HOKUSEI REVIEW THE SCH00L OF HUMANITIES(HOKUSEI GAKUEN UNIVERSITY)Vo1 37,21XD.OFFPRINT

Speaking politely′ but′ powerfu‖ y:A Linguistic

Dilemma for Japanese Professional Women in Charge

Shtti TAKANO

北星論集 (文 )第

37号

lν

larch 2000

Speaking politely ̀but' po、 verfully:A Linguistic
Dilernrna for」 apanese ProfessiOnalヽVomen in Charge

Shoji TAKANO」apanese culture is often referred to as a proto― typical negative― face culture 、vith agreater emphasis on indirectness and pOliteness in interpersonal communication (Brown &Levinson, 1987). Women in particular as the vanguard of such normative behaviors are ex―pected to acquire or at least parade prescribed social personalities(Bourdieu, 1977): being
modest in behavior and opinions, and being polite and gentle to others (A71ashilno, 1969).

aysSuch personalities are to be reflected in their language use, resulting in polite, indirect v′

hich have become the norms for the speech of」
of speaking, 、′(e.g。

apanese、 vomen in general,Nakano,1980;Kanemaru,1988;Nakamura,1989).ヽ Vhile it is evident that women's

gender roles and identities have recently undergone drastic change and have greatly affected

their v/ays of speaking in the society today (Takasaki, 1988;Takano, 2000), the linguistic
ideology that M′ omen should talk indirectly and politely still survives rigidly at afolklinguistic level (Kindaichi, 1969;Tanaka, 1969;Suzuki, 1981;reported in lvlogami,1986).Women whO deviate from the normative ways Of speaking are thus the easy targetof social stigma and disrepute.
ヽVhile」 apanese women have considerable pov′

er in domestic life, they traditionally have

not held positions of authority and leadership in the public sphere(Rosenberger, 1994).

Inreality, however, as increasing numbers of M/Omen enter into the marketplace, the prescribed

ideologies have seriously contradicted the communicative requirements arising from their
new roles in male― dominated occupational activities:against the prescriptive norms of femi―nine speech, professional women must speak、
authority in the vァvith assertiOn and forcefulness to establish

orkplace Jugaku (1979, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1990)has consistently focusedon this sociolinguistic dilemma, arguing that the prevalent cultural ideology that M′

omenshould talk in feminine v′ ays(̀ο んれαrα sん jた し')inhibits wOmen's active participation in themarketplace. Stereotyped images of women's powerlessness in communication (derived
from prescribed politeness and indirectness) and stigmatization against those v′ ho adopt
non― fellninine ways of speaking are both likely to segregate Japanese、

sphereァomen fronl the publicThis type of conflict is likely to become most serious for professiOnal v/Omen in po―sitions of authority and leadership, which have traditionally belonged tO men (A/1ogami,

1986;Takenobu, 1994)
HoM′ professional」 apanese、vomen in charge linguistically manage the contradictions be―

tween the social expectations of ̀domestic' gender rOles and the realities of their lives asv/orking、′
omen in the public domain is a complex and understudied question (Smith, 1992).

Based primarily on either native speakers' intrOspective and observational data or a―‑83‑

北 星 論 集(文 )第 37号
relatively small― scale sample, several sociolinguistic studies have reported that」apanese

v7omen in gender― atypical occupational statuses in fact suffer frorn such dilemmas.

Ratherstu鵡

conflicting viev/s, however, have thus far emerged fronl the outcOme of prior research con―cerning the true nature of their linguistic solutions:de―feminization as a power― seeking inno―

vation (Reynolds, 1990), and emphatic uses of p01ite speech as a marker of their ne、

v iden―tity and dignity as women in the gender― atypical,public domain(Abe, 1992;Ide&Inoue,

1992;Ide,1993)or as female specific pOwer strategies(Smith,1992;Sunaoshi,1995).
The obiectiVe Of the present study is to account for the linguistic nature of their dilemma
solutions in more empirical and comprehensive、

comings common to prioF inVeStigation.

′
ays by compensating for tv′ o types of short―First, in order to attain a higher degree ofgeneralizability, IM/ill analyze a larger corpus frorn naturally occurring interactions at vari―

ous types of workplaces.
reports are

There is a M/ealth of evidence that native speakers' introspective

notoriously unreliable" (SankOff, 1988:145)and more likely to reflect、vhat

they think they ̀should' say rather than、 vhat they say in reality (Labov, 1972c;Wolfson,

This dL

D'Amico― Reisner,Huber,1983;Schmidt,1993).A/1oreOver,native intuitions or introspec

cludbs ltive data are likely to reduce a rich repertoire of actual language practices in cOntexta―(Wolfson, 1989:37‑44).

̀I'm菫

Second, v7hile past studies are all concerned M′ ith the sentence―level analysis of language (i.e.,'1feminine or masculine characteristics of surface

lilmlimorphosyntactic structures), I、 ァ
ill shed extensive light on the ̀emic' aspects of language

speed luse― ―――the functiOnal relationships betvァ

limiセ dcontexts of use.

een the linguistic code and specific sOciO―

culturalThis emphasis on the suprasentential accounts of language in its immediate

context of use alloM/s us to reveal female executives' strategic manipulations of language

動中

more efficiently;moreover, it also contributes to a better understanding of linguistic power―lcコ

fulness, 、
vhiCh the present study aims to show is not necessarily derived from the surface

mer Orlpo、 ver code per se, but also from the speaker―of轟崚

addressee relationships uniquely defined by lan―

to a饉

guage in context(Duranti, 1992).

fidd‐
anal通

THE SttUDY

下rhθ υαrjα ろιθθχα″ιιんθα「 Dじ rθ cι

…
1む由

jυ

̀s

As the target of my analysis, I have particularly focused on uses of directives,l one of
the lnost face― threatening speech acts,、
vith an assullnption that the linguistic dilemlnas in島

9 prOra1‑such highly face― threatening situations v′ ould confront prOfessiOnal v/omen in charge so

I・momentously that their strategic manipulations of language are most likely to rise to thedo―surface. As the analytical framework (TABLE l), I have utilized Blum―

0‑H

Kulka et al's

(1989:275‑6)systen1 0f analysis, in M′ hich several discrete components are also taken into
account in addition to the

Head Act" of directives, the exclusive domain Of analysis in past

2 L
饉

l

Directives are the attempts by the speaker to get the hearer to do something (Searle, 1976)or to refrain from ac‐…

tiOns(」 Ones, 1992)

…

‑84‑

目

A Linguistic Dilemma fOr」 apanese ProfessiOnal M/omen in Charge」apanesestudies(e.g., Smith, 1992;Sunaoshi, 1995):

RatherTABLE larch con―The Systenl of Analysis【
lng lnno―
new iden―

I. Directive& Inoue,″John′ get rne a beer′ please. :′ m terribly thirsty.″

195).

dilernlna

II Analytical Units̲

of short―

legree of1)get me a beer=the Head Act

s at varl―2)」 ohn = an alerter

3)please=a downgrader

ospective4)i′ m terribly thirsty = a postposed supportive rnOve

ect、vhatヽrolfson,This chain of directive discOurse,

ntrospec―

cludes four distinct compOnents for analysis.

l context

a beer';second, ̀」 ohn' as an attention― getter;third, ̀please' as a do、 vngrader, and lastsentence―

̀I'In terribly thirsty' as a supportive move or a grounder.

