ELSEVIER

Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

Social context, linguistic ideology,

and indexical expressions in Japanese
Shigeko Okamoto*
Department of Linguistics, Caifornia State University, Fresno, CA 93740, USA

Abstract
Honorifics and sentence-final particles as indexical signs have been widely studied in
Japanese pragmatics and sociolinguistics. Most previous studies have directly related linguistic
forms to aspects of social contexts (e.g. social distance, gender), which tend to represent 'normative' usages, or the hegemonic linguistic ideology. Actual language practices of Japanese
speakers, however, do not always conform to such 'normative' usages. The present study
analyzes actual conversational data with regard to honorifics and 'gendered' sentence-final
forms. The analysis reveals wide variations in their uses, including many 'deviant' uses.
These variations suggest that social categories, such as social distance and gender, cannot be
abstracted from the context as independent variables determining language choice. That is,
honorifics and 'gendered' sentence-final forms cannot be regarded as direct indexes of
contextual features. I argue that the choice of indexical expressions is a strategy that is based
on the speaker's consideration of multiple social aspects of the context as well as on his/her
linguistic ideology, or beliefs and attitudes concerning language use. Variations in indexical
uses are then explained in terms of the complexity of social context and the diversity of
linguistic ideologies that mediate indexical processes. The view of indexicality employed in
this study enables us to account for variations in the use of indexicals in a coherent manner
without marginalizing what may otherwise be considered 'deviant' practices.

1. Introduction
Linguistic expressions as indexical signs point to, or signal, certain features of
the communicative context. In particular, they are often used to index sociocultural
meanings pertaining to the speech context (Silverstein, 1979, 1985; Ochs, 1990).
~ This study was partly supported b2~ a California State University research grant. I am very grateful
to those who helped me with the data collection, in particular Akiko Honjo, Chizuko Ito, Yoko Tada,
and those who participated in recordirtg the conversations. I would also like to thank Mary Bucholtz,
Penelope Eckert, Lieba Faier, Kira Hall, Chris Honde, Sachiko Ide, Miyako Inoue, Shoichi Iwasaki,
Yoshiko Matsumoto, Naomi H. McGloin, J. V. Neustupn~, Naoko Ogawa, Janet Smith, Ryoko Suzuki,
Shinji Tokuchi, and Sumiyuki Yukawa for their valuable discussions that helped shape this paper.
* Correspondence to: S. Okamoto, 108 Northrop Place, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA. Fax: +1 209 278 7299;
E-mail: shigeko_okamoto@csufresno.edu
0378-2166/97/$17.00 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
PH S 0 3 7 8 - 2 1 6 6 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 7 5 - 1

796

s. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795817

Linguistic features such as honorifics and sentence-final particles have been widely
studied as indexical signs in Japanese pragmatics and sociolinguistics. Most previous
studies, however, have explained the use of these forms by directly relating them to
particular aspects of social contexts. For example, the use of honorifics is often said
to be determined by social distance, such as hierarchy and the lack of intimacy, and
the use of certain sentence-final forms is directly related to the speaker's gender.
These studies, often relying on researchers' introspection or self-report surveys, tend
to be prescriptive, representing 'normative' linguistic usages. Actual language practices of Japanese speakers, however, do not always conform to such 'normative'
usages, but rather exhibit wide variations.
The present study reexamines the nature of Japanese indexical expressions, in
particular sentence-final forms and honorifics. Using actual conversational data,
I analyze the variations in the use of these linguistic forms, paying special attention
to 'deviant' uses (e.g. the use of 'masculine' sentence-final forms by women, the
lack of honorifics when a hierarchical relation exists). A close examination of these
'deviant' uses indicates that they are in fact meaningful choices that cannot be
explained by the view of direct indexicality, a straightforward mapping of linguistic
forms to particular social variables. The present study then employs an alternative
theory of idexicality in order to adequately account for both 'deviant' and 'normative' uses in a coherent manner without marginalizing the former as simple
anomalies.

2. Relating linguistic forms directly to social variables

This section briefly reviews previous studies on the relationship between social
context and the use of certain sentence-final forms and honorifics in Japanese.
2.1. Sentence-final f o r m s and gender

The Japanese language has been characterized as having distinct male and female
speech patterns, or languages. Many previous studies have pointed out the male and
female differential uses of a number of linguistic features, including sentence-final
forms, self-reference and address terminology, honorifics, forms of directives, pitch
heights, intonation patterns, and ellipsis (e.g. Kindaichi, 1957; Ide, 1979, 1982,
1990; Jugaku, 1979; Shibamoto, 1985, 1987, 1990; Reynolds, 1985; Mizutani and
Mizutani, 1987; McGloin, 1990; Ohara, 1992; Smith, 1992). Due to these differential uses of linguistic features, Japanese women's speech has been described as more
polite, gentle, nonassertive, and empathetic than Japanese men's speech.
One of the most frequently cited gender-marking linguistic features is sentencefinal forms in informal speech styles. 1 Certain sentence-final forms, such as zo and
ze are said to be used exclusively or primarily by men, while others, such as wa and
Formal/impersonalspeechhas been said to showfew genderdifferences(e.g. Mizutaniand Mizutani,
1987: 72).

S. Okarnoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795417

797

kashira, are said to be used exclusively or primarily by women (e.g. Ide, 1979,

1982; Reynolds, 1985; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Shibamoto, 1987; Shibatani,
1990). Whether the link between sentence-final forms and the speaker's gender is
characterized as obligatory or as a matter of probability, most of these studies treat
gender as a unified category which directly influences the choice of sentence-final
forms (cf. McGloin, 1990). 2 That is, linguistic forms are regarded as direct indexes
of gender.
Previous studies on language and gender in Japanese have made important contributions to the field in showing the extent of gender differences in Japanese, but
at the same time they have tended to essentialize these differences as constituting
distinct men's and women's languages. Actual speech of Japanese men and women,
however, does not always conform to such dichotomous categorization, suggesting
that language cannot be related directly to gender. Hence the need for empirical studies of within-gender variation in speech styles is now increasingly being recognized
(Jorden, 1990; Okamoto and Sato, 1992; Kobayashi, 1993; Inoue, 1994; Okamoto,
1995, 1996).
2.2. Honorifics and social distance

The complex honorific system is often cited as an aspect of the Japanese language
that reflects the nature of Japanese society and culture (Jorden and Noda, 1987;
Niyekawa, 1991). Although the: scope of honorifics is broad, in this study I will
focus on two major categories of honorifics: referent honorifics and addressee honorifics. The referent honorifics are subdivided into two types: the so-called sonkee-go
'respectful form', or subject honorifics, and kenjoo-go 'humble form', or non-subject
honorifics. 3 Both referent and addressee honorifics are most commonly regarded as
markers of social distance - i.e. hierarchical relation, the lack of intimacy, or soto
'out-group' relations as opposed to uchi 'in-group' relations. Referent honorifics are
said to be used in reference to the subject or non-subject referent who is (perceived
as) socially distant from the speaker (Harada, 1976; Makino and Tsutsui, 1986;
Jorden and Noda, 1987; Nomotc,, 1987; Ide, 1989; Shibatani, 1990; Niyekawa, 1991;
Tokunaga, 1992; Wetzel, 1994). Addressee honorifics, or the so-called teenee-go
'polite form', are said to be used in reference to the addressee who is (perceived as)
socially distant from the speaker (Hinds, 1978; Ikuta, 1983; Makino and Tsutsui, 1986;
Nomoto, 1987; Niyekawa, 19911; Sukle, 1994).
(1) Tanaka-sensee ga kore o o-.kaki-ni nari-mashita.

'Professor Tanaka wrote this.'

