in the same kinds of situations.

Lastly, the 'unexpected' use of honorific or non-honorific forms may also occur when particular types of speech acts or certain emotions are expressed. For example, in a conversation with a close friend or a family member, a speaker may shift from plain forms to honorifics when expressing such meanings as anger, seriousness of the request, or sarcasm. Sukle (1994) gives an example in which a girl, talking to her sister, switches to an honorific in making a request after having made several requests in plain forms. It is also common that one uses formal forms in writing a letter to a friend or family member (Neustupn~, 1978; Minami, 1987). But recently, a friend of mine received a letter from his friend, who was quite angry with my friend; the letter was written using plain forms. Or a speaker talking to a social supe- rior may shift from honorifics to plain forms for making an exclamatory remark, issuing a warning of danger, expressing anger, etc. These kinds of examples suggest that speakers select forms based on their strategic judgments about the appropriateness of the (in)formality of (non-)honorific forms for expressing particular meanings effectively in particular context. Not everyone may employ the same form in the same kind of situation.

7. Conclusion

This study illustrates the complexity of indexical processes in which the relationship between social context and forms of speaking is construed through the filter of one's beliefs about language use. As the examples discussed above show, the choice of sentence-final forms and honorifics as indexical signs cannot be directly correlated with a single social variable. Rather, it is best regarded as a strategy based on the speaker's linguistic ideology that mediates the pragmatic meanings of linguistic

chunqiuli

Hervorheben

s. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817 815

forms and his /her assessment of mul t ip le social aspects o f the context , including the at tr ibutes associa ted with ident i ty and re la t ionship (e.g. gender , age, h ierarchy, in t imacy) , the types o f doma in or genre, and the types of speech acts. In par t icular , the examples demons t ra te the way speakers ' bel iefs , or concerns , about l anguage use lead to var ia t ions in the use and interpretat ion of indexical express ions : The knowledge of l inguist ic ' n o r m s ' , or the hegemonic l inguist ic ideology , cer ta inly affects the speake r ' s speech style s t rategies but it is not a lways shared by eve ryone at all t imes. The v iew of indexica l i ty e m p l o y e d in this s tudy enables us to account for var ia t ions in the use of indexica ls in a coherent manner without resor t ing to except ions and deviat ions . More deta i led studies need to be done regarding the differences among the p ragmat ic meanings o f indiv idual sentence-f inal forms (e.g. da

vs. zo) and honor i f ic forms (e.g. o-Verb -n i naru vs. V-(r )areru) as wel l as the differences among their indi rec t indexes . S tudies o f the use o f o ther index ica l expres - s ions (e.g. address t e rmino logy , s en tence -med ia l par t ic les , lex ica l i tems, request forms) in d iverse social s i tuat ions are also ca l led for.

References

Briggs, Charles L., 1992. Linguistic ideologies and the naturalization of power in Warao discourse. Prag- matics 2(3): 387-404.

Cook, Haruko M., 1996. Indexicality ;and Japanese addressee honorifics. A paper presented at the 48th annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies.

Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet, 1992. Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In: K. Hall, M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon, eds., Locating power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 89-99.

Errington, J. Joseph, 1992. On the ideology of Indonesian language development: The state of a language of state. Pragmatics 2(3): 41'7-426.

Faier, Lieba., 1995. To Wa or not to Wa: or some thoughts on mapping a relationship between language and gender. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.

Gal, Susan, 1992. Multiplicity and contention among ideologies: A commentary. Pragmatics 2(3): 445-449.

Gal, Susan, 1995. Language, gender, and power: An anthropological review. In: K. Hall and M. Bucholtz, eds., Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self, 169-182. New York: Routledge.

Harada, S.I., 1976. Honorifics. In: M. Shibatani, ed., Syntax and semantics, Vol. 5: Japanese generative grammar, 499-561. New York: Academic Press.

Hibiya, Junko, 1995. Diversity in Tokyo: The Nezu sociolect. Paper presented at the 94th Annual Meet- ing of the American Anthropological Association.

