Japan Thanking

Linguistic rituals for thanking in Japanese:

Balancing obligations

Jun Ohashi

Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne, Vic. 3010, Australia

Received 18 June 2005; received in revised form 29 March 2008; accepted 4 April 2008

Abstract

The paper investigates what can be described as a Japanese cultural way of thanking, o-rei ( ). The

data of the investigation are naturally occurring telephone conversations which took place in the Japanese

end-of-year gift-giving season, seibo. Sections of the conversations, which refer to favours or gifts that are

given or received, are extracted and transcribed for a detailed investigation. This study reveals that

conversational participants cooperate to achieve a mutual pragmatic goal of ‘debt–credit’ equilibrium. This

is a symbolic settlement that is necessary to care for the conversational participants’ debt-sensitive face. The

linguistic ritual of o-rei serves to achieve this temporary restoration of equilibrium, and thus o-rei does not

free the debtor from debt. The data suggest that Japanese native speakers employ many means of indicating

o-rei that are not predicted by most politeness and speech act theories. The prolongation of ‘acknowledging

debt/benefit–denigrating credit’ between the beneficiary and the benefactor also suggests the importance of

the mutual involvement of conversational participants in understanding the social meaning of o-rei. O-rei

serves as a symbolic repayment of debt, and it is a common practice outside a family circle. In this paper I

question the adequacy of the definition of thanking, ‘expressions of gratitude and appreciation’, which has

been commonly used in cross-cultural and inter-language pragmatic research and suggest that the mutual

and reciprocal aspects need to be taken into account.

# 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Thanking; O-rei; Debt-credit equilibrium; Reciprocity; Face

1. Introduction

In anthropology, there is a rich tradition of research on social exchange in terms of the norm of

reciprocity (to name a few classics, Mauss, 1925 (in French), 1954 (English translation);

Malinowski, 1922; Levi-Strauss, 1949 (in French), 1969 (English translation); Gouldner, 1960).

The norm of reciprocity – the social obligation to reciprocate benefits to one another – is claimed to

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 2150–2174

E-mail address: [email protected].

0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.001

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.001

be universal (Gouldner, 1960), and reciprocity as an attempt to reduce indebtedness is supported

generally in social psychology (Greenberg, 1980). However the norm of reciprocity has not been

fully integrated into the theories of language use, such as speech acts and politeness. ‘Thanking’ in

speech act theory is unrelated to the norm of reciprocity. This may be partly because, traditionally,

reciprocity was only associated with so called ‘exotic’ and ‘archaic’ societies. Komter’s (1996)

sociological study of gift-giving in Dutch communities involving 513 Dutch citizens proves that the

norm of reciprocity is observed in Western societies. In her more recent in-depth study of gratitude,

she emphasises the link between the norm of reciprocity and gratitude.

Gratitude is the in-between connecting gift and return gift. Together, the three elements of

gift, gratitude, and countergift form the chain that constitutes the principle of reciprocity

(Komter, 2004:210).

Befu (1980) claims that cultural frame of reference of a society in question must be taken into

account when interpreting the meaning of its social exchange. This is because a specific cultural

frame of reference in a given society provides rules and they ‘‘allow certain latitudes of

interpretation by individual actors, actors are free to apply them in ways which they consider

most advantageous’’(Befu, 1980:214). Thus the norm of reciprocity, individual’s strategies and

cultural frame of reference are all interwoven. Lebra (1976) describes on ( ) as a culture-bound

notion of reciprocity for the Japanese. ‘‘An on relationship, once generated by giving and

receiving a benefit, compels the receiver-debtor to repay on in order to restore balance.’’ (Lebra,

1976:91). The balance is in fact maintained in a long term, therefore, at any given points of the

occurrence of giving or reciprocating, the state of imbalance in terms of debt and credit is

common. The social goal of reciprocity is not debtless or creditless state in social relationship,

but the continuation of the relationship. ‘‘The counterbalancing of debt – now in favour of one

member, now in favour of the other – insures that the relationship between the two continue

. . .’’(Schwartz, 1967:8), and ‘‘keeping the reciprocal book in perfect balance means cancellation

of social ties’’ (Lebra, 1976:100). If social meaning of reciprocity is a creation and maintenance

of social bond, what are exchanged verbally at any events of giving and receiving gift and favour

should hold a significant key in insuring social ties in a given society.

In this paper, by setting the scene in Japanese seibo, end of year gift-giving season, I will

investigate how people manage social exchange linguistically. To be more specific, I will look

into what conversational patterns are common between the beneficiary and the benefactor with

various degrees of social distance and intimacy, and what is the role of such linguistic realisations

in social exchange. I will also argue for the variability of speech acts and linguistic politeness

depending on the language and its cultural frame of reference.

I wish first to explore notion of (rei), Chinese origin Japanese traditional value, and to what

extent rei have shaped Japanese social exchange and its linguistic behaviours. Then I will briefly

review thanking and notion of politeness before investigating natural conversations in Japanese

institutionalised seibo gift-giving season.

1.1. (Rei)

Rei is a Japanese version of the original Chinese li ( ) which has been described as

expressions of self-denigration and respect to others (Gu, 1990), namely politeness. Li is strongly

associated with the sayings of Confucius from around the 6th century B.C., and Gu describes it as

the social hierarchy and order based on the social system of the Zhou Dynasty, that Confucius

advocated should be restored (Gu, 1990). Therefore, li was, in one of its main meanings, the

J. Ohashi / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 2150–2174 2151

manner required in talking to someone with higher status and more power than the speaker, and

this li helped maintain the social hierarchy. The logical relation between li as politeness and li as

social hierarchy is that appropriate speech that takes account of the speaker’s social status in

relation to the hearer leads to consolidation of hierarchy. Gu explains that ‘‘it is li (i.e. social

hierarchy) that gives rise to li (i.e. politeness), and that it is li (i.e. politeness) that expresses and

helps maintain li (i.e. social hierarchy and order)’’ (Gu, 1990:239).

Yanagita (1964) argued that the Japanese version of rei slightly diverged from the original

sense of li in Chinese. In spoken Japanese, with an honorific o-prefix, o-rei is commonly used in

such expressions as o-rei o suru (to do rei) meaning to express rei as an action; to give a gift to

someone whom one is indebted to, or to bow (with no o-prefix). Also o-rei o iu (to say rei) means

to verbally express rei. It is often associated with using the arigatoo thanking speech formula,

and other speech formulae for apology, such as sumimasen, mooshiwake arimasen.1

1.2. Linguistic expressions of thanking which describe the act of thanking

According to Kokugo Daijiten (Nihon dai jiten kankoo kai 1976:464), one of the most

authoritative Japanese dictionaries, rei means ‘manner’, ‘etiquette’, ‘words, gift, or money gift

with which one expresses gratitude (kansha)’ ‘expressions of respect (keii)’ or else ‘a bow’. Rei,

therefore, encompasses various socially expected behaviours, both verbal and non-verbal, in a

Japanese society.

To realise rei, it is appropriate and expected to express gratitude (kansha) and respect (keii) as

a certain verbal expression, and/or in a form of a gift, and/or bowing.

Kansha suru (to express gratitude) is defined as ‘‘arigatai to kanjite rei o noberukoto, mata

arigatai to kanzuru kimochi’’ (Nihon dai jiten kankoo kai, 1976:355). (To say rei with a feeling of

arigatai, or the feeling itself.) Therefore, ‘kansha suru’ is similar to ‘o-rei o iu’ (to say rei), but

they are not clearly distinguished in the Japanese dictionary. However, they are distinct from each

other in one sense that kansha can be felt, but o-rei can only be explicitly said or done. Also, as

mentioned, ‘o-rei o suru’ (to do rei) is an act of giving a gift as a repayment of debt or an act of

taking a bow, which suggests that ‘o-rei o iu’ (to say rei) is distinct from expressing gratitude.

Expressing o-rei implies a verbal symbolic repayment of debt. This difference is significant

because the speech act of thanking is defined as expressions of ‘‘gratitude or appreciation’’ in the

speech act theory (Searle, 1969:66) and this is the definition used in major studies of thanking in

cross-cultural and inter-language pragmatics such as Eisenstein and Bodman (1986, 1993).

However, such a narrow and static definition is not fit to explain the Japanese cultural way of

thanking, o-rei. In the following section, an overview of how the term ‘thanking’ has been defined

J. Ohashi / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 2150–21742152

1 According to Yanagita (1964), arigatai (literal translation: rare, hard to come by, precious or grateful) was used as an

expression uttered by the Japanese in religious exultation to extol God or Budda, but it became an expression of o-rei.

Yanagita (1964:17) explains how speech formulae expressing o-rei have been changing over a period of time. Up until

Genroku period (around 1700), katajikenai (I am ashamed, lose face) which served as apology formula was commonly

used in o-rei. Once a particular expression exclusively used from the lower to the higher status person is adapted by the

higher status when speaking to the lower, the lower finds the expression is not enough to express o-rei any longer.

