Japanese

A total of 1773 Japanese comments were analyzed, all of which were written by Japanese native speakers. The sites from which the data was taken attract an almost exclusively Japanese community, but some non-Japanese also occasionally took part in the discussion, and their comments were excluded.

Most of the comments – as many as 1156 – were made by men, as opposed to 617 written by women.

110 of the comments from males were deemed aggressive, which is 9.5% of all comments from men. On the other, hand, 51 aggressive comments were made by women, which amounts to 8.2% of all female comments.

Therefore, a slightly higher proportion of comments from men was aggressive, but the difference is not large. The results are summarized in the table below.

Table 53: Japanese verbal aggression online

Female Male Total

Total

comments 617 1156 1773

Aggressive

comments 51 (8.2% of 617) 110 (9.5% of 1156) 161 (9.0% of 1773)

It should be noted that those values are not meant to represent the proportion of aggressive language in general Japanese discourse. The discussions from which the data comes from were selected with preference given to controversial topics, ones more likely to be the cause of aggressive remarks. It can be assumed that if the topics were selected at random, the proportion of aggressive language would be lower.

Aggressive utterances differ in the object that they target. This can be an internal aspect that is close to the identity of the victim, such as intellect, appearance, strength of character, and so on. External objects such as one’s family or possessions can also be targeted. Sekizaki (2009 : 77) provides a taxonomy of insults, which is based in turn on the system formulated by Gim (2005), with some additions. Gim’s research is concerned with compliments as speech acts, but Sekizaki rightly identifies insults and compliments as

135

different sides of the same coin, as those traits which can be positively evaluated with praise can also be described negatively when they become the object of criticism. The following taxonomy is a translated version of Sekizaki’s original Japanese, with slight modifications.

Table 54: Categorization of insults

Object of insult Definition

1. Possessions Physical objects which belong to the target and/or which are worn by the target.

2. Appearance

Those aspects of one’s demeanor which are innate and difficult to change, e.g. face or body

shape

3. Changes in appearance Those aspects of one’s demeanor which are malleable and temporary.

4. Talent The abilities of an individual, whether innate or acquired through training

5. Achievement

The process and result of striving to successfully attain a certain outcome by using innate and

acquired abilities.

6 Personality The emotional and intellectual characteristics of an individual, to some degree permanent.

7. Actions Deeds that stem from one’s personality, or deeds that shed light on one’s personality 8. Ideas The beliefs or opinions of an individual,

surfacing in the language that they use.

9. Others Anything that does not match categories 1-8.

Based on Sekizaki (2009 : 77)

There are reasons to believe that gender differences exist in the attitude towards objects of verbal attacks. Boxer and Cortés-Conde (1997) analyze conversations of Americans and Argentinians, revealing that women do not engage in criticism of another’s body when teasing, avoiding this particular subject. The authors surmise that the body is a topic sensitive

136

enough that criticism targeting it would carry the risk of overstepping the boundaries of amiable teasing and being received as a serious attack. Thus women tend not to make negative comments concerning the physique if they don’t want to hurt the feelings of the interlocutor, but conversely they

“frequently employ verbal self-denigration through irony about their own physical shortcomings” (Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997 : 290). In other words, they do make negative comments where their own bodies are concerned, but their female conversation partners do not pick up the self put-downs; they do not express agreement with the criticism but rather let it pass. Men, on the other hand, did not refrain from teasing focused on a person’s appearance, as evidenced by one conversation in which a man playing basketball with another male comments that the latter has a “big butt,” and expresses disbelief that one who must carry such a bodily weight is able to move quickly enough on the basketball court. Consultations with the speakers revealed that such behavior is considered “typical” in competitive sports, at least in North America. It can be thought of more an expression of the competitive spirit than of outright hostility.

Table 55: Targets of Japanese verbal aggression

Men Women Men Women

Possesions Achievement 1

Appearance 5 Personality 14 12

Changes in

appearance Actions 24 20

Talent 23 10 Ideas 22 8

Others 21 1

Similarly to the findings of Boxer and Cortés-Conde, there is a difference in the frequency of negative evaluations of people’s appearance.

