Pragmatic Functions of Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse

■ Cynthia Dickel Dunn UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA Pragmatic Functions of Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse Traditional analyses describe Japanese honorific use as determined by situational factors. By contrast, this article takes an agent-centered approach to demonstrate how Japanese speakers use humble forms to perform a variety of pragmatic functions in ceremonial discourse. The analysis demonstrates that even in ceremonial speech contexts, speakers are not consistent in their use of humble forms, but rather shift between humble and non- humble forms to index shifts in footing and the social persona they present to the audi- ence. [honorifics, Japanese discourse, speech styles, style shifting, speaker agency] A major focus of research in linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics has been the relationship between patterns of language use and social context. Work in these areas has focused on describing general patterns of language use in relation to contextual features, often in the form of “rules” of use. Yet the actual range of speaker practices cannot be accounted for by models that present lin- guistic variation as a rule-governed response to contextual features. Thus, Romaine (1984) critiques variationist sociolinguistics for creating overly deterministic models of language use that ignore speaker agency. Studies of style and code shifting have repeatedly found that speakers not only shift varieties when shifting from one speech situation to another but also shift styles or codes within speech situations to redefine the situation or the associated social roles and relationships. These patterns of shifting have been conceptualized as contrasts between situational and metaphor- ical shifting (Blom and Gumperz 1972), responsive and initiative shifts (Bell 1984), and unmarked and marked code choices (Scotton 1988). Similarly, phonological vari- ation has increasingly been seen as an active construction of identity rather than a simple reflection of the speaker’s preexisting social characteristics (e.g., Coupland 2001; Eckert 2000). These new approaches have attempted to incorporate under- standings of speaker agency and creativity into our models (Ahearn 2001). More broadly, linguistic anthropologists have sought to demonstrate that language use does not simply reflect a preexisting social reality, but is part of what constitutes that reality (Goodwin 1990; Cameron 1990; Duranti 1992; Hill and Manheim 1992). This article addresses these issues of speaker agency and linguistic variation with regard to Japanese honorific use. Traditional analyses present honorific use as deter- mined by situational factors such as the relative social status of the interlocutors and the formality of the speech situation. Yet traditional models of honorific use as rule-governed and obligatory cannot adequately account for the variation found in actual discourse. Empirical evidence shows that speakers are not always consistent in their use of honorifics, even when talking about the same person in the same Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Vol. 15, Issue 2, pp. 218–238, ISSN 1055-1360, electronic ISSN 1548-1395. © 2005 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm. 218 Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse 219 speech situation. Understanding these complex patterns of shifting honorific levels in actual interaction requires us to move beyond structural analyses to examine how speakers use honorific forms to accomplish various pragmatic functions across a variety of speech contexts. In what follows, I take an agent-centered approach to analyzing honorific use in the context of Japanese wedding celebrations. I first provide an overview of the Japanese honorific system and traditional models of honorific use and then review recent empirical work that demonstrates variation in honorific use that cannot be accounted for within the traditional structural models. I then present an analysis of the use of one particular type of honorific, the humble forms, in congratulatory speeches at five Japanese wedding receptions. Rather than seeking to identify situa- tional factors that determine honorific use, I examine how speakers used these forms to accomplish a variety of pragmatic functions. Speakers were not consistent in using humble forms throughout their entire speech, but rather shifted between humble and non-humble forms in ways that indexed shifts in the social persona they pre- sented to the audience. An Outline of the Japanese Honorific System Japanese honorifics can be divided into two main categories: addressee honorifics, which index deference to the addressee of the utterance, and referent honorifics, which index deference to the referent of the utterance (Shibatani 1990). On the addressee axis, virtually every utterance in Japanese requires a choice between direct and distal forms of the predicate (Jorden and Noda 1987)1: 1a. Sasaki-san wa hanashi-ta. (Direct form) Sasaki-TI TOP speak -PAST 1b. Sasaki-san wa hanashi-mashi-ta. (Distal form) Sasaki-TI TOP speak -DIST-PAST “Mr./Ms. Sasaki spoke.” Although both of these sentences mean “Mr./Ms. Sasaki spoke,” they convey a different self-presentation to the addressee. The direct form communicates intimacy and spontaneous self-expression and is widely used between family members and close friends. By contrast, distal forms index a more disciplined, public presentation of self (Cook 1996). They are frequently used among more distant acquaintances and in business situations or other formal settings. They can also be used to show defer- ence to an addressee of higher status (Cook 1998). In addition to the use of distal forms, there is also a set of referent honorifics that index deference to a specific person who may or may not be the addressee. For exam- ple, if the speaker wished to show deference to Sasaki, the speaker could use a sub- ject honorific (Japanese sonkeigo) which indexes deference to the person who is the subject of the sentence. This deference to Sasaki is, at least in principle, independent of the speaker’s self-presentation with respect to the addressee: 2a. Sasaki-san wa o-hanashi nina-tta. (Subject Honorific, Direct) Sasaki-TI TOP HP-speak H⫹ -PAST 2b. Sasaki-san wa o-hanashi ninari-mashi-ta. (Subject Honorific, Distal) Sasaki-TI TOP HP-speak H⫹ -DIST-PAST “Mr./Ms. Sasaki spoke.” There is also a set of humble forms (Japanese kenjyoogo)2 which the speaker can use for self-reference as a way of showing deference to someone else, usually the per- son to whom or for whom an action is being done. Thus in the sentence “I spoke to Mr./Ms. Sasaki,” the use of a humble verb to describe the speaker’s actions shows 220 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology Figure 1 Possible forms of the verb “to go” in Japanese. deference to Sasaki: 3a. Watashi wa Sasaki-san ni o-hanashi shi -ta. (Humble, Direct) I TOP Sasaki-TI to HP-speak H- -PAST 3b. Watashi wa Sasaki-san ni o-hanashi shi -mashi-ta. (Humble, Distal) I TOP Sasaki-TI to HP-speak H- -DIST-PAST “I spoke to Mr./Ms. Sasaki.” For both types of referent honorific, there are also some verbs that have special suppletive forms that can be used instead of the regular honorific endings (e.g., the subject honorific form of taberu [to eat] is meshiagaru). The Japanese language thus provides speakers with grammatical resources for indexing their social relationship and self-presentation with respect to both the addressee and the person about whom they are speaking. For most verbs involving human subjects, speakers are faced with both a choice between distal versus direct forms (on the addressee axis) and a three-way choice on the referent axis between no use of referent honorifics, subject honorific (for others), or humble form (for self). Figure 1 shows the possible permutations of these choices for the verb “to go.” Previous Research on Japanese Honorifics Traditional analyses of Japanese honorifics have focused on elucidating the grammatical and pragmatic rules governing their use. Grammatical analyses have presented referent honorific use as determined by the presence of someone “socially superior” to the speaker as the subject or argument of the verb while the use of addressee honorifics (distal forms) is governed by situational factors including the addressee (e.g., Harada 1976; Neustupny´ 1978). Even more pragmatically oriented accounts have sometimes presented honorific use as an obligatory, rule-governed response to specific contextual features such as