Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Journal of Pragmatics 10 (1986) 373-386
North-Holland
373
A SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE JAPANESE HONORIFICS
Motoko HORI *
Choice of linguistic forms is not only determined by the interlocutors’ sex as such, but also, and to
a high degree, by social networks and social motivations, according to Brown (1980). The present
study is an attempt to fill in some of the gaps in current sociolinguistic research by correlating
linguistic and sociological data along a politeness scale that is not exclusively sex-oriented. The data
looked at comprise the so-called honorific forms of the verb; they were gathered during field-work
in the Tokyo area among males and females of different social status.
1. Introduction
1.1. Point of departure
Ever since sociolinguists began to focus their attention on sex-based differences in language use, it can be noted that most of their studies in this realm have centered on one specific aspect; that is, to determine differences in male/female speech. In so doing, they often claim that women tend to use more polite forms, and that women’s use of polite forms is attributable to their inferior, unstable social position which they try, though unconsciously, to elevate and improve (Lakoff (1973)). It is also attributable to the social expectation or pressure that women should speak correctly, using better words (Trudgill (1974)). These researchers have attempted to find the cause of the linguistic differences between the two sexes as regards social attitudes in general.
A different view has been offered by Brown (1980), as based on her analysis of the Mayan language, in which she proposes that what determines the choice
* This paper was written based on research supported by a grant from the Japanese Ministry of
Education for a special project called ‘Standardization of Language’, No. 57115013 (1982),
No. 58107013 (1983), and No. 59101010 (1984). A survey was conducted in 1982-1984, dealing
with modem colloquial Japanese, by a team (one of the 26 teams in the project), consisting of live
women: Sachiko Ide (principal investigator), Akiko Kawasaki, Shoko Ikuta, Hitomi Haga, and myself. The subject matter was: ‘The forms and functions of polite expressions by women’. I am especially grateful to Fred C. Peng, International Christian University, Tokyo, who read the whole paper carefully and gave a number of substantial comments. I am also grateful to Jennifer
Robertson, who checked and polished my English. Author’s address: M. Hori, Josai University Women’s Junior College, l-l, Keyakidai, Sakado-
shi, Saitama-ken 35&02, Japan.
0378-2166/86/$3.50 0 1986, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)
374 M. Hori / Sociolinguisrics qf Japanese honorffics
of linguistic forms is not only the interlocutors’ sexes per se, but the ‘social networks’ and the ‘social motivations’ that suggest certain ‘communicative strategies’, which in turn point to certain ‘linguistic choices’ (1980: 113).
Her idea has received its impetus from her ‘three basic complaints’ about the studies on women’s speech she was concerned with at the time: (1) the data up to that time were just ‘random linguistic facts’; (2) the sociological concepts used for analysis were also ‘random and arbitrary’, (3) an explicit correlation between the linguistic data and the sociological concepts was lacking. She says that her Mayan study is ‘in part a reaction against the behavioristic poverty’ in sociolinguistics. Such being the case, the present study can be regarded as an attempt at reducing that ‘poverty’, however small the result may be.
It is, therefore, hoped that the result of this research will in some significant way fill the gap in the sociolinguistic literature with respect to Brown’s complaints (1) and (3), stated above. Since the study is based on actual fieldwork conducted in Tokyo, I believe that the linguistic and sociological data are correlated as explicitly as possible; in fact, a cursory analysis of the data indicates correlations along a politeness scale. A tentative hypothesis was first proposed at the symposium on ‘Standardization of language’, February 6, 1984, and expanded in Tde, Hori, Kawasaki, Ikuta, and Haga (1986). The conclusion of this paper is that the correlational patterns of politeness in treating people and using linguistic forms are quite similar; that is, both men and women treat in a quite similar manner those people who occupy the same social relationships.
