Beyond keigo: smooth communication and

the expression of respect in Japanese as

a Foreign Language*
TESSA CARROLL

Abstract
For foreign learners of Japanese, keigo (honoric language) is one of the
most dicult aspects of the language. However, since the early 1990s, sociolinguistic research placing keigo in a much broader context of politeness
and respect has been incorporated in writings on honoric language produced by ocial bodies such as the National Language Research Institute
and the National Language Deliberative Council. The new approach takes
a much broader idea of expressions of respect, and emphasizes the role
played by respect in ensuring that communication progresses smoothly/
harmoniously (komyunikeeshon ga enkatsu ni susumu), while deemphasizing hierarchy, relative status and power as determining factors in
keigo usage. Recent research in this area has also investigated changes in
honoric language usage linked to social changes. JFL teaching needs to
take account of these shifts. This paper examines the treatment of honoric
language in some English-language JFL textbooks against this background,
and makes some suggestions for dealing with politeness and respect in JFL
teaching.

1. Introduction
It is well known within the JFL (Japanese as a foreign language) teaching
community that one of the most dicult aspects of the language for foreign learners is keigo, honoric language. Given that many Japanese
themselves appear to be insecure about keigo, judging by the large numbers of selfhelp books on the subject, it is not surprising that it should be
problematic for foreigners, and Japanese people may be well aware of
this. However, the sociocultural meanings of keigo are so deeply embedded in the collective subconscious that reaction to its misuse is often
01652516/05/0175/01760233
6 Walter de Gruyter

Intl. J. Soc. Lang. 175/176 (2005), pp. 233247

234

T. Carroll

on an emotional, not intellectual, level. Although errors in keigo may not

be corrected overtly, they may not be tolerated internally. Responses can
be compared to crosscultural dierences in the amount of personal body
space considered acceptable. For example, people from northern Europe
tend to have a larger amount of personal space as a norm than those
from southern Europe; each may know intellectually about the dierences, but still feel uncomfortable in interactions with people from other
cultures.
This article examines some of the issues involved in learning and teaching keigo in JFL, against the background of a system of honoric language that continues to evolve with the society within which it functions.
The context also includes the broader concept of expressions of respect
that has been adopted in sociolinguistic research and ocial pronouncements on Japanese language in the last ten to fteen years, as well as public perceptions that the system is in disarray/confusion (midarete iru).

2.

Keigo no midare and social change: from status to smooth

communication

During the 1990s, sociolinguistic research placing keigo in a much

broader context of politeness and expressions of respect started to be incorporated in writings on honoric language from ocial bodies such as
the National Language Institute (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyujo) and the
National Language Deliberative Council (Kokugo Shingikai) (see Asamatsu [2001] for a concise summary of this shift; also Kabaya et al.
[1998] on recent theory). The Councils adoption of this broader perspective and its reluctance to provide specic recommendations on honoric
language usage are largely due to the membership on the Council of sociolinguists such as Ide Sachiko during this period. The main elements of
this approach are a much broader idea of the expression of respect (allowing for variations in circumstances and personal preferences), and an
emphasis on the role played by respect in ensuring that communication
progresses smoothly/harmoniously (komyunikeeshon ga enkatsu ni susumu), a phrase that appears frequently (Bunka-cho 1998: 345). Other linguistic devices for expressing respect, such as donatory verbs, providing
explanations, and nonverbal communication, are included. Hierarchy,
relative status and power as determining factors in keigo usage are deemphasized, thereby building on the idea rst stated in the Councils 1952
document, Kore kara no keigo [Honoric language henceforth] (Bunkacho 1952), that keigo was to be used to express mutual respect rather
than social rank and relative status as was previously the case (Wetzel