」ohn, get me a beer, please

I'ln terribly thirsty,'' in―First, the head act of the directive is ̀get me

I have found this expanded ana―

surfacelytical frameM′ ork very useful and productive for figuring out strategic aspects of directive

languagespeech acts――――the aspects that the previous studies have failed to capture using the more

)culturallimited, ̀head― act― only' framework

llmediatelanguage

Sし けCCι S αんごごαι
α/ο r αんα″s,slc pOwer―l conducted fieldwork for this study in three cities in」

apan for three mOnths of the sum―e surfacemer of 1994, v′ ith two specific goals in mind.

d by lan―of data frOm many different individuals engaged in natural v′

to attain a high degree of generalizability.

First, I tape̲recorded a fairly large amOunt
orkplace interactiOns in order

Second, through extensive observations andfield notes, I obtained a great deal of information on situational factOrs and utilized it foranalysis.

The researcher's direct observations of interactions and detailed knOwledge Of avariety of contextual constraints on the interactiOns M′ ere considered to be indispensable for
legitimate analyses of highly cOntext― bound strategies in the uses Of directives.
,l one of
コαmas

ln

As the primary corpus, I analyzed a total of 630 naturally occurring directives issued by
9 professional M′ omen in charge at their M′

Orkplaces(GrOup I)

For comparative purposes,

harge soI also took advantage of a total of 122 directives issued by 4 male company executives on Tヽ

貧 to thedocumentaries as a cOntrol grOup(GrOup II).2 TABLE 2 indicates the types Of the subiects'

a et al'soccupations and the number of directive tOkens per subiectlken into
is in pastl frolll ac―

2

These are three t、 vo― hour‐ 10ng television programs broadcast in Japan

TM′ o Of them portray success stOries Of

rich people, and the remaining program is focused on keen competition in the restaurant business in JapanAll theprograms include a number of scenes of actual everyday、 ァ
orkplace interactions bet、 ァ
een rnale executives and theirsubordinates

‑85‑

ア

集 (文 )第

北 星 論

37号

TABLE 2and ・園SubieCtS and the Number of Tokens

directi,cin the缶

G roup!:9 professional women in charge in three cities in」 apan

surface ljυNο .げ Dじ roε ιθsfor∝ fuLl division chief at a big corporation:37

l division chief at a research institute:24

l medical doctor at a university hospital:85

l c:othing store owner:42

l top executive at a foundation:

102

TC
manwg

41

1989:1覆l top executive at a sma‖printing company:l head nurse at a big hospitai:38

l section manager at a language school:l general manager at a municipal ha‖

102

forcefull

No趙
bv Pヽ

thalll bi,

115

of the司Tota1 630

gory謳

:

Pll‐ lGroup li: 4 male company executives on TV documentaries
Nο

l oompany president in restaurant‐ chain businessl oompany president in recycling businessin thelrυθs
げ Dtracι じ

23.096;」43

goricユ

23

1

PWC'sll regionai manager in fast― food business

22

ld市 ision chief at a malor COrporation

34

whole.iend of」

TOta1 122are ln劉repertoコ

RESULTS AND DISCUSS10N
CJα

ssヵ rjθαι 2jο0/∂ jraCιAs far as
rο ss― gθ んαθr cο ,η α sο ん
ι
υ
θ
s α
んαθ

those tvrιFirst, I quantitatively classified morphosyntactic structures of the head act of direc―

tives, benefiting from the analytical framev/ork used in such pioneeringover theWd、vork as Smith(1992:64‑8).I found,however,that the Smith system accommodates only 44%of the di―

SpeaL￡ F'

rective tokens l collected(333/752 forms;44%[278/630]for female data;45%[55/122]

callv(ImWhile smith based her system on dictionary definitions focusing pritrnarily

the oneon canonical types of directives、 vith transparent structures of directive morphology, I faced

to hi̲qα

for male data)。

avァ ide variety of non― canonical shapes、
vhich encOde the illocutionary force by referential

meanings of utterances rather than explicitly by morphological structures.

I argue that this

206).

1

hibit Falgap is due to at least t、 vo methodological factors;first, the majority of Smith's data is de―hich a series of commands must be framed clearly
rived frOnl scripted television sho、 vs, inヽ ア
for the audience.

Second, Smith's analytical apprOach, focusing on sentence―level directive

3 HO―
呻 q―
「1鯛曖

==

structures alone, might have missed a great deal of strategic aspects that the speaker resorts
to in negotiating for varying degrees of indirectness for face―

mot―

(12/国

saving, depending on the imme―

diate context.

for i□ rd

In any event, the most general finding, v/hich accords、
vith Smith (1992), is thatJapanese professional M′ omen in charge(PWC hereafter)are likely to speak more ̀politely'

―
‑86‑―

4

■睦 凸

fOrコ ョ議コ

A Linguistic Dilemlna for」apanese PrOfessiOnal WOmen in Chargeand ̀indirectly' in issuing directives than their male counterparts, as far as the head act of
directives is concerned.3 Regarding politeness, look at Table 3 for gender― linked differencesin the frequency and distribution of variOus surface fOrms of the head act.

The forms(i.e.,surface morphosyntactic forms Of the head act), 1) through 31), are in Order of decreasing
forcefulness and directnessi the bigger the number assigned to the form is, the less direct andforceful the directive speech act is supposed to be.4

Note that Table 3 includes only a total of 434 forms(68.99イ )out Of 630 directives issued

by PWC and a totalof 85 forms(697%)out of 122 directives by male executives.The re―maining tokens have been categorized as ̀̀nOn―

conventionally indirect acts''(Blum̲Kulka,

1989:18), v/hich are typically interpreted as requests only by contextual information rather
than by specific linguistic cues(e.g。 , directive lnorpho10gy, performative verbs, expressionsof the speaker's desire, formulaic expressions, etc.)