This conclusion really takes exception to the usual sociolinguistic study of the Japanese language, which has long been regarded as a typical example of a sex-differentiated language. However, the discussion in Ide et al. (1985) is
mainly concerned with levels of politeness in general, and no analysis of each linguistic form was attempted in relation to social factors. I shall, therefore, in the present paper take the view that the apparent male/female difference in the use of Japanese is caused not so much by the sex factor per se, as by the different interactional spheres in which each sex is placed. In other words, the male/female difference in Japanese is not sex-oriented, but social role-oriented
as to its point of departure.
I .2. Purpose
In essence, then, the purpose of the present paper is to compare Japanese men’s and women’s language behaviour from the standpoint of their social networks; that is, the interactions among people in various social settings. The discussion will be for the most part on the use of honorific morphemes: to whom Japanese men and women use/do not use honorifics, and why they use honorifics towards those people.
M. Hori / Sociolinguistics of Japanese honorifics 375
2. Honorific morphemes in the verb
Bernard Bloch, the late American linguist who specialized in Japanese, divided Japanese predicates into two states, plain and polite, each conveying the same information but differing in ‘stylistic and social connotations’ (1946: 163). His division is based on the use/non-use of -desu and -ma+ the honorific verb endings. When either of them is attached to a verb base, the whole sentence becomes more formal and polite (this he calls ‘the polite state’) than without it (this he calls ‘the plain state’).’
As to the verb itself, Bloch only refers to ‘the honorific style’ as the highest level and does not say anything about the non-honorific style (1946: 164). Perhaps he thought he completed the explanation of the plain state, but in my opinion there remains more to be said.
In addition to Bloch’s classification, I will also take into consideration what traditional grammarians of Japanese say of the honorific system of verbs. They divide the verb into two portions, base and ending, each having two states, polite and plain. Thus, there can be four possible combinations, each differing in honorific connotations2
In order to provide a more concrete image of the Japanese verb and its formation, I designed table 1 using the verb iku (to go) and its many equivalents as examples (because we used this verb as the focus of investigation in our research). By combining the suffix -u, the stem ik- can form a plain base, iku. If ik- is followed by an honorific derivational suffix -are-, the result is a polite base, ikare-. There are other stems with the meaning ‘to go’ such as irassha-, oidenina-, etc. which are honorific by themselves.3 Therefore, when L Which of -masu and -desu is attached to a verb base depends on the speaker’s choice, though the
verb base must be presupposed in advance, since these honorific endings are not interchangeable
once the base is decided. For instance, -desu must follow the inflectional suffix -a- with a
conjunctive particle -no- in between (the vowel in -no- is often dropped making the speech a little
informal) to produce ikun(o)desu (‘I go’, ‘you go’, ‘ he goes’, etc.). On the other hand, -masu must
follow the suffix whose final vowel is either [i] or [e] without any particle intervening to produce
ikimasu (‘I go’, ‘you go’, ‘he goes’, etc.). This rule applies to every verbal construction taking -desu (-desho and -de&a also) and -masu (-mash0 and -ma&a also) as its honorific endings.
2 According to Seiki Tokieda, the first grammarian who proposed this bipartite division, base and
ending, the honorific base shows the speaker’s respect towards the subject, the actor, or the topic of
the sentence, while the honorific ending shows the speaker’s respect towards the hearer. Many
grammarians have since then attempted to interpret and analyze Japanese honorifics by following
his proposal. At present, it seems no one has rejected Tokieda’s idea. Scholars interested in
sociolinguistics, however, have been looking at the phenomena a little differently. For example, Takesi Sibata (1979) suggests that -desu and -masu no longer show respect to the hearer, because they are neutral forms now safe to be used towards anybody. I myself have written a paper in line
with his view (Hori (1985)). 3 Other honorific roots are: odekakenina-, odekakede- irassha-, and odemasinina-. Their honorific connotation is higher than that of oidenina-, and they are not used very often. Usual respect can be
expressed by the forms given in table 1. Verb formation of these honorific stems is exactly the same as that of oidenina- and irassha-.
ld”lC
1
Ver
b fo
rmat
ion
of
iku
‘to
go’
and
its
vari
ants
. (H
onor
ific
m
orph
emes
ar
e ita
liciz
ed.)