Consequently, the lower has to find other expressions. There were also regional variations of the expression of o-rei such

as kanbun or kabun (literal meaning: treatment exceeding what one is worth) in Shinshuu region, or utatei or otomashii

(literal meaning: your treatment is meaningless as I am not worthy) in Hokuriku region (Yanagita, 1964). The

etymological meaning of speech formulae such as these may not reflect the speaker meaning of present Japanese

society in a certain context, but it may at least reveal how social norms and values are reflected in the use of the language

and have changed over a period of time.

in prior research in cross-cultural and inter-language pragmatics will be given in an attempt to

broaden the scope as to what thanking constitutes.

2. Rethinking the speech act of thanking

Wierzbicka (1987, 1991) warns that the use of English terminology in defining speech act verbs

assigns values specific to English speaking countries. ‘Gratitude’ and ‘appreciation’ in defining

thanking are not exceptions. She argues that it is necessary to avoid terms which may assume one

particular set of cultural values. Her solution is employing ‘‘reductive paraphrases’’ (Wierzbicka,

1987:12) in defining speech act verbs. This is her method of defining the verbs in a way which

avoids vocabulary containing culturally specific values. According to her, ‘thank’ is defined as:

I know that you have done something that is good for me

I say: I feel something good towards you because of that

I say this because I want to cause you to know what I feel towards you

I assume that you would want to hear me say this to you.

(Wierzbicka, 1987:214)

As shown, she managed to avoid using ‘gratitude’ or ‘appreciation’ in defining thanking. The

definition also depicts the strategic aspect (I want to cause you to know what I feel towards you.) as

well as the anticipated aspect of thanking (I assume that you would want to hear me say this to you.).

Haverkate (1988) views the speech act of thanking as a reactive speech act as follows:

‘thanking’ serves the particular purpose of restoring equilibrium in the cost-benefit relation

between speaker and hearer; it is a verbal act that symbolically compensates the cost

invested by the hearer for the benefit of the speaker. The foregoing implies that failing to

restore the cost-benefit balance by not thanking the cooperative interactant is considered an

impolite form of behavior. (Haverkate, 1988:391)

Coulmas (1981) also stresses the reactive nature of this speech act and its resemblance to the

speech act of apology: ‘‘thanks implying the indebtedness of the recipient of the benefit closely

resemble apologies where the speaker actually recognizes his indebtedness to his interlocutor’’

(p. 79).

A possible negative aspect of thanking (the expression of gratitude) in terms of social

relationship is pointed out by Apte (1974). According to him, verbalization of gratitude is not

expected among family members and close friends in Marathi and Hindi. Since ‘‘verbalization of

gratitude indicates a distant relationship’’ (p. 75), thanking may even suggest the friendship is in

danger. This is because

verbalizing one’s gratitude is a cheap way of getting out of the obligations arising from

friendship. The belief is that once the gratitude is verbalized, the receiver of help no longer

owes anything to the helper and does not have to reciprocate. (Apte, 1974:86–87)

Such a spectrum of what counts as thanking, reflecting different cultural values, raises concern

about the commonly used definition, expressions of gratitude and appreciation, for ‘thanking’ in

cross-cultural pragmatic study. None of these researchers except for Haverkate, explicitly

included the hearer’s (those who are thanked) role in the two-way relationship of thanking. It is

important to note that hearer response plays a significant role in thanking episodes. According to

Eisenstein and Bodman, the speech act of thanking is mutually developed, ‘‘the giver and the


thanker collaborate in the development of a successful thanking episode’’ (Eisenstein and

Bodman, 1993:74).

3. Rethinking the concept of politeness

Knowing what counts as polite in a given culture provides a motivational account for the

choice of linguistic expression in a given context, and also for a certain conversational

organisation. The notion of ‘face’ is useful in accounting for what motivates conversational

participants to opt for a particular linguistic choice. However, it has been argued that Brown and

Levinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness theory which is based on ‘face’ exhibits limited applicability in

many Asian cultures (Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989; Matsumoto, 1988, 1989; Gu, 1990; Mao, 1994).2

Bargiela-Chiappini (2003) re-examines Goffman’s concept of face which Brown and Levinson was

inspired in constructing their face-based politeness theory, and problematizes Brown and

Levinson’s misrepresentation of the Goffman’s original face, stating, ‘‘individualistic emphasis has

been picked up and elaborated by B&L’’ (Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003:1454).

Face constitutes a foundation of Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness, but their notion of

face which consists of positive and negative face wants exhibits inadequacy in cross-cultural

studies. Meier questions the distinction between positive and negative face,

Negative face involves the desire to be unimpeded; positive face involves the desire for

others to show that they want my wants to be achieved. By not impeding me, you are,

however, acting in accord with one of my wants, in essence showing that you want my want

to be achieved. (Meier, 1995, 384–385)

Meier (1995) raised concerns about the consequences of this lack of clarity in cross-cultural

research employing Brown and Levinson’s framework. Meier reveals inconsistent labelling

of strategy types and contradictions which result from the positive–negative distinction

employed in prior research. Meier claims that the binary classification of positive and negative,

‘‘seriously affect[s] the meaningfulness of the results as well as comparability across studies’’

(Meier, 1995:384). O’Driscoll (1996), in his effort to revitalise Brown and Levinson’s (1987)

negative–positive politeness model for universal application, argues that the

dual nature of politeness is not a binary choice but rather a matter of degree. Politeness

dualism operates on a spectrum. The total effect of an utterance may be either very

positively or very negatively polite or it may be only slightly so. (p. 28).


2 Mao (1994) and Gu (1990), demonstrating Chinese politeness phenomena, challenge Brown and Levinson for their

culturally biased construction of politeness theory. Mao (1994) claims that the basic concept of ‘face’ which Brown and

Levinson adopted from Goffman (1967) is, in fact, Chinese in origin. ‘Face’ in Brown and Levinson’s formulation is

oriented toward individual desires and wants; Chinese ‘face’, however, is oriented toward interdependent social

relationships, and is public and negotiable. Gu (1990) also critically points out that Brown and Levinson’s (1987)

politeness model assumes that FTAs (face threatening acts) are not polite, and thus politeness is required. This assumption

entails that being polite means being face-caring; however, Gu (1990) argues that such an assumption does not work in

Chinese. According to Gu, ‘offering’, ‘inviting’ and ‘promising’ in Chinese, for example, are considered polite and thus

not threatening to the hearer’s negative face. He argues even further that ‘‘S’s [speaker’s] insistence on H’s [hearer’s]

accepting the invitation serves as good evidence of S’s sincerity’’ (Gu, 1990:242).

Another line of criticisms came from the studies of politeness looking at Japanese language. Ide (1989), discussing

Japanese politeness phenomena, argues that Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory is not able to account for

non-strategic, ‘discernment’ Japanese politeness phenomena. Matsumoto (1988, 1989) questions the universality of

negative face as defined by Brown and Levinson.

However, as Meier maintains, the distinction between negative and positive face is opaque.

Although the notion of face which Brown and Levinson adopt from Goffman (1967) is useful, the

positive–negative model and its extreme individualistic emphasis is not adequate in cross-cultural

research.

Aston (1995) (see also McLaughlin et al., 1983; Baxter, 1984) points out the limitation of

Brown and Levinson’s rigid view of situational factors. Aston argues that power, distance and

imposition (or indebtedness) cannot always account for the speaker’s choice of speech acts and

strategy types. He stresses the importance of sequential organisation and the process of progressive

negotiation between the conversational participants, advocating a need for cross-cultural pragmatic

research investigating a bigger picture of conversational management rather than an isolated speech

act and strategy type. Mills (2002) focuses on locality rather than universality in linguistic

politeness phenomena, advocating a perspective of ‘Community of Practice’. This perspective sees

conversational norms and conventions as specific to certain participants of a given community and

allows for the interpretation that different groups of people have different ideas of what counts as

polite (Mills, 2002). Recently, there has been a strong surge of investigating linguistic politeness by

observing the discourse level rather than the single utterance or speech act level of meaning (Harris,

2001; Mills, 2002; Usami, 2002). Research on linguistic ‘politeness’ so far encompasses

phenomena including conflict avoidance, repair work, indirectness, honorifics, consideration for

others, enhancement of solidarity, denigration of self, and exaltation of others. Linguistic

expressions used for these purposes are often conventionalised and therefore become anticipated

and unnoticed. Prevalent conversational styles and management of a certain speech event in a given

speech community are products of conversational participants’ agreement to anticipated social

norms. However, it is also important to note that such norms are readily overridden by the speaker’s

specific intention. Therefore, it is essential to understand what social norms are observed under

what conditions in order to interpret the speaker intention accurately. The distinction between the

social norm-driven and the strategic aspect of politeness has been well discussed in research in

pragmatics but there is a lack of standard terminology. Watts (1989, 1992) uses the term, ‘politic

behaviour’ for the former and reserves ‘politeness’ for the speaker’s egocentric decision ‘‘for

whatever reason, to enhance her/his social standing with respect to alter’’ (Watts, 1992:57). Hill

et al. (1986) and Ide (1989) use wakimae or discernment politeness and volitional politeness, but

Kasper (1990) uses social indexing and strategic politeness. Jary (1998) and Haugh (2003) in the

Relevance theoretic perspective use ‘anticipated politeness’ and ‘inferred politeness’. Haugh

(2003) then supports Usami’s (1998, 2001, 2002) discourse politeness theory for its methodological

advantages in judging what is anticipated and what is inferred. Discourse politeness theory requires

empirical analysis to determine discourse politeness defaults (what is unmarked/socio-culturally

anticipated) in order to identify marked or inferred politeness phenomena.