(2) Tanaka-kun ga kore o kai-ta.
'Tanaka wrote this.'
2 Regardingthe use of 'gendered' sentence-finalparticles, McGloin (1990: 24) notes that "whether
men and womenactuallyuse these particles, however, is governedby factors such as age, the sex of the
addressee, the formalityof the situation,etc."
3 For kenjoo-go 'humble form', the term object honorific is commonlyused. However, the term nonsubject honorific is more accurate; see Matsumoto(1997).

798

s. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

For example, in (1) o - V - n i nari is a subject honorific used to refer to the subjectreferent's action, while mashita is an addressee honorific used for the addressee. In
(2) neither a referent nor an addressee honorific is used. In (1) and (2) the subjectreferent and the addressee are different persons, but the two may be the same person,
as in (3):
(3) Sensee ga kore o o_-kaki-ni natta n desu ka.
'Did you (Professor) write this?'
In (3) the referent honorific o - V - n i natta is used to refer to the addressee's action
and the addressee honorific desu is also used for the addressee.
While social distance is considered the major factor in the use of honorifics, other
factors (e.g. the formality of the situation, the types of genres, the means of communication, the topics of conversation) have also been noted (Neustupn2~, 1978;
Ide, 1982, 1989; Makino and Tsutsui, 1986; Minami, 1987; Matsumoto, 1988). The
use of honorifics has also been related to another social variable, namely, gender.
Women are said to use generally more polite or formal expressions (e.g. honorifics)
than men (Jorden and Noda, 1987; Ide, 1990; Niyekawa, 1991). Further, it has been
pointed out that the choice of honorifics may require a simultaneous consideration of
two or more social factors (Minami, 1987; Ide, 1982; Matsumoto, 1988; Shibatani,
1990). In any event, previous studies have characterized the use of honorifics by
directly relating it to social features of the context, in particular social distance. Recognizing exceptions to his rules for honorific expressions, Neustupn~ (1978: 225)
notes that there are many uses of honorifics which cannot be dealt with by rules
that directly link social features (in particular, distance features) and linguistic
expressions. That is, treating honorifics as direct indexes of certain social features
may concur with 'central' or 'normative' uses, actual speech practices seem much
more complex, exhibiting many apparently inconsistent uses. As in the case of
the research on language and gender, the need for careful studies of actual honorific
uses in diverse social contexts is now increasingly being recognized (Cook, 1996;
Miller, 1996).

3. Variations in speech styles

This section presents examples of 'gendered' sentence-final forms and honorific
and non-honorific forms from actual speech data to illustrate the wide variations
in use. The examples come from two sets of data: Data Set I, women's dyadic
conversations; and Data Set II, dyadic conversations between salespersons and
customers.
Data Set I was gathered in 1992 and 1993. 4 It consists of 10 audio-taped informal
conversations, each between two close female friends. The speakers were all residents
4 Partof this data set was also used in Okamoto (1995, 1996).

S. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

799

of Tokyo. There were 5 pairs of college students, ages 18 to 20, and 5 pairs of middle-aged women, ages 43 to 57. 5 The subjects were asked to tape-record their
oshaberi 'chat' with their close friends for about 45 minutes. 6 Each conversation was
transcribed to obtain 150 consecutive sentence tokens for each speaker. 7
Data Set II was obtained in 1995 in Osaka and Kyoto, Japan. It consists of many
short conversations carried out between salespersons and customers in the following
four places: (1) a large well-known marketplace in Kyoto that houses about 150
small shops selling fish, meat, vegetables, etc., (2) the same kind of large marketplace in Osaka, with about 170 small shops, (3) a major department store in Kyoto,
and (4) a major department store in Osaka. The observation of the conversations was
done by the author in late December. The conversations were recorded partly by
note-taking and partly by a tape-recorder.

3.1. Variations in the use of 'gendered' sentence-final forms

The use of 'gendered' sentence-final forms was examined, using Data Set I. 8 Each
sentence-final token in the data set was identified as feminine, neutral, or masculine.
This identification was based mainly on the classification given in the literature
(e.g. Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; McGloin, 1990). The feminine and masculine
sentence-final forms were further subdivided into moderately feminine/masculine
forms and strongly feminine/masculine forms. (The gender classifications of sentence-final forms used in the present study are the same as those used in Okamoto
and Sato (1992)). 9
The results of the analysis show wide variations between the two age groups, as
shown in Table 1.
There is also wide within-group variation, 1 as the range for each average percentage in Table 1 shows. But, generally speaking, the older women tended to
use more 'feminine' sentence-final forms than did the younger women. All the
older women except one used 'feminine' forms more often than 'masculine' forms.
In contrast, all the younger women except two used 'masculine' forms more often
than 'feminine' forms. Furthe:r, many of the older speakers used 'strongly feminine' forms quite frequently, but the younger speakers hardly used them. For

5 All of the college students were attending private colleges. Three of the middle-aged women had
full-time jobs; one of them worked for the family business; five of them had part-time jobs, although
they identified themselves as housewives; only one was a full-time housewife.
6 Topics for conversation were not specified, although sample topics were suggested, among them
school matters, friends, shopping, and travel.
7 See Okamoto (1994, 1995) for a detailed description of the kinds of sentence tokens that were not
included in the analysis.
8 In Okamoto (1996), I analyzed the use of four gender-related linguistic features: sentence-final
forms, honorifics, the prefix o- for nouns, and 'vulgar' or 'strongly masculine' lexical items. In this
study, I discuss only the first two features to illustrate variability in the use of indexical signs.
9 See Okamoto and Sato (1992) for a detailed description of the gender classification of sentence-final
forms.
~0 See Okamoto (1996) for each speaker's use of gendered sentence-final forms.

800

S. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

Table 1
Use (in %) of gendered sentence-final forms for the two age groups
Sentence-final forms

Students
(ages 18-20)
%

Feminine forms

- Moderately feminine forms

- Strongly feminine forms
Masculine forms

- Moderately masculine forms

- Strongly masculine forms
Neutral forms
Total

Middle-aged women
(ages 43-57)
(Range)

Range)

12

(5-19)

36

(10-61)

8
5

(3-10)
(2-12)

18
18

(5-27)
(5-34)

19
18

(11-25)
(8-25)

12
12

(2-23)
(2-23)

(0-3)

(0-1)

(59-77)

51

(37-73)

69
100

100

The number of subjects is 10 for each age group.

Total number of tokens = 3,000 (150 tokens for each subject)

example, the y o u n g e r group used the typical ' f e m i n i n e ' particle w a only twice in
the entire data set. The older group used it 55 times. The underlined forms in
example (4) illustrate the use o f strongly feminine sentence-final forms by older
women:
(4) (middle-aged women, talking about their physical problems)
SP A: H a ni kita no. M o o doo shiyoo mo nai wa yo, watashi. / ? / g a t a g a t a ,
karada.
'It (the symptoms of strain) came to m y teeth. I ' m h o p e l e s s . / ? / M y body
is all getting ruined.'
SP B: M e ni kita.
'Mine comes to m y eyes.'
SP A: D a k a r a iki-nagara chiryoo-shite moratta. [laughter]
' S o I had them fixed while going there.'
SP B: li wa nee. M e ni kuru no. Sore ga nee, atashi wa muchuu ni natte yacchau
desho ? Yari-hajimeru to.
' T h a t ' s nice. Mine comes to m y eyes. Well, I do it forgetting myself,
once I start doing it.'
S P A : Un.
'Yeah.'
S P B : Soo su to ne,
'Then,'
SP A: M e mo tsukareru wa yo ne.
' Y o u r eyes get tired, r i g h t ? '

S. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795--817

801

Note, however, that although younger speakers hardly used strongly feminine
forms for their own speech, they used them when they quoted older women (i.e. their
mothers and female teachers), as shown in example (5):
(5) Sore okaasan ni hanashitara, ja watashi ga morau wa yo to ka itte.
'When I told that to my mother, she said, "Then I will get it." '
What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that almost all younger women as well
as many of the older women used 'moderately masculine' forms quite frequently.
Although forms such as da and its variants (e.g. da yo, da yo ne) and yo (preceded
by a plain form of a verb or a so-called/-adjective) are normally regarded as 'male'
or 'masculine' forms in the literature (e.g. Ide, 1982; Reynolds, 1985; Mizutani and
Mizutani, 1987; Shibamoto, 1987; Miura and McGloin, 1994), they were widely
used by the subjects, as illustrated in examples (6) and (7):
(6) (students, talking about skiwear)
A: lya da, are.
'I don't like that.'
B: Kawaii jan.

