https://ebookmass.com/product/the-semantics-and-pragmaticsof-honorification-register-and-social-meaning-elin-mccready/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
Beyond Semantics and Pragmatics Gerhard Preyer https://ebookmass.com/product/beyond-semantics-and-pragmatics-gerhardpreyer/
ebookmass.com
Pragmatic Aspects of Scalar Modifiers: The SemanticsPragmatics Interface 1st Edition Osamu Sawada
https://ebookmass.com/product/pragmatic-aspects-of-scalar-modifiersthe-semantics-pragmatics-interface-1st-edition-osamu-sawada/
ebookmass.com
Economics of Social Issues, 21e 21st Edition Charles A. Register
https://ebookmass.com/product/economics-of-social-issues-21e-21stedition-charles-a-register/
ebookmass.com
Un pasado con espinas 1ª Edition Clara Ann Simons
https://ebookmass.com/product/un-pasado-con-espinas-1a-edition-claraann-simons/
ebookmass.com
Fashion Tech Applied: Exploring Augmented Reality, Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality, NFTs, Body Scanning, 3D Digital Design, and More 1st Edition Von N. Ruzive
https://ebookmass.com/product/fashion-tech-applied-exploringaugmented-reality-artificial-intelligence-virtual-reality-nfts-bodyscanning-3d-digital-design-and-more-1st-edition-von-n-ruzive/ ebookmass.com
(eBook PDF) Understanding Biology 3rd Edition By Kenneth Mason
https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-understanding-biology-3rdedition-by-kenneth-mason/
ebookmass.com
Outcomes: Elementary: Grammar Worksheets: Answer Key 2nd Edition Mike Sayer
https://ebookmass.com/product/outcomes-elementary-grammar-worksheetsanswer-key-2nd-edition-mike-sayer/
ebookmass.com
Adapting Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia Sara Nowakowski
https://ebookmass.com/product/adapting-cognitive-behavioral-therapyfor-insomnia-sara-nowakowski/
ebookmass.com
Strategic management: text & cases,9th Edition Gregory G. Dess
https://ebookmass.com/product/strategic-management-text-cases9thedition-gregory-g-dess/
ebookmass.com
Evidence-Based Geriatric Nursing Protocols for Best Practice, Fifth Edition 5th
https://ebookmass.com/product/evidence-based-geriatric-nursingprotocols-for-best-practice-fifth-edition-5th/
ebookmass.com
TheSemanticsandPragmatics ofHonorification GeneralEditors
ChrisBarker, NewYorkUniversity,andChrisKennedy, UniversityofChicago
ChrisCummins
Use-ConditionalMeaning StudiesinMultidimensionalSemantics
DanielGutzmann
GradabilityinNaturalLanguage LogicalandGrammaticalFoundations
HeatherBurnett
SubjectivityandPerspectiveinTruth-TheoreticSemantics PeterLasersohn
TheSemanticsofEvidentials
SarahE.Murray
GradedModality
QualitativeandQuantitativePerspectives
TheSemanticsandPragmaticsofHonorification RegisterandSocialMeaning
TheMeaningof‘More’
AlexisWellwood
inpreparation
ComparingComparisonConstructions M.RyanBochnak
MeaningoverTime
TheFoundationsofSystematicSemanticChange
AshwiniDeo
PluralReference
FriederikeMoltmann
AHistoryofFormalSemantics
BarbaraPartee
TheSemanticsand Pragmaticsof Honorification RegisterandSocialMeaning ELINMCCREADY GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©ElinMcCready2019
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2019
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2019937076
ISBN978–0–19–882136–6(hbk.)
ISBN978–0–19–882137–3(pbk.)
Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
GeneralPreface OxfordStudiesinSemanticsandPragmaticsprovidesaplatformfororiginalresearchon meaninginnaturallanguagewithincontemporarysemanticsandpragmatics.Authors areencouragedtopresenttheirworkinthecontextofpastandpresentlinesofinquiry andinamanneraccessibletosemanticistsandpragmatistsinlinguistics,philosophy andcognitivescience,aswellastoprofessionallinguistsinrelatedsubfieldssuchas syntaxandlexicology.Theyarealsoaskedtogroundargumentinnumerousexamples fromEnglishand,wherepossible,fromavarietyofotherlanguages.
Thisisacompanionseriesto OxfordSurveysinSemanticsandPragmatics,which providescriticaloverviewsofthemajorapproachestoresearchtopicsofcurrent interest,adiscussionoftheirrelativevalue,andanassessmentofwhatdegreeof consensusexistsaboutanyoneofthem.The Studies seriesequallyseekstoputempiricalpuzzleandtheoreticaldebateintocomprehensibleperspective,butitsauthors generallydevelopanddefendtheapproachandlineofargumentwhichtheyfindmost convincingandproductive.Theseriesoffersresearchersinlinguisticsandrelated areas—includingsyntax,cognitivescience,computerscience,andphilosophy—a meansofdisseminatingtheirfindingstopotentialreadersthroughouttheworld.
Inthisvolume,ElinMcCreadyinvestigatesthesemanticsandpragmaticsofhonorifics:linguisticexpressionswhichareconventionallyassociatedwiththeexpression ofpoliteness,respect,orformality.Honorificsarefoundinalargeandtypologicallydiversearrayoflanguages,andcomeinvariousmorphosyntacticforms,from sentence-levelparticlestoword-levelmorphologytofree-standinglexicalitems.And althoughitisclearthatsuchexpressionsareconventionallyassociatedwiththeexpressionofpoliteness,deference,formality,andrespect,andareusedbothtoexpressandto formthekindsofsocialrelationsthattradeinsuchconcepts,itislessclearexactlyhow thisassociationshouldbecaptured,andtheextenttowhichitstemsfromthesemantics ofhonorificlanguagevs.thechoicesspeakersmakeaboutwhetherornottouse suchlanguagevs.language-independentcharacteristicsoftherelevantsocialrelations themselves.InTheSemanticsandPragmaticsofHonorification,McCreadyestablishes amuch-neededlinguisticbasisforexploringtheseissues,bycarefullydistinguishing distinctclassesofhonorificsbasedonbothdistributionandcontributionstomeaning, andthenprovidingapreciseformalsemanticsandpragmaticsthataccordsboth withtheirgrammatical/compositionalpropertiesandwiththeirparticularsemantic andpragmaticproperties,whichplacethemintheexpressivedimension.Thiswork representsthemostcomprehensiveanalysisofhonorificsintheformalsemanticand pragmaticliteraturetodate,andprovidesafoundationforfutureworkgearedtowards deepeningoutunderstandingoftherelationbetweencompositionalmeaningand socialmeaning.
Acknowledgments ThisbookarosefromapaperwrittenforPACLICin2014(McCready,2014b).This paperwasoneofthosewhichspringsintothemindalreadyfullyformedandseemsto writeitself,butwaslimitedtothenotionofregisterand(toalesserextent)theproper waytothinkaboutpronouns.Lookingmorecarefullyatissuesaroundpronominals androlehonorifics,itbecameclearthattherewasagreatdealmoregoingonthan showeditselfatfirst,andthatalotofitwasalsorelevanttootherissuesinthegeneral areaofsocialmeaningandsemantics/pragmatics:slurring,genderbiases,issuesof subordinationandinjustice,amongothers.Itturnedouttotakeabook-lengthwork toaddressthemall,eventothelimiteddegreethatthisbookmanages;ingeneral, thisworkprobablyraisesasmanyquestionsasitanswers.Inadditiontotheanalyses workedouthere,Igestureatmanydirectionsforfurtherresearch;Iplantopursue someofthemmyself,andIhopeotherswillfindthemintriguingaswell.
