contemporary

poraryChinelinguisticpoliteness

YulingPana,Da

´

´

da

´

rb,*

Bureau,10201WoodvalePondDrive,FairfaxStation,VA22039,USA

bDepartmentofOrientalStudies,RearchInstituteforLinguistics,HungarianAcademyofSciences,Benczúrutca33,BudapestH-1068,Hungary

uction

TheaimofourpaperistoprovideacomparativeoverviewofhistoricalandcontemporaryChinepoliteness,hence

demonstratingthemajorgapthatexistsbetweenthepoliteness‘systems’inghistoricaland

contemporaryChinelinguisticpolitenessischallenging,duetothefactthatthepracticesofChinepolite

communicationundourofthis

period,whichisbrieffromadiachronicperspective,thehistoricalnormsofdeferentialcommunicationpractically

disapperge-scalechange–which

resultedin,amongotherthings,thedisappearanceoftheextensivehistoricalChinehonorificlexiconofveral

thousandwords(

´

da

´

r,2007)–isauniquephenomenonbecauinotherlanguagesthereisnocomparablegulf

between‘historical’and‘contemporary’politenessnorms(forexample,nolinguisticpolitenessanthology,suchas

HayashiandMianmi(1974)orHickeyandStewart(2005)mentionsasimilarphenomenon).Thisisnottosaythat

mple,asrearcherssuchasKohnen(2008)andJucker

(2010)demonstrate,politenessinEnglandunderwentverallargechangesinitshistory;however,thedevelopmentof

iquegulfbetween‘historical’and

‘contemporary’inChineleadsmanyrearchersandlaymentoformulateambiguousviewsonChinepolitebehavior

(,2000a).Aswenotedelwhere,

JournalofPragmatics43(2011)1525–1539

ARTICLEINFO

Articlehistory:

Received29March2010

Receivedinrevidform22July2010

Accepted20October2010

Availableonline15December2010

Keywords:

Politeness

Chine

Historical

Contemporary

Postcolonial

ABSTRACT

TheprentpaperprovidesacomparativesurveyofhistoricalandcontemporaryChine

politeness,hencecontributingtopostcolonialpragmaticsandlinguisticpoliteness

sauniquegulfbetweenhistoricalandcontemporaryChinepoliteness,

whichislargelyduetotheinflhina

wasinfactpartiallycolonizedonly,theinvasionbyforeignimperialistpowershadastrong

nstratingthegulf

between‘historical’and‘contemporary’,thispaperprovidesanunprecedentedcastudy

fortheinfllysisisdividedintotwo

firstpart,ction2ofthepaper,analyzestheideologies,normsandpracticesof

historicalChinepoliteness,anddemonstratesthathistoricalChinepolitenesshad

somefeaturesthatmadeitvulnerabletolargescalesocio-historicalchangesthatledtothe

n3,afterreviewingpolitenessnormsand

ideologiesincontemporaryChina,examinethesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetween

historicalandcontemporarypracticesofpolitecommunication.

ßhtsrerved.

*.:+36;fax:+3613229297.

E-mailaddress:@(),kadarz@,danielkadar@(

´

da

´

r).

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

JournalofPragmatics

journalhomepage:/locate/pragma

0378-2166/$–efrontmatterßhtsrerved.

doi:10.1016/.2010.10.018

[i]thasbeenachallengetorearchmodernChinepolitenessduetothemultiplelayersofsocietalchangesthatimpact

sadisconnectionbetweenthemodernandtraditionalChineintermsofthe

nehand,theChinepeoplearefamedfortheirlongtraditionofpoliterituals

andpolitevocatives,andontheotherhand,modernChinepolitenessbehavioremstobequitedifferentanddistant

fromthe‘famous’ult,thereemstobeamythaboutChinepoliteness.(Pan,2008:328)

Thistopicisofrelevancefromtheperspectiveofpostcolonialsociolinguistic/sociopragmaticstudies,thatis,explorations

oflanguageuinsocietieswhichwerepreviouslycolonized;itisparticularlyintriguingfromtheaspectofpostcolonial

politenessrearch,arelativelynewarea(perhapsthefirstextensivevolumeonthisthemewaditedbyMühleinand

Miggein2005).Thisisduetothefactthatthecollapofhistoricalpolitenesswasinitiallygeneratedbyforeignpowers’

invasionofChinastartinginthe1840s,andthesubquentcolonizationofcertainregionsofthecountry,andsothe

formationofmodernChinepolitenessisapostcolonialevent(emorebelow).Asisdiscusdelwhere(PanandKa

´

da

´

r,

2011),themainmotivatingfactor1behindtheaforementionedlarge-scalechangeofChinepolitenesswasthefactthatthe

Chinesufferedariesoultofthis,many

Chinebrokewiththeirtraditionalnormsandvaluesfirstduringthelatterpartofthe19thcenturyandtheyearsafter1911

(thefoundationoftheRepublicofChina)olonizationhas

resultedinthegradualdisappearanceofnativelanguagesandsociolinguisticcustomsinmanycountries(Spolsky,2004:

83–86),asfarastheauthorsareaware,thereisnootherlanguageinwhichthereissuchaclear-cutdifferencebetween

‘historical’and‘contemporary’,theanalysisinthispaperprovidesauniquecastudyfortheinfluenceof

nmanyothercolonizedcountriesthecolonist’slanguagedirectlyinfluencedthe

locallanguagebylanguagetransfersorcode-mixingandcode-switching(forexample,code-switchingbetweenEnglishand

ChinehasbeenacceptedasthenormalwayofspeakinginHongKong,eLi,1996),thecaprentedinthispapershows

amoresubtleinfluenceofcolonizationonnativelanguage.

