Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
com
Abstract
). The
The paper investigates what can be described as a Japanese cultural way of thanking, o-rei (
data of the investigation are naturally occurring telephone conversations which took place in the Japanese
end-of-year gift-giving season, seibo. Sections of the conversations, which refer to favours or gifts that are
given or received, are extracted and transcribed for a detailed investigation. This study reveals that
conversational participants cooperate to achieve a mutual pragmatic goal of debtcredit equilibrium. This
is a symbolic settlement that is necessary to care for the conversational participants debt-sensitive face. The
linguistic ritual of o-rei serves to achieve this temporary restoration of equilibrium, and thus o-rei does not
free the debtor from debt. The data suggest that Japanese native speakers employ many means of indicating
o-rei that are not predicted by most politeness and speech act theories. The prolongation of acknowledging
debt/benefitdenigrating credit between the beneficiary and the benefactor also suggests the importance of
the mutual involvement of conversational participants in understanding the social meaning of o-rei. O-rei
serves as a symbolic repayment of debt, and it is a common practice outside a family circle. In this paper I
question the adequacy of the definition of thanking, expressions of gratitude and appreciation, which has
been commonly used in cross-cultural and inter-language pragmatic research and suggest that the mutual
and reciprocal aspects need to be taken into account.
# 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Thanking; O-rei; Debt-credit equilibrium; Reciprocity; Face
1. Introduction
In anthropology, there is a rich tradition of research on social exchange in terms of the norm of
reciprocity (to name a few classics, Mauss, 1925 (in French), 1954 (English translation);
Malinowski, 1922; Levi-Strauss, 1949 (in French), 1969 (English translation); Gouldner, 1960).
The norm of reciprocity the social obligation to reciprocate benefits to one another is claimed to
E-mail address: juno@unimelb.edu.au.
0378-2166/$ see front matter # 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.001
2151
(Rei)
Rei is a Japanese version of the original Chinese li ( ) which has been described as
expressions of self-denigration and respect to others (Gu, 1990), namely politeness. Li is strongly
associated with the sayings of Confucius from around the 6th century B.C., and Gu describes it as
the social hierarchy and order based on the social system of the Zhou Dynasty, that Confucius
advocated should be restored (Gu, 1990). Therefore, li was, in one of its main meanings, the
2152
manner required in talking to someone with higher status and more power than the speaker, and
this li helped maintain the social hierarchy. The logical relation between li as politeness and li as
social hierarchy is that appropriate speech that takes account of the speakers social status in
relation to the hearer leads to consolidation of hierarchy. Gu explains that it is li (i.e. social
hierarchy) that gives rise to li (i.e. politeness), and that it is li (i.e. politeness) that expresses and
helps maintain li (i.e. social hierarchy and order) (Gu, 1990:239).
Yanagita (1964) argued that the Japanese version of rei slightly diverged from the original
sense of li in Chinese. In spoken Japanese, with an honorific o-prefix, o-rei is commonly used in
such expressions as o-rei o suru (to do rei) meaning to express rei as an action; to give a gift to
someone whom one is indebted to, or to bow (with no o-prefix). Also o-rei o iu (to say rei) means
to verbally express rei. It is often associated with using the arigatoo thanking speech formula,
and other speech formulae for apology, such as sumimasen, mooshiwake arimasen.1
1.2. Linguistic expressions of thanking which describe the act of thanking
According to Kokugo Daijiten (Nihon dai jiten kankoo kai 1976:464), one of the most
authoritative Japanese dictionaries, rei means manner, etiquette, words, gift, or money gift
with which one expresses gratitude (kansha) expressions of respect (keii) or else a bow. Rei,
therefore, encompasses various socially expected behaviours, both verbal and non-verbal, in a
Japanese society.
To realise rei, it is appropriate and expected to express gratitude (kansha) and respect (keii) as
a certain verbal expression, and/or in a form of a gift, and/or bowing.
Kansha suru (to express gratitude) is defined as arigatai to kanjite rei o noberukoto, mata
arigatai to kanzuru kimochi (Nihon dai jiten kankoo kai, 1976:355). (To say rei with a feeling of
arigatai, or the feeling itself.) Therefore, kansha suru is similar to o-rei o iu (to say rei), but
they are not clearly distinguished in the Japanese dictionary. However, they are distinct from each
other in one sense that kansha can be felt, but o-rei can only be explicitly said or done. Also, as
mentioned, o-rei o suru (to do rei) is an act of giving a gift as a repayment of debt or an act of
taking a bow, which suggests that o-rei o iu (to say rei) is distinct from expressing gratitude.
Expressing o-rei implies a verbal symbolic repayment of debt. This difference is significant
because the speech act of thanking is defined as expressions of gratitude or appreciation in the
speech act theory (Searle, 1969:66) and this is the definition used in major studies of thanking in
cross-cultural and inter-language pragmatics such as Eisenstein and Bodman (1986, 1993).
However, such a narrow and static definition is not fit to explain the Japanese cultural way of
thanking, o-rei. In the following section, an overview of how the term thanking has been defined
1
According to Yanagita (1964), arigatai (literal translation: rare, hard to come by, precious or grateful) was used as an
expression uttered by the Japanese in religious exultation to extol God or Budda, but it became an expression of o-rei.
Yanagita (1964:17) explains how speech formulae expressing o-rei have been changing over a period of time. Up until
Genroku period (around 1700), katajikenai (I am ashamed, lose face) which served as apology formula was commonly
used in o-rei. Once a particular expression exclusively used from the lower to the higher status person is adapted by the
higher status when speaking to the lower, the lower finds the expression is not enough to express o-rei any longer.
Consequently, the lower has to find other expressions. There were also regional variations of the expression of o-rei such
as kanbun or kabun (literal meaning: treatment exceeding what one is worth) in Shinshuu region, or utatei or otomashii
(literal meaning: your treatment is meaningless as I am not worthy) in Hokuriku region (Yanagita, 1964). The
etymological meaning of speech formulae such as these may not reflect the speaker meaning of present Japanese
society in a certain context, but it may at least reveal how social norms and values are reflected in the use of the language
and have changed over a period of time.