Beyond keigo

235

2004: 117). This could be compared to the trend in Europe for T/V
(informal/formal pronoun) usage to shift from indicating relative status
to solidarity/intimacy (Crystal 1987: 45).
As a concept, keigo has been enlisted to serve the needs of the prevailing ideology, as Wetzel (2004) eloquently demonstrates from preserving social hierarchies in the past to expressing mutual respect and facilitating smooth communication today. Peoples attitudes and usage are
not always in step with this process. The form and function of keigo may
not coincide (Coulmas 1992: 305), and the shift in the ocial and ostensible function of keigo has certainly not been fully absorbed by the population. This is borne out in various public opinion surveys; for example, in
a 1997 survey by the Agency for Cultural Aairs, 86 per cent of respondents thought that people ought to use keigo to superiors in the work context (Bunka-cho Bunka-bu Kokugo-ka 1997: 57). Even the Language
Councils 1998 and 2002 reports (Bunka-cho 1998, 2002) acknowledge
that the expression of relative status is still one of the functions of keigo,
and this is certainly what the public thinks. Niyekawa (1991: 149) argues
that [t]he status-conscious Japanese are not likely to give up their prerogative to be spoken up to by lower-status individuals and to speak
down to them, for these are symbols of status. She goes on to note that
[h]ierarchy [ . . . ] seems to be observed more strictly and earlier in ones
life today than in prewar days. For instance, the word sempai [senior] was
not used as an address term before World War II, but todays high school
students address their seniors as sempai. This point is conrmed by Ujiharas research (Ujihara 1997: 60), which showed that 91.3 per cent of senior high school students thought that one should use keigo to ones seniors. In interviews I carried out with high school kokugo (Japanese for
native speakers) teachers in January 2002, they frequently noted that pupils used at least some keigo to their sempai in the school clubs, even if
they no longer used it toward their teachers.
The relatively sudden change in the ostensible function of keigo after
World War II and rapid social change have led to tensions in the system
and to the development of new forms of keigo, many of which are considered wrong in terms of the traditional (or at least, prewar) system, and
thus contributing to keigo no midare (confusion in honoric language).
The idea of the language being in disarray is a common topic in Japan
and keigo is a particular focus of concern. Various interlinked socioeconomic changes, notably postwar democratization, rising educational levels, changes in employment patterns, urbanization, and internationalization, contribute to this perception, and deeper concerns about social
change are manifested in discussions of the decline in honoric language
usage. As Deborah Cameron argues (1995: 25), there is a powerful

236

T. Carroll

symbolism in which language stands for other kinds of order moral,

social, and political.
Kikuchi notes a trend which is another factor in this confusion: the
popularization (taishuka) of honoric language. This refers to the growing number of people who are expected to use keigo in a modern highly
industrialized society where white-collar and service sector jobs play a
major role (1994: 345351). Upper- and middle-class norms of language
usage are increasingly being imposed on or aspired to by all classes as the
old boundaries between social classes have blurred, with around 90 per
cent of the Japanese population reporting themselves to be middle-class.
A far larger proportion of the population than ever before is now placed
in situations where honoric language is desirable or required, but many
only acquire keigo in their early twenties via company training, much
like a second language, as Niyekawa (1991: 147) notes, and their command of it is imperfect. This trend can be seen as part of the global technologization of communication examined by researchers such as Norman
Fairclough (1992) and Deborah Cameron (1995, 2001). In the West,
training in aspects of linguistic behavior previously not thought necessary
has developed because of the rise of service industries and white-collar
jobs, and, in Japan, such training has focused largely on keigo and accompanying nonverbal behavior. And, as Niyekawa (1991: 147) notes,
[i]t appears that the more confusion there is, the greater the eort to
train the young in keigo. Keigo is considered to be the lubricant that enables human interactions to run smoothly.
Throughout ocial pronouncements on expressions of respect since the
mid-1990s, the idea of communication progressing smoothly is the underlying theme. But what does smooth communication mean? In the Japanese context, it is likely to connote ideas of harmony, lack of conict
and maintaining good ningen kankei (human relations). But looked at
from a more socioeconomic perspective, does it mean smooth service
transactions, dependent upon xed routines and formulaic utterances
containing elements of keigo? The answer from the National Language
Council would be No. Its reports criticize the use of manual keigo,
the trend for employees in service industries to be obliged to stick to a
set script which is used indiscriminately with no regard to the individual
customer. One example from a newspaper is that of a fast food restaurant, where one person ordered meals for ten people and the assistant
asked, Kochira de omeshiagari desu ka [Will you eat that here?] (Mainichi Shinbun 1999). The Council recommends a more context-sensitive
approach (Bunka-cho 2002: 391).
It is possible to see links between the dierent keigo usage patterns of
men and women and the increasing use of reciprocal honorics in society

Beyond keigo

237

in general via the evolution of the service society and the feminization of
the workplace as the service industry expands, since women are generally
held to use honoric language more than men (Hubbard 1994: 86) and to
use it more reciprocally (Hendry 1992: 343; Maynard 1997: 63). In service work there is often conict between the relative status of the interlocutors and what peoples jobs require them to do. For example, when selling ight tickets, the assistant needs to perform face-threatening acts by
asking lots of questions, asking people to ll in forms and so on. This
means that the assistant is giving orders or making requests to the customer, who is higher in status by virtue of being a customer. There is not
much traditional keigo for such situations, so people start to invent new
keigo, which becomes part of the perceived disorder in honoric language
(interview with Shibata Minoru, NHK Broadcasting Culture Research
Institute, January 2002).