the social identity of the addressee or referent and the overall formality of the speech situation (e.g., Ide 1982; Matsumoto 1989). Ide (1989) argues that honorific use in Japan is primarily a matter of discern- ment, or compliance with social conventions, and that the use of honorifics in certain contexts is socio-pragmatically obligatory. While there clearly are sociolinguistic norms for honorific use, these norms are not uniform across all of Japanese society nor do they completely determine speakers’ honorific choices. Large-scale surveys of self-reported honorific use have demon- strated age, class, gender, and regional variation in terms of which forms are used in specified situations (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuujo 1957; Ogino 1980; Ogino, Misono, and Fukushima 1985). These surveys asked respondents to report which form they would use to say a specific phrase to a specific addressee. Such surveys are well designed to elicit demographic variations in idealized norms for use, but these Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse 221 idealized norms may not always correspond to actual speech behavior (Agha 1993; Bates and Benigni 1975). Furthermore, because such surveys elicit only isolated phrases in hypothetical situations, they are inherently unable to investigate whether and how speakers shift honorific levels within speech events. For these reasons, more recent studies have investigated honorific use in naturally occurring discourse. Such research has demonstrated that speakers often shift between distal and direct speech styles even in the course of a single speech situation. Shifts between distal and direct have been found to index shifting degrees of empa- thy or social distance (Ikuta 1983), hierarchical levels of discourse structure (Ikuta 1983; Maynard 1993), varying degrees of awareness of the addressee (Maynard 1993), and shifts between a more public versus personal presentation of self (Cook 1996; Dunn 1999). Thus the use of addressee honorifics is not simply determined by the sta- tus of the addressee or other situational factors; nor is it simply a matter of the speaker identifying and following social norms for that speech situation. Rather, speakers shift between distal and direct to communicate subtle shifts in the speaker’s presentation of self and stance toward the addressee. There have been considerably fewer empir- ical studies of referent honorific use, but here too the evidence suggests that speakers are not always consistent in their use of honorifics, even when speaking about the same person in the same speech situation (Okamoto 1999; Yamaji 2000). Thus, empirical research on honorific use in actual discourse demonstrates complex patterns of variation that cannot be accounted for by models that treat honorific use as an obligatory, rule-governed response to situational factors. In this article, I move beyond structural analyses to examine how speakers use honorifics to perform a vari- ety of pragmatic functions in actual discourse. Following Agha (1993), I argue that hon- orific forms do not directly index status, but rather deference entitlement.3 Speakers can use such deference indexes in a variety of different ways in different speech situa- tions. Rather than treating honorific forms as an automatic reflection of situational factors, I approach these forms as resources that speakers use to communicate social meanings. This is not to claim that speakers always consciously strategize about their honorific use, nor that honorific use may not be relatively routinized in many situa- tions, but it is to put the focus on speakers as actively creating and communicating social meaning. Nor does this approach deny the importance of social norms. As Scotton (1988) argues, social norms do not determine speakers’ choices, but they do constrain how those choices are interpreted. It is precisely speakers’ knowledge of the social norms for honorific use that allows them to use these forms to accomplish their communicative goals in specific speech contexts. Defining honorifics in terms of the linguistic expression of deference, rather than as a direct indexing of social status, puts the focus squarely on the agency of the speaker in communicating social meanings. In this article, I use this approach to analyze the use of honorifics, specifically hum- ble forms, in speeches at five Japanese wedding receptions. My interest is less in deter- mining the factors that influence honorific use than in identifying the various pragmatic functions they are used to accomplish. I first provide an overview of the cer- emonial speech style used in this context, including a quantitative analysis of the use of both addressee and referent honorifics by different speakers. The subsequent analy- sis focuses on the use of humble forms to perform various pragmatic functions includ- ing elevating the status of the newlywed couple, elevating the audience, and framing the speech event as a ceremonial speech genre. Finally, I explore how style shifting between humble and non-humble forms indexes shifts in the speaker’s presentation of self. Humble forms were used to enact a conventionalized “wedding speaker” role while shifts to non-humble marked shifts to a more everyday voice or social persona. Situational Context and Data This analysis focuses on Japanese wedding speeches as an example of a highly conventionalized speech genre in which honorific use is normatively expected. Contemporary Japanese wedding receptions are generally held in commercial wedding halls and follow a standardized format (Edwards 1989). The reception 222 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology begins with a speech by the ceremonial go-between who announces the marriage and introduces the couple to the assembled guests. The couple usually ask a work- place superior, former teacher, or male relative of the groom to take the role of go- between for the ceremony and reception. The go-between’s speech is followed by speeches by “honored guests” of the groom and the bride, usually former teachers or workplace supervisors. A toast signals the beginning of the meal, and the eating and drinking are punctuated by additional speeches as well as breaks for the couple to change costumes and for photo opportunities of the couple posing by the wedding cake. After workplace superiors and former professors have spoken, there are speeches by high school and college friends of the couple. The data consist of transcripts of eighteen speeches given at five wedding recep- tions that took place in the Tokyo area between 1990 and 1994. Videotapes of the receptions were collected from recently married friends and acquaintances and are not statistically representative of any particular population. I did not personally attend any of the weddings. The brides and grooms were all college educated and the speakers generally held white-collar occupations. The analysis will focus on speeches by the ceremonial go-betweens, the honored guests of the groom and bride who speak directly after the go-between, and high school or college friends of the couple who speak later in the reception. There were twelve male and six female speakers (Table 1). Table 1 List of wedding speakers. Wedding A Go-Between A Male, groom’s professor (I was not able to obtain recordings of speeches by other guests at this wedding.) Wedding B Go-Between B Male, bank manager, groom’s workplace superior Honored Guest B1 Male, bank manager, groom’s workplace superior Honored Guest B2 Female, bride’s professor Friend B1 Male, college friend of groom Friend B2 Female, college friend of bride Wedding C (Speech by go-between contained many inaudible sections and could not be analyzed.) Honored Guest C1 Male, civil service, groom’s workplace superior Honored Guest C2 Female, bride’s professor, colleague of the bride’s father Friend C1 Female, college friend of bride Wedding D Go-Between D Male, electronics company, groom’s workplace superior Honored Guest D1 Male, electronics company, groom’s workplace superior Honored Guest D2 Female, bride’s professor Friend D1 Female, college friend of bride Friend D2 Male, college friend of groom Wedding E Go-Between E Male, groom’s professor Honored Guest E1 Male, chairman of the board at high school where groom teaches Honored Guest E2 Male, colleague of the bride’s father Friend E1 Male, same-age work colleague of groom Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse 223 Quantitative Analysis of Honorific Use in Wedding Speeches In speaking at a wedding, people take on a speaking role as go-between, honored guest, or more generally “guest