Whatever the term used in distinguishing the two different politeness orientations, I support

the view that the strategic use of politeness is the intentional exploitation of social norms (Watts,

1992:57–58; Jary, 1998:11). I subscribe to Pizziconi’s (2000:382) definition of social norms

echoing Potter and Wetherell (1987), ‘‘a common resource that members of the linguistic

community can refer to and draw on for realising a wide range of expressive nuances.’’

In this study, formulaic speech and conversational patterns that are prevalent in thanking

episodes in Japanese will be identified and patterns that diverge from them will also be looked

into in order to understand the mechanism of o-rei conversations. In the following sections,

thanking episodes will be investigated as mutual social practices between the benefactor and the

beneficiary, and thus I will not only look into how a speaker thanks but also how his/her

interlocutor reacts, and moreover, how the conversation progresses for what reasons.


4. Method

To investigate how Japanese native speakers engage in thanking episodes, conversations

referring to a favour or gift that is given or received are collected and analysed.3 Three households

participating in this study were asked to record their telephone conversations in a gift-giving season,

and were also told that any conversations they had reservations about presenting to the researcher

should be erased. A total of 56 telephone conversations were collected, of which 28 segments

referring to favour or gift that is given or received, were extracted and transcribed for analysis. The

transcripts follow the conventions developed by Sacks et al. (1974) and Gardner (1994), and are

simplified and modified for the purpose of this study. (See Appendix A for the transcription

conventions.) The transcripts are followed by a word-by-word translation of the data, together with

keys which indicate grammatical functions or speech formulae (see Appendix B for symbols and

abbreviations). Particular sections of data are marked in bold for the benefit of the discussion that

follows.

These 28 segments involve 20 Japanese native speakers: 13 females (marked F1 to F13), and 7

males (M1 to M7). Ages varied between 30 and 75. Each segment typically covers the

beneficiary’s initial move for o-rei, in which s/he refers to or acknowledges his/her benefit or

debt, until a new topic is introduced or the conversation closes.

5. Data analysis

In the following discussion, transcriptions of the telephone conversations given as examples

are preceded by a description of the conversational participants, and their relationship. F and M

denote female and male, respectively, and number is given for their identification. Figures in

parenthesis indicate the age of participants. A given context is described in as much detail as

possible, but it may not always be relevant to its data analysis.

5.1. Use of arigatoo (thanking formula) and prolongation of ‘arigatoo–ie ie/iya iya’

(TF–denial) sequence in o-rei

Telephone conversation 1 (TC1)

A: F1 (35) B: M1 (35)

A has known B for more than ten years. B is A’s husband’s old friend.

B came to see A and her husband a few days prior to the conversation. B came to know then

that A’s family was in need of a family wagon for a trip. Later B offered his car. He cleaned the car

and delivered it to A’s family. A phoned B to say o-rei prior to the tour.

A(1): moshi mo[shi doomo::hello TF/AP


3 The telephone conversations were collected in seibo ( ) season. It is a component of the author’s Ph.D. research

(Ohashi, 2001). The seibo season is one of the two major gift-giving seasons (the other being chuugen). Sei ( ) means year

and bo ( ) means the end; literally, it means the end of year. However, in practice seibo means a gift. Often the term appears

with the honorific prefix o: ‘o seibo’, ‘o chuugen’. According to Inoshita (1979), Seibo is more important than chuugen,

because those who give only once a year give at this time. It is expected that, in this particular season, gifts should be

exchanged and the giver and the receiver should engage in conversations referring to immediate gifts or favours given or

received, possibly referring back to previous events where gifts or favours might have been exchanged in the same year.

B(2): [a:: doomoTF/AP

A(3): Hontooni arigato ne=really TF IP

(Really, thanks.)

B(4): =ie ie tondemonaino no heavens no

(Not at all.)

A(5): un soide konaida wa arigato ne=and the other day Tm TF IP

(and also the other day, thank you)

B(6): =iya iya i[ya]no no no

(No, no, no.)

A(7): [tooi]tokoro kara kite kurete=far place from come B give-me

(for coming such a long distance.)

B(8): =iya iya zenzen, de daijoobu soo?=no no not at all and alright appear

(Not at all. Is the car OK?)

A(9): =kaiteki kaitekicomfortable comfortable

After the minimal greeting ‘moshi moshi doomo – doomo’, A, rather abruptly, said ‘Hontooni

arigato ne’ in A(3) without specifying what this is for. The same thanking formula is uttered in

A(5), this time, specifying a previous event occurred konaida (the other day). A(7) further

specifies the event by describing that B came a long distance. It should be noted that a benefactive

verb, kureru (giving to me) is used to mark B’s giving benefit to A. It is interesting to observe that

all A(3), A(5), and A(7) attracted B’s denial. A(3) and A(5) use the arigatoo thanking formula

and ne (interpersonal particle),4 while A(7) uses the benefactive verb kureru. They all serve to

mark favours or benefit received. As the benefactive verb, kureru (giving to me) literally marks

someone’s act of giving which benefited the speaker, it could also mark the speaker’s receiving

benefit and subsequent debt from a social exchange point of view. As for B’s, the benefactor’s,

denial, it serves a pragmatic function of disregarding or denigrating his favour given (credit). This

‘acknowledging benefit/debt–denigrating credit’ is repeated until B shifted the topic by asking

‘‘daijoobu soo?’’ (Is the car OK?) to check whether the car he offered was suitable for A’s use.

After this, B asked A whereabouts A would be staying, and then they talked about weather,

possible snow fall and so on.

To further investigate the pragmatic functions of benefactive verbs, more data will be explored.


4 You can tell that A and B are in a familiar relationship because of the use of arigato rather than arigatoo gozaimasu,

and the use of plain form in general. The addition of the interactional particle ne is also significant. Although the

investigation of interactional particles is outside the scope of this study, the count of the particles is included. In 28

conversational segments, there are 54 occurrences of interactional particles such as yo, ne, sa, wa, and na. Ne is most

frequently occurred, 38 times, about 70% of all the occurrences. Sa only occurred 4 times. These interactional particles

(or final particles) are significant in spoken Japanese. They appeal to the interpersonal feelings and encourages

involvement of conversational participants (Maynard, 1989), and they are quite an important marker of the intimacy

of some of the conversations.

5.2. Use of benefactive verbs in o-rei

The following conversations (TC13, 18, and 25) feature the use of benefactive verbs. Itadaku,

the humble form of morau (receive) is used in all of the conversations.

Telephone conversation 13, 18—benefactive verb: itadakuTC13

A: F1 (35) B: F4 (60)

B is a sister of A’s father-in-law. They have spoken on the phone for the first time. A phoned B to

say o-rei for oiwai (a gift of money 20,000: 110/$1) for A’s daughter’s birth.

A(1): moshimoshi

hello

B(2): aa moshimoshi

ah hello

A(3): /family name/ degozaimasu

A’s family name HUM COP

(This is A)

B(4): hajimemashite

how do you do

A(5): doomo hajimemashite. mae wa iroiro oiwai itadaite imashite=

TF/AP how do you do before Tm various gifts HUMB receive COP

(It’s nice to have a talk with you for the first time. Previously, we have

received various presents from you.)

B(6): =aa ie ie.

ahh no, no

A(7): mata [konkai mo mata]

again this time also again

(This time again. . .)A(8): [iya::::::] hazukashii hazukashii desu kedo ne demo

well embarrassed embarrassed COP but IP but

(well. . . I am embarrassed but. . .)A(9): arigatoogozaimasu [hontooni]

TF really

B(10): [ii::e] omenikakari tai wa hontooni

no HUM meet want IP really

(No, I really want to meet you.)

It may sound odd that A phones B whom A hasn’t met before but has received various gifts

from her. Actually, A’s father-in-law is B’s brother, and they have been exchanging gifts when

opportunities arise. Such gift-giving events include their children’s marriage, celebration of their

grand children’s arrival, and their entering schools (Befu, 1968; Lebra, 1976). A(5) refers to such

gifts A received from B via A’s father-in-law. Itadaku (receive, humble form) was used to literally

mark A’s receiving. B(6) reacts this with ie ie. After the initial greeting stretching from A(1) to

B(4), A, the beneficiary, acknowledges her receiving gifts, or in other words, marks her debt. The

benefactive verb in a humble form in A(5) clearly marks her debt in a way that she shows she is

the recipient of gifts. In A(7), mata (again), konkaimo (this time also), and another mata, all

refereeing to the gifts, emphasise her debt. Also with arigatoogozaimasu in A(9), A insists on


marking her debt by investing various linguistic tokens in o-rei. B, the benefactor, on the other

hand, counteracts A’s acknowledgement of debt by denying it with ie ie and showing her

embarrassment suggesting that her gift is so small that she does not deserve A’s

acknowledgement of debt. In fact, 20,000 is above average for money gift on such occasion

(Imai, 2001).

