Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contemporary Chinese
Also available from Continuum
www.continuumbooks.com
Yuling Pan and Dániel Z. Kádár have asserted their rights under the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work.
Foreword vii
Sara Mills, Research Professor, Sheffield Hallam University
Acknowledgements x
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: The Myth of Chinese Politeness: Problems,
Framework and Data 5
Chapter 3: Politeness in Historical China 38
Chapter 4: Politeness in Contemporary China 73
Chapter 5: The Transitional Period: What Happened to
Honorifics? 127
Chapter 6: Deconstructing Chinese Politeness 154
This book attempts to grapple with a very knotty problem: how to describe
the language of a particular nation, when that country, like all countries,
has undergone huge political and social changes which have affected the
language used. Not only that, but it focuses on Chinese, which is spoken by
a wide range of people in different countries (mainland China, Singapore,
Hong Kong, Taiwan), where there are great differences between colloquial
and Classical Chinese, between Mandarin and Cantonese, and among vari-
ous dialects of Chinese. Not content with grappling with the complexities
of politeness use in Chinese, the book aims to trace the changes in the lan-
guage over time, describing the differences between historical and modern
Chinese. The book attempts to describe the factors which contribute to the
process of language change, and focuses not only on the language used in
traditional Chinese and modern Chinese, but it also analyses the language
in the transitional period, so that the processes of language change can be
charted more adequately. This is a complex and difficult task. It is extremely
difficult to generalize about the politeness use of Chinese people at present
and indeed there are many debates about this in the research, because
there are so many myths about politeness usage which circulate both in
popular culture and within the research. However, Pan and Kádár attempt
to generalize about the process whereby Chinese politeness has developed
while at the same time being keenly aware of the myths about Chinese
politeness which so affect the language production of Chinese people. This
massive task is akin to a Chinese juggler balancing hundreds of different
spinning plates and keeping all of them in play at once. However, Pan and
Kádár achieve this with great ease; they are aware of the complexities and it
is these complexities which interest them.
There are clearly massive differences between traditional Chinese
politeness and the politeness norms circulating within China at present.
The language used to be ‘honorific-rich’ but now it is ‘honorific-poor’; ritual
self-abasement was common as were complex address terms, and now most
viii Foreword
of these rituals have been swept away. The authors describe clearly the
changes in the politeness system which have taken place and describe
briefly the social and political changes which led to those changes, particu-
larly the role of the Communist regime in sweeping aside the use of a
complex system of address terms, replacing them, for example, with the
term ‘comrade’. The authors also describe the myths about Chinese polite-
ness, that is, that the Chinese were considered to be very polite in the past
and now are considered, by others as well as themselves, as being quite
rude. (This is perhaps true of all nations that they have a myth of a golden
age of politeness in their past, and now there is a debased and vulgar form
of politeness used.) The authors describe the way that in the past, speakers
would abase themselves in order to be polite, using such terms as the
stereotypical ‘this worthless person’ to describe themselves. They clearly
articulate the reasons that this concern with self-abasement and elevating
the other developed and the ritualized nature of politeness within histor-
ical Chinese. They describe the social and political trajectory of Chinese
culture and its concern with stability and status and they go on to describe
the way that this links in with a lack of concern for the individual and a
focus instead on the family and group, which is acted out through politeness
rituals. This led to a concern with a ritualized self-abasement and also with
address terms. The authors comment on the thousands of address terms
which were available within historical Chinese. They note therefore that
historical Chinese was largely deference based.
While they argue that current Chinese is clearly different to historical
Chinese, the two phases of the language are in essence very similar. The
gulf between them is in fact just the form of politeness used. Honorifics
have disappeared and deferential vocatives are no longer used; instead
there are new expressions and particles are used, but in essence there is
great continuity between historical and modern Chinese. They chart
the way that an inequality in footing is important in modern Chinese, for
example, showing that the question of who speaks first is tied in very closely
to politeness as an indicator of status within the group.
In order to analyse the changes that there have been in Chinese
politeness, the authors have gathered together a substantial corpus of texts
and data which they analyse. To analyse the traditional Chinese politeness
norms, they focus on letters and novels and in the present they have
collected naturally occurring spoken data of conversations and meetings,
focus groups data, survey interview data and television programmes among
others. The authors draw on this corpus of data very skilfully to clearly
Foreword ix
Introduction
We write this book as natives of two countries – China and Hungary – whose
histories share certain similarities: the rise of Communist regimes shortly
after the Second World War and abrupt changes in society since then.
Both of us have lived and worked in China for long periods of time. We
have witnessed various aspects of communication, politeness in particular,
which seem puzzling not only to foreign visitors but also to native speakers
of Chinese.
China has been (and continues to be) famed for its long tradition of
courtesy, deference and ritualized behaviour in social and interpersonal
interaction. However, much of this tradition seems restricted to the ideo-
logical level, rather than as part of everyday communication. In colloquial
Chinese ‘traditional’ politeness seems to be lost, or at best, obscure. Many
politeness practices – even ones as simple as the use of colloquial terms of
address such as ‘miss’ (xiaoje λ – )ۆhave gone through numerous changes
in the past century. Consequently, conflicting views and contradictory
perceptions of Chinese politeness have formed.
This phenomenon can only be understood through retrospection: the
system of Chinese communication underwent an unprecedentedly huge
transformation under the influence of (early) modern historical events. In
the course of the period spanning the second half of nineteenth century
to the 1990s – which is quite short from a historical linguistic/pragmatic
perspective – the traditional norms of deferential communication and
the huge Chinese honorific lexicon practically disappeared from Chinese
society and were replaced by a new set of norms and a small lexicon of
polite expressions. In other words, Chinese that had been an ‘honorific-rich’
language like Japanese and Korean (cf. Chapters 2 and 3) became an
‘honorific-poor’ language with many new language behavioural rules.
2 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
2 Intended Audience
This book is written with two circles of readers in mind: the first encompasses
researchers and students in fields that share interest in Chinese politeness,
such as communication studies, sociopragmatics and sociolinguistics, (historical)
pragmatics, discourse analysis and Chinese linguistics; and the second,‘lay’
readers who come to this book with the practical goal of understanding
Chinese communicative norms and practices. While the present volume
is a research monograph and not a manual, we believe that the research
presented here is relevant not only to experts but also to those who wish to
understand the Chinese. The retrospection to the development of Chinese
communicative norms and practices can fulfil a practical role as it may
help to overcome stereotypical views such as the demonization of modern
Chinese as ‘rude’ people. Considering the increasing importance of China in
the global economy, international trade and business, tourism, and other
areas, and the continually increasing migration of the Chinese people into
the ‘developed’ countries (see, for instance, Pieke, 2002), understanding
Chinese politeness norms – or, in many cases, their absence – is pivotal to
successful communication and understanding of the cultural ‘other’.
Keeping a wider audience in mind, we will present linguistic data in a way
that makes it accessible to readers who do not speak Chinese. The main text
Introduction 3
includes the Chinese original texts and their literary English translation.
This representation of data suits both those readers without previous learn-
ing in Chinese and those who are fluent in Chinese already. It should be noted
that in the main text we use the so-called traditional or fantizi ᕷᡏӷ
characters in order to give a uniform style to the data (the historical sources
are written with traditional characters while most of the modern/contem-
porary sources from mainland China are written in the so-called simplified
or jiantizi ᙁᡏӷ form). Appendix II includes the extracts in simplified
form, which may be useful to those who are currently involved in learning
Chinese as a foreign language.
3 Data
Since Chapter 2 will introduce the data studied in detail, it is sufficient here
to mention that the present volume, due to its comparative nature, involves
two major datasets – one historical and one contemporary – as well as data
from the early 1900s, a historical period that we define as ‘transitional’. In the
collection of data our primary goal was to study a wide variety of genres and
styles, and many examples of language use in various social settings.
The historical linguistic data, which represents language usage in the
final years of historical China, includes three major genre types: letters,
vernacular novels and a unique intercultural Sino–Japonic source, a
historical textbook. The contemporary Chinese dataset, which covers the
period of early 1990s to 2000s, consists of recordings of authentic language
use and naturally occurring data in a range of social settings. This dataset
includes audio-taped governmental and business meetings, service encoun-
ter interactions, family dinner conversations, conversation among friends,
business telephone calls, focus group discussion, and survey interviews and
debriefing sessions. The ‘transitional’ data includes letters and novels.
4 Structure
In order for the reader to gain an overall picture of the issues and points
discussed, Chapter 2 begins with a summary of the historical events that
led to the disappearance of historical Chinese politeness. This brief
introduction is followed by a preliminary summary of the differences
between historical and contemporary Chinese politeness, and the myths
and misconceptions that arise from these differences. Next, we define the
4 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
1 History Revisited
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the British East India Company
became interested in opening trade relationships with China. The British
found the isolated and exotic land of ‘Cathay’, as it was called by the
Venetian explorer Marco Polo (c.1254–1324), a lucrative market, and had
particularly high hopes of selling opium to the Chinese, thereby obtaining
the legendary wealth of the ‘Orient’ through drug addicts. However, the
court of the Great Qing Empire (Da Qing diguo εమࡆ୯), ruled by the
Manchu Aihsindjoro (ངཥᛥ) family, was keenly aware of the potential
dangers of foreign merchants and strictly limited their activities. This
conflict of interest resulted in hostilities, which culminated in the so-called
First Opium War (1839–1842) and a series of humiliating defeats suffered
by the Chinese. The British expeditionary forces, though far inferior in
number and resources, sank Chinese warships without difficulty and seized
several key locations on the Pearl and Yangtze rivers, enabling them to
trade without restriction. On 29 August 1842 several British politicians and
representatives of the Qing Court signed the so-called Treaty of Nanking
(Nanjing-tiaoyue ࠄ٧చऊ), an unequal treaty that allowed the Brits to
trade freely with the Chinese and handed the island of Hong Kong to the
British Crown.1
From the British perspective this war and the subsequent treaty, albeit
important, were just a step in the Empire’s history. On an ideological level,
the war was accordant with the imperialist philosophy that influenced the
thinking of the majority of the British elite in the nineteenth century:2
the conquering of the Chinese was morally acceptable and righteous
because this was the way to spread the British Crown’s ‘beneficial’ influence.
As Lowell (2006: 282) notes in her illuminating monograph, “stoked with
self-confidence by technological great leaps forward [. . .] the imperialist
6 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
European nations became convinced that they, and they alone, had invented
the way of modernity and progress for the contemporary world. Far from
searching for inspiration from non-Western models, they now embraced a
mission to disseminate (by force if necessary) their vision of Progress.”3
Along with the influence of the imperialist and colonization philosophy on
many Brits, the Chinese themselves had also provided an excellent casus
belli for war when Governor Lin Zexu ݅߾৪ (1785–1850) confiscated and
burned the opium stock of resident British merchants in Canton in 1839.
Thus, although it would be a mistake to form a homogenous historical view
of Britain, or even the British elite (and indeed the Sino–British war divided
British public opinion to some extent4), it can be argued that the conquering
of China did not have any major impact on British society, except that some
immigration began to the newly acquired Hong Kong Island.
The Chinese experienced these events in an entirely different way – for
them, these events were a tremendous shock. China was dragged out with
brutal physical force from a self-imposed isolation that had been in effect
since the time of the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). The Chinese looked at
their country as the most ‘civilized’ realm in the world, with unparalleled
military and economic power. The “Chinese myth of central superiority”,
as the renowned sinologist John K. Fairbank coined it (1978: 29), was
based on reality: Qing China was the de facto superpower in the East Asian
region. In the North the Manchus annexed Mongolia; Tibet in the West
and Tonkin (the modern North Vietnam) in the South were protectorates
of the Qing Empire; and the Japanese Tokugawa Shogunate (Tokugawa
bakufu 㾇οჿ۬) in the East did not challenge Chinese superiority,
except in debates over Korea.5 The previous Chinese encounters with
Westerners also boosted this nation-centric worldview: for example, the
Chinese general Koxinga (Zheng Chengkong ᎄԋф, 1624–1662) took
Formosa (Taiwan) from the Dutch by military force, the Jesuit missionaries
who visited Qing China were fascinated by its culture, and the Portuguese
nationals who were allowed to settle in Macau followed the rules imposed
on them by the Chinese government.6
It is thus not surprising that the Chinese population were dumbfounded
by the humiliating defeat suffered during the First Opium War and the
subsequent wars.7 The ‘Western devils’ (yangguizi ࢩଲη), as the Chinese
called the Westerners, had gunboats that could kill from distance, and for
which the large Chinese war junks that were still legendary a few centuries
earlier were no match, as well as firearms that were considerably more
developed than the old Chinese muskets and cannons. Learned as many
The Myth of Chinese Politeness 7
(1) ى׆Πжً៝፶ǴঈೲฦำǴ߾གྣܒϐፉӭخǶ
ȐȜഓᗶଈЁᛊȝเЦقӵȑ
Prithee, sir, hire a cart on my behalf, in order to deliver [them]
hither with Godspeed. If you act thus, my heart will be full of
10 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
gratitude for your caring friendship. (Letters from Snow Swan Retreat,
Answer to Wang Yanru, cited from Kádár, 2009: 153–4)17
(2) ࣁΑૈೲࡋၡǴፎжךચ፶ًǶགᖴாޑᜢЈᆶ
϶ፉǶ
In order to make sure that [they] can set off quickly, I ask you to take
care of renting a car on my behalf. Thank you so much for your care
and friendship. (Constructed)
quite unusual, in particular in the case of a simple request like this one.
To sum up, there is a large difference between historical/traditional and
modern/contemporary Chinese ‘politeness’. This difference becomes even
more obvious if we compare utterances that represent spoken style:
(3)!м!Ǿ!ၰǺȨλাηǴћλΓԖࣗ٣ǻȩ)ȜᒬШࡡ
قȝಃ24ӣȑ
Ran Gui . . . said: “Young lady, why did you call this worthless
person?” (Xingshi hengyan, chapter 13)
(4)!м!Ǿ!ᇥǺȨλۆǴԖϙሶ٣ǻȩ
Ran Gui . . . said: “Miss, what is it?” (Constructed)
(5)!ວϙሶǻ
What [do you want to] buy?
That is, in contrast with its historical Chinese counterpart, modern polite-
ness seems to have little to offer in terms of formality. Thus, as argued in
Chapter 1, it seems to be rewarding to compare historical and contemporary
Chinese ‘politeness’, and define precisely how they differ and explain why
they differ. But, before engaging in this endeavour we need to address a
problem, namely, myths pertaining to Chinese politeness and impoliteness.
12 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
do not use four-letter expressions but curse in a way that sounds ‘harmless’
to the Western ear.19
On the other hand, even relatively filo-Sinic Western accounts on
modern day China, such as the websites <www.chinese-culture.net> and
<www.goingtochina.com>, describe contemporary Chinese as somewhat
rude or at least potentially impolite people:
If you just arrive to work or travel in China, you are very likely to be in
for a MAJOR culture shock . . . Unfortunately . . . rude and unbecoming
to a foreigner . . . is part and parcel of the Chinese people. (<www.
chinese-culture.net>)
Chinese courtesies have always been formal to follow strict rules, although
sometimes Chinese people seem to be impolite according to Western
norms in public places. (<www.goingtochina.com>)
Furthermore, as Mills and Kádár (2011 [in press]) note, the Chinese them-
selves also often reinforce these myths by representing themselves, in a
somewhat contradictory way, as either inheritors of historical politeness
heritage or rather direct people.
What these accounts overlook in general is the notion of ‘situation’,
which plays an important role in the application of politeness (see Pan,
2000c). It is a common perception that Chinese people can appear to
be highly ritualized and deferential in one situation, and then very rude
or ‘impolite’ in another. The present work will deconstruct these myths by
arguing that while there is an important truth value behind such stereo-
types – in a similar way to other cultures (cf. Mills, 2003) – they turn out to
be simplistic in light of various social and discursive factors.
3 Framework
was loosely borrowed from Goffman’s (1955, 1967) work, is separated into
‘positive’ versus ‘negative’ needs in Brown and Levinson’s interpretation.
‘Positive face’ denotes the wish to be appreciated by others, and ‘positive
politeness’ is the fulfilment of this wish. ‘Negative face’ means the wish not
to be imposed upon by others, and its accomplishment is ‘negative polite-
ness’.20 Politeness is employed when a certain act threatens ‘face’, that is, it
has a redressive (conflict avoiding) function. Setting out from the claim
that politeness is a redressive act, Brown and Levinson argue that in order
to describe politeness in a certain culture researchers need to look into
‘local’ strategies of redressing. As they note, “cultural differences . . . exist
and work down into the linguistic details of the particular face-redressive
strategies preferred in a given society or group” (1987: 15).
Universalistic theories soon became subject to criticism. Several scholars,
in particular East Asian experts such as Ide (1989), Matsumoto (1988, 1989)
and Gu (1990), pointed out the inapplicability of some universalistic
concepts to the analysis of certain data. For example, Sachiko Ide (1989)
in her groundbreaking paper argued that when using honorific forms
Japanese speakers do not necessarily redress face-threatening acts, that is,
politeness in Japan cannot be described as a merely redressive act. Further-
more, Matsumoto (1988, 1989) demonstrated that the choice of certain
registers inherently conveys some kind of positioning of the speaker and
the hearer because in Japanese every speech style expresses/presupposes a
certain interpersonal relationship. Gu (1990) demonstrated that in China
‘face’ is a complex notion and the Brown and Levinsonian ‘facework’
cannot be effectively applied to analyse Chinese ‘face’.
While these criticisms (and many others21) were insightful, they did not
provide an alternative analytic framework, and in practice the Brown and
Levinsonian approach continued to dominate the field until the 2000s –
when a ‘discursive turn’ emerged in politeness studies. This turn was
initiated by influential monographs by Eelen (2001), Mills (2003) and Watts
(2003), which were followed by others such as Locher (2004), Terkourafi
(2005), Bousfield (2008), and collections such as Bousfield and Locher
(2007). In fact, several aspects of discursive thinking were already raised in
former studies, such as Watts (1989), but it was the 2000s when these ideas
began to gain momentum.
In fact, the discursive turn within politeness theory may be more accurately
seen as a trend than a ‘school’, due to the fact that discursive research is still
very much in its infancy, and also because scholars involved in this field
apply considerably different frameworks. Also, as Mills (2011 [in press])
notes, “not all of the [post-modern] theorists . . . adopt the same theoretical
16 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
position and this makes generalizing about their positions very difficult”.
Yet discursive research shares some basic concepts that differentiate it from
other approaches to politeness. First, the discursive approach, as its name
makes evident, is a discourse-based one, analysing politeness occurring in
authentic (and preferably longer) discourse fragments by focusing on various
micro and macro contextual factors. While in prediscursive politeness the
effect of a particular utterance on the hearer is often predicted, discursive
research puts some focus on the contextual variation of interpretation.
Secondly, the discursive or post-modern trend makes some distinction
between the interactants’ and the researcher’s interpretations of politeness,
labelling the former as ‘first-order’ and the latter as ‘second-order’ politeness.
As discursive scholars argue, since researchers are inherently influenced by
their own experience and stereotypes when analysing politeness, in order
to avoid subjectivity at the level of analysis and the exclusion of certain views
about politeness as much as possible, researchers need to focus on the lay
interpretation of politeness, by exploring the hearer’s evaluation – along
with that of the speaker – in discourse, and reach theoretical second-order
conclusions by means of analysis of data.22
This brief presentation of politeness research23 might have suggested our
sympathy towards discursive theorizations of politeness. In what follows, let
us define the present book’s relationship with discursive ideas.
fact that this book is normative by nature, that is, it primarily aims to map and
compare the norms of politeness in historical and modern/contemporary
China. In fact, several discursive researchers, in particular Richard Watts
(2003), draw attention to the fact that politeness and normative behaviour
are two potentially different behavioural types. In Watts’ (2003) view, as far as
the interactants communicate in accordance with contextual requirements,
they are not polite but simply ‘politic’; an utterance can be interpreted as
polite if it goes beyond the requirements of the given context according to
the interactants’ judgement.
Unlike Watts we would argue that there is no clearly definable border
between ‘politic’ and ‘polite’ (see Kádár, 2010a),24 as Chapter 3 of this
volume will also illustrate to some extent. In several respects we agree with
Sara Mills who maintains that politeness by its very nature is a question of
judgement and assessment and that the focus should be on the analysis of
what people judge to be polite (Mills, 2003: 8).
For the historian, Mills’ approach is considerably sound, considering
the problems of the ‘excess’ notion in historical contexts (cf. Chapter 3).
However, we use the first-order versus second-order analytic concept
here to define what we try to do in this work. We want to make it clear that
due to its descriptive–normative nature, the present volume primarily deals
with ‘politic behaviour’, rather than ‘politeness’ in a second-order sense,
even though instances will be discussed when ‘excess’ politeness in a
Wattsian sense emerges in discourse. Thus, since normative politeness is
the main subject of this volume, the term ‘politeness’ describes normative
politeness. Whenever second-order or ‘excess’ politeness occurs we will
note it as marked politeness. The use of the label ‘politeness’ is somewhat
problematic in the Chinese cultural context because the Chinese did
not and do not have any emic equivalent of the English word ‘politeness’,
which is a regular problem in cultural and historical studies focusing
on politeness phenomena (cf. Kádár and Culpeper, 2010). Thus, it should
be noted that ‘politeness’ is used in this work strictly as a default working
concept.
This definition of ‘politeness’ is also important from a related perspective,
namely, the issue of ‘polite meaning’. Many discursive theorists question
whether polite meaning can exist out of context – whether certain forms
can ‘encode’ linguistic politeness (see Pizziconi, 2011 [in press], and Agha’s
insightful 2007 monograph). Indeed, it would be problematic to argue that
honorifics per se are inherently polite, four-letter words are inherently
impolite, and so on. Since the present volume studies Chinese honorifics
and other formal forms as part of ‘Chinese politeness’, the disarmament of
The Myth of Chinese Politeness 19
After this brief literature overview, we need to address the question of which
aspects of politeness we shall actually compare here because this concerns
the reliability of our comparison of historical and contemporary politeness.
In fact, this kind of comparative research is somewhat unusual in the polite-
ness field, due to data problems. By ‘problems’ we mean that unlike
intercultural studies, in this kind of historical intracultural exploration we
do not have directly comparable data. One can argue that historical prag-
matic data is inherently ‘problematic’; as Collins (2001: 16–17) notes:
One of the main obstacles that must be overcome is what has been
called ‘the Data Problem’ – the need to draw conclusions about language
behaviour and conventions on the basis of written artifacts rather than
direct observation (Jacobs and Jucker, 1995: 6). Generally speaking, the
only observables in premodern texts are the forms [our emphasis]
themselves.
note, “One of the problems which arises when discussing ‘honorifics’ is that
all scholars have their own definition of ‘honorifics’.” Therefore we feel the
need to carefully define the term before adopting it in this book. In fact,
‘honorifics’ is not only used in various and rather vague ways, but is also
often equated with deferential politeness, in particular in popular literature;
for example, as the Wikipedia entry “Honorifics” notes,
speech acts are often considered the most elusive and difficult category . . .
apologies, compliments, thanks and greeting are some [our emphasis] of
the most important speech acts. (2008: 7)
(6) ܴॺךϺଆᄽᖱǴՉόՉǻ
We will jointly present tomorrow, okay?
5 Data
Along with properly defining the subject(s) of analysis, another point that
should be addressed is the selection of data for study. Before this overview,
The Myth of Chinese Politeness 25
(We also make use of an additional genre type, which is discussed in more
detail below.)
In historical China there were two types of written style: the so-called
wenyan Ў( قlit. ‘refined language’, that is, Classical Chinese) and baihua
қ၉ (lit. ‘clear speech’, that is, vernacular Chinese). Classical Chinese
came into use during the Zhou Dynasty (c.1046 bc–256 bc) and it became
formalized by the end of the Han Dynasty (206 bc–ad 220); since then until
the twentieth century it was the official state language and the language of
‘high literature’ (e.g. historical writing and poetry). The time of origin of
vernacular Chinese is a debated issue,31 but it is agreed that by the time
of the Tang Dynasty (618–906) it was an important literary style, the
language of different genres such as Buddhist religious/popular literature
and dramas.
In the historical period studied in this book (but, in reality, since much
earlier32), Classical and vernacular coexisted in diglossia:33 the Classical
Chinese was regarded as the socially more ‘important’ language while
vernacular was the language of popular literature. By the late imperial
period Classical Chinese was considerably different from colloquial (e.g. it
applied a monosyllabic lexicon in contrast with the colloquial polysyllabic
one), while the vernacular imitated spoken style and thus was closer to
colloquial. However, no ‘pure’ Classical and vernacular existed; practically
every Classical genre included vernacular elements and every vernacular
genre made use of Classical stylistic features.34 The relationship between
Classical and vernacular was a scalar one, ‘pure’ Classical and vernacular
being the extremes of the scale.35
The present study relies on two major genre types that represent these
disglossic styles: letters and vernacular novels. Letters constitute the primary
The Myth of Chinese Politeness 27
a considerably better way than many ‘native’ sources such as novels that
imitate real-life (and thus less-perfect) interactions.
c) From the perspective of the historical pragmatician, a unique source
value of such intercultural works is that they provide direct evidence for
(a) the ‘proper’ use of honorifics in Chinese discourse, and (b) the fact
that honorifics and other tools of deference began to decline well before
the twentieth century. Because in various late imperial works, such as
letters, honorifics and other deferential strategies occur in different
quantity in different genres (cf. Kádár, 2010b), it would be difficult to
define their real importance in spoken language.
The dataset includes over five hundred hours of recorded spoken data and
TV broadcasts, collections of various kinds of Chinese newspapers over
years, over one hundred photographs of public signs and posters, and
professional documents such as resumes, emails and faxes. There are also
multiple methods applied in data collection, including ethnography, inter-
actional sociolinguistics, participant observation, survey interviews and
focus groups. Each method yielded a slightly different perspective of the
object under study, but by combining data collected from these methods,
we are able to triangulate our interpretations and findings.
In our ethnographic research, we adopted Ruesch and Bateson’s 1968
[1951]) framework of conducting four types of observation:
1. Members’ generalizations
2. Neutral (objective) observation
3. Individual member’s experience
4. Observer’s interactions with members.
With this framework, we were able to generate four types of data. First,
we obtained data of members’ generalizations by conducting focus groups
and structured interviews. Members’ generalizations reflect the beliefs and
assumptions regarding politeness practice, which may or may not in fact be
true. The second type of data is through neutral (objective) observation.
That is, we recorded actual interactions and naturally occurring conversa-
tions and meetings of members of Communities of Practice (businesses,
government offices, service encounters and family gatherings), and col-
lected artefacts and written texts to conduct linguistic and text analysis. We
use the term linguistic analysis and text analysis here to differentiate the
analysis conducted on spoken data and written data in the contemporary
dataset. We mainly used interactional sociolinguistic methods (Gumperz,
1982; Tannen, 1990) to analyse spoken data. That is, we attended to the
negotiated meaning in the interaction and contextualization cues (Gumperz’s
term, 1982). We also triangulated our interpretations with the participants
in the events to obtain their perspectives (Tannen, 1990). In analysing
written data (mainly newspapers) we adopted Scollon’s (1998) mediated
discourse approach to analyse text and its larger discourse context includ-
ing printing size, font, colour and positioning of a text.
The third type of data is individual member’s experience. For this type
of data, we used case studies and oral histories of individual speakers
of Chinese, including ourselves (in this case, Pan), who lived through
the period of the early Communist rule and the Cultural Revolution.
The Myth of Chinese Politeness 31
Notes
1
See a detailed discussion of these events in Têng (1944) and Fairbank (1953).
2
See, for example, Jahn (2005).
