A CONTRASTIVE STUDY OF HONORIFIC SYSTEMS AND POLITENESS,

AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH DIFFERENT SOCIETIES

by Alyssa Burgess
Student no: 22215108

Japanese Language and Culture A

Nanako Machida
17th December 2015

A contrastive study of honorific systems and politeness, and their

relations with different societies
Growing up within a certain culture, one soon learns, and is often expected to
grasp the art of being polite and acknowledge the social and environmental
cues that often call for the use of honorifics and overall politeness. Moreover,
some may find that the use of honorifics, if significant in ones language,
becomes evidently crucial throughout life as the ability to recognise and
effectively analyse certain social factors becomes necessary in order to better
position themselves in society and in some cases, gain approval from others.
One linguistic characteristic of politeness is honorifics, referring to
morphologically well-defined language forms that are used to make speech
polite (Ide, 1982). In turn, the term politeness can be interpreted as
principles encompassing strategies for language use and choices of linguistic
forms associated with smooth communication (Ide, 1993). Looking at
honorifics and different methods of performing politeness in different
languages and cultures, by briefly studying the language used in Asian
regions and English predominantly used in Western countries and analysing
each of these in terms of what constitutes politeness, how it is performed and
interpreted in each culture, one is bound to find significant differences. Further
focusing on the Japanese language, one can further expect differences and
similarities by contrasting these countries use of honorifics and overall
politeness to that of Japans.

Known to be one of few countries that show the utmost respect to those
above them especially in terms of age or social status in society, Japans use

of their well-developed honorifics is but one of few methods to reciprocate

politeness through language. The term keigo in Japanese, translated as
honorifics or honorific language in English, is a word invented by Meiji
scholars to describe something that presumably already existed but had never
been named (Wetzel, 2004). Given Japans extended history with the
existence of Emperors and social hierarchy, there is no doubt that such
language was used to honour and respect those in higher ranks during the
early time periods in ancient Japan. The first form of honorific categorisation
formally explained was made by Yoshioka (1906), which has since then
further developed and been modified to cohere to the language used today,
and the society as it is now. In other words, Keigo designates honorifics
[and] integrates morphological, syntactical and lexical devices, mainly using
verbs but also nouns, adjectives and other parts of speech (Baresova, 2015).
Keigo is then divided into three basic categories that consist of sonkeigo
(deferential speech), kenjgo (humble speech) and teineigo (polite
speech). According to Ide (1982), honorifics are used when social factors call
for polite speech patterns[such as] when we refer to or address a
respectable person or when formality is involved. Further, given the
complexity of the honorific language system in Japanese, it not only reflects
the society, but also the nature. Japanese people are naturally quite indirect in
terms of what is said. Referencing Ide (1982) once more, he explains that
honorifics [also possess] the formal characteristic of being indirect
expressions, which explains the indirectness often displayed by speakers of
Japanese. Thus, to create a formal atmosphere by the use of formal forms is
to be polite.

Moreover, focusing on both China and Korea, two countries with welldeveloped language systems and cultural values, it will be interesting to
further delve into each countries use of honorifics to better understand their
understanding of politeness. First looking at Chinese, no apparent honorific
system can actually be found in the language itself today, though historically it
is a culture that once used one. This sudden change in the Chinese honorific
system is thought to be primarily due to the ideology instilled by the Chinese
Communist Party after they took over as the head of government. By
establishing and further encouraging the idea of equality and camaraderie
among all, Mao Zedong, the former chairman of the Communist Party of
China, enounced various aspects of the traditional Chinese cultural view on
polite behaviour, such as being refined, kind, courteous, and restrained
(Kdr & Pan, 2011). Thus, this factor has had significant influence on how
politeness in considered in China.

Secondly, Korea is another country with a well-organised honorific system and

understanding of politeness. Similar to Japanese, Korean honorifics work
through the addition of verb endings and vocabulary substitutions[which
then allows the speaker] to express subtle degrees of deference towards the
hearer or sentence referents (Brown 2010). Likewise, appropriate honorifics
are utilised based on certain social and situational factors. Moreover, it is
fascinating to look into the actual word or closest equivalent to the English
word politeness. Referencing Browns work (2010) once more, Kongson, a
Sino-Korean word is apparently the combination of the Chinese characters

representing respect and humility, which happen to be two concepts that are
valuable properties of Korean politeness.

Furthermore, unlike most Asian languages, English does not consist of

honorifics, but rather uses the manipulation of words or phrases in order to
convey politeness. According to Haughs (2004) findings of distinct definitions
of politeness, it is clear that politeness in English involves being both wellmannered in ones own demeanourand showing consideration to the
feelings or position of others. Further, words such as please are known to be
added to phrases, though mostly used in combination with requests, in order
to soften the text and make it more polite. Interestingly, Haughs study of the
use of the word please in both American and New Zealand English confirms
that, please is neither a mere politeness marker nor a requestive marker
which can occur freely in different positions, but rather that it has systematic
interactional functions that are position specific. Through a total of two
hundred tokens of please found in both American and New Zealand spoken
English, all taken from various types of conversations, Haughs (2004) study
shows that, the established notion of politeness as the addressee-focal
politeness marker constitutes an important aspect of the speakers directive
behaviour. In other words, even in cases where the politeness behaviour is
not intended, the notion of politeness still has relevance to the speakers
directive act since please is used with the knowledge that it will be received by
the recipient(s) as a courtesy token.

Moreover, differences are evident when comparing Asian languages, including

Japanese, and English in terms of polite language used and overall
interpretation of politeness in each society. Japanese and Korean appear to
be the most similar in terms of certain aspects in the language, given that both
languages have formal honorific systems present in each. Likewise, both
honorific systems work similarly in that they are utilised based on certain
social factors, and factors concerning addressee and referent. They also
attach very similarly through the addition of verb endings and vocabulary
substitutions. Chinese on the other hand shares fewer similarities with no
apparent honorific system in the Chinese language. Ideologies also differ with
Chinese focusing more on equality and camaraderie, which may also account
for their lack of honorifics compared to both Japanese and Korean. Likewise,
given the egalitarian nature of English and ideologies within those societies
which speak the language, it almost completely differs from Japanese and
Korean, sharing slight similarities to Chinese in terms of values such as
equality. Having said that, Ide (1982) also states that in the case of such a
language like English, which does not have a formal honorific system, both
formal and non-formal devices are also used to express politeness[and]
these non-formal devices constitute most of the polite expressions in English
and other languages without honorifics. He also states that an underlying
universal characteristic of politeness in language is indirectness, which can
be considered as a commonality shared across many, if not all, languages
universally.

Finally, having looked closely at honorific systems and methods of expressing

politeness in Japanese, Asian languages such as Chinese and Korean, and
English, it can be concluded that some societies share greater similarities that
others. Sharing the greatest similarities out of the languages analysed, both
Japanese and Korean share a commonality, which reflects the fact that both
societies carry an honorific way of speech within their respective languages.
Given the similarities within their honorific systems, such as usage, this also
leads to similarities found in ideologies and values in terms of how politeness
is interpreted in these societies. Since both Chinese and English do not have
a formal honorific system within the language, they share similarities in terms
of values and ideologies reflected in their interpretation of politeness. In the
end, different societies are bound to share some similarities and have
differences, and language and interpretation of certain concepts are not
exempt.

References
Bareova, I 2015, On the categorization of the Japanese honorific system
Keigo, Topics in Linguistics, vol.15, no.1.
Brown, L 2010, Korean Honorifics and Revealed, Ignored and Suppressed
Aspects of Korean Culture and Politeness, in F Bagiela-Chiappini & D.Z.
Haugh, M 2004, Revisiting the conceptualisation of politeness in English and
Japanese, Multilingua, vol., no., pp.1-27.
Ide, S 1993, Preface: The search for integrated universals of linguistic
politeness, Multilingua, vol.12, no. 1, pp.1-121.
Ide, S 1982, Japanese Sociolinguistics: Politeness and Womens Language,
Lingua, vol.27, no.2, pp.357-385.
Kdr (eds), Politeness Across Cultures, Palgrave Macmillan, UK, pp.106127.
Kdr, D.J Pan, Yuling 2011, Historical vs. contemporary Chinese linguistic
politeness, Journal of Pragmatics, vol.43, pp.1525-1539.
Wetzel, P 2004, Keigo in Modern Japan: Polite Language from Meiji to the
Present, University of Hawaii Press, United States of America.