Article published in:
Pragmatics
Vol. 28:1 (2018) ► pp. 61–92

Analysis of politeness strategies in Japanese and Korean conversations between males

Focusing on speech levels and speech level shifts

| Myongji University, Korea
This study analyzed the uses and functions of speech levels and speech level shifts in natural conversations between two unacquainted males. Similarities and differences between Japanese and Korean languages have been investigated. For the Japanese language, speech levels do not clearly reflect the hierarchical relationships based on the interlocutors’ age by utilizing “non-marked utterance (NM)” This finding implies that modern Japanese people tend to avoid the use of honorifics which clearly indicates the hierarchical relationships between speakers at the sentence level. On the other hand, speech level shifts reflect hierarchical relationships between speakers, which means that Japanese seem to conform to normative language use at the discourse level. For the Korean language, both speech levels and speech level shifts clearly reflect the hierarchical relationships based on the interlocutors’ age. This result suggests that Korean have a strong tendency to preserve the normative honorific usage of polite forms according to age difference both at the sentence level and at the discourse level. These results suggest that speech levels, considered to be socio-pragmatically obligatory, have a strategic-use aspect for both languages, including the use of “non-marked utterances” and that of downshifts. It was also discovered that Japanese tend to use speech levels more strategically than Korean. Consequently, Japanese uses honorifics strategically in order to evade hierarchical relationships based on age, whereas Koreans tend to conform to social norms that derive from tenets of Confucianism, a philosophy emphasizing politeness toward older people; such practice encourages younger people to use polite forms to their elders.
Keywords: Japanese, Korean, conversations between males, speech levels, speech level shifts, politeness strategy, discourse politeness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Subjects
    • 2.2Procedure
    • 2.3Transcription
    • 2.4Coding
      • 2.4.1Speech levels
        • Sentence-final speech levels
        • Speech levels in the whole utterance
      • 2.4.2Speech level shifts
        • Speech level shifts
        • Politeness effects of speech level shifts
      • 2.4.3Coding reliability
    • 2.5Statistical analysis
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Speech levels
      • 3.1.1Sentence-final speech levels
      • 3.1.2“Speech levels in the whole utterance” when “sentence- final speech levels” are NM
    • 3.2Speech level shifts
      • 3.2.1Speech level shifts
      • 3.2.2Politeness effects of downshift
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 13 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.00002.lee
References
Bakeman, R., and J. Gottman
1986 Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P., and S. C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chang, W. M., and M. Haugh
2011 “Evaluations of Im/politeness of an Intercultural Apology.” Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (3): 411–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Y. M.
2014 “Cheongyudaehwaeseoui hwajeseontaekkwa politeness [The selection of topics and politeness in the invitation conversation].” Journal of Japanese Language 411: 149–163.Google Scholar
Han, M. K.
2007 Hangugingwa ilboninui gyeongeohaengdong [Honorific Behaviors of Korean and Japanese]. Seoul: J&C.Google Scholar
Han, M. K., and H. Umeda
2009 Kankokugo no keigo nyūmon [An Instruction of Honorifics of Korean]. Tokyo: Taishūkan-shoten.Google Scholar
Hong, M. P.
(2010) Eoneohaengdongmuhwaui hanilbigyo [A Comparative Study of Language Behavioral Culture in Korean and Japanese]. Seoul: Hanil muhwasa.Google Scholar
Ide, S.
1989 “Formal Forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of Linguistic Politeness.” Multilingua 81: 223–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 Joseigo no sekai [The World of Female Language]. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.Google Scholar
Ide, S., and M. Yoshida