2153
2154
Mao (1994) and Gu (1990), demonstrating Chinese politeness phenomena, challenge Brown and Levinson for their
culturally biased construction of politeness theory. Mao (1994) claims that the basic concept of face which Brown and
Levinson adopted from Goffman (1967) is, in fact, Chinese in origin. Face in Brown and Levinsons formulation is
oriented toward individual desires and wants; Chinese face, however, is oriented toward interdependent social
relationships, and is public and negotiable. Gu (1990) also critically points out that Brown and Levinsons (1987)
politeness model assumes that FTAs (face threatening acts) are not polite, and thus politeness is required. This assumption
entails that being polite means being face-caring; however, Gu (1990) argues that such an assumption does not work in
Chinese. According to Gu, offering, inviting and promising in Chinese, for example, are considered polite and thus
not threatening to the hearers negative face. He argues even further that Ss [speakers] insistence on Hs [hearers]
accepting the invitation serves as good evidence of Ss sincerity (Gu, 1990:242).
Another line of criticisms came from the studies of politeness looking at Japanese language. Ide (1989), discussing
Japanese politeness phenomena, argues that Brown and Levinsons politeness theory is not able to account for
non-strategic, discernment Japanese politeness phenomena. Matsumoto (1988, 1989) questions the universality of
negative face as defined by Brown and Levinson.
2155
However, as Meier maintains, the distinction between negative and positive face is opaque.
Although the notion of face which Brown and Levinson adopt from Goffman (1967) is useful, the
positivenegative model and its extreme individualistic emphasis is not adequate in cross-cultural
research.
Aston (1995) (see also McLaughlin et al., 1983; Baxter, 1984) points out the limitation of
Brown and Levinsons rigid view of situational factors. Aston argues that power, distance and
imposition (or indebtedness) cannot always account for the speakers choice of speech acts and
strategy types. He stresses the importance of sequential organisation and the process of progressive
negotiation between the conversational participants, advocating a need for cross-cultural pragmatic
research investigating a bigger picture of conversational management rather than an isolated speech
act and strategy type. Mills (2002) focuses on locality rather than universality in linguistic
politeness phenomena, advocating a perspective of Community of Practice. This perspective sees
conversational norms and conventions as specific to certain participants of a given community and
allows for the interpretation that different groups of people have different ideas of what counts as
polite (Mills, 2002). Recently, there has been a strong surge of investigating linguistic politeness by
observing the discourse level rather than the single utterance or speech act level of meaning (Harris,
2001; Mills, 2002; Usami, 2002). Research on linguistic politeness so far encompasses
phenomena including conflict avoidance, repair work, indirectness, honorifics, consideration for
others, enhancement of solidarity, denigration of self, and exaltation of others. Linguistic
expressions used for these purposes are often conventionalised and therefore become anticipated
and unnoticed. Prevalent conversational styles and management of a certain speech event in a given
speech community are products of conversational participants agreement to anticipated social
norms. However, it is also important to note that such norms are readily overridden by the speakers
specific intention. Therefore, it is essential to understand what social norms are observed under
what conditions in order to interpret the speaker intention accurately. The distinction between the
social norm-driven and the strategic aspect of politeness has been well discussed in research in
pragmatics but there is a lack of standard terminology. Watts (1989, 1992) uses the term, politic
behaviour for the former and reserves politeness for the speakers egocentric decision for
whatever reason, to enhance her/his social standing with respect to alter (Watts, 1992:57). Hill
et al. (1986) and Ide (1989) use wakimae or discernment politeness and volitional politeness, but
Kasper (1990) uses social indexing and strategic politeness. Jary (1998) and Haugh (2003) in the
Relevance theoretic perspective use anticipated politeness and inferred politeness. Haugh
(2003) then supports Usamis (1998, 2001, 2002) discourse politeness theory for its methodological
advantages in judging what is anticipated and what is inferred. Discourse politeness theory requires
empirical analysis to determine discourse politeness defaults (what is unmarked/socio-culturally
anticipated) in order to identify marked or inferred politeness phenomena.
Whatever the term used in distinguishing the two different politeness orientations, I support
the view that the strategic use of politeness is the intentional exploitation of social norms (Watts,
1992:5758; Jary, 1998:11). I subscribe to Pizziconis (2000:382) definition of social norms
echoing Potter and Wetherell (1987), a common resource that members of the linguistic
community can refer to and draw on for realising a wide range of expressive nuances.
In this study, formulaic speech and conversational patterns that are prevalent in thanking
episodes in Japanese will be identified and patterns that diverge from them will also be looked
into in order to understand the mechanism of o-rei conversations. In the following sections,
thanking episodes will be investigated as mutual social practices between the benefactor and the
beneficiary, and thus I will not only look into how a speaker thanks but also how his/her
interlocutor reacts, and moreover, how the conversation progresses for what reasons.
2156
4. Method
To investigate how Japanese native speakers engage in thanking episodes, conversations
referring to a favour or gift that is given or received are collected and analysed.3 Three households
participating in this study were asked to record their telephone conversations in a gift-giving season,
and were also told that any conversations they had reservations about presenting to the researcher
should be erased. A total of 56 telephone conversations were collected, of which 28 segments
referring to favour or gift that is given or received, were extracted and transcribed for analysis. The
transcripts follow the conventions developed by Sacks et al. (1974) and Gardner (1994), and are
simplified and modified for the purpose of this study. (See Appendix A for the transcription
conventions.) The transcripts are followed by a word-by-word translation of the data, together with
keys which indicate grammatical functions or speech formulae (see Appendix B for symbols and
abbreviations). Particular sections of data are marked in bold for the benefit of the discussion that
follows.
These 28 segments involve 20 Japanese native speakers: 13 females (marked F1 to F13), and 7
males (M1 to M7). Ages varied between 30 and 75. Each segment typically covers the
beneficiarys initial move for o-rei, in which s/he refers to or acknowledges his/her benefit or
debt, until a new topic is introduced or the conversation closes.