3. Changes in keigo usage

Researchers have highlighted various changes in usage. While hierarchy
persists as a key factor, Niyekawa (1991: 149) stresses that the in-group/
out-group distinction has also become sharper since the war, particularly
at the workplace, which she sees as a result of the keigo training given to
new employees. Ide (1989: 247) also nds that the use of honorics to
mark horizontal distance between the speaker and addressee and/or referent is increasing. But for Niyekawa (1991: 149), [t]he most noticeable
change is the non-use of keigo (mainly sonkei-go, the exalting/respectful
terms) in reference to a third person who is not present at the scene as a
listener and who is unrelated to the addressee. [ . . . ] In this respect, keigo
is becoming more addressee oriented. The speaker is prioritizing his or
her relationship with the addressee over showing respect for the status of
the absent third person, in other words, valuing solidarity over acknowledgement of social status.
Excessive and hyper-correct use of keigo is another manifestation of the
so-called confusion. Respectful and humble terms may be used unnecessarily or inappropriately in an eort to be polite and to appear sophisticated (Niyekawa 1991: 149). One example is the use by station announcers of a humble verb to refer to the train doors closing (Doa ga
shimatte mairimasu), a usage disapproved of by the middle-aged male
academic friend who told me about this. Others observe that there is increasing emphasis on showing respect at the beginning of an utterance, to
make sure that the hearer knows immediately that respect is being shown;
for example, the use of the honoric prexes o/go seems to be increasing

238

T. Carroll

(interview with Shibata Minoru, NHK Broadcasting Culture Research

Institute, January 2002).
In contrast, the use of humble verbs, for example moshiagemasu, at the
end of sentences appears to be falling (interview with Shibata Minoru,
NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute, January 2002). However,
Jinnouchis (2001) research on giving directions showed a high frequency
of structures using the donatory verb patterns -te morau and -te itadaku in
western Japan. He argues that this contradicts observations that people
have become less able to use humble language. What is interesting here
is that it is particularly the donatory verbs (-te morau/-te itadaku) that
are frequently used instead of humble forms or verbs. These are not
strictly part of the traditional keigo framework, but they are part of the
more recent broader concept of taiguhyogen.1 Niyekawa translates this
term as the linguistic treatment of self and others in conversation
(1991: 35), but it is also sometimes rendered as politeness (as used in
western sociolinguistic theory), and Wetzel translates it as expressions
of consideration (2004: 7). These structures also fall into what Ide terms
the volitional aspect of politeness (Ide 1989: 230231). Ide criticizes
Brown and Levinsons (1987) classic theory of politeness, arguing that it
is biased toward western societies and deals only with the volitional
aspects of politeness and ignores the concept of wakimae [discernment]
which is central to Japanese sociolinguistic norms. She describes wakimae
as the sociopragmatic obligation to acknowledge the status dierence between speaker and addressee or referent via the use of honoric or nonhonoric forms, even for non-face-threatening acts. In Japanese there are
no neutral forms, so the choice of honoric or plain forms is grammatically obligatory, as is the T/V choice in most European languages (Ide
1989). However, Usamis (2002: 226) more recent analysis of keigo in the
context of discourse politeness suggests that the situation is more complex. She argues that Brown and Levinsons theory does hold true for
Japanese if one takes into account aspects of politeness at the discourse
level, such as topic initiation and speech-level shifts, rather than just the
sentence-level features that Ide and others present as obligatory. Kitamura Noriko (2000) also expands on Brown and Levinsons politeness
theory and concludes that it can be a powerful tool.
In his article in this issue, Patrick Heinrich mentions Mizutani and
Mizutanis (1987) injunction to refrain from directly praising others.
However, the National Language Council recommendations of 1998 includes expressions that build the ego of the other, giving Haru rashii
sukaafu desu ne [Thats a [nice] spring scarf ] as an example (Wetzel
2004: 142). Niyekawa (1991: 49) also notes that the Japanese constantly
give compliments. The key to this apparent paradox may be that one

