Japanese Native Speakers' Derogatory Language Use Against

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Japanese Native Speakers' Derogatory Language Use Against Japanese Native Speakers’ Derogatory Language Use Against Men and Women By Oliver Braun Bachelor Thesis Lund University Japanese Centre for Languages and Literature, Japanese Studies Spring Term 2021 Supervisor: Mechtild Tronnier, Rika Hayashi Abstract This thesis explores the differences between how Japanese native speakers use insults and derogatory language toward men and women. Initially, impoliteness is described as an area of sociolinguistics that explores face-threatening acts, the offensiveness of which is modified by various factors, such as the interlocutors’ relationship and gender. Then, gendered language is described as a subset of role language. Next, female speech is described and discussed as a spontaneously occurring aspect of the Japanese language, and as a manufactured ideal for how women should speak created after the Meiji restoration. This linguistic ideal of a woman should use polite and elegant language — an idea that lingers on to this day. From this theoretical background emerges the research question: “Is there a difference in how speakers of Japanese use derogatory and insulting language against men and women?” To investigate this, a survey was distributed to and answered by 12 participants. The survey consisted of two parts. In the first part, the participants were asked to judge the offensiveness of sentences, each containing one of the selected 10 Japanese derogatory words. The sentences were contextualized using the information about the interlocutors’ relationship, as well as their gender — shown through the use of male and female names. After that, the participants were given a list of 30 terms and asked what gender they associated with the words and how likely they were to use them in a friendly context. The results showed a pattern of the women’s use of insults being perceived as more offensive compared to men’s use of those same words. Thus, this thesis suggests that the use of derogatory language by women is seen as more offensive compared to its use by men. Keywords: impoliteness, gender, insults, derogatory language 2 Conventions In this thesis, the modified Hepburn system is used for transcription. Japanese words are shown in italics. English translation is provided within brackets. 3 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors for being patient with me and giving very helpful feedback on my thesis and construction of my survey, as well as Hayashi-sensei for helping me with translating my survey into Japanese. I would also like to thank my linguistics teacher Ishihara- sensei for giving me extra assistance with my thesis, as well as my friend for helping me brainstorm and proofreading it for me. 4 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7 2. Background ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.1. Impoliteness ................................................................................................................ 9 2.2. Gendered speech ....................................................................................................... 11 2.3. Research question ...................................................................................................... 14 3. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 15 3.1. Part one of the survey ................................................................................................ 17 3.2. Part two of the survey................................................................................................ 18 3.3. Participants and sampling.......................................................................................... 19 4. Results .............................................................................................................................. 20 4.1. Insults and gender...................................................................................................... 20 4.2. Relationship between interlocutors ........................................................................... 22 4.3. Gender of the speaker and addressee ........................................................................ 25 4.4. Gender association and friendliness .......................................................................... 28 4.5. Dialect and age .......................................................................................................... 29 5. Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 31 5.1. Gender of the speaker and the addressee .................................................................. 31 5.2. Association of insults with gender ............................................................................ 33 5.3. Relationships and insults ........................................................................................... 34 5.4. Age and dialect .......................................................................................................... 37 6. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 38 References ................................................................................................................................ 40 Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 42 List of Tables Table 1 Category membership by word ................................................................................... 17 Table 2 Average Impoliteness Value regardless of condition ................................................. 20 Table 3 Average Impoliteness Value by gender condition ...................................................... 21 Table 4 Average Impoliteness Value by relationship, regardless of gender............................ 22 Table 5 Average Impoliteness Value by relationship and gender ........................................... 23 Table 6 Average Impoliteness Value by word and relationship .............................................. 