5. Data analysis
In the following discussion, transcriptions of the telephone conversations given as examples
are preceded by a description of the conversational participants, and their relationship. F and M
denote female and male, respectively, and number is given for their identification. Figures in
parenthesis indicate the age of participants. A given context is described in as much detail as
possible, but it may not always be relevant to its data analysis.
5.1. Use of arigatoo (thanking formula) and prolongation of arigatooie ie/iya iya
(TFdenial) sequence in o-rei
Telephone conversation 1 (TC1)
A: F1 (35)
A has known B for more than ten years.
B: M1 (35)
B is As husbands old friend.
B came to see A and her husband a few days prior to the conversation. B came to know then
that As family was in need of a family wagon for a trip. Later B offered his car. He cleaned the car
and delivered it to As family. A phoned B to say o-rei prior to the tour.
A(1):
TF/AP
3
The telephone conversations were collected in seibo (
) season. It is a component of the authors Ph.D. research
(Ohashi, 2001). The seibo season is one of the two major gift-giving seasons (the other being chuugen). Sei ( ) means year
and bo ( ) means the end; literally, it means the end of year. However, in practice seibo means a gift. Often the term appears
with the honorific prefix o: o seibo, o chuugen. According to Inoshita (1979), Seibo is more important than chuugen,
because those who give only once a year give at this time. It is expected that, in this particular season, gifts should be
exchanged and the giver and the receiver should engage in conversations referring to immediate gifts or favours given or
received, possibly referring back to previous events where gifts or favours might have been exchanged in the same year.
B(2):
2157
[a:: doomo
TF/AP
A(3):
TF
B(4):
(Really, thanks.)
=ie ie tondemonai
A(5):
(Not at all.)
un soide konaida
IP
no no heavens no
and
wa arigato ne=
IP
B(6):
A(7):
B(8):
A(9):
no no no
far
place
appear
comfortable comfortable
After the minimal greeting moshi moshi doomo doomo, A, rather abruptly, said Hontooni
arigato ne in A(3) without specifying what this is for. The same thanking formula is uttered in
A(5), this time, specifying a previous event occurred konaida (the other day). A(7) further
specifies the event by describing that B came a long distance. It should be noted that a benefactive
verb, kureru (giving to me) is used to mark Bs giving benefit to A. It is interesting to observe that
all A(3), A(5), and A(7) attracted Bs denial. A(3) and A(5) use the arigatoo thanking formula
and ne (interpersonal particle),4 while A(7) uses the benefactive verb kureru. They all serve to
mark favours or benefit received. As the benefactive verb, kureru (giving to me) literally marks
someones act of giving which benefited the speaker, it could also mark the speakers receiving
benefit and subsequent debt from a social exchange point of view. As for Bs, the benefactors,
denial, it serves a pragmatic function of disregarding or denigrating his favour given (credit). This
acknowledging benefit/debtdenigrating credit is repeated until B shifted the topic by asking
daijoobu soo? (Is the car OK?) to check whether the car he offered was suitable for As use.
After this, B asked A whereabouts A would be staying, and then they talked about weather,
possible snow fall and so on.
To further investigate the pragmatic functions of benefactive verbs, more data will be explored.
4
You can tell that A and B are in a familiar relationship because of the use of arigato rather than arigatoo gozaimasu,
and the use of plain form in general. The addition of the interactional particle ne is also significant. Although the
investigation of interactional particles is outside the scope of this study, the count of the particles is included. In 28
conversational segments, there are 54 occurrences of interactional particles such as yo, ne, sa, wa, and na. Ne is most
frequently occurred, 38 times, about 70% of all the occurrences. Sa only occurred 4 times. These interactional particles
(or final particles) are significant in spoken Japanese. They appeal to the interpersonal feelings and encourages
involvement of conversational participants (Maynard, 1989), and they are quite an important marker of the intimacy
of some of the conversations.
2158
moshimoshi
B(2):
aa moshimoshi
A(3):
B(4):
(This is A)
hajimemashite
A(5):
hello
ah hello
As family name
HUM COP
how do you do
TF/AP
how do you do
imashite=
B(6):
(Its nice to have a talk with you for the first time. Previously, we have
received various presents from you.)
=aa ie ie.
A(7):
ahh no, no
again this time also again
A(8):
A(9):
well
TF
B(10):
IP but
really
HUM meet
want IP really
2159
marking her debt by investing various linguistic tokens in o-rei. B, the benefactor, on the other
hand, counteracts As acknowledgement of debt by denying it with ie ie and showing her
embarrassment suggesting that her gift is so small that she does not deserve As
acknowledgement of debt. In fact, 20,000 is above average for money gift on such occasion
(Imai, 2001).
The next conversation TC18 illustrates a similar setting but different conversational
participants. A and B are blood related relatives.
TC18
A: M4 (35) B: F7 (53)
B is As aunt. A rang B to say o-rei for oiwai (a gift of money, 20,000: 110/$1) for As
daughters birth.
A(1):
a- /first name/
desu.
B(2):
A(3):
B(4):
(Hello.)
genki deshita?
long time
TF/AP
well
A(5):
COP
doing
B(6):
(I am doing fine.)
[u::n?]
A(7):
ano oiwai
FB
itadaite,
A(9):
B(10):
kimochi dake
B(8):
really
thought
A(11):
TF
only
B(12):
OK
COP Q
now
2160
In this conversation, As o-rei starts in A(7) with a benefactive verb itadaku (receive, humble
form). B(8) counteracts this with ie ie, but A(9) continues to complete arigatoo gozaimashita.
B(10) then, denigrates her credit. A(11) suddenly asks if B was awake and convenient to talk now.
After this part, A started talking about a mutual event when he visited B when he was 10 years of
age. A(11) can be interpreted as a topic change to end an o-rei. This example is unique because
the beneficiary changed the topic. In other examples it was always the benefactor who changed
the topic. The following conversation, TC25, captures o-rei between an ex-principal and a
teacher both of who used to work in a same junior high school. It is noted that o-seibo may be
non-reciprocal. An inferior may give a gift to a superior to mark their general indebtedness to the
superior for ongoing favours and benevolence.