Tounderstandthissubtlety,webrieflymentiontheimpactofariesofforeigninvasionsthatturnedChinaintoami-

colonizedstateanditsingfromtheFirst

OpiumWarwithBritishforces(1839–1842),Chinawasdraggedoutwithbrutalphysicalforcefromalf-dependent

isolationthathadbeenineffectsincethetimeoftheMingDynasty(1368–1644).TheChinepopulationlookedattheir

countryasthemost‘civilized’realmintheworld,usnotsurprising

thattheChineweredumbfoundedbythehumiliatingdefeatsufferedduringtheFirstOpiumWarandthesubquent

wars.2Buttheshockwasduenotonlytothetechnologyofwarfare,butalso,perhapsmoreimportantly,todifferencesin

newhocameincontactwithWesterninvaders3realizedthatduringthecenturiesofisolationfromtherest

ial,legal,scientific,medicalandothersystemsofthe

English,andothernationsthatsubquentlyformedcoloniesinChina,emedtobemoredevelopedthantheirtraditional

tobeshouldbeemphasizedbecautheChineevaluationofthe‘West’wasatleast

partiallyinfluencedbyimperialistandcolonizationideologies.4Whateverthetruthis,thenewsituationledtheChineelite

cllmembersoftheelite(andthoofother

socialgroupsthatbecametherulingeliteinthecomingyears)begantocriticizetraditionalChineculture,inparticular,

Confucianism,andarguedfortheadoptionofWesternculture(Jin,1993).Immediatemodernization(i.e.‘Westernization’,

emoreinRuhiandKa

´

da

´

r,2011)emedformanytobethecorrectanswertothemenacingsituation.

Asaresult,anti-traditionalistntimentsarofirstin1919,duringtheso-calledMayFourthMovement(Wu-Si-yundong

),w

(1

,1

1Itshouldbenotedthattheauthorsdonotintendtosuggestthatcolonizationwastheonlymotivatingfactorbehindthediachronicchangestudied;yet,

itcanbearguedthatitwasthemostimportantwithinagroupoffactors.

2TheFirstOpiumWarwassoonfollowedbytheSecondOpiumWar(1856–1860).

3SleofChinadidnotbecomeacolonizedcountrylikeIndiaor

Singapore,butinsteadtheinvadingpowersconqueredcertainterritoriesinwhichtheyestablishedcolonieswithextraterritorialrights.

4AsLi(2007:23)fromtheDutchscholarHansvandeVen,pointsout,‘‘theQingwasill-preparedtodealwithBritain’snavalchallengenotbecauitwasa

backwardcountryoraConfuciansocietywithlittleregardforthemilitary,butbecauithadfaceddifferentsortsofmilitarychallengesandfolloweda

differentpathofmilitarydevelopmentthanBritain’’.Thatis,itwouldbequitesimplistictoarguethatChinesocietywasless‘developed’thanBritish

societyandwasconquentlydefeatedbythelatter,anaccusationoftenmadebyMarxisttheoristsagainst‘feudal’withscholarssuchasvan

deVenandLiabove,wewouldarguethatthesituationwasmorecomplex:ghWesternsocialand

scientificresultsmighthaveemedtobehighlydevelopedandtemptingtomanyChine,thesocialsuperiorityoftheBritishwasatleastpartlyamyth,

whichrvedthefinancialandideologicalgoalsoftheconquerors.

,

´da´r

/JournalofPragmatics43(2011)1525–1539

1526

wholeofChinawasneverruledbyasinglecolonialgovernment(unlike,forexample,veralSouthAsianstatesorIndia),

foreignpowersinvadedthecountry,obtainedextraterritorialrightsandconqueredcertaincoastalregionsascolonies,that

is,venmoreimportantly,inWesternrhetorictheChineweretypically

treatedas‘culturalothers’,touSpivak’s(1988)isbackgroundinminditemstobeareasonable

approachtoapplypostcolonialtheorizationonChinedata.

Duetospacelimitations,theprentworkonlydescribespolitenessinhistoricalandcontemporaryChina,without

providingeitheranin-depthanalysisofthetransitionalperiod,duringwhichthereplacementofoldwithnewactuallytook

place,form,theprentpaperisapreliminaryreportonarearchprojectof

theauthors(emoreinPanandKa

´

da

´

r,2011).Inotherwords,ourgoalistodemonstratethesociolinguistic/pragmatic

impactofcolonizationthroughthechangeofChinepolitenessideologies,ratherthandealingwiththelanguagepolicyand

normsofthecolonizationera,thatis,thedirectinflore,whilewecomparthepre-

andpostcolonialtimes,the‘colonization’in-betweenistreatedinanabstractway:wepresuppoitspolitenessideology-

changingpower,relyingonhistoricalstudiessuchastheworksofOsterhammel(1989,2005).