'It's cute, isn't it?'

A: Ageru ~ , moo.
'I will give it to you.'
B: A, jaa hoshii y_O_,moo, honto ni.

'Oh, then I want it, really.'

(7) (middle-aged women, talking about a hotel)
A: Un, soo da yo ne.
'Yeah, that's right.'
B: Un, toreru to omon d.__qa.
'Yeah, I think we can get it.'
A: Waa, suteki da nee.
'Wow, it's nice.'
As Table 1 shows, most of the 'masculine' sentence-final forms used by the subjects were 'moderately masculine' forms. But many younger subjects also used
'strongly masculine' forms, though on a limited basis. Examples (8)-(11) illustrate
the use of 'strongly masculine' forms by younger speakers:
(8) (students, talking about the location of an office)
A: Ii na. Watashi Maruno-uchi de hatarakitakatta naa.
'That's nice. I wanted to work in Maruno-uchi.'
B: lya datte tooi zo.
'But it's far away.'
(9) (students, talking about a ,;ki trip)
A: Gondora.
'It's a gondola.'

802

S. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

B: Gondoro ka.
'I see, it's gondoro (gondola).'
A: Gondoro ja nee, gondora. [laughter]
'It's not gondoro, it's gondora.'

(lO) (a student, responding to the interlocutor's teasing remark)

Katte ni itte ro tte.

'Say whatever you want to say.'

(11) (students, talking about junior members of their tennis club)
A: Nama yuu na yo, mitai na kanji. [laughter]
'It's like, 'Don't be cheeky." '
B: Un, mitai na.
'Yeah, like that.'
A: [laughter]
In sum, the speech styles of the speakers in Data Set I showed wide variability,
including many uses of 'masculine' forms. Wide variations and 'deviations' in the
use of 'gendered' sentence-final forms as well as other gender-related linguistic features
(e.g. honorifics, lexical items) have also been reported in other studies (Okamoto and
Sato, 1992; Kobayashi, 1993; Takasaki, 1993; Okamoto, 1994, 1996). Further, it
has been pointed out that gender distinction in speech style in Japan is more an urban
phenomenon than a rural one (Kitagawa, 1977: 292). Sunaoshi (1995), for example,
notes that her subjects, speakers of Ibaraki dialect, rarely used 'feminine' forms; in
particular those with a thicker regional accent used features considered 'masculine'
according to the normative characterization. Miyake (1995:219) also points out that
"many features of men's rough speech in Standard Japanese are used by both men
and women in the Tohoku Dialect". In Tokyo itself there are two regions, Yamanote
'the hillside' and Shitamachi 'the downtown', although their boundaries are now less
clear than they once were. And it is the idealized 'feminine' speech style of the former that is usually described as 'women's language'. I1
3.2. Variations in the use of honorifics

Data Set II exhibited wide variations in the use of both referent and addressee
honorifics. There was a striking difference between the speech of salespersons in the
department stores and that of vendors at the markets even though all conversations
involved the same kind of relationship (i.e. salesperson and customer). Although
there were variations at each type of venue, generally speaking, salespersons at the
two department stores used much more formal speech styles than vendors at the two
markets. The former most often used both referent and addressee honorifics when
talking to customers, whereas the latter (particularly vendors at the market in Osaka)
often did not use honorifics at all.
lI See Kondo (1990) and Hibiya (1995) for further discussion of Yamanote-kotoba and Shitamachikotoba.

s. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795~817

803

Examples (12) and (13) illustrate this contrast. (In the following examples,
S stands for salesperson, and C customer.)
(12) (at a women's clothes section of the department store in Kyoto; a saleswoman,
talking to a customer)
S: lrasshaimase. Doozo goran kudasaimase.
'Welcome. Please take; a look at them.'
(13) (at a fish shop in the market in Osaka; a male vendor, talking to customers,
trying to catch their attention)
S: Chuu-toro ya, chuu-toro, li no haitte ru yo. Mite itte yo, mite itte.
'(It's/We have) chuu-toro, chuu-toro (a kind of fish). Good ones are in.
Take a look at them, take a look at them.'
The speech in (12) is very formal, using both referent and addressee honorifics:
In the first sentence, the speaker used irraishaimase 'welcome' rather than more informal irasshai, which lacks the addressee honorific -mase; in the second sentence she used
the subject honorific goran 'to look' to refer to the addressee's action, and the formal
request form -kudasaimase 'please do ...', which consists of the subject honorific -kudasai and the addressee honorific -rnase. The speech in (13), in contrast, does not contain
any honorifics. All sentences end in a plain form rather than an addressee honorific form.
For example, the first sentence Chuu-toro ya 'It's/We have chuu-toro' lacks an addressee
honorific, desu or de gozaimasu (i.e. Chuu-toro desu/degozaimasu). The third sentence
makes the same kind of request as in (13) but it lacks both referent and addressee honorifics: The addressee's action is referred to by the non-honorific verb form mite it- and
the request is made in an informal style, using the verb gerundive form (it)te.
The following example further illustrates the use of honorifics in the department
stores:
(14) (at a women's clothes section of the department store in Osaka; A female customer asks a saleswoman who was talking with another customer.)
C: Kore no ooki no nai?
'Don't you have this in a larger size?'
S: Hai shooshoo o-machi-itadakemasu ka.
'Yes, could you please wait for a moment?'
In (14) the customer spoke in an informal style, but the salesperson spoke in a
very formal style, using a subject honorific (o- machi 'wait'), a non-subject honorific
(itadake '(lit.) possible to receive (the favor)'), and an addressee honorific (masu).
Note also that she used the word shoo shoo 'for a moment' rather than a more informal equivalent chotto. In (12) and (14) the salespersons at the department stores are
female. But male salespersons at the department stores also most often spoke in
formal styles, as illustrated in (15) and (16):

(15) (at a coffee shop in the department store in Kyoto)

Waiter: O-sara no hoo o-sage-shite yoroshii desu ka.
'Would that be all right if I took away your plate?'

804

S. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

(16) (at the food section of the department store in Kyoto; a male salesperson, talking to a male customer)
S: Irasshaimase.
'Welcome.'
C: /?/aru no?
'Do you h a v e / ? / ? '
S: Hai, gozaimasu.
'Yes, we do.'
In (15) the waiter used a non-subject honorific (o-sage-shite) and an addressee
honorific (desu). He also used the polite prefix o- for a noun (o-sara 'your plate')
and the formal form yoroshii 'all right' (rather than the plain form ii). In (16) the
customer spoke in an informal style, but the salesperson used addressee honorifics
(mase in irasshaimase and gozaimasu).
The following three examples further illustrate the lack of honorifics in the speeches
of salespersons in the markets. Note that the vendors in (18) and (19) are female,
while those in (13) and (17) are male.
(17) (at a fish shop in the market in Kyoto; a male vendor, talking to a male customer)
C: Dooshite oitoitara ii?
'How should I keep/leave this?'
S: Hikage ni oitoite hoshii.
'I want you to leave it in the shade.'
(18) (at a fish shop in the market in Osaka; a female vendor, talking to a female
customer)
C: O-shoogatsu made motsu ?
'Is this going to last until the new year?'
S: Motsu yo. Tsumetai toko i oitoite. Reezooko iretara akan.
'It will. Place it in a cool place. You shouldn't put it in the refrigerator.'
(19) (at a meat shop in the market in Osaka, a female vendor, talking to customers)
S: Koobe-niku yasui yo yasui yo, negittara maketoku yo.
'Kobe beef, it's cheap, it's cheap. If you haggle, we will make it cheaper.'
The vendors and the customers in (17)-(19) all spoke in informal style. In particular, the vendors did not use referent honorifics to refer to the customers' actions. Nor
did they use addressee honorifics in any of the sentences.
Regarding the formality differences in speech between the department stores and
the markets, one notable point is the use of (de) gozaimasu, an addressee honorific
that is much more formal than desu. Salespersons at the department stores used both
desu and (de) gozaimasu frequently, while vendors at the two markets sometimes
used desu but not (de) gozaimasu. The use of (de) gozaimasu in the department
stores is illustrated in (16) and (20):

S. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

805

(20) (at the department store in Kyoto)

C: Suimasen, hankachi no uriba wa doko desu ka.
'Excuse me, where is the handkerchief section?'
S: A, hankachi wa choodo kono oku no hoo de gozaimasu.
'Oh, handkerchiefs are just in back of this place.'
It is to be noted that although many vendors at the markets did not use honorifics
at all, there were also many vendors who used them, as illustrated in (21):
(21) (at a vegetable shop in the; market in Osaka; a male vendor, talking to a female
customer)
S: Hai, yon-hyaku-en ne. Fukuro iremasho ka.
'Here, it's 400 yen. Shall I put them in a bag?'
C: A, sakki / ?/ haitteru kara ...
'Oh, a little while a g o , / ? / i t ' s in, so ...'
S: A, ii desu ka.
'Oh, it's all right? (you don't need it?)'
In (21) the salesperson's speech is relatively formal, using the addressee honorifics masho and desu, although it is not the most formal one in that he did not use
a non-subject honorific for the verb ireru 'put in' (i.e. o-ire-shi-mashoo ka).
Particularly interesting was the mixing of honorific and non-honorific expressions
in the same sentence or across sentences in the same conversation. The phrase iremasho ka in example (21) illustrates the intra-sentential mixing of a non-honorific
form (i.e. the lack of a referent honorific in ire) and an addressee honorific (masho).
Examples (22) and (23) also illustrate the intra-sentential mixing, but unlike (21),
they include a referent honorific, but not an addressee honorific.
(22) (at a fish shop in the market in Kyoto; a male vendor, talking to a female customer)
S: Kotchi shi-hattara ee wa.
'You should take this one.'
(23) (at a shop of tofu products in the market in Kyoto; a female vendor, talking to
a female customer)
S: Reetoo-shi-hatte mo ii yo.
'You could also freeze it.'
In (22) and (23) the vendors used hat, a subject honorific in the regional dialect,
to refer to the customers' actions, but they did not use any addressee honorific for
the same customers.
Example (24) illustrates the inter-sentential mixing of addressee honorifics and
plain forms in the same conversation:
(24) (at a dried goods shop in the market in Kyoto; a female vendor, talking to a
female customer)
S: Chotto yoko nine, oka-hattara kiree ya shine.
'If you put them a little bit by the side, it's pretty.'

806

s. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

C: A, soo ka. Kore to kore to, nan ka kiree ne.

'Oh, I see. This and this, it's kind of pretty, isn't it?'
S: Soo ya nee, hai.
'That's right, yes.'
C: /?/
S: / ? / D o t c h i demo yoroshii desu ka.

' / ? / W i l l either one do?'

In (24) an addressee honorific was not used in the first two sentences of the salesperson, but it was used in the third sentence of the same speaker. Note also that a
subject honorific hatta was used in the first sentence to refer to the addressee's
action, while no addressee honorific was used in the same sentence.
Data Set I also showed variations in the use and non-use of honorifics. The speakers in Data Set I did not use honorifics for each other, because they were close
friends. However, when they talked about certain third persons (i.e. their superiors
and persons they did not know well), they sometimes used referent honorifics. The
use of these honorifics was relatively rare among the younger group. In contrast,
such honorifics were frequently used by the older group, although there were also
many instances in which the older speakers did not use them when applicable.
Examples (25)-(27), spoken by middle-aged women, illustrate the use of referent
honorifics:
(25) Go-shujin mo issho ni irashita kara ...
'Her husband also came with her, so ...'
(26) Okeeko ni wa ne sore de ii tte ossharu n da kedo.
'(The teacher) says that for practice that will do.'
(27) A: Kore totte kudasatta no ga wakai j o s e e no kata datta n de ...
'The one who kindly took this (picture) was a young woman, so ...'
B" Un.
'Yeah.'
A: Chotto, chotto shinpai datta no.
'! was a little bit, a little bit worried.'
In (25), (26), and (27), the speakers used subject-referent honorifics (irashita
'came', ossharu 'say', kudasatta 'gave (a favor)', respectively) for the referents'
actions. In (25) the speaker also used the honorific form go-shujin 'husband' to refer
to her friend's husband.
Examples (28)-(30) illustrate the lack of referent honorifics. Examples (28) and
(29) were spoken by students, and example (30) by middle-aged women:
(28) Soo. Sensee wa sensee de j i b u n no heya de osake nonde ru shi.
'Right. The teacher was drinking sake in his own room.'
(29) X-sensee ga sono, nan ka, nani, ma, tesuto no koohyoo mitaina no itte t e - , nan
ka, nan-nin, nan-nin, go, roku-nin, shichi, hachi-nin, da ka, nan da ka, wakan
nai kedo, nan ka yokatta hito no namae dake itta no y o - .

S. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

807

'Professor X was saying, uh, some, some, uh, comments on the test, and said
only the names of those who did well, I don't know how, how many, how
many, five or six, seven or eight.'
(30) A: X - s a n te, hora, o-isha-san no musuko-san ga o-isha-san ni natta tte hito ...
'Mr. X, you know, that person who is a doctor, and whose son also became
a doctor, ...'

B: Un, un.
'Yeah, yeah.'
A: ano hito m o o-baa-chan ga kiteta no, oya ga.
'his mother also came, his parent.'
In these examples the speakers ,:lid not use honorifics (i.e. underlined verbs) for the
referents' actions, although there was social distance between each speaker and the
referent.
Other recent studies also show examples in which 'expected' honorifics were not
used: Sukle (1994), for example, provides conversations in which the vendor in a
vegetable shop sometimes spoke to customers in an informal style without honorifics. ~2 Miller (1996) gives examples in which subordinate workers did not use
honorifics when talking to their bosses. Cook (1996) provides examples in which
honorifics were not used towards unfamiliar addressees. It has also been noted that
honorifics may be used in 'unexpected' situations - e.g. toward the addressee who is
close to the speaker (see Section 6). 'Deviant' cases such as these, and the examples
we saw above, cannot simply be attributed to a speaker's inability to use honorifics
appropriately. Rather, these usages deserve careful study.

4. Describing/prescribing linguistic 'norms'

A close examination of the variations in the use of 'gendered' sentence-final
forms and honorifics suggests that the use of these linguistic forms cannot be adequately accounted for by directly relating linguistic forms to certain social variables,
that is, by treating linguistic forms as direct indexes of contextual features. Such
a treatment does not allow linguistic variation and change. Further, it is to be emphasized that the usages defined based on direct indexicality are not mere overgeneralizations in linguistic description. Rather, they tend to represent 'normative'
usages, or the hegemonic linguistic ideology. Silverstein (1979: 204) points out that
scientific studies of language have tended to analyze the native ideology of language
use, as though it were an objective description of the relation between linguistic
forms and social context. This is often applicable to the case of both 'gendered' sentence-final forms and honorific,; in Japanese.
With regard to gender and language, the speakers in Data Set I used 'masculine'
forms quite frequently. In fact, among the twenty speakers in Data Set I, only three
~2 Sukle explains this lack of honorifics in terms of uchi 'in-group' relations based on the view of
direct indexicality.