Thanksfordiscussion,suggestionsorotherspeechacts(thisjokestolenfrom JakubSzymanik)toNicholasAsher,DavidBeaver,DaisukeBekki,HeatherBurnett,ChrisDavis,PatrickElliott,MichaelErlewine,RobertHenderson,Magdalena Kaufmann,LilyKobayashi,Chung-minLee,MidoriMorita,HirokiNomoto,David Oshima,PittayawatPittayaporn,PaulPortner,YasutadaSudo,ShoichiTakahashi,Yuki Takubo,UpsornTawilapakul,GrégoireWinterstein,AkitakaYamada,audiencesat TexasLinguisticsSociety,LENLS,FAJL,WAFL,ICAL,GLOWinAsia,PACLIC,ICL, CornellUniversity,UniversityofDelaware,ChulalongkornUniversity,MieUniversity, NUS,andZASBerlin,andtoanyoneelseIhaveforgottenatthemomentofwritingthis setofacknowledgments(whichislikelyalargeclassofpeople:sorryeveryone).Thanks alsototheJapanSocietyforthePromotionofScienceforsupportingtheproject(via JSPSKibanCGrants#25370441and#16K02640).
ThankstoJuliaSteerandtheanonymousreviewerswhohaveseenthisprojectin thevarietyofformsithastaken,andtoChrisBarkerandChrisKennedyfortheir workasserieseditors.ThanksespeciallytoChrisKennedyforextensiveandveryuseful comments,andtoJudithTonhauserforrecommendingthatIexpandthepaperwhich wastheoriginalseedofthisbookintoamonograph;thisversionisfarbetterthanthe previousone(s)inanumberofways,anditwouldn’thaveoccurredtometomakea bookoutofitwithoutyoursuggestion.
ThankstoMidori,Colin,Kai,andTylertoo,andeveryoneelseIlove.
ListofAbbreviations acc accusative antihon antihonorific arg argument
benef benefactive
CI conventionalimplicature
cond conditional cop copula
dat dative
DP determinerphrase
DS discoursesegment
evid evidential
exc exclamative
fem feminine form formal gen genitive hon honorific inf infinitive
LFG Lexical-FunctionalGrammar
LP “linkingparticle”
masc masculine
MP MaximizePresupposition
neg negative/negation nom nominative
NP nounphrase
obj object
pln plain pol polite(nessmarker) pres presenttense prog progressive pst pasttense pt particle q question
SDRT SegmentedDiscourseRepresentationTheory
subj subject top topic
T/V tu/vous utt utterance
Introduction Thisbookisaboutthesemanticsandpragmaticsofhonorifics.Honorificsarelexical itemsormorphologicalunitswhichhavetheexpressionofpolitenessorformality asoneprimaryaspectoftheirmeaning.Theyarefoundwidelyacrosslanguages (seeAgha,1994forausefulsurvey),andhavereceivedextensiveattentioninlinguistics,bothfromformalandinformalperspectives.Theinterestlinguiststakein honorificsstemspartlyfromthefactthattheyarecommonandpartlyfromthefact thattheyplayacrucialroleinanchoringlinguisticagentsinsocialhierarchiesand relationships.Theaimofthisbookistoshowhowthisanchoringworksviaformal techniques,andtoarguethatitisaninstanceofamoregeneralclassofexpressions thatletspeakerssituatethemselvesandotherswithinsocietyanditsstructures.As such,itwillturnoutthatthephenomenonofhonorificationisalsohighlyrelevantfor theworkofphilosophersinterestedinsocialfacts,especiallythoseinterestedinhow socialfactsandlanguageinteract.
Itshouldbenotedattheoutsetthatthereisavastamountofworkontopicsrelated tohonorificationwithinsociolinguisticsandanthropologicallinguistics:theuseof honorifics,howpolitenessisexpressed,howhonorificationandpolitenessrelatesto socialstructureandhierarchies,andsoon.Therangeofempiricaldataatourdisposalis extremelyrich.Still(aselsewhereinlinguistics)thedialoguebetweensociolinguistics andformalsemantics/pragmaticshasbeenrelativelysparseuntilextremelyrecent times;consequently,thedataneededtoseehowhonorificsandrelatedexpressions havebeenanalyzedisnotalwaysavailable.Onegoalofthisbookisthereforetotryto bridgethisgap,orbeginto;hopefully,theframeworkpresentedinwhatfollowswill allowtheresearcherinterestedinsemanticsandpragmaticstomakeamoredirectuse ofthisliterature.
Mostoftheexistingworkonhonorifics,whichiseitherdonewithinsemanticsand pragmaticsorspeaksdirectlytothosedomains,hasfocusedonthreegeneraltopics. First,fromaformalsemanticperspective,researchershavebeenconcernedwiththe wayinwhichsemanticcompositionwithhonorificexpressionstakesplace,andwith thekindsofdenotationswhichtheyhave;somemainresultsoftheseinvestigations willbesummarizedlaterinthebook.1Asecondlineofresearchisfoundwithinthe sociolinguistictradition(andalsowithindiscourseanalysis),andlooksatwaysin whichspeakersusepolitenessexpressionstoindicateaspectsoftheirsocialidentities
1 Workonsyntacticaspectsofhonorificationiscloselyrelated(Niinuma,2003;Miyagawa,2017),butsince morphologicalaffixeswithhonorificmeaningswillnotbemyprimaryfocushere,Iwillnotfocustoomuchon theseissues;seeChapter5fordiscussion.
andfurthertheirgeneralsocialgoals(BrownandLevinson,1987;Watts,2003).Finally, thereisatraditionwhichattemptstosituatetheuseofpoliteness,includinghonorifics, withinageneraltheoryofrationallinguisticbehavior;thisworkbeginswithBrown andLevinson(1987)andcontinuestogame-theoreticaccountslikethatofvanRooy (2003).Thisbookliesinthefirststrandofresearch.
Giventheamountofresearchdoneinthisarea,itisnosurprisethatsignificant resultshavebeenobtained.However,aproblematicfeatureoftheliteratureisthatthe threedomainsofresearchmentionedabovedonotengageextensivelywitheachother. Researchonhonorificmeaningstendsnottoconsiderobservationsmadewithindiscourseanalysis;game-theoreticaccountstrytopredictrationalhonorificusewithout proposingatrulyadequateformalsemanticsforhonorificcontent.Atheorywhich canbringthevariousaspectsofpolitenesstogetherseemsnecessary,especiallygiven thecurrentinterestinhonorificationinformalcircles,andfurtherisessentialforthe automaticgenerationofappropriatespeechincomputationalpragmatics.Theaimof thepresentworkistoproposeasemanticswhichiscapableofmakingpredictions aboutthefelicityconditionsanddiscourseeffectsofhonorificcontentandthuscan serveasafoundationforsuchatheory;modelingsubstantialsociolinguisticobservations(excludingsomegeneraldiscussionofthesocialroleofhonorificationandrelated domainssuchasslurswhicharetieddirectlytothesemanticsIwillpropose)andtying theresulttogame-theoreticcalculationisleftforlaterstagesofthecurrentproject.