firstpart,ction2,analyzestheideologies,normsand

lofthisctionistodemonstratethatwhilehistoricalChinepolitenessis

completelydifferentfromitscontemporarycounterpart,ithadsomefeaturesthatmadeitvulnerabletolarge-scalecolonial

andpostn3,afteroverviewingpoliteness

normsandideologiesincontemporaryChina,examinesthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenhistoricaland

contemporaryChinepolitenessbyanalyzinglinguisticpolitenessinthedifferentunitsofdiscour,aswellasits

onclusion,wearguethatwhilecontemporaryandhistoricalpolitenesssharesome

commoncharacteristics,infacttheyaretoodifferenttobepartsofthesamelinguistictraditionor‘system’,which

demonstratestheinfluenceofcolonizationonChinesociety.

ThispaperfollowsadiachronicorderbyfirstsurveyinghistoricalChinepolitenessandthenoverviewingthenormsand

beginningtheanalysis,abriefdescriptionofourtheoreticalviewregarding

erisanchoredtosomeextenttorecenttheorizationsofpoliteness(e.g.,Mills,2003;Ka

´

da

´

r

andMills,2011)inthatwe–somewhatcautiously–donotclaimthatourinterpretationofpolitenessideologiesandbehavioris

llmakeclearbelow,sinceweexploremajordiachronic

changesinChinepoliteness,ldbeaddedthat

theprentanalysisinlimitedinscope,inthenthatweintentionallylimitouranalysisonlytotheformalaspectsof

politeness(emoreonthisprobleminPanandKa

´

da

´

r,2011).

nessinhistoricalChina

First,theprentctionstudiesthedominantideologiesandnormsthatinfluencedpolitenessbehaviorinlateimperial

China,andthenitprovofthectionisto

demonstratethefactthatwhilehistoricalChinepolitenessfundamentallydifferedfromitscontemporarycounterpart,for

veralreasonsitwasopentothelarge-scalechangethatledtotheformationofcontemporaryChinepoliteness.

Beforedelvingintotheanalysis,itisnecessarytoprovideabriefaccountofthehistoricalperiodsthatwearegoingto

el‘historical’hefoundation

oftheRepublicofChinain1911,andinfactfromtheperspectiveofthepolitenesshistorianthisisratherahomogenous

periodinmanyrespects(Ka

´

da

´

r,2007).However,intheprentpaperonlythefinalphaofhistoricalChinepolitenessis

analyzed,inordrtodifferentiatethisperiod

fromothereras,thelabel‘lateimperial’isadopted,whichdescribesChinepolitenessduringthelate18thandthe19th

ractsoftheprentction,exceptexamplesfromancientphilosophicalsourcesinction2.1,arecited

fromsourceswrittenduringthisperiod.

icalChinepolitenessideologiesandnorms

Inordertounderstandthepolitebehaviorinagivenculture,societyoracommunityofanysize,itisnecessarytolookinto

themajordominantpolitenessideologiesthatformthegroup’,asdifferentscholarsargue(Eelen,

1999;MillsandKa

´

da

´

r,2011),itisimpropertoequatepolitenessbehaviorwithagivenideologybecauinrealityveral

ideologiesinteractinsocialpoliteness,andalsobecaurulingideologiesmaydifferacross(sub)groupsandCommunitiesof

,,items

impossibletosaythatpolitenessinagivensociety,especiallyinsuchalargecountryasChina,isorwassolelyruledbyX

ideology,d,wefollowtheviewsofhistoricalpolitenesxperts,

suchasHeld(1999)andWatts(1999),whofocusontheideologiesoftherulingelite,whichunavoidablyinfluencethe

rwords,wefocusonthe‘mainstream’ideologicalbackgroundof

individualpolitenessbehaviorwithoutexcludingordenyingtheexistenceandinfluenceofotherideologies,aswellas

interactionandstrugglebetweenpolitenessideologies(emoreonthisissueinFitzmaurice,2010

).Thisisafeasiblewayfor

us,allthemorebecauweareinterestedinthediachronicchangeofChinepolitenessnorms,whichmeantthechallenge

oftheideologiesandlanguageuofthesocialelite.

,

´da´r

/JournalofPragmatics43(2011)1525–15391527

InthecaofhistoricalChinatheaforementionedrulingideologyshouldbeConfucianismandNeo-Confucianism.

ConfucianismorRujiais,i.e,5

).Neo-Confucianism,alongwithbothreformingandconrvingcertain

Confucianidealsimportedelementsfrom2otherphilosophiesandreligions,namelyTaoism(Daojiao)andBuddhism(Fojiao

);c

,‘politeness’).Instead,theydescribedappropriatesocialcommunicationaspartof

Hedoesnotdaretoventureintoimportantmatterswithout[theancestors’]authorization[throughsacrifices],and

thusdenigrateshimlfandelevateshisancestors.(BookofRites,Guanyi)

(3)

Thegentlemanisreverentanddoesnothingamiss,isrespectfultowardsothersandobrvantoftherites,andall

withintheFourSeasarehisbrothers.(AnalectsXII.5,translationofJamesLegge)

(4)

Limeansthedenigrationofthelfandtheelevationoftheother.(BookofRites,Quli,PartOne)

