Availabie online at ww、 呟sciencedirect̲com

SCttNCEり口

REcT'

Jmma10f

Journal of Pragmatics 37(2005)633‑666
www elsc宙 c■ comloca/pragmaRc― exanlining linguistic power:strategic

uses of directives by professional Japanesewomen in positiOns of authottity

and leadership
Shai Takan。 *2‐

3‑f6り ασみ ″jS/1ら スぉ〃わ ″―々″,sりpο ″ θθイ‐
363ノ ,J《 ρα
″
J‐

̀お

Rcccived 13 Apri1 2000;reccivcd in rcviscd fOnll 14」 unc 2004:acccpted 22 Junc 2004

Abstract
Givcn that an hcrcasing numbcr of profcssiOnd wOmcn are playing a traditiO必 1サ male rolc Of
authority and lcadcrship in」 apancsc sOciCty today,it has bccn suggcsted thatlcadership positions suffcr from a ̀sOciolinguistic dilcmma' in choosing bё

womcn lnvcen thc culturany
prcscribed fcmininc、 vays of speaking and thc communiCative nccd to talk powcrfuny fronl theiroccupational statuses ヽ
Vhilc connicting vie、 vs are dcrived from cither anecd6tal evidcncc or sma‖ ―t、

scalc pilot studies, no largc― scalc cmpirical invcstigation Of natural v′ orkplacc intcractions has
prcscntcd a comprehcnsive picture of thc issuc

ThiS papcr analyzcs hinc femalc cxccutivcs'uscs of dircctivc spccch acts that、
rccordcd and obscrvcd in a largc numbcr of workplacc interactions

vcrc both tapc―

Ⅳloving bcyond thc traditiOnalscntenccrlCVCl analysis of thc usc of femininc(or rnasculinc)inOrphosyntactic variants,thc study

accounts for thc following as thc linguistic sOlutions to thc dilcmma:(1)the Stratcgies ofcontcxtualization, which cmpOwcr the ̀gcndcr― prcfcrred' polite, indirect franling of dircctivcs
in thc larger domain of discOursc;(2)thc uSes Of positivc―

politc rapport buildcrs for synlmctricalintcrpersonal rclationships and voluntary collaboration; and (3)the aCtiVation of multiplc
identities through marked uscs Of polite languagc in the immediatc context of usc.Thc study
concludes that co‐ constitutive rclationShips bct、 vcen languagc and contcxt, rathcr than thc
powcrful(or po、 vcrlcss)codC structure pcr sc, arc thc kcy to an undcrstanding of linguistic* Tel:+81 11 891 2731;fax:+81 11 8943690
Z^″ ,α″クノ′″ssr stakano@hokusei acJp

0378‑2166/S― scc frOnt matter c1 2004 EIsc宙 er B V All rights lescⅣ cd
doi110 1016/J pragma 2004 06 007

ι
S ■たα″ο/Jο ι

634,72r7′

̀/P′5,こたg'llrlrlcs 37(2θ θ'3‑666̀ι

構l肌 1:鷺 I
歳鵞 鷺潔 ⅧyifttЪ耀∬
講:m冒 縫耀T:輩 は『::ξ
gencral:∬1」o2004 EIsevicr B V All五 ghts rcserved
Kevll οr(lsI Dircctivcsi Gcndcr and languagc:Language and poヽ

vCr:Ⅵ /orkplacc discoursc;Japancsc

1. Introduction」apancse culturc is oftcn refcred to as a prototypical ncgativc― facc culture u/ith a strong｀ハ′omen incmphasis on indirectncss and politcncss in intclpersonal conHnunication
particular are given a prescribcd

social personality'' that characterizes them as thc

vanguard of such normative bchavlors(Bourdicu, 1977: 655)一 ―ie,being ̀̀modest'' inbehavior and opinions and̀̀polite and gcntle to othcrs'' in social intcractions(Mashimo,
1969:46)HistOrically,thc attribution of such a gencralizcd persona to Japanesc wOmen
vith many other signiticant
secms to be a relatively recent phcnomcnon lt bcgan along、
socio― political changcs relatcd to modcnlization and industrialization during the late 19th

to early 20th centuries,when the govcmment began to cxcrcise idcological control over theshaping of womcn's social roles,primanly throughヮ οοsθ メたι ιο (g00d Wife and wise

mothcr)cduCatiOn, both institutional and domestic (NlashilnO, 1969; Inouc, 1994)
Accordingly, politcness and indirectness as linguistic manifcstations of the prescribed「hile rccent

persona have become the norms for how women should speak(Endoo,1991).｀

studies of natural spcech sho、 v that such a homogeneous vicw of」 apanesc womcn's
language is unlikcly to rcprescnt ho、 vヽ vOnlen speak in rcality(Endoo et al.,1989;Endoo,

1992;(Dkamoto and Sato, 1992:Okamoto, 1994, 1997),the SOC10‑culturally constructcd
norm that cans for、 vomen to talk indirectly and politely has survivcd rigidly at a folk―

linguistic levcl(Kindaichi,1969;Tanaka, 1969;Jugaku, 1979;Suzuki,1981;Nlogami,
1986;Idc et al, 1986;Idc, 1990)
Although Japancseヽ vomen have considerable po、 /er in domestic lifc,thcy traditionallyhave not held positions of authority in the marketplacc(Roscnbcrger, 1994).In aCtuality,
however,as incrcasing numbers of M/omen have cntercd into thcヽ vork forcc,thcre have

vomen's prcscribcd pcrsona has scriously contl・ adicted thc
bcen cases in v/hich 、
communicative rcquircments arising frolll their non―traditional roles in previously nlale―

dominated occupational activitics. It has bcen suggested that profcssional、
vomcn inleadership positions speak、 vith asscrtion and forcefulncss in order to establish authority inthc wol・ kplace,contrary to the prcscriptive linguisJc norms(Rcynolds,1990)

This sociolinguistic dilemma was Arst rccognized in Ogata ct al.(1957),who Viewcd thc
oments langtlage at that tilnc as an inevitablc sociolinguistic
ongoing masculinization of、 ′ugaku'sヽ /ork(1979,1984,1985,1986,
innovation,led prilllarily by professional、 vomen 」

1990)has consistently challenged the prcscribed linguistic fclllininity as a hindrancc to」ugaku has also argued thatthe stigmatization
omcn'sliberation and social advancementvaysofspeaking,on onc hand,and the stercotypcdof women、 vho adopt non― felllinine、
imagcs ofthcir po、 /crlcssness in communication,on thc othcr,arc both likcly to scgrcgatev′

and discriminate against Japanesc M/omen in thc workplacc.

S■

trl″

ο/Jr2″

α′r2FP″ 脚 arjcs 37(2ω 5り

井666

Sociolinguists have reccntly begun a more empirical vein of research on the speech of
profossional Japancsc、 vomen holding gcndcr― atypical,authoritative positions,、vho are theones most likely to face such dilemmas.l These studies,however,have put foA17ard rather
connicting views on solutions that rnight benent prOfessional Japanesc、
vomen in positionsof authonty.Based on introspective intervie、 vS,the flrst vic、 v,which is compatible、 vith theso― called̀̀dominance/power―

based"approach to gender and language(Uchida,1992:549),prOposes̀̀de― feminizing''women's speech as a powe卜 secking innovation forovercoming inferior sOcial status and to ano、 v、 vomen to compete、 vith men for authority inthe work force(Reynolds,1990:136).Because Ofthe widespread prescribed nom■ s for how
vomen should talk,this vie、 v proposes not that、 vomen should boroM/1nen's power code、
directly― an act for、 vhich they、 vould be stigmatised― but rathcr that they do away、 vith
feminine speech styles that socio― culturally denote pO、 verlessness.

A diametrically opposed vic、v, in accord 、vith the ̀̀difference/cultural'' approach(UChida, 1992:548),conSiders professional Japanesc、 vomen's linguistic innovations as
theconstruction of women's ne、 v identity" in the non‐ traditional domain of social life

(Ide and lnOue,1992).Based On infomal observations,these studies repolt that Japanese
M/Omen in high OccupatiOnal positions consciously adopt̀̀hyper― polite''characteristics in
specch in order to highlight their femininity even more strongly than tllose in traditional

domains(Abe,1992;Ide,1993).ThiS宙 ew posits that power and authority for professional
Japanesc 、
vomen can be established by strcssing their full― nedged communicativecompetence through using felllinine speech in accol・dancc、 vith the socio― cultural norllls
and expectations.
The flrst investigation of naturalistic, interactional data from professional Japanesc
women in charge(heК inafter PWC)waS Snlith's(1992)pilot Study ofdirectives.Based oninteractions involving status asylnlnetry drawn frolll instructional programs,dramas andca1loons broadcast on television,Smith found that PW (〕 use more polite morphosyntactic
structurcs than male countc叩 冨tS, ｀vhich is consistent 、vith thc nomative pattcms oflanguagc use for Japanesc、 vomen.In a stance compatible v/ith thè̀difference/cultural''approach,Smith ful・ ther proposed that,as a solution to the dilemma,PWC should cstablish
innovative linguistic strategies to utilize the po、ver ol・ iginating in their traditional fenlinine

roles in the culture:(1)thè̀rnOtheresc''strategy and(2)thO paSSiVe po、 ver strategy.2 The
fomer implies that PWC should direct their subordinates as a mOther directs her children,by using the po、ver derived from their traditional role of inotherhood.The latter implies astrategy of̀̀passive but assured waiting"一―communicating in a inore reticent,less direct,l Responding to a survey conducted by the Nihon Keizai Newspaperin 1988(rcported in Kashima,1993),
about 60%offcmale company ettecutives、
occupational rolcs becausc thcy、

vho rcsponded feltthatthey、

vcre at a disadvantage in carrying outthcir

vcrc、 vomcn Thcy commonly pointcd outthat onc ofthc dircct sources oftheircs and malc suboldinatcs(Kashima,1993:
38).ThЮ ugh my ncld intcrviews ill」 apan,I have also found that whilc many plofcssional womcn in positions of
disadvantage was communication problcms with botla rnale cxecut市

authority are a、 vare of difnculties in interacting、 vitll their subordinates, they have varying views on ercctivc
linguistic stratcgies for、 vorkplacc intcractions involving gcndcr(e.g.,thC dcgrcc of rnitigation may depend upon

the gcndcr composi■ on of interactions)(Takano, 1997)
2 Accoding to Smith,tllc srategy is structurally charactcrized as having a noun(speCi″
no vcrb,using no overt directivc rnorphology(¨vcrbs(―"4α〃万′αdα たIF)ing an act市 ity)withたο,ο′ιplus the receiving
ソοο77j),and COnsisting ofthe gerundive― ′636

jcs J7(2θ θ
5,6JJ‑666
α′
S乃 た″″ο/カ ン″ ′げ P″ g″ ′,αand thus morc politc manner (Slllith, 1992: 78) that aCCOrds

ヽvith socio― cultural

expectations for womcn's、vays of spcaking.

These strategies are further conirmcd by Sunaoshi's (1994, 1995)casc Studies
conductcd at a family― o、vned camera/clectronics shop As for thè̀Inotheresc''strategy inparticular,Sunaoshi(1995)found thattwo female shop managers tended to issue the sametypes of directivcs to their youngcr subol・ dinates as they issucd to their oM/n childrcn athome.At the samc tiine,she noted that there is a great dcal of diversity in thc forms of
directivcs,、vhich do not al、 vays bear clear referential ineaning but rather sound suggestivc.

Sunaoshi(1994)thcn argued that the shop managers take advantage of their linguisticrcsourccs in addition to the specinc strategies that gencrally constitute the」 apanesc、vay of―
convcrsation一 what shc called ttθ οИ (C01labOration).Theり θοlllα Oricnted strategies
include frequent use of the sentence inal panicle rlι

as a marker of elllpathy and sharedfeelings bct、 veen managers and their subordinates, rcpetition of the subordinatcs'
uttcranccs for connrlllation of directivc intent,use of phrases softening order‐ giving(c.3・cλ θ′″οltr7″ llJ 77 daた ι′ο, ̀̀I feel a little bad, but''), and usc of back― channel ctles called,ヽ
Vhat extent these features involvc gender― linked
differcntiation, she suggests that thcy a1loM/ the female managers to ̀̀sho、 v theirα′ζ夕c/1J. VVhile it is unclcar toattcntiveness and create rappolt and initiate a comfortablc rhythln for conversation''for thc

crective issuing of dircctivcs(p.687)

Furo(1996)Studied how female teachcrs manage to rcsolve their dilemmas based onnaturaHy occuttring interactions in the classroolll setting.She found that female tcachcrs'

ways of directing thcir students gencrally confom to the socio‐

cultural norms offemininity in spcech,、 /hile they appear to crcate strategies in different、 vays fl・ onl lllalc
teachers to empo、 ver their directives,panicularly in situations in、 /hich their authority is
instruction
challenged. Fcmale teachcrs are more polite than male tcachcrs both indirectives''(i.e.,those dcsigncd to movc class acti宙

tics量 )rward)and iǹ̀discipline

dircctivcs''(ic.,thOsc that are in response to students'undisciplincd behaviors during thee politencss
class)(p.250).In thC fOrmcr,female teachers characteristically resort to posit市
strategies(e.g., the tlsc of the sentence― nnal particle llι )to prOmOtc solidarity for theettectivencss ofillocutionary force,and thcy also employ ncgativc politeness strategics for

mitigation (e.g, frcquent uses of requests [rather tht■ ll ilnperatives]and declarative

scntenccs)(Smith, 1992).In thC lattcr typc of directives,which are issued in morc
authority― thrcatening situations, female teachers are found to frame the act in a morc

forceful manner but to do so、 vithin the limit of female rcgistcr ̀̀、 vithout de― feminizing
their speech''(p.257).

The solutions to the dilemmas that PNVC nced to manipulatc,hov/ever, appear to bemuch more intricatc and mtllti― dimensional than those that have been dcscribed in theseprior sttldies, oncc researchers begin to focus on illteractions bet、 veen languagc and its
imlllediate context of usc fronl an cthnographic perspective.Abe's(1993)Arst large― scalecthnographic study of naturally occurring interactions frolll a number of M/orkplaces seems

to indicatc that both polite and felllinine uses of language entail enormous contcxtual
linguistic factors.For example,ノ ヽbc has pointed
variability linked systematically to extra―out thc difnculty of dctcllnining whether hcr suttectS talk politely or not bccause of theirconstant style― shifting of thc prcdicatc bascd on the relativc age and social status of thc

participants,thc speakcr's role,the topic discusscd,thc number of participants,the lcvel of

S■ たα″ο/′ οrrlα′げ ′7r7g″ α′たs37(2∞ 5り の」 66

637

solidarity among interactants,and even individual idiosyncrasies(Abe,1993:162).As forfemininity(encoded by sentence‐ 6nal fOrms[SFFs]in her study),Abe's inteTretations of
the nndingS accord、 vith both̀̀dominancc"and̀'differenCe''modelsi the use ofrnasculine

S「 s is lnotivated by considerations ofpower,especially in interactions in、 vhich the power
relationship bet、 veen the palticipants is ratller unclear or threatening(Reynolds,1990,ct,

Furo,1996).On the other hand,feminine SITs function to mark assert市 eness as long as the
speaker's higher status than her subordinates is clear and stable(Ide and lnoue, 1992).
This diverse inventory ofpeκ pectives offered by prior studies,as、 vell as thc c五 tical lackof large― scalc investigations foHowing Abe (1993), motiVatc us tO seek a morecomprehensive picture of the realities of the issue,which the present study t五

ed to achievewith the following three aims in mind.First,as is evident fl・ om Abeゝ (1993)ethnOgraphic

work,a inore productive approach should take deeper account of the ongoing processes ofnegotiation for and strategi9 manipulation of ̀̀speakcr poM/er'' in close linkagc to theimmediate context of use̲1.e.,of the practical ways in、

vhich sociolinguistic dilemmas areКsolved thЮ ugh language use in context(Gumpe比 ,1982;Habermas,1984;綸 alname et al.,
1984;Diamond,1996).3 Despite the fact that communicativc power is a dynalllic quality
consisting of multi‑layered properties(C)1leS and lViemann,1987),pl・iOr studies havc rclicd

on a rather static vic、 v oflinguistic poweち viewing it prima五 ly as a rnatter of sentence―level

analysis Of the overt morphosyntactic charactel・

istics of the utterance.4 The nuidity andiinplicitness ofspё akerpower COnllnOnly identined in actualinteractions readily sho、

v thatit

may be lnisleading to de五 vё the speaker's communicative po、 vel・ fLllneSs solely fronl thesulfaё e code siucture per se、 vithout taking into account the dynamic interplay bet、
veen
language alldits context ofuscin moment―to―molnent cxchallges(Gal,1991;Ng and Bradac,

1993;Fowlet 1985;FaiК lough,2001).As one plausible generalization,am可 oHty Of priorstudies seem to agree with the pe∬ pective th■ PⅥ ′C dO not so markedly deviate fI・ om but
rather persist in their,ocio― Culturally prescribed noms, speaking in a more deferential

and polite manner than their male counterparts (1.c., resOrting to negatively politc
mo[phosyntactic variants). ThiS Observation, ho、

vever, is stin too vague to provide

understanding of ho、 v、vomcn actually managc,in practice,to establish their authottty andresolve their dilemmas with that apparently(i.e.,moΨ

hosyntactically)̀̀pOWerless"language. To elucidate this problenl, I will focus on the discursive processes, in whichapparently po、verless,polite,indirect ways of speaking constitute or rnaintain the contextin

favor of the speaker's acquisition of communicative power.

