Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Applicability of Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory to a Non-Western Culture: Evidence From Japanese Facework Behaviors

Applicability of Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory to a Non-Western Culture: Evidence From... To examine applicability of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory to facework in a non-Western culture, we conducted a questionnaire survey of native Japanese speakers. A rank order of influences on facework behavior was investigated among the five factors: (a) intrinsic factor (R ; that is, effects caused by difference in settings), (b) contextual factor (R ; that is, i c effects caused by difference in types of interlocutor’s contradictory attitudes), (c) power factor (P; that is, effects caused by age difference with the interlocutor), (d) distance factor (D; that is, effects caused by difference in familiarity with the interlocutor), and (e) gender factor (G; that is, whether the participant is male or female). Results revealed that factors related to the intrinsic content of the situation (R ) and the interlocutor’s attitudes (R ) had stronger influences than those of the i c inter- and intrapersonal factors of P, D, and G. Based on these findings, we conclude that Brown and Levinson’s formula is applicable to a non-Western culture, Japan. Keywords facework, Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, Japanese, face-saving, face-threatening This replication study applies the politeness theory proposed with seniors and/or strangers. According to Ide’s interpreta- by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) to social interaction tion, honorific usages represent facework or politeness among native Japanese speakers. Following Goffman (1955, behaviors in the Japanese language, and hence Japanese 1967), Brown and Levinson assume that the motivation people are scarcely able to select spontaneous facework behind facework behavior is a human universal trait, whereas (politeness) strategies, which Brown and Levinson’s (1978, there are cultural differences in the way that particular face- 1987) formula predicts on the basis of estimation of an FTA work behaviors are realized. Although several empirical to the interlocutor. This study is, then, an empirical investi- studies (e.g., Bond, Wan, Keung, & Giacalone, 1985; Cous- gation of whether native Japanese speakers are free to adopt ins, 1989; Hofstede, 1980; Kim-Jo, Benet-Martinez, & Ozer, facework behaviors with the interlocutor. For this purpose, 2010; Leung, 1988; Merkin, 2006; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991; we analyze effects of multiple factors influencing exchanges Wheeler, Reis, & Bond, 1989) have supported their assump- among native Japanese speakers, with reference to the tion, some Japan-based researchers have continuously criti- Brown and Levinson’s formula. cized Goffman’s and Brown and Levinson’s models, In a landmark series of studies, Goffman (1955, 1967) claiming that they are Western-biased (Hill, Ide, Ikuta, introduced the concept of “facework,” or the process of face Kawasaki, & Ogino, 1986; Ide, 1989, 2006; Matsumoto, being threatened or saved in individual social interactions, 1988, 2003). They disagree with Brown and Levinson’s with “face” defined as the positive social value a person ef- model in which individuals select politeness strategies by fectively claims for himself or herself (Goffman, 1967, p. 5). using three factors to estimate the weight of a face-threaten- According to Goffman, it is universal that any individual has ing act (FTA) to the interlocutor. These Japanese researchers propose that people in National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Aichi, Japan Japanese culture emphasize fixed social relationships based Nagoya University, Aichi, Japan Reitaku University, Chiba, Japan on hierarchical power structures (i.e., seniority systems). Ide (1989, 2006) called the system “discernment” or “waki- Corresponding Author: mae” in which Japanese people are obliged, in every utter- Sachiko Kiyama, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, 35 ance, to use addressee honorifics, such as “-desu,”-masu,” Gengo, Morioka-cho, Ohbu, Aichi 474-8522, Japan and “gozaimasu” so that they can keep appropriate relations Email: skiyama@ncgg.go.jp 2 SAGE Open face and wants it to be acknowledged by other members of when it is addressed to seniors and/or strangers, irrespective society. As face can only be acknowledged by others, we of topic matter or referent. However, Fukada and Asato make an effort to acknowledge other members’ faces, with (2004) and Takiura (2005, 2008) demonstrated that whether the expectation that ours will in return be acknowledged by Japanese speakers are forced to attach honorifics depends on them. In other words, individuals are expected to make vertical and horizontal interpersonal relationships between efforts to save their own face and other members’ faces in the speaker and the hearer, which corresponds to factors of P interpersonal interaction. and D proposed by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987). Usami Facework can be viewed as the process in which people (2002) conducted an empirical study of speech levels (i.e., try to keep a balance between multiple persons’ faces in addressee honorifics) in Japanese based on large amounts of social encounters. Moreover, facework should be realized as actual conversation data, showing that native Japanese speak- a result of interactional effects caused by multiple factors. ers often shift speech levels from honorific forms to nonhon- These factors influencing one’s facework behaviors are effi- orific forms, even when speaking to seniors and/or strangers. ciently summarized by Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) Likewise, Saito (2010) has qualitatively demonstrated that formula in which one estimates the degree of his or her FTA Japanese subordinates spontaneously adopt nonhonorific to the interlocutor. Brown and Levinson assume that one forms (i.e., no use of addressee honorifics) if the contextual selects a politeness (i.e., face-redressing) strategy appropri- situation warrants. The above-mentioned studies suggest that ate for the degree to which an act is face-threatening (FT) to native Japanese speakers are able to make spontaneous use of the interlocutor. To estimate the degree of an FTA, they pro- honorifics to successfully maintain interpersonal relation- pose three factors using the following formula: ships, as previously indicated by Pizziconi (2003). Although Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) ground- Wx = D (S, H) + P (H, S) + Rx breaking theory of politeness includes perspectives of lan- guage form (i.e., how to say) and contents of utterance (i.e., where Wx is the weight of an FTA, D refers to the distance what to say), previous studies mainly focused on speech (D) between somebody and the interlocutor, P refers to the forms of honorifics. However, to truly confirm the universal- power (P) the interlocutor has over him or her, and R refers ity of the Brown and Levinson theory, it is also necessary to to the value that measures the degree to which the FTAx is conduct empirical investigations of politeness focusing on rated as an imposition in that culture (i.e., ranking of imposi- contents of utterance by non-Western people. This study, tion [R]; Brown & Levinson, 1987). Brown and Levinson therefore, attempts to examine whether native speakers of state that these three factors are all relevant and at the same Japanese freely engage in facework, by conducting a con- time independent. Consequently, their framework predicts tent-based analysis. In particular, we analyze effects of mul- that these factors interact to determine how people engage in tiple factors influencing native Japanese speakers’ selections facework. of agreement/disagreement to the interlocutor’s preceding This formula is supported by several empirical studies utterance, with reference to Brown and Levinson’s formula based not only on an investigation of American (i.e., Western) that predicts the weight of an FTA. participants (Baxter, 1984; Lim & Bowers, 1991) but also on According to Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), these a cross-cultural comparison between American (i.e., Western) three factors can be viewed in various ways. P is assessed as and Korean (i.e., Far Eastern) participants (Holtgraves & being great because the interlocutor is eloquent and influen- Yang, 1990). However, some Japan-based researchers (Hill tial, and D is usually a measure of social distance between et al., 1986; Ide, 1989, 2006; Matsumoto, 1988, 2003) speaker and hearer. The present quantitative study adds some disagree with Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) theory in specific attributes in terms of P and D to the hypothetical which actors select politeness strategies by estimating multi- interlocutors who will appear in our questionnaire. By doing ple factors. They argue that the honorific usages represent this, we depict a rank order of strength among multiple fac- facework or politeness behaviors in the Japanese language, tors. In this study, we will assume P as age differences among and hence Japanese people are rarely able to use spontaneous the interlocutors, and D as differences in familiarity between politeness strategies other than honorific expressions. a participant and the hypothetical interlocutor. The Japanese language, unlike European languages, has a Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) subsumed all variables distinction of referent honorifics that are used for referred influencing facework other than P and D into R and render- contents and persons (e.g., verbs such as “nasaru” and “itasu” ing the conceptualization of R as abstract. As they explain R with meanings of “honorably do” and “humbly do,” respec- as “culturally and situationally defined ranking of imposi- tively) and addressee honorifics (e.g., copulas such as tions,” it is clear that R includes situational factor together “-desu” and “-masu”) that represent a grammatical encoding with cultural factor. For the purpose of a specific analysis of to directly reflect interpersonal relationships between the the rank order of strength among multiple factors influencing speaker and the hearer (e.g., Kim, 2006; Martin, 1964; facework behaviors, the effect of cultural factor should be Takiura, 2005, 2008; Tokieda, 1939; Wetzel, 2004). In fact, investigated independently from that of situational factor. In “-desu” and “-masu” should be attached to every utterance this study focusing on the single culture of Japan, we assume Kiyama et al. 3 the R factor specifically as a situational factor, as an indepen- of the FTA can vary depending on whether actors have rights dent predictor candidate of facework behaviors. and/or obligations to perform the act. In other words, the R In Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) formula to esti- of an FTA in a particular culture is determined not only by the mate the weight of an FTA, the initial two factors of D and P intrinsic content of a situation but is also influenced by how deal with person-to-person relationships, although the third actors are related to the situation. Following the description factor of R of the act is rather vague. Previous studies on by Brown and Levinson, this study distinguishes the R factor speech acts have reported different operations of facework into two further subfactors: (a) the intrinsic content of a situ- depending on relationships between the speaker and the ation (i.e., intrinsic factor, R ) and (b) the preceding attitude hearer (see Holtgraves, 2009). Furthermore, many studies that the interlocutor adopts (i.e., contextual factor, R ). have generally supported Lakoff’s (1975) hypothesis that The second hypothesis is concerned with the R , which women are politer (i.e., hearer oriented) than men (e.g., refers to the content of a situation. Some previous studies Bodine, 1975; Ervin-Tripp, 2001; Fox, Bukatko, Hallahan, & have reported that the content of a situation affects one’s Crawford, 2007; Hannah & Murachver, 2007; Jenkins & facework behaviors (e.g., Dillard & Burgoon, 1985; Keck & Aube, 2002; McMillan, Clifton, McGrath, & Gale, 1977; Samp, 2007; Lustig & King, 1980; Muntigl & Turnbull, Mulac, Bradac, & Gibbons, 2001; Tannen, 1990). Several 1998; Rees-Miller, 2000; Rogan & La France, 2003). In par- empirical studies with a particular focus on speech styles by ticular, Tanaka, Spencer-Oatey, and Cray (2000) have native Japanese speakers also have provided general support observed that Japanese people, unlike Canadian and British for Lakoff’s hypothesis (e.g., Ide, 1982; Itakura & Tsui, 2004; people, likely refuse to apologize to the interlocutor unless Lauwereyns, 2002; Tamaoka, Lim, Miyaoka, & Kiyama, they accept responsibility for having committed a fault. 2010; Uchida, 1997; Usami, 2002). It suggests that gender Although Tanaka et al. themselves decline to specify any rea- (G) may also be an influential factor in addition to the three sons behind this result, one possible interpretation is that the factors assumed by Brown and Levinson. more native Japanese speakers value avoidance of an explicit If Ide (1989, 2006) is correct in the contention that native conflict, the more they would require their interlocutor to take Japanese speakers manage facework in the same way as cooperative attitude with themselves. If that is the case, it honorifics (especially addressee honorifics) used in every would cause a substantial negative reaction that when utterance to seniors and strangers regardless of what they are Japanese were certain about their innocence, they should take interacting about, then the situational factor, which Brown a severe attitude against unreasonable accusations. Likewise, and Levinson (1978, 1987) treat as R, should be insignificant MacGeorge, Lichtman, and Pressey (2002) have revealed the on Japanese facework behaviors. However, it is quite possible importance of responsibility to be the most significant influ- for Japanese speakers to make a FT remark on the use of ence on the facework behaviors for American people. Based addressee honorifics in interactions. In brief, face manage- on these studies, Hypothesis 2 is proposed as follows: ment and the use of honorifics seem to be separate issues. Several critical reviews of Ide’s discernment (wakimae) Hypothesis 2: One’s facework behaviors vary depend- theory have exemplified the process in which native Japanese ing on the intrinsic content of the situation (i.e., R ), speakers engage in spontaneous facework (Fukada & Asato, particularly depending on whether she or he feels at 2004; Pizziconi, 2003; Takano, 2005; Takiura, 2008; Usami, fault for the situation or not. 2002), which implies that Brown and Levinson’s R factor (i.e., situational factor) plays an important role in Japanese Finally, the third hypothesis is formulated concerning the social interaction. R . Pomerantz (1978, 1984) presented a model of preference To confirm whether Japanese people are able to engage in organization in which it is proposed that to one’s agreement spontaneous facework, we compare the strengths of the situ- with the interlocutor is basically a preferred action, and one’s ational factor (R factor) and other inter-/intrapersonal factors disagreement a dispreferred action. However, when the inter- (i.e., P, D, and G) influencing facework behaviors of native locutor disapproves himself or herself previously, one’s dis- Japanese speakers. Hypothesis 1 is proposed as follows: agreement may be adopted as a preferred action, whereas one’s agreement as a dispreferred action. Furthermore, when Hypothesis 1: The situational factor, which Brown a dispreferred response is selected, Pomerantz observes that and Levinson (1978, 1987) proposed as R, has a one often stumbles over his or her words and/or takes hedged stronger influence on facework behaviors of native expressions. Such hedged expressions can be explained as a speakers of Japanese, more than the interpersonal face-redressing strategy (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987), factors of P and D, and the intrapersonal factor of G with which one reduces the possible threat that such a dispre- (i.e., one is male or female). ferred response may bring about on the face of the interlocu- tor. It appears that preferred actions alternate depending on As for the factor of R, Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) context and that one can use the same utterance for the pur- further provide complex descriptions. According to them, poses of saving the interlocutor’s face and threatening it, in even in a particular FTA in a particular culture, the imposition accordance with contexts. 