The next conversation TC18 illustrates a similar setting but different conversational

participants. A and B are blood related relatives.

TC18

A: M4 (35) B: F7 (53)

B is A’s aunt. A rang B to say o-rei for oiwai (a gift of money, 20,000: 110/$1) for A’s

daughter’s birth.

A(1): a- /first name/ desu.

A’s first name COP

(Ah, this is A speaking.)

B(2): a- SHI[BARAKU:]

long time

(Ah, haven’t seen you for a long time.)

A(3): [doomo:]

TF/AP

(Hello.)

B(4): genki deshita?

well COP

(How have you been?)

A(5): genkide yatte[masu.]

well doing

(I am doing fine.)

B(6): [u::n?]

FB

A(7): ano oiwai itadaite,

well money gift HUMB receive

(I have received oiwai.)

B(8): [a- i::e, ie ie]

ah no no no

(no, no)

A(9): [hontoo doomo] arigatoo gozaimashita

really TF

B(10): kimochi dake

thought only

(It is not much.)

A(11): ano okite mashita? daijoobu desu ka? ima.

well awake being OK COP Q now

(Were you awake? Is it OK to talk now?)

B(12): a- zenzen, okitetano.

completely awake


In this conversation, A’s o-rei starts in A(7) with a benefactive verb itadaku (receive, humble

form). B(8) counteracts this with ie ie, but A(9) continues to complete arigatoo gozaimashita.

B(10) then, denigrates her credit. A(11) suddenly asks if B was awake and convenient to talk now.

After this part, A started talking about a mutual event when he visited B when he was 10 years of

age. A(11) can be interpreted as a topic change to end an o-rei. This example is unique because

the beneficiary changed the topic. In other examples it was always the benefactor who changed

the topic. The following conversation, TC25, captures o-rei between an ex-principal and a

teacher both of who used to work in a same junior high school. It is noted that o-seibo may be

non-reciprocal. An inferior may give a gift to a superior to mark their general indebtedness to the

superior for ongoing favours and benevolence.

TC25A: M5(65) B: M6(45)

A was an ex-principal of a state school and B was one of the teachers worked at the school. Upon

arrival of an o-seibo (a year-end gift) from B, A phoned B to say o-rei.

A(1): nichiyoo no hoo ga isogashii tte?

Sunday LK side S busy QUO

(You are busier on Sundays?)

B(2): soo.

Right

(That’s right.)

A(3): ee? {laugh}(::::) iya:: itsumo itsumo honto mooshi[wakenai]

well always always really AP

(Really? Well, every year, thank you so much.)

B(4): [ii:e] tondemonaidesu

no heavens no

(No, not at all)

A(5): mata ano: itadakimashita

again well HUMB receive

(I have received again [your o-seibo].)

B(6): hai

yes/FB

A(7): sassoku goshoomi sasete moraimashita node

soon HUM taste CAU B receive so

(I’ve already tasted it.)

B(8): ie ie ie

no no no

After A’s several attempts to contact B on the phone, A finally caught B. After exchanging

greetings, B told A that he was at his school to get some work done, and A, half jokingly, said

‘‘Are you busier on Sundays?’’ A(3) uses mooshiwakenai (I have no excuse), an apology formula,

with itsumo (always) and honto (really) with which to emphasise his debt incurred by the o-seibo

gift. B(4) counteracts them with ‘‘iie tondemonai’’ (no, heaven’s no) which overlaps the apology

formula in A(3). A(5) continues o-rei with a benefactive verb itadakimashita (receive, perfective,

humble form). Itadaku (receive, humble form) also occurred in o-rei in TC13 and TC18. What

stands out in TC25 is that the benefactive verb in A(5) is followed by hai (yes), but not by ie ie


(no, no). However, ‘hai’ here is not a substantial answer attending to propositional content, but it

is an aizuchi (back channelling device). It is possible that B’s wife, but not B, had sent a gift to A,

and thus B could not figure out A’s intention of o-rei on the spot.5 A may have said ‘hai’, as an

aizuchi to gain time. Therefore, the substantial second part of the adjacency pair6 is the ie ie ie

that follows. In all examples, ‘benefactive verb—ie ie’ pairs are common, and they should not be

interpreted as ‘a statement that one receives a gift–denying or challenging the statement’. They

should be interpreted in a pragmatic level of meaning. ‘Benefactive verb’ marks the fact that one

is a recipient of a favour or gift—‘ie ie’ denying and denigrating the other’s credit.7 In other

words, benefactive verbs emphasises imbalance and ‘ie ie’ denigrates it.

Similarly, as seen in TC25, the statement that A has already tasted the gift that B gave was

followed by B’s denial ‘ie ie ie’ (no, no, no). However, this ‘ie ie ie’ does not deny the fact

that A has tasted the gift and neither does it accuse A of being dishonest. Also, in TC1, A(7)

with a benefactive verb, kureru (‘tooitokoro kara kitekurete’—literal translation: you have

given me your favour of coming a long distance) is followed by a denial. It does not deny A’s

coming a long distance to see A, but denies the perceived ‘imbalance’. Benefactive verbs

serve a pragmatic function of marking benefit/debt the speaker holds to the hearer, and they

create an environment for a hearer’s (benefactor’s) denial to the pragmatic meaning.

5.3. Use of apology formulae in o-rei

Apology formulae such as Sumimasen (often pronounced as suimasen) and mooshiwakenai,

both of which are typically translated in English as ‘Excuse me/I am sorry’ occurred frequently in

the data.8 Use of apology formulae in thanking has already been well investigated (see e.g.

Coulmas, 1981; Miyake, 1994; Ogawa, 1993; Ikoma, 1993; Ide, 1998; Kumatoridani, 1999).


5 According to the statistics; women are more active in gift giving and wives send seibo or chuugen on behalf of their

husbands. For some, seibo is seen as an empty practice and economically burdensome (Asahi shimbun website, http://

www.asahi.com/532/board/board001-70.html, accessed 23/2/1999).6 The notion of the adjacency pair stems from Conversation Analysis (CA). The CA approach is distinct from speech act

theory because CA is a sociological investigation (Heritage, 1995). However, the notion of adjacency pairs illustrates

sequential rules of interactional acts, and thus it is useful in identifying speech acts of naturally occurring conversations.

In relation to linguistic markedness, this notion of adjacency pair functions to indicate something expected or less expected in

a conversation. Paired utterances such as question–answer, summons–answer, greeting–greeting, closing–closing,

offer–acceptance, compliment–acceptance/ rejection, and request–granting/denial, for example, have been identified as

adjacency pairs (Levinson, 1983; McLaughlin, 1984). Adjacency pairs set up specific expectations and are thus useful and

important in identifying speech acts and the meaning of utterances.7 I would like to thank one of the reviewers for his/her comments regarding functions of benefactive verbs. The

reviewer’s view is that benefactive verbs do not always overtly acknowledge a favour, but they simply represent the

unmarked way to clarify the deictics of the event described by the main verbs and that the benefactor does not necessary

counteracts the benefactive verbs with ie ie (no, no), but does so for what potentially would follow or for what is omitted.

Especially in my data of o-rei, the benefactive verbs are more significant in their pragmatic function of acknowledging

debt/benefit. The data strongly suggests, and it is my view that a benefactive verb often in the humble form, itadaku, for

example, could single-handedly imply o-rei by its pragmatic function of acknowledging debt/benefit which resulted from

the act of receiving. Pizziconi (2000) also argues that benefactive verbs are indices of gratitude or indebtedness, and a

purely deictic interpretation is not possible.8 The etymological meaning of these apology formulae are noted for reference only, as the speaker meaning may not

reflect the historical meaning. Sumimasen literally means ‘this is not the end’ in a sense that ‘things cannot be finished

(before I repay my debt)’. Ide (1998), for example, identify seven communicative functions of sumimasen: sincere

apology, quasi-thanks and apology, request maker, attention-getting device, leave-taking device, affirmative and

conformational response, and reciprocal exchange of acknowledgement.

Mooshiwakenai means ‘I have no excuse’ upon receiving a favour or a trouble caused by the agent.

http://www.asahi.com/532/board/board001-70.html

http://www.asahi.com/532/board/board001-70.html

They all support that ‘thanking’ and ‘apologising’ are hardly distinguishable in Japanese; they

are closely related in the indebtedness the speaker feels towards the interlocutor.

The following example shows how sumimasen and mooshiwakenai (both coded as AP:

apology formula) are used in a particular context.

Telephone conversation 5 (TC5)

A: M2(70) B: M3(65)

A and B are voluntary helpers working for a local community association (choonaikai). B gave A

a bag of sasakamaboko (a kind of fish cake) worth 1500 ( 110/$1) the other day. A rang B to say

o-rei for the gift.

A(5): omiyage suimasen ne hontooni wa[zawaza]

present AP IP really going through the trouble

(I’m sorry you went to the trouble, but thank you very much for the present.)

B(6): [ie ie tondemo]nai desu

no no heavens no COP

(No, not at all.)

