A Peredor in JepetresePregmetics
MisatoTokunaga
I
lntroduction
pragmatics.The Japaoeseplacea Breat
Thereis a parador in JapaDese
"non-self"l
value
social
on tbe idea of
and this value seemsto be reflected
as avoidaoceof an agentin erpressionsfor physicalstates(suchas onaka ga
suita "stomachis empty" ssaning "I am hungry") and many other idiomatic
erpressions. This preferenoe for not meatioaint the agent seeos to be a
linguistic erpressionof the socialvalue of "non-self" and the socialreason
for politeoess, especially vhen the agent is the speaker and he did
somethingfor others. 0n the other hand, "self" strongly manifestsitself
when the speater describes situations vhere the speaker is directly
involved as a beneficiary. The manifestation of "self" is observed in
structural or lerical choicesthat the speaker must sensitively make in the
dercriptionsof suchsituatioos.
The dichotomy betveen the linguistic repression of "sell" and
linguistic manifestation of "self" may be derived from the conc€pt of the
distinction betveen Uf.hi'insiders/in-group"and soto "outsiders/out-group"
as tlte Japanesestructure of the societyin general. I vill not discussthis
point in this paper.
In this paper, I will discussthe pragmatic preferencesfor omissionof
agent and obligatory manifestation of agent, especially vhen the
agent/recipient is the speaker. I vill also discussstructural and lerical
casesof "self-erposure"and pragmaticstrategiesof "self-repression"which
can be accomplishedlinguistically. First, I vill briefly discussa pragoatic
erample of "self-repressioo"as a linguistic norm in lanSuaSeuse. Then, I
will discussthree eramples of "self-erposure',which unavoidablyoccursin
descriptioos of situations vhere the speaker is a beneficiary. I vill also
present my aaalysis of hov Japaoese achieve neutral erpressions
linguirtically, avoiding "self-erpoure" for pr agmatic pur poses.
IPrA
Papers
in
Pragmatics
2,
No.L/2
(1988),
84-105
2.0
'Self-
repressions in Japeaese
(1981) notes that "native speakersof Englishvho srudy
Jacobsen
are sometimesbevildered by the high frequenry vith which
Japanese
intransitiveetpressionsare used in Japanese"(p.170).
The folloving
eramplesgiven by Jacobsenindicate the difference between English and
(l) aod Q) oo p. 170,
in commonerpressions: (Jacobsen's
Japanese
respectively.)
( I ) English: Haveyou found an apartmentyet?
Apaato
va moo mitukarimasita
ka?
Japanese:
apartmentTop.yet be-found-pol.-pastQ
(Lit., Hasan apartmentbeenfound yet?)
(2)English: Did someoneby any chanceturn in a lady's watch?
huzinyoo no tokei ga
JapaneseHyotto site
by-any-chance lady's
watch Nom.
todoite-iru deryoo ka?
reach-Perf.
0
(Lit.,Did a lady's r/atch by any chancereach [youJ?)
observesthat "referenceto agentis much more commonlyomitted
Jacobsen
in Japanese
thao io English"{p.l7l ).
Omissionof referenceto aSentsis ertremely comooh in Japanese
vhethera verb is intransitive or transitive, It is a strong characteristrcof
the language. Ikegami (l9El. l9E2) also points out this pragmatic
preference
in Japanese.He claims that there are tvo types of languagesin
the vorld: "Do languages",such as EnBlish and most other European
languages,
and "Becomelanguages",such as Japaneseand Tamil. It is not
clearvhether lkegami distinguishesthe languagesinto two categoriesin
termsof syntacticpoint of viev or in terms of pragmaticpreferencessimply
as "tendeocies".
Hovever, I vill use the terms to indicate the distinoion
betveenlanguagesvhich indicate the "agent" as a normative usage and
thosevhrch onit the "agent"as a normative usage.
!
I
t
86
The concept of omission/preseoce of reference to agent and of
"Become-languages"/"Do-languages"
is similar to the notion of ergativity.
However, this paper restricls itself to ao argument dealing with certain
linguistic characteristicsas reflectionsof a pragmatic preference/tendenry
observedin normal erpressionsin Japanese.
2.1
-I
hrve e hctdechc'y!.
'f,eed
ir peinful'
A pragmatic erample of "self-repression"as a cooveotionally
"normative" usageof the Japaneselanguageis observedin erpressionsin
which the speaker gives informatioo about his personal matters.
In
Ikegami's eramples. vhen the speaker himself or someoneelse has a
headacbe.in Do-languages,
be would normally sayvho has it as in (3).
(3) a. lhav eahea d a c h e .
b. Tom hasa headache.