speaking at a wedding.” These roles are enacted in part through the use of what I shall refer to as a “ceremonial speech style.” This style is characterized by extensive use of distal forms in both subordinate and main clauses, very formal degozaimasu forms of the copula, and referent honorifics. This section provides a quantitative overview of the frequency of these honorific forms in the eighteen wedding speeches considered here. Distal and Degozaimasu Forms All clauses were coded as either distal (desu or V-masu forms) or direct (da, copula absence, or the direct form of verbs). The distal form generally occurs in the main (sentence-final) clause. When distal forms also occur in subordinate clauses, this indexes a very formal speech situation. Therefore, main and subordinate clauses were analyzed separately. Sentence-final clauses without conjunctions were coded as main clauses. Because clauses ending in the conjunctions ga and ke(re)do(mo) gener- ally function as independent clauses in spoken discourse, they were also counted as main clauses. Clauses ending in all other conjunctions, the gerundive (Vte form), or Vstem forms were treated as subordinate clauses. The Vte form can take either direct or distal form. The clause-final Vstem form is a more formal and literary variant that rarely appears in conversational discourse but is sometimes found in public speak- ing. For this reason, it is treated as equivalent to the distal form in this analysis. Table 2 shows the percentage of distal use in main and subordinate clauses. Speakers generally used very high frequencies of distal forms throughout their speeches. For the main clauses, all but one of the speakers used at least 70 percent distal forms, and eleven used 90 percent or more distal forms. The use of distal and Vstem forms in subordinate clauses ranged from 19 percent to 82 percent. Eleven of the eighteen speakers used these forms for over half of all subordinate clauses. In addition to the desu form of the copula, there is also an even more formal and deferential degozaimasu form. Therefore, all occurrences of the copula in main clauses were further coded as direct (da or absent), distal (desu), or very formal (degozaimasu, the gozaimasu form of adjectives, deirasshaimasu, and dearimasu). The final column in Table 2 shows the percentage of copula forms in main clauses that occurred in the very formal forms. Here there was considerable variation with seven of the speakers using very formal forms for at least 70 percent of copula forms while six speakers used the very formal forms 20 percent or less. Referent Honorific Use For the analysis of the referent honorifics, each verb in main, subordinate, and embedded clauses was coded as describing either the speaker, the couple (bride, groom, or both), or other people. Verbs used to describe the couple’s actions were coded for the use of subject honorifics, while verbs describing the speaker’s actions were coded for the use of humble forms. Verbs used to describe the couple’s actions were coded as either containing subject honorifics or not containing subject honorifics. The following forms were counted as subject honorifics: o-Vstem-ninaru, V(r)areru, o-Vstem desu, Vn degozaimasu (describing the couple), and suppletive forms. Compound verbs were counted as a single verb and were coded as subject honorific if any part of the compound con- tained a subject honorific form (e.g., both shite-irasshaimashita and sarete-ikimashita were counted as a single subject honorific verb). Verbs describing the speaker were coded as either humble or non-humble. The following forms were coded as humble: o-Vstem-suru, o-Vstem-itasu, o-Vstem- mooshiageru, Vn degozaimasu (describing the speaker), and suppletive forms. Compound verbs were treated similarly to those for subject honorifics. 224 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology Table 2 Distal and Degozaimasu forms in Japanese wedding speeches* Copula Forms in Main Clauses Subordinate Clauses Main Clauses Total Total % Distal Total % Very Speaker Clauses % Distal Clauses or Vstem Copula Formal Go-Between A 78 100% 37 54% 21 90% Go-Between B 36 97% 19 53% 9 78% Go-Between D 68 91% 15 80% 33 18% Go-Between E 106 97% 51 82% 27 15% Hon. Guest B1 26 88% 17 65% 17 88% Hon. Guest B2 35 71% 44 27% 18 44% Hon. Guest C1 50 88% 39 64% 31 77% Hon. Guest C2 23 87% 27 52% 9 78% Hon. Guest D1 40 98% 22 59% 17 76% Hon. Guest D2 47 89% 32 31% 25 24% Hon. Guest E1 24 54% 39 54% 11 73% Hon. Guest E2 27 78% 16 25% 13 31% Friend B1 10 90% 11 64% 5 60% Friend B2 11 100% 7 29% 5 20% Friend C1 32 97% 15 53% 5 40% Friend D1 38 97% 21 19% 26 8% Friend D2 24 100% 21 19% 16 19% Friend E1 25 92% 30 37% 16 6% *Main clauses include sentence-final clauses and clauses ending in the conjunctions ga and ke(re)do(mo). Subordinate clauses include clauses ending in the gerundive (Vte) form, the Vstem form, and all conjunctions except ga and ke(re)do(mo). Very formal forms of the copula include degozaimasu, the gozaimasu form of adjectives, deirasshaimasu, and dearimasu. Table 3 shows the frequency of referent honorific use to describe both the couple (subject honorifics) and the speaker (humble). All of the speakers used subject hon- orifics at least once to describe the bride or groom, but no speaker was completely consistent in using subject honorifics for every reference to the couple. Nor were speakers consistent in using humble forms to describe their own actions. In general, the go-betweens used the highest frequency of referent honorific forms while the speakers with the lowest levels of usage were all younger friends of the couple. The data demonstrate that Japanese wedding speeches are characterized by a ceremonial speech style involving high frequencies of distal forms in main clauses, frequent use of distal and Vstem forms in subordinate clauses, degozaimasu forms, and referent honorifics. As discussed above, there are many situations in which Japanese speakers use distal forms in sentence-final position both with and without referent honorifics. The combination of referent honorifics (subject honorifics and humble forms), degozaimasu forms, and distal forms in subordinate as well as main clauses mark a ceremonial speech style that is much more formal than a style characterized only by the use of distal forms in sentence-final position without the use of referent honorifics. It is also clear, however, that speakers at these five weddings maintained this ceremonial speech style to varying degrees throughout their speeches. Such varia- tion both within and between speakers cannot be accounted for by structural models that treat referent honorific use as a reflexive response to factors such as the Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse 225 Table 3 Referent honorific use in Japanese wedding speeches* Total Verbs % Subject Total Verbs Speaker Describing Couple Honorific Describing Speaker % Humble Go-Between A 62 87% 40 80% Go-Between B 32 63% 17 82% Go-Between D 19 79% 37 54% Go-Between E 58 60% 50 60% Hon. Guest B1 6 50% 25 72% Hon. Guest B2 43 44% 37 49% Hon. Guest C1 21 29% 49 65% Hon. Guest C2 26 58% 23 83% Hon. Guest D1 13 85% 36 67% Hon. Guest D2 8 50% 33 45% Hon. Guest E1 22 5% 17 59% Hon. Guest E2 10 30% 24 42% Friend B1 8 50% 13 62% Friend B2 5 20% 10 20% Friend C1 26 96% 25 80% Friend D1 8 50% 12 25% Friend D2 24 4% 15 27% Friend E1 25 8% 10 30% * Compound verbs were counted as a single verb and were coded as honorific if any part of the compound contained a referent honorific form. social status of the referent or the formality of the speech situation. Rather than using referent honorifics consistently throughout their speeches, speakers shifted between the ceremonial speech style and a somewhat less formal style that involved the use of distal forms with little or no use of referent honorifics and degozaimasu forms. Understanding such patterns of style shifting requires us to go beyond structural analyses to consider how speakers use honorific speech levels as linguistic resources for communicating social meanings. The remainder of this article focuses on elucidat- ing the pragmatic functions served by the use of humble forms in wedding speeches as well as the social meanings communicated by shifts between humble and non-humble. Pragmatic Functions of Humble Forms in the Wedding Speeches Humble verb forms are one component of the ceremonial speech style that is normatively expected in the context of giving speeches at a wedding. The use of humble forms conventionally indexes deference to the person who is the recipient or beneficiary of the action. The use of humble forms to describe