A(7): mooshiwakenai, itsumo kiotsukatte moratte, /???/kakete [doomo]

AP always consider B receive cause TF/AP

(I’m sorry for the trouble and thank you for the kind thought.)

B(8): [honno,] honno okuchi yogoshi=

just just HONmouth dirty

(It’s a just. . ., nothing’s very good.)

A(9): =IYA IYA TONDEMONAI desu yo

no no heavens no COP IP

(No, not at all.)

B(10): ashita wa?

tomorrow Tm

(What about tomorrow?)

After their exchange of greetings, A(5) uses suimasen referring to the present. A is apologetic

about his receiving the gift. Wazawaza acknowledges the effort that B went to in buying the gift. It

is however overlapped by B(6)’s denial. This denial is B’s counterbalancing act to minimise/

reduce A’s sense of debt. A(7) continues his o-rei with another apology speech formula,

mooshiwakenai (literal translation: there is no excuse). A benefactive verb, moratte (receive)

serves as an auxiliary verb for the main verb kio tukatte (pay attention to someone’s needs),

indicating that A received B’s kind thought, in this contest, B’s buying him a souvenir. This marks

A’s benefit and the consequent debt. The part marked as /???/is a section that could not be

transcribed due to the poor sound quality. Doomo in A(7) is a speech formula often used in

greetings (as in TC1), thanking and apologising. Doomo (literal translation: in many ways) is

frequently used with both thanking and apology formulae as an intensifier by preceding them,

such as in:

Doomo arigatoo gozaimasu

Thanking speech formula (TF)

Doomo sumimasen

Apology speech formula (AP)


It is often the case that doomo is used alone, that is, the latter parts are unsaid. The frequent use

of doomo supports the view that Japanese native speakers may not be conscious of

distinguishing the speech act of thanking and apology in particular contexts where the speaker

needs to express indebtedness. This also supports Coulmas’s (1981) analysis of Japanese

thanking and apologising which are closely related in terms of indebtedness the speaker implies.

A(7), then, used an apology formula, a benefactive verb and doomo in his o-rei, all of which

contribute to overtly mark A’s benefit/debt. B(8) counteracts them with humble comments

okuchiyogoshi (literal translation: dirtying your mouth) describing the gift he gave. A(9)

strongly denies B(8) to show his insistence on acknowledging the debt. Although different in

degree, in all the conversations so far investigated, the conversational participants observe the

debt–credit equilibrium. They do so in such a way that imbalance is overtly acknowledged by

beneficiary and the imbalance is denied by benefactor. In other words, beneficiary highlights

debt and benefactor denigrates credit. From a linguistic point of view, beneficiary invests

linguistic devices such as thanking speech formula, speech formulae for apology and

benefactive verbs in compensating the imbalance symbolically. Benefactor helps beneficiary

minimise the imbalance. It is a symbolic face work, and thus beneficiary is not free from

obligation to reciprocate a favour.

Such a mutual involvement of the conversational participants in realising an o-rei episode

questions research methods which only investigate how a single speech act is realised.

Conversational participants work together in managing social exchange linguistically. The

benefactor’s ‘denials’ such as ie ie (no, no) and/or tondemonai (heavens, no) serve as a polite

response to care for the beneficiary’s face. Both the benefactor and the beneficiary jointly minimise

the debt–credit imbalance. This also questions terminology of speech act types such as thanking

which is used in cross-cultural pragmatic studies. Had a researcher predetermined ‘thanking’ as

expressions of gratitude and appreciation, an interpretation of A’s linguistic behaviour in TC5

would have been distorted and looked obscure. In fact, what A tries in TC5 seems to comply with

‘thanking’ as defined by Coulmas (1981) and Haverkate (1988). They recognise the speech act of

thanking as a reactive act to compensate debt. This is, however, fundamentally different to

Eisenstein and Bodman’s (1986, 1993) view of thanking or expression of gratitude used in cross-

cultural pragmatic studies.9

Besides the features discussed in TC5, it is also worth paying attention to B(10), when the

speaker suddenly changed the topic, saying ‘ashitawa?’ (What about tomorrow?). Such a sudden

topic change, which is initiated by the benefactor, is observed frequently in the data. The


9 Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) showed the Japanese native speakers’ responses to a discourse completion task asking

‘what do you say to your friend who offered to lend you $500?’

‘‘Thank you very much. I hope you won’t have trouble with this. I’ll return it as fast as I possible’’ (p. 184)

‘‘I’m sorry. I’ll always remember the debt of gratitude’’ (p. 74).

This is a study of L2 English of various L1 speakers. Japanese speakers respond the discourse completion task.

Eisenstein and Bodman evaluate their responses as ‘problematic’ or ‘difficult to interpret’ and ‘uncomfortable and

confusing’. Those labelling suggests that Japanese native speakers’ cultural norms that they may have observed was

unexpected for the English native speaker judges. In other words, the Japanese native speakers’ responses did not satisfy

the expression of gratitude that the English native speakers expected in the situation described in the task. However if we

look at Japanese native speakers’ responses from Coulmas’s (1981) and Haverkate’s (1988) perspectives, they are quite

acceptable. The beneficiary’s speech act of thanking may serve as a strategic device ‘‘whose most important function is to

balance politeness relations between interlocutors’’ (Coulmas, 1981:81), and as ‘‘a verbal act that symbolically

compensates the cost invested by the hearer for the benefit of the speaker’’ (Haverkate, 1988:391). The Japanese native

speaker task takers in Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) invested an apology formula, thanking formula, acknowledgement

of debt, and a promise to pay back in compensating their perceived debt.

benefactor’s topic change seems to have a significant pragmatic function in terms of face

consideration. The beneficiary–benefactor joint work for redressing debt–credit imbalance is

repeated until a new topic is introduced or the conversation closes. Topic change is, in most cases,

initiated by the benefactor.10

5.4. Use of debt-sensitive conversational formulae in o-rei

The following conversation features the use of debt-sensitive conversational formulae,

osewaninarimashita (literal translation: being looked after) and tasukarimashita (literal

translation: being helped out, being saved). Both are speech formulae often used in marking

the speaker’s debt.

Telephone conversation 22 (TC 22)

A: F1 (35) B: F8 (75)

B is A’s grandmother-in-law. A phoned B to say o-rei for her hospitality when the A family stayed

at B’s house for a couple of days. A was concerned about B’s knee which sometimes gives her

discomfort.

A(1): moshimoshi obaachan

hello granny

B(2): a- konbanwa.

ah good evening

(Good evening.)

A(3): konbanwa. konoaida wa osewani narimashita

good evening the other day Tm T (being looked after)

(Good evening, thank you very much for your help, the other day.)

B(4): iie ie tondemonai nanno okamai mo deki[nakute]

no no heavens no any treat even can NEG

(No, not at all, I couldn’t do anything for you.)

A(5): [ie ie] ie

no no no

obaachan ippai iroiro kangaete kudasa[tta noni]

granny a lot various consider HONB give-me but

(No, you’ve been very thoughtful to us, but)

B(6): [ie ie]

no no

A(7): /A’s daughter’s first name/

mo ne are ga dame kore ga dame de hontooni

also IP that S no good this S no good with really

(<A’s daughter’s name> for example, couldn’t eat this and that, and really. . .)B(8): demo anta isshookenmei hataraite kurete tasukatta yo

but you very hard work B give-me T (being helped) IP

(But you worked hard to help me out.)


10 There are a few cases where the beneficiary changes topic. In such cases, the beneficiary is an instigator of the

telephone call and has other businesses to do other than saying o-rei, or conversationalists are blood related relatives and

thus o-rei has less significance.

A(9): ie ie ie watashitachi no arede ashi toka itame masen deshita?

no no no we LK that foot etc. hurt NEG COP

(No, not at all. Did you wear yourself out preparing things for us? I am concern

about your feet.)

B(10): ie ie daijoobu yo soide sa hora,(..) Akita kara

no no fine IP and IP you know Akita from

ippai iroiro okutte itadaite ne

a lot various send HUMBreceive IP

(No, I’m fine. I had a lot of things sent from Akita.)

A(11): ee::

FB

B(12): minna yorokonde

everybody glad

(Everybody was glad.)

In A(3), A uses osewani narimashita (I have been looked after) referring to her stay in B’s

house. B(4) counteracts this with ie ie tondemonai, and a formulaic expression, okamai mo

dekinakute (literal translation: I couldn’t look after you properly). A(5) kudasatta, honorific form

of a benefactive verb (give-me) acknowledges B’s thoughtful consideration that is given to A.

B(6) counteracts this with ie ie. A(7) mentions about the trouble caused to B because of her

daughter’s special dietary requirements. B(8), in return, acknowledges A’s hard work, using a

benefactive verb kurete (give-me). B also uses tasukatta (being helped out), because of A’s hard

work offered. This conversation also complies with the pattern of communication seen in TC5.

Both A and B explicitly mark their benefit/debt, and deny their own credit. These debt-sensitive

speech formulae have the same pragmatic functions as thanking speech formula arigatoo,

apology formulae, sumimasen, mooshiwakenai, and benefactive verbs. All of these linguistic

devices are invested in compensating the imbalance symbolically. The counterbalancing benefit/

debt, or reciprocity appears to be significant linguistic realisation in ensuring social ties.

