Ideologies of Honorific Language
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Pragmatics2:3.25 l -262 InternationalPrasmatics Association IDEOLOGIES OF HONORIFIC LANGUAGE Judith T. Irvine 1. Introductionr All sociolinguisticsystems, presumably, provide some meansof expressingrespect (or disrespect);but only some systems have grammaticalized honorifics. This paper comparesseveral languages - Javanese,Wolof, and Zulu, plus a glance at ChiBemba - with regard to honorific expressionsand the social and cultural frameworks relevant thereto.2The main questionto be exploredis whether one can identiff any special cultural concomitants of linguistic systems in which the expression of respect is grammaticalized. Javanese"language levels" are a classicand well-describedexample of a system for the expressionof respect. In the sensein which I shall define "grammaticalized honorifics,"Javanese provides an apt illustration.Wolof, on the other hand, does not. Of course,Javanese is only one of several Asian languageswell known for honorific constructions,while Wolof, spokenin Senegal,comes from another part of the globe. But the presence or absence of honorifics is not an area characteristic of Asian languagesas opposed to African languages.As we shall see, Zulu has a system of lexicalalternates bearing a certain typological resemblanceto the Javanesesystem. Moreover,many other Bantu languages(such as ChiBemba) also have grammaticalized honorifics,but in the morphology rather than in the lexicon. Focusing on social structure instead of on geographical area, one might hypothesizethat grammaticalized honorifics occur where there are royal courts (Wenger1982) and in societieswhose traditions emphasize social rank and precedence. Honorificswould be a linguisticmeans of expressingconventionalized differences of rank.The languagesI shall comparewill make it evident,however, that a hypothesis causallylinking honorifics with court life or with entrenchedclass differences cannot be 1 An earlierversion of this paperwas presentedat a sessionon "Languageldeology" at the 1991annual meeting of the AmericanAnthropological Association. Thanks are due to Bambi Schieffelin,Paul Kroskrity, Kathryn Woolard,and Debra Spitulnik for their helpful comments. 2 Th. discussionof Wolof in this paperdraws on my fieldworkin Senegal,mainly in the 1970's.I am gratefulfor the supportof the NationalInstitute of MentalHealth, lhe National Scienc€Foundation, and BrandeisUniversity. ChiBemba citations come from elicitation sessions with ChiBembaspeakers at BrandeisUniversity. 252 JudirhT. Irvine adequate.While some such link may hold true for Javanese,it does not for the other systems.The Wolof had royal courts until the French conquesta century ago, and retain (especiallyin rural areas)a socialsystem structured on inequalitiesof birth and family origin - inequalitiesso marked that the ethnographicliterature on the region usually describesthem as castedifferences. Neither in preconquesttimes nor today, however, is there any indication of grammaticalhonorifics in the Wolof language, althoughthere were and are other waysto expressdeference. Zulu society,even at the heightof the Zulu state,was somewhatless stratified than Wolof society(to saynothing of Java),and the Bemba polity was lessstrongly centralized than any of the other cases; yet both Zulu and ChiBemba have honorifics.Courts and socialstratification are not irrelevantto honorific language,but they do not predict honorifics'grammaticalization. In exploringthese sociolinguistic systems I do not believeany simple correlation between forms of "on-the-ground"social structure (such as the existenceof a royal court) and forms of talk (such as honorifics)is likely to be found. Instead,as I have argued elsewhere(Irvine 1985, 1989),the relationshipbetween the distributions of socialand linguisticforms is more productivelysought in culturalideologies of language - thosecomplex systems of ideasand intereststhrough which people interpret linguistic behaviors. In this paper, therefore, I shall pay special attention to the linguistic ideologiesthat link ideas about languagewith ideas about social rank, respect,and appropriateconduct - includingthe nativemetapragmatic terminology and theoriesthat articulate and rationalize perceptionsof languagestructure and use (see Silverstein 7979).I draw on a concept of ideology,rather than merely a "culture of language," because "ideology,"whatever else it may mean, suggestsa connection with power relations and intereststhat are fairly central to a socialorder. Some such connection is surely relevant to honorific language. As Silverstein(1979) points out, linguisticideology must be clearlydistinguished from linguistic structuresand from the distribution of uses.It is this distinction that makes the present comparison possibleand, further, sheds light on these systems' historicaldynamics, as I shall briefly observe. 