3
In order to illustrate the British worldview of the nineteenth century it is also
pertinent to refer to the imperialist and colonialist terminology of the time;
for example, Yang (2007: 52–3) notes about ‘looting’ that “[it] was a term that
grew out of the colonial experience in India and was then extended beyond the
frontiers of the subcontinent through the culture of colonialism, so much so that
34 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
one Nautical Glossary of 1867 refers to ‘Loot, plunder, or pillage, [as] a term
adopted from China.’ James Hevia argues that ‘Chinese loot can be located
within a pedagogy of imperialism, recruiting as it were volunteers for empire’,
that is, looting ‘suggests a relationship between the act of defeating China and
the constitution of colonialist subjects’.”
4
As Waley’s (1958: 31) illuminating monograph notes, the British politician
William Ewart Gladstone (1809–1898) called the opium trade “most infamous
and atrocious” and strongly opposed H. J. Palmerston (1784–1865) and other
politicians who were in favour of the colonization of China.
5
See more on this issue in Swope (2002).
6
Cf. Fung (1999).
7
The First Opium War was soon followed by the Second Opium War (1856–1860).
8
Such encounters took place mainly at the eastern coastal territory of China. The
whole of China did not become a colonized country like India or Singapore,
but instead the invading powers conquered certain territories in which they
established colonies with extraterritorial rights.
9
As Li (2007: 23), citing from the Dutch scholar Hans van de Ven, points out, “the
Qing was ill-prepared to deal with Britain’s naval challenge not because it was
a backward country or a Confucian society with little regard for the military,
but because it had faced different sorts of military challenges and followed a
different path of military development than Britain.” That is, it would be quite
simplistic to argue that Chinese society was less ‘developed’ than British society
and was consequently defeated by the latter, an accusation often made by Marxist
theorists against ‘feudal’ China. In line with scholars such as van de Ven and Li,
we would argue that the situation was more complex: the defeat of China was
primarily military-based. Although Western social and scientific results might
have seemed to be highly developed and tempting to many Chinese, the social
superiority of the British was at least partly a myth, which served the financial and
ideological goals of the conquerors.
10
See more in Giles (1912).
11
In the series of the pre-1911 anti-Manchu rebellions perhaps the two most
important ones are the so-called Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864) and the Boxer
Rebellion (1899–1901).
12
The years between 1976 to 1979 are considered the ‘dawn of reform’ (see Gu,
1999).
13
It should be noted that ‘brainwashing’ is not used as an evaluative term here
but it is a borrowing of a Communist Chinese term, xinao ࢱတ (lit. ‘to wash the
brain’), and it refers to the Chinese Communist practice of changing certain
individuals’ or the masses’ opinion through education and other forms of mind-
manipulation.
14
As Mills and Kádár (2011 [in press]) argue, ‘culture’ is quite often used as a
prescriptive notion with regard to politeness, in particular in nationalistic
accounts.
15
In this book ‘modern’ and ‘contemporary’ refer to two different periods, cf. p. 25.
16
On this latter problem, that is, the class-ideology of politeness, see Mills and
Kádár (2011 [in press]).
17
If not denoted otherwise the translations in this volume belong to the authors.
The Myth of Chinese Politeness 35
18
See more in Kádár (2005).
19
A typical example of the supposed Chinese ‘mild’ cursing is the expression “May
you live in interesting times”, which probably never existed in China and was
invented by the Edwardian author Ernest Bramah (1868–1942); see more on this issue
on <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times>
20
Note that in Brown and Levinson’s theory the terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ do
not carry any value judgement.
21
Along with East Asian data, an important criticism of the Brown and Levinsonian
concept was made by using African (Igbo) data, cf. Nwoye’s (1992) study.
22
It should be noted though that there is no general agreement among scholars
who would define themselves as ‘discursive’ on the applicability of the first-order
versus second-order distinction, even though scholars agree about the importance
of focusing on lay notions.
23
A detailed overview of politeness research can be found in Eelen (2001) and
Mills (2011 [in press]).
24
Relying on Leech (2007), Kádár (2010a) argues that there is no clear border
between politic and politeness behaviour, but rather these two behavioural types
are the ends of a politic–polite scale.
25
An essential part of this paper was also published in the monograph Peng (2000).
26
It should be noted that when we refer to certain tools of ‘Chinese politeness’ we
do not intend to claim that these tools are necessarily unique to the Chinese
language.
27
It is pertinent to note that in line with historical pragmaticians such as Bax (2010)
we could also argue that the Brown and Levinsonian strategic approach is some-
what problematic if applied to historical data because in historical societies,
including historical China, politeness was often more ritualized and deferential
than ‘rationality-driven’ (cf. Chapter 3). While many of the Brown and Levinsonian
strategies can be identified in historical Chinese data, they are often applied
differently from Brown and Levinson’s framework. To pick an example, let us
take “Strategy 7: Impersonalize S [speaker] and H [hearer]” (Brown and
Levinson, 1987: 190–1); according to Brown and Levinson, it is “one way of indic-
ating that S doesn’t want to impinge on H” and so it is a way “to phrase the FTA
[face-threatening act]”. This strategy is regularly applied in historical Chinese
texts, as the following extract from a historical Chinese letter demonstrates:
ࣹۘངޣך᠙ԶচϐǴሎୌคఱخǼȐȜഓᗶଈЁᛊȝเቅڈўȑ
I prithee my loving friend judge this and forgive me, and my eternal gratitude
to you shall never cease! (Letters from Snow Swan Retreat, Response to Prefect Liu;
cited from Kádár, 2009: 124–5)
؇λӵܴ۬ک၃Ǵ؇ᢠႥǴຳᑲ॥ࢬǴᇂϐຽៜΨǶȐȜഓᗶ
ଈЁᛊȝΞเȑ
The verses of yourself and Magistrate Shen Xiaoru all have profound mean-
ing, perfect rhythm, free-flowing style and sophisticated text – their floating
sounds even rival the verses of Li Bai and Du Fu of old [i.e. the two perhaps
most renowned Chinese poets, translators’ remark]. You, gentlemen, can
rightly be acclaimed as heroes of poetry. (Letters from Snow Swan Retreat, Repeated
answer to Jiang Yunbiao; cited from Kádár, 2009: 82)
This extract, written by the same author, is also impersonalized. When praising
the addressee and a third referent (Magistrate Shen Xiaoru), the author names
the latter but not the addressee. Here he uses a popular Classical Chinese tech-
nique of depersonalization via ellipsis, that is, he refers to the poems of the
recipient and Shen Xiaoru as Shen Xiaoru mingfu he shi ؇λӵܴ۬ک၃
(lit. ‘poems by revered Magistrate Shen Xiaoru with’); the word ‘with’ (he )ک
indicates that the author’s appraisal also refers to the recipient, but the recipient
is not explicitly referred to. This impersonalization does not have any obvious
strategic goal – it is simply part of the ongoing ritual and deferential discourse
(see more on this issue in Chapter 3). This phenomenon supports the afore-
mentioned claim that it is somewhat problematic to apply the Brown and
Levinsonian framework on historical data (though the same problem can
happen in contemporary data).
28
In line with post-modern theorizations we argue that speech acts per se are not
polite; for example, Watts’ monograph (2003: 69) convincingly demonstrates
that no speech act is inherently polite or impolite.
29
The exploration of Chinese ‘face’ began in 1944 with Hsien Chin Hu’s ground-
breaking paper. From the 1970s onwards, a wide range of publications were
devoted to the exploration of Chinese ‘face’, such as Ho (1976), King and Myers
(1977), Bond and Lee (1981), Greenblatt et al. (1982), Dien (1983) and Hwang
(1987). See more on this issue in Chapter 4.
30
In Chinese ‘face’ has different emic equivalents with quite different meanings;
cf. Haugh and Hinze (2003).
31
A detailed overview of these debates and other related issues can be found in
Xu’s (2000) authoritative monograph.
32
Supposedly from the Tang Dynasty onwards.
33
The relationship between Classical and vernacular Chinese is often compared
with that between Classical and spoken Arabic. A detailed comparison of Classical
and vernacular Chinese can be found in Norman (1988).
34
For example, popular crime fictions included deliberately Classical parts such as
court reports, and Classical genres such as essays included reported speech
coined in a vernacular way. Also, discussing certain topics necessitated a more
Classical style in vernacular genres and vice versa in Classical genres.
35
It should be noted that although some Chinese academic works contrast Classical
Chinese and vernacular as the languages of the ‘ruling elite’ and the ‘oppressed’
(e.g. Zhang, Z., 1995), in reality both of these written styles belonged to the elite,
as the aforementioned scalar relationship may also indicate. This is because
in historical China literacy rate was relatively low, and also ‘proper’ writing in
The Myth of Chinese Politeness 37
1 Introduction
2 Literature Overview
In many historical societies politeness was equated with rituality and defer-
ence. For example, Jucker’s illuminating paper demonstrates that curteisie,
the Middle English equivalent of ‘politeness’, was a kind of
In China the group was always paramount and the individual conse-
quently and often mercilessly subordinated to it. Each individual had to
contribute to the general welfare and do nothing to disrupt the order
and stability deemed so vital to the functioning of the system on which
community life depended. The individual first was subordinated to the
family, the basic economic, political, and moral institution in Chinese
society. It was the family, not the individual, that owned property, paid
taxes, and frequently took responsibility for the legal or moral transgres-
sions of one of its members. (2004: 12)
That is, even the smallest predetermined social unit, the family, was a strictly
hierarchical community; as Che states, status in the family was governed by
age hierarchy, or “the dominance of the older generations, the parents in
particular” (1979: 30) and sex hierarchy, that is, male dominance. Out of
the family the individual was subordinated to other social groups, which all
had similarly hierarchical internal structures. Roughly speaking, Chinese
society itself was a large patriarchal hierarchical pyramid, its patriarchal
figure being the emperor. This hierarchical structure blocked the develop-
ment of individualism even in late imperial times. As Alagappa notes,
It should be noted that this historical Chinese social model was not particu-
larly ‘oppressive’ (as Chinese Marxists often claim) and not even ‘exotic’.
The notion of ‘freedom’ simply was not linked with individuality, which is
quite similar to many other historical societies such as Medieval European
ones. As Fromm rightly notes,
Medieval society did not deprive the individual of his freedom, because
the ‘individual’ did not exist. (1941: 43)
42 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
While this might be a strong claim, we should indeed be aware that our
contemporary understanding of social ‘freedom’ may not apply to histor-
ical times. Historical individuals were not robots: people acted individually
and freely, but the fate of the individual was usually linked to that of their
community. This is not to mean, however, that differences did not exist
across historical societies; an obvious difference between China and
the West is that in Europe the role and perceptions of individual(ism)
dramatically changed during the Renaissance, while in China the subor-
dinate role of the individual was never questioned before the appearance
of British gunboats and the subsequent defeat of the country.1 That is, on
the eve of the Chinese empire the individual was still as subordinated
to community as it was several centuries before. Consequently, as its social
and interpersonal function remained identical, politeness was also rather
conservative, its norms and forms being quite similar to that of previous
centuries.2
Due to the fact that group membership, and in a wider sense social role,
was (and, to some extent, continues to be) relatively important in China, in
politeness behaviour the speaker/writer addressed the recipient’s social
role rather than individual characteristics. To provide an example, let us
cite the following lines from a love letter:
(1)!ҷޱۺঙǴҏᡏയதǴ१ค৫ǶǾ !!!!ΓుठǴόཎ
ϡǴԜτᄀΡϻǾȐȜഓᗶଈЁᛊȝഋ
ߎ៩ȑ
[I] respectfully hope that [your] precious health, my dear, is in fine
fettle, and that [you] are eating and sleeping well. . . . [Indeed, you
are] an outstanding person of refined insight, [and you are not only]
worthy to [be praised as] the first beauty and talent but also [you]
possess the most stouthearted spirit . . . (Letters from Snow Swan Retreat,
Letter to Chen Jinying, cited from Kádár, 2009: 134–6)
This love letter – which would be perhaps much too platonic for our age,
even though it was written to a high-class courtesan (!) – interestingly dem-
onstrates the significance of social values in historical Chinese politeness.
The author addresses his lover as fangqing ޱঙ (lit. ‘fragrant minister’,
trans. ‘my dear’); this term of address appeals to both the recipient’s
physical features (she is ‘fragrant’, that is, beautiful) and her claimed social
role (she is claimed to be a ‘minister’, that is, high ranking). On the level
Politeness in Historical China 43
Due to the fact that Chinese does not allow morphosyntactic changes like
Japanese and Korean, this twofold concept manifests itself in discourse
through a large lexicon of honorifics and various discursive strategies.
44 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
For example, the term xiaoren λΓ (lit. ‘small person’, that is, ‘this worth-
less person’) denigrates the speaker and gaojun ଯ։ (‘high lord’) elevates
the speech partner. Xiaonü λζ (lit. ‘small woman’, that is, ‘worthless
daughter’) denigrates the speaker’s daughter and qianjin ίߎ (lit. ‘thousand
gold’, that is, ‘venerable daughter’) elevates the addressee’s daughter.
Interestingly, indirect honorific terms of address also exist in reference to
inanimate entities such as the house of the speaker/writer (e.g. hanshe
ൣް, lit. ‘cold lodging’) and that of the addressee (e.g. guifu ۬,
lit. ‘precious court’).
No quantitative study has been carried out so far to estimate the number
of such honorific forms in Chinese, but it can be argued without the risk
of exaggeration that there were several thousand terms of address.6 This
number suggests that addressing others properly was a pivotal part of polite
communication. As members of different social groups had to be addressed
in different ways (see more in Section 4.1 below), and they were also
expected to use different self-denigrating forms when referring to them-
selves in polite discourse, the number of elevating/denigrating forms of
address was naturally extensive. Furthermore, the Chinese were rather
productive in creating honorific terms of address: as Kádár (2007b) argues,
new terms were continuously coined and others fell out of daily usage.
Let us demonstrate the function of elevating denigrating terms by citing
extracts from dialogues and letters:
(2)!೭ৎูѐΑъၩǶВӣٰǴـΑλ༠ᇥǺȨλΓډৎ
עਜߞᆶεྭ࣮Α!Ǿ!ȩ)ȜϲиȝಃΟӣ*
This young male servant was away for a half year. One day he came
back and when he saw Little Tang he said: “This humble person
came home in order to give this letter to Your Highness . . .”
(Shengxian-zhuan, chapter 3)
Politeness in Historical China 45
(3)!ၘࣔགᖴόᅰǴѝᇥǺȨࡑܺᅈࡕǴᒃλХ۬ډі
ᖴǶȩ)ȜआኴფȝಃΟΜӣ*
Jia Zhen was expressing his gratitude endlessly, saying: “Please wait
until the time of the mourning is over and [I will] personally bring
[my] worthless son to [your] noble dwelling to respectfully say thanks
to you.” (Honglou-meng, chapter 20)
(4)!೭В҅Ԗᒃ϶ᎃٰٚቼລǴѦय़ৎΓٰӣᇥǴᇥԖ୯మ
ӽБΡޜ܄Ǵ๏ѦଌٰҽࠆᘶǴᒃٰລ഻ǶѦ߆
ௗٰǶޜ܄ᇥǺȨѦε഻Ƕз॔ϦёѳӼǻȩ
)ȜᔮϦӄȝಃӣ*
On this day the relatives and neighbours came to congratulate; a
family member who was receiving the guests said that Xingkong
Abbot of the Guoqing Temple came to congratulate in person and
brought a generous celebration gift to the squire. The squire invited
him in. Xingkong said: “[I wish you] great happiness, Squire. Is the
Young Lord in good health?” (Jigong quanzhuan, chapter 1)
(5)!ѠᎯόٰǴӳॣӃԿǴҭىаัኃϒᚶǶოҖࡽى
ޣӃளǴ၈ឦ༿л౧۹ϐگǶ)Ȝᎄ݈ᐏৎਜȝणᑜύ
ଘ߄*
[You, my] honoured friend, have not [yet] arrived, but the good
news [of your plan to come hither] has reached [me], and this is
sufficient to slightly comfort my [troubled] heart. The burial site has
been obtained by a swifter customer, and this is certainly the fault of
[your] humble elder brother’s carelessness. (Family Letters of Zheng
Banqiao, A letter written to younger cousin Hao from my post in Fan County,
cited from Kádár, 2010b: 13–14)
(6)!ӛдᇥၰǺȨ፣Ǵգ᠋ךᇥǶգӵϞӣѐǴں٣Р
҆ǴᕴаЎകᖐࣁЬǶ!Ǿ!ȩ)ȜᏂ݅ѦўȝಃΜϖӣ*
He said to him: “Wise younger brother, listen to what I say. You
would better return home now, respectfully take care of your
parents, and make [your] literary studies a priority . . .” (Rulin
waishi, chapter 15)
In this interaction, the speaker refers to the addressee as xiandi ፣( lit.
‘wise younger brother’), and so symbolically includes him in the circle of
his kin, hence expressing both emotive closeness and deference.
The system of historical Chinese honorific forms of address are summa-
rized in Table 1.
daren εΓ xiaoren λΓ zun-furen ൧ϻΓ yuqi ༿!ۀ guifu ۬! hanshe ൣް! xianxiong ፣л yuxiong ༿л
(lit. ‘great man’, (lit. ‘small man’, (lit. ‘revered lady’, (lit. ‘foolish wife’, (lit. ‘precious court’, (lit. ‘cold lodging’, (lit. ‘wise elder (lit. ‘this foolish
Your Honour) this humble your wife) humble wife) your home); my humble home); brother’) elder brother
person) yayi Уཀ! biyi ሄཀ! of yours’)
(lit. ‘refined (lit. ‘humble
opinion’, your opinion’)
opinion)
47
48 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
(7)!ኧՉںթǴ׆ջڮᎯǼ)ȜഓᗶଈЁᛊȝᆶᖴЧࠄ*
[I write these] few lines to respectfully inform [you of this matter,
and I] sincerely hope [you will] immediately prepare for travel.
(Letters from Snow Swan Retreat, Letter to Xie Bingnan; cited from Kádár,
2009: 143–4)
In this letter subscription the author uses the forms fengbu ںթ (lit. ‘offering
a declaration respectfully with two hands’, that is, respectfully inform some-
body about a matter) and mingjia ڮᎯ (lit. ‘ordering chariot’, that is, prepare
for travel). The first form deferentially lowers the action of the speaker/
writer, while the second one elevates that of the addressee (a relatively poor
person) by deferentially describing his departure to that of a high-ranking
person who gives orders to his chariot driver(s) before a journey.
Elevating/denigrating verb forms are less frequent in the data studied
than terms of address. This is perhaps partly because the use of verb forms
necessitated a good command of Classical Chinese literature: explorations
of vernacular texts seem to suggest that honorific verbs were popular
among the educated elite, while in the data studied lower educated speak-
ers rarely apply these forms. Another, related, reason is that these forms are
considerably more frequent in letters and other monologic genres than in
novels and similar dialogic genres. Due to the ‘written style’ of these forms,
in dialogic interactions they are used only in relatively formal contexts or
interactions of significant power difference.
semantic values but are not honorific formulae; cf. the following
extract:
(8)!ֽޣςѨځයǴค܁ᢀޣᜤઓځΝǶ)ȜഓᗶଈЁ
ᛊȝเٜᒴং*
If those to whom this joyous matter happens are unable to predict
its time, one cannot wonder that a bystander cannot foretell it.
(Letters from Snow Swan Retreat, Answer to Ruan Xihou; cited from
Kádár, 2009: 190)
(9)!ཎ⼴ᆢϐ҂ૈǴ২ฅԶձǶ)ȜഓᗶଈЁᛊȝเഋ
യ༜*
[I] feel ashamed that [I] could not persuade your highly talented
self to stay and could do naught but say farewell with dejection in
my heart. (Letters from Snow Swan Retreat, Answer to Chen Shengyuan;
cited from Kádár, 2009: 108–9)
(10)!ӃᒵԜЎǴଭሀǴբጪჿϐൂՖӵǻڛڛǼ
)ȜഓᗶଈЁᛊȝᆶЦӓΓ*
[Yet,] first [I] record this poem and entrust a courier to respect-
fully present it to you. Is it fit even to be used as [an artless and
functional] note [to keep you abreast of my experiences here]?
Hah-hah! (Letters from Snow Swan Retreat, To Wang Jiren; cited from
Kádár, 2009: 74–5)
In this letter, written to a friend, the author denigrates the value of his
own poem by symbolically comparing it with an official note or circular
(chuandan ൂ), which is claimed to be a worthless genre. And, in
order to reinforce this denigrating strategy, he applies the onomato-
poeic word hehe ‘( ڛڛhah-hah’), thus conveying a humorous self-den-
igrating meaning in the given context.
(11)!Դ ߄ ژр ௵ Ǵ Ԗ ӵ எ ར Ǵ ђ ϐ ॸ ଭ ԋ Ў Ǵ
ҭӵࢂǶ)ȜഓᗶଈЁᛊȝเ৪լৎ*
[You,] venerable uncle, wield the brush with consummate skill and
create as if from memory, akin to the men of old who could write
even whilst in the saddle. (Letters from Snow Swan Retreat, Answer to
Xu Kejia; cited from Kádár, 2009: 60–1)
(12)!Ԃⓢаλ၃ΒകǴஅᏢϻΓǴளЙࠑځਏᡮבᗒओǻ
)ȜഓᗶଈЁᛊȝൺҺ*
Also, [I am] sending you two of [my] worthless poems, [yet I am
afraid that I am only mimicking your magnificent style and] act
like a servant girl who tries to behave in a ladylike manner – [I]
pray you will not laugh [when reading it and will see that] it merely
attempts to imitate your style [in the manner of the ugly woman
who mimicked the beautiful lady’s behaviour forgetting about the
fact that she is displeasing to the eye]. (Letters from Snow Swan
Retreat, Answer to Ren Su’an; cited from Kádár, 2009: 69–70)
Politeness in Historical China 51
In the first extract, cited from a letter written to a relative, the author uses
two proverbs, youru-sugou Ԗӵஎར (trans. ‘create as if from memory’)
and yima-chengwen ॸଭԋЎ (trans. ‘[akin to the men of old who could]
write even whilst in the saddle’), which elevate the addressee in the given
context. In the second extract, a letter written to a friend, the author uses
the following two idioms in order to refer to himself: bi-xue-furen அᏢϻ
Γ (trans. ‘act like a servant girl who tries to behave in a ladylike manner’)
and xiaopin-wangchou ਏᡮבᗒ (trans. ‘it merely attempts to imitate
your style [akin to the ugly woman who mimicked the beautiful lady’s
behaviour forgetting about the fact that she is displeasing to the eye]’). In
the present context these Classical idiomatic expressions convey denigrat-
ing contextual meanings – both of them deferentially claiming that the
author’s abilities cannot be compared to that of the recipient.
The honorific category defined as ‘other lexical items’ is even more ‘written’
in style than honorific verb forms: such expressions are hardly used in dia-
logic vernacular texts. Furthermore, the use of these forms necessitated an
excellent command of Chinese literature – idiomatic expressions were
acquired as part of Classical education – and so these forms were used by
members of the learned elite only.
To sum up this overview of honorific and other lexical forms, the import-
ance of honorifics seems to demonstrate that historical Chinese politeness
was deference-based. Also, these forms were ritually used in the sense that
by self-denigration and addressee-elevation the speaker/writer designated
their relationship with the addressee, and – more importantly – displayed
their social status, and consequently these forms often seem to occur in
‘out-of-context’ settings from a contemporary perspective. For example,
many would agree that an emotive and personal context like (1) does not
necessitate the use of honorifics.
Perhaps, it would be a mistake to put every lexical form of deference under
the umbrella of elevation and denigration: for example, euphemisms (wanci
ᜏ) also constitute an important part of the historical Chinese honorific
lexicon. However, some enquiries into such seemingly non-elevating/
denigrating lexical categories reveal that they are often related with the
elevation/denigration phenomenon. For example, many Chinese euphem-
isms expressed some elevating or denigrating meaning (cf. Hong, 2002):
qingbei ፸ (lit. ‘collapse [of a person belonging to the] older genera-
tion’) is a euphemism used when one’s senior dies, that is, it conveys
elevating meaning (Hong, 2002: 344). In a similar way, as example (6)
above has demonstrated, many terms of endearment were elevating and
denigrating in nature.
52 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
3.2.1 Refusals
Historical Chinese refusals are illustrated by the following interaction:
(13) 1.!ϿঙၰǺȨλᨷωჲᏢǴεΓᇤߍӜǴ৮ځԖ
࣐ᙚᛊǶȩ
Du Shaoqing said: “This humble nephew [of yours] lacks learning,
Your Highness erroneously appraised [him, and he] is afraid that
[you will] recommend him undeservedly.”
2.!εΓၰǺȨόѸϼᖰǴߡךӛ۬ᑜ่ڗǶȩ
High Official Li responded: “[You] need not be modest, I will
recommend you to the local authorities.”
3.!ϿঙၰǺȨεΓࠟངǴλᨷଁόޕǻՠλᨷᗸജϐ
܄ǴഁᄍΑǴ߈ΞӭੰǴᗋεΓќೖǶȩ
Du Shaoqing said: “How would this humble nephew [of yours] dis-
regard the loving care of Your Highness? But this humble person
has a rude character, [he] has been accustomed to rustic life, and
recently [he] is suffering from many illnesses, and so [he] neverthe-
less begs Your Highness to recommend somebody else.”
(14)!Ⴜϐ࣪ǴࣁᗉғВǴߚࣁғВΨǶ܍ፏϦటტךǴ
ႼՖඪᜏǻϻ܌ᒏტޣǴѸځΓԖቺёॊǴՏё൧Ǵ
ۈёტǶӵႼϐሄЪ೦ޣǴՖტϐԖࠌǻ
)ȜഓᗶଈЁᛊȝᜏტ*
The reason for this servant’s return to the provincial capital was to
avoid instead of holding a birthday celebration. I was honoured by
your intention to celebrate my birthday, gentlemen, and how durst I,
this humble man, decline it? However, if you want to celebrate
someone, he must have merit worthy of praise and rank to respect,
and only then can he be honoured. What kind of celebration can be
held for a vulgar and poor person like my humble self? (Letters from
Snow Swan Retreat, Declining the offer of a birthday celebration; cited from
Kádár, 2009: 129)
3.2.2 Apologies
The same phenomenon can be observed in the speech act of apologies.
(15)!ၘ೨ԆѺৰբඞᇥȅȨόޕϻΓᎯډǴԖѨᇻ߆Ǵ৯
৯Ƕȩ)ȜआኴფȝಃΜΒӣ*
Jia She quickly made a deep bow with his two hands respectfully
folded in front: “[I] did not know about your esteemed presence,
Lady, [I] failed to run to greet you, forgive [my] fault, forgive [my]
fault.” (Honglou-meng, chapter 12)
In this example, along with referring to his ignorance, the speaker blames
himself, which is a typical strategy used in apologies (cf. Kádár, 2007a); he
ritually accuses himself for his failure to run and greet the addressee. As
according to traditional Chinese etiquette it is the lower ranking person’s
duty to proceed towards the higher ranking one, this self-blaming expresses
self-denigration. In line with the previous examples, this strategy co-occurs
with honorific forms of address and verb forms, as well as the repeated defer-
ential routine form of apology shuzui ৯ (lit. ‘pardoning a crime’).10
The next example is a brief model letter that demonstrates the function
of the speech act of apology in monologic genres:
(16)!ࢄВӭǴᎈࣗၸࡋǶಉ౧قຒǴόᒬǶරٰـፏ
ΓᇥǴБځޕҗǴคӦيǴᄏ৵ЀᑈǶǾ!ҷఈϘܴǴ
ό፥ೢǶុय़ᖴǴӃރᒌҙǶҷோ⸟ჸǶό࠹Ǵ
ᙣރǶȜᎈࡕѨᘶᖴਜȝ
Yesterday, having drunk too much, [I] was intoxicated as to pass
all bounds; but the rude and coarse language [I used was uttered
in] an unconscious state. Only after hearing others speak [on the
subject] on the next morning [I] realised what had happened, where-
upon [I] was overwhelmed with regret and felt unbearable shame . . .