4 SAGE Open Based on the Pomerantz model, we assume that the effects do with anyone’s fault but was a situation concerning the of one’s selection of agreement/disagreement can alternate, election of the next leader of a club. In the setting, each par- depending on whether the interlocutor had before taken a ticipant was asked to imagine that she or he and the inter- “self-approving” or “self-disapproving” attitude. When the locutor were candidates to become the next leader of a club, interlocutor’s preceding attitude was self-approving, one’s and both were eager to get the position. In each setting, two agreement would serve as face-saving (FS), whereas one’s types of interlocutor’s utterances were shown: one self- disagreement as FT. Inversely, when the interlocutor’s pre- approving and the other self-disapproving (i.e., R ). ceding attitude was self-disapproving, one’s agreement The following question-reply sequences presented the would be FT, whereas one’s disagreement would be FS. three choices of “agreement,” “disagreement,” and “no From the above assumption, Hypothesis 3 is as follows: response” to previous utterances by the hypothetical inter- locutors. Four hypothetical interlocutors were prepared for Hypothesis 3: Effects of facework on the interlocutor each setting by a combination of P and D factors. Conditions vary depending on what attitude the interlocutor of P were differentiated between “older” as higher powered previously took (i.e., R ), particularly depending on interlocutor and “younger” as lower powered interlocutor, whether the interlocutor’s attitude was self-approv- whereas D was differentiated between “the interlocutor with ing or self-disapproving. whom you have talked much” as familiar interlocutor and “the interlocutor with whom you have not yet talked much” as unfamiliar interlocutor. In this way, P (i.e., two conditions Method of older and younger interlocutors) and D (i.e., two condi- Participants tions of familiar and unfamiliar interlocutors) were mea- sured using four (i.e., two conditions of P × two conditions The sample included 57 male and 53 female (N = 110) of D) hypothetical interlocutors per setting. As there were undergraduate and postgraduate Japanese students enrolled three types of settings (i.e., conditions of R ) and two types in universities in Chiba and Hiroshima prefectures in of the interlocutor’s utterances (i.e., condition of R ) with Japan. Their ages ranged from 18 years and 2 months to 32 four hypothetical interlocutors each, participants responded years and 7 months (M = 20.25 years; SD = 2.16 years). to a total of 24 (i.e., four hypothetical interlocutors × three All of the participants were native speakers of Japanese. conditions of R × two conditions of R ) different choices. i c All participants received financial compensation for their The full content of the questionnaire is given in English participation. translation in the appendix. Material Procedure Participants completed a survey composed of material Participants were required to select their answers as either to specifically designed for this study. To measure the R , “agree,” or to “disagree,” and reserve the selection of a “no three scenarios using different settings were presented to response” answer only when they really could not make a examine participants’ selection of agreement/disagree- decision. They were asked to imagine themselves as “you” ment, irrespective of how to express it. We prepared only in the scenarios and try to imagine what they would say three choices of “agreement,” “disagreement,” and “no before going into the answer selection. The questionnaire response” to hypothetical interlocutors in the scenarios to took about 20 min to complete. exclude confounding effects of honorific expressions on our participants’ selection of response. Analysis The three settings differed in terms of whether a fault was involved and, when it was, whether only the interlocutor was To examine the order of strength of the five factors that are at fault, or both the participant and the interlocutor were at said to influence selection of agreement/disagreement to fault. In Setting 1 where only the interlocutor was at fault, accusation (i.e., R , R , P, D, and G), the decision tree analy- i c each participant was asked to imagine that she or he was sis by SPSS Classification Trees (Version 15.0; SPSS, 2006) working part-time in a restaurant and one day an expensive was used. It aims to select a useful subset of predictors in chair had been damaged by rain because another coworker descending order from a larger set of independent variables (i.e., the interlocutor) had forgotten to shut a nearby window. with respect to a dependent variable. This tool is built on the In Setting 2 where both the participant and the interlocutor basis of CHAID, or chi-squared automatic interaction were at fault, each participant was asked to imagine that she detector, originally proposed by Kass (1980). According to or he guided a cousin (i.e., the interlocutor) to the place for a user’s guide provided by SPSS (2006), CHAID automati- relative’s wedding but they arrived late to the party because cally chooses the independent variable that has the strongest the interlocutor had been late to their appointment and the interaction with the next highest one. In the tree-growing participant got lost on the way there. Setting 3 had nothing to process, each parent node splits into child nodes only if a 5 Figure 1. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for responses of native speakers of Japanese in situations related to responsibility 6 SAGE Open Figure 2. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for responses of native speakers of Japanese in situations related to responsibility: Setting 1 where the interlocutor is at fault Note: FS = face-saving; FT = face-threatening. significant effect is found among independent variables. whereas only G is a between-participant variable. A depen- Every step for splitting nodes uses Bonferroni’s adjusted dent variable concerned the frequencies of “agreement,” p values to avoid Type I error, or “false positive,” which “disagreement,” or “no response” to the interlocutor’s pre- refers to the error of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is ceding utterance. actually true. The independent variables in the present survey were Results arranged in a 3 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 design: (a) R (i.e., three types of settings), (b) R (i.e., the interlocutor’s attitude is self- Overall Results of the Classification Tree Analysis approval/disapproval), (c) P (i.e., higher/lower powered interlocutor), (d) D (i.e., familiar/unfamiliar interlocutor), Overall, as shown in Figure 1, the results of the classifica- and (e) G (i.e., the participant is male/female). R , R , P, and tion tree analysis revealed that the R , which was assumed as i c i D are within-participant variables (i.e., repeated measures), a subfactor of R influencing facework behaviors, ranked on Kiyama et al. 7 Figure 3. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for responses of native speakers of Japanese in situations related to responsibility: Setting 2 where the participant and the interlocutor are at fault Note: FS = face-saving; FT = face-threatening. 2 2 2 the top of the classification tree (Node 0), χ (4) = 157.336, χ (2) = 58.016, p < .001, and Node 3 of Setting 3, χ (2) = p < .001. The factor of R had consistent influences on native 16.677, p < .001. The factors of P, D, and G also affected Japanese speakers’ selection of agreement/disagreement to the selection of agreement/disagreement. The whole classi- accusation among all of the three settings. The next strongest fication tree (i.e., dendrogram) including all four indepen- was the R , which was assumed as another subfactor of R, dent variables is too large to display on a single page; in the and differentiated between the interlocutor’s self-approving following sections, this single dendrogram was divided into and self-disapproving attitudes. The significant effects the three dendrograms in Figures 2, 3, and 4, which present caused by R occurred throughout all three settings, as Node detailed results of Setting 1 (i.e., the interlocutor is at fault), 1 of Setting 1, χ (2) = 16.795, p < .001, Node 2 of Setting 2, Setting 2 (i.e., the participant and the interlocutor are at 8 SAGE Open Figure 4. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for responses of native speakers of Japanese in situations related to responsibility: Setting 3 where the participant and the interlocutor compete for the position of club leader Note: FS = face-saving; FT = face-threatening. Kiyama et al. 9 fault), and Setting 3 (i.e., the election of the next leader of a Results of Classification Tree Analysis in Setting 3 club), respectively. Where Both Parties Compete for the Club Leader In Setting 3, participants competed with the interlocutor Results of the Classification Tree Analysis in to become the next leader of a club. Although the first two Setting 1 Where the Interlocutor Is at Fault settings dealt with someone’s fault, Setting 3 was concerned This was a scene in which rain blew in through an unclosed with the election for the position of club leader, which both open window at a restaurant and ruined an expensive chair. the participant and the interlocutor wanted to get. In the set- In this setting, a participant recognized that the blame should ting shown in Figure 4, in response to the interlocutor’s self- be laid at the interlocutor. As shown in Figure 2, in the case approving utterance (Node 8), “agreement” was the most of the interlocutor’s self-approving utterance, the most fre- frequent answer (47.3%), which was assumed to be FS quent selection was disagreement to the interlocutor (64.3%, response to the interlocutor. In response to the interlocutor’s Node 4), which was assumed as FT response in this case. In self-disapproving utterance (Node 9), however, there was no the case of the interlocutor’s self-disapproving utterances, dominant answer (34.1% to “agree,” 32.3% to “disagree,” disagreement was also the most frequent (50.9%, Node 5), and 33.6% “no response”). as in Node 4. However, this disagreement was assumed to Node 8 was the case of the interlocutor’s self-approving serve as FS response to the interlocutor because the inter- utterance. This was the only node that yielded child nodes of locutor admitted his or her fault. all the personal factors of P, D, and G. Node 8 split into Unlike Node 4, Node 5 generated a further split to Nodes Nodes 14 and 15 for the P factor, χ (2) = 32.428, p < .001, 10 and 11, which indicated a significant effect of the D, χ (2) both of which generated Nodes from 22 to 25 for the D fac- 2 2 = 10.104, p < .01. Furthermore, Node 11 gave a split to tor, χ (2) = 18.204, p < .001 for higher power; χ (2) = 6.054, Nodes 18 and 19, indicating a significant effect of the G, p < .05 for lower power. Node 23 further yielded Nodes 26 χ (2) = 6.154, p < .05. These results showed that participants and 27 for the G factor, indicating a partial influence by tended to react with FS utterance to familiar interlocutors familiarity and the higher power of the interlocutor, χ (2) = (57.7% FS, Node 10) more often than to unfamiliar ones 6.011, p < .05. (44.1% FS, Node 11), and that female participants (50.0% Node 9, the interlocutor’s self-disapproval, split into FS, Node 18) tended to take FS responses to unfamiliar inter- Nodes 16 and 17, both of which were concerned with the P, locutors compared with male participants (38.6%, Node 19). χ (2) = 15.221, p < .001. In this case, a significant difference occurred, indicating that participants tended to choose a FS response to the higher powered interlocutor (39.1% to “dis- Results of the Classification Tree Analysis in agree,” Node 16), whereas they tended to select a FT response Setting 2 Where Both Parties Are at Fault to the lower powered interlocutor (42.3% to “agree,” Node In this setting, a participant guided a cousin (i.e., the inter- 17). The tendency in Setting 3 that the P affected partici- locutor) to a wedding party. As shown in Figure 3, Node 6 pants’ selection of agreement/disagreement provided a sharp revealed that in response to the interlocutor’s self-approving contrast to Settings 1 and 2 concerning someone’s fault. utterance, disagreement was the most frequent answer (57.7%), which was assumed as a FT response to the inter- Review of Hypotheses locutor. In response to the interlocutor’s self-disapproving utterance (Node 7), frequent answers were disagreement (FS The survey provided support for Hypothesis 1. Both subfac- response in the case; 34.1%) and “no response” (38.0%), tors of the R (i.e., R and R ) ranked at higher levels than i c compared with agreement (FT response in the case; 28.0%). inter-/intrapersonal factors of P, D, and G. Hypothesis 2 was Node 6 split into Nodes 12 and 13, representing the effect concerned with the R , and it was supported. The classifica- of the G, χ (2) = 17.296, p < .001, and then Node 12 was fol- tion tree analysis revealed that R was the strongest predictor lowed by the D shown