1999 “Sociolinguistics: Honorifics and Gender Differences.” In The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, ed. by N. Tsujimura, 444–478. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ikeda, Y.
2000 “Hangugeowa ilboneoui hwagye [Speech levels of Korean and Japanese].” Daegu Technical College bulletin 151: 1–11.Google Scholar
Ikuta, S.
1983 “Speech Level Shift and Conversational Strategy.” Language Sciences 5 (1): 37–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ijūin, I.
2004 “Bogowasha ni yoru bamen ni ōjita speech style no tsukaiwake [Categorization of speech styles with respect to the scene of native speakers].” Shakai Gengo Kagaku 6 (2): 12–26.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z.
2012 “Historical Chinese Politeness and Rhetoric – A Case Study of Epistolary Refusals.” Journal of Politeness Research 81: 93–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kikuchi, Y.
1994 Keigo [Honorifics]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.Google Scholar
Kim, D. K.
2009 Keigo settōji “o · go” wo mochiita keigo no shiyō yōsō ni kansuru ichikōsatsu [A study of honorific expressions employing prefix “o · go].” Journal of the society of Japanese Language and Literature, Japanology 441: 68–84.Google Scholar
Kiyama, S.
2005 “Nihonjin zatsudan ni okeru hudōi – Politeness no kanten kara [Disagreement in the Japanese small talk – in respect to politeness].” Japanese Studies: Research and Education Annual Report 91: 27–48.Google Scholar
Kubota, T.
1990 Keigo kyōiku no shomondai [Issues in Teaching Honorifics]. Tokyo: National Language Institute.Google Scholar
Lee, E. M.
2008 “Danwa level kara mita nikkan no “teineido o shimesu marker no nai hatsuwa” no kinō [The function of “utterances without politeness markers”].” Journal of Japanese Language and Literature 65 (1): 179–197.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
1988 “Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 121: 403–426. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, S. E.
1964 Speech Levels in Japan and Korea. In Language in Culture and Society, ed. by Dell Hymes, 407–413. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Minami, F.
1987 Keigo [Honorifics]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shinsho.Google Scholar
Neustupny, J. V.
1983 “Keigokaihi no strategy nit suite [On honorific avoidance strategies].” Nihongogaku 21: 62–67.Google Scholar
Ogino, T.
1986 “Quantification of Politeness Based on the Usage Patterns of Honorific Expressions.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 581: 37–58.Google Scholar
Ogino, T. et al.
1990 “Nihongo to kankokugo no kikite ni taisuru keigo yōhō no hikaku taishō [A comparative study of addressee-honorific usage in Japanese and Korean].” Chōsengakuho 1361: 1–51.Google Scholar
1991 “Nihongo to kankokugo no daisansha ni taisuru keigo yōhō no hikaku taishō [A comparative study of referent-honorific usage in Japanese and Korean].” Chōsengakuho 1411: 1–42.Google Scholar
Oishi, H.
1983 Gendai keigo kenkyū [Modern Honorific Research]. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.Google Scholar
Olivieri, C.
1999 “Italia-Jin gakushūsha no nihongo ni okeru speech-level shift [Speech-level shift in the Japanese of Japanese learners].” Unpublished masters thesis, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Otsuka, Y.
2004 “Terebi tōron banggumi ni okeru buntai kirikae no kōka [Effects of change in speech style in TV debate – In terms of politeness theory –].” Gifu Shōtoku gakuen daigaku kiyō Gaikokugo gakubu 431: 111–124.Google Scholar
Saito, J.
2010 “Subordinates’ Use of Japanese Plain Forms: An Examination of Superior-subordinate Interactions in the Workplace.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 3271–3282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shin, S. J.
2009 “nikkan daigakusei nokeigo ishiki to keigo kōdō no hikaku [A comparative study of honorific consciousness and honorific behavior of university students in Japanese and Korean].” Japanese Studies 281: 459–484.Google Scholar
Takiura, M.
2005 nihon no keigoron: politeness riron kara no saikentō [Honorific Theory in Japanese: Reexamination from the Perspective of Politeness Theory]. Tokyo: Taishūkan-shoten.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M.
2005 “Beyond the Micro-level in Politeness Research.” Journal of Politeness Research 11: 237–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Umeda, H.