one’s own actions thus “humbles” the speaker by expressing deference to someone else. In the context of the wedding speeches, this expression of deference serves several pragmatic functions including elevating the status of the couple, elevating the status of the audience, and marking the speech event as a ceremonial speech genre. Humble Forms to Elevate the Status of the Couple Various aspects of the wedding reception function to focus attention on the newlyweds and create their special, elevated status as bride and groom. Wedding 226 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology hall employees design the reception to make the bride and groom the “stars of the show,” using theatrical techniques such as costume changes, elaborate spotlit entrances, and staged photo opportunities (Edwards 1989; Goldstein-Gidoni 1997). The guests’ speeches continue this theme through praises of the bride or groom’s character and personality. One aspect of this status elevation is the use of referent honorifics to describe the couple. With the exception of the high school and college friends of the couple, the guests asked to speak at the wedding are older and of higher status than the couple themselves (generally current or former teachers, workplace superiors, etc.). These people would not generally use referent honorifics to talk about the bride or groom outside of the wedding context. In their speeches, however, wedding guests frequently used subject honorifics to talk about the couple and humble forms to talk about their own actions in connection with the couple. For example, the following is the beginning of a typical description of the groom’s personal history by a go-between who was the groom’s professor. Note the extensive use of subject honorifics to describe the groom. (In the following examples, honorific noun forms, referent honorific verbs, and degozaimasu forms are underlined; verbs without referent honorifics are in italics. Subject honorifics are marked with H⫹ and humble forms with H⫺. Initials are used in place of full names.)4 (1) Go-between A describing the groom 7 Ee C-kun wa,/ a o-too-sama,/ F-sama./ o-kaa-sama,/ a G-sama C TI TOP HP-father-TI F-TI HP-mother-TI G-TI no o choo-nan toshite,/ senkyuuhyaku,/ gojuu/ roku nen nigatsu GEN oldest-son as 1956 year Feb. mikka,/ X-ken T-machi ni oi-te,/ third X-prefecture T-town at occur-and o-umare ni,/ nari-mashi-ta./ HP-be-born SUBJHON-ADHON-PAST Ah C was born (H⫹) February third, 1956 as the oldest son of his father F and mother G in T town, X prefecture. 8 C-kun wa,/ kodomo no koro kara hijoo ni,/ katsudoo C-TI TOP child GEN time from very activity teki na,/ a o-ko-san de,/ irassshai-mashi-ta./ like HP-child-TI COP be(H⫹) -ADHON-PAST From his childhood C was (H⫹) a child who engaged in lots of activities. 9 Shoo-gakkoo no toki wa,/ ongaku-bu de:,/ kurarinetto o grade-school GEN time TOP music –group in clarinet DO fuk-are-mashi-ta./ blow-SUBJHON-ADHON-PAST In grade school he played (H⫹) clarinet in the music group. Deference to the wedding couple was also expressed through the use of humble forms to describe the speaker’s own actions in relationship to the couple. For exam- ple, another professor used a humble form to describe her role in supervising the bride’s graduation thesis: (2) Honored guest D2 6 Ano: T-san ga yo-nen-sei no toki ni watakushi wa,/ ano: um T-TI SU four-year-student NOM time at I TOP um sotsugyoo ronbun zemi de,/ ee T-san ga, ee/no,/ sotsuron:/ graduation thesis seminar in T-TI SU GEN graduation-thesis no shidoo o itashi-mashi-ta./ GEN guidance DO do(H-)-ADHON-PAST Um when T was a senior I was (H-) the advisor for her senior the- sis in my senior thesis seminar. Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse 227 Recall that the use of humble forms indexes deference to the person who is the recipient or beneficiary of the action. By using humble forms to describe her super- vision of the bride, the speaker reversed the normal status pattern and presented herself, the professor, as of lower status than her student. Similarly, another profes- sor at another wedding also used humble forms to describe her perceptions of the bride’s personality: (3) Honored guest B2 6 De:, / M-san o,/ itsu mo haiken shite-ru to,⫽ and M-TI DO when even see(H-) do-and-be when And whenever I see (H-) M, 7 ⫽honto ni,/ o-too-sama no—/ yoi,/ o-hitogara,/ sore really HP-father-TI GEN good HP-personality that kara,/ (go)katei no yoosa ga,/ sono mama ni araware-te,/ from HP-family GEN goodness SU that as-is in appear -and her father’s good personality and also her family’s goodness are directly apparent and, 8 maa nan to:, subarashii o-joo-san de aru ka to,/ well what QT splendid HP-daughter-TI COP exist QM QT soo iu koto,/(o) higoro kara omo-tte ori-mashi-ta node,/ that say thing DO everyday from think-and be(H-)-ADHON-PAST since since I’ve always thought (H-) my what a wonderful daughter she is, For a high-status person such as a professor, company president, or high-ranking manager to express deference to the couple through the use of subject honorifics and humble forms is a considerable elevation of the couple’s status. According to tradi- tional grammatical analyses, the use of referent honorifics is triggered by having someone of “socially superior status” as the referent of the utterance (e.g., Harada 1976). Yet the use of referent honorifics to elevate the newlyweds is a clear example of how honorific use may create as well as presuppose high status (cf. Silverstein 1976 on presupposing versus creative indexes). The high status of the bride and groom is actively created by the stage-managing of the wedding hall and the speeches of the wedding guests, including their use of honorific forms. At the same time, this eleva- tion is a socially normative part of the wedding celebration; wedding speakers know that they are expected to praise the couple and to use honorific language in doing so. Humble Forms to Elevate the Audience Although one function of the honorific use in wedding speeches is to index deference to, and hence elevate, the status of the couple, this is not the only use of referent honorifics in these speeches. Wedding speakers also used humble forms to signal deference to the audience as well as the couple. For example, one of the professors described above began her speech by using a humble form to introduce herself to the audience: (4) Honored guest D2 1 Ee tadaima go-shookai ni azukari-mashi-ta,/ just-now HP-introduction as receive-ADHON-PAST N daigaku eibun gakka no,/ S to mooshi-masu. // N university English dept. GEN S QT say(H-)-ADHON As introduced, I am called (H-) S of the N University English Literature Department. Similarly, go-between A used humble forms to announce that he would introduce the couple’s biographies: (5) Go-between A 6 Ee sore de wa,/ aa shikirei ni,/ yori-mashi-te,/ ee that COP TOP customary to according-ADHON-and 228 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology (o)futari no: oo ryaku-reki o,/ oo go-shookai,/ two-people GEN personal-history DO HP-introduction mooshiage-masu./ say(H-) -ADHON Ah then according to custom I will introduce (H-) the couple’s personal history. In both of these examples the speech acts are directed toward the audience, not the couple, and it is the audience that is the target of the deference expressed by the humble verb forms. Humble Forms to Index the Wedding Speech Genre The use of elaborate honorific language including humble forms also serves the function of marking the speech event itself as an instance of a ceremonial speech genre. In contrast to the direct indexicality described above, this third pragmatic function involves what Silverstein (1996) has called “second-order indexicality.” It is well known that indexical forms derive their “meaning” from their regular co-occurrence with specific contextual features. This contextual association allows the linguistic sign to “point to” some feature of the speech situation in either a pre- supposing or creative way. Silverstein argues that once a sign has particular indexi- cal signification at one level (n), it then can then take on additional “n ⫹ 1” indexical functions through routinized uses that create associations with other contextual features. For example, in addition to the first-order indexicality of marking defer- ence, honorific forms may take on a second-order indexical function of marking the speaker’s own social class and refinement (Hendry 1992; Silverstein 1996). The use of honorific language to mark situational formality is another example of such second-order indexicality. I argue that it is this secondary level of indexicality