Hill, Jane H., 1992. 'Today there is no respect': Nostalgia, 'respect' and oppositional discourse in Mex- icano (Nahuatl) language ideology. Pragmatics 2(3): 263-280.

Hinds, John, 1978. Conversational structure: An investigation based on Japanese interview discourse. In: J. Hinds and I. Howard, eds., Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 79-121, Tokyo: Kaitakusha.

Ide, Sachiko, 1979. Onna no kotoba, otoko no kotoba (Women's language and men's language). Tokyo: Keizai Tsushinsha.

Ide, Sachiko, 1982. Japanese sociolinguistics: Politeness and women's language. Lingua 57: 357-385. Ide, Sachiko, 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic

politeness. Multilingua 8(2/3): 223-248. Ide, Sachiko, 1990. How and why do women speak more politely in Japanese? In: S. Ide and N.H. McGloin,

eds., Aspects of Japanese women's language, 63-79. Tokyo: Kuroshio.

816 S. Okamow /.lournal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795--817

Ikuta, Shoko, 1983. Speech level shift and conversational strategy in Japanese discourse. Language Sciences 5: 37-53.

Inoue, Miyako, 1994. Gender and linguistic modernization: Historicizing Japanese women's language. In: M. Bucholtz, A.C. Liang, L.A. Sutton and C. Hines, eds., Cultural performances: Proceedings of the 3rd Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 322-333.

Irvine, Judith T., 1992. Ideologies of honorific language. Pragmatics 2(3): 251-262. Jorden, Eleanor H., 1990. Overview. In: S. Ide and N.H. McGloin, eds., Aspects of Japanese women's

language, 1-4. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Jorden, Eleanor H. and Mari Noda, 1987. Japanese: The spoken language (Part I). New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press. Jugaku, Akiko, 1979. Nihoneo to onna (The Japanese language and women). Tokyo: lwanami

Shoten. Kindaichi, Haruhiko, 1957. Nihongo (The Japanese language). Tokyo: lwanani Shoten. Kitagawa, Chisato, 1977. A source of femininity in Japanese: In defense of Robin Lakoff's 'Language

and woman's place'. Papers in Linguistics 10(3/4): 275-298. Kulick, Don, 1992. Anger, gender, language shift and the politics of revelation in a Papua New Guinean

village. Pragmatics 2(3): 281-296. Kobayashi, Mieko, 1993. Sedai to .lose#go: Wakai sedai no kotoba no 'chuusei- ka' ni tsuite (Generation

and women's language: On the "neutralization' of speech of the young generation). Nihongo-gaku 12.6: 181-192.

Kondo, Dorinne K., 1990. Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of identity in a Japanese work- place. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Makino, Seiichi and Michio Tsutsui, 1986. A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: Japan Times. Matsumoto, Yoshiko, 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese.

Journal of Pragmatics 12: 403-426. Matsumoto, Yoshiko, 1997. The rise and fall of Japanese nonsubject honorifics: The case of 'o-Verb-suru'.

Journal of Pragmatics 28 (this issue). McGloin, Naomi H., 1990. Sex difference and sentence-final particles. In: S. Ide and N.H. McGloin,

eds., Aspects of Japanese women's language, 23-41. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Miller, Laura, 1996. Subversive subordinates or situated language use? A consideration of keigo ideol-

ogy and sociolinguistic description. A paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association lor Asian Studies.

Minami, Fujio, 1987. Keigo (Honorifics). Tokyo: lwanami Shoten. Mizutani, Osamu and Nobuko Mizutani, 1987. How to be polite in Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Miura, Akira and Naomi H. McGloin, 1994. An integrated approach to intermediate Japanese. Tokyo:

The Japan Times. Miyake, Yoshimi. 1995. A dialect in the face of the standard: A Japanese case study. The Proceedings

of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 217-225. Morgan, Marcyliena, 1994. The African-American speech community: Reality and sociolinguistics. In:

M. Morgan, ed., Language and the social construction of identity in creole situations, 121-148. Los Angeles: Center for Afro-American Studies Publications, University of California, Los Angeles.