While 5 men wrote such comments, no women did. Talent and ideas were to commonly attacked facets, and in those two cases the gender gap was more pronounced. However, when it comes to personality and actions, the difference

137

was less pronounced. Actions in particular were what drew the greatest number of flaming, which can be explained by the content of the controversial opening posts. The dishonest deeds of politicians and cheating in the sexual sense both fall under the definition of actions.

One of the aggressive words which appeared most often in my data was yatsu, together with derivatives soitsu and aitsu, personal referents that are characterized more by their informality than their offensiveness. Indeed, they are quite often used as a term of endearment, and in such case they can be translated to something like “guy,” “chap,” or “fellow,” (note that they can be used to refer to both men and women). For example, modifying the word with some positive attribute such as ii “good” makes it fairly clear that the expression is meant as a praise, barring special circumstances such as irony.

However, in this study no such clearly positive combinations were found. Every occurrence of yatsu was accompanied by either a neutral or negative description:

根っから腐っている奴はどこにでもいるよ

Nekkara kusatte iru yatsu ha doko ni demo iru yo.

You can find people rotten to the core anywhere.

「政治家」「官僚」「公務員」 価値のない行動を「仕事」と言ってる奴が何人居るんだろ？

“Seijika,” “Kanryō,” “Kōmuin.” Kachi no nai kōdō wo “shigoto” to itteru yatsu ga nannin irundaro?

“Politicians,” “bureaucrats,” “civil servants.” How many people are there who call worthless activities “work”?

日本くだらない奴多すぎ。

Nihon kudaranai yatsu oosugi.

There are too many worthless people in Japan.

Furthermore, the relation between those who used the reference and those they referred to lacked the familiarity typically present when yatsu is to be used positively.

138

The following comment provides interesting proof of the potentially offensive nature of yatsu. Here the commenter takes part in a discussion about the nature of the Japanese workplace and how young people who desire to express their individuality struggle within it.

社会人としての一般常識もしらねぇ、また、基本の型、技術、経験もまだなにもねえ奴ら

（学生に）個性も型もへったくれもねえだろ！

Shakaijin to shite no ippan jōshiki mo shiranee, mata, kihon no gata, gijutsu, keiken mo mada nani mo nee yatsura (gakusei ni) kosei mo gata mo hettakure mo nee daro!

Those people (students), they don’t have even the common sense of an adult member of society, they lack even the basic skills and experience, they haven’t developed even a basic working style. How the hell can you even talk about individuality, work style, or whatever!

The comment above is quoted exactly how it was written, including the gakusei ni in brackets. Note how from a referential point of view, the content of the brackets makes the yatsura (yatsu with a plural marker) obsolete. The speaker could have very well used only “students,” which in any case is a more specific referent and would serve the purpose better. What is then the reason for keeping yatsura? It seems to be strictly the implication of scorn towards the inexperienced students, who in the speaker’s opinion are too early in demanding an outlet for their individuality. The tone of the comment supports this explanation – the speaker repeatedly uses the nee variant of the negation that takes the form nai in standard Japanese. Nee is a rougher, more vulgar variation which tended to be associated with male speech in traditional descriptions of Japanese. Although the use of nee, just like many other forms thought to be gendered, is actually not limited to one sex (most certainly not by grammar), the commenter in this particular case is indeed male.

The Japanese language possesses a complicated system of honorifics, so relatively often offense can be brought about without comparing the addressee to any unsavory referent such as an animal, body part etc. One such method that was especially common in the data was the use of plain imperative form, such as shiro (imperative “do”) or ike (imperative “go”). Japanese seems

139

to offer a greater number of grammaticalized requests than Polish or English, and each of those requests which has a different place in the politeness structure. Using a bare imperative towards a stranger in Japanese can be associated with rudeness of a higher level than the use of Polish or English imperatives in such context. Furthermore, the use of such blunt requests are usually accompanied with plain forms, where “plain” refers to one half of the plain/polite binary, in other words the distinction between plain infinitive forms and polite desu/-masu forms. Blunt requests together with plain forms show a lack of regard for the recipient’s identity as an independent, self-governing individual.