1.1Honorifics:definitionsandexamples Beforeenteringproperlyintothesemanticanalysisofhonorifics,somepointsmust beclarifiedtodelimitthedomainofinquiryofthisbook.Inparticular,therearetwo issueswhichmustbeaddressed.First,whatexactlycountsasanhonorific?Thereare awiderangeofexpressionsinnaturallanguagewhichmightbethoughtofashaving anhonorificcharacter,orwhichsometimesfunctiontomarkorperformpoliteness. Butnotallofthesefallintotheclassofhonorificsproper.Thefirsttask,therefore,isto indicatewhatItaketofallunderthecategoryofhonorificexpressionsforthepurposes ofthepresentanalysis.Thesecondquestioniscloselyrelatedtothefirst,andis(tosome degree)difficulttoseparatefromit:whatistherelationshipbetweenhonorificationand politeness?Thatis,arehonorificsnecessarilyusedtoindicatepoliteness,andistheir usenecessarilypolite?Isafulltheoryofpolitenessandpolitebehaviorrequiredfora theoryofhonorification?Answeringthesequestionsisthegoaloftheremainderofthis chapter.Forthefirst,Iwilldefinehonorificsasexpressionswhichhaveastheirmain function(inasensetobedefinedshortly)theexpressionofformalityorinformality. Forthesecond,Iwillclaimthattheirmeaningsaredistinctfrompolitenessandpolite behaviorinawaythatallowsthetwotobeprofitablyteasedapart.AsIexplorethese issues,Iwillalsogiveakindofpreviewofsomeoftheempiricalcontentofthebook. Hereisastandarddefinitionofhonorificexpressionsfromtheliterature:theyare thoseexpressionswhichperformthelinguisticmarkingof“honorification:relationshipsinvolvingsocialstatus,respectordeferencebetweencommunicativeinteractants
1.1honorifics:definitionsandexamples3 (Agha,1994).”Thisdefinitioniscompelling,butremainssomewhatunderspecified. Onit,therangeofexpressionsthatpotentiallycountashonorificisvast.Many,or evenmost,expressionsseemtocomewithimplicationsforthespeaker’sbeliefsabout socialstatus,theformalityofthecontextandtherespectshedeemsitadvisableto paytotheotherconversationalparticipants.Letusconsiderafewexamples,moving fromtheuncontroversialinstancesofhonorificationtolessclearorobviouscases.Iwill indicatethedividinglinebetweenthesortsofexpressionsthisbookwilltreatandthose itwillnotwhenthepointofdemarcationisreached,thoughthelinewillberevisited inChapter8fromtheperspectiveoftheformaltheoryIwillpropose.
Theexamplesin(1.1)containexpressionswhichareuncontroversiallyhonorific.
TheThaisentencein(1.1a)containsthehonorificparticlekhá,whichisusedbypeople presentingasfemaleinpolitespeech.2(1.1b)isaJapanesesentencecontainingthe honorificsuffix-mas-.Bothofthesehonorificsareusableonlyinunembeddedclauses, andarethereforeclassifiableasrootphenomena:theyexemplifyaclassofhonorificI herecall utterancehonorifics,whichalwaysreferencethesituationofutterance.Their analysisisthesubjectofChapter4.
(1.1) a. fon rain dtòk fall khá pol.pt
‘It’sraining’+thespeakerisbeingpoliteandpresentingasfemale b. ame-ga rain-nom fut-tei-mas-u fall-prog-hon-pres
‘It’sraining’+thespeakerisbeingpolite
ThenextsetofexamplesareinstancesofwhatIwillcall argumenthonorifics:honorificexpressions(hereverbs)whichtargetsententialargumentsforhonorification. Theindividualtowardwhompolitenessisexpressedthereforedoesn’tneedtobea conversationalparticipant.Thesearealsoclearinstancesofhonorificexpressions, andthesearetheobjectofthemoststudyinformallinguistics,especiallysyntax.3 (1.2a)showsasuppletivehonorificformmeaningboth‘come’andanexpressionof formalitytowardthedenotationoftheDPwhichservesasthesententialsubject;(1.2b) isaninstanceofhonorificverbalmorphologywhichindicatesformalitytowardthe denotationoftheobjectDP.FormslikethisarethesubjectofChapter5.
(1.2) a. sensei-wa professor-top ashita tomorrow irassharu come.hon yoo evid desu cop.hon ‘Theprofessorisapparentlycomingtomorrow’+thespeakerisbeing respectfultowardtheprofessor
b. Taroo-kun-ga Taro-hon.inf-nom sensei-o teacher-acc o-tasuke-shi-ta hon-help-do-pst ‘Tarohelpedtheteacher’+thespeakerisshowingrespectfortheteacher
2 QuestionsofgenderandgenderpresentationwillbereturnedtoinChapters7and8.
3 Iwillnotglosstheutterancehonorificaspectsofthesesentencesintheseparticularexamplesintheinterestof readability.Seesubsequentchaptersformoreadequatetreatmentsoftheotherhonorificelements(e.g.utterance honorificsuffixesandtitles).
Withthenextsetofitems,weseeformswhicharelessclearlypurelyhonorific. Whiletheaboveformsindicateformalityorhonorificationastheircoremeaning, orindeedtheironlymeaning,thehonorificationexpressedbytermsofaddresssuch as professor,theJapanese sensei ortheThai aacaan (bothmeaning‘teacher’)seemto havehonorificationasakindofsideeffectoftheircoremeaning,whichistoindicate theprofessionoftheaddressee(orotherindividualnamed,inthecaseofexamples like(1.3a).ThesecontrastwithcasesliketheThai khun ‘Mx.,’⁴anhonorificmodifier ofnominalsindicatingrespectfortheindividualdenotedbythenominal,wherethe contentofthemodifierisratherbareexcludingthehonorificcontent,aswiththe Japanesesuffix -san.Icallexamplesofthefirsttype derivedhonorifics andtreatthem inChapter6.Formslike -san and khun aretreatedinChapter5,asaspecialkindof argumenthonorific,partlyforreasonshavingtodowiththewayinwhichtheycarry outtheirhonorificfunctions.Detailsontheparallelwithmorestandardargument honorificscanbefoundthere.