TC25
A: M5(65) B: M6(45)
A was an ex-principal of a state school and B was one of the teachers worked at the school. Upon
arrival of an o-seibo (a year-end gift) from B, A phoned B to say o-rei.
A(1):
B(2):
LK side S
busy
QUO
A(3):
(Thats right.)
ee? {laugh}(::::) iya:: itsumo itsumo honto mooshi[wakenai]
B(4):
A(5):
well always
no
always really
AP
heavens no
B(6):
A(7):
yes/FB
soon
B(8):
B receive
so
After As several attempts to contact B on the phone, A finally caught B. After exchanging
greetings, B told A that he was at his school to get some work done, and A, half jokingly, said
Are you busier on Sundays? A(3) uses mooshiwakenai (I have no excuse), an apology formula,
with itsumo (always) and honto (really) with which to emphasise his debt incurred by the o-seibo
gift. B(4) counteracts them with iie tondemonai (no, heavens no) which overlaps the apology
formula in A(3). A(5) continues o-rei with a benefactive verb itadakimashita (receive, perfective,
humble form). Itadaku (receive, humble form) also occurred in o-rei in TC13 and TC18. What
stands out in TC25 is that the benefactive verb in A(5) is followed by hai (yes), but not by ie ie
2161
(no, no). However, hai here is not a substantial answer attending to propositional content, but it
is an aizuchi (back channelling device). It is possible that Bs wife, but not B, had sent a gift to A,
and thus B could not figure out As intention of o-rei on the spot.5 A may have said hai, as an
aizuchi to gain time. Therefore, the substantial second part of the adjacency pair6 is the ie ie ie
that follows. In all examples, benefactive verbie ie pairs are common, and they should not be
interpreted as a statement that one receives a giftdenying or challenging the statement. They
should be interpreted in a pragmatic level of meaning. Benefactive verb marks the fact that one
is a recipient of a favour or giftie ie denying and denigrating the others credit.7 In other
words, benefactive verbs emphasises imbalance and ie ie denigrates it.
Similarly, as seen in TC25, the statement that A has already tasted the gift that B gave was
followed by Bs denial ie ie ie (no, no, no). However, this ie ie ie does not deny the fact
that A has tasted the gift and neither does it accuse A of being dishonest. Also, in TC1, A(7)
with a benefactive verb, kureru (tooitokoro kara kitekureteliteral translation: you have
given me your favour of coming a long distance) is followed by a denial. It does not deny As
coming a long distance to see A, but denies the perceived imbalance. Benefactive verbs
serve a pragmatic function of marking benefit/debt the speaker holds to the hearer, and they
create an environment for a hearers (benefactors) denial to the pragmatic meaning.
5.3. Use of apology formulae in o-rei
Apology formulae such as Sumimasen (often pronounced as suimasen) and mooshiwakenai,
both of which are typically translated in English as Excuse me/I am sorry occurred frequently in
the data.8 Use of apology formulae in thanking has already been well investigated (see e.g.
Coulmas, 1981; Miyake, 1994; Ogawa, 1993; Ikoma, 1993; Ide, 1998; Kumatoridani, 1999).
5
According to the statistics; women are more active in gift giving and wives send seibo or chuugen on behalf of their
husbands. For some, seibo is seen as an empty practice and economically burdensome (Asahi shimbun website, http://
www.asahi.com/532/board/board001-70.html, accessed 23/2/1999).
6
The notion of the adjacency pair stems from Conversation Analysis (CA). The CA approach is distinct from speech act
theory because CA is a sociological investigation (Heritage, 1995). However, the notion of adjacency pairs illustrates
sequential rules of interactional acts, and thus it is useful in identifying speech acts of naturally occurring conversations.
In relation to linguistic markedness, this notion of adjacency pair functions to indicate something expected or less expected in
a conversation. Paired utterances such as questionanswer, summonsanswer, greetinggreeting, closingclosing,
offeracceptance, complimentacceptance/ rejection, and requestgranting/denial, for example, have been identified as
adjacency pairs (Levinson, 1983; McLaughlin, 1984). Adjacency pairs set up specific expectations and are thus useful and
important in identifying speech acts and the meaning of utterances.
7
I would like to thank one of the reviewers for his/her comments regarding functions of benefactive verbs. The
reviewers view is that benefactive verbs do not always overtly acknowledge a favour, but they simply represent the
unmarked way to clarify the deictics of the event described by the main verbs and that the benefactor does not necessary
counteracts the benefactive verbs with ie ie (no, no), but does so for what potentially would follow or for what is omitted.
Especially in my data of o-rei, the benefactive verbs are more significant in their pragmatic function of acknowledging
debt/benefit. The data strongly suggests, and it is my view that a benefactive verb often in the humble form, itadaku, for
example, could single-handedly imply o-rei by its pragmatic function of acknowledging debt/benefit which resulted from
the act of receiving. Pizziconi (2000) also argues that benefactive verbs are indices of gratitude or indebtedness, and a
purely deictic interpretation is not possible.
8
The etymological meaning of these apology formulae are noted for reference only, as the speaker meaning may not
reflect the historical meaning. Sumimasen literally means this is not the end in a sense that things cannot be finished
(before I repay my debt). Ide (1998), for example, identify seven communicative functions of sumimasen: sincere
apology, quasi-thanks and apology, request maker, attention-getting device, leave-taking device, affirmative and
conformational response, and reciprocal exchange of acknowledgement.
Mooshiwakenai means I have no excuse upon receiving a favour or a trouble caused by the agent.
2162
They all support that thanking and apologising are hardly distinguishable in Japanese; they
are closely related in the indebtedness the speaker feels towards the interlocutor.
The following example shows how sumimasen and mooshiwakenai (both coded as AP:
apology formula) are used in a particular context.