0n the other hand,in Become-languages,
when the person
like Japanese.
who has a headacheis the speaker,it is not mentioned,as in (4a), unlessthe
situation requires it. The situation can be that someoneasks vho has it
becausehe overheardan utterancesuchas ({a). When the one vho has a
headacheis somethird person,the speaker mentionswho has it in the first
placeand also clarifies the distinction between himself and'olhers, as in
t4b), by statinghov he knows the personhas a headache,adding "l heard
that...."or "he is sayingthat...".
({)a. (Vatashi wa) atama B,a itai.
I
Top. head Nom. painful
"(As for me) head is painful."
b. Tom va ataoa ga itai soo-da I lo it-te-ir-u.
hear-Copl./Qt. say-Ger.-erist-pres.
"(l) heardthat Tom has a headache/Tom is sayingthat he
hasa headache."
In Do-languages,
it is quite natural to state "who does vhat', vhile in
Become-languages,
it is more natural for the speaker not to mention the
persooaffectedby a situation denotedby a VP aad to describean incident
in a detachedmanneras if it has happened!y ilsglt,
2.2
-l
cleened your roon'vc.
-The
room beceme cleen"
Thepreferencefor "self-repression"in erpression is especiallystrong in
vhen an incident is related to the speaker'saction for someone
Japanese
else'sbenefit,suchasvhen the speakerdid somethirl8beneficialfor others,
becauseof the social value of "modesty" and "0N"2. For erample, the
speakercaodescribe situationssuchas that hc cleanedhis frieod's room in
t*ro ways: one erplicitty indicatesthat he cleanedhis friend's room, as in
(J) andthe other describesonly the fact that the room is clean,and no agent
is mentioned,
asin (6).
(5)a. Kimi no
yo.
heya o kirei-ni
shi-te age-ta
you poss.room Acc. clean-Adv. do-Ger.give-past 9mph.
"(l)cleanedyour room (l hopeyou're happy aboutit).'l
yo.
b, Kimi no
heya sooii-shi-te oita
you poss.room clean-do-Ger.in advance emph.
"(l) cleaoedyour room (for your use)."
da,
c, Bokuga kimi no heyao sooiishi-ta
n
I Non. you poss.room Acc.clean-do-past
nomlzrcopla
"l cleaned
your room."
88
(6) Heya ga
yo.
kirei-ni
nat-ta
room Nom. clean-Adv.become-pastemph.
"(Your)room becameclean."
In this case,(6) is preferred to (5Xvhether he had been askedto do that by
his frieod or he did it voluntarily). Even though the speaker does not
erplicitly meution the agent in (5a & b), it is clear that the agent is the
speakerhimself by convention: that is, vhen the subiectis not mentioned,
it is the speaker NP, unless the previous discourseindicates othervise.
Therefore,(5c) soundseveo nore imposingand as if the speakeris asking
for recognitionaod gratitude from his frieod. Thus.in Japanesepragmatics
an erpression such as (6) is preferred and normal to describe such
situations,while in Englishpragamticsan expressionsuch as (5) is perfectly
acceptableand normal.
2.3
'I
-It'r
hrve decided....'yr.
been decided...'
The last erample of Japanesepragmatic preference as a Becomelanguagecan be observedin (7):
(7)a. Watakushi iyoiyo kekkon-suru koto
ni nar-imash-ita.
I
finally marriage-do nomlzr Dat. become-plt-pst.
"It's finally been decidedthat I marry."
b. Watakushiiyoiyo kekkon-suru koto ni sh-imash-ita.
do-plt-pst.
"l ve finally decidedto marry."
When one has decidedto Darry, he/she refers to this decisionas if it has
been madeby someoneelsevhen he reporls it to his superioror in a formal
situation,for pragmatic resons,that is. a Japaneseprefers to describe his
ovn affairs as if they happen by themselves. In situations like (7ll,
erpressions
suchas (7a) are preferred even vhen the personwho marriesis
not the speakerhimself.
