On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae

Journal of Pragmatics 3 (1979) 239-266 (63North-Holland Pubbshing Company

ON THE SOCPOLINGUISTIC RELEVANCE OF ROUTINE FORMULAE *

FLORIAN COULMAS

Routine formulae are zxpressions whose occurrence is closely tied to types of recurrent social situations. In providing the verbal means for mastering such situations in a generally accepted manner, they carry a great deal of social meaning. It is argued in the present paper that the pragmatic conditions for their appropriate usage a9 well as their cornmunicativc functions can only be explicated in terms of cognitive systems of beliefs, wants, wishes, prefcrcnccs, norms, and values. The problem of translation of routine formulae is discussed, and it is dcmonstrated that a proper analysis can only be reached on the basis of a contraslive pragmatic approach. An attempt is made at explaining in what sense routine formulae arc typical of a given sociocultural system.

1. Introduction Contrary to one of the basic claims of Transformational Generative Grammar, it is by f o means true that virtually all sentences have an occurrence probability and frequrtilcy of close to zero. The successful performance of many speech acts depe!uls on the usage of highly recurrent 1:xpression.s which hti\,e thus a comparative]) high frequency of occurrence - so much so t11~1many of them have become standardized to the degree of idiomatization. ~ Idiomaticity is a property of language; that is, idiomatic expressions can be encountered in any 1anguage:Their importance is generally acknowledged; nevertheless, they are rarely laken account of as objects of theoretical interest. I am convinced that it is not a matter of mere coincidence that the problem idiomaticity has been subjected to only very .few serious attempts at theoretical explanation in modern formal linguistics. Transformational Generative Grammar has very little to say about idioms, and the only comprehensive account is not given in its frainework, but rather on the basis of Stratificationat Grarilmar (cf. Makkai 1972). However, I do not want to discuss the reasons for the conceptual weakness of Transformational Generative Grammar with regard to idioms. ‘Without going into details, let me just mention two of them:

of

* This study was financially supported by the Deutsche ForsclttrngsgemeDlschoft (DW, grant No. Wu 86/4. I am grateful to Hartmut Haberland and Charles IYlmore for ValurW corn--œ ments to an earlier version of this paper. 239

240

F. Coulntus /Routine

formulue

(A) One reasion is that idiomaticity destroys the neat conceptual complementarity of competence and performance. It is not clear whether the filters admitting some expression,s as idiomatic and rejecting others should be assigned to competence or perfomlance. To look at idiomaticity as a mere performance phenomenon and thereby dismissing it from ‘linguistics proper’ is certainly no satisfa.ctory solution. (B)The other reason is that, with idioms, the Fregean principle loses its validitlf. According to the Fregean principle, the meaning of every complex sequence follows from the lexical meanings of the individual parts. This basic semantic truth. however, has no bearing on idioms, and hence it is not clear how we should provide for a semantic d.escription of idioms unless we decide to rid ourselves of this pnjblem by putting all of them as unanalyzed units into the lexicon. Both of tkiese reasons are indirectly connected with the exclusion of pragma.tic considerations from “linguistics proper’. That a given e:tpression is not to be interpreted literally can very often omy be understood in the light of the pragma?ics ,af human interaction. This ability is yet another aspect of linguistic competence - ,;ln aspect v higch could not be properly explained so far, but still a part which is essential for the competent use of idioms. What I have to offer here is not an outline of an overall theory of idiomatic expressions. The focus of the present paper is, rather, ,on a set of expressions which is dehmited by pragmatic-functil anal criteria. Routine Formulae (hereafter: RFs) are e:;pressiol?s of two different kinds: (i) pmgmatic idioms and (ii) repetitive phmses. Repetitive phrases are not idiomatic in a strict grammatical sense; that is, they are not restricted as to pattern productivitv 4 do not suffer from transformational defectiveness. Pragmatic idioms, on ihe other hand, are characterized by certain features typical of idioms in the tracWona1 sense. Membership in either of these sets, as I we it, is a matter of degree, and hence the boundary between them is vague. The critical attribute uniting both is the functi,onal appropr:iateness of all of these expressions relative to types of social situations. In other words, their effiiciency in meeting certain ftinctional demands has resulted in their formulaic character. Hence, by definition, RFs are expressions whose occurrence is closely bound t.o specific social situations and which are, on the basis of an evaluatfon of such situa. tions, highly predictable in a communicative course of events. Their meaning :is pragmatically conditioned, and their usage is motivated by the relevant characteristics of such s,oc:ialsituations. To fmd out just what characteristics these are is thus essential for a theoretically sound description of RFs. In what follows not all considerations refer to all RFs. Yet, as our main concern is with the situationally determined conditions of their usage, it: is preferable to treat them as a single set. The distinction between the two kinds cf RFs mentioned above should, however, be borne in mind.

F. Cotdims /Routine 2.

forpulae

241

The semantics of Routine Form&e

It is quite obvious that, as a consequence of their transformational defectiveness, the meanings of many RFs cannot be arrived at by methods of compositional semantics. Although formulae of this kind may be composed of individual morphemes all of which do occur in other contexts artd‘of freely transformable phras,a with a clearly defined meaning, knowledge of thle meanings of the parts doles not suffice to tell the meaning of the whole formula: it must be learned as a unit. Like idioms in general, formulaic expressions are cases where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. In his song ‘Don’t think. twice, it’s allright’ (from the record The FreewkeZin’ .Bob Byhzn, CBS 62193) Bob ;>ylan makes use of the idiomaticity of two RFs, in a playful manner. If I remember correctly, the line I have in mind goes like this: “‘Butgoudb.ye’s too good a word babe, so I'll just sayfare-thee-well . . .“. The i ran y of this verse must escape the recipient who is unaware of the idiomatic character of good bye as well as farewelt and fare-thee-well. It is only this kind of use that reminds us of the original meaning of these phrases, How then can we describl! the meanings of RFs? And how can we explain that the meaning of the whole expression has dissociated itself from the meanings of the parts? Certainly the compositional point of view cannot explain that phrases such as don’t mention it and my pkasurz are, in a sense, very close in meaning. How can we account for this fact? There are two ways of looking at facts of this kind: one is to say RFs lack descriptive meaning altogether. This view was held by Malino,wski (19233 who subsumed linguisti’: routines under his qr:ite mislead”ng concept of “phatic communion”. The other way is to say that, if investigation of the descriptive meaning does not yield the desired result, an alternative solut’on must be looked for. An alternative solution which seems to be appropriatp f~‘cr. semantic analysis of this kind of expressions is furnishe-: bv ?be inspection of therr context of use. This amounts to a functional approach to th< analysis of meaning. Basically, a theory of RFs will have to be a pragmatic theory. More obviously than other kinds of expressions they exhibit features which call for semantic as well as pragmatic considerations. The analysis of the meanings of RFs is context dependent. The Wittgensteinian principle turns out to be fully applicable and valid in this case: the meaning of RFs must be explained a.s functions of habitual usage. AS they provide the verbal means for certain types of conventional action, their meanings are conditioned by the behavior patterns of which they are an integrated part. Of course, adopting this point of view does not by itself solve any problems; rather, they are posed in a new light. The question of the meanings of RFs is thus transformed into the question of judgments of appt*opriateness of situated uses of,RFs. I do not, however, argue for the complete neglect of their descriptive meaning. This part of their meaning can, in fact, be very telling for diachronic as well as sociohguistic considerations. But, generally, one has to acknowledge a shift towards the expressive side in the relation between descriptive and expressive aspects of mean-

242

F. Coulmas / Rourine jk.wndue

ing in RFs as compared with non-routinized expressions.. The expressive aspects, so to speak, often dommate the descriptive aspects, and this is the very reason why putting the descriptive meaning of a formula into the garment of another language only very rarely yields an equivalent and well-formed expressionof that hmguage. Greek :rt)K&W and Dutch hoe Take /row do you do as an obvious e;:.. --yk. 1 makr ICJr& are both idiomatic and pretty close in descriptive meaning to the Eng= iish greeting formula. But mvmmnt faites-wus &a) or ewie muchen $k (es) are absolutely impossible for the intended purpose in French and German. Moreover, the Greek formula has quite a different functional prot%e: unlike its English counterpart, it cannot be used in a mere politeness exchange. This is perhaps. an extreme case, and the dominance of the expressive over the descriptive aspect may be less prc:%ounced in many others. However, the meaning of RFs in most cases is characterized more clearly than in any other way in terms of specific features of social situations, that i: , by rules of use which are conditioned by certain social dimensions. These dimensions are not invariant and neither are the systems of conventional knowledge serving for their assessment, This leads to the conclusion that an adequate analysis of the meanings of RFs depends heavi!y on a proper description of their respective situational contexts. Only knowledge of the relevant dimensions of social situations (and their relative weight) gua.rantees an understanding of the meaning of formulae which are tied to them. The ability to identify am-!sirfferentiate standardized communication situations with re!?etitive purposes and their proper association with rouGnized linguistic means fDr their mastering thus constitutes an essential part of common sense knowledge of social structure. Knowicdge of this kind is not disorganized, but structured in a presumably cultur-spzcific way in conceptual frames (see below section 6).