Telephone conversation 5 (TC5)
A: M2(70)
B: M3(65)
A and B are voluntary helpers working for a local community association (choonaikai). B gave A
a bag of sasakamaboko (a kind of fish cake) worth 1500 ( 110/$1) the other day. A rang B to say
o-rei for the gift.
A(5):
AP
IP really
B(6):
(Im sorry you went to the trouble, but thank you very much for the present.)
[ie ie tondemo]nai desu
A(7):
no no heavens
always consider
AP
B(8):
B receive
cause
no COP
TF/AP
(Im sorry for the trouble and thank you for the kind thought.)
[honno,] honno okuchi yogoshi=
just
just
HONmouth dirty
A(9):
B(10):
no
no
heavens no
COP IP
tomorrow Tm
arigatoo gozaimasu
Thanking speech formula (TF)
Doomo
sumimasen
Apology speech formula (AP)
2163
It is often the case that doomo is used alone, that is, the latter parts are unsaid. The frequent use
of doomo supports the view that Japanese native speakers may not be conscious of
distinguishing the speech act of thanking and apology in particular contexts where the speaker
needs to express indebtedness. This also supports Coulmass (1981) analysis of Japanese
thanking and apologising which are closely related in terms of indebtedness the speaker implies.
A(7), then, used an apology formula, a benefactive verb and doomo in his o-rei, all of which
contribute to overtly mark As benefit/debt. B(8) counteracts them with humble comments
okuchiyogoshi (literal translation: dirtying your mouth) describing the gift he gave. A(9)
strongly denies B(8) to show his insistence on acknowledging the debt. Although different in
degree, in all the conversations so far investigated, the conversational participants observe the
debtcredit equilibrium. They do so in such a way that imbalance is overtly acknowledged by
beneficiary and the imbalance is denied by benefactor. In other words, beneficiary highlights
debt and benefactor denigrates credit. From a linguistic point of view, beneficiary invests
linguistic devices such as thanking speech formula, speech formulae for apology and
benefactive verbs in compensating the imbalance symbolically. Benefactor helps beneficiary
minimise the imbalance. It is a symbolic face work, and thus beneficiary is not free from
obligation to reciprocate a favour.
Such a mutual involvement of the conversational participants in realising an o-rei episode
questions research methods which only investigate how a single speech act is realised.
Conversational participants work together in managing social exchange linguistically. The
benefactors denials such as ie ie (no, no) and/or tondemonai (heavens, no) serve as a polite
response to care for the beneficiarys face. Both the benefactor and the beneficiary jointly minimise
the debtcredit imbalance. This also questions terminology of speech act types such as thanking
which is used in cross-cultural pragmatic studies. Had a researcher predetermined thanking as
expressions of gratitude and appreciation, an interpretation of As linguistic behaviour in TC5
would have been distorted and looked obscure. In fact, what A tries in TC5 seems to comply with
thanking as defined by Coulmas (1981) and Haverkate (1988). They recognise the speech act of
thanking as a reactive act to compensate debt. This is, however, fundamentally different to
Eisenstein and Bodmans (1986, 1993) view of thanking or expression of gratitude used in crosscultural pragmatic studies.9
Besides the features discussed in TC5, it is also worth paying attention to B(10), when the
speaker suddenly changed the topic, saying ashitawa? (What about tomorrow?). Such a sudden
topic change, which is initiated by the benefactor, is observed frequently in the data. The
9
Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) showed the Japanese native speakers responses to a discourse completion task asking
what do you say to your friend who offered to lend you $500?
Thank you very much. I hope you wont have trouble with this. Ill return it as fast as I possible (p. 184)
Im sorry. Ill always remember the debt of gratitude (p. 74).
This is a study of L2 English of various L1 speakers. Japanese speakers respond the discourse completion task.
Eisenstein and Bodman evaluate their responses as problematic or difficult to interpret and uncomfortable and
confusing. Those labelling suggests that Japanese native speakers cultural norms that they may have observed was
unexpected for the English native speaker judges. In other words, the Japanese native speakers responses did not satisfy
the expression of gratitude that the English native speakers expected in the situation described in the task. However if we
look at Japanese native speakers responses from Coulmass (1981) and Haverkates (1988) perspectives, they are quite
acceptable. The beneficiarys speech act of thanking may serve as a strategic device whose most important function is to
balance politeness relations between interlocutors (Coulmas, 1981:81), and as a verbal act that symbolically
compensates the cost invested by the hearer for the benefit of the speaker (Haverkate, 1988:391). The Japanese native
speaker task takers in Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) invested an apology formula, thanking formula, acknowledgement
of debt, and a promise to pay back in compensating their perceived debt.
2164
benefactors topic change seems to have a significant pragmatic function in terms of face
consideration. The beneficiarybenefactor joint work for redressing debtcredit imbalance is
repeated until a new topic is introduced or the conversation closes. Topic change is, in most cases,
initiated by the benefactor.10
5.4. Use of debt-sensitive conversational formulae in o-rei
The following conversation features the use of debt-sensitive conversational formulae,
osewaninarimashita (literal translation: being looked after) and tasukarimashita (literal
translation: being helped out, being saved). Both are speech formulae often used in marking
the speakers debt.
Telephone conversation 22 (TC 22)
A: F1 (35) B: F8 (75)
B is As grandmother-in-law. A phoned B to say o-rei for her hospitality when the A family stayed
at Bs house for a couple of days. A was concerned about Bs knee which sometimes gives her
discomfort.
A(1):
moshimoshi obaachan
B(2):
a- konbanwa.
hello
granny
ah good evening
A(3):
(Good evening.)
konbanwa. konoaida wa osewani narimashita
good evening the other day Tm T (being looked after)
B(4):
(Good evening, thank you very much for your help, the other day.)
iie ie tondemonai nanno okamai mo deki[nakute]
no no heavens no
A(5):
any
treat
B(6):
a lot
various consider
HONB
noni]
give-me but
A(7):
B(8):
no good this
(<As daughters name> for example, couldnt eat this and that, and really. . .)
demo anta isshookenmei hataraite kurete tasukatta
yo
but
work
10
There are a few cases where the beneficiary changes topic. In such cases, the beneficiary is an instigator of the
telephone call and has other businesses to do other than saying o-rei, or conversationalists are blood related relatives and
thus o-rei has less significance.