Beyond keigo

239

avoids complimenting or praising ones superior as this might imply that

one is thereby putting oneself above the superior, although someone on
familiar terms with a superior may be able to do so (Ide 1989: 246). Nevertheless, it is worth asking if the Language Councils explicit inclusion
of compliments indicates a shift toward positive politeness. Two recent
studies of the language of television programs suggest that this may be
the case.
The studies, by Y. Murata (2000) and K. Murata (2000), analyze the
language of Japanese television talk shows and advertisements aimed at
young people. The rst compares verb forms used in talk shows from the
early 1980s and 1996, and concludes that a change toward a preference
for plain verb forms in programs aimed at young people had taken place
during this period of less than twenty years. Murata (Y. Murata 2000: 81)
sees this as a trend toward positive politeness (camaraderie) away from
the old norm of negative politeness (fear of oending or upsetting the listener) in terms of the politeness theory proposed by Brown and Levinson
(1987). The second study (K. Murata 2000: 86) showed that [y]outhoriented commercials prefer a friendly and informal speech style that
makes the viewers feel as if they were the characters friends, whereas
[a]dult-oriented commercials [ . . . ] prefer a formal speech style by following honoric rules to show distance toward viewers. The researcher
concludes that these are uchi (in-group) and soto (out-group) modes of
communication respectively, and again they can be seen as strategies of
positive and negative politeness respectively. The viewing children are being encouraged to identify with the characters in the advertisements,
whereas the adults are treated with formality and respect, as they would
be as customers in a shop. These two studies give an idea of the speed of
change in sociolinguistic behavior.
All this suggests that there is a move toward what might be seen as more
western expressions of politeness, using linguistic strategies rather than
obligatory lexis and grammatical forms. Usamis work (2002) on discourse
politeness is very relevant here. If this is the case, western learners of Japanese may have an easier time in the future. Increasing contact with other
cultures and languages as more Japanese spend periods living abroad and
more foreigners live in Japan and learn to speak Japanese will also have a
long-term impact and may contribute to this trend and to other changes.
4. Foreigners and keigo
Where do foreign speakers of Japanese t in this changing picture? Niyekawa (1991: 1415) makes the crucial point that [a]n ordinary grammatical error made by the foreigner may simply seem cute to the Japanese,

240

T. Carroll

but an error in keigo tends to arouse an instant emotional reaction. More

frequently than the foreigner assumes, this sociolinguistic error is taken as
an intentional personal insult. The distinction drawn here shows clearly
that keigo is not perceived in the same way as grammar, as a system to be
learnt and which may therefore be subject to errors by learners, but rather
as a conscious expression of attitudes, even of character. Most people
assume that a person who speaks a foreign language uently also knows
the culture well. Hence when he does not follow some of the basic
cultural rules, they naturally interpret it as an intentional violation of
the customs. Showing deference or respect to a non-intimate conversational partner is one such basic rule in Japan (Niyekawa 1991: 16). An
anecdote from a fellow academic in Japanese studies, an Australian, illustrates well the problems that can arise. While living in Japan he had
been teaching English privately to two schoolchildren for several months.
He got on well with the childrens father and regarded him as a friend,
and was therefore astonished when the father exploded one day, criticizing him for not using keigo to him, as was appropriate from someone
younger.
In a survey of Japanese people who came into contact with foreigners
carried out by the National Language Section (Kokugo-ka) of the Agency
for Cultural Aairs (attached to the Ministry of Education, Science and
Culture) in 1989, 58.2% of respondents agreed that foreigners using honoric language in the workplace, even if it was faltering, gave a good impression; 29.8% thought that foreigners who did not use honoric language, even if their Japanese was otherwise quite good, sounded rude.
The percentages for contact in the neighborhood were much lower
(38.7% and 8.7% respectively) (Bunka-cho Bunka-bu Kokugo-ka 1994:
2425). This comparison is not surprising, since the workplace is an obvious setting for the acknowledgement of relative status symbolized by honoric language. It should, however, also be noted that honoric language
is not dened here, and in many peoples eyes, it may simply refer to the
use of the polite desu/-masu verb endings rather than the system of respectful and humble forms, let alone the more subtle aspects of using donatory verbs and other strategies included in taiguhyogen.
As for ocial attitudes, in its 2002 report on expressions of respect, the
National Language Council (Bunka-cho 2002: 393) notes the growth in
the number of foreigners learning Japanese and the increasing level of
contact between Japanese and foreigners. The report stresses that people
should be tolerant of and make allowances for non-native speakers who
are not procient in expressions of respect; they should use clear language
themselves, and check that they have understood the speakers intentions
in order to avoid misunderstandings and taking oence where none is

