The Mysterious Address Term anata 'you' in Japanese (Topics in Address Research) 9027210500, 9789027210500

Citation preview

Topics in Address Research

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese Yoko Yonezawa

4

John Benjamins Publishing Company

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Topics in Address Research (TAR) issn 2405-9269 In all languages, forms of address establish an ever-changing repertoire with rules of usage that are closely tied to social and other factors; therefore, the study of address forms has been a central element of the relational turn of linguistics in the last decade. This book series aims to provide a platform for global research on address forms and their usage. The books in this series focus on the range of available terms of address (nominal, pronominal, other), their grammatical as well as pragmatic properties, the factors determining their use in actual discourse, the way they reflect as well as constitute social relations and the way they act as a means of organising communicative routines. Studies in this series will describe address in as wide a number of languages as possible in order to arrive at an overarching model of address intended to capture speaker-addressee-relations as an essential aspect of communication. The series publishes monographs and thematically coherent collective volumes in the English language. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see benjamins.com/catalog/tar

Editors Horst J. Simon

John Hajek

Bettina Kluge

María Irene Moyna

Freie Universität Berlin Stiftung Universität Hildesheim

University of Melbourne Texas A&M University

Editorial Board Suzanne Aalberse

Heinz L. Kretzenbacher

Bernard Mulo Farenkia

University of Amsterdam

University of Melbourne

Cape Breton University

Alexandra Alvarez

Angelika Linke

Catrin Norrby

Universidad de los Andes, Mérida

Universität Zürich & University of Linköping

Stockholm University

Praxiling CNRS-UMR 5267 Montpellier

Célia Lopes

El Colegio de México

Tilman Berger

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

Roel Vismans

Zouheir Maalej

Camilla Wide

Christine Béal

Universität Tübingen

Yueguo Gu Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Martin Hummel Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz

King Saud University

Yoshiko Matsumoto Stanford University

Volume 4 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese by Yoko Yonezawa

María Eugenia Vázquez Laslop

University of Sheffield University of Turku

Daming Xu University of Macau

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese Yoko Yonezawa Victoria University of Wellington

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

doi 10.1075/tar.4 Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress: lccn 2021032577 (print) / 2021032578 (e-book) isbn 978 90 272 1050 0 (Hb) isbn 978 90 272 5892 2 (e-book)

© 2021 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Company· https://benjamins.com

For Jim and Natsuko

Table of contents

Acknowledgements

xi

Abbreviations

xiii

List of figures

xv

List of tables

xvii

Chapter 1 Introduction1 1.1 The mystery of the address pronoun anata ‘you’  1 1.2 Scope, methodology, and data  8 1.2.1 Scope 8 1.2.2 Methodology  11 1.2.3 Data 13 1.3 Issues in existing approaches to the address pronoun anata  19 1.3.1 The formality ranking-based approach  19 1.3.2 The sociolinguistic approach  22 1.3.3 The deixis-based approach  25 1.3.4 The cognitive approach  28 1.3.5 Summary and filling the gaps revealed in the previous literature  31 1.4 Organization of the study  35 Chapter 2 The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms in Japanese communication 2.1 Introduction 37 2.2 The history of anata  37 2.3 Person reference terms in Japanese  45 2.4 Social norms in Japanese communication  54 2.4.1 The issue of ‘cultures’  55 2.4.2 Personhood in Japanese communication  56 2.4.3 A deeper look into vertical relationships in Japan  60 2.4.4 Politeness in Japanese communication  62 2.5 Summary 66

37

viii The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Chapter 3 The perceptions of native speakers 3.1 Introduction 67 3.2 The survey  68 3.2.1 Aims of the survey  68 3.2.2 Participants  68 3.2.3 Methods of data collection  69 3.3 Results 72 3.3.1 The use of anata toward a superior  72 3.3.2 The use of anata toward an inferior  73 3.3.3 The use of anata toward an equal  75 3.4 Reasons for the avoidance of anata  75 3.4.1 Toward a superior  76 3.4.2 Toward an inferior  77 3.4.3 Toward an equal  78 3.5 Situational dimensions  81 3.5.1 Toward a superior  82 3.5.2 Toward an inferior  84 3.5.3 Toward an equal  86 3.6 Summary 89 Chapter 4 Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 4.1 Introduction 91 4.2 Referring to a general audience  92 4.3 Generic and ‘vague’ uses of anata  94 4.4 Referring to a collective entity  105 4.5 Referring to a depersonalized addressee  108 4.6 Referring to an unfamiliar addressee  114 4.7 Summary 115 Chapter 5 Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 5.1 Introduction 117 5.2 The use of anata to reject a given social relationship  118 5.2.1 The case of a contractual relationship  118 5.2.2 The case of a kin relationship  121 5.2.3 The case of parliamentary debate  129 5.2.4 The case of jocular utterances  135

67

91

117



Table of contents ix

5.3 The use of anata to refer to an addressee’s core self  137 5.3.1 The case of conveying a sincere message  137 5.3.2 The case of giving advice  141 5.4 Summary 143 Chapter 6 Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 6.1 Introduction 145 6.2 Language policy, emerging egalitarianism, and the use of anata  146 6.3 Public debates about the use of anata  153 6.3.1 Emerging egalitarians vs. norm upholders  153 6.3.2 The impossibility of the symmetrical use of anata  158 6.4 A wife’s use of anata toward her husband  160 6.5 Summary 170

145

Chapter 7 Conclusion171 References175 Resources191 Data sources

193

Appendix195 Name index

201

Subject index

205

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to a number of people. First and foremost, I would like to thank the almost 500 speakers of the Tokyo standard-variety of Japanese who anonymously took my survey and carefully answered all questions. Without their cooperation and insightful comments, this study would not have been the same. This book was built on my PhD project at the Australian National University. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my chief supervisor, Duck-Young Lee, for his continuous support, intellectual criticism, and clear advice. I am also grateful to my second supervisor, Tim Hassall, for his invaluable suggestions, and adviser Shun’ichi Ikeda for his warm encouragement. I was privileged to receive extremely helpful feedback on my thesis from Anthony Backhouse, Catherine Travis, and Nerida Jarkey. In particular, I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Nerida Jarkey, who recommended that I publish this monograph and, with immense generosity, read my final draft. Without Nerida’s incredibly insightful suggestions and invaluable input, as well as her warm encouragement over the course of revising the manuscript, this would not have been possible. I am grateful to the three anonymous reviewers of this book for their extremely useful suggestions. Huge thanks also go to the editors of this series, Horst Simon, Bettina Kluge, John Hajek, and Maria Irene Moyne, for their expertise and precise advice in bringing this book to publication. In particular, the biggest thanks go to the chief editor, Horst, for his continuous support in guiding me on this publication. I am immensely grateful to James Rowe and Jeremy Jones for patiently proofreading my manuscript. I would also like to thank Bert Peeters, who kindly read my earlier draft, but sadly, passed away in 2021. This study was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award for the initial PhD project and by a Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Grant for the final book production stage. Special thanks go to a number of people who have kindly helped me in various ways. Particularly, I thank the exceptionally inspiring teachers and students of linguistics at the Australian National University for their scholarship, which gave me a lifelong love of language during the course of my PhD candidature. Thank you also to members of the Sydney Japanese Linguistics Symposium, an incredibly supportive academic group, led by Nerida Jarkey and another wonderful linguist

xii The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

and mentor, Harumi Minagawa. A special thank you to Narah Lee and Xiangdong Liu for giving a home to our emerging and exciting address-term research collaboration in Korean, Chinese, and Japanese. To my dear friends in different parts of the world, all of whom I cannot list here, thank you for your continuous warm friendship. Thank you also to my wonderful colleagues past and present, in particular, my amazingly supportive colleagues at the School of Languages and Cultures, and the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, at Victoria University of Wellington. Your friendship and kindness have been priceless during these years of my settling down in Wellington. Thank you also to a number of my past colleagues at the School of Culture, History and Language at the Australian National University, who have helped me in innumerable different ways. Last but not least, my deepest gratitude goes to my family in Japan and Australia, especially to my partner Jim, and my daughter Natsuko. I have been finalizing this book in the year the world was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. This separated us between Australia and New Zealand for nearly an entire year. I am so profoundly indebted for their love and support from a distance. This book is dedicated to them.

Abbreviations

1 2 3 1sg 2sg 1pl 2pl acc adv cond conj caus cop com dat des fl emph fn gen ger gn hesit hon

first person reference term second person reference term third person reference term first person singular second person singular first person plural second person plural accusative adverbializer conditional conjunctive form causative copula comitative dative destination filler emphasis family name genitive gerund given name hesitation honorific form

hum inf imp ins ip lnk neg nmlz nom npst pass pfv pol pot pst q quot refl resp tent top = -

humble honorific infinitive imperative instrumental interactive particle linker negative nominalizer/nominalization nominative non-past passive perfective addressee honorific potential past question marker quotation reflexive respectful honorific tentative topic clitic boundary morpheme boundary

List of figures

Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5.

The status relationships within a Japanese family An example of the use of person reference terms Strategies for linguistic politeness in Japanese and in American English Continuum of reference of the 2sg  Continuum of reference of Japanese 2sg in constructed dialogue

50 52 65 96 101

List of tables

Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13.

Inventory of Japanese personal pronouns Historical stages of Japanese Historical summary of konata, sonata and anata First person pronouns Second person pronouns Use of L(ast) N(ame), F(irst) N(ame), and suffixes by gender, social status, and level of intimacy Distribution of respondents Format of the questionnaire The use of anata toward a superior The use of anata toward an inferior The use of anata toward an equal The frequency of occurrence of anata in dramas The occurrence of anata in parliamentary debates

20 39 39 46 47 48 69 71 72 74 75 108 130

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

The mystery of the address pronoun anata ‘you’

How people address each other in verbal communication is one of the central themes of the study of human sociality and interaction. As Garde (2013: 241) states, “it involves encounters with some of the great intersecting themes of anthropology and linguistics”. It is well known that person reference terms fulfill not only referential functions but also a variety of non-referential or social functions (e.g., Brown & Gilman 1960; Braun 1988).1 In many Asian and Pacific languages, the use of person reference terms is extremely complex compared to that of the T/V system of European languages. A wealth of linguistic resources for person reference, such as elaborate pronominal paradigms and open-class alternative terms, is common in many languages in Asia (Enfield & Comrie 2015: 8). Terms of address and reference in these languages include names, titles, occupational terms, kin terms, and other nouns. Their use is primarily determined by the social characteristics of the interlocutors, such as their age, gender, social status, kin relations, and the social distance between them, as well as the level of formality in the conversational setting. What this means is that the use of person reference terms in these languages typically displays the speaker’s particular social relationship to the addressee (e.g., Enfield 2015: 132–144).2 1. For example, Brown & Gilman (1960) indicate that the use of T form and V form in many European languages is influenced by the power relationship and level of solidarity between the speaker and the addressee. Wilson (1990) shows that ‘we’ in English has distinct uses between the speaker-inclusive case (inclusive ‘we’) and the speaker-exclusive case (exclusive ‘we’) and that the speaker can manipulate these uses for pragmatic effect. Further, first and second person pronouns are deictic, along with demonstratives such as ‘this/that’, spatial adverbs such as ‘here/there’, and temporal adverbs such as ‘now/then’. Jespersen (1929) and Jakobson (1971 [1957]) call these expressions ‘shifters’ in functional terms. Jakobson (1971 [1957]) points out that personal pronouns are ‘denotational-indexical’ expressions which indicate both referential and interactional functions. 2. See, for example, Cooke (1968) for Thai, Burmese and Vietnamese; Kanokporn (1990) and Diller (1994) for Thai; Jenson (1988), Hassall (2013), and Ewing & Djenar (2019) for Indonesian; Luong (1990) for Vietnamese; Compton (1994) and Enfield (2002, 2007a, 2007b) for Lao; Karim (1995) for Malay; Williams-van Klinken & Hajek (2006) for Tetun Dili, East Timor; Lee (2014, 2019) for Korean. See also Enfield & Stivers (2007) concerning third person reference in a number of languages.

2

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Among these Asian languages, the focus of this book is on Japanese, a language with a highly complex system of person reference, involving a wide range of terms and with a strong orientation to the expression of social relationships between interlocutors. This system has been much discussed in the literature on Japanese linguistics (e.g., Suzuki 1973; Ide 1990a, 1990b).3 Previous scholarship has concentrated on the use of an array of normative and default terms of address and reference, through which interlocutors express socially oriented norms in Japanese communication.4 However, studies of the general system of person reference terms in Japanese have tended to neglect the fact that address practices, as in other languages, are not always governed by prescriptive norms but are far more dynamic. To date, only a few studies have investigated those aspects of address behavior in Japanese that a static view of socially normative usage cannot explain.5 Furthermore, an issue that has barely been addressed at all is: what do Japanese speakers do when they do not want to locate themselves in a certain social place in relation to their interlocutors? Is it, indeed, possible for them to set themselves apart from the socially oriented system? These questions remain unanswered by previous scholarship in the field. In this context, this book highlights the dynamic aspects of address behaviors in interaction by looking at a particular address pronoun anata in Japanese. The second person singular pronoun (henceforth, 2sg) anata ‘you’ has long been regarded as mysterious, or at least contentious, among scholars of modern Japanese linguistics. In this introduction, I show in what ways this is so and I introduce the specific questions that are addressed throughout the book. During the process of solving the mystery of anata, the book sheds light on the ways in which language interacts dynamically with cultural values and social norms, with the speaker’s particular stance and identity, and with language ideology created by social history. To demonstrate the peculiarity of anata, I will take a brief look at some commonly used person reference terms in Japanese. However, before discussing these in the context of example sentences, the following point should be noted. Argument ellipsis is widespread in the languages of Asia (Enfield & Comrie 2015: 8). Likewise, in Japanese, first and second person subjects are frequently 3. See also Sakuma (1959), Kindaichi (1959), Kurokawa (1972), Peng (1982), Suzuki (1972, 1982), Martin (1975), Ide (1992b, 2006), Onishi (1992), Maynard (1993, 2001a, 2001b), Kanzaki (1994), Kanamaru (1997), Jung (1999, 2003), Kajiwara (2004), Zhu (2008), Miwa (2000, 2005, 2010), Yui (2007), Ide & Ueno (2011), Fujii (2011, 2012, 2013), Sepehri Badi (2011, 2012, 2013). 4. See Enfield (2007a) regarding the meaning of default usage of language. 5. See Maynard (2001b) for dynamic vocative usages in a teacher-student relationship, Moody (2018) for address practices and identity construction in American-Japanese workplace interaction, and Yonezawa (2019) for dynamic address practices in a family drawn from a TV drama.



Chapter 1. Introduction

unexpressed, especially in spoken conversation. Although this feature is shared with pro-drop European languages, such as Spanish and Portuguese, the mechanism for disambiguating the intended subject of a predicate is different. These pro-drop languages mark person and number agreement on the conjugated verb and the hearer may thereby identify the intended subject without the presence of an overt subject noun phrase. Japanese, as in many other Asian languages, does not have person and number agreement marked on the verb. Instead, the language has various means by which the hearer consistently understands the intended subject (see e.g., Nariyama 2003). For example, unless a different subject has been otherwise specified earlier in the related discourse, an unexpressed subject tends to be interpreted as the speaker (first person subject) in declarative sentences, as in Ikimasu ‘(I) will go’, and as the hearer (second person subject) in interrogative sentences, as in Ikimasu ka ‘Will (you) go?’ There are also cases in which the type of predicate provides a clue to help identify an omitted subject (Backhouse 1993).6 Having the general tendency to omit first and second person reference terms, the overt specification of these terms generally displays the speaker’s specific social relationship or ‘social attitude’ to the addressee (Lee & Yonezawa 2008). Let us have a brief look now at Japanese Examples (1) to (3) below. (1) Sensei=wa doo omow-are-mas-u ka. 2 (teacher)=top how think-resp-pol-npst q ‘What do you (sensei) think?’ (2) Okaasan=wa doo omo-u? 2 (mother)=top how think-npst ‘What do you (okaasan) think?’ (3) Omae=wa doo omo-u? 2sg=top how think-npst ‘What do you (omae) think?’

6. For example, respectful honorific verbs can only be interpreted as referring to the action of someone other than the speaker, e.g., Osshaimashita ‘(he/she/you) spoke.resp’, while humble honorific verbs are interpreted as referring to the action of the speaker, e.g., Mooshimashita ‘(I) spoke.hum’ (or possibly of an in-group member of the speaker). Another group of predicates exclusively indicates the inner state (feeling, thought, desire, etc.) of the speaker, and thus the subject of these predicates is automatically interpreted as being the speaker in declarative sentences, and as the hearer in interrogative sentences, e.g., Mizu nomitai ‘(I) want to drink water’ or Mizu nomitai? ‘Do (you) want to drink water?’ (*Taroo wa mizu ga nomitai intended meaning: ‘Taro [= a third person] wants to drink water’). The various mechanisms of disambiguating the intended subject in Japanese are well documented in Hinds (1982), Okamoto (1985), Okazaki (1994), and Nariyama (2003).

3

4

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

In each of these examples, the speaker is asking the addressee the same question: ‘What do you think?’ However, each sentence denotes different information about the interlocutors. Example (1) illustrates the use of an occupational term as a second person reference term. Titles and occupational terms such as shachoo ‘president (of a company)’ and sensei ‘teacher’ are commonly used in Japanese as second person reference terms as well as vocatives, when talking to socially superior addressees. The term sensei, in Example (1), is normally used for second person reference when talking not only to one’s teacher but also to someone who serves in an occupation such as doctor or politician (Suzuki 1973: 132, 1978: 91; Ide 1982: 359, 2006: 73). Example (2) shows the use of a kinship term for second person reference. Kinship terms are also used as both vocatives and terms of reference, just like titles and occupational terms. Normally, younger members of a family use kinship terms to address older members of the family (Suzuki 1973: 151). For example, children address their parents with kinship terms such as otoosan ‘father’ and okaasan ‘mother’ instead of using a 2sg pronoun. In Example (2), the speaker is talking to his/her mother with the use of okaasan for second person reference. Example (3) illustrates the use of a 2sg pronoun. Again, like many other Asian languages, and particularly the languages of Southeast Asia (Enfield & Comrie 2015: 12–13), there are a number of items available to indicate ‘you’ in Japanese, the details of which will be discussed in Section 2.3. Their use tends to be sensitive to the interlocutors’ social characteristics and is especially restrictive for a socially inferior speaker talking to a superior addressee. In Example (3), the speaker uses an informal 2sg pronoun, omae ‘you’, to refer to the addressee. Omae is predominantly used by male speakers in casual settings to refer to an addressee of equal or inferior status (Ide 1990b: 73–74; Shibatani 1990: 371). Merely by glancing at the above examples, we observe that Japanese person reference terms in general are semantically loaded with social information. In other words, the ‘social placedness’ (Evans 1993: 250) of the interlocutors is encoded in the use of these terms, even without any further contextual information. This feature can create a mismatch between some verb forms and the social elements indicated in certain person reference terms. As noted earlier, Japanese does not have a cross-reference system between the subject and the verb in a sentence. Thus, the combination of any person reference terms and verb forms is grammatically possible. However, the mismatch between a verb form and the social elements indicated in some combinations can be incongruent. Observe (3′) below: (3′) #Omae=wa doo omow-are-mas-u ka. 2sg=top how think-resp-pol-npst q



Chapter 1. Introduction

In this example, the co-occurrence of an informal 2sg pronoun omae and the honorific form of the verb omowaremasu ‘think’, while grammatically possible, is pragmatically incongruent in normal circumstances. Among all these various person reference terms, this book focuses on one in particular: the 2sg pronoun, anata ‘you’, which is unique amongst Japanese person reference terms. Its uniqueness is reflected in a variety of ways. First, unlike other person reference terms in Japanese, anata does not itself convey any specific social information about the interlocutors. Consider Examples (4) and (5): (4) Anata=wa doo omo-i-mas-u ka. 2sg=top how think-inf-pol-npst q ‘What do you (anata) think?’ (5) Anata=wa doo omo-u? 2sg=top how think-npst ‘What do you (anata) think?’

As in Examples (1) to (3), the propositional information of utterances (4) and (5) is the same: the speaker is asking the addressee the question ‘What do you think?’ Both (4) and (5) are acceptable, which serves to show that anata can co-occur with both the formal verb phrase omoimasu ka and the informal verb phrase omou. That is to say, the use of anata is possible in both formal and informal contexts. In terms of the social characteristics of the speaker, without additional contextual information, it is not possible to judge speaker characteristics such as gender, age, and social status, nor the status relationship between the interlocutors. This leads to a perception that anata is a multi-functional, general 2sg pronoun, potentially able to be used toward any addressee regardless of the interlocutors’ social relationship. Interestingly, because of this ‘generic’ applicability of anata, Kokugo Shingikai ‘The National Language Council of Japan’ nominated anata as a ‘standard form’ of address in a 1952 proposal entitled Korekara no Keigo ‘Honorifics for the Future’. The proposal was published under the influence of emerging egalitarianism after World War II and aimed at encouraging a less complicated use of honorifics as well as a simpler use of person reference terms in Japanese, including the consolidation of second person reference terms into one 2sg pronoun, anata (see Chapter 6). While it was believed by policy makers, including language professionals and linguists, to be reasonable to use anata toward any addressee as a standard second person reference term, in reality, anata never gained a central position as a standard address term among native speakers of Japanese. In fact, contrary to policy makers’ intentions, native speakers continue to express a great deal of difficulty in using anata and tend to avoid it. This is the second unique aspect of anata. As will be shown in Section 1.2.3, the use of anata is

5

6

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

strikingly infrequent in the ordinary conversation corpus compared to other second person reference terms. In line with this, the results of the self-reported survey which forms part of this study show that native speakers say they would rarely use anata as a regular second person reference term (see Chapter 3). While there appears to be a widely held understanding that anata should not be used towards a superior addressee, the respondents, all of whom were native speakers, expressed discomfort in using the term even towards an equal or inferior. Their responses also revealed a number of interesting incongruities in how the term anata was perceived. If you ask native speakers how to say you in Japanese, they would most likely say anata, but they would immediately issue a warning to be careful with its use or even advise you not to use it. Some would say that the use of anata sounds rude while others would say that it sounds too formal. Some may regard the use of anata as creating distance but others refer to its intimate nuance. A non-native observer would be puzzled. The third unique aspect of anata is its treatment in dictionaries. Dictionaries of Modern Japanese define anata in several distinct ways. Jinnouchi (1998: 48) categorized these definitions into three groups based on the degree of politeness defined by the dictionaries for the use of anata: i. anata is an address term used with respect; ii. anata does not indicate respect and is only used toward an addressee of socially equal or lower status than the speaker; iii. anata used to be an honorific address term but this is not the case today. While my own consultation of seventeen Japanese dictionaries shows that they are, in general, in line with Jinnouchi’s (1998) three categorizations, it revealed that there are some dictionaries that hesitate to provide a clear definition at all.7 For example, one of the most prominent dictionaries of Japanese, Koojien, in its 7th edition (2018: 72), makes the following statement: Kinsei igo, meue ya doohai de aru aite o uyamatte sasu go. Genkon wa keii no doai ga genjite iru. ‘Since the Edo period, it has been an address term used to refer to a superior or an equal with respect. Recently, the degree of respect has been declining.’8 7. The dictionaries consulted were Koojien 1st edition (1955), Gakken Kokugo Daijiten (1981), Koojien 4th edition (1991), Desukuban Koodansha Kokugo Jiten (1992), Sanseidoo Shin Meikai Kokugo Jiten (1992), Oobunsha Hyoojun Kokugo Jiten (1992), Shuueisha Kokugo Jiten (1993), Kadokawa Saishin Kokugo Jiten (1993), Gakken Gendai Shin Kokugo Jiten (1994), Iwanami Kokugo Jiten (1994), Daijirin (1995), Sanseidoo Reikai Shin Kokugo Jiten (1995), Shoogakkan Gendai Kokugo Reikai Jiten (1997), Koojien 5th edition (1998), Shoogakkan Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (2001), Koojien 6th edition (2008), and Koojien 7th edition (2018). 8. The word kinsei literally means ‘early modern time’. In Japanese history, this is commonly regarded as the Edo period (1603–1867), when Japan was governed by the Tokugawa shogun.



Chapter 1. Introduction

This explanation reflects anata’s history. As will be discussed in Section 2.2, anata began to be used as a demonstrative meaning ‘that way, over there’ during the Heian period (794–1192); it was not until the late Edo period (1750–1867) that it came to be used euphemistically as a politeness strategy to refer to an addressee (Ri 2002; Ishiyama 2008). By the late 19th century to early 20th century, the demonstrative function had disappeared completely and only the 2sg pronoun usage remained (Ri 2002; Ishiyama 2008). The politeness value of anata has declined over time (see Section 2.2), yet judging from the descriptions given in Koojien, and other dictionaries, it is obvious that the other properties of anata in Modern Japanese are not at all clear. Understandably, one of the editorial members of the Sanseidoo Kokugo Jiten ‘Sanseido Japanese Dictionary’ revealed in an interview for the Yomiuri newspaper that anata niwa ichiban kushin shita ‘anata racked our brains the most’ when they were compiling the dictionary (Yomiuri Shimbun, 4 Nov 1976). Scholars have described the word as yakkai ‘troublesome’ and tsukainikui ‘difficult to use’ (Miwa 2010: 4), having iroirona ‘multiple’ meanings (Jinnouchi 1998: 49), and hence dokutoku ‘unique’ (Jung 1999: 27). Fourth, notwithstanding the difficulties in defining this pronoun and native speakers’ disparate perceptions regarding the use of anata, studies that explore anata intensively have been sporadic in the field of Japanese linguistics. Studies on person reference terms in Japanese tend to focus on the general system and touch only briefly on the use of anata, lacking an in-depth analysis of the term. In the previous studies which discuss the use of anata, several distinct views emerge. Some studies (e.g., Ide 1990b) treat anata as a formal 2sg pronoun or they point out that it entails a polite nuance, while others (e.g., Kanai 2002) argue that anata is often perceived as impolite, especially when used toward a socially superior addressee. It has also been reported that anata can be used in close relationships (e.g., Saito 1999) whereas, at the same time, there is a view that the use of anata creates a distance between the interlocutors (e.g., Shimotani 2012) (see Section 1.3.4). Why this one personal pronoun generates such disparate views is puzzling. While none of the above views are wrong and though previous studies have offered insightful analyses in their own right, they have also tended to focus only on partial aspects of the use of anata and, as a result, have failed to provide an integrated analysis of its usage. For example, the ‘polite’ view only sheds light on the use of anata in formal settings or with a polite nuance and is incapable of explaining cases where anata creates an impolite nuance. Likewise, the ‘impolite’ view is only partially persuasive as it has difficulty explaining why anata can be used politely or in a formal setting. To the best of my knowledge, a systematic explanation which unites all the apparently disparate uses of anata has not been provided in the existing literature on Japanese linguistics. In other words, the conditions, functions, and effects of the

7

8

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

use of anata have not been comprehensively and empirically clarified. Therefore, this book ultimately aims to identify the functions of the use of anata by providing a systematic analysis to address the following questions: i. How do native speakers of Japanese perceive and understand the use of anata today? ii. What are the environments in which anata occurs in different types of discourse? iii. Is there a core, invariant property of anata and, if so, what is it? iv. What are the functions and effects of the use of anata? v. What are the mechanisms that create these functions and effects in relation to given sociocultural contexts? vi. Is the recent historical context relevant to the use of anata today, in particular, in relation to language policy and standardization? In responding to these questions, I conduct a thorough investigation into anata from a number of different perspectives. Crucially, I examine its use at the intersection of semantics and pragmatics. I show that anata is, in fact, semantically simple and the various meanings perceived by users can be explained only in pragmatic terms. In doing this, I emphasize that applying in-depth sociocultural knowledge plays an important role. Further, the study also takes sociolinguistic and anthropological perspectives as other essential components of the investigation. Through an analysis of this particular 2sg pronoun, based on contemporary users’ perceptions and its uses in particular sociocultural contexts, this study ultimately sheds light on aspects of the nexus between language, society, and culture. 1.2

Scope, methodology, and data

1.2.1 Scope While recognizing that there are a number of dialectal variations in the use of person reference terms in Japan, and that some scholars have studied the use of these terms in a particular dialect, in this book I focus on the Tokyo-standard variety of Japanese.9 It is commonly accepted among scholars that standard Japanese is historically based on the Tokyo variety but is generally understood anywhere in 9. As examples, these studies focus on first person pronouns in Hirosaki city in Aomori (Kori 2003) and the use of sentence final particles derived from person reference terms in Kyushu (Kadoya 2009). Furthermore, there is a wide range of variations concerning first and second person pronouns in different dialects. See Fujiwara (2000: 66–167) for details.



Chapter 1. Introduction 9

Japan as the lingua franca (e.g., Tanaka 1991, 1996; Yasuda 1999; Koyama 2004). It is “in principle accessible to anyone” (Koyama 2004) through education and media all around Japan.10 Throughout this book, the term ‘Japanese’ indicates the Tokyo-standard variety of Japanese, unless otherwise specified. With regard to the scope of the function of anata, this study includes the use of anata both as a vocative and a reference term. It has been pointed out that these two uses should be distinguished in linguistic analysis since each use has different functions and conventions (e.g., Schegloff 1996b; Dickey 1997; Takubo 1997; Morita 2003). Schegloff (1996b: 472) states that the second person pronoun you in English may be regarded as “rude and offensive” when used as a vocative and this use should be analyzed separately from the referential use of you in the pronoun slot. However, the purpose of this study is not to investigate the differences between these two uses but to investigate how interlocutors interact with each other using anata in either case. Both uses are thought to be significant resources for analysis in this study and are included. In fact, in some cases in Japanese, it is not always clear as to whether a particular person reference term is used as a vocative or a second person reference term (Morita 2003). This is partly because ellipsis of topic/subject and particles is common in Japanese (e.g., Hinds 1982; Kameyama 1985; Shibatani 1990; Nariyama 2003). To illustrate this, consider Examples (6) to (8): (6) Anata=wa doo omo-u? 2sg=top how think-npst ‘What do you (anata) think?’ (7) Anata=Ø doo omo-u? 2sg=(top) how think-npst ‘What do you (anata) think?’ (8) Anata, Ø=Ø doo omo-u? (2sg=top) how think-npst 2sg ‘You (anata), what do (you (anata)) think?’

There is no ellipsis in Example (6); anata in this example is the grammatical subject, but is topicalized and marked as such by the topic marker wa. In Example (7), on the other hand, the topic marker wa is omitted, whereas, in Example (8), the 10. Standard Japanese is said to be based on a Tokyo variety which was ‘standardized’ and considered the ‘lingua franca’ or ‘capital language’ (see Yasuda (1999) for the history of the standardization of Japanese). Koyama (2004: 415) also states that standard varieties, such as Modern Tokyo Standard Japanese, are “consciously articulated, ideologically prescribed normative standards” and that “behavioral and ideological (dis)loyalty” of speakers to such varieties “indexes their group identities and power statuses” (ibid.). See also Inoue (2006) and Okamoto & Shibamoto-Smith (2016).

10

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

speaker first addresses the hearer using a vocative anata and then omits both the topic and the topic marker. The problem here is that, in actual utterances, sentences (7) and (8) are identical and it is, in fact, impossible to distinguish the interpretation of these two uses of anata as either a vocative or a reference term. Also, Japanese has a phenomenon of ‘scrambling’ in terms of its word order (e.g., Whitman 1979; Tsujimura 1996). The interplay between these phenomena often makes it difficult to clearly distinguish these two uses: the vocative and the referential. In this study, I aim at a comprehensive analysis of the uses of anata in interaction. I use the phrase ‘address term anata’ as an umbrella term, including all its uses. The more general expression ‘person reference terms’ includes a variety of terms used to address the interlocutor, or to refer to the first, second and/or third person. The analysis is based on recent materials (described in Section 1.2.3). While the investigation of the historical transformation of the use of personal pronouns is another interesting topic, it is not my intention to explore the full range of diachronic evidence of the use of anata in this book. I will, however, briefly touch on the historical transformation of anata, based on previous studies, in Section 2.2, as relevant background knowledge to a discussion of the term. On this point, Silverstein’s (1985: 220) statement is helpful: The total linguistic fact, the datum for a science of language, is irreducibly dialectic in nature. It is an unstable mutual interaction of meaningful sign forms contextualized to situations of interested human use, mediated by the fact of cultural ideology. And the linguistic fact is irreducibly dialectic, whether we view it as so-called synchronic usage or as so-called diachronic change. It is an indifferently synchronic-diachronic totality which, however, at least initially – in keeping with traditional autonomous divisions of scholarly perspective – can be considered from the points of view of language structure, contextualized usage, and ideologies of language.

Finally, it should be noted that the uses of anata investigated throughout most of this study are cases of the dominant use, i.e., the non-gendered use of anata, in which there is no exclusivity of use between a male speaker and a female speaker. There is one gender-specific use, being a wife’s use of anata toward her husband. This gender-specific use of anata is deemed to have its own historical path to becoming a female exclusive form. It has been stereotypically regarded as an archaic usage and thus little used nowadays. I will pay special attention to this case and discuss it separately in the last section of Chapter 6.

Chapter 1. Introduction 11



1.2.2 Methodology To achieve a comprehensive analysis, this study adopted a mixed methods approach, combining the results of a self-reported survey of native speakers’ perceptions (Chapter 3) with discourse analysis of conversation corpora, advertisements, parliamentary debates, and TV dramas (Chapters 4 and 5), as well as newspaper articles (Chapter 6). The self-reported survey was a paper-based questionnaire, asking native speakers of Tokyo-standard variety Japanese in what situations and with whom they would use anata. It sought responses from a broad range of people, i.e., both men and women belonging to different age groups. Regarding the advantages of the use of questionnaires, Dickey (1997: 258) points out their ability to obtain some types of information which may not usually be easily accessible. For example, family interactions (outside the researchers’ own family) tend to be difficult to obtain. Recognizing this reality, the questionnaire asked about the use of anata in a variety of relationships, including among family members, and between couples and lovers. The aim of the questionnaire was not only to ask in what situations and with whom native speakers report using anata, but also to collect the speakers’ meta-linguistic reflections on the use of anata, that is, their logic behind the reported use or non-use of anata. This is a way of observing aspects of their beliefs about norms and linguistic/language ideology (although these concepts may not be overtly recognized by them). Rumsey (1990: 346) broadly defines linguistic ideologies as “shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of language”. Silverstein (1979: 193) defines them as “sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use”. As Woolard & Schieffelin (1994: 69) point out, modern linguists tend to underrate the importance of linguistic ideology and prescriptive norms. Regarding this tendency, Silverstein (1985: 223) argues that a grasp of language ideology is important and metalinguistic discourse is a condition for identifying ideology: Any statements about language are indeed metalinguistic statements, since they take language as the very topic of discourse; ideological analysis studies to what extent such statements are rationalized, perhaps systematically, in culturally understandable terms as the socially emergent reflectivity of actors themselves. How are doctrines of ‘correctness’ and ‘incorrectness’ in language usage rationalized? How are they related to doctrines of inherent representational power, beauty, expressiveness, et cetera of language as a valued mode of action? Such questions can be studied from the point of view of ideological and cultural analysis.

What is relevant to the current analysis of anata in connection with Silverstein’s remarks is that the use of anata is related strongly to the pragmatic ‘appropriateness’ of

12

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

its use, crucially so in relation to sociocultural norms in Japanese communication. The speaker’s assumptions, beliefs, and values about language mediate particular uses of the term and “the contextual dimensions that are thereby made relevant to those interactions” (Morford 1997: 6). These beliefs “govern their language use and interpretation of linguistic practices” (Morford 1997: 6). Haviland (1979: 209), in his work on Guugu Yimidhirr, an Australian language, observes that when people “theorize and talk about language, they concentrate on its social aspects”. He goes on to say, “words are not simply linguistic units. They belong to people (their rightful users), and they have striking social properties, rendering them appropriate or inappropriate to different circumstances”. Rumsey (1990: 353) also notes the importance of pragmatic functions explicated by native speakers’ metalinguistic reflections: I once asked a Ngatinyin man for the meaning of baba, which I had heard him use, apparently as a term of address. I later realized that it was the ‘vocative’ kin term for mamingi ‘my mother’s father’, ‘my mother’s brother’s son’, and so on (cf. Sheffler 1978: 388ff; Rumsey 1981). But what this man said in order to explain its ‘meaning’ was ‘Baba, that like a jannguli [‘give me’], give me tobacco, or thing like that.’ What he was giving me was obviously not what we would think of as the sense, or possible reference of the term, but rather, a locution that makes explicit the pragmatic function of this term of address within a typical context of use – mamingi being someone from whom I am entitled to demand things.

These observations suggest that referential-propositional functions are not necessarily central to many language practices. The use of a particular term is deeply tied to context that is inescapably culture dependent. This study makes use of the survey data to discover what aspects of social norms interact with speakers’ beliefs and values, and how these values can possibly relate to the use of anata. Having discussed the values of perceptual data, it is also important to be aware that there are some shortcomings in the survey method. Risks related to questionnaires in linguistic investigation are well known (e.g., Wolfson 1976; Dale 1978; Drew & Heritage 1992). As Drew & Heritage (1992) point out, methods such as questionnaires on language practices tend to rely too much on what respondents believe they do instead of what they actually do. While being aware of speakers’ ‘beliefs’ is important, examining actual discourse is essential for empirical study. This is precisely what makes this study’s employment of discourse analysis imperative. It should be noted that the term ‘discourse analysis’ means many things to many scholars. It is an interdisciplinary method used widely across the fields of anthropology, philosophy, cognitive psychology, social psychology, artificial intelligence, and many others (Schiffrin, Tannen, & Hamilton 2001: 1). The term ‘discourse’ has at least three quite distinct uses (Schiffrin et al. (ibid.)): (i) “anything beyond the sentence”, (ii) “language use”, and (iii) “a broader range of social practice that

Chapter 1. Introduction 13



includes nonlinguistic and nonspecific instances of language”. Schiffrin (1994: 419) explains that what is common in the different approaches to discourse is the view of language as social interaction, that is to say, language as something inseparable from our social world. It is this ultimate inability to separate language from how it is used in the world in which we live that provides the most basic reason for the interdisciplinary basis of discourse analysis. To understand the language of discourse, then, we need to understand the world in which it resides…

As noted in Section 1.1, the use of anata creates discursive effects and social meanings – polite, impolite, intimate or distancing – in interaction. Why this is so is explained in this book from the perspective of discourse organization, which is inseparable from a given sociocultural context. This study integrates relevant key concepts, such as the system of person reference in Japanese and social norms in Japanese communication, into the discussion (see Chapter 2). In so doing, the study offers a synthetic approach to the functions of this particular and mysterious term in social interaction. 1.2.3 Data The data for this study consist of two types: the survey data and the text data. The results of the self-reported native speakers survey on the use of anata are presented in Chapter 3. Chapter 3 first quantifies the use of anata reported by different age groups toward different categories of addressees. It then describes and discusses the respondents’ reported reasons for their choices and situations in which they say they would use the term. Respondents’ free comments are also introduced and discussed. The text data, which are analyzed within the parameters of discourse analysis, come from a variety of sources and genres, being (i) a corpus of spoken Japanese, (ii) advertisements, (iii) parliamentary debates, (iv) TV dramas, and (v) newspaper articles (full references are given in the ‘Data Sources’ section of the Reference List). Here are some notes about each data source: i. The Corpus of Japanese Spoken Language from ‘Basic Transcription System for Japanese – Japanese Conversation 1’ (116 conversations in total; approximately 24 hours)  (Usami 2007)11

11. All data in this corpus are transcripts in Japanese only. Interlinear glosses and English translations have been added to the excerpts used in this study. I express my gratitude to Mayumi Usami for making this corpus open to researchers.

14

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

This data set consists of ordinary conversations between different pairs of native speakers of Japanese.12 It includes conversations between either two males, two females or a male and a female, whose ages vary. The conversations take place in a variety of settings such as by telephone, in debate, at a first meeting and during a casual chat between friends. Using Usami’s data was beneficial in two respects. First, the examination of an already transcribed conversation corpus minimized the risk of wasting time in the sense that there was no need to record conversations and transcribe them, only to eventually find that there were not enough samples in order to analyze the use of anata. As there was already an assumption that the use of anata would be infrequent in daily conversations, it was a rational decision. In fact, as assumed, the frequency of the use of anata appeared to be very low in this corpus, which is based on ‘ordinary’ conversations in daily life. That is, within the total of 24 hours of conversational data, anata occurred only 21 times out of the total of 520 overt uses of second person reference terms. Discovering this in the early stages allowed the researcher to move on to other sources and genres for further and more in-depth analysis with a sufficient number of examples. That said, Usami’s corpus is included in the data and some example sentences in this study are drawn from it. The corpus provides important evidence of the infrequent occurrence of the use of anata in ordinary conversations. At the same time, after the analysis of other sources, the small number of examples that were in the corpus came to make sense and could be systematically explained. Second, the participants in the corpus are not the same group of people with whom the survey was conducted. The use of Usami’s corpus allowed the researcher to circumvent the ‘Observer’s Paradox’ (Labov 1978): there was no need to be concerned that participants may have had an awareness of the study’s focus and that their attention to person reference terms could affect their production of these terms. Moving on to other sources, the study also adopts data from a range of materials such as advertisements, parliamentary debates, television dramas, and newspapers, which make up the bulk of texts used in the discourse analysis. The details of these sources are as follows: ii. Advertisements Advertising is one of the genres in which the use of anata is frequently observed. The advertisements that were collected are from newspapers and fliers distributed in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area as well as posters in subway stations. Some were 12. A few participants spoke dialects different from that spoken in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area. Their utterances are excluded from the analysis undertaken in the current study. As noted earlier, this study deals with the Tokyo-standard variety of Modern Japanese only.

Chapter 1. Introduction 15



found on the internet, such as on company websites. The use of anata in these advertisements is very common to the extent that one can easily find it in everyday life. The use of anata in advertisements is discussed in Chapter 4. iii. Parliamentary debates Kokkai Kaigiroku Kensaku Shisutemu ‘Minutes of the Japanese Diet Retrieval System’ (February 25th, 2012 to February 25th, 2013) The Minutes of the Japanese Diet Retrieval System archives the huge volume of minutes of all meetings in both the Shuugiin ‘House of Representatives’ and the Sangiin ‘House of Councillors’ since the opening of the National Diet in 1890. All of them are transcribed and open to the public, being accessible online.13 Although minutes of parliamentary debates are widely used for linguistic analysis across different languages, there are some issues related to their use that have been highlighted (Slembrouck 1992; Ilie 2001; Matsuda 2008; Kim 2012). For example, the official records of the British parliament, Hansard, are known to be not necessarily verbatim (Slembrouck 1992; Ilie 2001). Slembrouck (1992: 104–106) notes that the characteristics of spoken language such as false starts, incomplete utterances and (un)filled pauses are filtered out in the records and informal language is amended into formal and standardized English in the minutes. Similar issues are found in the Minutes of the Japanese Diet (Matsuda 2008). So-called fukisoku hatsugen ‘irregular remarks’ or jeering, including rude or irrelevant remarks, may be deleted. Fillers such as ee, aa, anoo, sonoo are not picked up for transcription. Some particles may also be modified, deleted or added. Grammatical errors, misreadings of documents, some repetitive utterances, and mistakes in quotations may be fixed. Given these edits, Matsuda (2008) states that the Diet minutes have some aspects of written language in the sense that the transcriber’s perspective is reflected in consideration of grammatical correctness as well as conformity to ethical guidelines.14 In this sense, the transcribed minutes are not suitable if used as the only source of data, and certainly not for an analysis of filler, back channels, particles, repetition, swear words, and so on. That said, a number of spoken features still remain unchanged in the minutes. Importantly, each meeting 13. While the minutes of the Japanese Diet are a useful research source for scholars who study areas such as pre/post war politics and history, utilizing the minutes for linguistic analysis is in fact a relatively new activity (Matsuda 2008). Since 2001, when the minutes were made available online as Minutes of the Japanese Diet Retrieval System (http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp) and became easy to access, the number of linguists using the minutes has increased (e.g., Matsuda 2004, 2008; Usui 2005; Yamamoto & Adachi 2005; Kagetsu 2008; Mogi 2008; Sano 2008; Yonezawa 2014). 14. For more detailed analysis of the difference between the actual utterances and the minutes, see Matsuda (2008).

16

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

has been broadcast on TV, recorded and made available online in recent years. Thus, it is possible to check if the transcription is exactly what was uttered by utilizing the combination of minutes and videos. In terms of person reference terms appearing in the minutes and included in the data analyzed for this book (including the use of anata), to the best of my observations through cross-checking, they are scripted in the same way as they are uttered in the actual talk recorded in the video clips. The example sentences I have used are all verbatim from the minutes as checked against the video. The data for the current study were limited to a single year (February 25th, 2012 to February 25th, 2013) and were searched for all occurrences of anata in the various meetings held throughout the year, using the database search system. 287 meetings came up as ‘hits’. There were seven meetings where only the second person plural forms (henceforth, 2pl) anatatachi or anatagata occurred so I excluded these meetings in order to focus on the use of the 2sg anata. The well-established search system allowed me to identify the specific meeting, the context, and the participants involved. I then referred to these dialogues in the relevant video recordings. Using this process, I was able to look at a large number of separate dialogues which included the occurrence of anata. Examples from parliamentary debates are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. iv. TV drama series Data from the following four popular Japanese television dramas were analyzed: a. Kiken na Aneki ‘My Dangerous Older Sister’ (Kaneko, Hayashi, & Watanabe 2005) b. Kaseifu no Mita ‘Housekeeper Mita’ (Yukawa 2011) c. Riigaru Hai ‘Legal High’ (Kosawa 2012) d. Kazoku Geemu ‘Family Game’ (Muto 2013) Each drama focuses on different types of relationships and settings: between siblings in Kiken na Aneki ‘My Dangerous Older Sister’, within families and between family members and a housekeeper in Kaseifu no Mita ‘Housekeeper Mita’, between a lawyer and a range of characters – plaintiff/accused/witness – in a courtroom in Riigaru Hai ‘Legal High’, and between a teacher and a student in Kazoku Geemu ‘Family Game’. Looking at a variety of settings and types of relationships allowed for a more reliable analysis. It should be noted that there may be a concern as to the legitimacy of selecting dramas for linguistic analysis. Piazza, Bednarek, & Rossi (2011) discuss approaches to the language of both television and films and refer to these language varieties broadly as ‘telecinematic discourse’. As telecinematic language is scripted, it may often differ from naturally occurring conversations and may represent stereotypical



Chapter 1. Introduction 17

or exaggerated uses. However, as Maynard (2001b: 6) states, “language used in popular television drama is a part of the speech culture, a speech created for mass consumption, and is indeed shared by the masses”. Koyano (1996) also points out that the relationship between naturally occurring speech and the speech observed in telecinematic dramas is bi-directional, that is, they influence each other. The merits of using telecinematic discourse for the analysis of language have also been argued. First, dramas include abundant visual information and hence the immediate context of a situation is fairly easy to observe and experience (Maynard 2000: 279). Second, information necessary for interpretation in given contexts is foregrounded for the sake of the audience and thus tends to be clear (Maynard 2000: 154). Third, dramas can often include situations that show an upsurge of emotion, such as a speaker’s emotional conflicts and hidden feelings. While these are aspects of language usage which are difficult to capture in ordinary daily conversations, dramas make it possible for us to consider them (Maynard 2000: 153–154). Maynard (2016: 2) further emphasizes the benefit of observing expressive effects of characters’ speech which involves more “social, psychological, and emotive effect than propositional meaning and referential information”. Given the above, I maintain that drama analysis does have a place in contributing to reliable conclusions. Examples from dramas are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. v. Newspaper articles Finally, in Chapter 6, I discuss public discourse centered around the use of anata, the sources of which come from articles and readers opinion columns in two major newspapers, Asahi Shimbun and Yomiuri Shimbun. Although some articles can be found dating from the 1950s (just after the issue of the language policy proposal mentioned in Section 1.1), more significant debates occurred from the 1960s onwards. One of the largest-scale treatments of the use of anata was a daily column on Japanese language in the Yomiuri Shimbun, then (and still) the most widely read Japanese newspaper, called Nihongo no Gemba ‘Scenes of Japanese Language’. In the 1970s, Yomiuri published a series of reports and discussions about the use of anata, focusing solely on this topic during October and November 1976. Many of the extracted comments in Chapter 6 are from this time. Regarding data presentation, the survey results and the text data are presented differently. The survey respondents’ comments are presented with their exact wording in romanized Japanese. Glossing for each word is not provided but English translations of the entire comment are. At the end of each extract, the respondent’s ID is indicated, using numbers 1 to 428 (i.e., ‘Respondent 1’ to ‘Respondent 428’). For the text data, when presenting example sentences, their sources are given at the end of the examples in the following manner:

18

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

i. Conversations from the conversational corpus (Usami 2007): C + the number of the conversation file e.g., (C1), (C2), (C3) ii. Advertisements: The name of the advertiser + year collected e.g., (McDonald’s, 2014) iii. Parliamentary Debate: The name of the committee meeting + date e.g., (Financial Committee meeting, 5 Aug 2012) iv. Dramas: The name of the drama + the episode number e.g., (Kiken na Aneki, episode 2) v. Newspaper articles: The name of the newspaper + date e.g., (Yomiuri Shimbun, 15 Oct 1976) In the case of examples extracted from sources other than the above data sets, an indication of this is provided at the end of each example. Examples which do not have any indication of source were constructed by the author. For each example in this study, romanization is used to represent Japanese script. The study adopts the Hepburn system for the romanization of Japanese sentences except for one modification: in order to express long vowels, a succession of two short vowels is used – aa, ii, uu, ei (ei is used for the long equivalent of e), and oo – instead of short vowels with superscript diacritics – ā, ī, ū, ē, and ō. This follows a widely accepted convention in the literature of Japanese linguistics.15 Following the romanized Japanese sentences, interlinear glosses and English translations are provided. Transcription conventions, including the abbreviations for glosses and romanization of Japanese, are consistent except for cases where example sentences are cited from previous studies. When their original transcriptions and abbreviations are preserved and differ from those of the current study, this is noted in a footnote. In English translations, words or phrases which do not actually appear in Japanese utterances are indicated using single brackets, i.e., ( ). This technique is intended to assist the reader’s comprehension of the utterances. Names of participants in example sentences have been replaced with an initial, using letters such as ‘A’ or ‘B’. If two speakers have the same initial, two letters are used such as ‘Sg’ and ‘Sn’. Some of the examples are presented more than once for discussion at different points throughout the book, and these are indicated as such.

15. The exceptions are that long vowels are not indicated in the names of Japanese authors or publishers in the text or Reference List.

Chapter 1. Introduction 19



1.3

Issues in existing approaches to the address pronoun anata

This section reviews the existing literature on anata, focusing on what is deemed to be particularly noteworthy for our understanding of how this term has been considered in the field of modern Japanese linguistics. Overall, as previously noted, analyses of the use of anata have tended to be partial and insufficient. Scholars have generally studied the Japanese person reference system as a whole and have only briefly discussed the use of anata as one of the various available 2sg pronouns, with very little analysis of its actual use (if any). A full analysis of anata, including its primary properties, the perceptions of native speakers of Japanese about its use, and its pragmatic effects, has not previously been undertaken. As a result, many of the peculiarities of anata have been overlooked. In this section, the existing studies are divided into categories based on the approach they take. The classification is necessarily rather broad. Four approaches are distinguished: (i) a formality ranking-based approach, (ii) a sociolinguistic approach, (iii) a deixis-based approach and (iv) a cognitive approach. Each of these will be discussed in detail in subsections 1.3.1 to 1.3.4.16 1.3.1 The formality ranking-based approach Some studies – Tani (1981), Ide (1990b, 1992b, 2006), Shibatani (1990), Kanamaru (1997), Sanada (1997), and Shibamoto-Smith (2003) – have discussed the term anata based on its degree of formality in comparison to other address pronouns.17

16. There are some other previous studies which touch on the use of anata (e.g., Suzuki 1982; Araki 1990; Onishi 1992; Takahara 1992; Jung 1999; Saito 1999; Maynard 2001b; Lee & Yonezawa 2008; Zhu 2008; Yokotani & Hasegawa 2010a, 2010b; Kim 2012). They were not included in the literature review because, although these studies make some comments about the use of anata, their focus is not on the investigation of properties of anata. Instead, they focus, for instance, on the contrastive study of person reference terms in English and Japanese (Suzuki 1982; Saito 1999), on the reflection of family nicknames on a family relationship (Yokotani & Hasegawa 2010a), on the effect of the overt use of first and second person reference terms (Lee & Yonezawa 2008), and on the use of anata in textbooks published in Japan and China (Zhu 2008). 17. Among the listed studies, Ide (1990b, 1992b) and Kanamaru (1997) are sociolinguistic studies. However, the reason they have been categorized into the formality ranking-based approach rather than the sociolinguistic approach is that their treatment of anata is clearly based on the premise that anata is a formal 2sg pronoun.

20 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

When 2sg pronouns are ordered according to formality, anata is clearly placed at the formal end of the cline, as shown in Table 1, taken from Shibatani (1990: 371).18 Table 1.  Inventory of Japanese personal pronouns (source: Shibatani 1990: 371) Formal

Informal

1st person

Male speaker Female speaker

watakushi watakushi

watashi  

  watashi

boku  

ore atashi

2nd person

Male speaker Female speaker

anata anata

   

   

kimi/anta  

omae anta

3rd person

   

   

kare ‘he’   kanojo ‘she’  

   

   

In the above inventory, Shibatani (1990) ranks anata at the same level of formality as the 1sg pronoun watakushi ‘I’. Watakushi is the most formal 1sg form, used in highly formal settings such as job interviews, public speeches and so forth. Although some scholars describe anata as slightly less formal, i.e., closer to the level of the 1sg watashi, the claim that anata is a formal 2sg is often made. For example, Kanamaru (1997: 17) states that “anata wa danjo kyootsuu ni foomaru na bamen de mochiirareru” ‘anata is used by both male and female speakers in formal situations’. Shibamoto-Smith (2003: 210) aligns with this, stating that “women and men share the formal anata”. The notion that anata is a formal 2sg pronoun has served to account for two other common observations regarding its use: that it has a distancing nuance and that it is somewhat more frequently used by women than men. Ide (2006: 124) states that anata is interpreted as distancing the addressee precisely because it entails a sense of aratamari ‘formality’. Sanada (1997: 90) also states that the use of anata appears when interlocutors are not close, for example, when they do not know much about each other’s background, because anata is “yaya teinei-na” ‘a relatively formal’ pronoun which functions to keep a certain distance between interlocutors. Sanada (1997) goes on to point out that the formality of anata enables it to occur in a conflict situation in order to increase the distance between speaker and addressee. The view of anata as a formal 2sg pronoun has also been extended to account for women’s use of the term. Some studies have stated that women tend to use anata more often than men and have attempted to explain this in relation to women’s more polite use of language (Tani 1981; Ide 1990b, 1992b). It has been known for some time that female speech tends to be more polite than male speech and includes 18. The title of the table in Shibatani (1990: 371) is “Gender distinction in pronominal forms” since the purpose of this inventory in his work is mainly to discuss gender differences in the use of personal pronouns.



Chapter 1. Introduction 21

more honorific usages or polite alternatives in word choices (e.g., Lakoff 1973b; Ide 1982; Shibamoto-Smith 2003; Endo 2006). The higher degree of politeness in Japanese women’s speech has been said to be due to “men’s dominance over women in social positions” as a “legacy of feudalism” (Ide 1982: 378).19 Thus, a formality ranking-based approach regards anata as an inherently formal pronoun and tries to account for its use in formal settings and its entailment of a sense of formality, which also generates a distancing nuance toward the addressee, as well as its use by women as a polite pronoun. It is indeed a fact that the use of anata is observed in highly formal settings co-occurring with a high level of honorifics, such as official ceremonies, courtrooms, and parliamentary meetings. It is also observed in some written forms such as official letters and survey papers to address the reader in an official manner. In these settings, other 2sg pronouns such as kimi and omae would not be used as they are too informal and hence thought to be inappropriate. However, placing anata at the top of the formality ranking and treating it as a formal or polite 2sg pronoun is problematic. One obvious case that this account does not properly accommodate is precisely the kind of example Sanada (1997) mentions, where the term is used in an impolite manner such as in an argument. While Sanada claims that this is due to the distancing function of anata as a formal pronoun, the issue of formality is simply not relevant in many cases. As will be shown in Chapter 5, the use of anata is often observed in conflict situations between interlocutors, such as a speaker’s emotional attack on an addressee. Example (9) is extracted from a parliamentary debate: (9) Nani=o it-te-ru n des-u ka, anata=wa! what=acc say-ger-be.npst nmlz cop.pol-npst q 2sg=top Neboketa yoo-na koto=o! half.asleep like-link thing=acc ‘What are you (anata) talking about, such half asleep nonsense?’  (Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Committee meeting, 8 Nov 2012)

In this example, the speaker is a member of parliament and the addressee is a parliamentary secretary. Here, it is true that anata is used in a ‘formal’ setting, i.e., a parliamentary meeting. However, it is difficult to regard this occurrence of anata in any way as a formal use of the term. On the contrary, the speaker is extremely angry and attacking the addressee almost as if he is picking a fight. He also hurls an 19. This is said to be based on the concepts otoko-rashisa ‘manliness’ and onna-rashisa ‘womanliness’, the emergence of which dates back to the Meiji era (especially from the late 19th century to the early 20th century), when Japan’s modern nation-state formation was pursued (e.g., Reynolds 1990; Okamoto 1997; Shibamoto-Smith 2003; Inoue 2004, 2006; Endo 2006). I will discuss this topic in Chapter 6.