ThecitationsfromtheClassicsBookofRites(Liji)a)demonstratethat,accordingtoConfucian

thinking,oneshoulddenigrateonelf(zibei)a),i

),nginsuchawayonewillnotonlygainsocial‘capital’

–touBourdieu’s(1983)term–andmaintainharmonywithhisfamily,asillustratedbythefirstandthecondexamples,but

willalsoattainmoredivinegoalssuchassocialharmonyandprosperityasshownbyexample(3).Infact,axample(4)

demonstrates,thedenigrationoflfandtheelevat

cour,historicalChinepolitenesscannotbereducedtothisphenomenononly(emoreinPanandKa

´

da

´

r,2011),andsoitis

reasonabletolimititsdefinitionhereasthe‘quintesnce’ofpoliteness,ratherthanequatingitwithChinepolitenessper.

Consideringtheclotiesbetweendenigration/elevationandli,itisufultoexaminetherelationshipbetweenliand

socialpower,inordertogaininsightintothesocialfunctionofthehistoricalChineelevation/

fact,liisnotasocially‘harmless’notionbutapoliticalconcept,bymeansofwhichthewirulerandhisadvirswillbeable

toleadthecountryinaneffectiveway,asillustratedbythefollowingbriefcitations:

(5)

Confuciussaid:‘Ifasuperiormanlovesli,thepeoplewillnotdarenottobereverent.’(AnalectsXIII.4)

(6)

Asthecitationsdemonstrate,liisaconceptofgovernancethataidstherulertoproperlycommandhissubjects,bymaking

thecommonersrespecttheelite–whatisinterestingtonotehereisthatbothofthecitationsmakeitquiteclearthatonlythe

upperclassneedtounderstandli,issocialperspective,

lihasasimilarroletonotionsof‘politeness’inothersocieties,inparticularhistoricalones,thatis,itisapowerresourcefor

therulingelite.5And,asitwillbedemonstratedinthenextction,thelinguisticmanifestationofli,ion/

denigration,hefactthathistoricalChine

politenessbehaviorwasassociatedwithConfucianideologythroughthenotionofli,andalsoformsofpolitenesswere

designedtoreinforcethisideology,harshcritiquesagainstConfucianideologicalviews,whichcharacterizedthebirthof

modernChina,madehistoricalChinepolitenessvulnerableandsubjecttocriticism,aswewillargueintheconclusionof

thisction.

icalChinepolitenessinpractice

InwhatfollowsweexplorehistoricalChinepolitenessbyfocusingonthepracticeofits‘quintesnce’,aswedefinedit,

elevationanddenigration,ewillstudythemanifestations

ofelevation/denigrationatthelexicalanddiscourlevels,andthenwewillexamineitfromtheperspectiveof

grammaticalization.

ifestationofelevationanddenigrationonlexicalanddiscourlevels

Theconceptofelevation/denigrationisareprentativefeatureofpolitenessintraditionalEastAsian(theso-called

sinoxenic)cultures;itsmorewidelyknown‘equivalent’istheJapanekenjō-goandsonkei-go.D

(l

(‘(l

(l

Havingheardthedistrictmagistratecallhim,theoldmanbecameterrifiedandtrembledwithfearashekneeledin

frontofthebenchandsaid:‘‘ctfullygreetYourHonor.’’

JudgeDiasked:‘‘Whatisthyname,andhowlonghastthoubeentheundertaker?’’

Themansaid:‘‘ThisoldmanhaththefamilynameTao,hisnameisTaoDaxi.’’

Theundertaker,turningpaleashesawthattheconstableswerebarkingat[him]soangrily,becamemorehumble

andsaid:‘‘rthlesspersonhasbeenanundertakerforthelast

IrveYourHonor?’’

(Digongan[TheCasofMagistrateDi]–Chapter6)

5Nevertheless,itshouldbeaddedthatthenotionofliisrelatively‘democratic’inthenthatinhistoricalChina–inparticularfromtheHanDynasty

(206BC–220AD)onwards–rankwasprimarilygainedthroughlearningandparticipationinoffi,itissomewhat

ionof‘beingagentleman’,whichoriginallywasarightthatcouldbegainedthroughbirthonly(,1999).

,

´da´r

/JournalofPragmatics43(2011)1525–1539

1529

Inthecourofthiscourtroominteractionthespeaker(theoldundertaker)makesacommunicationalfailurebyreferringto

himlfwiththehonorifictermofaddresslaohan(‘t

):shi(‘Confucianscholar’),nong(‘peasant’),gong(‘artisan’)andshang(‘merchant’),shibeingthe

oughthisisasimplisticandidealisticsocialdescription,itreflectsthe

ghaccordingtotheConfucianideologymovingbetweenclassispossible,

itisnecessarytomaeringthissocial

backgrounditislogicalthatinextract(7)theoldundertakerhastobeforcedtomakealf-correctiondespitebeingpolitein

alinguisticn:accordingtothenormsofhistoricalChinepolitenesveryonemustcommunicateinaccordancewith

her/hissocialroleandthusmaintainsocialorder.