I havebriefly discussedJapanesepreferencesin pragmaticusageof the
language:the Japaneseprefer to chooseerpressionsvhich do not explicitly
denotethe agent. This preferencebecomeseven strongerwhen the agent is
the speakerand when he does somethingbeneficialfor others, as seen in
(5-6). ln the next section,I vill discusseramplesof "self-erposure",an
opposing
forcein Japanesepragmatics,
3.0
-Self-
menifertetions in Jepenere
3.1 Ure of honorifics
The most obviouscaseof "self-erposure"as a counter-erampleto the
Japanesepragmatic prel'erencefor "self-repression"is use of honorilics
(includingboth respectful and humble forms). As is vell-knovn, the
usevarious levels of speechaccordingto their social relationship
Japanese
to the addressee
or the referent and socialsettingssuchasformality. When
a speakertalks vith a superior, in terms of social status or age, he is
erpectedto use a respectfulform when talking about his superior'saffairs,
and a humbleform when referring to himself. EVenin talking vith his
friends,he is normallyerpectedto use a respectfulform vhen talking about
his superior,althoughhe would use non-polite forms of Japaneseto hts
friend. He may also use hooorifics vhen he talks vith or about someooe
vhom he greatlyrespectseven if the personis not actuallyhii superior.
Theuseof the honorificsindicatesthe speaker'ssocialpositionand it can
alsobe a manifestationof the speaker'spsychologicalattitude toward the
addressee
or the personhe is talking about. With strangersor in a formal
situation,he is erpectedto u$e a polite form. Listeners understandwhat
kind of social and psychological relations$p the participants in the
conversation
have by observingthe type of the languagethey use.
In forming honorific erpressions,in addition to abundant lerical
items,the ifichoativeverb OerU'become'or the passivesuffir -rare are used
for respectfulforms (an honorificform of a verb), as seenin (8).
(8) "Mr. Satoovrote the report".
a. Satoo-san ga sonorepooto o o-kaki ni nat-ta
o desu.
-Mr. Nom.thal report Acc.Hon.-vrite become-pst.comp.cpl.
ga sono report o kak-are-ta n desu.
b. Satoo-sensee
-Pass-pst.
The useof the respectfulforms in (8) iadicatesthat Mr. Satoois either the
speaker's superior or someonevhom he respects. In other words, rt
indicatesthe speaker'srelationshipwith Mr. Tanaka.
The humble form refers to an action of the speaker himself or a
personto vhom he mnsidersertremely closesuch as his family memberor
close friend, namely, an "insider." The humble form contains either the
'do'
activeverb suru
or the causativesuffir -sase.as seenin (9),
(9) "l vrote the report."
s-ita n
desu.
a. Watasi ga sonorepooto o o-kaki
I
Nom.that report Acc. Hon-vrite do-pst.comp.cpl.
itadaki-masita.
b. Vatasi ga sooorepooto o kak-ase-te
vrite-Caus.-Ccr.receive(Hon.
)-polite.
(Lit., I receivedthe actionof someoneelse'snaking (me) r'rite
the report.)
,
Again, the use of tbe humble form indicatesthe agent's(the speaker'sin
(9)) socialposition or internal feelings tovard vhat he did. In the caseof
(9), the speaker may be vorking for a compaoy aod he vas assignedthe
task. i.e.writing a report. He politely reports.probably to his boss, what he
The use of the humble form
did by usingthe humble form, especially(9b). 'inferior
to the person who
here indicates that the speakor is socially
assignedthe task and that he villingly did the assignment.
The use of honorifics unavoidably manifeststhe speaker'ssocial and
psychologicalattitude and relationship vith the addressee and/or the
referetrt. This erampteindicatesthat there is a paradoricalerpectationin
pragmatics,oamely, the fact that "self-exposure"sometimesis
Japanese
appropriate. A type of erpression is determined by the speaker's
relationship
with others and mattershe describes.
3.2 llonetory Brprersionr
The seconderample of the dichotomy between "self-erposure"and
"self-repression"
in Japanesepragmatics is observed in descriptions of
situationsin vhich the spea&eris directly involved as a recipient. For
erample,it is more normal and natural for the speaker to indicate his
gratitude,vhen he describesa situation in vhich the speaker receives a
benefitfrom someoneelse. That is. "self-erposure"is required when the
speateris a beneficiary.
In dercribingsituationsin whicb he is a beneficiary,the speakermay
choosebasicallytvo different ways. One soundsas if be is talking about
soneooeelse'saffairs. The other clearly indicates the speaker'semotiooal
attitudetovard the matter. Whichevervay he chooses,it vill indicate his
psychological
attitude tovard the situation or the person to vhom he is
talking.
For erample, in describing a situation in which soneotre lent some
noney to the speaker,the speaker normally erpresseshis gratitude or
'give (it
contentment
vith a giving verb [gfegt
to me)'or a receivrngverb
morav'(l)receive(itfron anon-speaker)'as
a supportingverb, as in (10).
'corne(to
He may alsouseanothersupportingverb k-uru
me)', as in ( I I ),
indicatingthat the loan vas made by the agent'svish but not his: it could
inply the agent'sforcefulnessor the speaker'satrooyance.