w
Exi
sten
ce/n
on-e
xist
ence
of
V
aria
nts
of
iku
Bas
e E
ndin
g 2
hono
rifi
c m
orph
eme
Stem
D
eriv
atio
nal
Infl
ectio
nal
Aux
iliar
y C
onju
nctiv
e C
opul
ar
root
In
flec
tiona
l
suff
ix
suff
ix
root
pa
rtic
le
suff
ix
(hon
orif
ic)
(hon
orif
ic)
Plai
n H
onor
ific
<-H,
-h>
<-H
, -h
>
<-H
, +h
>
<-H
, +h
>
< +H
, -h
>
< +H
, -h
>
i +H
, +h
>
<+H
, +h
>
<+H
, -h
>
<+H
, -h
> <+
H,
+h>
< +
H,
+h>
< +H
, -h
>
< +H
. -h
>
< +
H,
+h>
< +
H,
+h>
< +
H.
-h>
< +
H.
-h>
i +H
, +h
>
<+H
. +H
>
iku
ikun
da
ikun
desu
ikim
asu
ikar
eru
ikar
erun
da
ikar
erun
desu
ikar
emas
u
iras
shar
u
iras
shar
unda
iras
shar
un-
desu
iras
shai
mas
u
oide
nina
ru
oide
nina
run-
da
oide
nina
run-
desu
oide
nina
ri-
IildSU
oide
nina
-
rare
ru
oide
nina
-
rare
rund
a
oide
nina
-
rare
rund
esu
oide
nina
-
rare
mas
u
ik-
ik-
ik-
ik-
ik-
ik-
ik-
ik-
iras
sha-
ir
assh
a-
iras
sha-
iras
sha-
oi
deni
na-
oide
nina
-
oide
nina
-
oide
nina
-
oide
nina
-
oide
nina
-
-are
- -a
re-
-are
- -a
re-
-rar
e-
-rar
e-
-rar
e-
-rar
e-
-U
-U-
-U-
I- -ru
-ru-
-IX
-ru-
-ru-
-I- -ru
-ru-
-ru-
-ri-
was
-
-n-
-n-
-da
-mas
-
-n-
-n-
-da
-n-
-n-
-da
-mas
-
-n-
-da
-des
- -U
-U
-des
- -u
-U
-des
- -U
-U
-des
- -U
-U
-ru-
-ru-
-n-
-n-
-da
-mas
-
-des
- -U
-U
M. Hori / Sociolinguislics of Japanese honor@ 377
they are followed by an honorific sufftx -rare-, as in oideninarare- (irassharare- is not a standard expression, though there are some who use it), they result in forms with the highest honorific connotation.
Such stems or bases as ikare-, irassha-, oidenina-, oideninarare-, etc. can all form honorific bases, e.g. ikareru-, ikare-, irassharu-, irasshai-, oideninaru-, oideninari-, oideninarareru-, oideninarare-, etc. These will be designated as < +H> in this paper, which means that the base is honorific. The stem ik-, without an honorific suffix -are-, forms only plain bases such as iku- and iki-. They will be designated as < -H>, which means that the base is not honorific.
The same designations go with the ending. If the ending contains an honorific auxiliary -mas- or an honorific copula -des-, it will be designated as < + h > , meaning the ending is honorific. If the ending has neither of them, it will be designated as < -h > , meaning the ending is not honorific.
Thus, the verb iku, in its dictionary form, may be designated as < -H, -h >, meaning that both the base and ending are non-honorific. Following the same designation, ikundesu and ikimasu are < - H, + h > , the base being non-honorific and the ending honorific. Its opposite < + H, -h > includes such forms as ikareru, irassharu, oideninaru, etc., each with an honorific base and non-honorific ending. Polite forms such as ikaremasu, irasshaimasu, oideninarimasu, etc., are all < + H, + h > , as both the base and ending are honorific.