(1.3)
a. Professor Mendozaisnotheretoday.
b. Yamada-sensei-ga teacher-nom kita came ‘ProfessorYamadacame.’
c. Khun Mx. Somsak Somsak maa came thîinîi here
‘Mx.Somsakcamehere’+thespeakerindicatesrespectforSomsak
In(1.4)weseethefinalsetofitemswhicharemoreorlessuncontroversiallydeemed honorific:pronounswhicharespecifiedfor(in)formality,amongotheraspectsoftheir interpretation.ThesimplestkindofsystemisexemplifiedbymanyEuropeanlanguages,suchasFrenchandGerman,inwhichtwodistinctsecondpersonpronominal formsarefound,oneusedinformalspeechandonecasually(1.4a).Butmorecomplex systemsarecommonintheworld’slanguages,forinstanceinmanylanguagesofAsia; thisbookfocusesonJapaneseandThai,inwhichawidevarietyoffirstpersonpronouns withdifferentimplicationsforformality,genderspecification,andotherpresentational aspectsofpersonacanbefound,aswiththeJapaneseatashi‘I(informal,feminine)’and boku ‘I(semiformal,masculine),shownin(1.4b,c).
Buttheselanguagesareinterestingbeyondjusttheirwidevarietyoffirstperson pronouns.BothThaiandJapanesealsohavealargearrayofsecondpersonpronouns, eachalsowithitsownshadesofmeaning,forexampletheThaiexamplesin(1.4d,e): here khun ispolite(unsurprisingly,sinceitisthepronominalversionofthehonorific prefixabove),and mung isextremelyrude.Theavailabilityofbothfirstandsecond formsindifferentregistersmakesavailablethepossibilityofcombiningformsina varietyofdifferentpatterns,whichisexploiteddifferently(ordisallowedentirely)
⁴ ‘Mx.’isanongenderedhonorificterm.Iuseithereinsteadof‘Mr.’or‘M(r)s.’as khun,liketheJapanese -san, indicatesnothingaboutthegenderofitsreferent.
bydifferentlanguages.AllthiswillbedetailedfurtherinChapter7,whereIshow thatJapaneseandThaimakeuseofdifferentstrategiesforthelexicalintroductionof honorificcontentintheirpronominalsystems:Thaiviadirectregisterspecification, andJapaneseviatheintroductionofspeakercommitmentsaboutsocialbehavior.
(1.4)
a. French tu/vous,German du/sie
b. atashi-wa
I.inf.fem-top iku go yo pt
‘I’mgoing’+speakerispresentinginafemininemannerinaninformal context
c. boku-wa
I.semif.masc-top iku go yo pt
‘I’mgoing’+speakerispresentinginamasculinemannerinanottooformal context
d. khun
you.pol yàak want bpai? go
‘Youwanttogo?’+speakerisbeingpolitetotheaddressee
e. mung
you.antihon yàak want bpai? go
‘Youwanttogo?’+speakerisbeingrudetotheaddressee
Theformsalreadydiscussedcomprisethebulkoftheempiricaldomainofthisbook. Letmementionnowsomelinguisticphenomenawhichhaveanhonorificcharacter,in thesensethattheyhaveimplicationsforthedegreeofformalitythespeakerthinksit expedienttospeakwithandconsequentlyforboththediscoursecontextandthesocial relationsbetweentheinterlocutors,butthismeaningisentirelyincidentaltotheirmain function.Theremainingformsherethusdonotformpartoftheempiricaldomainof thisbookinanysubstantialsense,thoughIbelievetheanalysistobedevelopedcan easilybeappliedtothem,aswillbediscussedinChapter8.
Thefirsttypearestylisticvariantsofthekindin(1.5).Thissortofcontrasthas beenstudiedextensivelyinvariationistsociolinguistics(e.g.Eckert,1989)intermsof theindexingofvariousaspectsofspeakerpersonaeandself-presentation(asrecently formalizedbyBurnett,2017):forinstance,fullyarticulatingthefinalsoundintheverb in(1.5a)implicatesacareful,professionalorevenpedanticcharacter,whilesimplifying it,asin(1.5b),producesafriendlyandcasual,butpossiblynotveryprofessionally componentimpression.However,thesekindsofvariantsalsohaveimplicationsthat haveanhonorificfeel.Specifically,whiletheformin(1.5a)wouldbeappropriately usedinaformalsetting,thatin(1.5b)mightnotbe;thiskindoffactcanbetiedto thesortofanalysisIwillpresentinChapter7ofhonorificpronouns.Chapter8will beextensivelyconcernedwiththerelationshipbetweenhonorificandotherkindsof socialmeaning;examplesofthistypewillbereturnedtothere,thoughtheyarenot, properlyspeaking,honorifics.
(1.5)
a. Iwas cooking upsomedinner.
b. Iwas cookin’ upsomedinner.
ThelastkindofcaseIwanttomentionisthatofdistinctlexicaorregisters.The term‘register’willbeusedthroughoutthisbookinadifferentsense,buthereismeant torefertothekindofdifferenceobservedin(1.6):caseswheretwoormorewords existwiththesameoratleastextremelysimilardenotations,butwhereoneismuch moreformalorspecificthantheother.InEnglish,suchregisterdistinctionsarefound ine.g.scientificdiscourse,asin(1.6a);butinotherlanguagessuchasJavanese,they aremuchmoreextensive,inawaythatisnaturallydeemedhonorificinthestandard respect.JavaneseinparticularwillbediscussedinChapter4,wherethethreedistinct registers—krama,madyaandngoko—availableinthatlanguagewillbetreatedasakind ofutterancehonorific,asexemplifiedbythetermsin(1.6b),bothofwhichmean‘rice’ butwhichareassociatedwithdifferentregisters.
(1.6) a. cat,feline b. sega,sekul
Thebookthereforerunsthegamutofexpressionsthatmightbeconsideredhonorific incharacter,startingwiththeuncontroversialpurelexicalhonorifics,movingto ‘impure’derivedhonorification,andconcludingwithexpressionsthatoftenaren’t thoughtofashonorificatall.Thisbreadthisintended.Theaimofthisbookistwofold. Itsfirstgoalistogiveatheoreticalframeworkcapableofaccountingforthemeanings ofhonorificexpressions,theirappropriateuse,andtheireffects(atsomelevelof idealizationandabstraction,asusualintheformalsideoflinguistictheory).Butits secondgoalistoconsiderhonorificsinthebroadercontextofsocialmeaningsin general:thisareaisasyetunderdevelopedinaformalsense,butinterestisrapidly growing,and,giventheclearlysocialnatureofhonorificmeaningsandeffects,itseems appropriatetothinkabouttheminthecontextofgeneraleffectsrelatedtoregisterand socialrelations.Doingsoisthepurposeofthefinalchapterofthebook.
Withthatlastparagraphthisbookmightbegintolookasifitrunstheriskof attemptingtogiveatheoryofeverything(inalinguisticsense).Despitepossible appearances,Idowishtoavoiddoingso.Inparticular,Iwanttoconsiderhonorifics inisolationasmuchaspossible,inthatIwouldliketorestrictattentiontothelexical meaningsofhonorificsandtotheireffectsonformalityinparticular(inasensedefined inmoredetailinsubsequentchapters).Doingsorequiresconsideringonlyasubsetof theirpragmaticeffects.Iwantspecificallytoavoidtheneedforafulltheoryofhonorific use;justifyingthischoicerequiresshowingthattheanalysisofhonorificsispossible withoutgivingafulltheoryofpoliteness.IturntothistaskinSection1.2.
