porary Chine linguistic politeness
Yuling Pan a ,Da
´niel Z.Ka ´da ´r b ,*a
U.S.Census Bureau,10201Woodvale Pond Drive,Fairfax Station,VA 22039,USA b Department of Oriental Studies,Rearch Institute for Linguistics,Hungarian Academy of Sciences,Bencz úr utca 33,B
udapest H-1068,Hungary
1.Introduction
The aim of our paper is to provide a comparative overview of historical and contemporary Chine politeness,hence demonstrating the major gap that exists between the politeness ‘systems’of the two periods.Comparing historical and contemporary Chine linguistic politeness is challenging,due to the fact that the practices of Chine polite communication underwent a dramatic transformation during the late-19th and 20th centuries.In the cour of this period,which is brief from a diachronic perspective,the historical norms of deferential communication practically disappeared from Chine society and were replaced by a new t of politeness norms.This large-scale change –which resulted in,among other things,the disappearance of the extensive historical Chine honorific lexicon of veral
thousand words (cf.Ka
´da ´r,2007)–is a unique phenomenon becau in other languages there is no comparable gulf between ‘historical’and ‘contemporary’politeness norms (for example,no linguistic politeness anthology,such as Hayashi and Mianmi (1974)or Hickey and Stewart (2005)mentions a similar phen
in your mind
omenon).This is not to say that linguistic politeness does not change in other societies.For example,as rearchers such as Kohnen (2008)and Jucker (2010)demonstrate,politeness in England underwent veral large changes in its history;however,the development of politeness in the languages was continuous and relatively gradual.This unique gulf between ‘historical’and ‘contemporary’in Chine leads many rearchers and laymen to formulate ambiguous views on Chine polite behavior (cf.Pan,2000a ).As we noted elwhere,
Journal of Pragmatics 43(2011)1525–1539
A R T I C L E I N F O Article history:
Received 29March 2010
Received in revid form 22July 2010
Accepted 20October 2010
tofelAvailable online 15December 2010
Keywords:
Politeness
Chine
Historical
tomorrow will be better情人节 英文Contemporary
Postcolonial A B S T R A C T
The prent paper provides a comparative survey of historical and contemporary Chine politeness,hence contributing to postcolonial pragmatics and linguistic politeness rearch.There is a unique gulf between historical and contemporary Chine politeness,which is largely due to the influence of the 19th century colonization of China.While China was in fact partially colonized only,the invasion by foreign imperialist powers had a strong impact on the development of Chine sociopragmatic norms.By demonstrating the gulf between ‘historical’and ‘contemporary’,this paper provides an unprecedented ca study for the influence of colonization on native language u.The analysis is divided into two parts.The first part,ction 2of the paper,analyzes the ideologies,norms and practices of historical Chine politeness,and demonstrates that historical Chine politeness had some features that made it vulnerable to large scale socio-historical changes that led to the
birth of contemporary Chine politeness.Section 3,after reviewing politeness norms and
ideologies in contemporary China,examine the similarities and differences between
historical and contemporary practices of polite communication.
ß2010Elvier B.V.All rights rerved.
*Corresponding author.Tel.:+3613214830179;fax:+3613229297.
E-mail address:yuling.v (Y.Pan),kadarz@nytud.hu ,uk (D.Z.Ka
´da ´r).Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Pragmatics
j o u rn a l ho m e pa g e :w w w.e l s e v i er.c o m /l o c a t e /p r a g m a
0378-2166/$–e front matter ß2010Elvier B.V.All rights rerved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.018
[i]t has been a challenge to rearch modern Chine politeness due to the multiple layers of societal changes that impact linguistic politeness in Chine.There is a disconnection between the modern and traditional Chine in terms of the application of politeness formulae.On the one hand,the Chine people are famed for their long tradition of polite rituals and polite vocatives,and on the other hand,modern Chine politeness behavior ems to be quite different and distant from the ‘famous’polite phenomena.As a result,there ems to be a myth about Chine politeness.(Pan,2008:328)This topic is of relevance from the perspective of postcolonial sociolinguistic/sociopragmatic studies,that is,explorations of language u in societies which were previously colonized;it is particularly intriguing from the aspect of postcolonial politeness rearch,a relatively new area (perhaps the first extensive volume on this theme was edited by M ühlein and Migge in 2005).This is due to the fact that the collap of historical politeness was initially generated by foreign powers’invasion of China starting in the 1840s,and the subquent colonization of certain regions of the country,and so the
formation of modern Chine politeness is a postcolonial event (e more below).As is discusd elwhere (Pan and Ka
´da ´r,2011),the main motivating factor 1behind the aforementioned large-scale change of Chine p
oliteness was the fact that the
Chine suffered a ries of humiliating defeats at the hands of previously despid foreign nations.As a result of this,many Chine broke with their traditional norms and values first during the latter part of the 19th century and the years after 1911(the foundation of the Republic of China)and then again after the Communist takeover in 1949.While colonization has resulted in the gradual disappearance of native languages and sociolinguistic customs in many countries (Spolsky,2004:83–86),as far as the authors are aware,there is no other language in which there is such a clear-cut difference between ‘historical’and ‘contemporary’politeness.Thus,the analysis in this paper provides a unique ca study for the influence of colonization on native language u.While in many other colonized countries the colonist’s language directly influenced the local language by language transfers or code-mixing and code-switching (for example,code-switching between English and Chine has been accepted as the normal way of speaking in Hong Kong,e Li,1996),the ca prented in this paper shows a more subtle influence of colonization on native language.