A(9):
B(10):
2165
LK that
foot etc.
hurt
NEG
COP
(No, not at all. Did you wear yourself out preparing things for us? I am concern
about your feet.)
ie ie daijoobu yo soide sa hora,(..) Akita kara
no no fine
IP and
various send
from
ne
HUMBreceive IP
A(11):
B(12):
minna
FB
yorokonde
everybody glad
B(2):
good
good
so do if
2166
A(3):
B(4):
increase
perhaps
IP
IP
B(2):
hai k[onbanwa]
hello
hello
mother
A(3):
B(4):
A(5):
so
B(6):
2167
very
delicious
if so
good
2168
Table 1
Conversational sequences according to social distance
Social distance
Participants
Gift
TC36
1 sister
A: M5/65
B: F11/67
Food
TC
TC34
1 niece
A: M5/65
B: F9/47
Food
TC
TC30
2 daughters
mother in-law
A: M5/65
B: F5/55
Wine
C
B
D
H
F
TC
TC32
2 daughters
mother in-law
A: M5/65
B: F8/75
Food
TF
D
C
TC
TC25
3 ex-colleague
A: M5/65
B: M6/45
Food
AP
TF
TF
D
TC
TC26
4 daughters teacher
A: M5/65
B: M7/60
Food
T
AP
D
TC
Key: AP: apology formula; B: benefactive verb; C: compliment: e.g. ho::nto are saiko: da yo (that is the best really) such
as in TC34; D: denial; F: feedback; G: expression of gladness: e.g. yokatta; H:humble comment: e.g. itsumo ano
kawaribae shi nai mon de (the same things as usual, I am afraid.); R: request formula; T: speech formula acknowledging
the speakers debt, benefit or indebtedness. e.g. meiwaku kaketa/osewaninatta/tasukatta; TC: topic change; TF: thanking
formula.
o-reirepertories such as benefactive verbs, debt conscious choices, and apology formulae.
Social distance obviously influenced M5s choice of politeness orientations. The medium social
distance (marked as 2 and 3), the Bulge in Wolfsons term, illustrates a highly negotiable
environment. In TC32 and TC25, M5 initially tried to redress the debtcredit imbalance by using
thanking and apology formulae; both of which are counteracted with denial. M5, then,
complimented the gifts. M5s compliments were counteracted with ie ie, a denial, in TC32 and
doomo, a thanking/apology formula, in TC25. In both cases, complimentinggladness did not
occur, because neither his ex-colleague (in TC25) nor his daughters grandmother-in-law
(in TC32) followed M5s initiation of moving towards the other end of politeness mode which is
prevalent among less-distant social circle.
6. Discussion
6.1. Working together on debtcredit equilibrium: balancing obligations
M5s conversations with people with various social distances have shown that social distance
is a significant determiner of patterns of communication. Conversations between socially more
distant conversational participants mutually work on the debtcredit equilibrium. In other words
the beneficiary is required to overtly mark his debt and invest thanking, apology, debt- conscious
speech formulae and benefactive verbs in compensating debt symbolically. The benefactor on the
other hand underplays his/her credit to de-burden the beneficiary. Between members of a family
circle (i.e. when speaking to a sister or a niece), such requirement of face work, counterbalancing
debtcredit, is not in operation. The conversational participants seem to discern appropriate
patterns of communication from prevailing social norms, and they speak differently to
interlocutors of varying degrees of social distance. Of all 28 segments of thanking episodes, a
2169
No disturbance or conflict is caused by this overlapping. Conversational overlaps in o-rei can only be justified if they
are believed to be polite acts. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), the speech act of thanking is a threat to the
speakers negative face, that is, the speaker accepts debt, [and] humbles his own face (p. 67), and is also a threat to the
hearers negative face for the hearer feels constrained to minimise the speakers debt. They did not explain why this
should be the case. However, if the notion of debtcredit equilibrium is used, the mutual cooperation and involvement of
both the speaker and the hearer can be explained.
2170
operation button. The benefactors act of changing the topic signals that enough effort has been
made by the beneficiary to redress debtcredit imbalance. Another interpretation is that the
conversational participants discern from o-rei conversational patterns that the beneficiary will be
insistent in his/her expression of debt. This requirement for the beneficiary to persist in
acknowledging debt may explain why it has to be the benefactor (in most cases) who changes the
topic.12
7. Conclusion
As discussed at the beginning of this article, rei( ) encompasses various socially expected
behaviours. Expressing rei, or o-rei o iu implies a verbal symbolic repayment of debt.
Prevailing patterns of thanking episodes between people outside of a family circle show that they
engage in o-rei. It is characterised by (1) the beneficiarys explicit marking of imbalance by
emphasising benefit received and the symbolic verbal repayment of the debt, and by (2) the
benefactors denigration of credit. The prolongation of such conversational exchanges is another
notable characteristic. The data demonstrate that benefactive verbs, apology speech formulae,
and debt-sensitive conversational formulae, that are not predictable in most politeness and speech
act theories, are used in situations where thanking would be appropriate in English. Such
conversational practices of o-rei which surfaced from a local investigation of Japanese thanking
episodes, may have universal implications in the study of cross-cultural pragmatics. As
Eisenstein and Bodman conclude, thanking is a speech act that is mutually developed
(Eisenstein and Bodman, 1993:74). Japanese o-rei bears much resemblance to thanking in this
sense. However, o-rei is a face-oriented temporary restoration of equilibrium. Such an aspect of
thanking may be exercised in other languages including English. By only seeing thanking as
the expressions of gratitude and appreciation, researchers may lose sight of the mutual
involvement of both the benefactor and the beneficiary and their mutual social goal of creating
and maintaining social ties.