1.2Honorificsandpoliteness Canonegiveatheoryofhonorificationwithoutgivingatheoryofpoliteness?Ifthe answerisnegative,thewholeideaofgivingatheoryofhonorificationquicklyappears
tobeverydifficult,andpossiblyevenimpossibleinasinglebook.Therearefew candidatesforaformaltheoryofpolitenesswithinlinguistics(BrownandLevinson, 1987beingthemainexception,thoughitslimitationsarewellknown;therearealso game-theoreticapproachestopolitenesssuchasQuinley,2012;vanRooy,2003which Iwillnotdiscussindetailhere).Thewholeprojectofproperlyformalizingpoliteness appearsextremelydifficult,becauseitrequiresatleast(i)atheoryofwhatcountsas apoliteorimpoliteact,whichinturnrequiresatheoryofnormsofsocialbehavior, (ii)awaytoanalyzespeakermotivationsforbeingpoliteorimpolite,becausepoliteness isinpartanintentionalnotion(orsoIwouldargue),and(iii)atheoryofstrategic behaviorsurroundingbothconventionalandnonconventionalcontent.Atheoryof politenessthenstartstolooklikeafulltheoryofhumanbehavior.Eachelement ofsuchatheoryisextremelycomplex;ifatheoryofpolitenessisaprerequisitefor atheoryofhonorification,thewholeprojectisdaunting.
Fortunately,politenessandhonorificationcanbeseparated.Thiscanbeshownin twoways:first,byshowingthathonorificationdoesnotnecessarilyindicatepoliteness, and,second,byshowingthatpolitenessdoesnotrequirehonorification.Iftheseclaims arecorrect,thenitispossibletoseparatepolitenessfromhonorification,andafull theoryofpolitenessisnotnecessaryforananalysisofhonorifics.
Thefirstthingtodoistoshowthattheuseofhonorificsdoesnotnecessarilyindicate politeness.Iwilldosointwoways:first,byshowingthatitispossibletousehonorifics inanimpoliteway,and,second,tocallintoquestiontheideathathonorificmeaning implicatespolitenessinanyway,basedonclaimsfoundintheliterature.
Ordinarily,onethinksofhonorificsasindicatingpoliteness:usinganhonorific meansthatthespeakerisbeingpolite.Butthisconclusionistooquick.Minegishi Cook(2011)presentsastudyofargumenthonorificswhichshowsthattheyarenot usedprimarilytoindicatepoliteness(asopposedtosomethinglike please),butrather toshowthespeaker’splacementinasocialhierarchy;thiskindofusagewillbereturned toinChapter8,wheretherelationshipbetweenhonorificationandsocialmeaningwill befurtherdiscussed.Thisshowsthatthetwonotionsareatleastseparable.Further,it ispossibletousehonorificsinadirectlyimpoliteoroffensivemanner;considerthe Japanesephenomenonof inginburei ‘(hypocriticalcourtesy),’whichreferstotheuse ofexcessivehonorificstoberude,whichwouldbehighlyunexpectedifhonorifics alwayscorrelatewithpoliteness.⁵Thus,theuseofhonorificsdoesnotalwaysindicate politeness.
Itremainstoshowthattheotherdirectionalsodoesnothold:politenessdoesn’t requirehonorificationanymorethanhonorificationalwaysindicatespoliteness.This istrivial,especiallyifonecountspositivepoliteness(i.e.theindicationofsolidarity): choosingtoavoidhonorificsalreadyhasconnotationsofpositivepolitenessinmany
⁵ IshouldnotethatIwillnotaddressthisphenomenonfurtherinthisbook,becauseitseemstofallintothe categoryofstrategicusesofhonorification;intuitively,giventhathonorificsappropriatetothecurrentcontext ofspeechshouldbeused,variouspragmaticeffectswillarisefrompurposelyusinghonorificpatternswhich falloutsideofthoseparameters.Theexactwayinwhichanimpressionofrudenessarisesdoesindeedrequirea theoryofpolitenessand,likely,howpolitenessinteractswithbroadlyGriceanconsiderations.Ileavethisdomain forfuturework.
contexts,soitfollowsthathonorificsarenotrequiredforpoliteness.Theclearest exemplarofthiscaseistheThaipolitenessparticlesdiscussedintheprevioussection: theomissionof khá(p) indicatesthatthesituationisinformal,notthatthespeaker isbeingrude.Butthesamepointcanbemadeevenwithoutconsideringspecific linguisticitems.Onecanbepolitewithoutevenspeaking,viagesture,posture,oreven lesssymboliccuessuchasthewayonechoosestobehave.Thereisnosenseinwhich theuseofhonorificsisrequiredforpoliteness.
Theupshotofthisdiscussionisthathonorificsandpolitenesscanbeteasedapart quitestraightforwardly.Thisis,insomesense,notasurprise:honorificsareatoolfor indicatingpoliteness,andsoshouldnotbeindistinguishablefrompoliteness,justas hammersaredistinctfromcarpentry,thoughtheyareusedtoperformit.Inthisbook, therefore,Iwillforegotyinghonorificationandpolitenesstogether,focusinginstead onunderstandingwhythehammercandowhatitdoes.Still,Chapter8willinclude somediscussionoftherelationbetweenhonorification,politeness,andthestrategic useoflanguage,andtheconclusionwillreturntothisquestionaswellinthecontext ofgame-theoreticanalysis.
Withthisbackgroundinplace,wearenowreadytomoveintothemeatofthebook: theformalanalysisofhonorifics.IwillstartbyprovidingaframeworkinChapters2 and3,andthenturntoempiricalanalysisintheremainderofthebook.
Honorificationasexpressive Oneobviousinitialquestionthathastobeaddressedforanytheoryofhonorificationis thetypeofmeaningthathonorificsintroduce.Thestandardtoolkitmakesfouroptions available:at-issueortruth-conditionalcontent,conversationalimplicature,presupposition,andexpressivecontent(asdistinctfromconventionalimplicature).Examining theoptionsmakesitclearthathonorificationisbestviewedasexpressive.
Thisconclusionisnotonlymyown.Twentyyearsago,Kaplan(1999)wrote,inthe seminal(thoughstillunpublished)paperonexpressiveswhichkickedoffthecurrent waveofresearchonformalpropertiesofexpressivecontent,thefollowing:
Manylanguagescontainadistinctionbetween“formal”and“familiar”secondperson pronouns[…]Itcanhardlybedoubtedthatthisdistinctionbelongstothesemantics ofthepronoun,andwithinsemantics,nottothesemanticsofreference,buttothe expressivesideofmeaning.(Kaplan,1999:26–27)
Theideaofhonorificationasexpressive,then,wasalreadypresentattheearlystages ofthiswork.Subsequently,therehasbeensubstantialrecentresearchinthisarea, allofwhichappearstotakehonorificstointroduceexpressivemeanings(Pottsand Kawahara,2004;SellsandKim,2007;Horn,2007;McCready,2010b).1Themain reasonsforthinkingsoarethathonorificmeaningsarenotaffectedbydenial,donot interactwithoperatorslikenegation,andappeartoresistnonexpressiveparaphrasing.Thischapterwillsummarizesomeexistingdiscussionofbothexpressivesand honorifics,andprovideadditionaldatashowingthathonorificsshowtheproperties ofexpressivecontent.However,aswewillsee,someofthestandardlyacceptedcriteria forexpressivitydon’tseemtoapplytohonorifics;itturnsout,however,thatthey alsofailtoapplytocertainotheritemswhichcanbetakentobeexpressive.This observationleadstotheconclusionthatnotallexpressiveitemsbehaveidentically, whichisperhapsnotasurprise.Thefinalpartofthechapterbrieflyconsidersand rejectstheotherpossibilitiesforhonorificmeanings:at-issuecontent,presupposition, andconversationalimplicature.
