Author(s)
ITÔ, Takeshi
Citation
沖縄大学人文学部紀要 = Journal of the Faculty of
Humanities and Social Sciences(6): 25-51
Issue Date
2005-03-31
URL
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12001/6105
2005
A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of
Solidarity: The Case of English and Japanese
ITO TakeshiAbstract
This study focuses on the use of English inclusive we and Japanese sentence-final particle ne and yo, both of which are said to show solidarity between the participants of a conversation. Through a close examination of the social and pragmatic aspects of the two expressions, we obtain three factors governing their natural occurrences; psychological superiority, psychological distance and speaker's right. Next, we show that there is difference between English inclusive we and the Japanese sentence-final particles as to how the three factors affect their acceptability. The difference, we argue, reflects their differential (collective vs. individualistic) orientation of each culture.
Keywords: solidarity, psychological superiority, psychological distance, speaker's right 1. Introduction
A long-standing informal characterization of expressions of solidarity has revealed that the use of inclusive we in (lb) and sentence-final particle ne in (2b) has the effect of making (la) and (2a) polite variants respectively, and, at the same time, emphasizes the common grounds of the participants' relation.
(1) a. Don't talk like that. b. We don't talk like that.
(Ide 1982:137) (2) a. Issyo ni itte kudasai.
with go ask
'Go with me'
b. Issyo ni itte kudasai ne. with go ask SF 'Go with me, would you?'
(Uyeno 1982:137) Although such a characterization seems quite correct, it is not necessarily the case that one can show solidarity with inclusive we or sentence-final particle ne in any situation.
There must be some social or pragmatic constraints governing the use of those linguistic devices. This paper examines some social and pragmatic aspects of expressions of solidarity focusing on inclusive we and sentence-final particle ne and yo.
The structure of the present paper is as follows: In section 2 we give some
preliminary discussions on inclusive we and classify it into two components in terms of
factors involved in the use of inclusive we in its derived function - psychological superiority, psychological distance, and speaker's right; in section 4 we provide the basic characteristics of sentence-final particles ne and l/o by reviewing Kamio (1991), where they are decomposed into two components - its core function and its derived function; section 5 demonstrates that the use of ne or yo in its derived function is also conditioned by the same factors as inclusive we in its derived function; and section 6 examines the implications of the findings obtained in sections 2 through 5.
2. Basic characteristics of inclusive we
It is well-known that, in a number of languages, a two fold distinction (inclusive and exclusive) has been made in the first person plural form. Although English and Japanese are not endowed with the distinctive forms, this distinction is significant for a great majority of Amerindian and Australian languages as well as Papu, Malay-Polynesian, Dravidian, and Tibetan, and so on.11 Thus English we is expressed implicitly in one way for "I+you" and in another for "I+they." These are the inclusive
and exclusive forms. This use of "inclusive" and "exclusive" rests totally on the
inclusion or exclusion of "you" (although with respect to "they", the distinction could be exactly the reverse). What we are concerned about in this paper is we in its inclusivesense. Instances of the standard use of the inclusive we are as follows.
(3) <The speaker and the hearer are planning their hiking>
If we reach the top of the mountain, we'll hear the birds singing. (4) <The speaker and the hearer are working on a problem together>
We've solved the problem at last.
There are, however, instances of blatant deviation from the standard use as in the following.
(5) <Mother to her child> It's time we went to bed. (6) <Teacher to his/her students>
OK. We will take our test.
(Kitagawa and Lehrer 1990:745)
In (5) and (6), the speaker could have said you instead of we. But by using we, the speaker
tries to give rise to an atmosphere of camaraderie.21 Then we classify the inclusive we into two components in terms of their function; the core and derived functions:(7) The core function of inclusive we
The speaker assumes that he/she and the hearer are equally involved in the information expressed by a sentence.
(8) The derived function of inclusive we
The speaker assumes that he/she is more or less involved in the information
expressed by a sentence than the hearer, but pretends that (7) held, therebytrying togive rise to an atmosphere of camaraderie.
When (7) is satisfied, inclusive we is necessary in principle, although "you and I" is also
possible. In contrast, even if (8) is satisfied, inclusive we is optional. However, this does not mean that it can be used freely. Inclusive we in its derived function cannot be usedITO : A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of Solidarity
without any reason. It normally purports to show camaraderie between the
participants. Thus, if the speaker does not intend to produce such a rhetorical effect,
he/she need not use an inclusive we.
Most instances of inclusive we in its core function are clear-cut as seen in (3)
and (4). Upon close examination of ample data, however, there are cases where it behaves in a complex manner. Let us consider the following examples. 3)
(9) <Alex advertises himself to Tucker>
Alex: (taking out sketches) What you did here, sir, with the streamlining I think is
fantastic. But, if we took that one step further. If we could apply real aerodynamics, say, like of a rocket ship to a family car.
Tucker: You changed my doors.
Alex: Yes sir, uh, because you only have thirty-one inches headroom and a family
car for an average-sized person needs thirty-six. But, every time they open
the door, they hit the curb. So, I made them open up into, into the roof like an
airplane here. Tucker: Time's up, kid.
(Tucker)
In (9) a planner is Alex. He advertises himself to Tucker by presenting his plan in order to work with him. Thus, Alex is clearly involved in the pertinent information. On the other hand, Tucker is also involved in the information because, if he accepts Alex's idea, he would necessarily work along the plan. Hence, Alex can assume that he and Tucker are equally involved in the information, although they attain this differently.
Moreover, observe the following exchanges. (10) <Jorge and William are monks>
Jorge: Laughter is a devilish wind which deforms the lineaments of the face and makes
men look like monkeys.
William: Monkeys do not laugh. Laughter is particular to man. Jorge: As is sin. Christ never laughed.
William: Can we be sure?
William: There is nothing in the scriptures to say that he did.
(The Name of the Rose)
We find that we in William's second turn is due to its core function. Since monks are the persons who are involved in the information concerning Christ, it stands to reason
that they are involved in the pertinent information.
One might here argue against this observation by pointing out that William could
have said you instead of we.
Admittedly this might be true, but in that case William
would act as if he has no bond with Christ.
Furthermore, our observation of this inclusive we is supported by the following contrast.
(11) <John and Bill are baseball players> John 1: Do you know what?
Billl: No, what?
Bill2: Are we so sure?
John2': I've just heard that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bill2': ??Are we so sure?
Notice that Bill2 can appropriately use we, but Bill2' cannot. We can readily explain
this contrast. Since John and Bill are baseball players, they must be involved in the
information about a baseball game which they attend, but they would not be
involved in the information about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, unless they are soldiers.
3. Constraints on inclusive we in its derived functionLet us turn to the inclusive we in its derived function. It can be used for the
speaker with the specific intention; showing camaraderie. While the use of it is optional
in nature, it cannot be used by, or, to everyone. In this section, we examine the interpersonal constraints controlling its behavior.Solidarity or camaraderie has been investigated since Brown and Gilman(1960)
in terms of social power and distance. Basically, our analysis incorporates the insight
motivating these concepts. We do, however, develop the former concept, social power.In addition, we claim that the notion of speaker's right, whose relevance to solidarity has
been ignored, is also crucial in this area. In what follows, we examine how the three
factors are involved in the readability of the derived function of inclusive we.