To understand this subtlety,we briefly mention the impact of a ries of foreign invasions that turned China into a mi-colonized state and its impact on the Chine elite class that led to anti-traditionalist movement.Starting from the First Opium War with British forces (1839–1842),China was
dragged out with brutal physical force from a lf-dependent isolation that had been in effect since the time of the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644).The Chine population looked at their country as the most ‘civilized’realm in the world,with unparalleled military and economic power.It is thus not surprising that the Chine were dumbfounded by the humiliating defeat suffered during the First Opium War and the subquent wars.2But the shock was due not only to the technology of warfare,but also,perhaps more importantly,to differences in culture.The Chine who came in contact with Western invaders 3realized that during the centuries of isolation from the rest of the world China had been left behind in veral respects.The social,legal,scientific,medical and other systems of the English,and other nations that subquently formed colonies in China,emed to be more developed than their traditional native Chine counterparts.Seemed to be should be emphasized becau the Chine evaluation of the ‘West’was at least partially influenced by imperialist and colonization ideologies.4Whatever the truth is,the new situation led the Chine elite class to turn inward by questioning the value of traditional Chine culture.Several members of the elite (and tho of other social groups that became the ruling elite in the coming years)began to criticize traditional Chine culture,in particular,Confucianism,and argued for the adoption of Western culture (Jin,1993).Immediate modernization (i.e.‘Westernization’,
e more in Ruhi and Ka
´da ´r,2011)emed for many to be the correct answer to the menacing situation.As a result,anti-traditionalist ntiments aro first in 1919,during the so-called May Fourth Movement (Wu-Si-yundong ),
w
(1
,1
1
It should be noted that the authors do not intend to suggest that colonization was the only motivating factor behind the diachronic change studied;yet,it can be argued that it was the most important withi
n a group of factors.
2The First Opium War was soon followed by the Second Opium War (1856–1860).
3Such encounters took place mainly at the eastern coastal territory of China.The whole of China did not become a colonized country like India or Singapore,but instead the invading powers conquered certain territories in which they established colonies with extraterritorial rights.
4As Li (2007:23)from the Dutch scholar Hans van de Ven,points out,‘‘the Qing was ill-prepared to deal with Britain’s naval challenge not becau it was a backward country or a Confucian society with little regard for the military,but becau it had faced different sorts of military challenges and followed a different path of military development than Britain’’.That is,it would be quite simplistic to argue that Chine society was less ‘developed’than British society and was conquently defeated by the latter,an accusation often made by Marxist theorists against ‘feudal’China.In line with scholars such as van de Ven and Li above,we would argue that the situation was more complex:the defeat of China was primarily military-bad.Although Western social and scientific results might have emed to be highly developed and tempting to many Chine,the social superiority of the British was at least partly a myth,which rved the financial and ideological goals of the conquerors.Y.Pan,D.Z.Ka
´da ´r /Journal of Pragmatics 43(2011)1525–15391526
Y.Pan,D.Z.Ka´da´r/Journal of Pragmatics43(2011)1525–15391527 whole of China was never ruled by a single colonial government(unlike,for example,veral South Asian states or India), foreign powers invaded the country,obtained extraterritorial rights and conquered certain coastal regions as colonies,that is,the country became a mi-colony.Perhaps even more importantly,in Western rhetoric the Chine were typically treated as‘cultural others’,to u Spivak’s(1988)terminology.With this background in mind it ems to be a reasonable approach to apply postcolonial theorization on Chine data.