Thefactthatdenigrating/elevatingtermsofaddresswereregardedas(a)thebasicformsofpolite-deferential

communication,and(b)socialtoolstoparateclass,alsomanifestsitlfinthateverysocialclasshaddifferent

usdinKa

´

da

´

r(2005),membersoflowsocialclassandwomenhadasmalland

uniformlexiconofdenigrating/elevatingtermsbymeansofwhichtheyreferredtothemlvesandaddresdeach

other,whilepowerfulandreveredgroups–softheimperialfamily,officialsofvariousrankandthe

Buddhist/Taoistclergy–rwords,termsofaddress‘framed’

(Goffman,1974)thespeakerandtherecipientaither‘powerful’or‘powerless’.Further,theyalsofunctionedas

‘resources’fromadiscursiveperspective:interactionbetweenhigherclassnecessitatedtheapplicationofawide

varietyoftermsofaddress,andthehigherstatusagivenpersonhadthemoresophisticatedatofaddresstermshe

hadtouindiscour.

Alongwithtermsofaddress,therewerem

alexicallevel,elevationanddenigrationcouldalsobeconveyedthroughverbalforms,thatis,verbsthatdenigratethe

speaker’mple,baiye

(‘visitingasuperiorwithprostration’)refersto

thespeaker’svisittotheaddrese,andviceversaforshangguang(‘offeringone’sbrightness’).Besidesverbs,there

wereother‘sophisticated’lexicaltoolsthatcouldexpreslevating/denigratingmeaningincertaincontexts,even

ttypicalexampleofsuchlexicalitemsistheclassofidiomatic

expressions:-xue-furen(‘toactlikearvantgirlwhotriestobehaveinaladylikemanner’)expressalf-

denigratingmeaningwhenitdeferentiallydescribestherelativeinferiorityofthespeaker(emoreinKa

´

da

´

r,2010).

Theuoftheaforementioned‘sophisticated’formsofdenigration/elevationrequiredathoroughknowledgeofClassical

Chineliterature,andthereforewereaccessibletothelearnedeliteonly.

Alongwithlexicalforms,denigration/elevationalsoplayedanimportantroleasadiscursivepolitenessstrategyinaBrown

andLevinsonian(1987)mple,asthefollowingletterwrittenbytherenownedepistolaryexpertGongWeizhai

(1

TomynephewWangChengzhi

Themenofancienttimeswroteshortlettersofafewlines,andeventheirlongepistlexceedednotapage;they

lerboandtediousstyleone

cannotachievewhatMasterConfuciuscalled‘‘conciandlucidwriting’’.Myhumblelfdoesnotposssmuch

literaryskillandcannotwriteinanappropriatemanner:Icanonlyexpressmylfinalong-windedwayandIknow

ore,mywritingsarelongerthanlettersshouldbe,andtheirstylefitsnot

therulesoftheart,heless,Icandonaughtbutcallthemso

whenwritingthus,althoughmy‘letters’andthooftheancientsareasdifferentasthetwowomenoftheEasternand

,

´da´r

/JournalofPragmatics43(2011)1525–15391530

WesternvillagesoftheZhuluoMountainwere:bothhavingthenameShibuttheWesternShibeingbeautiful

rmore,myletterscannotbeclaimedtobeadequateduetomyinappropriate

style:eventheWesternShi,whowasbeautifulcouldhavenotcaughttheeyeoftheHighOfficialFanifshehadbeen

clothedinfilthyrags–infact,,sir,stillwishtostudymy

lettersindepth,Iamafraidthatyouwillnotfindanybeautyinthemandinreadingthemyoursideswillsplitwith

laughter.(citedfromKa

´

da

´

r,2009)

Extract(8)exemplifiestheaforementioned

letteriswrittentothe‘central’

discursivemessageoftheletteristheinappropriatenessoftheauthor’

expresdbydrawingananalogybetweentherelativequalityoftheauthor’sletterscomparedtothooftheancientsand

therelativebeautyoftheso-calledWesternShi(XiShi

)comparedwiththeunattractiveEasternShi(DongShi),a

.A

,lit.‘yourrvant’)andidioms,suchaswanxia-wubi(l

6Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatlesreducatedpeopledidnothavesimplerelevating/denigratingidiomsanddiscursivestrategies.

7SeemoreonthegrammaticalizationofChinehonorifics,andtheircomparisonwithJapanehonorifics,inPeng(2000).

,

´da´r

/JournalofPragmatics43(2011)1525–1539

1531

Theperiodshavetheirdistinctideyondthe

scopeofthinterestingtonotehereishow

thewavesinideologicalstandingsaffectthepolitenessnormsandbehaviortothepointwherecontemporaryChine

politenesshasbecomeeminglyinconsistenttosomeextent,andintricateandcomplexforrearcherstoattemptto

,therefore,necessarytogiveasnapshotofcontemporaryChineideologiesthatdepartfromthetraditional

onesasapreludetoourdescriptionofcontemporaryChinepoliteness.

giesforcontemporaryChinepoliteness

TheChineCommunistPartyledbyMaoZedong(1893–1976)thefirstperiodof

earlyCommunistrule(1949–1969),themaintaskofthenewChinegovernmentintermsofideologywastoestablisha

newwayofthinkingandnewsocialpracticethatembracedtheideaof‘equality’atransitional

periodtransferringthetraditional(Neo-)ConfucianideologyandotherideologiesoftheRepublicofChinatothe

tedearlier,thedominantideologyforpolitenessinimperialChinawasConfucianism,which

prescribednormsforpropercommunicati

conceptforpolitenessin(Neo-)Confucianideologyistheacknowledgementofhierarchicalorderbetweensocialmembers.