[I] humbly long for [your] benevolent understanding [and wish
that you will be as kind as to] not hold [my insignificant self]
responsible [for what happened]. Soon [I will] apologise in person,
first [I] humbly submit this letter. [I will be] respectfully awaiting
Politeness in Historical China 55
This letter – a document from the famous Dunhuang ඩྦྷ corpus that was
found by the Hungarian–British sinologist Sir Aurel Stein (1862–1943)12 –
is an exceptionally early document from the perspective of our database
that consists mostly Qing Dynasty materials: it is dated from the ninth
century. It is nevertheless cited here because it is perhaps the only Chinese
model letter for apologizing, and also because it is written in a considerably
colloquial Classical style (a regular feature of Dunhuang materials), and
thus stylistically it is quite similar to late imperial epistles. In this letter,
just like in (15), strategies and forms of address collaborate. For example,
the author refers to his own shame, hence lowering himself; he also uses a
wide variety of honorific forms such as verbs like fuwang ҷఈ (lit. ‘humbly
bowing and await’, that is, humbly longing for).
3.2.3 Requests
Finally, along with refusals and apologies, let us cite a case of request; as
the following longer extract demonstrates, historical requests worked quite
similarly with other speech acts:
(17)!ЪৎໂλძǴߚόتەǶકаϣηޮੰރℒǴҒԑϐ
ںǴϔՀϐᏹǴаզϚ১ζҺϐǴᒿठᑈമԋ੯Ǵҭό
הኇཥԶ௭ᙑǶӢৎ҆ఈࣗϪǴཁڮፌፌǴόளςܭ
࣪ύளܿࡼǴ҅బคज़ᚶΨǶВςᒪႼᘜৎௗ
ǶԿࢭߐǴᔈ௭ՃᒥഌǶى׆Πжً៝፶Ǵঈೲฦ
ำǴ߾གྣܒϐፉӭخǶȜഓᗶଈЁᛊȝเЦقӵ
[My situation is] that in my hometown there lives a little woman
who is suitable for bearing male children. Now, my humble wife lies
sick on the woven bamboo mat of her bed. She, a young girl without
domestic help, [loyally undertook the service] of offering delicious
food [to my mother] and managing the housework for her, and
finally she has fallen ill from overwork. I would certainly not neglect
my wife and take a concubine, in the manner of people who cast off
that which is old and only feel love for that which is new. However,
my mother yearns for a grandson and she has repeatedly ordered
me [to father an heir]. Thus, I can do naught but find a worthless
concubine from here, the provincial capital, which dampens my
56 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
The present section has so far demonstrated that historical Chinese strate-
gies were often elevating/denigrating and collaborated with honorifics. It
is pertinent to add that frequently elevation and denigration became the
very message of deferential discourse – that is, elevation/denigration
became an ‘oversized’ strategy – as illustrated by the following example:
(18)!ђΓЁᛊǴอࣺኧՉǴߏόຫ൯ǴаځҔ⛼Ǵ௶٣
ᙁዅǶ܌ᒏᜏǴၲԶςǴคڗЯϧߏΨǶႼૅύคਜǴ
๙ΠคǴࣺޕᄣ܌టقԶόૈǴᒿԖຫЯЁᛊϐ
ѦǴԶѨЯೕંྗᛣޣǴࢂࡺόёаЁᛊӜǶฅΞόள
όᠷځӜǴซϐढᡀࡼࣣΨǴόၸܿՋϐձԸǶणε
ϻـϐǴѸሷԶၸǶىΠΏటᢀǴ৮҂࿏Јϐ
ᡮǴᙯമဎԶઢǶ)ȜഓᗶଈЁᛊȝᆶЦԋϐ߄*
The men of ancient times wrote short letters of a few lines, and even
their long epistles exceeded not a page; they selected their words
with skill and expressed themselves in a succinct manner. With a
verbose and tedious style one cannot achieve [what Master Confucius
called] “concise and lucid writing”. My humble self does not possess
much literary skill and cannot write in an appropriate manner:
[I] can only express myself in a long-winded way and [I] know not
how [to write in] a succinct manner. Therefore, [my writings] are
longer than letters should be, and [their style] fits not the rules of
the art, and so [I would not even] dare to call them letters. Never-
theless, [I] can do naught but call them so when writing thus,
Politeness in Historical China 57
(19)!ഋᒥЁᛊǴӜਔǶฅଯԾՏǴெᏀӵߎǴόޭᇸ
҄ǴىΠࢣҭԖԜᘮǼ)ȜഓᗶଈЁᛊȝเဢ*
Politeness in Historical China 59
Chen Zun [of old] gained a great reputation amongst his genera-
tion for [his expertise in] letter writing. However, he formed an
overtly high opinion of himself and he spared his ink as if it was
gold, not willing to send a letter to anyone [if it were not necessary].
[I wonder,] sir, whether you are not on the edge of falling into the
error of his conceit? (Letters from Snow Swan Retreat, Answer to Xu
Jiacun; cited from Kádár, 2009: 165–6)
(20)!Ͽ ෞ ༾ ༾ հ ઢ ၰ Ǻ Ȩ ձ ঁ ذω ٰ ᔈ ᖐ ਔ Ǵ ൩ ा
ڮᚒܰΑǴΠ۔මᔈၸ!!!!ࣽڋǾ!!!!ȩ)ȜᒬШࡡقȝ
ಃΜ*ڔ
Shaoyou said with a cold smile: “When other examinees take part
in such an examination, they shall answer the questions easily
after receiving the task. This humble official has already passed the
exam . . .” (Xingshi hengyan, chapter 11)
60 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
Here the speaker talks with the maid of his fiancée. He is infuriated by the
request to answer certain questions before being allowed to his fiancée’s
room – a playful intellectual test made by the fiancé for the wedding night –
and so he applies a deferential but intentionally cold tone, and uses the
official non-familial self-denigrating form xiaguan Π‘( ۔humble official’)
as part of this style choice. Although some politeness is needed towards the
representative of one’s fiancée, such an honorific form obviously goes
beyond interactional requirements, in particular because it is a non-familial
form used in a familial context.
Although instances of ‘surplus’ politeness and others of sarcasm like (20)
above can be found in the data studied, they are relatively rare; formal
politeness is predominantly used in a ‘proper’, merely deferential, way.
As it was already noted, this interrelation between formularized politeness
and deference is quite typical to historical politeness across cultures (cf.
various studies in Culpeper and Kádár, 2010). In this respect, historical
Chinese politeness seems in accord with politeness in Medieval European
societies, in that deference is expressed through the denigration of the self
and the elevation of the other, although arguably this phenomenon is more
salient in Chinese than in its Western counterparts. A noteworthy example
for the salience of elevation and denigration is the way in which personal
pronouns were evaluated in historical China. That is, pronominal forms
were regarded as terms that do not convey elevation and denigration and
which are consequently open to interpreted as impolite, as illustrated by
the following citations:
(21)!ၘϦࣁ࣬ВǴԖБγۉǴჹΓ҂ᆀӜǴค፠ࣣ
ᆀȨךȩǴਔΓᆀϐȨךȩǶ
In the days when Jia Weigong was minister, there was an official
called Xu, who did not address [himself in his] personal name
when talking with people, did not [observe] rank, but always called
himself wo [first-person pronoun], so the men of that time called
him ‘Xu-wo’ [ironically: ‘Xu who only uses wo’]. (Mengxi bitan ფྛ
ፋ, chapter 18.1, originally quoted in Lü, 1985: 35)
(22)!ـϦঙόࣁᘶǴค፠ࣣȨԟȩϐǶ
[When he] met with dukes and ministers, [he] did not adhere
to politeness, did not [observe] ranks, but [he addressed] every
person with ru [historical second-person pronoun]. (Sui shu ໙ਜ,
chapter 78; originally quoted in Lü, 1985: 35)
Politeness in Historical China 61
These extracts show that pronouns such as wo ( ךI) and ru ԟ (thou) were
open to be evaluated as impolite because they did not express elevating/
denigrating meaning. Thus, the Chinese seem to have had some aversion
towards using personal pronouns and even in familial settings preferred
applying some quasi-familial forms of address. As argued in Kádár (2007b),
this does not mean that personal pronouns were not used at all in historical
Chinese interactions – even some examples, especially informal ones, in
this chapter include some pronominal forms – but they often co-occurred
with elevating/denigrating forms of address.
After this overview of historical Chinese politeness, let us re-explore the
myth of ‘polite historical Chinese’.
Let us recall the fact that late imperial Chinese society was a patriarchal
and hierarchical one. As it will be argued in the present section, in this
hierarchical system, politeness was rather unequally distributed between
‘powerful’ and ‘powerless’ social groups, which seems to confirm stereo-
typical views on historical Chinese politeness behaviour. However, it will
also be demonstrated that the system of linguistic politeness was subject to
challenges.
4.1.1 Rights
By ‘rights’ we mean that forms of address were distributed in an unequal
way. If one explores historical sources such as the Qing Dynasty philologist
Liang Zhangju’s ఉക႐ (1775–1849) Chengwei lu ᆀᒏᒵ (Record of Terms
of Address) it becomes evident that different social groups were prescribed to
use different lexicons of elevating and denigrating terms of address.
Historical Chinese elevating and denigrating forms of address were dis-
tributed between three major social groups: the powerful, the powerless
and women.15 The group of powerful included different subgroups such as
62 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
the emperor, members of the imperial family, officials, clerical people and
eunuchs. These subgroups had elaborate self-denigrating terminologies
and were entitled to be addressed by similarly elaborate terms of address.
For example, Buddhist priests were addressed by forms such as wushi րৣ
(‘my master’) and referred to themselves by using forms like pinseng ೦Ⴖ
(‘this poor monk’). Also, different in-group honorific forms of address
were available for members of powerful groups, as demonstrated by the
following example:
(23)!ЦᖐΓၰǺȨգ೭ՏӃғۉǻȩ
! ڬޕдࢂঁᖐΓǴߡԾᆀၰǺȨఁғڬۉǶȩ
)ȜᏂ݅ѦўȝಃΒӣ*
Wang juren [a second-degree graduate] said: “May I ask your
precious name, sir?” Zhou Jin knew that he is a second-degree
graduate, therefore [he used the proper] address to himself, saying:
“The family name of this later-born person is Zhou.” (Rulin waishi,
chapter 2)
In this interaction Zhou Jin uses the form wansheng ఁғ (lit. ‘later born’)
to refer to himself, which is a form used only between fellow-officials.16
In contrast with this abundant lexicon, members of powerless groups –
peasants (nong ၭ), craftsmen (gong π) and merchants (shang ), that is,
those who according to the Confucian ideology are subordinated to the
powerful – had a relatively limited lexicon: most frequently, they referred to
themselves as xiaoren λΓ (‘worthless person’). In interactions between
powerful and powerless, the powerless party was expected to use honorific
forms towards the powerful one, while the latter was not to respond by
using honorifics.17 Insofar as powerless people interacted in-group, they
either used quasi-familial forms of address, or terms of address appropriate
to a given institutional context; for example, an innkeeper was expected to
address his guest as keguan ࠼( ۔lit. ‘guest official’, that is, my dear guest),
unless the guest was member of a powerful group (in this latter case (s)he
had to be addressed in accordance with her or his rank).
Finally, in traditional China women belonged to families and their ranks
were determined by that of their father’s or husband’s family. Consequently,
females were to be addressed in accordance with their social ranks gained
through birth or marriage. On the other hand, they referred to themselves
in uniform gendered (feminine) ways (cf. Kádár, 2005), by using the forms
nu ѩ (‘maidservant’) and qie ‘( ڿconcubine’), although there were ways
Politeness in Historical China 63
Here the female speaker refers to herself as chenqie Խ( ڿlit. ‘concubine of
the minister’) when interacting with the emperor, hence referring to her
social rank, while still using the common female form qie.
This elaborate system of terms of address was meant to maintain and con-
serve historical Chinese hierarchical social order. According to the Confu-
cian ideology, which “merged political-literary criteria in definitions of
status” (Carlton, 1990: 101), proper language use should promote social
order as it acknowledges and consequently reinforces social ranks (cf. Gu,
1990). Considered from a Goffmanian (1974) perspective, by using this
elaborate system of social indexing, interactants ‘framed’ themselves and
their interlocutors as members of powerless or powerful groups. In a sim-
ilar way, by gendered honorifics females framed themselves as members of
the (ultimately) subordinated class of women.18
It is thus not surprising that the proper use of terms of address was a must
for every language user independent of the given person’s level of educa-
tion. In order to illustrate this, let us cite the following section from the late
imperial vernacular novel Di gong’an (cf. Chapter 1), which was analysed in
Kádár (2008: 149–50):
! إϦǾୢၰǺȨգћϙሶǴβπ൳ԃΑǻȩ
Judge Di asked: “What is thy name, and how long hast thou been
the undertaker?”
64 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
! ٗΓၰǺȨԴᅇۉഏǴћഏε഻Ƕȩ
The man said: “This old man hath the family name Tao, his name is
Tao Daxi.”
! ೭၉ᗋ҂ᇥֹǴٿৡΓസၰǺȨգ೭ԴކᓐǴӳεᖌ
ໆǼϼྭय़ǴඪᆀȬԴᅇȭǴѺգΒԭӉǴ࣮գᇥ
ԴόԴΑǼȩ
But before he could even finish his words, the two constables stand-
ing by his side cried: “Thou, old-dog-head, what an outrageous
impertinence this is! In front of His Honour thou durst address
[thyself] as ‘old man’, let us beat thee two hundred times with the
bamboo, and we will see whether thou wilt yet assert that [thou art]
‘an old man’, or not!”
! βπـৡΓ༙സǴςᓵளय़ӵβՅǴᇴׯαǺȨλΓ
၀ԝǶλΓβπǴԖΟΜԃΑǶϼྭϞВԖՖ֊ڦǻȩ
ȐȜإϦਢȝಃϤӣȑ
The undertaker, turning pale as he saw that the constables were
barking at [him] so angrily, became more humble and said: “This
worthless person should die for his guilt. This worthless person has
been an undertaker for the last thirty years. How can I serve Your
Honour?” (Di gong’an, chapter 6)
In the course of this courtroom interaction the speaker (the old under-
taker) makes a communicational mistake by referring to himself by using
the term of address laohan Դᅇ (‘this old man’), which is deferential
but informal and semantically implies that the speaker is old (and hence
high-ranking). Laohan is not only improper here because it contradicts the
rules of the ongoing institutional discourse, but also because it is an
in-group powerless form of address, that is, it is ‘improperly’ applied here
all the more because this term presupposes that the magistrate also belongs
to the group of the powerless. Thus, the personnel of the court evaluate this
form as impolite and threaten the speaker, who then refers to himself in a
‘proper’ way, by using the formal self-referring form of address xiaoren
(‘worthless person’, see above).
4.1.2 Possibility
‘Possibility’ refers to the fact that many of the forms and strategies of polite-
ness were available only to members of the learned elite. As was already
mentioned above, the application of certain deferential forms and strategies
such as idiomatic forms and literary analogies necessitated strong command
Politeness in Historical China 65
(26)!Ꮉၲٰ࣮࣮ډξߐΠǴߐঁٿηᇻᇻӦఈـǴ৾Ԯ⣽
ٰډξߐΠǴᝏՐᎹඵుǴߡസၰǺȨգࢂՕৎηǴ
ӵՖளឳᎈΑξٰǻգόይǴΨـֽ㚊ຠޑ᐀
ҢǺȬՠΥۘکઇיൌଚǴ،ѺѤΜԮ⣽ǴᇴрӽѐǶ
ӵߐηᕵᎈޑႶΓΕӽǴΨൌΜΠǶȭգזΠξѐǴ
ថգ൳ΠԮ⣽Ƕȩ
! ! Ꮉඵుۘک߃ޣǴΒٰᙑ܄҂ׯǴ࿒ଆᚈጜ
ၰǺȨޔাၖǼգঁٿाѺᲅৎǴॻߡکգትѺǶȩߐ
ηـ༈ᓐόӳǴঁ०Ψ՟ΕٰൔᅱӽǴঁܦԮ⣽
66 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
ᝏдǶඵుҔЋ႖ၸǴ໒ϖࡰǴѐٗߐηᖍѝඓǴ
Ѻள⥊⥊⾱⾱!Ǿ!)ȜН⠪ȝಃѤӣ*
Lu Da arrived swiftly at the gate of the Temple. The doormen who
were watching him from the distance picked up their bamboo poles,
stood before the gate and stopped him shouting: “Thou art a
Buddhist disciple, how durst thou ascend the mountain of our
temple dead drunk? Thou art not blind, how canst thou not read
what is written on our warehouse: ‘Any monk who breaks the regu-
lation of abstinence shall be beaten forty times with the bamboo
and shall be driven out. If a doorkeeper allows a drunken monk
enter the Temple, he shall be beaten ten times.’ Go downhill at
once! We will be merciful and give you a few strokes only.”
Now, Lu Zhishen was first a freshly ordinate monk, and his old
aggressive character did not change yet.20 He thus stared wildly at
the men and scolded them: “Sons of bitches!21 Wanna beat ’em?22
Now I’ll smash ye!” The doorkeepers saw that trouble was coming,
so one ran towards the temple to report the matter to the superin-
tendent as quickly as if he were flying, while the other grabbed his
pole and tried to stop the monk. Zhishen lifted his hand to clear
him out of the way, giving such a strong push on his face with his five
fingers that the doorman fell back . . .
As this extract illustrates, the inhabitants of old China were not always as
polite and harmless as John Barrow represented them. The crazy monk
Lu Zhishen Ꮉඵు, hero of the Ming Dynasty novel Shuihu-zhuan Н⠪
(Water Margin Story), could provide a sound example of rudeness in any
culture.23
The existence of rude language in Chinese might not be too surprising,
considering that the existence of rudeness is the intercultural standard and
a language completely exempt of rudeness, in particular swearwords, would
be somewhat ‘exotic’.24 A more noteworthy fact is that in many historical
Chinese interactions one can find a certain lack of deferential forms,
defying the meticulous Chinese deferential system.
A simple case of this lack of deference is impolite interactions when
speakers refuse to properly use honorifics in order to offend somebody,
as illustrated by the following extract:
(27)!ٗԴஇཇуࡗۻǴߡၰǺȨϙሶȬλۆǴλۆȭǼࢂλ
ۆǴόךډৎٰΑǶঁࢂךԭۉΓৎǴό᐀ளλࢂۆϙ
Χࠔભ!Ǿ!ȩ)ȜᒬШࡡقȝಃ*ڔ
Politeness in Historical China 67
That old woman became even more furious, saying: “What kind of
‘Young Lady, Young Lady’! A Young Lady would not come to my
home. I am a commoner, I dunno nothing of such a thing . . .”
(Xingshi hengyan, chapter 1)
In this interaction the old woman who is the antagonist of the story
questions the protagonist’s right to be referred to as xiaojie λ( ۆlit. ‘small
elder sister’, a form used in historical China towards, or in reference to,
women of high rank), hence humiliating her.
A considerably more complex issue is that in some hierarchical settings,
typically family discourse, which in theory necessitate deference, honorifics
and deferential strategies are simply ignored. Although Confucian sources
emphasize the necessity of respect towards older family members, many
authentic sources such as family letter collections like Zeng Wenzheng-
gong jiashu මЎ҅Ϧৎਜ (The Family Letters of Zeng Wenzheng-gong)
written by the famous statesman Zeng Guofan ම୯᛫ (1811–1872), con-
tain relatively few honorifics and deferential strategies, as illustrated by
the following extract:
(28)!Рᒃ௲تᎦᠣϐݤǴت੮যᠣǴόૈҔНǶ
ՅޣӭǴޣϿǶΠযᔕࡑΟΜϤྃۈ੮Ƕ
تௗৎߞǴ༮ځό၁Ǵ༓ࡕ׳ᜫ၁ҢǶتᙣǶ
Previously my father taught this son how to [properly] cultivate his
beard, and this son of yours has only kept his moustache and may
not soak it with water. Many of [the whiskers in my moustache]
are blond and only a few are black. I plan to wait until I reach my
thirtieth year and then I will start to grow a beard. Whenever this
son of yours receives letters from his family, he is angry at himself
for not being clear [in his own letters], and hereafter he will be
even more determined to write clearly. Your son respectfully sends
[this letter]. (Cited from Kádár, 2010b: 63–5)
letters]”). Apart from these elements the letter is written in a fairly ‘plain’
style, for example, the author refers to himself and his actions by using
non-denigrating forms like nan ‘( تthis son of yours’) and jie ௗ (‘receive’),
and refers to his parents by using non-elevating forms such as jiaxin ৎߞ
(‘family letter’). As explorations of the Zeng Guofan corpus reveal, this
plain style was not at all interpreted as impolite by Zeng’s parents.
The same lack of deference can be observed in dialogic accounts on
family discourse:
! ၘ⪮ઢၰǺȨךόޕၰǴգԖҁ٣գᇥѐǶȩ
)ȜआኴფȝಃΒΜΟӣ*
Jia Lian said with a laugh: “I don’t know, speakest thou about this
matter.” (Honglou-meng, chapter 23)
This interaction occurs between husband and wife. Traditionally, the matrimo-
nial relationship is seen as a hierarchical one, the wife being somewhat subor-
dinated to the husband. The interactants of extract (27) are high-class persons
belonging to a rather conservative family and it could be rightly assumed that
they have good command of politeness norms. However, neither the wife
nor the husband uses any honorific form or deferential strategy, and still
obviously the wife’s ‘plain’ tone is not interpreted as impolite by the husband
(in fact, we have no evidence that ‘plain’ is not ‘politic’ in this context’).
The same phenomenon can be even more frequently observed in
the discourse of low-ranking/less-educated people, even among non-kin.
The following interaction is a particularly thought-provoking case: the
second interactant, owner of a small inn and hence member of a ‘power-
less’ group – after realizing that the first interactant is a rather simple
person in spite of being a clerical person, and also he is in an intoxicated
state – switches to a tone used between rural people:
(30)!ಷৎ࣮ـᎹඵు೭ኳኬǴᖂॣӚձǴߡၰǺȨգाѺ
ӭϿଚǻȩ
The peasant, seeing that Lu Zhishen was in an [intoxicated] state like
this and his voice is unordinary, said: “Thou wantest how much?”
Politeness in Historical China 69
! ඵుၰǺȨҶୢӭϿǴε࿙ѝ៝ᑔٰǶȩ
)ȜН⠪ȝಃΟӣ*
Zhishen said: “Asketh thou not, just bringeth thou a large cup of
warm sake.” (Shuihu-zhuan, chapter 3)
Owners of inns were usually expected to use deferential forms towards their
guests, in particular if the given guest belongs to a high social group
(cf. Kádár, 2005). Lu Zhishen would be entitled to be addressed with defer-
ential forms and strategies as he is a clerical person and also since the inn is
in the neighbourhood of a large temple complex. However, in spite of his
direct tone the owner does not seem to be impolite: as it is his interest to
sell his goods it is improbable that he would like to offend Lu, and Lu
Zhishen’s reaction also demonstrates that he does not object to this plain
amiable tone.
The most plausible explanation for the phenomenon of lack of deference
is that historical Chinese politeness came into function only if rank had to
be acknowledged. In (25)–(27) the relationship between the interactants
is rather informal. This might be due to the given speech community’s
customs, as in (25) and (26), or emergent contextual factors as in (27).
Interestingly, the same interactants or interactants in the same roles switch
to deferential tone in other settings where the lack of acknowledgement
of the other’s rank would threaten the other’s face; for example, in some
other letters addressed to the wider family rather than to his parents
and brothers, Zeng Guofan uses more honorific forms and strategies in
reference to his parents; in non-private interactions Aunt Feng uses honor-
ifics towards Jia Lian; and in crowded inns other innkeepers address Lu
Zhishen deferentially. This demonstrates that historical Chinese politeness
was quite different from modern perceptions of politeness. Referring to
Bax’s (2010) argument, it seems that politeness in historical China, in
a similar way with politeness across many historical cultures, was less
rationalized, its primarily goal being ritual (self-)display. Insofar as no
such display was required, politeness did not usually come into play, or if
so it was marked.
5 Conclusion
Notes
1
We do not intend to claim that the subordination of the individual to group
ended with historical times. While this topic is beyond the scope of this volume,
it could be argued that in many respects in China individuality has a different
interpretation than in, for example, Europe. An excellent and detailed analysis
of this issue can be found in Tsai (2010).
2
While the exploration of this issue is beyond the scope of the present work, it is
interesting to note that historical Chinese politeness – roughly spanning the
period from the Han Dynasty to late imperial times – cannot be effectively peri-
odized because it is rather uniform in style. For example, many of the deferential
forms used in Han Dynasty texts were still in use in late imperial times. See more
on this issue in Kádár (2007b).
3
Interestingly, in Chinese there is no generally accepted terminology for elevating
and denigrating phenomena, unlike, for example, in Japanese. The above-cited
terms are the most frequently used ones; however, denigration and elevation are
also referred to as qingzi ᇸԾ (lit. ‘making oneself light’) and zhongta ख़д (lit.
‘making the other heavy’); see more on terminological issues in Kádár (2007b).
4
It would be an oversimplification to equate the Chinese denigration/elevation
phenomenon with the Japanese sonkeigo and kenjoˉgo because the Japanese system
is considerably more complex from a stylistic perspective than its Chinese
counterpart; see more on Japanese honorific language, for example, in Kikuchi
(1997) and Minami (1999 [1987]).
5
One fundamental difference is that humility (or humilitas in Latin) is a Christian
value with religious implications, while the Chinese notion of denigration/
elevation was not particularly religious (see more on the ideologization of this
phenomenon in Chapter 5).
6
Specialized dictionaries such as Ji, C. (2000) and Hong (2002) list several
thousand historical terms of address. However, these sources rightly note that this
huge lexicon was not in use in a single period and also some of the forms were
used in writing only while others are colloquial forms.
7
Also, the Abbot addresses the interlocutor in an elevating manner by using the
official title yuanwai Ѧ (‘squire’). On the application of official titles as elevat-
ing forms of address see more in Kádár (2007b).
8
On historical familial terms of address and politeness in Chinese family more
information can be found in Lin (1998) and Liu (2000).
9
For example, elevating/denigrating terms of address such as daren εΓ
(i.e. ‘Your Excellency’), verb forms such as chui’ai ࠟང (lit. ‘condescend love’,
that is, ‘to provide tender care’) and formulaic/idiomatic expressions such as
wucai-xuming ᇤߍӜ (lit. ‘pick false reputation by mistake’).
10
The honorific form of address used in this extract is furen ϻΓ (‘lady’), and
the verb form is jiadao Ꭿ( ډlit. ‘the arrival of a respected person’). On the
Politeness in Historical China 71
22
Zhishen uses the dialectal first-person pronominal form sajia ᲅৎ (cf. Kōsaka,
1992), which is supposedly used in the present context in order to accelerate the
rudeness of the utterance (cf. Kádár, 2007b).
23
In fact, historical Chinese had a surprisingly extensive rude lexicon, an issue that
has been studied in detail elsewhere (Kádár, 2007b).
24
It should be noted that we have encountered claims that some societies lack
swearing; for example, the Finnish scholar Mirva Nurmi in the website <http://
www.uta.fi/FAST/> claims that “swearing is still not universal. Several speech-
communities such as the American Indians, the Japanese and many others do
not swear.” While this statement is at least partly problematic as the Japanese
do swear, it would be interesting to observe this situation in other societies.
Unfortunately, we were unable to find any scholarly work on swearing in
American Indian communities, though documentary works such as Lame Deer,
Seeker of Visions (by Richard Erdoes, published in 1972 by Simon & Schuster,
New York) seem to confirm this view.