Someofthep五 orstudies,cspeciallythosebasedonauthenticinteractionaldata,havepointed
out that positive― polite dimens,onS Of language use aК characte五 stic of the specch of

PWC (SunaOshi,1994;Furo,1996).Previous studies that have focuscd on linguistic Po、

vcr

have generany agreed that powe」 bl speakers are skillful negotiators of a complex
sociolinguistic repertoire consiSting of both ncgative and positive politeness strategies
3 1 deflne thc speaker's po、

vclfuinCss as his or her ability tò̀take charge"of a convcrsatiOn(Myers―

1985: 103)A po、 velful spcaker is able to dctcnlnine the sOcio―

Scotton,psychological dynamics of interpersonal rclation―

ships between intcractants(eg,social distance,in‐ group rapport,group mcmbcrship,social status,and identity)ls、 vcll as to control thc contcnt,the mood,thc organization,and the evaluation of thc cOnversa■

spcakcr tums,the atmosphere)on(cg,topics,

4 Thc sole exccption to this is Stlnaoshi(1994),who includcd other linguistic materials in addition to thc

morphosyntactic charactcristics of dircctivcs in the analyscs

q′ ρ
S 7れ た71ο /Jο lr77'α ノ
l rlg″ lrrrics θ
7(2θ θ
5,633‑666(0ヽ VSley and Myers― Scotton,

1984:Myers― Scotton, 1985), and havc also suggestcd thatsophisticated uscs ofpositive― politeness featurcs(cg̀,humOr)can be good indicators ofthe

person'squalincationstobcanablcleaderv/hocaǹ̀̀dopo、

ver'lcssexplicitly"(Hollnes,2000:
176;Pcarson, 1988,1989)As thc sccond thrust of the present study,I will arguc that thescopeofpriorresearchonthcsolutionstothcsociolinguisticdilemmas,beingheavilyinnucncedby the presc五 bed view ofpolite"Japanese womcn(cf.,Wiettbicka,1985),has been
excessivelyrcstrictedtotheirusesofformal,mitigatedlanguagefornegat市 epoliteness(HOrictal.,1999).In fact,Abe's(1993)complex results ofcontext― bound f‐ omality and infomality

mcntioncd earlier seem to stlbStantiate lrvine's (1979) propOSal for hctcrogcncous
intcttretatiOns of formality(and infOrmality),in that different pans of thc linguistic
system(as well as other components of a given communicative event)do nOt necessal・
lly
participate in contributing to formality to an equal extent or atthe same time but rathcr arc

ofteǹ̀complcmentary oreven antithetical,ratherthan additive''(p.786)(alSO SCeNiyckawa,1984).Taking a silllilarstancc,I、 vill focus on the effectiveness ofpositivc― politeinteractional

noHms as a crucial componcnt of sociolinguistic strategics that PNVC use to resolve theircommunicative dilemmas(cl,TrOemel―

Ploetz, 1992, 1994). Both negative― polite andpositive― polite nonms are found to bc intcr、 voven and to conaborate in quitc complcx

ways,assisting the spcakers in successful delivcry ofthcir illoctltionary intent.

The nnalthrust ofthe present study is concerned、vith the inethodological application ofboth qualitative and quantitative sociolinguistics approachcs to a large body of naturaHy
occurring interactional data,v/hich has not been achieved in prior studics.Itis cvident fromthc rcvicM/of literature that the researcher's direct observation ofinteractions should bc an

essential component of analysis for accounting for strategic aspects of language use inintcrplay 、vith its immediate context. I conducted large― scale on― site observations ofauthentic workplacc interactions, v/hich have a1lo、 ved mc to interpret thesituated

meanings"of communicative acts、 vith the aid ofa variety of contextual factors involved in
thc immcdiatc context of use(SChiffrin, 1994: 109‑127)
The quantitative sociolinguistics literaturc, on thc other hand, also points out thatnatural speech data are inevitably ske、 ved in terms of the distribution of contextual factors
in question,and it argues for rigorous use of statistical mcasurement for reaching legitilnate

intettretatiOns of the results(SankOff, 1985). FunhcrmOrc, given variable uses of aparticular linguistic feature under investigation(1.c.,use Of directivcs in this study),it has

Ve7 0ften been thc case that potentially simultaneous effects of a variety of contextual
factors on that obscrvcd variation have been critically neglected in a great mttority Ofpriorsociolinguistics studies dealillg、vith languagc usc(SankOft 1986;Guy,1987).The present

study、 vill accolninodate these methodological assets in its rescarch design,conducting
statistical tcsts and multivariate analyses M′

hen appropriatc.

2.The study
2.7. D′ ハ ″′ッιs αs αッarJα b′ ὶεA number of studies havc dcmonstrated that somc inva五 ant rulcs systcmatically govcrn
variablc rcalizations of surface forms of directivcs in accordancc、

vith a varicty of social

S7bた α″ο/Jο ク772α ′9′ P″ g711arjcs 37(2θ θ
5り 6θ 」贅チ
66

639

and contextual conditioning factors(Labov, 1970;Ervin―
Tripp, 1976, 1981;Labov andFanshel,1977).5(Dnc fundamcntal driving force of such decision rulcs is linked closcly tothe notion of̀̀face、 vants,''、 vhich consist of bOth negativc aspects and positive aspects ofintelpcrsonal communication(BroWn and Lc宙is considcred to be a highlỳ̀facc―

nson,1987:6164).A diК ct市 e spccch act
threatening act''that entails great potcntial for damaging

thc addressee's basic face、 vants.Successful achievcment of the act requires sophisticatedcommunicative competence that enables speakers to exploit appropriate ̀̀redressive
actions" in order to nlitigate the potcntial facc damage, 、
vhilc still accomplishing thcir
directivc intent succcssfuHy(BroヽVn and Levinson, 1987:69).VVOrkplace directives havebeen choscn as the variable of the present investigation under the assumption that
communicativc dilemmas in such highly face―thrcatcning situations、 vould confront PWC
so lnomentously that thcir strategic lnanipulations oflanguagc v/ould lnost likely to rise to
the suttace.
In order to attain a higher degrce of generalizability,I analyzed a much larger co[pus of
directivcs than prior studies that dre、 v samples from naturaHy occurring interactions at
various types of workplaces.恥 rhile a pК dominant maOrity Of past studies have bccn

concemed cxclusively、 vith the sentcnce― level analysis of dircctives(1.e.,Characteristics ofsurface morphosyntactic structures), I ヽ/ill prescnt the ̀̀supra― sentential" accounts ofdirective usage,focusing on its ̀̀co― ocCurrencc rules'' with other pragmatic devices,aswell as with contextualね ctors(Er宙 n― Tripp,1976:32)一 ‑1.e.,hOw a speaker elaborates asingle directive act by exploiting a variety of other linguistic means that can co― occur,andthe strategic roles thcse linguistic means play in the immediate contcxt of usc The
rcscarcher's direct obscrvations of workplace interactions also helped to accOunt for thc

intcractive processes, in which cOmmunicative po、 vcr is dynamicaHy negotiated andactivated froln moment to moment in an exchangc″J77̀′ /7θ ″s arlグ dara

2.2. F′̀′

Field、 /ork for this study、 vas conducted at nine、 vorkplaces in three cities in」 apan for
thrcc months during the summcr of 1994. I specincally aillled to obtain a fairly largc

sanlple of directivcs from many different fclllale professionals in ordcr to achieve a highdegrcc of generalizability. In many of the wOrkplaces, in addition to conducting dircct
observations ofinteractions,I alSO tapc― recorded as rnuch as I、 vas aHowed in order to notea variety of contextua1/extra― linguistic factors マVhen direct observations 、vere notpermitted,I asked the suttectS tO SeliЮ cord their everyday interactions.Aftcr thc
recordings,IM/as able to obtain dctailed informatiOn On thc demographic characteristics ofthe subordinates (or Other participants) and their Occupational status and fonmal
rclationships with the sutteCtS because aH ofthe workplaces weκ rclatively small and thus
had a lilnited number of subordinates involved.

I also obtained some speech samples frolll professional Japanese men in similar
occupational statuses as a control group.I cxtracted naturalistic workplace diκ

some footage of three 2‑hour‑long telcvision programs broadcast in Japan. T、

ctives fl・

5 Dircctivcs are attcmpts by the speakcr to gct the hcarcr to do somcthing(SCalle,1976)or to rCfrain針
actions(Jones, 1992)om

vo of the

om

640

S

5り
g,71α ′
iCs 37(2θ θ
qr‐ P″ ′′20/JOll″ ,α ノ
物た
α

3‑666

programs portraycd success storics of rnale prcsidents of prosperous corporations,and thc
third report conccrned rccent keen competition in thc restaurant busincss in Japan The
programs incltlded a number of scenes of actual evcryday interactions bet、 /ccn thc malc
vorkplacc. It should be noted that the malc
exccutivcs and their subordinates in the 、
exccutivcs on the Tヽ アprograms may have bccn more inclined to issue relatively fe、 /cr
vorkplace interactions because of theand more lllitigated directives than in ordinary 、
potential effects of having a TV audience(i.e,they may haveヽ /anted to present a positivc

imagc)The group of female subieCtS Consistcd of ninc PWC:a di宙 slon chicf at a publishingcompany(Fl),a diViSion chief at a research institute(F2), an ophthallllologist(F3), a

clothing storc owner(F4),a foundation oficial(F5),an cXecutive at a printing company(F6),a head nurse at a general hospital(F7),a supervisor/section chief at a language school(F8),and a dircctor at a pLlbiC assembly hall(F9)2へ tOtal of 630 dircctives wcre elicited
fl・om the rccordings of the female suttectS・

Thc group of male suttects COnsistcd of four

malc execut市 es:two company prcsidents(Ml,M3),a regiOnal managcr at a frast foodrestaurant(M2),and a SCCtion chief at a food company(M4).A total of 122 direct市 es wcrc
elicited frolll thiS group.プ ヽgrand total of 752 directive spcech acts and exchangcs bothpreceding and folloM/ing the directivcs M′ erc transcribed,along、 vith detailcd contextual
information taken fronl my observations.

3。

Results and discusslon

g7.C力 αttε た

r′ S′

jε

θ瑕4′ αcrJc s″
sげ ′
ηο″た

c′

″s

l nrst conductcd an analysis of surfacc morphosyntactic structures of thc directives:fh『 潔∬職
Ts柵樵:}letts庶 朧廿
凛t∬¶」lttit∬

.メ

肥懺
∫
l∫

classined in tcrms of the degrec of foК eflllness/directncss(and thC degree of inference
required for the recipientto understand the speech act),and this distribution of the forms is

cxpressed in desccnding order of forcefulness/directness in Tablcs A l through A 4 inAppendix.7
6 1n dCScending ordcr offelrccftllness/directncss,thc rcviscd system con゛(1)m00d dCrivablc(

Do X'');(2)pcrfOrllladvcs(

sts o■ Dircct Actl(DAl)CatCgory――

I am aSking you to do X''):(3)hcdgCd pcrlormativcS(.̀I―(5)―
YOu'1l have to do X''); ConVCntionally lndircct Act(CIA)CatcgOry一 (6)suggeStOry

would likc to ask you to do X'');(4)want Statcmcnts(

I wantyou to do Xr'):Direct Act H(DAli)Categorv―

locution dcrivablc(
fcDrmulac( HOW about doing X?'');(7)qucry preparatory(

COuld you do X?''):and Non― convcntionallv lndircct

Act(NCIA)CatcgOry― (8)hints

7 smilll's(1992:64‑68)analytiCal framcwork,the most claboratcd systcm of classincation of Japancse

dircctivcs availJЭ lc so far,turned out to acconlmodate only 44% of thc directive tokcns l collcctcd(333/752

fonlls:44%[278/6301 for fCmalc data;45%[55/1221お r malC data)WhlC Smith's system is bascd on dictionaryvith transparcnt structurcs of directivc
dcinitions and is focuscd primarily on canonical typcs of dircctivcs 、morphology, I faced a muchヽ
vidcr variety of non― canonical forms that secmcd to achicvc thc spc.lkcr's
bound、 vays(Sec similar observations in Sunaoshi[19951) I

illocutionary intcnt in morc implicit and contcxt―

spcculatc that this gap may bc duc to thcね

ct that thc mttority Of Smith's data werc dcriVCd ioin scriptcd
cd clcarly for the audiencc to undcrstandtclcvision sho、 vs,in which a scrics of comllnands nnust bc fral■s rrlt4111。 /JOク ″
ltα ′
̀√

j̀s J7(2005り 633‑666
P々 2yllα ′The last category,NCIA(hintS),COnSiSts of the utterances that can bc intcrpreted onlyby the aid of contcxtual information rather than by Specinc linguistic cucs(e.g。

,dircctive

mo[phology, performative vcrbs, exprcssions of the spcaker's dcsirc, formulaic
cxpressions, ctc.) ThiS Category embraced a relatively large portion of the databasc,
which prior approaches to surface morphosyntactic charactel・ istics alone、 vould not havc
been able to capture.No quantitative differentiation betv/een the gendcr groups was foundin the use of hint strategics(27.8%[175/630]ofPWC's directives and 30.3%[37/122]of
men's directivcs)(Yacger― Dror and Sister,1987;Jones,1992).It haS turned out,ho、

vever,

that PWC's uscs of hints differ qualitatively frolla men's uses.This issue will be explorcd
further in later sections.

In the present cOllpus, PVVC's canonical directives involve almost no use of ove■fenlinine lnorphology and none of masculine ̀̀power'' vanants 8 Pwc,s non―felllinine speech also holds truc in the use of gcnder―use ofassociated inal palticles(inCOttunctiOn with direct市 e tokcns)― While men tend to use masculine panicles extcnsivcly(40%of the time[84θ ,8ぞ θ out of 40 tokens]),PWC mOstly use gender―

neutral variants(95%of thc time[125 out of 131 tokens]).9
Table l ranks 10 commonly occurring fol■ lls Of directivcs in the order of frequency foreach gcnder group(see thC pcrcentagcs in parenthesis).