Significance of this particular cate―gory as PWC's strategic uses of directives is discussed later in this section.
「C tend to prefer ̀polite' variants as compared with male counterparts as representedPヽ ヽ
in their uses of the lnOst frequent forms such as｀ ゞariant 7(Verb root +23.0%;M:10.7%]and Variant l(Verb rOot tt rο
gorical use of polite Variant 12(οιθんαααsα う) [F:)[M:156%;F:0%],in Pwc's cate―sa) [F:52%;NI:0%], and ingα j sん jれ αsa//jι αsん jれ α
れθ

PWC's more frequent uses of interrogative directives (ヽ rariants 25 through 31)ノヽs awhole,it is evident that women's directive forms tend to cluster at the more indirect//politeend of the continuum as compared with men's forms;while a maiority Of men's directives
are mainly identified between Variants l(V―root十 ″ο)and 7(V root+ι θんαααsα j),women's

repertoire consists of a v′ ider variety of fOrms that are scattered belo、 vヽア
ariant 7 as、 vell.

As far as the head act is concerned,」apanese professional、 vomen in charge 、7ho often use

those types of directives may give their subordinates an impression of being incompetentof direc―over the control of po、 ver and authority.

ls Smith

WVomen's inclination for indirectness can be identified even more distinctly in the)f the di―speaker's choice Of

request perspective"(Blum̲Kulka, 1989).How the speaker linguisti―

55/122]cally encodes the recipient(i.e., the one who performs the requested act)and the agent(i.e.,)rimarily

the one v/ho issues directives)of directive speech acts in forming directives is c10sely linked:. I faced

to his or her manipulations of various face― saving strategies(Brown&Levinson,1987:190‑

ferential

206).

that thishibit varying degrees of coerciveness(Blum̲Kulka, 1989):

There are four universalistic choices Of perspectives in directive speech acts,、
vhich ex―

lta is de―d clearly

3

HOwever, the present results do not suppOrt Smith's(1992)and SunaOshi's(1995)unanimous claim that Pヽ ハ√Co specific strategies called the FnOtherese strategy and the passive power strategy (see smith

uniquely resort to tv′

dlrective[1992:77‑8]fOr their definitions and actual forms), at least in terms of frequency

tr resorts

ln the present data, themotherese strategy equivalents were used 8 7%of the time by PWC(55/630)and 98%by male executives(12/122);the passive power‐

he llnrne―

executives(4/′ 122)

strategy equivalents were used only 3 3%by PWC(21/630)and 3 3%also by maleNo gender‐ linked preference for these strategies、 vas observed (see TakanO [1997:291‑‑302]

for further discussion)is thatipolitely'4

The degree of illocutionary force of the form marked (*)in Table 3 is judged to be roughly equal to that Of theform that immediately follows‑87‑

集 (文 )第

北 星 論

37号

TABLE 3
Cross― Gender Distribution of Directives5(DIRECTNESS HIERARCHY)ヽ
VOMEN(630 Forms)

1)Verb rOOt+rO

MEN(DIRECTIVE HIERARCHY)(122 Forms)
0

19(156)

+

9(14)

2(16)

3)Verb stert+

2(03)

0

52(83)

9(74)mOraeru?/

1(02)

3(25)

itadakemasu ka?

0

4(33)

te kudasai145(230)

13(107)8)〜 o klldasai

2(03)

0

9)tanomu yO/zO

1(02)

1(08)

2)〔

庶轟

na(sai)/tyaina(sai)4)Verb root+te(ne/yO)

5)Verb root+
te goran

WOMEN

MEN

(630 Forms)(122 Forms)

28)Verb root tt tetureru?/kureru kana?/kuremasu ka?/kudasaru?/
kudasaimasu ka?

15(24)

3(25)

28(44)

3(25)u ka?/

6(10)031)Onegai dekimastl ka?

2(03)

0

29)Verb rOOt+te
moraemasu?/
moraemasen?/30)(V∝ b roOt+te)6)Verb root+
te kure7)(*)Verb rOot+

10)Verb rOOt+
te morau/te itadaku11)Vstem+Causative
Aux Vroot+
te morau/te itadaku

12)onegai shimasu/
itashimasu

2(03)

1(08)

(1 1)

0

33(52)

07

ii dyoroshii desu ka?

Form l)thrOugi1 4):̀Do X'
Form 5):̀Try doing X(and see)'Form 6),̀te kure,'t the genlnd form of themain verb plus the imperative fonn of a verb ofgiving̀kureru'(̀give')*

Form 7):̀Please do X'

te ho轟 ii

9 (1 4)14)onegai shitai/

4(06)

0

15)Verb root+1(08)makes athe spea

Form 10):̀I recelve your favor of doing X'

that thehumble form
FOrm ll): ̀I receive your favor of letting me doshitai n desu

desirodョForm 8):̀Please give(hand)me XメForm 9):■ ask you(for x,to do X)'
̀Morau'is a verb of receiv■ ng,and̀itadaku'is its13)Verb root+

In Per甲X'｀″erb stem+Causatlve voice auxiliary root+ te

itadaku(e g Ato de yomasete itadakimasu

particuLness).

:

118). 110(16)

1(08)16)doozo8(13)0Finall、 .

17)N wa ikenai

1(02)Fonn 12): ̀I ask yOu a favor'
̀Itashimasu'is the humble form Of̀shimasu'

0Form 13):̀I want yOu to do X'18)Verb stem+nai to

Levl―

4(06)

8(66)

4(06)

0

te moraitai/
te itadakltai

later')

dame/1kan⑨

̀I will receive your favor of letting me a read it

Fo「 n14): ̀I would like to ask you a favOr'
̀―

yoO dの料職げ:ハ20)N wa/Verb rOOt tel鯉 棚監/職 n。 。su8(66)ii/kekkoo da(negati■

For・ n16):̀Plette(doX)'

Form 17):̀N is no good/not a gOod idea/usele̲ss'
Fonl1 18): ̀It wouldn't,「

12(19)

0to omou)22)Verb stelll+ba

Cwant')
̀I、 vould like to receive your favor of doing X'

31(49)9 (1driving i

Forln 15)i Strategy 10 plus a desiderativè tai'21)N no/Verb plah+ttren嵐 /鷺獅λtai'is a deslderative auxiliary

the diコ田1(08)ork、 vell unless you

Tabrequest l

do X,(so yOu must do it)'Fo‐n19):̀(I think)N is necessary'
Foln 20):̀N is alright'
Fo「 l121):̀(I think)N would(might)be bet―

Form 22):̀Youぬ ould do X'or̀It would be23)Verb Stem+tai(to omOu)24)Verb stem

Ｆ

ｍ ｎ

ａ
ｒ耐
ａ
ｔ

＋

ｂ ︒
ｒ︒
ｅｄ
Ｖ＜

ｅ
ｔ
笏
ｓ

(y)oo(y。 )/mashOo(ka)26)Verb stem+
nai(ka)?

27)Verb stem+ba
ii no轟 /ii n ja nai

8(13)

0

27(43)

7(57)

8(13)

1(08)

1(02)

0

good■ fyou do X'

Form 23):̀(I think)I wantto do X'
Forln 24):̀Let'sdo X'or̀Shall we do X?'
Form 25):̀How abOut doing X?'