However, not all of the conversations collected for this study follow these conversational patterns

of o-rei. The following example significantly diverts from them.

5.5. Complimenting gift–expressing gladness: When the debt–credit equilibrium is not

observed

As shown, there is no thanking, apology nor debt-sensitive formulae in the following

conversation.

Telephone conversation 34 (TC 34)

A: M5(65) B: F9(43)

B is A’s niece. A phoned B to say o-rei for smoked squids which B had sent to

A as an o-seibo.

A(1): ho::nto are saikoo:[da yo]

really that the best COP IP

(It’s the best really.)

B(2): [hontoo]ni? yokatta yokatta/first name/san mo

really good good B’s husband’s name also

yorokobu so shi tara::

pleased so do if

(Really <B’s husband’s name> should also be pleased to hear that.)


A(3): un? ojichan yo sorede mata shuryoo ga ookunaru kamoshirenai yo.

yeah uncle IP and then again sake anount S increase perhaps IP

(I may have to drink more sake for that.)

B(4): iyaa:: mo:: sokontoko wa moo nanitozo yoroshiku onegaishimasu yo.

well really this part Tm really HUM please RF IP

(Well, I politely ask you not to let it happen, really.)

After an initial exchange of greeting, A(1) compliments the smoked squids which B sent to A,

and B(2) expresses her gladness. A(3) continues to compliment them, rather jokingly, saying that

they are so good that he can’t help drinking more sake. B(4) takes it seriously and asks A not to let

it happen, considering his health. After this, A asked B how her husband is, and the conversation

went on. In this conversation, the debt–credit equilibrium is not observed. What should be noted

here is a conversational pair of ‘complimenting gift–expressing gladness’, and humour. Out of 28

conversational segments referring to a favour or gift that is given or received, only 5 contained

this type of exchange. All those five conversational segments in fact occurred in conversations

between relatives (both blood and marriage related).

Working on the debt–credit equilibrium emerged clearly as a common practice outside a

family circle. The beneficiaries use thanking, apology, debt-conscious formulae, and benefactive

verbs in order to symbolically compensate their debt. The benefactors, on the other hand, help the

beneficiaries to reduce the burden of the debt by denying the beneficiaries’ claim of indebtedness.

Such a sequence tends to continue until the benefactor changes topic. This preferred pattern

illustrates the quintessential o-rei ritual. O-rei serves to achieve this symbolic settlement that is

necessary to care for the conversational participants’ debt-sensitive face. It is a temporary

restoration of equilibrium for face sake, and thus o-rei does not free the debtor from debt.

A conversational pair of ‘complimenting gift–expressing gladness’ which only occurred in

conversations between relatives is significant in understanding how Japanese thanking or o-rei is

realised. The more intimate the interlocutors were, the more a ‘complimenting–gladness’ pair

tended to emerge. This is clearly a norm for intimate situations. The reverse was also true; a

conversational pair of ‘thanking, apology, debt-sensitive speech formulae or a benefactive

verb–denial’ attending to the debt–credit equilibrium tended to occur between socially less-

intimate conversational participants. However, the data also showed more complex pictures than

this. There are three conversations (TC28, 29, 35) where both patterns co-occur, and the

conversational participants appear to negotiate a consensus vis-a-vis their social relation and

appropriate norms. The following example TC 29 is a conversation between a daughter and her

mother-in-law.

TC 29

A: F1(35) B: F5(55)

B is A’s daughter-in-law. While Awas visiting her parents, B sent her half a dozen bottles of wine.

A rang her mother-in-law to say o-rei.

A(1): moshi moshi okaasan

hello hello mother

B(2): hai k[onbanwa]

yes good evening

A(3): [konbanwa] ippai arigatoo gozai[mashita]

good evening a lot TF

(Good evening, thank you for so much [of wine].)


B(4): [ie ie]/first name/ga erandanda kara

no no B’s son’s name S chose so

(No, no, <B’s son’s name> chose them anyway.)

A(5): iya demo sugoku oishikutte

no but very delicious

(but it is very nice and. . .)B(6): a- s- sorya yokatta

so if so good

(good to hear that.)

The conversation starts with a formal exchange of greeting, ‘konbanwa–konbanwa’ (Good

evening–Good evening). B uses a thanking formula, and A counteracts with ie ie, adding that it

was not herself but her son, A’s husband, who chose the wine. Then A compliments the wine, and

B expresses her gladness. After this, B asked A how her grandchildren were behaving. In this

conversation, a conversational pair of ‘thanking–denial’ is followed by ‘complimenting–

gladness’. This co-occurrence of both patterns reflects their understanding of their socially

assigned roles (daughter and mother-in-law) and their psychological relations at a given time.

In the previous example, in TC34, between a man of 65 and his niece, there is not a

‘thanking–denial’ pair, but a ‘complimenting–gladness’ with humour. The data of this study do

not only present either ‘thanking–denial’ or ‘complimenting–gladness’ or both. There are cases

of ‘complimenting–denial’ (TC30 and 32), ‘complimenting–feedback’ (i.e. soo? (Is that so?))

(TC31), and ‘complimenting–laugh’ (TC33). The data show diverse sequences reflecting

conversational participants’ negotiating their understanding of social relations. In general, the

debt–credit equilibrium is not necessarily observed when social distance is minimum (for

example, between blood-related relatives) such as in TC 34 (the interlocutor is a niece) and TC36

(the interlocutor is a sister). However, outside the family circle, such as in TC26 and TC27

(the interlocutor is the daughters’ teacher) and in TC37 (the interlocutor is a the father-in-law’s

friend), the debt–credit equilibrium is observed. Both ends of the continuum of social distance

tend to have predictable sequences; the minimum end tends to be ‘complimenting–gladness’,

while the maximum end tends to be ‘thanking, apology, debt-sensitive speech formula, and/or a

benefactive verb–denial’. In the medium range of the social distance continuum, for example,

where the interlocutors are a woman’s grandmother-in-law or mother-in-law, or where

interlocutors are friends and colleagues, sequential patterns are less predictable. According to

Wolfson (1989), at both minimum and maximum ends of social distance, conversational

participants have a clear idea of what to expect from each other. That is because, at both ends,

social distance is fixed, and thus it is not open to redefinition. However, in the medium range of

social distance, conversational participants negotiate their understanding of social distance. The

data support this Wolfson’s Bulge theory and illuminates the fact that there is a continuum of two

modes of politeness orientation along the degree of social distance.

Table 1 featuring M5’s conversations to various people on different gift-giving/receiving

occasions illuminates two distinctive sequential patterns that are possibly motivated by the two

different politeness orientations. The table illustrates the clear gradation of different

conversational patterns between M5 and his interlocutors of varying social distance. The

conversations are ordered by social distance, from 1 (the least distant) to 4 (the most distant).

When M5 talked with his niece in TC34 and with his sister in TC36, he opted for a

compliment. In both conversations, they, his niece and sister, replied to the compliment with

an expression of gladness. In TC26, when M5 talked with his daughter’s teacher, he used


o-rei–repertories such as benefactive verbs, debt conscious choices, and apology formulae.

Social distance obviously influenced M5’s choice of politeness orientations. The medium social

distance (marked as 2 and 3), the Bulge in Wolfson’s term, illustrates a highly negotiable

environment. In TC32 and TC25, M5 initially tried to redress the debt–credit imbalance by using

thanking and apology formulae; both of which are counteracted with denial. M5, then,

complimented the gifts. M5’s compliments were counteracted with ie ie, a denial, in TC32 and

doomo, a thanking/apology formula, in TC25. In both cases, ‘complimenting–gladness’ did not

occur, because neither his ex-colleague (in TC25) nor his daughter’s grandmother-in-law

(in TC32) followed M5’s initiation of moving towards the other end of politeness mode which is

prevalent among less-distant social circle.

6. Discussion

6.1. Working together on debt–credit equilibrium: balancing obligations

M5’s conversations with people with various social distances have shown that social distance

is a significant determiner of patterns of communication. Conversations between socially more

distant conversational participants mutually work on the debt–credit equilibrium. In other words

the beneficiary is required to overtly mark his debt and invest thanking, apology, debt- conscious

speech formulae and benefactive verbs in compensating debt symbolically. The benefactor on the

other hand underplays his/her credit to de-burden the beneficiary. Between members of a family

circle (i.e. when speaking to a sister or a niece), such requirement of face work, counterbalancing

debt–credit, is not in operation. The conversational participants seem to discern appropriate

patterns of communication from prevailing social norms, and they speak differently to

interlocutors of varying degrees of social distance. Of all 28 segments of thanking episodes, a


Table 1

Conversational sequences according to social distance

Social distance Participants Gift A B A B A B A B A B A

TC36 1 sister A: M5/65 Food C G C F C F TC

B: F11/67

TC34 1 niece A: M5/65 Food C G C R TC

B: F9/47

TC30 2 daughter’s

mother in-law

A: M5/65 Wine C D C D C D C F

B: F5/55 B H TC

TC32 2 daughter’s

mother in-law

A: M5/65 Food TF D B D T H D D B F TC

B: F8/75 C

TC25 3 ex-colleague A: M5/65 Food AP D B F B D C TF C TF D

B: M6/45 TC

TC26 4 daughter’s teacher A: M5/65 Food B D T D

B: M7/60 AP TC

Key: AP: apology formula; B: benefactive verb; C: compliment: e.g. ho::nto are saiko: da yo (that is the best really) such

as in TC34; D: denial; F: feedback; G: expression of gladness: e.g. yokatta; H:humble comment: e.g. itsumo ano

kawaribae shi nai mon de (the same things as usual, I am afraid.); R: request formula; T: speech formula acknowledging

the speaker’s debt, benefit or indebtedness. e.g. meiwaku kaketa/osewaninatta/tasukatta; TC: topic change; TF: thanking

formula.