that is primarily involved in the style shifting between humble and non-humble forms in the data considered here. When speaking at a wedding, guests perform in a ceremonial speech style that is associated with ceremonial occasions such as weddings and adopt the social role of a “speaker at a wedding reception.” Using humble forms to express deference to the couple and the audience is one way of enacting this social role and framing the event as a wedding speech. In the following sections, I demonstrate that speech acts which are a conventionalized part of the wedding speaker role were particularly likely to be performed using humble forms, while less conventionalized parts of the wedding speeches exhibited considerably more individual variation. Furthermore, even speakers who used a high frequency of humble forms sometimes shifted to non-humble forms to mark a momentary stepping out of the wedding speaker role in order to comment on it from a more personal perspective. Shifts between humble and non-humble verb forms thus indexed shifts in the speaker’s stance and self-presentation vis-à-vis the audience. Speech Acts with High Frequencies of Humble Forms In the videotapes examined here, speakers were particularly likely to use humble forms when they were engaging in speech acts that are a conventionalized part of the role of wedding speaker. Opening and closing sections of wedding speeches are highly conventionalized, consisting of a relatively narrow range of typical speech acts. Wedding speeches generally open with some combination of a self-introduction, congratulations to the couple and their families, apologies for speaking before more distinguished guests, and a metalinguistic announcement of what the speaker plans to say. Similarly, speeches typically end with a wish or request for the couple’s future followed by an announcement of the ending of the speech and a closing phrase of thanks or congratulations. These conventionalized opening and closing speech acts were particularly likely to be performed using a high level of honorific language. Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse 229 Even speakers who did not use referent honorifics elsewhere in their speeches used them in these opening and closing phrases. For example, self-introductions and congratulations to the couple and their families were invariably performed using humble forms or very formal forms of the copula. Example 4, above, shows the use of humble forms for a self-introduction, while example 6 shows the use of both gozaimasu and humble forms to congratulate the couple and their families. (6) Friend D2 Ee, Y-kun, T-san, go-kekkon omedetoo gozai-masu. Y-TI T-TI HP-marriage congratulations HPOLITE-DIST Congratulations to Y and T on your wedding. Mata,/ go-ryoo-ke no mina-sama-gata ni,/ also HP-both-families GEN everyone-TI-PL to kokoro kara o-iwai mooshiage-masu. / heart from HP-congratulations say(H-) -DIST Also, I say(H-) congratulations from the heart to everyone in both families. Speakers also used humble and (de)gozaimasu forms for such speech acts as announcing the wedding, thanking the assembled guests for coming, expressing grat- itude for being asked to speak, and apologizing for speaking before more senior guests. One common pattern in these speeches was for speakers to use metalinguistic verbs to announce the speech act in which they were currently engaging or were about to engage. These metalinguistic announcements were almost always in hum- ble form. For example, speakers used humble forms to announce that they were about to tell the audience something about the couple (example 5), offer the couple words of advice (7), or pray for their happiness (8). (7) Honored guest D2 Ano: sore kara: ee,/ maa,/ saigo ni,/ o-iwai um that from well lastly HP-congratulations no kotoba to iu ka./ ano hanamuke no kotoba o, / GEN words QT say QM um farewell-gift GEN words DO hito-koto,/ o-futari ni,/ sashiage-tai to omoi-masu./ one -thing HP-two-people to give(H-)-want QT think-DIST And then well finally there’s just one thing I think I want to offer(H-) them as words of congratulations or um a parting gift. (8) Friend C1 O-futari no,/ sue nagai/ o-shiawase o,/ kokoro yori HP-two-people GEN future long HP-happiness DO heart from o-inori mooshiage-masu. HP-pray say(H-) -DIST I pray(H-)for their long-lasting happiness from the bottom of my heart. The ending of the speech typically includes wishes or advice for the couple’s future phrased as requests. Because they are an inherently face-threatening act (Brown and Levinson 1987), requests are sometimes made in honorific form even among, for example, family members who do not normally use honorifics with each other (Sukle 1994). All of the requests in the wedding speeches involved the use of humble forms. (9) Go-between B Shiawase na go-katei o kizui-te itadaki-tai to zonji-masu./ Happiness HP-home DO build-and receive(H-)-want QT think(H-)-DIST I think(H-) I would like(H-) them to build a happy home. 230 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology (10) Honored guest B1 Sue-nagaku tanoshii,/ go-katei o kizui-te future-long fun HP-home DO build-and itadaki-masu yoo,/ o-negai itashi-mashi-te,/ receive(H-)-DIST manner HP-request do(H-)-DIST-and I request(H-) that they build a long-lasting and happy home and, Many of the speech acts described above are quite formulaic, although there are often different ways of phrasing the same sentiment. The speech acts that are a con- ventionalized part of the performance of a wedding speaker role were almost always performed within the ceremonial speech style, even by speakers who seldom used referent honorifics or degozaimasu forms elsewhere in their speeches. Style Shifting and the Use of Non-Humble Verb Forms Although Japanese wedding speeches are highly conventionalized, the degree of conventionalization varies across different parts of the speech. Wedding speeches begin and close with a narrow range of conventionalized speech acts, but other sec- tions in which speakers describe their personal relationship with the couple are con- siderably less standardized. To a large extent, the variation in referent honorific use tracks these varying degrees of conventionalization. Speech acts that are a standard part of the wedding speaker role exhibited frequent use of humble forms and other markers of the ceremonial speech style. By contrast, the accounts of speakers’ per- sonal interactions with the couple were more varied. It was this less conventional- ized part of the wedding speeches that exhibited the most individual variation in the use of referent honorifics. Although all of the speakers used the ceremonial speech style to open and close their speeches, some of the younger speakers in particular shifted out of this style during the main body of their speech. For these speakers, the use of referent honorifics functioned primarily as a metalinguistic framing device. High levels of referent honorific use at the beginning and end framed the speech as an instance of the wedding speech genre, while the main body of the speech was performed in a less formal style involving frequent use of distal forms but only occasional use of referent honorifics. Other speakers maintained the ceremonial speech style throughout most of their speech including the frequent use of subject honorifics, humble forms, and the degozaimasu form of the copula. However, even these speakers sometimes shifted to non-humble verb forms to talk about themselves. Because these speakers generally did use humble forms throughout their entire speech, it is worth asking what com- municative work was being done by the periodic use of non-humble forms. While there are multiple grammatical and social factors that may influence shifts between humble and non-humble, I will demonstrate that one type of style shifting involved momentary shifts out of the conventional “wedding speaker” role in order to com- ment on that role from a more personal perspective. In the following example, a professor had just finished praising the bride’s univer- sity education. In doing so, she used humble forms to describe her university’s history and educational mission. However, her description could also be interpreted as self- praise of her own institution, which is not appropriately modest behavior. Following her description of the bride’s education, the speaker shifted away from the ceremonial speech style to say that it might sound as if she was offering propaganda for her uni- versity. Here non-humble forms were used to reveal a more personal and emotional perspective through which the speaker commented on, and perhaps apologized