2. Linguistic structures To saythat honorificsare grammaticalizedin a particularlanguage is to saythat expressionsof deference,or of differential status-marking,are incorporated into the language'sgrammatical rules (rules which include its lexicon).Thus a system of grammatical honorifics is a system of alternate linguistic expressionswhich are isosemantic:having the samereference-and-predication values, they differ only in their pragmatic values (expressing degrees of cleference,respect, or distance). That pragmaticvalue operates as part of sentence-meaning,not utterance-meaning.That is, in honorifics,deference is incorporatedin the constructionof the sentenceper se, rather than dependingupon how the sentenceis deployedin its socialor discourse context.(Note that the possibilityof regular,sarcastic uses of honorificsdepends on this condition.) In Javanese,respectful expressionoperates through a system of lexical Ideologies of honoiftc langtage 253 alternates.In the sentencein (1), taken from Errington (1988),each word has a set of alternates,whose combinationsdefine a systemof six "levels"of speechstyle:3 (1) Javanese"language levels" (Errington 1988:90-91): KMMA: I. menapa nandalem mundhut sekul semanten 2. menapa panjenengan mendhet sekul semanten MADYA: 3. napa sampqan mendhet sekul semonten 4. napa sampqan njupuk sega semonten NGOKO: 5. apa sliramu mundhut sega semono 6. apa kowe njupuk sega semono 'you' 'take' 'rice' 'that Gloss: Question much' marker 'Did you take that much rice?' Though rarely exhibiting the complexity and elaboration of the Javanese languagelevels, systems of honorific lexical alternates- respectvocabularies - are also to be found in many other languages.Among such languagesare Zulu and its closest relatives,the other Nguni languages(Xhosa and Seswati). In Zulu and Xhosa the respectvocabulary is known as hloniphc. A few examplesare given in (2): (2) Zulu hlonipha vocabulary (Doke & Vilakazi 1958): ORDINARY HLONIPHA 'graze; weave' aluka acuka 'be dejected' jaba gxaba 'affair' inda6 a injuJo 'my father' Lt6a6 a utlat{a 'hippopotamus' imvu6 u incu6 u 'lion' imbu6 e inju6 e 'house' indlu incumba 'our' -itltu -itlu 'thy' -kho -to I Note that Errington (1988)does not call the languagelanguage levels 'honorifics,n but insteadreserves that term for thoselexical items expressing respect for a referentrather than an - addresseeunlike some other authorswho use"honorifics" for both. Although a distinctionbetween I referenceand address forms is important for his analysis,I prefer the broaderusage for the mmparativepurposes of the presentpaper. I 254 Judith T. Irvine (c, = clicks;6 : implosivebilabial stop) " Many Bantu languagesfound to the northeast of the Nguni group also have respect forms, but locate them in the morphology of the noun classsystem rather than in a set of alternate stems. In ChiBemba (a languageof Zambia), for example, there are no sound shapes exclusively reserved for honorific reference, but respect is expressedby the use of plural prefixes (or pronouns) for singular human referents, as in (3). Noun classes 1 and 2, the singular and plural classesused for most nouns referring to humans, are the main ones affected. Thus the class 2 prefix that marks plurality in (3c) marks honorific singularin (3b): (3) ChiBemba noun prefixes,classes 1/2: (3a) not respectful: umo umukalamba waandi aleelya isabi 11 11 9a one older sibling my subject-tense-eat fish 'One of my older siblingsis eating fish' (3b) respectful: bamo abakalamba baandi baleetya isabi 222 2 9a one older sibling my subject-tense-eatfish 'One of my older siblingsis eating fish' (3c) ambiguous: babili abakalamba baandi baleelya isabi 222 29a two older sibling my subject-tense-eat fish 'Two of my older siblings are eating fish' Ip its noun classsystem, ChiBemba also provides for various pejorative usages, by shifting the classassignment of a noun with human reference, as in (4): (4) Chibemba honorific and pejorative noun prefixes (singular referent): CLASS VALUE '(respectable) abakaJi wife' 2 honorific 'wife' umuka{i 1 disrespectful '(insignificant) akakasi wife' 12 insult '(gross) ilika{i wife' 7 insult '(egregious ilikali [?]) wife' 5 "a little derogatory" Ideologiesof honoific tanguage 255 All these languagesthus have systemsof alternate expressionsdiffering only in pragmatic value. In all of these cases, the grammatical rules involved apply, fundamentally,to word formation (selection of stem or of prefix); the formation of sentencesis affected in consequence,through concord patterns and cooccurrence constraints.Except in (3c), the pragmaticvalue is unambiguousand undeniable. In contrast,Wolof doesnot have thesekinds of rules.Speakers express respect in other ways.Although