808

s. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

middle-aged women used a very 'feminine' speech style. Yet, this hyper 'feminine'
speech style is what is usually described as Japanese w o m e n ' s language. Gal (1995:
171) argues that categories such as women's speech and m e n ' s speech "are not just
indexically derived from the identities of speakers", but rather are "culturally constructed within social groups". 'Japanese women's language' is thus a constructed
category based on standard Japanese-in particular, the idealized speech style of
traditional women in the upscale Yamanote area of Tokyo. It is what 'proper' women
are expected to use. It is thus class-based and normative, representing the hegemonic
linguistic and gender ideology (see also Inoue, 1994, and Okamoto, 1994, 1995).
W o m e n ' s speech styles that do not conform to ' w o m e n ' s language' may be criticized as unfeminine, unattractive, ignorant, and symptomatic of improper upbringing. Such ideological conflicts are sometimes expressed in the media:
"It is often said that young women nowadays - whether they are students or working women - cannot
use honorifics well.... I sometimes hear female teachers use the same language as male teachers....
women using men's language unnaturally. Are they ignorant or lazy, or are they making foolish efforts
not to be dominated by men?" (Sumie Tanaka, Kashikoi Hito ni Narinasai, 1986; translated from the
Japanese original)13
Similarly, the discussions of honorific uses in the literature most often represent
'canonical' usage, the forms that 'socially refined' Japanese are expected to use.
Like w o m e n ' s use of ' m e n ' s language', 'incorrect' uses of honorifics are often criticized as indicative of ignorance, improper upbringing, or foolishness. Numerous
books, magazine articles, and programs in popular culture offer guidance on how to
use honorifics (Miller, 1996). Miller (1996) argues that this emphasis on 'correct'
honorifics, or tadashii keigo, indicates that the knowledge of honorifics is seen as
linguistic capital for improving one's social identity - an essential part of one's sociolinguistic competence. This class-based ideology of honorifics, according to Miller
(1996: 2), is often shared by academic literature on honorifics, which provides
"essentially prescriptive characterizations".

5. Indexical process: Language, linguistic ideology, and social context

Despite the emphasis on 'normative' usages of 'gendered' sentence-final forms
and honorifics, Japanese speakers often diverge from those usages. As mentioned
above, the proliferation of 'deviant' uses suggests that linguistic forms are not
directly linked to such features of social context as gender and social distance. Relating linguistic forms directly to particular social variables - that is, treating linguistic
forms as direct indexes, or markers, of particular social features - is problematic in
two respects: One is the treatment of a particular social category as an independent
variable, and the other the direct mapping of a linguistic form to a particular feature
of the social context. The diverse linguistic uses presented in Section 3, for example,
t3 See Okamoto (1995) for more excerpts from the media that illustrate the ideological conflicts regarding women's speech.

S. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795817

809

suggest that social categories such as gender, status, and intimacy cannot be
abstracted as independent variables determining language choice (see also Eckert
and McConnell-Ginet, 1992). I argue that the choice of speech styles is a strategy
based on a speaker's consideration of multiple social aspects of the context (e.g. gender,
age, intimacy, genre, domain, speech-act type) 14 as well as on the speaker's linguistic
ideology, or beliefs and attitudes, concerning language use. Based on their perception
of multiple social aspects of the context, actors employ the linguistic expressions
they consider most appropriate.
Silverstein (1979: 193) defines linguistic ideologies as "any sets of beliefs about
language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived
language structure and use". Woolard (1992: 235) characterizes language ideology
as "a mediating link between social structures and forms of talk". Similarly, Irvine
(ibid.: 252) points out that fob:ms of talk and forms of social structure cannot be
correlated straightforwardly. Rather, the relationship between the two "is more productively sought in cultural ideologies of language - those complex systems of ideas
and interests through which people interpret linguistic behaviors". Further, Kulick
(1992: 295) notes that "language ideologies seem never to be solely about language
- they are always about entangled clusters of phenomena, and they encompass and
comment on aspects of culture like gender and expressions and being civilized". As
discussed by Silverstein (1979) and Irvine (1992), ('dominant') ideology affects
speakers' strategies of language use, but it is important to distinguish particular
beliefs about language use from actual distribution of uses.
My analysis of the data in the present study suggests that actual language uses are
not always consistent with the normative' linguistic usage, or 'dominant' ideology,
because of the complexity of aclual social context and also because of the diversity of
linguistic ideologies that mediate the indexical process. That is, while the 'normative'
usage emphasizes, or highlights, a certain cultural value relating to a particular social
variable (e.g. the importance of acknowledging gender difference or social distance),
actual use requires a consideration of multiple social aspects of the context. Further,
the choice of a linguistic form :is not determined by a contextual feature; rather it is
based on the speaker's judgment about the appropriateness of the linguistic form in a
given situation. The 'dominant' linguistic ideology influences actual language use, but
it is not exercised by everyone in exactly the same way at all times. Individuals may
have different ideas about language use and form different relations between linguistic forms and social context. ~5 Further, these ideas about ways of speaking may vary
in small and subtle ways. In this respect, they may be better considered as speakers'
context-sensitive linguistic strategies, or concerns about language use.
Ochs (1990, 1993), distinguishing direct and indirect indexes, claims that the relation between language and certain contextual information, such as gender and the

14 AS mentioned in Section 2.2, Minami (1987) and others consider the use of honorifics as involving
a consideration of multiple social factors.
~5 For discussions of the multiplicity, diversity, and contention of linguistic ideologies involved in various levels of linguistic phenomena in other languages, see, for example, Silverstein (1979, 1985, 1992),
Briggs (1992), Errington (1992), Gal (1992), Hill (1992), and Morgan (1994).

810

s. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 ( 1997) 795-817

nature of social relations (i.e. indirect indexes), is mediated and constituted through
the pragmatic meanings of linguistic features, such as affective stances, social acts,
and social activities (i.e. direct indexes). For example, regarding the relation of
language to gender, Ochs explains that certain sentence-final particles in Japanese
(e.g. ze and wa) directly index affective stances of "coarse versus delicate intensity",
which in tum relate to gender and gender images as indirect indexes (1993:150-151)
(see also McGloin, 1990, and Reynolds, 1990). Similarly, honorifics, according
to Ochs (1990: 297), directly index "affective dispositions of the speaker (e.g.
humility, admiration, love)", which in turn relate, as indirect indexes, to contextual
information, such as the social positions of participants in a conversation. This
notion of indirect index is particularly important in that it allows the possibility of
speech style variations. However, Ochs' account, which mainly focuses on "normative" linguistic usages, is only implicit with regard to how the pragmatic meaning of
a linguistic form is related to social context. ~6To account for speech style variations,
then, I emphasize the role of linguistic ideologies that mediate indexical processes.
That is, the relation between the pragmatic meaning of a linguistic form and social
context may vary because the two are related by way of the speaker's beliefs and
attitudes concerning language use.
Associating, for example, the 'coarse intensity' of the particle ze with masculinity
and the 'delicate intensity' of the particle wa with femininity is not straightforward;
rather it is a function of one's attitudes toward speech styles for men and women.
Different attitudes and expectations may evoke different associations. In other
words, the pragmatic meanings (e.g. coarse intensity, delicate intensity, (in)directness) of 'gendered' sentence-final forms may not necessarily be associated with
gender or femininity/masculinity. For example, in choosing sentence-final forms
characterized as 'masculine' in the 'normative' usage (e.g. da, ze), women may
express - through their pragmatic meanings (e.g. directness and assertiveness) - such
social meanings as intimacy, solidarity, power, emotions (e.g. anger), and speech-act
types (e.g. criticism), but not masculinity (see also Okamoto, 1995). On the other
hand, the indirectness or formality of sentence-final forms regarded as 'feminine'
(e.g. wa, kashira) may be interpreted as implicating such social meanings as the
speaker's class status, social distance, and speech-act types (e.g. sarcasm). 17
Likewise, the presence of a certain contextual feature (e.g. social difference) may
not necessarily trigger the use of honorifics. That is, the pragmatic meanings, or
affective dispositions, expressed by honorifics cannot be straightforwardly related to
certain contextual features. Using honorifics to express formality or deference
~6 Ochs (1993: 154) discusses marked and unmarked speech styles for men and women, recognizing
the existence of diversity in speech styles. Yet, her model of indexical process is only implicit with
regard to the linguistic ideology, or the agent, that relates the pragmatic meaning of a linguistic form
to social context.
~v See also Faier (1995), in which she argues that the relation between language and gender may shift
between utterances, even if the same linguistic features are employed. For example, Faier (1995: 7)
points out that "accommodatinglanguage" - the communicativestyle of white middle-class U.S. mothers (Ochs, 1993)- may be used by women sarcasticallyto patronize, that it may be used when speaking
to a pet to "humanize" the animal, and that it may also be used by men/fathers.

S. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795417

811

toward a socially higher person, tbr example, is based on one's judgment about what
constitutes an appropriate social behavior in a particular situation. In some situations
such 'normative' usage may not be followed or interpreted differently. For instance,
the lack of referent honorifics, or the informality expressed toward the referent, does
not necessarily mean the lack of social distance between the speaker and the referent, but may index indirectly other social meanings, such as intimacy or friendliness
toward the addressee, the nature of the conversational setting, and speech-act types
(e.g..warning, exclamation). On the other hand, the use of referent honorifics, or the
formality expressed toward the referent, may not always index only the social distance between the speaker and the referent, but may implicate some other meanings,
such as the speaker's class status, distance vis-~t-vis the addressee, and speech-act
types (e.g. request, sarcasm). Further, as seen in Section 3, honorific and non-honorific forms may be mixed to express different degrees of formality that are thought
be appropriate for a given situation (see Section 6 for further discussion).
Thus the same linguistic form, or its pragmatic meaning, may be interpreted
differently (as indirect indexes) due to different ideas about language use. In other
words, the potential values of indirect indexes of linguistic forms are multiple and
indeterminate, although some may be more salient and emphasized in the abstract as
linguistic and cultural 'norms'. An adequate understandings of indexical meanings in
actual language use requires the; consideration of the multiplicity and diversity of
linguistic ideologies, or speech-,style strategies. To put it differently, by examining
variations in the use of indexical expressions, we can infer diverse and complex
ideas about language use. In the remainder of this paper, I will elaborate on this
argument, using examples.

6. Indexical meanings in specific social contexts

As we saw earlier, the young speakers in Data Set I rarely used 'strongly feminine' sentence-final forms (e.g. wa, kashira). However, they did use them when
quoting their mothers and female teachers. Some young women told me that they
think feminine speech is elegant and nice, but they don't want to use it. They also
said they find the use of feminine speech styles among themselves to be inappropriate because they sound 'aralamatta' (formal) and 'kidotta' (prudish). 'Strongly
feminine' particles, such as wa and kashira, make speech acts indirect or less assertive
(Uyeno, 1971; Reynolds, 1985; Ide, 1990), which in turn may be interpreted as
indexing distance (with or without femininity). On the other hand, the younger group
used 'moderately masculine' sentence-final forms (e.g. da, da yo) frequently. A
number of young women told me that they do not perceive 'moderately masculine'
sentence-final forms to be masculine at all. For them, the directness or assertiveness
(i.e. the pragmatic meanings) of such forms seems to (indirectly) index intimacy
rather than roughness or the lack of femininity.
The young group in Data Set I also used 'vulgar' or 'strongly masculine' expressions (i.e. sentence-final forms, lexical items) on a very limited basis. Some of the
subjects explained that they use such expressions only with close peers. Although

812

S. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795817

their use of 'moderately masculine' forms is rather casual, their use of 'strongly masculine' forms seems to be a highly conscious decision. Subjects often qualified
'strongly masculine' expressions by giggling (e.g. examples (9) and (11)) or using
hedges (e.g. examples (10) and (11)). Such devices indicate that the speakers are
aware of the 'markedness' (Ochs, 1993: 154) of these forms, particularly for conversations that are recorded. Yet they choose to use them, which in turn serves to
reinforce solidarity.
We also saw wide variations in speech styles among the older women in Data Set
I. Some used very 'feminine' styles, others relatively 'unfeminine' styles. However,
their conversations may also be perceived differently. One of the older women, who
used 'unfeminine' expressions frequently, criticized the y a m a n o t e style of 'feminine'
speech as insincere and as a device for distancing. That is, the indirect and relatively
formal speech styles of some of the older women could be interpreted as an index of
class status or even as a device for distancing. On the other hand, the direct and
forceful speech styles of some of the older speakers may be intended as expressions
of intimacy or solidarity. To add another example, Japanese professional women,
such as teachers and politicians, are often criticized for their 'unfeminine' speech
styles, as illustrated by the media excerpt in Section 4. However, as Reynolds (1990:
138) explains, such usage by professional women may be intended to strengthen
solidarity without losing authority - i.e. to express and construct both power and
solidarity.
Further, women may use 'strongly masculine' or 'vulgar' forms to express not
only identities and social relations but also their emotions or particular types of
speech-acts. For example, young subjects used 'strongly masculine' or 'vulgar'
expressions for emphasis (e.g. example (8)), when joking or teasing (e.g. example
(9)), or when criticizing or protesting (e.g. examples (10) and (11)). One of the older
subjects also used 'vulgar' forms when expressing her anger toward her in-laws. As
these examples indicate, forceful expressions are considered by the speakers as
effective for certain speech acts. One more example of this is the use, or exploitation, of 'gendered' linguistic forms to express sarcasm. On a television show, in
which a group of young contemporary women talk about men, one 19-year old
participant, trying to break into the conversation, said Chotto ii kashira 'I wonder if
I may (speak)' in a high-pitched voice. The rest of the group as well as the studio
audience burst into laughter. Earlier on, this participant had been very assertive,
expressing her 'liberal' opinions directly. Her 'strongly feminine' expression (i.e.
kashira and high-pitched voice) was thus sarcastic, inviting laughter.
With regard to honorifics, we saw in Section 3 a sharp difference in the speech
styles of salespersons in the two department stores and those in the two markets. All
of the dialogue involved social distance: a power, or hierarchical, relation (between
salesperson and customer) and a lack of intimacy, since most customers do not know
salespersons personally. ~8 The non-use of honorifics by many vendors at the markets, however, does not mean that the vendors disregard social distance. As Miller
~s The two markets are huge markets where many customers go only once in a while; they are not
small neighborhoodstores that have many regular clients (cf. Sukle, 1994).