for, her performance in the “wedding speaker” role. (Non-humble verbs are in italics.) (11) Honored guest D2 19 De sono yoo na ano:/ maa,/ naka de,/ n konna and that type um well within at this-way Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse 231 seki de made watakushi, jibun no daigaku no,/ seat at up-to I oneself GEN university GEN senden shi-te -ru-nde,/ propaganda do -and-be-since Within this well um even in this position [as wedding speaker] I’m spreading propaganda for my university, 20 ano: ware-nagara aikoo seishin ni um myself-while love-school spirit as moe-te-iru to omou-n desu kedo,/ burn-and-be QT think-NOM COP(DIST) but um I am very passionate about my school if I do say so myself but, This shift from the ceremonial speech style to a more everyday style was marked in several ways. In line 19, the speaker used the verb suru (do) rather than the hum- ble form itasu, and there was also no use of humble forms in line 20.5 The speaker used the distal form desu, but not the more deferential degozaimasu form. The shift to a less formal style was also marked by the use of contractions. In line 19, the predi- cate was contracted to shite-ru-nde rather than the full form shite-iru node, and in line 20, the speaker used the abbreviated form kedo (but) rather than keredo or keredomo.6 As this example shows, speakers often shifted away from the ceremonial speech style when commenting on their own speech and revealing a more personal or back- stage aspect of the self. Shifts to a less formal style sometimes signaled an ironic distancing from the wedding speaker role even as the speaker performed it. In the following example, a workplace superior of the groom momentarily shifted into a more informal style to comment on the social expectations placed upon him as a speaker and then shifted back into his speech-making “voice” with the humble form of the verb “say.” The use of a non-humble verb also coincided with the contraction of the form iwanakya ikan from the fuller iwanakereba ikenai. (12) Honored guest C1 104 nani ka,/ senpai rashii koto o iwa-na-kya something QM senior appear thing DO say-not-if ikan (deshoo) kara. forbidden (perhaps) because since I probably have to say something that sounds like a senior. 105 Mooshiage-tai to omou-n desu (kedo/ga). say(H-) -want QT think-NOM COP(DIST) I think I’d like to say(H-) something but. The next example requires some explanation of the use of titles in Japanese. Japanese has a number of titles that can be added as suffixes to someone’s name. The title -san is a respectful term that can be used for people of any gender and marital status; -sama is even more deferential. The title -kun is used for men of equal or junior status to the speaker. In example 13, the go-between, a workplace superior of the groom, was talking about “Mr. Y,” the groom. He commented that he kept wanting to refer to the groom as Y-kun, the more informal form, which is probably the term he typ- ically used for the groom in the workplace. The speaker evidently saw this form as inappropriate in the wedding speech context. He used the modifying verb shimau, which has the meaning of doing something inadvertently and therefore cannot occur in humble form. In drawing attention to his own use, he both evoked a different speech context (in which the use of -kun would be normal) and momentarily stepped out of the “go-between” persona to comment on his own usage in a more informal style: (13) Go-between E 8 Mazu,/ ((clears throat))/ shinroo no oo,/ Y,/ uu kun to first groom GEN Y TI QT 232 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology iu fuu ni yon-de shimau-n desu ga,/ say style as call-and end-up-NOM COP(DIST) but First concerning the groom um I keep calling him um Y-kun but, Although speakers frequently avoided humble forms when commenting on their linguistic performances, this should not be understood as a “rule” that requires speakers to shift levels. It is in fact quite possible for speakers to engage in metalin- guistic commentary while remaining in a formal speech mode. In contrast to the style shift in example 13, the same speaker later in his speech once again apologized for calling the groom Y-kun, but this time he did so using humble forms: (14) Go-between E 15 De ee,/ Y,/ kun to mo-- <@ mooshiage-sashi-te and Y TI QT say(H⫺) -permit-and itadaki-masu ga @>,/ receive(H⫺)-DIST but And uh Y--, kun <@ if I may be permitted to call him that @>, Thus it is not the case that speaker asides or metalinguistic commentary necessar- ily prevent the use of humble forms. However, the shift to a less formal style includ- ing contractions and the use of non-humble forms does appear to index a speaking voice or persona from “outside” the wedding context, and this more everyday voice was particularly likely to appear when speakers momentarily stepped outside of and commented on their performance as wedding speakers. Speakers also tended to use non-humble verb forms when making comments about what were characterized as “personal” matters. Consider the following exam- ple in which one of the guests noted a similarity between his marital experiences and those of the groom. In lines 43–44, he used humble forms to express his perceptions of the couple within the immediate context of the wedding reception. He then switched to non-humble forms to comment on the fact that he had gotten married around the same age as the groom and, like the groom, had met his spouse through an arranged introduction or miai (lines 45–48). (15) Honored guest D1 43 sakihodo-rai, o --o-futari ga aa,/ kono yoo ni recently-since HP HP-two-people SU this manner in narab-are-te su-su–suwa-tte rassharu no o display-PASS-and sit -and be(H⫹) GEN DO haiken itashi-mashi-te,/ see(H⫺) do(H-)-DIST-and just now I saw(H-) them sitting(H⫹) displayed here and, 44 masa ni taihen o-niai no kappuru to,/ iu exactly as very HP-matched GEN couple QT say fuu ni kanji-i-tte ori-mashi-ta./ manner in feel enter-and be(H⫺)-DIST-PAST I felt(H-) that they are really a very well-matched couple. 45 E tokoro de,/ watakushi mo chotto--/ watakushi-goto by-the-way I also a-little personal-matters o chotto hasa-nde kyooshuku desu ga,⫽ DO a-little insert-and embarrassed COP(DIST) but By the way I also--I’m embarrassed to be talking a bit about myself here but, 46 ⫽jitsu wa watakushi mo,/ N-kun to,/ onaji toshi ni actually TOP I also N-TI as same year in desu ne <@ miai shi-te ⫽ COP(DIST)IP miai do -and actually I also at the same age as N <@ did miai and Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse 233 47 ⫽kekkon shi-te-masu./ @⬎ marry do -and-DIST got married.@⬎ 48 <@ Sakihodo go-baishakunin-sama no go-setsumei recently HP-go-between(s)-TI GEN HP-explanation de @⬎ waka-tt-an desu ga,/ by understand-PAST-NOM COP(DIST) but I just understood this from the previous explanation by the go- between but, 49 Desu kara aa,/ ma jooshi to iu yori mo,/ onaji COP(DIST) because well superior QT say less even same pataan de kekkon shi-ta,/senpai toshite,/hanashi o (sukoshi) pattern by marry do -PAST senior as speech DO a-little sase-te itadaki-masu./ permit-and receive(H-)-DIST Therefore please permit me to speak (H-) (a little) less as his superior than as a senior colleague who married in the same pattern. In line 45 the speaker announced and apologized for the fact that he was about to discuss his personal experiences. In describing that personal experience in lines 46 and 47, he used the non-humble forms miai shite (I did miai) and kekkon shitemasu (I am married), before shifting back to the use of referent honorifics in lines 48 and 49.7 Another speaker also shifted to non-humble forms to describe what was charac- terized as watashigoto or talking about oneself. In this case the go-between began his conventional role of describing the groom’s biography by using humble forms for himself and subject honorifics for the groom: (16) Go-between D 11 shinroo shinpu no, go-shookai o sase-te itadaki-masu. groom bride GEN HP-introduction DO do(CAUS)-and receive(H-)-ADHON I will be permitted to introduce (H-) the groom and bride. 