1990 “Gyeongeoe gwanan hanil daejoyeogu [A contrastive study on honorifics in Korean and Japanese].” Ilbonhakji 10 (10): 95–102.Google Scholar
Usami, M.
2001a “ ‘Discourse Politeness’ to iu kanten kara mita keigo shiyō no kinō – keigo shiyō no atarashii toraekata ga politeness no danwa riron ni shisa suru koto – [The function of horonific use from the perspective of discourse politeness – Implications of new analysis method of honorific use for the discourse politeness theory –].” Gogaku kenkyūjo ronshū 61: 1–29.Google Scholar
2001b “Danwa no politeness: Politeness no danwa riron kōsō [Discourse politeness: Discourse theory of politeness – A Preliminary Framework –].” Danwa no politeness (Dai 7 kai kokuritsu kokugo kenkyūjo kokusai symposium hōkukusho) [Discourse Politeness](The National Language Research Institute Seventh International Symposium). Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo [The National Language Research Institute], Tokyo: Bonjinsha, pp. 9–58.Google Scholar
2002 Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation: Some Implications for a Universal Theory Politeness. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
2003 “Kaiteiban: kihonteki na mojika no gensoku (Basic Transcription System for Japanese: BTSJ) [A revised version: Basic transcription dystem for Japanese: BTSJ].” In Usami, M. (Chief Researcher), Tabunka kyōsei shakai ni okeru ibunka communication kyōiku no tame no kisoteki kenkyū [Core research for the education in cross-cultural communication in the multicultural society] – Heisei 13–14 Mombusho Kagaku Kenkyuhi Hojokin Kiban kenkyū (C)(2) – Kenkyū seika hōkokusho [Heisei 13–14 research report for scientific Research (C)(2) funded by Grants in Aid for scientific Research].Google Scholar
2006 “Discourse Politeness Theory and Cross-Cultural Pragmatics.” In Usage-Based Linguistic Informatics 4: Reading in Second Language Pedagogy and Second Language Acquisition in Japanese Context, ed. by A. Yoshitomi, T. Umino, and M. Negishi, 19–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Usami, M., and E. M. Lee
2003 “Shotaimen nishakan kaiwa ni okeru “teineido o shimesu marker no nai hatsuwa” no nikkan taishō kenkyū. [A comparative study of “utterances without politeness markers” In conversations between adults meeting for the first time in Japanese and Korean].” Proceedings of the conference of the Japanese Language and Literature Association of Korea, summer 2003, pp. 99–106.Google Scholar
Usami, M. et al.
2007 “Kihonteki na mojika no gensoku (Basic Transcription System for Japanese: BTSJ) no kankokugo eno ōyō ni tsuite [About the adaptation Basic Transcription System for Japanese: BTSJ to Korean], Danwakenkyū to nihongokyōiku no yukiteki tōgō no tame no kisoteki kenkyū to multimedia kyōzai no shisaku [Preliminary study and trial version of multimedia teaching materials for the effective integration of discourse study and Japanese education].” Heisei 15–18 Mombusho Kagaku Kenkyuhi Hojokin Kiban kenkyū (B)(2)-Kenkyū seika hōkokusho [Heisei 15–18 research report for scientific Research (B)(2) funded by Grants in Aid for scientific Research], pp. 48–82.Google Scholar
Yu, S. Y.
1996 “Guge cheongja daeu eomiui gyoche sayonggwa cheongja daeubeop chegye-himgwa yudaeui jeongdoseonge uihan damhwa bunseokjjeok jeopkkun [Addressee-honorific word’s ending switching and the system of addressee-honorifics in Korean – Discourse analysis approach from the viewpoint of the degree of power and solidarity].” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Korea University.Google Scholar
Xie, Y.
2007 “Irai kōdō no taishō kenkyū kara mita nicchū no taijin communication no tokutyō – Discourse politeness riron no kanten kara [A contrastive study of the characteristic of interpersonal communication in Japanese and Chinese requests – From the perspective of discourse politeness].” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar

Full-text

Analysis of politeness strategies in Japanese and Korean conversations between males
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Locher, Miriam A.
2020. Moments of relational work in English fan translations of Korean TV drama. Journal of Pragmatics 170 ► pp. 139 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.