Some aspects of thanking that are described by Haverkate (1988), Coulmas (1981) and Apte
(1974) have strong bearing on the data of this study. The data show a verbal act that
symbolically compensates the cost invested by the hearer for the benefit of the speaker
(Haverkate, 1988:391), and show that such an act can take thanking and apology speech
formulae, which support Coulmass (1981) view that thanking and apology are related speech
acts in the sense of indebtedness that the speaker implies or recognises. A couple of examples
which significantly diverge from the o-rei normative practices, actually suggest that the
debtcredit equilibrium is not always in operation. TC34 and TC36 illustrated that particular
members within a family circle did not verbalise o-rei to restore debtcredit imbalance, but they
engaged in complimentinggladness sequences. This supports Aptes description of thanking
(verbalization of gratitude) in Marathi and Hindi, that is verbalization of gratitude indicates a
distant relationship (Apte, 1974:75), and thus it should be avoided among family members.
Such an aspect of thanking in fact resembles o-rei. In other words, the notion of debtcredit
equilibrium that derived from an analysis of the Japanese o-rei conversations have much
relevance in pragmatic phenomena of what the above-mentioned scholars described as
thanking or expression of gratitude. Thanking seen as expressions of gratitude and
appreciation is too reductive, and thus, it should be only used as a generic term which embraces
various culture-specific phenomena. Also, taking account of the mutual engagement of
12
This interpretation has been offered by a reviewer of the journal, and I agree.
2171
conversational participants, we should rather call it thanking episodes or events implying that
the beneficiary and the benefactor are given equal prominence. Empirical research on thanking
episodes from the perspective of debtcredit equilibrium and reciprocity in various languages is
imperative.
If I use Goffmans definition of face, the positive value a person effectively claims for
himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact (Goffman, 1967:5), it
is assumed that conversationalists wish to behave and speak in particular ways by which they
achieve a good and pleasant self-evaluation and public self-image. The particular ways in which
they choose to behave and speak and how they are interpreted by others are influenced by their
culture. Culture is, in Spencer-Oateys (2000:4) words, a fuzzy set of attitudes, beliefs,
behavioural conventions, and basic assumptions and values that are shared by a group of people.
Within a culture, there are number of social norms, or common resource[s] (Pizziconi, 2000) for
specific events in realising and interpreting meaning. Face is, therefore, culture-specific. The
notion of debtcredit equilibrium as a face want provides a motivational account for politeness
phenomena observed in o-rei episodes. Face consists of private and public spheres,
self-evaluation and evaluation of self via public eyes, but the self-evaluation in itself is
influenced by others. Japanese native speakers face is vulnerable to debtcredit imbalance, thus
any act that may contribute to the imbalance requires a counter measure, that is, a politeness
investment which symbolically restores the debtcredit equilibrium. The study shows the dual
structure of the actual gift/favour exchange and the linguistic exchange, how benefactor and
beneficiary manage the event verbally. Balance in social exchange is maintained in a long term.
However, when giving and receiving a gift/favour occurs, linguistic o-rei ritual comes into effect.
O-rei serves to achieve a temporary restoration of equilibrium. This is a symbolic settlement that
is necessary to care for the conversational participants debt-sensitive face. Beneficiarys
insisting on reciprocal obligation by acknowledging benefit/debt is a preferred mode of thanking
among non-family members. That is to say, beneficiary extensively emphasises imbalance. From
the linguistic point of view, linguistic devices, such TF, AF, benefactive verbs and other debtsensitive speech formulae are invested in compensating the imbalance. This view is close to
Haverkates interpretation of thanking as symbolic compensation. This is symbolic because the
beneficiary is not free from the obligation to reciprocate a favour, and the next exchange may well
be the return of a favour in some way.
However, o-rei is not in operation within a family circle, in which public face concerns are not
important.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Brian Paltridge, Michael Ewing, Vera Mackie, and Hiroko Ohashi for their
advice and encouragement. Special thanks to two anonymous reviewers for insightful comments
and interpretations.
Appendix A. Transcription conventions
[
=
___
.
2172
,
?
!
(.)
:
upper
key
/???/
/name/
a continuing contour
a strong rising contour
a strong animated tone
a micropause
prolongation of a sound
an abrupt cutoff
emphatic voice
inaudible utterance
the name of either an addresser, an addressee or a referent
AP
COP
B
CAU
clo
COM
D
FB
Glad
HON
HUM
Hum
IP
O
QUO
S
T
Tm
TC
TF
apology formula
copula
benefactive verb
causative
closing
compliment
denial
feedback (aizuchi)
expression of gladness
honorific polite form
humble polite form
humble comment
interactional particles
object marker
quotative
subject marker
speech formula(acknowledging the speakers debt, benefit or indebtedness)
topic marker
topic-change
thanking formula
References
Apte, Mahadev, 1974. Thank you and South Asian languages: a comparative sociolinguistic study. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 3, 6789.
Aston, Guy, 1995. Say Thank you: some pragmatic constraints in conversational closings. Applied Linguistics 16 (1),
5786.
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, 2003. Face and politeness: new (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics 35,
14531469.
Baxter, Leslie A., 1984. An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. Human Communication Research 10 (3),
427456.
Befu, Harumi, 1968. Gift-giving in a modernizing Japan. Monumenta Nipponica 23 (3/4), 445456.
2173
Befu, Harumi, 1980. Structural and motivational approaches to social exchange. In: Kenneth, Gergen, Martin,
Greenberg, Richard, Willis (Eds.), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. Plenum Press, New York,
pp. 197214.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In: Goody, E.N.
(Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 56
289.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Coulmas, Florian, 1981. Poison to your soul: thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In: Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational Routine. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 6991.
Eisenstein, Miriam, Bodman, Jean, 1986. I very appreciate: expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers
of American English. Applied Linguistics 7, 167185.
Eisenstein, Miriam, Bodman, Jean, 1993. Expressing gratitude in American English. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S.
(Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 6481.
Gardner, Robert, 1994. Spoken interaction studies in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics S11, 185191.