22

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

abusive expression neboketa yoona koto ‘half asleep nonsense’. In such a situation, native speakers would sense a highly impolite nuance entailed by the use of anata. I argue that the effect that the use of anata engenders cannot be accounted for by the claim that anata is an inherently formal pronoun. It needs to be explained in terms of pragmatics. The characterization of women’s use of anata as a ‘polite’ use of language also raises problems. The native speakers’ self-reported survey, which will be discussed in Chapter 3, shows that female native speakers are aware of the impolite nuance entailed by the use of anata and they do not rationalize their use of the term based on women’s more polite use of language. In reviewing the previous literature, I found no convincing evidence for this ‘popular’ account of women’s use of anata as a polite 2sg pronoun. Further, as I mentioned in Section 1.1 and to be discussed further in Chapter 3, native speakers share the perception of many scholars (Sections 1.3.2–1.3.4) that anata should not be used towards a superior. Even Shibatani (1990), a proponent of the formality ranking-based approach, mentions this restriction on the use of anata toward a superior, a statement inconsistent with his ranking of anata as the formal 2sg pronoun. The formality ranking-based approach cannot explain why this is so. In short, an account based on the formality ranking of the pronoun inventory only focuses on partial aspects of the use of anata and tends to lack empirical investigation of the variety of uses of the term. As a result, it fails to systematically explain different observed cases of its use. 1.3.2 The sociolinguistic approach There are some studies – Suzuki (1973, 1978), Otaka (1999), Jung (2003), Kajiwara (2004), and Sepehri Badi (2011, 2012, 2013) – which discuss the use of person reference terms from sociolinguistic perspectives. I categorize those studies into the ‘sociolinguistic approach’. Suzuki (1973) clarified the sociocultural rules of the system of Japanese person reference terms, reflecting the importance of vertical relationships in the use of the terms. His work offers basic ‘rules’, one key point of which is that a socially inferior speaker cannot use second person pronouns to refer to or address a superior addressee (see Chapter 2 for further explanation). For example, within a family, a speaker normally uses kinship terms to address older members of the family. In other social situations outside the family, it is usual to refer to a superior addressee, for example, a teacher or boss, with occupational terms and position names, such



Chapter 1. Introduction 23

as sensei ‘teacher’ and kachoo ‘section manager’.20 While a socially superior speaker can refer to or address an inferior addressee using names and pronouns, the reverse is not possible. This rule has generally been regarded as the social norm of the person reference system in Modern Japanese, aspects of which are shared by many languages of East and Southeast Asia (e.g., Williams-van Klinken & Hajek 2006; Sidnell & Shohet 2013; Fleming & Slotta 2018; Lee 2019). Based on Suzuki’s work, subsequent sociolinguistic studies of person reference terms (listed at the beginning of this section) added detailed findings which attested to the ‘rules’ by means of surveys collected from native speakers. The contribution of these studies has been to present some quantitative facts about native speakers’ self-reported usages. Their main findings, focusing on the perceived use of anata, can be summarized in three points. First, in line with my own findings (see Chapter 3 for details), the use of anata among speakers of contemporary Japanese is reported to be less frequent compared to alternative terms. Second, some studies reported that women tend to use anata more frequently than men or that they are perceived to do so (Jung 2003; Sepehri Badi 2012, 2013).21 For example, in her work investigating the use of person reference terms within a family, Sepehri Badi (2011, 2012, 2013) reported that mothers and grandmothers use anata more frequently than do fathers and grandfathers when addressing or referring to their children and grandchildren. Sepehri Badi (2012) also showed that anata was reported to be used more frequently toward female family members such as older or younger sisters. Third, these survey results generally lend support to the norm of the Japanese person reference system drawn up by Suzuki (1973) and described above. That said, there are several studies which also suggest deviations from the norm. For example, Sepehri Badi’s studies (2011, 2012, 2013) show that younger siblings reportedly use not only kinship terms such as oniichan ‘older brother’ and oneechan ‘older sister’ but also names, nicknames, and personal pronouns including anata and omae toward older siblings. Sepehri Badi (2013) explained this tendency based on an increase in the number of nuclear families and decrease in the number of siblings. That is, there being fewer siblings and they being closer in age, they are less conscious of a junior and senior difference. Sepehri Badi (2012) also suggested the possible influence of media and internet communications. 20. Sensei is also traditionally used among teachers to address each other in an educational setting regardless of age (Shigematsu 1956: 108). 21. Jung’s (2003) survey was based on native speakers’ acceptability judgements. According to her, in situations where native speakers think that the use of kimi is acceptable by a male speaker, the use of anata is regarded as more appropriate than kimi if the speaker is female.

24

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

As seen thus far, sociolinguistic surveys give us some useful information regarding native speakers’ reflections on the use of anata. However, there are also shortcomings in this approach to an analysis of the term. One of them is that the surveys are self-reported, meaning that, even if respondents’ perceptions of their uses are accurate, the actual contexts in which anata is used are not known. Furthermore, these studies tend to be quite descriptive, demonstrating the results with the use of numbers but lacking in-depth discussion of each term. For example, Sepehri Badi’s (2013) finding is interesting in the sense that it shows some deviations from the norm, e.g., younger siblings reported that they may use anata toward older siblings. However, it is not clear from her study if they always do so or if there are any situational/contextual tendencies. These issues arise because none of these studies utilized mixed-method techniques including analyses of spoken data. As a result, it is difficult to understand the impact of any contextual factors. Another shortcoming of these studies when analyzing anata is that each survey has its own focus, hence the types of respondents and the investigated usages in these studies represent only partial aspects of the use of anata. For example, Sepehri Badi (2011, 2012, 2013) focused only on the reported use of person reference terms in families. Otaka’s survey (1999), on the other hand, was conducted only among university students in the Kansai region, which has a distinct dialect, hence the responses may have been affected by the dialect. Thus, generalizations on the basis of their findings are not possible. Further, because of the descriptive nature of these studies, it is not possible to discover why the use of anata toward a superior is considered impossible. As Suzuki himself observed: Ippan ni, ‘anata’ wa ‘kimi’ ‘omae’ ‘kisama’ nado ni kurabete, keigo to made ikazutomo, hin no yoi kotoba to uketorarete iru nimo kakawarazu, jissai ni wa meue ni mukatte tsukainikui kotoba nano dearu. ‘Despite the fact that anata is generally considered a more polite word (though not part of keigo ‘honorific language’) than kimi, omae, and kisama (all of which are different ways of saying you), it is really a word not easily used when addressing persons of higher status.’  (Suzuki (1973: 132), English translation Suzuki (1978: 91))

In making this comment, Suzuki briefly mentioned that the use of anata would place the interlocutor at a distance but did not investigate further. This is understandable because the purpose of Suzuki’s work was not to offer an in-depth analysis of a particular pronoun, anata, but to document sociocultural norms throughout the entire system of person reference terms. Generally, since a comprehensive understanding of the use of anata was not an objective of the studies referred to in this subsection, none of these studies is sufficient to solve the mystery



Chapter 1. Introduction 25

of anata. The sociolinguistic approach is of limited use in a systematic analysis of the term. That said, Suzuki’s (1973) work is important in the sense that the norms of the person reference system presented by him are essential background for the purpose of the current study. For this reason, I discuss it further in Section 2.3. 1.3.3 The deixis-based approach Some studies – Takubo (1997), Saito (1999), Kanai (2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2012), Araki (2003), Miwa (2005) – account for the use of anata from the point of view of ‘deixis’. I refer to these studies as the ‘deixis-based approach’. Deixis refers to words and phrases which require extra-linguistic contextual information in order to understand who or what they refer to, for instance I and you (person-deixis), here and there (spatial deixis), and so forth. The distinctive feature of first person and second person which separates these roles from third person is the fact that first and second person are inherently deictic, while third person is not. Third person is not a participant in a conversational situation and does not play a speech role. Thus, the third person is in a non-deictic category (Halliday & Hasan 1976; Levinson 1983, 2004; Siewierska 2004). The key point emphasized by the deixis-based approach is the directness of the use of anata caused by its deictic nature as a 2sg pronoun. It is this approach that has attempted to pursue the question of why anata cannot be used toward a superior addressee despite the fact that it is regarded as a relatively formal term. Observe the following Example (10) cited in Kanai (2003a). The example is from a novel and the setting is a conversation between a student Kato and his teacher Kagemura. Before this extract, the narrative relates the student’s anger toward his teacher. (10) (Narration) Katoo wa jibun no kao no hotette iku no o kanjite ita. Ikari ga kao ni dete kita no dearu. Kato felt his face burning. His anger was starting to express itself.   Kato: Ittai anata=wa naze watashi=ni sonna koto=o tazune-ru at.all 2sg=top why 1sg=dat such thing=acc ask-npst n des-u? nmlz cop.pol-npst ‘Why do you (anata) ask me such a thing?’   Kagemura: Anata da to? 2sg cop.npst quot ‘You (anata)?’

26 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

(Narration) Kagemura wa mutto shita yoo na kao de itta. Sensei to iwazuni anata to itta koto ga Kagemura ni wa fuyukai ni omoeta ni chigainai. Kagemura spoke, as if he were in a bad temper. The fact that (Kato) did not call him sensei ‘teacher’, but anata, must have offended him.  (Kokoo no hito ‘Solitary person’ (1969) cited in Kanai (2003a: 14))

There is no doubt that the normal expectation would be for Kato, as a student, to refer to Kagemura as sensei ‘teacher’, even in a context like this in which he is a second person referent. It is not surprising that Kagemura gets offended by Kato’s use of anata. Kanai (2003a) states that the use of anata inevitably entails an impolite nuance because of the directness caused by its deictic nature. Takubo (1997) takes the same position as Kanai in arguing that personal pronouns are deictic and hence their use lacks an indirect politeness strategy.22 He divides person reference terms in Japanese into three categories. The first category is ninshoo meishi (lit. ‘person nouns’) such as watashi ‘I’ and anata ‘you’.23 The second category is teikijutsu (lit. ‘fixed descriptive words’), which includes words such as position titles and kinship terms, e.g., kachoo ‘section manager’, otoosan ‘father’, and so forth. According to Takubo, words such as kachoo and otoosan merely refer to these roles in the immediate conversational situation but do not primarily refer to the speaker and the listener. When those who have roles such as ‘father’ and ‘teacher’ in the immediate situation happen to be the speaker or the listener, the teikijutsu are interpreted as first/second person reference terms. In this sense, teikijutsu do not fundamentally indicate speech roles. The third category is koyuu meishi ‘proper names’. Proper names also do not primarily refer to the speaker and the listener but assign speech roles only when used in an immediate conversational situation. Takubo (1997) states that among all these words, only first and second person pronouns are inherently deictic in the sense that their referent is provided only by the context, not by “the semantic conditions imposed by the expression” (Levinson 2004: 101). In using 2sg pronouns, the role of the second person is directly assigned 22. I assume that Takubo meant first and second person pronouns. 23. Takubo (1997) argues that in Japanese, words such as watashi ‘I’ and anata ‘you’ indicate person referents, but do not indicate a grammatical person category. These terms are interchangeable with other nouns. Thus, he argues that words like watashi and anata do not have to be exclusively categorized as daimeishi ‘pronouns’ but can be simply regarded as a type of meishi ‘nouns’. Although Takubo (1997) does not use the expression ninshoo daimeishi ‘personal pronouns’, but rather refers to these words as ninshoo meishi ‘personal nouns’, I use the term ‘personal pronouns’ to refer to words such as watashi ‘I’ and anata ‘you’ in Takubo’s discussion.



Chapter 1. Introduction 27

to the addressee by the speaker in the immediate context. Metaphorically speaking, the use of 2sg pronouns is somewhat equivalent to the speaker directly pointing at the addressee with his/her finger, and this direct reference is felt to be impolite (Miwa 2005; Kanai 2012). Other terms such as teikijutsu (e.g., otoosan ‘father’ and sensei ‘teacher’) and koyuu meishi (e.g., Tanaka-san ‘Mr. Tanaka’) can avoid this directness, fundamentally because these terms are socially determined descriptions. The notion of directness inherent in the use of personal pronouns due to their deictic nature captures an extremely important aspect of their use. That is, it serves to make sense of the inappropriateness of using personal pronouns toward a superior in Japanese communication, where ‘indirectness’ is an important element in politeness (e.g., Araki 2003; Miwa 2005). Nonetheless, the deixis-based approach tends to focus only on the impossibility of the use of 2sg pronouns, including anata, toward a superior addressee. However, there are cases where the use of anata is possible toward a superior addressee without entailing an impolite nuance. Consider Example (11): (11) Watashi=wa anata=o aishi-te-i-mas-u. 1sg=top 2sg=acc love-ger-be-pol-npst ‘I love you (anata).’

In (11), the use of anata can comfortably co-occur with the formal form of the verb aishiteimasu ‘love’ and the sentence expresses a sincere nuance. Even if the speaker is an inferior talking to a superior addressee, it is difficult to say that this use of anata is impolite. Native speakers of Japanese would intuitively agree with this perception. As will be discussed in Chapter 5, the use of anata can occur in heartfelt messages, love songs, and poems, in which it conveys sincerity and warmth regardless of the addressee’s social status relative to the speaker. As such, the deixis-based approach has limitations in systematically explaining different aspects of anata. While this approach seems to make sense of generally accepted social norms regarding the use of person reference terms in Japanese (i.e., an inferior should not use personal pronouns toward a superior), it cannot explain counter examples. This account has difficulty explaining why the use of anata is in fact observed in utterances toward a superior addressee and why its use is not always interpreted as impolite.

28

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

1.3.4 The cognitive approach The cognitive approach takes a different standpoint compared to the three approaches described previously. This approach analyzes the use of anata from the perspective of the speaker’s cognition rather than social factors. Two studies are found to belong to this group, viz. Shimotani (2012) and Muramatsu & Xie (2015). Shimotani (2012) examines the use of anata in relation to the notion of ‘epistemic primacy’. This notion was developed by Stivers, Mondada, & Steensig (2011: 13), who define epistemic primacy as follows: In social interaction people orient to asymmetries in their relative rights to know about some state of affairs (access) as well as their relative rights to tell, inform, assert or assess something, and asymmetries in the depth, specificity or completeness of their knowledge. This asymmetry can be termed epistemic primacy.

Shimotani (2012: 72) argues that the use of anata occurs when the speaker has epistemic primacy in relation to the addressee. Consider Example (12) from Shimotani (ibid.), which is extracted from a documentary movie, Senkyo ‘Election’. In this extract, a candidate (C) of a political party is giving a speech to residents on the street. A woman (W) has approached the candidate and is speaking to him. (12) W: Anata=no, koo, keireki mi-tara mada 2sg=gen hest career.history look-cond yet   zenzen… at.all… ‘If (I) look at your (anata gen) career history, not yet at all…’ C: Soo des-u ne watashi ne… so cop.pol-npst ip 1sg ip ‘That’s right, I…’ W: Koko=ni=wa tsukushi-te-na-i. here=dat=top contribute-ger-neg-npst ‘(You) haven’t contributed to this district yet.’

Preceding this extract, the woman, who is a voter in the area, had stated to the candidate that other candidates had already tried their best to contribute to the district. Thereupon, she points out that the candidate has not yet really done so. Shimotani (2012) argues that the use of anata here is a device used by the woman to express the point that she is a voter and hence is in a position to give her judgment and evaluation of the candidate. In other words, this woman regards herself as possessing an epistemic primacy and hence is entitled to use anata. Shimotani (2012) goes on to argue that this notion explains why the use of anata is often observed in court cases. In a court, anata is frequently used by judges and lawyers toward the accused. According to Shimotani (2012), this is because



Chapter 1. Introduction 29

judges and lawyers are naturally supposed to possess epistemic primacy, as they are professionals in judging and assessing the accused. She also explains that the reason a socially superior speaker can use anata toward an inferior addressee is that epistemic primacy, i.e., the possession of knowledge and experience, often co-exists with the actual social status of the owner of the epistemic primacy. That said, she also states that the inferior’s use of anata toward the superior addressee is possible when the inferior speaker claims his/her own epistemic primacy. Similarly, Muramatsu & Xie (2015) state that anata tends to be used when the speaker ‘thinks’ that he/she is superior to the addressee in terms of knowledge and experience. The cognitive approach is innovative in the sense that its analysis is based on the asymmetry between the interlocutors’ epistemic statuses (which may or may not be related to their relative social status), whereas the other approaches previously discussed build their analysis on the basis of the actual social relationship between the interlocutors. However, if we look at a wider range of uses of anata, the cognitive approach also encounters some problems. For example, Shimotani (2012) only examines cases where the speaker has epistemic primacy. This creates a limitation in explaining other cases. Anata often appears in certain materials such as questionnaires, certificates, and advertisements. Consider Example (13) from an online market research questionnaire. (13) Anata=ga fudan riyoo.sur-u famirii resutoran=wa doko 2sg=nom usually use-npst family restaurant=top where des-u ka. cop.pol-npst q ‘Which family restaurant do you (anata) usually use?’  (MyVoice 2015)

The use of anata in asking questions to respondents, as in the example above, is very common in Japanese questionnaires. Fundamentally, the nature of a questionnaire is to ask for information that the investigator ‘does not know’. In this sense, it is clearly not appropriate to view the use of anata as an indication of the speaker’s epistemic primacy. Shimotani (2012: 78) also states that when possessing epistemic primacy, the speaker’s implicit claim is that the utterance is based on factual information. Thus, the speaker employs expressions which show high objectivity, often used to provide evidence for what they are saying. To explain this, Shimotani (2012: 78) uses Example (14), a conversation between a boyfriend, Toji, who is a hairdresser, and his girlfriend, Kyoko, who is a librarian, in a conflict situation. Toji asks Kyoko whether she looks down on occupations such as hairdressing after she chooses an intellectual movie for their date.

30

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

(14) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

T: Biyooshi toka-no hoo-ga, bakani.shi-te-n hairdresser etc.-gen side-nom look.down-ger-be.npst   ja-na-i no? cop-neg-npst nmlz ‘Rather, people like hairdressers, (you) look down on (them), don’t you?’ K: Nande yo. Sonna wake na-i desh-oo? why ip such reason exist.neg-npst cop.pol-tent ‘Why? No way (lit. It cannot be so).’ T: Ja-na-kat-tara, anna komuzukashi-i eiga cop-neg-pst-cond such tortuous-npst movie   erab-ana-i desh-oo. choose-neg-npst cop.pol-tent ‘Otherwise, (you) wouldn’t have chosen such a tortuous movie.’ K: Komuzukashi-kuna-i-yo. Ii eiga ja-na-i? tortuous-neg-npst-ip good movie cop-neg-npst   Mottomo anata ne-te-ta kedo. although 2sg sleep-ger-pst but ‘It’s not tortuous. Isn’t it a good movie? You (anata) were sleeping though.’

Shimotani (2012: 78) points out that Kyoko uses anata (line 7) during the argument with Toji when she states the fact that Toji was sleeping during the movie. Shimotani argues that anata tends to occur when the speaker states what he or she saw or heard as evidence. Muramatsu & Xie (2015: 134) agree with Shimotani concerning the objective flavor of the use of anata in cases where the speaker believes he or she holds epistemic primacy. They even go so far as to say that the use of anata occurs when the speaker wishes to express psychological distance from the addressee, maintaining control of his/her emotion, and this gives anata an unemotional tone. However, in the data examined for the current study, the use of anata was often also observed in highly spontaneous emotional utterances. Reconsider Example (9) discussed in Section 1.3.1, and repeated here. (9) Nani=o it-te-ru n des-u ka, anata=wa! what=acc say-ger-be.npst nmlz cop.pol-npst q 2sg=top Neboketa yoo-na koto=o! half.asleep like-link thing=acc ‘What are you (anata) talking about, such half asleep nonsense?’  (Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Committee meeting, 8 Nov 2012)

The outburst in (9) is a momentary explosion of the speaker’s emotion. It is difficult to see this kind of utterance as the speaker being in control of his emotions as a result of holding high epistemic primacy or objectivity.



Chapter 1. Introduction 31

In terms of the entailed nuance of using anata, there are some differences between the two studies that take the cognitive approach. On the one hand, Shimotani (2012) tends to examine cases where the use of anata is fundamentally interpreted as ‘threatening to the addressee’s face’ (Brown & Levinson 1987) by focusing on the speaker’s possession of epistemic primacy. This leads her to claim that the use of anata inevitably entails a coercive, cold, and hence somewhat impolite nuance. Thus, similar to the deixis-based approach, Shimotani’s (2012) account views the use of anata as impolite and has difficulty in explaining any use of anata which entails a polite and sincere nuance (such as that in Example (11) above). On the other hand, Muramatsu & Xie (2015) focus more on cases in which the speaker wishes to express psychological distance, which in turn generates an unemotional tone and thus a formal nuance. Thus, similar to the formality-based approach, Muramatsu & Xie’s (2015) account has difficulty in explaining cases in which anata co-occurs with a speaker’s emotional outburst or disrespectful utterance toward the addressee (such as in Example (9) above). In short, it can be said that the cognitive approach is potentially revealing but, as in the case of the other approaches discussed, it only focuses on partial aspects of the use of anata. As shown in this subsection, there are cases which this approach is not able to consistently and systematically explain. This suggests that the indication of epistemic primacy is not a genuine property of anata. 1.3.5 Summary and filling the gaps revealed in the previous literature In this section, I have provided an overview of previous analyses of the use of anata in the literature of Japanese linguistics. While the previous studies give us numerous insights into anata’s usages, they focus on limited aspects of the use of the term, which means their accounts are incapable of identifying the inherent nature of anata systematically and sufficiently. In this book I take a different standpoint from any of the previous works presented in this section, offering an integrated analysis of the functions of the use of anata which comprehensively accounts for the issues related to its use. I reveal that none of the views on anata in the previous literature, regardless of whether they emphasize an indication of the degree of formality/politeness, perceived sociolinguistic rules, deixis, or epistemic primacy, reveals the genuine, core property of the word that leads to these multiple uses in different contexts. I take a new angle, which is to investigate anata from the perspective of the intersection between semantics and pragmatics. I argue that anata is semantically the simplest of all 2sg Japanese pronouns. The varied effects discussed in previous studies, as well as native speakers’ disparate perceptions of anata, must then be analyzed in terms of pragmatics.

32

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

In this study, I adopt the notion of ‘absolute specification’ of the second person entity to provide the framework for my analysis.24 ‘Absolute specification’ means that the use of anata specifies the second person entity absolutely, without displaying any of the addressee’s social elements in relation to the speaker, and hence no social relationship between the speaker and the addressee is overtly specified. Put differently, anata is alone amongst second person pronouns in Japanese in that it does not indicate any aspects of the social relationship between the speaker and the addressee. The essential implication of this articulation is to recognize the socially inert nature of anata. I use ‘social relationship’ to describe a relationship that is typically identifiable in a socially expected way. Numerous relationships are included in this category such as kin relations, teacher-student relations, friends, lovers, shop staff-customer relations, and so on. As I have mentioned in Section 1.1, and will discuss in detail in Section 2.3, a fundamental feature of the system of person reference in Japanese is to indicate a certain socially typified relationship between the speaker and the addressee. For example, the use of occupational or position titles to refer to one’s superior, such as sensei ‘teacher’, as in Example (1), fundamentally indexes the status relationship. Addressing or referring to older members of one’s family with kinship terms such as okaasan ‘mother’, as in (2), displays the interlocutors’ kin relationship. Male friends may reciprocally use omae ‘you’, as in (3), to express their informal relationship as friends. In previous studies, this understanding of the Japanese person reference system has been unquestioningly applied to discussions about the use of anata. In the current study, however, I argue that the display of any kind of typified social relationship is absent in the use of anata and that anata’s inherent nature is in fact the non-display of interlocutors’ social elements when referring to the second person. This clearly contradicts previous understandings of person reference terms in Japanese, which is precisely the reason why anata has been perceived as a unique and mysterious pronoun. As we will see in Chapter 3, present-day native speakers’ metalinguistic reflections do indeed display diverse perceptions about the use of anata. However, attempting to define anata as polite/formal, impolite, distant or intimate is in fact an unconsciously tangential discussion about its expressive effects only. I reveal how the core semantic property of anata, absolute specification of the second person entity, creates these disparate perceptions as its ‘pragmatic effects’. 24. The term ‘absolute specification’ was proposed by Lee (2002) in his study of the zero particle in Japanese, but I use the term differently here. For detailed discussion of the grammatical function of the zero particle as ‘absolute specification’, its motivation and expressive effects, see Lee (2002). For discussion of the ‘null position’ of particles or the ‘zero particle’ as an independent grammatical category, see Kuno (1973), Martin (1975), Niwa (1989), Otani (1995), among others.



Chapter 1. Introduction 33

To explain this more visually, I use the metaphorical example of a pointing gesture and how it is understood in relation to what we call ‘common ground’ (Tomasello 2008). Tomasello reveals that in human communication, as simple a gesture as pointing relies heavily on common ground. Let us look at the example that Tomasello (2008: 3) provides: Suppose that you and I are walking to the library, and out of the blue I point for you in the direction of some bicycles leaning against the library wall. Your reaction will very likely be “Huh?,” as you have no idea which aspect of the situation I am indicating or why I am doing so, since, by itself, pointing means nothing. But if some days earlier you broke up with your boyfriend in a particularly nasty way, and we both know this mutually, and one of the bicycles is his, which we also both know mutually, then the exact same pointing gesture in the exact same physical situation might mean something very complex like “Your boyfriend’s already at the library (so perhaps we should skip it)”. On the other hand, if one of the bicycles is the one that we both know mutually was stolen from you recently, then the exact same pointing gesture will mean something completely different. Or perhaps we have been wondering together if the library is open at this late hour, and I am indicating the presence of many bicycles outside as a sign that it is.

What is important in the above possible interpretations of the gesture is that the physical aspects of the immediate context remained identical. That is to say, in all cases above, the gesture of pointing at bicycles was physically identical. Tomasello (2008: 4) emphasizes that in these examples “the only difference was our shared experience beforehand, and that was not the actual content of the communication but only its background”. This shared background knowledge includes not only the fact that I know a bicycle is your boyfriend’s and that you broke up with him recently, but also that we both know that we know these facts. Even if I know these facts, if I think that you do not know that I know, then it is not enough to say we have the common ground necessary to understand my pointing indication. These facts “must be mutually known common ground between us” (Tomasello 2008: 4). Using the pointing gesture in the above examples as a metaphor, imagine that the use of anata as absolute specification of the second person is the equivalent of the pointing gesture. The use of anata, which simply refers to the second person entity, does not itself create varied meanings. However, it is the interlocutors’ shared background knowledge about the social norms of Japanese communication and normative use of the person reference system that interacts with the use of anata and attaches different meanings to its use. In other words, anata is semantically simple, and its functions and expressive effects are only explicable in terms of pragmatics, by considering the interlocutors’ common ground in discursive contexts. Tomasello (2008: 6) further states that the “mutually assumed common conceptual ground” and “mutually assumed cooperative communicative motives” are

34

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

part of the fundamental nature of human communication, including linguistic communication.25 Tomasello relates these two fundamental principles of communication to the notion of the normative structure of communication: [T]his sharing/identification motive also led ultimately to the normativity of many social behaviors, the implicit social pressure to do it in the way others do it. As language displays very strong normative structure – both in the way we refer to things with particular linguistic conventions and in the form of utterances as grammatical versus ungrammatical – it is possible that this motive is at least partially responsible for our judgment that “That’s not the way it is said”. (Tomasello 2008: 282–283)

The above statement is consistent with what Enfield (2013: 182) says about the meaning of default formulation from a cognitive perspective: Whatever a person wants to say, she has to select a certain way of saying it. If we had to ask ourselves, on hearing every piece of every utterance, “Why is this person saying that in that way?” we would unnecessarily – and, no doubt, unbearably – overburden our inferential and interpretative processing. Default, publicly shared, common assumptions about how people typically do and say things provide interpretative channels along which we may travel with minimal cognitive effort. The default is a device by which we can routinely suppress our attention to manner of formulation, and against which we may recognize when something is being done in an unusual way (being then able to ask ourselves why that might be).

These statements by Tomasello (2008) and Enfield (2013) emphasize that what we share as common ground between interlocutors is an essential aspect of communication. Returning to the Japanese system of person reference, habitual and default forms of person reference terms are strongly governed by shared social norms in Japanese communication (see Sections 2.3 and 2.4). When the given relationship is typically socially definable, as with parent-child, teacher-student, supervisor-supervisee, shop assistant-customer, friends, lovers, and so forth, the use of suitable norm-governed terms is expected (see Section 2.3). If anata, which does not indicate the interlocutors’ social relationship, is used within a context of expected social norms, it conflicts with the sociocultural norms of relationship acknowledgement in Japanese communication. Thus, the use of anata creates discursive effects (the mechanisms of which will be shown in Chapter 5).

25. Tomasello also points out that this notion is in line with what Wittgenstein called ‘forms of life’ (1953), Bruner’s ‘joint attentional formats’ (1983), and Clark’s ‘common conceptual ground’ (1996).

Chapter 1. Introduction 35



On the other hand, if the interlocutors’ relationship is not typically definable, there are no particular expected terms to refer to the addressee. Thus, absolute specification of the second person without displaying any social elements of the interlocutors is less restricted and even entirely appropriate in certain cases (this will be shown in Chapter 4). This logic is generated in relation to speakers’ “mutually known common ground” (Tomasello 2008: 4) in Japanese communication. Throughout this book, I attempt to systematically explain the mechanisms that allow the use of anata in a range of contexts and particular genres, and its apparently mysterious property of creating many disparate perceptions among native speakers. I show how recognizing the property of ‘absolute specification’ of the second person entity leads us to solving the mystery of the Japanese address pronoun anata ‘you’. 1.4

Organization of the study

The remainder of the book is organized as follows. Chapter 2 starts with a brief history of anata along with several other personal pronouns. This helps us understand anata within the broader context of at least some of the most widely used person reference terms in the language over an extended period of time. The chapter also provides commonly used person reference terms in Modern Japanese and what are generally regarded as their present-day normative usages drawn from the previous scholarship. These norms are necessarily governed by sociocultural expectations; thus, the chapter describes the sociocultural foundation of Japanese communication including the notion of politeness. The chapter provides essential background knowledge for the subsequent discussion. Chapter 3 presents and discusses the native speakers’ perceptual data, as derived from the survey. This chapter shows not only the reported frequency of the respondents’ use of anata but also reveals speakers’ differing rationales behind their particular choices. These rationales are native speakers’ metalinguistic reflections revealing how they construe the use of anata. They inevitably incorporate their beliefs and language ideologies, which are highly likely to be based on the sociocultural norms of Japanese communication. Chapters 4 and 5 are devoted to examining the textual data used for the study. Chapter 4 focuses on the use of anata when the interlocutors’ relationship is socially undefinable. As noted earlier, this makes the use of anata less restrictive or even suitable, due to the absence of social expectations. It includes cases such as using anata to refer to a general audience or when it is used in reported speech to vaguely refer to an individual who is low in specificity or to people in general. The chapter

36

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

plays a crucial role in demonstrating the core semantic property of anata, which is absolute specification of the second person entity. Chapter 5 focuses on cases where the social relationship between the interlocutors is typically definable. Socially identifiable relationships require speakers to use expected person reference terms. For this reason, the use of anata functions in different ways by creating powerful pragmatic effects in various contexts, while the inherent property – absolute specification of the second person – is consistent in all cases. The chapter makes sense of the discrepancy between native speakers’ construals, seen in Chapter 3, and the core semantic property of anata, evidenced in Chapter 4. Chapter 6 discusses some social phenomena centered around the use of anata during Japan’s modernization. In particular, it shows how Japan’s post-war language policy, speakers’ identities/ideologies, and sociocultural norms interacted with each other and underwent complex ‘reflexive processes’ (Agha 2006: 9) in the evolution of the use of the term. This book focuses on a single address pronoun anata. By doing this, I hope to show that in-depth and comprehensive investigation leads us to truly understand the position of this single linguistic item at the intersection of language, society, and culture.

Chapter 2

The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms in Japanese communication

2.1

Introduction

This chapter covers key background knowledge which is particularly relevant to the discussion of anata in Chapters 3 to 6. I first take a look at the history of anata, because linguistic contention over its use is partly related to the historical change in its pragmatic value mentioned in Section 1.1. I then overview how previous studies have treated commonly used person reference terms in Modern Japanese and their present-day normative usages. Finally, since the system of person reference as a linguistic domain is unavoidably cultural, I review discussions concerning the issue of ‘cultures’, concepts of personhood, politeness in Japanese communication, and the structure of Japanese society. 2.2

The history of anata

Before focusing on the history of anata, I will briefly touch on some general tendencies in the historical transformation of Japanese personal pronouns. It is well known that personal pronouns in Modern Japanese have developed from a variety of origins such as lexical and grammatical sources (Sakuma 1959; Tsujimura 1968; Ri 2002; Ishiyama 2008, 2019). Ishiyama (2008, 2019) classified Japanese personal pronouns into two types based on their origins. I summarize Ishiyama’s studies (2008, 2012, and 2019) here. The first type is a group of pronouns that have clear lexical origins. For example, the 1sg pronoun boku originally had the lexical meaning of ‘servant’ and the 2sg pronoun kimi had that of ‘lord’. Initially, boku was used as a humble form to refer to the speaker and kimi was used as an exalted form to refer to the addressee.26 26. The development pattern of lexical sources such as ‘servant’ and ‘slave’ to first person and ‘master’, ‘lord’, and ‘king’ to second person is cross-linguistically observed, especially in Asian languages. See Cooke (1968) for Burmese, Thai, and Vietnamese; Durie (1984) for Acehnese; and Siewierska (2004) for Khmer and Malay.

38

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

These words then became reanalyzed as personal pronouns. Further, the humble/ respectful meanings were gradually lost over time. In Modern Japanese, boku and kimi are no longer humble/respectful personal pronouns but are informal 1sg and 2sg pronouns respectively (Ishiyama 2008, 2019). The second type is a group of pronouns that originate in expressions that refer to place/direction, or demonstratives. An example of the former is the 2sg pronoun omae ‘(lit.) honorable front’. According to Ishiyama (2008, 2019), omae developed from a location noun, mae ‘the front’, to a marker of a speech role, that is, a word which metonymically refers to a person in that location. Gradually, it was semanticized as a 2sg pronoun. Again, the respectful meaning was slowly lost and in modern Japanese, omae is a vulgar form of 2sg pronoun. This second group also includes konata ‘this way’ and sonata ‘that way’, which are no longer used in ordinary conversation today. Anata belongs to this group, that is, anata originated as a directional demonstrative to refer to a direction ‘that way, over there’ (e.g., Tsujimura 1968; Hashiguchi 1998; Ishiyama 2008, 2012, 2019). In terms of the diachronic relationship between demonstratives and first/second person pronouns, Ishiyama (2008, 2012) argues that demonstratives do not generally give rise to first/second person pronouns in the languages of the world. Although both first and second person pronouns are deictic, there is in fact a crucial difference between them (Ishiyama 2012: 62). Diessel (2003) states that the fundamental function of demonstratives is to direct the hearer’s attention to entities in the surrounding situation. Importantly, these entities were not previously activated in the hearer’s cognitive state in the speech situation. On the other hand, first/second person pronouns are, in most instances, presupposed in the speech situation. In other words, first/second person pronouns are almost never used to direct the addressee to search for previously inactivated information (Ishiyama 2012). Ishiyama (2012) argues that because of this difference in the cognitive status of the referent of demonstratives and first/second person pronouns, there is little diachronic relationship between them. He states that “the lack of relationship between demonstratives and first/second person pronouns is based on their dissimilar pragmatic functions and the nature of the referents they refer to” (Ishiyama 2012: 63). Ishiyama (2008, 2012) also argues that another reason why demonstratives do not generally give rise to first/second person pronouns is that “demonstratives can already refer to the speaker and addressee within the scope of their original demonstrative function” (Ishiyama 2012: 59–60): To put it another way, there is little functional motivation for demonstratives to become semanticized as markers of speech roles (i.e., first and second person). When demonstratives refer to an entity which happens to occupy the role of the speaker/addressee in the speech situation, there is no need for one to reanalyze demonstratives as personal pronouns unless that is the only context in which those demonstrative forms are used.



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 39

However, this does not mean that such a development never occurs. Anata is an example of this (Ishiyama 2008, 2012). To see how anata has developed from a demonstrative to a 2sg pronoun, let us look at the historical stages of Japanese language and summarize the development of the demonstratives konata, sonata, and anata. Table 2 is the standard classification used in historical studies, such as Tsujimura (1968), Ri (2002), and Ishiyama (2008, 2012, 2019): Table 2.  Historical stages of Japanese (Ishiyama 2008: 9)  

Approximate date

Corresponding historical period

Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V

700–800 800–1200 1200–1600 1600–1870 1870–Present

Nara Period Heian Period Kamakura/Muromachi Period Edo Period Meiji Period-

Following the historical stages shown in Table 2, Ishiyama (2008: 131) further divides Stage IV into two parts and clarifies the usages of konata, sonata, and anata as shown in Table 3: Table 3.  Historical summary of konata, sonata, and anata (Ishiyama 2008: 131) I. 700–800 II. 800–1200 III. 1200–1600 IV. 1st half 1600–1750 IV. 2nd half 1750–1870 V. 1870-

Konata

Sonata

Anata

---

---

---

S-PROX

S-DIST

S-PROX S-REF

S-DIST

S-PROX AD-REF

S-DIST

S-PROX AD-REF

AD-PROX AD-REF

---

S-DIST

Non-S/AD

AD-REF

S-DIST

Non-S/AD

AD-REF

S-DIST

Non-S/AD

S/AD-DIST

2nd

---

2nd

“S-REF (a referent that happens to be a speaker), AD-REF (a referent that happens to be an addressee) and Non-S/AD (a referent that is neither speaker nor addressee) are embedded in the demonstrative box to show that they are not semanticized person markers and they are not independent of the demonstrative function. On the other hand, the term ‘2nd’ used for anata in the second half of Stage IV and V indicates that it is a semanticized second person marker, thus ‘2nd’ is separated from ‘S/AD-DIST’ in the second half of Stage IV” (Ishiyama 2008: 131).

40 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

As seen in Ishiyama’s historical division above, originally, konata was speaker-proximal (S-PROX) while sonata and anata were speaker-distal (S-DIST), although sonata was often used for direction/location near the addressee, suggesting an addressee-proximal (AD-PROX) function in the next stage. Ishiyama (2008: 119) draws the following examples from The Tale of Genji and points out that anata is used from the protagonist Genji’s perspective to refer to the direction beyond the screen.27 Observe Example (15): (15) [anata for S-DIST, konata for S-PROX] (Stage II: 1002, Genji, Hahakigi)28   1 toke temo nerar-re-tamaha-zu, itadsura-bushi to calm.down even sleep-pot-hon-neg vain-sleep comp 2 obosaruru ni ohom-me same-te, kono kita no think.hon and hp-eye wake-conn this north gen 3 sauzi no anata ni hito no kehahi-suru wo, screen gen anata at person gen sign-do acc 4 “konata ya, kaku ihu hito no kakure-taru kata nara konata excl such say person gen hide-pst place cop 5 m, ahare ya!” to mi-kokoro todome-te, … emph pitiful excl comp hp-thought fascinated-conn ‘(Genji) lay down, but in vain. Dislike for sleeping alone kept him awake, listening to the sounds from beyond (anata) the sliding panel to the north and fascinated that “this (konata) must be where the lady they had talked about was hiding…”’  (Ishiyama 2008: 119) 28

In Stage III and the first half of Stage IV, these forms started being used metonymically to refer to a person, while retaining their original demonstrative functions. Konata was used for the speaker and sonata for the addressee, as in (16a) and (16b): (16) a. [konata for first person] (Stage III: 1277, Izayoi Nikki)   Kore mo tabi no uta niwa, konata o omohi-te this also trip gen poem for konata acc think-conn yomi-keri to miyu. compose-pst comp appear ‘(He,) too, appeared to have composed his travel poems, thinking of me (konata).’

27. Sauji (shooji in modern Japanese) is a screen or sliding panel made with paper sheets on a lattice frame. During the Heian period, a lady of the court was to hide herself behind a screen when talking to a man outside her family. 28. For examples taken from Ishiyama (2008, 2012), glossing and English translations follow those of Ishiyama’s original. Abbreviations used in Ishiyama’s example sentences are as follows: asp (aspect), comp (complementizer), conn (connective), excl (exclamative), hon (honorifics), hp (honorific prefix), humbl (humble), inj (interjection), mod (modality).



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 41

b. [sonata for second person] (Stage III: Late 14/Early 15C, Nonomiya)     Sonata o koso toi-mairasu-bekere. sonata acc emph ask-humbl-mod ‘(It would be more appropriate if) I asked who you (sonata) are.’  (Ishiyama 2012: 55)

Ishiyama also reported examples that show that the demonstrative functions of konata and anata were maintained at this time. Example (17) shows that these terms are used to refer to a third person inanimate entity: (17) [anata for third person] (Stage III: Late 14/Early 15C, Sotoba Komachi)   Iya Komachi toiu hito wa. Amarini irogafukoo-te. Anata no excl Komachi called person inj very beautiful-conn anata gen tamazusa konata no fumi. letter konata gen message ‘No, no, Komachi was very beautiful. Those (anata) many letters, these (konata) many messages came to her.’  (Ishiyama 2008: 120)

In the second half of Stage IV, konata, sonata, and anata are all used to refer to the second person. Examples (18a) – (18c) are from Ri (2002: 270–271) and English translations are given by Ishiyama (2008: 121): (18) a. [konata for second person] (Stage IV, second half: 1773, Edo kobanashi)     Konata wa nani o mi-te-gozaru. konata top what acc look-conn-asp ‘What are you (konata) looking at?’  (Ri 2002: 270)29 b. [sonata for second person] (Stage IV, second half: 1772, Edo kobanashi)     Sonata wa kono hi no mijikai noni, tabako bakari sonata top this day nom short despite cigarette only non-dei-te ii noka. smoke-asp-conn good q ‘How can you (sonata) smoke all day when the day is short like this?’  (Ri 2002: 270) c. [anata for second person] (Stage IV, second half: 1802, Edo kobanashi)     Anata no koto o yoku hito ga hinsoo da to anata gen thing acc often person nom poor.monk cop quot moosi-masu kara. say.humbl-pol because ‘People often say that you (anata) are a poor monk.’  (Ri 2002: 271)

29. Ri’s (2002: 270–271) examples were written in Japanese in the original but were cited in Ishiyama (2008: 121). I have borrowed Ishiyama’s glossing and English translations.

42

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Ishiyama (2012: 63) states that the “shift of konata from the first to second person can be explained by preemption of addressee-proximal forms by speaker-proximal forms”, and “the continued use of sonata for the second person is in accordance with the lack of preemption in the reverse direction”. However, he asserts that anata’s shift from third to second person cannot be attributed to its spatial semantics. In Stage IV, the a-series of demonstratives was speaker/addressee-distal. According to Ishiyama (2012: 63), it is difficult to see how the speaker/addressee-distal form could be used to refer to the addressee as a directional demonstrative when there existed dedicated addressee-proximal forms (i.e., so-series). He argues that the use of anata to refer to a second person at this stage was a distancing politeness strategy. Such strategies include well known cross-linguistic phenomena, such as distancing in time (the use of past tense is more polite than present, as in English I was wondering compared to I am wondering) and number (plural form is more polite than singular form, as in French vous and tu). German Sie involves distancing in terms of both person categories (i.e., a third person form for a second person referent) and number categories (i.e., plural form to refer to a singular referent).30 The use of anata involves distancing in space. Ri (2002) also points out that among the above Examples (18a), (18b), and (18c), the use of konata in (18a) and of sonata in (18b) refer to an addressee of equal or inferior status relative to the speaker. Neither form conveys respect and they co-occur with non-honorific expressions. On the other hand, the use of anata in referring to the second person in (18c) carries respectful meanings, co-occurring with the use of the humble form moosu ‘say’ and addressee honorific form masu. In the second half of Stage IV, the use of anata for the second person became increasingly popular. Ishiyama (2008, 2012, 2019) argues that the status of anata in a 2sg function is clear in Stage V because its original directive demonstrative function has vanished. At the same stage, konata and sonata disappear when they lose their demonstrative functions. His findings reveal that the development of anata differs from the other directional demonstratives sonata and konata. It reached the stage where the pronoun function became independent of the original demonstrative function. That made it possible for anata to survive even after the disappearance of its directional deictic function. After being semanticized as a polite/formal 2sg pronoun, anata has gone through a change in its pragmatic value. In the field of Japanese linguistics, the loss of humble or respectful meanings that occurs over a period of time is known as keii zengen no hoosoku ‘theory of depreciation of politeness’ (Tsujimura 1968: 205).

30. For details of diachronic perspectives on German Sie, see Simon (2003).



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 43

Suzuki (1973) and Barke & Uehara (2005) offer explanations about the rapid change in Japanese personal pronouns using the notion of linguistic taboo. Regarding this notion, Hock (1986: 293) states that “what is subject to taboo may differ from culture to culture. But whatever the cultural differences are, tabooed expressions tend to be avoided”. In Japanese, the direct referencing of people to whom the speaker must show respect is regarded as close to taboo (Suzuki 1973: 144–145). Thus, euphemistic expressions are necessarily invented just as the directional demonstrative anata was used for referring to a respected person in that direction. However, when these expressions become more widely used, their politeness value decreases, which in turn requires new polite/indirect expressions to replace them. Dahl (2001) uses the phrase ‘inflationary effects’ for this phenomenon and argues that the loss of ‘values’ of linguistic items is similar to the economic phenomenon whereby excessive printing of banknotes will depreciate the value of the currency. In other words, as more and more people regard the usage as acceptable, the rhetorical effects are lost. Japanese personal pronouns in general have gone through a rapid succession of changes, with new terms being created one after another, replacing earlier ones which had lost their politeness value (Sakuma 1959). Sakuma (1959: 102) reports that this type of phenomenon is particularly often observed in the use of personal pronouns as well as in the use of honorifics in Japanese. According to Sakuma, while those deictic words belonging to a group of non-personal demonstratives, such as koko ‘here’ and soko ‘there’, have been historically consistent in meaning and usages, personal pronouns show kaleidoscopic changes. He explains that this is because the use of personal pronouns, like that of honorifics, is strongly related to human relationships. Over time, these words have been transformed in relation to the psychological aspects of social interaction, such as the speakers’ desire to conform to the demands of social norms and expectations in the speech community. A number of researchers have pointed out that anata has gone through the process of diminishment of its politeness value (e.g., Barke & Uehara 2005; Ishiyama 2008). Although it is not entirely clear to what extent and when the decrease occurred, some evidence is provided by Kojima (1974), who claims that Tokyo-variety Japanese in the early Meiji period included not only the use of anata toward a superior as the formal form, but also allowed its use toward an equal and inferior. Kojima (1974: 70) draws the examples in (19) from the novel Ukigumo written by Futabatei Shimei and published in 1887. Osei (O) is a young female from a middle-class family and Bunzo (B) is her male cousin who is a public servant. They use anata toward each other in a casual conversation:

44 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

(19) 1 2 3 4 5

B: Soredewa nan des-u ka. Honda=wa anata=no then what cop.pol-npst q fn=top 2sg=gen   ki.ni.it-ta to i-u n des-u ka. like-pst quot say-npst nmlz cop.pol-npst q ‘So, what is it? Would (you) say you (anata) got to like Honda?’ O: Ki.ni.ir-u mo ira-na-i mo na-i like-npst also like-neg-npst also exist.neg-npst   keredomo, anata=no i-u yoo-na sono yoo-na but 2sg=gen say-npst like-lnk that like-lnk   harenchi-na hito ja.ar-i-mas-en wa. shameless-lnk person cop-inf-pol-neg.npst ip ‘It’s not whether (I) got to like (him) or not. (He) is not such a shameful person as you (anata) say.’ (Ukigumo by Futabatei Shimei 1887)

Osei and Bunzo are cousins and of equal status. Also, the topic of their conversation in (19) is highly private. Kojima (1974: 69–70) claims that although the formal-verbal endings (or desu/masu forms) are employed, the conversation setting can be regarded as quite relaxed and casual rather than formal and hence this example suggests that the decrease in the level of formality in the use of anata had already started. At the same time, Ishiyama (2008: 127) states that the use of anata still carried some sense of politeness around this time. In the early 1930s, an educational guidebook explicitly indicated the inappropriateness of using anata toward a superior (Hashiguchi 1998). The following extract is from Chuutoo-gakkoo Sahoo Yookoo Kaisetsu ‘Educational Guidelines for Secondary Schools’ published by Teikoku Jikkoo Kyooikukai ‘The Japan Society for the Study of Education’ in 1933: Taishoo wa tsuujoo ‘anata’ to shoosubeshi. Doohai ni taishite wa ‘kimi’ to shoosuru mo sashitsukae nashi. Tatoeba kyooshi ni taishite ‘anata’ nado to itte wa kaette kikigurushii mono dearu. Konoyooni, tokutei no hito ni taishite wa, sensei, otoosama, okaasama, ojiisama, obaasama, obasama, daredaresama, nado to iu. As for address terms, it should normally be anata. Toward an equal, it is acceptable to use kimi. If anata is used toward a teacher, for example, this is unpleasant to hear. As such, use toward a particular addressee, ‘teacher’, ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘grandfather’, ‘grandmother’, ‘aunt’, ‘someone-sama’, and so forth. (Chuutoo-gakkoo Sahoo  Yookoo Kaisetsu ‘Educational Guidelines for Secondary Schools’ 1933: 43)

From this extract, we see that the use of anata toward a superior at this time was already regarded as inappropriate in cases where there were other expected terms, such as titles and kinship terms, which could be used. Although some studies still situate anata as a formal pronoun (as explained in Section 1.3.1), Hashiguchi (1998) claims that by around this time (i.e., by the early



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 45

Showa era before World War II), the honorific value of anata had almost ceased. Other studies including those discussed in the next section are in line with this, indicating that the use of anata toward a superior has been seen for some time as inappropriate. 2.3

Person reference terms in Japanese

Given the general tendency in historical changes of Japanese person reference terms, their plenitude in the language is understandable. Barke & Uehara (2005: 304) report that diachronically they could come up with over one hundred and forty 2sg pronouns in Japanese, with the earliest found in the Nara Period (710–794), and that synchronically the most commonly used personal pronouns would number five or six each for 1sg and 2sg in Modern Japanese. This number is only for pronouns; as noted in Chapter 1, there are also a variety of lexical terms used for person reference in Japanese. In this section, I summarize the kinds of analyses that are presented in the literature on commonly used first and second person reference terms in present-day Japanese communication. These analyses usually focus on four categories of commonly used terms, viz. personal pronouns, names, kinship terms, and occupational/positional terms.31 As noted in Chapter 1, the use of these terms is seen as primarily determined by the social characteristics of the interlocutors, such as their age, gender, and relative social status as well as the level of formality in a conversational setting. Table 4 is a summary of commonly used 1sg pronouns in contemporary Japanese based on previous studies, including Ide (1990b: 73), Maynard (2001b: 11), and Ishiyama (2008: 2): 31. As noted in Section 1.3.3, some scholars raise the question of whether Japanese ‘pronouns’ should be considered true pronouns (e.g., Kuroda 1965; Takubo 1997). Japanese pronouns are modifiable and have a range of sociolinguistic variants, properties which are said to be uncharacteristic of pronouns. On the other hand, Noguchi (1997: 782) regards Japanese personal pronouns as pronouns claiming that they “do not denote by themselves, but rather they are referentially dependent on entities in linguistic as well as nonlinguistic contexts”. Siewierska (2004: 9) points out that the distinction between nouns and pronouns is best considered not discrete but scalar. In line with this, Sugamoto (1989) proposes a pronominality scale that articulates cross-linguistic features of pronouns. According to this scale, Japanese pronouns do indeed have ‘+nominal’ features. However, Sugamoto (1989: 274) still treats them as pronouns as they have the feature, characteristics of pronouns, of referential properties that are discourse dependent. In the current analysis, I endorse the value of a pronominality scale and choose to use the term ‘pronoun’ for these items.

46 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Table 4.  First person pronouns  

Male speaker

Female speaker

Formal

watakushi watashi boku (plain)a ore (deprecatory)

watakushib watashi watashi atashi

Informal

a. The English description ‘plain’ for boku and ‘deprecatory’ for ore is from Ide (1990b). Maynard (2001b) uses ‘informal’ to describe both terms. Ishiyama (2008) treats ore as ‘informal’. b. Maynard (2001b) does not include watakushi in ‘frequently used personal pronouns’.

Watakushi is regarded as the most formal 1sg pronoun. It is typically used in a formal conversational situation, e.g., during an official speech or at a job interview. In the case of watashi, there is an observable difference in the level of formality depending on whether this pronoun is used by a man or a woman. Men’s use of watashi is generally regarded as formal while women use watashi in both formal and casual contexts (Ide 1990b; Maynard 2001b). Boku is regarded as a ‘plain’ informal self-reference term for men while ore is an informal or deprecatory form, being seen as a display of masculinity (Ide 1990b: 73–74).32 Men often use boku or ore among friends, family, and in other casual settings, while women usually use watashi or atashi in such cases. Turning to 2sg pronouns, there are also a variety of available terms. Table 5 is a summary of commonly used personal pronouns for 2sg based on Maynard (2001b) but with some modifications based on Ide (1990b) and Ishiyama (2008). Note that although some items are placed side by side, this does not mean that they have the same semantic property or degree of formality. This table shows the items that are regarded as commonly used in given speaker-addressee combinations. Barke & Uehara (2005: 308) claim that anta is a phonologically reduced form of anata. However, its nuance is actually very different from anata. Normatively, anta is used as an informal form and would almost never be used in a formal situation. As for kimi, some studies treat it as a pronoun used exclusively by males (Kurokawa 1972: 233; Ide 1982: 359; Ide 1990b: 73; Shibatani 1990: 371), although others indicate that a female speaker could also use kimi toward a socially inferior male addressee (Maynard 2001b: 11; Jung 2003: 37–53). That said, according to Jung (2003: 53), female speakers’ use of kimi is reported to be limited and perceived by native speakers to be less acceptable than male speakers’ use. In the case of omae, it is widely regarded as being used predominantly by male speakers to refer to an 32. According to Ide (1990b), because men’s speech has an uninhibited quality, vulgar expressions do not have negative values and are favorably used by men. For discussion of the gender differences in self-reference, see, for example, Ide (1990b), Kanamaru (1997), and Shibamoto-Smith (2003).



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 47

Table 5.  Second person pronouns   Male addressee    higher    equal    lower

Female addressee    higher    equal    lower

Male speaker

Female speaker

N.A.a kimi, omaeb anta, omae kisama, temee (derogatory) c

N.A.a anata anata, kimi

N.A.a kimi, anata kimi, omae

N.A.a anata anata, anta

a. ‘N.A.’ indicates that the second person pronoun is generally regarded as inappropriate in this case. b. The use of omae between male equals is not included in Maynard (2001b) but is in Ishiyama (2008: 2–3). c. Maynard (2001b) did not include kisama and temee. The description ‘derogatory’ for kisama and temee is from Ishiyama (2008). Ide (1990b) describes omae and kisama as ‘deprecatory’.

equal or an inferior (e.g., Ide 1990b).33 Men are stereotypically associated with the use of so-called ‘vulgar’ forms including omae (SturtzSreetharan 2009: 258). Temee and kisama are regarded as derogatory forms which can typically be observed in situations such as emotional conflict and they express a strong sense of contempt (Ishiyama 2008: 3). Turning to anata, as noted in the previous section, it is normatively not used when the addressee is of a superior social status. Again, while some previous studies have claimed that anata is a formal 2sg pronoun (see Section 1.3.1), the restriction on its use toward a superior addressee has generally been regarded as a social norm. Table 5 indicates that anata is included in the repertoires of both male and female speakers; a male speaker tends to use anata toward a female inferior addressee, while a female speaker uses anata toward both an equal and inferior addressee. According to Ide (1990b: 74), female speakers tend to use anata toward an inferior addressee because deprecatory 2sg pronouns are not available to females. That said, as we will see in Chapter 3, both male and female survey respondents expressed considerable uneasiness about using anata even towards equals or inferior addressees. It is important to note that Table 5 shows what is generally regarded as the norm and represents the treatment of 2sg pronouns in previous studies. In this book, however, I take the position that even attempting to place anata in this ordered system is, itself, problematic. As mentioned in Chapter 1, my overarching argument singles out anata as a unique 2sg pronoun that is different in kind from all the others. 33. Onishi (1994: 363) states that the use of omae by an elderly woman toward young children may be observed. However, its use is not common and highly limited.