Due to space limitations,the prent work only describes politeness in historical and contemporary China,without providing either an in-depth analysis of the transitional period,during which the replacement of old with new actually took place,or the driving forces behind the change.In this form,the prent paper is a preliminary report on a rearch project of the authors(e more in Pan and Ka´da´r,2011).In other words,our goal is to demonstrate the sociolinguistic/pragmatic impact of colonization through the change of Chine politeness ideologies,rather than dealing with the language policy and norms of the colonization era,that is,the direct influence of colonization on Chine.Therefore,while we compar the pre-and postcolonial times,the‘colonization’in-between is tre
ated in an abstract way:we presuppo its politeness ideology-changing power,relying on historical studies such as the works of Osterhammel(1989,2005).
joe somebodyThe analysis in the prent paper is divided into two parts.Thefirst part,ction2,analyzes the ideologies,norms and practices of historical Chine politeness.The goal of this ction is to demonstrate that while historical Chine politeness is completely different from its contemporary counterpart,it had some features that made it vulnerable to large-scale colonial and postcolonial changes that led to the birth of contemporary Chine politeness.Section3,after overviewing politeness norms and ideologies in contemporary China,examines the similarities and differences between historical and contemporary Chine politeness by analyzing linguistic politeness in the different units of discour,as well as its interpersonal distribution.In the conclusion,we argue that while contemporary and historical politeness share some common characteristics,in fact they are too different to be parts of the same linguistic tradition or‘system’,which demonstrates the influence of colonization on Chine society.
This paper follows a diachronic order byfirst surveying historical Chine politeness and then overviewing the norms and practices in its contemporary counterpart.Before beginning the analysis,a brief description of our theoretical view regarding politeness should be given.The paper is anchored t
o some extent to recent theorizations of ,Mills,2003;Ka´da´r and Mills,2011)in that we–somewhat cautiously–do not claim that our interpretation of politeness ideologies and behavior is valid to every layer of Chine linguistic politeness in society.As we will make clear below,since we explore major diachronic changes in Chine politeness,we are precily interested in its socially dominant and typical aspects.It should be added that the prent analysis in limited in scope,in the n that we intentionally limit our analysis only to the formal aspects of politeness(e more on this problem in Pan and Ka´da´r,2011).
los
2.Politeness in historical China
First,the prent ction studies the dominant ideologies and norms that influenced politeness behavior in late imperial China,and then it provides a brief practical account of historical Chine politeness behavior.The aim of the ction is to demonstrate the fact that while historical Chine politeness fundamentally differed from its contemporary counterpart,for veral reasons it was open to the large-scale change that led to the formation of contemporary Chine politeness.
Before delving into the analysis,it is necessary to provide a brief account of the historical periods that we are going to cover.The label‘historical’can cover the whole period of Chine history from ca.the1
0th century B.C.until the foundation of the Republic of China in1911,and in fact from the perspective of the politeness historian this is rather a homogenous period in many respects(Ka´da´r,2007).However,in the prent paper only thefinal pha of historical Chine politeness is analyzed,in order to provide insight into the state of politeness just before the collap.In order to differentiate this period from other eras,the label‘late imperial’is adopted,which describes Chine politeness during the late18th and the19th centuries.The extracts of the prent ction,except examples from ancient philosophical sources in ction2.1,are cited from sources written during this period.
2.1.Historical Chine politeness ideologies and norms
In order to understand the polite behavior in a given culture,society or a community of any size,it is necessary to look into the major dominant politeness ideologies that form the group’s politeness norms.In fact,as different scholars argue(Eelen, 1999;Mills and Ka´da´r,2011),it is improper to equate politeness behavior with a given ideology becau in reality veral ideologies interact in social politeness,and also becau ruling ideologies may differ across(sub)groups and Communities of Practice within a society.Also,ruling ideologies often belong to the elite and not the whole of the society.Thus,it ems impossible to say that politeness in a given society,especially in such a large c
ountry as China,is or was solely ruled by X ideology,and we do not intend to create such a simplistic view.Instead,we follow the views of historical politeness experts, such as Held(1999)and Watts(1999),who focus on the ideologies of the ruling elite,which unavoidably influence the politeness behavior of lower class to some extent.In other words,we focus on the‘mainstream’ideological background of individual politeness behavior without excluding or denying the existence and influence of other ideologies,as well as interaction and struggle between politeness ideologies(e more on this issue in Fitzmaurice,2010).This is a feasible way for us,all the more becau we are interested in the diachronic change of Chine politeness norms,which meant the challenge of the ideologies and language u of the social elite.2014年考研
