Japanese Politeness

An Enquiry

Yasuko Obana

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000212761
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Languages
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Although the Japanese language is one of the most quoted examples in politeness research, extant publications focus on particular areas of politeness, and very few of them enquire into the varied aspects of Japanese politeness. In this book, Yasuko Obana provides an integrated account of what signifies Japanese politeness.

By examining how far previous assumptions can apply to Japanese, Obana exposes a variety of characteristics of Japanese politeness. By taking a diachronic approach, she probes into what constitutes politeness, extracts key elements of the term 'polite' in Japanese, and demonstrates how modern honorifics' apparent diverse, divergent uses and effects can be integrated into a systematic matrix. Furthermore, by quoting traditional Japanese language scholars' ( kokugo gakusha ) studies, Obana brings different views into the open. She also carves out politeness strategies in Japanese that have not been adequately explored to date, and which often conform to the way in which honorifi cs behave because they refl ect social indexicality.

This book is a good reference for scholars in pragmatics, particularly for those who are working on politeness. It is useful for Japanese language teachers who want to know how to teach Japanese politeness to non-native learners. Postgraduate students of Japanese or pragmatics may also find this book useful for self-study.

Part I

Politeness begins

1Definition of politeness

This chapter examines how the concept of ‘politeness’ has been viewed in the last four decades from the perspective of pragmatics. It first looks at the etymology of the term ‘politeness’, and then briefly reviews previous studies on the definition of politeness. It is generally accepted that politeness research has gone through three stages. First, politeness was treated as a part of speech acts and it was customary to make a list of acts of politeness. Second, Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) ‘face-saving’ theory focused on face-threatening acts (FTAs), and designed strategies to mitigate or redress these acts. Though their theory has been criticised as well as praised, it is a seminal inspiration as it has invigorated politeness research since then. The third stage was informed by Eelen’s (2001) criticism of normative ways of treating politeness that promoted discursive approaches to politeness.

1.0 Introduction

Politeness exists in every culture, and serves as “a key means by which humans work out and maintain interpersonal relationships” (Kádár and Haugh, 2013: 1). As members of society, we generally know (or think we know) how to behave politely and can judge whether or not the behaviour of another is also polite. Politeness is one of the disciplines we have been acquiring since childhood, and exists in our daily life as a matter of course; we live by and in it. This is why politeness is considered to be a folk concept, i.e. “a notion that has a general, popularly understood meaning particular to a sociocultural grouping, but which has not been formally defined or standardized” (Bernstein, 2010: 2). Because of this, it is extremely difficult to pin it down academically, especially when attempting to theorise it. Another difficulty with its theorisation is that, although politeness as a concept may be universal, its concrete examples are culture-laden, presenting diverse phenomena across cultures. Even within the same culture, regional and individual differences can constitute factors for different judgements on politeness. It is also true that politeness is contextually driven; the same behaviour is judged as polite in one context but as impolite in another. In this way, politeness is a complex and diverse phenomenon. In spite of these difficulties, ‘politeness’ has been one of the most discussed topics in pragmatics for the last four decades.

This chapter briefly looks at three major streams of politeness research by focusing on how politeness is viewed. Since this book focuses on Japanese politeness, I review previous studies from the viewpoint of how they can apply to Japanese.

1.1 The etymology of ‘politeness’

The term ‘politeness’ is generally accepted as ‘a social tool whereby we aim to achieve smooth and conflict-free communication’. This idea is based on the etymology of the word ‘politeness’ It is derived from a Latin word polit-us, meaning ‘polished, refined’, and its related form is polĩre, which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means ‘to smooth or to polish’. Therefore, ‘to be polite’ signifies the management of smoothness by showing certain refined (polished) manners.

Smoothness, when applying it to social interactions, implies conflict-free communication. For example, agreeing with the other rather than disagreeing more likely achieves conflict-free communication. Empathy and sympathy may also serve as social lubricants in interaction. Praising is one means of creating a pleasant feeling in the other’s mind. Honorifics also contribute to smooth communication as juniors (in status or age) are socially expected in many situations to use honorifics with their seniors,¹ and this kind of social conformity achieves trouble-free interaction.

Politeness also relates to its other origin, ‘polished’. It implies that skill in politeness enables its users to maintain their dignity in social life. In extreme cases, it can be interpreted as a way of enhancing “ego’s self-esteem and his/her public status in the eyes of alter with a supplementary aim of enhancing alter’s self-esteem” (Watts, 1992: 45). Although this extreme interpretation, which Watts quoted from the definition prevalent in eighteenth-century British elite society, rarely arises in our modern society, its remnants still linger in certain polite situations today. For example, if someone says, ‘I would like to have a cup of coffee’, the listener may judge it as polite, but who is the speaker being polite to? As ‘would like to’ refers to the speaker’s own wish, it is not addressed to the listener. It is not directly polite to a particular person, but meant to maintain the speaker’s social dignity. Because this linguistic behaviour is accepted as appropriate by the society in which the speaker resides, it is labelled as ‘polite’. In a similar way, the mastering of Japanese honorifics guarantees the user’s good social image, and the skilful use of honorifics often makes the user appear educated. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Watanabe (1974) describes modern honorifics as aiming at hinkaku hoji (品格保持), meaning, ‘maintaining one’s dignity’. Hundreds of books on how to use correct honorifics² are published in Japan, claiming that ‘competent adults should know how to use them’, ‘honorifics are a linguistic weapon in business’, ‘honorific use is a basic business manner’, ‘capable business people should be able to use honorifics’ and even ‘appropriate uses of honorifics create beautiful ladies’. Some of these may be quite subjective or biased, but all point to the etymology of politeness: ‘polished’.