3. Situational frames Many ethnographic and socblinguistic: studies have drawn attention to the fact that environmental clues play a vital role in determining speech behavior. However, much more effort has been put into the investigation of the linguistic components of communicative events than into the study of extraverbal factors. As a consequence, the linguistically relevant aspects of sittution’al structures are still little understood. This is, after ah, not really surprising: the most cons$cuous quality of situations of everyday interaction is their complexity. A great vrlriety of factors enter into speech situations, and on theoretical grounds alone, it is hardly pas-lble to discriminate those factors which are relevant for the correct a.pplieation of KFs from those which are not. A great deal of patient and careful observation of communicative events in various cultures is called for, in order to enable us to decide whith parts of a situational description are to be taken into xcount, and which can be neglected. We would surely expect. that the size of a person’s shoes is immaterial for the lin-

guistic behavior of his iMerlocutor; but, in many other cases, it will be less obvious whether or not a given Lharacteristic has any bearing on the structuring of communicative events. According to Alfred Schlitz (1960), understanding social interaction requires the reconstruction of those interpretative patterns put into practice by communicating subjects in social’ intercourse in order to understand interactional scenes. Every participant in a social situation brings along his interactional experience, which allows him ta identify every concrete situation as a token of a type of situation previously encountered. On the basis of wants, preferences, norms, values, knowledge of human motivations, and interpretative schemes he is able to abstract those features of a situation which it has in common with others. There are, of course, situailons which are quite unique? in character, and such situations typically lack the regular behavioral certainty of social interaction. (A fact that has been exploited as well as demonstrated in Garfinkel’s “inconsistency experiments” (1967).) This becomes particularly obvious when two different intcrpretative schemes are applied to one and the same situation, that is, when e.g. z social encounter of members of different socio-cultural systems takes place. Under normal circumstances, howeveri the ‘reciprocity of ma+rnnr+tin n-n h non,*-firl y”I”pA.b .“S ’ 8dczII v* bKmUI‘IFU, and is, in Fact, not questioned. Social situations have certain characteristics, and being a member of a socio-cultural system means to know how to assess these features. Social situations can be described in terms of continuation patterns, that is, in terms of those acts which constitute a socially acceptable continuation of the course ‘of action. Every social act IS, in a way, conditioned by the preceding acts. Thus, social situations vary according to the size of the set of possible continuations: some allow for a great variety of continuations - their continuation pattern is relatively unspecific; others may require exactly one or allow a very limited number of continuations - their continuation pattern is highly spec8ic. Typically, RF-3 are used in situations with highly speciific continuation patterns; this is true even when they serve as the initiating move in a communientive exchange. For every native speaker of a language the conditions of use of its ‘RFs seem quite simple and obvious, To him, certain situations are clearly motivated in relation to a given formula. The fact that these conditions as well as the individual formulae and the total sets of formulae vary on a large scale from one sociocultural system to another, makes it clear that they are fai6y complicated and that various kinds of information have to be accounted for in their diescription. In order to appropriately describe ‘RI%it is necessary to find parameters which render the characterizations of social situations cross-culiurally comparable. Otherwise the interesting contrast between routinized repertoires of different languages are bound to remain obscure, In this connection the inte!rtranslatability of names, or rather, descriptions of sioeech acts in different languag,es should be investigated. Name? of speech acts may serve as a valuable heuristic &vice for the investigation of functions of Ianguage, but they should not enter tinquestio’nedly into the metalanguage of the description of speech situations and linguistic routines. Limitations

244

F. ebul?nus / iF!outinefi?F?t:

.dae

in intertranslatability hint at differences between the structuring of speech situations and I;Labitual speech activity in different communities, which should then be analyzed ia detail. Just as there may be a variety of routines, there may be great differences in the structure of speech situations of different societies. With regard to the following proposals it should thus be borne in mind that the relation between the factors that come together for the characterization of speech situations should be conceived of as variable, that is, the relative weight of some factor for the selection of a formula may vary both from one formula to another and from one socio-cultural system to another. It should also be noted that the contextual embedding of RFs, the ‘background information’, is very important for their assessment. This is so, because many of them are highIy indexical in character. For th.is reason, pragmatic ruler for RFs cannot be formulated without taking account of the social conditions of their usage, such a? the sex, age, and relative social status of participants; their authority, role, and politeness relations: the social occasion, and its spatio-temporal setting; etc. The importance of the individual factors is, as I indicated, not invariably fixed. Their respective relevance depends on their being part of the actual or virtual knowledge of participants concerning the social properties of communication situations. Accordingly, we have to ask (i) what infolrmatian is necessary for evaluating the appropriateness of a given formul! in a given situation; (ii) how the various parts of this kind of communication governing knowledge are related to one another; and (iii) how the kn ow 1ed ge on which this kind of evaluation is based can be modeled It seems quite promising to exploit the concept of cognitive (situational) frames fol this purpose. In a recent paper, van Dijk (1.977) rnade some suggestions concerning a “cogni,. tive theory of language use”. He argues that speech acts are parts of frames, and that they are interpreted on the basis of world knowledge organized in frames [l ] The performance of many speech acts - especially those which have come to be highly ritualized, such as greeting. leave-taking, congratulating, baptizing, introducing, etc. - depends to a large extent on the use of RFs. In the following I will dis, cuss the question in what sense RFs can be regarded as parts of frames. A ‘situational frame’ is tc be conceived of as an organized conceptual scheme contaming necessary information on the use of RFs or a class of RFs, that is, information that can be taken as motivating the use of some formula in some situation, Ilence the situational frame is meant to provide a situational description which matches the perception of the respective situation by the members of the group in whose culture it is defined. Situational frames are thus conventional and culture specific (see section 6 below). Situational frames have a double character. They are conceptual representations oi* the ensemble of those factors that determine typified speech behavior, the verbal [ 1] Van Dijk’s use of ‘frame’is different from Goffman’s, whose “frame analysis” is developed on the basis of some suggestionsby G. nateson.

I’ Couimas/ Routine formulae

245

context being, however, one: of them. This is particularly obvious in the description of routinized sequences of formulae: many RFs have but one formula associated with them that serves as the necessary contextual condition of their occurrence (see below section 6). In principle, preceding verbal activity is to be recognized as a conditioning factor of the continuation of every given situation. One position of the situational frame representing culturally admissible courses of communicative action is thus occupied by the verbal context - no matter whether it is actually decisive, or empty, or only one of the factors adding up to the total motivation of the next move (set of possible next moves). A situational frame associated to an RF should be specific enough as to delimit the range of its application. A functional description of this kind can result in a rational method for providing translations, or rather, discovering functional equivalents of RFs between any two 1ang:tages. The key methodological problem in this procedure is that the two (sets of) items to be compared, i.e. both the formulae and the situations, vary simultaneously. In other words, we cannot keep invariant either the situation or the forrnuia to be mapped on the target language correiale. This is so, because social structtires are differently defined and patterned in different sociocultural systems. What we need, therefore, is a metric for evahlating the degree of similarity of any two situation types. The approximate functional equivalence of two formulae will then correlate with the degree of similarity Jf their respective situations of use. It is a plausible hypothesis that situation type:5 also vary according to their generality. Thus, some situations such as, presumably, greeting or leave-taking may be universal; others may be common to some societies and languages;, e.g. proposing to change porn v- to t-jiwnzs of address; and still others may be restricted to one sole culture, as many rituals, customs, and habits probab y are. Notice that the question of whether or not a situation is unique depends ta, some e.
one society, and immaterial in another where, the season may be of much greater relevance. Likewise:. place, sex, age, familiarity, rank, role-relationship, social occasion, etc. may or may not be relevant to the selection of a given RF. A singlv ling,uistic variable is thus mapped onto several important social dimensions, and uice YersII.Consequently, an equivalence network for formulae of two languages resulting from the procedure here proposed would consist of a highly complex set of relations between pairs of formulae and sets of fac:tors combining to form corresponding situation types which are simiinr to a greater or lesser degree. As an informal illustration consider the foilowing formula, uttered by A to his interlocutor B: (1) Congratulations! Because of the methodo%ogical reasons discussed ab ‘e, I h’esitate to use a label such as ‘Congratulation’ or ‘Wclll-wishing’ as a term of the meta-language for describing RFs such as (1); Without evpirica! ohservatinn, FP simply don’t know whether this kind of activity does exist in all -ultures. What we do know is that similar activities are common in some cultures, and it is interesting to see where they coincide and where they differ. Under this provision, I will make occasional USCof the term ‘Congratularion’.