Chapter 4
1 Introduction
that the gulf between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Chinese politeness is actually
the form of linguistic politeness: the disappearance of honorific and defer-
ential forms and the emergence of new expressions of politeness. This
chapter aims to describe the various new forms of linguistic politeness in
contemporary China. Furthermore, the present chapter argues that despite
differences between the historical and contemporary politeness systems,
the cultural norms governing politeness practice in contemporary China
remain relatively similar to those in historical China; however, the ideological
shift forced changes in the linguistic expressions of politeness. This point of
view will be further elucidated upon in the subsequent chapters of the
present book.
z Chinese ‘face’ research: ‘Face’ research has a long history within Chinese
studies. A pivotal contribution to this area was written by LuMing Mao
(1994), which reviewed the validity of Brown and Levinson’s definition
of ‘face’ from a Chinese perspective. It was followed by several prominent
contributions such as Zhai (1994, 2006), Lee-Wong (2000), Ji, S. (2000),
Haugh and Hinze (2003) and Hinze (2007).2 The contributions by
Michael Haugh and Carl Hinze are particularly noteworthy because they
problematized the applicability of the term ‘face’ itself in the Chinese
(and Japanese) context(s). It should be noted that along with these
predominantly sociopragmatic studies a multidisciplinary research-trend
on Chinese ‘face’ has also been developed; a cornerstone in this area is
Bond’s monograph (1991).
z Research on Chinese polite speech acts and other forms of intracultural politeness
behaviour: Along with studies specializing in ‘face’, a large number of
other studies examined forms of verbal Chinese politeness. Some of the
most important contributions include Zhan (1992), Zhang, Y. (1995),
Pan (1995), Hong (1996), Li and Li (1996), Chen (1996) and Liang (1998).
The perhaps most extensive inquiry into contemporary intracultural
Politeness in Contemporary China 75
The existing literature on Chinese politeness does not make a clear distinction
between historical and contemporary Chinese. Furthermore, some studies use
contemporary Chinese data while referring to traditional Confucian and other
ideologies, and also they make use of mixed contemporary–historical lexical
items, to draw conclusions on contemporary Chinese politeness by means
of traditional notions and style. This trend was recently challenged by
two previously mentioned studies (Pan and Kádár, 2011 [in press]; Kádár
and Pan, 2011 [in press]): as we argued in these works, in order to avoid
prescriptive accounts on Chinese politeness a contrastive historical versus
contemporary approach is needed. This is because traditional notions and
language use have little practical impact on contemporary Chinese society
per se, even though some social subgroups might be devoted to the revival
of traditional values. Therefore, accounts of Chinese politeness based on
traditional morality and language unavoidably represent Chinese politeness
in an idealized way.
In this exchange between the bride and her parents-in-law, one cannot
observe any honorific form of address, or other lexical items that indicate
self-denigration/other-elevation. Although the first utterance seems to be
more deferential than the second one – since it employs a more formal
register of the address term baba ‘( ݿݿFather’) and a polite marker
qing ፎ (‘please’) in the sentence “Father, please drink tea!” – neither of
these terms is honorific. Baba is a contemporary colloquial familial form of
address, which unlike historical in-group forms do not elevate the recipient.
Qing had some elevating meaning in historical texts but it does not imply,
even symbolically, any rank difference in modern interactions.
The second utterance is even less forthcoming in terms of deference:
“Mother [informal], drink tea!” sounds slightly rude. First, this utterance is
Politeness in Contemporary China 77
level, including terms of address and other lexical items. We also explore
additional linguistic tools that are used in polite discourse.
1. Tongzhi as a lexical item existed before the CCP, but was not used at
a societal level as a common term of address until the 1950s, when
it gradually became the official term of address in formal and official
occasions as well as a common term of address in social settings. Its usage
was spread by the CCP for two main purposes: (a) to replace the titles
for owners and employers such as laoban Դ݈ (‘proprietor’), and all
then-still extant honorific titles such as xiansheng Ӄғ (‘mister’), taitai
ϼϼ (‘madam’), xiaojie λ‘( ۆmiss’), and (b) to promote ‘equality’
between all members of the masses by giving equal footing to everyone.
2. During the period of 1949–1965, the Chinese masses used tongzhi as a
replacement for honorific titles. The usage of tongzhi became unmarked
Politeness in Contemporary China 79
during this time period. Titles for property owners were no long in use,
but titles for professions such as laoshi Դৣ (‘teacher’), juzhang ֽߏ
(‘bureau head’) were still in use.
3. During the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), tongzhi became more
widely used and gained a strong connotation of revolutionary solidarity
and intimacy. All professional titles were usually replaced by tongzhi,6
which hence became a default form of address. At the same time, since
manual forms of work were appraised by the Communist (Maoist) ideo-
logy, the working class title shifu ৣഡ (‘master’) became a popular title.
4. After the Cultural Revolution, from 1976 to mid-1980s, the use of tongzhi
was shifted to certain domains and it became a marker of some formality
and distance that is a distant but polite term of address. It lost its con-
notation of intimacy and revolutionary solidarity. Titles for professions
were revived during this time.
The chair of the committee used the form xiao-Li-tongzhi λӕ‘( דLittle
[i.e. Petite] Li tongzhi’) to make the announcement. Tongzhi in this case indic-
ates a sense of formality. This format of adding prefixes such as lao Դ (‘old’)
or xiao λ (‘little’) before a surname is common to indicate age difference
between the speaker and the addressee. It is pertinent to note here that in
Chinese culture seniority is respected: older age means higher rank in the
hierarchical structure in a dyadic interaction. Therefore, the prefix lao fulfils
a deferential function in these compound forms of address, showing respect
to the addressee, while the above-used xiao is a term of endearment that
shows benevolence from someone in a position higher than the addressee.
Due to linguistic changes, although tongzhi remains in use as a respectful
term of public address among middle-aged Chinese and members of the
Politeness in Contemporary China 81
1. Pre-1949 revolution: these terms were associated with upper social class,
wealth and high status.
2. Post-1949 revolution: demise of these forms as terms of address with the
exception of using xiangsheng as a term for distinguished scholars or
academics at universities. With the abolishment of class distinctions (at
least in theory), these two terms, together with other ‘elitist’ address
forms, were dropped from colloquial.
3. The Open Door Policy with its emphasis on free market economy saw a
revival of these forms, albeit with semantic shifts (Lee-Wong, 2000:
156–7).
Lee-Wong concluded that xiansheng and xiaojie were the rough equivalents
of English ‘Mr’ and ‘Miss’ respectively at the time of her research in the
mid-1990s.
Based on our research, these two terms have gone through more changes
since the Open Door Policy or the Reform Era. While they are often used
in service encounter interactions, they became more general terms of
address and lost their traditional honorific functions. The term xiaojie
has gone through even more semantic shifts and has acquired the negative
connotation of ‘prostitute’. The ambiguity in the use of these traditional
forms of address often results in conflict if not embarrassment between
interactants. For example, when living in China in the early 2000s, Kádár
overheard the following interaction in an eatery at a train station:
Politeness in Contemporary China 83
sister-in-law’) can be used to address women of higher age and rank. These
kinship terms can be used in interactions even between strangers to signal
deference or as a strategy to claim closeness. In one of our previous studies
(Pan, 1995, 2000c), we found that the kinship term a’sao ߓ༳ (‘big
sister-in-law’8) was used strategically by salespersons in privately owned
stores in South China to claim familiarity with the customer as a way to show
politeness and to persuade the customer. The following excerpt exemplifi-
ers this strategic usage. The interaction took place in a privately owned
clothing shop. Two female customers were shopping for sweaters and were
hesitating over whether to make a purchase. The interaction took place in
both Mandarin and Cantonese:
In Line 1, the saleswoman first uses the kinship term of address a’sao ߓ༳!
(‘sister-in-law’) to address the customer. Then she uses it again in Line 3, in
Politeness in Contemporary China 85
order to ‘give face’ to the customer in the moment when the customers
showed hesitation. In Line 3, she deliberately used the metapragmatic
discourse on face (zenhai tai hai a’sao fen seung ߯⍪ӧߓ༳ҽ,
‘Really, I’m doing this just as a favour for this sister’) to make a claim of
the importance of Customer 2. By addressing the customer as a’sao, she
strategically claims a close relationship with the customer and implicitly
turns an ‘outside relation’ into an ‘inside relation’.9 In this way, a’sao
becomes markedly polite, and it aids the saleswoman to successfully
persuade the customers to buy the sweaters. Indeed, the customers find it
hard to turn down the offer of a discount, due to the face-giving strategy
that the sales woman used.
The change in the system of Chinese terms of address during the 60-year
period from 1949 to 2009 is a telling example of the impact societal changes
have had on the contemporary Chinese politeness system. This change
has constantly posed a challenge even for native speakers of Chinese.
In Chapter 3, we suggested that the proper use of terms of address was
particularly important in historical China. In contemporary China there
are much fewer terms of address in comparison with historical times, and
their application is governed by complex unwritten rules (lit. in historical
China these rules were determined by manuals such as the Chengwei lu,
cf. Chapter 3). Most importantly, many Chinese try to avoid using formal
terms of address when interacting with strangers in contexts that necessitate
some deference. For instance, when asking one’s way, (a) is preferred to (b):
(6)
(a) ፎୢǴᒤϦ࠻ӧΒኴ༏ǻ
Please let me ask, is the office on the second floor?
(b) ӃғǴፎୢǴᒤϦ࠻ӧΒኴ༏ǻ
Sir/Mister, please let me ask, is the office on the second floor?
The use of address terms, however, is just one aspect of polite communication
in a language. Changes in Chinese linguistic politeness can also be observed
in other aspects as described in the following sections.
heterogeneous in the sense that forces bearing upon the language come
from diverse directions and they are violent because the Communist
revolution is the greatest and most violent revolution in the history of
China. (Chi, 1956: 11)
Based on Chi’s studies (1956, 1957), it can be argued that there were three
forces influencing linguistic changes in post-1949 China:
1. The natural pressure for new terms and expressions brought forth by
new political and social needs: a desire for progression to transform ‘old
China’ into a ‘new China’.
2. Functional changes in meaning and construction: language was used as
weapon to carry out the ‘psychological warfare’ the CCP was waging in
the interests of their doctrine.
3. The large number of a new kind of speakers: a big section of the
population, whose voices had been unheard except in their own
small farms or shops, suddenly became articulate (even though this
does not mean that they gained any freedom or right to individual
discourse in a modern democratic sense). The mobilization of the voice
of the masses due to the inversion of social order introduced many
linguistic changes.
This group of terms focuses on the division of the old ruling class and the
new ‘liberated’ people. Second, many militant terminologies were applied
to everyday civilian activities, such as da-youji Ѻෞᔐ (‘fight guerrilla
warfare’), zhandou-qifen ᏯЏ‘( ݗwar atmosphere’). Finally, there was
heavy use of extravagant terms both in praise and blame, such as zui-weida-de
നε‘( ޑgreatest’), zui-guangrong-de നӀᄪ‘( ޑthe most glorious’)
used in reference to the CCP and zui-yeman-de നഁ‘( ޑmost savage’)
used in reference to ‘class enemy’. This group of words has an effect of
extreme dichotomy.
The Cultural Revolution politicalized and polarized Chinese language
use even more. Mao Zedong’s quotations in his ‘Little Red Book’ (Hong-
bao-shu आᝊਜ)10 were cited and imitated by Communist Party members as
well as common people nationwide. Mao’s revolutionary terminology was
incorporated by his dutiful cadres into the people’s vocabulary (Chuang,
1968). Revolutionary terminology and expressions became the standard
and common usage in people’s daily life.
As a result of these linguistic changes, lexical items that indicated social
classes such as laoye/shaoye Դྭ/Ͽྭ (‘master’, ‘young master’) were
dropped or became labels for old social class. Words that indicated private
ownership or wealth (e.g. dizhu ӦЬ, ‘landlord’, and funong ၭ, ‘wealthy
peasant’) became terms of abuse and labels of the ‘anti-revolutionary’ class in
the Cultural Revolution.
Consequently, traditional politeness formulae and lexicons were seen
as a reflection or reminder of ‘old China’. Self-denigration and other-
elevation vocatives and conventional polite expressions, such as qing ፎ
(‘please’), xiexie ᖴᖴ (‘thank you’), duibuqi ჹόଆ (‘sorry’), disappeared
from daily usage and were reserved for use in very formal communication
or in written genres only. For daily interactions, it was regarded as old-
fashioned or even ‘petite bourgeois’ to use conventional polite expressions.
Instead, common speech, that is, the plain speech without explicit and
formal politeness formulae of workers, peasants and soldiers (gong-nong-
bing πၭծ), or the ‘uneducated masses’, was held as the standard. Let us
use one example from our personal history interview data to show this
trend. The person being interviewed grew up in Beijing, the capital, and he
was a university professor in one of the best universities in Beijing during
the Cultural Revolution. The following is a recap of his story.
During the Cultural Revolution, all university administrations in Beijing
were replaced by the so-called gongren xuanchuandui πΓ࠹໗, that is,
‘workers propaganda team’.11 One day, the leader of the workers propaganda
88 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
team held a meeting with the university faculty. The first statement he
made was:
(7) գॺࢂޕϩηǴঁࢂךεԴಉǶךᖱ၉൩ࢂಉǶ
You guys are intellectuals, and I’m just a big old crude guy. I speak in
a crude manner.
1. Those that were used before the revolution and continued to be used
after it. This group of polite formulae included those that were used in
informal social interactions and involved personal communication.
Examples can be found in:
2. Those that were created and used only after the revolution. The second
set of polite formulae consisted of those that were commonly used in
formal social situations such as public speeches, official documents and
formal letters. This set of politeness formulae used the old politeness
formulaic patterns, but inserted revolutionary vocabulary. For instance,
a traditional politeness formulae for an apology would be like one of the
following two:
These traditional formulae were placed with new lexicons such as the
following indicated:
Ji and colleagues’ study is pertinent to our concern in this book for several
reasons. First of all, the first group of politeness formulae was originally for
informal social interactions, but they were elevated to be the norm of
formal polite practice in the post-revolutionary period largely due to the
abandonment of traditional politeness expressions. Moreover, the tradi-
tional formulae of politeness with a new lexicon were used mainly in writings
and in documents. This indicated that in daily interaction, there was no set
of established politeness formulae. In addition, we can argue that, to fill
this void, politeness formulae for informal social interactions became the
common and prevalent forms of politeness. This is evidenced in our data-
base. We will use one interaction between an employee and her supervisor
that took place in a post office in 1992 to illustrate this point. The employee
was sitting at a counter, selling stamps. Her supervisor walked into the post
office. The interaction was in Cantonese.
90 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
3.3.1 Particles
Particles (e.g. ya ֔, a ୟ, aya ࠋ֔) play a special role in politeness
practice in contemporary Chinese. Lee-Wong’s (2000) empirical study
Politeness in Contemporary China 91
shows that some sentence final particles in Mandarin can be used as polite-
ness hedges to reduce the illocutionary force of direct requests. A recent
study (Pan, 2011a [in press]) on Cantonese politeness shows that conven-
tional polite lexical items are being replaced by other forms of expressions
(in particular, particles) for politeness in interaction.
To prove this point, Pan conducted detailed analyses of 20 survey
interviews with Chinese speakers: 10 in Mandarin and 10 in Cantonese.
Pan carefully examined the polite features exhibited in the interviewers’
utterances and the interviewees’ utterances. It was found that, overall, there
were hardly any conventional or traditional polite lexical items used except
for two words qing ፎ (‘please’) and xiexie ᖴᖴ (‘thank you’), and they
were used only by the interviewers at the beginning and the end of an
interview, as in the following excerpt:
It should also be noted that the two polite expressions qing ፎ ‘please’ and
xiexie ᖴᖴ ‘thank you’ were scripted in the interview protocol and the
interviewers were trained to follow this protocol. In this sense, the inter-
viewers’ use of these polite expressions is a prescribed use of politeness.
On the contrary, the interviewees did not use any conventional polite
lexicons. Instead, they used a variety of particles to indicate their compli-
ance or to show politeness. In interviews in Cantonese, the interviewees
strategically used the particle gam ⧍ before providing personal opinions
to interview questions to help prefacing personal opinions or mitigating
negative responses as in the following example:
In this utterance, the interviewee used the particle gam ⧍ to preface his
negative response (‘I don’t think I would go’) to the interviewer’s question.
As different studies show (e.g. Li, 2003, and Pan, 2008), explicit expressions
92 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
3.3.2 Turn-taking
The order of speaking and turn-taking is of interest in our investigation of
politeness practices because turn-taking can be employed as an interactional
strategy to show politeness and to acknowledge power hierarchy in differ-
ent social settings. In the Chinese context, interactants who are acquainted
with each other, such as in the workplace, among friends and in a family
situation, need to observe the unspoken rule of who speaks first in a given
situation. For example, in a dyadic interaction such as student–teacher
interaction, the one in a lower position initiated the greeting, but not the
topic of conversation. When a student and a teacher met on a campus,
the student normally greeted the teacher first. The teacher returned the
greeting. But the teacher was the person who introduced a new topic in
the conversation (Scollon and Scollon, 1991).
Careful examination of Chinese official meetings recorded in the 1990s
shows that turn-taking is a subtle way to signal power hierarchy. Participants
of these events took up speaking turns based on their official rank, and the
amount of speaking time contributed to the topic under discussion was
in accordance with their position in the power hierarchy. The higher the
position a speaker occupied in the ranking system, the more speaking
turns and speaking time he or she had. The amount of speaking time and
the number of speaking turns for each participant can be charted in a
descending order that parallels the ranking order of the participants at
a meeting (see Pan, 1995 and 2000c for more detail).
Let us consider one meeting discussion to illustrate this point. The
following extract is from a city government committee meeting discussing
Politeness in Contemporary China 93
how to decorate the conference room. There are four participants in this
discussion. It is interesting to observe how their speaking turns correlate
with their position in the official rank system.
1. Liu: ᐉᚐǴᐉᚐӳؒǻ
Banner, is the banner ready yet?
2. Fan: ᜐঁᆙᐉᚐǻ
Who is doing the banner?
3. Wu: ךᆙঁᐉᚐǶךςӳ䠙ǶךћᥝቪΜԯǶ
I’m doing the banner. I already did it. I asked him to write
a ten-metre [banner].
4. Fan: ΜԯёૈϼߏளӧǶ
Probably ten metres is too long.
5. Wu: দۓǴᢥ䘇Ǵ㽪ǴদۓǶฅদኬǴ
! ! Ӣࣁګ䛧Ԗᩙӭӷ!!!!Ǿ!!!ख़ԖࠐǴӵ݀գѺᐉࡸ!!!Ǿ
Not likely, what, so, not likely. Of course it’s not the same,
because it has many words. . . . Moreover if you put it up
horizontally . . .
6. Fan: գǴΜԯǴୢᚒ߯䛧ঁ࠻㮅দ㮅εࡸᥝǶ
You, ten metres . . . The problem is whether the conference
room is big enough to hang it.
7. Liu: ѺᐉࡸǶךӦǴԶৎǴ࣪ٚᜐ၉ךӦԾρѺᐉࡸ
! ! Ǿ!ୢᚒ߯գाঁαဦǴգԖᢲ⍪Π䛧Տǻ
Put it horizontally. We, now, the provincial [government]
said we’d put it up horizontally ourselves . . . The problem
is you’ll make the slogan, but did you take a look at the
location?
94 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
8. Lee: ⍪䠙ǴԖΜԯǶ
Yes, there is ten metres.
9. Wu: Μԯ䘄䘄ӳǶ
Ten metres is just right.
In this extract, Liu, the committee secretary who had the highest rank
among the speakers, brings up a new topic in Line 1 about getting the
banner ready for decoration. Fan, the deputy secretary, immediately asks a
follow-up question in Line 2 and Wu responds in Line 3. Each of them
speaks in the order of their ranking position. Then there was some
disagreement between Fan and Wu regarding how to hang up the banner,
and they did not reach an agreement. Liu intervenes in Line 7: he first
states his agreement with Wu, that is to put up the banner horizontally.
Then he quotes a higher authority – the provincial government, in Line 7 –
to support his decision. By quoting the higher authority, the current speaker,
Liu, shifts his footing (Goffman’s term, 1981) from a principal to an animator,
thus framing his decision-making power as not coming from himself, but
from the higher authority. He is just exercising the power allocated to him
by the rank hierarchy. As soon as Liu makes the decision, Fan does not raise
any more issues. Lee and Wu concur with Liu’s decision.
This example shows that turn-taking is one of the tacit ways to show defer-
ence to a person in a higher position. Speaking out of turn in the hierarchy
would violate the norms of politeness. During one of Pan’s field trips to
China in the late 1990s, she gave a lecture at a university in Guangzhou. An
official dinner was arranged with the university staff after the lecture. The
same speaking pattern described above was observed for the dinner-table
conversation among participants. The participants took turns to speak
in accordance with their rank, especially at the beginning of the dinner.
However, during the conversation, one junior staff member asked Pan a
question about doing research and then made a relative lengthy comment
on how difficult it was to write a research paper. The department dean later
apologized to Pan, saying that the junior staff member did not know how to
be polite (bu dong limao όᔉᘶᇮ, that is, ‘don’t know polite rituals’),
because during this occasion it was not his turn to speak (lun bu dao ta
shuohua ፺όډдᇥ၉, that is, ‘it’s not his turn to speak’). The junior
staff member clearly spoke so much that it violated the norm of politeness
practice on this occasion. This shows how important it is to observe the
normative speaking pattern in the interaction in order to show deference
and politeness.
Politeness in Contemporary China 95
(12) ჹǴࢂךவݓᅇٰޑǶգΠԛӣ୯ǴݓٰۓᅇވǶ
Yes, I am from Wuhan. When you return to China next time,
definitely visit Wuhan.
One can notice a few interesting points here. First, the professor did not
use any honorific terms or deferential expressions. Instead, she used a
phatic expression (an invitation) to show her friendliness and politeness.
This ritualized invitation serves the function of an English polite expression
‘Very nice to meet you’ in this context.
Amazingly, the same strategy can be used in a formal context. The second
example below is a formal meeting between high-ranking US and Chinese
government officials taking place in the fall of 2009. Pan was called into
an assignment of interpreting a senior level meeting between a deputy
secretary of a US government department and a Chinese delegation led
by a vice minister of a Chinese government ministry. After the two parties
96 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
exchanged gifts at the meeting, the Chinese vice minister said to the US
deputy secretary:
(13) ׆ఈգૈѐύ୯ୖᢀǶѐύ୯ޑਔংǴۓाѐܼԀ࣮
࣮ǶܼԀࢂύ୯ޑӜയђᙬǶԖѡύ୯ђ၉ᇥǴԖϺ
ǴΠԖܼǶёܼـԀԖӭሶऍǶ
Hope you will be able to visit China. When you visit China, you must
visit Hangzhou. Hangzhou is China’s historical sight. There is an
old saying: above there is Heaven, below are Suzhou [another city
famed for its beauty, translators’ note] and Hangzhou. It shows how
beautiful Hangzhou is!
Notice the parallel between the two examples in terms of syntactic structure,
semantic meaning and pragmatic function. The two ritualized invitations
are delivered by using the structure yiding-lai . . . wan/kankan !ٰۓǾ!
ވ0࣮࣮ (lit. ‘definitely come to [name of a place] to play/visit’). The
adverb yiding ‘( ۓdefinitely’) gives a tone of emphasis to the statement.
The semantic meaning of the statement is to invite someone for a visit.
These two invitations may seem quite irrelevant and totally off topic at the
moment of the conversation, but they function to express the speaker’s
goodwill and courtesy. In fact, they are conventionalized small talk and have
acquired the function of phatic expressions.
These two examples demonstrate how small talk became conventionalized
polite expressions. To some extent, the ritualized or routine use of small talk was
taken as the norm for politeness practices in social interaction and in business.
Not observing this practice would be deemed to be a violation of politeness
rules in contemporary China, as is shown in Pan and her colleagues (2002), in
which the authors showed three Hong Kong business telephone conversa-
tions to a group of professionals in Peking for review and comments.
In one of the telephone conversations, a Hong Kong information tech-
nology professional was calling his client. Once he identified the caller and
himself, he went straight to introduce the purpose of his calling without any
small talk as in Example 14.
(14) [An IBM representative calling his client. Italics indicates code-
switching from Cantonese to English.]
1. ԐఃǶদ၀ǴCarrieسদࡋسǻ
Good morning. May I speak to Carrie?
2. գӳǴCarrieǶ
Hello, Carrie.
Politeness in Contemporary China 97
4. ךѺႝ၉ঈգǴӕգconfirm㜰ǶգถВௗႝတǴ
! ԶৎrunᆙWorld One ImageǴسদسǻ
I’m calling to confirm with you. You connected your computer
yesterday, and are now running World One Image, right?
3.4.1 Refusals
We illustrated in Chapter 3 that in historical Chinese politeness practice,
refusals were made by expressions that have other-elevating and self-
denigrating meanings and in conjunction with the use of honorific forms
of address and honorific verb forms. This feature is hardly evident in
contemporary Chinese refusals. The most salient feature of refusals in
contemporary Chinese communication is observed in discursive strategies
that constitute an indirect refusal. One such strategy is to provide an
irrelevant response to a request, which will lead to an indirect refusal.
To demonstrate this point, let us use some examples from Pan and her
colleagues’ research (Pan, 2011c [in press]; Chan and Pan, 2011 [in press])
on interviewing recent Chinese immigrants to the United States. Pan
and her team examined the linguistic features of monolingual Chinese
respondents as they answered interview questions and found that Chinese
respondents were more likely to provide very limited or ambiguous responses
to interview questions compared to their English-speaking counterparts. In
particular, when they provided a refusal to a request for survey participation,
their responses tended to be irrelevant and deviate from what the question
asked for. Example 15 is from an interview with a monolingual Chinese
speaker who was a recent immigrant to the United States and a female in
her 40s.
the impact of a refusal. But the interviewer needed to get a clear “Yes” or
“No” answer. She probed once more to address the four reasons that the
respondent listed: “Then what if we mail the materials to your house?” The
respondent then said: “(I) still can’t do it, because I have to take care of the
kids.” Notice here the refusal is followed by a new reason for not being able
to participate. It took three exchange turns for the respondent to give a real
answer. Another interesting strategy employed in refusal is that the respond-
ent emphasized external factors for his refusal: language barriers, old age,
time constraint, inability to drive. He never touched on the volition aspect
even though the question asked for his volition. He was using this strategy
as a polite way to deliver a refusal.
3.4.2 Apologies
Similar to refusals, routine forms of apology observed in historical Chinese
are rarely observed in contemporary Chinese. Many times, apologies are
delivered by means other than linguistic expressions, such as taking redres-
sive action or doing something for the person offended to mend the rela-
tionship. It is no wonder we had difficult time identifying apologies in our
rich data of naturally occurring conversation or interaction. From our per-
sonal history interviews, we found some interesting comments on Chinese
apologies. When asked how Chinese made apologies, one Chinese pro-
fessor clearly claimed: “zhongguoren buhui daoqian! ύ୯Γόၰᄹ"
(‘The Chinese don’t [or don’t know] how to apologize!’)” This could be
an exaggerated statement or personal view on Chinese apologies, but to
some extent, this statement has a grain of truth in it. Even a recent Chinese
website12 lists various ways of avoiding making an apology in current China
and states that as time goes on there has formed a ‘no apology culture’ (bu
daoqian wenhua όၰᄹЎϯ) in contemporary China – even though this
is obviously an overexaggeration since, as far as we are aware, there is no
culture without apology.13
If an apology is delivered with ritualized forms like those in historical
Chinese, it would become marked behaviour and would lead to inter-
pretation of insincerity. The following is one example from a Chinese
discussion website14 in which a person makes excessive use of ritualized
apology forms.
(17) ჹόଆӚՏǴፎচፊ!ךǾ
ٗϺפךΑε୴ຠკࡐଯ䞅!ޑǾ
วΑѐǴ่݀ΓࢂޕȨλқȩǾ
102 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
ፎӚՏচፊޑךค!ޕǾ
ӛӚՏၰᄹ!Ǿ ჹόଆ!Ǿ
ࢂჹόଆୟ!Ǿ A։ٗ!Ǿ চፊ ךǾ
I’m sorry, everyone. Please forgive me.