3.′ .′.Cθ 7737770″ ″ OCε rrれ gグ ′
′
ルι′,″
″ε

S

The most general observation made frolll the distribution of those canonical forms isthat PVVC speak morè̀politely"and̀̀indircctly"than inen in issuing directivcs(see therank numbers underlined).As for the three lnost fl・ equent forms,mcn use the most forcefLllform(DAi:ヽ Lrb root+,̀Do X')mOSt Onen(15.6%),Whecas PWC use Verb root十 ′̀たングα∫α′(DAi:̀pleasc do X.'),a mOre p01ite motthOSyntactic vaHant of Vcl・b root+′̀,most widely(23%).ThiS particular form is predominantin thc PⅥ ″C data,being uscd at a
rate lllore than t、vice as high as in the rnen's data(10.7%)WhilC bOth gendcr groups sharc
Vel・

b root+′̀to an cqual extcnt(wOmen:83%:men:74%),PWC'Sthird common type of

directives is the form with a pcrbrmat市 c verb,θ ″ αJ(̀favOr')(DAi:52%).ThiS
particular formation of directives sounds humbly polite,placing the speaker in a loM/er
status,、 vith an implication that he or she、 vill be obliged to the addressce ifthe i1locutionary

intent is mct.
In addition,PWC's repeltoire ofdirectives is also characterizcd by their frcquent uses of̀̀conventionaHy indirect acts''(Blum̲Kulka ct al., 1989a: 278‑281)TheSe fOnns are
considered to be rnore indircct and less forcefulthan the forms mentioned above,in thatthe
speaker inquires of the recipicnt about his or her intent to comply or even overtly asks afavor of the rccipient.The forms such as Vcl・ b root+771θ

7(and itS Vadants)(CIA:̀r′
̀Could l have you do X?')(Rank 5 vs.Rank 8 in mell)and VCl・b root■ た ″″′7(and itS

variants)(CIA:Will you do me thc favor of dOing X?)(Rank 7 vs.Rank 8 in mcn)areconsistently ranked highcr in PWC's usage, 、vhereas mcn tend to usc more dircct and
8 0nly thrcc tokens(05%)in thC fomla6on of Vclb root+たた,̀″ ′″soundCd strongly femininc:C71ο ′′ο717α ″′々ι ″ゞα″7(WtDuld you wait a second?):ν α′αοS/1z′ r̀た ″〃αsα ″″7(WOuld you rclllind me ofthat again?);〃 ο″rra
̀′t″ drlsα j717α ゞ′7(Would you rcccivc that for llle?)
9 Thc rcmaining six tokens includcd one rnasculinc″α,fOur fcminine/1ο ″こ、οソ■οJlι ,and onc fcminineた αs/2jlrl

S物 たα″ο/力 ′″α′げ P″ llar,cs'7(2θ θ5,お 3‑666

642

g′

Table l

Rank

ヽ
Vomcn

Rank

ⅣIcn

(7)Vcrb rOOt+

145(230)(1)Veめ 100t+ro

19(156)

̀Plcase do X'DAi

̀Do X'DAi(4)VeJD r001+

52(83)(7)Vcrb r00t+

13 (107)

tc kudasai

te kudasaite(nC/yo)'Do X'DAi(11)Oncgai shimaSu/

33(52)

̀Plcase do X'

DAi(4)Vcrb r00t+

9 (74)

tC(nC/yo)itashimasu
̀I ask you a favor'

DAi

̀Do X'DAi(20)N warVelb Юot― te

31(49)(18)1/ctt Stem+nai todamc/ikan8(66)̀N/doing N is alright'

DAii

unlcss you do X'(29)Verb r00t+te

28(44)(20)N wJVerb root―ii/yoroshii/̀It、 vouldn't、 vorkヽ Vell

kama、vanalノ kekkoo dcsu

DAitemoracru?/moraemasu?ノ‖/yoroshii/

moraemascn?/

kama、 vanai/kekkoo dcsu
̀N/doing N is alright'

itadakemasu ka?
̀Could l have you do X?'

CIA(24)Verb StCm+

27(43)(y)。 。 (yo)/mashoo(ka)8(6.6)DAil(24)Vclb StCm+(y)00(yo)/mashOo(ka)7 (57)

̀Lct's/Shall wc do X'

CIA

̀Lct's/Shall we do X'

CIA(28)Vclb rOOt+tc

15(2.4)(6)Vcrb r001+

4(33)te kurc

kurcruヽkurcru kana?

kuremasu ka?

lthC gerund+the imperativc

kudasaru?/

fornl of a giving verb

kudasaimasu ka?

̀kurcru'1

̀M′ ]l̀Do X for me'

you do me the favorof doing X?'

CIA(21)N noρ12(19)

hoo ga li

̀ab plain+DAi(5)Verb r00t+(kamOShircnai/to omou)̀(I think)N would(might)̀Try doing X(and see)メ

DAi
3(25)

be bcttct'DAii(29)17erb r00t+tc
moraeru?/moraemasu?/(22)Verb Stem+ba9(14)moraemasen?/itadakemasu ka?

ti/kckkoo dàIt、 vould

be good if

you do X.'(2)A/erb plain+
koto/yoo ni

3(25)te goran

DAli
9(14)

ICould l have you do X?'

CIA(28)Verb r00t+tc

3(25)kureru?′ kurcru kana?

kuremasu ka?

̀Do X'

kudasaru?/

kudasaimasu ka?
̀ヽDAiVill you do mc the favorof doing X?'CIAS Tr7た α
″ο/力

772α

′ぽ P″ g777α ′θ
5,6JJ―

6'Cs'7(2θ

forceflll forms such as Vel・ b― stem+れ α′ゎ グαr77̀(DA五 :It wOuldn't wolk well unless you doX.)Or Vel・ b root+′ ιた ″ (DAi:Do X fOr me.)in Similtt ranks.

Further evidence for PVVC's inclination toward indircct framing of directives comes
fl・

om an analysis of the speakcr's choicc ofrcquest perspective''(Blum̲Kulka,1989).

Ho、v thc speaker linguisticany encodes the recipient(1.c, thc Onc 、
vho pcrforms thc
requested act)and the agent(ie.,the one M/hO issues directives)of directivc speech acts infornling directives is closely linked to his Or her manipulatiOns of various facc―

savingstrategies(Brown and Levinson,1987:190‑206).Thcre are four univcrsalistic choices ofperspectives in directive speech acts,、

vhich exhibit varying dcgrees ofcOerciveness(Blum―

Kulka,1989):(a)Hearel・ /rccipient― orientede.g。

′
θ777α ″′
ι.(Ⅵrait a sccOnd.), Cん θ″Speakor/agcnt― oricnted
e・
7J77α ″ プ
タ′″ gα ′s″Jθ れ αJ Sん ノ
777α S夕
3・ ,及

(b)

J‐

.

(Then,[I]aSk[you tO Come and see mel again in Deccmber.)(C)

Inclusive(̀̀we"direct市 es)c.g,κ ο″ιsο ′ε/1′ οたοθ 71̀.(Let's put thesc over thcrc,shaH we?)(d)ImpersOnale.g。 ,R̀72S/1′ ′ θ ′αたIrsα JI sll″ 夕 た0″ θ

gα /1′ ′slryο θ da rθ θ711θ i αS況

77̀.

(I think it is ncccssary to[haVC students]practiCe a lot.)

In perspective(a),the emphasis is On the addressee as the pcrson who isto perfom thedesircd action.The ovc■ Or covei enё oding of the recipient of the dircctive spccch act

makes this strategy coercive(Brown and Levinson,1987).In perspcctive(b),the emphasis
is on the speaker's asking for accOmplishment ofthe requcsted act,、vhich implies that theaddresscc has some contro1 00er the speaker in thc fOrll1 0f freedom of non― compliancc
Thus,this perspcctive is more face― saving and dcferential than pcrspectivc(a)(negative
politeness).PerSpective(c)iS a typicalpoint̲o,view operation''(Brown and Levinson,

1987: 118).The inclusive''morphology mitigates the inherent coerciveness ofthe act by
franling the directive as collaborative 、vork and asserting commOn ground (pOSitive
politeness).Finany,in perspcctive(d)animpcrsonal verb''(e.g.,it is ncccssa=y that.…

)(BrOヽ Vn and Levinson, 1987: 191)masks both the inherent issuer and recipient of the act

and disguises the driving force Of the inocutionary intent as something extrinsic frolll thc

speakcr's own will(ncgatiVe politeness).
Table 2 presents the results of a quantitative analysis of gender―

linked differentiation inrequest perspectivcs Of the canonical fol■ lls Of directivcs in thc data.1°
1°

Thcre arc two typcs of veめ s that pcrお rm dcicic ftlnclonsin Japancsc(TSttimura,1996:334‑344)Thc irSt

typc is tlle so―callcdgiving" vcrbs(cg,た ″
̀″

lt,

た

,α

ll̀′

″
lr,yα ″, rrg̀″ ″lr),、 VhiCh indicatc that the, sαS/1Jrlgι ″speakcr has choscn tO fOcus on thc giver's sidc in a giving/recciving cvent This makes the directivc act sound̀ιmorc folccful and direct Thc othertypc is calledrccciving''vclbs(eg,7,tο 7 rl″ ,jrrr′ αた″),WhiCh indicate thatthc
spcakcr has choscn to stand on tllc rccciver's(thC Speakcr's)side Thc act ofreceiving is morc focused,and thus
the act sounds rnorc indirect and rnitigatcd The four perspectivcs becomc inlmediately problelllatic when、vc dcaI、vith thc complexitics of thc rclative stancc ofthc agcnt and thc recipicnt in the uscs of giving and rcceiving vcrbs
in」 apancse Conscqucntly,thc dircctivcs thatinvolvc cithcr ofthese typcs of verbs havc been cxcludcd fronl thc

quantitativc analysis

g″ ,S 7bた 07,0/JÒ′ lllα ′
ρ
′P″ ι

′
′
cざ J7(2θ θ
5り 633‑666‐

3.ノ .2 R̀91r̀∫ ″′ιSp̀ε ′′ソ̀s by g̀71″ ̀r

PWC's preference for indirectness in issuing directives is evident from the highfrequcncics of the speaker― orientcd perspectivc(309%)and thC ilnpcrsonal pcrspcctivcs(107%)as cOmpared with men(33%,17%,rcspcctively)MCn's prctrcncc br dircct
stratcgics,on thc othcr hand,is indicatcd by their fl・

cqucnt usc of hcarcr― orientcd stratcgics(M:83.3%vs.F:45.9%).ThCSe differences between the gender groups are found to bestatisticany signincant O<.001).H
vorth mentionin̲4 、vith rcspect to the surface morphosyntactic
The last inding 、
characteristics of directives is conccrned、/ith t、 vo specinc strategics that have been
VC (Slllith, 1992:Sunaoshi, 1995)一 ―proposcd as possible soltitions to the dilclllllla by Pヽ

the lnotherese strategy (MS hereillafter) and the passive power strategy (PPS
hereinafter). In fact, the present largc― scale study of naturally occurring illteractions
at a M/ider variety of、 vorkplaces found it difncult to stlbstantiate their claillls,in that thc

overall frcqucncics of thc forms v/crc too lo、 / and no salicnt gendcr― linkcd

vs Men's
MSi9 8%[12/122]:PWC'S PPSi3.3%[21/630]vs.Men's PPSi3 3%14/122])12 1nStead,adiffcrcntiation was observed with cithcr strategy(PWC'S MS18.7%[55/630〕

grcat dcal of individual variation was found in the usc ofthesc forms,v/hich has lcd nle toexplore some possible systematic corelation、 vith socia1/contextual factors othcr than thc
speaker's gcnder
ヽ4ultivanatc analyses l conductcd clse、 /hcrc (TakanO, 1997: 291‑302)found thatvariablc MS LISages are corrclated、 vith t、 vo particular socia1/contcxtual factors outranking
the spcaker's gender to a statisticaHy signiticant extellti(1)Japanese llε /1′ /sο ′οdilnensionsof interpersonal rclationships(WetZel, 1994)and(2)the rClative age of the interactants 13

The ⅣIS M′ as found inore likcly to bc uscd by both gcndcr groups v/hcn intcracting、 vith ι′̀/1′addressccs ⑫ <.05)14 and addrcssccs thc samc agc as or youngcr than thc spcakcrの <′ε力旅 οrο dimcnsion is conccrncd,a statistically signincant
05)Furthcrmorc,as hr asthc ι
1l Note that as far as surface morphosyntactic charactcristics alc conccrncd,thc uscs()f incltisivc t・、
vc/1et's''

strategies do notinvoive distinct gcndcr‐ linkcd dircrcnccs.、 VhiCh is at odds、 vith thc conlnlon inding on English―

spcaking fcnlale cxccutivcs(cg,.TrOcmcl Ploetz's‐ 1994)Appcals to conilalon ground and solidality,1lowcvcr,、
vill be found to be signinctlnt in PヽVC.s usagc of dircctivcs as、 vc1l once data arc applied to a l,lore cxtensive
analytical ialnc、vork in latcr sections of this pal)er
12 1n the present corpus,I countcd as thc MS sttatcgy stlch ttrills as DAi(3)'・ミヽrb stcm+″ 4(,α ブ
ソら'rli2 (ざ αf),″′′
1,''and as the PPS suchも rlans as DAi(2).̀Vc,も̀,''and DAi(5)'tVCrb root+′ =ο
・Vcrb r00t+′ ″′plain+々 ο′,70′ ●lrr17/1rar/rtた Jた ′
f''
ο夕οο′
ll,''DAi(10).=Verb rool+′ ,,̀ll llι ′′′″αれDAi(4)̀̀Vcrb r00t+′

′

/ブ

̀′
̀,''and
13 Goldvarb vcrslon 2,thc Macilltosh applicationof thc variablc
lulcDAi(14)・
approach,、vas uscd(Rand ancl Sttnkoff.

1990),including()thcr socia1/contcxtual vari・ lblcs such as the sc:ting(ie,Ofice,nleeting,phone converstttions).

thc illnmcdiacy Of thc action rcqucsted(iC.,now,futurc,and both),and gender compositions(ic.imalc tO
Fcmale,fcnlalc io nnale,たnlale to both,malc to nnalc‐ llnalc to fcnialc,and ilnalc to both).ThOugh none of thescvariablcs、 vas sclccted tls bcillg signiflcani by stcp‐

uscd in rcgular、 vol kplacc intcractions(、、
visc rcgression analysis,there、 vas a tcndency fol MS to bcvith nO di&、 rcntiation bct、 vccn oficc and llleeting settilngs),■ orC oiC11

than in phonc convcisations,and、 vhcn thc spcakcr dilcctetl thc adtlrcssce to initiate the action inlnlcdiatcly ln/C inaddition,MS tcnded to be uscd morc oten in stlmc‐ scx intclactions than in cross― scX intCractions.and Pヽ ハ
particular sccnled less likcly than mcn to usc MS in directing a nlixcd―
14 1 conSidcred subordinates undcrthc spcakcr's dircct control at thc、

scx .ludiCncc
vorkplacc as ι′clt,(in― group)nlenlbers and(out― grOup)nlcnlbCrs,thc lattcr bcing,For cxallnplc,pcoplc、

a1l othcrs as sὸο

the sanlc organizセ ltion, fanllliar clicnts
occasions,total stl angcrs

vorking at ditlercnt branch ofllccs of、vith 、
vhom thc spcakcr oftcn did busincss, and, on cxticnlcly rarc

S Ibた α
″ο/Jο

rllα

′9′ P4α ttarた s,7r2θり5,6θ θ巧66

645

Table 2PWC
Men

Hcarc「 o五 cnted

speakerOrientcd

Inclusive

459%

309%

125%

107つ ろ(107/233)(72/233)(29/233)(25/233)

ImpersOnal

833%

33%

l17%

17%

(50/60)(2/60)(7/60)(1/60)

53.5%

25.3%

123%

89%

(157/293)(74/293)(36/293)(26/293)

Chi― square=4675;ρ

<001

diffcrence was found between the gendergroups o<.Ool),in that men tend tO use the MS
with sθ ゎ members moК Often(33%)than PWC(10%).This once again substantiates
men's inclination to exploit relatively fOrccful,diК ct strategies in general,along、 vith their
inclinatiOn tO shoヽ v less sensitivity to the ″θんJ/sθ ′οrelationships、
vith addressees than

PWC.These Кsults partially support Smith's(1992:78)previous ObservatiOn that the MS
may bc used in infO品 al'' situatiOns and/or in situations inv01ving ̀̀yOunger''

subordinates, but they tte in tOtal discOl‐ d with the thesis that thc MS iS a solution to

the dilemma unique tO Pヽ /C.
A large amount of the individual val・ iation in the use of thc PPs seems to bebetter captured by the nature of tllc setting than by the speaker's gendc■

ThOugh thenumber of tOkens is too small to make a dennitive clailn from statistical analysis(a tOtalof 25 tokens),we Can at least hypothesize that thc PPS is more likely to be aКgisterused at professiOnal meetings (68%; 17/25 PPS directives)than in Other situations

such as regular ofnce interactions(28%;7/25)or phone cOnve∬ atiOns(4%; 1/25).
PPS, once inteΨ reted as a female― specinc strategy equivalent to men's cocrcive
direct市 es such as DAi‑6(― ″ た′″)(Smith,1992:78),may be better inteTretcd as adirective typica1 0f speakcrs in leadership roles in fOmal settings.C}iven that the explicit
rOle Кlationships between thc order― g市 er and the Кcipient aκ institutiOnally establishedin such settings,the relatively coercive tOne of the expressions is tOlerated(Eivin―

Tripp,

1981;Rintell,1981).