3. Results of the data
3.1. Informants
Our informants were 256 men and 271 women, most of whom comprised married couples, living in the Tokyo area. Their ages ranged from 42 to 70 for the men (65.9% between 50 and 59), and from 40 to 62 for the women (74.1% under 49). 96.1% of the men and 99.3 % of the women surveyed were under 60. 91% of the men were white-collar workers and 86% of the women housewives. As regards education, 80.7 % of the men and 40.9 % of the women had completed junior college or college. It is accurate to say that they belong to the Japanese ‘middle class’ and that their responses represent the typical linguistic behavior of the Japanese middle class at present.
3.2. Questionnaire
When we planned our project in 1982, we had a concrete aim: to account for linguistic forms from the standpoint of social interaction. Our research assis- tants asked each informant individually the following four questions which centered on the relationships between the informant and his/her interlocutors.
378 M. Hori / Sociolinguistics of Japanese honorifics
Ql . What variants of iku (to go) do you usually use when you ask itsu-iku-ka?
(When do you go?) Arrange those variants on the politeness scale from 1 to 5 (1 as the most casual and 5 as the most polite). (Since one level could contain as many as 3 variants, the maximum number of the variants per informant was 15.)
Q2. Whom do you usually associate with? Answer in category names, such as ‘spouse’, ‘ child’, etc. Arrange them on the same 5-point politeness scale as in Ql. (Maximum number of the categories per informant was 15.)
Q3. What variant of iku do you usually use when asking ‘When do you go?’ to each person you mentioned in Q2? Write one variant for each category of person.
Q4. What sort of feelings do you hold for or expect from each person you mentioned in Q2? Answer ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘neither’. (1) Do you feel that he/she is your superior? (2) Do you feel that he/she is close to you? (3) Do you want him/her to regard you as trustworthy? (4) Do you want him/her to regard you as relined?
The answers to the above questions were fed into a computer and analyzed by GRAPS, a program package suitable for sociolinguistic analysis developed by Tsunao Ogino.
3.3. Honorific morphemes in the verb from the data base
As expected, the data obtained from Q3 was a virtual jungle of people and words. At first, there appeared to be no patterns at all, since there were 191 categories of people spoken to with 84 variants of iku. It looked as though any variant could be used towards any category of person. In order to see the
phenomena clearly, all the variants of iku used towards the same category of person were first bundled together and then classified into four groups according to the existence/non-existence of honorific morphemes in the base and ending, following the designations described above in section 2 and
table 1. All the forms having no honorific either in the base or in the ending were
grouped under the heading < - H, - h > Those having honorific morphemes in the base but not in the ending were grouped under < + H, -h > . Those
with no honorific in the base but with a honorific in the ending, under < - H, + h > And those with honorific in both the base and ending, under < + H, + h > Thus, all the variants of iku ascribed to each category were classified into four groups and their frequencies counted, male and female separately.
M. Hori / Sociolinguistics of Japanese honorifics 379
3.4. Male/female differences in social networks
Since we asked the informants to answer freely (though some categories were provided in the questionnaire as examples), we obtained 191 different cate- gories of people from 42 with whom the informants usually associate. Among these, 30 categories whose frequencies were greater than 0.5 % were chosen for discussion and analysis. Table 2 shows those categories in the top ten frequen- cies for each sex. These categories of person might be said to represent male/ female social networks of interaction.
First, it is noticed that no categories associated with job relations were found in the female list (table 2). This reflects the fact that most housewives of this age have very few people to talk with outside of their homes and neighbor- hoods. (There were a few categories suggesting some job relation, such as ‘workplace superior/colleague/subordinate’, but the total frequency of them all was only 79.)
On the other hand, the company kept by male informants was divided into two groups: people met at the workplace, and people met at places other
Table 2 Male/female social networks. Categories of people the informants associate with. (The ten highest frequencies in each sex.)