24 5 Table 7 Average Impoliteness Value by gender and role, all conditions ................................ 25 Table 8 Average Impoliteness Value for male and female addressees and speakers by word 25 Table 9 Average Impoliteness Value by gender and relationship ........................................... 27 Table 10 Gender association by word ...................................................................................... 28 Table 11 Likelihood of friendly use by word .......................................................................... 29 Table 12 Average Impoliteness Value for dialects, any condition. ......................................... 29 Table 13 Average Impoliteness Value by age, any condition ................................................. 29 6 1. Introduction Nishimura (2019) states that in the field of Japanese sociolinguistics, politeness has received much more attention from researchers than impoliteness. She traces back the first proper research on impoliteness to the work of the psychologist Hoshino in the 1970s. Hoshino blamed the unwillingness to describe Japanese impoliteness among linguists on their additional role as language teachers, who had the underlying assumption that you should not teach bad Japanese but rather good Japanese. Thus, impoliteness was not an attractive research topic among scholars (Nishimura, 2019, pp. 264-265). This had carried into the modern day, as pointed out by Calvetti (2020) when looking at an up-to-date list of papers on Japanese impoliteness made by Nishimura. The list shows that publications on the topic are few and far between (Calvetti, 2020, p. 101). Impoliteness is thus a field with a relative lack of research, which is why it is important to contribute additional data by investigating it further. Impoliteness is also often tied to a balance (or imbalance) of power between interlocutors, which in some cases may relate to their gender. Therefore, it is possible that the gender of the speaker and the addressee may affect the perceived impoliteness of an utterance. This makes it interesting to investigate whether native speakers differ in their use of insults and derogatory language depending on their own gender, as well as that of the addressee. Perceived impoliteness is also affected by the context, such as the relationship between interlocutors, with the closer relationships allowing for joking or ironic use of seemingly offensive language. For example, it is more acceptable to use teasing insults with friends than with superiors at work — it might be acceptable to jokingly call one’s friend an idiot, while saying the same thing to one’s boss, teacher, or parents would certainly be seen as less acceptable. If the factors such as gender and the relationship between the speaker and the addressee affect the interpretation of impolite utterances such as ‘idiot’, it is natural to assume that they might interact and create complex patterns of perceived impoliteness. This thesis will explore whether there is a difference between how native Japanese speakers use insults and derogatory language towards men and women. First, in the background chapter, the notion of impoliteness as well as gendered
Recommended publications
  • Germanistische Studien
    Eine Zeitschrift des Vereins Deutsche Sprache (Georgien) GERMANISTISCHE STUDIEN N. 10 Jubiläumsausgabe Herausgegeben von Lali Kezba-Chundadse und Friederike Schmöe Begründet von Samson (Tengis) Karbelaschwili Tbilissi · Dortmund Verlag „Universal“ Germanistische Studien Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Lali Kezba-Chundadse und PD. Dr. Friederike Schmöe Begründet von Prof. Dr. Samson Karbelaschwili († 2009) Die Zeitschrift „Germanistische Studien“ des Vereins Deutsche Sprache (Abteilung Tbilissi) ist ein Forum für Forschungsbeiträge aus dem Bereich der deutschen Sprachwissenschaft, Literaturtheorie und Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Es ist interdisziplinär angelegt und offen für alle theoretischen Ansätze in oben genannten Teilbereichen der Germanistik. Die Zeitschrift erscheint seit 2000 einmal jährlich in gedruckter Form. Bis 2009 wurden Fallstudien in allen Teilbereichen der Germanistik veröffentlicht. Die letzten zwei Hefte (2009/10) der Zeitschrift, je einem Schwerpunktthema gewidmet, sind Tagungsberichte. Beiträge können nur in deutscher Sprache verfasst eingereicht werden. Die eingesandten Beiträge werden durch den international besetzten Beirat begutachtet. Die Druckausgabe wird unterstützt durch den Verein Deutsche Sprache. Allen Beiträgen wird ein kurzes 10- 15 Zeilen, (maximal ein halbseitiges englischsprachiges) Abstract vorangestellt. Die Inhaltsverzeichnisse der Print-Ausgaben, die Abstracts aller publizierten Beiträge und ausgewählte Artikel, nach den Namen der Autoren alphabetisch geordnet, sind im Volltext unter http://germstud.wordpress.com
    [Show full text]
  • Malebicta INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of VERBAL AGGRESSION
    MAlebicTA INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VERBAL AGGRESSION III . Number 2 Winter 1979 REINHOLD AMAN ," EDITOR -a· .,.'.""",t!. 1'''' ...... ".......... __... CD MALEDICTA PRESS WAUKESHA 196· - MALEDICTA III Animal metaphors: Shit linked with animal names means "I don't believe a word of it," as in pig, buzzard, hen, owl, whale, turtle, rat, cat, and bat shit, as well as the ever-popular horseshit. But bullshit remains the most favored, probably because of the prodigious quantity of functional droppings associated with the beast. On payday the eagle shits. Ill. Insults Shit on YDU!, eat shit!, go shit in your hat!, full ofshit, tough shit, shit-head (recall Lieutenant Scheisskopf in Catch-22), ELEMENTARY RUSSIAN OBSCENITY You shit, little shit, stupid shit, dumb shit, simple shit, shit­ heel; he don't know shit from Shinola, shit or get offthe pot, ·Boris Sukitch Razvratnikov chickenshit, that shit don't fetch, to be shit on, not worth diddly (or doodly) shit, don't know whether to shit orgo blind, he thinks his shit don't stink, he thinks he's King Shit, shit­ This article wiII concern itself with the pedagogical problems eating grin. encountered in attempting to introduce the basic concepts of IV: Fear Russian obscenity (mat) to English-speaking first-year students Scared shitless, scare the shit out of, shit green (or blue), shit at the college level. The essential problem is the fact that Rus­ .v,''' bricks, shit bullets, shit little blue cookies, shit out of luck, sian obscenity is primarily derivational while English (i.e., in 'r" almost shit in his pants (or britches), on someone's shit-list, this context, American) obscenity is analytic.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomarbeit
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OTHES DIPLOMARBEIT Titel der Diplomarbeit “Swearing across cultures: A lexical analysis of Pulp Fiction in English and German” Verfasserin Sonja Renate Astrid Pühringer angestrebter akademischer Grad: Magistra der Philosophie (Mag.phil.) Wien, im Oktober 2012 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 190 344 353 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: Lehramtsstudium UF Englisch, UF Spanisch Betreuerin: o. Univ. Prof. em. Dr. habil. Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky Acknowledgements First and foremost I want to thank Prof. Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky for her helpful suggestions, stimulations and great anecdotes. I am grateful for many hours of delightful discussion and conversation. Furthermore, I want to express gratitude to my family who has supported me mentally and financially throughout my studies. Last but not least I dedicate this thesis to my grandfather, Ing. Winfried Albert, who has encouraged me my whole live and whom I will be forever thankful for. i Table of contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................i Table of contents .............................................................................................................. ii List of tables .....................................................................................................................iv 1. Introduction...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Defining Swearing 2 a Typology of Swearing
    Notes 1 Defining Swearing 1. According to Vincent (1982: 36) a distinction was made between the sacre and blasphemy (le blasphème); while the second of these denotes conscious profa- nation of the name of God and the saints (la profanation du nom de Dieu et des Saints), the first term is reserved for thoughtless interjectional use of such names and of the names of sacred objects (l’utilisation du vocabulaire religieux à des fins interjectives). The sacres were originally part of the swearing repertory of European French but have developed new meanings and pronunciations in Canadian French, in particular in Montreal. 2. This study took place in 2005 at a school in Tensta, a Stockholm suburb with many immigrants. The participants who were aged between 14 and 17 were asked to give ten examples of typical swearing. Even if this approach encour- aged exaggeration and produced certain unlikely answers, it indicates that the swearing of young people in Tensta differs strongly from mainstream Swedish swearing. 3. In a 1978 study 38 students at the University of Texas at Austin were asked to rank 80 constructions in accordance with how typical they were as instances of American English swearing. The results indicated that taboo strength was one of the most important factors affecting their choice but not the only one. See Appendix 3 for the rank list resulting from this experiment. (The list can also be found in Ljung 1984: 117–20.) 4. The information about the use of offensive language reported on here has been taken from www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorial guidelines/a.
    [Show full text]
  • Swearing Methodologically: the (Im) Politeness of Expletives In
    JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES - VOLUME 10 (2012), 25-50 SWEARING METHODOLOGICALLY: THE (IM)POLITENESS OF EXPLETIVES IN ANONYMOUS COMMENTARIES ON YOUTUBE MARTA DYNEL Lodz University ABSTRACT. This theoretical paper addresses the (im)politeness of swear words. The primary objective is to account for their nature and functions in anonymous Internet communication, represented by YouTube commentaries (and exemplified by those following snatches of “Borat”), in the light of recent approaches to (im)politeness, notably: second order (im)politeness, necessarily recruiting first order interpretations; intention- based approach; and relational work. The emerging postulate is that taboo words can display impoliteness (by manifesting aggression, power-building and abuse) or politeness (by fostering solidarity, common ground and humour). The nature and functions of cursing in anonymous commentaries are posited to be largely reminiscent of those appearing in oral interactions. Nevertheless, several characteristics of expletives appear to be peculiar to the discourse of an e-community of practice. Keywords: Catharsis, e-community of practice, impoliteness, intention, solidarity politeness, swear word/swearing. 25 Journal of English Studies, vol. 10 (2012) 25-50 MARTA DYNEL LAS PALABROTAS METODOLÓGICAMENTE: LA (FALTA DE) CORTESÍA DE LOS EXPLETIVOS EN COMENTARIOS ANÓNIMOS EN YOUTUBE RESUMEN. Este artículo teórico trata sobre la (falta de) cortesía en las palabrotas. El principal objetivo es dar cuenta de su naturaleza y de sus funciones en la comunicación anónima en Internet a la luz de los enfoques recientes sobre el estudio de la cortesía. Específicamente examinamos los comentarios en Youtube y damos ejemplos de aquellos relativos a “Borat”. La cortesía de segundo orden requiere necesariamente interpretaciones de primer orden: el enfoque intencional y trabajo relacional.
    [Show full text]