(10)a.Tomva (vatashi ni) okane o kash-ite-kure-ta.
Top.
I
Dat. money Acc. l6nd{er-give-past.
'Tom
lent tne ooney ( and I am grateful for that)".
92
b. (Watashi va) Tom ni okane o kash-ite-morat-ta.
I
Top.
Dat. money Acc. lend-Ger-receive-past.
"l had Tom lend me rnooey( I am bappy about it)".
(I I ) Tomva (watashini) otane o
kash-ite-k-ita.
Top.
I Dat. money Acc. lend-Ger-come-past.
'Tom
lent me mooey (I wonder why/he is rude)."
ln the abovesituation,(l0a) is usuallythe most appropriateerpression
in Japanesepragmatics: it clearly indicates that the action vas initiared by
Too, the subject NP, and reveals the speaker'spsychologicalattitude with
the giving verb kure-ru. vbich is often glossedin Englishas "give me", since
the verb primarily indicates someone'saction of givuu to the speaker.
(l0b) is also pragmaticallyfine. However,the syotacticpositiooof the first
person and the supporting verb moraw 'receive'indicate that the speaker
had asked Tom to lend the money and is grateful to Tom. (1 I ) is
appropriate if Tom voluntarily came to lend mooey to the speaker despite
the fact that the speaker had never asked for it: this could indicate the
speaker'sannoyanceor Tom'$forcefulness.All sentencesin (10) and (ll)
for the above situation indicate either the speaker'sgratitude. initiatioo, or
annoyance.
t.2.1
Problcnr of Neutrel Erprenioat
Situetiont
for llonetory
'
As I have metrtiooedearlier, cooveotiooal and idiomatic erpressions
in Japaneseindicate that Japaneseis a "Become'language"3,
vhich prefers
agentlesscoastructions,avoiding an erplicit indication of the first person
referent, as pointed out by llegami. 0n the other hand, elpressionsfor
the above situations, i.e.. donatory aod , honorific situations, must
linguistically indicate tbe speaker'sdeictic position: it is obligatory tbat tbe
erpressions for situations involving the speater indicate the speaker's
position psychologicallyand socially.
Here,ve see a contradictionin Japanesepragmatics: oo one hand,
omission
of referenceto the agentis required and impersonalcoostructions
used suchas the intransitiveverbs eremplifiedin (4a), (6c) and (7a). 0n
the otherhand,for situationsin vhich the speakeris a recipient, the most
felicitousmeansof erpressionis to iodicate the speaker'sdeictic position.
To describesuchsituationsneutrally is a difficult task aod there does not
seento be any absolutevay to achieveit. This fact again shovs the conflict
in Japanesepargmatics. io vhich the obligatory erpression svitches
betveen"self-repression"and "self-erposure".
In the folloving, I vill discusshow to express dooatory situatioos
neutrally.
One night assumethat neutral erpressions can be automatically
achieved
by simply droppingany supporlingverb, as in ( l2).
(12)Tomva (va|ashini) okane o kash-ita.
TomTop. I
Dat. mooeyAcc.lend-past
'Ton
lent ne mooey."
'give (me)' produce
Hovever,seoteocesvithout the giving verb kure-ru
nqative comotations, because it is interpreted as significant that the
speater bas avoided the conventional erpressioo of his politeness or
gratitude
with kure-ru. In other vords. ( I2) is not a neutrale:pression.
Theconnotations
of seoteoceswithout kure-ru vary. depbndingon the
serDanlicproperties of the main verb. from iust bluntness to implicit
accusation,
as seeo in Diagram *1. For erample, verbs such as sell and
borrov semaoticallyindicate someooe'sbenefit or ioterest. That is, verbs
lite rcl[ usually indicate the benefits of both the seller and the buyer, and
verbs li.ke borrov aod lend indicate the benefit of the borrover. 0n the
otherhand,verbs such as introduce and send do not necessarilyindicate
aoyooe'sbenefit. They semanticallyindicate only actionsthemselves. I call
the former type of verb "benefactive",and the latter "non-benefactive",
simplyaslabels;nosubstantiveanalysisis implied.
tq
Diagramrl
Non-BenefactiveVerbs
BenefactiveVerbs
bluntn6ss rudeness
(lessoegative)(----
)(more negative)
As shovn in Diagram # l, when the main verb is non-benefactive,the
connotationof a sentenoevithout kure-ru can be just bluntness,seenas the
speaker'svay of speaking,doubt or at worst complaint about the situation.
0n the other hand, vben the main verb is benefactive,the connotation can
be as strongas accusationof the agentfor his actioninvolving the speaker.