in Nodes 20 and 21, χ (2) = 12.566, p of participants’ selection of agreement/disagreement to < .01. Male participants tended to retort against the unfamil- accusation. All three settings of the R factor showed sig- iar interlocutor (67.1% FT, Node 13), compared with female nificant differences, which means that participants’ face- participants (47.6% FT, Node 12). Furthermore, female par- work behaviors were different depending on whether a fault ticipants likely retorted against familiar interlocutors (56.6% was involved and, when it was, whether only the interlocutor FT, Node 20) more than against unfamiliar ones (38.7% FT, was at fault, or both the participant and the interlocutor were 39.6% FS, Node 21). In response to the interlocutor’s self- at fault. Hypothesis 3 was concerned with the R , and it was disapproving utterance in Node 7, neither G factor nor D fac- generally supported. R was the second strongest predictor, tor was significant, as no further child nodes were generated following R . Participants’ selection of agreement/disagree- from the Node 7. ment to accusation almost always changed throughout the 10 SAGE Open three settings, depending on whether the interlocutor’s atti- easily determine their response to the interlocutor, without tude was self-approving or self-disapproving. considering interpersonal relationships. Tanaka et al. (2000) reported that Japanese people, unlike British and Canadian people, do not easily apologize to the interlocutor, unless Discussion they recognize their fault for the accident. The present results To confirm whether native Japanese speakers spontaneously are consistent with Tanaka et al.’s conclusions. engage in facework, this survey investigated effects of mul- In the case of the interlocutor’s self-disapproving utter- tiple factors influencing selection of agreement/disagreement ance, however, it reveals that participants tend to disagree to the interlocutor’s accusation with contradictory attitudes. with the interlocutor (Node 5 in Figure 2 and Node 7 in With reference to Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) for- Figure 3). Because disagreement with the interlocutor’s self- mula that predicts the weight of an FTA, we conducted a disapproving utterance is assumed to be FS response to the classification tree analysis to investigate a rank order of sig- interlocutor, the result suggests that participants seem to nificance among the five factors: (a) R (i.e., effects caused refrain from further blaming the interlocutor who admits his by difference in settings), (b) R (i.e., effects caused by dif- or her fault. This tendency is stronger in Setting 1 where only ference in types of interlocutor’s contradictory attitudes), (c) the interlocutor is at fault (50.9% disagreement, Node 5) than P (i.e., effects caused by age difference with the interlocutor), in Setting 2 where both the participant and the interlocutor are (d) D (i.e., effects caused by difference in familiarity with the at fault (34.1% disagreement, Node 7). Goffman (1955, 1967) interlocutor), and (e) G (i.e., whether the participant is male maintained that mutual acceptance is the basis of social inter- or female). The results revealed that factors concerning the actions, and people tend to try to agree with the interlocutor, intrinsic content of the situation (i.e., R ) and the interlocu- even though the agreement is only “lip service.” The results tor’s attitudes (i.e., R ) had stronger influence than those of of this study support this view. Our Japanese participants try the inter- and intrapersonal factors such as P, D, and G. to save face of the interlocutor who admits his or her fault, no Within the R, the R ranked higher than R , suggesting that matter whether the participants are at fault or not. i c the intrinsic content of the situation (R ) is the most dominant Setting 3 concerns itself with competition for the club predictor of Japanese facework behaviors, and that the inter- leader position, which is unrelated to the question of being locutor’s prior attitude is also a significant predictor. The anyone’s fault. In this setting, unlike previous two settings, factors P, D, and G had only partial influences on our par- the P has an integral effect following the effect caused by R . ticipants’ responses. The following sections examine effects In Settings 1 and 2, the most frequent selection by the partici- of the situational factors (i.e., subfactors of the R) and other pants is the same in both cases of the interlocutor’s inter-/intrapersonal factors (i.e., P, D, and G) and discuss an self-approving and self-disapproving utterances: FT response implication for the universality of Brown and Levinson’s is always the most frequent to the interlocutor’s self-approval politeness theory. (the left-side nodes in Figures 2 and 3), whereas FS response is always the most frequent to the interlocutor’s self-disap- proval (the right-side nodes in Figures 2 and 3). In Setting 3, Effects of Multiple Factors Influencing Facework however, the most frequent selection by the participants Behaviors by Native Speakers of Japanese differs depending on whether the interlocutor’s attitude is Setting 1 is a scene where only the interlocutor is at fault, self-approving or self-disapproving: In both cases of the whereas Setting 2 is a scene where both sides of the partici- interlocutor’s self-approving and self-disapproving utter- pant and the interlocutor are at fault. In both settings, it is the ances, FS response is the most frequent to the higher powered same for participants to disagree (i.e., FT response to the interlocutor (Nodes 14 and 16), whereas FT response is the interlocutor in this case) when the interlocutor is self- most frequent to the lower powered interlocutor (Nodes 15 approving (Node 4, Figure 2 and Node 6, Figure 3), suggest- and 17). This result implies that when they compete to be the ing that when they feel their faces being threatened, they get leader, Japanese people have to care about power relations motivated to retort against the interlocutor. This proportion with the interlocutor. of the disagreement answer is significantly higher in Setting Factors of D and G are also found in all three settings, 1 where the participant does not recognize his or her fault although the two factors remain in complementary positions (64.3%) than in Setting 2 where the participant recognizes to the factor of R, as well as the P in Setting 3. The question his or her fault as well as the interlocutor’s (57.7%). as to whether D or G had a stronger influence on facework In the case of the interlocutor’s self-approving utterance behaviors seems to depend on the setting. This issue should in Setting 1 where only the interlocutor is at fault, Node 4 be further explored in future research. (Figure 2), in which FT response is the most frequent, is not affected by any inter-/intrapersonal factors of P, D, and G. In Applicability of Brown and Levinson’ Formula Setting 2 where both parties are at fault, however, Node 6 to Japanese Facework Behaviors (Figure 3), in which FT response is the most frequent, is affected by factors of G and D. This result implies that when There have been criticism of the universality of Brown and Japanese people are certain about their innocence, they Levinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness theory, based on Goffman’s Kiyama et al. 11 (1955, 1967) facework model. Some Japan-based researchers the universality of Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) for- (Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989, 2006; Matsumoto, 1988, 2003) mula, which predicts facework behaviors on the basis of argue that facework behaviors of Japanese are restricted by these three factors. Furthermore, the finding that subfactors use of honorifics (especially addressee honorifics), which of R (i.e., situational factor) had stronger influences on necessarily attaches to every utterance to seniors and strangers Japanese participants’ facework than inter-/intrapersonal regardless of what they are interacting about, and hence they factors (P, D, and G) suggests that native Japanese speakers cannot engage in spontaneous facework. Despite their claims, can engage in spontaneous facework. Brown and Levinson’s however, the results of this study revealed that the intrinsic politeness theory was originally proposed to explain com- content of a situation (i.e., the R factor) has a stronger influ- municators’ motivation behind violation of Grice’s (1975) ence on facework behaviors of native speakers of Japanese, cooperative principle (CP). CP proposes that efficient com- even more than the interpersonal relationships of P and D. munication requires a speaker to be truthful, informative, This means that native speakers of Japanese can make a relevant, and clear. However, if the information to be con- choice between FS responses and FT responses, even to the veyed is FT to the interlocutor, the speaker cannot comply seniors and strangers. In other words, native speakers of with CP anymore. These results suggest that the factors of R, Japanese spontaneously engage in facework. P, D, and G can be useful predictors of when and how people It should also be noted that effects caused by the inter- violate CP. locutor’s contradictory attitudes (i.e., the R factor) occur Although this study has provided empirical findings and throughout all the three settings in the present survey. an implication for the universality of the Brown and Participants’ responses differ depending on whether the Levinson (1978, 1987) theory, it contains methodological interlocutor’s attitude is self-approving or self-disapproving. and theoretical limitations, some of which provide avenues When the problem arises who is at fault for the accident for future research. The questionnaire survey was limited in involved in our questionnaire, participants’ responses always scope to investigate interpersonal relationships between a differ from FS to FT, depending on whether the interlocu- person and the interlocutor. If greater differences in inter- tor’s attitude was self-approving or self-disapproving. When personal relationships such as the difference of power the problem arises as to who is at fault for the accident (i.e., between a professor and a student (e.g., Thomas, 1985) Settings 1 and 2: conditions of R ), our Japanese participants and/or the difference in distance between a stranger and an tend to console the feelings of the interlocutor who admits intimate friend (e.g., Tannen, 1981) were closely investi- his or her fault (i.e., the case of interlocutor’s self-disapprov- gated, we might identify further effects of factors influenc- ing utterance: a condition of R ). This effect of interaction ing interpersonal relationships. In addition, although this between the R and the R implies a hearer-oriented behavior study focused on the two types of interlocutor’s utterances i c by native Japanese speakers. (i.e., self-approving and self-disapproving) within the The effect caused by power relations (seniority), which has questionnaires, authentic sequences of facework behaviors been emphasized in Ide’s (1989, 2006) discernment (waki- are more complicated when observing authentic conversa- mae) theory, occurs only in Setting 3 concerning an election of tion data (e.g., Hayashi, 1996; Mori, 1999; Pomerantz, the leader. The result suggests that the seniority system based 1978, 1984; Saito, 2010; Schegloff, 2007; Takano, 2005; on age does not always influence facework behaviors among Usami, 2002). Complementary studies are necessary for native Japanese speakers. Rather, it seems that they change different organized utterances and sequences when indi- facework behaviors according to the intrinsic content of the viduals engage in facework. situation and the interlocutor’s preceding attitude. Appendix Conclusion Scenarios to Elicit Facework Behaviors by The present survey demonstrated the effects of multiple fac- Native Speakers of Japanese tors influencing facework behaviors by native speakers of Japanese. The results of a content-based analysis empirically Each of the three settings as conditions of intrinsic factor indicated that the two subfactors of the situational factor, (Ri) was followed by two types of the hypothetical inter- which represent the R termed by Brown and Levinson (1978, locutors antecedent utterance as conditions of contextual 1987), had a highly substantial influence on facework behav- factor (Rc). The hypothetical interlocutors were nested in iors by our Japanese participants. The strongest predictor was sets of relationship comprising the combination of power the intrinsic contents of situations (i.e., the R ), followed by factor (two conditions of older/younger) and distance factor the interlocutor’s contradictory attitudes (i.e., the R ). Effects (two conditions of familiar/unfamiliar). For each of the caused by interpersonal relationships of P and D and intrap- interlocutors’ utterances, three choices of self-response (to ersonal factor of participants’ G were less substantial than “agree,” to “disagree,” or “no response”) were presented. those caused by subfactors of R. Notes in parentheses were not presented to participants in The finding that subfactors of R, P, and D were all signifi- the actual questionnaire. Following is an English translation cant in Japanese participants’ facework provides support for of the scenarios that were originally written in Japanese. 