To summarize the nndings discussed so fal the mOrphOsyntaCtic structures ofthe directives are characterized as involving:(1)thC predOminant neutralization ofgender― associating elements― ―bOth de― felninization and avoidance Of masculinity,

but alsO (2)cOnsistent us, of polite, deferential language that conforms to the sociO̲

culturaHy prescHbed norlns and expectations fOr Japanese、vOmen. Unlike malecounterparts whO take advantagc of the overt masculine po、 ver code and relatively
direct, fOrceful forms, PWc seem to have polite, indirect framing Of the act as thesole alternative.The mOtthOSyntactic chara9teHstics revealed thus far prOvide
another robust connrmation of the gencral claim that Japanese、vOmen speak morepolitely and indirectly than men,and they establish the empirical fact that PWC are no
exceptlon.
Critical questiOns, hOwevet remain unans、 vered relative to the linkage to linguistic
power: HO、 v can PWC manage to exercise their authOrity and leadership by speaking
politely and indirectly?What is the sOuFCe Of their pOwer in language use?And how canSλ たα″ο/力 ″″ ′げ ρlrlg″ ′たs37̀2θ θ
5,6JF‑6:α,αthey manage to direct their subordinates efnciently、
vithout explicitly masculine power

markers in their speech?Though previous studies(e.g.,Reynolds, 1990;Ide and lnouc,1992)attcmptcd to providc rathcr̀.static'' intcrpretations of Iハムア
C's linguistic po、 /er by

dcriving it fronl ̀̀dc― feminizcd'' codc structures per se or fronl their ne、

vly constrLICted

identity lllarked by hypcr― politc languagc usc,I、 vould arguc instead that adopting fenlinine

or masculine, indirect or direct, molphosyntactic markcrs should not automatically beequated M/ith being po、 verless or po、 verfLll aS a speakcr M/ithout taking intcractional
elements into account.It has been suggested thatlinguistic Power is not an abstract,stablc
attribute of highcr― status speakers that dctcrnlincs languagc usc unifornlly throughout

interactions(Ng and Bradac,1993:Fowlcr,1985),but rathcr that it is a dynanlic proccss
that has to be constantly llegotiated bet、 veen the participants in its immediate context(Kramarac et al.,1984;Diamond,1996).It iS Crucial that wc explore the supra―

sentcntial

domains beyond thc hcad act of individual directivcs in ordcr to discovcr thc kcy toanswel・ ing thesc qucstions

3 2 SIIPjα ′―s̀れ ′ ′αεε
θ′rsグ どブ
″Crjν ιsr″ ′

̀g7̀s

̀″

While strategic aspccts arc the focus of invcstigation into PW (〕 's dircctivc usc, thc
hcad act'' or thc

vork is typically conccrncd with theanalytical framcv′ ork of past 、

̀̀request proper''(i.e.,the lllinilllal unit or the core of the request sequencc)as the SOle

domain of analysis(Blum― Kulka et al.,1989b: 17‑19).Such a rcstrictcd approach fails to
capturc the largcr linguistic domain of thc individual act in、 /hich the speaker's linguistic
elaborations for succcssful delivcry of thc iHocutionary intcnt would comc to light(Pufahl

Bax, 1986;Pcarson, 1988)The present phase of analysis goes beyond the levcl of them01phOSyntactic structure of thc head act, and shcds cxtcnsivc light on ̀̀co― occurrcncc
rules'' 、vith other pragma― linguistic dcviccs(Ervin― Tripp, 1976: 32). Thc analyticalfl・

amework l cmploycd takcs advantagc of Blum― Kulka ct al.'s(1989a)syStemお r

segmentation of directivcs for quantitativc analyscs.15
jθ
3.2.ゴ . CO,2′ ιχrlrα ′,そ α′
れ′ιソiCι s. S

だソι712ο ソιs′
7r'ο ″

One of the coordinatc claborations that lllost strongly dinercntiate betM′ een the gendergroups is the usage of̀̀suppoltive moves''(hereinafter SMs),either before or after thehead act(Blunl̲Kulka et al., 1989a,b).P恥′C tend to take advantage of that elaborativc

device hr more iequently than their male counteTarts(｀ VOmen:45%[283/630];Mcni

19% [23/122];′ < .001),Such an extensive use of SNIs by P恥 FC may possibly bc
intettreted as their cfforts toward rnitigation,the prilllary lnotive for Sヽ

/1s to be exploited in

ねce― thК atening speech acts in general(Blum― Kulka et al.,1989a).Qualitat市 e analyscs ofthe functional roles of Sヽ /1s in the immcdiate contcxt of use,hoM/cver,have revealed thatsuch an interpretation seems too simplistic,as sho、 /n in Table 3 16

15 By、

vay of illustration,a directive likc.'John,gct mc a glass of watcr,plcasc I'nl tcrribly thilsty''is dividcd

into four scgmcnts: ̀̀gctrnc a glass of、 vatcr,''the hcad act;ζ ̀JOhn,''an alcrtcr:̀̀plcasc,''a do、

vngraderi and̀・ I'nl

terribly thirsty," a postposcd supportivc nlovc(Blunl̲Kulka ct al, 1989a:275‑276)
16 stlpportivc movcs that co―ocCurrCd with hints(ic,thC nOn― convcntional indircct act category)are CXCluded

herc ln the discourse examplcs belo、 v thc t/ablc,Sヽ Is arc undcrlincd

,7bた α″ο/Jο

α′q′ P7rrg″ ,α ″̀s J7(2∞

5り63も｀ 66

Tablc 3Functional roles of supportive movcs

PWC
Positivc― polite SMs

Groundcrs
Prcparators

117/455(26%)
15/455(3%)

13/85(15%)
1/85(1%)132/455(29%)

14/85(16%)

37/455(8%)
12/455(3%)

2/85(2%)
1/85(1%)49/455(H%)

3/85(3%)

12/455(2%)

0/85(0%)193/455(42%)

17ノ

Negativc― politc SⅣ Is

lmposition minimizers
Apologetlcs

ICombination of thc above]

85(20%)

Grounder(mainly,rcasons for thc oirective):た ο″ ￨lα ″S力 ′77Jο ″sみ j″ ″αjた αrr7″

eithcr̀(BeCausc l alm not su
about[which onc we decidcd on lasttimcl),ッ ο
た〃″j″ (100k at it carcfl11ly)Preparator(mainlμ askng aboutthefcasibility of thc act):κ ο″ α″ 滅夕s力 ο7(You havc more ofthcsc[cIOllles〕 ,don't you?)〃
冴 ′′S″
l缶 Om thc stoc、 ])ImpOSidon

Minimizcr(reducing thc imposition):ルοjた (get mOrc

イοοαたJrrl々 α″′力αわ″た′ゎ ″α'た
たα″′′″7710″ O lla

ル たたοο″α″ル s′ ,α (ItiS ine to[sbplthe pan that wc have dcddcd to skip,but),力 j″ 万 ″ 力α″ぬ ″s力 れα′ル t17滋

Srrj(please do not rnake a dccision yourselflノヽpologё tics(apo10gizing for bothcring thc addrcssce):″ar

Jた ′″b(1'm SOITy[tO ask]),′ ´″Ar″ ο s′ Jた ん′οs力 Jた た ″ ″ 7(can yOu switch the lights on?)

3.2.f.f.Frrrc′ Jθ κα′ θノιs̀ノ sttpθ ′′ルι

θッιS.In Table 3,PWC's SMs apc classi ncd

into pOsitive― and negative― polite types, cach of 、vhich plays speciflc functional roles.

The former functional types of SMs help frame the discoursal ellvironment in which theupcoming act is readily perceivcd as a dircctive(1.e., COntextualization ol・

ientcd toM/ard

positive politeness),Wheκ as thc latter is uscd to mitigatc the degκ e of imposition fl・ om
the head act of the direct市 cs(OHented towttd negative politeness).OvemH,as might be
expected of directive― givers with higher occupational status, positive― polite functions of

SMs as the contextualizer(PWC:29%;Mell:16%)aК eXploited much more extensively
than nc.・ ative― polite ftlnctions(PWC:11%;Mcn:3%)in bOth gender groups

NC独
Fig l

⑫ <.001).Of

jO'7(2θ め,63J6%
S乃 物″ο/力 〃 α′げ Prrlg777α ′ful・tller signiflcance is that PVVC's usages of SPIs are morc hcavily coloFed by the formcr

funcJonal role rathcr than the latter(29%vs.men: 16%;■ 0>′ >.05),despite thevomen to be congenial to negative― polite linguistic
nomative expectation for Japanese 、behavlors.

Furthcr empi五 cal evidcnce that substantiates PVVC's advanced uses of Sヽ
contcxtualization over mitigation comes frolll the salient gender―/1s aslinked differentiation in

the most indirect act catcgory(NCIA)(PWC:
their uses of SMs co― occuring with hints― ―14%;Men:3%;′ <.01)(Fig.1).
As excerpts(1)and(2)show,P｀ アC actively manipulate SNls as contextualiza―tion strategies that can empo、 /er their gender― preferred, indirect formulation of
directives:(1)F9,Director at a public assembly hall for women,to a male,′θん′(in̲gЮ up)

subordinate in his 60s(Ml):17
F9:

肋 れたJsι κ θれι/̀̀You know,the ventilation fan?''λ ′゛Qた αた ιοたj′ α:′ θ οr270 れど̀slr.
̀′̀̀I'ln thinking that(、 Ve)shOuld leave it on during the daytiine."

77Zrε

Ml:
F9:

崩 χ[務 ]たα 77′ α′
′]れ ″
[れ α

Ⅳll:

(The SWitCh)is inSidC(the building)''
θ ′71ブ S′ i αsι れ gα
D̀た α 況′̀′
rhcn,sOrry tO bother,but,、 vhen you leave,''α]″α′″αたαr′ [ αS滋 ′F9:[α 4θ S′

.

̀S夕

/t‐

,

̀̀「

̀̀Yes,I got it.''κみjθ .]′

um,{tum Off}the SWitCh."(2)F9,wanting to make sure thatthe switch will be turned off,addresses her subordinatespresent at the moment.
―
―
=>

F9:

/77α Sん ′″α 77θ ′ιノИθθs′ ′′
θ71i j´ ιθた′,̀′

̀̀I'vc already tunled it on,so''

―
―
―
>

′
′
ιοた′
ηαs/1i′ αllθ ″ι
θr7″ jSあ ′,̀̀I've left it ON,so''′′οね紹りθοttι ′.

̀̀(Starting)today.In the order that pcople leave.''
17 Thc aSpect of discoursc at issue is indicatcd by the arro、v.〔}indiCates tlle lllocutionary intention that thc

SPCakCr is hinting at Japanese transcriptions in the prcsent paper adapt I)●

Bois et al's(1993)system Each line

rcprcscnts a singlc intonation unit(ChafC,1993)M可 Or SymbOls includc:[](speech Ovenap):(transitional
continuity[in tcnns Of intonational contours]is inal);,(tranSitiOnal continuiw iS cOntinuing);/(riSing tcrntinal
pitch);̲(leVeling tcl■

llinal pitch);人 (cmphatiC acccnt);=(lCngthening);…

(N)(long pausc with seconds N):…

(mCdium paus6):…

(ShOrt pause);@Oaughter):<@@>Caugh qua■ty);X CndCdpherable syllablc);&(intOnation unit continucd):(())(researchcr's comlllent) ̀̀'' COntains equivalcnt Japancsc translations

S Ihたク″ο/Jο ll″ ″α′Qβ Prag′ 72α r'Cs,7(2θ 05,633‑666

Й〔sα れたα″ὰ̀NIs.X(Fl,a female subOrdinate)is the nrst{to do it}.''
,

方グ
たα/y
̀s
̀■ 1l
right,Y(Ml)((Called by his title))?{Don't forget.}''In the excerpts,itseems thatthe primary function of SMs cO―

occurring、 vith such highly

opaquc head acts is to help contextualize the upcoming utterances as directives throughappealing to positivc― politc elements such as corllmon needs and kno、 vicdge Or in̲
grOupness betu/cen the directivc̲giver and the recipient The SMs in(1)raise the topic

in questiOn(1.e.,a ventilation fan)tO Ml'sa、 vareness and succeed in setting up a factual
environlnent and signaling to hiln that the upconling sequence is a directive.F9's opaqueinocutiontty intcnt is constmed successfully by Ml tO the extent that he immediately
responds to it positively and ends up Ovcrlapping、 vith F9.This is a typical example ofsuccess in sLategic manipulation of indirectness,in that the speaker is offered an undcr―

standing of the desired actiOn or willingness to cOmply(〃 αJ″ αたα i777α Sた ノ
た7・,

Yes,I gotit'')by the addressee even bcfore she or he imposes on thc addressce by cttplicitly stating

the head act(Labov and Fanshel,1977).In(2),the samc speakcr,F9,who wantsto makesure that the inocutionary force、 vill not fail tO be exercised,reinforccs her illocutionaly
intent not by exp10iting a straightfor、

vttd directive but by still resorting to renexivity andcooperation. The repetitive use of grOunders funhё r emphasizes the factuality of thecnvironment in、 vhich the speaker's inocutionary intention must not be ncglected for any
rcason.
The virtue of requcstivc hints is that a requested act is carricd Out as a result of thehearer's recognition of the speakcr's illocutiOnary intentiOn、vhile at the same time theparticipants tte pretending that no such intentiOn cxists(Labov and Fanshcl, 1977;

Levinson,1983:38‑40).マ Vhile this dOliberate opacity of the act certainly suits PWC who
havc strong prefcrencc fOr indirectness, a spcaker、vhO is heavily dcpcndent upon thehearer's win runs the l・ isk Of the hetter not complying.This五 sk,howevcr,is skillfullycompensated for by situational appropriateness(lVeiZman, 1989) The present analysis
shoM/s that I)WC strategicaHy avoid the risk,using supportive rnOves.Whatis cOmmOn toan these cases of contextualization is the speakers'effO■ s to cstablish event trttectories(ie.,the predictable ol・

der of events)in thC addressee's awareness,which can make theupcoming sequencc Of events transparent and thus reduce the iHOcutionary burden of thecontrol moves(Ervin― Tripp, 1981:Levinson,1983:356ffl.ヽ /ithout such situational aid,
hint strategies arc Oftcn considered tO be impolite as well as ineffect市 e(Blum̲Kulka,1987).