2.1Propertiesofexpressives Potts(2007)providesthefollowingsixcriteriaforexpressiveitems.
1 SomeaspectsofthisproposalareanticipatedbyPollardandSag(1994),aspointedoutbyareviewer.
(2.1) Propertiesofexpressives:
a. Independence:Expressivecontentcontributestoaseparatedimensionof meaning.
b. Nondisplaceability:Expressivespredicatesomethingoftheutterance situation.
c. Perspectivedependence:Expressivecontentisevaluatedfromaparticular perspective(oftenthespeaker’s).
d. Descriptiveineffability:Speakersareneverfullysatisfiedwhentheyparaphraseexpressivecontentusingnonexpressiveterms.
e. Immediacy:Expressivesachievetheirintendedeffectbybeinguttered.
f. Repeatability:Repeatinganexpressivestrengthensitscontent;itisnot redundant.
Examiningthesepropertieswillhelptounderstandtheintuitivenotionofexpressivity. Ourmaintestcasewillbetheexpressiveadjective fucking.Forthepurposesofthe presentdiscussion(andfollowingPotts),Iwillcharacterizeitasindicatingthatthe speakerishighlyemotionallyaffectedbytheobjectdenotedbythetermwhich fucking ispredicatedof;amoresophisticatedviewcanbefoundinMcCready(2012b).
Thefirstproperty,Independence/(2.1a),isoftentakenascanonicalforexpressives andalsothecloselyrelatedconventionalimplicatures.Considerthefollowingtwo examples.
(2.2)
a. Ididn’tseeabrowndog.
b. Ididn’tseeafuckingdog.
(2.2a)indicatesthatthespeakerdidn’tseeadogwhichsatisfiesthepropertyofbeing brown.Thesentenceismadetrueevenifthespeakerhasseenadogwhichwasn’t brown;thusitissufficientfortheadjectivalcontenttobefalseinorderforthe sentencetobetrue.Thecontentoftheadjectivethusfallsinthescopeofnegation. Comparethissituationwithwhatisfoundin(2.2b):here,ifthespeakersawadogthe sentencenaturallycomesoutfalse,regardlessofthespeaker’sattitudetowardthedog. Ifthespeakerisn’tintherequisiteexcitedemotionalstate,thesentenceisinappropriate ratherthanfalse,anotionexplicatedbyKaplan(1999)bytakingexpressivesto introduceuse-conditionsratherthantruth-conditions.Empiricallythismeansthat, semanticallyspeaking,thecontentoftheexpressiveadjectiveisnotinthescopeof negation.Anotherwaytoputthisisthatthecontentoftheadjectiveinvariablyprojects outofthescopeofnegation;itisindependentoftheoperator.Presuppositionissimilar, ofcourse,butadmitsforthepossibilityofbindinginuniversalconstructionssuchas conditionals(Kartunnen-stylefilters,Karttunen,1974);thispointwillbereturnedto in§2.4,whereIargueagainsttreatinghonorificmeaningsaspresuppositionalpartly onthisbasis.
Thesameholdsforotherkindsofsemanticoperators.Uttering(2.3a)indicatesthat thespeakerbelievesthathemightseeadog,withoutreferencetowhatkindofdogit is;(2.3b)doesn’taskwhetherthehearersawadogwhichshehadstrongfeelingsabout, andthespeakerof(2.3c)commitstocallingtheaddresseeifheseesadog,regardless ofwhetherhefindsitemotionallyaffecting.
(2.3) a. Imightseeafuckingdog.
b. Didyouseeafuckingdog?
c. Fine!IfIseeafuckingdog,I’llbesuretocallyourightaway.
Theimmunityofexpressiveitemstosemanticoperatorsextendstooperationsat thelevelofspeechacts.Consider(truth-directed)denials,asin(2.4):here,again, thedenialisunableto‘target’thecontentoftheexpressive.B’sutterancequestions whetherAactuallysawadog,notwhetherAhadtherelevantattitude.Notethatthis ‘undeniability’isnotafunctionofcontent,thoughonemightthinkthatitissimply impossibletodenyanindividual’sprivateattitudes,duetosomethinglikeprivileged access(Mitchell,1986):A’sutterancein(2.5)meanssomethingroughlysimilartothe wayIhavecharacterizedthemeaningof fucking (onanegativeinterpretation),butB isstillabletodenyitsuccessfully.
(2.4) A. Isawafuckingdogintheparkthismorning.
B. That’snottrue.
(2.5) A. I’mupsetthatIsawadogthismorninginthepark.
B. That’snottrue.
Theindependencepropertyactuallygoesfurther.Pottsetal.(2009)showthat expressivecontentfailstoparticipateinmanysemanticoperationsordinarilyunderstoodasinvolvingthe‘copying’ofcontentfromonepointtoanother,suchasellipsis andanaphora:consideringthecaseof one-anaphora,in(2.6),Bneednothavethe excitedattitudeAexpressesforanaphoricreferencetosucceed,whilein(2.7),the propertyofbeingzebra-stripedmustholdoftheobjectBsawaswell.
(2.6) A: YesterdayIsawafuckingzebrainthepark.
B: Isawonetoo!
(2.7) A: YesterdayIsawazebra-stripeddoginthepark.
B: Isawonetoo!
Thesecondcriterion,nondisplaceability,referencesthe‘displaceability’criterionof Hockett(1960).Hockettdefinesanumberofpropertiesofhumanlanguage;displaceabilityreferstotheabilitytotalkaboutobjectsdistantintimeorspace(andofcourse modality,cf.Schlenker,2006).Expressiveslackthisability,atleastaccordingtoPotts, whotakesthemtoapplytothesituationinwhichtheyareuttered.Thiscriterionin factfollowsfromIndependenceatleastwithoutadditionalassumptionsormachinery;
ifsemanticoperatorscannotapplytoexpressivecontent,then,becausedisplacement istheresultoftheactionofsuchoperators,itisexpectedthatexpressivecontentisnot displaceable.2Forexamplesofhowthispropertyworks,consider(2.8):ifexpressive contentwasdisplaceable,(2.8a)shouldhaveareadingonwhichthespeakerisupset everytimeshepourswine,and(2.8b)shouldbeabletoindicatethatthespeakerwas unhappyyesterday;butthesereadingsdonotexist.
(2.8) a. EverytimeIpourwine,thedamnbottledrips.(Potts,2007),attributedto FlorianSchwarz
b. YesterdayIdroppedmyfuckingwallet.
