{"title":"The Typology and Social Pragmatics of Interlocutor Reference Across Asian Speech Communities","authors":"Luke Fleming, J. Sidnell","doi":"10.47298/jala.v1-i1-a1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study of honorific pronouns largely grew out of work on European languages (Brown and Gilman 1960; Friedrich 1966; Paulston 1976; Slobin 1963) and has developed into a prodigious, and in many ways, fertile literature on so-called ‘address systems’ (Brown & Ford 1961; Braun 1988). Nevertheless, some 60 years after the publication of Brown and Gilman’s (1960) foundational essay, “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity,” it is perhaps time to imagine how the same discursive phenomena would have been framed with a different empirical point of departure. Here we reconceptualize this domain by focusing on the social pragmatics of speaker- and addressee-reference in Southeast Asian, as well as some East Asian, languages. Reimagined from this vantage point, pronominal address emerges as but one half of a more encompassing domain – the social pragmatics of interlocutor reference. Southeast Asian languages provide speakers with a much wider range of formal resources and functional mechanisms for signaling the relationship between speech act participants (and between these participants and third parties) than do European languages. Formally, Southeast Asian languages are notable for the range of non-pronominal, open-class nouns which can be employed in speaker- and addressee-reference. Functionally, the social indexing of the relationship between speaker and addressee is not only grammaticalized in forms that are employed to refer to the addressee. On the contrary, these languages are notable for elaborating social pragmatic distinctions in speaker-reference as well as addressee-reference. Because Southeast Asian languages recruit a much more expansive range of forms in denoting speech act participants, and because they are not functionally restricted to addressee-reference in activating social pragmatic alternations, they offer the kind of maximally differentiated systems which enable the construction of typological generalizations and implicational universals.","PeriodicalId":36068,"journal":{"name":"Journal on Asian Linguistic Anthropology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal on Asian Linguistic Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47298/jala.v1-i1-a1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The study of honorific pronouns largely grew out of work on European languages (Brown and Gilman 1960; Friedrich 1966; Paulston 1976; Slobin 1963) and has developed into a prodigious, and in many ways, fertile literature on so-called ‘address systems’ (Brown & Ford 1961; Braun 1988). Nevertheless, some 60 years after the publication of Brown and Gilman’s (1960) foundational essay, “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity,” it is perhaps time to imagine how the same discursive phenomena would have been framed with a different empirical point of departure. Here we reconceptualize this domain by focusing on the social pragmatics of speaker- and addressee-reference in Southeast Asian, as well as some East Asian, languages. Reimagined from this vantage point, pronominal address emerges as but one half of a more encompassing domain – the social pragmatics of interlocutor reference. Southeast Asian languages provide speakers with a much wider range of formal resources and functional mechanisms for signaling the relationship between speech act participants (and between these participants and third parties) than do European languages. Formally, Southeast Asian languages are notable for the range of non-pronominal, open-class nouns which can be employed in speaker- and addressee-reference. Functionally, the social indexing of the relationship between speaker and addressee is not only grammaticalized in forms that are employed to refer to the addressee. On the contrary, these languages are notable for elaborating social pragmatic distinctions in speaker-reference as well as addressee-reference. Because Southeast Asian languages recruit a much more expansive range of forms in denoting speech act participants, and because they are not functionally restricted to addressee-reference in activating social pragmatic alternations, they offer the kind of maximally differentiated systems which enable the construction of typological generalizations and implicational universals.
对敬语代词的研究很大程度上源于对欧洲语言的研究(Brown and Gilman 1960;弗里德里希·1966;Paulston 1976;Slobin 1963),并在许多方面发展成为一个惊人的,肥沃的所谓的“地址系统”的文献(Brown & Ford 1961;布劳恩1988)。然而,在布朗和吉尔曼(1960)的基础论文《权力与团结的代名词》发表约60年后,也许是时候想象一下,同样的话语现象将如何以不同的经验出发点被框定。在这里,我们通过关注东南亚以及一些东亚语言的说话人和收件人指称的社会语用学来重新定义这一领域。从这个有利的角度重新想象,代词称呼只是一个更广泛的领域的一半-对话者参考的社会语用学。与欧洲语言相比,东南亚语言为说话者提供了更广泛的正式资源和功能机制,以表明言语行为参与者之间(以及这些参与者和第三方之间)的关系。在形式上,东南亚语言以非代词、开放类名词的广泛使用而著称,这些名词可以用于说话人和收件人的指称。从功能上看,说话人与受话人之间关系的社会标引不仅仅是以指受话人的形式被语法化的。相反,这两种语言在讲话者指称和收件人指称方面的社会语用差异是显著的。由于东南亚语言在表示言语行为参与者时采用了更广泛的形式,并且由于它们在激活社会语用替代时不受功能限制于称呼参考,因此它们提供了一种最大程度上分化的系统,使类型学概括和隐含共相的构建成为可能。