3.2.2 4′″

Jο

ノ
8
g̀′ ′
ん‐
ιパ

̀4′

Uses of attentiOn― gettersを re also found tO cOntHbute to the formatiOn of natural evcnt
traectones for successftll delivev Of the il10cutionary intent.■
lble 4 desc五 bes the
distribution of attention― getters across the gcnder groups based on their functional typcs(′<.05).
18 Attcntion―

gcttcrs arc one ofthe t、 vO types Of alcrters discusscd in dctailin thc prcsent study Thc other typc ofalertcrs is temls of addrcss,、 vhich、 vill be discussed in the ncxt section

′
77α ′
s rr2た α,。 /Jr7ι ″5,6SJ‑666
Qβ P7rlg′ ,,α rJcs 37(2θ θ
Table 4
Tvpcs of attcntion― gcttcrs by gcndcr

PWC
Mcn

Contcxtualizcrs

Do、 vngr.ldcrs

Intcnsincls

60/630(10%)
1/122(1%)

46/630(7%)
2/122(2%)

10/630(2%)
10/122(8%)

Chi square=634:ノ ,く 05 Contcxtualizcrs:イ ′ll a,ブ αα,Sο ″″ι,rfrlた r″ α,ctc(thCn/and/so)Downgradcrs:″ ″οο′ 0,c力 0″ 0,sι ガ″ι
αs′ ″,etC(Wel1/um/sccノ cxcusc lanc)IntcnSincrs:ヵ J(now),yο ∫力J(OK/a11l right),″ ιor nc/,̀′(rappOrt malking inal particles),etCjθ
3.2.2.1 乃′ιSグ θ′′ι′,′4‑g′ ′″だ らyg̀″ どιた T、 vo principal types uscd cxtcnsivcly byn/(3 are co― constitutive of both positive― polite and negative― polite elements:

contextualizers(10%)and dOwngraders(7%).As shown in excetttS(3)and(4),Iinterpret the formcr typc as the spcakcr's strategic claboration to contextualize thc
upcoming act as a transparcnt dircctivc and thc lattcr as the speakcr's attcmpt to nlitigate
ilnposition(3)Attention― gettcr as thc contextualizer
οε71″ α′707700ノ 1ノ ′00zθ =Thcn,will you comc ovcr hcrc,plea=sc''

Cg.,塑

/s‐

(4)Attention― gettcr as thc downgradcr

cg.,Èrθ =た αyο θわjた ο″″
1/̀̀U=m,can you come on Tucsday?''ι
Parallcl to PWC's usagc of the supportivc moves discLISSed so far,a quantitative analysis
also indicates that the fol,Iner,positive― polite contextualizers,are found to be LISed more
frequently(10%)than the latter(negative― polite do、 vngraders)(7%)and CO‑OCCur eXten―

sively with hints,thc most indirect type(NCIA)(35%;21/60 contextualizer).19
A predominant mttority of men's attention― getters,on the other hand,arc charactcrizcd()K/aH right'')to reinfOrcc the illocutionary,/trl′ ̀̀now,'' yOS/1ノforce of the upcoming directives(8%).20 1n COntrast,PWC's intensiners mainly consist ofutterance― initial uses of rapport― marking nnd particles such as″ ′or″ ι/(MCGloin,1990,
1993)aswellasjustafewtokensoftheemphatictypes(e.g.,力 αだ̀Now'')OVerall,there isas ̀̀intensiners''(e.3・no note、 vo■ hy correlation bct、 vecn the distributional patterns of attention―getters andsocia1/contextual factors.21
1n summary,tactful contcxtualization through the use of SMs alld attention‐getters canbe a good strategic choice for P恥 /C,who are inclined(Or Obliged)tO fl・ ame the hcad act at
thc relatively indirect,lllitigated end ofthe contintltilll.Their encoding ofthe i1locutionary

intention is focused more on discourse environincnts in 、
vllich opaque directive acts
become contcxtually transparcnt and least hce―

thrcatening due to thellatural trttectOries of

cvcnts.In this way,thcir control movcs are empo、
19 As expccted,attention―

′
ercd.

getters as ncgativc^politc ̀̀downgradcrs'' arc cxploitcd for nlitigation,nlainly、

vitll

relatively coercive types of direcJvcs(DAril:38%:DA[iil:28%:CIA:26%:NCIA:8%)
20 Thc distribution of thc typcs issucd by thc nlale control group should bc takcn、vith icscrvation duc to thc

slanali nunlbcr of tokcns

21 A fcw occurrcnccs of apologctic downgraders(ゞι,7′ ′,2 ゞ′′,ttCXCuSC inlc'')arc solllcwhat gcndcr―
̀′tiatcdi malc cxccutiVCs uscd it twicc,only tO Out group nlennbcrs(total Strangers),whCrcas Pヽsuch difcrcntiation,in that four of ninc tokcns produccd、control and thc lcmaining nvc t。

。ut― group nlclllbcrs

diFclcn‐/C tcnd to do lcss ofιvcrc isstled to thcir ι
c力 ′subordinatcs undcr thcir dircct

a P′

S 7′ 力α710/JOι ′r″

θ5,6JJ‑6Sもg″ ,α ″cゞ
κι

̀ノ ̀υ

'7(2θ

Table 5
Tvpcs of tcrms of addrcss by gcndcr
Last nanlc、
vith ―
ゞαllFirst nalllc

6/630(1%)

ヽ4cn

31/630(5%)
1/122(1%)

No′―s41″ is an honorinc suf6x

Pヽ

VC
̀

Combination

2nd pcrson

Title

pronouns ο″ e/α″rzl、vith c/1α ″/― ∫ ″

̀̀ι0(0%)

5/630(1%)
2/122(2%)

30(02%)

2/630(03%)

15/122(12%)

1/122(1%)

1ん―
ε/1a″ is a casua1/intimatc variant of― ゞα′,J.23 R■ppο ″′わ′′′″̀rs
The focus of the prcscnt analysis、/111■ ow shill to thc ̀̀relational componcnts''of co―occurrence phcnomcna in directivc spccch acts(Linde,1988:396)一 ―the expresslon ofthc

relation among thc interlocutors, thcir group membcrship and identity, and thc
interlocutors' fcclings about thc spccch situation. Thc rcsults indicate that while PWC
havc bccn found to highly estccm ncgative― politc,indirect franling of the dircctive proper,̀̀positivc― polite"intettcrsonal elements that co―occur also seem to bc an integral palt of

their stratcgics for exercising autho五 tative po、 vcr.
3.2.3ノ , 7′ ″,7S9′ αdarass. Alcrtcrs arc used not only to obtain the hearer's attcntion to、vhat win foll。 、/but also to convey ccrtain ̀̀social'' information about the participants(Ervin― Tripp,1981;Blum‐ Kulka ct al.,1989b).As past sociolinguistic work has shown,theuscs of aleltcrs in dircctive spccch acts arc gOvemed by systematic rulcs of co―occurrencein accordancc with a val・ iety of socia1/contcxtual factors(BroWn and Gilman,1960;Er宙n―Tripp,1976;Mitchcll― Kel・ nan and Keman,1977).The present analysis flnds thatthe use ofterms of address,which arc oricnted predominantly toM/ard the lrc/7プ(in―grOup)conteXt,iS

clearly diffcrcntiated betwccn thc gcnder groups Tablc 5 dcscribes the gender―

linkcddistribution of different types of addrcss tellns as the alcrtcr

3232つ ′

̀sげrι

″2Sげ α認 ″sSわ y gι ηル r Though this is hr iom a dcinitivc claim

due to the small sizc ofthe sample,rnale cxccutives'terms of addl・

monotonous They mostly used

ess scem to bc relativelyηαι(yOu),a Very masculinc do、 vn、 vard second― pcrson
θ′pronoun,and typically to pccrs and someone oflowerrank(12%)Furthermore,men's usesof θ′
7α ιdo not appear to bc suttccttO Varying dcgК cs of social distance and rapport withaddresseesi 80%[12/15]ofο 7,lα ιWaS uSCd with in‐ group subordinates and 20%[3/15]without― group mcmbers,regardless of thc age and sex of the addresscc.

たIn contrast, Pヽ ヽ
C appear to possess a rich repcrtoire of terms of address and makc
socially appropriate dilミ trentiation in the choicc of arst̲names, last^names, and titles,

depending upon the agc and sex of the addressee 22 1n Spitc of their higher rank andauthority,PVVC scem to measure social distancc and rapport bet、 vecn the intcractants as if
the very context of talk、vere symllletrical,First names、vith sα 71/̀ん αrl,a relativcly casua1/

intiinate variant,、 /cre used exclusivcly with yoLinger,female subordinates(6/6 tokens of

nrst namcs).Pヽ /C addrcsscd mOst male subordinatcs,on thc othcr hand,in a more formal,
distancing manner,cithcr by their last name with thc honorilic―

sα 77(19/25

tokens to lnale

22 1n thC Japancsc systcn3 of addrcss tcrms,addrcssing sOnncone by his or hcr titlc is lnost politc and formal,by
his or incr nrst nannc nlost casual and intimatc, and by his or hcr last namc in―

bct、 vccn

∫ 物たα″ο/力 ″772α ιグ P″ g′ 22r71J̀s'7(2θ θ
5,お 3巧 66
subordinates)Or by thcir title(5/25).An informal second― person pЮ nOu五 ,α れ′
α,was uSed

only once to a younger malc subordinate by F6(p五nting company exccutivc)(1/25)

Regardlcss of their gendet older subordinates、 vcre also called cither by their last nallle、vith thc honorinc̲sα κ(14/19 tokens to 01der subol・ dinatcs)Or by their title(5/19).

Whilc male cxecutives empo、 ver their directives in、 vays to reconnrln their dominantrank in hierarchical relationships with subordinates,PW (3 seem to seck authoritative power

ofadittrcntSOrt ThЮ ughtheuseofterlnsofaddresssensitivetotherecipient's identities,
PWC create Flctional egalital・ ian rclationships 、vith subOrdinates, in 、
vhich status
discrepancies are not on the sulface and the status of subordinates is raised to that ofthc collaborator to achievc good rapport and effective cooperatiOn.

323.3. ノИοκ9′ θgげ ε―∫J̀ んげ71rs. Among various types of hint directivcs classined
勾ノ
clsewheК (TakanO, 1997: 327), I havc found that what l call ̀̀monologic― style''
directives are an in■ ovation unique to PWC(PWC:22%[38/175 hints];Men:2.7%[1/37
hints];′ <.001).ThiS phenomenon results fl・ om a transfOrmation of a relat市

ely coerc市 c

directive that has thc conlmon directive lllotth010gy――verb root+― ′ι(Fonn 4 in E)ircct
Acts Category[i],Tablc A.l in Appendix)一 intO the gerund(一 ″ fOrln)with COmma
intonation.The gcrund with slightly slo、 ved,low pitch articulation creates an impressionthat the speaker is talking to herself Or himself.Thc act appearζ to 10se its target audicnce,
being leftin thc air for everyone atthe site to pick up and accomplish.The fact is lnasked
that a directive is being issued,as sho、 vn below.

(0)At an organizer mecting for an upcoming c9nference,F5(foundatiOn omcial)wantS
her subordinates to rcquest thcir direct superior(seCtiOn chieD tO attend the conference

and、vatch its smooth proceedings.
D̀たノ′lr dαたたα71ι

/7α J′′

̀77ὰ,
̀̀{Let us/1Ve'11}ask(thesCctionChiefl to stay inside as long aS possible,''C/70た ン
Sι rs
″′ッα′
′
ι′
た yθ θ ια77θ =0れ ι
gα げs/1′ ″ὶ̀and to kcep a direct eye(On the stcady progress of the conference),",,This apparently quite ambiguous frallling of the act exerts dual functiOns in cOnllnu―

nicating bOth ncgative and positivc politcness simultaneously. With thё
help of thislinguistic device, the speaker masks the identities of bOth the agent and the recipicnt,
making the bol・ derline bet、 vcen the ranks ambiguous.Atthc same time,the dcvice can also
fLInCti9n to re― fl・ ame thc issuer of the dircctives as just another co‐mcmber of the grouprather than as the lcader.Thc strategy frames the addressees as the speakcr's coHaborators

and C,atcs an atmosphcrc in、 vhich the desired action needs the voluntary cooperation Of

the group members to bc accomplished,、 vhich promotes in― group rapport and solidarity.

SomerescaК hcrshaveSuggestelthathints in inte⊇ erSOnal communication are not only
motivatcd by negative politeness butthatthey can also be a sign ofhigh solidarity in c10sed

nctworks bf cOmmunication in which the participants,whO know and can foresee cachother's necds well,are unlikcly to miscOnstruC the meanings ofimplicit inessages(Kirsh,
1983;Ervin― Tripp,1976,1977)This hint stratcgy only h01ds on the basis ofthc superior's

S 7h々 α71ο /Jο ι
ι
′
￨" ′
o′ Pr

g″ ,α f7σゞJ7(2θ θ5,6∫ ′‑666

bona fide authority derivcd frolla rappOrt and inutual rcspcct shared、 vith hcr subordinatcs.
In contrast to professional lncn in chargc、 /ho takc advantage ofthe cxisting asymmctl・ ics
in status and pov/cr,PW (〕 sccms to emphasize egalitalian,collaborative rclationships inwhich their authoritative po、 vcr isintrinsically"promotcd by collaborativc rapport andwiHing cooperation among subordinates.
2ο ′
52イ ′
′
′
ι′
αllgι ιαg̀α s rr′ J71.・ ′
sr′

̀レ

ツ
ι9′

71

'ο

Ciassic sociolinguistic work On gender and language postulatOd that M′
isomen's languagc

powerless''due to thc rclative lack of particular linguistic elcmcnts that are gencrally

ded as bcing part ofthe masculinc power codc(Lakoff,1975;Fishman,1983;ヽ、stand Zimmerman,1983).ThiS Stancc has long been dominant in past work on Japanesc
rcgal・

v/omcn's langllagc as well, which has bcen concerned prilnarily 、vith ove■ linguisticfeaturcs― ―predominantly,negativc politcncss featurcs such as hedgcd,polite variants atthc
individual scntence levcl.This rather static,unidilncnsional approach to linguistic po、/er,

hoM/ever, has great potcntial to lllislcad us with rcgard to the stereotypes of Japanesewolanen as bcing categoricaHy poM/crless in intcrpcrsonal conllnunication.
Po、 ver in language usc should be understood as an aggregate of various linguisticfeaturcs(inCluding both negativc and positivc politencss fcatures, for example)being

exploited dynamically rather than as a static recognition of the prcsence or abscnce ofparticular lihguisticた atures(OwSICy and Mycrs― Scotton, 1984;Irvinc, 1979).Thc
speaker's val・ iable choices of linguistic featurcs rcpresent his or hcr dynanlic processes of

nC80tiation for power that require moment― to― ll10mCnt interpretations、
vithin a vcrbal

cxchange.Bccatlse thc spcaker's powcris not a stablc cntity that varics depending upon theirnmediatc context, it should be expcctcd that thc spcaker has to constantly ncgotiate

powcrfulness by iFnplementing variablc conlbinations of linguistic rcsources(Fowler,

1985:Ng and Bradac,1993)
In this section,we win idcnti"the prOCCSscs of acquisition of power in dircctive usc inrcal― time intcractions bct、 vccn

Japanese Pヽ VC and their subordinates. As thc locus ofanalysis,I havc focused particularly on intcractions in which Pヽ

V(〕 and thcir subordinatcs'

intcntions are in obvious connict, 、
vhich mcans that directivc speech acts arc likely to
involve high dcgrccs of face― thrcats ln such situations,PWC's ncgotiations for linguistic
POWCr｀/Ould be indispensable,and the proccsseS Of accomplishing the negotiation、 vould

becomc most evident.
It is particulally interesting that u/hile dircct stylc v/as consistcnt and stylistic variations

SCCllled tO remain stable in mcn's data,stylc shifts were obscrved very frequcntly in PWC's

dircctive specch acts, which also accords with Abe's(1993)aforC― mcntioned
observations.23 The f01lo、 ving analysis sho、 vs that polite language,a general marker of
23 Thc tradilonal dcnni6ons of stylcs of thc∫″ド
ιand thc latter、 vith positive pOlitcness,in―

l1/
′
ゞ
´
ll style)ThC fOrmcris typically associatcd with such social

apancsc languagc idcnti":(1)fOrmal,pollc,distal stylc(′
1● (″̀Stylc);and(2)casual,dircct,plain stylc(̀:̀t/てor psychological meanings tts negativc politcncss,out―'αgroupncss,and distancing in intcrpersonal relationships,

groupncss,rapport,and soHdarity(Ikuta,1983;」

Suklc, 1994: CoOk, 1999)Men'S stylc shifts of thc prcdicatc(dileCt tO distal)、

ordcn and Noda,1987:

vcrC identilicd only t、 vicc in

supportive n,Oves NII s、vitched to distal 、vhen hc shiftcd thc target audicncc of his remarks from particular
individuals to a、 vholc group Of subordinatcs All of thc spcakcis in positiOns of subordinates in thc prcscnt dataconsistently tiscd distal stylc in intcracting、vith thcir supcriors,and no onc displaycd stylc shifts

jcs 37(2θ のり 3‑666
S物 たα″ο/カ ア αJヴ P″ gZ ′po、 /erlessncss,is effectively utilized as thc stratcgic anchor of nC80tiations for povver insuch highly confl・ ontational types of workplace interactions.PIVC's preference for theindireOti p01ite fl・ aming ofthe head actis found to carry metaphoHcal rneanings(Gurnperz,

1982)once it iS Suttcct tO dynamic accounts in the immediate context of use.
Excerpt(6)comeS fl・ Oll■ F8,a45‑year― old section chief/supervisor at a foreign language
school.The setting is a rcgular faculty meeting involving 13 female and l male language
instructor,and F8 plays thc role of a rnoderator.Because ofthe fomal nature ofthe setting,

F8conduCtS the meeting mostly with distal style as the unmarked style.The interaction in
exccrpt(6)is one Of the most face― threatening phases of the entire meeting l observed,

wherc F8 is trying to admonish the subordinates who are present to tidy up teachingmaterials so that evcryone can takё advantage of them.It seemed that she had alК ady、
vmed them aboutthe same problem before:(6)F8, Section chief/supervisor at a forcign language school, to 14 subordinates at aregularね culty meeting:[The directive head act is in boldface.Downward shift fl・ om↓",upward shift from direct―
distal― polite stylc to direct― casual stylc marked bycasual style to distal‐ polite style oỳ̀↑ "・ ]

l

F8:

2

↓

3

Agα

ぶ x4ο り 00そ αJグ=,̀S′αAr77ι αた′εんα″ι¨.777α ′About the teaching materials((With StrOng emotion))..Noれ グιαれれαr7ん α66/1α ′&′ι&θttsん jrα ′
たιごθ
S
77′ ι
07720

...rcally messy again!