Whatever the type of the main verb, the connotatioo of a sentenoe
without kure-ru is nol pleasant,though the eract nature and degree of
unpleasanlnesscannot be predictedout of cootert. As for (12), it connotes
that the speakeris definitely dissatisfiedwith the situation. The hearer
must ask furtber questions about what the speaker really mean$ by
avoidanceof normal usageof a supportingverb; for erample, "What do you
'You
fieao by that?l", "What'svrong vith that?",
didn't vant him to?", "ls
therE anything wroot with that?", and so forth.
In short, whether the main verb is benefactiveor non-benefactive,the
'give' produces
sentencevithout kure-ru
negative connotatibnswhen the
agent NP is the grammatical subiect and the speaker is involved as a
recipient of the agent'saction.
Then, the question arises as to hov Japaneseerpressessuch receiving
situationsobiectively. Is there aoy linguistic xray to achievethis? There
seemsto be one way to erpress the situation objectively,which is possible
only vhen the main verb is a directionalverb that implies a Path, i.e., a
verb which implicates either physical or metaphorical movemeot of
Trajector4 from Sourceto Goal. In the above elample, the movement of
money as Traiectorof lend in (12) and borrow in (13) below is from the
lender as Sourceto the borrower as Goal. The difference betveen lend and
borrow is that vhile the semantic directionality indicated by lend is
outvard vith respect to the agent,the lender, the directionality indicated
by borrov is invard with respectto the agent,the borrover. Diagram#2
illustratesthesemovements:
Diagram12
Agent
Outvard:lend the subiectNP (Source)--) the indirect objeo (Goal)
Invard:borrow the subiectNP (Goal)(--the ablativephrase(Source)
As describedfor sentence(12), vhen the agentNP is the subiect and the
first personis in oblique position, a sentencewithout a supporting verb
(vhich indicatesthat the agent's action is directed with respect to the
'give (me)')
producesnegativeconnotations.For
speaker,
suchas kureru
this structure,a supportingverb is obligatorily required and it indicatesthe
speaker'spsychologicalattitude tovard the situation. That is, it is not
neutral.A strategyfor neutral erpressionof situationslike (10)-(12) is to
placethefirst personin the subjectposition,vhich automaticallyrequires a
seoaotica[yinverseverb. If the speakeris the borrower,as in (10)-(12),
theverb borrowis reguired,as in (13). In this u/ay, a supportiagverb is
not required and the sentencedoesnot producenegative @nnotationsat all.
It indicatesthat the actionis initiated by the speakerhimself.
(13)(Watashi
va ) Tom t,ara okane o k,ari-ta.
I Top. Tom from moneyAcc.borrow-past.
"l borrovedmoneyfrom Tom."
Although{13) does not indicate that Tom initiated the action of lending
money,it alsodoesnot indicate the speaker's psychologicalattitude tovard
the situatiooerplicitly, that is, whether he is grateful or annoyed about
Tom'saction,
96
A difficulty arisesvhen the semanticnature of a verb is not benefaclive,
as with introduceand send.and vhen the verb doesnot have a semantrcally
inverse verb (in terms of its directionality) as do lend vs. borrov and sell
'send/take (someone)
vs. b!y. Tbe verb okur-u
home' is such a verb.
'take
okur-u
Since
home' doesnot have a semanticallyinverse verb. it has
to be passivisedin order to reverse the directionality. And the Japanese
passive construction often carries the connotation of adversity. The
sentencesin (l{) are both pragmaticallyguestionable.
Il4)a.??Tom u/a watashi o
uchi made okut-ta.
Tom Top.
I
Acc. home up to send-past
'Tom
took me home."
b.??Vatashi wa Tom oi
uchi-made okur-are-ta.
I
Top. Tom Agnt. house-upto send-Pass.-past
"I was taken to home by Tom."
In casessuch as the above, there does not seem to be any strategy 10
express the situation neutrally.
As I have discussed earlier, the
pragmatically most preferred and normal vay is to attach a supporting
'receive'
'give',
vefb, either morav-u
or kure-ru
indicating the speater's
gratefulnessto Tom.
Hovever, when both the lender and the borrower are third persons,this
rype of difficulty in describingthe situation doesnot arise. The speaker can
simply state the fact without any supporting verb, vhich-indicates the
speaker'spsychologicalattitude. If the lender initiated tbe action,he vould
say (l5a) and if the borrover did, (l5b).
(ti)a. Too wa Mary ni okaoe o
kasb-ita.
Tom Top. Mary Dat. money Acc. leird-past.
"Tom lent mooey toMary."
b. Mary va Tom kara okane o
kari-ta.