AftertheChineCommunistPartyestablishedpowerinChinain1949,itlaunchedariesofpoliticalcampaignsor

societalreformstoinstillanewideologyofequalityamongsocialclass,thusdirectlychallengingthetraditional(Neo-)

Confucianideology.

Duringthecondperiodof1969–1979,whichisknownasthe‘CulturalRevolution’period,theCommunistideologycan

turalRevolutionwaslaunchedin1969byMaoZedong,Chairman

oftheCommunistPartyfrom1949to1976,asapoliticalandideologicalcampaigntodenounceChinetraditionand

culture,thisperiod,(Neo-)ConfucianideologyandtraditionalChine

lowingrenownedpassagefromMaoZedongclearlyshowswhy

conventionalpoliteexpressionswerepushedoutofuinChinecommunication:

(9)

()8

twritingapaper,norisitworkingona

otbedoneinarefined,otbedoneinacultured

itbedoneinatemperate,kind,courteous,restrainedandmagnanimousfashion.

iolentactionbyonesocialclassagainstanothersocialclass.

(MaoZedong:ReportonInvestigatingHunanPeasants’Movement,March1927)

ThispassagefromMaoZedongdenouncedvariousaspectsofthetraditionalChineculturalviewonpolitebehavior,suchas

beingrefined,kind,courteous,otewaschantedasasloganbyRedGuards9duringtheCultural

Revolutionastheyraidedordinaryhouholdsoneafteranotherinordertogetridofthe‘FourOlds’(Si-jiu),w

).Houholditems,artifacts,books,paintingsthatfellintothefourcategoriesweredestroyedbythe

iththeremovalofthe‘fourolds’,gonearetheconventionalpoliteexpressions,astheyreprentold

customsandtradition.

Theeconomicreformeraof1979totheprenthaswitnesdawaveofnewideologiesandnewpracticesrushingintoChina

fromthe‘West’,andatthesametime,arestorationoftraditionalpracticesaswellasayearningfortherevivalof(Neo-)

10yearsofitsisolationistpoliciesandpracticestowardstheexternaleconomyadoptedduring

theCulturalRevolution,theChineCommunistPartyimplementedtheso-called‘OpenPolicy’in1979toreformChina’s

centrallyplannedeconomybyintroducingforeigntrade,foreigninvestment,e

arrivalofforeigntradeandforeigncapital,thererushedincountlessforeigngoodsandpractices,McDonald’s,andKaraoke

usionmentamongsttheChine,especiallytheyounger

generation,withtheCommunistideologyhasleft‘‘anideologicalvacuumwhichthePartyhasbeenslowtofieantime

theyouthhaveturnedtowardsmusic,dance,religionandmaterialism.’’(Howell,1993:251).Thisistheperiodinwhichtheold,

thenew,theChine,iftinideologyhasahugeimpacton

Chinepolitenessbehaviorandtheuoflinguisticpolitenessinsocialinteraction;however,historicalChinepolitenesshas

notbeenrevivedinitsoriginalstateandcontemporarypolitenesscontinuestobelargelydifferentfromitshistorical

counterpart.

8TwoChinewritingsystems(traditionalandsimplifiedChine)areudinthispaperwiththepurpoofreprentingbothhistoricaland

contemporaryChine.

9RedGuardswerecivilians,mostlystudentsandotheryoungpeople,whoweremobilizedbyMaoZedongduringtheCulturalRevolution.

,

´da´r

/JournalofPragmatics43(2011)1525–1539

1532

nesspracticeincontemporaryChina

HavinglaidoutthelandscapeofpostcolonialideologicalchangeincontemporaryChina,wearenowturningtopoliteness

ldbenotedthatalthoughthesystemofChine

addresstermsispartoftheChinelexicon,ithasitsownuniquecharacteristicsandretainsaspecialplaceinChine

acestheorewewilldeal

withitparatelybeforediscussinglexicalandsyntacticissuesonamoregenerallevel.

faddress

ThesystemoftermsofaddressincontemporaryChinehasenthemostdrasticchangeafterthePeople’sRepublicof

Chinawasfoundedin1949:theelaboratehistoricalChinesystemofhonorificsandthedenigrationandelevationtermsof

addresscollapdwithinashortperiodoftime,andwasreplacedbyasingle,uniform,andunixtermofaddresstongzhi

(‘comrade’).10Historically,theChineCommunistPartyadoptedthistermofaddressinordertoexpressitsassociationwith

theSovietCommunists;duringpre-1949times,thistermhadbeenudwithintheCommunistPartyandtheCommunist-

ledmilitaryforces,ed‘popularity’betweenthe

1950sandthe1970sandwasgraduallymadetheofficialtermofaddressinformalandofficialoccasions,aswellasa

commontermofaddressinsocialttings.