.

̀λ

.

4

.… (1.5)ANι

5...(1)Lb.

4″ αttj″ θ″α&<@α tts″ ブαんα′たα"&θ ο′r7σ ιs た θ
̀″
″″ &
げ
た′″れわjれ rrlsλ ′
ηθ4α
た′′
″
″ ,gα 4α'α
̀た'2%s夕 gaれ̀.@>′
777A4̀=,7bたακθχχχηOた αα′θ&
,

6
7

8

I wonder if<@I may be
the bad onc(ヽ Vh0 1eaves
thcm likc that),and it's not that l dOn't feellike I'In mcssing thё m up
OVerytime l go therc。

(D>

力 κ ttκ =,In addition,χχ

there are two boxes foreach of xx and xx prepattxl,

α/1α たο&
πO/7″ ″
θχχ′ッθθιSα
̀′ ̀&
jJ7tα
θ/
s夕 ′

aren't they?

1l

̀sん
θ&
α々
θ4ο ん
Oん θ
Sο κθ″ο12ιεみαた′6ん α 4ιοO J θ&...fθ み′
gα

.

ακ
α
た″プ
なた
ι
jれ θわ
′
″物紹 Wα &スたj・↑though.
(1.5){Don't you think!?}…。

わαgο θんα gθ ε

sン
z″ ′

13

.… I wonder why theygets like that,Specially,you knO、 v,
those cards for xxx arc
totally mixed up.

.

9
10

at xxx(place name),α滋 たj″ J4J sθ
19シ ツα′&Those boxes are both mlxedup.

...They are given different
colors just in case,right?

I do think the cards WhiCh
are supposed to be usedfrom fall will all beS 7れ た
α710/JOll″ ll′ ′2′ P″ g717α /1cs 37 r2θ θ
5り S3θ ‑666∧gαο″2θ ゴ″7α s=

655

ready,but((S10W tempo))((S10W tempo))
14&s77′ C77ノ gα rSvhen you usc thcm、
in」 uly again,

α ′
,70,
θたJ71ノ ′̀た″2θ θた ″ ″
ι′
,20&
rsι

please be vcry carcful to
kccp this in lllind.

̀g″oklotsuke kudasal.

((Cleaky voicc))((creaky voice))eXChangCS onlitted herc―
一. D̀ブ c/1ゴ b′ /1&
たo711α ′rrr 72θ 1/1/α ′lι =,″お″ れg ′
αs″ た′″οαれθ=&16
17Orヴ J72α ′′gα &. 2へ nd most troublcsomc
iS that the originals(of thC materials)for thC
listcning tasks are gone.

18

たl172α ′ε/1tr′ ′ ιὶ″Dθ たαrα α710,19ο″71α ″ Wα ,ヴブ

the originals,

modoshite kudasai ne.

pleasc rcturn them nomatter what happcns.

12αSO,unl,Λα′′17θ O′ α
′
2ゴ gα
′
ι′
,20̀と

20
21

¨ο′
71α ″
ι αプ″
ο ″
α,
ヴ′

22

たοpJブ ′

//7ο

̀れ

J/2α

̀た

′″

/

̀s/1θ

..。 Without thc originals,look,、ve can't make copics,

３
４
う４ うん

can wc?

Arι gα 72α ′′Oy■ppα ″ブ,
slrgθ たンたθ″7α ′c/1α lr 71ο ″ι
.

Without those,、ve are really in big trouble,

SO…
In Line l,the scction chief(F8)bringS up thc topic(teaChing lnatcrials)in thC unmarked
distal style.Thcn,in Line 2,she abruptly switches to the markcd dircct style(doWnward
shift)with an cmOtional tone of voicc,trying to solicit the audicncc's cmpathy for the
difliculties that havc arisen.´ it this point,thc speakerjoins the group ofsubordinates as one

ofthe peers,dcnying her formal stance as a supervisor/nloderator.Up to Linc 6,thc speakerfrequently tises contractions and infollnal lcxicon,24、 /hich make the utteranccs vcry caSualand personal,thotlgh the predicates thcmsclvcs are in distal style(unmarkcd stylc at thc

meeting)Along thcse lines,the speakcr,cxprcssing heridentity as an in― group lllember,frames
thc problem as one for us''rather than just blaming thc subordinates,and she seeks
the audience's agrecmcnt and support.In Linc 4 particularly,an independent particlc
ノVι seeks conflrmation frolll the audicncc. In Lines 5 and 6, she reinforccs hcr in―group identity,claillling that she may be the onc v/ho has caused the problelll,、 vhiChhad probably not been the case.Saying it jokingly with laughtcr also lightens theseriousncss of her complaint(Lincs 5 through 6).Starting with an attention― getter,sθ ″̀たα″α=(in additiOn),ill Line 9,thc spcaker further cmphasizcs thc mcssiness of specinc
matel・ ialsin boxcs She continues this dcscl‐ iption in direct style(eXCeptforLinc 10)up toLine 12.
24 For cxainPlci

α″″α″J″ ″ιゞカプ7,'″――>′ ″″α″″″cC力 αι

確ドカJ(pronOun

̀(gcts like that)in Linc 3;″ j gα―――
Linc 5:jた ι′′ ,llJ― ―>′ た″rrrllι ′″′g471′ ―
,α ノ
イ
724れ
>た
(cVCrytlnlc 1 8o)andた ′ga llα たll″ ,ο ′″

̀め

̀(It'S nOt that l don't fccl likc

̀.,″)in Linc 6I'')in77072α メS″ gὰ′S乃 たα″ο/力 ″甲 ′グ ′″g771r7′ jοs 37(2秋 λJ巧66"
Up tO thiS point the spcaker's appeal to the audience's empathy and emphasis on theshared naturc ofthe problem through using direct stylc have rnade whatthe speakcrintends
for the addressces to do quitc obvious. No、 v the speaker begins to conduct an cxplicit
directive,switching to distal style in Linc 13(upward S,ift)and iSSuing the head actin Line

15.In Lines 13 and 15,the Spcaker adapts marked discoursal devices such as slow tempo
with clear enunciations, attention― getter(Agα =), and creaky voice. This dl・amatization

further increases clements of seriousness.
Another directive speech act and its contcxtualization,observed in Lines 16 through29,parallel the preceding strategic sequences.The speaker again shifts fl・ om unmarked
distal style back to direct style,adopting vernacular contractions(4α――>4α た′4α ′6カ α″ι
′ )in Lines 17(downWard shift).By also fl・た′κα′′ιs/1ノ ′lα ′
′ rlr
̀′

amingherselfasapersonintroubl,, the speaker emphasizes her in― group identity (た θJ97α ″′α れθ ンッακVhat̀=, ̀̀ヽtroubled me")In Line 20,thc head actis conducted again in distalstyle、 vith ancmphatic
strё ss(Aα ′′ιttο )(upward shift).ThiS formal stance of the speaker immediately
disappears when she shifts back to direct style with a contraction(た ο αrrι sλ ヵηα′――>
た0″α″
θ/7α )in the f01lo、 ving sequencc of a grounder(1.e.,a reason forthe act)in Line 24(dOW,Ward shift).
MycrS― Scotton(1983, 1985)has claimed that given communicative competence,

whichenablesust6judgewhatismarkedorunmarkedinalltypesoflinguisticchoices,
speakers of po、 verful language are likely to take advantage of marked choices toreformulate the normative balance 、vith the addressec in terms of the rights andobligations in thc Ongoing exchange.Especially in highly face―
threatening situations
involving PWCS,Constant cyclic shifts back and forth bet、
veen the unmarked and themarkcd styles became very active.PWCs resorted tO such characteristic maneuvers ofstyle shifting, 、vhich negotiated thcir ̀̀transitional" in― group/out― group (

θん′
/Sθ ′
ο)

memberships deined variably in the immediate context of an exchange(Sukle, 1994).
Using downward shifts(frOm distal[unmarkcd]Style to direct[marked]style)aHOWSthC

speaker to deny her formal ngurc as a supcrior and dcscend to the lcvel of thesubordinates,by which her illocutionary intention is likely to obtainヽ

villing support andempathy fl・ om her peers.In using upward shifts(fl・ om direct style[unmarked]to diStal

stylc[marked]),On the other hand,the speaker deliberately detaches herself froln in―group solidarity that hasjust been framed as̀̀unmarked"in the preceding context,andbrings her institutional role and identity back to the surface tO obtain formal power.
Shifting to polite stylc also increascs the degrec of formality of the、vhole context,thus

ftlrther intensincs the seriousneSs ofthatparticular act.In this way,the speaker succeeds
in inishing up hcr address as if her directive is institutionally sanctioned,and thus non―negotiable.

These dynamic stylc shifts typitt the powerful communicato■

POwel・ ful speakers

acquire multi― faced identities by changing their speech style within a wide spectrum

ranging from the mOst casual to the most forlnal(MyerS― SCOtton,1985;Pcarson,1988,
1989).As shown thus far,attimeS a speaker has the freedom to choose to identi"herselfasa membcr of the group in order to promote cooperatiVC rapport;at othcr times she may
cxpК ss herself as an outsiderin ordcr to morc cffectively exercise general control over thc
group.Style― shifting anows Pwc to affectthe power dynalnics ofthe、
control over po、 ver distributions among participants〃orkplace with funjcs θ
S物 たα″ο/Jο ″ J̀√ Prrlg α′7(2θ θ
5,63J‑666
771α

4. Sunlnlary and conclusion
In attempting to resolve divcrsc intellpretations of PVV(〕 's linguistic solutions to theirdilemmas, thc present study has rcvealcd that(1)PWC'S directive strategies
characteristicaHy carry morphosyntacticaHy gendcr―

ncutral, but polite and deferential,

structures,in accordance M/ith the socio―

cultural norms for Japanese、 vomen's linguistic
behaviors;(2)their Strategies, however, involve extensive use of contextualization in
unique、 vays to empo、 vcr the gendcr― preferred polite, indirect franling of thc direttive

propcr;(3)rather than the hierarchical approach used by nlen,PWC aК moК likely toadopt various solidarity― focused approaches to the promotion of coHaborative rapport,
making po、 ver/status asymmetries、 vith subordinates ambiguous thrOugh greater sensitivity
to changes in face― threatening materials in the immediate contcxt of interactions(BroWn,

1980; Tannen, 1990); and (4)in highly face― threatening situations, polite language, anapparently poM′ crless lnarker,plays a dynalllic role in empoM/ering PW (〕 's control llloves
through activation and use of their multiple identitics.
The present study has yielded several theoreticalimplications.First,our andingS furthcr

substantiate the signincance and productivity oftaking thc immediate contcxt oflanguage
use into account becausc of iHunlination it provides on thc̀̀co―

COnStitutive"relationshipbetween language and context(Duranti,1992).Languagc not only is denned by the context

but also helps deflnc a context in 、
vhich palticular aspects of speaker― addressee
relationships arc foregrounded,and the distributions of po、

ver and五 ghts/obligations are
strategicany negotiated or controlled by thc speakcr.P■ VC's choices ofparticular directive

strategies ttc conteXt‐ denned,in that PWC,bcing subiect tO thC socio―

indirectness and politeness, vary their language usc in

cultural norms of、vays appropriate to the facc―

threatening elements in the immediate context of usc.Atthe same tiine,their strategic usesof dircctives along、 vith the inventcd contextualization cucs are cOntext―

denning,in thatthey help dcflne a context in 、
vhich it becomes natural for subordinates to comply
voluntarily 、vith requcξ ted acts. Palticularly lll highly confrontational phases ofinteractions, metaphOrical style‐ shifts may also help deflne and maintain a contcxt inwhich the asymmetrical statuses of the tM′ o panies are brought to the surface andmaintained so that the control movc can succeed. AH of these nndingS empiricallydemonstrate that rcsearch cmploying sentencc― level analyses alone is very likely to lniss

many of the strategic aspects of PIVC's solutions to their dilelmmas,which manifest
themselves most saliently in the discursive processes in close linkage to the immediate
context of use.

Second,the present study identines universalistic elements of linguistic politeness in

PWC's directive use一 the individual's communicative competencc in effectively
manipulating both negative and positive politeness to achieve the communicative goal.
our nndingS shed light on problematic treatlllents oflinguistic politeness in past studies on

the speech ofJapanesc PVVC(and On Japanese languagc usc in general),in thatthc scope ofmost previous invcstigations has been restrictcd to the use ofnegative politeness strategies.
The larger frame、 vork of analysis adopted in the present study has revealed that positivc
and negative politcncss strategies coexist as intcgral pans ofPw (〕 's strategic language use
and intertwine v′ ith onc another even in a singlc act.PVVC seem to kno、v that an intentional

undcrplaying of status and po、 ver through ncgative politeness strategies(aS markers ofS乃 たα″ο/Jο

r74α′げ P″ g771α rた S,7(2θθ5,6Jθ ‑666

deference and respcct)generaHy helps enhance the speaker's prestige and power(PearsOn,

1988,1989),、 vhCrcas positivc politeness strategics(aS Inarkers of solldarity and rapport)
reduce social distance and evoke favorable, M′ arm responses or support from thesubordinatcs.

Finally, we have gained a bctter undcrstanding of relatiOnships bctM/cen linguistic
politcness and comlllunicative powc■ Our indings lead us to rOJeCt a common a priori
aSSumptiOn that indirect,polite、 vays of speaking are automaticaHy linked to tlle speaker's
oriented analyses ofinteractional data havc
rcvealed thatthe dynamic construction of po、 ver is constantly manipulatcd by the speaker,

powcrlessness in communication.Our process―、vho needs to take into account moment― to― moment changes in the socio― psyth010gicalclimates of interactiOns. Of utmost impOrtancc is the fact that polite language, a noted
propcrty ofJapancse womcn's language,is utiHzed strategicaHy for obtaining authoritativc
powcr By indexing their formal institutional identity and negotiating the relative stancewith subordinates,PWC seem to succeed in controning the distHbution ofpo、 ver、 vithin the
dynamics of the group. Conlinunicative po、 ver does not al、 vays have to be drivcn by
explicit slrface rnanifcstations ofthè̀po、 ver code''per se,butrather it can also be dc五 ved
frolll rnultiple dimensions of the linguistic faculty in interplay With the immediate context

of useAcknowledgementsl wish tP expκ SS tty deep appreciation for the support received fl・ om Kimbcrly Jones,
ルFalcah Yacger― Dror,Janc Hin and Mu五 el saville‐ Troike regarding the original work on、
vhich the prescnt paper builds.I am greatly indebted to a number of friends and relatives,
who〔re too lnany to recount here,for helping me 9onduCt neld、vork.I anl vew gratefulto
thc anonymous PWC for believing in me and participatiig in this rescaК h proieCt as

informantsI My thanks also extend to the anOnymous revie、 vers fortheir helpful comments.
All remaining faults and infelicities are my ov/n responsibility.