The other day I was very happy that I found many clips and sent them.
But I was accused as “stupid” . . .
Please everyone excuse my ignorance . . .
I apologize to everyone . . . I’m sorry . . .
I am really sorry . . . Gentlemen . . . please forgive me.
This passage was written by a Chinese girl. Notice the amount of ritualized
forms in this passage: almost every sentence starts with an apology (e.g.
duibuqi ჹόଆ, ‘I’m sorry’, and qing yuanliang ፎচፊ, ‘please forgive’).
However, the excessive amount of ritualized forms for apology does not
translate into a sincere apology, because the person makes use of these
forms to make ‘marked’ behaviour, or politeness in a Wattsian (2003) sense.
This unusual and marked use of apology gives the impression of her inten-
tion to be feminine by overdoing apologies.
3.4.3 Requests
Studies on requests in contemporary Chinese have a tendency to focus on
discursive strategies that indicate directness or indirectness in requests (e.g.
Lee-Wong, 1994a; Zhang, Y., 1995; Hong, 1996; Dong, 2008). These studies
did not examine honorific lexical items that indicated self-denigration and
other-elevation in requests. Rather they compared and contrasted what
discursive strategies were employed to make requests. This analytical focus
suggests that discursive strategies, instead of honorific lexicons, are more
prevalent in requests in contemporary Chinese.
For example, Zhang’s study showed that “rules operating on the directness-
indirectness distinction were different in English and Chinese” (Zhang, Y.,
1995: 82). English indirectness is manifested at the syntactic level, indicated
by a change in syntactic structure, such as the use of question format or
various conventional formats of indirectness. In contrast, the representa-
tion of Chinese indirectness occurs at the discourse level, realized either by
small talk or supportive moves. Another observation made by Zhang is that
Chinese indirectness is often associated with information sequencing. That
is, the very act of requesting is usually made after a considerable amount of
background information is provided.
Politeness in Contemporary China 103
three different settings. The first request was made in a family dinner
conversation by a husband to his wife:
All three requests share the same syntactic structure. They were phrased
with an imperative. They did not consist of any hedge, or modal verb, or
sentence final particle to redress the face-threatening act as shown in those
studies using questionnaire data. In these three cases, the person who
complied with the request did not make any verbal acknowledgment. They
just performed the act being requested. Similarly, the person who made
the request did not give any verbal acknowledgement such as ‘thanks’ when
the other party completed the act. The sequence of request/compliance
was very brief without a long stretch of discourse or other strategies to
indicate politeness.
3.4.4 Summary
To summarize, while in historical Chinese honorifics and elevating/
denigrating lexicon were the linguistic tools frequently used to redress
the face-threatening act of a speech act, these features are not evident in
contemporary Chinese speech acts. Instead, discursive strategies, such as
Politeness in Contemporary China 105
a way to show that many contextualized elements are called into politeness
practice.
Full names convey a neutral tone. Negative figures such as criminals are
labelled very often by surnames only. Nicknames, such as ‘A Ling’ ୟ࣓ to
refer to a person named Ye Min-ling ယ௵࣓ (a ୟ is an endearing prefix
used before names, ‘Ling’ is the shortened version of the given name
‘Min-ling’) are used very common in Cantonese dialect as a term of
endearment. Nicknames frequently appear in Guangzhou Daily to label local
newsmakers, but are never used for outside figures or government officials.
(Cf. Appendix III for a detailed account of referencing the newsmaker.)
There also seems to be a dichotomy between Chinese/foreign and
positive/negative in referencing newsmakers. Chinese newsmakers are
often labelled by full names plus descriptive labels, while foreign news-
makers are often referred to by their surnames and sometimes with titles.
Positive figures are mentioned using full names and nicknames, and
negative figures (criminals, negative figures in history) are often referred to
by only surnames, and sometimes by full names. This dichotomy between
Chinese/foreign, positive/negative in newspaper discourse is parallel to
the consideration of inside and outside relations in face-to-face interaction.
As Pan discussed elsewhere (Pan, 2000c), the distinction between inside
and outside relationships is an important concept and one of the deciding
factors in Chinese politeness phenomenon. Different rules are applied
in an inside as opposed to an outside relationship when choosing face
strategies. In-group members are treated with elaborate face strategies
showing respect or involvement according to the hierarchical structure
between the interlocutors. In newspaper discourse this inside and outside
distinction is indicated through the subtle means of newsmaker labelling.
in the reporting of major news events, news reports and news in brief. The
most frequently used fonts are STB (simplified thick bolded) and STU
(simplified thick unbolded) for these genres. STB is a thick bold font for
simplified Chinese characters, and STU is a thick unbolded font also for
simplified Chinese characters. These two fonts appear to be square and
formal, and have been adopted as the standard printing styles in Chinese
public signs too. It seems that STB and STU are the fonts associated with
news reporting in headlines of major news events, news report, international
news and sports news.
The size of the characters in headlines also suggests how importance
is attached to the government news stories. For major news events and
news reports on a government officials’ meeting, the size is biggest of all
(size 45–65), while for news in brief, the size is smaller (size 15). For head-
lines in international and sports news, the size is 20–40 (see Appendices IV
and V for details on variation in use of fonts and size).
The use of fonts and size and placement of news are not so consistent in
Guangzhou Daily. The front-page news in Guangzhou varies from local news
to sports news. The central government’s lines are not treated uniquely,
and there is no fixed font for any one type of genre. For instance, IB
(intensified bolded) font is found mainly in headlines in major news events,
news reports and local news, but other fonts (e.g. IU ‘intensified unbolded’,
MSB ‘medium small bolded’), are also used in these news stories. By
comparison, Guangzhou Daily is more colourful than People’s Daily.
Headlines and advertisements are printed in red, blue, yellow, green
and black colours.
We presented this empirical study here not as a textual analysis of news-
papers, but as a way to show that many other contextual, textual and pre-
sentational cues have been called upon to satisfy the needs of politeness
practice in contemporary China. One argument that can be made from
this study is that the traditional cultural norms of respecting hierarchy
and the distinction between in-group and out-group relations are still
intact and observed in contemporary China, and that they are still an
important component in politeness practice. In other words, while the
social practice regarding politeness behaviour has changed, the cultural
norms have remained relatively stable.
3.6 Summary
So far we have discussed various linguistic tools for Contemporary Chinese
politeness. With the decline of the use of honorifics and deferential lexical
Politeness in Contemporary China 109
A more recent study conducted by Pan and her colleagues (Pan et al.,
2006) has confirmed the asymmetrical use of polite expressions and the
divide between the ‘powerful’ and the ‘powerless’ in politeness practice. The
research is based on a multilingual project undertaken at the U.S. Census
Bureau. In that project, a survey advance letter for an important national
survey called the American Community Survey (ACS)15 was translated from
English into Chinese and three other languages.16 The U.S. Census Bureau
commissioned the study to conduct cognitive interviews to pretest the
translations in the target languages to ensure that the translated letter
was accurate and culturally appropriate. Twenty-four recent Chinese immig-
rants, who varied in age, educational level, gender and length of stay in
the United States, were selected to participate in the study. The Chinese
speakers were asked in an interview setting to comment and evaluate the
translation of the ACS advance letter to see if it was clear and easy to under-
stand. They were also asked to comment on the cultural appropriateness
of terms and expressions, including appropriate politeness, used in the
ACS letter signed by the U.S. Census Bureau director. Their comments on
the first paragraph of the letter were very revealing in terms of perception
of politeness. The first paragraph of the letter stated:
Dear Resident:
The U.S. Census Bureau is conducting the American Community Survey.
A Census Bureau representative will contact you to help you complete the
survey. I would appreciate your help, because the success of this survey
depends on you.
(22) ൧ལ҇ۚޑǺ
ऍ୯Γαදֽ҅ӧՉȨऍ୯ޗ俵ȩǶՏ
Γαද୍ֽܺޑж߄ᆶாᖄᛠǴᔅշா༤ቪ၀ፓ
ୢڔǶߚॺךதགᖴாޑᔅշǴӢࣁҁፓޑԋфڗ
،ܭாޑЍǶ
The Chinese translation of this paragraph contains several linguistic
politeness features: the use of an honorific term zunjing de ൧ལޑ
(‘honourable’) in the salutation, the use of the formal and polite second-
person pronoun nin ா, expression of appreciation (women feichang ganxie
nin de bangzhu ߚॺךதགᖴாޑᔅշ, ‘We are very much thankful
to your help’), and the elevation of the other (yinwei ben xiang diaocha de
112 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
level in their performance chart, which had been developed by the training
manager. Only one person got one out of three points for this item. As
a result, they all failed in their performance evaluations, because their
politeness level was not up to the company’s standards. After reviewing the
training manuscript and monitoring the telephone conversations between
the sales representatives and their customers, Pan found that there were
several mismatched assumptions and practices.
First, the sales representatives were given a Chinese script directly
translated from the English script. The script required that the sales
representative must do the following:
1. State his/her name right after the caller answered the phone. The sales
representative must say something like: Ni hao. Wo shi x, shi Meiguo AT&T
gongsi dalai-de. գӳǶࢂךxǴࢂऍ୯AT&TϦљѺٰޑǶ (‘Hello,
I’m x, calling from the American AT&A company’) to identify him/
herself. This is common practice in American business telephone calls.
2. Use politeness markers such as the equivalent of English ‘Please’ at every
possible chance, and at the beginning of every request.
3. Say ‘Thank you’ at every possible chance – in other words, after each
turn of the customer’s talk.
Instead, they used other forms of polite expressions that were commonly
found in contemporary Chinese communication, including repetition of a
verb (e.g. kankan ࣮࣮, that is, ‘see, see’, niannian ۺۺ, ‘read, read’),
repetition of adjective phrases (e.g. haohao ӳӳ, ‘good, good’, xingxing
ՉՉ, ‘fine, fine’), tag questions (e.g. Hao bu hao? ӳόӳ?, ‘Is that OK?’),
small talk, as well as marked change of tone of voice, intonation, rate of
speech, and strategic pauses. Pan noticed that sales representatives were
actively engaged in small talk with customers and those who could maintain
a longer conversation with their customers were often successful in getting
the customers to sign up for the company’s service. Sales representatives
constantly used the company’s name instead of their personal name for
self-identification at the beginning of the call.
After the analysis of the training material and the conversations between
the sales representatives and their customers, Pan summarized the
aforementioned linguistic features that departed from the conventional
politeness expressions and the strategies the sales representatives used in
their conduct of the phone call. Pan provided one consultation session for
the training manager and her supervisor on how these linguistic features
and strategies served the function of politeness in contemporary Chinese.
Pan’s recommendation was to reframe the training and adopt a different
perspective in viewing politeness practice. She also recommended revising
the training manual and script to incorporate the linguistic features and
strategies gleaned from those successful sales representatives rather than
repeating the same training program or script for all representatives. The
training manager and her supervisor were very receptive to this approach
and there was even a sense of relief in their facial expressions. Pan followed
up with the training manager and her supervisor three months later and
learned that the revised training program was well-received by trainees and
they were satisfied with the results.
This case study of naturally occurring interactions between the Chinese-
speaking sales representatives and their customers provides good insight
into an explanation of how anomalies became the norm in contemporary
China. The first consultant’s conclusion about the ‘rude’ Chinese is
also illustrative because it represents a common view or perception of
contemporary Chinese politeness after the Cultural Revolution. From
another analytical angle, this common view confirms our argument that
lack of politeness became the norm in interactions, particularly between
unrelated parties in an outside relationship.
Lack of formal politeness is also common in close relationships. One
phenomenon observed is the frequent use of impolite terms or impolite
Politeness in Contemporary China 117
(24) [An older sister asked her younger brother for a favour. The
interaction was in Mandarin.]
1. Sister: ๏ךວঁхǶ
Buy a handbag for me.
2. Brother: ό๏գວǴգόޕၰाວϙሶኬޑхǶ
I won’t buy, you don’t know what kind of handbag
you want.
3. Sister: ፔόޕၰǶ
How could one?
4. Brother: գόޕၰǶ
So you don’t know.
5. Sister: գວόວ֔ǻ
You buy it or not?
6. Brother: գນךाϙሶኬޑхךωૈວǶ
Tell me first what kind of handbag you want – I can
only buy it then.
7. Sister: ٗך൩ນգᶆǶ
OK, I will tell you then.
In this interaction, the two adult siblings were playfully exchanging verbal
fights. The sister asked the brother a favour. The brother refused bluntly,
118 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
6 Politeness in Flux
What we have focused on thus far are politeness phenomena during the
early Communist rule, the Cultural Revolution and early post-Mao eras,
which can be characterized as lacking conventional politeness and using
discursive politeness strategies to replace lexical politeness in traditional
Chinese. Since the onset of the economic reform, Chinese politeness
communication has been through another changing phase. China’s Open
Policy allowed joint-ventures between foreign businesses and Chinese entre-
preneurs, which inevitably led to constant interaction between the Chinese
and the outside world. One severe criticism that the Chinese faced when
communicating with the outside world was the lack of politeness in verbal
interaction. Chinese newspapers reported many instances where foreign
visitors were treated rudely in state-run stores. Then there was an outcry
for restoring public order and social demeanour. In 1981, nine Chinese
government organizations jointly issued a proposal17 to promote civilized
and polite behaviour among the Chinese people and particularly the Chinese
youth. The proposal was quickly endorsed by the Chinese Communist
Politeness in Contemporary China 119
from the current practice of language use in China. So after making the
recommendations, the website provides a commentary:
(25) ᇥ࠼၉٠㠀Ԗϙሶ֚ᜤޑǴซࢂځΓࢂ׳Ᏸߏ೭
Ƕӵ݀Չࣁύ㠀Ԗ࠼၉ǴΓᆶΓϐ໔ޑᖄᛠஒค
ݤճՉ!Ǿ!ǶՠжΓཇٰཇόӞ࠼၉೭Ƕ
࠼၉ёаᇥࢂעԖ㝫य़ΘέޑΘǶܻ϶ϐ໔ϕ࣬
ᇥ٤࠼၉Ǵόፕଯܴᆶցค䝃εǶՠऩࢂಞᄍע
࠼၉ࡸӧᜐǴ৮܂൩ᡣΓౢғ߆ܡଭޑӑຝԶ
όߞҺϐǶ࠼၉ࡽࢂҬሞЋ๙ύόёલϿמޑѯǴΨ
ࢂӒᓀޑЋࢤϐǶ
It is nou hard to use polite words or expressions: businessmen, in
particular, are very good at using them. If no polite words are used
in the conduct of business, it is impossible to have interpersonal
contact . . . However, people in the modern days are getting tired of
these polite expressions.
It can be said that polite language is a double-edged sword. It
doesn’t do much harm if polite expressions are used among friends,
even if they are not used properly. But if someone uses it habitually
and constantly, it will give an impression of flattery and untrustwor-
thiness. Polite expressions are indispensable techniques in social
interaction, but they are also one of the dangerous means.
The adoption of the Capitalist ‘Open Door Policy’ led to changes in both
the politics and practice of politeness. The next example recorded in 1998
demonstrates this trend:
In this example, the interaction follows the same pattern as the one
presented in Example 20 in that the customer initiated the interaction by
making a request. The clerk responded to the customer’s request by either
an utterance for clarification or an action. However, here we can observe
two kinds of linguistic politeness behaviour which are different from
the previous examples. One is that the store clerk engages more with the
customers. For instance, she volunteers information and comments in
three speaking turns: San Chang dou hoji la Οቷёа (‘San Chang
Brand is not bad’) in Turn 5, Nei jiu cun daa maa la գाऀεዸ
(‘You need a large size’) in Turn 7, and Zhe ge meiyou kuzi ya. Kuzi mai wan le
೭ঁؒԖᑿη֔Ǵᑿη፤ֹΑǶ(‘There are no pants go with the
tops. Pants are sold out’), in Turn 16. This active involvement seems to
indicate her goodwill towards the customers.
The second noticeable linguistic behaviour is code-switching between
Mandarin and Cantonese in both the clerk’s and the customers’ speech.
Both the customers and the clerk tried to accommodate each other.
The customers switched to Cantonese to accommodate the clerk, and
the clerk used Mandarin to accommodate the customers. This mutual
accommodation was pragmatic in function, for the purpose of making
things easy for the business transaction. It also served an important func-
tion of politeness, because it signalled the willingness of both parties to find
ways to carry out the interaction with each other (see also Pan, 2000a).
The 1999 case cited above is no doubt more politic in a present-day
sense than the interaction recorded in 1990. This suggests some change
in politeness practice due to the economic reform in China. Besides the
influence from the outside or business world during the Reform period,
another trend worth mentioning is the change in Chinese family structure
due to China’s so-called One Child Policy20 adopted in the late 1970s. As a
result of this family planning policy, the traditional large Chinese families
gave way to small one-child-only families. Being the only child, the younger
generation has had all the attention from their parents and two sets of
124 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
7 Conclusion
Notes
1
The term ‘area’ occurs here in quotation marks because these are in fact not
distinct ‘subfields’ but rather interdependent research areas.
2
A large-scale contribution to this field is now in progress (see Pan and Kádár,
forthcoming).
3
Hugging in public is very unusual in China among the older generation.
4
In traditional China, when a woman gets married, she is married into the
husband’s family, and thus becomes a member of the husband’s family. Thus,
Politeness in Contemporary China 125
in theory at least, she will no longer have any status in her parents’ family but
will gain rights in that of her husband.
5
In fact, tongzhi originates in the Confucian Classic Lunyu ፕᇟ (Analects), literally
meaning ‘[people with] the same spirit, goal, ambition’. It was initially used in
the works of Dr Sun Yat-sen, founder of the Nationalist Party. Yet, Nationalist
Party members often applied this form as a noun rather than a title or form of
address, like ‘Mr Chang is a loyal and reliable comrade’ (see also Chapter 5),
and also the Nationalist Party largely abandoned this form soon after it fled to
Taiwan, in order to separate themselves from the ‘Red Bandits’ (hongfei आঘ), as
they called the Communists. The CCP adopted the term, and it was generally
accepted as an honorific term of address characteristic of ‘revolutionary’ solidar-
ity, equality, respect and intimacy among the revolutionary ranks (Fang and
Heng, 1983: 496).
6
This is due to the large-scale breakdown of administrative organizations at
all levels in China during the Cultural Revolution. This was a period when
everyone wanted to be associated with the working class and be part of the
revolution.
7
More precisely, it has fallen out of use in its conventional sense: due to semantic
changes, this term means ‘homosexual’ in the language use of contemporary
youth.
8
The prefix of a ߓ conveys the meaning of endearment in Southern Chinese
dialects.
9
For more detailed discussion on the distinction between inside and outside
relations in Chinese interaction, see Pan, 2000c.
10
The book’s official title is Mao-zhuxi yulu ЛЬৢᇟᒵ (Quotations by President
Mao).
11
This was one of the measures taken by Mao Zedong during the Cultural
Revolution to ‘re-educate’ the educated class in China.
12
<http://www.360doc.com/content/06/0807/20/9807_175796.shtml>
13
We are grateful to Michael Haugh for noting this point during a discussion with
Dániel Z. Kádár. As he noted, quite convincingly to us, in cultures such as
contemporary Chinese apology is expressed by indirect speech acts. For example,
in Chinese it is possible to express an apology by being markedly kind towards
the other after the act that necessitates apology occurred.
14
<http://tieba.baidu.com/f?kz=477799374>
15
The American Community Survey is a demographic survey conducted by
the U.S. Census Bureau. It is the largest demographic survey in the United
States.
16
They are Korean, Russian and Spanish.
17
On 25 February 1981, the China Federation of Trade Unions (Zhongguo quan-
guo zong-gonghui ύӄ୯ᕴπ), the Central Committee of the Communist
Youth League (Zhongguo gongqing-tuan zhongyang weiyuanhui ύ୯Ӆߙიύ
ѧہ), the All China Women’s Federation (Quan Zhongguo funü lianhe-
hui ӄύ୯ζᖄӝ) and nine other units, in response to the CCP Central
Committee’s call to strengthen the construction of socialist spiritual civilization,
jointly issued the proposal Wujiang-Simei.
126 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
18
The Five Stresses are Jiang wenming, jiang limao, jiang weisheng, jiang zhixu, jiang
daode ᖱЎܴǵᖱᘶᇮǵᖱፁғǵᖱજׇǵᖱၰቺ (‘stress on being civilized,
on being polite, on keeping clean, on being orderly and being ethical’). The
Four Beautifications are Yuyan mei, xinling mei, huanjing mei, xingwei mei
ᇟقऍǵЈᡫऍǵᕉნऍǵՉࣁऍ (beautification of language, heart,
environment and behaviour).
19
<http://www.cnpension.net/syylbxpd/bxyx/scyx/xxcl/2008-11-13/673062.
html>
20
One Child Policy refers to a family planning policy enforced by the Chinese gov-
ernment since the late 1970s as a means to slow down the fast-growing Chinese
population. It stipulates that only one child is allowed per couple.
Chapter 5
1 Introduction
not often observed in historical data, partly due to generic and stylistic
issues.3 However, arguably most of the strategies that we introduced as
‘contemporary’ in Chapter 4 are based on historical, if not ancient,
patterns. To give just a few examples, the proper approaches to turn-taking
and small talk are discussed in ancient etiquette manuals, such as the Book
of Rites (Liji ᘶ),4 while other tools that seem to be ‘modern’ – such as
bantering – have quite similar historical counterparts (the reader may recall
a case of bantering discussed in Chapter 3, cf. Extract 19). In other words,
the key to understand the transition of historical into modern is the analysis
of the collapse of the historical honorific system.
(1)!҆ᒃٽֻکΠኴٰΑǴдॺεऊΨ᠋ډΑᖂॣǶ
! ȨԴϼϼǶߞࢂԐԏډΑǶךჴӧ഻ޑόளΑǴޕၰ
Դྭӣٰ!Ǿ!ȩ໑βᇥǶ
The Transitional Period 131
! ȨߓǴգ࡛ޑ೭ኬ࠼ଆٰǶգॺӃόࢂȬঢȭᆀ
ڥሶǻᗋࢂྣᙑǺȬِঢٽȭǶȩ҆ᒃଯᑫޑᇥǶ
! Ȩߓ֔ǴԴϼϼࢂ! Ǿ! ೭ԋϙሶೕંǶٗਔࢂ࠸ηǴ
όᔉ٣! Ǿ! ȩ໑βᇥǴΞћНғٰѺࡱǴٗ࠸ηࠅ
্ಚǴᆙᆙޑѝຠӧдङࡕǶȐȜࡺໂȝ2:32ȑ
Mother and Hong’er came downstairs, they also heard our voice.
“Revered Old Lady. I received the letter well in advance. I am really
delighted, learning that the Master will come back.” Runtu said.
“Ah, how can you be this polite. Didn’t the two of you address each
other as ‘elder’ and ‘younger brother’ previously? Just go on as
before, call him ‘Brother Xun’.” Mother responded gladly.
“Oh, mine, Revered Old Lady is really . . . What kind of custom would
that be? Back to those days we were kids, we did not understand
nothing . . .” Responded Runtu, and called Shuisheng to come
forward and greet [mother reverentially] with two hands in front
of his chest. But the small child was shy, hiding behind his back.
(Hometown, 1921)
This is a noteworthy extract. Lu Xun, the author of the short novel Hometown,
had outstanding skill in Classical Chinese literacy but was also one of the
most important promoters of the modern vernacular style (cf. von Kowallis,
1996). The interaction takes place between the high-ranking imagined
protagonist (the author), his family and Runtu – a childhood friend of
the protagonist with low social rank. Runtu, in front of the family of the
protagonist, acknowledges their social rank difference by making use of
formal style. It is pertinent to note that prior to this event the interactants
spoke in a more informal style, that is, the present interaction is perhaps
markedly polite in a Wattsian (2003) sense. Interestingly, the extract includes
a metapragmatic interaction on polite style: the protagonist’s mother, evalu-
ating Runtu’s style as unnecessarily polite, encourages him to switch to a
more formal tone, but Runtu in his turn politely refuses this. However, in
spite of the fact that this is a markedly polite and formal interaction, it con-
tains relatively few honorific expressions – the forms of address laoye Դྭ
(‘master’) and lao-taitai Դϼϼ (‘revered old lady’). Instead of using
honorifics and other traditional tools of deference, politeness is expressed
through a number of strategies such as the emphasis of the speaker’s respect
by unfinished sentences, emotive exclamations (aya ߓ֔), and so on.
While the markedly decreased occurrence of traditional deferential
expressions could be explained by the fact that traditionally vernacular
132 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
(2)!ٗεᅇ᠋ளࢂֺԢǴၤӧӦΠǴٗٚޭଆǴᇥၰǺȨλ
ΓȬԖόੀξȭǼਔߵᘡлߏǴఈΩ৯Ƕȩ
ȜН⠪ȝಃ34ӣ
That large guy, hearing that it is Song Jiang, fell on his knees
prostrating, declining to stand up, and said: “This worthless person
[is as fool as the one in the saying] “who has eyes but does not see the
Sacred Mount Tai”! I was bold enough to annoy my higher ranking
elder brother, and I humbly ask him to excuse my fault.” (Shuihu-
zhuan, chapter 23)
This interaction, cited from the Ming Dynasty novel Shuihu-zhuan (cf.
Chapters 2 and 3), is marked: the speaker insulted the hearer without
knowing that he is the head of the gang of rebels that he wants to join, and
in (2) he apologizes for his fault. The speech act of apology is similarly
marked with Runtu’s change of tone in (1), and the obvious difference
here is that the speaker uses various honorific and deferential expressions,
such as the self-denigrating form xiaoren λΓ (‘worthless person’), the
idiomatic expression youyan-bu-shi-Taishan Ԗόੀξ (lit. ‘having eye
not seeing Mountain Tai’) that express elevation as it compares the
addressee to the Sacred Mountain Tai, and a ritualized self-denigrating
formula of apology. In sum, it can be argued that in modern vernacular
the number of honorifics, and other traditional tools of deference, is
considerably fewer than that in historical vernacular counterparts.
The lack of honorifics in the modern vernacular becomes even more
evident if one compares genres that were vernacularized with others that
remained relatively conservative during the Republican Era. An illuminating
example is that of letters: during the first half of the twentieth century cer-
tain traditional epistolary genres such as private letters became vernacular,
while others such as political letters were still written in an archaizing quasi-
Classical style up to 1950s (and continue to be written in some cases
in Taiwan even today, see more in Kádár, 2010b). In order to illustrate the
difference between these genres, let us cite two letter fragments written in
1924 and 1925:
(3)!ರηлǺգךߞޑԏډΑǶȜཥᎿٚȝྣࢂٯѤД
ဦрހǴόၸϞพӢዺηϼӭȐԖٿъȑǴ
The Transitional Period 133
(4)!ᄃϻΓ᠙Ǻ‡ᆪҸདӃғࠉǴϡؼᗊ഼ǴրលཞѨࣗ
ѮǴჴుภϪǴৎ҆ҭుࠉேǶǾdzҁᔕॅᒃठ౼
൧ǴோӢ٣܌ᡟǴόёӵᜫǶǾࠄఈੂ႟ǴႝႭটǶ
ֺቼសdz2:36ԃ9Д36В
Respectfully to Lady Liao: I was deeply grieved to hear [the sorrowful
news of] the decease of the revered Zhongkai. The sudden decease
of a man of virtue [like him] is an unperceivable loss for our party
[i.e. the Kuomintang] and it does not only fill me with sorrow, but
also my humble mother cries bitter tears . . . I originally planned to
proceed to Guangdong to offer funeral sacrifices in person, but since
I am restrained by official matters I cannot act as I hoped . . . Facing
to the South5 with tears on my face, I respectfully send this telegram
in order to convey my condolences. Song Qingling 25.08.1925
Both of these letters were written by intellectuals who had some role in the
birth of the Republic of China and consequently had positive attitude
towards language reforms. Letter (3) was written by Liu Yazi ࢛٥η
(1887–1958), poet, man of letters and political activist of the Republican
times, to a literary friend, colleague and Jiangsu Province compatriot Ling
Shenzi ঐರη. The author of letter (4) is Song Qingling ֺቼស (1893–
1981) wife of the founder of the Republic Sun Yat-sen; this letter of condolence
was written to the widow of Liao Zhongkai ᄃҸད (1877–1925), a Kuomint-
ang leader who was assassinated. The style of these letters is considerably
different in terms of formal deference. Letter (3) does not include honorif-
ics except the quasi-familiar address form xiong л (‘elder brother’), and in
general its style is rather informal. Letter (4) on the other hand is heavily
loaded with honorific expressions such as the elevating form of address
yuanliang ϡ( ؼlit. ‘original good’, man of virtue) used in reference to the
134 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
(5)!ٰߞԏډǶளޕգ҆ᒃѐШǴךΜϩൿภǴޑךЈύ׳
ࢂᜤڙόςǶѝӢؒૈᒃԾୖуԴΓৎޑရᘶǴ
ుࣁᒪᏬǶ
I received your letter. Learning that your mother passed away I feel
great sorrow, in my heart I feel endless pain. As I cannot participate
at your revered mother’s funeral I feel great sorrow. (Model
letter, retrieved from <http://wenda.tianya.cn/wenda/thread?tid=
1ec60c10e2855d85>)
honorifics – in the extract above the only honorific is lao-renjia ԴΓৎ (lit.