Beyond keigo

241

intended. There is therefore some onus on native speakers to adjust to

non-native speakers.
The issue of how much a non-native speaker can be expected to aim for
native-speaker competence and conform to Japanese norms even if the
norms are those of a restricted elite, as Heinrich argues elsewhere in this
issue is one for teachers and learners to consider. As Phipps and Gonzalez (2004: 17) note, native-speakerdom is not attainable for secondlanguage speakers, whereas uency, which is far more than a technical
skill, is attainable for them. Niyekawa (1991: 10) states clearly that her
book on politeness aims to teach foreign learners not to be rude, rather
than how to be polite, since they are entitled to maintain their identity
with their home country. I would agree that there is a need to strike a
balance between adapting totally to another culture and maintaining
ones own personality, values, and natural behavior. Knowing the rules
and being able to apply them as far as possible is crucial; whether
or not one chooses to conform to them then becomes more a matter of
choice, made in the knowledge of the eect that that behavior may have
on others.

5. Keigo in JFL textbooks

Elsewhere in this issue, Heinrich argues that the Japanese language
taught in JFL is an elite variety characterized by linguistic homogeneity
and an emphasis on politeness and correctness, reecting the interests of
the Japanese urban middle classes. The presentation of keigo in the textbooks with which I am familiar generally ts this description, which is not
surprising, since this is the milieu in which keigo ourishes. The JFL textbooks follow the standard presentation of keigo used in kokugo texts and
keigo selfhelp guides (see Wetzel [2004: 6975, 8286] on keigo in kokugo
texts and selfhelp guides). Is this a problem? Is it possible to present a
broader range of language varieties including those where keigo takes different forms, perhaps mainly nonverbal, or where its usage is very minimal? The answer to both questions is probably it depends on the
contexts in which the learners are expected to use their Japanese in future.
For those of us teaching JFL outside Japan, one issue is how much we
can expect students to understand and conform to Japanese sociolinguistic behavioral norms when they have no previous experience of them and
when not even all native speakers themselves conform, particularly Japanese university students, who have yet to become fully edged members
of society. However much we stress the fundamental importance of honoric language, many JFL students simply cannot grasp this until they

242

T. Carroll

experience it for themselves. I imagine that many JFL tutors have, like
me, been asked by some of their students, But does it really matter?
and then been told by these same students, returning after time spent
studying in Japan, say, Now I know what you were talking about.
Finding ways to make keigo and politeness and expressing respect (in the
broadest sense) more real to students learning Japanese outside Japan is
vital, and I suggest some ways of doing this toward the end of this article.
It is self-evident that the way students are taught and the textbooks
they use has a major inuence on this process of acquiring the sociocultural meanings of keigo and the ability to use it, and I will illustrate this
through some observations of teaching JFL students at the University of
Stirling in Scotland. The students spend their sixth semester (of eight in a
four-year course) studying in Japan. During this time they tend to interact
mainly with Japanese students and friends their own age, or with their
host family. They quickly abandon polite desu/-masu forms, let alone
more complex keigo, and use mainly plain style without honorics. There
are some exceptions to this general trend, notably the student who spent
his semester in a dormitory at an elite private university in Tokyo and
who was obliged to participate in the introductory weekend camp that
trained new students in the appropriate ways to address and behave toward their seniors. However, even he commented that the pressure to use
respectful forms gradually wore o over the semester.
At Stirling we have used two dierent basic language textbooks over
the past fteen years. For the rst few years, we used Jorden and Nodas
(1987, 1988, 1990) Japanese: The Spoken Language (henceforth referred
to as JSL), whose three volumes were published from 1987 onwards.
JSL places a good deal of emphasis on the mastery of keigo from the
early stages, with extensive sociocultural explanations in English. See,
for example, JSL Part 1: 1645 (Lesson 7), which follows the traditional
tripartite distinction of keigo, and discusses it in terms of in-group/outgroup membership. Like most, if not all, JFL textbooks, JSL begins
with the polite -desu/-masu style; keigo is rst introduced in Lesson 7 (although it is mentioned in the introduction), that is, at the beginning of the
second semester for our students. Plain forms rst appear in Lesson 9.
The conversations cover two main categories of people and situation: (1)
the foreign learner working in a Japanese company, that is, an adult
member of society (shakaijin) who might be expected to use keigo; and
(2) students, who tend to use plain forms. The -te morau structures (donatory verbs) appear in Lesson 17 (Part 2, at the beginning of semester
four).
In 1993 we switched to the Tsukuba Language Groups (1991, 1992)
SituationalFunctional Japanese (henceforth referred to as SFJ ). Keigo is