S. Okamoto / Jo~,rnal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

813

(1996: 7) points out, social distance or deference may be expressed by other means
(e.g. bowing and greeting). It ,;eems that using non-honorific forms rather than
formal honorifics is considered suitable to the setting, conveying friendliness and the
casual, lively atmosphere of the market. The use of very formal honorific expressions at the department stores, in contrast, can be interpreted as a sign of the stores'
social status as well as marking ,explicitly the perceived social distance between the
speaker and the addressee.
As mentioned, the difference in speech styles between the two types of stores was
not clear cut. For example, while many vendors at the markets did not use honorifics
for the addressee, many others used them. This suggests that it is not simply the
social distance or the setting that dictates the use and non-use of honorifics. Rather,
the variation reflects the differences in the speakers' speech style strategies vis-a-vis
their evaluation of multiple social aspects of the context. Some vendors may think
the use of honorifics is not suitable for the informal atmosphere of the setting; others
may think showing some degree of formality to the customer by the use of honorifics
is appropriate. It is also possible that vendors use different strategies for different
kinds of customers based on how customers talk, dress, etc.
Further, some vendors at the markets mixed honorific and non-honorific expressions
in the same conversation, as illu,;trated in examples (21)-(24). Similarly, salespersons
at the department stores once in a while inserted plain forms in their formal speech.
This was observed particularly in the basement departments, where all sorts of foods
are sold, and also when salespersons were engaging in a long conversation with customers, trying to sell the merchandise. It is difficult to explain these style-mixings (for
the same referent/addressee) in terms of social distance alone, unless one were to posit
that the perception of social distance between the same people changes from moment
to moment in the same conversation (cf. Sukle, 1994). Instead, such style-mixing is
best understood as a speaker's strategies to express the desired degree of formality in
situations in which using either honorifics or informal forms consistently is thought to
sound too formal or too informal. That is, the relation between (non-)honorific forms
and social context is adjusted throughout the conversation, suggesting that the expression of formality or deference is considered both locally and globally.
There was also wide variation in the use of referent honorifics among the women
in Data Set I. Although the use of honorifics is often correlated with women's
speech, many speakers did not use referent honorifics when talking about their superiors or people whom they did not know well. However, these speakers did use both
referent and addressee honorifics in the conversations I had with them, which were
carried out in formal styles. The non-use of referent honorifics in the data, then,
seems primarily motivated by the speaker's concern that the formality expressed
toward the referent who is not present might be taken as a sign of formality or distance toward the addressee, and hence found inappropriate in a conversation between
close friends. Note, however, that this judgment was not shared by everyone. Some
speakers, especially older women, did use referent honorifics for those who were not
present. According to Ide (1982: 382), Japanese women may also use honorifics and
formal forms "to impress others as being a member of a prestigious group". (See
also Ide, 1990, and Niyekawa, 1991.) Thus the frequent uses of referent honorifics

814

s. Okamoto /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

by some of the older speakers in Data Set I may also be taken as an index of the
speaker's class status (with or without femininity).
Recognizing linguistic ideologies in the use of honorifics can also account for
their non-reciprocal use as well as the variations in their non-reciprocal use. It is
often noted that in a hierarchical situation the person of higher status will speak in
plain forms, but the lower-status person will use honorifics (e.g. Niyekawa, 1991).
This non-reciprocal use of honorifics, in particular the use of plain forms by a
higher-status person, cannot be fully explained in terms of social distance, because
the distance in question is the same for both speakers. Rather, the use of plain forms
by a higher-status person can be regarded as a reflection of his/her judgment that
it is appropriate to employ plain forms in order to express his power and/or friendliness through the informality of such expressions. Other higher-status speakers,
however, will prefer to use honorifics to address a lower-status person in order to
maintain a certain formality toward the addressee or to avoid sounding too authoritative. For example, compare (14), (16), and (20) in the present data. Although these
conversations all took place in the department stores, the customers in (14) and (16)
used plain forms, while the customer in (20) used an addressee honorific. That is,
different attitudes towards the use of honorific and non-honorific expressions may
bring about different applications in the same kinds of situations.
Lastly, the 'unexpected' use of honorific or non-honorific forms may also occur
when particular types of speech acts or certain emotions are expressed. For example,
in a conversation with a close friend or a family member, a speaker may shift from
plain forms to honorifics when expressing such meanings as anger, seriousness of
the request, or sarcasm. Sukle (1994) gives an example in which a girl, talking to her
sister, switches to an honorific in making a request after having made several
requests in plain forms. It is also common that one uses formal forms in writing a
letter to a friend or family member (Neustupn~, 1978; Minami, 1987). But recently,
a friend of mine received a letter from his friend, who was quite angry with my
friend; the letter was written using plain forms. Or a speaker talking to a social superior may shift from honorifics to plain forms for making an exclamatory remark,
issuing a warning of danger, expressing anger, etc. These kinds of examples suggest
that speakers select forms based on their strategic judgments about the appropriateness of the (in)formality of (non-)honorific forms for expressing particular meanings
effectively in particular context. Not everyone may employ the same form in the
same kind of situation.

7. Conclusion
This study illustrates the complexity of indexical processes in which the relationship between social context and forms of speaking is construed through the filter of
one's beliefs about language use. As the examples discussed above show, the choice
of sentence-final forms and honorifics as indexical signs cannot be directly correlated with a single social variable. Rather, it is best regarded as a strategy based on
the speaker's linguistic ideology that mediates the pragmatic meanings of linguistic

s. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

815

forms and his/her a s s e s s m e n t o f m u l t i p l e social aspects o f the context, including

the attributes associated with identity and relationship (e.g. gender, age, hierarchy,
i n t i m a c y ) , the t y p e s o f d o m a i n or genre, and the types o f speech acts. In particular,
the e x a m p l e s d e m o n s t r a t e the w a y s p e a k e r s ' beliefs, or concerns, about l a n g u a g e
use lead to variations in the use and interpretation o f indexical expressions: The
k n o w l e d g e o f linguistic ' n o r m s ' , or the h e g e m o n i c linguistic i d e o l o g y , certainly
affects the s p e a k e r ' s speech style strategies but it is not a l w a y s shared b y e v e r y o n e
at all times. T h e v i e w o f i n d e x i c a l i t y e m p l o y e d in this study e n a b l e s us to account
for variations in the use o f i n d e x i c a l s in a coherent m a n n e r without resorting to
e x c e p t i o n s and deviations. M o r e detailed studies need to be done r e g a r d i n g the differences a m o n g the p r a g m a t i c m e a n i n g s o f i n d i v i d u a l sentence-final forms (e.g. da
vs. zo) and h o n o r i f i c forms (e.g. o - V e r b - n i n a r u vs. V - ( r ) a r e r u ) as well as the differences a m o n g their indirect indexes. S t u d i e s o f the use o f o t h e r i n d e x i c a l e x p r e s sions (e.g. a d d r e s s t e r m i n o l o g y , s e n t e n c e - m e d i a l particles, l e x i c a l items, request
f o r m s ) in d i v e r s e social situations are also called for.

References
Briggs, Charles L., 1992. Linguistic ideologies and the naturalization of power in Warao discourse. Pragmatics 2(3): 387-404.
Cook, Haruko M., 1996. Indexicality ;and Japanese addressee honorifics. A paper presented at the 48th
annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies.
Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet, 1992. Communities of practice: Where language, gender,
and power all live. In: K. Hall, M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon, eds., Locating power: Proceedings
of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 89-99.
Errington, J. Joseph, 1992. On the ideology of Indonesian language development: The state of a language of state. Pragmatics 2(3): 41'7-426.
Faier, Lieba., 1995. To Wa or not to Wa: or some thoughts on mapping a relationship between language
and gender. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.
Gal, Susan, 1992. Multiplicity and contention among ideologies: A commentary. Pragmatics 2(3):
445-449.
Gal, Susan, 1995. Language, gender, and power: An anthropological review. In: K. Hall and M. Bucholtz,
eds., Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self, 169-182. New York: Routledge.
Harada, S.I., 1976. Honorifics. In: M. Shibatani, ed., Syntax and semantics, Vol. 5: Japanese generative
grammar, 499-561. New York: Academic Press.
Hibiya, Junko, 1995. Diversity in Tokyo: The Nezu sociolect. Paper presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association.
Hill, Jane H., 1992. 'Today there is no respect': Nostalgia, 'respect' and oppositional discourse in Mexicano (Nahuatl) language ideology. Pragmatics 2(3): 263-280.
Hinds, John, 1978. Conversational structure: An investigation based on Japanese interview discourse.
In: J. Hinds and I. Howard, eds., Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 79-121, Tokyo:
Kaitakusha.
Ide, Sachiko, 1979. Onna no kotoba, otoko no kotoba (Women's language and men's language). Tokyo:
Keizai Tsushinsha.
Ide, Sachiko, 1982. Japanese sociolinguistics: Politeness and women's language. Lingua 57: 357-385.
Ide, Sachiko, 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic
politeness. Multilingua 8(2/3): 223-248.
Ide, Sachiko, 1990. How and why do women speak more politely in Japanese? In: S. Ide and N.H. McGloin,
eds., Aspects of Japanese women's language, 63-79. Tokyo: Kuroshio.