Category of people Raw number Percentage
Male N = 1719
Workplace superior
Son/daughter Workplace subordinate
Spouse
Same status colleague
Friend
Business client
Son’s/daughter’s teacher/professor
Neighbor
Sibling
242 14.07 %
229 13.32
201 11.69
163 9.48
132 7.68
122 7.10
110 6.40
63 3.66
59
43
3.43
2.50
Female N = 1972
Son/daughter
Friend Son’s/daughter’s
teacher/professor Spouse
Spouse’s superior
Neighbor Instructor of hobby
group Parent at PTA meeting
Sibling Delivery person
289 14.66
182 9.22
175 8.87
162 8.22
156 7.91
128 6.49 113 5.73
105 5.32
83 4.21 80 4.06
380 M. Hori / Sociolinguistics of Japanese honorifics
than the workplace. The former, belonging to the job domain, includes ‘workplace superior’, ‘workplace subordinate’, ‘same status colleague’, and ‘business client’. The latter, belonging to the social domain, includes ‘son/ daughter’, ‘spouse’, ‘friend’, ‘son’s/daughter’s teacher/professor’, ‘neighbor’, and ‘sibling’. The latter group had counterparts in the female data, while the
former group did not.
4. Discussion
If our hypothesis that different roles occasion different language usage is correct, then it follows that the same role must induce the same type of language. The relevancy may be seen in table 3, which contains the categories of person that are listed for both men and women in table 2 among the ten highest frequencies in 42. All the variants used towards these categories, taken from answers in Q3, have been classified into four groups, according to the existence/non-existence of honorific morphemes in the base and ending (see sections 2, 3.2, and table 1).
Let us first compare the percentage of < - H, -h> used towards ‘son/ daughter’. When speaking to their sons/daughters, 99.56% of men and 99.65 % of women chose < -H, -h > , which means that there was almost no sex difference in the choice of verb variants from the point of existence/non- existence of honorific morphemes. In other words, both parents almost always use verb variants without an honorific morpheme in either the base or ending when speaking to their children.
When these parents talk to their son’s/daughter’s teachers/professors, how- ever, 95.24% of fathers and 97.71% of mothers use < + H, + h > . Here, again, the difference between the sexes is very small.
When interacting with ‘neighbor’ and ‘sibling’, men tend to be more polite because they use < + H, + h > towards neighbors at a higher rate (71.19 %) than women (49.22 Oh) and < - H, + h > towards siblings (25.58 “A) more than
women (14.46%). The biggest difference in the choice of honorific morphemes is in relation to
‘spouse’. While almost all men (98.16%) use < -H, -h > towards their wives, wives use more polite forms, in addition to the least polite forms in < -H, -h > , towards their husbands. It is worth noting in this table that the added sum of < + H, -h > and < - H, + h > of wives (32.71 “A) far exceeds that of husbands (1.84%). This figure suggests that wives treat their husbands much more politely than vice versa.
A similar tendency is viewed in the ‘friend’ category. Here, the great majority of men favor the least polite form < -H, -h> (65.57% male vs. 26.92% female), while women use slightly more polite forms < + H, -h >
is
Tab
le
3
Info
rman
ts’
choi
ce
of v
aria
nts
of
iku,
cl
assi
fied
ac
cord
ing
to
the
exis
tenc
e/no
n-ex
iste
nce
of
hono
rifi
c m
orph
emes
in
the
ba
se
and
endi
ng.
?
(1)
Cat
egor
ies
of p
eopl
e co
mm
on
to
mal
e/fe
mal
e in
form
ants
. -. 3
Cat
egor
y of
Sp
ouse
So
n/da
ught
er
Sibl
ing
Frie
nd
Nei
ghbo
r So
n’s/
daug
hter
’s
t?.
peop
le
Mal
e F
Fem
ale
Mal
e Fe
mal
e M
ale
Fem
ale
Mal
e Fe
mal
e M
ale
Fem
ale
teac
her/
prof
esso
r z
Mal
e Fe
mal
e 5.
2.
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
6
<-H
, -h
> 98
.16
61.1
1 99
.56
99.6
5 72
.09
75.9
0 65
.57
26.9
2 3.
39
7.81
0
0.57
q
< +H
, -h
> 1.
23
10.4
9 0.
44
0 0
7.23
5.
74
46.1
5 0
27.3
4 0
1.14
k 3
<-H
, +h
> 0.