Still,thereissomewiggleroomhere,whichcanbebroughtoutbythefollowing question:Whatarethetruthconditionsofexpressiveadjectiveslike fucking?The questiondoesnotyethaveanundisputedanswer;butitisplainthatitisnoteven sensiblewithoutanotionofperspective.Howcansomethingobjectivelyqualifyas e.g. damn (onanexpressiveinterpretation)?Thisobservationmotivatesthenotion ofperspectivedependence(2.1c):allexpressivesareinterpretedfromaparticular viewpoint.3Thisappearstobeuniversallytrue.Italsoliesattherootofcriticismsthat havebeenleveledatIndependence,and,byextension,Nondisplaceability.
Independence—(2.1a)—isusuallytakentobecanonicalforexpressives,butithas beencalledintoquestiononthebasisofattitudes.Pottscitestheexample(2.9), attributingittoAngelikaKratzer;here,plainly,theattitudeisnotthatofthespeaker, for(s)hepresumablywantstomarryWebster,implyingthat(s)hedoesn’tthinkheisa bastard,whileitisalltoolikelythatthisishis/herfather’sattitude.
(2.9) MyfatherscreamedhewouldneverallowmetomarrythatbastardWebster. Pottssuggeststreatingthisexampleintermsofmixedquotation(seealsoHarrisand Potts,2010).Theideaisthatitispossibletoshifttheperspectivefromwhichthe expressiveisused.Inthiscase,theperspectivepickedupisthatofthefather,inthe mannerofquotation;inothercircumstances,itcanbethatofsomeothercontextually salientindividual.Thisisapowerfulmechanism,asnotedbyAmaraletal.(2008);the preciseconstraintsonitsapplicationremaintobespecified,thoughHarrisandPotts (2010)makesignificantprogressinthisdirection.Thisissomethingwewon’thave muchoccasiontoconsiderintheanalysisofhonorifics,though,soIwillmostlyputit aside.Itmainlyreappearsinthenotionofregisterchoicefoundintheformaltreatment inChapter3:there,itispossibleforparticularhonorificstobeassociatedwithdifferent individuals,bothhonoredandhonoring,thoughspeechactparticipantsaretargeted bydefault.
2 Thesameholdsforcontextsinwhichtherelevantoperatorisnotovert,aswithforexamplethegeneric passagesofCarlsonandSpejewski(1997).
3 Therelationbetweentheperspective-dependencefoundinexpressivesandthatinmore‘vanilla’truthconditionalperspectivalexpressionslikedeictics(Oshima,2006),variouskindsofadjectives(Lasersohn,2005; MacFarlane,2016),andindexicals(Kaplan,1989)remainsasadlyunderstudiedarea.
Thesetwopropertiesofexpressivesmeanessentiallythattheycan’tbeembedded underoperatorsandtheyareinterpretedintheutterancesituation.Wewillseeinthe comingsectionsthatthesepropertiesdoinfactholdforhonorifics,asdoesthenextto bediscussed.
Thepropertyofimmediacyiscloselyrelatedtothisnotionofnondisplaceability. Thispropertysaysthattheuseofanexpressiveitemisenoughforittoachieveits effect;thus,again,negatingitorotherwiseembeddingithasnoeffect.Butmoreis atissuehere.Itisacommonplacethatspeechactspresentproposalsforchanging thecommitmentsofconversationalparticipants:imperativescanintroducehearer commitmentsforparticularactions,questionscommitmentstoprovideanswers,and soon(e.g.Portner,2007).Assertionsonthisviewareproposalstomakechangesin thecommonground,orintheprivateinformationstatesofconversationalagents. Expressivescanthenbeviewedasinducingchangesinthecommongroundwithout themediationofaproposal:inaway,theyareproposalsthat must beacceptedby virtueoftheirutterance.Pottscomparesthemtoperformativespeechacts,which alsointroducecommitmentsbyvirtueoftheiruse.It’sclearthatthisisaquality thathonorificshaveaswell,thoughthisclaimwillbesubstantiatedbyempiricaldata inthefollowingsections:merelybyusinganhonorific,onedoesindeedexpressan honorificationoftherelevantindividual.
Thefinaltwopropertiesareeithercontroversial,orclearlynotapplicabletoall varietiesofexpressive.Descriptiveineffabilityisakindofmetalinguisticproperty; accordingtoit,expressivescannotbesatisfactorilyparaphrasedortranslatedwithout recoursetootherexpressives,andindeedperhapsdonotadmitproperparaphrasesat all.Inotherwords,theyarenot‘effable’viadescriptivecontent.Thisseemstrue:itis noteasytofindawaytodeterminewhetheraproposedtranslationofanexpressive like fucking oreven hello genuinelycapturesthewholerangeofpossibleuses,because themetricofcomparisonmaynotbeclear.Forinstance,taketheJapaneseexclamation chikusho ‘beasts,’oftenusedtotranslatesentenceslikethefollowing.
(2.10)
a. Damn!
b. Shit!
Isthisagoodtranslation?Itdoesseemthatitisfairlyappropriateintermsofhow thetwotermsareused,butthetwosentencesin(2.10)don’tmeanexactlythesame, sosomecontentisbeinglost:itisinfactquiteunclearhowtoconsistentlymapthe degreeof‘emotionalintensity’(orwhateveritisthatisbeingexpressedbytheseterms) fromlanguagetolanguageintheabsenceofanexternalmetric.Moregenerally,Geurts (2007)observesthateventermslikegreenmaynothavesatisfactoryparaphraseseither, andneithermayanylexicalitematall.Thispropertythusseemstoneedsomeadditionalargumentativebasis,someofwhichisgivenbyMcCready(2014a),whoargues thatineffabilityistheprecisebasisoftheunavailabilityoftranslationsincertaincases andwhichopensthedoortogenuinedifferencesincross-linguisticexpressivepower. Still,unarguably,tothedegreethatsuchitemsasexpressiveadjectives,exclamations, orinterjectionslacksatisfactoryparaphrases,honorificsdoaswell.
Finally,Repeatibilityisobviouslyaspecialcase:thoughrepetitionofexpressive adjectiveslike fucking clearlydoesheightentheemotiveimpressiongivenbythe adjective,thisisdefinitelynotthecaseofitemstreatedasexpressiveacrosstheboard. Manyotherexpressives,likeKaplan’s(1999) oops,don’tseemtobestrengthenedby repetition—oneinstanceof oops seemstobenoweakerthan oops!oops!oops!—and othertermssuchas hello or goodmorning maynotadmitrepetitionatallonpainof infelicity;eveniftheydo,it’snotclearwhatastrengtheningeffectwouldevenamount toinsuchcases.Itseemslikelythataratherspecifickindofgradabilityisneededfor repeatabilitytohold.Thus,thislastpropertyiscertainlynotuniversalforexpressives. Forthehonorificcase,Ibelievethatrepeatabilityistrueforsomekindsofhonorifics, butnotall;thisdiscussioniscomplexandwillbeelaboratedoninthefollowing chapters,butIwilltakehonorificstoseparateintotwodistincttypeswithrespectto thisphenomenon.Thefirsttypeisassociatedwithaparticularregisteror‘highness’of speech,aswithutterancehonorifics;there,repetitionservestoincrementallypullthe registertowardtheregisterpickedoutbythehonorific.Forthesecondtype,thepull toaregisterhappensviainferentialmechanisms,butthispullhappensasasideeffect oftheuseofthehonorificitself,whichtagsotheraspectsofsocialrealityandidentity relevanttosocialstatusandfamiliarity.Insuchcases,sincethetiebetweenhonorific andregisterislessdirect,theeffectsofrepetitionaremoremalleable.Thisissuewillbe returnedtoinChapter8.