816

S. Okamow /.lournal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795--817

Ikuta, Shoko, 1983. Speech level shift and conversational strategy in Japanese discourse. Language
Sciences 5: 37-53.
Inoue, Miyako, 1994. Gender and linguistic modernization: Historicizing Japanese women's language.
In: M. Bucholtz, A.C. Liang, L.A. Sutton and C. Hines, eds., Cultural performances: Proceedings of
the 3rd Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 322-333.
Irvine, Judith T., 1992. Ideologies of honorific language. Pragmatics 2(3): 251-262.
Jorden, Eleanor H., 1990. Overview. In: S. Ide and N.H. McGloin, eds., Aspects of Japanese women's
language, 1-4. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Jorden, Eleanor H. and Mari Noda, 1987. Japanese: The spoken language (Part I). New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Jugaku, Akiko, 1979. Nihoneo to onna (The Japanese language and women). Tokyo: lwanami
Shoten.
Kindaichi, Haruhiko, 1957. Nihongo (The Japanese language). Tokyo: lwanani Shoten.
Kitagawa, Chisato, 1977. A source of femininity in Japanese: In defense of Robin Lakoff's 'Language
and woman's place'. Papers in Linguistics 10(3/4): 275-298.
Kulick, Don, 1992. Anger, gender, language shift and the politics of revelation in a Papua New Guinean
village. Pragmatics 2(3): 281-296.
Kobayashi, Mieko, 1993. Sedai to .lose#go: Wakai sedai no kotoba no 'chuusei- ka' ni tsuite (Generation
and women's language: On the "neutralization' of speech of the young generation). Nihongo-gaku
12.6: 181-192.
Kondo, Dorinne K., 1990. Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Makino, Seiichi and Michio Tsutsui, 1986. A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: Japan Times.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko, 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese.
Journal of Pragmatics 12: 403-426.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko, 1997. The rise and fall of Japanese nonsubject honorifics: The case of 'o-Verb-suru'.
Journal of Pragmatics 28 (this issue).
McGloin, Naomi H., 1990. Sex difference and sentence-final particles. In: S. Ide and N.H. McGloin,
eds., Aspects of Japanese women's language, 23-41. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Miller, Laura, 1996. Subversive subordinates or situated language use? A consideration of keigo ideology and sociolinguistic description. A paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association
lor Asian Studies.
Minami, Fujio, 1987. Keigo (Honorifics). Tokyo: lwanami Shoten.
Mizutani, Osamu and Nobuko Mizutani, 1987. How to be polite in Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times.
Miura, Akira and Naomi H. McGloin, 1994. An integrated approach to intermediate Japanese. Tokyo:
The Japan Times.
Miyake, Yoshimi. 1995. A dialect in the face of the standard: A Japanese case study. The Proceedings
of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 217-225.
Morgan, Marcyliena, 1994. The African-American speech community: Reality and sociolinguistics. In:
M. Morgan, ed., Language and the social construction of identity in creole situations, 121-148. Los
Angeles: Center for Afro-American Studies Publications, University of California, Los Angeles.
Neustupn~,, J.V., 1978, Post-structural approaches to language: Language theory in a Japanese context.
Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Niyekawa, Agnes M., 1991. Minimum essential politeness: A guide to the Japanese honorific language.
Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Nomoto, Kikuo, 1987. Keigo o tsukai konasu (Using honorifics skillfully). Tokyo: Kodansha.
Ochs, Elinor, 1990. lndexicality and socialization. In: J.W. Stigler, R.A. Schwerder and G. Herdt, eds.,
Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development, 287-308. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ochs, Elinor, 1993. Indexing gender. In: B.D. Miller, ed., Sex and gender hierarchies, 146-169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ohara, Yumiko, 1992. Gender-dependent pitch levels: A comparative study in Japanese and English. In:
Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz and Birch Moonwomon, eds., Locating power: Proceedings of the Second
Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 469-477.

S. Okamoto / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 795-817

817

Okamoto, Shigeko, 1994. 'Gendered' speech styles and social identity among young Japanese women.
In: M. Bucholtz, A.C. Liang, L+A. Sutton and C. Hines, eds., Cultural performances: Proceedings of
the 3rd Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 569-581.
Okamoto, Shigeko, 1995. 'Tasteless' Japanese: Less 'feminine' speech among young Japanese women.
In: K. Hall and M+ Bucholtz, eds., Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self,
297-325. New York: Routledge.
Okamoto, Shigeko, 1996. Indexical meaning, linguistic ideology, and Japanese women's speech. In:
Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 290-301.
Okamoto, Shigeko and Shie Sato, 1992. Less feminine speech among young Japanese females. In: K.
Hall, M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon, eds., Locating power: Proceedings of the second Berkeley
Women and Language Conference, 478-488.
Reynolds, Katsue A., 1985. Female speakers of Japanese. Feminist Issues 5: 13-46.
Reynolds, Katsue A., 1990. Female speakers of Japanese in transition. In: S. Ide and N.H. McGloin,
eds., Aspects of Japanese women's language, 129-146. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Shibamoto, Janet S., 1985. Japanese women's language. New York: Academic Press.
Shibamoto, Janet S., 1987. The womanly woman: Manipulation of stereotypical and nonstereotypical
features of Japanese female speech, ln: S.U. Phillips, S. Steele and C. Tanz, eds., Language, gender,
and sex in comparative perspective, 26-49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shibamoto, Janet S., 1990. Sex-related variation in the ellipsis of wa and ga in Japanese. In: S. Ide and
N.H. McGloin, eds., Aspects of Japanese women's language, 81-104. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Shibatani, Masayoshi, 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silverstein, Michael, 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In: P.R. Clyne, W. Hanks and
C.L. Hofbauer, eds., The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, 193-247. Chicago,
IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Silverstein, Michael, 1985. Language and the culture of gender: At the intersection of structure, usage,
and ideology. In: E. Mertz and R.J. Parmentier, eds., Semiotic mediation: Sociocultural and psychological perspectives, 219-259. New York: Academic Press.
Silverstein, Michael, 1992. The uses and utility of ideology: Some reflections. Pragmatics 2(3):
311-323.
Smith, Janet (Shibamoto), 1992. Linguistic privilege: 'Just stating the facts' in Japanese. In: K. Hall,
M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon, eels., Locating power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women
and Language Conference, 540-548.
Sukle, Robert J., 1994. Uchi/soto: Choices in directive speech acts in Japanese. In: J.M. Bachnik and
C.J. Quinn, Jr+, eds., Situated meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and language,
113-142. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sunaoshi, Yukako, 1995. Japanese women's construction of an authoritative position in their communities of practice. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Texas, Austin.
Takasaki, Midori, 1993. Josei no kotoba to kaisoo (Women's language and social class). Nihongo-gaku,
12.6: 169-180.
Tokunaga, Misato, 1992. Dichotomy in the structures of honorifics of Japanese. Pragmatics 2(2):
127-140.
Uyeno, Tazuko, 1971. A study of Japanese modality: A performative analysis of sentence particles.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
Wetzel, Patricia J., 1994. A movable self: The linguistic indexing of uchi and soto. In: J.M. Bachnik and
C.J. Quinn, Jr., eds., Situated meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and language,
73-87. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Woolard, Kathryn A., 1992. Language ideology: Issues and approaches. Pragmatics 2(3): 235-249.