12 Mazu shinroo: N, Y-kun wa, N-ke no, go-choo-nan toshite, first groom N Y-TI TOP N-family GEN HP-oldest-son as shoowa X nen, gogatsu X nichi, M ken Y ni shoowa X year May X day M prefecture Y at o -umare ni nari-mashi-ta. HP-be-born SUBJHON-ADHON-PAST First the groom NY was born (H⫹) the eldest son (H⫹) of the N fam- ily on the Xth of May, Showa year X in Y City, M Prefecture. The speaker then continued to use subject honorifics while describing the groom’s education and workplace history. A few lines later, however, he diverged from describing the groom’s biography to add a comment about his own connection to the groom. As in example 15 above, the interjection of this “personal” aside coincided with the use of non-humble verbs. (17) Go-between D (continued) 18 De, ni nen no shigatsu ni desu ne, watashidomo D and two year GEN April in COP(DIST) IP I D kabushiki-gaisha, M seihin kenkyuu -jo, dai -ni stock company M products research lab number two kenkyuu -shitsu e, nyuu -sha sare -te ori -masu. research-room to enter-company H⫹ -and be(H-) -DIST And in April of Heisei year 2 [the groom] entered(H⫹) the second lab of the M product research section of our D company. 234 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 19 ma watakushi -goto na-n desu ga, well personal -thing COP-NOM COP(DIST) but Well it’s a personal matter but, 20 kare to wa, kono toki kara, issho ni jitsu wa, he with TOP this time from together as actually TOP shigoto o ya-tte-ru wake desu. work DO do-and-be situation COP(DIST) it’s actually since that time that I have worked together with him. A final situation in which speakers were less likely to use the humble form was when they were interjecting their personal opinions using the phrase “I think.” Out of 106 total uses of the verb “think,” only 26 were in humble form. Speakers some- times used the non-humble form of “I think” even when humble forms were used earlier in the phrase (e.g., examples 7 and 12). When the humble forms did appear, it was often in the context of praise for the couple (example 3) or other speech acts that are a conventionalized part of the wedding genre such as requests for the couple’s future (example 9) or congratulating the couple (example 18). (18) Honored guest B1 9 hito koto o-iwai o mooshiage-tai to zonji-masu./ one word HP-congratulations DO say(H-) -want QT think(H-)-ADHON I think (H-) I would like to say (H-) a few words of congratulations. It is certainly not the case that speakers always used humble forms of “think” when describing their opinions of the couple or performing speech acts such as requesting and congratulating. When humble forms of “think” did appear, however, it was always in these contexts. This is further evidence that certain contexts make the use of humble forms particularly likely and these include both praising the cou- ple and performing speech acts that are a conventionalized part of the wedding speech genre. Conclusions The use of humble forms at wedding receptions is one aspect of a ceremonial speech style frequently found in public celebrations of life events. This article has described several features of this style including the use of distal forms in both main and subordinate clauses, degozaimasu and other very formal forms of the copula, sub- ject honorifics, and humble forms. The documentation of this style across a variety of different speakers and weddings provides a useful baseline for future comparison with other registers. The article also described several pragmatic functions of the use of humble forms within the context of wedding receptions. Wedding speakers use humble forms to express deference to, and hence elevate, both the couple and the audience. The norms of the wedding speech genre call for the use of referent honorifics for the bride and groom even by people who would normally be considered of higher status, demonstrating that honorific use can create as well as reflect social status, and that such statuses may be situation specific. Wedding speakers did not consistently use humble forms throughout their entire speech, but rather shifted between the ceremonial speech style and a somewhat less formal style. Although speakers engaged in style shifting to varying degrees, there were certain commonalities in terms of when speakers were particularly likely to use or not use humble forms. Humble forms were most common when speakers were engaging in speech acts that are a conventionalized part of the wedding speaker role including congratulations, self-introductions, prayers or requests for the couple’s happiness, and so on. Outside of these conventionalized speech acts, Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse 235 there was considerably more individual variation in the use of humble forms and speakers maintained the ceremonial speech style to varying degrees. Even speakers who used high levels of humble forms throughout their speeches occasionally shifted to non-humble forms to momentarily step out of the wedding speaker role and interject a more personal commentary. Although different speakers varied in their overall frequency of referent honorific use, they used humble (and non- humble) for similar pragmatic functions. The main difference among the speakers was the extent to which they consistently remained within the wedding speaker role throughout their entire speech. The analysis of actual discourse reveals a complexity of patterns of honorific use that cannot be accounted for by traditional structural models. Although the basic function of honorifics is to index deference, speakers use this deference-expression (or its absence) to perform a variety of pragmatic functions in different discourse sit- uations. Understanding honorific use at this level requires us to move beyond native speaker intuitions and questionnaire data to examine honorific use in a variety of naturally occurring situations. The current analysis of the pragmatic functions of humble forms is situationally specific to wedding speeches and similar celebratory speech events. The pragmatic function of humble use in conversational contexts, customer-service interactions, and so on is likely to be somewhat different and requires empirical investigation. Examining how speakers actually use honorific forms to accomplish socially meaningful action will require the analysis of actual dis- course in a variety of speech contexts by a variety of speakers. Attending to the com- plex patterns of honorific use in actual discourse will allow us to better understand how speakers use these forms to negotiate social roles and relationships across a wide variety of contexts. Notes Acknowledgments. Data collection was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation and the Japanese Association of University Women. Analysis and writing were supported by Summer Research Grants from the College of Social and Behavioral Science and the Graduate College of the University of Northern Iowa. I am grateful to Hidenori Fuji and Yukiko Ebara for assistance with transcription and translation. I also thank the CSBS Writing Group, the editor, and anonymous reviewers for helping me to clarify the argument. A por- tion of the analysis appeared previously as Dunn 2005. 1. Glossing: COP copula; DIST distal form; DO direct object; GEN genitive; H⫺ humble form; H⫹ subject honorific; HP honorific prefix; HPOLITE hyperpolite; IP interactional parti- cle; NOM nominalizer; PAST past; PL plural; QT quotative; TI title; TOP topic marker. 2. This second type of referent honorifics has been variously termed object honorifics (Harada 1976; Shibatani 1990), nonsubject honorifics (Kuno 1987; Hamano 1993), or humble forms (Jorden and Noda 1987; Mizutani and Mizutani 1987). Since my main focus is the contrast between the use and nonuse of these forms, I have chosen to use “humble” and “non-humble” as the most convenient way of referring to the distinction. 3. Agha (1993) cites Shils (1982) in distinguishing social status as the objective position of an individual within the social structure from deference entitlement, which involves one person’s comportment toward another in specific interactions. Although both are ultimately socially constructed, Agha makes the point that deference entitlements are more easily manipulated by speakers than is social status. 4. Following Maynard 1989, / marks a pause-bounded phrasal unit. ⫽ is used when there is no pause between lines. Punctuation is used to show intonation. ⬍@ @⬎ encloses segments where the speaker was laughing. : indicates lengthening. Unclear segments are enclosed in single parentheses while double parentheses are for transcriber comments. 