‘complimenting–gladness’ conversational pattern only occurs between blood-related relatives

(social distance scale 1) and marriage-related relatives (social distance scale 2). However, among

four segments of conversations between blood related relatives, two of them (TC34:M5/65

talking to his niece F9/43, and TC36:M5 talking to his sister F11/67) have no thanking, apology,

debt-sensitive formula nor benefactive verbs, but only complimenting. On the other hand, the

other two (TC12:M4/35 talking to his aunt F4/60, and TC18:M4 talking to his another aunt

F7/53) do not show even a compliment. In addition to social distance, other factors may come

into play. These different conversational patterns may be attributed to (1) the kind of gift given; a

money gift does not allow the beneficiary to pay a compliment, (2) difference in age; the

beneficiary is younger, or (3) certain conversational habits or norms which are specific to

particular conversationalists.

Working on debt–credit equilibrium is observed as a default except for conversations between

family members. In all segments of thanking episodes except for TC34 and TC36, the debt–credit

equilibrium is fully or partly in operation. In the medium range of the social distance, the

conversationalists negotiate their patterns of communication, reflecting their current state of

socio-psychological distance, by discerning from and exploiting different aspects of the

prevailing social norms.

6.2. Overlaps

When conversational participants work together on debt–credit equilibrium, overlapping

speech frequently occurred. In other words, as soon as the beneficiary indicates his/her pragmatic

intention of compensating debt, even partially with thanking apology, debt-sensitive formulae or

a benefactive verb, the benefactor counteracts with a ‘denial’. A ‘denial’ serves the pragmatic

function of de-burdening the beneficiary, thus, it often overlaps or at least is latched with the

beneficiary’s attempt to work on o-rei. This conversational overlap or harmony is also evidence

that mutual work on the debt–credit equilibrium is in operation.11 If I use the notion of ‘face’, as a

motivational drive, derived from Goffman (1967:5): ‘‘the positive value a person effectively

claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact’’, the state of

being in debt without an acknowledgement is dishonourable, and for the benefactor, claiming

that s/he is a creditor is seen as arrogant and a social disgrace. ‘Denial’, as an expected follow up

of beneficiary’s acknowledgement of benefit/debt, may in fact care for both beneficiary’s and

benefactor’s face.

6.3. Topic change

Conversational partners’ mutual efforts on the debt–credit equilibrium tend to be repeated

until a new topic is introduced or the conversation closes. Topic change is, in most cases, initiated

by the benefactor (it may be initiated by the beneficiary if s/he is the instigator of the telephone

call). One interpretation of this is that the benefactor initiates a new topic to deliver the

beneficiary from the debt–credit cyclical norms, almost as if the benefactor switched off the


11 No disturbance or conflict is caused by this overlapping. Conversational overlaps in o-rei can only be justified if they

are believed to be polite acts. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), the speech act of thanking is a threat to the

speaker’s negative face, that is, ‘‘the speaker accepts debt, [and] humbles his own face’’ (p. 67), and is also a threat to the

hearer’s negative face for the hearer feels constrained to minimise the speaker’s debt. They did not explain why this

should be the case. However, if the notion of debt–credit equilibrium is used, the mutual cooperation and involvement of

both the speaker and the hearer can be explained.

operation button. The benefactor’s act of changing the topic signals that enough effort has been

made by the beneficiary to redress debt–credit imbalance. Another interpretation is that the

conversational participants discern from o-rei conversational patterns that the beneficiary will be

insistent in his/her expression of debt. This requirement for the beneficiary to persist in

acknowledging debt may explain why it has to be the benefactor (in most cases) who changes the

topic.12

7. Conclusion

As discussed at the beginning of this article, rei( ) encompasses various socially expected

behaviours. Expressing rei, or ‘o-rei o iu’ implies a verbal symbolic repayment of debt.

Prevailing patterns of thanking episodes between people outside of a family circle show that they

engage in o-rei. It is characterised by (1) the beneficiary’s explicit marking of imbalance by

emphasising benefit received and the symbolic verbal repayment of the debt, and by (2) the

benefactor’s denigration of credit. The prolongation of such conversational exchanges is another

notable characteristic. The data demonstrate that benefactive verbs, apology speech formulae,

and debt-sensitive conversational formulae, that are not predictable in most politeness and speech

act theories, are used in situations where ‘thanking’ would be appropriate in English. Such

conversational practices of o-rei which surfaced from a local investigation of Japanese thanking

episodes, may have universal implications in the study of cross-cultural pragmatics. As

Eisenstein and Bodman conclude, ‘‘thanking is a speech act that is mutually developed’’

(Eisenstein and Bodman, 1993:74). Japanese o-rei bears much resemblance to ‘thanking’ in this

sense. However, o-rei is a face-oriented temporary restoration of equilibrium. Such an aspect of

thanking may be exercised in other languages including English. By only seeing ‘thanking’ as

‘the expressions of gratitude and appreciation’, researchers may lose sight of the mutual

involvement of both the benefactor and the beneficiary and their mutual social goal of creating

and maintaining social ties.

Some aspects of ‘thanking’ that are described by Haverkate (1988), Coulmas (1981) and Apte

(1974) have strong bearing on the data of this study. The data show ‘‘a verbal act that

symbolically compensates the cost invested by the hearer for the benefit of the speaker’’

(Haverkate, 1988:391), and show that such an act can take thanking and apology speech

formulae, which support Coulmas’s (1981) view that thanking and apology are related speech

acts in the sense of indebtedness that the speaker implies or recognises. A couple of examples

which significantly diverge from the o-rei normative practices, actually suggest that the

debt–credit equilibrium is not always in operation. TC34 and TC36 illustrated that particular

members within a family circle did not verbalise o-rei to restore debt–credit imbalance, but they

engaged in ‘complimenting–gladness’ sequences. This supports Apte’s description of thanking

(verbalization of gratitude) in Marathi and Hindi, that is ‘‘verbalization of gratitude indicates a

distant relationship’’ (Apte, 1974:75), and thus it should be avoided among family members.

Such an aspect of thanking in fact resembles o-rei. In other words, the notion of debt–credit

equilibrium that derived from an analysis of the Japanese o-rei conversations have much

relevance in pragmatic phenomena of what the above-mentioned scholars described as

‘thanking’ or ‘expression of gratitude’. ‘Thanking’ seen as ‘expressions of gratitude and

appreciation’ is too reductive, and thus, it should be only used as a generic term which embraces

various culture-specific phenomena. Also, taking account of the mutual engagement of


12 This interpretation has been offered by a reviewer of the journal, and I agree.

conversational participants, we should rather call it ‘thanking episodes or events’ implying that

the beneficiary and the benefactor are given equal prominence. Empirical research on thanking

episodes from the perspective of debt–credit equilibrium and reciprocity in various languages is

imperative.

If I use Goffman’s definition of face, ‘‘the positive value a person effectively claims for

himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact’’ (Goffman, 1967:5), it

is assumed that conversationalists wish to behave and speak in particular ways by which they

achieve a good and pleasant self-evaluation and public self-image. The particular ways in which

they choose to behave and speak and how they are interpreted by others are influenced by their

culture. Culture is, in Spencer-Oatey’s (2000:4) words, ‘‘a fuzzy set of attitudes, beliefs,

behavioural conventions, and basic assumptions and values that are shared by a group of people’’.

Within a culture, there are number of social norms, or ‘common resource[s]’ (Pizziconi, 2000) for

specific events in realising and interpreting meaning. ‘Face’ is, therefore, culture-specific. The

notion of debt–credit equilibrium as a ‘face want’ provides a motivational account for politeness

phenomena observed in o-rei episodes. Face consists of private and public spheres,

self-evaluation and evaluation of self via public eyes, but the self-evaluation in itself is

influenced by others. Japanese native speakers’ face is vulnerable to debt–credit imbalance, thus

any act that may contribute to the imbalance requires a counter measure, that is, a politeness

investment which symbolically restores the debt–credit equilibrium. The study shows the dual

structure of the actual gift/favour exchange and the linguistic exchange, how benefactor and

beneficiary manage the event verbally. Balance in social exchange is maintained in a long term.

However, when giving and receiving a gift/favour occurs, linguistic o-rei ritual comes into effect.

