Stereotypes and registers of honorific language | Language in Society | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Honorific registers are formally discrete but functionally stratified systems, in the sense that an apparently bounded set of linguistic forms allows language users to calculate many concurrent aspects of the pragmatic context of language use. This paper argues that native stereotypes about language structure and use play a critical role in formulating the pragmatic value(s) of register systems. The linguist can neither isolate the forms belonging to a register, nor explain their significance in use, independently of appeal to native stereotypes about language. The paper discusses methods for the empirical study and analysis of such stereotypes. Stereotypes that formulate the social identity of language users play a special role within register systems, grounding the significance of pragmatic acts in the attributes of pragmatic actors. Much of the discussion focuses on how such stereotypes are formulated and what their social consequences are. (Honorifics, pragmatics, meta-pragmatics, stereotypes, registers, deference, identity, Tibetan)

References

Agha, Asif (1993a). Structural form and utterance context: Grammar and indexicality in a non-configurational language. New York: Lang.Google Scholar

Agha, Asif (1993b). Grammatical and indexical convention in honorific discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3:131–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Agha, Asif (1994). Honorification. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:277–302.Google Scholar

Burke, Kenneth (1962). What are the signs of what? A theory of “entitlement”. Anthropological Linguistics 4:1–23.Google Scholar

Das, Sarat Chandra. 1902. Journey to Lhasa and central Tibet. London: Murray. [Reprinted as Lhasa and Central Tibet. New Delhi: Cosmo, 1988.]Google Scholar

Duranti, Alessandro (1992). Language in context and language as context: The Samoan respect vocabulary. In Duranti, Alessandro & Goodwin, Charles (eds.), Rethinking context, 77–99. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Errington, J. Joseph (1988). Structure and style in Javanese: A semiotic view of linguistic etiquette. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Ferguson, Charles (1994). Dialect, register and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization. In Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 15–30. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Geertz, Clifford (1960). The religion of Java. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gregory, Michael (1988). Generic situation and register: A functional view of communication. In Benson, James D. et al. (eds.), Linguistics in a systemic perspective, 301–29. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. (1964). The users and uses of language. In Halliday, M. A. K. et al. (eds.), The linguistic sciences and language teaching, 75–110. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Hendry, Joy (1992). Honorific as dialect: The expression and manipulation of boundaries in Japanese. Multilingua 11:341–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hervey, Sandor (1992). Registering registers. Lingua 86:189–206Google Scholar

Hijirada, Kyoko, & Sohn, Ho-min (1986). Cross-cultural patterns of honorifics and sociolinguistic sensitivity to honorific variables: Evidence from English, Japanese, and Korean. Papers in Linguistics 19:365–401.Google Scholar

Hwang, Juck-Ryoon (1990). “Deference” vs. “politeness” in Korean speech. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 82:41–55.Google Scholar

Irvine, Judith (1989). When talk isn't cheap: Language and political economy. American Ethnologist 16:248–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Irvine, Judith (1990). Registering affect: Heteroglossia in the linguistic expression of emotion. In Lutz, Catherine A. & Abu-Lughod, Lila(eds.), Language and the politics of emotion, 126–61. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Irvine, Judith (1992). Ideologies of honorific language. Pragmatics 2:251–62.Google Scholar

Irvine, Judith (1997). Honorifics. In Blommaert, Jan et al. (eds.). Handbook of Pragmatics, to appear. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Milner, G. B. (1961). The Samoan vocabulary of respect. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 91:296–317.Google Scholar

Mugglestone, Lynda (1995). “Talking proper”: The rise of accent as a social symbol. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Paulston, Christina B. (1976). Pronouns of address in Swedish: Social class semantics and a changing system. Language in Society 5:359–86.Google Scholar

Philips, Susan U. (1991). Tongan speech levels: Practice and talk about practice in the cultural construction of social hierarchy. In Blust, Robert (ed.), Currents in Pacific linguistics: Papers on Austronesian languages and ethnolinguistics in honor of George W. Grace (Pacific Linguistics, C-117), 369–82. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Putnam, Hilary (1975). The meaning of “meaning”. In his Philosophical papers, vol. 2, Mind, language and reality, 215–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sapir, Edward (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar

Shibamoto, Janet (1987). The womanly woman: Manipulation of stereotypical and non-stereotypical features of Japanese female speech. In Philips, Susan et al. (eds.), Language, gender and sex in comparative perspectives, 26–49. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Silverstein, Michael (1981a). The implications of (models of) culture for language. Paper presented at the conference “Conceptions of culture and its acquisition”, organized by the Social Science Research Council,New York City, May.Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael (1981b). The limits of awareness. (Sociolinguistic working papers, 84). Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael (1987). Cognitive implications of a referential hierarchy. In Hickman, Maya (ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought, 125–64. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael (1996a). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. In Ide, Risako et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Symposium about Language and Society-Austin (SALSA), 266–95. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael (1996b). Monoglot “Standard” in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In Brenneis, Donald & Macaulay, Ronald (eds.), The matrix of language, 284–306. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Smith-Hefner, Nancy (1988). Women and politeness: The Javanese example. Language in Society 17:535–54.Google Scholar

Uhlenbeck, E. M. (1970). The use of respect forms in Javanese. In Wurm, Stephen A. & Laycock, Donald C. (eds.), Pacific linguistic studies in honor of Arthur Capell (Pacific Linguistics, C-13), 441–466. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Ure, Jean (1982). Approaches to the study of register range. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 35:5–23.Google Scholar

Wang, Hahn-Sok (1990). Toward a description of the organization of Korean speech levels. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 82:25–39.Google Scholar