3.1. Psychological Superiority
Let us first introduce the notion of psychological superiority. On entering into a
given conversation, each party perceives the psychological power relationship amongthe participants. By so doing, one becomes aware of his/her own power status relative
to the other. Under a normal circumstance, there is, in principle, psychological power
equilibrium between the two persons participating in a given conversation as
schematized in Figure 1.
Speaker A Speaker B
Speaker A = Speaker B in psychological superiority
Figure 1 (a vertical line indicates a psychological power scale.)
However, a state of affairs in a real world such as the difference in social ranking or emotional
state may affect such an equilibrium. As a result, there may bring about an asymmetric
psychological power relation between the two persons as is illustrated in Figure 2.
Speaker A
Speaker B
Speaker A > Speaker B in psy chological superiority
Speaker B Speaker A
Speaker A < Speaker B in psy chological superiority
ITO : A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of Solidarity
The term 'superiority' as used in this study should not be confounded with the term 'superior.' Thus, mention must be made of the difference between the two terms. The term 'superior' is an adjective like 'greater1 or 'higher', or a noun like 'boss' or
'senior.' 'Superiority1, on the other hand, is a neutral term. Just as 'height' does not
refer to the state of being "high", "superiority" is not the state of being "superior." Therefore, when we talk about psychological superiority, we refer to a continuum
stretching from psychologically superior to psychologically inferior state of mind relative
to the hearer.
The notion of psychological superiority includes the notion of power proposed
by Brown and Gilman, while the converse is not necessarily true. Social superior may be psychologically superior to a social inferior, but psychological superiors may not necessarily be a social superior. Suppose the relationship between two persons: one
who has passed an exam and another who has failed. In this case the former may be psychologically superior to the latter, whereas the former may be a social inferior due to a difference in age. It is the notion of psychological superiority, we suggest, that is
relevant to the use of inclusive we and the related issues. Let us observe the following examples.
(12) a. Now you must be a good boy. And keep quiet, b. Now we must be a good boy. And keep quiet. (13) a. How are you feeling this morning?
b. How are we feeling this morning?
Examples like (12b) and (13b) represent well-known usage, which are called paternal we and hospital we respectively. Traditional works on solidarity describe that (12b) is
issued by a mother to scold her child, and (13b) is uttered by a doctor or a nurse to
soothe a patient (cf. Mizutani 1985:205, Ohsugi 1982:253). We argue that this is naturally accommodated under our assumption. In (12) a mother is socially and then psychologically superior to her child, in (13b) a nurse is psychologically superior to her patient due to the difference in emotional state.41 From this, we hypothesize that only a person who is not a psychologically inferior may issue an inclusive we.
(14) A condition for the derived function of inclusive debased on psychological superiority: A person may be licensed to express camaraderie by inclusive we if he/she can assume that he/she is not in a lower status than the hearer in psychological
superiority at the moment of speech.
Given the constraint (14), we can explain the phenomena which the traditional treatments
cannot explain. Consider the following.
(15) a. <A patient to a nurse>
^How are we feeling this morning?
b. <A nurse to her teacher who happens to be a patient> r/r? How are we feeling this morning?
(15a) is conveyed in the reverse direction to (13b). As the constraint (14) predicts, (15a) is rather awkward. Since caregivers tend to be emotionally superior to the one who receives it, a patient is likely to be in a lower status than a nurse in psychological
superiority. This is also correctly explained by the traditional accounts. It is not,
however, always the case that a nurse would use an inclusive we to any patient. As (15b) shows, if a person who is a teacher of the nurse happens to be a patient due to an accident or something, the nurse (the student) could not say (15b) to him/her. In
our terms, this is because the nurse cannot be psychologically superior to his/her teacher even if he /she is now a patient.51
Furthermore observe the following contrasts.
(16) <John and Chris play basketball. After a while, John threw the ball in the
wrong direction. The ball could not be found.> a. ?Gosh, we've lost our ball. (Speaker=John)
b. Gosh, we've lost our ball. (Speaker=Chris)
(17) <John is an athlete and Chris is his coach. They are not so close as to practice
one-to- one. One day there is a tournament. John won it. Just after the
tournament>
a. We made it! (Speaker=John)
b. We made it! (Speaker=Chris)
Notice that in both (16) and (17), a doer is John. However, an inclusive we in (16a) is awkward or rude, while that in (17a) is acceptable or polite. Why does such a contrast result? With the constraint (14), we can explain the contrast. In (16), the responsibility
of losing the ball should be ascribed to John because he is to be blamed for that. Thus
the difference in psychological superiority results. By (14) a psychological superior,
Chris is permitted to express an inclusive we, but John, who is in a lower status in psychological superiority, cannot appropriately use it. In (17) the winner is John, and he should be credited with the achievement. Thus he is unlikely to be emotionally lower atthe time, which enables him to issue an inclusive we. However, this does not reverse
the difference in psychological superiority between the two persons. Basically temporal
state of mind hardly reverses the social power relationship. Hence, both John and
Chris are not in a lower status in psychological superiority, leading to the use of an
inclusive we.
It seems that our hypothesis is further borne out by the following two examples. (18) <Rudi is a girl. Cliff is her father.>
Cliff: ...do you feel much better?
Rudi: ...(Looking a lot more perked up.) Yeah!
Cliff: Alright, now, are we ready to get rid of the tripso-monpina uhhh? maninouses?
Rudi: Yes! (Swinging her first ready for a flight!)
Cliff: (Putting aspirin on to a spoon.) Now, we're going to take three of these
chewable aspirin. (Rudi covers her mouth as Cliff approaches her.)(Calling All Partners, Cosby Show)
(19) <Professor to his/her student>
You read a lot of stuff and you amalgamated it...it looks like sections of literature that you got into and you got frustrated with the choice model and you went to another set of literature so we dump the whole process.
ITO : A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of Solidarity
It didn't really get
reflected in anything...
(Calhoun 1976, cited in Kuno 1977: 327)
Inclusive we in (18) may be categorized into a type of paternal we. But, what is to be
noticed is that the speaker of paternal we, Cliff in this case, is psychologically superior to the hearer or his daughter. Thus, the speakers can be licensed to use we in this situation. Note in (19) that, while the professor uses you in describing the positive aspects of the student's paper, he switches it into we in describing the negative aspects of that. By doing so, that kind of failure, it is implied, is to be imputed not only to the student, but also to the professor. Hence, the atmosphere of camaraderie is created. Notice that only the professor is permitted to show solidarity in this context, and the student is not. This follows naturally from (14), since the student is in a lower statusthan the professor in psychological superiority.