12 SAGE Open enough time to get there before the beginning of the party. Setting 1 (Self-Fault Never Admitted) However, your cousin arrived late at the station, and then, You work part-time at a restaurant in a position of some you got lost on the way to the wedding. The party had importance with your coworker. You arrived at work to dis- already started when you arrived. After the party, some of cover that an expensive leather-covered chair had ruined by the older relatives made criticized both of you. the rain through a nearby window that should have been Your cousin’s utterance 1 (the interlocutor’s self-approving closed at the end of the day. You and your coworker were the attitude): last to have left there the night before. When you were about to leave, you had asked the coworker “Is everything all right We were late because [participant’s name] got lost on at our end?” The coworker answered “Yes, maybe, it’s all the way here. right.” So, you did not check the window around the coworker’s side for yourself. The restaurant manager, then, Your cousin’s utterance 2 (the interlocutor’s self-disap- asked both of you about what had happened. proving attitude): Your coworker’s utterance 1 (the interlocutor’s self- approving attitude): I’m sorry, I arrived late at the station. I thought [participant’s name] had closed the window. If the person is older than you and someone you know well: The following hypothetical interlocutors are the same as in (higher powered and familiar interlocutor) Setting 1. □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know If the person is older than you and someone you don’t know Setting 3 (Competition Over Dominance) well: (higher powered and unfamiliar interlocutor) You are a member of a student club. Today, you are at a □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know meeting to choose a club leader for next term. The candi- If the person is younger than you and someone you know dates are another member and you. The club is of some well: reputation and the club leader is a good position for making (lower powered and familiar interlocutor) contacts and creating connections on- and off campus. You □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know are eager to be the leader. The other candidate also appears If the person is younger than you and someone you don’t to be ambitious. You are both required to give a speech know well: before all the members of the club. The interlocutor is to (lower powered and unfamiliar interlocutor) speak first. □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know The other candidate’s utterance 1 (the interlocutor’s Your coworker’s utterance 2 (the interlocutor’s self- self-approving attitude): disapproving attitude): I’m sorry, I didn’t close it. I have some prior experience on this kind of position, If the person is older than you and someone you know well: so I can do the job much better, I am sure. (higher powered and familiar interlocutor) □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know The other candidate’s utterance 2 (the interlocutor’s self- If the person is older than you and someone you don’t know disapproving attitude): well: (higher powered and unfamiliar interlocutor) I think [participant’s name] will do the job better than □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know me. If the person is younger than you and someone you know well: (lower powered and familiar interlocutor) The following hypothetical interlocutors are the same as in □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know Setting 1. If the person is younger than you and someone you don’t Acknowledgments know well: The authors would like to express their gratitude to Shingo (lower powered and unfamiliar interlocutor) Tokimoto, Kieran G. Mundy, Michael P. Mansbridge, and Yayoi □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know Miyaoka as well as two anonymous reviewers of the SAGE Open for their valuable comments and suggestions on previous versions Setting 2 (Fault Somehow Admitted Both by of this article. the Interlocutor and the Self) Declaration of Conflicting Interests Today, you are going to attend the wedding of a relative of yours. You are supposed to direct your cousin there, meeting The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to your cousin at the station at an appointed time, allowing the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Kiyama et al. 13 Funding Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. International differ- ences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This study was sup- Holtgraves, T. (2009). Face, politeness and interpersonal variables: ported by JSPS KAKENHI Grants 24652080 and 23320106. Implications for language production and comprehension. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communica- References tion, and social interaction (pp. 198-207). London, England: Baxter, L. A. (1984). An investigation of compliance-gaining as Equinox. politeness. Human Communication Research, 10, 427-456. Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross- cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based Bodine, A. (1975). Sex differentiation in language. In B. Thorne on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and domi- 719-729. nance (pp. 130-151). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Ide, S. (1982). Japanese sociolinguistics politeness and women’s Bond, M. H., Wan, K. C., Keung, K., & Giacalone, R. A. (1985). language. Lingua, 57, 357-385. How are responses to verbal insults related to cultural collectiv- Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected ism and power distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol- aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8, ogy, 16, 111-127. 223-248. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Ide, S. (2006). Wakimae no Goyooron [Pragmatics of wakimae]. Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan. politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cam- Itakura, H., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Gender and conversational bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. dominance in Japanese conversation. Language in Society, 33, Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in 223-248. language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jenkins, S. S., & Aube, J. (2002). Gender differences and gender- Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the related constructs in dating aggression. Personality and Social U.S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124-131. Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1106-1118. Dillard, J. P., & Burgoon, M. (1985). Situational influences on the Kass, G. V. (1980). An exploratory technique for investigating large selection of compliance-gaining messages: Two tests of the pre- quantities of categorical data. Applied Statistics, 29, 119-127. dictive utility of the Cody-McLaughlin typology. Communica- Keck, K. L., & Samp, J. A. (2007). The dynamic nature of goals tion Monographs, 52, 289-304. and message production as revealed in a sequential analysis Ervin-Tripp, S. (2001). The place of gender in developmental prag- of conflict interactions. Human Communication Research, 33, matics: Cultural factors. Research on Language and Social 27-47. Interaction, 34, 131-147. Kim, A. H. (2006). Grammaticalization in sentence-final politeness Fox, A. B., Bukatko, D., Hallahan, M., & Crawford, M. (2007). marking in Korean and Japanese. In S. Kuno, I-H. Lee, J. Whit- The medium makes a difference: Gender similarities and dif- man, J. Maling, Y.-S. Kang, P. Sells & H-S. Sohn (Eds.), Har- ferences in instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social vard studies in Korean linguistics (pp. 72-85). Seoul, Korea: Psychology, 26, 389-397. Hanshin. Fukada, A., & Asato, N. (2004). Universal politeness theory: Appli- Kim-Jo, T., Benet-Martinez, V., & Ozer, D. J. (2010). Culture and cation to the use of Japanese honorifics. Journal of Pragmatics, interpersonal conflict resolution styles: Role of acculturation. 36, 1991-2002. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 264-269. Goffman, E. (1955). On facework: An analysis of ritual elements in Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York, NY: social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231. Harper & Row. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face Lauwereyns, S. (2002). Hedges in Japanese conversation: The behavior. New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor. influence of age, sex and formality. Language Variation and Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Change, 14, 239-259. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of collective avoidance. (pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 125-136. Hannah, A., & Murachver, T. (2007). Gender preferential responses Lim, T., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework, solidarity, approbation, to speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 274- and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415-450. Lustig, M. W., & King, S. W. (1980). The effect of communication Hayashi, T. (1996). Politeness in conflict management: A con- apprehension and situation on communication strategy choices. versation analysis of dispreferred message from a cognitive Human Communication Research, 7, 74-82. perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 227-255. MacGeorge, E. L., Lichtman, R. M., & Pressey, L. C. (2002). The Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T. (1986). Uni- evaluation of advice in supportive interactions: Facework and versals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from contextual factors. Human Communication Research, 28, 451- Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347-371. 14 SAGE Open Martin, S. E. (1964). Speech levels in Japan and Korea. In D. Hymes Takiura, M. (2008). Politeness nyuumon [An introduction to polite- (Ed.), Language in culture and society: A reader in linguistics ness]. Tokyo, Japan: Kenkyusha. Tamaoka, K., Lim, H., Miyaoka, Y., & Kiyama, S. (2010). Effects and anthropology (pp. 407-415). New York, NY: Harper & Row. of gender-identity and gender-congruence on levels of polite- Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of Face: ness among young Japanese and Koreans. Journal of Asian Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, Pacific Communication, 20, 23-45. 403-426. Tanaka, N., Spencer-Oatey, H., & Cray, E. (2000). “It’s not my Matsumoto, Y. (2003). Reply to Pizziconi. Journal of Pragmatics, fault”: Japanese and English responses to unfounded accusa- 35, 1515-1521. tions. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Manag- McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W. S. (1977). ing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 75-97). London, Women’s language: Uncertainty of interpersonal sensitivity and England: Continuum. emotionality? Sex Roles, 3, 545-559. Tannen, D. (1981). Indirectness in discourse: Ethnicity as conversa- Merkin, R. S. (2006). Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A test tional style. Discourse Processes, 4, 221-238. of the Hofstede model. International Journal of Intercultural Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creat- Relations, 30, 213-228. ing involvement in best friends’ talk. Discourse Processes, 13, Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japa- 73-90. nese: Connective expressions and turn construction. Philadel- Thomas, J. (1985). The language of power. Journal of Pragmatics, phia, PA: John Benjamins. 9, 765-783. Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). Empirical support Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis S., & Nishita, T. (1991). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of male/female language differences. Human Communication of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. Research, 27, 121-152. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275-296. Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and Tokieda, M. (1939). Keigo-hou oyobi Keiji-hou no kenkyu [A study Facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225-256. of usages of referent and addressee honorifics]. Gobun Ronso, Pizziconi, B. (2003). Re-examining politeness, Face and the Japa- [Journal of Linguistics and Literature] 8. (Reprinted from Bon- nese language. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1471-1506. pou-/bunshou-ron [Studies of grammar and written discourse], Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the coop- pp. 23-64, by E. Tokieda, 1975, Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Shoten) eration of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies Uchida, N. (1997). Kaiwa-kōdō ni mirareru seisa [Sex differences in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79-112). in conversational behaviors]. In S. Ide (Ed.), Joseigo no sekai New York, NY: Academic Press. [The world of women’s language] (pp. 74-93). Tokyo, Japan: Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Meiji Shoin. Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Usami, M. (2002). Discourse politeness in Japanese conversation: Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Some implications for a universal theory of politeness. Tokyo, Studies in conversation analysis (pp.75-101). Cambridge, UK: Japan: Hituzi Syobo. Cambridge University Press. Wetzel, P. J. (2004). Keigo in modern Japan: Polite language from Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagree- Meiji to the present. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. ment. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1087-1111. Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-indi- Rogan, R. G., & La France, B. H. (2003). An examination of the vidualism in everyday social life: The middle kingdom and the relationship between verbal aggressiveness, conflict manage- melting pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, ment strategies, and conflict interaction goals. Communication 79-86. Quarterly, 51, 458-469. Saito, J. (2010). Subordinates’ use of Japanese plain forms: An Bios examination of superior-subordinate interactions in the work- place. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3271-3282. Sachiko Kiyama obtained her PhD in linguistics at Reitaku Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A University, Japan, in 2011 and is currently a research associate at prime in conversation analysis Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cam- Functional Brain Imaging Lab, Department of Gerontechnology, bridge University Press. National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Japan. She is SPSS. (2006). SPSS classification trees (Version 15.0) [Computer engaged in neuroscience of age-related change in pragmatic phe- software and manual]. Chicago, IL: Author. nomena in Japanese. Takano, S. (2005). Re-examining linguistic power: Strategic uses of directives by professional Japanese women in positions of Katsuo Tamaoka holds a PhD from the University of Saskatchewan, authority and leadership. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 633-666. Canada, and is a professor at the Graduate School of Languages and Takiura, M. (2005). Nihon no keigo-ron: Politeness riron kara no Cultures, Nagoya University, Japan. His research interests include sai-kentou [Theories of Japanese honorifics: Re-examination in psycholinguistics, cognitive psychology, second-language acquisition, terms of politeness theory]. Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan. and corpus studies. He has published various articles in international Kiyama et al. 15 journals, including Journal of East Asian Linguistics, Psychonomic linguistics and communication studies. He is the author of Nihon Bulletin and Review, and Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. no keigo-ron: Politeness riron karano sai-kento [Theories of Japanese honorifics: Re-examination in terms of politeness theory] Masato Takiura is a professor at College of Foreign Studies, (2005, Tokyo: Taishukan) and Politeness nyumon [An introduction Reitaku University, Japan. His research interests include Japanese to politeness] (2008, Tokyo: Kenkyusha), among others. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

Applicability of Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory to a Non-Western Culture: Evidence From Japanese Facework Behaviors

Kiyama, Sachiko; Tamaoka, Katsuo; Takiura, Masato