Form 26):̀WOn'tyOu do X?'
Form 27):̀WOudn'tit be good if you ad x?'
Form 28):̀ヽ Vi■ yOu do me the favor of doing X?'

Form 29):̀Comd l have you do X?'

Fonn 30):̀Mayldo X?'̀Yoroslui'is a polite

1(02)fonrl of̀ii'

Form 31):̀Coud l ask yOu this favor?'

6 T膿

1

ty■冷L」i̲tO‐

The otlE
The fo国
the aO―ln,OITe e

5

88)f彗

The numbers in parenthesis are percentages

―
‑88‑

￨

A Linguistic Dilemlna for」 apanese ProfessiOnal M√ omen in Charge(a)Hearer//Recipient Orientedeg。

Chο ιιοttα ιιθ.

,̀Wait a second.'(b) Speaker///Agent― oriented
」αァ
れαι
αブ
膨閉

e.g.,

j―

jο れ
gα ι
gα J sん j′ れα
sα ん
θ
sα

.

̀Then,(I)ask(you to come and see me)again in December.'(c)Inclusive (̀we'directives)Kο rθ sο ι
cん じο
んοοんθ

e.g.,

.

̀Let's put these over there, shall、ve?'(d)ImpersOnale.g,

R̀れ sん じじοι
αたαsα れsarんOι οgα んι
ι
s■νο
οdα ι
οοれοj7れ αSα れθ.

̀I think it is necessary to (have students) practice a lot'
In Perspective(a), an emphasis is given to the addressee as the person、
desired actiOn.

vho is to perform theEither overt or covert encoding of the recipient of the directive speech act

makes a strategy coercive(Brown&Levinson, 1987). In Perspective(b),an emphasis is on
the speaker himself//herself asking for accomplishment Of the requested act,which impliesX)'f do■ ngX'

墜daku is lts
tung IIle do‐ root+te

ahmasu腱 a read it

動

a

〔
週

l F2Tor'that the addressee has control over the speaker with freedom of nOn―

compliance;thus, thisparticular、 vay of framing directives is more face― saving and deferential (negative polite―

ness)

Perspective(c)is a typicalpoint― of― viewOperation" (Brown&Levinson, 1987:

118). The ̀̀inclusive" morphology mitigates the inherent coerciveness of the act by framing
the directive as collaborative、 vork and asserting the commOn ground (positive politeness).

Finally, in Perspective(d)anilnpersOnal verb"(e.g, it is necessary that.…

) (Brown&

Levinson, 1987:191)masks both the inherent issuer and recipient of the act and disguises thedriving force of the illocutionary intent as something extrinsic from the speaker'so、:domg X'′議 ′l■niesq'
疇cs vou

vn M′ 111

(negative politeness).
Table 4 presents the results of a quantitative analysis of gender―

linked differentiation inrequest perspectives of the directives classified in Table 3.6彙 )be bet

l=would be
L‐

あ X?'

n dld X?'
ご domg X?'

Fヽ a poL"F?'

6 There are two types of verbs,which perfOrm deictic functions in Japanese(Tsujimura,1996:334‑344) The first
type is the so‐called̀giving'verbs(e g"kureru,kudasaru, yaru,ageru,sashiageru),by which the speaker chooses

to focus on the giver's side in a giving//receiving event

This makes the directive act sound lnore forceful and direct

The other type is called ̀receiving' verbs(e g, morau, itadaku), by which the speaker chOoses to stand on the re‐ceiver's(the speaker's)side

The act of receiving is more focused, thus the act sounds more indirect and mitigated

The fOur perspectives become immediately problematic、 vhen v′ e deal v′ ith the complexities of the relative stance of
the agent and the recipient in the uses Of giving and receiving verbs in」 apaneseConsequently, the directives vzhich

invOlve either of these types of verbs have been excluded from the quantitative analysis88)fOr the details of the classifying procedures

―
‑89‑―

See Takano (1997:280‑

北

集 (文 )第星 論

37号

TABLE 4
Request Perspectives x Gender
Hearer― Oriented

WOrnenSpeaker― Oriented

45 99イ(107/233)

Men

83 3%
(50///60)

lnclusive

lmpersonal

309ソ

125%

107%

̀
(72/233)(29/233)

33%

117%

17%

(2/60)(7/60)(1/60)(25/233)536ソ

25 39̀

12 39̀

899イ

̀(157/293)(74/293)(36/293)(26/293)

df= 3; Chi― square = 4675; p

く 001

Figure l
moves, 1「omen's preference for indirectness in issuing directives is evident from the high frequenciesヽヽof the speaker― oriented perspective (309%) and the impersonal perspective (10.7%) ascompared with men(33%,1.7%,respectively) Men's preference for direct strategies,onthe other hand, is indicated by their frequent use of hearer―

F:45.9%).

oriented strategies(1/1:83.39イ vs

These differences between the gender groups are found statistically highly sig―

is also fc

Ourl
gation.

of imp∝presslng

Note that there is no distinct differentiation in the use of the inclusive

tive lnoT

perspective(F:12.5%;M:117%),which counters a general claim that women tend to em―

in Figu喪

nificant at p〈 .001.

phasizèsharedness' or ̀connection' with others by exploiting linguistic devices such as aninclusive pronOun, ̀we'(Lakoff, 1975).

Sι,∫uZん θ
SS
gjθ θ
αd αο
ι/ο ′ροωθιαbο rα ιιοんo/ι んθんθ′αιθThe findings from morphosyntactic analyses of the head act discussed so far simply prO̲vide another robust confirmation to the general clailln that」 apanese、 vomen speak more po―litely and indirectly than men, and an empirical fact that Pヽ VC fornl no exception.

Criticalquestions, ho、 vever, remain unanswered:How can PWC manage to exercise their authority

and leadership by speaking politely and indirectly?
in language use?

ヽ
Vhat is the source of their po、 verfulness

How can they manage to direct their subordinates efficiently M′

plicitly masculine po、 ver markers in their speech?

ithout ex―

I have found that it is crucial to take into

contextualization

One kind Of contextualization cues is concerned、The uSe ofveen the sexes, and both quantitative andＣsupportive moves is highly differentiated bet、

/ith the supportive move.7

Ｔcues" (Gumperz, 1982)and exploit them strategically in practicing face― threatening actsＤfind the key to these questions:PWC tend to innovate what is calledＮaccount the supra― sentential domains beyond the head act of individual directives in order toＶ αqualitative differences can be identified.

Ｈ 象

70ther types of contextualization cues created by PWC are discussed in deta■ in Takano (in preparation)

―
‑90‑―

A Linguistic Dilemma for」 apanese Professional VVomen in Charge

FIGURE l::::::I::″ゞ 40

Supportive Moves

X11

Figure l shoM7s that while only 20%of directives issued by male executives carry supportive

mOves, 4296 of those issued by female executives carry them.
oquenclesI.7%)asis also found statistically significant at p〈This quantitative difference.001(d.f. =1;Chi― square=11.4).

