The role of English as a scientific metalanguage for research in pragmatics: Reflections on the metapragmatics of “politeness” in Japanese
Issue: Vol 1 No. 1 (2016)
Journal: East Asian Pragmatics
Much of the theorisation undertaken in pragmatics has afforded English a privileged place, not only as the object of analysis but also as the means through which such theoretical discussions have been accomplished. Yet as a number of researchers have pointed out, the language in which the description, analysis and theorisation of pragmatic phenomena is undertaken can have an influence on how the research object(s) in question are understood. In this paper, the role of English as our scientific metalanguage in research on “politeness” in Japanese is considered. It is argued that in order to start managing such challenges for research in pragmatics we need to go beyond the study of abstract or decontextualised meanings of words and move towards the analysis of emic concepts and emic practices. It is concluded that rather than abandoning notions such as “politeness” in favour of seemingly less culturally-imbued terms, what is needed instead is greater awareness of what the use of English as a scientific metalanguage both affords for researchers working in pragmatics, along with the challenges it can create for such work.
Author: Michael Haugh
Boas, F. (1911). Introduction. In F. Boas (Ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages (pp. 1-83). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Caffi, C. (1998). Metapragmatics. In J. Mey (Ed.), Concise encylopedia of pragmatics (pp. 581–586). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Chang, W.-L. M., & Haugh, M. (2013). Face in Taiwanese business interactions: From emic concepts to emic practices. In Y. Pan & D. Z. Kadar (Eds.), Chinese discourse and interaction: Theory and Practice (pp. 127–151). London: Equinox.
Clancy, P. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 213–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coupland, N., & Jaworski, A. (2004). Sociolinguistic perspectives on metalanguage: Reflexivity, evaluation and ideology. In A. Jaworski, N. Coupland, & D. Galasiński (Eds.), Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives (pp. 15–51). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English language. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Deutschmann, M. (2003). Apologising in British English. Umeå, Sweden: Umeå University.
Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Eglin, P. (2015). Language, culture, and interaction. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 141–153). London: Routledge.
Ehlich, K. (1992). On the historicity of politeness. In R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 71–107). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Enfield, N. J. (2014). Natural causes of language: Frames, biases, and cultural transmission. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Enfield, N. J. (2015). The utility of meaning: What words mean and why. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fukushima, S., & Haugh, M. (2014). The role of emic understandings in theorizing im/politeness: The metapragmatics of attentiveness, empathy and anticipatory inference in Japanese and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 165–179.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkeim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Goddard, C. (2007). A response to N. J. Enfield’s review of Ethnopragmatics (Goddard, Ed., 2006). Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(4), 531–538.
Hara, K. (2006). The concept of omoiyari (altruistic sensitivity) in Japanese relational communication. Intercultural Communication Studies, 15(1), 24–32.
Haugh, M. (2007b). Emic conceptulisations of (im)politeness and face in Japanese: Implications for the discursive negotiation of second language learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 657–680.
Haugh, M. (2013a). Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness. Sociocultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 46–73.
Ide, S., Hill, B., Carnes, Y., Ogino, T., & Kawasaki, A. (1992). The concept of politeness: An empirical study of American English and Japanese. In R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 281–297). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kabaya, H., Kawaguchi, Y., & Sakamoto, M. (1998). Keigo hyōgen [Honorific expressions]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Karasawa, M., & Hirabayashi, H. (2013). Cultural source of omoiyari: Cross-cultural study of understanding ‘others’ in preschool education. Tokyo Joshi Daigaku Hikaku Bunka Kenkyuujo Kiyoo [Annals of the Institute for Comparative Studies of Culture, Tokyo Woman’s Christian University], 74, 65-92.
Leavitt, J. (2015). Ethnosemantics. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 51–65). London: Routledge.
Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behaviour. Honolulu: University Press of Hawai’i.
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Majid, A. (2015). Comparing lexicons cross-linguistically. In J. R. Taylor (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the word (pp. 364–379). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malt, B. C., Gennari, S., Imai, M., Eef, A., Saji, N., & Majid, A. (2015). Where are the concepts? What words can and can’t reveal. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. 291–326). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marui, I., Nishijima, Y., Noro, K., Reinelt, R., & Yamashita, H. (1996). Concepts of communicative virtues (CCV) in Japanese and German. In M. Hellinger & U. Ammon (Eds.), Contrastive sociolinguistics (pp. 385–409). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
McWhorter, J. H. (2014). The language hoax: Why the world looks the same in any language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Palmer, G. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sakai, R. (2006). Review of studies on ‘omoiyari’: Proposing the necessity to consider ‘omoiyari’ that is not expressed in action. Tokyo Daigaku Daigakuin Kyōikugaku Kenkyū Kiyō [Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, Tokyo University], 45, 143–148.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Schalley, A. C., & Zaefferer, D. (2007). Ontolinguistics – an outline. In A. Schalley & D. Zaefferer (Eds.), Ontolinguistics: How ontological status shapes the linguistic coding of concepts (pp. 3–22). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scheff, T. J. (2006). Concepts and concept formation: Goffman and beyond. Qualitative Sociology Review, 2(3), 48–64.
Schieffelin, B. B. (1987). Do different words mean different worlds?: An example from Papua New Guinea. In S. U. Phillips, S. Steel, & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 249–260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J. A. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 33–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takada, A. (2013). Generating morality in directive sequences: Distinctive strategies for developing communicative competence in Japanese caregiver–child interactions. Language and Communication, 33(4), 420–438.
Tao, L. (2010). Komyunikēshon kōdō hyōka gainen ‘omoiyari’ no Nichichū hikaku [Omoiyari as an evaluative concept of communicative behaviour: a contrastive analysis of Japanese and Chinese]. Kanagawa Daigaku Gengo Kenkyuu, 32, 93–108.
Tao, L. (2013). The concepts of ‘politeness’: A comparative study in Chinese and Japanese verbal communication. Intercultural Communication Studies, 22(2), 151–165.
Taylor, C. (2015). Mock politeness in English and Italian: A corpus-assisted study of the metalanguage of sarcasm and irony (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Lancaster University.
Travis, C. (1997). Kind, considerate, thoughtful: A semantic analysis. Lexikos, 7, 130–152.
Travis, C. (1998). Omoiyari as a core Japanese value: Japanese-style empathy? In A. Athansiadou & E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualisation and expression (pp. 55–81). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Trier, J. (1931). Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes: Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes: Vol. 1. Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Winter.
Tyler, S. (1969). Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Uchida, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2001). Omoiyari shakudo no sakusei to datōsei no kentō [Development and validation of a sympathy scale]. Shinrigaku Kenkyū [The Japanese Journal of Psychology], 72(4), 275–282.
Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Usami, M. (1998). Poraitonesu riron no tenkai: Disukōsu poraitonesu to iu toraekata [Development of politeness theory: The approach of discourse politeness]. Tokyo Gaikokugo Daigaku Nihon Kenkyū Kyōiku Nenpō (1997 Nendopan), 145–159.
Watts, R., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (1992). Introduction. In R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 1–17). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding cultures through their key words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Imprisoned in English: The hazards of English as a default language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, D. (2003). Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica, 15(2), 273–291.
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 230–259). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations (Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wong, J. (2015). A critical look at the description of speech acts. In A. Capone & J. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society. New York: Springer.