Moreover, given the notion of psychological superiority, we can accommodate some related phenomena other than inclusive we. Let us observe the following
examples.
(20) a. <A doctor to a wife who has just lost her husband>
Okimoti wa juubun osassi simasu.
feeling TOP fully understand do 'I know how hard this is for you.'
b. <A child to his father who has failed to be promoted to a chief director>
r/??Kimoti wa yoku wakaru yo.. feeling TOP really know SF 'I know how hard this is for you.'
These examples are sympathetic expressions. In showing sympathy to others, psychological superiority reflects the felicity of the expressions. In (20a) a doctor is
psychologically superior to a widowed woman, who is overwhelmed with grief. Thus
(20a) is appropriate. In (20b) matters are more complicated. If we compare the
emotional state of a child with that of his father, who has failed to be promoted to a
chief director, the child is apparently a psychological superior. Considering the
difference in social status, however, we cannot readily assume a child to bepsychologically superior to his/her own father. The following diagram computationally
illustrates psychological superiority holding between the father and the child (the
values assigned are never conclusive, but they are a rough approximation of the
asymmetrical psychological superiority between the two).(21) Psychological superiority of (20c) Social status factor
Emotional state factor
father > (+3) father < (-2) father >
(+1)
child (0) child (0) child (0)In general, despite the difference in emotional states between them, it is hard to assume that a child becomes psychologically superior to his/her father. Hence (20b) is
rude or awkward at best.
However, if the relationship between the father and the child is close like friends, the following sympathetic expression turns out to be acceptable.
(22) <A child to his/her father who has failed to be promoted to a chief director>
Otoosan, tugi wa umaku iku yo. Daddy next TOP well go SF 'Dad, you will make it next time1
This seems to come from the fact that the child is not aware of the social difference
between them at all since they are so close that there is no strict father-child relationship
between them. This can be captured more graphically by the following calculation.
(23) Psychological superiority of (22)
Social status factor Emotional state factor
father = (0) father < (-2) father < (-2) child (0) child (0) child (0) 3.2. Psychological Distance
Another factor involved in the use of inclusive we is psychological distance. It
is commonly recognized since Brown and Gilman (1960) that this factor is of great
importance in showing solidarity. Hence it is not surprising that it is also responsible for the occurrence of inclusive we.Let us first observe the following conversation. (24) <Brantley tries to get through to Chrisry>
Brantley: So... who is he? Christy: Who?
Brantley: Who? My competition? Christy: Just a guy.
Brantley: All right, so why don't we call this guy? Tell him you've met a
new guy and the whole thing is off. Christy: I can't call him.
Brantley: Why not?
Christy: His wife might answer the phone.
(The secret of my success)
In his third turn, Brantley could have used you in lieu of we. This is supported by the facts
that his following utterance is made in the imperative form whose potential subject is you,
and that Christy responds with /. By using we, Brantley intends to be friendly,
thereby
trying to show his affection toward Christy. Notice that, although they are not lovers yet,
they are close enough to be lovers. Keeping this fact in mind, observe the following.
ITO : A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of Solidarity
(25) <Rudi is a girl. Vanessa is her elder sister. Cliff is their father.>
Vanessa: Mom's having another baby!?
Cliff: Uh, no, she's just thinking about it, dear! Vanessa: Do we want another one?
Rudi: I liked the one that was here.
(A Deep and Urgent Feeling, Cosby Show)
In her second turn, Vanessa could have said you in place of we. In addition, from the fact that Rudi responds with /, this use of we must be due to its derived function. What must be born in mind is that Rudi and Vanessa are sisters.
Moreover, observe the following. (26) <Stephan is Marya's husband>
Marya: My black crepe de Chine: that's chic, isn't it?
Stephan: It makes you look like a little nun. We should get you a white lace collar to go with it.
(Quartet) If we are not provided with the information that Stephen is Marya's husband, we may feel Stephen's use of we condescending or snobbish. What makes his use of we acceptable is the fact that they are married. The close relationship between them renders this use of we felicitous.
To recapitulate, examples (24) through (26) show that the derived version of inclusive we is permitted if the speaker is on intimate terms with the hearer. Then, we hypothesize the following condition.
(27) A condition for the derived function of inclusive we based on psychological distance: A person may be licensed to express camaraderie by inclusive we if
he/she can assume that he/she is close to the hearer in psychological distance.
Given (27), we can readily account for the following exchanges. (28) <Lois and Marya live together>
Lois : Why, why on earth should you want to leave? Marya: You'll never have to see me again.
Lois : We are making great deal of fuss about nothing at all, aren't we. Drama is catching, I find. Don't let HJ hear you or he'll be very cross, with both of us.
(Quartet)
In (28) Lois obviously is not upset. Hence, she could have used you instead of we to criticize Marya. But, by avoiding using you, Lois shows solidarity with Marya, so that she can mitigate her utterance. Since they live together, it is natural to assume that they are close in psychological distance. By (27) we can correctly predict that Lois can utilize the derived function of inclusive we to Marya.
Let us consider the following dialogue. (29) <John and Mary love each other>
Mary: Hi, John! What's the matter with you? You look so pale. John: I lost my money.
Mary: That's too bad. So aren't we cheerful today? John: No.
In (29), the fact that John and Mary are lovers licenses Mary to use we. By so doing,
she sympathizes John, who gets depressed by losing his money. Even if they are just classmates, Mary can appropriately use we in this situation. This is because there is
close friendship among classmates sufficient to use we. However, if they merely go to the same school and have a distant acquaintanceship, Mary cannot use we, since it is hard to assume that they are close in psychological distance enough to satisfy (27).
Note that the examples that we have seen in this section are not subject to the condition based on psychological superiority since there seems a psychological equilibrium in (28) and the speaker using inclusive we is not psychologically inferior to the hearer in (29). And condition (27) operates throughout the examples which we have
seen in the previous section. Recall, for example, the following.
(17) <Context: John is an athlete and Chris is his coach. They are not so close
as to practice one - to - one. One day there is a tournament. John won it.
Just after the tournament, a. We made it! (Speaker=John) b. We made it! (Speaker=Chris)
As we have argued above, the speakers in (17) are not subject to condition (14). In addition, they are not subject to condition (27) in this situation. If the speaker is the one in (30a) through (30g), the felicity of the utterance depends on the relationship
between John and the person, as is illustrated in (31). (30) The speaker is;
a. John's lover b. John's father c. John's close friend
d. John's colleague, who attends that tournament
e. John's colleague, who does not attend that tournament
f. A person who goes to the same school as John's, but has only a distant
acquaintanceship with him
g. A person who is only in the audience of the tournament
(31) The felicity ofthe utterance in (17b) The speaker The felicity of (20b) a ok b ok c ok d ok e ok/? f ?? g */??
Note that the closer the participants are, the more the speaker is likely to use an inclusive we. This suggests that the notion of psychological distance is continuous and
graded rather than categorical.
Heretofore, we have seen that the notion of psychological superiority and that
of psychological distance are together relevant to the occurrence of inclusive we.