48 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Next, let us look at personal names, where there is also a variety in the use of first name/last name and the appropriate suffixes. The use of these varieties is, again, determined by the interlocutors’ gender, social status, and the level of formality in a conversational setting. As briefly noted in Chapter 1, personal names are used as both vocatives and terms of reference. For example, to ask a person called Noriko ‘Is this your book?’, Japanese uses a sentence like Kore, Noriko-san no hon? ‘Is this Ms. Noriko’s (= your) book?’ Table 6 is a summary of the use of first/last names with suffixes, based on Maynard (2001b: 11): tab6

CIT0165

Table 6.  Use of L(ast) N(ame), F(irst) N(ame), and suffixes by gender, social status, and level of intimacya Addressee

Speaker male speaker not-intimate

male addressee       female addressee      

  higher same low   higher same low

intimate

LN-sama/-san LN-san LN FN LN FN

female speaker not-intimate

intimate

  LN-sama/-san LN-san LN-san FN(-san/kun/chan) LN-kun FN(-san/kun/chan)

LN-sama/-san LN-san   LN-sama/-san LN-san LN-san FN(-chan) LN-san FN(-san/chan) LN FN(-chan) LN-san FN(-san/chan)

a In this study, I use GN (Given Name) and FN (Family Name) since the sequence FN (First Name) LN (Last

Name) is not appropriate when applied to Japanese. Thanks go to a reviewer for pointing this out.

The politest suffix -sama is conventionally used to address the recipient of a letter, or by an employee in a service industry (such as a shop or hotel) when addressing customers. The suffix -san is normally used for politeness while -chan or -kun can be used when the interlocutors are close. The suffix -kun is mostly used to address a male equal or inferior. However, the male superior’s use of -kun toward a female inferior can be observed with an authoritative nuance. Females use -san more often even in an intimate relationship. The categories presented in Tables 4 and 5 (i.e., higher, equal, lower) as well as those in Table 6 (i.e., intimate, non-intimate) remind us of Brown & Gilman’s (1960) classic text on power and solidarity in the use of the European T/V system. In terms of power semantics, they state that power is nonreciprocal; “the superior says T and receives V” (Brown & Gilman 1960: 255). With regard to solidarity semantics,



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 49

they assert that “[t]he dimension of solidarity is potentially applicable to all persons addressed. Power superiors may be solidary (parents, elder siblings) or not solidary (officials whom one seldom sees). Power inferiors, similarly, may be as solidary as the old family retainer and as remote as the waiter in a strange restaurant” (Brown & Gilman 1960: 258–259). The notion of Brown & Gilman’s (1960) European T/V system is also useful for a discussion of the person reference system in Japanese in the sense that these dimensions in human relations, namely, power and solidarity, are indeed observed in Japanese communication. However, each of these various person reference terms in Japanese has different properties. It is not my intention to categorize these abundant items into a T/V system.34 Further, as explained in relation to Tables 4 and 5, previous studies have encountered challenges in attempting to place Japanese personal pronouns neatly into this kind of ordered hierarchal system. For example, in Table 5, kimi and omae, which are very different in nuance, are placed in the same column, as if they are freely interchangeable. Similarly, anata and anta are placed side by side, as if anta is simply a phonologically reduced form of anata despite the fact that, in reality, their usages and nuances are significantly different. Nonetheless, by displaying Japanese personal pronouns in this tabular format, it should be acknowledged that previous studies have succeeded in highlighting some important differences between their stereotypic usages related to the social characteristics of interlocutors and the contexts in which they tend to occur. Moving on to kinship terms, Suzuki (1973: 150–154) provides a clear and systematic outline of the generally accepted norms of their use. He represents status relationships within a Japanese family in Figure 1:

34. Not categorising Japanese second person reference terms into a T/V system also means that I do not discuss whether anata is closer to the T form or V form. Wierzbicka (1992: 320) states that “T forms in different languages are semantically equivalent” and they are semantically more basic. Other analyses of various languages have also suggested that the ‘intimate’ or ‘low’ form is the most semantically basic (see Diller (1994: 167–169) on Thai; Onishi (1994: 362–366) on Japanese; Enfield (2002: 147–149) on Lao). On the other hand, the V form in Bogotá Spanish (in Colombia) usted has been suggested as semantically more basic (Travis 2002: 177–183). In this study, while I acknowledge the value of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage framework which searches for semantic primes, it is not my intention to discuss the semantic prime of ‘you’ in Japanese in terms of the NSM framework.

50

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Niece

Grandfather

Grandmother

Uncle

Aunt

Father

Mother

Older brother

Older sister

Self

Wife

Daughter

Son

Nephew

Grandchild

Younger brother

Younger sister

Grandchild

Figure 1.  The status relationships within a Japanese family (Suzuki 1973: 150)35

The line in the figure divides the older and younger members of the extended family. Four points made by Suzuki (1973: 151–152) are relevant to the current study: i. The speaker cannot use a personal pronoun to address a relative above the dividing line. For example, it is regarded as impossible for a son to address his father as kimi ‘you’. In contrast, speakers above the line can use a personal pronoun to address any relative below the dividing line. For example, parents and grandparents can address their children and grandchildren with personal pronouns. ii. The speaker normally uses kinship terms to address people above the dividing line. For example, grandchildren use ojiisan/ojiichan ‘grandfather’ to address their grandfather. On the other hand, kinship terms cannot be used to address relatives below the line. For example, one cannot use otooto ‘younger brother’ or musume ‘daughter’ to address his/her younger brother or daughter respectively. iii. The speaker cannot address a person above the line by name alone. However, it is permitted to address a person below the line by name only. For example, 35. It should be noted that Suzuki’s (1973) figure has a minor inaccuracy. The statement that the line in the figure divides the older and younger members of the extended family is not necessarily true since a wife may be older than ‘self ’.



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 51

between a younger brother Taro and an older brother Ken, the younger brother cannot address his older brother as Ken but with a kin term ‘older brother’ such as niisan and oniichan. However, the older brother is allowed to address his younger brother as Taro.36 iv. The speaker can refer to himself/herself using kinship terms when talking to someone below the line but he/she cannot do so when talking to a person above the line. For example, in a conversation between an older brother and a younger brother, the former can refer to himself as niisan ‘older brother’, but the latter cannot refer to himself as otooto ‘younger brother’. Thus, in Japanese, words denoting ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘grandfather’, ‘grandmother’, ‘uncle’, ‘aunt’, ‘older brother’, ‘older sister’, and so forth can serve as self-reference terms. However, words such as ‘child’, ‘grandchild’, ‘son’, ‘daughter’, ‘younger brother’, and ‘younger sister’ cannot. As already noted in Chapter 1, Suzuki (1973: 154–158) also points out that the basic principle of the above rules may apply almost unchanged to social situations outside the family. The application of an address system for kin relations as a model for social relations is also observed in address practices in other Asian languages.37 In the case of Japanese, the above rules (i)–(iv) can be paraphrased to apply outside the family as follows: i. One cannot use personal pronouns to address, for example, one’s own teacher or boss, that is, someone who is higher in social status. However, from the superior to the inferior, the personal pronoun can be used. For example, a teacher or boss can use personal pronouns toward his/her student or subordinate. ii. It is normal to address someone higher in social status using occupational terms and position names, such as sensei ‘teacher’ and kachoo ‘section manager’. On the other hand, the reverse is not possible. For example, a teacher cannot address students as seito ‘students’. iii. The speaker cannot address a person of a higher status by name alone, without the name being accompanied by an occupational or position term, or by another appropriate title (e.g. -san). For example, an employee uses Yamada kachoo ‘section manager Yamada’ to address his/her manager Yamada. However, it is permitted to address a person of lower status by name only.

36. The use of kin terms for senior kin and names for junior kin is widely observed. See Fleming & Slotta (2018) for details. 37. See, for example, Williams-van Klinken & Hajek (2006) for Tetun Dili; Sidnell & Shohet (2013) for Vietnamese; Sneddon, Adelaar, Djenar, & Ewing (2010) for Indonesian; and Lee (2019) for Korean.

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

iv. People of higher status can sometimes refer to themselves by their titles when talking to people of lower status, but the reverse is not possible. For example, a teacher can refer to him/herself as sensei ‘teacher’ when talking to his/her students, but students cannot call themselves seito ‘students’ when talking to their teacher. Given these generally accepted normative rules, let us look at an example of self-reported use of person reference terms. Figure 2 is also from Suzuki (1973: 148); the central entity (i.e., the ‘self ’) is a male speaker in his forties whose occupation is a primary school teacher: principal koochoo sensei (principal) sensei (teacher) father

older brother

bo ku (

I)

anata (you) kimi (you)

boku (I)

wife

oji san (

un cle )

booya (little boy) name kimi (you)

(fat

sei

n osa oto

) her

omae (you) name

omae (you) name

ore (I)

r) the bro

che r)

r

e old

( san nii

I)

( ku bo

self

(tea

colleagues

watakushi (I)

otoosan (father)

niisan (older brother)

sen

52

younger brother

neighbor’s son name pronouns

student

omae (you) name

son

Figure 2.  An example of the use of person reference terms (Suzuki 1973: 148)

This figure shows that the same speaker uses different first and second person reference terms depending upon to whom he is talking. Note that this figure represents the usage of a male speaker and would be different if the speaker were female. For example, a female speaker would not normatively use the vulgar 1sg ore or 2sg omae when talking to an inferior addressee. In Figure 2, the speaker uses the formal 1sg pronoun watakushi ‘I’ for self-reference when talking to the Principal and the plain casual form (for a male speaker) boku ‘I’ when talking to his father, his older brother, and his colleagues. He uses the vulgar 1sg pronoun ore ‘I’ when talking to his wife. In addition to these terms, he also uses kinship terms and occupational terms for self-reference. To his son, he uses otoosan ‘father’, to his neighbor’s son, ojisan ‘uncle’, to his students, sensei



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 53

‘teacher’, and to his younger brother, niisan ‘older brother’.38 As for second person reference terms, the speaker also uses a variety of terms depending on the addressee. He refers to older members of his family with kinship terms such as otoosan ‘father’ and niisan ‘older brother’. Toward his superiors at work, he uses occupational terms koochoo sensei ‘Principal’ or sensei ‘teacher’. He addresses and refers to his wife, his son, and his younger brother as omae ‘you’. For his students, he uses the students’ names. As for anata, while Figure 2 indicates that the speaker uses this pronoun toward his colleagues at an equal level, the self-reported survey of a large number of native speakers, undertaken as part of the current study, reveals that this usage is not in fact perceived to be common, as already noted in Chapter 1 and shown in Table 5. I will discuss this in more detail in Chapter 3. Thus far, we have observed a variety of first and second person reference terms in Japanese in what is generally regarded as their normative use. This represents the treatment of 2sg pronouns in previous studies. From the general rules given above, there are two important points that are particularly relevant to the current study. First, the overt use of most Japanese person reference terms serves to acknowledge the relative social relationship between the speaker and the addressee. As Suzuki (1973) states, the speaker’s choice of a Japanese person reference term is fundamentally based on the ‘presence’ of the addressee. As shown above, the man in Figure 2 calls himself otoosan ‘father’ when talking to his son. In order to designate himself otoosan, the speaker has to recognize the fact that he is the father of his child and is in the process of talking to the child. Likewise, to address his brother as niisan ‘older brother’, the speaker must first recognize that he is a younger brother of the addressee and talking to the older brother. Also, when the speaker addresses his son by name or uses personal pronouns such as omae ‘you’, the speaker indicates his role as a father and his status as a superior in his relationship with his son. When he calls the Principal koochoo-sensei ‘the Principal’, he confirms the addressee’s role as a superior and his role as a subordinate. Suzuki (1973: 198) describes the nature of this person reference system, stating “the Japanese ego may be construed as being in an indefinite state, with its position undetermined, until a specific addressee, a concrete person, appears and is identified by the speaker” (English translation in Suzuki (1978: 143). Later I refer to this as the notion of the ‘relational self ’ in Section 2.4). He goes on to state that 38. Suzuki (1973) also discussed the ‘fictive use’ of kinship terms. For example, children or young speakers may use kinship terms such as ojisan ‘uncle’ and obasan ‘aunt’ to refer to middle-aged non-kin addressees. Further, middle-aged speakers can refer to themselves using these kin terms when talking to children or younger addressees.

54

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

an individual with specific qualifications and qualities generally demonstrates a specific pattern of behavior within a social context and it is useful to define the concept of ‘roles’ to refer to this specific and expected behavior in society. It has been argued that the acknowledgement of such social roles and hence the relationship between interlocutors is one of the most important aspects of the social norms of Japanese communication (e.g., Matsumoto 1988; Ide 2006). I will discuss this in Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. Second, the use of person reference terms in Japanese is predominantly based on vertical relationships: [O]ne must realize how much importance the Japanese attach to roles based on superior-inferior oppositions in everyday human relationships. […] [I]n Japanese, all terms for self-reference and for address are connected with the confirmation of concrete roles based on a superior-inferior dichotomy in human relationship.  (Suzuki (1973: 187), English translation in Suzuki (1978: 134–135))

Indeed, other parameters do exist when stylistic choices are made in Japanese communication, and the prescriptive norm does not entirely capture the complexity of the actual address practice in the dynamics of interaction.39 Nonetheless, the predominance of vertical relationships in Japanese linguistic practice has been noted by a number of researchers (e.g., Morita 1987; Maynard 1997; Ide 2006). The person reference system in Japanese strongly reflects this. As Evans (2010: 70) states, to speak each language “you have to attend constantly to facets of the worlds that other languages let you ignore”. Users of Japanese must pay constant attention to the interlocutors’ social relationship and its superior-inferior dichotomy when using person reference terms. 2.4

Social norms in Japanese communication

Elaborating on the notion of relational self and observing the hierarchy-oriented social structure of Japanese society helps our understanding of the social norms of Japanese communication and the cultural foundations of the Japanese person 39. Maynard (1997) notes that apart from inferior-superior differences such as older/younger, higher/lower social status, more prestigious/less prestigious occupations, there are several factors which affect a speaker’s stylistic choice such as uchi/soto ‘in-group/out-group’ relations and the level of formality in the conversational setting. It is not difficult to imagine that in special cases such as an official ceremony and a formal meeting, every member may use polite forms toward each other regardless of their status relationship. Ide (2006, 2012) uses uchi/soto in a broader sense in that status differences can be also regarded as uchi/soto. For instance, someone to whom the speaker is supposed to show deference with the use of polite forms is viewed as a soto person.



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 55

reference system. This scaffolds later discussions in Chapters 4 and 5 which attempt to solve the mystery of why the use of anata is so sensitive in Japanese communication. 2.4.1 The issue of ‘cultures’ While discussing a cultural account of the system of person reference in Japanese and the social norms of Japanese communication, it is not my intention to advocate some sort of ‘uniqueness of Japanese culture’. Enfield (2004: 16) discusses the issue of ‘cultures’ as opposed to ‘culture’ and expresses the difficulties of characterizing ‘a culture’ and/or generalizing about its people, their practices, values, and/ or beliefs. He points out the problems in identifying an overarching category such as ‘Australian culture’ or ‘Russian culture’ and states that making generalizations about a distinct culture is highly problematic if the claim is that ‘the culture’ is empirically definable. However, Enfield also argues for the possibilities of approaching cultural generalizations as “descriptions of ideas about social identities, and about what is collectively assumed to be ‘normal’ – or, more precisely, what is assumed to be assumed to be normal” (Enfield 2004: 17). He explains this using an example claim that “egalitarianism is part of Anglo Australian culture” (Enfield 2004: 17), which can be interpreted in various ways as follows: a. Egalitarianism exists in Anglo Australian society. b. Anglo Australians hold egalitarian values (regardless of the truth of (a)). c. A certain community of people may be defined by their knowledge that there may be assumed, among (Anglo) Australians, a popular belief that egalitarian values are widely held by (Anglo) Australians (regardless of the truth of (a–b)). (Enfield 2004: 17) According to Enfield, among these descriptions, (c) is close to what he meant by “what is assumed to be assumed to be normal”. Enfield (2004: 17) goes on to make the following statement which is helpful to the discussion of sociocultural norms in this section: It is the stereotype ideas themselves, mythical or not, that are important in accounting for cultural logic, and emotional disagreements over whether it is valid to generalize about human groups or ‘cultures’ usually arise out of confusion as to whether the generalization intended is extensional (hardly tenable) or intensional (more like it; cf. Green 1995: 13) – i.e., whether the stereotype claims to describe the facts or whether it claims to describe some context-based default premises for cultural logic, which must be known about, but not necessarily committed to (cf. also Putnam 1975: 249 ff.). (Enfield 2004: 17)

56

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

What is relevant in Enfield’s observation to the remainder of this chapter is that what I refer to as the sociocultural norm in Japanese communication is close to what Enfield describes as what is generally known about sociocultural norms in Japanese communication. It is part of the broader notion of what is often referred to as ‘common ground’ and ‘linguistic ideology’, which includes common notions of “what is assumed to be assumed to be normal”, and shared common experiences as well as shared expectations.40 2.4.2 Personhood in Japanese communication In Section 2.3, I discussed the general system of Japanese person reference and pointed out two important aspects of the system: the importance of acknowledging the speaker’s relationship relative to the addressee and the concept of vertical relationships in Japanese communication. In this section, I discuss the former aspect. I will first touch on the notion of personhood in Japanese communication, furthering the discussion of what Suzuki (1973: 198; 1978: 143) describes as the ‘indefinite state of ego’. The concept of personhood in Japanese has been discussed by a number of researchers and they have insightfully pointed out its importance to the understanding of Japanese linguistic practice and communication (e.g., Matsumoto 1988; Maynard 1997; Ide 2006). In my discussion, I will also draw on the concepts of personhood in certain other communities as discussed by other scholars, as comparative perspectives can assist a clearer understanding of the point under discussion. Irvine (1974: 175) provides us with a proverb about greetings in a language of Senegal, Wolof, “When two persons greet each other, one has shame, the other has glory”. Foley (1997: 260) explains this as follows: [T]he distinct linguistic practices associated with the interlocutors in a Wolof greeting encounter are linked to the kinds of persons they are; indeed, considering the way relative ranking can be manipulated during the encounter through the verbal strategies of self-lowering and self-elevating, these linguistic behaviors are constitutive of what kinds of persons they are. Their understanding of what kind of person they are vis-à-vis the other interlocutor is embodied in their habitus.

Foley (1997: 260) points out that the practices embodied in the habitus are tacitly known, indicative and constitutive of a local ideology of personhood. He draws on 40. Bucholtz & Hall (2004: 375) discuss the analysis of culture in research stating that “to recognize that essentialism is frequently operative in the formation of social identities, as many researchers do, is not necessarily to embrace it as one’s own theoretical stance”. For more details, see Bucholtz & Hall (2004: 373–376).



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 57

cross-cultural differences in the articulation of the concept of personhood. First, regarding a familiar Western European concept of personhood, he extracts a classic definition from Geertz (1983: 59): The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgment, and action organized into a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other such wholes and against its social and natural background…

The concept emphasizes that each individual is unique yet ideologically has an equal claim of rights. Foley (1997) states that this is a result of the universalist morality in the Christian base of Western culture, which teaches that the spiritual component in all persons gives them a limitless value. This value must be recognized before all other values created in human society. This leads to the view of a person “as an individual, an embodiment of absolute value in her own right, and not simply in terms of her position in any social pattern” (Foley 1997: 265). Such an individualist concept of the person is in apparent contrast to that of many other cultures commonly regarded as traditional (Foley 1997). In these cultures, individuals are not singled out as the core of the understanding of person, but rather, the embeddedness of the self within the existing social context provides the definition of person: Personhood is, thus, defined in sociocentric terms, according to the social position a particular human being occupies. The sociocentric conception of personhood regards the good of the social grouping as fundamental and subordinates individual wants and needs to the collective good. […] [T]he claim is that their understanding of personhood, whether tacit or not, is enacted in, indeed, constructed through, linguistic and other cultural practices and thereby, inculcated in the habitus. (Foley 1997: 266)

Geertz (1983) discusses Balinese as an example of a sociocentric understanding of personhood being expressed in the linguistic habitus. The linguistic norm in Bali is based on status differences between interlocutors. Balinese has a large inventory of person reference terms based on one’s position in the hierarchical structure of the society. There are birth order names (first-born, second-born, etc.), kinship terms, names to describe kinship relations (such as mother of A and sister of B), caste titles, and so forth (Geertz 1983: 62–64). For Balinese, choosing these terms based on social hierarchies requires knowledge of what forms are acceptable and what are strictly proscribed in the articulation of the complex rules of linguistic etiquette (Geertz 1983; Foley 1997). The dichotomy of an egocentric vs. sociocentric understanding of personhood tends to be regarded as parallel to that of an egalitarian society vs. hierarchical

58

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

society. However, sociocentric conceptions of personhood can exist in an egalitarian society as well (Foley 1997). For example, in a culture with “an aggressively egalitarian ideology” (Foley 1997: 268), that of Gahuku of the highlands of Papua New Guinea, authority, power, and esteem can be earned through economic and physical power. Yet there is also a rigid prescription of appropriate behavior in this society. Read (1955: 276) describes Gahuku culture as follows: To the Gahuku-Gama, the palpable differences between people, the idiosyncratic variations in their natures, are like a shimmer which overlies their social identity. They are not unaware of these variations: they do not ignore them; but they do not distinguish, as clearly as we are accustomed to, between the individual and the status which he occupies. They tend, in other words, to categorize, to see men largely in terms of their position in a system of social rights and obligations […] the more outstanding a man is the more he is held in, and the more pronounced his own esteem the more closely he identifies himself with his status. Individual identity and social identity are two sides of the same coin. We ourselves are accustomed to distinguish between them…

Here, the person and her rights and obligations are also a function of social position. In Gahuku, distinct from Balinese, social status is said to be achieved by winning in open competition in an egalitarian society. Nonetheless, both Gahuku and Bali have a sociocentric ideology of personhood (Foley 1997). “In both societies the persons are largely understood to be their social positions, while in Western societies the social position is just that, an office that the person as an autonomous individual occupies” (Foley 1997: 269). I have discussed the system of person reference terms in Japanese in Section 2.3. One may easily recognize similarities between Balinese and Japanese in terms of possessing abundant items of person reference terms, although Japanese does not recognize caste, and the strictness of their use is also different. What is evident is that Japanese linguistic norms also reflect a strongly sociocentric notion of personhood. In fact, discussions regarding such a notion are not at all new in traditional Japanese ethical philosophy. The ethical philosopher Watsuji Tetsuro famously stated that morality is understood in various communities as the heart of human existence and its principle is based fundamentally on the order of relationships between human and human. In the first volume of his Rinrigaku ‘Ethics (1937)’, translated into English as Watsuji Tetsuro’s Rinrigaku: Ethics in Japan (Yamamoto & Carter 1996), he argues: Rinri mondai no basho wa koritsuteki kojin no ishiki ni dewa nakushite, masani hito to hito tono aidagara ni aru. Dakara, rinrigaku wa ningen no gaku nanodearu. Hito to hito tono aidagara no mondai toshite denakute wa, kooi no zen’aku mo gimu mo sekinin mo toku mo shin ni toku koto wa dekinai.



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 59

The locus of ethical problems lies not in the consciousness of the isolated individual, but precisely in the in-betweenness of person and person. Because of this, ethics is the study of ningen [‘the human being’ (YY)]. Unless we regard ethics as dealing with matters arising between person and person, we cannot authentically solve such problems as the distinguishing of good from evil deeds, obligation, responsibility, virtue, and so forth. (Watsuji (2007 [1937]: 20),  English translation in Yamamoto & Carter (1996: 10))

Watsuji’s central idea is that the structure of human existence is twofold, that is, it is “at once individual and social” (Berque 2006: 138). Watsuji argues that the very concept of ningen subsumes the idea of an ethical relationship between individuals that makes them human in the full sense of the term: Hito ga honrai shakaiteki doobutsu dearu no naraba, aidagara toka shakai toka iu mono wa hito kara hikihanasaru beki denai. Hito wa kobetsuteki ni ariuru to tomoni mata shakaiteki dearu tokoro no mono de nakutewa naranu. Sooshite kono yoona nijuuseikaku o mottomo yoku iiarawashiteiru no ga ‘ningen’ to iu kotoba nanodearu. [If] a human being is, basically speaking, a social animal, then social relationship cannot be separated from her. It must be that a human being is capable of being an individual and at the same time also a member of a society. And the Japanese term ningen, that is “human being,” gives most adequate expression to this double or dual characteristic.41(Watsuji (2007 [1937]: 26),  English translation in Yamamoto & Carter (1996: 14))

This concept of Japanese personhood has been accepted by numerous scholars. Hamaguchi (1998: 14) puts forward the concept of kankeitai ‘relatum’, which is presented in contrast to kobetsutai ‘individuum’ in his discussion of social systems. Kobetsutai frames an agent’s self-control and self-decision as the foundation of personhood and society, without considering the relationship between the self and the given context/conditions. In a kobetsutai society, self-determination and fair and free competition are two sides of the same coin. Hamaguchi’s concepts may seem similar to the often contrasted notions of ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’. However, Hamaguchi describes Japanese society as a kankeitai ‘relatum’ society rather than a collectivist society. According to him, kankeitai ‘relatum’ conceives of a relationship between the agent and the given contexts/conditions within which the self is placed as being sutesaru koto no dekinai shoyotekina mono ‘something essentially given that cannot be renounced’ (1998: 14–15). Hamaguchi (1998: 16) calls this concept kan’yoteki shutai, which can be closely translated as ‘relationized agent’, as if the relationship itself is the agent of activities. 41. Ningen ‘human being’ consists of two characters as in 人間. 人 nin means ‘person’ or ‘human’ and 間 means ‘space’ or ‘between’.

60 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Maynard (2001b: 8) and Yoshioka (2014: 5) point out that another philosopher, Arimasa Mori (1979), characterizes the Japanese concept of self as being non-autonomous. Mori calls the concept nikoo kankei ‘binary relation’ (Mori 1979: 66). In Mori’s view, in Japanese communication, the opposite of nanji ‘you’ is not ‘self ’ but nanji no nanji ‘your you’. For example, a child’s self is not the self which has its ontological root in itself, but the child experiences self as ‘you’ from the perspective of the parents. Likewise, the child’s parents are ‘you’ from the child’s perspective. The Japanese self is viewed as ‘your you’ and thus relies on the existence of another. Maynard (1997: 4) notes that the underlying notion in Japanese communication is “relationality”, especially “society-relational orientation”. All these scholars’ views regarding the concept of personhood in Japanese communication are intriguingly similar. They express that the concept of self in Japanese communication is inseparable from the existence of the other and that being in relationship per se is the heart of human being-ness. This idea is commonly regarded as the key to understanding Japanese communication. It can be said that the person reference system in Japanese symbolically reflects this concept of personhood. 2.4.3 A deeper look into vertical relationships in Japan As observed in Section 2.3, the notion of vertical hierarchy is a crucial element of ‘being in relationship’ in Japanese society. While we need to guard against overly simplistic understandings of the hierarchical organization of Japanese society as a whole and to acknowledge the relevance of many other kinds of relationships, nevertheless, we cannot ignore the need for a sophisticated appreciation of the vertical parameter in personal interaction. In terms of categories of human relations, metaphorically speaking, both ‘vertical’ relations and ‘horizontal’ relations are observed in all societies (Nakane 1967, 1972). Depending on the society, one of these relationships may have a more important or dominant function than the other, or both relationships may function equally (Nakane 1967, 1972). In Japanese society, the dominance of vertical relationships has been pointed out by a number of researchers (e.g., Nakane 1967, 1972; Morita 1987; Saito 1999; Ide 2006). Nakane (1972: 30) uses the phrase “rank consciousness”, which, she argues, is a key element in Japanese society: When the vertical relation, which is theoretically predictable from the manner in which Japanese social groups are formed, is actually stressed and functionalized, and becomes the structural principle in uniting the members of a group, an amazingly delicate and intricate system of rank takes shape. This is because even individuals who belong to the same group and have equal qualifications are affected by this vertical structure so that they begin to define and emphasize differences among themselves in some way or other.



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 61

For example, among employees in the same job with the same ability and qualifications, differences are made evident based on a vertical perspective, such as age, year of joining the company, length of service, and so forth. It is also well known that even a one-year difference between sempai ‘senior’ and koohai ‘junior’ among students and colleagues is emphasized. Nakane (1972) states that the distinction between sempai and koohai functions to a surprisingly large extent in social groups. It is reasonable to question whether present-day young people have at least some different ideas about these social relationships, as Nakane’s work was produced in the 1970s. However, a recent online survey of young Japanese people (Ameba News 2013) did reveal a strong awareness of the social protocol regarding the senior-junior difference. In the survey, 378 young Japanese adults, between 19 and 29 years old, were asked if they should be respectful toward seniors solely on the basis of age. Respondents who answered ‘I do not think so at all’ constituted only 3.4%. In contrast, 84.2% of the respondents thought they should be respectful (‘I strongly think so’ 19.1%, ‘I think so to some extent’ 65.1%). Respondents’ comments included Reigi dakara. Amari sonkei dekinai hito demo keishikiteki niwa keii o harau ‘It’s etiquette. So, even if I don’t truly respect someone, I still show formal respect to him/her’ and Toshiue dearu kara keii o harau nowa toozen no koto. Shikashi, toshiue no hito ga itte iru kara to itte sore ga subete tadashii toiu no wa mata chigau to omou ‘It’s natural to show respect toward those older than ourselves. However, it doesn’t mean that what they say is all correct’. These opinions suggest that the importance of vertical relationships in communication, at least as etiquette or custom, remains consistent among present-day youth in Japanese society. It should be noted that while Nakane (1967, 1972) focuses especially strongly on group orientation and hierarchy, there are a number of alternative approaches to viewing Japanese society. These include Doi’s (1971) “anatomy of dependence” approach, Yanabu’s (1998) omote/ura ‘public face/ hidden face’ of Japanese cultural structure, Kawai’s (1976) ‘matrilineal society’, and more. A discussion about Japanese society as a whole is indeed far beyond the scope of this study. Naturally, it is not my purpose to resolve issues raised by these different approaches to the analysis of the society. At the same time, it is also not my intention to endorse extreme or simplistic interpretations of vertical relationships. What I do want to emphasize is that as far as the system of person reference in Japanese is concerned, I recognize the prominence of vertical relationships. It appears that consciousness of the relative status between interlocutors and the weight put on the vertical relationship is something that has to be attended to constantly in Japanese communication. The system of person reference in Japanese is a strong reflection of this.

62

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

2.4.4 Politeness in Japanese communication The importance of vertical relationships in Japanese communication has often been discussed in tandem with the concept of linguistic politeness. What constitutes linguistic politeness or politeness itself has been a topic of much debate over many years. Lakoff (1973a, 1977) argues for the necessity of considering context when discussing politeness. She views politeness to be the avoidance of offence and she proposed rules of politeness similar to the maxims of Grice’s (1975) ‘Cooperative Principle’, such as “Don’t impose – give options” (Lakoff 1979: 65). Leech (1983) also describes politeness in similar terms to those of conversational maxims. He divides the ‘Politeness Principle’ into various maxims such as the ‘Tact Maxim’, ‘Generosity Maxim’, ‘Approbation Maxim’, ‘Modesty Maxim’, and so forth (Leech 1983: 132). By doing so, Leech points out that the notion of politeness was missing in Grice’s Cooperative Principle. He also implicitly divides different speech act types as polite or non-polite and describes politeness as a means of conflict avoidance. One of the most notable contributions to these debates has been that of Brown & Levinson (1987), who posit universals for linguistic politeness based on Goffman’s (1955) notion of ‘face’. They treat face as the public self-image that every member of a society wants to claim for himself or herself, that is, it is one of the ‘basic wants’ of members of a society (Brown & Levinson 1987: 62). ‘Face’ consists of two related aspects: Negative face: The want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others. Positive face: The want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others. According to Brown & Levinson (1987), there are acts within interaction which inherently threaten face, so called FTAs (face-threatening acts). FTAs include acts such as orders, requests, suggestions, advice, warnings, offers, promises, compliments, criticism, and disagreement. Unless the speaker wants to intentionally threaten the addressee’s face, she or he is supposed to try to minimize the threat by avoiding or redressing the FTA. Brown & Levinson (1987: 129) state that “negative politeness is regressive action addressed to the addressee’s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded. It is the heart of respect behavior”. On the other hand, “positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee’s positive face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions/acquisitions/values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable” (1987: 101).



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 63

These definitions of politeness in pioneering works have certain aspects in common. First, in these studies, politeness is fundamentally recognized as having to do with an individual’s intentional action, often called ‘strategy’, specifically to avoid conflict or to mitigate and soften FTAs. Second, explicitly or implicitly, the authors of these works wish to claim universality for the concept of politeness. On the other hand, there are studies which have proposed that the notion of politeness as universal is qualitatively different from conceptions of politeness in various cultures (e.g., Matsumoto 1988; Ide 1989, 1992a, 2006, 2012).42 Matsumoto (1988: 405) argues that politeness in Japanese communication is bound strongly to “[a]cknowledgement and maintenance of relative position” between interlocutors. Ide (2006) argues that Japanese politeness has more ritualistic aspects rather than being ‘intentional’ or ‘strategic’. I use Ide’s examples (2006: 72) here as (20) and (21): (20) Kyoo=wa ame da. today=top rain cop.npst ‘(It’s) raining today.’ (21) Kyoo=wa ame des-u. today=top rain cop.pol-npst ‘(It’s) raining today.’

The above examples are identical except for the casual ending da in (20) and the polite ending desu in (21). The propositional meaning of the two sentences is the same ‘(It’s) raining today’. Ide (2006) states that even for such an utterance, which is made spontaneously, Japanese distinguishes the style of the sentence almost automatically based on the context of interaction. She argues that it is difficult and unconvincing to interpret this aspect of language use in Japanese as being a speaker’s strategy to manage an addressee’s positive or negative face. Backhouse (1993) states that Japanese has a large number of fixed formulas in interaction and the use of these expressions constitutes “linguistic etiquette and protocol” (Backhouse 1993: 183) in social interaction. For example, an expression of thanks, Arigatoo gozaimasu ‘Thank you’ is replaced by fixed expressions in certain situations. To express thanks after a meal, Gochisoosama deshita ‘Thank you for the meal’ is the regular expression (Backhouse 1993: 185). When leaving one’s place of work ahead of other colleagues, Osaki ni shitsurei shimasu ‘Excuse me for leaving ahead of you’ is expected (Backhouse 1993: 184). These are ritualistic expressions that the speaker in these situations almost automatically uses and

42. See also Gu (1990), Watts, Ide, & Ehlich (1992), Nwoye (1992), Janney & Arndt (1993), Mao (1994), Okamoto (2010), Anchimbe (2011), Anchimbe & Janney (2011), and Hanks (2014).

64 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

is expected to use as linguistic etiquette. Backhouse calls them “social formulas” (Backhouse 1993: 182). To explain the nature of politeness in Japanese communication, Ide (1989, 1992a, 2006, 2012) proposes the notion of wakimae. She asserts that “wakimae means social norms according to which people are expected to behave in order to be appropriate in the society they live” (Ide 1992a: 298). For the English translation of this word wakimae, initially ‘discernment’ was selected (Hill, Ide, Ikuta, Kawasaki, & Ogino 1986; Ide 1989). However, as Hill et al. (1986: 347–348) point out, this English term does not capture the notion of wakimae sufficiently and they state that “[n]o single English word translates wakimae adequately, but ‘discernment’ reflects its basic sense”.43 Ide (1992a: 299) also makes a comment on this and confirms that ‘discernment’ is in fact insufficient to cover the range of meaning of wakimae, including a notion such as “observation of social norms”. Ide (1992a: 299) rephrases the explanation: Wakimae is sets of social norms of appropriate behavior people have to observe in order to be considered polite in the society they live. One is polite only if he or she behaves in congruence with the expected norms in a certain situation, in a certain culture and society. Just like a set of rules you follow when you play a game, you follow wakimae in your game of life. Thus, speaking within the confines of wakimae is not an act of expressing the speaker’s intention, but rather of complying with socially expected norms. The speaker’s attention is paid not to what he or she intends to express, but rather to what is expected of him or her by social norms.

Foley (1997: 309) states that in many cultures native speakers are “often highly attuned” to their status relative to someone else in any interaction, and this leads members of the society to have “culturally mandated patterns of deference/avoidance”. The notion of wakimae provides insight into culturally-oriented and almost mandated or patterned aspects of politeness in Japanese. The following statement by Ide (2006: 75) is in line with the discussion in Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 on the notions of ‘relational self ’, ‘indefinite state of ego’, and ‘society-relational orientation’: Shakaiteki serufu […] sono tokuchoo wa, shakai no ningenkankei, sunawachi, yakuwari, chii ni oojite henkashi, sono toki sono toki no ba no naka de jiko o ichizuketeiru kahensei no aru serufu dearu. Social self […], its special feature is the fluidity of self, namely, self that is changeable depending on social relations, roles, and statuses. This self is situated in ba ‘place’ context by context.

43. For analytic tools for culturally specific words, see Wierzbicka (1997).



Chapter 2.  The history of anata, person reference terms in Japanese, and social norms 65

What is relevant about the concept of wakimae for the current study is that the use of person reference terms in Japanese is strongly governed by the social norms which are conceptually most proximate to what Ide calls wakimae.44 For example, Ide (2006) argues that in Japanese society, one refers to teachers, professors, medical doctors, politicians, and so forth as sensei, but this does not necessarily mean that it happens out of respect. Rather, the speakers use the term sensei because they are supposed to do so, in other words, society expects them to do so. Recall the online survey mentioned in Section 2.4.3. In the survey, even present-day young Japanese people expressed a view that showing respect toward seniors linguistically was etiquette rather than an expression of true respect. Maynard (1997: 57) similarly emphasizes that in Japanese society, “the management of social comfort includes the recognition and expression of situational and social differences among speakers”. This is not to say that the dominance of wakimae in Japanese communication precludes volitional aspects of a speaker’s language use. In their comparative study of Japanese and American notions of politeness, Hill et al. (1986) conducted large scale surveys in America and Japan and collected responses from American English speakers and Japanese speakers regarding a specific request addressed to different types of people. Both volition and discernment operate in both languages although the weighting seems different. Figure 3 illustrates schematically the relative prominence of discernment, or more precisely wakimae, in the polite use of language by speakers of Japanese. On the other hand, the volitional aspect is more predominant than discernment in the polite use of American English: volition

addressee situation

discernment Japanese

addressee situation

Americans

Figure 3.  A scheme of strategies for linguistic politeness (Hill, Ide, Ikuta, Kawasaki, & Ogino 1986: 348)

44. Fujii (2012: 657) explains Japanese interaction using ba theory by stating “in Japanese interaction, the participants are always concerned about the partner’s position as well as their own. They reorient themselves at every moment of the interaction using the linguistic devices that seek the partner’s response”. Ba theory was first proposed by Shimizu (2000) to explain how we are situated in the place of interaction.

66 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

The person reference system in Japanese is not grammatically ruled but pragmatically governed. While far from common, there is indeed room for a speaker to show different attitudes (volition) even when there are expected social norms (wakimae). In other words, a speaker can choose to deviate from the norm and construct or reconstruct the relationship when expressing their emotional or psychological attitude and their identity in the dynamics of interaction. In this study, I reveal that the use of anata is often regarded precisely as such a deviation from the norm. For this reason, the particular focus on the use of anata will lead to the unveiling of the very dynamics of interaction through the use of the term. In this sense, anata shows aspects of the use of person reference terms which cannot be explained by the notion of wakimae. Rather, because of the very existence of the wakimae expectation, that is, the existence of this general social norm in the person reference system in Japanese communication, the discursive expressive effects created by the use of anata come to be explicable. 2.5

Summary

In this chapter I have discussed the history of anata and then overviewed commonly used Japanese person reference terms and what is generally regarded as their normative usage. I have also explained social norms in Japanese communication by considering the concept of the relational self and the prominence of vertical relationships as well as discussing politeness in Japanese communication. I have adopted the notion of wakimae and suggested that aspects of the use of person reference terms were related to the recognition of wakimae. The discussion of these key areas in the understanding of Japanese communication in this chapter is relevant precisely because the remainder of the book is devoted to demonstrating how the use of anata interacts with, and at times defies, cultural norms and social expectations, thereby generating distinct effects from its usage.

Chapter 3

The perceptions of native speakers

3.1

Introduction

This chapter examines how native speakers of Japanese perceive the use of anata. As discussed in Chapter 1, there have been several distinct ways of perceiving the use of anata in the previous literature on Japanese linguistics. Reflecting the complexity of its interpretation, avoidance of the term is evidenced in the ordinary conversation corpus. Given this, investigating the metalinguistic reflections of present-day native speakers is important in order to reveal their current perceptions regarding anata. Agha (2006: 17) states: The study of language as a social phenomenon must include the study of metalinguistic activity for a simple reason: language users employ language to categorize or classify aspects of language use, including forms of utterance, the situations in which they are used, and the persons who use them. Such reflexive classifications shape the construal of speech (and accompanying signs) for persons acquainted with them.

As part of the current study, a survey was undertaken to investigate the perceptions of native speakers and this chapter presents its results. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 3.2 outlines the aims of the survey, the characteristics of the respondents and the methods of data collection and data analysis. Section 3.3 describes the results of the survey. Sections 3.4 and 3.5 are devoted to discussions of the findings, highlighting the reasons articulated for the avoidance of anata in Section 3.4 and discussing situational dimensions of the use of anata in Section 3.5.45

45. I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to Eriko Ishii, Tomoko Kumagaya, Sumire Goda, students and colleagues of Tokyo Women’s Christian University, Japan Women’s University, and Akita International University for distributing the questionnaire to wider communities in Japan. The survey results and discussions in this chapter have been disseminated to Japanese native speakers (Yonezawa 2016).

68 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

3.2

The survey

3.2.1 Aims of the survey The overall aim of the survey is to identify the perceptions of current native speakers of Tokyo-standard Japanese regarding the use of anata. Its focus is primarily on investigating the influence of vertical relationships on the speaker’s use of anata. The predominance of vertical relationships in the system of person reference terms has been discussed in the previous chapter. In this chapter, I examine this further by uncovering native speakers’ metalinguistic reflections in order to ultimately help reveal the mechanisms behind the disparate views that are held about the use of anata. Specifically, through this survey, I collected and analyzed responses to throw light on the following questions: 1. With whom do native speakers report using anata? i. to a socially superior addressee? ii. to a socially inferior addressee? iii. to a socially equal addressee? 2. What are the reasons for these choices? 3. In what kinds of situations do native speakers report using anata? To date, no published studies have addressed the inquiries listed above over a range of generations for speakers of the Tokyo-standard variety of Japanese. The survey in this study fills this gap. The results are important for the discovery of potential indicators of the inherent properties of anata that can, in tandem with discourse analysis, ultimately explain the mechanisms that lead to the different views that are held toward the term. 3.2.2 Participants The respondents to this survey were speakers of the Tokyo-standard variety of Japanese. In order to avoid the possible influence of different dialects, the survey was distributed to people who were born in Tokyo, or who moved into the area before the age of four years, and were raised in the Tokyo metropolitan area until at least sixteen years of age. Regarding the notion of the Tokyo metropolitan area, Tanaka (2010) has defined it as one metropolis (Tokyo) and three surrounding prefectures (Kanagawa, Saitama, and Chiba). This area is linguistically highly integrated and needs to be treated as one area in terms of language use (Tanaka 2010).46 People 46. This is based on the definition of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, which refers to the area within a scope of 70km from Tokyo’s 23 wards. This roughly corresponds to Tokyo and these three prefectures.

Chapter 3.  The perceptions of native speakers 69



commute from these surrounding areas to the heart of Tokyo for work and study on a daily basis. Also, those who were born in central Tokyo move out to the surrounding prefectures at different life stages. The Tokyo-standard variety is used mainly in this area, but at the same time, it is also recognized across Japan as the standard variety (e.g., Tanaka 1991, 1996; Yasuda 1999; Koyama 2004). Conducting the survey in this area was useful in order to understand the perceptions of the daily users of this variety. In terms of age and gender of the respondents, Table 7 illustrates the distribution: Table 7.  Distribution of respondents Age group 10s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s Total

Total

Male

Female

 51  80  67  87  71  72 428

  28 (54.9%)   30 (37.5%)   28 (41.8%)   39 (44.8%)   38 (53.5%)   30 (41.7%) 193 (45.1%)

  23 (45.1%)   50 (62.5%)   39 (58.2%)   48 (55.2%)   33 (46.5%)   42 (58.3%) 235 (54.9%)

The number of valid responses used in the analysis was 428 in total. Although I received more responses than this, those which did not meet the criteria for a speaker of the Tokyo-standard variety of Japanese were excluded. The target sample size is based on Brown’s (2001: 74) recommendation that a sample should include 28 or more people in each cohort. The samples in this study have at least 50 people in each age group. In order to obtain comprehensive results, the age and gender of the participants were distributed as evenly as possible. That said, as the initial survey distribution was assisted by members of the author’s own women’s university alumni, it resulted in slightly more female respondents. The survey was anonymous, thus all responses are identified only by ID numbers from 1 to 428. The numbers written at the end of extracts that have been taken from the respondents’ comments and published herein are these IDs. 3.2.3 Methods of data collection The survey was a paper-based questionnaire which was distributed and administered by survey administrators in the Tokyo metropolitan area.47 Using a questionnaire format is advantageous when collecting a large number of responses in 47. The survey was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Australian National University (protocol number #2013/599).

70 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

a limited time. The survey administrators visited various places where they could engage with many people at a time, such as schools, universities, public libraries, companies, shops, and hair salons. To include participants from the wider community, the initial participants organized some acquaintances in their local communities to further distribute the survey and the receivers in turn did the same with still further acquaintances. In this sense, it was a snowball sampling. It should be noted that although the survey contains a section where participants could write their occupation and educational level, not all respondents filled this in because these answers were optional. For this reason, it is not entirely clear to what extent the respondents constituted a representative cross-section of Japanese society. That said, I initially contacted university staff and graduates who distributed the survey to their friends and families; thus, it is reasonable to assume that the respondents tended to be educated people. The questionnaire consisted of two types of items: closed-response items and open-response items (see Appendix). The closed-response items involved questions about whether or not the respondents would use anata toward different types of addressees, in what situations they would use it and the reasons why they would avoid its use if they do not use it. To be more specific, at first, the participants were asked whether or not they would use anata to an addressee who has a certain social relationship with the participants. The participants had four options; ‘I don’t use it at all’, ‘It depends on the situation’, ‘I always use it’, and ‘Unknown’. ‘Unknown’ was to be chosen if a question was not applicable to a respondent (e.g., cases where a respondent did not have siblings, a spouse, and so on). The list of answer options provided in the survey was generated from answers given by respondents in a pilot survey which I had conducted earlier and included all the answers given in the pilot survey. In addition, in order to avoid leading the responses by the use of these options, I also added into the list of answer options in the final version of the survey some opposing or very different expressions from those obtained in the pilot survey. For each of these options, the number of responses was aggregated and converted into a percentage against the total number of responses, excluding ‘unknown’. Table 8 illustrates the format. The survey form distributed to respondents was written in Japanese, including all instructions and questions. After answering these questions, the respondents were required to give the reasons for their choice. If they chose ‘not at all’, they were asked to give the reason why they avoided the use of anata, using these options: (i) It is rude, (ii) It sounds too official, (iii) It sounds too polite, (iv) It sounds too intimate, (v) It creates a distance, (vi) It is too casual, (vii) Other. If they chose ‘depends on the situation’, they were asked in what situations they would use anata. The options provided were: (i) When I argue with or criticize the listener, (ii) When I give advice to the listener, (iii) When I compliment the listener, (iv) When I want to be close/emphasize

Chapter 3.  The perceptions of native speakers 71



Table 8.  Format of the questionnaire Do you use anata to the following addressee? Addressee

I don’t use it at all

parents   older siblings   younger siblings   older relatives   younger relatives   close friend (same sex)   close friend (different sex)   older acquaintance (same sex)   older acquaintance (different sex)   younger acquaintance (same sex)   younger acquaintance (different sex)   spouse   own children   teacher   boss   lover  

It depends on the situation

I always use it

Unknown

                               

                               

                               

friendliness, (v) In a letter, (vi) In a formal setting (vii) Other. If a respondent chose ‘Other’ when asked for reasons and situations, he/she was asked to provide further information in his/her own words.48 In this study, my focus is on the influence of vertical relationships and thus I categorized addressees into ‘superior’, ‘inferior’, and ‘equal’ relative to the respondent. The results are shown in the next sections grouped by different generational cohorts. As the pragmatic value of anata has been changing over time (see Chapter 2), generational differences in speaker perceptions may be observed. In terms of gender differences, as discussed in some previous literature, several noteworthy distinctions between male and female respondents were observed. I will discuss these in the relevant sections. With regard to the open-response item, participants were given space to write their thoughts about the use of anata freely and in their own words. These comments were analyzed qualitatively. While this part of the survey was voluntary, the majority of respondents actually provided substantial written remarks using all the 48. Answers to the questions were input into the IBM SPSS Statistics software. This was useful for my analysis as it enabled me to see the results from different perspectives by changing variables, that is, seeing generational differences, gender differences and differences depending on types of addressees. Special thanks go to Yao Ding.

72

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

available space. These comments played a similar role to the follow-up interviews that are sometimes used in other survey methodologies. The level of active participation of the respondents possibly reflects public interest in the use of anata. In fact, the ambiguity and mystery around the usage of anata has not only been of scholarly interest but has been a continuous topic of popular discussion in the public realm and on social media in Japan, right through from the debate around a language policy proposal on its use after World War II to the present day (see Chapter 6).49 3.3

Results

3.3.1 The use of anata toward a superior This section reveals the results of participants’ perceptions regarding the use of anata when used toward a superior addressee. Superiors include older members of a family and older relatives (i.e., parents, older siblings, and older relatives), older acquaintances, teachers, and bosses. Table 9 illustrates the results: Table 9.  The use of anata toward a superior Do you use anata toward an addressee who is socially superior to you?   10s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s Average

Not at all

Depends

Always

92.0% 91.4% 95.4% 93.6% 94.7% 94.2% 93.6%

8.0% 8.6% 4.6% 6.4% 5.3% 4.5% 6.2%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%   1.3%   0.2%

The most obvious aspect of these results is the overwhelming degree to which respondents perceive that they avoid the use of anata toward a superior addressee. The majority of respondents thus acknowledged their awareness of a social norm, namely, that the use of personal pronouns (in particular, this personal pronoun) is not appropriate toward a superior addressee. As described in Section 2.3, a speaker is expected to use occupational terms such as buchoo ‘section manager’ and sensei 49. For instance, NHK, a public broadcaster in Japan, has dealt with the topic “Is anata an uncomfortable word?” (NHK 2012). Further, an online discussion page maintained by the Yomiuri news company, one of the largest news companies in Japan, has published topics such as “Don’t you feel uncomfortable with a person who calls others anata?” (Yomiuri Hatsugen Komachi, 2012).



Chapter 3.  The perceptions of native speakers 73

‘teacher’, kinship terms such as otoosan ‘father’ and oneechan ‘older sister’, and so forth to refer to a superior. In vertical relationships, an inferior speaker tends to be more constrained in their language use and thus the social norm is typically applied. Almost no respondent answered that they would always use anata to a superior addressee. The above tendencies were observed in all generations and both genders. This strongly norm-oriented choice is in line with Hill et al. (1986) and Ide’s (1992a, 2006) notion of wakimae ‘discernment’. Hill et al. (1986) found that both Japanese subjects and American subjects reported an awareness of sociolinguistic rules of politeness that should apply to a request for a pen made to different types of people they commonly meet. Although such a request allows for a large variety of linguistic forms in both languages, Hill et al. (1986) found that Japanese subjects’ responses were more tightly clustered when choosing appropriate expressions. This led them to the conclusion that wakimae appears to predominate over volitional aspects of the speaker’s stylistic choice in Japanese communication. Table 9 seems to indicate that speakers almost automatically think they should not use anata toward a superior addressee. That said, there are participants who reported the use of anata toward a superior by choosing ‘it depends on the situation’, although this was a very small number of people (average across groups 6.2%). Since this is about a pragmatic appropriateness judgement, it is interesting to see this deviation from the normative usage arising. The percentage giving this answer is slightly higher among younger generations compared to people over 40. I will come back to this point later in Section 3.5.1. 3.3.2 The use of anata toward an inferior Inferior addressees include younger siblings and relatives, younger acquaintances, and one’s own children. As a social norm, the superior tends to use an inferior’s name but the use of personal pronouns is also considered appropriate toward an inferior addressee (see Chapter 2). Nevertheless, the results (summarized in Table 10) show that those who report that they ‘always’ use anata toward an inferior are clearly in the minority. Although the percentage of respondents giving the answer ‘not at all’ is lower than in the case of usage toward a superior (Table 9), Table 10 shows that a clear majority of respondents, 67.6% of respondents on average, still answered that they would never use anata even toward an inferior addressee. This indicates that, even though scholars claim that it is ‘acceptable’ in principle to use personal pronouns toward an inferior, as we have seen in Section 2.3, this does not necessarily lead speakers to report that they readily and comfortably use anata toward an inferior.

74

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Table 10.  The use of anata toward an inferior Do you use anata toward an addressee who is socially inferior to you?   10s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s Average

Not at all

Depends

Always

78.7% 83.0% 73.1% 59.0% 56.6% 55.6% 67.6%

21.3% 14.6% 25.8% 39.2% 41.5% 39.9% 30.4%

0%   2.4%   1.1%   1.8%   1.9%   4.5%   2.0%

When it comes to those who indicate they would ‘always’ use anata towards an inferior, the percentage is very low, although there is a slight increase in this response for those in their 20s and those in their 60s. However, the overall infrequency of its reported use towards an inferior (only 2% on average) shows that, for these respondents in general, anata is by no means a default reference form even toward an inferior. In their comments, respondents mostly remarked that they would usually use the addressee’s name, such as first name only, last name only (in the case of male speakers), or the name with a suffix, such as -chan. Some male speakers reported they would use omae ‘you (vulgar)’ when they speak to an inferior addressee. Compared to responses concerning the use of anata towards a superior, a major increase is observed in the number of ‘it depends on the situation’ responses (30.4% on average) towards an inferior. This suggests that the use of anata is not determined simply based on status difference. Instead, it appears to be strongly tied to contextual factors. This point requires close attention in order to uncover situations in which these participants indicated that they use anata toward a particular inferior addressee or in a particular situation. This will be discussed in 3.5.2. Some tendencies were observed for different age groups. The percentage of ‘not at all’ responses is higher among respondents under 40 (78.7% for 10s, 83% for 20s, and 73.1% for 30s) than for those over 40 (59% for 40s, 56.6% for 50s, and 55.6% for 60s). Reflecting this tendency, the percentages of ‘it depends on the situation’ are also higher for over 40s than for the younger generations. The higher frequency of the situational use of anata by the participants over 40 suggests the possibility that certain situations where anata is used may be related to the speaker’s superiority or seniority. This point will also be addressed in 3.5.2.

Chapter 3.  The perceptions of native speakers 75



3.3.3 The use of anata toward an equal This section summarizes the use of anata toward an addressee of socially equal status to the speaker. Equals include friends, spouses, and lovers. Table 11.  The use of anata toward an equal Do you use anata toward an addressee who is socially equal to you?   10s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s Average

Not at all

Depends

Always

63.6% 75.5% 72.6% 58.4% 57.0% 50.4% 62.9%

35.6% 23.3% 26.6% 37.0% 39.8% 39.2% 33.6%

 0.8%  1.2%  0.8%  4.6%  3.2% 10.4%  3.5%

Overall, 62.9% of respondents reported their avoidance of anata by choosing ‘not at all’. This percentage of avoidance of anata again tends to be higher in the younger generations compared to those over 40, although 63.6% for the 10s is lower than for the 20s and 30s. I will discuss teenagers’ comments about this point later in Section 3.5.3. Although only a few people chose ‘always’, it is noticeable that this answer is slightly higher for those over 40 and especially for the 60s (4.6% for 40s, 3.2% for 50s, and 10.4% for 60s). The higher percentage is attributed to the number of wives using anata toward their husbands. Wives’ use of anata will be discussed separately in Chapter 6. Regarding the percentage of ‘it depends on the situation’ responses, an average 33.6% of the participants chose this option, which is a very similar frequency to the result for ‘toward an inferior addressee’ seen in Table 10. This will be discussed in 3.5.3. 3.4

Reasons for the avoidance of anata

The quantitative results reported above reflect several interesting facts about the reported use of anata among native speakers of Japanese. First, the term is not commonly regarded as a default person reference term regardless of a speaker’s age and gender or the status relationship between a speaker and an addressee. Second, its use is considered highly dependent on situational factors. Section 3.4 discusses the first point, highlighting reasons why a large number of respondents answered that they avoid the use of anata. The second point will be discussed in 3.5 by highlighting the situational dimensions.