61
22.2
2 0
0.35
25
.58
14.4
6 21
.31
10.4
4 25
.42
15.6
3 4.
76
0.57
9
< +H
, +h
> 0
6.17
0
0 2.
33
2.41
7.
38
16.4
8 71
.19
49.2
2 95
.24
97.7
1 E
z N
=
163
162
229
289
43
83
122
182
59
128
63
175
$
382 hf. Hori 1 Sociolinguistics of Japanese honorifics
and < -H, + h> about twice as frequently as the men (27.05 % male vs. 56.59 % female).
Thus, judging from a morphological point of view, i.e. the existence/non- existence of honorific morphemes in the base and ending, men and women choose linguistic forms quite similarly as regards ‘son/daughter’ and ‘son’s/
daughter’s teacher/professor’, but men choose forms higher in honorifics in certain categories, such as ‘neighbor’ and ‘sibling’. Women exceed men in the choice of honorifics only in regard to ‘spouse’ and ‘friend’.
The next point concerns categories which are independently found in each sex (table 2). They are given in table 4, male/female separately. The cate- gories of person many male informants associate with on a daily basis are
Table 4 Informants’ choice of variants of iku, classified according to the existence/non-existence of
honorific morphemes in the base and ending.
(2) Categories of people different in each sex of the informants.
Informant’s Male Female sex
Work- Same Business Work- Deliv- Parent Instruc- Spouse’s place status client place ery at PTA tor of superior subor- col- superior person meeting hobby dinate league group
% % % % % % % % <-H, -h> 80.60 46.91 1.27 1.65 31.25 2.86 0 0.64
<+H, -h> 0.50 3.03 0.91 0.83 21.25 21.62 0.88 0 <-H, +h> 16.42 40.15 16.36 7.02 36.25 6.61 0.88 0 <+H, +h> 2.49 9.85 75.45 90.50 11.25 62.86 98.23 99.36
N= 201 132 110 242 80 io5 113 156
‘workplace superior’, ‘workplace subordinate’, ‘same status colleague’, and ‘business client’, while those whom female informants associate with quite often are ‘spouse’s superior’, ‘instructor of hobby group’, ‘parent at PTA meeting’, and ‘delivery person’.
Here, a comparison of percentages across categories in male/female is irrelevant since each sex involves different categories of person. Therefore, the best comparison might be to analyze which group of honorific morphemes received the highest percentage in each category for each sex.
The categories of persons spoken to most frequently by male informants, using < + H, + h > among the verb variants are ‘workplace superior’ (90.50 %) and ‘business client’ (75.45 %), while those for female informants are ‘spouse’s superior’, ‘instructor of hobby group’, and ‘parent at PTA meeting’ (99.36%, 98.23%, and 62,86%). Conversely, the categories spoken to using < -H, - h > most frequently by males are ‘workplace subordinate’ (80.60 %) and
M. Hori / Sociolinguistics of Japanese honorljks 383
‘same status colleague’ (46.97%), while no such categories exist for females. Even ‘delivery person’ is most frequently spoken to in < - H, + h > (36.25 %).
These findings support the common impression that women speak more politely than men. But, as is clear from the names of the categories of people given in table 2, there is no one, except children, to whom women can safely use forms which apparently lack politeness, for the reason that none of these people, even ‘delivery person’, are not clearly ranked below the housewife in social status. When the status differences are implicit, as they are in social relationships, to behave or speak politely is often regarded, somewhat ironi- cally, as a sign of the doer’s/speaker’s superiority over, or condescension towards, the other person.
On the other hand, a professional job per se places a person above/below another person, and whether to use a polite form or a casual form is solely up to the one occupying the higher position. Moreover, at the workplace, where efficiency is highly valued, unnecessary politeness towards subordinates is best avoided.
Therefore, if these female informants had the same position in the job domain as their husbands, they might have listed ‘workplace subordinate’ among those to whom they could confidently use < - H, - h > . In fact, those few women who had ‘workplace subordinate’ chose < -H, -h > most frequently (33.33%). However, their number is too few for the sake of comparison with men.