However, when we examine more data, we realize that things are not that easy. In thisITO I A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of Solidarity
(32) <A student who wrote a paper jointly with his/her advisor said to him/her,> Do we xerox them?
In (35) the student is obviously close to his/her advisor in psychological distance, since they wrote a paper jointly. Thus, he/she satisfies condition (27). However, the student is obviously in a lower status than the advisor in psychological superiority due to the
difference in social status. Hence, our condition (14) wrongly predicts that an inclusive
we in (32) is awkward or rude, while the felicity of (32) runs against the prediction. This strongly suggests that something must be added to our analysis. In the next section, we will turn to the question of how this problem can be solved.
3.3. Speakers right
In the preceding section, we have seen that our conditions proposed so far cannot handle the occurrence of inclusive we in (32). Those conditions could, nevertheless, operate if we manipulate the context of (32). For example, if the student did not write a paper jointly with his/her advisor, he/she cannot issue an inclusive we to his/her advisor. This is because, as we expect, he/she would violate condition (27). Then it is reasonable to assume that what enables the student to issue we lies in the
fact that he/she wrote a paper jointly with his/her advisor. But, why? One of the
most plausible answers to this is that to xerox someone's paper is permitted only for him/her or his/her co-author as is well indicated by the term "copyright." This leads us to the notion of speaker's right, which we demonstrate in this section is responsible for the occurrence of inclusive we.
As is argued in Ito (1991), the notion of speaker's right is responsible for politeness phenomena. The notion is defined as follows.
(33) Right: The ability or qualification that is licensed by one of the following requirements: a) Social justification
b) Moral justification
If the notion does indeed play a major part in politeness phenomena, solidarity, or, more particularly the use of inclusive we, which constitutes a subset of politeness phenomena, should more or less be relevant to this notion.
Once we are provided with the notion of speaker's right, example (32) is no longer problematic. Notice that in (32) the student has the right to xerox the paper because, under normal circumstances, for a coauthor to xerox their paper can be licensed by social or moral justification.
From this, the following condition may effectively operate in the use of inclusive we. (34) A condition for the derived function of inclusive we based on the speaker's right: A person may be licensed to express camaraderie by inclusive we if he/she can assume that he/she has a right to perform an action specified by a given piece of information.
To see more extensively how (34) works, let us examine the following examples.
(35) <A person to a stranger, who has just lit a cigarette in a non-smoking area
We shouldn't smoke in this place.
(36) <A passenger to another passenger, who is listening to the radio at full volume on a bus.>
We shouldn't disturb others in places like this.
In (35) the stranger breaks the social rule which prohibits one from smoking in a non smoking area. Thus the person's direction may well be taken as reasonable since his/her act is grounded by moral justification. If the speaker is the manager of the department store, he/she can of course use we in this context. Since he/she is in charge there, his/her direction may be counted as one of his/her official business. Hence, he/she has the right to perform the act and then he/she is licensed to express we. By using we instead of you, he/she mitigates his/her direction, so that he/she can save the customer's face. In (36) the passenger uses we to another without any difficulties. Under normal circumstances, a person is not permitted to give strangers a piece of advice, unless he/she is asked to do so. However, in this case, the passenger violates the moral norm which requires one not to trouble others in public. Thus, the speaker can issue we in this situation without any penalties, since his/her act may be grounded by its moral justification.
Notice here that the speakers in (35) and (36) violate condition (27), since they must not be close to strangers in psychological distance. That is, there are cases where we can be imparted even when the speaker is not close to the hearer in psychological distance: condition (27) can be suspended. Condition (27) is in fact suspendable. On the other hand, condition (34) cannot be suspended, since if it is suspendable, we can in no way explain facts like (35) and (36). From this, we might say that condition (34) has priority over condition (27).
Furthermore, let us observe the following contrast.
(37) <Professor to his/her student at his/her office room>
a. If you work on generative grammar, we should start with Chomsky's Aspects. b. r/??If you come to school tomorrow, we should clean my room.
A professor has the right to advise his/her student to read a book, but does not have the right to require him/her to clean his/her own room. This kind of our general knowledge about a professor reflects the contrast between the two examples in (37).
The professor in (37b) satisfies condition (14), since he/she is not in a
lower status than his/her student in psychological superiority. Despite that fact, he/she
cannot use we in this situation, he/she violates condition (34). This suggests that condition (34) takes priority over condition (14).
Then we found, in examples (35) through (37), that condition (34) takes precedence over conditions (14) and (27). In other words, condition (34) must apply prior
to conditions (14) and (27). If it fails to apply, then the latter conditions apply by default. By contrast, as we argued in the preceding sections, condition (14) must apply in conjunction with (27). Figure 3 illustrates the interaction of the three conditions.
|A condition based on the speaker's righF|
= (34)
I (by default application)ITO : A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of Solidarity
|A condition based on psychological reality |
= (14)
& (conjunctive application)
|A condition based on psychological distance |
= (27)
Figure 3
What we can find in Figure 3 is that, in the use of we in its derived function, the notion of speaker's right plays a greater role than any other notion.
Once we are provided with this findings, then a question may naturally arise as to whether this holds true also in other languages. We investigate this point through the use of the similar expressions showing solidarity, especially by taking up sentence-final particles ne and yo in the next section.
4. Sentence-final particles ne and yo
Japanese has a well developed system of sentence-final particles, which are often claimed to be indicators of speaker's attitudes toward the proposition or the addressee. They have been analyzed in a variety of ways. For example, Uyeno (1971) describes them as performatives marking illocutionary force , Givon (1982) and Tsuchihashi (1983) as markers that fit on a speech act continuum from declarative to interrogative, and Kendall (1986) as markers that fit on a strength of commitment. Recently, Chen (1987), McGloin (1990), Suzuki (1990) and Masuoka (1991) classify them from various viewpoints. Although many researchers proposed numerous approaches to this topic, only crude attempts have been made to characterize their roles.
This section explore the subsidiary function of sentence-final particles like ne and yo. In doing so, our analysis will be totally dependent on the analysis proposed in Kamio (1991a,b), which I find most plausible. To facilitate the discussion, we summarize Kamio's analysis of ne and yo and point out an aspect left untouched in his analysis. Then we demonstrate that the derived use of ne and yo is also constrained by the set of conditions provided in the previous sections.