SAGE Open , Volume 2 (4): 1 – Dec 17, 2012
Download PDF
15 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/applicability-of-brown-and-levinson-s-politeness-theory-to-a-non-aEVjmKwTe8

References (76)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244012470116
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

To examine applicability of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory to facework in a non-Western culture, we conducted a questionnaire survey of native Japanese speakers. A rank order of influences on facework behavior was investigated among the five factors: (a) intrinsic factor (R ; that is, effects caused by difference in settings), (b) contextual factor (R ; that is, i c effects caused by difference in types of interlocutor’s contradictory attitudes), (c) power factor (P; that is, effects caused by age difference with the interlocutor), (d) distance factor (D; that is, effects caused by difference in familiarity with the interlocutor), and (e) gender factor (G; that is, whether the participant is male or female). Results revealed that factors related to the intrinsic content of the situation (R ) and the interlocutor’s attitudes (R ) had stronger influences than those of the i c inter- and intrapersonal factors of P, D, and G. Based on these findings, we conclude that Brown and Levinson’s formula is applicable to a non-Western culture, Japan. Keywords facework, Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, Japanese, face-saving, face-threatening This replication study applies the politeness theory proposed with seniors and/or strangers. According to Ide’s interpreta- by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) to social interaction tion, honorific usages represent facework or politeness among native Japanese speakers. Following Goffman (1955, behaviors in the Japanese language, and hence Japanese 1967), Brown and Levinson assume that the motivation people are scarcely able to select spontaneous facework behind facework behavior is a human universal trait, whereas (politeness) strategies, which Brown and Levinson’s (1978, there are cultural differences in the way that particular face- 1987) formula predicts on the basis of estimation of an FTA work behaviors are realized. Although several empirical to the interlocutor. This study is, then, an empirical investi- studies (e.g., Bond, Wan, Keung, & Giacalone, 1985; Cous- gation of whether native Japanese speakers are free to adopt ins, 1989; Hofstede, 1980; Kim-Jo, Benet-Martinez, & Ozer, facework behaviors with the interlocutor. For this purpose, 2010; Leung, 1988; Merkin, 2006; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991; we analyze effects of multiple factors influencing exchanges Wheeler, Reis, & Bond, 1989) have supported their assump- among native Japanese speakers, with reference to the tion, some Japan-based researchers have continuously criti- Brown and Levinson’s formula. cized Goffman’s and Brown and Levinson’s models, In a landmark series of studies, Goffman (1955, 1967) claiming that they are Western-biased (Hill, Ide, Ikuta, introduced the concept of “facework,” or the process of face Kawasaki, & Ogino, 1986; Ide, 1989, 2006; Matsumoto, being threatened or saved in individual social interactions, 1988, 2003). They disagree with Brown and Levinson’s with “face” defined as the positive social value a person ef- model in which individuals select politeness strategies by fectively claims for himself or herself (Goffman, 1967, p. 5). using three factors to estimate the weight of a face-threaten- According to Goffman, it is universal that any individual has ing act (FTA) to the interlocutor. These Japanese researchers propose that people in National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Aichi, Japan Japanese culture emphasize fixed social relationships based Nagoya University, Aichi, Japan Reitaku University, Chiba, Japan on hierarchical power structures (i.e., seniority systems). Ide (1989, 2006) called the system “discernment” or “waki- Corresponding Author: mae” in which Japanese people are obliged, in every utter- Sachiko Kiyama, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, 35 ance, to use addressee honorifics, such as “-desu,”-masu,” Gengo, Morioka-cho, Ohbu, Aichi 474-8522, Japan and “gozaimasu” so that they can keep appropriate relations Email: skiyama@ncgg.go.jp 2 SAGE Open face and wants it to be acknowledged by other members of when it is addressed to seniors and/or strangers, irrespective society. As face can only be acknowledged by others, we of topic matter or referent. However, Fukada and Asato make an effort to acknowledge other members’ faces, with (2004) and Takiura (2005, 2008) demonstrated that whether the expectation that ours will in return be acknowledged by Japanese speakers are forced to attach honorifics depends on them. In other words, individuals are expected to make vertical and horizontal interpersonal relationships between efforts to save their own face and other members’ faces in the speaker and the hearer, which corresponds to factors of P interpersonal interaction. and D proposed by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987). Usami Facework can be viewed as the process in which people (2002) conducted an empirical study of speech levels (i.e., try to keep a balance between multiple persons’ faces in addressee honorifics) in Japanese based on large amounts of social encounters. Moreover, facework should be realized as actual conversation data, showing that native Japanese speak- a result of interactional effects caused by multiple factors. ers often shift speech levels from honorific forms to nonhon- These factors influencing one’s facework behaviors are effi- orific forms, even when speaking to seniors and/or strangers. ciently summarized by Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) Likewise, Saito (2010) has qualitatively demonstrated that formula in which one estimates the degree of his or her FTA Japanese subordinates spontaneously adopt nonhonorific to the interlocutor. Brown and Levinson assume that one forms (i.e., no use of addressee honorifics) if the contextual selects a politeness (i.e., face-redressing) strategy appropri- situation warrants. The above-mentioned studies suggest that ate for the degree to which an act is face-threatening (FT) to native Japanese speakers are able to make spontaneous use of the interlocutor. To estimate the degree of an FTA, they pro- honorifics to successfully maintain interpersonal relation- pose three factors using the following formula: ships, as previously indicated by Pizziconi (2003). Although Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) ground- Wx = D (S, H) + P (H, S) + Rx breaking theory of politeness includes perspectives of lan- guage form (i.e., how to say) and contents of utterance (i.e., where Wx is the weight of an FTA, D refers to the distance what to say), previous studies mainly focused on speech (D) between somebody and the interlocutor, P refers to the forms of honorifics. However, to truly confirm the universal- power (P) the interlocutor has over him or her, and R refers ity of the Brown and Levinson theory, it is also necessary to to the value that measures the degree to which the FTAx is conduct empirical investigations of politeness focusing on rated as an imposition in that culture (i.e., ranking of imposi- contents of utterance by non-Western people. This study, tion [R]; Brown & Levinson, 1987). Brown and Levinson therefore, attempts to examine whether native speakers of state that these three factors are all relevant and at the same Japanese freely engage in facework, by conducting a con- time independent. Consequently, their framework predicts tent-based analysis. In particular, we analyze effects of mul- that these factors interact to determine how people engage in tiple factors influencing native Japanese speakers’ selections facework. of agreement/disagreement to the interlocutor’s preceding This formula is supported by several empirical studies utterance, with reference to Brown and Levinson’s formula based not only on an investigation of American (i.e., Western) that predicts the weight of an FTA. participants (Baxter, 1984; Lim & Bowers, 1991) but also on According to Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), these a cross-cultural comparison between American (i.e., Western) three factors can be viewed in various ways. P is assessed as and Korean (i.e., Far Eastern) participants (Holtgraves & being great because the interlocutor is eloquent and influen- Yang, 1990). However, some Japan-based researchers (Hill tial, and D is usually a measure of social distance between et al., 1986; Ide, 1989, 2006; Matsumoto, 1988, 2003) speaker and hearer. The present quantitative study adds some disagree with Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) theory in specific attributes in terms of P and D to the hypothetical which actors select politeness strategies by estimating multi- interlocutors who will appear in our questionnaire. By doing ple factors. They argue that the honorific usages represent this, we depict a rank order of strength among multiple fac- facework or politeness behaviors in the Japanese language, tors. In this study, we will assume P as age differences among and hence Japanese people are rarely able to use spontaneous the interlocutors, and D as differences in familiarity between politeness strategies other than honorific expressions. a participant and the hypothetical interlocutor. The Japanese language, unlike European languages, has a Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) subsumed all variables distinction of referent honorifics that are used for referred influencing facework other than P and D into R and render- contents and persons (e.g., verbs such as “nasaru” and “itasu” ing the conceptualization of R as abstract. As they explain R with meanings of “honorably do” and “humbly do,” respec- as “culturally and situationally defined ranking of imposi- tively) and addressee honorifics (e.g., copulas such as tions,” it is clear that R includes situational factor together “-desu” and “-masu”) that represent a grammatical encoding with cultural factor. For the purpose of a specific analysis of to directly reflect interpersonal relationships between the the rank order of strength among multiple factors influencing speaker and the hearer (e.g., Kim, 2006; Martin, 1964; facework behaviors, the effect of cultural factor should be Takiura, 2005, 2008; Tokieda, 1939; Wetzel, 2004). In fact, investigated independently from that of situational factor. In “-desu” and “-masu” should be attached to every utterance this study focusing on the single culture of Japan, we assume Kiyama et al. 3 the R factor specifically as a situational factor, as an indepen- of the FTA can vary depending on whether actors have rights dent predictor candidate of facework behaviors. and/or obligations to perform the act. In other words, the R In Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) formula to esti- of an FTA in a particular culture is determined not only by the mate the weight of an FTA, the initial two factors of D and P intrinsic content of a situation but is also influenced by how deal with person-to-person relationships, although the third actors are related to the situation. Following the description factor of R of the act is rather vague. Previous studies on by Brown and Levinson, this study distinguishes the R factor speech acts have reported different operations of facework into two further subfactors: (a) the intrinsic content of a situ- depending on relationships between the speaker and the ation (i.e., intrinsic factor, R ) and (b) the preceding attitude hearer (see Holtgraves, 2009). Furthermore, many studies that the interlocutor adopts (i.e., contextual factor, R ). have generally supported Lakoff’s (1975) hypothesis that The second hypothesis is concerned with the R , which women are politer (i.e., hearer oriented) than men (e.g., refers to the content of a situation. Some previous studies Bodine, 1975; Ervin-Tripp, 2001; Fox, Bukatko, Hallahan, & have reported that the content of a situation affects one’s Crawford, 2007; Hannah & Murachver, 2007; Jenkins & facework behaviors (e.g., Dillard & Burgoon, 1985; Keck & Aube, 2002; McMillan, Clifton, McGrath, & Gale, 1977; Samp, 2007; Lustig & King, 1980; Muntigl & Turnbull, Mulac, Bradac, & Gibbons, 2001; Tannen, 1990). Several 1998; Rees-Miller, 2000; Rogan & La France, 2003). In par- empirical studies with a particular focus on speech styles by ticular, Tanaka, Spencer-Oatey, and Cray (2000) have native Japanese speakers also have provided general support observed that Japanese people, unlike Canadian and British for Lakoff’s hypothesis (e.g., Ide, 1982; Itakura & Tsui, 2004; people, likely refuse to apologize to the interlocutor unless Lauwereyns, 2002; Tamaoka, Lim, Miyaoka, & Kiyama, they accept responsibility for having committed a fault. 2010; Uchida, 1997; Usami, 2002). It suggests that gender Although Tanaka et al. themselves decline to specify any rea- (G) may also be an influential factor in addition to the three sons behind this result, one possible interpretation is that the factors assumed by Brown and Levinson. more native Japanese speakers value avoidance of an explicit If Ide (1989, 2006) is correct in the contention that native conflict, the more they would require their interlocutor to take Japanese speakers manage facework in the same way as cooperative attitude with themselves. If that is the case, it honorifics (especially addressee honorifics) used in every would cause a substantial negative reaction that when utterance to seniors and strangers regardless of what they are Japanese were certain about their innocence, they should take interacting about, then the situational factor, which Brown a severe attitude against unreasonable accusations. Likewise, and Levinson (1978, 1987) treat as R, should be insignificant MacGeorge, Lichtman, and Pressey (2002) have revealed the on Japanese facework behaviors. However, it is quite possible importance of responsibility to be the most significant influ- for Japanese speakers to make a FT remark on the use of ence on the facework behaviors for American people. Based addressee honorifics in interactions. In brief, face manage- on these studies, Hypothesis 2 is proposed as follows: ment and the use of honorifics seem to be separate issues. Several critical reviews of Ide’s discernment (wakimae) Hypothesis 2: One’s facework behaviors vary depend- theory have exemplified the process in which native Japanese ing on the intrinsic content of the situation (i.e., R ), speakers engage in spontaneous facework (Fukada & Asato, particularly depending on whether she or he feels at 2004; Pizziconi, 2003; Takano, 2005; Takiura, 2008; Usami, fault for the situation or not. 2002), which implies that Brown and Levinson’s R factor (i.e., situational factor) plays an important role in Japanese Finally, the third hypothesis is formulated concerning the social interaction. R . Pomerantz (1978, 1984) presented a model of preference To confirm whether Japanese people are able to engage in organization in which it is proposed that to one’s agreement spontaneous facework, we compare the strengths of the situ- with the interlocutor is basically a preferred action, and one’s ational factor (R factor) and other inter-/intrapersonal factors disagreement a dispreferred action. However, when the inter- (i.e., P, D, and G) influencing facework behaviors of native locutor disapproves himself or herself previously, one’s dis- Japanese speakers. Hypothesis 1 is proposed as follows: agreement may be adopted as a preferred action, whereas one’s agreement as a dispreferred action. Furthermore, when Hypothesis 1: The situational factor, which Brown a dispreferred response is selected, Pomerantz observes that and Levinson (1978, 1987) proposed as R, has a one often stumbles over his or her words and/or takes hedged stronger influence on facework behaviors of native expressions. Such hedged expressions can be explained as a speakers of Japanese, more than the interpersonal face-redressing strategy (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987), factors of P and D, and the intrapersonal factor of G with which one reduces the possible threat that such a dispre- (i.e., one is male or female). ferred response may bring about on the face of the interlocu- tor. It appears that preferred actions alternate depending on As for the factor of R, Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) context and that one can use the same utterance for the pur- further provide complex descriptions. According to them, poses of saving the interlocutor’s face and threatening it, in even in a particular FTA in a particular culture, the imposition accordance with contexts. 4 SAGE Open Based on the Pomerantz model, we assume that the effects do with anyone’s fault but was a situation concerning the of one’s selection of agreement/disagreement can alternate, election of the next leader of a club. In the setting, each par- depending on whether the interlocutor had before taken a ticipant was asked to imagine that she or he and the inter- “self-approving” or “self-disapproving” attitude. When the locutor were candidates to become the next leader of a club, interlocutor’s preceding attitude was self-approving, one’s and both were eager to get the position. In each setting, two agreement would serve as face-saving (FS), whereas one’s types of interlocutor’s utterances were shown: one self- disagreement as FT. Inversely, when the interlocutor’s pre- approving and the other self-disapproving (i.e., R ). ceding attitude was self-disapproving, one’s agreement The following question-reply sequences presented the would be FT, whereas one’s disagreement would be FS. three choices of “agreement,” “disagreement,” and “no From the above assumption, Hypothesis 3 is as follows: response” to previous utterances by the hypothetical inter- locutors. Four hypothetical interlocutors were prepared for Hypothesis 3: Effects of facework on the interlocutor each setting by a combination of P and D factors. Conditions vary depending on what attitude the interlocutor of P were differentiated between “older” as higher powered previously took (i.e., R ), particularly depending on interlocutor and “younger” as lower powered interlocutor, whether the interlocutor’s attitude was self-approv- whereas D was differentiated between “the interlocutor with ing or self-disapproving. whom you have talked much” as familiar interlocutor and “the interlocutor with whom you have not yet talked much” as unfamiliar interlocutor. In this way, P (i.e., two conditions Method of older and younger interlocutors) and D (i.e., two condi- Participants tions of familiar and unfamiliar interlocutors) were mea- sured using four (i.e., two conditions of P × two conditions The sample included 57 male and 53 female (N = 110) of D) hypothetical interlocutors per setting. As there were undergraduate and postgraduate Japanese students enrolled three types of settings (i.e., conditions of R ) and two types in universities in Chiba and Hiroshima prefectures in of the interlocutor’s utterances (i.e., condition of R ) with Japan. Their ages ranged from 18 years and 2 months to 32 four hypothetical interlocutors each, participants responded years and 7 months (M = 20.25 years; SD = 2.16 years). to a total of 24 (i.e., four hypothetical interlocutors × three All of the participants were native speakers of Japanese. conditions of R × two conditions of R ) different choices. i c All participants received financial compensation for their The full content of the questionnaire is given in English participation. translation in the appendix. Material Procedure Participants completed a survey composed of material Participants were required to select their answers as either to specifically designed for this study. To measure the R , “agree,” or to “disagree,” and reserve the selection of a “no three scenarios using different settings were presented to response” answer only when they really could not make a examine participants’ selection of agreement/disagree- decision. They were asked to imagine themselves as “you” ment, irrespective of how to express it. We prepared only in the scenarios and try to imagine what they would say three choices of “agreement,” “disagreement,” and “no before going into the answer selection. The questionnaire response” to hypothetical interlocutors in the scenarios to took about 20 min to complete. exclude confounding effects of honorific expressions on our participants’ selection of response. Analysis The three settings differed in terms of whether a fault was involved and, when it was, whether only the interlocutor was To examine the order of strength of the five factors that are at fault, or both the participant and the interlocutor were at said to influence selection of agreement/disagreement to fault. In Setting 1 where only the interlocutor was at fault, accusation (i.e., R , R , P, D, and G), the decision tree analy- i c each participant was asked to imagine that she or he was sis by SPSS Classification Trees (Version 15.0; SPSS, 2006) working part-time in a restaurant and one day an expensive was used. It aims to select a useful subset of predictors in chair had been damaged by rain because another coworker descending order from a larger set of independent variables (i.e., the interlocutor) had forgotten to shut a nearby window. with respect to a dependent variable. This tool is built on the In Setting 2 where both the participant and the interlocutor basis of CHAID, or chi-squared automatic interaction were at fault, each participant was asked to imagine that she detector, originally proposed by Kass (1980). According to or he guided a cousin (i.e., the interlocutor) to the place for a user’s guide provided by SPSS (2006), CHAID automati- relative’s wedding but they arrived late to the party because cally chooses the independent variable that has the strongest the interlocutor had been late to their appointment and the interaction with the next highest one. In the tree-growing participant got lost on the way there. Setting 3 had nothing to process, each parent node splits into child nodes only if a 5 Figure 1. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for responses of native speakers of Japanese in situations related to responsibility 6 SAGE Open Figure 2. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for responses of native speakers of Japanese in situations related to responsibility: Setting 1 where the interlocutor is at fault Note: FS = face-saving; FT = face-threatening. significant effect is found among independent variables. whereas only G is a between-participant variable. A depen- Every step for splitting nodes uses Bonferroni’s adjusted dent variable concerned the frequencies of “agreement,” p values to avoid Type I error, or “false positive,” which “disagreement,” or “no response” to the interlocutor’s pre- refers to the error of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is ceding utterance. actually true. The independent variables in the present survey were Results arranged in a 3 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 design: (a) R (i.e., three types of settings), (b) R (i.e., the interlocutor’s attitude is self- Overall Results of the Classification Tree Analysis approval/disapproval), (c) P (i.e., higher/lower powered interlocutor), (d) D (i.e., familiar/unfamiliar interlocutor), Overall, as shown in Figure 1, the results of the classifica- and (e) G (i.e., the participant is male/female). R , R , P, and tion tree analysis revealed that the R , which was assumed as i c i D are within-participant variables (i.e., repeated measures), a subfactor of R influencing facework behaviors, ranked on Kiyama et al. 7 Figure 3. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for responses of native speakers of Japanese in situations related to responsibility: Setting 2 where the participant and the interlocutor are at fault Note: FS = face-saving; FT = face-threatening. 2 2 2 the top of the classification tree (Node 0), χ (4) = 157.336, χ (2) = 58.016, p < .001, and Node 3 of Setting 3, χ (2) = p < .001. The factor of R had consistent influences on native 16.677, p < .001. The factors of P, D, and G also affected Japanese speakers’ selection of agreement/disagreement to the selection of agreement/disagreement. The whole classi- accusation among all of the three settings. The next strongest fication tree (i.e., dendrogram) including all four indepen- was the R , which was assumed as another subfactor of R, dent variables is too large to display on a single page; in the and differentiated between the interlocutor’s self-approving following sections, this single dendrogram was divided into and self-disapproving attitudes. The significant effects the three dendrograms in Figures 2, 3, and 4, which present caused by R occurred throughout all three settings, as Node detailed results of Setting 1 (i.e., the interlocutor is at fault), 1 of Setting 1, χ (2) = 16.795, p < .001, Node 2 of Setting 2, Setting 2 (i.e., the participant and the interlocutor are at 8 SAGE Open Figure 4. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for responses of native speakers of Japanese in situations related to responsibility: Setting 3 where the participant and the interlocutor compete for the position of club leader Note: FS = face-saving; FT = face-threatening. Kiyama et al. 9 fault), and Setting 3 (i.e., the election of the next leader of a Results of Classification Tree Analysis in Setting 3 club), respectively. Where Both Parties Compete for the Club Leader In Setting 3, participants competed with the interlocutor Results of the Classification Tree Analysis in to become the next leader of a club. Although the first two Setting 1 Where the Interlocutor Is at Fault settings dealt with someone’s fault, Setting 3 was concerned This was a scene in which rain blew in through an unclosed with the election for the position of club leader, which both open window at a restaurant and ruined an expensive chair. the participant and the interlocutor wanted to get. In the set- In this setting, a participant recognized that the blame should ting shown in Figure 4, in response to the interlocutor’s self- be laid at the interlocutor. As shown in Figure 2, in the case approving utterance (Node 8), “agreement” was the most of the interlocutor’s self-approving utterance, the most fre- frequent answer (47.3%), which was assumed to be FS quent selection was disagreement to the interlocutor (64.3%, response to the interlocutor. In response to the interlocutor’s Node 4), which was assumed as FT response in this case. In self-disapproving utterance (Node 9), however, there was no the case of the interlocutor’s self-disapproving utterances, dominant answer (34.1% to “agree,” 32.3% to “disagree,” disagreement was also the most frequent (50.9%, Node 5), and 33.6% “no response”). as in Node 4. However, this disagreement was assumed to Node 8 was the case of the interlocutor’s self-approving serve as FS response to the interlocutor because the inter- utterance. This was the only node that yielded child nodes of locutor admitted his or her fault. all the personal factors of P, D, and G. Node 8 split into Unlike Node 4, Node 5 generated a further split to Nodes Nodes 14 and 15 for the P factor, χ (2) = 32.428, p < .001, 10 and 11, which indicated a significant effect of the D, χ (2) both of which generated Nodes from 22 to 25 for the D fac- 2 2 = 10.104, p < .01. Furthermore, Node 11 gave a split to tor, χ (2) = 18.204, p < .001 for higher power; χ (2) = 6.054, Nodes 18 and 19, indicating a significant effect of the G, p < .05 for lower power. Node 23 further yielded Nodes 26 χ (2) = 6.154, p < .05. These results showed that participants and 27 for the G factor, indicating a partial influence by tended to react with FS utterance to familiar interlocutors familiarity and the higher power of the interlocutor, χ (2) = (57.7% FS, Node 10) more often than to unfamiliar ones 6.011, p < .05. (44.1% FS, Node 11), and that female participants (50.0% Node 9, the interlocutor’s self-disapproval, split into FS, Node 18) tended to take FS responses to unfamiliar inter- Nodes 16 and 17, both of which were concerned with the P, locutors compared with male participants (38.6%, Node 19). χ (2) = 15.221, p < .001. In this case, a significant difference occurred, indicating that participants tended to choose a FS response to the higher powered interlocutor (39.1% to “dis- Results of the Classification Tree Analysis in agree,” Node 16), whereas they tended to select a FT response Setting 2 Where Both Parties Are at Fault to the lower powered interlocutor (42.3% to “agree,” Node In this setting, a participant guided a cousin (i.e., the inter- 17). The tendency in Setting 3 that the P affected partici- locutor) to a wedding party. As shown in Figure 3, Node 6 pants’ selection of agreement/disagreement provided a sharp revealed that in response to the interlocutor’s self-approving contrast to Settings 1 and 2 concerning someone’s fault. utterance, disagreement was the most frequent answer (57.7%), which was assumed as a FT response to the inter- Review of Hypotheses locutor. In response to the interlocutor’s self-disapproving utterance (Node 7), frequent answers were disagreement (FS The survey provided support for Hypothesis 1. Both subfac- response in the case; 34.1%) and “no response” (38.0%), tors of the R (i.e., R and R ) ranked at higher levels than i c compared with agreement (FT response in the case; 28.0%). inter-/intrapersonal factors of P, D, and G. Hypothesis 2 was Node 6 split into Nodes 12 and 13, representing the effect concerned with the R , and it was supported. The classifica- of the G, χ (2) = 17.296, p < .001, and then Node 12 was fol- tion tree analysis revealed that R was the strongest predictor