Mary Top. Tom from money Acc. borrov-past
"Mary borroved moneyfrom Tom."
Thisseemsto indicate that difficulty in producingneutral erpressions
arises only vhen descibing situations in vhich the speaker himself is
direOly involved and vhich involve the benefit of the speaker and/or a
third person.This may indicate that linguisric "self-erposure"is required
pragmaticswhen the speakeris a recipient of someone'saction,
in Japanese
contradictingthe usual pragmatic preference of Japaneseas a Becomelanguage.
3.3 The Conceptuel Directionelity of Persives
Thelast erample of "self-exposure"in this paper is use of the passrve
construction,
althoughI an not sure if this can be considereda pragmatic
case.My argumenthere is to point out that the first person manifestsitself
passives,and that passivesare chosenfor pragmatic purposes.
in Japanese
Arati (19E0, l9E3) suggeststhat the conceptof "passive"seerDsto be
derivedfron the Japanesephilosophicalconcept of "out-of-controlness".
Theimplicationthat the Japanesepassiveconstructioncarriesis "adversity".
Forerample,in Japanese,
there are two ways to expresssomeone'sfather's
death,asin ( l5): ( | 6a) is a descriptionof the fact and ( l6b ) indicateshis
emotionalsufferiog from the fact by usiog the passive cbnstruction in
Japaoese.
(15)a. Ctrichi
Ba sin-da.
my father Nom. die-pst.
"my father died"
"my father died on me"
b. Chichi oi sin-are-ta.
my fatber Agnt. die-Pass.-pst.
In my analysis, the conceptual directionality that the passive
coostructioo
implies seemsto be tovard the speaker,that is. it is not vhat
the speakercan control. Thus. it may be said that use of the passive
98
coosuuction indicates the speaker'sludgmeot of an event as uo@ntrollable
for him. In other vords. because of his helplessnesstovard an
uncontrollable matter, he perceives it as adversity. Use of tbe passive
indicatesthat the speaker perceivesthe fact as being uncontrollableand
thus, as being adversative.becausethe directionalityof passivesis directed
to the recipient,namely, the subiectNP. Erample (17) may erplicate the
point that I am making: the passivesindicate the speaker's psychological
attitude tovard an event vhich he describes. When sotneonehas been
caughtin the rain, he could erpressthe event in a somehov neutral vay as
in ( l7a) or vith a passiveconstruction,which clearly indicateshis feeling of
suffering,as in ( l7b).
(l7la. Ame ga fut-te. oure-ta.
rain Nom. fall-Ger. get vet-past
"Becauseit rained, I got vet."
b. Ame ni
fur-are-ta.
rain Agnt. fall-Pass.-pasl
"It rarnedon me."
The adversity is iodicated by the use of the passive construction even in
describing someoneelse's affairs. For erample, the speaker knows that
someooesav Ton's room. Tom may not have minded it. Hovever, use of
the passive@nstruction as in (18) indicates that at least the speaker is
annoyedby Tom'sroorn being seenby Jim.
(18) Tom wa Jin ni
mi-rare-ta.
heya o
Tom Top. Jim Agnt. room Acc. see-Pass.-past
"As for Tom,his room was seenby Jim."
(18) does not indicate that Tom did not like Jim to have seen his room.
Rather,it iadicatesthat the speater is botheredby the fact.
99
The Japanesepassive conslruction does not alvays indicate such
adversityor the speaker'soegative iudgment tovard the situation. This
alsodependsoa the semanticnature of t"heverbs, For erample, the passive
'please'
'praise'
forn of verbs sucb as home-ru
does no1
and yorokob-u
indicate aoy sense of adversity at all. It can indicate tbe speaker's
sotetrtmentaboutthe situationsthat he describes.Someexamplesare as
follovs:
sensei ni
bomer-are-ta.
{19)a.Toshiova
Toshio Top. teacher Agt. praise-Pass.-past
"Toshiovas praisedby the teacher."
b. Haha oi seetaa o age-te. totemo yorokob-are-ta.
please-Pass.-past
mother Agt. wearer Acc.give-Ger,lot
"(l)gave a sweaterto my mother,aod sher/as very happy
(Lit. .....,and I vas pleasedby my mother)."
If Toshioin (l9a) is the speaker'schild, it certainlyindicatesthe speaker's
happiness.(l9a) can also be a neutral descriptionof afact. Hovever, it
doesnot indicateany adversity,becauseof the semanticnature of the verb
"praise",vhich has positive coooolations. (l9b) also never indicates
adversity,for the same reason as in ( l9a). This fact indicates that the
semanticrature of passives is oot "adversative" but rather that "the
conceptualdirection of an action is uncontrollably directed tovard the
recipientor the speaker".