Fromasociolinguisticpointofview,tong

ideologicalandsocialimplicationsareinlinewiththeChineCommunistParty’galitarianidealsofthe‘new’socialorder

andpromotionofequalityamongitsmembersinparticular,sofpolitenessimplications,this

termofaddressappealstothe‘positiveface’roductionofthisnew

termofaddresssignalsthedemolitionofthelong-heldtraditionofthehierarchicalsystemoftermsofaddress,which

presuppodsomeinterpersonaldistanceanddifferenceinrankevenwhenappealingtopositiveface.11

Withtongzhiasanoverarchingtermofaddressformostsocialoccasions,thereappearedavarietyofsub-systemtermsof

ahrequirementistheacknowledgementof

hierarchicalstructure(power)ondrequirementistheneedforacknowledgementof

solidariingtoScottonandZhu

(1983:484–485),thereisavarietyofusagefortongzhi:

Tongzhi(titlealone):‘comrade’

Wangtongzhi(surname+title):‘ComradeWang’

WangWeiguotongzhi(fullname+title):‘ComradeWangWeiguo’

Zhurentongzhi(twotitles):‘ComradeDirector’

Itisalsopossibletoutongzhiwithafirstname,especiallyfromsuperiortoinferiororbetweenpeopleofequalstandingin

werdifference12isprent,thehierarchystructureissignaledthroughother

monwaytodothisisaddingaprefixbeforeasurnametoindicateagedifference,asinthecaof

thefollowingtwoexamples:

Lao-Zhangtongzhi

(‘OldComradeZhang’)

Xiao-Litongzhi(‘LittleComradeLi’).

NoticeherethatinChina,niorityinageisrespectedandisone-stephigherinthehierarchicalstructureinadyadic

ore,thefirstoneisadeferentialtermshowingrespecttotheaddrese,whilethecondisatermof

endearmenttoshowbenevolencefromsomeoneinapositionhigherthanthatoftheaddrese.

Sincetongzhidenotedarevolutionarytone,after1979(theontofChina’smarket-orientedreforms)thestatusofthisterm

hasgraduallydecread,andthetermitlfhasbeenfallingoutofdailyusage,13althoughitremainsinuasarespectfulterm

ofpublicaddtheCommunistParty,

failuretoaddressafellowmemberastongzhiisstillenasasubtlebutunmistakablesignofdisrespectandenmity.

Withthedeclineoftongzhijobtitlehasbecomeanothercommonwaytoindicatepowerdifferenceinofficialranking,

suchasLijuzhang

(‘BureauChiefLi’)andLilaoshi(‘TeacherLi’).Moreprecily,jobtitleswerereintroduced

10Itshouldbenotedthatpreviouslythistermwasnotthe‘property’oftheCommunists:theKuomintang(‘NationalistParty’)alsohadatraditionof

usingitinordertorefertoitsmembers,NationalistPartylaterabandonedit,inordertodistancethemlves

fromtheCommunists.

11Forexample,huixiong(li

(‘olderyounger-brother’)appealto

theaddrese’spositivefaceandsocialrankbutalsoimplicitlyconveythatthespeakerissomewhathigher-rankingthantherecipient,atleastonthebasis

ofagedifference.

12Thepowerdifferencecanbeattributedtoage,rank,orsocialstatus.

13Infact,asYuan(2004)demonstrates,itispossiblethattongzhi’sdeclinestartedevenbeforethistime:duringthecivilwar-likestateduringthe‘Cultural

Revolution’itbecamedangeroustobeassociatedwithothersas‘comrades’duetothefactthatpoliticalpowerfrequentlychangedamongstpoliticalgroups.

,

´da´r

/JournalofPragmatics43(2011)1525–1539

1533

becauthiswayofaddressingwasnoto

contemporarytimes,theuofjobtitleasatermofaddresswasfirstconfinedtotheworkplace,inparticular,governmental

organizationsorofficialttings,urface,jobtitleasatermof

r,inaculturethattraditionallycategorizedtradesandprofessions

inasocialhierarchicalscale,whatsomeonedoesforlivingplacesthatpersoninamurkysystemofhierarchy.

Whensolidarityandfamiliarityarestrong,

commonusageisthekinshiptermssuchasda-ge

(‘b

(‘sister-in-law’)wasudstrategicallybysalespersonsinprivatelyowned

storesinSouthChinatoclaimfamiliari

shouldbenotedthattheclassofkinshiptermsisperhapsthemost‘conrvative’inthecategoryoftermsofaddress,thatis,

m,familiarformsofaddresshavealong

historyinChine(eLin,1998)andtheyhavebeenthoroughlystudiedbyhistoricalChinephilologists(eKa

´

da

´

r,2007).

TheirimportancecontinuedintomoderntimesandalsoaftertheCommunisttakeover,duetothefactthatwhilethe

Communistleadershipaimedtoreformfamilylife,familycontinuedandcontinuestobetheperhapsmosttraditionalsocial

unit(an,1958).Yet,y,thenumberoffamiliarformsof

addresscriticallydecread,rmore,thetraditionallycomplex

systemoffamilyhonorificslargelydisappearedfromthecolloquial:historically,speakershadtoudifferentformsof

addresswhenreferringtotheirortheaddrese’sinmates,andalsothereweregender-specificwaysofreferringtofamily

members,forexample,awifehadtouaspecifichonorificlexicontowardsthemembersofherhusband’sfamilyandvice

versaforthehusband(Yuan,1994/2004).Althoughsomeelementsofthehistoricalsystemremain,illacustomto

politelyrefertoonespeechpartner’sfatherasfuqin

(lit.‘fatherrelative’)andnotsimplybyusingthe‘in-familyform’baba

(‘father’),ly,manyofthedenigrating/elevatingfamiliarformsofaddress

disappearedfromthecolloquial,inparticularlf-denigratingfamiliarformsbecameunusual:forexample,itwouldbe

anachronistictorefertoone’sownsoninadenigratingwayasxiaoquan

(lit.‘smalldog’)inmoderntimes.