lowed by the D shown in Nodes 20 and 21, χ (2) = 12.566, p of participants’ selection of agreement/disagreement to < .01. Male participants tended to retort against the unfamil- accusation. All three settings of the R factor showed sig- iar interlocutor (67.1% FT, Node 13), compared with female nificant differences, which means that participants’ face- participants (47.6% FT, Node 12). Furthermore, female par- work behaviors were different depending on whether a fault ticipants likely retorted against familiar interlocutors (56.6% was involved and, when it was, whether only the interlocutor FT, Node 20) more than against unfamiliar ones (38.7% FT, was at fault, or both the participant and the interlocutor were 39.6% FS, Node 21). In response to the interlocutor’s self- at fault. Hypothesis 3 was concerned with the R , and it was disapproving utterance in Node 7, neither G factor nor D fac- generally supported. R was the second strongest predictor, tor was significant, as no further child nodes were generated following R . Participants’ selection of agreement/disagree- from the Node 7. ment to accusation almost always changed throughout the 10 SAGE Open three settings, depending on whether the interlocutor’s atti- easily determine their response to the interlocutor, without tude was self-approving or self-disapproving. considering interpersonal relationships. Tanaka et al. (2000) reported that Japanese people, unlike British and Canadian people, do not easily apologize to the interlocutor, unless Discussion they recognize their fault for the accident. The present results To confirm whether native Japanese speakers spontaneously are consistent with Tanaka et al.’s conclusions. engage in facework, this survey investigated effects of mul- In the case of the interlocutor’s self-disapproving utter- tiple factors influencing selection of agreement/disagreement ance, however, it reveals that participants tend to disagree to the interlocutor’s accusation with contradictory attitudes. with the interlocutor (Node 5 in Figure 2 and Node 7 in With reference to Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) for- Figure 3). Because disagreement with the interlocutor’s self- mula that predicts the weight of an FTA, we conducted a disapproving utterance is assumed to be FS response to the classification tree analysis to investigate a rank order of sig- interlocutor, the result suggests that participants seem to nificance among the five factors: (a) R (i.e., effects caused refrain from further blaming the interlocutor who admits his by difference in settings), (b) R (i.e., effects caused by dif- or her fault. This tendency is stronger in Setting 1 where only ference in types of interlocutor’s contradictory attitudes), (c) the interlocutor is at fault (50.9% disagreement, Node 5) than P (i.e., effects caused by age difference with the interlocutor), in Setting 2 where both the participant and the interlocutor are (d) D (i.e., effects caused by difference in familiarity with the at fault (34.1% disagreement, Node 7). Goffman (1955, 1967) interlocutor), and (e) G (i.e., whether the participant is male maintained that mutual acceptance is the basis of social inter- or female). The results revealed that factors concerning the actions, and people tend to try to agree with the interlocutor, intrinsic content of the situation (i.e., R ) and the interlocu- even though the agreement is only “lip service.” The results tor’s attitudes (i.e., R ) had stronger influence than those of of this study support this view. Our Japanese participants try the inter- and intrapersonal factors such as P, D, and G. to save face of the interlocutor who admits his or her fault, no Within the R, the R ranked higher than R , suggesting that matter whether the participants are at fault or not. i c the intrinsic content of the situation (R ) is the most dominant Setting 3 concerns itself with competition for the club predictor of Japanese facework behaviors, and that the inter- leader position, which is unrelated to the question of being locutor’s prior attitude is also a significant predictor. The anyone’s fault. In this setting, unlike previous two settings, factors P, D, and G had only partial influences on our par- the P has an integral effect following the effect caused by R . ticipants’ responses. The following sections examine effects In Settings 1 and 2, the most frequent selection by the partici- of the situational factors (i.e., subfactors of the R) and other pants is the same in both cases of the interlocutor’s inter-/intrapersonal factors (i.e., P, D, and G) and discuss an self-approving and self-disapproving utterances: FT response implication for the universality of Brown and Levinson’s is always the most frequent to the interlocutor’s self-approval politeness theory. (the left-side nodes in Figures 2 and 3), whereas FS response is always the most frequent to the interlocutor’s self-disap- proval (the right-side nodes in Figures 2 and 3). In Setting 3, Effects of Multiple Factors Influencing Facework however, the most frequent selection by the participants Behaviors by Native Speakers of Japanese differs depending on whether the interlocutor’s attitude is Setting 1 is a scene where only the interlocutor is at fault, self-approving or self-disapproving: In both cases of the whereas Setting 2 is a scene where both sides of the partici- interlocutor’s self-approving and self-disapproving utter- pant and the interlocutor are at fault. In both settings, it is the ances, FS response is the most frequent to the higher powered same for participants to disagree (i.e., FT response to the interlocutor (Nodes 14 and 16), whereas FT response is the interlocutor in this case) when the interlocutor is self- most frequent to the lower powered interlocutor (Nodes 15 approving (Node 4, Figure 2 and Node 6, Figure 3), suggest- and 17). This result implies that when they compete to be the ing that when they feel their faces being threatened, they get leader, Japanese people have to care about power relations motivated to retort against the interlocutor. This proportion with the interlocutor. of the disagreement answer is significantly higher in Setting Factors of D and G are also found in all three settings, 1 where the participant does not recognize his or her fault although the two factors remain in complementary positions (64.3%) than in Setting 2 where the participant recognizes to the factor of R, as well as the P in Setting 3. The question his or her fault as well as the interlocutor’s (57.7%). as to whether D or G had a stronger influence on facework In the case of the interlocutor’s self-approving utterance behaviors seems to depend on the setting. This issue should in Setting 1 where only the interlocutor is at fault, Node 4 be further explored in future research. (Figure 2), in which FT response is the most frequent, is not affected by any inter-/intrapersonal factors of P, D, and G. In Applicability of Brown and Levinson’ Formula Setting 2 where both parties are at fault, however, Node 6 to Japanese Facework Behaviors (Figure 3), in which FT response is the most frequent, is affected by factors of G and D. This result implies that when There have been criticism of the universality of Brown and Japanese people are certain about their innocence, they Levinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness theory, based on Goffman’s Kiyama et al. 11 (1955, 1967) facework model. Some Japan-based researchers the universality of Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) for- (Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989, 2006; Matsumoto, 1988, 2003) mula, which predicts facework behaviors on the basis of argue that facework behaviors of Japanese are restricted by these three factors. Furthermore, the finding that subfactors use of honorifics (especially addressee honorifics), which of R (i.e., situational factor) had stronger influences on necessarily attaches to every utterance to seniors and strangers Japanese participants’ facework than inter-/intrapersonal regardless of what they are interacting about, and hence they factors (P, D, and G) suggests that native Japanese speakers cannot engage in spontaneous facework. Despite their claims, can engage in spontaneous facework. Brown and Levinson’s however, the results of this study revealed that the intrinsic politeness theory was originally proposed to explain com- content of a situation (i.e., the R factor) has a stronger influ- municators’ motivation behind violation of Grice’s (1975) ence on facework behaviors of native speakers of Japanese, cooperative principle (CP). CP proposes that efficient com- even more than the interpersonal relationships of P and D. munication requires a speaker to be truthful, informative, This means that native speakers of Japanese can make a relevant, and clear. However, if the information to be con- choice between FS responses and FT responses, even to the veyed is FT to the interlocutor, the speaker cannot comply seniors and strangers. In other words, native speakers of with CP anymore. These results suggest that the factors of R, Japanese spontaneously engage in facework. P, D, and G can be useful predictors of when and how people It should also be noted that effects caused by the inter- violate CP. locutor’s contradictory attitudes (i.e., the R factor) occur Although this study has provided empirical findings and throughout all the three settings in the present survey. an implication for the universality of the Brown and Participants’ responses differ depending on whether the Levinson (1978, 1987) theory, it contains methodological interlocutor’s attitude is self-approving or self-disapproving. and theoretical limitations, some of which provide avenues When the problem arises who is at fault for the accident for future research. The questionnaire survey was limited in involved in our questionnaire, participants’ responses always scope to investigate interpersonal relationships between a differ from FS to FT, depending on whether the interlocu- person and the interlocutor. If greater differences in inter- tor’s attitude was self-approving or self-disapproving. When personal relationships such as the difference of power the problem arises as to who is at fault for the accident (i.e., between a professor and a student (e.g., Thomas, 1985) Settings 1 and 2: conditions of R ), our Japanese participants and/or the difference in distance between a stranger and an tend to console the feelings of the interlocutor who admits intimate friend (e.g., Tannen, 1981) were closely investi- his or her fault (i.e., the case of interlocutor’s self-disapprov- gated, we might identify further effects of factors influenc- ing utterance: a condition of R ). This effect of interaction ing interpersonal relationships. In addition, although this between the R and the R implies a hearer-oriented behavior study focused on the two types of interlocutor’s utterances i c by native Japanese speakers. (i.e., self-approving and self-disapproving) within the The effect caused by power relations (seniority), which has questionnaires, authentic sequences of facework behaviors been emphasized in Ide’s (1989, 2006) discernment (waki- are more complicated when observing authentic conversa- mae) theory, occurs only in Setting 3 concerning an election of tion data (e.g., Hayashi, 1996; Mori, 1999; Pomerantz, the leader. The result suggests that the seniority system based 1978, 1984; Saito, 2010; Schegloff, 2007; Takano, 2005; on age does not always influence facework behaviors among Usami, 2002). Complementary studies are necessary for native Japanese speakers. Rather, it seems that they change different organized utterances and sequences when indi- facework behaviors according to the intrinsic content of the viduals engage in facework. situation and the interlocutor’s preceding attitude. Appendix Conclusion Scenarios to Elicit Facework Behaviors by The present survey demonstrated the effects of multiple fac- Native Speakers of Japanese tors influencing facework behaviors by native speakers of Japanese. The results of a content-based analysis empirically Each of the three settings as conditions of intrinsic factor indicated that the two subfactors of the situational factor, (Ri) was followed by two types of the hypothetical inter- which represent the R termed by Brown and Levinson (1978, locutors antecedent utterance as conditions of contextual 1987), had a highly substantial influence on facework behav- factor (Rc). The hypothetical interlocutors were nested in iors by our Japanese participants. The strongest predictor was sets of relationship comprising the combination of power the intrinsic contents of situations (i.e., the R ), followed by factor (two conditions of older/younger) and distance factor the interlocutor’s contradictory attitudes (i.e., the R ). Effects (two conditions of familiar/unfamiliar). For each of the caused by interpersonal relationships of P and D and intrap- interlocutors’ utterances, three choices of self-response (to ersonal factor of participants’ G were less substantial than “agree,” to “disagree,” or “no response”) were presented. those caused by subfactors of R. Notes in parentheses were not presented to participants in The finding that subfactors of R, P, and D were all signifi- the actual questionnaire. Following is an English translation cant in Japanese participants’ facework provides support for of the scenarios that were originally written in Japanese. 