Most of relevant data was taken from discussions concerning: 1) politics and 2) infidelity in sexual relationships. Additionally, some aggressive comments were found in discussions on topics such as the case of a hacker who illegally gained access to email accounts of other people and sent threatening messages using those accounts, framing his victims. Another conversation was about social workers abusing their power by harassing young women who applied for financial support. The topics were selected because they were judged relatively likely to create controversy and elicit aggressive remarks, which indeed happened to be the case. Conversely, topics which were light-hearted and unlikely to cause a divide of opinions were avoided. For example, there were “topics” which boiled down to presenting a picture of a young animal of a generally likeable kind, such as a puppy or a kitten. Such threads predictably offered little more than short cries of adoration for the pet with little opportunity for debate or room for aggression.

Hence, the topics that provided the most usable data tended to focus on some kind of reprehensible behavior. Most of the aggression was aimed at those who took part in this sort of behavior. In some cases, the targets were not even specific individuals, but rather whole groups of people.

世のため人のために働くのが公務員だろ？ゲス野郎！

Yo no tame hito no tame ni hataraku no ga kōmuin daro? Gesu yarō!

Public servants are supposed to work for the society, for the people, aren’t they?

Those slimebags!

140

マジ浮気するやつなんてクズだわぁ笑 存在がウザイ。

Maji uwaki suru yatsu nante kuzu da waa. (warai) Sonzai ga uzai.

Seriously, people who cheat are trash. (laughter) They annoy me just by existing.

In the first of the examples presented above, the speaker expresses his anger towards all public servants who commit unacceptable acts, such as sexual harassment. In the second example, the targets of the aggression are people who cheat on their partners, in general, without specifying any one individual.

This kind of aggression can be considered relatively indirect, because of the very low possibility of retaliation. Firstly, because no single person in particular is targeted, no single person in particular has a reason to feel hurt by the remark. It is of course very much possible to offend people by making general statements about whole groups, but there seems to be some added insult in an attack on the level of an individual, as is hinted by the use of such English phrases like “it’s nothing personal” (as a strategy to mitigate offense) and “things got personal” (as a way to communicate that the conflict became serious). The second reason why the kind of verbal aggression analyzed in this study can be considered indirect is that for the most part the targets of aggression were not participants of the conversation and might never read the comments addressed towards them. An insult will not cause repercussions if the insulted is unaware of it.

In this study, no significantly large gender differences were found in the total proportion of aggressive expressions, nor were they found in the targeted trait. However, the direct/indirect dichotomy might provide one area where gender differences actually arise. While most aggressive comments in the data were directed at groups, and often somewhat nebulous groups at that, there are some examples of personal aggression specifically directed at other participants of the discussion.

In one instance, the administrator of one of the webpages from which the data was taken chose to post an idea which proved to be highly controversial and drew much criticism from the commenters. The administrator compared various taxes to fines, e.g. the income tax to a fine for earning money, the consumption tax is a fine for buying goods, and so on, as if

141

earning money and buying goods were penalized activities. Many of the users thought this comparison was inappropriate, as in their minds paying taxes is not a penalty, but a contribution for the common good. Some of them let their opinions be known in sharp words.

冗談にしても馬鹿すぎ。お前が罰金払え

Jōdan ni shite mo bakasugi. Omae ga bakkin harae.

That’s so dumb, even if you meant it as a joke. You go pay the fine yourself.

いつも思うが、あんたダレ？

Itsumo omou ga, anta²³ dare?

I always wonder – who the heck are you?

Unlike most, these aggressive comments are directed specifically at the administrator. Furthermore, the administrator is obviously a participant in the communication act and is much more likely to read those aggressive comments than, say, a random politician. On the direct/indirect spectrum, this tilts the comments towards the direct end. In total, 24 such comments were made by male users, which constitutes 21.8% of all aggressive comments coming from males. Only 2 comments of this more direct kind were made by women, which is 3.9% of all aggressive comments coming from females. This difference is much larger than the total difference in all aggressive comments taken indiscriminately, and that finding is similar to the claims of Björkqvist et al (1994). Furthermore, the only example of one user mentioning another user by name in an aggressive comment comes from a male to a male. It is a response to what is known as double-posting, or posting the exact same message twice, often by mistake or due to an error. In this case the user called Sugimoto is the one guilty of double-posting:

23 Some liberties were necessarily taken to reflect the offensive nature of certain expressions which do not have equivalents in English. Here, the offense comes with the address term anta, which is not an appropriate way to address a stranger. Additionally, the user chooses to use the plain form instead of the polite (desu/masu).