Beside the relative position in the social network, psychological reactions the speaker feels towards the hearer affect the use/non-use of honorifics. Table 5 includes all the answers for 44 in which we asked four questions concerning the informants’ psychological reactions towards the people they listed in 42. The percentages in the parentheses reflect the different feelings males/females have towards the people they associate with.
In the first question, dealing with the hearer’s superiority, the affirmative answer ‘yes’ was higher among females (22.02 Oh) than males (13.18 “A), and the negative answer ‘no’ was higher among males (26.09%) than females (19.90%). This suggests that more women regard their interlocutors as superior than do men, and that more men regard their interlocutors as not superior than do women. This not only reflects the social statuses realized by men/women themselves, but also explains the more frequent use of honorifics by women.
The same tendency of females towards using more honorifics is predictable from the answers to the fourth question asking about the speaker’s wish concerning his/her self-image of retinedness. More women want to be regarded as refined (27.90%) than do men (18.72%).
Such is the psychological basis for the tendency for women to use honorific morphemes more frequently than men. What occasions men to speak more casually, as is commonly believed, is reflected in the answers to the third question asking about the informant’s self-image of trustworthiness. Here, in
384 M. Hori 1 Sociolinguistics of Japanese honorifics
Table 5
Informants’ psychological feelings towards persons they associate with. (Total numbers of answers to 44.)
Question and answer Male Female
N = 3840 N = 4065
1. Is s/he your superior?
Yes 506 (13.18%) 895 (22.02%)
No 1002 (26.09) 809 (19.90)
Neither 2332 (60.73) 2361 (58.08)
2. Is s/he close to you? Yes 1004 (26.15) 1017 (25.02)
No 343 ( 8.93) 578 (14.22)
Neither 2493 (64.92) 2470 (60.76)
3. Do you want him/her to regard you as trustworthy? Yes 1311 (34.14) 862 (21.21) No 195 ( 5.08) 475 (11.69)
Neither 2334 (60.78) 2728 (67.1 I)
4. Do you want him/her to regard you as refined? Yes 719 (18.72) 1134 (27.90)
No 369 ( 9.61) 260 ( 6.40)
Neither 2752 (71.67) 2671 (65.71)
contrast to the answers to the first and fourth questions, discussed above, the affirmative answer is higher for males (34.14%) than for females (21.21%). The wish to be regarded as a dependable person induces men to use less polite forms, just as English-speaking men favor working-class speech which is associated with ‘toughness’ (Trudgill (1972,1974)).
The reason why they wish to be so looked upon is that they operate within a network of job relations where ability, power, and energy are indispensable, and solidarity among workers essential. In such a setting, the use of elaborate, euphemistic expressions with redundant honorific morphemes will make the work less efficient and prove the speaker less confident (Lakoff (1973)). This is why men use less honorific verb forms towards people at the workplace, with the exception of their bosses (see table 4).
Therefore, when men are not at the workplace, their choice of linguistic forms becomes more polite because they are, as it were, outsiders and feel distant from the others. Furthermore, they do not have to show their ability, power, or energy to the people in the neighborhood as much as to their co- workers.
Women, on the contrary, have no such place where they are expected to be capable, powerful, or energetic, and accordingly need not be regarded as
M. Hori / Sociolinguistics of Japanese honorifics 385
trustworthy. This different role-situation is the foremost reason for male/ female discrepancy in language use.
Thus, the crucial factor which decides the choice of linguistic forms is the social network within which the speaker operates; i.e. the kinds of people the speaker comes into contact with. We can generalize, on the basis of our data, that this factor refers to the job-related domain of men and the non-job-related domain of both men and women; men more often than not interact with people in situations related to their jobs, while women most often interact with people at and around their homes.
5. Conclusion
I have demonstrated that what has been considered as the stereotypic sex- based trait is dubious at best. Since language is deeply rooted in society, its uses certainly cannot be expected to be indifferent to human interactions in society. It must follow that male/female differences in language use arise not so much from the choice of linguistic forms based on sex difference as from the different sorts of company men and women keep or the different roles they play in society.