‘old person’, your revered mother).
To sum up, traditional tools of deference are largely missing from
vernacular works irrespective of their date of writing, a fact that seems to
be confirmed by our ‘transitional’ database. Thus, the disappearance of
honorifics and other deferential tools is not a gradual and reconstructable
process – this is the quintessence of the ‘data problem’. A logical deduction
that can be made on the basis of this phenomenon is that the disappearance
of historical forms of politeness is due to style, more precisely style as a
representing medium of certain ideologies. We may recall the fact that the
new vernacular was not identical to the historical baihua, and it was created,
at least partly, with the goal of decreasing illiteracy by making the written
word similar to the colloquial. So, in order to understand what happened
with historical Chinese politeness it is necessary to overview the linguistic–
ideological changes during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
So far, for the sake of systematic comparison, we have treated historical and
contemporary Chinese politeness as ‘autonomous’ linguistic politeness
systems basically independent of ‘external’ – or non-linguistic – influences.
However, in order to understand the polite behaviour in a given culture,
society or a community of any size, it is necessary to look into the major
dominant politeness ideologies that form the group’s politeness norms. In
fact, such an ideological overview is particularly important in the case of an
intracultural comparison since, as was noted above, many of the changes
studied here are ideological in nature.
As different scholars argue (see Eelen, 1999, and Mills and Kádár, 2011
[in press]), it is oversimplification to equate politeness behaviour with
a given ideology because in reality several ideologies interact in social
politeness, and also because ruling ideologies may differ across minor (sub)
groups and communities of practice within a society. Also, ruling ideologies
often belong to the elite and not the whole of the society. Thus, it seems
impossible to say that politeness in a given society, especially in such a large
country as China, is or was solely ruled by X ideology, and we do not intend
to create such a simplistic view. Instead, we follow the views of historical
politeness experts, such as Held (1999) and Watts (1999), who focus on the
ideologies of the ruling elite, which unavoidably influence the politeness
behaviour of lower classes to some extent. In other words, we focus on the
136 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
(6)!\Ǿ^! ࢂࡺ։ηόԾεځ٣ǴόԾۘځфǴаೀǶၸ
ՉѷǴаೀࠆǶᄆΓϐ๓ԶऍΓϐфǴаΠ፣Ƕ
ࢂࡺ։ηᗨԾڒǴԶ҇ལ൧ϐǶȐȜᘶȝʏ߄ȑ
[. . .] Accordingly, the superior man does not elevate himself in his
doings or overvalue his own merit, hence seeking the truth. He does
not aim to make extraordinary actions, but instead seeks to occupy
himself only with what is substantial. He displays prominently the
good qualities of others, celebrates their merits, and underestimates
his own wisdom. Although thus the superior man denigrates
himself, the ordinary people will respect and honor him. (Book of
Rites, Biaoji)
(7) !\Ǿ^!όඪᏰख़٣Ǵ܌аԾڒԶ൧ӃΨǶ
ȐȜᘶȝʏ߷ကȑ
He does not dare to venture into important matters without [the
ancestors’] authorization [through sacrifices], and thus denigrates
himself and elevates his ancestors. (Book of Rites, Guanyi)
(8) !։ηལԶคѨǴᆶΓబԶԖᘶǴѤੇϐϣǴࣣлΨǶ
)ȜፕᇟȝXII.5ȑ
The gentleman is reverent and does nothing amiss, is respectful
towards others and observant of the rites, and all within the Four
Seas are his brothers. (Analects XII.5, translation of James Legge)
(9) !ϻᘶޣǴԾڒԶ൧ΓǶȐȜᘶȝʏԔᘶȑ
Li means the denigration of the self and the elevation of the other.
(Book of Rites, Quli, part one)
138 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
These citations from the Classics Book of Rites (Liji ᘶ) and Analects
(Lunyu ፕᇟ) demonstrate that, according to Confucian thinking, one
should denigrate oneself (zibei Ծ )ڒand elevate the other (zunren ൧Γ),
in order to gain respect. Further, one should avoid elevating oneself (zida
Ծε), which is in breach of proper behaviour. By acting in such a way one
will not only gain ‘social capital’ – to use Pierre Bourdieu’s (1977) term –
and maintain harmony with his family, as illustrated by the first and the
second examples, but will also attain more divine goals such as social
harmony and prosperity as shown by Example 8. In fact, as Example 9
demonstrates, the denigration of self and the elevation of others is a kind
of quintessence of li on the level of language and behaviour.
Considering the close ties between denigration/elevation and li, it is
useful to examine the relationship between li and social power, in order
to gain insight into the real social function of the historical Chinese
elevation/denigration phenomenon. In fact, li is not a socially ‘harmless’
notion but a political concept, by means of which the ‘wise ruler’ and his
advisers will be able to lead the country in an effective way, as illustrated by
the following brief citations:
(10)!
ηГǺӳᘶǴ߾҇ವඪόལǶȐȜፕᇟȝXIII.4ȑ
Confucius said: ‘If a superior man loves li, the people will not dare
not to be reverent.’ (Analects XIII.4)
(11)!ηГǺӳᘶǴ߾҇ܰ٬ΨǶȐȜፕᇟȝXIV.41ȑ
The Master said: ‘When those above are given to the observance of
the rites, the common people will be easy to command.’ (Analects
XIV.41)
power. Since the May Fourth Movement was simply anti-traditionalist and
wanted to reform language for the sake of language users, the leaders of the
Movement did not criticize the language use of the elite apart from generic
issues. On the other hand, the Communists stigmatized the traditional
politeness as ‘bourgeois’ and encouraged its abandonment.
During the second period of 1966–1976, which is known as the Cultural
Revolution period, the Communist ideology, and anti-traditionalism,
became more radical. While anti-traditionalism had been in the air since
the Communist takeover, the Cultural Revolution was a focused political
and ideological campaign against traditional Chinese culture (though in
reality it served as a means for Mao to get rid of his political enemies). Dur-
ing this period, the government aimed to completely supplant traditional
Chinese norms of politeness behaviour from language use.9
The ‘fight’ against traditional politeness may understandably appear
somewhat unusual for those who are not specialized in Chinese cultural
studies. In fact, if one observes the language reforms of Communists in East
European countries, such as Hungary (see, for example, Ogiermann and
Suszczyńska, 2010 [in press]), except for forcing people to abolish certain
‘feudal’ forms of address and adopt the collective ‘comrade’, they were not
too concerned about politeness issues. Although rudeness in service and
public areas rapidly increased in countries where communism gained
power, it was a mere consequence of the loss of the individual’s rights as
citizen, customer, and so on. Thus, the centralized abolition of historical
politeness during the Cultural Revolution is a unique phenomenon, and
it was supposedly due to the fact that the Cultural Revolution was philo-
sophically bound to Maoist ideas, that it was quite different from political
movements in other Communist countries. During the years of the Cultural
Revolution Sino–Russian relationships became rather hostile, and Mao
and the circle of his followers – designating the Russian Communists as
‘revisionists’ – made an effort to implement extremist Maoist social philosophy
in practice. In the Maoist philosophy the problematization of historical
politeness had long been present, as the following citation demonstrates:
(12)!ॠڮόࢂፎ࠼ӞǴόࢂЎകǴόࢂᛤฝ㻝Ǵόૈ
ٗኬठǴٗኬவόॐǴЎ፦ரரǴٗኬྕؼৰቀ
ᡣǶॠࢂڮኪǴࢂঁ໘ભᙌќঁ໘ભޑኪਗ਼ޑ
ՉǶ
Revolution is not entertaining guests or having dinner parties. It is
not writing a paper, nor is it working on a painting or embroidery.
It cannot be done in a refined, calm and composed manner.
142 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
This passage from Mao Zedong, written as early as 1927, denounced every
aspect of the Chinese cultural view regarding polite behaviour, such as
being refined, kind, courteous and restrained. It is interesting to note that
Mao – unlike some other dictators such as Hitler – was an educated person
(Short, 2001): he was well versed in Classical Chinese literature and culture.
Thus, the fact that politeness was present in Maoist ‘philosophy’ might have
some significance. That is, it can be rightly supposed Mao was familiar with
the norms of historical Chinese politeness and their social power and role.
This seems to be demonstrated by the fact that the famous passage above
represents traditional politeness as a social factor that cannot coexist with
revolution.
This renowned quote of Mao was chanted as a slogan by Red Guards11
during the Cultural Revolution as they raided ordinary households one
after another in order to get rid of the “Four Olds” (Si-jiu Ѥᙑ) of
Maoist philosophy, that is “old thinking”, “old customs”, “old culture” and
“old tradition” (jiu sixiang, jiu xiguan, jiu wenhua, jiu chuantong, ᙑࡘགྷǵ
ᙑಞᄍǵᙑЎϯǵᙑ). Any household items, artefacts, books,
paintings that fell into these four categories were destroyed or removed
by Red Guards. Together with the removal of the “four olds”, gone are all
conventional expressions of politeness, which were deemed ‘counter-
revolutionary’ (Yuan et al., 1990).
The economic reform era of 1979 to present has witnessed a wave of
new ideologies and new practices rushing into China from the West, and
at the same time, a restoration of traditional practices as well as a yearning
for the revival of Confucian ideologies. After long years of isolationist
policies and practices towards the external economy adopted during the
Cultural Revolution, in 1978 the CCP implemented the so-called Open
Policy12 in order to reform the country’s socialist planned economy by
introducing foreign trade, foreign investment and a market economy.
With the arrival of foreign trade and foreign capital, in rushed countless
foreign goods and enterprises, such as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Karaoke
bars. Transitions in social practices often lead to ideological shifts. Disillu-
sionment among the Chinese, especially the younger generation, with the
Communist ideology has left “an ideological vacuum which the Party has
been slow to fill. In the meantime the youth have turned towards music,
The Transitional Period 143
dance, religion and materialism” (Howell, 1993: 251). This is the period
that the old, the new, the Chinese and the Western ideologies are all pres-
ent and contested. As we discussed in Chapter 4, the shift in ideology has a
huge impact on contemporary Chinese politeness behaviour, which has
many ambiguous features.
In fact, it is difficult to decide whether the May Fourth Movement or the
Cultural Revolution had larger impact on Chinese politeness, and which
one is ‘responsible’ for the gap between historical and contemporary polite-
ness in China. On the basis of the previously mentioned intercultural
resemblance of (im)politeness in foreign Chinese-speaking communities
such as the Singaporean and Mainland China it seems that most of the
changes took place during the Republican Era, while Communist language
‘reforms’ only reinforced changes that started during Republican times.
This might be the reason why Singaporeans, as Lee (2011 [in press]) notes,
being aware of certain problems of Chinese (im)politeness behaviour try to
beautify Singaporean communication style on the one hand, while many
of them hold Mainland Chinese in contempt as ‘rude people’, on the
other. The above-mentioned intercultural hypothesis is supported by two
interrelated facts:
1. During the Republican Era China was relatively open in comparison with
Communist times, and there was an active interaction between Mainland
Chinese and foreign Chinese communities (Dikötter, 2008).
2. Most ‘overseas’ Chinese communities have no Communist history, and
even if Communism had some influence in Hong Kong, Malaysia, and so
on, it never become an official ideology in these communities.
3.3 Summary
To sum up the present section, during the twentieth century historical
Chinese politeness was subject to major challenges. Since the very essence
of the historical system is the emphasis of difference between the interactants,
144 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
4.1 Grammaticalization
The resistance of Korean – and the vulnerability of Chinese – is due to
grammaticalization. In Korean (and Japanese), honorifics are not confined
to the word level as in Chinese but they are systematically built into the
grammar. Speakers of Korean and Japanese (two languages with somewhat
The Transitional Period 145
similar honorific systems, cf. Kim, 2011 [in press]) can eliminate many
ostentatious (or ‘feudal’) expressions from everyday speech, but it is not
easy to discard ‘common’ honorifics in these languages because honorific
forms and inflection are profoundly built in as a well-defined subsystem of
the grammar (Lee, 1990; Kumatani, 1990). So, certain interactional situations
necessitate the use of ‘proper’ honorific inflection and deferential forms
(Kim, 2011 [in press]), and deferential style is thus not necessarily a logical
or ‘volitional’ choice, to use the Japanese sociolinguist Sachiko Ide’s (1989)
term – even though recent studies on Japanese demonstrate this is a norm
and not a rule because the interactants can deviate from ‘proper’ style for
strategic reasons (see, for example, Cook, 2008).
In Chinese, on the other hand, deference is ungrammaticalized due
to the morphosyntactic characteristics of Chinese that does not allow
honorific inflection. For the Chinese speaker, the choice of a certain form
is a basically ‘volitional’ activity, due to which communicational failures are
relatively likely to occur, as (25) in Chapter 3 demonstrated. While ‘improper’
choice of honorific style is an extant phenomenon in Japanese and Korean,
the speakers of these languages have a considerably easier task than histori-
cal Chinese speakers had – even if such a comparison is tentative – since in
case of uncertainties they can still follow the rules of grammar. In order to
demonstrate this, let us cite Ide’s (1989: 227) renowned example:
While in certain situations the Japanese speaker can choose (13), as far
as deferential style is required (e.g. the teacher is present) they need
to use (14). And, in (14) the elevating honorific form o-yomi-ni-natta
啴侇喩喕喔喍喉 is grammaticalized, that is, the only somewhat ‘freely’
chosen form is sensei Ӄғ (lit. ‘first-born’, that is, teacher), which is an
honorific form of address/reference. In fact, even sensei is grammaticalized
to some extent in the sense that, like certain forms of address which became
pronouns,15 sensei became a kind of default form of reference for teachers:
depending on the context a ‘teacher’ could be elevated by using different
146 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
(15)!Ӄғ᠐೭ጇЎകǶ
Teacher (HONO.) read this essay. (Constructed)
(16)!ৣР҅ܬ೭ጇЎകǶ
Teacher (HONO.) read (HONO.) this essay. (Constructed)
(17)!ৣߏ᠙᠐ܟЎǶ
Teacher (HONO.) read (HONO.) this essay (HONO.). (Constructed)
(18)!Դৣ᠐Α೭ጇЎകǶ
Teacher (HONO.?) read this essay. (Constructed)
(19)!ԴৣࣗԿ᠐Α೭ጇЎകǶ
Teacher (HONO.?) even read this essay. (Constructed)
In both (18) and (19) the standard laoshi Դৣ (‘teacher’) is used; this
professional title is an honorific but it does not reveal any information as
to the relationship between the speaker and the referred person, and in
modern Mandarin there is no alternative form for ‘teacher’ in deferential
contexts. In (19) some extra deferential value is added to the sentence
by the conjunctive adverb shenzhi ࣗԿ (‘even’), which is not an honorific
but a strategically used grammatical form that emphasizes the teacher’s
extra effort.
148 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
2. ୢ!գॺԴྭǴࢂϙሶำǻ
Question: What is the rank of your leader?
3. เ!ࢂεϻǶ
Reply: Senior official.
4. ୢ!գډύ୯ϙሶǻ
Question: What do you intend to do in China?
5. เ!ࢂ୯Цৡٰ٧ଅޑǶ
Reply: We are sent by the king [of the Ryūkyūs] to proceed to the
capital in order to pay tribute.17
6. ୢ!գډύ୯ǴԖ൳ᎁΑǻ
Question: How many times have you visited China?
7. เ!ךவٰόමډၸǴ೭ٚᎁࢂ߃ٰޑǶ
Answer: I have not previously visited. This is my first time here.
8. ᇥ!գωٰ൩ᇥ۔၉ǴࢂᖃܴޑΓΑǶ
[The official] says: You just arrived and can already speak
Mandarin. You are a clever person.
9.เ!ଁඪǼךόᖱǴᇥޑ၉όܴқǶԴлඹךᙯ
! قǴόฅǴό᐀ள၁ಒǶ
Answer: How dare I [accept your praise]! I cannot speak and
what I say is unclear. I humbly beg you, respected elder brother,
to communicate on my behalf, otherwise I will not be able to
understand the details [of what is said]. (Interaction no. 19)
a quite mechanical way; qiu laoye tian’en ԴྭϺৱ (lit. ‘to beg a revered
person’s heavenly kindness’) is a standard form to facilitate requests
addressed to officials or members of the imperial court, and qigan ଁඪ
(lit. ‘how dare [I]’) is also a routine form to decline compliments. The only
expression used creatively is laoxiong Դл (‘revered elder brother’): by
applying a quasi-familiar form of address the speaker presumably attempts
to personalize the tone of the interaction. Apart from these honorific forms
the Ryūkyūan speaker’s utterances are without honorifics, and it seems
that he applies formularized tools of deference at strategic points of the
interaction, that is, to facilitate a request (Turn 1) and to strengthen
personal ties (Turn 9).
The facts that honorifics and deferential forms scarcely occur and are
used quite conventionally in strategic points of the interaction reveal a
‘weakness’ of the Qing Dynasty Chinese politeness. If using some proper
elevating/denigrating expressions and other formulas at proper points of
interactions was sufficient to maintain polite tone, and the use of personal
pronouns was not evaluated as offending anymore (compare with Exam-
ples 21 and 22 in Chapter 3), it seems that the honorific system became
corrupted. Such a decline could not have started in a language with grammati-
calized deference, simply because in certain interpersonal relationships
honorific style would be necessary. It is interesting, for example, to observe
the way in which Setoguchi (2003), the Japanese translator of Xue-Guanhua,
translated Line 7 of the above interaction:
(21)!د喙߃喫喐ύ㡚喕㡌喴喨喁喉Ƕ啽営喨喑䗂喉啽喒啶啬
喴喨喅喽Ƕ
Watashi ha hajimete Chūgoku ni mairimashita. Kore made kita koto ga
arimasen.
I have not previously visited. This is my first time here.
(Setoguchi, 2003: 46)
(22) 1.!գॺࢂଅޑಭሶǻ
Are you a tributary ship?
2. ࢂΨǶӈՏஒྭډ௯ಭǶԖϙሶ٣ګǻ
Yes. In what matter do you, revered officers, [wish to] visit our
humble ship?
3.۬۔ںࢂॺךৡٰǴੇْঝޑঝಭǶ࣮ـգॺᝊಭ
! ӧ೭ٚǴ୍ѸᚺၸٰǶ!Ǿ
Humbly receiving the order of the local authorities we patrol.
Seeing your revered ship here we must board your ship. (Interac-
tion no. 22)
5 Conclusion
Returning to the logic of Hercule Poirot, the dead man, in our case historical
Chinese politeness, had some characteristics that induced his death, should
152 Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese
certain events pass. In other words historical Chinese politeness was a ‘time-
bomb’ for two interdependent reasons, namely, that it was anchored to
Confucian ideologies and also because it was ungrammaticalized. The
lack of grammaticalization manifested itself in the fact that the system
of historical politeness became corrupted by the Qing Dynasty, and the
major changes that took place during the twentieth century could easily
result in what we defined as a “large gap” between old and new previously
in this book.
Since the aim of the present volume is to demonstrate the difference
between old and new and reconstruct the reasons behind this difference,
it is necessary to conclude the analysis at this point. However, it should be
noted that an important research question remains unanswered. While
we problematized quantitative reconstructions of the historical decline of
honorifics and other forms of deference, we acknowledged the validity of
the decline theory and demonstrated that some corruption of the old sys-
tem can be observed in historical texts. However, this does not give an answer
to the question as to why honorifics began to decline exactly during the
Qing Dynasty. Answering this question will be a task for future research.
Notes
1
The label ‘honorific-rich’ in the present case should also include traditional
deferential strategies.
2
An exception is Taiwanese, which is often treated as a politeness system quite
distinct from Mainland Chinese (Chan, 1998), but Taiwan was ruled by the
Japanese for 50 years (1895–1945) and so Taiwanese language use was arguably
effected by Japanese norms of ‘proper’ behaviour.
3
In Classical Chinese texts relatively few discourse particles are used, as these were
regarded as colloquial, and even in vernacular texts their number is relatively
few, compared with contemporary audio-recorded data.
4
For example, it is interesting to recall Pan’s case in which a junior university staff
was evaluated as a person who “doesn’t know polite rituals” as he did not follow
the proper norms of interacting with senior people. Such norms are elaborately
discussed in the Book of Rites; to give a simple example, one may refer to the
renowned passage from the Quli Ԕᘶ (Summary of the Rules of Property) chapter
(section 14) of the Liji, according to which ᒉޣߏܭǴѸᏹΗаவϐǶߏޣ
ୢǴόᜏᡣԶჹǴߚᘶΨǶ(“When one takes counsel with an elder, he must
carry a stool and a staff with him [for the elder’s use]. When the elder asks a ques-
tion, to reply without acknowledging one’s lack of skill and [ritually] declining
answering, one goes against propriety.”)
5
‘South’ has a symbolical – and twofold – meaning here: on the one hand, it refers
to the direction of Guangdong (south of China and the recipient’s location), and
on the other it is the traditional Chinese direction of afterlife.
The Transitional Period 153
6
This style survived in Taiwan where formal letters are still written in the same
archaizing style.
7
Nevertheless, it should be added that the notion of li is relatively ‘democratic’
in the sense that in historical China – in particular from the Han Dynasty
onwards – rank was primarily gained through learning and participation in
official examinations and not by birth. Thus, it is somewhat different from, for
example, the notion of ‘being a gentleman’, which originally was a right that
could be gained through birth only (cf. Watts, 1999).
8
The First Emperor of Qin (Qin Shihuang છࣤۈ, r. 221–210 bc) made perhaps
the most influential centralization ever in the history of China, centralizing
writing, language, measures, and so on. See more in Clements (2006).
9
Even so, as Kádár and Pan (2011 [in press]) note, these attempts to completely
exile traditional norms and expressions from language use remained somewhat
unsuccessful.
10
See Report on Investigating Hunan Peasants’ Movement (Hu’nan nongmin yundong
kaocha baokao ෫ࠄၭ҇ၮԵჸൔ), March 1927, in Selected Works of Mao
Tse-tung (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1967).
11
Red Guards were civilians, mostly students and other young people, who were
‘mobilized’ by Mao Zedong during the Cultural Revolution in order to fight
against the ‘enemies’ of Maoism.
12
‘Open Policy’ refers to the set of policies adopted by the China’s reformist
leadership since the Third Plenum of the Eleventh Central Committee of the
CCP in December 1978, in order to promote the expansion of economic
relations with the capitalist world economy. It consists of a set of subpolicies
in the spheres of foreign trade, foreign investment and foreign borrowing
(Howell, 1993: 3).
13
The ‘native’ or Korea-specific Communist ideologization of the two Kims is the
so-called ‘Juche theory’; see more in Park (2002).
14
We are grateful to Alan Hyun-Oak Kim for his insightful input on this topic
during an informal discussion.
15
See, for example, Vuestra Merced (‘Your Honour’) in Spanish that became
pronominalized as usted, see Bentivoglio (2002).
16
Yishan-yuan ܃ξଣ (Yishan Temple) is an area located in the modern Fuzhou
City.
17
During the time of this text the Ryūkyū Kingdom was a tributary of China,
frequently sending ‘tributes’ (symbolical present) to China in order to
acknowledge its supremacy.