4.1. Kamio (199 la,b)
Kamio(1990,1991a) argues that the notion of 'territory', which has been well known in studies of animal and human behavior or ethology, is also available in linguistics, and that a sentence form changes according to whether the information expressed by a sentence belongs to the speaker's territory or the hearer's. The things which are particularly relevant to the speaker belong to the speaker's territory of information. In Japanese, information which falls into the speaker's territory is expressed in the direct form, while information which falls outside of the speaker's territory is expressed by the indirect form.61 The information which falls into the hearer's territory is expressed by appending a sentence-final particle, 'ne' to the direct or indirect form; direct neform (e.g. 38) and indirect ne form (e.g. 39),
(38) Ii tenki da nee. nice weather is SF 'It's a fine weather'
(39) Kimi wa netu ga arisoo da ne.
you TOP fever NM have-look like is SF 'It looks like you have a fever1
Notice here that ne in (38) and (39) is obligatory, since, otherwise, these sentences no longer stand as acceptable, as the following sentences illustrate. 7)
(40Hi tenki da.
nice weather is
'It's a fine weather1
(41)rr>Kimi wa netu ga arisoo da. you TOP fever NM have-look like is 'It looks like you have a fever'
On the other hand, in cases where a given piece of information falls into the speaker's territory of information, or does not fall into the speaker's nor the hearer's territory of information, ne is optional as in the following examples.
(42) Kono mondai wa muzukasii desu ne. this problem TOP difficult is SF 'This problem is difficult'
(43) Nakayama-san wa kekkon suru-rasii ne.
TOP marry do seem SF
'Ms.Nakayama seems to be getting married, isn't she?'
Sentences like (42) and (43) can be uttered without ne. But, in that situation, the
speaker assumes that the hearer does not know the information. Kamio (1991a), then, argues that such a requirement comes from an independent principle governing the distribution of the particle. He shows that the principle of ne should be decomposed into at least two components in terms of their functions: The core and derived functions. The core function of ne is stated as in (44).
(44) The core function of ne
(i) The speaker assumes that the hearer has the same information that the speaker him/herself has.
(ii) The speaker, however, assumes that he/she is not more deeply involved in the information than the hearer.
(Kamio 1991a: 37-38) The obligatory ne comes from the satisfaction of (44). The derived function is stated as follows.
(45) The derived function of ne
The speaker pretends that (44i) and (44ii) held, thereby trying to give rise to an atmosphere of camaraderie.
(ibid.) The application of (44) and (45) is illustrated as in the following.
(46) A: Yamada san taiin sita rasii ne. went out of a hospital do seem SF
ITO ! A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of Solidarity
B: Un, soo rasii ne. yes so seem SF Yes, he is1
In this example, since the speaker A assumes that the speaker B also has the pertinent information, he/she correctly uses ne so as to satisfy (44a). The speaker B answered with ne because, by responding with Un, he/she admits that he/she has the same information.
The following example shows the situation where (44a) is satisfied but (44b) is not. (47) S: Ano zyosei sugoku kirei da ne.
that lady very pretty is SF That lady is very pretty, isn't she?1
H: a. "Soo desu ne. so is SF
'She is so, isn't she?' b. Soo-desyoo (, ne)
so be-will 'She is (, isn't she)'
(Kamio 1991a:41) Under normal circumstances, (47Ha) is completely acceptable because both the speaker and the hearer are looking at the lady. However, in the context that H is a sister of the lady and S is just a bystander, (47Ha) turns out to be definitely odd. This fact is naturally explained as a case in which (44ii) is not satisfied. Since H is more deeply involved in the information, H cannot assume that (44ii) is satisfied. This is why (47Ha) is unacceptable.
The satisfaction of (45), on the other hand, does not require ne, but just permits it (in this case, an optional ne). For example:
(48) A: Kono syorui, korede zeimusyo o tooru de syoo ka? this paper this like IRS AM pass be will QM 'This paper, will it pass the IRS in this form?'
B: Iya, kore wa muri desu ne. no this TOP impossible be SF
'NO, this is impossible'
(Kamio 1988:35) (49)a. Dare no sei de konna huu ni nattyatta n daroo ne.
who PM by this kind become I think SF 'Who caused this kind of situation?'
(Utyuu no Hoosoku)
b. Dare no sei de konna huu ni nattyatta n dai? who PM by this kind become is
'Do you know who caused this kind of situation?1
The speaker A in (48) cannot know the information in question, because he/she makes a question. In contrast, the speaker B does know it, because he/she answered the
question. Thus ne in (48B) exemplifies the kind of ne which conforms to (45). In (49a) the speaker issues a question which the hearer cannot answer. If he/she wants to have the answer, he/she would issue a question like (49b). Therefore, the speaker in (49a) must assume that the hearer does not have the pertinent information. By blatantly
using ne, the speaker emphasizes the common grounds with the hearer. The
atmosphere of camaraderie, thereby, results. This is the derived function of ne in this
situation.
With regard to the use of yo, Kamio (1991b) provides the following principle: (50) The core function of yo
The speaker conveys to the hearer the information that the speaker does not have. (51) The derived function of yo
The speaker provides as NLI information that the speaker assumes the hearer
does not have, thereby trying to give rise to an atmosphere of camaraderie.81 The application of (50) and (51) is illustrated as follows.
(52) Oyu ga wakimasita yo. hot water NM has boiled SF
The water has boiled1
(53) Kao ni tuti ga tuite iru yo. face on dirt NM attach SF
There is some dirt on your face1
In (52) only the speaker is looking at the water boiling. The hearer cannot have the information the speaker is going to convey at the moment of speech. Thus yo in (52) is due to its core function. Similarly, in (53) the speaker cannot assume that the hearer has the pertinent information in advance, unless it is in the middle of a Halloween party or something. Hence, yo in (53) is due to its core function.
On the other hand, the speaker does not have to append yo at the end of a sentence even if the context conforms to (51).
(54) Mosi uramu to sitara...zibun o urami masu yo. if hate do myself AM hate POLITE SF 'If I hate... I will hate myself
(Utyuu no Hoosoku) (55) Sibai nanka yamete yokatta yo.
actor like quit lucky SF 'I think it was good to give up acting'
(W no Higeki) (56) Repooto wa 7-gatu 20-ka made ni dasite kudasai yo.
report TOP July day till hand in ask SF 'Hand in your report by July 20th1
In (54) the pertinent information is not relevant to the hearer. In other words, the speaker does not have to convey it to the hearer. By conveying it as NLI to the hearer, the speaker tries to give rise to an atmosphere of camaraderie. Note that the speaker could have said (54) without yo. From these, we can say that yo in this case is due to
ITO : A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of Solidarity
its derived function. In (55) the information would not be informative for the hearer. It may in fact be a kind of monologue. The speaker could have said it, not appending yo to the end of the sentence. Yo in (55) must also be due to its derived use. In
(56) the speaker assumes that the hearer has already had the information, but confirms
it with emphasis. Hence, he/she can omit yo from the sentence. This suggests that yo in (56) is due to its derived function.
Although the derived type of ne and yo is optional in nature, it is not always the
case that they are used freely. There must be constraints controlling them. Unfortunately, Kamio (1991a) provides a detailed analysis of ne in the core function, but its derived function is in most parts unaddressed. Likewise, the derived function of
yo is also left open to be discussed in Kamio (1991b). In the next section, we explore the derived function of ne and yo and demonstrate that they are also subject to the notions which are proposed in 3.