Our immediate guess to account for this gender̲linked differentiation may concern miti―

egles, on

gation.

That is, PWCM/ho want to speak indirectly are more likely to mitigate the degree

B.3%vs.

of imposition on their subordinates by providing reasons or apologetic statements, or ex―

ghly sig―pressing reluctance or hesitation to issue particular directives through the means of suppor―

inclusive

tive moves

ld to eln̲in Figure 2.

Ho、 vever, this interpretation turns out to be a mistaken assumption as sho、

lch as an

FIGURE 2
een Directness and Supportive A/1oves
Correlation bet、 ァ

︒︒
．４
︒２
︒
﹄６

21ply pro―more po―
Criticalluthority
erfulnessthout ex―take into
L Order to曰dization

Notes(see Table 3):

mg acts.

DA=Direct Acts:

ЪF use of

Variants l(Verb root tt rO)through Variants 23(Verb Stem tt

ative and

CIA=Conventionally lndirect Acts:ι
αじ[ι οοれο ])Variants 24(Verb Stem+ [y]ο ο [yO]/れ αsん οο [力 α])thrOugh Variants 31
gα ιαθ
んじ
れαsα んα7)(0れ θ

HINT=Non conventiOnally lndirect Acts:
See Pヽ VC 9's discourse sample presented belov′―‑91‑―.

vn

北 星 論 集(文 )第 37号

Direct acts(DA)(Variants l through 23 in Table 3)are usually thought of as more co―
ercive than conventionally indirect acts(CIノ ヽ) (Variants 24 through 31 in Table 3).
portive moves were a typical strategy for PWC to mitigate, v′
coercive particular directives are, the mOre frequently Pヽmitigation.

e、 vould

If sup―expect that the more

「C exploit supportive moves forヽContrary to our expectation, the uses of supportive moves M7ith those catego―

In this eコ

ries of directness do not involve much gender― linked differentiation as far as relatively coer―tilation lcive directives are concerned

ls inslde

lt is only in the use of directive hints that the huge gap in theuse of supportive mOves can be identified(F:51%̀;NI:11%)[d.f =1;Chi square=25.8;
p〈 .001].

ヽVomen use supportive lrnoves along with this least coercive type Of directives far

more extensively than men do.

vareneframing、vhen volLet us look at some examples.
tive head acts are in boldfacea、The segments in question are underlined, and the direc―

as a direPヽ VC 9, a45‑year― old director at a public assembly hall, is

illocutio
hint dLでtalking to lvll, a male subordinate in his 60s.

The
addresse

Supportive lvloves as a Contextualization Cue:Example8

indirectE

SITUAT10N:Pヽ VC 9,Director at a public assembly hall for women,talking to athis exaI

male,̀uchi'(ingroup)subOrdinate in his 60s(Ml)or the〔 祀9 issues

F9: 力αんん,sθ んοんθ∨

tlonary lαιιοο′πο膨んαθsαπjι θんじα ωαんαたθιθοたじὶlFou knoM′ , the ventilation fan?

The

I'In thinking that(we)should leave it on

moves alquence aduring the daytilne.'transfor

卜11:xxx[xx]mon goa

F9:[ん αみαれ ′α]れ αθsa.

fronl th('ὰ(The switch)is inside(the building)'
Pο Zι ιDθ んαθ
rα ι
οんじんi sα ,7れ αSθ んgα

̀平

,

Ano

̀Then, sorry to bother, but, when you leave,

Ml:Hα j″ α力αrι

concerns
tions of[れ αsん jι α.]with stv

̀Yes, I understand.'8」apanese transcriptions are based on Du Bois, et al's(1993)system Each line represents a single intonation unit
(Chafe, 1993)

Maior symbols include:[ ] (speech overlap): (transitional continuity [in terms of intonational

contours]is final);,(transitional continuity is continuing); // (rising terminal pitch);̲ (leveling terminal pitch):^(emphatic accent); = (lengthening);(N)(long pause with seconds N):(medium pause); (short pause);@ (laughter):〈 @ @〉 (laugh quality); x (indecipherable syllable): & (intonation unit continued):((¨searcher s comment)) (re―) ' ' contains equivalent Japanese translations, in v′ hich ( }indicates the illocutionary in―tention the speaker is hinting at‑92‑

A Linguistic Dilemlna for」apanese ProfessiOnal WOmen in Charges lnore co―F9:[α れοs ′ccん ′ο.]). If sup―̀um,{turn Off}the switch'

Lthe more
EE10VeS fOr
駿 catego―In this example, the first tv′ o supportive mOves are preparatory moves: ̀you knoMち the ven―

lvely coer―tilatiOn fan?

gap in theis inside that room.'

re=25.8;

awareness and set up a factual environment leading to the upcoming act

記tlves far

framing, the third supportive mOve functions as an apologetic move, ̀Sorry to bother, but,

I'In thinking that v′ e should leave it On during the daytilne,' and ̀the sv/itch

These supportive moves raise the topic in questiOn to the hearer's、vhen you leave the office.'

Concluding theIt succeeds in signaling to the addressee the upcoming sequence

the direc―

as a directive.

The addressee, her male subordinate,immediately responds to the speaker's

ly hall, is

illocutionary intention positively, and he states, ̀Yes, I understand,' overlapping with her
hint directive, ̀that switch,' in the end.
The directive― giver、 vho adopts hint strategies in general runs the risk of relying on theaddressee's free 、ァ
ill for compliance.

」apanese PWC v″ ho tend tO have preference forindirectness seeln to take advantage of supportive moves to compensate for this risk.
lking to aIn

this example, the supportive moves function as contextualization cues to ̀preset' the frameor the scene for the upcoming statements to be recognized as a directive

By the time PWC

9 issues the directive itself, her intent becornes quite obvious to the addressee.

Her illocu―

tionary act is empowered through the manipulation of these contextualization cues.
The combination of highly indirect strategies and situationally relevant supportive
eave lt on

moves also a1lo、 vs the speaker to create natural traieCtOries of events.

The natural event se―quence a1lows the subordinates to feel they comply with the requested act by themselves.

Bytransforming the act of directing into a more egalitarian act of cooperation toM/ard a com―

mon goal, PWC are likely to succeed in receiving willing, voluntary support and compliance
frolln their subOrdinates without damaging their face.

Pο Zjι θ,ρ θθ̀んαS αJι ルgα ι
sι じ
c ωθ
αροれ

Another intriguing example of contextualization cues innovated by PWC in particularconcerns their preference for polite speechl have observed that, contrary to naive percep―

tions of polite speech as powerless lnarkers, PWC seem tO utilize polite speech in cOniunCtiOnv′

ith style― shifting as a useful linguistic、

veapon.