5. Use of the humble o-Vstem-suru form is restricted to voluntary actions that are done to or for the benefit of another person (Mori 1993; Matsumoto 1997). Therefore moeru (to burn) would not normally take the o-Vstem suru form. However, the speaker could have made the phrase humble by using a Vte orimasu form (rather than Vte-iru), using a humble form of “think,” or using the degozaimasu form of the copula. All three strategies are found elsewhere in these data. 236 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 6. In this and many of the following examples, the speaker frames what he or she is saying as an aside, and it is noteworthy that many of the non-humble forms occur in subordinate clauses prior to conjunctions. However, humble forms can also occur in this position (e.g., example 3). Limiting the analysis to clauses describing the speaker, humble forms were found in 60 percent of sentence-final clauses but in only 46 percent of clauses ending in con- junctions. Clauses ending in Vstem and Vte forms were 62 percent humble. Thus, the gram- matical form of the clause appears to have some conditioning effect on the use of humble forms. 7. There are two verbs in this example that appear in non-humble form for reasons unrelated to style shifting. The first is wakaru in line 48. As noted above, verbs describing nonvolitional states or actions normally do not take the o-Vstem suru form and the verb “understand” does not have a suppletive humble form. Similarly, in line 45 the phrase watashigoto o chotto hasande (insert personal matters) does not have a human beneficiary and the o-Vstem suru form would not be appropriate. However, in lines 45–47, the speaker could have used a ceremonial speech style by substituting phrases such as kyooshiku degozaimasu, miai itashimashite, and kekkon shite orimasu for the relevant predicates. Thus, the choice to use non-humble forms of these phrases is meaningful. References Cited Agha, Asif 1993 Grammatical and Indexical Convention in Honorific Discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3(2):131–163. Ahearn, Laura 2001 Language and Agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 30:109–137. Bates, Elizabeth, and Laura Benigni 1975 Rules of Address in Italy: A Sociological Survey. Language in Society 4(3):271–288. Bell, Allan 1984 Language Style as Audience Design. Language in Society 13(2):145–204. Blom, Jan-Peter, and John J. Gumperz 1972 Social Meaning in Linguistic Structures: Codeswitching in Norway. In Directions in Sociolinguistics. John Gumperz and Dell Hymes, eds. Pp. 407–434. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cameron, Deborah 1990 Demythologizing Sociolinguistics: Why Language Does Not Reflect Society. In Ideologies of Language. John E. Joseph and Talbot J. Taylor, eds. Pp. 79–93. New York: Routledge. Cook, Haruko Minegashi 1996 Japanese Language Socialization: Indexing the Modes of Self. Discourse Processes 22:171–197. 1998 Situational Meanings of Japanese Social Deixis: The Mixed Use of the Masu and Plain Forms. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8(1):87–110. Coupland, Nikolas 2001 Language, Situation, and the Relational Self: Theorizing Dialect-Style in Sociolinguistics. In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Penelope Eckert and John R. Rickford, eds. Pp. 185–210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dunn, Cynthia D. 1999 Public and Private Voices: Japanese Style Shifting and the Display of Affective Intensity. In The Languages of Sentiment. Gary Palmer and Debra Occhi, eds. Pp. 107–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2005 Japanese Honorific Use as Indexical of the Speaker’s Situational Stance: Towards a New Model. Texas Linguistic Forum (Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Sym- posium About Language and Society—Austin) 48(1):83–92. Electronic document, http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/salsa/salsaproceedings/salsa12/SALSA12papers/Dunn. pdf, accessed June 10, 2005. Duranti, Alessandro 1992 Language in Context and Language as Context: The Samoan Respect Vocabulary. In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Charles Goodwin and Alessandro Duranti, eds. Pp. 77–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse 237 Eckert, Penelope 2000 Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Edwards, Walter 1989 Modern Japan through Its Weddings: Gender, Person and Society in Ritual Portrayal. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness 1990 He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Goldstein-Gidoni, Ofra 1997 Packaged Japaneseness: Weddings, Business, and Brides. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Hamano, Shoko 1993 Nonsubject Honorification: A Pragmatic Analysis. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 15:83–111. Harada, S. I. 1976 Honorifics. In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 5: Japanese Generative Grammar. Masayoshi Shibatani, ed. Pp. 499–561. New York: Academic. Hendry, Joy 1992 Honorifics as Dialect: The Expression and Manipulation of Boundaries in Japanese. Multilingua 11(4):341–354. Hill, Jane H., and Bruce Mannheim 1992 Language and World View. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:381–406. Ide, Sachiko 1982 Japanese Sociolinguistics: Politeness and Women’s Language. Lingua 5(2/3/4): 357–385. 1989 Formal Forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of Linguistic Politeness. Multilingua 8(2/3):223–248. Ikuta, Shoko 1983 Speech Level Shift and Conversational Strategy in Japanese Discourse. Language Sciences 5:37–54. Jorden, Eleanor Harz, and Mari Noda 1987 Japanese: The Spoken Language. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kokuritsu, Kokugo Kenkyuujo 1957 Keigo to Keigo Ishiki (Honorifics and Honorific Consciousness). Tokyo: Shuei Shuppan. Kuno, Susumu 1987 Honorific Marking in Japanese and the Word Formation Hypothesis of Causatives and Passives. Studies in Language 11(1):99–128. Matsumoto, Yoshiko 1989 Politeness and Conversational Universals—Observations from Japanese. Multilingua 8(2/3):207–221. 1997 The Rise and Fall of Japanese Nonsubject Honorifics: The Case of ‘O-Verb-suru’. Journal of Pragmatics 28(6):719–740. Maynard, Senko Kumiya 1989 Japanese Conversation: Self-Contextualization through Structure and Interactional Management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 1993 Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion, and Voice in the Japanese Language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mizutani, Osamu, and Nobuko Mizutani 1987 How to Be Polite in Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Times. Mori, Junko 1993 Some Observations in Humble Expressions in Japanese: Distribution of O-V(stem)- suru and ‘V(causative) Itadaku. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3:67–83. Neustupny, ´ J. V. 1978 Post-Structural Approaches to Language: Language Theory in a Japanese Context. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Ogino, Tsunao 1980 Yamanote to Shitamachi ni Okeru Keigo Shiyoo no Chigai (Differences in Honorific Usage between Yamanote and Shitamachi). Gengo Kenkyu 84:45–76. Ogino, Tsunao, Yasuko Misono, and Chitsuko Fukushima 1985 Diversity of Honorific Usage in Tokyo: A Sociolinguistic Approach Based on a Field Survey. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 55:23–39. 238 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology Okamoto, Shigeko 1999 Situated Politeness: Coordinating Honorific and Non-Honorific Expressions in Japanese Conversations. Pragmatics 9(1):51–74. Romaine, Suzanne 1984 The Status of Sociological Models and Categories in Explaining Language Variation. Linguistiche Berichte 90:25–38. Scotton, Carol Myers 1988 Code Switching as Indexical of Social Negotiations. In Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociological Perspectives. Monica Heller, ed. Pp. 151–186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Shibatani, Masayoshi 1990 The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shils, Edward 1982 Deference. In The Constitution of Society. Pp. 143–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Silverstein, Michael 1976 Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In Meaning in Anthropology. Keith Basso and Henry Selby, eds. Pp. 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1996 Indexical Order and the Dialectics of Sociolinguistic Life. Texas Linguistic Forum (Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium About Language and Society—Austin) 36(1):266–295. Sukle, Robert J. 1994 Uchi/soto: Choices in Directive Speech Acts in Japanese. In Situated Meaning: Inside and Outside in Japanese Self, Society, and Language. Jane M. Bachnik and Charles J. Quinn, eds. Pp. 113–142. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Yamaji, Harumi 2000 Addressee-Oriented Nature of Referent Honorifics in Japanese Conversation. Texas Linguistic Forum (Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Symposium About Language and Society—Austin) 44(1):190–204. Electronic document, http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/ salsa/salsaproceedings/salsa8/papers/yamaji.pdf, accessed March 15, 2004.