76

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

3.4.1 Toward a superior Most respondents answered that they would never use anata toward a superior. The single most important reason they invoked was ‘because it is rude’ – as illustrated in the comment below: Anata wa, ue kara shita no tachiba ni iu kotoba da to omou node, toshiue no hito ni anata wa, shitsurei ni ataru to kangaeru. Gyakuni, jooshi ya sensei nado, tachiba ga ue no hito kara yobareru koto niwa, betsuni teikoo wa nai yoo ni omou. I think anata is a word to be used from a superior to an inferior, so I regard the use of anata toward a senior as rude. On the other hand, I don’t think I would particularly feel uncomfortable with being referred to as anata from someone of higher status than me such as a boss or a teacher. (Respondent 117)

This explanation represents a group of speaker responses which showed that a vertical relationship was a strongly dominant reason for avoiding the use of anata to a superior. The central assumption of this perception is that address behavior is predicated on power/status inequality. The above participant also remarked that he would not feel uncomfortable being referred to as anata by a superior. Regarding this point, however, there are a number of people who reported different opinions about this, that is, they remarked on the discomfort of being referred to as anata even by a superior. Thus, it is not safe to interpret the latter part of the above respondent’s comment as a common feeling. Morford (1997: 8) points out that, when investigating native speakers’ perceptions, it is important to carefully examine the speakers’ awareness of any aspect of language use as it may obscure “the complex social significances produced through use of the pronominal address system” (Morford 1997: 8). Interestingly, the high rate of avoidance of anata toward a superior does not translate simply into a ‘because it is rude’ account. The reasons for avoidance change depending on who the superior is. If the use of anata is toward one’s teacher or boss, the rate of the perception that ‘it is rude’ is the highest (88%). On the other hand, the percentage decreases for older acquaintances and relatives (78%), parents (56%), and older siblings (42%). Other reasons such as ‘it creates distance’ and ‘it sounds too official’ become more dominant, especially toward parents and older siblings. It appears that the use of anata tends to be perceived as ‘rude’ when the interlocutors’ relationship is official, such as student to teacher or employee to manager. However, when this type of power relationship is not so central, as when speaking to parents and older siblings, with some closeness being involved, the ‘rude’ perception decreases, being partly mitigated by the family bond. Instead, it shifts to a feeling of distance or detachment. The participants remarked on the use of anata toward older family members as tanin gyoogi ‘standing on ceremony/being like a stranger’, tsukihanasu

Chapter 3.  The perceptions of native speakers 77



yooda ‘(it’s like) staying at arm’s length’, and so on, rather than describing it as shitsurei ‘rude’. Given this, it is plausible to say that a vertical relationship is not the only factor in avoiding the use of anata when talking to a superior. In other words, it may be too simplistic to interpret the results as ‘anata cannot be used toward a superior because it is rude’. A certain ‘distancing function’ (Takahara 1992: 124) also leads a speaker to avoid its use. 3.4.2 Toward an inferior The distancing aspect is more strongly perceived in cases where an addressee is an inferior or an equal. The majority of respondents reported that they would usually use an inferior’s name with appropriate suffixes such as -san, -kun and -chan. Among the respondents who reported avoiding using anata to an inferior, only 25% stated ‘because it is rude’, that is, rudeness was not the main reason for avoidance. Instead, 70% expressed the view that in a relationship in which they normally call an inferior by their name, the use of anata would create an unnecessary distance. These respondents indicated that anata sounded too formal, official, business-like, and detached, hence it estranged an addressee. These perceptions are similar to the feelings regarding the use of anata toward parents and older siblings mentioned in the previous section. Consider the comment below: Ue no hito kara anata to iwaretemo, tsukihanasarete iru ki ga shimasu. Dakara watashi jishin wa fudan toshishita no hito nimo tsukaimasen. Shoojiki, anata wa dare ni taishite mo kyori o tsukuru kotoba no yoona ki ga shimasu. Being called anata even by a superior, I feel I am pushed to be at a distance. So, I don’t usually use it even toward a junior. To be honest, I feel that anata is a word which creates a distance toward anyone. (Respondent 55)

The above respondent commented that the use of anata distances any addressee regardless of whom they are talking to. It is a perception that the form itself inherently has a distancing property. Some respondents showed ambivalent feelings in that they believed that the use of anata was ‘allowed’ toward an inferior in principle, but they had an uncomfortable feeling about actually using the term. Although they remarked that kihonteki ni toshishita no hito ni wa tsukattemo ii n da to omoimasu ‘as a basic rule, I think it is allowed to use (anata) toward an inferior’, they had a vague reluctance to use it, which they found difficult to explain. Some connected the avoidance of the use of anata to a self-presentational concern as follows:

78

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Anata wa ue kara shita to iu imeeji ga aru node, jibun ga tsukau to naruto, tatoe toshishita ni taishite demo, erasoo da to omowarenai ka to kangaete shimau. I have an image that anata is a word from a superior to an inferior, so when it comes to my own usage, I tend to be concerned about being seen as arrogant.  (Respondent 79)

Mirroring their belief that anata is a word to be used from a superior to an inferior, the reason for their own avoidance of anata is so that they stay away from a pronominal use which makes them sound ‘arrogant’. Other respondents in this group also made various comments which indicated that top-down nuances were created by the use of anata. These respondents used words such as erasoo ‘arrogant’ and uekara mesen ‘looking down from the upper perspective’. They expressed the view that such characteristics did not match their desired self-presentation, thus they did not use anata even toward an inferior. To sum up, respondents said they would avoid the use of anata toward an inferior because of certain negative nuances such as distancing, arrogance, being too formal, too official, and too business like. Although quite a few respondents believed that it was ‘permissible’ for a superior to use anata toward an inferior, they hesitated to use it because of these inexplicably felt nuances. It appears that anata is not a comfortable word to use even from a superior toward an inferior. 3.4.3 Toward an equal The case of the reported use of anata toward an equal shows similar tendencies to the case toward an inferior. 62.9% of the participants reported that they would not use anata at all to an equal (see Table 11 in Section 3.3.3). Among these respondents, 72.7% reported that it was because the use of anata created a sense of detachment and distance and bore an overly formal and official tone. These perceptions are similar to the case where a superior avoids the use of anata toward an inferior. The respondents’ comments included similar expressions such as jimuteki na kanji ‘businesslike nuance’ and yosoyososhii ‘estranging’. It appears that the symmetrical use of anata between equals is not easy and comfortable. Example remarks taken from some of the responses indicate that equals usually call each other by their names or some other pronouns such as omae (between male friends), and using anata tends to feel out of place, often interpreted as estranging: Higoro namae de yobiatteiru naka no hito ni anata to yobikakerareru to, nanika kankei ga waruku naru yoona koto o shite shimatta kana to omou. If I am called anata by someone who I usually talk to by name, it makes me think that I did something wrong which made our relationship suffer.  (Respondent 23)



Chapter 3.  The perceptions of native speakers 79

Another group of responses accounted for the feeling of distance based on the belief that anata was a formal or polite pronoun by nature and that was why it sounded too detached: Teinei na kotoba da to wakatteiru node, gyaku ni shitashii hito kara iwareru to kyori no aru tsumetai kanji ni kikoeru. I know it is a polite word, so if I am called (anata) by someone close, it sounds distant and cold. (Respondent 306) Anata wa kashikomatta ba igai de tsukau to, tsukihanasareta yooni kanji, amari kimochi no ii mono dewa nai to omoimasu. If anata is used outside a formal situation, it sounds like (I am) being held at arm’s length and I don’t really feel comfortable. (Respondent 63)

The belief that anata is a formal pronoun indeed seems to be quite prevalent among native speakers. In the same way that the views presented in the previous literature are contradictory, this perception contradicts the feeling that the use of anata sounds ‘rude’, which was revealed in the previous section. While such distancing and detaching nuances are dominant regarding perceptions about the use of anata toward an equal, intriguingly, a small number of participants remarked on an opposite nuance. Approximately 10% of female respondents gave their reason for avoiding using anata toward a male friend as being ‘it sounds too intimate’. A female respondent among this group wrote hazukashikute nakanaka tsukaenai ‘I feel embarrassed and so cannot easily use it’ (Respondent 408). More interestingly still, such embarrassment does not necessarily create negative consequences. Consider the comment below, by a male speaker: Negatibu na inshoo no hoo ga ooi yooni omou. Tadashi, shitashii hito – toku ni josei – kara iwareru to kibun ga ii. I feel that I have more negative impressions (regarding the use of anata). However, if being called (anata) by someone close – especially by a woman – I feel good.  (Respondent 416) Anata o majime ni tsukattara, yohodo foomaru na bamen de nai kagiri, kikaiteki de iwakan o oboeru. Tada, chiteki de kuuru na josei ni jitto me o minagara iwaretara, chotto ii kamoshirenai. If (I use) anata seriously, unless the situation is really formal, it sounds mechanical and it feels out of place. However, if I am referred to (as anata) by a woman who is intelligent and cool, looking into my eyes, it would be sort of good.  (Respondent 400)

80 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

The above remarks indicate that the use of anata by certain females gives these male respondents a positive feeling, while this is possibly the very reason for the female cohort avoiding the use of anata, that is, not to sound too intimate. As the comments suggest, the use of anata can create a certain intimate nuance, which is completely opposite to the nuances of distance and detachment. It seems that the use of anata not only creates a polite vs. impolite conflict but also creates a distant vs. intimate contradiction in its nuances. This suggests that across all responses, no single nuance can be deemed to be a genuine property of anata. Exploring this point, it was noticeable that there was a word which the respondents frequently used in their comments. That word is iwakan, which indicates a sense of unsuitability or a feeling of inappropriacy. Consider the comments below: Fudan tomodachi to wa namae de yobiaimasu. Otagai ni yoku shitteiru noni ‘anata’ o tsukau no wa iwakan ga arimasu. Usually, I and my friends address each other with our names. If I use anata despite the fact that we know each other very well, it would have a feeling of unsuitability (iwakan). (Respondent 256) Anata to nichijoo de iwareru koto ga nai node aite ga dare demo iwakan o oboeru. I’m not usually referred to as anata, so regardless of the conversation partner, it feels somewhat out of place (iwakan). (Respondent 1) Yobareru to daitai fukai ni omou ka iwakan o kanjiru ka da to omoimasu. If I am called anata, it would feel uncomfortable or unsuitable (iwakan).  (Respondent 104) Yuu no honyaku nado de wa anata o tsukau ga, nihongo toshite wa iwakan ga arimasu. Ankeeto nado de wa sorehodo iwakan wa nai to omoimasu. I may use anata as a translation of English ‘you’ although in Japanese it does not feel quite suitable (iwakan). If it is used in a questionnaire or something, then I think there is not that feeling. (Respondent 171)

The word iwakan is vague and does not express exactly what kind of unsuitability it entails. It only conveys the feeling of ‘it is just not right’. The Japanese Daijirin dictionary (2006) explains the word as mawari no mono tono kankei ga chiguhagu de shikkurishinai koto ‘the relationship between an object and its surrounding elements is odd/incongruous/unsuitable and they do not match each other’. The fact that native speakers often use this word when talking about the use of anata in a variety of cases may mean that iwakan is used as an umbrella term to cover all the various perceptions seen so far. A sense of unsuitability can explain feelings of its use as oddly distant, oddly formal, unusually intimate, and so forth. From what we have seen, reasons for the avoidance of anata can all be based on the existence of this iwakan.

Chapter 3.  The perceptions of native speakers 81



The feeling of iwakan appears to come from the fact that there are certain expectations in the use of language. A number of respondents commented on the expected use of person reference terms to acknowledge their relative social relationships with addressees. In terms of conversation, Suzuki (2007: 55) states that there are two main types of expectations in language use. One is based on shakaiteki shakudo ‘social measurement’ and the other is based on kobetsu no shakudo ‘individual measurement’. The former is commonly shared by a given society, in other words, it is the norm in a society. The latter is based on how any specific individual usually talks within a particular relationship. According to Suzuki (2007), interlocutors usually carry certain expectations for speakers to talk in a certain way. If the utterance varies from the expectation, it creates a notable effect and is judged meta-linguistically by the addressee. Returning to the survey results, the use of anata was mostly excluded from the default or expected terms of address in any relationship type listed in the survey. Its use could therefore indicate a deviation from expectations in most cases. Recall the norms that inferiors usually address superiors by occupational terms or kinship terms, superiors address inferiors by name, and equals call each other by name and nickname, or male friends may call each other omae. The use of anata is in most cases a breach of these expectations. I have shown that an address form which was once said to be ‘standard’ is in fact far from standard and indeed appears to be highly sensitive. The question now is why Japanese speakers ever use anata if its use is so sensitive. The next section will explore this point by investigating situations in which native speakers reported that they would use anata. 3.5

Situational dimensions

The survey results show that participants responded in relatively high numbers for ‘it depends on the situation’. This suggests that the key to understanding the use of anata is to look at situational factors. Some participants insightfully remarked that the use of anata is closely tied to the context of a situation rather than relative social relationships between a speaker and an addressee: Jibun ga tsukau ka, tsukawarete teikoo o kanjiru ka nado wa, aite to no kankei yorimo sono toki no jookyoo ni yoru to omou. Taimingu toka ni yotte mo nyuansu ga chigau. Whether or not I use it, whether or not I feel uncomfortable if I’m referred to (as anata), depends on the situation rather than the relationship with the addressee. The nuance is also different depending on the timing. (Respondent 418)

82

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Jookyoo ni yotte, keii ni mo shitashimi ni mo iyami ni mo toreru to omoimasu. To naru to, nichijoo kaiwa de wa sentaku shizuraku, gyaku ni ‘kokoichiban’ de tsukau kotoba nano kana, to omoimashita. Depending on the situation, it (the use of anata) can be regarded as respectful, intimate, or nasty. If so, it is difficult to use it in daily conversations. On the other hand, I wonder if it is a word to use at a special moment. (Respondent 129)

The quantitative results in the previous sections and the above comments reveal some problems in the previous literature regarding the use of anata. Those accounts have been based on the notion that Japanese pronominal address behavior largely reflects a static order of social relationships between speakers and addressees. The survey results unsettle this notion and suggest the importance of situational factors. The following subsections discuss situational dimensions in which anata may be used toward a variety of addressees. 3.5.1 Toward a superior As we have seen earlier, the use of anata toward a superior is largely avoided. Only a small number of respondents chose ‘it depends on the situation’. However, their answers indicated an interesting fact. Among the respondents who chose ‘depends’, the most common situation was ‘when arguing with or criticizing the addressee’ (63% of respondents who answered ‘it depends on the situation’). Consider the comment below: Amari ishiki shita koto wa nakatta desu ga, joogekankei no shita kara ue e tsukau koto ga aru to shitara, kenka goshi no baai toiu mono ga aru kamoshirenai to omoimasu. I’ve hardly been conscious (of the use of anata), but if there is a situation where an inferior uses it toward a superior in a hierarchical relationship, I think it might be almost like a belligerent situation. (Respondent 54)

While the use of anata is normally unacceptable from an inferior to a superior, it appears that in conflict situations the use of anata is possible. In other words, when one uses anata to a superior, it can be due to an ‘unusual situation’ such as a quarrel between interlocutors. Considering this, it may be used as a strategic language tool in situations where explicit verbal impoliteness or aggressiveness is intended. In fact, past studies have pointed out that the use of anata from an inferior to a superior has been observed in contentious situations (e.g., Miwa 2000, 2005; Kanai 2003a; Kim 2012; Shimotani 2012; Yonezawa 2014). Here, it is useful to revisit and contextualize a typical example of this case, seen in Chapter 1. It is Kanai’s (2003a) example from the novel Kokoo no hito ‘Solitary person’:



Chapter 3.  The perceptions of native speakers 83

(22) (Narration) Katoo wa jibun no kao no hotette iku no o kanjite ita. Ikari ga kao ni dete kita no dearu. Kato felt his face burning. His anger was starting to express itself.   Kato: Ittai anata=wa naze watashi=ni sonna koto=o tazune-ru at.all 2sg=top why 1sg=dat such thing=acc ask-npst n des-u? nmlz cop.pol-npst ‘Why do you (anata) ask me such a thing?’   Kagemura: Anata da to? 2sg cop.pol.npst quot ‘You (anata)?’ (Narration) Kagemura wa mutto shita yoo na kao de itta. Sensei to iwazuni anata to itta koto ga Kagemura ni wa fuyukai ni omoeta ni chigainai. Kagemura said, as if he were in a bad temper. The fact that (Kato) did not call him sensei ‘teacher’ but anata must have offended him.  (Kokoo no hito ‘Solitary person’ (1969) cited in Kanai (2003a: 14))

The example shows a use of anata which clearly does not comply with normative address behavior. In this case, social norms require and expect the student’s use of sensei ‘teacher’ toward his teacher. Instead, the student uses anata and consequently offends his teacher. This was the reason for Kanai’s (2003a) claim that anata was an impolite pronoun. Recall that the percentage of the response ‘depends’ in the 10s and 20s age groups was slightly higher than for older generations (see Table 9 in Section 3.3.1). This may be attributed to the kinds of situations they can find themselves in, as revealed in their further responses. When those who said that ‘it depends on the situation’ explained the situation in which they would use anata toward a superior, 71% said, ‘when I argue with or criticize parents and teachers’. The arguing/criticizing response was also observed among male respondents over 40, more so than females of the same generation. In these cases, the male respondents referred to situations related to conflict with their bosses (this was the response by 83% of male respondents over 40 who had said that it ‘it depends on the situation’ whether they use anata toward their bosses). It is interesting to see this similarity between teenagers’ and adult male workers’ use of anata toward particular superior addressees. To sum up, since the use of anata toward a superior can be regarded as a breach of the social norm, then situations where anata would be used are reported as unusual cases. Native speakers typically associate the use of anata toward a superior with a conflict situation. In such situations, acknowledgement of the relative social

84

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

relationship between the interlocutors would not be the speaker’s main concern. The use of anata appears to be a useful way of reflecting the speaker’s feeling in these cases. 3.5.2 Toward an inferior For the case where anata was reported to be used toward an inferior, among those who chose ‘it depends on the situation’, the most frequent answer regarding possible situations for using anata was when the speakers give advice, admonition or make evaluative comments. This response was especially frequent for parents’ use of anata toward their children (67% on average, 76% for over 40s). One respondent made the following comment: Anata to tsukau toki wa, kiwamete ishikiteki ni tsukihanashitai toki, aruiwa okotteiru toki, gakkarishiteiru toki, sore o aite ni wakatte moraitakute tsukaimasu. Desukara, kodomo tachi mo sore o chokkan de wakatteite, ‘Anatatachi…’ to iu to, ‘A, hajimatta hajimatta…’ to faasuto suteeji de toraemasu. Osekkyoo da to handan shi, chotto teishuku na taido de kikimasu. If I use anata to my children, it would be when I very consciously keep a certain distance, am angry or disappointed with them and want them to understand it. So, when I use anata, my children probably know that intuitively. When I go “Anata tachi….”, they would go “Oops, here we go, it’s started…” as a first stage. Then they can tell that I am about to scold them. So they turn to listen to me with a slightly more obedient attitude. (Respondent 176)

The above comment suggests that this kind of situation is an atypical moment between the parent and her children. Parents would normally call their children by their names. It suggests that the use of anata here implies a shift in their conversation, moving it to a ‘special’ moment. In this case, it is when the mother scolds her children. Some comments from schoolteachers also demonstrated a similar occurrence: Shikaru toki ni namae dewa naku anata o tsukatte iru koto ga aru. I sometimes use anata when I tell pupils off.

(Respondent 103)

The following comment is an example from a violin teacher recollecting her use of anata: Fudan wa seito o namae de yobimasu ga, ressun no toki wa yoku ‘Anata no ima no oto wa ne…’ nado to itteiru yoo ni omoimasu. Chiisai kodomo ni mo desu. Nande deshoo ne.



Chapter 3.  The perceptions of native speakers 85

I usually use students’ names to address them but I think I often switch to anata during my lessons saying, for example, anata no ima no oto wa ne… “The sound you (anata) made just now is…”. I wonder why. (Respondent 410)

Reflecting on this sort of situation, the following comment is an example from the perspective of a child and a student: Ryooshin, tokuni haha kara ‘anata’ to iwareru toki wa shikarareru toki deshoo ka. Kyooju kara wa myooji de yobarete imasu ga, ‘anata’ to yobareru toki wa, hyooka ya ronbun o mite kudasaru toki nado, sukoshi kashikomatta yoona sooiu hanashi no toki ni tsukawarete ita yoo ni omoimasu. When I am called anata by my parents, especially my mother, it would probably be when I am told off. My professor calls me by my surname but when I am called anata, I think it is something like when I am being evaluated or s/he checks my thesis etc. I feel that it is used when a topic is a little bit formal or something like that.  (Respondent 94)

Reinforcing this point, I have found that in the ordinary conversations in the data set of this study (see Section 1.2.3), one particular conversation shows a higher frequency of occurrence of anata compared to the rest. In this conversation, a university professor is giving advice to his student regarding her thesis. The above comment by participant (94) neatly reflects this tendency. This conversation is presented in Section 5.3.2. Earlier, I showed that, in response to the question ‘Do you use anata toward an inferior?’, the answer ‘it depends on the situation’ from respondents over 40 was higher than for those under 40 (see Section 3.3.2, Table 10). I mentioned that this may be related to their social superiority due to their age. Given the situational tendencies where anata appears to be used, such as giving advice, admonition, and evaluation, it makes sense that the older generations are more prone to using anata than the younger generations because they understandably tend to encounter relevant situations more often. Some gender differences were observed here. On average, more female participants chose ‘it depends on the situation’ (38%) than did male speakers (25%). To break it down, a notable difference was found between males and females in their 40s and 50s. That is, 75% of female respondents in their 40s and 50s reported that they would use anata to their own children depending on the situation, whereas only 31% of male respondents in the same generation chose the same answer. Giving children advice and admonition with the use of anata as exemplified in the above remark (94) appears to be a mother’s tendency rather than a father’s. This may be because more vulgar forms such as omae are available for fathers. If we only look at the differences in the percentages between male and female speakers in these generations, we could fall into the simplistic interpretation that

86 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

‘middle-aged female speakers use anata more frequently than male speakers’. It is important that an interpretation like this does not mislead us into discussing this phenomenon as a matter of inherent gender difference in language use, suggesting that the use of anata is associated with female speech or womanliness. Since I have made the connection between the usage of anata and situational factors described above, we are able to be more careful with this interpretation.50 In line with such an approach, it is also possible to interpret participant impressions of anata such as erasoo ‘arrogant’, uekara mesen ‘looking down from the upper perspective’, and tsukihanasu ‘keep at arm’s length’ as reflective of the situations they tend to be in. In other words, the participants who made these comments may have recollected situations in which they were evaluated or told off by a superior with the use of anata, hence they associate the form with these situations. This aspect possibly also led to the claim in previous literature that anata’s property was the holding of epistemic primacy by the speaker (Shimotani 2012). On the whole, the aforementioned situations where a superior uses anata instead of using an inferior’s normal reference terms are special moments in conversations. When a speaker gives advice and evaluation, acknowledgement of expected relationships may be momentarily put aside and the speaker tends to keep a certain distance. Anata is seemingly useful in such cases. The fact that the use of anata is often perceived as distancing an inferior is possibly a flip side of the fact that its use is suitable for situations of giving advice, admonition, and evaluation. 3.5.3 Toward an equal For the use of anata toward an equal (as noted earlier ‘equal’ in this survey includes friends, spouses, and lovers), differences in the percentage of answers across given options are not as sharp as in the use of anata toward a superior or an inferior. A certain tendency was nevertheless shown. Among those who said they would use anata toward an equal ‘depending on the situation’, 40.4% selected the situation for using it as ‘when I want to be close/emphasize friendliness’. This was more frequent than for those who used it toward a superior (15%) or an inferior (15.7%). Comments around its use with an equal included things such as ‘when paying a compliment’ or ‘joking with each other’: 50. Regarding this point, mothers’ much longer hours of involvement in child raising relative to fathers’ in Japan has been reported and compared to international standards (Inaba 1998; Mizuochi 2006). It may be the case that if a mother spends many more hours with her children, she would tend to encounter more situations in which she tells her children off, teaches something, or gives advice. As a result, they would very likely recollect more of these situations than fathers would.

Chapter 3.  The perceptions of native speakers 87



Tomodachi to no aida de tokidoki tsukau koto ga aru. Kekkoo itsumo fuzakeaeru naka no hito to tsukau. ‘Anata yoku taberu nee’ toka, ‘Anata wa sugoi’ toka. I sometimes use it between friends. I use it toward someone with whom we can make fun of each other. ‘You eat a lot’ and ‘You are amazing’ etc.  (Respondent 93)

Among participants in their 10s and 20s, almost half of them remarked that they would use anata when joking together or poking fun at each other. Equals would normally call each other by names and nicknames, or male friends may call each other with some vulgar address pronouns such as omae. These terms are an acknowledgement of their equal status and friendship. In the survey results, anata appeared not to be a default address form between equals in most cases. This means that again, situations where the use of anata does occur can be regarded as special cases. It appears that the use of anata is suitable at special moments like those indicated above, namely, playing with each other verbally. In the above comment by Respondent 93, phrases such as anata yoku taberu nee ‘you eat a lot’ could be regarded as criticism made in a teasing manner. However, it is clear from the participants’ responses that they perceive it as ‘friendliness’ rather than categorize it as criticism. In the daily conversations in the data set of the current study, among the small number of occurrences of anata, the following conversation was observed between female students. In Example (23), two female students are talking about how to go back to their hometowns during the holiday: (23) 1 2 3 4 5

A: Watashi=mo yooka ni Hikari=de kaer-u. 1sg=also 8th on Hikari=ins return-npst ‘I will also go back on the 8th by Hikari bullet train.’ B: Shinkansen ka, kono kanemochi. bullet.train q this rich.person ‘Bullet train? This rich woman.’ A: (laughter) Nani yo, anata, nan=de kaer-u no yo.   what ip 2sg what=ins return-npst nmlz ip ‘What? What will you (anata) go back by then?’ B: (laughter) Ko… koosoku basu.   hesit express bus ‘Ex…..express bus.’ A: (laughter) Gambat-te-kudasa-i. (laughter)   try.best-ger-give.me.resp-imp   ‘Good luck with that!’  (C104)

In this conversation, when B calls A a ‘rich woman’ because A will use the expensive bullet train, A pretends to be offended at being labeled this way. The start of A’s second utterance nani yo anata ‘what? you (anata)…’ is a common initial phrase

88

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

used to pick a fight and hence has a challenging tone. However, both A and B are having this conversation with laughter, showing that this is a mock conflict. Such uses of anata may be what the survey respondents expressed as a ‘friendly’ and ‘joking’ way to use the term. Some respondents mentioned a vague impression they had that older women tended to use anata more often than older male speakers when talking to friends. This vague impression was attested by closely looking at the results by gender. In the 50s and 60s groups, more female speakers chose ‘depends’ for using anata toward an equal (50s: 54% female vs. 28% male, 60s: 43% female vs. 33% male). Consider the comment below, by a woman in her sixties, on her use of anata toward female friends: Shitashimi o shimesu toki, wakai hito dato, namae ya nikku-neemu o tsukattari suru no kamo shiremasen ga, chuukoonen ni naruto, sore mo chotto kodomoppoi ki ga suru shi, anta da to ramboo dashi, toiu koto de, anata ga choodo ii ki ga suru no kamo shiremasen. To show friendliness, young people may use names and nicknames but when (we) become middle/old aged, that feels a little childish (for us) but using anta is vulgar, so, the use of anata may feel quite right. (Respondent 411)

This woman is expressing the view that the use of anata can add a hint of friendliness when used among the older female generation, without being too childish or too vulgar. The unavailability of the masculine term omae ‘you’ for female speakers in informal situations may also contribute to this. This respondent also mentioned that the use of anata reminded her fondly of a famous female TV personality Tetsuko Kuroyanagi, an actress, a TV talk show host, and a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador known internationally. Born in 1933, she is now in her 80s. Kuroyanagi is regarded as a person who has contradicted the image of the obedient and wifely woman in Japan. A well-known book about her childhood reveals that, from an early stage in her life, she has never been a typically traditional Japanese girl. An extract follows: Totto-chan, as she was called by her parents (a symphony orchestra concertmaster and a trained opera singer), did not grow up like other Japanese in a rigid school system. At 6, she became an ochikobore – a dropout – after being branded a ‘bad influence’ by her teacher and asked to leave. Totto-chan’s misdeed: staring out the classroom window. “If I hadn’t been removed from that school,” insists Tetsuko, “my character would have been totally different. I would have learned to obey without asking any questions”. Her mother moved her to a progressive school held in six abandoned railroad cars and presided over by a maverick principal who mixed handicapped and normal children, let his pupils study subjects in whatever order they wanted, and encouraged them to swim in the nude. (Condon 1981: 83)

Chapter 3.  The perceptions of native speakers 89



She studied theatre in New York, has never been married, and has built a career internationally. On the whole, her public image is that of an unconventional woman. Since 1976, Kuroyanagi has been hosting a talk show Tetsuko no Heya ‘Tetsuko’s Room’. In a number of interviews with various people, ranging from famous actors to politicians, she maintains a consistent attitude toward guests, regardless of the guests’ age and social status. Tetsuko’s speech style is generally polite to all guests, but very friendly rather than formal. In terms of the use of anata, its frequent use by her has been reported in a previous study (Lee & Yonezawa 2008). In order to analyze the friendly tone associated with Tetsuko’s use of anata, I now return to my findings. I have shown so far that the use of anata is in most cases a deviation from the use of expected reference terms. Most importantly, anata tends to be used in situations where the acknowledgement of relative social status between interlocutors is not the speaker’s main concern. In this way, it makes sense that the use of anata characteristically matches the image of Kuroyanagi, who is uniquely unconventional and who would not consider the acknowledgement of social status to be of prime importance. 3.6

Summary

This chapter has explored Japanese native speakers’ perceptions of the use of anata. The findings are summarized as follows. First, anata is not regarded as a regular person reference term, regardless of the interlocutors’ relative social status. While the influence of a vertical relationship was strongly observed in the respondents’ reported avoidance of anata toward a superior addressee, especially toward an official authority such as teacher or boss, the rate of avoidance was also high toward an inferior and toward an equal. Second, the reported reasons for the avoidance of the term varied depending on the addressee. Its use is perceived mostly as rude toward official authorities such as teachers and bosses, but is regarded as too business-like, distancing, and detached when used toward close superiors (such as older kin), inferiors, and equals. There is also another perception among a small number of female speakers that its use sounds too intimate to refer to male friends. As with previous studies which have indicated different views about the use of anata, these native speakers’ perceptions toward its use are also complex and disparate. A sense of iwakan ‘unsuitability’ was often mentioned by the respondents, corresponding to the rare use of anata as a regular reference term. In most cases, the use of anata is reported to be a deviation from the norm and, as a result, its use is perceived as tending to create some kind of special nuance.

90 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Third, respondents did report cases in which anata would be used, such as when fighting or arguing with a superior, when giving advice and evaluation toward an inferior, and when they wanted to be closer toward an equal. These situations are seemingly dissimilar. However, they do share one feature: in all these cases, the acknowledgement of the usual relationship is not the speaker’s priority. In other words, anata tends to be avoided when acknowledgement of interlocutors’ social status and expected social relationship with the speaker is important, while it can occur in situations where such an acknowledgement is not the speaker’s main concern or the speaker wants to take no account of a given social relationship during the conversation. These results suggest that the inherent properties of anata do not include being polite or impolite, distant or intimate. This is precisely what we would expect in the light of my argument that the peculiarity of anata lies in its very nature of ‘not displaying any social elements or an expected relationship between a speaker and an addressee’. In this sense, anata is a unique personal pronoun in Japanese, a language in which most person reference terms inevitably display the social relationship between interlocutors. In the remainder of the book, I will provide evidence of this peculiar characteristic – absolute specification of the second person entity – and attempt to systematically explain the mechanism of how anata is able to create multiple nuances, depending on the sociocultural context in which it is used.

Chapter 4

Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship

4.1

Introduction

In the previous chapters, I suggested that the inherent properties of anata do not include any of the following: being polite, being impolite, being distant or being intimate. I also showed that the use of anata based on the superior-inferior dichotomy does not solve the riddle of the varied perceptions of the use of anata. Instead, I proposed that the peculiarity of anata is its ability not to display any of the social characteristics of the interlocutors, nor anything about their social relationship. The preceding chapters have demonstrated the inadequacy of previous attempts to try to understand the mystery of anata (see 1.3), especially in terms of social relationships – the very terms typically used to explain the use of person reference terms in Japanese. In the remaining chapters, I use the notion of ‘absolute specification’ of the second person entity as a framework for the analysis of anata. When discussing the notion of absolute specification and its relationship to the mystery of anata, it is crucial to reconsider how relationships are classified in Japanese communication. Systematic explanation only becomes possible when we recognize not only cases of the existence of social expectations, but also cases of their absence. For this reason, I adopt two broad categories of relationships, namely, socially ‘undefinable’ relationships and socially ‘definable’ relationships. It must be acknowledged that the categories of ‘undefinable’ and ‘definable’ relationships should not be thought of as entirely distinct. Perhaps a more appropriate way of thinking about these two kinds of relationships would be that they involve prototypes, with some overlap between non-prototypical cases. This chapter analyzes the first category. I will show that when referring to a second person whose relationship to the speaker is not definable in typical ways, the use of anata can refer purely to the second person entity without generating any socially expressive effects. The cases presented in this chapter are clear evidence that the core semantic property of anata is absolute specification of the second person entity.

92

The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

4.2

Referring to a general audience

One case where the relationship between speaker and addressee may be undefinable is when a general audience is being addressed. Anata is commonly observed in this case. It is found in a variety of sources such as questionnaires, certificates, and advertisements. The examples in this section were drawn from advertisements which were collected during my fieldwork in Japan. The use of anata in advertisements is very common, to the extent that one can easily find it in everyday life. Consider Examples (24) and (25): (24) Anata=wa dandan tabe-taku-nar-u…. 2sg=top gradually eat-want-become-npst ‘You (anata) are gradually going to feel like eating….’ 

(McDonald’s, 2014)

(25) Hon-zuki=no anata=ni todoke-ta-i kono is-satsu. book-liking=gen 2sg=dat deliver-want-npst this one-copy ‘This volume is for you (anata), the book lover.’  (Koodansha, 2014)

Example (24) is from a poster for McDonalds Japan. In terms of its target audience, it is impossible to imagine the audience’s social elements based on the use of anata. It is used to address a broad range of people, including male/female, young/old, and students/business people. The use of anata does not imply any particular social characteristics of the addressee at all. For this reason, any viewer would feel that the message is directed toward him/her. Cong & Aoki (2011: 109) state that the managers of each McDonald’s restaurant in Japan are expected to provide an environment fulfilling the requirements of any social group of customers. Their customers are regarded as roonyakunannyo ‘young and old, male and female’ and the brand is depicted as being welcoming to families with children (Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 6 Feb 2014). It is appropriate that a company which has such a broad target market makes use of the term anata in its posters, whereby it does not address any specific group of customers but rather a general audience whose social elements are not narrowed down. Likewise, the target audience in Example (25) is interpreted to be a wide range of people. The words are from an advertisement on the website of one of the major Japanese publishers, Koodansha, where the staff members recommend the best 20 books for a general audience. The recommended books are not in any particular categories. They include a variety of genres such as comic books, which may be particularly popular amongst teenagers, detective stories, business success stories, literature, and others. It is apparent that the publisher wants to appeal to a wide range of prospective buyers. The use of anata again works well to refer to a wide audience and is entirely appropriate for this advertisement.



Chapter 4.  Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 93

The effect of the use of anata in Examples (24) and (25) (namely, inclusively addressing a broad, general audience) is served by the key property of this term, the absolute specification of the second person. If any other terms were used, they would entail certain social elements and the target audience of the message would become more specific. Compare Examples (24) and (25) with Example (26), which includes another 2sg pronoun kimi ‘you’: (26) Tsuyo-ku nar-e. Juku=wa kimi=o tsuyo-ku sur-u. strong-adv become-imp cram.school=top 2sg=acc strong-adv do-npst ‘Be strong. Cram school makes you (kimi) strong.’  (Kawaijuku, 2012)

Juku is a type of private tutoring school, a so-called ‘cram school’, which many pre-tertiary students regularly attend outside their normal school hours, aiming to improve their grades and thus to enter good universities. Example (26) is a catch phrase in an advertisement for a juku. The advertised courses are for prospective junior and senior high school students. Kimi is an informal 2sg pronoun used either between equals or from a superior speaker to an inferior addressee in an informal situation (see Chapter 2). The use of kimi in (26) creates a certain effect, making it sound as if the message is from the teachers or staff of the cram school and directed toward its students. That is to say, by the use of kimi, the message is understood as being addressed toward young prospective students of the school. The sender of the message is intuitively aware of this effect and skillfully uses kimi to appeal to the target audience. Morita (1989) mentions the use of anata toward a general audience in Kiso Nihongo Jiten ‘Dictionary of Basic Japanese’. He points out that when anata is used toward a general audience, this anata is akin to ‘everyone’ and it does not index superior-inferior relationships. Morita (1989: 67) views anata in this case as ‘colorless’. Although his view is insightful, he limits this ‘colorless’ use of anata only to the particular situation of addressing a general audience. In contrast, I argue that anata is inherently colorless and that the notion of ‘absolute specification’ is entirely consistent with what Morita expresses in this way. One may wonder if anata can in fact be replaced by minasan ‘everyone’ or why plural forms are not used to refer to a general audience here. Interestingly, it is difficult to find advertisements in which these terms are used. In this regard, a comment from an actual copywriter is insightful. The copywriter, working for an advertising company in Tokyo, created a poster about traffic safety for the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department (Yomiuri Shimbun, 26 Oct 1976). Example (27) is the catch phrase of the poster:

94 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

(27) Nani yori mo, anata=no tame=no kootsuu anzen. what than also 2sg=gen sake=gen traffic safety ‘More than anything, traffic safety is for you (anata).’  (Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department, 1976)

In an interview about the poster with the newspaper, the copywriter stated that before that time, messages in Police Department posters had not really been apprehended as being an issue for each and every individual. Thus, he wanted a phrase conveying a message that would reach each individual in the sense that anyone looking at the poster would feel that the message was directed toward him or her. He stated that anata as a singular form was the only word that he thought would be appropriate (Yomiuri Shimbun, 27 Oct 1976). Although referring to a general audience, the singularity of anata has the ability to appeal to an individual. Minasan ‘everyone’ does not have this ability. The use of plural forms would also preclude the ability to send a direct message to each individual. Further, the plural forms would result in entailing certain social information about the addressee. In Japanese, plural forms of person reference terms are made by adding suffixes. In the case of anata, the suffixes gata or tachi can be added hence both anatagata and anatatachi are 2pl forms. Between the two, the suffix gata has a higher degree of formality hence anatagata is used with a somewhat more respectful nuance than anatatachi (Morita 1989). The suffix tachi does not carry any respectful nuance (ibid.), thus anatatachi cannot be used to refer to a group of people to whom the speaker should show respect. Given all this, the use of either anatagata or anatatachi would narrow down the possible group of addressees. Clearly this is not desirable when aiming to address a broad range of people. It is only the singular anata which has the property of absolute specification and hence serves to refer to any individual as a pure second person entity. 4.3

Generic and ‘vague’ uses of anata

In many languages, 2sg pronouns are not only used as terms of address or terms of interlocutor reference but also used to refer to people in general or to human referents who are extremely low in specificity. There are various terms to describe this kind of usage, such as “universal non-specific, generic, generalized human, generalized indefinite, referentially arbitrary and impersonal” (Siewierska 2004: 210). Kluge (2016: 503) employs the term ‘generic’ and states “[g]eneric seconds are cross-linguistically attested in many languages but they are far from universal”. Kitagawa & Lehrer (1990: 753) use the term ‘impersonal’ and claim a typological pattern as follows: The extension of the 2nd person pronoun to an impersonal is possible only in languages with small, closed pronoun sets.



Chapter 4.  Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 95

According to Kitagawa & Lehrer (1990: 753), the above pattern is applicable to languages such as Chinese, English, French, German, Arabic, Modern Hebrew, Hindi-Urdu, Italian, and Persian (Farsi), all of which meet their criteria of having a closed set of personal pronouns. Kitagawa & Lehrer (1990: 753) further assert that languages such as Japanese and Korean “do not possess a clearly defined closed set of personal pronouns”, hence these languages have “no recourse to impersonal use” of 2sg. However, this statement is based on the widely held assumption that Japanese personal pronouns are “too loaded with semantic and pragmatic information” (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990: 756). While none of the published work to date has focused on discussing generic uses of anata in the field of Japanese linguistics, I argue that the analysis of a wide range of discourse in the data of the current study reveals that anata can, in fact, be used to refer to people in general or to human referents who are very low in specificity. Before moving on to discuss the evidence for this claim, I will touch on English and Chinese examples in order to introduce the notion of a ‘continuum of reference of the 2sg’ proposed by Kluge (2016: 504). Although anata does not exactly match any of the points in Kluge’s continuum, the notion is useful in articulating the degree of specificity that the use of anata achieves. Regarding English, Kitagawa & Lehrer (1990: 742) point to two uses of you that are distinct from fully referential uses. One is an ‘impersonal’ use, which “applies to anyone and/or everyone”.51 The other is a ‘vague’ use, which “applies to specific individuals, but they are not identified, or identifiable, by the speaker”. Consider examples in (28) and (29), both from interviews in English (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990: 741, 743): (28) But I have a gift for teaching … Plus, teaching fiction writing is a lot like writing. You have to examine manuscripts, use your mind, come up with possibilities, respond to characters in situations. In a lot of ways, it’s like working on your own work. (29) You’re – I don’t mean you personally – you’re going to destroy us all in a nuclear war.

In (28), you and your do not refer to the listener, that is, it is not the interviewer who has to ‘examine manuscripts’ and to ‘use [his/her] mind’. The speaker is expressing the notion that anyone who teaches fiction has to do so (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990). This is a typical example of what these authors call the ‘impersonal’ you in English, referred to in this study as the ‘generic second’. Example (29), on the other hand, is an instance of the ‘vague’ you. A European woman is talking to an American 51. Kitagawa & Lehrer (1990) actually use the term ‘impersonal’ in two ways: first, according to the precise definition given here (what is referred to in this study as ‘generic’) and, second, as an umbrella term which covers both their ‘impersonal’ and their ‘vague’ categories.

96 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

interviewer about American political and military policy in Europe. You in this example seems to refer vaguely to the American military, or perhaps the American government. Kitagawa & Lehrer (1990) make distinctions between impersonal you and vague you in English in that impersonal you can be replaced with one or we without changing the informational content of the text, while vague you cannot. In relation to this type of usage, Kluge (2016: 504) proposed the notion of a ‘continuum of reference of the 2sg’. In her corpus of French and Spanish, she identified five focal points within the continuum: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I, the speaker (hiding behind ‘you’) I, the speaker, as a representative of a larger entity anyone you, the person in front of me, as a representative of a larger entity you, the person in front of me (= term of address)

Figure 4.  Continuum of reference of the 2sg (Kluge 2016: 504)

The above Example (28) can be regarded as number 3 in the continuum ‘anyone’ and (29) as number 4 ‘you, the person in front of me, as a representative of a larger entity’, as evidenced by the speaker’s statement, ‘I don’t mean you personally’. Kluge’s notion of ‘continuum of reference of the 2sg’ can be usefully applied to languages outside the Indo-European family which also meet Kitagawa & Lehrer’s criterion of having a small and closed class of pronouns. The use of the Mandarin ni ‘you’ is a good example. Observe Example (30) from Chao (1968) cited in Biq (1991: 309): (30) Nei-xie xiao haizi nao de jiao ni bu neng zhuanxin that-pl small child make.noise rst cus 2sg neg can concentrate zuo shi. do thing ‘Those children make such a noise, it makes you (me, one) unable to concentrate on your (my, one’s) work.’  (Chao (1968: 648–649), quoted and translated by Biq (1991: 309))52

According to Biq, as with the English ‘impersonal’ you, the referent of ni in (30) is you, me, and indeed anyone. However, a more precise interpretation is possible when informed by Kluge’s continuum. This ni can be understood as Kluge’s number 1 ‘I, the speaker (hiding behind ‘you’)’. Being hidden by 2sg, the utterance is presented in a generalizable manner inviting the addressee to view the situation as if the speaker’s perspective is also their perspective.

52. Abbreviations used in Biq’s example sentences are as follows: PL (plurality), PRT (sentence final particle), RST (resultative complement marker), CUS (causative), M (measure word).

Chapter 4.  Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 97



The value of Kluge’s continuum and this notion of 2sg being used as a strategy to shift the speaker’s perspective can be observed in another use of Mandarin ni. Biq (1991: 310–314) calls this the “dramatic ni”. This use of ni appears in a quoted clause as seen in Example (31) (Biq 1991: 311):5354 (31) 1

A: Dangran zhe limian you yi ge wenti jiu shi, of.course this inside have one m problem just is 2   eh youde ren ne ta keyi juede fanzheng eh some people prt 3sg may feel anyway 3   wo ye dei fen liangshi ta jiu bu 1sg also have.to share food 3sg then neg 4   haohao ganhuo zhei ge jiu well work this m then 5 B: mmm. mmm. 6 A: dei kao sixiang jiaoyu, bu bu neng have.to depend thought education neg neg can 7   kao qiangpuo ye bu neng kao yi depend force also neg can depend one 8   zhong weixie de banfa. m threaten nom way 9 B: Dui. right 10 A: banfa ni bu haohao ganhuo rang ni way 2sg neg well work let 2sg 11   qiong xiaqu mei fan chi jiu kao dajia poor down neg food eat just depend everyone 12   zijue. conscientious ‘Of course there’s one problem in here that is, eh, there are people who may feel that “I have to share the food (with other people) anyway” so [they] don’t work hard. 54 This depends on education. (It) couldn’t be solved by imposition. Nor could it be solved by threat (like,) “(Since) you (ni) don’t work hard, (we’ll) let you (ni) stay poor and have nothing to eat”. It just depends on everyone’s conscientiousness.’ fn54

As the use of ni in Example (31) appears in reported speech, it is here regarded as an example of Speech and Thought Representation (Maynard 1996; Vandelanotte 53. The format was altered in accordance with the way this study presents its examples (e.g., some aspects which were indicated in Biq’s original, such as overlap between speakers and continuous speech of the same speaker, are not marked in Example (30) here). 54. Biq’s translation here is actually ‘…there are people who may feel that “I have to share the food (with other people) anyway” so he doesn’t [sic] work hard.’

98 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

2009), as a direct quotation. The speaker of the quoted part is an imaginary ‘person X’. The current speaker has substituted the voice of this imaginary character in the imaginary scenario for his/her own viewpoint. In this sense, within the imaginary situation, it is clear that the instances of ni in (31) are cases of Kluge’s number 5 ‘you, the person in front of me’. This use of 2sg serves to trigger a deictic shift (Duchan, Bruder, & Hewitt 1995), providing an alternative mental space (Kluge 2016: 508). Keeping this in mind, I move on to discuss the generic (often called ‘impersonal’) use and the ‘vague’ use of anata in Japanese. Both of these uses of anata appear exclusively in reported speech (similar to the use of Chinese ni in Example (31)). For this reason, I briefly touch on some relevant information about reported speech in Japanese before giving example sentences with the generic and ‘vague’ uses of anata. ‘Reported speech’ is commonly considered to have two distinct types: direct and indirect. In Japanese, however, direct and indirect reported speech are sometimes not clearly distinguished (Coulmas 1985; Kamada 2000). Consider Examples (32a–c), from Kamada (2000: 158). For (32a), two possible translations are given: Kinoo, Taroo=wa boku=ni, kyoo=wa daremo boku=no yesterday gn=top 1sg=dat today=top no.one 1sg=gen uchi=e ko-na-i da-roo to it-ta. house=des come-neg-npst cop-tent quot say-pst ‘Yesterday, Taro said to me that no one would probably come to my (the speaker’s) house today.’ ‘Yesterday, Taro said to me: “Today, no one will probably come to my (Taro’s) house”.’   b. Kinoo, Taroo=wa boku=ni, kyoo=wa daremo boku=no yesterday gn=top 1sg=dat today=top no.one 1sg=gen uchi=e ko-na-i da-roo ne to it-ta. house=des come-neg-npst cop-tent ip quot say-pst ‘Yesterday, Taro said to me: “Today, no one will probably come to my house, will they?”.’   c. Kinoo, Taroo=wa boku=ni, kyoo=wa daremo boku=no yesterday gn=top 1sg=dat today=top no.one 1sg=gen uchi=e ko-na-i desh-oo to it-ta. house=des come-neg-npst cop.pol-tent quot say-pst ‘Yesterday, Taro said to me: “Today, no one will probably (pol) come to my house”.’ (32) a.

Example sentences (32a–c) are identical except for the ending of the quoted sentences. While Example (32a) includes the ‘plain’ form of the modal auxiliary daroo ‘suppose/probably’, (32b) includes the interactional particle ne ‘will they?’, and (32c) uses deshoo, which is the polite form of daroo. While (32b) and (32c) clearly involve direct speech, (32a) allows either a direct or an indirect interpretation.



Chapter 4.  Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 99

The distinction between direct and indirect speech in Japanese can be identified based on deictic switches (Coulmas 1985; Kamada 2000). In this process, there are ways in which deixis, especially social deixis, plays an important role in indexing the ‘new utterance’. These social deictic elements include interjections, person reference terms, attitudinal expressions such as honorifics and politeness markers, and interactional particles. Examples (32b) and (32c) clearly contain elements that lead these sentences to be interpreted as direct quotations. In (32b), the interactional particle ne is used. While the quoted parts in (32a) kyoo wa daremo boku no uchi ni konai daroo and in (32b) kyoo wa daremo boku no uchi ni konai daroo ne denote the same propositional information, ‘No one will probably come to my house today’, these two sentences differ in their interactional aspect. While the former sentence without ne may simply describe the propositional information, the latter sentence with ne is explicitly marked as part of a dialogue. In Japanese, interactional particles are one of the most frequently employed linguistic items in spoken conversation (e.g., McGloin 1990; Ide & Sakurai 1997; Katagiri 2007; Lee 2007; Ogi 2014). Due to the inclusion of ne, the quoted sentence in (32b) is regarded as the utterance of the original speaker to the original addressee. In other words, the sentence is interpreted as a direct quotation. As for (32c), the quoted sentence ends with the polite form of the modal auxiliary (i.e., deshoo). Like the interactional particle ne, this also indicates the presence of an addressee, to whom the original speaker expressed politeness in the original conversational situation. Thus, the quotation in (32c) is also interpreted as direct. None of these elements of social deixis, or in fact any other deictic elements, such as tense, appear in sentence (32a). The plain modal auxiliary daroo can be understood as a casual sentence ending, unmarked for interaction or politeness, but nevertheless perfectly appropriate in conversation between friends. Alternatively, it can be understood as the plain form appropriate within an indirect quote, from which all markers of deixis, social or otherwise, have been stripped. Thus, among these three example sentences, only (32a) can be interpreted as either direct or indirect speech. Given these features of reported speech in Japanese, let us look at the use of 2sg pronouns which contribute to shifting the deictic perspective in reported speech. Consider Example (33), from a TV interview show: (33) 1   Kimi, anoo taihen da na, iroiro-to. Koo, 2sg hesit tough cop.npst ip various-adv hesit 2   are, ijime-rare-tari-shi-na-i ka tte chotto hesit bully-pass-conj-do-neg-npst q quot little 3   koe kake-te-kure-ru n des-u yo. voice call.out-ger-give.me-npst nmlz cop.pol-npst ip ‘“You (kimi), well, it’s tough (for you) in many ways, right? Well, aren’t (you) bullied or something?” (He) said to me kindly.’  (TV talk show ‘Tetsuko no Heya’ cited in Kamada (2000: 70))

100 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

In (33), a guest on the show, who is an actor, is talking about a memory of his middle school teacher. The use of 2sg kimi in (33) indicates the start of the direct quotation, i.e., the start of a deictic shift. Kimi is an informal 2sg pronoun which is used toward an equal or an inferior addressee. Thus, its referent cannot be interpreted as the current addressee, the TV show host, who is a superior in the sense that she is much older than the current speaker and has an established career. With the use of kimi, which a teacher can typically use to address a student, the interlocutors’ deictic perspective is shifted to the teacher-student conversation in the actor’s recollected past. It should be noted here that a direct quotation does not mean that the sentence is quoted verbatim from the original speaker. Although a direct quotation has traditionally been regarded as faithful to the original speaker’s utterances while an indirect quotation reports its content and conveys the sense but not the exact words (Partee 1973), the creative aspects of reported speech are also well attested (Tannen 1989, 2007; Kamada 2000; Maynard 1996). Kamada (2000) notes that a direct quotation is not necessarily verbatim but a ‘creation’ of the speaker based on the immediate conversational context and the speaker’s attitude. The idea that a quotation is a creation of the speaker is in line with Tannen’s (1989, 2007) ‘constructed dialogue’, which offers an insight into what is generally called ‘reported speech’: I am claiming that when a speaker represents an utterance as the words of another, what results is by no means describable as ‘reported speech’. Rather it is constructed dialogue. And the construction of the dialogue represents an active, creative, transforming move which expresses the relationship not between the quoted party and the topic of talk but rather the quoting party and the audience to whom the quotation is delivered. (Tannen 1989: 109)

The list of what Tannen (1989) claims as constructed dialogues includes dialogue as instantiation of a general phenomenon, dialogue which includes vague referents, dialogue cast in the persona of a nonhuman speaker, and others. The notion of constructed dialogue is important for our discussion of person reference terms, in particular, the use of anata in what I have thus far called ‘reported speech’ (covering both direct and indirect speech). This is because, as discussed in Chapter 3, anata is not a regular 2sg pronoun in ordinary conversations, which means that when it is used in reported speech, it is clearly the current speaker’s ‘construction’. From now on, I use the term ‘constructed dialogue’, following Tannen’s notion. We have seen that, in English and Chinese, the speaker has little choice but to use you and ni respectively in constructed dialogue. However, in Japanese, there are a large number of possibilities in the choice of representing the original speaker’s person reference terms. In this sense, speakers have more freedom to put different person reference terms in the mouths of those whose dialogue they are constructing. Regarding the use of kimi in Example (33), in fact, it may not necessarily have



Chapter 4.  Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 101

been used by the original speaker (i.e., the actor’s middle school teacher in the reported situation). However, the current speaker, in this case the actor, employs kimi, which can typically be used by a teacher toward a student. In so doing, the current speaker constructs the dialogue which is perceived to be close to the original conversation that he is recollecting. In this sense, kimi in (33) is interpreted as, or close to, Kluge’s number 5 ‘you, the person in front of me’ in the constructed dialogue. When it comes to the use of anata in constructed dialogue, as it is not a regular 2sg pronoun in ordinary conversations, its use in this context is very clearly the current speaker’s ‘construction’. Another way in which it differs from other pronouns is that it can refer to referents with varying degrees of specificity. I use the term ‘specificity’ following Minagawa’s (2009: 43) definition: “the speaker’s commitment to refer to a particular entity which she has in mind”. This is in line with Givón’s (1993: 224) notion of “referential intent”. Givón points out, in his work on English grammar, that specificity involves a continuum rather than a clear division, as in the case of definite vs. indefinite. While a definite referent is always specific, an indefinite referent may involve various degrees of specificity that are realized by the use of a variety of linguistic devices such as indefinite articles and the singular/ plural distinction. Givón (1993: 226) further notes that the interpretation of the degree of specificity of reference cannot always be determined in a “strict logical-semantic sense” but is rather determined in a pragmatic sense (ibid.). For example, the singular indefinite noun in He sold a house is interpreted as highly specific, but the plural in He sold houses downgrades referential intent. According to Givón, the low specificity interpretation in the latter sentence is generated in the pragmatic sense, that is, the specific identity of each house sold “doesn’t matter” (Givón 1993: 226). In light of the notions of specificity and referential intent, and Kluge’s (2016) ‘continuum of reference of the 2sg’, I propose the following continuum of reference of Japanese 2sg in constructed dialogue. This is inspired by, but differs from Kluge’s continuum of reference of 2sg which is based on data from European languages including German, French, Spanish, and Portuguese, as well as English. Note that this continuum applies only to the environment of constructed dialogue in Japanese. Low in specificity 1. anyone 2. you, as a representative of a group of people 3. you, a non-identifiable individual 4. you, an identifiable, specific individual High in specificity

Figure 5.  Continuum of reference of Japanese 2sg in constructed dialogue

102 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Number 4, ‘you, an identifiable, specific individual’, in this continuum is close to Kluge’s number 5 ‘you, the person in front of me’. The use of kimi in Example (33) allows this reading. As discussed earlier, the current speaker’s intent is clearly to refer to a specific person, in this case, he himself, addressed by his teacher, due to the use of a typical and socially expected term which could well be verbatim. It is assumed that the use of socially expected 2sg items tends to be interpreted this way, namely, as number 4 ‘you, an identifiable, specific individual’. When it comes to the use of anata, in the data, it appears as either number 3 ‘you, a non-identifiable individual’, number 2 ‘you, as a representative of a group of people’, or number 1 ‘anyone’. Anata’s property of absolute specification of second person entity plays a role in realizing these uses. Let us look at Example (34), where the use of anata reads as number 3 ‘you, a non-identifiable individual’. A politician is talking about his visit to a debris-processing site after the 2011 tsunami disaster in Japan. He is impressed by the inner strength of the people there, because they are working rather talkatively even though they have lost their families. He relates the following scene involving constructed dialogue at the site: (34) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Ah, anata=mo sooiu tsunami=o oh 2sg=also that.sort.of tsunami=acc keiken.shi-mashi-ta ka, anata=mo des-u ka, experience-pol-pst q 2sg=also cop.pol-npst q aa, anata=wa obasan=o nakushi-te, watashi=wa oh 2sg=top aunt=acc lose-ger 1sg=top miuchi=o kooiu fuu-ni nakushi-te to, relatives=acc this.sort.of way-adv lose-ger quot soko=de iroiro-na hanashi=ga deki-ru n there=loc various-lnk talk=nom can.do-npst nmlz des-u ne. cop.pol-npst ip ‘“Oh, did you (anata) also experience that sort of tsunami?”, “You (anata) too?”, “Oh, you (anata) lost your aunt and I lost my family like this”, in that situation, (they) can talk a lot.’  (Accounts Committee meeting, 27 Aug 2012)

In (34), the utterance includes anata three times and each of these tokens of anata refers to different individuals. However, the speaker in (34) is not attempting to ‘report’ the exact conversations among the victims as they worked together, but is substituting absolute specification of the interlocutor for the term the original speaker would really have used. While we can see that Example (34) is largely similar to Biq’s ‘dramatic ni’ in Mandarin presented as Example (31), the use of anata is different in an important way. In the Chinese example, in which an imaginary

Chapter 4.  Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 103



speaker is talking to an imaginary interlocutor, this imaginary speaker would really have used the 2sg pronoun ni. In this sense, the referent is number 5 in Kluge’s continuum, ‘you, the person in front of me’, in the imaginary world. However, in the Japanese Example (34), the referent cannot be exactly ‘you, the person in front of me’ in the constructed dialogue since there is no way that the original speaker could possibly have used anata. Instead, it is the current speaker who, by using anata in the place of whatever interlocutor reference term the original speaker might have used, is lowering the degree of specificity of the referent. In a real situation like this, the original speaker would probably have used the addressee’s name with an appropriate title. However, the current speaker’s main intention is not to quote the exact conversation he heard, but to describe a representative scene he encountered at the tsunami debris site. The current speaker deliberately makes the referent ‘vague’; in other words, his commitment to specify each individual’s identity is lowered, as the specific identity “doesn’t matter” (Givón 1993: 226). Thus, anata in this example is interpreted as number 3, ‘you, a non-identifiable individual’. In the next Example (35), the speaker is describing a general tendency in Japan’s ageing society, where problems arise due to the combination of a decrease in the number of children and an increase in the percentage of unmarried people. (35) 1 2 3 4 5

Kyoodai-suu=no genshoo, mikon-ritsu=no jooshoo sibling-number=gen decrease unmarried-rate=gen increase niyotte, kazoku=no naka=de, anata=wa hatarai-te, due.to family=gen inside=loc 2sg=top work-ger anata=wa kaigo=o shi-te, to i-u yoo-na 2sg=top care=acc do-ger quot say-npst like-lnk yakuwari buntan=ga muzukashi-i, sooshita role sharing=nom difficult-npst that.sort.of jookyoo-ni gozai-mas-u. circumstance-adv exist.resp-pol-npst ‘Due to the decrease in the number of siblings and increase in the percentage of unmarried people, (we are) in a circumstance where it is difficult to distribute roles in a family, like “You (anata) work” and “You (anata) care for the elderly”.’  (Financial Committee meeting, 22 Mar 2012)

The first anata and the second anata are referring to different referents. However, similar to (34), the use of anata is an absolute specification of an imaginary interlocutor in an imaginary situation. The difference between (34) and (35) is the degree of specificity of these referents. All uses of anata in (34) and (35) appear in direct speech. However, if one were to use indirect speech, anata in (35) can be replaced by more generic phrases such as hitori ‘one’ and moo hitori ‘another’, as in hitori wa hataraite, moo hitori wa kaigo o shite ‘one works and another takes care of the elderly’. This is not possible for the uses of anata in (34) because each use of

104 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

anata in (34) is referring to an individual worker at the tsunami debris site, even though they are not identifiable. In this sense, the degree of specification of the addressee in the constructed dialogue in (35) is lower than that in (34). Anata in (35) is interpreted as number 2 in the continuum, namely, ‘you, as a representative of a group of people’, who would take on the roles described. Further, the degree of specificity is even lower in the next Example (36). The speaker is a politician criticizing a proposed financial law which controls the total amount of debt allowed to individuals. (36) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Keizaijin toshite ningen=wa sorenari=no homo.economicus as human=top befitting=gen paasonaritii=o mot-te-i-ru wake des-u personality=acc have-ger-be-npst reason cop.pol-npst kara anata=wa ikura made shika because 2sg=top how.much up.to only kari-rare-mas-en yo to gentei.sur-u borrow-pot-pol-neg.npst ip quot limit-npst no=wa kiwamete jinken shingai ja-na-i nmlz=top extremely human.right violation cop-neg-npst ka to omo-u gurai chotto hidoi hooritsu q quot think-npst almost a.little terrible law de.ar-u to omo-i-mas-u. cop-npst quot think-inf-pol-npst ‘As homo economicus, (it is) the case that human beings have a personality of their own, so, limiting things, like “You (anata) can only borrow this much” is an extremely terrible law, to the extent that (I) think it’s almost a violation of human rights.’  (Financial Committee meeting, 15 Jun 2012)

In Example (36), the part anata wa ikura made shika kariraremasen yo ‘you can only borrow this much’, with the use of anata and the polite verb form, as well as the use of the interactional particle yo, indicates that this is a form of direct speech. However, again, the current speaker is not quoting any particular person but is borrowing an imaginary speaker’s voice involving direct speech. Similar to (35), if we rephrase it as indirect speech, anata can be replaced by hitori ‘one person’. The indirect speech version, without any social-deictic markers such as the polite form of the verb and the interactional particle, becomes hitori ikura made shika karirarenai ‘one person can only borrow up to this much’, to explain the content of the clause in the proposed financial law. Here, anata is referring to all Japanese citizens and thus is interpreted as generic, i.e., ‘anyone’. It should be noted again that this use of anata can only occur in constructed dialogue involving direct speech. Outside of this context, neither anata nor any other 2sg pronouns can possibly be used with the generic meaning ‘anyone’ in Japanese.