Beyond keigo

243

discussed in the introduction, and is explained in terms of the expression

of social status, in- and out-group, formality, topic, and the speakers
emotional state. Symbols for forms used to address or refer to a higher,
an equal or a lower are used throughout the text. The plain form is
introduced in Lesson 5 (at the end of the rst semester of the Stirling
course). Keigo is introduced gradually, with irregular honoric verbs appearing in Lesson 9 (toward the end of the second semester). So the order
in which the plain form and keigo are introduced is the reverse of JSL.
This is perhaps not surprising, since the focus is on situations encountered
by a foreign postgraduate at a Japanese university; conversations with his
fellow students (including his sempai) are frequent. Although keigo is introduced and practiced in SFJ, there is less emphasis on it than in JSL.
The -te morau structures appear in Lesson 14 (midway through semester
three).
Anecdotal evidence suggests that students trained with these dierent
textbooks developed dierent levels of competence in keigo, although it
must also be noted that the accompanying teaching methods also
changed signicantly with the introduction of SFJ. The early students,
trained with JSL, were frequently told by Japanese friends that they
spoke too politely or formally; however, when they spent a semester or
a year studying in Japan, they quickly learnt to use plain forms and informal language, but without forgetting their keigo. The later students,
trained with SFJ, and with less solid foundations in keigo, on the other
hand, again quickly adopted plain informal style, but had more problems
maintaining their keigo. I remember cringing as one extremely capable
student with a high level of Japanese replied with Un [Yeah] or Ee,
so da [Yeah, thats right] to the beautifully phrased questions of the visiting Japanese Ambassadors wife. The student was a particularly easygoing person so this suited his character but it was certainly not appropriate for the context.
For comparison, I include some examples from two other textbooks.
Bowring and Lauries An Introduction to Modern Japanese (1992) (henceforth referred to as IMJ ) follows a similar pattern to SFJ, using the polite
desu/-masu forms at rst and introducing the plain form in Lesson 6 (75).
Honoric language rst appears in Lesson 25 (219220); honoric verb
forms are introduced gradually, with a summary in Lesson 49 (426430)
that talks about raising or lowering the status of the subject via honoric
language. The -te morau structures appear in Lesson 33.
The nal examples are from a much more recent text, Nakama (2000)
by Hatasa et al., which follows a similar pattern to SFJ and IMJ, but
with an important dierence. The plain form and casual speech are introduced in Volume 1; keigo rst appears in Volume 2, Lesson 8, where

244

T. Carroll

donatory verb structures such as -te morau/-te itadaku are also introduced. Thus these structures are linked with the traditional restricted concept of keigo, reecting the recent broader approach to expressions of
respect. The observation is also made that a recipient of a favor usually
uses honoric expressions toward the giver (Hatasa et al. 2000: 387).
These are all English-language textbooks. I am not familiar with textbooks used in other European countries, but am grateful to Ando Yuka
of DuisburgEssen University for providing me with some information
on the JFL program there as one example. A textbook written by one of
the lecturers is used; students use only the polite desu/-masu form during
the rst semester, with plain forms introduced at the beginning of the second semester. Keigo is not introduced until the beginning of the third semester (second year) of the language program. This is a similar pattern to
SFJ and IMJ.
Japanese-only textbooks used in JFL in Japan produce some dierent
problems, since the complexity of the sociolinguistic background of the
grammatical forms and lexis of honoric language does not lend itself
easily to explication in the relatively simple Japanese of early stage learners. In these contexts, tutors have a larger role to play in such explanation. On the other hand, students of JFL in Japan have, of course, the advantage of constant exposure to authentic language usage and to the real
complexities of keigo and expressions of respect rather than the simplied
and idealized textbook examples. As the National Language Council
notes, the diculty of learning diers signicantly, depending on whether training takes place in Japan or abroad (Wetzel 2004: 139); the implication is that learning how [expressions of respect and honoric language] are applied explicitly and embedded in context is easier in Japan
(Wetzel 2004: 139).
6.