Neustupn~,, J.V., 1978, Post-structural approaches to language: Language theory in a Japanese context. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

Niyekawa, Agnes M., 1991. Minimum essential politeness: A guide to the Japanese honorific language. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

Nomoto, Kikuo, 1987. Keigo o tsukai konasu (Using honorifics skillfully). Tokyo: Kodansha. Ochs, Elinor, 1990. lndexicality and socialization. In: J.W. Stigler, R.A. Schwerder and G. Herdt, eds.,

Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development, 287-308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, Elinor, 1993. Indexing gender. In: B.D. Miller, ed., Sex and gender hierarchies, 146-169. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ohara, Yumiko, 1992. Gender-dependent pitch levels: A comparative study in Japanese and English. In: Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz and Birch Moonwomon, eds., Locating power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 469-477.


Okamoto, Shigeko, 1994. 'Gendered' speech styles and social identity among young Japanese women. In: M. Bucholtz, A.C. Liang, L+A. Sutton and C. Hines, eds., Cultural performances: Proceedings of the 3rd Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 569-581.

Okamoto, Shigeko, 1995. 'Tasteless' Japanese: Less 'feminine' speech among young Japanese women. In: K. Hall and M+ Bucholtz, eds., Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self, 297-325. New York: Routledge.

Okamoto, Shigeko, 1996. Indexical meaning, linguistic ideology, and Japanese women's speech. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 290-301.

Okamoto, Shigeko and Shie Sato, 1992. Less feminine speech among young Japanese females. In: K. Hall, M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon, eds., Locating power: Proceedings of the second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 478-488.

Reynolds, Katsue A., 1985. Female speakers of Japanese. Feminist Issues 5: 13-46. Reynolds, Katsue A., 1990. Female speakers of Japanese in transition. In: S. Ide and N.H. McGloin,

eds., Aspects of Japanese women's language, 129-146. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Shibamoto, Janet S., 1985. Japanese women's language. New York: Academic Press. Shibamoto, Janet S., 1987. The womanly woman: Manipulation of stereotypical and nonstereotypical

features of Japanese female speech, ln: S.U. Phillips, S. Steele and C. Tanz, eds., Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective, 26-49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shibamoto, Janet S., 1990. Sex-related variation in the ellipsis of wa and ga in Japanese. In: S. Ide and N.H. McGloin, eds., Aspects of Japanese women's language, 81-104. Tokyo: Kuroshio.

Shibatani, Masayoshi, 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silverstein, Michael, 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In: P.R. Clyne, W. Hanks and

C.L. Hofbauer, eds., The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, 193-247. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Silverstein, Michael, 1985. Language and the culture of gender: At the intersection of structure, usage, and ideology. In: E. Mertz and R.J. Parmentier, eds., Semiotic mediation: Sociocultural and psycho- logical perspectives, 219-259. New York: Academic Press.

Silverstein, Michael, 1992. The uses and utility of ideology: Some reflections. Pragmatics 2(3): 311-323.

Smith, Janet (Shibamoto), 1992. Linguistic privilege: 'Just stating the facts' in Japanese. In: K. Hall, M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon, eels., Locating power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 540-548.

Sukle, Robert J., 1994. Uchi/soto: Choices in directive speech acts in Japanese. In: J.M. Bachnik and C.J. Quinn, Jr+, eds., Situated meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and language, 113-142. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sunaoshi, Yukako, 1995. Japanese women's construction of an authoritative position in their communities of practice. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Texas, Austin.

Takasaki, Midori, 1993. Josei no kotoba to kaisoo (Women's language and social class). Nihongo-gaku, 12.6: 169-180.

Tokunaga, Misato, 1992. Dichotomy in the structures of honorifics of Japanese. Pragmatics 2(2): 127-140.

Uyeno, Tazuko, 1971. A study of Japanese modality: A performative analysis of sentence particles. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.

Wetzel, Patricia J., 1994. A movable self: The linguistic indexing of uchi and soto. In: J.M. Bachnik and C.J. Quinn, Jr., eds., Situated meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and language, 73-87. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Woolard, Kathryn A., 1992. Language ideology: Issues and approaches. Pragmatics 2(3): 235-249.

okamoto indexical expressions in japanese

Documents