This being the case, such a general statement as ‘Women speak more politely than men’, is superficial and does not reflect the social reality that occasions polite speech. The reality is that the expected role-relations in society are not the same for men and women. If the same role-relations and responsibilities were given, language use in Japanese society would not greatly differ between the sexes.4
However, the different use or the different choice of words probably will continue, since men and women biologically are different. The more they share public responsibilities, the more they feel the need to express masculinity/ femininity in private relations. Therefore, the Japanese language in the future will be reflected in two separate contexts for its use: the one will be non- differentiated use in public, and the other clearly differentiated use in private.5
4 There have been many debates in the mass media as to whether the phenomenon of the use of
vulgar speech by young women should be overlooked or not. Even foreign researchers have noticed
that the tendency of greater similarity in male/female speech was more conspicuous in 1972 than in 1960-1961 (Bodine (1975: 147)). I myself conducted a survey on Japanese children’s language from
the viewpoint of sex differentiation in 1978-1979, under the sponsorship of the Japanese Ministry
of Education, in the research group of Fred C. Peng, and found that the use of nouns and verbs are almost the same between boys and girls and that the difference existed in the use of particles and the number of inverted sentences (boys used fewer inverted sentences than girls). s Although not mentioned in this paper, one of the characteristic features of the Japanese
language is that the higher a form is in honorific connotation, the less sex-differentiated connota- tion it has. Therefore, in formal settings, there are few choices of verb forms particular to males/
females. Consequently, there remains little room for the sex differences. On the contrary, the lower
386 M. Hori / Sociolinguistics of Japanese honorifics
This may sound contradictory to what has been discussed above. The point is that the choice of words is made by each speaker depending on the purpose, the hearer, and the context, but never out of a sense of duty or obligation towards an external power on the basis of the sex differences. The present paper is an attempt to cast a new light upon the Japanese language in order to prove that it can work, and actually is working, as a non-sex-differentiated language, although it will keep some of the characteristics particular to each sex to be used sparingly but effectively when the speaker feels it necessary.
References
Bloch, Bernard, 1946. Studies in colloquial Japanese II: syntax. Language 22: 154-184.
Bodine, Ann, 1975. ‘Sex differentiation in language’. In: B. Thorne and N. Henley, eds., 1975.
pp. 130-151.
Brown, Penelope, 1980. ‘How and why are women more polite: some evidence from a Mayan
community’, In: S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker and N. Furman, eds., Women and language in
literature and society. New York: Praeger. pp. 11 I-136.
Hori, Motoko, 1985. Taiguu-isiki o han-eisuru gengo-keisiki: -desu/-masu wa teinei desuka. [Linguistic forms reflecting the speaker’s psychological attitude towards the hearer: are -desu and
-masu really polite?] Josai University Women’s Junior College Bulletin 2(l): 145-160.
Ide, Sachiko, Motoko Hori, Akiko Kawasaki, Shoko Ikuta and Hitomi Haga, 1986. Sex difference
and politeness in Japanese. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Sociolinguistics in Japan 58: 25-36.
Lakoff, Robin, 1973. Language and woman’s place. Language in Society 2: 45-79.
Sibata, Takesi, 1979. Keigo to keigo kenkyu. [Honorifics and studies on honorifics.] Gengo 8(6): 2-
8.
Thorne, Barrie and Nancy Henley, eds., 1975. Language and sex: difference and dominance.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Trudgill, Peter, 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of
Norwich. Language in Society 1: 179-195. (Reprinted in: B. Thorne and N. Henley, eds., 1975.
pp. 88-104.)
Trudgill, Peter, 1974. Sociolinguistics: an introduction. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin.
in honorific connotation, the more varieties are allowed for the speaker. The biggest difference is shown in the use of various particles which do not change the meaning of the verb itself, but add some emotional connotations. This is one of the main areas where male/female difference in the choice of linguistic forms most commonly is revealed. The present paper, however, focuses on the existence/non-existence of honorific morphemes, and does not venture into this other subject.