A frame for (1)

I. Participants YX we

socid role hierarchy authority

familiaff&_P

with respect to sex and age, (1) is almost universally reciprocal in its application, unrestricted with respect to age and sex of congratulator and r?sipient, that is. under this perspective, too, the reciprocity of (1) is hardly restricted. That is tosay, there is nogeneral condition to the effect that some B who is superior in hierarchy and superordinate in authority could not be addressed by an inferior A using (1). (Who can congratulate whom on what, is yet another question.) use of (1) implies, or rather presupposes, a certain degree of familiarity. in the relation of A and B. However, little more than a common ‘frame of reference’ is required. A must know something about B justifying :a certain evaluation. (1) is not stylistically marked as ‘familiar’ or as any other such quality. Its usage alone does not allow any conclusions about the degree of intimacy between A and 8. In fact, (1) plus some kind of appropriate response may remain the only communicative exchange between A and B in their whole lives (if P.R. B is awarded a decoration by A).

time may be a relevant factor in two respects: (ii the !I;;re that elapsed since the event that g?ves reason to the utterance of (2):

F. Coulmas / Routine formulae

247

and (ii) the time span between A’s entering into a communicarlve situation with B and his delivery of (1). Comment: as for (i), a ‘congratulation’ referring to B’s birthday of two years ago is unacceptable; as for (ii), if invited to a birthday party, the guest is supposed to deliver his ‘congratulation’as soon as possible. This general requirement can even affect the normal order of events in social encounters insofar as other opening phrases (e.g. greeting RI%) may be omitted. The use of such phrases as bv the way. /fbrgot . . . or say, did I. . . when the ‘congratulation’ was not immediately delivered, oniy indicates that there is a time or sequencing requirement as indicated.) place

the place of the communicative event may have d bearing on the production of (1) insofar as it may determine the degree of obliga. torincss. Comment: If e.g. A and fl meet each other incidentally, in the St?Wt,

{I)

fiXly ?33 &iiG&b!e,

piOdd&

SXtaiE

GthG

C~fiditiOfiS

are met. If, by contrast, A comes to B’s house on the occasion of B’s wedding, (I) or an equivalent is obligatory. III. The why and wherefore rime

a ‘congratulation’ can only refer to a non-future event. (There is even i1 common superstition that a premature “congratulation’ brings bad luck.)

reason

a ‘congratulation’ may be motivated by various kinds of reasons: - a per ional achievement; - an accidental stroke of luck; - an anniversary or jubiRee. Commc-w: All of the criteria mentioned above are in need of further specification, which is o-nitted here. It is obvious that the rationale for the utterance of (I) is a crucial condition which is accotdiagly reflected in the semantics of verbs such as ‘congratulate’. The cultural speciticity of this kind of activity becomes particdarly obvious here. What is to be regarded as L personal achievement e.g. is by no means self-evident. Whatever the reason may be, it is assumed to be a happy event for 8. The same event may be interpreted differently if viewed from different perspectives or with regard to different participants ,to that event. The etiquette rule, for instance, that at a wedding congratulations are given to the groom and best wishes to the bride, is quite telling culturally.

IV. Contextual restrictions sequentialization

no prior ‘congratulation’ referring to the same event uttered by A must hnve been received end acknowledged by B. If this requirement is to be circumvented without jeopardixing the ‘normality’ of tare course of events, this has to be explicitly indicated by employing verbal means such as introductory or rather meta-communicative phrases like crguin . . . OE ante again (cf. II (ii)). A

I;: Coulmos /Routine

248

f&n&c

definite contextual restriction establisfr.td by the use of (1) is that it needs to be acknowledged. the style of the ‘congratulation’ formula must conform to the stylistic level of the rest of the conversation. (I), however, does not seem to be stylisticMy marked very restrictively. Y. Concomitant activity .7esttrres

‘corrgratulations’ is habitually accompanied by a handshake; in less formal occasions, a pat on the back is an alternative as well as a hug or a kiss. Comtmwt: ‘Congratulations’ accompariied by a pat on the back im,plies a role-relationship between the partidipants, where the congratulator is either equal or superior to the recipient. As for kissing and hugging there are, of course, many variants depending on sex and age of the participants. Both indicate,honrever,o familiar

or intimate re%on. Ths exposition of a frame for (1) is by no means complete. We can, however, conclude that, if the restrictions stated so far are o!xerwx! xx! af! t!t?eranct: d (I? iz performed, an act confirming to the Anglo-American pattern of ‘congratulation’ has

taken place. Moreover, on the basis of a situational description along the lines of the frame, we can make predictions about the probability of an occurrence of (1). We can further conclude that a systematic description of the appropriate use of routines is possible, and that frames integrating mutually compatible ways of participating in communicative activities should be employed for this purpose. In spite of its crudeness, the frame for (1) suffices to illustrate the main points of the analy,sis. The essential factors governing the use of (1) were integrated and centered around the concept of ‘congratulation’. This i: what a frame is designed to do. It is important to remember that the knowledge represented in the frame is entirely conventional, and that the set-up,for ‘congratulation’ in other culturles is likely to differ in some points from the one here depicted. Congratulation and congratuiation just aren’t the same things if viewed against the background of two different cultural matrices. This can be demonstrated by comparing the frame for (1) with a frame for ( 2) o-medetii gozaimasu

the dosest Japanese equivalent to (1). It has been repeatedly stressed in this paper that in most car&s only approximate cross-language equivalents of RFs can be found. In the following, we shall accordingly talk about ‘J-congratulations’ instl:ad of ‘congratulations’. A frame for (2) I. Participants sex

there is no qualification of the reciprocity of (2) with respect to

F. Coulmas /Routine formulae

249

sex. Age, however, is a significant factor: (2) is not used if B is a child (and ri an adult) because the form of the verb,gozaimcsu, is too polite. hierarchy authority

the general rules of ‘verbitl politeness’ in Japanese would predict that (2) is used in a relationship where the speaker is inferior to the listener. These rules do not, however, apply to RFs such as (2). There is hence no restriction or the application of (:) with respect to the relative hierarchy or authority position of the participants.

social rote familiarity

like Japanese speech behavior in general, the use of (2) is affected by familiarity in terms of group membership, What was said about age can be further specified here: no A would ever use (2) towards his own children. The same is true for a teacher and his pupils, although in this case it is more the role relationship than the actual familiarity that has a bearing on the selection of the respective RF. Hence the use of (2) allows certain conclusions about the relation between A and B given certain other perceivable data: if (2) is Iused bv some -4 tnultXr& P rr~..r,uar,rr .inni&.nn+ly yo.;me; e :+ 1s :- mur . . ..a to EL *““u&-Y +a assume that A and B do not belong to the same group (Le. family, in a wide sense) nor does any kind of teacher-pupil relationship hold between them. But that (2) is used at all is a clear indication of a certain degree of familiarity, bec,lse personal communication between strangers, even given some kind of common interest or referential system, is extremely rare in Japan.

II. Setting time

place

(i) the time that elapsed since the event that gives reason for a ‘Jcongratulation’, and (ii) the time spar1 between A’s entering into communication with B and his prods, :tion of some ‘Jcongratulation” may have a bearing on the use oQ(2)” Comment: As for (i), if the ‘J-coniratulation’ is required by a cyclic event, only the lasl event may be referred to by (2);as for (ii), A is expected to delier his ‘J-congratulation’ on the soonest possible occasion after having learned of the respective reason. This requirement does, however, not affect general sequencing conditions; (2) cou.ld not replace a greeting or any other opening RF. obligatoriness of (2) may vary with place. As with (l), place is not by itself an independent determinir,g factor.

III. The why and wherefore time a ‘Jcongratulation’ reason

can only refer to a non-future event.

B ‘J*ongratulation’ may bo motivated by various kinds df reasons: - a personal achievement ;, - an accidental stroke of Buck; - an anpivetsary or jubile@; - a seasonal holiday. Comment: The accabions that trigger an utZerance of Qb or any

F. Coulmas /Routine

250

form&e

other ‘Jcongratulation’are, of course, culturalYy defir,ed. Yet they exhibit enough similarity to CoIresponding occasioi:s associated with, say, (1) to allow the grouping of (1) and (2) illto the same class of RFs. The common core seems to be that something is regarded, not only individually but also conventionally, as a happy event - happy for B in particular. IV. Conltextuat restrictions seqwntialization

as with many other RFs in Japanese, repetition is admissible. As ‘Jcongmtulation’ occasions may be equally happy for either participant, (2) may be exchanged in a symmetric sequence. In particular, the possibility of reciprocation is given on the occasiou of ‘reason 4’, i.e. %casonal holidays’. Explicit reference is often made to the respective reason ‘and put immediately in front of (2). This is not obligatory, thus (2) can also occur without specification which is then left implicit. (2) is generally acknowledged by a nonapoiogetic expression of gratitude on B’s side.

st.ylktic homogeneity

speech syles are very pronounced ln Japanese and closely tied to the factors mentioned under the heading of 1. (2) is stylistically marked as ‘polite’, hence the applicational restrictions referred to above obtain. It is interesting to note that the polite form of the auxiliary verb is also employed with the ‘Jcongratulation’ in many cases where the stylistic level does not require its use otherwise That is to say, the applimltional range of (2) is wider than the one of non-routinizcd expressions using (de) gotaimsu.

V. Concomitant activity gP?rur’s A compzison

t.ypically, ‘J-ct~ngratulations’ are accompanied by a bow or an exzhange of bows.

of the frames for (1) and (2) manifests a number of differences

between the conditions of use for the ttio RFs. Still, the intersection of their applicational ranges is big enough to allow us to recognize the respective activities as being c-f the same kind. It i- obvious that observations of other languages will bring out further cifferences. The; respective ranges of application of different ‘congratulatio:l’ RFs GO not coincide, they overlap. The frame gives us the conceptual means for demonstrating where they overlap and where they differ. A frame associated with an RF comprises the factors that contribute to the disposition to use it. Fratnes should thus be regarded as a device for integrating, on the descriptive level, language with other components involved in its use. It is my contention in thhb paper that RFs are analyzable in terms of frames because they are understood as parts of frames, that is, the competent speaker knows in what context in combination with what other factors the use of a formula is admissible, or inappropriate and proscribed, and accordingly sanctioned in the respective group. Of course, the idea that for each RF a distinct fi *me can be construed is much EOQ simple. Frames may be related to other frames i!b various ways, they may be similar or they may intersect. We can even think of higher order frames associated with types of RFs and containin more Loecific frames. On this point, my ideas are not

F. Coulmus /Routine formulae

251

very clear yet, but I assume that further research along these lines will eventually bring togethler the different kinds of information that govern the use of RFs. A lot more empiri,cal investigation is necessary, and, at present, the frames’ general struclure cannot be taken as universally fixed. For any group snd any RF, the pertinent factors for a frame will vary in number and kind, and they need to be empirically identified.

4. Functbns of routine formulae If we consider the functions of RFs, we can see that reducing them to instruments of ‘phatiic communion’ cannot account for the manifold ro:es they play in eiocial interaction. According to Malinowski (1923: 316) this kind of communicalion “serves to establish bonds of personal union between people brought together by the mere need of companionship and does not serve any purpose of communicating ideas”. If this observation hits an important point, it is, nevlerthel:ss, only Ipartly true for many RFs and false for others. It covers only one aspect of their usage and disclaims many other important social functions. Consider such a common formula as I’nz sorry. It is true that, maybe as a consequeuce of the frequent usage of the e,rcpression,we do not always know whether he who stepped on our toe and then muttered the phrase really regrets his false stefi. However.,this phrase can be used to communicate exactly the idea that one is sorry, ani if so used, it htis a better chance to be successful than almost any other phrase. It was argued above that the chief function of RFs is LOreduce the complexity of social interaction. In every given social situation every participant has to decide whether he can and wants to achieve a change of that situation, and further, what means he would have to employ in order to occasion the intended change. Situations differ with respect to their continuation patterns and the significance of every communicative act is relative to that pattern, insofar as it conforms to or violates the pattern. There are, occasionally, ‘vague’ situations with no obvious pattern; no

typification facilitates the decision finding process. Such situations are likely to produce stress or awkward feelings in the participants. They feel helpless and litsrally don’t know what to ssy. In Western cultures situations of this kind I-Iftenoccur in connection with such tabooed matters as death or sexual maturation. Other cultures avert behavioral uncertainty in these contexts by relying on initiation and mourning rites. ‘Vague”situations may occur in other spheres there. RFs are a kind of social support in that they represent petrified forms of typical behavior for handling certain types of situations. The decision find-ing process for c:ontinuing tllese situations is predetermined. Interactants can rely on societal knowledge incarnated in the verbal means for routinized speech behavior. RIG furnish organiaad reactions (in G.H. Mead’s sense) to social situations. ‘Theythus function as a reky for ensuring a smooth course of interaction. In constituting and reinforcing the instgtutions of sociaI systems or groups, they s’erveas appropriate tools

for haying the right thing in the right place. Since expectations in steteot+rped situ& tions are socially defined, the use of RFs affords a maximum certainty of knowing that the act performed will be understood by the addressee in the intended manner. The reverse, or rather, the correlate of the fact that RFs often are predictable in occurrence and effect, is that they are obligatory to a greater or lesser extent. Their obligatoriness serves a very important social function: the more obligatory a formula is, the more it is something like a password giving access to the group where it is habitually employed in some particular situation. The misuse of, or failure to use, an obligatory formula is very revealing, while the correct usage helps to establish the user’s membership of a group. In Bavaria the common greeting formula is CMss Gors, used by Catholics, Protestants, atheists, and ‘probably followers of other creeds alike. If a non-native speaker of Bavarian German cannot bring himself to use this formula, he will always be identified as a foreigner upon the first word that he has a chance tci utter, even if he has acquired a next lo perfect Bavarian accent. In using Gtiss Gutt in everyday communication, Bavarian speakers do not necessarily make reference tti Cod. For them the original descriptive content of this expression has almost faded away. German speakers from other parts of the country, however, are aware of the literal meaning and may hence find this phrase peculiar. and be reluctant to use it as a greeting RF. In short, the group identifying or group idcm.ty reinforcing effect is :Inother important function of RFs. A rather appalling example of this is the use of HciZHitler as a polyfunctional greeting formula in Germany during the Nazi time. As a matter of fact, the whole system of German greeting formulae was affected by the introduction of this formula, which came into use as a means and as :: result of profound chan,
event:; are viewed as necessitating a verbal response, while others are not. Someone’s sneexing in public is most likely to elicit something like Gesa&&+it, WC+ZESC+~, or i%osr among German speakers. Belching 0’1 yawning, by contrast, is not found worthy of any routinized cemment ; similarly, e.g., Japc, :ese speakers would ignore snee:!ing. There is consequentfy no Japanese equivalent to Gesundheit. That recurrerlt. events trigger prefabric&ed linguistic expressions, is therefore better investigated rather than assumed. Accordingly, we have to weaken our hypothesis to the effect that while recurrent situations are a good place to look for RFs, we cannot take it for granted that we will always find any. Obvious candidates for such situations (apart from greeting and lt!ave-taking) can be detected by observing all kinds of “behavior in public places”, to use the title of E. Goffman’s well-known book. It was pointed out in the previous section that social situations and social actions are differently defined in different sociaI systems, and that a considerable difficulty in comparing social situatiions cross-culturally is a consequence of this fact. Functions of RFs, as discussed so far, were described relative to social situations as defined in particular sccial systems. In ordeb to maintain the generality qf our considerations, it is thus advisable to distinguish between two levels; of functions: (i) general functions which determine the overall potential role of RFs in social interaction; and (ii) specific ,functims relating to the functional load actually carried by RFs in individual systems of varbal communication. Specific functions are related to specific kinds of situations. They may consist i.n furnishing the appropriate verbal response, e.,g. in the case of someone’s sneezing; in the case of answering the telephone; in the case of meeting someone unexpectedly; in the case of addressing a stranger; in the case of upologizing to someone for stepping on his foot: in the case of participating in sc)Aal drinking; in the case of attending a funeral, expressing grief or gratefulness, or acknowledging receipt of such expressions; in the case of summoning a waiter, ordering a meal, or asking for the bill (c$ Ehlich and Rehbein 1972); and in many other cases. While looking at recurrent situations is one way to approach the problem of the functions of RFs, the reverse perspective is equally interesting. My assumption is that the investigation of the overall set of RFs should reveal interesting charactcristics of the respective society, its institutions, habits, customs, norms, and values (see below section 6). In connection with sneezing, I recall a paper by .i. Salomond (1974) on “rituals of encounter among the Maori”. She reports: “the most cornmon warning shout [among the Maori, EC.] is Tihei rnauri ora! ‘I sneeze, it is life!‘” . . The role that types of activities, vital functions, and all kinds of relationships between interactanis play can thus only be evaluated in terms of how these things are perceived and evaluated by the members of the respective group, that is, in retation to a particular socio-cultural system which furnish,:s the matrix OR which the specific functions of RFs must be defined. Whether 3: not sneezing, yawning, or operating an elevator is accompanied by some kind of routinized speech behavior depends on the respective historical idiosyncrasies of the respective cultures. Compared with this, general fi_mctions of RFs are functional possibilities Of lan-

2%

F. Couttmts/ Routine fmnulae

guage which are put into action to a greater or lesser extent in any l.anguage. We c.an integrate all general functions under the headings of two abstract categ.Aes: (a) ‘orderliness’ of communication; (b) group identification.

and

These categories are, of (course, related to each other because knowing how ‘orderliness’ of communication in a group is maintained is a prerequisite for membership in, and hence identification of (with) that group. Their distinctness is, however, sufficiently clear if we compare the various functions subsumed under the two categories. RFs help “.o maintain ‘orderliness’ of communication by (1) regulating emotional situations; (2) reducing the complexity of social interaction; (3) facilitating decision processes in the selection of communicative means; (4) organizing reactions to social situation:;; and (5) furnishing the verbal means for communirating ‘the right idea in the rigltt place’. On the other hand, RFs support group identity (1) by serving as instruments for establishing rapport (thus fulfilling the ‘phatic L.m *j‘m RI .\- ,\n ms.c.11B.s A.-z.cLV.“~. 191 h., rs;“f,rn;W4, +I., nz.lC .-n..,,xs.e..ad,O" nc CL I"II~LI"II ,F,\A,"J r~IJil"l~..rE; L,,cz a~,I-LIwP‘~‘IGJJ "I UI? i;;emuGrav. (1 ~'ouy u3 ~,"UfJ members; (3) by perpetuating goals, values, aorms, and customs of a group, and in yielding the desired effect if properly employed; (4) by indicating the speaker’s fa:miliarity v&h and readiness to conform to the norms of the group; anld (5) by being a means of defining social relations and relative social starus of ccmmunIctttors (e.g. in forms of address).

5. Routine formulae and pragmatic interferences The above discussion of functions of RFs has demonstrated th;bt the ability to adequately use idiomatic expressions of this kind constitutes a substantial part of “communicative competence” in a sociohnguistic inlerpretaition (Hymes 1960). From this we can conclude that routiness are deserving of special attention !n foreign language teaching and learning. To the foreign language learrer, RFs exWia a double character: on the one hand, a well-knit reticulum o,f RFs may enablr: the speaker to behave appropriately in many s’peech situations in a fo :eign speech c:>mmunity, even if his command of the respelztive language is still pcor. In spite of the restrictedness of his code, he may get along quite well thanks tc his ability to furnish the correct verbal response in a number of recurrent sltuatjons. Qn tk.e other hand, deticient knowledge and control of formulaic expression:; may be a serious st?:mMing block even for a speaker wh.ose command of the fore’gn language is relatively elaborate otherwise. Quite often a grammatically and lexically highly clevelaped code can be observed to c0incid.e with the inability to sr.loothly perform in actual conversational interaction, especially when the fore@ lznguage training was carried through in a non-natural environmer:t - which is, of course, the rule rather than the exception. One of the chief reasons for this is the 1a:k of certainty in ftl-

ling certain socially tiefined functional slots with the required RFs. That foreign language teaching h:ls bath a linguistic and a sociocultural content is hardly a controversial observation. RF:; represents a kind of linguistic material where interaction between both sides D particularly obvious. It was argued above that, in RFs, characteristic forms of social behavior have been petrified. The cross-language equivalence of sets of RFs is hence a very unlikely assumption. Rather, the individual formulae as well as the overall sets are likely to differ in structure and extent. Also, and this is very important in connection with the prohlems discussed here, types of social situations are not cross-culturally invariant. Fin ally, w have to realize that, while in principle every communicative function can be fulfilled in any language, this does not imply that this is done in a like manner in different languages. What is achieved, for instance, by means of word order in o:le language may be realized by suprasegmental means in another. SMlarly, fulfillng so,me particular communicative flunction may be tied to the employment of routinized linguistic means in one language, while another has no such means. From these considerations, it follows that the use of RFs in a foreign !a,n,gda”e in2 nrfifeca tn intnrCa*~%ntinl miotntaa nCn trr LP ;m
250

F. Coulmas f Rmtine ifutmulae

pragmatic interferences in the use of RFs can be Idistinguished according to the respective process or structural phenomenon giving reasjn to the mistake in question. Let me discuss them one by one and give an example for each.

The most obvious potential source of mistakes is the complete lack of an Lz equivalent to an L, RF or vice versa. The failure to use Aroutine where it is conven.tionally required may be a consequence of misjudgment of its application conditions. The above mentioned RF Gesundheit? (‘Bless you?‘) is a case in point. While the degree of obligatoriness of this ‘sneezing formula’ varies regionally among German (and English) speake.rs, it has no equivalent in many languages. Similarly,, there is no Enghsh equivalent to Guten Appetit! - ;I German RFs used by many speakers at the begkming of a meal. Some English speakers report that they find thi:; custom revolting, ard would thus rather not use this expression themselves. 5.2. Semantic decomposition Failure to recognize an RF as a.n idiomatic expression may lead to an attempt to semanticaUy decompose it. In many cases where the meaning of the complex unit has dissociated itself from the meaning of the parts, or where the etymological trace indicating the connection between them h;u almost faded away, such an attempt will not result in ,the correct understanding of the formula. As an example consider the American responsive RF you ‘re welcome. German speakers might well be tempted PO decompose this idiom because thl: existence of the German word wilkommen; its partial semantic equivalence with welcome gives a slrong hint in the wrong direction. WiZkommencannot be used to communicate the idea that it favor which was done and thanked for was gladly done. Hence German speakers will find it difficult to grasp this meaning. Similarly, the Japanese phrase dochira e ca:utot be fuliy understood if the interpretation rests solely on decomposition. The Iitcral meaning is ‘where to’, ‘where are you headed/going?‘, that is. It is used, howevt.7, as a greeting formu’la whiclh does not require an explicit answer. 5.3. Semantic frarisiatio~~ ‘Semantic translation’ is the productive correlate of (ii), an essentially receptive In’rerferential mistake. Evidently, semantic translation with disregard of idiomaticity cannot guarantee functional equivalence or correspcndence in the target language. Interferential mistakes of this kind do !:lot as a rule hamper communication, e:rcept insofar as they indicate the non-nativeness of the speaker. Their 13ccurrence k most likely where an Ll paradigm of RFs IS a whole seems to correspond to an &I paradigm, but where some exceptHons are overlooked. The French piuadigm of greeting RFs referring to the time of day is very similar to the German one. Minor

differences may lead to interferences: thus French speakers were observeId to coin the non-idiomatic *g@n Nachmittug from their L, pattern bon a,pr&midi. (The same holds true, ‘of course, for English speakers.) The. formula mentioned in the previous paragraph may also. become subject to semantic translation if American speakers try to render you’Pe welcome into German as +Sie s&zdwilzkommen.In a case like this, however, communication will most likely be impaired. 5.4. Partialequivalence If the partial equivalence of two RFs in Lr and L2 coincides with ,their presumplive total equivalence, we have again a situation where the probability of interference is high. For illustration let me once again turn back to the ‘sneezing formula’. It was pointed out that the Japanese language lacks an equivalent t,o bZessyou or Gesundheit. Usually, Japanese speakers would not react verbally to someone’s sneezing. If they would say anything at all, they would most likely say o-daiji-ni (take good care of yourself). This phrase, however, has a much wider range of application and is not restricted to sneezing, It can be used if someone has a cough or exhibits any other sign of physically not being well. (It may also serve to express the speaker’s wish for the addressee to recover.) If a Japanese wrongly assumes or infers from observation that Gesundheit! (or &ss you!) and o-daijW coincide in their respective range of application, he will thus produce a Gesundheir! or bless you! on the occasion of someone’s coughing which will most probab!y transform the coughing into laughter. For the applica.tional ranges of two RFs of L1 and L2 to intersect is very common; thi, intersection is, accordingly, a frequent source of pragmatic interferences. Only too easily doe!; the foreign language learner take an intersection for a cor~uent mapping. The applicational range of the RFs that he has learned will then deviate from the norm. 3.5. Frequency Occasionally, an L1 formula is semantically translated and the result is a wellformed, but non-idiomaric Lz phrase. If this phrase is frequently used as if it were a formula, the style of the respective speaker will be marked. It is obvious that high frequency of occurrence has something to do with idiomatici:y. Frequent use of an idiomatic phrase may remain unnoticed (provided t1-ra.tcontextual restrictions are not violated). If, however, the repeatedly used phrase is not idiomatic, this kind of linguistic behavior ,lNillbe recognized as non-natural. Again, communication is not seriously affected by this kind of language use. 5.6. &roneous paradigm lbrmation With many RFs, frequent usage has lead to elliptical abbreviations. Familiarity with the complete formula makes its complete utterance redundant. Thur forms such as thanks, wekomo, pleasure can often be heard in place of thank you, you’re

258

F. Coulntas /Routine formdue

welcome, ;md (irk] my pieusure respectively. Elliptic abridgement c8n result in superficial structural similarity of IRFs that were structurally clearly distinct in their original unabbreviated form. For the foreign language learner, who is unawaae of the geneal~ogical history of the individual forms, this kind of similarity can ba misleading and provoke erroneous paradigm formation. As an example consider the following three RFs: (2) Griiss click!, (2) G&s Wrz!, (3) Griiss GW!. In e,ach calsean imperative verb foxm predicate has a direct object as an argument. Nevertheless (l)--(3) Ido not belong to the same paradigm: in each formula a different case! rel:ation (Fillmore 1968) obtains. In (1) ‘Dick’ refers to the patient of the grleeting, and the speaiker is the agent; in (2) the speaker is again the agent, but the patient of t’ile greeting and the patient of the imperative are not identical: the former is Fritz while the latter is the hearer of (2) (the situational restriction being that .I!+& :isnot present when (2) is uttered); finally, in (3) the patient of the greeting is by no means God hdut the addressee. God is, so to speak, only the authorit;!, in whlose name the greeting is don.e. The respective ideas expressed by (l)-(3) c;.m roughly L2 _L E ll.-....... 11 1 1 on,, LnN 1x9 1.1 yu) en 9 I.U,.V ho& tn 1 fiAtrr%t and ut: _^_._ ~cpeSmi& da ~OUVW s. 11 J I JUJ rlGl& ft? JWU, - (3'1 tc , rr3,, sV .-. (3’) I say h&a to you (if! the nume of God). In order to understand this, ,the learner must not be misled by structural similarity so as to assume a common paradigm for (1)-r(3). 5.7. Functional loud transfer It 1s only naturti that the functional equivalence of two RFs in Ll and L3 is frequently deduced from thf.ir semantic equivalence. In some cases, this con,:lusion gives rise to negative transfer and interferential mistakes resting on the disparity of semantic and functional aspects. In other words, the re!ation between function and semantic content of !AFs is not croa-languagewise invariant. In T. Sugiyama Lebra’s ethnographic study of t:le Japanese a typic 2: case of functional load t,::msfer is reported : When a Japanese wants to express sincere gratitude, he feels urged to say ‘1 am sorry’, since ‘thank you’ does not sound sincere enough. This is one of the typical mistakes Japanese make in their iateractions with English-speakers, the latter being likely to say, ‘why sorry?’ (Sugiyama Lebra 1976: 92).

For European:; or Americans, expressing gratitude has not very much *[a,do with apologizing. Tl, the Japanese, one is only an intensified form of the other: they will assume a simiinr relation in English unless told otherwise. This example demonstrates that sp:ech act types may be realized in a different manner in different languages and that differences in this respect may cause interferences. 5.8. Semantic ntlunct’s

If two formulae of Lx and L2 are very close in meaning, they are in danger of being taken as con:,pletely c?quivalent. French w va and German es geht are both

F. Coulmas / Roudim?jbmnudae

259

responsive formulae for reacting to some equivalent of how CII% you such as e.g. comment dez VOMS?or ga VU?and Wie geht es Ihnen? or wiegehts? However, the former means something like ‘I’m quite all right’ while the latter means something like ‘I’m not quite all right’. Thus a French speaker of German who uses esgeht as he would use ca VLI(which is a very obvious choice because of the exact semalatic parallzlity of the two phrases) is likely to be misunderstood to the effect that the evaluation of his own well-being is higher, in his intention, than the one he puts across by his utterance. 5.9. Situational similarity RFs may differ in meaning in spite of their being associated with sirm3r situations. Once again, correspondence of one a,spect may lead to the mistaken asstimption of outright equivalence. Japanese itadakimasu and German Guten Appetit both occur at the beginning of a meal, immediately’ before eating. Nevertheless their meaning (and function) is diff~~~*~ m- the Japanese formula cannot be used lrlrilC L-uG44aSe by him who provides the meal. T’izemeaning which makes this restriction understandable is ‘I (gratefully) receive’. If this decisive difference in the conditions for the appiica.tion of the two RFs escapes the attention of a German learner he may well come to the conrlusion that itadakimasu ‘means’ @en Appetit. 5.10. Style A last point that should be named as a potential r_.ison for pragmatic interferences is disregard of style d&ermining parameters, or rather, disparity of such partimeters in two different societies. it is generally agreeJ that grasping stylistically conditioned connotations and controlled employment tiPrstylistic variation is one of the most difficult aspects of foreign language usage. ‘fhus foreign language users often talk in a like manner to men and women, infa.lts and adults; whiether the interlocutor is a shopkeeper or professor, whether hz/she is equal, supeiior, or inferior in relative status is often not reflected in their ‘ways of speaking’. While this kind of involuntary egalitarianism is characteristic of an underdeveloped code In general, interferences may arise if a foreign speaker has the skill to express stylistic differences without being aware of the exact conditions governing stylistic variation in Lz and their relations to ‘the respective conditions obtaining in L 1. Forms of address and other politenesis formulae (cf: Ferguson 1976) provide an obvious example in this respect. To :a large extent they reflect the institutional structure of a socio-cultural system, and their correct usage is hence highly dependent on knowledge of the transactional premises of the group in question. ‘a correct usage of RFs that can be Undoubtedly a number of conditions for tl)&. violated and thus give rise to interferential mistakes have not been discussed in the above. On pririciple, every fa,ctor systematically affecting the selection of a formula has to be considered a potential source of pragmatic interference. The great variety of potential interferences in this area indicates once again how intemely linguistic

260

F. Coulmas/Routine jbrmulae

and extralinguistic regularities are interlaced in the use of RF’s, and how important a role they play in foreign language learning as well as acculturation. 6. ~dtud

systems: routine formulae and institutions

The linguistic behavior of L+peakers is sametimes commented on by Llspeakers as being ‘genuinely’ or ‘typically’ Li-ish: “this is a real American ph.rase!” A comment like this can often be heard when a speaker recognizes an expression as being, in one way or other, idiosyncratic of his language, !;uch that its production by an L2-speaker could not have resulted from translation. This suggests (1) that there are linguistic expressions that are more ‘typical’ of a language than others; and (2) that language users are aware of this fact. That a langlrage is, in a sense, typical of the culture of its speech community is a trivial observation as long as *world view” and reiated pr;>blems remain untouched. They shall remain so as they are not our concern here. /it issue is the question how far and in what respect linguistic expressions of the k:.nd discussed in this paper are typical of a culture. To claim that idioms in general are among those expressions which are typical of a language, is only t11recall the original meaning of the word iSti~cx. The contention that idioms are typical of a culture is a different matter. I believe, however, that, on the basis of what was said about functions of RFs (section 4) and pragmatic interferences (section 5) it can be substantiated for pragmatic idioms at least. Curses, for instance, are often prefabricated expressions. Their usage is notoriously risky in a foreign language and reqI.rires a high degree of perfect:on if the speaker wants to avoid the pitfalls of ridicule. It is obvious that they embody certain characteristics of a society because they must ta’ce acrount of and refer to a common system of values and beliefs: no blasphemy without worship. Similarly, proverbs have always attlacted the an&hropologist’s inter.:st. They have been called “the mirror of the thoughts and sentiment of a nation”,: or, with much the same pathos, “the e.lshrined wisdom of the forefathers”, etc. I clDn’t feel able to tackle the question in what respect the saying: “An apple a day i;eeps the doctor away” mirrors a national or any other spirit. But, in pointing out tha”: the use of EFs is an important part of social activity and reflects its coordination, we are, I take it, on safer ground. In the following I ~‘~11confine myself to three hypothese::, which themsSelves are subject to further investigation. First, consider the overall attitude towards prepatterned speech in different societies. While s!and,lrdized phrases which are regularly used by and familiar to every member of a grllup enjoy currency and respel:t in one culture, they may be disqualified as unimaginative and pedestrian in another, where individual coinage ranks higher in prestige. Uniformity counts as lack of originality and personality in one culture, and it is evidence of sophisticated social conduct in another. Societies vary along a multiplicity of continua whose extremes are marked by qualities su;G as otiginality vs. conformity; flexibility vs. ritualizaltion; imagination VS.imitation;

l? Coulmas /Routine formulae

261

etc. According to our j&t hypothesis attitudes towards prefabricated exprsssions correlate with the values attributed to originality, flexibility, and individuality. Hence in a conformistic society [5], where ‘normative pressure’ [6] in everyday interaction is high, we would expect the overall usage of RFs - of types of RFs as well as of tokens, that is - to be more widespread than in another, where the individual is expected to exhibit a marked personality. Next we take a look at the relationship between RFs and social institutions. It is generally true that talk is tied to the social surrounding in which it is exercised. The firmness of the connection between both is, however, particularly strong in insti;utionalized contexts, where the choice between actions that are theoretically avG.lable to the individual is, in pmxi, much more restricted than in informal contexts. Reactions to situations are designed beforehand and, as already remarked, in many cases it are the RFs that serve as a means of providing the required next move tn the course of action.

In representing

attitudes

of the “generalized

other’ (Mead) tobvards

stereotyped situations, they embody social knowledge. It is in thi.s sense thar we can look at RFs aa reflecting and stabilizing the institutions of a society. I should, however, hiec to add that the RI% of a ianguage do not form a homogeneous set with regard to the defmiteness of their occurrence profile. Some are very specifically bound to one type of communication situation while others dre polyfunctional in usage. Accordingly, formulae vary in obligatoriness of occurrence [7]. In institutio:lalized or semi-institutionalized contexts, however, the individual quite often has no choice at all. That is to say, the decision making process is collectively predetermined and independent 0” individual choice. Our sec~nli hypotkls thus purports that cross-langua!;e differences in the repertoires of RFs correspond to differences

in the institutional

structure

of the respective

societies

/81. This refers to

[Sj Obviously, characterizations of this kind should be handled with much care and for hem-istic purposes only, becau:;e they represent themselves sulsrtre-specific notions. Categories such as ‘conformistic’ or ‘individualistic’ are in need of much detailed stuffing, and it 9s quite risky to use them a’$descript.ive labels for socio-cultural systems in thieir totality. That different cultures place emphasis upon different values is, however, beyorld doubt, and the point at issue here is thaf prepatterned speech is one place where the linkage between culture and behavior becomes visible. [6] I borrow this concept from C.H. von Wright. See his No~fn and Action (11963: 12ff). [7] Some observations seem to indicate that obligatoriness is also interculturally variable. Japanese speakers testif’y that the obligatoriness of certain RFs is so powerful that lack of a corresponding RF in 8 foreign language is experienced as. an unpleasmt senWion in the rcspcctive situations. Reports on Turkish and Greek point in the same direction. See Tannen and ijztek (1917)‘. (81 The naive identification of language and cult\Jre (of one language wit,b one culture, thQ is) has, of course, long bli:en obsolete. This is, hl>wever, no argument against the point we are making here, on the contrary. That one language may well go together with two or more different cultutss is &dent. Equa.lly evident is the fact that, in the process of borrowing, languages undergo ch:macteristic changes to fit the functional needs of the receivingculture. I believe that restrucruring and innovation in the knutinized repertoire of a langU%e is one place where chaiges of this kind become openIy visible, Differences between British, American, and Imliatl English are a case in point. St?ee.g. Hymes (I 971).

individual expressions as well as to sequences of formulae [9]. Thus, another interesting question (which lack of space prevents me from pursuing here) is the following: is it possible to d.etect any significant differences between societies in the average number of elements to routinized action sequences? What E, Co;Tman has to say on this matter is, in my view, more of a stimulating invitation to further research than a conclusive account:, . . . it is in the nature of . . . unstaged activity that not much more than one link in an actionresponse sequence can he firmly preestablished. It is just this structural huBXteSS of actual strips of workaday activity that makes them something different from a ritual . . . (1974: 511).

Finally, in discussing the question in which s)ense RFs are typical of a cull ure there remains to look at sl>cial values and their possible relation to the set of RFs of a language. Talking about the values bind.ing a set of individuals into one group, be it nation or culture, is a very clelicate undertaking for various reasons. One is the danger of overgeneralization. Another is the tendency towards assuming that the values of a cuiture from a consistent system. This assumption is an u priori interpretation.. There is no reason why a socio-cultural system s’ho,uld not contain antagonistic values. With this provision in mind we can accept E. Albert’s definition of a value system as representing *$what is expected or hoped for, required or forbidden. It is not a report of actual conduct but in the system of criteria by which conduct is judged and sanctions applied”’ (196I3: 288). It is not easy to detect the values of a culture, because only in few societies some of them are, however crudely, codified in print. For the most part they have to be abstracted from several kinds of observable data.. I would maintain - and this is the rhir$ hypothesis - that RFs are amongst this kind of evidence. Certainly, whatever c:m be Iearnzd from scrutinizing RFs in terms of values will have to be put in context with other traits of a culture, .Jl of which combine to form a complex pattern. It is hardly surprising that the old problem of investigating a part without knowing the whole is inescapable hemre.But this should not prevenl us from looking at the part because, after all, the parts are what we can look at. In my opinion, there are two Fromising perspectives for inspecting RFs with regard to social values. The mcst obvious strategy is to examine the totality of RFs as a structured set. An alternative, or rather, additional approach is to narrow the focus down to the descripti\Te content of individual formulae. To begin with the latter, it was argued above (section 2) that the descriptive meaning of formulae shoutd not be left out of their ,analysis. Although the literal or

j9j A further account of the sequencing conditions of RFs is omitted here, not because there aren’t a lot of interesting thmgs to say about them, but rather since they are importilnt h their own right and deserve a Rrowr treatment ([which I will hopefully be able to givl: elsewhere).

E. Coulmas j Routine formulae

263

original mezaningof a formuiae may bs of little relevance to its present usage, it can. not be ignored that the semantics of many RFs can be quite revealing with respect to social values, past or present. If, for instance, the current RFs used for announcing the de:ath of a member of the group, habitually avoid direct reference to the physical e~il’us, this seems to ~;ay something about the group’s attitude towards death. At least, we can assume that this observation can contribute to our deeper understanding of thr role death plays in that group. Or take a society where reference to one’s own wife is routinely made by a phrase whose literal meaning 1s ‘my stupid wife”. Doesn’t this give a hint about marital relations and the position of women in that culture? Consider a greeting RF such as Mchstes Jahr in Jemdem. Isn’t that a very villid expression of a value or desire much emphasized by those who use it’? If a ianttuage contains an RF for acknowledging that what the previous speaker sai.d is right because of his seniority (cf. Albert 1972), can’t we learn something about the status of the elderly from that? If we come across a formula such as make yoursdf nt hrwe, isn’t it natural that we should speculate about the value attributed. to one’s hsme in that culture and the way guests are treated there? These are only a very ibw., arbitrarily selected phrases whose content is quite apparently related to social vahles. Similar examples could be listed at great length. But this is only the smaller part of the issue. So far we are not in a position to say much more tha.n thalt there is sclrne evidence which supports our hypothesis. To show exactly what kind of conch sions can be ‘drawn from such observations and how they can be sensibly interpre !d, however, remains to be done. At present we will have to leave it at that. Il’ we turn noYYtG1 the other way of studying how RFs relate to social values, we cannot but realize t-at the situation is not much different there. That is to say, in spite of a number c i’ obslervations that seem to sup ort our assumption, it is very difi%:ult to provide for a comprehensive account. What, then, is it that we can learn from looking at tl!e Hrhole set of RFs of a language? The basic idea is to correlate lexical differentiatic. I with socio-cultural relevance. In, other words, it is assumed that ,a high degree 0” differentiation in a given lexical fG:ld indicates prominent relevancr: of the respec,, ve domain in the factual world. Applied to the kind of expressions under considz&ion here, this means that the richness of a language in, say, seasonal greetings suggests that the seasons of the year play an important part in scda~l life. The same is true for toasts, tha.nks, imprecations, insults, congratulations, or what have you, Hence the question to ask is: what sort of functional domain is rich in routinized expressions showing a high degree of differentiation’? Tlaat the functional communicative needs of a group are somehow reflected in the YNXMS their language provides, is a reasonable assumption. For our present purpose, the task is to show that there is intercultural covariation of functional weight and linguistic; differentiation. Once again, we turn to Japanese for iJlust.ration. It was pointed out in a previous section that Japanese speakers tend to use apologetic [ 101 For a more detailed analy& of thunks and apolcvgiescfi Coulmas (1979).