Chapter 4.  Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 105



I have described the use of anata in constructed dialogue where the referent of anata is not an identifiable individual, but rather may be a vague referent who is low in specificity or may even refer to people in general. I have provided clear evidence for these vague and generic uses of anata in constructed dialogue in Japanese. The reason that previous scholars argued that these uses do not exist in Japanese (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990) is that Japanese personal pronouns are assumed to be inevitably social-indexical, as discussed in Chapter 2. Thus, as noted earlier, they are viewed as “too loaded with semantic and pragmatic information […] to be generalized or used impersonally” (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990: 756). However, anata has the unique property of absolutely specifying the second person without indexing social elements of the interlocutor. It functions merely to express person-deixis. This analysis provides a straightforward answer to the question of why anata allows generic and vague uses in certain contexts, as do 2sg pronouns in languages with closed pronoun classes. Although none of the published work has discussed these generic and vague uses of anata in the field of Japanese linguistics, it is now evident that these uses do exist in constructed dialogue. They are here attributed to the ability of anata to absolutely specify the second person without entailing his/her social elements but simply to designate him/her purely as the second person entity. 4.4 Referring to a collective entity There are cases where the use of anata is extended to refer to collective/organizational entities. The referents include entities such as institutions, governments, and nations; in other words, they are nonhuman entities. This use of anata also appears in constructed dialogue similar to its uses discussed in the previous section. The use of anata shown in this section is a personification of a nonhuman entity, as if a collective entity is talking to another collective entity, in constructed dialogue. Consider Example (37) from parliamentary debate. The topic is a negotiation between local governments and businesses who are willing to deal with debris disposal after the tsunami of 2011. Preceding this extract, the speaker S was talking about the national government’s obligation regarding the explanation of a number of detailed regulations about the classifications of the debris and its treatment: (37) 1 2 3 4

Kore, shikkari setsumei.shi-na.kya.dame-na n this properly explain-have.to-lnk nmlz des-u yo. Kuni=ga, uketor-u cop.pol-npst ip nation=nom receive-npst shichooson=ni anata cites.towns.village=dat 2sg setsumei.shi-te-yat-te-kur-e to it-ta n explain-ger-give-ger-give.me-imp quot say-pst nmlz

106 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

5

yo. ja, kore, muri des-u cop.cond this impossible cop.pol-npst ip ‘(Regarding) this, (the national government) has to explain properly. If the national government just tells cities, towns, and villages like “you (anata) explain it (to your local businesses)”, it’s impossible.’  (Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami Reconstruction  Committee meeting, 27 Mar 2012)

In this example, the speaker is insisting in lines 1–2 that the national government must explain the regulations precisely to local government. He goes on to state that it is impossible for cities, towns, and villages (i.e., local government) to explain everything to local businesses if the national government makes everything the local government’s responsibility without a thorough explanation. In lines 3–4, he describes the situation by constructing dialogue as if the national government were talking to the local government: anata setsumeishite yatte kure ‘you (anata) explain it (to traders)’. Anata is used here to refer to shichooson ‘local government’ (lit. cities, towns, and villages). Similarly, in Example (38), the referent is an institution. The speaker is talking about the perceived irresponsible attitude of both the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Justice regarding the judicial examination system: (38) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Dakara wareware kara miru-to so 1pl from see-con mombushoo=wa ittai nani yat-te-i-ta Ministry.of.Education=top on.earth what do-ger-be-pst no to tomoni, hoomushoo nani nmlz quot together Ministry.of.Justice what yat-te-i-ta no to. Moo tatewari do-ger-be-pst nmlz quot indeed vertical gyoosei=no mama de, anata=ni administration=gen as.is cop.ger 2sg=dat o-makase ne to kooiu fuu-ni shika hon-leave ip quot like.this way-adv only mie-na-i wake des-u ne. appear-neg-npst reason cop.pol-npst ip ‘So, from our perspective, (it’s like) “What on earth was the Ministry of Education doing?”, as well as “What was the Ministry of Justice doing?” Indeed, it is still based on a vertical administration and it looks like nothing more than “(I) will leave it to you (anata), OK?”.’  (Judicial Affairs Committee meeting, 31 Jul 2012)

In Example (38), by saying ‘What was the Ministry of Education doing?’ and ‘What was the Ministry of Justice doing?’ in lines 1–4, the speaker expresses that neither the Ministry of Education nor the Ministry of Justice have a sense of responsibility

Chapter 4.  Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 107



for the systemic failure of judicial examinations. The speaker is pointing out that both ministries take a stance of mutual recrimination. He describes this by saying anata ni omakase ne ‘(I) will leave it to you (anata), OK?’ in lines 5–6, which has the sense of ‘you do it, thanks’. Here, anata is used to refer to ‘the other party’ from both perspectives. That is, anata is the Ministry of Education from the perspective of the Ministry of Justice and at the same time it is the Ministry of Justice from the perspective of the Ministry of Education. Anata’s property serves here to simply indicate ‘the other party’. Further, Example (39) shows the use of anata to refer to a nation. The speaker is talking about Hoppooryoodo mondai ‘the Northern Territories dispute’ and recommending that the Foreign Minister seeks help from the United States:55 (39) 1 2 3 4

Zehi, kono kooshoo=no kekka=o teinei-ni by.all.means this negotiation=gen result=acc polite-adv seijitsu-ni, soshite, anata=no tasuke=ga hitsuyoo-na sincere-adv and 2sg=gen help=nom necessary-lnk n da to iu koto=o amerika=ni nmlz cop.npst quot say thing=acc America=dat i-u koto da to omo-i-mas-u. say-npst thing cop.npst quot think-inf-pol-npst ‘By all means, (explain) the results of this negotiation properly and sincerely, and then I think (you) should say “(we) need your (anata gen) help” to America.’ (Diplomatic Defense Committee meeting, 26 Jul 2012)

In this example, the speaker is saying that Japan should express anata no tasuke ga hitsuyoo na n da ‘(we) need your (anata no) help’ to the U.S. Anata is used to refer to Amerika ‘America, the U.S.’. In the same way as in Examples (37) and (38), the use of anata here serves to refer to the other party in constructed dialogue. In all the examples in this section, anata refers to a collective entity: in (37), it is a local government from the national government’s perspective; in (38), it is the Ministry of Education from the Ministry of Justice’s perspective and vice versa; and in (39), it is the United States from Japan’s perspective. As mentioned earlier, these entities are personified and the current speaker constructs dialogue so that a personified collective entity is ‘talking’ to another personified collective entity. Importantly, because anata has the property of absolutely specifying the second person entity without indexing social attributes of the interlocutors, the use of anata discussed in this section does not imply relative positions between the personified collective entities. Instead, it serves to simply refer to the other party from one side’s perspective in constructed dialogue. 55. This is also known as the ‘Kuril Islands dispute’ between Japan and Russia and includes some Ainu people. The dispute is over the land ownership of the South Kuril Islands.

108 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

4.5

Referring to a depersonalized addressee

Given anata’s property of absolute specification of the second person, an interesting issue regarding the frequency of the use of anata can be explained. One television series shows up in the examined data with a much higher frequency of occurrence of anata than that in other dramas, as shown in Table 12: Table 12.  The frequency of occurrence of anata in dramas Title of drama Kazoku Geemu ‘Family Game’ Kiken na Aneki ‘My Dangerous Older Sister’ Kaseifu no Mita ‘Housekeeper Mita’ Riigaru Hai ‘Legal High’ Total

Frequency of occurrence of anata  78  31  72 220 401

To obtain these figures, the number of occurrences of anata in ten episodes of each drama was counted. Each episode was broadcast in an hour-long slot on TV, with a similar duration of commercial breaks. The total number of occurrences of anata in all four dramas was 401. Among these, Riigaru Hai ‘Legal high’ showed an overwhelmingly higher frequency of the occurrence of anata than the other dramas, constituting over half the total, with 220 occurrences. This higher frequency is attributed to the genre of the drama. Riigaru Hai is a courtroom drama, where a lawyer plays the main protagonist. The drama series includes scenes of various court cases where the main character, his colleagues, and his rivals all speak as lawyers. Thus, the series shows abundant characteristics of Japanese linguistic practices in courtrooms. In courtrooms, anata is typically used when a lawyer refers to the accused, a defendant or a witness – as in Example (40), where L = lawyer, and W = witness: (40) 1 2 3 4

L: Shoonin, o-negai-shi-mas-u. witness hon-ask-hum-pol-npst ‘Witness, please.’ W: Kawada Hiroo. Daigaku=no kooshi des-u. fn gn university=gen lecturer cop.pol-npst ‘(I’m) Kawada Hiroo, a university lecturer.’ L: O-sumai=wa dochira des-u ka. hon-home=top where cop.pol-npst q ‘Where do (you) live?’ W: Minato-ku=no manshon shitii-hiruzu-akasaka Minato-district=gen apartment City-Hills-Akasaka

Chapter 4.  Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 109



5

 

6

L:

7

W:

8

L:

9

 

10   11  

12 W: 13 L: 14 W: 15   16 L: 17  

18 W:

des-u. cop.pol-npst ‘(It’s) an apartment City Hills Akasaka in Minato ward.’ Oya, hikokunin=to onaji manshon des-u ne. oh accused=com same apartment cop.pol-npst ip ‘Oh, (it’s) the same apartment as the accused, isn’t it?’ Hai. yes ‘Yes.’ Go-jitaku=ni minarenai mono=ga at-tara hon-home=loc unfamiliar thing=nom exist-cond mot-te-ki-te hoshi-i to bring-ger-come-ger want-npst quot o-negai-shi-ta no des-u ga, hon-ask-hum-pst nmlz cop.pol-npst but mot-te-ki-te-kudasai-mashi-ta ka. bring-ger-come-ger-give.me.resp-pol-pst q ‘(I’ve) asked (you) to bring anything which was found at home but unfamiliar to (you). Did (you) kindly bring it?’ Aa, hai, ee, kore des-u. ah yes hesit this cop.pol-npst ‘Ah, yes, well, (it’s) this.’ Sore=wa nan desh-oo. that=top what cop.pol-tent ‘What is that (do you think)?’ Wakari-mas-en. Hondana=no naka=ni know-pol-neg.npst book.shelf=gen inside=loc ari-mashi-ta ga mioboe=ga na-i. exist-pol-pst but recognition=nom exist.neg-npst ‘I don’t know. (It) was in a bookshelf but I don’t recognise (it).’ Anata=no shir-ana-i uchi=ni 2sg=gen know-neg-npst during=adv mochikom-are-ta mono de.ar-u to? bring-pass-pst thing cop-npst quot ‘Does it mean that this is something which was brought in without you (anata) knowing?’ Soo to shika omo-e-mas-en. so quot only think-pot-pol-neg.npst ‘(I) cannot think other than that.’  (Riigaru Hai, episode 1)

In Example (40), W is a witness who is called to testify. He introduces himself stating his name and his occupation as a university lecturer. In a normal conversational situation, once someone introduces his or her name or occupation, the conversational partner would then use the name or the appropriate occupational term. If one introduced him/herself as a university lecturer, the conversation partner would

110 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

typically use sensei ‘teacher/professor’ as a term of respect, even though he/she is not the speaker’s actual teacher. However, as shown in line 16 in Example (40), it is often the case in a courtroom that lawyers and judges maintain the use of anata even after the identity and position of the accused or witness is revealed. One way of viewing this phenomenon would be based on the notion that anata is a formal second person pronoun and hence used in official settings. Another way would be to argue that lawyers and prosecutors are higher in social status or possess more knowledge, i.e., epistemic primacy (see Section 1.3.4), than the accused or the witnesses and hence they can use anata as an accepted term to refer to others in the courtroom. However, as I discussed in Section 1.3, both these views have difficulties accounting for counter examples, which cannot be explained from these perspectives. I argue that the frequent use of anata in a courtroom can be explained systematically based on the notion of absolute specification of the second person. Lawyers, by using anata, are able to specify the addressee as a ‘mere’ second person without indexing any social elements, whether the addressee is present simply as a witness, including one of high social status such as a university lecturer, or is accused of being a serial killer. Put differently, all individuals in a court are placed equally before judges regardless of their claimed social status. The use of anata is a lawyer’s technique for depersonalizing the addressee, but at the same time it can also demonstrate a sense of fairness, as the lawyer is seen to treat all addressees as mere individuals. It would be difficult, even inappropriate, for lawyers to address a particular addressee using a socially indexical reference term because this would create certain effects, for example, indicating that the lawyer and the addressee had a certain social relationship. It is more appropriate for a lawyer to treat every addressee in the same way, and as someone who has no social relationship at all to him/her. While it was difficult to obtain authentic courtroom data for this study, the same use of anata to depersonalize the addressee is observed in the authentic data analyzed from parliamentary debate. In the Japanese Diet, there are occasions when the House of Councillors and the House of Representatives call for shoonin kanmon ‘summoning of a witness’ to investigate a particular case. The investigation may involve an assessment of criminal liability. In shoonin kanmon, the witness is also treated as a depersonalized addressee. The session usually starts by asking for the witness’s name, occupation, and so forth. The witness, for example, may claim him/herself as ‘CEO’ of a company. However, the questioner does not go on to refer to him/her with occupational terms or position titles (such as shachoo ‘president’) as they would in an ordinary situation. In this sense, the use of anata in a parliamentary witness summons is the same as that in a courtroom setting, where the addressee’s social position is not the main concern of the questioner. Consider Example (41). It is at the start of a shoonin kanmon:

Chapter 4.  Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 111



(41) 1 2 3

O: Anata=wa Asakawa Kazuhiko-kun go-honnin 2sg=top fn gn-Mr. hon-self   des-u ka. cop.pol-npst q ‘Are you (anata) Mr. Kazuhiko Asakawa, the said person?’ A: Hai, soo de.gozai-mas-u. yes so cop.pol-pol-npst ‘Yes, I am.’  (Financial Committee meeting, 24 Apr 2012)

In line 1, anata is used to refer to the addressee without specifying any potential social elements. Mr. Asakawa is the CEO of an investment company who allegedly window-dressed its financial statements. Asakawa’s criminal liability has been questioned in the media. After confirming his identity, members of the parliament take turns to question him. During question time, the members do not address Asakawa as shachoo ‘president’ or Asakawa-san ‘Mr. Asakawa’ but rather they continue to use anata to address him. In Example (42), the speaker is asking where Asakawa met another witness, Nishikawa: (42) 1 2 3 4

Somosomo anata=wa Nishimura shoonin=to=wa, to.begin.with 2sg=top fn witness=com=top Nishimura-san=to=wa doko=de shiriaw-are-ta fn-Mr.=com=top where=loc get.to.know-resp-pst n des-u ka. Dooiu kankei nmlz cop.pol-npst q what.kind.of relationship dat-ta n des-u ka. cop-npst nmlz cop.pol-npst q ‘First of all, where did you (anata) get to know witness Nishikawa? What kind of relationship was it?’  (Financial Committee meeting, 24 Apr 2012)

Example (42) is similar to a lawyer asking questions of an accused or witness in a courtroom. That is to say, by using anata, the speaker is specifying the addressee as a ‘mere’ second person without indicating any associated social elements, whether the addressee is a CEO of a company or is accused of being a criminal. Just like a court case, in shoonin kanmon, the witnesses are placed equally before questioners and the audience as mere individuals, regardless of their social identity. The use of anata expresses the speaker’s attitude of depersonalizing the addressee, by not acknowledging any social relationship with the addressee. Interestingly, returning to the drama Riigaru Hai, the main character (the lawyer Komikado) sometimes uses different terms to refer to the same person inside and outside the court. Let us look at Example (43), which is uttered by lawyer Komikado (K) addressing the accused, Ando (A), inside the court. In this

112 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

utterance, Komikado uses anata to explicitly show that there is no social relationship between them: (43) 1 2 3 4

K: Anata=ga koonyuu.shi-ta to i-u n 2sg=nom purchase-pst quot say-npst nmlz   des-u ka. cop.pol-npst q ‘Do (you) say that you (anata) purchased (it)?’ A: Hai. yes ‘Yes.’ K: Anata jishin=ga, anata=no ishi=de. 2sg refl=nom 2sg=gen will=ins ‘You (anata) yourself, by your (anata gen) own will.’ (Riigaru Hai, episode 1)

Komikado is asking Ando if she purchased the drug under discussion by herself. He overtly refers to Ando as anata. By using anata, the social relationship between the lawyer Komikado and the accused Ando is kept undefinable. The overt use of anata displays unrelatedness between them and it assists in maintaining the speaker’s business-like, detached, and ‘fair’ attitude toward the addressee. This is appropriate in the court context. However, Komikado uses a different second person reference term when he meets Ando in a meeting room outside the court. Example (44) is his utterance using Ando-san ‘Ms. Ando’. Preceding this extract, Ando expressed her intention to give up the case and hence have no need to hire Komikado thereafter. However, Komikado wants to continue the case until victory, due not only to his pride but also to the money she had offered upon winning. Komikado’s pathetic attitude in begging Ando for her reconsideration is depicted somewhat comically here: (44) 1 2 3 4

Andoo-saaan, moo ichi.do hanashiai-mas-en ka. fn-Ms.emph more once discuss-pol-neg.npst q Saiban yat-te-kure-na-i-to watashi=no trial do-ger-give.me-neg-npst-cond 1sg=gen kuroboshi=ga torimodos-e-na-i n des-u yo, failure=nom get.back-pot-neg-npst nmlz cop.pol-npst ip Andoo-saaan! fn-Ms.emph ‘Ms. Ando, why don’t (we) discuss (this) one more time~? If (you) don’t do the trial (for me), (I) cannot make up for my failure, I’m telling (you), Ms. Ando!’  (Riigaru Hai, episode 1)

In Example (44), the lawyer Komikado uses Ando-san ‘Ms. Ando’. By using the accused’s name, Komikado is showing a level of familiarity with her. He uses a socially normative term between adult acquaintances, that is, the family name with

Chapter 4.  Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 113



the suffix -san. This expresses his desire that they treat each other as socially defined ‘acquaintances’. It delivers the message that ‘we know each other’, and by that, Komikado is trying to break down the purely detached stance and make room for further discussion with Ando. In other words, his shift to the use of Ando’s name in this context is a strategy to gain her sympathy and cooperation. It is in stark contrast to his use of anata inside the court. His use of Ando-san expresses relatedness and his use of anata expresses unrelatedness between them. It is noteworthy that in a court, anata is also frequently found in a prosecutor’s narratives when describing the crimes of the accused, as in Example (45): (45) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Anata=wa Tokunaga Ichiroo-shi=to koosai. 2sg=top fn gn-Mr.=com dating Soogaku ichioku en=no total.amount one.hundred.million yen=gen kinpin=o mitsug-ase-ta. money.or.in.kind=acc supply-caus-pst Itsushika anata=wa Tokunaga-shi=to=no kekkon=o over.time 2sg=top fn-Mr.=com=gen marriage=acc yumemir-u yoo.ni.nat-ta. Shikashi, Tokunaga-shi=wa dream-npst become-pst however fn-Mr.=top kore=o kyohi.sh-i, ippooteki-ni koosai=o this=acc reject-inf unilateral-adv dating=acc owar-ase-ta. Anata=wa sono koto=ni ikar-i, finish-caus-pst 2sg=top that thing=dat angry-inf zetsuboo.sh-i, fukushuu=o keikaku. despair-inf revenge=acc plan Tsuchiya Norihide yori dokubutsu=o nyuushu. fn gn from poison=acc obtain Nisen juuichi nen roku.gatsu sanjuu.nichi, two.thousand eleven year June thirtieth anata=wa Tokunaga-ke=no katteguchi yori 2sg=top fn-home=gen kitchen.door from shinnyuu.sh-i nabe=ni yooi.shi-te-at-ta suupu=ni trespass-inf pot=loc prepare-ger-be-pst soup=dat dokubutsu=o konnyuu. poison=acc mix ‘You (anata) were dating Mr. Tokunaga Ichiro, and made (him) supply the total amount of 100 million yen in money or in kind. Gradually, you (anata) reached the point of dreaming about a marriage with Mr. Tokunaga. However, Mr. Tokunaga rejected this and ended the relationship unilaterally. You (anata) were angry at this, despaired, and planned revenge (against him), then obtained poison from Tsuchiya Norihide. In 2011, on June 30th, you (anata) illegally entered Tokunaga’s home through the kitchen door and mixed the poison in a soup prepared in a pot.’ (Riigaru Hai, episode 1)

114 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Example (45) is the prosecutor’s description of Ando’s alleged crime. The prosecutor is using anata (lines 1, 4, 7, and 11) to refer to Ando as the addressee because he is ostensibly talking to her. However, his lines are narrative in style and his linguistic devices do not express an interactional attitude. For example, he does not use devices for seeking agreement or confirmation by employing question forms, such as yumemiru yooni natta? ‘Did you come to dream?’ or sentence final particles, such as yumemiru yooni natta ne ‘You came to dream it, didn’t you?’. Here, anata is used with an impersonal tone, as if it refers to the ‘dramatis personae’ (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990: 752) in the scene, rather than showing an interactional attitude to the addressee in the immediate situation. Owing to its ‘absolute specification’ property, the use of anata here serves to create a scene-setting effect as if an impersonalized actor were playing a role in the scene. This again maintains the prosecutor’s attitude of detachment regarding the addressee, treating her merely as an addressed character, that is, depersonalizing the addressee. 4.6 Referring to an unfamiliar addressee The discussion in the previous sections suggests that the use of anata may be less restricted when the interlocutors are strangers because, in this case, it is difficult for the conversational participants to refer to each other with a specific socially expected reference term. In the data set of the current study, it was not possible to capture spontaneous conversations between strangers. Instead, I discuss some phenomena that have been described in previous studies as well as comments from the respondents of the survey in this study regarding the use of anata with an unfamiliar addressee. Saito (1999: 4) captured a scene she watched in a TV program as follows: Saikin mita terebi nyuusu no intabyuu no naka dewa, shitsumonsuru hito ga, “anata wa doo omoimasu ka?” o mattaku no ipponjooshi de, marude kanjoo ga nai robotto sokkurina kikaitekina pitchi no takai koe de samazamana soo no hitobito ni booyomi no kakikotoba choo de yatsugibaya ni kiiteita mono ga atta. In the TV news I watched recently, there was a scene where the interviewer asked various people “What do you (anata) think?” in a completely monotonous tone like an emotionless robot would do with a mechanical and high-pitched voice. The question was fired to one after another rapidly, like a written question that was read out in a monotone.

The interviewer’s use of anata here is fully explicable given the property of anata, absolute specification of the second person. The audience knew that interviewer and interviewees were strangers and that the interviewer did not have the time to ask their names because of the necessity of collecting as many answers as possible

Chapter 4.  Absolute specification in a socially undefinable relationship 115



in a short time. Therefore his or her use of anata was appropriate for referring to unfamiliar individuals in a mechanical way. In the survey discussed in Chapter 3, there are comments from the respondents that express the possibility of the use of anata between unfamiliar individuals. Consider the following representative comments: Mijika na hito kara iwareru to, teikoo o kanjimasu ga, mishiranu hito kara iwareru bun niwa, teikoo o kanjimasen. If I were referred to (as anata) by someone close, I would feel offended but if it’s from an unfamiliar person, I wouldn’t. (Respondent 51) Tsuujoo shiyoo shinai ga, otoshimono nado o mitsuketa toki, ‘kore anata no dewa arimasen ka’ nado to iu yoo ni shiyoo suru. Usually I don’t use (anata) but if I found someone dropped something, I would say something like “Isn’t this yours (anata no)?” (Respondent 424)

These comments suggest that when the interlocutors do not know each other, the use of anata is an acceptable option. Put differently, the simple specification of second person is understandable when the conversation participants’ social relationship is not identifiable in spontaneous situations.56 4.7

Summary

In this chapter, I have analyzed the uses of anata in a context where the interlocutors’ relationship is undefinable. This context was further divided into five cases. First, I have described the case where anata is used to address a general audience. Since the use of anata does not specify the addressee’s social elements, it is suitable when used to refer to a broad range of people in certain cases, such as in advertisements. Second, I have demonstrated the generic and vague uses of anata in constructed dialogue. While previously it has been said that these uses do not exist in Japanese (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990), I have provided clear evidence that they do exist in constructed dialogue in Japanese and hence refuted the previous assumption. As anata has the property of absolutely specifying the second person entity without indexing social elements of the interlocutor, it functions merely to express person-deixis. This makes it possible for anata to be used generically or vaguely.

56. That said, if there is an apparent age difference, even only visually, a younger speaker would avoid the use of anata toward an older addressee. Superiority and inferiority in terms of age can be visually recognized and it can influence the use of anata.

116 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Third, I have described the case where anata refers to a nonhuman collective entity. The use of anata here references these entities merely as ‘the other party’ from one perspective in the described situation. Fourth, absolute specification of the second person explains cases where the use of anata occurs because the speaker tries to depersonalize the addressee. I have shown this using televisual data in a courtroom context and authentic data from a witness summons in parliamentary meetings. In both contexts, the speaker refers to the accused/witness as anata in order to treat them as mere individuals standing equally before the judges and questioners. I also observed that anata can be used in a second person narrative style when the speaker recreates someone’s actions in a narrative, as if an impersonal persona is acting in a described scene. These analyses lead to an understanding of the fifth phenomenon noted, whereby the use of anata is less restricted when the interlocutors are strangers. When the interlocutors do not know each other, the mere specification of the addressee is more acceptable or in fact unavoidable in some cases. In Chapter 2, I described what has previously been regarded as the fundamental system of person reference in Japanese. Recall that Suzuki (1973: 198) describes this in the following way: “the Japanese ego may be construed as being in an indefinite state, with its position undetermined, until a specific addressee, a concrete person, appears and is identified by the speaker” (English translation in Suzuki 1978: 143). What has been demonstrated in the current chapter are contexts where the interlocutors’ relationship cannot be typically defined. The use of anata tends to occur more frequently in these contexts and this is precisely because anata has the property of absolute specification of the second person entity.

Chapter 5

Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship

5.1

Introduction

This chapter will explore the use of anata in the second category of relationship classification, that is, a socially definable relationship (see 4.1). Regarding social relationships, Enfield (2013: 7) states that: The social statuses that constitute relationships are defined by sets of rights and duties. These rights and duties are not typically codified in law. They are mostly flexible, tacit, normative, and emergent. They are regimented not by natural laws but by the accountability that is entailed by social norms.

The importance of social norms has already been discussed in Section 2.4. We have seen that the system of person reference in Japanese is a linguistic resource governed by social norms of Japanese communication, which require constant acknowledgement of the relative social status between interlocutors. In this chapter, it is particularly important to keep these norms in mind because my analysis focuses on the intersection between the use of anata and the norms of the Japanese person reference system. As shown previously, native speakers’ perceptual data (see Chapter 3) demonstrates avoidance of anata as a default reference term, regardless of the interlocutors’ social relationship. This tendency is also evidenced in the infrequent use of the term in the corpus of daily conversations (see Section 1.2.3). These facts indicate that anata is an outcast among the set of default person reference terms in everyday conversations. Its use is often a departure from the norm, generating the perception of iwakan ‘a sense of unsuitability’. This chapter will show how, in spite of this, anata functions not only in socially undefinable relationships but also in socially definable ones. This is precisely because it is a departure from the norm in the latter case, and thus its use creates various pragmatic effects. Recall Tomasello’s example of the pointing gesture, in which the pointing gesture itself is physically identical but it generates various meanings depending on the interlocutors’ common ground (see Section 1.3.5). In the same way, the core semantic property of anata, absolute specification of the second person entity, functions differently and creates varied pragmatic effects according to the context of use.

118 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

In this chapter, I will explore the functions and effects of anata in socially definable relationships. These include rejecting a given relationship (5.2) and attempting to reach an addressee’s core self (5.3). It will be demonstrated that the concept of absolute specification of the second person is capable of systematically accounting for each of these functions and effects. 5.2

The use of anata to reject a given social relationship

As we have seen, the default background of person reference is an important part of normative linguistic practice in Japanese society. It displays the key cultural value of ‘relationship acknowledgement’. For insiders, this automatic practice gives the “appearance of ordinariness” (Enfield 2007a: 97) and hence the default formats are inconspicuous/not noticeable. Enfield (2013: 182) points out that it is the invisibility of default formats which makes deviation visible: It is against the background of this default that we may recognize the departures, and only then actively apply our rational interpretation: “Why that now?” Further, in order to calculate what’s being done, it’s not just a matter of “Why that?” but also of “Why not the usual?”

Enfield’s statement, which is based on a number of landmark studies in pragmatics, pinpoints the focus of this chapter.57 As we have seen, the norm of person reference in Japanese requires an acknowledgement of a specific social relationship between interlocutors, such as a kin relationship, friendship, employer-employee relationship, teacher-student relationship, and so forth. Thus, if the speaker uses anata, which does not display these specific social relationships, it prompts a reaction from the hearer of ‘Why that now?’ and ‘Why not the usual?’ In fact, a speaker’s explicit choice not to acknowledge a social relationship may be motivated by the speaker’s attitude of rejection of that relationship. In this section, we will look at four cases of this function of anata: in a contractual relationship, in a kin relationship, in the context of parliamentary debate, and in jocular utterances. 5.2.1 The case of a contractual relationship The first case shows the use of anata between interlocutors who are in a contractual relationship. From the text data analyzed, I categorized the relationship between a home tutor and a student and the relationship between a housekeeper and the head of the family into this case.

57. See Grice (1989), Sperber & Wilson (1995), Schegloff (1996a, 1996b), Gergely, Bekkering, & Király (2002), Gergely & Csibra (2006), Stivers, Enfield, & Levinson (2007), and Stivers (2007).

Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 119



The first example is from a drama, Kazoku Geemu ‘Family Game’. In this drama, a young man comes to a family as a home tutor. While most members of the family simply trust the tutor’s identity and innocently welcome him, the first son, Shin’ichi, intuitively distrusts him. Although other members refer to the tutor as sensei ‘teacher’, following the social norm, Shin’ichi avoids using the term. In time, Shin’ichi comes across a rumor that the tutor may have a criminal record, and that his name, ‘Koya Yoshimoto’, may not even be his real name. Example (46) is from a scene where Shin’ichi (Sn) reveals the grounds for his suspicion. He shows a photo to the tutor and to his younger brother Shigeyuki (Sg) when the three of them are at home. The photo is from a yearbook of the University of Tokyo, from where the tutor is believed to have graduated. There is indeed a graduate called Koya Yoshimoto in the album, but the photo shows the face of a completely different person. This photo is one of the pieces of evidence indicating that the tutor is pretending to be someone else: (46) 1

Sn: Tashika-ni sotsugyoosei=no naka=ni Yoshimoto certain-adv graduates=gen among=loc fn

2

 

3

 

4 5

Kooya to i-u namae=ga ari-mashi-ta. gn quot say-npst name=nom exist-pol-pst

Sore=ga kono shashin des-u. it=nom this photo cop.pol-npst ‘Indeed, among graduates, there was a person called Koya Yoshimoto. It’s this photo.’ Sg: Chigau…. different ‘(It’s) different…..’ Sn: Anata=wa… ittai dare-na n des-u ka. 2sg=top on.earth who-lnk nmlz cop.pol-npst q ‘Who on earth are you (anata)?’  (Kazoku Geemu, episode 2)

In this example, anata, rather than sensei, is used when asking for the addressee’s true identity. Shin’ichi ‘knows’ the tutor as his home tutor. However, by referring to the tutor as anata, Shin’ichi’s rejection of the student-teacher relationship between them is explicitly expressed. In fact, among alternative reference terms, anata best illustrates his stance. This is shown in the invented Examples (47a–b), where Shin’ichi’s original anata has been replaced by other second person reference terms: Sensei=wa ittai dare-na n 2sg (teacher)=top on.earth who-lnk nmlz ‘Who on earth are you (sensei ‘teacher’)?’ dare-na n   b. Yoshimoto-san=wa ittai fn-Mr.=top on.earth who-lnk nmlz ‘Who on earth are you (Mr. Yoshimoto)?’ (47) a.

des-u ka. cop.pol-npst q des-u ka cop.pol-npst q

120 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Example (47a) is odd because Shin’ichi regards the tutor as a suspect character and hence is reluctant to accept him. The use of sensei ‘teacher’ would display Shin’ichi’s acceptance of this man as his teacher, which completely contradicts what he wants to express. In (47b), referring to the tutor as Yoshimoto is also odd because the very name is the cause for suspicion about the man’s identity. In the above situation, Shin’ichi is trying to show that the tutor who calls himself Yoshimoto is not in fact Yoshimoto. Thus, (47b) does not make logical sense. It appears that absolute specification of the addressee with the use of anata is the best possible reference term for the tutor, in delivering the message ‘I do not accept you as my teacher’. Example (48) is from a drama called Kaseifu no Mita ‘Housekeeper Mita’. The conversation is between a housekeeper and the head of the family, Keiichi. Normally, the housekeeper, Mita (M), refers to Keiichi (K) as goshujin-sama ‘(lit.) master’. Keiichi refers to Mita as Mita-san ‘Ms. Mita’, which is a normal way for adults to refer to someone they know but are not very close to. The use of last name + san is common in adult relationships such as those between colleagues and acquaintances as well as when a superior speaker refers respectfully to an inferior addressee. Throughout the drama, these terms are their default reference terms for each other. However, when Keiichi gets angry with Mita, he momentarily uses anata, as follows: (48) 1 2 3

K: Chotto, nan-na n des-u ka, anata! hey what-lnk nmlz cop.pol-npst q 2sg ‘Hey! What the hell are you (anata)?’ M: ………………… ‘………………..’ K: Nani=ga at-te=mo hyoojoo hitotsu what=nom happen-ger=also facial.expression one

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 

kae-na-i-shi, meirei.s-are-tara donna change-neg-npst-conj order-pass-cond what.kind.of mechakucha-na koto demo heiki=de yat-te. crazy-lnk thing even indifferent=ins do-ger Anata=ni=wa kokoro tte mono=ga na-i 2sg=loc=top heart quot thing=nom exist-npst n des-u ka! nmlz cop.pol-npst q ‘Whatever happens, (you) don’t even change one bit of facial expression, and if ordered, (you) do anything however crazy it is. In you (anata), is there no such thing as a ‘heart’?’ (Kaseifu no Mita, episode 3)

Mita has a traumatic past, which has left her unable to show her emotions. She is always business-like and quiet, although she works perfectly and professionally.

Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 121



Preceding the extract in (48), Keiichi was telling some personal stories, such as stories about his married life and fatherhood. Mita did not engage in conversation with him but replied to him with ‘My office hours have finished, so please excuse me’, after which she made to go home. This prompts Keiichi’s angry outburst. At this moment, Keiichi’s concern is certainly not the acknowledgement of a given social relationship with his housekeeper. By using anata, which absolutely specifies the addressee, he momentarily ignores their social relationship and instead expresses his raw emotion. This is a good example of how an individual’s stance and attitude can be affected by a spontaneous emotional explosion and influence his/her use of person reference terms. The use of anata is often observed when the speaker attacks or argues with an addressee. In these moments, the speaker tends to ignore the existence of any social relationship with the addressee, contractual or otherwise. 5.2.2 The case of a kin relationship The rejection of a given social relationship with the use of anata can also be observed in kin relations. The next examples are from the drama Kiken na Aneki ‘My dangerous older sister’, which features a sibling relationship. The extracted conversations are between a younger brother and an older sister. As a social norm, the younger brother Yutaro is supposed to address his older sister Hiroko with one of a variety of kin terms, such as oneesan, neesan, oneechan, neechan, and aneki, all of which mean ‘older sister’. At the start of the drama, Yutaro (Y) uses a kin term aneki ‘big sis’ toward Hiroko (H), establishing this term as his default term for her. However, as the story develops, Yutaro starts avoiding this term and instead uses anata more and more frequently, as in Example (49): (49) 1 2 3

4 5

Y: Kotchi=wa ne, ima daiji-na jiki-na this.side=top ip now important-lnk time-cop.lnk   n da yo. Anata-nanka=ni kamat-te-ru nmlz cop.npst ip 2sg-like=dat care-ger-be.npst   hima=wa na-i. spare.time=top exist.neg-npst ‘This is an important time for me, (I)’m telling (you). (I) don’t have time to care about you (anata).’ H: Daiji-na jiki tte? important-lnk time quot ‘(What do you mean by) important time?’ Y: Taihen-na kanja=o tantoo.shi-te-ru. tough-lnk patient=acc in.charge-ger-be.npst ‘(I)’m in charge of a tough patient.’  (Kiken na Aneki, episode 2)

122 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Yutaro is a medical doctor at a big hospital in Tokyo and currently in charge of a difficult patient whose life is threatened. Yutaro has been stressed by the situation, but Hiroko is ignorant of this, talking cheerfully to him about unrelated things. When Yutaro becomes annoyed by this, he makes the utterance in (49), using anata. By using anata instead of aneki ‘big sis’, Yutaro avoids acknowledging their brother-sister relationship temporarily and hence takes the stance of rejecting it. In Example (49), the topic marker nanka is used with anata. Nanka is used by a speaker to mark an accompanying noun as something contemptible, unsatisfactory, or derogatory (Maynard 2001a). By saying anata nanka in this extract, Yutaro delivers messages such as ‘I don’t want to accept our sibling relationship’ and ‘I don’t even respect you’. Although Yutaro’s utterance is momentary in this instance, his use of anata gradually becomes more frequent as the drama goes on to portray his constant struggle in accepting Hiroko as his older sister. As the story unfolds, their background and different values are gradually revealed. The siblings grew up in a small country town. Yutaro could not stand the complacent country life, thus studied extremely hard, entered medical school at a top university in Tokyo and successfully became a doctor. On the other hand, Hiroko gave up studying after her graduation from high school and instead helped out at their father’s factory. After their father passed away, Hiroko also moved to Tokyo and decided to work at a kyabakura, a bar where female hosts serve alcohol to male guests and flirt with them. When Yutaro discovered this, he could not accept it and, with emotion aroused, criticized her. Example (50) is the scene of their confrontation. This extract displays Yutaro’s (Y) feelings and stance toward his sister Hiroko (H): (50) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Y: De-te-k-e! Ima sugu de-te-k-e! get.out-ger-go-imp now immediately get.out-ger-go-imp   Iya-dat-ta n da yo na. disgusting-cop-pst nmlz cop.npst ip ip   Nanka iya-dat-ta n da yo, somewhat disgusting-cop-pst nmlz cop.npst ip   mukashi kara. Dooshite anata=wa jibun=o long.time.ago from why 2sg=top refl=acc   otoshime-rare-ru n des-u ka. disgrace-pot-npst nmlz cop.pol-npst q   Doo shi-tara sonnani iikagen-ni iki-rare-ru? how do-cond so irresponsible-adv live-pot-npst   Doko made ikihaji=o saras-u n where to living.shame=acc expose-npst nmlz   da yo. Kao dake dakara nan.demo ari ka. cop.npst ip face only so anything exist q



Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 123

‘Get out! Right now, get out! (I’ve) hated (you). I’ve somehow hated (you) for a long time. How can you (anata) disgrace yourself? How can (you) live so irresponsibly? How far will (you) expose (yourself) to living shamefully? (All you have is) a (pretty) face, so anything is fine (= you don’t have pride), is that so?’ 9 H: Sorya, watashi=wa koosotsu da-shi, well 1sg=top high.school.graduate cop.npst-conj 10   mukashi kara Yuutaroo mitai-ni benkyoo=wa long.time.ago from gn like-adv study=top 11   deki-na-i kedo… do.pot-neg-npst but ‘Well, I’m only a high school graduate and for a long time I’ve never been capable academically like Yutaro (you), but…’ 12 Y: Deki-na-i Yar-ana-katta wake ja-na-i. do.pot-neg-npst reason cop-neg-npst do-neg-pst 13   dake dar-oo? Kanchigai.sun-na yo! only cop-tent misunderstand-neg.imp ip 14   Boku=wa anata ya oyaji mitai-ni na-n 1sg=top 2sg and dad like-adv become-npst 15   no=ga iya-de, inaka=ga nmlz=nom disgusting-cop.ger country=nom 16   iya-de doryoku shi-ta hisshi-ni disgusting-cop.ger desperate-adv effort do-pst 17   kara ima=ga ar-u n da yo! because now=nom exist-npst nmlz cop.npst ip 18   Sore=o anata=to watashi=wa chigau kara that=acc 2sg=com 1sg=top different because 19   tte sonna an’i-na kotoba=de katazukeru-na yo! quot such easy-lnk word=ins settle-neg.imp ip 20   Anata mitai-na aneki=o motsu boku=no 2sg like-lnk older.sister=acc have 1sg=gen 21   kimochi=ga wakar-i-mas-u ka? feeling=nom understand-inf-pol-npst q ‘(It’s) not necessarily “not capable”. (You) just didn’t try, right? Don’t misunderstand! I hated being like you (anata) and dad, (I) hated the country life, and so I worked extremely hard. That’s why I have this current life. (You just say) “you and I are different”; don’t put it in such simple words! Do (you) understand my feelings, having an older sister like you (anata)?’  (Kiken na Aneki, episode 1)

This scene clearly shows Yutaro’s disdain toward his sister. Yutaro’s repetitive use of anata in lines 4, 14, and 20 shows a strong resistance to the norm of referring to Hiroko as ‘big sister’. The uses of anata in lines 4 and 20 co-occur with polite style desu ka and masu ka, another strategy Yutaro employs to distance his

124 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

sister. His utterance in lines 20–21 anata mitaina aneki o motsu boku no kimochi ga wakarimasu ka ‘Do (you) understand my feelings, having an older sister like you (anata)?’ clearly expresses his rejection of her. In their psycholinguistic research, Yokotani & Hasegawa (2010a) point out that there are uses of ‘unbound’ sets of person reference terms in a family relationship. An unbound set is in contrast to a bound set, which is a stable combination of reciprocal terms: for example, in a bound set, a father is addressed with a kinship term such as otoosan ‘father’ or papa ‘daddy’ by his children, and in turn addresses them with their names. If there is instability present in the bound set, then it becomes an unbound set. Yokotani & Hasegawa’s study (2010a) reveals that there can be correlation between the use of an unbound set of person reference terms and family dysfunction. Yutaro’s use of anata continues until the end of the drama, when he finally accepts Hiroko as his sister. The drama captures this long-standing dysfunctional relationship between the siblings in part through Yutaro’s use of anata. ‘Dysfunction’ in a kin relationship may be expressed through the use of different person reference terms at certain life stages. Sepehri Badi (2013) studied the use of address terms in Persian and Japanese. She reports that in both languages, as one grows older, the speaker’s life stage affects their use of address terms. Sepehri Badi’s study was based on a self-reported survey and did not include an analysis based on actual conversations. By chance, however, I witnessed an episode of life stage influence on the choice of person reference terms in my own interactions while staying at my parents’ house in Japan during the New Year holidays. One of my nephews (N), a teenager, had come by bullet train from Tokyo, all the way to the western side of Japan, unaccompanied by his parents, demonstrating his emerging independence as a teenager. Until that winter, he had called me Yooko obachan ‘Auntie Yoko’. Now, turning fifteen, I found that he did not call me auntie anymore but Yoko-san ‘Ms. Yoko’. I asked him why. The conversation, reproduced in (51), went as follows (Y = Yoko, i.e., the author): (51) 1 2 3 4

5

Y: Nanka moo Yooko obachan tte somewhat anymore gn auntie quot   iw-ana-i n da ne. Yappari obachan say-neg-npst nmlz cop.npst ip surely auntie   to i-u ni=wa waka-sugi-ru to quot say-npst for=top young-excess-npst quot   kizui-ta ne. (laughter) realize-pst ip ‘Well, (you) don’t call me Auntie Yoko anymore, do (you)? Surely, (you) realized (I’m too young) for (you) to call auntie? (laughter)’ N: Iya soo ja-naku-te. (laughter) no that cop-neg-ger ‘No, not that (laughter).’

Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 125



6

Y: Mama=no koto=wa doo yob-u no sa. mother=gen thing=top how call-npst nmlz ip ‘What do (you) call (your) mom?’ 7 N: Mika-san da ne. Mika-Ms. cop.npst ip ‘Mika san (Ms. Mika).’ 8 Y: Maji=de? (laughter) serious=ins ‘Seriously? (laughter)’ 9   Ja, papa=wa? then dad=top ‘(How about) (your) dad, then?’ 10 N: Aa, ano hito? Ano hito=wa ne….., ah that person that person=top ip 11   anata. (laughter) 2sg ‘Ah, that person? That person is…. anata (laughter).’ 12 Y: (laughter)

As my nephew’s parents were not with him, I did not witness any actual conversation between them during that holiday. However, what is important here is that my nephew jokingly expressed his stance toward his father by saying that he would use anata toward his father. My nephew regarded the term as not acknowledging their father-son relationship. In fact, some young respondents in the survey discussed in Chapter 3 shared this stance, making comments about the use of anata toward their parents as follows: Oya ni tsukau toki mo arimasu ne. “Anata niwa kankei naishi” tte kanji desu ne. Sometimes (I) use (anata) to my parents. (When I say like) “It’s nothing to do with you (anata)”. (Respondent 38)

This type of comment expresses a teenager’s rebellious attitude toward their parents, explicitly marking non-acknowledgement of the parent-child relationship, and therefore the rejection of it. Regarding the fluidity of relationships, Enfield (2013: 6) states: A constantly demanding feature of social life is the management of changes of status. These changes may occur at very fine time scales, such as when we change back and forth from moment to moment between the status of speaker versus addressee in a conversation, or the one who has the next turn in a chess game. Or it may be at longer time scales, less frequent in the life span and typically with greater ceremony as when we change status from single to married, or from uninitiated to initiated.

126 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

What we have seen thus far has not been about the change in socially ‘visible’ relationships. For example, Yutaro is technically the younger brother of Hiroko for his entire life: this blood relationship cannot be changed. My nephew and his father are forever a son and a father. What these speakers are expressing is a change in their psychological or emotional stance, which can be viewed as a certain state of the ‘relationship’ vis-à-vis the addressee. The use of anata here expresses the speaker’s attitude toward the addressee, which creates ‘invisible’ relationship changes. Its use conflicts with the norms of the person reference system because the interlocutors’ ‘social’ relationship continues to be maintained in a socially visible way, demanding (or at least assuming) that the speaker use socially acceptable terms. The next examples, (52) and (53), also show aspects of the speaker’s different attitudes, with the use of a socially expected kin term in (52) on the one hand and the use of anata in (53) on the other. These examples are also from the drama Kaseifu no Mita ‘Housekeeper Mita’, introduced in 5.2.1, and both conversations are between the householder Keiichi, and his sister-in-law Urara. I categorized in-law relationships as kin relations because the default use of person reference terms in in-law relationships is in line with blood-based kin relationships as a social norm. In Example (52), Urara (U) is asking if Keiichi (K) wants milk in his coffee: (52) U: Oniisan, miruku=wa? 2 (older.brother) milk=top ‘(Would) older brother (= you) (like) milk?’ K: Ore=wa daijoobu. 1sg=top fine ‘I’m fine.’  (Kaseifu no Mita, episode 6)

In-law relationships normally require politer variations than do consanguineal relationships. For example, a son-in-law would refer to a father-in-law as otoosan ‘father’, and a younger sister-in-law would refer to an older brother-in-law as oniisan ‘older brother’. Informal variations such as papa, otoochan ‘dad’, mama, okaachan ‘mom’, oniichan ‘older brother’, and oneechan ‘older sister’ would not normally be used to refer to in-law family members. In this drama, Urara typically uses the polite variation, referring to Keiichi as oniisan ‘older brother’ as in Example (52). This is utterly normal, and the above conversation is simply an everyday interaction for them. However, as the story develops, Urara’s use of oniisan starts playing a different role for her. To briefly explain the background, this drama is about a family of five: a father, Keiichi, and his four children. Keiichi’s wife, the children’s mother, has passed away. Since her death, the family has had many difficulties in daily life, and that was the reason Keiichi decided to hire a housekeeper, Mita, to do the household chores and to help with the care of his children. Urara, his sister-in-law, has also

Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 127



been involved with the family, trying to help them since her sister’s death. While becoming involved in their lives, Urara gradually realizes that she loves Keiichi romantically, not as her brother-in-law. However, Urara keeps using the term oniisan ‘older brother’ almost until the end of the series. In fact, her use of this default term serves to hide her true feelings. Urara’s persistent use of oniisan can be seen as being driven by a combination of background factors. Urara’s deceased older sister Nagiko, Keiichi’s late wife, was deeply in love with Keiichi. However, Keiichi at one time had an affair with another woman. Upon discovering his affair, Nagiko was devastated, and committed suicide. Urara knows her sister’s devotion to Keiichi and her devastation. Further, because of this incident, Urara’s father hates Keiichi. It is understandable that Urara would feel somewhat guilty toward both her dead sister and her father if she found happiness with Keiichi. Thus, Urara persistently uses oniisan, as if telling herself that Keiichi is no-one but her brother-in-law. By following normative address practices, Urara successfully hides her true feelings. However, this changes at the climax of the story. Urara tries to give up thinking about Keiichi, and decides to marry anyone decent through an arranged marriage in order to get over her feelings toward Keiichi. Keiichi does not know her real feelings, but senses that she is not happy. One day, Urara goes to see the man who has proposed to her to accept his proposal, but Keiichi tries to stop her. This is the moment when Urara (U) reveals her true feelings toward Keiichi (K). Their conversation goes as follows: (53) 1 2

3 4 5 6

7

K: Konna katachi=de kekkon.shi-tara, aite=no like.this form=ins marry-cond partner=gen   kata=ni shitsurei dar-oo? person=dat rude cop-tent ‘If (you) marry like this, (it’s) disrespectful to the partner, don’t (you) think?’ U: Shooganai desh-oo. Watashi=ga it.cannot.be.helped cop.pol-tent 1sg=nom   suki-na hito=wa torampu=no baba love-lnk person=top trump.cards=gen joker   mitai-ni, sekai=de ichiban kekkon.shi-cha.ikena-i like-adv world=loc first marry-must.not-npst   hito na n da kara. person cop.lnk nmlz cop.npst because ‘It cannot be helped because the person I love is the joker in the card deck, the last person who (I) should marry.’ K: …. Dooyuu imi?   how mean ‘…What do (you) mean?’

128 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17

U: …… Watashi=wa ne…..   1sg=top ip ‘…I…, you know…’ K: …….. ‘……’ U: ….Anata=no koto=ga…. suki-na no. 2sg=gen thing=nom love-lnk ip ‘…You (anata) are the person (I) love.’ K: ………….. E!?   what ‘…………What?’ U: Ima made, soo ja-na-i, soo ja-na-i, now until so cop-neg-npst so cop-neg-npst   dame da dame da tte jibun=no bad cop.npst bad cop.npst quot refl=gen   kimochi=o osae-te-ki-ta kedo…. feeling=acc surpress-ger-come-pst but   dame-dat-ta. Soo sur-eba suru hodo, bad-cop-pst so do-cond do degree   suki-ni-nat-chat-te… love-adv-become-pfv-ger ‘Up until now, (I have tried to think) “It’s not, it’s not, don’t, don’t”, and have suppressed my own feelings…but it didn’t work. The more I did so, the more I came to love (you)…’ K: …….. ‘….…’(Kaseifu no Mita, episode 11)

In this extract (53), Urara finally decided to express her feelings toward Keiichi: that it was only him whom she truly loved. At this moment, she no longer referred to Keiichi as oniisan ‘brother’. Instead, she made explicit use of anata. The use of anata, the absolute specification of the addressee, is Urara’s declaration of rejecting the brother-sister-in-law relationship with Keiichi. Given the background to the whole situation, we see that Urara’s use of anata here conveys a significant message. The drama ends in an ambiguous way in terms of their future relationship. However, the audience is led to feel that, from this special moment, they may well start an entirely new relationship. We have seen thus far that the use of anata functions to reject the given social relationship between the interlocutors. In some cases, the term is observed as indicating the continuity of a speaker’s stance. In other cases, it is seen in a speaker’s momentary emotional explosion. It can also be used as a strategic tool for expressing the speaker’s attitude toward the addressee. In all examples, the speakers’ main concern is not to acknowledge the given social relationship in a socially expected manner. On the contrary, the use of anata, absolute specification of the second



Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 129

person entity, delivers an explicit message that the speaker wishes to express rejection of the given social relationship. 5.2.3 The case of parliamentary debate The rejection of a given social relationship as a function of anata is seen particularly frequently in parliamentary debates relative to all occurrences of anata in the data. In parliamentary meetings across the world, MPs generally refer to each other “by means of a relatively restricted and well-defined range of parliamentary forms of address” (Ilie 2010: 885), the official relationship between the speaker and the addressee being fairly clear in this context. Ilie (2010: 886) states that: It is the knowledge, internalisation and application of particular sets of conventional rules that shape and reflect the authority and activities carried out by institutionally and politically established groups of professionals.