Chapter 6
The object of study set out for this book is ‘Chinese politeness’. In the
preceding chapters we have shown that there is a gulf between historical
and contemporary Chinese politeness, and this gulf has caused mispercep-
tion and misrepresentation of this aspect of language use in China. As we
stated in Chapter 1, our purpose in this book is to bring a historical and
sociolinguistic/sociopragmatic perspective to trace the change and invest-
igate the similarities or differences between historical and contemporary
Chinese politeness. The approach we have taken so far is to deconstruct
the object of ‘Chinese politeness’. By using the label ‘deconstruction’ or
‘deconstructive approach’, we follow Scollon’s definition:
Honorifics and
deference lexicons
[wide range of domains,
formal and informal occasions]
Discursive strategies
[some domains]
Lack of politeness
[limited domains]
Honorifics
and deference
lexicons
[limited domains,
formal occasions]
Discursive strategies
[various domains,
inside and outside relations,
formal and informal occasions]
Lack of politeness
[wide range of domains, unrelated outside relations,
from the powerful to the powerless]
Cultural norms
Politeness
Xia হ c.2070–c.1600 bc
Shang c.1600–c.1046 bc
Zhou ڬ c.1046–256 bc
Qin છ 221–206 bc
Han ᅇ 206 bc–ad 220
Xi Han Ջᅇ (‘The Western Han Dynasty’) 206 bc–ad 8
Dong Han ܿᅇ (‘The Eastern Hàn Dynasty’) ad 25–ad 220
San’guo Ο୯ (‘The Three Kingdoms’) 220–265
Jin ਕ 265–420
Nan-Bei Chao ࠄчර
(‘Southern and Northern Dynasties’) 316–589
Sui ໙ 589–618
Tang ঞ 618–906
Wudai ϖж (‘Five Dynasties’) 906–960
Song ֺ 960–1279
Jin ߎ 1115–1234
Yuan ϡ 1260–1368
Ming ܴ 1368–1644
Qing మ 1644–1911
The Republic of China
(Continuing in Taiwan) 1912–
The People’s Republic of China 1949–
Appendix II
Chapter 2
(2/1)!ى׆Πж勯傰僐ǴঈೲฦำǴ䞩གྣܒϐ俼ӭخǶ
)Ȝഓ咹傳Ё䮱ȝเЦقӵȑ
(2/2) 䜀Αૈ㮅ೲࡋၡǴ俩жךચ僐傰Ƕག倔ாޑ䞄Ј
ᢳ϶俼Ƕ
(2/3) м 偊 Ǿ !ၰ Ǻ Ȩ λ া η Ǵ ћ λ Γ Ԗ ࣗ ٣ ǻ ȩ
)ȜᒬШ㚌قȝಃ24ӣȑ
(2/4) м偊!Ǿ!俦ǺȨλۆǴԖϙΧ٣ǻȩ
(2/5) 䜘ϙΧǻ
(2/6) ך䜹ܴϺଆᄽ侤ǴՉόՉǻ
Chapter 3
(3/1) ҷޱۺঙǴҏᥟᴏதǴ१㛐৫Ƕ!!!!!Ǿ!!!!!ΓుठǴ
όཎ䧫ϡǴԜτ䥬Ρϻ!!!!!Ǿ!!!!!ȐȜഓ咹傳Ё䮱ȝ
劧ߎ亲ȑ
(3/2) 㤄ৎูѐΑъ僇ǶВӣ䗂Ǵ佡Αλ༠俦ǺȨλΓډ
ৎע䜐ߞᢳε䮮࣮Αȩ)Ȝϲи䝀ȝಃΟӣ*
(3/3) 偓ࣔག倔ό㝀Ǵѝ俦ǺȨࡑܺ䭣ӟǴ㤓䥨λХ۬ډі
倔Ƕȩ)Ȝ䵛㹪㮄ȝಃΟΜӣ*
(3/4) 㤄В҅Ԗ㤓϶儎ٚ䗂䥳偏ǴѦय़ৎΓ䗂ӣ俦Ǵ俦Ԗ㡚
మӽБΡޜ܄Ǵ䶒䠑Ѧଌ䗂ҽࠆ㝣Ǵ㤓䗂偏഻Ƕ
164 Appendix II
䠑Ѧ߆ௗ僳䗂Ƕޜ܄俦ǺȨ䠑Ѧε഻Ƕз॔ϦёѳӼǻȩ
)Ȝ䬵Ϧӄ䝀ȝಃӣ*
(3/5) Ѡ厌ό䗂ǴӳॣӃԿǴҭىаัኃϒᧃǶოҖࡽ
ޣىӃளǴ俌㳩༿л౧۹ϐگǶ)Ȝ儒݈䪢ৎ䜐ȝण
䟼ύଘ߄*
(3/6) ӛд俦ၰǺȨ倹Ǵգ֘ך俦ǶգӵϞӣѐǴں٣Р
҆Ǵ䦧аЎക䜁䛳䜀ЬǶȩ)ȜᏂ݅ѦўȝಃΜϖӣ*
(3/7) 㹠ՉںѲǴ׆ջڮ厌Ǽ)Ȝഓ咹傳Ё䮱ȝᢳ倔Чࠄ*
(3/8) 㜾ֽޣςѨځයǴ㛐܁佢ޣ劵ઓځΝǶ
)Ȝഓ咹傳Ё䮱ȝเٜ切ং*
(3/9) ཎ 䵃 䶭 ϐ ҂ ૈ Ǵ ২ ฅ Զ 䝃 㞄 Ƕ
)Ȝഓ咹傳Ё䮱ȝเ劧ᴏ㞠*
(3/10) Ӄ㢏ԜЎǴ勫卺㲏Ǵբ享ჿϐ䝀㡇ՖӵǻڛڛǼ
)Ȝഓ咹傳Ё䮱ȝᢳЦӓΓ*
(3/11) Դ߄ژр㬖௵ǴԖӵஎǴђϐॸ卺ԋЎǴ㜾ҭӵ
ࢂǶ)Ȝഓ咹傳Ё䮱ȝเ৪լৎ*
(3/12) Ԃⓢаλ俉ΒകǴஅ䗄ϻΓǴளЙࠑځਏ北בϊओǻ
)Ȝഓ咹傳Ё䮱ȝᯕҺ亄*
(3/13) 1. ϿঙၰǺȨλᨷωჲ䗄ǴεΓ信ߍ㱢ӜǴ
! ৮ځԖ࣐䮱Ƕȩ
! 2.! εΓၰǺȨόѸϼ倘Ǵߡךӛ۬䟼ڗ䶌Ƕȩ
! 3.ϿঙၰǺȨεΓࠟ䮫Ǵλᨷ䤩όޕǻՠλᨷᗸ
! ജϐ܄Ǵഁ䧁ΑǴ߈ΞӭੰǴ㤆εΓќ侱Ƕȩ
! 4.! εΓၰǺȨШৎηǴ࡛俦ளόޭ۔ǻך侱
! ޑόৡǴࢂाޑǼȩ
! 5.! Ͽ ঙ ൩ ό ඪ ӆ 俦 Α Ǵ ε Γ ੮ Ր Α ڹǴ
! ৾р侪ӭ俉Ў䗂俩௲Ƕ)ȜᏂ݅ѦўȝಃΟΜΟӣ*
(3/14) ϛϐ࣪Ǵ䜀ᗉғВǴߚ䜀ғВΨǶ܍俪Ϧట㟃ךǴ
ϛՖඪ㼙ǻϻ܌倅㟃ޣǴѸځΓԖቺёॊǴՏё൧Ǵ
ۈё㟃ǶӵϛϐሄЪ偀ޣǴՖ㟃ϐԖࠌǻ
)Ȝഓ咹傳Ё䮱ȝ㼙㟃*
Appendix II 165
(3/15) 偓೨ԆѺৰբඞ俦ǺȨόޕϻΓ厌ډǴԖѨ僴߆Ǵ৯
৯Ƕȩ)Ȝ䵛㹪㮄ȝಃΜΒӣ*
(3/16) ࢄВӭ卆Ǵᎈࣗ㠤ࡋǶಉ౧ق便Ǵόᒬ佩Ƕර䗂佡
俪Γ俦ǴБځޕҗǴ㛐ӦيǴ䧀৵Ѐ䲹Ƕ!!!!Ǿ! ҷఈ
ϘܴǴό健倸Ƕ䶦㜾य़倔ǴӃ㠎ࠊҙǶҷோ儿ჸǶ
ό࠹Ǵ倚㠎Ƕ)ȜᎈӟѨ㝣倔䜐ȝ*
(3/17) Ъৎ䜍λ䣡ǴߚόتەǶકа㚵η㣺ੰ㠎ℒǴҒԑϐ
ںǴϔՀϐᏹǴаզϚ১ζҺϐǴ㼸ठ䲹㞇ԋ੯Ǵ
ҭόה᫉ཥԶް㛻ǶӢৎ҆ఈ䣸ࣗϪǴཁڮ俸俸Ǵ
όளςΪ࣪ύ佥ள䛵ࡼǴ҅బ㛐ज़䝃ᧃΨǶ
Вς儃ϛ㛶ৎௗǶԿࢭ剫Ǵ䥷ްՃᒥ劥Ƕ
ى׆Πж勯傰僐ǴঈೲฦำǴ䞩གྣܒϐ俼ӭخǶ
)Ȝഓ咹傳Ё䮱ȝเЦقӵ*
(3/18) ђΓЁ䮱Ǵอѝ㹠ՉǴ剟όຫ൯ǴаځҔ㬖⛼Ǵ㤴
٣䳾ᲑǶ܌倅㼙Ǵ㠣ԶςǴ㛐ڗЯϧ剟ΨǶϛૅύ㛐
䜐Ǵ๙Π㛐㬖Ǵѝޕ䰇܌టقԶόૈ乳Ǵ㼸ԖຫЯЁ
䮱ϐѦǴԶѨЯ佤ં䶬ޣǴࢂࡺόёаЁ䮱ӜǶฅ
Ξόளό㧪ځӜǴ㠌ϐ亃亼ࡼࣣΨǴό㠤䛵Ջϐ㞄
ԸǶणεϻ佡ϐǴѸሷԶ㠤ǶىΠΏట佢Ǵ৮҂
࿏Јϐ北Ǵ傶㞇ဎԶઢǶ)Ȝഓ咹傳Ё䮱ȝᢳЦ
ԋϐ߄*
(3/19)! 劧ᒥЁ䮱ǴӜ㜾㟭ǶฅଯԾՏǴெᏀӵߎǴόޭ
僅҄ǴىΠࢣҭԖԜᘮǼ)Ȝഓ咹傳Ё䮱ȝเ侪
ဢ*
(3/20) Ͽෞ༾༾հઢၰǺȨ㞄㚚ذω䗂䥷䜁㟭Ǵ൩ा
ڮ匉ܰΑǴΠ۔ම䥷㠤 !ࣽڋǾ! ȩ)ȜᒬШ㚌قȝ
ಃΜ*ڔ
(3/21) 偓Ϧ䜀࣬ВǴԖБγۉ侪Ǵ㛱Γ҂䤔㬏ӜǴ㛐偊偆
ࣣ㬏ȨךȩǴ㟭Γ㬏ϐȨ侪ךȩǶ
(3/22) 佡Ϧঙό䜀㝣Ǵ㛐偊偆ࣣȨԟȩϐǶ
(3/23)! Ц䜁ΓၰǺȨգ㤄ՏӃғ偊ۉǻȩ
! !ڬ僳ޕдࢂ㚚䜁ΓǴߡԾ㬏ၰǺȨఁғڬۉǶȩ
! )ȜᏂ݅ѦўȝಃΒӣ*
166 Appendix II
(3/30) ᤞৎ࣮佡吔ඵు㤄ኳ㪰Ǵ㞴ॣӚ㞄ǴߡၰǺȨգा
ѺӭϿଚǻȩ
! !ඵుၰǺȨҶ剱ӭϿǴε࿙ѝ勯䳳䗂Ƕȩ
! )ȜН䬹䝀ȝಃΟӣ*
Chapter 4
3. I: ֹ࣮Α㤄࠾ߞکλ㛘ηǴգ㤆Ԗ㤄Бय़ޑ勯
! ! ! 仵ࢂ䠋ǻ
4. R: 㛱Ƕ
5. INT: ٗӵ݀дрҢπբจګǻ
6. R: ךΨࡐ劵࣬ߞǶ
7. INT: ٗգ㤆ࢂ佩ளόۓ㡌уǻ
8. R: 㛱Ǵךόۓ㡌уǶ
(4/16) 1. INT: ֹ࣮ϐӟǴଷ侰ाգ㡌уऍ㡚ޗ㛂俵Ǵ
! ! ! գ佩ள㜘দ㜘㡌у㽪ګǻ
2. R: Ӣ䜀ךम俟দӳǴӳ劵㡌у㽪Ƕ
3. INT: ⧍ӵ݀ගٮύЎޑঈգǴ
! ! ! գ㜘দ㜘㡌у㽪ګǻ
4. R: ךԃ䵣εǴᆒઓӚБय़দளǴ
! ! ! 俟قҭদளǴ䥾傰ΞদБߡǶ
5. INT: ⧍ӵ݀ך䜹㩲ޑঈգৎҾګǻ
6. R: ख़سদளǴӢ䜀ךԖޑ䵿ၡвा䥨Ƕ
(4/17) 㛱όଆӚՏ-俩চ俷!ךǾ
! ٗϺפךΑε୴偉䡾ࡐଯ䞅 ޑǾ
! 䠁Αѐ, 䶌݀ΓࢂޕȨλқȩ Ǿ
! 俩ӚՏচ俷ޑך㛐 ޕǾ
! ӛӚՏၰᄹ Ǿ 㛱όଆ Ǿ
! ࢂ㛱όଆୟ!Ǿ!B։ٗ!Ǿ!চ俷!ךǾ
(4/18) Husband: ৾㚚݆η䗂Ƕ
(4/19) Customer: 䶒ךΟ䦄儌౻Ƕ
(4/20) Co-worker: ঈঁᛛךǶ
(4/21) 1. C#20: ୟ࠰Ǵদ俗Ǵӆঈҁ䛧㚚Ƕ
2. Clerk: 儌౻ᣴҞ߄ǻ
3. C#20: দǶ
(4/22) ൧ལ҇ۚޑǺ
! ऍ㡚Γαදֽ҅ӧ僳Չ勪Ȩऍ㡚ޗ㛂俵ȩǶ
! ՏΓαදֽܺޑ䞼ж߄㜘ᢳா世سǴ㩽շா༤㛙俗
170 Appendix II
! 俵剱ڔǶך䜹ߚதག倔ாޑ㩽շǴӢ䜀ҁ勪俵ޑ
! ԋфڗ㜞ΪாޑЍǶ
(4/23) 1. Clerk: ाᢥ䘇Ǵգ侤Ƕ
2. C#20: . . . [Inaudible]
3. Clerk: ΖΖԃǴ䛧㚚ୟǻ
4. ୟǶ
C#20:
5. ΖΖԃǴ䛧㚚儌౻㽪ഽǶ
Clerk:
6. ޕךၰǶ
C#20:
7. ޜқᛛ䍐㽪ኞǶ
Clerk:
8. C#20: ভǴভǶ
Chapter 5
(5/1) ҆㤓ֻکΔΠ㹪䗂ΑǴд䜹ε䵟Ψ֘ډΑ㞴ॣǶ
! ȨԴϼϼǶߞࢂԐԏډΑǶך㡵ӧ഻㝔ޑόளΑǴ
! ޕၰԴ䮮ӣ䗂ȩ剳β俦Ƕ
! ȨߓǴգ࡛ޑ㤄㪰࠼ᣅଆ䗂Ƕգ䜹ӃόࢂȬঢȭ
! 㬏ڥΧǻ㤆ࢂྣ㛻ǺȬِঢΔȭǶȩ҆㤓ଯ䞅ޑ俦Ƕ
! Ȩߓ֔ǴԴϼϼࢂ!!!!!Ǿdz㤄ԋϙΧ佤ંǶٗ㟭ࢂ࠸
! ηǴόᔉ٣ȩ剳β俦㰢ǴΞћНғ䗂ѺࡱǴٗ࠸η㞊
! ্ಚǴ䴿䴿ޑѝ偉ӧдङӟǶ
! ȐȜࡺ䜍ȝ1921ȑ
(5/2)!ٗε䬙֘ளࢂֺԢǴၤӧӦΠǴٗٚޭଆǴ俦ၰǺ
! ȨλΓȬԖό侸ੀξȭǼ㟭ߵ䭌л剟ǴఈΩ৯
! ǶȩȐȜН䬹䝀ȝಃ34ӣ!ȑ
(5/3) ರηлǺգךߞޑԏډΑǶȜཥᎿٚȝྣࢂٯѤД
! 㛦рހǴό㠤ϞพӢዺηϼӭȐԖ㝫䦄ъȑǴ
! 䠁ዺΞ僷Α٤! Ǿ! գډᎿٚ䗂ǴࡐӳǶךѤДΟ㛦ډ
! ᴏྛǴԖΟѤϺ઼䨜Ƕӆ㜘Ǽ!ΟǵΟǵΒΎڹ䜦η
! )Ȝठঐರηȝ*
172 Appendix II
(5/4) ! ᄃϻΓ儿Ǻ‡剾Ҹ䦱ӃғࠉǴϡؼᗊ䛹Ǵ
! ր ᵫ 䨆 Ѩ ࣗѮǴ㡵ుภϪǴৎ҆ҭుࠉேǶǾ
! ҁ㢤ॅ㶛㤓ठ౼൧Ǵோ Ӣ ٣ ䷻ ܌Ǵ ό ё ӵ ᄉ Ƕ !Ǿ
! ࠄఈੂ႟Ǵ䰃卾টǶֺ䥳唚!1925ԃ8Д25В
(5/5) 䗂ߞԏډǶளޕգ҆㤓ѐШǴךΜϩൿภǴ
! ޑךЈύࢂ׳劵ڙόςǶѝӢ㠀ૈ㤓Ծ㡌уԴΓৎޑ
! ရ㝣Ǵు䜀儃ᏬǶ
(5/6) \Ǿ^!ࢂࡺ։ηόԾεځ٣ǴόԾۘځфǴа㛪
! Ƕ㠤ՉѷǴа㛪ࠆǶᄆΓϐ๓ԶऍΓϐфǴ
! аΠ倹Ƕࢂࡺ։η㨏ԾڒǴԶ҇ལ൧ϐǶ
! ȐȜᘶȝ߄ȑ
(5/7) \Ǿ^!όඪᏰख़٣Ǵ܌аԾڒԶ൧ӃΨǶȐȜ㝣侢ȝ
! ߷㚜ȑ
(5/8) ։ηལԶ㛐ѨǴᢳΓబԶԖ㝣ǴѤੇϐ㚵Ǵ
! ࣣлΨǶȐȜ侬俟ȝXII.5ȑ
(5/9) ϻ㝣ޣǴԾڒԶ൧ΓǶȐȜ㝣侢ȝԔ㝣ȑ
(5/10) ηГǺӳ㝣Ǵ䞩҇ವඪόལǶȐȜ侬俟ȝXIII.4ȑ
(5/11) ηГǺӳ㝣Ǵ䞩҇ܰ٬ΨǶȐȜ侬俟ȝXIV.41ȑ
(5/12)! ॠڮόࢂ俩࠼Ӟ卅ǴόࢂЎകǴόࢂ䶑㣣䶜Ǵ
! όૈٗ㪰ठǴٗ㪰㚸όॐǴЎ倽ரரǴٗ㪰㵍
! ؼৰ䝠供Ƕॠࢂڮኪ㜥Ǵࢂ㚚劢䵠ᙌќ㚚劢
! 䵠ޑኪਗ਼ޑՉ㜥Ƕ
(5/15) Ӄғ俭㤄ጇЎകǶ
(5/16) 㝃Р҅ܬ㤄ጇЎകǶ
(5/17) 㝃剟儿俭ܟЎǶ
(5/18) Դ㝃俭Α㤄ጇЎകǶ
(5/19) Դ㝃ࣗԿ俭Α㤄ጇЎകǶ
Appendix II 173
Note
1
The present Appendix includes only numbered examples from the main text of
the chapters. It should also be noted that while we include excerpts in Cantonese,
usually Cantonese texts are printed by using traditional characters.
Appendix III
People’s Daily
Genres: Sports Editorial Theory Society & Int’l News Cover News Interview
culture news in brief story report
Labels:
NN% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GN% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SN% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
FN% 41 0 86 75 40 0 13 46 40
SNT% 32 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
FNT% 3 0 0 19 31 0 0 0 3
DL% 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 7
DL FN % 22 0 0 0 24 0 49 44 27
DL SN % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SN DL % 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 17
FN DL % 0 0 0 6 0 0 38 8 3
Guangzhou Daily
Genres: Sports Editorial Theory Society & Int’l News in Cover News Interview
culture news brief story report
Labels:
NN% 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0
GN% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SN% 5 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 62
FN% 83 5 91 10 33 33 21 39 12
SNT% 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 9
FNT% 0 74 7 0 0 0 0 33 0
DL% 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
DL FN % 10 5 0 0 62 0 43 0 15
DL SN % 0 11 0 5 0 33 0 0 3
SN DL % 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 22 0
FN DL % 0 5 2 0 0 0 36 6 0
Total %* 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Abbreviations
NN: nickname
GN: given name
SN: surname
FN: full name
SNT: surname + title
FNT: full name + title
DL: descriptive label
DLFN: descriptive label + full name
DLSN: descriptive label + surname
SNDL: surname + descriptive label
FNDL: full name + descriptive label
Appendix IV
People’s Daily
Genres: Sports Editorial Theory Society & Int’l News in Cover News Interview
culture news brief story report
Labels:
IU
IB 1 (25%) 2 (22%) 1 (9%)
MSB
OC 1 (50%)
MC
IC 1 (9%) 1 (25%)
TU 1 (25%)
STB 1 (11%) 5 (100%) 4 (36%)
WTB
TB
STU 2 (50%) 5 (56%) 4 (36%) 3 (60%)
SU 1 (11%)
SEC
MU
MB
MTS 1 (50%) 1 (20%) 1 (25%)
CUR 1 (25%)
STA 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
WIC 1 (50%) 1 (20%)
ITA 1 (50%)
UNB 1 (25%)
SMS 1 (9%)
Total 4/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 9/ 5/ 11 / 5/ 4/
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Appendix IV 177
Guangzhou Daily
Genres: Sports Editorial Theory Society Int’l News in Cover News Interview
& culture news brief story report
Labels:
IU 1 (50%) 1 (33.3%)
IB 1 (100%) 1 (13%) 1 (50%) 1 (33.3%) 2 (25%)
MSB 1 (33.3%)
OC 1 (33%) 1 (20%)
MC 1 (20%)
IC 1 (33%) 1 (33.3%) 1 (20%) 1 (13%)
TU 1 (13%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%)
STB 2 (25%) 1 (20%) 2 (25%)
WTB 1 (33.3%) 1 (13%)
TB 1 (13%) 1 (20%)
STU 1 (33%)
SU 1 (33.3%)
SEC 1 (13%)
MU 3 (38%)
MB
MTS 1 (13%)
CUR
STA
WIC
ITA
UNB
SMS
Total 3/ 1/ 3/ 8/ 5/ 5/ 2/ 3/ 8/
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Abbreviations
IU: Intensified Unbolded Font
IB: Intensified Bolded Font
MSB: Medium Small Bolded Font
OC: Overlapped Circular Font
MC: Medium Circular Font
IC: Intensified Circular Font
178 Appendix IV
People’s Daily
Genres: Sports Editorial Theory Society & Int’l News in Cover News Interview
culture news brief story report
Size:
10
15 2 (50%) 1 (33.3%) 5 (100%)
20 5 (56%) 2 (50%)
25 1 (33.3%) 1 (11%) 2 (18%) 1 (20%)
30 1 (25%) 1 (100%) 3 (27%) 1 (20%)
35 1 (33.3%) 1 (11%) 2 (18%) 1 (25%)
40 1 (25%) 1 (100%) 2 (22%) 1 (25%)
45 2 (18%) 2 (40%)
50 1 (9%) 1 (20%)
55
60
65 1 (9%)
70
75
Total 4/ 1/ 1/ 3/ 9/ 5/ 11 / 5/ 4/
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
180 Appendix V
Guangzhou Daily
Genres: Sports Editorial Theory Society & Int’l News in Cover News Interview
culture news brief story report
Size:
10 1 (14%)
15 1 (33.3%) 4 (80%)
20 1 (33.3%) 1 (14%) 4 (50%)
25 1 (20%) 1 (20%)
30 1 (33.3%) 1 (14%) 1 (20%) 1 (13%)
35 2 (29%) 1 (50%) 1 (33.3%) 2 (25%)
40 1 (33.3%) 1 (100%) 1 (33.3%) 2 (29%) 1 (20%) 1 (33.3%)
45
50
55 1 (33.3%)
60 1 (20%)
65 1 (20%)
70
75 1 (50%) 1 (33.3%) 1 (13%)
Total 3/ 1/ 3/ 7/ 5/ 5/ 11 / 3/ 8/
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Bibliography
Primary Sources1
Chengwei lu ᆀᒏᒵ (Record of Terms of Address), Qing Dynasty; modern edition used
for this volume: Beijing, Zhonghua shuju, 2002.
Guxiang ࡺໂ (Hometown), Republican novel by Lu Xun (1921); modern edition
used for this volume: Beijing, Remmin wenxue chubanshe, 2001.
Honglou-meng आኴფ (Dream of Red Chamber), Qing Dynasty; modern edition used
for this volume: Beijing, Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 1957.
Hunan nongmin yundong kaocha baogao ෫ࠄၭ҇ၮԵჸൔ (Report on Investigat-
ing Hunan Peasants’ Movement), March 1927, Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Peking,
Foreign Languages Press, 1967.
Jigong quanzhuan ᔮϦӄ (The Story of Lord Ji), Qing Dynasty; modern edition used
for this volume: Shanghai, Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1996.
Liji ᘶ (Book of Rites), Zhou/Han Dynasty; modern edition used for this volume:
Taipei, Sanmin shuju, 2007.
Liu Yazi shuxin jilu ࢛٥ηਜߞᒠᒵ (Edited Collection of Liu Yazi’s Letters), Shanghai,
Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1985.
Lunyu ፕᇟ (Book of Rites), Zhou Dynasty; modern edition used for this volume:
Taipei, Zhonghua shuju, 2010.
Rulin waishi Ꮒ݅Ѧў (The Scholars), Qing Dynasty; modern edition used for this
volume: Shanghai, Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1998.
Shengxian-zhuan ϲи (Story of the Raising Immortals), Qing Dynasty; modern
edition used for this volume: Shanghai, Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1996.
Shuihu-zhuan Н⠪ӄ (Water Margin Story), Ming Dynasty; modern edition used for
this volume: Hangzhou, Zhejiang wenyi chubanshe, 1994.
Xingshi hengyan ᒬШࡡ( قEverlasting Words That Awaken the World), Ming Dynasty;
modern edition used for this volume: Xi’an, Shanxi renmin chubanshe, 1985.
Xue Gang fan Tang ᖙখϸঞ (Xue Gang Revolts against the Tang), Qing Dynasty;
modern edition used for this volume: Xi’an, Sanqin chubanshe, 2006.
Zhi Liao furen ԿᄃϻΓ (To Lady Liao), Letter by Song Qing Ling, in Xiexin-bidu ቪߞ
Ѹ᠐ (Basic Reading on Letter Writing), Beijing, Nongcun duwu chubanshe, 1992.
Secondary Sources
Agha, Asif (2007), Language and Social Relations, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
182 Bibliography
Alagappa, Muthiah (2004), Civil Society and Political Change in Asia: Expanding and
Contracting Democratic Space, Alto Palo, Stanford University Press.
Altenburger, Roland (1997), Anredeverhalten in China um 1750, Bern, Peter Lang.
Anderson, Paul S. (1948), ‘Korean language reform’, in The Modern Language
Journal, 32, pp. 508–11.
Archer, Dawn (2005), Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760):
A Sociopragmatic Analysis, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds) (2010), Institutional Polite-
ness in East and South East Asia, Special Issue of Journal of Asian Pacific Communication,
21/2, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Maurizio Gotti (eds) (2005), Asian Business
Discourse(s), Bern, Peter Lang.
Barrow, John esq. (1804), Travels in China, London, T. Cadell and W. Davies; retrieved
from <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28729/28729-h/28729-h.htm>
Bax, Marcel (2010), ‘Epistolary presentation rituals: Face-work, politeness, and
ritual display in early-modern Dutch letter-writing’, in Culpeper, Jonathan, and
Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), pp. 37–86.
Bell, Allan (1991), The Language of News Media, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Bentivoglio, Paola (2002), ‘Spanish forms of address in the sixteenth century’, in
Taavitasainen, Irma, and Andreas Jucker (eds) Diachronic Perspectives on Address
Term Systems, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 177–92.
Blum, Susan D. (1997), ‘Naming practices and the power of words in China’, in
Language in Society, 26, pp. 357–79.
Bond, Michael Harris (1991), Beyond the Chinese Face: Insights from Psychology, Hong
Kong, Oxford University Press.
— (1996), ‘Chinese values’, in Bond, Michael Harris (ed.) The Handbook of Chinese
Psychology, Hong Kong, Oxford University Press, pp. 208–26.
Bond, Michael H., and Peter W. H. Lee (1981), ‘Face saving in Chinese culture:
A discussion and experimental study of Hong Kong students’, in King,
Ambrose Y. C., and Rance P. Lee (eds) Social Life and Development in Hong
Kong, Hong Kong, Chinese University Press, pp. 289–304.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Bousfield, Derek (2008), Impoliteness in Interaction, Amsterdam and Philadelphia,
John Benjamins.
Bousfield, Derek, and Miriam A. Locher (eds) (2007), Impoliteness in Language –
Studies in Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, Berlin and New York, Mouton
de Gruyter.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson (1978), ‘Universals in language usage:
Politeness phenomena’, in Goody, Esther N. (ed.) Questions and Politeness,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–311.
— (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Carlton, Eric (1990), Ideology and Social Order, London, Routledge.
Chan, Anna, and Yuling Pan (2011 [in press]), ‘Analysis of Chinese speakers’
responses to survey interview questions in comparison to other language
speakers’, in Pan, Yuling, and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds) Chinese Discourse and
Interaction: Theory and Practice, London, Equinox.
Bibliography 183
Eelen, Gino (1999) ‘Politeness and ideology: A critical review’, in Pragmatics, 91,
pp. 163–74.
— (2001), A Critique of Politeness Theories, Manchester and Northampton, St. Jerome
Publishing.
Fairbank, John K. (1953), Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast: The Opening of the
Treaty Ports, 1842–1854, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
— (1978), ‘Foreign relations’, in Twitchett, Denis C., and John K. Fairbank (eds)
The Cambridge History of China, 10/1, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
pp. 29–34.
Fairclough, Norman (2001), Language and Power, London, Longman Education.
— (2003), Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, London,
Routledge.
Fang, Hanquan, and J. H. Heng (1983), ‘Social changes and changing address
norms in China’, in Language in Society, 12, pp. 495–507.
Fitzmaurice, Susan (2002), The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English: A Pragmatic
Approach, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
— (2010), ‘Changes in the meanings of Politeness in eighteenth-century England:
Discourse analysis and historical evidence’, in Culpeper, Jonathan, and Dániel Z.
