Japanese honorifics and sarcasm
-Threatening and downgrading by ostensibly exalting the other-
Michael Haugh
The University of Queensland
Abstract
Japanese honorifics are normally associated with deference. However, honorifics themselves do not inherently encode deference. Honorifics index deference only when congruent with a particular social or psychological distance from the other Because of this, honorifics can be manipulated as strategies to deliver pragmatic effects other than respect. This paper examines how honorifics can enhance sarcasm in certain contexts.
Okamoto (2002, 2009) argues that honorifics enhance sarcasm because they falsely exalt the other in sarcastic contexts. Brown (2013: 181) adds that over-honorific use makes it possible for the interlocutor to convey “demands that he/she does not have the right to make”. However, sarcasm that is achieved through the use of honorifics still affords room for further discussions.
After examining varied TV dramas and films, and identifying examples of sarcasm that co-occur with honorific terms, we found the following relations between sarcasm and honorific use (in addition to examples similar to those discussed by Okamoto [2002, 2009] and Brown [2011, 2013]).
(1) The choice of honorifics is appropriate but the strategies employed are not suitable for that context (i.e. the “world of honorifics”). Such inappropriate strategies bring about condescending effects and so contradict the normative purpose of honorific use. This means that by defending the speaker him/herself with honorifics, he/she indicates his/her actual meaning to his/her senior with those strategies.
(2) By adding extra and unnecessary honorific terms such as the other’s official title and incorrect honorific prefixes (which do not exist in reality), the speaker implies that the other is not worthy of such a title, or the speaker is criticising the other’s performance due to a grammatically incorrect honorific prefix being attached to the other’s territory.
(3) By using self-exalting honorifics, the speaker defends him/herself, and implies that the other should stop interfering with the speaker.
Those findings point to the basic interpretation of ‘sarcasm’, i.e., sarcasm is an indirect way of criticising the other (Jorgensen, 1996: 614), but in reality its effect is more demoralizing than direct criticism (Toplak and Katz, 2000), while at the same time protecting the speaker from a counter attack. We suggest that honorifics not only enhance sarcasm, but also make the speaker’s further negative attitude towards the target of that sarcasm more salient.