In the Japanese Diet, the convention is to use institutional titles (Kim 2012). They include terms such as naikaku soori daijin ‘prime minister’, soori ‘prime minister’ (i.e., a shorter version of naikaku soori daijin), daijin ‘minister’, iinchoo ‘chairman of the committee’, and gichoo ‘the speaker (president) of the house’ (Kim 2012: 24). When a personal name is used, it is only in combination with gender-neutral titles such as -kun and -san, or in institutional titles with last name or with the full name, but the first name is not used alone (Kim 2012: 24).58 Sensei (lit. ‘teacher’), which is not only used to refer to a teacher but also to medical doctors, lawyers, politicians, and other authoritative figures (Ide 2006; see Chapter 2), is also used by politicians when referring to each other. However, this is more so outside the parliament rather than inside. Given these general rules, it could be presumed that the use of anata would be quite restricted. However, as noted earlier, the use of anata is in fact particularly frequently observed in parliamentary debate. Table 13 below shows distributional facts. The total number of occurrences of anata in the data examined from the Japanese Diet (see 1.2.3) is 1,611. I divided these occurrences into the same use categories as discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, that is, the use of anata in a socially undefinable relationship and a definable relationship.

58. The suffix -kun is more often added to a male addressee’s name in an everyday conversation, however, in an institutional setting, a male superior may refer to a female inferior addressee using -kun, entailing a highly authoritative tone (see Section 2.3). In the Diet, it is conventionally used by a committee chair to refer to MPs regardless of their gender.

130 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Table 13.  The occurrence of anata in parliamentary debates Usages Socially undefinable relationship   Constructed dialogue   Referring to an unfamiliar addressee Socially definable relationship   Rejecting a given relationship Total

Frequency    174  338   1099 1611

    10.8%   21.0%     68.2%   100%

In a socially undefinable relationship, 10.8% of the occurrences of anata are a nondeictic use, that is, its use is observed in constructed dialogue (see Sections 4.3 and 4.4). 21% of the uses of anata refer to an unfamiliar addressee in the immediate conversational context (i.e., not in reported speech), which is the case discussed in Section 4.5 where the speaker tries to depersonalize the addressee in shoonin kanmon ‘summoning of a witness’.59 Except for the shoonin kanmon occasions, the status relationship between a speaker and an addressee is normally clear in the Diet (e.g., the speaker is an ordinary MP and the addressee is the prime minister). In this circumstance, the use of anata unavoidably indicates that the speaker is challenging convention and hence it means a rejection of the given relative social positions. As seen in Table 13, among all the occurrences of anata, 68.2% are classified as having this function. In parliamentary debate, this use of anata tends to occur when the speaker attempts to disregard an addressee’s position, to scorn the addressee, or to emotionally attack the addressee. Looking at Examples (54) and (55), we observe the speaker’s wish to disqualify the addressee from his or her current position and to urge the addressee’s resignation with the use of anata: (54) Watashi=no keiken ja, sore dake=de anata moo 1sg=gen experience cop.cond that only=ins 2sg already kamboochookan shikkaku des-u yo. the.Chief.Cabinet.Secretary failure cop.pol-npst ip ‘In my experience, you (anata) are already a failure as the Chief Cabinet Secretary, for that if nothing else.’  (Budgetary Committee meeting, 18 Apr 2012)

59. Note that the number of occasions of shoonin kanmon varies depending on the year. This means that the percentage of this use of anata may vary depending on how frequently shoonin kanmon occurs in a given year.



Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 131

(55) Nande anata=wa yame-na-i no. Yamet-atte ii ja-na-i why 2sg=top resign-neg-npst ip resign-even good cop-neg-npst ka, kore gurai=no koto=o yat-te. q this degree=gen thing=acc do-ger ‘Why don’t you (anata) resign? (You) should resign, for doing such a thing.’  (Special meeting for consumers’ issues, 23 Mar 2012)

In Examples (54) and (55), anata co-occurs with expressions such as shikkaku ‘failure’ and yameru ‘quit’ respectively. In these utterances where the speakers are demanding the prime minister or minister resign, it makes perfect sense that the speakers choose not to use the addressee’s position title but instead use anata. The use of anata expresses the speaker’s attitude of non-acknowledgement of the addressee’s position. In doing so, the speaker delivers messages such as ‘you don’t deserve to be referred to as prime minister’ and ‘I don’t accept you as a minister’. Similarly, the examples in (56) to (58) show the use of anata with negatively evaluative expressions directed toward the addressee: (56) Kitai.hazure da na, anata=wa. disappointment cop.npst ip 2sg=top ‘You (anata) are a disappointment.’  (Budgetary Committee meeting, 9 Jul 2012) muri da. (57) Sore=wa mattaku anata-ja that=top totally 2sg-cop.cond incapable cop.npst ‘You (anata) are totally incapable of that.’  (Budgetary Committee meeting, 26 Mar 2012) (58) Kore dake it-temo mada wakat-te-na-i n this degree say-even still understand-ger-neg-npst nmlz anata=wa. Tondemona-i anata=no sono shisei=ga, des-u cop.pol-npst 2sg=top outrageous-npst 2sg=ger that attitude=nom tondemona-i daijin=o un-de-kur-u n outrageous-npst minister=acc produce-ger-come-npst nmlz des-u yo. cop.pol-npst ip ‘You (anata) still haven’t understood (it) even though (I’ve) said (it) so much. Your (anata gen) attitude which is outrageous ends up producing outrageous ministers, (I’m telling you).’  (Budgetary Committee meeting, 4 Apr 2012)

In Examples (56) to (58), the speakers’ negative evaluations are expressed by a variety of words and phrases such as kitaihazure ‘disappointment’ (lit. ‘failure against an expectation’) in (56), muri ‘incapable’ in (57), and tondemonai ‘outrageous’ in (58). Again, the use of anata is a powerful tool in expressing the speakers’ attitude of ignoring, dismissing, and rejecting the given status relationships.

132 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

(59) to (61) are additional examples which are almost like parting shots in which anata co-occurs with clearly offensive words: (59) Anata=wa kembooshoo ja-na-i n des-u ka. 2sg=top amnesia cop-neg-npst nmlz cop.pol-npst q ‘Do you (anata) have amnesia?’  (Budgetary Committee meeting, 15 Mar 2012) shitsumon=ni tonchinkan-na (60) Anata ne, kik-are-temo-i-na-i 2sg ip ask-pass-even-be-neg-npst question=dat irrelevant-lnk koto kotae-te… thing answer-ger ‘You (anata) answered rubbish to questions (you) were not even asked…’  (Budgetary Committee meeting, 4 Apr 2012) (61) Nani=o it-te-ru n des-u ka, anata=wa! what=acc say-ger-be.npst nmlz cop.pol-npst q 2sg=top Neboketa yoo-na koto=o! half.asleep like-link thing=acc ‘What are you (anata) talking about, such half asleep nonsense?’  (Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Committee meeting, 8 Nov 2012)

In Example (59), the speaker’s expression kembooshoo ‘amnesia’ is a deliberately offensive expression. In (60), while the word tonchinkan is translated as ‘irrelevant’ in English, it actually carries a rather more foolish tone, as in ‘nincompoop’. In both Examples (59) and (60), the speaker’s attitude of derision toward the addressee is expressed and the utterances have an offensively scornful tone. Example (61) is a restatement of Example (9) in Chapter 1. The speaker is highly emotional, as if he wants to pick a fight with the addressee. In all of the examples above, (54) to (61), the speaker’s main concern is to overtly not acknowledge the relative social status between him/herself and the addressee, whether a minister or the prime minister. In each case the speaker attempts to disqualify, criticize, or scorn the addressee. The use of anata serves to express the speaker’s attitude of explicitly ignoring or rejecting the given status relationship. By looking at these examples, one realizes immediately that the utterances are highly aggressive and disrespectful. It is helpful here to touch on the notion of impoliteness. I use the term ‘impoliteness’ rather than ‘rudeness’, following Culpeper’s (2005) notion of impoliteness. Culpeper (2005) suggests that ‘rudeness’ and ‘impoliteness’ are to be distinguished in terms of intentionality. According to Culpeper (2005: 63), the term ‘rudeness’ is to be used for an offense which is unintentionally caused, while ‘impoliteness’ is to be used for cases where the offence is intentional. Culpeper (2008: 32) states that impoliteness would be a suitable term for an “intentional face-attack”.



Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 133

Further, he points out the importance of recognizing the relationship between power and impoliteness. Based on a fundamental asymmetry in a relationship, Culpeper (1996: 354) argues that: A powerful participant has more freedom to be impolite, because he or she can (a) reduce the ability of the less powerful participant to retaliate with impoliteness (e.g., through the denial of speaking rights), and (b) threaten more severe retaliation should the less powerful participant be impolite.

Culpeper (2008) gives the example of army recruit training, where face-attacking discourse is central. In this context, an army sergeant is allowed to be impolite to a recruit but not vice versa. Culpeper (2008) states that impoliteness is “more likely” to “occur in situations where there is an imbalance of social structural power” and “the powerful participants not only do impoliteness but are supported by the social structure in doing so” (Culpeper 2008: 39). On the other hand, Diamond (1996: 9) points out that “institutionalized status alone does not account for the relative power and political effectiveness of the members” (of the institution). Locher (2004: 31) also suggests the necessity to differentiate power from status and notes that “[s]tatus is hence not seen as synonymous to power, but as its seat”. Locher (2004: 37) further states that “power is regarded as relational, dynamic and contestable” and “interactants with lower status can decide to exercise power over people with relatively greater status” (Locher 2004: 31). Culpeper (2008: 37) also recognizes this point and uses the army recruit example again: [I]f an army sergeant is impolite to a recruit and then that recruit responds with impoliteness, that recruit’s impoliteness not only restricts the sergeant’s action-environment (just as the sergeant had done to the recruit), but also challenges the (largely institutional) power sustaining an asymmetrical relationship.

What is relevant in this discussion about power and impoliteness to our analysis of MPs’ utterances using anata is the aspect of power being dynamic and contestable. A striking fact in the data from the minutes of the Japanese Diet is that among the deictic uses of anata classified into the function of rejecting a given social relationship, 97% are observed in inferior speakers’ utterances toward a superior addressee such as a minister or the prime minister. In other words, the occurrence of the use of anata in parliamentary debate clearly indicates the speaker’s challenge to the greater power possessed by the addressee. In fact, in the prime minister’s utterances toward ordinary MPs, there is no occurrence of the use of anata which can be categorized into this function. This tendency in parliamentary debate displays a sharp contrast to native speakers’ self-reports (see Chapter 3). In the survey, 93.6% of the respondents answered

134 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

that they would never use anata toward a socially superior addressee. Only a very small number of respondents reported that they may use anata toward a superior when they attack or criticize the superior addressee. Attacking and criticizing a superior is an ‘unusual’ situation in everyday conversation. However, such situations are on parade in parliamentary debates. Enfield (2011: 293) uses the words “entitlement (what we may do)”, “responsibilities (what we must do)” and “enablements (things one can do)” when analyzing the concept of status. He states that “[t]he measure of enablement is the degree to which one is capable of carrying it out at all” (Enfield 2011: 293). According to Enfield, there are cases of mismatch between entitlement and enablement. It is the gap between an individual’s claim based on his/her ‘official’ authority and the demonstration of his/her ‘actual’ authority. To show enablement, one must “produce an assemblage of performances that would not be possible were the claim not true” (Enfield 2011: 293). Regarding the importance of demonstration, Enfield (2011: 294) further states: It appears that in the business of maintaining statuses – a desperate pursuit that dominates our social lives – it is not enough merely to possess enablements and entitlements. One must exercise these as a way of demonstrating that one has them (and has earned them), both by proving with action that one is capable of carrying them out […] and by showing that, having carried them out.

Parliamentary debate is fundamentally a matter of power negotiation. In particular, an authority with greater power is constantly evaluated, resisted, and challenged. When possessors of official power such as the prime minister do not demonstrate their responsibilities, they are accused of not having enablements. As we saw in Examples (54) and (55), the speakers attempt to disqualify the holders of ‘official’ authority. In Examples (56) to (58), they try to depict how incapable the power holders are, and Examples (59) to (61) show the speaker’s derision. These examples demonstrate the speakers’ ‘intentional face-attack’ or ‘face aggravation’ in their challenge to official power. Here, the use of anata occurs as a tool of power negotiation. That is to say, by not indicating their asymmetrical relative positions, but explicitly expressing non-acknowledgement of them with the use of anata, the speaker can demonstrate rejection of the official authority. With the use of anata, which absolutely specifies the second person, the speakers deliver messages such as ‘I do not call you minister/prime minister’ because ‘you are not entitled’ and hence ‘I do not accept you as a minister/prime minister’.

Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 135



5.2.4 The case of jocular utterances Anata’s function of rejecting a given social relationship can also be utilized in a jocular manner in conversation. In this case, the resulting effect is very different from the strong expression of aggressive impoliteness seen in politicians’ speech discussed in the previous section. Instead, this case of anata is perceived as an emphasis on friendliness or closeness. Recall from Chapter 3 that among respondents in their 10s and 20s who answered that they would use anata depending on the situation, almost half of them remarked on their use of anata when joking together with the addressee or poking fun at each other. Actual examples are found in the data set, where a speaker uses anata when playfully criticizing or challenging the addressee. Example (62) is from a conversation between female students in their early twenties. Preceding this extract, they use their names as their default terms to refer to each other. During the conversation, B mentions Mooningu Musume, a group of young, female pop stars whom young Japanese people would usually be expected to recognize because the group frequently appears on TV. However, A was puzzled by what B was talking about, having no idea what Mooningu Musume was: (62) 1 2 3 4

A: Mooningu Musume toka wakar-ana-i. Morning Musume etc. know-neg-npst ‘(I) don’t know of such a thing as Morning Musume.’ B: Wakai n ja-na-i no, anata! (laughter) young nmlz cop-neg-npst ip 2sg ‘Aren’t you (anata) young? (laughter)’ A: Gomen, atashi, kekkoo, kansei nanajus-sai gurai sorry 1sg quite sensibility 70-year.old about   da kara. (laughter) cop.npst because ‘Sorry, because I have the sensibility of a 70-year-old person… (laughter)’  (C39)

In Example (62), B implies that, because A is young, she should therefore know the TV idol group, treating this as common knowledge. She uses anata when she pokes fun at her friend, saying ‘Aren’t you (anata) young?’ B uses an almost accusatory tone in making fun of A for not knowing of an idol group that is so popular among young Japanese people. Anata is used to create a special moment of ‘criticizing’ the addressee by ignoring the use of the default reference term, but this is done in a jocular tone and with laughter. Another example comes from a conversation extract already discussed in Section 3.5.3. It is also between young female students. They are talking about how to go back to their hometowns during the holiday:

136 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

(63) 1 2 3 4 5

A: Watashi=mo yooka ni Hikari=de kaer-u. 1sg=also 8th on Hikari=ins return-npst ‘I will also go back on the 8th by Hikari bullet train.’ B: Shinkansen ka, kono kanemochi. bullet.train q this rich.person ‘Bullet train? This rich woman.’ A: (laughter) Nani yo, anata, nan=de kaer-u no yo.   what ip 2sg what=ins return-npst nmlz ip ‘What? What will you (anata) go back by then?’ B: (laughter) Ko… koosoku basu.   hesit express bus ‘Ex…..express bus.’ A: (laughter) Gambat-te-kudasa-i. (laughter)   try.best-ger-give.me.resp-imp ‘Good luck with that!’  (C104)

In this conversation, B calls A ‘a rich woman’ because A will use the expensive bullet train to go back to her hometown. A pretends to be offended at being labelled in this way. The start of A’s second utterance Nani yo anata ‘What? You (anata)…’ is a common initial phrase used to pick a fight and hence has a challenging tone. However, both A and B are laughing as they talk, so this is clearly only a jocular conflict. In both Examples (62) and (63), what the speakers are superficially doing are face-threatening acts, such as criticizing and challenging the addressee. In this sense, anata is used in the same way as discussed in previous sections. That is, it is used to reject given relationships by substituting anata for the use of default reference terms and to criticize or challenge the addressee. However, in Examples (62) and (63), anata is clearly used in a jocular manner. Thus, this type of utterance is likely to be perceived quite differently: as an accentuation of friendliness. This is probably the reason that young respondents in the survey reported that they would use anata when joking together or poking fun at each other in order to express a special degree of friendliness. Note that this usage tends to be found in conversation between female speakers. This is presumably at least partly because alternative, more vulgar forms are available for male speakers (Ide 1990b) in these types of jocular utterances. Where a male speaker might jokingly denigrate his addressee with the use of a vulgar pronoun, a female speaker can accomplish a similar level of mock face-threat by the strategy of rejecting her usual relationship with the addressee with the use of anata.

Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 137



5.3

The use of anata to refer to an addressee’s core self

Thus far, I have shown that the consistent core property of anata is to absolutely specify the second person entity without displaying any social relationship between the interlocutors. This means that anata functions ultimately and fundamentally to refer to an addressee’s core self, with social roles being stripped away. In this sense, it is unsurprising that the use of anata is observed at times when a speaker wants to convey honest and important messages to an addressee, not as someone who holds a certain social role in relation to the speaker, but simply as another human being. Here we look at two examples in which anata seems to be used with this very purpose in mind: when conveying a sincere message and when giving advice. 5.3.1 The case of conveying a sincere message Let us look at Example (64) from Kaseifu no Mita ‘Housekeeper Mita’. In this example, Keiichi, the father of the family, is talking to the housekeeper Mita on her last day, when the family is having a farewell party. As noted in Section 5.2.1, Keiichi’s default reference term for Mita (M) is Mita-san ‘Ms. Mita’. However, when Keiichi (K) expresses his sincere thanks from the bottom of his heart, he uses anata instead of Mita-san: (64) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

K: Hontoo-ni arigatoo. Boku=ga Kazoku=o real-adv thank.you 1sg=nom family=acc   torimodos-e-ta no=wa anata=no okage regain-pot-pst nmlz=top 2sg=gen thanks.to   des-u. Moo jibun=o anmari cop.pol-npst more refl=acc much   seme-nai-de-kudasa-i. Kondo=wa blame-neg-ger-give.me.resp-imp this.time=top   anata=ga shiawase-ni naru ban des-u. 2sg=nom happy-adv become turn cop.pol-npst   Anata=ga shiawase-ni nar-anakat-tara boku=wa 2sg=nom happy-adv become-neg-cond 1sg=top   shoochi.shi-mas-en kara ne. accept-pol-neg.npst because ip ‘Thank you so much. The reason I could regain my family is thanks to you (anata). Please don’t blame yourself anymore. Now, it’s your (anata gen) turn to be happy. If you (anata) don’t become happy, I won’t forgive (you), (I’m) telling (you).’ M: Shoochi.shi-mashi-ta. accept-pol-pst ‘Certainly.’  (Kaseifu no Mita, episode 11)

138 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

As mentioned earlier, Mita is a somewhat unusual person: she does not express her emotions because of past trauma. That said, she has done her job as a housekeeper perfectly, and in such a way as to quietly express her warmth toward each family member. All members of the family, especially Keiichi, are truly grateful to her for gradually helping them to mend their dysfunctional family. Although Mita has never shown her emotions before this, she bursts into tears in this climactic scene and all of the family members cry as well. In this situation, Keiichi’s main concern is not to acknowledge the contractual social relationship between himself and the housekeeper. Instead, with the use of anata, which has the ability to absolutely specify the second person, Keiichi is trying to reach Mita’s core self, without any focus on their social relationship. In doing so, he is conveying a sincere and heartfelt message to her, not as his housekeeper but as a human being. One may still argue that Keiichi’s use of anata is a ‘downward’ use of the term; Keiichi is the master of the household and Mita is the housekeeper who usually addresses Keiichi as goshujin-sama ‘master’. In other words, Keiichi is the superior in their contractual relationship. However, this account does not hold up to scrutiny because Mita also uses anata toward Keiichi when she wants to convey a sincere and direct message to him. Consider Example (65). In an earlier episode, Keiichi’s youngest daughter behaved unreasonably and did something very dangerous. Keiichi saved her, but in the heat of the moment, he unintentionally slapped her due to an upsurge of emotion. That night, Keiichi (K) regretted what he did and was blaming himself while he was talking to Mita (M): (65) 1 2 3 4

5 6

7

K: Ima made daremo tatai-ta koto nanka now until no.one hit-pst thing things.like   na-katta noni, Kie=ni anna koto exist.neg-pst although gn=dat that.sort.of thing   shi-te….. Chichioya-nara dakishime-te-yaru do-ger father-cond hold-ger-give   beki-na noni… should-lnk although ‘(I)’ve never hit anyone until today but (I) did such a thing to Kie…….Given (I)’m her father, (I) should hold her instead….’ M: Kodomo=ga warui koto=o shi-tara, shikaru child=nom bad thing=acc do-cond scold   no=ga atarimae des-u. nmlz=nom natural cop.pol-npst ‘…………If a child does something wrong, it is natural (for you) to scold him/her.’ K: E? what ‘Pardon?’

Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 139



8

M: Anata=ga… chichioya-nara……… 2sg=nom father-cond ‘If you (anata) are…. a father………’  (Kaseifu no Mita, episode 4)

Mita listens to Keiichi while he expresses his guilt about hitting Kie, his youngest daughter. Mita is usually a person of few words and does not engage in conversation. She usually says only the bare minimum, such as ‘Certainly, master’ and ‘Breakfast is ready’. However, at this moment, Mita defends Keiichi, saying that it is completely natural that a parent reprimand their child if the child does something they shouldn’t. By saying this, she gives Keiichi the message ‘You are her father and, given that, you did nothing wrong, so don’t blame yourself ’. In conveying this sincere and robust message, she momentarily chooses not to refer to him as goshujin-sama ‘master’ but absolutely specifies Keiichi as an individual human being with the use of anata. Mita is trying to reach her addressee’s core self. This function of anata could provide an explanation for the fact that anata is often observed in poems and songs. For example, consider the following song, which one of the survey respondents introduced to me. The title of the song is Tegami – aisuru anata e – ‘A letter – to dearest you (anata) –’, and the lyrics are written in the voice of a daughter, who is about to marry, conveying her sincere thanks to her parents: (66) Otoosan, okaasan, Kyoo made watashi o taisetsuni sodatetekurete Arigatoo […] Otoosan, Arubamu o mekuru to Mada chiisana watashi Anata ga daiteite Ima dewa shiroi kami to shiwa ga sukoshi fueta anata Nandaka setsunakute […] Okaasan, Anshinsuru koede ‘Okaeri’ tte nando mukaetekureta daroo Anata ga atatakai sono te de tsukuru gohan Nando isshoni tabeta daroo ‘Dad, Mom Until today, for taking such dear care of me Thank you […]

140 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Dad, When I open our album There is a picture of little me You (anata) are holding (me) Recently, you (anata) have grey hair and wrinkles I feel a little sad […] Mom, With a peaceful voice Saying ‘welcome home’ many times to me The meal you (anata) cook with (your) warm hands How often we ate together’ 

(Maiko Fujita)

The uses of anata here are all referring to the girl’s parents, first her father and then her mother. The songwriter initially addresses them with the socially normative terms otoosan ‘father’ and okaasan ‘mother’ in relation to her as a child. However, she also integrates the use of anata. The girl who used to be a child and saw her parents only as ‘mom and dad’ is now a grown-up. She now sees her mother and father as individual human beings. In this song, the girl is trying to convey a sincere message to them not only as parents but also as individual human beings. Here, her use of anata strips their parent-child relationship away and serves to refer to the core self of the addressees, conveying her message ‘I love, respect, and thank you, purely as human beings’. Interestingly, a group of survey respondents in this study commented on anata as kireina kotoba ‘a beautiful word’. One of respondents wrote about the use of anata in songs as follows: Kashi ni anata ga haitteiru to kireina hyoogen da na to kanjiru. Soo saininshiki suru. When anata is included in song lyrics, I feel that it is a beautiful expression. I realize it (when I listen to the song). (Respondent 359)

After considering the song in (66), this respondent’s perception becomes clearer. What we have seen in this section is that when a speaker wishes to convey a sincere and heartfelt message to the addressee, his/her main concern is not the acknowledgement of the social elements between them. The social relationship between the speaker and the addressee is not what is important in this context. Instead, with the use of anata, the speaker is able to deliver a message along the lines of ‘I’m not concerned about our social relationship, but am talking to you directly and purely as a human being’. It can be said that the use of anata enables the speaker to interact with the addressee’s existential self. This is precisely because anata has the ability to absolutely specify the second person entity.

Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 141



5.3.2 The case of giving advice Cases where the speaker attempts to convey a sincere message to the addressee are not limited to the dramatic moments we saw in the previous section. The same function of anata is observed in somewhat more familiar interactions. Advice giving is another case where the speaker steps out of the usual relationship and tries to convey what he or she thinks is important to the addressee. In Section 1.2.3, it was noted that the use of anata is infrequent in the ordinary conversation corpus. However, as mentioned in Section 3.5.2, one conversation that does show a higher frequency of occurrences of anata, compared to others, is that between a student (S) and a university professor (P) when they are discussing the topic of the student’s paper. In their conversation, the professor is giving detailed advice. Consider the excerpt in (67): (67) 1 2 3 4 5 6

7

P: Soo ja-na-ku-te, anata=wa, rizumu=no so cop-neg-adv-ger 2sg=top rhythm=gen   tankyuu tte it-te-ru kono rizumu tte pursue quot say-ger-be.npst this rhythm quot   no=o ittai donna mono=o mot-te nmlz=acc at.all what.kind.of thing=acc hold-ger   rizumu tte i-u no ka tte i-u rhythm quot say-npst nmlz q quot say-npst   koto=o moo ik-kai kangaenaoshi-te-miru-to thing=acc more one-time reconsider-ger-see-cond   ii to omou no. good quot think ip ‘Not like that, but I think you (anata) should try to rethink this pursuit of rhythm, what kind of thing is regarded as rhythm at all.’ S: Hai yes ‘Yes.’  (C50)

In this conversation, the male university professor gives advice about the topic of the student’s research paper. Recall that in Section 3.5.2 we discussed the reported use of anata when a superior speaker gives advice to an inferior addressee. Similar situations were described by the survey respondents, such as when a mother reprimands her children, a music teacher speaks to her student, and a professor gives advice to a student. The survey comments are restated here: If I use anata to my children, it would be when I very consciously keep a certain distance, am angry or disappointed with them and want them to understand it. So, when I use anata, my children probably know that intuitively. When I go ‘Anata tachi….’, they would go ‘Oops, here we go, it’s started…’ as a first stage. Then they judge that I am about to scold them. So they turn to listen to me with a slightly more obedient attitude. (Respondent 176)

142 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

I usually use students’ names to refer to them but I think I often switch it to anata during my lessons, saying, for example, anata no ima no oto wa ne… “The sound you (anata) made just now is…”. I don’t know why. (Respondent 410) My professor usually calls me by my surname but when I am called anata, I think it is something like when I am evaluated or he checks my dissertation etc.  (Respondent 94)

The situation that respondent 94 described is precisely that illustrated in Example (67). I was able to follow up with the music teacher (respondent 410), as she gave her contact details in the survey. During our interview, the teacher tried to reflect on her use of anata toward her young students. The teacher explained that, although she normally used ‘name-chan’ to refer to young children, it felt somehow too friendly during the lesson. She explained that she treated each of them as individual participants in the lesson, thus she would spontaneously use anata. Her explanation is insightful in the sense that, at the moment of giving serious advice, the speaker’s concern with acknowledging the existing relationship may not be the first priority. Searle (1969: 67) describes advice-giving as a speech act in which the advice-giver is “telling you what is best for you”. However, more recent research on advice has unveiled complex interactions within local exchanges and a variety of relational work going on in advice giving (Locher & Limberg 2012: 1). Locher & Limberg (2012: 4) state that “[d]epending on the community of practice in question, its members will recognize the different levels of directness and mitigation as carrying interpersonal meaning”. Different speech acts, including advice giving, may be perceived differently across cultures and speech communities (Wierzbicka 2012). Morrow (2012) describes a number of strategies in relational work in Japanese advice-giving situations. One of the relational strategies is the use of vocatives. Morrow states that the use of names or kinship terms is for “the effect of heightening the level of involvement” (Morrow 2012: 274). For example, an advice-giver encourages an advice-receiver with the use of kinship terms as in okaasan gambatte kudasai ‘Hang in there, mom’. Morrow (2012: 270) states: In instances such as this, the writer’s choice of a kinship term can be seen as an attempt on the part of the advice-giver to back up the advice by referring to a shared understanding of social roles, in this case, the role of mother, and the proper behavior associated with that role.

Compared to the use of kinship terms in the situation described in this statement, the use of anata has the opposite effect. In situations like (67) with the use of anata, the speaker’s primary concern is not the acknowledgement of the interlocutors’ established social relationship but to refer to the addressee as an individual. In advice-giving, which broadly includes reprimanding, the speaker steps out of the

Chapter 5.  Absolute specification in a socially definable relationship 143



usual relationship in order to convey an important and honest message, or teach an important point deemed necessary for the addressee. Using anata, with the ability of absolute specification, is clearly a useful tool to do this by reaching the addressee’s core self. 5.4

Summary

In this chapter, I have explored the use of anata in socially definable relationships. I have shown how the use of anata, which has the inherent property of absolute specification of the second person, interacts with cultural norms in socially definable relationships and thereby creates various functions and effects. Supported by the examples in this chapter, I have shown how the notion of absolute specification can systematically account for these functions and expressive effects. By using anata, the speaker makes explicit the non-acknowledgement of any social relationship between interlocutors. Thus, against the background of the norm-governed, socially loaded person reference system in Japanese communication, the use of anata comes to function as a mechanism to reject a given social relationship between interlocutors. This is naturally connected to its function of referring to the addressee’s core self, treating the addressee purely as an individual human being without considering their socially constructed elements. In this light, the use of anata delivers messages such as ‘I wish to ignore or reject the given social relationship between us’ and ‘I’m not concerned about you as a social being but am talking to you as a human being’. Throughout this chapter, I have constantly recalled the importance of sociocultural norms in the system of person reference in Japanese communication. At the same time, I have shown that the formulation of a speaker’s person reference also involves choice. In different languages and cultures, person reference is said to give scope for “bending and manipulation of otherwise idealized categories of social relationships” (Garde 2013: 10).60 That said, it does not mean that the choice of person reference is a disorganized pursuit of an individual’s random interests. As Heritage (1984: 117) states, “normative accountability is the ‘grid’ by reference to which whatever is done will become visible and assessable”. In this chapter, I have explained the mechanics behind how the use of anata, absolute specification of the second person, interacts with cultural norms as the grid and creates discursive effects due to the existence of the norm of Japanese communication where relationship acknowledgement is almost mandatory. 60. Garde (2013) makes the above comment regarding classificatory kinship in Aboriginal Australia. See also Luong (1990), Maynard (2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c), Sacks & Schegloff (2007).

144 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Given the discussion of social norms and the revealed inherent property of anata and its functions and effects, we have now discovered the solution to the puzzle. We are able to understand why anata has been said to be troublesome and difficult to use (Miwa 2010: 4), to have multiple meanings (Jinnouchi 1998: 49), and hence to be unique (Jung 1999: 27) in the previous literature and among native speakers.

Chapter 6

Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata

6.1

Introduction

In Chapters 4 and 5, I showed that the consistent core property of anata is absolute specification of the second person entity without displaying any of the interlocutors’ social elements. In this final chapter, I explore two social phenomena in relation to the use of anata during the highly ideological process of Japan’s modernization. First, I examine the post-war language policy proposal in which anata was nominated as a ‘standard’ address term (6.2). This occurred after WWII, when the nation state was trying to move on to a ‘new democratic era’. The nature of anata, being insensitive to the display of social hierarchy, was intuited and ideologically taken up as a symbol of egalitarianism, leading to vigorous public debate. Given what has been discussed already (i.e., anata is hardly ever reported as a regular address term among present-day Japanese speakers (Chapter 3) and the fact that it is used only in limited contexts (Chapters 4 and 5)), we see that this policy proposal was clearly ineffective. An examination of native speakers’ debate in this chapter (6.3) further reveals some aspects of why this top-down promotion of ‘egalitarian’ address practice did not achieve its goal. Second, I discuss one remaining issue, a wife’s use of anata toward her husband and how this usage came about during the modernization of Japan (6.4). This use of anata is a special case in that it is the only gender-specific use, that is, a female exclusive use of anata. All other cases of the use of anata discussed throughout this study are cases of non-gendered use, in which there is no exclusivity of use between a male and female speaker.61 Among present-day Japanese speakers, the wife’s use of anata is regarded as archaic and is linked to the ideology of hoshuteki de hikaemena tsuma no joseitekina kyarakutaa ‘a wife’s feminine characteristics that are conservative and obedient’ (Shimotani 2012: 90). In previous literature, despite this well-known phenomenon, the reason why a wife’s use of anata came 61. That said, there was one usage in the data set in which the use of anata was more commonly observed by women than by men. This occurred in jocular utterances between friends (see Section 5.2.4). However, there is no question of this usage being completely gender exclusive, as is the wife’s use of anata.

146 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

to be regarded as having this stereotypical archaic nuance today has not been sufficiently explained. I describe the potential processes by which this usage initially came about and has subsequently come to be perceived as it is today. My analysis for both phenomena is framed by the notion of the ‘reflexive processes’ of language (Agha 2006: 8–9): Much of the complexity of the ways in which language can clarify social relations for users derives from the capacity of language users to acquire a reflexive grasp of particular aspects of a semiotic norm – what the norm is, for whom it is a norm, when the norm applies, and so on – and to treat such a reflexive grasp as a subsequent basis for communicating messages, even when the message consists of the act of upholding a contrastive norm as a diacritic of self.

Agha (2006: 190) further states that reflexive processes are “processes of value production, maintenance and transformation” and include language users’ metalinguistic activities, which are “a vast range of meaningful behaviors that typify the attributes of language, its users, and the activities accomplished through its use” (Agha 2006: 17). In line with Agha, in analyzing both of the social phenomena discussed in this chapter, I show aspects of individual speakers’ reflexive processes in their own local interactions, which, in these two cases, were intricately implicated in Japan’s modernization. 6.2 Language policy, emerging egalitarianism, and the use of anata In 1952, a proposal titled Korekara no Keigo ‘Honorifics for the Future’ was issued by Kokugo Shingikai ‘The National Language Council of Japan’.62 In this new proposal, anata was nominated as a ‘standard’ address term for everyone to use toward any addressee equally. The very nature of anata, i.e., its insensitivity to the display of social hierarchy, was intuited by language policymakers and ideologically taken up as a symbol of egalitarianism. The reason policymakers urged an egalitarian address practice requires some explanation. Kokugo Shingikai ‘The National Language Council of Japan’ was established in 1934 as an advisory body to the Ministry of Education and since then it has been strongly influential in Japanese language policy and education. Its work includes creating regulations related to the common use of Chinese characters and kana, and the use of honorifics (Yasuda 2007).

62. The English translation of the title ‘Honorifics for the Future’ is from Inoue (2006). The translations of the texts extracted from the policy proposal and other materials are all my own.



Chapter 6.  Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 147

During WWII, the Kokugo Shingikai was under the control of the Japanese military authorities.63 In 1942, one of the key members of the Kokugo Shingikai, Koichi Hoshina, published the Daitooa Kyooeiken to Kokugoseisaku ‘The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and National Language Policy’. He advocated making Japanese the official language throughout the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.64 However, Japanese language educators who were actually teaching in the field faced the reality of the difficulties of teaching Japanese in a short time span to those people the national authority called hiseifukusha ‘the conquered’ (Tanaka 1989: 11). Linguists and language specialists at that time believed that Japanese was a ‘difficult’ language, referring particularly to the complexity of its writing system (which consisted of two types of phonograms, hiragana and katakana, and kanji ‘Chinese characters’) as well as the intricacy of its honorific system (e.g., Tanaka 1989; Yasuda 2007). The assumed difficulty of acquiring Japanese was combined with a certain belief held among some native scholars that Japanese was an inferior language. The fact that Japanese had no clear genetic relation to any languages beyond the archipelago was thought among some intellectuals to be a disadvantage (Tanaka 1989: 14).65 Koichi Hoshina, mentioned earlier as the advocate of Japanese as an 63. A Kakugi kettei ‘Cabinet decision’ in 1942 stated: Nihongo kyooiku narabini nihongo fukyuu ni kansuru shohoosaku wa rikukaigun no yookyuu ni motozuki, mombushoo ni oite kore o kikaku ritsuan suru koto. ‘Policies regarding Japanese language education and the dissemination of Japanese language must be based on the requirements from the military, and planned and drafted by the Ministry of Education’ (Cabinet decision, 18 Aug 1942, cited in Seki (1997: 39)). 64. The preface to the Daitooa Kyooeiken to Kokugoseisaku ‘The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and National Language Policy’ states: Daitooa sensoo kaishi irai, koogun no kakukakutaru ichidai senka niyori, imaya daitooa kyooeiken no kakuritsu o mi, wagakuni ga sono meishu toshite kyooeiken o zendoo subeki juudai naru sekimu o ninau ni itatta no dearu. Shikaraba, kongo wagakuni no kore ni shosubeki ikuta juudainaru mondai no shoozuru koto mo mata, toozen no jishoo dearu. Shikashite, sono hitotsu wa kokugo seisaku dearu koto mo bannin no hitoshiku mitomeru tokoro dearoo. Somosomo kyooeiken nai no kakuminzoku o yoku itchi danketsu seshime, tagaini ai yuuwa shite, sono hatten ni doryoku seshimeru niwa, waga nihongo o kennai no tsuuyoogo to suru koto ga naniyorimo juuyoonaru jooken dearu koto wa gen o matanu tokoro dearu. ‘Since the Great East Asia War, through the Imperial Army’s brilliant and significant military gains, we foresee the establishment of The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. An important time has arrived in that our nation must take responsibility for guiding the region properly as a leader of the confederation. Thus, it is natural for our nation to deal with significant issues. All of us agree that one of these issues is the national language policy. First of all, it is needless to say that to get each ethnic group to unite, harmonize, and make an effort for development, it is most important to make the Japanese language an official language of the region.’ (Hoshina 1942: 1–2) 65. In fact, at that time, the Ryukyuan languages were thought of as simply dialects of Japanese, but reclassified later as separate languages. “The prevailing view now has Japanese and Ryukyuan forming the Japonic family as daughter languages of Proto-Japonic” (Shibatani, Miyagawa, & Noda 2017: viii).

148 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

official ­language of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, in fact stated, under the cover of his official promotion of the language, that Japanese was an inferior language in its very origin (Tanaka 1989: 12). Along with Hoshina, some scholars and authorities agreed that Japanese was a backward language and needed to reform (Tanaka 1989: 14). According to Tanaka, there were quite a few intellectuals who advocated the use of romanization or kana script only, abolishing complex Chinese characters, or even the use of English as an official language to aid modernization.66 These views have been named bogo peshimizumu ‘mother-tongue pessimism’ (Tanaka 1989: 14). ‘Mother-tongue pessimism’ was a train of thought whereby Japanese language practice was brought into “invidious (self-critical) comparison with the (undifferentiated) West” (Inoue 2006: 82). Any differences between Japanese and Western languages were “perceived by Japanese intellectuals as a lack, defect, or form of backwardness” (Inoue 2006: 82). This attitude was reinforced by Japan’s loss in World War II. It was believed that the Japanese language, as it was, did not suit a modern country and needed to be changed (Tanaka 1989: 16–17). After the war, the United States led the Allies in the occupation and rehabilitation of the Japanese state. Yasuda (2007: 50) suggests that the influence of the US GHQ (General Headquarters/Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers) on discussions at Kokugo Shingikai lead to the new Japanese language policies. Given this background, it makes sense that the new language policy proposal repeatedly emphasized Japan’s ‘new era’ and the ‘new ways’ of a ‘new life’. Observe the following preface: Ganrai, keigo no mondai wa tannaru kotoba no ue dake no mondai denaku, jisseikatsu ni okeru sahoo to ittai o nasu mono dearu kara, korekara no keigo wa, korekara no atarashii jidai no seikatsu ni sokushita atarashii sahoo no seichoo to tomoni, heimei kansona atarashii keigohoo toshite, kenzenna hattatsu o togeru koto o nozomu shidai dearu. Primarily, the issue of honorifics is not only a cosmetic concern of the language but inseparable from real life. Thus, we intend that honorifics from now on will be based on our new ways in a new life in the new era and we will develop them as a new system that is plain and simple. (Korekara no Keigo ‘Honorifics for the Future’, 1952) 66. According to Tanaka (1989: 12), the folklorist Kunio Yanagida remarked that if Japanese used only romanization or kana script, it would be an easy language, although he also stated that such a practice would ignore important aspects of the Japanese language. Arinori Mori, who was the first Minister of Education, radically advocated the idea that Japan should use English as an official language to aid modernization (Tanaka 1989: 14). Mori’s idea was taken up by some post-war authorities such as Ozaki Yukio, who became a politician after working as a journalist. Both Mori and Ozaki explicitly expressed the idea that Japanese was an inferior language, and that English was a language of civilization (Hatta 2003: 108).



Chapter 6.  Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 149

In the ‘new era’, the objective was the ‘plain and simple’ use of language. The basic principles go on to state: Koremade no keigo wa, kyuujidai ni hattatsushita mamade, hitsuyoo ijoo ni hanzatsuna ten ga atta. Korekara no keigo wa, sono ikisugi o imashime, goyoo o tadashi, dekirudake heimei kanso ni aritai mono dearu. Honorifics in the past were inherited unchanged from a system that had developed in a bygone era and were excessively complex. Honorifics from now on aim to guard against extreme uses as well as correct our misuses. It is desirable that (honorifics for the future) be plain and simple. Koremade no keigo wa, shutoshite joogekankei ni tatte hattatsushitekita ga, korekara no keigo wa, kakujin no kihonteki jinkaku o sonchoosuru soogo sonkei no ue ni tatanakereba naranai. Honorifics in the past developed mainly based on vertical relationships. However, honorifics from now on must be based on a mutual respect that values individuals’ fundamental personhood. (Korekara no Keigo ‘Honorifics for the Future’, 1952)

These principles attempted to assist the deconstruction of the previous strong focus on asymmetry in vertical relationships, which was believed to be responsible for the excessive complexity of honorifics. They represent the intention to abandon hierarchy-oriented honorific usage and the move forward to a new era of egalitarian language use, as part of a movement along the linear axis of time ‘from the past to the future’. The system of honorifics was once said to be the expression of kyookei no seishin ‘the spirit of respect and humility’ that centered on the kooshitsu ‘Imperial Household’ and shison ni taishi tatematsutte onore o munashiusuru kokoro ‘the spirit of emptying self and serving the Emperor’ (Mombusho ‘The Ministry of Education’ 1937: 99). However, in this new era, it quickly came to be seen as a hookenteki isei ‘feudalistic relic’ (Tanaka 1989: 17–18).67 The proposal can thus be seen as part of

67. In 1946, the Emperor declared that he was not divine but a human. Tennoo Ningen Sengen ‘Humanity Declaration’ states: Chin to nanjira kokumin tono aida no juutai wa shuushi soogo no shinrai to keiai to ni yorite musubare, tannaru shinwa to densetsu to ni yorite shoozeru mono ni arazu. Tennoo o motte akitsumikami to shi, katsu nihonkokumin o motte hoka no minzoku ni yuuetsu seru minzoku ni shite, hiite sekai o shihai subeki unmei o yuusuru tono kakuunaru kannen ni motozuku mono ni mo arazu. ‘The ties between Us and Our people have always stood upon mutual trust and affection. They do not depend upon mere legends and myths. They are not predicated on the false conception that the Emperor is divine, and that the Japanese people are superior to other races and fated to rule the world.’ (Shin Nippon Kensetsu ni Kansuru Shoosho ‘Imperial Rescript on the Construction of a New Japan’, 1 Jan 1946). The Emperor system has continued in Japan and the complex web of the Emperor system, the ideology of honorifics, and the notion of the democratic era have been well discussed (see, for example, Yasuda 2007 and Takiura 2005).

150 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

the history of internalizing Japan’s narrative of its modernization, stated by Inoue (2006: 166) as follows: Japan as an industrialized, modern nation has relied ideologically on a linear and progressivist narrative of its own history “from feudalism to modernity”, and this inexorably entails a profound temporal bifurcation between the past and the present, often understood as a contrast between tradition and modernity.

This bifurcation between the past and the present is clearly observed in the language policy proposal discussed here. In this context, Korekara no Keigo saw not only honorifics but also address terms as targets for change because their use reflected the apparent vertical relationships in Japanese society. In the proposal, anata was treated as a ‘standard’ form of second person reference. An extract is provided below: Aite o sasu kotoba Terms of address: i. Anata o hyoojun no katachi to suru. Anata is the standard form. ii.  Tegami (kooshi tomo) no yoogo to shite, koremade ‘kiden’ ‘kika’ nado o tsukatteiru no mo, korekara wa ‘anata’ de tsuuyoo suru yooni aritai. As for terms for letters (both private and public), kiden ‘you (honorific)’ kika ‘you (honorific)’ and so forth should gradually be replaced with the use of anata. iii. ‘Kimi’ ‘boku’ wa, iwayuru ‘kimi/boku’ no shitashii aidagara dake no yoogo to shite, ippan niwa, hyoojun no katachi dearu ‘watashi/anata’ o tsukaitai. Shitagatte ‘ore’ ‘omae’ mo, shidaini ‘watashi/anata’ o tsukau yooni shitai. Kimi ‘you (informal)’ boku ‘I (male, informal)’ should be used only in a close relationship and it is desirable to use watashi ‘I’ and anata ‘you’ generally. Thus, ore ‘I (male, vulgar)’ and omae ‘you (vulgar)’ should also be replaced with watashi/anata.  (Korekara no Keigo ‘Honorifics for the Future’, CIT0321952)

This section on the use of person reference terms suggests abolishing the very polite expressions, as well as restraining the use of informal and vulgar forms. The reciprocal use of watashi/anata between individuals was encouraged as ‘plain’ use of language. There was a view that the reciprocal use of watashi/anata was apparently influenced by the English ‘I’ and ‘you’.68

68. This view is expressed, for example, by a native speaker in a comment in a newspaper column (Yomiuri Shimbun, 15 Oct 1976) which can be found in Section 6.3.1.



Chapter 6.  Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 151

The doctrine of the egalitarian use of anata was welcomed by a group of chishikijin ‘intellectuals’, as seen in the following statement by Kindaichi (1959: 163–164), a famous scholar of Japanese linguistics: Korekara no daimeishi wa, kono hookoo e iku no dewa arumai ka. Fuufu no aida bakari denaku, shokuba demo, mata jookan to karyoo tono aida demo, koomuin to minkanjin to no aida demo, ichiyooni, tagaini ‘watashi’ ‘anata’ de motte, choodo eigo no ‘I’ ‘you’ no yooni ittara, minshushugi no daimeishi ga hakkiri seiritsusuru no dewa arumai ka. Pronouns from now on will probably go in such a direction. Not only between a couple, but also in the workplace, between a superior and an inferior, and between a public servant and a citizen, if we use watashi and anata consistently like the English I and you, I think a democratic pronoun system will be established.

At the time, it was the view that anata was the second person pronoun of the future, a symbol of modernization, democracy, and egalitarianism. In fact, across languages, the connection between the use of address terms and certain ideological values is not a new concept. The logic of linking an egalitarian ideology to the use of certain address pronouns has been observed in different languages, such as French and English, at different points in their history. However, the process of change in each language is unique to a given society at a given time. For example, in Revolutionary France, the Committee for Public Safety called the use of the V-form “a feudal remnant” and ordered a “universal reciprocal T” (Brown & Gilman 1960: 266). Because of the ancient upper-class preference for V, T had to be the pronoun of the Revolution (Brown & Gilman 1960: 266). A ‘generalized tu’ movement has become evident again in contemporary French society. Morford (1997: 4) states that native speakers generally sense that pronominal address forms have “become less explicitly oriented toward marking differences in social status […] as crucial signs of a broader transformation of standards of civility that has occurred in tandem with the post-war ‘modernization’ of French society”. However, on the basis of extensive interviews with native French speakers and consultation of various materials, Morford (1997) reveals that contrary to the popular notion that French society is moving toward a generalized use of tu, the use of vous in both symmetrical and asymmetrical interactions is far from being extinguished. On this point, Morford (1997: 31) captures complex layers of the use of the T/V system in contemporary French. She argues that the broader use of tu and the tendency of preference for symmetrical use of address terms do not suggest that social differences and barriers have become irrelevant. Speakers convey differences of identity, status, and personal disposition through the T/V system, although it may be more subtle than before.

152 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

The history of English second person pronouns, on the other hand, has involved the disappearance of the 2sg category. In English, thou/thee vs. ye/you was once merely a referential singular/plural distinction. However, under the influence of French nobility in the 13th century, the use of ye/you as a reverential singular form first occurred, followed by semantic developments similar to T/V forms. In other words, the French influence led English to take on the semantics of power and solidarity in thou/thee vs. ye/you forms (Brown & Gilman 1960: 267). In the 17th century, these forms became part of a social and ideological controversy. The founder of The Religious Society of Friends (the so-called Quakers), George Fox, promoted the notion of Plain Speech, which favored “social equality and universal brotherhood” (Wales 1983: 119) along with an address practice of using T forms (thee/thou) to everyone (Brown & Gilman 1960: 267). The rationale for reciprocal T approximated that of the French revolutionaries, which was that “[y]ou was apparently too loaded with connotations of class superiority” (Leith 1997: 91). Some scholars suggest that the address practices of the Quakers played a role in the process of the loss of T in English (e.g., Silverstein 1985; Leith 1997). Leith (1997: 91) states: “It was perhaps this insistence of the Quakers, who were not then considered to be as respectable as they have since become, that helped to stigmatize thou/thee in the minds of many people”. On the other hand, Aalberse & Stoop (2015) are skeptical of this hypothesis and suggest that the loss of T from English is similar to that of Dutch which was caused by an unusual combination of multiple circumstances. They state that it may be explained not only by socio-pragmatic factors but also by language internal factors such as a more economical paradigm of verbal inflection and language contact situations due to a wave of migration at that time. It is beyond the scope of this study to explore T and V forms any further in these languages. My point is that address pronouns can become a focal point for expressing interpretations and applications of certain ideological values across different languages precisely when the use of address terms entails social meanings. We can see that there is an analogy of logic across different languages, including Japanese, whereby certain address pronouns are connected to an egalitarian ideology, although the process of change in address pronoun usages in a language is peculiar to its own cultural, social, and historical context. In the case of Japanese, the suggested ‘egalitarian’ use of anata came via a top-down mode of language policy proposal as part of Japan’s post-war modernization, but it was not straightforwardly accepted by language users. After the publication of the proposal Korekara no Keigo, which was widely discussed in the media, heated public debates occurred about whether native speakers agreed or disagreed with the proposal, as well as how they fundamentally regarded the pronoun anata. These debates exhibited divided views, which I will show in the next section.



6.3

Chapter 6.  Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 153

Public debates about the use of anata

A decade after the release of the proposal Korekara no Keigo ‘Honorifics for the Future’ by Kokugo Shingikai ‘The National Language Council of Japan’, large scale debates among native speakers about the use of anata were in full swing, continuing until well into the 1980s and, sporadically, still today. These debates were large scale in the sense that they were constantly exposed nationwide through mass media, in this case, major newspapers. The examples given here represent a very tiny proportion of the numerous discussions of this topic in the media over a period of two decades and more. The arguments put forward appeared to reveal the different ideologies, identities, and values of native speakers of the time. Some aligned with the policy while others expressed an intuitive feeling of incongruence about the proposed use of anata. At a glance, this seems to display a binary argument between egalitarians vs. norm upholders. However, a variety of people’s experiences and readers’ opinions reveal how an individual’s interpretation of the term can be discursive and generated through complex reflexive processes. Recall Agha’s statement about the ‘reflexive processes’ of language use presented in Section 6.1. An examination of the public debates reveals the complexity of interpretations made by language users. As Agha (2006: 16) explains, we will see that “whether we are dealing with stereotypic or emergent social effects, or with the way in which they are laminated together in some stretch of semiotic activity, our ability to describe such effects depends on reflexive uses of language”. Regarding the existence of various interpretations, Agha (2006: 202) further comments: There is no necessity, of course, that such evaluations always be consistent with each other society-internally; in fact their mutual inconsistency often provides crucial evidence for the co-existence of distinct, socially positioned ideologies of language within a language community.

In the next subsections I will demonstrate this inconsistency, which ultimately serves to increase our understanding of the formation of perceptions about the term anata. 6.3.1 Emerging egalitarians vs. norm upholders The public debates examined for this study regarding the use of anata have been drawn mainly from two major Japanese national newspapers, the Asahi Shimbun and the Yomiuri Shimbun, published between the 1960s and 1980s, as well as some related episodes found in the work of other scholars. These debates display a form of dichotomy between ideologically motivated speakers’ egalitarian use of anata,

154 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

which matched a trend in the new society, and the norm upholders’ discomfort with this use. In the case of the former, the rationale for the use of the ‘standard’ address term anata to any addressee was a form of social progress: as a means to diminish an excessive emphasis on hierarchy. The Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper (15 Oct 1976) introduced the playwright Naoya Uchida’s view that anata was sairyoo no nininshoo ‘the best second person reference term’: Moshi, namae o ‘san’ zuke de yobu koto mo dekinai shi, ‘sensei’ tomo ‘okusan’ tomo, aruiwa ‘kachoo’ toitta yakushoku demo yobenai baai, nan to yobeba ii n desu ka. Nihongo no naka ni ‘anata’ igai tekitoona nininshoo daimeishi ga nai no dakara, ‘anata’ o joozuni tsukaikonashite iku shika nai n janai deshoo ka. If (we) cannot refer to someone using a name with -san (polite suffix, ‘Mr. Mrs. Miss. Ms.’), sensei ‘teacher’, okusan ‘Madam/Mrs. (lit. wife)’ or position titles such as kachoo ‘section manager’, then how should we address (him/her)? In Japanese, there is no appropriate word except for anata. So, handling anata well is the only way (in this new society). (Yomiuri Shimbun, 15 Oct 1976)

In this comment, Uchida clearly construed anata as a term which does not index the social relationship between interlocutors. In the same interview, he also commented that Japanese people should become ‘freer’ and the use of the ‘basic’ form anata toward any addressee should be welcomed, rather than restricting its use when addressing a superior. Uchida also actively appeared on TV programs enthusiastically advocating the use of anata toward any type of addressee (Araki 1990: 22). Another supporter of the proposal, the linguist Miwa (2010: 161), recollects how he actually practiced the standard use of anata in his university classes around that time:69 Nihongo de no taitoona kaiwa, taiwa, giron no kanoosei o saguttekita. Kyooshitsu no naka de no kaiwa mo dekirudake taitoona kotobazukai o kokorogaketa. Sono baai jishooshi wa ‘watashi’ o, taishooshi wa danshigakusei ni mo joshigakusei ni mo ‘anata’ o tsukatta. Shoowa 27 nen no ‘Korekara no keigo’ ni kyookan shita kara dearu. […] Kajoo na keigo o sake, dekirudake kantan meiryoona keigo o kokorogaketa. I had been searching for possible ways of (engaging in) conversation, dialogue, and discussion on an equal footing (between interlocutors) in Japanese. In my classroom, I strove for equal expressions in verbal communication. There, I used watashi for first person and anata for second person consistently toward both male and female students. This is because I supported the concepts of the Korekara no Keigo policy of 1952. […] Also, I aimed to avoid excessive honorific language and use plain and clear honorifics as much as I could. 69. Miwa (2010) now holds the view that anata entails an impolite nuance as seen in Section 1.3.3. He used to advocate the egalitarian use of anata in line with the policy proposal, but later realized it was not straightforward, given the norms of Japanese communication.