O-rei serves to achieve a temporary restoration of equilibrium. This is a symbolic settlement that

is necessary to care for the conversational participants’ debt-sensitive face. Beneficiary’s

insisting on reciprocal obligation by acknowledging benefit/debt is a preferred mode of thanking

among non-family members. That is to say, beneficiary extensively emphasises imbalance. From

the linguistic point of view, linguistic devices, such TF, AF, benefactive verbs and other debt-

sensitive speech formulae are invested in compensating the imbalance. This view is close to

Haverkate’s interpretation of thanking as symbolic compensation. This is symbolic because the

beneficiary is not free from the obligation to reciprocate a favour, and the next exchange may well

be the return of a favour in some way.

However, o-rei is not in operation within a family circle, in which public face concerns are not

important.

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Brian Paltridge, Michael Ewing, Vera Mackie, and Hiroko Ohashi for their

advice and encouragement. Special thanks to two anonymous reviewers for insightful comments

and interpretations.

Appendix A. Transcription conventions

[ ] turns which overlap

= latched utterances___ stress

. a falling final contour


, a continuing contour

? a strong rising contour

! a strong animated tone

(.) a micropause

: prolongation of a sound

- an abrupt cutoff

upper emphatic voice

key

/???/ inaudible utterance

/name/ the name of either an addresser, an addressee or a referent

Appendix B. Symbols and abbreviations

AP apology formula

COP copula

B benefactive verb

CAU causative

clo closing

COM compliment

D denial

FB feedback (aizuchi)

Glad expression of gladness

HON honorific polite form

HUM humble polite form

Hum humble comment

IP interactional particles

O object marker

QUO quotative

S subject marker

T speech formula(acknowledging the speaker’s debt, benefit or indebtedness)

Tm topic marker

TC topic-change

TF thanking formula

References

Apte, Mahadev, 1974. ‘‘Thank you’’ and South Asian languages: a comparative sociolinguistic study. International

Journal of the Sociology of Language 3, 67–89.

Aston, Guy, 1995. Say ‘‘Thank you’’: some pragmatic constraints in conversational closings. Applied Linguistics 16 (1),

57–86.

Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, 2003. Face and politeness: new (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics 35,

1453–1469.

Baxter, Leslie A., 1984. An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. Human Communication Research 10 (3),

427–456.

Befu, Harumi, 1968. Gift-giving in a modernizing Japan. Monumenta Nipponica 23 (3/4), 445–456.


Befu, Harumi, 1980. Structural and motivational approaches to social exchange. In: Kenneth, Gergen, Martin,

Greenberg, Richard, Willis (Eds.), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. Plenum Press, New York,

pp. 197–214.

Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In: Goody, E.N.

(Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 56–

289.

Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Coulmas, Florian, 1981. Poison to your soul: thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In: Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Con-

versational Routine. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 69–91.

Eisenstein, Miriam, Bodman, Jean, 1986. ‘I very appreciate’: expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers

of American English. Applied Linguistics 7, 167–185.

Eisenstein, Miriam, Bodman, Jean, 1993. Expressing gratitude in American English. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S.

(Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 64–81.

Gardner, Robert, 1994. Spoken interaction studies in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics S11, 185–191.

Greenberg, Martin, 1980. A theory of indebtedness. In: Kenneth, Gergen, Martin, Greenberg,Richard, Willis (Eds.), Social

Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 3–26.

Goffman, Erving, 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Anchor Books, New York.

Gouldner, A.W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25, 161–178.

Gu, Yueguo, 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14/2, 237–257.

Harris, Sandra, 2001. Being politically impolite: extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse

and Society 12, 451–472.

Haugh, Michael, 2003. Anticipated versus inferred politeness. Multilingua 22, 397–413.

Haverkate, Henk, 1988. Politeness in communicative interaction. Multilingua 7/4, 385–409.

Heritage, John, 1995. Conversation analysis: methodological aspects. In: Quasthoff, U.M. (Ed.), Aspects of Oral

Communication. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 391–418.

Hill, Beverly, Sachiko, Ide, Shoko, Ikuta, Akiko, Kawasaki, Tsunao, Ogino, 1986. Universals of linguistic politeness:

some quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics 10, 347–371.

Ide, Risako, 1998. ‘Sorry for your kindness’: Japanese interactional ritual in public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 29,

509–529.

Ide, Sachiko, 1989. Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness.

Multilingua 8 (2/3), 223–248.

Ikoma, Kazuko, 1993. Kansha o arawasu saino chinsha hyoogen. Paper Presented at 1993 Spring Conference of Japanese

Language Teaching.

Imai, Toshiko, 2001. Ageru jooshiki morau jooshiki. Kawaide shoboo shinsha, Tokyo.

Jary, Mark, 1998. Relevance theory and the communication of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 1–19.

Kasper, Gabriele, 1990. Linguistic politeness: current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 193–218.

Komter, Aafke Elisabeth, 1996. Reciprocity as a principle of exclusion: gift giving in the Netherlands. Sociology 30, 299–

316.

Komter, Aafke Elisabeth, 2004. Gratitude and gift exchange. In: Robert, Emmons, Michael, McCullough (Eds.), The

Psychology of Gratitude. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 195–212.

Kumatoridani, Tetsuo, 1999. Alternation and co-occurrence in Japanese thanks. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 623–642.

Lebra, Takie, 1976. Japanese Patterns of Behaviour. The University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Levinson, Stephen, 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Malinowski, Bronislaw, 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Dutton, New York.

Levi-Strauss, Claude, 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Beacon, Boston (original work published 1949).

Mao, LuMing R., 1994. Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics 21, 451–486.

Matsumoto, Yoshiko, 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of

Pragmatics 12, 403–426.

Matsumoto, Yoshiko, 1989. Politeness and conversational universals—observation from Japanese. Multilingua 8, 207–

221.

Mauss, Marcel, 1954. The Gift. Free Press, Glencoe, Ill (original work published 1925).

Maynard, Senko, 1989. Japanese Conversation: Self-contextualization through Structure and Interactional Management.

Ablex Publishing, New Jersey.

McLaughlin, Margaret, 1984. Conversation: How Talk is Organised. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.


McLaughlin, Margaret I., Michael, J. Cody, Dan, H. O’Hair, 1983. The management of failure events: some contextual

determinants of accounting behaviour. Human Communication Research 9 (3), 208–224.

Meier, A.J., 1995. Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 24, 381–392.

Mills, Sara, 2002. Rethinking politeness, impoliteness and gender identity. In: Litosseliti, Lia, Jane, Sunderland

(Eds.), Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 69–89.

Miyake, Kazuko, 1994. Kanshano taishoo kenkyuu—Nichi ei taishoo kenkyuu. Nihongogaku 13, 10–18.

Nihon, daijiten kankookai, 1976. Nihon kokugo daijiten. Shoogakukan, Tokyo.

O’Driscoll, Jim, 1996. About face: a defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 1–32.

Ogawa, Haruko, 1993. Sumimasen no shakai gengogakuteki koosatsu. Gengo bunka to nihongo kyooiku 6. Ochanomizu

University, Tokyo, pp. 36–46.

Pizziconi, Barbara, 2000. Some remarks of the notion of ‘benefit’ and the Japanese communicative style. SOAS Working

Papers in Linguistics 10, 371–384.

Potter, J., Wetherell, M., 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology. Sage, London.

Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail, Jefferson, 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turntaking for

conversation. Language 50 (4), 696–735.

Schwartz, B., 1967. The social psychology of the gift. American Journal of Sociology 73, 1–11.

Searle, John, 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 2000. Introduction: language, culture and repport management. In: Spencer-Oatey, Helen (Ed.),

Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk Across Cultures. Continuum, London, pp. 1–8.

Usami, Mayumi, 1998. Poraitonesu riron no tenkai: disukoosu poraitonesu to iu toraekata [Development of politeness

theory: the concept of discourse politeness]. Tokyo Gaikokugo Daigaku Nihon Kenkyuu Kyooiku Nenpoo 1997, 3,

145–159.

Usami, Mayumi, 2001. Danwa no poraitonesu—poraitonesu no danwa riron koosoo [Discourse politeness: Discourse

theory of politeness—a preliminary framework]. In: Mutsuro, Kai (Ed.), Danwa no poraitonesu [Discourse

Politeness]. The National Language Research Institute, Tokyo, pp. 9–58.

Usami, Mayumi, 2002. Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation: Some Implications for a Universal Theory of

Politeness. Hituji Shobo, Tokyo.

Watts, Richard, 1989. Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behaviour. Multilingua 8, 131–166.

Watts, Richard, 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: reconsidering claim for universality. In: Richard,

Watts, Sachiko, Ide, Konrad, Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice.

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 43–69.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1987. English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Academic Press, Sydney.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Wolfson, Nessa, 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Newbury House, Rowley, MA.

Yanagita, Kunio, 1964. Mainichi no kotoba. Kadokawa Bunko, Tokyo.

Further reading

Ohashi, Jun, 2001. Giving, receiving, and thanking: a cross-cultural pragmatic investigation. PhD Dissertation. University

of Melbourne, Melbourne.

Jun Ohashi teaches Japanese language and culture at Asia Institute of the University of Melbourne. His research interests

include discourse analysis, cross-cultural pragmatics on wide ranging language use, and second language acquisition.


Japan Thanking

Documents

Transcript of Japan Thanking