奎EttOn unlt
叡=2● onal■´'pi¨ h);
口菫 pa… ):
卜
に̲))(

―

‑93‑

北

le―

星

Shiftin論

集 (文 )第37号

as a ContextualizatiOn Cue
11

12

13
14
15
16

ThrougL

unmarkshe lssu(

There are tuァ o styles differentiated by the forms of the predicate in Japanese:direct―

lng sure

informal style and distal― formal style.Especially in highly confrontational phases of inter―prepar∝actions, Pヽ VC seenl to manipulate upM′ ard shifts from direct to distal;namely, casual towhat thlformal, intimate to distant, in― group to out― group, and positive― face to negative― face orien―ln lshifting (Gumperz, 1982)in or―

somethitation.

I define this particular move as rnetaphorical style―der to obtain po、 ver and authority from the immediate context of use.

Here are some illus―

at the Piparing a

trations.

carry.

Upward Shift:Example

conslsteSITUノ ヽTION:Pヽ VC 5 at a small meeting involving 6 participants around a table.

l Pヽ VC 5:ス[jcん jι

rtt
ι
οsん ι
ι
αたθ
たんαgα &α θ

ν00れ ι
,F5:I want you to manage(the upcomingwith hel

event of student exchange) so that satis―

tionship2απO=れ Oι ιθ′ιιθんοsん ′
J.

factory outcomes can be obtained.

θDe αttθ =Taん αたα―sα んσα,Then, um, lvlr Tanaka,(you)

イ
δ

λι
cん ιι
ιοzθ ttι αじοttα ι
Ottθ ὶ.
j′̲4ん ο=αθん しααんοtake good care of the M′um, as lnuch as possibleδ

れαたαれjん αjι ιθget yourself involved,

hole process.

(in the actual activities)cん οん sι ιsιθJん
れ′yα ιyο ο
2,group.

and get things under your direct control.

ι
θ
sん じ

At
made aIIstyle.

1

plckingl illllspeakeraction、
directiv(

.

=&
&

Dθ ι
αんι
οοsん α ωαθAnd while WIs

subordLyαれαごα―sα んιOノα

Yamada ls the persOn lngroup blんjれ οんαλααθんαιαεcharge(at the site).

style to

8

Иι
̲. ゴ
んんαれι

To everyone,

her insti

9sん じ ιθ
んjん じltlα
ノαんαrj sα ι

10

pα ′
αzα んοれι
れれαれι

report to everyone atんοολολ sん じι οsん ′じ屁&the Plaza after all.

,

&

̀ん

(I)ultimately want you to

,

‑94‑―

tion lil憲

S、 itext, thA Linguistic Dilemina fOr」apanese ProfessiOnal WOmen in Charge

αeslt yο んθ
.

11.… Sο rθ

ωα οんじιαrι

んαrαThe two of you,̀みum,please report(how the event goes to12ιθ た ααsα J.
…αれ0..λ 00λ οた ̀esん じ

130″ αιι
ααιο

14Sα むοんοttα ι
Oれ θん
α
ん0ご θ

Because this、 vill be the

15んjbisん jた しsynthesis(of the proieCt), Strictly,

16

αれ0=.. θθノαιιθι
たし&た οι
οれjI will be doing(demanding)from nOw on

everyone)after it's over
,

,

s′

じれαsこ ιjァ.

Throughout the fieldwork, I observed that PWC 5 talked M′ ith the other participants in an
unmarked, direct― casual style almost all the time
she issued the directives in the same styleAlso in Line 2, in Line 4, and in Line 6,

Up to Line 6, the speaker had simply been llnak―

鯰 :direct―

ing sure、 vhat each participant M′ ould take charge of at the upcoming convention they had

3 0f inter―prepared.

犠 ual tov′

So what she Mァ as asking them tO do is not highly face― threatening because it Mァ as

hat they had expected to be asked.

ace orlen―

In Line 10, however, she issues a highly imposing directive to have her subordinates do82)in Or̲

something brand― new, んοοたοたしsん ,ι θんοsん jjれ αθsα ノοれ0(̀IM′ ant you to repOrt to everyone

ome illus―

at the Plaza after all.'). There were rnore than 100 staff Fnembers at this workplace, so pre―paring and giving a formal presentation v/as quite a heavy burden for the subordinates tocarry.

The atmosphere of the xneeting suddenly changed.

Up to this point, the speaker had

consistently spoken in casual― informal style, acting as a co― participant of the discussion

group

By doing so, she had managed to maintain relatively close、

EEPCOInlng

with her subordinates, seeking their collaboration and willing support.

罐 t satis―

tionships M′ ere being masked.

L:3撻 5̲

mmtrol.

At the point she issued the highly imposing directive, ho、
made an upward shift.
style.

vorking relationships
Hierarchical rela―vever, she rather abruptly

She sv′ itched her unmarked, casual style to a marked, polite― formal

In Line 12, she again repeats the same directive in the same, polite―

formal style,picking t、 vo particular subordinates present.

I interpret her upward shift as one clear example of lnetaphorical style shifting for the
speaker to negotiate her marked identity.

In facing the confrontational phases of the inter―action、 vhere her authority might be challenged, the speaker takes up the polite, formal style
directive to indexicalize or re― define her higher rank identity different from the loM′ er rank

subordinates

The speaker, 、
vho had been identifying herself as part of the subordinate

group by using the unmarked direct, intimate style, no、
style to segregate herself from the in―group membership.

ァexploits the marked polite― formal

By doing so, the speaker brings

her institutional role and professiOnal authority back to the surface, and dra、 vs a demarca―
tion line of status and power from her subOrdinates.
Switching tO polite― formal style also increases the degree Of formality of the、 vhole con―text, thus further increases the seriousness of that particular act.

‑95‑―

Shifting to the polite―北 星 論 集(文 )第 37号
formal style, the speaker succeeds in finishing up her address as if her request is institution―Cο d勧

ally sanctioned, thus nOn― negotiable.

Durantl.
spect

UniTc

CONCLUS10N

Gumper2
In conclusiOn, this study demOnstrates clear cases
defined and cOntext― defining.

、vhere language is bOth context―

The speakers' choices of particular directive strategies aremotolcontext― defined, in that」 apanese PヽVC、vho are subieCt tO norms of indirectness and polite―

ness vary their language use appropriately to the face̲threatening cOntext of use.

1de, SacL

devel(At theIde, S, dsame time, their strategic uses Of directives a10ng v′ ith the invented contextualization cuesCa暉

are context― defining.

Strategic uses of supportive moves help define a cOntext、

comes natural for subordinates to comply voluntarily、vith requested acts

vhere it be―」ones, E

Especially inLanghighly confrontational phases Of interactions, metaphorical style― shifts alsO help define and」ugaku,maintain a cOntext、 vhere asymmetrical statuses of the two parties are evoked to the surface

Sh董鳩and maintained fOr the requested acts to succeed.

