SAGE Openhttp://sgo.sagepub.com/

Applicability of Brown and Levinson's Politeness Theory to a Non-Western Culture : Evidence FromJapanese Facework Behaviors
Sachiko Kiyama, Katsuo Tamaoka and Masato Takiura
SAGE Open 2012 2:
DOI: 10.1177/2158244012470116
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/2/4/2158244012470116

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for SAGE Open can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://sgo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://sgo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav© 2012 the Author(s). This article has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Without requesting
permission from the Author or SAGE, you may further copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the article, with the condition that the Author and
SAGE Open are in each case credited as the source of the article.
Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

4701164012470116SAGE OpenKiyama et al.
2012

SGOXXX10.1177/215824

Applicability of Brown and Levinson’s
Politeness Theory to a Non-Western
Culture: Evidence From Japanese
Facework Behaviors

SAGE Open
October-December 2012: 1­–15© The Author(s) 2012
DOI: 10.1177/2158244012470116
http://sgo.sagepub.com

Sachiko Kiyama1, 2, Katsuo Tamaoka2, and Masato Takiura3

Abstract
To examine applicability of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory to facework in a non-Western culture, we conducted aquestionnaire survey of native Japanese speakers. A rank order of influences on facework behavior was investigated among
the five factors: (a) intrinsic factor (Ri; that is, effects caused by difference in settings), (b) contextual factor (Rc; that is,effects caused by difference in types of interlocutor’s contradictory attitudes), (c) power factor (P; that is, effects causedby age difference with the interlocutor), (d) distance factor (D; that is, effects caused by difference in familiarity with theinterlocutor), and (e) gender factor (G; that is, whether the participant is male or female). Results revealed that factors related
to the intrinsic content of the situation (Ri) and the interlocutor’s attitudes (Rc) had stronger influences than those of theinter- and intrapersonal factors of P, D, and G. Based on these findings, we conclude that Brown and Levinson’s formula isapplicable to a non-Western culture, Japan.
Keywords
facework, Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, Japanese, face-saving, face-threatening
This replication study applies the politeness theory proposedby Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) to social interaction
among native Japanese speakers. Following Goffman (1955,
1967), Brown and Levinson assume that the motivation
behind facework behavior is a human universal trait, whereas
there are cultural differences in the way that particular facework behaviors are realized. Although several empiricalstudies (e.g., Bond, Wan, Keung, & Giacalone, 1985; Cousins, 1989; Hofstede, 1980; Kim-Jo, Benet-Martinez, & Ozer,
2010; Leung, 1988; Merkin, 2006; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991;
Wheeler, Reis, & Bond, 1989) have supported their assumption, some Japan-based researchers have continuously criticized Goffman’s and Brown and Levinson’s models,claiming that they are Western-biased (Hill, Ide, Ikuta,
Kawasaki, & Ogino, 1986; Ide, 1989, 2006; Matsumoto,1988, 2003). They disagree with Brown and Levinson’smodel in which individuals select politeness strategies byusing three factors to estimate the weight of a face-threatening act (FTA) to the interlocutor.
These Japanese researchers propose that people inJapanese culture emphasize fixed social relationships basedon hierarchical power structures (i.e., seniority systems).
Ide (1989, 2006) called the system “discernment” or “wakimae” in which Japanese people are obliged, in every utterance, to use addressee honorifics, such as “-desu,”-masu,”
and “gozaimasu” so that they can keep appropriate relations

with seniors and/or strangers. According to Ide’s interpretation, honorific usages represent facework or politenessbehaviors in the Japanese language, and hence Japanesepeople are scarcely able to select spontaneous facework(politeness) strategies, which Brown and Levinson’s (1978,
1987) formula predicts on the basis of estimation of an FTA
to the interlocutor. This study is, then, an empirical investigation of whether native Japanese speakers are free to adopt
facework behaviors with the interlocutor. For this purpose,
we analyze effects of multiple factors influencing exchanges
among native Japanese speakers, with reference to the
Brown and Levinson’s formula.
In a landmark series of studies, Goffman (1955, 1967)
introduced the concept of “facework,” or the process of facebeing threatened or saved in individual social interactions,with “face” defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself or herself (Goffman, 1967, p. 5).
According to Goffman, it is universal that any individual has
1

National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Aichi, Japan
Nagoya University, Aichi, Japan
3
Reitaku University, Chiba, Japan
2

Corresponding Author:
Sachiko Kiyama, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, 35
Gengo, Morioka-cho, Ohbu, Aichi 474-8522, Japan
Email: skiyama@ncgg.go.jp

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

2		SAGE Openface and wants it to be acknowledged by other members ofsociety. As face can only be acknowledged by others, we
make an effort to acknowledge other members’ faces, withthe expectation that ours will in return be acknowledged bythem. In other words, individuals are expected to makeefforts to save their own face and other members’ faces ininterpersonal interaction.
Facework can be viewed as the process in which people
try to keep a balance between multiple persons’ faces insocial encounters. Moreover, facework should be realized asa result of interactional effects caused by multiple factors.
These factors influencing one’s facework behaviors are efficiently summarized by Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987)
formula in which one estimates the degree of his or her FTA
to the interlocutor. Brown and Levinson assume that one
selects a politeness (i.e., face-redressing) strategy appropriate for the degree to which an act is face-threatening (FT) to
the interlocutor. To estimate the degree of an FTA, they propose three factors using the following formula:
Wx = D (S, H) + P (H, S) + Rx
where Wx is the weight of an FTA, D refers to the distance(D) between somebody and the interlocutor, P refers to thepower (P) the interlocutor has over him or her, and R refers
to the value that measures the degree to which the FTAx is
rated as an imposition in that culture (i.e., ranking of imposition [R]; Brown & Levinson, 1987). Brown and Levinson
state that these three factors are all relevant and at the sametime independent. Consequently, their framework predicts
that these factors interact to determine how people engage infacework.
This formula is supported by several empirical studies
based not only on an investigation of American (i.e., Western)participants (Baxter, 1984; Lim & Bowers, 1991) but also ona cross-cultural comparison between American (i.e., Western)
and Korean (i.e., Far Eastern) participants (Holtgraves &Yang, 1990). However, some Japan-based researchers (Hillet al., 1986; Ide, 1989, 2006; Matsumoto, 1988, 2003)
disagree with Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) theory inwhich actors select politeness strategies by estimating multiple factors. They argue that the honorific usages represent
facework or politeness behaviors in the Japanese language,
and hence Japanese people are rarely able to use spontaneouspoliteness strategies other than honorific expressions.
The Japanese language, unlike European languages, has adistinction of referent honorifics that are used for referredcontents and persons (e.g., verbs such as “nasaru” and “itasu”
with meanings of “honorably do” and “humbly do,” respectively) and addressee honorifics (e.g., copulas such as“-desu” and “-masu”) that represent a grammatical encoding
to directly reflect interpersonal relationships between the
speaker and the hearer (e.g., Kim, 2006; Martin, 1964;
Takiura, 2005, 2008; Tokieda, 1939; Wetzel, 2004). In fact,“-desu” and “-masu” should be attached to every utterance

when it is addressed to seniors and/or strangers, irrespectiveof topic matter or referent. However, Fukada and Asato(2004) and Takiura (2005, 2008) demonstrated that whether
Japanese speakers are forced to attach honorifics depends onvertical and horizontal interpersonal relationships between
the speaker and the hearer, which corresponds to factors of P
and D proposed by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987). Usami(2002) conducted an empirical study of speech levels (i.e.,addressee honorifics) in Japanese based on large amounts ofactual conversation data, showing that native Japanese speakers often shift speech levels from honorific forms to nonhonorific forms, even when speaking to seniors and/or strangers.
Likewise, Saito (2010) has qualitatively demonstrated thatJapanese subordinates spontaneously adopt nonhonorificforms (i.e., no use of addressee honorifics) if the contextual
situation warrants. The above-mentioned studies suggest thatnative Japanese speakers are able to make spontaneous use ofhonorifics to successfully maintain interpersonal relationships, as previously indicated by Pizziconi (2003).
Although Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) groundbreaking theory of politeness includes perspectives of language form (i.e., how to say) and contents of utterance (i.e.,
what to say), previous studies mainly focused on speechforms of honorifics. However, to truly confirm the universality of the Brown and Levinson theory, it is also necessary to
conduct empirical investigations of politeness focusing oncontents of utterance by non-Western people. This study,
therefore, attempts to examine whether native speakers ofJapanese freely engage in facework, by conducting a content-based analysis. In particular, we analyze effects of multiple factors influencing native Japanese speakers’ selectionsof agreement/disagreement to the interlocutor’s precedingutterance, with reference to Brown and Levinson’s formulathat predicts the weight of an FTA.
According to Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), thesethree factors can be viewed in various ways. P is assessed as
being great because the interlocutor is eloquent and influential, and D is usually a measure of social distance between
speaker and hearer. The present quantitative study adds somespecific attributes in terms of P and D to the hypotheticalinterlocutors who will appear in our questionnaire. By doing
this, we depict a rank order of strength among multiple factors. In this study, we will assume P as age differences among
the interlocutors, and D as differences in familiarity between
a participant and the hypothetical interlocutor.
Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) subsumed all variables
influencing facework other than P and D into R and rendering the conceptualization of R as abstract. As they explain R
as “culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions,” it is clear that R includes situational factor together
with cultural factor. For the purpose of a specific analysis of
the rank order of strength among multiple factors influencing
facework behaviors, the effect of cultural factor should be
investigated independently from that of situational factor. In
this study focusing on the single culture of Japan, we assume

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

3

Kiyama et al.
the R factor specifically as a situational factor, as an independent predictor candidate of facework behaviors.
In Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) formula to estimate the weight of an FTA, the initial two factors of D and P
deal with person-to-person relationships, although the third
factor of R of the act is rather vague. Previous studies on
speech acts have reported different operations of facework
depending on relationships between the speaker and thehearer (see Holtgraves, 2009). Furthermore, many studies
have generally supported Lakoff’s (1975) hypothesis thatwomen are politer (i.e., hearer oriented) than men (e.g.,
Bodine, 1975; Ervin-Tripp, 2001; Fox, Bukatko, Hallahan, &Crawford, 2007; Hannah & Murachver, 2007; Jenkins &Aube, 2002; McMillan, Clifton, McGrath, & Gale, 1977;
Mulac, Bradac, & Gibbons, 2001; Tannen, 1990). Several
empirical studies with a particular focus on speech styles bynative Japanese speakers also have provided general support
for Lakoff’s hypothesis (e.g., Ide, 1982; Itakura & Tsui, 2004;
Lauwereyns, 2002; Tamaoka, Lim, Miyaoka, & Kiyama,
2010; Uchida, 1997; Usami, 2002). It suggests that gender(G) may also be an influential factor in addition to the threefactors assumed by Brown and Levinson.
If Ide (1989, 2006) is correct in the contention that native
Japanese speakers manage facework in the same way ashonorifics (especially addressee honorifics) used in every
utterance to seniors and strangers regardless of what they areinteracting about, then the situational factor, which Brown
and Levinson (1978, 1987) treat as R, should be insignificant
on Japanese facework behaviors. However, it is quite possible
for Japanese speakers to make a FT remark on the use ofaddressee honorifics in interactions. In brief, face management and the use of honorifics seem to be separate issues.
Several critical reviews of Ide’s discernment (wakimae)
theory have exemplified the process in which native Japanese
speakers engage in spontaneous facework (Fukada & Asato,
2004; Pizziconi, 2003; Takano, 2005; Takiura, 2008; Usami,2002), which implies that Brown and Levinson’s R factor(i.e., situational factor) plays an important role in Japanesesocial interaction.
To confirm whether Japanese people are able to engage in
spontaneous facework, we compare the strengths of the situational factor (R factor) and other inter-/intrapersonal factors(i.e., P, D, and G) influencing facework behaviors of native
Japanese speakers. Hypothesis 1 is proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 1: The situational factor, which Brown
and Levinson (1978, 1987) proposed as R, has astronger influence on facework behaviors of native
speakers of Japanese, more than the interpersonal
factors of P and D, and the intrapersonal factor of G
(i.e., one is male or female).
As for the factor of R, Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987)
further provide complex descriptions. According to them,even in a particular FTA in a particular culture, the impositionof the FTA can vary depending on whether actors have rights
and/or obligations to perform the act. In other words, the Rof an FTA in a particular culture is determined not only by the
intrinsic content of a situation but is also influenced by how
actors are related to the situation. Following the description
by Brown and Levinson, this study distinguishes the R factor
into two further subfactors: (a) the intrinsic content of a situation (i.e., intrinsic factor, Ri) and (b) the preceding attitude
that the interlocutor adopts (i.e., contextual factor, Rc).
The second hypothesis is concerned with the Ri, whichrefers to the content of a situation. Some previous studies
have reported that the content of a situation affects one’s
facework behaviors (e.g., Dillard & Burgoon, 1985; Keck &Samp, 2007; Lustig & King, 1980; Muntigl & Turnbull,
1998; Rees-Miller, 2000; Rogan & La France, 2003). In particular, Tanaka, Spencer-Oatey, and Cray (2000) haveobserved that Japanese people, unlike Canadian and British
people, likely refuse to apologize to the interlocutor unlessthey accept responsibility for having committed a fault.
Although Tanaka et al. themselves decline to specify any reasons behind this result, one possible interpretation is that themore native Japanese speakers value avoidance of an explicit
conflict, the more they would require their interlocutor to takecooperative attitude with themselves. If that is the case, itwould cause a substantial negative reaction that when
Japanese were certain about their innocence, they should takea severe attitude against unreasonable accusations. Likewise,
MacGeorge, Lichtman, and Pressey (2002) have revealed theimportance of responsibility to be the most significant influence on the facework behaviors for American people. Basedon these studies, Hypothesis 2 is proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 2: One’s facework behaviors vary depending on the intrinsic content of the situation (i.e., Ri),
particularly depending on whether she or he feels at
fault for the situation or not.
Finally, the third hypothesis is formulated concerning the
Rc. Pomerantz (1978, 1984) presented a model of preference
organization in which it is proposed that to one’s agreementwith the interlocutor is basically a preferred action, and one’s
disagreement a dispreferred action. However, when the interlocutor disapproves himself or herself previously, one’s disagreement may be adopted as a preferred action, whereas
one’s agreement as a dispreferred action. Furthermore, whena dispreferred response is selected, Pomerantz observes that
one often stumbles over his or her words and/or takes hedged
expressions. Such hedged expressions can be explained as aface-redressing strategy (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987),
with which one reduces the possible threat that such a dispreferred response may bring about on the face of the interlocutor. It appears that preferred actions alternate depending oncontext and that one can use the same utterance for the purposes of saving the interlocutor’s face and threatening it, in
accordance with contexts.

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

4		

SAGE OpenThe sample included 57 male and 53 female (N = 110)
undergraduate and postgraduate Japanese students enrolled
in universities in Chiba and Hiroshima prefectures inJapan. Their ages ranged from 18 years and 2 months to 32
years and 7 months (M = 20.25 years; SD = 2.16 years).
All of the participants were native speakers of Japanese.
All participants received financial compensation for their
participation.

do with anyone’s fault but was a situation concerning theelection of the next leader of a club. In the setting, each participant was asked to imagine that she or he and the interlocutor were candidates to become the next leader of a club,and both were eager to get the position. In each setting, twotypes of interlocutor’s utterances were shown: one selfapproving and the other self-disapproving (i.e., Rc).
The following question-reply sequences presented thethree choices of “agreement,” “disagreement,” and “noresponse” to previous utterances by the hypothetical interlocutors. Four hypothetical interlocutors were prepared foreach setting by a combination of P and D factors. Conditionsof P were differentiated between “older” as higher poweredinterlocutor and “younger” as lower powered interlocutor,
whereas D was differentiated between “the interlocutor withwhom you have talked much” as familiar interlocutor and“the interlocutor with whom you have not yet talked much”
as unfamiliar interlocutor. In this way, P (i.e., two conditionsof older and younger interlocutors) and D (i.e., two conditions of familiar and unfamiliar interlocutors) were measured using four (i.e., two conditions of P × two conditionsof D) hypothetical interlocutors per setting. As there were
three types of settings (i.e., conditions of Ri) and two typesof the interlocutor’s utterances (i.e., condition of Rc) withfour hypothetical interlocutors each, participants responded
to a total of 24 (i.e., four hypothetical interlocutors × three
conditions of Ri × two conditions of Rc) different choices.
The full content of the questionnaire is given in English
translation in the appendix.

Material

Procedure

Participants completed a survey composed of material
specifically designed for this study. To measure the Ri,
three scenarios using different settings were presented to
examine participants’ selection of agreement/disagreement, irrespective of how to express it. We prepared only
three choices of “agreement,” “disagreement,” and “noresponse” to hypothetical interlocutors in the scenarios to
exclude confounding effects of honorific expressions on
our participants’ selection of response.
The three settings differed in terms of whether a fault wasinvolved and, when it was, whether only the interlocutor was
at fault, or both the participant and the interlocutor were at
fault. In Setting 1 where only the interlocutor was at fault,
each participant was asked to imagine that she or he wasworking part-time in a restaurant and one day an expensive
chair had been damaged by rain because another coworker(i.e., the interlocutor) had forgotten to shut a nearby window.
In Setting 2 where both the participant and the interlocutor
were at fault, each participant was asked to imagine that sheor he guided a cousin (i.e., the interlocutor) to the place for a
relative’s wedding but they arrived late to the party because
the interlocutor had been late to their appointment and theparticipant got lost on the way there. Setting 3 had nothing toParticipants were required to select their answers as either to“agree,” or to “disagree,” and reserve the selection of a “noresponse” answer only when they really could not make adecision. They were asked to imagine themselves as “you”
in the scenarios and try to imagine what they would say
before going into the answer selection. The questionnaire
took about 20 min to complete.

Based on the Pomerantz model, we assume that the effects
of one’s selection of agreement/disagreement can alternate,
depending on whether the interlocutor had before taken a“self-approving” or “self-disapproving” attitude. When theinterlocutor’s preceding attitude was self-approving, one’s
agreement would serve as face-saving (FS), whereas one’s
disagreement as FT. Inversely, when the interlocutor’s preceding attitude was self-disapproving, one’s agreement
would be FT, whereas one’s disagreement would be FS.
From the above assumption, Hypothesis 3 is as follows:
Hypothesis 3: Effects of facework on the interlocutor
vary depending on what attitude the interlocutor
previously took (i.e., Rc), particularly depending onwhether the interlocutor’s attitude was self-approving or self-disapproving.

MethodParticipants

Analysis
To examine the order of strength of the five factors that aresaid to influence selection of agreement/disagreement toaccusation (i.e., Ri, Rc, P, D, and G), the decision tree analysis by SPSS Classification Trees (Version 15.0; SPSS, 2006)
was used. It aims to select a useful subset of predictors indescending order from a larger set of independent variables
with respect to a dependent variable. This tool is built on thebasis of CHAID, or chi-squared automatic interaction
detector, originally proposed by Kass (1980). According touser’s guide provided by SPSS (2006), CHAID automatically chooses the independent variable that has the strongest
interaction with the next highest one. In the tree-growing
process, each parent node splits into child nodes only if a

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

5

Figure 1. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for responses of native speakers of Japanese in situations related to responsibility

6		

SAGE OpenFigure 2. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for responses of native speakers of Japanese in situations related toresponsibility: Setting 1 where the interlocutor is at fault
Note: FS = face-saving; FT = face-threatening.

significant effect is found among independent variables.
Every step for splitting nodes uses Bonferroni’s adjusted
p values to avoid Type I error, or “false positive,” whichrefers to the error of rejecting the null hypothesis when it isactually true.
The independent variables in the present survey werearranged in a 3 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 design: (a) Ri (i.e., three typesof settings), (b) Rc (i.e., the interlocutor’s attitude is selfapproval/disapproval), (c) P (i.e., higher/lower poweredinterlocutor), (d) D (i.e., familiar/unfamiliar interlocutor),and (e) G (i.e., the participant is male/female). Ri, Rc, P, andD are within-participant variables (i.e., repeated measures),whereas only G is a between-participant variable. A dependent variable concerned the frequencies of “agreement,”“disagreement,” or “no response” to the interlocutor’s preceding utterance.

Results
Overall Results of the Classification Tree Analysis
Overall, as shown in Figure 1, the results of the classification tree analysis revealed that the Ri, which was assumed asa subfactor of R influencing facework behaviors, ranked on

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

7

Kiyama et al.

Figure 3. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for responses of native speakers of Japanese in situations related toresponsibility: Setting 2 where the participant and the interlocutor are at fault
Note: FS = face-saving; FT = face-threatening.

the top of the classification tree (Node 0), χ2(4) = 157.336,
p < .001. The factor of Ri had consistent influences on native
Japanese speakers’ selection of agreement/disagreement toaccusation among all of the three settings. The next strongest
was the Rc, which was assumed as another subfactor of R,
and differentiated between the interlocutor’s self-approving
and self-disapproving attitudes. The significant effects
caused by Rc occurred throughout all three settings, as Node
1 of Setting 1, χ2(2) = 16.795, p < .001, Node 2 of Setting 2,

χ2(2) = 58.016, p < .001, and Node 3 of Setting 3, χ2(2) =16.677, p < .001. The factors of P, D, and G also affected
the selection of agreement/disagreement. The whole classification tree (i.e., dendrogram) including all four independent variables is too large to display on a single page; in thefollowing sections, this single dendrogram was divided into
the three dendrograms in Figures 2, 3, and 4, which present
detailed results of Setting 1 (i.e., the interlocutor is at fault),
Setting 2 (i.e., the participant and the interlocutor are at

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

Note: FS = face-saving; FT = face-threatening.

Figure 4. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for responses of native speakers of Japanese in situations related to responsibility: Setting 3 where the participant andthe interlocutor compete for the position of club leader

8		
SAGE Open

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

9

Kiyama et al.
fault), and Setting 3 (i.e., the election of the next leader of aclub), respectively.

Results of the Classification Tree Analysis in
Setting 1 Where the Interlocutor Is at Fault
This was a scene in which rain blew in through an unclosed
open window at a restaurant and ruined an expensive chair.
In this setting, a participant recognized that the blame should
be laid at the interlocutor. As shown in Figure 2, in the caseof the interlocutor’s self-approving utterance, the most frequent selection was disagreement to the interlocutor (64.3%,
Node 4), which was assumed as FT response in this case. In
the case of the interlocutor’s self-disapproving utterances,disagreement was also the most frequent (50.9%, Node 5),
as in Node 4. However, this disagreement was assumed toserve as FS response to the interlocutor because the interlocutor admitted his or her fault.
Unlike Node 4, Node 5 generated a further split to Nodes
10 and 11, which indicated a significant effect of the D, χ2(2)= 10.104, p < .01. Furthermore, Node 11 gave a split toNodes 18 and 19, indicating a significant effect of the G,
χ2(2) = 6.154, p < .05. These results showed that participantstended to react with FS utterance to familiar interlocutors(57.7% FS, Node 10) more often than to unfamiliar ones
(44.1% FS, Node 11), and that female participants (50.0%
FS, Node 18) tended to take FS responses to unfamiliar interlocutors compared with male participants (38.6%, Node 19).

Results of the Classification Tree Analysis in
Setting 2 Where Both Parties Are at Fault
In this setting, a participant guided a cousin (i.e., the interlocutor) to a wedding party. As shown in Figure 3, Node 6
revealed that in response to the interlocutor’s self-approving
utterance, disagreement was the most frequent answer(57.7%), which was assumed as a FT response to the interlocutor. In response to the interlocutor’s self-disapproving
utterance (Node 7), frequent answers were disagreement (FSresponse in the case; 34.1%) and “no response” (38.0%),
compared with agreement (FT response in the case; 28.0%).
Node 6 split into Nodes 12 and 13, representing the effectof the G, χ2(2) = 17.296, p < .001, and then Node 12 was followed by the D shown in Nodes 20 and 21, χ2(2) = 12.566, p< .01. Male participants tended to retort against the unfamiliar interlocutor (67.1% FT, Node 13), compared with female
participants (47.6% FT, Node 12). Furthermore, female participants likely retorted against familiar interlocutors (56.6%
FT, Node 20) more than against unfamiliar ones (38.7% FT,
39.6% FS, Node 21). In response to the interlocutor’s selfdisapproving utterance in Node 7, neither G factor nor D factor was significant, as no further child nodes were generated
from the Node 7.

Results of Classification Tree Analysis in Setting 3
Where Both Parties Compete for the Club Leader
In Setting 3, participants competed with the interlocutor
to become the next leader of a club. Although the first two
settings dealt with someone’s fault, Setting 3 was concernedwith the election for the position of club leader, which boththe participant and the interlocutor wanted to get. In the setting shown in Figure 4, in response to the interlocutor’s selfapproving utterance (Node 8), “agreement” was the mostfrequent answer (47.3%), which was assumed to be FS
response to the interlocutor. In response to the interlocutor’s
self-disapproving utterance (Node 9), however, there was no
dominant answer (34.1% to “agree,” 32.3% to “disagree,”and 33.6% “no response”).
Node 8 was the case of the interlocutor’s self-approving
utterance. This was the only node that yielded child nodes of
all the personal factors of P, D, and G. Node 8 split into
Nodes 14 and 15 for the P factor, χ2(2) = 32.428, p < .001,
both of which generated Nodes from 22 to 25 for the D factor, χ2(2) = 18.204, p < .001 for higher power; χ2(2) = 6.054,
p < .05 for lower power. Node 23 further yielded Nodes 26
and 27 for the G factor, indicating a partial influence byfamiliarity and the higher power of the interlocutor, χ2(2) =6.011, p < .05.
Node 9, the interlocutor’s self-disapproval, split into
Nodes 16 and 17, both of which were concerned with the P,
χ2(2) = 15.221, p < .001. In this case, a significant difference
occurred, indicating that participants tended to choose a FS
response to the higher powered interlocutor (39.1% to “disagree,” Node 16), whereas they tended to select a FT responseto the lower powered interlocutor (42.3% to “agree,” Node17). The tendency in Setting 3 that the P affected participants’ selection of agreement/disagreement provided a sharp
contrast to Settings 1 and 2 concerning someone’s fault.

Review of Hypotheses
The survey provided support for Hypothesis 1. Both subfactors of the R (i.e., Ri and Rc) ranked at higher levels thaninter-/intrapersonal factors of P, D, and G. Hypothesis 2 wasconcerned with the Ri, and it was supported. The classification tree analysis revealed that Ri was the strongest predictor
of participants’ selection of agreement/disagreement toaccusation. All three settings of the Ri factor showed significant differences, which means that participants’ facework behaviors were different depending on whether a fault
was involved and, when it was, whether only the interlocutor
was at fault, or both the participant and the interlocutor wereat fault. Hypothesis 3 was concerned with the Rc, and it was
generally supported. Rc was the second strongest predictor,
following Ri. Participants’ selection of agreement/disagreement to accusation almost always changed throughout the

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

10		

SAGE Open

three settings, depending on whether the interlocutor’s attitude was self-approving or self-disapproving.

Discussion
To confirm whether native Japanese speakers spontaneously
engage in facework, this survey investigated effects of multiple factors influencing selection of agreement/disagreement
to the interlocutor’s accusation with contradictory attitudes.
With reference to Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) formula that predicts the weight of an FTA, we conducted aclassification tree analysis to investigate a rank order of significance among the five factors: (a) Ri (i.e., effects causedby difference in settings), (b) Rc (i.e., effects caused by difference in types of interlocutor’s contradictory attitudes), (c)P (i.e., effects caused by age difference with the interlocutor),(d) D (i.e., effects caused by difference in familiarity with theinterlocutor), and (e) G (i.e., whether the participant is maleor female). The results revealed that factors concerning the
intrinsic content of the situation (i.e., Ri) and the interlocutor’s attitudes (i.e., Rc) had stronger influence than those of
the inter- and intrapersonal factors such as P, D, and G.
Within the R, the Ri ranked higher than Rc, suggesting thatthe intrinsic content of the situation (Ri) is the most dominantpredictor of Japanese facework behaviors, and that the interlocutor’s prior attitude is also a significant predictor. The
factors P, D, and G had only partial influences on our participants’ responses. The following sections examine effectsof the situational factors (i.e., subfactors of the R) and otherinter-/intrapersonal factors (i.e., P, D, and G) and discuss animplication for the universality of Brown and Levinson’s
politeness theory.

Effects of Multiple Factors Influencing Facework
Behaviors by Native Speakers of JapaneseSetting 1 is a scene where only the interlocutor is at fault,
whereas Setting 2 is a scene where both sides of the participant and the interlocutor are at fault. In both settings, it is thesame for participants to disagree (i.e., FT response to theinterlocutor in this case) when the interlocutor is selfapproving (Node 4, Figure 2 and Node 6, Figure 3), suggesting that when they feel their faces being threatened, they get
motivated to retort against the interlocutor. This proportionof the disagreement answer is significantly higher in Setting
1 where the participant does not recognize his or her fault(64.3%) than in Setting 2 where the participant recognizes
his or her fault as well as the interlocutor’s (57.7%).
In the case of the interlocutor’s self-approving utterancein Setting 1 where only the interlocutor is at fault, Node 4(Figure 2), in which FT response is the most frequent, is notaffected by any inter-/intrapersonal factors of P, D, and G. In
Setting 2 where both parties are at fault, however, Node 6(Figure 3), in which FT response is the most frequent, isaffected by factors of G and D. This result implies that when
Japanese people are certain about their innocence, theyeasily determine their response to the interlocutor, without
considering interpersonal relationships. Tanaka et al. (2000)
reported that Japanese people, unlike British and Canadianpeople, do not easily apologize to the interlocutor, unlessthey recognize their fault for the accident. The present results
are consistent with Tanaka et al.’s conclusions.
In the case of the interlocutor’s self-disapproving utterance, however, it reveals that participants tend to disagreewith the interlocutor (Node 5 in Figure 2 and Node 7 inFigure 3). Because disagreement with the interlocutor’s selfdisapproving utterance is assumed to be FS response to theinterlocutor, the result suggests that participants seem torefrain from further blaming the interlocutor who admits hisor her fault. This tendency is stronger in Setting 1 where only
the interlocutor is at fault (50.9% disagreement, Node 5) thanin Setting 2 where both the participant and the interlocutor areat fault (34.1% disagreement, Node 7). Goffman (1955, 1967)
maintained that mutual acceptance is the basis of social interactions, and people tend to try to agree with the interlocutor,
even though the agreement is only “lip service.” The resultsof this study support this view. Our Japanese participants try
to save face of the interlocutor who admits his or her fault, nomatter whether the participants are at fault or not.
Setting 3 concerns itself with competition for the clubleader position, which is unrelated to the question of being
anyone’s fault. In this setting, unlike previous two settings,
the P has an integral effect following the effect caused by Rc.
In Settings 1 and 2, the most frequent selection by the participants is the same in both cases of the interlocutor’s
self-approving and self-disapproving utterances: FT responseis always the most frequent to the interlocutor’s self-approval(the left-side nodes in Figures 2 and 3), whereas FS responseis always the most frequent to the interlocutor’s self-disapproval (the right-side nodes in Figures 2 and 3). In Setting 3,
however, the most frequent selection by the participants
differs depending on whether the interlocutor’s attitude isself-approving or self-disapproving: In both cases of theinterlocutor’s self-approving and self-disapproving utterances, FS response is the most frequent to the higher poweredinterlocutor (Nodes 14 and 16), whereas FT response is themost frequent to the lower powered interlocutor (Nodes 15
and 17). This result implies that when they compete to be theleader, Japanese people have to care about power relations
with the interlocutor.
Factors of D and G are also found in all three settings,
although the two factors remain in complementary positions
to the factor of R, as well as the P in Setting 3. The question
as to whether D or G had a stronger influence on facework
behaviors seems to depend on the setting. This issue should
be further explored in future research.

Applicability of Brown and Levinson’ Formulato Japanese Facework Behaviors
There have been criticism of the universality of Brown andLevinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness theory, based on Goffman’s

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

11

Kiyama et al.
(1955, 1967) facework model. Some Japan-based researchers(Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989, 2006; Matsumoto, 1988, 2003)
argue that facework behaviors of Japanese are restricted byuse of honorifics (especially addressee honorifics), which
necessarily attaches to every utterance to seniors and strangers
regardless of what they are interacting about, and hence theycannot engage in spontaneous facework. Despite their claims,
however, the results of this study revealed that the intrinsic
content of a situation (i.e., the Ri factor) has a stronger influence on facework behaviors of native speakers of Japanese,even more than the interpersonal relationships of P and D.
This means that native speakers of Japanese can make achoice between FS responses and FT responses, even to theseniors and strangers. In other words, native speakers ofJapanese spontaneously engage in facework.
It should also be noted that effects caused by the interlocutor’s contradictory attitudes (i.e., the Rc factor) occur
throughout all the three settings in the present survey.
Participants’ responses differ depending on whether theinterlocutor’s attitude is self-approving or self-disapproving.
When the problem arises who is at fault for the accident
involved in our questionnaire, participants’ responses always
differ from FS to FT, depending on whether the interlocutor’s attitude was self-approving or self-disapproving. Whenthe problem arises as to who is at fault for the accident (i.e.,
Settings 1 and 2: conditions of Ri), our Japanese participants
tend to console the feelings of the interlocutor who admits
his or her fault (i.e., the case of interlocutor’s self-disapproving utterance: a condition of Rc). This effect of interaction
between the Ri and the Rc implies a hearer-oriented behavior
by native Japanese speakers.
The effect caused by power relations (seniority), which has
been emphasized in Ide’s (1989, 2006) discernment (wakimae) theory, occurs only in Setting 3 concerning an election of
the leader. The result suggests that the seniority system basedon age does not always influence facework behaviors among
native Japanese speakers. Rather, it seems that they change
facework behaviors according to the intrinsic content of thesituation and the interlocutor’s preceding attitude.

the universality of Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) formula, which predicts facework behaviors on the basis ofthese three factors. Furthermore, the finding that subfactorsof R (i.e., situational factor) had stronger influences on
Japanese participants’ facework than inter-/intrapersonal
factors (P, D, and G) suggests that native Japanese speakers
can engage in spontaneous facework. Brown and Levinson’s
politeness theory was originally proposed to explain communicators’ motivation behind violation of Grice’s (1975)
cooperative principle (CP). CP proposes that efficient communication requires a speaker to be truthful, informative,
relevant, and clear. However, if the information to be conveyed is FT to the interlocutor, the speaker cannot comply
with CP anymore. These results suggest that the factors of R,
P, D, and G can be useful predictors of when and how people
violate CP.
Although this study has provided empirical findings andan implication for the universality of the Brown andLevinson (1978, 1987) theory, it contains methodologicaland theoretical limitations, some of which provide avenues
for future research. The questionnaire survey was limited inscope to investigate interpersonal relationships between aperson and the interlocutor. If greater differences in interpersonal relationships such as the difference of power
between a professor and a student (e.g., Thomas, 1985)
and/or the difference in distance between a stranger and an
intimate friend (e.g., Tannen, 1981) were closely investigated, we might identify further effects of factors influencing interpersonal relationships. In addition, although thisstudy focused on the two types of interlocutor’s utterances(i.e., self-approving and self-disapproving) within thequestionnaires, authentic sequences of facework behaviors
are more complicated when observing authentic conversation data (e.g., Hayashi, 1996; Mori, 1999; Pomerantz,
1978, 1984; Saito, 2010; Schegloff, 2007; Takano, 2005;
Usami, 2002). Complementary studies are necessary for
different organized utterances and sequences when individuals engage in facework.

Appendix
Conclusion
The present survey demonstrated the effects of multiple factors influencing facework behaviors by native speakers ofJapanese. The results of a content-based analysis empiricallyindicated that the two subfactors of the situational factor,
which represent the R termed by Brown and Levinson (1978,
1987), had a highly substantial influence on facework behaviors by our Japanese participants. The strongest predictor was
the intrinsic contents of situations (i.e., the Ri), followed by
the interlocutor’s contradictory attitudes (i.e., the Rc). Effects
caused by interpersonal relationships of P and D and intrapersonal factor of participants’ G were less substantial thanthose caused by subfactors of R.
The finding that subfactors of R, P, and D were all significant in Japanese participants’ facework provides support for

Scenarios to Elicit Facework Behaviors by
Native Speakers of JapaneseEach of the three settings as conditions of intrinsic factor(Ri) was followed by two types of the hypothetical interlocutors antecedent utterance as conditions of contextual
factor (Rc). The hypothetical interlocutors were nested insets of relationship comprising the combination of power
factor (two conditions of older/younger) and distance factor(two conditions of familiar/unfamiliar). For each of theinterlocutors’ utterances, three choices of self-response (to“agree,” to “disagree,” or “no response”) were presented.
Notes in parentheses were not presented to participants inthe actual questionnaire. Following is an English translationof the scenarios that were originally written in Japanese.

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

12		

SAGE Open

Setting 1 (Self-Fault Never Admitted)
You work part-time at a restaurant in a position of some
importance with your coworker. You arrived at work to discover that an expensive leather-covered chair had ruined by
the rain through a nearby window that should have beenclosed at the end of the day. You and your coworker were thelast to have left there the night before. When you were about
to leave, you had asked the coworker “Is everything all rightat our end?” The coworker answered “Yes, maybe, it’s allright.” So, you did not check the window around the
coworker’s side for yourself. The restaurant manager, then,asked both of you about what had happened.
Your coworker’s utterance 1 (the interlocutor’s selfapproving attitude):
I thought [participant’s name] had closed the window.
If the person is older than you and someone you know well:(higher powered and familiar interlocutor)□ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know
If the person is older than you and someone you don’t knowwell:(higher powered and unfamiliar interlocutor)□ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know
If the person is younger than you and someone you knowwell:(lower powered and familiar interlocutor)□ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know
If the person is younger than you and someone you don’tknow well:(lower powered and unfamiliar interlocutor)□ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not knowYour coworker’s utterance 2 (the interlocutor’s selfdisapproving attitude):
I’m sorry, I didn’t close it.
If the person is older than you and someone you know well:(higher powered and familiar interlocutor)□ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know
If the person is older than you and someone you don’t knowwell:(higher powered and unfamiliar interlocutor)□ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know
If the person is younger than you and someone you know well:(lower powered and familiar interlocutor)□ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know
If the person is younger than you and someone you don’tknow well:(lower powered and unfamiliar interlocutor)□ Agree □ Disagree □ I do not know

Setting 2 (Fault Somehow Admitted Both by
the Interlocutor and the Self)
Today, you are going to attend the wedding of a relative ofyours. You are supposed to direct your cousin there, meetingyour cousin at the station at an appointed time, allowing

enough time to get there before the beginning of the party.
However, your cousin arrived late at the station, and then,you got lost on the way to the wedding. The party had
already started when you arrived. After the party, some ofthe older relatives made criticized both of you.
Your cousin’s utterance 1 (the interlocutor’s self-approving
attitude):We were late because [participant’s name] got lost on
the way here.
Your cousin’s utterance 2 (the interlocutor’s self-disapproving attitude):
I’m sorry, I arrived late at the station.
The following hypothetical interlocutors are the same as in
Setting 1.

Setting 3 (Competition Over Dominance)
You are a member of a student club. Today, you are at a
meeting to choose a club leader for next term. The candidates are another member and you. The club is of some
reputation and the club leader is a good position for making
contacts and creating connections on- and off campus. You
are eager to be the leader. The other candidate also appears
to be ambitious. You are both required to give a speech
before all the members of the club. The interlocutor is to
speak first.
The other candidate’s utterance 1 (the interlocutor’s
self-approving attitude):
I have some prior experience on this kind of position,
so I can do the job much better, I am sure.
The other candidate’s utterance 2 (the interlocutor’s selfdisapproving attitude):I think [participant’s name] will do the job better thanme.
The following hypothetical interlocutors are the same as in
Setting 1.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Shingo
Tokimoto, Kieran G. Mundy, Michael P. Mansbridge, and Yayoi
Miyaoka as well as two anonymous reviewers of the SAGE Openfor their valuable comments and suggestions on previous versionsof this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect tothe research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

13

Kiyama et al.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research and/or authorship of this article: This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grants 24652080 and 23320106.

References
Baxter, L. A. (1984). An investigation of compliance-gaining as
politeness. Human Communication Research, 10, 427-456.
Bodine, A. (1975). Sex differentiation in language. In B. Thorne& N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 130-151). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Bond, M. H., Wan, K. C., Keung, K., & Giacalone, R. A. (1985).
How are responses to verbal insults related to cultural collectivism and power distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 111-127.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage:
Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions andpoliteness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in
language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the
U.S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124-131.
Dillard, J. P., & Burgoon, M. (1985). Situational influences on theselection of compliance-gaining messages: Two tests of the predictive utility of the Cody-McLaughlin typology. Communication Monographs, 52, 289-304.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (2001). The place of gender in developmental pragmatics: Cultural factors. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 34, 131-147.
Fox, A. B., Bukatko, D., Hallahan, M., & Crawford, M. (2007).
The medium makes a difference: Gender similarities and differences in instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 26, 389-397.
Fukada, A., & Asato, N. (2004). Universal politeness theory: Application to the use of Japanese honorifics. Journal of Pragmatics,
36, 1991-2002.
Goffman, E. (1955). On facework: An analysis of ritual elements insocial interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-facebehavior. New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.
Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts
(pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hannah, A., & Murachver, T. (2007). Gender preferential responses
to speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 274290.
Hayashi, T. (1996). Politeness in conflict management: A conversation analysis of dispreferred message from a cognitive
perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 227-255.
Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence fromJapanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10,347-371.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Holtgraves, T. (2009). Face, politeness and interpersonal variables:
Implications for language production and comprehension. In
F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication, and social interaction (pp. 198-207). London, England:
Equinox.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1990). Politeness as universal: Crosscultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences basedon their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
719-729.
Ide, S. (1982). Japanese sociolinguistics politeness and women’s
language. Lingua, 57, 357-385.
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected
aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8,
223-248.
Ide, S. (2006). Wakimae no Goyooron [Pragmatics of wakimae].
Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan.
Itakura, H., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Gender and conversational
dominance in Japanese conversation. Language in Society, 33,
223-248.
Jenkins, S. S., & Aube, J. (2002). Gender differences and genderrelated constructs in dating aggression. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1106-1118.
Kass, G. V. (1980). An exploratory technique for investigating large
quantities of categorical data. Applied Statistics, 29, 119-127.
Keck, K. L., & Samp, J. A. (2007). The dynamic nature of goals
and message production as revealed in a sequential analysis
of conflict interactions. Human Communication Research, 33,
27-47.
Kim, A. H. (2006). Grammaticalization in sentence-final politenessmarking in Korean and Japanese. In S. Kuno, I-H. Lee, J. Whitman, J. Maling, Y.-S. Kang, P. Sells & H-S. Sohn (Eds.), Harvard studies in Korean linguistics (pp. 72-85). Seoul, Korea:
Hanshin.
Kim-Jo, T., Benet-Martinez, V., & Ozer, D. J. (2010). Culture andinterpersonal conflict resolution styles: Role of acculturation.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 264-269.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Lauwereyns, S. (2002). Hedges in Japanese conversation: The
influence of age, sex and formality. Language Variation andChange, 14, 239-259.
Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of collective avoidance.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 125-136.
Lim, T., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework, solidarity, approbation,and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415-450.
Lustig, M. W., & King, S. W. (1980). The effect of communication
apprehension and situation on communication strategy choices.
Human Communication Research, 7, 74-82.
MacGeorge, E. L., Lichtman, R. M., & Pressey, L. C. (2002). The
evaluation of advice in supportive interactions: Facework andcontextual factors. Human Communication Research, 28, 451463.

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

14		SAGE OpenMartin, S. E. (1964). Speech levels in Japan and Korea. In D. Hymes(Ed.), Language in culture and society: A reader in linguistics
and anthropology (pp. 407-415). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of Face:
Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12,403-426.
Matsumoto, Y. (2003). Reply to Pizziconi. Journal of Pragmatics,
35, 1515-1521.
McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W. S. (1977).
Women’s language: Uncertainty of interpersonal sensitivity andemotionality? Sex Roles, 3, 545-559.
Merkin, R. S. (2006). Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A testof the Hofstede model. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 30, 213-228.
Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese: Connective expressions and turn construction. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). Empirical support
for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis
of male/female language differences. Human Communication
Research, 27, 121-152.
Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure andFacework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225-256.
Pizziconi, B. (2003). Re-examining politeness, Face and the Japanese language. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1471-1506.
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies
in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79-112).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments:
Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M.
Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action:
Studies in conversation analysis (pp.75-101). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1087-1111.
Rogan, R. G., & La France, B. H. (2003). An examination of therelationship between verbal aggressiveness, conflict management strategies, and conflict interaction goals. Communication
Quarterly, 51, 458-469.
Saito, J. (2010). Subordinates’ use of Japanese plain forms: An
examination of superior-subordinate interactions in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3271-3282.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A
prime in conversation analysis Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
SPSS. (2006). SPSS classification trees (Version 15.0) [Computer
software and manual]. Chicago, IL: Author.
Takano, S. (2005). Re-examining linguistic power: Strategic usesof directives by professional Japanese women in positions ofauthority and leadership. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 633-666.
Takiura, M. (2005). Nihon no keigo-ron: Politeness riron kara no
sai-kentou [Theories of Japanese honorifics: Re-examination interms of politeness theory]. Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan.

Takiura, M. (2008). Politeness nyuumon [An introduction to politeness]. Tokyo, Japan: Kenkyusha.
Tamaoka, K., Lim, H., Miyaoka, Y., & Kiyama, S. (2010). Effects
of gender-identity and gender-congruence on levels of politeness among young Japanese and Koreans. Journal of Asian
Pacific Communication, 20, 23-45.
Tanaka, N., Spencer-Oatey, H., & Cray, E. (2000). “It’s not myfault”: Japanese and English responses to unfounded accusations. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 75-97). London,
England: Continuum.
Tannen, D. (1981). Indirectness in discourse: Ethnicity as conversational style. Discourse Processes, 4, 221-238.
Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involvement in best friends’ talk. Discourse Processes, 13,73-90.
Thomas, J. (1985). The language of power. Journal of Pragmatics,
9, 765-783.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin,S., & Nishita, T. (1991). Culture, face maintenance, and stylesof handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275-296.
Tokieda, M. (1939). Keigo-hou oyobi Keiji-hou no kenkyu [A studyof usages of referent and addressee honorifics]. Gobun Ronso,[Journal of Linguistics and Literature] 8. (Reprinted from Bonpou-/bunshou-ron [Studies of grammar and written discourse],
pp. 23-64, by E. Tokieda, 1975, Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Shoten)
Uchida, N. (1997). Kaiwa-kōdō ni mirareru seisa [Sex differencesin conversational behaviors]. In S. Ide (Ed.), Joseigo no sekai[The world of women’s language] (pp. 74-93). Tokyo, Japan:
Meiji Shoin.
Usami, M. (2002). Discourse politeness in Japanese conversation:
Some implications for a universal theory of politeness. Tokyo,
Japan: Hituzi Syobo.
Wetzel, P. J. (2004). Keigo in modern Japan: Polite language from
Meiji to the present. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in everyday social life: The middle kingdom and themelting pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
79-86.

Bios
Sachiko Kiyama obtained her PhD in linguistics at Reitaku
University, Japan, in 2011 and is currently a research associate at
Functional Brain Imaging Lab, Department of Gerontechnology,
National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Japan. She isengaged in neuroscience of age-related change in pragmatic phenomena in Japanese.
Katsuo Tamaoka holds a PhD from the University of Saskatchewan,
Canada, and is a professor at the Graduate School of Languages andCultures, Nagoya University, Japan. His research interests include
psycholinguistics, cognitive psychology, second-language acquisition,and corpus studies. He has published various articles in international

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012

15

Kiyama et al.
journals, including Journal of East Asian Linguistics, Psychonomic
Bulletin and Review, and Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.
Masato Takiura is a professor at College of Foreign Studies,
Reitaku University, Japan. His research interests include Japanese

linguistics and communication studies. He is the author of Nihon
no keigo-ron: Politeness riron karano sai-kento [Theories ofJapanese honorifics: Re-examination in terms of politeness theory](2005, Tokyo: Taishukan) and Politeness nyumon [An introduction
to politeness] (2008, Tokyo: Kenkyusha), among others.

Downloaded from sgo.sagepub.com by guest on December 23, 2012