Greenberg, Martin, 1980. A theory of indebtedness. In: Kenneth, Gergen, Martin, Greenberg, Richard, Willis (Eds.), Social
Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 326.
Goffman, Erving, 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Anchor Books, New York.
Gouldner, A.W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25, 161178.
Gu, Yueguo, 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14/2, 237257.
Harris, Sandra, 2001. Being politically impolite: extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse
and Society 12, 451472.
Haugh, Michael, 2003. Anticipated versus inferred politeness. Multilingua 22, 397413.
Haverkate, Henk, 1988. Politeness in communicative interaction. Multilingua 7/4, 385409.
Heritage, John, 1995. Conversation analysis: methodological aspects. In: Quasthoff, U.M. (Ed.), Aspects of Oral
Communication. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 391418.
Hill, Beverly, Sachiko, Ide, Shoko, Ikuta, Akiko, Kawasaki, Tsunao, Ogino, 1986. Universals of linguistic politeness:
some quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics 10, 347371.
Ide, Risako, 1998. Sorry for your kindness: Japanese interactional ritual in public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 29,
509529.
Ide, Sachiko, 1989. Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness.
Multilingua 8 (2/3), 223248.
Ikoma, Kazuko, 1993. Kansha o arawasu saino chinsha hyoogen. Paper Presented at 1993 Spring Conference of Japanese
Language Teaching.
Imai, Toshiko, 2001. Ageru jooshiki morau jooshiki. Kawaide shoboo shinsha, Tokyo.
Jary, Mark, 1998. Relevance theory and the communication of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 119.
Kasper, Gabriele, 1990. Linguistic politeness: current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 193218.
Komter, Aafke Elisabeth, 1996. Reciprocity as a principle of exclusion: gift giving in the Netherlands. Sociology 30, 299
316.
Komter, Aafke Elisabeth, 2004. Gratitude and gift exchange. In: Robert, Emmons, Michael, McCullough (Eds.), The
Psychology of Gratitude. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 195212.
Kumatoridani, Tetsuo, 1999. Alternation and co-occurrence in Japanese thanks. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 623642.
Lebra, Takie, 1976. Japanese Patterns of Behaviour. The University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Levinson, Stephen, 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Malinowski, Bronislaw, 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Dutton, New York.
Levi-Strauss, Claude, 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Beacon, Boston (original work published 1949).
Mao, LuMing R., 1994. Beyond politeness theory: Face revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics 21, 451486.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko, 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of
Pragmatics 12, 403426.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko, 1989. Politeness and conversational universalsobservation from Japanese. Multilingua 8, 207
221.
Mauss, Marcel, 1954. The Gift. Free Press, Glencoe, Ill (original work published 1925).
Maynard, Senko, 1989. Japanese Conversation: Self-contextualization through Structure and Interactional Management.
Ablex Publishing, New Jersey.
McLaughlin, Margaret, 1984. Conversation: How Talk is Organised. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
2174
McLaughlin, Margaret I., Michael, J. Cody, Dan, H. OHair, 1983. The management of failure events: some contextual
determinants of accounting behaviour. Human Communication Research 9 (3), 208224.
Meier, A.J., 1995. Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 24, 381392.
Mills, Sara, 2002. Rethinking politeness, impoliteness and gender identity. In: Litosseliti, Lia, Jane, Sunderland
(Eds.), Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 6989.
Miyake, Kazuko, 1994. Kanshano taishoo kenkyuuNichi ei taishoo kenkyuu. Nihongogaku 13, 1018.
Nihon, daijiten kankookai, 1976. Nihon kokugo daijiten. Shoogakukan, Tokyo.
ODriscoll, Jim, 1996. About face: a defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 132.
Ogawa, Haruko, 1993. Sumimasen no shakai gengogakuteki koosatsu. Gengo bunka to nihongo kyooiku 6. Ochanomizu
University, Tokyo, pp. 3646.
Pizziconi, Barbara, 2000. Some remarks of the notion of benefit and the Japanese communicative style. SOAS Working
Papers in Linguistics 10, 371384.
Potter, J., Wetherell, M., 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology. Sage, London.
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail, Jefferson, 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turntaking for
conversation. Language 50 (4), 696735.
Schwartz, B., 1967. The social psychology of the gift. American Journal of Sociology 73, 111.
Searle, John, 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 2000. Introduction: language, culture and repport management. In: Spencer-Oatey, Helen (Ed.),
Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk Across Cultures. Continuum, London, pp. 18.
Usami, Mayumi, 1998. Poraitonesu riron no tenkai: disukoosu poraitonesu to iu toraekata [Development of politeness
theory: the concept of discourse politeness]. Tokyo Gaikokugo Daigaku Nihon Kenkyuu Kyooiku Nenpoo 1997, 3,
145159.
Usami, Mayumi, 2001. Danwa no poraitonesuporaitonesu no danwa riron koosoo [Discourse politeness: Discourse
theory of politenessa preliminary framework]. In: Mutsuro, Kai (Ed.), Danwa no poraitonesu [Discourse
Politeness]. The National Language Research Institute, Tokyo, pp. 958.
Usami, Mayumi, 2002. Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation: Some Implications for a Universal Theory of
Politeness. Hituji Shobo, Tokyo.
Watts, Richard, 1989. Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behaviour. Multilingua 8, 131166.
Watts, Richard, 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: reconsidering claim for universality. In: Richard,
Watts, Sachiko, Ide, Konrad, Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice.
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 4369.
Wierzbicka, Anna, 1987. English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Academic Press, Sydney.
Wierzbicka, Anna, 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Wolfson, Nessa, 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Newbury House, Rowley, MA.
Yanagita, Kunio, 1964. Mainichi no kotoba. Kadokawa Bunko, Tokyo.
Further reading
Ohashi, Jun, 2001. Giving, receiving, and thanking: a cross-cultural pragmatic investigation. PhD Dissertation. University
of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Jun Ohashi teaches Japanese language and culture at Asia Institute of the University of Melbourne. His research interests
include discourse analysis, cross-cultural pragmatics on wide ranging language use, and second language acquisition.