5. The derived function of ne and yo
Although anyone can show camaraderie in principle, it is not necessarily the case that one can give rise to an atmosphere of camaraderie in any speech situation. We claim in this section that a set of notions proposed in 3 constrains the use of the derived version of these particles.
5.1. Psychological superiority
It is generally accepted that ne and yo can hardly be used to superior persons (cf. Alfonso 1966:417). We claim that the notion of psychological superiority proposed in 3.1 also effectively constrains the use of derived function of ne/yo. Observe the following examples:
(57) <Professor to his/her student>
a. Kimi wa dare to hanasi te ita no ka ne? you TOP who with talk QM SF 'Who were you talking with?1
b. Okure te simatte warukatta ne. late I am sorry SF 'I am sorry I am late1
(58) <Student to his/her teacher>
a.r/?Sensei, donate to ohanasi sarete ita n desu ka ne? Title who with talk POLITE is QM SF
'Who were you talking with?1
b.r/?Okurete moosiwake arimasen desi ta ne. late I am sorry Past SF
'I am sorry I am late1
In (57) the teacher is clearly socially superior, and thus it means that he/she is psychologically superior to his/her student. In (67) the student is socially subordinate to his/her teacher, therefore being in a lower status than his/her teacher in psychological
superiority. Nes in (57) are permitted, but not in (58). This confirms the hypothesis that the notion of psychological superiority plays an important role in the use of ne and yo in their derived function. Then, we set up the following condition:
(59) A condition for the derived function of ne and yo based on the psychological superiority:
A person is licensed to express camaraderie by ne and yo if he/she can assume that he/she is
not in a lower status than the hearer in psychological superiority at the moment of speech.
Given (59), we can account for the use of ne in the situation where psychological
superiority rather than social one is crucial. Let us observe the following examples. (60) <A is repairing the engine of B's car. They are friends.>
a. A: A, korede naotta ne. this repaired SF
'Oh, we've repaired that by this' B: A, korede naotta ne.
this repaired SF
'Oh, we've repaired that by this1 b. A: rA, koware tyatta ne.
broke SF "Ah, we broke that' B: A, koware tyatta ne.
broke SF 'Ah, we broke that1
In (60a) the speaker A has done a good thing for B. Hence, there is no reason to believe
that the speaker A is in a lower status than B in psychological superiority. Similarly,
the speaker B is not in a lower status than A in psychological superiority. However, if B feels sorry for him/her, he/she might say (60aB) without ne. This is because he/she
is in a lower status than A in psychological superiority in that case.
On the other hand, in (60b) the speaker A mistakenly broke that engine. He/She may well feel responsibility for that. Thus the difference in psychological
superiority occurs. The speaker would hardly say (60bA), but he/she would rather apologize to B without using ne as in (61).
(61) Gomen, koware tyatta.
I am sorry broke
'I am sorry I broke the engine'
In contrast, since the responsibility of breaking the engine would not be ascribed to B,
he/she is not in a lower status than A in psychological superiority. Hence, he/she can
say (60bB) with ne as (59) predicts.
It is worth noting that some people judge the following utterance to be
acceptable, but others judge it unacceptable or rude. (62) <Student to his/her teacher>
ITO : A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of Solidarity
Asita hare masu ka ne? tomorrow clear up QM SF
'Do you think it will be fine tomorrow?'
The fluctuation seems to lie in the fact that that the latter persons, who feel (62) rude, are much more sensitive to the condition (59) than the former persons. It is clear, however, that even the former persons, who judge (62) to be acceptable, will find
the following examples unacceptable.
(63) rDaigakuin ni iku ni wa donna benkyoo o sitara ii n desyoo ka ne?
graduate school to go TOP how study AM do good might QM SF
'What should I study in order to go to the graduate school?1 (64) rSensei, suisenjoo o kaite kure masen kane?
Title a letter of recommendation AM write not QM SF Will you write a letter of recommendation for me?1
In (63) and (64) the content of the utterances forces the speakers to acknowledge the difference in psychological superiority. Thus, it should be hard for the speakers to append ne to the end of the sentences at the moment of speech. Judgments about
these sentences, in fact, do not fluctuate among people. 5.2. Psychological distance
It is also commonly recognized that ne and yo should not be used to persons
who are not close to the speaker (Mizutani and Mizutani 1987:134). Observe first the
following examples.
(65) <To the speaker's friend> Oi, kore tyotto yattekure yo. hey this do-ask SF 'Hey, just do this1
(66) <To a stranger>
rSuimasen, kore tyotto yatte kudasai yo. excuse me this do ask SF 'Excuse me, just do this please'
The speaker in (65) can express yo to his/her friend, but cannot to a stranger in (66).
That is, yo can be used to one's friend, but cannot to a stranger. This is also true of the
use of ne. Observe the following.
(67) <To a carpenter>
a.r/?Hajime masite, kondo osewa ni naru Suzuki desu. Yorosiku onegai simasu ne.
how do you do this time care is ask do SF
'How do you do? I'm Suzuki. I'm pleased to meet you1
b. Itsu mo gokuroo sama desu. Tyotto dekakete kimasu kedo, yorosiku onegai
always trouble
is for a moment go out
but
ask
simasu ne.
do SF
In (67a), the speaker cannot use ne to a carpenter, who will build a house for him/her, on the first occasion they met. But, if time has passed and they have become close, the speaker in (67b) can appropriately use ne to the carpenter.
These observations suggest that the notion of psychological distance is also
involved in the use of ne and yo. Then, we hypothesize the following condition based on that notion.
(68) A condition for the derived function of ne and yo based on psychological distance:
A person is licensed to show camaraderie by ne and yo if he/she can assume
that he/she is close to the hearer in psychological distance.
Given (68), we can readily give a plausible account for the following contrast.
(69) rKondo zemi ni haitta Okinawa Taroo desu. Taroo to yonde kudasai yo/ne
this time DM join is call ask-please SF
'I'm Okinawa Taro. I have joined this seminar this time. Please call me Taro.1
(69)'<Two months later>
Imamade Taroo to yobaretekita node, Taroo to yonde kudasai yo/ne.
until now have been called since call ask-please SF
'Since I have been called Taro until now, please call me Taro.'
Suppose that Taro is a new member of a seminar. In this context, (69) is totally
presumptuous. At the self-introduction, he/she cannot use ne/yo in a sentence like
(69). This is simply because he is not close to any other member in psychological
distance. If he omits ne/yo from that utterance, the resultant utterance may turn out
to be acceptable. But, if two months or so passed and Taro has got familiar with other members in the seminar, he would in turn use ne/yo in sentences like (78)'. Our condition (68) can come up with these facts without any difficulties.5.3. Speakers right
Our discussion of the use of we in its derived function has demonstrated that
the notion of speaker's right is indispensable for the analysis of solidarity. If the
arguments provided in this study are indeed correct, the use of ne or yo in its derivedfunction, which is a useful linguistic device for showing solidarity in Japanese, must,
at least in part, be subject to that notion. In this section, we claim that it is the case.Let us consider the following examples. (70) <At a grocery store>
Customer: Kore kudasai. this ask "I want this." Clerk: 300-yen desu ne.
is SF
"That will be 300 yen."