Kádár (eds), pp. 87–115.
Fromm, Erich (1941), Escape from Freedom, New York, Farrar & Rinehart.
Fung, Boong-yin ᗶଟ (1999), Aomen jianshi ᐞߐᙁў (The Short History of Macau),
Hong Kong, Sanlian.
Geyer, Naomi (2007), Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalence in Japanese Face, London
and New York, Continuum.
Giles, Herbert A. (1912), China and the Manchus, manuscript retrieved from <www.
gutenberg.org/files/2156/2156-h/2156-h.htm>
Goffman, Erving (1955), ‘On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements of social
interaction’, in Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18/3,
pp. 213–31.
— (1967), Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behaviour, New York, Random
House.
— (1971), Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order, New York, Basic Books.
— (1974), Frame Analysis, New York, Harper & Row.
— (1981), Forms of Talk, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gou, Chengyi ϭ( ܍2002), Xian-Qin lixue ӃછᘶᏢ (The Study of ‘Li’ in Pre-Qin
Times), Chengdu, Ba-Shu shushe.
Grasso, June M., Jay P. Corrin and Michael Kort (2004), Modernization and Revolution
in China: From the Opium Wars to World Power, New York, M. E. Sharpe.
Greenblatt, Sindey L., Richard W. Wilson, and Amy Auerbacher Wilson (1982),
Social Interaction in Chinese Society, New York, Praeger.
Gregor, James A. (1981), ‘Confucianism and the political thought of Sun Yat-Sen’,
in Philosophy East & West, 31/1, pp. 55–70.
Grice, Paul (1975), ‘Logic and conversation’, in Cole, Peter, and Jerry L. Morgan
(eds) Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, New York, Academic Press,
pp. 41–58.
Gu, Edward X. (1999), ‘Cultural intellectuals and the politics of the cultural public
space in Communist China (1979–1989): A case study of three intellectual
groups’, in The Journal of Asian Studies, 58, pp. 389–431.
Bibliography 185
Jaeger, Stephen C. (2000), The Origins of Courtliness: Civilizing Trends and the Forma-
tion of Courtly Ideals, 932–1210, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jahn, Beate (2005), ‘Barbarian thoughts: Imperialism in the philosophy of John
Stuart Mill’, in Review of International Studies, 31/3, pp. 599–618.
Ji, Changhong ӓதֻ (ed.) (2000), Hanyu chengwei dacidian ᅇᇟᆀᒏεᜏڂ
(A Comprehensive Dictionary of Chinese Terms of Address), Shijiazhuang, Hebei jiaoyu
chubanshe.
Ji, Feng (2004), Linguistic Engineering, Honolulu, HI, University of Hawaii Press.
Ji, Shaojun (2000), ‘ “Face” and polite behaviours in Chinese culture’, in Journal of
Pragmatics, 32, pp. 1059–62.
Ji, Yuan F., Koenraad Kuiper, and Shaogu Shu (1990), ‘Language and revolution:
Formulae of the Cultural Revolution’, in Language in Society, 19, pp. 61–79.
Jiang, Zhusun ጯԮᇄ (2002), Shuxin yongyu cidian ਜߞҔᇟᜏ( ڂA Dictionary of
Epistolary Phraseology), Shanghai, Shanghai cishu chubanshe.
Joseph, William A. (1997), China Briefing: The Contradictions of Change, New York,
M. E. Sharpe.
Ju, Zhucheng (1991), ‘The “depreciation” and “appreciation” of some address
terms in China’, in Language in Society, 20, pp. 387–90.
Jucker, Andreas H. (1996), ‘News actor labelling in British newspapers’, in Text, 16,
pp. 373–90.
— (2010), ‘ “In curteisie was set ful muchel hir lest”, Politeness in Middle English’,
in Culpeper, Jonathan, and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), pp. 175–200.
Jucker, Andreas H., and Irma Taavitsainen (2008), Speech Acts in the History of English,
Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Kádár, Dániel Z. (2005), ‘Power and profit: The role of elevating/denigrating forms
of address in pre-modern Chinese business discourse’, in Bargiela-Chiappini,
Francesca, and Maurizio Gotti (eds) pp. 21–56.
— (2007a), ‘On historical Chinese apology and its strategic application’, in Grainger,
Karen, and Sandra Harris (eds) Journal of Politeness Research (Special Issue:
Apologies), 3/1, pp. 125–50.
— (2007b), Terms of (Im)politeness: On the Communicational Properties of Traditional
Chinese (Im)polite Terms of Address, Budapest, Eötvös Loránd University Press.
— (2008), ‘Power and (im)politeness in traditional Chinese criminal investigations’,
in Sun, Hao, and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), pp. 127–79.
— (2009), Model Letters in Late Imperial China: 60 Selected Epistles from Letters from
Snow Swan Retreat, München and Newcastle, Lincom.
— (2010a), ‘Exploring the historical Chinese polite denigration/elevation
phenomenon’, in Culpeper, Jonathan, and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), pp. 117–45.
— (2010b), Historical Chinese Letter Writing, London and New York, Continuum.
— (forthcoming), ‘Historical Chinese face-work and rhetoric’, in Pan, Yuling, and
Dániel Z. Kádár (eds).
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Jonathan Culpeper (2010), ‘Historical (im)politeness: An
introduction’, in Culpeper, Jonathan, and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), pp. 9–36.
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Sara Mills (2011a [in press]), ‘Introduction’, in Kádár, Dániel
Z., and Sara Mills (eds).
— (eds) (2011b [in press]), Politeness in East Asia, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Bibliography 187
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Yuling Pan (2011 [in press]), ‘Politeness in China’, in Kádár,
Dániel Z., and Sara Mills (eds).
Kikuchi, Yasuto ԣநΓ (1997), Keigo ལᇟ (Japanese Honorifics), Tokyo,
Kodansha.
Kim, Alan H. (2011 [in press]), ‘Politeness in Korea’, in Kádár, Dániel Z., and Sara
Mills (eds.)
King, Ambrose Y. C., and John T. Myers (1977), Shame as an Incomplete Conception of
Chinese Culture: A Study of Face, Hong Kong, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Social Research Center.
Kohnen, Thomas (2008a), ‘Directives in Old English: Beyond politeness?’, in Jucker,
Andreas H., and Irma Taavitsainen (eds) Speech Acts in the History of English,
Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 27–44.
— (2008b), ‘Linguistic politeness in Anglo-Saxon England? A study of Old English
address terms’, in Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 9/1, pp. 140–58.
Kōsaka, Junichi ३㞯 (1992), ‘Suiko’ goi no kenkyū ‘Н⠪’ᇟ༼喘ࣴ( زA Study of
the Vocabulary of the ‘Shuihu’), Tokyo, Kōsei kan.
Kumatani, Akiyasu (1990), ‘Language policies in North Korea’, in International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 127, pp. 87–108.
Labov, William (1972), Language in Inner City: Studies in Black English Vernacular,
Oxford, Blackwell.
Lakoff, Robin T. (1973), ‘The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s’, in
Corum, Claudia, T. Cedric Smith-Stark, and Ann Weiser (eds) Papers from the
Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic
Society, pp. 292–305.
— (1977), ‘What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics, and performatives’,
in Rogers, Andy, Bob Wall, and John P. Murphy (eds) Proceedings of the Texas
Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions, and Implicatures, Arlington, Center of
Applied Linguistics, pp. 79–105.
Lakoff, Robin T., and Sachiko Ide (eds) (2005), Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic
Politeness, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane (2010), Complex, Dynamic Systems: A New Transdisciplinary
Theme for Applied Linguistics, Plenary address at the 2010 Annual Meeting of
American Association for Applied Linguistics, March 6–9, Atlanta, Georgia.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane, and Lynn Cameron (2008), Complex Systems and Applied
Linguistics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Lee, Cher Leng (2011 [in press]), ‘Politeness in Singapore’, in Kádár, Dániel Z.,
and Sara Mills (eds).
Lee, Hyǒn-Bok (1990), ‘Differences in language use between North and South
Korean’, in International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 82, pp. 71–86.
Lee, Wong Yin (1995), ‘Women’s education in traditional and Modern China’, in
Women’s History Review, 4/3, pp. 345–67.
Lee-Wong, Song Mei (1994a), ‘Imperatives in requests: direct or impolite –
observations from Chinese’, in Pragmatics, 4, pp. 491–515.
— (1994b), ‘Qing/please – A polite or requestive marker? Observations from
Chinese’, in Multilingua, 13, pp. 343–60.
— (2000), Politeness and Face in Chinese Culture, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics, New York, Longman.
188 Bibliography
Mirsky, Jeanette (1998), Sir Aurel Stein: Archaeological Explorer, Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.
Nakane, Ikuko (2006), ‘Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in
university seminars’, in Journal of Pragmatics, 38/11, pp. 1811–35.
Nevelainen, Terttu, and Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen (eds) (2007), Letter Writing,
Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Nitta, Jūsei ཥҖख़మ, Masayuki Zayasu ০Ӽࡹٺ- and Hisashi Yamanaka ξύΦљ
(1994), Okinawa no rekishi ؑ䵋喘㾹ў (The History of Okinawa), Naha, Okibunsha.
Nohara, Mitsuyoshi ഁচΟက (2005), Uchinaaguchi no shōtai 啰喋喔啬啺喋喘ࡑܕ
(Introduction into Uchinaan [Okinawan]), Naha, Higakyōbundō.
Norman, Jerry (1988), Chinese, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Nwoye, Onuigbo G. (1992), ‘Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of
the notion of “face” ’, in Journal of Pragmatics, 18/4, pp. 309–28.
Ogiermann, Eva, and Małgorzata Suszczyńska (2010 [in press]), ‘On (im)politeness
behind the iron curtain’, in Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Dániel Z. Kádár
(eds) Politeness across Cultures, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Pan, Yuling (1995), ‘Power behind linguistic behavior: Analysis of politeness
phenomena in Chinese official settings’, in Journal of Language and Social Psychol-
ogy, 14/4, pp. 462–81.
— (2000a), ‘Code-switching and social changes in Hong Kong and Guangzhou
service encounters’, in International Journal of Society and Language, 146,
pp. 21–41.
— (2000b), ‘Facework in Chinese service encounters’, in Journal of Asian Pacific
Communication, 10, pp. 25–61.
— (2000c), Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction, Stamford, CT, Ablex.
— (2008), ‘Cross-cultural communication norms and survey interviews’, in Sun,
Hao, and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), pp. 17–76.
— (2011a [in press]), ‘Cantonese politeness in the interviewing setting’, in Journal
of Asian Pacific Communication, 21/2.
— (2011b [in press]), ‘Methodological issues in East Asian politeness research’, in
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Sara Mills (eds).
— (2011c [in press]), ‘What are Chinese respondents responding to? Discourse
analysis of question–answer sequence in survey interviews’, in Pan, Yuling, and
Dániel Z. Kádár (eds) Chinese Discourse and Interaction: Theory and Practice,
London, Equinox.
Pan, Yuling, and Dániel Z. Kádár (2011 [in press]), ‘Contemporary vs. historical
Chinese politeness’, in Janney, Richard W., and Eric Anchimbe (eds) Journal of
Pragmatics, Special Issue: Postcolonial Discourse.
— (eds) (forthcoming) Special Issue: Chinese Facework and Im/politeness, Journal of
Politeness Research, 8/1.
Pan, Yuling, Suzanne Wong Scollon, and Ron Scollon (2002), Professional Communi-
cation in International Settings, Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishers.
Pan, Yuling, Marjorie Hinsdale, Hyunjoo Park, and Alisú Schoua-Glusberg (2006),
‘Cognitive testing of translations of ACS CAPI materials in multiple languages’,
in Statistical Research Division’s Research Report Series (RSM#2006/09), Washington,
DC, U.S. Census Bureau.
190 Bibliography
Pan, Yuling, Ashley Landreth, Majorie Hinsdale, Hyunjoo Park, and Alisú Schoua-
Glusberg (2010), ‘Cognitive interviewing in non-English languages: A cross-cultural
perspective’, in Hardness, J., B. Edwards, M. Braun, T. Johnson, L. Lyber,
P. Mohler, B. Pennell, and T. Smith (eds) Survey Methods in Multinational,
Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts, Berlin, Wiley Press, pp. 91–113.
Park, Han S. (2002), North Korea: The Politics of Unconventional Wisdom, Boulder, CO,
Lynne Rienner.
Peng, Guoyue ൹୯៌ (1998), ‘Kindai Chūgoku keigo no suichoku kūkan metafuā
߈жύ㡚ལᇟ喘ࠟޜޔ໔嘂嗠嗶嗃 (The imaginary world of politeness using
metaphors of vertical space in early-modern Chinese)’, in Chūgoku kankei ronsetsu
shiryō (China-related Research Materials Series), 40/2–1, pp. 70–8.
— (1999), ‘Chūgokugo ni keigo ga sukunai no ha naze? ύ㡚ᇟ喕ལᇟ啶Ͽ喔啮喘
喙喔喆ǻ (What is the reason for the small number of honorific forms in
Chinese?)’, in Gengo, 28, pp. 60–3.
— (2000), Kindai Chūgokugo no keigo shisutemu ߈жύ㡚ᇟ喘ལᇟ嗘嗚嗧嘁 (The
Polite Language System of Pre-modern Chinese), Tokyo, Hakuteisha.
Pennycook, Alastair, and Sophie Coutand-Marin (2003), ‘Teaching English as a
missionary language’, in Discourse, 24/3, pp. 337–53.
Pieke, Frank N. (2002), Recent Trends in Chinese Migration to Europe: Fujianese
Migration in Perspective, Geneva, International Organization for Migration, IOM
Migration Research Series 6.
Pizziconi, Barbara (2003), ‘Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese
language’, in Journal of Pragmatics, 35/10–11, pp. 1471–506.
— (2011 [in press]), ‘Honorifics: The cultural specificity of a universal phenomenon
in Japan’, in Kádár, Dániel Z., and Sara Mills (eds).
Ruesch, Jurgen, and Gregory Bateson (1968 [1951]), Communication: The Social
Matrix of Psychiatry, New York, W. W. Norton & Company.
Schiffrin, Deborah (1984), ‘Jewish argument as sociability’, in Language in Society,
13, pp. 311–35.
Scollon, Ron (1998), Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction, New York, Addison
Wesley Longman Limited.
Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne Wong Scollon (1991), ‘Topic confusion in English-Asian
discourse’, in World Englishes, 10, pp. 113–25.
— ([1995] 2001), Intercultural Communication, Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishers.
Scollon, Ron, Suzanne Wong Scollon, and Andy Kirkpatrick (2000), Contrastive
Discourse in Chinese and English: A Critical Appraisal, Beijing, Foreign Languages
Press.
Scotton, Carol Myers, and Wanjin Zhu (1983), ‘Tóngzhì in China: Language change
and its conversational consequences’, in Language in Society, 12, pp. 477–94.
Searle, John (1969), Speech Acts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Setoguchi, Ritsuko! 䐂㛍αࡓη (2003), Gaku-kanwa zenyaku: Ryūkyū kanwa kahon
kenkyū 䗄۔၉ӄ佾ǵౚ۔၉ፐҁࣴ( !زThe Complete Translated Xue-guanhua,
Research of Ryūkyūan Mandarin Textbooks), Ginowan, Gajumaru.
Shibata, Takeshi, Kunihiro Tetsuya, Fumio Inoue, and Daniel Long (2001), Sociolin-
guistics in Japanese Context, Berlin and New York, Mouton de Gruyter.
Short, Philip (2001), Mao: A Life, New York, Henry Holt & Co.
Bibliography 191
von Kowallis, Jon Eugene (1996), The Lyrical Lu Xun: A Study of His Classical Style
Verse, Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press.
Wakeman, Frederic (1985), The Great Enterprise: The Manchu Reconstruction of Imperial
Order in Seventeenth-Century China, Berkeley, University of California Press.
Waley, Arthur (1958), The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes, Alto Palo, Stanford
University Press.
Wang, Shuhan C. (2007), ‘Building societal capital: Chinese in the US’, in Language
Policy, 6, pp. 27–52.
Watts, Richard J. (1989), ‘Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as
polite behaviour’, in Multilingua, 8/2–3, pp. 131–66.
— (1999), ‘Language and politeness in early eighteenth century Britain’, in
Pragmatics, 9/1, pp. 5–20.
— (2003), Politeness, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, Etienne (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1996), Semantics: Primes and Universals, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Xu, Shiyi ৪ਔሺ (2000), Gu baihua cihui yanjiu lungao ђқ၉ຒ༼ࣴزፕዺ
(An Overview of Research on Vernacular Chinese), Shanghai, Shanghai jiaoyu
chubanshe.
Yang, Anand A. (2007), ‘A (sub)altern(‘s) Boxers: An Indian soldier’s account of
China and the world in 1900–1901’, in Bickers, Robert A., and R. G. Tiedemann
(eds) The Boxers, China, and the World, Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield,
pp. 43–64.
Yao, Xinzhong (2000), An Introduction to Confucianism, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Yeung, Lorrita N. T. (1997), ‘Polite requests in English and Chinese business
correspondence in Hong Kong’, in Journal of Pragmatics, 27/4, pp. 505–22.
Yuan, Ji Feng, Koenraad Kuiper, and Shaogu Shu (1990), Language and revolution:
Formulae of the Cultural Revolution, in Language in Society, 19, pp. 61–79.
Yung, Judy (1999), ‘Chinese’, in Barkan, Elliott R. (ed.) A Nation of Peoples: A
Sourcebook on America’s Multicultural Heritage, Westport, CT, Greenwood Press,
pp. 119–37.
Yuan, Tingdong ෂ (1994), Guren chengwei mantan ђΓᆀᒏᅐፋ (An Introduc-
tion into Historical Address Forms), Beijing, Zhonghua shuju.
Zhai, Xuewei ᆩᏢ (1994), Mianzi, renqing, guanxi-wang य़ηǵΓǵᜢ߯ᆛ
(Face, Emotions and Connection-Networks), Zhengzho, He’nan renmin chubanshe.
— (2006), Renqing, mianzi yu quanli de zai-shengchan Γǵय़ηᆶΚޑӆғౢ
(Reproduction of Emotions, Face and Authority), Beijing, Beijing daxue chubanshe.
Zhan, K. (1992), The Strategies of Politeness in the Chinese Language, Berkeley, Institute
of East Asian Studies, University of California.
Zhang, Yanyin (1995), ‘Indirectness in Chinese requesting’, in Kasper, Gabrielle
(ed.) Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language, Honolulu, University of
Hawaii Press, pp. 69–118.
Zhang, Zhongxing ύՉ (1995), Wenyan he baihua Ўکقқ၉ (The Classical and
the Vernacular), Harbin, Heilongjiang renmin chubanshe.
Bibliography 193
Zhao, Guang-yuan ᇳӀᇻ, and Wenshe Gao ଯЎް (1990), Minzu yu wenhua ҇
ᆶЎϯ (Nationality and Culture), Nanning, Guangxi People’s Publishing House.
Zhao, Shugong ᇳᐋф (1999), Zhongguo chidu wenxue shi ύ୯ЁᛊЎᏢў (The His-
tory of Chinese Epistolary Literature), Shijiazhuang, Hebei renmin chubanshe.
Zheng, Dekun ᎄቺ( ڷ1987), Zhonghua minzu wenhua shi lun ύ୯҇Ўϯўፕ
(Introduction to the History of Chinese Nationality and Culture), Hong Kong, Joint
Publishing (H.K.).
Zhou, Minglang, and Heidi Ross (2004), ‘Introduction: The context of the theory
and the practice of China’s language policy’, in Special Issue: Language Policy in the
People’s Republic of China, Language Policy, 4/1, pp. 1–18.
Zhou, Minglang, and Hongkai Sun (eds) (2004), Language Policy in the People’s
Republic of China: Theory and Practice Since 1949, Norwell, MA, Springer.
Zhu, Yunxia (2005), Written Communication across Cultures: A Sociocognitive Perspective
on Business Genres, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Note
1
The Classical Chinese (epistolary) sources and the intercultural source Xue-
guanhua can be found in the Secondary Sources list, see Kádár (2009, 2010b) and
Setoguchi (2003).
This page intentionally left blank
Index of Names1 and Subjects
address terms 1, 10, 11, 36, 39, 42–7, camaraderie 14, 118
53–7, 61–5, 76–85, 90, 98, 99, 103, Cameron, L. 158, 187
106, 120, 131, 133, 134, 139, 141, Cantonese 32, 84, 89, 91, 93, 96, 100,
145–7, 150, 155 104, 107, 113, 121–3
Agha, A. 18, 181 Carlton, E. 63, 182
Alagappa, M. 41, 182 Chan, A. 32, 182
Altenburger, R. 39, 182 Chan, W. T. 136, 183
ambiguous responses 98–101 Chao, Y. R. 110, 183
analogy 57, 59 Che, W. K. 41, 183
Anderson, P. S. 144, 182 Chen, R. 20, 74, 75, 183
anti-Manchu sentiment 7 Chen Zun ഋᒥ 58
anti-traditionalism 7, 8, 77, 128, Chi, L. 29, 86, 183
140, 141 Chiang Kai-Shek (Jiang Jieshi
apologies 22, 54, 55, 89, 94, 101, ጯϟҡ) 8, 140
102, 132 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 8, 73,
applied (yingyong ᔈҔ) genres 27 78, 79, 86, 140, 142
Ars Dictaminis 27 Christie, Agatha 128, 129, 183
asymmetrical use of politeness 38, 73, Chuang, H. C. 87, 183
109–12 Classical Chinese 26, 27, 33, 130, 131, 139
avoidance of conflict 14 ~ education/command of~ 48, 51, 65
~ intermix 134
Baetson, G. 30, 190 ~ style 55, 132
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. 19, 182 Collins, D. E. 21, 183
Barrow, John 12, 38, 65, 66, 182 colonization 129
Bax, M. 40, 69, 182 ~ philosophy/ideology 6, 7
beautification campaign 118, 119 ~ rhetoric 12, 33
Bell, A. 106, 182 Community of Practice 23, 30, 31, 65
Blum, S. D. 81, 182 Confucius see also ideology;
Bond, M. H. 31, 74, 182 Confucian 136
Bourdieu, P. 138, 182 Cook, H. M. 145, 183
British East India Company 5 Cooperative Principle 14
Brits/British 5–7, 12, 34, 42, 43, 75, 105 Culpeper, J. 17, 18, 58, 60, 183, 186
~ culture 14, 33 Cultural Revolution (Wenhua-geming
Brown, P. 14, 15, 22, 23, 40, 74, 77, 97, Ўϯॠ )ڮ8, 30, 79, 81, 87–90,
98, 103, 182 114, 116–18, 121, 141–3
Bousfield, D. 15, 182 culture shock 7, 13
196 Index of Names and Subjects
Kádár, D. Z. 10, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 23, Macartney, George (Earl) 12
27, 29, 39, 42, 44, 45, 48–50, 53, 54, Macau 6, 32
56–63, 67, 69, 75, 75, 82, 132, 134, Malaysia 143
135, 137, 146,182, 183, 186–9, 191 Manchu 5–7, 34
kenjoˉgo ᖰ侎ᇟ 43 Mandarin Chinese 28, 32, 76, 84, 91,
Kim, A. H. 145, 147, 187 98, 104, 117, 122, 123, 147–9
Kim, Il-sung and Jhong-il 144 Mao, L. M. R. 22, 74, 188
Kohnen, T. 9, 187 Mao Zedong (Лᐛܿ)/Maoism 8, 79,
Korea 6 87, 140–2, 153
Korean see also ‘North Korea’ Matsumoto, Y. 15, 188
~ as an ‘honorific-rich’ language 1, May Fourth Movement (Wu-Si-
43, 145–7 yundong ϖѤၮ) 8, 25, 33,
Kumatani, A. 128, 145, 187 130, 139–43
Meiji Restoration (Meiji ishin
Labov, W. 88, 187 ܴݯᆢཥ) 9
lack of politeness 67–9, 73, 88, 110, Mills, H. C. 140, 188
112–18, 120, 121, 127, 132, 154–7 Mills, S. 13, 15, 18, 19, 58, 127, 135,
Lakoff, R. T. 9, 14, 187 186, 188
Larsen-Freeman, D. 158, 187 Minami, F. 9, 185
Lee, C. L. 128, 143, 187 mock impoliteness 58
198 Index of Names and Subjects
Nakane, I. 2, 189 requests 10, 11, 55–7, 78, 91, 92, 95,
native designation of ‘politeness’ see ‘li’ 98, 99, 102–4, 110, 113, 115, 121,
Neo-Confucianism (Lixue Ꮲ) 136 123, 150
Nevelainen, M. 27, 189 revival of traditional values 75, 82,
Nitta, J. 28, 189 120, 142
Nohara, M. 28, 189 revolutionary terminology 86, 87
norms, ritual
cultural ~ 17, 79, 108, 158–61 ~ discourse 36
(im)politeness ~ 1, 2, 9, 11, 14, ~ greeting 95
17–21, 23, 28, 29, 42, 65, 73–7, 89, ~ invitation 95, 96
90, 94–7, 110, 112–21, 127, 135, ~ politeness 10, 38, 40, 43, 51–4, 58,
136, 141, 142, 145, 148, 155 95, 99, 101, 102, 124, 127, 137
sociopragmatic ~ 8 ~ self-display 40, 43, 96
Western ~ 13 ~ zed behaviour 1, 13
North Korea (~n politeness and Ross, H. 140, 193
ideologies) 128, 144, 145, rudeness 14, 65, 76, 77, 83, 88, 141,
147, 153 143, 148
novel 27–9, 33, 44–69, 131, 132 stereotypical ~ 2, 13, 65, 66, 143
~ as a norm 112–18
Ogiermann, E. 141, 189 Ruesch, J. 30, 190
Okinawa (see Ryu
ˉ kyuˉ) Russia 141
Open Door Policy 25, 78, 82, 95, 122 Ryuˉkyuˉ 28, 29, 148–51
Opium War 5, 6, 34
Schiffrin, D. 118, 190
Pan, Y. 12, 13, 20, 30–2, 74, 75, 84, 91, Scollon, R. 30, 31, 92, 103, 107, 109,
92, 94–6, 98, 103, 107, 110, 111, 154, 160, 190
114–16, 123, 182, 187, 189, 190 Scollon, S. W. 92, 103, 109, 190
particles 32, 73, 90–2, 103, 105, 129 Scotton, C. M. 78, 79, 190
Peng, G. 20, 39, 43, 57, 150, 190 Second World War 1, 9
personal pronouns 10, 60, 61, 147, 150 Setoguchi, R. 28, 29, 150, 190
Pieke, F. N. 2, 190 Shibata, T. 21, 190
Pizziconi, B. 18, 19, 22, 130, 190 Short, P. 142, 191
politeness in flux 118–24 Singapore 25, 128, 143
politic behaviour 18, 57, 58, 83, 113, Skewis, M. 39, 191
121, 123 small talk 90, 95–7, 102, 103, 117, 130
Polo, Marco 5 social
professional titles 81, 82 ~ differences between China and
‘psychological warfare’ (and (im) Europe 40–2
politeness) 86, 143 ~ elite 5–7, 9, 36, 37, 48, 51, 64, 135–41
Puyi ྑሺ!7 Song Qingling ֺቼស 133, 134
sonkeigo ൧ལᇟ 45
quantitative research (of Chinese Spencer-Oatey, H. 2, 75, 191
honorifics) 20, 44, 151, 152 standard see also ‘norms’ 115
generic ~ 40
referencing 106, 107 intercultural ~ 66
refusals 52–4, 98–101 social ~ 4
relational work see ‘facework’ ~ form 67, 140, 147, 150
repetition of expressions 116 ~ (im)politeness 28, 87
Index of Names and Subjects 199
Note
1
If a work is created by more than two authors, we only mention the first author’s name;
furthermore, this index does not include names mentioned in the footnotes.
Index of Chinese Expressions Studied