Broader approaches to honoric language, respect and politeness in

JFL

So how do JFL teachers outside Japan compensate for the lack of sociolinguistic and sociocultural exposure? Ensuring that the teaching and
learning of honoric language takes place within a much broader discussion of politeness is crucial. This means not only familiarizing the students with other aspects of expressing respect and of politeness in Japanese, but also raising students awareness of how social relationships are
encoded in language in every society. That encoding may take the very
obvious form of an elaborate lexical and morphological system, as in Japanese, or of less immediately obvious variations of phrasing, tone of
voice, accent, intonation, body language and so on in other languages,

Beyond keigo

245

such as English, where even the T/V distinction of other European languages has been lost. Such discussion also needs to take place right from
the beginning of the process of learning Japanese: if keigo is suddenly introduced after several months, students may feel they have been given a
false start, an oversimplied version of the language that they have
slipped down a snake in the snakes-and-ladders game of learning Japanese. Such was my own experience of learning Japanese at evening classes
in Japan; the sudden encounter with keigo after a year or so made me
wonder whom I had been oending by its absence in the preceding
months. For students to feel empowered in their language learning and
to become open to learning and using politeness in a broad sense in Japanese, it is important for them to be aware that keigo is not something exotic, an add-on, but an integral part of Japanese sociolinguistic behavior.
As Wetzel (2004: 6) says, there is no linguistic place in Japan that is not
keigo.
One resource increasingly available to JFL learners and teachers outside Japan is satellite television programs. These show up-to-date usage,
without the time lag that is inevitable in textbooks and other teaching
materials and that is particularly noticeable in a rapidly changing area of
usage. Possible sources include current aairs and news; home dramas,
which present a variety of relationships within the family and workplace;
and chat shows. These dierent types of programs range from carefully
scripted speech to more natural conversation. News programs contain
little keigo, except in interviews. Contemporary home dramas are a rich
potential source of data on language use in a variety of situations and
interactions between a range of people; they may or may not represent correct usage, but probably do represent authentic usage. Chat
shows are most likely to contain up-to-date language usage, including
keigo. Comparisons from shows hosted by presenters of dierent age
groups would again present insights into changing language norms, as
illustrated in the studies by Y. Murata (2000) and K. Murata (2000) outlined above.
However, we may need to be a little wary about advising our students
to learn by listening to others and by watching television such sources
of authentic use may also be misuses in traditional terms and advanced
learners of Japanese may be judged more harshly than native speakers.
Again we need to think about the future contexts in which our students
will be using their Japanese and stress that keigo is not a xed system,
but, like all language, continues to evolve to meet the needs of the society
in which it is embedded.
University of Stirling

246

T. Carroll

Notes
*

I would like to thank the many people in Japan who kindly gave up their time to talk to
me and give me materials in January 2002, and the Japan Foundation Endowment
Committee for providing me with the research grant (number 1101195) for this research
trip. My thanks also to my Australian colleague and my former student for their keigo
anecdotes, and to my fellow participants in the symposium on changing language regimes in globalizing environments at DuisburgEssen University in April 2004 for their
many insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
1. Wetzel (2004: 27) outlines how the term taigu rst appeared as a technical term in the
work of kokugaku scholar Okada Masayoshi in 1900, fell out of fashion, and then reappeared after World War II in taiguhyogen, the preferred technical expression of many
contemporary linguists.

References
Asamatsu, Ayako (2001). Kore kara no keigo kara Gendai shakai ni okeru keii hyogen
e. Nihongogaku [Japanese language studies] 20, 3847.
Bowring, Richard; and Laurie, Haruko Uryu (1992). An Introduction to Modern Japanese,
Book One: Grammar Lessons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Penelope; and Levinson, Stephen (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bunka-cho [Agency for Cultural Aairs] (1952). Kore kara no keigo [Honoric language
henceforth]. Tokyo: Monbusho [Ministry of Education, Science and Culture].
(1998). Atarashii jidai ni ojita kokugo shisaku ni tsuite (shingi keika hokoku). [On language policy appropriate to a new age (interim report)]. In Kokugo Shingikai Hokokusho
21 [National Language Consultative Council Report 21], 344397. Tokyo: Bunka-cho.
(2002). Gendai shakai ni okeru keii hyogen [Expressions of respect in todays society]. In
Kokugo Shingikai Hokokusho 22 [National Language Consultative Council Report 22],
379395. Tokyo: Bunka-cho.
Bunka-cho Bunka-bu Kokugo-ka [National Language Section, Agency for Cultural Aairs]
(1994). Gaikokujin bijinesu kankei sha no tame no nihongo kyoiku Q & A. [Japanese language education for foreign business people Q & A]. Tokyo: Bunka-cho.
(1997). Kokugo ni Kansuru Seron Chosa (seron chosa hokokusho, Heisei 9-nen 1-gatsu
chosa) [Public opinion survey on the national language (public opinion survey report,
January 1997 survey)]. Tokyo: Bunka-cho.
Cameron, Deborah (1995). Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.
(2001). Good to Talk? Living and Working in a Communication Culture. London: Sage.
Coulmas, Florian (1992). Linguistic etiquette in Japanese society. In Politeness in Language:
Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs
59), R. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich (eds.), 299323. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Crystal, David (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fairclough, Norman (1992). Introduction. In Critical Language Awareness, N. Fairclough
(ed.), 129. London: Longman.
Hatasa, Yukiko Abe; Hatasa, Kazumi; Makino, Seichi (2000). Nakama 2: Japanese Communication, Culture, Context. Boston: Houghton Miin.