Chapter 6.  Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 155

Miwa regarded the ‘standard’ use of anata as something that he had been waiting for in order to undertake conversation on an equal footing. By doing this in his university classes, he apparently attempted to play the role of an advocate as well as an actual practitioner of the policy. This is also a facet of his professional identity, to aim to achieve an equal footing in all his interactions. The notion of anata as a standard form of address became congruent also with a social movement based around women’s expression of identity. A female reader sent a letter to the Asahi Shimbun articulating the following view: Watashi wa -san no okusan to yobareru no ga sukidenai. Hakkiri ieba kirai da. Otto no shokugyoo ya chii ni yotte yobina ga kawattari, tonari no okusan to yobareru yori wa, Matsumoto Aya san toiu kojin to tsukiatte hoshii kara da. Doose nara kekkon shitemo, watashi no rekishi o seotta Murakami Aya san toiu kyuusei de itai gurai da. Sonna omoi ga ‘anata’ to deru no daga, yahari yobareta hito wa shitsurei da to kanjiru no deshoo ka. Watashi wa aite o kojin toshite mitome, doosei toshite sonkei shiteiru kara koso, to omou no desu ga…… I don’t like being called Mr. -’s wife. To be honest, I hate it. Rather than changing address terms depending on one’s husband’s occupation and position or being referred to as the lady next-door, I want to be interacted with as an individual, Aya Matsumoto. I would even like to keep my maiden name Aya Murakami, which carries my life history. Such feelings lead me to use anata, but would the addressee feel that it’s rude? I use it only because I regard and respect the addressee as an individual woman. (Asahi Shimbun, 27 Sep 1983)

In this comment, the correspondent expresses her desire to be an individual without being labeled with social roles. We have seen in the previous chapters that the property of anata, that is, the absolute specification of the second person, functions to reject an established social relationship. This function was intuited here to express this woman’s identity as an independent individual. It functions to reject the practice of referring to women by their domestic social positions such as ‘someone’s wife’, whose identity depends on their husband, or merely as the tonari no okusan ‘the lady next-door’. This woman’s letter reminds us of Lakoff ’s observation (1973b: 62) that “[s]ociologically it is probably fairly obvious that a woman in most subcultures in our society achieves status only through her father’s, husband’s, or lover’s position”. The influence of feminism, mainly from the U.S., had already reached Japan in the 1960s (Reynolds 1997). Women’s hontoo no jibun o yonde hoshii ‘desire to be referred to as her true self ’ (Takasaki 1992: 115), not as a daughter, a wife, or a mother, was expressed in various genres such as poems and novels. For example, the following poem Watashi o tabanenaide ‘Don’t bundle me up’ was written by the female poet Kazue Shinkawa in 1966:70 70. The poem consists of five parts and the extract is the fourth part.

156 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Watashi o nazukenaide Musume to iu na Tsuma to iu na Omoomoshii haha to iu na de shitsuraeta za ni Suwarikiri ni sasenaide kudasai Watashi wa kaze Ringo no ki to izumi no arika o shitteiru kaze

Don’t name me A name like ‘daughter’ A name like ‘wife’ A seat set with the weighty name ‘mother’ Please don’t keep me sitting there I am a breeze A breeze who knows where apple trees are and where a fountain is

Thus, for some, the notion of the ‘egalitarian use of anata’ was timely in that their different layers of identity expression matched this notion. Their perceptions and opinions reflected the view of modernity that subsumes democracy, deconstruction of hierarchy, and gender equality. However, for others, the use of anata as an expression of egalitarianism was not congruent with their preferred language use. In response to the aforementioned playwright Uchida’s comment that ‘anata is the best personal pronoun’, the scholar of Japanese literature, Yasaburo Ikeda, expressed quite the opposite opinion: ‘Shitsurei na!’ to shitauchi shitaku naru. ‘Anata’ wa meshita ni taishite tsukau kotoba da to omotteiru kara dearu. […] ‘Anata’ o tsukau yooni natta no wa, eigo (you, your) no eikyoo to shika kangaeraremasen. “(That’s) rude!”, I feel like tut-tutting in frustration when someone uses anata. That’s because anata is to be used toward an inferior. I cannot help thinking that it is the English influence that (causes people to) use anata like ‘you, your’. (Yomiuri Shimbun, 15 Oct 1976)

In upholding the social norm that anata should not be used toward a superior, Ikeda justifies his discomfort in being referred to with anata. His intuition that the use of anata does not work like the English ‘you’ displays an aspect of wakimae ‘discernment’ which is regarded as almost ritualistic in Japanese communication and is incongruent with the blind adoption of language practices of the ‘West’ (Ide 2006). The woman who had sent the letter regarding her use of anata to express her individual identity, in fact had revealed her concern about the following situation and sought other readers’ opinions:



Chapter 6.  Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 157

‘Anata…’ to yonde, watashi kirawaretemasu. Ie, otto ni de naku, doosei ni desu. Otto no shiriai no josei ga uchi ni mieta toki, ‘anata’ to itta rashiku, sore ga mawari mawatte ato ni natte ‘ano okusan wa watashi o baka ni shiteiru. Anata to yobarete iya datta’ to itteiru to kiki, nayande shimatta no da. I am disliked by others because I use anata. No, not by my husband but by other women. When an acquaintance of my husband came to visit our place, I think I used anata (to refer to her). This got around and later I heard that the woman was talking about me saying, “she looks down on me. I didn’t like being referred to as anata”. Listening to this, I have been troubled. (Asahi Shimbun, 27 Sep 1983)

The newspaper published a reply to the woman’s letter two weeks later. The responder, another female reader, expressed her dislike of the use of anata as follows: ‘Anata’ to yobareru koto ni kanari no teikoo o kanjiteshimau hitori desu. […] Kesshite warugi ga atte itteiru no dewa nai toiu koto wa kuchoo demo naiyoo demo wakaru no desu. […] Demo ‘anata’ no kaiwa ni tsuiteikenai toiu no mo jijitsu nano desu. […] ‘Okusan’ nado to iwareru to, choppiri hazukashii keredo, nazeka ureshii kimochi nimo natteshimau no desu. Dare ni demo tsukau koto no dekiru kotoba yori, watashi dearu koto ga hakkiri wakaru kotoba de yondemoraereba, sore ga totemo sunnarito najimeru yobikata ni natteiru to omoimasu. (I) am one of those who feel quite reluctant to be referred to with anata. […] (I know) (the speaker) means well considering her tone of voice and what she says. […] However, it is a fact that I cannot fit in to a conversation in which anata is used […] If (I) am referred to as okusan ‘Madam’ (lit. ‘wife’, indicating ‘Mrs. someone’), (I) get a little self-conscious, but it makes me somewhat happy. If (I’m) referred to with words which clearly indicate who I am, it suits me better, rather than being referred to with a word which can be used toward anyone. (Asahi Shimbun, 8 Oct 1983)

These two correspondents reveal aspects of their different identities. The first woman wanted to use anata as an expression of her individual identity. On the other hand, the second woman’s preference was watashi dearu koto ga hakkiri wakaru kotoba ‘words that clearly indicate who I am’ by which she meant words associated with her social roles. This is evident in her comment that she feels somewhat happy to be called okusan ‘Mrs. -’, in her role as someone’s wife. She also mentioned in her letter (not included here) that she was happy to be called Shoo-kun no obachan ‘Sho’s (i.e., her son’s) mom’ in her everyday life. In her letter, she expressed her pleasure in taking each of these roles, as a mother and a wife, and hence to be addressed as such, and that this practice would make her more comfortable. Her expression ‘anata’ no kaiwa ni tsuiteikenai ‘I cannot fit (anywhere) in the conversation with the use of anata’ expresses the idea that she cannot feel a sense of belonging when addressed by those who insist on individuality with the use of anata. This woman’s identity seems inseparable from her social roles as a mother and a wife.

158 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Thus far, we have seen debates in the public sphere, mainly in newspaper columns, regarding the ‘standard’ use of anata. Native speakers’ evaluations of the ‘standard’ use of anata were inconsistent and this inconsistency gives the appearance of a debate between egalitarians and norm upholders. However, these opinions also display an expression of personal or professional identities, which have their own history of reflexive processes in the local interactions of the individuals concerned, yet at the same time are inevitably positioned in the context of Japan’s modernization. 6.3.2 The impossibility of the symmetrical use of anata A series of discussions in the newspaper about the use of anata also included episodes which caused users to acknowledge the impossibility of its symmetrical use. The following is an extract from an article about the use of anata in the service industry: Depaato no ten’intachi nitotte anata wa kinku dearu. Sogoo depaato wa, shinnyuushain no tameni ippantekina kokoroe o toita gaidobukku o kubatteiru. […] Yokunai kotoba no rei o sanjuu hodo ageteiru. ‘Anata’ mo sono hitotsu de, tadashii kotoba wa okyakusama. […] Depaato ni kuru kyaku wa okyakusama toshite taisetsuni motenashite morau koto o kitaishiteiru. Dakara, ippo sagatte, kichinto okyakusama to yobu hoo ga kyaku no manzokukan o takameru kekka ni naru. For staff in a department store, anata is a taboo word. Sogo Department Store distributes a guidebook instructing new employees about general rules. There are thirty undesirable words. Anata is one of them and the correct way (to address a customer) is okyakusama (lit. customer-HON) ‘Sir/Madam’. Customers who come to department stores expect to be treated as highly valued. Thus, being humble and referring to them as okyakusama increases the customers’ satisfaction. (Yomiuri Shimbun, 19 Oct 1976)

This shows that in the service industry, to garner customers’ satisfaction, self-lowering and addressee-raising was considered mandatory and there seemed to be no room for the ‘egalitarian’ use of anata. Further, an extreme case of the ‘consequences’ of the use of anata in the workplace was reported by Tanaka (1989: 23): Chuugoku ni kensetsu sareta nihon no koojoo de hataraku chuugokujin ga, soko no koojoochoo daka gemba no uwayaku ni ‘anata wa…’ to hanashikaketa tameni, namaiki da to kubi ni sareta to iu episoodo ga aru. There is a story that, in a Japanese factory built in China, a Chinese factory worker talked to his plant manager or a supervisor saying anata wa… ‘you (anata) are….’ He was labeled as ‘impertinent’ and was fired.



Chapter 6.  Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 159

Experiencing this, the fired factory worker’s reflexive process would form the idea that the use of anata was a chimeitekina shippai ‘a fatal mistake’ (Tanaka 1989: 23). Readers of this episode would also form their perceptions about the use of anata accordingly. While the above two examples show clear cases of the impossibility of the use of anata in some contexts, what these examples suggest implicitly is that even among so-called ‘egalitarians’, there inevitably exists an implicit indication of power relations in the use of anata. Here, it is helpful to bring Ervin-Tripp’s (1972: 221) ‘dispensation’ rules into our discussion. Dispensation rules are norms of address that entitle only certain groups of people to initiate shifts to informal address. In this regard, Agha (2006: 34), in his discussion of the Swedish address system, explains as follows: [S]hifting to a reciprocal pattern (e.g., both individuals using informal du) resets the parameters of the social interaction bringing the two individuals on par. But who can initiate such a shift? In many societies, including Sweden, the entitlement to initiate such shifts is normatively linked to interlocutor’s relative status: higher status interlocutors can readily propose a shift from formal to informal address, but the act cannot be initiated by a lower status individual without risk of seeming impudent.

As I showed earlier, the proposal to use anata as a ‘standard’ address term came from policy makers’ radical uptake of the notion of the egalitarian use of language. The aforementioned Kindaichi (1959) and Miwa (2010) are chishikijin ‘intellectuals’ who had already gained social status as well-known scholars. It must be acknowledged that they were university professors who could be part of policy-making circles, and in their own local interactions they were in a position to ‘initiate’ the use of anata. Their students may have been given ‘permission’ to use anata toward these professors in their classrooms as an explicitly established place of equal footing. However, stories of the woman who was disliked by others because of her use of anata, the factory worker who was fired after his use of anata, and the staff in the department store who were told that anata was a taboo word toward customers, suggest that, in different layers of the local interactions, there are strict boundaries between those who are entitled to initiate the ‘egalitarian’ use of anata and those who are not. In this sense, ‘anata as a standard address term’ was, in Yasuda’s (2006: 28) words regarding the national language, dare no mono demo aru keredomo, kekkyoku wa dareka tokutei no hitotachi no mono ‘something that is supposed to be for everyone but, after all, is only for specific people’. To sum up, the existing power boundaries and social norms in local interactions were not easily overcome by the top-down mode of hasty promotion of egalitarian language use. The usage of anata remained highly sensitive in discursive

160 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

local interactions and did not easily become a ‘standard’ which could be used reciprocally in any context. Recall Morford’s comment about the French T/V system, that the more widespread use of tu and the tendency of preference for symmetrical use of address terms do not suggest that social differences and barriers have become irrelevant. She states that “contemporary patterns of address and the longer-term historical evolution of such patterns are more complex than popular notions about the ‘generalization of tu’ suggest” (Morford 1997: 4). Similarly, the emerging notion of the reciprocal use of anata in Japanese did not capture the complexity and intricacy of social interactions. By observing native speakers’ debates, what we have seen in this section is that the determining factors in anata’s usages were neither the top-down mode of language policy nor the new set of ideologies attached to anata. Rather, they were a result of cumulative reflexive processes in local communications where individuals’ personal or professional identities, their expression of their own social positions, and a certain degree of freedom in interpretation, interacted with socioculturally oriented norms and ideologically formed trends within society at the time of Japan’s post-war modernization. 6.4 A wife’s use of anata toward her husband Understanding the reflexive processes around the use of anata serves not only to recognize the challenges faced by those who tried to promulgate its use as a standard pronoun, but also to shed light on one remaining issue which I have left until last to analyze, namely, a wife’s use of anata toward her husband. As noted earlier, a wife’s use of anata in modern Japanese is a special case in that it is the only gender-specific use, that is, a female-exclusive use of anata. This use is widely regarded as having had a different historical path from the other non-gendered uses, i.e., the dominant uses we have discussed throughout this book. Among present-day Japanese native speakers, only a wife’s use of anata is regarded as archaic and is linked to hoshuteki de hikaemena tsuma no joseitekina kyarakutaa ‘a wife’s feminine characteristics that are conservative and obedient’ (Shimotani 2012: 90). The temptation in the previous literature has been to invoke a direct connection between the view of the present-day use of anata as a formal or polite pronoun and a wife’s use of anata. That is to say, a wife uses anata toward her husband due to anata’s formal nature and it is a leftover of a male chauvinistic society (Tani 1981: 18). From the point of view which regards anata as a polite second person pronoun by nature, the above account fits well. However, as we have seen in Chapters 4 and 5, as well as in the discussion so far in this chapter, viewing anata as a polite address



Chapter 6.  Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 161

pronoun in modern Japanese cannot explain other cases where its use is regarded as impolite. This means that making a direct connection between a wife’s use of anata and anata as a formal/polite pronoun by nature lacks sufficient explanation and needs further consideration. From the point of view which regards anata as an informal pronoun with an impolite nuance when used toward a superior, a wife’s use of anata toward her husband encounters an obvious problem. There is an apparent inconsistency between anata’s ‘impolite’ nuance and the image of the traditional wife’s ‘polite’ use of the term. For this reason, those who uphold this viewpoint have excluded a wife’s use of anata from analysis as a conventional use, but rather regard it as an exception (e.g., Shimotani 2012), with no need for a systematic explanation. The current study does take the position that a wife’s use of anata should be analyzed separately from the dominant, non-gendered usages as an exceptional case of a gender-exclusive use, one that has become a distinct lexical item with its own, separate semantics. However, this does not mean that I preclude an attempt to understand a wife’s use of anata within a broader socio-historical perspective, with a view to understanding why this usage came to have a different meaning to the usages discussed in earlier chapters. While the previous literature has not even tried to discuss the process whereby a wife’s use of anata has come to be perceived as an archaic usage, as part of my comprehensive analysis of the term, I explore potential reflexive processes by which this usage has come to be felt what it is today. First, I overview the socio-historical background in relation to women’s language use during Japan’s modernization. I show some examples which suggest the path to the establishment of a wife’s use of anata toward her husband as a female-exclusive honorific address form. I then examine today’s female speakers’ reflections which indicate its use in a husband-wife context as archaic. Let us consider the broader historical context of Japan’s language modernization since the Meiji era (1868–1912). As is well known, the Meiji restoration brought significant political, administrative, and educational change to Japan, replacing the feudal Tokugawa government with a modern centralized state (Inoue 2006). During the Meiji period, the process of industrialization, commercialization, and the introduction of compulsory education involved a significant change in the way that family members functioned in their contribution to the household economy and household management. An “increasing separation between productive and reproductive work and the growing clear gender-role distinction” was encouraged by the government (Ishii & Jarkey 2002: 35). Changes to the education system increasingly targeted women’s education and the government “actively launched a project to nationalize women and shape their roles vis-a-vis the state” (Inoue 2006: 80). Inoue (2006: 79) states:

162 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

It was in this context of modern social power in the form of capitalist development and state centralization that “women” as a social category became radically renewed, and “modern Japanese women” emerged as an articulable social category burdened with new cultural meanings pertinent to its relationship with the nation-state.

The educational system that the Meiji government enforced for women was based on the promotion of ryoosai-kembo ‘good wife and wise mother’ (Inoue 2006; Nakamura 2005, 2006). The ideology of ryoosai-kembo advocated the virtues of ideal womanliness, which included traditional values such as obedience to fathers, husbands and, later in life, the eldest male child (Inoue 2006).71 The ryoosai-kembo education prepared women for a gendered role which included efficient household management and motherhood as well as the use of ‘good’ language. In education guidelines, the ‘women’s language’ which was associated with the notion of ryoosai-kembo has been characterized as indirect, soft, non-assertive, and polite (e.g., Endo 1992, 2006; Nakamura 2005, 2006).72 As an example, one of the educational handbooks for women, Shinsen Onna Daigaku ‘The Great New Learning for Women’ (1884, cited in Ishikawa (1973: 356– 357)) maintains that Fujin no kotoba zukai wa otonashiku shitoyakani mimitatanu o yoshi to su ‘Women’s language should be modest and gentle, and it is good not to be assertive’. Nakamura (2005) states that the difference between educational handbooks in the Edo period and the Meiji period is that the concept was transformed from women serving purely the ie ‘household’ to serving the kuni ‘nation’ in the role of ryoosai-kembo ‘good wife and wise mother’. In this sense, women’s language was constructed as part of a broader ideology (Inoue 2006). Another movement related to language modernization resulted in the reinforcement of this notion of an appropriate women’s language. Gendered language was reinforced by the gembun itchi ‘write as you speak’ movements as well as by the standardization of Japanese language (Inoue 2006).73 A gap between written and spoken Japanese and the great diversity of mutually unintelligible dialects were regarded as barriers to the goal of the creation of a modern language for a modern nation (Inoue 2006). The ideology of Kokugo ‘National Language’ and the notion of Hyoojungo ‘Standard Language’ were created at this time (Yasuda 1999). Kokugo and Hyoojungo assumed the Tokyo upper-middle class language as the default and then 71. Inoue (2006: 80) states that this derived from “the Confucianism espoused by the ex-samurai class and from the imported Western cult of domesticity”. 72. A number of studies have discussed the notion of ‘women’s language’ in Japan. See Reynolds (1990), Suzuki (1993), Okamoto (1997), Shibamoto-Smith (2003), and Inoue (2004). 73. For details of the gembun itchi movement, see Yamamoto (1971).



Chapter 6.  Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 163

created a distinction between otoko no kokugo ‘the male language as the national language’ and onnarashii hanashikata ‘the womanly way of talking’ (Nakamura 2005: 114). As for the gembun itchi style, this was the new colloquial written Japanese that progressive Meiji writers developed with the aim of seeking an adequate literary style for modern narrative prose, modeled on Western realist novels. The gembun itchi style reflected the highly ideological language modernization movement and it played a significant role in language users’ identity construction through the spread of print media. Inoue (2006: 92) emphasizes the importance of print media for identity construction in Japan at this time: Whether in school textbooks, newspapers, magazines, fiction, scholarly essays, public speeches, legal statements, military orders, advertisements or colonial education, the new narrating voice not only provided semantico-referential information but also functioned simultaneously as “performative” to authenticate and factualize that which is enunciated.74

A number of educational handbooks for women were published in the Meiji period (1868–1912) and Taisho period (1912–1926) and these books attempted to educate women on every detail of their lives, including how to manage a household, how to behave, and how to treat their husbands.75 Popular magazines read by women served to provide models, not only of behavior but also of language, to women aspiring to construct the identity of a ‘good wife’ (Jarkey 2015).76 Numerous other print materials, including novels that were published since the gembun itchi movement, represented an ideologically-formed modern standard Japanese colloquial style. One of the most popular writers in the late Meiji to Taisho period was Natsume Soseki. Discussing the use of anata in Natsume’s novels, Ishiyama (2008), in his diachronic study of personal pronouns (see Section 2.2), points out that around 74. Inoue cited the word “performative” from Silverstein (1979) and Lee (1997). 75. For example, Onna Gojoo Kun to Gorin no Kyoo (Uesugi 1910) includes phrases such as shujin o tootomi ‘respect (your) husband’, ottoni yoku tsukae ‘serve your husband well’, otto yori sakini nezu […] otto yori sakini okidete, midaregami misenu yoo ‘do not sleep before your husband […] wake up before your husband so you do not show your messy hair’. Katei no Shiori (Nihon Joshi Kasei Gakuin 1915: 5) states Joshi wa juujun nishite mono ni sakarawanu koso tautoki mono nareba, mazu otto no kokoro ni shitagau o michi to seri ‘women are precious only if they are obedient and do not resist. Thus, first of all, it is important to follow their husband’s will’. 76. Jarkey (2015) discusses the role of language in the identity construction of the shufu ‘housewife’ focusing on language use in the popular Japanese women’s magazine Shufu no Tomo ‘The Housewives’ Companion’. She discusses the use of honorifics in that publication as indexing the linguistic signs which were “modelled for women of all classes in Taishō society as a means of attaining the indexed – the femininity of a high-class woman” (Jarkey 2015: 182).

164 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

the time of this writer, the use of anata retained its respectful nuance as a 2sg pronoun. Most importantly for our current discussion, a wife’s use of anata as a female exclusive form is observed in the first Natsume novel, Wagahai wa neko dearu ‘I am a cat’, written during 1905–1906. I consulted two of Natsume’s novels Wagahai wa neko dearu ‘I am a cat’ (1905–1906) and Kokoro ‘Heart’ (1914) and confirmed that in these novels a wife uses anata, but a husband does not. In other words, the gender-specific use of anata between a couple is observed in an established asymmetrical manner. As Inoue (2006) also points out, other features of gender-specific language use, such as a strongly gendered sentence ending style, were observed around the time of Natsume Soseki’s novels. Consider Example (68) from Kokoro. The husband (H) is drinking rice wine with a student who has visited them. He asks his wife (W) to join them: (68) 1

H: Omae=mo hitotsu o-agari. 2sg=also one hon-drink.imp ‘You (omae) have some too.’ 2 W: Watashi=wa…. Mezurashi-i koto. Watashi=ni 1sg=top unusual-npst nmlz 1sg=dat 3   nom-e to osshat-ta koto=wa metta-ni drink-imp quot say.resp-pst nmlz=top rare-adv 4   na-i noni ne. exist.neg-npst even.though ip ‘I…. (It’s) unusual. (You) have rarely asked me to drink though.’ 5 H: Omae=wa kirai da kara sa. 2sg=top dislike cop.npst because ip 6   Shikashi tamani=wa nomu-to i-i yo. but occasionally=top drink-cond good-npst ip 7   I-i kokoromochi-ni nar-u yo. good-npst feeling-adv become-npst ip ‘Because you (omae) don’t like (it). But it’s good to drink occasionally. (You)’ll feel good.’ 8 W: Chittomo nar-ana-i wa. Kurushi-i giri de. at.all become-neg-npst ip queasy-npst only cop.ger 9   Demo anata=wa taihen yukai-soo ne. but 2sg=top very cheerful-look ip 10   Sukoshi o-sake=o meshiagar-u-to. a.little hon-rice.wine=acc drink.resp-npst-cond ‘(I) don’t feel good at all. (I) only feel queasy. But you (anata) look cheerful when you drink rice wine.’ (Kokoro by Natsume Soseki 1914)

In this example, only the wife uses anata to refer to her husband (line 9). On the other hand, the husband refers to his wife with omae (lines 1 and 5). Omae is a 2sg pronoun which is used predominantly by men, regarded as vulgar and indexing the

Chapter 6.  Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 165



addressee’s inferiority except for its reciprocal use between close male interlocutors in informal situations. A husband’s use of omae, as the head of the household referring to his wife, was a norm during the feudal period (Kobayashi 1992). Noticeably, while the husband uses plain expressions such as nomu to ii yo ‘good (if you) drink’ in line 6 and naru yo ‘become’ in line 7, the wife uses some honorific expressions such as osshatta ‘said (HON)’ in line 3 and meshiagaru ‘drink (HON)’ in line 10. Combined with the co-occurring honorific uses by the wife, her use of anata can be regarded as a keishoo ‘honorific address term’. Ishiyama (2008: 127) also remarks about a wife’s use of anata in Wagahai wa neko dearu ‘I am a cat’ that anata is “used respectfully with some degree of intimacy from a wife to a husband, but not the other way around”. Although tracing the exact origin of a wife’s exclusive use of anata by searching through all historical materials is beyond the scope of this study, it can be said that a wife’s use of anata as a female exclusive form and the asymmetrical address practice between a wife and a husband were already established around this time. This makes sense in light of the ryoosai-kembo education for women at the time and the existing patriarchal dominance under which women must speak ‘good language’ in a ‘womanly’ way. The widespread use of this special use of anata as part of the gendered use of language would have been driven by the print media, as described earlier by Inoue (2006). It is worth noting that Natsume Soseki was one of the most widely read authors of the time, meaning that the way a wife spoke in his novels was exposed widely through print media. On the other hand, as we have seen in Section 2.2, Ukigumo, published in 1887, shows the decrease of politeness value in the non-gendered use of anata (Kojima 1974: 69–70). I restate the Example (19) seen in 2.2 as (69) here, which is a conversation between young female Osei (O) from a middle-class family and her male cousin Bunzo (B): (69) 1 2 3 4 5

B: Soredewa nan des-u ka. Honda=wa anata=no then what cop.pol-npst q fn=top 2sg=gen   ki.ni.it-ta to i-u n des-u ka. like-pst quot say-npst nmlz cop.pol-npst q ‘So, what is it? Would you (anata) say (you) got to like Honda?’ O: Ki.ni.ir-u mo ira-na-i mo na-i like-npst also like-neg-npst also exist.neg-npst   keredomo, anata=no i-u yoo-na sono yoo-na but 2sg=gen say-npst like-lnk that like-lnk   harenchi-na hito ja.ar-i-mas-en wa. shameless-lnk person cop-inf-pol-neg.npst ip ‘It’s not whether (I) got to like (him) or not. (He) is not such a shameful person as you (anata) say.’ (Ukigumo by Futabatei Shimei 1887)

166 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

As noted in Section 2.2, Osei and Bunzo are cousins and of equal status and the topic of their conversation is a very private one, although the formal-verbal endings (or desu/masu forms) are used. As Kojima (1974: 69–70) states, the use of anata here has already started showing a decrease in the degree of formality. The bifurcation between the non-gendered use of anata which was in the process of change (i.e., decreasing its politeness value), and a wife’s use of anata as a female exclusive honorific form, is implied. Later, in the early Showa period (1926–1989), some educational handbooks instructing on the proper use of address terms show clearer bifurcation between the non-gendered use of anata and the wife’s use of anata. Recall from the Chuutoo-gakkoo Sahoo Yookoo Kaisetsu ‘Educational Guidelines for Secondary Schools’, published in 1933: Taishoo wa tsuujoo ‘anata’ to shoosubeshi. Doohai ni taishite wa ‘kimi’ to shoosuru mo sashitsukae nashi. Tatoeba kyooshi ni taishite ‘anata’ nado to itte wa kaette kikigurushii mono dearu. Konoyooni, tokutei no hito ni taishite wa, sensei, otoosama, okaasama, ojiisama, obaasama, obasama, daredaresama, nado to iu. As for address terms, it should normally be anata. Toward an equal, it is acceptable to use kimi. If anata is used toward a teacher, for example, it is unpleasant to hear. As such, toward a particular addressee, use ‘teacher’, ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘grandfather’, ‘grandmother’, ‘aunt’, ‘someone-sama’, and so forth. (Chuutoo-gakkoo Sahoo Yookoo Kaisetsu ‘Educational Guidelines  for Secondary Schools’, 1933: 43)

The use of anata at this time was already regarded as inappropriate in cases where there were other expected terms such as titles and kinship terms which could be used toward a superior. Reihoo Yookoo ‘Handbook of Manners’, produced by The Ministry of Education in 1941, also states the same: Taishoo wa, choojoo ni taishite wa, mibun ni oojite sootoo no keishoo o mochiiru. Doohai ni taishite wa, tsuujoo ‘anata’ o mochii, danshi wa ‘kimi’ o mochiitemo yoi. As for address terms, toward a superior, use appropriate respectful address terms depending on their status. Toward an equal, normally use ‘anata’, but it is acceptable for men to use ‘kimi’. (Reihoo Yookoo ‘Handbook of Manners’, cited in Kyukakai 1941: 13)

However, a year after Reihoo Yooko was published, the commentary book Reihoo Yookoo Kaisetsu ‘Commentary on the Handbook of Manners’ was also issued. In this publication, a wife’s ‘correct’ use of anata was explicitly stated as follows: Fuufu dewa otto wa tsuma ni taishite wa na o yobi, tsuma wa otto ni taishite wa ‘anata’ to yobi, mata kafuu ni yotte ‘danna-sama’ tomo yobu. Kachoo ni taishite wa tsuma o hajime ikkajuu no mono ga sootoona keishoo, keigo o mochiiru. Kore wa ikka no chitsujo o tamotsu ue nimo kanjin na koto dearu.



Chapter 6.  Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 167

Between a couple, a husband should use the name to refer to his wife and a wife should refer to her husband as ‘anata’ or danna-sama ‘master’ depending on the family tradition. To the head of a family, not only a wife but all members of a family should use appropriate honorific address terms. This is important to keep the order of the family. (Reihoo Yookoo Kaisetsu ‘Commentary on the Handbook of Manners’, 1942: 60)

This instruction clearly indicates that the use of anata between a couple should be exclusive to the wife as an ‘honorific address term’ toward ‘the head of a family’, her husband. Anata is placed on the same level as danna-sama ‘master’. The commentary strongly reflects the patriarchal family system that continued, in theory at least, until the new constitution was created in 1947. In practice, in many families, it continued well after that. It appears that, on the one hand, the non-gendered use of anata was decreasing in its politeness value, while on the other, a wife’s exclusive use of anata continued to be regarded and reinforced as ‘good manners’ within the ryoosai-kembo ideology of the Meiji period and its ongoing legacy. Thus far, we have looked at a wife’s use of anata during the pre-war modernization period. In contrast to this pre-war time, after World War II the reciprocal use of anata between a wife and a husband was advocated. I have already discussed the post-war ideology of the ‘egalitarian’ use of anata in the previous sections. One of the scholars, Kindaichi, who advocated this usage commented as follows: Shujinkoo ga ‘ore’ ‘omae’, okusan ga ‘watashi’ ‘anata’ ga kanari hiroku okonawareru yoo da ga, koredewa sukunakutomo, danjodooken niwa naranai. Mottomo rippana katei dewa, fuufu tagaini ‘watashi’ ‘anata’ de sabetsu nai tokoro mo aru. Korekara no daimeishi wa, kono hookoo e ikunodewa arumai ka. Fuufu no aida bakari denaku, shokuba demo, mata jookan to kanryoo demo, koomuin to minkanjin to no aida demo, ichiyooni, tagaini ‘watashi’ ‘anata’ demotte, choodo eigo no ‘I’ ‘you’ no yooni, ittara, minshushugi no daimeishi ga hakkiri seiritsusuru no dewa arumai ka. It seems commonly regarded that a husband uses ore and omae, and his wife uses watashi and anata. However, this does not make for the equality of men and women. In respectable households, there are couples who seem to use watashi and anata to each other without discrimination. Pronouns from now on will probably go in such a direction. Not only between a couple, but also in the workplace, between a superior and an inferior, and between a public servant and a citizen, if we use watashi and anata consistently like English ‘I’ and ‘you’, I think a democratic pronoun system will be established. (Kindaichi 1959: 163)

It appears that the discussion around the non-gendered use of anata and a wife’s exclusive use of anata was amalgamated here. We have already seen in previous sections that the reciprocal use of anata in local communications was not possible. With regard to the promoted symmetrical use of anata between a couple, it appears that this also was not achieved.

168 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

It has been more than fifty years since this debate. Looking at the results of the survey undertaken for the current study, the female participants who chose ‘always’ for their use of anata toward their husband were observed only among those in and above the 40s age group, with the rate becoming slightly higher for older generations (11.6% for 40s, 16.7% for 50s and 24.3% for 60s). The results also clearly show that among married female respondents in their 20s and 30s, no one reported that they would regularly use anata toward their husbands. Given the social norms documented in educational handbooks of early Showa, it can be interpreted that this usage has been retained to a small extent in older generations but is disappearing among people in their 40s and 50s, and among younger generations it is not the norm anymore. Looking at the male participants, no married men in their 60s chose ‘I always use anata toward my wife’. Among those in their 40s and 50s, it was only 3%. It is impossible to achieve ‘reciprocal’ use of anata if men hardly use it at all. In fact, instead of achieving the reciprocal use of anata, present-day female speakers seem to be simply abandoning the wife’s exclusive use of anata. Inoue (2006: 259) reported on the voices of Japanese female interviewees in their 20s, who had professions and had gained economic and social independence, talking about their mothers. They clearly differentiated themselves from their housewife-mothers and described their mothers’ generation with some pity as “staying home and sacrificing everything for their children and husbands” (Inoue 2006: 259). This image of their mother’s generation held by the young women in Inoue’s study is in line with the image held by the younger survey respondents in the current study of the wife who uses anata toward her husband. A respondent in her 20s made the following comment: Genzai no yooni danjo byoodoo to iwareru yori izen, shoowa ya sore izen no tsuma ga otto ni tsukau imeeji ga arimasu. […] Otto o sonkei shi tateru, otto no ippo ushiro ni iru tsuma toiu kanji ga shimasu. Josei no chii koojoo, shakai shinshutsu, danjobyoodoo no genjoo dewa amari kanjirarenai kanjoo kamo shiremasen. I feel that a wife in the past referred to her husband (as anata), in such eras as the Showa era or even before, namely, the time before gender equality was established like today. […] (With a wife’s use of anata), I visualize a wife who treats her husband with respect and stays one step behind her husband. Improvement of women’s status, their advance into society, and gender equality are the current state, so (we) may not really feel the same as them. (Respondent 125)

In this comment, the young respondent associates the wife’s use of anata with an old era (Showa or even before), before any gender equality was established. She clearly detaches herself and her generation from the women of this ‘old era’ and treats a wife’s use of anata as something she cannot align with. It was not until 1985 when The Equal Employment Opportunity Act was legislated that truly equal rights for



Chapter 6.  Ideology, identity, reflexive processes, and the use of anata 169

women in terms of opportunities in society were at least officially granted. The possibility of advancing into society equally seems to have given younger generations significantly different perceptions about their lives to those of their mothers’ generation. In the survey comments, a common perception among respondents was that they do not encounter this use much anymore and feel that it is disappearing: Tsuma kara otto e no ‘anata’ wa, ima no jidai wa iwanakunatte kiteimasu ne. A wife’s (use of) anata to her husband is used less and less nowadays.  (Respondent 211) Tsuma ga otto ni anata o tsukau keesu wa kanari sukunakunatteiru no dewa nai ka to soozoo (akumade soozoo) saremasu. Sooiu yobikata o shiteiru no o kiitara, retoro na inshoo o motsu kana. I imagine (I can only imagine) that cases in which a wife uses anata to her husband have become fewer and fewer. If I hear someone calling (her husband) in that way, I get a ‘retro’ impression. (Respondent 319) Watashi tachi ga tsukau anata to tsuma kara otto e no anata wa, chigau to omou. Terebi ya shoosetsu igai de tsukatteru hito o mitakoto ga nai ki ga suru. Mukashi no iikata? I think that our use of anata and a wife’s use of anata is a different type. I feel that I have never encountered a wife’s use of anata except for on TV or in novels. An old expression? (Respondent 69)

A wife’s use of anata, which was once regarded as part of wifely good behavior, was intimately connected to a broader notion of women’s language which was further contrived by a highly ideological, political, and social movement during Japan’s modernization. As noted earlier, an attempt was made using a top-down approach to advocate the reciprocal use of anata between a wife and a husband, just as in relationships of all other kinds. However, perhaps because of the highly respectful connotations which were evoked by the wife’s use of the term, a husband’s non-use actually reveals an intolerance of equality in this historically established asymmetrical address practice. One of the ways in which female speakers challenged this seems to have been by choosing not to employ this usage anymore. Instead, faced with no hope of achieving parity in address practice with their spouse through the reciprocal use of anata, present-day female speakers may attempt to do so by abandoning the wife’s exclusive use of anata. The ‘archaic’ nuance, which is only felt in the case of a wife’s use of anata to her husband, may come from reflexive processes generated through changes in society and in the changing stance of women toward their position in society and domestic gender roles.

170 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

6.5

Summary

In this chapter, I have explored the social discourses that occurred regarding the use of anata after the post-war language policy proposal nominated it as a ‘standard’ address term. The core property of anata (in all but its gender-exclusive use), that is, absolute specification of the second person entity without displaying the interlocutors’ social elements, was ideologically intuited as a symbol of democracy, equality, and the deconstruction of hierarchy. At the same time, there was a complete lack of recognition that the gender-exclusive, wife’s use of anata was semantically completely different and, therefore, a distinct lexical item. This usage was, in fact, laden with social meaning, harkening back to an era in which it functioned precisely to express respect towards the ‘master of the house’. Examining the public debates concerning the language policy, I described the different views toward the notion of the ‘standard’ use of anata. I have shown that the determining factors in speakers’ ideology formation about the use of anata were neither the top-down mode of policy implementation nor the new egalitarianism attached to anata. Rather, they were a result of cumulative reflexive processes in local communications. Users’ personal or professional identities and their stance toward their own social roles were interwoven and interacted with socioculturally oriented norms and ideologically formed trends in society. These reflexive processes were inevitably implicated in Japan’s modernization. I have also uncovered possible reflexive processes regarding the perception of a wife’s use of anata. This use was once regarded as part of the behavior of a ‘good wife’, within a broader notion of an ideologically constructed women’s language during the modernization of Japan. It is nowadays regarded as an archaic use and seems to be disappearing. The disinclination toward reciprocal address behavior by husbands has been challenged by female speakers’ choice to simply no longer employ this term themselves. At the same time, the social context has been changing. The ‘archaic’ nuance felt only in the case of a wife’s exclusive use of anata may come from reflexive processes generated through changes in society and through women’s current stance toward their position in society and gender roles. After observing language users’ reflexive processes, the discursive perceptions of this one word among native speakers come to make sense. As Silverstein (1985: 220) states, we have seen aspects of linguistic facts and ideologies that are “irreducibly dialectic in nature” in an “indifferently synchronic-diachronic totality”.

Chapter 7

Conclusion

The aim of this book has been to present a comprehensive analysis of the 2sg pronoun anata ‘you’ in Japanese, the use of which has long been regarded as a mystery. Among the numerous Japanese person reference terms, this word has been considered yakkai ‘troublesome’ and tsukainikui ‘difficult to use’ (Miwa 2010: 4), having iroirona ‘multiple’ meanings (Jinnouchi 1998: 49), and hence dokutoku ‘unique’ (Jung 1999: 27). While the mystery of the use of anata has generated both scholarly quests and a great deal of public interest, no published studies have systematically investigated this pronoun and uncovered its core semantic property. Previously, all person reference terms in Japanese have been treated as ‘social indexicals’, being semantically loaded to encode the social elements of the interlocutors. This study has found just one use of anata, that of a wife to her husband, that acts as a social indexical. In all other uses, anata does not have this feature and this unique property has been almost completely overlooked in the field of Japanese linguistics. This book has shown empirically that neither an indication of the degree of politeness nor information about the interlocutor’s social characteristics are genuine properties of this dominant use of anata. By adopting the notion of ‘absolute specification’, the study has revealed that anata’s core property is its ability to specify the second person entity with reference to neither politeness nor social attributes. In order to reveal this property of anata, it has been necessary to step aside from the view that all Japanese personal pronouns differ from one another only according to a limited set of socially defined parameters. Instead, it has been essential to conduct a thorough investigation into the word from numerous different angles. One crucial angle taken in this investigation has been to approach anata from the perspective of the intersection between semantics and pragmatics. The Japanese person reference system is full of semantically loaded terms and this has led scholars to search for a semantically loaded meaning in anata. However, this approach has clearly not worked in the quest to solve the mystery. This study has revealed that anata is actually semantically very simple and its expressive effects are explained only in pragmatic terms. In doing so, the study has shown that it is essential to bring to bear a thorough understanding of pragmatics, which integrates key issues and concepts such as common ground, notions of social norms, and shared

172 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

understandings, as discussed in Chapter 2, in order to fully grasp the meaning and usage of this particular term. Further, it was only by exploring the topic from yet other perspectives that this study has been able to identify that anata is in fact not simply another element in a socially defined system but rather stands completely outside this system. In this book, each chapter has contributed to this discovery from different perspectives with mixed methods. Chapter 3 involved a sociolinguistic investigation in which I elicited native speakers’ perceptions regarding the use of anata through a questionnaire. The results show that anata is not considered a regular person reference term, regardless of the interlocutors’ relative social status. Native speakers’ metalinguistic reflections show a strong sense of iwakan ‘unsuitability’ concerning its use in everyday conversations. Speakers’ disparate perceptions of anata included contradictory views such as its being polite/impolite, distant/intimate, and so on. This in turn indicates that none of these diverse perceptions can be genuine semantic properties of anata. The survey results have also led to the realization that a traditional classification of the relationship between the speaker and the addressee in Japanese communication, which has primarily been based on a superior-inferior dichotomy, has not worked to fully understand the use of anata. Given this, Chapters 4 and 5 have taken a novel perspective toward relationship classification in Japanese by adopting two broad categories, namely, socially ‘undefinable’ relationships and socially ‘definable’ relationships. Chapter 4 is devoted to exploring the use of anata in socially undefinable relationships. The socially inert nature of anata makes it possible for the term to occur almost without restriction in contexts where the interlocutors’ social relationship is undefinable. This includes cases such as when anata refers to a general audience and to a socially unrelated or unfamiliar addressee. It also includes generic and vague uses of anata in constructed dialogue. The analysis of generic and vague uses of anata refutes the assumption of previous typological studies that languages like Japanese without closed personal pronoun paradigms do not have generic and vague (‘impersonal’) uses of 2sg pronouns. These uses can indeed appear when anata occurs in constructed dialogue in Japanese. The discovery of these generic and vague uses of this pronoun also serves as strong evidence of its core property, absolute specification of the second person entity with no reference to social factors. Given this clear evidence of the core semantic property of anata emerging in socially undefinable relationships, Chapter 5 turns to its use in socially definable relationships, systematically explaining how this property of absolute specification creates strong pragmatic effects in this context of use. Here, the absence of the indication of the interlocutors’ social relationship that occurs with anata conflicts with the cultural norm of ‘relationship acknowledgement’ in Japanese communication.



Chapter 7. Conclusion 173

Thus, in socially typified relationships, the use of anata is often a departure from normative address practices and this deviation from the expected cultural norm generates a range of powerful pragmatic effects. These include rejection of the usual relationship, a strong message of impoliteness, and an attempt to speak sincerely to the addressee’s ‘core self ’. I have shown that knowledge of cultural norms and common ground in Japanese communication is crucial to the understanding of the relationship between the semantic property of anata and its pragmatic effects. Finally, Chapter 6 has taken an anthropological and historical perspective, focusing on the period in which this pronoun became the subject of nationwide debate during Japan’s post-war modernization. It also addressed the issue of the one now rather archaic usage of anata, that of a wife to her husband, demonstrating its socially loaded semantics and thus its status as a distinct lexical item. The chapter has shown how emerging ideology, established social norms, and conflicting ideas concerning individual identity were interwoven at a particular time in history and were subject to complex reflexive processes in the understanding of the use of anata. The chapter has also shown that the contemporary attitudes toward the term are an inescapable outcome of this history. By analyzing the use of anata from these numerous different angles, I have revealed aspects of language use which are far more dynamic than the model of prescriptive norms suggests. Identifying the core property of the dominant use of anata, understanding the mechanisms by which this property interacts with cultural norms and creates strong pragmatic effects, and recognizing intricate ideological discourse centered around the term, the disparate perceptions held previously by scholars and native speakers toward anata come to make sense. At the start of this book, I drew on a quotation from Garde (2013: 241) concerning the intersection between anthropology and linguistics. I cite it here again with additional comments he made in his work on Bininj Gunwok, an Australian language: The appeal of studying person reference in interaction is that it involves encounters with some of the great intersecting themes of anthropology and linguistics – the formation and interactive negotiation of identity and personhood, reference to self and others, and the relationship between the singular person and the collective group expressed through everyday talk and narrative. […] Detailing a cultural account of how these various sociocultural frames are played out by Bininj Gunwok speakers in everyday talk ultimately allows us to learn something of the local beliefs and values about personhood and the place of people in social networks. (Garde 2013: 241–242)

174 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

This study has indeed revealed aspects of key cultural values and norms as well as aspects of personhood and reflections of social reality in Japanese communication. However, most importantly, the study also adds to our understanding of aspects of address practices which allow Japanese language users, on occasion, to avoid locating themselves in a certain social place but instead to stand apart from the social system. I hope to have shown that an in-depth and comprehensive investigation of a single linguistic item, the perceptions that current speakers have of it along with historical attitudes toward it, as well as its contemporary uses in a broad range of contexts and genres, can help us truly understand the place of this item at the intersection of language, culture, and society.

References

Aalberse, Suzanne & Wessel Stoop. 2015. The exceptional loss of the pronoun T. Journal of Pragmatics 88. 190–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.003 Agha, Asif. 2006. Language and social relations. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618284 Anchimbe, Eric A. 2011. On not calling people by their names: Pragmatic undertones of sociocultural relationships in a postcolony. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 1472–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.013 Anchimbe, Eric A. & Richard W. Janney. 2011. Postcolonial pragmatics: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6). 1451–1459.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.027 Araki, Hiroyuki. 1990. Keigo no japanorojii: Keigo o kangaeru nihonjin o kangaeru [Japanology of honorifics: Thoughts about honorifics, thoughts about Japanese people]. Tokyo: Sotakusha Shuppan. Araki, Tatsuo. 2003. Nihongo ni okeru ninshoodaimeishi no yoohoo: Jibun no oya o anata to yobu koto wa dekiru no ka? [The usage of personal pronouns in the Japanese language: Is it possible to call one’s own parents anata ‘you’?]. Comparative Studies of Language and Culture, Shikoku Gakuin University 1. 175–186. Backhouse, Anthony E. 1993. The Japanese language: An introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Barke, Andrew & Satoshi Uehara. 2005. Japanese pronouns of address: Their behavior and maintenance over time. In Robin Lakoff & Sachiko Ide (eds.), Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness, 301–313. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.139.25bar Berque, Augustin. 2006. From Watsuji’s concept of ‘human’ to beyond the limits of modern ontological topos. In Samantha Wauchope (ed.), Cultural diversity and transversal values: East-West dialogue on spiritual and secular dynamics, 138–144. Paris: UNESCO. Biq, Yung-O. 1991. The multiple uses of the second person singular pronoun ni in conversational Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics 16(4). 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90084-B Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848113 Brown, James D. 2001. Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 Brown, Roger W. & Albert Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 253–276. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. Bruner, Jerome. 1983. Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York/London: Norton. Bucholtz, Mary & Kira Hall. 2004. Language and identity. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology, 369–394. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

176 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 Compton, Carol J. 1994. Choosing Lao pronouns for conversational purposes: Negotiating and establishing relationships verbally. Second Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 135–146. Condon, Jane. 1981. It’s prime time for Japan’s Barbara Walters, Tetsuko Kuroyanagi. People 16(22). 83. Cong, Yang Hui & Ryozo Aoki. 2011. Keiei senryaku to riidaashippu sutairu to no kankei [The relationship between business strategy and leadership style]. Journal of the University of Marketing and Distribution Sciences: Distribution Sciences & Business Administration 24(1). 93–114. Cooke, Joseph R. 1968. Pronominal reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. Doctoral dissertation. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley. Coulmas, Florian. 1985. Direct and indirect speech: General problems and problems of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 9(1). 41–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90047-5 Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25(3). 349–367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 35–72.  https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35 Culpeper, Jonathan. 2008. Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, 17–44. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dahl, Östen. 2001. Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. ­Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 471–480. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.24dah Dale, Ian R. H. 1978. Beyond intuition: The use of questionnaires in linguistic investigation. Anthropological Linguistics 20(4). 158–166. Diamond, Julie. 1996. Status and power in verbal interaction: A study of discourse in a close-knit social network. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.40 Dickey, Eleanor. 1997. Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics 33(2). 255–274.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226797006488 Diessel, Holger. 2003. The relationship between demonstratives and interrogatives. Studies in Language 27(3). 635–655.  https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.3.06die Diller, Anthony. 1994. Thai. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings, 149–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.25.10dil Doi, Takeo. 1971. Amae no koozoo [The anatomy of dependence]. Tokyo: Kobundo. Drew, Paul & John Heritage. 1992. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press. Duchan, Judith F., Gail A. Bruder & Lynne E. Hewitt. 1995. Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale/NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Durie, Mark. 1984. A grammar of Acehnese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Canberra: The Australian National University. Endo, Orie. 1992. Josei no yobikata daikenkyuu [Studies of address terms for women]. Tokyo: Sanseido. Endo, Orie. 2006. A cultural history of Japanese women’s language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Japanese Studies.  https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9340262

References 177

Enfield, Nick J. 2002. Combinatoric properties of natural semantic metalanguage expressions in Lao. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings, 145–256. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.61.08enf Enfield, Nick J. 2004. Ethnosyntax: Introduction. In Nick J. Enfield (ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in grammar and culture, 1–32. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199266500.003.0001 Enfield, Nick J. 2007a. Meaning of the unmarked: How ‘default’ person reference does more than just refer. In Nick J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives, 97–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.006 Enfield, Nick J. 2007b. A grammar of Lao. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207538 Enfield, Nick J. 2011. Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 285–312. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013 Enfield, Nick J. 2013. Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. New York: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199338733.001.0001 Enfield, Nick J. 2015. The utility of meaning: What words mean and why. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Enfield, Nick J. & Bernard Comrie. 2015. Mainland Southeast Asian languages. In Nick J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art, 1–27. Berlin/München/Boston: De Gruyter.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501501685-001 Enfield, Nick J. & Tanya Stivers. 2007. Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746 Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1972. On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. In John J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 213–250. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Evans, Nicholas. 1993. Code, inference, placedness and ellipsis. In William A. Foley (ed.), The role of theory in language description, 243–280. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872835.243 Evans, Nicholas. 2010. Dying words: Endangered languages and what they have to tell us. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Ewing, Michael & Dwi Noverini Djenar. 2019. Address, reference and sequentiality in Indonesian conversation. In Paul Bouissac (ed.), The social dynamics of pronominal systems: A comparative approach, 253–287. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.304.11ewi Fleming, Luke & James Slotta. 2018. The pragmatics of kin address: A sociolinguistic universal and its semantic affordances. Journal of Sociolinguistics 22(4). 375–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12304 Foley, William A. 1997. Anthropological linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Fujii, Yoko. 2011. Nihongo no shinzoku koshoo, ninshooshi ni miru jiko to tasha no ichizuke: Soogo kooi no ba ni okeru bunkateki jikokan no koosatsu [A study of how to situate the self and the other in the use of address terms in Japanese: An interpretation from the cultural perspective of ba in interaction]. Journal of Studies in Literature, Japan Women’s University 60. 86–73.

178 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Fujii, Yoko. 2012. Differences of situating self in the place/ba of interaction between the Japanese and American English speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 44(5). 636–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.007 Fujii, Yoko. 2013. Social indexicality of the ‘zero’ form of address terms in Japanese: The interpretation from the amae concept on the basis of ‘inseparable self and the other’. Memoirs of the Japan Women’s University Faculty of Literature 62. 23–34. Fujiwara, Yoichi. 2000. Nihongo hoogen bumpoo [Grammar of Japanese dialects]. Tokyo: Musashino Shoin. Garde, Murray. 2013. Culture, interaction and person reference in an Australian language: An ethnography of Bininj Gunwok communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/clu.11 Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books. Gergely, György, Harold Bekkering & Ildikó Király. 2002. Developmental psychology: Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature 415(6873). 755–756.  https://doi.org/10.1038/415755a Gergely, György & Gergely Csibra. 2006. Sylvia’s recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge. In Nick J. Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and interaction, 229–255. Oxford: Berg. Givón, Talmy. 1993. English grammar vol. 1: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/z.engram1 Goffman, Erving. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18(3). 213–231.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 Green, Georgia M. 1995. Ambiguity resolution and discourse interpretation. In Kees van Deemter & Stanley Peters (eds.), Semantic ambiguity and underspecification, 1–26. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Speech acts, 41–58. Leiden: Brill.  https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press. Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hamaguchi, Eshun. 1998. Nihonshakai towa nani ka: Fukuzatsukei no shiten kara [What is Japanese society?: Viewed as a complex system]. Tokyo: NHK Books. Hanks, William F. 2014. Introduction to emancipatory pragmatics, special issue part 3: From practice theory to ba theory. Journal of Pragmatics 69. 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.004 Hashiguchi, Miki. 1998. Nininshoo daimeishi anata no rekishiteki hensen ni tsuite [On the history of the Japanese second person pronoun anata]. Journal of Studies in Kashima Taiiku University 19. 55–63. Hassall, Tim. 2013. Pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: The case of address terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics 55. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.003 Hatta, Yoko. 2003. The issues of making English an official language and English education in Japan. Bunkyo University Bungakubu Kiyo [Journal of Literature] 16(2). 107–136. Haviland, John Beard. 1979. How to talk to your brother-in-law in Guugu Yimidhirr. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Languages and their speakers, 161–240. Cambridge (Mass.): Winthrop.

References 179

Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hill, Beverly, Sachiko Ide, Shoko Ikuta, Akiko Kawasaki & Tsunao Ogino. 1986. Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics 10(3). 347–371.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90006-8 Hinds, John. 1982. Ellipsis in Japanese. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. Hock, Hans Henrich. 1986. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871975 Hoshina, Koichi. 1942. Daitooa kyooeiken to kokugo seisaku [Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and national language policy]. Tokyo: Junseisha. Ide, Sachiko. 1982. Japanese sociolinguistics politeness and women’s language. Lingua 57(2–4). 357–385.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(82)90009-2 Ide, Sachiko. 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8(2/3). 223–248.  https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223 Ide, Sachiko. 1990a. Person references of Japanese and American children. In Sachiko Ide & Naomi Hanaoka McGloin (eds.), Aspects of Japanese women’s language, 43–61. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Ide, Sachiko. 1990b. How and why do women speak more politely in Japanese? In Sachiko Ide & Naomi Hanaoka McGloin (eds.), Aspects of Japanese women’s language, 63–79. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Ide, Sachiko. 1992a. On the notion of wakimae: Toward an integrated framework of linguistic politeness. Mosaic of Language: Essays in Honour of Professor Natsuko Okuda, Mejiro Linguistic Society. 298–305. Ide, Sachiko. 1992b. Gender and function of language use: Quantitative and qualitative evidence from Japanese. Pragmatics and Language Learning 3. 117–129. Ide, Sachiko. 2006. Wakimae no goyooron [Pragmatics of wakimae]. Tokyo: Sanseido. Ide, Sachiko. 2012. Roots of the wakimae aspect of linguistic politeness: Modal expressions and Japanese sense of self. In Michel Meeuwis & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Pragmaticizing understanding: Studies for Jef Verschueren, 121–138. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.170.08ide Ide, Sachiko & Chikako Sakurai. 1997. Shiten to modaritii no gengo koodoo [Speech act, viewpoint and modality]. In Yukinori Takubo (ed.), Shiten to gengo koodoo [Viewpoint and speech act], 119–153. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Ide, Sachiko & Kishiko Ueno. 2011. Honorifics and address terms. In Gisle Andersen & Karin Aijmer (eds.), Pragmatics of society, 439–470. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214420.439 Ilie, Cornelia. 2001. Unparliamentary language: Insults as cognitive forms of ideological confrontation. In René Dirven, Roslyn Frank & Cornelia Ilie (eds.), Language and ideology, 235–263. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.205.14ili Ilie, Cornelia. 2010. Strategic uses of parliamentary forms of address: The case of the U.K. Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag. Journal of Pragmatics 42(4). 885–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.017 Inaba, Akihide. 1998. Jendaa to sutoresu [Gender and stress]. Kikan Kakei Keizai Kenkyuu [Quarterly Studies of Household Economy] 37(Winter). 32–40. Inoue, Miyako. 2004. What does language remember?: Indexical inversion and the naturalized history of Japanese women. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14(1). 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2004.14.1.39

180 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Inoue, Miyako. 2006. Vicarious language: Gender and linguistic modernity in Japan. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. Irvine, Judith T. 1974. Strategies of status manipulation in the Wolof greeting. In Richard Bauman & Joel Scherzer (eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking, 167–191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ishii, Kazumi & Nerida Jarkey. 2002. The housewife is born: The establishment of the notion and identity of the shufu in modern Japan. Japanese Studies 22(1). 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/103713902201436732 Ishikawa, Matsutaro. 1973. Nihon kyookasho taikei 15 kan: Joshi yoo [Japanese textbook system vol. 15: For women]. Tokyo: Kodansha. Ishiyama, Osamu. 2008. Diachronic perspective on personal pronouns in Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York: State University of New York at Buffalo. Ishiyama, Osamu. 2012. The diachronic relationship between demonstratives and first/second person pronouns. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13(1). 50–71. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.13.1.03ish Ishiyama, Osamu. 2019. Diachrony of personal pronouns in Japanese: A functional and cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.344 Jakobson, Roman. 1971 [1957]. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In Roman Jakobson (ed.), Selected writings, 130–147. The Hague: Mouton. Janney, Richard W. & Horst Arndt. 1993. Universality and relativity in cross-cultural politeness research: A historical perspective. Multilingua 12(1). 13–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1993.12.1.13 Jarkey, Nerida. 2015. The housewife’s companion: Identity construction in a Japanese women’s magazine. In Dwi Noverini Djenar, Ahmar Mahboob & Ken Cruickshank (eds.), Language and identity across modes of communication, 179–201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513599.179 Jenson, Kenneth. 1988. Forms of address in Indonesian. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 81. 113–138.  https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.81-82.05jen Jespersen, Otto. 1929. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin. Jinnouchi, Masataka. 1998. Nihongo no ima [Japanese today]. Tokyo: Arc. Jung, Hyeseon. 1999. Nihongo ninshooshi no shakaigengogakuteki koosatsu [Sociolinguistic study of Japanese personal reference terms]. Unpublished master’s thesis. Osaka: Osaka State University. Jung, Hyeseon. 2003. Nihongo ninshooshi no shakaigengogakuteki kenkyuu [Sociolinguistic study of Japanese personal reference terms]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Osaka: Osaka State University. Kadoya, Takateru. 2009. Kyuushuu hoogen ni okeru ninshoo daimeishi yurai no bunmatsushi [Considerations about sentence final particles derived from personal pronouns in the Kyushu Area]. Nagoya Hoogen Kenkyuukai Kaihoo [Journal of Nagoya Dialect Society] 25. 133–145. Kagetsu, Mayumi. 2008. Kokkai kaigiroku ni okeru kizukanai hoogen [Unrealised dialect in the minutes of the Japanese Diet]. In Kenjiro Matsuda (ed.), Kokkai kaigiroku o tsukatta nihongo kenkyuu [Studies of Japanese language using the minutes of the Japanese Diet], 207–233. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Kajiwara, Makiko. 2004. Nihongo ni okeru taishooshi anata no shiyooryooiki ni tsuite [The usage of anata: The second person pronouns in Japanese]. Journal of International Student Centre, Shinshu University 5. 47–57.