Insum,contemporaryChinetermsofaddressdifferfromtheirhistoricalcounterparts:theyarelesxplicitly

hierarchicalonthemanticlevel,,inacertainrespecttheirproper

unecessitatesamorecomplexundertakingthanthatwasrequiredbyhistoricaltermsofaddress,whichweredesignedto

acknowledgesocialpower:thecontemporaryChinespeakermustfindtheproperformofaddressthroughutilizationof

,someofthetraditionaltermsofaddressre-appearedin

mple,thetraditionalwayofaddressing

malesasxiansheng

(‘Mr.’)andfemalesasxiaojie(‘Miss’)regainedpopularityinthe1980sduetoanupsurgeincontact

r,thetermsdonotexpreslevation,unlikeinhistoricaltexts,andalsosuchforms

rmore,lf-denigratinghonorificshavelargelydisappearedfromcolloquiallanguage,aswecan

alsoeinthecaoffamiliarformsofaddress.

tionalpolitenesxpressionsatlexicalandsyntacticlevel

Aswealreadydiscusdinction2,inhistoricalChinalf-denigration/otherelevationnotonlymanifesteditlfin

addressnomenonworthnotingisthat

many‘Western’languageswherepoliteness

canbeindicatedbyachangeinsyntacticstructure,suchastheuofquestionformatorvariousconventionalindirectness

formats,historicalChinepolitenessutilizeditlaboratehonorificlexicalitemstosignalpolitenessappropriatetothe

tionalpolitenessinChineismoreoftenobrvedatthelexical

calstudiesonChineindirectness(Zhang,1995)showthat‘‘rulesoperatingonthe

directness-indirectnessdistinctionweredifferentinEnglishandChine’’(p.82).WhileEnglishindirectnessismanifestedat

thesyntacticlevel,thereprentationofChineindirectnessoccursatthediscourlevel,realizedeitherbysmalltalkor

robrvationmadebyZhang(1995)isthatChineindirectnessisoftenassociatedwith

informationquencing,whichwasalsosupportedbyScollonandScollon’s(1991:115)descriptionoftopicinstructionin

,‘‘theChineandotherAsiansgenerallydefertheintroductionofthetopicuntilafteraconsiderable

periodofsmalltalk.’’Theylabeledthisspeechbehaviorasthe‘‘inductivepatternoftopicintroduction’’,asoppodtothe

‘‘deductivepatternoftopicintroduction’’(ScollonandScollon,1995:75).Thisspeechpatternandindirectnessrulesin

ChinepointtothefactthatpolitelexiconanddiscursivestrategiesplayamorecrucialroleinChinepolitenessthan

differingsyntacticstructuringofanindirectntence.

KeepinginmindtherichnessandimportanceofpolitelexiconinChinepolitenessphenomenon,letusnowconsiderthe

changeandlossofmanyoftheechangein

politicalsystemandsocialorderin1949,eresomedominant

forcesinfluencinglanguageuchangeintheCommunistera(Chi,1956):adesireforprogressiontotransformthe‘old

China’intoa‘newChina’;afunctionalpurpo—‘‘thenaturalpressurefornewtermsandexpressionsbroughtforthbynew

politicalandsocialneeds’’(Chi,1956:12);andthemobilizationofthe‘voiceofthemass’,whichatleastastheCommunists

oftraditionalpolitelexiconwasthusenasareflectionorreminderof‘old

China’.Thus,theextensivetraditionalhonorifirmore,evenconventionalpoliteexpressionssuch

,

´da´r

/JournalofPragmatics43(2011)1525–15391534

asqing(‘plea’),xiexie(‘t(‘sorry’)wereenasindicativeof‘oldChina’andwererervedfor

uinveryformalcommunicationorinwritingonly,andfordailyinteractionitwasregardedasold-fashionedorevenpetit

ult‘commonspeech’,thatis,speechstylethattheCommunistrulersofthecountryinterpretedas

thestyleofthe‘mass’(workers,peasants,soldierandstudents),ociolinguisticpointofview,

so-called‘commonspeech’shouldnotbeviewedaslesspoliteorlesffective,aslanguageudoesvarybysocialclassand

groups(eLabov’s,1972authoritativeworkonthistheme).WhatisinterestingintheChinecaisthat‘commonspeech’isa

termequivalenttospeechthatemployslexicalitemswithstrongrevolutionaryflavor,suggestiveofthecommunistideology.

ThistrendoftheCommunistpolicyoflanguageuembracedtheideaofthedeliberatemanipulationofthelanguagetocarry

out‘psychologicalwarfare’.AsChi(1956:23–25)notes,thisincludesamongotherthingstheusageof: