Repertoires of registers: dialect in Japanese discourse

LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION

Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380 www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom

Repertoires of registers: dialect in Japanese discourse Christopher Ball Departments of Linguistics and Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA

Abstract This paper presents discourse data to argue for the treatment of dialect as a variety in a repertoire whose primary function is microcontextually socioindexical. Dialect forms used by bilectal participants minimally encode stances of alterity between interactants. The association of dialect features with regional provenance and judgments of regional identity made for dialect forms are treated as linguistic ideological processes. The interpretation of dialect forms in use as interactional altering devices is explained through a specific Japanese linguistic ideology involving uchi Ôin groupÕ and soto Ôout groupÕ boundaries. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Dialect; Register; Code-switching; Indexicality; Language ideology; Japanese

1. Dialect and indexicality 1.1. Introduction Dialect is recognized by language users and linguists alike as identifying speakers as being from certain regions or social strata within larger sociolinguistic unities. The present analysis of the social pragmatic role of dialect use in discourse utilizes the analytic category of indexicality in tying together the domain of microcontextual signaling and the domain of metapragmatic interpretation of language forms in wider sociocultural contexts (Silverstein, 1976).

E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Ball). 0271-5309/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2004.01.004

356

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

Following Blom and Gumperz (1972) I use discourse data to argue for the treatment of dialect as a variety in a repertoire whose primary function is microcontextually socioindexical. I further argue that the association of dialect features with regional provenance is parallel to the association of honorific forms with social status. Following Agha (1993), I argue that just as honorific forms do not directly encode social status, dialect forms do not directly encode regional provenance. Rather, as honorific forms encode deference entitlements, dialect forms encode stances of alterity between interactants. The projection of the indexical values of such registered linguistic units in use from interactional contexts to the social order is the domain where assignments of politeness are made for honorifics, and where judgments of regional identity are made for dialect forms. Such overt judgments I treat as a linguistic ideological process. I also account for the less conscious interpretation of dialect forms in use as interactional altering devices through a specific Japanese linguistic ideology involving uchi Ôin groupÕ and soto Ôout groupÕ boundaries. It is crucial to note at this point that in my treatment dialect forms are metapragmatically interpreted in multiple ways. The two interpretations that I focus on here are those that assign regionality to the sign/speaker, and those that assign subtle interactional positions to speakers. These interpretations are iconically linked. While it is often assumed that the assignment of regional status is the main function of dialect, I argue that it is advantageous to begin with an analysis of the interactional function of dialect signs and move up. In this way, local cultural concepts of dialect can be seen as a superposition of the ÔinÕ ÔoutÕ topology mapped in interaction (Fig. 1). Indexes are defined here following PeirceÕs second trichotomy of signs, whereby an index is any sign that refers to its object by being actually modified by it. An index occurs in contiguity with its object and in fact is always in Ôdynamical (including spatial) connection both with the individual object, on the one hand, and with the senses or memory of the person for whom it serves as a sign on the otherÕ (Peirce, 1932, p. 170). Dialect indexes are organized into pragmatic paradigms along axes of similarity in conventionalized indexical function. Their indexical form can be variously phonological, morphological, lexical or syntactic. Such dialect signs are of the pure or non-referential class of indexes (Silverstein, 1976). They are presupposing, appropriate to certain culturally conceived configurations of contextual factors such as casual conversations between locals regarding local events, and are also potenInteraction order

Social / Metapragmatic / Ideological order

dialect sign token assignment of regional identity alterity stance

judgement of uchi / soto footing

Fig. 1. Interpretations from the interaction order to the social order.

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

357

tially creative, exploited to manipulate the boundaries of culturally conceived contexts, such as making implicit claims of solidarity or displays of distance. The use and evaluation of appropriate dialect sign tokens is regulated by metapragmatic rules of use. Speakers organize these normative rules according to linguistic ideologies about the roles and functions of language, self and society. These ideologies are reflexive folk distillations of linguistic, interactional and social information into concepts that fit within wider cultural systems of meaning, and must themselves be investigated critically.

1.2. Repertoires, code switching and footing In the landmark article, ÔSocial meaning in linguistic structure: code-switching in NorwayÕ, Blom and Gumperz (1972) investigated the ways in which bidialectal speakers code-switch and the extent to which such switching is related to social contextual factors. I argue below for an expanded analysis of the essentially correct hypothesis that speakers use variation in code, specifically dialectal variation, to achieve social goals. Blom and Gumperz asked if the ability to switch is part of the communicative competence of bidialectal speakers, then how does their choice of code create context rather than simply reflect it? I share this emphasis on the creative aspect of indexicality, what they term Ômetaphorical switchingÕ. Further, I follow GumperzÕ recognition of the importance of verbal repertoire, Ôthe totality of dialectal and superposed variants regularly employed within a communityÕ in locating causal relationships between language and society (Gumperz, 1968, p. 230). Goffman (1979) briefly reviews Blom and Gumperz (1972) findings, and characterizes the code switches they describe as an example of a broader phenomenon he labels Ôfooting.Õ This notion is implicitly present in the analysis I propose here. As Goffman describes footing, a participantÕs interactional alignment or stance is signalled across a non-denotationally determined strip of behaviour. Stances are measured on a continuum, code or dialect/register switching is usually involved, and changes in footing serve as buffers between sustained interactional episodes. Note in this definition the common features of non-referential indexical signalling. The main goal that I wish to accomplish in this paper following Blom and Gumperz (1972) and Goffman (1979) is to explore in more detail the semiotic chain of using linguistic varieties to signal stances or footing and the interpretation of these stances as meaningful acts by participants and observers. To do so I utilize discourse evidence of dialectal code switching in the Kansai dialect of Japanese.

2. Kansai dialect and Tokyo standard 2.1. Historical notes Dialect, hoogen, has long been a focus of reflexive native language study in Japan. Many classifications exist, but generally the main island of Honshuu is

358

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

divided into Eastern and Western dialectal areas, with the islands of Kyuushuu and Okinawa forming distinct dialectal regions (Shibatani, 1990). Regional variants of political and economic importance have been, in the Western dialect area, the variants found in the cities of Osaka and Kyoto, situated in the larger area of Kansai, and in the Eastern dialect area, the Edo or Tokyo dialect situated in the larger area of the Kanto plain. It is this variety that has been promoted as Standard. Shibatani (1990) reports on the history of Kyoto dialect, Edo/Tokyo dialect and ÔStandardÕ language hyoojun-go, and its counterpart ÔCommonÕ language, kyootsuugo. The difference in terms is nested in post war bureaucratic language policy, but the ideology of their baptism is explained efficiently by Sibata who comments that a regional Common language was seen as that used in a particular area by dialect speakers and Ôis the speech that the local people think is used in TokyoÕ (Sibata, 1999, p. 199). Standard language, on the other hand, was thought of Ôas a normative language which does not exist at present, but will be established by the state by whatever meansÕ (Sibata, 1999, p. 198). The word ÔStandardÕ was seen as overly traditional and even militaristic at the time. I will incorporate elements of both terms and henceforth use Standard Japanese to refer to the normative orientation to the dialect of Tokyo that is promoted by the state. Thus Standard is both what locals think is used in Tokyo and an ideal type normative national language which does not exist in any one place. The transfer of the seat of government from Kyoto to Edo in 1603 led to a shift in dialect status. Kyoto and Osaka Ôcomprised a cultural and economic center, which dominated the rest of Japan. However, the linguistic dominance of the Kyoto dialect gradually eroded as Edo began to assert its political and economic force and to develop culturally as well. . . The Edo dialect usurped the authority of the Kyoto dialect as the standard language around the end of the eighteenth centuryÕ (Shibatani, 1990, p. 185–186). By the Meiji restoration ca.1867, the promotion of the Edo dialect as the Standard or hyoojun-go was official government policy. 1

2.2. Contemporary divisions Loveday (1986) reports that Ôthe Tokyo dialect belongs to the Eastern group, but has become increasingly westernized during the last two centuries and does not differ radically from that of Kyoto except for word tones and a limited number of other

1 Note that the Edo dialect as the new register of the capital employed many Kansai features in distinction to the local rural forms of the Kanto plain, e.g. the Tokyo use of Kyoto first person presumptive -(y)oo vs. Kanto -bee still exists, as in ikoo ÔletÕs goÕ in Kansai and Standard vs. ikubee ÔletÕs goÕ in contemporary rural Kanto. Another example of Western features adopted into the new Standard is the preservation of Kansai adjective final -o; hayo-o, ÔearlyÕ vs. Eastern -ku, haya-ku ÔearlyÕ in lexicalized polite expressions such as Ohayoo gozaimasu Ôgood morningÕ (Shibatani, 1990, p. 199).

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

359

featuresÕ (Loveday, 1986). This suggests an ideologically based separation that serves to further the distinction between relatively lexically close varieties in the popular view. He presents what one might interpret as a central cultural dichotomy or series of dichotomies; Kyoto:Tokyo :: west:east, old:new, indirect:direct that structure metadiscourses about language varieties in Japan. ÔThe Kyoto variety continues to enjoy a certain prestige due to its position as former imperial capital and home of traditional culture. It is associated with the linguistic styles of entertainers such as the geisha and kabuki actors, craftsmen such as kimono makers and the art schools of ikebanaÕ (Loveday, 1986). Loveday also correctly notes another ideological regionalization of linguistic practice, the Kyoto/Osaka distinction. ÔHowever, many young Kyotoites appear to be shifting towards the more modern appeal of the variety of the major economic Western centre, Osaka, which is associated with young styles promoted by the media and a genre of comedy frequent on TV (manzai)Õ (Loveday, 1986). The Kyoto and Osaka varieties are formally similar, sharing general prosodic features and a large portion of the morphology that distinguishes them from the Standard. They may be linguistically separated most transparently through lexicalized sentences stereotypically associated with activities and roles typical of the two cities. The Osaka variety presents itself as an option for pan-Kansai/West region affiliation in the face of Kanto/East and trumps the East in many of the traits with which it opposes the values of the Kyoto variety. Osaka is tough where Tokyo is weak, Osaka is funny where Tokyo is serious, Osaka is direct where Tokyo is indirect, etc. This gives speakers in Kyoto a repertoire that is sociologically varied and linguistically familiar. This is illustrated by an interview I conducted on August 7, 2001 in Kyoto with a group of Ô30-somethingÕ women who are artists and professionals living in the city and suburbs of Kyoto and Osaka. When asked to discuss the differences between Tokyo and Kansai dialects, one of the women from Osaka who attended high school in Kyoto with the other women present talked of her experiences dating a man from Tokyo. She attributed their trouble in communication to the fact that Ôhe doesnÕt speak Kansai dialectÕ, Kare wa Kansai ben shaberarehen. When she quoted a recent question from her boyfriend, ÔHave you come to hate me?Õ, Boku no koto kirai ni natta no?, all of the three friends present recoiled in shrieks of laughter and disbelief. They immediately and easily explained to me that for a man to say such a thing is unthinkable in Osaka. It is not the content, but the form of the question. Clearly uttered in Tokyo Standard, it is perceived as too indirect and feminine for a Kansai speaking man. Kansai people, they asserted, are more direct, more lively, more interested in their conversational partners than Tokyo people. Tokyo people, the boyfriend for example, come off as too distant, not geographically, but interactionally because of the way they talk. How about the traditional elegance of Kyoto? Why were these women considering themselves rougher than a Tokyo man due to their dialect? Interestingly, they agreed unanimously that Kyoto people are different from Osaka people, Kyoto people keep more secrets. Indirectness surfaces again as the counterpart to Osaka directness.

360

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

The split between the Kyoto/Osaka dialects and the Tokyo Standard is embedded in this particular sociohistorical context. Unlike other dialects in Japan, the Kansai varieties have continued to be valued as prestige lects and are able to compete for status on a national level through various positive means of circulation. However, the devaluation of rural dialect forms as low has a long history in Japan, and so dialect forms in use that are categorized thusly will index social hierarchical phenomenon as well as socio-regional provenance. Sibata observes, ÔThe Ôdialect (inferiority) complexÕ is something felt more or less by anyone who Tokyoites would refer to as an inaka ÔcountryÕ person. This is true even with people from Kyoto. The carefree use of oneÕs own dialect by people of the Kansai region should actually be seen as just the reverse side of the Ôdialect complex’’ (Sibata, 1999, pp. 191–192).

2.3. Structural features of Kansai vs. standard What are some of the linguistic features which separate Kansai from Tokyo Standard varieties? Or better for our purposes, what are those aspects of structure that are stereotypically associated with Kansai on the one hand, and Tokyo Standard on the other? I should stress that forms given in this section are not meant to be interpreted as members of a uniform variety we may call Kansai dialect. Rather, the forms presented here are commonly used in the speech of people who identify with many varieties or dialects in urban western Japan (roughly Kobe, Osaka, and Kyoto) but who share a dialectal opposition to Tokyo Standard. Thus, Kansai dialect is as non-existent an ideal type as Standard. The lexical forms presented below are indexes of orientation to that ideal, or to one of the sub-varieties among which are shared stereotypical linguistic and sociocultural attributes. Silverstein (1981) and Koyama (2000) suggest that more segmentable, referential, non-linguistically presupposable phenomena will be available for native speaker conscious evaluation and interpretation as dialectal. These will be the focus of attention here because these are what constitute the set available for use in registers that mark identity and context. The point here is not structural dialectal description, but presentation of the features we will be encountering in the transcripts that effectively function as dialect forms, as Shibboleths. There are two commonly invoked planes of distinction used to separate Japanese dialects; the tonological and the morpho-lexical. The tonal contours associated with dialects divide the lexicon into 4–6 tonological classes, which classes are establish only in this way, i.e., there is no semantic or other lexical coherence to the classes. Such tonal distinctions are available enough to awareness that speakers of Kansai and Tokyo standard know the usual puns made from such word pairs and can challenge themselves to try to pronounce things in the opposite way. They are largely left out of Standardization processes, being viewed as peripheral compared to more segmentable linguistic features. Also, tone patterns such those indicated here are usually retained by speakers of Kansai dialect

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

361

who ÔswitchÕ into Standard by utilizing e.g., distinct segmental phonology, morphology and discourse particles. I will focus on non-tonological dialect markers from this point on. 2 Relevant segmental phonological, morphological and discourse features that separate Kansai from Standard are presented below. In (1) we see phonological lengthening and lowering in /au/ final verb stems such as au ÔmeetÕ, and, simau Ôput awayÕ. 3 (1)

(a) oo-ta meet-PAST ÔmetÕ Kansai

(b) a-tta meet-PAST ÔmetÕ Tokyo

(c) simoo-ta put away-PAST Ôput awayÕ Kansai

(d) sima-tta put away-PAST Ôput awayÕ Tokyo

Kansai dialects are marked by the use of the Negative suffix variant -hen vs. Tokyo Standard -nai as seen in (2). (2)

(a) wakaru understand ÔunderstandsÕ Kansai/Tokyo

(b) wakara-nai understand-NEG ÔdoesnÕt understandÕ Tokyo

(c) wakara-hen understand-NEG ÔdoesnÕt understandÕ Kansai

2 For a detailed account of tonological dialect features see Shibatani (1990) and Koyama (2001). Particularly interesting is the chart of the tonal patterns of five lexical sets of bisyllabic items that are used in combination with the Nominative particle ga to display regional variation presented in Shibatani (1990, p. 190), which can be read as though it were in fact a map of the political partitioning of Japan rather than a systematic presentation of abstract linguistic structure. Also, Koyama (2001, p. 1596) argues that tonological distinctions have been a productive domain for the emblematic fixation of dialects as singular entities and further for the metaphoric projection of cultural regional stereotypes onto corresponding word classes. It is precisely because tone is a nonreferential sign that it is seen to be laid on top of the same denotational code, functioning only as an index of regionality. The different tone patterns associated with different regions (ignoring internal variation) serve to cut up the regional space of Japan – which is defined by having a single lexicon – into regions which share the lexicon and its apparently arbitrary internal divisions along tonal lines, but which each have a distinct ÔflavorÕ or tonal ÔaccentÕ. 3 See Koyama (2001) for a detailed discussion of this difference and its prior interpretations as central to Kyoto dialect.

362

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

There is a further optional morphophonological process of vowel harmony licensed by this suffix that is associated with Kansai dialect whereby -hen ! -hin/i ___, as in example 3. (3) (a) deki-hin be able-NEG ÔcanÕt do itÕ Kansai

(b) sii-hin (c) mii-hin do-NEG see-NEG ÔdoesnÕt do itÕ Kansai ÔdoesnÕt see itÕ Kansai

There are cases where a different form of the stem can be optionally employed and vowel raising does not apply, as in (4). (4) (a) kuru (b) ko-nai (c) ki-masen come come-NEG come-NEG.POL ÔcomesÕ Kansai/Tokyo ÔdoesnÕt comeÕ Tokyo ÔdoesnÕt comeÕ Tokyo (d) kee-hen (e) koo-hen (f) kii-hin come-NEG come-NEG come-NEG Ôdoesnt comeÕ Kansai ÔdoesnÕt comeÕ Kansai ÔdoesnÕt comeÕ Kansai (g) suru (h) si-nai do do-NEG Ôdoes itÕ Kansai/Tokyo ÔdoesnÕt do itÕ Tokyo

(i) si-masen do-NEG.POL ÔdoesnÕt do itÕ Tokyo

(j) see-hen (k) sii-hin do-NEG do-NEG ÔdoesnÕt do itÕ Kansai ÔdoesnÕt do itÕ Kansai This morphophonologically conditioned vowel harmony is largely unknown to the Tokyo speakers with whom I have consulted and is an oft cited mistake of Tokyo Standard speakers attempting to imitate Kansai dialect. Kansai speakers report to me that forms such as *sii-hen ÔI donÕt do itÕ and *mii-hen ÔI donÕt see itÕ are commonly heard from Tokyo speakers and give away non-Kansai identity. 4 The honorific suffix -haru is as in (5) is characteristic of Kansai and is especially associated with Kyoto. (5) (a) yomu (b) yoma-haru read read-HON Ôhe readsÕ Kansai/Tokyo Ôhe readsÕ Kansai

(c) yoma-hari-masu read-HON-POL Ôhe readsÕ Kansai

4 However, some Kyoto speakers report that these previously starred forms appear in the speech of younger speakers in some dialects in Kansai as well.

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

363

There is a distinction between Osaka and Kyoto dialects in the realization of forms with the -haru Honorific suffix and the progressive form of verbs such that the Gerundive suffix -te appears as -ta in Kyoto. This is reportedly also current in at least some parts of Shiga, on the northern border of Kyoto. Examples are in (6). (6)

(a) mat-te-iru (b) mat-te-haru wait-GER-PROG wait-GER- PROG.HON ÔHe is waitingÕ Kansai/Tokyo ÔHe is waitingÕ Kansai (c) mat-ta-haru wait-GER- PROG.HON ÔHe is waitingÕ Kyoto

There are in addition some salient Tokyo Standard versus Kansai dialect oppositional pairs that occur commonly in discourse and frequently in our transcripts. These include use of the utterance final discourse particle, nee Tokyo vs., naa Kansai, the Copula da Tokyo vs. ya Kansai, hontoo ni Tokyo vs. honma ni Kansai, Ôtruly, reallyÕ and tigau Tokyo vs. tyau Kansai, Ôbe differentÕ. Also the discourse particle nen, as in wakarahen nen Ô(I) donÕt understandÕ is common in Osaka/Kansai dialect. Kyoto is further marked by a general proliferation of polite forms and honorific prefixes for inanimate objects, especially foods such as in o-udon. ÔHonnoodlesÕ.

3. Discourse analysis The transcripts that follow represent portions of two conversations recorded in Kyoto, Japan. The setting for the conversations is a Japanese family home to which the arrival of visitors provided the occasions of talk that were recorded. Both the transcripts have in common certain participants who identify with Kansai regionality and use Kansai dialect forms in their everyday life. These speakers are bilectal and also use Standard type language in certain contexts. My analysis here starts with the general observation that in group members in transcripts 1 use dialect forms as an index of solidarity and that an out group relationship between participants is indexed by more Standard use in transcript 2. I want to call special attention to how boundaries are negotiated using dialect and standard language in the transcripts. The participants in transcript 1 are S, a mid 50Õs college educated woman, her husband T, a mid 50Õs Ôsalary manÕ, TM, a 60-year-old housewife, her husband H, a mid 50Õs Ôsalary manÕ and their daughter K, a mid 30Õs woman. The researcher was also present. S and T are visiting TM, H, and K. S is an old family friend known by H and TM since their college days through TMÕs sister primarily. S is

364

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

regarded as very intelligent and cosmopolitan. The general purpose of this visit is to present an orei, a return gift to TM and H. S and T recently moved to a new home, prompting a house warming gift from TM and H which is to be repayed. S and T were also visiting for the purpose of seeing K, who had returned for a visit after an absence of two years while living in the US. The speakers operate in one presupposable frame of ÔweÕ-ness at the beginning, working to develop further intimate and non-intimate comparables as the conversation proceeds. All of this is accomplished in a volley of interactional turns. Note especially that the two relationships between S and TM and between S and K are differentially maintained by joint dialect use between S and TM and joint Standard use between K and S. This is not a question of polite versus plain forms. Although Japanese is well known for its honorific address registers, tokens of polite forms are totally absent here. Only third person referent directed honorifics are used, and these are very much Kyoto dialect solidarity markers in this context. So, what we see is in effect a two register conversation where S and K keep their ÔdistanceÕ through use of the Standard and TM and S are intimate through their use of dialect forms. Without recourse to honorific register, the participants instead use dialect and standard forms to perform a similar interactional function. The conversation opens with TMÕs display to S of KÕs pottery. TM is intimate with S and uses predominantly dialect forms (Transcript 1 lines 10, 23, 27, 37). S reciprocates when she addresses TM towards the end of the transcript (Transcript 1 lines 34, 36, 38, 40) but is held back in this regard in her exchanges with K (Transcript 1 lines, 6, 20, 22, 24, 26). S wants to impress K and display her shared appreciation of traditional crafts. She asks questions regarding the technical aspects of pottery using non-dialect forms in line 6 and makes an aside comment to her husband T that their acquaintance uses this kind of glaze. This comment clearly has as intended recipient not only the addressee but the present overhearers as well. Line 15 seems to be a dialect form from S in the subsection of talk where K and S are interacting (Transcript 1 lines 2–26), but this is a pair part response, not to K, but to T, who has just finished KÕs utterance. In fact the only dialect forms used by S to K is in Transcript 1 line 18, where she breaks from semitechnical discussion to praise K as one praises a child. Note that this inspires an immediate humble hedge and nervous laughter on the part of K. This move by S seems to be an inserted recalibration of the relationship between S and K–S claiming the role of ÔauntÕ vis a vis the child ÔneiceÕ, a prompt to K to use reciprocal uchi forms. It fails. Throughout the exchange K does not use dialect forms with the older friend of her parents, establishing a boundary between them that is not overcome. K is typically a predominantly dialect speaker, she uses the dialect form misen (contraction of mise-hen Ôshow-NEGÕ) to her mother TM in line 2 for example, but is clearly not presenting her uchi face to S here. Note especially the exchange in T1 24, 25 and 26 with the parallelistic S: hontoo ni – attenai, K: attenai, S: hontoo ni, all in Standard. The second utterance by S in line 26, after her Standard hontoo ni to K, is directed at TM and employs a Kansai form; denwa shitan ÔI phoned himÕ. TM

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

365

reciprocates in line 27 with the dialect version of hontoo ni, honma ni. As ÔmotherÕ and the most intimate to S, she attempts to reestablish the parameters of ÔweÕ-ness that have shifted. She steers the conversation to the health of a common intimate, Ôuncle TKÕ, allowing S to indulge in her most marked dialect use, solidifying the in group membership shared among friends and family. S turns to engage TM and uses dialect honorifics in speaking about TK to TM in lines 34, 36, 38, 40 and 42. I interpret these -haru forms as partially honorific and partially solidarity building, that is referring to a common and respected (Kyoto University professor) in group member with inclusive and respectful dialect forms. Note that what could be analyzed as indexing of vertical (deference) and horizontal (groupness) planes is accomplished with the use of this particular suffix. Note also that the verb in 34 has the -teharu variant and the verbs in 38 and 42 have the -taharu variant (see examples 5 and 6 in Section 2.3). At this point, the conversation has come back to an in group uchi frame. The following transcripts are intended to highlight salient dialect and Standard features. 5 Relevant Kansai dialect forms are bold, and contrastive Standard forms are italicized.

Transcript 1: Kyoto 24 June 2001

5

This is an interpretive process for native speakers and ethnographic linguist alike. Wherever possible I have reviewed tapes with a participant for clarification on form and intuitions about any relevant social effects.

366

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

367

368

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

As an extra linguistic component to the stances or footings I have claimed were being negotiated here, consider the presentation of the gift that S and T had brought on this visit. The gift was given shortly after the previous section of talk. The present was apparently chosen to match the personal tastes and artistic inclinations of H and K. K and H are known to be potters – they have a pottery studio on the second floor of their home. K is further known to have worked as a kimono designer for some years, and is thus associated with traditional Kyoto arts. This leads S to a selection of pottery as a gift. The style and piece was also chosen based on the notoriety of the artist and SÕs personal acquaintance with the artist. The gift consisted of an obuje Ôobjet (dÕart)Õ, an egg made of ceramic pieces and wrapped in paper and enclosed in a wooden box signed by the artist and with the English inscription ‘‘Recreation’’. The presence of the box seems to be an important marker of the value of the work, as H remarked, kore wa kati ga aru, Ôthis is valuableÕ. Thus the gift was at once a generally valuable appropriate orei, Ôreturn giftÕ, and also an attempted uchi, Ôin groupÕ gift. The gift did not make such a big impression on K and H despite SÕs obvious desire to have pleased them. K comments later off tape that since one example of this artistÕs work was sold at a high price, all subsequent works became excessively expensive. The price it must have cost made it a perfectly appropriate return present, orei, but it seems to have failed as a marker of artistic taste, solidarity and intimacy. When asked what he would do with the gift, H responded that he would display it, especially upon SÕs next visit. It then sat in the appropriate display area of the home, the tokonoma, ÔalcoveÕ, in the washitsu, ÔJapanese style roomÕ, but remained in the box – this was remarked upon by S on a subsequent visit. T and S are apparently acquaintances of the artist, and S may have wanted to display this to two amateur artist friends. Transcript 2 is of a dinner conversation in the same Japanese household in Kyoto Japan, recorded 7/9/01. The participants include TM, her husband H and their

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

369

daughter K, and the researcher CB. On this evening, a Japanese colleague of the researcher in Chicago, a native of Tokyo, SN, has just arrived at the home for a short stay. It is well known among the participants that SN has never traveled to Kyoto or the Osaka centered Kansai region of western Japan. In this case the evidence of shift is negative – this transcript is lacking in many of the overt markers of Kansai or Kyoto regional identity. Kansai dialect forms stand in opposition to the standard of Tokyo. This conversation shows a distinct shift to standard use at the morphological, lexical and syntactic levels. Prosody is not treated in this transcript, but one native speaker participant, K, indicated upon re-listening to the tape that TMÕs speech, for example, while lacking dialect morphosyntactic and lexical markers, retains a dialect intonation pattern. This would correlate well with Silverstein (1981) contention that speakers are more likely to have available for reflexive analysis and manipulation more segmentable, meaningful elements. If one assumes that salient dialect features can be used as parts of a repertoire for some socioindexical purpose, then it should be the case that switches occur, in order, at the level of the word, the phrase and segmental and then prosodic phonology. This portion of the dinner conversation is centered around the presentation of local foods, from the characteristic freshwater eel found in Kyoto inns (Transcript 2 lines 7–18, 23–28), to chilled tofu (Transcript 2 lines 19–22, 29–31), to the maximally local homegrown cucumber (Transcript 2 line 32). The explanation of the seasonal summer nature of the dishes is in keeping with the cultivated attention to the seasons and incorporation of seasonal elements into art, poetry and cuisine that is particularly stereotypical of Kyoto. Thus, the introduction of these referents into discourse, and the continued reference to and predication of states of affairs of these referents sets the ÔtopicÕ of conversation; Kyoto cuisine. Note that in this case, the denotational text, what the talk is about, does not determine the choice of code. If this were the case then we would expect that the bilectal speaker TM might display the local Kyoto referents in local Kyoto dialect. Instead, it appears that it is at the level of the interactional text, what social work the talk is doing, that the choice of standard is being determined. There is a marked presence of polite forms in this section of talk. This signal a shift ÔupÕ in register. This calibration to a more ÔformalÕ code is complemented with the shift to the Standard. We saw in Transcript 1 that there was an abundance of polite and honorific forms in Kansai dialect and plain forms in Standard. Here we see no plain forms or honorific forms in Kansai dialect. The use of standard like forms here is the result of orientation to SNÕs speech and identity as a Tokyo native. Note that the interactional scene and the social roles inhabited by the participants set the register used on the axis of dialect vs. standard, not topic. Again, we might expect TM to accompany her shift to honorific use in this encounter with a selection of Kansai, or more precisely Kyoto dialect honorific forms, but this does not occur. Although the topic is Kyoto and its cuisine, there is not a topic induced shift into Kyoto dialect, but rather an accommodation to the standard variety of the guest and the entailed effect of drawing a clear boundary between in group family and out group guest that parallels regional affiliation. Note that in as much as the use of

370

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

Standard by e.g. TM may be motivated by a desire to put SN at ease by using a familiar (to him) code, such a choice can be read as a solidarity building move as well.

Transcript 2: Kyoto July 9, 2001.

6

6

In this transcript, I have not italicized Standard forms as in Transcript 1, as they are not contrastive in the same way in this exchange. There is only one, bolded, Kansai form in line 30. The rest of this transcript is in Standard register.

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

371

372

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

After viewing the transcripts and their interpretation, we should have a feel for them – we should be clear on the use of the dialect and Standard markers and their possible motivations and we should be clear on cultural context. Next we must consider how a theory of the indexical function of dialect signs might look. How similar is it to proposals of the function of other registers such as honorifics? How do we account for the interactional and semiotic properties of such a theory that may be stable cross-culturally and those categories that are particular to specific cultural systems? 4. The enregisterment of dialect 4.1. Mapping honorifics Agha (1993) establishes an indexical semiotic system for the analysis of the occurrence of tokens of honorific linguistic forms in discourse. Agha denies that honorific forms encode social status. Social status he defines as a monadic concept establishing the positions of an individual in terms of variables, birth, breeding, age, profession, wealth, etc. within a system of social stratification. This describes a fixed system of macrosocial positionality. Rather, honorifics, he claims, index relative deference entitlements. Deference entitlement he defines as a dyadic or polyadic concept establishing the relationship of a given interactionally positioned individual to some other(s). Such deference specifies ordinal positions of interactants by appeal to interactional role categories in discursive interaction. He thus specifies the indexical object of the honorifically coded sign. Deference functions, states Agha, link the signal order to the interactional order. Note that the object is an interactionally

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

373

defined property, the degree to which recruitments to role in a given discursive context are presented as asymmetrically related. So, A utters x, and x has as its indexical object y, the comportment, specifically deferential, of A to B (or any origo to any recipient). The sign x performs, creates the object y. As indexes are always in a causal relationship with their object, the object y, deference, modifies the nature of the sign x, creates the sign qua honorific as opposed to some other alternate (honorifically neutral say) linguistic expression. The honorific sign x in turn signals the spatio-temporal co-presence of its object y, deference paid to deference due. Note that the relation of sign x to object y constitutes a ground, which is in turn the object of another sign, in this case a sign representing a politeness judgment of the appropriateness of the relation indexed. Politeness judgments link deference in interaction to status categories in the social order. They take the ground of the honorific form and its deference entitlement as object, and have that relation as their object. Politeness judgments are the product of a metapragmatic process of evaluation of the efficacy of particular forms in particular situations, calibrated against cultural categorical notions of social hierarchy. Thus, the link from the interaction order to the social order is achieved through linguistic ideological formulations of the use of language and social roles, appropriateness and power. 4.2. Mapping dialect forms I will present an argument similar to that of Agha (1993) in order to demonstrate that dialect items do not directly encode socio-regional provenance. Socio-regional provenance I define as a monadic concept establishing the position of an individual in terms of variables; region, urban/rural, education, etc. within a system of speech communities comprising sub linguistic communities – regional dialect norms of Kansai, Kyoto, Tokyo Standard – and a nation state level institutionally and ideologically reproduced Standard oriented linguistic community – The Japanese Language. Rather, dialect forms do encode (stances on a scale of) alterity. Alterity I define as a dyadic or polyadic relative concept establishing the relationship in terms of difference of a given interactionally positioned individual to some other(s). Thus, the indexical object of a marked dialect sign in discursive interactional terms is not the regional identity of the speaker (role) but simply a value of difference of the speaker (role) from some addressee. Note that this indexical object (value/stance of alterity) of dialect forms (nonreferential indexes) in use in context subsumes AghaÕs account of honorific forms and their indexical object, Ôdeference entitlementsÕ, which can now be seen as a particular type of alterity – a marked asymmetric alterity. Agha characterizes deference, following Shils (1982), as Ôthe interaction specific comportment of an individual toward some alterÕ (Agha, 1993, p. 134). This is general enough to include the social indexical function of register types such as dialect that do not always signal an asymmetry in social relations. It would seem that AghaÕs stronger statements on the indexical object of honorific forms are correct, that honorific register use in discourse acts to signal particular, always asymmetric stances of alterity with respect to some other(s). This asymmetry is part of the immediate context, presupposed and created

374

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

by honorific use. We may generalize out from the specific indexical object of deference indexes, what I would call asymmetric stances of alterity, to the broader notion of alterity as a scale being a field from within which indexical objects of dialect register forms are calculated. It is crucial to note here that I recognize the possible asymmetric interpretations of dialects as rural, sub standard, etc. I argue that while the primary indexical object of honorific signs is asymmetrical, dialectal counterpart signs do not have an asymmetrical relation as their primary indexical object. 7 Only after the appearance of dialect forms in interactional contexts are computed against assumed norms of preferred use may the potential for asymmetric reading occur. The question becomes, once these stances are mapped from the signal order to the interactional order, how are they evaluated metapragmatically in mapping from the interactional order to the social order where judgments of socioregional provenance are made? Further, what is the interpretive frame for understanding bare indexes of difference in a culturally specific and systematic way?

5. Language ideologies and the interpretation of dialect signs 5.1. Ideologies of regional identity Silverstein points out Ôthe tendency to rationalize the pragmatic system of a language, in native understanding, with an ideology of language that centers on reference-and-predicationÕ (Silverstein, 1979, p. 208). This leads to the interpretation of easily identifiable linguistic units in their referential or propositional capacity rather than their indexical capacity. This accounts for how people understand dialect forms to somehow naturally contain regionality in the sign. The sign forms become naturally associated with wider cultural conceptions of speakersÕ social categories, conceptions which often fit into pairs of stereotypes. Koyama (2000) identifies the following stereotypic oppositions between Kyoto and Tokyo (Fig. 2). Note that the pairs of oppositions allow for a deictic reading from either one of the sets of characteristics such that one is ÔinÕ and the other ÔoutÕ. The reckoning of regional identity through conventions of cultural stereotypy is almost everywhere produced from an assumed neutral point of view. For example, Tokyo natives inform me that the above characterization appears to be Kyoto centric. Of course all such stereotypes are perspectival and relational. Thus, while Tokyo may appear masculine from the point of view of Kyoto, it is feminine from the point of view of Osaka. Regional stereotypes may involve negative valuations, especially when they overlap with rural versus urban oppositions. In the case of Tokyo vs. Kyoto or Osaka, the potential for asymmetry is less pronounced as all the localities indexed 7 With a caveat that I am attempting to move away from characterizations involving notions of vertical and horizontal as analytic primes (cf. Brown and Gilman, 1960), I suggest as a geometric illustration only that the honorific sign to object ground may be thought of as a vertical relation of difference, while the dialect sign to object ground may be thought of as a horizontal relation of difference.

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

Kyoto

beauty

femininity

traditional

intruded

traditional Japanese

intruder

modern Japanese

375

elegance Tokyo

money

masculinity brute power

Fig. 2. Stereotypic traits of Tokyo and Kyoto.

are generally ascribed prestige. I simply wish to point out here that whatever valuations of speech forms as ÔgoodÕ or ÔbadÕ are involved, dialectal indexes are interpreted as naturally encoding a set of characteristics that are ideologically linked with concepts of regionality. In fact, regionality cannot be indexed by any dialect form without evaluation in terms of cultural concepts about the constitution of society. The feeding of such indexes through these conceptual sociological ÔmapsÕ entails the invocation of all manner of ideological stereotypes. Important here is the way in which the linguistic sign is seen to embody the cultural trait it betrays; elegant speech belies an origin in an appropriately elegant locale, etc. Further, any reflection at all tends to reveal the secondary nature of especially pejorative associations with certain speech forms, while the brute fact of regionality is usually mistakenly seen as a simpler, more objective index of the first order. I suggest that there is a basic underlying meta-level or reflexive system within which difference at the level of interaction as well as the level of region can be understood. Uchi and soto are Japanese cultural concepts which are grounded in the core semantic notions inside and outside and which operate in structuring Japanese cultural notions of language, self and society. The basic ideology surrounding this dichotomy can be simply read as stipulating that one uses X forms to uchi and Y forms to soto, where X ¼ dialect and Y ¼ Standard, for example. Uchi and soto groupings are inclusively recursive, they move from Japan as uchi and the world as soto down through regional identities and intimate social relations. To say that uchi and soto are linguistic ideological primes in Japanese culture relies not on an assumption that such a unity is preexistent, but suggests that such primes work to create at least the appearance of this unity at a fundamental level. The circulation of linguistic ideological concepts such as this is often mediated by institutional structures at the national or state level. Academia, medicine, the media and politics are all potential domains of ideological reproduction. 5.2. Linguistic ideology with a psychological mask Let us explore the ability of speakers to interpret dialect use according to ideologies of membership in groups ÔbelowÕ the level of the region. This level of interpretation, which in our discussion might best be characterized as a reflexive engagement with the domain of interaction, is often characterized as belonging to the

376

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

domain of psychology. In Japan, the circulation of uchi and soto as technical terms is linked up with a popular psychological literature exemplified by the widely read and translated work of Takeo Doi, MD. Doi (1985) represents and promotes an ethnopsychology that seeks to explain the hidden structure of the Japanese psyche. Key to this effort are the oppositions uchi vs. soto, omote (face) vs. ura (mind), and honne (true self) vs. tatemae (presented self). Doi states that the Ôconsciousness of grasping things simultaneously in terms of both their aspects of omote and ura is especially well developed in the Japanese language. I say this because I think omote and ura correspond to the distinction between soto (outside) and uchi (inside) that is often prominent in the Japanese consciousness of human relationsÕ (Doi, 1985, p. 24). These oppositions are used to frame the psychological presentation of inner subjectivity to outer society. Further, the dynamic nature of the opposition of these concepts is used to express the relational nature of Japanese self and society. Doi stresses the relative aspect of these terms, since soto and uchi are different for each individual, what is soto for one person may become uchi for a person included in that soto. Clearly, the formerÕs omote becomes the latterÕs ura. In this sense, omote and ura are extremely relative, and it is for this reason that they suggest a quality of two sidednessÕ (Doi, 1985, p. 29). The micro level and the macro level of the Japanese psychological experience present themselves recursively in the work of Doi, the individual is masked to his interlocutor as the Japanese self is to the Japanese society and as the Japanese society at large is masked to the West. The theory is presented as a psychological and cultural analysis, but it is really an ideology of language. DoiÕs discussion is largely a presentation of nouns, their senses and combinatorics and how these can be linked metaphorically and etymologically. Since omote and ura mean ÔfaceÕ and ÔmindÕ, we can conclude that the relationship between omote and ura is modeled on the relationship between face and mind and that it is constituted by a generalization and abstraction of that relationship. In the relationship between face and mind, the face usually expresses the mind. When we say that a personÕs face is ÔaglowÕ (kao ga kagayaite iru), or that it is ÔcloudyÕ (kao ga kumotte iru), or that it is Ôa face deep in thoughtÕ (kangaebukai kao), we are speaking directly of the face. What we mean, however, although it is expressed indirectly, is the mind as it appears on the face (Doi, 1985, p. 25). Doi likewise references historic uses of omote and ura in 18th century textual interpretation to establish their importance. He promotes other popular conceptions of language in his discussion, such as the view that Japanese are not analytic in their use of language while Westerners are. He also states, Ôwords are totally monothetic and most of them are used with implied value judgments of good and badÕ (Doi, 1985, p. 29). For Doi, what is thought to be good is displayed to soto through omote and what is thought to be bad is shut away in uchi/ura.

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

377

DoiÕs work represents a sophisticated exposition of Japanese cultural categories and their metaphoric extension through domains of social life ranging from internal psychology to everyday talk to poetics and even the organization of society itself. It also represents an uncritical reproduction of these categories as analytic primes through the Japanese institutional regimentation and authoritative production of scientific medical discourses on cognition. This works within Japan and abroad, as a native yet scientifically filtered psychocultural explanation of the hidden Japanese psyche. 5.3. Indexical function of uchi and soto The ideology of uchi and soto as relational components of a psychology of selfhood is based in a broader logic that divides inner from outer. The topology can be projected into various realms of social life, resulting in recursive organizational regularities. Bachnik (1994) presents a range of contemporary views on the cultural distillation of the basic relational concept of the ÔinÕ/ÔoutÕ topology. Bachnik (1994) comments on the series of dichotomies related to uchi and soto that have been invoked in the literature as organizational keys for the study of Japanese society. Bachnik recognizes DoiÕs basic insights while moving beyond his basically semantic (metaphorical, symbolic structural) analysis to an indexical account of uchi and soto. She states, we focus especially on uchi/soto (although we include the other paired terms as well). We propose that the significance of uchi/soto extends beyond the directional coordinates of ÔinsideÕ and ÔoutsideÕ; and that, specifically, these terms link the directional coordinates with self, society, and language; moreover, they provide an organizational dynamic for this linkage. To put this another way, we propose that the universally defined orientations for inside/outside are linked with culturally defined perspectives for self, society, and language in Japan. Consequently, the organization of all three have striking parallels, derived from the directional orientations of inside/outside. Moreover, the directional coordinates of uchi/soto are basic to the other paired sets of terms as well, making uchi/soto the most fundamental of all the termsÕ (Bachnik, 1994, p. 7). Here Bachnik seeks to extract the ÔinÕ/ÔoutÕ topology and generalize it across levels. Her statement points to the indexical linking of the inside/outside coordinates to micro contexts and the role of this dynamic as an interactional universal plane. This corresponds to my linking of the signal order to the interactional order on the plane of alterity stances, a horizontal move on an axis of inside to outside, a presumably universal characteristic function of non-referential indexical ÔdialectalÕ signs in use. Second is her indexical linking of the microcontext to sociocultural macro contexts of interpretation. This corresponds to my linking of the interactional order to the social order, whereby perspectives on the appropriateness and effectiveness of linguistic forms in context are formed against the overall organizational ideological

378

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

primes uchi and soto. Note that this works to separate in part the universal interactional tendencies at work in language use from particular culturally pregnant construals of these. Note further that the reason why these need to be separated, that is why these are not immediately apparent as separate, is the organizational parallels that they share. This corresponds to my iconic mapping from interaction to sociality, whereby diagrammatic signs of regional sameness and difference and interactional familiarity, solidarity, and difference are superposed one to the other. As Irvine and Gal (2000) make clear, this iconization or naturalization of the relationship between levels – linguistic interactional particulars and their broad sociological consequences – erases other potential associations of form with indexical meaning. The result is a simple and natural association of dialect forms with regional provenance, social strata, or other categories conceived at the cultural categorical level, and obfuscation of more subtle interactional consequences of dialect use, real as these are.

6. Conclusion A backward glance at the transcripts and the discussion of their features in Section 3 will illustrate the applicability of the general analysis just proposed. In light of the discussion of the uchi/soto ideology, we may identify a very consistent linguistic construction of boundaries in the three way exchange between TM, K, and S in Transcript 1. Further, we see that the construction is collaborative, that is, it emerges in discourse between active parties in dialogue. TM and S maintain an uchi stance with regard to each other, indexing this through predominantly Kansai dialect forms. S and K maintain a soto stance with respect to each other through the use of predominantly Standard forms. Note that S is constantly shifting between linguistic components of her repertoire and the footings they index. In Transcript 2, TM displays the versatility of her repertoire, and the effectiveness of its indexical capacity in use. She presents a soto ÔfaceÕ through the use of Standard. Further, the repertoire of SN being grounded more centrally in Standard, there is a sense in which he may interpret this as an uchi move whereby TM goes out of her way to make him feel at home. The nature of the in/out topology indexed here is of course relative. Consider the claim reported in Section 2.2 that Kansai women may regard Tokyo men as not direct enough, too interactionally distant by virtue of their inability to speak (some variety of (a)) Kansai dialect. Recall that all of the women in the conversation reported are competent in some version of the Standard variety, and within Kansai dialect, claim to be comfortable with both some characteristic Osaka and Kyoto ways of speaking. They identify with being variously from Kansai, Osaka or Kyoto. I wish to point out here the relational aspects of the presentation of self as belonging to a Kyoto identity group or an Osaka identity group and the expression of such alignments in Kansai dialect. Note the relativity of uchi and soto with respect to in group identification. It seems that the dialect of Kansai – as formally cohesive as such a unit can be claimed to exist – is less a marker of regional provenance than an index of positions of identification within fluid circles of social space.

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

379

Let me conclude by restating the general point that the indexical function of the group of forms culturally recognized as Kansai dialect and Standard are employed in particular instances of talk to very subtle interactional ends and often very personal effects. The sociolinguistic interest for me, at least, is to start here with the ways in which these fundamental indexical values signal dyadic interactional stances of sameness and difference. Only then can we move to how these signs are overtly interpreted as marking regional stereotypes and how they are much less consciously interpreted as being appropriate and effective for a given interaction, as letting one into or excluding one from an in group, as breaking down or drawing boundaries between interactants.

Acknowledgements I thank friends and family in Kyoto for their hospitality and support during the Summer of 2001, before and since. Arigatoo gozaimasita. I owe a great debt to Michael Silverstein and Susan Gal for their invaluable guidance during the development of this project. John Lucy and Amy Dahlstrom also provided valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I thank Shunsuke Nozawa and Ichiro Yuhara for detailed and insightful suggestions regarding Japanese language and culture. Paul Manning and Adi Hastings offered great encouragement in the preparation of this draft. All errors are of course my own. References Agha, A., 1993. Grammatical and indexical convention in honorific discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3 (2). Bachnik, J.M., 1994. Introduction: uchi/soto: challenging our conceptualizations of self, social order, and language. In: Bachnik, J.M., Quinn Jr., C.J. (Eds.), Situated Meaning: Inside and Outside in Japanese Self, Society, and Language. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Blom, J., Gumperz, J., 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structure: code-switching in Norway. In: Gumperz, J., Hymes, D. (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. Blackwell, Oxford. Brown, R., Gilman, A., 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Sebeok, T.A. (Ed.), Style in Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 253–276. Doi, T., 1985. The Anatomy of Self: The Individual Versus Society (Mark Harbison, Trans.). Kodansha Press, Tokyo. Goffman, I., 1979. Footing. Semiotica 25 (1–2), 1–29. Gumperz, J., 1968. The speech community. In: Giglioli, P. (Ed.), Language and Social Context. Penguin Education, pp. 219–231. Irvine, J.T., Gal, S., 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In: Kroskrity, P.V. (Ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. SAR Press, Santa Fe. Koyama, W., 2000. From Universal Grammar to Local Discourse, Ideology and Politics. Unpublished dissertation proposal, University of Chicago Linguistics Department, November 29, 2000. Koyama, W., 2001. Dialects of dialect and dialectology: culture, structure and ideology of Ôthe Kyoto DialectÕ of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 1571–1600. Loveday, L.J., 1986. Japanese sociolinguistics: an introductory survey. Journal of Pragmatics 10, 287–326. Peirce, C.S., 1932. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce II: Elements of Logic. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

380

C. Ball / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 355–380

Shibatani, M., 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Shils, E., 1982. Deference. In: The Constitution of Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 143– 175. Sibata, T., 1999. In: Kunihiro, T., Inoue, F., Long, D. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics in Japanese Contexts. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York. Silverstein, M., 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In: Basso, K., Selby, H. (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 11–56. Silverstein, M., 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In: Clyne, P., Hanks, W., Hofbauer, C. (Eds.), The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, Chicago Linguistic Society. Silverstein, M., 1981. The limits of awareness. In: Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 84. Southwest Educational Research Laboratory, Austin.