{ Concluding Remertr
I have briefly demonstratedtbe Japanesepragmatic preferencefor
"self-repression"
and the obligatory casesof "self-erposure"for pragmatic
purposes:Japaneseprefer erpressingao incident in a detachedmaoner,not
mentroningthe agent especiallyvhen the speaker talks about himself,
vhile it is obligatory in Japaneseto indicate the speaker'sdeictic position
whenhe talks about situationsin vhich he is a recipient or beneficiary.
100
I have discussedthree eramples of obligatory linguistic manilestationsof
the lirst person. One is the most commonly knovn erample: the use of
honorifics is required in various social contelts, indicating the speaker's
social and psychological attitude tovard the addressee or the referent.
Improper usaSeof honorifics may lead to unpleasantconsequences
in the
speaker'srelationshipwith others.
'lend'
The seconderample, Japanesedirectionalverbs such as kas-u
'borrow',
and kari-ru
has shovn that the first person clearly emergesin
the structure and lerical choice of descriptionsof situations where the
speaker is a recipient of someoneelse'saction. He normally oust indicate
his deictic position with a supporting verb, vhich indicates spatial or
psychologicatdeiris (l call this "affective deiris", seeTokuna8a,19E6for its
definition and discussion).Without suchverbs, sentencesproducenegative
connotations. I have also demonstratedthat there is no absolutestrategy
for producrnt a neutral description of such situations. These findin8s
indicate that to desctibe such situations is quite a sensitive matter in
Japanese. In such situations,the manifestationof "self" is pragmatically
preferred and often obligatory.
The third erample has alsoshovn that useof passiveconsructionsoften
or adversity,becauseof the
revealsthe speaker'sperceptionof helplessness
cooceptualdirectionality of passives,which is perceivedas uncontrollably
toward the speaker.The speakercan intentionally indicate his emotionally
negative attitude by the passiveconstruction. This is an interesting and
ironical aspect of Japanesepragmaticssince the Japaneseprimary social
value has been claimedto be "non-self". It is even more ironical vhen it is
comparedto the universal purposeof passives: the passiveconstructionis
generally consideredthe "agentless"constructionvhich makes a sentence
sound aore "impersonal",and thus, it is a universal politenessstrate8y
(Brown and Levinson,1978, 1987). This also applies to Japanese: the
passivesuffir -rare is usedto form a respectfulform. as seenin (8b), which
refers to the action of someonesuperior fo tne speaker/his in-group
member'ssuperior'saction.
ln conclusion,my analysishas led me to claim that there is a parador in
pragmatics.The distinctionbetveen "self" and "non-seil'"observed
Japanese
in my argumentcas be ertended to the socialdistioctionbetweenucil
"insider"and soto"outside". The notion of uchi "insiders"and soto
"outsiders"
seemsto be reflectedin languageuseas rigid pragmaticrules in
which determineappropriatechoicesof structuresand lerical
Japanese,
itemsin contert. In other vords, the appropriatelinguisticchoiceseens to
be madebasedon who the speakerconsidershis insider and outsider. A
pragmatically
felicitousexpressioncan be madeprinarily basedon the
distinctionbetveen "self" and "noo-self",and vhen the speakeris awareof
treatingan "insider"iusl like himself,i.e. "self",and an "outsider"as "nonsef"l.
NOTES
Actnovledgmeatr.
An earlier version of this paper vas presented at
the Ner/ York Conferenceof the Associationof Asian Studies (AAS) held at
SUM-Brockport, at a specialsessionfor Japaneselinguistics at the Western
C.onferenceof AAS held at University of Arizoaa, ar a colloquium at the
University of Rochesterand at North CarolinaState University as an invited
speech. I am deeply grateful for the comments I received at each
conferenceor meetin8. I am especially indebted to Mark Sosover of North
CarolinaState University and a reviever for their comments aad criticisms
on somecrucial arguments.
l. The notion of "noo-self" (conplete freedom from self-attachment)is
derived from Buddhism: i1 is the spiritual state that human-beingsare to
achieve. The desire for this spiritual accomplishmetrt and its value are
unconsciouslyrecognizedby the Japanese,thus the value is built into the
culture as a Japanesesocialvalue.
2. "0N" is normally understoodas "a debt of gratitude". In psychological
reality, it is a much deeper and more complicatedfeeling that the Japanese
erperienceas gratefulness.