References 181

Kamada, Osamu. 2000. Nihongo no inyoo [Reported speech in Japanese]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Kameyama, Megumi. 1985. Zero anaphora: The case of Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford: Stanford University. Kanai, Hayato. 2002. Shitsureisa toiu kanten kara mita nininshoo shiji no taikei [Second person reference system from the perspective of impoliteness]. Journal of the Faculty of Literature Study, Graduate School of Waseda University 3(48). 83–98. Kanai, Hayato. 2003a. Futsuu meishi ni yoru nininshoo shiji: Kansetsuka toiu sutorategii [Second person reference with proper nouns: Strategy of indirectness]. Kokugogaku Kenkyuu to Shiryoo [Studies in Japanese Linguistics and Materials] 26. 13–23. Kanai, Hayato. 2003b. Nininshoo shiji ni okeru shijishi sochira ni tsuite no koosatsu: Nininshoo meishi anata tono taishoo o tooshite [Study of sochira as a second person reference: Through the comparative study of anata]. Journal of Centre for International Students, Hitotsubashi University 6. 53–62. Kanai, Hayato. 2012. About the idea of second person pronoun by Ortega. Journal for International Education & Research: Centre for International Exchange, Saitama University 6. 24–31. Kanamaru, Fumi. 1997. Ninshoo daimeishi, koshoo [Person pronouns and address terms]. In Sachiko Ide (ed.), Joseigo no sekai [The world of women’s language], 15–32. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Kanokporn, Kaenjak. 1990. Koshoo no taishoo kenkyuu: Tai go [Contrastive study of address terms: Thai]. Nihongogaku 9. 59–64. Kanzaki, Takaaki. 1994. Nichi-eigo daimeishi no kenkyuu [A study of pronouns in English and Japanese]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Karim, Nik Safiah. 1995. Personal pronouns and forms of address in Malay. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 6(3). 183–191. Katagiri, Yasuhiro. 2007. Dialogue functions of Japanese sentence-final particles yo and ne. Journal of Pragmatics 39(7). 1313–1323.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.013 Kawai, Hayao. 1976. Bosei shakai nihon no byoori [The pathology of Japan as a maternal society]. Tokyo: Chuo Koronsha. Kim, Angela A-Jeoung. 2012. Power and solidarity as observed in forms of address/reference in Japanese political discourse: Focusing on selected samples from the minutes of the Japanese Diet (2001–2005) in BCCWJ. Journal of Japanese and Japanese Language Education, Keio University 40. 19–47. Kindaichi, Kyosuke. 1959. Nihon no keigo [Japanese honorifics]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten. Kitagawa, Chisako & Adrienne Lehrer. 1990. Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 14(5). 739–759.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-W Kluge, Bettina. 2016. Generic uses of the second person singular – how speakers deal with referential ambiguity and misunderstandings. Pragmatics 26(3). 501–522. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.3.07klu Kobayashi, Emiko. 1992. Suki dakara omae nante: Paatonaa no yobikata [Using omae because of love?: How to address one’s partner]. In Orie Endo (ed.), Josei no yobikata daikenkyuu [Studies of address terms for women], 11–53. Tokyo: Sanseido. Kojima, Toshio. 1974. Kooki edo kotoba no keigo taikei [The honorific system in the late Edo period]. Tokyo: Kazama Shoin. Kori, Chizuko. 2003. Ichininshoo daimeishi no shiyoo jittai to shiyoo ishiki ni tsuite: Hirosaki shi no seijin danjo no baai [Situations and perceptions when using the first person pronoun: Focusing on adults in Hirosaki]. Journal of the Faculty of Education, Hirosaki University 90. 1–8.

182 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Koyama, Wataru. 2004. The linguistic ideologies of modern Japanese honorifics and the historic reality of modernity. Language & Communication 24(4). 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2004.01.003 Koyano, Tetsuo. 1996. Terebi to wakamono kotoba [Television and youth language]. Nihongogaku [Journal of Japanese Linguistics] 15(9). 36–45. Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. Kuroda, Shigeyuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Kurokawa, Shozo. 1972. Japanese terms of address: Some usages of the first and second person pronouns. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 1(2). 228–238.  https://doi.org/10.1515/jjl-1972-0205 Kyukakai. 1941. Kaisetsu reihoo yookoo: Mombushoo seitei [Explanation of handbook of manners: Enacted by The Ministry of Education]. Tokyo: Bunenkaku. Labov, William. 1978. Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Blackwell. Lakoff, Robin. 1973a. The logic of politeness: Minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS), 292–395. Lakoff, Robin. 1973b. Language and woman’s place. Language in Society 2(1). 45–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500000051 Lakoff, Robin. 1977. What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures, 79–105. Lakoff, Robin. 1979. Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 327(1). 53–78.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1979.tb17753.x Lee, Benjamin. 1997. Talking heads: Language, metalanguage, and the semiotics of subjectivity. Durham: Duke University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822382461 Lee, Duck-Young. 2002. The function of the zero particle with special reference to spoken Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 34(6). 645–682.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00042-5 Lee, Duck-Young. 2007. Involvement and the Japanese interactive particles ne and yo. Journal of Pragmatics 39(2). 363–388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.06.004 Lee, Duck-Young & Yoko Yonezawa. 2008. The role of the overt expression of first and second person subject in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 40(4). 733–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.06.004 Lee, Narah. 2014. A reconsideration of the omission of first and second person subjects in modern spoken Korean: Focusing on the pragmatic meanings of the overt subject expressions. Discourse and Cognition 21(3). 145–164.  https://doi.org/10.15718/discog.2014.21.3.145 Lee, Narah. 2019. A pragmatic and sociocultural perspective to subject expression in spoken Korean: With focus on first and second person. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Canberra: The Australian National University. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London/New York: Longman. Leith, Dick. 1997. A social history of English. London/New York: Routledge. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 Levinson, Stephen C. 2004. Deixis. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory L. Ward (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell. Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110926552 Locher, Miriam A. & Holger Limberg. 2012. Introduction to advice in discourse. In Holger Limberg & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Advice in discourse, 1–27. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.221.02int

References 183

Luong, Hy V. 1990. Discursive practices and linguistic meanings: The Vietnamese system of person reference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.11 Mao, LuMing Robert. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics 21(5). 451–486.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6 Martin, Samuel. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press. Matsuda, Kenjiro. 2004. The on-line full-text database of the minutes of the Diet: Its potentials and limitations. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics at Kobe Shoin 7. 55–82. Matsuda, Kenjiro. 2008. Kokkai kaigiroku o tsukatta nihongo kenkyuu [Studies of Japanese language using the minutes of the Japanese Diet]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12(4). 403–426.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3 Maynard, Senko K. 1993. Discourse modality: Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.24 Maynard, Senko K. 1996. Multivoicedness in speech and thought representation: The case of self-quotation in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 25. 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00097-2 Maynard, Senko K. 1997. Japanese communication: Language and thought in context. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824863074 Maynard, Senko K. 2000. Jooi no gengogaku: Basho kooshooron to nihongo hyoogen no patosu [Linguistic emotivity: Place and negotiation theory and pathos of Japanese expressions]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Maynard, Senko K. 2001a. Expressivity in discourse: Vocatives and themes in Japanese. Language Sciences 23(6). 679–705.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00024-3 Maynard, Senko K. 2001b. Falling in love with style: Expressive functions of stylistic shifts in a Japanese television drama series. Functions of Language 8(1). 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.8.1.02may Maynard, Senko K. 2001c. Koisuru futari no kanjoo kotoba: Dorama hyoogen no bunseki to nihongoron [Emotive language between lovers: Drama analysis and a study of Japanese]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Maynard, Senko K. 2016. Fluid orality in the discourse of Japanese popular culture. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.263 McGloin, Naomi Hanaoka. 1990. Sex difference and sentence-final particles. In Sachiko Ide & Naomi Hanaoka McGloin (eds.), Aspects of Japanese women’s language, 23–41. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Minagawa, Harumi. 2009. The specificity and the constraints on NP-external placement of quantity expressions in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 25(1). 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/jjl-2009-0104 Miwa, Masashi. 2000. Ninshooshi to keigo [Person reference terms and honorifics]. Kyoto: Jimbun Shoin. Miwa, Masashi. 2005. Ichininshoo nininshoo to taiwa [First/second person reference terms and dialogue]. Kyoto: Jimbun Shoin. Miwa, Masashi. 2010. Nihongo ninshooshi no fushigi: Mono, koto, hito, kimi, kami [The mystery of Japanese person reference terms: Things, people, Emperor, and God]. Tokyo: Horitsu Bunkasha. Mizuochi, Masaaki. 2006. Kakei no jikan haibun koodoo to chichioya no ikuji sanka [Distribution of household time and the fathers’ participation in child raising]. Kikan Shakai Hoshoo Kenkyuu [Quarterly Journal of Social Security Research] 42(2). 149–164.

184 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Mogi, Toshinobu. 2008. Kokkai kaigiroku ni okeru gyoosei bunya no gairaigo [Loan words in government administration observed in the minutes of the Japanese Diet]. In Kenjiro Matsuda (ed.), Kokkai kaigiroku o tsukatta nihongo kenkyuu [Studies of Japanese language using the minutes of the Japanese Diet], 85–110. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Mombusho. 1937. Kokutai no hongi [Underlying principle of national polity]. Tokyo: The Ministry of Education. Moody, Stephen J. 2018. Terms of address and identity in American-Japanese workplace interaction. In Haruko Minegishi Cook & Janet S. Shibamoto-Smith (eds.), Japanese at work: Politeness, power, and personae in Japanese workplace discourse, 205–234. Cham: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63549-1_9 Morford, Janet. 1997. Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7(1). 3–37.  https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1997.7.1.3 Mori, Arimasa. 1979. Mori Arimasa zenshuu 12 kan [Collected works of Arimasa Mori vol. 12]. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo. Morita, Emi. 2003. Children’s use of address and reference terms: Language socialization in a Japanese-English bilingual environment. Multilingua 22(4). 367–395. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2003.019 Morita, Yoshiyuki. 1987. Nihongo o migaku shoojiten: Meishi hen [Dictionary for polishing Japanese: Nouns]. Tokyo: Kodansha. Morita, Yoshiyuki. 1989. Kiso nihongo jiten [Dictionary of basic Japanese]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten. Morrow, Phillip R. 2012. Online advice in Japanese: Giving advice in an internet discussion forum. In Holger Limberg & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Advice in discourse, 255–280. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.221.16mor Muramatsu, Keiko & Min Hua Xie. 2015. Nihongo no anata no honshitsu to nihongo no shokyuu kyooiku ni okeru anata no hitsuyoosei [The sense of anata ‘you’ in Japanese and the need for teaching it to Japanese language beginners]. Meijo Ronso [Meijo Treatise Collection] 15. 115–138. Nakamura, Momoko. 2005. Gengo ideorogii to shite no onna kotoba [Women’s language as an ideology]. Goyooron Kenkyuu [Studies of Pragmatics] 7. 109–122. Nakamura, Momoko. 2006. Gengo ideorogii toshite no onna kotoba: Meijiki jogakuseikotoba no seiritsu [Women’s language as a linguistic ideology: The formation of ‘schoolgirls’ language’ in the Meiji era]. In Nihongo Jendaa Gakkai (ed.), Nihongo to jendaa [Japanese and gender], 121–138. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Nakane, Chie. 1967. Tateshakai no ningen kankei [Personal relations in a vertical society]. Tokyo: Kodansha. Nakane, Chie. 1972. Human relations in Japan: Summary translation of tateshakai no ningen kankei [Personal relations in a vertical society]. Tokyo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Nariyama, Shigeko. 2003. Ellipsis and reference tracking in Japanese. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.66 Nihon Joshi Kasei Gakuin. 1915. Katei no shiori [Handbook for the household]. Tokyo: Nihon Joshi Kasei Gakuin. Niwa, Tetsuya. 1989. Mu-joshi no kinoo: Shudai to kaku to gojun [The function of the zero particle: Topic, case and word order]. Kokugo Kokubun [Japanese Language and Literature] 58(10). 38–57. Noguchi, Tohru. 1997. Two types of pronouns and variable binding. Language 73(4). 770–797. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1997.0021

References 185

Nwoye, Onuigbo G. 1992. Linguistic politeness and sociocultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics 18(4). 309–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90092-P Ogi, Naomi. 2014. Language and an expression of identities: Japanese sentence-final particles ne and na. Journal of Pragmatics 64. 72–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.001 Okamoto, Shigeko. 1985. Ellipsis in Japanese discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley. Okamoto, Shigeko. 1997. Social context, linguistic ideology, and indexical expressions in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 28(6). 795–817.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)81491-9 Okamoto, Shigeko. 2010. Politeness in East Asia. In Miriam A. Locher & Sage L. Graham (eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics, 71–100. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214338.1.71 Okamoto, Shigeko & Janet S. Shibamoto-Smith. 2016. The social life of the Japanese language: Cultural discourse and situated practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139680400 Okazaki, Shoko. 1994. Ellipsis in Japanese conversational discourse. Doctoral dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University. Onishi, Masayuki. 1994. Semantic primitives in Japanese. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings, 361–385. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.25.18oni Onishi, Tomoyuki. 1992. Nihongo no ninshooshi to ninshoo daimeishi: Suzuki setsu saikoo [Personal reference terms in Japanese: A reconsideration of Suzuki’s view]. Journal of Liberal Arts, Tezukayama Gakuin University 30. 26–46. Otaka, Hiromi. 1999. Nihongo ni okeru taishoo shiji goi sentaku no sutoratejii [Strategies for the choice of terms of address/reference in Japanese]. Language and Culture, Kwansei Gakuin University Language Centre 2. 29–41. Otani, Hiromi. 1995. Wa to ga to Ø: Wa mo ga mo tsukaenai bun [Wa, ga and Ø: A sentence in which wa or ga cannot be used]. In Tatsuo Miyajima & Yoshio Nitta (eds.), Nihongo ruigi hyoogen no bumpoo: Tambunhen [Japanese grammar of similar expressions: The simple sentence], 287–295. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Partee, Barbara Hall. 1973. The semantics of belief-sentences. In Jaakko Hintikka, Julius Moravcsik & Patrick Suppes (eds.), Approaches to natural language, 309–336. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2506-5_18 Peng, Fred F. C. 1982. Koshoo no shakaigaku: Nichi-bei no hikaku [Sociolinguistics for personal reference terms: Contrastive study of Japanese and English]. In Tetsuya Kunihiro (ed.), Nichi-eigo hikaku kooza: Bunka to shakai [Contrastive studies of Japanese and English: Culture and society], 61–82. Tokyo: Taishukan. Piazza, Roberta, Monika Bednarek & Fabio Rossi. 2011. Telecinematic discourse: Approaches to the language of films and television series. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.211 Putnam, Hilary. 1975. Mind, language, and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625251 Read, K. E. 1955. Morality and the concept of the person among the Gahuku-Gama. Oceania 25(4). 233–282.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1834-4461.1955.tb00651.x Reynolds, Katsue Akiba. 1990. Female speakers of Japanese in transition. In Sachiko Ide & Naomi Hanaoka McGloin (eds.), Aspects of Japanese women’s language, 129–146. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.

186 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Reynolds, Katsue Akiba. 1997. Gengo to seisa no kenkyuu: Genzai to syoorai [A study of language and gender: Present and future]. In Sachiko Ide (ed.), Joseigo no sekai [The world of women’s language], 199–216. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Ri, Choha. 2002. Nihongo shijitaikei no rekishi [A history of the demonstrative system in Japanese]. Kyoto: Kyoto Daigaku Gakujutsu Shuppankai. Rumsey, Alan. 1981. Kinship and context among the Ngarinyin. Oceania 51(3). 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1834-4461.1981.tb01448.x Rumsey, Alan. 1990. Wording, meaning and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist 92(2). 346–361.  https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1990.92.2.02a00060 Sacks, Harvey & Emanuel A. Schegloff. 2007. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Nick J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives, 23–28. New York: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.003 Saito, Kiyoko. 1999. Nininshoo daimeishi to keii hyoogen: Nichi-eigo taishoo kenkyuu [Politeness and the second person pronoun: A contrastive study of English and Japanese]. Journal of the Faculty of Literature, Baika Women’s University 33(3). 1–11. Sakuma, Kanae. 1959. Nihongo no gengo riron [Linguistic theories of the Japanese language]. Tokyo: Koseisha Koseikaku. Sanada, Ryoko. 1997. Hito o arawasu kotoba: Nihongo ni okeru nininshoo no kenkyuu [A study of second person reference terms in Japanese]. Journal of Mejirogakuin Junior College 34. 85–94. Sano, Shinichiro. 2008. Kokkai kaigiroku ni yoru sa ire kotoba no bunseki [An analysis of sa insertion using the minutes of the Japanese diet]. In Kenjiro Matsuda (ed.), Kokkai kaigiroku o tsukatta nihongo kenkyuu [Studies of Japanese language using minutes of the Japanese Diet], 159–184. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996a. Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology 102(1). 161–216.  https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996b. Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 437–485. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.14sch Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to discourse. Massachusetts/Oxford: Blackwell. Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton. 2001. The handbook of discourse analysis. Massachusetts/Oxford: Blackwell. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 Seki, Masaaki. 1997. Nihongo kyooikushi kenkyuu josetsu [A study of the history of Japanese language education]. Tokyo: 3A Network. Sepehri Badi, Azam. 2011. Gendai nihongo ni okeru kazoku kara yobareru toki no koshoo [A sociolinguistic study of kinship terms used between family members in the Japanese language]. Journal of Sociolinguistic Studies, Hitotsubashi University 2. 57–71. Sepehri Badi, Azam. 2012. Gendai nihongo ni okeru kazoku ni yobikakeru sai no koshoo hyoogen: Sedaisa to seisa o chuushin ni [Expressions used to address family members in modern Japanese: Generation differences and gender differences]. Journal of Japanese Language Studies, Hitotsubashi University 1. 61–72. Sepehri Badi, Azam. 2013. Nihongo to perushago no koshoo ni kansuru taishoo kenkyuu [A contrastive study of Japanese and Persian address terms]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tokyo: Hitotsubashi University.

References 187

Sheffler, Harold W. 1978. Australian kin classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557590 Shibamoto-Smith, Janet S. 2003. Gendered structures in Japanese. In Marlis Hellinger & Hadumod Bußmann (eds.), Gender across language: The linguistic representation of women and men, 201–225. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.11.12shi Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The language of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shibatani, Masayoshi, Shigeru Miyagawa & Hisashi Noda. 2017. Handbook of Japanese syntax. Boston: De Gruyter.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516613 Shigematsu, Keiichi. 1956. Sensei to iu nininshoo [A second person reference term sensei]. Kyooiku Jijitsu [Educational Facts] 11(2). 108–109. Shimizu, Hiroshi. 2000. Kyoosoo to basho [Co-creation and place]. In Hiroshi Shimizu, Tadashi Kume, Yoshiyuki Miwa & Yoshihito Miyake (eds.), Ba to kyoosoo [Ba and co-creation], 23–117. Tokyo: NTT Shuppan. Shimotani, Maki. 2012. Shizen danwa ni okeru nininshoo daimeishi anata ni tsuite no ichi koosatsu: Ninshikiteki yuuisei (Epistemic Primacy) o fumaete [A study of the second person pronoun anata in natural discourse: With the notion of Epistemic Primacy]. Essay Collection in Japanese Education, Centre for International Students in Kansai University of Foreign Language 22. 63–96. Sidnell, Jack & Merav Shohet. 2013. The problem of peers in Vietnamese interaction. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 19(3). 618–638.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.12053 Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Paul R. Clyne, William F. Hanks & Carol L. Hofbauer (eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Silverstein, Michael. 1985. Language and the culture of gender: At the intersection of structure, usage, and ideology. In Elizabeth Mertz & Richard J. Parmentier (eds.), Semiotic mediation: Sociocultural and psychological perspectives, 219–259. Orlando: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-491280-9.50016-9 Simon, Horst J. 2003. From pragmatics to grammar: Tracing the development of respect in the history of the German pronouns of address. In Irma Taavitsainen & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems, 85–123. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.107.06sim Slembrouck, Stef. 1992. The parliamentary Hansard ‘verbatim’ report: The written construction of spoken discourse. Language and Literature 1(2). 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709200100202 Sneddon, James N., K. Alexander Adelaar, Dwi Noverini Djenar & Michael C. Ewing. 2010. Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Stivers, Tanya. 2007. Alternative recognitionals in person reference. In Nick J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives, 73– 96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.005 Stivers, Tanya, Nick J. Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson. 2007. Person reference in interaction. In Nick J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.002

188 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig. 2011. Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 SturtzSreetharan, Cindi L. 2009. Ore and omae: Japanese men’s uses of first-and second-person pronouns. Pragmatics 19(2). 253–278.  https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19.2.06stu Sugamoto, Nobuko. 1989. Pronominality: A noun-pronoun continuum. In Roberta Corrigan, Fred R. Eckman & Michael Noonan (eds.), Linguistic categorization, 267–291. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.61.17sug Suzuki, Mutsumi. 1993. Joseigo no honshitsu: Teineisa, hatsuwa kooi no shiten kara [The nature of women’s language: Looking at politeness and speech acts]. Nihongogaku [Japanese Linguistics] 12(6). 148–155. Suzuki, Mutsumi. 2007. Kotoba no danjosa to nihongo kyooiku [Gender difference in language and Japanese language teaching]. Nihongo Kyooiku [Journal of Japanese Language Teaching] 134. 48–57. Suzuki, Takao. 1972. Nihonjin no gengoishiki to koodooyooshiki: Ningenkankei no haaku no yooshiki o chuushin toshite [Language awareness and behaviour in the Japanese: A special focus on human relationships]. In Shigeo Kawamoto, Tetsuya Kunihiro & Oki Hayashi (eds.), Nihon no gengogaku dai 5 kan: Imi, goi [Linguistics in Japanese vol. 5: Semantics and lexicology], 428–445. Tokyo: Taishukan. Suzuki, Takao. 1973. Kotoba to bunka [Language and culture]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Suzuki, Takao. 1978. Japanese and the Japanese: Words in culture. New York: Kodansha International. Suzuki, Takao. 1982. Jishooshi to taishooshi no hikaku. In Tetsuya Kunihiro (ed.), Nichi-eigo hikaku kooza: Bunka to shakai [Contrastive studies of Japanese and English: Culture and society], 17–59. Tokyo: Taishukan. Takahara, Kumiko. 1992. Second person deixis in Japanese and power semantics. Intercultural Communication Studies 2(1). 117–128. Takasaki, Midori. 1992. Kekkonsuru to namae ga nakunaru nante [Losing a name upon marriage]. In Orie Endo (ed.), Josei no yobikata daikenkyuu [Studies of address terms toward women], 105–153. Tokyo: Sanseido. Takiura, Masato. 2005. Nihon no keigoron: Poraitonesu riron kara no saikentoo [Keigo theory in Japan: A reexamination from the viewpoint of politeness theory]. Tokyo: Taishukan. Takubo, Yukinori. 1997. Nihongo no ninshoo hyoogen [Person reference expressions in Japanese]. In Yukinori Takubo (ed.), Shiten to gengo koodoo [A viewpoint and speech act], 13–44. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Tanaka, Akio. 1991. Hyoojungo [Standard language]. Tokyo: Seibundo Shinkosha. Tanaka, Akio. 1996. Tookyoogo to hyoojungo [Tokyo variety and standard Japanese]. In Kokugakuin Daigaku Nihonbunka Kenkyuujo (ed.), Tookyoogo no yukue [Whereabouts of Tokyo variety], 21–76. Tokyo: Tokyodo Shuppan. Tanaka, Katsuhiko. 1989. Kokkago o koete [Beyond national language]. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo. Tanaka, Yukari. 2010. Shutoken ni okeru gengo dootai no kenkyuu [Language dynamics in the Tokyo metropolitan area]. Tokyo: Kazama Shoin. Tani, Sumie. 1981. Gendaigo ni okeru anata [The use of anata ‘you’ in Modern Japanese]. Inter-University Center for Japanese Language Studies Administered by Stanford University 4. 15–29.

References 189

Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannen, Deborah. 2007. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987 Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001 Travis, Catherine. 2002. La metalengua semantica natural: The natural semantic metalanguage of Spanish. In Anna Wierzbicka & Cliff Goddard (eds.), Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings, 173–242. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.60.11tra Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1996. An introduction to Japanese linguistics. Cambridge (Mass.): Blackwell. Tsujimura, Toshiki. 1968. Keigo no shiteki kenkyuu [Historical studies of honorifics]. Tokyo: Tokyodo Shuppan. Uesugi, Harunori. 1910. Onna gojoo kun to gorin no kyoo [The teaching of the five human relations and the five eternal virtues for women]. Tokyo: Takanawa Saihoo Jogakkoo. Usui, Yoshiko. 2005. Kokkai ni okeru hantai iken hyoomei no koozoo: Kokkai kaigiroku kensaku shisutemu o shiyoo shite [Expressions of objection in the Japanese Diet: Using the Diet Conference Minutes Retrieval System]. Proceedings of 15th Conference of Sociolinguistics Society, 202–205. Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2009. Speech and thought representation in English: A cognitive-functional approach. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215373 Wales, Kathleen M. 1983. Thou and you in Early Modern English: Brown and Gilman re-appraised. Studia Linguistica 37(2). 107–125.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1983.tb00316.x Watsuji, Tetsuro. 2007 [1937]. Rinrigaku [Ethics]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Watts, Richard J., Sachiko Ide & Konrad Ehlich. 1992. Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886542 Whitman, John. 1979. Scrambled, over easy, or sunny side up? Chicago Linguistic Society 15. 342–352. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1992. Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1997. Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2012. ‘Advice’ in English and in Russian: A contrastive and cross-cultural perspective. In Holger Limberg & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Advice in discourse, 309–332. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.221.19wie Williams-van Klinken, Catharina & John Hajek. 2006. Patterns of address in Dili Tetum, East Timor. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 29(2). 21.21–21.18. https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0621 Wilson, John. 1990. Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wolfson, Nessa. 1976. Speech events and natural speech: Some implications for sociolinguistic methodology. Language in Society 5(2). 189–209.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007028 Woolard, Kathryn A. & Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1994. Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23. 55–82.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415

190 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Yamamoto, Kazuhide. 1971. Gembun itchi no rekishi ronkoo [A historical study of colloquial style]. Tokyo: Ofusha. Yamamoto, Kazuhide & Yasuaki Adachi. 2005. Informative spoken language summarization of the minutes of the Japanese Diet. Shizen Gengo Shori [Natrual Language Processing] 12(1). 3–28. Yamamoto, Seisaku & Robert Edgar Carter. 1996. Watsuji Tetsuro’s Rinrigaku: Ethics in Japan. Albany: State University of New York Press. Yanabu, Akira. 1998. Omote/ura no bunka koozoo [Obverse/reverse cultural structure]. In Eshun Hamaguchi (ed.), Nihon shakai towa nani ka [What is Japanese society?], 118–134. Tokyo: NHK Books. Yasuda, Toshiaki. 1999. Kokugo to hoogen no aida: Gengo koochiku no seijigaku [The national language and dialect: Language politics]. Kyoto: Jimbun Shoin. Yasuda, Toshiaki. 2006. Kokugo no kindaishi [Modern history of national language in Japan]. Tokyo: Chuo Koronsha. Yasuda, Toshiaki. 2007. Kokugo Shingikai: Meisoo no rokujuunen [The National Language Council of Japan: Sixty years of straying]. Tokyo: Kodansha. Yokotani, Kenji & Keizo Hasegawa. 2010a. Discourse modalities of family nicknames: Comparison between unbound family nicknames and non-unbound family nicknames. Annual Report of Graduate School of Education in Tohoku University 59(1). 275–292. Yokotani, Kenji & Keizo Hasegawa. 2010b. Bubetsu shita koshoo wa haiguusha booryoku o shimesu [Insulting family nicknames reflect spousal violence against women]. Annual Report of Graduate School of Education in Tohoku University 58(2). 229–238. Yonezawa, Yoko. 2014. Nininshoo daimeishi anata ni kansuru ichikoosatsu: Kokkaigijiroku no bunseki o tooshite [A study of the second person pronoun anata ‘you’ through an analysis of the minutes of the Japanese Diet]. Proceedings of the 18th Biennial Conference of the Japanese Studies Association of Australia. http://japaninstitute.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/ u6/26_Yoko_Yonezawa-JSAA2013.pdf Yonezawa, Yoko. 2016. Nininshoo daimeishi anata ni kansuru choosa hookoku [Native speakers’ perceptions of the second person pronoun anata ‘you’ in Japanese]. Nihongo Kyooiku [Journal of Japanese Language Teaching] 163(4). 64–78. Yonezawa, Yoko. 2019. Constructing fluid relationships through language: A study of address terms in a Japanese drama and its pedagogical implications. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 35(2). 189–211.  https://doi.org/10.1515/jjl-2019-2010 Yoshioka, Yoshimasa. 2014. Arimasa Mori’s essay on the formation of the personality. Journal of Toyo Eiwa University 10. 1–16. Yui, Megumi. 2007. Nihongo oyobi eigo ni okeru taishoo shiji no kinoo: Poraitonesu tono kanrensei [Functions of address terms in English and Japanese: With reference to politeness]. Surugadai University Studies 33. 19–30. Zhu, Li. 2008. Gendai nihongo no nininshoo daimeishi anata ni kansuru kenkyuu: Chuugoku de shuppan sareta kyookasho to nihon de shuppan sareta kyookasho no bunseki o chuushin ni [A study of anata ‘you’ in Modern Japanese: An analysis of textbooks published in Japan and China]. Journal of Studies of Education, Chugoku Shikoku Education Association 54(2). 691–694.

Resources

Government related materials Chuutoo-gakkoo Sahoo Yookoo Kaisetsu [Educational Guidelines for Secondary Schools]. 1933. Tokyo: Teikoku Jikkoo Kyooikukai ‘The Japan Society for the Study of Education’. Reihoo Yookoo [Handbook of Manners]. 1941. Tokyo: Mombusho ‘The Ministry of Education’. Reihoo Yookoo Kaisetsu [Commentary on the Handbook of Manners]. 1942. Tokyo: Reihoo Kenkyukai ‘Workshop for Manners’. Shin Nippon Kensetsu ni Kansuru Shoosho [Imperial Rescript on the Construction of a New Japan]. 1946. Tokyo. https://www.digital.archives.go.jp/das/image/F0000000000000043789 Korekara no Keigo [Honorifics for the Future]. 1952. Tokyo: Kokugo Shingikai ‘The National Language Council of Japan’. https://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/sisaku/joho/joho/ kakuki/01/tosin06/index.html

Online news Ameba News. 2013, November 16. Toshiue toiu dake de keii o harau? Wakamono no kotae wa oomune iesu [Do you give respect only because someone is older than you? The answer from young people is mostly ‘yes’]. Retrieved from http://news.ameba.jp/20131116-99/ MyVoice. 2015, January 15. Famirii resutoran, famiresu [Family restaurant]. Retrieved from https://www.myvoice.co.jp/biz/surveys/20806/index.html NHK Kininaru Kotoba. 2012, October 10. Anata to iwareru no wa fukai? [Are you unconformable with being referred to as anata?]. Retrieved from http://www.nhk.or.jp/kininaru-blog/ Yomiuri Hatsugen Komachi. 2012, April 16. Anata to yobu hito fukai janai desu ka [Don’t you feel uncomfortable with people who use anata?]. Retrieved from https://komachi.yomiuri. co.jp/t/2012/0415/499584.htm

Dictionaries Daijirin. 1995. Tokyo: Sanseido. Daijirin. 2006. Tokyo: Sanseido. Desukuban Koodansha Kokugo Jiten. 1992. Tokyo: Kodansha. Gakken Gendai Shin Kokugo Jiten. 1994. Tokyo: Gakushu Kenkyusha. Gakken Kokugo Daijiten. 1981. Tokyo: Gakushu Kenkyusha. Iwanami Kokugo Jiten. 1994. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kadokawa Saishin Kokugo Jiten. 1993. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.

192 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Koojien, 1st edn. 1955. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Koojien, 4th edn. 1991. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Koojien, 5st edn. 1998. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Koojien, 6st edn. 2008. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Koojien, 7st edn. 2018. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Oobunsha Hyoojun Kokugo Jiten. 1992. Tokyo: Obunsha. Sanseidoo Reikai Shin Kokugo Jiten. 1995. Tokyo: Sanseido. Sanseidoo Shin Meikai Kokugo Jiten. 1992. Tokyo: Sanseido. Shoogakkan Gendai Kokugo Reikai Jiten. 1997. Tokyo: Shogakkan. Shoogakkan Nihon Kokugo Daijiten. 2001. Tokyo: Shogakkan. Shuueisha Kokugo Jiten. 1993. Tokyo: Shueisha.

Novels Futabatei, Shimei. 1984 [1887]. Ukigumo [Drifting clouds]. In Futabatei Shimei zenshuu [Collected works of Futabatei Shimei]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Natsume, Soseki. 1976 [1914]. Kokoro [Heart]. In Natsume Soseki shu [Collection of Soseki Natsume]. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo. Nitta, Jiro. 1969. Kokoo no hito [Solitary person]. Tokyo: Shinchosha. Shinkawa, Kazue. 1997 [1966]. Watashi o tabanenaide [Don’t bundle me up]. Tokyo: Dowasha.

Data sources

Conversation corpus Usami, Mayumi. 2007. The Corpus of Japanese Spoken Language from ‘Basic Transcription System for Japanese’ – Japanese Conversation 1: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

Diet minutes Kokkai Kaigiroku Kensaku Shisutemu [Minutes of the Japanese Diet Retrieval System]. Online at http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/

TV dramas Kaneko, Shigeki, Tamio Hayashi, & Chiho Watanabe. 2005. Kiken na Aneki [My Dangerous Older Sister]. Fuji Television Network. Kosawa, Ryota. 2012. Riigaru Hai [Legal High]. Fuji Television Network. Muto, Shogo. 2013. Kazoku Geemu [Family Game]. Fuji Television Network. Yukawa, Kazuhiko. 2011. Kaseifu no Mita [Housekeeper Mita]. Nippon TV.

Newspaper articles Anata: Meue niwa tsukawanai [Anata: Not to be used towards a superior]. 1976, Yomiuri Shimbun, October 15, p.22. Anata: Sairyoo no nininshoo desu [Anata: The best second person reference term]. 1976, Yomiuri Shimbun, October 15, p.22. Anata: Depaato dewa kinku [Anata: A taboo word in department stores]. 1976, Yomiuri Shimbun, October 19, p.22. Anata: Yawarakai hibiki seikoo [Anata: Successfully sounding soft]. 1976, Yomiuri Shimbun, October 26, p.22. Anata: Watashi ni uttaeru [Anata: Appealing to the individual self]. 1976, Yomiuri Shimbun, October 27, p.22. Anata: no gerakushi [Anata: The decline of anata]. 1976, Yomiuri Shimbun, November 4, p.22. Anata: to yobarete oiya? [Don’t you like being addressed as anata?]. 1983, Asahi Shimbun, September 27, p15.

194 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Anata niwa teikoo kanjimasu [I feel reluctant to use anata]. 1983, Asahi Shimbun, October 8, p.15. Makudonarudo, genten kaiki kazoku muke shoohin o kyooka [McDonald’s, back to the starting point, strengthening family friendly products]. 2014, Nihon Keizai Shimbun, February 6. Retrieved from http://www.nikkei.com/article/

Appendix

Questionnaire (Japanese version)

196 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Appendix 197

198 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Questionnaire (English version)

Survey anata in conversation

SAMPLE [1] Do you use anata to the following addressee? – – –

Please tick one of the three options (I don’t use it at all It depends on the situation I always use it) If it is not applicable (e.g. ypu don’t have siblings etc.), please tick ‘I don’t know’. When you choose ① or ②, please choose the reasons or situations from the right hand side column. If you choose “other’, please write in your own words. ① I don’t use it at all

(1) Parents

√

② I use it depending on the situation

5

I always I don’t use it know

Reasons Please choose

(2) Older siblings

√

3

(3) Younger siblings

√

In a very formal situation

Please choose

Appendix 199

Do you use anata to the following addressee? – – –

Please tick one of the three options (I don’t use it at all/ It depends on the situation/ I always use it) If it is not applicable (e.g. you don’t have siblings/spouse etc.), please tick ‘unknown’. When you choose ① or ②, please choose the reasons or situations from the right hand side column. If you choose ‘other’, please write in your own words. I don’t use it I use it I Unknown at all depending on always the situation use it (1)

Parents

If you chose ‘Not at all’

(2)

Older siblings

1. It is rude

(3)

Younger siblings

(4)

Older relatives

(5)

Younger relatives

(6)

Close friends (same sex)

(7) (8)

Older acquaintance (same sex)

(9) (10)

Younger acquaintance (same sex)

(11) (12)

Spouse

(13)

Own children

(14)

Teacher

(15)

Boss

(16)

Lover

If you chose ‘Depends on the situation’

1. When I argue with/ It sounds too polite critisise the listener It sounds too intimate 2. When I give advice It creates a distance to the listener It is too casual 3. When I compliment Other the listener 4. When I want to be *If you chose ‘Other’, close/emphasise please write the answer friendliness in your own words. 5. In a letter 6. In a formal setting 7. Other

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

*If you chose ‘Other’, please write the answer in your own words.

200 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Please write any opinions/comments regarding the use of anata.

(1) Birthplace (

)

(2) How long have you lived in the Tokyo Metropolitan area? (

) years

(Example: From age 11 to present) (3) Age (

)

(4) Sex (Please circle) M

F

Other

(5) Education (Please circle) Primary school Junior high school High school Junior college University undergraduate University post graduate

completed completed completed completed completed completed

(6) Occupation : Please circle or write in ( Accountant Company executive Lawyer Politician Service Industry Other (

Artist Engineer Medical doctor Public servant Student )

• • • • • •

enrolled currently enrolled currently enrolled currently enrolled currently enrolled currently enrolled currently ) for ‘other’.

Business owner Company employee Freelance Housewife Nurse Researcher Temporary job Teacher

Name index

A Aalberse 152 Adachi 15 Adelaar 51 Agha  36, 67, 146, 153, 159 Anchimbe 63 Aoki 92 Araki  19, 25, 27, 154 Arndt 63 B Backhouse  3, 63–64 Barke  43, 45, 46 Bednarek 16–17 Bekkering 118 Berque 59 Biq  96, 97 Braun 1 Brown, J  69 Brown, P  31, 62 Brown, R  1, 48–49, 151, 152 Bruder 98 Bruner 34 Bucholtz 56 C Carter 58–59 Chao 96 Clark 34 Compton 1 Comrie  1, 2–3, 4 Condon 88 Cong 92 Cooke  1, 37 Coulmas  98, 99 Csibra 118 Culpeper 132–133 D Dahl 43 Dale 12 Diamond 133

Dickey  9, 11 Diessel 38 Diller 49 Djenar  1, 51 Doi 61 Drew 12 Duchan 98 Durie 37 E Ehlich 63 Endo  21, 162 Enfield  1–4, 34, 49, 55–56, 117, 118, 125, 134 Ervin-Tripp 159 Evans  4, 54 Ewing  1, 51 F Fleming  23, 51 Foley  56–58, 64 Fujii  2, 65 Fujiwara 8 G Garde  1, 143, 173 Geertz 57 Gergely 118 Gilman  1, 48–49, 151, 152 Givón  101, 103 Goffman 62 Green 55 Grice  62, 118 Gu 63 H Hajek  1, 23, 51 Hall 56 Halliday 25 Hamaguchi 59 Hanks 63 Hasan 25

Hasegawa  19, 124 Hashiguchi  38, 44–45 Hassall 1 Hatta 148 Haviland 12 Heritage  12, 143 Hewitt 98 Hill  64, 65, 73 Hinds  3, 9 Hock 43 Hoshina 147 I Ide  2, 4, 7, 19, 20, 21, 45–47, 54, 56, 60, 63–65, 73, 99, 129, 136, 156 Ikuta  64–65, 73 Ilie  15, 129 Inaba 86 Inoue  9, 21, 146, 148, 150, 161–165, 168 Irvine 56 Ishii 161 Ishikawa 162 Ishiyama  7, 37, 38, 39–47, 163, 165 J Jakobson 1 Janney 63 Jarkey  161, 163 Jenson 1 Jespersen 1 Jinnouchi  6, 7, 144, 171 Jung  2, 7, 19, 22, 23, 46, 144, 171 K Kadoya 8 Kagetsu 15 Kajiwara 22 Kamada  98, 99, 100 Kameyama 9

202 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

Kanai  7, 25–27, 82–83 Kanamaru  2, 19, 20, 46 Kanokporn 1 Kanzaki 2 Karim 1 Katagiri 99 Kawai 61 Kawasaki  64–65, 73 Kim  15, 82, 129 Kindaichi  151, 159, 167 Király 118 Kitagawa  94–96, 98, 105, 114, 115 Kluge  94–97, 98, 101, 103 Kobayashi 165 Kojima  43, 44, 165, 166 Kori 8 Koyama  9, 69 Koyano 17 Kuno 32 Kuroda 45 Kurokawa 46 Kyukakai 166 L Labov 14 Lakoff  21, 62, 155 Lee, B  163 Lee, D-Y  3, 19, 32, 89, 99 Lee, N  23, 51 Leech 62 Lehrer  94–96, 105, 114, 115 Leith 152 Levinson  25, 31, 62, 118 Limberg 142 Locher  133, 142 Luong 143 M Mao 63 Martin 32 Matsuda 15 Matsumoto  54, 56, 63 Maynard  2, 17, 19, 45–48, 54, 56, 60, 65, 97, 100, 122, 143 McGloin 99 Minagawa 101 Miwa  2, 7, 25, 27, 82, 144, 154–155, 159, 171 Miyagawa 147 Mizuochi 86

Mogi 15 Mondada 28 Moody 2 Morford  12, 76, 151, 160 Mori 60 Morita, E  9 Morita, Y  54, 60, 93–94 Morrow 142 Muramatsu 28–31 N Nakamura 162–163 Nakane 60–61 Nariyama  3, 9 Niwa 32 Noda 147 Noguchi 45 Nwoye 63 O Ogi 99 Ogino  64–65, 73 Okamoto  3, 9, 21, 63, 162 Okazaki 3 Onishi, M  47, 49 Onishi, T  2, 19 Otaka  22, 24 Otani 32 P Partee 100 Peng 2 Piazza 16 Putnam 55 R Read 58 Reynolds  21, 155, 162 Ri  7, 37, 39, 41–42 Rossi 16–17 Rumsey 11–12 S Sacks 143 Saito  7, 19, 25, 60, 114 Sakuma  2, 37, 43 Sakurai 99 Sanada 19–21 Sano 15 Schegloff  9, 118, 143 Schiffrin 12–13

Searle 142 Seki 147 Sepehri Badi  2, 22–24, 124 Sheffler 12 Shibamoto-Smith  9, 19, 21, 46, 162 Shibatani  4, 9, 19, 20, 22, 46, 147 Shigematsu 23 Shimizu 65 Shimotani  7, 28–30, 31, 82, 86, 145, 160, 161 Shohet  23, 51 Sidnell  23, 51 Siewierska  25, 37, 45, 94 Silverstein  10–12, 152, 163, 170 Simon 42 Slembrouck 15 Slotta  23, 51 Sneddon 51 Sperber 118 Steensig 28 Stivers  28, 118 Stoop 152 SturtzStreetharan 47 Sugamoto 45 Suzuki, M  81, 162 Suzuki, T  2, 4, 19, 22–25, 43, 49–50–54, 56, 116 T Takahara  19, 77 Takasaki 155 Takiura 149 Takubo  9, 25–26, 45 Tanaka, A  9, 69 Tanaka, K  147–149, 158–159 Tanaka, Y  68 Tani  19, 20, 160 Tannen  12, 100 Tomasello  33–35, 117 Travis 49 Tsujimura, N  10 Tsujimura, T  37–39, 42 U Uehara  43, 45–46 Uesugi 163 Usami  13, 18 Usui 15

Name index 203



V Vandelanotte 97 W Wales 152 Watsuji 58–59 Watts 63 Whitman 10 Wierzbicka  49, 64, 142 Williams-van Klinken  1, 23, 51 Wilson, D  118

Wilson, J  1 Wittgenstein 34 Wolfson 12 Woolard 11 X Xie 28–31 Y Yamamoto, K  15, 162 Yamamoto, S  58–59

Yanabu 61 Yasuda  9, 69, 146–149, 159 Yokotani  19, 124 Yonezawa  2, 3, 15, 19, 67, 82, 89 Yoshioka 60 Yui 2 Z Zhu  2, 19

Subject index

A absolute specification  32–33, 35–36, 91, 93, 102, 110, 114, 116, 117, 128, 143, 145, 155, 170–172 addressee-proximal  40, 42 addressee-referent 39 admonition, use of anata  84–86 advertisements as source of data  14–15, 18 advertising, use of anata 14–15, 92–93 advice–giving, use of anata 141–143 age groups, use of anata  72, 74–75 archaic use of anata see women’s language, wife towards husband Asahi Shimbun newspaper  17, 153, 155, 157 B ba theory  64–65 background knowledge in communication see ‘common ground’ bound and unbound sets, person reference terms  124 C ‘common ground’ in communication  33–35, 56, 117, 171 conflict situations, use of anata  21, 29–30, 82–83 ‘constructed dialogue’  100–105, 107, 115 ‘continuum of reference’ of 2SG European languages  96 Japanese constructed dialogue 101–104

Corpus of Japanese Spoken Language, The  13–14, 18 courtroom, use of anata 108, 110–111, 116 ‘culture’, problems in defining 55 D deixis 25–27 deixis, social  99 demonstratives  38–39, 42 anata, history  38–42 konata, history  39–42 omae, history  38 sonata, history  39–42 depreciation of politeness  42 ‘derogatory’ forms  47 see also pronouns, second person, temee; kisama descriptive words, fixed see teikijutsu diachronic relationship, demonstratives and personal pronouns  38–39, 41 dictionaries 6–7 Dictionary of Basic Japanese see Kiso Nihongo Jiten direct vs. indirect speech  98–100, 103–104 see also reported speech; ‘constructed dialogue’ discourse analysis  12–13 distance between interlocutors 20–21, 24, 30, 31, 70, 76–80, 86 distancing politeness strategy 42 E Edo period  6 egalitarian address practice, the use of anata  145–146, 149, 151–153, 156, 158-159, 167

ellipsis, subjects  2, 9–10 English language loss of T form  152 pronouns, second person 152 ‘you’  95–96, 152 epistemic primacy  28–31, 110 equal status of interlocutors 78–79, 86–88 euphemistic expressions  43 European languages English see English language French  42, 151–152, 160 German 42 pro-drop see pro-drop European languages T/V system  1, 48–49, 151, 160 F ‘face’ 62–63 ‘face-threatening acts’  62 used jokingly  136 feminism influence of  155, 168 fixed descriptive words see teikijutsu French language, T/V system 1, 48–49, 151, 16 friendliness, sense, among interlocutors 86–88 see also jocular utterances, use of anata G gembun itchi language movement 162–163 gender and use of anata 10, 85–86, 88 see also generic seconds  94–95, 98, 104–105, 115, 172 see also women’s language impersonal Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere 147–148

206 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

H Honorifics for the Future see Korekara no Keigo Hyoojungo ‘Standard Language’ 162 see also Tokyo-standard variety I impersonal  94–96, 98, 105, 114, 116, 172 see also generic seconds impoliteness 132–133 see also rudeness, ‘face-threatening acts’ incongruence, pragmatic  4–5 in-group/out-group see uchi/soto inferior addressee  29, 73–74, 77–78, 82, 84–86 see also vertical relationships ‘inflationary effects’ phenomenon 43 interactional particle ne 98–99 yo 104 iwakan  80–81, 89, 172 J Japan, modernization  145–146, 148–152, 158, 160–161, 169– 170, 173 Japanese communication politeness  62–65, 73 relationality 60 see also personhood relationship acknowledgement 34, 118, 143 social norms  54, 64–66, 73, 81, 117, 155, 171 vertical rules  50, 54, 60–61, 68 Japanese Diet  110, 129, 133 Minutes of  15–16 see also parliamentary debates as source of data Japanese family  23, 50 status relationships  32, 50 see also Japanese communication Japanese language  145 education 147 historical stages  39–42

modernization 161–163 post-WWII policy  145–152 Tokyo-standard variety 8–9, 11, 14, 68–69 women  20–21, 162 see also women’s language Japanese newspapers see Asahi Shimbun newspaper; Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper Japanese people, young  61, 65, 125, 135–136, 168 Japanese pronouns consideration as true pronouns 45 see also pronominality scale first person pronouns see pronouns plenitude 45 second person pronouns see pronouns Japanese script, romanization 18, 148 Jocular utterances, use of anata 135–136 K kankeitai society  59 kinship terms  4, 23, 50–53, 121, 124, 126, 142 aneki 121–122 musume 50 norms of use  49–51 obachan 124 obasan 53 ojiichan; ojiisan 50 ojisan 52–53 okaasan  3–4, 139 oneechan  23, 73, 121 oneesan 121 oniisan 126–128 niisan 51–53 otoosan  4, 26, 52–53, 126 otooto 50–51 Kiso Nihongo Jiten 93 kobetsutai society  59 Kokugo ‘National Language’ 162–163 see also Hyoojungo Kokugo Shingikai  5, 146–148 Korekara no Keigo  5, 146, 148–150, 152–153 koyuu meishi 26–27

L language expectations  81 language policy, Japan see National Language Policy, post-WWII policy M Meiji period  39, 161–163 metalinguistic discourse 11 reflections  32, 35, 67–68, 172 N names, personal  48 National Language Council of Japan see Kokugo Shingikai Policy  5, 8, 146–148, 150, 152 see Kokugo native speakers’ perceptions of anata  5–8, 72, 75, 77–80, 83, 89, 117, 144 see also iwakan Natsume Soseki  163–165 newspaper articles as source of data 17–18 see also Japanese newspapers ni, Mandarin  96–98, 102–103 nikoo kankei 60 ningen concept  59 ninshoo meishi 26 normative structure, communication 34 O ‘Observer’s Paradox’  14 occupational terms/titles  32, 45, 51–53, 109–110 sensei  4, 23, 26, 51–53, 65, 119–120, 129 P parliamentary debates as source of data  15–16, 18 limitations in use  15 see also Japanese Diet person nouns see ninshoo meishi; teikijutsu personhood  56–57, 173 in Bali  57 ego-centric vs. sociocentric 57–58

Subject index 207



in Gahuku society, Papua New Guinea  58 Japanese concept  58–60 Western European concept 57–58 see also social relationships, interlocutors plural forms  94 poems and songs  139–140 politeness  20–21, 27, 62– 65, 79, 99, 160, 171 politeness value, diminishment 43 see also impoliteness, ‘face’ power and solidarity  48–49 power imbalance  133–134 power semantics  48–49 pragmatic value  42, 71 pragmatics  8, 11–12, 31–33, 36, 66, 73, 95, 101, 117, 171, 173 semantics and pragmatics intersection  8, 31, 173 print media, role in language modernization  163, 165 see also Asahi Shimbun newspaper; Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper; Natsume Soseki pro-drop European languages 3 pronominality scale  45 pronouns, first person  20, 38, 45–46 atashi  20, 46 boku  20, 37–38, 46, 52, 150 ore  20, 46, 52, 167 watakushi  20, 46, 52 watashi  20, 26, 46, 150, 167 pronouns, second person  4, 20, 38, 45–47 anta  20, 46–47, 49, 88 ‘continuum of reference’ see ‘continuum of reference’ of 2sg kimi  20, 23–24, 37–38, 44, 46–47, 49–50, 52, 93, 99–102, 150, 166 kisama 47 omae  4–5, 20–24, 32, 38, 46–47, 49, 52–53, 78, 81, 85, 88, 150, 164–165

temee 47 proper names see koyuu meishi Q Quakers, address practices  152 questionnaires, as source of data 11–12, 67–71 format 70–71 questionnaires, Japanese  29 quoted speech see reported speech, direct and indirect R ‘rank consciousness’  60 see also vertical rules ‘referential intent’  101 see also specificity of referents reflexive processes  146, 153, 158–160, 170 ‘relationality’ 60 reported speech, direct and indirect 98–100 see also ‘constructed dialogue’ Rinrigaku: Ethics in Japan  58–59 see also Watsuji Tetsuro ritualistic expressions  63–64 rudeness  76–77, 89, 132 see also impoliteness ‘rules’ for use of personal reference terms  22–23 ryoosai-kembo education see women’s education S Sanseidoo Kokugo Jiten dictionary 7 semantics and pragmatics intersection  8, 31, 173 shared experience, role in communication see ‘common ground’ sincere messages, use of anata 137–138 social formulas see ritualistic expressions social norms  34, 64–66, 81, 117, 143–144, 155, 171 women  157, 162, 169 social relationships interlocutors 1–2, 4, 32, 34, 60, 105, 117, 126, 171

acknowledgement of 53–54, 56, 118 see also personhood in-laws 126–127 non-acknowledgement  2, 118, 120–125, 128, 130–135, 137, 142–143, 172–173 ‘rules’ for pronoun use  51–53 student-teacher  25–26, 65, 83, 119 young people’s thoughts  61, 65, 125 solidarity semantics  48–49 spatial semantics  42 speaker-distal position  39–40 speaker-proximal position  39–40 speaker-referent position  39 specificity of referents  94–95, 101 see ‘continuum of reference’ of 2sg, ‘referential intent’ speech acts  142 status relationships see social relationships, interlocutors Standard Language see Hyoojungo; Tokyo-standard variety subjects, unexpressed see ellipsis, subjects suffixes (name/title)  48 -chan 48 -gata, pl 94 -kun  48, 129 -sama 48 -san  48, 113, 120 -tachi, pl 94 superior addressee  44, 72–73, 76, 82, 134 see also vertical relationships symmetrical use of anata 158, 167–169 T tabooed expressions  43 teikijutsu 26–27 ‘telecinematic discourse’  16–17

208 The Mysterious Address Term anata ‘you’ in Japanese

titles daijin 129 gichoo 129 iinchoo 129 kachoo  26, 51–52 shachoo  4, 110–111 soori 129 soori daijin 129 see also suffixes (name/title) Tokyo, language use  68–69 Tokyo-standard variety, Japanese language  8–9, 11, 14, 68–69 TV drama series as source of data  16–18, 108 T/V system, European languages  1, 48–49, 151, 160

U uchi/soto 54 unsuitability of language see iwakan V vertical relationships  50, 54, 60–61, 68, 71, 73, 77, 149 vocative and referential, distinguishing 9–10 ‘vulgar’ forms  47 see also pronouns, second person, omae W wakimae concept  64–66, 73 Watsuji Tetsuro 58–59

women’s education modernization  161–163, 165 ryoosai-kembo education 162, 165, 167 women’s language  20–22, 136, 155–157, 160–165, 168–169 workplace, use of anata 158 Y Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper 17–18, 93–94, 153–154, 158 you, different senses in English 95–96, 152 you, Mandarin see ni, Mandarin

The use of the second person singular pronoun anata ‘you’ in modern Japanese has long been regarded as mysterious and problematic, generating contradictory nuances such as polite, impolite, intimate, and distancing. Treated as a troublesome pronoun, scholars have searched for a semantically loaded meaning in anata, under the assumption that all Japanese personal reference terms involve social indexicality. This book takes a new approach, revealing that anata is in fact semantically simple and its powerful expressivity is explained only in pragmatic terms. In doing so, the study brings to bear a thorough understanding of key issues in pragmatics, such as common ground, sociocultural norms, and shared understandings, in order to fully grasp the meaning and usage of this single linguistic item. This book will be of interest to scholars and students in a range of linguistic fields, such as semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, anthropological linguistics, linguistic typology, cultural linguistics, as well as applied linguistics.

isbn 978 90 272 1050 0

John Benjamins Publishing Company