Beyond keigo

247

Hendry, Joy (1992). Honorics as dialect: the expression and manipulation of boundaries in
Japanese. Multilingua 11 (4), 341354.
Hubbard, Maki (1994). Towards a re-denition of femininity in Japanese womens speech.
Womens Studies in Communication 17 (Spring), 6991.
Ide, Sachiko (1989). Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of
linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8 (2/3), 223248.
Jinnouchi, Masataka (2001). Danwa ni okeru keii hyogen no shakaiteki tayosei: Michi
oshie danwa ni mirareru nenrei sa, chiiki sa [Social and regional variation in honoric
expressions in discourse]. In Discourse Politeness (National Language Research Institute
Seventh International Symposium Session 4), 123130. Tokyo: National Language Research Institute.
Jorden, Eleanor Harz; and Noda, M. (1987). Japanese: The Spoken Language. Part 1. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
(1988). Japanese: The Spoken Language. Part 2. New Haven: Yale University Press.
(1990). Japanese: The Spoken Language. Part 3. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kabaya, Hiroshi; Kawaguchi, Yoshikazu; and Sakamoto, Megumi (1998). Keigo Hyogen
[Honoric language expressions]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Kikuchi Yasuto (1994). Keigo [Honoric language]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.
Kitamura, Noriko (2000). Adapting Brown and Levinsons politeness theory to the
analysis of casual conversation. In Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the
Australian Linguistic Society. http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ling/archive/als2000/docs/
kitamura.pdf
Maynard, Senko M. (1997). Japanese Communication: Language and Thought in Context.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Mainichi Shinbun (1999). Manyuaru keigo wakai sedai ni shinto Bunka-cho chosa
[Manual honoric language permeates young generation Agency for Cultural Aairs
survey]. 28 April.
Mizutani, Osamu; and Mizutani, Nobuko (1987). How to be Polite in Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Times.
Murata, Kazuyo (2000). Generation dierences in language use as reected in television
commercials. In Gendai Wakamono Kotoba no Choryu: Kyori o okanai wakamono-tachi.
[The positive politeness trend in recent Japanese], Politeness Research Group (JACET
SIG)], 8589. Tokai Womens College.
Murata, Yasumi (2000). Changes in usage of verb forms: a comparison of early 80s and
1996 talk shows. In Gendai Wakamono Kotoba no Choryu: Kyori o okanai wakamonotachi. [The positive politeness trend in recent Japanese]. Politeness Research Group
(JACET SIG), 7984. Tokai Womens College.
Niyekawa, Agnes M. (1991). Minimal Essential Politeness: A Guide to the Japanese Honoric Language. Tokyo: Kodansha.
Phipps, Alison; and Gonzalez, Mike (2004). Modern Languages: Learning and Teaching in
an Intercultural Field. London: Sage.
Tsukuba Language Group (1991). Situational Functional Japanese. Vol. 1: Notes. Tokyo:
Bonjinsha.
(1992). Situational Functional Japanese. Vol. 2: Notes. Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
(1992). Situational Functional Japanese. Vol. 3: Notes. Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
Ujihara, Kiyoshi (1997). Keigo kyoiku o kangaeru [Thinking about honoric language education]. Nihongogaku [Japanese language studies] 16: 5566.
Usami, Mayumi (2002). Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation: Some Implications
for a Universal Theory of Politeness. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Wetzel, Patricia (2004). Keigo in Modern Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.