Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:02:29.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sugoi! – Indexicality and stancetaking in Japanese compliments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2016

Chie Adachi
Chie Adachi*
Affiliation:
Deakin University, BC6, 221 Burwood Hwy, Victoria 3125, Australiachie.adachi@deakin.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I explore the notions of indexicality and stancetaking practice through the analysis of a single lexical item embedded in the speech act of complimenting among young Japanese speakers. After revisiting prominent frameworks of indexicality and stance, I illustrate the ways in which the lexical item sugoi ‘amazing’ performs multiple pragmatic functions: as a marker of praise, surprise, or mock impoliteness; an intensifier; or silence-filler in the act of complimenting. On the basis of extensive sociolinguistic interviews and ethnographic metadata, I discuss how and why Japanese speakers use the variants sugoi and sugee to build intricately on their indexical field in the context of complimenting. I argue that sugoi and sugee, canonically assumed to index speaker gender, are used as a linguistic resource to perform larger interactional functions and stancetaking practice among young Japanese speakers. (Compliments, indexicality, stance, interactional analysis, Japanese, pragmatic function)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 193 - 216
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adachi, Chie (2012). Compliments and compliment responses among young Japanese. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13:145–204.Google Scholar
Besnier, Niko, & Phillips, Susan U. (2014). Ethnographic methods for language and gender research. In Ehrlich, Susan, Meyerhoff, Miriam, & Holmes, Janet (eds.), The handbook of language gender and sexuality, 123–40. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary (1999). ‘Why be normal?’: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society 28(2):203–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary (2009). From stance to style: Gender, interaction, and indexicality in Mexican immigrant youth slang. In Jaffe, 146–70.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25:349–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social identity in the high school. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12:453–76.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, & McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:461–88.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, & McConnell-Ginet, Sally (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Englebretson, Robert (2007). Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea (2005). Compliments and compliment responses: Grammatical structure and sequential organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, & Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1996). Assessments and the construction of context. In Duranti, Alessandro & Goodwin, Charles (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 147–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael, & Bousfield, Derek (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics 44:1099–114.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics 12:445–65.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet, & Meyerhoff, Miriam (1999). The community of practice: Theories and methodologies in the new language and gender research. Language in Society 28(2):173–83.Google Scholar
Ide, Sachiko (1992). Gender and function of language use: Quantitative and qualitative evidence from Japanese. Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, vol. 3, 117–29. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Division of English as an International Language.Google Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra (ed.) (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara (2009). Stance, style, and the linguistic individual. In Jaffe, 29–52.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara, & Kiesling, Scott (2008). Indexicality and experience: Exploring the meanings of /aw/-monophthongization in Pittsburgh. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12:5–33.Google Scholar
Jugaku, Akiko (1979). Nihongo to Onna [Japanese language and women]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott (1998). Variation and men's identity in a fraternity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2:69–100.Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott (2004). Dude. American Speech 79:281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesling, Scott (2005). Norms of sociocultural meaning in language: Indexicality, stance and cultural models. In Kiesling, Scott & Paulston, Christina (eds.), Intercultural discourse and communication, 92–105. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott (2009). Style as stance: Stance as the explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation. In Jaffe, 171–94.Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott (2011). Linguistic variation and change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Manes, Joan (1983). Compliments: A mirror of cultural values. In Wolfson, Nessa & Judd, Elliot (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition, 96–102. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally (2011). Gender, sexuality and meaning: Linguistic practice and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mendoza-Denton, Norma (2008). Homegirls: Language and cultural practice among Latina youth gangs. Malden: Wiley–Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam; Schleef, Erik; & MacKenzie, Laurel (2015) Doing sociolinguistics: A practical guide to data collection and analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam; Schleef, Erik, & Strycharz, Anna (2013). Communities of practice. In Chambers, J. K. & Schilling, Natalie (eds.), Handbook of language variation and change, 2nd edn., 428–47. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Moore, Emma, & Podesva, Robert (2009). Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society 38:447–85.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Momoko (2001). Kotoba to Jendaa [Language and gender]. Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor (1992). Indexing gender. In Duranti, Alessandro & Goodwin, Charles (eds.), Rethinking context, 335–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Gumpertz, John & Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 407–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Okamoto, Shigeko, & Sato, Shie (1992). Less feminine speech among young Japanese females. In Hall, Kira, Bucholtz, Mary, & Moonwomon, Birch (eds.), Locating power: Proceedings of the second Berkeley Women and Language Conference volume, 478–88. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike (2013). The structure of discourse-pragmatic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rickford, John, & McNair-Knox, Faye (1994). Addressee- and topic-influences style shift. In Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 235–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, Keith & Shelby, Henry A. (eds.), Meaning in anthropology, 11–56. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1985). Language and the culture of gender: At the intersection of structure, usage and ideology. In Mertz, Elizabeth & Parmentier, Richard (eds.), Semiotic mediation: Sociocultural and psychological perspectives, 219–59. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23:193–229.Google Scholar
Snell, Julia (2010). From sociolinguistic variation to socially strategic stylisation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(5):630–56.Google Scholar
Usami, Mayumi (2003). Kaiteiban: Kihonteki na mojika no gensoku [Basic transcription system for Japanese: BTSJ]. In M. Usami (Chief Researcher), Tabunka kyosei shakai ni okeru ibunka communication kyoiku no tame no kisoteki kenkyu [Core research for the education in cross-cultural communication in the multicultural society], Heisei 13–14 Mombusho Kagaku Kenkyuhi Hojokin Kiban kenkyu (C)(2) – Kenkyu seika hokokusho [Heisei 13–14 research report for scientific research (C)(2) funded by Grants in Aid for Scientific Research].Google Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa (1988). The bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. In Fine, Jonathan (ed.), Second language discourse: A textbook of current research, 21–38. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Zhang, Qing (2008). Rhotacization and the ‘Beijing smooth operator’: The social meaning of a linguistic variable. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12:201–22.Google Scholar