142 杉本うるせえ

Sugimoto urusee Shut up, Sugimoto.

Putting gender differences aside for a moment, the total rates of direct aggression are lower when compared to Polish data. However, this rarity of confrontation is not by any means characteristic of Japanese CMC as a whole.

It seems that the lack of anonymity is a strong factor here: it is believed that on websites which do not require the input of personal information, users may be encouraged to bully others. Apart from the ease of avoiding reliation, the lack of empathy caused by the detached character of this medium is cited as a cause (Strom and Strom 2005 : 36). The Japanese message board 2channel is a well-known example of an anonymous CMC environment in which aggression flourishes. It has become notorious for murderers posting their intentions before the act (Maslow 2011 : 309). The speech hosted by the board has been the cause of over 50 lawsuits, for reasons including libel and defamation (ibid.).

Harmony is highly valued in Japanese society and maintaining it in social interaction is a high priority. This means that open conflict tends to be avoided.

Perhaps then the users of Japanese Facebook take care to act in accordance with the rules of their larger community because their various social identities are on public display, which puts them in the position of “members of Japanese society.” Anonymity lets them break free from this identity and ignore the rules.

Anonymity can be expected to increase the probability of verbal attacks regardless of culture, but in Japan the difference between anonymous and nonymous communication seems particularly eminent. As mentioned, direct aggression between Japanese users was very rare and never escalated or exceeded the length of two turns: attack and reply, often reconcilliatory in tone, ending the exchange. In the Polish data, it was not difficult to find aggressive interactions which continued for several turns and only died down because at least one of the interactants lost interest, not because an armistice was sought.

This study does not focus on anonymous interactions because of the need for discerning gender, so a separate inevestigation is required to shed light on this problem. Speculatively speaking, it is possible that there is a large

143

cultural difference in verbal aggression between Japan and Poland, but only as long as the public display of citizen identity binds Japanese people to certain rules of conduct. When speakers are not bound by the rules, cultural differences may diminish or even vanish. If they do not vanish completely, it could suggest that the cultural norms have become somewhat internalized and are followed by some even if they know they won’t be held accountable.

There is also a possibility that the topic itself can become a factor which affects the gender differences in verbal aggressiveness. I mentioned earlier that some topics simply did not provoke any agression at all and that was true for both genders. However, those who do provoke agression might do so to a different extent in men and women if the topic is relevant to gender.

One of the topics which sparked many angry comments was the topic of infidelity in relationships. Although the majority of all comments used in this study came from males, for this particular subject the proportion was reversed.

It attracted considerably more comments from women (156 compared to 90 written by males) and the proportion of aggressive comments was slightly higher for women (11.5% of all comments, compared to 10% of all comments from men). While this difference in aggressiveness is not large enough to be conclusive, it hints at the possibility that some topics may offend one gender more than the other. According to a survey performed by the company Sagami Gomu²⁴, 26.9% of Japanese men who asked whether they ever cheated on their partner responded “yes,” compared to 16.3% of Japanese women. This means that, considering most relationships are heterosexual, women in Japan are more likely to be the victim of cheating, while men are more likely to be the perpetrators. Some of the comments reinforce this stereotype:

浮気を正当化する気もないし、浮気するなってのも男の本能からして難しい

Uwaki o seitōka suru ki mo nai shi, uwaki suru na tte no mo otoko no honnō kara shite muzukashii.

I don’t intend to justify cheating, but on the other hand it’s hard to tell people

“don’t cheat” if you take the male instinct into account.

24 Source: Nippon no sekkusu [“Sex in Japan”] http://sagami-gomu.co.jp/project/nipponnosex/

ドキュメント内 Kyushu University Institutional Repository (ページ 142-152)