Whatpropertiesmustwethenconsiderwhentryingtodeterminewhether honorificsareexpressive?Thefirstthingisthattheymustintroduceakindof not-at-issuemeaning;thisfollowsfromtheIndependenceconstraint,andisshared withothermeaningtypessuchaspresuppositionandconversationalimplicature,a pointstressedbySimonsetal.(2011);Tonhauseretal.(2013).Butexpressivesdiffer fromtheseothermeaningtypes(andfromtheotherwiserathersimilarconventional implicature)inhavingmeaningsthataren’teveninprincipletruth-conditional.While presuppositions(forexample)havemeaningsexpressibleintermsoftruth,itisnot appropriatetotalkaboutexpressivemeaningsintheseterms.Itakethistobethe intuitionunderlyingtheideaofineffabilityabove.Wethenneedtodeterminewhether honorificsareparaphrasableinthepropermanner.Iwillarguethattheyaren’t,and thathonorificsdoinfactfitthemeaningprofileofexpressives.
2.2Honorificationasexpressive:initialdata Inthissection,Iwanttoconsidertheabovecriteriaforexpressivitywithrespectto honorificmeanings.Wewillseethatthemeaningsofhonorificsdoindeedsatisfy thesecriteria,soitisreasonabletotreathonorificmeaningsasexpressive,asislargely doneintherecentliteratureonthetopic.Alternativeswillbeconsideredandrejected laterinthechapter.ThedatainthissectionwillmostlybedrawnfromJapanese,with secondarydatafromThaiandFrench.
Let’sbeginwithIndependence.Abovewesawtwophenomenarelatedtothis property:thefactthatexpressivecontentcan’tbetargetedbydenial,anditsindependencefromsemanticoperators.⁴ConsiderfirsttheJapanesedialoguein(2.11).
(2.11) A. Ame-ga Rain-nom futtei-masu falling-hon ‘It’sraining’(andthespeakerisbeingpolite)
B. Sore-wa
That-top nai not yo pt
‘That’snottrue’ = ‘It’snotraining’ ≠ ‘You’renotbeingpolite’
B’sutterancecannotbeconstruedasdenyingthehonorificcontentofA’sutterance; thisisexpectedifthiscontentisexpressive,oratleastnottruth-conditional(cf. Potts,2005a.m.o).Forasecondpieceofevidence,considerwhathappenswhenhonorificsareplacedundernegation.ThefirstexampleisfromJapanese,andthesecond examplefromThai;bothinvolveapronounappearinginthescopeofnegation,where theJapanesepronounishighlyformalandtheThaipronounisassociatedwithinformal contexts.
(2.12) a. watakushi-wa I.Formal-top itta went to C iu say koto-wa thing-top nai not.exist ‘It’snotthatIwent’(andthespeakerisself-presentingformally)
b. chan
I.fem.mid mây not chɔɔp like khun you.mid/high ‘Idon’tlikeyou’(andthespeakerisbeingsomewhatinformal)
Intheabove,weseethatthehonorificcontentofthepronounsprojectspastthe negation,asinfactdotheirgenderspecifications,anobservationthatwillbecome importantinChapter7,wherethesemanticsandpragmaticsofhonorificpronouns areanalyzed.
Whataboutotherkindsofcontexts,suchasthescopeofepistemicmodals,questions,orconditionals?Wefindthesamebehaviorhere:thecontentofhonorificsfails toremainwithinthescopeoftheseoperators.
(2.13) Iwabuchi-sama-ga
Iwabuchi-hon-nom kuru come kamoshirenai maybe ‘Mx.Iwabuchimightcome’+‘thespeakerisbeinghighlyrespectfulto Mx.Iwabuchi’
(2.14) Iwabuchi-sama-ga
Iwabuchi-hon-nom ki-masu come-hon ka q
‘IsMx.Iwabuchicoming?’+‘thespeakerisbeinghighlyrespectfulto Mx.Iwabuchi’
⁴ Non-truth-orienteddenialscanhoweverchallengeexpressivecontent,thoughnotperhapsdirectlydenyit. SeevonFintel(2004)forthecloselyrelatedcaseofpresupposition.
(2.15) a. moshi if Iwabuchi-sama-ga
Iwabuchi-hon-nom ki-tara come-cond kono this ii good sake-o sake-acc
das-oo put.out-hort
‘IfMx.Iwabuchicomes,let’sputoutthisgoodsake.’+‘thespeakerisbeing highlyrespectfultoMx.Iwabuchi’
b. daiji-na important-cop kaigi meeting dat-tara cop-cond
Iwabuchi-sama-mo
Iwabuchi-hon-also kuru come hazu-da must-cop
‘Ifit’sanimportantmeeting,Mx.Iwabuchiwillsurelycometoo.’+‘the speakerisbeinghighlyrespectfultoMx.Iwabuchi’
Finally,considertheunavailabilityofexpressivecontentto‘copying’operations suchasanaphoraandellipsis.SupposethatAisacompanyemployeeandBisa memberoftheboardofthesamerankasMx.Fukuda.Inthefollowingdiscourse, B’sutterancedoesnotimplyanyspecialrespecttowardMx.Fukuda,indicatingthat honorificcontentdoesnotparticipateinthisellipsis.Similarly,itisoftennotedin theliterature(e.g.bySellsandKim,2007forKorean)thathonorificcontentisoften eliminatedwhenquotingorglossingspeechinTVnewsprograms,whichagainshows thatitisperipheraltothemaincontent.
(2.16) A. saki
a.moment.ago
Fukuda-sama-o Fukuda-hon-acc
omenikakari-mashi-ta
see.hon-hon-pst ‘AmomentagoIsawMx.Fukuda’+‘thespeakerisbeingextremely respectfultoMx.Fukuda’
B. boku-mo me-too ‘Ididtoo’
Onthebasisofevidenceofthiskind,togetherwiththemuchmoreextensive evidenceinthepreviousliterature,wecanconcludethathonorificcontenthasthe Independenceproperty.
Thesecondpropertyweshouldconsider,Nondisplaceability,statesthattheeffectof theexpressiveitemholdsatthespeechtime,notatother‘displaced’temporalpoints, places,orworlds;thus,ifasentencecontainsanhonorific,itshouldexpressthecurrent attitudeofthespeaker,notthatofthespeaker(orsomeotherindividual)atadistinct time(place,world).IclaimedabovethatthispropertyfollowsfromIndependence,but letusseehowthehonorificdataplaysouthere.
(2.17) koko here ni to kuru come toki-wa time-top maikai every.time
doko-ka-no where-q-gen kaisha-no company-gen erai
high.grade hito-ni person-dat o-ai-shimasu hon-meet-do.hon
‘EverytimeIcomehereImeetsomehigh-rankedpersonfromsomecompany orother.’+‘Thespeakeriscurrentlyindicatingrespectforthesepeople’