264

t’ Cuulntas / Rourine fmtuiae

where Europeans would expect thanks [IO]. Accordingly, the repertoire of routinizzd apologies is large in number and highly differenfiated with respect to v;~rious occasions where an excuse is in piace. This is certa;nly no coincidence. Rather, accordi.ng to our hypothesis, an observation of this kind suggests other characteristics of’ Japanese society concerning respect of o&r persons and interpersonal relations. Given this’, it does not come as a surprise thzlitJapanese culture places much weight on the idea of defending or protecting fact.:,and knows of many diverse face-savin:g mechanisms. Apologies, of course, play a vital part here. In this sense we can say t’haltthe structure of the overall set of Japanese RFs is markedly different from those of other languages and.hence reflects certain values of Japanese culture. As I mentioned earlier, there are serious weaknesses in this apl?roach, the most apparent being the likehood that relation; between formulae and values will not be equally straightforward in meat cases. Also, it may very well be that the correct relations can be established only by those who are familiar with the culture in question, Furthermore, as in the above case of the meanings of individual RFs, there is no standard method for interpretir,g isolated observations suggesting a relation of routines and values. Hence, we can conclude that, in order to demonstrate the conncctedness of the RFs’ and social values a complex process of going back and fortlh bctwce~n the former and other cultural traits is necessary. Rather than lezding to conclusive results, the approaches discussed above can both yield interesting hypotheses and predictions subject to testing in other areas.

cxprasions

7. Concluding remarks ‘U’ays of speaking’ are a vital part cf the general pattern of culture. In the forego:,ng. I have attempt4 to show that prepatterned speech in its turn is deserving of special attention in sog:iolinguistics. Within the confines of this paper, more questicjns have been raised .than answered, to be sure. The considerations presented h,ere are just a beginning, bu.t they seem promising enough to warram more studies along similar lines. They will have to conccntratc cm the relationship between RFs and sta-adardized situations of their usage. More refinement in methods and concepts i.s obviously needed, but the general avenue of approach to the study of RFs has been laid down. Complementarity between linguistic indices and non-linguistic characteristic cues may be assumed to hold in any situation of verbal interaction, but quite apparently, the linkage between both sidles is particularly strong in prepatternl$d speech. RFs carry a great deal of social meaning, and their investigation requires that we concede equal import to societal and linguistic infoonmation. I therefore: believe that the exploration of routinized expressions j:n everyday interaction can !i) further our insight into the structure of communicative situations, and, as a sonsequence, (ii) greatly contribute to our understanding of wh.at is different and. what is similar between patterns developed in different cultures.

I;: Cotrlmas 1 Routine formulae

265

References Albert, Ethel, 1368. ‘Value systems’. En: The international encyclopedia of the social scienars, vol. 16. New York: Macmillan. Albert, Ethel. 1972. ‘Culture patterning of speech behavior in Burundi’. In: Gumperz and Hymes, eds. 1972: 72-105. Ardener, Edwin, ed. 197 1. Social anthropology and language. London: Tavistock. Argyle, M.,ed. 1973. Social encounters. Readings in social interaction. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Bates, Elisabeth. 1976. The acquisition of pragmatics. Yew York: Winston. Bauman, D. and J. Sherzer, eds. 1975. Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Londcn, New York: Cambridge University Press. Burger, Hsrald. 1973. Idiomatik des Dcutschen. Tiibingen: Niemeyer. Coulmas, Florian. 1978a. Routineformcln als Institutionen. Mimeo. Coulmas, Florian. 1978b. ‘Routineformcln und pragmatische Interferenzzn”. In: Kongressakten dcr 8. Tagung der GAL in Mainz 1977. Heidelberg. CouImas, Florian. 1979. ‘Poison to your soul. Thanks and apologies contrrnstively viewed’. 1’0 appear in: Coulmas, cd. Conversational routine. Thl: I!aguc.r Meuton. Dijk, Teun A. van. 1977. Context and cognition: knowledge frames and spL. 1-hact comprehc:1sion. Journal of Pragmatics 1: 2 1 1 - 23 1. Ehlich, Konrad and Jochen Rehbein. 1972. ‘Zur Kon:;titution pragmatischer Einheiten in einl:r Institution: Das Speiserestaurant’. In: Wunderlich, cd. pp. 209-254. Ferguson, Charles A. 1976. ‘The structure and use of politeness formulas’. In: Language :n society, vol. 5: 137-151. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. ‘The case for case’. In: Bach arid Harms, eds., Universals,in linguistic theorq. New York: Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, pp. I -88. Fishman, Joshua A., ed. 1968. Readings in the socislo~:y of language. The Hague and Pari:: Mouton. Garflnkel. Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnornethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in public places. New Ycslrk:The Free Press. Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis. New York: Harper and Kcw. Gumperz. John J. and Dell Hymes, eds. 1972. Directions in sociolinguistics. The cthnography of communication. New York: Hall., Rinehart and Winston. Hymes, DC& 1968. ‘The ethnography of speaking’. In: Fishman, ed. pp. 99-l 38. Hymcs, Dell. 1971. ‘Sociolinguistics and the ethnography of speaking’. In: Ardener, cd. pp. 47-93. Lebra, Takic Sugiyama. 1976. Japanese patterns of behav!lor. Honolulu: The University Press cf Hawais. Makkai, Adam. 1972. Idiom structure in English. The Hague: Mouton. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1923. ‘The problem of meaning in primitive languages’. In: C.K. Ogden and 1.A. Richards. 1923. The meaning of meaning. London: Routledj:e and Kegan Paul, pp. 451-510. Mead, Georg Herbert. 1934. Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pike, Kenneth L. 1967. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. 2nd rev. ed. The Hague: Mouton. Sanches, 11. and B.C. Blount, eds. 1975. Language, thought, and culture. New York: Holt, Rineha.rt and Winston. Salomond, Anne. 1974. ‘Ritua!s of encounter among the Mao;*?. In: Bauman and Sherzer, edr. 1974. Explorations in the ethnography of speakilrag.London: Cambridge University Pros%, pp. 19:2--212. Schiitz, Alfred, 1960. Dcr sinnhafte Aufbau der sozirdlen Welt. Eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie. Wien: Springer.

Tannen, Deborah nnd P$:ate ,lXmcrt &x&k. 1977. Health to OLW mouths. Formulaic expressions, ir. Turkish and Creek. Paper presented to the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Mnreo. Wittgcnstein, Ludwig. f96g. Philosophical investigations.. Oxford: Blackwell. Wright, Gectrg Yertrik von. 1963. Norm and action. A logical enquiry. London: ‘Routledge and Kcgan P ~1. Wundcrlich, Dieter, ed 1972. Linguist&he Pragmatiik. Frankfurt/M.: Athen&~m. F(ctriorrCotrbnas (born 1949) studied in Paris, Ohio, and Berlin, where he complotcd his MA. prog.-am in 1974. From 1975 through 1977 he was a lecturer in Linguistics and Literature at the German department of Hiroshima University. He received his doctorate from the F’akultl,t tIir 1 inpuistik und Literaturwissunscl1~t.t of Bi&fctd University ii\ 1977. Curr~tintlyhc holds a research position at the University of Diisseldorf. Among his recent publications is the monograph Rrzeptives 2JprachveAid&w. Eine theow tiwhe SYUCG iiber Foktore~ sprachlichen Versfehens (Hamburg: Buske). Jlis main fields of interest are Iha philosophy of language and the study of sociocultural vari,a’blesin speech and language.