(71) <At a company, an employee to his/her employer> Katyoo, senpoo tono yakusoku tore masi ta yo.
ITO ! A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of Solidarity
"I've just made an appointment with them"
(Kamio 1991b)
In (70) the customer clearly does not know how much the good would cost. This is far beyond the use of normal or core function of ne. Hence the clerk's use of ne in (70) must be due to its derived function. With the derived version of ne, the speaker (the clerk) tries to give rise to an atmosphere of camaraderie. In (71) the employee could have imparted
the information without yo. Therefore this use of yo must not be due to its core
function, but its derived one. By utilizing the derived function of yo, the speaker (the
employee) tries to give rise to an atmosphere of camaraderie.
Notice that the speakers in (70) and (71) are expected to do the acts denoted by the information: The clerk is expected to tell how much the goods cost, and the
employee is expected to make an appointment with their customers.
These facts may be accounted for in terms of the notion of speaker's right, which plays a major role in the use of we in its derived function, as seen in 3.3. The importance of the notion is further supported by the following examples.
(72) <Professor to his/her student>
Kono ronbun o asita atukai masu node, yonde oite kudasai ne. this paper AM tomorrow deal with POLITE since read ask SF
"Since we will discuss this paper in tomorrow's lecture, read it by then."
(73) <Student to his/her supervisor>
rSensei, ronbun o kaita n desu kedo, yonde kudasai ne. title paper AM wrote since read ask SF "I've written a paper, so read it please."
(74) <Professor to his/her student>
Asita, tyanto gakkoo ni kinasai yo. tomorrow surely school to come SF "Be sure to come to school tomorrow." (75) <Student to his/her supervisor>
rSensei, asita yasumase te kudasai yo. title tomorrow miss ask SF "Let me miss the tomorrow's lecture."
In both (72) and (73), the speakers present information in the polite imperative form. Since information expressed by the imperative form comes from the speaker's desire, the hearer cannot generally have the information in advance. In consequence, the use
of nein (72) and (73) must be due to its derived function. There should be no difference
in acceptability between the two examples. Although ne in (72) is natural, ne in (73) is
intolerable.
Similarly, in (74) and (75), the speaker could have imparted the
information without yo. Therefore, the use of yo in (74) and (75) must be based on its
derived function. Although the yos in these examples are used for the same goal (giving
rise to an atmosphere of camaraderie), the difference results in their degrees of
deference.
However, a student would not have the right to force his/her supervisor to read his/her paper unless he/she is expected to do so. Moreover, in (74), a professor has the right to order his/her student to come to school. However, a student does not have the right to
force his/her supervisor to let him/her miss his/her class.
Notice that the ne in its
derived function is appropriate in (72), but not in (73), and that the yo in its derivedfunction is felicitous in (74), but not in (75). From these facts, we claim that one can
append the ne and yo in their derived functions to the sentence if the peaker has theright to perform an action specified by the information. Hence it may well be said that
the appropriate use of the derived function of ne and yo must meet the following
constraint.
(76) A condition for the derived function of ne and yo based on the speaker's right:
A person is licensed to show camaraderie by ne and yo if he/she can assume thathe/she has a right to perform an action specified by a given piece of information.
Given (76), the contrast between (72) and (73) and that between (74) and (75)directly follows. The speakers in (72) and (73) have a right to perform an action specified
by the information, but the speakers in (73) and (75) do not. Only the speakers in (72) and (74) are permitted to utilize the derived function of ne and yo. A correspondenceobtains between speakers who have such a right and those who is permitted to use ne
and yo in their derived functions. This fact is correctly predicted by (76).Let us examine (76) to give it further justification.
(77)a. Sensei, kono keisan toke masi ta.
title this calculation solve POLITE Past "I've managed to solve this calculation"
b. Sensei, kono keisan toke masi ta yo. title this calculation solve POLITE Past SF
"I've managed to solve this calculation"
(78)a. Tyotto, korekara yuubinkyoku e itteki masu.
for a moment from now post-office to go POLITE
"Now I'm going to a post-office."
b. Tyotto, korekara yuubinkyoku e itteki masu ne.
for a moment from now post-office to go POLITE SF
"Now I'm going to a post-office."
(Kamio 1990:76)
In the above examples, there is a slight difference in nuance. In (77a), the most natural
context in which this utterance is felicitous is that a student conveys the information to
his/her teacher in class, whereas, in (77b), one of the most natural contexts is that a
student who is asked by an English teacher or a gymnastic teacher to make a
calculation probably after school conveys the information of (77b) to the teacher. In our
terms, a student in the latter case has a right to perform an action specified by the
information simply because he/she was asked to do so. Thus he/she can express the
information with yo. However, a student in the former case does not have any special
ITO : A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of Solidarity
context in which this utterance is most likely to be used is that an office clerk express (78a) to his/her boss, while, in (78b), one of the most natural contexts is that an office clerk asked by his/her boss to go to a post-office in advance conveys (78b) to the boss. An office clerk in the latter case has a right to perform an action specified by the information because he/she is expected to do so. Thus his/her imparting the information with ne does not run afoul of (76). An office clerk in the former case, however, does not have any special right, so that his/her going to a post-office is
ambiguous as to whether it is a private matter or official business. Thus it would be
safer that he/she imparts the information without ne. In this way, implications and the
social contexts may vary according to whether the speaker attaches yo and ne to the
sentence.
Note that the notion of speaker's right is not the only decisive factor which renders the use of yo/ne felicitous. Sentences like (77b) and (78b) must be uttered in the context where (59) and (68) are satisfied. For example, suppose that the speaker in
(77b) is a student and the hearer is his/her tutor. If they are close enough to satisfy
the condition (68), the speaker(the student) can assume that he/she is not expected to be aware of the difference in social status, and that he/she is expected to tell him/her when he/she finishes the calculation. Accordingly he/she can reasonably say (77b) with yo. If one of these requirements is violated, the utterance would turn out to be unacceptable.
The same situation may hold in (78b). Suppose that the speaker in (78b) is the hearer's wife. If they are so close that there is no difference in psychological superiority between them, she can say (78b) with ne. In this case, it does not matter whether she has the right to do the act. If one of these requirements is infringed, the utterance would turn out to be unacceptable. For example, even an office clerk who is expected to go to a post-office could not say (78b) with ne, unless he/she is close to the hearer (her boss) enough to ignore the difference in social status.
From these facts, we can say that the three conditions proposed in this study must
work together. They work in conjunction with each other as is illustrated in Figure 4. | A Condition based on the Speaker's Right | = (76)
& (conjunctive application)
| A Condition based on Psychological Reality |
= (59)
& (conjunctive application)
| A Condition based on Psychological Distance |
= (68)
Figure 4
Note that the combination of the three conditions differs remarkably from that seen in 3. We insist that the differential combination of the three factors between the derived function of inclusive we and that of ne/yo is not accidental at all. Rather, it
reflects the cultural difference between the two languages. 6. Implications of the findings
dominant role in European and American culture. In contrast, what is a major concern
to Japanese is not his/her own territory, but his/her position in relation to the others
in the group and his/her acceptance by those others (cf. Nakane 1967). For Japanese
society, concerns about belongingness, empathy, dependency, compositionality, and reciprocity are said to be of paramount importance(cf. Lebra 1976, Barnlund 1975,
Clancy 1986, Doi 1971, Matsumoto 1988, among others). In view of the predominantly collective rather than individualistic orientation of Japanese culture, the notion of speaker's right appears to be important in English, but not in Japanese.
Such a traditional view is quite reasonable when we consider the underlying motives of our findings in this study, but it is wrong in a certain respect. In fact, it is to the point in that our findings can be conceptualized in terms of such a view as follows: The reason why the notion of speaker's right takes priority over any other notion in English is that, for an individualistic society like the U.S. concern about one's right is predominant. On the other hand, the reason why the notion of speaker's right must apply together with any other notion in Japanese is that, for a collective society like
Japan, concerns about dependency (psychological distance), hierarchy (psychological superiority) are of great importance.
However, the traditional view is wrong in that it ignores the importance of the
notion of speaker's right in Japanese society. The investigation of the use of ne/yo in its derived function throughout the preceding sections, however, revealed that the
notion is also crucial in analyzing that phenomenon. Lack of attention to one's right in
the study of Japanese society seems to come from the fact that the notion of right is strikingly important in western countries like the U.S. as compared with Japan. Such a differential importance of right seems to obscure the importance in Japanese society.
NOTES
1) See Gleason(1961) for the importance of the term.
2) Kitagawa and Lehrer( 1990:745) comment on this type of we as follows:
They can be used to emphasize power relationships by calling attention to a
deliberately misplaced sense of solidarity.
It is true that this remark holds true in some cases, but, as will soon be clear, a great majority of this kind of we normally purports to consolidate solidarity between the participants. Thus, the type of we Kitagawa and Lehrer point out is the one deriving
from the function of making clear the ironical effect of the utterance.
3) Some of the examples provided in this study come from scripts for TV dramas and
movies. The sources are shown in the brackets at the end of examples.4)
Concerning this point, Ervin-Tripp (1976) reports the following incident which is
caused by a Turkish student:
<Student to elderly landlady> (intention: directive) Could we put the garbage can over here?
Why Ayhan, I didn't know you had a roommate!
ITO : A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis of Solidarity
person directive, and used it as a directive to the landlady. However, she did not realize that such a form would only be appropriate downward in rank. The landlady interpreted the we as a plural subject in a permission request, which happened to be homonymous with the directive with agent shift (Ervin-Tripp 1976: 48). This fact can be accommodated under our assumption; the student is not a psychological superior
due to the difference in age. Despite that fact, the student blatantly uses an inclusive
we. However, the landlady does not assume that the student is about to perform such a blatant act. Thus misunderstanding occurs.
5) Linde(1988) concludes that speakers' language is not wholly predictable by their position in a long-term social hierarchy. Rather, we see that momentary changes in their relation to one another, dictated by changes in the task situation, also affect their linguistic choices (ibid: 151). We agree with Linde in that it is not sufficient to consider the permanent rank and task status, which prevailed as social variables in sociolinguistic studies. However, if we are given the notion of psychological superiority, which is by nature variable depending on the context, we no longer suffer from the difficulties.
6) The direct form is the sentence form that ends with the main predicate, taking the zero final form. In contrast, the indirect form is the sentence form that is attenuated in form or content by hedges such as rasii "seem" and yooda "appear". See Kamio (1990) for the detailed argument on the terms.
7) (40) and (41) are acceptable in the context where the speaker says them to himself/herself.
8) NLI stands for Newly Learned Information in the sense of Akatsuka (1985). References
Akatsuka, Noriko. 1985. Conditionals and epistemic scale. Language 61. pp.625-639. Alfonso, Anthony. 1966. Japanese Language Patterns. Tokyo: Sophia University Press. Barnlund, Dean C. 1975. Public and Private Self in Japan and the United States. Tokyo: Simu.l. Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas
A. Sebeok (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Clancy, Patricia. 1986. The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In Bambi Sheffelin and Elinor Ochs (Eds.) Language Acquisition and Socialization across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doi, Takeo. 1971. Amae no Kozo. Tokyo: Kobundo.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1976. Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5. pp.25-66.
Givon, Talmy. 1982. Logic vs. pragmatics, with human language as the referee: toward an empirically viable epistemology. Journal of Pragmatics 6. pp.81-133. Gleason, H.A. 1955. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Ide, Sachiko. 1982. Taiguu hyogen to danjo no sa. In Kunihiro Tetsuya (ed.) Nichieigo
HikakuKoza 5. pp. 107-169. Tokyo: Taishuukan.
Right. MA Thesis. Dokkyo University.
Kamio, Akio. 1990. Joho no Nawabari Riron: Gengo no Kinoteki BunsekL Tokyo: Taisyuukan. Kamio, Akio. 1991a. The Theory of Territory of Information. Ms.
Kamio Akio. 1991b. Class lecture: Studies in English Linguistics. Dokkyo University. Kendall, Ann. 1985. Japanese sentence-final particles as commitment markers. Proceedings
of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 164-174. Kitagawa, Chisato and Andrienne Lehrer. 1990. Impersonal uses of personal pronouns.
Journal of Pragmatics 14. 739-759.
Kuno, Susumu. 1977. Eigoken ni okeru keigo. In Iwanami Koza Nihongo 4, Keigo. pp. 301-331. Tokyo: Taishuukan.
Lebra, Takie Sugiyama. 1976. Japanese Patterns ofBehavior. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Linde, Charlotte. 1988. Linguistic consequences of complex social structure: Rank and task in police helicopter discourse. Papers from the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 14. 142-152.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12. 403-426.
Mizutani, Osamu and Nobuko Mizutani. 1987. How to be Polite in Japanese. Tokyo: The
Japan Times.
Nakane, Chie. 1967. Tateshakai no Ningen Kanket Tan'itsushakai no Riron. Tokyo: Kodansha. Osugi, Kunizo. 1982. Deferential English: For Better International Communication. Tokyo:
Taishuukan.
Tsuchihashi, Mika. 1983. The speech act continuum: An investigation of Japanese sentence final particles. Journal ofPragmatics 7. pp. 361-387.
Uyeno, Tazuko. 1971. A study of Japanese modality: A performative analysis of sentence particles. Doctoral Dissertation, the University of Michigan.
Uyeno, Tazuko. 1982. Nihongo/Eigo. In Kdza Nihongogaku 11, Gaikokugo to no Taishd.
′＼
ITO :APragmatican dSociolinguisticAn alysisofSolidarity