3. I use this terminolo6yfor coovenienceto make the discussionsimpler.
4. The term Traiector is first used in Space Grammar introduced by
Langacker.1980. lt indicates an element vhich either metaphoricallyor
F*hysicallymoves. The moving element is indicatedby DOin ihe particular
situation under discussion. Space Grammar is nor/ called Cognitive
Grammar(SeeLangacker,l9E7 and Lakoff, 1987).
5. See my unpublished paper, "lutegrating pragmaticsinto the language
instruction: A rule for choice of appropriate erpressions in Japanese",
presented at C,onference
on Innovations in Teaihing Chineseand Japaneseat
RutgersUniversity in Marcb, 1988,for more discussion.
RgFERBNCBS
Araki,Hiroyuki.(1983)Nihongokara Nihonjino kangaeru(l Stuoy
of the Japanesepeoplefrom the vievpoint of their language).
un-Sha.
Tokyo: Asahi-Shinb
(1983) KeigoNihonjinRon (Honorifics:
the Japanese).
Kyoto;PHP Kenkyuu-fo.
Brovn,P.& Levinson,S.( 1978)"Universalsin lan8uageusage:Politeness
phenomena."
in E.Goody(ed.)0uestionsand polileness;Slralegies-ln
socialinteraction.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
(1987)Politeness:Someuniversalsin langpageusaee.Cambridge:
CanbridgeUniversityPress.
Contrastiveness, Definiteness,
Chafe,
WallaceL. { | 976) "Givenness,
Subiects,
Topics,'and
Pointof Viev" In Li ted.)Subjectand
Topic.Nev York:AcdemicPress:25-55.
(1973)
Doi,Talieo.
International.
Ltd.
. Tokyo:Kodansha
Goldstein,
B.& Tamura,K..( | 975) Jagan& America: A Comparative
and Culture.Tokyo: The CharlesE.Tuttle Co.,
Studyin Language
Inc.
_
Halle.Morris,J.Bresnan& G.Miller (eds.).( 1978)I ineuisticTheory
andPsLcholoeical
Reality. CambridBe:The MIT Press.
Ikegami,
Yoshihiko.
{ l98l ) "Suru"to "Naru"no Gengo-gaku:Gengoto
Bunkano TaiDologiie no shiron. (Linguistigsof "Do"and
"Become":
A tentative typological analysisof languageand
culture).Tokyo:Taishuukan.
104
( 1982) "HyoogenKoozoono Hikatu: Suruteki na Bengoro
Naruteki na geogo"(A comparisonin the mechanismof
erpression:Do-languageand Become-language).
In Kunihiro
(ed.)Nichi-Ei-GoHikaku KoozaVol.4:Hassooto Hyoogen
(ComparativeStudiesof Japaneseand EnlishVol.4:Conception
and Erpression).
Tokyo:Taishuukan.67-109.
Jacobsen,Wesley.( l98l ) Transitivity in the JapaneseVerbal System.
Ph.D.dissertation.The University of Chicago.(Publishedby Linguistics
Club,University of Indiana, 1982).
Jackendoff.Ray.( I 983) Semanticsand Cognition.Cambridge:The MIT
Press.
Kuno,Susumu.( 1978)Danwano Fumpoo(Grammarof Discourse).
Tokyo:Taishuukan.
( l9E7) FunctioqalSyntar: AnaDhora.niscourseand
Empathy. Chicago:The University of ChicagoPress.
Lakoff,George.(1987) Women Fire.and ltangerousThings:What
CategoriesRevealabout the Mind. Chicago:
The University of
ChicagoPress.
Langacker,
Ronald.( 1987)Foundations
of CognitiveGrammarVol. I:
TheoreticalPrerequisites.Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press.
Lavler, John.(1980)"Noteson FrameSemantics".
In The Univirsity
the Air. PeripheralVisionCente..
(I984) "Semantics,
Metaphors,and Commercial
Transactions".(unpublisbedpaper).
Tokunaga,Misato.( 1985) " A Strategyfor Obiehive Erpressionsin
In Journalof AsianCultureVol.9:l8l-198.
Japanese".
GraduateStudiesin Asian Studiesat UCLA.
t l9E6) Affective Deiris in Jag3nese'A CaseStudt of
DireqtionalVerbs. Ph.D.dissertation. The University of
Michigan.
(1987)"Dicbotomyin the Structureof Hooorificsof Japanese",
presentedat HonorificsConferenceat Portland State University and
ReedCollete.
( 1988)"lntegrating Pragmaticsinto the LanguageInsructioo: A
Rulefor Choiceof Appropriate Erpressionsio Japanese".
(unpublishedpaper). Presentedal Conferenceon Innovationsin
Teaching
Chineseand Japaneseat RutgersUniversity,March, 1988.