12 SAGE Open enough time to get there before the beginning of the party. Setting 1 (Self-Fault Never Admitted) However, your cousin arrived late at the station, and then, You work part-time at a restaurant in a position of some you got lost on the way to the wedding. The party had importance with your coworker. You arrived at work to dis- already started when you arrived. After the party, some of cover that an expensive leather-covered chair had ruined by the older relatives made criticized both of you. the rain through a nearby window that should have been Your cousin’s utterance 1 (the interlocutor’s self-approving closed at the end of the day. You and your coworker were the attitude): last to have left there the night before. When you were about to leave, you had asked the coworker “Is everything all right We were late because [participant’s name] got lost on at our end?” The coworker answered “Yes, maybe, it’s all the way here. right.” So, you did not check the window around the coworker’s side for yourself. The restaurant manager, then, Your cousin’s utterance 2 (the interlocutor’s self-disap- asked both of you about what had happened. proving attitude): Your coworker’s utterance 1 (the interlocutor’s self- approving attitude): I’m sorry, I arrived late at the station. I thought [participant’s name] had closed the window. If the person is older than you and someone you know well: The following hypothetical interlocutors are the same as in (higher powered and familiar interlocutor) Setting 1. □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know If the person is older than you and someone you don’t know Setting 3 (Competition Over Dominance) well: (higher powered and unfamiliar interlocutor) You are a member of a student club. Today, you are at a □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know meeting to choose a club leader for next term. The candi- If the person is younger than you and someone you know dates are another member and you. The club is of some well: reputation and the club leader is a good position for making (lower powered and familiar interlocutor) contacts and creating connections on- and off campus. You □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know are eager to be the leader. The other candidate also appears If the person is younger than you and someone you don’t to be ambitious. You are both required to give a speech know well: before all the members of the club. The interlocutor is to (lower powered and unfamiliar interlocutor) speak first. □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know The other candidate’s utterance 1 (the interlocutor’s Your coworker’s utterance 2 (the interlocutor’s self- self-approving attitude): disapproving attitude): I’m sorry, I didn’t close it. I have some prior experience on this kind of position, If the person is older than you and someone you know well: so I can do the job much better, I am sure. (higher powered and familiar interlocutor) □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know The other candidate’s utterance 2 (the interlocutor’s self- If the person is older than you and someone you don’t know disapproving attitude): well: (higher powered and unfamiliar interlocutor) I think [participant’s name] will do the job better than □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know me. If the person is younger than you and someone you know well: (lower powered and familiar interlocutor) The following hypothetical interlocutors are the same as in □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know Setting 1. If the person is younger than you and someone you don’t Acknowledgments know well: The authors would like to express their gratitude to Shingo (lower powered and unfamiliar interlocutor) Tokimoto, Kieran G. Mundy, Michael P. Mansbridge, and Yayoi □ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know Miyaoka as well as two anonymous reviewers of the SAGE Open for their valuable comments and suggestions on previous versions Setting 2 (Fault Somehow Admitted Both by of this article. the Interlocutor and the Self) Declaration of Conflicting Interests Today, you are going to attend the wedding of a relative of yours. You are supposed to direct your cousin there, meeting The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to your cousin at the station at an appointed time, allowing the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Kiyama et al. 13 Funding Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. International differ- ences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This study was sup- Holtgraves, T. (2009). Face, politeness and interpersonal variables: ported by JSPS KAKENHI Grants 24652080 and 23320106. Implications for language production and comprehension. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communica- References tion, and social interaction (pp. 198-207). London, England: Baxter, L. A. (1984). An investigation of compliance-gaining as Equinox. politeness. Human Communication Research, 10, 427-456. Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross- cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based Bodine, A. (1975). Sex differentiation in language. In B. Thorne on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and domi- 719-729. nance (pp. 130-151). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Ide, S. (1982). Japanese sociolinguistics politeness and women’s Bond, M. H., Wan, K. C., Keung, K., & Giacalone, R. A. (1985). language. Lingua, 57, 357-385. How are responses to verbal insults related to cultural collectiv- Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected ism and power distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol- aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8, ogy, 16, 111-127. 223-248. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Ide, S. (2006). Wakimae no Goyooron [Pragmatics of wakimae]. Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan. politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cam- Itakura, H., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Gender and conversational bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. dominance in Japanese conversation. Language in Society, 33, Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in 223-248. language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jenkins, S. S., & Aube, J. (2002). Gender differences and gender- Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the related constructs in dating aggression. Personality and Social U.S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124-131. Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1106-1118. Dillard, J. P., & Burgoon, M. (1985). Situational influences on the Kass, G. V. (1980). An exploratory technique for investigating large selection of compliance-gaining messages: Two tests of the pre- quantities of categorical data. Applied Statistics, 29, 119-127. dictive utility of the Cody-McLaughlin typology. Communica- Keck, K. L., & Samp, J. A. (2007). The dynamic nature of goals tion Monographs, 52, 289-304. and message production as revealed in a sequential analysis Ervin-Tripp, S. (2001). The place of gender in developmental prag- of conflict interactions. Human Communication Research, 33, matics: Cultural factors. Research on Language and Social 27-47. Interaction, 34, 131-147. Kim, A. H. (2006). Grammaticalization in sentence-final politeness Fox, A. B., Bukatko, D., Hallahan, M., & Crawford, M. (2007). marking in Korean and Japanese. In S. Kuno, I-H. Lee, J. Whit- The medium makes a difference: Gender similarities and dif- man, J. Maling, Y.-S. Kang, P. Sells & H-S. Sohn (Eds.), Har- ferences in instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social vard studies in Korean linguistics (pp. 72-85). Seoul, Korea: Psychology, 26, 389-397. Hanshin. Fukada, A., & Asato, N. (2004). Universal politeness theory: Appli- Kim-Jo, T., Benet-Martinez, V., & Ozer, D. J. (2010). Culture and cation to the use of Japanese honorifics. Journal of Pragmatics, interpersonal conflict resolution styles: Role of acculturation. 36, 1991-2002. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 264-269. Goffman, E. (1955). On facework: An analysis of ritual elements in Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York, NY: social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231. Harper & Row. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face Lauwereyns, S. (2002). Hedges in Japanese conversation: The behavior. New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor. influence of age, sex and formality. Language Variation and Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Change, 14, 239-259. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of collective avoidance. (pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 125-136. Hannah, A., & Murachver, T. (2007). Gender preferential responses Lim, T., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework, solidarity, approbation, to speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 274- and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415-450. Lustig, M. W., & King, S. W. (1980). The effect of communication Hayashi, T. (1996). Politeness in conflict management: A con- apprehension and situation on communication strategy choices. versation analysis of dispreferred message from a cognitive Human Communication Research, 7, 74-82. perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 227-255. MacGeorge, E. L., Lichtman, R. M., & Pressey, L. C. (2002). The Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T. (1986). Uni- evaluation of advice in supportive interactions: Facework and versals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from contextual factors. Human Communication Research, 28, 451- Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347-371. 14 SAGE Open Martin, S. E. (1964). Speech levels in Japan and Korea. In D. Hymes Takiura, M. (2008). Politeness nyuumon [An introduction to polite- (Ed.), Language in culture and society: A reader in linguistics ness]. Tokyo, Japan: Kenkyusha. Tamaoka, K., Lim, H., Miyaoka, Y., & Kiyama, S. (2010). Effects and anthropology (pp. 407-415). New York, NY: Harper & Row. of gender-identity and gender-congruence on levels of polite- Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of Face: ness among young Japanese and Koreans. Journal of Asian Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, Pacific Communication, 20, 23-45. 403-426. Tanaka, N., Spencer-Oatey, H., & Cray, E. (2000). “It’s not my Matsumoto, Y. (2003). Reply to Pizziconi. Journal of Pragmatics, fault”: Japanese and English responses to unfounded accusa- 35, 1515-1521. tions. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Manag- McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W. S. (1977). ing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 75-97). London, Women’s language: Uncertainty of interpersonal sensitivity and England: Continuum. emotionality? Sex Roles, 3, 545-559. Tannen, D. (1981). Indirectness in discourse: Ethnicity as conversa- Merkin, R. S. (2006). Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A test tional style. Discourse Processes, 4, 221-238. of the Hofstede model. International Journal of Intercultural Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creat- Relations, 30, 213-228. ing involvement in best friends’ talk. Discourse Processes, 13, Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japa- 73-90. nese: Connective expressions and turn construction. Philadel- Thomas, J. (1985). The language of power. Journal of Pragmatics, phia, PA: John Benjamins. 9, 765-783. Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). Empirical support Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis S., & Nishita, T. (1991). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of male/female language differences. Human Communication of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. Research, 27, 121-152. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275-296. Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and Tokieda, M. (1939). Keigo-hou oyobi Keiji-hou no kenkyu [A study Facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225-256. of usages of referent and addressee honorifics]. Gobun Ronso, Pizziconi, B. (2003). Re-examining politeness, Face and the Japa- [Journal of Linguistics and Literature] 8. (Reprinted from Bon- nese language. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1471-1506. pou-/bunshou-ron [Studies of grammar and written discourse], Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the coop- pp. 23-64, by E. Tokieda, 1975, Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Shoten) eration of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies Uchida, N. (1997). Kaiwa-kōdō ni mirareru seisa [Sex differences in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79-112). in conversational behaviors]. In S. Ide (Ed.), Joseigo no sekai New York, NY: Academic Press. [The world of women’s language] (pp. 74-93). Tokyo, Japan: Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Meiji Shoin. Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Usami, M. (2002). Discourse politeness in Japanese conversation: Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Some implications for a universal theory of politeness. Tokyo, Studies in conversation analysis (pp.75-101). Cambridge, UK: Japan: Hituzi Syobo. Cambridge University Press. Wetzel, P. J. (2004). Keigo in modern Japan: Polite language from Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagree- Meiji to the present. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. ment. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1087-1111. Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-indi- Rogan, R. G., & La France, B. H. (2003). An examination of the vidualism in everyday social life: The middle kingdom and the relationship between verbal aggressiveness, conflict manage- melting pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, ment strategies, and conflict interaction goals. Communication 79-86. Quarterly, 51, 458-469. Saito, J. (2010). Subordinates’ use of Japanese plain forms: An Bios examination of superior-subordinate interactions in the work- place. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3271-3282. Sachiko Kiyama obtained her PhD in linguistics at Reitaku Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A University, Japan, in 2011 and is currently a research associate at prime in conversation analysis Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cam- Functional Brain Imaging Lab, Department of Gerontechnology, bridge University Press. National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Japan. She is SPSS. (2006). SPSS classification trees (Version 15.0) [Computer engaged in neuroscience of age-related change in pragmatic phe- software and manual]. Chicago, IL: Author. nomena in Japanese. Takano, S. (2005). Re-examining linguistic power: Strategic uses of directives by professional Japanese women in positions of Katsuo Tamaoka holds a PhD from the University of Saskatchewan, authority and leadership. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 633-666. Canada, and is a professor at the Graduate School of Languages and Takiura, M. (2005). Nihon no keigo-ron: Politeness riron kara no Cultures, Nagoya University, Japan. His research interests include sai-kentou [Theories of Japanese honorifics: Re-examination in psycholinguistics, cognitive psychology, second-language acquisition, terms of politeness theory]. Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan. and corpus studies. He has published various articles in international Kiyama et al. 15 journals, including Journal of East Asian Linguistics, Psychonomic linguistics and communication studies. He is the author of Nihon Bulletin and Review, and Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. no keigo-ron: Politeness riron karano sai-kento [Theories of Japanese honorifics: Re-examination in terms of politeness theory] Masato Takiura is a professor at College of Foreign Studies, (2005, Tokyo: Taishukan) and Politeness nyumon [An introduction Reitaku University, Japan. His research interests include Japanese to politeness] (2008, Tokyo: Kenkyusha), among others.

Journal

SAGE Open – SAGE

Published: Dec 17, 2012

Keywords: facework; Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory; Japanese; face-saving; face-threatening

There are no references for this article.