(1

re have also gained a better understanding of relationships bet、ヽヽveen linguistic politenessand communicative power.This study reieCtS a common,a priori assumption that indirect,
polite v′ ays of speaking lead to the speaker's powerlessness in communication.

.(1

By expand―ing the traditional sentence― level analysis, this study demonstrates that communicative
po、 ver does not al、 vays have tO be driven frOm explicit surface manifestations Of the po、

378:1

ver―

ful code per se, but can also be derived from multiple dilnensiOns of linguistic faculty inter―

60‑6
.(1

36.
.(1

acting、 vith the immediate context of use.

0f aI

Kanema=[REFERENCES]
Abe, Keiko (1992).

駒 αス
卜loo sukOshi Okiri ni nattara ̀suteki' desu yo":」atarashii kiri̲kuchi(It、 ァould bèfantastic'if you cut a little lnore:NeM′

osei― gokenkyuu noperspectives on the

study of women's language) Gθ れgο 21(7):66‑69

120.

Blum― Kulka et al(1989).pp.37‑70.

NIashimc

Blum― Kulka,S,HOuse,」,&Kasper,G (eds)(1989)Crο ss― Cοιοgι es.Norwood,N」 :Ablex.

ιι
αrα ιPrα gれ αι
じcsI Rθ 9s̀sι

Bourdieu, Pierre.(1977) The econOmics oflinguistic exchanges SOcjα ιScι οれca ra/。 rれ αιじ
0れ 16(6):645‑668

BrOwn,P,&Levinson,S (1987).Pο

Sho使

Labov,輌

Blum Kulka, ShOshana (1989). Playing it safe:The role of cOnventionality in indirectness. In

αれdKindaicL

TOok
lvlogami,titud(

NakamtuZιὶη ̀ssI SOれ

でしれιυθrsα ιs ι
れLα れg agο びsαge.

Cambridge:Cambridge University Press

Oohu
Nakano,Chafe, Ⅵ″
allace L (1993). Prosodic and functiOnal units oflanguage. In」 .A.Edwards at 1/1.D.

Dα Ji

Lampert (eds.), 7α ι
たjれ g Dα ι
αr rrα れscrゎ ιじοれ αれa c。 ごじれg ι
れ Dι scο rse Rθ sθ αrcん

Reynold〔Hillsdale, N」 :Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 33‑43

Du Bois,」 .ヽ V,Schuetze― Coburn,S.,Cumming,S.,&Paolino,D.(1993).Outline Of discOurse
transcriptiOn ln」 .A.Edwards&M.D.Lampert(eds.), 7α Zた jれ g Dα ι
αr rrα れscrゎ ιιοれαれα―‑96‑―

McG]
RosenbelBachA Linguistic Dilemma for」 apanese Professional Women in Charge
stitutiOn―Cο αι
れgjれ 」
Dι scο

rsθ Resθ αrcん

Duranti, Alessandro (1992)

Hillsdale, NJ:La、 vrence Erlbaum pp 45‑89

Language in context and language as contextithe Samoan re―spect vocabulary.In A Duranti & Goodwin(eds.), Rθ ιんι
れたじ
れg Cο れιθχι Cambridge
University Press pp. 77‑99.

Gumperz,」 ohn(1982)Dじ scο rse Sι ′αιοgι οs.Cambridge:Cambridge University Pressi context―

lde, Sachiko (1993) Sekai nO jOsei― go, nihon no josei― go:」 osei― go kenkyuu nO shin― tenkai O

tegles are

motomete(Women's languages of the wOrld,wOmen's language of」 apan:TOward a newnd p01ite―

development of studies of、 ′omen's languages) rftん οれgο gα たし12:4‑12.

1ヽ t the̲

ltlon cues
bere it be―lecially in

lefine andbe surface

Ide, S, &Inoue, N/1 (1992) 」Osei kotoba ni miru aidentitii(Identities in、Gθ れgο

/Omen's language)21(10):46‑47」ones, Kimberly (1992)A question of context:Directive use at a morris team meeting.
ZLα

れg αgθ :れ Sο οjθ ιノ 21(3):427‑445

Jugaku, Akik。 .(1979) Arじ んοれgο ιο Oれれα (The 」apanese language and v7omen) Iwanami
Shinsho 99 Tokyo:I、 /anami Shoten
たαι
vomen speaking freely?) Gο れgο Sο じ―――――・ (1984) Onna wa jiyuu ni shabette iru ka(Are、

politenessL lndirect,

F expand―378:14‑20
・‑― ―――

60‑63

tulucative
he pOwer―晨tT Inter―(1985). Onna― rashisa tO nihOngo hyOOgen (ヽ Vomanliness in」 apanese). Gθ 、Rο 14 (12):420:28‑.(1986) Yuu― na no sokO ni(what underlies women's silence) Gβ れgο Sο じたαιs36‑― ――― (1990).

Onna to kotOba:Tada ima nOjookyoO de(Women and speechithe current stateof affairs) Gο たたαれかれんο,2gο 3(2):4‑5

Kanemaru, N(1988)「ιヽ
んοれgο」oseigo (VVomen's language) In kindaichi et al (eds.),ιθれ (An Encyclopedia Of」 apanese), Chapter 10, Section 2. pp. 557‑562.
助 αたたα Dα ヴι
壺kvuu nOl￢

堅3 0n theKindaichi, IIaruhikO (1969)「ιヽんοれgο (」 apanese) Iwanami Shinsho 265. TOkyO:I、 ハ″
anami

ShotenLabov, ヽVilliam (1972). SOme principles Oflinguistic methOd01ogy.Lα

疇

・

In

れgじ αgθ ιれSο ει
θι
ノ1:97‑

120.

1/1ashilnO, Saburoo (1969) 二Lげ ιれgο れοKeれ たyα α (A Study of Women's Language). TokyO:
Rc9

轟

esι s

MOgami,Katsuya(1986)Hataraku josei no kotoba no ishiki(Working women's linguistic atοπ 16

titudes) Ioο sο οKeれ たッιοCん οοsα ll:14‑28. TOkyO:NHK.

Nakamura, Akira (1989) rヽ「jん 。72gο Gα じsθ ιs(A general course in」 apanese) TokyO:

OohuushaNakano, H
Eと M̲D.
EattParcん.