In sum, politeness has two aims: to achieve smooth communication with others and to maintain our dignity as competent adult members of society. Both originate from the same human desire to make other people have a better opinion of us and themselves. Therefore, from the viewpoint of its etymology, politeness can be defined as ‘a social tool whereby we aim to achieve smooth and conflict-free communication’.

The concept of politeness, as defined above, exists in every human community, and its fundamental purpose applies in every language. However, this is valid only at the abstract and conceptual level because concrete examples of and practical approaches to politeness differ from language to language. The same behaviour may be interpreted differently from one community to another. In other words, politeness is a culture-laden term, and its practice reveals particular socio-psychological details of the standards or norms that have historically evolved in each language community (see Chapter 2 on how politeness begins and evolves).

Let us consider a simple example. If a guest arrives at Brisbane airport, we might ask her, ‘How was your flight?’ or ‘Did you enjoy your flight?’ This is a common polite enquiry. On the other hand, a Japanese person in the same situation will ask, otsukareni natta deshoo, meaning ‘You must be tired.’ This is also polite. What, then, is the reason for this difference? One patriotic answer is that the Japanese expression is more considerate to the guest than the English greeting. In fact, when I asked several Japanese people living in Australia what gives rises to the above difference, most of them gave this patriotic answer. On the other hand, ‘How was your flight?’ allows the guest to freely talk about her journey and does not impose upon her the evaluation of a third party. The guest is, therefore, the judge and the question maker is merely accommodating. From this viewpoint, otsukareni natta deshoo may sound imposing because the guest may not be tired but is now obliged to feel tired. However, from another viewpoint, this expression implies that the speaker will consider the guest’s condition when planning the rest of the day for her. In this way, different viewpoints yield different social actions and yet have the same intention: politeness.

1.2 Politeness as part of speech acts: A set of rules

This section and onwards briefly looks at the history of how ‘politeness’ has been viewed or defined. As it is beyond the scope of this chapter to review the entire history of politeness research, I focus on the following three main areas: (1) speech act theory, (2) face theory and (3) discursive approach. The most recent developments will be examined in Chapter 2, since commonly used terms associated with the concept of politeness, such as ‘evaluation’, ‘social practice’ and ‘expectation’, in recent studies are closely related to the discussion in that chapter of how politeness begins and evolves.

Politeness was once treated as part of speech acts. Speech acts mean communication in which the speaker through the use of language intends to perform in relation to the other (usually listener) and to evoke the other’s response. They include requests, invitations, greetings, questions and many other purpose-oriented interactions in which speaker and listener are both involved to achieve their own aims.

As a notable scholar in Speech Act Theory, Grice (1975) originally established four maxims underlying the cooperative conversational principle in transactional discourse. Grice’s cooperative principles and maxims are directed toward ‘effectiveness’ in conversation. The four maxims are:

1.The maxim of quantity – Give the most helpful amount of information.

2.The maxim of quality – Information should be truthful.

3.The maxim of relation – Be relevant.

4.The maxim of manner – Behave in a clear, brief and orderly manner.

At first glance, these maxims may work well, especially when busy business people need to deal efficiently with work matters; in this particular case, effectiveness is indeed treated preferentially. However, in many other social interactions, politeness is not aimed only at effectiveness. On the contrary, real interactions often contradict those maxims and yet would not be considered ‘impolite’ at times. This is because, in our social interactions, we often stray from the topic upon which we originally focused but by letting the discourse wander can nonetheless enjoy a smooth conversation.Politeness, after all, is a matter of conflict-free communication. We are not in court or talking with a lawyer who is paid by the hour.

Social interaction does not necessarily strive to gain only relevant and brief information, but often aims at social grooming (Dunbar 1988). ‘Grooming’ in human society refers to social interactions by means of which we stay in touch with our friends and family and ensure strong social relationships. This implies that grooming does not necessarily aim at achieving the maxims above because the interactants do not dormally plunge into the targeted topic without preamble, but enjoy digression in the course of information delivery and accept idle talk, through all of which they strengthen their solidarity. What is more, we are not always truthful in social interactions. For example, creating an excuse when turning down an invitation to a party, though it is not ‘truthful’ in a strict sense, is perhaps more polite than telling the truth, which is that we prefer not to be invited because we do not want to hear the host’s lengthy bragging. Nonetheless, Grice’s maxims surely laid the foundation for pragmatic approaches to language phenomena, and became a trigger for promoting politeness research thereafter.

Grice’s idea led Edmondson (1981), Lakoff (1973, 1975, 1977), Leech (1980, 1983) and Searle (1975) to go further and suggest rules of politeness...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Note on transcriptions
• Part I Politeness begins
• Part II Honorifics
• Part III Politeness strategies
• References
• Index