In the ca of historical China the aforementioned ruling ideology should be Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism. Confucianism or Rujia is,i.e,5
).Neo-Confucianism,along with both reforming and conrving certain Confucian ideals imported elements from2other philosophies and religions,namely Taoism(Daojiao)and Buddhism(Fojiao
);c
,‘politeness’).Instead,they described appropriate social communication as part of the moral concept of li.Li
He does not dare to venture into important matters without[the ancestors’]authorization[through sacrifices],and thus denigrates himlf and elevates his ancestors.(Book of Rites,Guanyi)
(3)
The gentleman is reverent and does nothing amiss,is respectful towards others and obrvant of the rites,and all within the Four Seas are his brothers.(Analects XII.5,translation of James Legge)
(4)
Li means the denigration of the lf and the elevation of the other.(Book of Rites,Quli,Part One)
The citations from the Classics Book of Rites(Liji)a)demonstrate that,according to Confucian
thinking,one should denigrate onelf(zibei)a),i
),whichisinbreachofproperbehavior.Byactinginsuchawayonewillnotonlygainsocial‘capital’–to u Bourdieu’s(1983)term–and maintain harmony with his family,as illustrated by thefirst and the cond
examples,but will also attain more divine goals such as social harmony and prosperity as shown by example(3).In fact,as example(4) demonstrates,the denigration of lf and the elevation of others is the quintesnce of li on the level of language and behavior.Of cour,historical Chine politeness cannot be reduced to this phenomenon only(e more in Pan and Ka´da´r,2011),and so it is reasonable to limit its definition here as the‘quintesnce’of politeness,rather than equating it with Chine politeness per .
Considering the clo ties between denigration/elevation and li,it is uful to examine the relationship between li and social power,in order to gain insight into the social function of the historical Chine elevation/denigration phenomenon.In fact,li is not a socially‘harmless’notion but a political concept,by means of which the wi ruler and his advirs will be able to lead the country in an effective way,as illustrated by the following brief citations:
(5)
Confucius said:‘If a superior man loves li,the people will not dare not to be reverent.’(Analects XIII.4)
(6)
As the citations demonstrate,li is a concept of governance that aids the ruler to properly command his subjects,by making the commoners respect the elite–what is interesting to note here is that both of the citations make it quite clear that only the upper class need to understand li,whilst members of lower class need only to be deferential.From this social perspective, li has a similar role to notions of‘politeness’in other societies,in particular historical ones,that is,it is a power resource for the ruling elite.5And,as it will be demonstrated in the next ction,the linguistic manifestation of levation/ denigration,was designed in a fashion to reinforce this function and distribution of li.Due to the fact that historical Chine politeness behavior was associated with Confucian ideology through the notion of li,and also forms of politeness were designed to reinforce this ideology,harsh critiques against Confucian ideological views,which characterized the birth of modern China,made historical Chine politeness vulnerable and subject to criticism,as we will argue in the conclusion of this ction.
2.2.Historical Chine politeness in practice
In what follows we explore historical Chine politeness by focusing on the practice of its‘quintesn
ce’,as we defined it, elevation and denigration,as well as the vulnerability of this system to social changes.First we will study the manifestations of elevation/denigration at the lexical and discour levels,and then we will examine it from the perspective of grammaticalization.
2.2.1.The manifestation of elevation and denigration on lexical and discour levels
The concept of elevation/denigration is a reprentative feature of politeness in traditional East Asian(the so-called
sinoxenic)cultures;its more widely known‘equivalent’is the Japane kenjō-go
and sonkei-go
cet 99sushe com.pte多少钱
D
(l
(‘
(l
(l
Having heard the district magistrate call him,the old man became terrified and trembled with fear as he kneeled in front of the bench and said:‘‘This worthless person is the undertaker of Gaojia-wa.I respectfully greet Your Honor.’’
billbillJudge Di asked:‘‘What is thy name,and how long hast thou been the undertaker?’’
The man said:‘‘This old man hath the family name Tao,his name is Tao Daxi.’’
The undertaker,turning pale as he saw that the constables were barking at[him]so angrily,became more humble and said:‘‘This worthless person should die for his guilt.This worthless person has been an undertaker for the last thirty years.How can I rve Your Honor?’’
(Di gong an
[The Cas of Magistrate Di]–Chapter6)
5Nevertheless,it should be added that the notion of li is relatively‘democratic’in the n that in historical China–in particular from the Han Dynasty (206BC–220AD)onwards–rank was primarily gained through learning and participation in official examinations and not by birth.Thus,it is somewhat different he notion of‘being a gentleman’,which originally was a right that could be gained through birth only(cf.Watts,1999).
Y.Pan,D.Z.Ka´da´r/Journal of Pragmatics43(2011)1525–15391529