Appendix A
See Tables A.l A.4.

jcs 37(2θ θ
i rcrた α″。/」 ο″″,α ノ9′ Pl rlg771α ′5り 6θ 5‑666

659

Tablc A lDistribution of Directives:

Dircct Acts Category I(DAl)Directive hicrarchy

Women

Individual

Men

Individual(630 fonns)

speakcrs(ァ ,=9)

(1 22 forills)(″(1)thrOugh(16)285/630,4520%

54/122,4430%(1)Verb r00t■ ro0

19(156)=4)

Ⅳll=6(14)M2=1(46)
M3=7(304)
Ⅳ14=5(147)(2)ヽ /erb plain

十

9(14)

F5=5(49)
F6=1(24)
F8=3(29)

2(16)

2(03)

Fl=1(27)
F6=1(24)052(83)

Fl=3(81)F2=1(42)F4=8(93)
F5=13(126)
F6=15(366)F7=1(26)
F8=4(39)F9=7(61)9(74)F4=1(12)3 (25)

koto/yoni(3)A/crb Stem+na(Sai)/tyaina(Sai)(4)Vcrb rOOt+
te(ne/yo)(5)Verb r00t十1(02)Ml=2(H8)

Ml=1(23)ヽ12=2(9 1)

M4=6(177)

te goran

Mi=2(47)
Ⅳ14=l(29)(6)X/crb 10ot+4(33)MI=4(93)

Fl=3(81)F2=6(250)
F3=38(447)F4=27(314)F5=6(59)
F6=4(98)
F7=7(184)
F8=32(314)F9=22(191)

13(107)

MI=3(70)
M2=3(136)

F4=1(12)F3=1(12)00

tc kure(7)a1/crb rOOt十tc kudasai(8)〜 o kudasai145(230)

2 (03)

ヽ43=3(130)ヽ14=4(l18)(9)tanOnlu yo/zo

1(02)F6=1(24)1(08)Ml=1(23)(10)VCrb rOot+

2(03)F7=1(26)1(08)M3=1(43)

F8=1(09tc l■ orau/te itadaku(11)VSteinn■ Causajve

7(11)F2=l(42)F3=4(47)
F9=2(17)

Aux Vroot+
te inorau/tc itadaku

0

The nulalbcrs in parenthesis arc percentages Gloss:Form(1)thrOugh(4):'Do X'Forlll(5)̀Try dOing X(and See)'Form(6):̀― te kurc,'is thc gerund fonll oFthc llnain verb plus thc illlpcrative fornl of a verb of giving̀ktlreru'((giVe')Form (7):̀Pleasc do X'Forin(8):̀Pleasc givc(hand)nle x ̀Forln(9):̀l aSk you(for X,tO do X)'Forlll(10):̀I rcccivc your favorof doing X'̀Morau'is a verb ofrecei宙

ng,and̀■adaku'isits hulnblc form Fonm(11)・ I rCCCiVc your favor ofletting mc

do X'Vcrb stclal+Causativc voice auxiliary root+‐tc itadaku(e g Ato de yoinasete itadakimasu ̀I will rcccivc your住tvor of letdng mc rcad it iater')a Fon■

s(7)and(8)̀:rc rOughly equal in thc dcgree of illucutionary forcc

660

jcs'7(2θ θ
5,お 3‑6
S物 た ο/力 ″ α′グ ′″g″ ′,ὰ″Tablc A 2
Distribution of Direcives:Dircct Acts Catcgory I(DAl)
Dircctivc hierarchy(12)oncgai Shimasu/1tashimasu

ヽ
Vomen

Individual speakers(630 fol■ lls)(″

33(52)=9)Mcnlndividual(122 forms)

spcakCrs(れ =4)

Fl=4(108)F3=6(71)F4=3(3.5)
F5=1(1.0)

F6=4(98)
F7=7(18.4)

F8=2(20)
F9=6(52)(13)Vttb rOOt+te hoshii

9(14)F5=3(29)F8=6(59)0(14)oncgai Shitai/

4 (06)

Fl=1(27)
F3=3(35)1(08)M3=1(44)

10 (16)

Fl=1(27)
F2=1(42)F3=1(12)1(08)M4=1(2.9)

shitai n dcsu

(15)Vcrb r00t+
tc moraitaiノ te itadakitai

F5=2(2.0)

F8=3(29)F9=2(17)(16)doozo

8(13)Fl=1(27)
F2=1(42)F3=3(35)
F4=2(23)F9=1(09)

Tlle numbers in parcnthcsis are percentagcs Gloss:Form(12):̀I aSk you a Favor'̀Itashimasu'isthc humble formof̀shimasu'Fonn(13): ̀I、 Vant you to do X'Fonll(14):̀I、 VOuld like to ask you a favor' ̀tai'is a desidcrativc
auxiliary Form(15):StratCgy 1 0 plus a dcsiderativètai'(̀Want')̀I wOuld like to reccivc your favor ofdoing X'

Fonll(16): ̀Pleasc(dO X)'

S物 たα″ο/力 ″ α′グ P

jCS 37(2θ の
り 聾κ6
′″α′

Tablc A 3
DistHbution of Dircctivcs:Dircct Acts Catcgory H(DAii)

Dircctivc hicrarchy(17)through(23)WOmcn

lndividual speakers

ⅣIcn(630 forms)(″ =9)(122 fol■ lls)

69/63017/122

1100%

1390%

(17)N wa ikcnail(02)(18)Vcrb Stcm+nai to4(06)dame/ikan

F7=1(26)0F5=1(10)8(66)F8=2(20)4(06)(tO omOu)(20)N wa/1/crb root― tciυyoroshii/

F5=3(29)

Ml=6(140)
ヽ12=1(46)F9=1(09)(19)N、va hitsuyoo da

Individual

speakers(4=4)

M3=1(43)0F8=1(10)31(49)

kamawanai/keは oo dcsu

F2=4(167)8(66)F4=1(12)F5=4(39)

M2=3(136)

Ml=3(70)

M4=2(59)F7=7(184)
F8=4(39)F9=4(35)(21)N noノ A/crb plain+
h∞ ga ii

12(19)(kamoshilcnai/to omou)(22)A/erb StCnl+ba

F4=1(12)0F5=9(88)
F9=2(17)9(14)i1/kckkoo da

F4=1(12)1(08)M2=1(46)

F7=2(53)

F8=2(20)
F9=4(35)(23)Vcrb Stcnl+

8(13)Fl=8(216)

0

tai(10 0mOu)
Thc numbcrs in parcnthcsis arc percentagcs Gloss:Form(17):̀N is no good/not a good idca/usclcss'Fonn(18):・It wouldn't work wcll unlcss you do X,(so yOu mustdoit)'Form(19):̀(I think)N is necessary'Fol■ln(20):̀N is
6nc'Form(21):̀(I think)N would(might)bC bCttct'Fol■

X'Forlll(23):'(I think)I wantto do X'ln(22):̀You Sl10uld do X'or̀It would bc good if you doS物 たα″ο/Jrp″

662

α′げ P

g′

jcs'7(2θ (万 ,お J‑666″α′

Table A 4
Distribudon of Dircctivesi Convendonally lndircct Acts Catcgory(CIA)Directive hierarchy

ヽ、mcn

IndividualⅣIcn(630 fol■ lns)

speakcrs(″ =9)(122 foHns)(24)tllrOugh(31)101/630, 1600%(24)ヽbrb Stem十(y)。 。 (yo)/mashoo(ka)27(43)

Individual

speakers(′ =4)

14/122, 11.50%

Fl=2(54)F2=1(42)7(57)Mi=4(93)
M2=1(46)

M4=2(59)

F3‐ 1(12)F4=5(58)F5=8(78)F8=9(88)
F9=1(09)(25)A/erb Stem+tara8(13)Fl=2(5.4)

1(0.8)(d00?/ii n ja nai?)l(o2)Fl‐ 1(27)1(02)

F9=1(09)0

15(24)

F2=1(42)F5=2(20)3(25)kureru?ノ kurcru kana?/

kurcmasu ka?/

F6=4(9,8)

kudasaruν

F7=2(53)F8=1(10)(26)A/clb Stem+nai(ka)?
(27)3/orb Stem tt ba

M2=1(46)

F4=1(12)F5=1(10)F9=4(35)

ii no ni/ii n ia nai?
(28)Vcl・ b

roOttt tekudasailllasu ka?

Ml=2(47)
ヽ44=1(29)F9■ 5(43)(29)N7crb rOot+tc

28(44)

Fl=1(27)
F2=1(42)F3=21(247)F5=1(10)F6=1(24)
F9=3(26)6(10)FI=2(54)F4=1(12)F9=3(26)2(0.3)

Fl=1(27)
F3=1(12)moraeru?ノ llloFaelanasu?/

moracmascn?/
itadakemasu ka?

(30)(Vcrb r00t+tc)
il desu ka?ノyoroshii dcsu ka?

(31)Onegai dekima,u ka?

3(25)ヽ41=3(70)

Thc numbersin parenthcsis tte pcrcentagcs Gloss:Form(24):̀Lct'sdo X'or̀Shall we do X?'Form(25):̀How
about doing X?'Fonn(26):̀lVOn'tyou do X?'Form (27):̀ミ 、uldn'tit be good if you did X?'Fonn(28):'VVill
you do mc thc favor of doing X?'Form(29):'COuld l havc you do X?'Form(30):̀Mayldo X?'̀Yoroshil'is apolite forⅢ Of̀ii'Fonll(31):'COuld l aSk you this favor?'

!α ′,ο /Jο ll′ ′たα′S 7と ι
0′ P

g″ 2α

663

″ω J7(2θ θ5,6J3‑666

References
T通∬
li距 ギ
Iぶ 鳳
iT牌 1吼 肥ギlTli讐 潔:漱話
器‖淵l:L鰤翼〕i[》 器
bc・ lovcly'if you would cut a littlc morei new perspcctives on the study of wonlcn's language)Gengo 21(7).

66‑69
1 987 1ndircctness and politcness in reclucstSI Sanle or differcnt? Journal of Pragnlatics ll.131‑

Bltinl― Kulka.S、

146
Bltlnl‐ Kulka. S、1989 1nI Blunl‐ Kulka、 S. ct tJ (Eds), Playing it Safe: The Rolc()f Convcntionality in

Indilcctiness pp 37‑70
BIunl Kulktl.S Housc,」、Kaspcr.G、(Eds)1989a

Cr()ss Cultural Prag:1latics:Rcquests and Apologics Ablcx、Norwo()d、 N」
Blunl― Kulka S House,J,Kaspcr、G (Ed5)1989b lnvcstigatilig Cross cultural Pragmatics:An lntroductoryOvcr宙 cw pp l‑34
Botirdieu,P, 1977 Thc ccononlics o「linguistic cxchangcs Social Scicnce infornlation 1 6(6),645‑668

Brown R.Gilnl:tn,A, 1960 Thc pronounS Of powcr and s()lida●ty lni Scbcok,T (Ed),Style in Language The

NllT Prcss,Canlbridgc,NIA.pp 253‑276
Br()wn.P、 1980 How:ι nd why woinen are n10rc politci sonlc cvidcncc lronl aヽ

4aytin conlnlunity ln:ヽ 4cConncll―

Ginct.S.Borkcl,R,Furnlall、 N (Ed、 ),ヽVOnien tlnd Languagc:ind Litcrature tind Socicty Praegcr,New
Yk)lk pp lll‑149
Br()wn.P Lcvinson.S,1987 Politeilcド 、I SOnlc Univcrsals in Language Ustlge Canibridge University Prcss.
C〔 tni卜 ri(lgechare.、vL.1993 Pros()dic and runcti()nal unit、 o「 languagc ln:Edwards.JA、 Lanlpert,MD(Eds),Talking,pp 3343
Data:Tianscription and Coding in Discourse Rcsearch Lawrcnce Eribaunl.Hilisdale,N」

Cook. Hヽ 4. 1 999 Situtltiol,:li nlcanings oli Japancsc socitll deixisi the ntixed tisc of thc lllasu:、
Jotirnal o「Dianぅ on(l.」Li1lguistic Anthropoloさ y8(l)、nd Plain foi nls

87‑1101996 Status and Power in Vcrbal intcracti()n John Bcttanlins,Plliladelphia

Du Bois.Jヽ V. Schuctze― Coburn、 S,Cunlnling. S, Paolino, D 1993. Outlille oF discourse transcription ln:
c Research
Edwal(1、 、JA, Lanlpert, MD (Eds).■ llki:1=Dtltal Transc‖ ption and Coding in Discour、La、 lencc Erlbaunl,Hillsdale、

Durtinti.A

NJ.pp 45‑89

1992 Ltingutlge in context.ln(llanguage as contcXtithe Sanloan rcspcct VoCabulary ln:Duranti,A,

Goodwin.C (Eds),Rethinki!lg Context Canlbridge University Press,pl, 77‑99

End()o.O、 1991 K()toba to j()sei(Language and wonlcn)KaiJ口 ku to Kanshα )722.28‑37
kotoba:Nihongo kyo()iku to scisa kenshoo no s1liten kttra(Mcn'S andEndoo.O.1992 0t()ko to onna llo 1lantlshi‐
W01llCn'S Specc11:Flonl the vicwp(lnt o「 Japanese langutlgc teaclling:lnd tlle study of sex dircrenccs)Kotoba

13.61‑88
Endoo、 0.Kobayashi、M,Taku.S,Nlaruyanlι l,ヽ V, 1989 」osci no hinashi― kotobal Tcrebi no intabyuu bangumi

kara(｀ Vk)11lcn's speech:(lata From TV intcrvicw pro8ranls)Kotoba 10 i‑84
El vi11‑Tripl).S、

1976 1s Sybn thcre?Tlle structtirc of solllc Anlelican English directivc、Langu.lge in Society 5.