(1980) Goi no isoo(Lexical variatiOn). In KOkugo Gakkai(ed.), Kο たしgοgα たし

Dα ヴι
οれ (An Encyclopedia of National Language Studies). TokyO:T00kyoo―
ιdOO

Reyn01ds,Katsue A。 (1990).Female speakers of」 apanese in transition ln S Ide&NH
N/1cGloin(eds),A,ρ οcι s o/」apα れθsθ Iグ ο′ησが s Lα れg αgθ TOkyo:KurOshio.pp 129‑144』i目 oourse

歯Tookyoo― doo菫ごRosenberger, Nancy R.(1994). Indexing hierarchy through」 apanese gender relations ln J A/1

Bachnik&C J Quinn, Jr (eds), Sじ ιしαιθごMoα れ」れgf fasじ dθ αれdO―‑97‑―

rapα れθsじ ∂れしsο Sο みι
θじら

北集 (文 )第星 論

37号[AbstraSο cι θιν, αれ∂Lα 72gじ αgθ . Princeton, N」 :Princeton University Press. pp. 88‑112

Sankoff, David (1988). SOciolinguistics and syntactic variatiOngα jsι ιLι れ
csr ttLθ Cα れ brじ こ
なθS

ln F J Nelvmeyer (ed.),θf1/1 771ο Sο cjο ̲CaZι αrα ιCο れιθχι. Cambridgey, yozα′υθUniversity Press pp 140‑161
Schlnidt, Richard.(1993) COnsciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics ln G
Kasper& S.Blurn̲Kulka (eds), 171ι θ′ι
αれg αgθ P7・ αgれ αι
tcs Oxford:OxfOrd University

Press pp 21‑42.
(1976) ノゝclassification Of illocutiOnary acts Lα れgα αgθ ι
y 5:1‑23れSoε じθιSearle, 」 R

Smith, 」anet S (1992). P01iteness& directives in Japanese women's speech. Lα

れg

a6・

οι
れ

Sο ctaι ν 21(1):59‑82」apa
greater e]

Sunaoshi, Yukako.(1995). Your bOss is yOurrnother":」 apanese v/Omen's construction Of an

particulaauthOritative positiOn in the、 ′Orkplace reχ αs Lじ 71b・ ιsι ιc Fο ′
Itη 2 34:175‑188 Department

litely.'of Linguistics. University Of Texas at Austin.

even plaF

Suzuki, TOmOkO (1981)」
Arι んο
れB

Osei― go ni taisuru ishiki(Attitudes towards、vOmen's

language)れgα たし 46:62‑70 TOkyO:RikkyoO University

prescribecourse ln

TakanO,ShOli(1997)7ん θ ν ンιん げ α 〃οれ οgθ れθο S ttOacん Cο れ れ しれ ινr Dttσ ttο θcん o/Given su

JQρ αれesθ N、 れ ο72じ れSヽれ̲ι ′ααじιιοれαιGο れαar Rο ι
es. Doctoral Dissertation The University

statusesof ArizOna

femlnlne̲̲̲̲̲ (2000) The myth Of a hOmOgeneous speech cominunity:´ i sOci。 linguistic study of the
speech of Japanese、 ″omen in diverse gender roles The 2000 Singles lssue Iれιο′72α ιじ
0れ αZ」oα ′れαZ o/ι んιSocι οιοBυ O/Lα れg αgοauthorit〔this dilell

or a relat――――― (in preparation) Re― examining linguistic po、 /erfulness:Strategic uses of directives by」apanese professiOnal、 /Omen in positiOns Of authority and leadership NIanuscript

actions h

Takasaki, lvlidori (1988)

large nurゝ
/1osaku̲ki nO iOSei̲go (ヽ Vomen's language in a groping period)Kο ιοια 9:23‑40

TakenObu,

ecutives,

Ⅳlieko (1994).Arじ んοれ Kab

sん じたιGα じsん α れο Oれ 72 αιαεんj(ヽ Vomen

in Japanese corpo̲

rations). Tokyo:Asahi Shinbun̲sha.
(ヽVhy debates On honrifics in」 apanese?)

Observatings" of

213

TSuiimura, NatsukO (1996)ス れ J72ι rO∂ cι じοれ ιο Jttα れσsO Lじ れgし じsι tcs Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell

Wolfson, Nessa (1989) Parsρ ′cι ιυθSi Sο ειο れgα じsι じcs αれd「ESOL BostOn, MA:Heinle &Zι

Heinle Publishers

Wolfson,N,D'AmicO̲Reisner,L,&Huber,L.(1983)How to arrange for social cOmmit̲
ments in American English:The invitatiOn ln N W01fsOn&E」 udd(eds.),
Sο ctο ιれgα ιsι ι
cs αれd Lα れgof the us
the speal

Tanaka, Akio (1969). Keigo rOngi wa naze okoru
Gο れgο Sο ι
たαι
s

This

stι ι
οれ ROwley, 1/1A:Newbury HOuse pp l16‑128.
αgο Ac9α じ―‑98‑―

A Linguistic Dilemma fOr」 apanese ProfessiOnalヽ Vomen in Charge[Abstract]Fer(ed.),Speaking politelỳbut'powerfully:A Linguistic
Dilernrna for」 apanese PrOfessiOnalヽ VOmen in Charge

Iallnbridgecs.In G.
niversity

Sholi TAKANO
―錦

.

ge ιれ

印

Japanese culture is often referred to as a proto―

typical negative― face culture v/ith agreater emphasis on indirectness and politeness in interpersonal communication.

ヽVomen in通on of an

particular are the vanguard of such normative behaviors, speaking ̀indirectly' and ̀po―

つ artment

litely.'As an increasing number of、 vomen are engaged in marketplace activities and areeven playing a traditionally male role of leadership and authority in their M/orkplaces, themguage).

prescribed、 ′ays of speaking have cOnfronted professional women、
vho need to manage dis―course in a socioeconomically appropriate way― ―――speaking assertively and po、 verfully.
助 ′σεん 0/

Given such a sociolinguistic clilnate, 」apanese 、
vomen in gender― atypical occupational

1n■ versity

statuses suffer from a ̀̀linguistic dilemma" in ch00sing bet、

veen the traditional prescribedfeminine v′ ays of speaking and the communicative need to talk po、 verfully frOm theirld▼rof theこιじοれαZauthoritative roles in the、′
orkplace.

ヽ
Vhile conflicting viev/s on the linguistic s01ution forthis dilemma have been proposed based on either native introspective and observational dataor a relatively small― scale sample, no large― scale empirical study of natural M7orkplace inter―亜 ves byactions has been conducted for a further understanding of the issue.
This paper investigates 9 female executives'strategic uses of directive speech acts in apt.

「period).

large number of actual workplace interactions and cOmpares them with those of 4 male ex―ecutives, who act as a control group5,corpO―ゝ/1oving beyond the traditional sentence―of the use of feminine(or masculine)morphosyntactic variants, the present study analyzes
the speakers'strategies of ̀̀contextualization"

脚ese?).

level analysis、
vhich lie in the larger domain of discourse

Observations of the、 vorkplace interactions also a1loM′

us to interpret thesituated mean̲ings" of the acts involving a variety of factOrs in the immediate contexts of language use.
鑽 。 MA:

EIemle &∞…

lt―

16‑‑128.

―‑99‑