25‑66
Ervill Tripp.S 1977 ヽVι lit for nlc,rollcrヽ kュ tc! Ini Ervin‐ Tripp.S,ヽ 4itche11‑Kcrntln,C (Eds),Child Discoursc
Acadclllic Prcss、

New York

Ervin‐ Tripp.S,1981 How to makc and undcrstand a rcclucSt ln:Pを trrct.H.Sbisa,M,Vclヽ

chucren,J(Ed、 ),P()ssibilitics ttnd Linlitations oF Pragnlを lticsi Proceedings of tllc C()nfcrencc on Praginatics John BenJanlins、

A!1lstcrdanl pp 195‑209
Fairclotlgh N,2001 Languagc and Power, sccond Cd Pcarson Education Lilllitcd,Harlo、 v,Esscx)nlen do ln:Thornc,B,Kranlarac.C,Hcnley、 N(Eds),LanguagC,Fi、 hinlan、 P.1983 1ntcl̀lctioni the work Wく
Gcndcr and Society Ncwbury Housc.Rowlcy、

MA,pp 89‑101

Fo、 ler R.1985 Powcr lni van Dり k.TA (Ed).Handbook of Discoursc Analysis Acadcnlic Prcss、

Ncwヽ 1)rk.

pp 61‑82
Furo H

N,Ahlcrs.J、
1996 Linguistic connict Of」 .lpancscヽ vonlCn:is that a rcqucst Or an()rdcr? In:ヽ Vamcr、Bilnlcs L Olivcr.M,は 、rtllcinl,S,Chcn、 M (Eds),Gcnder and BclicF Systcnls:Plocccdings of thc 4th
Berkclcyヽ Vonlcn tind LanguagC COnfcrcncc pp 247‑259

S 7を たι″?ο /Jο ιι″!ι ι′9′ P″ g″ ,arfこ ,37(2θ θ5り 6JJ‑666

Gal,S、 1991 Bct、 vecn spccch and silcncc:thc problcilnatics of rcscarch on languagc and gcndct in:DiLconardo,
ヽ4(Ed)、 Gcndcr at thc Crossroads of Knowlcdge Univcrsity of California Press,Bcrkclcy.pp 175‑203
G■ cs,H,Wicmann,JM,1987 Languagc,social conlparison,and power ln:Bergcr,CR,Charcc,sH(Eds),

Handbook of Conl:llunication Scicncc Sage,Nc、

vbury Park,CA,pp 350‑384

Gunlperz,J,1982 Discoursc Strategics Cambridgc,Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss

Guy, G, 1987 ′ヽdvanccd varbrul analysis, Linguistic Change and ContactI Proccedings of thc 16th Annual
Confcrcncc on Ncwヽ Vays of Analyzing Variation,Univcrsity of Tcxas,Austin,pp 124‑136

Habcrmas,J,1984 ThcOry of Communicative Acuon,vol l London,HeinemannHolmcs,J.2000 Politencss,po、 vcr and provocation:ho、 v huinor ftlnctions in thc workplacc Discotlrsc Studics 2(2)、

159‑185

Hori,M,Tsuda,S,Murata,Y,Sckiyama,K,Murata,K, 1999 Thc Positive Politcncss Trcnd in Recent
Japancsc Sylllposium 1400.AILA at Wascda Univclsity,TOkyo

ldc,S, 1990 How and why do woincn spcak n,orc politcly? In:Ide,S,McGloin,NH (Eds),Aspccts ofJapanescヽ /onlcn's Languagc Ktiroshio,Tokyo,pp 63‑79
1dc, S, 1993 Sckai no josci gO, nihon nO jOsci go: Josci go kcnkyuu no shin‐tcnkai o llnotonlctc(｀ VOnlcn's
ianguagcs of thc 、
vorld, 、
vonlcn's ]anguagc of」 apani to、 vard a nc、 v developmcnt of studics oF、 vonlen's

languagcs)NihOngogaku 12,4‑12
1dc,S.Hori,ヽ 〔,Kawasaki,A,Ikuta,S,Haga,H,1 986 Scx diffcrcncc and pOliteness in Japancsc lntcrinationtll
Journal of thc SOciology of Language 58,25‑36

1de,S,Inouc,M,1992 」osci kotoba ni inliru aidcntitii(IdCntitics in women'sl̀lnguagc)Gcngo 21(10),46‑47
1kuta,S,1 983 Spccch icvcl shift and cOnvcrsational stratcgy in」

apanesc discoursc Lttnguagc Scienccs 5、

37‑53

1nouc,ヽ4, 1994 Gcndcr and linguistic nlodcrnization:histolicizing」 apancsc、vonlcn's langu.tgc ln: Bucholtz,

M,Liang、 AC,Sutton、 LA,Hincs,C (Eds)、 Cultural PcrftprinancesI Procecdings of thc 3rd Belkelcy
u、mcn ttnd Languagc Conferencc.#####,pp 322‑333
1rvinc,JT, 1979 FOrnlality and inforlllality in communicative evcnts Amcrican Anthropologist 81,773‑790」
oncs,K,1992 A qucstion of cOntcxt:Dircctivc usc at a morris tcalll mccting Languagc in Socicty 21(3),427‑

445
Jorden、

EH,Noda,M.1987 Japancscl Thc Spokcn Languagc(Part I)ヽ

1lle univcrsity Prcss,Ncw Haven

Jugaku,A,1979 Nihongoto Onna(ThC Japancsc languagc and wontcn)Iwanami shinsho 99 1wananli Shotcn、Tokyo
Jugaku,A,1984 0nna waJiyuu ni shabcttc iru ka(Arc w()nlcn speaking flccly?)Gengo Seikatu 387.14‑20
Jugaku、 A, 1985 0nna― rashisa to nihongo hyoogcn(ヽ ｀/Onlanlincss in」 apanese)Gcngo 14(12),60‑63
Jugaku,A, 1986 Yuu― na no soko ni(ヽ Vhat undcllies womcn's silcncc)Gengo Scikatsu 420,28‑36

Jugaku,A,1990 0nna to kotoba:■ lda inla no jookyoO dc(N、Gckkan Nihongo 3(2)、 4‑5

nncn and spccchi the current statc of arairs)

Kashima,T,1993 0toko to Onnal Kawaru Rikigaku(Mcn and woinenl change in powcr structurcs)IWananli
Shinsho 66 1、 vanami Shotcn,Tokyo

Kindaicili,H, 1969 Nihongo(JapallCSc)Iwananli Shins1lo 265 1wanallni Shotcn,Tokyo
Kirsh,B,1983 .Thc usc of directives as indication of status tlllnong prcschool childrcn ln:Fine,J,Frccdlc,RO(Eds),Dcvclopnlental lssucs in Discoursc Ablcx,Norwood,NJ,pp 269‑290

Kranlarac,C,Schulz,M,○ 'Barr,WM,1 984 1ntroductionito、 vard an tlndcrstanding oflanguagc and po、Kralnarac,C,ct al(Eds),Languagc and Powcr Sagc,Bcvcrly Hills,CA、

vcr ln:pp 9‑22

Labov,ヽ V, 1970 Thc study of languagc in its social cOntcxt Studium Gcncralc 23,66‑84
Labov、 ヽV,F̀lnshcl,D, 1977 Therapcutic Discoursc:Psychotherapy as Convcrsation Academic Prcss,Ncw

York
Lako∬ ,R,1975 Languagc andヽ Voman's Placc Harpcr&Row,Ncw York

Lcvinson,SC,1983 Pragmatics Cambridgc Univcrsity Plcss
Linde,C,1988 Thc qllantitative study ofconllllunicativc succcssi politcncss and accidents in aviation discoursc

Languagc in Socicty 17.375‑399

Mashinlo.S,1969 HttingO nO Kcnkyuu(A Study ofヽ Vomcn's Languagc)ToOkyoo doo,Tokyo
McGloin,NH,1990 Scx direrencc and scntcncc inal particlcs ln:Idc,S,McGloin,NH (Eds),Aspccts ofJapancsc womCn'S languagc Kurosio,Tokyo,pp 23 41
McGloin,NH,1993 Shuu10Shi(Final particlcs)Nihongo‐ Gaku 12,126124

S 2を ′
たαllο /Jο ι7,̀ll̀√ ′′●g″ ,α rjι ゞ∫7(2θ θ5,6JJ‑666
̀′Mitchcll― Kcrnan,C,Kcrnan、 KT, 1977 Pragnlatics of directivc choicc among children ln:Ervin―

Tripp,S,
N/1itchcll Kcinan,C (Eds),Child Discoursc Acadcnlic Prcss,Ncw York,pp 189‑208
Mogallni,K,1986 HatarakuioSCinOkotobanoishiki(WtDrking wolnlcn's linguisic attitudes)HoosbO Kenkyuuto

Choosa vol ll,NHK,Tokyo,pp 14‑28
卜Iycrs― Scotton,C, 1983 Thc negOtiation ofidcntitics in convcrs:ttion:a thcory oflnlarkcdncss and codc choicc
lntcrnatiollal Jouinal of tlne Sociology of Languagc 44, l15‑136
Mycrs― Scotton,C. 1985 ヽVhatthc hcck,siri stylc shi■ ing and lcxical colouring as fcaturcs of po、

vcrfullanguagc

lni Stieet,Jr,RL,Cappclla,JN (Eds).SCqucncc and Pattcrn in Conlnlunicative Behavior Edward Arnold,

London,pl) 103‑119

Ng,SH、 Bradac,J」 ,1993 Powcr in Language Sage,Ncwbury Park,CA
Niyckawa,AM,1984 Analysis of conlictin a television hornc drama 111:Klauss,ES,Rohlcn,TP,Stcinhoff,
PG(Eds),COnnict in Japan Univcrslty of Hawali Press,Honolulu,pp 61‑840gata,T,Tozuka、 F,Anztti,A,1957 Kotoba no uc dc no onna― rashisa(ヽ Vomanlincssin specch)Gengo Scikatu

65,2‑14
̀Gendcred"spccch stylcs and social idcntity anlong y()ung Japanese、 vomen ln:Bucholtz,
0karnoto,S, 1994 ｀M,Liang,AC,Sutton,LA,Hincs,C (Eds).Cultural Perbrmances:Procccdings of thc 3rd Bclkclcy
へ、ln3cn and Languagc Conference pp 569‑581
0kanloto, S, 1997 Social contcxt, linguistic idcology, and indcxical exprcssions in」apancse Journal of

Praglnnatics 28,795‑817

0kanloto,S,Sato.S. 1992 Lcss fclllinillc spccch anlong young Japanese femalcs ln:Hall,K,Bucholtz,ヽ 1,
Moonwomon,B(Eds)、 Locating Power:Procccdings ofthc 2nd Bcrkelcyヽ Vomcn and Languagc Confcrcncc

pp 478‑488
0wsley,HH,N/1ycrs Scotton,C,1984 Thc convcrsationtll cxprcssion of powei by television interviewers Thc
Journtll of Social Psyc1lology 1 23、261‑271

Pcarson, B、1988 Po、 vcr tlnd politencss in collvcrsationi cncoding of face― thrcatcning acts at church busincss
nleetings Anthropological Linguistics 30(1).68‑93

Pcarson, B, 1989 Rolc― ing out control" at chulch busincss lュSciences ll(3),289‑304

lcctingsi dirccting and disagrccillg Languagc

PufahI Bax,I.1986 H()w to assign work in ttn oficel a collnpalison of spokcn and writtcn dircctivcs in Anlcrican
English Jourilal of Pragillatics 1 0,673‑692

Rand,D,Sanko∬ ,D,1990 GoldVarb Vetsion 2:Aヽ /ariablc Rulc Application for thc Macintosh Univcrsitc dc
Montreal, Ccntlc dc Rcchcrchcs Mathcnlatiqucs

Rcynolds,KA,1990 Fclnnalc spcakcrs of」 apancsc in transidon lnI Idc,S,McGloin,NH (Eds),Aspccts of」apancsc Wllnlcn's Language Kuroshio,Tokyo,pp 129‑144
Rintcll,E. 1 981 Sociolinguistic valiation and pragnlatic ability:[1 look at lcarncts lntcrnational」

ournal of thc

Soci()logy of L[tnguagc 27. ll‑34

Roscnbcrgcr,NR,1994 1ndcxing hierarchy through Japancsc gender rclations ln:Bachnik,JM,Quinn,Jr,C」(Eds),Situatcd Mcaning:Insidc and Outsidc in Japancsc Sclf,Socicty,and Languagc Princcton Univcrsity
Pi css、

Plincct()n,N」 ,pp 88‑112

Sankoll.D,1 985 Statistics in linguistics ln:Encyclopcditt oF Statistical Sciclnccs

ヽVilcy,Nc、 v York,pp 74‑81

SankolT,D,1986 VaHable rules ln:Ammon.U,Dittmar,N,Matthcicr.KJ(Eds).SOCiOlinguisics:An
lntcinational Handbook of thc Scicncc of Languagc and Socicty dc Gruytcr,Nc、

v YIDrk

Schifflin,D、 1994 1ntcrを 、
ctional sociolinguistics,Apploachcs to Discourse,Blackwcll,Cambridgc,MA,pp 97‑

136
Searlc,JR, 1976.A classincation of illocutionaly acts Langtlagc in Socicty 5, I‑23
Snlitll,」S, 1 992 Politclless&dilcctivcs in Japancsc、 vonlCn's spccch Languagc in Socicty 21(1),59‑82

Sukle,RJ,1994 Uc11ノ sotoi choiccs in dirccivc spccch acts in Japancsc ln:Bachnik,JM,Quinn,Jr,CJ(Eds)、 Situatcd Mcaning:Inside and Outsidc in」 apancsc Sclf,Society,and Languagc Princcton Univcrsity

PIcss,pp li3‑142
Sunaoshi, ヽ1 1994 卜41ld dircctivcs work cffcctivcly: Japancsc woincn in collannand ln: Bucholtz, Nl, Liang,

AC,Sutton,LA,Hincs,C (Eds),Cultural Pcrfclrmanccs Proccedings of the 3rd Berkelcy Nsmen andLanguagc Con「 crcncc pp 678‑690

S乃 たα″ο/力げ ′″g″ ,α rた ゞ37(2θ θ5'α 3‑6711a′lanother'':Japanesc、 vol■ cn'S COnstruction of an authoritative position in thc
Sunaoshi,Y,1995 Yourbossis yourworkplacc Texas Linguistic Forum,vo1 34,Dcpartment of Linguistics,University of Tcxas at Austin,pp175‑188
Suzuki,T, ]981 Josci― go ni taisuru ishiki(Attitudcs towards womcn's ianguagc)Nihon Bungaku,Vo1 46
Rikkyoo Univcrsity,Tclkyo,pp 62‑70
Takano,S, 1997 Thc卜 4yth of a Holanogcncous Spccch Community:Thc Specch of Japancscヽ Vomcn in Noll‐traditional Gcndcr Rolcs Doctoral Disscrtation Thc University of Arizona

Tanaka,A, 1969 Keigo rongi、 va nazc okoru(ヽ Vhy dCbates on honorincs in Japanesc?) Gengo Scikatsu 213

Tanncn,D,1990 You Just Don't Undcrstand:N、 mcn andヽ4en in Conversation Morrow,New York
Trocmcl Ploctz,S, 1992 Thc construction of convcrsational cquality by womcn ln: Hall.K et al(Eds),
Vomcn and Languagc Confcrencc,vol lI BCrkelcy
Locating Powcr: Procccdings of thc Sccond Bcrkclcyヽ

Womcn and Languagc Group,Bcrkcley,pp 581‑589
Trocmel― Ploctz, S, 1994 Let nlc put it thisvay, John''l convcrsational strategics of、ヽ
vomcn in leadcrship

positions 」
oumal of Pragnlatics 22, 199‑209

TstlJinnura,N,1996 An lntroduction to Japancse Linguistics Blackw,11,Cambridgc,MAUchida,A,1992 Whcǹ'diffcrcnce''is.̀donlinancc'':a Critiquc of thc̀̀anti―

po、 vcr― based''cultural approach tosex dit‐ fcrcnccs

Languagc in Society 21,547‑568
ヽVcizman,E,1989 Requcstivc hints ln:Blum― Kulka,S,ct al(Eds),CrOSS Cultural PragmaticsI Rcqucsts andApologics Ablcx,Norwood,NJ,pp 71‑95
sex convcrsations bctween
S、st,C,Zimmcrlllan,DH,1983 Small insultsi a study Of intcrruptions in cross―unacquainted pcrsons ln:Thorne,B,Kramarac,C,Hcnlcy,N (Eds),Languagc,Gcndcr and Socicty

Ncwbury Housc,Rowlcy,MA,pp 102‑117
ο ln:Bachnik,JM,Quinn,Jr、
ヽVetzcl,PJ,1994 A movablc sclf:thc linguisdc indexing of ι 力j and,ο ′c」

̀ι(Eds),Situated Meaning:Insidc and Outsidc in Japancsc Sell SociCty,and Language Princeton University

Press,Princeton,NJ,pp 73‑87ヽVicrzbicka,A, 1985 Diffcrcnt culturcs,differcnt ianguagcs,diffcrent spccch acts:Polish vs English Journal of

Pragmatics 9, 145‑178
Yacgcr Dror,ヽ 1,Sister,E,1987 ̀Scuse mc,waitaminutcl':Directivc usc in lsraeli Hcbrcw Linguistics 25,1127‑1163
ShOii Takano is Associatc Professor of Sociolinguistics and TEFL at Hokusci Gakuen Univcrsity in Sapporo,
Japan Hislcscarch intcrcsts includc thc variationist approach to Japanesc,sociolinguistics thcorics,and Japancsc
vorttng On sociolinguistic variation
lcarners' acquisition of English as a foreign languagc Hc has rcccntly been、and changc in」 apancsc prosody and thc acquisition of tlnc English articlc systcnl by Japancse c011Cgc studcnts